NY Times - Cyclists are said to back claims Armstrong doped

DaveyL

No tA Doctor wrote:

Some of my personal dislike of LA is that together with Ferrari he seems to have professionalised doping. Sure everyone else was at it, but it was a bit of an amateurish affair in comparison.

I see what you mean. It's not like Ferrari had loads of top riders as clients before Armstrong. Er...

Well, anyway, it's not like anyone preceding Armstrong got all juiced up and won the Tour multiple times. Er....

No_Ta_Doctor

DaveyL wrote:

No tA Doctor wrote:

Some of my personal dislike of LA is that together with Ferrari he seems to have professionalised doping. Sure everyone else was at it, but it was a bit of an amateurish affair in comparison.

I see what you mean. It's not like Ferrari had loads of top riders as clients before Armstrong. Er...

Well, anyway, it's not like anyone preceding Armstrong got all juiced up and won the Tour multiple times. Er....

I should have said "helped to professionalise doping". I've no love for Indurain.

moray_gub

No tA Doctor wrote:

DaveyL wrote:

No tA Doctor wrote:

Some of my personal dislike of LA is that together with Ferrari he seems to have professionalised doping. Sure everyone else was at it, but it was a bit of an amateurish affair in comparison.

I see what you mean. It's not like Ferrari had loads of top riders as clients before Armstrong. Er...

Well, anyway, it's not like anyone preceding Armstrong got all juiced up and won the Tour multiple times. Er....

I should have said "helped to professionalise doping". I've no love for Indurain.

Oh you can back further and in some cases a lot further than Indurain to find TDF winners who regularly took PEDs. But i suppose that doesnt fit in with your professionalise theory after all if someone like Bernard Thevenet or Anqutiel is taking drugs to win the Tour then is it not professional ? I really think you need to have wee look at the history books and open your eyes a little.

finchy

Moray Gub wrote:

No tA Doctor wrote:

DaveyL wrote:

No tA Doctor wrote:

Some of my personal dislike of LA is that together with Ferrari he seems to have professionalised doping. Sure everyone else was at it, but it was a bit of an amateurish affair in comparison.

I see what you mean. It's not like Ferrari had loads of top riders as clients before Armstrong. Er...

Well, anyway, it's not like anyone preceding Armstrong got all juiced up and won the Tour multiple times. Er....

I should have said "helped to professionalise doping". I've no love for Indurain.

Oh you can back further and in some cases a lot further than Indurain to find TDF winners who regularly took PEDs. But i suppose that doesnt fit in with your theory.

I think that what No tA Doctor meant was that the LA era was one in which doping really made the difference between an also-ran and a genuine contender, the same argument that Biking Bernie uses when discussing Armstrong's improvements as a GT rider.

I can't see how Armstrong would be to blame for that, though, seeing the effects of EPO on Bjarne Riis 3 years before LA won his first TdF, or how Moser got fresh blood in the 1980s, it's quite clear that doping had moved on from earlier, more haphazard times a long time before 1999.

Chefshaw

Everybody in that era was druged up, u needed to be to compete at the front end. Luckily for Armstrong, up until now he has never been proven guilty of doping, so therefore he is still probably worthy of his titles. If everybody in that era was clean, would he still of won 7 tours? Probably!!!

As much as we hate the lies the guy is still a legend.
Unfortunately the more u read about him the more u start to question/dislike him.

But watching Armstrong riding his bike inspires me and millions of others, drugs or no drugs.

moray_gub

johnfinch wrote:

Moray Gub wrote:

No tA Doctor wrote:

DaveyL wrote:

No tA Doctor wrote:

Some of my personal dislike of LA is that together with Ferrari he seems to have professionalised doping. Sure everyone else was at it, but it was a bit of an amateurish affair in comparison.

I see what you mean. It's not like Ferrari had loads of top riders as clients before Armstrong. Er...

Well, anyway, it's not like anyone preceding Armstrong got all juiced up and won the Tour multiple times. Er....

I should have said "helped to professionalise doping". I've no love for Indurain.

Oh you can back further and in some cases a lot further than Indurain to find TDF winners who regularly took PEDs. But i suppose that doesnt fit in with your theory.

I think that what No tA Doctor meant was that the LA era was one in which doping really made the difference between an also-ran and a genuine contender, the same argument that Biking Bernie uses when discussing Armstrong's improvements as a GT rider.

So basically to sum up here what you are saying here is when people like Bernard Thevenet or Fausto Coppi or Jacques Anquetil takes PEDs to help them win that is ok indeed almost acceptable yet when LA does it he is the devil incarnate . Make no mistake about it the taking of drugs in the 50s,60s,70,80s helped riders win the TDF and other major races to think otherwise is naive. I dont really see the moral difference between a doper today and a doper 50 years ago all cheated to win races end of.

finchy

Moray Gub wrote:

johnfinch wrote:

I think that what No tA Doctor meant was that the LA era was one in which doping really made the difference between an also-ran and a genuine contender, the same argument that Biking Bernie uses when discussing Armstrong's improvements as a GT rider.

So basically to sum up here what you are saying here is when people like Bernard Thevenet or Fausto Coppi or Jacques Anquetil takes PEDs to help them win that is ok indeed almost acceptable yet when LA does it he is the devil incarnate . Make no mistake about it the taking of drugs in the 50s,60s,70,80s helped riders win the TDF and other major races to think otherwise is naive. I dont really see the moral difference between a doper today and a doper 50 years ago all cheated to win races end of.

You've got the wrong end of the stick. I was merely clarifying what No tA Doctor appeared to be saying - that doping in the '90s and 00s is much more advanced, precise and certain than it used to be. I wasn't saying that it's any better or any worse.

No_Ta_Doctor

johnfinch wrote:

Moray Gub wrote:

johnfinch wrote:

I think that what No tA Doctor meant was that the LA era was one in which doping really made the difference between an also-ran and a genuine contender, the same argument that Biking Bernie uses when discussing Armstrong's improvements as a GT rider.

So basically to sum up here what you are saying here is when people like Bernard Thevenet or Fausto Coppi or Jacques Anquetil takes PEDs to help them win that is ok indeed almost acceptable yet when LA does it he is the devil incarnate . Make no mistake about it the taking of drugs in the 50s,60s,70,80s helped riders win the TDF and other major races to think otherwise is naive. I dont really see the moral difference between a doper today and a doper 50 years ago all cheated to win races end of.

You've got the wrong end of the stick. I was merely clarifying what No tA Doctor appeared to be saying - that doping in the '90s and 00s is much more advanced, precise and certain than it used to be. I wasn't saying that it's any better or any worse.

Yes, that's the gist of it. Personally, as I attempted to explain above, I do think that's worse. Any idiot can pop some amphetamines at the bottom of a HC, but to effectively use EPO and blood doping you need a regimented, regulated and medicalised doping plan. You need to understand the correct dosing, monitor your blood values, take the correct masking agents, and in the case of blood doping perform transfusions and get your blood stored and transported etc. Even at the start of the EPO era the fact that riders were out there with the famous 60% shows it was still a bit wild west.

I don't think LA was the first or only rider to fully exploit a professionalised doping regimen but I think he probably did it best and set the standard.

Moray - I'm sorry if I failed to make this distinction clear in my original post, the whole point of which was to try and explain the qualitative difference between LA's doping and the doping that went on in earlier eras. I hope it's clearer now.

sherer

Chefshaw wrote:

Everybody in that era was druged up, u needed to be to compete at the front end. Luckily for Armstrong, up until now he has never been proven guilty of doping, so therefore he is still probably worthy of his titles. If everybody in that era was clean, would he still of won 7 tours? Probably!!!

As much as we hate the lies the guy is still a legend.
Unfortunately the more u read about him the more u start to question/dislike him.

But watching Armstrong riding his bike inspires me and millions of others, drugs or no drugs.

Where people see the difference is that in the past in the 50-70s the drugs only helped the star sof the day keep going day after day after day. The general view is that in the past the drug taking didn' t affect the actual order the placing in the race, although I guess it did mean riders didn't bonk or have an off day as much. Riders in those eras could and did win races without the aid of drugs.

LA went from being a one day racer into being a GT contender with no previous glimpes during his career so far that he had the potential to win a GT.

If the rumours are true he hired the best doping doctor then put him on an exclusive agreement so he couldn't work with any other riders. He used hormones to change his body and blood boosters to push him body beyond it's natural limits to do things he couldn't do without the aid of the drugs.

That is the big difference between the eras. LA probably isn't the only rider to use drugs in this way however

BikingBernie

sherer wrote:

Where people see the difference is that in the past in the 50-70s the drugs only helped the star sof the day keep going day after day after day. The general view is that in the past the drug taking didn' t affect the actual order the placing in the race, although I guess it did mean riders didn't bonk or have an off day as much. Riders in those eras could and did win races without the aid of drugs.

LA went from being a one day racer into being a GT contender with no previous glimpes during his career so far that he had the potential to win a GT.

If the rumours are true he hired the best doping doctor then put him on an exclusive agreement so he couldn't work with any other riders. He used hormones to change his body and blood boosters to push him body beyond it's natural limits to do things he couldn't do without the aid of the drugs.

That is the big difference between the eras. LA probably isn't the only rider to use drugs in this way however

Or, to paraphrase Willet Voet, whilst pre-Epo era doping might help a rider to 'get the best out of themselves' Epo and medically managed blood doping programmes have the ability to create 'whole new men'. With modern doping methods there is no way of knowing how well anyone would have gone if the whole field were clean, as often the 'winner' is simply the person with the most 'professional' doping programme, or is the rider most willing to push the doping envelope, even to the point of risking premature death. In addition different riders benefit from doping to different degrees. For example, if your natural haemocrit is 48% you have potentially a lot less to gain by boosting it to the UCI's 50% limit, or even beyond, than someone whose natural haemocrit level is 40%.

Modern doping methods have changed the face of the sport in other ways to, with even the likes of Ferrari saying that whilst the Tour used to be an an endurance based suffer-fest, modern Tours are won by the rider with the best short term power output, which is usually only put to good effect in the final few kms of the summit finishes. Voet also noted this saying that what modern racers are really addicted to is 'making cycling easy'. Another side-effect of this is the way you see huge bunches of riders, including 80kg sprinters and 'roulers' all staying together until the foot of the final climb in the big mountain stages.

Of course, from a moral standpoint all doping is equally suspect. However, 'old school' doping, such as the use of amphetamines did nothing to change the physiology of a rider, and in a stage race amphetamine abuse was just as likely to lead to over-exertion and premature collapse, as the example of Tom Simpson shows.

In the the old days those who won would, more or less, have still been the winners even if doping was removed from the equation. However in the modern era doping has robbed the racing of any 'authenticity'.

moray_gub

BikingBernie wrote:

[

In the the old days those who won would, more or less, have still been the winners even if doping was removed from the equation. However in the modern era doping has robbed the racing of any 'authenticity'.

So when Thevenet says he was full of the steroid cortisone for three years on a doping programme during which he won 2 TDFs one in particular inloved a eyebrow raising comeback ride to Pra-Loup that made no diffrence to the result ? and when Anquitiel who needed to hang on for grim death in the mountains at times was doped to the eyeballs to enable him to do just that that made no difference to the results ? If doping made no difference to the results why would a rider like Thevenet subject himself to a steriod doping programme ? EPO is just a different method of achieving the same ends namely enabling your body to do things it cant do naturally to benefit during a sporing endeavours. So whether its EPO,Steroid,Speed or whatever all for the same ends and to be viewed in the same light, the Armstrong factor makes you view it differently.

dougzz

Chefshaw wrote:

Everybody in that era was druged up, u needed to be to compete at the front end. Luckily for Armstrong, up until now he has never been proven guilty of doping, so therefore he is still probably worthy of his titles. If everybody in that era was clean, would he still of won 7 tours? Probably!!!

As much as we hate the lies the guy is still a legend.
Unfortunately the more u read about him the more u start to question/dislike him.

But watching Armstrong riding his bike inspires me and millions of others, drugs or no drugs.

My understanding is this isn't the case Chef. EPO increases the bodies ability to produce red blood cells, and each person reacts differently to it. So it's fairer to say that if the whole field were using EPO the winner is the person who's body reacts the most to it. So it doesn't mean it was a level playing field even if the entire peloton were on it.

mididoctors

BikingBernie wrote:

In the the old days those who won would, more or less, have still been the winners even if doping was removed from the equation. However in the modern era doping has robbed the racing of any 'authenticity'.

if a rider didn't have the psychological strength to go deep with out the mental prop of being charged would he have won despite his VO2 max remained the same..

if I take a bunch of sh1t that make me think I'm better would i have won without it

and bog standard steroids make a big difference to training loads and hence performance compared to guys not doing them.

yes blood boosting is dramatically better but still the good old days weren't all that

BikingBernie

Moray Gub wrote:

when Thevenet says he was full of the steroid cortisone for three years on a doping programme during which he won 2 TDFs one in particular inloved a eyebrow raising comeback ride to Pra-Loup that made no diffrence to the result ?

I am not saying it would have made no difference. However, 'old school' doping did not have the power to turn the sort of rider who couldn't climb or time trial to save thier life and would lose the best part of half an hour on a big mountain stage into a multiple 'winner', as Epo and a blood doping programme managed by the likes of Ferrrari clearly can.

mididoctors wrote:

if a rider didn't have the psychological strength to go deep with out the mental prop of being charged would he have won despite his VO2 max remained the same.

For one, I would argue that no rider who reaches the pro ranks lacks the ability to 'go deep'. Secondly, the optimal level of effort needed to go as fast as possible is usually rather less than ones maximum, which is why riders in time trials in the Tour use power meters and so on in order to ensure that they don't go too far into the red and so end up going more slowly than they otherwise would have. Most of all taking amphetamines does nothing to change one's physiology, and ultimately that is what determines how fast you can go.

mididoctors

BikingBernie wrote:

Moray Gub wrote:

For one, I would argue that no rider who reaches the pro ranks lacks the ability to 'go deep'. Secondly, the optimal level of effort needed to go as fast as possible is usually rather less than ones maximum, which is why riders in time trials in the Tour use power meters and so on in order to ensure that they don't go too far into the red and so end up going more slowly than they otherwise would have. Most of all taking amphetamines does nothing to change one's physiology, and ultimately that is what determines how fast you can go.

yeah but then it becomes a point of going deeper.... its relative

fast as possible over what distance...I think your right the effect is marginalized by longer distance efforts when looking at power output but seeing the white tunnel for those moments is not something everyone experiences

and the steroid issue is not trivial when it comes to recovery and training.

I would concede the pre EPO era was "more authentic" in some regards but the effects where still not liner though the use of steroids as recovery products would be seen as more even handed I guess

would a rider like van impe realy have won the tour?

moray_gub

BikingBernie wrote:

[q Most of all taking amphetamines does nothing to change one's physiology, and ultimately that is what determines how fast you can go.

Amphetemines allows you to hang on in here for a lot longer than you otherwise would have , lets say like at maybe the Puy de dome in 1964 this is where a rider like Anquetil benefited and certain steriods do make you stronger,fitter and aid recovery and this was where a rider like Thevenet benefited. So bascially its wrong imo to say drugs did not afect the result until the emergence of EPO. I could fling Pedro Delgado into the mix but these two will do for now.

mididoctors

Moray Gub wrote:

BikingBernie wrote:

[q Most of all taking amphetamines does nothing to change one's physiology, and ultimately that is what determines how fast you can go.

Amphetemines allows you to hang on in here for a lot longer than you otherwise would have , lets say like at maybe the Puy de dome in 1964 this is where a rider like Anquetil benefited and certain steriods do make you stronger,fitter and aid recovery and this was where a rider like Thevenet benefited. So bascially its wrong imo to say drugs did not afect the result until the emergence of EPO. I could fling Pedro Delgado into the mix but these two will do for now.

yeah I would say so

he has a point in that the drug effects are more fair across the board or less distorting if you like

the problem course it doesn't let the EPO generation off the hook because they were always doing it...

unless we as spectators come to view the riders as F1 type entitys with the medical programs like the back up team for Williams the sport will be taken place off the parcours so to speak.

not what i'm up for.. I'm paying for the TV subscription to watch the bloody thing.

micron

To change the subject - Stephanie McIlvain to testify in front of grand jury today http://www.greenwichtime.com/sports/art ... 669017.php

Seems Ms McIlvain lied about something - will that be enough of a wedge? She certainly has very conflicted loyalties - be interesting to see if she's prepared to go to jail for her alleged lover

cajun_cyclist

In the the old days those who won would, more or less, have still been the winners even if doping was removed from the equation. However in the modern era doping has robbed the racing of any 'authenticity'.- BikingBernie

Amphetemines allows you to hang on in here for a lot longer than you otherwise would have , lets say like at maybe the Puy de dome in 1964 this is where a rider like Anquetil benefited and certain steriods do make you stronger,fitter and aid recovery and this was where a rider like Thevenet benefited. So bascially its wrong imo to say drugs did not afect the result until the emergence of EPO. I could fling Pedro Delgado into the mix but these two will do for now.- Moray Gub

Dino Buzatti apparently was a novelist of some acclaim who filed stories on the 1949 Giro D'Italia http://www.amazon.co.uk/Giro-dItalia-Co ... 770&sr=1-3 and his articles have been made into this book. He writes on rider preparation that at least some would definitely see the pharmacists and as mentioned amphetamines seemed to be a drug of choice but back then, it seemed run of the mill.

Fast forward to the 1950s, definitely there are plenty of examples of this drug use. Bobet writes about it in "Tomorrow we ride" and really, all this before Anquetil hits the scene. For some reason, Anquetil's era seems to be used on the timeline of drug use but it was definitely before then.

The whole persona of Bartali seems to indicate he was not a user, Jean Louis Bobet only a tiny bit at one point but who really knows? Back in the old days, truly some guys were flying as high as a kite and were notorious for their medicine cabinet and I've got to think the doping aided them greatly versus those who did not. Again, not easy to say, maybe they all for the most part were using.

As a side note, Sir Stanley Matthews, yes, he writes in his book that he was suffering from a bad cold/flu like bug and that for that one time in his career, he got fixed up with a flu antidote by a doctor and it aided his recovery and he relates that once he got home, he cleaned the house up and I think even took to cutting the grass at 2:00 AM in the morning.

Where there is money I've come to think is where one will find drug use.

Take these Ultra Runners, big endurance thing but they aren't too glamourous or chasing after great riches, I don't think there is much drug use there. When the USA was an island to itself in cycling and again, not great stakes of money at heart, basically the pre-Lemond era, the era of the movie "Breaking Away" and before, of races across the continent in the RAAM Race Across America and their winners, I tend to think drug use was at a minimum but as said before, not in regards to the 1984 LA Olympics and US Cycling Team who by all accounts blood doped but at that time, it was not illegal but surely unethical.

sherer

micron wrote:

To change the subject - Stephanie McIlvain to testify in front of grand jury today http://www.greenwichtime.com/sports/art ... 669017.php

Seems Ms McIlvain lied about something - will that be enough of a wedge? She certainly has very conflicted loyalties - be interesting to see if she's prepared to go to jail for her alleged lover

Interesting. Never heard she was meant to be LA's lover before but surely after the 2 tapes of her she should tell the truth this time. Although if she changes her story from the SCA trial she could be done for perjury.

Not a nice situation for her to be in and all because she works for a sunglasses company as does her husband

neiltb

Amphetamine use in the 50's probably (haven't checked) wasn't illegal, just as in the 30's baseball players in the US loved cocaine for helping with the game.

As for the cold war, it wasn't just fought with MAD, the propoganda war put athletics in the foreground, the US and USSR (and UK) were all at 'it'.

ratsbeyfus

Isn't the key difference between LAs doping and that which went on in the previous era of pro-cycling is that everyone accepts and knows that the former champions doped, and therefore they are able to weigh up their achievements in the light of their doping.

Sadly, there are still many people that think LA didn't dope his way to 7 wins. Once his doping is out in the open, people will be able to properly appraise his wins. I'm sure he will still be seen as a wonderful champion by many... just not the 'Superhero champion' that the LA myth makers have created.

Some will argue that it is unfair to pick on LA... but winners prior to him from the 'EPO era' have already been exposed as EPO users (Pantani, Ullrich, Riis), or don't have as much clear cut evidence against them (Indurain). If someone were to do a David Walsh piece-by-piece expose of Indurain's wins I for one would read it.

That's my 2p worth.

dennisn

ratsbeyfus wrote:

Isn't the key difference between LAs doping and that which went on in the previous era of pro-cycling is that everyone accepts and knows that the former champions doped, and therefore they are able to weigh up their achievements in the light of their doping.

Sadly, there are still many people that think LA didn't dope his way to 7 wins. Once his doping is out in the open, people will be able to properly appraise his wins. I'm sure he will still be seen as a wonderful champion by many... just not the 'Superhero champion' that the LA myth makers have created.

I'm pretty sure the old champs doped. I'm pretty sure the current crop have doped and I'm pretty sure the future will contain more of the same. So I don't really see why "weighing
their achievments" is any problem. It's still the same race, just different dope.
What I don't understand is why you would care if anyone thought LA didn't dope his way to seven titles? I mean, if someone thinks that way, well, so what? Sort of a "what's it to you", I guess? If LA has these, so called, "myth makers", what's the big deal? You obiviously don't believe in any of it, so why not just blow him off as a big windbag and go back to not worrying about him? Let the people believe what they will believe. Seems simple enough.

ratsbeyfus

dennisn wrote:

ratsbeyfus wrote:

Isn't the key difference between LAs doping and that which went on in the previous era of pro-cycling is that everyone accepts and knows that the former champions doped, and therefore they are able to weigh up their achievements in the light of their doping.

Sadly, there are still many people that think LA didn't dope his way to 7 wins. Once his doping is out in the open, people will be able to properly appraise his wins. I'm sure he will still be seen as a wonderful champion by many... just not the 'Superhero champion' that the LA myth makers have created.

I'm pretty sure the old champs doped. I'm pretty sure the current crop have doped and I'm pretty sure the future will contain more of the same. So I don't really see why "weighing
their achievments" is any problem. It's still the same race, just different dope.
What I don't understand is why you would care if anyone thought LA didn't dope his way to seven titles? I mean, if someone thinks that way, well, so what? Sort of a "what's it to you", I guess? If LA has these, so called, "myth makers", what's the big deal? You obiviously don't believe in any of it, so why not just blow him off as a big windbag and go back to not worrying about him? Let the people believe what they will believe. Seems simple enough.

What I don't understand is why it bothers you what I think? I'm beginning to think that you ares ome kind of computer program designed to pass the 'Turing Test'. You get a more intelligent conversation here:

http://www-ai.ijs.si/eliza/eliza.html

Type in 'Are you Dennisn in disguise?' and you'll see what I'm on about!

Good to see your CAPSLOCK button is fixed.

ratsbeyfus

I’m going to try and make sense of your post piece by piece, in an effort to find out what is going on inside the world of Dennisn:

dennisn wrote:

I'm pretty sure the old champs doped. I'm pretty sure the current crop have doped and I'm pretty sure the future will contain more of the same.

1. You are pretty sure LA doped.

dennisn wrote:

So I don't really see why "weighing their achievments" is any problem. It's still the same race, just different dope.

2. You haven’t read the previous posts about EPO being different to drugs used in the past. Why would you?

dennisn wrote:

What I don't understand is why you would care if anyone thought LA didn't dope his way to seven titles?

3. You don’t understand that people on a cycling forum may be interested in cyclists.

dennisn wrote:

I mean, if someone thinks that way, well, so what? Sort of a "what's it to you", I guess?

4. See 3.

dennisn wrote:

If LA has these, so called, "myth makers", what's the big deal?

5. See 3.

dennisn wrote:

You obiviously don't believe in any of it, so why not just blow him off as a big windbag and go back to not worrying about him?

6. I do see LA as a big windbag. I don’t ‘worry’ about it. I post comments on a cycling forum. I worry at night about my children, getting old, becoming senile, etc.

dennisn wrote:

Let the people believe what they will believe.

7. Pot – kettle – black.

dennisn wrote:

Seems simple enough.

8. I’m sure it all makes sense to you.

ratsbeyfus

ratsbeyfus wrote:

I’m going to try and make sense of your post piece by piece, in an effort to find out what is going on inside the world of Dennisn:

dennisn wrote:

I'm pretty sure the old champs doped. I'm pretty sure the current crop have doped and I'm pretty sure the future will contain more of the same.

1. You are pretty sure LA doped. Perhaps you should hand your evidence in to Novitsky.

dennisn wrote:

So I don't really see why "weighing their achievments" is any problem. It's still the same race, just different dope.

2. You haven’t read the previous posts about EPO being different to drugs used in the past. Why would you?

dennisn wrote:

What I don't understand is why you would care if anyone thought LA didn't dope his way to seven titles?

3. You don’t understand that people on a cycling forum may be interested in cyclists.

dennisn wrote:

I mean, if someone thinks that way, well, so what? Sort of a "what's it to you", I guess?

4. See 3.

dennisn wrote:

If LA has these, so called, "myth makers", what's the big deal?

5. See 3.

dennisn wrote:

You obiviously don't believe in any of it, so why not just blow him off as a big windbag and go back to not worrying about him?

6. I do see LA as a big windbag. I don’t ‘worry’ about it. I post comments on a cycling forum. I worry at night about my children, getting old, becoming senile, etc.

dennisn wrote:

Let the people believe what they will believe.

7. Pot – kettle – black.

dennisn wrote:

Seems simple enough.

8. I’m sure it all makes sense to you.

gattocattivo

Re: Amphetamines "not changing your physiology" (as opposed to EPO)

This is something that has puzzled me when you read about the Simpson era when (presumably) use of amphetamines was rife: I would have thought that's it's not so much the case that it makes you better at racing, more that it makes you *feel* better at racing (i.e. you're in no better physical shape than before, but you feel perkier and less fatigued). I can see how that's still an advantage in a one-day race, but in a three-week stage race I would have thought constantly dosing yourself with speed would lead you into a sleep-deprived paranoid mess, hardly ideal.

Richrd2205

gattocattivo wrote:

Re: Amphetamines "not changing your physiology" (as opposed to EPO)

This is something that has puzzled me when you read about the Simpson era when (presumably) use of amphetamines was rife: I would have thought that's it's not so much the case that it makes you better at racing, more that it makes you *feel* better at racing (i.e. you're in no better physical shape than before, but you feel perkier and less fatigued). I can see how that's still an advantage in a one-day race, but in a three-week stage race I would have thought constantly dosing yourself with speed would lead you into a sleep-deprived paranoid mess, hardly ideal.

You're absolutely right about the pharmacology of amphetamine versus EPO. There's (obviously) no clinical trials of this, but I'd suggest, from the available evidence, that amphetamine is far more likely to inhibit performance over a stage race than to enhance it. We seem to forget that this was the just after the era that the peleton would slow down before a climb to have a cigarette in order to open the bronchials. Cigarettes as performance enhancers on a par with EPO, anyone?
The idea that there are any parallels between EPO/blood doping & amphetamines is simply laughable to anyone with a basic understanding of pharmacology and physiology, but as Moray often suggests, best not to let the facts stand in the way of an opinion

moray_gub

Richrd2205 wrote:

gattocattivo wrote:

Re: Amphetamines "not changing your physiology" (as opposed to EPO)

This is something that has puzzled me when you read about the Simpson era when (presumably) use of amphetamines was rife: I would have thought that's it's not so much the case that it makes you better at racing, more that it makes you *feel* better at racing (i.e. you're in no better physical shape than before, but you feel perkier and less fatigued). I can see how that's still an advantage in a one-day race, but in a three-week stage race I would have thought constantly dosing yourself with speed would lead you into a sleep-deprived paranoid mess, hardly ideal.

You're absolutely right about the pharmacology of amphetamine versus EPO. There's (obviously) no clinical trials of this, but I'd suggest, from the available evidence, that amphetamine is far more likely to inhibit performance over a stage race than to enhance it. We seem to forget that this was the just after the era that the peloton would slow down before a climb to have a cigarette in order to open the bronchials. Cigarettes as performance enhancers on a par with EPO, anyone?
The idea that there are any parallels between EPO/blood doping & amphetamines is simply laughable to anyone with a basic understanding of pharmacology and physiology, but as Moray often suggests, best not to let the facts stand in the way of an opinion

Nobody in this thread has compared the two as such apart from saying both are the use of PEDs but i think its fairly obvious the taking of amphetamines enables you to do things you normally would not be able to do naturally so thats why they were so effective in stage racing and top riders used them to that effect in previous Tours. I see what you are doing here though ,if you try to negate the effects of the drug you can excuse the dopers and your cycling heroes remain just that even though they were doped to the eyeballs.

moray_gub

ratsbeyfus wrote:

ratsbeyfus wrote:

I’m going to try and make sense of your post piece by piece, in an effort to find out what is going on inside the world of Dennisn:

[]

Dennis seems get to you all worked up


chill its just an opinion that differs from yours live with it.