Doping in the 60's 70's was it actually detrimental ?

Clements753

Now reading all the "what is the real result after the cheaters have been removed" threads, makes me think about the 60's and 70's.

For instance we have the high profile tragedy of Tom Simpson on speed, alot of riders at that time took drugs like amphetimines and I have always thought that over a period of time anyone doping with the drugs back then in the end would start going slower as they ravaged the body.

When the first six day races were run they were marathon efforts with riders drinking brandy to "help them through" - how could that "doping" actually make them faster ?

What time in history did doping actually work for more than a few races, when it actually made a long term difference to the body (say over several seasons) ?

specialgueststar

Depends on the approach. I would think the eastern bloc's methods were ahead of their time and with strict medical controls the riders improvements were consistent With EPO it became apparent that this wasn't just hit and miss with Belgian Pot to win the one big race , so eventually the peloton let the doctors take control (early 90's?) especially as the Italian national team were obviously doing so well by it....from the 90's things were much more consistent across a wider range of riders - even domestiques were never having bad days!

This is all pure speculation

Monty Dog

Amphetemines and stimulants have been common in cycling since racing began, but the difference is that blood doping and hormones can significantly change the performance of a rider, the "classic donkey to racehorse" with two classic examples being Claudio Ciucci and Bjarn Rijs - both were uninspiring, mid-packers before they turned into GT contenders/winners with EPO. A rider with a natural HCT of 40% who can boost it to 49.9% is going to obtain a far better advantage than one with a normal HCT of 44%. if you want an honest view of what amphetamines do to riders, read Joe Parkin's book, a Dog in a Hat amongst others.

cal_stewart

cheating is cheating

thegibdog

I suppose the difference was that back then the drugs gave you more of a psychological edge rather than a physiological edge.

sherer

as Monty says doping has always been there but the difference pre and post EPO is that in the old days it was still the good riders that were winning races. With EPO, HGH and blood doping also rans could suddenly become top contenders, or one day riders could win the KOM in the tour.

esafosfina

Doping was detrimental then as now, for sure. From 'tales' I've heard from riders that rode during the sixties and seventies, and drawing on my own experience during the eighties and nineties, nothing really has changed, except the control has tightened up, doctors are paid for more, and there are less 'pay-offs'... It wasn't just the CNS stimulants back then, but hormones and steroids, and other goodies... For what it's worth, I think the sport is a lot cleaner now than then... but we get more media coverage now...

Anyway, where's me ciggies...

dave_1

the line of impunity doesn't begin in July 1999.