Why no hate for Eddy?

neilo23

I'm sick of the obsession with doping in the last 15 years or so and the hate expressed towards the likes of Armstrong and co. Of course, I would prefer it if nobody had taken anything, but that's not the case. However, why do the likes of Merckx, who tested positive 3 times and didn't race on "bread and water alone" escape this hatred? With riders of his generation it was simply accepted that they had "help": look at what they found in Simpson's pockets after his tragic death. In the late 90s it was common knowledge that EPO was used.
I really don't care much who took what, but why reserve this hatred for more recent riders when the previous generations were just as bad, if not worse? Or better still stop the hate. Peace.

woodford2barbican

FFS.

Murr X

In the most simple terms it is predominantly because Armstrong isn't the nicest guy around (by a long shot) and he also had too much good luck on his side relative to others.

Murr X

cycling5280

Murr X wrote:

In the most simple terms it is predominantly because Armstrong isn't the nicest guy around (by a long shot) and he also had too much good luck on his side relative to others.

Murr X

What makes him not nice? Was he not nice to you or are you going off all the media crap? You didn't get that autograph or handshake?

neilo23

Seeing as I've already had one "FFS", I don't want a discussion about doping. Had enough of that. Just the way some riders are still regarded as untouchable gods, others as despicable doping devils.

MartinB2444

Lance Armstrong has done the sport a lot of harm when he actually could have been a real force for good. A talented guy with amazing focus and application. It isn't the doping that's the issue with Lance, it's his response to the solution.

cycling5280

MartinB2444 wrote:

Lance Armstrong has done the sport a lot of harm when he actually could have been a real force for good. A talented guy with amazing focus and application. It isn't the doping that's the issue with Lance, it's his response to the solution.

Just ironic that Merckx was the one who introduced LA to Ferrari back in 1995. I'd say that's a nice response to the doping solution decades after you retire from a doping career.

Lichtblick

neilo23 wrote:

Seeing as I've already had one "FFS", I don't want a discussion about doping. Had enough of that. Just the way some riders are still regarded as untouchable gods, others as despicable doping devils.

I see that this thread is not about Armstrong per se, but nevertheless the way it is phrased: "...despicable doping devils" provokes responses from anti-LA posters. Either this thread is a complete wind up, or the poster simply has not done enough research. IMO.

I used to be a LA fan, but then I was advised to read around and learn more. Ever keen to learn, I did just that. I must have read at least a dozen books by different authors, and multiple internet resources. As I've said before, anyone who still believes that LA won 7 Tours clean is childishly naive. IMO.

Why is he regarded as a "doping devil"? (I presume you mean him) and not Merckx for instance? Because Merckx is not a litigious bully who will throw millions of dollars at court cases, years afterwards? Because Merckx didn't pretend to ride clean but LA did? etcetera. Someone else will put it better than me.

MartinB2444

cycling5280 wrote:

MartinB2444 wrote:

Lance Armstrong has done the sport a lot of harm when he actually could have been a real force for good. A talented guy with amazing focus and application. It isn't the doping that's the issue with Lance, it's his response to the solution.

Just ironic that Merckx was the one who introduced LA to Ferrari back in 1995. I'd say that's a nice response to the doping solution decades after you retire from a doping career.

I've no idea what the situation would have been with Eddy Merckx had he been racing during the LA/EPO era. I don't know which way he would have jumped when the culture of silence started to break down or whether he would have acted aggressively to his peleton colleagues who started to spill the beans. As I say, I don't think the anger felt towards Lance Armstrong is about the use of EPO per se

k-dog

I've often wondered this - and you can lump in all the other big names from the last 50 years too - Hinault, Anquetil (although he wasn't especially popular in the same way as LA), Indurain, Pantani (more pitied than disliked?), Rominger, Moser...

Some have clearly discussed taking drugs (Anquetil) and others have suspicion but I'm never sure why some riders get a pass and others get crucified.

Rundfahrt

Merckx was not exactly the nicest guy either. Other riders hated the way he never gifted a stage, the way he would go for points for other competitions beyond the GC, etc. The difference is the 24/7 coverage and forum age we live in. Imagine the message board response if they had had them when he swept the jerseys at the Tour or when he tested positive.

I am stunned that ten posts in we have not heard about how EPO is so much worse then other doping.

neilo23

Lichtblick wrote:

neilo23 wrote:

Seeing as I've already had one "FFS", I don't want a discussion about doping. Had enough of that. Just the way some riders are still regarded as untouchable gods, others as despicable doping devils.

I see that this thread is not about Armstrong per se, but nevertheless the way it is phrased: "...despicable doping devils" provokes responses from anti-LA posters. Either this thread is a complete wind up, or the poster simply has not done enough research. IMO.

I used to be a LA fan, but then I was advised to read around and learn more. Ever keen to learn, I did just that. I must have read at least a dozen books by different authors, and multiple internet resources. As I've said before, anyone who still believes that LA won 7 Tours clean is childishly naive. IMO.

Why is he regarded as a "doping devil"? (I presume you mean him) and not Merckx for instance? Because Merckx is not a litigious bully who will throw millions of dollars at court cases, years afterwards? Because Merckx didn't pretend to ride clean but LA did? etcetera. Someone else will put it better than me.

No wind up. Just bemused by the disparity in the levels of vitriol aimed at the modern day dopers compared to the ones from previous generations. Merckx also pleaded innocence regarding his Giro positive test but he nevertheless tested positive and can technically be regarded as a doper. However, he's pretty much universally loved. I am an Armstrong fan (I liked Tyler Hamilton even more at the time) but don't assume that many from the Armstrong years raced clean. As far as I'm concerned it was a level playing field: if all of the field had've been clean he would probably still have won. For this reason I've never been that concerned about what they take: the achievements are extraordinary regardless.

I think one reason why people react badly to, in particular, Armsrong is that we live in a confessional age. Do what you like, make a tearful apology on tv, and everything is good. The "we don't race on bread and water" admissions from previous generations are treated with a wink and a wry smile, looking back at the "golden days", when we knew what they were up to, but it was simply what was done. The double standards are what annoy me. And I'm sure that anyone who raced against Merckx found him a domineering bully on the bike (but quite charming whenever I've seen and read interviews).

okgo

woodford2barbican wrote:

FFS.

Any reason for this? Pr are you just being outraged as you think that is the right thing to be see doing?

FFS @ you tbh.

Also wonder what makes Tom Simpson a hero and other riders villains. Although they were utterly stupid back then, eating cattle feed for example, just plain fucking idiotic, they knew what they were doing, no different to the ones who do it now.

Lichtblick

Rundfahrt wrote:

Merckx was not exactly the nicest guy either. Other riders hated the way he never gifted a stage, the way he would go for points for other competitions beyond the GC, etc. The difference is the 24/7 coverage and forum age we live in. Imagine the message board response if they had had them when he swept the jerseys at the Tour or when he tested positive.

I am stunned that ten posts in we have not heard about how EPO is so much worse then other doping.

I'm sure you're right (re: Merckx popularity, not). I recall reading that in my research. But that was then, this is now.

Regarding EPO being so much worse, I take it that you're referring to cyclists dying or being dragged from their beds and put on trainers to get more oxygen into their systems?

Rundfahrt

Lichtblick wrote:

Rundfahrt wrote:

Merckx was not exactly the nicest guy either. Other riders hated the way he never gifted a stage, the way he would go for points for other competitions beyond the GC, etc. The difference is the 24/7 coverage and forum age we live in. Imagine the message board response if they had had them when he swept the jerseys at the Tour or when he tested positive.

I am stunned that ten posts in we have not heard about how EPO is so much worse then other doping.

I'm sure you're right (re: Merckx popularity, not). I recall reading that in my research. But that was then, this is now.

Regarding EPO being so much worse, I take it that you're referring to cyclists dying or being dragged from their beds and put on trainers to get more oxygen into their systems?

1) What does then vs. now have to do with it? It sounds like you are making an excuse.

2) Nope, talking about how people will give other types of doping a free pass on the basis that EPO is better doping. Doping is doping, period...unless its more about the who rather then the what.

Lichtblick

neilo23 wrote:

I am an Armstrong fan (I liked Tyler Hamilton even more at the time) but don't assume that many from the Armstrong years raced clean. As far as I'm concerned it was a level playing field: if all of the field had've been clean he would probably still have won. For this reason I've never been that concerned about what they take: the achievements are extraordinary regardless.

I assume that most from the LA years raced unclean, if not all of them, now that I've read a great deal about it. The achievements are extraordinary? Extraordinarily tainted, like Landis's "recovery" for instance?

I think one reason why people react badly to, in particular, Armsrong is that we live in a confessional age. Do what you like, make a tearful apology on tv, and everything is good. The "we don't race on bread and water" admissions from previous generations are treated with a wink and a wry smile, looking back at the "golden days", when we knew what they were up to, but it was simply what was done. The double standards are what annoy me. And I'm sure that anyone who raced against Merckx found him a domineering bully on the bike (but quite charming whenever I've seen and read interviews).

The reasons why people are reacting badly to LA's "extraordinary achievements" are (IM and millions of other peoples' O) that he continues to deny any drug or EPO taking what.so.ever.

Nothing to do with "a confessional age". More to do with him being a lying bullying litigious cheat with a saintly holier-than-everyone-else PR image. No double standards: it's personal in his case.

Squaggles

Why no hate for Coppi though ? And what about Garin ?

Strange thread title

OffTheBackAdam

Winners don't tend to be "nice guys" (Or gals!).
Would you want to be in the way of Hinault's victory?

neilo23

OffTheBackAdam wrote:

Winners don't tend to be "nice guys" (Or gals!).
Would you want to be in the way of Hinault's victory?

Exactly my point! Hinault punched strikers who stood in his way! Not a particularly nice guy, at least on the bike. The rider who got me into cycling was Pedro Delgado. He won once, the next year he turned up late for the prologue! Which of the two won 5 tours?
Anquetil ran off with his doctors wife, was open about doping, but is remembered as being the "ultimate stylist" on a bike. Who will forget Armstrong's attack on the Alpe, the glance back at Ullrich (who also wasn't "clean") regardless of the lawyer vultures' expected result? Many said that Ullrich was too nice to win more frequently. Maybe this is why, although he probably doped (in the German media he's more or less admitted this) he is still well liked: everyone loves the underdog.

morstar

For me it was the comeback and Simeoni.

1999 to 2005 was a product of that era. The comeback was big F**k you, I am bigger than this sport depsite it being clear that the sport was moving in a positive direction with respect to doping.

andrewjoseph

Someone's stolen all Eddy's hats?!!

bigmat

I'm no fan of Eddy off the bike. Seems to talk a lot of bollocks and comes across as an apologist for dopers. Awesome rider though, and I get the sense that whilst he may not have been clean, his dominance wasn't a product of his doping. Armstrong just seems to have been a great responder to epo. Clearly a talented guy and amazingly dedicated, but for me winning 7 straight tours just took the piss a bit, and that's before you get on to the comeback. Add in all the bullying, slagging off the French, the arrogance, the dodgy charity, there's just a lot there that isn't very likeable.

Lichtblick

neilo23 wrote:

Who will forget Armstrong's attack on the Alpe, the glance back at Ullrich .......

2001: L'Alpe d'Huez: The Look.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MdMdJAdzpYQ

k-dog

BigMat wrote:

I'm no fan of Eddy off the bike. Seems to talk a lot of bollocks and comes across as an apologist for dopers. Awesome rider though, and I get the sense that whilst he may not have been clean, his dominance wasn't a product of his doping. Armstrong just seems to have been a great responder to epo. Clearly a talented guy and amazingly dedicated, but for me winning 7 straight tours just took the wee-wee a bit, and that's before you get on to the comeback. Add in all the bullying, slagging off the French, the arrogance, the dodgy charity, there's just a lot there that isn't very likeable.

:lol

So Merckx crushing everyone 'wasn't a product of his doping' but Armstrong 'just' responded well to drugs.

Riiiight.

esspeebee

k-dog wrote:

So Merckx crushing everyone 'wasn't a product of his doping' but Armstrong 'just' responded well to drugs.

Riiiight.

The usual response to this is that they were on different drugs. In the 'early' days, they were all on amphetamines and the like, which would give you an edge over someone of similar abilities, whereas EPO would turn a donkey into a thoroughbred racehorse, or a middle of the road domestique into a multiple Tour champion. Merckx would have won just as much without drugs; Lance wouldn't.

bigmat

esspeebee wrote:

k-dog wrote:

So Merckx crushing everyone 'wasn't a product of his doping' but Armstrong 'just' responded well to drugs.

Riiiight.

The usual response to this is that they were on different drugs. In the 'early' days, they were all on amphetamines and the like, which would give you an edge over someone of similar abilities, whereas EPO would turn a donkey into a thoroughbred racehorse, or a middle of the road domestique into a multiple Tour champion. Merckx would have won just as much without drugs; Lance wouldn't.

There's that, and then there's just gut feel I suppose. Also, Armstrong had a "before / after" career and the two parts were markedly different. Merckx was dominant from day one. Anyway, as I said above I have a lot of respect for the way Armstrong applied himself - 7 straight tours without missing a beat is pretty formidable, with or without EPO.

MartinB2444

k-dog wrote:

BigMat wrote:

I'm no fan of Eddy off the bike. Seems to talk a lot of bollocks and comes across as an apologist for dopers. Awesome rider though, and I get the sense that whilst he may not have been clean, his dominance wasn't a product of his doping. Armstrong just seems to have been a great responder to epo. Clearly a talented guy and amazingly dedicated, but for me winning 7 straight tours just took the wee-wee a bit, and that's before you get on to the comeback. Add in all the bullying, slagging off the French, the arrogance, the dodgy charity, there's just a lot there that isn't very likeable.

:lol

So Merckx crushing everyone 'wasn't a product of his doping' but Armstrong 'just' responded well to drugs.

Riiiight.

Absolutely "riiight". Any reasonable, informed appraisal of Merckx's early dominant years i.e. when he was completely squashing the opposition, will show that those performances were not down to doping (e.g. both Friebe and Fotheringham). His first positive doping during the 1971 Giro was a farce, the stage winner was invariably tested, there were no ways of masking amphetamine, Merckx had made numerous enemies within the peleton for refusing to co-operate with result fixing (a practice as odious as doping), and testing procedures were chaotic and insecure. Maybe Eddy had one of his regular crisis of confidence and in a moment of stupidity took amphetamines, regardless of the fact that he would inevitably test positive, but a far more convincing explanation is that he was nobbled. Later positive tests are a different matter.

We all need to be to be sceptical and take professions of innocence with a very large pinch of salt but casual cynicism is just too easy, lazy and destructive.

rick_chasey

Cycling post '98 is a veeeery different place.

deejay

deleted

deejay

Rick Chasey wrote:

Cycling post '98 is a veeeery different place.

Because Amphetamines (that most of the peloton did take) did not alter the amount of oxygen getting to the muscles. (dare I say Pain Killers)

I remember 1992 when to a "Fanfare" armstrong arrived in Europe and we were told by his backers that he was a Champion Triathlete and would soon be winning major european cycle races.
Then we listened as he ranted that he would win this race or that one but he seldom could match his mouth.
He became known as the Texan Bighead and few Europeans wished him well.
In 1993 in Norway and the pouring rain he attacked the Breakaway (and cycling being cycling) nobody was willing to chase and so as he became World Champion we learned that God was a Texan as he kept pointing at the sky as he crossed the line.
1994 I was on the Mur de Huy and watched him win the Fleche Wallonne and I was impressed with him and I thought he had the potential to win some "Classics".
Later in Liege after the team presentations he came to the mechanics truck and sat on it, while he moaned to the mechanics that nobody here could recognize him and with that he departed to his room.
That did it for me :- there is no way I could be a Fan of such a Low Life.

1996 in the rain (as some other Fraud went on to Tour Victory) he pulled out of the Tour with a reported loss of form.
Then like thousands of men & women he had an operation to remove the cancer.

1999 he returns to the Tour and like nothing he has produced before he is suddenly a great mountain climber and repeats the feat of the 1996 guy.
Both of which are CHEATS.

Champion Eddy rode in a fairly level playing field and attacked the race on his own with a long way to go to the finish. (No armchair ride for him)
He stayed in the sport and would go to meet anyone with new training methods and so he can be accused of association with these people.

As the poster said above FFS leave off.
As Wiggins said at the press conference the other day. FFS these couch potatoes should get off their backsides etc.

deejay

deejay wrote: