Doping: Winners (and Losers)
Comments
-
ddraver wrote:Joelsim wrote:Has anyone mentioned all the other riders who died in the early EPO years?
No, I almost posted "The ultimate losers" but I cant help feeling they brought it on themselves a little... #contraversial
I understand that point but it lacks context. Some 21 year old who is being advised by a doctor provided by his team is unlikely to question the safety of it. I knew some junior / young senior international level riders in the late 80s / early 90s who used to go to a local coach for iron and vitamin B12? injections. Now, I've no reason to doubt that is exactly what they were getting but it could easily have been something else if he was unscrupulous. The idea of the jabs was (I think) that they helped recovery.....0 -
Verbruggen...I can't decide. Winner by way of years of alleged masterminding and manipulation or yet to be outed loser? Perhaps the credibilty of the UCI has suffered so much that they can be said to be a loser. any opinions on this?0
-
I don't get how Cav is a doping winner???“New York has the haircuts, London has the trousers, but Belfast has the reason!0
-
Yeah, the young riders at the start of their careers, funnelled into epo doping by their teams with no idea what they were getting into, then not waking up one day.
Incidentally, going back to Voigt, he was actually named in a Der Speigel interview with Jacksche, I believe.Warning No formatter is installed for the format0 -
0
-
Joelsim wrote:ugo.santalucia wrote:I'd say Indurain is the greatest winner... he won big in the EPO era and nobody has ever had a bad word to say about him... he was really good at being good to others and it paid off
He also won the Tour a couple of times before EPO hit, unless of course he had prior access to the rest of the peloton. The fact that he continued winning post 93 does suggest something though.
I think a better interpretation is that in '92 and '93 he had such an advantage of being an early adapter of EPO that he could do the Tour/Giro double but from '94, the rest of the field had caught up so that he could only win the single GT each year.
On the balance of probabilities, he was on EPO in 1991 as well.0 -
No tA Doctor wrote:Yeah, the young riders at the start of their careers, funnelled into epo doping by their teams with no idea what they were getting into, then not waking up one day.
Incidentally, going back to Voigt, he was actually named in a Der Speigel interview with Jacksche, I believe.
And was suggested by Tyler.0 -
TailWindHome wrote:I don't get how Cav is a doping winner???
Me neither ... The most tenuous of links is T-mobile and the platitudnal (not a word but you get the point) influence of Zabel's experience in the run-in ...0 -
Richmond Racer wrote:Crankbrother wrote:Richmond Racer wrote:Paul 8v wrote:I'm getting a bit fed up of the constant doping talk on here, I know it's the off season but there is more to life. Can't we have a doping sub forum where all the people that like that sort of thing can argue for hours without it clogging up the feed?
There are a people on here who actually enjoy the racing. If it carries on like this we might as well call it the Pro-doping forum...
Yeh, the vast majority here enjoy the racing. Its what makes this forum different from a lot of the shoot other forums where some are doping obsessives...
Fair enough, don't contribute ... You couldn't have been fooled by the title ...
There's been some decent points and discussion so far and tbh you bringing your negativity into things doesn't help ... If it doesn't suit the boys (and girl) club mentality you're keen to foster then just ignore it and do your own thing ...
Probably best you dont try to lecture anyone about negativity, especially with your particular brand of negativity cut through with breathtaking spite
So you don't deny it?
You really, really are a snideysaurus, aren't you ...0 -
Joelsim wrote:ugo.santalucia wrote:I'd say Indurain is the greatest winner... he won big in the EPO era and nobody has ever had a bad word to say about him... he was really good at being good to others and it paid off
He also won the Tour a couple of times before EPO hit, unless of course he had prior access to the rest of the peloton. The fact that he continued winning post 93 does suggest something though.
Banesto did work with Conconi ,,,,,alledgedly0 -
chrisday wrote:Joelsim wrote:Why does everyone get het up. Everyone is entitled to their own opinions and unfortunately there is no right and no wrong as no-one knows the truth except for the riders themselves and their doctors.
It's NOT the opinions that get everyone het up, it's:- the way they're being presented
- the relentless snideness and patronising manner
- the paucity of evidence, despite the popularity of the word FACT
- the way everything seems to come from a perspective of "I have decided Sky are dirty, and will view everything through that lens"
- the lack of actual debating going on, just lots of statement and FACTs, then some snide comments about fanbois, Sky-lovers or just ignoring contrary points
This Sky-obsessed crap is the opposite of fun.
Please feel free to dive in with some stuff about ostriches now.
(To be completely fair, Joelsim, you are not one of the main offenders in terms of tone, etc., but you've kopped it because you asked the question!)
This ^0 -
rayjay wrote:
Not sure why you felt the need to make that comment to be honest.“New York has the haircuts, London has the trousers, but Belfast has the reason!0 -
chrisday wrote:Joelsim wrote:Why does everyone get het up. Everyone is entitled to their own opinions and unfortunately there is no right and no wrong as no-one knows the truth except for the riders themselves and their doctors.
It's NOT the opinions that get everyone het up, it's:- the way they're being presented
- the relentless snideness and patronising manner
- the paucity of evidence, despite the popularity of the word FACT
- the way everything seems to come from a perspective of "I have decided Sky are dirty, and will view everything through that lens"
- the lack of actual debating going on, just lots of statement and FACTs, then some snide comments about fanbois, Sky-lovers or just ignoring contrary points
This Sky-obsessed crap is the opposite of fun.
Please feel free to dive in with some stuff about ostriches now.
(To be completely fair, Joelsim, you are not one of the main offenders in terms of tone, etc., but you've kopped it because you asked the question!)
Yes this is what does my head in too. Being patronised for not agreeing with a case that has very little evidence. I've not read anything that would be considered as evidence in a court of law. If these were legal cases the detectives would sit on them until something firm came up. A testimony or some results for example. I can agree that there might be circumstantial evidence in some cases but that isn't enough. I'll happily admit if I am wrong in the future but until something firm is presented. I'm entitled to believe what I like. For those determined to believe riders are doped, then I'm afraid you just have to wait and see what happens. I'm going to resist posting on doping threads now. I will click on them once I hear there is a scrap of evidence somewhere.
I believe Jens is clean, I believe Froome and Sky are clean. I'm entitled to those opinions because there is no testimony or evidence to the contrary. We'll see if I was wrong in the years to come.0 -
MartinGT wrote:ddraver wrote:MartinGT wrote:Pross wrote:The ultimate loser has to be Pantani. Vilified for doing the same as everyone around him and ultimately taking his life whilst his peers went on to 'win' multiple GTs with the blessing of the sport's governing body. Plenty of others too such and Frank Vandenbroucke.
Good shout that
RIP Panta.
I really know this is childish and pointless but I'm going to throw the Voight cr*p right back atcha - So it's ok to accuse villify and denegrate a team with no evidence of doping at all, but your happy to laud and respect a confirmed, tested drug cheat?
To anyone else - this is the total hypocracy that winds us up...
If Froome was killed tomorrow or took his own life I wouldnt dance a jig of joy.
Cycling and cycle racing is not the be all and end all my friend. What happend to Pantani was an utter tragedy to someone who (unlike Froome) actually lit up races and raced with his heart and soul (again unlike Froome).
Well done, you have found your way onto my ignore list.
Oh, and please tell me, when did Panta fail a drugs test? Oh, he didnt!
Wrong.
Pantani was kicked out of the 99 Giro, and banned, for "Anomalies in his blood values". That, at the time, meant doping with EPO and everyone, including the UCI, were aware of that. The use of EPO at that time could not be proven as there was not a test for it, but a hematocrit level over 50% was a true and certain indicator.
If you also consider he was an Italian national hero, In there own GT race, he would have to be well over that limit to be banned by his own countrymen.
I was always a big supporter of Marco but he was a big user of EPO and paid the ultimate price for his drug use. RIP.0 -
Crankbrother wrote:TailWindHome wrote:I don't get how Cav is a doping winner???
Me neither ... The most tenuous of links is T-mobile and the platitudnal (not a word but you get the point) influence of Zabel's experience in the run-in ...
No you are both correct with your initial observations. He is technically a winner in a post doping era. My bad as they say.0 -
No it wasn't. Still isn't. Lots of people have a natural HCT over 50%. There was even a Finnish cross-country skier in the 60s who was around 60%mike6 wrote:The use of EPO at that time could not be proven as there was not a test for it, but a hematocrit level over 50% was a true and certain indicator.
Pantani wasn't one of them thoughTwitter: @RichN950 -
mike6 wrote:MartinGT wrote:ddraver wrote:MartinGT wrote:Pross wrote:The ultimate loser has to be Pantani. Vilified for doing the same as everyone around him and ultimately taking his life whilst his peers went on to 'win' multiple GTs with the blessing of the sport's governing body. Plenty of others too such and Frank Vandenbroucke.
Good shout that
RIP Panta.
I really know this is childish and pointless but I'm going to throw the Voight cr*p right back atcha - So it's ok to accuse villify and denegrate a team with no evidence of doping at all, but your happy to laud and respect a confirmed, tested drug cheat?
To anyone else - this is the total hypocracy that winds us up...
If Froome was killed tomorrow or took his own life I wouldnt dance a jig of joy.
Cycling and cycle racing is not the be all and end all my friend. What happend to Pantani was an utter tragedy to someone who (unlike Froome) actually lit up races and raced with his heart and soul (again unlike Froome).
Well done, you have found your way onto my ignore list.
Oh, and please tell me, when did Panta fail a drugs test? Oh, he didnt!
Wrong.
Pantani was kicked out of the 99 Giro, and banned, for "Anomalies in his blood values". That, at the time, meant doping with EPO and everyone, including the UCI, were aware of that. The use of EPO at that time could not be proven as there was not a test for it, but a hematocrit level over 50% was a true and certain indicator.
If you also consider he was an Italian national hero, In there own GT race, he would have to be well over that limit to be banned by his own countrymen.
I was always a big supporter of Marco but he was a big user of EPO and paid the ultimate price for his drug use. RIP.
Mike I think both you and Martin GT are both right he was "banned" in all but name and I suspect (it is only suspicion I might add) that he was considered too big a name to blatantly ban.
I think ultimately he was a flawed genius (I'm thinking along the lines of George Best, Gazza etc) and was missing vital support when he needed it. I'd include Frank Vandenbroucke in that list as well (For what it's worth I worry a bit about Ricco)0 -
RichN95 wrote:No it wasn't. Still isn't. Lots of people have a natural HCT over 50%. There was even a Finnish cross-country skier in the 60s who was around 60%
Reading it then, or is that just part of your general sporting knowledge?Fckin' Quintana … that creep can roll, man.0 -
I haven't got that far yet, so don't spoil it for me.0
-
I haven't got to that bit yet - about a third of the way through. I read about him when he died last month.iainf72 wrote:RichN95 wrote:No it wasn't. Still isn't. Lots of people have a natural HCT over 50%. There was even a Finnish cross-country skier in the 60s who was around 60%
Reading it then, or is that just part of your general sporting knowledge?
You're right about the book though - it's very good and people on here would learn a lot from itTwitter: @RichN950 -
RichN95 wrote:
I haven't got to that bit yet - about a third of the way through. I read about him when he died last month.iainf72 wrote:RichN95 wrote:No it wasn't. Still isn't. Lots of people have a natural HCT over 50%. There was even a Finnish cross-country skier in the 60s who was around 60%
Reading it then, or is that just part of your general sporting knowledge?
You're right about the book though - it's very good and people on here would learn a lot from it
Wouldn't that depend on them having the genetic wherewithal to read stuff and learn from it? Precious little evidence of that in a few posters of late...Warning No formatter is installed for the format0 -
mike6 wrote:MartinGT wrote:ddraver wrote:MartinGT wrote:Pross wrote:The ultimate loser has to be Pantani. Vilified for doing the same as everyone around him and ultimately taking his life whilst his peers went on to 'win' multiple GTs with the blessing of the sport's governing body. Plenty of others too such and Frank Vandenbroucke.
Good shout that
RIP Panta.
I really know this is childish and pointless but I'm going to throw the Voight cr*p right back atcha - So it's ok to accuse villify and denegrate a team with no evidence of doping at all, but your happy to laud and respect a confirmed, tested drug cheat?
To anyone else - this is the total hypocracy that winds us up...
If Froome was killed tomorrow or took his own life I wouldnt dance a jig of joy.
Cycling and cycle racing is not the be all and end all my friend. What happend to Pantani was an utter tragedy to someone who (unlike Froome) actually lit up races and raced with his heart and soul (again unlike Froome).
Well done, you have found your way onto my ignore list.
Oh, and please tell me, when did Panta fail a drugs test? Oh, he didnt!
Wrong.
Pantani was kicked out of the 99 Giro, and banned, for "Anomalies in his blood values". That, at the time, meant doping with EPO and everyone, including the UCI, were aware of that. The use of EPO at that time could not be proven as there was not a test for it, but a hematocrit level over 50% was a true and certain indicator.
If you also consider he was an Italian national hero, In there own GT race, he would have to be well over that limit to be banned by his own countrymen.
I was always a big supporter of Marco but he was a big user of EPO and paid the ultimate price for his drug use. RIP.
No, I'm afraid you are wrong.
Nothing to do with anomalies, just a high, HCT, due to him getting ambushed at 6am, without the usual warning.
It was simply a technical violation that in those days brought a mandatory, 3 week lay off for the "rider's health".
Nothing more and common in those early, epo days.
However, Mike, I bring good news to you.
Things have recently changed, thanks to those lovely Frenchies.
Pantani had 3 strikes while winning the 1998 TDF:
http://www.dopeology.org/people/Marco_Pantani/"Science is a tool for cheaters". An anonymous French PE teacher.0 -
RichN95 wrote:
No it wasn't. Still isn't. Lots of people have a natural HCT over 50%. There was even a Finnish cross-country skier in the 60s who was around 60%mike6 wrote:The use of EPO at that time could not be proven as there was not a test for it, but a hematocrit level over 50% was a true and certain indicator.
Pantani wasn't one of them though
Athletes with a naturally high level have a certificate to prove that fact. Pantani was not one of those, and I did not bother adding that disclaimer to my post as I am sure we are all aware of that fact.0 -
Blazing Saddles wrote:mike6 wrote:MartinGT wrote:ddraver wrote:MartinGT wrote:Pross wrote:The ultimate loser has to be Pantani. Vilified for doing the same as everyone around him and ultimately taking his life whilst his peers went on to 'win' multiple GTs with the blessing of the sport's governing body. Plenty of others too such and Frank Vandenbroucke.
Good shout that
RIP Panta.
I really know this is childish and pointless but I'm going to throw the Voight cr*p right back atcha - So it's ok to accuse villify and denegrate a team with no evidence of doping at all, but your happy to laud and respect a confirmed, tested drug cheat?
To anyone else - this is the total hypocracy that winds us up...
If Froome was killed tomorrow or took his own life I wouldnt dance a jig of joy.
Cycling and cycle racing is not the be all and end all my friend. What happend to Pantani was an utter tragedy to someone who (unlike Froome) actually lit up races and raced with his heart and soul (again unlike Froome).
Well done, you have found your way onto my ignore list.
Oh, and please tell me, when did Panta fail a drugs test? Oh, he didnt!
Wrong.
Pantani was kicked out of the 99 Giro, and banned, for "Anomalies in his blood values". That, at the time, meant doping with EPO and everyone, including the UCI, were aware of that. The use of EPO at that time could not be proven as there was not a test for it, but a hematocrit level over 50% was a true and certain indicator.
If you also consider he was an Italian national hero, In there own GT race, he would have to be well over that limit to be banned by his own countrymen.
I was always a big supporter of Marco but he was a big user of EPO and paid the ultimate price for his drug use. RIP.
No, I'm afraid you are wrong.
Nothing to do with anomalies, just a high, HCT, due to him getting ambushed at 6am, without the usual warning.
It was simply a technical violation that in those days brought a mandatory, 3 week lay off for the "rider's health".
Nothing more and common in those early, epo days.
However, Mike, I bring good news to you.
Things have recently changed, thanks to those lovely Frenchies.
Pantani had 3 strikes while winning the 1998 TDF:
http://www.dopeology.org/people/Marco_Pantani/
So a higher than normal HCT is not a blood anomaly????? Ah well, I live and learn. :roll:
Good news? Anyone who knows anything about Pro cycling knows Pantani was a big EPO user, so that is not even news.0 -
Don't be such a tool, just because you got something wrong.
You took issue with Martin saying Pantani never failed a test.
The example you used: A +50% HCT, in 1999 wasn't a failed test, but a health violation.
I point you in the direction of 3 actual test fails and your response is to get sarcastic.
"Everybody knew", you say, so why not cite the the proper failed tests?
Obviously, you didn't know.
Oh and as for "everybody knows". Print those words on a Sky thread, and expect to get asked for links to the evidence, right?"Science is a tool for cheaters". An anonymous French PE teacher.0 -
His HCT level varied between 40% and 60% by all accounts, and one of his teammates took one for him on one occasion and received a house as a thank you.
Just indicative of the time really, but watching him ride is special.0 -
I presume Bruyneel and Ferrari have already been mentioned.0
-
Phil Liggett has to be a net loser. An unerring adulation of LA and possibly one of the last people to accept the truth seems to have finished off his diminishing credibility amongst regular race fans. I suspect it is his entry level approach to commentary that keeps him on the box.0
-
If you look at the period between August 1989 (Rooks says this is when he started using EPO) and the present day, there haven't been too many "winners".
Anyone who had to base their career and success on EPO usage can hardly be considered winners. That covers everyone from Armstrong and Vino down. Some have redeemed themselves somewhat by admitting their doping but they can't look back over their careers with any kind of pride. Losers.
The riders who have ridden through the EPO era cleanly and emerged into the cleaner era of pro racing and taken up their rightful place as race winners can probably be considered losers and winners. They were robbed of the opportunity to fulfil their full potential but they shone through in the end. Castre and Evans are two that come to mind. Losers who became winners.
The riders who rode cleanly at the start of the EPO era and ultimately were forced out of the sport by their decision to compete in a decent and correct manner. Van Hooydonck, Lemond, Hampsten and even Bouwmans are just a few of these guys. They were robbed of their full potential but ultimately have shown themselves to be the most decent of men. Winners.
The guys who raised their heads above the parapet during the EPO era and their actions saw them cast out of the peloton. Christophe Bassons and, to a lesser extent, Filippo Simeoni are two that come to mind. They may have lost out but they aren't losers.
The journalists and others that fought to expose the level of doping within cycling during the dark years. I'm not sure David Walsh, Paul Kimmage, Emma O'Reily, Betsy Andreu or Greg Lemond consider themselves winners in all of this but they contributed to the new, cleaner, era of cycling that hopefully exists today. Winners (sort of).
All those riders who died directly or indirectly from PED use. Sadly, the greatest losers in all of this.
Us, the fans of cycling. We witnessed an almost twenty-year period in the sport we love when it is now hard to tell if any race result was true and correct or if the "win" was as a result of a chemically-enhanced athletic performance. Losers.
DD.0
