Forum home Road cycling forum Pro race

The UCI. Again

2

Posts

  • dennisn wrote:
    Really, what kind of "fan" doesn't want to watch the biggest events in their chosen sport? It's like saying "love football - hate the Super Bowl". Doesn't make sense.
    Actually, it makes a lot of sense. If you truly love a sport for it's intrinsic qualities you would get as much from watching a gutsy performance from someone in a lowly amateur event as someone winning a professional race. For me all the advertising and hype surrounding professional racing detracts from the sport, not adds to it. And I am not the first one to argue this:

    Pellos_cartoon6a.jpg

    Tour of the Future/Extra-Sportives 1956: the introduction of “ Extra-Sportives ” (non-cycling related sponsors) was viewed as posing a threat to the Tour de France. Pellos captured the “Tour of the Future”. [ From "Cyclisme 1956", February 27, 1956]
  • Another Pellos cartoon on the same theme.

    Pellos_cartoon_1962a_2.jpg

    Pellos Commercialism 1962: Commercialism was really starting to take to the Tour in a big way by 1962. Here Pellos shows Tour organizer Jaques Goddet sitting amongst all this turmoil wondering what to do.
  • Back on topic, once again the UCI break their own rules to the benefit of Armstrong. I wonder, does McQuaid simply get pleasure from polishing Armstrong's ring, or are there perhaps more tangible 'rewards' involved?

    The Tour of the Gila promoter Jack Brennan confirmed that Lance Armstrong and his Astana teammates Levi Leipheimer and Chris Horner will get to race in this week's race in New Mexico after all. USA Cycling worked out an agreement with the UCI, who had earlier denied them permission to do the race because the UCI's rules prohibit top-level riders from entering national-level races.

    http://www.cyclingnews.com/news.php?id= ... apr28news3
  • moray_gubmoray_gub Posts: 3,328
    aurelio wrote:
    Moray Gub wrote:
    i dont understand how a pro cycling fan doesnt want to or is not interested in watching races like the Giro or the Tour.
    For the hard of understanding...

    I haven't said that I won't watch any of the Tour or Giro. I have said that I won't bother going to see these events at the side of the road.

    As to why I might watch some of these races on TV, well the scenery is often good. (Twenty percent of those who watch the race on TV in France do so simply to see the helicopter shots of the countryside).

    I would love to be able to get enthused about the 'battles' for the GC on the climbs and in the TT's, but in all seriousness how can anyone do this, knowing that the 'winner' might well be simply the rider with the best doping program? For as long as doping is a primary determinant of who ends up on the podium (Riis, Landis, Pantani, Indurain, Armstrong...), one might was well get all excited about who 'wins' the latest WWF match.


    I really dont see you as been a cycling fan at all indeed i wonder why you get so obssesive about a a certain cyclist given his chosen sport seems to be one you have no time for.I see no problem with enjoying cycling Grand Tours one day classics TTs and every other aspect of the sport without getting all obssesive about doping like you do.Sure its aproblem I dont think every rider who makes it one to a podium is juiced up, if you think that then why waste your time why not follow crown bowls or darts or something along those lines ?
    Gasping - but somehow still alive !
  • moray_gubmoray_gub Posts: 3,328
    aurelio wrote:
    dennisn wrote:
    Really, what kind of "fan" doesn't want to watch the biggest events in their chosen sport? It's like saying "love football - hate the Super Bowl". Doesn't make sense.
    Actually, it makes a lot of sense. If you truly love a sport for it's intrinsic qualities you would get as much from watching a gutsy performance from someone in a lowly amateur event as someone winning a professional race. For me all the advertising and hype surrounding professional racing detracts from the sport, not adds to it. And I am not the first one to argue this:

    The sport of professional cycling exists as it does becuase of advertising and sponsors the early days of the Tour and Classics were forged on this indeed there very exisence was about selling a particlaur product, and i see no problem with this at all. This Corinthian type spirit you seem to want to foster is all good and well but really its way far removed from the sport of professional cycling its more akin to your local clubs tuesday night 10.Like most if not all sports the professional side if far removed from the amateur side
    Gasping - but somehow still alive !
  • dennisndennisn Posts: 10,516
    andyp wrote:
    dennisn wrote:
    It's like saying "love football - hate the Super Bowl". Doesn't make sense.
    It does on this side of the pond Dennis. :wink:

    Ya got me there! :wink:

    Dennis Noward
  • Moray Gub wrote:
    I dont think every rider who makes it one to a podium is juiced up...
    OK, so which 'winners' of the Tour de France, say in the last 20 years, do you actually believe did so purely 'on mineral water'?
    Moray Gub wrote:
    why waste your time why not follow crown bowls or darts or something along those lines
    In part because I still admire those clean riders who drag themselves around the mountain stages in order to finish within the time limits set by the '800 ml of packed cells' and Epo fuelled 'stars'. I think Bradley Wiggins put it well:

    These guys are looked upon as heroes to some young guys - but for me they're not the heroes of the Tour de France - they never were for me. I spent a lot of time in the group finishing an hour down most days and that's where the heroes are for me. Guys like Geriant Thomas, 21 years old - for the last two weeks I've watched him drag himself through the Alps and the Pyrenees on nothing but bread and water - for me - they are the real heroes of the Tour de France - not the guys on the million Euro contracts who are being done for blood transfusions and things like that.

    http://www.britishcycling.org.uk/web/si ... script.asp
  • moray_gubmoray_gub Posts: 3,328
    aurelio wrote:
    Moray Gub wrote:
    I dont think every rider who makes it one to a podium is juiced up...
    OK, so which 'winners' of the Tour de France, say in the last 20 years, do you actually believe did so purely 'on mineral water'?
    Moray Gub wrote:
    why waste your time why not follow crown bowls or darts or something along those lines
    In part because I still admire those clean riders who drag themselves around the mountain stages in order to finish within the time limits set by the '800 ml of packed cells' and Epo fuelled 'stars'. I think Bradley Wiggins put it well:

    These guys are looked upon as heroes to some young guys - but for me they're not the heroes of the Tour de France - they never were for me. I spent a lot of time in the group finishing an hour down most days and that's where the heroes are for me. Guys like Geriant Thomas, 21 years old - for the last two weeks I've watched him drag himself through the Alps and the Pyrenees on nothing but bread and water - for me - they are the real heroes of the Tour de France - not the guys on the million Euro contracts who are being done for blood transfusions and things like that.

    http://www.britishcycling.org.uk/web/si ... script.asp

    As for the TDf the last two for start, as to wiggins comments is this the same Wiggins that another poster accused of being juiced up as well ? Dont you ever entertain the possibilty that like all sports some of the top riders might actually have a lot of talent and some autobus guys not as much ? all sports have participants who are better than others its the nature of the beast, thats like saying Doncaster Rovers left winger would be as good as Ronaldo if it wasnt for perfomace enhancements the top players take. The bottom line is some riders have more talent than others end of.
    Gasping - but somehow still alive !
  • Dave_1Dave_1 Posts: 9,512
    Moray Gub wrote:
    aurelio wrote:
    Moray Gub wrote:
    I dont think every rider who makes it one to a podium is juiced up...
    OK, so which 'winners' of the Tour de France, say in the last 20 years, do you actually believe did so purely 'on mineral water'?
    Moray Gub wrote:
    why waste your time why not follow crown bowls or darts or something along those lines
    In part because I still admire those clean riders who drag themselves around the mountain stages in order to finish within the time limits set by the '800 ml of packed cells' and Epo fuelled 'stars'. I think Bradley Wiggins put it well:

    These guys are looked upon as heroes to some young guys - but for me they're not the heroes of the Tour de France - they never were for me. I spent a lot of time in the group finishing an hour down most days and that's where the heroes are for me. Guys like Geriant Thomas, 21 years old - for the last two weeks I've watched him drag himself through the Alps and the Pyrenees on nothing but bread and water - for me - they are the real heroes of the Tour de France - not the guys on the million Euro contracts who are being done for blood transfusions and things like that.

    http://www.britishcycling.org.uk/web/si ... script.asp

    As for the TDf the last two for start, as to wiggins comments is this the same Wiggins that another poster accused of being juiced up as well ? Dont you ever entertain the possibilty that like all sports some of the top riders might actually have a lot of talent and some autobus guys not as much ? all sports have participants who are better than others its the nature of the beast, thats like saying Doncaster Rovers left winger would be as good as Ronaldo if it wasnt for perfomace enhancements the top players take. The bottom line is some riders have more talent than others end of.

    Moray Gub....Mr Hogg's knowledge of the 80s is skethcy judging by previous postings...Indurain was an awesome talent , lead the Tour of Spain 1985, Tour D'el avneir winner 1986 , smashed the field on the peyresourde at the 88 TDF for Delgado...who still talks about that in interviews as when he really appreciated Indurain's ability. MI won in the pyrenees at 1989 TDF, paris Nice 89,90.....Aurelio has to ignore this and spout some trash about it only being EPO that helped Indurain and others win...when infact you are right MG -talent and aptitude for the sport play a huge role and irresponsible foolish comment by him and a few others on here is such that any new cyclist reading these threads would assume it is only drugs and not talent
  • Moray Gub wrote:
    aurelio wrote:
    which 'winners' of the Tour de France, say in the last 20 years, do you actually believe did so purely 'on mineral water'?
    As for the TDf the last two for start
    And apart from Lemond (or so we assume) who else? I also wonder what miraculous change you think has come about in cycling to make it, in your view, clean after having an almost unbroken line of dopers 'win' the Tour all the way through from Roche to Armstrong? ('Allegedly' :roll: ).
    Moray Gub wrote:
    The bottom line is some riders have more talent than others end of.
    If only that were true. Yes talent and application counts for a lot, but given the effectiveness of modern doping, a relative 'donkey' really can become a serial 'winner'. What's more not all riders benefit from doping to the same degree so doping certainly does not create a level playing field. Remember the Gewiss 123? Was that simply the product of talent? How about Riis's ride on the Hautecam, or Armstrong's 7 Tour 'wins"?
  • KléberKléber Posts: 6,842
    I don't think anyone is saying you need the doping alone. But when studies claim a 15-20% increase in W/Kg, this really is turning a solid GC rider into a champion, it makes someone capable of a top 25 place in the Tour when clean become a complete contender.

    Remember even the lowliest pro on Topsport-Vlaanderen, Agritubel or ISD spent a year or two repeatedly destroying the field in their local elite races.
  • Dave_1Dave_1 Posts: 9,512
    aurelio wrote:
    Moray Gub wrote:
    aurelio wrote:
    which 'winners' of the Tour de France, say in the last 20 years, do you actually believe did so purely 'on mineral water'?
    As for the TDf the last two for start
    And apart from Lemond (or so we assume) who else? I also wonder what miraculous change you think has come about in cycling to make it, in your view, clean after having an almost unbroken line of dopers 'win' the Tour all the way through from Roche to Armstrong? ('Allegedly' :roll: ).
    Moray Gub wrote:
    The bottom line is some riders have more talent than others end of.
    If only that were true. Yes talent and application counts for a lot, but given the effectiveness of modern doping, a relative 'donkey' really can become a serial 'winner'. What's more not all riders benefit from doping to the same degree so doping certainly does not create a level playing field. Remember the Gewiss 123? Was that simply the product of talent? How about Riis's ride on the Hautecam, or Armstrong's 7 Tour 'wins"?

    Riis was an amazingly strong climber at the 1989 TDF before the modern doping method of EPO...a stage winner at the 89 giro...I well remember watching him sitting at the front one col out pulling Fignon up and trying to reduce the deficit to Robert Millar, Charly Mottet, pedro Delagdo who had broken away on the Tourmalet...Riis , regardless of what would like to think, was really strong before EPO...as was Armstrong, as were others...you ignore there performances in 80s Aurelio...that's why your arguements are on shaky foundations
  • Dave_1Dave_1 Posts: 9,512
    Kléber wrote:
    I don't think anyone is saying you need the doping alone. But when studies claim a 15-20% increase in W/Kg, this really is turning a solid GC rider into a champion, it makes someone capable of a top 25 place in the Tour when clean become a complete contender.

    Remember even the lowliest pro on Topsport-Vlaanderen, Agritubel or ISD spent a year or two repeatedly destroying the field in their local elite races.

    but when they were proven talents before EPO...very reasonable we assume that plays a huge role too...certainly enough for me to not dismiss all of the last 20 TDF wins as being like sham wrestling... like our cycling PR man on here insists on smearing the sport as repeatedly
  • Dave_1 wrote:
    Indurain was an awesome talent
    Who got his backside kicked in the Tour for years. His Tour record for the first 4 years he rode it was: DNF, DNF, 97th and 47th...

    Talented maybe, but without a little 'help' he was never going to be a Tour winner.

    Riders habitually boosted themselves to the mid-50s, and Bjarne Riis, winner of the 1996 Tour became known in the peloton as 'Mr Sixty-percent'. In October 1995 Marco Pantani recorded a haematocrit of 60.1%, about twenty percent higher than his natural level. On one occasion the entire Banesto team tested at 48.5 to 49.5, a situation impossible in nature.

    http://www.abcc.co.uk/Articles/DrgsTdeF.html

    Former Banesto rider confesses to taking EPO
    Last Updated: Thursday, October 26, 2000 | 4:02 PM ET
    CBC Sports


    A former rider for the Banesto team, whose leader won the Tour de France five consecutive times, told a court on Thursday that there was medically supervised doping of team cyclists that included the banned drug EPO.

    The testimony came on the fourth day of a doping trial that grew out of the drug scandal that nearly wrecked the 1998 Tour de France.

    A former Festina cyclist, French star Richard Virenque, and nine former team officials are on trial on a range of charges.

    The trial, which opened Monday, has led to stunning testimony about systematic doping of top Festina riders, and, Thursday, allegations that the Spanish Banesto team also used banned products to enhance cyclists' performance.

    "In Banesto, there was a system of doping with medical supervision,"
    Thomas Davy, who rode with Banesto from 1995 to 1996, told the court.

    Banesto's champion rider, Miguel Indurain, rode the team to five Tour de France victories, from 1991 to 1995.

    "Everyone did it?" Presiding Judge Daniel Delegove asked the rider.

    "Yes. I think so," Davy replied.

    Calls placed to Banesto team headquarters were unanswered.

    http://www.cbc.ca/sports/story/2000/10/ ... 01026.html
  • micronmicron Posts: 1,843
    If that's the case - and I have no reason to believe that talent plays some part in a sportsman being good at what they do :wink: - why are Armstrong et al choosing to train at some obscure Conti race rather than one of the multitude of tough week long Tours in Europe?

    I hope the American sport comes up with some initiatives to sustain itself when Armstrong is gone again - and surely encouraging the sport at levels below elite racing is the foundation for healthy growth?
  • Dave_1 wrote:
    Riis was an amazingly strong climber at the 1989 TDF before the modern doping method of EPO...a stage winner at the 89 giro..you ignore there performances in 80s Aurelio...that's why your arguements are on shaky foundations
    Actually, Epo was already in use in cycling by this point. It's not my arguments that are on 'shaky foundations'. :roll:
  • Dave_1Dave_1 Posts: 9,512
    aurelio wrote:
    Dave_1 wrote:
    Indurain was an awesome talent
    Who got his backside kicked in the Tour for years. His Tour record for the first 4 years he rode it was: DNF, DNF, 97th and 47th...

    Talented maybe, but without a little 'help' he was never going to be a Tour winner.

    Riders habitually boosted themselves to the mid-50s, and Bjarne Riis, winner of the 1996 Tour became known in the peloton as 'Mr Sixty-percent'. In October 1995 Marco Pantani recorded a haematocrit of 60.1%, about twenty percent higher than his natural level. On one occasion the entire Banesto team tested at 48.5 to 49.5, a situation impossible in nature.

    http://www.abcc.co.uk/Articles/DrgsTdeF.html

    Former Banesto rider confesses to taking EPO
    Last Updated: Thursday, October 26, 2000 | 4:02 PM ET
    CBC Sports


    A former rider for the Banesto team, whose leader won the Tour de France five consecutive times, told a court on Thursday that there was medically supervised doping of team cyclists that included the banned drug EPO.

    The testimony came on the fourth day of a doping trial that grew out of the drug scandal that nearly wrecked the 1998 Tour de France.

    A former Festina cyclist, French star Richard Virenque, and nine former team officials are on trial on a range of charges.

    The trial, which opened Monday, has led to stunning testimony about systematic doping of top Festina riders, and, Thursday, allegations that the Spanish Banesto team also used banned products to enhance cyclists' performance.

    "In Banesto, there was a system of doping with medical supervision,"
    Thomas Davy, who rode with Banesto from 1995 to 1996, told the court.

    Banesto's champion rider, Miguel Indurain, rode the team to five Tour de France victories, from 1991 to 1995.

    "Everyone did it?" Presiding Judge Daniel Delegove asked the rider.

    "Yes. I think so," Davy replied.

    Calls placed to Banesto team headquarters were unanswered.

    http://www.cbc.ca/sports/story/2000/10/ ... 01026.html


    you've ignored my previous post on Indurain's palmares..go and read about the races.... He was a domestique and also gave away the 1990 TDF at Saint Etiennne...but this will be news to you as you haven't followed the sport very much evidently. Indurain could have won the TDF before EPO..2nd at Orciere mountain TT ahead of Lemond BEFORE EPO...did you understand that???...before team wide EPO use came in...you IGNORE facts that could prevent you smearing the sport repeatedly only here you ..
  • Dave_1Dave_1 Posts: 9,512
    aurelio wrote:
    Dave_1 wrote:
    Riis was an amazingly strong climber at the 1989 TDF before the modern doping method of EPO...a stage winner at the 89 giro..you ignore there performances in 80s Aurelio...that's why your arguements are on shaky foundations
    Actually, Epo was already in use in cycling by this point. It's not my arguments that are on 'shaky foundations'. :roll:

    I take Hampsten's and Lemond's observations of when the racing changed...I take the averages speeds and times on the late 80s...you again ignore the facts and smear the great races, the sport...
  • donrhummydonrhummy Posts: 2,329
    He makes a good point though (McQuaid). As much as Cycing has had problems, isn't it worse that the other sports don't even have real testing protocols and there is no "whereabouts" program or bio-passport in those sports? How come censored Pound never talks about that and criticizes them? He seems to really hate cycling, which if you think about it is odd since it's the only pro sport that actually legitimized what he was doing at WADA.
  • aurelio_-_bannedaurelio_-_banned Posts: 1,317
    edited April 2009
    Dave_1 wrote:
    this will be news to you as you haven't followed the sport very much evidently. Indurain could have won the TDF before EPO..2nd at Orciere mountain TT ahead of Lemond BEFORE EPO...did you understand that???...
    One, Indurain was 3rd, not second it that TT. Two, many a rider who was not Tour-winning material has been able to pull out a good ride on the occasional stage. (Rooks won that TT, but he never won the Tour). Three, and most importantly, this was in 1989 when Epo was already in widespread use in pro bike racing.
  • donrhummydonrhummy Posts: 2,329
    Dave_1 wrote:
    aurelio wrote:
    Dave_1 wrote:
    Riis was an amazingly strong climber at the 1989 TDF before the modern doping method of EPO...a stage winner at the 89 giro..you ignore there performances in 80s Aurelio...that's why your arguements are on shaky foundations
    Actually, Epo was already in use in cycling by this point. It's not my arguments that are on 'shaky foundations'. :roll:

    I take Hampsten's and Lemond's observations of when the racing changed...I take the averages speeds and times on the late 80s...you again ignore the facts and smear the great races, the sport...

    As we've all learned from power meters, average speeds mean nothing. (And that's not even accounting for the fact that the TDF has gotten shorter in the last 20-odd years) With changing terrain, differing winds/temperatures, lighter bikes, more aerodynamic bikes, etc, average speeds have way too many factors to really tell us much.

    Also some distances:

    1986 TDF: 4,084 km
    1989 TDF: 4,021 km
    2007 TDF: 3,569 km
    2008 TDF: 3,559 km

    And that doesn't account for the terrain.
  • donrhummy wrote:
    He makes a good point though (McQuaid). As much as Cycing has had problems, isn't it worse that the other sports don't even have real testing protocols and there is no "whereabouts" program or bio-passport in those sports? How come censored Pound never talks about that and criticizes them?
    Yes he does. Check out some of the links already posted.
  • Dave_1Dave_1 Posts: 9,512
    aurelio wrote:
    Dave_1 wrote:
    this will be news to you as you haven't followed the sport very much evidently. Indurain could have won the TDF before EPO..2nd at Orciere mountain TT ahead of Lemond BEFORE EPO...did you understand that???...
    One, Indurain was 3rd, not second it that TT. Two, many a rider who was not Tour-winning materiel has been able to pull out a good ride on the occasional stage. (Rooks won that TT, but he never won the Tour). Three, and most importantly, this was in 1989 when Epo was already in widespread use in pro bike racing.

    high up the finish anyway...you have no proof it was widespread and ignore the claims of Lemond, Hampsten others who raced...why believe a nobody when we can have the facts from within the bunch by non using riders...
  • Dave_1Dave_1 Posts: 9,512
    donrhummy wrote:
    Dave_1 wrote:
    aurelio wrote:
    Dave_1 wrote:
    Riis was an amazingly strong climber at the 1989 TDF before the modern doping method of EPO...a stage winner at the 89 giro..you ignore there performances in 80s Aurelio...that's why your arguements are on shaky foundations
    Actually, Epo was already in use in cycling by this point. It's not my arguments that are on 'shaky foundations'. :roll:

    I take Hampsten's and Lemond's observations of when the racing changed...I take the averages speeds and times on the late 80s...you again ignore the facts and smear the great races, the sport...

    As we've all learned from power meters, average speeds mean nothing. (And that's not even accounting for the fact that the TDF has gotten shorter in the last 20-odd years) With changing terrain, differing winds/temperatures, lighter bikes, more aerodynamic bikes, etc, average speeds have way too many factors to really tell us much.

    Also some distances:

    1986 TDF: 4,084 km
    1989 TDF: 4,021 km
    2007 TDF: 3,569 km
    2008 TDF: 3,559 km

    And that doesn't account for the terrain.

    that's interesting...so that could also be taken as EPO wasn't as widespread as people think
  • Dave_1 wrote:
    ...why believe a nobody when we can have the facts from within the bunch by non using riders...
    Of course, riders like Lemond could not actually know what went on behind the scenes in a team like Banesto. You are right about the importance of having knowledge from 'within the bunch' though, which is why the testimony of Thomas Davy is so significant.
  • Dave_1Dave_1 Posts: 9,512
    aurelio wrote:
    Dave_1 wrote:
    ...why believe a nobody when we can have the facts from within the bunch by non using riders...
    Of course, riders like Lemond could not actually know what went on behind the scenes in a team like Banesto. You are right about the importance of having knowledge from 'within the bunch' though, which is why the testimony of Thomas Davy is so significant.

    but they could see it in their power meters...Davy ...did he ever ride at a decent enough level to know the difference? davy was in banesto in the 80s?...but you are the expert...or perhaps the troll pag??
  • moray_gubmoray_gub Posts: 3,328
    aurelio wrote:
    Moray Gub wrote:
    aurelio wrote:
    which 'winners' of the Tour de France, say in the last 20 years, do you actually believe did so purely 'on mineral water'?
    As for the TDf the last two for start
    And apart from Lemond (or so we assume) who else? I also wonder what miraculous change you think has come about in cycling to make it, in your view, clean after having an almost unbroken line of dopers 'win' the Tour all the way through from Roche to Armstrong? ('Allegedly' :roll: ).
    Moray Gub wrote:
    The bottom line is some riders have more talent than others end of.
    If only that were true. Yes talent and application counts for a lot, but given the effectiveness of modern doping, a relative 'donkey' really can become a serial 'winner'. What's more not all riders benefit from doping to the same degree so doping certainly does not create a level playing field. Remember the Gewiss 123? Was that simply the product of talent? How about Riis's ride on the Hautecam, or Armstrong's 7 Tour 'wins"?

    So you think there is no difference in the testing regime today compared to say 1996 then ? mmmm thats an interesting viewpoint.Also if you discount talent then all riders must be the same like a kind of stepford wive and only doping makes them faster and stronger. I presume youve never particpated in a sport and noticed that just occsaionally some people are better than others at certain sports.Not every golfer is Tiger Woods you know............oe every cyclist Eddy Merckyx..........or every boxer like Ali.......see what i am getting at it is possible to be more talented than others at your given sport. Dismissing talent as the major factor like you are doing is nonsensical
    Gasping - but somehow still alive !
  • Moray Gub wrote:
    So you think there is no difference in the testing regime today compared to say 1996 then ?
    Generally speaking, the riders keep one step ahead of the testers, changing their methods as detection methods improve. Blood doping - Epo - autologous blood doping and CERA, for example. Plus there are still many doping products and methods that cannot be detected, hence the UCI's 'passports' scheme that appears to be going absolutely nowhere.
    Moray Gub wrote:
    Dismissing talent as the major factor like you are doing is nonsensical
    I have never dismissed the importance of talent, but the huge difference modern doping techniques can make should not be underestimated and I am sure you are aware of the numerous 'tales from the peleton' about how naturally talented riders found themselves unable to compete against the dopers.

    "A body of literature shows that EPO conveys a five- to 15-percent advantage," says Charles Yesalis, an epidemiologist at Penn State University and an expert on drugs in sports. Translated into minutes, a five-percent boost would have been the difference between first and 143rd in last year's Tour.

    http://outside.away.com/outside/news/20 ... epo_1.html
  • Dave_1Dave_1 Posts: 9,512
    Moray Gub wrote:
    aurelio wrote:
    Moray Gub wrote:
    aurelio wrote:
    which 'winners' of the Tour de France, say in the last 20 years, do you actually believe did so purely 'on mineral water'?
    As for the TDf the last two for start
    And apart from Lemond (or so we assume) who else? I also wonder what miraculous change you think has come about in cycling to make it, in your view, clean after having an almost unbroken line of dopers 'win' the Tour all the way through from Roche to Armstrong? ('Allegedly' :roll: ).
    Moray Gub wrote:
    The bottom line is some riders have more talent than others end of.
    If only that were true. Yes talent and application counts for a lot, but given the effectiveness of modern doping, a relative 'donkey' really can become a serial 'winner'. What's more not all riders benefit from doping to the same degree so doping certainly does not create a level playing field. Remember the Gewiss 123? Was that simply the product of talent? How about Riis's ride on the Hautecam, or Armstrong's 7 Tour 'wins"?

    So you think there is no difference in the testing regime today compared to say 1996 then ? mmmm thats an interesting viewpoint.Also if you discount talent then all riders must be the same like a kind of stepford wive and only doping makes them faster and stronger. I presume youve never particpated in a sport and noticed that just occsaionally some people are better than others at certain sports.Not every golfer is Tiger Woods you know............oe every cyclist Eddy Merckyx..........or every boxer like Ali.......see what i am getting at it is possible to be more talented than others at your given sport. Dismissing talent as the major factor like you are doing is nonsensical

    well put Moray Gub...it is indeed true that some people are just better, much better than others, at certain sports...aptitiude, physiology, psychological make up...supportive people around them at the right times..it's a shame Aurelio is so determined to distract readers from that and smear the races, the sport every time....
  • markwalkermarkwalker Posts: 953
    Dave_1 wrote:
    Moray Gub wrote:
    aurelio wrote:
    Moray Gub wrote:
    aurelio wrote:
    which 'winners' of the Tour de France, say in the last 20 years, do you actually believe did so purely 'on mineral water'?
    As for the TDf the last two for start
    And apart from Lemond (or so we assume) who else? I also wonder what miraculous change you think has come about in cycling to make it, in your view, clean after having an almost unbroken line of dopers 'win' the Tour all the way through from Roche to Armstrong? ('Allegedly' :roll: ).
    Moray Gub wrote:
    The bottom line is some riders have more talent than others end of.
    If only that were true. Yes talent and application counts for a lot, but given the effectiveness of modern doping, a relative 'donkey' really can become a serial 'winner'. What's more not all riders benefit from doping to the same degree so doping certainly does not create a level playing field. Remember the Gewiss 123? Was that simply the product of talent? How about Riis's ride on the Hautecam, or Armstrong's 7 Tour 'wins"?

    So you think there is no difference in the testing regime today compared to say 1996 then ? mmmm thats an interesting viewpoint.Also if you discount talent then all riders must be the same like a kind of stepford wive and only doping makes them faster and stronger. I presume youve never particpated in a sport and noticed that just occsaionally some people are better than others at certain sports.Not every golfer is Tiger Woods you know............oe every cyclist Eddy Merckyx..........or every boxer like Ali.......see what i am getting at it is possible to be more talented than others at your given sport. Dismissing talent as the major factor like you are doing is nonsensical

    well put Moray Gub...it is indeed true that some people are just better, much better than others, at certain sports...aptitiude, physiology, psychological make up...supportive people around them at the right times..it's a shame Aurelio is so determined to distract readers from that and smear the races, the sport every time....

    Dave you get blinkered when you start to attack people whos views dont support yours. Aurelio is right, peds are more effective in some people than others. this is a medically proven fact.
    You are also right, some people are better at certain activities than others. FACT
    So if a sample of cyclists with varying abilities are given drugs there is no reason why the winner of the race would or would not be the winner of a race.

    If for example Armstrong who has never been found guilty of ped abuse were to be considered clean and Ulrich and all the others dirty it would make Armstrong a superhuman. Or put another way every one else were virtual cripples who even with the aid of the best preparation couldnt even come close.

    I got very dissapointed and disallusioned in cycling a few years ago but now i accept it for what it is. For me the ped thing detracts only because when caught some people bleet on about how theyre clean or victimised or whatever. Its still great to watch the tactics spills and effort in a race like Paris Roubaix. I even cheered that twunt landis for a superb ride whilst having bets if theyd catch him out. Then he spoiled it.

    Before anyone says it yes it is about entertainment for 99% of spectators wether its the scenery or the superhuman efforts or the soap opera.

    Off to work now DAve_1, or I might join you as an underachiever.

    Tally ho
Sign In or Register to comment.