# Was there a period of non-doping?



## InfiniteLoop (Mar 20, 2010)

Anquetil has said that he and pretty much all pro's in the late 50's and early 60' doped. There have been routine busts of dopers ever since (and prior). Is there much of a realistic chance that anyone who won the tour between Anquetil and Armstrong did so clean?


----------



## Hiro11 (Dec 18, 2010)

There was never a period of non-doping. Ever. Doping in cycling goes back to the pre-Tour six day race era. To me, that's part of what makes the current burst of sanctimonious finger pointing and brow beating of Armstrong so irritating and hypocritical. Will the Belgians ever renounce Merckx, a man who failed at least two drug tests even in the lax early seventies? Will the Italians ever renounce Coppi, a man who proudly championed doping? Will the French ever renounce Anquetil, Fignon and Hinault? I don't think so. 

You could argue (as Fignon and others have) that the stimulants and steriods of years past were less effective than the current hemocrit-based doping of EPO, hormones and transfusions and therefore cycling was more "pure" back then. To me that's a ridiculous argument, the sentiment is the same, the technology just got better. Ironically, the "professionalization" of doping that US Postal is the poster child for was almost certainly safer than the self-administered doping of years past.


----------



## Solopc (Sep 9, 2008)

"You have no idea what the Tour de France is. Do you know how we keep going? Look, this is cocaine, chloroform, too. And pills? You want to see pills? Here are three boxes - We run on dynamite!" Henri Pelissier, after abandoning the 1924 Tour.

I have a few more quotes if you like from different eras. Might not be epo, but you get the point...


----------



## mohair_chair (Oct 3, 2002)

InfiniteLoop said:


> Anquetil has said that he and pretty much all pro's in the late 50's and early 60' doped. There have been routine busts of dopers ever since (and prior). Is there much of a realistic chance that anyone who won the tour between Anquetil and Armstrong did so clean?


I think it was Willy Voet who said the only person to win a grand tour clean was Éric Caritoux, who won the Vuelta in 1984.


----------



## danl1 (Jul 23, 2005)

InfiniteLoop said:


> Anquetil has said that he and pretty much all pro's in the late 50's and early 60' doped. There have been routine busts of dopers ever since (and prior). Is there much of a realistic chance that anyone who won the tour between Anquetil and Armstrong did so clean?


Likely periods of relative non-doping, when it was isolated to a few riders and / or the occasional race. And the earlier periods of popping uppers and pain pills is a different sort of thing than blood doping, EPO, steroids, and so on. That's not to excuse it in any way, but it's different, almost quaint. Plus, nature of the thing - it's something you might improve a race on, but not something upon which to base a career, or even a season.

Also good to remember that for that earlier class, it was often not about a hard-line test, but about limits. As long as you tested below the line, you were OK. Do you want to call that 'clean' or not in today's sense of the word?


----------



## natedg200202 (Sep 2, 2008)

I think there were periods where doping was not as effective and therefore was not as pivotal in the results.


----------



## Big-foot (Dec 14, 2002)

Yes. It was a Tuesday. Motoman had taken his Kawasaki in for valve service and it wasn't finished in time.


----------



## MG537 (Jul 25, 2006)

*Rendering it ineffective*

is probably the way to go.
Taking amphetamines like they used to, will not give you the same chances at winning like a full blown EPO/transfusion program will. They're both considered doping but the former will not magically transform one into lean mean climbing machine.
The idea is for the authorities to remain vigilant and hopefully this generation of blood boosting methods will be rendered useless.


----------



## AdamM (Jul 9, 2008)

EPO really did change the sport in a significant way that uppers and other performance enhancers, weren't capable of doing. It's the nature of the sport that makes blood/oxygen doping a whole different category of advantage.

Fwiw, the best inside the bunch insight I've read on the subject came from a story about the decline of the Columbian climbers fortunes when EPO use became widespread.


----------



## g29er (Mar 28, 2009)

“Only a fool would believe that one could do Paris-Roubaix on just water.” - Jacques Anquetil


----------



## Coolhand (Jul 28, 2002)

InfiniteLoop said:


> Anquetil has said that he and pretty much all pro's in the late 50's and early 60' doped. There have been routine busts of dopers ever since (and prior). Is there much of a realistic chance that anyone who won the tour between Anquetil and Armstrong did so clean?


No. Each generation used the best doping methods at their disposal. Doping is doping, trying to pretend earlier doping wasn't abject cheating is amusing at best.


----------



## Rolando (Jan 13, 2005)

I don't get it. In this thread it is acknowledged that doping has always been part of pro cycling. In threads regarding Armstrong, doping is something that was forced upon pro cycling by Armstrong himself. Not only did he cheat, he made everyone else to do so too. So which is it?


----------



## g29er (Mar 28, 2009)

Rolando said:


> I don't get it. In this thread it is acknowledged that doping has always been part of pro cycling. In threads regarding Armstrong, doping is something that was forced upon pro cycling by Armstrong himself. Not only did he cheat, he made everyone else to do so too. So which is it?


If you mean that Armstrong was responsible for doping in all of pro cycling then that of course would be incorrect, but if you mean he "forced" people on his team to do it I would say kinda sorta. Even though I believe that Landis and Hamilton and everyone on those teams wanted to win as much as anyone else, so the notion that they were forced is hard to believe. I would substitute forced with pressure applied by LA and JB. Forced means no choice and they all had a choice ultimately. The LA story is just a microcosm in the long history of doping in cycling.


----------



## kbwh (May 28, 2010)

Yes, doping has been around as long as cycling, and yes, Armstrong (and Bruynel) made sure their TdF team was "properly prepared".

There are non-dopers with significant palmares: Charly Mottet - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Lance couldn't pay anyone to say Lemond doped, btw.


----------



## old_fuji (Mar 16, 2009)

Weren't dudes dropping dead after bike races in the early 20th century, from sheer exhaustion?


----------



## bayAreaDude (Apr 13, 2012)

Even if there has never been a period of non doping, which is most likely, I don't think that's any kind of justification not to do everything that can be done to make pro cycling clean now and in the future, which USADA's case certainly has helped to do. Lance might be out of the sport, but as the last few days have proven, there are still people in the sport who cheat and if the goal is a clean sport, they need to be exposed and dealt with.


----------



## lewdvig (Oct 4, 2004)

Rolando said:


> I don't get it. In this thread it is acknowledged that doping has always been part of pro cycling. In threads regarding Armstrong, doping is something that was forced upon pro cycling by Armstrong himself. Not only did he cheat, he made everyone else to do so too. So which is it?


IMO its just naive casual cycling fans who were hurt by the revelation. They should have known better. An once of research and they would have known better when watching his miracle run.



AdamM said:


> EPO really did change the sport in a significant way that uppers and other performance enhancers, weren't capable of doing. It's the nature of the sport that makes blood/oxygen doping a whole different category of advantage.
> 
> Fwiw, the best inside the bunch insight I've read on the subject came from a story about the decline of the Columbian climbers fortunes when EPO use became widespread.


I also remember all the talk of rare mitochondria diseases when Lemond's performance 'tailed off' at the start of the EPO era. Bugno publicly stated his surprise at not being able to hang with gregarios all of a sudden in the late 80s.

EPO turned donkeys into stallions (Riis). Any stallion who used it just restored the differential (Miguel, Jan, Lance, Marco). What is sad is there were Stallions that did not dope, who we all thought were donkeys as a result.



mohair_chair said:


> I think it was Willy Voet who said the only person to win a grand tour clean was Éric Caritoux, who won the Vuelta in 1984.


I am reading his book but have not got to that part yet. Is he implying that Lemond doped?

Enough people hate Lemond that if he doped we'd have heard about it by now.

A natural 95 VO2 Max is better than a EPO'ed up Indurain (88) and Armstrong (85).


----------



## 4Crawler (Jul 13, 2011)

In 1904 it did not seem like much doping, but there was a rash of DQs due to various forms of cheating like hoping on a train or car with your bike and riding up the tracks/road a 100km or so and hopping off:
- 1904 Tour de France - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## slegros (Sep 22, 2009)

Hiro11 said:


> There was never a period of non-doping. Ever. Doping in cycling goes back to the pre-Tour six day race era. To me, that's part of what makes the current burst of sanctimonious finger pointing and brow beating of Armstrong so irritating and hypocritical. Will the Belgians ever renounce Merckx, a man who failed at least two drug tests even in the lax early seventies? Will the Italians ever renounce Coppi, a man who proudly championed doping? Will the French ever renounce Anquetil, Fignon and Hinault? I don't think so.
> 
> You could argue (as Fignon and others have) that the stimulants and steriods of years past were less effective than the current hemocrit-based doping of EPO, hormones and transfusions and therefore cycling was more "pure" back then. To me that's a ridiculous argument, the sentiment is the same, the technology just got better. Ironically, the "professionalization" of doping that US Postal is the poster child for was almost certainly safer than the self-administered doping of years past.


I disagree......

Stimulants, steroids ,cortisone etc. helped sure..... But NOBODY in those years was climbing at over 5.9W/kg. EPO and oxygen-vector doping comes in and suddenly guys are climbing at 6.7-6.8 w/kg... An almost 15% increase!!!!

Prior doping methods made the difference between a good day, and a bad day.... Not the difference between a champion and an also-ran.....

Any way you cut it the playing field was far more level before EPO and blood doping methods became rampant...


----------



## slegros (Sep 22, 2009)

lewdvig said:


> Enough people hate Lemond that if he doped we'd have heard about it by now.


I agree!!

LeMond has seldom shied away from speaking his mind. If there was anything there it would have come out WAY before now.


----------



## rydbyk (Feb 17, 2010)

No. Huh uh. Nope. Nah.


----------



## Oldteen (Sep 7, 2005)

Doping goes back to the beginnings of elite pro cycling, so no one should claim to be "shocked".

List of doping cases in cycling - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## MR_GRUMPY (Aug 21, 2002)

Has anyone ever explained what LeMond's "iron injections" were, and what were they for??

Was this a form of doping to increase the hematocrit levels??


----------



## 32and3cross (Feb 28, 2005)

MR_GRUMPY said:


> Has anyone ever explained what LeMond's "iron injections" were, and what were they for??
> 
> Was this a form of doping to increase the hematocrit levels??



To counter balance anemia? The only way you could boost your hematocrit is if you had low iron issues which would cause you hem to drop. Taking iron if you levels are normal will not give you a hem and can, if used too much, make you sick.


----------



## mpre53 (Oct 25, 2011)

MR_GRUMPY said:


> Has anyone ever explained what LeMond's "iron injections" were, and what were they for??
> 
> Was this a form of doping to increase the hematocrit levels??


Only Otto Jacome knows for sure what was in that syringe, and as far as I can tell, he has always maintained that it was an iron supplement. Iron supplements do not appear to be on the banned substances list.


----------



## velodog (Sep 26, 2007)

bayAreaDude said:


> Even if there has never been a period of non doping, which is most likely, I don't think that's any kind of justification not to do everything that can be done to make pro cycling clean now and in the future, which USADA's case certainly has helped to do. Lance might be out of the sport, but as the last few days have proven, there are still people in the sport who cheat and if the goal is a clean sport, they need to be exposed and dealt with.


This.


----------



## FR hokeypokey (Apr 12, 2010)

Coolhand said:


> No. Each generation used the best doping methods at their disposal. Doping is doping, trying to pretend earlier doping wasn't abject cheating is amusing at best.


Could not have said it better myself. 

There was nothing "quaint" about taking their drug of choice during any era. They took anything they could to obtain or keep an advantage. 

Choosing to separate today's riders because medical technology and testing has changed is ridiculous. The intent is the same. Only the methods of organization and medicine has changed. 

Same as saying riders were "forced" to dope. They all have that moment of decision when they had to make a choice.

When they faced the moral decision to dope or choose to say no. Too many chose to "follow the program" and profit. Whether it is the TdF contenders or the neo-pro looking for a contract at the next level. They all made the decision to dope. 

Not sure if it is sad or amusing to see so many try to make distinctions or separate riders into levels of guilt based upon bias or personal likes/dislikes.


----------



## MR_GRUMPY (Aug 21, 2002)

mpre53 said:


> Only Otto Jacome knows for sure what was in that syringe, and as far as I can tell, he has always maintained that it was an iron supplement. Iron supplements do not appear to be on the banned substances list.


But the intent was to raise his hematocrit level. Iron supplements is what people used before EPO, to artificially raise your hematocrit level........True?

Doing this in a race, is a form of cheating.
.
If we could test LeMond's blood from 89 & 90, and discover that his hematocrit levels were over 50, because of the Iron supplements, would it be fair to strike his TDF wins??????
.
.
.


----------



## Hiro11 (Dec 18, 2010)

Coolhand said:


> No. Each generation used the best doping methods at their disposal. Doping is doping, trying to pretend earlier doping wasn't abject cheating is amusing at best.


Exactly. As I said before, I think some of you who are discounting eariler doping like stimulants as they were not as effective as EPO are missing the point. Cheating is cheating, it's the act not the means that matters. If EPO had been available in the 50s and 60s, they would have used that.


----------



## thighmaster (Feb 2, 2006)

On any given day from about 2 to 4 am


----------



## asgelle (Apr 21, 2003)

MR_GRUMPY said:


> But the intent was to raise his hematocrit level. Iron supplements is what people used before EPO, to artificially raise your hematocrit level........True?


False. Iron supplements no more artificially raise hematocrit than spinach does.



MR_GRUMPY said:


> Doing this in a race, is a form of cheating.


False. Iron supplements are not a banned substance.



MR_GRUMPY said:


> If we could test LeMond's blood from 89 & 90, and discover that his hematocrit levels were over 50, because of the Iron supplements, would it be fair to strike his TDF wins??????


This must be a joke. First, are you seriously suggesting that someone be subject to a rule that wouldn't go into effect until six years after he retired? But even then, you don't understand the 50% rule and its application. There is no provision for sanctioning someone retroactively based on hematocrit level.


----------



## spade2you (May 12, 2009)

asgelle said:


> There is no provision for sanctioning someone retroactively based on hematocrit level.


Not yet.


----------



## pr0230 (Jun 4, 2004)

infiniteloop said:


> anquetil has said that he and pretty much all pro's in the late 50's and early 60' doped. There have been routine busts of dopers ever since (and prior). Is there much of a realistic chance that anyone who won the tour between anquetil and armstrong did so clean?


2309 bc


----------



## desertgeezer (Aug 28, 2011)

InfiniteLoop said:


> Anquetil has said that he and pretty much all pro's in the late 50's and early 60' doped. There have been routine busts of dopers ever since (and prior). Is there much of a realistic chance that anyone who won the tour between Anquetil and Armstrong did so clean?


If, after stripping LA of his TDF wins, the UCI was unable to award those wins to another rider because, as the UCI intimates, every one was doping and therefore we cannot award the TDF to anyone for those years, then what was the point of busting LA in the first place?

And, if everyone during the LA years was doping, then didn't that put everyone on a level playing field anyway?

Just seems to me that if the UCI can't award the TDF to another rider for those years, then the whole exercise to bust LA was just a vendetta to begin with.

Not excusing or apologizing for LA, just wondering about these things.


----------



## asgelle (Apr 21, 2003)

desertgeezer said:


> And, if everyone during the LA years was doping, then didn't that put everyone on a level playing field anyway?


Read the reasoned decision and supporting documentation. Your premise is false.

As to what was the point - are you really suggesting that because we know we can't catch every criminal that no one should be put in jail?


----------



## spade2you (May 12, 2009)

asgelle said:


> Read the reasoned decision and supporting documentation. Your premise is false.
> 
> As to what was the point - are you really suggesting that because we know we can't catch every criminal that no one should be put in jail?


You really like to say "false" today.


----------



## davez26 (Nov 15, 2010)

desertgeezer said:


> If everyone during the LA years was doping, then didn't that put everyone on a level playing field anyway?


This is what I am thinking. He just took longer to get hammered for it.


----------



## asgelle (Apr 21, 2003)

spade2you said:


> You really like to say "false" today.


True
Escaping One's Own Shadow in Writing - NYTimes.com


----------



## spade2you (May 12, 2009)

asgelle said:


> True
> Escaping One's Own Shadow in Writing - NYTimes.com


----------



## MR_GRUMPY (Aug 21, 2002)

Nothing funny going on here.....

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/cycling/1998/tourdefrance/tourdefrancearchive/tour2.html

LeMond had his blood tested near the end of the Tour de Trump to see if that might yield some clue to his disappointing performances. It revealed nothing. He returned to Europe to prepare for the Tour of Italy, one of cycling's most prestigious events after the Tour de France. There, too, he faltered. In the first mountain stage LeMond lost eight minutes to the leaders. His masseur, Otto Jacome, who has been a friend of the LeMond family since Greg was 15, took one look at him afterward and said, "You are white. You need iron." 

Again LeMond had his blood tested. This time he was diagnosed as anemic, and his doctor immediately gave him an injection of iron.

Shortly after that phone call, things began to turn. LeMond had a second injection of iron and started feeling stronger.

LeMond's name was never mentioned among the prerace favorites, whose numbers included Pedro Delgado of Spain (the defending champion), Stephen Rooks of the Netherlands, Stephen Roche of Ireland, Andy Hampsten of the U.S. and Fignon.

Besides Hampsten, aren't the rest of those guys dopers?....How could a "clean" guy beat them??

Just askin'
.
.


----------



## infinito_2012 (Oct 22, 2012)

g29er said:


> If you mean that Armstrong was responsible for doping in all of pro cycling then that of course would be incorrect, but if you mean he "forced" people on his team to do it I would say kinda sorta. Even though I believe that Landis and Hamilton and everyone on those teams wanted to win as much as anyone else, so the notion that they were forced is hard to believe. I would substitute forced with* pressure applied by LA* and JB. Forced means no choice and they all had a choice ultimately. The LA story is just a microcosm in the long history of doping in cycling.


I don't really believe Lance would have to apply pressure or that his teamates didn't wanna do it. I think a more likely scenario was Lance simply supervised others' dope activity and coached them to do it right.


----------



## asgelle (Apr 21, 2003)

infinito_2012 said:


> I don't really believe Lance would have to apply pressure or that his teamates didn't wanna do it. I think a more likely scenario was Lance simply supervised others' dope activity and coached them to do it right.


Believe what you want, but the facts in the form of direct testimony say otherwise. You can read it for yourself at the USADA site.


----------



## Sablotny (Aug 15, 2002)

*Pretty morbid, but I can't stop reading about dope...*

Anybody with better information, please correct/clarify the following miscellaneous observations

1. EPO was released for clinical trials in 1987, and besides being used on patients with kidney ailments, AIDS, or cancer, _immediately _began to be experimented with in sports, including pro cycling. Imagine if you're a sports doctor, and you see the press release from Amgen describing a newly released drug that could provide "_increased oxygen carrying capability and reduced need for blood transfusions_." Blood doping had just been banned by the Olympics and UCI in 1985, two years prior.

2. The oft-cited, but tough to track down "thick blood" deaths of mostly Benelux cyclists (strokes due to EPO abuse and thickened blood) occurred from 1988-1990. I've read 16, 18 or up to 100 cyclists died of suspicious causes.

3. The UCI banned EPO in 1990. Typically, banning a drug is a response to use/abuse in the sport, thus we can assume that EPO was being used, and its use known by the UCI, in the 80's. EPO is not simply a drug of "Lance's era."

4. The fact that there were no EPO positives in the next decade is due to the fact that _there was no test for EPO until the 2000 Olympics_. The 'Lance-scapegoatists' have called Lance's reign the dirtiest era in cycling, however, imagine a decade plus when riders could use EPO without detection - and the tricks to beat the 50 Haematocrit limit were well known and practiced.

5. EPO boosts the oxygen-carrying capability of the blood, and thus one's VO2Max stats. Lab mice have been measured to gain a 5% VO2Max boost after EPO injections - haven't read about measured testing on athletes. I've read about Miguel Indurain's amazing VO2Max of ~88.0 since I've been into road biking. I just noticed, however, that these stats came from Dr. Francesco Conconi's Ferrara Clinic. Conconi was the mentor of Michelle Ferrari, and a/the pioneer of EPO use in sport. Should we re-examine some of these amazing stats of the era - are they signs of incredibly rare personal gifts, or doping? (88.0 less 5% is 83.6, FWIW)

6. Conconi was being paid by the IOC and supplied with EPO to use on athletes, purportedly to develop an EPO test, from 1994. These were supposed to be amateur athletes, but we know several long time pro clients of Conconi: Pantani, Indurain, Moser, and others. Apparently by his first year as a pro cyclist, Pantani was already being boosted to a Haematocrit of 60 or more via Conconi's EPO cocktails.

7. Ferrari's oft misquoted blurb about EPO not being dangerous - only the misuse of EPO being dangerous (which may in fact be true, I don't know) was made in 1994. So already, EPO was being used, and questioned.

Still trying to figure out what I make of all of this. But so far - 

1. Lance may be a huge bully and choad, but he did not invent EPO, or doping - he was just the best at it. He has not admitted to it, and never tested positive, which at this point merely puts him in the same situation as Greg Lemond.

2. Lots of people like to hate on Lance. Its easy. But there was rampant doping before Lance, and one can simply look at the busts since - there was rampant doping after Lance as well. Skewering this individual does nothing to stop doping in cycling, or address the system that is the problem. Shame on the USADA for turning the investigation into an ego trip (_"Look at me, I took down Bonds AND Armstrong!"_)

3. Some older riders like to float the idea that their era's doping didn't count, or was quaint. But as others have said here, each generation has doped with everything available at the time - back to the 1880's at least.

4. I'd be ready to accept that Greg Lemond didn't know what was really in his "iron injections," or that they were iron injections. But the facts are that Geritol was available at the time, and typically doctors, not masseuses, make diagnoses and prescribe treatment. Per above, by 1989, EPO was being used and abused in pro cycling, and Greg was competing against doped riders. I believe Lance should come clean - but that every other rider should as well - the finger pointing that only others' doping counts is only a form of_ Omerta_, and counterproductive. Greg recently said something like "I don't believe riders should be banned for Rogaine, only the big, oxygen-boosting drugs like EPO." 

Finally - I hope the sport of pro cycling survives. For all the uproar over doping, compare cycling's efforts on dope control with the NFL, MLB, NBA, NHL, soccer, etc. For a bonus shocker - look into the dope testing regulations in ATP Tennis.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

MR_GRUMPY said:


> Nothing funny going on here.....
> 
> http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/cycling/1998/tourdefrance/tourdefrancearchive/tour2.html
> 
> ...


Just confused. 

Interestingly the only reason anyone knows about Greg taking Iron was because after he took the shot he walked downstairs of the hotel and met with a reporter. He told the reporter how it made him uncomfortable, not because it was against the rules but because of what needles represented in the sport. Funny how some groupies try to spin this into Greg being a doper


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

In the 80's it was possible to ride, and win, clean. The drugs at the time enabled a rider to race 250 days a year but did little to increase output. 

Here is what Vaughters said about the different eras



> I think it's very hard to quantify the differences things like cortisone and testosterone make. Both were available and used in the 1980's, but yet i don't think were overly effective. Even if they did help, it wasn't to the degree that a clean rider could not win, which is what happens with o2 vector doping.
> 
> With both test and cortisone, it probably varies from athlete to athlete. Am athlete with low natural testosterone would probably benefit quite a bit from supplemental. Conversely, someone with high test probably would not. Using it to the point of actually gaining muscle mass is a mixed bag too. More muscle, more weight.
> 
> ...


Here is what Andy Hampsten said when Greg spoke out about doping 10 years ago

G


> Greg has put himself into personal and business difficulties by speaking out and getting involved with the issue of drugs in today's cycling. Voluntarily placing himself in this position shows me honesty and bravery far beyond what most of us could muster. Lemond could instead follow the cycling world's expectations for past champions and sit around "a fumer le pipe" ('chilling' in cycling slang) in silence. But, his legitimate concern for the health and lives of today’s athletes and future riders drives him to do what he can to return cycling to a healthy level. I want to see the same.* Since the early 90s both doping and the medical excesses placed upon riders’ health have gotten out of control.*
> 
> 
> Like Greg, I too saw what I believe were the effects of EPO when it entered pro cycling in the early 90s. In the first years it grew from a few individuals reaping obscene wins from exploiting its “benefits,” to entire teams relying on it, essentially forcing all but the most gifted racers to either use EPO to keep their place in cycling, quit, or become just another obscure rider in the group.
> ...



Some seem to ignore the people in the know like Laurent Fignon who said it was possible to win clean in the 80s even though he doped himself.

Like Willy Voet who said there were clean top riders like Charly Mottet despite naming countless people who did dope.

Like Paul Koechli, who ran a clean team in Helvetia/La Suiise without any needles and said LeMond won the Tour clean. Before people say that was because he was his manager, Koechli never said Hinault won the tour clean and he was his manager too. Bernard Tapie, owner of the team said the only guys he knew that definitely didn't dope were LeMond and Bauer, not Hinault, not Bernard.

Like Peter Winnen who says it was possible to win clean in the 80s but everything changed with EPO.

Charly Mottet, Giles Delion, Helvetia/LaSuisse, Steve Bauer, Christophe Bassons, Nicolas Aubier, Chris Boardman, Eric Caritoux, Vuelta 84 etc, etc.


----------



## velodog (Sep 26, 2007)

The crew


----------



## danl1 (Jul 23, 2005)

FR hokeypokey said:


> Could not have said it better myself.
> 
> There was nothing "quaint" about taking their drug of choice during any era. They took anything they could to obtain or keep an advantage.
> 
> ...


It seems I may have been misread. I agree with everything said here. But my point was that the performance gap between clean and doped riding in that earlier phase was smaller than the difference in the EPO era. Or alternately, that EPO/steroid/hgh/blood doping renders amphetamine doping obsolete. As clearly stated, not excusing either in any way.


----------



## rydbyk (Feb 17, 2010)

desertgeezer said:


> If, after stripping LA of his TDF wins, the UCI was unable to award those wins to another rider because, as the UCI intimates, every one was doping and therefore we cannot award the TDF to anyone for those years, then what was the point of busting LA in the first place?
> 
> And, if everyone during the LA years was doping, then didn't that put everyone on a level playing field anyway?
> 
> ...


Playing field is not level when you cut off your own team mates from the good stuff.

Playing field is not level when you have access to better doping programs...sometimes before your competitors.

Playing field is not level when you are paying Dr. Ferrari $100,000 and other pros are paying closer to $20,000 each year. 

Playing field is not level when you can leverage the UCI against other riders for doping. 

Playing field is not level if you are starting with a lower hematocrit and start EPO vs. a racer with a naturally high hematocrit.

Playing field is not level when you can "buy" failed drug tests.


----------



## cda 455 (Aug 9, 2010)

Solopc said:


> *"You have no idea what the Tour de France is. Do you know how we keep going? Look, this is cocaine, chloroform, too. And pills? You want to see pills? Here are three boxes - We run on dynamite!" Henri Pelissier, after abandoning the 1924 Tour.*
> 
> I have a few more quotes if you like from different eras. Might not be epo, but you get the point...


:lol: :lol: :lol:



That quote is so awesome!


----------



## cda 455 (Aug 9, 2010)

rydbyk said:


> Playing field is not level when you cut off your own team mates from the good stuff.
> 
> Playing field is not level when you have access to better doping programs...sometimes before your competitors.
> 
> ...



To name a few.




Nice list, BTW  !


----------

