# the doping "era"??? hasnt doping been intertwined since the beginning?



## coleman22 (Jul 30, 2013)

for someone like myself who is new to watching pro cycling, i am really curious as to the history of the TDF and where the sport is in modern times.

looks like the media has done a good job of portraying pro cycling as recovering from a "dirty era", specifically the lance years. what is don't get is how the entire history of the TDF is getting ignored in the process. looks to me like you can't find a "clean era" in its' history. 

amphetamines, cocaine, corticoids, and even ETHER for christ's sakes has been used by riders for getting through the tour. but, here we stand today and Eddie Merckx is revered despite his admitted drug use and failed drug tests while Lance is the face of doping in cycling. 

to me it looks like pro cycling is glad to have this situation where one guy can take the fall for the entire sport, all the while the public can forget about everybody else who "cheated". Which by the way isn't cheating if all the other top riders are doing it. 

i just can't help but see the problem in labeling the 90's though 2007 as the "doping era". i don't make a distinction between EPO and amphetamine usage despite the obvious difference in effects. A drug is a drug is a drug, and i feel certain that if EPO was available in Merckx or Anquetil's time they would have been doing it.

i think that this "new clean era" of cycling is highly suspicious. the entire history of doping in the tour is being marginalized and portrayed as brief history of "cheaters" with really just one guy taking the fall...

all thoughts are welcomed:thumbsup:


----------



## Data_God (Oct 9, 2012)

As a Noob you have to understand there was Doping ... and then there is Doping. The two are different. Allow me to explain the subtleties. First of all prior to the "dirty" era even if doping were done it could be over come. There is enough data to convince me of that fact. The problem came with Oxygen Vector Doping in the late 1990's. This was an absolute game changer. A clean athlete could not hope to compete against one that was using O2 Doping. So the dark days of the Tour was rife with it and you could argue that virtually all doped. Entire Teams. And for the record don't anyone bring out that old tired statement about "if everyone doped then the playing field was level" because it wasn't. Many very talented riders that were not inclined to O2 Vector dope were forced to quit. While others, sadly did not.

So while it's easy to discuss "doping" I think it's more relevant to discuss what type. HGH is of little benefit during the season and primarily used off season if at all. Corticosteroids can be gotten around somewhat by a TUE. Testosterone promotes healing and recuperation but it's also pretty simple to detect. Blood Doping though is a whole new ball game. And here is where there can be some real gains made. And that's what I believe is generally referred to as "Doping" in the modern sense.

That's my $.02. 

Bill


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

There is certainly a doping era. While it may be vague when it started it is pretty clear when it became mandatory, the 1994 Gewiss team crushing everything made it clear that there were new rules and if you did not like them you need to leave the sport. Riders like Edwig Van Hooydonck, who won Flanders twice before he was 25, chose to leave the sport

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 about doping 10 years ago



> * 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.
> 
> ...


People in the know like Laurent Fignon said it was possible to win clean in the 80s even though he doped himself.

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

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. 

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


----------



## BacDoc (Aug 1, 2011)

Yeah, right! Fignon said its possible to win the tour clean? Then why did he dope?

I'm with the OP on this - a drug is a drug. Sure EPO is better than amphetamine but if you chose to compete then follow the rules.


----------



## coleman22 (Jul 30, 2013)

some good points being made but i can't help feel that the mentality is the same as it has always been. pro cycling has never been about an even playing field. riders have always sought ANY edge they can get. with the coming of EPO it was obvious for them of course and it sounds like it had by far the most drastic impact on the sport, but my point is the mentality of the riders was the same, it's just that the game changed.

sure there are lots of riders in the past that didn't dope and still won on pure talent and i agree with the above comments about the problem with blood doping making it impossible to compete unless a rider is doing it . it certainly does need to be eliminated from the sport but it is really difficult to tell if it has been just by watching the races. you still see teams like sky performing superhuman feats, but now it looks like more riders are cracking earlier based on my observations of the tour this year. 

i read somewhere that blood transfusions are undetectable and riders can micro-dose EPO and get away with it? whats to stop them then if the bio passport can't detect this?


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

BacDoc said:


> Yeah, right! Fignon said its possible to win the tour clean? Then why did he dope?
> 
> I'm with the OP on this - a drug is a drug. Sure EPO is better than amphetamine but if you chose to compete then follow the rules.


I think the issue is how mandatory was doping and what was the effect on the results.

Oxygen vector doping completely distorted the sport


----------



## coleman22 (Jul 30, 2013)

Doctor Falsetti said:


> I think the issue is how mandatory was doping and what was the effect on the results.
> 
> Oxygen vector doping completely distorted the sport


very true, but how can we be expected to believe in this new "clean era" when there has never been a clean era to begin with. this is my main issue.....the mentality to gain an advantage through chemistry has always been a part of the sport. of course oxygen vector doping takes it to the extreme but it is inseparable in its essence from the decades of doping that preceded it. with science going the way it is, and all the work that is being done to advance the treatment if conditions at the level of human gene expression, then we are always going to be dealing with some new drug. 

i think my point in raising this question is to bring to light the fact that the mass public awareness of doping and cycling these days just boils down the EPO years and Lance armstrong is naturally the poster child of that era, but the problem seems to reach all the way back through the sports' entire history. 

So, how can we be expected to believe that it has all just magically stopped? for the first time in history, doping is not a problem in the tour? Am i missing something?


----------



## Fireform (Dec 15, 2005)

People talk about the epo era. Only an ignoramus would talk about the doping era.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

coleman22 said:


> very true, but how can we be expected to believe in this new "clean era" when there has never been a clean era to begin with. this is my main issue.....the mentality to gain an advantage through chemistry has always been a part of the sport. of course oxygen vector doping takes it to the extreme but it is inseparable in its essence from the decades of doping that preceded it. with science going the way it is, and all the work that is being done to advance the treatment if conditions at the level of human gene expression, then we are always going to be dealing with some new drug.
> 
> i think my point in raising this question is to bring to light the fact that the mass public awareness of doping and cycling these days just boils down the EPO years and Lance armstrong is naturally the poster child of that era, but the problem seems to reach all the way back through the sports' entire history.
> 
> So, how can we be expected to believe that it has all just magically stopped? for the first time in history, doping is not a problem in the tour? Am i missing something?


I don't think anyone is claiming that doping has suddenly stopped completely but most can see there is a huge difference between what is happening today and what was happening 93-06. In 1997 over 60 riders broke 45 minutes on Alp d'Huez, this year 12 did. The difference is even more stark prior to 1990. 

There is clearly an era where doping effected the results more then others.


----------



## coleman22 (Jul 30, 2013)

Doctor Falsetti said:


> In 1997 over 60 riders broke 45 minutes on Alp d'Huez, this year 12 did. The difference is even more stark prior to 1990.
> 
> There is clearly an era where doping effected the results more then others.


that is telling for certain. thanks!


----------



## jorgy (Oct 21, 2005)

Fireform said:


> People talk about the epo era. Only an ignoramus would talk about the doping era.


Surely you jest. The term "doping era", referring to basically the Lance Armstrong years is in wide use. Since 2007 we have been in the "post-doping" era.


----------



## coleman22 (Jul 30, 2013)

jorgy said:


> Surely you jest. The term "doping era", referring to basically the Lance Armstrong years is in wide use. Since 2007 we have been in the "post-doping" era.


yeah! like what he said.....:thumbsup:


----------



## atpjunkie (Mar 23, 2002)

When Simpson died on Ventoux and Anquetil was defiant in his comments, that wasn't the doping era

dope and pro cycling go together like Belgium and Beer

or Waffles and Cocaine


----------



## PaxRomana (Jan 16, 2012)

Doctor Falsetti said:


> I don't think anyone is claiming that doping has suddenly stopped completely but most can see there is a huge difference between what is happening today and what was happening 93-06. In 1997 over 60 riders broke 45 minutes on Alp d'Huez, this year 12 did. The difference is even more stark prior to 1990.
> 
> There is clearly an era where doping effected the results more then others.


What exactly does that mean if the dopers still win? So, you have 12 dopers instead of 60? There are only 3 places on the podium. The effective result is the same. There hasn't been a huge change. 
Look at the Giro. Two guys get busted: DiLuca and Santambrogio. Biopassport? Nope. Just busted for EPO.

As long as the dopers still win, they will generate more motivation for others to dope.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

PaxRomana said:


> What exactly does that mean if the dopers still win? So, you have 12 dopers instead of 60? There are only 3 places on the podium. The effective result is the same. There hasn't been a huge change.
> Look at the Giro. Two guys get busted: DiLuca and Santambrogio. Biopassport? Nope. Just busted for EPO.
> 
> As long as the dopers still win, they will generate more motivation for others to dope.


I do no think 45 minutes is the line for doping or not, most put it around 39 minutes. 

It is clear to most in the sport that there is no longer a requirement to dope. Most see this as a good thing, a significant improvement on 1997.


----------



## 88 rex (Mar 18, 2008)

Doctor Falsetti said:


> I don't think anyone is claiming that doping has suddenly stopped completely but most can see there is a huge difference between what is happening today and what was happening 93-06. In 1997 over 60 riders broke 45 minutes on Alp d'Huez, this year 12 did. The difference is even more stark prior to 1990.
> 
> There is clearly an era where doping effected the results more then others.


Are we talking about the same Alp that they went up TWICE this year? There really is minimal comparison. Plus, the 1997 edition was shootout up that climb with a claimed "million spectators" on hand. The GC favorites this year did very little on this stage.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

88 rex said:


> Are we talking about the same Alp that they went up TWICE this year? There really is minimal comparison. Plus, the 1997 edition was shootout up that climb with a claimed "million spectators" on hand. The GC favorites this year did very little on this stage.


Every year they claim a "million spectators", how does the number of spectators effect climbing times? 1997 was a 5 hour + stage.

Hard to ignore that the top 50 times up Alp d'Huez come during the oxygen vector doping era
Ammattilaispyöräilijöiden nousutietoja (aika, km/h, VAM, W, W/kg etc.) - Sivu 10


----------



## peabody (Oct 17, 2005)

Doctor Falsetti said:


> Every year they claim a "million spectators", how does the number of spectators effect climbing times? 1997 was a 5 hour + stage.
> 
> Hard to ignore that the top 50 times up Alp d'Huez come during the oxygen vector doping era
> Ammattilaispyöräilijöiden nousutietoja (aika, km/h, VAM, W, W/kg etc.) - Sivu 10


so how is froome able to top LA's times if he is clean?


----------



## The Tedinator (Mar 12, 2004)

peabody said:


> so how is froome able to top LA's times if he is clean?


Sigh. We have been over and over on this. Warmdowns, and sleeping on his own pillow. It is called marginal gains.


----------



## asgelle (Apr 21, 2003)

peabody said:


> so how is froome able to top LA's times if he is clean?


Bob Beamon


----------



## brianmcg (Oct 12, 2002)

peabody said:


> so how is froome able to top LA's times if he is clean?


Because he lost a lot of weight and has a higher cadence now....wait a minute, I'm having the weirdest sense of dejavu.


----------



## coleman22 (Jul 30, 2013)

brianmcg said:


> Because he lost a lot of weight and has a higher cadence now....wait a minute, I'm having the weirdest sense of dejavu.



but they added the warm down, soooo..........


----------



## brianmcg (Oct 12, 2002)

coleman22 said:


> but they added the warm down, soooo..........


Oh yeah, I forgot. That's worth at least 50 extra watts per day.


----------



## Dave Cutter (Sep 26, 2012)

atpjunkie said:


> When Simpson died on Ventoux and Anquetil was defiant in his comments, that wasn't the doping era
> 
> dope and pro cycling go together like Belgium and Beer
> 
> or Waffles and Cocaine


+1 The "era" started with Penny Farthing racing.... I am not sure when it will end.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

We should ask an expert. Even Lance thinks it was a unfortunate period in the sports history 



> it was an unfortunate period in our sport — and when I say period, I mean 10, 15, 20 years. Unfortunately for me, I came right smack dab in the middle of that period and I participated


----------



## aclinjury (Sep 12, 2011)

Doctor Falsetti said:


> Every year they claim a "million spectators", how does the number of spectators effect climbing times? 1997 was a 5 hour + stage.
> 
> Hard to ignore that the top 50 times up Alp d'Huez come during the oxygen vector doping era
> Ammattilaispyöräilijöiden nousutietoja (aika, km/h, VAM, W, W/kg etc.) - Sivu 10


you seem to be able to come up with a link every time somebody asks you something! I have never seen any interwebz poster anywhere who is so ready with the evidence. Boy I'd like to see your favorite list in your browser! I'll bet you have them all categorized and organized.


----------

