no winner for 1998 tour? how far back is far enough? - VeloNation - Cycling Forums, Bicycle Forums, Community Forums

Login

Home

News

Unanswered Active Topics

Forums Search

Forums > Road > The Dark Side

no winner for 1998 tour? how far back is far enough?

Last Post 07/31/2013 06:52 PM by Justin jmdirt. 54 Replies.

Sort:

Prev Next

You are not authorized to post a reply.

Page 3 of 4

Author

Messages

Yo Mike

Posts:338

07/25/2013 11:14 AM
/meaning they are genetically superior/ sorry, that's an incredibly broad statement. 'Superior' is a value statement. In doped cycling, a higher response to EPO has 'value' but only in a context of doped cycling. What I want to see in racing is just what you wrote /Some people respond to training loads better than others, some recover faster/ Do you seriously believe that -7 - for example - sought to 'level the playing field' thru doping? IMO, the 'level playing field' is one without dope. Then genetics, response to training, recovery time, smarts, aggression, determination, etc along with luck - makes the difference.

Keith Richards

Posts:781

07/25/2013 11:38 AM
I look at it like this. Dudes from whatever era used the strongest/best stuff that was available to them. Of course as science and the drugs improved the dope got better. But that doesn't change the level of guilt ONE BIT in my eyes. If guys had access to EPO back in the 60's you better believe that they would have used it.

----- It is his word versus ours. We like our word. We like where we stand and we like our credibility."--Lance Armstrong.

Orange Crush

Posts:4499

07/25/2013 11:47 AM
+2 Keith. Heck, taking the train or putting a gun to one's head was probably more effective than taking EPO. Yes we look at this with a certain romanticism now, just like people still flock to the Simpson memorial. I bet that by the time we're walking around with canes, they will look at EPO era as "they we're messing around with that silly stuff" No one is trying to level the playing field. Everyone is trying to tilt it their way, be it through doping, bribery or other kinds of cheating. That's the nature of the game. I am only interested in those guys that jerk the playing field so hard that they are fundamentally changing the game. -7 fell in that category and from that perspective, I am not interested in most of the guys caught now being naughtly in 1998 but I'm very much interested if they were blowing smoke this year.

longslowdistance

Posts:2886

07/25/2013 12:05 PM
OK, purists, then you have to take it to the inevitable conclusions. 1. No winners for decades and decades. And virtually every finisher during the last 100 years gets shunned too. 2. And why accept caffeine? Seems like a technicality to me. You can't claim caffeine use is OK because the rules say its OK. By that reasoning, EPO and auto transfusions were OK until banned and Indurain is was a fair winner.

Cosmic Kid

Posts:4209

07/25/2013 12:17 PM
Not certain your logic holds, lsd.... 1) As noted many times, I am fine with certifying all the results and marking them with an asterisk and calling it the "Blood Doping era." I don't need to see past results revised. 2) You absolutely can claim caffeine is OK simply because the rules allow it. The rules are the defining point. EPO and sleeping in a altitude tent achieve the same thing....they raise your hematocrit. One is legal, the other is not. I would not say someone who sleeps in a tent is cheating (even if they are arguably in violation of the sprit of the rule). And the fact that autotransfusions were not banned in '84 is what allowed the US team to keep their medal haul. Were they in violation of the sprit of the rules? Arguably yes. Were they technically in violation of the rules? No. Same with Delgado in '88. He was not technically in violation of the rules, even though the likelihood was that he was, in fact, doping. There is no "neat, clean" answer, so in lieu of that, you accept the rules for what they are and let that be your defining point.

Just say "NO!" to WCP!!!!

Yo Mike

Posts:338

07/25/2013 12:32 PM
OK, per the teachings of Ron Swanson: 23. “Honor: if you need it defined, you don’t have it.” There were winners in all those competitions, just not honorable ones.

Keith Richards

Posts:781

07/25/2013 12:41 PM
I had a conversation with a cycling buddy of mine during the Tour. He said, "I just want to see a clean Tour." I replied, "you don't know what one looks like. Neither do I. What you are asking for has never occurred."

----- It is his word versus ours. We like our word. We like where we stand and we like our credibility."--Lance Armstrong.

vtguy

Posts:298

07/25/2013 12:53 PM
Sadly, Keith, you're right.

Keith Richards

Posts:781

07/25/2013 01:21 PM
I mean, what sport have people been following? Obviously not the same one that I watch. It is as if people have zero historical knowledge of the sport. Vive le tour!, From 1962. 8 minutes in, "Doping or not doping, that is the question" 10:30 in, the madness takes place. Look at the guy from GS Ignis.... Again, I ask the forum, WHAT sport have you been watching? Merckx got popped in the Giro in 1969, in Lombardy in 1973 and again in 1977. His response in 1977, "I was wrong to trust a doctor." Eddy... People need to enjoy the show at the pro level. I said it before you want to see clean racing...my boy's son Sam just won the National Criterium Championship for boys 15-16.

----- It is his word versus ours. We like our word. We like where we stand and we like our credibility."--Lance Armstrong.

C2K_Rider

Posts:173

07/25/2013 02:27 PM
Personally I think they should only sanction athletes for the the tests available when they competed. It's always going to be a drug vs test arms race. The best we can hope for is to develop tests as fast as possible to pick up new drugs. Remember the Balco case? that was exposed for a drug that was developed specifically to get past the contemporary tests - and no one realized it existed until a sample was given to the authorities by a disgruntled participant. It will never stop. There is simply too much to gain, and all the incentive to give it a "shot."

jmdirt

Posts:775

07/25/2013 03:17 PM
"Do you seriously believe that -7 - for example - sought to 'level the playing field' thru doping? " Yes, he was at his genetic ceiling and realized the only way to get better, to win, was to dope (he knew that most of the platoon was doped so he joined in). Now did he try to top the field with the best program? Probably. But that's the game. You don't "one up" others by doing exactly what they are doing. "Superior is a value statement." In 100% clean racing some people are superior for many reason. In a recent thread we discussed genetically superior people "freaks" if you will. On a side note, is thee any scientific proof that LA's body responded to dope than other people or was that just something that a report threw out there and it stuck?

Keith Richards

Posts:781

07/25/2013 03:20 PM
He was already doping before his cancer diagnosis. Not following you, jmdirt.

----- It is his word versus ours. We like our word. We like where we stand and we like our credibility."--Lance Armstrong.

Cosmic Kid

Posts:4209

07/25/2013 03:33 PM
He was already doping before his cancer diagnosis. That's what I still don't get. he was doping beforeheand, but was never a GC threat in July. Post-Cancer - whole new ball game. I still want to know what changed and how the transformation occurred. Was the doping program better after '98, did they cahnge the regimen, was the "less upper body weight, same power myth actually / partially true, was it a more focused GT training program, etc. I think this is one of the great unanswered questions.

Just say "NO!" to WCP!!!!

Keith Richards

Posts:781

07/25/2013 04:14 PM
I think it was exactly what he said, "same watts, less mass". Add in the extra focus of almost dying...pretty easy to see what happened to me.

----- It is his word versus ours. We like our word. We like where we stand and we like our credibility."--Lance Armstrong.

jmdirt

Posts:775

07/25/2013 08:35 PM
KR, what aren't you following? I'll try to clear it up (if I know what I'm trying to say;]) FYI: I think he doped to win Dupont and the Thrift Drug Mil long before the 7.