PDA

View Full Version : Why are they not taking Merckx's titles away?


bluesea
11-14-2012, 03:53 PM
That would speak louder than stripping Armstrong's titles. Not sure about Anquetil, but wasn't Eddy busted fair and square? Its not the effectiveness of the drug but the intent, and the letter of the law. It was only logical, rational, and human that PED use from Merckx's time evolved to what it is today.

jmoore
11-14-2012, 03:58 PM
Because only cyclists know who Eddie Merckx is. The entire world knows who Lance Armstrong is.

fiamme red
11-14-2012, 04:01 PM
Logically, we should take all titles away. The record books should be blank. :banana:

FlashUNC
11-14-2012, 04:05 PM
Yup, hodge podge amphetamine use is totally the same as a complex and pervasive blood doping scheme.

bluesea
11-14-2012, 04:11 PM
Because only cyclists know who Eddie Merckx is. The entire world knows who Lance Armstrong is.


Wouldn't it be honorable for Eddy to turn his titles over voluntarily?

bluesea
11-14-2012, 04:25 PM
And while we're at it, shouldn't all of Erik Zabel's blood be retested and his palmares be put up for grabs at the same time? He admitted using EPO, and there's no extenuating proof that he only just tried it.

Vientomas
11-14-2012, 04:27 PM
B. Riis?

Mark McM
11-14-2012, 04:29 PM
Armstrong's titles weren't taken away until there was sufficient direct evidence available to establish doping violations. The titles were taken away for the specific time periods that there was evidence for violations, and not other time periods (he gets to keep his 1993 World Championship, and his 1995 Tour de France stage victory, for example).

Is there sufficient direct evidence to establish doping violations for Merckx's titles?

54ny77
11-14-2012, 04:30 PM
http://www.sirlin.net/storage/articles/slippery.png?__SQUARESPACE_CACHEVERSION=1224996790 467

bluesea
11-14-2012, 04:30 PM
Every team and every champion who rode for Lefevere.

bluesea
11-14-2012, 04:32 PM
Armstrong's titles weren't taken away until there was sufficient direct evidence available to establish doping violations. The titles were taken away for the specific time periods that there was evidence for violations, and not other time periods (he gets to keep his 1993 World Championship, and his 1995 Tour de France stage victory, for example).

Is there sufficient direct evidence to establish doping violations for Merckx's titles?


In all fairness shouldn't investigations be initiated?

bluesea
11-14-2012, 04:34 PM
http://www.sirlin.net/storage/articles/slippery.png?__SQUARESPACE_CACHEVERSION=1224996790 467


That was absolutely self-evident shortly after Indurain retired.

William
11-14-2012, 04:36 PM
That was absolutely self-evident shortly after Indurain retired.

http://media.tumblr.com/tumblr_mc4jfxNWbS1rwmrcd.gif



;)
William

Fivethumbs
11-14-2012, 04:39 PM
Whatever happened to "snitches get stitches." I'm not making a statement one way or another, just wondering...

rwsaunders
11-14-2012, 04:40 PM
That would speak louder than stripping Armstrong's titles. Not sure about Anquetil, but wasn't Eddy busted fair and square? Its not the effectiveness of the drug but the intent, and the letter of the law. It was only logical, rational, and human that PED use from Merckx's time evolved to what it is today.

Because Eddy speaks French and he's the Chuck Norris of cycling.:cool:

bluesea
11-14-2012, 04:48 PM
Because Eddy speaks French and he's the Chuck Norris of cycling.:cool:

Zabel isn't a Chuck Norris is he? His testimony is enough to launch a full on investigation of himself and the team is it not? Lots of people to put on oath, and lots of big potential there.

oldpotatoe
11-14-2012, 04:52 PM
Zabel isn't a Chuck Norris is he? His testimony is enough to launch a full on investigation of himself and the team is it not? Lots of people to put on oath, and lots of big potential there.

"Beethoven:Violin Concerto in D major, Op 61 "

Ya know, I read beethoven was addicted to Cocaine...I think his family ought to return all the $ collected from sales of his music and he be banned from music...

really............

93legendti
11-14-2012, 04:56 PM
"Anquetil took a forthright and controversial stand on the use of performance-enhancing drugs. He never hid that he took drugs and in a debate with a government minister on French television said only a fool would imagine it was possible to ride Bordeaux–Paris on just water.
He and other cyclists had to ride through "the cold, through heatwaves, in the rain and in the mountains", and they had the right to treat themselves as they wished, he said in a television interview, before adding:
“ "Leave me in peace; everybody takes dope."[29] ”
There was implied acceptance of doping right to the top of the state: the president, Charles de Gaulle, said of Anquetil:
“ "Doping? What doping? Did he or did he not make them play the Marseillaise [the national anthem] abroad?"[30] ”
He won LiŤge–Bastogne–LiŤge in 1966. An official named Collard told him once he had got changed that there would be a drugs test. "Too late", Anquetil said. "If you can collect it from the soapy water there, go ahead. I'm a human being, not a fountain." Collard said he would return half an hour later; Anquetil said he would already have left for a dinner appointment 140 km away. Two days later the Belgian cycling federation disqualified Anquetil and fined him. Anquetil responded by calling urine tests "a threat to individual liberty" and engaged a lawyer. The case was never heard, the Belgians backed down and Anquetil became the winner.
Pierre Chany said:
"Jacques had the strength - for which he was always criticised - to say out loud what others would only whisper. So, when I asked him 'What have you taken?' he didn't drop his eyes before replying. He had the strength of conviction."[31]
Anquetil argued that professional riders were workers and had the same right to treat their pains as, say, a geography teacher."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/columnists/andrewbaker/2301821/Sportsbooks-Sex-drugs-and-Jacques-Anquetil.html
"Anquetil seduced and married the wife of his dedicated personal doctor. He subsequently had a child with her step-daughter and lived with both women for a dozen years. When this set-up eventually fell to bits, the cyclist livened things up further by having a child with his stepson's ex-wife."

bluesea
11-14-2012, 04:58 PM
"Beethoven:Violin Concerto in D major, Op 61 "

Ya know, I read beethoven was addicted to Cocaine...I think his family ought to return all the $ collected from sales of his music and he be banned from music...

really............



Lol, now you've made me a Beethoven hater.

bluesea
11-14-2012, 05:02 PM
snip


BTW, great post on Anquetil.

christian
11-14-2012, 05:12 PM
This is a canard. Merckx was punished for his doping transgressions, under the rules in place at the time.

bluesea
11-14-2012, 05:19 PM
This is a canard. Merckx was punished for his doping transgressions, under the rules in place at the time.

I don't agree that other avenues can't be followed.

Again, what about Zabel and Telecom? Same time frame as LA.

oldpotatoe
11-14-2012, 05:29 PM
Lol, now you've made me a Beethoven hater.

'Hate' is a big word. I don't hate armstrong, he's a bike racer, afterall, like WHOGAS.

Hammer the gents who are 'part' of the problem, whether it be UCI or MLB or NFL or UST/IM or NHL..the 'big boys' who don't want to get tough on the sport they 'administer', cuz it means less $, control, power, revenue..etc.

don't hate them either..just my lying, thieving ex-biz partner....I do hate him.

bluesea
11-14-2012, 05:42 PM
I agree that its an institutional problem more that anything else. For better or for worse, champions become part of the institution do they not? I don't care for Armstrong and never did, but if he loses titles many others should too.

esldude
11-14-2012, 05:54 PM
"Beethoven:Violin Concerto in D major, Op 61 "

Ya know, I read beethoven was addicted to Cocaine...I think his family ought to return all the $ collected from sales of his music and he be banned from music...

really............

I think you are making one of two mistakes. Getting Ludwig mixed up with Camper Van Beethoven or maybe thinking of this:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21688895

Gov't funded study showing rats learn to love Miles Davis and Beethoven when coked up by the lab. Rats on coke dig Beethoven.....not Beethoven on coke.

Couldn't find a study on cycling rats on coke, speed or EPO. Unless you consider most of the TDF winners in the history of the TDF as rats. History indicates probably all of them or very close to all of them were on one or more of the list of coke, speed or EPO.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_doping_cases_in_cycling

christian
11-14-2012, 06:01 PM
I don't agree that other avenues can't be followed.Ok, provide a rationale under which the UCI can sanction Merckx which would stand cursory scrutiny by CAS. The rule books are pretty clear on the procedures for sanctions. Trying to sanction an athlete for previously-sanctioned offenses would be nigh impossible.

jimcav
11-14-2012, 06:03 PM
That would speak louder than stripping Armstrong's titles. Not sure about Anquetil, but wasn't Eddy busted fair and square? Its not the effectiveness of the drug but the intent, and the letter of the law. It was only logical, rational, and human that PED use from Merckx's time evolved to what it is today.

what rule from back then could still be applied, and by who?

Now that everyone knows the UCI was/is a joke and the EPO era organized doping efforts is laid bare, it falls to each country's cycling governing bodies to investigate and sanction as their rules dictate.
There is some investigation going in Italy, but I don't think there is any rule to apply to dopers of a different era.

merlincustom1
11-14-2012, 07:59 PM
I don't agree that other avenues can't be followed.

Again, what about Zabel and Telecom? Same time frame as LA.

Why don't you research the USADA equivalents in Belgium and Germany and get back to us?

Louis
11-14-2012, 08:05 PM
To answer the OP:

Americans have always been way more Puritanical than Europeans.

Rueda Tropical
11-14-2012, 09:46 PM
Lance got nailed because he was part of a case that involved management, doctors and pros still active, along with team mates who dropped a pile of evidence in the lap of the anti-doping authorities about doping that involved active pros, management as well as Armstrong.

Had the same thing happened to Merckx (multiple team mates turning in evidence of team wide organized doping) and if Merckx had been as dependent on a team wide doping scheme to win he would have gotten busted just like Armstrong back in the day. Pre-EPO it was a different world. Apples and Oranges.

These are just tantrums thrown because Armstrong has gotten busted. Had it been Vino or Contador, the same bunch would be demanding they be run out of the sport. Because it's Armstrong, now it's the anti-doping authorities that suck and if their idol can't keep his titles then no one should have any.

It's over. Lance is history, as is most of his doping network. Now if they can get rid of McQuaid and Verbuggen and reform the procedures maybe cycling can move forward on a more solid footing.

Cycling has had a corrupt history involving doping and fixing races so when EPO came along no surprise it swept the sport like a wildfire. Had Merckx or Hinault or Coppi ridden in the 90's instead of when they did would they have been dopers like Armstrong and Pantani? Most probably - yes. Fortunate for them that they didn't. Hopefully future riders won't need to blood dope either.

AgilisMerlin
11-14-2012, 10:10 PM
i do not recommend messing with Eddy

http://cdn4.media.cyclingnews.futurecdn.net/photos/2006/news/nov06/nov18news/dinner_600.jpg

Fivethumbs
11-14-2012, 11:06 PM
After reading all this I have come to the conclusion that the rule is not really "don't take dope" The rule seems more like, "don't take dope and be a d!ck while you're doing it!

dumbod
11-15-2012, 07:29 AM
Please, I'm begging you. Can we give the "Lance got shafted" threads a rest? (I apologize to the original poster if that was not his/her intention but it certainly came off that way to me.)

I understand that it's difficult when your hero is shown up but get a grip. Lance supporters are sounding more and more like five-years olds. "He did it too. It's not fair."

What anybody else did or didn't do is irrelevant. He did it. He got caught. He's getting punished (sort of, I'm sure the $100 million helps ease the pain.)

Tony T
11-15-2012, 07:37 AM
"He did it too. It's not fair."

Interesting. That's exactly what Landis said to Tygart ;)

oldpotatoe
11-15-2012, 07:46 AM
Interesting. That's exactly what Landis said to Tygart ;)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R8tBoNdV0nY

Tony T
11-15-2012, 07:47 AM
Lance got nailed because he was part of a case that involved management, doctors and pros still active, along with team mates who dropped a pile of evidence in the lap of the anti-doping authorities about doping that involved active pros, management as well as Armstrong.

Had it been Vino or Contador, the same bunch would be demanding they be run out of the sport.

Why was there no investigation beyond Contador and Vinokourov? Were they really on their own when it came to doping? Did they really not have support from management and doctors?

Yes, I know, the USADA has no jurisdiction in regard to Vinokourov, but Contador rode on LA's team and had access to the same mgmt and doctors.

Lets not think for a minute that the USADA wanted to clean-up cycling. Tygart had/has no interest in pro cycling, he only wanted Armstrong.

Tony T
11-15-2012, 07:49 AM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R8tBoNdV0nY

Awww..... even Floyd was cute as a baby!

e-RICHIE
11-15-2012, 07:52 AM
Lets not think for a minute that the USADA wanted to clean-up cycling. Tygart had/has no interest in pro cycling, he only wanted Armstrong.

Why do you say that atmo?
From my seat, the agenda wasn't to clean up cycling; it was to investigate the Postal/Weisel/Lance thing that spanned over a generation...

cmg
11-15-2012, 07:59 AM
give it a rest.....let the issue die. It's not fair....who said it was suppose to be? eddy's, miguel's, bernard's, laurent's, stephan's, pedro's, barjne's, jan's, marco's titles will not be stripped......well maybe marco's. Give it a rest. it's not fair.....so what.

Tony T
11-15-2012, 08:00 AM
Why do you say that atmo?
From my seat, the agenda wasn't to clean up cycling; it was to investigate the Postal/Weisel/Lance thing that spanned over a generation...

Yes, what I said. Tygart's agenda wasn't to clean up cycling (it was not "...to protect clean athletes by preserving the integrity of competition not only for today’s athletes but also the athletes of tomorrow.")

jimcav
11-15-2012, 08:48 AM
Yes, what I said. Tygart's agenda wasn't to clean up cycling (it was not "...to protect clean athletes by preserving the integrity of competition not only for todayís athletes but also the athletes of tomorrow.")

the rest being your opinion, often voiced, and never based upon the facts. Lance could have been on the side of USADA and helped expose and reform the doping culture in professional cycling. Instead he choose the path of not participating, and became the most visible and newsworthy target of the investigation, with the result that he has been shown to be a dick, liar, and doper. He raised awareness and interest in cycling, cancer, and assistance for victims of cancer, but that really has no bearing on the rules governing his professional sport(s).

Tony T
11-15-2012, 08:52 AM
It's my reasoned decision.
When I see the USADA doing something about doping (in cycling) occurring in this decade, I'll revise my opinion.

shovelhd
11-15-2012, 10:11 AM
I see. It was a witch hunt.

PQJ
11-15-2012, 11:30 AM
So, Tony, you (still) think Lance was clean?

norcalbiker
11-15-2012, 11:37 AM
Logically, we should take all titles away. The record books should be blank. :banana:

:banana: :banana: :banana: :banana: :banana:

Uncle Jam's Army
11-15-2012, 11:41 AM
Not this sh#@ again......

CaliFly
11-15-2012, 11:58 AM
Professional cycling will never be clean as long as "professional" is in the title. You want purity? Go out for an easy 60-miler with your buds...er...buddies.

Rueda Tropical
11-15-2012, 02:26 PM
Why was there no investigation beyond Contador and Vinokourov? Were they really on their own when it came to doping? Did they really not have support from management and doctors?

Yes, I know, the USADA has no jurisdiction in regard to Vinokourov, but Contador rode on LA's team and had access to the same mgmt and doctors.

Lets not think for a minute that the USADA wanted to clean-up cycling. Tygart had/has no interest in pro cycling, he only wanted Armstrong.

You need to talk to the UCI about that. The same outfit that protected Armstrong and ignored and or threatened pros ready to talk.

I would not be surprised if Contador gets taken down as a result of Tygart's investigation. The fall out isn't over -that is unless the UCI can put a stop to it. Tygart did his job. Something almost unheard of in Pro cycling. Surprised the UCI didn't sue him.

If Tygart was running the Spanish agency he probably would have gotten the boot so as to protect Spanish dopers. There were plenty in the US who wanted Tygart taken down to protect the American Doper in chief. If he ran the Kazahk agency he probably would be at the bottom of a lake by now.

jpw
11-15-2012, 02:59 PM
That would speak louder than stripping Armstrong's titles. Not sure about Anquetil, but wasn't Eddy busted fair and square? Its not the effectiveness of the drug but the intent, and the letter of the law. It was only logical, rational, and human that PED use from Merckx's time evolved to what it is today.

...because he's an untouchable.

Rueda Tropical
11-15-2012, 03:28 PM
That would speak louder than stripping Armstrong's titles. Not sure about Anquetil, but wasn't Eddy busted fair and square? Its not the effectiveness of the drug but the intent, and the letter of the law. It was only logical, rational, and human that PED use from Merckx's time evolved to what it is today.

Baloney.

Doping pre-Conconi's work on Blood Doping and EPO was a joke. It was so ineffective it probably had a negative effect on performance as often as positive. Getting juiced on Speed couldn't turn a donkey into a race horse and doping back in Merckx's time had zero effect on the overall standings. It just was not effective enough. So like the arrangements among riders to fix races it was a sideshow that affected some outcomes but did not dominate the sport or determine the season standings.

Conconi and Ferrari changed all that. The stakes and impact on the sport by Armstrong's time were totally different. Merckx was a champion athlete, Armstrong was a champion doper... could Armstrong have been a champion athlete? Sadly we (and he) will never know.

93legendti
11-15-2012, 05:08 PM
Yeah, Armstrong couldn't even ride a bike without peds...:rolleyes:

"At 16, Armstrong began competing as a triathlete and became a national sprint-course triathlon champion in 1989 and 1990."

People hate Armstrong so, he is different. Anquetil was a real jerk, but people here don't have an axe to grind against him. At least be honest about the axe you are grinding.

Rueda Tropical
11-15-2012, 05:15 PM
Yeah, Armstrong couldn't even ride a bike without peds...:rolleyes:

"At 16, Armstrong began competing as a triathlete and became a national sprint-course triathlon champion in 1989 and 1990."


Whether you are talking about Armstrong, Pantani, Ullrich or any of the blood doped peloton it's all speculation. You have no objective data from clean races to base an informed opinion of who would have dominated stage races.

Making the case that Armstrong would have won zero tours, 7 tours or been a classics rider, etc., etc. is all BS. We will never know. Maybe some guy whose name never appeared in the top ten would have been on the podium.

If Merckx had a naturally high hematocrit and raced in the 90's he could have gone from Cannibal to domestique. Leaving the number one spot blank of the 7 tours was the right thing to do.

cnighbor1
11-15-2012, 05:19 PM
Come on eddy is over 60 and he can't even remember were he put those darn tiles let alone return them!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Charles

jr59
11-15-2012, 05:22 PM
Baloney.

Doping pre-Conconi's work on Blood Doping and EPO was a joke. It was so ineffective it probably had a negative effect on performance as often as positive. Getting juiced on Speed couldn't turn a donkey into a race horse and doping back in Merckx's time had zero effect on the overall standings. It just was not effective enough. So like the arrangements among riders to fix races it was a sideshow that affected some outcomes but did not dominate the sport or determine the season standings.



And you know all this how?

We get that you hate Armstrong. That's a given. But spouting opinions as fact is not winning.
In fact these are just your opinions!

e-RICHIE
11-15-2012, 05:45 PM
And you know all this how?

We get that you hate Armstrong. That's a given. But spouting opinions as fact is not winning.
In fact these are just your opinions!

What R.T. writes (what you replied to) are part of the sport's history going back to almost forever atmo. There's a big difference in what speed and amphetamines allow you to do compared to the pharmaceuticals (ab)used in the last 20+ years. That's not to validate any of it, by the way. And, anyone who follows pro cycling knows well, and intuitively, about trading away race results for money or for a day in the sun to be chosen later.

PS Invoking the hate word makes little sense and doesn't add to the quality of the conversation.

jr59
11-15-2012, 06:04 PM
What R.T. writes (what you replied to) are part of the sport's history going back to almost forever atmo. There's a big difference in what speed and amphetamines allow you to do compared to the pharmaceuticals (ab)used in the last 20+ years. That's not to validate any of it, by the way. And, anyone who follows pro cycling knows well, and intuitively, about trading away race results for money or for a day in the sun to be chosen later.

PS Invoking the hate word makes little sense and doesn't add to the quality of the conversation.

Without question the drugs of today are better than the drugs of days gone by.

Doping is doping. There has been doping in pro cycling for as long as it has existed. There is no difference is still doping.
If the drugs of today existed in these old days. Dopers would have done them. Of course that is not a fact. Just my opinion. Yet it does include a bit of logic!

Also since when doesn't speed effect an athletic event?

Maybe you are correct, I should have used STRONG DISLIKE!

malcolm
11-15-2012, 06:04 PM
Baloney.

Doping pre-Conconi's work on Blood Doping and EPO was a joke. It was so ineffective it probably had a negative effect on performance as often as positive. Getting juiced on Speed couldn't turn a donkey into a race horse and doping back in Merckx's time had zero effect on the overall standings. It just was not effective enough. So like the arrangements among riders to fix races it was a sideshow that affected some outcomes but did not dominate the sport or determine the season standings.

Conconi and Ferrari changed all that. The stakes and impact on the sport by Armstrong's time were totally different. Merckx was a champion athlete, Armstrong was a champion doper... could Armstrong have been a champion athlete? Sadly we (and he) will never know.

Modern doping doesn't turn a donkey into a race horse. The ability has to be there.

e-RICHIE
11-15-2012, 06:24 PM
Also since when doesn't speed effect an athletic event?


Having had some experience with speed a looooooong time ago and before I even knew what a bicycle race was, I can tell you first hand that it doesn't do anything to enhance one's athletic prowess atmo. If yo want to ride a bicycle for 33 days straight, well maybe that's different - not that I would know.

Louis
11-15-2012, 06:30 PM
Modern doping doesn't turn a donkey into a race horse. The ability has to be there.

None of these guys are donkeys. We're talking thoroughbreds with capabilities ranging from 0.98 to 1.02 x the avg of the group as a whole. (WAG)

jr59
11-15-2012, 06:31 PM
Having had some experience with speed a looooooong time ago and before I even knew what a bicycle race was, I can tell you first hand that it doesn't do anything to enhance one's athletic prowess atmo. If yo want to ride a bicycle for 33 days straight, well maybe that's different - not that I would know.


Perfect!

If it" doesn't do anything to enhance one's athletic prowess"

Then maybe you can tell me why it is banned? Even atroll (sp) is banned.

After all, it doesn't do anything to enhance!

Strange....

jr59
11-15-2012, 06:42 PM
In fact until 2004, caffeine was banned at the Olympics.

AgilisMerlin
11-15-2012, 06:56 PM
regardless of the backstory,

i can barely wrap my head around it all, and so i whisper to myself - "holySh*t"



525 VICTORIES (not including all the other minor 460 victories)
7x Milan–San Remo
5x LiŤge–Bastogne–LiŤge
3x Ghent–Wevelgem
3x Paris–Roubaix
3x FlŤche Wallonne
3x Paris–Nice
2x Amstel Gold Race
2x Omloop Het Volk
2x Tour of Lombardy
2x Tour of Flanders
2x Tour of Belgium
1x Dauphinť Libťrť
1x Midi Libre
1x Grand Prix Frankfurt
1x Paris–Brussels
1x Scheldeprijs
1x Tour de Suisse
1x Tour de Romandie
1x World Amateur Road Champion
3x World Professional Road Champion
1x Belgian Road Champion
5x Tour de France
5x Giro d’Italia
1x Vuelta a EspaŮa
7x Super Prestige Pernod International
World Hour Record

Rueda Tropical
11-15-2012, 06:57 PM
Without question the drugs of today are better than the drugs of days gone by.

Doping is doping. There has been doping in pro cycling for as long as it has existed. There is no difference is still doping.
If the drugs of today existed in these old days. Dopers would have done them. Of course that is not a fact. Just my opinion. Yet it does include a bit of logic!

Also since when doesn't speed effect an athletic event?

Maybe you are correct, I should have used STRONG DISLIKE!

Yes if EPO had existed in the old days it would have been used but it didn't and so those years cycling was still an athletic competition that could be won clean based on training, tactics and athletic ability. That is a complete quantitative difference. Doesn't excuse the corrupt behavior of the past but you knew that Coppi and Hinault earned the fame through athletic achievement.

The phrase donkey into a race horse refers to taking a guy who never would have gotten past the middle of the pack and putting him on the podium. Yes to be a pro even in the middle of the pack you have to have incredible talent and you have to be committed to a brutal regimen. But the back of the pack and the podium are separated by margins smaller then the advantage blood doping provides to those with low hematocrits who are well adapted to take advantage of it's effects.

That much is not opinion. It's been written about ad nauseum by medical and doping experts.

Take a pro like Contador. I've always been a fan and love to watch him race but having read Hamilton's book, read about the plasticizers found in AC's blood and the USADA reasoned decision I have to wonder, is he the most talented stage racer of his generation or the most accomplished doper or a bit of both? Cycling being what it is today there is no way to know.

In Armstrongs hey day it was even worse with less controls. So yes there is a difference. It's not a sport anymore. Its a competition between labs, crooked doctors and moneymen who can bankroll expensive hi-tech cheating.

Louis
11-15-2012, 07:00 PM
Perfect!

If it" doesn't do anything to enhance one's athletic prowess"

Then maybe you can tell me why it is banned? Even atroll (sp) is banned.

After all, it doesn't do anything to enhance!

Strange....

Simple: that's not the only criterion for making it on the banned list.

PQJ
11-15-2012, 07:05 PM
Perfect!

If it" doesn't do anything to enhance one's athletic prowess"

Then maybe you can tell me why it is banned? Even atroll (sp) is banned.

After all, it doesn't do anything to enhance!

Strange....

Marijuana is also on the list. If you think it'll help your athletic performance I suggest pulling a large tube before your next A ride and telling us how it works out. Please be honest.

e-RICHIE
11-15-2012, 07:13 PM
Perfect!

If it" doesn't do anything to enhance one's athletic prowess"

Then maybe you can tell me why it is banned? Even atroll (sp) is banned.

After all, it doesn't do anything to enhance!

Strange....

I sense you are more new to all of this than not, the banned list and the sport, etc. If not I apologize. Anyway, I have no idea how a product goes on and off the banned list, and actually don't care much. One example of the gray area includes probenecid. When Pedro Delgado won the TDF in the 80s, he was caught positive for it BUT was given the hall pass. The drug, a masking agent for God-knows-what, was in his system BUT not scheduled to be on the banned list until the next season atmo.

ps from Wiki -
The following morning Echevarri received the official communication. The substance was probenecid, a medicine for the kidney and also a masking agent of anabolic steroids. In 1988 every sport had a different list of banned substances, and the IOC had its own, although there was a commitment to unify the lists in 1990. Probenecid was in the IOC list, but not in the UCI list, and rule number 35 of the 1988 Tour regulations stated that the doping test would be carried out in accordance with the UCI rules. The mistake of the laboratory seemed evident, and the technical jury declared that Delgado had not broken any rule.

AgilisMerlin
11-15-2012, 07:15 PM
as written:

http://www.everymantri.com/.a/6a00d83451b18a69e2014e8bf39a1d970d-600wi

we were determined to solve the inevitable, essentially unanswerable mystery of what made this quiet, unassuming son of a shopkeeper into the 'greatest cyclist' of all time. So we just asked him.



"How can you be criticized for doing what is the object of your chosen work?" Merckx said to the British magazine Cycling Weekly. "I chose to race, so I chose to win."

http://trackosaurusrex.com/pblog/images/GodThinks.jpg

http://inrng.com/medias/img/eddymerckxshop.jpg

jr59
11-15-2012, 07:19 PM
Yes if EPO had existed in the old days it would have been used but it didn't and so those years cycling was still an athletic competition that could be won clean based on training, tactics and athletic ability. That is a complete quantitative difference. Doesn't excuse the corrupt behavior of the past but you knew that Coppi and Hinault earned the fame through athletic achievement.

The phrase donkey into a race horse refers to taking a guy who never would have gotten past the middle of the pack and putting him on the podium. Yes to be a pro even in the middle of the pack you have to have incredible talent and you have to be committed to a brutal regimen. But the back of the pack and the podium are separated by margins smaller then the advantage blood doping provides to those with low hematocrits who are well adapted to take advantage of it's effects.

That much is not opinion. It's been written about ad nauseum by medical and doping experts.

Take a pro like Contador. I've always been a fan and love to watch him race but having read Hamilton's book, read about the plasticizers found in AC's blood and the USADA reasoned decision I have to wonder, is he the most talented stage racer of his generation or the most accomplished doper or a bit of both? Cycling being what it is today there is no way to know.

In Armstrongs hey day it was even worse with less controls. So yes there is a difference. It's not a sport anymore. Its a competition between labs, crooked doctors and moneymen who can bankroll expensive hi-tech cheating.

Did they? Doping is doping, if you want to get to the black and white of it.
You either cheated or you didn't. Not, well they have better drugs now. Or They spent more money now. Or anything else like that.

You claimed speed and amphetamines had "zero effect on the overall standings". oh really? Then why did they do them if not to try to gain an advantage?

Pro cycling has been a dirty sport since it started. All are guilty, every last one! It just been an accepted thing.

I really think this backlash over LA is more a fall from where some put him on the highest pedestal! IMO; People tend to pile on the fallen.

Yes LA cheated. No question in my mind he did. There was no question in my mind he was doping after his second or third TDF victory. Test clean or not. I knew. Just as I believe that a certain island track sprint team is ahead of the curve with testing. As well as many,many more.

Pro cycling is a sport, like NASCAR is a sport. Both have LONG histories of cheating! It's entertainment, and it entertains me. What more can I want?

Something like McGuire, Sosa, and Bonds. EVERYONE knew they were on the juice. No one cared. We all wanted to see them hit the ball a long way!

Tony T
11-15-2012, 07:29 PM
I really think this backlash over LA is more a fall from where some put him on the highest pedestal! IMO; People tend to pile on the fallen.

Americans do find great entertainment (and pleasure) in the fall of their "heroes".
Somehow it makes us feel better for not achieving greatness ourselves.

jr59
11-15-2012, 07:43 PM
I sense you are more new to all of this than not, the banned list and the sport, etc. If not I apologize. Anyway, I have no idea how a product goes on and off the banned list, and actually don't care much. One example of the gray area includes probenecid. When Pedro Delgado won the TDF in the 80s, he was caught positive for it BUT was given the hall pass. The drug, a masking agent for God-knows-what, was in his system BUT not scheduled to be on the banned list until the next season atmo.

ps from Wiki -

UCI testing yep I know very little.

Now IOC testing and being tested, yea I know that better than I want to.

Your example is not a hall pass. It was within the rules at the time.

As I said in another post; If speed doesn't enhance performance, then why did they use it? if not to try to gain an advantage?
Don't kid yourself, it's a PED! And was thought to help the riders of the time in question. You know this.

As I have said many times over, all over almost every board;

Pro cycling has been dirty since it started! Nothing has changed it in 100 years or so. Why is that so hard for some to accept?
IMO; Or just for you ritchie, atmo; It's not going to change. It is what it is!

e-RICHIE
11-15-2012, 07:55 PM
UCI testing yep I know very little.

Now IOC testing and being tested, yea I know that better than I want to.

Your example is not a hall pass. It was within the rules at the time.

As I said in another post; If speed doesn't enhance performance, then why did they use it? if not to try to gain an advantage?
Don't kid yourself, it's a PED! And was thought to help the riders of the time in question. You know this.

As I have said many times over, all over almost every board;

Pro cycling has been dirty since it started! Nothing has changed it in 100 years or so. Why is that so hard for some to accept?
IMO; Or just for you ritchie, atmo; It's not going to change. It is what it is!
I don't think you know me well, or what I think of the pro sport and its place in life.
It's always been an act for me.
A passion play.
It's the WWf and Rollerball but with wheels, and I never felt otherwise.
Here (again), listen to what I said about it only 2+ weeks ago...
What Are They On? (http://www.richardsachs.com/site/2012/10/28/what-are-they-on/)
PS They took down Lance because he was an owner, not because he was a rank and file,
card-carrying member of the working class. USADA was in the business of Lancer Awareness.

palincss
11-15-2012, 07:57 PM
It's not a sport anymore. Its a competition between labs, crooked doctors and moneymen who can bankroll expensive hi-tech cheating.

And this deserves to continue why, exactly?

Rueda Tropical
11-15-2012, 08:01 PM
Did they? Doping is doping, if you want to get to the black and white of it.
You either cheated or you didn't. Not, well they have better drugs now. Or They spent more money now. Or anything else like that.

You claimed speed and amphetamines had "zero effect on the overall standings". oh really? Then why did they do them if not to try to gain an advantage?

Pro cycling has been a dirty sport since it started. All are guilty, every last one! It just been an accepted thing.



There is a perceived advantage that may on some occasions have aided performance and on others not. Then there is the advantage that can be gotten from blood doping. Suddenly you could not compete without cheating and doping. Suddenly doping was the dominant factor. And not just dabbling here and there. You had to be on a full scale program that drove your training, life and results and you had to have your chief domestiques on it to. That was a sea change. That made doping a much, much bigger problem.

Going 5 MPH over the speed limit is not the same as going 50 mph over the speed limit. They are both speeding, they are both breaking the law, but they are different crimes and treated differently because they have a different impact in the real world.

Rueda Tropical
11-15-2012, 08:01 PM
And this deserves to continue why, exactly?

If it doesn't change it doesn't deserve to continue.

jr59
11-15-2012, 08:21 PM
There is a perceived advantage that may on some occasions have aided performance and on others not. Then there is the advantage that can be gotten from blood doping. Suddenly you could not compete without cheating and doping. Suddenly doping was the dominant factor. And not just dabbling here and there. You had to be on a full scale program that drove your training, life and results and you had to have your chief domestiques on it to. That was a sea change. That made doping a much, much bigger problem.



So it's ok to cheat a little? Wow, just plain wow!

If you cheated, YOU CHEATED!
Of course the are better at cheating now! Guess what? The bikes are better also, so is their diet, and everything else.

Please do not misunderstand me, Lance cheated. But, his cheating is not better or worse than the cheaters before him, nor will it be better or worse than the cheating yet to come. You seem to think because LA cheated better he is worse. No, he not any better than the cheaters before him. And that list is VERY LONG. BTW; It includes one Mr Eddy Merckx!

Lance and his crew, didn't invent systematic doping. IMO; He didn't even bring it in to the pro cycling ranks.

I'm not quite sure why people don't accept pro cycling as entertainment. Everyone has know that is a dirty sport. Not sure why all the uproar. If you or anybody think it will be different. God bless you. Because no matter what. Nothing is going to change for long.

But I'm out on this;
I'm tired and today was the first day in a long time that my shoulder didn't hurt, and I have a small window before the Drs cut it open, so I'm going to bed to try to get up early and ride in the am.

William
11-15-2012, 08:29 PM
I'm not quite sure why people don't accept pro cycling as entertainment. Everyone has know that is a dirty sport.

I agree with you here. It's also the part that bugs me. Cut the pretense and drama of it being a clean "sport". Don't pass off the riders as being pure as snow and act surprised when they test positive. They know they do it. We know they do it.





William

markie
11-15-2012, 08:36 PM
I guess that for the most part any advantage from taking amphetamines would be psychological. Even with that it looks like getting the dose correct would be critical.

Here s one tiny study where amphetamines had no measurable performance effect:

http://www.springerlink.com/content/kg4526h787380385/

To me there is a distinction between doing anything to win, including cheating when all that is available is ineffectual vs cutting edge drugs that are one step ahead of the testers and that have a massive performance benefit.

It is a great show either way.:)

e-RICHIE
11-15-2012, 08:36 PM
I agree with you here. It's also the part that bugs me. Cut the pretense and drama of it being a clean "sport". Don't pass off the riders as being pure as snow and act surprised when they test positive. They know they do it. We know they do it.

The fork in the road comes when they look at us and say they don't do it atmo.
Everybody wants to know what I'm on.
I'm on my bike, busting my ass six hours a day.

Rueda Tropical
11-15-2012, 09:25 PM
So it's ok to cheat a little? Wow, just plain wow!

If you cheated, YOU CHEATED!
Of course the are better at cheating now! Guess what? The bikes are better also, so is their diet, and everything else.


You are missing the point completely. You did not have to cheat before EPO. It was not a prerequisite to compete. Of course if you were caught bribing someone for a stage or race or taking a banned substance you should be sanctioned.

Before EPO you needed to be the best athletically to win. Dope could not make up the difference. You could not build a career on your doping program before EPO.

Some forms of cheating are worse then others. They all deserve to be punished but although assault and murder are both violent crimes they not the same thing.

As far as bikes and training and the rest. Look at speeds during the 90's and now. With all the advanced aero, ceramic, carbon fiber gizmo's and scientific training, average race speeds are slower now. There was a spike in speeds in the Armstrong era and it wasn't as a result of Armstrong, Panatni and companies total awesomeness.

When dope is the determining factor in sport it's not sport. There was always cheating and pushing the edges of the rules in sport. But anytime the cheating became dominant it stopped being sport. Just like a society. There is always crime, cheating and corruption in the best of societies but when crime and corruption are not something on the periphery and become dominant you have a failed state.

esldude
11-15-2012, 09:50 PM
As far as bikes and training and the rest. Look at speeds during the 90's and now. With all the advanced aero, ceramic, carbon fiber gizmo's and scientific training, average race speeds are slower now. There was a spike in speeds in the Armstrong era and it wasn't as a result of Armstrong, Panatni and companies total awesomeness.

No I think there is a point you are missing. Not saying I agree with all your suppositions, but I'll grant them for now.

So now, Merckx took amphetamines, lots, and lots of other riders did that, way back when they took strychnine, some took combo's including coke mixed with such things. I see no reason to think they weren't at least attempting the same thing. Do you for one minute think someone willing to dose small levels of strychnine to dull pain, would hesitate at all to do blood doping or EPO? If Merckx took anything, effective or not, he was attempting to get that advantage. Is he to be held in higher regard just because his manner of doping (read attempting to cheat) was less effective? You posit Merckx's cheating was ineffective and therefore we know he was truly athletically the top guy. So what? Given the chance he would have done EPO. And he might still be the top guy.

Your argument seems to be splitting hairs on the wrong issue. One due to the effectiveness. You seem to think it was effective and forced nearly everyone to do the same or not make it in the pro peloton. I think you are correct. On the other hand, the widely pervasive evidence as far back as there was pro cycling seems to indicate pretty close to everyone did those lesser things. So while performance enhancement didn't force it, there was in fact not a different result. Making your distinction moot.

(Wish I had the link, but back in the days of mostly amphetamine use, early testing for one variant previously undetectable was suddenly detectable with a new method literally just days before the Giro. The lab assumed they would want them to use the new method. Unfortunately, every single rider tested positive for the previously undetectable drug. The organizers had to simply say, it wasn't announced and they would ignore it until the next time) Now we have the opposite extreme of someone who passed all the tests, and have their titles stripped far after the fact.

Rueda Tropical
11-15-2012, 10:22 PM
So now, Merckx took amphetamines, lots, and lots of other riders did that, way back when they took strychnine, some took combo's including coke mixed with such things. I see no reason to think they weren't at least attempting the same thing.

I understand Merckx introduced Armstrong to Dr. Ferrari.

I don't think the pros of Armstrong's generation were any more or less corrupt then those before or after. But the effectiveness of modern doping changed the game. The cyclists did not change. The sport did not change. It was just not prepared for the impact of modern pharma. Like giving nuclear weapons to guys who had been beating each other with sticks since time began.

Blood doping changed the role of doping in sport. In endurance sports and especially multi-week races it was a complete and total game changer. That requires a change in enforcement and a change in cycling's management as the old corrupt cycling does not have the culture, tools or the desire to deal with it.

esldude
11-15-2012, 10:31 PM
I understand Merckx introduced Armstrong to Dr. Ferrari.

I don't think the pros of Armstrong's generation were any more or less corrupt then those before or after. But the effectiveness of modern doping changed the game. The cyclists did not change. The sport did not change. It was just not prepared for the impact of modern pharma. Like giving nuclear weapons to guys who had been beating each other with sticks since time began.

Blood doping changed the role of doping in sport. In endurance sports and especially multi-week races it was a complete and total game changer. That requires a change in enforcement and a change in cycling's management as the old corrupt cycling does not have the culture, tools or the desire to deal with it.

I have seen some references that indicate some primitive blood doping occurred as early as the mid 1960's in pro cycling.

Have you heard of the Goldman Dilemma? Dr. Bob Goldman for several years did surveys of elite athletes. His question: If there were a drug that would guarantee you a gold medal, but would lead to your death in 5 years, would you use it? Year after year, around 50% said YES. Top level athletes give lots of value to recognition and winning. They wouldn't be there otherwise. When Dr. Goldman asked the same question of a cross section of non-athletes only 2 of 250 said yes. When competitors have this kind of desire and attitude how can you hope to control any advantage they think they can get away with?

And if you think modern pharma was like introducing nuclear weapons into a sport, what about possible genetic manipulation in the future? How would you classify those effects? How can you ban a genetic improvement, when the person with the improvement may have had no choice in the matter?

Rueda Tropical
11-15-2012, 10:59 PM
When competitors have this kind of desire and attitude how can you hope to control any advantage they think they can get away with?

And if you think modern pharma was like introducing nuclear weapons into a sport, what about possible genetic manipulation in the future? How would you classify those effects? How can you ban a genetic improvement, when the person with the improvement may have had no choice in the matter?

No one said it was easy. A start would be getting rid of McQuaid and getting competent people who actually want to protect athletes running the show. No telling about the future, but in the near term there are tools that could really minimize doping.

Once parents start bio-engineering Gattica babies then who knows.

professerr
11-16-2012, 12:00 AM
Thereís always someone in these threads who says something like, ďget over it, people always have doped, it is entertainment thatís all, and Iím entertained.Ē I donít get that. As soon I know there is doping, my interest goes to zero. It is not because Iím some saint with superior morals. Iím just not entertained. Iím a little saddened sometimes, perhaps even repulsed. I think this is pretty normal.

esldude
11-16-2012, 12:07 AM
Thereís always someone in these threads who says something like, ďget over it, people always have doped, it is entertainment thatís all, and Iím entertained.Ē I donít get that. As soon I know there is doping, my interest goes to zero. It is not because Iím some saint with superior morals. Iím just not entertained. Iím a little saddened sometimes, perhaps even repulsed. I think this is pretty normal.

Don't mistake me for someone who says they have always doped get over it. I haven't said that or think it. On the other hand, while my interest goes down some substantial amount, it isn't zero. Truly, they have always doped. I wish it weren't so.

The more I see such stuff, the more I realize they aren't like regular folks. And in some sense the more despicable the whole thing becomes.

Yet, being rational, why is Lance being stripped while a whole host of other champions aren't? He did nothing except use the better cheating methodology of his times. The other guys would have jumped at the same chance were it available. In some sense, I become repulsed by the 'elite' athletes at all levels.

Doing something as an amateur, for love of the sport, and not as a profession has some value. Even though some of that has been perverted too.

Rueda Tropical
11-16-2012, 07:27 AM
Yet, being rational, why is Lance being stripped while a whole host of other champions aren't? He did nothing except use the better cheating methodology of his times. The other guys would have jumped at the same chance were it available. In some sense, I become repulsed by the 'elite' athletes at all levels.



Lance was certainly not singled out. Just about everyone who has stood on a podium with him has been sanctioned.

The Armstrong investigation is about the current sport. It's had more impact on players active in the sport today then any previous investigation -as it might finally impact the leadership of the UCI. Something I would have thought impossible. The modern system of doping post-Festina was shaped by Verbuggen, Ferrari, Bruyneel and Armstrong. Going back to the 30's, 40's and 50's -for what?

It's not intent to cheat it's the actual impact of the cheating that is important. Any really competitive athlete would do almost anything to win at any time. The fact that most previous champions would have used EPO if it was available is immaterial. It wasn't available and they were forced to win on actual athletic ability. Dope couldn't give you the boost needed to become a champion. Their achievements stand as athletic accomplishments and not testimony to hi-tech cheating.

I think LeMond once said he was lucky to have competed before the era of EPO. He didn't need to make that decision.

thwart
11-16-2012, 07:41 AM
thereís always someone in these threads who says something like, ďget over it, people always have doped, it is entertainment thatís all, and iím entertained.Ē i donít get that. As soon i know there is doping, my interest goes to zero. It is not because iím some saint with superior morals. Iím just not entertained. Iím a little saddened sometimes, perhaps even repulsed. I think this is pretty normal.
+100.

jr59
11-16-2012, 07:52 AM
Thereís always someone in these threads who says something like, ďget over it, people always have doped, it is entertainment thatís all, and Iím entertained.Ē I donít get that. As soon I know there is doping, my interest goes to zero. It is not because Iím some saint with superior morals. Iím just not entertained. Iím a little saddened sometimes, perhaps even repulsed. I think this is pretty normal.

I would hope you don't care for any other pro level sport.
Most major sports have a problem with PEDs.
Yet a lot of these same sports entertain me and many others.

malcolm
11-16-2012, 10:08 AM
Lance being singled out.

You have to look at this like a RICO case against the mafia. The people prosecuting don't have the resources, time or money to bring cases against everyone in a sport where I think we most all agree they were all doing it. Plus removing the pawns would be a revolving door the organization would still exist and just replace them as they went away to jail, sanctions what have you.

You have to look beyond the soldiers and focus your attack on the top echelon, the ones or one everyone knows the ones who profited the most and have the most to lose. It may not seem fair especially to those with a vested interest as in Lance fans and those close to him, but that is the most efficient way to make change. I don't think anyone ever said the other guys don't matter or didn't cheat, it's just at this point in time they are not the top of the heap and actually among the public at large never have been.

In this same vein I also thinks it's way the entire management of the UCI and probably USADA and WADA should also go. They have obviously failed their mission by ever allowing it to become this organized and wide spread in the first place.

It's simply a RICO case with cycling as the corrupt organization.

Tony T
11-16-2012, 10:26 AM
So, Tony, you (still) think Lance was clean?

Your obsession with me is a little, well, strange.

PQJ
11-16-2012, 10:38 AM
Attribution, Tony, attribution. Otherwise it's plagiarism. :fight:

professerr
11-16-2012, 11:38 AM
Don't mistake me for someone who says they have always doped get over it. I haven't said that or think it. On the other hand, while my interest goes down some substantial amount, it isn't zero. Truly, they have always doped. I wish it weren't so.

The more I see such stuff, the more I realize they aren't like regular folks. And in some sense the more despicable the whole thing becomes.

Yet, being rational, why is Lance being stripped while a whole host of other champions aren't? He did nothing except use the better cheating methodology of his times. The other guys would have jumped at the same chance were it available. In some sense, I become repulsed by the 'elite' athletes at all levels.


It was just a general comment not directed to you in particular Ė I skimmed this thread quickly and thought someone said the usual stuff here about being entertained, cyclists always dope, etc.

By asking the question ďwhy is Lance being stripped while a whole host of other champions arenítĒ you arenít suggesting he shouldnít have been stripped for cheating are you? You just want to go after others too, right? Fair enough, I say, but as a practical matter difficult to accomplish beyond what has already been done vis-a-vis many of Lance's contemporaries.

professerr
11-16-2012, 11:44 AM
I would hope you don't care for any other pro level sport.
Most major sports have a problem with PEDs.
Yet a lot of these same sports entertain me and many others.

Yes, it is true that when I learn about doping in other pro sports I lose interest. Iíd really have no desire to watch a doped up Tiger Woods or Mark McGuire, etc. And it is sad to me in the way that watching mistreated circus animals is. At some point the doping can become so pervasive it ruins the entire sport to me.