Merckx on Doping
Last Post 07/17/2013 09:52 AM by Keith Jackson. 10 Replies.
Author Messages
jmdirt

Posts:642

--
06/30/2013 05:57 PM
Merckx said that it is possible to win the TdF without doping. That's nice coming from a guy who is the winningest doper of all time. So what if it wasn't EPO, he tried, with great success, all of the "tricks" of his day. OK, I've got to get out of the dark side...
longslowdistance

Posts:586

--
06/30/2013 07:06 PM
Good idea.
79pmooney

Posts:1018

--
06/30/2013 08:28 PM
The doping of Merckx's day wasvery different from blood boosting. They did it to get a small edge, or just continue day after day, And remember, that day after day wasn't just for three weeks. Merckx raced something like every 3 days year 'round, winning one race in three. Nobody now does anything remotely like that. Had Merckx done the tapered season aimed at one event? With no dope at all, watch out! (The year he set the hour record, he won the Tour (and I believe that Giro and probably a classic or two.)

When he speaks up, I'd listen.

Ben
BikeCzar

Posts:53

--
06/30/2013 08:34 PM
Doping from one era to another isn't any different from a moral perspective.
79pmooney

Posts:1018

--
06/30/2013 08:35 PM
Oh, another thing. Drugs didn't make Merckx. If there were none, he still would have been the most dominant rider we have aver seen. A certain recent multi-Tour winner may well have been a world class tri-athlete in a world with no drugs, but would he have been a multi-Tour winner? There were no hints of it before his comeback. Just a one day races, a couple of mediocre Tour finishes and a stage win or two.

Ben
Cosmic Kid

Posts:981

--
07/01/2013 03:16 PM
Well, to be fair, it has now become known that LA was using all the same drugs before he got cancer and he wasn't a Tour winner then....and he was also already working with Ferrari, too.

I would lvoe to know what changed and made him a Tour "winner" post-cancer. I had posited on the old board that perhaps part of the LA myth was true.....lost upper body mass / weight but retained his same power outputs.

Dunno.....an interesting question, however.

That said, there is no doubt that EPO and blood boosting did indeed turn donkeys into thoroughbreds. See guys like Chiappucci, Riiis, etc. Guys who were, at best, good domestiques until they got on the juice.
Just say "NO!" to WCP!!!!
Keith Richards

Posts:694

--
07/10/2013 01:26 PM
Posted By 79 pmooney on 06/30/2013 08:35 PM
Oh, another thing. Drugs didn't make Merckx. If there were none, he still would have been the most dominant rider we have aver seen.

Ben


Having spent a fair amount of time reading on the scene back then for my Monsere project, I am prepared to call BS on that assumption.
----- It is his word versus ours. We like our word. We like where we stand and we like our credibility."--Lance Armstrong.
longslowdistance

Posts:586

--
07/10/2013 04:33 PM
KR, the drugs available to Merckx, Anquetil, etc. were only minimally effective.
I can't argue with the moral purists, who don't care that these minimally effective drugs were very, very widely used.
"Doped to the gills" claims are silly. Tom Simpson WAS doped to the gills with what was available then, truly enough to kill him, and he still couldn't keep up. If he had one dose of EPO he could have won the Tour against his competition then.
Orange Crush

Posts:1143

--
07/10/2013 07:00 PM
The morality of doping hasn't changed, agree with BC 100% on that.

The effectiveness of what's available has changed, La Preuve par 21 showed that very clearly.

For me the poorly defined line in the sand is when things get predictable and boring. Like right now.
jookey

Posts:126

--
07/13/2013 10:25 AM
Does this mean that Armstrong will be loved in twenty years from now when the tour winner is caught with something much better than today's drugs? Will we say "Lance ONLY used EPO, that is nothing..."

A cheat is a cheat. They used what was available at the time. If there were something better Anquetil, Coppi, Mercx... Would have done it. How many times did Mercx get caught??
Keith Richards

Posts:694

--
07/17/2013 09:52 AM
Posted on 07/13/2013 10:25 AM
Does this mean that Armstrong will be loved in twenty years from now when the tour winner is caught with something much better than today's drugs? Will we say "Lance ONLY used EPO, that is nothing..."

A cheat is a cheat. They used what was available at the time. If there were something better Anquetil, Coppi, Mercx... Would have done it. How many times did Mercx get caught??


Exactly. I was reading a translation of a biography on him and he mentioned how his form massivley improved once he moved to an Italian team. He specifically mentioned his loss of weight and the "preparation" changes. When someone uses "preparation" instead of "training" I am assuming that it is more than just what one is doing on a bike that is being referenced.
----- It is his word versus ours. We like our word. We like where we stand and we like our credibility."--Lance Armstrong.


---
Active Forums 4.1