no winner for 1998 tour? how far back is far enough?
Last Post 07/31/2013 06:52 PM by Justin jmdirt. 54 Replies.
Author Messages
CERV

Posts:151

--
07/23/2013 10:45 PM
how far back does cycling need to dig into it's doping past before it becomes counterproductive? http://www.velonation.com/News/ID/15077/Jalabert-Pantani-Ullrich-and-Zabel-alleged-to-be-on-French-senates-doping-report.aspx
mondonico

Posts:34

--
07/23/2013 11:09 PM
I guess it depends on how or what one defines as productive?
BikeCzar

Posts:53

--
07/23/2013 11:16 PM
There is a winner for every Tour. I watched.
laurentja

Posts:122

--
07/24/2013 12:28 AM
I thought McQuaid apologized to the Pantani family and swore the results would not be stripped...? Read that a week or so ago.
Berzin

Posts:34

--
07/24/2013 02:05 AM
Cerv-going back and retesting samples is only counter productive to the liars and BS artists who dope, lie about it, are found out, and are then outraged that their past is being dug up.

If these riders would stop with all their lying, this wouldn't be an issue.

As for your question "how far back is enough?" Not far back enough will be enough. I am more interested in who doped and when then throw my hands up and say, "well, they were ALL doing it, so it's a wash." That isn't good enough. The public needs details, and we will never get them from the cyclists themselves.

If these riders want to continue deceiving the public, they deserve to be outed. Liars like Jalabert and Zabel, who claim to have either doped only once or twice, or didn't know and never asked what all those needles were for, need to be exposed not only as dopers but as liars.
CERV

Posts:151

--
07/24/2013 02:59 AM
So Berzin,

Merckx? Anquetil? Coppi?

...Contador? why does the public 'need' these details exactly ?
Yo Mike

Posts:277

--
07/24/2013 06:06 AM
The past is the past, but it of course informs the present and the future. The future is what is at stake, and if the -7 fanclub will remember, the likes of America's only legitimate TdF winner was concerned about his own son navigating the perils of pro cycling's culture of doping. Athletes should not be pressured to dope, and should not be allowed to dope. Start a doped cycling union if you want. Oh, wait.....the Masters, right?

Perhaps Cycling needs to get on the couch with the likes of Oprah, have a good cry, fess up, and rid itself of the doping culture and corrupt, self-interested officials like McQuaid.
Entheo

Posts:317

--
07/24/2013 07:35 AM
the UCI and the organizers have made a mess of this, as usual, and per usual it just keeps dragging on. as impressive as the TdF awards ceremony was, it was more than a little hypocritical to have indurain, merckx and hinault up there knowing at least two of them were likely juiced as well.

armstrong was offered amnesty by USADA but refused, so no tears for him. others have made mea culpas (e.g. ullrich) and they'll live with the asterisk by their results. cookson's on the right track with redemption thru admission - let's document the past and move on. we know that mcquaid is going to resist every step of the way, hence the continued chinese water torture. i think it has to start with a change in leadership at the UCI, like Yo Mike says.
stronz

Posts:313

--
07/24/2013 09:48 AM
I was going to post my opinion that it is indeed counterproductive to exhume the past riders figuratively and test their samples. But I realized it is only counterproductive to those who are afraid of the truth and want to perpetuate the happy and entirely fake world of bogus performances that their "heroes" recorded in the good old days of dont ask and dont tell. Is that really the best we can do? The very important good that uncovering the cheaters for what they were/are is that it hopefully puts the fear of G-D in riders today that their palmares will be wiped clean if they are found 10 yrs from now to have engaged in the "new" doping of 2013. The truely destructive and counterproductive road is the path which keeps all the dark secrets of the past cloaked and glorified. Most outsiders - which makes up 99.9% of the world -- assume that all pro cyclists are dirty. Plain and simple. The result is that when a rider like Froome lays down an amazing performance, he is automatically be assumed to be a doper by virtually the entire world (myself included.) By uncovering each and every doper we will come out clean. Ultimately.
jrt1045

Posts:362

--
07/24/2013 10:34 AM
No free passes

Until all these "reformed" dopers move on from the sport, this is a valid topic as far as I'm concerned. Barnie as a DS, Hincapie leading u23 devo team rides, CVV getting softball interviews, Millar treated as a sort of Saint, Levi showing up where he isn't wanted, Livingston "coaching"? I could go on. Think of the questions and the never-ending pursuit as a sort of light that forces the roaches to scurry from the dark corners of cycling
jmdirt

Posts:731

--
07/24/2013 10:48 AM
I agree with stronz. Digging up the past is productive because it sends the message that you can ride but you can't hide. There isn't a test for NGFS today but in five or ten years there will be.

How do they decide who's name to removed from the record books? It doesn't matter to me if they finally come clean or if the are nice guys or arsholes, they doped to get their results. Remove them all or don't remove any.

Cerv, I don't need details but making things public for a while might help with public perception. I assume that most of the stories would read much like TH's book.
jookey

Posts:141

--
07/24/2013 10:53 AM
"The Senate ordered that no results would be stripped as a result of their report: "Nobody will face sanctions. We aren’t policemen. We aren’t magistrates. We haven’t noted absolute lies but put-offs and self-censorship," they said."

They could not strip the titles, then an American would be the 1998 champ. The hypocracy... Strip all or none. I'm in the camp of the former. There should be no statute of limitations. That will maybe deter the rider who is contemplating cheating today.

Entheo, 2 of 3 juiced? I'd say all three.
Orange Crush

Posts:1236

--
07/24/2013 11:49 AM
44 out of the 60 samples from that 1998 Tour tested positive. Think about it for a second. Riding around in that 1998 Tour would be like walking around in 1998 downtown Santa Cruz. You know about the same percentage of people you come across are potsmokers and therefore criminals by the strict letter of the law.

Catching and naming historical dopers is about as effective as a deterrent as putting people caught with baggies of weed behind bars and hoping the "problem" will be solved. The only thing its effective at is draining government coffers, we know, we've been there.

Sure, the UCI is not the prettiest bunch but blaming them for doping is like blaming the police for drugs and crime. Instead I'd put the blame first on the sporters, their coaches, their doctors, the pharmaceutical industry that sells the myth that all these potions are needed and good for us, and the criminal circuit that all so effective at bringing all these goodies into the black market. Sounds like a big problem don't it, maybe the UCI cannot be expected to solve it.

WADA as a dope fighting organization is about as likely to produce results as a eunuch is to produce children, they are a powerless bunch that can only make themselves seem halfway relevant by continuing their single-minded focus on cycling. I will continue to ask the question why is it that three tennis players are associated with -7's doctor and all we'll ever hear from the ITF is "I know you didn't mean to but don't do it again". WADA's Howmann made some half-ass remark about it whether tennis was in fact meaning to catch dopers but that's as far as their power reaches. Of course WADA are being kept weak by the powers that be cause the show must go on.

Of course they will never catch Hinault because we all know what happened with his piss. As far as the problem of doping in cycling goes, it seems to me the problem is simple and staring us right in the face. Get rid of LeTour. Sure, doping will be going on in other events, but all the major hubrus is always around that one event. Good riddance, it's been going downhill ever since the Hinault/Lemond/Fignon era anyways.
Cosmic Kid

Posts:1175

--
07/24/2013 11:58 AM
Posted By Michael Carbajal on 07/24/2013 10:53 AM
"The Senate ordered that no results would be stripped as a result of their report: "Nobody will face sanctions. We aren’t policemen. We aren’t magistrates. We haven’t noted absolute lies but put-offs and self-censorship," they said."

They could not strip the titles, then an American would be the 1998 champ. The hypocracy... Strip all or none. I'm in the camp of the former. There should be no statute of limitations. That will maybe deter the rider who is contemplating cheating today.

Entheo, 2 of 3 juiced? I'd say all three.


??? Julich has admitted to doping and his samples from '98 are listed as being "suspicious." Can we leave nationalism out of this discussion? It kinda reads like the playbook from -7. As I have said multiple times, the results from the past need to be certified, noted with an asterisk and anyone coming forward is granted amnesty. Any future infractions (including by a rider on a tema in whch they have a management role) leads to an immediate lifetime suspension.
Just say "NO!" to WCP!!!!
Orange Crush

Posts:1236

--
07/24/2013 12:21 PM
Hooray, we have 18 out of the 44 named:

De positieve epogevallen in de Tour van '98 volgens Sporza: Andrea Tafi (Ita), Mario Cipollini (Ita), Bo Hamburger (Den), Udo Bölts (Dui), Marco Pantani (Ita), Jan Ullrich (Dui), Erik Zabel (Dui), Abraham Olano (Spa), Nicola Minali (Ita), Fabio Sacchi (Ita), Marcos Serrano (Spa), Manuel Beltran (Spa), Jens Heppner (Dui), Jeroen Blijlevens (Ned), Kevin Livingstone (VSt), Laurent Desbiens (Fra), Laurent Jalabert (Fra) en Jacky Durand (Fra).
BikeCzar

Posts:53

--
07/24/2013 02:02 PM
The list is meaningless. Just more fodder for the blood thirsty throngs of self-righteousness. They were all on peds, in all pro-sports. I don't need a partial list to tell me that. Common sense will do just fine.

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/vaughters-on-senate-report-the-findings-are-more-important-than-the-names
BikeCzar

Posts:53

--
07/24/2013 02:20 PM
Here's a list of those using peds in the 1998 Tour. I hope it helps everyone sleep better.

http://tinyurl.com/k8hlelb

jrt1045

Posts:362

--
07/24/2013 02:45 PM
It's great to see that 1998 was just as magical as 2006 as far as getting off the sauce

http://velonews.competitor.com/2013/07/news/ogrady-durand-admit-to-epo-use_296840

Czar, I have to politely disagree. After taking us for idiots for many years they deserve the indignation and disappointment of cycling fans everywhere. If it makes them feel awkward, tough
jookey

Posts:141

--
07/24/2013 02:54 PM
I just find it odd that we strip some guys from titles and let others skate. All I want is consistency when truth comes out.
jookey

Posts:141

--
07/24/2013 03:01 PM
CK, sorry, I missed Julich's name. Ogrady was suspicious and came clean. Will Julich follow suit. If he does, I expect a full 180 on stripping 1-2-3 and awarding it to the fourth place finisher. None other than (drum roll)... France's own Christophe Rinero!!! At last a French winner of LeTour! Viva la France.
stronz

Posts:313

--
07/24/2013 03:39 PM
pretty sure Julich already came clean last year. Remember he left sky? was it? and came out with mea culpa

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/exclusive-bobby-julich-doping-confession
jmdirt

Posts:731

--
07/24/2013 03:45 PM
Many motor sports have different levels of modification: ie: stock, super-stock, mod, unlimited, etc. Maybe cycling could do that instead of pro, pro-conti, conti, etc. The grand tours would be unlimited, load up and hope not to blow up.

I've said it before so sorry for the repeat, I enjoy watching NFL games and know that ~70 of them are on something but I don't care. Since I'm passionate about cycling I have always wanted them to be clean (er)...I think I'm over that. Plus, the hippocracy is like religion. Most of the guys bitchen about doper pros are 40+ with more testo in their system than an 18 year old boy.
BikeCzar

Posts:53

--
07/24/2013 09:10 PM
@jrt1045 - problem is, it's not a complete list. Only a fraction of the riders from '98 were tested and some of those who were, were tested after the police raids and hotel searches which most certainly slowed the ravenous consumption of illegal drugs. Therefore, the list gives a false conception that some were clean who actually weren't.

The list is, IMO, meaningless. The solutions that come of the discussion may not be.
longslowdistance

Posts:725

--
07/24/2013 11:56 PM
1. Back to the original tread question: How far back to vacate Tour winners due to doping? A: Indurain's fist win. Why? Because doping before EPO wasn't particularly effective and was very widely used, so LeMond and prior get a pass. (I assume autotransfusion wasn't used in the Tour, maybe niaive?). Purists squawks away, I don't care. I don't see the world in black and white. "Nuance." Look it up.
79pmooney

Posts:1191

--
07/25/2013 02:00 AM
lsd, I agree. The huge change is that before EPO, riders were limited to what their bodies could do. Painkillers and stimulants meant that riders could get closer to their ultimate limit and do it for longer, but that limit didn't change. (Well it did some from more intense drug fueled training.) But EPO changed the fundamental game. Now those limits were pushed to places that were previously unobtainable.

Ben
Keith Richards

Posts:755

--
07/25/2013 10:04 AM
Cheating is cheating. Just because one method works better than the others doesn't change a thing Ben.
----- It is his word versus ours. We like our word. We like where we stand and we like our credibility."--Lance Armstrong.
BikeCzar

Posts:53

--
07/25/2013 10:18 AM
Absolutely agree, Keith.
Cosmic Kid

Posts:1175

--
07/25/2013 10:23 AM
I don't know that "cheating is cheating." If it was, then all infractions would carry the same penalty. But since they clearly don't, I think it is fair to say that some cheating is worse than others.

Now, does that pertain to doping? I dunno....gets a bit muddier. No doubt that EPO changed the fundamentals of how cycling operated. It also meant that if you wanted to ride, you had to dope. Period, end of story. That was not the case prior to EPO. The easy example is Andy Hampsten, who was competitive and won at the highest levels of the sport and is universally regarded as a clean rider.

That said, if EPO had been available to earlier generations, they certainly would have used it, as well. So in that sense, the "sin" of doping is the same from generation to generation, but the impact and magnitude of it has significantly increased over time.
Just say "NO!" to WCP!!!!
Yo Mike

Posts:277

--
07/25/2013 10:25 AM
Cheating is cheating, I agree, tho I do see Ben's POV.

Also: don't some people respond more effectively to different doping agents? The playing field could be 'level' for dope, but individual responses to that agent may make the difference in a race.

So, let's avoid more 'Tom Simpson memorials' or riders dying in their sleep with sludge-blood in their veins and just level the playing field with no dope for anyone.
jmdirt

Posts:731

--
07/25/2013 11:02 AM
Yo Mike, everyone's body responds to everything differently. Some people respond to training loads better than others, some recover faster, some respond to alcohol differently, some to pollen worse than others. Arguing that one or some riders respond to dope better just goes back to genetics, meaning they are genetically superior. If you and I are on the same training plan (not including dope) you may respond better and that makes the difference in the race. Even in 100% clean sport, there is no level playing field. Doping is an attempt to level the playing field.
Yo Mike

Posts:277

--
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:755

--
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:1236

--
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:725

--
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:1175

--
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:277

--
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:755

--
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:248

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

Posts:755

--
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:172

--
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:731

--
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:755

--
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:1175

--
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:755

--
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:731

--
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.
Entheo

Posts:317

--
07/26/2013 07:51 AM
Posted By Cosmic Kid on 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.


based on my previous reconstruction of his doping timeline he had begun discussions with ferrari (intro via merckx if memory serves) but then the onset of cancer postponed deployment of a ferrari-guided program until after treatment. so i believe the difference -- as was the case with many riders (getting caught, too) -- was ferrari's system. he was the master of doping programs, and he charged accordingly. re: jmdirt's question "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?" Again, if memory serves, hamilton's book talked about LA's natural hematocrit being lower than hamilton's, that the former was receiving more benefit accordingly.
jacques_anquetil

Posts:231

--
07/26/2013 09:37 AM
man, where is dark knight of the sole and lance's spear when you need them to contribute to the dialogue?
jmdirt

Posts:731

--
07/26/2013 10:16 AM
Entheo, OK he had more "room" to manipulate his hemo but did his body respond to dope better than other people (that is the claim).
Entheo

Posts:317

--
07/26/2013 10:29 AM
Posted By Justin jmdirt on 07/26/2013 10:16 AM
Entheo, OK he had more "room" to manipulate his hemo but did his body respond to dope better than other people (that is the claim).


well, based on his -7 TdF wins, i'd say yes!
jmdirt

Posts:731

--
07/26/2013 10:35 AM
I'm not sure how "scientific" that is but it is hard to argue with! ;]
Orange Crush

Posts:1236

--
07/26/2013 04:01 PM
Reasonably interesting little article in Volkskrant today about genetic doping, the fact that its ready for use (two variants at least), the degree to which the current clean(er) generation would be able to resist it or whether we'd be looking at another tsunami most likely, and what the authorities could do to control and guide its use (and to what degree it should/could be controllled).

Lots of interesting questions. Meanwhile we're still pretending like its 1998.
jrt1045

Posts:362

--
07/26/2013 04:23 PM
Don't say it 3 times in a row, J_A as they will appear
Yo Mike

Posts:277

--
07/27/2013 09:51 AM
Genetic doping? I guess it was in the cards. Now that's sure to 'level the playing field' for rationalizing athletes everywhere.

We had 'the Chicken'. Sooner or later, we'll have the 'Bar-headed Goose'.

http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/276/1673/3645?cited-by=yes&legid=royprsb;276/1673/3645

These birds migrate over the himalayan mountains. Look.....up in the Sky....
Orange Crush

Posts:1236

--
07/31/2013 01:03 PM
Uh oh

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/ullrich-calls-for-restoration-of-armstrongs-tour-de-france-titles
jmdirt

Posts:731

--
07/31/2013 06:52 PM
I've said that all along. Just because LA was the best doper and the biggest ahole doesn't mean that he should be the only one removed from the lists. All or none.


---
Active Forums 4.1