"Mike Jacoubowsky" wrote in message
...
Was it really a lie back then? Top riders, including Coppi and Anquetil,
acknowledged using drugs. As Dino Buzzati noted in his articles for
Corriere della Sera while following the 1949 Giro, the drugs used were
primarily to ease pain and allow riders (most often the Gregari) to
simply finish. Benjo has pointed out here that the history of
anti-doping is primarily derived not from Euro attitudes tpward doping
but US attitudes as linked to the Olympics. That has given ride to the
lie in the post-Simpson period.

I think it was an even bigger lie back then. The rationalization that you
took drugs to help you recover or get through the pain, as if somehow that
wasn't something that would improve your chances of winning. Cycling was
then, as it is now, a team sport. If the Gregari dropped out, they'd be of
no help to their team's leader. Call it what you will, but it's still all
about winning.

The notion that you took drugs for "recovery" continued for some time;
frankly, when EPO and HGH came along, at least people were willing to
admit the reasons they took it had nothing to do with recovery and
everything to do with being competitive and winning. And thus at least a
tacit admission that taking such drugs is, in fact, cheating... something
entirely different from the rationaization that it's all about recovery or
pain control, just so you can survive.

But what this thread really begs for is a history of drug controls in
sports. Frankly, I have no idea what was legal and what wasn't back in the
40s and 50s, and I think that has a fair amount of relevance when we're
contrasting now vs then.

Here are some old posts from Benjo.

1. Small history of doping:


1897. The Welsh rider Linton, co-winner of Bordeaux-Paris dies not long
after the race. Cause of death: probably doping. At that time riders took
cafeine, derivatives of strychnine, cocaine and arsenic, and above all
alcohol. For a race like Bordeaux-Paris: one bottle of cognac and some
glasses white wine, port, and champagne.
1924: Albert Londres interviews the Pelisssier brothers after they have
quitted the Tour. They show him a battery of little bottles, pills and
tables: "We ride on dynamite"
1938: The Belgian Felicien Vervaecke is a surprisingly strong adversary of
the young Bartali. One of the first times a rider is using amphitamine,
invented in 1930.
1942: Coppi takes seven tablets amphitamine and breaks the hour record.
1948: Gino Bartali wins the Tour de France. Almost certainly the last Tour
winner who was really clean.
1955: Tour de France: the Mont Ventoux. The French rider Jean Mallejac in
coma and almost dies. Ex-winner Ferdi Kuebler is zigzagging and super
climber Charley Gaul has a terrible beakdown: the have the same soigneur.
1964: Danish rider Jensen dies during the road race at the Olympic Games.
1965: The first doping tests.
1966: The first doping tests in the Tour de France. Anquetil leads a strike.
But there is one strikebreaker: Tommy Simpson.
1967: Tommy Simpson dies at the Mont Ventoux. Cause: amphitamine and
alcohol.
1969: In the Giro Eddy Merckx takes doping for the time trial. His doctor
assures him he has nothing to fear: after one hour after he has taken it he
won't test positive, and because the follwoing day is a rest day, next day
there will be no traces in his urine. Wrong. He is caught anyway. He
proclaims crying his innocence, says he has been cheated (he is, by his
doctor). Even the Belgian king expresses his concerns. Merckx' suspension is
lifted, so he can ride and win the Tour de France.
1975 and 1977: Bernard Thevenet wins the Tour. Some years later he admits he
took cortisone.
1977: The Belgian doctor Debackere finds a way to detect the popular doping
Stimul and tries it in the Tour de Belgique. All the riders tested are
positive.
1988: Pedro Delgado wins the TDF. He has used a masking drug which is on the
list of the OC but not of the UCI.
1988-1990: 18 Belgian and Dutch riders die of heart attacks. The first
experiments with EPO?
1989: The whole PDM team has to leave the Tour, having used contaminated
intrapelid, a drug masking the use of testeron.
1989: The miracolous resurrexion of Greg Lemond. He suffered from anemia,
but claimed to have been cured by an iron injection. Not many people believe
him. The rumour says he used blood-doping. Or was it EPO?
1990: The talented Gilles Delion wins the Tour of Lomardy, but has to stop
professional racing a few years later: he is really clean and can't compete
anymore now that all the strong riders are taking EPO, steroids, etc.
1998: The soigneur Willy Voet is arrested, and his team Festina is expelled
from the Tour de France.


Benjo Maso



2. The first serious attempts to ban drugs in sport were made after the
Olympic
Games of Helsinki 1952. The reason was simple: the Soviet-Union won so many
golds that the West-Europeans and Americans were convinced that the Russians
must have been much farther in using drugs than any other country. For that
reason they insisted on introducing taking tests. Not because they cared
for the health of athletes, but only because they were convinced they
couldn't win as long as the Russians had something they didn't. The first
test were very simple. The most effective was the sex-test, which led to the
downfall of some succesfull athletes like the Rumanian high jumper Yolanda
Balas, the Russian discus thrower Tamara Press and others. But drug-test
became more and more complicated and the list of forbidden products became
longer and longer. It included even some products of which nobody knew if
they were really performance-enhancing, but just in case they were, it was
considered safer to put them of the list as well. In other words: to a
certain extent the list was completely arbitrary.
Drug tests started in the Tour in 1966. The day after, the peloton went
on strike. The initiator was Jacques Anquetil. he said: "I agree with drug
tests, but only for novices and amateurs. Pro's have enough experience to
know what is best for them and must be allowed to take their own
responsabilities." Wise words, but after Simson' death in 1967 they didn't
stand a ghost of a chance to be accepted. What's mo for the general
public the use of drugs had become more and more a moral issue. Not for the
riders: they never use words like "cheat'', etc.
Of course, it would be wonderful if drugs didn't exist. The chances to win
should be equal for every athlete, and if some of them have found powerful
strong performance -product, their rivals can have an insurmountable
disavantage. On the other hand, that's a fact of life. Gaston Reiff inveted
interval training and beat Zatopek. Lemond was clever enough to use
thriatlon handlebars and beat Fignon. Of course, that's not just the same as
the case of EPO for instance. They are so expensive that only the richest
riders and teams can afford them, which isn't right. If there were simple
effective methods to make the use of such products impossible, splendid. But
meanwhile the "fight'' against doping is causing more damage than the drugs
themselves. Not only because some tests (like EPO) are a pure scandal, but
also because it's destroying the sport in general. Winning a race has become
suspect, having a bad day even more.
As far as I see it there is only one solution: legalizing drugs to a
certain amount, Anquetil-wise. It's a illusion that the "fight against
doping" can ever be won. As a doping expert was saying a few weeks go: in
the 90's the gap between the cops and the robbers was narrowing, but right
now it's widening again. Draconian legislation won't help any more than in
the "war against drugs'' in general. It will only stimulate the already
existing links with criminal organisations. The main impediment for
legalizing drugs: the fact that is has become a moral issue. Much more in
the United States than in Europe mayby, but I'm afraid that thanks to the
trials which are going on and all the publicity around the gap is closing. I
can't say I'm very happy about it.


Benjo Maso