|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
Here are some old posts from Benjo.
Brian: Thanks for offering those up, greatly appreciated, the type of info I was looking for. It still doesn't change my opinion though (that the "bigger lie" was from those insisting that drug use was all about recovery & pain control vs performance enhancement). But perhaps we're more willing to be honest about our use of drugs when people like Bob Dole hawk Viagra. We didn't have such positive role models for drug use back then. --Mike Jacoubowsky Chain Reaction Bicycles www.ChainReaction.com Redwood City & Los Altos, CA USA "B. Lafferty" wrote in message ink.net... "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 |
Ads |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
"Mike Jacoubowsky" wrote in message ... Here are some old posts from Benjo. Brian: Thanks for offering those up, greatly appreciated, the type of info I was looking for. It still doesn't change my opinion though (that the "bigger lie" was from those insisting that drug use was all about recovery & pain control vs performance enhancement). Your point is well taken. Recall if you will, Bartali going through the trash in Coppi's hotel room and going back to find Coppi's discarded bidon to lean what special substance he was taking. I do think the riders back then were more open about using dope but the real change occurs around 1990 when the science take a major leap forward and Omerta becomes the rule. But perhaps we're more willing to be honest about our use of drugs when people like Bob Dole hawk Viagra. We didn't have such positive role models for drug use back then. Hey, performance is performance is performance. --Mike Jacoubowsky Chain Reaction Bicycles www.ChainReaction.com Redwood City & Los Altos, CA USA "B. Lafferty" wrote in message ink.net... "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 |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
B. Lafferty wrote:
(MJ wrote): (Snip) 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. Drugs that could be used in training to enable bigger efforts and recovery from them, and drugs that could be used while racing-- don't these sets overlap?. (BL wrote): Here are some old posts from Benjo. (snip): As far as I see it there is only one solution: legalizing drugs to a certain amount, Anquetil-wise. And (IMHO) reducing the punishments, by a whole bunch. It's a illusion "Enjoying the ride", Brian? that the "fight against doping" can ever be won. Who says they want to win the war? War is profitable, and makes "heroes". --TP |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
if you take EPO and HGH (to use your examples) durring training, and
are "clean" durring competition; ie: if/when tested you return a -ve result.... are you cheating? What really constitutes cheating. If you take medication for a cold (the same stuff any non-athlete can get over the counter in a pharmacy) durring competition you are "cheating"... is this right? Is there not a much bigger and more in depth issue here than right/wrong, clean/cheat... it's a far more complicated world out there than you realize... In your first example, yes, it's still cheating, simply because it's against the rules. Otherwise you're defining not cheating as whatever you can do with no fear of being caught. But sure, there are a whole lot of gray areas. Asthma medication, for example. Amazing how much of the pack is afflicted with asthma. When I raced (72-77), you were one sick dude if you had to carry an inhaler around with you (and a few did). The rest of us were too dumb to consider there might be some real benefits to taking a hit, and the guys like me, with terminal allergies, who might have actually benefitted from asthma meds... most of us thought you were better off to tough it out. --Mike Jacoubowsky Chain Reaction Bicycles www.ChainReaction.com Redwood City & Los Altos, CA USA "DepartFictif" wrote in message oups.com... if you take EPO and HGH (to use your examples) durring training, and are "clean" durring competition; ie: if/when tested you return a -ve result.... are you cheating? What really constitutes cheating. If you take medication for a cold (the same stuff any non-athlete can get over the counter in a pharmacy) durring competition you are "cheating"... is this right? Is there not a much bigger and more in depth issue here than right/wrong, clean/cheat... it's a far more complicated world out there than you realize... |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
B. Lafferty wrote: "Mike Jacoubowsky" wrote in message ... Here are some old posts from Benjo. Brian: Thanks for offering those up, greatly appreciated, the type of info I was looking for. It still doesn't change my opinion though (that the "bigger lie" was from those insisting that drug use was all about recovery & pain control vs performance enhancement). Your point is well taken. Recall if you will, Bartali going through the trash in Coppi's hotel room and going back to find Coppi's discarded bidon to lean what special substance he was taking. I do think the riders back then were more open about using dope but the real change occurs around 1990 when the science take a major leap forward and Omerta becomes the rule. But perhaps we're more willing to be honest about our use of drugs when people like Bob Dole hawk Viagra. We didn't have such positive role models for drug use back then. Hey, performance is performance is performance. --Mike Jacoubowsky Chain Reaction Bicycles www.ChainReaction.com Redwood City & Los Altos, CA USA "B. Lafferty" wrote in message ink.net... "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 I think the key point here is that we all need to realise just how lucky we are to have Benjp around. I'm betting that he becomes the next Samuel Abt, and then some. Bill C |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
"Bill C" wrote in message oups.com... B. Lafferty wrote: "Mike Jacoubowsky" wrote in message ... Here are some old posts from Benjo. Brian: Thanks for offering those up, greatly appreciated, the type of info I was looking for. It still doesn't change my opinion though (that the "bigger lie" was from those insisting that drug use was all about recovery & pain control vs performance enhancement). Your point is well taken. Recall if you will, Bartali going through the trash in Coppi's hotel room and going back to find Coppi's discarded bidon to lean what special substance he was taking. I do think the riders back then were more open about using dope but the real change occurs around 1990 when the science take a major leap forward and Omerta becomes the rule. But perhaps we're more willing to be honest about our use of drugs when people like Bob Dole hawk Viagra. We didn't have such positive role models for drug use back then. Hey, performance is performance is performance. --Mike Jacoubowsky Chain Reaction Bicycles www.ChainReaction.com Redwood City & Los Altos, CA USA "B. Lafferty" wrote in message ink.net... "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 I think the key point here is that we all need to realise just how lucky we are to have Benjp around. I'm betting that he becomes the next Samuel Abt, and then some. Bill C God forbid! Abt should become more like Benjo. |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
Dans le message de
oups.com, DepartFictif a réfléchi, et puis a déclaré : if you take EPO and HGH (to use your examples) durring training, and are "clean" durring competition; ie: if/when tested you return a -ve result.... are you cheating? What really constitutes cheating. Giving you the benefit of the doubt : your cat wrote that, right ? If you take medication for a cold (the same stuff any non-athlete can get over the counter in a pharmacy) durring competition you are "cheating"... is this right? Is there not a much bigger and more in depth issue here than right/wrong, clean/cheat... it's a far more complicated world out there than you realize... That was the pony ? Do you get a reflection in your mirror ? -- Bonne route ! Sandy Verneuil-sur-Seine FR |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
In article ,
wrote: On Sat, 30 Jul 2005 14:40:25 GMT, "B. Lafferty" wrote: "Physically I'm not any more gifted that anybody else," Armstrong explained to Walsh, "but it's just the desire, just this rage. I'm on the bike and I go into a rage, when I just shriek for about five seconds. I shake like mad and my eyes kinda bulge out. [.] That's heart man, that's not physical, that's not legs, that's not lungs. That's heart. That's soul. That's just guts." Pretty cool. Thanks for posting that. Otherwise a pretty tame article. Tame? He says professional bicycle racing at the the upper and highest levels is coked to the eyelids. What is a stronger way of putting it? -- Michael Press |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
Michael Press wrote: Tame? He says professional bicycle racing at the the upper and highest levels is coked to the eyelids. What is a stronger way of putting it? People have been saying that ever since 1924, since the (sensationalized) interview with the Pelissier brothers and their trotted-out bottles of pills and "we run on dynamite." (IIRC, their quotes were partly an attempt to get back at the Tour director after a falling-out.) Benjo referenced the Pelissier interview in the post Laff quoted elsewhere in the thread. The author of the base article and Lafferty have the idea that doping since about 1990 is somehow more evil than before and all riders are therefore tainted (I would say doping products like EPO are more effective than before, which is not exactly the same thing). The article was well-written, but stacked. One thing I didn't like is that the author listed several riders who dropped dead of heart attacks but included Jimenez and Zanoli, both of whom were several years out of racing, had documented mental problems, and possibly abused recreational drugs. Not that this makes their deaths any less tragic, it just seems to cheapen their memory to dig them up as evidence for doping. Another thing I didn't like is the riders=Robocop cliche. I gather this is popular among Armstrong-haters in France (Ilan posted that in the past) but what really bugs me about it is that I think it's cribbed from rbr's own Jeff Potter. Oh yeah, one other thing. Speaking of bicycle racing as the uniquely drug ridden sport. This week on BBC Sport I see articles about Edgar Davids' transfer to Tottenham Hotspur. Lots of questions about his personality, but you'll never see a word about getting popped for nandro. (And he only got four months.) |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
consitering where you are from... you should know better. Very few
people can actually disscuss the issue. You have to be, or have to have been involved in cycling to fully understand what is at stake, how the world of cycling works. Most people take it on a far too simplistic front. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Drugs are Cool. | crit PRO | Racing | 23 | March 22nd 05 02:50 AM |
Decanio Sounding Coherent | B Lafferty | Racing | 93 | February 3rd 05 10:32 PM |
Bettini on drugs? | Gary | Racing | 74 | August 19th 04 01:44 AM |
Doping or not? Read this: | never_doped | Racing | 0 | August 4th 03 01:46 AM |
BBC: Drugs In Sport | B. Lafferty | Racing | 0 | July 28th 03 04:19 PM |