"It's Not About the Drugs"

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

"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

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

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...

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

"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.

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

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

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.)

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.