kuha wrote:A good bit of this DOES date back to the of performance enhancers in WWII, and not just in cycling. But, again, at the time all this was just seen as smart science.
Didn't the Swedes take the fartlek interval training to higher altitude forests in the thirties already? They may or may not have known the exact physiology of hematocrit enhancement, but they clearly saw the results.
I can't answer that offhand, but I've been the one saying that all this "really" dates from the 1870s/80s and the use of stimulants.
The bottom line is: there is no era of "modern" athletics in which one can say, absolutely, that NO ONE was doing anything we'd now call "illegal." This has nothing to do with illegality at the time (because these things weren't) and we're not talking about "everyone" doing anything. Nevertheless, by today's Puritan standards, there is no era that would obviously qualify as "pure" or "untainted."
That is clearly so. My focus was a lot more narrow since with the cycling "doping", we are primarily talking about manipulation of hematocrit/O2 transfer that progressively graduated from interval to altitude training to hyperbaric chambers to allotransfusion to autotransfusion to EPO. I might have omitted some others.
What I am saying is that this is a lot more physiological than, say, steroids or HGH (with EPO being an exception as it could be life-threatening). Not only are the suits not considering legalization of autotransfusion, but from what I read, they are considering banning hyperbaric and even some versions of altitude training. This is insane, IMHO.
All (or at least most) of those deaths attributable to high hematocrit could be avoided by transferring their administration from snake oil salesmen to professionals familiar with hematology and exercise physiology.
gh wrote:I have nothing to back this thought other than the logic of the whole thing, but I suspect that after the WWII experience of doping soldiers to the gills to keep them functioning that it wasn't long thereafater that somebody put two and two together and the peloton was changed forever.
Backing up E Garry, remember that Eddy Merckx, who raced professionally from 1965-1976, was caught doping twice. This goes back in cycling to at least the 1920s, although back then it was mostly amphetamines.
Because of my Olympic interest I get asked to do some other stuff, and recently finished a book called Historical Dictionary of Cycling. Here are the opening paragraphs for the entry on doping, which gives an outline for how far back this goes:
The first implication of doping in cycling may go back to the 19th century, when trainer Choppy Warburton was banned from the sport for suspicions of drugging his riders. Warburton coached Arthur Linton, who won Bordeaux-Paris in 1896, but was suspected of being doped by Warburton during that race. In 1924 Henri Pélissier and his brother, Charles, admitted to various doping methods, describing in an interview their use of strychnine, cocaine, chloroform, aspirin, and horse ointments, although they later noted that the writer had exaggerated their claims. By the 1940s Italian campionissimo Fausto Coppi freely admitted to doping, calling it “la bomba,” and said there was no alternative if one hoped to stay competitive. In 1955 French rider Jean Malléjac collapsed in the Tour de France near the top of Mont Ventoux, and it was attributed to doping. He had been riding wildly and sporadically and fell off his bike with one foot still in his toe clip. He later stated he had been drugged against his will and proclaimed his innocence to his death in 2000. Roger Rivière, a star of the late 1950s, who was paralyzed after a crash in the 1960 Tour, later admitted to doping during his career, and even said his career-ending accident was possibly due to the use of painkilling drugs which had affected his reflexes and judgment. At the 1960 Olympic Games, Danish rider Knud Enemark Jensen fell off his bike during the team time trial. His fall caused a fractured skull, but blood analysis in the hospital also showed that he had used Ronicol, a peripheral vasodilator, and amphetamines. Because of the fractured skull, however, the drugs were not implicated as the direct cause of death. But Jensen’s death would later lead the International Olympic Committee (IOC) to start an anti-doping campaign, which would begin with the 1968 Olympics. In 1965 Tour superstar Jacques Anquetil admitted during a television interview that he used drugs, stating that it was common at the time, and that a man could not ride Bordeaux-Paris or the grand tours while riding only on water. On 1 June 1965, performance-enhancing drugs were made illegal in France and in July 1966 the Tour authorities began testing the riders for drugs, with Raymond Poulidor the first rider to be tested on 29 July. During the 13th stage of the 1967 Tour de France Tom Simpson fell off his bike near the summit of Mont Ventoux. He could not be revived and died later that day. His autopsy would reveal that he had been on amphetamines and alcohol while riding, and his death was probably the major impetus to begin the fight against doping. In 1969 and 1973, the greatest rider of all-time, Eddy Merckx, twice tested positive for banned substances and was disqualified from races. In that era, there were no long-term bans and he continued riding. At the 1972 Olympics Jaime Huélamo was disqualified after placing third in the men’s road race, having tested positive for coramine. Another rider, Aad van den Hoek, also tested positive for coramine and was disqualified, which eliminated the Dutch team from the team time trial, after they had placed third. In 1979 the polka dot jersey, Giovanni Battaglin, tested positive for doping on stage 13. He was penalized 10 minutes in general classification, and lost the mountain points he won on stage 13, but continued to race and eventually won the mountains classification. Shortly thereafter, Freddy Maertens admitted to the French newspaper L’Équipe that he had used amphetamines during his career, and said that it was just like all other professional riders who did the same. Just after the 1984 Olympics, the United States' cyclists were implicated in doping for the first time, when it was revealed that several members of the US cycling team had undergone blood doping to prepare for the Games. At the time this was not illegal and no penalties were assessed, though it was considered a doping practice. Blood doping became illegal in international sport in 1985. In the late 1980s eryrthropoietin (EPO) became widely available as a way to increase a person’s hematocrit (Hct), a measure of blood count. Initially used by anemic patients, especially those on dialysis or undergoing chemotherapy, professional cyclists and runners soon found that using it could boost their Hct, allowing for more oxygen carrying capacity, without resorting to blood doping. Unfortunately overuse of EPO can raise a healthy person’s hematocrit to dangerous levels, causing the blood to sludge, possibly causing strokes or heart attacks. Between 1987 and 1991 18 different European professional cyclists, seemingly healthy young men, died suddenly, and EPO was suspected in many of the unusual deaths. One rider was Dutch cyclist Johannes Draaijer, whose wife stated that he became ill after using EPO.
It goes on, but I'll stop at the Festina Scandal of 1998.
As to Dr Jay's post, a few guys I know on the inside say that Armstrong is one of the most despicable people they have ever known. As to the mention of LeMond, I really like LeMond and think he has never gotten due credit for being the American to break through the European hegemony in pro cycling. I think some of the stuff he has done going after Armstrong has been a little weird. But if you ask me, I would suspect LeMond probably used some stuff in the 1980s as well - everybody was doing it, even then.
French climbers (and thus, probably others) were using amphetamines on big peaks in the 1950s. See "Aconcagua South Face" by Rene Ferlet. He was quite casual in his descriptions of taking them high on the 10,000' face, as casual as we'd describe taking a few Advil today.
Apparently because we have an athlete we're supposed to like, we can come up with rationalizations. Had we had an athlete we're supposed to dislike, it would be hang em high.
While I'm not particularly against the use of PEDs, there are standards here which appear that there's a good chance were broken whether anyone received an advantage or not. If this were not the problem that some are trying to downplay then it would be no issue for the athletes and they could simply state that they took them and move on. Instead we have athletes denying usage despite all common sense analysis to the contrary and couching their words in a way to avoid being caught whether it be legally or public opinion.
bambam wrote:Because of my Olympic interest I get asked to do some other stuff, and recently finished a book called Historical Dictionary of Cycling. Here are the opening paragraphs for the entry on doping, which gives an outline for how far back this goes:
Thanks. This is excellent and sobering stuff. Makes it a bit hard to pretend that nailing one guy to the wall now is going to solve much of anything. I'm all for guilt being punished, etc., but what we're really talking about here is not primarily a personal failing, but something much bigger.
I think 60 Minutes is on the edge of losing its credibility on this one in a manner that was unnecessary:
[from link above] ""60 Minutes" also reported that the UCI officials brokered a meeting involving Armstrong and Saugy's World Anti-Doping Agency-accredited lab, which tested the Swiss race samples.
Saugy told the Swiss daily Neue Zurcher Zeitung last week that he met with Armstrong and then-U.S. Postal team manager Johan Bruyneel, but not in Lausanne as Hamilton claimed and unconnected to a suspicious test result."
Why [did 60 Minutes] put in something that they are not sure of and have everyone say 'what else is not right'. This situation presents itself in spades because the primary discussants are two individuals who have been 'loose with the truth' on this score for a long time. It lets Armstrong keep with his same strategy without having to dodge and weave at all.
Several have cited Canseco and how people did not believe him. There is a fundamental difference in that he did not deny for years having used PEDs even after having tested positive. Rather he stated his and implicated others initially.
26mi235 wrote:Several have cited Canseco and how people did not believe him. There is a fundamental difference in that he did not deny for years having used PEDs even after having tested positive. Rather he stated his and implicated others initially.
Hincapie did not say anything; they have you taking their word for it that he said some things and someone broke the law by passing it on. This is exactly the form of content that gets its credibility diminished by having one of their other pieces 'shown' to be wrong.
I think that they thought they had to many many things, and by reaching too far they may have taken a hit on the credibility, especially if they have to publicly retract something. I think it was an unfortunate choice of strategy. I am not sure have the typical person will view this, since I cannot put myself in that role because I know too much to be 'typical' in this sense.
Now 'everyone' will say -- I guess I will wait until the Feds do something and then if they do not have the smoking gun for real I am all for Lance... [I guess that I am saying that I have gone more and more to the Lance is guilty as well as a self-centered individual who can be a jerk. I have never wanted to 'go meet him', although there are various opportunities because Trek is just down the road. Jazz, you are probably one reason for my deepening skepticism.]
It strikes me more of Saugy bowing to pressures being exerted on him from outside forces. He tells 60 minutes one thing (probably the truth) and is now facing problems of his own. Why would a lab director meet with Lance and his coach in an approximate time to when this was all supposed to have gone down? Still way too odd. My guess is the Saugy has felt some heat he did not expect and is trying to wiggle his way out of it the best he can.
"Gerard Vroomen has never shied away from the discussion on doping and in two recent blog posts on his personal website he raised issues over the media’s reporting of the issue. After a recent restructure at Cervelo, in which he stepped down from his position as CEO, the former manager of the Cervelo TestTeam was quick to point that the views posted on his blog were his alone but talked openly about his feelings on Ivan Basso, Fränk Shleck and the journalistic endeavour into doping."...
Vrooman is the co-founder of the team that then had Basso win the Giro and Shleck linked to Operation Puerto.
Lance Armstrong. Usain Bolt, "Hussein Obama II" accused and stripped - first of six acts June 29 2012
Last Prophet predicted 2004 that the greatest cycling champion ever, Lance Armstrong would be executed the same way as Marion Jones: - first: falsely accused of doping, as may others before, as oart of the agenda behind the illuminati doping conspiracy; (1) - second: all major TITLES erased from the official medals table, which is also part of the "Rewrite History" agenda pushed to the utter limits.
In 2007 Last Prophet explained that Usain Bolt would be executed the same way as Lance Armstrong. In 2008 after the Usain Bolt set his world records in Beijing Olympics, Last Prophet explained that Usain Bolt became the fastest man ever AND FOREVER.
Immediately after the illuminati were forced to use plan B for the 2008 elections and have "Obama" play counterfeit president and have him detonate as suicide bomber (like Nixon) later,
Last Prophet explained that illuminati actor "Obama" would be executed the same way (2) as the two greatest sports champions ever, Armstrong and Bolt: - accused of all sort of crimes (forging birth certificazte; murdering his "granny", etc); - stripped of his title, i.e. Hillary Clinton declared 44th president and successor of GW Bush.
All this part also of the supervised ethnic civil war script, to be launched together with the collapse of banks and anihilation of savings and pension funds of human cattle.
The first of these six acts (accusation, titles stripping of Armstrong. Bolt and "Obama") timely took place (3) on June 29, 2012, hours before the start of the Tour de France. The
Fascinating. Delusional paranoid mumbo-jumbo, but fascinating. I sincerely wonder how Matt carries on in the real world, and, after the Colorado tragedy, why people aren't genuinely worried about him. I know I am. Bot . . . intentional troll . . . fraternity hazing carried on way too far?
After more than a decade of outrunning accusations that he had doped during his celebrated cycling career, Lance Armstrong, one of the best-known and accomplished athletes in recent history, surrendered on Thursday, etching a dark mark on his legacy by ending his fight against charges that he used performance-enhancing drugs.
His decision means he will almost certainly be stripped of his seven Tour titles, the bronze medal he won at the 2000 Olympics and all other titles, awards and money he won from August 1998 on.
Bet your horse money that his LiveStrong Foundation will go bust before the next Tour de France. The existence of that foundation is completely predicated upon the fame he gained from his exploits at the Tour de France. Without his victories, there would not have been a LiveStrong Foundation.
Now, once we are done with what could very well be the single biggest redistribution of awards (and money) ever to take place in the history of sport, all that remains of his legacy and career record will be even far worse than what remains of Marion Jones'. Her career record and awards, up to the summer of 2000 (including her 1997 and '99 World Championships and her PRs of 10.65A, 21.62, 49.59 and 20.8 relay leg), still remain intact. Everything Lance has, right up to the beginning of 1999, is not even a footnote compared to what remains of hers. Hardly anyone spoke of him before the 1999 Tour.
Who finished 2nd in each of the 4 AP polls that Lance won for Male Athlete of the Year? Venus Williams was 2nd to Marion in the 2000 Female Athlete of the Year poll. How will they deal with Lance?
It will be interesting to see id the UCI tells USADA to go take a flying jump.
I am totally opposed to drugs and if Armstrong is guilty then I hope he gets his just desserts. However, Armstrong has probably been tested more times than any athlete alive and has always tested clean. US federal authorities decided they didn't have any evidence to charge him.
USADA has not put up a skerrick of indisputable evidence. Landis is not evidence. I am totally unsurprised that Armstrong has said to USADA "Go and F%$* your arbitration". Why should Armstrong spend millions trying to keep on defending himself?
So, if he is guilty then he deserves to go down. But USADA needs to front up with the evidence. Unfortunately, USADA is a typical example of how the USA justice system often works. Iraq had weapons of mass destruction because the US said so. And because the US has the military might and power it can do what it did. But not a skerrick of evidence. The USADA also has the might and power it seems to push a case, even if the real USADA motive is politics or publicity as Judge Sparks hinted at. "USADA's conduct raises serious questions about whether its real interest in charging Armstrong is to combat doping, or if it is acting according to less noble motives,'' such as politics or publicity, U.S. District Judge Sam Sparks wrote.
At last, we are near to some justice. This arrogant cheat looks to finally get his just desserts.
The only reason he has made the decision not to fight is to avoid any formal prosecution and conviction of doping; he wants to avoid the humiliation.
A great quote from a UK journalist:
"The most important lesson of the Lance Armstrong story, though, is the hardest to prepare for and guard against: our own gullibility and willing complicity. What is astounding and disturbing is that one man – a dominant personality as well as a dominant athlete – was able to enforce his will, isolate, bully and silence his doubters and critics, and win the world's top cycling event year after year and make people believe in him, despite there being, apparently, dozens of witnesses to its utter phoniness. Too many people had too much invested in the Lance Armstrong story, and the power of persuasion followed the money.
The moral of the story is that if a cyclist looks too good to be true, then he probably is. But if a cyclist looks too good to be true and has an entourage of lawyers, press flaks, doctors and bodyguards, then he definitely is."