Cycling Dead: Merckx

I love Eddy, but considering the amphetamine use that went on back in his day, he should just keep his mouth shut and his head down.

hgb said:

I love Eddy, but considering the amphetamine use that went on back in his day, he should just keep his mouth shut and his head down.

Who have never done a fault throw him a stone.
But I must say I think that Eddy is more condemnable for his support for dopers along the last years. He is one who could not ignore what was going on.

poulidor said:

Who have never done a fault throw him a stone.
But I must say I think that Eddy is more condemnable for his support for dopers along the last years. He is one who could not ignore what was going on.

Wasn't he the first to claim that Armstrong would win the tour back in 99?

hgb said:

I love Eddy, but considering the amphetamine use that went on back in his day, he should just keep his mouth shut and his head down.

I don't think there is any equivalence between amphetamines and EPO and blood boosting. What Merckx should be condemned for is his support of an obviously doping Armstrong.

wicklow200 said:

Wasn't he the first to claim that Armstrong would win the tour back in 99?

I remember in the early 90's that he said Armstrong would never win the Tour. He was not the right kind of rider. I think recently he, like some others, have altered their memories of what they said early about Armstrong.

Bro Deal said:

I don't think there is any equivalence between amphetamines and EPO and blood boosting.

I disagree completely.

Not only was the rampant use of amphetamines unsportsmanlike, it set the stage for the more modern techniques of raising hemoglobin levels artificially.

You let a few riders get a boost from amphetamines, and then even the riders who don't want to take them must start just to stay competitive. It's the same way with blood boosting.

Amphetamines and blood boosting have different effects on the body, but the same effect on the sport: they corrupt it.

hgb said:

I disagree completely.

Not only was the rampant use of amphetamines unsportsmanlike, it set the stage for the more modern techniques of raising hemoglobin levels artificially.

You let a few riders get a boost from amphetamines, and then even the riders who don't want to take them must start just to stay competitive. It's the same way with blood boosting.

Amphetamines and blood boosting have different effects on the body, but the same effect on the sport: they corrupt it.

I'll give you that little stuff like amphetamines set the stage for what happened in the early nineties. I am just saying that I don't equate the use of minor stuff with blood doping. The earlier methods did not change the results. It was not like in the 90s when the dope was so effective that it forced everyone to be a user.

The use of amphetamines was often to survive the racing schedule and travel rather than for performance. The eras are radically different and you can't really compare them.

Bro Deal said:

I'll give you that little stuff like amphetamines set the stage for what happened in the early nineties. I am just saying that I don't equate the use of minor stuff with blood doping. The earlier methods did not change the results. It was not like in the 90s when the dope was so effective that it forced everyone to be a user.

The use of amphetamines was often to survive the racing schedule and travel rather than for performance. The eras are radically different and you can't really compare them.

Amphetamine use is "minor stuff"??? It has killed riders! Remember a guy named Tom Simpson?

Now you say that the use of uppers didn't affect performance, that is was just to compensate for the rigors of the schedule (a ridiculous assertion), but even if we were to accept it, do you remember this exchange we had yesterday?

cyclingforums.comt411170.htmlOpen ↗

hgb said:

Make the Grand Tours easier by reducing the course lengths and increasing the number of rest days so the riders can recover naturally from strenuous stages.

Bro Deal said:

This is a fiction. One of the most doped sports in the world is short track and field events, like the 100 meter sprint.

If the overall doping is reduced then the pace that stages are ridden will go down, making them easier for the non-doped riders.

You could expand the cutoff percentages for stages.

One the one hand you don't think that making the Tour easier would reduce the incentive to use illegal substances, yet on the other you blame the difficulty of the Tour for the use of illegal substances. 🙄

hgb said:

Amphetamine use is "minor stuff"??? It has killed riders! Remember a guy named Tom Simpson?

Now you say that the use of uppers didn't affect performance, that is was just to compensate for the rigors of the schedule (a ridiculous assertion), but even if we were to accept it, do you remember this exchange we had yesterday?

cyclingforums.comt411170.htmlOpen ↗

One the one hand you don't think that making the Tour easier would reduce the incentive to use illegal substances, yet on the other you blame the difficulty of the Tour for the use of illegal substances. 🙄

Whether it killed riders is not what I am talking about. I am talking about the performance effects. It's very minor. There is no rider like Armstrong who became a super rider by taking amphetamines.

I did not say the rigors of the Tour led to doping with speed. The rigors of the whole season used to encourage ampetamine use. Riders used to have to ride six day races in the winter. They used to have to wash their own shorts in the sink. Riders made very little money and being a pro was for most a pretty [censored] job.

I noticed that you never responded to my argument that doping is endemic among 100 meter sprinters. Will you next suggest that the 100 meter sprint be reduced to 70 meters? 😄

Regardless of what is used for PED's it is the intent of the person's heart that make him/her a cheater.

When I used for 10 straight years it was purely a condition of a twisted perception and a sick obsession to win that led me down the wrong path. At that point a user will do what ever it takes to win and what ever is available in their environment to win. It is intent that makes it wrong not what is actually used. If there is a list of banned substances many will use what ever they can find right up to those limits. It happens in almost any competitive field. Since I am involved I am often asked will this health food supplement help me? What is that? It is a request to find something that will give an advantage over the competition. The intent is flirting with the same desires of those who decide to fully cross the line of legality.

In NASCAR since it mostly about the car the car can be altered for an advantage, but where did it start. It started with intent to cheat to win.

Vino used what was available in his environment for that period of time. What was his intent?

The guys of former years of the TDF used what? What ever was available in their period of time and what was available in their enviroment. Are they less guilty? No, because intent is the same years ago as it is today.

Think about it

There is doping in track and field like long-jump, high-jump...Is it really a long effort ?

Bro Deal said:

Whether it killed riders is not what I am talking about. I am talking about the performance effects. It's very minor. There is no rider like Armstrong who became a super rider by taking amphetamines.

I did not say the rigors of the Tour led to doping with speed. The rigors of the whole season used to encourage ampetamine use. Riders used to have to ride six day races in the winter. They used to have to wash their own shorts in the sink. Riders made very little money and being a pro was for most a pretty [censored] job.

I noticed that you never responded to my argument that doping is endemic among 100 meter sprinters. Will you next suggest that the 100 meter sprint be reduced to 70 meters? 😄

Stop making excuses for the amphetamine use of your old heroes. It improved their performance by raising their metabolism. That's science, not your fantasies.

I never disputed that there's doping in short track and I never suggested that those races and competitions are at the same level of difficulty as the Grand Tours. In the TDF an average of 20% of the field does not make it to Paris because of the danger and difficulty of the race.

You're the one who attempted to make that apples to oranges comparison. Not me.

hgb said:

Stop making excuses for the amphetamine use of your old heroes. It improved their performance by raising their metabolism. That's science, not your fantasies.

Well, Francis, if you want to argue the science then why don't you post links to studies on the magnitude of performance effects for amphetamines. I'll post links to studies about EPO and blood boosting. Then we can argue about the difference between the two doping techniques. I'm not interested in your delusions about the effects of speed as compared to modern techniques.

hgb said:

I never disputed that there's doping in short track and I never suggested that those races and competitions are at the same level of difficulty as the Grand Tours.

You never disputed anything because you were incapable to refuting my point that it's not the length or difficulty of the event that leads to doping; it's the urge to win that leads to doping.

Bro Deal said:

I'll give you that little stuff like amphetamines set the stage for what happened in the early nineties. I am just saying that I don't equate the use of minor stuff with blood doping. The earlier methods did not change the results. It was not like in the 90s when the dope was so effective that it forced everyone to be a user.

The use of amphetamines was often to survive the racing schedule and travel rather than for performance. The eras are radically different and you can't really compare them.

Cheating is cheating Bro Deal. He took what was available at the time. Great rider no doubt, but you are full of double standards and your own little agendas.

Felt_Rider said:

The guys of former years of the TDF used what? What ever was available in their period of time and what was available in their enviroment. Are they less guilty? No, because intent is the same years ago as it is today.

I agree completely, but I would add that there's a phenomenon in cycling (a team sport) that doesn't exist in other sports where every individual is out just for himself.

In cycling we've seen domestiques, who barely had hope of even winning a stage, also participating in doping, whether it was the amphetamine use of the past or the blood doping of the present. They did it to keep up with their team leaders, survive the race to keep their place on the team, maintain their income and maybe move up the sport's ladder. Since every team leader has begun as a domestique, I think they all learned the tricks of doping during their apprenticeship.

It's a vicious cycle. Ambitious elite riders will seek artificial advantages (that can only be fought by vigilant testing) and they corrupt the younger generations who come up as domestiques.

Serafino said:

Cheating is cheating Bro Deal. He took what was available at the time. Great rider no doubt, but you are full of double standards and your own little agendas.

I never use the word "cheating" in regards to doping in cycling. When 10% break the rules, that's cheating. When nearly everyone is breaking the rules, the system is broken but it's not accurately described as cheating.

Note that I never defended Merckx nor even said I like him. This is some fantasy pulled out of hgb's butt.

Bro Deal said:

I never use the word "cheating" in regards to doping in cycling. When 10% break the rules, that's cheating. When nearly everyone is breaking the rules, the system is broken but it's not accurately described as cheating.

Note that I never defended Merckx nor even said I like him. This is some fantasy pulled out of hgb's butt.

I knew it wouldn't be long for the ad-hominem attacks to come from you. You're done.

hgb said:

I knew it wouldn't be long for the ad-hominem attacks to come from you. You're done.

That's rich, dude. I posted my opinion, which differs from yours, in a moderate tone. Then you attacked me, even bringing in an unrelated thread that you did not have the ability to respond to. Don't be too surprised when it gets thrown back in your face.

[censored].

Bro Deal said:

That's rich, dude. I posted my opinion, which differs from yours, in a moderate tone. Then you attacked me, even bringing in an unrelated thread that you did not have the ability to respond to. Don't be too surprised when it gets thrown back in your face.

[censored].

Too funny. It's a pity that this forum doesn't have an ignore function.