Is Henri Desgrange responsible for doping?

On May 10, 10:07 pm, "Mike Jacoubowsky" <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

At first I was thinking it simple coincidence that the sport of cycling just
happened be created and grow up at the same time as modern doping.

But maybe not. Maybe the 'Tour itself is responsible. Maybe Henri Desgrange
created the demand for doping due to the extraordinary manner in which the
'Tour was initially contested. Multi-day stages of impossible length, no
outside help allowed, terrible roads. Only a sense of honor would prevent
someone from doping under such circumstances, as there was obviously no way
to test riders.

Events of more-reasonable duration wouldn't have created such a demand for
doping products. But the whole point of the early tours was to push riders
to their limits, and beyond, in an almost (almost?) sadistic manner.

So in conclusion, I would make suggest that, while I have a great amount of
respect for Henri Desgrange creating one of the great sporting events, a
2400km race with only 6 stages (the 1903 event) was a test of human
endurance that fueled a demand for doping products unknown before that time.

Thus there is a certain irony that ASO seeks to preserve the integrity of
their race.

--Mike Jacoubowsky
Chain Reaction Bicycleswww.ChainReaction.com
Redwood City & Los Altos, CA USA

Interesting idea, but IMO the reason cycling seems to have such a
problem is that it is the only high profile, big-money endurance sport
with big sponsors and with a huge number of events of long duration.
How many other endurance sports even come close in terms of the number
of competition hours per year for an athlete? Even considering the
"easy" Tours of today vs the Tours in their original guise. Not to
even mention the money side. Even the worst paid cyclists are light-
years ahead of similar level athletes in other endurance sports. I
think other endurance sports have doping problems too, but they don't
have the public scrutiny that cycling does to help expose the problem,
nor do they have the other circumstances that provide the motivation
(to the same degree at least) to dope.

Joseph

"Mike Jacoubowsky" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

At first I was thinking it simple coincidence that the sport of cycling
just happened be created and grow up at the same time as modern doping.

But maybe not. Maybe the 'Tour itself is responsible. Maybe Henri
Desgrange created the demand for doping due to the extraordinary manner in
which the 'Tour was initially contested. Multi-day stages of impossible
length, no outside help allowed, terrible roads. Only a sense of honor
would prevent someone from doping under such circumstances, as there was
obviously no way to test riders.

Events of more-reasonable duration wouldn't have created such a demand for
doping products. But the whole point of the early tours was to push riders
to their limits, and beyond, in an almost (almost?) sadistic manner.

So in conclusion, I would make suggest that, while I have a great amount
of respect for Henri Desgrange creating one of the great sporting events,
a 2400km race with only 6 stages (the 1903 event) was a test of human
endurance that fueled a demand for doping products unknown before that
time.

Thus there is a certain irony that ASO seeks to preserve the integrity of
their race.

The point is that there were already events of "unreasonable" duration
before Henri Desgranges even thought of the Tour, for instance long distance
races such as Paris-Brest-Paris or the six days races. And of course, the
racers took all the substances supposed to enhancing their performances,
like "American coffee", a concoction that aside from large quantities of
caffeine also contained ether, strychnine, cocaine and even nitroglycerine.
The Tour wasn't harder than a traditional six days race (144 hours withour
interruption). According to several racers , like Guy Lapébie, 3th in the
terrible Touir of 1948 and winner of several six days races it was the other
way around. The first Tours was also six days, but with several rest days in
between. But althought the Tour didn't bring doping into cyclism, it changed
the attitude towards doping. Initially, racers didn't find it even necessary
to keep it secret. Doping moved into the realm of the semi-clandestine only
when the popularity of the Tour de France came to be based on the myth of
the "giants of the road", introduced by Géo Levèfre. Of course, those new
supermen created by the the press were deemed to owe their feats exclusively
to perseverance and muscular strength, and that they often resorted to
chemical means became a subject not to be spoken about openly.

Benjo

benjo maso said:

The point is that there were already events of "unreasonable" duration
before Henri Desgranges even thought of the Tour, for instance long distance
races such as Paris-Brest-Paris or the six days races. And of course, the
racers took all the substances supposed to enhancing their performances,
like "American coffee", a concoction that aside from large quantities of
caffeine also contained ether, strychnine, cocaine and even nitroglycerine.
The Tour wasn't harder than a traditional six days race (144 hours withour
interruption). According to several racers , like Guy Lapébie, 3th in the
terrible Touir of 1948 and winner of several six days races it was the other
way around. The first Tours was also six days, but with several rest daysin
between. But althought the Tour didn't bring doping into cyclism, it changed
the attitude towards doping. Initially, racers didn't find it even necessary
to keep it secret. Doping moved into the realm of the semi-clandestine only
when the popularity of the Tour de France came to be based on the myth of
the "giants of the road", introduced by Géo Levèfre. Of course, thosenew
supermen created by the the press were deemed to owe their feats exclusively
to perseverance and muscular strength, and that they often resorted to
chemical means became a subject not to be spoken about openly.

Those were also different times in their view on drugs in general. If
someone took a drug responsibly, and it worked, well, hell, it was
amazing what science could do!

R

In article <[email hidden]>,

RicodJour said:

benjo maso said:

The point is that there were already events of "unreasonable" duration
before Henri Desgranges even thought of the Tour, for instance long distance
races such as Paris-Brest-Paris or the six days races. And of course, the
racers took all the substances supposed to enhancing their performances,
like "American coffee", a concoction that aside from large quantities of
caffeine also contained ether, strychnine, cocaine and even nitroglycerine.
The Tour wasn't harder than a traditional six days race (144 hours withour
interruption). According to several racers , like Guy Lapébie, 3th in the
terrible Touir of 1948 and winner of several six days races it was the other
way around. The first Tours was also six days, but with several rest days in
between. But althought the Tour didn't bring doping into cyclism, it changed
the attitude towards doping. Initially, racers didn't find it even necessary
to keep it secret. Doping moved into the realm of the semi-clandestine only
when the popularity of the Tour de France came to be based on the myth of
the "giants of the road", introduced by Géo Levèfre. Of course, those new
supermen created by the the press were deemed to owe their feats exclusively
to perseverance and muscular strength, and that they often resorted to
chemical means became a subject not to be spoken about openly.

Those were also different times in their view on drugs in general. If
someone took a drug responsibly, and it worked, well, hell, it was
amazing what science could do!

In other words, the attitude was "better living through chemistry" at
that time. Then came the puritanical attitude...

--
tanx,
Howard

Never take a tenant with a monkey.

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?

"Howard Kveck" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

In article <[email hidden]>,

RicodJour said:

benjo maso said:

The point is that there were already events of "unreasonable" duration
before Henri Desgranges even thought of the Tour, for instance long
distance
races such as Paris-Brest-Paris or the six days races. And of course,
the
racers took all the substances supposed to enhancing their
performances,
like "American coffee", a concoction that aside from large quantities
of
caffeine also contained ether, strychnine, cocaine and even
nitroglycerine.
The Tour wasn't harder than a traditional six days race (144 hours
withour
interruption). According to several racers , like Guy Lapébie, 3th in
the
terrible Touir of 1948 and winner of several six days races it was the
other
way around. The first Tours was also six days, but with several rest
days in
between. But althought the Tour didn't bring doping into cyclism, it
changed
the attitude towards doping. Initially, racers didn't find it even
necessary
to keep it secret. Doping moved into the realm of the semi-clandestine
only
when the popularity of the Tour de France came to be based on the myth
of
the "giants of the road", introduced by Géo Levèfre. Of course, those
new
supermen created by the the press were deemed to owe their feats
exclusively
to perseverance and muscular strength, and that they often resorted to
chemical means became a subject not to be spoken about openly.

Those were also different times in their view on drugs in general. If
someone took a drug responsibly, and it worked, well, hell, it was
amazing what science could do!

In other words, the attitude was "better living through chemistry" at
that time. Then came the puritanical attitude...

I'd rather say that there were two attitudes. First a practical one,
supported by 90 % of the pro's: if something helps why should you be so
stupid not to take it? Second: the romantic, puranitical idea that athletes
competing with each other must be `natural'. That's why Pierre de Coubertin
and many of his contemporaries thought that there were two ways to cheat:
training (that is more than one hour a day - or every day) and resorting to
chemical means. For instance, beef steak was considered to be a powerful
enhancing product, but it was OK to eat a pound a day, because it was
`natural'.

Benjo

Mike Jacoubowsky said:

At first I was thinking it simple coincidence that the sport of cycling just
happened be created and grow up at the same time as modern doping.

To me it's a simple matter of the rules. If it's not allowed by the
rules it's cheating. Plain and simple.

Because no 100m runners have ever used dope, its such a short event that they don't need to...