1. Does epo really kill cheating athletes if they don't get up in the middle of the night and raise their heart rates? Was it only because of the amount of epo Pantani and others were taking?
2. Why is a cheater like Pantani memorialized in Italy? Do people think he'd have been anywhere near today's best without the drugs?
Not sure on #1. Regarding #2, people expect many pro cyclists to cheat. For some reason, Lance was expected not to cheat. And when he fessed up, many couldn't believe it.
Pantani was an entertainer, party boy. Very different than Lance the mob boss/a$$hole narcissist.#1 As much as he sucked, Dr. Ferrari actually saved lives by figuring out the dosage and blood-thinning protocols.
asdfsdfasd wrote:
Not sure on #1. Regarding #2, people expect many pro cyclists to cheat. For some reason, Lance was expected not to cheat. And when he fessed up, many couldn't believe it.
1. Cyclists have some of the lowest resting heart rates of any endurance athlete, so that might have something to do with it.
2. My take away from the movie is that nearly *everybody* in cycling was doping during that time with the TDF looking the other way (the fact that Lance never tested positive is all the proof I need). Pantani was singled out for a positive drug test because he ignored repeated requests to stop breaking away so far from the pack, which was costing the organization advertising revenue due to reduced TV coverage. But he was still clearly one of the best, relatively speaking, so he's martyred/memorialized in Italy.
edward teach wrote:
1. Does epo really kill cheating athletes if they don't get up in the middle of the night and raise their heart rates? Was it only because of the amount of epo Pantani and others were taking?
2. Why is a cheater like Pantani memorialized in Italy? Do people think he'd have been anywhere near today's best without the drugs?
Why would you expect him to compete against "today's best" when he competed 20 years ago?
If he had lived he would be 46 this week. No way he could race against the pros today.
Everybody that Pantani beat was also on the same drugs, in the same amounts.
Regarding #1: Yes, in the early days (1989-90) the athletes were using too much EPO at once. It was designed (or developed) to boost those who had low-hematocrit back into the 42-48% range. The riders who were using it early were boosting their hematocrit into the 65-70% range. Their blood was so thick that several (we are talking 10-15 mostly Dutch riders). Of course, the riders who died were not alive to tell anyone that they were on the "new" drug and the others that did know were not too eager to tell everyone. But when you have guys in their early 20's (who are in exceptional condition) dying from congestive heart failure, you know.
For some reason, EPO did not catch on in distance running (except in Mexico) with the European "coaches" until 1991. That is when they started pushing it on the Africans they were managing or "coaching".
Bjarne Riis (TdF winner in 1996 - two yrs before Pantani) was called Mr. 60%, because that is what his hematocrit was.
#2 If it's a hill, Pantani would not be anywhere near today's best -- he'd be way in front. Pantani was way more talented than Lance. I wouldn't be surprised if Lance was involved in framing Pantani.
1991-1995 TdF winner - Miguel Indurain - widely regarded as the first EPO Champion. Someone who was made and not born.
1996 TdF winner - Bjarne Riis - admitted doper
1997 TdF winner - Jan Ulrich - caught doper in Operation Puerto - admitted doper
1998 TdF winner - Pantani - booted out of '99 Giro for high hematocrit - don't remember if he ever admitted doping
1999 TdF winner - Armstrong - admitted doper
2000 TdF winner - Armstrong - admitted doper
2001 TdF winner - Armstrong - admitted doper
2002 TdF winner - Armstrong - admitted doper
2003 TdF winner - Armstrong - admitted doper
2004 TdF winner - Armstrong - admitted doper
2005 TdF winner - Armstrong - admitted doper
2006 TdF winner - Landis - caught and admitted doper
2007 TdF leader - Rasmussen - admitted doper his whole career
Are you starting to see why nobody cares about drug positives?
Also, are you starting to see why everyone at the top of distance running is also doping?
I get that they all cheat and that sucks, but I still can enjoy some good cycling races. I don't dislike Lance for cheating, I dislike him for being an ahole. Pantani was one of those "I don't know when I'll see something like this again" guys on the climbs. Truly incredible. The most comparable thing that I've seen in TdF since is the way that doped Contador could accelerate in mid-climb attacks. Just unreal. Well, because it isn't real I suppose, but still.
No. It doesn't follow.
newname wrote:
...
Also, are you starting to see why everyone at the top of distance running is also doping?
rekrunner wrote:
No. It doesn't follow.
newname wrote:...
Also, are you starting to see why everyone at the top of distance running is also doping?
Because 100% of the top cyclists dope and have doped for 80 years now. Not because they want to, but because they recognize the benefits, and they cannot be at the top without it.
Top distance runners are not more moral than the top-tier talent is in cycling, and have nothing else that prevents them from the same doping prevalence. Cycling has 1-2% of athletes test positive each year, the same as track and field.
george oscar bluth wrote:
I get that they all cheat and that sucks, but I still can enjoy some good cycling races. I don't dislike Lance for cheating, I dislike him for being an ahole. Pantani was one of those "I don't know when I'll see something like this again" guys on the climbs. Truly incredible. The most comparable thing that I've seen in TdF since is the way that doped Contador could accelerate in mid-climb attacks. Just unreal. Well, because it isn't real I suppose, but still.
You missed somebody:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DwHlCl2s0UMIndurain was clean
edward teach wrote:
1. Does epo really kill cheating athletes if they don't get up in the middle of the night and raise their heart rates?
1. Yes, too much EPO kills. Before the Internet, under-23 Dutch cyclists were dying of heart attacks. There's no "proof" as public health officials would never imagine the cause and we're talking about burying young adults... Leader of the UCI at the time, Hein Verbruggen did nothing at the time.
Even recently, the IAAF is understood to have known about athletes with dangerous blood levels and only warned them. No ban, no "take a break", just a letter.
2. People don't mind doping. He had an attacking style to which people had a positive response.
newname wrote:
Because 100% of the top cyclists dope and have doped for 80 years now. Not because they want to, but because they recognize the benefits, and they cannot be at the top without it.
Except EPO changed everything. Elite "average" riders like Bjarne Riis could ride away from other EPO chargers like Indurain.
Lemond finishing waaaaay down the standings was concrete evidence of the revolutionary performance gains associated with EPO.
The current guys are clean though, right? Don't they test like crazy now? Can I watch the Tour next summer and expect to know hard work and natural talent got these guys there?
Just how far down did Lemond finish after his wins?
Crazy. What happened to Riis in 1997? He was terrible in that tour.
Watch this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ntsZcWhNoZs
Ask yourself. Why would it be any different now? You can watch it, but it must be watched as WWF. A fiction.
edward teach wrote:
1. Does epo really kill cheating athletes if they don't get up in the middle of the night and raise their heart rates? Was it only because of the amount of epo Pantani and others were taking?
2. Why is a cheater like Pantani memorialized in Italy? Do people think he'd have been anywhere near today's best without the drugs?
1 - EPO only kills you if you use too much and your hematocrit goes to high and your blood becomes too thick. They simply used too much EPO and did not know the safe limits.
2- Italians were smart and understood that elite athletes use performance enhancing drugs. Pantani would be elite without EPO, however to win races you need to dope. It has been that way and will forever be that way in elite endurance sports.
You guys forget one of the best that doping caught early, Michael Rasmussen, the "Chicken"... dude was the most talented climber of all-time.
Edward Teach wrote:
The current guys are clean though, right? Don't they test like crazy now?
Sure, lots. Good thing the IAAF tests "lots" too. Nobody knows how clean they are. There's no transparency. Not likely though as Armstrong's era was doped to life threatening levels and only Armstrong's enemies have tested positive.
There are very young riders hitting top-10, so it's better than it was. Better by how much nobody but the UCI knows.
Edward Teach wrote:Just how far down did Lemond finish after his wins?
Abandoned because he can't produce the same power as EPO consumers like Indurain. This is a guy that got third as a support rider. There's no way he doesn't finish top-10. The modern equivalent of Marianne Vos. Just showing up narrowed-down an elite podium.