Tommy Simpson documentary - BBC4 tomorrow

[Midnight]

Yes, he was an inspiration to many British riders and for a long time he was the best we had produced but he was also a doper who was thoroughly corrupted by the sport.

In my clumsy sort of way, this is probably the sort of thing I was trying to say. And I still think it's a shame that we haven't yet been able to produce a TdF winner yet.

I've read that the conditions on Mt. Ventoux in '67 were particularly difficult with temperatures as high as 45c, and at a time when riders were limited to 4 bidons then dehydration must've contributed to his collapse?

I'm not the sort of person who's given to hero-worship (at least I hope I'm not!), but yes, you're right. At the end of the day he was a cheat!

 

[Smokin Joe]

In my clumsy sort of way, this is probably the sort of thing I was trying to say. And I still think it's a shame that we haven't yet been able to produce a TdF winner yet.

I've read that the conditions on Mt. Ventoux in '67 were particularly difficult with temperatures as high as 45c, and at a time when riders were limited to 4 bidons then dehydration must've contributed to his collapse?

I'm not the sort of person who's given to hero-worship (at least I hope I'm not!), but yes, you're right. At the end of the day he was a cheat!

Simpson wasn't a cheat because wasn't gaining any advantage over his competitors by doping. The practice was at virtually 100% among the pros in those days (and for decades afterwards). If you had listened properly to the programme you would have heard that any rider who did not dope had difficulty in gaining acceptance from his peers and was treated as an outsider, something Kimmage also said in his book years later.

The Tour in those days was a lot different to that of today, far longer, only one rest day and stages that were often over 200 miles in length. Barry Hoban tells of one Tour day where they rode a road race in the morning, a time trial in the afternoon and a criterium in the evening plus a stage of 220 miles in the same Tour. It is no wonder the culture of taking whatever suppliments came to hand to relieve the terrible suffering involved just trying to compete, especially as a riders worth was largely determined by his performance in that race.

 

[theboytaylor]

Haven't watched the documentary yet, but thought I'd chip in. Again, I'm ambivalent on his legacy. Heroic figure, but a doper all the same.

That said, the doping in those days was (as I understand it) pretty much restricted to uppers, etc, to stave off the pain or to keep you going. They didn't really give you anything extra, just allowed you to push yourself further and further into the red zone. You were going to pay for it eventually. And given the parcours alluded to above, there's no surprise! The drugs weren't the game changers of the modern era, such as EPO: with EPO you not only can push yourself for longer, but you have shorter recovery, can push yourself repeatedly, day in, day out. It's as if the riders of the 50s, 60s, 70s, 80s were doping to keep going, the riders of the 90s were doping to get ahead.

 

[Midnight]

Simpson wasn't a cheat because wasn't gaining any advantage over his competitors by doping. The practice was at virtually 100% among the pros in those days (and for decades afterwards). If you had listened properly to the programme you would have heard that any rider who did not dope had difficulty in gaining acceptance from his peers and was treated as an outsider, something Kimmage also said in his book years later.

The Tour in those days was a lot different to that of today, far longer, only one rest day and stages that were often over 200 miles in length. Barry Hoban tells of one Tour day where they rode a road race in the morning, a time trial in the afternoon and a criterium in the evening plus a stage of 220 miles in the same Tour. It is no wonder the culture of taking whatever suppliments came to hand to relieve the terrible suffering involved just trying to compete, especially as a riders worth was largely determined by his performance in that race.

I did listen to the program properly, twice in fact, and If you'd read the whole thread properly you'd know I do have some admiration for Simpson. But the whole idea of any sport is to pit one person's athletic ability against anothers. The use of performance enhancing techniques in sport in an attempt to undermine the athletic competition and gain an unfair advantage - otherwise the competition becomes a contest of who can develop the best performance enhancing techniques. And that's why they are banned. Simpson took Tonedrin, and whatever you think about his natural abilities, Tonedrin was banned under French law.

 

[Smokin Joe]

I did listen to the program properly, twice in fact, and If you'd read the whole thread properly you'd know I do have some admiration for Simpson. But the whole idea of any sport is to pit one person's athletic ability against anothers. The use of performance enhancing techniques in sport in an attempt to undermine the athletic competition and gain an unfair advantage - otherwise the competition becomes a contest of who can develop the best performance enhancing techniques. And that's why they are banned. Simpson took Tonedrin, and whatever you think about his natural abilities, Tonedrin was banned under French law.

Fair point, but if you are in a sport where there is next to no testing and everyone is taking dope you either join in or severely limit your chances of competing on an effective level. So Simpson did break the rules, but he didn't cheat his fellow riders because they were all doing the same thing.

 

[rich p]

Fair point, but if you are in a sport where there is next to no testing and everyone is taking dope you either join in or severely limit your chances of competing on an effective level. So Simpson did break the rules, but he didn't cheat his fellow riders because they were all doing the same thing.

I don't know if you've read the Simpson book but it's clear from that, that not everyone was doing it because only the top riders could afford to. I think it was Vin Denson who Simpson showed his years worth of pills to and it cost more than he, Denson, earned.

Much of my respect for Boardman is that he refused to take drugs even though he was reputed to be the only one in the peloton not doing so.

 

[Smokin Joe]

I don't know if you've read the Simpson book but it's clear from that, that not everyone was doing it because only the top riders could afford to. I think it was Vin Denson who Simpson showed his years worth of pills to and it cost more than he, Denson, earned.

Much of my respect for Boardman is that he refused to take drugs even though he was reputed to be the only one in the peloton not doing so.

They were all doing it, it was just that the top riders could afford to do more than anyone else.

 

[rich p]

They were all doing it, it was just that the top riders could afford to do more than anyone else.

Hardly a level playing field then?

 

[Chuffy]

And not necessarily true either. "They all do it" has been an excuse since forever and there will have been riders trying to compete without them.

 

[John the Monkey]

OT, the idolising of Pantani by some is equally misplaced in my view.

Pantani's story is tragic, really - I read Matt Rendell's book about him all the while wishing one of Marco's "friends" would actually help him.

He's not a hero, but not entirely a villain either, imo.

 

[Chuffy]

Pantani's story is tragic, really - I read Matt Rendell's book about him all the while wishing one of Marco's "friends" would actually help him.

He's not a hero, but not entirely a villain either, imo.

The problem with people like Pantani is that their real friends almost always end up being abused, lied to, taken advantage of and generally buggered around. In the end they give up, because it's obvious that The Star is hellbent on doing their own thing. However much you may want to help someone, all you end up doing is beating your head against a brick wall.

No, he isn't a complete villain, but the hero worship is pretty ridiculous.

 

[Flying_Monkey]

The problem with people like Pantani is that their real friends almost always end up being abused, lied to, taken advantage of and generally buggered around. In the end they give up, because it's obvious that The Star is hellbent on doing their own thing. However much you may want to help someone, all you end up doing is beating your head against a brick wall.

No, he isn't a complete villain, but the hero worship is pretty ridiculous.

It's not quite like that. Pantani was a very vulnerable guy. He wasn't the kind of utterly-convinced of his own rightness type like Lance or just hard-headed like Riis. It's nice of you to judge that he wasn't a 'complete villain', but I would suggest that labels like 'hero' and 'villain' themselves are just entirely inappropriate to the situation we're looking at. These people were not generally educated, intelligent people who were able to weigh up the moral choices available to them in a dispassionate manner. They were simply very talented young riders who got taken into a system and forced into situations in which there was no real option if you wanted to succeed, somethimes exacerabting existing mental and physical problems. And it was systemic when Pantani was riding, in fact it was probably at its most organised and most insidious.

 

[Chuffy]

It's not quite like that. Pantani was a very vulnerable guy. He wasn't the kind of utterly-convinced of his own rightness type like Lance or just hard-headed like Riis. It's nice of you to judge that he wasn't a 'complete villain', but I would suggest that labels like 'hero' and 'villain' themselves are just entirely inappropriate to the situation we're looking at. These people were not generally educated, intelligent people who were able to weigh up the moral choices available to them in a dispassionate manner. They were simply very talented young riders who got taken into a system and forced into situations in which there was no real option if you wanted to succeed, somethimes exacerabting existing mental and physical problems. And it was systemic when Pantani was riding, in fact it was probably at its most organised and most insidious.

So very gracious of you. sarky git I clearly meant that he wasn't a villain or a hero. But there are plenty of people (that lovely Ricco chap for example) who still see him a hero and that just bewilders me. I think you're being more than a little patronising when you describe people like Pantani as not being educated, intelligent or capable of making moral judgements. You don't have to be an academic media tart to know right from wrong.

Incidentally, I assumed that JtM was mainly talking about Pantani's destructive descent into coke hell, not the sporting drug use and it was that aspect of his post that I was responding to.

 

[Flying_Monkey]

I think you're being more than a little patronising when you describe people like Pantani as not being educated, intelligent or capable of making moral judgements. You don't have to be an academic media tart to know right from wrong.

That's not what I meant at all - the situation they were in reduces the choices available to 'take drugs and cycle' or 'get out'. If cycling is everything that makes life worth living - and for people like Pantani, it really is - then that isn't much of a choice.

ANd FWIW, I still admire the way Pantani rode. If he hadn't been taking drugs (and neither had anyone else), he would still have been just as exciting a rider. It doesn't mean I think he was a 'hero' (I don't think any sportsman or woman deserves to be called a hero just for being great in their sport - heroism is something way beyond that).

 

[Chuffy]

That's not what I meant at all

Maybe not, but it's what you said.

the situation they were in reduces the choices available to 'take drugs and cycle' or 'get out'. If cycling is everything that makes life worth living - and for people like Pantani, it really is - then that isn't much of a choice.

If it's that simple then why drag education and intelligence into the equation?