# Lemond needs to quit whinnnning!!!!



## sevencycle (Apr 23, 2006)

He is doing nothing for the sport or himself. Lets see how strong his bike line will be without Trek... I say it folds.:cryin: Thats Greg crying,not me

www.velonews.com/article/74387/trek-announces-an-end-to-deal-with-greg-lemond


----------



## ttug (May 14, 2004)

*gee, I am stunned*

WHY would anyone be shocked by this?


----------



## treebound (Oct 16, 2003)

A sad situation all around.
http://forums.roadbikereview.com/showthread.php?t=127309


----------



## bigpinkt (Jul 20, 2006)

sevencycle said:


> He is doing nothing for the sport or himself.


Doing nothing for the sport? Where have you been? He is an active campaigner to correct what is wrong with the sport. While other former tour winners are trying to distance themselves from the sports current problems (Lest they are implicated) Lemond is attacking the issues by being a forceful anti doping advocate.


----------



## ttug (May 14, 2004)

*are you serious?*



bigpinkt said:


> Doing nothing for the sport? Where have you been? He is an active campaigner to correct what is wrong with the sport. While other former tour winners are trying to distance themselves from the sports current problems (Lest they are implicated) Lemond is attacking the issues by being a forceful anti doping advocate.


Greg an anti doping candidate????? When do you think Greg raced? So, in the DECADES after all of the known juicing, he comes out as a "hero" because, he wanted to be honest????

Honest? The man who quit races because he did not have it and blamed it on equipment failures is honest? Honest? The man who had his bike company BOGHT BY TREK, and AFTER LANCE breaks his "record", THEN he comes out? AFTER numerous riders died, got busted etc etc he is a "hero" because he is honest?

He is 20 years too late. Old, bitter and has a chip on his shoulder.


----------



## bigpinkt (Jul 20, 2006)

ttug said:


> Greg an anti doping candidate????? When do you think Greg raced? So, in the DECADES after all of the known juicing, he comes out as a "hero" because, he wanted to be honest????
> 
> Honest? The man who quit races because he did not have it and blamed it on equipment failures is honest? Honest? The man who had his bike company BOGHT BY TREK, and AFTER LANCE breaks his "record", THEN he comes out? AFTER numerous riders died, got busted etc etc he is a "hero" because he is honest?
> 
> He is 20 years too late. Old, bitter and has a chip on his shoulder.


It is pretty clear you have no idea what you are talking about. Greg spoke out often, especially after the Festina affair. Trek bought the license in 1994, Greg expressed his disappointment in Lance well before Lance broke his record, he supported him until 2001 when it was made public that Lance was working with Ferrari. Many in the sport felt betrayed by this, not just Greg. Many had bought into the Lance myth only to find out it was fueled by EPO.


----------



## ttug (May 14, 2004)

*huh*



bigpinkt said:


> It is pretty clear you have no idea what you are talking about. Greg spoke out often, especially after the Festina affair. Trek bought the license in 1994, Greg expressed his disappointment in Lance well before Lance broke his record, he supported him until 2001 when it was made public that Lance was working with Ferrari. Many in the sport felt betrayed by this, not just Greg. Many had bought into the Lance myth only to find out it was fueled by EPO.


You mean nobody doped in Gregs day? You mean he never had the ability to publicly come out and say....hey everyone.....doping is everywhere is this sport?

WHAT do you think Greg did when he was winning. No doping then? Right. Where was Greg when Greg was winning. NOT SO CHATTY THEN WAS HE?


----------



## hclignett (Dec 18, 2006)

I can't think of a better way for TREK to bring out their new line of Armstrong bikes though.


----------



## blackhat (Jan 2, 2003)

ttug said:


> You mean nobody doped in Gregs day? You mean he never had the ability to publicly come out and say....hey everyone.....doping is everywhere is this sport?
> 
> WHAT do you think Greg did when he was winning. No doping then? Right. Where was Greg when Greg was winning. NOT SO CHATTY THEN WAS HE?


tug, go read the archives in tdf. you're clearly not up to speed on the epo timeline.


----------



## ttug (May 14, 2004)

*really*



blackhat said:


> tug, go read the archives in tdf. you're clearly not up to speed on the epo timeline.


You mean the year they decided that it was illegal, and everything before than was swell because they had no rule against it?

You mean these hypocrits can get preachy because they juiced before it was illegal? Wow, thats a laugh.

As to the EPO timeline.........gee, I am sure there was no such thing as blood doping in any form in the 80's. Yeah man....


----------



## bigpinkt (Jul 20, 2006)

ttug said:


> You mean nobody doped in Gregs day? You mean he never had the ability to publicly come out and say....hey everyone.....doping is everywhere is this sport?
> 
> WHAT do you think Greg did when he was winning. No doping then? Right. Where was Greg when Greg was winning. NOT SO CHATTY THEN WAS HE?


Greg has often spoke about one of his former teammates dying from the misuse of EPO. 

If you read the Trek presentation you will find that this is about one issue, Greg telling the truth about Lance. To continue to ignore that Lance pulled off the greats fraud in the history of the sport does the sport a great disservice. 

Here is an hour long interview with Greg where he talks about doping in the sport. Lance's name is barely mentioned.

http://fora.tv/2008/02/17/Ethics_Doping_an...uture_of_Cycling


----------



## ttug (May 14, 2004)

*no disagreement*



bigpinkt said:


> Greg has often spoke about one of his former teammates dying from the misuse of EPO.
> 
> If you read the Trek presentation you will find that this is about one issue, Greg telling the truth about Lance. To continue to ignore that Lance pulled off the greats fraud in the history of the sport does the sport a great disservice.
> 
> ...


If you want to come forward, if you want to be a hero...great. If you want to pick one guy.....and go from there...thats just thick. Confront the doping, great. Confront one guy, the guy who broke your records, the guy you "trusted" while you watched others dope....then you are not a hero. You are a bitter old man with a vendetta.


----------



## bas (Jul 30, 2004)

sevencycle said:


> He is doing nothing for the sport or himself. Lets see how strong his bike line will be without Trek... I say it folds.:cryin: Thats Greg crying,not me
> 
> www.velonews.com/article/74387/trek-announces-an-end-to-deal-with-greg-lemond


Will there be sweet deals on Lemonds now?


----------



## bigpinkt (Jul 20, 2006)

ttug said:


> If you want to come forward, if you want to be a hero...great. If you want to pick one guy.....and go from there...thats just thick. Confront the doping, great. Confront one guy, the guy who broke your records, the guy you "trusted" while you watched others dope....then you are not a hero. You are a bitter old man with a vendetta.


Listen to the interview and do some research. Lemond for years has gone after doping in cycling. It is only a few sentences about Armstrong that get attention in the media so it appears that he only goes after Lance. The little that he has said about Lance is no different then what is being written by every other cycling journalist out there.


----------



## giovanni sartori (Feb 5, 2004)

The problem I have with Lemond is he's always the victim:
Hinault lied to me waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
I would have won 5 tours if not for the buckshot waaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
the peloton just got faster waaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
this developer is trying to screw me, I'm filing a lawsuit waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
Trek isn't pushing my brand I'm going to sue waaaaaaaaaaaaaaa


----------



## ttug (May 14, 2004)

*come again*



bigpinkt said:


> Listen to the interview and do some research. Lemond for years has gone after doping in cycling. It is only a few sentences about Armstrong that get attention in the media so it appears that he only goes after Lance. The little that he has said about Lance is no different then what is being written by every other cycling journalist out there.


Research what?

Find out that the whole sport is fueled by an insane desire to create new blood cancers? I am not defending Lance. Have you ever met Greg?

I have.

HE IS A JERK. Lance.....I have not met him yet. Ego maniac...probably.


----------



## djg714 (Oct 24, 2005)

Trek blows.


----------



## bigpinkt (Jul 20, 2006)

ttug said:


> Research what?
> 
> Find out that the whole sport is fueled by an insane desire to create new blood cancers? I am not defending Lance. Have you ever met Greg?
> 
> ...


I have met both, many times. Greg is a good guy, Lance is not.


----------



## MerlinAma (Oct 11, 2005)

I'm just now reading "Lance Armstrong's War" and it is fascinating. Mostly because of some insights into pro racing.

One thing seems clear about Lance, he sees everyone as "for" or "against" him and takes action accordingly. 

Now that I think about it, maybe that's where the book title came from.

Not surprised by the Trek - Lemond development.


----------



## DIRT BOY (Aug 22, 2002)

bigpinkt said:


> To continue to ignore that Lance pulled off the greats fraud in the history of the sport does the sport a great disservice.


The only fraud here is your post. Until he is PROVEN to have doped and/or be caught, how can it be a fraud? Because you say so? Guilt by association?

Is he guilty? Maybe or maybe not. I persoanlly don't think so.

Now, it IS possible after he became som chumy with all the drug companies during his cancer about that they gave him experimental drugs that were no way detectable by todays's testing kinda like BALCO and their "clear" stuff.

Yes, because someone was not caught, it does not mean they did not cheat. You also can't say they did if they were not caught.

Just because he was better than everyone else. Again IMO Cancer treatment and recovery made the Lance we say win 7 TDFs. I also think pre-cancer doping might have led to his cancer as well.

Doping gave him cancer and post cancer treatments gave him 7 TDFs. He still has many freakish attributes that have nothing to do with doping and something other riders do not posses.


----------



## DIRT BOY (Aug 22, 2002)

bigpinkt said:


> I have met both, many times. Greg is a good guy, Lance is not.


I know guys who met and rode with Lance on local rides/races who said he generally a good guy. Egomaniac but a good guy.


----------



## bigpinkt (Jul 20, 2006)

DIRT BOY said:


> I know guys who met and rode with Lance on local rides/races who said he generally a good guy. Egomaniac but a good guy.


I know people whose life has been significantly altered because they told the truth about him. Not a good person.


----------



## blackhat (Jan 2, 2003)

bigpinkt said:


> ...Not a good person.


that this is even a point of contention is baffling. the simeoni soap opera, the anderson suit, vaughters/frankie/landis/zabriskie/prentice/o'reilly...lemond. that's just off the top of my head. there's enough people on record giving their own version of his "issues" that I think we can put the idea that LA is anything but a sociopathic narcissist to rest.


----------



## sevencycle (Apr 23, 2006)

bigpinkt said:


> Doing nothing for the sport? Where have you been? He is an active campaigner to correct what is wrong with the sport. While other former tour winners are trying to distance themselves from the sports current problems (Lest they are implicated) Lemond is attacking the issues by being a forceful anti doping advocate.


They way he going about to "correct what is wrong" has no effect on the problem. Lemond just points fingers on the past (sour grapes).We all know the problem... Duh. Solutions are what we need.


----------



## sevencycle (Apr 23, 2006)

ttug said:


> Greg an anti doping candidate????? When do you think Greg raced? So, in the DECADES after all of the known juicing, he comes out as a "hero" because, he wanted to be honest????
> 
> Honest? The man who quit races because he did not have it and blamed it on equipment failures is honest? Honest? The man who had his bike company BOGHT BY TREK, and AFTER LANCE breaks his "record", THEN he comes out? AFTER numerous riders died, got busted etc etc he is a "hero" because he is honest?
> 
> He is 20 years too late. Old, bitter and has a chip on his shoulder.


 CHEERS!!!!!!!


----------



## bas (Jul 30, 2004)

MerlinAma said:


> I'm just now reading "Lance Armstrong's War" and it is fascinating. Mostly because of some insights into pro racing.
> 
> One thing seems clear about Lance, he sees everyone as "for" or "against" him and takes action accordingly.
> 
> ...


Lance probably pushed Trek.

It's not like Lance has his own full bike line up yet.

I bet you that is next.


----------



## sevencycle (Apr 23, 2006)

Who is to say Lemond has never Doped. In his day it was very standard practice for the Captains to dope with their own blood.How did Lemond just pedal away from other greats that were doped.


----------



## bigpinkt (Jul 20, 2006)

sevencycle said:


> They way he going about to "correct what is wrong" has no effect on the problem. Lemond just points fingers on the past (sour grapes).We all know the problem... Duh. Solutions are what we need.


That is incorrect. In his recent interview in Cyclesport he talked about many solutions to the problem. The is a multi page article and few fingers are pointed. 

In this interview as well he talks mostly about the challenges and opportunities
http://fora.tv/2008/02/17/Ethics_Dop...ure_of_Cycling

But of course these do not fit your uninformed opinion of him so you will likely just ignore them


----------



## Tri Slow Poke (Jul 22, 2006)

bas said:


> Will there be sweet deals on Lemonds now?



Some of the articles that I've read seem to indicate that Trek will allow its dealers to sell them at "friendlier" prices.


----------



## bigpinkt (Jul 20, 2006)

sevencycle said:


> Who is to say Lemond has never Doped. In his day it was very standard practice for the Captains to dope with their own blood.How did Lemond just pedal away from other greats that were doped.


Do you have any evidence? 

Lance, for example, has multiple failed test, sworn testimony from former teammates, all of his main competitors have been caught, multiple support staff have said he doped, he worked with a convicted doping doctor.....what evidence is there on Greg? None, his ex-teammates all say he never doped, in fact consulted against it. Support staff and DS's say the same.

Just because you hope Greg doped doesn't make it so. produce some evidence


----------



## Tri Slow Poke (Jul 22, 2006)

bigpinkt said:


> I know people whose life has been significantly altered because they told the truth about him. Not a good person.



I've heard the same things about him.


----------



## sevencycle (Apr 23, 2006)

bigpinkt said:


> Do you have any evidence?
> 
> Lance, for example, has multiple failed test, sworn testimony from former teammates, all of his main competitors have been caught, multiple support staff have said he doped, he worked with a convicted doping doctor.....what evidence is there on Greg? None, his ex-teammates all say he never doped, in fact consulted against it. Support staff and DS's say the same.
> 
> Just because you hope Greg doped doesn't make it so. produce some evidence


I didnt say he doped....."multiple failed tests" ???? Greg rode in the day when doping was not cheating as it is now. The past is known looking to the future is the cure.I dont think he deserves to ride the high horse that he try's to hop on.


----------



## Under ACrookedSky (Nov 8, 2005)

DIRT BOY said:


> The only fraud here is your post. Until he is PROVEN to have doped and/or be caught, how can it be a fraud? Because you say so? Guilt by association?
> 
> Is he guilty? Maybe or maybe not. I persoanlly don't think so.


That's because you are a fool. He didn't gain a 100 watts of power by upping his cadence by ten RPM. He didn't go from climbing like crap in the mountains to being better than a doped up Pantani by eating Wheaties. He didn't go from a middling time trialer to being better than an EPO fueld Indurain by listening to Chris F'n Carmichael.

All the GT contenders of that era doped. All of them. No exceptions. It was impossible to compete without radically increasing the oxygen carrying capacity of your blood. Anyone who believes otherwise is either extremely naive or stupid.


----------



## DIRT BOY (Aug 22, 2002)

Under ACrookedSky said:


> That's because you are a fool. He didn't gain a 100 watts of power by upping his cadence by ten RPM. He didn't go from climbing like crap in the mountains to being better than a doped up Pantani by eating Wheaties. He didn't go from a middling time trialer to being better than an EPO fueld Indurain by listening to Chris F'n Carmichael.
> 
> All the GT contenders of that era doped. All of them. No exceptions. It was impossible to compete without radically increasing the oxygen carrying capacity of your blood. Anyone who believes otherwise is either extremely naive or stupid.


And you are even a bigger fool, smart a$$!! Have you read ANY of my comments on this? Have you any idea from reading all the crap he took to recover from cancer? The guy helped a few pharmecutical companies even bigger . I have said for years all the drugs and steriods to recover from cancer gave him all the power and strength you talk about. Besides being a human freak via genetics!!

IMO pre-cancer doping acclerated and possibly gave him Cancer. Cancer recovery made him the super human that one 7 TDF.

Then again he might have been using undetectable drugs. I have a feeling after cancer and cheating death, would he chance it again.

Maybe I am a fool???

I amn not the only one that needs to wake-up. The guys took sooo many drugs during cancewr recovery and it changed him. Now whether he kept taking them we will never know. He was never caught and has not be proven to have doped. Sorry, but those are the *facts!!!*


----------



## Kestreljr (Jan 10, 2007)

DIRT BOY said:


> I know guys who met and rode with Lance on local rides/races who said he generally a good guy. Egomaniac but a good guy.


I am no lemond lover (always whining imo) but Lance isn't a good guy. I was around him a lot in 01-02 with the team. I didn't get to know him personally or anything, but I can tell you that he might have his "good moments" but overall, he isn't a good guy imo.

Edit: He does good things, with his foundation and such, but that doesn't make him a good guy either imo.


----------



## stevesbike (Jun 3, 2002)

sorry but there is not one shred/iota of evidence suggesting that drugs taken during cancer treatment underlie long-term improvements in athletic capacity. 

I suspect the anti-Lemond guys are mostly latecomers to the sport who don't understand its history or Lemond's place in it.


----------



## DIRT BOY (Aug 22, 2002)

stevesbike said:


> sorry but there is not one shred/iota of evidence suggesting that drugs taken during cancer treatment underlie long-term improvements in athletic capacity.


Nah, just the CRAP load of steriods he took!  Boy you are clueless!! The list of anabolics/steriods is stagaring in his case.

Dope, drugs, steriods or what not, you must have the talent no matter how much drugs you take.


----------



## DIRT BOY (Aug 22, 2002)

stevesbike said:


> I suspect the anti-Lemond guys are mostly latecomers to the sport who don't understand its history or Lemond's place in it.


I am not Pro/Anti Greg or really Pro/Anti Lance either. Yes, I enojoyed watching him race and I was a fan. 

Greg along with 7-Eleven introduced my to cycling as a kid.

The guy is still sour old man now, like him or not.


----------



## tbb001 (Oct 1, 2007)

bigpinkt said:


> Just because you hope Greg doped doesn't make it so. produce some evidence


Just because you hope Lance doped doesn't make it so. Produce some evidence.

Please people.

Odds are good that both LeMond and Armstrong doped. As did most, if not all, of their big rivals during their eras.


----------



## stevesbike (Jun 3, 2002)

The steroids were likely mostly glucocorticoids, which wouldn't have long-term effects (over the course of 8+ years). The only link to his cancer treatment is the unilateral orchiectomy (removing a testicle), but that's pretty speculative (paper title below). It also neglects the fact that Armstrong's 1999 blood sample was positive for EPO.


"Metabolic clues regarding the enhanced performance of elite endurance athletes from orchiectomy-induced hormonal changes"


----------



## blackhat (Jan 2, 2003)

tbb001 said:


> Just because you hope Lance doped doesn't make it so. Produce some evidence.


seriously? that's the best rejoinder you could come up with? there's literally reams of evidence that armstrong doped. to this point there's no evidence that lemond did.


----------



## ttug (May 14, 2004)

*ok thats it*



stevesbike said:


> sorry but there is not one shred/iota of evidence suggesting that drugs taken during cancer treatment underlie long-term improvements in athletic capacity.
> 
> I suspect the anti-Lemond guys are mostly latecomers to the sport who don't understand its history or Lemond's place in it.


I came to cycling by way of a colleague who was a junior on the 7-11 team. I am 40 years old. The year was 1984. SO, thats 24 years of being a fan, that enough for you?

I loved Merckx, I loved Coppi I loved Antequil. I astudied the sport. It was cool.

In that year, I was a senior in High School. I specialized in strength sports. I loved lifting and riding was a hobby. Later my health declined, I dropped alot of weight and came back to doing cycling in a way I did not know was possible. I love this sport.

IF you are prepared to tell me or anyone else on this board that doping was a new thing or that doping was not a real issue until the 1990's, I have a bridge to sell you because that a bald faced whopping lie.

The change came when all the guys who stopped winning were too freaking old to get the advantage of the new dope. THEY WERE OLD. IT WAS OVER. You can dope all you want, but you have to have something there. Its not like Popeye and his Spinach. Man that view is just stupid and totally uneducated, In fact, that view gets the kids killed faster than the reality. DUH.

Next generation, riders and drugs came to the front. Who did not dope. Thats a short list, IMO. So, some HAS BEEN, shooting down a guy who is winning, its sour grapes. I dont care if its your mama, Lemond, my old man or the girl next door. Again, now people say, OOOOO you must love Lance.....How the hell do you know that? I dont. I watched him win. Just like you and everyone else. 

Wanna know something? They all dope. IMO, they all dope and they are all liars. Even your precious BS master Greg Lemond. WHY? Oh EPO was legal, now its not, things were different then. WRONG WRONG WRONG. YOU juiced, you won, you cant win anymore so now its time to be honest. WHAT A LOSER of a man and of character that takes.


----------



## MerlinAma (Oct 11, 2005)

blackhat said:


> ........ there's literally reams of evidence that armstrong doped.......


Reliable evidence? Apparently not.

We know how bad "evidence" can be in criminal cases here in the USA (shoddy lab work, chain of custody, planted evidence, etc). How can you possibly think this isn't the most likely scenario with sone of the stuff people have come up with in Lance's case.

One big question is the inconsistency in the "literally reams of evidence that armstrong doped" and the tests he passed, which were many and often, including the random tests.

Everyone is entitled to their own opinion but as far as I know, there is no proof he doped. And no way for him to "prove" that he didn't.

I guess that's why this topic will still be on the forums 100 years from now. :mad2:


----------



## tbb001 (Oct 1, 2007)

blackhat said:


> seriously? that's the best rejoinder you could come up with? there's literally reams of evidence that armstrong doped. to this point there's no evidence that lemond did.


Or you could just ignore the rest of my post where I said that both of them likely doped. :thumbsup: 

I was more just making fun of bigpinkt's quote.

LeMond won in a time when doping was rampant in the peloton and when there were less (or no) doping controls. You can continue to believe that he didn't dope, but I am less believing when it seems that everyone in the peloton doped (including Armstrong and your beloved LeMond).


----------



## kiwisimon (Oct 30, 2002)

djg714 said:


> Trek blows.


Amen to that!


----------



## stevesbike (Jun 3, 2002)

Your argument about Lemond doping makes no sense. If he doped prior to the 90s why didn't he just use EPO when it became available-that's a charge against Stephen Roche (steroids in the 80s, EPO in the 90s). Why did Lemond suddenly speak out against EPO in the early 90s? Maybe it's because he actually cared about the sport? Can't figure out why a whistleblower keeps being accused of "whining"...


----------



## sevencycle (Apr 23, 2006)

blackhat said:


> seriously? that's the best rejoinder you could come up with? there's literally reams of evidence that armstrong doped. to this point there's no evidence that lemond did.


 If there was real evidence that Armstrong doped with so many LA haters in the world why is he not busted.I guess he 
was the Best at a few other things too. They probably all doped as that *WAS* part of the game then. Greg would still be crying about the Germans that spit on him on Alp du Huez if that happened to him. He is a sour puss.


----------



## lookrider (Dec 3, 2006)

*coyle*



DIRT BOY said:


> And you are even a bigger fool, smart a$$!! Have you read ANY of my comments on this? Have you any idea from reading all the crap he took to recover from cancer? The guy helped a few pharmecutical companies even bigger . I have said for years all the drugs and steriods to recover from cancer gave him all the power and strength you talk about. Besides being a human freak via genetics!!
> 
> IMO pre-cancer doping acclerated and possibly gave him Cancer. Cancer recovery made him the super human that one 7 TDF.
> 
> ...


tested LA at 71.5 VO2 max in November 99. *71.5!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!*

Keep an open mind and read all there is to read on this subject.

*I guarantee, after a very short inquiry, the path will lead you to the conclusion LA doped*

Then everything will fit in, everything you subsequently learn will convince you LA is a liar.


----------



## DIRT BOY (Aug 22, 2002)

lookrider said:


> tested LA at 71.5 VO2 max in November 99. *71.5!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!*
> 
> Keep an open mind and read all there is to read on this subject.
> 
> ...


And you are aware he has a larger heart than others?


----------



## ttug (May 14, 2004)

*big deal*



lookrider said:


> tested LA at 71.5 VO2 max in November 99. *71.5!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!*
> 
> Keep an open mind and read all there is to read on this subject.
> 
> ...


Lemond tested with higher values than Lance. Do you have a point?

AGAIN, I am NOT a Lance fan, but man, WAKE UP tested values....you are reaching.


----------



## ttug (May 14, 2004)

*easy easy*



stevesbike said:


> Your argument about Lemond doping makes no sense. If he doped prior to the 90s why didn't he just use EPO when it became available-that's a charge against Stephen Roche (steroids in the 80s, EPO in the 90s). Why did Lemond suddenly speak out against EPO in the early 90s? Maybe it's because he actually cared about the sport? Can't figure out why a whistleblower keeps being accused of "whining"...


BECAUSE if you are winning, its all good.

WHY didnt Greg come out then? WHERE was he? Why is a "hero"?


----------



## lookrider (Dec 3, 2006)

*But giovanni*



giovanni sartori said:


> The problem I have with Lemond is he's always the victim:
> Hinault lied to me waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa


do you really believe LeMond was working for Hinault in '86?



giovanni sartori said:


> I would have won 5 tours if not for the buckshot waaaaaaaaaaaaaaa


Well, he would have.



giovanni sartori said:


> the peloton just got faster waaaaaaaaaaaaaaa


True, the start of the EPO era



giovanni sartori said:


> this developer is trying to screw me, I'm filing a lawsuit waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa


Well, we know that's true because he won the lawsuit.



giovanni sartori said:


> Trek isn't pushing my brand I'm going to sue waaaaaaaaaaaaaaa


Well, who knows? With LA's history and LeMonds criticisms of LA, would you doubt it?

LeMond *was* right about every one of those things. 

Here's Velonews with the '85 Tour

http://www.velonews.com/./article/9232

There's a saying "you aren't bragging if you can back it up." It can also be inferred that you aren't whining, if what you're saying is the truth...


----------



## ttug (May 14, 2004)

*Looky Looky*



lookrider said:


> do you really believe LeMond was working for Hinault in '86?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


HE WAITED FOR HINAULT! You mean you dont recall him waiting, crying hoping he could help???? He waited and he was a fool. That was his TDF and he knew it.


----------



## lookrider (Dec 3, 2006)

*I know you won't buy the book*



ttug said:


> BECAUSE if you are winning, its all good.
> 
> WHY didnt Greg come out then? WHERE was he? Why is a "hero"?


but if you would read Walsh, (at the bookstore) all of this stuff is explained in a logical chronology.


----------



## lookrider (Dec 3, 2006)

DIRT BOY said:


> And you are aware he has a larger heart than others?


That's propaganda per Michael Ashendon.


----------



## ttug (May 14, 2004)

*you got that right*



lookrider said:


> but if you would read Walsh, (at the bookstore) all of this stuff is explained in a logical chronology.


Chronology?? From whose ponit of view??

You think someone is being honest? Man you are a trusting souls arent ya?


----------



## ttug (May 14, 2004)

*thats riiiiight*



sevencycle said:


> If there was real evidence that Armstrong doped with so many LA haters in the world why is he not busted.I guess he
> was the Best at a few other things too. They probably all doped as that *WAS* part of the game then. Greg would still be crying about the Germans that spit on him on Alp du Huez if that happened to him. He is a sour puss.



Yeah how about that?

He got away with it. Sure. Lemond didnt win enough. Sounds real to me.


----------



## lookrider (Dec 3, 2006)

*It's obvious I have to spoon feed you*



ttug said:


> Lemond tested with higher values than Lance. Do you have a point?
> 
> AGAIN, I am NOT a Lance fan, but man, WAKE UP tested values....you are reaching.



71.5 is very ordinary among elite athletes. LA was a guy who was riding away easily from the best cyclist's in the world 4 months before to Sestriere and in the TT at Metz.

LeMond's VO2 max was almost 93, among the highest ever recorded.

Take a look at LeMond's record (it is a matter of record you know) from the time he was 15 years old. Vastly superior to LA's.


----------



## Under ACrookedSky (Nov 8, 2005)

DIRT BOY said:


> Have you any idea from reading all the crap he took to recover from cancer?


I have not only read about it, I personally experienced it. I am still waiting for my 100 watt gain in sustainable power.


----------



## Under ACrookedSky (Nov 8, 2005)

DIRT BOY said:


> And you are aware he has a larger heart than others?


If you go over to the Daily Peloton forums you will find an LA doping apologist named Hombre telling people Armstrong's heart is as big as a pumpkin. He has been proven to be a flat out liar.


----------



## lookrider (Dec 3, 2006)

*Some interesting stuff in there*



MerlinAma said:


> I'm just now reading "Lance Armstrong's War" and it is fascinating. Mostly because of some insights into pro racing.
> 
> One thing seems clear about Lance, he sees everyone as "for" or "against" him and takes action accordingly.
> 
> ...


but read Walsh afterwards and you will be blown away...


----------



## ttug (May 14, 2004)

*spoon feed?*



lookrider said:


> 71.5 is very ordinary among elite athletes. LA was a guy who was riding away from easily from the best cyclist's in the world 4 months before to Sestriere and in the TT at Metz.
> 
> LeMond's VO2 max was almost 93, among the highest ever recorded.
> 
> Take a look at LeMond's record (it is a matter of record you know) from the time he was 15 years old. Vastly superior to LA's.


The correlation between a high V02 max and performance is not 100%.

Some of the best marathoners on the planet never tested above 71 much less 93.

The issue is not if Greg was a better athlete, the issue is, THEY ALL DOPED. And when one doper says...Oh gee....he dopes and its all wrong. You are 20+ years too late and a hypocrit.


----------



## lookrider (Dec 3, 2006)

*You're very confusing here*



ttug said:


> HE WAITED FOR HINAULT! You mean you dont recall him waiting, crying hoping he could help???? He waited and he was a fool. That was his TDF and he knew it.


Hinault crashed and broke his nose in 85. LeMond waited for him.

I think giovanni was doubting LeMonds ability to win 5 T'sdF. By my count '85 thru '90 is 6 and he was only 30 in '91 so don't know where anyone is getting the idea he was over the hill when EPO came in...


----------



## lookrider (Dec 3, 2006)

*we usually*



ttug said:


> The correlation between a high V02 max and performance is not 100%.


You wouldn't agree that it's as good an indicator as any other that exists disregarding performance in the sport itself?



ttug said:


> Some of the best marathoners on the planet never tested above 71 much less 93..


And efficient running form is much more important and variable, than efficient cycling form where you are locked into a pedal stroke. 



ttug said:


> The issue is not if Greg was a better athlete, the issue is, THEY ALL DOPED. And when one doper says...Oh gee....he dopes and its all wrong. You are 20+ years too late and a hypocrit.


We usually rely on evidence, be it direct physical evidence or circumstancial evident.

LA- direct physical evidence check, 2 incidents
circumstantial, a literal mountain

LeMond, not one shred of evidence at all....


----------



## ttug (May 14, 2004)

*and...*



lookrider said:


> ttug said:
> 
> 
> > The correlation between a high V02 max and performance is not 100%
> ...


----------



## Under ACrookedSky (Nov 8, 2005)

ttug said:


> lookrider said:
> 
> 
> > AND in a court of law...circumstantial means exactly JACK SQUAT......
> ...


----------



## ttug (May 14, 2004)

*yes*



Under ACrookedSky said:


> ttug said:
> 
> 
> > WTF? Circumstantial evidence is perfectly legitimate evidence. It is often better than direct evidence because it establishes a pattern or timeline or forms a series of dots that a jury can easily connect into a story that explains what went on.
> ...


----------



## tbb001 (Oct 1, 2007)

I am neither an Armstrong or a LeMond "fan", but reading lookrider's posts is extremely funny.

His obsession with everything pro-LeMond and anti-Armstrong is humorous, and borderline pathetic.


----------



## ttug (May 14, 2004)

*agreed*



tbb001 said:


> I am neither an Armstrong or a LeMond "fan", but reading lookrider's posts is extremely funny.
> 
> His obsession with everything pro-LeMond and anti-Armstrong is humorous, and borderline pathetic.


I am wondering why Greg is being defended when I thought we were looking for the truth.


----------



## ttug (May 14, 2004)

*no again*



lookrider said:


> Hinault crashed and broke his nose in 85. LeMond waited for him.
> 
> I think giovanni was doubting LeMonds ability to win 5 T'sdF. By my count '85 thru '90 is 6 and he was only 30 in '91 so don't know where anyone is getting the idea he was over the hill when EPO came in...


Yes, but thats another one Gereg had.

Look, answer this:

Do you want to defend Greg or find the truth? Choose. You want to defend Greg? Great. That makes you a liar and a buffoon because you could not care about the truth in the least. In fact, it makes you as pathetic and any Lance fan boy. The truth hurts, lets get it shall we?


----------



## Einstruzende (Jun 1, 2004)

Here's a fact:
EPO wasn't even approved by the FDA until 1989. By that time, LeMond had already displayed his talent. Greg also didn't dominate his 2nd and 3rd tours. Seven seconds anyone?

Lance's urine samples from 1999 Tour have tested positive from EPO. His saving grace was that [some governing body] ruled that the sample was obtained / tested illegally. Recall that there was no test for EPO in 1999, which is the reason he "passed" testing controls originally.


I grant you that the following is circumstantial...
Look at the results of the 2005 TdF. Six of the top 10 have been busted or seriously implicated in doping since then (Basso, Ullrich, Mancebo, Vinokourov, Rasmussen, Landis). I guess that Armstrong is so elite, that he made those guys, who are elite doped athletes, look like chumps out there.

LeMond won a tour on the final stage...winning by 7 or 8 seconds over all, and then the following year he won without even being able to win a stage. Coincidentally that's when EPO would have first been available. From then on some guy named Indurain ruled the roost.

As far as Defending LeMond...I just happen to believe him, which is why I'm even arguing here. 

Whoever shakes the tree rarely gets the fruit [to paraphrase]


----------



## lookrider (Dec 3, 2006)

ttug said:


> Yes, but thats another one Gereg had.
> 
> Look, answer this:
> 
> Do you want to defend Greg or find the truth? Choose. You want to defend Greg? Great. That makes you a liar and a buffoon because you could not care about the truth in the least. In fact, it makes you as pathetic and any Lance fan boy. The truth hurts, lets get it shall we?


If Greg's guilty of using PED's he should suffer the same fate as anyone else.

Do you always answer your own questions?

BTW, I'll take the truth in all matters.....


----------



## Mootsie (Feb 4, 2004)

giovanni sartori said:


> The problem I have with Lemond is he's always the victim:
> Hinault lied to me waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
> I would have won 5 tours if not for the buckshot waaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
> the peloton just got faster waaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
> ...


He is crying all the way to the bank. The guy is loaded.


----------



## magnolialover (Jun 2, 2004)

*You guys...*



DIRT BOY said:


> The only fraud here is your post. Until he is PROVEN to have doped and/or be caught, how can it be a fraud? Because you say so? Guilt by association?
> 
> Is he guilty? Maybe or maybe not. I persoanlly don't think so.
> 
> ...


You guys are delusional if you think that Armstrong didn't dope.

There were plenty of guys who doped that never got caught. Ever hear of Pantani? I'm sure you think he was a doper. Guess what? Never got busted. Nope.

Millar.
Basso.
Ullrich.
Riis
Need I go on?

You mean to tell me that Armstrong beat the strongest dopers in the world for 7 years in a row but never touched anything? Please... Naive is what that would be right there. Look at the podiums that he stood on, and who was near him. All dopers. Sure, he never got busted, and there is no * next to his name, but he doped, for certain, he doped. To think otherwise is to be ignorant of what was going on in the sport for a long time.


----------



## magnolialover (Jun 2, 2004)

*Also...*



Einstruzende said:


> Here's a fact:
> EPO wasn't even approved by the FDA until 1989. By that time, LeMond had already displayed his talent. Greg also didn't dominate his 2nd and 3rd tours. Seven seconds anyone?
> 
> Lance's urine samples from 1999 Tour have tested positive from EPO. His saving grace was that [some governing body] ruled that the sample was obtained / tested illegally. Recall that there was no test for EPO in 1999, which is the reason he "passed" testing controls originally.
> ...


Also, look at Armstrong's former teammates who either admitted to doping, or were caught out.

Hamilton.
Landis.
Vasseur.
Frankie.
Vaughters.

And so on and so forth.

I believe Lemond, especially after reading several articles, and seeing how cycling in general treats people who come out against doping. 

Read From Lance to Landis or Breaking the Chain. Both will show you what's going on with the sport.


----------



## magnolialover (Jun 2, 2004)

*Or...*



lookrider said:


> but read Walsh afterwards and you will be blown away...


Or Voet.

Walsh's book was great. 

Coyle's studies about Armstrong are very flawed about his performance.

Lance has a bigger heart than most people. Hey guess what? So do I. It's called training as an endurance athlete. Anyone who rides often will have the same.

His VO2 Max, while not the prime indicator of performance was not a very good number.

Lactate threshold, and the ability of the body to flush lactate acid has been disproven lately, as not bearing any signifigance.

This whole myth of Armstrong losing weight due to cancer, is just that. A myth. He was maybe a kilo lighter later on down the line than he was pre cancer.


----------



## slowdave (Nov 29, 2005)

Wasnt this tread about trek dropping the lemond brand from its range?


----------



## DMFT (Feb 3, 2005)

Einstruzende said:


> Here's a fact:
> EPO wasn't even approved by the FDA until 1989. By that time, LeMond had already displayed his talent. Greg also didn't dominate his 2nd and 3rd tours. Seven seconds anyone?
> 
> Lance's urine samples from 1999 Tour have tested positive from EPO. His saving grace was that [some governing body] ruled that the sample was obtained / tested illegally. Recall that there was no test for EPO in 1999, which is the reason he "passed" testing controls originally.
> ...



- Just what does the FDA have to do with American Pro's living/racing in Europe???
MANY Countries approve/have various drugs and even surgical proceedures in use YEARS before America does. So what is your point?

- Lastly, by other's "Logic" in this silly discussion : How did LeMond even compete with others that were doped to the gill's???

P.S. - They both used IMO. :wink5:


----------



## homebrew (Oct 28, 2004)

My issue with LeMond comes down to his public attacks on those that HE has no evedence against. Regardless of the question af Landis and doping he was allowed to testify dispite tthe fact the he had no first hand knowledge and was speculating. How does HE know if Lance doped? I have great respect for LeMond the rider but not so much LeMond the man. He has shown a pattern of blaming others for his problems. He never ran his company well before Trek. I hope he gets it right this time. If I owned a LeMond bike I sure hope that its Trek that covers the warrenty


----------



## philippec (Jun 16, 2002)

sevencycle said:


> <b><strike>Lemond</strike> <i>Ttug</i> needs to quit whinnnning!!!! </b>
> 
> He is doing nothing for the sport or himself. Lets see how strong his <strike>bike line</strike><b>true faith</b> will be <strike>without Trek</strike><b>when he finally confronts the truth</b>... I say it folds.:cryin: Thats <strike>Greg</strike><b> Ttug</b> crying,not me
> 
> http://forums.roadbikereview.com/showthread.php?p=1495398#poststop



There ... fixed it for you! :thumbsup:


----------



## gizzard (Oct 5, 2005)

*Give him his dues*

The OP centred on the assertion that Lemond was doing nothing for the sport, an assertion to which many here disagree. Whether Lemond doped or not while he was racing, or perhaps more pertinently, whether or not Armstrong doped, are moot points. I'm afraid to say that I think it's unlikely that we'll ever know for sure the truth about Lance, although I think it’s fair to say that there is overwhelming circumstantial evidence pointing towards him as doping on a massive scale (including the one failed EPO test in 1999). Let's give him the benefit of the doubt through. 
Back to Lemond: he was the first English speaking winner of the Tour, he won two World Road Race titles, he won the Tour three times, and raced fairly consistently throughout his career, although he was clearly past his best when he decided to call it quits. But did anyone see him race the '92 Paris-Roubaix and assist Gilbert Duclosse-Lasalle to his first win? 
What is irrefutable is that Lemond has always spoken out against doping and he is considered by many to be the single, most influential rider in the modern era when it comes to equipment use, training, contractual issues, and general approach to the sport.


----------



## ttug (May 14, 2004)

*funny story*



philippec said:


> There ... fixed it for you! :thumbsup:


You kids have alot of free time.

I hope you recall that the concept of a hero is a person with a tragic flaw. Neither Lance nor Greg are my hero.

Yes, I do hope the truth comes out. I hope all of you Greg fans who want the truth get it. All of you wanted me to be a Lance fan boy. So, when I said, that aint me man...THEN you think, oh this guy is a whiner. Yeah. Bunch of sharp sticks aint ya?

Seems to me that alot of energy is about Greg and a swell person that he is. Not alot of truth seeking......Well hey if you have to be a hypocrit, be a good one and you folks are going for the gold. BRAVO


----------



## gizzard (Oct 5, 2005)

I'll second that Phillepec. Amen. End of.


----------



## bigpinkt (Jul 20, 2006)

DMFT said:


> How did LeMond even compete with others that were doped to the gill's???
> 
> P.S. - They both used IMO. :wink5:


If you had any knowledge of the history of doping in cycling you would already know your answer.

The primitive doping of the time was largely used to help riders race 150 days a year (Stimulants) it was completely possible to be competitive and not dope, especially if you did not race much like Lemond did.

With the introduction of EPO the entire formula changed. It was not longer possible to compete as the advantage, especially in the grand tours, was too great. A good example of this would be Lemond winning the tour in 90 and suddenly being an also ran in 91. 

While you seem to hope that Lemond doped there is no evidence, not even a rumor, that he did. Unlike todays riders who seem to have daily relevations from former teammates support staff, and doctors of their doping practices.


----------



## g-Bike (Jan 25, 2006)

Does it really matter, the Lemond era, the Lance era, they were both very good for the cycling industry in the US. Whether or not they doped they are the only ones that truly know and are the one's that have to lay down at night and close their eyes knowing weather or not a nettle was stuck in their arm or not.... Either way they competed against a lot of other athletes that have to also consider the same circumstances and hey their got beat! So in the end it is all far play and if you believe it is not they good up to you. Too bad for Lemond that he could not just keep his mouth shut and focus on his brand, seems like he is doing everything possible to keep himself in the limelight for all the wrong reasons. How many foundations / fundraisers has he organized and put money into? Let's think about that one for a little while.....


----------



## sevencycle (Apr 23, 2006)

*Dont need EPO...*



Einstruzende said:


> Here's a fact:
> EPO wasn't even approved by the FDA until 1989. By that time, LeMond had already displayed his talent. Greg also didn't dominate his 2nd and 3rd tours. Seven seconds anyone?
> 
> Lance's urine samples from 1999 Tour have tested positive from EPO. His saving grace was that [some governing body] ruled that the sample was obtained / tested illegally. Recall that there was no test for EPO in 1999, which is the reason he "passed" testing controls originally.
> ...


 You can use your own blood or a doner's. Its been done forever!!!


----------



## Paz (Sep 5, 2005)

In a perverse sort of way I think this thread proves why Trek is dropping Lemond. Bring up Lemond bikes and it turns into a doping, Lance VS. Greg discussion. Not exactly what you want from a brand.


----------



## ttug (May 14, 2004)

*gee whiz*



sevencycle said:


> You can use your own blood or a doner's. Its been done forever!!!



Why bring up that? I mean, its only the truth. Nice to see it.

Everyone knows we dont see bags of blood in the fridge in the modern peleton..........


----------



## TheDon (Feb 3, 2006)

ttug said:


> Why bring up that? I mean, its only the truth. Nice to see it.
> 
> Everyone knows we dont see bags of blood in the fridge in the modern peleton..........


Blood doping isn't nearly as safe as EPO and much harder to accomplish without systematic doping. Epo you can inject yourself, but taking your own blood spinning it down etc, requires more than just calling someone up to order a couple vials. So if LeMond had blood doped there would have been numerous people that would have known about it. Still nary a word on him blood doping.


----------



## blackhat (Jan 2, 2003)

Lindsey has a couple blog posts about this. unlike most of us, he's actually written extensively on the topic and done the accompanying research. it's worth reading.

http://boulderreport.bicycling.com/2008/04/treklemond-the.html

http://boulderreport.bicycling.com/2008/04/trek-and-lemond.html


----------



## Kestreljr (Jan 10, 2007)

lookrider said:


> LeMond's VO2 max was almost 93, among the highest ever recorded.


Let's not over simplify things... VO2 is an indicator of aerobic thresholds, but scientist are still searching for what makes an excellent endurance athlete. Just a couple of weeks ago, the NYT wrote a story about new studies to understanding why muscle's fatigue.. 

All to say, there is a lot of unknowns (almost all unknowns) to what makes a phenomenal athlete so much better then the rest of us.

Edit: you said that some of the best marathoners on earth tested a 71 and lemond was in the 90's. My response is that these marathoner's number work against an argument that VO2 max is a great indicator then. It could be argued that VO2 is much more important in a pro running, when you hold your avg. heart rate and aerobic activity at a much higher threshold for longer periods of time then you do in cycling.


----------



## lookrider (Dec 3, 2006)

*Someone else posted that some elite marathoners*



Kestreljr said:


> Let's not over simplify things... VO2 is an indicator of aerobic thresholds, but scientist are still searching for what makes an excellent endurance athlete. Just a couple of weeks ago, the NYT wrote a story about new studies to understanding why muscle's fatigue..
> 
> All to say, there is a lot of unknowns (almost all unknowns) to what makes a phenomenal athlete so much better then the rest of us.
> 
> Edit: you said that some of the best marathoners on earth tested a 71 and lemond was in the 90's. My response is that these marathoner's number work against an argument that VO2 max is a great indicator then. It could be argued that VO2 is much more important in a pro running, when you hold your avg. heart rate and aerobic activity at a much higher threshold for longer periods of time then you do in cycling.


VO2 max numbers were in the low 70's and I had been aware of that.

I think I also provided the link to on this forum to the NYT article you mentioned.

I think you're unnecessarily clouding the issue. The facts are that endurance athletes need to consume O2 to fuel their muscles. VO2 max _is _ an indicator of the bodies ability to utilize oxygen. All things being equal the higher the number, the better.

http://www.sport-fitness-advisor.com/VO2max.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VO2_max

http://www.velonews.com/article/8167


----------



## bigpinkt (Jul 20, 2006)

Kestreljr said:


> It could be argued that VO2 is much more important in a pro running, when you hold your avg. heart rate and aerobic activity at a much higher threshold for longer periods of time then you do in cycling.


Wrong. not even close. I have ran NCAA Division 1 Cross country and track, also lived and raced in Europe for 6 years on the bike. During much of this time I used a heart rate monitor. Many times during bike races my heart rate was over 170 for more then 2 hours of a 4 hour race, never came close to that duration in running, even in a marathon.

in non impact sports like cycling, cross-country skiing, rowing, Vo2 is more important as there a less physical limitations


----------



## Kestreljr (Jan 10, 2007)

bigpinkt said:


> Wrong. not even close. I have ran NCAA Division 1 Cross country and track, also lived and raced in Europe for 6 years on the bike. During much of this time I used a heart rate monitor. Many times during bike races my heart rate was over 170 for more then 2 hours of a 4 hour race, never came close to that duration in running, even in a marathon.
> 
> in non impact sports like cycling, cross-country skiing, rowing, Vo2 is more important as there a less physical limitations


I ran D1 Cross and Track as well, I raced in Europe/Belgium overijse as well (for only a year though) No question that on a typical cycling race my hear rate had many more dips and peaks then in cycling (esp. when you factor in the drafting). 

To each his own on racing style, but my running was at a much more consistent pace and I often would finish with a slightly high avg. HR then after a bike race. Sure, there were periods when cycling (like when climbing) when my HR would be MUCH higher then running, but those efforts wouldn't be sustained.


----------



## Kestreljr (Jan 10, 2007)

lookrider said:


> I think you're unnecessarily clouding the issue. The facts are that endurance athletes need to consume O2 to fuel their muscles. VO2 max _is _ an indicator of the bodies ability to utilize oxygen. All things being equal the higher the number, the better.


I agree, and I am not trying to cloud the issue, or say that VO2 is not a good indicator. But this is an area of science where there are still many unknowns. Of course, if you have it all figured out, there are some guys at the U.S. Olympic training facilities that would love to talk to you.


----------



## lookrider (Dec 3, 2006)

*Your reasoning is flawed*



Kestreljr said:


> I agree, and I am not trying to cloud the issue, or say that VO2 is not a good indicator. But this is an area of science where there are still many unknowns. Of course, if you have it all figured out, there are some guys at the U.S. Olympic training facilities that would love to talk to you.


and as for your attempt at humor, well....

At any rate, it was another poster who assumed that I thought VO2 max is the be all end all of endurance sports.



ttug said:


> The correlation between a high V02 max and performance is not 100%.
> 
> Some of the best marathoners on the planet never tested above 71 much less 93.
> 
> The issue is not if Greg was a better athlete, the issue is, THEY ALL DOPED. And when one doper says...Oh gee....he dopes and its all wrong. You are 20+ years too late and a hypocrit.


It *is* a good indicator of potential though.

Your saying it is an area of science where there are many unknowns. No kidding. If we knew *EVERYTHING* in this area there wouldn't be much need for these silly little athletic contests, would there?

When did I ever say I had it all figured out though?


----------



## Kestreljr (Jan 10, 2007)

lookrider said:


> It *is* a good indicator of potential though.
> 
> Your saying it is an area of science where there are many unknowns. No kidding. If we knew *EVERYTHING* in this area there wouldn't be much need for these silly little athletic contests, would there?
> 
> When did I ever say I had it all figured out though?


lookrider- I really don't mean to overstate my case, or over simplify yours. You are absolutely correct that VO2 is an excellent indicator, and you did not state that you had it all figured out (sorry written humor doesn't always translate well).

My small point was that I felt you made too much of a conclusion that Lemond was a superior athlete because of one number on a VO2 test. However you did not explicitly state that, I just was trying to clear the air that a higher VO2 does not make always make a superior athlete.


----------



## bigpinkt (Jul 20, 2006)

Kestreljr said:


> I ran D1 Cross and Track as well, I raced in Europe/Belgium overijse as well (for only a year though) No question that on a typical cycling race my hear rate had many more dips and peaks then in cycling (esp. when you factor in the drafting).
> 
> To each his own on racing style, but my running was at a much more consistent pace and I often would finish with a slightly high avg. HR then after a bike race. Sure, there were periods when cycling (like when climbing) when my HR would be MUCH higher then running, but those efforts wouldn't be sustained.


Then you know that the average college cross race is 8k or 10k, about 25-30 minutes. you might be above 170 for 15 of those minutes, where in cycling it could be 2 hours....that is a huge difference. Belgium is a bit different type of riding though, I lived mostly in Spain, Italy, and Switzerland where there were plenty of 20-30 minute climbs where you would be redlining it for most of the climb just to stay on. 

Grand tour racing has evolved greatly, it is essentially a test of watts and oxygen uptake. where tactics once were a major part of the race now the most important tactics are before the race, trying not to get get caught taking what ever you can to increase your watts and oxygen uptake.


----------

