# So LeMond was "clean"??



## rydbyk

Nobody seems to post that perhaps LeMond doped also (at least from what I have seen on this forum). 

In a sport that has an incredibly long history with doping, I just don't see how LeMond was clean during his victories, yet he seems to be on a witch hunt for anyone who may have doped....most clearly Lance....

Is LeMond guilty of exactly what he screams is so wrong with the sport?

The biggest FAIL ever will be if "proof"/allegations by credible sources come out that he too doped...


----------



## Coolhand

And here we go.

/_no_ evidence he was clean.


----------



## rydbyk

Coolhand said:


> And here we go.
> 
> /_no_ evidence he was clean.


any allegations at least? i do understand the evidence thing...just saying..


----------



## ultimobici

Coolhand said:


> And here we go.
> 
> /_no_ evidence he was clean.


But........
Not a single soigneur, mechanic, teammate, rival or anyone else has come out of the woodwork.

The only "whiff" is the iron injection in the presence of a journalist in the 89 Giro. He'd have to have been a prize idiot or more arrogant that LA could dream of being to dope in front of a journalist who was from the US IIRC.

Couple that with pockets that are way shallower that LA's and I wonder if he was riding on Sprite & Burgers!


----------



## bas

rydbyk said:


> any allegations at least? i do understand the evidence thing...just saying..



no there are none.

watch the lemond story.

he knew something was up with the other riders when he couldn't keep up.

he was pure natural talent


----------



## JohnHemlock

Many people apply some variant of the "all champions doped, Lance was a champion, therefore Lance doped" argument. So why can't it be applied to Lemond? For some reason he is protected by some odd halo effect.

Antequil said he only doped when absolutely necessary. When asked how often that was, he replied, "Almost always." Doping has been going on for a hundred years in the Tour and Lemond just gave it a miss? Hmmmm.


----------



## viciouscycle

M. Indurain as well? He killed guys in his 5 wins, collapsed in his try for 6


----------



## burgrat

I remember reading that Eddie B. talked about vitamin shots (or God knows what) that he recommended for some junior riders to inject, but stated that LeMond absolutely refused believing it wasn't right. LeMond does admit he did an iron shot in the 89 Giro due to anemia, but that's all that I've ever heard about him that is questionable.
Cycling definitely has a long history of doping, but in LeMond's time it seems like the products were used more for recovery and as stimulants. With the introduction of EPO, the physiologic changes that resulted made performances increase substantially. 
I'm just a long-time cycling fan and armchair observer, but it _seems_ possible for someone clean to compete near or even at the same level of performance as someone taking stimulants, etc. (as in the pre-EPO days). That type of doping seems to be mainly geared at endurance and surviving a 3-week race. EPO and modern techniques enhance performance significantly, in that they increase the amount of oxygen that is available to use. Just look at the times over the last 20 years up Alpe d'Huez. It is this leap in performance that LeMond attributes to his downfall and the end of his career. One could argue that Lance is in a similar position right now, riding clean knowing that he is under a microscope more so than ever before and simply cannot risk riding "enhanced" as many believe he has in the past. 
I personally don't believe Greg ever doped. I think the guy's a bit crazy at times, pretty much sues everyone, and comes across as a bitter person, but I don't think cheated. Just my 2 cents.


----------



## aptivaboy

No, I doubt that Lemond doped. There is ZERO evidence that he did. Today, he's a bitter old wacko, but back then he was pure. I truly believe that. 

Its interesting that a number of talented cyclists in the early to mid-nineties retired when they were supposedly still capable of good performances - Steve Bauer and Greg Lemond come to mind, as well as a couple of Tour-type sprinters who suddenly couldn't buy a stage win. There are suspicions that this was the start of the EPO era, and that clean cyclists realized that without using EPO or whatever the drug of choice was, that their chances of winning were drastically reduced. We have no concrete way of knowing if that's true without someone in the know coming forward, but that idea has been floated more than once. Right around then, the average speed of the Tour started going up, especially on the mountain stages. Better training and lighter bikes can only so just so much. If nothing else, these drugs allowed riders to recover better, putting the clean ones at a fatigue disadvantage. 

Bob


----------



## JohnHemlock

Greg LeMond quoted in newspaper saying Lance Armstrong tried to pay individual to make doping claims
By Nathaniel Vinton 
DAILY NEWS SPORTS WRITER 

Saturday, July 17th 2010, 2:12 PM


A German newspaper Saturday quoted three-time Tour de France winner Greg LeMond saying that Lance Armstrong offered an individual LeMond knows $300,000 to claim that LeMond had used erythropoietin, or EPO, the banned endurance-boosting drug.

The allegation surfaced a day after the Daily News reported that LeMond, a three-time Tour de France champion, was served with a subpoena from a federal grand jury in Los Angeles that is investigating potential doping conspiracies on Armstrong's cycling teams.

"I cannot say who it is, because he still works in cycling, but last year he was offered $300,000 to claim that I had used EPO," LeMond told the Sueddeutsche Zeitung, one of Germany's largest newspapers.

The newspaper said a spokesperson for Armstrong's team called the allegation "absolutely not true" and dismissed it as "a strange story." Armstrong has categorically denied using performance-enhancing drugs and methods on his way to seven Tour de France victories.

LeMond left cycling in the early 1990s, around the time that EPO is thought to have started gaining widespread use in the sport. Since then LeMond has become one of the most outspoken critics of the doping culture that corrupted cycling, and has become one of Armstrong's chief antagonists.

Armstrong has faltered dramatically this month in what he says will be his final Tour de France. This spring, his former teammate, Floyd Landis, confessed to doping and told investigators he saw widespread drug use and blood transfusions on Armstrong's U.S. Postal Service cycling team when Landis was part of the team in 2002, 2003 and 2004.

The grand jury, empanelled at the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, is considering evidence compiled by Food and Drug Administration criminal investigator Jeff Novitzky, who uncovered the BALCO doping ring in 2003.

In the German interview published Saturday, LeMond went on to compare Armstrong and his entourage to the mafia, and called for the resignation of the leadership of the International Cycling Union, or UCI. "It reminds me of the Catholic Church and its abuse victims," LeMond said.

Earlier this month The News published e-mails from the UCI's former leader, Hein Verbruggen, attacking Landis as a "nuisance." Verbruggen's attorney hit Landis with a cease-and-desist letter in May. The group's current leader, Pat McQuaid, has said Landis is trying to damage cycling.

LeMond and his wife Kathy have long felt mistreated by Armstrong's supporters, including the Trek Bicycle Corporation, an Armstrong sponsor that has also now been subpoenaed. Earlier this year, the LeMonds settled a lawsuit with Trek on confidential terms, and the grand jury has demanded documents related to that litigation.

The News first reported last month that assistant U.S. Attorney Douglas Miller, who was involved in the BALCO case, was overseeing the cycling probe. Another federal prosecutor whose name appears on the LeMond subpoena is Miller's colleague Mark A. Williams, who last year secured convictions and prison sentences two men involved in the illegal importation of wildlife from Vietnam to the United States (customs officials caught Dong at Los Angeles International Airport hiding 14 precious Asian songbirds in his pants).

LeMond and Armstrong have clashed ever since 2001, when LeMond spoke to a British journalist who exposed Armstrong's relationship with controversial Italian doctor Michele Ferrari. Not long after that the publication of that article, by Sunday Times writer David Walsh, Trek's CEO, John Burke, asked LeMond to retract his comments.

LeMond has said that in a telephone conversation that summer, Armstrong threatened to find 10 people who would say that LeMond used EPO. Armstrong has disputed this characterization of the phone call, claiming that LeMond was drunk at the time - a charge that Armstrong's backers have also made about Landis since his accusations surfaced.


----------



## Kaleo

I am really starting to not like Lemond. He just rubs me the wrong way, and I can't help but think it's sour grapes. He's gonna drag everyone he can down, and trash cycling.


----------



## Dan Gerous

Might be a good thing... I like LeMond.


----------



## PhatTalc

JohnHemlock said:


> Many people apply some variant of the "all champions doped, Lance was a champion, therefore Lance doped" argument. So why can't it be applied to Lemond? For some reason he is protected by some odd halo effect.
> 
> Antequil said he only doped when absolutely necessary. When asked how often that was, he replied, "Almost always." Doping has been going on for a hundred years in the Tour and Lemond just gave it a miss? Hmmmm.


People don't apply that argument to Lemond because (apart from it being a stupid argument) the drugs available when he was winning didn't give so much of a performance boost that a extra-talented but clean rider could not keep up. On the other hand, Anquetil raced in an era of monstrous events like the Bordeaux Paris where you honestly can't begrudge some taking speed to keep going! 

So certain riders (Lemond, Charly Mottet) have been considered absolutely clean in the late 80s. What is clear is that in the 90s the peloton sped up and Mottet, Lemond and Fignon were left behind.


----------



## spade2you

Who knows if he did or didn't as there's basically no real evidence either day. Would he? No clue. However, there aren't too many mortals on this earth who would pass it up if they knew it would help and they could get away with it. 

As for Indurain, not sure either, but I thought I recalled him being somewhat sick on his last Tour and leading up to it. 




Dan Gerous said:


> Might be a good thing... I like LeMond.


I still admire his career and remember him being on a box of Wheaties, but his smear tactics leave me slightly jaded.


----------



## terzo rene

Hampsten was another one who started riding backwards in the early 90's. Who knows if Lemond doped or not, but in that era talented riders certainly didn't need to in order to win.


----------



## rydbyk

*This all will/would make an interesting movie*

So much history, secrecy, bribery, drugs, deception, he said/she said, back stabbing, money, politics, scandal, etc etc...

What a movie this would/will make. 

My suggestions:

Lance = ?

Vino = D. Lundgren

Hincapie = Ben Affleck

Levi = Statham

Zabriskie = Depp

Bruyneel = Schwarzenegger

Landis = Pee Wee Herman


----------



## slamy

Follow Lemond's career. From an amateur to the pro's he was a phenom. His VO Max is still one of the highest ever recorded. He's acting crazy now, but back in his day, he was in a league above most of the other riders.


----------



## RRRoubaix

rydbyk said:


> So much history, secrecy, bribery, drugs, deception, he said/she said, back stabbing, money, politics, scandal, etc etc...
> 
> What a movie this would/will make.
> 
> My suggestions:
> 
> Lance = ?
> 
> Hincapie = Ben Affleck
> 
> Levi = Statham
> 
> Bruyneel = Schwarzenegger
> 
> Landis = Pee Wee Herman


I thought everyone agreed Leipheimer will play Lance in any movies?


----------



## JohnHemlock

Lance said today he hopes Greg tells the truth about 1989. This gets stranger and stranger.


----------



## rydbyk

JohnHemlock said:


> Lance said today he hopes Greg tells the truth about 1989. This gets stranger and stranger.



Whoa...source please.


----------



## Coolhand

Dan Gerous said:


> Might be a good thing... I like LeMond.


I'm stunned.


----------



## Coolhand

JohnHemlock said:


> Lance said today he hopes Greg tells the truth about 1989. This gets stranger and stranger.


Lemond will *never* admit to what products he took, he's in too deep now. That era's iron clad omerta lifted a bit with Figion's cancer, but the Badger is the same way too, he can't admit to it now either. 

Landis will never stop lying about doping in the Tour he claims he "won". No matter _how_ stupid it makes him look. Its sad, even the few remaining Landis true believers seem to agree he is flat out lying about his clumsy Testosterone doping at the tour. Seems most of the rest cherry pick the stuff they like out of his statements and ignore the more blatent lies.


----------



## Dan Gerous

Coolhand said:


> I'm stunned.


I'm too!


----------



## JohnHemlock

rydbyk said:


> Whoa...source please.



Interview with French media, published in various places. . .

"Obviously, Greg LeMond has made it his life's work to attack me," he said. "I have my passions in life and things I work on that have nothing to do with attacking people. But that's OK. He's obsessed with this. I wish him luck. I'm not at all -- zero percent -- worried about this process. You have to keep in mind that it's been 10 years of investigation and processes. They have all resulted in nothing. I have nothing to hide. There will always be people who want to pile on."

Later on the talk show, Armstrong made a direct reference to the ongoing federal investigation, whose value he had harshly questioned last week.

"Look, we're all going to get a chance to sit in front of the authorities and speak the truth, and I hope that Greg LeMond speaks the truth about 1989," he said. Armstrong did not explain what he meant by the allusion to the second of LeMond's three Tour victories, which LeMond won by the closest margin in history -- eight seconds -- by acing a time trial on the final day of the race.


----------



## pacificaslim

burgrat said:


> LeMond does admit he did an iron shot in the 89 Giro due to anemia...
> 
> EPO and modern techniques enhance performance significantly, in that they increase the amount of oxygen that is available to use.


Uh, just so we're clear here, anemia is the condition of having low red blood cell percentage in one's blood. Quantified by low hemoglobin or more commonly as a hematocrit number showing the percentage of red blood cells in the overall blood volume. Low hematocrit (anemia) is sometimes caused by iron deficiency, in which case taking iron shots will raise the body's ability to produce red blood cells. This increases the amount of oxygen that is, as you say, "avilable to use" by the muscles. EPO does the same thing, by stimulating production of red blood cells.

These days, there are people out there who believe Lance doped last year in the TdF because his hematocrit didn't decrease like it should as the tour went on. In other words, it is now believed that it is "normal" for competitors in the TdF to get more and more anemic as the race progresses. Doing anything to "cure" that during a race, including "iron shots", would be suspicious. This is the kind of thing the blood passport was set up to analyze.


----------



## Lazy Spinner

It is likely that they have all doped in some way. Prior to the mid 90's, speed, coke, testosterone, and steroids were probably very prevelent. When Landis first got busted my fist thought was, "Huh? They've been able to test for testosterone since the 80's. That's about the dumbest thing you could do."


----------



## rydbyk

Lazy Spinner said:


> It is likely that they have all doped in some way. Prior to the mid 90's, speed, coke, testosterone, and steroids were probably very prevelent. When Landis first got busted my fist thought was, "Huh? They've been able to test for testosterone since the 80's. That's about the dumbest thing you could do."



You are correct. Different types of "doping" have existed for many many decades in our sport of cycling..


----------



## rubbersoul

Coolhand said:


> Lemond will *never* admit to what products he took, he's in too deep now. That era's iron clad omerta lifted a bit with Figion's cancer, but the Badger is the same way too, he can't admit to it now either.
> 
> Landis will never stop lying about doping in the Tour he claims he "won". No matter _how_ stupid it makes him look. Its sad, even the few remaining Landis true believers seem to agree he is flat out lying about his clumsy Testosterone doping at the tour. Seems most of the rest cherry pick the stuff they like out of his statements and ignore the more blatent lies.



Oh man, and St. Armstrong isn't lying / never has?


----------



## jorgy

slamy said:


> Follow Lemond's career. From an amateur to the pro's he was a phenom.


So was Marion Jones.


----------



## rydbyk

jorgy said:


> So was Marion Jones.



...and Lance. At age 15, he almost beat the pro triathletes...doubt he was "cheating" then.


----------



## pedalruns

Lemond has always been known as a clean rider... And he was so clean in the early 90's he coudn't keep up anymore. 

I totally respect Lemond, who simply spoke the TRUTH in 2001 of what he saw between Lance and the good Dr. It was LA that made all the threats, trying to silence Lemond and started all this mess back then.. I for one am glad Lemond has never backed down from the bully.


----------



## pedalruns

rydbyk said:


> ...and Lance. At age 15, he almost be the pro triathletes...doubt he was "cheating" then.


In 1994, big Mig blew by LA in the TT like he was standing still, he couldn't keep up in the mt.'s at all, he wasn't cheating then either... but he soon learned..... how to play and control the game.


----------



## blackhat

Coolhand said:


> Lemond will *never* admit to what products he took, he's in too deep now. That era's iron clad omerta lifted a bit with Figion's cancer, but the Badger is the same way too, he can't admit to it now either.
> 
> Landis will never stop lying about doping in the Tour he claims he "won". No matter _how_ stupid it makes him look. Its sad, even the few remaining Landis true believers seem to agree he is flat out lying about his clumsy Testosterone doping at the tour. Seems most of the rest cherry pick the stuff they like out of his statements and ignore the more blatent lies.


remind me, Cool. Are you still in the "not enough evidence" camp re. LA?


----------



## key

Lets face it the real likely hood is that ALL this guys, including LeMond were doing something.... no one ever brings up Big Mig but come on. Lemond just see's this as a way to dig out of the big hole he's in and try to not look like the bitter, angry man he now is.

my 0.02


----------



## pedalruns

key said:


> Lets face it the real likely hood is that ALL this guys, including LeMond were doing something.... no one ever brings up Big Mig but come on. Lemond just see's this as a way to dig out of the big hole he's in and try to not look like the bitter, angry man he now is.
> 
> my 0.02


Lemond isn't in a big hole right now... That would be Armstrong. Lemond doesn't care to much what people think... that would be Armstrong... Lemond is the one that speaks the truth no matter what people think...


----------



## brol

Comparing taking iron with epo is silly. Epo(erythropoietin) is a hormone that acts directly on the bone marrow to stimulate the production of red cells. Iron is just an element that does not stimulate red blood cell production. Taking iron can help if you are anemic due to iron deficiency - inadequate diet or bleeding- but not if your crit drops from stress on the body. If your body has enough iron taking more won't necessarily help


----------



## key

Lemond life and legacy are in major hole right now... He'll say anything that will lead to the demise of Armstrong. I'm not a lance fan but saying Lemond speaks the truth holds as much water at saying Lance does. 

Honestly I'd just like the guy to shut up let this process run its course and hopefully we might get a chance to remember him in the right light, not as a bitter former champion.


----------



## blackhat

key said:


> Lemond life and legacy are in major hole right now...


yes, you've said it twice. still not any more true. He's not seemingly concerned about his public image and I think he's in pretty good health. more importantly, he is afaik not the subject of a fed. criminal investigation. so, relatively speaking, his life is a bowl of cherries compared to his pal Lance.


----------



## JohnHemlock

blackhat said:


> yes, you've said it twice. still not any more true. He's not seemingly concerned about his public image and I think he's in pretty good health. more importantly, he is afaik not the subject of a fed. criminal investigation. so, relatively speaking, his life is a bowl of cherries compared to his pal Lance.


Then why doesn't he just STFU? Why the need to keep injecting himself into the middle of this? Unbecoming of a champion and sad and pathetic. And the only response every Lemond fan has is, "Oh yeah? Lance is a liar and a crook." Which may be true but still doesn't diminish the fact Lemond is a bitter crank.

And I was a Lemond fan, and I ride a Lemond from the first year he made bikes. So I'm not a hater. It's just sad.


----------



## key

This is where we all get to have our own opionions, my point has nothing to do with Lance (pro or con). I guess I'm just the one person here annoyed with Lemonds rants....again my 0.02$


----------



## pacificaslim

Yeah, I can see people resenting contemporaries who robbed them of winning or forced them to dope as well in order to level the playing field. But I've never understood why Lemond cares that a cyclist that was winning way after he had retired might have cheated. I don't buy that it's for the love of pro cycling. It must be about Lemond really wanting to be seen as the greatest American cyclist ever. Maybe he earned and deserves that. But pride is still one of the seven deadly sins.


----------



## 55x11

PhatTalc said:


> People don't apply that argument to Lemond because (apart from it being a stupid argument) the drugs available when he was winning didn't give so much of a performance boost that a extra-talented but clean rider could not keep up. On the other hand, Anquetil raced in an era of monstrous events like the Bordeaux Paris where you honestly can't begrudge some taking speed to keep going!
> 
> So certain riders (Lemond, Charly Mottet) have been considered absolutely clean in the late 80s. What is clear is that in the 90s the peloton sped up and Mottet, Lemond and Fignon were left behind.


blood doping was around since at least early 1970ies (distance runners like Lasse Viren would openly admit it, since he and many didn't consider it doping).


----------



## 55x11

slamy said:


> Follow Lemond's career. From an amateur to the pro's he was a phenom. His VO Max is still one of the highest ever recorded. He's acting crazy now, but back in his day, he was in a league above most of the other riders.


You can apply the same logic to Armstrong, Ullrich, Basso, Pantani and just about anyone else in pro peloton. They are all extremely gifted, off-the-chart in one way or another. Doesn't mean they didn't need "help".


----------



## 55x11

pedalruns said:


> Lemond has always been known as a clean rider...


What does that even mean?!


----------



## oily666

Lazy Spinner said:


> It is likely that they have all doped in some way. Prior to the mid 90's, speed, coke, testosterone, and steroids were probably very prevelent. When Landis first got busted my fist thought was, "Huh? They've been able to test for testosterone since the 80's. That's about the dumbest thing you could do."


Plus, there's no evidence that proves testosterone yields overnight results as seen in Landis' ﻿miracle stage win. Besides being dumb, it servred no purpose.


----------



## slegros

Come to think of it LeMond's '89 time trial comeback was sort of reminiscent of Landis' comeback in the mountains. Gets blown off, loses the yellow jersey then makes a miraculous comeback... What was it Landis tested positive for for in that tour? Testosterone? It was certainly prevalent in '89...

LeMond gets dropped in the mountains then comes back to set the fastest time trial in tour history? To the best of my knowledge LeMond still holds the record for fastest ITT in the TDF despite the EPO era... Still faster than any time trial Lance has ever done. His wattage was something insane.. I remember reading in the neighbourhood of 513watts, which LeMond himself has claimed to be impossible without PEDs when referencing Contador's Verbier climb... Yet no PEDs involved when LeMond puts out higher #s? Interesting double standard....

Bottom of the page for a calculation of LeMond's time trial output:
http://bikecalculator.com/

LeMond claiming Contador Verbier climb was doped:
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/contadors-climbing-credibility-questioned


----------



## ultimobici

slegros said:


> Come to think of it LeMond's '89 time trial comeback was sort of reminiscent of Landis' comeback in the mountains. Gets blown off, loses the yellow jersey then makes a miraculous comeback... What was it Landis tested positive for for in that tour? Testosterone? It was certainly prevalent in '89...
> 
> LeMond gets dropped in the mountains then comes back to set the fastest time trial in tour history? To the best of my knowledge LeMond still holds the record for fastest ITT in the TDF despite the EPO era... Still faster than any time trial Lance has ever done. His wattage was something insane.. I remember reading in the neighbourhood of 513watts, which LeMond himself has claimed to be impossible without PEDs when referencing Contador's Verbier climb... Yet no PEDs involved when LeMond puts out higher #s? Interesting double standard....
> 
> Bottom of the page for a calculation of LeMond's time trial output:
> http://bikecalculator.com/
> 
> LeMond claiming Contador Verbier climb was doped:
> http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/contadors-climbing-credibility-questioned


What figures did they use in their calculation? I can't get more than 460W. I can get over 500W if I make it a totally still day and 40 degrees C. But it was 27 degrees, there was a 5kmk tailwind and the course lost 10m elevation along the way too.

The figures I used are 
Speed 54.545
Weight 75KG
Bike Weight 9KG
Tyres Tubs
Position Aero
Grade 0%
Headwind -5kmh
Distance 24.5
Temperature 27C
Elevation 120M
Drivetrain 95%
This gives
460W
26'57"
If you zero the wind the watts go up to 546W, but to get the 513W they mention requires a lot of incorrect data, or their calculator is junk!

The fact that Lemond's record still stands is more to do with there not having been a time trial that short since. It was the shortest non prologue TT at only 24.5KM. The only TT stages that are anywhere near as short have been mountain or hilly TT courses so do not bear direct comparison. So essentially it was 24.5KM downhill with a following wind with the last chance of victory chucked in for good measure. Add in the fact that Fignon had a massive boil on his backside that prevented him from sitting comfortably on the bike and it was a recipe for a double victory.


----------



## PhatTalc

55x11 said:


> blood doping was around since at least early 1970ies (distance runners like Lasse Viren would openly admit it, since he and many didn't consider it doping).


Well, in the 70s and 80s transfusing red blood cells was legal, at least until 1985. Moser used it for the hour record, the US olympic team used it for the track. I expect you have read this, but before EPO came along, blood boosting via transfusion was a very tricky business: http://www.stanford.edu/~learnest/cyclops/dopes.htm


----------



## slegros

ultimobici said:


> What figures did they use in their calculation? I can't get more than 460W. I can get over 500W if I make it a totally still day and 40 degrees C. But it was 27 degrees, there was a 5kmk tailwind and the course lost 10m elevation along the way too.
> 
> The figures I used are
> Speed 54.545
> Weight 75KG
> Bike Weight 9KG
> Tyres Tubs
> Position Aero
> Grade 0%
> Headwind -5kmh
> Distance 24.5
> Temperature 27C
> Elevation 120M
> Drivetrain 95%
> This gives
> 460W
> 26'57"
> If you zero the wind the watts go up to 546W, but to get the 513W they mention requires a lot of incorrect data, or their calculator is junk!
> 
> The fact that Lemond's record still stands is more to do with there not having been a time trial that short since. It was the shortest non prologue TT at only 24.5KM. The only TT stages that are anywhere near as short have been mountain or hilly TT courses so do not bear direct comparison. So essentially it was 24.5KM downhill with a following wind with the last chance of victory chucked in for good measure. Add in the fact that Fignon had a massive boil on his backside that prevented him from sitting comfortably on the bike and it was a recipe for a double victory.



Either way his power output was extremely high, there will always be problems with any calculated power outputs, as was also the case in calculating the output in Contador's Verbier climb.

The point I was trying to make was that LeMond's time trial was exceptionally fast any way you look at it. Almost as fast over 24.5 km as Chris Boardman's prologue record and was done only a short time after he was dropped in the mountains. Other riders have come under suspicion for doping on the basis of their good performance, some even by LeMond himself (Contador Verbier), for doing feats on a bike that were less spectacular than LeMond's time trial.

Should suspicion be cast at guys like Contador for an excellent day on the Verbier or at Lance for a great day on Alpe D'Huez, and not at LeMond? In my opinion no. There seems to be a double standard in play here.


----------



## ultimobici

55x11 said:


> blood doping was around since at least early 1970ies (distance runners like Lasse Viren would openly admit it, since he and many didn't consider it doping).


If it is not on the list of products or methods that are banned, it is legal.
Once it is on the list, then it is illegal from then on.
Speed, coke, strychnine, morphine etc were not against the rules until the 60's. Cheating in the first 60 years of this sport amounted to catching a train, using a small boy to pump your forge bellows, not having all your jerseys, or nobbling the opposition.


----------



## ultimobici

slegros said:


> Either way his power output was extremely high, there will always be problems with any calculated power outputs, as was also the case in calculating the output in Contador's Verbier climb.
> 
> The point I was trying to make was that LeMond's time trial was nearly as fast over 24 or so km as Chris Boardman's prologue record and was done only a short time after he was dropped in the mountains. Other rider's have come under suspicion for doping, some even by LeMond himself (Contador Verbier), for doing feats on a bike that were less spectacular.
> 
> Should suspicion be cast at guys like Contador for an excellent day on the Verbier or at Lance for a great day on Alpe D'Huez, and NOT at LeMond? In my opinion no, not if the only basis is an extraordinary performance on a bike. There seems to be a double standard in play here on LeMond's part in which its ok to question the extraordinary performances of all cyclists except for Greg LeMond.
> 
> In addition, for me personally there seem to be similarities between Landis's recovery in the mountains for which he tested positive for testosterone and LeMond's time trial recovery, which raise questions.


Lemond was never more than 53" behind Fignon on the last week of the 89 Tour. Indeed throughout the race Fignon & Lemond were never more than a minute apart and there was only one day where there was more than a minute between them on the stage. That was the day Fignon took the jersey back at L'Alpe d'Huez. So he was dropped, but only for 1'19". Landis was out the back of the peleton for 10 minutes!!!! 
If you plug Boardman's figures into the same calculator it comes up with 478W, almost 25W more to do what he did if you assume the same climatic conditions.

WRT the Contador/VAM stuff, this reinforces the need to explore the idea Lemond had to use SRM's in tandem with the Biopassport.

Every team now has the capability to build reliable machines that are sub 6.8kg with little trouble. Having a powermeter on every rider's bike would be easy. Requiring them to provide the data to WADA or the UCI wouldn't be a hardship. Couple it with a GPS and the "Men in Black" training sessions would be harder to cover up too.


----------



## slegros

ultimobici said:


> Lemond was never more than 53" behind Fignon on the last week of the 89 Tour. Indeed throughout the race Fignon & Lemond were never more than a minute apart and there was only one day where there was more than a minute between them on the stage. That was the day Fignon took the jersey back at L'Alpe d'Huez. So he was dropped, but only for 1'19". Landis was out the back of the peleton for 10 minutes!!!!
> If you plug Boardman's figures into the same calculator it comes up with 478W, almost 25W more to do what he did if you assume the same climatic conditions.


Perhaps for you LeMond's time trial was not all that remarkable, and could easily be explained by a simply better performance that day. The same could be said for Contador on Verbier... He wasn't that far ahead of his chasers that it can't also be explained as a good day's work(some have already argued that). Is it fair or right that LeMond should hurl accusations of doping at riders like Contador placing the onus of proving they are clean on them after they passed the control at the end of the day? If it is, then why doesn't the same apply to LeMond? Placing the onus on him to prove he did it clean?

In your opinion are allegations of doping solely on the basis of a good performance justified? In all cases? Selectively? If selectively justified, then what should be the determining factors for who gets accused of doping for putting in a good day and then passing the doping control when they get off the bike?


----------



## ultimobici

slegros said:


> Perhaps for you LeMond's time trial was not all that remarkable, and could easily be explained by a simply better performance that day. The same could be said for Contador on Verbier... He wasn't that far ahead of his chasers that it can't also be explained as a good day's work(some have already argued that). Is it fair or right that LeMond should hurl accusations of doping at riders like Contador placing the onus of proving they are clean on them after they passed the control at the end of the day? If it is, then why doesn't the same apply to LeMond? Placing the onus on him to prove he did it clean?
> 
> In your opinion are allegations of doping solely on the basis of a good performance justified? In all cases? Selectively? If selectively justified, then what should be the determining factors for who gets accused of doping for putting in a good day and then passing the doping control when they get off the bike?


Lemond's TT was remarkable, but all too often the bare figures are quoted to show that it was freakishly fast. It was very slightly downhill with a 75M, with a 5kmh tailwind. The course was a pretty straight affair so the benefit this would afford was not diminished.

Having read the article, I don't agree that Lemond is saying that Contador was doped.



> Three-time Tour de France winner Greg LeMond openly questioned this year's _maillot jaune_, this week, calling into question the Spaniard's dominant performance on the final climb of stage 15 to Verbier. The American, writing in an opinion column in the French newspaper _Le Monde_, equated his smashing time on the 8.5km ascent to "a Mercedes sedan winning a on a Formula 1 circuit".
> LeMond's criticism arose after former Festina team trainer Antoine Vayer calculated Contador's VO2 max (his aerobic capacity) at 99.5 based on the Spaniard's time of 20:55 to ascend to the summit. Vayer, writing in _Liberation.fr_, based his calculation on an estimated 490 watt average he said Contador would have needed to accomplish that feat.
> Yet second placed Andy Schleck was only 43 seconds behind Contador at the top, and even Lance Armstrong in ninth place 1:35 behind would have set a VO2 mark over 90 for his efforts that day, using the same logic. Nearly all of the GC contenders climbed to the top at record speed.
> "For Contador, with an effort of twenty minutes at 90% VO2max, weight of 62 kg, maximum aerobic power is 493 watts, which gives an oxygen consumption of 6.17 liters / min: 99.5 ml / min / kg!" Vayer wrote.
> LeMond, in response, called on Contador to prove that he is physically capable of achieving these numbers without the use of performance-enhancing products, "assuming the validity of the calculations".


The last phrase is interesting.

CN's expert Andrew Coggan commented thus



> Coggan, however, doesn't think LeMond's query is "totally off-the-wall".
> "He is more than smart enough to understand the issues. I just think that he's being misled by some bad information."


I have little faith in the doping controls as a means to show a rider is clean. All it does is show that there are no chemicals in their system at that time and that they haven't used anyone else's blood. The powermeter idea makes sense to me because if used in tandem with tests & the Biopassport it would be very hard to "beat the system".


----------



## slegros

ultimobici said:


> Lemond's TT was remarkable, but all too often the bare figures are quoted to show that it was freakishly fast. It was very slightly downhill with a 75M, with a 5kmh tailwind. The course was a pretty straight affair so the benefit this would afford was not diminished.
> 
> Having read the article, I don't agree that Lemond is saying that Contador was doped.
> 
> The last phrase is interesting.
> 
> CN's expert Andrew Coggan commented thus
> 
> 
> 
> I have little faith in the doping controls as a means to show a rider is clean. All it does is show that there are no chemicals in their system at that time and that they haven't used anyone else's blood. The powermeter idea makes sense to me because if used in tandem with tests & the Biopassport it would be very hard to "beat the system".


There needs to be something additional, but I dont think power meters are the answer just yet. Problems with calibration, variances etc... Then what happens when a guy puts in the ride of his life and sets a new PB for power output?

As for what LeMond was implying in his article about Contador it was pretty clear to me he was placing the onus on Contador to prove he did it clean..... 

Taken from the last article(and your previous post):
LeMond, in response, called on Contador to prove that he is physically capable of achieving these numbers without the use of performance-enhancing products, "assuming the validity of the calculations".

Others appear to have taken it similarly:
http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2009/07/24/1247942049092.html
http://www.podiumcafe.com/2009/7/23/959675/lemond-asks-contador-to-prove-he
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/contadors-climbing-credibility-questioned

If LeMond is challenging guys like Contador, Armstrong and others to prove they are clean, then why shouldn't LeMond himself have to prove his own good performances were done clean? Easier to prove a positive than a negative....


----------



## spade2you

oily666 said:


> Plus, there's no evidence that proves testosterone yields overnight results as seen in Landis' ﻿miracle stage win. Besides being dumb, it servred no purpose.


This is why I figured Landis was set up, given the easy detection and lack of benefit. Although, considering he never tested positive for EPO, what does that tell us?


----------



## ultimobici

slegros said:


> There needs to be something additional, but I dont think power meters are the answer just yet. Problems with calibration, variances etc... Then what happens when a guy puts in the ride of his life and sets a new PB for power output?


If riders are using a PM all the time in competition & training it will be possible to qualify their new PB. So on that "float" day when everything clicks into place the rider will have the evidence to show that it was down to hard work & good health and not dope. The flip side is that if the rider has taken a short cut, they are less likely to be able to cover it up.


----------



## Fignon's Barber

JohnHemlock said:


> In the German interview published Saturday, LeMond went on to compare Armstrong and his entourage to the mafia, and called for the resignation of the leadership of the International Cycling Union, or UCI. "It reminds me of the Catholic Church and its abuse victims," LeMond said.


 Greg taking on Lance and the Pope in one sitting. Gotta love his ambition.


----------



## nathanbal

spade2you said:


> This is why I figured Landis was set up, given the easy detection and lack of benefit. Although, considering he never tested positive for EPO, what does that tell us?


does testosterone aid recovery?


----------



## blackhat

JohnHemlock said:


> Then why doesn't he just STFU? Why the need to keep injecting himself into the middle of this? Unbecoming of a champion and sad and pathetic. And the only response every Lemond fan has is, "Oh yeah? Lance is a liar and a crook." Which may be true but still doesn't diminish the fact Lemond is a bitter crank.
> 
> And I was a Lemond fan, and I ride a Lemond from the first year he made bikes. So I'm not a hater. It's just sad.


I really don't think he cares what you (or most anyone) think.

Presumably, the reason he, as you say, injects himself into this is that he feels like he was dethroned by a fraud. Assuming he didn't use EPO, and there's no suggestion that he did, I think that's a fair assessment.


----------



## Coolhand

rubbersoul said:


> Oh man, and St. Armstrong isn't lying / never has?


I have no idea- I wouldn't be surprised if he did though. 1999 is looking like the most likely year if he did. 

BTW- the "St. Armstrong" stuff isn't helping you.


----------



## Coolhand

blackhat said:


> remind me, Cool. Are you still in the "not enough evidence" camp re. LA?


I'm on the_ wouldn't surprise me either way_ camp. We have a new pool, and three jetskis.


----------



## blackhat

Coolhand said:


> BTW- the "St. Armstrong" stuff isn't helping you.


seriously? I'd be happy to run a search of your posts to find some of the more colorful language you've used to describe Lemond.


----------



## Coolhand

spade2you said:


> This is why I figured Landis was set up, given the easy detection and lack of benefit. Although, considering he never tested positive for EPO, what does that tell us?


That he got lucky. The only person who set-up Landis was Landis. He doped his whole career, got sloppy, got caught.


----------



## Coolhand

blackhat said:


> seriously? I'd be happy to run a search of your posts to find some of the more colorful language you've used to describe Lemond.


Fair enough.


----------



## cyclesport45

*Crazy or Knows Everything?*



slamy said:


> Follow Lemond's career. From an amateur to the pro's he was a phenom. His VO Max is still one of the highest ever recorded. He's acting crazy now, but back in his day, he was in a league above most of the other riders.



Is he acting crazy? What if he is dead-on right about everything?


----------



## eyebob

*No, the biggest "FAIL" is you still using "FAIL" at all*



rydbyk said:


> Nobody seems to post that perhaps LeMond doped also (at least from what I have seen on this forum).
> 
> In a sport that has an incredibly long history with doping, I just don't see how LeMond was clean during his victories, yet he seems to be on a witch hunt for anyone who may have doped....most clearly Lance....
> 
> Is LeMond guilty of exactly what he screams is so wrong with the sport?
> 
> The biggest FAIL ever will be if "proof"/allegations by credible sources come out that he too doped...


It's 2010, move on to "Bad Ass" or some other such nonsense.

bt


----------



## rydbyk

eyebob said:


> It's 2010, move on to "Bad Ass" or some other such nonsense.
> 
> bt



Ouch. I will search the dictionary for more appropriate words. You have been barking at other members to stop using this word too. What's the big deal?


----------



## terzo rene

I believe Lemond was closer to 70 kg, especially at the end of the Tour. Fignon congratulating him on second place the day before probably added a near heart stopping amount of adrenaline into the mix too. ;-)


----------



## raymonda

aptivaboy said:


> No, I doubt that Lemond doped. There is ZERO evidence that he did. Today, he's a bitter old wacko, but back then he was pure. I truly believe that.
> 
> Its interesting that a number of talented cyclists in the early to mid-nineties retired when they were supposedly still capable of good performances - Steve Bauer and Greg Lemond come to mind, as well as a couple of Tour-type sprinters who suddenly couldn't buy a stage win. There are suspicions that this was the start of the EPO era, and that clean cyclists realized that without using EPO or whatever the drug of choice was, that their chances of winning were drastically reduced. We have no concrete way of knowing if that's true without someone in the know coming forward, but that idea has been floated more than once. Right around then, the average speed of the Tour started going up, especially on the mountain stages. Better training and lighter bikes can only so just so much. If nothing else, these drugs allowed riders to recover better, putting the clean ones at a fatigue disadvantage.
> 
> 
> 
> Bob


Steve Bauer has some serious back injuries. If you remember correctly he almost retired until a special laid back frame was built for him. Which by today's standards would be UCI illegal. I think that bike gave him another 14 months of racing.


----------



## ultimobici

raymonda said:


> Steve Bauer has some serious back injuries. If you remember correctly he almost retired until a special laid back frame was built for him. Which by today's standards would be UCI illegal. I think that bike gave him another 14 months of racing.


Don't remember that the bike was for a back problem rather that it was some mad idea for dealing with stability on the cobbles.


----------



## aliensporebomb

I've had a thought about this for years: in some ways LeMond needs to express frustration for the years he was out due to getting shot. He can't express anger at his brother-in-law but when he came back he lost about two good potential years where he could have ridden. I think he resents Lance for the long uninterrupted run he had especially that he won seven times whether enhanced or no. 

Maybe LeMond had access to some doping of the day but he didn't have access to EPO or anything modern in terms of the cheap methods and you got the impression the riders on it were keeping it under wraps so Lemond didn't know about it. 

He was american after all and the last thing you really want is to give a nation recently entered into the tour some kind of advantage over you expecially if he was talented in the first place.

Anyway, just a thought.


----------



## burgrat

I definitely think a lot of LeMond's bitterness, or whatever you want to call it, is the demise of his bike company. He had a pretty decent business going and Lance apparently had a part in ending LeMond's association with Trek resulting in the brand disappearing. What happened behind the scenes, who knows, but Greg is not forgetting this very easily.


----------



## slimjw

A lot of hay is made of Lemond's supposed "bitterness," but considering the damage Armstrong did to his bike and exercise equipment companies via the shenanigans with Trek I think I would be bitter, too. And if these new allegations that Armstrong offered someone $300,000 to lie about Lemond using PED's back in the day turn out to be true I think he has every right to harp on Lance at every opportunity. 

Armstrong's people consistently paint Lemond as being a washed-up old hater, bent on ruining the party for everyone else, but if these new allegations are true, the guy is just acting accordingly to defend himself against the b.s. PR attacks coming from Lance INC. 

At the end of the day, Lemond is an ex-TDF winner who retains the fighting mentality that role entails. These guys are defined by their ability to face adversity and rise to a challenge. Why would it be any surprise that he would go on the offensive; especially in light of all the crap he's had to put up with from Armstrong and Armstrong's proxies over the years?

I don't think the guy is dragging around his axe in jealousy at all the jokers who dropped him when EPO hit. He just seems legitimately ticked-off at Armstrong's repeated attempts to intimidate and mess with his reputation and finances.

We can get into a chicken and egg thing in regards to who threw the first stone, but regardless of who p*ssed off who first, it is looking like Lemond was quite possibly on the right side of history, all along.


----------



## ultimobici

slimjw said:


> A lot of hay is made of Lemond's supposed "bitterness," but considering the damage Armstrong did to his bike and exercise equipment companies via the shenanigans with Trek I think I would be bitter, too. And if these new allegations that Armstrong offered someone $300,000 to lie about Lemond using PED's back in the day turn out to be true I think he has every right to harp on Lance at every opportunity.
> 
> Armstrong's people consistently paint Lemond as being a washed-up old hater, bent on ruining the party for everyone else, but if these new allegations are true, the guy is just acting accordingly to defend himself against the b.s. PR attacks coming from Lance INC.
> 
> At the end of the day, Lemond is an ex-TDF winner who retains the fighting mentality that role entails. These guys are defined by their ability to face adversity and rise to a challenge. Why would it be any surprise that he would go on the offensive; especially in light of all the crap he's had to put up with from Armstrong and Armstrong's proxies over the years?
> 
> I don't think the guy is dragging around his axe in jealousy at all the jokers who dropped him when EPO hit. He just seems legitimately ticked-off at Armstrong's repeated attempts to intimidate and mess with his reputation and finances.
> 
> We can get into a chicken and egg thing in regards to who threw the first stone, but regardless of who p*ssed off who first, it is looking like Lemond was quite possibly on the right side of history, all along.


Well put.


----------



## frontierwolf

Just reading about the Petacchi thing and they mentioned salbutamol. That stuff has been around for years and I wonder how long it's been a banned substance?

If it helps I'm sure people have been using it to help them breathe better during intense workouts. If Lemond was taking something that wasn't on the banned list then, but would be banned now does that make him any cleaner because he wasn't breaking a rule? 

There are some fairly common drugs and supplements that are on the banned list that would have been readily available and taken by riders in the 80's. I'm thinking that unless Lemond was documenting that everything he put in his body was off the once and future banned list then he's just as suspect as anyone else.


----------



## blackhat

frontierwolf said:


> Just reading about the Petacchi thing and they mentioned salbutamol. That stuff has been around for years and I wonder how long it's been a banned substance?
> 
> If it helps I'm sure people have been using it to help them breathe better during intense workouts. If Lemond was taking something that wasn't on the banned list then, but would be banned now does that make him any cleaner because he wasn't breaking a rule?
> 
> There are some fairly common drugs and supplements that are on the banned list that would have been readily available and taken by riders in the 80's. I'm thinking that unless Lemond was documenting that everything he put in his body was off the once and future banned list then he's just as suspect as anyone else.


except that no one has alleged that he's used anything currently on the banned list.


----------



## frontierwolf

I thought it was the responsibility of the rider to prove that he was clean. I don't think there's anyway that Lemond can do that because he wasn't subject to the same testing. It's relatively safe for him to cast stones all day because his house is too old to be made of glass.

If he had any proof he would have put it out there a long time ago so to me he isn't really relevant to the Armstrong conversation until there's an allegation about 1989. Do they allow iron injections these days? That was just what was out in the open. Who knows what he was taking behind closed doors. For all I know he may have been hitting the asthma inhalers as soon as he got back to his room.

People can allege anything they want for any number of reasons. A reason might be they feel their legacy is threatened, or maybe they weren't given a job. They could even think somebody destroyed their company. 

One thing for sure is you're going to have Lemond fans who don't like Lance and Lance fans who don't like Lemond. Neither one of those guys is a saint and I can't believe all the bad stuff about one without at least considering the possibility that there's bad about the other. 

The way this has came about just feels really wrong. That the allegations are coming from 2 of the highest profile American cyclists and nobody else make it seem like there are ulterior motives.


----------



## blackhat

frontierwolf said:


> I thought it was the responsibility of the rider to prove that he was clean. I don't think there's anyway that Lemond can do that because he wasn't subject to the same testing. It's relatively safe for him to cast stones all day because his house is too old to be made of glass.
> 
> If he had any proof he would have put it out there a long time ago so to me he isn't really relevant to the Armstrong conversation until there's an allegation about 1989. Do they allow iron injections these days? That was just what was out in the open. Who knows what he was taking behind closed doors. For all I know he may have been hitting the asthma inhalers as soon as he got back to his room.
> 
> People can allege anything they want for any number of reasons. A reason might be they feel their legacy is threatened, or maybe they weren't given a job. They could even think somebody destroyed their company.
> 
> One thing for sure is you're going to have Lemond fans who don't like Lance and Lance fans who don't like Lemond. Neither one of those guys is a saint and I can't believe all the bad stuff about one without at least considering the possibility that there's bad about the other.
> 
> The way this has came about just feels really wrong. That the allegations are coming from 2 of the highest profile American cyclists and nobody else make it seem like there are ulterior motives.


again, there's been no allegations in the 16 years since he retired that he doped. Absent that or some +s, there's nothing.
How have you arrived at the conclusion that it's "the responsibility of the rider to prove he's clean"?


----------



## frontierwolf

blackhat said:


> again, there's been no allegations in the 16 years since he retired that he doped. Absent that or some +s, there's nothing.
> How have you arrived at the conclusion that it's "the responsibility of the rider to prove he's clean"?


I think that's just the way things are in cycling these days. When you have Lemond saying Contador should have to prove that he can produce a certain wattage you're well into the idea of being guilty until proven innocent. 

I wouldn't believe anything that Floyd Landis told anyone.


----------



## pedalruns

frontierwolf said:


> I wouldn't believe anything that Floyd Landis told anyone.



I wouldn't believe anything that Armstrong told anyone.

Lemond is the one that has been honest from the start... it was again, Armstrong that tried to shut him up. I'm glad Lemond didn't back down.


----------



## frontierwolf

pedalruns said:


> I wouldn't believe anything that Armstrong told anyone.
> 
> Lemond is the one that has been honest from the start... it was again, Armstrong that tried to shut him up. I'm glad Lemond didn't back down.


Never said I believe Armstrong either. And Lemond has too much of an Axe to grind for me to believe him. Particularly if you keep up with the same line for 10 years without any proof while at the same time being involved in a lawsuit with the guy you're accusing. That doesn't look like bias?

I think that's why it feels wrong. It's like a mexican standoff of liars and then 2 of them suddenly decide to go after the one with the most to lose.


----------



## slegros

ultimobici said:


> If riders are using a PM all the time in competition & training it will be possible to qualify their new PB. So on that "float" day when everything clicks into place the rider will have the evidence to show that it was down to hard work & good health and not dope. The flip side is that if the rider has taken a short cut, they are less likely to be able to cover it up.


So what would happen in LeMond's case? Wattage is down on the climb he gets dropped on, then it suddenly spikes for the TT? Evidence of doping?


----------



## ultimobici

slegros said:


> So what would happen in LeMond's case? Wattage is down on the climb he gets dropped on, then it suddenly spikes for the TT? Evidence of doping?


You seem to be painting it as a catastrophic collapse on stage 17, followed by a superhuman effort in the TT 4 days later.

GL lost 1'19" to LF in the Alps after fending for himself against one of the best Tour teams of the 80's. Fignon's Super U team all finished except for Heinz Imboden, whereas Lemond's ADR was decimated with only 3 finishers besides Lemond. When you look at the names it's like a who's who of sprinters - Hoste & Planckaert were both green jersey winners and there's one Johan Museeuw in there too. Fignon had a former Maillot Jaune wearer in Pascal Simon as an equipier deluxe. 
But if you look at where Fignon couldn't beat GL, it was the TT's, including the mountain TT to Orcières where he lost 47".
We've discussed the "superhuman" wattage in the TT before. I don't buy it being OTT. The figure of 500W+ is not replicable unless you make two assumptions - there was either a head wind or dead calm and it was pan flat. Neither is true. There was a 5kmh tailwind and it was slightly downhill. Just the tailwind accounts for a 15% reduction in power needed.
Is 460W for 27 minutes that unbelievable when there is no reason to hold back and everything to gain?


----------



## blackhat

frontierwolf said:


> Never said I believe Armstrong either. And Lemond has too much of an Axe to grind for me to believe him. Particularly if you keep up with the same line for 10 years without any proof while at the same time being involved in a lawsuit with the guy you're accusing. That doesn't look like bias?
> 
> I think that's why it feels wrong. It's like a mexican standoff of liars and then 2 of them suddenly decide to go after the one with the most to lose.


To the extent you had not previously, you totally lost me at "without any proof".


----------



## slegros

Wrong spot!


----------



## JohnHemlock

viciouscycle said:


> M. Indurain as well? He killed guys in his 5 wins, collapsed in his try for 6


Since we are painting with a broad brush, I'm going to throw him in there, as well. I know he had an amazing physiology but like Antequil said, "the Tour de France is not won on mineral water!" I just think the culture of doping is too pervasive not to have touched everyone to some degree. Do I think he had a rolling doping lab? No. But the 90s were the worst decade for doping, so it's hard to imagine a 5-time champion didn't dip his toe in the pool.


----------



## slegros

ultimobici said:


> You seem to be painting it as a catastrophic collapse on stage 17, followed by a superhuman effort in the TT 4 days later.
> 
> GL lost 1'19" to LF in the Alps after fending for himself against one of the best Tour teams of the 80's. Fignon's Super U team all finished except for Heinz Imboden, whereas Lemond's ADR was decimated with only 3 finishers besides Lemond. When you look at the names it's like a who's who of sprinters - Hoste & Planckaert were both green jersey winners and there's one Johan Museeuw in there too. Fignon had a former Maillot Jaune wearer in Pascal Simon as an equipier deluxe.
> But if you look at where Fignon couldn't beat GL, it was the TT's, including the mountain TT to Orcières where he lost 47".
> We've discussed the "superhuman" wattage in the TT before. I don't buy it being OTT. The figure of 500W+ is not replicable unless you make two assumptions - there was either a head wind or dead calm and it was pan flat. Neither is true. There was a 5kmh tailwind and it was slightly downhill. Just the tailwind accounts for a 15% reduction in power needed.
> Is 460W for 27 minutes that unbelievable when there is no reason to hold back and everything to gain?


I'm merely pointing out that there seems to be a double standard in play as far as LeMond is concerned. 

As I mentioned previously sure his performance is explainable-as was Contador's-as was Armstrong's TT on Alpe D'Huez. The problem is that LeMond is given the benefit of being innocent until proven otherwise, while he places the onus on certain riders to prove they are clean.

All I am implying is that LeMonds performance in the final TT was no less spectacular than other performances upon which doping allegations have been cast. If allegations are cast at Contador for his Verbier climb should they not also be cast at LeMond? I really don't see much difference between those 2 situations. Contador's climb was explainable by natural means-Schleck wasn't that far behind, wind etc... As was the case with LeMond and Fignon. Yet LeMond is hailed as a hero and Contador comes away as a suspected doper(thanks partly to leMond!)...


----------



## frontierwolf

blackhat said:


> To the extent you had not previously, you totally lost me at "without any proof".


What proof has Lemond presented that Lance doped? 

I'm not trying to convince anyone of anything. I'm trying to understand why Lemond or Landis should be given the benefit of the doubt, or why the Feds would trust their word over Armstong's? If they have proof that's something else.


----------



## ultimobici

slegros said:


> I'm merely pointing out that there seems to be a double standard in play as far as LeMond is concerned.
> 
> As I mentioned previously sure his performance is explainable-as was Contador's-as was Armstrong's TT on Alpe D'Huez. The problem is that LeMond is given the benefit of being innocent until proven otherwise, while he places the onus on certain riders to prove they are clean.
> 
> All I am implying is that LeMonds performance in the final TT was no less spectacular than other performances upon which doping allegations have been cast. If allegations are cast at Contador for his Verbier climb should they not also be cast at LeMond? I really don't see much difference between those 2 situations. Contador's climb was explainable by natural means-Schleck wasn't that far behind, wind etc... As was the case with LeMond and Fignon. Yet LeMond is hailed as a hero and Contador comes away as a suspected doper(thanks partly to leMond!)...


Point taken but we'll never know.

I don't think that there is a double standard at play at all.

Lemond has nary a whiff of a hint of a rumour of doping about him. Name any rider the top 10 Alpe d'Huez times' list and IMO there's a question mark over their performances generally. Contador has a few issues that make one wonder too. He turned pro for ONCE which morphed into Liberty Seguros and was central to the Operation Puerto scandal. That is a little questionable in my book.

Lemond's performances are open to interpretation, but they are all within the bounds of reality. 

_



What do the pro's put out? In the final stage of the 1989 Tour de France, Greg Lemond averaged 34 mph with a 5 mph tailwind. According to the sort of calculations you can do here, he was putting out 513 watts.

Click to expand...

_As for this comment on the link you provided, I have tried every which way and I can only get a figure near this by putting false data in. Faulty calculator or deliberately skewed is my conclusion.


----------



## pacificaslim

The bottom line to me is that Lemond never should have opened his mouth in the first place. He was done with cycling and had no stake whatsoever in what subsequent pros did or didn't do. No stake except one of course: protecting his legacy as the greatest american ever. That this is seen as his motivation is what makes him easy to dislike - even if he is going to be proved to be at least partially correct.


----------



## blackhat

frontierwolf said:


> What proof has Lemond presented that Lance doped?
> 
> I'm not trying to convince anyone of anything. I'm trying to understand why Lemond or Landis should be given the benefit of the doubt, or why the Feds would trust their word over Armstong's? If they have proof that's something else.


apologies, I thought you meant proof in general that LA doped. Of which there's legions. I don't know of anything specific GL has.
Landis is another story. He rode with LA and was in the sport during the halcyon years of free for all doping and apparently kept decent notes.


----------



## covenant

blackhat said:


> ...and apparently kept decent notes.


Except for that whole 2002 Tour de Suisse thing....


----------



## 55x11

slegros said:


> I'm merely pointing out that there seems to be a double standard in play as far as LeMond is concerned.
> 
> As I mentioned previously sure his performance is explainable-as was Contador's-as was Armstrong's TT on Alpe D'Huez. The problem is that LeMond is given the benefit of being innocent until proven otherwise, while he places the onus on certain riders to prove they are clean.
> 
> All I am implying is that LeMonds performance in the final TT was no less spectacular than other performances upon which doping allegations have been cast. If allegations are cast at Contador for his Verbier climb should they not also be cast at LeMond? I really don't see much difference between those 2 situations. Contador's climb was explainable by natural means-Schleck wasn't that far behind, wind etc... As was the case with LeMond and Fignon. Yet LeMond is hailed as a hero and Contador comes away as a suspected doper(thanks partly to leMond!)...



It's a very good point - if LeMond's accusations are based solely on "rider X is better than rider Y so he must be doping", the same can be said about LeMond himself. Didn't he have the record for the fastest time trial for a long time, even through EPO era? People who live in glass houses...


----------



## blackhat

55x11 said:


> It's a very good point - if LeMond's accusations are based solely on "rider X is better than rider Y so he must be doping", the same can be said about LeMond himself. Didn't he have the record for the fastest time trial for a long time, even through EPO era? People who live in glass houses...


It's a ridiculous point. The GL/LA drama isn't playing out in a vacuum. The mountains of evidence that LA doped probably have something to do with why GL thinks LA doped. If you can find similar (or any) evidence or allegations GL doped post it, otherwise it's a non argument.


----------



## ultimobici

55x11 said:


> It's a very good point - if LeMond's accusations are based solely on "rider X is better than rider Y so he must be doping", the same can be said about LeMond himself. Didn't he have the record for the fastest time trial for a long time, even through EPO era? People who live in glass houses...


But his comments are not based on X being better than Y, rather that the individual performance appears to be outside the realms of physiological possibility. His comments regarding Contador's Verbier performance in 2009 were a little hasty as the data he based his conclusions on was inaccurate, I'll grant you.
His record breaking TT victory did stand from 1989 to 2005, but it was a skewed record. 24.5km with 75m loss of elevation with a 5kmh tailwind. Not to mention that there was everything to gain and nothing to lose, in that there was no recovery to worry about.


----------



## ultimobici

pacificaslim said:


> The bottom line to me is that Lemond never should have opened his mouth in the first place. He was done with cycling and had no stake whatsoever in what subsequent pros did or didn't do. No stake except one of course: protecting his legacy as the greatest american ever. That this is seen as his motivation is what makes him easy to dislike - even if he is going to be proved to be at least partially correct.


He didn't go after Armstrong at all. He was asked to comment on Armstrong working with Ferrari in light of the charges he face. 

This is what he said
_



When Lance won the prologue to the 1999 Tour I was close to tears, but when I heard he was working with Michele Ferrari I was devastated. In the light of Lance's relationship with Ferrari, I just don't want to comment on this year's Tour. This is not sour grapes. I'm disappointed in Lance, that's all it is.

Click to expand...

_Where in that statement is there any accusation?


----------



## samh

*was lemond clean*



pacificaslim said:


> The bottom line to me is that Lemond never should have opened his mouth in the first place. He was done with cycling and had no stake whatsoever in what subsequent pros did or didn't do. No stake except one of course: protecting his legacy as the greatest american ever. That this is seen as his motivation is what makes him easy to dislike - even if he is going to be proved to be at least partially correct.


My belief is he want cycling to be "clean" so his kids can race "clean."
A purpose showing his character.

OTOH Armstrong tries to silence his critics so they dont investigate his actions.

Completely different people in terms of ethics.


----------



## jptaylorsg

pacificaslim said:


> The bottom line to me is that Lemond never should have opened his mouth in the first place. He was done with cycling and had no stake whatsoever in what subsequent pros did or didn't do. No stake except one of course: protecting his legacy as the greatest american ever. That this is seen as his motivation is what makes him easy to dislike - even if he is going to be proved to be at least partially correct.


I'm not on LeMond's side exactly. I think he's probably right about doping, but I think he's lost the room and taken on a bit of a boy who cried wolf vibe.

Still, to argue that because he's retired from active racing means he has no stake in the game is wrong, isn't it? He was selling his own brand of road bikes. You think he didn't stand to lose from the possibility of the sport becoming further tainted? At the very least, it shows that he was invested in the sport still. 

Also, aren't you invested in the sport as a fan? Do you care what happens in the sport? Why can't he?


----------



## frontierwolf

Actually he does have a vested interest in the sport. If Armstrong goes down and Lemond is vindicated he will once again be viewed undisputed as America's greatest cyclist. 

I think he's trying to rebuild Lemond bikes into a new company. I can just imagine 2 years from now Bicycling magazine running an article about the Postal/Discovery guilty verdict and turning the next page to a two page spread introducing the new 2013 Lemond "Le Campion" model in it's exclusive yellow jersey color.

Maybe I'm just too cynical.


----------



## 55x11

ultimobici said:


> But his comments are not based on X being better than Y, rather that the individual performance appears to be outside the realms of physiological possibility. His comments regarding Contador's Verbier performance in 2009 were a little hasty as the data he based his conclusions on was inaccurate, I'll grant you.
> His record breaking TT victory did stand from 1989 to 2005, but it was a skewed record. 24.5km with 75m loss of elevation with a 5kmh tailwind. Not to mention that there was everything to gain and nothing to lose, in that there was no recovery to worry about.


"Realms of physiological possibility" is based on what other riders (therefore "rider Y") can do. Back in 1950ies people thought running sub-4 minute mile or sub-10.0 100m or sub-2:10 marathon is outside of realms of physiological possibilities. 

Lemond's claims are basically based on "Contador is way better than others" which is what others could have said about Lemond back in his prime.


----------



## SilasCL

55x11 said:


> "Realms of physiological possibility" is based on what other riders (therefore "rider Y") can do. Back in 1950ies people thought running sub-4 minute mile or sub-10.0 100m or sub-2:10 marathon is outside of realms of physiological possibilities.
> 
> Lemond's claims are basically based on "Contador is way better than others" which is what others could have said about Lemond back in his prime.


That's not entirely true. There's a few people out there who think that physiological limits can be determined through other methods, either by comparison to past performances or by some kind of scientific analysis of the human body.

I doubt they'd be very accurate, so I'm not sure why so many armchair fans are jumping on this stuff except that it's another gotcha to use against dopers.

Some discussion of it with the sports science website guys and Andy Coggan here:
http://forum.cyclingnews.com/showthread.php?t=8675
and other discussion here:
http://forum.cyclingnews.com/showthread.php?t=8395


----------



## 55x11

ultimobici said:


> If it is not on the list of products or methods that are banned, it is legal.
> Once it is on the list, then it is illegal from then on.
> Speed, coke, strychnine, morphine etc were not against the rules until the 60's. Cheating in the first 60 years of this sport amounted to catching a train, using a small boy to pump your forge bellows, not having all your jerseys, or nobbling the opposition.


My response was not about whether blood doping was legal or not -that's irrelevant. It was about the claim that doping available in Lemond's time didn't give much advantage:



> ...drugs available when he was winning didn't give so much of a performance boost...


In fact the blood transfusion doping techniques is precisely what Basso, Ullrich, Vino, Valverde, Hamilton, Botero and others were busted for - not EPO. And blood doping was readily available in Lemond's time. 

Therefore, back to the point I was responding to - if we were to adopt the logic of "the rider that wins most difficult race in dominant fashion must be doping" (applied by Lemond to Armstrong and Contador), then there is no reason why the same logic should not be applied to Lemond and his three TdF wins.


----------



## PhatTalc

55x11 said:


> It's a very good point - if LeMond's accusations are based solely on "rider X is better than rider Y so he must be doping", the same can be said about LeMond himself. Didn't he have the record for the fastest time trial for a long time, even through EPO era? People who live in glass houses...


Yeah, a short time trial, slightly downhill with a tailwind all the way. And anyway, Lemond's accusations don't take the form you're saying they do. He is saying climbing (say) Alpe d'huez in 38 minutes is suspicious, especially after Festina, the Peurto affair, the Frieburg clinic doping case etc...


----------



## PhatTalc

55x11 said:


> My response was not about whether blood doping was legal or not -that's irrelevant. It was about the claim that doping available in Lemond's time didn't give much advantage:
> 
> 
> 
> In fact the blood transfusion doping techniques is precisely what Basso, Ullrich, Vino, Valverde, Hamilton, Botero and others were busted for - not EPO. And blood doping was readily available in Lemond's time.
> 
> Therefore, back to the point I was responding to - if we were to adopt the logic of "the rider that wins most difficult race in dominant fashion must be doping" (applied by Lemond to Armstrong and Contador), then there is no reason why the same logic should not be applied to Lemond and his three TdF wins.


No, the blood doping available in the 70s/80s was completely inferior. EPO is key to the modern technique because it allows the athlete to restore their blood to full health rapidly after the necessary withdrawal. 

The fact that until the mid 80s blood doping was legal is relevant: why were professional cyclists not using it? The USA track team used it, everyone knew and yet it wasn't widespread during the 1985 tour. The reason is that until EPO and other techniques came along, it wasn't worth the risk. If you look at what Bernard Kohl has said about it, you need several blood bags for the tour - which means several blood withdrawals previously, which means training is compromised, unless you have EPO etc.


----------



## ripper

Juma Ikangaa won the 1989 New York City Marathon with a course record time which stood for another 11 years. No one has accused him of doping. Does that mean that he absolutly, unquestionably did not dope? 

I didnt know there were a certain number of years which, if passed without doping accusations, bestowed sainthood upon an athlete. How many years exactly is that? Is that in the UCI handbook or the bible or what?

I now realize that I need to come to terms with the fact that anyone who hates lance armstrong is going to worship at the foot of the lamond/landis cross. That way I can go back to feeling good about being one of the sheeple.


----------



## DMFT

IMO - LeMond took an Iron shot which aided recovery. It enhanced his performance therefore GL used performance enhancers. It was not banned but it was an enhancer.

Can't wait to read/hear about all of the nastiness that will come from the US Fed's investigation(s)...


----------



## ultimobici

DMFT said:


> IMO - LeMond took an Iron shot which aided recovery. It enhanced his performance therefore GL used performance enhancers. It was not banned but it was an enhancer.


Therefore clean.


----------



## Coolhand

ultimobici said:


> Therefore clean.


He he he "iron shot" _yeah_. I got a clean, unused bridge for sale in New York too.


----------



## Coolhand

Ferrari on the documents Greg cited:



> It is probably from this dossier that Greg Lemond drew the “rumours” and quotes the numerous “it was saids” in his letter.
> 
> But what Greg does not know, or pretends not to know, is that one of such “confidants” actually clearly mentions his name and that of his doctor in relation to doping events.


Delgado, Fignon and now . . . .


----------



## AJL

Coolhand said:


> He he he "iron shot" _yeah_. I got a clean, unused bridge for sale in New York too.


Yeah, AFAIK, iron will only help restore ones oxygen carrying capacity to its normal limit. Having extra iron in ones system won't cause more blood cells to grow and can become toxic if too much is absorbed.

That and anemia in a normal healthy athlete - maybe it happens, but....


----------



## raleighgranprix

Here is an interview with Hinault, I've said it before, if one wonders if Lemond was clean or dirty, would you not look at his mentor or at least, major influence on him, Hinault??

So, in the pool of public information being used, this is indispensable: 



> (Question): In discussing the integrity of the Tour, the press has called the legend into question, as if in the past one has admired riders who did not merit to be admired. You were not affected by that?
> 
> (Hinault): Of course I am still affected by it. One would have the impression, in reading the commentaries, that all cyclists are doped. Hinault like Anquetil, Merckx, or Indurain! The newspapers have made it seem that all those who won the Tour could not have won it on clear water. That's stupid, but what do you think I should say to that? I have my own good conscience.


http://oceanpark.com/~allard/bicycle/19990724_equipe_hinault.html

Noteworthy quote: 



> Moser made use of autotransfusion. So he was playing with his own blood. He did no more no less that the Finnish athletes, Lasse Viren and the others. It suffices to take some of ones own blood during the spring when it is rich, hyperoxygenated, and to reinject it when one is fatigued. Is that really doping? Maybe not, except if the blood is placed into a machine to reoxygenate it to the maximum.


----------



## ultimobici

raleighgranprix said:


> Here is an interview with Hinault, I've said it before, if one wonders if Lemond was clean or dirty, would you not look at his mentor or at least, major influence on him, Hinault??
> 
> So, in the pool of public information being used, this is indispensable:
> 
> 
> 
> http://oceanpark.com/~allard/bicycle/19990724_equipe_hinault.html
> 
> Noteworthy quote:


Guilt by association? 
By virtue of being on the same team as someone who, in an interview a decade ago and almost 15 years after they last rode on the same team, talks about his attitude to doping? That's a stretch and a half!

By that measure, we'd have to conclude that anyone on Festina was doping, including Bassons!


----------



## raleighgranprix

ultimobici said:


> Guilt by association?
> By virtue of being on the same team as someone who, in an interview a decade ago and almost 15 years after they last rode on the same team, talks about his attitude to doping? That's a stretch and a half!
> 
> By that measure, we'd have to conclude that anyone on Festina was doping, including Bassons!


Your way out daddy, I don't dig what you say, all I'm saying is Hinault knew Lemond, All one is saying is they are on the same team. What nonsensical statements, it's a historic document man, don't go making presumptions on behalf of other people. Your statement doesn't even have any foundation or rationale. Maybe it's a language problem and you should get the benefit of the doubt, which you surely have not done with other people.

By your reasoning, someone should not talk to Tyler Hamilton or Floyd Landis because they were on the same team as Armstrong.

Chill out


----------



## slegros

ultimobici said:


> Guilt by association?
> By virtue of being on the same team as someone who, in an interview a decade ago and almost 15 years after they last rode on the same team, talks about his attitude to doping? That's a stretch and a half!
> 
> By that measure, we'd have to conclude that anyone on Festina was doping, including Bassons!


Fignon has admitted to using banned products. Hinault, LeMond and Fignon all had very large portions of their careers orchestrated by Cyrille Guimard. If doping was systemic within Gumard's teams of the time its not at all inconceivable that both Hinault and LeMond took part to some extent.

Guilt by association? Wasn't that the basis of LeMond's criticism of Armstrong working with Ferrari?


----------



## ultimobici

raleighgranprix said:


> Your way out daddy, I don't dig what you say, all I'm saying is Hinault knew Lemond, All one is saying is they are on the same team. What nonsensical statements, it's a historic document man, don't go making presumptions on behalf of other people. Your statement doesn't even have any foundation or rationale. Maybe it's a language problem and you should get the benefit of the doubt, which you surely have not done with other people.
> 
> By your reasoning, someone should not talk to Tyler Hamilton or Floyd Landis because they were on the same team as Armstrong.
> 
> Chill out


Language problem?? English is my mother tongue, or are you referring to the poor translation of Hinault's interview?

Your post and the passages that you highlighted led me to believe that you think his views may have influenced Lemond to a degree.

The second quote comes across as especially ambivalent in my view.


----------



## ultimobici

slegros said:


> Fignon has admitted to using banned products. Hinault, LeMond and Fignon all had very large portions of their careers orchestrated by Cyrille Guimard. If doping was systemic within Gumard's teams of the time its not at all inconceivable that both Hinault and LeMond took part to some extent.
> 
> Guilt by association? Wasn't that the basis of LeMond's criticism of Armstrong working with Ferrari?


 The guilt by association I referred to was merely being on the same team. The LA-MF association is a more direct relationship that merits more scrutiny. Bassons was on the 98 Festina team but was the only rider not involved. He was specifically mentioned in virtually everyone's statements as being clean.

Talking to Landis, Hamilton etc is relevant. However, forming an opinion of LA's actions based on what Landis or Hamilton's opinion on doping in general is nonsensical, If they are talking about LA then it's relevant. By the same token if Hinault was talking about Lemond in that interview it would be noteworthy, but there is nothing relevant to Lemond there at all.


----------



## davidka

PhatTalc said:


> No, the blood doping available in the 70s/80s was completely inferior. EPO is key to the modern technique because it allows the athlete to restore their blood to full health rapidly after the necessary withdrawal.
> 
> The fact that until the mid 80s blood doping was legal is relevant: why were professional cyclists not using it? The USA track team used it, everyone knew and yet it wasn't widespread during the 1985 tour. The reason is that until EPO and other techniques came along, it wasn't worth the risk. If you look at what Bernard Kohl has said about it, you need several blood bags for the tour - which means several blood withdrawals previously, which means training is compromised, unless you have EPO etc.


EPO doesn't control blood bolume, just red cell production. Increasing the amount of the hormone (EPO) increases red blood cell production but that is not the blood's total volume (hence the 50% limit). Red cell concentration and total volume are different things. 

The blood doping the other poster is refering to is the same as the 80's method where an athlete builds up a store of their own natural blood, spins off the hematocrit and puts just that component back into his own blood volume. Same effect as EPO (increase red blood cell count), minus the drug.

EPO is an alternative to this method with the benifit of not having to store blood and the obvious added risk of having detectable synthetic or non-natural (not originally yours) hormone in your blood.


----------



## PhatTalc

davidka said:


> EPO doesn't control blood bolume, just red cell production. Increasing the amount of the hormone (EPO) increases red blood cell production but that is not the blood's total volume (hence the 50% limit). Red cell concentration and total volume are different things.
> 
> The blood doping the other poster is refering to is the same as the 80's method where an athlete builds up a store of their own natural blood, spins off the hematocrit and puts just that component back into his own blood volume. Same effect as EPO (increase red blood cell count), minus the drug.
> 
> EPO is an alternative to this method with the benifit of not having to store blood and the obvious added risk of having detectable synthetic or non-natural (not originally yours) hormone in your blood.


I understand the difference between blood volume and red cell concentration - I didn't mention either in my post, so I can't see where you though I was confused. My point was that before EPO, the risk/reward for blood transfusion was high risk/little reward- hence it was used only for certain performances (hour record, olympic 10k). The actual blood doping part is the same as used in the 80's (I agree) but the difference is about how blood health is maintained after removing blood for spinning.


----------



## Brad the Bold

My opinion is they all doped at one point. They all are lying about it now. 

Badger, Lemond, Big Mig, Contador, Landis, Lance. All of the greats.

It's sad but I'm that cynical about the top level of the sport.


----------



## Coolhand

Brad the Bold said:


> My opinion is they all doped at one point. They all are lying about it now.
> 
> Badger, Lemond, Big Mig, Contador, Landis, Lance. All of the greats.
> 
> It's sad but I'm that cynical about the top level of the sport.


Eddy too- he got popped. JA famously did (as did all the riders then).

Badger can't admit it because of his ASO ties, Lemond has painted himself in a corner- but the doping ties to him and his doctor Ferrari mentioned in his press release are interesting; has anyone found those documents online yet?


----------



## lewdvig

1989 TdF

Distance: 3,279 km
Average Speed: 37.818 km/h
54.545 kph over 24.5km - fastest individual time trial (Greg LeMond, 1989)

I can totally believe that he won it clean. /sarcasm>


----------



## lewdvig

Other than ephedrine, I don't have much personal experience with PEDs, but I know lots about Baskin Robbins. PEDs are probably like ice cream flavors, there is a flavor for everyone. Some make you faster over short distances and other allow you to recover faster.

The avg speed of the Tour has only increased by 3 kph over the past 21 years. There are a lots of factors that could contribute: bike weight, aerodynamics, nutrition, sports science, event specialization, etc.

IMO the small increase means winners were doping back in the eighties. Something many winners, his Gregness excluded, are now owning up to.

BTW, in Europe most fans could care less. Unlike what most armchair cyclists think all the EPO in the world will not make a stallion out of a mule. All it does is make one incredibly gifted specimen better than another.


----------



## zero85ZEN

lewdvig said:


> The avg speed of the Tour has only increased by 3 kph over the past 21 years. There are a lots of factors that could contribute: bike weight, aerodynamics, nutrition, sports science, event specialization, etc.
> 
> IMO the small increase means winners were doping back in the eighties. Something many winners, his Gregness excluded, are now owning up to.


You would have to look at the number of mountain stages, mountain top finishes, etc, between the Tours. Also, just watch footage of pre early '90s Tours...you see the peleton EXPLODING on the climbs...a few guys creeping ahead in a steady grind...guys suffering like dogs. Watch the Tours in the Lance era, huge groups staying together on climbs...many, many non climbers holding wheels with climbers...ferocious repeated attacks off the front, winning riders that don't collapse off their bikes at the end and are able to give interviews within minutes of winning a stage. A rider like George Hincape winning a mountain top stage. I mean just really watch the differences in the races between those two eras.


----------



## pianopiano

zero85ZEN said:


> You would have to look at the number of mountain stages, mountain top finishes, etc, between the Tours. Also, just watch footage of pre early '90s Tours...you see the peleton EXPLODING on the climbs...a few guys creeping ahead in a steady grind...guys suffering like dogs. Watch the Tours in the Lance era, huge groups staying together on climbs...many, many non climbers holding wheels with climbers...ferocious repeated attacks off the front, winning riders that don't collapse off their bikes at the end and are able to give interviews within minutes of winning a stage. A rider like George Hincape winning a mountain top stage. I mean just really watch the differences in the races between those two eras.


+1:thumbsup:


----------



## DMFT

zero85ZEN said:


> You would have to look at the number of mountain stages, mountain top finishes, etc, between the Tours. Also, just watch footage of pre early '90s Tours...you see the peleton EXPLODING on the climbs...a few guys creeping ahead in a steady grind...guys suffering like dogs. Watch the Tours in the Lance era, huge groups staying together on climbs...many, many non climbers holding wheels with climbers...ferocious repeated attacks off the front, winning riders that don't collapse off their bikes at the end and are able to give interviews within minutes of winning a stage. A rider like George Hincape winning a mountain top stage. I mean just really watch the differences in the races between those two eras.



"Huge groups" staying together??? 10 guy's from LA's "era" on crucial stages constitutes "huge" as a description?

GH, an obviously talented all-around rider and COMPLETE NON FACTOR in an overall position at Le Tour given A stage ONCE. Yup, really hard to believe....

Now, THIS years Tour had many large-ish groups together on the mountain stages decisive or not......

- Just sayin'.......


----------



## blackjack

rydbyk said:


> Nobody seems to post that perhaps LeMond doped also (at least from what I have seen on this forum).
> 
> In a sport that has an incredibly long history with doping, I just don't see how LeMond was clean during his victories, yet he seems to be on a witch hunt for anyone who may have doped....most clearly Lance....
> 
> Is LeMond guilty of exactly what he screams is so wrong with the sport?
> 
> The biggest FAIL ever will be if "proof"/allegations by credible sources come out that he too doped...


Yes, LeMond was clean.


----------



## CabDoctor

Lemond was also the first guy to use carbon bikes, clipless pedals, and aerobars(in regular competition use). So the question I have is, if he was always looking for an edge, wouldn't he use doping of some sort?


----------



## blackjack

CabDoctor said:


> Lemond was also the first guy to use carbon bikes, clipless pedals, and aerobars(in regular competition use). So the question I have is, if he was always looking for an edge, wouldn't he use doping of some sort?


You honestly don't see any flaws in that reasoning?


----------



## CabDoctor

blackjack said:


> You honestly don't see any flaws in that reasoning?


No, I just type for the heck of it like most of the blinded fanboys


----------



## blackjack

CabDoctor said:


> No, I just type for the heck of it like most of the blinded fanboys



You have some nice gear and you're a racer looking for an edge. Are you doping?


----------



## CabDoctor

blackjack said:


> You have some nice gear and you're a racer looking for an edge. Are you doping?


Actually its funny you mention that. I've raced against some guys that received 2 year bans for dopping. And actually this lead to my switching more towards cross and mtbing. Because I'm not looking for as much of an edge in those arenas as I was when racing road. Am I doping no. Have I doped, no. Have I seriously thought about it, absolutely.


----------



## Brad the Bold

blackjack said:


> Yes, LeMond was clean.


Jack, what about LeMond or his career makes you think he is more honest than other champions? Many of them have turned out to have doped. (Well, basically all of them...)

LeMond was my first cycling hero. He's probably the reason I started riding in High School.

But as all the other champions have fallen from grace, I can't help but have doubts about LeMond.

How can we be as sure as you seem to be?


----------



## blackjack

Brad the Bold said:


> Jack, what about LeMond or his career makes you think he is more honest than other champions? *Many of them have turned out to have doped. (Well, basically all of them...)*
> LeMond was my first cycling hero. He's probably the reason I started riding in High School.
> 
> But as all the other champions have fallen from grace, I can't help but have doubts about LeMond.
> 
> How can we be as sure as you seem to be?


Not in LeMond's time. Mottet was noted by everyone to be clean, As was LeMond. These current doubts about LeMond have been promoted by one person. I'm sorry that you've bought into his nonsense. Armstrong offered $300k to one of LeMond's former teammates to say LeMond doped. Armstrong was turned down. Armstrong said he'd find 10 people to say GL doped. NOTHING!

This really has been covered, hasn't it?

There is no evidence against him, none, nada, zip.

LeMond was also known to have an aversion to needles or injections of any kind and the iron injections were noteworthy exceptions. That is why anyone knows about it in the first place.

edit;

In addition, LeMond's career was on a constant upwards trajectory from the time he was 14 or 15 years old up until the time he broke his wrist in early '87 and then was shot. There wasn't any of this crap of the Armstrong variety where he had this great learning curve. LeMond's learning curve consisted of 3rd and 2nd in the TdF. He raced a full season including Paris Roubaix and the Giro.

Everybody focuses on '89 and the comeback, but he was really a shell of himself. Still great, but not anywhere near the same guy he was pre shooting.

People often forget, that prior to the '90's a professional athlete was long in the tooth by the time he reached 30. Why? Your natural hormone production begins to drop off by the mid to late 20's. The natural talents of almost all the cycling greats were revealed very early in their careers. Like at 22 or 23.

HRT solved a lot of those problems for people like Indurain and Armstrong.


----------



## ultimobici

CabDoctor said:


> Lemond was also the first guy to use carbon bikes, clipless pedals, and aerobars(in regular competition use). So the question I have is, if he was always looking for an edge, wouldn't he use doping of some sort?


Nope.

Carbon Bikes - 1983 Peugeot team - Vitus Carbon Robert Millar & friends (Lemond wouldn't be on carbon til 86)
Clipless Pedals - 1985 - Bernard Hinault (Lemond was on clips & straps til 85)
Aero Bars - 1989 - Lemond


----------



## Brad the Bold

blackjack said:


> Not in LeMond's time. Mottet was noted by everyone to be clean, As was LeMond. These current doubts about LeMond have been promoted by one person. I'm sorry that you've bought into his nonsense. Armstrong offered $300k to one of LeMond's former teammates to say LeMond doped. Armstrong was turned down. Armstrong said he'd find 10 people to say GL doped. NOTHING!
> 
> This really has been covered, hasn't it?
> 
> There is no evidence against him, none, nada, zip.
> 
> LeMond was also known to have an aversion to needles or injections of any kind and the iron injections were noteworthy exceptions. That is why anyone knows about it in the first place.
> 
> edit;
> 
> In addition, LeMond's career was on a constant upwards trajectory from the time he was 14 or 15 years old up until the time he broke his wrist in early '87 and then was shot. There wasn't any of this crap of the Armstrong variety where he had this great learning curve. LeMond's learning curve consisted of 3rd and 2nd in the TdF. He raced a full season including Paris Roubaix and the Giro.
> 
> Everybody focuses on '89 and the comeback, but he was really a shell of himself. Still great, but not anywhere near the same guy he was pre shooting.
> 
> People often forget, that prior to the '90's a professional athlete was long in the tooth by the time he reached 30. Why? Your natural hormone production begins to drop off by the mid to late 20's. The natural talents of almost all the cycling greats were revealed very early in their careers. Like at 22 or 23.
> 
> HRT solved a lot of those problems for people like Indurain and Armstrong.


Thanks, I know we've been over this and I'm sure it won't be the last time either. But it fragmented in the forums and frankly, a bit overshadowed by some interpersonal interactions.

You are one of the most passionate LeMond supporters in the forums so it's nice to just here you lay it out concisly without the background noise.

If the sport does burn to the ground. With AC and LA taking the public fall they seem to be heading for, and dragging many others with them. And if all that dirty laundry getting dragged out reveals the systemic nature of modern doping. And if after it all comes out and there are still no credible fingers pointing at Greg, I might go back to believing a little more.

“When you have enough circumstantial evidence, and enough witnesses, you don’t need a smoking gun.” - Greg LeMond


----------



## mcfly

didnt one of lemonds teammates dies in his sleep...the thought there was that he was using perfomance drugs.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

mcfly said:


> didnt one of lemonds teammates dies in his sleep...the thought there was that he was using perfomance drugs.


It was a former teammate. Here is the story

http://greglemond.com/blog/doping-and-those-we-love/


----------



## Perico

Brad the Bold said:


> Thanks, I know we've been over this and I'm sure it won't be the last time either. But it fragmented in the forums and frankly, a bit overshadowed by some interpersonal interactions.
> 
> You are one of the most passionate LeMond supporters in the forums so it's nice to just here you lay it out concisly without the background noise.
> 
> If the sport does burn to the ground. With AC and LA taking the public fall they seem to be heading for, and dragging many others with them. And if all that dirty laundry getting dragged out reveals the systemic nature of modern doping. And if after it all comes out and there are still no credible fingers pointing at Greg, I might go back to believing a little more.
> 
> “When you have enough circumstantial evidence, and enough witnesses, you don’t need a smoking gun.” - Greg LeMond


A question for you: Do you honestly believe that an passionate supporter of one rider is going to provide an honest background/opinion about whether that rider doped or not? Not attacking you or even blackjack, just simply pointing out something that is used quite often against posters who support riders on here and wondering why it does not work in this case?


----------



## blackjack

Brad the Bold said:


> Thanks, I know we've been over this and I'm sure it won't be the last time either. But it fragmented in the forums and frankly, a bit overshadowed by some interpersonal interactions.
> 
> You are one of the most passionate LeMond supporters in the forums so it's nice to just here you lay it out concisly without the background noise.
> 
> If the sport does burn to the ground. With AC and LA taking the public fall they seem to be heading for, and dragging many others with them. And if all that dirty laundry getting dragged out reveals the systemic nature of modern doping. And if after it all comes out and there are still no credible fingers pointing at Greg, I might go back to believing a little more.
> 
> “When you have enough circumstantial evidence, and enough witnesses, you don’t need a smoking gun.” - Greg LeMond


If it turns out that a couple of people come out with reasonable anecdotes implicating LeMond, that will obviously carry weight. However, it just hasn't happened. This despite LeMond having a giant bullseye on him. 

I always think it's kind of odd that people like Carmichael and Roll haven't taken shots at LeMond, other than, snide, passive/aggressive comments.

I am a passionate supporter of LeMond because I believe he is credible and he's being unfairly attacked.

He seems guileless to me. Almost all of what he's said has come to pass. His one great gift in life seems to have become a nightmare for him. Cycling has to be one of the great escapes which is accessible to everyone, and to LeMond it seems to be a very joyful thing.

A poster put up a picture of a blood bag. Is that what this is coming to? Have you seen Tyler Hamilton's doping schedule? He is obviously a very disturbed individual.

People ask why would Armstrong take all this stuff after cancer? I think, why wouldn't he? The cancer treatment got him used to having extremely toxic chemicals coursing thru his body. He saw the systematic approach and realized as he stated in his book, that overkill re cancer wasn't necessary. That's what they were proposing at MD Anderson. The overkill approach is what he would have usually gone for.

I've been around world class athletes for most of my life. It's a shame that something which is supposed to be pure gets so corrupted.

You ever wonder why champion boxers can't retire? All of their REAL power is in the ring.

You're an MD? It must give you a great satisfaction to resolve medical problems, get good outcomes, figure out issues, really help people. That's your ability in life evidently.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

Perico said:


> A question for you: Do you honestly believe that an passionate supporter of one rider is going to provide an honest background/opinion about whether that rider doped or not? Not attacking you or even blackjack, just simply pointing out something that is used quite often against posters who support riders on here and wondering why it does not work in this case?


I am a big fan of Sean Kelly, Johan Museeuw, and Bernard Hinault....all dopers. 

In the end it comes down to evidence. Certainly it is possible that Lemond doped, but is there a former teammate or staff that saw it? A doctor that performed it? a positive test? nope. 

You do not have to be a fan to examine the evidence, or lack there of.


----------



## Brad the Bold

blackjack said:


> If it turns out that a couple of people come out with reasonable anecdotes implicating LeMond, that will obviously carry weight. However, it just hasn't happened. This despite LeMond having a giant bullseye on him.
> 
> I always think it's kind of odd that people like Carmichael and Roll haven't taken shots at LeMond, other than, snide, passive/aggressive comments.
> 
> I am a passionate supporter of LeMond because I believe he is credible and he's being unfairly attacked.
> 
> He seems guileless to me. Almost all of what he's said has come to pass. His one great gift in life seems to have become a nightmare for him. Cycling has to be one of the great escapes which is accessible to everyone, and to LeMond it seems to be a very joyful thing.
> 
> A poster put up a picture of a blood bag. Is that what this is coming to? Have you seen Tyler Hamilton's doping schedule? He is obviously a very disturbed individual.
> 
> People ask why would Armstrong take all this stuff after cancer? I think, why wouldn't he? The cancer treatment got him used to having extremely toxic chemicals coursing thru his body. He saw the systematic approach and realized as he stated in his book, that overkill re cancer wasn't necessary. That's what they were proposing at MD Anderson. The overkill approach is what he would have usually gone for.
> 
> I've been around world class athletes for most of my life. It's a shame that something which is supposed to be pure gets so corrupted.
> 
> You ever wonder why champion boxers can't retire? All of their REAL power is in the ring.
> 
> You're an MD? It must give you a great satisfaction to resolve medical problems, get good outcomes, figure out issues, really help people. That's your ability in life evidently.


All good points and well said. 

I'd love to be able to think of this sport as clean again. Honestly, it really bugs me that other MDs are out there using their skills and knowledge to help people *cheat at sports*. And they are risking their patients lives while doing it. It is infathomable to me the breach of ethics it takes do do that as a doctor.


----------



## blackjack

Brad the Bold said:


> All good points and well said.
> 
> I'd love to be able to think of this sport as clean again. Honestly, it really bugs me that other MDs are out there using their skills and knowledge to help people *cheat at sports*. And they are risking their patients lives while doing it. It is infathomable to me the breach of ethics it takes do do that as a doctor.


I think a lot of people confuse fitness/performance and good health.

You can have a perfectly running Tercel, or a Testarossa that's about to blow a gasket.

I'm very fit, but at one point I was very fit and unhealthy. I'm regaining my health and really enjoy just riding around. That's what needs to be promoted. Health, fitness and enjoyment. Then you get people who can really compete, they do so, and at the end of the day, we do our job, whatever that is. 

If one is fortunate enough to be a professional athelete, they are a role model, despite what they may say. They don't have to be, but then they should catch a lot of flak.


----------



## CabDoctor

Doctor Falsetti said:


> I am a big fan of Sean Kelly, Johan Museeuw, and Bernard Hinault....all dopers.
> 
> In the end it comes down to evidence. Certainly it is possible that Lemond doped, but is there a former teammate or staff that saw it? A doctor that performed it? a positive test? nope.
> 
> You do not have to be a fan to examine the evidence, or lack there of.


You'll have to excuse my ignorance but when did it come out that Bernard Hinault doped?


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

CabDoctor said:


> You'll have to excuse my ignorance but when did it come out that Bernard Hinault doped?


He never tested positive but has been consistently supportive of the practice.

He lead several rider protests against doping controls in the Tour and other races. He has suggested multiple times that HGH, Testosterone, and cortisone doping should be OK if supervised by a doctor. He supported Moser's blood doping and tried to paint Bassons as only out for money. 

While he never tested positive he did avoid a doping control at a Post Tour Crit in 1982. He was also named as a customer of a doping product distribution ring in 1987. Throughout his career he worked with doping doctors, first Francis Bellocq then Bernard Sainz (Dr. Mabuse). 

I could go on but I am sure you get the picture......interesting how there is nothing similar on LeMond


----------



## CabDoctor

Thanks for clearing that up Falsetti. I never really like Bernard and so never really learned much about him.


----------



## mav6162005

I'll get some popcorn and watch this one....


----------



## blackjack

mav6162005 said:


> I'll get some popcorn and watch this one....


crickets......


----------



## Coolhand

blackjack said:


> crickets......


Its six pages, that's a lot of popcorn to make. . .


----------



## pvflyer

rydbyk said:


> Nobody seems to post that perhaps LeMond doped also (at least from what I have seen on this forum).
> 
> In a sport that has an incredibly long history with doping, I just don't see how LeMond was clean during his victories, yet he seems to be on a witch hunt for anyone who may have doped....most clearly Lance....
> 
> Is LeMond guilty of exactly what he screams is so wrong with the sport?
> 
> The biggest FAIL ever will be if "proof"/allegations by credible sources come out that he too doped...


 Hey, MF how R U, U R still posting with out clue? Have U find a path?


----------



## pvflyer

rydbyk said:


> any allegations at least? i do understand the evidence thing...just saying..



Hey is that U in your avatar LMAO.....U R A DUMB ASS!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Still posting without a clue!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## pvflyer

rydbyk said:


> Nobody seems to post that perhaps LeMond doped also (at least from what I have seen on this forum).
> 
> In a sport that has an incredibly long history with doping, I just don't see how LeMond was clean during his victories, yet he seems to be on a witch hunt for anyone who may have doped....most clearly Lance....
> 
> Is LeMond guilty of exactly what he screams is so wrong with the sport?
> 
> The biggest FAIL ever will be if "proof"/allegations by credible sources come out that he too doped...


 By Ur question its seems that U'R just too young right? Doping is not a new thing, its been going on since the beginning of cycling and it will be there till the end............ U think U can finish & win a PRO TOUR without some kind of synthetic help? Why don't U try to ride 4 -too three weeks - 120 miles a day average @ least - and see how can U re-coverage without help.

Can U post pix of what D'U ride so we can know what R U talkin about? I don't C anything in your profile and U'R talking too much.


----------



## den bakker

pvflyer said:


> By Ur question its seems that U'R just too young right? Doping is not a new thing, its been going on since the beginning of cycling and it will be there till the end............ U think U can finish & win a PRO TOUR without some kind of synthetic help? Why don't U try to ride 4 -too three weeks - 120 miles a day average @ least - and see how can U re-coverage without help.
> 
> Can U post pix of what D'U ride so we can know what R U talkin about? I don't C anything in your profile and U'R talking too much.


Is there also an English version of this post?


----------



## rubbersoul

den bakker said:


> Is there also an English version of this post?



Word!!


----------



## Coolhand

*Moderators Note*



pvflyer said:


> By Ur question its seems that U'R just too young right? Doping is not a new thing, its been going on since the beginning of cycling and it will be there till the end............ U think U can finish & win a PRO TOUR without some kind of synthetic help? Why don't U try to ride 4 -too three weeks - 120 miles a day average @ least - and see how can U re-coverage without help.
> 
> Can U post pix of what D'U ride so we can know what R U talkin about? I don't C anything in your profile and U'R talking too much.


Enjoy the posting vacation. Please review the posting guidelines on personal attacks prior to resuming posting here.


----------



## AJL

den bakker said:


> Is there also an English version of this post?



LOLZ! I almost spit out my coffee!


----------



## thechriswebb

pvflyer said:


> By Ur question its seems that U'R just too young right? Doping is not a new thing, its been going on since the beginning of cycling and it will be there till the end............ U think U can finish & win a PRO TOUR without some kind of synthetic help? Why don't U try to ride 4 -too three weeks - 120 miles a day average @ least - and see how can U re-coverage without help.
> 
> Can U post pix of what D'U ride so we can know what R U talkin about? I don't C anything in your profile and U'R talking too much.



That was the strangest series of posts I've ever read.


----------



## wiz525

I do feel much better knowing how much he spent on his Ducati 2009 Desmosedici though.


----------



## Cinelli 82220

pvflyer said:


> what D'U ride so we can know what R U talkin about?


What he rides has no bearing on the validity of his post.


----------



## btlupin

I have been reading Fignon's autobiography. In it he discusses doping during the 80's to some extent. Amphetamines seem to be the most prevalent drug used. You get the impression that this was mostly used by the lesser riders of the time - just to make it through the races.
He devotes a chapter on his loss to Greg in '89. Drug use is not a reason that Fignon lists. He primarily blames it on the aero bars, which did not conform to regulation.


----------



## rydbyk

den bakker said:


> Is there also an English version of this post?



He is Brazilian...cut him some slack.. I am sure his Portuguese is perfect.


----------



## DIRT BOY

Of course he doped!All riders dope with SOME type of PE drug/substance.

Maybe not EPO, but I am sure sped of some kind, etc.

Since the day racing/sports started, man has try to cheat the system by doping of some kind. Period!! No one can "race" under these conditions today with out help.


----------



## ultimobici

DIRT BOY said:


> Of course he doped!All riders dope with SOME type of PE drug/substance.
> 
> Maybe not EPO, but I am sure sped of some kind, etc.
> 
> Since the day racing/sports started, man has try to cheat the system by doping of some kind. Period!! No one can "race" under these conditions today with out help.


Any evidence?

Besides, Lemond isn't competing now, he stopped 16 years ago when it was entirely possible for a rider to compete on water. Remember GIles Delion and Charly Mottet?


----------



## rydbyk

ultimobici said:


> Any evidence?
> 
> Besides, Lemond isn't competing now, he stopped 16 years ago when it was entirely possible for a rider to compete on water. Remember GIles Delion and Charly Mottet?



Compete on water or WIN on water? He must have been drinking the good stuff....like Evian water. ;-)


----------



## ultimobici

rydbyk said:


> Compete on water or WIN on water? He must have been drinking the good stuff....like Evian water. ;-)


Win. The use of the term "on water" is not meant literally, rather clean & without cheating.


----------



## davidka

Fignon was tremendously talented and an admited doper. You can't beat someone who's good and on the sauce clean, not over 3 weeks. One day maybe, but not 3 weeks.


----------



## ultimobici

davidka said:


> Fignon was tremendously talented and an admited doper. You can't beat someone who's good and on the sauce clean, not over 3 weeks. One day maybe, but not 3 weeks.


In the EPO era, I agree it would be an impossibility. But before EPO the drugs were working on the body in a different way.

EPO alters the blood's capacity to carry oxygen to the muscles, which is the key to performing as an endurance athlete. Amphetamines, steroids & painkillers are very different. 

The human body has limits that can be raised naturally by training. EPO moves the redline whereas "old school" doping doesn't, it merely allows the rider to exceed the redline. In the same way a car that is repeatedly redlined will breakdown pretty soon so will the rider. EPO is like a proper tuning job on the engine.


----------



## davidka

ultimobici said:


> In the EPO era, I agree it would be an impossibility. But before EPO the drugs were working on the body in a different way.
> 
> EPO alters the blood's capacity to carry oxygen to the muscles, which is the key to performing as an endurance athlete. Amphetamines, steroids & painkillers are very different.
> 
> The human body has limits that can be raised naturally by training. EPO moves the redline whereas "old school" doping doesn't, it merely allows the rider to exceed the redline. In the same way a car that is repeatedly redlined will breakdown pretty soon so will the rider. EPO is like a proper tuning job on the engine.


EPO only raises the "redline" in the pre 50% HcT rule era. It's real benefit for stage racers is that rested HcT levels can be maintained through the length of a long stage race. This is a similar effect on the blood as steroids and HGH have on the rest of the body. It's about how well you can recover. EPO is a big boost but it's by no means the only one.

Recovery is the key to success at long stage races. It's why a guy like Davide Rebellin (a confessed EPO user) can win classics and 1 week races but can't do as well at a 3 week race.


----------



## ultimobici

davidka said:


> EPO only raises the "redline" in the pre 50% HcT rule era. It's real benefit for stage racers is that rested HcT levels can be maintained through the length of a long stage race. This is a similar effect on the blood as steroids and HGH have on the rest of the body. It's about how well you can recover. EPO is a big boost but it's by no means the only one.
> 
> Recovery is the key to success at long stage races. It's why a guy like Davide Rebellin (a confessed EPO user) can win classics and 1 week races but can't do as well at a 3 week race.


The 50% HcT rule does mean that the effects of EPO have been reigned in compared to the "glory days" of the 90's however it doesn't allow for individual rider's natural HcT levels. All it does is put an arbitary cap on things. If anything it skewed things even more, as a rider whose natural HcT was lower was able to top up more than a rider with a higher iniital level.

But the thing that I keep coming back to with Lemond in particular is that there hasn't been so much as a peep about him being a user of anything. Now that is understandable for the time that he was riding and beyond as the omerta was strong. But once he started to speak out so vociferously against doping with references to his decline being very clearly about EPO etc, there still was silence. 

Looking at his team history one can also see that he rode for two of the cleanest Directeur Sportifs of the 80's & 90's, Koechli & Legeay. 

Now I have to admit that I grew up in cycling in the early 80's so Lemond, Kelly, Millar & Fignon were my idols and I'd be disappointed if any of them were shown to be less talented than their results suggest. But just looking at the available evidence, both direct & circumstantial, leads me to one of two conclusions. Either that Lemond was clean as a whistle or he was and is a master manipulator of gargantuan proportions. 

If one spouts off in public to the degree that Lemond has and does about doping someone somewhere will say something. They may not go through the proper channels and speak publicly but they will say something and in time it will come out into public. SOmewhere there has to be some ex-pro from that era who will hear his comments and say "who the hell does he think he is, Mother Teresa?" Yet in the 16 years or so that Lemond has been retired we have heard SFA, not a dickie bird!


----------



## kiroskka

davidka said:


> EPO only raises the "redline" in the pre 50% HcT rule era. .


Still, though, it wasn't exactly too difficult for a rider (or doctor for that matter) to dilute his blood to temporarily get below 50% after the rule was imposed, like using Haemaccel for example. 





ultimobici said:


> If anything it skewed things even more, as a rider whose natural HcT was lower was able to top up more than a rider with a higher iniital level.


One could even go so far as to say it falsified results in assuming everyone was equally doped, since exactly how well a rider responded to r-EPO treatment was under genetic control


----------



## davidka

kiroskka said:


> Still, though, it wasn't exactly too difficult for a rider (or doctor for that matter) to dilute his blood to temporarily get below 50% after the rule was imposed, like using Haemaccel for example.


Certainly, as well as the variability of the advantage. Jonathan Vaughters was approved to race above 50% for example. A rider that naturally hovered around 38% could make huge gains.

I meant more to point out that prior to EPO there were highly effective performance enhancers, especailly for long duration recovery. Not to mentinon the existence of other blood doping methods at the time.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

davidka said:


> Certainly, as well as the variability of the advantage. Jonathan Vaughters was approved to race above 50% for example. A rider that naturally hovered around 38% could make huge gains.
> 
> I meant more to point out that prior to EPO there were highly effective performance enhancers, especailly for long duration recovery. Not to mentinon the existence of other blood doping methods at the time.


There is zero evidence of GT riders using blood doping prior to EPO. 

Rider after rider has talked about this issue. Mottet, Hampsten, LeMond, Fignon, Rooks EPO changed the game. Doping went from a optional way to race 200 days a year to a mandatory part of the game.


----------



## davidka

Doctor Falsetti said:


> There is zero evidence of GT riders using blood doping prior to EPO.
> 
> Rider after rider has talked about this issue. Mottet, Hampsten, LeMond, Fignon, Rooks EPO changed the game. Doping went from a optional way to race 200 days a year to a mandatory part of the game.


 Autologous blood doping existed long before EPO and is seemingly still employed. It's beyond any search for evidence, it's known fact. You (and the UCI, WADA) give EPO more credit than it deserves. EPO was never the only way, just the best way.

Wasn't it Charly Gaul that was quoted as saying, "You don't finish the Tour on baguettes and Perrier"? 

Effective cheating was not born with EPO, niether was secrecy and lying about it's methods.


----------



## PhatTalc

davidka said:


> Autologous blood doping existed long before EPO and is seemingly still employed. It's beyond any search for evidence, it's known fact. You (and the UCI, WADA) give EPO more credit than it deserves. EPO was never the only way, just the best way.
> 
> Wasn't it Charly Gaul that was quoted as saying, "You don't finish the Tour on baguettes and Perrier"?
> 
> Effective cheating was not born with EPO, niether was secrecy and lying about it's methods.


This is all true, but Dr. Falsetti claimed that blood doping had not been used in GTs until the EPO era, not that blood doping did not exist. Considering that transfusions were allowed until circa 1985 (US olympics team being the famous example), why did no one say they used them during a GT until that time? i.e a claim like "we did transfusions on the rest day, but the UCI was fine with that (until 1985)". I believe the answer is that the practise was too much risk/too little reward.


----------



## orange_julius

PhatTalc said:


> This is all true, but Dr. Falsetti claimed that blood doping had not been used in GTs until the EPO era, not that blood doping did not exist. Considering that transfusions were allowed until circa 1985 (US olympics team being the famous example), why did no one say they used them during a GT until that time? i.e a claim like "we did transfusions on the rest day, but the UCI was fine with that (until 1985)". I believe the answer is that the practise was too much risk/too little reward.


I'm not an expert on this subject and I am not a medical scientist, but I notice often in these discussions the commentators assume that training, technology development, and doping in cycling are all cutting-edge. I think the truth is very far from this. A lot of the practices in cycling were developed by a very small community, by people who are not even technical experts in their areas of practice. The revolutions happen only because of a small number of "innovators". This is the same as in other areas, black helicopters notwithstanding. 

The following document, while I cannot personally vouch for its accuracy, claims that Ed Burke was the first to propose the use of blood doping for cycling in 1983. 
http://www.stanford.edu/~learnest/cyclops/dopes.htm
The Europeans -- specifically the Italians -- seem to have picked up on the technique during the research of Cecchini, Ferrari and Conconi. They were preparing for Moser's hour record attempt. The technique then spread from there. Reading Fignon's autobiography and Kimmage's books, their indirect recounting seems consistent with this timeline. 

Interestingly, a "Dr. Herman Falsetti" was mentioned in the above document. Could it be that it is the same Dr. Falsetti that is a regular poster here?


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

davidka said:


> Autologous blood doping existed long before EPO and is seemingly still employed. It's beyond any search for evidence, it's known fact. You (and the UCI, WADA) give EPO more credit than it deserves. EPO was never the only way, just the best way.
> 
> Wasn't it Charly Gaul that was quoted as saying, "You don't finish the Tour on baguettes and Perrier"?
> 
> Effective cheating was not born with EPO, niether was secrecy and lying about it's methods.


There have been dozens of books and hundreds of articles on doping in the 80's. Zero mention of Blood doping in GT's. In his book Fignon talks about about doping, what he used and why. He goes out of his way to say that he he had never heard or seen Blood doping in the 80's and that EPO completely changed the sport. Kimmage wrote about doping in his book and fingers Roche. Don't you think if he saw his roommate, Roche, transfusing a bag of blood he would have said something? Giro, Tour, Worlds. Did anyone have a better year then Roche in the 80's?

I am not the only one who gives EPO credit for changing the sport, Hampsten, Lemond, Rooks, Fignon, and many others agree.


----------



## davidka

1985 LA times:

Blood transfusions for the 1984 US olympic team. They were amatuers, not pros. If it was reported in the US in 1985, how long could it have been going on in high stakes professional racing, where transfusions were legal before.

http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/latimes...onfirms+Blood+Doping+by+Cyclists&pqatl=google

19603 -Gastone Nencini of Italy, was discovered by Tour de France doctor Pierre Dumas in his bedroom with plastic tubes running from each arm to a bottle of blood; retransfusion was a legal practice at the time.[32] In the 1930s Scandinavian runners were believed to have used retransfusion to increase the number of corpuscles that carry oxygen to the muscles. In 1972, Dr Björn Ekblom of the Sport and Gymnastics Institute in Stockholm found that retransfusing cells increased oxygen uptake by nine per cent and athletic potential by 23 per cent."

They say EPO changed the sport, but what was it before?


----------



## davidka

multiple posts..


----------



## davidka

multiple posts..


----------



## SilasCL

davidka said:


> 1985 LA times:
> 
> Blood transfusions for the 1984 US olympic team. They were amatuers, not pros. If it was reported in the US in 1985, how long could it have been going on in high stakes professional racing, where transfusions were legal before.
> 
> http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/latimes...onfirms+Blood+Doping+by+Cyclists&pqatl=google
> 
> 19603 -Gastone Nencini of Italy, was discovered by Tour de France doctor Pierre Dumas in his bedroom with plastic tubes running from each arm to a bottle of blood; retransfusion was a legal practice at the time.[32] In the 1930s Scandinavian runners were believed to have used retransfusion to increase the number of corpuscles that carry oxygen to the muscles. In 1972, Dr Björn Ekblom of the Sport and Gymnastics Institute in Stockholm found that retransfusing cells increased oxygen uptake by nine per cent and athletic potential by 23 per cent."
> 
> They say EPO changed the sport, but what was it before?


No one is saying that blood doping didn't happen or wasn't possible for professional cyclists, just that it has never been discussed and there's no evidence it occurred during that time period.

I think there are some reasons that blood transfusions would not be the optimal way to dope for a cyclist in the 1980s. These guys were not making big salaries, and blood doping is a pretty expensive operation. To dope with your own blood you have to endure periods of decreased performance when blood is drawn to get the boost down the road when it is reintroduced. Cyclists in the '80s were expected to race a fuller season than current pros, and that drop in form may not have been worth the payback down the road. Most of the blood doping back then (Finnish runners, '84 USA cycling team, Moser's hour record) was used for a very short peak, not a full season or even a GT. Taking blood from another person would be the obvious way around many of these problems, but you have the possibility of side effects even if they are the same blood type.


----------



## davidka

SilasCL said:


> No one is saying that blood doping didn't happen or wasn't possible for professional cyclists, just that it has never been discussed and there's no evidence it occurred during that time period.
> 
> .


He said no evidence, I provided a record of a rider taking blood transfusion in 1960. Dr. Conconi proposed blood doping as a policy to the Italian sports federation around 1980. It was legal and I believe commonplace.

EPO came around and a generation of dominant riders were ushered out. They weren't any cleaner than the guys that were beating them, just less advanced.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

davidka said:


> 1985 LA times:
> 
> Blood transfusions for the 1984 US olympic team. They were amatuers, not pros. If it was reported in the US in 1985, how long could it have been going on in high stakes professional racing, where transfusions were legal before.
> 
> http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/latimes...onfirms+Blood+Doping+by+Cyclists&pqatl=google
> 
> 19603 -Gastone Nencini of Italy, was discovered by Tour de France doctor Pierre Dumas in his bedroom with plastic tubes running from each arm to a bottle of blood; retransfusion was a legal practice at the time.[32] In the 1930s Scandinavian runners were believed to have used retransfusion to increase the number of corpuscles that carry oxygen to the muscles. In 1972, Dr Björn Ekblom of the Sport and Gymnastics Institute in Stockholm found that retransfusing cells increased oxygen uptake by nine per cent and athletic potential by 23 per cent."
> 
> They say EPO changed the sport, but what was it before?


Thanks for proving my point. No evidence of GT riders using blood doping prior to EPO. The Nencini story was miss-translated once but reading the original text with the statement of Doctor Dumas it is clear Nencini was using hormones, not blood



> L’année suivante, en 1960, le Dr Pierre Dumas, médecin du Tour de France, en entrant dans la chambre du champion italien Gastone Nencini, le trouve allongé sur son lit, « les deux bras reliés à un bocal, se prêtant à une double perfusion de sérum à base d’hormones mâles ».





> 'The following year, in 1960, Dr. Pierre Dumas, doctor of the Tour de France, entering the room of the Italian champion Gastone Nencini, found lying on his bed, "the two arms connected to a jar, suitable for a double infusion of serum-based male hormones.


In English here. 

http://books.google.com/books?id=Oc...#v=onepage&q=Gastone Nencini hormones&f=false

In French here
http://www.vcpcv.net/mespages/conseils/bionique.php
Let us know when you have any evidence of riders in the 80's using blood doping.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

davidka said:


> He said no evidence, I provided a record of a rider taking blood transfusion in 1960. Dr. Conconi proposed blood doping as a policy to the Italian sports federation around 1980. It was legal and I believe commonplace.
> 
> EPO came around and a generation of dominant riders were ushered out. They weren't any cleaner than the guys that were beating them, just less advanced.


You provide evidence of a rider using hormones, not blood doping. There is a difference. 

If it was commonplace then it should be easy for you to find some evidence of GT riders using blood doping in the 80's Let us know when you find some.


----------



## davidka

I guess it's up to what you consider evidence. You clearly won't be convinced unless a top name pro tesitifies before a judge. American amatuers blood doping and Lemond riding the fastest average speed ever in a Tour TT on the last day is proof in my eyes. An all time record after 21 days of racing is impossible to achieve by a clean athlete. Blood doping was evident in endurance athletes through the 70's and by the late 80's EPO became available.

It's ok, you can idolize riders from any era you choose. They all make the same sacrifices, the chemistry has just improved over the years.

I'm offering my point of view but I don't have a need to spend a bunch of time to convince anyone.


----------



## SilasCL

davidka said:


> I guess it's up to what you consider evidence. You clearly won't be convinced unless a top name pro tesitifies before a judge. American amatuers blood doping and Lemond riding the fastest average speed ever in a Tour TT on the last day is proof in my eyes. An all time record after 21 days of racing is impossible to achieve by a clean athlete. Blood doping was evident in endurance athletes through the 70's and by the late 80's EPO became available.
> 
> It's ok, you can idolize riders from any era you choose. They all make the same sacrifices, the chemistry has just improved over the years.
> 
> I'm offering my point of view but I don't have a need to spend a bunch of time to convince anyone.


This is nutty. Does this mean every world record is proof of blood doping?


----------



## DMFT

C'mon davidka, those were "iron shots" GL took. For reals.

- IMO (more seriously), since the age of the internet, "word", "proof", "inuendo" all has come into an age all it's own.....

Let's just figure THEY ALL do it in some way, shape, or form.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

davidka said:


> I guess it's up to what you consider evidence. You clearly won't be convinced unless a top name pro tesitifies before a judge. American amatuers blood doping and Lemond riding the fastest average speed ever in a Tour TT on the last day is proof in my eyes. An all time record after 21 days of racing is impossible to achieve by a clean athlete. Blood doping was evident in endurance athletes through the 70's and by the late 80's EPO became available.
> 
> It's ok, you can idolize riders from any era you choose. They all make the same sacrifices, the chemistry has just improved over the years.
> 
> I'm offering my point of view but I don't have a need to spend a bunch of time to convince anyone.


Now you are grasping at straws.

The TT was short, downhill, straight, with a tailwind. It is not the fastest TT, David Z has that. Armstrong averaged almost as fast on a course almost twice as long with climbs. Lemonds watts were estimated at 405, nothing compared to Armstrong 495 over a longer time. Lemond did not dominate the competition that day. Thierry Marie was only 33 seconds back and he rode with no aero bars. With the bars Marie might have won the stage

If you ever do find some evidence of Greg Lemond doping there is money to be made. The offer is up to $300,000 now. Armstrong and The Hog have asked former LeMond teammates, friends and staff for the last few years trying to find someone who needs money and will invent a story......so far no luck.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

DMFT said:


> C'mon davidka, those were "iron shots" GL took. For reals.
> 
> - IMO (more seriously), since the age of the internet, "word", "proof", "inuendo" all has come into an age all it's own.....
> 
> Let's just figure THEY ALL do it in some way, shape, or form.


No, lets not. The fact is in the 80's there were riders, and directors, who did not dope. There were teams that did not dope. 

Irons shots? Really. LeMond comes down stairs to do an interview with a journalist at the Giro. He spends the first 10 minutes telling the reporter that he had just taken an iron shot because of his anemia. He tells the reporter about how he does not like needles, had gone his entire career without using them..... more importantly how he does not like what they represent in the sport. 

Only Armstrong's spin machine can turn this into Greg using some super secret dope....which he of course runs to tell a reporter about. 

The desperation is obvious.


----------



## davidka

SilasCL said:


> This is nutty. Does this mean every world record is proof of blood doping?


 Most record achievements are performed with a fresh body and preparation. The record I refer to was performed (I'll say it again) on the last day of a 21 day stage race.

Edit: Like I said Dr. F, you can idolize whoever you want. If you want to believe Lemond was a Superman among dopers, knock yourself out.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

Perhaps it would be good to hear from the people who were actually there. From the 1993 book, Inside the Tour de France, Chapter 10: The doctors tale.

*Jean-Paul Van Poppel*,former 80s star & director of Cervelo Test team, Vacansoleil next year....and super guy. He was the subject of a seperate chapter in the book talking about doping.

_*"People see injections as doping. A man riding the Tour needs more vitamins than the normal person. In my mind what is not banned is not doping. But there are riders who ride the Tour de France without vitamins and all that stuff. Its possible".

"I know Paul Koechli's team(Helvetia), they never rode with any vitamins or anything else. He was against all of this. He doesnt like injections, just Supradine. No needles never. Its possible for a strong rider like Steve Bauer who rode for Koechli's team."

"Whatever happened to Koechli's ideas"*_

, Paul Koechli who says his ideas were a success.

"_*I founded a company in Switzerland which controlled the team and I ran that team from 1988 to 92 without one needle. The process was more important to me that the results and I could do it because it was my team and I owned the company. I had the freedom to do it. We had less money but we had very good results. We had the yellow jersey in the Tour for 10 days, Steve was fourth in the 88 Tour and the many riders in my team became convinced it was possible to do this job without doing what so many had told them they should do".*_

Koechli's success with the La Vie Claire team in the 80s is also mentioned, the team won 2 Tours with Hinault & LeMond. 

*Although he is reluctant to be specific, Koechli was not impressed by everything at La Vie Claire. 

"About my experience in France, I cannot say no one ever took drugs. I never saw it but I know it happened. I changed the team because of this reason. The difficulty was at the time I went to La Vie Claire, the team was already built"

Central to Koechli' philosophy is the belief that cyclists take drugs because of a psychological dependence. Physically they dont need them, a view confirmed by the performance of Greg LeMond. 

"I know that Greg, when he was in my team, did not use any stuff. I say that 200% certain and he won the Tour. So you can win the Tour without drugs. This is important because so many riders are dependant. It is like a ritual, they cannot live without them"*

On Bauer & LeMond

*"They had a different attitude, they had their own knowledge about training and physiology and that kept them away from what should not be done. They also had strong personalities and so they could resist. But if you have grown up in a bad environment, it is vey difficult to resist."
*
Bernard Tapie who funded the La Vie Claire said Bauer & LeMond were the only two riders he was sure didn;t use drugs.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

davidka said:


> Most record achievements are performed with a fresh body and preparation. The record I refer to was performed (I'll say it again) on the last day of a 21 day stage race.


Except it is not a record. Dave Z has it, on a harder course. 



> He set a record for a time trial, completing the opening stage at 54.676km/h – the fastest ever in the Tour


Le Tour Website

Tell you what, I will race you on Alp d'Huez....except you have to go up and I get to ride down. Guess who will win?


----------



## DMFT

Doctor Falsetti said:


> No, lets not. The fact is in the 80's there were riders, and directors, who did not dope. There were teams that did not dope.
> 
> Irons shots? Really. LeMond comes down stairs to do an interview with a journalist at the Giro. He spends the first 10 minutes telling the reporter that he had just taken an iron shot because of his anemia. He tells the reporter about how he does not like needles, had gone his entire career without using them..... more importantly how he does not like what they represent in the sport.
> 
> Only Armstrong's spin machine can turn this into Greg using some super secret dope....which he of course runs to tell a reporter about.
> 
> The desperation is obvious.



- You "REALLY" couldn't read sarcasm into that "iron shot" comment. Really??!!  

You "really" are the biggest GL homer to walk the face of the earth, really. 
YOU using "spin machine" is rich. Really, REALLY rich. Hey, LA had the "secret sauce"....why couldn't GL?  

- I've "heard" BTW - they ALL dope(d) (GL too) from the 1st American to ride Le Tour in the local peleton. Where do I get my 300k?


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

DMFT said:


> - You "REALLY" couldn't read sarcasm into that "iron shot" comment. Really??!!
> 
> You "really" are the biggest GL homer to walk the face of the earth, really.
> YOU using "spin machine" is rich. Really, REALLY rich. Hey, LA had the "secret sauce"....why couldn't GL?
> 
> - I've "heard" BTW - they ALL dope(d) (GL too) from the 1st American to ride Le Tour in the local peleton. Where do I get my 300k?


So facts, information from riders and DS' from the 80's, etc. make me a homer? And the claims of a pedophile do what exactly? 

They were never friends, never rode together, and when asked Jock has said the exact opposite. If you are able to convince someone to go public I suggest you call 512-370-1919 and ask for Bart. maybe you can get a finders fee?


----------



## PhatTalc

davidka said:


> Most record achievements are performed with a fresh body and preparation. The record I refer to was performed (I'll say it again) on the last day of a 21 day stage race.
> 
> Edit: Like I said Dr. F, you can idolize whoever you want. If you want to believe Lemond was a Superman among dopers, knock yourself out.


And again, downhill with a tailwind, and also short at 25km.


----------



## ultimobici

davidka said:


> Most record achievements are performed with a fresh body and preparation. The record I refer to was performed (I'll say it again) on the last day of a 21 day stage race.


Lemond was riding for a team that was not even paying its riders. How on earth would they be able to afford the medical staff to administer the transfusions?



> Edit: Like I said Dr. F, you can idolize whoever you want. If you want to believe Lemond was a Superman among dopers, knock yourself out.


Look at the results of the late 80's and the riders who were winning big. 

Lemond - 89 WC TdF
Mottet - 88 Lombardia 87 & 89 Dauphine 85, 87 & 88 GP des Nations
Bauer - 89 GP de Zurich
Millar - 90 Dauphine 87 Giro (2nd) Mountain Tour stage 89

EPO was a game changer without question. One can see it in the results and the premature decline/retirement of some riders. Delion retired at 28 FFS!


----------



## mohair_chair

Two things completely wash out your argument. 

1. Teams didn't usually have team doctors back then. He would have had to hire his own help.

2. Lemond was not without funds to pay for his own medical help. He was famously making $1 million a year in salary from 1984 to 1986. Coming back from his accident, he made $350,000 in 1988. His 1989 salary was reported between $500,000 and $750,000. Even if he had spent all his previous earnings , wasn't getting paid by the team, and was essentially broke, he had worked a side deal in 1989 for $225,000 from Coors that year to ride six races in the US wearing a Coors Light jersey. 

So, Lemond was one of the few guys who could pay for his own medical help. And it would have been a good investment, considering he signed a new contract after the TDF that paid him $1.8 million a year.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

mohair_chair said:


> Two things completely wash out your argument.
> 
> 1. Teams didn't usually have team doctors back then. He would have had to hire his own help.
> 
> 2. Lemond was not without funds to pay for his own medical help. He was famously making $1 million a year in salary from 1984 to 1986. Coming back from his accident, he made $350,000 in 1988. His 1989 salary was reported between $500,000 and $750,000. Even if he had spent all his previous earnings , wasn't getting paid by the team, and was essentially broke, he had worked a side deal in 1989 for $225,000 from Coors that year to ride six races in the US wearing a Coors Light jersey.
> 
> So, Lemond was one of the few guys who could pay for his own medical help. And it would have been a good investment, considering he signed a new contract after the TDF that paid him $1.8 million a year.


Did you invent those numbers? 

Lemond was not making $1,000,000 per year in 84, 85, 86. He signed a "$1,000,000" contract with Tapie that was actually $225,000, $260,000 and $300,000 for the three years. 

Greg lived pretty high and having almost two years without an income set him back. He was not poor but hardly rich. 

Regardless. There were plenty of riders with means that chose not to dope. It was possible to ride, and win, without dope prior to EPO. Even Fignon says this in his book, Willy Voight said it. Peter Winnen said it. Bauer, Hampsten, Tilford, Mottet, Koechli, All agree. 

It seems the only people who do not agree are a bunch of guys on the internet who only started following the sport after 1999.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

ultimobici said:


> EPO was a game changer without question. One can see it in the results and the premature decline/retirement of some riders. *Delion retired at 28 FFS*!


Delion is a great example of a rider whose career was killed by EPO. The guy won Lombardy at 23! The White Jersey at the Tour the same year. He refused to dope. He went with Koechli' little team until it folded. 

In an interview in l'Equipe he talked about riders with Thermos' for their EPO, etc....and people talked about him like he was an idiot.....but of course he was right.


----------



## ultimobici

mohair_chair said:


> Two things completely wash out your argument.
> 
> 1. Teams didn't usually have team doctors back then. He would have had to hire his own help.
> 
> 2. Lemond was not without funds to pay for his own medical help. He was famously making $1 million a year in salary from 1984 to 1986. Coming back from his accident, he made $350,000 in 1988. His 1989 salary was reported between $500,000 and $750,000. Even if he had spent all his previous earnings , wasn't getting paid by the team, and was essentially broke, he had worked a side deal in 1989 for $225,000 from Coors that year to ride six races in the US wearing a Coors Light jersey.
> 
> So, Lemond was one of the few guys who could pay for his own medical help. And it would have been a good investment, considering he signed a new contract after the TDF that paid him $1.8 million a year.


Check your facts. Lemond didn't sign with Tapie & La Vie Claire until the 85 season. The deal was $1M over 3 years, his Z contract was £5.5m over three years.

If Lemond was prepared to use blood doping why did he not go the whole hog and use EPO? Why did Fignon not do the same too? As far as the evidence goes neither rider did. They drew a line, Fignon's was a little further towards assistance than Lemond's but nevertheless they both declined to join the EPO/blood doping party.

And sorry to sound like a stuck record, but where is that one person calling Lemond a hypocrite for his stance on doping? I'll tell you - in Lance Armstrong's vindictive imagination.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

It is important to note the LeMond was anti doping from early on. This was not just something that he picked up after he retired. 

When he was at PDM it became clear that they were going to institute a team wide doping program run by doctors. First Jensen and later Wim Sanders. LeMond wanted nothing to do with it and negotiated an exit from his contract.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

davidka said:


> Most record achievements are performed with a fresh body and preparation. The record I refer to was performed (I'll say it again) on the last day of a 21 day stage race.
> 
> Edit: Like I said Dr. F, you can idolize whoever you want. If you want to believe Lemond was a Superman among dopers, knock yourself out.


What is superhuman about Lemond's TT? 405 Watts for 26 minutes.....Armstrong held 495 for over 30 minutes as did Ulrich. 

Downhill, straight, wind at his back. If his performance was superhuman Marie would not have been 33 seconds back using bull horn bars


----------



## davidka

Doctor Falsetti said:


> What is superhuman about Lemond's TT? 405 Watts for 26 minutes.....Armstrong held 495 for over 30 minutes as did Ulrich.
> 
> Downhill, straight, wind at his back. If his performance was superhuman Marie would not have been 33 seconds back using bull horn bars


I think your wattage estimates may be a little off. How can a guy of similar weight make 90 more watts and not go faster nearly everywhere? Shouldn't all of Ullrich and LA's flat TT's have been faster? Cancellara's? And if you want to call 0.3% downhill, ok. The thing that makes me skeptical is how few of the legions of known dopers (pre and post EPO) have managed to go faster. 

As for what people said from the 80's, the Omerta didn't begin when riders started using EPO and it doesn't stop when they end their riding careers. They all have legacies to protect.


----------



## DMFT

Doctor Falsetti said:


> So facts, information from riders and DS' from the 80's, etc. make me a homer? And the claims of a pedophile do what exactly?
> 
> They were never friends, never rode together, and when asked Jock has said the exact opposite. If you are able to convince someone to go public I suggest you call 512-370-1919 and ask for Bart. maybe you can get a finders fee?



- Facts? There's nothing there either way to proove "True or False". Just "words".
To my knowledge, none of GL's blood is frozen somewhere....

And what precedent/standard is there for belief? A "pedophile" or a thief/liar??? (FL)
And what would their being "friends" have to do with anything.

Admit it "Dr.", the WHOLE sport (or spectacle as I call it) is tainted.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

davidka said:


> I think your wattage estimates may be a little off. How can a guy of similar weight make 90 more watts and not go faster nearly everywhere? Shouldn't all of Ullrich and LA's flat TT's have been faster? Cancellara's? And if you want to call 0.3% downhill, ok. The thing that makes me skeptical is how few of the legions of known dopers (pre and post EPO) have managed to go faster.
> 
> As for what people said from the 80's, the Omerta didn't begin when riders started using EPO and it doesn't stop when they end their riding careers. They all have legacies to protect.


You are really confused. 

In 2000, on a course that was *over twice as long* Armstrong averaged only .5kmh slower.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

DMFT said:


> - Facts? There's nothing there either way to proove "True or False". Just "words".
> To my knowledge, none of GL's blood is frozen somewhere....
> 
> And what precedent/standard is there for belief? A "pedophile" or a thief/liar??? (FL)
> And what would their being "friends" have to do with anything.
> 
> Admit it "Dr.", the WHOLE sport (or spectacle as I call it) is tainted.


I would be interested if you found someone who actually might have some first hand knowledge, but you haven't. There has been so much written about doping in the 80's, but none of it mentions LeMond. In fact quite the opposite. Rider after rider, DS after DS, say that he was clean. 

If Floyd was the only guy talking I would be skeptical, but he isn't.


----------



## davidka

Doctor Falsetti said:


> You are really confused.
> 
> In 2000, on a course that was *over twice as long* Armstrong averaged only .5kmh slower.


So Lance and his rivals were all clean then? If GL was clean and EPO was so effective I can't see how he could still be faster. It's impossible to believe.


----------



## mohair_chair

The facts are that Lemond had made plenty of money, and was making plenty of money, and was well able to fund his own doping program. I never said that's what he did. I merely responded to your point that the team wasn't paying the riders, and therefore they couldn't afford to dope. Certainly in Lemond's case, that was not true.


----------



## ultimobici

davidka said:


> So Lance and his rivals were all clean then? If GL was clean and EPO was so effective I can't see how he could still be faster. It's impossible to believe.


The TT from Versailles to the centre of Paris was 27km long, had a slight downward slope aided by a tailwind. It was also the last day of the Tour, Lemond could afford to "go for broke" as he had no need to conserve energy for the next day. 

As Dr F said, Thierry Marie was only 33 seconds behind without the aid of tri-bars and Fignon a further 25 seconds back. Fignon had three things counting against him that day. First, he assumed that the race was already his, second, he was suffering from a saddle sore that prevented him sitting straight on the bike and finally no tri-bars.

That Armstron & his contemporaries didn't break Lemond's speed in TT's is down to the fact that there has not been a course as short in the intervening years. Dave Z broke Lemond's record in 2005 on a course that was shorter but with a headwind and a climb, albeit only a little one. Funny thing is when you compare the average speeds of the top 3 in 89 to the top 3 in 2005, Lemond, Marie & Fignon would have finished 3rd, 4th & 5th to Armstron & Dave Z. Vino would be 6th. How can you explain two riders without tri-bars kicking all but two of the field of 16 years later?


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

davidka said:


> So Lance and his rivals were all clean then? If GL was clean and EPO was so effective I can't see how he could still be faster. It's impossible to believe.


I assume you are joking at this point.

Even you can understand that riding the same speed over a course that is 30km longer and with 900 feet of additional vertical is a far superior performance. 

Do you actually ride?


----------



## Coolhand

*Moderators Note*

Stick to the point, no insults or personal attacks. Lets try to keep the thread civil, or track and most importantly open. 

Thanks for your understanding. 

/Moderator hat off

Quick question- do people think the Badger was clean?


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

Coolhand said:


> Stick to the point, no insults or personal attacks. Lets try to keep the thread civil, or track and most importantly open.
> 
> Thanks for your understanding.
> 
> /Moderator hat off
> 
> *Quick question- do people think the Badger was clean?*


I doubt it. 

He lead several rider protests against doping controls in the Tour and other races. He has suggested multiple times that HGH, Testosterone, and cortisone doping should be OK if supervised by a doctor. He supported Moser's blood doping and tried to paint Bassons as only out for money. 

While he never tested positive he did avoid a doping control at a Post Tour Crit in 1982. He was also named as a customer of a doping product distribution ring in 1987. Throughout his career he worked with doping doctors, first Francis Bellocq then Bernard Sainz (Dr. Mabuse). 

I could go on but I am sure you get the picture......interesting how there is nothing similar on LeMond

Koechli never said Hinault won the tour clean, like he did LeMond, and he was his manager too. Bernard Tapie, owner of the team said the only guys he knew that definitely didnt dope were LeMond and Bauer, not Hinault, 

Please note my question to David on his riding experience is not a personal attack. I am sure that he is a very nice guy and it is clear he is a valuable member of the forum with a good grasp of the technical and political aspect of the sport but most riders understand that distance, vertical gain, wind direction, and number of turns can have a serious effect on average speed.


----------



## ultimobici

Coolhand said:


> Quick question- do people think the Badger was clean?


Difficult one, I'm not sure about Hinault. 

I wonder if he was as close as we would ever get to seeing another Merckx. His dominance from almost day one as a professional has never been done since so perhaps he was just a genetic freak. On the other hand his knee issues point to possible abuse of cortisone which allowed one to push oneself past one's knees limits. Who knows?


----------



## Coolhand

Thanks!!

:thumbsup:


----------



## PhatTalc

ultimobici said:


> Difficult one, I'm not sure about Hinault.
> 
> I wonder if he was as close as we would ever get to seeing another Merckx. His dominance from almost day one as a professional has never been done since so perhaps he was just a genetic freak. On the other hand his knee issues point to possible abuse of cortisone which allowed one to push oneself past one's knees limits. Who knows?


Lemond claimed that Hinault's VO2 max was around 88 ml/kg/min, which is right up there with the other genetic freaks. This would also been in accord with his winning of many kinds of races- PR/GTs (all of them). As Dr. Falsetti pointed out, there is no reason to believe Hinault was whiter than white. Having seen the famous clip from that Dauphine stage where he rode off the mountain, I expect he was probably on PCP half the time.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

One thing to note about the Badger. He was perhaps the last "Patron" of the peloton who raced all year. From KBK to Lombardia the guy raced and won all year long. The drugs that were available at the time were focused on enabling this type of season. Most would do little to help you climb Alp d'Huez 5 minutes faster but they would allow you to race 200+ days a year.


----------



## davidka

Doctor Falsetti said:



> I assume you are joking at this point.
> 
> Even you can understand that riding the same speed over a course that is 30km longer and with 900 feet of additional vertical is a far superior performance.
> 
> Do you actually ride?


Yes, I do ride. I have been riding competitively in some form or another for 30 years. I understand your point and it is valid but it assumes physiological equality. You have argued that GL is clean and that EPO changed everything which I take to mean that in your eyes it created an advantage that was impossible to overcome. I estimate that this advantage would have surely burried these average speeds/times from the 80's well into distant memories yet as ultimobici pointed out, GL and his competitor's times that day are on par with modern speeds, on modern equipment with presumably modern "preperation". This can't have been the only day in TdF TT history with a favorable wind.

I haven't been able to find it since but I did see a comparison that showed GL's time/speed to be right in there with some of the fastest prologue's in TdF history (most notably I recall Fabian Cancellara's 7km avg.). If someone knows of this resource, please post it.


----------



## ultimobici

PhatTalc said:


> Lemond claimed that Hinault's VO2 max was around 88 ml/kg/min, which is right up there with the other genetic freaks. This would also been in accord with his winning of many kinds of races- PR/GTs (all of them). As Dr. Falsetti pointed out, there is no reason to believe Hinault was whiter than white. Having seen the famous clip from that Dauphine stage where he rode off the mountain, I expect he was probably on PCP half the time.


The look in his eyes is a little scary, I agree!


----------



## ultimobici

davidka said:


> Yes, I do ride. I have been riding competitively in some form or another for 30 years. I understand your point and it is valid but it assumes physiological equality. You have argued that GL is clean and that EPO changed everything which I take to mean that in your eyes it created an advantage that was impossible to overcome. I estimate that this advantage would have surely burried these average speeds/times from the 80's well into distant memories yet as ultimobici pointed out, GL and his competitor's times that day are on par with modern speeds, on modern equipment with presumably modern "preperation". This can't have been the only day in TdF TT history with a favorable wind.
> 
> I haven't been able to find it since but I did see a comparison that showed GL's time/speed to be right in there with some of the fastest prologue's in TdF history (most notably I recall Fabian Cancellara's 7km avg.). If someone knows of this resource, please post it.


The thing with the 89 time trial is that the three riders Lemond, Marie and Fignon were in the top echelon of timetrial riders in the 80's. Marie was a short TT specialist, Fignon won the GP des Nations on more than one occasion & Lemond was always up there in the GP des Nations too.

Fignon thought he had the Tour in the bag, tradition dictated that the jersey was not attacked on the last day although the TT effectively voided that. But also it was inconceivable to him an Guimard that Lemond could take 2 sec/km let alone almost 2.5 sec/km off him. They were unaware of the advantage that the tri-bars gave. To compare them try plugging in the same data bar the handlebars to this calculator. It's worth a hell of a lot. http://bikecalculator.com/veloMetric.html

Lemond had nothing to lose at all. If he won the stage but failed to win overall he'd still have been a valiant hero. It didn't matter what energy he expended on the day, there was no need to conserve energy. You make a point that it was at the end of the Tour after 21 days racing. But you're overlooking Lemond's incredible recovery capacity that he'd had all along. 

Marie was up there for another reason. 1989 was the Bicentennial of the French Revolution. He was shooting for immortality as a French rider. To be the man who won on the Champs Elysees would have put him in the record books forever.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

davidka said:


> Yes, I do ride. I have been riding competitively in some form or another for 30 years. I understand your point and it is valid but it assumes physiological equality. You have argued that GL is clean and that EPO changed everything which I take to mean that in your eyes it created an advantage that was impossible to overcome. I estimate that this advantage would have surely burried these average speeds/times from the 80's well into distant memories yet as ultimobici pointed out, GL and his competitor's times that day are on par with modern speeds, on modern equipment with presumably modern "preperation". This can't have been the only day in TdF TT history with a favorable wind.
> 
> I haven't been able to find it since but I did see a comparison that showed GL's time/speed to be right in there with some of the fastest prologue's in TdF history (most notably I recall Fabian Cancellara's 7km avg.). If someone knows of this resource, please post it.


You do realize that course can have a large effect on speed? In the earlier TT of the Tour in 89 Lemond only averaged 44 kph on a course was longer and had more climbing, That is 10kmph slower

That Armstrong was able to go as fast over a course that was 30km longer and 900 feet more climbing should tell you something. It is not possible to pretend they are equivalent.


----------



## SilasCL

Doctor Falsetti said:


> You do realize that course can have a large effect on speed? In the earlier TT of the Tour in 89 Lemond only averaged 44 kph on a course was longer and had more climbing, That is 10kmph slower
> 
> That Armstrong was able to go as fast over a course that was 30km longer and 900 feet more climbing should tell you something. It is not possible to pretend they are equivalent.


Exactly.

Davidka, if you want to look at comparable times then look at climbing times for famous mountains. There's a pretty big jump from Lemond to Armstrong.


----------



## Perico

Doctor Falsetti said:


> You do realize that course can have a large effect on speed? In the earlier TT of the Tour in 89 Lemond only averaged 44 kph on a course was longer and had more climbing, That is 10kmph slower
> 
> That Armstrong was able to go as fast over a course that was 30km longer and 900 feet more climbing should tell you something. It is not possible to pretend they are equivalent.


Do you think it is possible that factors other then doping could have an affect on Armstrong's speed?


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

Perico said:


> Do you think it is possible that factors other then doping could have an affect on Armstrong's speed?


"Interval Workouts" from his "Coach" Dr. Ferrari?


----------



## Perico

Doctor Falsetti said:


> "Interval Workouts" from his "Coach" Dr. Ferrari?


Let's try something new...answer my question.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

Perico said:


> Let's try something new...answer my question.


You may want to open another thread on that topic, this one is about Greg.


----------



## Perico

Doctor Falsetti said:


> You may want to open another thread on that topic, this one is about Greg.


I am asking you a question in response to something you posted. 

Here is a another question for you: Why do you refuse to honestly answer any questions that have to do with LA and are not about calling a him a doper?


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

You appear intent on high jacking this thread to be about Lance. If you fee that the reasons behind his sudden ability to TT have not been discussed to death I suggest you open a new thread


Back on topic. Here is Steve Tillman's view of Greg



> Who impressed you the most during your career?
> ST: Greg Lemond, by a mile; he's the most talented *natural *cyclist I've ever encountered - he could have won the Tour de france when he was 17, I think. There were some of the most talented juniors in the world at that time; guys like Davis Phinney - but Greg was twice as good.


----------



## davidka

Doctor Falsetti said:


> You do realize that course can have a large effect on speed? In the earlier TT of the Tour in 89 Lemond only averaged 44 kph on a course was longer and had more climbing, That is 10kmph slower
> 
> That Armstrong was able to go as fast over a course that was 30km longer and 900 feet more climbing should tell you something. It is not possible to pretend they are equivalent.


I do realize that and it (Lance & Jan's) is another remarkable performance. I still find it remarkable that Lemond's speed (and the other two) was faster than many sub 10k prologues posted by the current best TTers as well as those in the "nuclear 90's". I don't consider 0.3% to be downhill and 25km to be short. Their's on the 1st day, his on the last. With no drugs, against riders we know were on drugs, at the end of a close, hard fought race, this should be impossible.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

davidka said:


> I do realize that and it (Lance & Jan's) is another remarkable performance. I still find it remarkable that Lemond's speed (and the other two) was faster than many sub 10k prologues posted by the current best TTers as well as those in the "nuclear 90's". I don't consider 0.3% to be downhill and 25km to be short. Their's on the 1st day, his on the last. With no drugs, against riders we know were on drugs, at the end of a close, hard fought race, this should be impossible.


Greg estimates averaged about 420- 430 watts. This calculator works out to 421  with a conservative wind estimate. 

Ulrich, Armstrong, Indurain and many more. all were able to hold 20% higher, after long stages, for longer periods. 

Greg's output and w/kg were lower then large numbers of riders in the 90's and 2000's It is myopic to think that output alone is an indicator of doping. Were are the doping doctors? The words of teammates and staff?


----------



## Perico

Doctor Falsetti said:


> You appear intent on high jacking this thread to be about Lance. If you fee that the reasons behind his sudden ability to TT have not been discussed to death I suggest you open a new thread
> 
> 
> Back on topic. Here is Steve Tillman's view of Greg


If I am highjacking then you have already highjacked the thread since you can't seem to post without mentioning LA and trying to make it clear you feel he doped.

What's funny is how, whenever you are asked a question that won't help your pathetic agenda you claim the person is a troll or trying to highjack the thread. That's pretty cowardly.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

Perico said:


> If I am highjacking then you have already highjacked the thread since you can't seem to post without mentioning LA and trying to make it clear you feel he doped.
> 
> What's funny is how, whenever you are asked a question that won't help your pathetic agenda you claim the person is a troll or trying to highjack the thread. That's pretty cowardly.


No, I invited you to continue the discussion in another thread. That invitation is still open.


----------



## Perico

Doctor Falsetti said:


> No, I invited you to continue the discussion in another thread. That invitation is still open.


Why should I open a new thread when all I am doing is asking you a question about something you posted in this thread?

Why do you make so many excuses and do so much to avoid answering questions that don't fit your anti-LA agenda? You remind me of a certain obsessive/stalker type who used to post on all kinds of cycling forums and would do exactly what you do.


----------



## gobes

Does anyone else wish that Perico would just go away?
Then I can get back to reading an actual discussion by rational participants.


----------



## Coolhand

*Moderators Note*

Everyone just stick to the topic. I would also strongly suggest people use the ignore feature. Enough with the discussions of poster's motives, ect. Don't like someone? Use the ignore feature. I swear I got so many reported posts on this thread I thought is was more Russian p0rn spam. Yeesh. 

Open for now- lets try and keep this clean and rational.


----------



## Perico

gobes said:


> Does anyone else wish that Perico would just go away?
> Then I can get back to reading an actual discussion by rational participants.


Perhaps you would like to answer my question that was about what Falsetti and others were discussing...you know, since you are all about "actual discussion by rational participants."


----------



## SilasCL

Perico said:


> Do you think it is possible that factors other then doping could have an affect on Armstrong's speed?


I'll answer, obviously there is more involved in any performance than drugs.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

SilasCL said:


> I'll answer, obviously there is more involved in any performance than drugs.


There is also that part where he turns his legs in a circle. If he did not do that he would not go that fast.....unless he was going downhill with the wind at his back.


----------



## Perico

Thanks Silas, but I was looking to discuss some of the specific things, other then drugs, that might have a part in the speeds increasing in the last 20 years. 

Falsetti,are you really so invested in your agenda that you can't give an honest, intelligent answer to a question that will put a dent in it?


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

Perico said:


> Thanks Silas, but I was looking to discuss some of the specific things, other then drugs, that might have a part in the speeds increasing in the last 20 years.
> 
> Falsetti,are you really so invested in your agenda that you can't give an honest, intelligent answer to a question that will put a dent in it?


To you? The guy who has call me asinine, obsessive stalker with a pathetic agenda?

Besides, I told you I would discuss your Armstrong fetish in another thread but you insist on high jacking this one.


----------



## Perico

Doctor Falsetti said:


> To you? The guy who has call me asinine, obsessive stalker with a pathetic agenda?
> 
> Besides, I told you I would discuss your Armstrong fetish in another thread but you insist on high jacking this one.



1) I highly doubt I have ever called you asinine, I may have said some posts of yours are asinine, but I doubt I called you asinine. The rest of the stuff is proven about you constantly on these forums.

2) Why should I start a new thread to discuss what *you* are discussing in this thread.

3) How can it be high jacking when I am discussing the topic of the thread. If you consider discussing anything about LA in this thread to be high jacking then it happened on page one and you have continued it.

4) This is just another one of your attempts to derail someone from getting you to answer a question with an answer that won't fit your agenda.


----------



## CabDoctor

Man I got my butt handed to me in the Wednesday night crit. So glad I can come back to this thread for a good laugh


----------



## ultimobici

Perico said:


> Thanks Silas, but I was looking to discuss some of the specific things, other then drugs, that might have a part in the speeds increasing in the last 20 years.
> 
> Falsetti,are you really so invested in your agenda that you can't give an honest, intelligent answer to a question that will put a dent in it?


It's funny how these days there are more and more people restoring & riding bikes from the 80's & 90's. But when you compare state-of-the-art kit from 89 to what is available now or even 10 years ago you see how it has to have an effect at the highest level.

Lemond & Fignon had disc wheels & tribars were available to them, but shifting was still on the frame and in Lemond's case friction only. The disc wheels they used were in their infancy in terms of construction techniques & aerodynamics, the frames were heavier & less rigid too.

All of this has to add up to an advantage when used at that level. The biggest factor IMO is advances in the understanding of aerodynamics as they relate to a cyclist. 

Dope has an effect to be sure, but aerodynamics has a big effect too.


----------



## Coolhand

CabDoctor said:


> Man I got my butt handed to me in the Wednesday night crit.


Wednesday night crit in January? Lucky. :thumbsup:


----------



## SilasCL

Perico said:


> Thanks Silas, but I was looking to discuss some of the specific things, other then drugs, that might have a part in the speeds increasing in the last 20 years.
> 
> Falsetti,are you really so invested in your agenda that you can't give an honest, intelligent answer to a question that will put a dent in it?


Here's an interesting post (to me at least) that I made a couple years ago on a similar topic:
http://forums.roadbikereview.com/showpost.php?p=1465730&postcount=105



SilasCL said:


> Just did a quick armchair statistical analysis in Excel. Plugged in the average speed from every year, then did some charts with trendlines.
> 
> The slope over the entire history of of the tour is .1566km/h per year.
> 
> As others have discussed, the pre-WWII time frame is tough to compare as the race was drastically different. So I looked at the slope for post WWII, and it came out to .1232. Not surprising, it was a bit lower as it didn't account for the years before large improvements in bicycles, roads, and peloton size.
> 
> So, if we're using that .1232 as a reasonable benchmark for tour speed increases, how about we see how it compares to the years from 1985 to 1998? While there was definitely doping in 1985, I think we can be pretty confident that EPO was not being used. While in 1998, I think we can be highly confident that EPO was being used regularly during the race. The slope of improvement for this period is .21, much higher than what we've observed for the post-war period as a whole.
> 
> So what other factors could account for this?


----------



## ultimobici

SilasCL said:


> Here's an interesting post (to me at least) that I made a couple years ago on a similar topic:
> http://forums.roadbikereview.com/showpost.php?p=1465730&postcount=105


It's when you actually check out the stats over years that you see peaks & troughs in sync with "events".

I have an excel chart with the average speed, total distance & attrition rates for the Tour since it started. 

I'll try and upload it to googledocs for you to see if interested.


----------



## Perico

ultimobici said:


> It's funny how these days there are more and more people restoring & riding bikes from the 80's & 90's. But when you compare state-of-the-art kit from 89 to what is available now or even 10 years ago you see how it has to have an effect at the highest level.
> 
> Lemond & Fignon had disc wheels & tribars were available to them, but shifting was still on the frame and in Lemond's case friction only. The disc wheels they used were in their infancy in terms of construction techniques & aerodynamics, the frames were heavier & less rigid too.
> 
> All of this has to add up to an advantage when used at that level. The biggest factor IMO is advances in the understanding of aerodynamics as they relate to a cyclist.
> 
> Dope has an effect to be sure, but aerodynamics has a big effect too.



Exactly, you can add to that a number of other things, better roads, a different style of racing, better sports nutrition products and a better understanding of how they work, better training methods (i.e. power meters and how to use them). It's unfortunate that people like Falsetti refuse to acknowledge or discuss these things when they are on their soap box ranting on about the cyclist they hate so much.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

SilasCL said:


> Here's an interesting post (to me at least) that I made a couple years ago on a similar topic:
> http://forums.roadbikereview.com/showpost.php?p=1465730&postcount=105


Those are some interesting numbers. 

Certainly speed is an interesting data point. Output and VAM are also interesting, both estimated and actual with a powermeter but ultimately they need to be taken in context with the overall discussion. 

A good example is Antoine Vayer's calculations of Contador's VAM on Verbier. It is an interesting data point but the leadout from Saxo, tailwind, and the fact that the lead group went super fast as a group it puts the entire calculation into question. It adds to the discussion but it can hardly be used as the sole evidence. 

BUT, If add in the fact that Contador has been ridden on some of the dirtiest teams in the sport, is working with Pepe Marti (Brunyeel's long time needle man), and the numbers are more questionable. Add in the Pasticizers, Clenburterol, and the words of an Astana insider saying he took transfusions and the overall narrative of doping becomes much more compelling.

It is interesting to note that LeMond trained with a power meter and his coach at the time, Andrie Van Diemen uses the same workouts today to coach VDV, Millar, and many on the Garmin team.


----------



## SilasCL

Perico said:


> Exactly, you can add to that a number of other things, better roads, a different style of racing, better sports nutrition products and a better understanding of how they work, better training methods (i.e. power meters and how to use them). It's unfortunate that people like Falsetti refuse to acknowledge or discuss these things when they are on their soap box ranting on about the cyclist they hate so much.


In my opinion, the problem with pointing to all these advances is to ignore that advances are constantly happening in cycling. Obviously speeds will continue to increase with technological advancements and physical advancements.

The question in my mind is why did the annual speed increase go up so much around the time EPO was introduced. And why has it settled at roughly the same speeds since the widespread use of EPO.

Maybe someone can make a persuasive case that there was an explosion in bike, training and nutrition advancements in the 90s which caused this jump in avg. speeds. I haven't seen one though.


----------



## ultimobici

SilasCL said:


> In my opinion, the problem with pointing to all these advances is to ignore that advances are constantly happening in cycling. Obviously speeds will continue to increase with technological advancements and physical advancements.
> 
> The question in my mind is why did the annual speed increase go up so much around the time EPO was introduced. And why has it settled at roughly the same speeds since the widespread use of EPO.
> 
> Maybe someone can make a persuasive case that there was an explosion in bike, training and nutrition advancements in the 90s which caused this jump in avg. speeds. I haven't seen one though.


On the graph I have there are spikes in speed where the course is shorter. ALso there are sharp drops just after the Festina & Puerto incidents. 2007 was about the same distance as 1981 and bizarrely virtually the same average too. Go figure!

Here it is https://spreadsheets.google.com/ccc...MUhHeWtvSjVETTVjMVE&hl=en_GB&authkey=CKeS4OYM


----------



## SilasCL

ultimobici said:


> On the graph I have there are spikes in speed where the course is shorter. ALso there are sharp drops just after the Festina & Puerto incidents. 2007 was about the same distance as 1981 and bizarrely virtually the same average too. Go figure!


Interesting stuff.


----------



## rydbyk

Doctor Falsetti said:


> There is also that part where he turns his legs in a circle. If he did not do that he would not go that fast.....unless he was going downhill with the wind at his back.



You make it sound so simple.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

ultimobici said:


> On the graph I have there are spikes in speed where the course is shorter. ALso there are sharp drops just after the Festina & Puerto incidents. 2007 was about the same distance as 1981 and bizarrely virtually the same average too. Go figure!
> 
> Here it is https://spreadsheets.google.com/ccc...MUhHeWtvSjVETTVjMVE&hl=en_GB&authkey=CKeS4OYM


Interesting numbers. 

I have also seen some figures that give the amount of climbing per Tour, Will have to find it. Here is an interesting graph. It appears riders got lazier after 2005.....or maybe it was WADA? 










I wonder why nobody has broken Pantani's record on Alp d'Huez? Perhaps the road surface has gotten worse, bikes have gotten slower, and riders are not training as hard anymore?


----------



## Perico

Typical Falsetti, claim you wont discuss the topic unless it is in another thread...until you find a way to answer questions without hurting your agenda. 

I can't help but laugh.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

rydbyk said:


> You make it sound so simple.


 

It is interesting how "simple" the Tour became for a while there. It seemed that the entire race would come down to what happened in 1 TT and a couple MTF's. I highly recommend watching any of the Tour's from the 80's if you can get the DVD's. The back and forth of the race is impressive as riders would have bad days, crack, and lose minutes. Fignon would attack on the final climb,. only to die and lose time. From Indurain on it became almost robotic. 

I have been to multiple GT's live, in the 80's, 90's, and 00's. I went this past year to the Tour and the one thing that stuck with me was the decimation of the field. Instead of two groups, the leaders and the grupetto, the field was often shattered into many groups. I would say that is a good sign.


----------



## davidka

Doctor Falsetti said:


> I wonder why nobody has broken Pantani's record on Alp d'Huez? Perhaps the road surface has gotten worse, bikes have gotten slower, and riders are not training as hard anymore?


Pantani's approach to the climb was short, slightly downhill, with a tailwind. 

Sorry, couldn't resist. ;-) I kid but it's not far from the truth. L'Alpe was the only climb that day and the stage was very short. Pantani switched to a climbing bike before the climb and slaughterd it. Having blood thick like ketchup probably didn't hurt.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

davidka said:


> Pantani's approach to the climb was short, slightly downhill, with a tailwind.
> 
> Sorry, couldn't resist. ;-) I kid but it's not far from the truth. L'Alpe was the only climb that day and the stage was very short. Pantani switched to a climbing bike before the climb and slaughterd it. Having blood thick like ketchup probably didn't hurt.


True. 60 guys broke 45 minutes that day....insane. Lemond and The Badger did it in 48, but they did not hammer the last 1-2km. Fignon had one of his best days there and did 41:30. Very impressive. 

As far was natural engines go I have a hard time putting one above another. Merckx, Fignon, LeMond, Hinault, maybe were within a couple watts of each other. Fignon was fragile but on his day could match up to anyone.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

Had to add.....while all those guys would likely be within a few Watts of each other, Coppi was on another level.


----------



## CabDoctor

ultimobici said:


> On the graph I have there are spikes in speed where the course is shorter. ALso there are sharp drops just after the Festina & Puerto incidents. 2007 was about the same distance as 1981 and bizarrely virtually the same average too. Go figure!
> 
> Here it is https://spreadsheets.google.com/ccc...MUhHeWtvSjVETTVjMVE&hl=en_GB&authkey=CKeS4OYM



So despite Powerbars and 90mm deep dish wheels, sub 16lbs bikes and powermeters...the speeds are just the same?!?! It would seem we're cleaner in 2007 then in 1981. Thanks for pointing that out ultimobici.


----------



## Coolhand

Doctor Falsetti said:


> As far was natural engines go I have a hard time putting one above another. Merckx, Fignon, LeMond, Hinault, maybe were within a couple watts of each other. Fignon was fragile but on his day could match up to anyone.


IMHO, pre-injury nobody had the pure engine of Merckx. Did things in the GT's that will _never_ be replicated. Agree that Coppi was another truly amazingly gifted riders. If circumstances had been different. . .


----------



## PhatTalc

CabDoctor said:


> So despite Powerbars and 90mm deep dish wheels, sub 16lbs bikes and powermeters...the speeds are just the same?!?! It would seem we're cleaner in 2007 then in 1981. Thanks for pointing that out ultimobici.


Interestingly, the speeds of many of the classics have stayed fairly constant. Paris Roubaix, Milan San Remo have been around the same speeds from the 60s onwards. LBL is different- it got a lot faster from about 1998.


----------



## orange_julius

PhatTalc said:


> Interestingly, the speeds of many of the classics have stayed fairly constant. Paris Roubaix, Milan San Remo have been around the same speeds from the 60s onwards. LBL is different- it got a lot faster from about 1998.


Can share the data for the speeds of the classics?

In the meantime, let's examine the list of recent winners of LBL:
- 99: VDB
- 00: Bettini
- 01: Camenzind
- 02: Bettini
- 03: Hamilton
- 04: Rebellin
- 05: Vinokourov
- 06: Valverde
- 07: Di Luca
- 08: Valverde
- 09: Schleck the Younger
- 10: Vinokourov

So in this list, only Bettini and Schleck have never been convicted of doping in their careers (and Schleck's career is still ongoing). I love this race, but it's hard to love most of the winners.


----------



## SilasCL

PhatTalc said:


> Interestingly, the speeds of many of the classics have stayed fairly constant. Paris Roubaix, Milan San Remo have been around the same speeds from the 60s onwards. LBL is different- it got a lot faster from about 1998.


A lot of those courses have trended towards being more difficult. The Paris-Roubaix course record was set in 1964 on a much easier course. Erik Zabel won a couple editions of the Amstel Gold when it didn't have a big uphill finish that has favored better climbers in recent years.


----------



## PhatTalc

SilasCL said:


> A lot of those courses have trended towards being more difficult. The Paris-Roubaix course record was set in 1964 on a much easier course. Erik Zabel won a couple editions of the Amstel Gold when it didn't have a big uphill finish that has favored better climbers in recent years.


It's true that the course record for PR was set when there was only about 25km of cobbles, but other than that it's been pretty stable. MSR has been almost constant: the Poggio/Cipressa take only around 5-8 minutes to climb, so they are only adding a few minutes to the overall time. Those last climbs are there to be selective, but they hardly change the average speed. LBL has been fairly even in difficulty.

I got data from: http://bikeraceinfo.com/index.html
.


----------



## PhatTalc

orange_julius said:


> Can share the data for the speeds of the classics?
> 
> In the meantime, let's examine the list of recent winners of LBL:
> - 99: VDB
> - 00: Bettini
> - 01: Camenzind
> - 02: Bettini
> - 03: Hamilton
> - 04: Rebellin
> - 05: Vinokourov
> - 06: Valverde
> - 07: Di Luca
> - 08: Valverde
> - 09: Schleck the Younger
> - 10: Vinokourov
> 
> So in this list, only Bettini and Schleck have never been convicted of doping in their careers (and Schleck's career is still ongoing). I love this race, but it's hard to love most of the winners.


The list of winners in LBL is a hall of shame.


----------



## SilasCL

PhatTalc said:


> It's true that the course record for PR was set when there was only about 25km of cobbles, but other than that it's been pretty stable. MSR has been almost constant: the Poggio/Cipressa take only around 5-8 minutes to climb, so they are only adding a few minutes to the overall time. Those last climbs are there to be selective, but they hardly change the average speed. LBL has been fairly even in difficulty.
> 
> I got data from: http://bikeraceinfo.com/index.html
> .


Interesting stuff...


----------



## rubbersoul

I still say Lemond did it au natural, a genetic freak of nature!


----------



## rydbyk

Doctor Falsetti said:


> It is interesting how "simple" the Tour became for a while there. It seemed that the entire race would come down to what happened in 1 TT and a couple MTF's. I highly recommend watching any of the Tour's from the 80's if you can get the DVD's. The back and forth of the race is impressive as riders would have bad days, crack, and lose minutes. Fignon would attack on the final climb,. only to die and lose time. From Indurain on it became almost robotic.
> 
> I have been to multiple GT's live, in the 80's, 90's, and 00's. I went this past year to the Tour and the one thing that stuck with me was the decimation of the field. Instead of two groups, the leaders and the grupetto, the field was often shattered into many groups. I would say that is a good sign.



Well...I was definitely in the minority as a ten year old (1980s) glued to the television during each summer watching the tour. My buddies had no idea what the sport was about. For some reason, I was really fascinated by the machine like abilities of the riders.

Been to one TdF. Watched LA win in 2001...

I know what you mean about the decimation of the field and so on past v. present.


----------



## covenant

rydbyk said:


> Well...I was definitely in the minority as a ten year old (1980s) glued to the television during each summer watching the tour.


Wasn't the TDF just a 10 minute slot every weekend on Wide World of Sports?


----------



## rydbyk

covenant said:


> Wasn't the TDF just a 10 minute slot every weekend on Wide World of Sports?


Not sure what your point is? If it were one minute each week, I would have been even more excited to see it.

My older brother would tape 3 or 4 days of it and we would sit and watch it together. He was only 12.

Am I still cool?


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

rydbyk said:


> Well...I was definitely in the minority as a ten year old (1980s) glued to the television during each summer watching the tour. My buddies had no idea what the sport was about. For some reason, I was really fascinated by the machine like abilities of the riders.
> 
> Been to one TdF. Watched LA win in 2001...
> 
> I know what you mean about the decimation of the field and so on past v. present.


The Vuelta went by about a block from our house when I was in my teens, maybe 1983. I was already hooked on the sport but that sent me over the edge. Later that year I got to see the Tour and that was huge. Spanish cycling was still in the Pre Indurain/Delgado doldrums so my buddies and I were fairly unique and consumed with the sport. 

I was hard to get news back then, even in Europe. I remember being aware of LeMond because he was American, and I still remember trying to talk my mother into buying Renault/Elf Jersey at Corte Ingles. She wouldn't, it was about $40. A lot of money in 1983. I remember reading this article in SI When I came back to the US http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vault/article/magazine/MAG1122493/index.htm
Couldn't believe an American was doing all of that. As an American who had lived in Europe and ridden I couldn't image it was possible. 

I vividly remember that final day in 1989. I was at a race in California and the announcer said that Greg had won the Tour by 8 seconds. People were in complete shock. We rushed home to watch the final day. 

Another vivid memory was in 1994. I had moved back to Europe and was living in Italy. My Swiss teammate and I were watching MSR on the TV and they hit Cipressa and climbed it like they had a motor on their bike. I remember screaming "WTF is that!" at the TV. I could not believe how fast they were climbing. He rolled his eyes and made a motion with his hand like he was injecting something in his arm. I had heard things had changed but that was a shock to see. Gewiss, with Ferrari's help, went on to dominate the classics and the Giro that year.


----------



## raymonda

I think it was 30 minutes with 10 of them some fluff about cheese and wine.


----------



## rydbyk

Doctor Falsetti said:


> The Vuelta went by about a block from our house when I was in my teens, maybe 1983. I was already hooked on the sport but that sent me over the edge. Later that year I got to see the Tour and that was huge. Spanish cycling was still in the Pre Indurain/Delgado doldrums so my buddies and I were fairly unique and consumed with the sport.
> 
> I was hard to get news back then, even in Europe. I remember being aware of LeMond because he was American, and I still remember trying to talk my mother into buying Renault/Elf Jersey at Corte Ingles. She wouldn't, it was about $40. A lot of money in 1983. I remember reading this article in SI When I came back to the US http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vault/article/magazine/MAG1122493/index.htm
> Couldn't believe an American was doing all of that. As an American who had lived in Europe and ridden I couldn't image it was possible.
> 
> I vividly remember that final day in 1989. I was at a race in California and the announcer said that Greg had won the Tour by 8 seconds. People were in complete shock. We rushed home to watch the final day.
> 
> Another vivid memory was in 1994. I had moved back to Europe and was living in Italy. My Swiss teammate and I were watching MSR on the TV and they hit Cipressa and climbed it like they had a motor on their bike. I remember screaming "WTF is that!" at the TV. I could not believe how fast they were climbing. He rolled his eyes and made a motion with his hand like he was injecting something in his arm. I had heard things had changed but that was a shock to see. Gewiss, with Ferrari's help, went on to dominate the classics and the Giro that year.


awesome!:thumbsup: Swiss teammate?


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

rydbyk said:


> awesome!:thumbsup: Swiss teammate?


Nobody you would know. We were all amateurs. 

He started doping later when his appendix burst early in the season and he had to get in shape fast. I think he also started to deal the stuff. Still a good guy. One of the least boring Swiss guys I have known.


----------



## Perico

covenant said:


> Wasn't the TDF just a 10 minute slot every weekend on Wide World of Sports?


Nope, by 1985 it was at least a one hour show every saturday and sunday during the Tour and then in 1988 or 1989 ESPN added daily half hour or hour coverage. I have DVD's I burned from the actual coverage I had taped off of network and ESPN from '85 through '91 or '92.


----------



## covenant

Perico said:


> Nope, by 1985 it was at least a one hour show every saturday and sunday during the Tour and then in 1988 or 1989 ESPN added daily half hour or hour coverage. I have DVD's I burned from the actual coverage I had taped off of network and ESPN from '85 through '91 or '92.


Wow, two hours a week. And people complain about Versus. An embarrassment of riches...:thumbsup:


----------



## rydbyk

covenant said:


> Wow, two hours a week. And people complain about Versus. An embarrassment of riches...:thumbsup:



Good pt.


----------



## wiz525

Doctor Falsetti said:


> The Vuelta went by about a block from our house when I was in my teens, maybe 1983. I was already hooked on the sport but that sent me over the edge. Later that year I got to see the Tour and that was huge. Spanish cycling was still in the Pre Indurain/Delgado doldrums so my buddies and I were fairly unique and consumed with the sport.
> 
> I was hard to get news back then, even in Europe. I remember being aware of LeMond because he was American, and I still remember trying to talk my mother into buying Renault/Elf Jersey at Corte Ingles. She wouldn't, it was about $40. A lot of money in 1983. I remember reading this article in SI When I came back to the US http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vault/article/magazine/MAG1122493/index.htm
> Couldn't believe an American was doing all of that. As an American who had lived in Europe and ridden I couldn't image it was possible.
> 
> I vividly remember that final day in 1989. I was at a race in California and the announcer said that Greg had won the Tour by 8 seconds. People were in complete shock. We rushed home to watch the final day.
> 
> Another vivid memory was in 1994. I had moved back to Europe and was living in Italy. My Swiss teammate and I were watching MSR on the TV and they hit Cipressa and climbed it like they had a motor on their bike. I remember screaming "WTF is that!" at the TV. I could not believe how fast they were climbing. He rolled his eyes and made a motion with his hand like he was injecting something in his arm. I had heard things had changed but that was a shock to see. Gewiss, with Ferrari's help, went on to dominate the classics and the Giro that year.


great post.


----------



## Coolhand

rydbyk said:


> Good pt.


Not to mention watching it in HD! Heck I would probably watch for the helicopter shots of the French countryside in HD alone. What a beautiful country. :thumbsup:


----------



## bikerjulio

Piece in today's Toronto Sun about Bauer & new team had this:


----------



## pedalruns

bikerjulio said:


> Piece in today's Toronto Sun about Bauer & new team had this:



Thanks for posting! Nice to see the Greg Lemond reference by Bauer on winning clean.


----------



## rydbyk

Bauer and LeMond are BOTH dopers:thumbsup: Who fricken' knows at this point?? By Bauer stating this, it "removes" any suspicion that he himself doped. Preeeetttty clever..

"How can anyone be so stupid to dope...?" Come on. Really?


----------



## ultimobici

rydbyk said:


> Bauer and LeMond are BOTH dopers:thumbsup: Who fricken' knows at this point?? By Bauer stating this, it "removes" any suspicion that he himself doped. Preeeetttty clever..
> 
> "How can anyone be so stupid to dope...?" Come on. Really?


You don't give up do you?
:mad2:


----------



## rydbyk

ultimobici said:


> You don't give up do you?
> :mad2:



huh? ditto x ten


----------



## pedalruns

rydbyk said:


> Bauer and LeMond are BOTH dopers:thumbsup: Who fricken' knows at this point?? By Bauer stating this, it "removes" any suspicion that he himself doped. Preeeetttty clever..
> 
> "How can anyone be so stupid to dope...?" Come on. Really?


LOL.... Really..... funny to read your grasping at straws stuff... LOL...


----------



## rydbyk

Please explain how you and ultimoduchi seem to "know" about what has transpired in cycling's past. 

I said "Who knows at this point?" That would imply me NOT knowing. At least I have the capability to accept that I do not know.

My money is where my mouth is. IMO LeMond doped. Deal with it. God forbid someone disagrees with either of you two moreons..

"LOL" What...are you ten?

Hey Pedalruns...didn't you say this: "I'm a novice at doing my own work,..." Nuff said...rookie


----------



## ultimobici

rydbyk said:


> Please explain how you and ultimoduchi seem to "know" about what has transpired in cycling's past.
> 
> I said "Who knows at this point?" That would imply me NOT knowing. At least I have the capability to accept that I do not know.
> 
> My money is where my mouth is. IMO LeMond doped. Deal with it. God forbid someone disagrees with either of you two moreons..
> 
> "LOL" What...are you ten?
> 
> Hey Pedalruns...didn't you say this: "I'm a novice at doing my own work,..." Nuff said...rookie


OK, let's just agree to disagree.

I don't know 100% that Lemond was clean, but on the evidence that has been presented there is a very strong chance that I am right. I too am prepared to put my money where my mouth is on that point. So IMO Lemond was clean as a whistle.

I was more taking issue with your way of presenting your opinion, including your disingenuous reply.


----------



## rydbyk

*Yep*



ultimobici said:


> OK, let's just agree to disagree.
> 
> I don't know 100% that Lemond was clean, but on the evidence that has been presented there is a very strong chance that I am right. I too am prepared to put my money where my mouth is on that point. So IMO Lemond was clean as a whistle.
> 
> I was more taking issue with your way of presenting your opinion, including your disingenuous reply.


OK..fair enough. Implying the someone should "give up" instead of disagree with you is a bit odd. I did a quick review of this thread and noticed that you have been a huge LeMond supporter start to finish with numerous posts. You have done a great job of researching this whole thing and presenting us with endless article clips etc. I hope that you are correct in claiming that LeMond raced clean. You know where I stand. Like yours, my stance is based on logic. Who knows...who knows?

Back in 1999, would you have argued that Lance raced clean based on the endless articles to be had that suggested his innocence?


----------



## trumpetbiker

this being a VERY old thread, but as a few years have passed, does anyone here have a change in opinion on Greg Lemond having not doped? I don't believe he ever did, and I laughed so hard at this years ago I couldn't comment on some who posted here that they thought he did. a lot has come out about Armstrong, but none on Lemond in the past 8 yrs. any thoughts?


----------



## Wookiebiker

trumpetbiker said:


> this being a VERY old thread, but as a few years have passed, does anyone here have a change in opinion on Greg Lemond having not doped? I don't believe he ever did, and I laughed so hard at this years ago I couldn't comment on some who posted here that they thought he did. a lot has come out about Armstrong, but none on Lemond in the past 8 yrs. any thoughts?


Yup ... still believe he doped, maybe not his entire career, but 1989 he made "HUGE" gains in fitness to win the Tour against others that were clearly doping. 

I'm doubting there has been any great or even good cyclist ... ever ... that didn't do something considered doping. 

Name a sport of your choice ... any sport ... and you will find doping on one level or another going on throughout it's history. Just the way it is and to think otherwise is just naive and ignoring the facts.

People not talking about Lemond ... the "CODE" was much stronger back then, though it is still quite strong to this day. They just don't talk about it and don't rat out others ... mostly because they were just as dirty and there in absolutely nothing to gain from it.

Armstrong would have got away with it if he wasn't such an A$$ ... he made people hate him, which in the end was his undoing. If he had been a good guy that whooped everybody, he would still be holding onto his 7 TDF titles.


----------



## rydbyk

Wookiebiker said:


> Yup ... still believe he doped, maybe not his entire career, but 1989 he made "HUGE" gains in fitness to win the Tour against others that were clearly doping.
> 
> I'm doubting there has been any great or even good cyclist ... ever ... that didn't do something considered doping.
> 
> Name a sport of your choice ... any sport ... and you will find doping on one level or another going on throughout it's history. Just the way it is and to think otherwise is just naive and ignoring the facts.
> 
> People not talking about Lemond ... the "CODE" was much stronger back then, though it is still quite strong to this day. They just don't talk about it and don't rat out others ... mostly because they were just as dirty and there in absolutely nothing to gain from it.
> 
> Armstrong would have got away with it if he wasn't such an A$$ ... he made people hate him, which in the end was his undoing. If he had been a good guy that whooped everybody, he would still be holding onto his 7 TDF titles.


Yep. Yep and yep... also, people's definition of "doping" varies quite a bit. What if LeMond used a PED that was not yet deemed "illegal" that today is listed as a banned substance. Is that not doping? Pro cyclists have been doping for 100 years. LeMond was a BEAST with insane natural talent....love him and what he did for cycling. I am not blind though...


----------



## Eretz

Doctor Falsetti said:


> Throughout his career he worked with doping doctors, first Francis Bellocq then Bernard Sainz (Dr. Mabuse).
> 
> I could go on but I am sure you get the picture......interesting how there is nothing similar on LeMond


Edit. My personal opinion if there was any hanky panky with Lemond and doping, those internal circles would have spoke about it. I highly doubt he doped.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

Wookiebiker said:


> Yup ... still believe he doped, maybe not his entire career, but 1989 he made "HUGE" gains in fitness to win the Tour against others that were clearly doping.
> 
> I'm doubting there has been any great or even good cyclist ... ever ... that didn't do something considered doping.
> 
> Name a sport of your choice ... any sport ... and you will find doping on one level or another going on throughout it's history. Just the way it is and to think otherwise is just naive and ignoring the facts.
> 
> People not talking about Lemond ... the "CODE" was much stronger back then, though it is still quite strong to this day. They just don't talk about it and don't rat out others ... mostly because they were just as dirty and there in absolutely nothing to gain from it.
> 
> Armstrong would have got away with it if he wasn't such an A$$ ... he made people hate him, which in the end was his undoing. If he had been a good guy that whooped everybody, he would still be holding onto his 7 TDF titles.


LeMond did not make HUGE gains in fitness, in fact in 89 he was not close to his previous form. The code was also not stronger. I talked often riders and staff back then about doping. I talked with Greg, his teammates, and others he worked with. The consensus was always the same, Greg rode clean. Even those who had falling outs with him and could have gained by making up a story stood by their position that Greg rode clean. 

Bike racing is dirty but I have yet to see or hear any creditable evidence that Greg doped .


----------



## aclinjury

Wookiebiker said:


> Yup ... still believe he doped, maybe not his entire career, but 1989 he made "HUGE" gains in fitness to win the Tour against others that were clearly doping.
> 
> I'm doubting there has been any great or even good cyclist ... ever ... that didn't do something considered doping.
> 
> Name a sport of your choice ... any sport ... and you will find doping on one level or another going on throughout it's history. Just the way it is and to think otherwise is just naive and ignoring the facts.
> 
> People not talking about Lemond ... the "CODE" was much stronger back then, though it is still quite strong to this day. They just don't talk about it and don't rat out others ... mostly because they were just as dirty and there in absolutely nothing to gain from it.
> 
> Armstrong would have got away with it if he wasn't such an A$$ ... he made people hate him, which in the end was his undoing. If he had been a good guy that whooped everybody, he would still be holding onto his 7 TDF titles.


any evidence to backup your opinion?


----------



## ultimobici

aclinjury said:


> any evidence to backup your opinion?


Evidently not. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## trumpetbiker

aclinjury said:


> any evidence to backup your opinion?


of course none of them do. in fact, not only is there no evidence of ever could have been, but no accounting from anyone at the time that could point towards Lemond and doping. reason? they knew him and his thinking, his history and practices. how he believed. he would have felt like he betrayed himself had he he done it.

not believing someone can be good enough is understandable, but to believe because they accomplished it beyond what you can believe that something else had to be in play is a skeptic and a conspiracy theorist. none of the cyclists of that era or after could feel good about accusing Lemond of doping in any way with illegal stuff, there are no legit accusations from guys who had reason to hate him.

the only people that would think he had to have doped is a person who believes doping is ok, deep down.


----------



## Wookiebiker

trumpetbiker said:


> of course none of them do. in fact, not only is there no evidence of ever could have been, but no accounting from anyone at the time that could point towards Lemond and doping. reason? they knew him and his thinking, his history and practices. how he believed. he would have felt like he betrayed himself had he he done it.
> 
> not believing someone can be good enough is understandable, but to believe because they accomplished it beyond what you can believe that something else had to be in play is a skeptic and a conspiracy theorist. none of the cyclists of that era or after could feel good about accusing Lemond of doping in any way with illegal stuff, there are no legit accusations from guys who had reason to hate him.
> 
> the only people that would think he had to have doped is a person who believes doping is ok, deep down.


The evidence will be minimal at best ... due to the times he was riding. Testing was a joke and new, un-testable drugs were on the market.

The evidence we do know of is that he was receiving injections in front of reporters ... he states were Vitamin B12 shots, however NOBODY but the person who filled the needle knows what was actually in the injection. It's unknown whether it was B12 or EPO as it was out at the time.

The simple fact is Lemond himself may not have known he was doping (not unheard of at that time).

What we do know beyond the injections is he had a "Remarkable" comeback in 1989 for the TDF and was beating other riders that knowingly were doping with EPO.

That makes Lemond either the absolute GREATEST cyclist of all time ... or another doper. When a performance appears to be too good to be true, it generally is ... a rule of thumb to live by.

The simple fact, and it is a FACT ... is he was getting medical injections. What we don't know is what was in them.

Lemond fans will ALWAYS deny anything other than B12 ... which if he needed injections to perform at that level, it's still doping, just not ruled illegal at the time. His body was incapable of performing at that level without them ... which is doping, kind of a modern day TUE abuse.

Those who look at it objectively and all the facts can see he was using something more than B12 shots in 1989 ... so we can just leave it at that.


----------



## burgrat

Wookiebiker said:


> What we do know beyond the injections is he had a "Remarkable" comeback in 1989 for the TDF and was beating other riders that knowingly were doping with EPO.


Who are other riders that LeMond was beating, in the 1989 Tour de France, that were knowingly using EPO at that time? 

Also, how many iron shots did LeMond do? From what I remember, he did an iron shot during last week of the '89 Giro, due to anemia at that point. Is there record of him doing multiple shots at various races ? You make it sound like he had a syringe in his arm at press conferences.


----------



## den bakker

Wookiebiker said:


> The evidence will be minimal at best ... due to the times he was riding. Testing was a joke and new, un-testable drugs were on the market.
> 
> The evidence we do know of is that he was receiving injections in front of reporters ... he states were Vitamin B12 shots, however NOBODY but the person who filled the needle knows what was actually in the injection. It's unknown whether it was B12 or EPO as it was out at the time.
> 
> The simple fact is Lemond himself may not have known he was doping (not unheard of at that time).
> 
> What we do know beyond the injections is he had a "Remarkable" comeback in 1989 for the TDF and was beating other riders that knowingly were doping with EPO.
> 
> That makes Lemond either the absolute GREATEST cyclist of all time ... or another doper. When a performance appears to be too good to be true, it generally is ... a rule of thumb to live by.
> 
> The simple fact, and it is a FACT ... is he was getting medical injections. What we don't know is what was in them.
> 
> Lemond fans will ALWAYS deny anything other than B12 ... which if he needed injections to perform at that level, it's still doping, just not ruled illegal at the time. His body was incapable of performing at that level without them ... which is doping, kind of a modern day TUE abuse.
> 
> Those who look at it objectively and all the facts can see he was using something more than B12 shots in 1989 ... so we can just leave it at that.


spooky
medical injections
spoooookyyyyyy


----------



## stevesbike

Not sure why you have remarkable in quotes, but there was nothing suspicious about his comeback. Lemond lost a fair amount of muscle mass from his hunting accident, which required the long interval away from the sport, but there was nothing about his accident that diminished his ability (the lead poisoning mitochondrial theory has since been dismissed).

I was at the 1990 and 1991 Tour. I saw a major change in the riders from the 1990 to 1991 Tour. People don't remember but Lemond took the yellow jersey through the Pyrenees in 1991 but was basically just destroyed after that by riders like Indurain who seemed to be stronger every day. In contrast, I can vividly recall Indurain holding on to Lemond's wheel for dear life on a single mountain stage in 1990 - his goal was a stage win. I can also remember watching Duclos-Lassalle pacing Lemond in the Alps at the 1991 Tour after he had lost the yellow jersey. I have never seen such hollowed out eyes of someone exhausted and suffering like that - I don't believe Lemond was doping, and I suspect if others had seen the transformation of cycling from 1990 to 1991, when EPO was believed to be used widely among teams like Banesto, they wouldn't either. It was pretty clear that by 1991 things had changed. If Lemond got an extra advantage from EPO he would have continued to win a string more Tours.


----------

