# Lemond may be nuts, but is his correct?



## bauerb (Jan 18, 2006)

"How do you explain such a performance?" LeMond wrote. "According to the last information published by former Festina trainer and specialist in performance Antoine Vayer in [the French newspaper] Liberation, the Spanish rider would have needed a VO2 max (consummation of oxygen) of 99.5 ml/mn/kg to produce such an effort.

this is in reference to AC's VAM on Verbier.


----------



## Henry Porter (Jul 25, 2006)

1) why does this need it's own thread?

2) why is it in this forum?


----------



## Bocephus Jones II (Oct 7, 2004)

bauerb said:


> "How do you explain such a performance?" LeMond wrote. "According to the last information published by former Festina trainer and specialist in performance Antoine Vayer in [the French newspaper] Liberation, the Spanish rider would have needed a VO2 max (consummation of oxygen) of 99.5 ml/mn/kg to produce such an effort.
> 
> this is in reference to AC's VAM on Verbier.


Lemond should STFU unless he has real facts to back up his constant doping allegations.


----------



## svrider (Jan 14, 2009)

Henry Porter said:


> 1) why does this need it's own thread?
> 
> 2) why is it in this forum?



Exactly.


----------



## 55x11 (Apr 24, 2006)

bauerb said:


> "How do you explain such a performance?" LeMond wrote. "According to the last information published by former Festina trainer and specialist in performance Antoine Vayer in [the French newspaper] Liberation, the Spanish rider would have needed a VO2 max (consummation of oxygen) of 99.5 ml/mn/kg to produce such an effort.
> 
> this is in reference to AC's VAM on Verbier.


LeMond needs to get a life, he is getting really annoying. 

These type of calculations are bogus because they need to assume something about efficiency, aerodynamics etc. - which could be way off. Schleck was only 43 seconds back, and more or less holding the gap.


----------



## JustTooBig (Aug 11, 2005)

I think Lemond makes the mistake of assuming he has instant credibility ..... far from it, IMO.

To spew unsubstantiated statistics that have many possible sources of error ... I really cannot imagine what he thinks he's accomplishing outside of annoying and alienating people who USED to be his fans...


----------



## dagger (Jul 22, 2004)

This is too funny. Everybody was cheering when Lemond was beating on LA.


----------



## Tschai (Jun 19, 2003)

You guys need to face reality. Doping is a huge issue and should not be brushed aside. I suspect that GL would dish out the same treatment to anyone leading the tour and riding as good as AC is. 

I really don't care who is doing it or the personal motives behind it or whether GL is a [email protected] or not. Doping is a relevant, legitimate issue and these types of stories, questions, etc. need to be conducted.


----------



## Bocephus Jones II (Oct 7, 2004)

Tschai said:


> You guys need to face reality. Doping is a huge issue and should not be brushed aside. I suspect that GL would dish out the same treatment to anyone leading the tour and riding as good as AC is.
> 
> I really don't care who is doing it or the personal motives behind it or whether GL is a [email protected] or not. Doping is a relevant, legitimate issue and these types of stories, questions, etc. need to be conducted.


Yeah, but whatever happened to innocent until proven guilty? A rider has a good stage and inevitably Lemond is right there saying he's a doper. Until he has real substantiated facts I think he needs to just STFU. Maybe the guy just had a good day. It isn't always about the dope.


----------



## karatemom (Mar 21, 2008)

Sorry, i just wanted to post in this thread before it gets moved.


----------



## llama31 (Jan 13, 2006)

And why hasn't it gotten moved yet?

But I'll add that AC's climb to Verbier was perhaps the fastest ever, faster than demonstrated dopers. Makes you wonder...


----------



## paco_finn (Mar 8, 2006)

It still amazes me that Lemond says everyone must be doping because they are so fast yet he has the fastest time of anyone (TT)...but he did not dope!


----------



## dagger (Jul 22, 2004)

llama31 said:


> And why hasn't it gotten moved yet?
> 
> But I'll add that AC's climb to Verbier was perhaps the fastest ever, faster than demonstrated dopers. Makes you wonder...


And the skinny lil kid beat Cancelara on a mostly flat TT course.


----------



## pretender (Sep 18, 2007)

paco_finn said:


> It still amazes me that Lemond says everyone must be doping because they are so fast yet he has the fastest time of anyone (TT)...but he did not dope!


You hear this little nugget repeated from time to time.

The 1989 TT was a short distance, downhill, and with a tailwind. 

Yawn.

Regarding the article, I think Lemond (and whoever produced the numbers) are making a point, i.e. the performance is possibly too good to be "natural". However, I think he is wrong in singling out Contador, who just happens to be the fastest of the bunch.


----------



## paco_finn (Mar 8, 2006)

Agreed. But the next year he kept whining that everyone MUST be doping because he had more competition than the year prior. True or not - that is not a fact based conclusion - Engineers like facts not suspisions before we make an analysis.


----------



## nims (Jul 7, 2009)

llama31 said:


> And why hasn't it gotten moved yet?
> 
> But I'll add that AC's climb to Verbier was perhaps the fastest ever, faster than demonstrated dopers. Makes you wonder...


So the question is, is the a hard limit to human performance or is Contador a freak of nature like Micheal Phelps?


----------



## OldEndicottHiway (Jul 16, 2007)

I was a huge fan of LeMond's back in the 80's/early 90's.

But it seems whenever he opens his mouth, he never has anything good to say. It really disappoints me because he was a great rider with a lot of the right qualities that make a champion. 

I'd like to see him actually defend the sport. There are ways to express issues and concerns relative to the sport, without coming across as a bitter old has-been. 

Too bad as he could've been a great advocate for cycling in the U.S., and have a hell of a lot more respect.


----------



## pretender (Sep 18, 2007)

paco_finn said:


> Agreed. But the next year he kept whining that everyone MUST be doping because he had more competition than the year prior. True or not - that is not a fact based conclusion - Engineers like facts not suspisions before we make an analysis.


AFAIK if you look at the EPO timeline, and subsequent admissions, tell-alls, confessions, etc, Lemond has pretty much been vindicated on that. And has never been sued for libel.

So basically, it's highly probable that Lemond is right on target now. I agree, he's annoying and self-righteous and pompous and off-putting.

People forget that Cassandra was right.


----------



## jptaylorsg (Apr 24, 2003)

Lemond's motives might be genuinely good, but his tactics are dubious.

You can't just keep shouting "prove you didn't dope!" at people. It's impossible to prove a negative, so they have no choice but to confess, ignore him or call him an idiot. Seems like the first option is least likely. 

Asking someone to prove they didn't do something is tilting at windmills, it can't be done.


----------



## SystemShock (Jun 14, 2008)

Tschai said:


> You guys need to face reality. Doping is a huge issue and should not be brushed aside. I suspect that GL would dish out the same treatment to anyone leading the tour and riding as good as AC is.
> 
> I really don't care who is doing it or the personal motives behind it or whether GL is a [email protected] or not. Doping is a relevant, legitimate issue and these types of stories, questions, etc. need to be conducted.


+1. People may not like that Greg is bringing it up, but let's be real– doping and performance-enhancing drugs _are_ definitely a major problem, not just in cycling but in many professional sports. I'd be much easier for Greg to just STFU and be liked. Good on him to have the balls to say the unpleasant but potentially true things that few want to hear.

I'm sure a former baseball star saying loudly and publicly that steroids in the major leagues are a major problem would be told to STFU by many fans, even though he'd obviously be correct. What does that say about the fans? :idea: 
.


----------



## paco_finn (Mar 8, 2006)

You are correct but my point is that he is STILL using the same logic of assumptions and not facts but still puts others in the cross-hairs without any regard to a known truth. I am not saying it is not true, I am saying it is poor form, especially from someone I once greatly admired.


----------



## Bocephus Jones II (Oct 7, 2004)

SystemShock said:


> I'm sure a former baseball star saying loudly and publicly that steroids in the major leagues are a major problem would be told to STFU by many fans, even though he's obviously correct. What does that say about the fans? :idea:
> .


I don't think this analogy works. For it to be the same he's have to accuse someone of taking steroids who happened to be having a good year without any real proof. I don't think anyone would argue that doping is a real issue in cycling. Lemond just made it personal when he didn't have to.


----------



## team_sheepshead (Jan 17, 2003)

Bocephus Jones II said:


> Yeah, but whatever happened to innocent until proven guilty? A rider has a good stage and inevitably Lemond is right there saying he's a doper. Until he has real substantiated facts I think he needs to just STFU. Maybe the guy just had a good day. It isn't always about the dope.


Whatever happened to innocence? Pantani, Virenque, Vino, Landis, Hamilton, Heras, Ricco, Dekker, DiLuca, etc. happened to innocence.

This sport's proven to be a joke time and time and time again. Anyone who thinks these guys are clean is kidding themselves. I want blood. Blood samples from the top 10 on GC...after...every...single...stage. Maybe that will be a deterrent. Even if we don't have the technology to bust them today, maybe someday we will. And when we do, they pay back every single Euro they've won.


----------



## SystemShock (Jun 14, 2008)

paco_finn said:


> You are correct but my point is that he is STILL using the same logic of assumptions and not facts but still puts others in the cross-hairs without any regard to a known truth. I am not saying it is not true, I am saying it is poor form, especially from someone I once greatly admired.


Would your jaw really drop if it was later found that what LeMond's been saying was true? Would any of ours? I strongly suspect the answer to that is, "no".
.


----------



## novagator (Apr 4, 2002)

I've read, can't remember where, that the "math" used to calculate these numbers is perhaps a bit off. Power expert Andrew Coggan was asked about GL's numbers and he says that although the theory is probably ok, the numbers neglect to take into account several vary important variables. The VO2 numbers for Contador are probably were more likely in the 80's as opposed to the 90's - still a high number but more "doable"


----------



## Bocephus Jones II (Oct 7, 2004)

SystemShock said:


> Would your jaw really drop if it was later found that what LeMond's been saying was true? Would any of ours? I strongly suspect the answer to that is, "no".
> .


I'd agree with that, but I still think it's very poor form to just keep throwing out accusations with no real proof to back them up. If you keep throwing sh*t at the wall eventually some will stick.


----------



## 55x11 (Apr 24, 2006)

SystemShock said:


> Would your jaw really drop if it was later found that what LeMond's been saying was true? Would any of ours? I strongly suspect the answer to that is, "no".
> .


However, Lemond doesn't add any facts to discussion - just drivel. He could have picked on Schlecks or Wiggo for that matter. Or Cancellara. What's the point?


----------



## SystemShock (Jun 14, 2008)

Bocephus Jones II said:


> I don't think this analogy works. For it to be the same he'd have to accuse someone of taking steroids who happened to be having a good year without any real proof. I don't think anyone would argue that doping is a real issue in cycling. Lemond just made it personal when he didn't have to.


The analogy is better than you think. Look at Barry Bonds home run totals from year to year. They start spiking pretty much when he's alleged to have started juicing up. 

If you'd put two and two together back then and said, "Yup, Barry's 'roiding up", you'd have been right.
.


----------



## SystemShock (Jun 14, 2008)

55x11 said:


> However, Lemond doesn't add any facts to discussion - just drivel. He could have picked on Schlecks or Wiggo for that matter. Or Cancellara. What's the point?


The point is if many of the top riders are doped to the gills, the sport's in real trouble.

I'm sure Lemond sees that, and desperately wants to do something about it. But he has no real power, so what else can he do but speak out?
.


----------



## karatemom (Mar 21, 2008)

I guess if I were Lemond I might be a little bitter--in his head, drugs are the reason he did not win 7+ times--but I don't understand what he wants people like AC to say when he asks, "Prove you didn't dope!" You can't prove a negative--what could they possibly say?


----------



## SystemShock (Jun 14, 2008)

Bocephus Jones II said:


> I'd agree with that, but I still think it's very poor form to just keep throwing out accusations with no real proof to back them up. If you keep throwing sh*t at the wall eventually some will stick.


Yup, but by the same token, this is a pretty sticky wall that he's throwing sh*t at.
.


----------



## llama31 (Jan 13, 2006)

> The point is if many of the top riders are doped to the gills, the sport's in real trouble.


I'm not sure I agree with this. We've had lots of positive cases of the last 10+ years and interest in the sport is still high (though it probably dropped after Festina). As long as it's just an occasional star that gets caught, people keep watching and enjoying the sport. If a whole bunch get caught, then the sport is in trouble. This is something that makes me wonder just how hard the authorities are trying to crack down on it.


----------



## Creakyknees (Sep 21, 2003)

BSNYC FTW. AYHSMB.


----------



## SystemShock (Jun 14, 2008)

team_sheepshead said:


> Whatever happened to innocence? Pantani, Virenque, Vino, Landis, Hamilton, Heras, Ricco, Dekker, DiLuca, etc. happened to innocence.
> 
> This sport's proven to be a joke time and time and time again. Anyone who thinks these guys are clean is kidding themselves. I want blood. Blood samples from the top 10 on GC...after...every...single...stage. Maybe that will be a deterrent. Even if we don't have the technology to bust them today, maybe someday we will. And when we do, they pay back every single Euro they've won.


Yup. And what I'd like to hear more about, from those who've been closely following it, are the strengths and weaknesses of current pro cycling doping controls and testing (IYO), and how easy it is or is not to beat them. 

And if they're not quite as good as they could be, what should be done about it?
.


----------



## SilasCL (Jun 14, 2004)

go to http://www.sportsscientists.com/ They have a better understanding than Coggan. It was never suggested that Contador puts out 490 watts, it's a misunderstanding by Coggan in those numbers.


----------



## paco_finn (Mar 8, 2006)

IT didn't help Bonds when his head grew inches and his shoe size went up 4 sizes. When has anyone seen this at that age. He is a natural hitter and was before the "alleged" PED's but his numbers were never as great as they were once all the "growth" started.


----------



## jptaylorsg (Apr 24, 2003)

pretender said:


> You hear this little nugget repeated from time to time.
> 
> The 1989 TT was a short distance, downhill, and with a tailwind.
> 
> Yawn.


So in the time since there have been no short time trials with tailwinds? Technology hasn't aided bikes and riders (position-wise, training-wise)? Isn't that ride still the record or fairly close to it? Just saying.


----------



## mohair_chair (Oct 3, 2002)

paco_finn said:


> It still amazes me that Lemond says everyone must be doping because they are so fast yet he has the fastest time of anyone (TT)...but he did not dope!


Or what about Lemond's claims that he had to quit riding because everyone was on dope (except him) and he couldn't keep up. Here are the average TDF speeds of his era:

1985 4109 km 36.232 kph 22 stages
1986 4094 km 37.02 kph 23 <--- Lemond wins
1987 4231 km 36.645 kph 25
1988 3286 km 38.909 kph 22
1989 3285 km 37.487 kph 21 <--- Lemond wins
1990 3504 km 38.621 kph 21 <--- Lemond wins
1991 3914 km 38.747 kph 22
1992 3983 km 39.504 kph 21
1993 3714 km 38.709 kph 20

So Lemond wins the 1990 tour at an average speed of 38.621 kph. The next year it runs at almost the same speed, and in 1992 the tour runs less than 1 kph faster. What about in 1993 when it slowed and ran almost the same speed as 1990? I guess Lemond could have won the tour that year, if he had bothered to race it.


----------



## pretender (Sep 18, 2007)

mohair_chair said:


> So Lemond wins the 1990 tour at an average speed of 38.621 kph. The next year it runs at almost the same speed, and in 1992 the tour runs less than 1 kph faster. What about in 1993 when it slowed and ran almost the same speed as 1990? I guess Lemond could have won the tour that year, if he had bothered to race it.


You can't possibly believe average speed over the course of the entire Tour is a meaningful metric.


----------



## jptaylorsg (Apr 24, 2003)

It's statements like this one from the Le Monde opinion piece that erode Lemond's credibility as an impartial patron of the sport:

" 'The burden is then on Alberto Contador to prove he is physically capable of performing this feat without the use of performance-enhancing products,' LeMond goes on to declare." 

The burden of proof is on the accuser. Period. Contador has proof right now. He did it, and he has passed the controls. He has nothing more to prove. 

Now, if he gets caught doping, then he'll be punished, but until then you can't go around making accusations and shifting the burden of proof onto the accused. It makes you look like a whining idiot.


----------



## FatGut1 (Dec 16, 2008)

Greg Lemond = Mr Hand = The whole world is on drugs!


----------



## lookrider (Dec 3, 2006)

OldEndicottHiway said:


> I was a huge fan of LeMond's back in the 80's/early 90's.
> 
> But it seems whenever he opens his mouth, he never has anything good to say. It really disappoints me because he was a great rider with a lot of the right qualities that make a champion.
> 
> ...


And I'm a much bigger fan than I've ever been. The guy has guts to doggedly pursue the truth.

These people that don't have a backbone for the truth are the problem. Always blaming the messinger and saying 'yeah I agree, but he didn't say it the right way.'

Eff that.

How is this cesspool ever going to be changed? You need someone who is "nuts" the way LeMond is to change anything. 

The reasonable man adapts. The unreasonable man persists in adapting the world to himself. Therefore all change is the result of the unreasonable man. 
George Bernard Shaw.



Here's a fact for you.

http://www.orangecoastmagazine.com/article.aspx?id=156

So I don’t tell them that Floyd once offhandedly told me over burritos at a Chipotle near his home, “Just so you know, Marty, Lance doped.” Or that Floyd said it casually, as if it was common insider knowledge.


----------



## coreyb (Aug 4, 2003)

jptaylorsg said:


> " 'The burden is then on Alberto Contador to prove he is physically capable of performing this feat without the use of performance-enhancing products,' LeMond goes on to declare."


An impossible feat when the feat is used as evidence that he is doping


----------



## mohair_chair (Oct 3, 2002)

pretender said:


> You can't possibly believe average speed over the course of the entire Tour is a meaningful metric.


I don't, and have made exactly that same argument. But trust me, there are plenty of people who find this significant in regards to Lemond. I stole that chart from my own post in an old thread:

http://forums.roadbikereview.com/showthread.php?p=1461605#poststop


----------



## lookrider (Dec 3, 2006)

karatemom said:


> I guess if I were Lemond I might be a little bitter--in his head, drugs are the reason he did not win 7+ times--but I don't understand what he wants people like AC to say when he asks, "Prove you didn't dope!" You can't prove a negative--what could they possibly say?


You're wrong.

Because cycling is in the state it's in, the burden is on the riders when a very prominent one such as LeMond, goes out on a limb and makes an accusation.

AC was asked what his VO2 max is.

Well, wtf is it?

He declined to answer.


----------



## bauerb (Jan 18, 2006)

as the OP, I did not start this as a "doping thread". I was more interested in the viablity of being able infer v2max from VAM, and the likelyhood that anyone could have a v2max of 99.x.


----------



## coreyb (Aug 4, 2003)

I for one don't believe Lemond didn't use performance enhancers.

The burden is on him to prove otherwise


----------



## danl1 (Jul 23, 2005)

pretender said:


> You hear this little nugget repeated from time to time.
> 
> The 1989 TT was a short distance, downhill, and with a tailwind.
> 
> ...


Good point on the last - the guy close behind didn't do much different.

But the 'numbers' don't count for the conditions: Was there a tailwind? (apparently reported to be yes, and quite a good one) What about race conditions? For a valid comparison of such doubly-indirect data, we'd need to consider similar altitude climbs in similar parts of the stage, in similar parts of the historical Tours. Conti was pouring on the coals on Verbier. Other similarly placed/sized climbs seldom have that level of effort applied. 

I'm not a Conti apologist; it's enough to make one look closer. Not enough to accuse, and certainly not enough for GL's insane 'prove you are innocent' nonsense. To hear him tell it, every one greater than him must be a doper. The proof context of which he should carefully consider before he continues to speak - because only a doper could self-rationally make such an assertion.

Conti sometimes appears 'otherwordly' relative to his peers. But with the passport testing, it's (if anything) beyond simply creating/ naturally having high HC. I'm not aware of any suspected doping model that would fit that description.


----------



## spade2you (May 12, 2009)

Like the principal from Fast Times at Ridgemont High, he thinks they're all on dope. Lemond should expand his anti-doping to local races and call out every podium winner in every category. Heck, I just got on the podium for a cat 5 TT. Maybe I'm the one doping!


----------



## novagator (Apr 4, 2002)

SilasCL said:


> go to http://www.sportsscientists.com/ They have a better understanding than Coggan. It was never suggested that Contador puts out 490 watts, it's a misunderstanding by Coggan in those numbers.


My point being just that there are lots of unknowns with this "method" for anyone to say that this is proof of anyones' guilt 

Anyone ask Lemond to prove he didn't dope  (not directed at you SilasCL


----------



## robdamanii (Feb 13, 2006)

lookrider said:


> You're wrong.
> 
> Because cycling is in the state it's in, the burden is on the riders when a very prominent one such as LeMond, goes out on a limb and makes an accusation.
> 
> ...


And what, pray tell, state is cycling in? They have higher viewership, higher numbers of web hits, more papers are carrying it...

Seems like people want a good race, regardless of the dope involved. That's what 99% of people want, is a great race. The obnoxious 1% would rather see a clean (and extremely boring) sport.


----------



## Coolhand (Jul 28, 2002)

bauerb said:


> as the OP, I did not start this as a "doping thread". I was more interested in the viablity of being able infer v2max from VAM, and the likelyhood that anyone could have a v2max of 99.x.


Really? It sure sounded like it. Never the less it is one.


----------



## moab63 (Aug 7, 2006)

*Is so sad that the only thing that keeps*

people from forgetting GL is this baseless and groundless accusation that he makes about anyone who wins. Is like the man needs(wants) the fame and recognition that LA has. Is a pity because he comes from a country that people are innocent until proven other wise, sometimes it happens late but it happens. Oh yes I also know that in many cases never happens, or I'll confess 10 years later (riis) 

I believe he should be sued, for everything his got. And if some people are getting away with doping then the testing is crap. I personally thing it should be a lifetime ban on the first offense, and strip any records done before they got caught. I mean ban from anything related to cycling no cushy director sportif gig. 

I still like racing and I like AC, if he gets caught doping throw the book at him make the biggest example ever out him.:thumbsup: 

Enough ramble


----------



## joeqp1 (Sep 12, 2006)

robdamanii said:


> And what, pray tell, state is cycling in? They have higher viewership, higher numbers of web hits, more papers are carrying it...
> 
> Seems like people want a good race, regardless of the dope involved. That's what 99% of people want, is a great race. The obnoxious 1% would rather see a clean (and extremely boring) sport.


Why would a clean sport be boring?


----------



## mohair_chair (Oct 3, 2002)

lookrider said:


> You're wrong.
> 
> Because cycling is in the state it's in, the burden is on the riders when a very prominent one such as LeMond, goes out on a limb and makes an accusation.


No one has any obligation to respond to baseless accusations. 

If Lemond has proof that AC is doping, let's hear it. Otherwise, he can STFU.


----------



## Creakyknees (Sep 21, 2003)

there's growing belief amongst us amateurs that lots of American cat 4 / 3/ 2 / masters / tri types are doping.

seriously. 

I live in Texas. For less than the cost of a Zipp 404 or a powermeter, I could hop a flight to El Paso or Brownsville, cross into Mexico and get whatever I wanted from the border pharmacia. 

If I have a few more bucks, I can find a doc to write an Rx here in the States.


----------



## g29er (Mar 28, 2009)

I guess you are not a great cyclist until you have been "Lemonded". 

Greg has to realize that not everyone rides like it was back in 89. There are alot of young guns out there who are better than the riders back then. 

Why should Contador have to say anything to the press, he gets tested as much as anyone else, and that should speak for itself. 

Just like with Lance, innocent until proven guilty.


----------



## pretender (Sep 18, 2007)

danl1 said:


> But the 'numbers' don't count for the conditions: Was there a tailwind? (apparently reported to be yes, and quite a good one) What about race conditions? For a valid comparison of such doubly-indirect data, we'd need to consider similar altitude climbs in similar parts of the stage, in similar parts of the historical Tours. Conti was pouring on the coals on Verbier. Other similarly placed/sized climbs seldom have that level of effort applied.


OK, so I haven't reviewed the calcs, nor do I claim to be an expert. But I know that when things get steep, almost all of one's work is against gravity, not against air resistance, not against rolling resistance. And if the climb is long enough, anaerobic efforts can be discounted.


----------



## spade2you (May 12, 2009)

Creakyknees said:


> there's growing belief amongst us amateurs that lots of American cat 4 / 3/ 2 / masters / tri types are doping.
> 
> seriously.
> 
> ...


Seriously? I was only being sarcastic. Yikes. I'd think the payouts in the more advanced categories really wouldn't be enough to cover the cost of doping.


----------



## nOOky (Mar 20, 2009)

I'm with the innocent until proven guilty school of thought.

Some think only the great ones are dopers, how else could they be so great? As far as I know, human physiology varies from person to person. I knew kids in middle school that were muscular, fast, or great basketball players. I'm pretty sure they were not doping, but if I wasn't as good as them then they must have been. There's no other way.
Some people think everyone in the sport is on something. In that case then all things being equal, the fastest doper would probably still be the fastest non-doper. He'd win anyway, so what's the difference? rrr:


----------



## Coolhand (Jul 28, 2002)

spade2you said:


> Seriously? I was only being sarcastic. Yikes. I'd think the payouts in the more advanced categories really wouldn't be enough to cover the cost of doping.


Some of the Masters I race against are on $12K worth of gear and go to the wind tunnel, so its not a money thing. 

Quick trip to the "anti-aging" clinic for Testosterone replacement and a little HGH, and bingo you're faster in your 50's than 40's. I imagine they even have convinced themselves its not cheating.


----------



## MG537 (Jul 25, 2006)

55x11 said:


> However, Lemond doesn't add any facts to discussion - just drivel.


If you were paying attention, Lemond has actually suggested that to help with the fight against doping, the authorities can put sealed power meters on bikes. He actually made that statement, if memory serves me well, during Lance's press conference before his comeback. So far he's been ignored. But imagine for a second if he wasn't? Then we wouldn't need to speculate on Contador's power output during the Verbier stage, or his time trial. We'd have cold hard facts. We all know the stance that the UCI has taken so far.
Now wouldn't you say that this is a bit beyond drivel?


----------



## spade2you (May 12, 2009)

Coolhand said:


> Some of the Masters I race against are on $12K worth of gear and go to the wind tunnel, so its not a money thing.
> 
> Quick trip to the "anti-aging" clinic for Testosterone replacement and a little HGH, and bingo you're faster in your 50's than 40's. I imagine they even have convinced themselves its not cheating.


Interesting. I guess I'm not too surprised, especially as much as my #$^# TT bike cost me and I'm just a cat 5, but does the dopers actually do that well?


----------



## robdamanii (Feb 13, 2006)

joeqp1 said:


> Why would a clean sport be boring?


What is baseball without lots of offense, what is track or swimming without new world records, what is cycling without repeated attacks and covers?

It would be an entire peloton of Cadel Evans grinding up a hill, launching a single attack per stage, and then just sitting on to ride the rest of the way. Boring.

People WANT to see the superhuman attacks. They WANT to see the repeated accelerations and the covers. They wait with baited breath to see if this is the attack that goes, if someone cracks, if they blow up all over the mountain or ride off in a blaze of glory.

It's the stuff that dreams are made of.


----------



## Henry Porter (Jul 25, 2006)

Creakyknees said:


> there's growing belief amongst us amateurs that lots of American cat 4 / 3/ 2 / masters / tri types are doping.
> 
> seriously.
> 
> ...


Yep. I can't believe that people don't realize how prevalent PEDs are in most sports cultures.


----------



## paco_finn (Mar 8, 2006)

PED's are everywhere - this is true even in our schools. But they will soon be done as selective genetic modifications become perfected. Sprinters will soon look more like grasshoppers than cyclists. Then what will we say, what will Greg say, what will Bryan Botoneau (sp) do?

This horse is dead!


----------



## Henry Porter (Jul 25, 2006)

paco_finn said:


> PED's are everywhere - this is true even in our schools. But they will soon be done as selective genetic modifications become perfected. Sprinters will soon look more like grasshoppers than cyclists. Then what will we say, what will Greg say, what will Bryan Botoneau (sp) do?
> 
> This horse is dead!


----------



## spade2you (May 12, 2009)

Henry Porter said:


>


Yikes, the horse is not dead....and it will rape us!


----------



## SystemShock (Jun 14, 2008)

robdamanii said:


> People WANT to see the superhuman attacks. They WANT to see the repeated accelerations and the covers. They wait with baited breath to see if this is the attack that goes, if someone cracks, if they blow up all over the mountain or ride off in a blaze of glory.
> 
> It's the stuff that dreams are made of.


So you mean guys like Merckx, Hinault, etc didn't ride like that, in the pre-blood-boosting/EPO days? Err.... 
.


----------



## OldEndicottHiway (Jul 16, 2007)

lookrider said:


> And I'm a much bigger fan than I've ever been. The guy has guts to doggedly pursue the truth.
> 
> These people that don't have a backbone for the truth are the problem. Always blaming the messinger and saying 'yeah I agree, but he didn't say it the right way.'
> 
> ...



I agree with you more than you think. And I highly agree with Greg in principle.

But sorry, his tactics have often been counterproductive, unfortunately. You disagree with that, and that's fine.


----------



## OldEndicottHiway (Jul 16, 2007)

SystemShock said:


> So you mean guys like Merckx, Hinault, etc didn't ride like that, in the pre-blood-boosting/EPO days? Err....
> .



It was easy to get away with it in earlier years. Epo is not the only choice.

Which rider was it? Might've been Hinault, who stated with a smirk something to the effect of "How do you _think_ we made it through those stages on the equipment we had?"


----------



## FondriestFan (May 19, 2005)

paco_finn said:


> It still amazes me that Lemond says everyone must be doping because they are so fast yet he has the fastest time of anyone (TT)...but he did not dope!


----------



## OldEndicottHiway (Jul 16, 2007)

Coolhand said:


> Some of the Masters I race against are on $12K worth of gear and go to the wind tunnel, so its not a money thing.
> 
> Quick trip to the "anti-aging" clinic for Testosterone replacement and a little HGH, and bingo you're faster in your 50's than 40's. I imagine they even have convinced themselves its not cheating.



Anabolics were rampant in the late 80's. My racing buddy made trips into Tijuana to get them. She tried to push them off on me as well. I just couldn't do it. I didn't want to f*ck with my body in that way. 

There were days I could hang with she and the other Cat 1/2 women with chin hair and acne in races, but not on a regular basis.

She died at the age of 29, from Hepatitis B, just two weeks after I left San Diego from winter training with her. Hep B usually doesn't kill someone in 12 days, especially not a healthy 29 y/o woman.

I'm postitive had her liver not been compromised by anabolic abuse, she'd still be alive and we might even still be ripping up the roads together. I grieve over her loss to this day.


----------



## Coolhand (Jul 28, 2002)

spade2you said:


> Interesting. I guess I'm not too surprised, especially as much as my #$^# TT bike cost me and I'm just a cat 5, but does the dopers actually do that well?


Not sure. I hope not. But money wouldn't be the issue.

Personally, I would rather come in DFL than cheat.


----------



## eyebob (Feb 3, 2004)

*People also forget that Canseco was right*



pretender said:


> AFAIK if you look at the EPO timeline, and subsequent admissions, tell-alls, confessions, etc, Lemond has pretty much been vindicated on that. And has never been sued for libel.
> 
> So basically, it's highly probable that Lemond is right on target now. I agree, he's annoying and self-righteous and pompous and off-putting.
> 
> People forget that Cassandra was right.


So was Manzano (to bring it back to cycling)

bt


----------



## eyebob (Feb 3, 2004)

*So Lemond gets ripped a lot in this forum*

But for Americans who else is beating the "they're all doping" drum? He's got name and a cause. If he's not speaking up, who else would? 

Like his style or not, knocking him seems silly if you believe that PEDs are as ubiquitous as they seem to be.

bt


----------



## Bocephus Jones II (Oct 7, 2004)

eyebob said:


> But for Americans who else is beating the "they're all doping" drum? He's got name and a cause. If he's not speaking up, who else would?
> 
> Like his style or not, knocking him seems silly if you believe that PEDs are as ubiquitous as they seem to be.
> 
> bt


Unless he has proof, saying a rider is doping is insulting at best and probably slanderous. 

Just because a certain community has a high crime rate, is it OK for me to go door to door and accuse everyone of being a thief? I mean I might be right some of the time, but what about the innocent people whose reputations are called into question unfairly?


----------



## mohair_chair (Oct 3, 2002)

Beating the drum is easy. Anybody can throw out accusations. Proving them is hard. Lemond is only interested in the first part.


----------



## mohair_chair (Oct 3, 2002)

jimmyjack said:


> Lemond isn't just anybody...
> Problem is, no one is looking too hard.
> 
> Controls don't work, but where there have been police investigations, they've often found highly incriminating evidence.


Lemond isn't looking either. All he does is sit back and fire off accusations whenever his Q score drops too much. He's no better than anyone else in the doping forum.


----------



## loudog (Jul 22, 2008)

lookrider said:


> And I'm a much bigger fan than I've ever been. The guy has guts to doggedly pursue the truth.
> 
> These people that don't have a backbone for the truth are the problem. Always blaming the messinger and saying 'yeah I agree, but he didn't say it the right way.'
> .


reality doesnt support lemond being a crusader for cycling integrity. its all about money and fame for him as evidenced by agreeing to retract his statements in order to continue his deal with trek. he hasnt "doggedly" pursued anything other than court cases. he isnt the director, head of, or promoter of anything related to anti-doping. the forces that are working against doping havent enlisted lemond. his most recent comments at "play the game" were a joke. he makes accusations but has nothing first hand to back up anything. he does zero ZERO within cycling to actually combat doping. all his anti-doping crap is related to money - specifically getting money from trek. when his record was eclipsed by LA he started this crap. there was tons of doping during his heyday and he never whimpered a word. lance and all of astana, team discovery, and postal all may be big time dopers but lemond is no saint, no upton sinclair, no bob woodward and no mother theresa. he is in it for the money and fame - not for love and sanctity of sport.


----------



## SilasCL (Jun 14, 2004)

So in his effort to make tons of money he's gone on the offensive against the top moneymaker for his employer?

You'll have to explain that one a little better.

The bitter old man story work better for this, btw.


----------



## loudog (Jul 22, 2008)

SilasCL said:


> So in his effort to make tons of money he's gone on the offensive against the top moneymaker for his employer?
> 
> You'll have to explain that one a little better.
> 
> The bitter old man story work better for this, btw.


like i said, its about money and fame. i think he saw the future - his trek contract dwindling - and spoke out, or shall i say "had a tantrum" because he felt he was being slighted. yes its still about money because he is suing for money, he isnt suing over doping, hes suing because he got dropped. unfortunately for him his position is weak. if it was truly about doping he would be protesting treks continued support of a doper - SOMETHING HE HAS NEVER DONE. yes he calls LA into question but its never about the cycling industry supporting dopers, something that might actually gain some traction.


----------



## ultimobici (Jul 16, 2005)

loudog said:


> like i said, its about money and fame. i think he saw the future - his trek contract dwindling - and spoke out, or shall i say "had a tantrum" because he felt he was being slighted. yes its still about money because he is suing for money, he isnt suing over doping, hes suing because he got dropped. unfortunately for him his position is weak. if it was truly about doping he would be protesting treks continued support of a doper - SOMETHING HE HAS NEVER DONE. yes he calls LA into question but its never about the cycling industry supporting dopers, something that might actually gain some traction.


Were you following cycling before LA? I somehow doubt it. 

GL was working with Trek to promote Greg Lemond Cycles. For years they promoted them on the back of his Tour success. Once LA had won the Tour they left his bikes to fend for themselves. I was a Trek/Lemond dealer in the late 90's. We went from having loads of PR stuff being available on Lemond to nothing at all. It was like Lemond was the bastard child you hide and Trek/LA was the prodigal son. The rep didn't even mention GL from 99/2000. Strange, eh?

Add in that Lemond has more of an insight into what is and isn't possible physiologically to a degree that you and I couldn't possibly have, and you can see where his comments came from. 

Initially he didn't seek the attention, the press approached him for an interview. He stated his reservations and theat was what prompted the pressure from Trek/LA.

When Trek terminated his contract early, he sued. They countered with litigation concerning the abuse of the employee purchase programme. This has subsequently been exposed as a false claim.

His actions regarding doping have no relevance to any court case regarding Trek. The judgement will be made on the legality of the actions of Trek and GL before the termination. Anything afterwards is irrelevant as far as a judge/jury is concerned.


----------



## spade2you (May 12, 2009)

mohair_chair said:


> Lemond isn't looking either. All he does is sit back and fire off accusations whenever his Q score drops too much. He's no better than anyone else in the doping forum.


Blowhards on the internet vs. a former champ trying to either prevent anyone from breaking his record or steal his thunder, maybe 15 more minutes of fame? Perhaps he genuinely believes in what he does, but he seems to only be targeting Americans who have the potential from bumping him down a few pegs in the history books.


----------



## joeqp1 (Sep 12, 2006)

spade2you said:


> Blowhards on the internet vs. a former champ trying to either prevent anyone from breaking his record or steal his thunder, maybe 15 more minutes of fame? Perhaps he genuinely believes in what he does, but he seems to only be targeting Americans who have the potential from bumping him down a few pegs in the history books.


Contador isn't American.


----------



## spade2you (May 12, 2009)

joeqp1 said:


> Contador isn't American.


Yay, he's expanding.


----------



## MWT (Nov 12, 2002)

dagger said:


> This is too funny. Everybody was cheering when Lemond was beating on LA.


When was that? Lance turned pro in 92 and Greg retired in 94. LeMond didn't win anything of note in his last years and certainly didn't "beat" Armstrong.


----------



## loudog (Jul 22, 2008)

ultimobici said:


> Were you following cycling before LA? I somehow doubt it.
> 
> GL was working with Trek to promote Greg Lemond Cycles. For years they promoted them on the back of his Tour success. Once LA had won the Tour they left his bikes to fend for themselves. I was a Trek/Lemond dealer in the late 90's. We went from having loads of PR stuff being available on Lemond to nothing at all. It was like Lemond was the bastard child you hide and Trek/LA was the prodigal son. The rep didn't even mention GL from 99/2000. Strange, eh?
> 
> ...


i think you support my assertion that for GL its about money and not about sport. the LA issue is not the only issue he has had with trek - he also claims that trek ruined his relationship with his father. your trek lemond rep may not have mentioned lemond bikes in 1999 and 2000 but trek was paying him more royalties then ever before and in 1999 increased the minimum royalty paid. LA earned more money for trek but GL still had a financial obligation to the company - when he agreed to stop talking about doping publicly then went and did so he did have an adverse effect on his brand. in an ideal world maybe that shouldnt be the case, but in this world it is. whether LA doped or not GL needs to take responsibility for the fact that he was a pita to work with and that continuing to make offhand comments about doping hurt trek and lemond.

read this: http://www.scribd.com/doc/2472821/Trek-Bikes-lawsuit-vs-cyclist-Greg-Lemond

i'm not saying LA is clean. i am saying that GL had a responsibility to trek. that responsibility was to sell bikes. GL hurt bike sales. kind of telling that GL was given an opportunity to shop his brand BEFORE the agreement was officially terminated and no one picked it up. he may be right about doping but its money that drives him. unfortunately most in cycling and business see him as too difficult and unreliable. i'd like to see a reasonable explanation why not a single anti-doping organization has brought GL on board, or why GL hasnt started anything related to clean racing. doping sucks


----------

