Log in:  

Register

Hall of Shame in Doping | Inaugural Edition

The Clinic is the only place on Cyclingnews where you can discuss doping-related issues. Ask questions, discuss positives or improvements to procedures.

Moderators: Eshnar, King Boonen, Red Rick, Pricey_sky

03 Jun 2018 22:01

As someone who lived through it, Lemond had all the signs of being a true champion. He started winning as a teenager as soon as he picked up the sport and was dominant. Within a few short years he was a pro and again racking up the wins. At 16 he won the junior national road title. AT 17 he was 3rd at world's time trial. At 18 he was junior world's road champ. At 19 he was a neopro. At 20 he was on the podium at Dauphine Libere and Route du Sud. At 21 he was excelling at one week races and came 2nd at Worlds! At the tender age of 22 he won the Worlds and was racking up wins. At 23 he was introduced to GT's and pulled off a podium at the Tour. Another successful year at age 24 and then he was winning the Tour.

This my friends, Is the career arc of a champion. If drugs were taken, they weren't needed. And given Greg's anti-doping stance and aversion to needles in an era where both were widely accepted (getting caught for some stuff would only get you a time penalty), I'd say it's highly likely Greg was cycling's last true champion. Clean too.

John Swanson
ScienceIsCool
Member
 
Posts: 1,733
Joined: 05 Jul 2009 15:34

03 Jun 2018 22:16

Small correction, just because I see it said so often and it's incorrect: His Tour podium was not his GT debut. He'd ridden the Vuelta before that season.

People just don't remember it because he didn't do very well.

Anyway, as for the main message of your post, I was with you until this part where you started proselitizing

ScienceIsCool wrote:I'd say it's highly likely Greg was cycling's last true champion


There's no need to demean every rider that came afterwards just because you're a fan of LeMond. What even is a "true champion"?

We don't know what he did or didn't do, he admits to doing cocaine but not any other PEDs.
And we'll never know definitively whether he was clean because it's been 30 years and you can't prove a negative.
User avatar GuyIncognito
Senior Member
 
Posts: 4,278
Joined: 27 Jun 2013 21:19

Re: Re:

03 Jun 2018 23:55

Amazinmets87 wrote:
LegendRider wrote:
Amazinmets87 wrote:My assessment of Lemond: Exceptionally talented cyclist who abused PEDs that were en vogue during the 80s. Did not graduate to the oxygen vector doping as its abuse proliferated the peloton during the early 90s.

My opinion is supported by Lemonds success from the inception of his career. That, coupled with the fact that his decline was due to the increased wattage of his opponents while he maintained a linear performance level.

Is this not the general consensus?


Why wouldn't LeMond have graduated to oxygen vector doping had he willingly taken PEDs in during the 80s? If he was a prolific doper he surly would have known about EPO and its magnificent benefits as it emerged in the peloton. Are you suggesting he quit doping cold turkey or simply refused to use the more powerful substances available in the 90s? Why? Because of the hunting accident?

My evidence is his performance. There was no discernable increase in Lemonds wattage between 1990 and 92, yet he was asphyxiated by supercharged rivals. If he used EPO why didn't his average wattage increase? Poor responder isn't a plausible explanation in an environment which permitted unfettered EPO abuse.

Further evidence is Fignon's response to the introduction of EPO. A fellow rider in his early-mid 30s, already boasting an impressive palmares chose to simply climb off his bike rather than manipulate his blood to remain competitive. It seems perfectly reasonable to assume Lemond had a similar viewpoint.

Anyway, speaking of career arcs and oxygen vector doping, stunning that Rominger is older than Lemond. I have no doubt Lemond could have remained a Tour contender into the mid-90s under the tutelage of a Ferrari or Conconi.


I agree. My post was questioning the contention that LeMond abused PEDs in the 80s. His career arc suggests the opposite - exceptionally talented; beat riders who doped prior to oxygen vector stuff; and suddenly became pack fodder when unregulated EPO hit the scene.
LegendRider
Newly Registered Member
 
Posts: 8
Joined: 06 Aug 2009 13:08

Re: Re:

04 Jun 2018 14:45

LegendRider wrote:
Amazinmets87 wrote:
LegendRider wrote:
Amazinmets87 wrote:My assessment of Lemond: Exceptionally talented cyclist who abused PEDs that were en vogue during the 80s. Did not graduate to the oxygen vector doping as its abuse proliferated the peloton during the early 90s.

My opinion is supported by Lemonds success from the inception of his career. That, coupled with the fact that his decline was due to the increased wattage of his opponents while he maintained a linear performance level.

Is this not the general consensus?


Why wouldn't LeMond have graduated to oxygen vector doping had he willingly taken PEDs in during the 80s? If he was a prolific doper he surly would have known about EPO and its magnificent benefits as it emerged in the peloton. Are you suggesting he quit doping cold turkey or simply refused to use the more powerful substances available in the 90s? Why? Because of the hunting accident?

My evidence is his performance. There was no discernable increase in Lemonds wattage between 1990 and 92, yet he was asphyxiated by supercharged rivals. If he used EPO why didn't his average wattage increase? Poor responder isn't a plausible explanation in an environment which permitted unfettered EPO abuse.

Further evidence is Fignon's response to the introduction of EPO. A fellow rider in his early-mid 30s, already boasting an impressive palmares chose to simply climb off his bike rather than manipulate his blood to remain competitive. It seems perfectly reasonable to assume Lemond had a similar viewpoint.

Anyway, speaking of career arcs and oxygen vector doping, stunning that Rominger is older than Lemond. I have no doubt Lemond could have remained a Tour contender into the mid-90s under the tutelage of a Ferrari or Conconi.


I agree. My post was questioning the contention that LeMond abused PEDs in the 80s. His career arc suggests the opposite - exceptionally talented; beat riders who doped prior to oxygen vector stuff; and suddenly became pack fodder when unregulated EPO hit the scene.



Ah, apologies for the misinterpretation. My skepticism of truly clean GT winners stems from my knowledge of recovery over a grueling 3-week cycle race. Based on my knowledge performances such as Lemond on Champs-Élysées exceed human physiological limits without the use of performance enhancing substances. I am far less skeptical of performances in one day (and to a lesser degree one week) races.

Perhaps a clinic member more knowledgeable than I could shed insight on reduction of RBCs and muscle fatigue after 20 days racing with an average 405 watt expenditure?
Amazinmets87
Junior Member
 
Posts: 292
Joined: 12 May 2015 04:07

Re:

04 Jun 2018 15:27

GuyIncognito wrote:Small correction, just because I see it said so often and it's incorrect: His Tour podium was not his GT debut. He'd ridden the Vuelta before that season.

People just don't remember it because he didn't do very well.

Anyway, as for the main message of your post, I was with you until this part where you started proselitizing

ScienceIsCool wrote:I'd say it's highly likely Greg was cycling's last true champion


There's no need to demean every rider that came afterwards just because you're a fan of LeMond. What even is a "true champion"?

We don't know what he did or didn't do, he admits to doing cocaine but not any other PEDs.
And we'll never know definitively whether he was clean because it's been 30 years and you can't prove a negative.


is it not the case that Guimard put him in for experience and for a dnf?
gillan1969
Member
 
Posts: 1,501
Joined: 12 Aug 2009 12:25

04 Jun 2018 17:48

Indurain
Froome
Horner.
User avatar The Hitch
Veteran
 
Posts: 28,907
Joined: 14 Jun 2010 10:58
Location: London.

Re:

04 Jun 2018 17:51

ScienceIsCool wrote:As someone who lived through it, Lemond had all the signs of being a true champion. He started winning as a teenager as soon as he picked up the sport and was dominant. Within a few short years he was a pro and again racking up the wins. At 16 he won the junior national road title. AT 17 he was 3rd at world's time trial. At 18 he was junior world's road champ. At 19 he was a neopro. At 20 he was on the podium at Dauphine Libere and Route du Sud. At 21 he was excelling at one week races and came 2nd at Worlds! At the tender age of 22 he won the Worlds and was racking up wins. At 23 he was introduced to GT's and pulled off a podium at the Tour. Another successful year at age 24 and then he was winning the Tour.

This my friends, Is the career arc of a champion. If drugs were taken, they weren't needed. And given Greg's anti-doping stance and aversion to needles in an era where both were widely accepted (getting caught for some stuff would only get you a time penalty), I'd say it's highly likely Greg was cycling's last true champion. Clean too.

John Swanson


While i dont know if he was clean or not (never looked at those discussion) you are using the same arguments you rightly help put down with other riders, when you say "if drugs were taken they weren't needed".

If drugs were taken then they made him stronger hence were needed. You can't really tell how strong someone will be from their youth. Some young riders peak in the teenage years and never improve. Others are crap and improve later. Its not like you can extrapolate an average arch and say - this rider would definately make it.
User avatar The Hitch
Veteran
 
Posts: 28,907
Joined: 14 Jun 2010 10:58
Location: London.

Re:

04 Jun 2018 21:32

Scarponi wrote:Horner standing up for 80 hours over 3 weeks


Horner is my very first inductee. The very fact that not a single WC team wanted him after he won the goddam Vuelta says it all. They could feel the glow from a mile away. In fact, winning the Vuelta might have been the worst career move ever for him.

After Horner, you pick 'em. I nominate Basso/Hamilton for being the "good guys" who proved that supposed character has nothing to do with clean racing. In fact, Hamilton's positive was when the veil was finally, irrevocably pulled from my eyes.

LA, well, that's too easy a target.
Bolder
Member
 
Posts: 573
Joined: 25 Jun 2015 07:29

Re: Re:

05 Jun 2018 01:37

Bolder wrote:Horner is my very first inductee. The very fact that not a single WC team wanted him after he won the goddam Vuelta says it all. They could feel the glow from a mile away. In fact, winning the Vuelta might have been the worst career move ever for him.

Horner's career was all but finished anyway. The guy was almost 42.

Judging by performane alone Horner set off less red flags than Froome did two years earlier. Horner at least had shown decent climbing ability previously, even though the foundation for that ability was obviously rampant useof doping given the teams he rode for. The biggest differences between the two was that Horner was old and on he brink of retiring anyway and also had the Armstrong connection. Everyone, including the casual viewers, knew what was going on there. Froome still had the benefit of being able to spin his story as being a young up-and-comer for self-proclaimed paragons of clean cycling Team Sky.
User avatar Saint Unix
Member
 
Posts: 771
Joined: 14 Feb 2014 11:00
Location: Norway

05 Jun 2018 06:18

Mr Bloody Bag Valverde :D
and finally
Mr Steak of Clenbuterol Contador :lol:
User avatar Bot. Sky_Bot
Member
 
Posts: 1,059
Joined: 20 Aug 2017 12:52

05 Jun 2018 08:10

Riccardo Riccò
Lance Armstrong
Evgenij Berzin
User avatar SafeBet
Veteran
 
Posts: 7,134
Joined: 02 Sep 2011 13:38
Location: Milano, Italy

Re: Re:

05 Jun 2018 13:52

Saint Unix wrote:
Bolder wrote:Horner is my very first inductee. The very fact that not a single WC team wanted him after he won the goddam Vuelta says it all. They could feel the glow from a mile away. In fact, winning the Vuelta might have been the worst career move ever for him.

Horner's career was all but finished anyway. The guy was almost 42.

Judging by performane alone Horner set off less red flags than Froome did two years earlier. Horner at least had shown decent climbing ability previously, even though the foundation for that ability was obviously rampant useof doping given the teams he rode for. The biggest differences between the two was that Horner was old and on he brink of retiring anyway and also had the Armstrong connection. Everyone, including the casual viewers, knew what was going on there. Froome still had the benefit of being able to spin his story as being a young up-and-comer for self-proclaimed paragons of clean cycling Team Sky.


One thing weve seen with Froome and other British stars like that athlete who clearly doped but got off on statute of limitations, is that even if Froome had spent 5 years on US Postal and was 40 years old at the time of his transformation, SLoberingham and co would still have spun it as - proof cycling is now clean
User avatar The Hitch
Veteran
 
Posts: 28,907
Joined: 14 Jun 2010 10:58
Location: London.

Re: Hall of Shame in Doping | Inaugural Edition

05 Jun 2018 15:26

Froome
Wiggins
LRP
G. Thomas
Moscon
Kiryienka
Kwiatkowski
W. Poels
:twisted:
User avatar JosephK
Junior Member
 
Posts: 256
Joined: 24 Jul 2016 15:49

Re: Hall of Shame in Doping | Inaugural Edition

05 Jun 2018 15:32

JosephK wrote:Froome
Wiggins
LRP
G. Thomas
Moscon
Kiryienka
Kwiatkowski
W. Poels
:twisted:


I'm sensing a bit of a theme here.....
brownbobby
Member
 
Posts: 898
Joined: 27 Sep 2017 07:14

Re: Re:

05 Jun 2018 15:32

Bolder wrote:
Scarponi wrote:Horner standing up for 80 hours over 3 weeks


Horner is my very first inductee. The very fact that not a single WC team wanted him after he won the goddam Vuelta says it all. They could feel the glow from a mile away. In fact, winning the Vuelta might have been the worst career move ever for him.

After Horner, you pick 'em. I nominate Basso/Hamilton for being the "good guys" who proved that supposed character has nothing to do with clean racing. In fact, Hamilton's positive was when the veil was finally, irrevocably pulled from my eyes.

LA, well, that's too easy a target.


Horner shouldn't have asked for a 7-figure sum at his age and with his career in September. GT win or not.

I do think that probably some WT teams did want him, but he overplayed his hand badly.
User avatar roundabout
Veteran
 
Posts: 13,174
Joined: 07 Jun 2010 11:43

05 Jun 2018 16:08

I'm still upset that Horner was excluded from the 2014 Vuelta. Think of how good that race was, and how crazy it would have been if Horner in 2013-Vuelta form had been added to the mix.
shalgo
Member
 
Posts: 1,489
Joined: 11 Aug 2010 13:57
Location: Pale Blue Dot

Re: Re:

05 Jun 2018 21:01

Amazinmets87 wrote:
LegendRider wrote:
Amazinmets87 wrote:
LegendRider wrote:
Amazinmets87 wrote:My assessment of Lemond: Exceptionally talented cyclist who abused PEDs that were en vogue during the 80s. Did not graduate to the oxygen vector doping as its abuse proliferated the peloton during the early 90s.

My opinion is supported by Lemonds success from the inception of his career. That, coupled with the fact that his decline was due to the increased wattage of his opponents while he maintained a linear performance level.

Is this not the general consensus?


Why wouldn't LeMond have graduated to oxygen vector doping had he willingly taken PEDs in during the 80s? If he was a prolific doper he surly would have known about EPO and its magnificent benefits as it emerged in the peloton. Are you suggesting he quit doping cold turkey or simply refused to use the more powerful substances available in the 90s? Why? Because of the hunting accident?

My evidence is his performance. There was no discernable increase in Lemonds wattage between 1990 and 92, yet he was asphyxiated by supercharged rivals. If he used EPO why didn't his average wattage increase? Poor responder isn't a plausible explanation in an environment which permitted unfettered EPO abuse.

Further evidence is Fignon's response to the introduction of EPO. A fellow rider in his early-mid 30s, already boasting an impressive palmares chose to simply climb off his bike rather than manipulate his blood to remain competitive. It seems perfectly reasonable to assume Lemond had a similar viewpoint.

Anyway, speaking of career arcs and oxygen vector doping, stunning that Rominger is older than Lemond. I have no doubt Lemond could have remained a Tour contender into the mid-90s under the tutelage of a Ferrari or Conconi.


I agree. My post was questioning the contention that LeMond abused PEDs in the 80s. His career arc suggests the opposite - exceptionally talented; beat riders who doped prior to oxygen vector stuff; and suddenly became pack fodder when unregulated EPO hit the scene.



Ah, apologies for the misinterpretation. My skepticism of truly clean GT winners stems from my knowledge of recovery over a grueling 3-week cycle race. Based on my knowledge performances such as Lemond on Champs-Élysées exceed human physiological limits without the use of performance enhancing substances. I am far less skeptical of performances in one day (and to a lesser degree one week) races.

Perhaps a clinic member more knowledgeable than I could shed insight on reduction of RBCs and muscle fatigue after 20 days racing with an average 405 watt expenditure?


I think it is obvious Lemond didn't graduate to Oxygen Vector doping anyone who followed the Tour between 1990 and 1992 could see this. In 1991 all of a sudden he was getting dropped by riders who were never close to him.

Didn't Lemond record a 95 VO2 Max? This has not been approached by any cyclist before or since only Contador's extraterrestrial performance on Verbier and his Cancellara beating TT in the 2009 Tour suggested anything close to that level of aerobic capacity.
Cookster15
Member
 
Posts: 1,105
Joined: 14 May 2011 19:25

Re: Re:

05 Jun 2018 21:04

Cookster15 wrote:Didn't Lemond record a 95 VO2 Max? This has not been approached by any cyclist before or since only Contador's extraterrestrial performance on Verbier and his Cancellara beating TT in the 2009 Tour suggested anything close to that level of aerobic capacity.


On the contrary, it's been beaten by such superstars of world cycling as Arvesen and Svendsen

VO2Max is meaningless unless you're scouting riders for an individual pursuit
User avatar GuyIncognito
Senior Member
 
Posts: 4,278
Joined: 27 Jun 2013 21:19

Re: Re:

06 Jun 2018 17:55

gillan1969 wrote:
GuyIncognito wrote:Small correction, just because I see it said so often and it's incorrect: His Tour podium was not his GT debut. He'd ridden the Vuelta before that season.

People just don't remember it because he didn't do very well.

Anyway, as for the main message of your post, I was with you until this part where you started proselitizing

ScienceIsCool wrote:I'd say it's highly likely Greg was cycling's last true champion


There's no need to demean every rider that came afterwards just because you're a fan of LeMond. What even is a "true champion"?

We don't know what he did or didn't do, he admits to doing cocaine but not any other PEDs.
And we'll never know definitively whether he was clean because it's been 30 years and you can't prove a negative.


is it not the case that Guimard put him in for experience and for a dnf?


as an aside and as I've just seen it on facebook...there is a good photo of Lemond's initial Vuelta that does the rounds...not seen many but its Hinault, Fignon, Sarroni and Lemond at the front with the rest of the bunch struggling in their wake...it may suggest he may not have been struggling...happy for evidence to the contrary though.....
gillan1969
Member
 
Posts: 1,501
Joined: 12 Aug 2009 12:25

06 Jun 2018 19:04

He was put in to finish it, but retired after 2 weeks.

He may not have been struggling, but he certainly didn't stand out. As a comparison, in Fignon's first GT he finished 15th and wore the pink jersey for a while

I'm not saying that means anything about his potential or how clean he was, just that the usual narrative "His first GT was the 1984 Tour de France" is wrong
User avatar GuyIncognito
Senior Member
 
Posts: 4,278
Joined: 27 Jun 2013 21:19

PreviousNext

Return to The Clinic

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Majestic-12 [Bot] and 25 guests

Back to top