First EPO users in the peloton?

[hrotha]

WTF are you talking about? I only have said that GL claimed he didn't know about it while his contemporaries did. I quoted your very own post that said Fignon knew in 91/92. That is when GL started losing. That is all I have written.

So why are you going off on this tangent about Kimmage, Voet, 1989, etc? That has nothing to do with my post. If you want to talk about that then you should work on flowing the conversation to that direction. The way you have jammed it into this discussion in not very sensitive, you know? Foreplay should not be underestimated.

Because you heavily implied LeMond couldn't have beaten them without doping himself. Which is BS.

 

[ChrisE]

Because you heavily implied LeMond couldn't have beaten them without doping himself. Which is BS.

OK, then shift gears and let's talk about that. Maybe I am not equipped to deal with this ADD/schizo debating method where somebody responds to a post with something off topic. Kinda like attacking Iraq after 911.

I point out facts (Fignon/Delgado doped), you draw your own conclusions. If you think it was possible to beat everybody clean prior to EPO then great for you. Is it ok if somebody may think different? Or if somebody does think differently do they in turn deserve to get hit from left field with some BS off topic post?

 

[hrotha]

OK, then shift gears and let's talk about that. Maybe I am not equipped to deal with this ADD/schizo debating method where somebody responds to a post with something off topic. Kinda like attacking Iraq after 911.

I point out facts (Fignon/Delgado doped), you draw your own conclusions. If you think it was possible to beat everybody clean prior to EPO then great for you. Is it ok if somebody may think different? Or if somebody does think differently do they in turn deserve to get hit from left field with some BS off topic post?

Alright, I didn't word that properly. My bad.
The thing is, you are implying LeMond couldn't have beaten them clean because the EPO era wasn't fundamentally different from the pre-EPO era. And that is BS. It would merely be wrong if you hadn't discussed this dozens of times before, and if you hadn't carefully worded your post to obfuscate.

 

[ChrisE]

Alright, I didn't word that properly. My bad.
The thing is, you are implying LeMond couldn't have beaten them clean because the EPO era wasn't fundamentally different from the pre-EPO era. And that is BS. It would merely be wrong if you hadn't discussed this dozens of times before, and if you hadn't carefully worded your post to obfuscate.

Yes, and I will no longer discuss it other than to say one last thing to our newest member here. Take care.

 

[ChrisE]

I now see u don't have any interest in the purpose of this thread, you only want to show of ur **** on how huge ur debat skills are.
*snip angry newbie post*.

OK matey keep your shirt on. I eat at Outback so cut me some slack.

My interest is to only point out facts, and now you want to talk about how big my **** is. That is way off topic. You also assume alot about me, but unlike the old saying that only makes an *** out of you in this case. Anyway, carry on and I promise not to bother this thread any longer. Take care, matey.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Alright, I didn't word that properly. My bad.
The thing is, you are implying LeMond couldn't have beaten them clean because the EPO era wasn't fundamentally different from the pre-EPO era. And that is BS. It would merely be wrong if you hadn't discussed this dozens of times before, and if you hadn't carefully worded your post to obfuscate.

To add to that -another problem ChrisE has is that he talks in absolutes with things like "Funny that Fignon, AH, etc. knew at the time it was because of EPO, but not GL." - when this is not true.

To quote from Fignons book which of course is written with the benefit of hindsight:

I was aware of the availability of EPO without actually knowing. There were vague rumours reaching my ears, but nothing more. Lets be clear: when I was at Castorama in 1991 I was able to work out a few things out by mere deduction, or sometimes just intuition. For example I talk today about EPO, but I only found out much later that this was the name of the 'miracle' drug which was spoken about in confidence.

Further on Fignon says:

During the 1992 season I believe that these forms of doping - which bore little relation to what we had experienced in the 1980s - were not yet widespread. There were some of the team leaders who clearly seemed to have access to EPO, maybe one or two others in each team. I really don't know.

 

[mewmewmew13]

Yes, and I will no longer discuss it other than to say one last thing to our newest member here. Take care.

.............

 

[Digger]

WTF are you talking about? I only have said that GL claimed he didn't know about it while his contemporaries did. I quoted your very own post that said Fignon knew in 91/92. That is when GL started losing. That is all I have written.

So why are you going off on this tangent about Kimmage, Voet, 1989, etc? That has nothing to do with my post. If you want to talk about that then you should work on flowing the conversation to that direction. The way you have jammed it into this discussion in not very sensitive, you know? Foreplay should not be underestimated.

You can't even follow your own arguments now - the reason i mentioned Kimmage is he raced until 1989 and never saw EPO...Look at the thread title.
Reason I mentioned Voet is that he outlined how huge an advantage over a three week race EPO had. You were insinuating that in the 1980s if you beat a doped rider then you had to be doping. So if you can't follow the debate when you are the one raising these points, maybe it's time to bow out.

 

[Fearless Greg Lemond]

OK matey keep your shirt on. I eat at Outback so cut me some slack.

My interest is to only point out facts, and now you want to talk about how big my **** is. That is way off topic. You also assume alot about me, but unlike the old saying that only makes an *** out of you in this case. Anyway, carry on and I promise not to bother this thread any longer. Take care, matey.

Dont play the innocent victim matey and for once come with facts and don't turn your assumptions into facts. U state Lemond could have been on the dough while I state Lemonds/Hampstens' and others performances were relatively static, the same. While other riders like Chiapucci/Indurain/Breukink/Alcala/Bugno etc etc rocked in the early nineties and kept on improving other riders didn't seem to have that improvement. You seem to forget, maybe dont even know, Lemond had/has the biggest VO2max ever recorded for a cyclist. The man is maybe a freak of nature, so be it, but he could ride like hell. Now some nobody on the internet who I think didn't even see him ride in 1982, 1983, 1984, hell, never, claims he was one of the first EPO's? Get outta here man.

And don't try to be funny with your 'newbie' BS. I come with facts I have seen live, analysed and couldn't apprehend. Just like the PDM-scam. Everybody here in the Netherlands were fan of the PDM superstar team, I didn't buy it and had a big laugh in 1991 when the socalled intrapelid happened. Intrapelid? Overdose on EPO we know now, for 99% that is.

 

[Polish]

Did u even ever saw Lemond riding or did u learn through big Lance there was another American rider who won the Tour?
.

I watched and read and rooted for Greg, and I saw him slow down. Go back and read the old interviews with Greg pre tour and post tour. Greg talking about lack of sleep due to sponsor stuff and health issues and this and that.
Lots of magazine coverage back then. I have an stack those old mags. 10 feet tall lol.

Big Mig kicked everyone's ****. Not by climbing mind you. But by being tough as nails and a BEAST on his TT bici's. Greg's fastest TdF victory was faster than most of Big Mig's you know.

But what REALLY disappoints me is the OMERTA back when EPO first kicked in. Riders knowing about team wide doping programs and not raising the flag. As a fan, I was totally clueless until EPO took root and spread. There was no mention of EPO doping in the press until it was too late. WHY DIDN'T SOME RIDERS BACK THEN RAISE THE FLAG. Send some letters or something. Riders died and no one said a peep for crying out loud. Almost criminal.

The results would not have changed though. Even if some one broke omerta - Big Mig STILL would have ruled over all. Patron. And a nice guy

 

[ChrisE]

Dont play the innocent victim matey and for once come with facts and don't turn your assumptions into facts. U state Lemond could have been on the dough while I state Lemonds and others performances were relatively static, the same. While other riders like Chiapucci/Indurain/Breukink/Alcala/Bugno etc etc rocked in the early nineties and kept on improving other riders didn't seem to have that improvement. You seem to forget, maybe dont even know, Lemond had/has the biggest VO2max ever recorded for a cyclist. The man is maybe a freak of nature, so be it, but he could ride like hell. Now some nobody on the internet who I think didn't even see him ride in 1982, 1983, 1984, hell, never, claims he was one of the first EPO's? Get outta here man.

And don't try to be funny with your 'newbie' BS. I come with facts I have seen live, analysed and couldn't apprehend. Just like the PDM-scam. Everybody here in the Netherlands were fan of the PDM superstar team, I didn't buy it and had a big laugh in 1991 when the socalled intrapelid happened. Intrapelid? Overdose on EPO we know now, for 99% that is.

If you want to show where I wrote he took EPO then knock yourself out. Take your time. You just stated in the other thread about not understanding English so maybe things are just getting screwed up in babelfish for you here.

If you want you can do a search on this forum and the other main one out there. I have been posting since about 2000 on these forums ie when they came about, and before that on rec.bicycle.racing under just the name "chris". I do not know if you can search usenet. Have fun with your search and good luck....you will need it because I have never written such a thing.

I only stated people that point out that EPO could have been around when he was still winning would catch some grief. You yourself upthread pushed back against this. Personally I don't think he took EPO, and that is why he fell back. Care to attack me for that opinion?

You carpet bomb me with a bunch of personal BS you know nothing about, and only I and a couple of others on here know what a fool you are because I don't care to spread my personal background on an internet forum. So you just keep right on thinking that I only got into cycling when LA came around and I am clueless about GL. I will have my own personal laugh at your expense.

Now with that, I really am gone from here before mewmew has an orgasm about me being back in this thread. I could shoot holes all in doc's "miracle drug" post vs just calling it EPO but I refuse to do that. I will just run along now and get me another beer, I mean "alcoholic beverage".

 

[Fearless Greg Lemond]

If you want to show where I wrote he took EPO then knock yourself out. Take your time. You just stated in the other thread about not understanding English so maybe things are just getting screwed up in babelfish for you here.

If you want you can do a search on this forum and the other main one out there. I have been posting since about 2000 on these forums ie when they came about, and before that on rec.bicycle.racing under just the name "chris". I do not know if you can search usenet. Have fun with your search and good luck....you will need it because I have never written such a thing.

I only stated people that point out that EPO could have been around when he was still winning would catch some grief. You yourself upthread pushed back against this. Personally I don't think he took EPO, and that is why he fell back. Care to attack me for that opinion?

You carpet bomb me with a bunch of personal BS you know nothing about, and only I and a couple of others on here know what a fool you are because I don't care to spread my personal background on an internet forum. So you just keep right on thinking that I only got into cycling when LA came around and I am clueless about GL. I will have my own personal laugh at your expense.

Now with that, I really am gone from here before mewmew has an orgasm about me being back in this thread. I could shoot holes all in doc's "miracle drug" post vs just calling it EPO but I refuse to do that. I will just run along now and get me another beer, I mean "alcoholic beverage".

U are all about semantics, love to win discussions don't you? Again, play victim. I can read English extraordinary well, sometimes my grammar or my vocabulary is wrong but that is always nice to point out in a discussion u cannot win. No loss in this thread when u don't show up I think.

I watched and read and rooted for Greg, and I saw him slow down. Go back and read the old interviews with Greg pre tour and post tour. Greg talking about lack of sleep due to sponsor stuff and health issues and this and that.
Lots of magazine coverage back then. I have an stack those old mags. 10 feet tall lol.

Big Mig kicked everyone's ****. Not by climbing mind you. But by being tough as nails and a BEAST on his TT bici's. Greg's fastest TdF victory was faster than most of Big Mig's you know.

But what REALLY disappoints me is the OMERTA back when EPO first kicked in. Riders knowing about team wide doping programs and not raising the flag. As a fan, I was totally clueless until EPO took root and spread. There was no mention of EPO doping in the press until it was too late. WHY DIDN'T SOME RIDERS BACK THEN RAISE THE FLAG. Send some letters or something. Riders died and no one said a peep for crying out loud. Almost criminal.

The results would not have changed though. Even if some one broke omerta - Big Mig STILL would have ruled over all. Patron. And a nice guy

Strange, u quote my post to ChrisE...

Nevertheless, I got my suspicions on big Mig when he utterly destroyed Pantani at Hautacam 1994, after Pantani on his Giro debut destroyed tiny Mig..
Sure 1991 was a surprise but he had more talent then Chiapucci, the bidon boy, and Bugno but the improvemend in those days and his work with Conconi we nowadays know of should ring a bell. Don't u think?

As before, u are right about the omerta. Why didn't Rooks and Theunisse said something when their former teammate died in 1990? Why didn't Chavanel ring a bell when Salanson was lying dead on their hotelroom? Funny how those things work in cycling.

Too bad they didn't have the hematocrit controls back then. I sure as hell know who was at 50% in those days.

 

[Digger]

If you want to show where I wrote he took EPO then knock yourself out. Take your time. You just stated in the other thread about not understanding English so maybe things are just getting screwed up in babelfish for you here.

If you want you can do a search on this forum and the other main one out there. I have been posting since about 2000 on these forums ie when they came about, and before that on rec.bicycle.racing under just the name "chris". I do not know if you can search usenet. Have fun with your search and good luck....you will need it because I have never written such a thing.

I only stated people that point out that EPO could have been around when he was still winning would catch some grief. You yourself upthread pushed back against this. Personally I don't think he took EPO, and that is why he fell back. Care to attack me for that opinion?

You carpet bomb me with a bunch of personal BS you know nothing about, and only I and a couple of others on here know what a fool you are because I don't care to spread my personal background on an internet forum. So you just keep right on thinking that I only got into cycling when LA came around and I am clueless about GL. I will have my own personal laugh at your expense.

Now with that, I really am gone from here before mewmew has an orgasm about me being back in this thread. I could shoot holes all in doc's "miracle drug" post vs just calling it EPO but I refuse to do that. I will just run along now and get me another beer, I mean "alcoholic beverage".

You know full well you can't...which is why you are running away.

 

[Tyler'sTwin]

It's interesting to note that Greg performed much better in TT's than in mountain stages in -91. He was the second best TT'er in the race and lost no more than 56 seconds to Indurain over 130 km (73km+57km).

http://www.bikeraceinfo.com/tdf/tdf1991.html

 

[Digger]

It's interesting to note that Greg performed much better in TT's than in mountain stages in -91. He was the second best TT'er in the race and lost no more than 56 seconds to Indurain over 130 km (73km+57km).

http://www.bikeraceinfo.com/tdf/tdf1991.html

This merely backs up the point...EPO allowed big riders like Indurain power up climbs which they wouldn't have been able to do, to that level, previously. Not for one second am I suggesting Miguel didn't have a big engine. But it's a fact that a certain build of riders responded better to EPO than others.

 

[mewmewmew13]

If you want to show where I wrote he took EPO then knock yourself out. Take your time. You just stated in the other thread about not understanding English so maybe things are just getting screwed up in babelfish for you here.

If you want you can do a search on this forum and the other main one out there. I have been posting since about 2000 on these forums ie when they came about, and before that on rec.bicycle.racing under just the name "chris". I do not know if you can search usenet. Have fun with your search and good luck....you will need it because I have never written such a thing.

I only stated people that point out that EPO could have been around when he was still winning would catch some grief. You yourself upthread pushed back against this. Personally I don't think he took EPO, and that is why he fell back. Care to attack me for that opinion?

You carpet bomb me with a bunch of personal BS you know nothing about, and only I and a couple of others on here know what a fool you are because I don't care to spread my personal background on an internet forum. So you just keep right on thinking that I only got into cycling when LA came around and I am clueless about GL. I will have my own personal laugh at your expense.

Now with that, I really am gone from here before mewmew has an orgasm about me being back in this thread. I could shoot holes all in doc's "miracle drug" post vs just calling it EPO but I refuse to do that. I will just run along now and get me another beer, I mean "alcoholic beverage".

All on the forum know your 'turtle' style anyway...no biggie.
Announce you are leaving after firing some insults and blows...watch a while and then come back for some more retorts.

...the other part of the sentence you give yourself too much credit

 

[Tyler'sTwin]

From an o2 uptake standpoint the percentage gain is about half of the increase in total hemoglobin mass. So, in modern day where the bio-passport would prevent any huge jumps in Hb, say you increased from 14g/dl to 15g/dl (this all assumes that plasma volume is totally stable, which is a very big assumption and almost impossible...but anyway..)..This would bring about a total Hb increase of 6.7&#37]One thing not taken into consideration into this is that Hb is a protein that would, in theory, serve as a lactate buffer.[/B] So, there is also some undetermined anearobic advantage in addition to just the o2 carrying increase. In a race where repeated anearobic efforts are required and recovery from those efforts are required, over and over, there will be some culmulative advantage as well.

Also, an old Finnish study (if you can find it) found that athletes with higher Vo2 maxes benefitted less from EPO use than those who started with lower Vo2 maxes. The more talented athlete were (generally) benefitting less. Another observation of that study was that ectomorphic body types showed less increase than mesomorphic types. So, the variables on the exact advantage are endless and vary person to person (A BIG counterpoint to the argument that just letting everyone dope is fair). I read this study in about 1995 and haven't seen it anywhere since, so i cant find a link, sorry...

What people fail to understand is that by increasing production of red blood cells you are transporting more oxygen to the muscles and you are also removing carbon dioxide, ammonia and lactic acid, all the byproducts of exercise.

I think the bolded could explain why EPO might make more of a difference in a mountain stage than in a TT.

The last paragraph in JV's post is also quite interesting.

 

[blutto]

It's interesting to note that Greg performed much better in TT's than in mountain stages in -91. He was the second best TT'er in the race and lost no more than 56 seconds to Indurain over 130 km (73km+57km).

http://www.bikeraceinfo.com/tdf/tdf1991.html

...and while checking the numbers on that you provided I found that Charly Mottet, a man reputed to be squeaky clean, beat LeMond by about 5:30 min...so it wasn't just a drug addled mob that beat him up it was also some non drug addled folks too...must have been the early onset of his later mitochondrial problems...

Cheers

blutto

 

[Digger]

...and while checking the numbers on that you provided I found that Charly Mottet, a man reputed to be squeaky clean, beat LeMond by about 5:30 min...so it wasn't just a drug addled mob that beat him up it was also some non drug addled folks too...must have been the early onset of his later mitochondrial problems...

Cheers

blutto

Anyone who has read my stuff will know I don't believe Lemond took EPO. However I will concede this above. I don't actually think his disimprovement in results wa completely down to EPO and I think he's being disengenuous if he is saying it is. Certainly it played a large part, but for various reasons, be it the above, or whatever, I believe there were other factors.

 

[Fearless Greg Lemond]

...and while checking the numbers on that you provided I found that Charly Mottet, a man reputed to be squeaky clean, beat LeMond by about 5:30 min...so it wasn't just a drug addled mob that beat him up it was also some non drug addled folks too...must have been the early onset of his later mitochondrial problems...

Cheers

blutto

Charley Mottet was in fact quite a good rider who used to have traditionally one bad day. When u take a closer look to the 1991 results u will see his main advantage he took on Lemond was in a breakaway where Lemond lost 7 minutes to the little Frenchy. The little Frenchy was no threat for the GC since he lost 6 minuten in the first TT. That's how Mottet got up till fourth, like that Spaniard winning the Tour in 2006.

Nevertheless Mottet was a great character! He truly deserved to win at least one GT in my opinion, for me he has won two.

Lemond had one breakdown day in 1991, the one to Morzine where he lost 8 minutes to the leaders. Hell, he even finished behind guys like Jalabert.

 

[ChrisE]

All on the forum know your 'turtle' style anyway...no biggie.
Announce you are leaving after firing some insults and blows...watch a while and then come back for some more retorts.

...the other part of the sentence you give yourself too much credit

Well, when somebody is having a meltdown and erroneously claims that I wrote something, then I will come back and set the record straight.

 

[Gregga]

Actually, i'm not a pro-GL troll , Gregga is my grandfather first name.
I live in France and was a teen when LeMond won the Tour, I saw him in the Alps when he took the jersey in 86 and 89, I was a true fan of him. That should be a reason for what I try to understand who was a cheater an who was not twenty years ago.

Reading your discussions, I think as many that everything started in 1990, very few doubts about Chiappucci or Alcala or Bugno and Indurain. 1988 or 1989 ? Well, a few surprising cases like Rooks, suddenly climbing, Theunisse as well, PDM of course...
1991, no doubt at all, but clean riders like Mottet could still win, same in 1992, Delion won a tour stage, but in 1993, EPO was so widely used that one could not win without it (by the way, Festina started EPO in july 1993, that's in W.Voet book).

 

[Cloxxki]

I think the bolded could explain why EPO might make more of a difference in a mountain stage than in a TT.

The last paragraph in JV's post is also quite interesting.

On a steep hill, 10% more power gets you ~10% more speed. In a TT, the advantage is half, of less. Air resistance ramps up by the 3rd ower of speed, or some say exponentially. Means going twice the speed costs 4-8x more power. Up a hill, going twice as fast takes 2x more power, as air speed hardly is a factor, and fighting gravity is takes proportionate power for vertical speed.

 

[ChrisE]

On a steep hill, 10% more power gets you ~10% more speed. In a TT, the advantage is half, of less. Air resistance ramps up by the 3rd ower of speed, or some say exponentially. Means going twice the speed costs 4-8x more power. Up a hill, going twice as fast takes 2x more power, as air speed hardly is a factor, and fighting gravity is takes proportionate power for vertical speed.

Actually, air resistance increase is determined by comparing the square of the velocity. For example, you double the speed you have 4 times more wind resistance.

 

[blutto]

Anyone who has read my stuff will know I don't believe Lemond took EPO. However I will concede this above. I don't actually think his disimprovement in results wa completely down to EPO and I think he's being disengenuous if he is saying it is. Certainly it played a large part, but for various reasons, be it the above, or whatever, I believe there were other factors.

...the reasons for the disimprovement have also been a bit of a moving target...

...initially it was the result of mitochondrial issues and then it was superceded years later by a playing field made very unlevel by a new generation of drugs...

...a wee bit strange at the very least...

Cheers

blutto