Greg Lemond from another great racer's point of view

[ultimobici]

MacRoadie- I am discussing the topic and what is being discussed, you, on the other hand, are merely posting posts that are about another poster and not even remotely on topic. Perhaps you should purchase a mirror this evening.

ultramobici- None of that changes the fact that there is always an excuse why doping back in the day was ok but doping today is horrible and the scourge of sport. You mentioned some specific riders/results as a condemnation yet you don't mention someone like Merckx or Fignon. That is making my point precisely.

I am not saying that doping was ok prior to EPO at all. I am saying that the effect EPO had was to skew the results massively in comparison to speed, cortisone & testosterone.

Merckx, Coppi, Anquetil et al would have won with or without dope. So would Fignon, Hinault & Kelly. The advent of EPO etc made it much less likely for truly talented riders to get a ride let alone succeed at the highest level.

FIgnon did admit to doping and tested positive but to treat it in the same way as modern blood doping is banal. That Lemond, a man so vehemently anti-doping, did not condemn his actions is telling.

Riders all the way up until very recently had to race much much more than current riders do. Most would race more days before the Giro or Tour than many riders do all season for no more than a basic wage.

They did not have large salaries nor lucrative endorsement deals. The way you made your money was in appearance money on the criterium & six day circuit. Read Kelly by David Walsh and you'll see that within a day of the Tour finishing Kelly was criss-crossing France, Holland & Belgium for most of August on a merry-go-round of races to make his money. Riders of his stature now ride only the odd one or two if any.

There was no minimum wage for a rider, indeed some riders were only paid for the season so had to work a winter job to make ends meet. Reading Paul Kimmage's Rough Ride it is plain that the physical and mental stress a rider was expected to endure was such that it is hardly surprising that many riders doped. They weren't taking speed to win, they were taking it because they were knackered.

In the 80's it was normal to ride the early season races then Paris Nice or Tirreno, followed up by the Classics. Then you'd do the Vuelta or Giro and after that the Tour. August was spent driving round Europe & racing in the back end of beyond sur mer before getting back down to business at the Worlds at the end of the month. Then you had the Autumn Classics of Blois Chaville & the Giro di Lombardia. None of it was really optional, you didn't pick & choose what you rode to the extent that they do now. The idea of a Tour contender even taking the start of the Ronde, Roubaix or Gent Wevelgem has been a non starter for years. Armstrong didn't even set foot on European soil until April and was gone before they'd cleared away the Tour barriers from the Champs Elysees!

I think that the argument can be made that pre-EPO doping was as much about looking after oneself as getting an advantage. But now it is much more firmly about getting an edge. Neither is right but the latter is more calculating & cynical in my view.

 

[Hampsten88]

I'm sorry but you are simply making excuses for the past. You say those guys would have won with or without dope, but since they doped all we can do is speculate what they might have done. You talk about the doping then to be so bad compared to today, but only one or two percent advantage is the difference between winning and losing, so one guy on 80's or 60's or even 50's dope vs. a clean rider gives the win to the doped rider. A doper winning is a doper winning, regardless of whether it is a top ten rider or a top 50 rider. Wouldn't needing to ride at the top of the sport all year long to get appearance fees mean that doping would be more of an issue. Today you can win one big race and be set for the next two years, so you can dope for that one race and not worry about it. Then you had to dope all year long to be able to be at the top.

Doping sucks. I proudly wear my "Ride Clean" t-shirt at all of my races and I make no excuses for today's riders or riders of the past, but I also don't downplay the past methods of doping nor do I vilify some riders while making excuses for others because of methods of cheating they used or potentially used.

 

[ultimobici]

I'm sorry but you are simply making excuses for the past. You say those guys would have won with or without dope, but since they doped all we can do is speculate what they might have done. You talk about the doping then to be so bad compared to today, but only one or two percent advantage is the difference between winning and losing, so one guy on 80's or 60's or even 50's dope vs. a clean rider gives the win to the doped rider. A doper winning is a doper winning, regardless of whether it is a top ten rider or a top 50 rider. Wouldn't needing to ride at the top of the sport all year long to get appearance fees mean that doping would be more of an issue. Today you can win one big race and be set for the next two years, so you can dope for that one race and not worry about it. Then you had to dope all year long to be able to be at the top.

Doping sucks. I proudly wear my "Ride Clean" t-shirt at all of my races and I make no excuses for today's riders or riders of the past, but I also don't downplay the past methods of doping nor do I vilify some riders while making excuses for others because of methods of cheating they used or potentially used.

doping has always been an issue, even before it was against the rules.

The marked difference between the pre/post EPO eras is that with EPO it is possible to supercharge a regular rider into superstardom with less risk & side effects because it was artificial altitude training in effect. With speed, cortisone & testosterone you are dealing with substances that merely override the body's built-in safety valves. They may work for a bit but continued use actually degrades performance and in extreme cases kills. Simpson died on Ventoux because the amphetamines blocked his body's normal reaction to stress. In effect he blew a gasket in a horribly literal way. Rumour was rife that Hinault's knee problems that prevented him starting the 83 Tour were as a result of using cortisone to get through the Vuelta that year despite the pain. Guimard's career was cut short by him damaging his knees so much he could not walk in his last Tour. Riviere broke his back in a fall into a ravine because he couldn't pull his brake levers due to the amount of amphetamine he'd taken.

Point is that all of the prior methods were to suppress the body's safety mechanisms so that a rider could continue through fatigue & pain. The more recent methods are about helping the body get more of what it needs - oxygen, and increasing the efficacy of training.

Neither is fair, right or good for one's long-term health. But the latter makes far more carthorses into thoroughbreds.

I presume that your no compromises attitude to breaking the rules is applied rigorously throughout your life? Never speed, queue-jump, bend or break any law/rule - ever? If you are that angelic, congratulations on being the only one of us who does.

 

[Kennf1]

I'm sorry but you are simply making excuses for the past. You say those guys would have won with or without dope, but since they doped all we can do is speculate what they might have done. You talk about the doping then to be so bad compared to today, but only one or two percent advantage is the difference between winning and losing, so one guy on 80's or 60's or even 50's dope vs. a clean rider gives the win to the doped rider. A doper winning is a doper winning, regardless of whether it is a top ten rider or a top 50 rider. Wouldn't needing to ride at the top of the sport all year long to get appearance fees mean that doping would be more of an issue. Today you can win one big race and be set for the next two years, so you can dope for that one race and not worry about it. Then you had to dope all year long to be able to be at the top.

Doping sucks. I proudly wear my "Ride Clean" t-shirt at all of my races and I make no excuses for today's riders or riders of the past, but I also don't downplay the past methods of doping nor do I vilify some riders while making excuses for others because of methods of cheating they used or potentially used.

I don't read Tilford's comments, or anyone's post here, as "making excuses for the past." What has been discussed (to death in other threads), is the difference in the doping methods used in different eras, where it primarily boils down to stimulants (the "old days") versus oxygen carrying enhancement. We all know there are variances on that distinction, such as Conconi's doping of Moser in the '80s, and the U.S. Olympic track team debacle. Again, since Tilford's article emphasizes Lemond, and you keep wanting to debate the fact that there was doping in the old days (which no one disagrees with), it's easy to why people are reading your comments as a suggestion that Lemond doped, despite your disclaimers.

I think in a nutshell that Tilford is simply saying there will always be outliers. For him, the outlier in his era was Lemond, and his opinion, there are currently, or in the last ten years, too many outliers to be explained by hard training. There's nothing in the article denying doping in the past or making "excuses" for riders in the past.

 

[ultimobici]

I don't read Tilford's comments, or anyone's post here, as "making excuses for the past." What has been discussed (to death in other threads), is the difference in the doping methods used in different eras, where it primarily boils down to stimulants (the "old days") versus oxygen carrying enhancement. We all know there are variances on that distinction, such as Conconi's doping of Moser in the '80s, and the U.S. Olympic track team debacle. Again, since Tilford's article emphasizes Lemond, and you keep wanting to debate the fact that there was doping in the old days (which no one disagrees with), it's easy to why people are reading your comments as a suggestion that Lemond doped, despite your disclaimers.

I think in a nutshell that Tilford is simply saying there will always be outliers. For him, the outlier in his era was Lemond, and his opinion, there are currently, or in the last ten years, too many outliers to be explained by hard training. There's nothing in the article denying doping in the past or making "excuses" for riders in the past.

Thank you!

Imagine Delion or Mottet's career's if EPO hadn't arrived. Both had careers stymied by the shift of the early 90's. Mottet was lucky in that he was already 31 and had had big wins but Delion was just getting to his peak when the change in speed happened. His 1990 season was thought to be the beginning, it turned out to be pretty much it. He retired at 26.

 

[Hampsten88]

Kennf1-Please don't take this the wrong way (well, try not to since you already implied it was ok for people to think I am claiming Lemond doped even though I said otherwise) but are you actually reading what is being written? Ultramobici has posted excuses in nearly every one of his posts in this thread. Here is just one from the second sentence in his last response to me:

"The marked difference between the pre/post EPO eras is that with EPO it is possible to supercharge a regular rider into superstardom with less risk & side effects because it was artificial altitude training in effect."

Not once have I debated the fact that there was doping in the past, my comments were about people making excuses for the previous generations doping. Lemond covers every attack late in the '89 world championships and wins the sprint and he is lauded, if Cancellara did that today their would be ten threads on every cycling forum calling him a doper.

You have people ignoring the one or two percent that it really takes to make someone a champion versus just a top 50 and only talking about gifted domestiques becoming champions.

To tell you the truth I think if Lemond focused his vitriol on Cancellara or Indurain or Boonen or any other modern era champion people wouldn't be making him out to be this super clean champion anti-doping fighter.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

I'm sorry but you are simply making excuses for the past. You say those guys would have won with or without dope, but since they doped all we can do is speculate what they might have done. You talk about the doping then to be so bad compared to today, but only one or two percent advantage is the difference between winning and losing, so one guy on 80's or 60's or even 50's dope vs. a clean rider gives the win to the doped rider. A doper winning is a doper winning, regardless of whether it is a top ten rider or a top 50 rider. Wouldn't needing to ride at the top of the sport all year long to get appearance fees mean that doping would be more of an issue. Today you can win one big race and be set for the next two years, so you can dope for that one race and not worry about it. Then you had to dope all year long to be able to be at the top.

Doping sucks. I proudly wear my "Ride Clean" t-shirt at all of my races and I make no excuses for today's riders or riders of the past, but I also don't downplay the past methods of doping nor do I vilify some riders while making excuses for others because of methods of cheating they used or potentially used.

The issue is or the topic is that the original post / thread starter points to another domestic pro who says Greg Lemond was a rare racing specimen. Something that comes along once in a while not something that can be produced from superior training regimen etc.
It is well known by many that Greg was something special something that you just can not find all the time. A great athlete on the bike etc.

 

[ultimobici]

Kennf1-Please don't take this the wrong way (well, try not to since you already implied it was ok for people to think I am claiming Lemond doped even though I said otherwise) but are you actually reading what is being written? Ultramobici has posted excuses in nearly every one of his posts in this thread. Here is just one from the second sentence in his last response to me:

"The marked difference between the pre/post EPO eras is that with EPO it is possible to supercharge a regular rider into superstardom with less risk & side effects because it was artificial altitude training in effect."

Not once have I debated the fact that there was doping in the past, my comments were about people making excuses for the previous generations doping. Lemond covers every attack late in the '89 world championships and wins the sprint and he is lauded, if Cancellara did that today their would be ten threads on every cycling forum calling him a doper.

You have people ignoring the one or two percent that it really takes to make someone a champion versus just a top 50 and only talking about gifted domestiques becoming champions.

To tell you the truth I think if Lemond focused his vitriol on Cancellara or Indurain or Boonen or any other modern era champion people wouldn't be making him out to be this super clean champion anti-doping fighter.

Lemond's actions in the 89 Worlds makes my argument stand up.
It was possible for an unassisted rider to compete and win in those days because the substances & methods were nowhere near as effective or reliable as more recent ones. Lemond had always been an exemplary single day rider so it was not a surprise to see him act the way that he did that day. He did cover most of the attacks in the final 2km and deliberately led out early to nullify Kelly who was his nearest rival in a sprint. Had Kelly used a 12 up block that day we perhaps wouldn't even be discussing it, but alas he had only a 13.

All that I was saying was that the advent of EPO saw a sea-change in the way doping worked and a consequence was a raft of riders who, to quote Fignon, "Had no right to be there" The effect of pre EPO dope was generally linear & bounded. EPO unlocked pandora's box and allowed the Chiappuccis of the world to exceed their natural limits, something no amount of speed or cortisone would permit.

 

[Granville57]

To tell you the truth I think if Lemond focused his vitriol on Cancellara or Indurain or Boonen or any other modern era champion people wouldn't be making him out to be this super clean champion anti-doping fighter.

And there we have it.

What vitriol is it that you refer to?

"...or any other modern era champion"? Hmmmm, let me think. I believe there just may have been one...yes...I do think there was one "modern era champion" that Lemond spoke out against. It'll come to me...


Care to address the following yet?

If you read some of the comments by Tilford and others on here you see a lot of them are saying the same things as have been said in the past ten or so years about today's great riders. Excuses are made why doping was ok back then but not today

Why don't you go back to the article that was referenced in the OP, and quote me one single line where Steve Tilford is referring to "doping back in his day" or where he suggests that doping is his day was "OK"?

Just so there's no confusion, here's the link again:
http://stevetilford.com/?p=11375

 

[Hampsten88]

granville57
1) You see I purposely did not mention LA because I had no intention of discussing him since none of this is about him. Unfortunately some people who post in cycling doping forums choose to make everything about him and any comments that do not jibe with their thinking must be about him. Try setting that BS aside for once and stick to what is actually being posted, not what you want to be hearing. As a matter of fact I would put your post right up there with the guy who claimed that I said Lemond doped.

2) I apologize for not responding to your post as I did not see it. Here is one of his comments he made: "But the drugs of those times were much different than the drugs now. I raced on and off in Europe on the road most of the 80′s up until the late 90′s. And competed somewhat. The speeds and abilities of field in general changed dramatically during that time." That follows exactly what I was talking about.

ultramobici- You are doing an excellent job of making my point stand up when you claim that a rider doing that in '89 proves he didn't dope knowing if a rider did it now, most would say they "know" he is doping. Thanks.

Yes, EPO changed things, but doping is doping whether it gives you a 1% advantage or a 10% advantage. Unfortunately some choose to make excuses to the contrary.

glenn- I am sure you could find the same type of comments about any champion of the last 100 years.

 

[Moose McKnuckles]

Solid. BPC88 is back peddling the same crap again.

 

[Granville57]

granville57

I apologize for not responding to your post as I did not see it. Here is one of his comments he made: "But the drugs of those times were much different than the drugs now. I raced on and off in Europe on the road most of the 80′s up until the late 90′s. And competed somewhat. The speeds and abilities of field in general changed dramatically during that time." That follows exactly what I was talking about.

As much as I appreciate the response, do you mind telling us where, exactly, that quote is from? Because it simply does not appear in the OP's article, which is what this thread was actually about.

 

[Hampsten88]

As much as I appreciate the response, do you mind telling us where, exactly, that quote is from? Because it simply does not appear in the OP's article, which is what this thread was actually about.

As I said it is in the comments he made about the article while discussing it with others.

--edit by mod: quote #16 to be precise--

 

[131313]

Yes, EPO changed things, but doping is doping whether it gives you a 1% advantage or a 10% advantage. Unfortunately some choose to make excuses to the contrary.

Sorry, this just doesn't make any sense. A super talented athlete can overcome doped adversaries if their gain is 1%. It's pretty damn unlikely they can overcome that advantage if it's 11-15%. It's not the same thing. It's not even close to the same thing. Sure, they're both cheating, but one can be reasonably be overcome, since athletes may vary in capabilities by a few percent. The other one simply can't be overcome, and you suddenly have lifetime water fetchers suddenly soloing to classics wins and winning the Tour simply because they're on a better doping program (or a better reaction to the doping program). Blood boosting completely re-shuffles the deck.

As far as the blood doping in LeMond's day, the benefits were minimal compared to what they are now, as the storage techniques are much more advanced. In some cases, the results were actually detrimental. The modern glycerolization procedures which make drawing your own blood an effective method of doping weren't really established until the mid to late-nineties.

 

[Hampsten88]

Sorry, this just doesn't make any sense. A super talented athlete can overcome doped adversaries if their gain is 1%. It's pretty damn unlikely they can overcome that advantage if it's 11-15%. It's not the same thing. It's not even close to the same thing. Sure, they're both cheating, but one can be reasonably be overcome, since athletes may vary in capabilities by a few percent. The other one simply can't be overcome, and you suddenly have lifetime water fetchers suddenly soloing to classics wins and winning the Tour simply because they're on a better doping program (or a better reaction to the doping program). Blood boosting completely re-shuffles the deck.

As far as the blood doping in LeMond's day, the benefits were minimal compared to what they are now, as the storage techniques are much more advanced. In some cases, the results were actually detrimental. The modern glycerolization procedures which make drawing your own blood an effective method of doping weren't really established until the mid to late-nineties.

A super talented rider can overcome 1%? Really?

Last years Tour was won in about 91 hours, 1% of that is about 54 minutes. That would be the difference between being in 1st or 27th. With a 1% advantage Julien El Fares of Cofidis would have won the Tour. On the Tourmalet stage the difference would have been about three minutes or the difference between 1st and 11th place on the stage.

After that there is no point in discussing the rest.

P.S.- You are making excuses since you are arguing that doping is doping no matter what advantage it gives you.

 

[Moose McKnuckles]

A super talented rider can overcome 1%? Really?

Last years Tour was won in about 91 hours, 1% of that is about 54 minutes. That would be the difference between being in 1st or 27th. With a 1% advantage Julien El Fares of Cofidis would have won the Tour. On the Tourmalet stage the difference would have been about three minutes or the difference between 1st and 11th place on the stage.

After that there is no point in discussing the rest.

P.S.- You are making excuses since you are arguing that doping is doping no matter what advantage it gives you.

BPC with another fail. It's not 1% overall. It's 1% at the deciding point of the race. It's 1% on a decisive climb.

 

[Hampsten88]

BPC with another fail. It's not 1% overall. It's 1% at the deciding point of the race. It's 1% on a decisive climb.

Are you seriously saying the doping only kicks in at "the deciding point of the race?"

Talk about an epic fail.

 

[Moose McKnuckles]

Mr. Anonymous Internet Tough Guy, are you seriously saying the doping only kicks in at "the deciding point of the race?"

Talk about an epic fail.

I'll let my comment and yours stand for the other board posters to decide which one makes more sense.

 

[Rip:30]

A super talented rider can overcome 1%? Really?

Last years Tour was won in about 91 hours, 1% of that is about 54 minutes. That would be the difference between being in 1st or 27th. With a 1% advantage Julien El Fares of Cofidis would have won the Tour. On the Tourmalet stage the difference would have been about three minutes or the difference between 1st and 11th place on the stage.

After that there is no point in discussing the rest.

P.S.- You are making excuses since you are arguing that doping is doping no matter what advantage it gives you.

It's not a 91 hour ITT. Have you heard of drafting.

 

[ricara]

Stop making sense!

What makes sense to me is that "Hampsten88" (Andy would kick that *** right in the balls) is either BPC or some slime dog being paid by Lance to cause trouble on the cycling forums.

Ignore the troll.

 

[131313]

A super talented rider can overcome 1%? Really?

Last years Tour was won in about 91 hours, 1% of that is about 54 minutes. That would be the difference between being in 1st or 27th. With a 1% advantage Julien El Fares of Cofidis would have won the Tour. On the Tourmalet stage the difference would have been about three minutes or the difference between 1st and 11th place on the stage.

After that there is no point in discussing the rest.

P.S.- You are making excuses since you are arguing that doping is doping no matter what advantage it gives you.

OK, I thought you were actually posting serious comments. I guess that was my fault. You subsequent posts put things in a more clear light. Thanks for clearing that up for me.

 

[Moose McKnuckles]

Hampsten88 = BPC.

Noted Lance chammy sniffer. Has been banned from these boards about 50 times.

 

[Moose McKnuckles]

Interesting response. After posting all insults, rather then respond to the logical response to your one on topic comment you seem to hide behind your forum buddies.

 

[Moose McKnuckles]

It's interesting to see how many people on here decide to make comments about the poster and not try to discuss the topic when things don't go there way. I am guessing you had no intention on having a discussion anyway.

The reason posters avoid having conversations with you is that there's limited benefit to explaining the obvious to someone who needs the obvious explained to them.

Everyone knows your agenda, so it's much more fun to mess with you than waste time on your garbage.

 

[Big Doopie]

ultimobici,

i have very much enjoyed reading your posts in this thread. thank you.