Greg Lemond from another great racer's point of view

[red_flanders]

The point of the article is that this is a guy who raced against the top talent of the time, watched them all, including LeMond since he was a kid, and never saw anything like it before or since.

That's about it. Since there isn't much about that one can argue with, I guess one way to try and obfuscate that point is to start talking about how people on forums would see LeMond's performance in '89 as an indication of doping. Granted, some would. Some would not. Not much of a revelation.

That however, is decidedly NOT the point of the article. Quite the opposite in fact. The point is that he saw the guy race from day one, and from day one LeMond was beating the best racers in the US...as a 15-year-old. The author never saw anyone like that before or since, and is convinced, with a LOT of evidence, that LeMond didn't need to dope to do what he did.

 

[JPM London]

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.

You do realise that he says exactly the same as you, right? He doesn't apologise for the doping practices of the pre-EPO era, merely mentions that EPO changed the game - which is something you agree to.

To him it's important as he feels that the doping in those days could be overcome but couldn't later on, so the problem was less for the clean rider. He doesn't say it makes it right or ok to dope pre-EPO - he merely says the clean rider still had a perfectly good chance back then despite the doping.

Those are two very different things - which you do seem to acnowledge as well.

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

Talk about an epic fail.

It's a bit funny you would say that. By the looks of it you do have knowledge about the sport and you do seem to race yourself. That you forget to calculate the fact that most of the time the peloton rides as exactly that - a peloton - is funny. Yes, you would have a possible 1% advantage, but that would never translate into a 1% overall time gap as you would only be able to take advantage of it in a deciding break away or a sprint. You simply can't use a 1% advantage to slowly and consistently move away from the peloton in a 200k stage.

Now imagine that a rider is naturally 5% better than any other rider in the field - when he makes the deciding break, you'd (with your 1% avantage) would be better able to follow than the others, but he'd still take you to the cleaner's. If you were a good responder on EPO and had gained 10% - you'd take HIM to the cleaner's.

This is on the other hand something that sounds familiar to what happened to Lemond (and other top riders of the transition years). However, it's still not an apology for went on before EPO - you could even say that if doping hadn't so ingrained in the sport since the early years with alcohol and amphetamines, then maybe (just maybe) the whole EPO problem might have been handled differently and a lot earlier than is the case.

For the record I sympathise with many of your points and think you do show both knowledge and definitely stand up for yourself, which can be a daunting task in the clinic where the debate can be heated. I definitely see you as more than a troll as well and do not see you as yet another incarnation of the Evil One. However, some of your posts are also off the meter and simply don't make sense. You do seem to attract more attention than is warranted - but I think you enjoy that. I think (one of) your ambitions here is to do exactly that- rock the boat a bit, just for the fun and because people are easily excited.

I did think you tried to say "I think Lemond doped, but will make it look like I'm trying to make look like I said the opposite". After reading your recent comments I now actually think your point was that it's unfair to throw accusations at current riders that ride in the same manner - he was clean, they could be too.

The only problem is that - which you agree to - doping changed the sport in the early nineties. Yes, doping has always been there, and yes, it has always been wrong - but in the early nineties, sadly, it changed the sport and it's still bleeding. Over the past twenty years we have seen too many achievements that were that extra bit incredible because of EPO. Sadly it makes it difficult for a person to completely trust the great rides today - I try too and am definitely not on the "he won he must be doped" boat and sometimes I make an effort to refute those claims. At the same time I do understand that some people are far, far more cynical and do have that point of view...

 

[Barrus]

From now on straying from the topic of the original article, especially into personal attacks will have consequences

 

[ultimobici]

ultimobici,

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

My pleasure.

Seems like I've woken up to a bit of a $hit storm overnight!

 

[Francois the Postman]

From now on straying from the topic of the original article, especially into personal attacks will have consequences

For clarity sake: I have since removed several posts that had nothing to do with the topic and were far too blatant breaches of our forum rules, that govern how all posters are expected to interact here.

 

[Bavarianrider]

The thing is, if you did ampehtamins, cocaine and all the stuff that was en vogue in the 80es, you have no right to point the finger on the Epo generation. Cause you yourseld cheated, you yourself betrayed riders of money and sucess. I am sure there was a bunch of riders in the 80es who didn't want to take amphetamins and therefore had no chance.

 

[ultimobici]

The thing is, if you did ampehtamins, cocaine and all the stuff that was en vogue in the 80es, you have no right to point the finger on the Epo generation. Cause you yourseld cheated, you yourself betrayed riders of money and sucess. I am sure there was a bunch of riders in the 80es who didn't want to take amphetamins and therefore had no chance.

Think you might want to re-read the last few pages of this thread and see that, while it was still doping, it was not a given that a rider had no chance.

As I keep trying to get across, clean riders could and did win big all through the 80's. Mottet & Delion won Lombardia, Hampsten won the Giro, Lemond won the Tour several times etc etc.

IMO EPO was the real reason that many riders either stopped winning as frequently as they had done or, as in Delion's case, retired years before they ordinarily would have done pre-EPO. There are countless ex-riders now in their mid 40's who have a career trajectory that looks like it hit a wall circa 1991/2. One can only wonder why.

What many people choose to ignore is that when you use artificial stimulants there is negative effect that goes hand in hand with the benefit. You're up when the speed kicks in, but when it wears off the come-down is just as powerful. So you take more, and the cycle starts again until you have to stop or nature stops you. When an athlete uses EPO and other blood manipulation techniques, as long as careful medical supervision is maintained there is no come-down. Rather than forcing the body to go through its fatigue & pain barriers blood manipulation lifts you over them. Both are illegal but the old methods were bludgeon like.

But more to the point, who of that generation, who doped, is pointing fingers? Fignon made reference to it but hardly in an accusatory way. His book refers to the craziness of the times and the way the world order shifted almost overnight, but he didn't set himself up as morally superior at all.

 

[Bavarianrider]

Think you might want to re-read the last few pages of this thread and see that, while it was still doping, it was not a given that a rider had no chance.

As I keep trying to get across, clean riders could and did win big all through the 80's. Mottet & Delion won Lombardia, Hampsten won the Giro, Lemond won the Tour several times etc etc.

IMO EPO was the real reason that many riders either stopped winning as frequently as they had done or, as in Delion's case, retired years before they ordinarily would have done pre-EPO. There are countless ex-riders now in their mid 40's who have a career trajectory that looks like it hit a wall circa 1991/2. One can only wonder why.

What many people choose to ignore is that when you use artificial stimulants there is negative effect that goes hand in hand with the benefit. You're up when the speed kicks in, but when it wears off the come-down is just as powerful. So you take more, and the cycle starts again until you have to stop or nature stops you. When an athlete uses EPO and other blood manipulation techniques, as long as careful medical supervision is maintained there is no come-down. Rather than forcing the body to go through its fatigue & pain barriers blood manipulation lifts you over them. Both are illegal but the old methods were bludgeon like.

But more to the point, who of that generation, who doped, is pointing fingers? Fignon made reference to it but hardly in an accusatory way. His book refers to the craziness of the times and the way the world order shifted almost overnight, but he didn't set himself up as morally superior at all.

How can you asume they were 100% clean? Just because they are American?
While Amphetamins and so on might not have been as effictive as Epo, they still had an effect. So if you had two equally strong riders, one did amphetamins and the other didn't well, guess who won? The guy that did not do amphetamins was just as cheated as a guy who didn't do Epo in the 1990s
Have you read Fignon's book? I recommd you to do so. He's pretty open about drugs in the 1980s. In Germany we have a syaing " If you sit in a glasshouse, you shouldn't throw stones at other people.

 

[ultimobici]

How can you asume they were 100% clean? Just because they are American?
While Amphetamins and so on might not have been as effictive as Epo, they still had an effect. So if you had two equally strong riders, one did amphetamins and the other didn't well, guess who won? The guy that did not do amphetamins was just as cheated as a guy who didn't do Epo in the 1990s
Have you read Fignon's book? I recommd you to do so. He's pretty open about drugs in the 1980s. In Germany we have a syaing " If you sit in a glasshouse, you shouldn't throw stones at other people.

I don'r assume any rider is automatically clean from any period in history. I judge them on their actions both on the road and off the road. Nationality has stuff all to do with this process for me.

For the record I am British so Lemond is not my countryman. I believe him to have ridden clean for one simple reason. He has been singularly anti-doping all along. He has spoken out and yet not one single person has impugned his reputation in the 17 years since his retirement. There has been one threat but it strangely never materialised.

I have Fignon's book and have both read it in english and discussed its original text with my French friends. In it he is very matter of fact about his own involvement, but also clear about where he drew the line and why.

As far as your simplistic scenario is concerned, a rider doped on amphetamine would not automatically beat an unassisted rider. Charly Mottet held the entire field at bay in the 88 Lombardia and was renowned as a clean rider. So it was possible to win despite being on only Evian.

 

[Benotti69]

The point of the article is that this is a guy who raced against the top talent of the time, watched them all, including LeMond since he was a kid, and never saw anything like it before or since.

That's about it. Since there isn't much about that one can argue with, I guess one way to try and obfuscate that point is to start talking about how people on forums would see LeMond's performance in '89 as an indication of doping. Granted, some would. Some would not. Not much of a revelation.

That however, is decidedly NOT the point of the article. Quite the opposite in fact. The point is that he saw the guy race from day one, and from day one LeMond was beating the best racers in the US...as a 15-year-old. The author never saw anyone like that before or since, and is convinced, with a LOT of evidence, that LeMond didn't need to dope to do what he did.

Red has hit the nail on the head here. Anything else is trying to bring LeMond into the sphere of doping and that without evidence is trolling.

 

[Francois the Postman]

Red has hit the nail on the head here. Anything else is trying to bring LeMond into the sphere of doping and that without evidence is trolling.

So are people who keep bringing this up when it wasn't actually said in the first place, and do so even after the mods made it clear we want everyone to calm down in this thread there and then.

Barrus made a warning to all to ignore each other and get back on topic. You chose to ignore that. Which does mean there is a consequence, I am afraid.

 

[Bavarianrider]

I don'r assume any rider is automatically clean from any period in history. I judge them on their actions both on the road and off the road. Nationality has stuff all to do with this process for me.

For the record I am British so Lemond is not my countryman. I believe him to have ridden clean for one simple reason. He has been singularly anti-doping all along. He has spoken out and yet not one single person has impugned his reputation in the 17 years since his retirement. There has been one threat but it strangely never materialised.

I have Fignon's book and have both read it in english and discussed its original text with my French friends. In it he is very matter of fact about his own involvement, but also clear about where he drew the line and why.

As far as your simplistic scenario is concerned, a rider doped on amphetamine would not automatically beat an unassisted rider. Charly Mottet held the entire field at bay in the 88 Lombardia and was renowned as a clean rider. So it was possible to win despite being on only Evian.

If it didn't have any effect why would you use it?
Taking amphetamins is cheating like taking Epo is cheating.

 

[Stingray34]

If it didn't have any effect why would you use it?
Taking amphetamins is cheating like taking Epo is cheating.

Taking amphetimines for racing is just stupid. The only real benefit is arousal. Anquetil would've still won five Tours without popping speed. Can't say the same for others who've manipulated their blood and won big races. It's like going from 91 Octane to jet fuel.

I have to disagree that all doping is equal. It's a bit like saying murder and jaywalking are as bad as each other because they're both against the law. Fiddling with one's blood is a bit different to popping a pill or rubbing on some cream. I'd argue it's much more extreme in both potential risks and benefits.

 

[Bavarianrider]

Taking amphetimines for racing is just stupid. The only real benefit is arousal. Anquetil would've still won five Tours without popping speed. Can't say the same for others who've manipulated their blood and won big races. It's like going from 91 Octane to jet fuel.

I have to disagree that all doping is equal. It's a bit like saying murder and jaywalking are as bad as each other because they're both against the law. Fiddling with one's blood is a bit different to popping a pill or rubbing on some cream. I'd argue it's much more extreme in both potential risks and benefits.

If it is stupoid why was it used so much?? That doesn't make any sense. And no it's not different. If it's banned and you take it, you are a cheater and have little right to acusse others of cheating.

 

[Stingray34]

If it is stupoid why was it used so much?? That doesn't make any sense. And no it's not different. If it's banned and you take it, you are a cheater and have little right to acusse others of cheating.

I agree it's cheating and perpetrators should be punished. Yet there's orders of magnitude in most things. The other difference in blood oxygen vector doping is its exclusivity: it's expensive and you need expert help to get it right and avoid detection, so only the richest can make it work effectively. Whereas any rider could buy a tube of cream or a bag of pills, manipulating one's blood is complex and further stratifies the peloton.

I think the popularity of amphetimines had more to do with finding something that could give a rider an edge of some sort, mostly psychological in this case. There wasn't a lot of PEDs to choose from. Most riders' PED of choice is extra-strong coffee! I recommend a light roast as it maintains most of the caffeine, the plant's natural pesticide.

 

[petethedrummer]

If it is stupoid why was it used so much?? That doesn't make any sense.

Amphetemines turn off the signals in the brain that tell you you're tired. They allow you to go to the well a few more times. EPO gives you a deeper well, with more water, a bigger bucket and an electrified winch system.

And no it's not different. If it's banned and you take it, you are a cheater and have little right to acusse others of cheating.

Yes cheating is cheating and I'm sure the old pros would have lapped up EPO had it been available to them. If the debate was about who were the most morally upstanding riders, there would be no difference between any era IMO.

But at least you can look back and be confident that the best riders rose to the top. Maybe the top 10 classifications would be re-arranged somewhat if they were all clean, but the same riders would still be there. You can't say that from '91 until recent times. It became a joke. Bjarne Riis was a GT winner. BJARNE RIIS FFS. Forgetting about the biggest names, you can look back on 1 time GT winners like Hamsten (I'll assume clean) and Robert Millar (caught once) and still say they were great riders. You can't say that about RIIS. And he beat Indurain.

I would be optimistic that its getting better lately with a few blips along the way. Not perfect mind but better.

Also like a previous poster I have not heard much from ex-pros condemning the current crop with regards to doping. Sean Kelly for example clams up when doping is (lightly) discussed on Eurosport. Probably doesn't want to be seen as a hypocrite. Hinault has been calling French riders soft for years and that doping is not the reason they are under performing. Fignon didn't condemn. Merckx seems to be fine with modern doping. Roche doesn't condemn.

 

[md2020]

If it is stupoid why was it used so much?? That doesn't make any sense. And no it's not different. If it's banned and you take it, you are a cheater and have little right to acusse others of cheating.

If you've read "Rough Ride" by Kimmage you'll know why amphetamines were used. There are many difficulties to overcome in the day to day grind of professional sports. It's not just about getting over the last hill first.

I agree with you that cheating is cheating but it's not all black and white. Hypothetically, I think if you asked most fans if they could eliminate blood doping but it meant some of the older drugs came back, I think they would say yes without hesitation.

 

[Alpe d'Huez]

Astounding, though not surprising, how quickly this thread sank into the same old doping debates. Just click on the first page and read the OP and few that followed, then click on about page 6 and it's sunk.

To the OP, it has been said many times, long before CN even existed, that GL was a once in a lifetime talent, born to race a bike. He was compared to Merckx when he came up. And despite his criticisms of LA and doping, he's a very modest champion who rarely touts his pedigree. To quote a CN member who also raced against many champions, Darryl Webster:

"Ironically, all of the true greats - Lemond, Kelly, Hinualt, Indurain have that 'extra"' that makes them more than just their wins - they have humility"

 

[python]

bavarianrider,

you come across not as informed as you think...

besides, this thread is about... another racer's view of greg lemond.

how the hell did you manage to switch the very specific topic to the one that had been had in 7 dozens of other threads - doping in the 70'/80s vs 90s/00 ?

edit.
just noted alp's post (while i was typing) that raised a similar sentiment.

 

[Adamastor]

Hinault

Astounding, though not surprising, how quickly this thread sank into the same old doping debates. Just click on the first page and read the OP and few that followed, then click on about page 6 and it's sunk.

To the OP, it has been said many times, long before CN even existed, that GL was a once in a lifetime talent, born to race a bike. He was compared to Merckx when he came up. And despite his criticisms of LA and doping, he's a very modest champion who rarely touts his pedigree. To quote a CN member who also raced against many champions, Darryl Webster:

"Ironically, all of the true greats - Lemond, Kelly, Hinualt, Indurain have that 'extra"' that makes them more than just their wins - they have humility"

Hinault? Humility? Now give me a break

 

[Semper Fidelis]

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

Yet, we are getting threats from mods, whining from GL defenders, etc. when this thread starts going into possible drug use by GL, his competitors, etc. This thread was started in The Clinic. I suggest the mods move this thread to another section of the forum so it will stop all the confusion and ironic threats from mods that are confused about what part of the forum they are in.

That way, we can stay on topic and just rave about how this guy's "opinion" makes us giggle like schoolgirls at a Justin Bieber concert, without all of these pesky little doping whispers that taint our hero. Thank you

 

[patricknd]

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

Yet, we are getting threats from mods, whining from GL defenders, etc. when this thread starts going into possible drug use by GL, his competitors, etc. This thread was started in The Clinic. I suggest the mods move this thread to another section of the forum so it will stop all the confusion and ironic threats from mods that are confused about what part of the forum they are in.

That way, we can stay on topic and just rave about how this guy's "opinion" makes us giggle like schoolgirls at a Justin Bieber concert, without all of these pesky little doping whispers that taint our hero. Thank you

quote of the decade, glenn.

 

[M Sport]

If it didn't have any effect why would you use it?
Taking amphetamins is cheating like taking Epo is cheating.

That's one of the problems with the WADA code, there is no real distinction.

In my opinion they should up the penalty term for EPO, blood transfusions, etc and decrease the suspension for ephedrine, amphetamines, etc. It's EPO and blood transfusions that have re-written the record books, not the other products.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

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

Yet, we are getting threats from mods, whining from GL defenders, etc. when this thread starts going into possible drug use by GL, his competitors, etc. This thread was started in The Clinic. I suggest the mods move this thread to another section of the forum so it will stop all the confusion and ironic threats from mods that are confused about what part of the forum they are in.

That way, we can stay on topic and just rave about how this guy's "opinion" makes us giggle like schoolgirls at a Justin Bieber concert, without all of these pesky little doping whispers that taint our hero. Thank you

The reason this thread is in The Clinic is because the Tilford article (which was posted in full) is discussing doping - you would have noticed that if you had read it.

If you want to discuss, what was it GLs "possible drug use" or the "pesky little doping whispers" - well a quick search of this forum would reveal it has been discussed before - so if you have something new to offer than post it there.

Although as your above post appears to be whining about something I doubt you have anything to offer - so perhaps you could finally read Tilfords article and contribute to what he says about "I'm sick of this "I train harder" thing".

 

[Race Radio]

That's one of the problems with the WADA code, there is no real distinction.

In my opinion they should up the penalty term for EPO, blood transfusions, etc and decrease the suspension for ephedrine, amphetamines, etc. It's EPO and blood transfusions that have re-written the record books, not the other products.

The UCI is exploring this option.

While the ethical line may be the same the effect on the sport of EPO and transfusions was far greater then anything that came before it. The record books are distorted.