Greg Lemond from another great racer's point of view

[MacRoadie]

Couldn't a doped rider do what Lemond did? Bear in mind I prefer not to say anyone doped unless I have actual, proven evidence, so I am not saying Lemond doped, but merely pointing out that if a rider today did the same thing he would be labeled a doper.

No need to explain yourself. Everyone knows EXACTLY what you're doing...

 

[lean mean &green]

Couldn't a doped rider do what Lemond did? Bear in mind I prefer not to say anyone doped unless I have actual, proven evidence, so I am not saying Lemond doped, but merely pointing out that if a rider today did the same thing he would be labeled a doper.

let's be clear. you're saying lemond doped. it seems unlikely but i don't really know for sure except that the more efficacious PEDs that appeared in the 90's clearly weren't available to him. either way you're missing a few points. the margin of victory is very small even when you're clearly the best. solo attacks with 40k to go are a little hard to stomach. you dig?

 

[Hampsten88]

No need to explain yourself. Everyone knows EXACTLY what you're doing...

What am I doing? I mean beyond pointing out that if a rider today did what Lemond did he would be labeled a doper, regardless of what country he was from, team he was on or previous palmares.

 

[Hampsten88]

let's be clear. you're saying lemond doped. it seems unlikely but i don't really know for sure except that the more efficacious PEDs that appeared in the 90's clearly weren't available to him. either way you're missing a few points. the margin of victory is very small even when you're clearly the best. solo attacks with 40k to go are a little hard to stomach. you dig?

Let's be really clear, nowhere did I say Lemond doped, so I would appreciate you not putting words in my mouth, especially when I specifically said "...I am not saying Lemond doped."

 

[MacRoadie]

Let's be really clear, nowhere did I say Lemond doped, so I would appreciate you not putting words in my mouth, especially when I specifically said "...I am not saying Lemond doped."

Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight.......

 

[lean mean &green]

Let's be really clear, nowhere did I say Lemond doped, so I would appreciate you not putting words in my mouth, especially when I specifically said "...I am not saying Lemond doped."

fine, lemond didn't dope. do you have an opinion about the rest of my post?

 

[Hampsten88]

fine, lemond didn't dope. do you have an opinion about the rest of my post?

I responded with a very valid point, you did not like it, made a false allegation and then, when confronted with facts, are now calling me out about the rest of your post. What exactly did I do wrong that has you clearly upset with me?

 

[lean mean &green]

I responded with a very valid point, you did not like it, made a false allegation and then, when confronted with facts, are now calling me out about the rest of your post. What exactly did I do wrong that has you clearly upset with me?

i'm not upset at all. i'm curious to hear your opinion about the OP. how significant is training effect? if you accept that "greg lemond's" aren't born everyday how do you make sense of the way races unfold in contemporary cycling and the fact that many dominant performances later turn out to be assisted by PEDs? how are we to trust major increases in ability over a short period of time when the only explanation given is that the athlete trained harder?

 

[Francois the Postman]

Hampsten88, you bring up the point that people in the Clinic often use different measures to judge similar things by. And when a point is raised, you compare it to something similar, to make your general point.

I don't mind you raising that point. I do if you do it in every thread where something is discussed, as it derails the threads away from it's OP.

Please start a thread on the general issue, and don't use all threads to hammer this same point home.

Likewise, I want people to calm down a bit "against him" too. There are a few instances now where people responded strongly against points Hampsten88 didn't actually make.

 

[Hampsten88]

Hampsten88, you bring up the point that people in the Clinic often use different measures to judge similar things by. And when a point is raised, you compare it to something similar, to make your general point.

I don't mind you raising that point. I do if you do it in every thread where something is discussed, as it derails the threads away from it's OP.

Please start a thread on the general issue, and don't use all threads to hammer this same point home.

Likewise, I want people to calm down a bit "against him" too. There are a few instances now where people responded strongly against points Hampsten88 didn't actually make.

If that's what you want, fair enough, but I do not see how bringing up a valid point about the topic is derailing the thread unless the people responding choose to go off track.

 

[ultimobici]

Couldn't a doped rider do what Lemond did? Bear in mind I prefer not to say anyone doped unless I have actual, proven evidence, so I am not saying Lemond doped, but merely pointing out that if a rider today did the same thing he would be labeled a doper.

The difference between the pre EPO era when Lemond had the majority of his victories and the post EPO era is that in the 70's, 80's & early 90's it was possible to ride un-assisted and win regularly. The Lemonds, Hampstens & Delions were able to compete because the drugs and techniques had limits & side-effects. Once EPO and systematic blood-doping arrived it was possible to turn a domestique into a GT contender.

Prior to EPO a rider could use speed to make up for the fatigue, but the down side was that you couldn't use it too much as it messes with the nervous system. Use it too much and you can end up dead as the body's safety valve is switched off.

Testosterone & Cortisone were used to help recovery & pain/inflammation relief but again are not capable of a massive lift.

But as soon as you start playing with the oxygen carrying capacity of the blood you're able to boost a rider much more efficiently and fundamentally.

That was when the cream couldn't necessarily rise to the top anymore. In the previous situation there was, I believe, a less grotesquely skewed world cycling order. The natural hierarchy was not upset in the way it became in the 90's and still is to hopefully a lesser extent today. I do not think for one minute that it is back to pre-91 levels nor will it ever be, IMO.

 

[JPM London]

If that's what you want, fair enough, but I do not see how bringing up a valid point about the topic is derailing the thread unless the people responding choose to go off track.

If you want to be viewed as something other than a troll by the posters who constantly breathe down your neck, then maybe reconsider what is and isn't on topic... Yes, it was a valid point, but not on topic. And as Francois said; bringing up the same point in all threads you participate in can hardly be on topic - how can the same point be on topic in all kinds of topics???

 

[function]

i'm not upset at all. i'm curious to hear your opinion about the OP. how significant is training effect? if you accept that "greg lemond's" aren't born everyday how do you make sense of the way races unfold in contemporary cycling and the fact that many dominant performances later turn out to be assisted by PEDs? how are we to trust major increases in ability over a short period of time when the only explanation given is that the athlete trained harder?

There is also a danger in assuming that because there weren't many "Greg Lemonds" back then, there should not be as many now. Participation in professional sports can be influenced by many factors in particular socio-economic. A good example of this is the proliferation of African runners in endurance events, the introduction of an additional talent pool there has resulted in more "Greg Lemonds". Therefore i think it is a bit too simplistic to expect the same level of talent across generations.

 

[lean mean &green]

There is also a danger in assuming that because there weren't many "Greg Lemonds" back then, there should not be as many now. Participation in professional sports can be influenced by many factors in particular socio-economic. A good example of this is the proliferation of African runners in endurance events, the introduction of an additional talent pool there has resulted in more "Greg Lemonds". Therefore i think it is a bit too simplistic to expect the same level of talent across generations.

to be clear, those are tilford's assumptions i'm paraphrasing and that we're working off of, not necessarily mine.

 

[Bavarianrider]

Are we really supposted to believe that LeMond did 54,5km/H average over 25 minutes on a cornered city circuit while being 100% clean?

 

[jimmypop]

Are we really supposted to believe that LeMond did 54,5km/H average over 25 minutes on a cornered city circuit while being 100% clean?

Lemond Defense Force, unite!

 

[Escarabajo]

Are we really supposted to believe that LeMond did 54,5km/H average over 25 minutes on a cornered city circuit while being 100% clean?

Maybe I can do it with a strong wind behind me.

I see what you are doing.

 

[Digger]

Are we really supposted to believe that LeMond did 54,5km/H average over 25 minutes on a cornered city circuit while being 100% clean?

Seriously look at that profile that day - how much was in the 'cornered city circuit'? Champs Elysees cornered - also was mostly downhill that day and secondly was with a tail wind. Check yout facts.

 

[Hampsten88]

The difference between the pre EPO era when Lemond had the majority of his victories and the post EPO era is that in the 70's, 80's & early 90's it was possible to ride un-assisted and win regularly. The Lemonds, Hampstens & Delions were able to compete because the drugs and techniques had limits & side-effects. Once EPO and systematic blood-doping arrived it was possible to turn a domestique into a GT contender.

Prior to EPO a rider could use speed to make up for the fatigue, but the down side was that you couldn't use it too much as it messes with the nervous system. Use it too much and you can end up dead as the body's safety valve is switched off.

Testosterone & Cortisone were used to help recovery & pain/inflammation relief but again are not capable of a massive lift.

But as soon as you start playing with the oxygen carrying capacity of the blood you're able to boost a rider much more efficiently and fundamentally.

That was when the cream couldn't necessarily rise to the top anymore. In the previous situation there was, I believe, a less grotesquely skewed world cycling order. The natural hierarchy was not upset in the way it became in the 90's and still is to hopefully a lesser extent today. I do not think for one minute that it is back to pre-91 levels nor will it ever be, IMO.

Ah, yes, the old "doping wasn't as advanced back then, so it's ok and all of those guys are ok" defense. It's used now about riders in the 80's. In the 80's it was about riders in the 60's...etc.

(P.S.- You mention systematic blood doping...wasn't that being done as early as 1984? Oops! )

 

[MacRoadie]

Thread derailed, mission complete.

 

[ultimobici]

Ah, yes, the old "doping wasn't as advanced back then, so it's ok and all of those guys are ok" defense. It's used now about riders in the 80's. In the 80's it was about riders in the 60's...etc.

(P.S.- You mention systematic blood doping...wasn't that being done as early as 1984? Oops! )

Only by the US Olympic team. But it was legal then and was until 1986.

The point I was making was that the advent of EPO turned the natural order on its head. I don't accept it as right but I can see that it was possible for clean riders to win in the 80's despite doping being rife. Giles Delion and Charly Mottet both won regularly at the top level. Kelly was a great Classics and Green Jersey winner but no amount of old school dope would have turned him into a GT winner. The Vuelta of the 80's was a very very different race to what it became in the 90's.
But come the 90's and EPO we got the following

Indurain's extraterrestrial performances against the watch and in the mountains
Berzin handing the aforementioned ET his *** in the Giro
Gewiss's grotesque Fleche 1,2,3
Virenque's 7 Maillots a Pois
Riis
Ullrich grinding up the inside line to Arcalis
Armstrong - where do you start???

Before there was a sense of order albeit tweaked by dope but nowhere near as twisted and deadly as it became in the 90's.

Neither scenario is ideal but you have to accept that a certain proportion of people will look for and exploit any means to achieve their goals. That holds true in life generally as well as sport.

If you yearn for a utopia in which this does not happen start by applying the principles of total fairness and obedience of all laws to yourself. So no speeding, no lying, full and total disclosure of all transgressions deliberate or accidental etc.



We

 

[Hampsten88]

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.

 

[Granville57]

The issue I have with discussions like this is that they always turn into "my time" vs. "now." 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, etc.

Ah, yes, the old "doping wasn't as advanced back then, so it's ok and all of those guys are ok" defense.

MacRoadie- I am discussing the topic and what is being discussed.

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.

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

 

[D-Queued]

The issue I have with discussions like this is that they always turn into "my time" vs. "now." ....

Only when you lead them there.

What are you afraid of?

Dave.

 

[MacRoadie]

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.

The "topic" is "Greg Lemond from another great racer's point of view" , and the linked blog post by Tilford makes zero reference to doping in his time being "ok".

The only thing a mirror would allow me to do is read the blog post backwards, which is apparently how you read it as there is no other explanation for how you can be so off-target.

On THAT topic, my response to you was based on the likelihood that you are merely trolling: interjecting a slam on LeMond into a thread where none previously existed. Again, based on that, I'll ask you this:

Couldn't a troll do what you did? Bear in mind I prefer not to say anyone is a troll unless I have actual, proven evidence, so I am not saying you are a troll, but merely pointing out that if a poster in any other thread or forum did the same thing he would be labeled a troll.