Hampsten vs LeMond - 1991 thru 1994

[Escarabajo]

Trivia question:

Does anybody know what the "Gran Premio Yardley Gold de Montaña" is?

An extinct race but clue me on how good Andy Hampsten was.

 

[Polish]

Evidently you weren't paying attention.

fair enough.
It WAS a long time ago.

Anyway, here is a video of Greg's final day in Yellow, 1991 stage 12:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UbV5jG81Xhs

 

[L29205]

Yes ulitmo, I am aware of all that. I was following the sport during that time frame.

I am also aware that there are a bunch of "newbies" that believe the Myth that "EPO ended Greg's career. That is the reason he could not keep up. Blah Blah Blah". That is not what happened. BTW, and OT, Big Mig was awesome. Humble and awesome. No finger bangs. A TRUE Patron of the Peloton. I was a big Greg fanboy, and became a joint Greg/Miquel Fanboy. Only later when Greg started trashing Big Mig did I start to think "WTF? That is not what happened"

Sorry don't you have another thread saying the same thing the Barrus asked you provide proof on.

 

[Big Doopie]

i think polish does bring up a good point.

however, i think the thing is a little of everything.

for instance, in 1991 and 1992, greg had the weight of a huge contract to produce results. as a potential winner of the tour he raced all out from beginning to end -- see his attack on the first half-day stage of the 1991 tour. anything but winning would be a disappointment. when he lost all that time in the pyrenees he desperately went on the attack on three separate low mountain stages.

meanwhile andy could sit out of the wind and do nothing until the mountains and then choose his spots to feature.

and yet in 1991, lemond still beat him in the tour -- despite hampsten being given 5 minutes by the challengers in the first alpine stage.

having said that lemond was not beaten that year by nothing but epo users. the first three indurain, chiappucci and bugno were on the new wonder drug. however mottet, fignon and leblanc (not yet) were not. but it is because lemond could not be satisfied with anything but winning (nor would his sponsors) that he attacked repeatedly which led to his losing another eight minutes to the main riders in the alps.

please note that in 1990 the Z team won the team classification while supporting lemond. in 1991 they were nowhere. on the first alpine (mid mountain stage) lemond found himself alone in the large group of favorites. With hampsten, leblanc and mottet 5 minutes up ahead and with no team mates to chase, lemond pleaded with banesto to chase. they refused. lemond even tried to work on his own. so it was lemond's entire team that couldn't keep up with some of the other teams...which makes you think it wasn't just lemond losing because of old age.

i think that because of what was expected of him and the challenges of competing with the likes of indurain and bugno on epo, lemond exhausted himself trying to beat them. hampsten never had to do that -- taking nothing away from him.

lemond -- the next few years trained relentlessly in a vain attempt to compete with the top dogs who were in ever increasing number doing epo. he has said that he over-trained which would explain some of the rapid deterioration and lack of results.

However, by 1994, hampsten was also a shell of himself and unable to follow. And, despite joining banesto, he never even made their tour team.

 

[Elagabalus]

Oh, puhleeze. Lemond clearly doped! His results after 1990 prove it! Oh wait ...

 

[craptastic]

You are aware that Lemond turned pro 4 full years before Hampsten. Lemond rode all the classics as a contender all the way up to his hunting accident, placing in the top 5 of Roubaix, Flanders & San Remo. Hampsten in contrast didn't ever figure in any of the spring classics and had a shorter less fruitful career than Lemond despite the lack of interruption. That's before we look at Hampsten's team in 1995.

To me this is probably the most important point in this thread. These are two different riders especially in that era where a climber like hampsten and a more complete rider like lemond would have two different career arcs. It's apples an oranges. And as pointed out lemond already had something lke 3 tours under his belt before Andy was ever in europe.

 

[indurain666]

I think this is the first time ever that Polish is making some sense It is all theory but still...

 

[callac]

(...) i think that because of what was expected of him and the challenges of competing with the likes of indurain and bugno on epo, lemond exhausted himself trying to beat them. hampsten never had to do that -- taking nothing away from him. (...)

Very accurate resume of the 1991 Tour IMO.
It can be added that LeMond may have been a bit overconfident in the first week of that Tour. I believe him when he said he felt in the best shape post-shooting at the beginning of a Tour. Overconfident, and maybe targetting the wrong opponent (Breukink). LeMond finished 3rd of the prologue in Lyon (3s behind T. Marie, 1s behind Breukink).

I have the ITT Argentan-Alençon on tape (didn't watch it in long, but I have it clearly in mind... ) and the French coverage is all about the duel LeMond-Breukink.
Breukink is in the lead for quite long, before exploding towards the end, and the commentators, I guess as well as LeMond, thought LeMond had the win of the ITT all easily in his pocket then, and yet he's beaten by Indurain by 8sec in the end... I don't remember if it was right after that, or retrospectively, that LeMond said he felt so good on that ITT that he thought he would beat everybody by 3 min... and was really surprised that Indurain was first.

The first week, before that ITT, LeMond had the yellow jersey early on, and made his team work quite a lot. Too early...

If you were a fan of LeMond in 1991, after the first week, you could think he had the Tour already won, and that it would be the easiest Tour for him to win. And you would fear the only opponent that could beat him was Breukink. I guess LeMond was a bit in the same state of mind, and didn't realize what hit him in the Pyrénées at first...

 

[SpaceRonin]

"The flame that burns twice as bright last half as long", and Greg, you've burned oh-so bright! (Sorry, I love Blade Runner)

I've seen things you people wouldn't believe. Donkeys on fire up L'alpe d'Huez I watched domestiques glitter in the darkness of the Timing gate All these moments will be lost in time, like metabolites in the pee, Time for tea.

 

[L'arriviste]

Very accurate resume of the 1991 Tour IMO.
It can be added that LeMond may have been a bit overconfident in the first week of that Tour. I believe him when he said he felt in the best shape post-shooting at the beginning of a Tour. Overconfident, and maybe targetting the wrong opponent (Breukink). LeMond finished 3rd of the prologue in Lyon (3s behind T. Marie, 1s behind Breukink).

I have the ITT Argentan-Alençon on tape (didn't watch it in long, but I have it clearly in mind... ) and the French coverage is all about the duel LeMond-Breukink.
Breukink is in the lead for quite long, before exploding towards the end, and the commentators, I guess as well as LeMond, thought LeMond had the win of the ITT all easily in his pocket then, and yet he's beaten by Indurain by 8sec in the end... I don't remember if it was right after that, or retrospectively, that LeMond said he felt so good on that ITT that he thought he would beat everybody by 3 min... and was really surprised that Indurain was first.

The first week, before that ITT, LeMond had the yellow jersey early on, and made his team work quite a lot. Too early...

If you were a fan of LeMond in 1991, after the first week, you could think he had the Tour already won, and that it would be the easiest Tour for him to win. And you would fear the only opponent that could beat him was Breukink. I guess LeMond was a bit in the same state of mind, and didn't realize what hit him in the Pyrénées at first...

Totally agree with this. Of course we all know that Indurain had been bubbling under for years, but as I recall in '91 Banesto was still properly focused on the fading Delgado. So we were all indeed rather intent on a Breukink v Lemond battle when Indurain snuck up on us.

 

[Old School]

Ahh, the good 'ol days...when you really didn't know who was going to win (well, at least you came into the Tour thinking it was wide open)...all those champions and potential champions...so much talent to pay attention to.

Now, it has gotten so boring....2-3 riders at most have a shot at winning it, and knowing that at the beginning of the race makes the drama so unfulling.

PS....Alcala is still riding? Good Lord!

 

[Nathan Scot]

Raul Alcala still racing

Here are the results from the Texas State Championships at Ft Hood:
1st David Wenger Super Squadra 90
2nd Stefan Rothe Team Hotel San Jose 80
3rd CARLOS VARGAS Team Hotel San Jose 72
4th Steven Wheeler Super Squadra 65
5th Phil Wikoff Super Squadra 57
6th Cody Foster Team Hotel San Jose 51
7th Raul Alcala 45
8th Tyler Jewell FCS/ Metro Volkswagen 39
9th Thacker Reeves Garmin-Transitions 35
10th Chris Carlson Matrix Cycling Club 30
11th Ian Dille Super Squadra 26
12th Chad Haga Super Squadra 23
13th Brandon Cowart Bike Barn (Texas) 20
14th Daniel Cassidy US Military Cycling 18
15th Collin Davis Plano Athletic Cycling Club/PACC 17
16th Wade Wolfenbarger Panther pb Competitive Cyclist 15
17th Alan Ting Super Squadra 14
18th Mathew Davis Team LaS'port 12
19th Chris Lowry Velossimo Racing 11
20th Elkin Arteaga Velossimo Racing 9
21st Brant Speed 8
22nd Christopher Haga Super Squadra 6
Women's P/1/2

 

[skidmark]

i think polish does bring up a good point.

however, i think the thing is a little of everything.

for instance, in 1991 and 1992, greg had the weight of a huge contract to produce results. as a potential winner of the tour he raced all out from beginning to end -- see his attack on the first half-day stage of the 1991 tour. anything but winning would be a disappointment. when he lost all that time in the pyrenees he desperately went on the attack on three separate low mountain stages.

meanwhile andy could sit out of the wind and do nothing until the mountains and then choose his spots to feature.

and yet in 1991, lemond still beat him in the tour -- despite hampsten being given 5 minutes by the challengers in the first alpine stage.

having said that lemond was not beaten that year by nothing but epo users. the first three indurain, chiappucci and bugno were on the new wonder drug. however mottet, fignon and leblanc (not yet) were not. but it is because lemond could not be satisfied with anything but winning (nor would his sponsors) that he attacked repeatedly which led to his losing another eight minutes to the main riders in the alps.

please note that in 1990 the Z team won the team classification while supporting lemond. in 1991 they were nowhere. on the first alpine (mid mountain stage) lemond found himself alone in the large group of favorites. With hampsten, leblanc and mottet 5 minutes up ahead and with no team mates to chase, lemond pleaded with banesto to chase. they refused. lemond even tried to work on his own. so it was lemond's entire team that couldn't keep up with some of the other teams...which makes you think it wasn't just lemond losing because of old age.

i think that because of what was expected of him and the challenges of competing with the likes of indurain and bugno on epo, lemond exhausted himself trying to beat them. hampsten never had to do that -- taking nothing away from him.

lemond -- the next few years trained relentlessly in a vain attempt to compete with the top dogs who were in ever increasing number doing epo. he has said that he over-trained which would explain some of the rapid deterioration and lack of results.

However, by 1994, hampsten was also a shell of himself and unable to follow. And, despite joining banesto, he never even made their tour team.

This seems to me to be a pretty realistic assessment. I get what polish is trying to do, especially in the context of Greg/EPO/Lance discussions that are central to many debates on here. And (what I think is) his underlying point is fair enough, namely that it's easy to get caught up in this historical narrative of 'here was LeMond, here came EPO, and clean cycling was defeated by doping', and of course it's more complicated than that... I think his other point, especially reading the thread that this is a response to, is that Greg himself, by later on focusing on being cheated by people who took EPO (I'm paraphrasing Polish here, I wasn't enough of a fan at the time to have read all the interviews and see this develop), is a big whiner. I don't really know enough to respond to that. But polish, you can correct me if I'm wrong on your rationale. Your arguments are often absurdly abstract and akin to poking a stick in people's eyes, but every once and awhile the underlying rationality glimmers through.

 

[sniper]

i found two hampsten threads, but the other one is locked.

i looked in this thread, and Max Testa, his carreer-long trainer and doctor, isn't mentioned once.
i looked at the other thread (with an interesting OP: viewtopic.php?f=20&t=8268&hilit=hampsten), and again, Testa isn't mentioned once.

I'll drop this here, Wilcockson and Hampsten nicely shaping the narrative:

Before EPO,” the 1988 Giro d’Italia champion Andy Hampsten told me, “we knew we were always racing against guys on drugs, but I don’t think those drugs gave them more of an advantage than the advantage we had knowing they’re gonna come crashing down. We didn’t lose energy worrying about what other people were doing; we just focused on ourselves, and we didn’t need to win every race.”

That “higher ground” attitude of Hampsten’s American team, Motorola, began to change in 1994. “There was a lot of grumbling on the team,” Hampsten said, “and we did get technical data from team doctor Massimo Testa because he’d talk to his colleagues on other teams. He was always straight with me. ‘Sure enough,’ he said, ‘if so-and-so who you raced with for eight years and you always dropped on the climbs, if that guy’s beating you now, his hematocrit is 15 points higher, and he’s gonna kill you in the mountains.’”

Because the new drug couldn’t be detected in anti-doping tests, no one knew for certain who was using EPO—and riders kept that secret to themselves. So, for the best part of a decade, until the Festina Affair, rumors were the only source of what was happening in the peloton. And rumors, without any corroborative evidence, were not things that professional journalists could write about. And when we did ask questions about doping those questions were sidestepped more often than not.

http://redkiteprayer.com/2012/09/tuesdays-with-wilcockson-doping-on-my-mind-part-ii/

 

[gillan1969]

Re:

i found two hampsten threads, but the other one is locked.

i looked in this thread, and Max Testa, his carreer-long trainer and doctor, isn't mentioned once.
i looked at the other thread (with an interesting OP: viewtopic.php?f=20&t=8268&hilit=hampsten), and again, Testa isn't mentioned once.

I'll drop this here, Wilcockson and Hampsten nicely shaping the narrative:

Before EPO,” the 1988 Giro d’Italia champion Andy Hampsten told me, “we knew we were always racing against guys on drugs, but I don’t think those drugs gave them more of an advantage than the advantage we had knowing they’re gonna come crashing down. We didn’t lose energy worrying about what other people were doing; we just focused on ourselves, and we didn’t need to win every race.”

That “higher ground” attitude of Hampsten’s American team, Motorola, began to change in 1994. “There was a lot of grumbling on the team,” Hampsten said, “and we did get technical data from team doctor Massimo Testa because he’d talk to his colleagues on other teams. He was always straight with me. ‘Sure enough,’ he said, ‘if so-and-so who you raced with for eight years and you always dropped on the climbs, if that guy’s beating you now, his hematocrit is 15 points higher, and he’s gonna kill you in the mountains.’”

Because the new drug couldn’t be detected in anti-doping tests, no one knew for certain who was using EPO—and riders kept that secret to themselves. So, for the best part of a decade, until the Festina Affair, rumors were the only source of what was happening in the peloton. And rumors, without any corroborative evidence, were not things that professional journalists could write about. And when we did ask questions about doping those questions were sidestepped more often than not.

http://redkiteprayer.com/2012/09/tuesdays-with-wilcockson-doping-on-my-mind-part-ii/

sniper..they don't need to shape the narrative as some of us saw it...we....eh...saw it

however..keep being 'shaped' as you....eh...never

BTW lemond got shot

 

[Sciatic]

Re:

i think polish does bring up a good point.


"please note that in 1990 the Z team won the team classification while supporting lemond. in 1991 they were nowhere. on the first alpine (mid mountain stage) lemond found himself alone in the large group of favorites. With hampsten, leblanc and mottet 5 minutes up ahead and with no team mates to chase, lemond pleaded with banesto to chase. they refused. lemond even tried to work on his own. so it was lemond's entire team that couldn't keep up with some of the other teams...which makes you think it wasn't just lemond losing because of old age."

I remember watching that stage. I remember thinking he was spending way too much energy, riding back forth through the group trying to convince others to work. I though he partly lost the tour right there. I think that's the time that afterward he said something like, If I can't win this tour I hope Gianni Bugno does; apparently Bugno was the only one willing to work with him.

 

[sniper]

Hampsten, Alpe D'Huez, 1992:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kZ5pEm3ZEn4 (starting ca. 3:30 in)
impressive.
effortless almost.
agressive, also (3:35-ish, and directly after the finish)


@gillian1969: whatever the narrative, you, or the Clinic at large, haven't done much to scrutinize it thus far.
For instance, Max Testa is not mentioned once in any of the Hampsten threads.
And for the record, this is not about proving Hampsten doped (although this will no doubt be leveled at those who dare question Hampsten); rather, it's about applying the smallest minimum of scrutiny to the narrative of a clean Hampsten, and, by extension, of the narrative that a non-cycling country almost simultaneously produces two clean GT champs beating ordinarily doped GT specialists from traditional cycling countries. What are the odds? I mean, marginal gains didn't even exist yet.

And with all due respect, this "I saw it, therefore I know it" argument is getting a bit rusty.
I mean, you saw what, exactly?

You may not know this, but I actually saw Jens Voigt riding. Boogerd. To name just two whose performances never raised too many flags.
And if consistency is key, well I saw Messi come onto the scene as a junior, and playing at a very constant level ever since. I've seen Federer been at his best for many many consecutive years.
How does any of that relieve me/us of the task to apply a minimum of scepsis?

 

[gillan1969]

Re:

Hampsten, Alpe D'Huez, 1992:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kZ5pEm3ZEn4 (starting ca. 3:30 in)
impressive.
effortless almost.
agressive, also (3:35-ish, and directly after the finish)


@gillian1969: whatever the narrative, you, or the Clinic at large, haven't done much to scrutinize it thus far.
For instance, Max Testa is not mentioned once in any of the Hampsten threads.
And for the record, this is not about proving Hampsten doped (although this will no doubt be leveled at those who dare question Hampsten); rather, it's about applying the smallest minimum of scrutiny to the narrative of a clean Hampsten, and, by extension, of the narrative that a non-cycling country almost simultaneously produces two clean GT champs beating ordinarily doped GT specialists from traditional cycling countries. What are the odds? I mean, marginal gains didn't even exist yet.

And with all due respect, this "I saw it, therefore I know it" argument is getting a bit rusty.
I mean, you saw what, exactly?

You may not know this, but I actually saw Jens Voigt riding. Boogerd. To name just two whose performances never raised too many flags.
And if consistency is key, well I saw Messi come onto the scene as a junior, and playing at a very constant level ever since. I've seen Federer been at his best for many many consecutive years.
How does any of that relieve me/us of the task to apply a minimum of scepsis?

I watched the story unfold...I saw the context...events and facts happened in real time...i am not joining dots

I can't speak for he clinic at large but I would imagine its because Lemond is a difficult fruit...on a tree where so many dangle within easy reach...perhaps, like me, they are more irked by those that insult their collective intelligence

some of whom we have both witnessed 'transforming' in real time...

BTW...as I remember it Hampsten was in the break and didn't ascend with the favourites...it as also the day after the infamous Sestriere stage...or as Miller called it..the day the animals came in two by two. I believe the autobus came in ahead of the fastest predicted race speed that day...

as an aside it was also the day he recalled that Lemond was complaining of sore legs..a first

probably worth a google but I would think the hampsten ascent time was not 'up there' with others...

edited for google research...1992 doesn't make it into top 100 times at any rate

http://www.climbing-records.com/2013/07/all-time-top-100-fastest-rides-on.html

edited again for a an article which includes Hamspten and other climbers and supports the general narrative of the 'effects' of doping being felt from the early 90's rather than before...again, as some of us remember

http://le-grimpeur.net/blog/archives/52

 

[sniper]

Re: Re:

...
I watched the story unfold...I saw the context...events and facts happened in real time...i am not joining dots

I can't speak for he clinic at large but I would imagine its because Lemond is a difficult fruit...on a tree where so many dangle within easy reach...perhaps, like me, they are more irked by those that insult their collective intelligence

some of whom we have both witnessed 'transforming' in real time...

BTW...as I remember it Hampsten was in the break and didn't ascend with the favourites...it as also the day after the infamous Sestriere stage...or as Miller called it..the day the animals came in two by two. I believe the autobus came in ahead of the fastest predicted race speed that day...

as an aside it was also the day he recalled that Lemond was complaining of sore legs..a first

probably worth a google but I would think the hampsten ascent time was not 'up there' with others...

edited for google research...1992 doesn't make it into top 100 times at any rate

That's certainly fair enough.

I guess what I'm saying is, from what i can tell, there really isn't much left to build the argument that "they [Lemond & Hampsten] sucked during the break of the EPO era, ergo they were clean". After all,
1. EPO most likely made its introduction pre-1990
2. Lemond beat several riders who were likely on EPO already in 1990; and he still did reasonably well in 91.
3. Hampsten sure as hell didn't suck after 1990 (even if, sure, he declined compared to his 1985-1990 period)
4. we've seen several '80s' riders (not just Lemond) go downhill post-1990, riders of whom we know they doped in the 80s and of whom we know, or can be fairly sure, they got onto the EPO program at some point (the PDM-rs; guys like Planckaert, Demol, Draaijer, etc.);
5. Hampsten's closeness to Max Testa, Motorola, Ochowicz, etc. I mean...
6. There are a host of alternative reasons why Lemond's carreer may have gone backwards after 1991, Testa's claims being just one of them.

 

[Maxiton]

Besides which, Indurain's performance in the Tour declined significantly in 1996 - despite his being, most of us agree, EPO-fueled. EPO may have been the magic sauce for racers, but apparently it didn't prevent their performances falling off a cliff at some point.

 

[kwikki]

Re: Re:

And with all due respect, this "I saw it, therefore I know it" argument is getting a bit rusty.
I mean, you saw what, exactly?

I watched the story unfold...I saw the context...events and facts happened in real time...i am not joining

Actually gillan is right.

I'm getting the distinct impression from the threads in which I am participating that some/many posters, but in particular those with the most itchy trigger fingers when it comes to accusations of doping, are relatively new to the sport but also to life. By that, I mean that they are under 30, and so have not even experienced the 1980s let alone the 80s and 90s with the viewpoint of an adult.

Why does this matter? Context...as Gillian says.

You might be able to Google results for races you weren't alive to see, and you might even be able to watch some of the major ones on YouTube. But what you can't do is Google up an understanding of what else was going on or not and it is a very easy mistake to interpret historical events from the perspective of today.

Let me give a more concrete example. I've read people criticising riders for not 'speaking out' about doping at the time. But here's the thing...they did. You can't Google it because it wasn't reported, and it wasn't reported because cycling had nothing of the profile it has today. Not only that but communication technology was limited to print and perhaps a total of 3 television channels. Certainly there was no possibility for public discussion and sharing of information prior to the growth of Internet use, which didn't really happen jntil the turn of the millennium.

It's hard to overstate just how much the world has changed over the last 40 years, but if you didn't actually live it you'll struggle to understand.

I'm not saying this in a patronising way, and I certainly am not trying to discourage the young from having and expressing an opinion.

 

[gillan1969]

Re: Re:

And with all due respect, this "I saw it, therefore I know it" argument is getting a bit rusty.
I mean, you saw what, exactly?

I watched the story unfold...I saw the context...events and facts happened in real time...i am not joining

Actually gillan is right.

I'm getting the distinct impression from the threads in which I am participating that some/many posters, but in particular those with the most itchy trigger fingers when it comes to accusations of doping, are relatively new to the sport but also to life. By that, I mean that they are under 30, and so have not even experienced the 1980s let alone the 80s and 90s with the viewpoint of an adult.

Why does this matter? Context...as Gillian says.

You might be able to Google results for races you weren't alive to see, and you might even be able to watch some of the major ones on YouTube. But what you can't do is Google up an understanding of what else was going on or not and it is a very easy mistake to interpret historical events from the perspective of today.

Let me give a more concrete example. I've read people criticising riders for not 'speaking out' about doping at the time. But here's the thing...they did. You can't Google it because it wasn't reported, and it wasn't reported because cycling had nothing of the profile it has today. Not only that but communication technology was limited to print and perhaps a total of 3 television channels. Certainly there was no possibility for public discussion and sharing of information prior to the growth of Internet use, which didn't really happen jntil the turn of the millennium.

It's hard to overstate just how much the world has changed over the last 40 years, but if you didn't actually live it you'll struggle to understand.

I'm not saying this in a patronising way, and I certainly am not trying to discourage the young from having and expressing an opinion.

indeed...remember the '82 dauphine i think where Simon tested positive...punishment? 10 min penalty

would go on to become le Tour's wounded hero the next year...

different world....

 

[Maxiton]

Re: Re:

And with all due respect, this "I saw it, therefore I know it" argument is getting a bit rusty.
I mean, you saw what, exactly?

I watched the story unfold...I saw the context...events and facts happened in real time...i am not joining

Actually gillan is right.

I'm getting the distinct impression from the threads in which I am participating that some/many posters, but in particular those with the most itchy trigger fingers when it comes to accusations of doping, are relatively new to the sport but also to life. By that, I mean that they are under 30, and so have not even experienced the 1980s let alone the 80s and 90s with the viewpoint of an adult.

Why does this matter? Context...as Gillian says.

You might be able to Google results for races you weren't alive to see, and you might even be able to watch some of the major ones on YouTube. But what you can't do is Google up an understanding of what else was going on or not and it is a very easy mistake to interpret historical events from the perspective of today.

Let me give a more concrete example. I've read people criticising riders for not 'speaking out' about doping at the time. But here's the thing...they did. You can't Google it because it wasn't reported, and it wasn't reported because cycling had nothing of the profile it has today. Not only that but communication technology was limited to print and perhaps a total of 3 television channels. Certainly there was no possibility for public discussion and sharing of information prior to the growth of Internet use, which didn't really happen jntil the turn of the millennium.

It's hard to overstate just how much the world has changed over the last 40 years, but if you didn't actually live it you'll struggle to understand.

I'm not saying this in a patronising way, and I certainly am not trying to discourage the young from having and expressing an opinion.

You make, IMO, an excellent point. But if you don't mind my saying so it would be a stronger if you could manage to back it up with concrete examples. Maybe some quotes from print media, scans of print media, that sort of thing. Or even some anecdotal recollections.

 

[sniper]

I agree with kwikki re: context being important, and the 80s being a different era in terms of media coverage, and all that.
But that knife obviously cuts both ways.
It seems now, that in fact many of Lemond's contemporaries thought he was doping.
This includes people who would've been in the know and who had no obvious reason to smear him.
These rumors have come out even in the total absence of social media in that period.

And, 'was there' or 'wasn't there', 'seen it happen' or 'didn't see it happen'...really none of that changes the fact that Testa, Eddie B., and Vanmol were old school doping doctors. As old school as they come.
Nor does any of that change the fact that the US suddenly produced two GT winners, in an era in which the arms race was full on and the US was trying to close the gap with known doping countries.

 

[kwikki]

I don't discount the possibility at all. EPO less so, as the performance evidence is contrary to that.

With regards to contemporaries suggesting Lemond doped (and we certainly aren't there yet in concrete terms) there is another element which is peculiar to corrupt practices. Without going into too much personal detail, at various points in my professional working life I have been pressured to join in unethical practices. Guaranteed that one of the opening gambits from whoever was trying to do the persuading would be "everyone is doing it so you shouldn't feel bad about it".....but crucially, and more subtley they would also be using this same rationale to justify their own unethical behaviour to themself. In other words normalising abnormal behaviour so that it no longer is in conflict with normal behaviour.

So when I read of doping doctor Max Testa claiming privately that Lemond was burnt out through drug use I am reminded of this.

In much the same way, Dr Mark Bonar, the doctor that doped that 3rd Cat amateur, was doing the same thing when he talked of doping 150 athletes including top pros.

It doesn't automatically mean that what they say is a lie, but it is a pretty major consideration.

People are complex.