Benotti69 said:Bikes, gear and a good diet do not maketh a GT rider of LeMond's ability.
IMO it can help a rider at a slightly lesser level than Lemond's, match his output for a particular race.
OFC you may differ.
The Cycling News forum is still looking to add volunteer moderators with. If you're interested in helping keep our discussions on track, send a direct message to
In the meanwhile, please use the Report option if you see a post that doesn't fit within the forum rules.
Thanks!
Benotti69 said:Bikes, gear and a good diet do not maketh a GT rider of LeMond's ability.
At the same time, he's remarkably quiet on the topic of UCI mismanagement.
the asian said:Well obviously as a team manager he has to keep relatively quiet on that topic as his team may suffer the same fate as Katusha's and unlike Katusha's such a blow might be the death knell to his team.
the asian said:The Biological Passport is a good concept. It is a deterrent to extensive doping, but it doesn't stop doping altogether.It does have it's flaws which need to be rectified but It's better to have it than not having it at all,
Well obviously as a team manager he has to keep relatively quiet on that topic as his team may suffer the same fate as Katusha's and unlike Katusha's such a blow might be the death knell to his team.
Benotti69 said:It is a deterrent to what exactly. Armstrongs numbers showed it was no deterrent to him. Who else has the 'favour' of UCI. We all know how he got that 'favour', why not others?
The limited testing shows that the biopassport is hardly effective. A decent specialist should be able to beat it. They have a big window in which to dope. After 10pm at night and before 8am(?) in the morning.
Benotti69 said:Bikes, gear and a good diet do not maketh a GT rider of LeMond's ability.
The Hitch said:
JV1973 said:Will, your boilerplate is absolutely awesome. Keeps me inspired.
Where was this post? Can you get it framed for me? My 40th is June 10th.
Exactly what I think of this power stuff. Or we are just stupid or we are getting fooled big time by the powerfiles stories.veganrob said:Very much agree with you here. Power is power, simply put. Technology in bikes does not change that. Wether I am riding a '74 Schwinn or a 2013 Noah, my power numbers will remain the same. The time to get from point A to point B will change but that is all. It is relative.
Advances in training can make up some of the differences for sure, but the difference between Hesjedal or Wiggins to Lemond. No way.
Fearless Greg Lemond said:Exactly what I think of this power stuff. Or we are just stupid or we are getting fooled big time by the powerfiles stories.
Benotti69 said:Just the old adage of trying to blind people with talk of technology, science, diet, blah blah...........thinking we wouldn't understand that all the above no matter the application cannot turn a non GT rider into a GT winner.
It needs non natural doping to do that.
pmcg76 said:This is ridiculous, so Greg LeMond is considered the peak of human development and athletes have not progressed in the last 25 years!!!
Sports science is a complete hooey and the training of athletes 25 years ago is still as effective as modern methods!!
I have great respect for LeMond and have defended him on here in the past but despite all his talents and amazing physiology, he never dominated in his era the way the likes of Merckx or Hinault did.
I am sure if LeMond had been transported forward 25 years and exposed to modern training, diet & technology, his figures would be much higher as well.
pmcg76 said:This is ridiculous, so Greg LeMond is considered the peak of human development and athletes have not progressed in the last 25 years!!!
Sports science is a complete hooey and the training of athletes 25 years ago is still as effective as modern methods!!
I have great respect for LeMond and have defended him on here in the past but despite all his talents and amazing physiology, he never dominated in his era the way the likes of Merckx or Hinault did.
I am sure if LeMond had been transported forward 25 years and exposed to modern training, diet & technology, his figures would be much higher as well.
pmcg76 said:This is ridiculous, so Greg LeMond is considered the peak of human development and athletes have not progressed in the last 25 years!!!
Sports science is a complete hooey and the training of athletes 25 years ago is still as effective as modern methods!!
pmcg76 said:I have great respect for LeMond and have defended him on here in the past but despite all his talents and amazing physiology, he never dominated in his era the way the likes of Merckx or Hinault did.
I am sure if LeMond had been transported forward 25 years and exposed to modern training, diet & technology, his figures would be much higher as well.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rp6-wG5LLqEBenotti69 said:Just the old adage of trying to blind people with talk of technology, science, diet, blah blah...........thinking we wouldn't understand that all the above no matter the application cannot turn a non GT rider into a GT winner.
It needs non natural doping to do that.
Fearless Greg Lemond said:
Because he's the closest thing to a world-class clean cyclist with verifiable and extrapolable watt/kg and VO2 max figures we have.Ferminal said:I don't know why we are even talking about LeMond, there is no quantifiable way of comparing him to modern riders.
Maybe he has a 'magic bus'Benotti69 said:And JV tells us 'the kids are alright'..............
See Veganrob, and, let's not forget Aldo Sassi's assesments on power. I do take him seriously.pcm said:This is ridiculous, so Greg LeMond is considered the peak of human development and athletes have not progressed in the last 25 years!!!
It is not complete hooey, of course you can gain due to better training techniques, nutrition and all. Fact remains a lot of riders nowadays are able to reach to the Holy Grail. Even former autobus clients.pcm said:Sports science is a complete hooey and the training of athletes 25 years ago is still as effective as modern methods!!.
Must say the 380 watts he could produce were impressive enough.pcm said:I am sure if LeMond had been transported forward 25 years and exposed to modern training, diet & technology, his figures would be much higher as well.
hrotha said:Because he's the closest thing to a world-class clean cyclist with verifiable and extrapolable watt/kg and VO2 max figures we have.
Hence the "closest thing" bit.Ferminal said:One lab result or one time up a certain climb is hardly a platform for comparison. Or whatever he said in an interview we are just supposed to take that and accept it.
hrotha said:Hence the "closest thing" bit.
Fair point, but I don't think those "upper limit of physiologically possible performance" figures are based on LeMond, either. ~6 W/kg seems to be the magic number in relatively long climbs.Ferminal said:Yes so you can't say "these three people on the same team are better than Greg LeMond so they must be doping" with any confidence. No way of knowing if they actually are better and to what degree. Simpler ways of tackling the problem...
We know Porte pushed Basso to 420watts, the same Porte got Nibali back when he was on an attempt to break, so he would be below the Holy Grail, I guess.the asian said:Do we have Nibali's numbers from last years' Tour?