Last clean Grand Tour winner?

[red_flanders]

The guys who beat LeMond in 1991, Indurain, Chiapucci and Bugno, all have been shown to have been on EPO in some of the earliest years, and these guys were maybe doing it in '89 and '90.

LeMond claims to have been at his top form in 1991, and while I believe he thinks so, he was also really out of shape in the early part of the year--more so than even previous years. What is sure is that a lot of guys made huge strides in '91, and after that the sport was utterly changed.

 

[red_flanders]

Alot of the proof (in my book) that LA doped was the dopers that he beat. I'm just being consistent here.

"Your book" needs editing, and seems to be missing several chapters. You're not being consistent, you're ignoring mountains of evidence about Armstrong. It's quite inconsistent, actually. Farsical almost.

 

[Race Radio]

Here's a question:

Did GL ever speak out about doping real time in the 80's? What did he say about Delgado after he got caught using the masking agent? What did Mottet say?

Did they know other cyclists were doping?

When Lemond returned he signed with PDM who had an organized doping program. Greg was shocked and proceeded to try to negotiate his way out of his contract and leave a year early. Most around cycling at the time knew the reason why.

 

[blackcat]

Race, what about Tapie's La Vie Claire? I thought with Hinault, they were widely appeared to be the worst at the time?

 

[pmcg76]

Race, what about Tapie's La Vie Claire? I thought with Hinault, they were widely appeared to be the worst at the time?

I dont know about the team but I always heard that Paul Koechli who was the DS, was an advocate of clean cycling. But then Bernard Tapie, who didnt exactly have many scruples owned the team and he wanted one thing, to win at all costs.

 

[ChrisE]

"Your book" needs editing, and seems to be missing several chapters. You're not being consistent, you're ignoring mountains of evidence about Armstrong. It's quite inconsistent, actually. Farsical almost.

WTH are you talking about? The fact that the riders that lost to LA (JU, Beloki, Hamilton, Botero, Basso, Vino, Heras, etc, etc) were all proven to be dopers is a big deal. That is just one of the things I use to conclude LA doped. I have not stated I ignore anything about LA; please find it. Thanks.

You sure are a thinned skinned little ummm, person. No offense.

 

[ChrisE]

One can only imagine.

BTW As you are only mining for a reaction on this thread I am sure you must admit you are just plowing a steaming pile here.

You would have been proud. Now I get to practice being nice to red flanders.

Me, stir up a pile of shyt? I resememble that remark.

 

[ChrisE]

Race, what about Tapie's La Vie Claire? I thought with Hinault, they were widely appeared to be the worst at the time?

OK, what's the deal with the avatar?

 

[Race Radio]

It's not correct because of what GL says. I know that is gospel because he is the anti-LA.

OK, then what was Indurain on when he was winning alot of stuff prior to his Tours? It obviously wasn't enough to beat GL or his teamate, who was on roids. More proof that GL beat doped riders, but his power numbers in 91, according to him, were higher than ever. Then why is he 1 watt/kg lower in 91 than in 90????? Why did Indurain's numbers not exceed GL's until 94?

I agree at some point Indurain took EPO. The difference I think is that we disagree on when that was. I point to the graphs. I just asked let's toss the graphs if we only plan to selectively believe them. Kinda like the bible.

I do not think the numbers you are using are accurate. I believe that Indurains watts would be higher.

When you are talking about Indurains previous success are you referring to his first two Tours, that he dropped out of, or his third where he finished 97th?

 

[Hugh Januss]

WTH are you talking about? The fact that the riders that lost to LA (JU, Beloki, Hamilton, Botero, Basso, Vino, Heras, etc, etc) were all proven to be dopers is a big deal. That is just one of the things I use to conclude LA doped. I have not stated I ignore anything about LA; please find it. Thanks.

You sure are a thinned skinned little ummm, person. No offense.

A) You are gonna have to try a little harder. and
B) You did say:

Alot of the proof (in my book) that LA doped was the dopers that he beat. I'm just being consistent here.

which certainly gives the impression of it carrying more weight than "just one of the things".

 

[ChrisE]

I do not think the numbers you are using are accurate. I believe that Indurains watts would be higher.

When you are talking about Indurains previous success are you referring to his first two Tours, that he dropped out of, or his third where he finished 97th?

OK, but the graphs that contain these numbers have been used alot in these forums to prove or support various points. I agree they are surprising, and it did make me think about GL in terms of his downfall, ie it was not EPO use by others but more of a falloff of his ability. It also made me want to conclude maybe Indurain early was not using EPO.

I would like to know more about how the power numbers in the graphs were calculated. Even if they take into account some variables, what weight to they use??

Look at Indurain's palmares. He had alot of success before 1991, though admittedly not in GT's. But, he won his first I think at 27 so that is about right. My point is he didn't come out of nowhere.

 

[patricknd]

You would have been proud. Now I get to practice being nice to red flanders.

Me, stir up a pile of shyt? I resememble that remark.

how come you get friendly warnings from mods and i flog digger like a mule and can't get so much as a play nice?

where is the justice?

 

[Race Radio]

OK, but the graphs that contain these numbers have been used alot in these forums to prove or support various points. I agree they are surprising, and it did make me think about GL in terms of his downfall, ie it was not EPO use by others but more of a falloff of his ability. It also made me want to conclude maybe Indurain early was not using EPO.

I would like to know more about how the power numbers in the graphs were calculated. Even if they take into account some variables, what weight to they use??

Look at Indurain's palmares. He had alot of success before 1991, though admittedly not in GT's. But, he won his first I think at 27 so that is about right. My point is he didn't come out of nowhere.

Prior to EPO Great GT riders did well in their first Tour's, they did not drop out. Indurain suddenly becoming dominate at 27 does not make sense.

Merckx, Lemond, Fignon, Hinault,Anquetil all were on the podium or won the race by 23. Prior to EPO 27 was the start of the downside of a career not the beginning of a 5 year run.

One point I would make on EPO is it took a few years before riders, and Doctors, figured out how to use it and how to develop a complete program around it. In the early years I think the biggest asset was simple recovery. Being fresh in the third week of a GT is huge and can be the difference between 1st and 10th

 

[pmcg76]

Prior to EPO Great GT riders did well in their first Tour's, they did not drop out. Indurain suddenly becoming dominate at 27 does not make sense.

Merckx, Lemond, Fignon, Hinault,Anquetil all were on the podium or won the race by 23. Prior to EPO 27 was the start of the downside of a career not the beginning of a 5 year run.

One point I would make on EPO is it took a few years before riders, and Doctors, figured out how to use it and how to develop a complete program around it. In the early years I think the biggest asset was simple recovery. Being fresh in the third week of a GT is huge and can be the difference between 1st and 10th

I have to admit to being unsure about Indurain, yes he didnt perform in early tours but there was a gradual progression rather than a sudden leap. I think he could have challenged in 90 if he hadnt rode for Delgado, he would have podiumed at least. I wouldnt imagine he was on EPO in 90 but could be wrong. He was always a good TT and he never dominated like Armstrong. In the TTs yeah, but he rode defensively in his first few Tours in the mountains apart from the day he took of with Chiappucci.

On the flipside, I always think about Lucho Herrera and his comment about "people with fat asses dropping him in the mountains" as the first signs of the arrival of EPO. I always think of Indurain because he was a big guy, 80kg I think and to climb like he did. I think he was defo on EPO in later years but 91 I am not sure.

 

[patricknd]

Prior to EPO Great GT riders did well in their first Tour's, they did not drop out. Indurain suddenly becoming dominate at 27 does not make sense.

Merckx, Lemond, Fignon, Hinault,Anquetil all were on the podium or won the race by 23. Prior to EPO 27 was the start of the downside of a career not the beginning of a 5 year run.

One point I would make on EPO is it took a few years before riders, and Doctors, figured out how to use it and how to develop a complete program around it. In the early years I think the biggest asset was simple recovery. Being fresh in the third week of a GT is huge and can be the difference between 1st and 10th

you want recovery then you have to talk about the steroids. even during chemo and radiation last year i could do 6 or seven miles a day on the treadmill and next morning feel as refreshed as if i had slept for a week. i finished my last cycle a month ago and even two weeks after i was done i still would do up to nine miles a day on the treadmill and feel like i was 10 years old the next morning. now i do six and i have tired legs and my joints hurt like hell until noon. the difference they make is nothing short of amazing.

 

[petethedrummer]

I'm still wondering why the power numbers from the 91 and 92 tour are less than GL's in 89.

I presume the power numbers you are referring to come from the graph below which is not a measure of power output for the entire tour. It doesn't take into consideration the flat TTs which I believe Indurain dominated, apart from the 91 prologue (though I will stand corrected on this if I'm wrong).

The Graph estimates.....

Power output on major climbs - the Tour champions over the years

Below is a graph showing the estimated power output* for the eventual Tour winner on the final climb of the Tours between 1989 and 2001. In other words, in 1989, Greg Lemond would go on to win the Tour, and what has been done here is to estimate his power output on the final climb of each mountain stage and then average them for that year.

http://www.sportsscientists.com/2009/07/tour-de-france-2009-power-estimates.html

Indurain won his tours by dominating the TTs and limiting losses in the mountains. Not by blitzing the mountain stages. All this graph shows is that some of the tour winners were definitely doped to the gills on some mountain stages.
It doesn't show that Indurain was clean during 91 and 92 tours because his power in the mountains was lower than Lemond's in 89 and 90. Nor does it necessarily show that Indurain was doped 91 or 92. You'd probably have to estimate the power output of his TT performances in 91 and 92 to show that.

 

[petethedrummer]

I would like to know more about how the power numbers in the graphs were calculated. Even if they take into account some variables, what weight to they use??

Here you go:

http://www.sportsscientists.com/2009/07/tour-de-france-2009-power-estimates.html

Don't forget to read the comments at the end where the authors clarify some points and answer specific questions from readers.

 

[red_flanders]

WTH are you talking about? The fact that the riders that lost to LA (JU, Beloki, Hamilton, Botero, Basso, Vino, Heras, etc, etc) were all proven to be dopers is a big deal. That is just one of the things I use to conclude LA doped. I have not stated I ignore anything about LA; please find it. Thanks.

You sure are a thinned skinned little ummm, person. No offense.

You used the statement...

Alot of the proof (in my book) that LA doped was the dopers that he beat. I'm just being consistent here.

...to assert that Lemond beating dopers was the same as Armstrong beating dopers. "Just being consistent". That a lot of the "proof" that LA doped is who he beat.

It is neither proof nor consistent. It is a form of evidence that he doped, given that the entire competitive landscape was doped with blood boosters. It also ignores mountains of evidence about Armstrong beyond who he beat, which has been hashed, smoked and re-hashed to no end such that there's no point trying to list it all. The point here is that there is nothing similar about Lemond beating people who used steroids and Armstrong beating a peloton filled with blood boosters to call them "consistent" or "proof" of anything.

The two are utterly inconsistent events and there is still no evidence that Lemond doped. He might have, but I've never seen a shred of evidence for it. There is on the other hand, a tremendous amount of evidence that Armstrong doped. Physical, circumstantial, heresay, witness testimony, and on and on and on. To say they both beat dopers and that's evidence against them, it's consistent, is...well...let's just say missing facts and any useful kind of logic.

That you have repeatedly resorted to insults is simply more evidence to me of the weakness of your statements--or at least the weakness of your own belief them. You want to have a discussion with a strong take on the facts at hand, I'm here. You want to get in a name-calling contest, find someone else.

 

[python]

you want recovery then you have to talk about the steroids.. snip...the difference they make is nothing short of amazing.

wow !
thanks for sharing patrick. .
do you think these steroids could be the secret of another cancer survivor and a multiple tour winner

you know the tour is all about recovering.

 

[patricknd]

wow !
thanks for sharing patrick. .
do you think these steroids could be the secret of another cancer survivor and a multiple tour winner

you know the tour is all about recovering.

i think they could be a lot of peoples secrets. all this crap about doping pre-epo not being as bad because it's not such an advantage is just that.

 

[ChrisE]

Here you go:

http://www.sportsscientists.com/2009/07/tour-de-france-2009-power-estimates.html

Don't forget to read the comments at the end where the authors clarify some points and answer specific questions from readers.

Thanks for the link.

I tried to go back and find this graph earlier in this thread to see if I overlooked the caveat at the top of it "final climbs". For some reason I can't find it....that's a pretty big deal. If I overlooked this disclaimer at the beginning then I was off on a wrong track for about 20 pages here.

Since it is just the final climb, then I can admittedly back off a couple of things. It is impossible to tell if GL came back to the pack in 91 since power numbers are lower. Indurain obviously conserved in the mountains, and even moreso as the race went on and he got more comfortable. Not until 93 did Rominger push him the whole way. In 89 I believe GL won the last mountain stage and in 90 is when he and Indurain got away at I think La Plagne. He was obviously going full bore in both of those stages, while Indurain was probably cruising. So, this graph tells squat about whether Indurain was doped in 91 and 92 compared to GL in 89 and 90 per this graph. I originally concluded there is a chance he wasn't since his numbers were lower....

It also means nothing in terms of whether GL declined or the pack passed him. I will note that Mottet finished ahead of him and Hampsten finished right with him in 91, which could mean he lost it.

I'm not really sure what the whole point of that study is. The last climb of a tour can vary in intensity for a variety of reasons, and there are variables that cannot be taken into account like the posters pointed out. One in my mind is weight as I stated; I have lost many pounds during road races in the Tx heat so that could obviously skew numbers late in stages.

If somebody wants to compare one climb from year/year to prove increases in performance due to doping, it would seem they could choose one where the winner was obviously going full bore. LaPlagne/90, Val Lauron.91, Hautacam/96, Sestriere/99, etc. Not sure why this wasn't done because the other is useless IMO.

So, to all my friends in CN forums please go back to the GL worshipping. You will get little interference from me on this point from now on in terms of this graph reference.

I still think to "know" whether somebody does or doesn't do something from hearsay lack credibility, but to each his own. People don't know what others are capable of doing, or not doing.

 

[ChrisE]

A) You are gonna have to try a little harder. and
B) You did say: which certainly gives the impression of it carrying more weight than "just one of the things".

To clarify, beating doped competition does carry the most weight for me. Also, performances. I didn't need a positive test to know FL was not clean on S17 when I watched it live. I was actually in Paris that day, and had just made it back to the hotel before he started the Joux Plane. I told my buddy with me at the time it was BS and the rest is history.

I have the 2001 tour on DVD, the 5 disk addition. Some "insane" performances in that one. That is actually and interesting year; wasn't that the year the EPO test started being used? I wonder what was going on there because he was insanely strong and consistent, probably the strongest of his 7 wins IMO.

Power numbers, etc. add to the proof but without SRM then comparing eras is more difficult. I don't put much stock in rumors/hearsay/books as this thread has shown.

 

[pmcg76]

Thanks for the link.

I tried to go back and find this graph earlier in this thread to see if I overlooked the caveat at the top of it "final climbs". For some reason I can't find it....that's a pretty big deal. If I overlooked this disclaimer at the beginning then I was off on a wrong track for about 20 pages here.

Since it is just the final climb, then I can admittedly back off a couple of things. It is impossible to tell if GL came back to the pack in 91 since power numbers are lower. Indurain obviously conserved in the mountains, and even moreso as the race went on and he got more comfortable. Not until 93 did Rominger push him the whole way. In 89 I believe GL won the last mountain stage and in 90 is when he and Indurain got away at I think La Plagne. He was obviously going full bore in both of those stages, while Indurain was probably cruising. So, this graph tells squat about whether Indurain was doped in 91 and 92 compared to GL in 89 and 90 per this graph. I originally concluded there is a chance he wasn't since his numbers were lower....

It also means nothing in terms of whether GL declined or the pack passed him. I will note that Mottet finished ahead of him and Hampsten finished right with him in 91, which could mean he lost it.

I'm not really sure what the whole point of that study is. The last climb of a tour can vary in intensity for a variety of reasons, and there are variables that cannot be taken into account like the posters pointed out. One in my mind is weight as I stated; I have lost many pounds during road races in the Tx heat so that could obviously skew numbers late in stages.

If somebody wants to compare one climb from year/year to prove increases in performance due to doping, it would seem they could choose one where the winner was obviously going full bore. LaPlagne/90, Val Lauron.91, Hautacam/96, Sestriere/99, etc. Not sure why this wasn't done because the other is useless IMO.

So, to all my friends in CN forums please go back to the GL worshipping. You will get little interference from me on this point from now on in terms of this graph reference.

I still think to "know" whether somebody does or doesn't do something from hearsay lack credibility, but to each his own. People don't know what others are capable of doing, or not doing.

The problem is that after 98, a lot us realised that it was pointless relying on the test's to show who was clean or dirty. We needed other sources to give us a more accurate picture of what is happening. A lot of what you see as "heresay" has proven to be in fact pretty accurate. A Rough Ride was technically speaking just "heresay" but everything in it is backed up by Joe Parkin's, A Dog in a Hat. Kinda like cross-referencing. What happens when the heresay becomes more accurate than the drug-tests??

A couple of things that applies even nowadays, people generalise and dont look at the micro-issues within a race. For example, people say if you finish in the Top 10 at the Tour, you have to de doped. Then take Francois Simon who finished Top 10 in 02, well he gained 30 minutes in a break that propelled him that high on GC. Bonjour, now Bbox are I think considered cleaner than most out there.

To look back over 20 years and generalise on what happened is inaccurate, to say LeMond climber fantastically in the 89 Tour, in fact Fignon was much the better climber over LeMond, Delgado was arguably the best climber in the race but he lost the Tour when he missed his start time in the prolouge and his team then lost a load of time in the TTT(Micro-issues) His race was over before it started. Guys like Theunisse, Lejarreta were as strong as LeMond in the climbs, LeMond was limiting his losses most of the time. I still have the Winning day-by-day review of the 89 Tour.

The stage LeMond won was a semi-mountainous stage when the Top 5 on GC broke away and LeMond won the sprint. LeMond was the stongest TT as evidenced by winning both flat TTs. On Indurain, he won a mountain stage in 89, a mountain stage in 90 at Luz Ardiden so he didnt come out of nowhere as a climber although he was a lot bigger than the average climber. The first time Indurain seemed like an E.T was that TT in Luxembourg in 92 when he beat everyone by 3 minutes. Fignon's comments that day were funny.

Most of the time, Indurain rode defensively in the mountains, Indurain was never Lance. I actually agree that LeMond did phsically decline in 91 although he was on top form in the first week. He might have suffered from trying to keep up with PDM in the first week, who might have been on EPO before they all got sick 'The infamous Intralipid afffair'. As I mentioned before and you have recognised, Mottet finished ahead of LeMond in 91 so it wasnt all down to rampant EPO usage.

I am not or never was a big fan of LeMond, yes after the 89 Tour, I liked him but he came to the Tour of Ireland either in 89 or 90 and dropped out despite receiving an appearence fee. Echoes of Lance last year. Difference was he received a huge amount of flak in Ireland for that and he went down bigtime in my estimation.

 

[Race Radio]

i think they could be a lot of peoples secrets. all this crap about doping pre-epo not being as bad because it's not such an advantage is just that.

EPO can give a season Pro a 13% jump in output. Do you honestly thing Cortisone and Testosterone can do that?

I will go with Andy Hampsten on this, EPO changed the sport. It took doping from a choice to an obligation.

 

[petethedrummer]

Thanks for the link.

I tried to go back and find this graph earlier in this thread to see if I overlooked the caveat at the top of it "final climbs". For some reason I can't find it....that's a pretty big deal. If I overlooked this disclaimer at the beginning then I was off on a wrong track for about 20 pages here.

Well it is pretty difficult to tell what the graph is supposed to be showing with no title on it. That's an elementary science mistake to not have a title on the graph. But we'll forgive them for it, its a great website.