LeMond and Trek Settle

[RTMcFadden]

You really need to get your talking points clearer or you will just embarrass yourself.

1985 was when the human erythropoietin gene was isolated. It was not approved by the FDA until July 1989....but don't let the facts get in the way of your attempt to slime.

Well, since you want to talk timelines. EPO was isolated in 1977, 10 ml I believe, using a 7 step purification process. The announcement of the isolation of the gene was published in Nov. of 1985. But some of the literature imply that it may have been isolated as early as 1983. More importantly, the pivotal clinical study was published in Jan of 1987. Since that study was a phase 3 clinical trial, it could reasonably take between 6 and 18 months to complete and would use commercial product. That sets the date for production of the first commercial batch, a.k.a the bio-batch, to mid 85, at the earliest and mid 86 at the latest. Now, using the normal route for approval, it takes approximately 18 months from the time of submission to approval, and the first approval was received in June 27 of 1989, then the submission was made in Jan. of 1988. Remember that this BLA was pre-PDUFA, which means that the normal review process could easily have take three years, and there was no established fast-track process. In addition, this submission was at the agency during the restructuring that created CBER and CDER, which may have slowed down the approval process. So, this leaves all of 1987 to complete the additional phase 3 clinical trials in both the US and Europe using commercial product.

 

[Cloxxki]

I was told by a top athlete and educated professional in the field of performance enhancing substances (legal or illegal), that the '88 Calgary games are the major first event to look for big successes of the fundamentally lesser talented, through use of EPO.
EPO had been previosuly exposed as a serious threat for fair play in professional sports. Team docs had all the time to absorb the information, obtain early samples, and work out conventient consumptional and dosage.

Maybe the rumors circulating on Yvonne van Gennep in this regard (injured and overtrained skater taking 3 speedskating golds) lead to a recent feel-good Dutch TV documentary where the east-German girls were portraited and even interviewed as systematic, although un-evil dopers, while Yvonne as the wondertalent that got it all together in the most important tournament of her life, bettering PB's by many seconds.
The German girls were totally expected to divide the medals between them, but ended up empty handed. Supposedly their doping allowed them to take on training volumes Van Gennep couldn't imagine, had she not seen it. Yet. she beat them all, after nearly missing the Games due to operation required to her foot.

 

[RTMcFadden]

RR said..
1985 was when the human erythropoietin gene was isolated. It was not approved by the FDA until July 1989....but don't let the facts get in the way of your attempt to slime.

It was in 1984 that Dr Lin (Amgen) isolated the EPO gene. 1985-1986 were spent on clinical trials and on 1/87, the New England Journal of Medicine, pronounced EPO as a raving success. EPO hit pro cycling in 1987. It was FDA approved in 89. The Dutch team PDM, was using EPO from 1987>. Just look at the “on hit wonders” on PDM in 87-90. Any rider on PDM from 87-89 was ahead of the doping curve, not behind it

Joey,
While I appreciate the support, you might want to stay out of this. Otherwise you're liable to incur the wrath of these cyber bullying, self-appointed cognisenti from the asshat brigade.

 

[Race Radio]

RR said..
1985 was when the human erythropoietin gene was isolated. It was not approved by the FDA until July 1989....but don't let the facts get in the way of your attempt to slime.

It was in 1984 that Dr Lin (Amgen) isolated the EPO gene. 1985-1986 were spent on clinical trials and on 1/87, the New England Journal of Medicine, pronounced EPO as a raving success. EPO hit pro cycling in 1987. It was FDA approved in 89. The Dutch team PDM, was using EPO from 1987>. Just look at the “on hit wonders” on PDM in 87-90. Any rider on PDM from 87-89 was ahead of the doping curve, not behind it

Wrong. The gene was not isolated until late 1985.

The doping of the PDM team is well documented. Ryckaert and Sanders were convicted and their methods documented, EPO was never mentioned. Rooks wrote a book on his doping and said he did not start taking EPO until 1991. The doping on PDM was one of the key reason Lemond left the team after less then a year.

It is interesting how suddenly posters pop out of nowhere to post disinformation.

 

[Race Radio]

Well, since you want to talk timelines. EPO was isolated in 1977, 10 ml I believe, using a 7 step purification process. The announcement of the isolation of the gene was published in Nov. of 1985. But some of the literature imply that it may have been isolated as early as 1983. More importantly, the pivotal clinical study was published in Jan of 1987. Since that study was a phase 3 clinical trial, it could reasonably take between 6 and 18 months to complete and would use commercial product. That sets the date for production of the first commercial batch, a.k.a the bio-batch, to mid 85, at the earliest and mid 86 at the latest. Now, using the normal route for approval, it takes approximately 18 months from the time of submission to approval, and the first approval was received in June 27 of 1989, then the submission was made in Jan. of 1988. Remember that this BLA was pre-PDUFA, which means that the normal review process could easily have take three years, and there was no established fast-track process. In addition, this submission was at the agency during the restructuring that created CBER and CDER, which may have slowed down the approval process. So, this leaves all of 1987 to complete the additional phase 3 clinical trials in both the US and Europe using commercial product.

Let us know when you have any evidence that Lemond used EPO. If you can find a first hand witness it is worth 300,000 Euros to you.

 

[BroDeal]

EPO was actually commerically available in 1985 / 1986. So, it is possible that the "iron" injection he received wasn't actually iron, as EPO is clinically indicated for anemia.

That is the best you can do? Lemond's soigneur may have injected him once with EPO without his knowledge? There is no evidence that it was EPO; but, hey, in the wacky world of your imagination it could have been. That is it?

 

[flicker]

Does anyone think that EPO has made the cyclists in the peloton happier or better paid? Does anyone think that EPO has made the cyclists healthier?
Does anyone think that EPO has made the sport more popular or more watched?

 

[pmcg76]

Joey,
While I appreciate the support, you might want to stay out of this. Otherwise you're liable to incur the wrath of these cyber bullying, self-appointed cognisenti from the asshat brigade.

I think you will find what Joey is saying is there is a possibility that PDM might have used EPO during that period. There is no actual evidence, no 6 samples containing EPO with PDM riders names on them. Its a total guess based on the fact that EPO was approved in 1987.

Delgado, Rooks, Kelly, Alcala were all top riders at PDM during that period but guess what, they all had decent palmares before they arrived at PDM, all had finished top 10 in the Tour before PDM. Then didnt suddenly turn into super Tour champions so if they were using EPO, they sure as hell werent using it right. Once again, I will throw the stickman Charly Mottet into the argument, the only PDM rider who finsihed ahead of him in 87 Tour was Delgado and in 89, only Theunisse finished ahead of him so....where does that leave us.

88 is the one year that really stands out with the perfromances of Theunisse & Rooks. Both have admitted to doping and it is widely recognised that PDM had a organsied programme but I have yet to hear EPO mentioned before 1990 anywhere. Just check this link.

http://autobus.cyclingnews.com/results/archives/nov97/nov28a.html

Dr.Wim Sanders is the guy accused of providing the EPO to PDM and he joined the team in 1990. Their rider Johanes Draaijer died early 1990 from possible EPO usage, so I am sure they were sure as hell a lot more cautious about using it and using it correctly afterwards, there is mention of organised doping at PDM 87-89 but no mention of EPO.

Finally, this is all some roundabout way of trying to label Greg LeMond as a doper and it is so far of track, it just shows what lengths you guys are willing to go to implicate him.There might possibly have been a handful of guys who were on EPO late 80s so LeMond must have been doping. WTF.

When I think of the way PDM were riding before the Intralipid affair in 91, I wouldnt be at all surprised that they were on EPO and had figured out how to use it effectively, LeMond was able to keep up the first week and as he said himself he was in top condition but it could be said he paid for those efforts later in the same race.

When Paul Kimmage originally published A Rough Ride in 1990, there was not a single mention of EPO so he obviously had no wind of it in the peloton even though he only retired during the 89 Tour.

I personally dont know if LeMond took drugs or not, there doesnt seem to be anybody who knows and to try and implicate him because other were doing it in his era is just cheap. I have already pointed out how well Charly Mottet was able to perfrom in this era without drugs and how Eric Caritoux won the 84 Vuelta clean both confirmed by Willy Voet, the guy at the centre of the Festina affair. If they could perform clean, why couldnt one of the most naturally talented athletes ever compete.

I dont expect you guys to really address any of these issues of course.

 

[Flicklives]

Does anyone think that EPO has made the cyclists in the peloton happier or better paid? Does anyone think that EPO has made the cyclists healthier?
Does anyone think that EPO has made the sport more popular or more watched?

happier or better paid - I'm sure ! Ask Claudio Chiapucci if it worked out for him. Now ask Gilles Delion if staying clean paid off. Sporting fraud is hardly a justification for the use of the product.

healthier - for the dutch guys who stroked out, I think...probably not.

more popular or better watched - I think we can all agree that EPO has sucked the drama out of the sport. Lemond v Fignon gaining and losing time to each other on every stage is exciting. Delgato picking away at Roche's lead is exciting. Kelly bridging to the break at the end of Roubix is exciting.

Watching 8 Discovery Team riders riding tempo for 5 hours sucks.

 

[Hugh Januss]

happier or better paid - I'm sure ! Ask Claudio Chiapucci if it worked out for him. Now ask Gilles Delion if staying clean paid off. Sporting fraud is hardly a justification for the use of the product.

healthier - for the dutch guys who stroked out, I think...probably not.

more popular or better watched - I think we can all agree that EPO has sucked the drama out of the sport. Lemond v Fignon gaining and losing time to each other on every stage is exciting. Delgato picking away at Roche's lead is exciting. Kelly bridging to the break at the end of Roubix is exciting.

Watching 8 Discovery Team riders riding tempo for 5 hours sucks.

EPO was at least partially responsible for bring an astounding number of Lance groupies into the sport. Although it can (and has) be argued whether or not that is good for the sport.

 

[The Crusher]

It would seem the reaction of Lance and Trek forcing LeMond to apologize and retract his statement is what set LeMond on his crusade.

The original statement I was responding to was that there was no crusade, and that the idea of a crusade comes from a Lance PR machine.

So I was trying to show that there is at least the appearance of a crusade, and that Greg has to accept a lot of the responsibility for that fact, even if there really is some organized PR effort to smear him.

And to the degree that it the crusade has been exaggerated, I would point towards the media, not Lance. It's important to remember that the way the media works is to package stories in a way that makes them the sexiest. This includes highlighting any perception of animosity between famous people. You don't need a big PR effort for this, it just happens naturally.

 

[flicker]

EPO was at least partially responsible for bring an astounding number of Lance groupies into the sport. Although it can (and has) be argued whether or not that is good for the sport.

Oh come on Huj Anis. I think anyone who knows or thinks Lance is doped wouldn't want to be a Lance groupie.

Maybe you are correct though. I have always thought Lance was a jerk but a tremendously talented athlete. As well as intelligent and manipulative.

My opinion is they are all on some substances legal or otherwise. Stage 17 Tour06 Flandis I watched all the commentators insidiously remarked that Floyd was enhanced.

 

[Digger]

Does anyone think that EPO has made the cyclists in the peloton happier or better paid? Does anyone think that EPO has made the cyclists healthier?
Does anyone think that EPO has made the sport more popular or more watched?

No....because only the best could afford the top doping programmes. The rest took EPO in order to be able to stay in the peleton and not get dropped - winning was not a factor.
Happier....I'm sure the thought of dropping dead from heart attacks really makes people smile.
Healthier...yeah again, blood like glucose is very healthy...Pantani had health problems directly as a result of the copious amounts of EPO.

As has been said, the good days of cyclists cracking are all but gone. They are now machine who hardly ever crack. Floyd and Jan are the only two that come to mind. 70s abd 80s, they went slower, but it was exciting. USP, ONCE riding at the front day after day in the mountains...burning people off one by one...yeah that's great to watch and not a bit monotonous.

 

[Digger]

Oh come on Huj Anis. I think anyone who knows or thinks Lance is doped wouldn't want to be a Lance groupie.

Maybe you are correct though. I have always thought Lance was a jerk but a tremendously talented athlete. As well as intelligent and manipulative.

My opinion is they are all on some substances legal or otherwise. Stage 17 Tour06 Flandis I watched all the commentators insidiously remarked that Floyd was enhanced.

How do you know that? This is the problem with doping. Everyone responds differently...not everyone can afford the best doping programme. His results prior to Ferrari certainly do not signify a 'tremendously talented athlete' in relation to this peers anway. And his physical attributes show this.

 

[flicker]

How do you know that? This is the problem with doping. Everyone responds differently...not everyone can afford the best doping programme. His results prior to Ferrari certainly do not signify a 'tremendously talented athlete' in relation to this peers anway. And his physical attributes show this.

You are 100 percent correct. The cyclists I speak to say big team, best doctors best program. This is where I would like Greg and Walsh and Dik Pound launch their attack against doping. That attack accross the board against systematic doping within high tier cycling teams is the way to go. My opinion.

 

[Flicklives]

Dr.Wim Sanders is the guy accused of providing the EPO to PDM and he joined the team in 1990. Their rider Johanes Draaijer died early 1990 from possible EPO usage, so I am sure they were sure as hell a lot more cautious about using it and using it correctly afterwards, there is mention of organised doping at PDM 87-89 but no mention of EPO.

I agree.

I see a timeline as:

'87 - passes clinical trials
'89 - FDA fully approves
'90 - Johannies Draaijer dies, according to his wife, of EPO use

(see below for gap)

'93 Overwhelming evidence that EPO is beginning to be widely by '93. Skibby, Chiappuchi, the Conconi trial all revolve around the '92 season.

This means that between the beginning of '90 and the end of '92 the introduction of the drug begins to take place. This also coincides, no so coincidently, with the decline of Lemond as a contender in Europe.

'90 is the rise of Chiapucci out of total obscurity into a tour contender. He unexpectedly finished 2nd in the Tour's final TT that year. His decline would coincide with EPO use by the rest of the peleton and a leveling of the playing field.

'91 saw Indurain go from being good to "extra-terrestrial". In '90 Lemond beats Indurain in the Tour TTs. In '91 Indurain wins the first TT by an absurd amount and in '92 easily sets the hour record.

EPO use reached the level of absurd in 1994 - 1996 with Gweiss Ballan and the first systematic doping program under doctor Ferrari. Berzin, a track pursuit rider, wins the Giro from start to finish ! The team wins almost every classic. Riis suddenly become a Tour winner.

1996 was the year that Prentice Steffan claims that the US Postal riders came to his asking for EPO just to be able to keep up. Given the above, I don't blame the riders for asking - how could the be expected to compete since the UCI showed a blind eye. US Postal was a new team racing in Europe for the first time, and the riders were probably encountering EPO for the first time.

 

[Digger]

The original statement I was responding to was that there was no crusade, and that the idea of a crusade comes from a Lance PR machine.

So I was trying to show that there is at least the appearance of a crusade, and that Greg has to accept a lot of the responsibility for that fact, even if there really is some organized PR effort to smear him.

And to the degree that it the crusade has been exaggerated, I would point towards the media, not Lance. It's important to remember that the way the media works is to package stories in a way that makes them the sexiest. This includes highlighting any perception of animosity between famous people. You don't need a big PR effort for this, it just happens naturally.

“Greg is just not in check with reality,” Armstrong said Monday from New York City. “It’s ridiculous. Greg is obsessed with foiling my career.

“I’m apoplectic when I read stuff like that,” Armstrong said.


Or his letter to the Wall Street Journal:
"In short, Greg LeMond is involved in several "feuds" - primarily with business relationships which have gone sour. He was sued by LifeFitness just last week in an effort to terminate a contract for his exercise bicycle, which has proven defective and apparently caused LifeFitness a great deal of money and inconvenience. He has also been involved in lawsuits to terminate relationships with his long-time manager and other partnership entities."

 

[Digger]

You are 100 percent correct. The cyclists I speak to say big team, best doctors best program. This is where I would like Greg and Walsh and Dik Pound launch their attack against doping. That attack accross the board against systematic doping within high tier cycling teams is the way to go. My opinion.

Ah hello...
Lance has been by far and away the biggest beneficiary of said programmes, and they have gone after him.

 

[The Crusher]

Wrong, there's quite a lot of rock solid circumstantial evidence against Pharmstrong. Most of what you call hearsay is admissible in court. The exceptions to the hearsay rule cover more evidence than the hearsay rule itself.

Let's be clear on this. GREG has no evidence that is admissible in a court of law. it may well be that people who have told him things would themselves be able to offer testimony in a court.

The people who claim to have personally witnessed something that Lance did - these people have every right to name Lance specifically. By all means, if you are an individual who has real evidence against a specific athlete, then feel free to name that athlete specifically. But Greg does NOT have that evidence, he simply has a good-faith belief that other people have that evidence. For me, that's the line in the sand where he needs to shut up.

I don't want to get into the quagmire of all the evidence against Lance. IMHO, it's a all full of holes. The sheer quantity is compelling, but that's also true of JFK, the moon landing, and 9/11. I'm not claiming he's innocent. But I am claiming there's been a very broad-based smear campaign against Lance for a long time, much more so than against Greg. Maybe it's because he's really a doper, or maybe it's just because he's a world-class ***, but IMHO there's now way to differentiate at this point.

It's certainly plausible that Lance is not eager to hash this out in court, and this brings things back on topic. It's in Trek's best interest to do what's best for Lance. But only up to the point where it looks like the poop might hit the fan. Then Trek would bail, and leave Lance high and dry. Corporations are loyal only to profits, not people (and in fact if a corporation is publicly traded, they have a legal obligation to put profits first, although I don't think Trek is public).

This all comes back to the question of whether or not it was right for Trek to ask Greg to shut up in the first place. It's obviously consistent with their profit motives. And in my opinion it's consistent with basic ethics, as I've stated above. Of course, the case would come down to whether or not it was consistent with the contract. By allowing the doping issue into the case, the judge seemed to be saying that what Greg did or did not know about the doping would have a bearing on whether or not there was a contract violation.

 

[The Crusher]

“Greg is just not in check with reality,” Armstrong said Monday from New York City. “It’s ridiculous. Greg is obsessed with foiling my career.

“I’m apoplectic when I read stuff like that,” Armstrong said.


Or his letter to the Wall Street Journal:
"In short, Greg LeMond is involved in several "feuds" - primarily with business relationships which have gone sour. He was sued by LifeFitness just last week in an effort to terminate a contract for his exercise bicycle, which has proven defective and apparently caused LifeFitness a great deal of money and inconvenience. He has also been involved in lawsuits to terminate relationships with his long-time manager and other partnership entities."

Don't get me wrong. I'm not saying that Lance doesn't do this. He does, and he's very good at it. He should teach rhetoric after his cycling career ends. But this does not mean there's some big PR machine out there manipulating the media to create a crusade out of nothing. The media machine is always happy to give Lance a platform, especially for this kind of thing.

 

[Digger]

Let's be clear on this. GREG has no evidence that is admissible in a court of law. it may well be that people who have told him things would themselves be able to offer testimony in a court.

The people who claim to have personally witnessed something that Lance did - these people have every right to name Lance specifically. By all means, if you are an individual who has real evidence against a specific athlete, then feel free to name that athlete specifically. But Greg does NOT have that evidence, he simply has a good-faith belief that other people have that evidence. For me, that's the line in the sand where he needs to shut up.

I don't want to get into the quagmire of all the evidence against Lance. IMHO, it's a all full of holes. The sheer quantity is compelling, but that's also true of JFK, the moon landing, and 9/11. I'm not claiming he's innocent. But I am claiming there's been a very broad-based smear campaign against Lance for a long time, much more so than against Greg. Maybe it's because he's really a doper, or maybe it's just because he's a world-class ***, but IMHO there's now way to differentiate at this point.

It's certainly plausible that Lance is not eager to hash this out in court, and this brings things back on topic. It's in Trek's best interest to do what's best for Lance. But only up to the point where it looks like the poop might hit the fan. Then Trek would bail, and leave Lance high and dry. Corporations are loyal only to profits, not people (and in fact if a corporation is publicly traded, they have a legal obligation to put profits first, although I don't think Trek is public).

This all comes back to the question of whether or not it was right for Trek to ask Greg to shut up in the first place. It's obviously consistent with their profit motives. And in my opinion it's consistent with basic ethics, as I've stated above. Of course, the case would come down to whether or not it was consistent with the contract. By allowing the doping issue into the case, the judge seemed to be saying that what Greg did or did not know about the doping would have a bearing on whether or not there was a contract violation.

Well you need to state some of these holes.
EPO spiked?
Cortisone spiked?
Witness statements in the SCA trial under oath...lies

 

[Digger]

Don't get me wrong. I'm not saying that Lance doesn't do this. He does, and he's very good at it. He should teach rhetoric after his cycling career ends. But this does not mean there's some big PR machine out there manipulating the media to create a crusade out of nothing. The media machine is always happy to give Lance a platform, especially for this kind of thing.

There has been and there was (Public Strategies). Lance tried to fins people who witnessed Greg taking EPO - PS were used. But you won't believe that, just like you think there are holes in the evidence against him.

 

[flicker]

Ah hello...
Lance has been by far and away the biggest beneficiary of said programmes, and they have gone after him.

But I also remember US POSTAL and DISCOVERY cycling teams are defunct.

Coincidence?

 

[Digger]

But I also remember US POSTAL and DISCOVERY cycling teams are defunct.

Coincidence?

Sponsors gone, but the protagonists are still there. Johan, Levi, Lance Ekimov

 

[Race Radio]

You are 100 percent correct. The cyclists I speak to say big team, best doctors best program. This is where I would like Greg and Walsh and Dik Pound launch their attack against doping. That attack accross the board against systematic doping within high tier cycling teams is the way to go. My opinion.

It appears you have not been paying attention as this is exactly what Greg has been talking about. Lance would like you to believe that is is all about him, but it isn't. With the exception of a couple of tame quotes over 10 years the vast majority of what Greg has said has been about the Doctors and DS' that promote organized doping and the UCI that ignores it.

Here is an interview from early 1998 where Greg goes into detail about how Italian doctors have distorted the sport

http://www.roble.net/marquis/coaching/lemond98.html

This has been his theme for the last 15 years