LeMond I

[therhodeo]

I am starting to wonder if Starr is confusing 89 and 90. He said it was 89 as the year he beat Fignon but LeMond finished 27th overall in 89. If he was being dropped on every hill, he would have been a lot further back. He was far worse in 90 than 89 which sounds more likely.

He actually finished 9th in the final TT within a minute of guys like Yates in 89. There are videos on youtube of the NBC broadcast of the 89 Tour de Trump including an interview with LeMond. He was riding with Coors Light as opposed to ADR.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PHfyUzfbJr8&feature=relmfu

Completely off topic but as a 26 year old I'm glad I don't have to reach for the downtube every time I shift.

 

[samerics]

...so why does GL use mitochondrial issues to explain his drop-off in performance when he leaves racing...and only much later ditch that excuse and latch onto the drug crusade...

Cheers

blutto

Because maybe a rider with some much "class", who knows that he was shot and that he doesn't feel right is trying to find out what is going wrong? I remember his last few seasons, and he became a pale shadow of himself. I remember the team time trial when Boardman was so fast and Greg was dropped. Hindsight tells us clearly that there were two speeds, but the full picture didn't come out until Festina, and even in the L**** years it went on without the insight we have now. (Daren't mention his name in case it gets deleted... )

 

[pmcg76]

Not much later. He was said in 1997 that doping and doctors played a role.

Actually 1994 when he retired, he said doping did play a role.

 

[Hugh Januss]

...so why does GL use mitochondrial issues to explain his drop-off in performance when he leaves racing...and only much later ditch that excuse and latch onto the drug crusade...

Cheers

blutto

Perhaps because at first he just assumed the problem was him going slower and not everyone else going faster. Now with the knowledge of how much modern doping drs. can change the game it is a lot easier to think that maybe the problem was not just his body letting him down.

 

[Polish]

...so why does GL use mitochondrial issues to explain his drop-off in performance when he leaves racing...and only much later ditch that excuse and latch onto the drug crusade...

Cheers

blutto

Omerta was at a very nasty stage when Greg rode. Very strong. At a time when breaking Omerta could have really helped cycling too. Good on Kimmage for sure. But how about the others? The ones profiting from cycling? Quiet.

The mitochondrial and other physical related deficiencies were probably accurate. Not untrue. It helped to explained why Greg slowed down.

"Dopers getting faster" is a different issue from Greg getting slower.

The myth that Greg started losing because of the faster dopers started a bit later.

 

[hrotha]

Perhaps he *was* going slower, too? I mean, guys like Mottet, Hampsten and Boardman, who are usually believed to be clean in this forum, outperformed him in his later years. Especially for 1992, when EPO would presumably have made it impossible for him to win a GT, but when it wasn't so widespread that a clean rider as immensely talented as LeMond (and who was only 31) would become a complete non-factor throughout the season.

edit: also, the mitochondria myopathy thing isn't an "excuse" he tossed away when he "jumped" on the "antidoping bandwagon". It's still listed in his website as the reason why he retired. Personally I'm inclined to think that LeMond wouldn't have been able to win much after 1991 even if EPO didn't exist, due to this illness, but EPO *did* effectively end other careers, as far as winning in the big leagues is concerned: Lucho Herrera and Fignon come to mind.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

...and then he got shot...and 88 was a very serious epic fail wash-out...and then he comes back to beat an in-form Fignon and out-sprints Kelly ( both of whom are, if rumours are to believed, drug aided )...am I missing something here...

Cheers

blutto

What are you missing?

Quite a lot actually, you have been on about LeMond and doping for a couple of years now even at one time claiming that Greg had his spleen removed, which was a figment of your imagination - and you still have nothing to show for it.


Wake me up if something new actually appears about LeMond and that he doped (or if they find his spleen)

 

[samerics]

The myth, Polish? You saying that they weren't taking EPO from 1990 onwards? Chiappucci, Bugno? That Mig wasn't working with a dubious "doctor"? Unreal...

 

[Epicycle]

Actually 1994 when he retired, he said doping did play a role.

Greg has said that Van Mol told him if he wanted to keep up he should visit Ferrari. Greg said no thanks, so he did have an idea what was going on (and had his first exposure to Ferrari's power) but, as others have said, I don't think he knew just how powerful EPO was/is.

And I know there are doctors out there who are not circumspect when finding an illness for a perceived problem so probably some doc said "mitochondrial myopathy" and that made some sense to Greg at the time.

 

[Polish]

Perhaps he *was* going slower, too? I mean, guys like Mottet, Hampsten and Boardman, who are usually believed to be clean in this forum, outperformed him in his later years. Especially for 1992, when EPO would presumably have made it impossible for him to win a GT, but when it wasn't so widespread that a clean rider as immensely talented as LeMond (and who was only 31) would become a complete non-factor throughout the season.

edit: also, the mitochondria myopathy thing isn't an "excuse" he tossed away when he "jumped" on the "antidoping bandwagon". It's still listed in his website as the reason why he retired. Personally I'm inclined to think that LeMond wouldn't have been able to win much after 1991 even if EPO didn't exist, due to this illness, but EPO *did* effectively end other careers, as far as winning in the big leagues is concerned: Lucho Herrera and Fignon come to mind.

It is not a "perhaps he was getting slower" - it was an obvious fact to anyone watching back then. The hunting accident took a toll. Also, it is important to realize that Greg was/is an immensely successful business man. Worth hundreds of millions I believe. More moola than other big riders.
There were plenty of distractions back in that time frame. And maybe the weight of Omerta was dragging him down. Lots of reasons he became slower.

BTW, when did Greg finally break omerta? Any links? I know back in the late 80's he complained about not trusting the French Anti_doping autorities - thought they might spike his samples. But when did Greg first come out and say that cycling is Dirty? Before or after his first 100 million?

 

[hrotha]

It is not a "perhaps he was getting slower" - it was an obvious fact to anyone watching back then. The hunting accident took a toll.

I didn't mean after the hunting accident, but in and after 1991.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

I am starting to wonder if Starr is confusing 89 and 90. He said it was 89 as the year he beat Fignon but LeMond finished 27th overall in 89. If he was being dropped on every hill, he would have been a lot further back. He was far worse in 90 than 89 which sounds more likely.

He actually finished 9th in the final TT within a minute of guys like Yates in 89. There are videos on youtube of the NBC broadcast of the 89 Tour de Trump including an interview with LeMond. He was riding with Coors Light as opposed to ADR.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PHfyUzfbJr8&feature=relmfu

I think you might be correct.

I have just found my copy of Winning from 1989 - a key stage appears to have been stage 4, as an attack through the feedzone propelled a 19 man break (that included Steve Tillford, all 6 from Panasonic, 5 from 7/11 & 3 PDMs).

The article says: "John Tomac, Ekimov and LeMond were among those who arrived in the zone just in time to see the Winchester express leave the station. They immediately formed a chase and started pounding but gave it up once they learned they were losing nearly 10 seconds a minute".

That front group took 6 minutes out of the bunch.

 

[pmcg76]

I think you might be correct.

I have just found my copy of Winning from 1989 - a key stage appears to have been stage 4, as an attack through the feedzone propelled a 19 man break (that included Steve Tillford, all 6 from Panasonic, 5 from 7/11 & 3 PDMs).

The article says: "John Tomac, Ekimov and LeMond were among those who arrived in the zone just in time to see the Winchester express leave the station. They immediately formed a chase and started pounding but gave it up once they learned they were losing nearly 10 seconds a minute".

That front group took 6 minutes out of the bunch.

Yes, LeMond lost a load of time on that stage, he did lose more time on one other stage but he wasnt being dropped on every hill as suggested. That was 1990.

I wasnt going to go back and watch all the Tour de Trump videos but they are all on youtube for anyone who wants "evidence".

 

[Polish]

The myth, Polish? You saying that they weren't taking EPO from 1990 onwards? Chiappucci, Bugno? That Mig wasn't working with a dubious "doctor"? Unreal...

The myth that Greg did not get slower.
Sorry, he did. He knew it. We all knew it.

That is why he lost. Not because of dopers.
It is a myth that Greg lost because of dopers.

There is also another myth that Greg was a country bumpkin who did not know that doping was going on. That myth explains why he did not break omerta.

 

[montel]

I also remember a large insurance policy that Greg LeMond had - that was to protect him from injury or illness. Did that diagnosis lead to that insurance being paid out???

Also here is a quote from Greg:

"My last two Tour de France victories were miracles. That it took me until July to get back into shape in '89 was partially because it took that long for my body to come back around from the accident. There was no predetermined plan to get into shape for the Tour. If I'd been able to race well in the Paris-Roubaix, I would have. In '89, I wasn't even sure that I'd ever race the Tour again. Then the following year, I had mono for three months before the Tour. Prior to my accident, I was successful from February to September, with results like third at Paris-Nice, second at Milan-San Remo, third in Liege-Bastogne-Liege, third in Paris-Roubaix. I'd only started to figure out the classics in '86. Without the injury, I believe I would have been a good classics rider. I wanted to race hard all season, and kept hoping I would get back to my old self"

 

[MacRoadie]

There is also another myth that Greg was a country bumpkin who did not know that doping was going on. That myth explains why he did not break omerta.

Complete and utter horse****. In this very thread, a number of examples of LeMond's knowledge of riders doping have been provided. The invitation (strong suggestion) to visit Ferrari has also been mentioned.

Greg knew doping went on, he simply chose not to do it. We need a separate thread to keep track of all these "myths" you guys fabricate for the purpose of furthering your ludicrous claims: create a "myth" criticise it's validity, then sully LeMond by suggesting he either created the myth or bought into it.

While we're at it, LeMond himself felt like he was getting slower, hence his search for a medical explanation and his belief that the mitochondrial myopathy was a leading candidate (as well as possibly lead poisoning from the remaining pellets in his heart lining, effects of his tendinitis, etc). To say that the myth exists that LeMond didn't get slower when the man himself was actively looking for reasons for the slow down himself, is sheer ignorance. Greg's first assumption was ALWAYS that he was slowing down, it was only when he began to fully comprehend the vast benefits of oxygen vector doping that he began to wonder whether other riders suddenly going faster and longer didn't ALSO play a part.

 

[pmcg76]

LeMonds decline was a combination of his illness and the introduction of EPO. Maybe 91/92 were more down to his own physical decline. As has been pointed out, other supposedly clean and non EPO riders were outperforming LeMond during 91/92.

He did win DuPont in 92 and finish top 10 in Paris-Roubaix the same year so clearly was in good shape but then finished outside the time limit at the Tour. Thats an incredible decline in a short space of time and to me at least, would be more plausible as a result of his physical problems than others EPO usage. It would also mirror his huge swings in form in previous years which people see as suspicious.

I think in the following years 93/94, EPO just sped up his descent into the nether regions of pro cycling. He was on a par with the worst pros by 1994.

 

[thehog]

Yes, LeMond lost a load of time on that stage, he did lose more time on one other stage but he wasnt being dropped on every hill as suggested. That was 1990.

I wasnt going to go back and watch all the Tour de Trump videos but they are all on youtube for anyone who wants "evidence".

Excellent posts - thank-you.

 

[MacRoadie]

LeMonds decline was a combination of his illness and the introduction of EPO. Maybe 91/92 were more down to his own physical decline. As has been pointed out, other supposedly clean and non EPO riders were outperforming LeMond during 91/92.

He did win DuPont in 92 and finish top 10 in Paris-Roubaix the same year so clearly was in good shape but then finished outside the time limit at the Tour. Thats an incredible decline in a short space of time and to me at least, would be more plausible as a result of his physical problems than others EPO usage. It would also mirror his huge swings in form in previous years which people see as suspicious.

I think in the following years 93/94, EPO just sped up his descent into the nether regions of pro cycling. He was on a par with the worst pros by 1994.

+1 Spot on.

 

[Maxiton]

Complete and utter horse****. In this very thread, a number of examples of LeMond's knowledge of riders doping have been provided. The invitation (strong suggestion) to visit Ferrari has also been mentioned.

Greg knew doping went on, he simply chose not to do it. We need a separate thread to keep track of all these "myths" you guys fabricate for the purpose of furthering your ludicrous claims: create a "myth" criticise it's validity, then sully LeMond by suggesting he either created the myth or bought into it.

While we're at it, LeMond himself felt like he was getting slower, hence his search for a medical explanation and his belief that the mitochondrial myopathy was a leading candidate (as well as possibly lead poisoning from the remaining pellets in his heart lining, effects of his tendinitis, etc). To say that the myth exists that LeMond didn't get slower when the man himself was actively looking for reasons for the slow down himself, is sheer ignorance. Greg's first assumption was ALWAYS that he was slowing down, it was only when he began to fully comprehend the vast benefits of oxygen vector doping that he began to wonder whether other riders suddenly going faster and longer didn't ALSO play a part.

I think this is essentially correct, but in regard to the bold it seems worthwhile recalling the "iron shots" team doctors gave him in at least one Tour. That was pretty clearly a case of "Trust us, don't ask too many questions," on their part, and of, "Tell me what I want to hear, and no more," on his part. Do I think it was EPO he was given? Definitely not. But he was given something, clearly. Of course, if Lemond weren't known within the team for being opposed to doping, there'd have been no need for the docs to contrive this lame "iron shots" thing, but in the end Lemond did go along with it.

 

[thehog]

I think this is essentially correct, but in regard to the bold it seems worthwhile recalling the "iron shots" team doctors gave him in at least one Tour. That was pretty clearly a case of "Trust us, don't ask too many questions," on their part, and of, "Tell me what I want to hear, and no more," on his part. Do I think it was EPO he was given? Definitely not. But he was given something, clearly. Of course, if Lemond weren't known within the team for being opposed to doping, there'd have been no need for the docs to contrive this lame "iron shots" thing, but in the end Lemond did go along with it.

Iron shots were at the Giro not the Tour. They were a temporary elevation not a constant.

 

[Epicycle]

Complete and utter horse****. In this very thread, a number of examples of LeMond's knowledge of riders doping have been provided. The invitation (strong suggestion) to visit Ferrari has also been mentioned.

Greg knew doping went on, he simply chose not to do it. We need a separate thread to keep track of all these "myths" you guys fabricate for the purpose of furthering your ludicrous claims: create a "myth" criticise it's validity, then sully LeMond by suggesting he either created the myth or bought into it.

That's not wholly true (and I'm the one who brought up Van Mol telling him to visit Ferrari late in his career). Greg has also said there was a time he was a bumpkin and didn't realize what other riders on his team were talking about when they talked around doping:

http://www.lexpress.fr/actualite/sport/les-coureurs-dopes-sont-comme-des-toxicomanes_476155.html?p=2

That's a pretty good interview.

Honestly I think Greg may have been looked at as a guy who couldn't be trusted with the knowledge of what was really going on. Guys probably thought he would freak out if he knew. The fact that he was an American on foreign teams just made it easier to keep him in his bubble.

 

[BotanyBay]

Honestly I think Greg may have been looked at as a guy who couldn't be trusted with the knowledge of what was really going on. Guys probably thought he would freak out if he knew. The fact that he was an American on foreign teams just made it easier to keep him in his bubble.

One of the best responses I have seen on this yet. Greg was always a boy scout. He was a leader, not a "boss" like Jan Raas. Greg WOULD have freaked out if he'd been told. But there still was not enough $ flowing through the sport for him to have the power of a 2001 Lance Armstrong. Greg was a true champion, but no "boss of the peloton".

 

[MacRoadie]

That's not wholly true (and I'm the one who brought up Van Mol telling him to visit Ferrari late in his career). Greg has also said there was a time he was a bumpkin and didn't realize what other riders on his team were talking about when they talked around doping:

http://www.lexpress.fr/actualite/sport/les-coureurs-dopes-sont-comme-des-toxicomanes_476155.html?p=2

That's a pretty good interview.

Honestly I think Greg may have been looked at as a guy who couldn't be trusted with the knowledge of what was really going on. Guys probably thought he would freak out if he knew. The fact that he was an American on foreign teams just made it easier to keep him in his bubble.

I don't entirely disagree. If you look back on Greg's ENTIRE career, you'll find plenty of early interviews that speak to his naivete and alienation when he first joined the Euro peloton (as you say, "there was a time").

Other guys like Boyer and Hampsten that headed over also had the same experience, but Greg's desire to understand the culture (leanring French as quickly as possible for example) helped him reach a more comfortable level. Plenty of others headed over but just couldn't handle the extreme culture shock, language barriers, dietary changes, and the way pro teams were run (as opposed to the US domestic teams that weren't so stratified).

If you look at later interviews and listen to Greg speak, there came a time when he was much more aware of the "preparations" many of the riders were receiving. By the late 80's, LeMond was no longer that "country bumpkin". By the time Van Mol spoke of Ferrari, LeMond knew exactly what that was about.

It's almost a "chicken or the egg" situation: was LeMond naive about doping (I don't think so), or was he kept in the dark because teams knew his position on doping (and thus the creation of "the bubble")?

 

[rhubroma]

The adorable thing about LeMond is that, unlike Armstrong, he showed signs of being a potential GT-winner as early as age 20-21 (after having indicated his likely completeness as a cyclist before even leaving the junior ranks, according to Borysewicz and Fraysse, to name but two qualified to judge. Completeness that he confirmed w/o a doubt over the 1983-4 seasons).

To his credit, Lance was a tremendous talent and showed world-class ability at age 21, but not for grand tour racing - a disconnect tough to explain away by claims of high-cadence efficiency and "wanting" it more that only became manifest in late-20's. Lance was a winner, though, and at 21, he was winning the overall at the Fitchburg-Longsjo Classic (a four-day event in New England where even I've been top-5/top-10 at various points), while LeMond was winning the overall and 3 stages of Tour de l'Avenir!!!

Just like Riis, Armstrong was a complete non-entity (GC-wise) in Grand Tours one year, and then the next time he rode it was a contender. Whereas LeMond, Fignon, Hinault all showed from their very first appearance in a GT that they had the natural talent to possibly win the event, no one ever made that same inference about Lance - or Riis! Or Indurain! But that was the beauty of the EPO-era: a GT-donkey could truly become a GT-winner.

At 23, LeMond finished 3rd overall in his first Tour in 1984 - hardly the height of the EPO-era. At 22, Armstrong finished 97th overall in HIS first Tour, in 1993. He was then 36th in 1995 and of course abandoned in 1996. Then two years later, after almost dying of cancer (and miraculously having his body change from that of a guy with nothing to indicate he would win the Tour based on anecdotal historical trends/evidence), he finishes 4th overall in his first Vuelta a España in 1998 before winning his first Tour back in 1999. Meanwhile, LeMond finished 2nd in his next Tour (at age 24) and 3rd that same year in the Giro. Then he won the Tour at his 3rd attempt (while also finishing 4th in the Giro) in 1986 - at age 25. Armstrong wouldn't win his first Tour until age 28, only one year after the absolute peak of the unrestrained EPO-era (as represented by the Festina Affair).

Likewise, at 23, Riis withdrew from his first Tour in 1987, and followed that stellar performance by withdrawing from his first Giro in 1988 at age 24. In 1989, when LeMond was winning that second Tour (which should've been his fifth, but for his naivete in 1985 and his brother-in-law 87-88), 25 year-old Riis was storming to 95th (after coming 86th in the Giro). In 1990, when LeMond won his third and final Tour (w/o winning a stage, I might add), Riis couldn't even finish the Tour, and barely managed to crack the top-100 in the Giro. The following year, when a frustrated-but-EPO-free LeMond arrived 7th in Paris (one place behind a likewise non-EPO-using Fignon), Riis was 107th! He didn't only marginally better in the next year's Giro - 101st! But then amazingly in 1993, after withdrawing from the Giro and never having shown ANY capacity for competitiveness in the grand tours, Riis finished a marvelous 5th in Paris as a 29 year-old, followed by 14th the next year, 3rd one-year later (at the mature age of 31), and magically, 1st in Paris in 1996 as a 32 year-old. Right...

Go back and look at the historical trends and you'll see that pre-EPO era, the few guys who went on to dominate the Tour showed their potential as contenders from their first attempt, usually in their early-20's. Granted, the data set isn't huge, but it's not rocket science. Merckx finished top-10 in his first GT (the Giro) at age 22 and WON it the next year at 23. Then he WON the FIRST Tour that he rode the following year (1969) at age 24. Fignon: 15th in the 1982 Giro at age 22 in his first GT; 7th in the 1983 Vuelta after having WON his first Tour the following year at age 23. He followed with another win at age 24 in 1984 and finished 2nd that year in the Giro. 7th at age 26 in the Vuelta and 3rd there as a 27 year-old (when he also finished 7th in the Tour). First in the '89 Giro and 2nd of course that year in the Tour...hardly surprising results when you consider that he debuted in GT's as a contender. Christ, even in 1991, when EPO had finally been discovered by the pretenders, Fignon finished 6th in the Tour and LeMond grimly hung-on for 7th!

One might think of Indurain as the first Lance Armstrong: abandons his first GT when he quit the '84 Vuelta at age 20; then 84th in the 1985 Vuelta at age 21 after quitting the Tour that same year. 92nd in the '86 Vuelta as a 22 year-old after again abandoning the Tour (coincidentally, the first won by LeMond). Abandons the '87 Vuelta but finally finishes the Tour at age 23 in 97th on GC! Again abandons the Vuelta in '88 but completes the Tour an anonymous 47th (in comparison, at the same age - 24 - LeMond had already finished on the podium in the Tour twice and Fignon had WON 2 Tours! By age 24, Merckx had WON 1 Tour and 1 Giro! Since 24 seems to be the magic age, it's worth noting that, in his 24th year, Hinault won both the Vuelta and the Tour when he debuted there in 1978! Then of course another Tour in '79 at 25, the Giro in 1980 at 26, another Tour in '81 at 27, both the Tour and the Giro in 1982 (at age 28), and finally, his first Vuelta in 1983, his 29th year. (To be followed by three more podiums in the Tour - including one win - and another victory in the Giro.)

Who knows if Armstrong doped for sure? Only anyone who might've been in the room with him at the time. But it's terribly obvious that there was a radical shift in Lance's GT-ability that defies credulity when viewed through the same historical prism that perfectly reflects the performances of genuine GT-contenders like Merckx, Hinault, Fignon and LeMond.

And if cancer was responsible for this transformation, and not oxygen-vector drugs, then why weren't all those other pro cyclists praying for malignant tumors instead of hook-ups to Italian and/or Spanish doping doctors?

Not to say that LeMond mightn't have been given cortisone or synacthen at some point in his career, just like the cleanest-of-the-clean Charly Mottet was (according to...Voet?), but LeMond never needed the massive EPO or blood-doping regime of a one-day star who somehow transformed himself into a GT-contender late in his career.

And if you claim not to understand what the distinction is that I'm making, or you don't see how LeMond was obviously marked as a future-Tour contender by the talent he displayed as a kid and then neo-pro, it's b/c you don't want to, probably.

EDIT: I had to leave a comment on Tilford's post:

"As regards his performance here [Tilford's site], Oliver Starr is at best “moronical,” but probably also a bitter troll who’s talking out his *** with neither inside information nor “outside” perspective or understanding. Fail.

Raul, so predatory and cruel of you to invite him to the slaughterhouse! At least warn the guy lol…"

I'm surprised no one has responded to your post. I have to say, this is how I have perceived things. Now I don't know the truth, however, the change in arrival on the scene is, if anything, noteworthy. Today, it seems, we expect a rider to be papabile at a grand tour only after a few seasons. How is this possible? Has the sophistication of preparation meant that young riders are no longer capable of emerging, or is it drugs?

At any rate, things have changed dramatically since the 80's haven't they.