LeMond I

[thehog]

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.

Can you guys tone it down? If Lance starts reading this stuff he's going to have an implosion and start tweeting stuff.

 

[Polish]

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.

MacRoadie huh? You are agreeing with me. And me with you. It is a MYTH that Greg was a country bumpkin. He knew very well what was going on. He knew of team doping programs at PDM before riders died or the whole team got sick. But who did he tell? His lawyer. So his lawyer could talk to PDM lawyers. That is not breaking omerta. At best that is a negotiating tactic. At worst, blackmail. IMHO. MYTH BUSTED.

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.

Again, we are in agreement. Greg got slower. Slower than clean riders and slower than doped riders. Look at pictures of Greg from 92/93/94 TdF's. Sure, like always, there will be "skinny" pictures and "fat" pictures. But the "fat" pictures will rival any other "fat" pictures that have been posted in the clinic over the years. MYTH - Greg was getting beat by riders with bigger fannies.

 

[thehog]

MacRoadie huh? You are agreeing with me. And me with you. It is a MYTH that Greg was a country bumpkin. He knew very well what was going on. He knew of team doping programs at PDM before riders died or the whole team got sick. But who did he tell? His lawyer. So his lawyer could talk to PDM lawyers. That is not breaking omerta. At best that is a negotiating tactic. At worst, blackmail. IMHO. MYTH BUSTED.



Again, we are in agreement. Greg got slower. Slower than clean riders and slower than doped riders. Look at pictures of Greg from 92/93/94 TdF's. Sure, like always, there will be "skinny" pictures and "fat" pictures. But the "fat" pictures will rival any other "fat" pictures that have been posted in the clinic over the years. MYTH - Greg was getting beat by riders with bigger fannies.

Nah. You've lost it. Not funny anymore. Old.

Come on. I want the old Polish back.

This is crap. You've gone all MarkW on us.

Please bring old Polish back.

 

[patricknd]

I think this is essentially correct, but in regard to the bolthat d 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.

+1. I always thought If there was anything there it would be something along those lines rather than an active program of any sort

 

[Race Radio]

Greg certainly was aware of doping by the time he was at PDM. He had his lawyer negotiate his way out of his contract when they pressured him to dope.

While some trolls like to pretend that Greg never said anything about doping when he was riding his lawyer talked to the LA times in 1988 about the pressure to dope from the team and how it factored into his decision to leave.

I would also recommend Slaying the Badger. Great book. Reading it gives a much better understanding of Greg and Paul's strong anti doping stand.

 

[Race Radio]

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.

Good interview. Some of the highlights

I did not always understand what they were talking to me. I am American, not French or Belgian. The subtleties of jargon has long eluded me. When they asked me if I "nursed" enough, I retorted that I was not sick. When asked whether I was "prepared", I responded with my training diaries.

It's probably in 1988, the year after my hunting accident, I came close Doping closer. I had signed in the Dutch team PDM and they decided to try "things" among riders. Their doctor said that I should "rebalance" physiologically because, last year, I had lost much blood. Luckily, that season, I almost did not run. However, Gert-Jan Theunisse was excluded from the Tour after testing positive for testosterone.

 

[hwyrngr]

I raced with Oliver Starr. We were both juniors when Lemond was first winning the TDF. Starr was an almost univerally disliked rider. A complete and utter loner. A talented rider with OTC pedigree, but so completely full of himself (had the "joe-pro" attitude even at age 16) that he rode completely alone. If he didn't know you from the OTC, he wouldn;t even talk to you. Now he's some self-appointed internet media guru.

I couldn't have said it better myself!!!

 

[blutto]

...ran across an interesting thang about how damage to mitochondrial systems could occur...apparently one of the causes of that condition is iron toxicity....now does this tie in to the iron injections GL is known to have taken?......

...and oddly enough one of the ways of mitigating the effects of mitochondrial damage that have been found is thru the use of EPO mimetic compounds...kinda ironic that...

Cheers

blutto

 

[Maxiton]

+1. I always thought If there was anything there it would be something along those lines rather than an active program of any sort

+1. Exactly my point.

 

[Maxiton]

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…"

Great photo, and first rate post. I appreciate especially the discussion of Indurain as the proto-Armstrong, a point I've been making for some time.

To see a prodigiously gifted and well trained athlete excel at his sport: that is something special. It's the kind of authentic, rare moment that can electrify the air and put a tingle in your spine.

When the riders are doped way beyond their native capacities, we get none of this; instead, we get the faux excitement of something we know deep down to be inauthentic. And the prodigy, who'd have been so exciting to watch, gets lost in the crowd or else never starts the race.

He gets cheated, and so do we. And this is precisely why doping is a scourge, and why it must be curtailed.

 

[Spider1964]

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…"

Thanks Joe.. Enthralling reading. Little bit of self depreciation suits my Aussie humour too cheers.. Spider.

 

[fatandfast]

IMHO, Starr set himself up for personal attacks. Think about it from the average joe perspective (me) reading the comments on Tilfords blog. Starr basically shut down the discussion through the use of the "I am an expert" line and "none of the rest of you know what you are talking about".

As Hog said - he pretended to be someone he is not. I personally appreciate the "rounding" out of his character done here.

If someone relies heavily on claims of insider knowledge to advance an argument it is fair game for others to point out he has none AND WHY...

some of these later comments about Oliver Starr are funny to say the least. If you read Botany's comments you can get a pretty accurate overview of Oliver's outlook at the time. The first thing that should be cleared up there is no comparison on any level between Lemond and Starr. Lemond is and was an epic bike racer at a world wide level, Starr was an American standout with a good domestic resume.

When I started racing Richard Bryne had an ad in the back of the San Diego addition of The Reader for cycling coaching for racers. Adams Ave bike shop was the epicenter of all things racing. I went there for some part and was desperate for any special knowledge of high level racing. Oliver showed up for a brake tweek or some small tune needed for his bike. He jumped in front of everybody else and demanded immediate attention. He had sunglasses on while inside and with his Morrisey looking jet black hair was trying to be larger than life,pro aura 24/7. In other words he was trying REALLY hard to be cool . I went to Fiesta Island to do some hard TT type efforts. He was also riding there(?) . He had no interest in be friendly and/or helpful to anybody.

Lemond was friends with Norberto and Paul Vine who was the 7-11 team mechanic. He always said hello to anybody that said it to him. On one occasion he was getting some bike repair and Karl Maxon was out on a ride in need of a screwdriver or wrench .At the shop, the two exchanged handshakes and big smiles to see each other. Maxon and Lemond appeared to be at least good friends . Until that moment I had no idea who Karl was.There were a few standout Nat team members and a few pros in SD area at the time all were pretty nice,Oliver not so much.

If anybody knows what happened to Dan Rock I would be interested. I will also pay for a Damage Control bike shop Tshirt. If I got anything from Oliver it was music advice, TheThe was a good band.

 

[Race Radio]

If anybody knows what happened to Dan Rock I would be interested

http://www.revolutionbikeshop.com/

 

[ChrisE]

Greg certainly was aware of doping by the time he was at PDM. He had his lawyer negotiate his way out of his contract when they pressured him to dope.

While some trolls like to pretend that Greg never said anything about doping when he was riding his lawyer talked to the LA times in 1988 about the pressure to dope from the team and how it factored into his decision to leave.

I would also recommend Slaying the Badger. Great book. Reading it gives a much better understanding of Greg and Paul's strong anti doping stand.

Interesting, and the link I found was here, not in 88 but right after after he won the 89 tour.

http://articles.latimes.com/1989-07-25/sports/sp-95_1_greg-lemond

The reason why his lawyer wasn't saying these things in 88 is obvious.

I've done some searching and can't find anything, but has anybody come up with the first time GL knew EPO was being used successfully? There is the story upthread about Kathy Lemond but that is only in the sense of somebody dying from it.

 

[BotanyBay]

some of these later comments about Oliver Starr are funny to say the least. If you read Botany's comments you can get a pretty accurate overview of Oliver's outlook at the time. The first thing that should be cleared up there is no comparison on any level between Lemond and Starr. Lemond is and was an epic bike racer at a world wide level, Starr was an American standout with a good domestic resume.

When I started racing Richard Bryne had an ad in the back of the San Diego addition of The Reader for cycling coaching for racers. Adams Ave bike shop was the epicenter of all things racing. I went there for some part and was desperate for any special knowledge of high level racing. Oliver showed up for a brake tweek or some small tune needed for his bike. He jumped in front of everybody else and demanded immediate attention. He had sunglasses on while inside and with his Morrisey looking jet black hair was trying to be larger than life,pro aura 24/7. In other words he was trying REALLY hard to be cool . I went to Fiesta Island to do some hard TT type efforts. He was also riding there(?) . He had no interest in be friendly and/or helpful to anybody.

Lemond was friends with Norberto and Paul Vine who was the 7-11 team mechanic. He always said hello to anybody that said it to him. On one occasion he was getting some bike repair and Karl Maxon was out on a ride in need of a screwdriver or wrench .At the shop, the two exchanged handshakes and big smiles to see each other. Maxon and Lemond appeared to be at least good friends . Until that moment I had no idea who Karl was.There were a few standout Nat team members and a few pros in SD area at the time all were pretty nice,Oliver not so much.

If anybody knows what happened to Dan Rock I would be interested. I will also pay for a Damage Control bike shop Tshirt. If I got anything from Oliver it was music advice, TheThe was a good band.

Yes, Oliver came to Fiasco Island a bunch of times. He was still a junior, but couldn't be bothered to actually interact with others. And as his relayed reply (via Tilford) indicates, he had a mission to fulfill.

He says he was legally emancipated at 14 to avoid the terror of his family making him attend law school? I'd love to have been a fly on the wall at THAT court hearing:

Well, Mr & Mrs Starr, Oliver here wants to race bikes and you want him to go to law school EIGHT YEARS FROM NOW. I have no choice but to grant the petition to young Mr. Starr here (gavel). Case dismissed!

Oliver: Go back to work being "all things tech" and earn another mil or two for your investing partner, Lance.

 

[ChrisE]

Oliver: Go back to work being "all things tech" and earn another mil or two for your investing partner, Lance.

This guy is in business with LA? I have been kinda following this thread but I don't recall that coming up. Can you elaborate?

 

[simo1733]

On the subject of obscure former pro's who exagerate about their former career, does anyone know a good site where I could verify whether a particular rider had ever participated in the Tour D France?

 

[pmcg76]

This is a good site for Tour info, includes individual stage results, GC results, teams and riders of all Tours. In French though.

http://www.memoire-du-cyclisme.net/

 

[thehog]

A friend sent me his article in regards to LeMond's Trump form in '89. He said he also had a magazine with the full results and will pull Starr's position on each stage.

----

There’s one story that I got paid after I threatened to quit the Tour on the rest day. That’s not true. What really happened was that I hadn’t been paid in the first three months of the year, then in April, two days before Liège-Bastogne-Liège, I said “**** cycling”, got drunk and decided that there was no way I was going to ride the race. I told them that on the Friday. I went and had a good time with my wife, drank some port – which incidentally I’ll never touch again – and woke up on Saturday with a hangover. The same day, [ADR directeur sportif] José de Cauwer and Francois Lambert arrived. I loved José and his methods, and he was begging me to do the race, but I told them I wouldn’t because they hadn’t paid me. Sure enough, I refused to ride and went back to the United States the day after Liège-Bastogne-Liège.

I then didn’t ride my bike at all until my wife convinced me that I should at least give it until the end of the year. I showed up at the Tour de Trump with no training, barely made it through there, then went to the Giro and lost eight minutes on the first day. Usually I’d have been able to put that down to allergies but, there, I was cracking psychologically. Stress can affect you like that, physically and psychologically. One day I lost 17 minutes and I called my wife, in tears. I said I’d been watching Stephen Roche and I couldn’t believe that I’d once been that good. She kept telling me to give it until the end of the year. She said I should forget about the others and do what I could. I didn’t know it at the time but, as I listened, something clicked.

That year, I was just lucky that I kept getting stronger in the Giro. The day after I lost 17 minutes, it started raining, which helped me overcome my asthma. I didn’t realise back then that the asthma could wipe out 25 percent or 30 percent of my watts. I used to think that I didn’t race well at the Giro because I was out of shape, but it was the pollen. I always used to finish the Giro, then take a week off and come back like a motorcycle. I always though that it was down to the work I’d done during the Giro. Really it was the pollen or lack of it in July.

http://www.bikeradar.com/blog/article/the-greatest-tour-of-all-by-greg-lemond-22419/

I still had no idea what kind of shape I was in going into the Tour. One thing that had turned around was my attitude to racing; prior to that conversation with my wife at the Giro, every time I raced, all I could think of was “will I ever get back to how I was in ’86?”. Every day was like a race of judgment. That all changed there; we’d had a rest day, a stage was canceled because of snow, then we had a time trial, and it was in that time trial that I finally started feeling good. I still didn’t trust myself but for the last week of the race I’d pretended that I was in contention for the Giro, just to see where I was compared to everyone else. I’d got myself psyched up and ended up getting second in the final time trial to Florence, ahead of Fignon, who won the race. That result blew me away. 

I perhaps wasn’t ready to race the Tour, and I still had no money, but I was as ready as I could be.”

 

[joe_papp]

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...

I have to respectful disagree with you, at least insofar as you attribute irresponsible behavior to LeMond, who was absolutely not ever someone to blindly accept injections w/o knowing what they were (let alone accepting them while hoping they were something else). Furthermore, factually you're not correct, as the "incident" that you allude to took place during the 1989 Giro d'Italia, and not during the Tour de France. Even more salient is the fact that he took THREE (3) injections over the course of the entire 3-week race, and not one single injection before the final time trial. FURTHERMORE, LeMond received at least one the injections of iron (3) IN FRONT of a reporter from VeloNews - hardly behavior that would be consistent with someone actively doping, especially when you consider that the correspondent from a naive, US-based cycling tabloid would not likely have any complicity in upholding omerta and therefore not be someone who a doping rider implicitly trusted to keep quiet about any illegal activity. FINALLY, improvement in the last time trial of a grand tour for a rider of LeMond's pedigree who had been suffering from an iron deficiency treated over three weeks would actually be the EXPECTED outcome - LeMond had a documented history of getting stronger as racing volume increased and his VO2 was one of the highest recorded for a cyclist (significantly, SIGNIFICANTLY higher than Armstrong's, by comparison). And with an iron deficiency, LeMond would not have been capable of utilizing his MASSIVE VO2 because of the very nature of what it is for the body to be deficient in iron. So once he commenced iron-replacement therapy, he would've been expected to notice some improvement within a matter of days, and not insignificant improvement after nearly three weeks of treatment.

The only thing you can inject into your body the night before a final time trial stage (or even a few nights before) and expect a radical improvement in performance without any previous treatment (whether primary or supporting) is - a bag of your own red blood cells.

These myths/lies about LeMond are created and pass-around by "haters" and his enemies in order to discredit him for obvious purposes. That so many people seem to uncritically and wholeheartedly accept them (and then gleefully forward them, and gleefully recite them later) says more about the critics than any unethical behavior on Greg's part.

I have no idea whether or not Lance Armstrong doped because I wasn't there with him in the room. I also wasn't there in the room with LeMond all those times when he didn't dope. However, LeMond didn't NEED to dope to keep with the times (until the widespread adoption of EPO, which he nevertheless did not participate in). And two of the godfathers of blood-doping in the USA (who I will avoid naming directly though anyone who knows the history of doping in cycling in USA should know who they are - and anyone who doesn't probably shouldn't be making claims about LeMond in the first place) BOTH told me explicitly and directly that LeMond was the greatest, most-talented cyclist they ever worked with and that doping him would've been superfluous, plus he was determined to avoid drugs anyway (alcohol being the one exception, but even then he didn't drink - does anyone? - for performance enhancement on the bike).

I think it's also worth considering the impact that the presence of LeMond's wife Kathy at his side in Europe had on any plan to dope LeMond or encourage him to dope. Quite simply, I can't imagine that she would've let it happen in the first place. You read this article from 1984 in SI and get a feel for how outside of the mainstream thought in europro cycling LeMond intentionally remained after arriving w/ his wife in Europe and then starting a family: http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vault/article/magazine/MAG1122493/1/index.htm

But my contention is that he didn't dope because he didn't need to dope, nor want to. He was the greatest naturally-talented GC racer ever to come out of USA and that he didn't win 7 Tours but someone else did says nothing about Greg's class or ability.

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.

I guess I'll take it as a compliment, for in not responding/challenging, that's tacit acceptance/agreement, one might think? Anyway, LeMond and Merckx were extraordinarily-talented, once-in-a-generation riders (was Hinault as well?). and the doping products available during their eras weren't dramatic enough in their impact to so skew the playing field that a rider not in their mould could win and go on to dominate a race as savage and previously-so-naturally-selective as the Tour. I think Ullrich could've been the next LeMond had he competed under the same conditions as Greg w/ respect to lack of oxygen-vector drugs/simplified blood-doping. He finished 2nd in his first Tour at 23 and won his next at 24 (after having been world amateur champ in '93 at age 20) - that he went on to six (or five, I guess) top-5 TdF finishes plus one victory in the Vuelta shows a consistency from earliest days that compares favorably w/ Merckx, Hinault and LeMond, and provides another contrast to the incredibly variable performances of more recent winners.

LeMond was right and uttered a simple yet powerful truth: the cyclists who perform at the highest level consistency from earliest days are the ones whose natural talent is most threatening to those who would dope...and when one observes radical variances in performance by riders who appear out of nowhere and destroy the peloton like a supernova only to disappear just as quickly - or replicate their success so infrequently (1x/year maybe, for example?) - that's not natural talent. It's reasonable/modest talent that is pumped-up to unsustainable levels.

 

[pmcg76]

Jeez, that previous post imakes way too much sense

The following was all taken from a feature dedicated to LeMond on his retirement by Cycle Sport magazine Feb 95 edition.

LeMond says the lowest point he reached during his comeback was at the 1989 Giro: "I remember the Tre Cime de Lavaredo and Etna. Lavaredo was terribly painful. I lost 17 minutes in the final climb, after I had told myself I would really try on that stage. It was the last straw. What was crazy was that I had really great start to the year -gosh I'm back-and I was".

However it was discovered during the Giro that LeMonds iron levels were incredibly low: "I'd lost 60% of my blood volume and was told just to ride, no vitamins. I took iron orally but for two years, I never checked my iron. The haemoglobin was so low. At Tre Cime I broke down crying, my wife was there, I said I cant do this any more, it's too hard. I cant race. I can't be a second rate rider.

I thought I would get myself through the Tour de France, and if I was no good I would quit. We talked about how we had a lot and could still be happy. It was like a psychological release. I knew if I didnt race well I could quit, then I started feeling great".

LeMonds descent from Tour winner to also ran defies logic, when compared with Sean Kelly and Pedro Delgado's gentle trajectories down from the top. "I dont know if Kelly's descent has been as dramatic as people think, its just that everybody else is coming up. Delgado's was a pretty decent, gradual descent. And I think there's lot of riders out there that arent racing on just water either. I'm not accusing anyone but I do think that there's some questionable things going on in pro ctcling".

In 1990 if you had told me I was only going to win 3 Tours and 2 Worlds I'd have said You're crazy! Why can't I still win? Its been beyond my control.

Since my hunting accident I dont think I have ever reached my full potential.

 

[Maxiton]

I have to respectful disagree with you, at least insofar as you attribute irresponsible behavior to LeMond, who was absolutely not ever someone to blindly accept injections w/o knowing what they were (let alone accepting them while hoping they were something else). Furthermore, factually you're not correct, as the "incident" that you allude to took place during the 1989 Giro d'Italia, and not during the Tour de France. Even more salient is the fact that he took THREE (3) injections over the course of the entire 3-week race, and not one single injection before the final time trial. FURTHERMORE, LeMond received at least one the injections of iron (3) IN FRONT of a reporter from VeloNews - hardly behavior that would be consistent with someone actively doping, especially when you consider that the correspondent from a naive, US-based cycling tabloid would not likely have any complicity in upholding omerta and therefore not be someone who a doping rider implicitly trusted to keep quiet about any illegal activity. FINALLY, improvement in the last time trial of a grand tour for a rider of LeMond's pedigree who had been suffering from an iron deficiency treated over three weeks would actually be the EXPECTED outcome - LeMond had a documented history of getting stronger as racing volume increased and his VO2 was one of the highest recorded for a cyclist (significantly, SIGNIFICANTLY higher than Armstrong's, by comparison). And with an iron deficiency, LeMond would not have been capable of utilizing his MASSIVE VO2 because of the very nature of what it is for the body to be deficient in iron. So once he commenced iron-replacement therapy, he would've been expected to notice some improvement within a matter of days, and not insignificant improvement after nearly three weeks of treatment.

The only thing you can inject into your body the night before a final time trial stage (or even a few nights before) and expect a radical improvement in performance without any previous treatment (whether primary or supporting) is - a bag of your own red blood cells.

These myths/lies about LeMond are created and pass-around by "haters" and his enemies in order to discredit him for obvious purposes. That so many people seem to uncritically and wholeheartedly accept them (and then gleefully forward them, and gleefully recite them later) says more about the critics than any unethical behavior on Greg's part.

I have no idea whether or not Lance Armstrong doped because I wasn't there with him in the room. I also wasn't there in the room with LeMond all those times when he didn't dope. However, LeMond didn't NEED to dope to keep with the times (until the widespread adoption of EPO, which he nevertheless did not participate in). And two of the godfathers of blood-doping in the USA (who I will avoid naming directly though anyone who knows the history of doping in cycling in USA should know who they are - and anyone who doesn't probably shouldn't be making claims about LeMond in the first place) BOTH told me explicitly and directly that LeMond was the greatest, most-talented cyclist they ever worked with and that doping him would've been superfluous, plus he was determined to avoid drugs anyway (alcohol being the one exception, but even then he didn't drink - does anyone? - for performance enhancement on the bike).

I think it's also worth considering the impact that the presence of LeMond's wife Kathy at his side in Europe had on any plan to dope LeMond or encourage him to dope. Quite simply, I can't imagine that she would've let it happen in the first place. You read this article from 1984 in SI and get a feel for how outside of the mainstream thought in europro cycling LeMond intentionally remained after arriving w/ his wife in Europe and then starting a family: http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vault/article/magazine/MAG1122493/1/index.htm

But my contention is that he didn't dope because he didn't need to dope, nor want to. He was the greatest naturally-talented GC racer ever to come out of USA and that he didn't win 7 Tours but someone else did says nothing about Greg's class or ability.<snip>

You might very well be right. But I don't think "did he or didn't he" has to be a zero-sum game as regards Lemond. Back in his time the line between medical assistance and outright doping was not as well defined as it is now. I don't think Lemond has to be seen as some kind of saint who won tours on bread and water. It may be naive to think any rider could dominate any grand Tour in the modern era without some sort of medical assistance.

There was an article in at least one reputable journal that alluded to this incident in the way I described it. I'll see if I can dig it up.

 

[blutto]

I have to respectful disagree with you, at least insofar as you attribute irresponsible behavior to LeMond, who was absolutely not ever someone to blindly accept injections w/o knowing what they were (let alone accepting them while hoping they were something else). Furthermore, factually you're not correct, as the "incident" that you allude to took place during the 1989 Giro d'Italia, and not during the Tour de France. Even more salient is the fact that he took THREE (3) injections over the course of the entire 3-week race, and not one single injection before the final time trial. FURTHERMORE, LeMond received at least one the injections of iron (3) IN FRONT of a reporter from VeloNews - hardly behavior that would be consistent with someone actively doping, especially when you consider that the correspondent from a naive, US-based cycling tabloid would not likely have any complicity in upholding omerta and therefore not be someone who a doping rider implicitly trusted to keep quiet about any illegal activity. FINALLY, improvement in the last time trial of a grand tour for a rider of LeMond's pedigree who had been suffering from an iron deficiency treated over three weeks would actually be the EXPECTED outcome - LeMond had a documented history of getting stronger as racing volume increased and his VO2 was one of the highest recorded for a cyclist (significantly, SIGNIFICANTLY higher than Armstrong's, by comparison). And with an iron deficiency, LeMond would not have been capable of utilizing his MASSIVE VO2 because of the very nature of what it is for the body to be deficient in iron. So once he commenced iron-replacement therapy, he would've been expected to notice some improvement within a matter of days, and not insignificant improvement after nearly three weeks of treatment.

The only thing you can inject into your body the night before a final time trial stage (or even a few nights before) and expect a radical improvement in performance without any previous treatment (whether primary or supporting) is - a bag of your own red blood cells.

These myths/lies about LeMond are created and pass-around by "haters" and his enemies in order to discredit him for obvious purposes. That so many people seem to uncritically and wholeheartedly accept them (and then gleefully forward them, and gleefully recite them later) says more about the critics than any unethical behavior on Greg's part.

I have no idea whether or not Lance Armstrong doped because I wasn't there with him in the room. I also wasn't there in the room with LeMond all those times when he didn't dope. However, LeMond didn't NEED to dope to keep with the times (until the widespread adoption of EPO, which he nevertheless did not participate in). And two of the godfathers of blood-doping in the USA (who I will avoid naming directly though anyone who knows the history of doping in cycling in USA should know who they are - and anyone who doesn't probably shouldn't be making claims about LeMond in the first place) BOTH told me explicitly and directly that LeMond was the greatest, most-talented cyclist they ever worked with and that doping him would've been superfluous, plus he was determined to avoid drugs anyway (alcohol being the one exception, but even then he didn't drink - does anyone? - for performance enhancement on the bike).

I think it's also worth considering the impact that the presence of LeMond's wife Kathy at his side in Europe had on any plan to dope LeMond or encourage him to dope. Quite simply, I can't imagine that she would've let it happen in the first place. You read this article from 1984 in SI and get a feel for how outside of the mainstream thought in europro cycling LeMond intentionally remained after arriving w/ his wife in Europe and then starting a family: http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vault/article/magazine/MAG1122493/1/index.htm

But my contention is that he didn't dope because he didn't need to dope, nor want to. He was the greatest naturally-talented GC racer ever to come out of USA and that he didn't win 7 Tours but someone else did says nothing about Greg's class or ability.



I guess I'll take it as a compliment, for in not responding/challenging, that's tacit acceptance/agreement, one might think? Anyway, LeMond and Merckx were extraordinarily-talented, once-in-a-generation riders (was Hinault as well?). and the doping products available during their eras weren't dramatic enough in their impact to so skew the playing field that a rider not in their mould could win and go on to dominate a race as savage and previously-so-naturally-selective as the Tour. I think Ullrich could've been the next LeMond had he competed under the same conditions as Greg w/ respect to lack of oxygen-vector drugs/simplified blood-doping. He finished 2nd in his first Tour at 23 and won his next at 24 (after having been world amateur champ in '93 at age 20) - that he went on to six (or five, I guess) top-5 TdF finishes plus one victory in the Vuelta shows a consistency from earliest days that compares favorably w/ Merckx, Hinault and LeMond, and provides another contrast to the incredibly variable performances of more recent winners.

LeMond was right and uttered a simple yet powerful truth: the cyclists who perform at the highest level consistency from earliest days are the ones whose natural talent is most threatening to those who would dope...and when one observes radical variances in performance by riders who appear out of nowhere and destroy the peloton like a supernova only to disappear just as quickly - or replicate their success so infrequently (1x/year maybe, for example?) - that's not natural talent. It's reasonable/modest talent that is pumped-up to unsustainable levels.

..GL was without a doubt a very talented cyclist...the equal of Merckx?...of Hinault?...of Indurain?....it would have much easier to make that claim if his TT results in the Tour had been world class ( where his unequalled numbers should have blazed the brightest )...and GL's Tour TT results are real good but certainly not world beating...certainly not against Hinault in 85 and 86 ( when pre-accident he was apparently at his best...and btw he could have taken the 85 Tour with a stellar performance in the last TT...Hinault had a broken nose but superman Greg could only take 5 sec out of him...could one imagine Merckx in the same situation )...and most certainly not against Fignon in 84...and heck, not even against Indurain in domestique mode in 90...

...your post paints a nice story...too bad about the race of truth numbers...they ruin a great yarn...

Cheers

blutto

 

[Caruut]

..GL was without a doubt a very talented cyclist...the equal of Merckx?...of Hinault?...of Indurain?....it would have much easier to make that claim if his TT results in the Tour had been world class ( where his unequalled numbers should have blazed the brightest )...and GL's Tour TT results are real good but certainly not world beating...certainly not against Hinault in 85 and 86 ( when pre-accident he was apparently at his best...and btw he could have taken the 85 Tour with a stellar performance in the last TT...Hinault had a broken nose but superman Greg could only take 5 sec out of him...could one imagine Merckx in the same situation )...and most certainly not against Fignon in 84...and heck, not even against Indurain in domestique mode in 90...

...your post paints a nice story...too bad about the race of truth numbers...they ruin a great yarn...

Cheers

blutto

Hahaha, nice try, but I call BS.

If we want to talk numbers, how about him riding the fastest TT ever in the Tour?

You claim that LeMond said he was best pre-hunting. What he actually said was that he felt he didn't hit his potential either. There is a subtle yet significant difference - an 8-year-old who breaks his leg may never reach his full potential in running, yet that does not mean he is slower at 25.

 

[thehog]

If that Starr dude, who is he anyway, was referring to the 1989 worlds he should better have mentioned Lemond bying that trophy. How in the world could he beat Kelly, Konychev, Rooks in a sprint?
http://nos.nl/video/187649-wk-1989-lemond-in-chambery.html
Watch them ride/climb at EPO - speed

Yes those guys rocking all over their bikes punching 300 watts in an EPO rage!

Nothing like clean cycling in 1999: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HavGf-xTS_4&sns=em

Watch from 18:40 onwards as dirty Alex Zuelle and evil Kelme riders get taught a lesson.