LeMond I

[noddy69]

probably been seen by most but I found it interesting seen as we are on Lemond and drugs, so for those who havent you might find this a good watch.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wDy5NLVkliU&feature=related

 

[andy1234]

probably been seen by most but I found it interesting seen as we are on Lemond and drugs, so for those who havent you might find this a good watch.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wDy5NLVkliU&feature=related

That presentation and others like it by LeMond, have been absorbed by the clinic faithful and etched into stone. Just about every clinic argument about corruption, natural talent and how a riders career SHOULD progress are formed from those words.

Its all got to be true, because Greg says so

 

[robow7]

It's not nearly as clean cut as people like to make it out. A big part of this story is the Indurain Myth.

According to this Myth Miguel was a good TT rider who magically turned into a stageracer. This is absolutely nonsense as already pre-epo Miguel was seen as the next big thing, growing in the shade of Delgado. Even in Dutch magazines he was seen as a future tour winner as early as 1987.

Epo (99.99999%) certainly helped and transformed Miguel career, but he was widely expected to dominate GT's by everyone involved in pro cycling. *A nice contrast with a certain American who was a surprise^^

Indurain was seen to be a great future rider but no one foresaw a man of his size climb like he did. He hung in there with the specialists that weighed 20 kg less. Who was the last 175 lb man to climb that well day after day?

 

[Race Radio]

That presentation and others like it by LeMond, have been absorbed by the clinic faithful and etched into stone. Just about every clinic argument about corruption, natural talent and how a riders career SHOULD progress are formed from those words.

Its all got to be true, because Greg says so

As usual, you are unable to add anything constructive to the discussion, just insults

 

[MacRoadie]

Its all got to be true, because Greg says so

Greg LeMond:

1977
1st National Road Race Champion (Junior)
1978
1st Overall Vuelta de Bisbee
3rd TTT Junior World Championship
1979
1st World Road Race Champion (Junior)
1st National Road Race Champion (Junior)
1st Nevada City Classic
2nd Track Pursuit, Junior World Championship
1980
1st Overall Circuit de la Sarthe
1st Nevada City Classic
3rd Circuit des Ardennes
1981
1st Overall Coors Classic
1st Stage 1
1st Stage 7
1st Stage 2a Tour de Picardie
1st Nevada City Classic
3rd Route du Sud
3rd Critérium du Dauphiné
1982
1st Overall Tour de l'Avenir
2nd Stage 2
1st Stage 4
1st Stage 5
1st Stage 8
3rd Stage 10
3rd Tour de Corse
2nd Tour Méditerranéen (FRA)
2nd UCI Road World Championships, Men
3d Overall Tirreno - Adriatico
1st Stage 3
1983
1st World Road Race Champion
1st Overall Critérium du Dauphiné Libéré
1st Stage 1
1st Stage 5
1st Stage 7b
1st Stage 1 Tour Méditerranéen
1st Super Prestige Pernod International
2nd Stage 1 Tour de Suisse
2nd Stage 3 Tour de Suisse
3rd Stage 4 Tour de Suisse
3rd Stage 7 Tour de Suisse
2nd GP des Nations
2nd Giro di Lombardia
1984
3rd Overall Tour de France
1st Young Rider Classification
1st Stage 3 (TTT)
3rd Overall Critérium du Dauphiné Libéré
1st Stage 7b
3rd Liège-Bastogne-Liège
1985
2nd Overall Tour de France
1st Stage 3 (TTT)
1st Stage 21
1st Combination classification
2nd Points Classification
4th Mountains Classification
1st Overall Coors Classic
1st Stage 5
2nd UCI Road World Championships, Men
2nd Vuelta Ciclista al País Vasco
2nd Stage 2
2nd Stage 3
3rd Stage 5b
3rd Giro d'Italia
3rd Stage 12
3rd Pernod-Super Prestige
4th Paris-Roubaix
1986
1st Overall Tour de France
1st Stage 13
1st Combination classification
4th Points Classification
3rd Mountains Classification
4th Overall Giro d'Italia
1st Stage 5
2nd Stage 16
3rd Tour de Suisse
3rd Prologue
3rd Stage 1
2nd Stage 3
2nd Stage 6
2nd Coors Classic
3rd Paris-Nice
2nd Milano-San Remo
3rd Critérium International
1st Stage 4 Volta a la Comunitat Valenciana
2nd Pernod-Super Prestige
1989
1st Overall Tour de France
1st Stage 5
1st Stage 19
1st Stage 21
1st World Road Race Champion
1990
1st Overall Tour de France
1992
1st Overall Tour DuPont
1st Prologue

andy1234:

Not so much...

I think I'm taking Greg's opinion over yours.

 

[Franklin]

I'm not attempting to rewrite history at all. It is entirely possible that LeMond was aware of EPO's existence but unaware of how big a gain was possible with its use. If judged by "old method's" benefits you could dismiss its benefits as negligible quite easily. It's only in hindsight that one can see the real effects in all their twisted glory. Gewiss, Chiappucci and eventually Riis's obscene procession were all signposts that became ever clearer. The final destination was Festina, but instead of taking the bull by the horns the UCI ran away and stuck their heads in the sand. At best fools, more likely up to their necks in $h1t & money.

Nonsense. You claim (in a very dramatic and emotional way)

1. Greg only found out with Festina
2. In fact anybody just found out with Festina

This is absolute and utter bunk. It was clear MUCH earlier, even to the public. Maybe you didn't know earlier, but that's your problem , not the truth.

There is no two ways to read your post. I'm a big sucker for facts, I dislike emotional teary nosense.

And why you now bring up Riis and the UCI in another bleary tear jerking post and it had no impact on Lemonds career at all. It's very important for the next American....

Utimobici, I get it, Greg is a hero, the epitome of the victim of Epo and Lance is the anti-lemond, deserving forever damnation. I certainly like the Pre-epo era andI certainly think it wrecked havoc on many careers.. but there is a big line between cold facts and my emotional interpretation of those facts.

 

[Franklin]

Indurain was seen to be a great future rider but no one foresaw a man of his size climb like he did. He hung in there with the specialists that weighed 20 kg less. Who was the last 175 lb man to climb that well day after day?

There we go AGAIN with the myth... yes this was foreseen. It's very disconcerting to point out he was seen as the future GT dominant rider and then someone like you reiterating nobody thought he could climb with the best. Just as Hinault before him they expected him to rule in the TT and keep up in the mountains. This did indeed pan out.

1. He always did well in mountains as domestic fr Pedro Delgado. This was recognized by the followers.
2. As a young pro he shined in the Tour de L'Avenir.

Furthermore, length has nothing to do with climbing, it's weight-vs power. Indurain was quite skinny, having a huge power-weight ratio.

Just accept it, Indurain was a good climber from the start and was groomed by Delgado. This was clear in the international press from his first years. Yes, pre-epo. These journalists strangely enough got it right.

Oh and to drive this one home, if we talk about natural progression:

Miguel won L'avenir in 1987 (by dominating the mountains). His first win in the TdF was 4 years later in 1991
Greg won L'avenir in 1981 (By dominating everything^^). He podiumed in the TdF three years later in 1984

Indurain isn't a surprise at all. And no, I do not remotely claim he was clean. I just keep on debunking the myth that Big Mig was the first "transformed" Epo surprise.

 

[Race Radio]

Nonsense. You claim (in a very dramatic and emotional way)

1. Greg only found out with Festina
2. In fact anybody just found out with Festina

This is absolute and utter bunk. It was clear MUCH earlier, even to the public. Maybe you didn't know earlier, but that's your problem , not the truth.

There is no two ways to read your post. I'm a big sucker for facts, I dislike emotional teary nosense.

And why you now bring up Riis and the UCI in another bleary tear jerking post and it had no impact on Lemonds career at all. It's very important for the next American....

Utimobici, I get it, Greg is a hero, the epitome of the victim of Epo and Lance is the anti-lemond, deserving forever damnation. I certainly like the Pre-epo era andI certainly think it wrecked havoc on many careers.. but there is a big line between cold facts and my emotional interpretation of those facts.

Not sure what you are getting so worked up about?

Lemond never claimed that he found out about EPO due to Festina, in fact he complained publicly about EPO, Doctors and the effect they were having the the sport prior to Festina

 

[ultimobici]

Nonsense. You claim (in a very dramatic and emotional way)

1. Greg only found out with Festina
2. In fact anybody just found out with Festina

This is absolute and utter bunk. It was clear MUCH earlier, even to the public. Maybe you didn't know earlier, but that's your problem , not the truth.

There is no two ways to read your post. I'm a big sucker for facts, I dislike emotional teary nosense.

And why you now bring up Riis and the UCI in another bleary tear jerking post and it had no impact on Lemonds career at all. It's very important for the next American....

Utimobici, I get it, Greg is a hero, the epitome of the victim of Epo and Lance is the anti-lemond, deserving forever damnation. I certainly like the Pre-epo era andI certainly think it wrecked havoc on many careers.. but there is a big line between cold facts and my emotional interpretation of those facts.

Emotional teary nonsense? No all I am pointing out is that it is entirely possible that the following is true
1 That Lemond and others in the peloton did not use PEDs
2 That they were able to compete & win in the 80's despite the PEDs
3 That at the dawn of the EPO era the true potential of EPO was not realised by those who weren't using it
4 That those outside the sport were even less aware if the effects
5 That Festina highlighted this quantum leap to the fans
6 That the opportunity to do something meaningful & lasting was lost by the UCI's inability or unwillingness to act

I don't doubt that doping has blighted many a career before and after EPO came on the scene. But I don't view the whole mess in an emotional Lemond v Armstrong war way. I have weighed up the evidence I have seen over the 30 years I've followed the sport and come to my own conclusions. No evidence of any underhand actions on Lemond's part & a fair bit in the opposite direction in Armstrong's case.

 

[Jeremiah]

Because he is trolling the fanboys lol.

I am glad he is doing so. When newbies come in here and read his crap they will take anything further from him with a grain of salt.

I bet 131313 is probably 6th lol.

It is funny.

It's the Top 5 cyclists of all time with an extra provision for heroic single stage performances.

I don't mean to cause controversy. I like my Top 5.

It's stands. Probably see George in 6th. Might expand to Top 10 at some point.

C'mon, you're being absurd.

 

[Jeremiah]

The criteria states the rider must have at least one epic career defining ride. LeMond final TT 89. Hampsten 88 Gavia. Landis 06 Morzine. Levi 10 TdS. Hamilton 02 Giro.

The list stands:

1. Greg LeMond - 3 Tours
2. Andy Hamptston - 1 Giro
3. Floyd Landis – 1 Tour 1 Paris-Nice
4. Levi Leiphiemer - 3rd Tour, 2nd Vuelta
5. Tyler Hamilton - 1 LBL, 2nd Giro

The "Look" wasn't career defining for Armstrong? Luz Ardiden? The descent into Gap?

ChrisE is usually way over the top but he's correct in pointing out that your silly list is a good way to lose your credibility.

 

[joe_papp]

Indurain was just the first version of an EPO-fueled Armstrong

...Oh and to drive this one home, if we talk about natural progression:

Miguel won L'avenir in 1987 (by dominating the mountains). His first win in the TdF was 4 years later in 1991
Greg won L'avenir in 1981 (By dominating everything^^). He podiumed in the TdF three years later in 1984

Indurain isn't a surprise at all. And no, I do not remotely claim he was clean. I just keep on debunking the myth that Big Mig was the first "transformed" Epo surprise.

Fail.

While it's true Indurain won l'Avenir, as did LeMond, that race alone does not a TdF winner predict, and it certainly doesn't approximate for the same "test" as racing a 3 week Tour. So that there's no confusion as to what I'm saying, it's that Indurain only won 5 Tours because he doped himself to the gills with EPO and other products, and without the drugs never would've been more than Delgado's bottle-fetcher and a stage winner (not bad but no way comparable to someone like Hinault or Fignon).

If you go back in this thread and find it (here you go, I found it: http://forum.cyclingnews.com/showpost.php?p=858077&postcount=85), I posted a simple comparison of Merckx, Hinault, Fignon and LeMond, vs. Indurain on the question of their GT debut results and when you look at Indurain, at the same age when the aforementioned four were winning or placing top-10 overall on GC in grand tours, Indurain was most decidedly not.

And before you argue that that was because he was a domestique, it's because he wasn't a genuine or legitimate grand tour contender that he had to ride as a domestique in the first place. Because if he was truly as talented a rider as Merckx, Hinault, Fignon or LeMond - and capable of winning the Tour w/o EPO or blood-doping, then he would've been placing top-10 in it in his early 20's, and not carrying bottles for Delgado or whomever.

Indurain was the proto-Armstrong: talented rider w/ no legitimate claim to un-doped Tour contender status naturally, but enhanced through pharmacology to the level of a automaton-like repeat winner.

"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.)"

Indurain only dominated the Tour because he transformed himself through doping from pretender to artificial contender, just like Lance Armstrong.

 

[andy1234]

As usual, you are unable to add anything constructive to the discussion, just insults

I'm not sure how you can take that as an insult, its just a factual statement.
Many of the things LeMond discusses are reeled off in the clinic as fact, when many are just opinion.

 

[andy1234]

Greg LeMond:



andy1234:



I think I'm taking Greg's opinion over yours.

And so you should. Just as long as you keep in mind a lot of it is just that, opinion.

 

[Race Radio]

I'm not sure how you can take that as an insult, its just a factual statement.
Many of the things LeMond discusses are reeled off in the clinic as fact, when many are just opinion.

You would have a lot more creditably if you actually attempted to discuss one of these topics instead of your normal blanket insults

 

[Krebs cycle]

an average pro rider on epo could absolutely become a racehorse in comparison to a much better -- but clean -- rider, particularly in a 3 week tour.

before epo, a three week tour was really only contested between a handfull of riders who had the quality of lasting three weeks without too many bad days. epo changed all that. armstrong is the poster child for that change.

lol seems like you guys are continuing on the debate from the USADA thread here!

What still doesn't make sense here is that if EPO could transform an average pro-rider into a tour contender, then this implies that there should have been many riders who became tour contenders ie: since by definition there are many more "average" riders than there are tour contenders. You say that before EPO the tour was only ever contested by a handful of riders, but EPO changed all that, however that isn't what history shows. In the last 20 yrs in which I think we can all agree that doping has been widespread in pro-cycling, there were really only four riders who dominated, Indurain, Ullrich, Armstrong and Contador. Lets now expand that list to include regular top 10 finishers eg: Pantani, Zulle, Riis, Rominger, Virenque, Beloki, Botero, Mancebo, Basso.

Why is it that during either Indurain's or Armstrong's reign none of those other riders could win if any average rider could be transformed into a tour contender? Why is it that not even real tour contenders could beat them with their own doping programs?

The conclusion can really only be one of three things, 1) Indurain and Armstrong were tour contenders anyway who then became unbeatable on PEDs, 2) all of the real tour contenders decided to stop doping, or 3) the real tour contenders never had a doping program that enabled their performance to increase as much as Indurain's or Armstrong's.

It seems that in your opinion at least as related to LA, you have rejected #1, which leaves 2 or 3 as the answer. If you think #2 is the answer well then you're just being silly, which leaves #3.

If #3 is the answer then what I would like to know is why only Armstrong, out of hundreds of "average" pro-cyclists was the sole person to be the beneficiary of the biggest and best doping program? Why weren't Leipheimer, Hamilton and Landis standing on the podium next to LA year after year if they too had the super program? Why didn't other teams and/or cyclists use the super doping program even though they could easily afford it many were using the same doctors and many of the doctors shared the same knowledge about doping methods?

For me, point #3 is a realistic alternative (to #1), but it raises far more questions than it answers.

 

[Race Radio]

lol seems like you guys are continuing on the debate from the USADA thread here!

What still doesn't make sense here is that if EPO could transform an average pro-rider into a tour contender, then this implies that there should have been many riders who became tour contenders ie: since by definition there are many more "average" riders than there are tour contenders. You say that before EPO the tour was only ever contested by a handful of riders, but EPO changed all that, however that isn't what history shows. In the last 20 yrs in which I think we can all agree that doping has been widespread in pro-cycling, there were really only four riders who dominated, Indurain, Ullrich, Armstrong and Contador. Lets now expand that list to include regular top 10 finishers eg: Pantani, Zulle, Riis, Rominger, Virenque, Beloki, Botero, Mancebo, Basso.

Why is it that during either Indurain's or Armstrong's reign none of those other riders could win if any average rider could be transformed into a tour contender? Why is it that not even real tour contenders could beat them with their own doping programs?

The conclusion can really only be one of three things, 1) Indurain and Armstrong were tour contenders anyway who then became unbeatable on PEDs, 2) all of the real tour contenders decided to stop doping, or 3) the real tour contenders never had a doping program that enabled their performance to increase as much as Indurain's or Armstrong's.

It seems that in your opinion at least as related to LA, you have rejected #1, which leaves 2 or 3 as the answer. If you think #2 is the answer well then you're just being silly, which leaves #3.

If #3 is the answer then what I would like to know is why only Armstrong, out of hundreds of "average" pro-cyclists was the sole person to be the beneficiary of the biggest and best doping program? Why weren't Leipheimer, Hamilton and Landis standing on the podium next to LA year after year if they too had the super program? Why didn't other teams and/or cyclists use the super doping program even though they could easily afford it many were using the same doctors and many of the doctors shared the same knowledge about doping methods?

For me, point #3 is a realistic alternative (to #1), but it raises far more questions than it answers.

You forgot the most obvious. There is a great variance in how an individual rider reacts to pharmacology. This is true with any medical intervention. Some see significant benefit, others little, others none

 

[andy1234]

You would have a lot more creditably if you actually attempted to discuss one of these topics instead of your normal blanket insults

Firstly I'm not looking for credibility. This is an intenet forum.
Secondly, there is no insult, and I'm not sure why you take it that way.

So many posters are very analytical, but the moment the information comes from Greg LeMond, no questions are necessary or welcome.
His opinions, because thats what they are, should be analysed as intensly as a the opinions of any other rider.

 

[Race Radio]

Firstly I'm not looking for credibility. This is an intenet forum.
Secondly, there is no insult, and I'm not sure why you take it that way.

So many posters are very analytical, but the moment the information comes from Greg LeMond, no questions are necessary or welcome.
His opinions, because thats what they are, should be analysed as intensly as a the opinions of any other rider.

Let us know when you actually analyse them. All we have seen so far is vague complaining with no specifics

 

[Franklin]

Not sure what you are getting so worked up about?

Lemond never claimed that he found out about EPO due to Festina, in fact he complained publicly about EPO, Doctors and the effect they were having the the sport prior to Festina

You know that, I know that, but Ultimobili did claim just that.

I truly don't like distortion of facts. And yes, Lance is a scumbag, yes Lemond was a great rider.

I simply think that myth forming and distorting the truth diminishes Lemonds true performance.

 

[Franklin]

Fail.

While it's true Indurain won l'Avenir, as did LeMond, that race alone does not a TdF winner predict, and it certainly doesn't approximate for the same "test" as racing a 3 week Tour.

SNIP

Indurain only dominated the Tour because he transformed himself through doping from pretender to artificial contender, just like Lance Armstrong.

Joe, you should tell that to the writers and followers who during the 87-90 years wrote long articles extolling the coming of Miguel.

The fail is simply yours because the facts are squarely against you on this one, namely that he was seen as GT winner from the start

-> And if you disagree with me, you should also say this to one of the Clinic Allumni Dr. Maserati who in my experience has among the best sense of cycling history:

http://forum.cyclingnews.com/showthread.php?t=13790&page=20

Unless those journalists and followers had a crystal ball in which they saw Epo it seems they did see something big in him. Something you also obviously do not know that his relation to Delgado is already extolled in those articles where he and his coach explicitly say he will be building up in the sadow of Delgado. All this openly in the magazines in the Pre-Epo era... So how do you claim that Indurain was destined to be a bottle fetcher is a gross distortion of the truth.

I start to think that your American heritage and younger age made you miss these articles and that you are piecing together Indurain's early career after the fact.

Miguel Indurain was not a surprise winner. Your posturing does not change this. His career certainly changed due to Epo, but your claim that nobody saw this coming is flat out wrong.

-> Side note, the VO2 of Miguel didn't reach Greg's, but it's surprisingly close. Added are his reportedly huge lungs and his long, yet thin build.Miguel was most definitely more than just a pharmaceutical robot. http://fitness.testing.8m.com/vo2max-test.htm

 

[roundabout]

1986, and he didn't dominate in the mountains. He was something like 4th, 5th and 12th in the mountain stages.

That aside, I remember being surprised how big he looked when I rewatched the highlights from the 1995 stage to Liege. He was like a tank.

 

[Franklin]

1986, and he didn't dominate in the mountains. He was something like 4th, 5th and 12th in the mountain stages.

That aside, I remember being surprised how big he looked when I rewatched the highlights from the 1995 stage to Liege. He was like a tank.

He won the queens stage according to the velo archive=> Obviously wrongly calassified, thanks Roundabout!

What little can be surmised from your piece is that Miguel did grab the yellow in a stage to Gap (middle mountains?). Added are two second places (Vittoria and Pau). It culminates in both a yellow and a points jersey :0 Maybe without Epo Miguel would have been a sprinter (I jest!)

That seems legit enough to base an argument on.

http://www.letour.fr/2009/TDA/COURSE/docs/guide_historique_fr.pdf

start with page 78

Now that's a fantastic article! Yes, he didn't win a road stage, he won both TT's.

Much better than the cyclingarchive, that one is completely uninformative it seems beyond who won a stage.

On a side note, wasn't L'Avenir changed into the round of the EEC that same year?

 

[roundabout]

He won the queens stage according to the velo archive

That seems legit enough to base an argument on.

http://www.letour.fr/2009/TDA/COURSE/docs/guide_historique_fr.pdf

start with page 78

 

[Franklin]

But you know what... I give up. Every early Epo thread or Indurain thread goes the same way.

Miguel was a donkey, nobody expected big things. As an unknown Neo-pro he was able to be chosen as special Guinea-Pig of Conconi and started Epo in 86, which caused him to win the L'Avenir and a TdF Mountainstage in 1989 and 1990 and Paris Nice Mont Faron.

And the funniest part is that Race Radio thinks Epo hit the peloton in the 90's, Dr Maserati is just as deluded as me and think Indurain was making a career as a stageracer. Even Ultimobili has come up for Miguel's early career

What do we know/remember...

I'm not remotely claiming Miguel was clean or that this somehow casts suspicion on Greg (really, don't even go there).

But I'm giving up on this one. Bye Miguel, for me you are from this day a victim of Epo. It nullified all your performances before 1990.