LeMond I

[Krebs cycle]

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

Yes. Add that as possibility #4: The most dominant riders over the past 20 yrs were the biggest "responders" to EPO. What this implies is that the performance enhancement must be greater, not by just enough to offset the natural advantage than some other rider possesses who is physiologically more gifted, but it must exceed that by a significant margin in order for dominance to be achieved over that rider. Remember, we aren't just talking about riders who beat their peers occasionally.

On this point, I looked up a number of studies and the average increase in VO2max in response to EPO is about 10% and the SD is about 5%. Oxygen consumption is linearly related to peak power output (on a VO2max test) and thus we might expect to see around a 10-15% increase in PPO resulting form EPO use (as shown in the figure posted a few pages back). However, if you look at the SD of PPO for professional cyclists you'll find that it is also about 10%.

So if an average rider has a PPO of about 450W. That would mean that a GT contender at the top of the crop would possibly have a PPO closer to 490-500W.

So if the tour contender got an average 10% increase in PPO from EPO that would bring it up to about 540-550W. That would mean the average rider will require an increase of about 100W which is 22%, just be equal. You would need at least another 3 or 4% to be better and probably 5-7% to dominate. So we are looking at a 25-30% increase in PPO. Since the mean increase is about 10% and the SD is about 5%, that means the average rider would need a performance enhancement that is at least 3 SDs ABOVE the mean response. 3 SDs is equivalent to a probability of 0.1%.

Of course, the limitation of this little analysis is that it is restricted to EPO. The only people that really know what sort of performance changes can be achieved with a PED cocktail are the riders and team doctors themselves. However, I was responding to a post which stated that EPO can change an average rider into a tour winner, and it has been shown that the main effect of EPO on performance enhancement is due to the increase in VO2max.

Now all this aside, something that I have always found very conspicuously MISSING from the clinic discussions is the effect of non-doping factors on performance such as genetics, training, emotional stress, nutrition, illness, injury, sleep. It seems like too many people want to attribute variations in performance between riders and seasons mainly to variations in doping program effectiveness rather than overall preparation.

To me it just makes more sense to attribute the dominance of Indurain, Armstrong, Ullrich and Contador (in particular) to a combination of factors rather than simply "doping program" and "response to doping". This idea that any average rider can come along and become a tour winner simply due to EPO mainly relies on the assumption that none of the real contenders are doping, but we know this is pretty much baloney. It is much more complicated than that.

 

[patricknd]

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

Insult? Where is the insult? Are you an little sensitive today? He's pointing out that opinions aren't facts, they are opinions . The weight given to those opinions may vary, but then that's natural.

 

[BotanyBay]

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...

Just to hep ya out a bit....

Lemond was a domestique when he took third in 1984 (his first tour).

 

[Big Doopie]

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.

+1.

i believe it is well-documented that lemond found out the full extent of what other teams were doing dope-wise at a team meeting in 1993 when an ex-team-mate revealed what was going on on his and other teams. before that, he may have had some inkling but was unaware of the extent.

 

[ultimobici]

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.

I think you need to pay more attention when reading.

I didn't say LeMond was unaware of its existence. I merely pointed out that he quite likely underestimated its benefits, hence his and Fignon's frustration at being in the company of less gifted riders in the mountains. If one applied the same logic to EPO's benefits as those of amphetamine & cortisone/testosterone you'd come to a similar position. EPO wasn't really discussed in full publicly until Festina forced the issue into the open. Until then it was cycling's dirty little secret.

 

[mountaindew]

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.

Actually Madiot won in '87.

 

[andy1234]

Insult? Where is the insult? Are you an little sensitive today? He's pointing out that opinions aren't facts, they are opinions . The weight given to those opinions may vary, but then that's natural.

RR is just grumpy because someone has pointed out that most of the "insights" that he and many others share, are simply lifted straight from these LeMond presentations.

I'm not sure some people even realise they are simply mirroring everything LeMond believes about the sport. The opinions have been replayed so many times by so many different people, it has become fact.

LeMond believes the sport is dirty and corrupt, so it must be.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

RR is just grumpy because someone has pointed out that most of the "insights" that he and many others share, are simply lifted straight from these LeMond presentations.

I'm not sure some people even realise they are simply mirroring everything LeMond believes about the sport. The opinions have been replayed so many times by so many different people, it has become fact.

LeMond believes the sport is dirty and corrupt, so it must be.

Hi Andy, can you point out what these 'Facts' are and then who is making them, thanks.
Because at the moment it seems you are just tossing out a blanket statement and generalizing a lot of people - without any facts.

 

[patricknd]

RR is just grumpy because someone has pointed out that most of the "insights" that he and many others share, are simply lifted straight from these LeMond presentations.

I'm not sure some people even realise they are simply mirroring everything LeMond believes about the sport. The opinions have been replayed so many times by so many different people, it has become fact.

LeMond believes the sport is dirty and corrupt, so it must be.

i think it's dirty and corrupt, but then that is my opinion, and it should be considered as such. i can offer eveidence to bolster that opinion if i choose, and anyone reading has the right to agree or disagree. i don't take it as an insult if you or anyone else disagrees. i would, however take it as an insult if you or someone else called me a ******bag or a troll etc. simply because our opinions differed. a forum where everyone agrees isn't a forum, it's a cult. sometimes i think there are those here that would prefer it that way.

 

[rhubroma]

RR is just grumpy because someone has pointed out that most of the "insights" that he and many others share, are simply lifted straight from these LeMond presentations.

I'm not sure some people even realize they are simply mirroring everything LeMond believes about the sport. The opinions have been replayed so many times by so many different people, it has become fact.

LeMond believes the sport is dirty and corrupt, so it must be.

What Lemond believes has been corroborated by every scandal, confession, critical analysis of the modern cycling environment since Festina (although one could go back as far as Simpson's death as evidence of a longer history of widespread PED use in the peloton). Even though this doesn't make him a genius of course, but that "it must be" is simply evident to anyone who has followed the sport over the past several decades without the blinders on, or else who isn't living on Mars.

Comments like yours about it all being just "opinions," in light of all the evidence and facts, are the same annoying and stupid ones coming from the Armstrong camp: because it takes us all for fools, who are incapable of forming an independent thought that goes against a certain portrait the industry and its cash cows just don't want us to see.

 

[andy1234]

What Lemond believes has been corroborated by every scandal, confession, critical analysis of the modern cycling environment since Festina (although one could go back as far as Simpson's death as evidence of a longer history of widespread PED use in the peloton). Even though this doesn't make him a genius of course, but that "it must be" is simply evident to anyone who has followed the sport over the past several decades without the blinders on, or else who isn't living on Mars.

Comments like yours about it all being just "opinions," in light of all the evidence and facts, are the same annoying and stupid ones coming from the Armstrong camp: because it takes us all for fools, who are incapable of forming an independent thought that goes against a certain portrait the industry and its cash cows just don't want us to see.

I believe that part of the sport is dirty, and part of it is corrupt.
I also agree that the sport has been this way almost from inception.

LeMond was a part of that sport, and knew it to be so.

As long as the drugs and corruption were not at the level that impacted him, it was acceptable. The moment it began impacting upon him. the lid needed taking off. Thats not integrity, that self preservation.

As such, I view everything LeMond has to say, in the same way I view what anybody has to say, by filtering the motive behind the words.

Anyone who takes what LeMond says at face value, without filtering, is just as bad as anyone who takes the word of Armstrong without filtering.
Challenging the word of LeMond, however, is not a popular concept in the clinic.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

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.

<snipped for brevity >

Yes and no.
The Tour de l'Avenir, it's the Tour of the future. At the time it was for (IIRC) u23 s, so while it does not automatically mean that a high finish means a future Tiur contender it is certainly one of the best indicators, and trumps individual races IMO.

Indeed the reason why that 86 l'Avenir got so much coverage in Winning was because of Grewels second place - which got him a pretty good contract.

Induration was very much noticed and considered the heir apparent for when Delgado stepped aside - however he did frustrate with his performances in the Vuelta. I always put that down to cracking under mental pressure, but YMMV.

 

[patricknd]

I believe that part of the sport is dirty, and part of it is corrupt.
I also agree that the sport has been this way almost from inception.

LeMond was a part of that sport, and knew it to be so.

As long as the drugs and corruption were not at the level that impacted him, it was acceptable. The moment it began impacting upon him. the lid needed taking off. Thats not integrity, that self preservation.

As such, I view everything LeMond has to say, in the same way I view what anybody has to say, by filtering the motive behind the words.

Anyone who takes what LeMond says at face value, without filtering, is just as bad as anyone who takes the word of Armstrong without filtering.
Challenging the word of LeMond, however, is not a popular concept in the clinic.

how dare you!!!!

 

[Dr. Maserati]

I believe that part of the sport is dirty, and part of it is corrupt.
I also agree that the sport has been this way almost from inception.

LeMond was a part of that sport, and knew it to be so.

As long as the drugs and corruption were not at the level that impacted him, it was acceptable. The moment it began impacting upon him. the lid needed taking off. Thats not integrity, that self preservation.

As such, I view everything LeMond has to say, in the same way I view what anybody has to say, by filtering the motive behind the words.

Anyone who takes what LeMond says at face value, without filtering, is just as bad as anyone who takes the word of Armstrong without filtering.
Challenging the motives of LeMond, however, is not a popular concept in the clinic.

Let me add to your sermon - "Anyone who takes what Wiggins says at face value, without filtering, is just as bad as anyone who takes the word of Armstrong without filtering".
See you can actually say that about anyone.

I guess it's much easier for you to challenge his "motives" as opposed to if it is true or not.
Strange thing is for a guy who you say only started talking when it impacted him, he is still talking about the Corruption and doping almost 20 years after he retired.

 

[aphronesis]

Let me add to your sermon - "Anyone who takes what Wiggins says at face value, without filtering, is just as bad as anyone who takes the word of Armstrong without filtering".
See you can actually say that about anyone.

I guess it's much easier for you to challenge his "motives" as opposed to if it is true or not.
Strange thing is for a guy who you say only started talking when it impacted him, he is still talking about the Corruption and doping almost 20 years after he retired.

are you saying it does not still impact him?

 

[Dr. Maserati]

are you saying it does not still impact him?

It - you mean doping and corruption?

One could say, no - as he is retired.
However one could also argue that it impacts the sport, and that is the reason why Greg is still outspoken.
But that might spoil someone's motive theory.

 

[aphronesis]

It - you mean doping and corruption?

One could say, no - as he is retired.
However one could also argue that it impacts the sport, and that is the reason why Greg is still outspoken.
But that might spoil someone's motive theory.

Yes, that's what I mean. And by extension that impacts his legacy still. Historically and as a matter of cultural value.

 

[andy1234]

It - you mean doping and corruption?

One could say, no - as he is retired.
However one could also argue that it impacts the sport, and that is the reason why Greg is still outspoken.
But that might spoil someone's motive theory.

Doping was as widespread in LeMonds day, it's just the contents of the syringe that changed.
Yet there are riders today that speak out more about drugs than LeMond ever did during his career, and those same riders are accused of not doing enough.
They certainly would never be given the mantle of "outspoken"
The outspoken LeMond took quite a few years to find his feet, and it didn't happen before his legacy was threatened.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Doping was as widespread in LeMonds day, it's just the contents of the syringe that changed.

There are riders today that speak out more about drugs than LeMond ever did during his career, yet those same riders are accused of not doing enough.
The outspoken LeMond took quite a few years to find his feet.

And the contents of those syringes changed the sport, drastically.

The rest is more generalities. Who are these riders? I can think of a few but then who are these people that want them to do more?
The only person I have seen accuse someone of not doing enough would be you when you question LeMonds motives (although not its content!)

So, do you want LeMond to say more or less about the current state of the sport?

 

[Northern rider]

Doping was as widespread in LeMonds day, it's just the contents of the syringe that changed.
Yet there are riders today that speak out more about drugs than LeMond ever did during his career, and those same riders are accused of not doing enough.
They certainly would never be given the mantle of "outspoken"
The outspoken LeMond took quite a few years to find his feet, and it didn't happen before his legacy was threatened.

Given that the USADA case has potentially the biggest impact in the sport ever, these current riders are remarkably silent about it. Very few seem to have commented on it and of those who have, its been backing LA. Saint David himself hasn't uttered a peep in public.

 

[andy1234]

And the contents of those syringes changed the sport, drastically.

The rest is more generalities. Who are these riders? I can think of a few but then who are these people that want them to do more?
The only person I have seen accuse someone of not doing enough would be you when you question LeMonds motives (although not its content!)

So, do you want LeMond to say more or less about the current state of the sport?

Wrong is wrong. It is however easier to overlook one type of doping if it doesn't affect YOUR results.

Wiggins is a good example of a rider who has said much more than LeMiond ever did during his career. The clinic has many posters who claim he doesn't say enough.

I don't care if LeMond says more or less about doping, Its up to him if he thinks it is important enough any more. I personally think he's close to achieving his original objective.

 

[Franklin]

Induration was very much noticed and considered the heir apparent for when Delgado stepped aside - however he did frustrate with his performances in the Vuelta. I always put that down to cracking under mental pressure, but YMMV.

In 1989 (the year he won P-N) Miguel fell and broke his wrist in the Vuelta. It makes his performance in that years TdF quite acceptable imho (A mountainstage, 17th GC)

But well, what do I know except devouring every cycling magazine and watching every minute on tv during the 80'ies

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Wrong is wrong. It is however easier to overlook one type of doping if it doesn't affect YOUR results.

Wiggins is a good example of a rider who has said much more than LeMiond ever did during his career. The clinic has many posters who claim he doesn't say enough.

I don't care if LeMond says more or less about doping, Its up to him if he thinks it is important enough any more.

Wiggins - when he was writing for the Guardian he was outspoken. Not that much anymore. Has Wiggins ever spoken about corruption?

"Many posters" well why don't you name just 5 and let them have the right to reply ( you can even "examine their motives") because you are painting with a pretty broad brush. I think you will find that people question Wiggins inconsistency on the issues.

However, you are questioning LeMonds motives - and that appears to based on its timing, not its content.

 

[131313]

The outspoken LeMond took quite a few years to find his feet, and it didn't happen before his legacy was threatened.

That of course is completely incorrect. First, I'm not sure what "threatened his legacy", since his palmares are what they are...but if you're referring to Armstrong's tour victories, he was very outspoken on the subject long before Lance won his first tour: http://www.roble.net/marquis/coaching/lemond98.html

Should he have been more outspoken while he was riding? Yes, maybe. I don't really know what exactly he knew and when he knew it. But to suggest he didn't start speaking out until his "legacy was threatened" is factually incorrect.

 

[Franklin]

I'm a bit at loss about this looking for motives. I can think of a few (just conjecture, but if you need reason, here are a few):

1. He wanted protect his friends. To all accounts he had a lot of international friends among the pro's (for example he went burger eating with Winnen it seems)
2. He didn't want to diminish Indurain's performance and thus seem a sore loser. I never heard him bash Miguel.
3. He loved the sport and hoped it cleaned up itself.
4. He saw that the later doping regimes were absolutely shameful, whereas in his day and age it was more naive/innocent. *Note that this is my own stance. I don't want to judge anybody, but what happened after 1994 was shameful. For me the sport lost it's beauty in 1994 (Gewiss).
5. There is Omerta and there is pure gangsterism. Perhaps he found his younger countryman more and more moving to the latter position (Again, mirroring my own position. Using Epo is one thing, threatening and controling the peloton is another.

Just a few reasons Lemond might have had. And that's without even trying.