LeMond I

[benzwire]

Not sure about HGH, but steroids have been popular in endurance sports since at least the early seventies. 1972 Decathlon champion Bruce Jenner transformed himself by use of steroids, or so said a close colleague of his.

I have a feeling if they tested Bruce "Kardashian" Jenner today, he would test positive for estrogen. The guy looks like he's turning into a chick.

 

[Maxiton]

While there's obviously an endurance component to it, decathlon on the whole really isn't an endurance event. If you remove the 1,500m the rest of the events are anaerobic and alactic in nature, just the sort of explosive stuff for which steroids were originally used.

Remember too that in the absence of medical professionals, cycling was a traditional sport. Steroids made you "big", or so they thought, and weight has always been an issue in cycling. Until doctors became involved it seems amphetamines, cortisone, other pain killers and narcotics were really the drugs of choice in various combinations and permutations. That stuff was supplied by team mechanics and soigneurs. Those guys really weren't on the cutting edge of doping.

I am aware of that ("Maxiton" was Anquetil's favorite brand of amphetamines), but didn't the bigger stars and teams have doctors even in the late sixties?

 

[ChrisE]

When has anyone said that it was impossible for LeMond to have possibly used testosterone, cortisone, ACTH...?

Listen to this guy.

One minute he is telling everybody to put me on ignore for questioning the GL myth, then next minute he is claiming nobody ever said GL was as clean as white snow. He has even done it himself, promoting the cleanliness of his brother in arms lol.

You guys with your ragtag band of victims and felons are funny. Keep up the good work.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Listen to this guy.

One minute he is telling everybody to put me on ignore for questioning the GL myth, then next minute he is claiming nobody ever said GL was as clean as white snow. He has even done it himself, promoting the cleanliness of his brother in arms lol.

You guys with your ragtag band of victims and felons are funny. Keep up the good work.

Hi Chris - there is a big difference from "questioning the GL myth" and people making wild baseless accusations that have been refuted or do not survive scrutiny.

Can you point out where someone said Greg is as "clean as white snow"? Or are you taking your Black & White arguments to new levels?

 

[Berzin]

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.

I'm not taking issue with this, but there has been no scientific proof that this is true. All we have to go on is what we see, which is an incredibly complex situation involving many facets.

First, we don't know who did what and in what amounts. The thing would be to compare doping regimens side-by-side, what Armstrong took vs. what his rivals did. This is impossible.

Second, the other issue that muddies the waters is Armstrong's relationship with the UCI. He was let off the hook for at least two doping offenses, but we don't know if he had carte blanche to dope to levels that would have tripped a positive if it were another rider. It could very well have been a case where he was allowed to take more dope than others because of not having the fear of getting caught.

Third, whatever the doping regimen was it worked better for him than anyone else. It's one thing to be Riis, who won only one Tour and was back to water carrier status the next year*.

But seven in a row from a rider who heretofore couldn't climb or time trial and became the best in the world at it, there had to be something else.

That non-compete contract with Dr. Ferrari remains the big mystery. If it ever becomes public what Armstrong's exact regimen was from Ferrari himself, it should shed some light on the whole "super responder" theory.

Then we would have a better idea as to how this pug became a Tour Juggernaut.

As it is right now all we can do is speculate.

*Let's keep in mind Riis' performances at the Tour fell off greatly after the EPO limit was set at 50%. Even at that level, he had a disastrous Tour in the process and couldn't even podium. Granted Ullrich was much stronger that year, but during the first mountain stage of the 1997 Tour Riis looked as if he were wearing a death mask. All things being equal, it seems he sorely missed those extra hematocrit points that enabled him to dominate the '96 Tour.

 

[patricknd]

I'm not taking issue with this, but there has been no scientific proof that this is true. All we have to go on is what we see, which is incredibly complex situation because we don't know who did what and in what amounts.

The first thing would be to compare doping regimens. What Armstrong took vs. what his rivals did. That is impossible.

Second, the other issue that muddies the waters is Armstrong's relationship with the UCI. He was let off the hook for at least two doping offenses, but we don't know if he had carte blanche to dope to levels that would have tripped a positive if it were another rider.

Third, whatever the doping regimen was it worked better for him than anyone else. It's one thing to be Riis, who won only one Tour and was back to water carrier status the next year, even having a disastrous Tour in the process.

But seven in a row from a rider who heretofore couldn't climb or time trial and became the best in the world at it, there had to be something else.
That non-compete contract with Dr. Ferrari remains the big mystery. If it ever becomes public what Armstrong's exact regimen was from Ferrari himself, it should shed some light on the whole "super responder" theory.

Then we would have a better idea as to how this pug became a Tour Juggernaut.

As it is right now all we can do is speculate.

a team put together for the single purpose of winning that race, the odd vuelta or giro victory being pretty much an afterthought.

 

[Tyler'sTwin]

I'm not taking issue with this, but there has been no scientific proof that this is true.

Of course there is! Just read some studies on the subject of blood doping and EPO doping.

 

[Berzin]

Of course there is! Just read some studies on the subject of blood doping and EPO doping.

What I'm trying to say there were too many other mitigating factors that make it impossible to ascertain if Armstrong's superiority was a matter of drug regimen vs. drug regimen.

 

[Maxiton]

I'm not taking issue with this, but there has been no scientific proof that this is true. All we have to go on is what we see, which is an incredibly complex situation involving many facets.

First, we don't know who did what and in what amounts. The thing would be to compare doping regimens side-by-side, what Armstrong took vs. what his rivals did. This is impossible.

Second, the other issue that muddies the waters is Armstrong's relationship with the UCI. He was let off the hook for at least two doping offenses, but we don't know if he had carte blanche to dope to levels that would have tripped a positive if it were another rider. It could very well have been a case where he was allowed to take more dope than others because of not having the fear of getting caught.

Third, whatever the doping regimen was it worked better for him than anyone else. It's one thing to be Riis, who won only one Tour and was back to water carrier status the next year*.

But seven in a row from a rider who heretofore couldn't climb or time trial and became the best in the world at it, there had to be something else.

That non-compete contract with Dr. Ferrari remains the big mystery. If it ever becomes public what Armstrong's exact regimen was from Ferrari himself, it should shed some light on the whole "super responder" theory.

Then we would have a better idea as to how this pug became a Tour Juggernaut.

As it is right now all we can do is speculate.

*Let's keep in mind Riis' performances at the Tour fell off greatly after the EPO limit was set at 50%. Even at that level, he had a disastrous Tour in the process and couldn't even podium. Granted Ullrich was much stronger that year, but during the first mountain stage of the 1997 Tour Riis looked as if he were wearing a death mask. All things being equal, it seems he sorely missed those extra hematocrit points that enabled him to dominate the '96 Tour.

To the bold: I think that may have played a big role in his success; knowing when tests would and wouldn't occur, or having them deferred. That alone could make all the difference. (Remember when he caught and passed Ulrich in the opening TT in 2005? That was a bit over the top, like he had extra gear . . .)

 

[thehog]

To the bold: I think that may have played a big role in his success; knowing when tests would and wouldn't occur, or having them deferred. That alone could make all the difference. (Remember when he caught and passed Ulrich in the opening TT in 2005? That was a bit over the top, like he had extra gear . . .)

I can't be bothered typing out the entire story but that year was crazy. He was on the scene with Crowe all year then he past Ullrich in the opening T.

Verbruggen made a point of testing him prior to his ride by walking him past the press guard before he rode (with enough time to use after the test). That's when the Sysmex story was spoken of by Hein. They must have known he was going to produce the ride of a lifetime.

 

[nslckevin]

To the bold: I think that may have played a big role in his success; knowing when tests would and wouldn't occur, or having them deferred. That alone could make all the difference. (Remember when he caught and passed Ulrich in the opening TT in 2005? That was a bit over the top, like he had extra gear . . .)

You are correct in that Armstrong embarrassed Ulrich in the 2005 Tour prologue. But your implications are completely out of context. Taking this as further "proof" of Armstrong's superior doping regime is bad logic. Ulrich wasn't even in the top 10 in that prologue. He was 12th. If you remember correctly (and I'm sure you do), Ulrich hit or got hit by a car during his prologue recon the day before. Here are the results from that stage to hopefully ad some context.

If Ulrich had placed 2nd or 3rd that day just over a minute behind Armstrong your argument would be stronger.

I think that the most definitive thing you can take from that prologue is that Ulrich had a very bad day.

This doesn't do anything to disprove your supposition that Armstrong was doping, but this story hardly does anything to prove it either.

Kevin Metcalfe
California

 

[ultimobici]

If you remember correctly (and I'm sure you do), Ulrich hit or got hit by a car during his prologue recon the day before.

He actually slid into the back of his own team car and went through the rear window. Hardly a good start to his Tour.
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/ullrich-and-pereiro-crash

T-Mobile captain Jan Ullrich has crashed into the rear window of the team car being driven by directeur sportif Mario Kummer on Friday during motor training. Ullrich slid into the back of the car which had hit the brakes hard on a slippery section of road. He suffered cuts and scratches, also one minor cut to his face, as the window broke on impact, but team doctor Lothar Heinrich said, "They are just surface wounds. They don't need to be stitched." Ullrich also confirmed, "I'm fine, it's not that bad."

 

[Maxiton]

You are correct in that Armstrong embarrassed Ulrich in the 2005 Tour prologue. But your implications are completely out of context. Taking this as further "proof" of Armstrong's superior doping regime is bad logic. Ulrich wasn't even in the top 10 in that prologue. He was 12th. If you remember correctly (and I'm sure you do), Ulrich hit or got hit by a car during his prologue recon the day before. Here are the results from that stage to hopefully ad some context.

If Ulrich had placed 2nd or 3rd that day just over a minute behind Armstrong your argument would be stronger.

I think that the most definitive thing you can take from that prologue is that Ulrich had a very bad day.

This doesn't do anything to disprove your supposition that Armstrong was doping, but this story hardly does anything to prove it either.

Kevin Metcalfe
California

I do remember correctly, and I am aware that outside the context of his TdF career, this TT alone would be a weak argument for an LA doping advantage. The problem for your point is that this time trial occurred squarely within the context of LA's TdF career - and seen in that light it's illustrative of LAs contrived advantage.

 

[Krebs cycle]

In fact I never said I knew if Lemond took testosterone, only I thought it less likely than him having done some cortisone. Regardless he was certainly not on a heavy and sophisticated PEDs program. In this sence, for me his Tours were legit.

Whereas I'm certain Indurain was on EPO and followed by a medic through and through, and I am absolutely certain Armstrong was on the most sophisticated and advanced doping program that money can by. Hence he is a fraud. At least Miguel wasn't a **** head, though.

You know when I read the inanities in your posts, I can help but think your on the LA payrole. Just pathetic.

I am not the one making assertions about Lemond. I am stating a known fact that the use of steroids was widespread in sports in the 80s and thus, it is entirely possible that pro-cyclists had caught on to the potential ergogenic effects, esp by the late 80s. What is pathetic is when armchair experts pretend to know the finer details of the doping programs of pro-cyclists who were competing 20yrs ago. Its ridiculous. You might actually be right, but you've got no proof whatsoever that Lemond was or was not using PEDs and yet here you are making claims that he "certainly" was not using PEDs in a sophisticated manner. Were you working as a team doctor or something at the time? Do you have a magic crystal ball? Conconi started using blood doping methods in the early 80s. The US olympic team was done for blood doping at the 84 Olympics. We still cannot detect that method properly even today and yet you are "certain" that nobody was using it at a time when there was absolutely no hope of detecting it? I am not claiming that they were or they weren't, I'm just stating that it is possible. At least some others have given valid reasons for their beliefs (eg: no witness testimony etc).

And I really don't know how you could possibly have missed the million posts that I have made condemning LA and still think I am on his payroll?

 

[yourwelcome]

And I really don't know how you could possibly have missed the million posts that I have made condemning LA and still think I am on his payroll?

You might be a long dormant sleeper plant from the enemy camp

 

[yourwelcome]

Let's keep in mind Riis' performances at the Tour fell off greatly after the EPO limit was set at 50%.

That's still litres of EPO coursing through their veins. What was the UCI thinking

 

[Krebs cycle]

You might be a long dormant sleeper plant from the enemy camp

lol well you know I have used EPO so at least I can identify with LA on that.

Re. Lemond's outspoken stance on anti-doping, I don't even care if he took them or not, I am loving the sh#t he has been dishing out to LA over the past few years. I am praying that after the TdF George Hincape will also spill the beans publicly. The more people that speak out and break the omerta the better the future of pro-cycling will be in the years to come.

 

[Maxiton]

That's still litres of EPO coursing through their veins. What was the UCI thinking

They were thinking, whatever these guys want to take is okay with us, but we can't have anymore dead cyclists. Bad for business.

 

[Franklin]

I am aware of that ("Maxiton" was Anquetil's favorite brand of amphetamines), but didn't the bigger stars and teams have doctors even in the late sixties?

Short answer:Not really.

Long answer: Until at least the late eighties riders depended on their soigneur. For instance Peter Winnen had Jomme who had a "special" suitcase for the really hard days.

Also, if you look at Festina, Voet hardly seems a very sophisicated medical pro

Cycling has always been a bit hillbilly incestuous. This can be seen by the riders becoming managers etc.

 

[Franklin]

I'm a bit with Krebs on this one, sometimes this crowd is so pro-Lemond that you can't ask an open question. This is understandable due to the inate Lance-Agit-prop, but still it makes posting sometimes grating.

As a European I once had the audacity to wonder about the infamous iron shot. I got savaged.

Just yet I touched on the Indurain-Lemond myth. I still get slammed. Even if you point out that Indurain was Heir-apparent, Joe keeps on saying that he was a bottle fetcher and in no way seen as a future contender. This is ridiculous, but there you have it.

I normally don't even dare to point out the balance sheet on Lemond, but let's do it:

Con.

1. He rode for doping teams (there were no other, so hard to avoid)
2. He had some odd intervals training in the US and coming back stronger. This was widely discussed in the magazines and was seen as a profesional, new way of training. (and for god's sake, can't the guy just visit his family?)
3. He was not outspoken on the issue (see my earlier post for motivators)
4. The iron shot was weird. In fact, his Giro-TdF run up is a mirror of Jan Ulrich in 2006. (At least on the surface)
5. Depending on he timeline, his second rise coincided with Epo introduction (highly unlikely!)

Above are no proof whatsoever. In fact they all have very logical non-doping explanations.


Pro.

1. He left PDM
2. He never has been associated with doping, even with a huge bounty for info
3. He never tested positive (but many dopers of that age didn't test positive)
4. Depending on the (more likely!) timeline: He faded when Epo was introduced.

Above are not proof either, but especially the second is a really strong point.

I'm not a Lance agent for pointing out the first points.

And for the record: Anything Greg says can be false. Sportsmen are used to dodge their dope usage. I believe Greg... but the word of a pro cyclist is not worth the paper it's written on.

 

[Maxiton]

Short answer:Not really.

Long answer: Until at least the late eighties riders depended on their soigneur. For instance Peter Winnen had Jomme who had a "special" suitcase for the really hard days.

Also, if you look at Festina, Voet hardly seems a very sophisicated medical pro

Cycling has always been a bit hillbilly incestuous. This can be seen by the riders becoming managers etc.

Actually, mine was more of a rhetorical question. There definitely were team doctors on the major teams in the late sixties. For instance, the doctor on Faema was Enrico Peracino. And he was by no means an anomaly.

As far as the Lemond iron shots, I have questioned that, as well, and while I still think there may have been something to it, a convincing argument against its having been doping was made here recently.

It does seem unbelievable that any top rider of that (or any) era was totally clean, but for me a convincing arument in favor of Lemond is that, as I said earlier, if he was accustomed to doping already he'd have been on EPO faster than you can say LA; but instead he got dropped and retired.

 

[Race Radio]

The Iron shot story is comical.

Greg comes downstairs to the hotel lobby for an interview. He starts off the interview by complaining about having to take an iron shot. He talks about how he hates needles, not just because they hurt but also because what they represent in the sport. The doping side of the sport he wants no part of.

How does Greg voluntary telling a reporter that he had to take an iron shot suddenly become evidence that Greg is a doper? Simple, it was part of an organized smear campaign.

 

[Maxiton]

The Iron shot story is comical.

Greg comes downstairs to the hotel lobby for an interview. He starts off the interview by complaining about having to take an iron shot. He talks about how he hates needles, not just because they hurt but also because what they represent in the sport. The doping side of the sport he wants no part of.

How does Greg voluntary telling a reporter that he had to take an iron shot suddenly become evidence that Greg is a doper? Simple, it was part of an organized smear campaign.

Actually, I read about it in a cycling magazine - Cycle Sport, maybe, or maybe it was an article contemporaneous with the Giro where this occurred - but in any case the article definitely wasn't casting aspersions on Lemond.

I think we've been over this before. For me the bottom line is that he was probably clean or mostly clean, which is saying a lot given the context.

 

[Franklin]

The Iron shot story is comical.

Greg comes downstairs to the hotel lobby for an interview. He starts off the interview by complaining about having to take an iron shot. He talks about how he hates needles, not just because they hurt but also because what they represent in the sport. The doping side of the sport he wants no part of.

How does Greg voluntary telling a reporter that he had to take an iron shot suddenly become evidence that Greg is a doper? Simple, it was part of an organized smear campaign.

I agree, there is no need for much rehashing, it would be extremely special if he was announcing his own doping attempt

The weird part is more that AFAIK the iron shot itself is rather dubious (the need/effect are disputed). But that only reinforces that Greg wasn't using sophisticated medical support.

 

[rhubroma]

I am not the one making assertions about Lemond. I am stating a known fact that the use of steroids was widespread in sports in the 80s and thus, it is entirely possible that pro-cyclists had caught on to the potential ergogenic effects, esp by the late 80s. What is pathetic is when armchair experts pretend to know the finer details of the doping programs of pro-cyclists who were competing 20yrs ago. Its ridiculous. You might actually be right, but you've got no proof whatsoever that Lemond was or was not using PEDs and yet here you are making claims that he "certainly" was not using PEDs in a sophisticated manner. Were you working as a team doctor or something at the time? Do you have a magic crystal ball? Conconi started using blood doping methods in the early 80s. The US olympic team was done for blood doping at the 84 Olympics. We still cannot detect that method properly even today and yet you are "certain" that nobody was using it at a time when there was absolutely no hope of detecting it? I am not claiming that they were or they weren't, I'm just stating that it is possible. At least some others have given valid reasons for their beliefs (eg: no witness testimony etc).

And I really don't know how you could possibly have missed the million posts that I have made condemning LA and still think I am on his payroll?

No, didn't see those millions of posts. At any rate I was admitedly crass at the end of my last post, so never a dignified behavior. Accept my gentleman's apologies.

I get your points, though. I'm well aware about the legacy of Conconi and I'm not that badly informed about the doping coctails used back in the 80's, before EPO hit the peloton widespread and uped the stakes of the arms race.

True, blood doping was already developed by the 68 Rome Olympics, and it has been argued that the 84 US Olympics cycling team was doing it, as can perhaps be inferred by their better than expected results. The 80's were probably like the incubating period, during which for the first time by the late decade the science of doping began to corroborate fully with a business-medical phenomenon within the specialized team doctors and physiologists-trainers, in ways that consolidated their effectiveness and released their potential, thus paving the way for the "perfected system" that dominated the teams and the sport in the 90's and 2000's. Unfortunately it also increased the market aspect of doping, which led to the cycling at two speeds: one for the high paid athletes, who could afford the best doctors, treatments and drugs, and one for the average earners who pretty much had to learn it in the garage with an inferior package. Or else rely on the generosity of the team bosses to distribute the "lunch bags" - nice little pre-Tour presents - to keep their engines at least valid enough to help the team leader. All of this made doping quite more decisive than before.

In the 80's however much experimental activity and innovation in this regard, while very effective in some cases (Conconi, being perhaps the leading ground-breaker in this case), was still in the fetal state, which then gave birth to the monster afterwards. In any case, if the methods were already good then, EPO in its various stages, new generation HGH and other ways to beat the tests, put what came after on a whole other level. Then a guy like Lance comes along, and we arrive at a perfect match between system, market and athlete in the mendacity of it all.

Does this mean Greg was doing all the things available during his career? That he wasn't? Given the omertà back then, just as today, it seems we can't know. However over the years I have never heard from various people that I have met in the business, or that personally know him (knew him as a rider, raced against him) that say Greg was a big-time dirty rider. Not one. For this reason I'm comfortable with suspending my own natural suspicion and concede that perhaps they are right. That he never took anything, ever, probably not, given the environment. That he, however, blood doped, used heavy doses of steroids, testosterone, HGH: no, I don’t think so. Whereas about other riders of that generation like Theunisse, Rookes, Argentin to name but a few, one can't exactly say their laundry was very clean, from what goes around in the cycling grapevine anyway (for those who have followed the sport long enough).

Still what Lance was up to, was far, far more sophisticated and fraudulent (because it transformed a mediocre climber and and average time trialist at the Tour, into the Grand Boucle's greatest champion: while having the UCI in his pocket) than anything happening in the Lemond era.