LeMond I

[rhubroma]

I'm huge fan of LeMond even though I read his book and watched his races well after they happened. I've read a ton of interviews he's given as well. Without question, I think his memory has changed a bit over time and I think he gives the weight of EPO more import on his demise than he did at the time, or than it actually deserves. If one needs proof they can simply look at the '91 Tour. He was within a few seconds of Hampsten, whom pretty much everyone regards as a clean rider. No offense to Hampsten but there's simply no comparison between pre-gunshot LeMond and Hampsten.

He was never the same rider after the accident, and in his own words there wasn't a drug available that would have helped him. Two questions that no one will ever know is how a healthy LeMond would have done against the products of Conconi et al, and how tempted would a healthy LeMond have been to start using EPO. It was easy to understand getting beaten given his own health issues, and the drugs just confounded the issue. If he hadn't gotten shot though and the peloton suddenly started moving at an incredible pace, who knows what he'd have done.

The Oliver Starr stuff is interesting. His view that LeMond was "cheating" by using aero bars, along with his "LeMond should just shut up" refrain seem telling to me.

Your last comment is intriguing. Care to elaborate?

 

[JRTinMA]

I'm huge fan of LeMond even though I read his book and watched his races well after they happened. I've read a ton of interviews he's given as well. Without question, I think his memory has changed a bit over time and I think he gives the weight of EPO more import on his demise than he did at the time, or than it actually deserves. If one needs proof they can simply look at the '91 Tour. He was within a few seconds of Hampsten, whom pretty much everyone regards as a clean rider. No offense to Hampsten but there's simply no comparison between pre-gunshot LeMond and Hampsten.

He was never the same rider after the accident, and in his own words there wasn't a drug available that would have helped him. Two questions that no one will ever know is how a healthy LeMond would have done against the products of Conconi et al, and how tempted would a healthy LeMond have been to start using EPO. It was easy to understand getting beaten given his own health issues, and the drugs just confounded the issue. If he hadn't gotten shot though and the peloton suddenly started moving at an incredible pace, who knows what he'd have done.

The Oliver Starr stuff is interesting. His view that LeMond was "cheating" by using aero bars, along with his "LeMond should just shut up" refrain seem telling to me.

There is some irony in the fact that Starr comes across jealous and bitter.

 

[Franklin]

Forget Fignon - the big loser was Delgado who missed the start of the prologue and then to compound matters he attacked in the next days split stage and paid for it later by getting dropped in the afternoon TTT.
.

I always thought that being so far behind gave Delgado more freedom. In other words... another "what if".

But yes, 1984 and 1989 were the mos memorable TdF's I ever saw. Shortly after that I would rank 1983. But that's just me

And the really amusing thing is I was rooting for Bernard in 84, 85 and 86 (I know, bad boy Bernard^^)

 

[red_flanders]

I always thought that being so far behind gave Delgado more freedom. In other words... another "what if".

No question.

 

[Franklin]

It does add to the 89 TdF's charm... An 8 second superdrama, technological ploys and another contender who mathematically lost the TdF by being over-concentrated and thus having the craziest TdF start ever.

I still remember Pedro blasting (in yellow!) through the prologue while every commentator was bellowing their disbelief.

Another fun fact: They all three won a GT that year.

 

[ultimobici]

Well, as much as I miss Laurent, he was not the time trialist Greg was, nor the climber when both were at peak levels. He was more brazen. Hinault said Greg road too conservatively (well it was more like "without balls"). He wasn't French, or even European, at a time in which, sometimes, his "Americanness" was a handicap in the sly and grown-up Euro world. Lance played the game much better, without the same (natural) physical prowess. This has always been my point.

Fignon not the time trialist that Lemond was? What are you smoking?
1984 - Final TT despite using non aero kit compared to Moser & Gisiger (Double GP des Nations Champion) he place second to Moser alone.
1989 Giro & Tour - Lemond wins most but Fignon is there in the top 10 in all of them bar one, IIRC. More importantly is the fact that Fignon was having to contend with a saddle sore in Paris. No amount of aero wizardry would have sorted that. If you can't sit still you're stuffed.

 

[rhubroma]

Fignon not the time trialist that Lemond was? What are you smoking?
1984 - Final TT despite using non aero kit compared to Moser & Gisiger (Double GP des Nations Champion) he place second to Moser alone.
1989 Giro & Tour - Lemond wins most but Fignon is there in the top 10 in all of them bar one, IIRC. More importantly is the fact that Fignon was having to contend with a saddle sore in Paris. No amount of aero wizardry would have sorted that. If you can't sit still you're stuffed.

Smoking? Nothing. Ok, but what about the 86 and 89 Tours. And don't tell me it was all due to aerobars. The saddle soar aside, Greg won the first, long, time trial of the 89 event and in 86 Laurent was nowhere.

In any case Laurent was legendary. If he was indeed better than Greg, then no better.

 

[Krebs cycle]

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.

snip

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.

To be honest, I'm inclined to believe that Lemond was clean (or relatively clean) because, amongst other things which some of you have highlighted here, he apparently had a VO2max of 92. Even if this was tested whilst xc skiing it still represents one of the highest ever VO2max scores ever recorded, and would only be marginally lower in cycling (high 80s). I agree that such an advantage would have allowed him to compete clean against doped riders prior to the EPO era, but less likely afterwards. But frankly, I don't really care if he did or didn't, I care more about the fact that he is campaigning in favor of anti-doping in the present day.

Regarding LA, of course the doping transformed him. The EPO era transformed everyone. I agree that it is reasonable to assume that USPS had the best doping program money can buy, but I think too many people on this forum place too much emphasis on things which essentially remain unknown ie: firstly, whether or not many other riders and teams also had access to the best doping program money can buy (IMO they did based on what was uncovered in the Festina affair and the fact that prior to the bio-passport, blood manipulation remained a relatively simple task for any team doctor or even an appropriately trained soigneur), and secondly, exactly how much of a performance improvement LA experienced as result of doping compared to his rivals. This is a vitally important point. Many, if not all, of his rivals were also doping and also experiencing performance gains.

A general theme in the clinic is that it is assumed that LA was only ever an average pro level cyclist with corresponding average (pro level cyclist) physiology, capable of winning one day classics, but not a GT, and thus he must have had a far greater physiological response to PEDs and corresponding performance enhancement than any of his rivals who were above average and thus considered "real GT contenders". To follow this line of reasoning you must then invoke statistically highly improbable events. As stated earlier, EPO doping has been shown to increase PPO by about 10-15%, but LA would have required more like a 25-30% increase to achieve a higher PPO than a rival who started from an above average position to begin with. Increases of this magnitude have not been observed in published studies of EPO doping and represents roughly a 1 in 10000 chance. I am basing these figures on published data, they are not pie in the sky made up numbers.

According to statistics, it is more logical to assume that LA was an above average pro-level cyclist to begin with, had an above average PED enhancement (but not 1 in 10000), and according to what we know about him personally, do a whole lot of other stuff really precisely like pay off the UCI, eat, sleep, train, avoid injury and illness. Consistent with this point of view is that riders with average (pro level cyclist) physiology to begin with, would rarely even win one day classics and especially not when they are still young and developing.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

To be honest, I'm inclined to believe that Lemond was clean (or relatively clean) because, amongst other things which some of you have highlighted here, he apparently had a VO2max of 92. Even if this was tested whilst xc skiing it still represents one of the highest ever VO2max scores ever recorded, and would only be marginally lower in cycling (high 80s). I agree that such an advantage would have allowed him to compete clean against doped riders prior to the EPO era, but less likely afterwards. But frankly, I don't really care if he did or didn't, I care more about the fact that he is campaigning in favor of anti-doping in the present day.

Regarding LA, of course the doping transformed him. The EPO era transformed everyone. I agree that it is reasonable to assume that USPS had the best doping program money can buy, but I think too many people on this forum place too much emphasis on things which essentially remain unknown ie:firstly, whether or not many other riders and teams also had access to the best doping program money can buy (IMO they did based on what was uncovered in the Festina affair and the fact that prior to the bio-passport, blood manipulation remained a relatively simple task for any team doctor or even an appropriately trained soigneur), and secondly, exactly how much of a performance improvement LA experienced as result of doping compared to his rivals. This is a vitally important point. Many, if not all, of his rivals were also doping and also experiencing performance gains.

"Regarding LA....." - why?

USPS did not have the best doping, Armstrong had the best Doctor.
You say the forum places too much emphasis on the "unknown" yet you mention Festina and ignore that they placed a limit of 55% HCT and that they gave their Doctor the name Doctor Punto.

A general theme in the clinic is that it is assumed that LA was only ever an average pro level cyclist with corresponding average (pro level cyclist) physiology, capable of winning one day classics, but not a GT, and thus he must have had a far greater physiological response to PEDs and corresponding performance enhancement than any of his rivals who were above average and thus considered "real GT contenders". To follow this line of reasoning you must then invoke statistically highly improbable events. As stated earlier, EPO doping has been shown to increase PPO by about 10-15%, but LA would have required more like a 25-30% increase to achieve a higher PPO than a rival who started from an above average position to begin with. Increases of this magnitude have not been observed in published studies of EPO doping and represents roughly a 1 in 10000 chance. I am basing these figures on published data, they are not pie in the sky made up numbers.

According to statistics, it is more logical to assume that LA was an above average pro-level cyclist to begin with, had an above average PED enhancement (but not 1 in 10000), and according to what we know about him personally, do a whole lot of other stuff really precisely like pay off the UCI, eat, sleep, train, avoid injury and illness. Consistent with this point of view is that riders with average (pro level cyclist) physiology to begin with, would rarely even win one day classics and especially not when they are still young and developing.

A general theme in your posts is to generalize a theme and generally apply that generously to everyone.

Case in point - "it is assumed that LA was only ever an average pro level cyclist"
Really? Assumed by whom? You?
If that is the start of your data point then it does not really matter what criteria you use after, the result will always be flawed.

 

[Krebs cycle]

"Regarding LA....." - why?

USPS did not have the best doping, Armstrong had the best Doctor.
You say the forum places too much emphasis on the "unknown" yet you mention Festina and ignore that they placed a limit of 55% HCT and that they gave their Doctor the name Doctor Punto.

But that is the point though isn't it? It is essentially unknown as to exactly what PED cocktails and what dosages etc etc were being taken, but what IS known from the Festina affair example (and other writings of journalists and confessions of former riders) is that systematic and sophisticated doping programs were in effect by teams and riders other than USPS and LA in the late 90s. And besides lots of others had the same doctor, and how do you know what difference it made if you worked with Ferrari vs Fuentes vs some other team doctor?

Maybe you could respond to all the questions I have raised regarding the unlikeliness of such a massive performance improvement beyond what anyone else could possibly have achieved. The only answers that anyone has come up with require invoking something that is completely unknown ie: the actual response to the PEDs.

A general theme in your posts is to generalize a theme and generally apply that generously to everyone.

Case in point - "it is assumed that LA was only ever an average pro level cyclist"
Really? Assumed by whom? You?
If that is the start of your data point then it does not really matter what criteria you use after, the result will always be flawed.

Yes, quite true, a general theme in my posts is to the take the results of physiological testing and research studies on humans and elite cyclists and make a realistic generalization to other humans whom are elite cyclists. The whole reason I am taking this approach is BECAUSE it remains unknown exactly how much LA improved as a result of doping versus how much his rivals improved as a result of doping.

I am limiting that generalization to within the bounds of realistic statistical probability. It is others who are invoking nearly impossible probabilities in order to maintain their position. I am not going to go back and waste time scouring the thread pages to find out exactly who said LA was average, or a donkey or couldn't climb or TT or whatever. And besides, if people aren't suggesting that he was destined to forever be an average GT rider, then why such opposition to my posts?

 

[Dr. Maserati]

But that is the point though isn't it? It is essentially unknown as to exactly what PED cocktails and what dosages etc etc were being taken, but what IS known from the Festina affair example (and other writings of journalists and confessions of former riders) is that systematic and sophisticated doping programs were in effect by teams and riders other than USPS and LA in the late 90s. And besides lots of others had the same doctor, and how do you know what difference it made if you worked with Ferrari vs Fuentes vs some other team doctor?

Maybe you could respond to all the questions I have raised regarding the unlikeliness of such a massive performance improvement beyond what anyone else could possibly have achieved. The only answers that anyone has come up with require invoking something that is completely unknown ie: the actual response to the PEDs.


Yes, quite true, a general theme in my posts is to the take the results of physiological testing and research studies on humans and elite cyclists and make a realistic generalization to other humans whom are elite cyclists. The whole reason I am taking this approach is BECAUSE it remains unknown exactly how much LA improved as a result of doping versus how much his rivals improved as a result of doping.

I am limiting that generalization to within the bounds of realistic statistical probability. It is others who are invoking nearly impossible probabilities in order to maintain their position. I am not going to go back and waste time scouring the thread pages to find out exactly who said LA was average, or a donkey or couldn't climb or TT or whatever. And besides, if people aren't suggesting that he destined to forever be an average GT rider, then why such opposition to my posts?

Because you are suggesting he "forever be an average GT rider" -
find the people who suggested that and then bring your magnificent theory to them, (preferably by PM) and when it is finished let the rest of know how you got on with it.

 

[Krebs cycle]

Regarding the 55% hct and nickname Dr Punto (which I assume means that he liked poking people with needles), what relevance does that have?

It supports my contention that it didn't really matter if you paid the big bucks for the best doctor, anyone with a rudimentary knowledge and a couple of seasons of practice could prescribe the correct doses of EPO in order to get the hct up to 50 or even 55%

 

[Krebs cycle]

Because you are suggesting he "forever be an average GT rider" -
find the people who suggested that and then bring your magnificent theory to them, (preferably by PM) and when it is finished let the rest of know how you got on with it.

Please doc, read my posts carefully. From the very beginning, I suggested that LA was an outstanding junior talent and who likely would have been a cycling champion in the absence of doping. This was met with a barrage of opposition from numerous people. I can only assume that those people misinterpreted the statement as meaning that I think LA could have won a GT clean at the height of the doping era. This is incorrect and I don't believe that at all.

 

[TechnicalDescent]

Please doc, read my posts carefully. From the very beginning, I suggested that LA was an above average rider even in the absence of doping. This was met with a barrage of opposition from numerous people. I can only assume that those people misinterpreted the statement as meaning that I think LA could have won a GT clean at the height of the doping era. This is incorrect and I don't believe that at all.

Interesting debate. It's true that Armstrong started his career when GC riders were taking industrial amounts of EPO, so it's unclear what his abilities would have been in a clean peloton.

As for Ferrari, Armstrong seemed to like him in particular because he was quite conservative compared to other doping doctors, who would take risks that led to positives. Ferrari knew how to stay inside the line, and combined it with a very good coaching and training knowledge, making him this all inclusive figure. But his doping methods were fairly rudementary and standard throughout the teams - blood transfusions, micro dosing and testosterone. Landis says there was nothing exotic about what they took. Landis himself says he took the same drugs for all of his TdF's, in the same amounts apart from his first tour. The difference was only in how he rode them.

Incidentally, it's funny to read the letter from the USADA talking about how Ferrari had perfected a way of administering oral testosterone through mixing it with olive oil. In fact that's been around since the 1980s - it's called Andriol.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Regarding the 55% hct and nickname Dr Punto (which I assume means that he liked poking people with needles), what relevance does that have?

It supports my contention that it didn't really matter if you paid the big bucks for the best doctor, anyone with a rudimentary knowledge and a couple of seasons of practice could prescribe the correct doses of EPO in order to get the hct up to 50 or even 55%

Ok, in the first paragraph you ask what is its relevance and obviously have no idea about Festina.
Then in the very next line say it supports your contention??

Do a search here for Punto under my name and it explains it - if you wish to continue the 'theory' tag it on to one of those threads.

Please doc, read my posts carefully. From the very beginning, I suggested that LA was an outstanding junior talent and who likely would have been a cycling champion in the absence of doping. This was met with a barrage of opposition from numerous people. I can only assume that those people misinterpreted the statement as meaning that I think LA could have won a GT clean at the height of the doping era. This is incorrect and I don't believe that at all.

No - you assumed LA could win a Tour clean in a clean peloton (here is your quote);
"What I am speculating is that Lance had the natural goods to be a tour winner IF cycling were a clean sport. I think he likely would have been a high finisher and maybe even a podium placer if he were clean and his rivals doped"

I objected to that, but stated that he could have finished top 10, every point you have tried to make since starts with an average Pro twist - which I (and pretty much everyone else here) do not agree with.

 

[BotanyBay]

The Oliver Starr stuff is interesting. His view that LeMond was "cheating" by using aero bars, along with his "LeMond should just shut up" refrain seem telling to me.

I was surprised that Tilford and his friends did not put Starr in his place. Thankfully, Steve did answer my question about what Lemond was really like as a developing rider. The answer? Best rider he'd ever had the pleasure to witness, hands-down. Starr had no business trying to hitch his wagon to Lemond's. The two were by no means "contemporaries". Starr was from the generation of post '84 pros who simply turned pro because they could afford six hundred bucks to take out the pro license. He wasn't of the 7/11 caliber. He was talented, but his best result ever as a pro roadie was a top ten at Philly.

 

[ultimobici]

Please doc, read my posts carefully. From the very beginning, I suggested that LA was an outstanding junior talent and who likely would have been a cycling champion in the absence of doping. This was met with a barrage of opposition from numerous people. I can only assume that those people misinterpreted the statement as meaning that I think LA could have won a GT clean at the height of the doping era. This is incorrect and I don't believe that at all.

Dr Punto was actually a reference to him being a cut price option.

 

[rhubroma]

To be honest, I'm inclined to believe that Lemond was clean (or relatively clean) because, amongst other things which some of you have highlighted here, he apparently had a VO2max of 92. Even if this was tested whilst xc skiing it still represents one of the highest ever VO2max scores ever recorded, and would only be marginally lower in cycling (high 80s). I agree that such an advantage would have allowed him to compete clean against doped riders prior to the EPO era, but less likely afterwards. But frankly, I don't really care if he did or didn't, I care more about the fact that he is campaigning in favor of anti-doping in the present day.

Regarding LA, of course the doping transformed him. The EPO era transformed everyone. I agree that it is reasonable to assume that USPS had the best doping program money can buy, but I think too many people on this forum place too much emphasis on things which essentially remain unknown ie: firstly, whether or not many other riders and teams also had access to the best doping program money can buy (IMO they did based on what was uncovered in the Festina affair and the fact that prior to the bio-passport, blood manipulation remained a relatively simple task for any team doctor or even an appropriately trained soigneur), and secondly, exactly how much of a performance improvement LA experienced as result of doping compared to his rivals. This is a vitally important point. Many, if not all, of his rivals were also doping and also experiencing performance gains.

A general theme in the clinic is that it is assumed that LA was only ever an average pro level cyclist with corresponding average (pro level cyclist) physiology, capable of winning one day classics, but not a GT, and thus he must have had a far greater physiological response to PEDs and corresponding performance enhancement than any of his rivals who were above average and thus considered "real GT contenders". To follow this line of reasoning you must then invoke statistically highly improbable events. As stated earlier, EPO doping has been shown to increase PPO by about 10-15%, but LA would have required more like a 25-30% increase to achieve a higher PPO than a rival who started from an above average position to begin with. Increases of this magnitude have not been observed in published studies of EPO doping and represents roughly a 1 in 10000 chance. I am basing these figures on published data, they are not pie in the sky made up numbers.

According to statistics, it is more logical to assume that LA was an above average pro-level cyclist to begin with, had an above average PED enhancement (but not 1 in 10000), and according to what we know about him personally, do a whole lot of other stuff really precisely like pay off the UCI, eat, sleep, train, avoid injury and illness. Consistent with this point of view is that riders with average (pro level cyclist) physiology to begin with, would rarely even win one day classics and especially not when they are still young and developing.

You'll need to post such statistics for mere mortals like myself to be able to have any basis to further this critical discussion.

At any rate statistics (especially in nebulous cases like this) are all in the interpretation, which means one always should approach them with a level of doubt if not skepticism, as much as the scientists attempt to provide us with infallible interpretations. And I'm no expert, are you? I'm just asking.

It is generally believed, however, that Lance paid the best guy in the business to work exclusively with himself, that he may have even had precocious and independent access to state of the art blood boosters and other pharmaceuticals, also in light of his former cancer, that he had preferential treatment at the UCI, that his response to the program was stellar and that, yes, he worked his a$$ off to perpetuate the lie (both on the bike and off), while not at times refraining from brutality to keep the facade standing.

At the same time what you "sniped" from my previous post, to which you responded with this critical analysis, is, in my humble opinion, most essential to what I had said: namely, that Armstrong exploited the market value of doping to the maximum, certainly more than his rivals or anyone before or since, then merged it with every possible form of coercion and tactic to build the greatest blockbuster of a success scam the two-wheeled sport has ever witnessed.

Another point, which nobody here seems to have considered, is that he concentrated all of his focus, energies and illicit behavior on one race alone; thereby concentrating the effectiveness of his mission and releasing its potential. Again more than any other athlete in the history of the sport.

Final point: Armstrong was the most successful doper and con artist the sport has ever known. At least, I hope, we can agree on this. On the sheer statistics of his Tour victories and on the basis of the quantity of his personal monetary gains. It was certainly viewed as a trade-off by the cycling leadership: let Pharmstrong have his reign, and we reap the benefits of tapping into his fame across the ocean for all it’s worth. In this he was truly remarkable, before cancer on the bike though decidedly less. Hence the results of his transformation, however abstract in the physiological sense, or statistically difficult to measure, as doping enterprise, as a colossal (fraudulent) success, were simply earth shattering in a devious manner.

Unfortunately the true caliber of his physical prowess, will always remain a mystery, tainted as it was by sustained doping, and was undoubtedly enhanced in a totally exaggerated way. His grand tour stature pre-cancer and the Livestrong transformation that followed demonstrates this.

 

[Krebs cycle]

Ok, in the first paragraph you ask what is its relevance and obviously have no idea about Festina.
Then in the very next line say it supports your contention??

Do a search here for Punto under my name and it explains it - if you wish to continue the 'theory' tag it on to one of those threads.

I did as you asked but I still don't understand the point you are trying to make by referring to Doctor Eric Rijkaert. His wikipedia entry says he was introduced to pro-cycling by Conconi and Ferrari which would seem to indicate exactly what I have been saying, ie: other doctors could have learnt the trade either by themselves or from Conconi and Ferrari directly and thus in the late 90s through mid 2000s, you didn't need to work with Ferrari to gain the benefits that PEDs had to offer.

You're saying that he didn't let his riders go above 54% whereas you posted a list showing many of Ferrari's clients with values higher than that. This raises several questions. 1) If Ferrari was such a magician, then why were none of those riders on his list multiple TdF winners or even podium placers? Only Riis won, and he only did it once. 2) What difference does that make after the UCI 50% rule was introduced? and 3) how much performance enhancement can be gained from increasing your hct from 55% to 60%?

Regarding the last point #3 there, you surely do understand that haemoglobin mass is what determines oxygen carrying capacity and that you can increase you hct from 55% to 59% in a matter or hrs by going for a bike ride on a hot day? Conversely you can decrease it with a plasma volume expander. Furthermore, I mentioned in another post that above 55% the ergogenic effects begin to diminish because the viscosity of blood increases which increases the work on the heart.

No - you assumed LA could win a Tour clean in a clean peloton (here is your quote);
"What I am speculating is that Lance had the natural goods to be a tour winner IF cycling were a clean sport. I think he likely would have been a high finisher and maybe even a podium placer if he were clean and his rivals doped"

I objected to that, but stated that he could have finished top 10, every point you have tried to make since starts with an average Pro twist - which I (and pretty much everyone else here) do not agree with.

That is fine, but like I said already, we are almost in agreement. You say top 10, but that makes only 9 people at most that he would need to beat to become a winner. I think training and overall preparation make a far bigger difference than the PEDs.

The average pro twist was only ever in response to others who said he was average. I then responded by saying "if he were average, then that would imply unlikely probability of response yada yada"

 

[andy1234]

"Regarding LA....." - why?

USPS did not have the best doping, Armstrong had the best Doctor.
You say the forum places too much emphasis on the "unknown" yet you mention Festina and ignore that they placed a limit of 55% HCT and that they gave their Doctor the name Doctor Punto.




A general theme in your posts is to generalize a theme and generally apply that generously to everyone.

Case in point - "it is assumed that LA was only ever an average pro level cyclist"
Really? Assumed by whom? You?
If that is the start of your data point then it does not really matter what criteria you use after, the result will always be flawed.

Dr Mas, you are not "the clinic" or it's guardian, stick to defending references made to you personally. Everyone else is capable of defending themselves.

Anyone who has been in the clinic for more than 5 minutes knows that many posters have claimed Armstrong to be an average rider and even a donkey.
If you never made this claim, then don't defend it.
If you're not sure how many people have made the claim, research it yourself.

Verifying every component of every sentence is a good tactic for stalling a discussion, so you turn any discussion you are challenging into a lesson in pedantry. If you feel incapable of continuing the discussion until you are in full possession of these facts, fair enough, but I hope you don't mind if the discussion moves on without you.

When most people ask the time, they want the time, not a description of how a watch works.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

I did as you asked but I still don't understand the point you are trying to make by referring to Doctor Eric Rijkaert.

Great, so you understand the Punto reference and you read all about Festina, I assume you read Voets book.......

His wikipedia entry says he was introduced to pro-cycling by Conconi and Ferrari which would seem to indicate exactly what I have been saying, ie: other doctors could have learnt the trade either by themselves or from Conconi and Ferrari directly and thus in the late 90s through mid 2000s, you didn't need to work with Ferrari to gain the benefits that PEDs had to offer.

.....you checked his wiki.
Not only that, you even manage to misinterpret the Ferrari/Conconi reference where it says:
"Rijkaert was active in cycling when EPO was being introduced to the professional peloton by doctors such as Francesco Conconi and his former assistant Michele Ferrari."

You're saying that he didn't let his riders go above 54% whereas you posted a list showing many of Ferrari's clients with values higher than that. This raises several questions. 1) If Ferrari was such a magician, then why were none of those riders on his list multiple TdF winners or even podium placers? Only Riis won, and he only did it once. 2) What difference does that make after the UCI 50% rule was introduced? and 3) how much performance enhancement can be gained from increasing your hct from 55% to 60%?

Regarding the last point #3 there, you surely do understand that haemoglobin mass is what determines oxygen carrying capacity and that you can increase you hct from 55% to 59% in a matter or hrs by going for a bike ride on a hot day? Conversely you can decrease it with a plasma volume expander. Furthermore, I mentioned in another post that above 55% the ergogenic effects begin to diminish because the viscosity of blood increases which increases the work on the heart.


That is fine, but like I said already, we are almost in agreement. You say top 10, but that makes only 9 people at most that he would need to beat to become a winner. I think training and overall preparation make a far bigger difference than the PEDs.

The average pro twist was only ever in response to others who said he was average. I then responded by saying "if he were average, then that would imply unlikely probability of response yada yada"

No, you are the one who continues the 'average pro' stuff - which is why you end up with yada yada.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Dr Mas, you are not "the clinic" or it's guardian, stick to defending references made to you personally. Everyone else is capable of defending themselves.

Hi Andy,
How are (unnamed) people to defend themselves from a straw man arguement?

Anyone who has been in the clinic for more than 5 minutes knows that many posters have claimed Armstrong to be an average rider and even a donkey.
If you never made this claim, then don't defend it.
If you're not sure how many people have made the claim, research it yourself.

No Andy, anyone who has spent 5 minutes here will see it repeated that it has been said. Strangely, when I ask who said that, the poster goes silent.

Now, YOU say there are many - well why don't you name just 5, say the most prolific ones, and we will see if they actually said that and stand by their claim.

Verifying every component of every sentence is a good tactic for stalling a discussion, so you turn any discussion you are challenging into a lesson in pedantry. If you feel incapable of continuing the discussion until you are in full possession of these facts, fair enough, but I hope you don't mind if the discussion moves on without you.

When most people ask the time, they want the time, not a description of how a watch works.

I am not verifying "every component" - I am verifying the basic premise.
If you want a "discussion" about a theory that solves a argument that was never made than I can see why you believe my "pedantry" is frustrating.

When I ask someone for the time, I don't expect a "well I heard someone over there say its Christmas but when I checked wiki it said Wednesday"

 

[rhubroma]

Dr Mas, you are not "the clinic" or it's guardian, stick to defending references made to you personally. Everyone else is capable of defending themselves.

Anyone who has been in the clinic for more than 5 minutes knows that many posters have claimed Armstrong to be an average rider and even a donkey.
If you never made this claim, then don't defend it.
If you're not sure how many people have made the claim, research it yourself.

Verifying every component of every sentence is a good tactic for stalling a discussion, so you turn any discussion you are challenging into a lesson in pedantry. If you feel incapable of continuing the discussion until you are in full possession of these facts, fair enough, but I hope you don't mind if the discussion moves on without you.

When most people ask the time, they want the time, not a description of how a watch works.

Have to say, you hit the nail on the head with that one.

I don't think Armstrong was a donkey, just that he clearly benefited in an extraordinary way from the pharmacological products.

One point to remember is that doping also has a "therapeutic" aspect (in the Italian lexicon this is emphatically clear, curarsi, literally to "take care of oneself" from the verb curare , to cure (a disease) or look after yourself in the sense of helping the body heal, recover, feel healthy, etc. In fact an Italian cyclist doesn't go to his doctor to "dope," but to "look after himself" and "be cared for": curarsi. Here one encounters a physiological justification of doping, as an enshrined therapeutic precept. Indeed Fuentes said as much in his own defense, that he was not harming the athletes who sought his services, but actually taking care of their health. Ferrari et all would have felt the same way. The brutality of cycling at the professional level, according to them, requires such treatments, in order to replenish and maintain the rider's diminished bio-levels inflicted upon the body by the exhausting and agonizing training and racing regiment, during which the body is pushed to physiological extremes. So argues the doping specialists.

Given this philosophy, it is easy to comprehend how many a rider who may have gone into a doping program with uneasiness of mind and a guilty conscience, is easily persuaded by the medical experts that in fact what he does is not only ethically unproblematic, but even vital to his good health!

In this justification framework it is easy to see also how the market takes over in establishing the value and costs of treatment, and a corporate mentality establishes a kind of managerial hierarchy, for which the CEO rider/s with the highest salary, in being monitored, assisted and treated by the best medic, collects the biggest year end bonus. For Lance that was 7 straight Tour de France's. Furthermore, he himself said his Tours weren't won during the race but all the discipline and rigor and quantity-quality miles he put into his training regime before the event. Having the best doping program out there, the Texan gave himself the possibility to train the way he did, in ruthless and maniacal fashion to become the sport's premier workout demon: although it would have otherwise been impossible to recuperate without Ferrari's expertise, methods and "help." Thus probably, and I'm sure he thought this to be the case at the time, Ferrari allowed Lance to literally out-train his rivals. Armstrong's entire mission was to make himself invincible and he rather did for 7 years. Now some of this was certainly willpower, some physiology, but the part that put him beyond the others (hence the critical one), wasn't these two, but Ferrari's incomparable methods. He simply bought that, though, for which his achievement, if not his entire credibility, becomes extinguished: for herein lies the fraud. It wasn't a level playing field, this is the greatest myth to dispel at once.

I don't think consequently Ulrich, or any of his other rivals, had that quality of a program, and thus couldn't match Lance in the preparation phase and so couldn't match him on the roads of France in July either. That's how he won I believe. They were all on solid programs and trying to learn Lance's little secrets, and making headway (like Basso especially till he got popped), but without a Ferrari (or the natural class of a Contador, who also doped of course), they remained slightly off the back.

It was a remarkable achievement. Too bad it was all fabricated on a fraud, a fraud, not because the others were clean riders, but because Lance used the power of sheer bucks to buy his superiority and in the process made a mockery of fair-play even among the dopers. Then he intimidated and bullied Lemond and anybody who called him to task on it. Which is naturally reprehensible.

 

[peterst6906]

Now, YOU say there are many - well why don't you name just 5, say the most prolific ones, and we will see if they actually said that and stand by their claim.

Hopefully we can just move on from this semantic rubbish, but Donkey has been used:

Race Radio
Brodeal
Berzin
Botany Bay
Von Mises

Many more references on both sides in this search:

http://forum.cyclingnews.com/search.php?searchid=2120303&pp=25

It's been used and been defended against. Either way, it's a term that has appeared in discussions of LA for several years, but it would be good to drop the LA and donkey stuff from this thread and go back to discussing all the good things about LeMond instead.

On the subject of Le Mond, crap track in this link, but good photo:

http://grandplateau.bandcamp.com/track/greg-lemond-sous-la-pluie

 

[red_flanders]

Agreed. The topic is Lemond, please move away from Armstrong, Thanks!