LeMond I

[Race Radio]

...and going back to the post to RR...here is something from the very esteemed Mr Webster ( I really wouldn't have gone here but for Mr Webster unimpeachable creds on this forum )

"Given the performance gains from using EPO apparently being of the order 5 to 10 % ( estimates vary) who and when do forumiites think may have been the first EPO users?
It occurs to me that its unlikly to have been widespread in the first season(s) of use cus those first users would lose there advantage.

Gert Jan Thenisse and Stevan Rooks in 89 would seem to me to be the most likely candidates.

Any one think of any other nominees for this dubious " trailblazer " honour? "

....a very interesting way of looking at things especially given the very specific date-marked history that is being examined here...and something that is what a real type police investigation would in good consience have to take into account would it not...they call this circumstantial evidence and I believe is admissible in a court of law...

Cheers

blutto

Rooks talks about using EPO in his book, but it was not until the 90's. He said he did not start until it became mandatory and his best years were behind him. He also said that his doctor did not allow him to go super high with his HCT as he thought it was risky. He saw little benefit as his natural Hct was already high, 47. boosting to 50 did not give the same huge increase in watts as the guys who went from 40 to 55

 

[Darryl Webster]

I just knew it was only a matter of time that Bluto would bring this up..

.."possible candidates" was not proof..and has ****** all to do with Lemond .

This idiot Bluto even PM,d regards this as if my suggestion was some kind of proof Lemond might have done so to.

Needles to say he got short change and told never to bother me again.

As the fool has absolutely nothing , ever, worth adding to any thread other than blowing smoke up peeps ***,s I,d suggest a mass "Ignore"...
..just an opinion mind.

 

[blutto]

and let's see: Stage 5 Dinnard-Rennes 73km ITT

Lemond -- 1st
Indurain -- 12th @ 3'32"

ouch.

3 years later Indurain had gained over 7 1/2 mins in performance relative to lemond...

and what arrived in the peloton over those 3 years...?

...just to refresh your memory here( I'm giving you the benefit of memory loss since to use those numbers actually knowing the context would be truly underhanded...in fact bordering on lying...)...GL had a very marked, and some say unfair advantage, in so much as he used aero bars....in the TT's where that advantage was gone, or minimized , as in the 90 Tour, and the short 89 TT , he was beaten....

...so what is your point here?...that aero bars give one a huge advantage in a TT?...if that is the case I agree...

Cheers

blutto

 

[Fearless Greg Lemond]

Just to help you out:
"so earlier in that Tour Indurain is within one second of Gl in the prologue"
Prologue: 1. Breukink 4. LeMond @6s 10. Indurain @ 10s

"beats GL in the 39 km TT"
A Mountain TT? Ok.

"remove those 10 min and he was contending for the win"
Final GC - 1. G.LeMond, 87h38m35s 17. M.Indurain @ 31m21s.

....so what exactly is your point?...that selective use of the facts is somehow a great way to prove a point?...sorry it makes you look like someone who has a very weak position that has to resort to the lowest of cheap debating tactics to eke out a worthless point....
Indeed.

Stop now, the troll Blutto will answer to that.

No, Indurain was no lab rat, he was like LeMond a specimen of nature.

edit: that Blutto guy is the real full of BS deal

 

[Big Doopie]

...just to refresh your memory here( I'm giving you the benefit of memory loss since to use those numbers actually knowing the context would be truly underhanded...in fact bordering on lying...)...GL had a very marked, and some say unfair advantage, in so much as he used aero bars....in the TT's where that advantage was gone, or minimized , as in the 90 Tour, and the short 89 TT , he was beaten....

...so what is your point here?...that aero bars give one a huge advantage in a TT?...if that is the case I agree...

Cheers

blutto

not addressing the points in my posts.

bye bye troll.

 

[MacRoadie]

I,d suggest a mass "Ignore"...
..just an opinion mind.

Already there.

 

[red_flanders]

...yes you are absolutely correct on that point...but, on the other hand, if this were a proper type police investigation (and don't we all wish this were the case for this sport ) you would have the basis for a case...because we have motive ( a great drive to win on both a personal and monetary level ), access to means and a prize....and we have, as Albatros has pointed out, a history of drugs in this race that spans decades and decades...so one should be skeptical, it is only prudent...

Your super duper little friend

blutto

So you're saying the police would move forward (let's just entertain the historical fantasy here) with no evidence against a rider because that rider (and every other rider in the race) share a motive, and many riders previously have doped. That's your evidence?

That's a joke.

 

[red_flanders]

...GL had a very marked, and some say unfair advantage, in so much as he used aero bars....in the TT's where that advantage was gone, or minimized , as in the 90 Tour, and the short 89 TT , he was beaten....

...so what is your point here?...that aero bars give one a huge advantage in a TT?...if that is the case I agree...

Cheers

blutto

You're referring to the aero bars that other riders used in '89 as well and that riders like Fignon tried and tossed aside as "not working for them"?

Obviously Lemond got an advantage from the bars, he'd be (of course) the first person to tell you that. You seem to be lacking a point, and just trying to carpet bomb the thread with unsubstantiated insinuations.

 

[blutto]

not addressing the points in my posts.

bye bye troll.

...so...aerobars give huge advantage...check...

...as for the 7 min...well...he was the leader of a very strong team...and in those circumstances could give his maximum efforts to his own advantage ...and not for the advantage of others....and it wasn't like Indurain was th only guy to beat LeMond...others beat him too....including Mottet, a supposedly clean rider...

Cheers

blutto

 

[blutto]

You're referring to the aero bars that other riders used in '89 as well and that riders like Fignon tried and tossed aside as "not working for them"?

Obviously Lemond got an advantage from the bars, he'd be (of course) the first person to tell you that. You seem to be lacking a point, and just trying to carpet bomb the thread with unsubstantiated insinuations.

...the point was, that without context those numbers are basically meaningless....LeMond the athlete didn't produce those numbers, but LeMond using an adavantage did...

...you could bring this point up with my dear friend Mr Webster if you want, as he has some strong opinions on this issue...

Cheers

blutto

 

[Big Doopie]

...as for the 7 min...well...he was the leader of a very strong team...and in those circumstances could give his maximum efforts to his own advantage ...and not for the advantage of others....and it wasn't like Indurain was th only guy to beat LeMond...others beat him too....including Mottet, a supposedly clean rider...

oh, god you got me again because you simply don't know any of the facts or even understand my points.

1989 long ITT. Lemond destroys Indurain by 3 1/2 mins.

1992 long ITT. Indurain destroys Lemond (5th) by over 4 mins.

= 7 1/2+ mins turnaround

I don't know where you are getting Mottet from? Lemond was also beaten by Bugno, Jaskula and De Las Cuevas in the 1992 long ITT -- all known epo-ers.

And Mottet?

70th @ 9'15"!!!!!!! See where clean riding can get you?

btw Mottet lost 3'43" to Lemond in the 1989 long ITT. And Fignon lost almost 2 mins in 1992 to Lemond. So it appears that Mottet, Fignon and Lemond stayed much the same -- all in the normal hierarchy that had been set up over many years. And we are willing to believe that Fignon never did epo and nor did Mottet.

But no wonder Lemond is quoted as saying that he thought he was doing a great time trial in 1992, and couldn't believe the time checks that he was still losing buckets of time.

He was actually first of the non-epo-ers.

and this supports the aforementioned research that stated that a top class rider might still be somewhat competitive in an ITT but couldn't challenge the repeated anaerobic efforts of an epo-rider over a longer race. lemond later dropped out of the race...exhausted by trying to compete day in day out with the top epo-ers.

please do some research at least so that you can understand what people are posting.

until that time, you are on ignore, troll.

 

[blutto]

oh, god you got me again because you simply don't know any of the facts or even understand my points.

1989 long ITT. Lemond destroys Indurain by 3 1/2 mins.

1992 long ITT. Indurain destroys Lemond (5th) by over 4 mins.

= 7 1/2+ mins turnaround

I don't know where you are getting Mottet from? Lemond was also beaten by Bugno, Jaskula and De Las Cuevas in the 1992 long ITT -- all known epo-ers.

And Mottet?

70th @ 9'15"!!!!!!! See where clean riding can get you?

btw Mottet lost 3'43" to Lemond in the 1989 long ITT. And Fignon lost almost 2 mins in 1992 to Lemond. So it appears that Mottet, Fignon and Lemond stayed much the same -- all in the normal hierarchy that had been set up over many years. And we are willing to believe that Fignon never did epo and nor did Mottet.

But no wonder Lemond is quoted as saying that he thought he was doing a great time trial in 1992, and couldn't believe the time checks that he was still losing buckets of time.

He was actually first of the non-epo-ers.

and this supports the aforementioned research that stated that a top class rider might still be somewhat competitive in an ITT but couldn't challenge the repeated anaerobic efforts of an epo-rider over a longer race. lemond later dropped out of the race...exhausted by trying to compete day in day out with the top epo-ers.

please do some research at least so that you can understand what people are posting.

until that time, you are on ignore, troll.

...ooops... my booboo...was talking about the 91 Tour...as for the 92 stuff...the official story, from the horses mouth, is early onset of mitochondrial disease ( which btw can be brought on by iron toxicity...and I kinda remember that GL used iron injections to counter a predisposition to anemia....which is real funny because other racers at the time were using iron injections to get full benefit from the EPO they were taking...its a funny world isn't it...but as has been pointed we have nothing remotely approaching hard evidence...except there were a lot of iron injections happening at that time...some to promote world peace, others not so much...)

Cheers

blutto

 

[blutto]

You're referring to the aero bars that other riders used in '89 as well and that riders like Fignon tried and tossed aside as "not working for them"?

Obviously Lemond got an advantage from the bars, he'd be (of course) the first person to tell you that. You seem to be lacking a point, and just trying to carpet bomb the thread with unsubstantiated insinuations.

...yeah know at first I took great umbrage to the use of the term carpet bombing...then I realized that carpet bombing is used against easy targets...so I guess the term is being used appropriately...

Cheers

blutto

 

[blutto]

I just knew it was only a matter of time that Bluto would bring this up..

.."possible candidates" was not proof..and has ****** all to do with Lemond .

This idiot Bluto even PM,d regards this as if my suggestion was some kind of proof Lemond might have done so to.

Needles to say he got short change and told never to bother me again.

As the fool has absolutely nothing , ever, worth adding to any thread other than blowing smoke up peeps ***,s I,d suggest a mass "Ignore"...
..just an opinion mind.

...gosh you have no idea how that hurt...there I was thinking you were a real pal and we were sharing a joke...after that I just slinked into the corner and sobbed for hours...I may never be the same...

...Btw that is blutto...small b...two t's...gawd who knows who that idiot Bluto you are carrying on about is and what he has to do with this rather mature discussion...he sounds real nasty...

Cheers

blutto

 

[Race Radio]

...ooops... my booboo...was talking about the 91 Tour...as for the 92 stuff...the official story, from the horses mouth, is early onset of mitochondrial disease ( which btw can be brought on by iron toxicity...and I kinda remember that GL used iron injections to counter a predisposition to anemia....which is real funny because other racers at the time were using iron injections to get full benefit from the EPO they were taking...its a funny world isn't it...but as has been pointed we have nothing remotely approaching hard evidence...except there were a lot of iron injections happening at that time...some to promote world peace, others not so much...)

Cheers

blutto

Really? Do you have a link? The first theories of Iron and EPO did not happen till 1991 and the major studies in 1994.

When EPO was first introduced the concern was the opposite, that it would cause iron overload like transfusions did. It was not until EPO was on the market for several years that it was found that used in high doses it could drive red cell production more rapidly than iron could be delivered to the bone marrow.

You need to stop making stuff up. You just look silly

 

[Dr. Maserati]

...ooops... my booboo...was talking about the 91 Tour...as for the 92 stuff...the official story, from the horses mouth, is early onset of mitochondrial disease ( which btw can be brought on by iron toxicity...and I kinda remember that GL used iron injections to counter a predisposition to anemia....which is real funny because other racers at the time were using iron injections to get full benefit from the EPO they were taking...its a funny world isn't it...but as has been pointed we have nothing remotely approaching hard evidence...except there were a lot of iron injections happening at that time...some to promote world peace, others not so much...)

Cheers

blutto

Have you evidence (Even circumstantial) that EPO users also used Iron shots "at that time"?
Thanks.

 

[red_flanders]

Apparently the implication is that Lemond took iron to supplement his EPO use in '89 so he could compete, but later, when EPO became all the rage, this guy who had won the Tour before it hit the peloton seemingly either stopped using it or was all of a sudden unable to gain benefit from it.

Makes sense.

 

[TheInternet]

and what arrived in the peloton over those 3 years...?

Clif Bars.

 

[blutto]

Really? Do you have a link? The first theories of Iron and EPO did not happen till 1991 and the major studies in 1994.

When EPO was first introduced the concern was the opposite, that it would cause iron overload like transfusions did. It was not until EPO was on the market for several years that it was found that used in high doses it could drive red cell production more rapidly than iron could be delivered to the bone marrow.

You need to stop making stuff up. You just look silly

...funny but you used basically the same argument with the same tone to call me an idiot when, way back when, I had the temerity to suggest that EPO was available before the early 90's...its seems that your expert opinion has in the meantime been shown to be quite threadbare, or non- existent..heck even my dear friend Mr Webster now says it was available in the late 80's...


...so now you trot out your expert opinion again and we are expected to just accept it...well, you were dead wrong before and in that light why should anyone give credence to your expert opinion....and btw we have here an in-house expert on such matters and the expert opinion here says you are absolutely choke full of it...after all LeMond was injecting iron for a reason and the folks in renal medicine could not have been all so wrong about something that was that important to them...the idea of increasing red cells and the use of iron to help that process was a staple in that field for a very long time...and EPO arrives and they forget that connection...come on...

Cheers

blutto

 

[red_flanders]

That was the longest version of "no, I don't" I think I've ever seen.

 

[Race Radio]

.snip

Thank you for proving my point, you made it up

 

[Darryl Webster]

..heck even my dear friend Mr Webster now says it was available in the late 80's...
blutto

No he did NOT..I suggested Rooks and Thuinese MAY have been the first users in 89.
Its now been admitted that they used EPO for the first time around 91,

Don`t quote me out of context.

Its obvious your "pleasure" is winding people up.
Why the mods on here are putting up with your BS I,ve no idea.

 

[blutto]

No he did NOT..I suggested Rooks and Thuinese MAY have been the first users in 89.
Its now been admitted that they used EPO for the first time around 91,

Don`t quote me out of context.

Its obvious your "pleasure" is winding people up.
Why the mods on here are putting up with your BS I,ve no idea.

...sorry about that...was just taking you at your word...and believe me, that will never happen again...

...and oh my goodness gracious...someone winding up someone on the CN Forums...who woulda thunk it...

...next you'll be going to the Indy 500 to hand out speeding tickets....

...as I said before you are a real laugh a minute funny guy....

Cheers

blutto

 

[Fearless Greg Lemond]

...sorry about that...was just taking you at your word...and believe me, that will never happen again...

Cheers

blutto

Are you on drugs or just beer? Cheers.

 

[blutto]

Are you on drugs or just beer? Cheers.

...wow, this is second time in the span of a few days that someone from your camp has accussed me of being on drugs...like do the familiars get together weekly for strategy meetings?...or daily?...

...btw...just high on life...clean air...and no I don't drink...

Cheers

blutto