Historical Truth!
The adorable thing about LeMond is that, unlike Armstrong and many other GT-winners since 1991, he showed signs of being a potential GT-winner as early as age 20-21 (after having indicated his likely completeness as a cyclist before even leaving the junior ranks, according to Borysewicz and Fraysse, to name but two qualified to judge. Completeness that he confirmed w/o a doubt over the 1983-4 seasons).
To his credit, Lance was a tremendous talent and showed world-class ability at age 21, but not for grand tour racing - a disconnect tough to explain away by claims of high-cadence efficiency and "wanting" it more that only became manifest in late-20's. Lance was a winner, though, and at 21, he was winning the overall at the Fitchburg-Longsjo Classic (a four-day event in New England where even I've been top-5/top-10 at various points), while LeMond was winning the overall and 3 stages of Tour de l'Avenir! All due respect to Armstrong, of course, but it's difficult to see much similarity b/w the career he should've had vs. Hinault, Merckx, Fignon and LeMond, if results and development in early-20's in TdF/GT's is area of interest...
Just like Riis, Armstrong was a complete non-entity (GC-wise) in Grand Tours one year, and then the next time he rode it was a contender. Whereas LeMond, Fignon, Hinault all showed from their very first appearance in a GT that they had the natural talent to possibly win the event, no one ever made that same inference about Lance - or Riis. Or Indurain.
At 23, LeMond finished 3rd overall in his first Tour in 1984 - hardly the height of the EPO-era. At 22, Armstrong finished 97th overall in HIS first Tour, in 1993. He was then 36th in 1995 and of course abandoned in 1996. Then two years later, after almost dying of cancer (and miraculously having his body change from that of a guy with nothing to indicate he would win the Tour based on anecdotal historical trends/evidence), he finishes 4th overall in his first Vuelta a España in 1998 before winning his first Tour back in 1999. Meanwhile, LeMond finished 2nd in his next Tour (at age 24) and 3rd that same year in the Giro. Then he won the Tour at his 3rd attempt (while also finishing 4th in the Giro) in 1986 - at age 25. Armstrong wouldn't win his first Tour until age 28, only one year after the absolute peak of the unrestrained EPO-era (as represented by the Festina Affair).
Likewise, at 23, Riis withdrew from his first Tour in 1987, and followed that stellar performance by withdrawing from his first Giro in 1988 at age 24. In 1989, when LeMond was winning that second Tour (which should've been his fifth, but for his naivete in 1985 and his brother-in-law 87-88), 25 year-old Riis was storming to 95th (after coming 86th in the Giro). In 1990, when LeMond won his third and final Tour (w/o winning a stage, I might add), Riis couldn't even finish the Tour, and barely managed to crack the top-100 in the Giro. The following year, when a frustrated-but-EPO-free LeMond arrived 7th in Paris (one place behind a likewise non-EPO-using Fignon), Riis was 107th! He didn't only marginally better in the next year's Giro - 101st! But then amazingly in 1993, after withdrawing from the Giro and never having shown ANY capacity for competitiveness in the grand tours, Riis finished a marvelous 5th in Paris as a 29 year-old, followed by 14th the next year, 3rd one-year later (at the mature age of 31), and magically, 1st in Paris in 1996 as a 32 year-old. Right...
Go back and look at the historical trends and you'll see that pre-EPO era, the few guys who went on to dominate the Tour showed their potential as contenders from their first attempt, usually in their early-20's. Granted, the data set isn't huge, but it's not rocket science. Merckx finished top-10 in his first GT (the Giro) at age 22 and WON it the next year at 23. Then he WON the FIRST Tour that he rode the following year (1969) at age 24. Fignon: 15th in the 1982 Giro at age 22 in his first GT; 7th in the 1983 Vuelta after having WON his first Tour the following year at age 23. He followed with another win at age 24 in 1984 and finished 2nd that year in the Giro. 7th at age 26 in the Vuelta and 3rd there as a 27 year-old (when he also finished 7th in the Tour). First in the '89 Giro and 2nd of course that year in the Tour...hardly surprising results when you consider that he debuted in GT's as a contender. Christ, even in 1991, when EPO had finally been discovered by the pretenders, Fignon finished 6th in the Tour and LeMond grimly hung-on for 7th!
One might think of Indurain as the first Lance Armstrong: abandons his first GT when he quit the '84 Vuelta at age 20; then 84th in the 1985 Vuelta at age 21 after quitting the Tour that same year. 92nd in the '86 Vuelta as a 22 year-old after again abandoning the Tour (coincidentally, the first won by LeMond). Abandons the '87 Vuelta but finally finishes the Tour at age 23 in 97th on GC! Again abandons the Vuelta in '88 but completes the Tour an anonymous 47th (in comparison, at the same age - 24 - LeMond had already finished on the podium in the Tour twice and Fignon had WON 2 Tours! By age 24, Merckx had WON 1 Tour and 1 Giro! Since 24 seems to be the magic age, it's worth noting that, in his 24th year, Hinault won both the Vuelta and the Tour when he debuted there in 1978! Then of course another Tour in '79 at 25, the Giro in 1980 at 26, another Tour in '81 at 27, both the Tour and the Giro in 1982 (at age 28), and finally, his first Vuelta in 1983, his 29th year. (To be followed by three more podiums in the Tour - including one win - and another victory in the Giro.)
Who knows if Armstrong doped for sure? Only anyone who might've been in the room with him at the time. But it's terribly obvious that there was a radical shift in Lance's GT-ability that defies credulity when viewed through the same historical prism that perfectly reflects the performances of genuine GT-contenders like Merckx, Hinault, Fignon and LeMond.
And if cancer was responsible for this transformation, and not oxygen-vector drugs, then why weren't all those other pro cyclists praying for malignant tumors instead of hook-ups to Italian and/or Spanish doping doctors?
Not to say that LeMond mightn't have been given cortisone or synacthen at some point in his career, just like the cleanest-of-the-clean Charly Mottet was (according to...Voet?), but LeMond never needed the massive EPO or blood-doping regime of a one-day star who somehow transformed himself into a GT-contender late in his career.
And if you claim not to understand what the distinction is that I'm making, or you don't see how LeMond was obviously marked as a future-Tour contender by the talent he displayed as a kid and then neo-pro, it's b/c you don't want to, probably.
EDIT: I had to leave a
comment on Tilford's post:
"As regards his performance here [Tilford's site]
, Oliver Starr is at best “moronical,” but probably also a bitter troll who’s talking out his *** with neither inside information nor “outside” perspective or understanding. Fail.
Raul, so predatory and cruel of you to invite him to the slaughterhouse! At least warn the guy lol…"
The beauty of the EPO-era: a GT-donkey could truly become a GT-winner.
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram