LeMond I

[131313]

True, but they were not exactly out for a sunday ride and are over ten minutes in one climb away from the fastest which is hard to take.

In LeMond's book he say he went up that climb "like a tourist". I've heard him retell the story at interbike, using the exact same verbiage. I always thought he was engaging in hyperbole, but it turns out he wasn't kidding!

I believe the way they rode is more reflective in the times just above theirs rather than the top times for the climb which apart from the obvious(including the obvious imo) reads particularly badly.

Based on LeMond's own documented power output, I have no question he could have gone up there a lot faster, probably in the 41 minute range. No doubt, the times at the top are ridiculous.

 

[nslckevin]

It is amazing to note that armstrong and pantani would have put over 4 minutes in one climb to the top riders of only a few years before. Laurent Fignon (two-time Tour winner) was at the top of his game and fighting to take the yellow jersey, and then Herrera (the natural climber of his generation)...would have dropped 4 minutes in one climb!

Epo and blood doping turned pro cycling into a farce.

Not that I disagree with your point but you do realize that Fignon's bike probably weighed 19-20 pounds vs 15 for Armstrong. Not to mention 32 spoke al rims vs Lightweight carbon aero rims. Some of that time differential is due to equipment differences and some of it is tactics. Armstrong in an ITT that just went up the Alpe vs Lemond and Hinault off the front with a huge lead on a monster alpine stage where the GC was already settled by the time they got to the bottom of the climb.

Sure the doping is part of it, but the equipment differences are significant and it's always difficult to directly compare times because the situations can be so different.

You can't just draw a line at Lemond's time and say that everybody faster than him was doping. It would be like saying that Boardman only went 56km for the hour because he was doping while completely ignoring the fact that his bike, position, velodrome (indoors), wheels, etc. were light years ahead of what Merckx used.

 

[Big Doopie]

You can't just draw a line at Lemond's time and say that everybody faster than him was doping.

just an fyi -- i specifically left lemond's time out of it -- re-read my post. i compared herrera and fignon with pantani and armstrong.

and check out bugno and indurain in 1991 who beat fignon's time by over two minutes only two years after (were the tech advances that huge in two years? why didn't others benefit?). meanwhile lemond is 10th that year a few seconds faster than fignon in 1989 -- a normally winning ascent time.

it's pretty clear when epo started to take effect.

 

[gregod]

The criteria is simple. The top 5 best American cyclists of all time:

The list stands:

1. Greg LeMond - 3 Tours
2. Andy Hamptston - 1 Giro
3. Floyd Landis - 1̶ ̶t̶o̶u̶r̶, [fixed] 1 Paris-Nice
4. Levi Leiphiemer - 3rd Tour, 2nd Vuelta
5. Tyler Hamilton - 1 LBL, 2nd Giro

No way D̶a̶v̶i̶d̶ Davis [fixed] Phinney is getting my my list.

what is your reasoning behind the names included on your list? why would you include (at least) two dopers and not include another notable doper?

 

[Gregga]

and check out bugno and indurain in 1991 who beat fignon's time by over two minutes only two years after (were the tech advances that huge in two years? why didn't others benefit?). meanwhile lemond is 10th that year a few seconds faster than fignon in 1989 -- a normally winning ascent time.

it's pretty clear when epo started to take effect.

I think the 1990 ascent time is missing. That's the year Lemond was second behind Bugno. Breukink was third with the best ascent time and Lemond did smthg around 42'

 

[noddy69]

In LeMond's book he say he went up that climb "like a tourist". I've heard him retell the story at interbike, using the exact same verbiage. I always thought he was engaging in hyperbole, but it turns out he wasn't kidding!



Based on LeMond's own documented power output, I have no question he could have gone up there a lot faster, probably in the 41 minute range. No doubt, the times at the top are ridiculous.

I agree, the 41 minute range to 43 put him up with contador,evans ...supermans worst time,and well outside the top times recorded but in the range that would be considered clean times for those that are gifted enough to do it that way.
I do stress that you would have to be supremely talented to do it in that time clean, Le Monde had shown he was from an early age. The same cannot be said for some on the list which is what makes it a little bit hard to take when people begin to throw accusations at LeMonde when the paper trail tells a different story.

 

[thehog]

what is your reasoning behind the names included on your list? why would you include (at least) two dopers and not include another notable doper?

It’s not a doping top 5. It’s the Top 5 Best American cyclists of all time.

My list stands:

1. Greg LeMond - 3 Tours
2. Andy Hamptston - 1 Giro
3. Floyd Landis – 1 Tour 1 Paris-Nice
4. Levi Leiphiemer - 3rd Tour, 2nd Vuelta
5. Tyler Hamilton - 1 LBL, 2nd Giro

 

[hrotha]

It’s not a doping top 5. It’s the Top 5 Best American cyclists of all time.

My list stands:

1. Greg LeMond - 3 Tours
2. Andy Hamptston - 1 Giro
3. Floyd Landis – 1 Tour 1 Paris-Nice
4. Levi Leiphiemer - 3rd Tour, 2nd Vuelta
5. Tyler Hamilton - 1 LBL, 2nd Giro

Landis didn't win the Tour. Them's the rules.

 

[GJB123]

I think the '89 time for Lemond is also missing. If remember correctly he lost some 1 minute 20 seconds on Delgado and Fignon which would put him in a time of slightly over 43 minutes.

Regards
GJ

 

[patricknd]

Landis didn't win the Tour. Them's the rules.

damn straight. sum***** cheated !!!

 

[gregod]

It’s not a doping top 5. It’s the Top 5 Best American cyclists of all time.

My list stands:

1. Greg LeMond - 3 Tours
2. Andy Hamptston - 1 Giro
3. Floyd Landis – 1 Tour 1 Paris-Nice
4. Levi Leiphiemer - 3rd Tour, 2nd Vuelta
5. Tyler Hamilton - 1 LBL, 2nd Giro

simply repeating your list with the same mistakes does not explain the reasoning behind your choices. what next, all caps?

 

[thehog]

simply repeating your list with the same mistakes does not explain the reasoning behind your choices. what next, all caps?

I told you. It’s the Top 5 best American cyclists of all time. What’s so hard to understand about that? What more detail might you need?

The list stands.

1. Greg LeMond - 3 Tours
2. Andy Hamptston - 1 Giro
3. Floyd Landis – 1 Tour 1 Paris-Nice
4. Levi Leiphiemer - 3rd Tour, 2nd Vuelta
5. Tyler Hamilton - 1 LBL, 2nd Giro

 

[nslckevin]

I told you. It’s the Top 5 best American cyclists of all time. What’s so hard to understand about that? What more detail might you need?

The list stands.

1. Greg LeMond - 3 Tours
2. Andy Hamptston - 1 Giro
3. Floyd Landis – 1 Tour 1 Paris-Nice
4. Levi Leiphiemer - 3rd Tour, 2nd Vuelta
5. Tyler Hamilton - 1 LBL, 2nd Giro

Fair enough, but can you please explain your logic? I am assuming that you believe that Floyd and Tyler doped to get at least some of these results. That leads me to believe that you aren't using clean/not clean as a qualifier. If that is true, what is your rationale for not listing Armstrong and his 7 tours?

It would seem that to be logically consistent you would need to either purge Floyd and Tyler from your list or add Armstrong.

If you just don't like Armstrong then you need to re-title your list "Best American Cyclists who I don't hate".

If on the other hand you think that on a level playing field that Armstrong is not as good of a cyclist as Tyler or Floyd, that he just had some super, duper dope that they didn't have, then, the only thing I can say is: Dude. Get a grip.

 

[JRTinMA]

Fair enough, but can you please explain your logic? I am assuming that you believe that Floyd and Tyler doped to get at least some of these results. That leads me to believe that you aren't using clean/not clean as a qualifier. If that is true, what is your rationale for not listing Armstrong and his 7 tours?

It would seem that to be logically consistent you would need to either purge Floyd and Tyler from your list or add Armstrong.

If you just don't like Armstrong then you need to re-title your list "Best American Cyclists who I don't hate".

If on the other hand you think that on a level playing field that Armstrong is not as good of a cyclist as Tyler or Floyd, that he just had some super, duper dope that they didn't have, then, the only thing I can say is: Dude. Get a grip.

Ding, ding, ding we have a winner.

 

[Le breton]

20 40' 00" Jan Ullrich 2001 Germany
21 40' 46" Fränk Schleck 2006 Luxembourg
22 40' 51" Alexander Vinokourov 2003 Kazakhstan
23 41' 18" Lance Armstrong 2003 United States
24 41' 21" Samuel Sánchez 2011 Spain
25 41' 30" Alberto Contador 2011 Spain
26 41' 46" Cadel Evans 2008 Australia
27 41' 50" Laurent Fignon 1989 France
28 41' 50" Luis Herrera 1987 Colombia
29 41' 57" Pierre Rolland 2011 France
30 42' 15" Pedro Delgado 1989 Spain
31 43' 12" Ryder Hesjedal 2011 Canada
32 43' 12" Thomas Danielson 2011 United States
33 45' 20" Gert-Jan Theunisse 1989 Netherlands
34 45' 22" Fausto Coppi 1952 Italy
35 48' 00" Bernard Hinault 1986 France
36 48' 00" Greg Lemond 1986 United States

Alpe duez times. Le Monde ,one of the most naturally gifted talents ever way down the list. Excellent posts I just thought that the times here reflect the natural talent against guys who shall we say "blosom" late on.

One thing to remember is LeMond and Hinault rode together and were way ahead of the field. They were not doing a max effort.

They probably were not at max, but would probably not have been able to go faster than 47:00 considering they had been alone for over 80 km after flying down Galibier, Télégraphe, storming through the Maurienne valley and climbing at max speed Croix de Fer. Going down Croix de fer is not exactly easy, then the false flats from Rochetaillée before finally reaching Bourg d'Oisans.

1986 was before EPO, racers actually did get tired and slowed down after long efforts.

Now, nobody seems to have noticed that LeMond 1989 is not on that list. Since Fignon did 41:50 that day, it means LeMond did 43:09 as he finished 1:19 down on Fignon, (on what was a very bad day for him).

 

[nslckevin]

35 48' 00" Bernard Hinault 1986 France
36 48' 00" Greg Lemond 1986 United States

I didn't see this earlier. Anybody who knows anything about that climb has got to know that 48' is NOT an all out effort from these two by a long shot.

They have a timing system for this climb. You can rent a chip at the tourist office in Bourg d'Oisans and they automatically time your ascent to both the village and to the Tour stage finish. "Alpe d'Huez Mythique". I rode this climb in 2010 at the age of 49. Here is the link to the results. I think that it is safe to say that Greg Lemond and Bernard Hinault in their prime and in the midst of winning the Tour de France are capable of beating an over the hill bike racer by more than 3 minutes up this climb. Especially when you consider that I was fresh and they were at the end of a hard stage in the middle of the Tour. For comparison, a couple of mid level domestic pro's took 4 minutes out of me on a similar length climb herein California last fall. Maybe they should do the Tour?

And this points out one of the issues of comparing times of various racers over different races. How much faster would Lemond have climbed the Alpe that day if it was an ITT similar to what Armstrong did? I'm not saying that Armstrong didn't dope, but you can't just directly compare those times and hope to get as much meaningful information from it as some people seem to be trying to do.

 

[patricknd]

Fair enough, but can you please explain your logic? I am assuming that you believe that Floyd and Tyler doped to get at least some of these results. That leads me to believe that you aren't using clean/not clean as a qualifier. If that is true, what is your rationale for not listing Armstrong and his 7 tours?

It would seem that to be logically consistent you would need to either purge Floyd and Tyler from your list or add Armstrong.

If you just don't like Armstrong then you need to re-title your list "Best American Cyclists who I don't hate".

If on the other hand you think that on a level playing field that Armstrong is not as good of a cyclist as Tyler or Floyd, that he just had some super, duper dope that they didn't have, then, the only thing I can say is: Dude. Get a grip.

Ding, ding, ding we have a winner.

is this what they call an inconvenient truth?

 

[Le breton]

I didn't see this earlier. Anybody who knows anything about that climb has got to know that 48' is NOT an all out effort from these two by a long shot.

They have a timing system for this climb. You can rent a chip at the tourist office in Bourg d'Oisans and they automatically time your ascent to both the village and to the Tour stage finish. "Alpe d'Huez Mythique". I rode this climb in 2010 at the age of 49. Here is the link to the results. I think that it is safe to say that Greg Lemond and Bernard Hinault in their prime and in the midst of winning the Tour de France are capable of beating an over the hill bike racer by more than 3 minutes up this climb. Especially when you consider that I was fresh and they were at the end of a hard stage in the middle of the Tour. For comparison, a couple of mid level domestic pro's took 4 minutes out of me on a similar length climb herein California last fall. Maybe they should do the Tour?

And this points out one of the issues of comparing times of various racers over different races. How much faster would Lemond have climbed the Alpe that day if it was an ITT similar to what Armstrong did? I'm not saying that Armstrong didn't dope, but you can't just directly compare those times and hope to get as much meaningful information from it as some people seem to be trying to do.

I think that it is safe to say that Greg Lemond and Bernard Hinault in their prime and in the midst of winning the Tour de France are capable of beating an over the hill bike racer by more than 3 minutes up this climb. Especially when you consider that I was fresh and they were at the end of a hard stage in the middle of the Tour.

What you say makes no sense. Are you implying that on the last climb at the end of a stage with about 5000 meters uphill they should be able to climb faster than fresh?

Since LeMond 1989, on a bad day, but with the shelter of the peloton, was able to climb AdH in 43:09, it seems reasonable to me to assume that on a good day, on the same climb with the shelter of the peloton, LeMond86 would have done at least a little bit better than Fignon89, i.e. somewhere around 41 min. Which would mean definitely better than 40 min. on a TT.

Now, at the end of a 90 km two-man breakaway with a major climb in the middle, I wouldn't expect a pro (deprived of his divine right to exogenous EPO) to climb AdH at better than 85% of his fresh speed, i.e. about 46 min. in the case of LeMond.

While in 2009 you were able to climb AdH in 50:55, I am ready to bet that at the end of the Marmotte - even properly trained - you couldn't have done better than 58 min on that climb (and worse if you had been with just one buddy from say St-Michel de Maurienne)

Congratulations BTW on that 50:55. In your prime you might have been able to do about 47-48 min.

 

[GJB123]

They probably were not at max, but would probably not have been able to go faster than 47:00 considering they had been alone for over 80 km after flying down Galibier, Télégraphe, storming through the Maurienne valley and climbing at max speed Croix de Fer. Going down Croix de fer is not exactly easy, then the false flats from Rochetaillée before finally reaching Bourg d'Oisans.

1986 was before EPO, racers actually did get tired and slowed down after long efforts.

Now, nobody seems to have noticed that LeMond 1989 is not on that list. Since Fignon did 41:50 that day, it means LeMond did 43:09 as he finished 1:19 down on Fignon, (on what was a very bad day for him).

Really? Nobody noticed?

I think the '89 time for Lemond is also missing. If remember correctly he lost some 1 minute 20 seconds on Delgado and Fignon which would put him in a time of slightly over 43 minutes.

Regards
GJ

 

[nslckevin]

I think that it is safe to say that Greg Lemond and Bernard Hinault in their prime and in the midst of winning the Tour de France are capable of beating an over the hill bike racer by more than 3 minutes up this climb. Especially when you consider that I was fresh and they were at the end of a hard stage in the middle of the Tour.

What you say makes no sense. Are you implying that on the last climb at the end of a stage with about 5000 meters uphill they should be able to climb faster than fresh?

No, I was saying that the fact that an old man was close to them is indicative that they weren't going anywhere near their limit. Further I was saying that anybody who tries to draw any conclusions about doping, etc. from that climb time is, basically, an idiot. That climb doesn't show anything about Lemond and Hinault's true capabilities.

As a sidebar I think that using the times from the ITT up Alpe d'Huez that Armstrong won is probably a bad idea also. In no other year that Alpe d'Huez was used were any of the riders nearly as fresh when they climbed it and in no other year do you absolutely know that the riders rode the whole climb at full gas as opposed to tactical and then hard. Off the top of my head you could maybe compare the year of "the look" to the ITT because the attack went very early on the climb, but you still have the fresh vs at the end of a hard stage difference to skew things.

While in 2009 you were able to climb AdH in 50:55, I am ready to bet that at the end of the Marmotte - even properly trained - you couldn't have done better than 58 min on that climb (and worse if you had been with just one buddy from say St-Michel de Maurienne)

Yes that is part of my point. People are ignoring that some of those times are from an ITT and that makes a huge difference.

In summary here are some of the problems that I see with comparing historical times on Alpe d'Huez to try and show who doped and who didn't.

1. Bikes. The bike that Fignon rode barely resembles the bike that Armstrong rode in the ITT up the Alpe. The bikes are probably 5 ls lighter now and the wheels are are not only lighter but more aero, etc.
2. Differences in how much work it took to get to the climb. ITT vs. 80km off the front leading to the Alpe vs sitting in the bunch all day until the bottom of the climb. Brutally long and hard stage vs just plain old hard. How do you quantify that?
3. Less cumulative fatigue in modern days because your bike is 5 lbs lighter that Fignon's bike and you didn't have to carry that 5 lbs up three huge passes just to get to the Alpe. And aero carbon wheels that again make every pedal stroke that much easier.
4. Tactics. Full gas from the bottom? Tactical with everybody looking at each other until half way? Tourist pace because you are so far off the front and the Tour is decided.
5. Temperature
6. Wind. It seemed kind of windy towards the top when I did it. Might have cost me 8 minutes or so.

I'm not by any means saying that nobody on that list was doping. I'm just saying that I think it's a WHOLE LOT LESS black and white than some people think and a LOT harder to compare times over the years to show anything conclusive.

 

[simoni]

In LeMond's book he say he went up that climb "like a tourist". I've heard him retell the story at interbike, using the exact same verbiage. I always thought he was engaging in hyperbole, but it turns out he wasn't kidding!



Based on LeMond's own documented power output, I have no question he could have gone up there a lot faster, probably in the 41 minute range. No doubt, the times at the top are ridiculous.

All you need to do is look at what Fignon, Delgado, Hererra were capable of in the late 80s. Lemond could hang with these guys - no question.

To suggest that 48mins was his limit is utterly ludicrous!

 

[BotanyBay]

All you need to do is look at what Fignon, Delgado, Hererra were capable of in the late 80s. Lemond could hang with these guys - no question.

To suggest that 48mins was his limit is utterly ludicrous!

Armstrong is proof-positive of the power of oxygen vectors combined with corticos. They turned a non-climbing donkey into a supercharged freight train. He just happened to be the best at dedicating himself to the regimen. All the dedication and hard work of an "actual" champion, but without the prodigious real talent to actually be so dominating. Lance had already ridden several tours prior to 99', and he simply did not have the physiological means of recovering between hard stages, not even to mentioning the ability to climb like he later could.

Brutha thought we were blind AND stupid.

 

[woodburn]

Armstrong is proof-positive of the power of oxygen vectors combined with corticos. They turned a non-climbing donkey into a supercharged freight train. He just happened to be the best at dedicating himself to the regimen. All the dedication and hard work of an "actual" champion, but without the prodigious real talent to actually be so dominating. Lance had already ridden several tours prior to 99', and he simply did not have the physiological means of recovering between hard stages, not even to mentioning the ability to climb like he later could.

Brutha thought we were blind AND stupid.

If true climbers were on the same regiment, how much faster would they have gone than Lance? Is it fair to say Ullrich and Pantani would have been 1-2 minutes faster than him on the Alpe TT?

 

[BotanyBay]

If true climbers were on the same regiment, how much faster would they have gone than Lance? Is it fair to say Ullrich and Pantani would have been 1-2 minutes faster than him on the Alpe TT?

Ullrich was always scrambling for a good program. Anyone hooked up with Puerto were guys who had to go find the programs "solo". Lance had a solid, long-term deal and was able to learn along the way. Ullrich just followed the plans he was given. Armstrong became a PhD in the stuff.

 

[Big Doopie]

i'm not sure anyone is really comparing the 1986 times.

it is more the immediate 2 minute jump from the approximately 42 minute threshold for best performances to 39+ between 1989-90 and 1991 on. there was no huge change in the bikes. meanwhile lemond's time in 1991 -- good enough to be the fastest on any previous year (and better than he himself had done) was only 10th best nearly two minutes behind people he had regularly beaten. it is interesting that lemond said he was in the best shape at the start of the 1991 tour and believed he must be sick to be beaten like that -- but actually was riding up the alpe as fast as he ever had -- if not faster. only bugno and indurain were now on epo (and hadn't even perfected it!).