LeMond I

[mountaindew]

Yes and no.
The Tour de l'Avenir, it's the Tour of the future. At the time it was for (IIRC) u23 s, so while it does not automatically mean that a high finish means a future Tiur contender it is certainly one of the best indicators, and trumps individual races IMO.

Indeed the reason why that 86 l'Avenir got so much coverage in Winning was because of Grewels second place - which got him a pretty good contract.

Induration was very much noticed and considered the heir apparent for when Delgado stepped aside - however he did frustrate with his performances in the Vuelta. I always put that down to cracking under mental pressure, but YMMV.

Grewal was third. Olaf Ludwig won l'Avenir. Certainly no tour contender.

 

[BotanyBay]

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.

All ya really need to do is add up the number of people who accuse Greg of being a doper vs Lance. Greg has only one peloton insider who has ever accused him of being a doper, and that's the guy (Lance) who has more first-person accusers than any doper that ever rode a bike. Lance has a phone book full of enemies and STILL, I can't remember a single incident of anyone (even his most bitter on-bike rivals) having a bad thing to say about Greg at all.

Lance fanboys... Have you ever contemplated how a guy who has accomplished so much could accumulate so many enemies? Lance's tally of foes is just literally uncanny (to say the least).

 

[compete_clean]

All ya really need to do is add up the number of people who accuse Greg of being a doper vs Lance. Greg has only one peloton insider who has ever accused him of being a doper, and that's the guy (Lance) who has more first-person accusers than any doper that ever rode a bike. Lance has a phone book full of enemies and STILL, I can't remember a single incident of anyone (even his most bitter on-bike rivals) having a bad thing to say about Greg at all.

The rumor of Greg using EPO comes from one person (former US pro - not named Lance) who said, "he thinks" Greg used EPO in 1989. That ex-pro has no evidence, it was just guess. What happened is that he repeated this comment to a few people and that is how it got Lance, and the origin of: "Greg, I can find people who will say you took EPO".

 

[BotanyBay]

The rumor of Greg using EPO comes from one person (former US pro - not named Lance) who said, "he thinks" Greg used EPO in 1989. That ex-pro has no evidence, it was just guess. What happened is that he repeated this comment to a few people and that is how it got Lance, and the origin of: "Greg, I can find people who will say you took EPO".

Oh right, Oliver Starr. I forgot. He doesn't count. He's just a pud who was in a race or two at the same time as Greg.

 

[rhubroma]

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.

One certainly can't accuse you of irrationality. This is a balanced and objective post. Not being American, you don't have the burden of trying to dissipate any sentimental notions, which may result in certain biases that are often lethal to reasoned critical thought. It made me rethink certain positions (along with Krebs analysis).

I say, though, if Greg were using EPO in 89, then he would have also taken it in 90. However, this would indicate he was in the dirty game from the get-go. What, then, happened in 91? And 92, 93, 94? Either he stopped taking EPO, or he never was on it before and when the others began serious use, he was incapable of keeping pace. Rationally, the latter seems more plausable.

 

[compete_clean]

Oh right, Oliver Starr. I forgot. He doesn't count. He's just a pud who was in a race or two at the same time as Greg.

No. Someone recognizable.

TBH - I'd never heard of Oliver Starr (or don't remember him) other than reading about him here.

 

[Franklin]

I say, though, if Greg were using EPO in 89, then he would have also taken it in 90. However, this would indicate he was in the dirty game from the get-go. What, then, happened in 91? And 92, 93, 94? Either he stopped taking EPO, or he never was on it before and when the others began serious use, he was incapable of keeping pace. Rationally, the latter seems more plausable.

No I don't believe he used Epo, but your argument is flawed. Here goes a what if:

Everyone fades, even with Epo. Maybe he didn't train? Got sick? Lost interest? Others took more Epo?

Lack of performance is no indicator of being clean

 

[rhubroma]

No I don't believe he used Epo, but your argument is flawed. Here goes a what if:

Everyone fades, even with Epo. Maybe he didn't train? Got sick? Lost interest? Others took more Epo?

Lack of performance is no indicator of being clean

He said he trained himself into the ground during the period of his rapid decline, then, when all was futile, he probably lost interest too.

You say you don't think Lemond did EPO, well then do you believe had it not exploded at the time of his demise, would his last years have turned out differently? And so his legacy? The difficulty in reconciling your affirmation against my question, is why I found this argument of yours specious.

 

[Jeremiah]

No. Someone recognizable.

TBH - I'd never heard of Oliver Starr (or don't remember him) other than reading about him here.

http://owstarr.com/2008/01/22/floyd-landis-and-the-magic-water-bottle-part-i/

I wonder what Ollie has to say for himself these days?

 

[BotanyBay]

If he used EPO, then he sure spends a LOT of time (eighteen years after his retirement) contributing to anti-doping discussions and such. Myself, if that had been the case, I'd be spending my time counting my money and sipping margaritas by the beach instead.

 

[BotanyBay]

http://owstarr.com/2008/01/22/floyd-landis-and-the-magic-water-bottle-part-i/

I wonder what Ollie has to say for himself these days?

Starr greatly plagiarizes his own standing as a peer of everyone he bothers to mention on his blog. He had a couple of top-ten results at USPRO and a whole bunch of not much else to write home about. Not to mention, he was a complete and utter tool of a co-competitor.

The guy should stick to overhyping his success as a wealthy kid who transformed a well-capitalized start in his adult life to perhaps an even better-capitalized one later on as a "serial entrepreneur" (yes, seriously, he actually uses that cliche to describe himself).

 

[rhubroma]

If he used EPO, then he sure spends a LOT of time (eighteen years after his retirement) contributing to anti-doping discussions and such. Myself, if that had been the case, I'd be spending my time counting my money and sipping margaritas by the beach instead.

How about a gin tonic?

 

[Zweistein]

The rumor of Greg using EPO comes from one person (former US pro - not named Lance) who said, "he thinks" Greg used EPO in 1989. That ex-pro has no evidence, it was just guess. What happened is that he repeated this comment to a few people and that is how it got Lance, and the origin of: "Greg, I can find people who will say you took EPO".

I don't beleive that Greg ever took anything. He has never been critical of the riders that dope, only of the institutions that perpetuates the problem. He has been very critical of the managers, suppliers, and doctors that facilitate doping. The conflict that Greg has with Lance probably stems from the fact that Lance is a gatekeeper of the Omerta. Also, he has frequently stated had his career started later, maybe, he would have doped due to his strong desire to compete and he was lucky to not have to face that.

If Greg had doped, in my opinion, I beleive that he would have no problems disclosing it to help clean up cycling. Everything he has done for cycling has only come at his expense. Countless lawsuits, slander, and a discontinuation of his bike company are just of his losses for standing against doping. What motive does Greg have to pay this expense other than he wants a clean sport?

 

[Jeremiah]

Starr greatly plagiarizes his own standing as a peer of everyone he bothers to mention on his blog. He had a couple of top-ten results at USPRO and a whole bunch of not much else to write home about. Not to mention, he was a complete and utter tool of a co-competitor.

The guy should stick to overhyping his success as a wealthy kid who transformed a well-capitalized start in his adult life to perhaps an even better-capitalized one later on as a "serial entrepreneur" (yes, seriously, he actually uses that cliche to describe himself).

In the first paragraph, did you mean, "overstates?"

The guy seems to be the type.

He did have a plausible analysis of why Landis was able to gain so much time on the stage to Morzine.



edit.

Starr from the peanut gallery of Steve Tilfords blog bashing LeMond.



38 Oliver Starr // Apr 10, 2012 at 6:03 am


I said this in 2006 about Lemond. I’ll say it again here, now:

As a former professional and ten year member of the US National Junior and Senior Teams prior to that, I’ve raced with BOTH Landis and Lemond (as well as Armstrong). Of the three, LeMond is the most likely to have used controlled substances and gotten away with it. Please recall that during the tail end of his career and particularly for his epic world championship victory, EPO was commonly available but undetectable by the then state-of-the-art testing. Most of the riders from this era who continued racing later were confirmed to have used EPO (Gianni Bugno anyone?).

Who was Lemond to have defeated Europe’s best clean while they doped? Also recall that Lemond was the first to avail himself of any available technology (Scott Bars) so what makes you think he stopped at questionable and unfair equipment advantages when other solutions were also at hand.

If he had vials of urine stored in labs somewhere I doubt he’d be quite so smug right now.

This is not to say that what he achieved wasn’t remarkable beyond belief or that he wasn’t an amazing cyclist (he was my hero when I first raced against him), it’s only that he should know when to SHUT THE HELL UP because there are those of us that remember what it was like racing against him, how he looked, how he rode, and how fast he went from getting dropped at Tour Du Trump to Winning the Le Tour…

I raced against Lemond. EPO Couldn’t be detected at the time but was widely available. Who says Lemond was clean? Him? Look at his performance from beginning of the year to the end. His improvement was beyond miraculous the year he won the tour after being shot – it was indescribable; Dropped at Trump by the sprinters on the climbs, to winning the Tour de France a few months later. Unnatural is the only word that comes to mind for that kind of improvement and I was there to see it first hand.

Lemond should shut up lest someone find an old vial of his urine on ice somewhere and run a few tests on it…

 

[Jeremiah]

Sorry,

I raced with Oliver Starr. We were both juniors when Lemond was first winning the TDF. Starr was an almost univerally disliked rider. A complete and utter loner. A talented rider with OTC pedigree, but so completely full of himself (had the "joe-pro" attitude even at age 16) that he rode completely alone. If he didn't know you from the OTC, he wouldn;t even talk to you. Now he's some self-appointed internet media guru.

I missed this. I was in detention at the time this was going on. Anyway, I saw you ate his lunch on Tilford's blog too!

 

[BotanyBay]

I missed this. I was in detention at the time this was going on. Anyway, I saw you ate his lunch on Tilford's blog too!

Starr really "iss-payed" me "off-payed".

 

[rhubroma]

In the first paragraph, did you mean, "overstates?"

The guy seems to be the type.

He did have a plausible analysis of why Landis was able to gain so much time on the stage to Morzine.



edit.

Starr from the peanut gallery of Steve Tilfords blog bashing LeMond.



38 Oliver Starr // Apr 10, 2012 at 6:03 am


I said this in 2006 about Lemond. I’ll say it again here, now:

As a former professional and ten year member of the US National Junior and Senior Teams prior to that, I’ve raced with BOTH Landis and Lemond (as well as Armstrong). Of the three, LeMond is the most likely to have used controlled substances and gotten away with it. Please recall that during the tail end of his career and particularly for his epic world championship victory, EPO was commonly available but undetectable by the then state-of-the-art testing. Most of the riders from this era who continued racing later were confirmed to have used EPO (Gianni Bugno anyone?).

Who was Lemond to have defeated Europe’s best clean while they doped? Also recall that Lemond was the first to avail himself of any available technology (Scott Bars) so what makes you think he stopped at questionable and unfair equipment advantages when other solutions were also at hand.

If he had vials of urine stored in labs somewhere I doubt he’d be quite so smug right now.

This is not to say that what he achieved wasn’t remarkable beyond belief or that he wasn’t an amazing cyclist (he was my hero when I first raced against him), it’s only that he should know when to SHUT THE HELL UP because there are those of us that remember what it was like racing against him, how he looked, how he rode, and how fast he went from getting dropped at Tour Du Trump to Winning the Le Tour…

I raced against Lemond. EPO Couldn’t be detected at the time but was widely available. Who says Lemond was clean? Him? Look at his performance from beginning of the year to the end. His improvement was beyond miraculous the year he won the tour after being shot – it was indescribable; Dropped at Trump by the sprinters on the climbs, to winning the Tour de France a few months later. Unnatural is the only word that comes to mind for that kind of improvement and I was there to see it first hand.

Lemond should shut up lest someone find an old vial of his urine on ice somewhere and run a few tests on it…

EPO was "widely available then?" That doesn't coincide with the other data available, which links it to the Indurain era.

Perhaps Star would be satisfied with a Lemond confession, which would only damage his new hero even more? So it's Shut Up or Shut Up I guess, as the logic of his argument = Omertà. Confessions, no, they are always disastrous, provided one has something to confess. Otherwise, just SHUT UP. Got the message.

 

[Big Doopie]

I raced against Lemond...

lol. not another one.

that whole post was freakin' hysterical. tx.

 

[Jeremiah]

lol. not another one.

that whole post was freakin' hysterical. tx.

No,no, no!

This is Oliver Starr speaking, not me..

http://stevetilford.com/?p=18785

comment 38 onward.

edit. Oh ok, yeah the whole post was hysterical. I got you.

 

[Franklin]

He said he trained himself into the ground during the period of his rapid decline, then, when all was futile, he probably lost interest too.

You say you don't think Lemond did EPO, well then do you believe had it not exploded at the time of his demise, would his last years have turned out differently? And so his legacy? The difficulty in reconciling your affirmation against my question, is why I found this argument of yours specious.

Almost certainly it would have been different, but we can not claim he would have gone to win five GT's.

I hate disclaimers but here we go again: I am not poohpoohing Epo or saying "He would have lost anyway".

A huge compliment for Greg is that (especially in 1989) he wasn't the strongest in the TdF. If Lolo didn't have an incompetent manager(or should I say oldfashioned, as Guimard surely was no dunce) and if only he had used his brain he would have crushed Greg as he simply was a better athlete (No wonder with buckshot in your gizzard!).

Not only did Lemond barely hang on in the mountains (and deliciously outsprint them twice), with similar equipment Greg simply wouldn't have won. The fact that Lolo didn't use an aero helmet or tribars remain the biggest blunder in sports. They had seen them in the Giro, they saw them again in the first GT, heck it wasn't even new, they were called TRI-bars for a reason.

In 1990 something similar happened when Erik Breukink didn't wear an Aero helmet in the last TT which according to the numbers would have gotten him awfully close.

This is not to diminish Greg, instead it shows he was a winner who knew how to play the game. But he certainly wasn't the young god of the 84-86 years. Again, not surprising when shot like a turkey.


My point? Even in the pre epo 89-90 years he wasn't the strongest.. who knows what would have happened in a clean alternate universe? He could have one or two more, or he could have been boweled over by Charly Mottet for all we know.

Greg won three fantastic Tours and two majestic World Championship. No epo will change that.

 

[rhubroma]

Almost certainly it would have been different, but we can not claim he would have gone to win five GT's.

I hate disclaimers but here we go again: I am not poohpoohing Epo or saying "He would have lost anyway".

A huge compliment for Greg is that (especially in 1989) he wasn't the strongest in the TdF. If Lolo didn't have an incompetent manager(or should I say oldfashioned, as Guimard surely was no dunce) and if only he had used his brain he would have crushed Greg as he simply was a better athlete (No wonder with buckshot in your gizzard!).

Not only did Lemond barely hang on in the mountains (and deliciously outsprint them twice), with similar equipment Greg simply wouldn't have won. The fact that Lolo didn't use an aero helmet or tribars remain the biggest blunder in sports. They had seen them in the Giro, they saw them again in the first GT, heck it wasn't even new, they were called TRI-bars for a reason.

In 1990 something similar happened when Erik Breukink didn't wear an Aero helmet in the last TT which according to the numbers would have gotten him awfully close.

This is not to diminish Greg, instead it shows he was a winner who knew how to play the game. But he certainly wasn't the young god of the 84-86 years. Again, not surprising when shot like a turkey.


My point? Even in the pre epo 89-90 years he wasn't the strongest.. who knows what would have happened in a clean alternate universe? He could have one or two more, or he could have been boweled over by Charly Mottet for all we know.

Greg won three fantastic Tours and two majestic World Championship. No epo will change that.

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.

 

[Jeremiah]

Starr really "iss-payed" me "off-payed".

I believe you're the "last word" on the spurious Oliver Starr / Greg LeMond doping allegations! Congrats!

 

[131313]

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.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Almost certainly it would have been different, but we can not claim he would have gone to win five GT's.

I hate disclaimers but here we go again: I am not poohpoohing Epo or saying "He would have lost anyway".

A huge compliment for Greg is that (especially in 1989) he wasn't the strongest in the TdF. If Lolo didn't have an incompetent manager(or should I say oldfashioned, as Guimard surely was no dunce) and if only he had used his brain he would have crushed Greg as he simply was a better athlete (No wonder with buckshot in your gizzard!).

Not only did Lemond barely hang on in the mountains (and deliciously outsprint them twice), with similar equipment Greg simply wouldn't have won. The fact that Lolo didn't use an aero helmet or tribars remain the biggest blunder in sports. They had seen them in the Giro, they saw them again in the first GT, heck it wasn't even new, they were called TRI-bars for a reason.

In 1990 something similar happened when Erik Breukink didn't wear an Aero helmet in the last TT which according to the numbers would have gotten him awfully close.

This is not to diminish Greg, instead it shows he was a winner who knew how to play the game. But he certainly wasn't the young god of the 84-86 years. Again, not surprising when shot like a turkey.


My point? Even in the pre epo 89-90 years he wasn't the strongest.. who knows what would have happened in a clean alternate universe? He could have one or two more, or he could have been boweled over by Charly Mottet for all we know.

Greg won three fantastic Tours and two majestic World Championship. No epo will change that.

Not sure what you mean by the EPO reference - but the 89 Tour was an amazing event.

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.

As for Fignon & LeMond, well it was like a Rocky movie, 2 riders coming back from injury neither quite at their previous form slogging it out.
Agree that Fignon was the stronger and should have made more use of that, but LeMond was smarter.

 

[Jeremiah]

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.

This may have been addressed earlier, but wasn't LeMond riding a much different race than Hampsten in '91?