LeMond I

[sittingbison]

...I think the answer is to replay this time trial in a future Tour de France. Final stage ITT into Paris, same course, with new bikes and current riders. Lets see if anyone manages to touch Greg's time. I wish they had done this ITT in 1995, or 2000.

Someone suggested they replay the exact same route of the whole 1989 Tour next year, so we have a direct comparison between Lemond/Fignon and current.

Sounded like a good idea to moi

 

[Dr. Maserati]

I watched a YouTube video of Greg - linked in this thread ...

Greg starts off by saying that his record average speed time trial in the Tour was helped by 5 km of downhill.

I have always wondered about how his record still holds up, despite improvements in equipment and dopers loaded to the gills. It is one of the reasons why I thought Lemond might be on something.

I think the answer is to replay this time trial in a future Tour de France. Final stage ITT into Paris, same course, with new bikes and current riders. Lets see if anyone manages to touch Greg's time. I wish they had done this ITT in 1995, or 2000.

Pretty easy for a record to stand when you exclude Prologues and there hasn't been as short a flat TT since 89.
Lemonds average was 54.55 km/h (34.093 mph) over 24.5km - just over 10 years later Armstrong does 53.9 km/h over 59 kms!!

Even back in 1985 Sean Kelly did a 20.9km (13 ml) TT @ 52.2km/h - on an ordinary bike with just a disk wheel.

 

[BigBoat]

Good god I cant believe this is still being srsly debated! The time trial is not a power estimate at all. If it was than all guys who've ridden down a hill would be doped!

It took Lemond 42 mins to climb Alp D'Huez that year, 395 watts average or so for the predicted average power. Although his comeback from going 39th in the Giro to TDF win was a big improvement. He certainly wasn't in dire state for that Giro though or he'd of been a DNF. Being a few points off on hemoglobin can make you feel really crappy while racing. Most guys not on top form for a Grand Tour would have to drop out...

 

[9000ft]

Anybody who doesn't sing the praises of St Greg, he who does battle with the evil Necrolancer is not a real cycling fan.

 

[Hugh Januss]

Anybody who doesn't sing the praises of St Greg, he who does battle with the evil Necrolancer is not a real cycling fan.

And all the LA chamois sniffers want to believe that Greg doped too, even though there is virtually zero evidence to suggest it, and not even Lance's offer of a bounty for anyone who could uncover any such evidence produced anything. You guys are lame.

 

[blutto]

Where you say your wife is a medical researcher or the post where you said she isn't - no dots there, just lots of question marks as per usual.

...would love to see the post where I say she isn't one....because that is what she has been since graduate school 22 years ago...

Cheers

blutto

 

[Dr. Maserati]

...would love to see the post where I say she isn't one....because that is what she has been since graduate school 22 years ago...

Cheers

blutto

That would be the post that you started with "no..." after I asked was your wife a medical researcher.

Hey Blutto, didn't you once tell us your wife was a "medical researcher" or something- does she supply you with hallucinating drugs - just connecting dots here...

....no... she specializes in all manner of blood issues....including EPO related issues...and she knows her field and its history...and how clinical trials are conducted...and the time frame for such tests( which gives you a real insight into when drugs are potentially available...though admittedly thru back channels...some underhanded but often thru established medical practitioners in special emergency cases )...something, btw, you didn't have a clue about when, a while back, we were discussing the introduction of EPO....

...and btw, her reading of the data, at my insistence( she is very busy girl and hates to needlessly carry my water) gives a potential availability date somewhere late 86 early 87...

...really appreciate the drive-by insult of my wife...ok I'm fair game, but my wife?...youse class nutin but class...at least you haven't sunk to the level of RR...very miniscule mercies that....but no X-mas card this year...

Cheers

blutto

And BTW -I only just noticed that you edited and added to that post a half hour after posting it.
I am not insulting your wife, it was you who decided to introduce her in to your posts in an attempt to add some expertise to your ramblings- and you didn't appear to have a problem bringing in LeMonds wife when it suits your argument.

 

[blutto]

That would be the post that you started with "no..." after I asked was your wife a medical researcher.





And BTW -I only just noticed that you edited and added to that post a half hour after posting it.
I am not insulting your wife, it was you who decided to introduce her in to your posts in an attempt to add some expertise to your ramblings- and you didn't appear to have a problem bringing in LeMonds wife when it suits your argument.

....naw...all you did was imply she was a drug dealer....that's a complement?...

...and btw the no in your quote referred specifically to your odious implication....the part after no referred to her speciality in medical research....which allows her to say with confidence that those magic injections half way thru the Giro weren't remotely magic or effective in the way they have been portrayed to be...in essence she agrees whole heartedly with the Dr in the Slowtwitch reference...big dot...

Cheers

blutto

 

[Dr. Maserati]

....naw...all you did was imply she was a drug dealer....that's a complement?...

...and btw the no in your quote referred specifically to your odious implication....the part after no referred to her speciality in medical research....which allows her to say with confidence that those magic injections half way thru the Giro weren't remotely magic or effective in the way they have been portrayed to be...in essence she agrees whole heartedly with the Dr in the Slowtwitch reference...big dot...

Cheers

blutto

Was it a complement to Kathy Lemond and her family when you implied that she administers drugs?

Wow, a Doctor on Slowtwitch - good school, was thinking of going there to pretend to be a Doctor but decided to come here instead.

 

[blutto]

Was it a complement to Kathy Lemond and her family when you implied that she administers drugs?

Wow, a Doctor on Slowtwitch - good school, was thinking of going there to pretend to be a Doctor but decided to come here instead.

....sorry but that still doesn't excuse your behaviour....

Cheers

blutto

 

[krinaman]

And all the LA chamois sniffers want to believe that Greg doped too, even though there is virtually zero evidence to suggest it, and not even Lance's offer of a bounty for anyone who could uncover any such evidence produced anything. You guys are lame.

Maybe I'm just too much of a cynic.

But he was a cyclist in the Tour de France which more often than not means you are doping. He was also a winner which almost always means you were doping.

I know it's a cynical view but with the history of doping in cycling can you really blame me?

 

[Susan Westemeyer]

I'm going to go through and muck out this thread at some point today.

There have been calls for the mods to close this thread. But why?

Consider this: "There has NEVER been any proof that Lemond/Armstrong/Wiggins doped!!!!! No one is allowed to say that!!!!! Close this thread immediately!!!"

Nope.

Susan

 

[Ferminal]

Pinotti did 56kmh in the Giro, didn't he?

 

[goober]

And all the LA chamois sniffers want to believe that Greg doped too, even though there is virtually zero evidence to suggest it, and not even Lance's offer of a bounty for anyone who could uncover any such evidence produced anything. You guys are lame.

Greg took banned substances while an active rider - end of story.

 

[poupou]

That famous ITT was from Versailles to Paris -Champs Elysee. I don't know where was exactly the start point, but we can assume that don't change much the result!

According stage ITT distance and distance between Versailles and Champs Elysee, the path was close of the shortest.

 

[Susan Westemeyer]

How many times must we say that all opinions are welcome here, as long as they are politely expressed? If you disagree with a poster, either say it nicely or simply don't reply.

Further insults will incur sanctions.

Susan

 

[Darryl Webster]

How many times must we say that all opinions are welcome here, as long as they are politely expressed? If you disagree with a poster, either say it nicely or simply don't reply.

Further insults will incur sanctions.

Susan

The difference re Lemond and Armstrong and many others is that any "evidence" isn't based on anything tangible, no undeclared positives, confessions, no eyewitness,s , no domination etc. Its all been very poor speculation.
Re "proof" other than those riders actually sanctioned or confessing we have no "proof" but in most case,s of speculation we have substantial circumstantial evidence. Again , in the case of Lemond we have NONE.
It does this section of the forum no favours to carry on down this line when this is the case. Its very clear certain posters will just keep banging this drum , going round in circles with nothing new on the table and appearing to be convinced on very flimsiest of ideas that are easily debunked. Gregs 89 final TDF time trial being the most obvious example.
If the clinic wants credibility to be sustained, and generally speaking there are some credible arguments put up in most cases, then at some point Id hope the mods would step in and say enough is enough.
That isn't to say if something new was revealed Greg ( or any other riders) couldn't be a subject returned to but Idle speculation , by peeps with some kind of axe to grind, makes the clinic look like the home of the tin foil hat brigade and personally I think its better than that.
I don't think its an issue of censorship but of credibility.
Perhaps a poll to decide?

 

[Dr. Maserati]

The difference re Lemond and Armstrong and many others is that any "evidence" isn't based on anything tangible, no undeclared positives, confessions, no eyewitness,s , no domination etc. Its all been very poor speculation.
Re "proof" other than those riders actually sanctioned or confessing we have no "proof" but in most case,s of speculation we have substantial circumstantial evidence. Again , in the case of Lemond we have NONE.
It does this section of the forum no favours to carry on down this line when this is the case. Its very clear certain posters will just keep banging this drum , going round in circles with nothing new on the table and appearing to be convinced on very flimsiest of ideas that are easily debunked. Gregs 89 final TDF time trial being the most obvious example.
If the clinic wants credibility to be sustained, and generally speaking there are some credible arguments put up in most cases, then at some point Id hope the mods would step in and say enough is enough.
That isn't to say if something new was revealed Greg ( or any other riders) couldn't be a subject returned to but Idle speculation , by peeps with some kind of axe to grind, makes the clinic look like the home of the tin foil hat brigade and personally I think its better than that.
I don't think its an issue of censorship but of credibility.
Perhaps a poll to decide?

I don't agree.

Such is the nature of the sport, no rider is beyond suspicion.
Let people discuss LeMond (or any rider) and then let the individual reader make their own conclusion. If you stop discussion on any rider then how can new information be produced or any evidence for or against be introduced?

What is compelling here is that after numerous threads over the years no new information has come to light - that in itself is worth keeping the thread open for.

Also, if this really was a Clinic - then every clinic should have a recovery room, this thread will become busier as hwsnbn fans go through the anger stage, they need somewhere to vent their anger.

 

[Darryl Webster]

I don't agree.

If you stop discussion on any rider then how can new information be produced or any evidence for or against be introduced?

What is compelling here is that after numerous threads over the years no new information has come to light - that in itself is worth keeping the thread open for..

Surely if something new comes to light then a new thread titled as such is then a perfectly legitimate thing to open..and then if its compelling a locked thread could be re opened?

I take your 2nd point on board and as someone generally opposed to censorship its a good one. I guess I`d like to see a maturity to debate and I think a " free for all" approach drags things down to the level of the playground.
As we are then Gents ( and Ladies), ...rather like that childhood favourite..." tag, your on"...

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Surely if something new comes to light then a new thread titled as such is then a perfectly legitimate thing to open..and then if its compelling a locked thread could be re opened?

I take your 2nd point on board and as someone generally opposed to censorship its a good one. I guess I`d like to see a maturity to debate and I think a " free for all" approach drags things down to the level of the playground.
As we are then Gents ( and Ladies), ...rather like that childhood favourite..." tag, your on"...

While I would agree with the highlighted, it is not a reflection on the forum but those posters. Again though, as there is little evidence against LeMond all those who insist that he doped have is innuendo and fabrication which leaves little chance of a reasoned or mature discussion.

 

[Albatros]

I don't agree.

Such is the nature of the sport, no rider is beyond suspicion.
Let people discuss LeMond (or any rider) and then let the individual reader make their own conclusion. If you stop discussion on any rider then how can new information be produced or any evidence for or against be introduced?

What is compelling here is that after numerous threads over the years no new information has come to light - that in itself is worth keeping the thread open for.

Also, if this really was a Clinic - then every clinic should have a recovery room, this thread will become busier as hwsnbn fans go through the anger stage, they need somewhere to vent their anger.

Well, you just have to look a Mottet, a cyclists that it is used here by many as a proof that you could win before the EPO era without doping. Well, he did take amphetamines, although they didn't do any good too him.

My rule when interpreting athletes confessions, and I don't care about their nationality, is believe what they said bad about themselves and suspect about the rest.

So I believe that Mottet did dope with amphetamines, but I doubt they didn't do anything good to him, when from other cyclists you hear cataloging it short of a magic pill.

 

[Albatros]

No, but a minimum of proof would be nice other than that athletes might have used it pre 1990/10991 and that Lemond did an awesome time trial so clearly he must have been one of those athletes. It is always nice to play a game of connect the dots, but please do make sure you connect the right ones and that you don't cheat by inventing you own convenient dots.

Read the thread on early EPO-use in the clinic and then come back with some solid substantiation that Lemond did use EPO or any PED for that matter. Hell, if you can do that, you could contact Lance and you could be cashing a big, fat cheque any time soon.

Oh and please, please do elaborate how many of the other participants in that particular 1989 time trial were on EPO (Fignon, Marie, Wechselberger ) . You have been asked to address that point several times now and I think it is about time you answered it. If you don't, I might be forced to report for the troll you clearly are.

Regards
GJ

Isn't enough proof that an American athlete is stating its benefits in 1991 from what he heard from 2 to 3 years earlier?

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Well, you just have to look a Mottet, a cyclists that it is used here by many as a proof that you could win before the EPO era without doping. Well, he did take amphetamines, although they didn't do any good too him.

My rule when interpreting athletes confessions, and I don't care about their nationality, is believe what they said bad about themselves and suspect about the rest.

So I believe that Mottet did dope with amphetamines, but I doubt they didn't do anything good to him, when from other cyclists you hear cataloging it short of a magic pill.

No problem with your rule - but if you believe what Mottet says, then he finished 4th in TdF without resorting to other types of PEDs like steroids or blood boosters.
Suspicion on anything and everyone will always be there, regardless of what they say.

 

[Albatros]

Well said Sir. This is great forum intertainment. The 89 Giro was a great conditioner for Greg and from what I recall the final time trial showed the world his form, fitness and competitive edge was still there after the 20th April 1987 nightmare. DIAMONDS ARE MADE FROM PRESSURE !!!

Anyhow. his ADR boys lost him the Giro

Lemond said that he wanted to do well in the Giro and that he was so desperate because of his poor form that he almost decided to quit.... cycling.

I can give you a link in English, in Spanish and probably in Chinese if i search long enough. But I let it for you guys to find it. I am sure you all are intelligent enough to do it.

The same applies to the guy who asked me for a link with a 40 pt font about the wind conditions at that ITT trial.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Isn't enough proof that an American athlete is stating its benefits in 1991 from what he heard from 2 to 3 years earlier?

John Tracey? He is Irish, not American - and more importantly he said he heard about the benefits of EPO, not directly that it was available.

There is a link from a 1988 document that discusses the benefits of EPO, it was hardly a secret what its potential in sports was going to be.