LeMond I

[Fearless Greg Lemond]

Not doubting that, it is likely that Thurau was a massive charger so the idea that someone else could do it clean probably seemed entirely implausible to him. Hence why he completely ignored a clean rider on his own team, he probably just assumed that Skibby had to be doping.

The other rider quoted was Johan Van der Velde who was once again a massive charger who actually became addicted to amphetamines. He was so off his trolley he turned to petty crime and his life went completely of the rails resulting in him ending up in jail.

In 1989 he was riding for the TVM team(ironically with Skibby) and one night during the Giro he just upped and left without telling a soul, strangely half the team bikes disappeared at the same time and after initial concern, Van der Velde was found at home completely untroubled in the Netherlands.

Thankfully Van der Velde did eventually get his life sorted and both he and Thurau have sons riding in the pro peleton.

I bet van de Velde would have loved EPO though, one of the best amphetamine responders of his age. And, yes, a very sad story. Also a product of the peloton.

Saw him on Dutch TV a few weeks ago, not even feeling very sorry about his positive at Liege Bastogne Liege. Wtf man, U lost LBL

Don't forget, he was up in front of Hampsten and Breukink on the snowy Gavia in 1988.

His son is not too bad I believe.

 

[Big Doopie]

How about finally answering the query on the 1989 TT and all the other riders who were so fast they must also have been early EPO-users?

precisely. marie was only 33 seconds back. without aerobars.

indurain on the other hand was about 2 1/2 mins back. only 3 years later he destroyed lemond by 4 mins. gee, i wonder what happened in between...

 

[krinaman]

yet still after the guy retired nearly 20 years ago no one has come out and said he took this that or the other and there was an offer of $300,00 for info on Lemond doping.

No one saying someone doped is about as reliable as never failed a test in determining if someone doped.

 

[krinaman]

Still no positive tests, doping doctors, statements from teammates and staff? Nothing.

It is entertaining watching the struggle to come up with something, anything, that ties Greg to doping.

He was pro-cyclist wasn't he? IMO that ties him to doping.

Rampant doping and cycling are pretty much synonymous. But if you count the riders with "positive tests, doping doctors, statements from teammates and staff?" you would hard pressed to make a case that it's even a minor problem in cycling. How many got away with it for years passing every test, never being accused by teamates, etc. to admit to doping years later?

Based on all the stories I read/heard over the years I've reached the conclusion that the vast majority of the peloton (especially those at the front) doped. Furthermore the vast majority of those dopers got away with it.

Which leads me to the conclusion that the vast majority of riders who never had a "positive tests, doping doctors, statements from teammates and staff?" doped.

 

[Big Doopie]

No one saying someone doped is about as reliable as never failed a test in determining if someone doped.

actually no. not under these very particular circumstances that you are willfully ignoring.

$300,000 reward...

a sociopath who would stop at absolutely nothing to unearth even the taking of a caffeine pill...

and the fact that the then latent hypocrisy of being so outspoken against doping would surely force all who knew otherwise to come out and say so.

but not one single peep. not one.

not even from his bitter rival from 1989 who did not spare him criticism in his autobiography...

 

[ultimobici]

No one saying someone doped is about as reliable as never failed a test in determining if someone doped.

Ordinarily, I'd agree with you. However LeMond hasn't done what most ex-pros have done and kept quiet on the matter. Far from it, he has been pretty outspoken on the subject. Yet not one of his contemporaries has called him out on it. It's one thing to keep solidarity with someone who keeps quiet like the rest, but to do so for someone who's spitting in the soup, even just a little, is above on beyond the believable, IMO. I certainly couldn't let it slide, as Fignon, Hinault & co have for nigh on 30 years. There would have to be at least one person saying "who the hell does he think he is spouting off about winning 'clean'?" It's human nature to bring people like that down a peg or two, but somehow LeMond gets a pass. As Big Doopie pointed out, $300K couldnt elicit anything either. I wonder why?

 

[Hugh Januss]

I believe I have caught a whiff of Troll.

 

[Nocontest]

actually no. not under these very particular circumstances that you are willfully ignoring.

$300,000 reward...

a sociopath who would stop at absolutely nothing to unearth even the taking of a caffeine pill...

and the fact that the then latent hypocrisy of being so outspoken against doping would surely force all who knew otherwise to come out and say so.

but not one single peep. not one.

not even from his bitter rival from 1989 who did not spare him criticism in his autobiography...

You could apply the same rationale to Wiggins in that case yet there are a few on here who are happy to speculate with no evidence about him. For the record I loved watching Greg race, it was he who got me interested in racing. Do I believe he was clean when all around him were dirty? I would like to think so but I also have the same views on Wiggins.

 

[Big Doopie]

You could apply the same rationale to Wiggins in that case yet there are a few on here who are happy to speculate with no evidence about him.

um. no. not exactly.

reread my post.

those specific elements are not there for wiggins.

he is also the present king, so many are unlikely to say anything.

and sky -- for absolutely no logical reason -- got rid of perfectly good and reputable docs and hired ones with a doping past.

let's keep the thread on topic not least of all because comparing the wiggins situation with lemond is a comparison that cannot be done. if 30 years from now no one has said anything about wiggins, then we can talk.

btw. i am not saying wiggins is a doper.

cheers.

 

[Benotti69]

more Armstong fan worship

Another pops up in the Lemond thread trying so hard to tie Lemond to doping. Surprise surprise.

 

[Albatros]

Context. This paragraph is entirely meaningless without context. Provide it.

Here you have the full context, although I don't think it will change the meaning and intention of any of those words.

http://www.roble.net/marquis/coaching/lemond98.html

 

[Benotti69]

You could apply the same rationale to Wiggins in that case yet there are a few on here who are happy to speculate with no evidence about him. For the record I loved watching Greg race, it was he who got me interested in racing. Do I believe he was clean when all around him were dirty? I would like to think so but I also have the same views on Wiggins.

Wrong. Wiggins is currently working with 2 Doctors who have a doping past.

Massive difference.

 

[Albatros]

FFS Albatross. Read the whole answer. While you're at it bear in mind that interview is from 1998 prior to Festina kicking off IIRC.



WRT LeMond "going after" Armstrong, he didn't at all. He was asked to comment on the revelation of Armstrong working with Ferrari in the light of the latter being investigated for doping offences. Armstrong attacked him and LeMond merely defended himself.

For the rest of the posters here interested here's the link to the interview http://www.roble.net/marquis/coaching/lemond98.html

It does not matter when the interview takes place at all.

He is stating that he understand guys doing doping and that American morals do not bite into the reality of the situation. No matter how much you sugarcoat it that is what he is saying.

But then we have the safety net that what riders did before the EPO era was not doping. Do we?

 

[Benotti69]

It does not matter when the interview takes place at all.

He is stating that he understand guys doing doping and that American morals do not bite into the reality of the situation. No matter how much you sugarcoat it that is what he is saying.

But then we have the safety net that what riders did before the EPO era was not doping. Do we?

No he is not. You are putting words where there are no words.

Trolling as you have been in the thread, desperately trying to find anything even the size of a grain of sand to make others believe something that simply does not exist.

You bought a yellow bracelet, like lots of others who wanted to believe. It doesn't prevent you getting some common sense, you know?

But the sport of pro cycling would absolutely not let Lemond away with his statements and attendance at Anti-doping events and his criticism of Armstrong if he was a doper.

So go get your yellow blanky have a cry and get over it. Your boy doped. Lemond didn't.

 

[Albatros]

Ah the cat is out of the bag. it is all about he who must not be named.

How about finally answering the query on the 1989 TT and all the other riders who were so fast they must also have been early EPO-users? You remain very quiet on that issue.

Regards
GJ

Unlike you lot, I don't care about names. Mentioning Armstrong when talking about Lemond it is likely to occur, but it is entirely circumstancial.

Armstrong was another big doper, just the same as everyone who won the Tour de France before and after.

Regarding what you mention. Yes, those other riders could have been doping with EPO too. It is a possibility as EPO was already available.

What it is unbelievable is that Lemond average speed took so long to beat when according to many here EPO gives you around a 20% boost and aerodynamics have also improved. He rode that stage anything but aerodynamically by the way.

 

[Albatros]

No he is not. You are putting words where there are no words.

Trolling as you have been in the thread, desperately trying to find anything even the size of a grain of sand to make others believe something that simply does not exist.

You bought a yellow bracelet, like lots of others who wanted to believe. It doesn't prevent you getting some common sense, you know?

But the sport of pro cycling would absolutely not let Lemond away with his statements and attendance at Anti-doping events and his criticism of Armstrong if he was a doper.

So go get your yellow blanky have a cry and get over it. Your boy doped. Lemond didn't.

My boy was Luis Ocana who doped to the eye balls. You lot are so funny, disputing who was the better cyclist. Mine is bigger than yours.

That is for kids.

 

[Benotti69]

My boy was Luis Ocana who doped to the eye balls. You lot are so funny, disputing who was the better cyclist. Mine is bigger than yours.

That is for kids.

Lemond is not my boy. Sean Kelly was the rider i cheered for. Another doper. But i no longer follow riders. That is for the children and birds.

No one is disputing except you and other Armstrong apologists.

Trying to tarnish something with nothing.

That is truly child's play.

 

[Albatros]

Greg Lemond March 1989

As an American and a fanatic of clean riding, what do you think about doping in cycling?

It took me 6 years to notice it riding with the pros. Until then, with all my American candour, I had only seen low category riders dope in kermesses.


But in 1986 I did for the first time the classics. Prior to them I was riding much faster than a lot of cyclists and a week later they were riding like motorbikes in those one day races. You tell me what provoked that change!

Greg Lemond sometime in 1998
In a one-day race, there's no reason you cannot perform as well as someone taking drugs.


Anyone counting quotes from cyclists stating the benefits of drug taking before EPO should add one to it.

This time from the cleanest rider that ever existed. I hope it is accepted.


And again, he must have been off form during that 1998 interview cause he is contradicting himself one more time.

it tends to happen to those with verbal incontinence.

 

[Cavalier]

Don't think I've ever seen it claimed EPO gave a 20% speed boost. Perhaps you'd like to back that one up Albatros instead of making unfounded statements.
Better yet, an understanding of what EPO does wouldn't go astray.

 

[Albatros]

Forgot to say. Greg Lemond, all the American candour preventing him from noticing what was going on during six long years.

And as soon as he got to Europe he won one race by means of the winner being disqualified for drug taking.

Only in wonderland.

 

[Albatros]

Don't think I've ever seen it claimed EPO gave a 20% speed boost. Perhaps you'd like to back that one up Albatros instead of making unfounded statements.
Better yet, an understanding of what EPO does wouldn't go astray.

Plenty of quotes around that figure. I have read from 10 to 20%

Anyway, let's change it to 10% only. He rode at speeds similar to the best riders who were taking EPO and riding with more aerodynamic bikes (and technique) .

 

[Cavalier]

There's a sizeable difference between 10% and 20%. Regardless, you're still not right. Before you bandy about untrue statements, check the factual accuracy of them. EPO isn't a 'take this and you go X faster' tool. It increases time to exhaustion, and recovery.

 

[Benotti69]

<snipping the babble>

it tends to happen to those with verbal incontinence.

There is plenty of VI in here mostly from those trying desperately to justify doping to help the case of a certain Texan.

That you have spent most of your time posting in this thread with nothing approaching evidence demonstrates that you have only one purpose and that is to somehow smear Lemond as a doper to justify the Texans massive scale doping.

 

[Darryl Webster]

EPO improves performance by 54% in a laboratory trial

This great study, published in the European Journal of Applied Physiology earlier this year, evaluated the effects of EPO use on performance during cycling. We'll try to break the study down as simply and clearly as possible:

Who was tested?

They had 16 reasonably fit cyclists take part in the study. The pre-testing VO2max tests showed an average VO2 of about 3.90L/min and a Peak Power Output of 325 W. By no means world-class cyclists, but fit athletes. This does have some implications for the application of the data, which we'll get to later.

How were they tested?

The testing involved an 13-week period, where the 16 athletes were split into two groups. The control group received placebo injection, whereas the 8 cyclists in the EPO group received a dosage of EPO on a schedule worked out over the 13-week period. One potential problem with the study was that the EPO group could not be blinded that they were receiving EPO, for ethical reasons. What this means is that everyone receiving EPO KNEW that they were, and there's good reason to believe that simply knowing you're receiving a drug improves performance as well! The control subjects were blinded, so they did not know whether they were on EPO or not, which does partly offset this problem.

Measures of performance?

All the athletes were tested BEFORE and AFTER the injections doing two performance-trials:
Peak Power Output testing - here, the subjects start off riding at a low power output and the workload increases every 90seconds until exhaustion. Basically, the cyclist has to go harder and harder until they cannot push anymore! The test is used to measure VO2max and also a Peak Power Output
This was followed by a Trial to Exhaustion at 80% of the previously determined Peak Power Output. In this trial, the cyclist rides at ONE power output - 80% of their maximum, and they ride until exhaustion. This test is used as a measure of endurance performance. This trial was done after 4 weeks and again after 11 weeks of the trial.
The results: A 54% improvement in performance

We don't wish to go into all the blood analysis and DEXA work done - they measured all kinds of things, but this is a post about performance. And the main finding was that EPO use improved time to exhaustion by an enormous 54% within 4 weeks! Peak Power Output improved by 13% in the first four weeks of the trial. The graph below shows the results:http://www.sportsscientists.com/search?q=epo

It think we can be reasonably confident that EPO is worth at least a 10% improvement in performance in elite cyclists. An amount IMPOSSIBLE to for a clean rider to compete with , especially in events were tactics play very little part..time trials.

 

[Albatros]

There is plenty of VI in here mostly from those trying desperately to justify doping to help the case of a certain Texan.

That you have spent most of your time posting in this thread with nothing approaching evidence demonstrates that you have only one purpose and that is to somehow smear Lemond as a doper to justify the Texans massive scale doping.

It only merits that.