LeMond II

[Benotti69]

I dont want to nag but the Armstrong era was not 1997.

I personally dont bother to read what LeMond has to say about 'this cycling era', he was wrong about Armstrong in 1999, Landis in 2006; would this be three for three?

Cyclists dope, it is the hypocracy around it what bothers me.

Dont worry, I still like Greg.

Yep. Good post.

 

[Race Radio]

Lemond is obviously talking about those who are winning.

He is saying Contador, Froome, Horner, Quintana, Nibali etc are within what is humanly possible. Which means either he is clueless (not likely), or he is lying to fit his new agenda.

Its basically Walsh all over again.

No, he said clearly he thinks what Horner did was not possible. He also questioned some of Froome's performance's in 2013 and said he should release his wattage

“It’s bull****. That’s bull****. Because if you can’t release your watts … they’re doing it right now,” he said of teams reviewing power data following the stage. “They’re looking at it right now, bottom to the top.

“The worst part, there’s speculating on that. If you don’t have anything to hide, and you can repeat it, give it to everybody.”

He has called Froome a natural.....then a couple days later say that his numbers were on the edge of reason. I don't understand his support of Quintana. Yeah, the guy is a great bike racer but has put out some very questionable numbers.

I don't share your opinion that he is a lying sell out

 

[Amazinmets73]

Certainly some were much heavier back then but Pantani's bike was 6.96kg (15.34lb), including the bottle cage and pedals. Weight limit today is 6.8.

Not according to this... http://www.bikeradar.com/us/road/gear/article/tour-de-france-winning-bikes-34375/

But, I did find the article that gave the weight you quoted. Even if his bike was 15.34 pounds, it was also a small frame, and specifically designed for a team leader who only excelled at climbing, so weight would have been the most important factor when designing the bike. Woah at Armstrong's '99 Tour bike weighing 18.9. I'd had thought a carbon frame for a Tour de France team leader would have been much lower.

 

[Race Radio]

I dont want to nag but the Armstrong era was not 1997.

Which is why a put up a list of historic climbs and ask which of them has a record less then 10 years old. None. It is certainly possible to cherry pick seldom used climbs but the facts are on the vast majority of historic climbs the times have been several minutes off the records of the old days. We do not see the grupetto setting times that used to be reserved for the greats.

Greg is right, climbing times are down.

 

[Benotti69]

Thank you for acknowledging that.

Ok, you don't like Greg and you question where he stands.

No problem.

I am not Greg, and unlike him I really don't matter, but if there is one thing that I have personally learned about discussing doping in cycling is that your fellow cyclists actually don't appreciate it.

This especially includes discussion of Armstrong who is, without question, the worst drug cheat to ever participate in the sport. It also includes discussion of vanishing twins, the FFF / JD & Beer / drunken mice and the other absurd doping stories we have been witness to.

That is why I discuss doping here, instead of over coffee after a ride.

Fortunately I can be anonymous and am judged only on what I write. Greg can't, and isn't.

Greg is not a Ralph Nader. Should he be?

Dave.

Hi Dave.

I only talk about doping in here too.

I didn't like Greg when he raced preferring the likes of Robert Millar, Kelly, and a load of Italians. But it was not a dislike of Greg.

I can understand Greg wanting to have the final word on Armstrong and remind everyone Armstrong tried to destroy Greg and Greg won. But hanging with other known dopers is hypocritical. He could have come up with a better solution to the eurosport thing where he did his thing and then eurosport got on with their interviewing the likes of Vino, Piti, Contador etc without him.

He could have done something similar to Cassani where Cassani rode parts of every stage talking about the important bits for RAI. That would've been perfect for LeMond on his bikes giving that former winners knowledge while selling product.

I have big respect for Gerg for calling Armstrong out on working with Ferrari, but he cant have it both ways with me. Most cycling fans will not blink, but i have.

 

[Benotti69]

Which is why a put up a list of historic climbs and ask which of them has a record less then 10 years old. None. It is certainly possible to cherry pick seldom used climbs but the facts are on the vast majority of historic climbs the times have been several minutes off the records of the old days. We do not see the grupetto setting times that used to be reserved for the greats.

Greg is right, climbing times are down.

climbing times are down, but not down as in clean!

 

[Digger]

Here Greg says you can't compare to before, in relation to froome, yet he continuously did that with lance.

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/lemond-there-can-be-spectacular-performances-without-doping

 

[Fearless Greg Lemond]

This especially includes discussion of Armstrong who is, without question, the worst drug cheat to ever participate in the sport.

This stuff is hilarious.

Get over it.

[oops, I guess you missed Kim Andersen, a former teammate of LeMond, check him out on L'arri's site]

 

[Race Radio]

Here Greg says you can't compare to before, in relation to froome, yet he continuously did that with lance.

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/lemond-there-can-be-spectacular-performances-without-doping

Good quote in there

I want to believe in what I'm seeing.

Some might want to paint Greg as a lying hypocrite but the reality he is a fan of the sport. The result is some naive comments on Froome and Quintana

 

[Fearless Greg Lemond]

Some might want to paint Greg as a lying hypocrite but the reality he is a fan of the sport. The result is some naive comments on Froome and Quintana

Just like in 1999.

Doesnt bother me one bit I must say.

 

[BYOP88]

What culture changed?

We still have Riis, Rihs, Och, Martinelli, Vino, Lefevere etc running teams.

Then we still have the doctors. Ferrari eg never stopped working.

The culture has not changed.

Why would we see team doping? No one is going to be stupid to stop a bus on a hill and take blood, but teams have had to get smarter. Keep riders guessing, keep the doping much more secretive in teams so if one rider talks they know very little.

There are over 100 derivatives of EPO in circulation. Most not detectable when microdoped.

Speeds are down slightly, not hugely and some riders matching epo era times.

Did Froome not show numbers up Ax3 Domaines higher than anyone but Armstrong? Bigger numbers than Beloki, Ullrich, Galseano, Sevilla, Botero and all these big time epo users.

St. Jonathan of Vaughters will be sad he wasn't named with those other guys. The sport isn't going to change whilst these people are still allowed any where near it.

 

[red_flanders]

Some might want to paint Greg as a lying hypocrite but the reality he is a fan of the sport. The result is some naive comments on Froome and Quintana

This is my take as well, as I really don't understand LeMond's comments over the years. He has railed against the sport changing and becoming more "medical" in the past, he's touted Armstrong, Landis and Froome as clean at some point when it seemed rather obvious all were not, etc.

The question of "who is riding clean" is one of the things he's been most wrong about–generally he seems to get everything else quite right.

I get him not going out of his way to attack former riders who were clearly dirty, but I have never gotten why he things some of these guys are clean. He should of all of us, know better.

Strange situation, one for which I don't have an explanation. Nothing tells me he's lying or being hypocritical. He clearly did have it in for Lance, for good reason. He doesn't have it in for others, he's like you say a fan of the sport. But he does come of as naive, and somehow that's not a very satisfying explanation.

I like LeMond, always have. He's a flawed and complex guy, but a great talent and a great champion. I don't get the need to call him a hypocrite or a sell out. FFS, if the guy was a sell out, he'd have made a hundred different decisions over the years regarding his bikes and businesses. That's one thing he's not.

 

[the sceptic]

When he says he wants to be part of the "new system" with Cookson, and then starts talking about how the performances are within human possibilities.. that just screams agenda to me.

And this:

Within three or four years, the testing will be infallible, which will make the sport completely credible.

Really now?

 

[IzzyStradlin]

I dont want to nag but the Armstrong era was not 1997.

So was the "Armstrong era" (1999-2004) cleaner than we think?

 

[BYOP88]

So was the "Armstrong era" (1999-2004) cleaner than we think?

Yeah, only Armstrong doped or so those who wanted to bring him down would tell you. Some of the people that were here in the days of Lance wanting him busted, are all now rooting for Wiggins/Froome and proclaiming them as clean.

 

[Fearless Greg Lemond]

So was the "Armstrong era" (1999-2004) cleaner than we think?

I would say less dirty as we are 'told'. The Armstrong era was nothing compared to 1994-1998.

This was awesome:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nCijUZvvESc#t=396

 

[TailWindHome]

Remember when Lemond was going to change cycling now.

Good Times.

 

[RownhamHill]

I would say less dirty as we are 'told'. The Armstrong era was nothing compared to 1994-1998.

This was awesome:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nCijUZvvESc#t=396

What is that video? My Spanish (?) isn't up to the commentary and I haven't got three hours to watch it unfold I'm afraid!

 

[red_flanders]

I would say less dirty as we are 'told'. The Armstrong era was nothing compared to 1994-1998.

This was awesome:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nCijUZvvESc#t=396

I wouldn't say "nothing". Certainly more equitable. More of a free-for-all than a few big teams lapping up all the glory.

 

[MarkvW]

Remember when Lemond was going to change cycling now.

Good Times.

Meet the new UCI, same as the old UCI.

 

[IzzyStradlin]

Yeah, only Armstrong doped or so those who wanted to bring him down would tell you.

Just doing a quick look. Lance's field generally had a super fast top 15-20 within 5 minutes of his time. Then then next big group at like 10 minutes back. Tactics or drugs?

 

[Digger]

People say he wasn't a hypocrite - reconcile that with his statements on Pantani over the years, including the documentary.

 

[proffate]

I don't think he's a hypocrite, he's just scatter-brained: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m2lpYnmJOss

Also, it's a lot easier to resist the temptation of EPO when you've got 3 tours under your belt.

 

[Fearless Greg Lemond]

What is that video? My Spanish (?) isn't up to the commentary and I haven't got three hours to watch it unfold I'm afraid!

Anyone with half a cycling brain knows that is the stage where Festina showed what perfluorcarbon is.

But, nevermind.

 

[RownhamHill]

Anyone with half a cycling brain knows that is the stage where Festina showed what perfluorcarbon is.

But, nevermind.

OK, thanks for explaining.

No real need to be rude.