LeMond II

[Semper Fidelis]

^This.

Should be applied to marginal gain BS, and anyone else saying that riding clean is magically easy now.

(and, yes, with acknowledgement to those who may find fault with some of his recent support for 'marginal' characters in cycling, it would be great if LeMond - and others of coruse - kept these fine words and excellent appraisal in mind when evaluating the current crop of amazing cyclists and their incredible feats.

Dave.

Right on the money D-Q. There are more who should keep that in mind when considering the current "leadership with Marginal Gains" crowd.

 

[therhodeo]

No one ever said "if it seems too good to be true, believe it because its awesome".

 

[sniper]

The connection with Guimard has never struck me as shedding favorable light on Lemond. Guimard has had a wide range of high profile dopers under his tutelage.
Any views on Guimard and doping (was he an enabler or more of a passive bystander?)

 

[Digger]

There is simply no way he was as clueless about steroid and amphetamine abuse going on around him in the 80's as he claims - I am not saying he was using himself - but I am saying if everyone else knew at the time, and they did, there is no credibility in him saying he didn't know.

 

[Franklin]

Why were you so sure Armstrong was doping, and willing to say that when no one else dared?[/B]

Oh Dear.

There?s been a lot of smoke and mirrors in cycling the last 20 years, a lot of junk science. And my problem is that I know the science. I knew that Armstrong?s aerobic capacity ? your VO2 max, your engine ? was below that of the average pro.

And more "Oh Dear". Not only VO2 not the marker of greatness Greg says it is, LA did not have an exceptionally low VO2 (lower than Greg ofc).

Let's chalk this up to the interviewer being out if his depth.

 

[Merckx index]

Not only VO2 not the marker of greatness Greg says it is, LA did not have an exceptionally low VO2 (lower than Greg ofc).

Let's chalk this up to the interviewer being out if his depth.

This is true, but there is still a disconnect between Armstrong?s numbers and his performance. Coyle estimated his V02max at 85, his lactate threshold at a maximum of 85%, and his efficiency 23%. This indicates an FTP of about 5.75 watts/kg (5.60 calculated by Coyle, at a slightly lower LT). LA routinely exceeded this by a large margin during his career, e.g., his best Alpe D?Huez time corresponds to about 6.35 watts/kg.

Also see the the much more mundane numbers LA was measured at in CO Springs. As was discussed in this thread previously, those numbers cast doubt on whether the numbers published by Coyle, if real, were achieved clean.

 

[Benotti69]

This is true, but there is still a disconnect between Armstrong?s numbers and his performance. Coyle estimated his V02max at 85, his lactate threshold at a maximum of 85%, and his efficiency 23%. This indicates an FTP of about 5.75 watts/kg (5.60 calculated by Coyle, at a slightly lower LT). LA routinely exceeded this by a large margin during his career, e.g., his best Alpe D?Huez time corresponds to about 6.35 watts/kg.

Also see the the much more mundane numbers LA was measured at in CO Springs. As was discussed in this thread previously, those numbers cast doubt on whether the numbers published by Coyle, if real, were achieved clean.

Armstrong stopped being a clean athlete as a teenager.

 

[Franklin]

There's no defense of anything whatsoever. Cole's paper was destroyed for good reason.

But Greg and VO2 is a bit of an eye-roller. He never struck me as truly understanding it all other than that he was very proud that he had such a high VO2. For giggles: Hinault claims to have had a VO2 of 93, Lemond thinks Hinault had 88*. The enjoyment of the Frenchman to claim he had just a point higher as Greg is of course par for the course. Both should know that such difference of 1-2 points is between a good nap, the protocol used and the position of the moon.

It's all a buch of D**k-measuring. It's all extremely amusing.

* To wit, Lance was in that territory (according to the then known numbers at least!), so really, Greg's response how he knew things were amiss after he learnt of just the VO2 of Lance is strange.

I really like Greg, but his personality and the interviewer cause this silly exchange. Greg is a fantastic guy who can go extremely enthusiastic and embellishing in his stories (se his commentary for Eurosport). That's fine, so I guess I really shouldn't be this critical of him.

 

[@NL_LeMondFans]

The connection with Guimard has never struck me as shedding favorable light on Lemond. Guimard has had a wide range of high profile dopers under his tutelage.
Any views on Guimard and doping (was he an enabler or more of a passive bystander?)

There's always been a cloud on Guimard as far as the 80's are concerned, corticosteroids in particular. The rumor being that the tendinitis suffered by Guimard himself (he quit pro racing early because of his knees), then Hinault in 80 & 83 (knee), then Fignon in 85 (ankle) were all induced by corticosteroids use. I believe there were other cases too in the team and it appeared that journalists were raising the question at the time, if you care to do some research. However, I do not think it was ever proven but I believe this polemic lead Th?venet to confess about what he did at the time.

It's interesting that, in the case of Hinault and Fignon, it came right after a "domination" period (1979 & 1982 for Hinault, 1984 for Fignon) and for Guimard the first symptoms appeared right after he did beat Merckx for the first time...

 

[Merckx index]

There's no defense of anything whatsoever. Cole's paper was destroyed for good reason.

The criticism of Coyle's paper centered on his measurement of efficiency. If you accept the criticisms, then the calculated watts/kg becomes even lower, and the disconnect with actual performance even greater. None of Coyle's critics has every claimed that he underestimated LA's power, quite the contrary. My point was that if you accept the numbers of one of LA's biggest apologists, they still come up far short of what he actually performed.

I tend to agree with your take on Greg, though. I don't think he understands the science as well as he thinks he does.

 

[sniper]

There's always been a cloud on Guimard as far as the 80's are concerned, corticosteroids in particular. The rumor being that the tendinitis suffered by Guimard himself (he quit pro racing early because of his knees), then Hinault in 80 & 83 (knee), then Fignon in 85 (ankle) were all induced by corticosteroids use. I believe there were other cases too in the team and it appeared that journalists were raising the question at the time, if you care to do some research. However, I do not think it was ever proven but I believe this polemic lead Th?venet to confess about what he did at the time.

It's interesting that, in the case of Hinault and Fignon, it came right after a "domination" period (1979 & 1982 for Hinault, 1984 for Fignon) and for Guimard the first symptoms appeared right after he did beat Merckx for the first time...

tnx for that.
Guimard is also credited for 'discovering' David Millar.
Here's Millar in 2013 about Guimard:

?I wouldn?t hear a bad word said about Guimard. If he came into the sport now he?d be again a genius. All his tactics, his ways of training, were all compromised by the EPO era? His great ideas of altitude training and equipment and being tactical in races were destroyed when people came in with motorbike engines.

?Guimard hated the fact that EPO had become so prevalent. He said, ?You?re still a kid. Do the Tour de France when you?re 23. Don?t think about doing EPO until you?re older???

http://thecyclingpodcast.com/podcast/david-millar-and-the-tour-de-france-a-special-interview

 

[@NL_LeMondFans]

I really like Greg, but his personality and the interviewer cause this silly exchange. Greg is a fantastic guy who can go extremely enthusiastic and embellishing in his stories (se his commentary for Eurosport). That's fine, so I guess I really shouldn't be this critical of him.

I totally agree with this.

In my experience, every word from a pro rider or ex-pro rider is to be taken with a pinch of salt. Ego or memory loss stands in a way most of the time. And let's face it, these guys are not relying on the facts as much as we do.

I think it can be said about each of us regarding our personal life.

My "expertise" lies within cycling of the 80's, especially Hinault, LeMond (obviously) and Fignon.

Hinault and Fignon wrote autobiographies. They are innacurate and omit facts regularly. It's a common pattern. I enjoy reading those, but as I said, with a pinch of salt.

I once interviewed Hinault. I'm not a journalist but I was managing a book store and had him come to sign one of his books. Nice chap. Anyway I relayed a few question from the http://www.gitaneusa.com forum members and interviewed him by phone later on. It was very strange. Hinault can give very interesting pieces of information like how they conducted their test rides but as soon as his ego is involved...

Just 2 examples :
-The 1985 TDF crash : he holds a grudge against Phil Anderson for having made him crash on purpose. But he has no idea on the potential motives of Anderson and fails to remember nderson actually crashed with him.
-He says he had a VO2 max of... 93. I don't remember seeing any actual proof of this. And I read a lot about Hinault.

Link :
http://gitaneusa.com/Hinault.asp

 

[@NL_LeMondFans]

tnx for that.
Guimard is also credited for 'discovering' David Millar.
Here's Millar in 2013 about Guimard:
http://thecyclingpodcast.com/podcast/david-millar-and-the-tour-de-france-a-special-interview

Don't forget Guimard also hired Lance Armstrong as the new leader of Cofidis just a few months before he was diagnosed with cancer.

 

[@NL_LeMondFans]

tnx for that.

No problem.

I'm adding that Thevenet too suffered in 76 & 78 for over-using steroids in 1975 & 1977... He won the tour in 75 & 77.

 

[pmcg76]

Corticosteroids seemed to be common at Guimards teams. There were very strong suspicions of the way Renault dominated the 84 Tour for example. They won 10 stages without a sprinter and LeMond still didn't win a stage.

Ironically Castorama seemed to be one of the last teams that got on the EPO train in the 90s. According to the late Philipe Gaumont who started his career at Castorama, doping was widespread at the team but not EPO. I would imagine Armand De Las Cuevas was on the EPO as he was working with Ferrari. Ironically Giles Delion spent time at Castorama.

There were people who viewed EPO differently than what had gone before, Peter Winnen was one, Fignon another and I think Guimard as well.

 

[@NL_LeMondFans]

Corticosteroids seemed to be common at Guimards teams. There were very strong suspicions of the way Renault dominated the 84 Tour for example. They won 10 stages without a sprinter and LeMond still didn't win a stage.

Ironically Castorama seemed to be one of the last teams that got on the EPO train in the 90s. According to the late Philipe Gaumont who started his career at Castorama, doping was widespread at the team but not EPO. I would imagine Armand De Las Cuevas was on the EPO as he was working with Ferrari. Ironically Giles Delion spent time at Castorama.

There were people who viewed EPO differently than what had gone before, Peter Winnen was one, Fignon another and I think Guimard as well.

Yes, there is also the case of coach Roger Legeay (Z, then Gan, then Credit Agricole) standing up against using EPO Greg LeMond and Eric Boyer vouch for him doing so.

I think, since Christophe Bassons was at Festina (!) that the "guilt by association" argument doesn't apply here. More complicated than that.

 

[Franklin]

And let's face it, these guys are not relying on the facts as much as we do.

I think it can be said about each of us regarding our personal life.

That's a good comment... they go through their memories while we either look up the results or rewatch the race on youtube.

Funny how the actors are actually inaccurate witnesses

 

[Semper Fidelis]

This is true, but there is still a disconnect between Armstrong?s numbers and his performance. Coyle estimated his V02max at 85, his lactate threshold at a maximum of 85%, and his efficiency 23%. This indicates an FTP of about 5.75 watts/kg (5.60 calculated by Coyle, at a slightly lower LT). LA routinely exceeded this by a large margin during his career, e.g., his best Alpe D?Huez time corresponds to about 6.35 watts/kg.

Also see the the much more mundane numbers LA was measured at in CO Springs. As was discussed in this thread previously, those numbers cast doubt on whether the numbers published by Coyle, if real, were achieved clean.

I think or better,,,,,,in my opinion the V02 score is a very good indicator for endurance activities. I could but won't delve into my own numbers but maybe a different thread is more appropriate.

It is hard to determine what those Colye numbers represent due to the use of PEDs. I wish there were some old tri days numbers along with some entry level exam info back in the USA cycling days.

Lemons numbers are out there much in part because he broadcast them. But if I had those numbers I might broadcast them also. Even if my backindaday numbers are better than LA ped numbers with respect to V02max.

I wish Lemond would jump on the wagon, to ask these current grand tour winners their V02max.

 

[ralphbert]

No point asking Froome, he never been in the lab. Not even wearing sandshoes. Minginal gains.

 

[Saint Unix]

Obviously VO2-max is a good indicator of endurance, but it's far from the only factor when measuring actual performance. You'll find plenty of endurance athletes who compensate for a (relatively) poor VO2-max by being better at other stuff, like having high max lactate values.

 

[sniper]

i don't remember reading about this in the Clinic.
it's a pretty spectacular claim.
According to this article (http://ronnydeschepper.com/2015/01/21/philippe-casado-1964-1995/ ), Rudy Dhaenens (when he was still alive, he died in a car crash) allegedly claimed that it was Greg Lemond who introduced EPO into the peloton. Moreover, the story was allegedly rumored throughout the peloton.

According to [Rudy Dhaenens] Greg Lemond introduced EPO into the peloton. EPO is a medicine for kidney patients, and Lemonds kidney had been injured when his brother in law accidentally shot volley (? dutch: hagel) at him.

Then in a footnote, it says:

According to Hans Vandeweghe (“Wie gelooft die renners nog?” p.34) this story was indeed rumored about, but it would have been impossible because the accident with Lemond happened two years before EPO came on the market.

 

[King Boonen]

Epogen was first approved in 1989, but tests were carried out in the 1980's with, I think, the first paper published in 1987:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3537801


It's not inconceivable that Greg was part of a clinical trial after his accident and he continued to use it afterwards, so impossible is a strong word. Unlikely yes, impossible no.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

Re:

Epogen was first approved in 1989, but tests were carried out in the 1980's with, I think, the first paper published in 1987:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3537801


It's not inconceivable that Greg was part of a clinical trial after his accident and he continued to use it afterwards, so impossible is a strong word. Unlikely yes, impossible no.

It's an interesting read: http://www.marsdd.com/mars-library/amgen-a-biotechnology-success-story-from-drug-development-to-the-mass-market/

 

[sniper]

Re:

Epogen was first approved in 1989, but tests were carried out in the 1980's with, I think, the first paper published in 1987:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3537801


It's not inconceivable that Greg was part of a clinical trial after his accident and he continued to use it afterwards, so impossible is a strong word. Unlikely yes, impossible no.

yeah, and regardless of whether the story is true, i'm sort of surprised that such rumors were circulating about lemond, and that (to my knowledge) it never before surfaced here in the clinic.
he's basically being accused of having started the EPO arms race.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

Re: Re:

Epogen was first approved in 1989, but tests were carried out in the 1980's with, I think, the first paper published in 1987:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3537801


It's not inconceivable that Greg was part of a clinical trial after his accident and he continued to use it afterwards, so impossible is a strong word. Unlikely yes, impossible no.

yeah, and regardless of whether the story is true, i'm sort of surprised that such rumors were circulating about lemond, and that (to my knowledge) it never before surfaced here in the clinic.
he's basically being accused of having started the EPO arms race.

Except Armstrong offered some ridiculous reward if you could prove it? You'd think someone would have some info worth the reward?