LeMond II

[@NL_LeMondFans]

About Dhaenens... My theory is that, in the early 90's, there were a certain amount of suspicious deaths in cycling, cardiac arrests and such attributed to blood doping and EPO. Especially in Belgium and the Netherlands, I believe. I mean, human lab rats ! Can you imagine ? Riders were kind of scared. In order to convince riders to take those drugs, team management or team doctors probably said that Greg Lemond had won the 89 & 90 Tours using it (EPO and such). I remember Chiappucci saying "LeMond is lucky I was so naive" and then he went from average rider to top class GC contender.

It doesn't mean Greg took anything. But it was certainly a strong lever in trying to convince someone to willingly take some poison.

 

[sniper]

Re: Re:

Borysewicz....under him The US won a handful of medals at The LA olympics.

cheers.
i saw he wrote a book in 1985, in which he allegedly speaks favorably about Lemond saying he wouldnt even take vitamin injections.
if i understand correctly, that book came out before Borysewicz was exposed as a blooddoper.
in which case his vouching for Lemond means very little, i'm afraid.

if anyone has a link to that book from borysewicz or more precisely to the part where he speaks about lemond, i'd be obliged.

@NL_LeMondFans: you have an interesting point there. I agree the rumors could have come from everywhere. I've been looking for the primary source of the rumor (e.g. some Dhaenens interview?) but can't find anything, only that one indirect reference to Dhaenens, and the bit in Hans VandeWeghe's monography from 2006.

 

[carton]

Re: Re:

there's a good kimmage interview with Lemond out there (here: viewtopic.php?p=1190970#p1190970).
There's one point where Paul asks him if he'd ever seen doping happening around him e.g. from the French teammates at Peugeot he roomed with. Lemond does a Voigt-Yates immitation there saying he'd never seen anything.
]When Kimmage asks him if he was at all aware of the doping culture, Greg says 'Yeah, but it didn’t matter to me.'
I have no reason to assume he's lying there, but it further supports the idea that he's never really been anti-doping.

You do know that's how every clean rider who rode pro would have to do in order to get a ride. I mean, do you expect them to be some kind of investigative journalist asking questions and telling everyone everything he saw? Forget about winning the Tour, he'd have been kicked out of the peloton in microseconds. You would have never have heard of him.
Nobody, not even Kimmage, was out there livestreaming everything that went on while riding. Even Bassons only made the lightest of allusions. In fact I'd take a LeMond that very likely tee-totaled over a Kimmage than yielded to the pressure a couple of times before the change of heart. It takes massive, massive stones to say let them all cheat if they wan't to, I'm not going to worry about that, I'm going to win my way. I admire them both, though.

 

[@NL_LeMondFans]

Re: LeMond

As stated before, the Wonderboy clan, with all the inside info that come with working on the...inside, they would have made any doping on his part public. To me that's the biggest thing. How he got smacked at the '92 Luxembourg ITT would hint that he didn't do EPO. Yes, he has been associated with some shady characters, Guimard, Nanard (Tapie), but in cycling who has not? They're everywhere.

I'm a fan of his. However, and like many, it's the character side that I don't like as much. YouTube doesn't do justice to the World's '82. I watched it live, vintage news reports also blamed him for Boyer's demise. No one wanted to chase and bring Beppe to the line. He had lost to Maertens the previous year and had sworn he would win. But when Lemond saw an American threat to his "#1 American status", he couldn't stand it and brought Saronni back. Later, Lemond kept silent when BigMig, Riis, or Ulle won the TdF. He didn't say anything until he saw an American threat to his "#1 American status".

It's the perception of hypocrisy that drive people nuts about Lemond. And now that he's back in the bike business, gets a gig on TV, the exposure, he keeps quiet. "Hi Vino,how ya doin"? "Kiss on the cheek Bertie"?

Too bad TJVG isn't strong enough to pull a big escape a la Floyd: if it happened, I would want to see the video of Lemond watching his TV monitor. I bet he wouldn't be cheering .

Have you ever met Greg ? You should, if you have the chance.

My interpretation of things is that, for many reasons, people see Greg as the ultimate advocate of anti-doping. The Armstrong affair, the Change Cycling Now thing... Ok. What I think Greg is is just a cycling nut ! He loves cycling, he loves riding, he loves designing bikes and he has a thousand ideas by the second to make cycling even more fun. he just absolutely loves it.
Greg doesn't like doping because, in the end, it hurts the sport. It hurts the image, it hurts people, it hurts the business... It's essentially bad. But it doesn't mean he does not understand doping. Take Pantani, for example. Greg admired him. Pantani was super doped. And Greg probably hates what doping (you could say drugs) did to him, made of him (Pantani, that is).
Greg is not on an anti-doping quest. He is on an "I love cycling" quest. That's very different. And yes, he hopes to build a business out of it, too. What's wrong with that ? If TVG was to win the Tour, Greg would be ecstatic, if only for what it meant in terms of business !
Yes, Greg shakes hands with alledged dopers. Because they're everywhere. How could he do what he does if he started spitting at every doper in sight ? Nonsense. First of all, he would be sued. I'm amazed at the amount of people who think you can call everyone a doper without raising serious legal consequences.
Greg is a positive, enthusiastic person. Not the bitter, whining dwarf that was once portrayed. He could slap Miguel Indurain in the face (I know I would), but what good would it do, eventually ?

About Armstrong... Yes, it's personal. Because Armstrong attacked Greg on a personal level as well as on the business side. He made everything he could to destroy Greg. Is there another example of a doper who did these type of things to people around him ? No. That's what makes him "special".
For a decade, Greg was banned from cycling. It's as simple as that. He can finally be back and enjoy it the way he should have always had. Why shouldn't he ?

Peace.

Nicolas.

 

[Benotti69]

Re: LeMond

As stated before, the Wonderboy clan, with all the inside info that come with working on the...inside, they would have made any doping on his part public. To me that's the biggest thing. How he got smacked at the '92 Luxembourg ITT would hint that he didn't do EPO. Yes, he has been associated with some shady characters, Guimard, Nanard (Tapie), but in cycling who has not? They're everywhere.

I'm a fan of his. However, and like many, it's the character side that I don't like as much. YouTube doesn't do justice to the World's '82. I watched it live, vintage news reports also blamed him for Boyer's demise. No one wanted to chase and bring Beppe to the line. He had lost to Maertens the previous year and had sworn he would win. But when Lemond saw an American threat to his "#1 American status", he couldn't stand it and brought Saronni back. Later, Lemond kept silent when BigMig, Riis, or Ulle won the TdF. He didn't say anything until he saw an American threat to his "#1 American status".

It's the perception of hypocrisy that drive people nuts about Lemond. And now that he's back in the bike business, gets a gig on TV, the exposure, he keeps quiet. "Hi Vino,how ya doin"? "Kiss on the cheek Bertie"?

Too bad TJVG isn't strong enough to pull a big escape a la Floyd: if it happened, I would want to see the video of Lemond watching his TV monitor. I bet he wouldn't be cheering .

Have you ever met Greg ? You should, if you have the chance.

My interpretation of things is that, for many reasons, people see Greg as the ultimate advocate of anti-doping. The Armstrong affair, the Change Cycling Now thing... Ok. What I think Greg is is just a cycling nut ! He loves cycling, he loves riding, he loves designing bikes and he has a thousand ideas by the second to make cycling even more fun. he just absolutely loves it.
Greg doesn't like doping because, in the end, it hurts the sport. It hurts the image, it hurts people, it hurts the business... It's essentially bad. But it doesn't mean he does not understand doping. Take Pantani, for example. Greg admired him. Pantani was super doped. And Greg probably hates what doping (you could say drugs) did to him, made of him (Pantani, that is).
Greg is not on an anti-doping quest. He is on an "I love cycling" quest. That's very different. And yes, he hopes to build a business out of it, too. What's wrong with that ? If TVG was to win the Tour, Greg would be ecstatic, if only for what it meant in terms of business !
Yes, Greg shakes hands with alledged dopers. Because they're everywhere. How could he do what he does if he started spitting at every doper in sight ? Nonsense. First of all, he would be sued. I'm amazed at the amount of people who think you can call everyone a doper without raising serious legal consequences.
Greg is a positive, enthusiastic person. Not the bitter, whining dwarf that was once portrayed. He could slap Miguel Indurain in the face (I know I would), but what good would it do, eventually ?

About Armstrong... Yes, it's personal. Because Armstrong attacked Greg on a personal level as well as on the business side. He made everything he could to destroy Greg. Is there another example of a doper who did these type of things to people around him ? No. That's what makes him "special".
For a decade, Greg was banned from cycling. It's as simple as that. He can finally be back and enjoy it the way he should have always had. Why shouldn't he ?

Peace.

Nicolas.

Greg is doing Eurosport to make money and is willing to shake everyone's hand (bar Armstrong's probably) to make the bucks.

Ok he loves cycling, but he has more than enough money in the bank to go riding his bike every day and not worry. This is more than I love cycling, it looks like I love money more.

Not saying Greg doped, but I dont agree with his stance of appearing friendly to unrepentant dopers like Vino, Rogers et al. It doesn't sit with being anti doping.

 

["Jeff"]

Re: LeMond

As stated before, the Wonderboy clan, with all the inside info that come with working on the...inside, they would have made any doping on his part public. To me that's the biggest thing. How he got smacked at the '92 Luxembourg ITT would hint that he didn't do EPO. Yes, he has been associated with some shady characters, Guimard, Nanard (Tapie), but in cycling who has not? They're everywhere.

I'm a fan of his. However, and like many, it's the character side that I don't like as much. YouTube doesn't do justice to the World's '82. I watched it live, vintage news reports also blamed him for Boyer's demise. No one wanted to chase and bring Beppe to the line. He had lost to Maertens the previous year and had sworn he would win. But when Lemond saw an American threat to his "#1 American status", he couldn't stand it and brought Saronni back. Later, Lemond kept silent when BigMig, Riis, or Ulle won the TdF. He didn't say anything until he saw an American threat to his "#1 American status".

It's the perception of hypocrisy that drive people nuts about Lemond. And now that he's back in the bike business, gets a gig on TV, the exposure, he keeps quiet. "Hi Vino,how ya doin"? "Kiss on the cheek Bertie"?

Too bad TJVG isn't strong enough to pull a big escape a la Floyd: if it happened, I would want to see the video of Lemond watching his TV monitor. I bet he wouldn't be cheering .

Have you ever met Greg ? You should, if you have the chance.

My interpretation of things is that, for many reasons, people see Greg as the ultimate advocate of anti-doping. The Armstrong affair, the Change Cycling Now thing... Ok. What I think Greg is is just a cycling nut ! He loves cycling, he loves riding, he loves designing bikes and he has a thousand ideas by the second to make cycling even more fun. he just absolutely loves it.
Greg doesn't like doping because, in the end, it hurts the sport. It hurts the image, it hurts people, it hurts the business... It's essentially bad. But it doesn't mean he does not understand doping. Take Pantani, for example. Greg admired him. Pantani was super doped. And Greg probably hates what doping (you could say drugs) did to him, made of him (Pantani, that is).
Greg is not on an anti-doping quest. He is on an "I love cycling" quest. That's very different. And yes, he hopes to build a business out of it, too. What's wrong with that ? If TVG was to win the Tour, Greg would be ecstatic, if only for what it meant in terms of business !
Yes, Greg shakes hands with alledged dopers. Because they're everywhere. How could he do what he does if he started spitting at every doper in sight ? Nonsense. First of all, he would be sued. I'm amazed at the amount of people who think you can call everyone a doper without raising serious legal consequences.
Greg is a positive, enthusiastic person. Not the bitter, whining dwarf that was once portrayed. He could slap Miguel Indurain in the face (I know I would), but what good would it do, eventually ?

About Armstrong... Yes, it's personal. Because Armstrong attacked Greg on a personal level as well as on the business side. He made everything he could to destroy Greg. Is there another example of a doper who did these type of things to people around him ? No. That's what makes him "special".
For a decade, Greg was banned from cycling. It's as simple as that. He can finally be back and enjoy it the way he should have always had. Why shouldn't he ?

Peace.

Nicolas.

Greg is doing Eurosport to make money and is willing to shake everyone's hand (bar Armstrong's probably) to make the bucks.

Ok he loves cycling, but he has more than enough money in the bank to go riding his bike every day and not worry. This is more than I love cycling, it looks like I love money more.

LeMond loves money ?

My brother and I called Greg LeMond a money grubber already late 80s. I respect his career but the dude is all about money and its pretty disturbing. Always has been.

Its typical for the American culture. In the past no rider cared about $ but than you got Greg LeMond and suddenly this became an issue. When Lance arrived it got even worse. We suddenly had to deal with private jets and Hollywood stuff. Cycling is an old fashioned sport, Riders are nomads. I dont like it at all.

 

[Fearless Greg Lemond]

I dont know LeMond, I liked him as a bike rider waaaaaaay back, nowadays? He sells bikes and interviews guys who cut his carreer short with a big smile. I do know one thing for sure, he hates Armstong, with due reasons. And, you know, dont mess with real champions, Greg was a champion from day one. To be frank, I dont care if he doped. I think he didnt but who knows. Only he and his soigneur knows.

 

[red_flanders]

Re: Re:

The #1 argument that LeMond didn't dope is that there isn't a shred of credible evidence, let alone any proof that he did. No performance of his falls into the suspicious range, even the much attacked downhill TT in '89.

Several dopers and likely clean riders have gone out of their way to say he was clean, for no particular reason.

There is speculation. Nothing else.

But please god don't let anyone bring up speculation or a name of someone who said he was. Otherwise that is slinging some Sh!t against a wall to find out if it sticks according to the experts in all things Lemond.

It can be discussed and speculated upon in a civil manner but some don't want to and love to shout down anyone who try's that is clear to see.

Of course I would fall into the group who believe that Lemond did not dope. I finding it hard to believe with the last 40 years of history to fall back on but hey I still tend to believe he was doing it on bread and water.

Hey can someone answer this question for me. Greg got shot in the side and back. I can understand his operation but why is both his arms in cast's? He get shot and then went over the side of a cliff?

I'm not trying to stop people from speculating, I hope you can see that. One, I'm not interested in stopping conversation, and two it would be like pushing water up a hill. I'm simply stating that there's nothing else there and never has been, and there is evidence he didn't dope which exists for no other rider I know of.

At some point one comes to realize that there's neither smoke nor a fire.

 

[red_flanders]

Re: Re:

The #1 argument that LeMond didn't dope is that there isn't a shred of credible evidence, let alone any proof that he did. No performance of his falls into the suspicious range, even the much attacked downhill TT in '89.

Several dopers and likely clean riders have gone out of their way to say he was clean, for no particular reason.

There is speculation. Nothing else.

Game.set.match

Overheard b/w Eddie B. to Mike Fraysse (paraphrasing, but do your own heavy Polish-accent): "Greg was so naturally talented - a real diamond - that he didn't need to dope. Doping would've been wasted on him."

Just saying...it's not like Eddie B. - w/ Fraysse's backing as USCF VP at the time, iirc - was averse to blood-doping anyone on Team USA who wanted it (for LA games '84). So when Eddie B. says someone is so naturally gifted that doping them would be a fairly pointless exercise, I could believe that.

He recounts that in his book on training as well.

 

[red_flanders]

Re: Re:

The #1 argument that LeMond didn't dope is that there isn't a shred of credible evidence, let alone any proof that he did. No performance of his falls into the suspicious range, even the much attacked downhill TT in '89.

Several dopers and likely clean riders have gone out of their way to say he was clean, for no particular reason.

There is speculation. Nothing else.

Game.set.match

Overheard b/w Eddie B. to Mike Fraysse (paraphrasing, but do your own heavy Polish-accent): "Greg was so naturally talented - a real diamond - that he didn't need to dope. Doping would've been wasted on him."

Just saying...it's not like Eddie B. - w/ Fraysse's backing as USCF VP at the time, iirc - was averse to blood-doping anyone on Team USA who wanted it (for LA games '84). So when Eddie B. says someone is so naturally gifted that doping them would be a fairly pointless exercise, I could believe that.

eddie who?

you could find dozens of such quotes about guys like contador and ulrich and even lance i guess.

Do we really have much more on, say, Indurain than we have on Lemond?
Red Flanders spoke of riders/dopers vouching for Lemond. I posted Vanmol on the previous page. Would love to see other examples. If anybody could give me a name i can then search for it myself.

And do those who think lemond was clean also think Boardman was clean?
Boardman too has enjoyed a very clean rep, with e.g. Deliot vouching for his cleanliness.

You aren't going to find quotes like that, put unbidden and unprompted in a book about training. He discusses many riders in that book at great lengths, extolling their particular talents. Riders who he coached and to my reading had great affection for, but LeMond is the only one he singles out this way. It was remarkable.

It was written in a time when doping was not part of the everyday conversation about cycling. He was making a point about what a unique (in the real meaning of the word) talent LeMond was. Not responding to an accusation or spewing out talking points as in today's climate. The context of the book, the times and the atmosphere around doping are what made the comment remarkable.

The doper I was referring to in my earlier comments was Eddy B. (Borysewicz), who took part in the doping of a lot of riders. Also look up Hampsten and Mottet.

 

[sniper]

cheers RF, good points. good context.

 

[sniper]

jesus flippin christ.
i'll be (rightly) accused of being a cycling ignorant and (wrongly) of being a lance-groupie, but *** it...

the more i read into lemond's 1989 story the more i'm wondering why he has such a clean reputation in here.
If the chronic kidney infection isn't odd enough, there's the whole story involving Otto Jacome and Lemond's anemia and subsequent iron shots leading to his spectacular in-season revival...
mkay...

the main eyebrowraisers:
1. allegedly his mexican soigneur (Otto) discovered he had anemia. For those unfamiliar with the historical role of soigneurs in cycling, read e.g. Millar's Racing through the Dark. And rest assured, their role is not to diagnose blood diseases.
2. there's confusion about who gave him his first iron shots (one account says it was Otto, another account says it was Vanmol)
3. well, the timing: according to most accounts, 1989 is when epo comes into the peloton. (compare it to Wiggins losing 7kgs in 2009, the same year AICAR hits the scene)
4. we're supposed to assume Lemond has always had two major diseases (chronic kidney infection and anemia)
4a: what are the odds of becoming a tdf-winning pro-cyclist with those diseases?
4b: both of those diseases can be treated with (read: can be used as an excuse for the use of) EPO.
4c: Froome says hi, although i'll admit Lemond's two diseases are slightly less ridiculous than froome's 5 diseases.

 

[sniper]

from the kimmage interview.
Lemond's account of his first iron shot from Van Mol (whom we know epo-doped most of his later teams):

"And even when Yvan was trying to give it to me, I walked around the room four times. But I watched everything he did and it was iron."

well, greg, if it was the honest doc Vanmol who told you it was iron, it probably was iron!

 

[King Boonen]

When is he supposed to have had his kidney infection and anaemia from?

 

[sniper]

Re:

When is he supposed to have had his kidney infection and anaemia from?

chronic kidney infection(s) "from the day I was born" (kimmage interview)

the anemia, no idea. I'm looking for it as we speak.
but he admits he ate a lot of red meat, so it wasn't caused by a lack of iron in his diet.

 

[sniper]

Re:

When is he supposed to have had his kidney infection and anaemia from?

I admit, maybe i'm making too much of the anaemia when I called it a blood disease.
The official story seems not very specific as to what kind of anemia or since when he must have suffered from it:

"Starting over wasn't easy. Four months after the shooting, he had an emergency appendectomy. After he began training again last year, he underwent surgery for tendon problems in his right leg. Throughout this spring, victories in major races continued to elude him—he lacked stamina and couldn't get his breath on climbs—and in June's Tour of Italy tune-up race for the Tour, LeMond discovered he was anemic."

 

[King Boonen]

Re: Re:

When is he supposed to have had his kidney infection and anaemia from?

I admit, maybe i'm making too much of the anaemia when I called it a blood disease.
The official story seems not very specific as to what kind of anemia or since when he must have suffered from it:

"Starting over wasn't easy. Four months after the shooting, he had an emergency appendectomy. After he began training again last year, he underwent surgery for tendon problems in his right leg. Throughout this spring, victories in major races continued to elude him—he lacked stamina and couldn't get his breath on climbs—and in June's Tour of Italy tune-up race for the Tour, LeMond discovered he was anemic."

Anaemia can come and go as far as I'm aware, but I think it's more common in women. My biology is crap

 

[carton]

Re:

jesus flippin christ.
i'll be (rightly) accused of being a cycling ignorant and (wrongly) of being a lance-groupie, but **** it...

the more i read into lemond's 1989 story the more i'm wondering why he has such a clean reputation in here.
If the chronic kidney infection isn't odd enough, there's the whole story involving Otto Jacome and Lemond's anemia and subsequent iron shots leading to his spectacular in-season revival...
mkay...

the main eyebrowraisers:
1. allegedly his mexican soigneur (Otto) discovered he had anemia. For those unfamiliar with the historical role of soigneurs in cycling, read e.g. Millar's Racing through the Dark. And rest assured, their role is not to diagnose blood diseases.
2. there's confusion about who gave him his first iron shots (one account says it was Otto, another account says it was Vanmol)
3. well, the timing: according to most accounts, 1989 is when epo comes into the peloton. (compare it to Wiggins losing 7kgs in 2009, the same year AICAR hits the scene)
4. we're supposed to assume Lemond has always had two major diseases (chronic kidney infection and anemia)
4a: what are the odds of becoming a tdf-winning pro-cyclist with those diseases?
4b: both of those diseases can be treated with (read: can be used as an excuse for the use of) EPO.
4c: Froome says hi, although i'll admit Lemond's two diseases are slightly less ridiculous than froome's 5 diseases.

I'll be (rightly) accused of being a cycling ignorant and (wrongly) of being a lance-groupie, but **** it, I'll help you out:

1. From Wikipedia: "In the United States, the most common cause of iron deficiency is bleeding or blood loss, usually from the gastrointestinal tract. Fecal occult blood testing, upper endoscopy and lower endoscopy should be performed to identify bleeding lesions. In older men and women, the chances are higher that bleeding from the gastrointestinal tract could be due to colon polyps or colorectal cancer. Worldwide, the most common cause of iron deficiency anemia is parasitic infestation (hookworms, amebiasis, schistosomiasis and whipworms)." Anemia is more much common in the developing world, particularly in 1989. Easier for a Mexican to recognize for sure.
2. Yep (though weak), point.
3. Yep, point (given cycling history).
4a. He was a TDF winning cyclist before he got shot, and before EPO was even potentially available. Also, I'm betting "chronic kidney infection" is quite likely a polite way to refer to a much more common a chronic urinary tract infection.
4b. Nope, only the second. For which, definitely. Though I doubt EPO was standard treatment for Anemia in 1989.
4c. The difference is, LeMond was a TDF winner before he got sick. He had a very natural progression. He recovered well for someone still carrying a decent amount of lead, but he wasn't as good in '89 and '90 as he was in '86. He might've lost 1989 was it not for Fignon's saddle sores and Perico's punctuality issues. He might've lost 1990 had Banesto backed Indurain.

 

[sniper]

Re: Re:

When is he supposed to have had his kidney infection and anaemia from?

I admit, maybe i'm making too much of the anaemia when I called it a blood disease.
The official story seems not very specific as to what kind of anemia or since when he must have suffered from it:

"Starting over wasn't easy. Four months after the shooting, he had an emergency appendectomy. After he began training again last year, he underwent surgery for tendon problems in his right leg. Throughout this spring, victories in major races continued to elude him—he lacked stamina and couldn't get his breath on climbs—and in June's Tour of Italy tune-up race for the Tour, LeMond discovered he was anemic."

Anaemia can come and go as far as I'm aware, but I think it's more common in women. My biology is crap

indeed, it can.
it can also be chronic, and it can be related to (viz,. caused by) kidney malfunctioning. Apparently EPO can help cure both:

"Chronic kidney disease and chemotherapy can cause anemia, and so the development of the EPO substitute r-EPO in the late 1980s proved to be a boon to chronically anemic patients – and to chronically competitive athletes."
https://books.google.pl/books?id=xZDqAQAAQBAJ&pg=PT170&dq=greg+lemond+anemia&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CDgQ6AEwBGoVChMI4YiZ_OjkxgIVCr5yCh3fvwOF#v=onepage&q=greg%20lemond%20anemia&f=false

 

[djpbaltimore]

From a biography I read ages ago, I seem to remember that the story was that Greg's skin pallor was off, leading to the suggestion of anemia. Some forms of anemia are genetic blood diseases (sickle cell etc), but others are conditional due to diet, disease, or other factors. Women are more likely to have the latter type due to their monthly bleeding.

 

[sniper]

Re: Re:

4c. The difference is, LeMond was a TDF winner before he got sick. He had a very natural progression. He recovered well for someone still carrying a decent amount of lead, but he wasn't as good in '89 and '90 as he was in '86. He might've lost 1989 was it not for Fignon's saddle sores and Perico's punctuality issues. He might've lost 1990 had Banesto backed Indurain.

no he wasn't.

chronic kidney disease "since the day i was born".
and no, kidney infection is not the same as a urinary tract infection. One can lead to the other. But they're clearly different things.

 

[carton]

Re: Re:

4c. The difference is, LeMond was a TDF winner before he got sick. He had a very natural progression. He recovered well for someone still carrying a decent amount of lead, but he wasn't as good in '89 and '90 as he was in '86. He might've lost 1989 was it not for Fignon's saddle sores and Perico's punctuality issues. He might've lost 1990 had Banesto backed Indurain.

no he wasn't.

chronic kidney disease "since the day i was born".
and no, kidney infection is not the same as a urinary tract infection. One can lead to the other. But they're clearly different things.

They're used interchangeably. A friend used to say it all the time. It's a way to say chronic urinary tract infection without implying "I haven't mastered wiping" or "I have a really narrow urethra". In any case, there was no transformation, no leveling up after sickness.

 

[Fearless Greg Lemond]

Sniper for looking things there are not. Give it a rest.

 

[sniper]

Re:

Sniper for looking things there are not. Give it a rest.

was actually looking for other things related to late 80s.

anyway, it's remarkable to see lemond's story ticking so many of the froome-bilharzia boxes, most notably the blood disease and the mid-season transformation.

somebody tell me this:
if you have a (chronic) kidney infection, a rather common side effect is anemia. (link:
http://www.niddk.nih.gov/health-information/health-topics/kidney-disease/anemia-in-kidney-disease-and-dialysis/Pages/facts.aspx#sec2)
now in the Kimmage interview, Lemond claims he had a chronic kidney infection "from the day I was born".
How is it that he only discovered his anemia in 1989? And he needed his effing soigneur to tell him that?

 

[sniper]

Re: Re:

4c. The difference is, LeMond was a TDF winner before he got sick. He had a very natural progression. He recovered well for someone still carrying a decent amount of lead, but he wasn't as good in '89 and '90 as he was in '86. He might've lost 1989 was it not for Fignon's saddle sores and Perico's punctuality issues. He might've lost 1990 had Banesto backed Indurain.

no he wasn't.

chronic kidney disease "since the day i was born".
and no, kidney infection is not the same as a urinary tract infection. One can lead to the other. But they're clearly different things.

They're used interchangeably. A friend used to say it all the time. It's a way to say chronic urinary tract infection without implying "I haven't mastered wiping" or "I have a really narrow urethra". In any case, there was no transformation, no leveling up after sickness.

Lemond? His carreer (like that of any othercyclist) depends on his physical state of being. He had his kidney damaged in the shooting. He has multiple docs guiding him throughout his carreer starting as junior.
His credibility in the kimmage interview depends on the story.
he said kidney infection and he meant kidney infection.

p.s. a kidney infection is type of urinary tract infection.
reversely, not every urinary tract infection is a kidney infection.
honestly don't see how that affects anything.