LeMond II

[Franklin]

I'm not going to wave away the impact of Epo performance wise, but the 70-80ies had much more life-affecting trouble due to the widespread use of amfetamines.

Much more often than in the 1990-2000 domestics ended their career addicted. Yes, we all know Pantani, but we can just as easily look at Maertens and VandeVelde as drug addicts. And worse.. whereas Pantani used drugs recreationally, amfetamines were widespread seen as a neccesity to cycle and are much more addictive than anything used nowadays.

Also, keep in mind the building blocks were already in use. Bloodvvector doping did exist in the seventies, albeit primitively. Steroids certainly were just as effective then as they are now.

I really don't think it's a stretch to say that Greg is not principly against doping. His friends, his teams, his doctor, none of them particularly clean.

 

[@NL_LeMondFans]

Re: Re:

On the matter of EPO, I discussed this with Eric Boyer recently and what he told me is interesting : even in 92, Greg was not focused on other riders taking EPO, he was focused on trying to understand what was happening to him first and foremost. It took 2 years to understand his mitochondria was being compromised by lead poisoning. And even when he did, his first thought was that he was going to be able to beat this and come back. Which he couldn't, eventually.

Sorry man, that's just too much of the koolaid.

As you are Dutch you will also realize the rumors about Epo hit our papers pretty quick. You will also know that according to recent (tearful) testimonies Epo was not just an Italian/Spanish party drug, many riders from different teams were experimenting with it. Also, many riders are on record saying they were being left in the dust by obviously charged riders.

Now somehow we are going to believe the narrative that insiders like Greg and Laurent were blissfully unaware of what was going on until 1993? I don't buy this for a fraction of a second.

I'm comfortable with the notion that Greg never used Epo, but the naivity around it strikes me as windowdressing. Greg simply never smeared colleagues and he does not seem to have much problems with people using Epo. He's still buddies with Miguel Indurain. Laurent and Greg simply were(are!) part of the Omerta and hid(e) that by saying "we never knew".

And you know what? I'm actually pretty okay with that. I see no obligation for Greg to smear people he clearly sees as friends. It's not his problem.

First of all, I'm french, dude. NL are my initials.

What I think happened, but I'm not sure yet, is that by the time Greg understood what was happening on the front of doping, he was pretty much over as a rider. He never said he never knew. But there's quite a stretch between hearing things and actually take a stand.

I also do not think Greg is friends with Indurain. He's just being polite. Like it or not.

 

[sniper]

Re: Re:

cheers, john.
brilliantly proving my point.

You know, to a certain extent I totally understand. We now have a full generation that have never seen a clean race. They have nothing to compare with today and struggle to define "normal". And yes, the old normal included amphetamines, but it never, ever, ever turned a Froome into a Merckx. All it ever did was blunt the pain so guys could keep going. At their natural level of ability.

And if you want a first hand account of the times, here it is: The transformation occurred with Indurain, Chiappucci, Bugno, et al right around 1991-92. That's when it happened.

John Swanson

very valid point, the first one.
your second point is, I think, open to discussion, though I readily admit you have a far superior view on that than i do.
And of course I agree that's when mass EPO abuse happened. But are you discarding the possibility that there were EPO users before that?

In the CIRC report chapter on EPO titled

1.3.2. Late 1980s—2001: the EPO era

they provide the following link:
http://article.sapub.org/10.5923.j.sports.20120203.02.html
(definitely not saying that that is conclusive, mind, but it suggests at the very least that the whole issue is still open to debate)

 

[@NL_LeMondFans]

Re: Re:

cheers, john.
brilliantly proving my point.

You know, to a certain extent I totally understand. We now have a full generation that have never seen a clean race. They have nothing to compare with today and struggle to define "normal". And yes, the old normal included amphetamines, but it never, ever, ever turned a Froome into a Merckx. All it ever did was blunt the pain so guys could keep going. At their natural level of ability.

And if you want a first hand account of the times, here it is: The transformation occurred with Indurain, Chiappucci, Bugno, et al right around 1991-92. That's when it happened.

John Swanson

very valid point, the first one.
your second point is, I think, open to discussion, but certainly interesting to hear your view/opinion on that. Of course I agree that's when mass EPO abuse happened. But are you discarding the possibility that there were EPO users before that?

In the CIRC report chapter on EPO titled

1.3.2. Late 1980s—2001: the EPO era

they provide the following link to back up the claim that EPO entered into the peloton in the late 80s:
http://article.sapub.org/10.5923.j.sports.20120203.02.html
(definitely not saying that that is conclusive, mind, but it suggests at the very least that the whole issue is still open to debate)

You also have to understand that Indurain and Bugno were actually damn good riders BEFORE 1990. Only Chiappucci was really out there.

I remember after the 1992 Luxembourg ITT, Greg's reaction was "I don't understand". I think he was referring to his own lack of performance as well as Indurain's increase. I think it took time to process.

 

[Tonton]

Re: Re:

Bassons was much later. It was after the Festina affair. You can't possibly compare outing riders before and after Festina.

To come back on Boyer, he told me it's only when he went to Polti in 95 that he understood what he was suspecting was true.

I think many people here lack a bit of humility. None of us can possibly understand what riders endured late 80's/early 90's. It's very easy, in retrospect, to say "you should have called out names". Much harder in real life. Especially when you have no substantial proof. And I maintain Greg had other things on his mind, like "what is this disease that's eating me away ?"

Not true. Not what he said to me in '93. And realistically, he would have needed to live under a rock not to know about EPO until '95. Come on!

Instead of "lack of humility" on our part, what about "lack of integrity" on some riders' part? Lemond denounced doping when it suited his agenda. Look at him now! And I didn't say "call out names". Denouncing rampant PED use would have done it. Gilles Delion did it. That's integrity.

 

[blutto]

Re: Re:

cheers, john.
brilliantly proving my point.

You know, to a certain extent I totally understand. We now have a full generation that have never seen a clean race. They have nothing to compare with today and struggle to define "normal". And yes, the old normal included amphetamines, but it never, ever, ever turned a Froome into a Merckx. All it ever did was blunt the pain so guys could keep going. At their natural level of ability.

And if you want a first hand account of the times, here it is: The transformation occurred with Indurain, Chiappucci, Bugno, et al right around 1991-92. That's when it happened.

John Swanson

very valid point, the first one.
your second point is, I think, open to discussion, though I readily admit you have a far superior view on that than i do.
And of course I agree that's when mass EPO abuse happened. But are you discarding the possibility that there were EPO users before that?

In the CIRC report chapter on EPO titled

1.3.2. Late 1980s—2001: the EPO era

they provide the following link:
http://article.sapub.org/10.5923.j.sports.20120203.02.html
(definitely not saying that that is conclusive, mind, but it suggests at the very least that the whole issue is still open to debate)

....most startling bit from that report...which certainly seems to stand against the donkeys into racehorses meme that is de rigueur, nay religion, in these here parts...

" In agreement with conclusions drawn by Lodewijkx and Brouwer[7], our results substantiate that the 1980s appear to be key in the rapid evolution of pro cyclists’ performances and not the 1990s, at least in the three Grand Tours which we investigated"

Cheers

 

[@NL_LeMondFans]

Re: Re:

Bassons was much later. It was after the Festina affair. You can't possibly compare outing riders before and after Festina.

To come back on Boyer, he told me it's only when he went to Polti in 95 that he understood what he was suspecting was true.

I think many people here lack a bit of humility. None of us can possibly understand what riders endured late 80's/early 90's. It's very easy, in retrospect, to say "you should have called out names". Much harder in real life. Especially when you have no substantial proof. And I maintain Greg had other things on his mind, like "what is this disease that's eating me away ?"

Not true. Not what he said to me in '93. And realistically, he would have needed to live under a rock not to know about EPO until '95. Come on!

Instead of "lack of humility" on our part, what about "lack of integrity" on some riders' part? Lemond denounced doping when it suited his agenda. Look at him now! And I didn't say "call out names". Denouncing rampant PED use would have done it. Gilles Delion did it. That's integrity.

Or maybe what he said to you in 93 was not true. Ha !

My english is probably not as good as I had hoped. "it's only when he went to Polti in 95 that he understood what he was suspecting was true" does not mean he didn't know. It means this is when he got confirmation it was widespread and pretty random in some teams.

What makes you think Delion spoke out of integrity ? Was he not trying to find an excuse for not fulfilling his potential ? You seem to forget that Greg had the reputation of being lazy (golf, hamburgers, ice cream, remember ?) and whining (yes, even before Armstrong, fellas !). What credibility would his words have had ? Especially since he was performing very badly at the time. Also, please take into consideration the magnitude of what happened to him at the time. I don't blame him for being selfish, back then. Learning you have myopathy and have your career stolen from you by a disease first and foremost is traumatic enough. Since we're on that subject, you know what he did to recover from that outcome ? He built a business in bikes. You know, that very thing Armstrong destroyed.

 

[Tonton]

Re: Re:

Or maybe what he said to you in 93 was not true. Ha !

My english is probably not as good as I had hoped. "it's only when he went to Polti in 95 that he understood what he was suspecting was true" does not mean he didn't know. It means this is when he got confirmation it was widespread and pretty random in some teams.

What makes you think Delion spoke out of integrity ? Was he not trying to find an excuse for not fulfilling his potential ? You seem to forget that Greg had the reputation of being lazy (golf, hamburgers, ice cream, remember ?) and whining (yes, even before Armstrong, fellas !). What credibility would his words have had ? Especially since he was performing very badly at the time. Also, please take into consideration the magnitude of what happened to him at the time. I don't blame him for being selfish, back then. Learning you have myopathy and have your career stolen from you by a disease first and foremost is traumatic enough. Since we're on that subject, you know what he did to recover from that outcome ? He built a business in bikes. You know, that very thing Armstrong destroyed.

Look, obviously we'll have to agree to disagree.

Why would he have lied in '93? Usually, people who lie say the sport is clean or cleaner. Not the opposite. It doesn't make sense.

Your English is just fine. Maybe it wasn't until '95 that he went to a team where doping happened in the open, versus behind close bedroom doors and the likes. BTW, not wanting to see can be said about his years with Cofidis too. Tough to be in a smaller team, struggling to find/keep sponsors.

He would have had a huge credibility. He was super popular. He's the guy that half of the French public (including me) rooted for in '86. No small feat.

I think that you can show your support of Lemond without questioning Delion's integrity and character. Not cool on your part. Not cool.

 

[@NL_LeMondFans]

Re: Re:

Or maybe what he said to you in 93 was not true. Ha !

My english is probably not as good as I had hoped. "it's only when he went to Polti in 95 that he understood what he was suspecting was true" does not mean he didn't know. It means this is when he got confirmation it was widespread and pretty random in some teams.

What makes you think Delion spoke out of integrity ? Was he not trying to find an excuse for not fulfilling his potential ? You seem to forget that Greg had the reputation of being lazy (golf, hamburgers, ice cream, remember ?) and whining (yes, even before Armstrong, fellas !). What credibility would his words have had ? Especially since he was performing very badly at the time. Also, please take into consideration the magnitude of what happened to him at the time. I don't blame him for being selfish, back then. Learning you have myopathy and have your career stolen from you by a disease first and foremost is traumatic enough. Since we're on that subject, you know what he did to recover from that outcome ? He built a business in bikes. You know, that very thing Armstrong destroyed.

Look, obviously we'll have to agree to disagree.

Why would he have lied in '93? Usually, people who lie say the sport is clean or cleaner. Not the opposite. It doesn't make sense.

Your English is just fine. Maybe it wasn't until '95 that he went to a team where doping happened in the open, versus behind close bedroom doors and the likes. BTW, not wanting to see can be said about his years with Cofidis too. Tough to be in a smaller team, struggling to find/keep sponsors.

He would have had a huge credibility. He was super popular. He's the guy that half of the French public (including me) rooted for in '86. No small feat.

I think that you can show your support of Lemond without questioning Delion's integrity and character. Not cool on your part. Not cool.

With Delion, I was just trying to prove a point : that you can interpret someone's behavior one way or another. Same with Greg. That's all. I like Delion and respect him very much. He didn't have the career he deserved.

 

[sniper]

Re: Re:

" In agreement with conclusions drawn by Lodewijkx and Brouwer[7], our results substantiate that the 1980s appear to be key in the rapid evolution of pro cyclists’ performances and not the 1990s, at least in the three Grand Tours which we investigated"

and seeing what variables they took into account, it looks like a defensible bit of research.

Back to Lemond. In that article, there's also this bit, which I think is a good reminder of the kind of pressure Lemond must have been under to perform:

Furthermore, instigated by American racer and three–time Tour winner Greg LeMond, drastic changes in the financial situation of the riders took place. In the mid–1980s, LeMond was the first professional rider ever to sign million–dollar contracts with his sponsors. After him the financial situation of professional cyclists gradually improved. This development implied that the sponsoring firms started to put greater pressure upon riders and their teams to succeed in the races in which they took part.

Obviously not saying it's evidence of doping.
But it definitely adds to me wondering why Lemond should be given the benefit of the doubt.
It's all there in terms of motivation to dope:
- the financial pressure to get results
- factor in that everybody around Lemond is no doubt smelling the cash and possibilities to open up the American cycling market >> iow this guy is not gonna test positive
So what you get is a highly attractive risk-reward ratio

 

[sniper]

Re: Re:

Not true. Not what he said to me in '93. And realistically, he would have needed to live under a rock not to know about EPO until '95. Come on!

Instead of "lack of humility" on our part, what about "lack of integrity" on some riders' part? Lemond denounced doping when it suited his agenda. Look at him now! And I didn't say "call out names". Denouncing rampant PED use would have done it. Gilles Delion did it. That's integrity.

true.
from 1987 to 1990/91, an estimated 18 cyclists had died most likely from epo abuse.
In 1991 a series of articles is written on the topic in mainstream journals such as the NY times.
It's well known by then.
http://www.nytimes.com/1991/05/19/us/stamina-building-drug-linked-to-athletes-deaths.html?pagewanted=all&src=pm

With his chronic kidney condition and anemia combined, Lemond, like no other cyclist of that era to my knowledge, ticks all the boxes for having been an Amgen labrat:

The drug is recombinant erythropoietin, known as EPO, which was developed by the Amgen Corporation and approved by the Food and Drug Administration in 1989 for the treatment of chronic anemia in patients with kidney failure.
http://www.nytimes.com/1991/05/19/us/stamina-building-drug-linked-to-athletes-deaths.html?pagewanted=all&src=pm

- The timing, i.e. the introduction of EPO coinciding with Lemond's comeback
- Lemond's diseases, the treatment of which is what EPO was designed for,
- Lemond being American
- the peloton rumor about Lemond and EPO
- the iron shots
- the subsequent revival

major coincidence or Amgen guineapig?

btw, at present, Amgen are fighting lawsuits against whistleblowers.
Interestingly, Armstrong's buddy Weisel has a major interest in keeping it all covered up.
If Lemond was on EPO, we're not likely to find out, as much as Lance would want us to.
http://www.cyclingnews.com/features/armstrongs-fraud-paralleled-epo-makers-feud

 

[@NL_LeMondFans]

Re: Re:

- The timing, i.e. the introduction of EPO coinciding with Lemond's comeback
- Lemond's diseases, the treatment of which is what EPO was designed for,
- Lemond being American
- the peloton rumor about Lemond and EPO
- the iron shots
- the subsequent revival

major coincidence or Amgen guineapig?

btw, at present, Amgen are fighting lawsuits against whistleblowers.
Interestingly, Armstrong's buddy Weisel has a major interest in keeping it all covered up.
If Lemond was on EPO, we're not likely to find out, as much as Lance would want us to.
http://www.cyclingnews.com/features/armstrongs-fraud-paralleled-epo-makers-feud

Congratulations, you've made the perfect recipe for a conspiracy theory, since "we're not likely to find out". This is ridiculous. And useless.

"Joincidence is like coincidence with a C"
Chandler Bing

 

[sniper]

Re: Re:

- The timing, i.e. the introduction of EPO coinciding with Lemond's comeback
- Lemond's diseases, the treatment of which is what EPO was designed for,
- Lemond being American
- the peloton rumor about Lemond and EPO
- the iron shots
- the subsequent revival

major coincidence or Amgen guineapig?

btw, at present, Amgen are fighting lawsuits against whistleblowers.
Interestingly, Armstrong's buddy Weisel has a major interest in keeping it all covered up.
If Lemond was on EPO, we're not likely to find out, as much as Lance would want us to.
http://www.cyclingnews.com/features/armstrongs-fraud-paralleled-epo-makers-feud

Congratulations, you've made the perfect recipe for a conspiracy theory, since "we're not likely to find out". This is ridiculous. And useless.

"Joincidence is like coincidence with a C"
Chandler Bing

What I meant is it's not gonna be Lance spilling the beans.
Amgen + Weisel shared interests are worth just a tad bit more than Lance's personal feud with Greg...

Conspiracy? Nah. I don't think Carlos Sastre's doping is ever gonna come out. TO say he was likely doping, is that a conspiracy, too?
Anyway, you should know that the assumption that a given TdF winner probably doped when we know most of his competitors were doped is not a conspiracy. It's a statistical likelihood.

btw, Greg's Wiki says he left PDM because they were doping. Joined ADR instead.

 

[blutto]

Re: Re:

Not true. Not what he said to me in '93. And realistically, he would have needed to live under a rock not to know about EPO until '95. Come on!

Instead of "lack of humility" on our part, what about "lack of integrity" on some riders' part? Lemond denounced doping when it suited his agenda. Look at him now! And I didn't say "call out names". Denouncing rampant PED use would have done it. Gilles Delion did it. That's integrity.

true.
from 1987 to 1990/91, an estimated 18 cyclists had died most likely from epo abuse.
In 1991 a series of articles is written on the topic in mainstream journals such as the NY times.
It's well known by then.
http://www.nytimes.com/1991/05/19/us/stamina-building-drug-linked-to-athletes-deaths.html?pagewanted=all&src=pm

With his chronic kidney condition and anemia combined, Lemond, like no other cyclist of that era to my knowledge, ticks all the boxes for having been an Amgen labrat:

The drug is recombinant erythropoietin, known as EPO, which was developed by the Amgen Corporation and approved by the Food and Drug Administration in 1989 for the treatment of chronic anemia in patients with kidney failure.
http://www.nytimes.com/1991/05/19/us/stamina-building-drug-linked-to-athletes-deaths.html?pagewanted=all&src=pm

- The timing, i.e. the introduction of EPO coinciding with Lemond's comeback
- Lemond's diseases, the treatment of which is what EPO was designed for,
- Lemond being American
- the peloton rumor about Lemond and EPO
- the iron shots
- the subsequent revival

major coincidence or Amgen guineapig?

btw, at present, Amgen are fighting lawsuits against whistleblowers.
Interestingly, Armstrong's buddy Weisel has a major interest in keeping it all covered up.
If Lemond was on EPO, we're not likely to find out, as much as Lance would want us to.
http://www.cyclingnews.com/features/armstrongs-fraud-paralleled-epo-makers-feud

....wow !!! is that article a mind blower ( can't believe I missed it )....greedy money grubbing sleazy drug companies colluding with greedy money grubbing sleazy doctors doing whatever it took to "move product"...and by using it "off label " and off recommended dosages routinely putting people's lives at risk in the process...

Cheers

 

[GJB123]

Re: Re:

- The timing, i.e. the introduction of EPO coinciding with Lemond's comeback
- Lemond's diseases, the treatment of which is what EPO was designed for,
- Lemond being American
- the peloton rumor about Lemond and EPO
- the iron shots
- the subsequent revival

major coincidence or Amgen guineapig?

btw, at present, Amgen are fighting lawsuits against whistleblowers.
Interestingly, Armstrong's buddy Weisel has a major interest in keeping it all covered up.
If Lemond was on EPO, we're not likely to find out, as much as Lance would want us to.
http://www.cyclingnews.com/features/armstrongs-fraud-paralleled-epo-makers-feud

Congratulations, you've made the perfect recipe for a conspiracy theory, since "we're not likely to find out". This is ridiculous. And useless.

"Joincidence is like coincidence with a C"
Chandler Bing

What I meant is it's not gonna be Lance spilling the beans.
Amgen + Weisel shared interests are worth just a tad bit more than Lance's personal feud with Greg...

Conspiracy? Nah. I don't think Carlos Sastre's doping is ever gonna come out. TO say he was likely doping, is that a conspiracy, too?
Anyway, you should know that the assumption that a given TdF winner probably doped when we know most of his competitors were doped is not a conspiracy. It's a statistical likelihood.

btw, Greg's Wiki says he left PDM because they were doping. Joined ADR instead.

he left them because he didn't trust them not to dope him without his knowledge. It went as far as filling his own bidons out of fear the PDM-soineurs might actually spike his drinks. Although ADR may have been dirty as hell it at least afforded him the possibility to compete in his own terms.

BTW I was wondering why this thread suddenly spring alive again, since just about everything was discussed ad nauseam. Low and behold it is our own interest researcher connecting the (wrong) dots yet again. I can't say I am surprised.

 

["Jeff"]

I was just watching Eurosport with LeMond speaking about todays stage.

The commentator wanted to talk about the final climb and its descent. Obviously refering to Armstrong-Beloki.

LeMond started to talk about Contador's crash on the Col de Manse in 2013....

Lame Greg.

 

[@NL_LeMondFans]

Re: Re:

BTW I was wondering why this thread suddenly spring alive again, since just about everything was discussed ad nauseam. Low and behold it is our own interest researcher connecting the (wrong) dots yet again. I can't say I am surprised.

I guess it's just a side-effect of having Greg on TV. That was to be expected, I guess.

 

[blutto]

Re:

We could ramble on for 300 more pages and still stand at the same place. Unless someone comes up with something new, it's up to everyone to make his/her own mind.

So far I've not seen anything conclusive either way. I choose to believe Greg's story because I think it adds up, IMO. That's just me.

One thing I am sure of, though, is that if you bend and interpret facts to fit your original theory, you will always succeed. That's what conspiracy theories are made of. I've seen a lot of this on this thread.

Tonton, your view of Greg as a hypocrite is based on your interpretation of his public image. Even at the "Change Cycling Now" press conference, he was stating his UCI presidency candidacy was not serious. He was put on the front line by the rest of the group as a symbol.

On the matter of EPO, I discussed this with Eric Boyer recently and what he told me is interesting : even in 92, Greg was not focused on other riders taking EPO, he was focused on trying to understand what was happening to him first and foremost. It took 2 years to understand his mitochondria was being compromised by lead poisoning. And even when he did, his first thought was that he was going to be able to beat this and come back. Which he couldn't, eventually.

Another thing we should all keep in mind when analyzing rider's quotes is that we rely on books and magazines when they rely solely on their memory. I don't know how yours is, but mine isn't perfect. Not as perfect as a book, anyway.

....and then there is this...other priorities...

""My climbing has suffered from weight gains, just being older. But when you get older, other things become more important in your life. Cycling is not the No. 1 priority to a cyclist who has a wife and kids. It's hard for people to understand that my family is my No. 1 priority, my family and my health. I've always chosen that way, and if people don't like it, they don't have to hire me."

....and...

"I had a very bad winter in terms of stress," he said, referring to long hours spent reorganizing his bicycle company, LeMond Enterprises Inc., in California. "I had a really hard winter and needed four more weeks of training, but I just didn't have the time once I started in December." A Weight Problem

LeMond also confessed that he again has a weight problem. Last season he packed more than four extra pounds in his upper arms because of muscles developed by cross-country skiing near his home in Medina, Minn. Although he turned to mountain biking, Rollerblading and hockey last winter, he is about six pounds over his ideal weight of 150 pounds (68 kilograms).

"I don't climb like I used to climb, there's no doubt about that," he said. "If I can get my weight down to 68 kilos, I think I can climb again."


Cheers

 

[sniper]

Re: Re:

he left them because he didn't trust them not to dope him without his knowledge. It went as far as filling his own bidons out of fear the PDM-soineurs might actually spike his drinks. Although ADR may have been dirty as hell it at least afforded him the possibility to compete in his own terms.

BTW I was wondering why this thread suddenly spring alive again, since just about everything was discussed ad nauseam. Low and behold it is our own interest researcher connecting the (wrong) dots yet again. I can't say I am surprised.

The PDM -> ADR switch is just ironic in the context of wanting to ride clean, nothing more nothing less. Thanks for reminding me of the bidon anecdote. I'm not too interested in Greg's personal anecdotes though. Froome and Lance too have some nice anecdotes.

Back on topic. Dhaenens. Chronic kidney infection. Anemia. EPO amgen 1989. iron injections. Ad nauseum? The chronic kidney infections aren't discussed anywhere in this thread, nor is Dhaenens. Just ignore thee thread if it makes you nauseate.

 

[Avoriaz]

It's a long time ago now but my teen memory of Lemond leaving PDM was because they thought he was rubbish and asked him to take a pay cut. Is this whole drug thing maybe a bit of revisionism?

https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=HWIsAAAAQBAJ&pg=PA207&lpg=PA207&dq=lemond+pdm&source=bl&ots=ymZZgvZsyO&sig=tRvJgwvwOkdohGW1fXdvTOfPtsY&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CDUQ6AEwCWoVChMIrbHy-pfqxgIVxbLbCh10uQKS#v=onepage&q=lemond%20pdm&f=false

I should add, I don't think Lemond doped, but I do think occasionally his history has changed so he can maintain his relevance.

 

[jmdirt]

Re: Re:

cheers, john.
brilliantly proving my point.

You know, to a certain extent I totally understand. We now have a full generation that have never seen a clean race. They have nothing to compare with today and struggle to define "normal". And yes, the old normal included amphetamines, but it never, ever, ever turned a Froome into a Merckx. All it ever did was blunt the pain so guys could keep going. At their natural level of ability.

And if you want a first hand account of the times, here it is: The transformation occurred with Indurain, Chiappucci, Bugno, et al right around 1991-92. That's when it happened.

John Swanson

very valid point, the first one.
your second point is, I think, open to discussion, though I readily admit you have a far superior view on that than i do.
And of course I agree that's when mass EPO abuse happened. But are you discarding the possibility that there were EPO users before that?

In the CIRC report chapter on EPO titled

1.3.2. Late 1980s—2001: the EPO era

they provide the following link:
http://article.sapub.org/10.5923.j.sports.20120203.02.html
(definitely not saying that that is conclusive, mind, but it suggests at the very least that the whole issue is still open to debate)

....most startling bit from that report...which certainly seems to stand against the donkeys into racehorses meme that is de rigueur, nay religion, in these here parts...

" In agreement with conclusions drawn by Lodewijkx and Brouwer[7], our results substantiate that the 1980s appear to be key in the rapid evolution of pro cyclists’ performances and not the 1990s, at least in the three Grand Tours which we investigated"

Cheers

That analogy drives me crazy! Back pasture thoroughbred to derby winner maybe, but donkey to racehorse implies that anyone could win the TdF if they take EPO. Heck, I won a few regional pro dirt races, and I don't for a second think that EPO would have gotten me a World Cup dirt title. At the top they are all thoroughbreds.

 

[blutto]

Re: Re:

cheers, john.
brilliantly proving my point.

You know, to a certain extent I totally understand. We now have a full generation that have never seen a clean race. They have nothing to compare with today and struggle to define "normal". And yes, the old normal included amphetamines, but it never, ever, ever turned a Froome into a Merckx. All it ever did was blunt the pain so guys could keep going. At their natural level of ability.

And if you want a first hand account of the times, here it is: The transformation occurred with Indurain, Chiappucci, Bugno, et al right around 1991-92. That's when it happened.

John Swanson

very valid point, the first one.
your second point is, I think, open to discussion, though I readily admit you have a far superior view on that than i do.
And of course I agree that's when mass EPO abuse happened. But are you discarding the possibility that there were EPO users before that?

In the CIRC report chapter on EPO titled

1.3.2. Late 1980s—2001: the EPO era

they provide the following link:
http://article.sapub.org/10.5923.j.sports.20120203.02.html
(definitely not saying that that is conclusive, mind, but it suggests at the very least that the whole issue is still open to debate)

....most startling bit from that report...which certainly seems to stand against the donkeys into racehorses meme that is de rigueur, nay religion, in these here parts...

" In agreement with conclusions drawn by Lodewijkx and Brouwer[7], our results substantiate that the 1980s appear to be key in the rapid evolution of pro cyclists’ performances and not the 1990s, at least in the three Grand Tours which we investigated"

Cheers

That analogy drives me crazy! Back pasture thoroughbred to derby winner maybe, but donkey to racehorse implies that anyone could win the TdF if they take EPO. Heck, I won a few regional pro dirt races, and I don't for a second think that EPO would have gotten me a World Cup dirt title. At the top they are all thoroughbreds.

...yeah but that doesn't fit the Clinic script very well does it ?....

Cheers

 

[jmdirt]

Re: Re:

[quote="

You know, to a certain extent I totally understand. We now have a full generation that have never seen a clean race. They have nothing to compare with today and struggle to define "normal". And yes, the old normal included amphetamines, but it never, ever, ever turned a Froome into a Merckx. All it ever did was blunt the pain so guys could keep going. At their natural level of ability.

And if you want a first hand account of the times, here it is: The transformation occurred with Indurain, Chiappucci, Bugno, et al right around 1991-92. That's when it happened.

John Swanson

very valid point, the first one.
your second point is, I think, open to discussion, though I readily admit you have a far superior view on that than i do.
And of course I agree that's when mass EPO abuse happened. But are you discarding the possibility that there were EPO users before that?

In the CIRC report chapter on EPO titled

1.3.2. Late 1980s—2001: the EPO era

they provide the following link:
http://article.sapub.org/10.5923.j.sports.20120203.02.html
(definitely not saying that that is conclusive, mind, but it suggests at the very least that the whole issue is still open to debate)

....most startling bit from that report...which certainly seems to stand against the donkeys into racehorses meme that is de rigueur, nay religion, in these here parts...

" In agreement with conclusions drawn by Lodewijkx and Brouwer[7], our results substantiate that the 1980s appear to be key in the rapid evolution of pro cyclists’ performances and not the 1990s, at least in the three Grand Tours which we investigated"

Cheers

That analogy drives me crazy! Back pasture thoroughbred to derby winner maybe, but donkey to racehorse implies that anyone could win the TdF if they take EPO. Heck, I won a few regional pro dirt races, and I don't for a second think that EPO would have gotten me a World Cup dirt title. At the top they are all thoroughbreds.

...yeah but that doesn't fit the Clinic script very well does it ?....


My bad!

 

[sniper]

Re:

It's a long time ago now but my teen memory of Lemond leaving PDM was because they thought he was rubbish and asked him to take a pay cut. Is this whole drug thing maybe a bit of revisionism?

https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=HWIsAAAAQBAJ&pg=PA207&lpg=PA207&dq=lemond+pdm&source=bl&ots=ymZZgvZsyO&sig=tRvJgwvwOkdohGW1fXdvTOfPtsY&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CDUQ6AEwCWoVChMIrbHy-pfqxgIVxbLbCh10uQKS#v=onepage&q=lemond%20pdm&f=false

I should add, I don't think Lemond doped, but I do think occasionally his history has changed so he can maintain his relevance.

lol. good link. revisionism it seems. "needle adverse" says hi.

 

[sniper]

So indeed it wasn't just Dhaenens...

According to Michael Boogerd, in the peloton at the time he was riding, it was rumored LeMond brought EPO in the peloton. Dunno if it's true or not, but I always find it a bit puzzling to see the clinic always earmarking LeMond as off-limits, like some sort of saint.

good post. agree with last sentence.