LeMond II

[Race Radio]

Re:

RR do you have any proof other than a supposed call Kathy Lemond took for the payoff to get Armstrong, Armstrong said it never happened. Lemond wouldn't identify who called. Should be pretty easy to get proof since the Lemond's unethically and in some cases probably illegally record phone calls without telling the caller on the other end.

Vincent Barteau and Johan Lammerts were the riders approached. Lammerts even took a job from Verburggen. In the end they both refused to lie for $$$.

Lance did not make the offer. Stapleton and Johan handle the dirty work. Plausible deniability

As has been discussed multiple times here, LeMond's recording of Stephanie was not illegal.

 

[1Hawkeye]

Question for you ScienceIsCool - obviously I am not a fan of Lemond but interested in the science of exercise. In this article

http://bikeraceinfo.com/oralhistory/lemond.html

Lemond talks about a initial VO2 Max of 79 (though not sport specific) though he was a trained professional at the time and trained up to a max of 94. In your opinion is that possible and or realistic? Another poster in the forums believes Armstrong's tested VO2 Max as of 1991 indicates he didn't have the engine for greatness if i am interpreting it correctly.

From Armstrong forum - reply by Python 11-16-14 - sorry don't know how to link to other forum topics.
armstrong's aerobic/anaerobic data
vo2 max of 80 in '91 is confirmed as a true elite mark. but the threshold of 75% and the corresponding watts (340-350) was sub par. in another place the testers even noted that he would need about 400 watts to compete at his level in the itts. they called it an area to develop. perhaps. but the often reported numbers of 450+ watts in the tours are clearly above the training effects (appr 10%) for improving the threshold. massive blood doping would have been required

Is the max 10% increase indicated above correct? If so what are your thoughts Lemond's improvement.

 

[1Hawkeye]

RR are you trying to assert that the Lemonds did not routinely tape calls. You believe that Kathy Lemond is truthful when she says she can hear what the person on the other end is saying on these incendiary topics, i find that not believable. Putting aside the ethics of secretly recording peoples phone calls you also believe the Lemonds determined if the caller was in a 2 part consent state before they recorded. Here is an example of another recorded call. It was evidence in the Trek lawsuit where the attorney for Trek asserts the Lemonds and Andreu where discussing extorting Trek for money.

http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/more-sports/greg-lemond-lawsuit-trek-broken-promises-lance-article-1.198217

Edit: the attorney was not Trek's but represented Armstrong but the point about recording calls stands.

 

[Race Radio]

Re:

RR are you trying to assert that the Lemonds did not routinely tape calls. You believe that Kathy Lemond is truthful when she says she can hear what the person on the other end is saying on these incendiary topics, i find that not believable. Putting aside the ethics of secretly recording peoples phone calls you also believe the Lemonds determined if the caller was in a 2 part consent state before they recorded. Here is an example of another recorded call. It was evidence in the Trek lawsuit where the attorney for Trek asserts the Lemonds and Andreu where discussing extorting Trek for money.

http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/more-sports/greg-lemond-lawsuit-trek-broken-promises-lance-article-1.198217

You are welcome to believe Trek's paid liars. They lost and wrote Greg a big check.

Interesting part of that article

Trek's legal team has been assisted by Public Strategies Inc, a consulting firm that caters to conservative politicians and is home to consultant Mark McKinnon, who is close to Armstrong.

Here is Mark's apology for participating in the smear campaign against Greg. Enjoy

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/07/31/i-pushed-the-lance-armstrong-lie-an-open-letter-to-greg-lemond.html

 

[1Hawkeye]

So all attorneys are paid lairs or just Armstrong's attorneys, Lemond has been involved in other lawsuits. Are his lawyers paid lairs then. Why did Lemond fight to keep it out if it wasn't true. Also the case was settled both sides declared the win.

Your link is about a member of the Livestrong foundation board that was part of a consulting firm that Trek used. Is he admitting he submitted lies about Lemond as part of his job. It is a rambling open letter that mentions no "lies" he is now ashamed he put forth.

 

[Race Radio]

Re:

So all attorneys are paid lairs or just Armstrong's attorneys, Lemond has been involved in other lawsuits. Are his lawyers paid lairs then. Why did Lemond fight to keep it out if it wasn't true. Also the case was settled both sides declared the win.

Your link is about a member of the Livestrong foundation board what has that got to do with it?

Did you read what I wrote?

The article you linked talks about Mark McKinnon. He used to be one of the top guys at Public Strategies, a company Lance used to smear Greg. They ran a very organized campaign to ruin Greg's life. In the end Mark realized he made a huge mistake and made a public apology.

 

[1Hawkeye]

So your assertion is that as part of his job he smeared Lemond. Example please? Where in the article does he mention this and apologize for his work. The title of the article is I pushed the Armstrong Lie not that I smeared Lemond and I am sorry. He said he believed lies about Greg not that as part of his job he lied about Greg. Not sure I would want anyone on a charity foundation that pushes lies about people as part of his job.

You haven't replied to all lawyers are paid liars or just Armstrong's/Treks and lawyers in Lemond's lawsuits are not.

Also what is you stand on recording people phone calls without consent. Would you do business with someone that was recording your calls and not telling you?

 

[Merckx index]

Re:

Question for you ScienceIsCool - obviously I am not a fan of Lemond but interested in the science of exercise. In this article

http://bikeraceinfo.com/oralhistory/lemond.html

Lemond talks about a initial VO2 Max of 79 (though not sport specific) though he was a trained professional time and training up to a max of 94. In your opinion is that possible and or realistic. Another poster in the forums believe Armstrong's tested VO2 Max as a 1991 something indicates he didn't have the engine for greatness if i am interpreting it correctly.

From the article:

I was on average about 6.2 to 6.4 liters of Oxygen, which translated to my racing weight would be 92, 93, 94 VO2 Max.

So about 67 kg.

My wattage, relative to VO2 Max...a VO2 Max of 92 or 93 in a fully recovered way...I think I was capable of producing 450 to 460 watts.

I think what Greg is saying here is not that he ever was shown to put out 450 watts, but that his very high V02max would probably enable him to. But I think this is doubtful. 450 watts/67 kg would be about 6.7 W/kg, far above what most Froome critics believe is possible clean. If you give Greg a 94 V02max and 90% utilization, he still would need 23% efficiency. Efficiencies that high and higher have been reported, but generally associated with much lower V02max values. I wouldn't say it was impossible if his V02max really was that high, but AFAIK, no elite rider has ever published--in his name or anonymously in some study--a VO2max and efficiency combination that suggests extended power remotely close to 6.7 W/kg.

The truth is, even at the Tour de France, my Tour de France climb times up l'Alpe d'Huez yielded a wattage of around 380 and 390.

Fignon recorded a 41:50 on ADH in 1989, the fastest time I think, prior to the 90s. For a 67 kg rider, that would be about 385 watts, and 5.75 W/kg. That's certainly considered believable clean, though it must be pointed out that racing tactics were somewhat different those days. They didn't come to a MTF in a large group, then all start hard pacing until everyone except a few fell off the back. In fact, when Greg and Hinault finished together on ADH in 1986, they were timed in 48', about 335 watts. So I really don't know how many times in his career Greg did a climb under conditions that would exhibit his maximum extended power.

But what was learned recently, in the last 5 years, was that when you start the Tour de France, you start with a normal hematocrit of, say, 45 percent. By the time you finish, it's probably down 10 or 15 percent. Which means my VO2 Max dropped 10 or 15 percent. So that's why I was never producing the same wattage.

The HT drops because of plasma expansion, not because of fewer red blood cells. It’s not clear that V02max necessarily drops. There is conflicting evidence on that, in fact, some studies have reported that V02max actually increases, because stroke volume of the heart increases. I don't think the lower HT can explain the difference, though simply being tired over a three week Tour might. But I'm inclined to believe that there isn't as much discrepancy needing to be explained as Greg thinks, because as I said above, the 450-460 watts is almost certainly an overestimate. Though we'll probably never know, he might have been capable of a little over 400 watts, and about 6.0 W/kg.

From Armstrong forum - reply by Python 11-16-14 - sorry don't know how to link to other forum topics.
armstrong's aerobic/anaerobic data
vo2 max of 80 in '91 is confirmed as a true elite mark. but the threshold of 75% and the corresponding watts (340-350) was sub par. in another place the testers even noted that he would need about 400 watts to compete at his level in the itts. they called it an area to develop. perhaps. but the often reported numbers of 450+ watts in the tours are clearly above the training effects (appr 10%) for improving the threshold. massive blood doping would have been required

Is the max 10 increase indicated above correct? If so what are your thoughts Lemond's improvement.

I don't think going from 79 to over 90 is believable unless Greg was not training much when that 79 was measured. V02max generally stabilizes early in a rider’s career. I would certainly expect that whatever value he tested for in 1989 to be evident several years before that. But he doesn’t specify exactly when he tested at 79, or what kind of training he was doing. Because of that, and because he was tested on a treadmill rather than cycling, I’m inclined to give him a pass. But it would be much better if he had documentation of a V02max over 90 by 1985 or 1986, when he was clearly at his peak, and when EPO was definitely not yet available.

 

[1Hawkeye]

Merckx Index -Thanks for the taking the time to reply. It was most informative.

 

[V3R1T4S]

Don't believe the hype

Squaw Valley is located at about 6k ft. This would mean ~93% of available aerobic power, meaning a VO2 max of 79 in Squaw Valley is ~85 at sea level.

But look, VO2 max tests are the original d!ck measuring device and there is a lot of fudging going on to look good. Many elite athletes actually have the highest absolute VO2 in the winter time after they've been training a lot but haven't raced yet. The reason why is they are freshest then (although heaviest too). However, due to mind games, pride, and ego, the relative VO2 number quoted (i.e. the number in ml/kg/min) more often than not is the highest absolute output divided by the athlete's ideal race weight.

I've seen this done first hand with cyclists and skiers and have seen other's do it as well. For example, when Basso used to put up his data with Mapei he did a scheduled VO2 max test where the weight entered was 69 kg, but then a couple of days later during an unscheduled test because a camera crew wanted to see a realistic protocol, his actual weight - 75.1 kg - was recorded. Oops. He blew a 5.925 L/min that day. So the difference between diving by ideal weight and real weight is the difference between at 79 and an 86, a good 9% higher.

So I would take ALL self-reported VO2 maxes with a HUGE grain salt - more so than power meter readings. Not only does weight factor into the equation, but protocol (i.e. ramp rate), machine calibration, atmospheric conditions (higher barometric pressure => more O2 available, same with temperature and Hb-O2 dissociation curve), and a litany of other things do as well. It's just ridiculous. Not only that, but many times due to national pride figures are just completely fabricated. For example, as far as I know Indurain only ever blew a 78 but Padilla inflated that to 88 to be more fitting of a “champion”. Same with Norwegians and their obsession with XC skiiers VO2 maxes being > 90.

As much as people might be skeptical of mathematically calculating power outputs, when you are able to bring statistics into play due to multiple riders riding the same climb in the same conditions you can get a much better sense of an individual's level compared with his rivals. Not to mention what matters at the end of the day are results. My own thoughts are if Greg had a clean >90 VO2 max (i.e. on the test day he simultaneously weighed 67kg and blew > 6 L/min) then we should be seeing some higher VAM numbers even with the older, heavier bikes - probably in excess of 1500. True, he might have abnormally low efficiency due to a high VO2 max and races were raced differently but still, we saw it with Fignon.

Finally, if straight relative VO2 max wasn't already almost useless, because of physiology and physics a more relevant metric is actually (VO2 [ml/min])/(Mass)^(2/3). This is because: 1. The amount of O2 the lungs can process is proportional to lung volume (i.e. ~ mass). 2. The amount of blood the heart can pump is proportional to volume (~ mass) 3. The amount of O2 that can be delivered to muscles is proportional to surface area (~mass^(2/3)). 4. The amount of energy available to the heart through heart blood vessels is proportional to surface area (~mass^(2/3)). Basically, as you scale up an animal it becomes more “efficient”, needing less relative oxygen to do the same activity - look into allometric scaing. This is partly why you see tiny guys with huge VO2 maxes not really go faster than larger dudes with lower ones (even excluding for aerodynamic drag with goes as surface area so also mass^(2/3)).

So yeah, don’t believe the hype of self-reported values (VO2, power or otherwise), whether it’s Lemond, Froome, Quintana or whoever. Instead look at their performances compared to their rivals.

 

[@NL_LeMondFans]

Re:

So your assertion is that as part of his job he smeared Lemond. Example please? Where in the article does he mention this and apologize for his work. The title of the article is I pushed the Armstrong Lie not that I smeared Lemond and I am sorry. He said he believed lies about Greg not that as part of his job he lied about Greg. Not sure I would want anyone on a charity foundation that pushes lies about people as part of his job.

You haven't replied to all lawyers are paid liars or just Armstrong's/Treks and lawyers in Lemond's lawsuits are not.

Also what is you stand on recording people phone calls without consent. Would you do business with someone that was recording your calls and not telling you?

One thing I am sure of, is that lawyers and phone calls are not considered doping.

There is a pattern, here. People who fail to prove Greg dope often settle for just trying to convince you he is such a bad person, which, believe it or not, is off topic.

 

[Armchaircyclist]

Re: Don't believe the hype

Same with Norwegians and their obsession with XC skiiers VO2 maxes being > 90.

.

.

Norwegian skier Caspersen-Falla who is trying to og from cross-country sprint (which of course actually is more of a middle distance sport) to the longer races. She told that she had had good tests With VO2max over 70, so was optimistic about the NeXT season... So not all Norwegians can brag about a super high VO2max. Bjørgen and Johaug are reported to have "a bit higher than 70" on their tests.

In an article in a Norwegian newspaper, amateurs and age-groupers are reported to test quite similar to elite athletes. The most Extreme case was a guy around 60 testing a VO2max of Close to 80...

 

[sniper]

two disclaimers:
1. Am not gonna post proof or evidence of Lemond doping. It's not my intention so don't ask for it. So, for instance, the Dhaenens rumor about Lemond introducing EPO is just that, a rumor. Please don't ask me to "provide evidence/proof" of the veracity of the rumor, as I don't have it. Yes, feel free to ask for evidence of the existence of the rumor, which is a different thing all together. It's a simple difference, yet not everyone seemed to grasp it. viewtopic.php?p=1775209#p1775209
2. Check out this brilliant thread: viewtopic.php?f=11&t=5443

 

[sniper]

A common heard argument is Lemond is the real deal because he was a class act already as a junior. So what I think is interesting to ask: how credible are Lemond's early results?
That question in turn is related to a second question: who discovered Lemond? Eddie B. is often credited as such, but I'm not sure if he worked with Greg from the beginning.
I think 1977 is generally viewed as the year of Lemond's breakthrough (correct me if wrong).
On Eddy B.(Borysewich)'s wiki I read that he came to the States in 1977.
Was he working with Lemond from the get-go?

 

[gillan1969]

Re:

A common heard argument is Lemond is the real deal because he was a class act already as a junior. So what I think is interesting to ask: how credible are Lemond's early results?
That question in turn is related to a second question: who discovered Lemond? Eddie B. is often credited as such, but I'm not sure if he worked with Greg from the beginning.
I think 1977 is generally viewed as the year of Lemond's breakthrough (correct me if wrong).
On Eddy B.(Borysewich)'s wiki I read that he came to the States in 1977.
Was he working with Lemond from the get-go?

unless you have a personal issue with Lemond, your energies would be better spent elsewhere...if his early results were based on PED use then this use would have needed to continue right through his career and presumably on an industrial scale...as we know the evidence of even marginal use is very thin on the ground...he looked and felt like a cyclist with immense talent..always good with natural progression, especially in GTs..crap after he was shot and crap after epo went through the peloton (combined with age)...if you can't take a step back and consider that then you need to..there are current cyclists who are still winning GTs where your speculation and energies would be better spent investigating...i.e. the ones that eschew nutella and didn't have their 'breakthrough' at 16 but at 26...

 

[sniper]

Re: Re:

A common heard argument is Lemond is the real deal because he was a class act already as a junior. So what I think is interesting to ask: how credible are Lemond's early results?
That question in turn is related to a second question: who discovered Lemond? Eddie B. is often credited as such, but I'm not sure if he worked with Greg from the beginning.
I think 1977 is generally viewed as the year of Lemond's breakthrough (correct me if wrong).
On Eddy B.(Borysewich)'s wiki I read that he came to the States in 1977.
Was he working with Lemond from the get-go?

unless you have a personal issue with Lemond, your energies would be better spent elsewhere...if his early results were based on PED use then this use would have needed to continue right through his career and presumably on an industrial scale...as we know the evidence of even marginal use is very thin on the ground...he looked and felt like a cyclist with immense talent..always good with natural progression, especially in GTs..crap after he was shot and crap after epo went through the peloton (combined with age)...if you can't take a step back and consider that then you need to..there are current cyclists who are still winning GTs where your speculation and energies would be better spent investigating...i.e. the ones that eschew nutella and didn't have their 'breakthrough' at 16 but at 26...

good post cheers.

I disagree with the bolded though. I mean, Sky is a nobrainer. Every dodgy dot about Sky is out in the open. Now it's just waiting and hoping for somebody to spill the beans. Maybe we hear something in a year or five if we're lucky.

Lemond, imo, is a fascinating case. I've long unquestioningly supported the view of so many in here who see him as the last clean GT winner (check my posting history and you'll see). Only very recently I started questioning that consensus after accidentally bumping into the Dhaenens rumor and discovering that the rumor was in fact widespread in the peloton in the 90s. It felt awkard. After all, he's considered the last clean winner by many posters here in the Clinic. Some of those posters constitute the best and most knowledgeable posters I know.
It's an intriguing premise.

What I think is a healthy attitude wrt Lemond is best expressed by the German verb hinterfragen, without accusing.
There is plenty in his history that, imo, warrants more skepticism than he's actually receiving. No evidence, no proof. Just stuff that warrants more skepticism. Stuff that makes me curious why there is such a strong consensus on Lemond.

As for the year of breakthrough, Bolt broke through at the age of 16 or roundabout.
Some crazy tennis and soccer players broke through at the age of 16.
I've heard plenty of stories about doping at the age of 16. One of them comes from Borysewicz, Lemond's discoverer, who took American youth cyclists to Poland to teach them how to blood dope. The story is linked upthread but I'll dig it up for you if you want.
In other words, imo, his early talent in itself is not an argument to vouch for Lemond's cleanliness. I would be more reassured if somebody could tell me Lemond wasn't working with Borysewicz yet in 1977.

 

[gillan1969]

Re: Re:

A common heard argument is Lemond is the real deal because he was a class act already as a junior. So what I think is interesting to ask: how credible are Lemond's early results?
That question in turn is related to a second question: who discovered Lemond? Eddie B. is often credited as such, but I'm not sure if he worked with Greg from the beginning.
I think 1977 is generally viewed as the year of Lemond's breakthrough (correct me if wrong).
On Eddy B.(Borysewich)'s wiki I read that he came to the States in 1977.
Was he working with Lemond from the get-go?

unless you have a personal issue with Lemond, your energies would be better spent elsewhere...if his early results were based on PED use then this use would have needed to continue right through his career and presumably on an industrial scale...as we know the evidence of even marginal use is very thin on the ground...he looked and felt like a cyclist with immense talent..always good with natural progression, especially in GTs..crap after he was shot and crap after epo went through the peloton (combined with age)...if you can't take a step back and consider that then you need to..there are current cyclists who are still winning GTs where your speculation and energies would be better spent investigating...i.e. the ones that eschew nutella and didn't have their 'breakthrough' at 16 but at 26...

good post cheers.

I disagree with the bolded though. I mean, Sky is a nobrainer. Every dodgy dot about Sky is out in the open. Now it's just waiting and hoping for somebody to spill the beans. Maybe we hear something in a year or five if we're lucky.

Lemond, imo, is a fascinating case. I've long unquestioningly supported the view of so many in here who see him as the last clean GT winner (check my posting history and you'll see). Only very recently I started questioning that consensus after accidentally bumping into the Dhaenens rumor and discovering that the rumor was in fact widespread in the peloton in the 90s. It felt awkard. After all, he's considered the last clean winner by many posters here in the Clinic. Some of those posters constitute the best and most knowledgeable posters I know.
It's an intriguing premise.

What I think is a healthy attitude wrt Lemond is best expressed by the German verb hinterfragen, without accusing.
There is plenty in his history that, imo, warrants more skepticism than he's actually receiving. No evidence, no proof. Just stuff that warrants more skepticism. Stuff that makes me curious why there is such a strong consensus on Lemond.

As for the year of breakthrough, Bolt broke through at the age of 16 or roundabout.
Some crazy tennis and soccer players broke through at the age of 16.
I've heard plenty of stories about doping at the age of 16. One of them comes from Borysewicz, Lemond's discoverer, who took American youth cyclists to Poland to teach them how to blood dope. The story is linked upthread but I'll dig it up for you if you want.
In other words, imo, his early talent in itself is not an argument to vouch for Lemond's cleanliness. I would be more reassured if somebody could tell me Lemond wasn't working with Borysewicz yet in 1977.

yes but there might well be reasons why Lemond had rumours about him..he was culturally very different from your average European pro at the time, that would have meant a lot in what was (is) quite a closed and insular world...the different scale of epo adoption and understanding of its potential effects in the early years (prob 89-92) would suggest that there would have been lots of rumours circulating about who was doing what and with what...the less was understood about you (as a person) the more any rumour might grow...but these would be rumours not evidence...this may be why you are only finding rumours.

the terms breakthrough tends to used for a breakthrough i.e. something which changes the status quo...I'm not really sure you can apply that to a 16 year kid...breakthrough from what..being 14?

 

[sniper]

Re: Re:

yes but there might well be reasons why Lemond had rumours about him..he was culturally very different from your average European pro at the time, that would have meant a lot in what was (is) quite a closed and insular world...the different scale of epo adoption and understanding of its potential effects in the early years (prob 89-92) would suggest that there would have been lots of rumours circulating about who was doing what and with what...the less was understood about you (as a person) the more any rumour might grow...but these would be rumours not evidence...this may be why you are only finding rumours.

good&fair points.

the terms breakthrough tends to used for a breakthrough i.e. something which changes the status quo...I'm not really sure you can apply that to a 16 year kid...breakthrough from what..being 14?

Why not. In this context what I thought you meant and what I understand the word 'breakthrough' to mean is something like "first noticeable success(es)", which, arguably, came in 1977 (US junior road champ).
But I get your point. There's quite a nice gradual improvement in those early years, I agree. And it's difficult to tell how good he was before his 16th.
In any case, I would still like to know when he started working with Eddy B.

 

[sniper]

Here's a very nice interview with Lemond about his carreer including the early years.
http://bikeraceinfo.com/oralhistory/lemond.html
many interesting gems:

In the 80s when I was racing we did VO2 Max testing, but it was to see the physical fitness. My first VO2 Max test was up in Squaw Valley on a treadmill and I had a 79 VO2 Max non-specific sport. But once I actually really started doing VO2 Max testing on a consistent basis in '89... now you know it depends upon the level of fitness and training...I was on average about 6.2 to 6.4 liters of Oxygen, which translated to my racing weight would be 92, 93, 94 VO2 Max. I think only cross-country skier Bjørn Dæhlie [Generally considered the greatest Nordic skier of all time, 1992 Olympic Gold Medalist 15 km, 50 km, 4 x 10 km relay cross country skiing], had those same numbers. So I think I had one of, if not the highest.

Of course, in the '90s drugs came on the scene, so the wattages have gone out.

mkay.

There are some things that are just not explainable, people with VO2 Maxs in the low 80s producing 500 watts. A physiologist friend of my said that for a person to do that, 500 watts, he has to have to have nearly 100 milliliters of Oxygen. There are a lot of questions there for me.

When I start seeing wattage down to the historic norm, I'll know that the battle of the drugs is starting to get back in place.

CB: We can at least understand that statistically, the physical gift that you possessed was one in millions?

GL: I read in a deposition in a trial that an expert witness said that I couldn't have had a ninety [VO2 Max]...that I would have been a one in a thousand in the pro ranks to have that. I happened to have been in the 1980s and was probably the best rider out of a thousand pros. So [laughs], I was one in a thousand.

And no, I'm not shitting you:

Two weeks later I went there and they convinced me to do a club race, which I did. I showed up in tennis shoes, tank top and running shorts, 35-pound bike in the middle of the Reno winter. Everybody else had their leg warmers on, Italian bikes. I ended up getting second place out of it. It was a 28-mile race, 4 laps around a 7-mile loop right in front of my house.

For real, I'm starting to think Froome has been reading up on Lemond. Recall Froome's admission (in the Kimmage interview) that he had had an injection early in his carreer but didn't like it. Similar to Lemond, right? Then there's also the blood disease. Is Froome trolling us? Anyway, back to Lemond.

CB: You won the Circuit de la Sarthe.
GL: The Circuit de la Sarthe was really my big breakthrough because it was against professionals, East Germans, Eastern block countries.

and more. worth a read.

 

[D-Queued]

Must be a slow news day/week/month/year/decade.

So, are you saying that Connie Carpenter, World silver medalist in 1977, was on the Eddy B program?

Sorry, but all of this is clutching at straws that are laughable.

I'd believe that Cancellara had a motor in his seat tube long before I believed any of this nonsense. And that is nonsense.

We happen to know exactly who was on Eddy's program:

From Wikipedia: "...(At the 1984 Los Angeles Olympics) Steve Hegg won a gold and a silver; Rebecca Twigg, Pat McDonough and Leonard Nitz won silver medals. They were identified in the subsequent inquiry as having had transfusions. The others were John Beckman, Mark Whitehead and Brent Emery. The rest of the team refused. Transfusions were suggested by Eddie, by staff members or by the physician who oversaw the boosting, Dr. Herman Falsetti, a professor of cardiology at the University of Iowa. ..."

And, who really was Eddy B's big discovery?

From the horse's mouth:

Again from Wikipedia: "...Eddie Borysewicz resigned as coach of the American national team in 1987[10] partly because of disagreements with members of his squad.[11] He started his own amateur team in 1988. Sponsorship by Sunkyong, a Korean electronics firm, ended after a year and Borysewicz sought a replacement in Montgomery Securities. Its chief executive, Thomas Weisel, agreed to a team of 15 that included Lance Armstrong. That team, after several sponsorship changes, became the US Postal Service and Discovery Channel teams for which Armstrong won the Tour de France seven times before those victories were vacated in 2012 after the USADA ruled that Armstrong doped during each of those victories.

Borysewicz claimed Lance Armstrong as his discovery and not that of Armstrong's later coach, Chris Carmichael. When Carmichael said of his work at the US federation that he wished he had "five Lances," Borysewicz replied,

“ "Why doesn't he (Chris Carmichael) produce Lances? That's his job. And anyway, Lance is not his product. Lance is my product." ... "

Now some have suggested it that CC started doping Lance. Are you saying that we should be looking at Eddy B instead?

Dave.

 

[sniper]

Re:

Must be a slow news day/week/month/year/decade.

So, are you saying that Connie Carpenter, World silver medalist in 1977, was on the Eddy B program?

Sorry, but all of this is clutching at straws that are laughable.

I'd believe that Cancellara had a motor in his seat tube long before I believed any of this nonsense. And that is nonsense.

We happen to know exactly who was on Eddy's program:

From Wikipedia: "...(At the 1984 Los Angeles Olympics) Steve Hegg won a gold and a silver; Rebecca Twigg, Pat McDonough and Leonard Nitz won silver medals. They were identified in the subsequent inquiry as having had transfusions. The others were John Beckman, Mark Whitehead and Brent Emery. The rest of the team refused. Transfusions were suggested by Eddie, by staff members or by the physician who oversaw the boosting, Dr. Herman Falsetti, a professor of cardiology at the University of Iowa. ..."

And, who really was Eddy B's big discovery?

From the horse's mouth:

Again from Wikipedia: "...Eddie Borysewicz resigned as coach of the American national team in 1987[10] partly because of disagreements with members of his squad.[11] He started his own amateur team in 1988. Sponsorship by Sunkyong, a Korean electronics firm, ended after a year and Borysewicz sought a replacement in Montgomery Securities. Its chief executive, Thomas Weisel, agreed to a team of 15 that included Lance Armstrong. That team, after several sponsorship changes, became the US Postal Service and Discovery Channel teams for which Armstrong won the Tour de France seven times before those victories were vacated in 2012 after the USADA ruled that Armstrong doped during each of those victories.

Borysewicz claimed Lance Armstrong as his discovery and not that of Armstrong's later coach, Chris Carmichael. When Carmichael said of his work at the US federation that he wished he had "five Lances," Borysewicz replied,

“ "Why doesn't he (Chris Carmichael) produce Lances? That's his job. And anyway, Lance is not his product. Lance is my product." ... "

Now some have suggested it that CC started doping Lance. Are you saying that we should be looking at Eddy B instead?

Dave.

several fair points.
however...

Was Eddy B. only into bloodtransfusions? Yes, transfusions is what made him famous, but it's only plausible to assume he was offering more conventional kinds of doping as well. In other words, athletes refusing to transfuse tells me little about the cleanlihood of said athletes.

Regardless of who did or did not transfuse, the bloodtransfusion scandal is real and - imo - a pretty significant story as it tells us a lot about who Eddy B. was and what his methods and ideas were (again, imo). Especially Eddy taking youth athletes to Poland to introduce them to bloodtransfusions is, well, a pretty ff-ing black page in his CV.

As for Eddy and Lance, that is a salient side story. Indeed I've read him claiming to have 'discovered' Lance. I don't know what Eddy did or did not do with Lance or how close they were, and would love to learn more about that.

 

[thehog]

Re: Re:

Must be a slow news day/week/month/year/decade.

So, are you saying that Connie Carpenter, World silver medalist in 1977, was on the Eddy B program?

Sorry, but all of this is clutching at straws that are laughable.

I'd believe that Cancellara had a motor in his seat tube long before I believed any of this nonsense. And that is nonsense.

We happen to know exactly who was on Eddy's program:

From Wikipedia: "...(At the 1984 Los Angeles Olympics) Steve Hegg won a gold and a silver; Rebecca Twigg, Pat McDonough and Leonard Nitz won silver medals. They were identified in the subsequent inquiry as having had transfusions. The others were John Beckman, Mark Whitehead and Brent Emery. The rest of the team refused. Transfusions were suggested by Eddie, by staff members or by the physician who oversaw the boosting, Dr. Herman Falsetti, a professor of cardiology at the University of Iowa. ..."

And, who really was Eddy B's big discovery?

From the horse's mouth:

Again from Wikipedia: "...Eddie Borysewicz resigned as coach of the American national team in 1987[10] partly because of disagreements with members of his squad.[11] He started his own amateur team in 1988. Sponsorship by Sunkyong, a Korean electronics firm, ended after a year and Borysewicz sought a replacement in Montgomery Securities. Its chief executive, Thomas Weisel, agreed to a team of 15 that included Lance Armstrong. That team, after several sponsorship changes, became the US Postal Service and Discovery Channel teams for which Armstrong won the Tour de France seven times before those victories were vacated in 2012 after the USADA ruled that Armstrong doped during each of those victories.

Borysewicz claimed Lance Armstrong as his discovery and not that of Armstrong's later coach, Chris Carmichael. When Carmichael said of his work at the US federation that he wished he had "five Lances," Borysewicz replied,

“ "Why doesn't he (Chris Carmichael) produce Lances? That's his job. And anyway, Lance is not his product. Lance is my product." ... "

Now some have suggested it that CC started doping Lance. Are you saying that we should be looking at Eddy B instead?

Dave.

several fair points.
however...

Was Eddy B. only into bloodtransfusions? Yes, transfusions is what made him famous, but it's only plausible to assume he was offering more conventional kinds of doping as well. In other words, athletes refusing to transfuse tells me little about the cleanlihood of said athletes.

Regardless of who did or did not transfuse, the bloodtransfusion scandal is real and - imo - a pretty significant story as it tells us a lot about who Eddy B. was and what his methods and ideas were (again, imo). Especially Eddy taking youth athletes to Poland to introduce them to bloodtransfusions is, well, a pretty ff-ing black page in his CV.

As for Eddy and Lance, that is a salient side story. Indeed I've read him claiming to have 'discovered' Lance. I don't know what Eddy did or did not do with Lance or how close they were, and would love to learn more about that.

LeMond is a funny one.

Certainly there's not a lot of doping mud that sticks to him but his dubious behaviour in other areas makes you wonder. Whilst he claims to be anti-doping his actions are far from and he's not the most ethical person in the manner which he conducts his affairs.

A man of extremes.

 

[HelmutRoole]

Re:

Must be a slow news day/week/month/year/decade.

So, are you saying that Connie Carpenter, World silver medalist in 1977, was on the Eddy B program?

Sorry, but all of this is clutching at straws that are laughable.

I'd believe that Cancellara had a motor in his seat tube long before I believed any of this nonsense. And that is nonsense.

We happen to know exactly who was on Eddy's program:

From Wikipedia: "...(At the 1984 Los Angeles Olympics) Steve Hegg won a gold and a silver; Rebecca Twigg, Pat McDonough and Leonard Nitz won silver medals. They were identified in the subsequent inquiry as having had transfusions. The others were John Beckman, Mark Whitehead and Brent Emery. The rest of the team refused. Transfusions were suggested by Eddie, by staff members or by the physician who oversaw the boosting, Dr. Herman Falsetti, a professor of cardiology at the University of Iowa. ..."

And, who really was Eddy B's big discovery?

From the horse's mouth:

Again from Wikipedia: "...Eddie Borysewicz resigned as coach of the American national team in 1987[10] partly because of disagreements with members of his squad.[11] He started his own amateur team in 1988. Sponsorship by Sunkyong, a Korean electronics firm, ended after a year and Borysewicz sought a replacement in Montgomery Securities. Its chief executive, Thomas Weisel, agreed to a team of 15 that included Lance Armstrong. That team, after several sponsorship changes, became the US Postal Service and Discovery Channel teams for which Armstrong won the Tour de France seven times before those victories were vacated in 2012 after the USADA ruled that Armstrong doped during each of those victories.

Borysewicz claimed Lance Armstrong as his discovery and not that of Armstrong's later coach, Chris Carmichael. When Carmichael said of his work at the US federation that he wished he had "five Lances," Borysewicz replied,

“ "Why doesn't he (Chris Carmichael) produce Lances? That's his job. And anyway, Lance is not his product. Lance is my product." ... "

Now some have suggested it that CC started doping Lance. Are you saying that we should be looking at Eddy B instead?

Dave.

How are you so sure Connie Carpenter wasn’t on Eddie B’s program?

Look, I not saying she was, but come on. She defeated a blood-doped world champion track cyclist for an Olympic gold medal in a two-up sprint on the road. That’s gotta raise a few eyebrows, right?

Also, that wiki list? Consider who’s not on it. Alexi Grewal. If his ‘84 gold medal wasn’t a prototypical blood-doped romp, I don’t know what is: off the front all day either alone or in small groups, caught in the waning kilometers by a guy who weeks later podiums at the world professional road championships who he puts the smackdown on in a basic two-up sprint to the line. Beats him by more than a bike?

Just because Carpenter didn’t make the list doesn’t mean she shouldn’t have.

As for Lemond? I don’t have a thing against the guy personally. An acquaintance worked for him. Said he was a great guy. I’ve met him. Seemed fine. Loved his style on the bike.

But, some of his performances reek a little. I mean, what is it? The second fastest ITT in TdF history on the last day of the TdF? Goodness. That doesn’t feel right. I’m sure someone will mention, but wasn’t it downhill with a tailwind? If you’re going to make that assertion, please show me a course profile or something from a reputable source that can attest to the elevation change and wind speed. I’ve looked and found none. And, if you want to state it was only 15 miles, okay. He took almost a minute out of Fignon in 15 miles. The guy rolled 34+ mph on the last day of a GT.

Better be a big downhill.

As for the Dhaenens rumor, I’ve never heard of this before but it’s intriguing. Not looking for validation of the rumor but, yes, I’m interested in its origins and what Dhaenens said.

 

[Scott SoCal]

Re: Re:

Must be a slow news day/week/month/year/decade.

So, are you saying that Connie Carpenter, World silver medalist in 1977, was on the Eddy B program?

Sorry, but all of this is clutching at straws that are laughable.

I'd believe that Cancellara had a motor in his seat tube long before I believed any of this nonsense. And that is nonsense.

We happen to know exactly who was on Eddy's program:

From Wikipedia: "...(At the 1984 Los Angeles Olympics) Steve Hegg won a gold and a silver; Rebecca Twigg, Pat McDonough and Leonard Nitz won silver medals. They were identified in the subsequent inquiry as having had transfusions. The others were John Beckman, Mark Whitehead and Brent Emery. The rest of the team refused. Transfusions were suggested by Eddie, by staff members or by the physician who oversaw the boosting, Dr. Herman Falsetti, a professor of cardiology at the University of Iowa. ..."

And, who really was Eddy B's big discovery?

From the horse's mouth:

Again from Wikipedia: "...Eddie Borysewicz resigned as coach of the American national team in 1987[10] partly because of disagreements with members of his squad.[11] He started his own amateur team in 1988. Sponsorship by Sunkyong, a Korean electronics firm, ended after a year and Borysewicz sought a replacement in Montgomery Securities. Its chief executive, Thomas Weisel, agreed to a team of 15 that included Lance Armstrong. That team, after several sponsorship changes, became the US Postal Service and Discovery Channel teams for which Armstrong won the Tour de France seven times before those victories were vacated in 2012 after the USADA ruled that Armstrong doped during each of those victories.

Borysewicz claimed Lance Armstrong as his discovery and not that of Armstrong's later coach, Chris Carmichael. When Carmichael said of his work at the US federation that he wished he had "five Lances," Borysewicz replied,

“ "Why doesn't he (Chris Carmichael) produce Lances? That's his job. And anyway, Lance is not his product. Lance is my product." ... "

Now some have suggested it that CC started doping Lance. Are you saying that we should be looking at Eddy B instead?

Dave.

How are you so sure Connie Carpenter wasn’t on Eddie B’s program?

Look, I not saying she was, but come on. She defeated a blood-doped world champion track cyclist for an Olympic gold medal in a two-up sprint on the road. That’s gotta raise a few eyebrows, right?

Also, that wiki list? Consider who’s not on it. Alexi Grewal. If his ‘84 gold medal wasn’t a prototypical blood-doped romp, I don’t know what is: off the front all day either alone or in small groups, caught in the waning kilometers by a guy who weeks later podiums at the world professional road championships who he puts the smackdown on in a basic two-up sprint to the line. Beats him by more than a bike?

Just because Carpenter didn’t make the list doesn’t mean she shouldn’t have.

As for Lemond? I don’t have a thing against the guy personally. An acquaintance worked for him. Said he was a great guy. I’ve met him. Seemed fine. Loved his style on the bike.

But, some of his performances reek a little. I mean, what is it? The second fastest ITT in TdF history on the last day of the TdF? Goodness. That doesn’t feel right. I’m sure someone will mention, but wasn’t it downhill with a tailwind? If you’re going to make that assertion, please show me a course profile or something from a reputable source that can attest to the elevation change and wind speed. I’ve looked and found none. And, if you want to state it was only 15 miles, okay. He took almost a minute out of Fignon in 15 miles. The guy rolled 34+ mph on the last day of a GT.

Better be a big downhill.

As for the Dhaenens rumor, I’ve never heard of this before but it’s intriguing. Not looking for validation of the rumor but, yes, I’m interested in its origins and what Dhaenens said.

Oh FFS. Cow horns v aero bars, pony tail v aero helmet.

And you're a reporter?

 

[Dear Wiggo]

Re: Re:

Oh FFS. Cow horns v aero bars, pony tail v aero helmet.

You forgot the front disc. IMO they were pretty much equally aero, based on pictures alone.

A shame the LeMond defenders have to so consistently become personal in their replies.

Stifling discussion seems to be the goal, and it's repulsive.