LeMond II

[HelmutRoole]

Re: Re:

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

Dude...

I’ll give you the aero advantage, but a minute? A minute at 34mph? That’s blocks and blocks of real-estate. And Fignon? It’s not like he’s some hack.

Right?

Fignon. The guy’s got Hall of Fame chops. And he’s going downhill with a tailwind. And it's not like he has an off day. He finishes third on the stage.

But still, LeMond rips a minute out of him. Wins the Tour de France. On the last stage.

It's one of the greatest sports stories ever.

Look, I really don't get off on harshing anybody's mellow, but I think it does at least rise to the level of suspicion.

 

[MarkvW]

Re: Re:

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

Dude...

I’ll give you the aero advantage, but a minute? A minute at 34mph? That’s blocks and blocks of real-estate. And Fignon? It’s not like he’s some hack.

Right?

Fignon. The guy’s got Hall of Fame chops. And he’s going downhill with a tailwind. And it's not like he has an off day. He finishes third on the stage.

But still, LeMond rips a minute out of him. Wins the Tour de France. On the last stage.

It's one of the greatest sports stories ever.

Look, I really don't get off on harshing anybody's mellow, but I think it does at least rise to the level of suspicion.

Fignon was in quite a bit of pain because of a saddle sore during the last stage. That surely was a factor that contributed to the time gap between LeMond and Fignon.

 

[Fearless Greg Lemond]

Re: Re:

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

Dude...

I’ll give you the aero advantage, but a minute? A minute at 34mph? That’s blocks and blocks of real-estate. And Fignon? It’s not like he’s some hack.

Right?

Fignon. The guy’s got Hall of Fame chops. And he’s going downhill with a tailwind. And it's not like he has an off day. He finishes third on the stage.

But still, LeMond rips a minute out of him. Wins the Tour de France. On the last stage.

It's one of the greatest sports stories ever.

Look, I really don't get off on harshing anybody's mellow, but I think it does at least rise to the level of suspicion.

LeMond had a 22% aero advantage of Laurent, when you know this it is pretty obvious where Laurent lost the Tour 1989, not on the Champs, but on stage 5: a 79K TT where he lost 56 seconds. How good was Fignon there if he had had aero bars?

1. Greg LeMond en 1h38'12"(/Moy : 44.602 km/h/)
2. Delgado à 24"
3. Fignon à 56"
4. Marie à 1'51"
5. Yates à 2'06"
6. Breukink à 2'16"
7. Lejarreta à 2'20"
8. Bauer à 2'50"
9. Bugno à 2'53"
10. P.Simon à 3'19"
11. Roche à 3'22"
12. Indurain à 3'32"

Vs Champs:

1. Greg LeMond en 26'57" (/Moy : 54.545 km/h/)
2. Marie à 33"
3. Fignon à 58"
4. Nijdam à 1'07"
5. Yates à 1'10"
6. Maechler
7. Wechselberger à 1'11"
8. Mottet à 1'16"
9. Beuker à 1'19"
10. Skibby à 1'22"
11. Colotti à 1'24"
12. Maassen à 1'27"
13. Van Hooydonck
14. Bauer à 1'31"
15. Kiefel à 1'32"
16. Stevenhaagen à 1'36"
17. Indurain à 1'39"

I can read statistics. Are there more here that can too?

 

[blutto]

.....just a quick question about the relationship btwn VO2 and time trialing success....is VO2 the prime determinate in predicting time trial success....if not, what is the relative relationship btwn V02 and time trial success...assuming of course equally trained athletes....

Cheers

 

[Scott SoCal]

Re: Re:

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

Dude...

I’ll give you the aero advantage, but a minute? A minute at 34mph? That’s blocks and blocks of real-estate. And Fignon? It’s not like he’s some hack.

Right?

Fignon. The guy’s got Hall of Fame chops. And he’s going downhill with a tailwind. And it's not like he has an off day. He finishes third on the stage.

But still, LeMond rips a minute out of him. Wins the Tour de France. On the last stage.

It's one of the greatest sports stories ever.

Look, I really don't get off on harshing anybody's mellow, but I think it does at least rise to the level of suspicion.

It's about 2 seconds per km.

 

[ScienceIsCool]

Re: Re:

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

Dude...

I’ll give you the aero advantage, but a minute? A minute at 34mph? That’s blocks and blocks of real-estate. And Fignon? It’s not like he’s some hack.

Right?

Fignon. The guy’s got Hall of Fame chops. And he’s going downhill with a tailwind. And it's not like he has an off day. He finishes third on the stage.

But still, LeMond rips a minute out of him. Wins the Tour de France. On the last stage.

It's one of the greatest sports stories ever.

Look, I really don't get off on harshing anybody's mellow, but I think it does at least rise to the level of suspicion.

A reporter you say... Huh.

In a matter of minutes I was able to find primary sources for the following:

Elevation Versailles: 130-140 meters
Elevation Champs Elysees: ~40 meters
Average grade: -1%
Wind speed on July 24th, 1989 in Paris: 24 m/s (highest sustained wind speed for all of 1989)
Wind direction: SW

So yeah, downhill in a decent tailwind. And no, I'm not sharing my sources; you made some no effort whatsoever to gather the most basic of facts but made clear that you didn't believe that the stage was run downhill in a tailwind.

John Swanson

 

[ScienceIsCool]

And everyone is talking about Fignon. He wasn't even second on the day. The most relevant rider to compare with Lemond is Thierry Marie who was half a minute faster than Fignon.

John Swanson

 

[Fearless Greg Lemond]

Re:

And everyone is talking about Fignon. He wasn't even second on the day. The most relevant rider to compare with Lemond is Thierry Marie who was half a minute faster than Fignon.

John Swanson

Of course Laurent is relevant, he lost as much as the first TT on a third of the distance where as Indurain, Marie, Yates and many others did the reverse, as one is to expect on a shorter TT. Laurent had haemorroids [spelling] and was arrogant like he could be. Yet he was by far the best rider that Tour.

 

[blutto]

Re: Re:

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

Dude...

I’ll give you the aero advantage, but a minute? A minute at 34mph? That’s blocks and blocks of real-estate. And Fignon? It’s not like he’s some hack.

Right?

Fignon. The guy’s got Hall of Fame chops. And he’s going downhill with a tailwind. And it's not like he has an off day. He finishes third on the stage.

But still, LeMond rips a minute out of him. Wins the Tour de France. On the last stage.

It's one of the greatest sports stories ever.

Look, I really don't get off on harshing anybody's mellow, but I think it does at least rise to the level of suspicion.

A reporter you say... Huh.

In a matter of minutes I was able to find primary sources for the following:

Elevation Versailles: 130-140 meters
Elevation Champs Elysees: ~40 meters
Average grade: -1%
Wind speed on July 24th, 1989 in Paris: 24 m/s (highest sustained wind speed for all of 1989)
Wind direction: SW

So yeah, downhill in a decent tailwind. And no, I'm not sharing my sources; you made some no effort whatsoever to gather the most basic of facts but made clear that you didn't believe that the stage was run downhill in a tailwind.

John Swanson

...as long as you are here care to post any comments about my VO2 question a bit up thread....

Cheers

 

[Scott SoCal]

Re:

And everyone is talking about Fignon. He wasn't even second on the day. The most relevant rider to compare with Lemond is Thierry Marie who was half a minute faster than Fignon.

John Swanson

And perhaps Fignon's own words should count as well.

http://www.theguardian.com/sport/2010/jul/22/tour-laurent-fignon-greg-lemond

 

[blutto]

Re: Re:

And everyone is talking about Fignon. He wasn't even second on the day. The most relevant rider to compare with Lemond is Thierry Marie who was half a minute faster than Fignon.

John Swanson

And perhaps Fignon's own words should count as well.

http://www.theguardian.com/sport/2010/jul/22/tour-laurent-fignon-greg-lemond

...yeah, great read, I especially liked the following...

" he was using a very special bike equipped with handlebar extensions with elbow rests, giving him a far more aerodynamic position, and four support points – pedals, saddle, bars and elbow rests – which was totally revolutionary but also strictly against the rules.

Until then, the referees had only allowed three support points. For reasons that still elude me, Guimard [my coach] and I didn't make a formal complaint and the idle commissaries shut their eyes. The rules were being bent, and the consequences would be way beyond anything I could have imagined."

Cheers

 

[HelmutRoole]

Re: Re:

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

Dude...

I’ll give you the aero advantage, but a minute? A minute at 34mph? That’s blocks and blocks of real-estate. And Fignon? It’s not like he’s some hack.

Right?

Fignon. The guy’s got Hall of Fame chops. And he’s going downhill with a tailwind. And it's not like he has an off day. He finishes third on the stage.

But still, LeMond rips a minute out of him. Wins the Tour de France. On the last stage.

It's one of the greatest sports stories ever.

Look, I really don't get off on harshing anybody's mellow, but I think it does at least rise to the level of suspicion.

A reporter you say... Huh.

In a matter of minutes I was able to find primary sources for the following:

Elevation Versailles: 130-140 meters
Elevation Champs Elysees: ~40 meters
Average grade: -1%
Wind speed on July 24th, 1989 in Paris: 24 m/s (highest sustained wind speed for all of 1989)
Wind direction: SW

So yeah, downhill in a decent tailwind. And no, I'm not sharing my sources; you made some no effort whatsoever to gather the most basic of facts but made clear that you didn't believe that the stage was run downhill in a tailwind.

John Swanson

Nowhere did I state that it wasn't downhill and with a tailwind. What I'm asking for is how much.

Share your source or I'm calling BS.

 

[Fearless Greg Lemond]

Re: Re:

Nowhere did I state that it wasn't downhill and with a tailwind. What I'm asking for is how much.

Share your source or I'm calling BS.

Not that I care but I call you BS on this subject.

Boring.

Too bad, you did so well on other matters.

 

[thehog]

Re: Re:

And everyone is talking about Fignon. He wasn't even second on the day. The most relevant rider to compare with Lemond is Thierry Marie who was half a minute faster than Fignon.

John Swanson

And perhaps Fignon's own words should count as well.

http://www.theguardian.com/sport/2010/jul/22/tour-laurent-fignon-greg-lemond

...yeah, great read, I especially liked the following...

" he was using a very special bike equipped with handlebar extensions with elbow rests, giving him a far more aerodynamic position, and four support points – pedals, saddle, bars and elbow rests – which was totally revolutionary but also strictly against the rules.

Until then, the referees had only allowed three support points. For reasons that still elude me, Guimard [my coach] and I didn't make a formal complaint and the idle commissaries shut their eyes. The rules were being bent, and the consequences would be way beyond anything I could have imagined."

Cheers

It's a good point. LeMond's entire career on and off the bike has been about "rule bending".

Which makes it a little hard to swallow the hard line on doping he appeared to take around about 2001.

 

[ScienceIsCool]

Re: Re:

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

Dude...

I’ll give you the aero advantage, but a minute? A minute at 34mph? That’s blocks and blocks of real-estate. And Fignon? It’s not like he’s some hack.

Right?

Fignon. The guy’s got Hall of Fame chops. And he’s going downhill with a tailwind. And it's not like he has an off day. He finishes third on the stage.

But still, LeMond rips a minute out of him. Wins the Tour de France. On the last stage.

It's one of the greatest sports stories ever.

Look, I really don't get off on harshing anybody's mellow, but I think it does at least rise to the level of suspicion.

A reporter you say... Huh.

In a matter of minutes I was able to find primary sources for the following:

Elevation Versailles: 130-140 meters
Elevation Champs Elysees: ~40 meters
Average grade: -1%
Wind speed on July 24th, 1989 in Paris: 24 m/s (highest sustained wind speed for all of 1989)
Wind direction: SW

So yeah, downhill in a decent tailwind. And no, I'm not sharing my sources; you made some no effort whatsoever to gather the most basic of facts but made clear that you didn't believe that the stage was run downhill in a tailwind.

John Swanson

Nowhere did I state that it wasn't downhill and with a tailwind. What I'm asking for is how much.

Share your source or I'm calling BS.

Call it anything you want. You are by far the laziest journalist I've ever come across. Seriously, it's three searches of public records. Historical weather for Paris: July 24, 1989. Elevation of the Champs Elysees. Elevation of Versailles (varies by up to 10 meters because Versailles is quite large). Three. Shoot, Wikipedia has two of the answers with links to primary sources...

John Swanson

 

[pmcg76]

Re: Re:

And everyone is talking about Fignon. He wasn't even second on the day. The most relevant rider to compare with Lemond is Thierry Marie who was half a minute faster than Fignon.

John Swanson

And perhaps Fignon's own words should count as well.

http://www.theguardian.com/sport/2010/jul/22/tour-laurent-fignon-greg-lemond

...yeah, great read, I especially liked the following...

" he was using a very special bike equipped with handlebar extensions with elbow rests, giving him a far more aerodynamic position, and four support points – pedals, saddle, bars and elbow rests – which was totally revolutionary but also strictly against the rules.

Until then, the referees had only allowed three support points. For reasons that still elude me, Guimard [my coach] and I didn't make a formal complaint and the idle commissaries shut their eyes. The rules were being bent, and the consequences would be way beyond anything I could have imagined."

Cheers

It was the 7-Eleven guys who introduced tri-bars to pro cycling at the Tour de Trump in 89.This is where LeMond first saw their advantages. 7-Eleven again used them at the Tour as did LeMond and at no point did anyone seemingly try to stop them using them or tell them they were illegal. Everyone makes a fuss about the final TT in 89 but they were being used well before then without any real fuss. Fignon could have used them if he so wished and you can bet it wasn't because of a sense of fair play that he didn't.

Guimards teams were not averse to introducing new technology themselves, I remember them using bum spoilers which were also banned. Basically a saddle with a back on it which the rider could push their rear-end against.

 

[blutto]

Re: Re:

And everyone is talking about Fignon. He wasn't even second on the day. The most relevant rider to compare with Lemond is Thierry Marie who was half a minute faster than Fignon.

John Swanson

And perhaps Fignon's own words should count as well.

http://www.theguardian.com/sport/2010/jul/22/tour-laurent-fignon-greg-lemond

...yeah, great read, I especially liked the following...

" he was using a very special bike equipped with handlebar extensions with elbow rests, giving him a far more aerodynamic position, and four support points – pedals, saddle, bars and elbow rests – which was totally revolutionary but also strictly against the rules.

Until then, the referees had only allowed three support points. For reasons that still elude me, Guimard [my coach] and I didn't make a formal complaint and the idle commissaries shut their eyes. The rules were being bent, and the consequences would be way beyond anything I could have imagined."

Cheers

It was the 7-Eleven guys who introduced tri-bars to pro cycling at the Tour de Trump in 89.This is where LeMond first saw their advantages. 7-Eleven again used them at the Tour as did LeMond and at no point did anyone seemingly try to stop them using them or tell them they were illegal. Everyone makes a fuss about the final TT in 89 but they were being used well before then without any real fuss. Fignon could have used them if he so wished and you can bet it wasn't because of a sense of fair play that he didn't.

Guimards teams were not averse to introducing new technology themselves, I remember them using bum spoilers which were also banned. Basically a saddle with a back on it which the rider could push their rear-end against.

...Fignon did end up trying to use them 2 weeks after the 89 Tour and was tossed for using illegal equipment...though there the infraction was addition of equipment that is a purely aerodynamic aid and not the 3 point rule Fignon mentions in the article quoted above....go figure...

Cheers

 

[ScienceIsCool]

To be fair, "tri-bars" were so new and novel that Boone's version for Lemond didn't even fit properly on his bike. Take a close look at the photos from that day. His mechanic had to cut some shims from a coke can to get a proper fit. You can even see a bit of red peeking out from the attachment points. Not knowing about or enforcing any rules around them is kind of forgivable. I don't think anyone was trying to "get away with anything", especially considering all the other aero stuff that was fairly new and widely available at the time (disc wheels, aero helmets, weird frame geometries, etc). Kind of like when Bauer showed up to a few races on a frame with 60 degree frame angles. He was just innovating and trying something he thought worked for him. Did anyone even think if it broke any UCI rules? Did it?

John Swanson

 

[blutto]

Re:

To be fair, "tri-bars" were so new and novel that Boone's version for Lemond didn't even fit properly on his bike. Take a close look at the photos from that day. His mechanic had to cut some shims from a coke can to get a proper fit. You can even see a bit of red peeking out from the attachment points. Not knowing about or enforcing any rules around them is kind of forgivable. I don't think anyone was trying to "get away with anything", especially considering all the other aero stuff that was fairly new and widely available at the time (disc wheels, aero helmets, weird frame geometries, etc). Kind of like when Bauer showed up to a few races on a frame with 60 degree frame angles. He was just innovating and trying something he thought worked for him. Did anyone even think if it broke any UCI rules? Did it?

John Swanson

....the aero thing during those days was in a fairly weird space....the UCI was "officially" against it and would swat certain offenders and "mysteriously" let others go ( Moser and Lemond spring to mind )....so the topic was front row centre and was sanctioned on several occasions ( heck I was tossed once for having aero spokes....though to be fair that decision had some political aspect to it that was very common in the older days of the sport...read national federations played "homers" at every opportunity ) but not with any consistency...

....the disc wheel was a funny case in point....a simple fairing over an "ordinary" wheel was illegal because it was purely an aerodynamic aid but a weight bearing disc structure was acceptable....so DH bars were ok apparently because they were one piece but a clip-on was not ( see tt mentioned above where Fignon was tossed...Fignon tossed, someone on DH bars wins, if memory serves me well.)...

Cheers

 

[Scott SoCal]

Re:

To be fair, "tri-bars" were so new and novel that Boone's version for Lemond didn't even fit properly on his bike. Take a close look at the photos from that day. His mechanic had to cut some shims from a coke can to get a proper fit. You can even see a bit of red peeking out from the attachment points. Not knowing about or enforcing any rules around them is kind of forgivable. I don't think anyone was trying to "get away with anything", especially considering all the other aero stuff that was fairly new and widely available at the time (disc wheels, aero helmets, weird frame geometries, etc). Kind of like when Bauer showed up to a few races on a frame with 60 degree frame angles. He was just innovating and trying something he thought worked for him. Did anyone even think if it broke any UCI rules? Did it?

John Swanson

Agreed.


In hindsight, what else was Fignon's going to say? Guimard was probably laughing his ass off at how dumb Lemond looked - until he won.

1. Fignon admits GL being much better against the clock.
2. Fignon was not 100% by his own admission.
3. GL had a distinct, provable equipment advantage.
4. 2 seconds per kilometer. Not at all unheard of.

But somehow it's suspicious.

 

[thehog]

Re: Re:

To be fair, "tri-bars" were so new and novel that Boone's version for Lemond didn't even fit properly on his bike. Take a close look at the photos from that day. His mechanic had to cut some shims from a coke can to get a proper fit. You can even see a bit of red peeking out from the attachment points. Not knowing about or enforcing any rules around them is kind of forgivable. I don't think anyone was trying to "get away with anything", especially considering all the other aero stuff that was fairly new and widely available at the time (disc wheels, aero helmets, weird frame geometries, etc). Kind of like when Bauer showed up to a few races on a frame with 60 degree frame angles. He was just innovating and trying something he thought worked for him. Did anyone even think if it broke any UCI rules? Did it?

John Swanson

Agreed.


In hindsight, what else was Fignon's going to say? Guimard was probably laughing his ass off at how dumb Lemond looked - until he won.

1. Fignon admits GL being much better against the clock.
2. Fignon was not 100% by his own admission.
3. GL had a distinct, provable equipment advantage.
4. 2 seconds per kilometer. Not at all unheard of.

But somehow it's suspicious.

Not suspicious?

Fignon beat LeMond in the prologue.

LeMond over 73km ITT put 56 seconds in Fignon.

Then all of sudden over 24km's on the final stage after 3 weeks of racing LeMond puts 58 seconds into Fignon!

Woowza! Some late race turn around and last stage recovery effort! 24km!
---
Stage 5: Thursday, July 6, Dinard - Rennes 73 km individual time trial

Greg LeMond: 1hr 38min 12sec
Pedro Delgado @ 24sec
Laurent Fignon @ 56sec
Thierry Marie @ 1min 51sec
Sean Yates @ 2min 6sec

 

[Scott SoCal]

Re: Re:

To be fair, "tri-bars" were so new and novel that Boone's version for Lemond didn't even fit properly on his bike. Take a close look at the photos from that day. His mechanic had to cut some shims from a coke can to get a proper fit. You can even see a bit of red peeking out from the attachment points. Not knowing about or enforcing any rules around them is kind of forgivable. I don't think anyone was trying to "get away with anything", especially considering all the other aero stuff that was fairly new and widely available at the time (disc wheels, aero helmets, weird frame geometries, etc). Kind of like when Bauer showed up to a few races on a frame with 60 degree frame angles. He was just innovating and trying something he thought worked for him. Did anyone even think if it broke any UCI rules? Did it?

John Swanson

Agreed.


In hindsight, what else was Fignon's going to say? Guimard was probably laughing his ass off at how dumb Lemond looked - until he won.

1. Fignon admits GL being much better against the clock.
2. Fignon was not 100% by his own admission.
3. GL had a distinct, provable equipment advantage.
4. 2 seconds per kilometer. Not at all unheard of.

But somehow it's suspicious.

Not suspicious?

Fignon beat LeMond in the prologue.

LeMond over 73km ITT put 56 seconds in Fignon.

Then all of sudden over 24km's on the final stage after 3 weeks of racing LeMond puts 58 seconds into Fignon!

Woowza! Some late race turn around and last stage recovery effort! 24km!
---
Stage 5: Thursday, July 6, Dinard - Rennes 73 km individual time trial

Greg LeMond: 1hr 38min 12sec
Pedro Delgado @ 24sec
Laurent Fignon @ 56sec
Thierry Marie @ 1min 51sec
Sean Yates @ 2min 6sec

It was probably a blood bag.

That and GL was a better TTer. Fignon had a saddle sore bad enough to keep him up at night. GL had a sizable aerodynamic advantage. Parts 2 and 3 were not included in the long TT. But you can keep the convo going with as much, erm, innuendo as you like. I'd say show me the doping evidence but then you'd just make up a bunch of nonsense, so I won't ask.

 

[thehog]

Re: Re:

To be fair, "tri-bars" were so new and novel that Boone's version for Lemond didn't even fit properly on his bike. Take a close look at the photos from that day. His mechanic had to cut some shims from a coke can to get a proper fit. You can even see a bit of red peeking out from the attachment points. Not knowing about or enforcing any rules around them is kind of forgivable. I don't think anyone was trying to "get away with anything", especially considering all the other aero stuff that was fairly new and widely available at the time (disc wheels, aero helmets, weird frame geometries, etc). Kind of like when Bauer showed up to a few races on a frame with 60 degree frame angles. He was just innovating and trying something he thought worked for him. Did anyone even think if it broke any UCI rules? Did it?

John Swanson

Agreed.


In hindsight, what else was Fignon's going to say? Guimard was probably laughing his ass off at how dumb Lemond looked - until he won.

1. Fignon admits GL being much better against the clock.
2. Fignon was not 100% by his own admission.
3. GL had a distinct, provable equipment advantage.
4. 2 seconds per kilometer. Not at all unheard of.

But somehow it's suspicious.

Not suspicious?

Fignon beat LeMond in the prologue.

LeMond over 73km ITT put 56 seconds in Fignon.

Then all of sudden over 24km's on the final stage after 3 weeks of racing LeMond puts 58 seconds into Fignon!

Woowza! Some late race turn around and last stage recovery effort! 24km!
---
Stage 5: Thursday, July 6, Dinard - Rennes 73 km individual time trial

Greg LeMond: 1hr 38min 12sec
Pedro Delgado @ 24sec
Laurent Fignon @ 56sec
Thierry Marie @ 1min 51sec
Sean Yates @ 2min 6sec

It was probably a blood bag.

That and GL was a better TTer. Fignon had a saddle sore bad enough to keep him up at night. GL had a sizable aerodynamic advantage. Parts 2 and 3 were not included in the long TT. But you can keep the convo going with as much, erm, innuendo as you like. I'd say show me the doping evidence but then you'd just make up a bunch of nonsense, so I won't ask.

Doping evidence? You used the word "suspicion", why now the jump?

Not sure anything was made up, I mearly stated the times for each TT at the 89 Tour? How again did you leap to nonsense?

The only nonsense I see is a term with no scientific backing "sizable aerodynamic advantage" ; what does that mean?

More leaps of faith than a television evangelist from the late 80s in that post of yours

 

[WildspokeJoe]

Here's the final time trial from the Tour De Trump
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PHfyUzfbJr8

I remember reading that it was fact that LeMond finished fourth behind three 7-11 riders that he considered using aero/tri bars.

 

[Scott SoCal]

Re: Re:

To be fair, "tri-bars" were so new and novel that Boone's version for Lemond didn't even fit properly on his bike. Take a close look at the photos from that day. His mechanic had to cut some shims from a coke can to get a proper fit. You can even see a bit of red peeking out from the attachment points. Not knowing about or enforcing any rules around them is kind of forgivable. I don't think anyone was trying to "get away with anything", especially considering all the other aero stuff that was fairly new and widely available at the time (disc wheels, aero helmets, weird frame geometries, etc). Kind of like when Bauer showed up to a few races on a frame with 60 degree frame angles. He was just innovating and trying something he thought worked for him. Did anyone even think if it broke any UCI rules? Did it?

John Swanson

Agreed.


In hindsight, what else was Fignon's going to say? Guimard was probably laughing his ass off at how dumb Lemond looked - until he won.

1. Fignon admits GL being much better against the clock.
2. Fignon was not 100% by his own admission.
3. GL had a distinct, provable equipment advantage.
4. 2 seconds per kilometer. Not at all unheard of.

But somehow it's suspicious.

Not suspicious?

Fignon beat LeMond in the prologue.

LeMond over 73km ITT put 56 seconds in Fignon.

Then all of sudden over 24km's on the final stage after 3 weeks of racing LeMond puts 58 seconds into Fignon!

Woowza! Some late race turn around and last stage recovery effort! 24km!
---
Stage 5: Thursday, July 6, Dinard - Rennes 73 km individual time trial

Greg LeMond: 1hr 38min 12sec
Pedro Delgado @ 24sec
Laurent Fignon @ 56sec
Thierry Marie @ 1min 51sec
Sean Yates @ 2min 6sec

It was probably a blood bag.

That and GL was a better TTer. Fignon had a saddle sore bad enough to keep him up at night. GL had a sizable aerodynamic advantage. Parts 2 and 3 were not included in the long TT. But you can keep the convo going with as much, erm, innuendo as you like. I'd say show me the doping evidence but then you'd just make up a bunch of nonsense, so I won't ask.

Doping evidence? You used the word "suspicion", why now the jump?

Not sure anything was made up, I mearly stated the times for each TT at the 89 Tour? How again did you leap to nonsense?

The only nonsense I see is a term with no scientific backing "sizable aerodynamic advantage" ; what does that mean?

More leaps of faith than a television evangelist from the late 80s in that post of yours

Leaps of faith? Dunno man, much of the post contains stuff that Fignon's said himself. Maybe he was lying.

Suspicious with this emoticon must not mean the same thing where you are from.

Late race turnaround and last stage recovery? You forget you were in the clinic or was your last ban too short?

The aero advantage was substantial. How much time? Depends on who you ask. Shockingly, the pros today spend a fair amount of time searching for marginal gains via aerodynamics. Maybe you've noticed, maybe you haven't but pros today don't time trial competitively with cow horns and their ponytail flapping in the breeze.

That stuff is important these days but apparently didn't matter in 1989.