LeMond III

[pmcg76]

Re: Re:

But I didn't say anything about EPO in 1986. I specifically said, way up thread and now, blood doping in 86. By which I mean autologous transfusion. EPO was in clinical trials in 86, but I'm assuming a bike racer wouldn't have had access to it. If EPO was used, 1989 is far more likely.

EPO might have compensated for whatever he lost by being shot, if he was the only one on it. By 1991, though, the jig was up in that others were on it, too. And if I'm not mistaken, EPO was proscribed by the UCI after May of '91. So, if you were a rider who lived by the principle of staying within the rules, EPO would have thereafter been off limits, meaning that LeMond could have used it at the Tour in 89 and 90, but not 91.

To me the time-lines make little sense. Like I posted before, in spring of that year 89 LeMond was competing with the likes of Fignon, Roche, Indurain, Mottet, Madiot at Criterium International in March. A week later, he was finishing miles down at Flanders despite have performed at Flanders previously. At the Giro he was finishing behind Paul Kimmage in mountains stages. That makes little sense. Was he on EPO for March and then stopped for the major classics? Why would he stop? Why would he not use EPO in prep for the Giro which was one of his targets for the season? Why only start using EPO halfway through the Giro?

Also in 89/90/91 LeMond rode the same prep DuPont/Giro/Suisse and then the Tour. In each of those seasons his form peaked for the Tour after riding poorly in the preceeding races. After his failure at the Tour in 91, he changed his programme to DuPont/Dauphine/Suisse in 92. He showed much better form like 9th in Paris-Roubaix, won Du Pont, 11th at the Dauphine and 4th at Suisse, then flopped at the Tour finishing outside the time-limit in the mountains. How does a rider go from 4th in Suisse to outside the time limit at the Tour a few weeks later if they are on EPO. Again, that makes zero sense.

The timelines just seem way off for EPO usage.

Good points. I don't know, off hand. Maybe he was trying as much as possible to rely on his undeniable gifts, only to find them lacking due to the gunshot, and later due to the use by his competitors of EPO after it was banned? Maybe someone else has some ideas?

Well sorry but this is the very crux of the matter here leaving aside all the other stuff.

Your idea that LeMond would just stop EPO in 91 becaue it was illegal makes very little sense. As I posted before, 1992 was further into the EPO era than say 89 for example but he still had a better pre-Tour build up than any of the previous years. In summary your theory would be LeMond was on EPO in 89/90 but sucked right up to just before the Tour. He stopped EPO in 91 but was still capable of finishing Top 10 in the Tour including 2nd by 8 seconds to Miguel Indurain in the first TT. That would also totally blow your notion that he was blood doping previously out of the water if he could finish that high without EPO or blood doping against riders who were on EPO.

So to continue your hypothesis, in 1992 he has a good Tour build-up, 9th at Paris-Roubaix, 1st at Tour du Pont, 11th at Dauphine, 4th at Switzerland all without EPO but then somehow finishes outside the Time-cut at the Tour because he isn't on EPO. How do you go from finishing 7th in the Tour in 91 without EPO to missing the cut in 92 or from 4th in Suisse in mid June to elimination in July. Sorry, but there was not that much of a sea change in that space of time. In general most of the stories and retrospectives would suggest 93/94 as the major sea change re EPO.

The alternative theories are he was on EPO during all that period but his health problems leading to sudden loss of form could negate any benefits he might have gained from EPO as in spring 89 or Tour 92 or even Tour 91. Thus leading us back to the original story that LeMonds huge swings in from where primarily down to health reasons. When he was healthy, he was capble of competing close to his pre-shooting level but when not, he was nowhere.

It is perfecty understandable why people would see LeMonds huge swing in form as evidence of EPO usage at that time, especially in 89 and thus why the rumours from the PDM guys might have started. LeMond has a huge swing in form, EPO is entering the peloton at that time, it has been produced in the US, LeMond is from the US, PDM are pissed at LeMond from 88 and do the usual clinic thing of joining the dots and come up with the LeMond/EPO story. None of this makes the rumour true but it is now out there just like the Floyd blood dumping example. Pie in the sky rumours were not uncommon and I have seen this first hand and can give an example if you wish.

Bus as I stated previously, performances over the subsequent years would suggest health problems were the root of the swings in forms rather than EPO usage but hey I am sure the EPO angle was a lot more salicious and reaffirming for his rivals.

 

[Zypherov]

Lemond never used EPO. His power wattage on the climbs were well within the clean parameters of human performance.

 

[thehog]

Re:

Lemond never used EPO. His power wattage on the climbs were well within the clean parameters of human performance.

Yes, even when he had bullets litterd through his liver and lungs

 

[Zypherov]

Re: LeMond

Greg LeMond Professional Cycling's Talented Revolutionary By Chairman Bill McGann

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

GL: What wattage was he doing? I would look more at wattage because the rate of vertical ascent could vary so much depending on the pavement. Wattage is the ultimate truth. You know I'm very controversial because I think that you have to look at numbers.

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. 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. That was the historic norm for Hinault and myself. You've got times going back many, many years. 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. And then there a lot of other factors that help performance if you've recovered. My last time trial in '89, I averaged about 420, 430 watts, which would match or be slightly down from what my real VO2 Max was.

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

 

[red_flanders]

Re: Re:

Lemond never used EPO. His power wattage on the climbs were well within the clean parameters of human performance.

Yes, even when he had bullets litterd through his liver and lungs

Because you're an expert in his medical case and in how pellets (not bullets, it was a shotgun blast) would affect wattage.

Clearly, obviously, he was able to return and ride at the same level (almost) as in '85-'86. Or did EPO magically make up the nearly exact difference taken away by the injury, leaving him just a bit less than his best? Seems likely.

 

[gillan1969]

Re: Re:

Lemond never used EPO. His power wattage on the climbs were well within the clean parameters of human performance.

Yes, even when he had bullets litterd through his liver and lungs

Because you're an expert in his medical case and in how pellets (not bullets, it was a shotgun blast) would affect wattage.

Clearly, obviously, he was able to return and ride at the same level (almost) as in '85-'86. Or did EPO magically make up the nearly exact difference taken away by the injury, leaving him just a bit less than his best? Seems likely.

yup...lemond without epo...brilliant

lemond with epo...not quite as brilliant

game changer that epo wasn't it?...probably cemented with that gewiss triple DNF

 

[sniper]

@Red Flanders: what does "exact" mean? How did you measure that?

And lol at the argument that Lemond sucking in 1991 is evidence that he wasn't on EPO.
You guys sure like to simplify things.
If that's the case, how do you explain Planckaert who had zero results in 1991 when he was on EPO by his own admission? Must have been clean after all.
Roughly the same for Dirk Demol. Wins P-R in 1988. Is nowhere to be seen in 1991.
I sure hope you're not gonna argue that Dirk Demol and Eddy Planckaert were clean...
(otoh, both Vanmol riders, so why not... )

Vanmol epo-doped several riders in 1988 and 89. In at least two cases he used anemia as an excuse. Must have ran all out of EPO when his GT ace came knocking on the door with anemia in 1989.
Either way, Lemond didn't use EPO. After all, Wilcockson was there in the room. Fact. He surely would have told the world if he'd seen anything untoward.

 

[pmcg76]

Re:

@Red Flanders: what does "exact" mean? How did you measure that?

And lol at the argument that Lemond sucking in 1991 is evidence that he wasn't on EPO.
You guys sure like to simplify things.
If that's the case, how do you explain Planckaert who had zero results in 1991 when he was on EPO by his own admission? Must have been clean after all.
Roughly the same for Dirk Demol. Wins P-R in 1988. Is nowhere to be seen in 1991.
I sure hope you're not gonna argue that Dirk Demol and Eddy Planckaert were clean...
(otoh, both Vanmol riders, so why not... )

Vanmol epo-doped several riders in 1988 and 89. In at least two cases he used anemia as an excuse. Must have ran all out of EPO when his GT ace came knocking on the door with anemia in 1989.
Either way, Lemond didn't use EPO. After all, Wilcockson was there in the room. Fact. He surely would have told the world if he'd seen anything untoward.

Perhaps it was because Planckaert had serious back problems during that season 91 and quit at the end of the year.

As for Demol winning Paris-Roubaix in 1988, he was part of a large breakaway that were allowed a huge lead from early on in the race. He and Wegmuller were the last survivors from the break and at the finish Wegmuller had a plastic bag stuck in his rear deraileur which meant he couldn't change gear. The favourites misjudged it and considering that Wegmuller was on the team of Sean Kelly, that is one of the major favourites not working behind. Demols win is still considered a huge fluke for a nobody rider. He didn't really do anything in 89 or 90 either.

Also sniper, Van Mol was not LeMonds doctor, he was a team doctor at ADR. There is a distinct difference. Ferrari was Lance's personal doctor, Del Moral and Celaya were the official US Postal doctors. LeMond never had a personal doctor that I am aware off.

 

[sniper]

Re: Re:

Scienceiscool:
If CKD was the cause of LeMond's anemia, he would have experienced a whole host of other nasty complications such as weak bones, fluid retention and heart disease.

luckily nobody is saying this.

I should have added that it's absurd to claim LeMond had reduced kidney function to the point he was anemic. If so, he would have had a host of other complications which he clearly did not exhibit. If so, he would have had a host of other complications which he clearly did not exhibit.

John Swanson

I think you (and djbaltimore) still don't quite understand what I've been saying about Lemond's kidney problems and anemia. Admittedly, that could well be due to my own poor formulation. So allow me to reformulate it in a less ambiguous manner:

when Froome says he's a bilharzia patient, we know he's not a bilharzia patient.
So when I say "Froome is a bilharzia patient, go figure", I'm not saying he's actually a bilharzia patient.
What I'm saying is: "we got ourselves a good ol' blooddoper who has a convenient cover story in place in case things don't go as planned"
Roughly the same holds when I say "Froome is asthmatic, mkay"...I don't mean he's actually asthmatic. What I'm actually saying is:
"he's sucking the life out of an inhaler, wins the race, suddenly claims to be asthmatic --> do the math"

Now replace 'Froome' with 'Lemond', 'bilharzia' with 'chronic kidney infections' (or something of your choice), and 'asthmatic' with 'anemia'...and you should get the picture, if only by approximation.

 

[pmcg76]

Re: Re:

Scienceiscool:
If CKD was the cause of LeMond's anemia, he would have experienced a whole host of other nasty complications such as weak bones, fluid retention and heart disease.

luckily nobody is saying this.

I should have added that it's absurd to claim LeMond had reduced kidney function to the point he was anemic. If so, he would have had a host of other complications which he clearly did not exhibit.

John Swanson

I think you (and djbaltimore) still don't quite understand what I've been saying about Lemond's kidney problems and anemia. Admittedly, that could well be due to my own poor formulation. So allow me to reformulate it in a less ambiguous manner:

when Froome says he's a bilharzia patient, we know he's not a bilharzia patient.
So when I say "Froome is a bilharzia patient, go figure", I'm not saying he's actually a bilharzia patient.
What I'm saying is: "we got ourselves a good ol' blooddoper who has a convenient cover story in place in case things don't go as planned"
Roughly the same holds when I say "Froome is asthmatic, mkay"...I don't mean he's actually asthmatic. What I'm actually saying is:
"he's sucking the life out of an inhaler, wins the race, suddenly claims to be asthmatic --> do the math"

Now replace 'Froome' with 'Lemond', 'bilharzia' with 'chronic kidney infections' (or something of your choice), and 'asthmatic' with 'anemia'...and you should get the picture, if only by approximation.

Can you explain how a rider who was allegedly on EPO, say that he felt physically drained during the Tour and abandoned because he was outside the Time Limit.

 

[GJB123]

Re: Re:

Scienceiscool:
If CKD was the cause of LeMond's anemia, he would have experienced a whole host of other nasty complications such as weak bones, fluid retention and heart disease.

luckily nobody is saying this.

I should have added that it's absurd to claim LeMond had reduced kidney function to the point he was anemic. If so, he would have had a host of other complications which he clearly did not exhibit.

John Swanson

I think you (and djbaltimore) still don't quite understand what I've been saying about Lemond's kidney problems and anemia. Admittedly, that could well be due to my own poor formulation. So allow me to reformulate it in a less ambiguous manner:

when Froome says he's a bilharzia patient, we know he's not a bilharzia patient.
So when I say "Froome is a bilharzia patient, go figure", I'm not saying he's actually a bilharzia patient.
What I'm saying is: "we got ourselves a good ol' blooddoper who has a convenient cover story in place in case things don't go as planned"
Roughly the same holds when I say "Froome is asthmatic, mkay"...I don't mean he's actually asthmatic. What I'm actually saying is:
"he's sucking the life out of an inhaler, wins the race, suddenly claims to be asthmatic --> do the math"

Now replace 'Froome' with 'Lemond', 'bilharzia' with 'chronic kidney infections' (or something of your choice), and 'asthmatic' with 'anemia'...and you should get the picture, if only by approximation.

You still fail to understand the medical science. Having kidney infections does not equal anemia and therefore does not provide a logical excuse for transfusions or EPO nor has LeMond or anybody claimed that. Froome claimed the bilharzia was responsible for his underachieving while we think that he is currently overachieving because of PED abuse. Now LeMond on the other hand never claimed he was underachieving because of chronic kidney infections (as a child). This was also clearly not the since he was an overachiever from the moment he entered the professional cycling scene. He is nothing like Froome.

Once he started underachieving he claimed it might be due to his hunting accident and the lead left in his body (that is wel documented, so quite probably true) or to a case of mitochondrial myopathy. Later he also claimed it might be due to the onset of EPO in the peloton. Which ever it is, his case is not a mirror image of Froome's case in any way shape or form and is actually almost the opposite of Froome's story.

 

[blutto]

Re: Re:

@Red Flanders: what does "exact" mean? How did you measure that?

And lol at the argument that Lemond sucking in 1991 is evidence that he wasn't on EPO.
You guys sure like to simplify things.
If that's the case, how do you explain Planckaert who had zero results in 1991 when he was on EPO by his own admission? Must have been clean after all.
Roughly the same for Dirk Demol. Wins P-R in 1988. Is nowhere to be seen in 1991.
I sure hope you're not gonna argue that Dirk Demol and Eddy Planckaert were clean...
(otoh, both Vanmol riders, so why not... )

Vanmol epo-doped several riders in 1988 and 89. In at least two cases he used anemia as an excuse. Must have ran all out of EPO when his GT ace came knocking on the door with anemia in 1989.
Either way, Lemond didn't use EPO. After all, Wilcockson was there in the room. Fact. He surely would have told the world if he'd seen anything untoward.

Perhaps it was because Planckaert had serious back problems during that season 91 and quit at the end of the year.

As for Demol winning Paris-Roubaix in 1988, he was part of a large breakaway that were allowed a huge lead from early on in the race. He and Wegmuller were the last survivors from the break and at the finish Wegmuller had a plastic bag stuck in his rear deraileur which meant he couldn't change gear. The favourites misjudged it and considering that Wegmuller was on the team of Sean Kelly, that is one of the major favourites not working behind. Demols win is still considered a huge fluke for a nobody rider. He didn't really do anything in 89 or 90 either.

Also sniper, Van Mol was not LeMonds doctor, he was a team doctor at ADR. There is a distinct difference. Ferrari was Lance's personal doctor, Del Moral and Celaya were the official US Postal doctors. LeMond never had a personal doctor that I am aware off.

....funny but he had the performance drop off you mentioned after he left ADR....( and btw do check his record he was not quite a nobody rider, as you put it, but he did have the bad fortune to ride with some second tier teams for much of his career..)...

Cheers

 

[pmcg76]

Re: Re:

@Red Flanders: what does "exact" mean? How did you measure that?

And lol at the argument that Lemond sucking in 1991 is evidence that he wasn't on EPO.
You guys sure like to simplify things.
If that's the case, how do you explain Planckaert who had zero results in 1991 when he was on EPO by his own admission? Must have been clean after all.
Roughly the same for Dirk Demol. Wins P-R in 1988. Is nowhere to be seen in 1991.
I sure hope you're not gonna argue that Dirk Demol and Eddy Planckaert were clean...
(otoh, both Vanmol riders, so why not... )

Vanmol epo-doped several riders in 1988 and 89. In at least two cases he used anemia as an excuse. Must have ran all out of EPO when his GT ace came knocking on the door with anemia in 1989.
Either way, Lemond didn't use EPO. After all, Wilcockson was there in the room. Fact. He surely would have told the world if he'd seen anything untoward.

Perhaps it was because Planckaert had serious back problems during that season 91 and quit at the end of the year.

As for Demol winning Paris-Roubaix in 1988, he was part of a large breakaway that were allowed a huge lead from early on in the race. He and Wegmuller were the last survivors from the break and at the finish Wegmuller had a plastic bag stuck in his rear deraileur which meant he couldn't change gear. The favourites misjudged it and considering that Wegmuller was on the team of Sean Kelly, that is one of the major favourites not working behind. Demols win is still considered a huge fluke for a nobody rider. He didn't really do anything in 89 or 90 either.

Also sniper, Van Mol was not LeMonds doctor, he was a team doctor at ADR. There is a distinct difference. Ferrari was Lance's personal doctor, Del Moral and Celaya were the official US Postal doctors. LeMond never had a personal doctor that I am aware off.

....funny but he had the performance drop off you mentioned after he left ADR....( and btw do check his record he was not quite a nobody rider, as you put it, but he did have the bad fortune to ride with some second tier teams for much of his career..)...

Cheers

His best performance prior to winning Paris-Roubaix was 3rd at Kuurne-Brussels-Kuurne. If that is the peak of your career, then yes you are nobody. Demol was regarded as a kermis rider and pretty much returned to the level he was at prior to his win in Paris-Roubaix.

Corne Van Rijen placed 6th in Paris-Roubaix that same year, he was in the same breakaway as the first two. Maybe check out his palmares.

 

[blutto]

Re: LeMond

Greg LeMond Professional Cycling's Talented Revolutionary By Chairman Bill McGann

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

GL: What wattage was he doing? I would look more at wattage because the rate of vertical ascent could vary so much depending on the pavement. Wattage is the ultimate truth. You know I'm very controversial because I think that you have to look at numbers.

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. 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. That was the historic norm for Hinault and myself. You've got times going back many, many years. 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. And then there a lot of other factors that help performance if you've recovered. My last time trial in '89, I averaged about 420, 430 watts, which would match or be slightly down from what my real VO2 Max was.

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

....strange how that VO2 number gets tossed around like some sort of medal that would explain things...like I have the greatest VO2 therefore I am the only one probably capable of winning the Tour clean kinda thing....and sure a huge VO2 max is an asset but look at when that number was produced, after the hunting accident when he was admittedly not quite the same rider and by a rider who did have kidney issues and who had grave bouts of anemia ( so on face value not the most likely candidate to be the rider with the highest VO2 of all time )...

....and if you look at his record before the tragic shooting incident not really the dominant rider the VO2 numbers would suggest...not a dominant TT'er where one would think the greatest VO2 would really shine...and really not a potential candidate for the Polka Dot jersey either...

...read there seems to be a disconnect with that number and results and its timeline....could someone explain please...

Cheers

 

[pmcg76]

Re: LeMond

Greg LeMond Professional Cycling's Talented Revolutionary By Chairman Bill McGann

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

GL: What wattage was he doing? I would look more at wattage because the rate of vertical ascent could vary so much depending on the pavement. Wattage is the ultimate truth. You know I'm very controversial because I think that you have to look at numbers.

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. 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. That was the historic norm for Hinault and myself. You've got times going back many, many years. 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. And then there a lot of other factors that help performance if you've recovered. My last time trial in '89, I averaged about 420, 430 watts, which would match or be slightly down from what my real VO2 Max was.

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

....strange how that VO2 number gets tossed around like some sort of medal that would explain things...like I have the greatest VO2 therefore I am the only one probably capable of winning the Tour clean kinda thing....and sure a huge VO2 max is an asset but look at when that number was produced, after the hunting accident when he was admittedly not quite the same rider and by a rider who did have kidney issues and who had grave bouts of anemia ( so on face value not the most likely candidate to be the rider with the highest VO2 of all time )...

....and if you look at his record before the tragic shooting incident not really the dominant rider the VO2 numbers would suggest...not a dominant TT'er where one would think the greatest VO2 would really shine...and really not a potential candidate for the Polka Dot jersey either...

...read there seems to be a disconnect with that number and results and its timeline....could someone explain please...

Cheers

As a certain team manager said once, having a big VO2 max is not a gurantee of beng a top rider but you wont be one without having a high V02. That is what EPO changed. At a guess, I would say many of the other tops guys in the LeMond era would be in the ballpark regards VO2. Most were never measured. It is not a linear thing where the guy with the highest V02 wins, there are of course other factors besides V02 in a riders make up, mentality, aggression, hunger etc.

 

[Spawn of e]

Re: LeMond

As a certain team manager said once, having a big VO2 max is not a gurantee of beng a top rider but you wont be one without having a high V02. That is what EPO changed. At a guess, I would say many of the other tops guys in the LeMond era would be in the ballpark regards VO2. Most were never measured. It is not a linear thing where the guy with the highest V02 wins, there are of course other factors besides V02 in a riders make up, mentality, aggression, hunger etc.

Did GL learn of his own VO2 numbers the last week of his 3rd tour win as well?

 

[Taxus4a]

Re:

Lemond never used EPO. His power wattage on the climbs were well within the clean parameters of human performance.

Of course.

People think that someone doped is goint to win lemond...and it is not that way, a good rider with low hematocric values talking epois going to beat Lemond if we talk about a GT, not a 1 week race, but not for a big difference.

A good rider (not a big champion as Lemond) with high hematocric is not going to beat Lemond despite all the EPO he can take.

This is basic for all the people who want to write in the clinic. if they dont have that clear they could read Hamilton s book. People has a very wrong idea about doping and performances compared to clean people. Some people think that if Lemond is clean againts doped he cant be on a top ten of TdF. Wrong, he can win a lot of thing that way as Evans or Sastre did in the doping era. (but they got his better results in the transitional and clean era, despite his age)

But anyway at the begining of 90s EPO doping and doping in general wanst at the level the end of 90, just before Festina affair.

 

[DamianoMachiavelli]

Re: LeMond

As a certain team manager said once, having a big VO2 max is not a gurantee of beng a top rider but you wont be one without having a high V02. That is what EPO changed. At a guess, I would say many of the other tops guys in the LeMond era would be in the ballpark regards VO2. Most were never measured. It is not a linear thing where the guy with the highest V02 wins, there are of course other factors besides V02 in a riders make up, mentality, aggression, hunger etc.

There is a reason why teams have moved to functional testing rather than relying on VO2Max. VO2Max is just one component of performance. LeMond bangs on about his VO2Max but never says anything about the other components. The formula for FTP is below.

FTP = Energy per litre O2 (J) x VO2max (ml/kg/min) x Fractional VO2max at threshold (%) x GME (%) / 60 (seconds/minute) / 1000 (ml/litre)

Note that there are three variables--not one. There is research that suggests that efficiency is negatively correlated with VO2Max. Efficiency in trained cyclists typically ranges from 19 - 24%. Incidentally, the figure we have for Armstrong is beyond the top of that range. Plug in some numbers and you will find what a huge effect efficiency has on the final number.

LeMond can crow about his VO2Max but it doesn't mean he could perform better than a rider with a lower one. LeMond's performance did not seem to be much superior to many riders with lower VO2s, so we can probably conclude his efficiency sucked or he had a low threshold.

 

[Night Rider]

Four years this thread has been going for. Has anyone actually brought anything of substance yet?

 

[the delgados]

Re:

Four years this thread has been going for. Has anyone actually brought anything of substance yet?

No. Nor has anyone brought anything of substance to suggest Indurain, Roche, Hinault, etc. etc...were on the gear.
Not one.
Do you think Big Mig won on bread and water?

 

[Night Rider]

Big Mig? Really? Come on you can do better than that.

My question is about Lemond. Let's stay on topic.

 

[the delgados]

Re:

Big Mig? Really? Come on you can do better than that.

My question is about Lemond. Let's stay on topic.

I thought I was on topic--topic being substantial arguments.
No one here knows for sure if any of the above mentioned riders took performance enhancing drugs.
the point I'm trying to make is it's amazing to me that so many people who know a lot about pro cycling still clings to the idea that Lemond never took a doping product in his life. Not once. Ever.
Perhaps the Lemond-clean theory is true; but given the history of the sport, I find it very difficult to believe.

 

[HelmutRoole]

Re:

Four years this thread has been going for. Has anyone actually brought anything of substance yet?

You need to go back 20 pages and read. There's a mountain of evidence previously unearthed. Interesting (or infuriating if your a LeMond fan) reading.

 

[sniper]

Re: LeMond

As a certain team manager said once, having a big VO2 max is not a gurantee of beng a top rider but you wont be one without having a high V02. That is what EPO changed. At a guess, I would say many of the other tops guys in the LeMond era would be in the ballpark regards VO2. Most were never measured. It is not a linear thing where the guy with the highest V02 wins, there are of course other factors besides V02 in a riders make up, mentality, aggression, hunger etc.

Did GL learn of his own VO2 numbers the last week of his 3rd tour win as well?

in seriousness, i think he did.
it was either late '89 or '90, correct me if wrong.
knowing that EPO positively affects vo2max, it makes the whole argument "Lemond had a high vo2 max; therefore, Lemond didn't need EPO" just a tadbit circular.

 

[sniper]

Re: Re:

Big Mig? Really? Come on you can do better than that.

My question is about Lemond. Let's stay on topic.

I thought I was on topic--topic being substantial arguments.
No one here knows for sure if any of the above mentioned riders took performance enhancing drugs.
the point I'm trying to make is it's amazing to me that so many people who know a lot about pro cycling still clings to the idea that Lemond never took a doping product in his life. Not once. Ever.

you were on topic. And it's a good point.
For instance, we can say that there is a good likelihood that Sastre was doping, and it will probably not be disputed by anyone. Now, what is there on Sastre? Let's see, rode for a dodgy team manager. Was vaguely rumored to have unconfirmed links to some doping doctor. Won the Tour de France. And that's it. Unlike Lemond, he had no miraculous never-before-seen mid-GT transformation, no immunologist father-in-law, no implausible kidney problems, no blood issues, no unidentified viruses, no rampant peloton-wide rumors of (legal and illegal) ped abuse, was not discovered by a junior-blood-doping trainer, had no confirmed collaboration with one of the most renowned doping doctors around.

Let's hear it for Sastre.