LeMond III

[GJB123]

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 Sastre was probably doping, and most posters will likely agree (correct me if wrong). 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-seen-before mid-GT transformation, no immunologist father-in-law, no implausible kidney problems, no blood issues, 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 a known blood doping doctor.

Let's hear it for Sastre.

- What miraculous mid-GT transformation? Are you referring to the Giro TT in 1989? Please note that his then DS was quite sure LeMond could have done as well in the first ITT but for LeMond's at the time obsession with heart rate monitors. Anyhow his recovery in the ITT wasn't that miraculous or remarkable. If you would have stated his recovery from a severe hunting accident that nearly left him for dead as miraculous, you might actually have a point. Then again we all know he never fully recovered from that.
- What is so implausible about having kidney infections. And I mean other than your total failure to grasp the medical science behind it?
- Rampant peloton-wide rumors? Really? Does that include all the people from the peloton who went on record (so no gossip or hearsay) that LeMond was clean as far they knew? Please tell me you are using a hyperbole to make your point because if you still seriously think that is an accurate description of the situation then it's truly beyond me.
- As to Sastre. Have you done any research on him like you tried to do on LeMond? I guess not, so who knows what you might find.
- Sastre was trained by his father in his early days, there must something fishy there since we all know what cycling fathers are like (i.e. Femke Vandendriessche's father).
- Was LeMond discovered by Eddy B? Are you sure? I would check that fact if I were you. I think he was recognized as a major talent way before Eddy B ever laid eyes on him.

BTW: isn't it about time you reacted all the nonsense you have spouted about LeMond's medical condition? Or do you still think you are on to something?

 

[sniper]

it was a 24-hour radical improvement.
in the press it was described as miraculous/magical, etc.
It is highly doubtful that intravenous iron shots alone could achieve that kind of a 24-hour transformation. Do we even have a precedent for that?
Intravenous iron shots plus EPO on the other hand...can do magic:

GJB123:
isn't it about time you reacted all the nonsense you have spouted about LeMond's medical condition? Or do you still think you are on to something?

i've addressed this point ad nauseum in the previous pages, go back and read if you can be bothered. Either way, it really is time for you to move on from this, because your clogging the thread and you're making it personal again.

 

[GJB123]

Re:

it was a 24-hour radical improvement.
in the press it was described as miraculous/magical, etc.
It is highly doubtful that intravenous iron shots alone could achieve that kind of a 24-hour transformation. Do we even have a precedent for that?
Intravenous iron shots plus EPO on the other hand...can do magic:

GJB123:
isn't it about time you reacted all the nonsense you have spouted about LeMond's medical condition? Or do you still think you are on to something?

i've addressed this point ad nauseum in the previous pages, go back and read if you can be bothered. Either way, it really is time for you to move on from this, because your clogging the thread and you're making it personal again.

As long as you keep spouting medical nonsense in this topic, there is no way I am letting you get away with that. You are ever so quick to call out a retraction when it suits you, so now it is time to put up or shut up. Of anything is clogging this thread it is your persistence in using half- and non-truths to make your point. Hell, on this page you gain call it an "implausible kidney problems". What is is implausible about them? Stop deflecting and answer a simple question or admit you got it wring and leave that out of your set of arguments.

EDIT: and please, please stop linking to medical science papers you clearly don't understand and haven't read.

 

[sniper]

Re: Re:

it was a 24-hour radical improvement.
in the press it was described as miraculous/magical, etc.
It is highly doubtful that intravenous iron shots alone could achieve that kind of a 24-hour transformation. Do we even have a precedent for that?
Intravenous iron shots plus EPO on the other hand...can do magic:

GJB123:
isn't it about time you reacted all the nonsense you have spouted about LeMond's medical condition? Or do you still think you are on to something?

i've addressed this point ad nauseum in the previous pages, go back and read if you can be bothered. Either way, it really is time for you to move on from this, because your clogging the thread and you're making it personal again.

As long as you keep spouting medical nonsense in this topic, there is no way I am letting you get away with that. You are ever so quick to call out a retraction when it suits you, so now it is time to put up or shut up. Of anything is clogging this thread it is your persistence in using half- and non-truths to make your point. Hell, on this page you gain call it an "implausible kidney problems". What is is implausible about them? Stop deflecting and answer a simple question or admit you got it wring and leave that out of your set of arguments.

EDIT: and please, please stop linking to medical science papers you clearly don't understand and haven't read.

stop making it about me.
as i said, I addressed everything upthread. please show some respect and read the previous pages before pulling the trigger.
E.g. here:
viewtopic.php?p=1899773#p1899773
i've got nothing more to add to that, sorry.
now can we move on, because this is turning into a silly "did to...did not" kind of discussion.
i know you can do better than that.

 

[GJB123]

Re: LeMond

And to as to the repeated accusations that people who don't agree with anything sniper posts must be mere fanboys or just making it personal towards sniper, the is what I posted upthread already:

I am not saying he positively never used anything of the regular 80's stuff that for example wasn't on the banned list then but would be now, but the vast majority of the information available (both factual and circumstantial) point to the fact that he might well have done it all clean.

And can be found here: viewtopic.php?p=1870155#p1870155

It is not personal, I just take exception with bogus arguments. Problem is that there is one person very prevalent when it comes to posting bogus arguments, which might make it seem personal, when it is actually not.

 

[sniper]

Re: LeMond

And to as to the repeated accusations that people who don't agree with anything sniper posts must be mere fanboys

i (nor anyone else to my knowledge) has ever said such a thing.

 

[GJB123]

Re: Re:

it was a 24-hour radical improvement.
in the press it was described as miraculous/magical, etc.
It is highly doubtful that intravenous iron shots alone could achieve that kind of a 24-hour transformation. Do we even have a precedent for that?
Intravenous iron shots plus EPO on the other hand...can do magic:

GJB123:
isn't it about time you reacted all the nonsense you have spouted about LeMond's medical condition? Or do you still think you are on to something?

i've addressed this point ad nauseum in the previous pages, go back and read if you can be bothered. Either way, it really is time for you to move on from this, because your clogging the thread and you're making it personal again.

As long as you keep spouting medical nonsense in this topic, there is no way I am letting you get away with that. You are ever so quick to call out a retraction when it suits you, so now it is time to put up or shut up. Of anything is clogging this thread it is your persistence in using half- and non-truths to make your point. Hell, on this page you gain call it an "implausible kidney problems". What is is implausible about them? Stop deflecting and answer a simple question or admit you got it wring and leave that out of your set of arguments.

EDIT: and please, please stop linking to medical science papers you clearly don't understand and haven't read.

stop making it about me.
as i said, I addressed everything upthread. please show some respect and read the previous pages before pulling the trigger.
E.g. here:
viewtopic.php?p=1899773#p1899773
i've got nothing more to add to that, sorry.
now can we move on, because this is turning into a silly "did to...did not" kind of discussion.
i know you can do better than that.

Yes and I already explained why that particular post you linked is more horse menure here:

viewtopic.php?p=1899783#p1899783

So you have actually at no point addressed any of the explanations by djpbaltimore, scienceiscool and myself that your arguments on LeMond's kidney condition doesn't hold water. Yet you keep trotting it out time and again such as in your post in the comparison with Sastre. It is simple really, stop spouting nonsense on this issue and you won't be challenged on it anymore, keep it using though then you will be challenged, as you should be.

 

[sniper]

fair enough!

 

[gillan1969]

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

Can we presume blutto, like spire, you didn’t actually live through lemond’s career…it looked exactly like that of an athlete who was remarkable…he raced the classics well and the raced the grand tours very well…great results as junior, as senior, at avernir, at dauphine, then 3rd, 2nd, 1st at tour……then 1st, 1st then the demise………..

The bell curve of a top cyclist athlete (with the obvious dip for getting shot)…lets normalise those three years it I think the statisticians would say…with a sharper decline than most…

A decline which coincided with epo….an opposite effect of what you might expect if he was a beneficiary of epo

And spire has the temerity to try and compare with Froome and and Wiggis…they ain’t no bell curves (I restrained myself on the obvious joke )

 

[sniper]

but the decline didn't coincide with epo.
epo came on the scene in 88 the latest. Some have it at 87.
And there's such an aweful lot out there that links Lemond directly to it, that one'd be foolish to not at least entertain the thought.

 

[gillan1969]

Re:

but the decline didn't coincide with epo.
epo came on the scene in 88 the latest. Some have it at 87.

spire...you didn't live it...some of us did

epo may have been experimental however.......

the racing didn't change with the belgians in 87/88/89/90

it changed with the italians in 90/91/92 and (first through a few individuals (then rough groups of individuals) reached its remarkable heights with the gewiss team in 93...carrying on through the Big Mig years and the rise of Riis...

Revisionism might work with long history...not with short history when you have eye witnesses

 

[sniper]

as for the belcurve.
Sure, a bellcurve = evidence of doping. But the lack of a bellcurve is no evidence of cleanliness.
Contador, Evans, Sastre, and so many others there to prove that point.
Some just discover the ideal doping program earlier than others.

As for Froome, his transformation in 2011 happened practically from one week to the other.
remarkably similar to Lemond 89 and 90, if you think about it.
sure, Lemond had results before 89, Froome didnt have any before 2011. Granted.
But again, one argument could be that it's because Greg had a good doping program figured out earlier than Froome.
And you have to admit that the history of cycling warrants such arguments.

 

[gillan1969]

Re:

as for the belcurve.
Sure, a bellcurve = evidence of doping. But the lack of a bellcurve is no evidence of cleanliness.
Contador, Evans, Sastre, and so many others there to prove that point.
Some just discover the ideal doping program earlier than others.

As for Froome, his transformation in 2011 happened practically from one week to the other.
remarkably similar to Lemond 89 and 90, if you think about it.
sure, Lemond had results before 89, Froome didnt have any before 2011. Granted.
But again, one argument could be that it's because Greg had a good doping program figured out earlier than Froome.
And you have to admit that the history of cycling warrants such arguments.

Spire...get a grip..lemond was world class, in 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86 (Gets shot 87, crap 88), 89, 90 and less so 91

how can you equate 2011 Froome with that....how?

 

[sniper]

Re: Re:

but the decline didn't coincide with epo.
epo came on the scene in 88 the latest. Some have it at 87.

spire...you didn't live it...some of us did

I know blutto lived it. Dhaenens lived it. Gisbers lived it. Starr lived it. Not sure what your point is. Well, i see what your point is, but it's pointless. There are plenty of people out there who 'lived it' and think lemond doped. What about merckx, hinault, etc.? One can't say they doped if one didn't 'live it'?

Back to epo: so did or didn't it come on the scene in 88?
Again, if there was any plausible candidate for being an early user, sorry, but even you will have to point at Lemond. I know it hurts, but let me remind you that Donati has pointed at Vanmol as one of the first distributors. Anemia was used as an excuse, and a plausible one for that matter.

the racing didn't change with the belgians in 87/88/89/90

exactly. Yet most of them were on EPO, that much is certain.

 

[sniper]

Re: Re:

...
how can you equate 2011 Froome with that....how?

I'm not equating Froome with Lemond.
I'm just drawing a parallel between fragments of their respective carreers.
One could argue Froome's mid-season transformation in 2011 was similar to Lemond's mid-season transformations in 89 and 90.
Again, I grant that Froome didn't have a palmares before that. So yes, much more suspicious.
Yet, again, lack of carreer bellcurve is no evidence of cleanliness.

And so I'm not equating Sastre or Contador with Lemond either when I say neither had any bellcurves. I'm just pointing out one similarity.

 

[gillan1969]

Re:

as for the belcurve.
Sure, a bellcurve = evidence of doping. But the lack of a bellcurve is no evidence of cleanliness.
Contador, Evans, Sastre, and so many others there to prove that point.
Some just discover the ideal doping program earlier than others.

As for Froome, his transformation in 2011 happened practically from one week to the other.
remarkably similar to Lemond 89 and 90, if you think about it.
sure, Lemond had results before 89, Froome didnt have any before 2011. Granted.
But again, one argument could be that it's because Greg had a good doping program figured out earlier than Froome.
And you have to admit that the history of cycling warrants such arguments.

the bell curve reference is that if someone was experimenting with a game changer in terms of performance increases you might expect there to be a jump in performance...we have seen it with...eh...Froome and Wiggins

the only fluctuation in lemond's is...funnily enough...a demise when he got shot

funny that....

 

[gillan1969]

Re: Re:

but the decline didn't coincide with epo.
epo came on the scene in 88 the latest. Some have it at 87.

spire...you didn't live it...some of us did

I know blutto lived it. Dhaenens lived it. Gisbers lived it. Starr lived it. Not sure what your point is. Well, i see what your point is, but it's pointless. There are plenty of people out there who 'lived it' and think lemond doped. What about merckx, hinault, etc.? One can't say they doped if one didn't 'live it'?

Back to epo: so did or didn't it come on the scene in 88?
Again, if there was any plausible candidate for being an early user, sorry, but even you will have to point at Lemond. I know it hurts, but let me remind you that Donati has pointed at Vanmol as one of the first distributors. Anemia was used as an excuse, and a plausible one for that matter.

the racing didn't change with the belgians in 87/88/89/90

exactly. Yet most of them were on EPO, that much is certain.

so, to be clear, they are all on it but there is no noticeable jump in performance?

 

[sniper]

Re: Re:

...
the bell curve reference is that if someone was experimenting with a game changer in terms of performance increases you might expect there to be a jump in performance...we have seen it with...eh...Froome and Wiggins

yes, and with Lemond mid-GT (89) and mid-season (90).

Greg's mid-GT transformation is, in fact, still quite unique in its kind.

 

[gillan1969]

Re: Re:

...
the bell curve reference is that if someone was experimenting with a game changer in terms of performance increases you might expect there to be a jump in performance...we have seen it with...eh...Froome and Wiggins

yes, and with Lemond mid-GT (89) and mid-season (90).

Greg's mid-GT transformation is, in fact, still quite unique in its kind.

transformation?

a previous GT winner and world class TT'er...doing well in a GT TT?

some transformation that...

 

[sniper]

Re: Re:

...
so, to be clear, they are all on it

No, i didn't say that, and I don't think they were.
But really you should ask Donati. He points the finger at Vanmol, not me.
In my view, mainly the topdogs, but we know through Halupczok that amateurs were also on the sauce in the late 80s.

no noticeable jump in performance?

that depends on where you look and who you look at

that said. Of course the early nineties saw a collective jump in performance. I'm ignorant but not that ignorant.
And I agree, that collective jump warrants an explanation. Unfortunately we know very little about doping that period. The only thing we know for fact is that EPO was rampant. But, for instance, as has been discussed upthread, one hypothesis out there is that the real gamechanger in that period (early 90s) was the combination of EPO + HGH. Another option is that EPO simply became cheaper, more easily available, and the abuse much more rampant. I guess there are also other possible scenarios.
It doesn't change the fact that Vanmol's riders were on epo in the late 80s.

 

[GJB123]

Re: Re:

but the decline didn't coincide with epo.
epo came on the scene in 88 the latest. Some have it at 87.

spire...you didn't live it...some of us did

I know blutto lived it. Dhaenens lived it. Gisbers lived it. Starr lived it. Not sure what your point is. Well, i see what your point is, but it's pointless. There are plenty of people out there who 'lived it' and think lemond doped. What about merckx, hinault, etc.? One can't say they doped if one didn't 'live it'?

Back to epo: so did or didn't it come on the scene in 88?
Again, if there was any plausible candidate for being an early user, sorry, but even you will have to point at Lemond. I know it hurts, but let me remind you that Donati has pointed at Vanmol as one of the first distributors. Anemia was used as an excuse, and a plausible one for that matter.

the racing didn't change with the belgians in 87/88/89/90

exactly. Yet most of them were on EPO, that much is certain.

Really most Belgians were on EPO in 87/88/89/90? And where did you get that information? I think the consensus in the EPO-thread was certainly nothing like that.

 

[sniper]

Re: Re:

...
Really most Belgians were on EPO in 87/88/89/90? And where did you get that information? I think the consensus in the EPO-thread was certainly nothing like that.

granted, not "most". But still, plenty.
And Vanmol, again, is fingered by Donati as one of the early epo facilitators.
He even helped amateur cyclists like Halupczok.

And again, anemia would have been the 'TUE' for EPO. See that 88 interview with Vanmol I linked earlier.
It doesn't prove Lemond used EPO, but at least, in light of the evidence, it's fully normal to entertain the thought, don't you agree?

 

[blutto]

Re: 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.

...what about Riis ( Mr 60%) vs Indurain....?....

Cheers

 

[gillan1969]

Re: Re:

...
Really most Belgians were on EPO in 87/88/89/90? And where did you get that information? I think the consensus in the EPO-thread was certainly nothing like that.

granted, not "most". But still, plenty.
And Vanmol, again, is fingered by Donati as one of the early epo facilitators.
He even helped amateur cyclists like Halupczok.

And again, anemia would have been the 'TUE' for EPO. See that 88 interview with Vanmol I linked earlier.
It doesn't prove Lemond used EPO, but at least, in light of the evidence, it's fully normal to entertain the thought, don't you agree?

i think you may be overlaying today's protocol against yesterday's standards...

the doping was blunt enough and blatant enough for the dispensation of such niceties as TUEs

unlike today's teams...there was not an army of doctors on hand

 

[blutto]

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.

...thanks for that....

Cheers