LeMond III

[Tonton]

Re: Re:

...
And just to reiterate my opinion about LeMond, a point that has been made by others many times: if Armstrong dogs, with all the inside info, couldn't dig dirt on GL, it is extremely unlikely that there was dirt. It would have been exposed. Armstrong would have destroyed him. No matter what collateral damage would have occurred.

In your view, what's the difference between Greg and riders like Wiggins, Cancellara, Indurain, and Evans, to name just a few, in terms of quality and quantity of 'dirt'?

Also, if Lance does have dirt, why, when, and where would you think he would leak it?
Who'd be interested in a random unconfirmed 'Lemond doped' rumor?
Assume for a minute that Lemond did dope, is there a chance that Lance would nonetheless haven't found anything tangible? What kind of tangible evidence could he have gotten hold of?

Of course he would leak it. He showed time and time again that he would stop at nothing to get someone. And being the bully that he was, working from the inside, he and his cronies had a huge advantage that you or I don't have. Or serious journos, if they still exist.

As far as Indurain, yes, there's dirt. The other three? Time will tell: somehow, if the truth comes out, it tends to happen after the players are out of the game. No one wants to break the Omerta, be sued, vilified by trolls, shunned by the "milieu". But I guarantee you: riders change teams, see things, they talk, they may not know all the particulars, but riders know who's clean, and who isn't.

 

[MarkvW]

Re: Re:

Borysewic was into blooddoping juniors and doping juniors was highly common in that era (and still is of course), especially at the high end.
Why was borysewic hired in the first place? Why did Lemond throw him a nice fundraiser in 2005? Other unanswered questions.
Ever looked into Eric Heiden?

The mere possibility that he was an early doper is hard to discard, and it makes most of the arguments in favor of his cleanliness rather circular/redundant.

So, what do you guys make of Eric Heiden?
No need to introduce him I hope. This should take away the last bit of doubt you might have about whether or not he doped:

After his sports career, Heiden became a physician, and as of 2012 is the team doctor for the BMC Racing Team.

right.
Now, you gotta suspend reason to somehow argue that Heiden was doped but Lemond was clean.
These two grew up in the same era, exponents of the very same system, same set up.

Eric Heiden had zilch to do with Lemond. Were they neighbors, training together, sharing the same trainers, etc? No I don't think so. They are not Americans who were successful in sports that were very small in the US in those days and there was no system whatsoever of for those sports in the US at that time, so to suggest they were "exponents of the same system" is a quite desperate attempt to paint them both with the same (tar) brush.

Fair enough, I should've stated that with less conviction.
From memory, Ed Burke was involved with both, but I could be wrong.

Oh, while we are at it. What proof do you have that Heiden was doped. That he became a physician is proof? That he won (a lot) is proof now? That he later worked at BMC? How about that he won zilch at cycling although allegedly he was doped to the gills in skating and not in cycling? Cycling were doping is actually much more effective because you don't actually need to master any difficult techniques like you have to do in skating? You completely lost me here.

I like this, because at least you are being consistent.

That was my original point: we should apply one level of skepticism / demand the same burden of evidence...across the board.

If one wants to celebrate Lemond as clean champ, one might as well celebrate Heiden, Cancellara, Sastre, Contador (if not for that unlucky 2010 contamination), Federer, Ronaldo. etc.

Lemond may have been clean, but thus far, I don't feel the burden of evidence to that extent has been met sufficiently.

I'm not really concerned about whether LeMond was "clean" (whatever that vague term means). I'm concerned about cheating. If LeMond was doped to the gills but within the rules, then I see no problem.

 

[sniper]

Re: Re:

...
Of course he would leak it. He showed time and time again that he would stop at nothing to get someone. And being the bully that he was, working from the inside, he and his cronies had a huge advantage that you or I don't have. Or serious journos, if they still exist.

that doesn't answer my questions. Why, when, where, would he leak what?
He might have something tangible, he might not.
If he has something tangible, he might still leak it in the future. Or he might not leak it ever.
He might have other priorities. He might not.
He might even have tried to leak dirt but nobody appeared interested. Carmichael and others may have talked into him.
etc. etc.

Just saying, we don't know. It's clutching at straws. And I can think of several reasons why Lance might (a) not have any dirt on Lemond in the first place or (b) if he has, not be interested in leaking it (yet).

The claim that
Lance doesn't have dirt on Lemond. Therefore there is no dirt on Lemond.
doesn't cut it.

As far as Indurain, yes, there's dirt.

sure, but my question is: more than on Lemond?

The other three? Time will tell: somehow, if the truth comes out, it tends to happen after the players are out of the game. No one wants to break the Omerta, be sued, vilified by trolls, shunned by the "milieu". But I guarantee you: riders change teams, see things.

As you know, Lemond was an outsider. There's no a priori reason to assume anybody would have seen anything. There are so many riders out there for whom no dirt has ever been laid on the table. Were all those riders clean? Hardly.

they talk, they may not know all the particulars, but riders know who's clean, and who isn't

Couldn't agree more.
Some riders say Lemond was as dirty as Hinault, others say he introduced EPO into the peloton.
Yet others say he was a client of Freddy "Pot Belge" Sergeant.
Just saying.

 

[Tonton]

Re: LeMond

sniper, we're not going to agree on that one.

 

[Cannibal72]

Re: LeMond

LeMond was an outsider

Not strictly true. He was an outsider to the European peloton, but not an outsider in the sense you're using it in - a Millar-style introvert who kept very private. Whether Steve Bauer or Andy Hampsten &c. would have told anyone about nefarious activities is obviously another matter entirely, but LeMond is apparently a naturally open and gregarious personality.

 

[@NL_LeMondFans]

Re: LeMond

LeMond was an outsider

Not strictly true. He was an outsider to the European peloton, but not an outsider in the sense you're using it in - a Millar-style introvert who kept very private. Whether Steve Bauer or Andy Hampsten &c. would have told anyone about nefarious activities is obviously another matter entirely, but LeMond is apparently a naturally open and gregarious personality.

But he was a non-conformist, thinking outside the box.

 

[sniper]

Re: LeMond

LeMond was an outsider

Not strictly true. He was an outsider to the European peloton, but not an outsider in the sense you're using it in - a Millar-style introvert who kept very private. Whether Steve Bauer or Andy Hampsten &c. would have told anyone about nefarious activities is obviously another matter entirely, but LeMond is apparently a naturally open and gregarious personality.

fair points.

 

[sniper]

Re:

didn't know this.
so here's another plausible, non-EPO-related, reason as to why Lemond couldn't keep up in the early 90s.

...the mitochondria myopathy [is] still listed in his website as the reason why he retired. Personally I'm inclined to think that LeMond wouldn't have been able to win much after 1991 even if EPO didn't exist, due to this illness, ...

...
And there could be tons of reasons why he fell behind in the 90s.

good post sniper

 

[blutto]

Re: Re:

didn't know this.
so here's another plausible, non-EPO-related, reason as to why Lemond couldn't keep up in the early 90s.

...the mitochondria myopathy [is] still listed in his website as the reason why he retired. Personally I'm inclined to think that LeMond wouldn't have been able to win much after 1991 even if EPO didn't exist, due to this illness, ...

...
And there could be tons of reasons why he fell behind in the 90s.

good post sniper

...oddly enough one of the prime causes of late developing midochondria myopathy is very high levels of iron in the system....which begs the question, why would anyone have that much iron in his system especially as he should have been under doctors care....which I suppose leads us back to those 89 Giro iron shots that had such spectacular results....

How Is Iron Deficiency Treated?

Even if the cause of the iron deficiency can be identified and treated, it is still usually necessary to take medicinal iron (more iron than a multivitamin can provide) until the deficiency is corrected and the body's iron stores are replenished. In some cases, if the cause cannot be identified or corrected, the patient may have to receive supplemental iron on an ongoing basis.

There are several ways to increase iron intake:

Diet
•Meat: beef, pork, or lamb, especially organ meats such as liver
•Poultry: chicken, turkey, and duck, especially liver and dark meat
•Fish, especially shellfish, sardines, and anchovies
•Leafy green members of the cabbage family including broccoli, kale, turnip greens, and collard greens
•Legumes, including lima beans, peas, pinto beans, and black-eyed peas
•Iron-enriched pastas, grains, rice, and cereals

Medicinal Iron

The amount of iron needed to treat patients with iron deficiency is higher than the amount found in most daily multivitamin supplements. The amount of iron prescribed by your doctor will be in milligrams (mg) of elemental iron. Most people with iron deficiency need 150-200 mg per day of elemental iron (2 to 5 mg of iron per kilogram of body weight per day). Ask your doctor how many milligrams of iron you should be taking per day. If you take vitamins, bring them to your doctor's visit to be sure.

There is no evidence that any one type of iron salt, liquid, or pill is better than the others, and the amount of elemental iron varies with different preparations. To be sure of the amount of iron in a product, check the packaging. In addition to elemental iron, the iron salt content (ferrous sulfate, fumarate, or gluconate) may also be listed on the package, which can make it confusing for consumers to know how many tablets or how much liquid to take to get the proper dosage of iron.

Iron is absorbed in the small intestine (duodenum and first part of the jejunum). This means that enteric-coated iron tablets may not work as well. If you take antacids, you should take iron tablets two hours before or four hours after the antacid. Vitamin C (ascorbic acid) improves iron absorption, and some doctors recommend that you take 250 mg of vitamin C with iron tablets.

Possible side effects of iron tablets include abdominal discomfort, nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, constipation, and dark stools.


Intravenous Iron

In some cases your doctor may recommend intravenous (IV) iron. IV iron may be necessary to treat iron deficiency in patients who do not absorb iron well in the gastrointestinal tract, patients with severe iron deficiency or chronic blood loss, patients who are receiving supplemental erythropoietin, a hormone that stimulates blood production, or patients who cannot tolerate oral iron. If you need IV iron, your doctor may refer you to a hematologist to supervise the iron infusions. IV iron comes in different preparations:
•Iron dextran
•Iron sucrose
•Ferric gluconate

Large doses of iron can be given at one time when using iron dextran. Iron sucrose and ferric gluconate require more frequent doses spread over several weeks. Some patients may have an allergic reaction to IV iron, so a test dose may be administered before the first infusion. Allergic reactions are more common with iron dextran and may necessitate switching to a different preparation. Severe side effects other than allergic reactions are rare and include urticaria (hives), pruritus (itching), and muscle and joint pain

http://www.hematology.org/Patients/Anemia/Iron-Deficiency.aspx

....and btw, gotta agree, a most excellent post....

Cheers

 

[Tonton]

Re: LeMond

sniper, are you saying that you didn't know that mitochondria myopathy was at the time the explanation leading to his retirement? And yes, this is listed just about everywhere on articles, biographies...Wow! You're all over this thread, rehashing the same rubbish and don't know the basic info? Tell me it ain't so .

 

[sniper]

Re: LeMond

interesting, Blutto, cheers.

sniper, are you saying that you didn't know that mitochondria myopathy was at the time the explanation leading to his retirement? And yes, this is listed just about everywhere on articles, biographies...

yes, that's what i'm saying.
Lemond is (well) before my time. I was still climbing trees and playing with lego when he retired.
And I'm not too interested in athlete biographies.

Considering it's so widely known, i'm all the more confused why so many posters, without any sort of hesitation, attribute Lemond's downfall in the nineties to the alleged fact that he, unlike the rest, wasn't on epo.
It appears there are other possible explanations. And, awkwardly, it appears they are widely known.

On the topic of "things sniper didn't know": ca. half a year ago, I didn't know *** about Lemond, other than that most of the posters in here give him a free pass.
For instance, I didn't know that several people part of and/or close to the peloton in the 90s were under the impression that Lemond had introduced EPO into the peloton.
I didn't know he allegedly has been driving around with one kidney for most of his carreer, which would make him the ideal person to take EPO treatment.
I didn't know he's rumored to have been a Freddy Sergeant client in 1989, the year of his famous two-week transformation from packfodder back to his old self.
I didn't know there are all kinds of holes and inconsistencies in his kidney story and iron shot story.
I didn't know the infamous doctor Ivan Vanmol had applied those iron shots.
I didn't know the poster known as esafosfina had ridden with ADR in 1989 and received postpackages with PEDs from the same Vanmol.
I didn't know Greg Lemond Jr. was discovered by a junior blood doping expert (Eddie), who, i didn't know, had taken junior US athletes back to his native Poland to teach them how to transfuse blood.
And I didn't know Lemond threw that same Eddie a fundraiser in 2003 inviting four of the five athletes who had admitted to blooddoping under Eddie in 1984 to his house.

I didn't know any of that. And seeing how many posters were giving Greg a free pass, I could only assume it wasn't known to them either. Because, let's face it, that there is more circumstantial dodginess than what we have on riders such as Wiggins, Cancellara, Sastre, Cadel, or arguably even Indurain. None of those riders, however, gets a free pass in the Clinic.

In fairness to Lemond, I also didn't know he broke omerta in 1989 in a conflict with PDM, accusing them of pressing him to use testosteron.
http://articles.latimes.com/1989-07-25/sports/sp-95_1_greg-lemond
I discovered that link going through the thread yesterday, and it's, till now, the strongest piece of evidence i've seen to suggest that Lemond might indeed have been the real deal.

tonton: Wow! You're all over this thread, rehashing the same rubbish and don't know the basic info? Tell me it ain't so .

You mean you knew all of that? Then why didn't you just say so.
I'm not sure what problem you have, tonton, with people (not just me) asking the question, and trying to get to the bottom of this. If he's the real deal, you hopefully agree it's all the more important to get evidence to that extent on the table and, where possible, eliminate evidence to the contrary by means of open discussion.
Wouldn't it be great if we can legitimately and with conviction take Lemond as a benchmark for what is possible on a bike without (blood) doping?

 

[sniper]

Re: LeMond

...you didn't know that mitochondria myopathy was at the time the explanation leading to his retirement? And yes, this is listed just about everywhere on articles, biographies...Wow!

Yeah you're right, tonton.
Except for this Kimmage interview with Lemond ,
http://bikeraceinfo.com/oralhistory/lemond.html,
where he says

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

that's odd. Pretending he didn't know PEDs were rampant in cycling well before the 90s even though he'd experienced PEDs at PDM. (Or maybe i'm reading too much into that?)
And not a single mention of mitochondrial issues.

 

[sniper]

Re: Re:

...oddly enough one of the prime causes of late developing midochondria myopathy is very high levels of iron in the system....which begs the question, why would anyone have that much iron in his system especially as he should have been under doctors care....which I suppose leads us back to those 89 Giro iron shots that had such spectacular results....
...

Cheers

This deserves more attention.
I posted something related upthread, but never got a response to that. It's the following:

There is strong correlation between (chronic) kidney failure and blood anemia. This correlation is known for decades (correct me if wrong).
Now, in the Kimmage interview and elsewhere, Lemond, on the one hand, claims that he had no idea about his own anemia until his soigneur told him during the 1989 Giro, leading to the famous iron shots.
On the other hand, Lemond claims he had chronic kidney infection since the day he was born, and has been riding around with just one functional kidney ever since he was a kid.
So we are to believe that in 1989, after at least two decades of being a chronic kidney patient, Greg didn't know he had anemia and needed his soigneur to tell him...?
That just doesn't add up, at all.
That story, together with the alleged mitochondrial issues, just totally completely disqualifies all the docs he's worked with up till then, including his friends, family and colleagues, all of whom c/should have told him about these issues.

 

[Maxiton]

Re: LeMond

sniper, are you saying that you didn't know that mitochondria myopathy was at the time the explanation leading to his retirement? And yes, this is listed just about everywhere on articles, biographies...

yes, that's what i'm saying.
Lemond is (well) before my time. I was still climbing trees and playing with lego when he retired.
And I'm not too interested in athlete biographies.

Considering it's so widely known, i'm all the more confused why so many posters, without any sort of hesitation, attribute Lemond's downfall in the nineties to the alleged fact that he, unlike the rest, wasn't on epo.
It appears there are other possible explanations. And, awkwardly, it appears they are widely known.

On the topic of "things sniper didn't know": ca. half a year ago, I didn't know **** about Lemond, other than that most of the posters in here give him a free pass.
For instance, I didn't know that several people part of and/or close to the peloton in the 90s were under the impression that Lemond had introduced EPO into the peloton.
I didn't know he allegedly has been driving around with one kidney for most of his carreer, which would make him the ideal person to take EPO treatment.
I didn't know he's rumored to have been a Freddy Sergeant client in 1989, the year of his famous two-week transformation from packfodder back to his old self.
I didn't know there are all kinds of holes and inconsistencies in his kidney story and iron shot story.
I didn't know the infamous doctor Ivan Vanmol had applied those iron shots.
I didn't know the poster known as esafosfina had ridden with ADR in 1989 and received postpackages with PEDs from the same Vanmol.
I didn't know Greg Lemond Jr. was discovered by a junior blood doping expert (Eddie), who, i didn't know, had taken junior US athletes back to his native Poland to teach them how to transfuse blood.
And I didn't know Lemond threw that same Eddie a fundraiser in 2003 inviting four of the five athletes who had admitted to blooddoping under Eddie in 1984 to his house.

I didn't know any of that. And seeing how many posters were giving Greg a free pass, I could only assume it wasn't known to them either. Because, let's face it, that there is more circumstantial dodginess than what we have on riders such as Wiggins, Cancellara, Sastre, Cadel, or arguably even Indurain. None of those riders, however, gets a free pass in the Clinic.

In fairness to Lemond, I also didn't know he broke omerta in 1989 in a conflict with PDM, accusing them of pressing him to use testosteron.
http://articles.latimes.com/1989-07-25/sports/sp-95_1_greg-lemond
I discovered that link going through the thread yesterday, and it's, till now, the strongest piece of evidence i've seen to suggest that Lemond might indeed have been the real deal.

tonton: Wow! You're all over this thread, rehashing the same rubbish and don't know the basic info? Tell me it ain't so .

You mean you knew all of that? Then why didn't you just say so.
I'm not sure what problem you have, tonton, with people (not just me) asking the question, and trying to get to the bottom of this. If he's the real deal, you hopefully agree it's all the more important to get evidence to that extent on the table and, where possible, eliminate evidence to the contrary by means of open discussion.
Wouldn't it be great if we can legitimately and with conviction take Lemond as a benchmark for what is possible on a bike without (blood) doping?

Good comeback, and great summary.

...oddly enough one of the prime causes of late developing midochondria myopathy is very high levels of iron in the system....which begs the question, why would anyone have that much iron in his system especially as he should have been under doctors care....which I suppose leads us back to those 89 Giro iron shots that had such spectacular results....
...

Cheers

This deserves more attention.
I posted something related upthread, but never got a response to that. It's the following:

There is strong correlation between (chronic) kidney failure and blood anemia. This correlation is known for decades (correct me if wrong).
Now, in the Kimmage interview and elsewhere, Lemond, on the one hand, claims that he had no idea about his own anemia until his soigneur told him during the 1989 Giro, leading to the famous iron shots.
On the other hand, Lemond claims he had chronic kidney infection since the day he was born, and has been riding around with just one functional kidney ever since he was a kid.
So we are to believe that in 1989, after at least two decades of being a chronic kidney patient, Greg didn't know he had anemia and needed his soigneur to tell him...?
That just doesn't add up, at all.
That story, together with the alleged mitochondrial issues, just totally completely disqualifies all the docs he's worked with up till then, including his friends, family and colleagues, all of whom c/should have told him about these issues.

Curiouser and curiouser, cried Alice.

 

[blackcat]

Re: Re:

Would you still feel that way if you thought they might have used motors?

well, the motors have their benefits negated* on the cobbles,
*to a degree,

It is a question I may have to ponder, but it also may be a question I cannot answer, cycling has always been gamed, and this is just another extrapolation, and if Spartacus and Matti Breschel (engaged the motor, if)... then I have a cognitive dissonance, one part begrudging respect about their brazen heist, and other belief they have engaged in a ruination of the sport, or been participants in the ruination if not the outright responsible party

if they did use motors, it was a brilliant heist. on another level to the van dreschers parakeets cyclocross smuggling, but respect the parkeet smuggling nonetheless.

parakeets, whats not to like?

Maxiton?

 

[Maxiton]

Re: Re:

Would you still feel that way if you thought they might have used motors?

well, the motors have their benefits negated* on the cobbles,
*to a degree,

It is a question I may have to ponder, but it also may be a question I cannot answer, cycling has always been gamed, and this is just another extrapolation, and if Spartacus and Matti Breschel (engaged the motor, if)... then I have a cognitive dissonance, one part begrudging respect about their brazen heist, and other belief they have engaged in a ruination of the sport, or been participants in the ruination if not the outright responsible party

if they did use motors, it was a brilliant heist. on another level to the van dreschers parakeets cyclocross smuggling, but respect the parkeet smuggling nonetheless.

parakeets, whats not to like?

Maxiton?

That's my name, don't wear it out . It just seems to me that it's a qualitative thing. We start with amphetamines and opiates, and we still have competition between athletes and drama on the road. We then add various steroids. This too doesn't lessen the struggle of the riders: it still hurts, they just go faster.

Then we add VO2 vector doping and things get complicated. The competition has been compromised now because they hurt less and thus the drama is lessened, and with it the achievement of the riders and our enjoyment as informed spectators. Not only that, but this new doping makes it pretty much impossible to discern athletic ability versus drug-induced capability.

So here we have a real problem: there is still competition but the sport is compromised and diminished.

That's bad enough, but then we introduce something truly transformative: hidden motors. Motors represent a qualitative break with the sport because, drugs notwithstanding, the sport consists entirely of motive force created by a human body and applied to an apparatus consisting of frame, gears, and two wheels.

When we replace or supplement this human motive force with a motor, we have removed the essential thing that makes it cycling. Perhaps we could bring motors out in the open and create a new sport, motorbiking. It seems to me that this new sport, in order to be of interest, would require new rules, new courses, and new types of stages, better suited to use of a motor.

In the meantime, though, hidden motors in bicycles completely removes any element of cycling competition and destroys whatever remains of the sport. Just because some of us accept doping doesn't mean we have to accept or tolerate motors. For fans of cycling, motors are a non-starter.

 

[blackcat]

Re: Re:

That's my name, don't wear it out .

I will raise you

It just seems to me that it's a qualitative thing. We start with amphetamines and opiates, and we still have competition between athletes and drama on the road. We then add various steroids. This too doesn't lessen the struggle of the riders: it still hurts, they just go faster.

Then we add VO2 vector doping and things get complicated. The competition has been compromised now because they hurt less and thus the drama is lessened, and with it the achievement of the riders and our enjoyment as informed spectators. Not only that, but this new doping makes it pretty much impossible to discern athletic ability versus drug-induced capability.

So here we have a real problem: there is still competition but the sport is compromised and diminished.

That's bad enough, but then we introduce something truly transformative: hidden motors. Motors represent a qualitative break with the sport because, drugs notwithstanding, the sport consists entirely of motive force created by a human body and applied to an apparatus consisting of frame, gears, and two wheels.

When we replace or supplement this human motive force with a motor, we have removed the essential thing that makes it cycling. Perhaps we could bring motors out in the open and create a new sport, motorbiking. It seems to me that this new sport, in order to be of interest, would require new rules, new courses, and new types of stages, better suited to use of a motor.

In the meantime, though, hidden motors in bicycles completely removes any element of cycling competition and destroys whatever remains of the sport. Just because some of us accept doping doesn't mean we have to accept or tolerate motors. For fans of cycling, motors are a non-starter.

ok, how about the "does a bear $h!t in the woods" question...

what about if we do not know the riders are using a motor, and they have hidden them well enough from the public and the administrators and commissaires?

is that ok?

I dont think pro sport is "sport" as a juvenile is socially engineered to understand sport qua sport.

entertainment sport is a consumption of viewership, and the viewer is antithetical to sport imo. Sport is about participation, a participation that involves competition and engagement.

professional 'sport' holds one value above all else, and maybe in isolation. professional 'sport' is about winning.

Sport involves both winners and losers. To know how to win, you must know how to lose also. Professional 'sport' does not accept such a knowledge.


edit: why does the cyclingnews swear-filter filter my "does a bear *** in the woods" question? wtf?

$h!t$h!t$h!t

 

[Maxiton]

Re: Re:

That's my name, don't wear it out .

I will raise you

ok, how about the "does a bear $h!t in the woods" question...

what about if we do not know the riders are using a motor, and they have hidden them well enough from the public and the administrators and commissaires?

is that ok?

I dont this pro sport is "sport" as a juvenile is socially engineered to understand sport qua sport.

entertainment sport is a consumption of viewership, and the viewer is antithetical to sport imo. Sport is about participation, a participation that involves competition and engagement.

professional 'sport' holds one value above all else, and maybe in isolation. professional 'sport' is about winning.

Sport involves both winners and losers. To know how to win, you must know how to lose also. Professional 'sport' does not accept such a knowledge.


edit: why does the cyclingnews swear-filter filter my "does a bear **** in the woods" question? wtf?

$h!t$h!t$h!t

Let's assume for a moment that Cancellara did have a motor in RVV and P-R in 2010. He had it "hidden well enough from the public and the administrators and commissaires". We all watched the race and had no clue. It raised an eyebrow or two, inevitably, but we all said, Wow, that is the most amazing, fantastic, exciting thing I've ever seen. I love this sport. Cancellara the Wattage Cottage. Etcetera.

Things could have continued like that, probably for quite some time. But somebody somewhere knew something, and word got out. Nobody wanted to believe it, but then your little parakeet friend was caught with an actual motor in her bike and now it can't be denied.

Now, in retrospect, those alien, seated accelerations from Froome and similar anorexics are cast in a whole new light. We can't go back to "hidden well enough".

 

[wrinklyvet]

Re: Re:

That's my name, don't wear it out .

I will raise you

ok, how about the "does a bear $h!t in the woods" question...

what about if we do not know the riders are using a motor, and they have hidden them well enough from the public and the administrators and commissaires?

is that ok?

I dont this pro sport is "sport" as a juvenile is socially engineered to understand sport qua sport.

entertainment sport is a consumption of viewership, and the viewer is antithetical to sport imo. Sport is about participation, a participation that involves competition and engagement.

professional 'sport' holds one value above all else, and maybe in isolation. professional 'sport' is about winning.

Sport involves both winners and losers. To know how to win, you must know how to lose also. Professional 'sport' does not accept such a knowledge.


edit: why does the cyclingnews swear-filter filter my "does a bear **** in the woods" question? wtf?

$h!t$h!t$h!t

Let's assume for a moment that Cancellara did have a motor in RVV and P-R in 2010. He had it "hidden well enough from the public and the administrators and commissaires". We all watched the race and had no clue. It raised an eyebrow or two, inevitably, but we all said, Wow, that is the most amazing, fantastic, exciting thing I've ever seen. I love this sport. Cancellara the Wattage Cottage. Etcetera.

Things could have continued like that, probably for quite some time. But somebody somewhere knew something, and word got out. Nobody wanted to believe it, but then your little parakeet friend was caught with an actual motor in her bike and now it can't be denied.

Now, in retrospect, those alien, seated accelerations from Froome and similar anorexics are cast in a whole new light. We can't go back to "hidden well enough".

I'm not sure why the "motors thing" is now in this thread am I am conscious it does not belong.

But suppose Froome gets his bike checked (and there's no opportunity for a swap) and then he goes on to ride a climb well and in his unusual seated twiddling fashion. At that point, do those who now attribute part of his success to motors say, "Sorry, our mistake, but it seemed possible." After all, you could then attribute the style to anything other than a motor.

As for Cancellara, I don't know, and it seems people should be even less sure by what means LeMond or any past riders achieved what they did. To me it feels wrong to be raking over the coals and pointing fingers when nobody can really say anything certain.

Then again, your knowledge may easily be greater than mine and the Clinic does operate at many levels of suspicion and conclusion forming.

 

[@NL_LeMondFans]

Re: LeMond

Lemond is (well) before my time. I was still climbing trees and playing with lego when he retired.
And I'm not too interested in athlete biographies.

Ok, I understand the tone of your posts a little better, now. Thanks for claryfying.

Before you push your investigations further, please keep in mind a few things :
-because it's new to you doesn't mean it was not investigated before. Having to justify things all over again is just painful, for some of us
-it also means most of us will not share your excitement.
-since you don't read biographies but you read interviews, let me remind you of one thing : these accounts of stories are old and often not totally accurate. Champions attach more importance to feelings and opinions than facts. It doesn't mean it's not interesting, it just means it has to be taken with a pinch of salt. Unlike you, they do not seek for "consistency".

Since you find the PDM story interesting, maybe you don't know this one : in 1986, when it became apparent many people were rooting for Hinault, Greg took the habit of putting his finger print in the wax seal they used for urine samples and took photographs of them, so that he could be sure it was indeed his urine being tested (for a b sample, for example) and not a fraudulous bottle. Not exactly the sort of thing you do when you're not clean. 1986 is also the year Greg was at his peak.

You criticized my analysis of the Vassivière time trial on the Indurain thread. Now consider this : while Indurain progressed by 6 minutes between 1990 (10th at GC) and 1995 (stage winner, 1st at GC). Greg actually regressed 40 seconds between 1985 (stage winner, 2nd at GC) and 1990 (1st at GC, using aero bars).

 

[Tonton]

Re: LeMond

Interesting point by blackcat:

Some blame money or fame (in our world of ultra media and sponsors/endorsements) as the incentive for the "win at all costs" mentality to prevail. But then, there were dopers and guys taking cars/trains when there was no money in cycling. Or track and fields.

The next argument goes down the dark path of prejudice and stereotypes: the Italian is a born-cheater, the American is greedy, the Russian ruthless, basically it's cultural. Well, that doesn't hold water either: good ol' honest vikings and noble Brits get busted all the time. The variation of this is to look at stats, and claim that there are twice as many doping cases per capita in one country versus another country. Usually, that's where Bulgarians (who dope old-school, like it was 1988) get a bad name .

Is it just human or even animal nature then? Looking at creatures that surround us, cats or birds try to look bigger when in a competitive situation. Lesser ranked cape buffaloes are known for taking advantage of an injury to a dominant male to beat him up and gain status. BTW, how many of us have never cheated, even in such trivial thing as a card game?

The difference, as noted, is the growing sophistication achieved by mankind that makes the playing filed more and more uneven. I don't see any solution besides the prevention-repression duo, rules that are enforced, and who gets caught receives harsh sanctions and public humiliation.

 

[@NL_LeMondFans]

Re: Re:

That's my name, don't wear it out .

I will raise you

ok, how about the "does a bear $h!t in the woods" question...

what about if we do not know the riders are using a motor, and they have hidden them well enough from the public and the administrators and commissaires?

is that ok?

I dont this pro sport is "sport" as a juvenile is socially engineered to understand sport qua sport.

entertainment sport is a consumption of viewership, and the viewer is antithetical to sport imo. Sport is about participation, a participation that involves competition and engagement.

professional 'sport' holds one value above all else, and maybe in isolation. professional 'sport' is about winning.

Sport involves both winners and losers. To know how to win, you must know how to lose also. Professional 'sport' does not accept such a knowledge.


edit: why does the cyclingnews swear-filter filter my "does a bear **** in the woods" question? wtf?

$h!t$h!t$h!t

Let's assume for a moment that Cancellara did have a motor in RVV and P-R in 2010. He had it "hidden well enough from the public and the administrators and commissaires". We all watched the race and had no clue. It raised an eyebrow or two, inevitably, but we all said, Wow, that is the most amazing, fantastic, exciting thing I've ever seen. I love this sport. Cancellara the Wattage Cottage. Etcetera.

Things could have continued like that, probably for quite some time. But somebody somewhere knew something, and word got out. Nobody wanted to believe it, but then your little parakeet friend was caught with an actual motor in her bike and now it can't be denied.

Now, in retrospect, those alien, seated accelerations from Froome and similar anorexics are cast in a whole new light. We can't go back to "hidden well enough".

About Cancellara, things were there for everyone to see but we didn't pay attention. I remember an article clearly showing :
-a rivet under the bottle cage that wasn't on any other bike from the team
-Cancellara was the only one of his team to use a wired power meter that day
-he switched bikes twice during RVV and, to my knowledge, never explained why

 

[djpbaltimore]

Re: Re:

Deja vu all over again. The continued attempt to link Greg Lemond's anemia to chronic kidney failure/ disease is very poor science. A person can have a normal healthy lifestyle with just 1 kidney. If Lemond had CKD during his cycling career, he would have had a kidney transplant by now. For perspective on the numbers, people start dialysis when they hit 15% function.

From page 171 of this thread.

here's a good concise website about (chronic) kidney failure, anemia and EPO.
http://www.niddk.nih.gov/health-information/health-topics/kidney-disease/anemia-in-kidney-disease-and-dialysis/Pages/facts.aspx
One thing that immediately stands out is the strong correlation between (chronic) kidney failure and anemia.
Bottom line: If you suffer from the former, the chances are high you will also suffer from the latter.
Now Lemond's official version is he had chronic kidney infections since the day he was born, and has been riding around with just one functional kidney ever since he was a kid.
So if you go from there... to give any sort of credibility to the story that in 1989, after at least two decades of being a kidney patient, Greg didn't know he had anemia and needed his soigneur to tell him... well, that's one way of completely discrediting all the doctors Greg has ever worked with since a child, including his parents for failing to inform him on some of the very basics of being a kidney patient.
It's ridiculous.

No offense, but I'm not sure your arguments about the biology of this add up. Having a single functional kidney does not equate to Chronic kidney disease. CKD as stated in the NIH website is 'the permanent, partial loss of kidney function'. In this case it would be below 20%. That figure alone suggests why it is doable to cycle professionally with only one kidney. Anemia is more associated with later stage kidney failure and I think we can safely rule that out. IMO, the anemia suffered by LeMond is likely to have another cause and is not some undiagnosed condition relating to his kidney issues as you seem to be alluding to. Of course, maybe he never had anemia. YMMV.

Part of the problem is gleaning medical information filtered through people like professional cyclists who probably only have a rudimentary understanding of it themselves. I would take that kind of information with a large grain of salt.

 

[@NL_LeMondFans]

Re: Re:

Deja vu all over again. The continued attempt to link Greg Lemond's anemia to chronic kidney failure/ disease is very poor science. A person can have a normal healthy lifestyle with just 1 kidney. If Lemond had CKD during his cycling career, he would have had a kidney transplant by now. For perspective on the numbers, people start dialysis when they hit 15% function.

From page 171 of this thread.

here's a good concise website about (chronic) kidney failure, anemia and EPO.
http://www.niddk.nih.gov/health-information/health-topics/kidney-disease/anemia-in-kidney-disease-and-dialysis/Pages/facts.aspx
One thing that immediately stands out is the strong correlation between (chronic) kidney failure and anemia.
Bottom line: If you suffer from the former, the chances are high you will also suffer from the latter.
Now Lemond's official version is he had chronic kidney infections since the day he was born, and has been riding around with just one functional kidney ever since he was a kid.
So if you go from there... to give any sort of credibility to the story that in 1989, after at least two decades of being a kidney patient, Greg didn't know he had anemia and needed his soigneur to tell him... well, that's one way of completely discrediting all the doctors Greg has ever worked with since a child, including his parents for failing to inform him on some of the very basics of being a kidney patient.
It's ridiculous.

No offense, but I'm not sure your arguments about the biology of this add up. Having a single functional kidney does not equate to Chronic kidney disease. CKD as stated in the NIH website is 'the permanent, partial loss of kidney function'. In this case it would be below 20%. That figure alone suggests why it is doable to cycle professionally with only one kidney. Anemia is more associated with later stage kidney failure and I think we can safely rule that out. IMO, the anemia suffered by LeMond is likely to have another cause and is not some undiagnosed condition relating to his kidney issues as you seem to be alluding to. Of course, maybe he never had anemia. YMMV.

Part of the problem is gleaning medical information filtered through people like professional cyclists who probably only have a rudimentary understanding of it themselves. I would take that kind of information with a large grain of salt.

Thank you!

That's the thing I forgot to add on my second to last post : one should not make conclusions on medical conditions if he/she is not competent.

If myopathy was easy to figure out, it would have been cured by now.

 

[Tonton]

Re: LeMond

Lemond is (well) before my time. I was still climbing trees and playing with lego when he retired.
And I'm not too interested in athlete biographies.

Ok, I understand the tone of your posts a little better, now. Thanks for claryfying.

Before you push your investigations further, please keep in mind a few things :
-because it's new to you doesn't mean it was not investigated before. Having to justify things all over again is just painful, for some of us
-it also means most of us will not share your excitement.
-since you don't read biographies but you read interviews, let me remind you of one thing : these accounts of stories are old and often not totally accurate. Champions attach more importance to feelings and opinions than facts. It doesn't mean it's not interesting, it just means it has to be taken with a pinch of salt. Unlike you, they do not seek for "consistency".

Since you find the PDM story interesting, maybe you don't know this one : in 1986, when it became apparent many people were rooting for Hinault, Greg took the habit of putting his finger print in the wax seal they used for urine samples and took photographs of them, so that he could be sure it was indeed his urine being tested (for a b sample, for example) and not a fraudulous bottle. Not exactly the sort of thing you do when you're not clean. 1986 is also the year Greg was at his peak.

You criticized my analysis of the Vassivière time trial on the Indurain thread. Now consider this : while Indurain progressed by 6 minutes between 1990 (10th at GC) and 1995 (stage winner, 1st at GC). Greg actually regressed 40 seconds between 1985 (stage winner, 2nd at GC) and 1990 (1st at GC, using aero bars).

To piggy-bag on this excellent post, and elaborate some, the mitochondria myopathy explanation didn't satisfy me at the time: it was clear after the Luxembourg ITT in '92 that something was fishy. The reactions/interviews at the time were also telling. Example - Fignon: "It was like being passed by a rocket, it was frightening, its not possible to go that fast, maybe he (Indurain) is an extra-terrestrial.” Greg lost twenty some seconds to Bugno, beat Roche by a few. So it's not like he under-performed. That day, he knew. And I think that the mitochondria myopathy justification always seemed to be a politically correct way to take a bow graciously, instead of screaming WTF! Not spitting in the soup. I don't know in his particular case if it lowered his performance by .01% or 5%. No way to tell.

And I know we disagree on that, but as much as I don't question LeMond being clean for the reasons explained in dozen of my posts (and yours), I will always question his character. Starting with Boyer in '82, when he pulled an Anquetil '66 WC. And had Armstrong not been an American and threatening his status as best US rider ever, I don't think that he would have opened up.