LeMond III

[blutto]

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.

.....to the bolded.....the point is what we are talking about is nothing close to normal....we are talking about someone who is claiming to be absolutely the greatest endurance athlete of all time....and he did this with only half the normal complement of kidneys....yeah that makes a lot of sense....

Cheers

 

[@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).

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.

It's true, we disagree on that ;-)
I'll just say that Greg did with Armstrong what he did last summer with the bike motor demonstration.

 

[Cannibal72]

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.

There is an explaination for 82, though. Before the WCs, the US team management declared that the highest-placed American would be named US champion and wear the national jersey for the next season. LeMond fiercely opposed it, they put it to a vote, Boyer was the deciding vote and went with the federation. LeMond thus said that it was every man for himself and he wouldn't be racing for the team, as long as the Americans were racing against each other in the race

 

[blutto]

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.

....to the bolded.....a couple of things....first, LeMond spent a lot of time and effort after his retirement involved with various mitochondria support groups, which is a little strange for someone just looking for a gracious bow out.....and secondly for someone so famously on top of all things pro cycling and a zealous fighter against doping it is very strange to just go off into the night at that particular time....

....yeah something is fishy here as you said, but maybe not what you have put forth, because your points are really not that persuasive...

Cheers

 

[@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).

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.

There is an explaination for 82, though. Before the WCs, the US team management declared that the highest-placed American would be named US champion and wear the national jersey for the next season. LeMond fiercely opposed it, they put it to a vote, Boyer was the deciding vote and went with the federation. LeMond thus said that it was every man for himself and he wouldn't be racing for the team, as long as the Americans were racing against each other in the race

I would add that this was originally Boyer's idea as he had chosen to wear the US jersey for the pictures of the Renault team presentation after placing rather well at the 1981 worlds in Prague.

 

[Tonton]

Re: LeMond

your points are really not that persuasive...

Cheers

It's my opinion. I'm not trying to persuade you or anybody. Now I reserve the right to call BS when I read it. I have my beefs with LeMond, but the doping stuff here is ridiculous. It reminds me of those shows on TV with a bunch of rednecks armed to the teeth (both of them), looking for Big Foot. Cheers.

 

[djpbaltimore]

Re: Re:

.....to the bolded.....the point is what we are talking about is nothing close to normal....we are talking about someone who is claiming to be absolutely the greatest endurance athlete of all time....and he did this with only half the normal complement of kidneys....yeah that makes a lot of sense....

Cheers

I can see your point on the surface, but physiology is not always additive. Aries Merritt won a bronze medal in the 110m hurdles four days before he had a kidney transplant. His kidney function was below 15% while he competed. Alonzo Mourning played in the NBA and Ivan Klasnic played in Euro 2008 with transplanted kidneys. There are enough glomeruli in one healthy kidney to filter the blood, even for a professional athlete. Lemond had less reserve capacity with a solitary kidney, but I don't think that he would be adversely affected on the bike.

 

[Maxiton]

Re: Re:

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.

I haven't paid enough attention to this statement. It's a matter of opinion, or a matter of taste, or a matter of philosophy, but personally I can totally see it.

If you find a practice (for instance, sleeping in a hyperbaric tent) or a substance that isn't banned, you are arguably within your rights to use it. Especially if you know your competitors are all cheating like a mofo.

Just as an aside, I have a question I hope someone can provide a definitive answer to. I know UCI is associated with IOC. When IOC bans a substance or a practice, is that ban immediately in effect at UCI?

 

[@NL_LeMondFans]

Re: Re:

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.

I haven't paid enough attention to this statement. It's a matter of opinion, or a matter of taste, or a matter of philosophy, but personally I can totally see it.

If you find a practice (for instance, sleeping in a hyperbaric tent) or a substance that isn't banned, you are arguably within your rights to use it. Especially if you know your competitors are all cheating like a mofo.

Just as an aside, I have a question I hope someone can provide a definitive answer to. I know UCI is associated with IOC. When IOC bans a substance or a practice, is that ban immediately in effect at UCI?

Couldn't tell for sure 100%. But I believe they chose to do this after the 1988 Pedro Delgado fiasco (his product was on the IOC list but not the UCI).

 

[sniper]

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. ...

I'm not denying anything you say here or on p. 173.
But it's not addressing my point.

My point is that
(a) There is a well known correlation between kidney falure and anemia. The exact nature of that correlation should not concern us here.
(b) Lemond - the first cycling millionaire and long-term kidney patient starting from childhood - would have had plenty of high-end medical care, starting in his days as a talented junior.
Therefore,
(c) the story that his soigneur had to inform Lemond - TdF winner with long-term kidney problems and high-end medical care - about anemia during the Giro 1989, just doesn't cut it.

Does this prove anything? Of course it doesn't. Is it a major inconsistency in the iron shot story? Yes it is.

p.s. The post you linked from p. 173, I replied to that on p. 174. Again, I'm not denying any of that, but it has little to do with the point i'm making here.

 

[blutto]

Re: Re:

.....to the bolded.....the point is what we are talking about is nothing close to normal....we are talking about someone who is claiming to be absolutely the greatest endurance athlete of all time....and he did this with only half the normal complement of kidneys....yeah that makes a lot of sense....

Cheers

I can see your point on the surface, but physiology is not always additive. Aries Merritt won a bronze medal in the 110m hurdles four days before he had a kidney transplant. His kidney function was below 15% while he competed. Alonzo Mourning played in the NBA and Ivan Klasnic played in Euro 2008 with transplanted kidneys. There are enough glomeruli in one healthy kidney to filter the blood, even for a professional athlete. Lemond had less reserve capacity with a solitary kidney, but I don't think that he would be adversely affected on the bike.

...but we aren't just talking just a professional athlete we are talking about the self proclaimed greatest endurance athlete of all time....the top of the heap, the best of the best and competing in what is arguably the most brutal workload sport in the world where waste management is of utmost imortance ....

Cheers

 

[@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. ...

I'm not denying anything you say here or on p. 173.
But it's not addressing my point.

My point is that
(a) There is a well known correlation between kidney falure and anemia. The exact nature of that correlation should not concern us here.
(b) Lemond - the first cycling millionaire and long-term kidney patient starting from childhood - would have had plenty of high-end medical care, starting in his days as a talented junior.
Therefore,
(c) the story that his soigneur had to inform Lemond - TdF winner with long-term kidney problems and high-end medical care - about anemia during the Giro 1989, just doesn't cut it.

Does this prove anything? Of course it doesn't. Is it a major inconsistency in the iron shot story? Yes it is.

p.s. The post you linked from p. 173, I replied to that on p. 174. Again, I'm not denying any of that, but it has little to do with the point i'm making here.

It's not a MAJOR inconsistency. If you have a condition that does not require a constant care and have it since childhood, you're likely to stop paying attention to it. Especially when it has not prevented you from winning the Tour already and you've had much more serious problems recently...

 

[sniper]

Re: LeMond

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

my 'tone' doesn't differ from the tone of my posts in any of the other threads. I'm skeptical of top performances in cycling, period.
The reaction I get to my posts in here does, however, significantly differ from the reaction I get (if any) in the other threads.
If any 'tone' can be identified, I'd argue it's in the nature of the responses, not in my questioning of Lemond.

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

The Dhaenens rumor hasn't been addressed in this thread ever before, except by me.
You still haven't addressed it, to my knowledge. The fact that you ignore or dislike the rumor, doesn't mean it's not new.

I also couldn't find a reference in this thread to the Freddy Sergeant rumor.
New, maybe?

The inconsistencies in his iron shot story: again, discussed nowhere in this thread.
I could go on.
It's hilarious that you keep claiming there's nothing new to discuss.

Then there is the general discussion about how to weigh different evidence, the question being: why does Lemond get a pass, when Evans, Wiggins, Indurain, Cancellara, and others do not? What is the weight of the rumors we have on Lemond when compared to the rumors we have on those guys?
Personally I find that an intriguing question, interesting enough to let it play its course.

I would love your input on the above issues. You are a good and knowledgeable thinker.
We've seen with Cancellara: when rumors emerge in the peloton, there is often something to it.
And I know you too think Cancellara used a motor.

-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".

this is a very nice point. I don't argue with this.

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.

Interesting anecdote, definitely, but it does little to discard blood manipulation, which, considering (a) the Eddie B. link, (b) the particular era Lemond rode in, (c) the nature of the sport he participated in, (d) his particularly high level of performance within that sport, and (e) the kidney/iron shot story, is where we should focus our attention.

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).

Your point on Mig is perfectly valid.
For Greg, I want to know how much he progressed (a) under Eddie B. and (b) in between the start of the Giro 89 and the TdF 89.
And regardless, his lack of progression between 85 and 90 shows he was steady. It doesn't show he didn't dope.
As I argued with Gillan the other day: "bad and steady" is always more likely to be clean than "(incredibly) good and steady".
As was pointed out above, at this point, we don't even know if it's at all possible to finish the TdF without some sort of PEDs, let alone to win it three times.

 

[Maxiton]

Re: Re:

Couldn't tell for sure 100%. But I believe they chose to do this after the 1988 Pedro Delgado fiasco (his product was on the IOC list but not the UCI).

Okay, thanks for that. I just checked and it looks like the IOC and UCI prohibited lists were consolidated in 1990.

Here's another question I hope someone can answer: when did UCI ban blood transfusions?

 

[sniper]

Re: Re:

...It's not a MAJOR inconsistency. If you have a condition that does not require a constant care and have it since childhood, you're likely to stop paying attention to it. Especially when it has not prevented you from winning the Tour already and you've had much more serious problems recently...

you're making two totally unnecessary assumptions here.

Bottomline: If, as he says, he had a significant kidney disorder (added to his shot incident where his kidney(s) got damaged, and added to the fact that he no doubt had plenty of high-end medical care during his carreer), you just can't keep a straight face and believe his soigneur had to tell him about anemia in 1989.
That's 8 years into his procarreer.
And two decades living with a kidney disorder.

From where I'm standing, there seems to be something wrong, either with the childhood kidney disorder story, or with the soigneur/anemia story.

 

[Maxiton]

Well, this is interesting. UCI and IOC supposedly consolidated their prohibitions lists in 1990. Yet, according to this history of blood-doping, IOC banned EPO in 1990, but UCI waited until sometime after the Vuelta in 1991 to ban EPO.

So UCI banned EPO sometime after May 19, 1991. Still trying to find out when UCI banned autologous blood transfusion.

 

[sniper]

Re:

Well, this is interesting. UCI and IOC supposedly consolidated their prohibitions lists in 1990. Yet, according to this history of blood-doping, IOC banned EPO in 1990, but UCI waited until sometime after the Vuelta in 1991 to ban EPO.

So UCI banned EPO sometime after May 19, 1991.

very interesting indeed.

Still trying to find out when UCI banned autologous blood transfusion.

I didn't find the answer, but looking for it I stumbled upon this:

Joop Zoetemelk in the 1979 Tour de France.

Zoetemelk had crashed out of the 1974 Midi-Libre race and since then had been suffering from anaemia. As a way of ameliorating the effects of Zoetemelk's anaemia, in 1976 his doctor, Henri Fucs, prescribed transfusions of red blood cells. By the following year's Tour Zoetemelk's anaemia was cured and, before the 1977 race, at the pre-Tour medical control, he declared he wouldn't be using transfusions again. In essence Zoetemelk – who was something of a repeat offender when it came to getting busted by the dope controllers, particularly at the Tour (1977, 1978, 1979 and 1983) – was saying that his transfusions were not performance enhancing but were merely therapeutic and properly prescribed by a competent practitioner. He was just re-balancing his system.

http://www.cyclingnews.com/features/a-history-on-the-use-of-blood-transfusions-in-cycling/

I'll be damned

 

[@NL_LeMondFans]

Ok. I'm on my phone right now so copy/paste is out of the question. Sorry about that.

Snifer, I'm not on these boards on a regular basis and not monitoring your or anyone's tone. I was surprised by your candid attitude (I mean it in the most respectful way). Now I get it, no problem.

About Dhaenens : yes, I have adressed it but I'm not sure it meant your approval. I said here, at least twice, that I believe that "LeMond is on EPO" was probably the main incentive for team managers to get their riders to agree on taking a (at the time) lethal drug. Hence I'm not paying attention to it.

The Freddy Sergeant rumour : I don't remember which one it was, sorry.

Inconsistencies in iron shot stories : when he's telling a story, he's trying to tell you something, not doing a forensics report. I've heard him telling the story of the 1985 climb of Luz Ardiden. On time Hinault is 3' behind, another time it's 5'. Bottom line : Hinault was pretty far. Period. What you interpret as a fabricated lie, I interpret as one more story.

Why do people give Greg a pass ? Well, maybe they just like the guy because, in truth, he is very likable. I dare you to meet him and not like him. As simple as that. Also because maybe people (I'm one of them) think his story adds up. Take Tonton, for instance, he feels Greg felt threatened by other US riders. My point of view is that Greg to Boyer the same thing he did to Moreno Argentin. He did for Armstrong the same thing he did for motor doping. When he sees BS, he calls BS.

Eddie B : I lack knowledge on this but I find your question really strange. If you have your calendar straight, Greg was with him between ages 15 and 17. I don't know about you but I have changed an awful lot at that age. You change categories, switch bikes too... Now, if you want to believe Greg started blood doping at that age... Who am I to make you change your mind ? It's your right.

When I compare Indurain's data, I take Indurain at a peak in 1990 and Indurain at another peak in 1995. It's five years apart but he is at his peak.
When Greg entered the Giro he was at his lowest. He wasn't very good physically and he was in a very bad place psychologically. Mid way through the Giro he thought about giving up cycling. When he got the iron shots, he made a challenge with himself : test himself in the last ITT of the Giro to see if he should call it quits or not. Frankly, to this day I am convinced the iron shots almost worked as a placebo effect : he needed to know his problem had been found and maybe he could be back to his former self.

To this I add the "Greg" factor. I think I am starting to know him and, if he is definitely not the "beagle" that was described earlier, he's not the kind of guy who would fake being who he is : a nice guy.

None of this will convince you but you asked where I stood. This is where I stand. I can't say for sure he didn't dope. I believe he didn't. But I don't really care. What I do care about is seeing him questioned for what is merely a list of rumours, at worst, and misinterpretations, at best. After what he's been through, I think he deserves more than that.

Would you dare question him like you do if you stood in front of him ? The Eddie B nonsense ? The iron shots/kidney inconsistencies ? You talk about keeping a straight face. What would be yours facing Greg LeMond with those questions ?

 

[Maxiton]

Re:

To this I add the "Greg" factor. I think I am starting to know him and, if he is definitely not the "beagle" that was described earlier, he's not the kind of guy who would fake being who he is : a nice guy.

Just so that you know, when I described him as "brain of a beagle and body of a greyhound", I didn't necessarily mean it as a putdown. If I'm not mistaken, beagles are used for as bloodhounds for tracking. They are extraordinarily friendly, good-natured dogs, which makes them easy to work with, but what really sets them apart for tracking is their intense focus and tenacity. They will follow their nose until they drop, or until they get what they are after, whichever comes first. I have a pretty good feeling this describes Greg LeMond at least in part. (And besides all that, I like the alliteration of it )

 

[sniper]

Re:

Snifer, I'm not on these boards on a regular basis and not monitoring your or anyone's tone. I was surprised by your candid attitude (I mean it in the most respectful way). Now I get it, no problem.

thanks, appreciate the clarification.

About Dhaenens : yes, I have adressed it but I'm not sure it meant your approval. I said here, at least twice, that I believe that "LeMond is on EPO" was probably the main incentive for team managers to get their riders to agree on taking a (at the time) lethal drug.

it's not a bad theory, certainly a possibility.

The Freddy Sergeant rumour : I don't remember which one it was, sorry.

ok, never mind, this is secondary for now.

Inconsistencies in iron shot stories : when he's telling a story, he's trying to tell you something, not doing a forensics report. I've heard him telling the story of the 1985 climb of Luz Ardiden. On time Hinault is 3' behind, another time it's 5'. Bottom line : Hinault was pretty far. Period. What you interpret as a fabricated lie, I interpret as one more story.

For now I'll just call it an inconsistency.

Why do people give Greg a pass ? Well, maybe they just like the guy because, in truth, he is very likable. I dare you to meet him and not like him. As simple as that.

I liked Riis, I liked Lance at some point and am starting to like him again, I definitely like Lemond alot, I like Contador. Not a fan of Mig. etc.
Just saying, the like factor is (or should be) irrelevant here.

Also because maybe people (I'm one of them) think his story adds up.

fair enough.

Eddie B : I lack knowledge on this but I find your question really strange. If you have your calendar straight, Greg was with him between ages 15 and 17. I don't know about you but I have changed an awful lot at that age. You change categories, switch bikes too... Now, if you want to believe Greg started blood doping at that age... Who am I to make you change your mind ? It's your right.

I don't "want to believe" that at all. I merely want to keep an open mind to that possibility.

None of this will convince you but you asked where I stood. This is where I stand. I can't say for sure he didn't dope.

fair enough, and again, thanks for clarifying.

But I don't really care.

Are you sure? In private life I don't care about it either, and it won't change my view on Lemond. But there is a deeper relevance to the question. It's mainly about knowing what is possible on a bike without doping. I think that is a fascinating question, and the curious case of Lemond could be at the heart of it.

Would you dare question him like you do if you stood in front of him ? The Eddie B nonsense ? The iron shots/kidney inconsistencies ? You talk about keeping a straight face. What would be yours facing Greg LeMond with those questions ?

A pity you finish an otherwise excellent post with this.
It's not a pissing contest. It's not any kind of test. It's just a discussion.

 

[djpbaltimore]

Re: Re:

I'm not denying anything you say here or on p. 173.
But it's not addressing my point.

My point is that
(a) There is a well known correlation between kidney falure and anemia. The exact nature of that correlation should not concern us here.
(b) Lemond - the first cycling millionaire and long-term kidney patient starting from childhood - would have had plenty of high-end medical care, starting in his days as a talented junior.
Therefore,
(c) the story that his soigneur had to inform Lemond - TdF winner with long-term kidney problems and high-end medical care - about anemia during the Giro 1989, just doesn't cut it.

Does this prove anything? Of course it doesn't. Is it a major inconsistency in the iron shot story? Yes it is.

p.s. The post you linked from p. 173, I replied to that on p. 174. Again, I'm not denying any of that, but it has little to do with the point i'm making here.

Of course the correlation should concern us. The kidney makes EPO. When the kidneys fail, less EPO is produced by the body. Pretty simple.

Having one kidney does not equate to having anemia, and does not equate to people being hyper aware of developing anemia. Many people walk around this world with one kidney (incidence is 1 in every 1000 new births) and aren't even aware of the fact because there are no overt symptoms if the one kidney is fully functional. There is no reason that Lemond would be routinely monitored for anemia because of his condition. That would only be the case if he had CKD (which he did not). You are conflating two separate medical situations. I saw your response from then, but you still repeated almost verbatim the same poor argument today, so I thought it was time for a reminder.

 

[djpbaltimore]

Re: Re:

...but we aren't just talking just a professional athlete we are talking about the self proclaimed greatest endurance athlete of all time....the top of the heap, the best of the best and competing in what is arguably the most brutal workload sport in the world where waste management is of utmost imortance ....

Cheers

I don't think it matters what Lemond proclaims himself to be. I'm just stating a general opinion that I don't think that having two kidneys is that much better than having one due to the nature of the kidney's anatomy.

 

[sniper]

Re: Re:

...
Of course the correlation should concern us. The kidney makes EPO. When the kidneys fail, less EPO is produced by the body. Pretty simple.

Having one kidney does not equate to having anemia, and does not equate to people being hyper aware of developing anemia. Many people walk around this world with one kidney (incidence is 1 in every 1000 new births) and aren't even aware of the fact because there are no overt symptoms if the one kidney is fully functional. There is no reason that Lemond would be routinely monitored for anemia because of his condition. That would only be the case if he had CKD (which he did not). You are conflating two separate medical situations. I saw your response from then, but you still repeated almost verbatim the same poor argument today, so I thought it was time for a reminder.

Not sure what your point. There is a correlation. All I said. Pretty simple indeed. And there was a correlation in the case of Lemond, which is what interests us here.

Regardless, with the shooting incident that damaged his kidney, the kidney problems from childhood on (whatever the exact nature), and with all the medical care of the world's nr1 professional cyclist at his disposal, you don't think it's farfetched that his soigneur had to inform him about possible anemia in 89?
if not, fair enough, we're gonna have to agree to disagree.

 

[Maxiton]

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.

• Greed and vanity
  
  Ethnic and national characteristics
  
  Human nature

So you basically run through every lazy-thinking cliche in the book and finally settle for the last one, human nature. Well, it's just human nature, honey. I think it's a bit more complex than that, but also easier to fix.

I think the vast majority of people are born honest and would prefer to stay that way. Obviously rules are needed and so is their consistent enforcement. But a regime of "harsh sanctions and public humiliation" on the individual rider is what we have now.

From the moment a rider enters the peloton, here is what he is up against, either implicitly or made explicit, if he is resistant to "preparation":

You're a professional. I pay these soigneurs/doctors good money to help you, the rider. I pay you, mister rider, to follow orders or get a result. You refuse the help I pay the soigneurs/doctors for, and as a result you can't follow orders or get a result. I don't need that. If you can't get a result or follow orders, I'll get a rider who can. And if you refuse the help I pay for I don't feel sorry for you.

Now that narrative has maybe changed somewhat in recent years, with riders left more to their own devices. I don't really know for sure but it doesn't matter because it's the same thing either way.

When the rider gets popped, either because he made a mistake or just because UCI needs a sacrificial lamb, he is expected to take the rap and limit his comments to:

I don't know what happened. There must be some mistake. I did it all by myself, no one else was involved. I'm the one who made the mistake. I'm sorry.

Obviously the problem is not to be found with the individual rider, nor will it be solved there. To solve the problem start at the other end, with the governing body and the big race organizers and the sponsors. Nothing else will do.

 

[djpbaltimore]

Re: Re:

Not sure what your point. There is a correlation. All I said. Pretty simple indeed. And there was a correlation in the case of Lemond, which is what interests us here.

Regardless, with the shooting incident that damaged his kidney, the kidney problems from childhood on (whatever the exact nature), and with all the medical care of the world's nr1 professional cyclist at his disposal, you don't think it's farfetched that his soigneur had to inform him about possible anemia in 89?
if not, fair enough, we're gonna have to agree to disagree.

Aye-yi-yi. The point is that there is no correlation unless he had CKD. The link between the kidney and anemia is not present in people with a single kidney, only with those who have failing kidneys. Sufficient EPO can be produced from a single kidney if it is healthy.

Would it surprise me if the story about the soigneur was (at least partially) apocryphal? No, it would not. But trying to use science about a disease that he did not have as evidence to prove your argument is wide of the mark in this case for the reasons that I have repeatedly stated.