LeMond III

[blutto]

Re: Re:

at this point i can only see that your obsession with 'lemond possibly doping' and others seeing it otherwise is the only driver for the thread. as i said, to me it produced very little to change or acquire an opinion. and i consider myself open-minded on the issue. as to glen, you called it a problem, i only tried to figure where the guy stands.

What else are we going to talk about in the Clinic?
Pretty much everyone here agrees that every elite level athlete in every sport except for darts uses some form of PED's.
Lemond is the final frontier.

...unfortunately wrong on that one....beta blockers are their "saviour" of choice....heck even snooker champions and curlers have been nailed for something untoward....its a wild world out there...

Cheers

 

[sniper]

Re: Re:

...
Except who was it that brought the Testa rumour to public attention? Erm, Greg LeMond.

So you are more or less arguing that nothing from LeMonds mouth should be believed...........except for that Testa rumour of course.

Does anyone else see the futility of this.

stop making stuff up about me, thanks

 

[sniper]

so now everybody's having fun except python.
agreed, good reason to close the thread.
poor python.

 

[gillan1969]

Has Testa ever repeated this claim about Lemond?

 

[python]

Re:

so now everybody's having fun except python.
agreed, good reason to close the thread.
poor python.

you get it upside down...pointing out that your obsession with lemond doping produced little but a self congratulatory attitude is not having or lacking fun, it is more like substituting real sex with you know what . it is hard to avoid the allusion given the number of posts you wasted on proving a hearsay (at best) is a real thing. i usually avoided ganging up on you when your peculiar obsessions lead other to ridicule you. thought a person just likes to argue. will take a note from now on.

 

[sniper]

Re: Re:

so now everybody's having fun except python.
agreed, good reason to close the thread.
poor python.

you get it upside down...pointing out that your obsession with lemond doping produced little but a self congratulatory attitude is not having or lacking fun, it is more like substituting real sex with you know what . it is hard to avoid the allusion given the number of posts you wasted on proving a hearsay (at best) is a real thing. i usually avoided ganging up on you when your peculiar obsessions lead other to ridicule you. thought a person just likes to argue. will take a note from now on.

lighten up and stop clogging the thread.
post not poster, etc.

 

[python]

clearly, you need to heed your own advice - post, not a poster.

so now everybody's having fun except python.
agreed, good reason to close the thread.
poor python.

perhaps then, there would be no need to whine...

 

[Benotti69]

Re: Re:

I think, certainly my problem with sniper's proposition (and your support of it), and what underpins MIs thoughtful response to the thread is that to be such an industrial doper from an early early age would leave, for Lemond, an audit trail or footprint across decades and continents..

the sparse joining of dots doesn't, in my mind cut it...8 rumours we have...not even witness accounts, rumours and some of those rumours of rumours

I can buy that blood doping was going on and might be responsible for some stand out performances in the 80's e.g. Coe's 800m WR (which is still up there despite all the gains marginal or otherwise subsequently)...and Moser's hour. But for the level of consistency across one day races, tour's and GTs across the years I find again difficult to believe.

And as alluded to by MI above, if the haphazard manner in which Eddie B oversaw the blood doping on home soil where it should have been so easy (he had been doing it for at least a decade apparently) I find it hard to believe the Lemond 'entourage' was able to do better in their 'campervan' travelling across Europe.....

which of course they must have been to get the results he was....

Plenty of riders doped from Junior to the end of their careers and we are fortunate to hear of 1 episode in their doping!

Jens Voight never tested positive in a long long career for a cyclist. Plenty like Jens.

LeMond kept his mouth firmly shut about doping going on around him when riding and even when Kimmage put his head above the parapet i don't remember LeMond wading in behind him and supporting him especially when Roche attacked Kimmage.

A lot of people had no problem with rampant doping before EPO. I think it's also due to how deeply it shifted cycling from its axis. I don't know about you but LeMond or not, by 1993 I couldn't root for anyone. I couldn't believe what I was seeing. I couldn't relate to pro cycling anymore.

Also, I have followed cycling all throughout the 80's and, in France at least, Kimmage's story was not that big of a deal. There was tension in France in 1982 when Hinault refused a test at a criterium and then the Delgado affair went big in 88 (there was also Ben Johnson at the same time), but that's pretty much it. I'm not saying it was ok not to say anything but the world was not the same, at least from the outside.

At the time, did anyone support Kimmage ? Does that make them all dopers ? Same with Bassons. I'm pretty sure there were other clean riders but they kept their mouths shut.

Kimmage's story was not a big deal because it was viewed as part of the culture.

LeMond was a boss in the peloton when Kimmage talked about doping. Clean riders, if any, keeping their mouths shut was and still is part of the problem.

Doping was not just Hinault refusing a test and Delgado in 88. Kelly tested positive and i am sure lots did but UCI swept it under carpets or like Kelly a 3 month ban. Hell Merckx who got retired in what '75/'76 tested positive 3 times prior to Hinault's refusal. Doping was common knowledge and an accepted part of the sport. Only a few refused to partake. Kimmage even partook, that strong headed guy succumbed to the culture.

So given this culture, how did LeMond avoid it and why did he really only talk out about Armstrong?

By the way, Mick Rogers getting a job after retirement shows that this sport has not changed. Far from it. Dopers present and past are fully embraced as long as they did not spit in the soup.

 

[sniper]

Re: Re:

Kimmage's story was not a big deal because it was viewed as part of the culture.

LeMond was a boss in the peloton when Kimmage talked about doping. Clean riders, if any, keeping their mouths shut was and still is part of the problem.

Doping was not just Hinault refusing a test and Delgado in 88. Kelly tested positive and i am sure lots did but UCI swept it under carpets or like Kelly a 3 month ban. Hell Merckx who got retired in what '75/'76 tested positive 3 times prior to Hinault's refusal. Doping was common knowledge and an accepted part of the sport. Only a few refused to partake. Kimmage even partook, that strong headed guy succumbed to the culture.

So given this culture, how did LeMond avoid it and why did he really only talk out about Armstrong?

By the way, Mick Rogers getting a job after retirement shows that this sport has not changed. Far from it. Dopers present and past are fully embraced as long as they did not spit in the soup.

Here's a nice anecdote from Les Earnest about rigged ped testing at the Coors Classic, a race won by Lemond in 1981 and 1985:

As I eventually figured out, no riders could have tested positive at the Coors race before 1983, even though drug testing was required by international regulations. I had started officiating there in 1978 when this race was still called the Red Zinger. There was a great show made of medical control in the Red Zinger/Coors. Top finishers and a few other riders selected at random in each race had to provide urine specimens under the surveillance of a race official. I found it remarkable that no one ever tested positive, given that there are many non-prescription drugs that contain prohibited substances. In fact, after a couple of years of this, I asked UCI International Commissaire Artie Greenberg how the riders managed to keep so clean. His reply was, “Don't ask.”

Of course, I immediately became more inquisitive and eventually learned that the promoter was unwilling or unable to pay for lab tests. Instead, after urine samples were collected, they were carefully flushed down the nearest toilet. While the “toilet test” was a great waste of time for all involved, it helped keep up the pretense that this was a “clean race” and probably deterred some riders who didn't know about the testing procedures.

One rider managed to get suspended for failing the “toilet test.” This happened to Australian Phil Anderson in 1978 in Vail when he was distracted by a young lady's invitation to visit her place just after he won the race and somehow didn't return to take the test. As near as I can tell, the toilet test continued to be used at the Coors race through 1982. Real testing was carried out for at least some stages beginning in 1983, when rider Mike King of Ohio got caught for ingesting ephedrine.
http://web.stanford.edu/~learnest/cyclops/grewal.htm

Lemond won it in 1981 (and 85).
Never a beep from Lemond about the rigged testing.

 

[Merckx index]

Re: Re:

Doping was not just Hinault refusing a test and Delgado in 88. Kelly tested positive and i am sure lots did but UCI swept it under carpets or like Kelly a 3 month ban. Hell Merckx who got retired in what '75/'76 tested positive 3 times prior to Hinault's refusal. Doping was common knowledge and an accepted part of the sport. Only a few refused to partake. Kimmage even partook, that strong headed guy succumbed to the culture.

So given this culture, how did LeMond avoid it and why did he really only talk out about Armstrong?

In a discussion of Lemond, we need to distinguish between:

a) he was taking steroids and other substances well known in his time
b) he tried blood transfusion at some point
c) he was regularly transfusing, and depended on that for his major results

Some of us can understand suspicion centering around a), and possibly even b), while balking at c). And my objection to c) really turns Sniper’s argument against him. Sniper wants to apply the default argument—essentially all riders dope—to Lemond. But the evidence that I’ve seen does not support the conclusion that riders regularly transfused during Lemond’s prime. This is the default position, the one that needs evidence to overturn. We have the Olympics and Moser in 1984, and PDM in 1988, and that’s about it. Sure, there could easily be other incidences that escaped attention, but if riders were regularly transfusing—if GT contenders were bringing blood bags to the rest days—wouldn’t there be some evidence for this by now? Not to mention, as I keep emphasizing, that EPO should not have affected the best power values that much.

If transfusions were well known, and such a game-changer, why weren’t they in more general use? I’d guess it was logistics coupled with some uncertainty about how well they worked. When transfusing became widespread in the early part of this century, it was driven by the need to find a substitute for EPO. The EPO era had made it clear to everyone that blood boosting could be spectacularly successful, so there was enormous motivation to solve the logistical problems with preparing, storing, transporting and using blood. The attitude must have been, we’ll find a way, because we know it really works. A good example of this is the poor man’s autologous program, where riders would withdraw blood beginning in the postseason, store it, than withdraw/transfuse regularly throughout the racing season, so that they never had to store blood more than a few weeks before transfusing it.

Contrast that with the 1980s. Riders may have heard about the benefits of transfusion, but if they were going to use their own blood, they would have to endure a period following withdrawal when they couldn’t race or train very well. So maybe some riders tried it once in a while, but not regularly. A rider with good resources might have been able to separate cells from plasma for long term frozen storage, and in this manner avoided having to withdraw during the racing season, but as I pointed out before, it’s unlikely that even in this case would he prepare more than a few bags. In theory, he might have enough blood for one GT. I rather doubt he would have enough for two GTs, let alone for any one day races or shorter stage races. (In fact, as an interesting aside, it occurs to me that one reason why LA, unlike his predecessors, focused mainly on the TDF, is because blood transfusions wouldn’t have allowed him to compete in multiple races. I know that was not the only reason, he understood that Americans only paid attention to the TDF, but after his second win in 2000, EPO became problematic, and his team soon switched to transfusion. And conversely, to speculate even more, maybe the reason doing a GT double is a little more talked about today is because the passport limits how much blood a rider dares transfuse. Thus blood withdrawn and frozen during the off-season can supply more races than it could before.)

OTOH, if riders of the 80s used someone else’s blood, there was the problem of finding a compatible donor, and acquiring the blood when they needed it. Again, it’s easy enough to see this happening from time to time, it’s harder to see it as a reliable method for riding throughout the season.

 

[sniper]

Re: Re:

Doping was not just Hinault refusing a test and Delgado in 88. Kelly tested positive and i am sure lots did but UCI swept it under carpets or like Kelly a 3 month ban. Hell Merckx who got retired in what '75/'76 tested positive 3 times prior to Hinault's refusal. Doping was common knowledge and an accepted part of the sport. Only a few refused to partake. Kimmage even partook, that strong headed guy succumbed to the culture.

So given this culture, how did LeMond avoid it and why did he really only talk out about Armstrong?

In a discussion of Lemond, we need to distinguish between:

a) he was taking steroids and other substances well known in his time
b) he tried blood transfusion at some point
c) he was regularly transfusing, and depended on that for his major results

Some of us can understand suspicion centering around a), and possibly even b), while balking at c). And my objection to c) really turns Sniper’s argument against him. Sniper wants to apply the default argument—essentially all riders dope—to Lemond. But the evidence that I’ve seen does not support the conclusion that riders regularly transfused during Lemond’s prime. This is the default position, the one that needs evidence to overturn.

Does it?

All I (or those who think he blood doped) need to do is make something of a plausible case that he had the means and know-how to boost his blood. With Dardik, Hagerman, Eddie B., and Ed Burke in his entourage (even disregading his wife, a nursing student, and his father-in-law, an immunologist), the conclusion is simples: yes he had the means and the know-how. Which doesn't prove he did it, of course. But as I said many times, I'm not invested in proving he did.
For Sastre, Wiggins, Froome, and Evans, likewise, there is no need to *prove* they doped for us to be convinced they did/do indeed dope.

In my view, if there was anybody in the peloton of the 80s who could have overcome the alleged logistic challenges of blood doping during GTs, it was Lemond (and a handful of others). He had the means. He had the entourage. I don't know if he ever did transfuse during GTs. And I'm not sure how much it matters. Important is that he could have.

You no doubt remember, with Lance (before exposure), too, we'd often get stuck on the *how*/*when*/*where's the evidence*, etc. It didn't mean Lance didn't dope.
Or take Cancellara's motor: many initially alleged it would have been logistically impossible for him to get away with. But the ppinions have changed rapidly on that since Femke got busted.

Also note that there were different methods to boost blood at the time Lemond rode. You're really underestimating the advancements made in that area, starting in the 1940s.
And guys like Dardik, Ariel, Hagerman and Costill were right on top of those advancements, witness their publications, scientific collaborations, public statements, trips to doping centers, etc.

On a side, I read somewhere that even steroids could be used to stimulate red blood cell production. That might be incorrect, but it just goes to show: while the *how* of blood doping in the 80s is certainly a fascinating question, I don't think we should get stuck on it in this thread.

In my view, Greg (like few others) clearly had the means to boost his blood, also for GTs. Whether he actually did boost his blood during GTs, and if so, *how*, remains an exciting question, one that we'll be unlikely to get to the bottom of.

What we could do is open a new thread about that, with a focus on GTs.
I proposed it many times. I won't do it myself though, because I'll doubtlessly get accused of pushing an agenda.
We could even use your post as a starting point. You provide some excellent leads.
And from what I've been reading, and with the utmost respect, I do get the sense that fmk-rol's excellent piece on the history of blood doping in cycling was just scratching the surface.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Re: Re:

Basically what we have here is called 2nd hand info. Sometimes even 3rd hand but in this instance I want to believe it is 2nd hand. In the legal realm they call it hearsay. Here in the clinic which is not a court of any type and dang sure is not a place where the truth and nothing but the whole truth is posted, it seems good enough to either take his word for it or to discount it. In my opinion I will go along and believe for now. I'm expecting to see a upcoming SI article and also to see Floyd over the pond for the TDF.

We can get along like this or we can basically go for pages and pages where folks ask for him or her to provide links and other proof. Why? I really don't think it is that hard for us to move along and either discuss or not.

But the context of the claim is important. Recently, you challenged someone on the $300K Armstrong bounty under similar circumstances.

viewtopic.php?p=1923932#p1923932

Just cathing up from a good evening of party.

Yes I did say hey were is the proof. I should have put a sarcastic smiley after it. I think it was clear I was just being sarcastic in doing what you guys were doing.

Anyhow the 300k might be true or it could be just a rumor. I think it was Greg who said it first, I could be wrong.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Re:

i've been reading the thread from time to time, as well as its previous versions...

the only conclusive conclusion i can see is that it contributed to the highest number of the least likely (in my interpretation) bans of the otherwise content-adding members. the hammer fell on both sides, but lately it was clearly not sparing the lemond supporters...

in that regard, i am frank, i have 2 questions.

what exactly did continuing the discussion achieve (given the previous thread lockouts) in terms of advancing the factual basis that lemond may have/may have not doped ? i mean something hard, tangible that would produce an effect contrary to the public knowledge of lemond never failing a test or being suspected by his teammates ?

the 2nd Q is about glen's position...i am genuinely confused. i recall (the doubters should prove me wrong by a search on his posts) glen referring to himself as one of greg's sympathizers. 'i own his bike etc..' i am being careful NOT calling him a greg fan, b/c i don't recall he said so. almost a fan ? then now i am reading a bunch of posts that i'd describe as 'neutral' leaning on doubting lemond. either position is can have the validity, but his is the only one that i read as somewhat artificially ambiguous...as if to leave a backdoor to a reversal...

what am i missing ? why is this thread still going ?

I was and still to a point a fan of Greg's. Just not to the extent of where I was before.

If that is some plot to cause trouble then I will refrain from posting in this thread anymore.

 

[Benotti69]

Re: Re:

Doping was not just Hinault refusing a test and Delgado in 88. Kelly tested positive and i am sure lots did but UCI swept it under carpets or like Kelly a 3 month ban. Hell Merckx who got retired in what '75/'76 tested positive 3 times prior to Hinault's refusal. Doping was common knowledge and an accepted part of the sport. Only a few refused to partake. Kimmage even partook, that strong headed guy succumbed to the culture.

So given this culture, how did LeMond avoid it and why did he really only talk out about Armstrong?

In a discussion of Lemond, we need to distinguish between:

a) he was taking steroids and other substances well known in his time
b) he tried blood transfusion at some point
c) he was regularly transfusing, and depended on that for his major results

Some of us can understand suspicion centering around a), and possibly even b), while balking at c). And my objection to c) really turns Sniper’s argument against him. Sniper wants to apply the default argument—essentially all riders dope—to Lemond. But the evidence that I’ve seen does not support the conclusion that riders regularly transfused during Lemond’s prime. This is the default position, the one that needs evidence to overturn. We have the Olympics and Moser in 1984, and PDM in 1988, and that’s about it. Sure, there could easily be other incidences that escaped attention, but if riders were regularly transfusing—if GT contenders were bringing blood bags to the rest days—wouldn’t there be some evidence for this by now? Not to mention, as I keep emphasizing, that EPO should not have affected the best power values that much.

If transfusions were well known, and such a game-changer, why weren’t they in more general use? I’d guess it was logistics coupled with some uncertainty about how well they worked. When transfusing became widespread in the early part of this century, it was driven by the need to find a substitute for EPO. The EPO era had made it clear to everyone that blood boosting could be spectacularly successful, so there was enormous motivation to solve the logistical problems with preparing, storing, transporting and using blood. The attitude must have been, we’ll find a way, because we know it really works. A good example of this is the poor man’s autologous program, where riders would withdraw blood beginning in the postseason, store it, than withdraw/transfuse regularly throughout the racing season, so that they never had to store blood more than a few weeks before transfusing it.

Contrast that with the 1980s. Riders may have heard about the benefits of transfusion, but if they were going to use their own blood, they would have to endure a period following withdrawal when they couldn’t race or train very well. So maybe some riders tried it once in a while, but not regularly. A rider with good resources might have been able to separate cells from plasma for long term frozen storage, and in this manner avoided having to withdraw during the racing season, but as I pointed out before, it’s unlikely that even in this case would he prepare more than a few bags. In theory, he might have enough blood for one GT. I rather doubt he would have enough for two GTs, let alone for any one day races or shorter stage races. (In fact, as an interesting aside, it occurs to me that one reason why LA, unlike his predecessors, focused mainly on the TDF, is because blood transfusions wouldn’t have allowed him to compete in multiple races. I know that was not the only reason, he understood that Americans only paid attention to the TDF, but after his second win in 2000, EPO became problematic, and his team soon switched to transfusion. And conversely, to speculate even more, maybe the reason doing a GT double is a little more talked about today is because the passport limits how much blood a rider dares transfuse. Thus blood withdrawn and frozen during the off-season can supply more races than it could before.)

OTOH, if riders of the 80s used someone else’s blood, there was the problem of finding a compatible donor, and acquiring the blood when they needed it. Again, it’s easy enough to see this happening from time to time, it’s harder to see it as a reliable method for riding throughout the season.

Plenty of riders did not make the grade after EPO came in. Kelly, Roche, Fignon, Millar and others all went backwards. Did they use EPO? Why not?

There were not many back in the 80s to spit in the soup. Who would've listened? The cycling media? Do they now?

Kimmage did it when he left the sport and was given a job on a paper in little ol cycling backwater Ireland and it did not involve the cycling media or anyone involved in Omerta. The one who really got upset was Roche, cos he knew what it would do to his glowing image at home! So he fought, in the media at least.

So who blew the doping on Fignon? Who blew the doping on other greats?

 

[Zypherov]

Re: Re:

Doping was not just Hinault refusing a test and Delgado in 88. Kelly tested positive and i am sure lots did but UCI swept it under carpets or like Kelly a 3 month ban. Hell Merckx who got retired in what '75/'76 tested positive 3 times prior to Hinault's refusal. Doping was common knowledge and an accepted part of the sport. Only a few refused to partake. Kimmage even partook, that strong headed guy succumbed to the culture.

So given this culture, how did LeMond avoid it and why did he really only talk out about Armstrong?

In a discussion of Lemond, we need to distinguish between:

a) he was taking steroids and other substances well known in his time
b) he tried blood transfusion at some point
c) he was regularly transfusing, and depended on that for his major results

Some of us can understand suspicion centering around a), and possibly even b), while balking at c). And my objection to c) really turns Sniper’s argument against him. Sniper wants to apply the default argument—essentially all riders dope—to Lemond. But the evidence that I’ve seen does not support the conclusion that riders regularly transfused during Lemond’s prime. This is the default position, the one that needs evidence to overturn. We have the Olympics and Moser in 1984, and PDM in 1988, and that’s about it. Sure, there could easily be other incidences that escaped attention, but if riders were regularly transfusing—if GT contenders were bringing blood bags to the rest days—wouldn’t there be some evidence for this by now? Not to mention, as I keep emphasizing, that EPO should not have affected the best power values that much.

If transfusions were well known, and such a game-changer, why weren’t they in more general use? I’d guess it was logistics coupled with some uncertainty about how well they worked. When transfusing became widespread in the early part of this century, it was driven by the need to find a substitute for EPO. The EPO era had made it clear to everyone that blood boosting could be spectacularly successful, so there was enormous motivation to solve the logistical problems with preparing, storing, transporting and using blood. The attitude must have been, we’ll find a way, because we know it really works. A good example of this is the poor man’s autologous program, where riders would withdraw blood beginning in the postseason, store it, than withdraw/transfuse regularly throughout the racing season, so that they never had to store blood more than a few weeks before transfusing it.

Contrast that with the 1980s. Riders may have heard about the benefits of transfusion, but if they were going to use their own blood, they would have to endure a period following withdrawal when they couldn’t race or train very well. So maybe some riders tried it once in a while, but not regularly. A rider with good resources might have been able to separate cells from plasma for long term frozen storage, and in this manner avoided having to withdraw during the racing season, but as I pointed out before, it’s unlikely that even in this case would he prepare more than a few bags. In theory, he might have enough blood for one GT. I rather doubt he would have enough for two GTs, let alone for any one day races or shorter stage races. (In fact, as an interesting aside, it occurs to me that one reason why LA, unlike his predecessors, focused mainly on the TDF, is because blood transfusions wouldn’t have allowed him to compete in multiple races. I know that was not the only reason, he understood that Americans only paid attention to the TDF, but after his second win in 2000, EPO became problematic, and his team soon switched to transfusion. And conversely, to speculate even more, maybe the reason doing a GT double is a little more talked about today is because the passport limits how much blood a rider dares transfuse. Thus blood withdrawn and frozen during the off-season can supply more races than it could before.)

OTOH, if riders of the 80s used someone else’s blood, there was the problem of finding a compatible donor, and acquiring the blood when they needed it. Again, it’s easy enough to see this happening from time to time, it’s harder to see it as a reliable method for riding throughout the season.

Didn't Joop Zoetemelk use blood transfusions to help treat anaemia at the 1976 Tour de France which were prescribed by his doctor Henri Fucs.

 

[Merckx index]

Re: Re:

Plenty of riders did not make the grade after EPO came in. Kelly, Roche, Fignon, Millar and others all went backwards. Did they use EPO? Why not?

All those riders were past 30 when EPO became prevalent, and would be expected to be in their decline by the early 90s. Kelly was five years older than Greg—less than two years younger than Hinault--and still won a couple of monuments in the early 90s. Millar, three years older than Greg, didn’t go backwards. He had a top 20 in both the Vuelta and Tour in 1992, and was a contender in one day and stage races in the early 90s. Roche didn’t so much go backwards as that most of the time he wasn’t going forward. He had the one super year in 1987, and a TDF podium a couple of years before that. Other than those, his GTs were undistinguished. He did have some good placings in smaller races in the early 90s. Fignon did fade after 1989. It could have been age, it could have been not taking EPO, it could have been other things.

But regardless, no one has responded to my question: why did climbing times improve so dramatically after EPO became available? If riders were transfusing even occasionally in the 1980s, why did we never see an ADH time, e.g., remotely close to the top 20 since the early 90s? And I’m sure it’s the same for other major climbs. I understand there were differences then in race tactics, but the time gaps are extraordinary, and clearly correlate with EPO use, not with a sudden change in race tactics. Everyone has noted them, and used them to delineate the EPO era.

There were not many back in the 80s to spit in the soup. Who would've listened? The cycling media? Do they now?

Transfusions were not banned until I think the mid-1980s,so it wasn't exactly spitting to talk about them. After he retired, Hinault described them as though they weren't much different from getting adequate nutrition.

But I wasn't really talking about riders at that time blowing a whistle. I'm talking about all the subsequent digging that has come up with so little.

Didn't Joop Zoetemelk use blood transfusions to help treat anaemia at the 1976 Tour de France which were prescribed by his doctor Henri Fucs.

I was talking about the Lemond era, and most importantly, about evidence that riders were transfusing regularly. JZ was an isolated incident, at least as far as our knowledge goes. I think it's quite likely there were other incidents during that period or earlier that just haven't come to light, but what I seriously question is that transfusing was a regular practice, just like taking certain pills was.

 

[Zypherov]

Re: Re:

Doping was not just Hinault refusing a test and Delgado in 88. Kelly tested positive and i am sure lots did but UCI swept it under carpets or like Kelly a 3 month ban. Hell Merckx who got retired in what '75/'76 tested positive 3 times prior to Hinault's refusal. Doping was common knowledge and an accepted part of the sport. Only a few refused to partake. Kimmage even partook, that strong headed guy succumbed to the culture.

So given this culture, how did LeMond avoid it and why did he really only talk out about Armstrong?

In a discussion of Lemond, we need to distinguish between:

a) he was taking steroids and other substances well known in his time
b) he tried blood transfusion at some point
c) he was regularly transfusing, and depended on that for his major results

Some of us can understand suspicion centering around a), and possibly even b), while balking at c). And my objection to c) really turns Sniper’s argument against him. Sniper wants to apply the default argument—essentially all riders dope—to Lemond. But the evidence that I’ve seen does not support the conclusion that riders regularly transfused during Lemond’s prime. This is the default position, the one that needs evidence to overturn. We have the Olympics and Moser in 1984, and PDM in 1988, and that’s about it. Sure, there could easily be other incidences that escaped attention, but if riders were regularly transfusing—if GT contenders were bringing blood bags to the rest days—wouldn’t there be some evidence for this by now? Not to mention, as I keep emphasizing, that EPO should not have affected the best power values that much.

If transfusions were well known, and such a game-changer, why weren’t they in more general use? I’d guess it was logistics coupled with some uncertainty about how well they worked. When transfusing became widespread in the early part of this century, it was driven by the need to find a substitute for EPO. The EPO era had made it clear to everyone that blood boosting could be spectacularly successful, so there was enormous motivation to solve the logistical problems with preparing, storing, transporting and using blood. The attitude must have been, we’ll find a way, because we know it really works. A good example of this is the poor man’s autologous program, where riders would withdraw blood beginning in the postseason, store it, than withdraw/transfuse regularly throughout the racing season, so that they never had to store blood more than a few weeks before transfusing it.

Contrast that with the 1980s. Riders may have heard about the benefits of transfusion, but if they were going to use their own blood, they would have to endure a period following withdrawal when they couldn’t race or train very well. So maybe some riders tried it once in a while, but not regularly. A rider with good resources might have been able to separate cells from plasma for long term frozen storage, and in this manner avoided having to withdraw during the racing season, but as I pointed out before, it’s unlikely that even in this case would he prepare more than a few bags. In theory, he might have enough blood for one GT. I rather doubt he would have enough for two GTs, let alone for any one day races or shorter stage races. (In fact, as an interesting aside, it occurs to me that one reason why LA, unlike his predecessors, focused mainly on the TDF, is because blood transfusions wouldn’t have allowed him to compete in multiple races. I know that was not the only reason, he understood that Americans only paid attention to the TDF, but after his second win in 2000, EPO became problematic, and his team soon switched to transfusion. And conversely, to speculate even more, maybe the reason doing a GT double is a little more talked about today is because the passport limits how much blood a rider dares transfuse. Thus blood withdrawn and frozen during the off-season can supply more races than it could before.)

OTOH, if riders of the 80s used someone else’s blood, there was the problem of finding a compatible donor, and acquiring the blood when they needed it. Again, it’s easy enough to see this happening from time to time, it’s harder to see it as a reliable method for riding throughout the season.

Didn't Joop Zoetemelk use blood transfusions to help treat anaemia at the 1976 Tour de France which were prescribed by his doctor Henri Fucs. I've seen an interview with Greg Lemond where he states that he didn't know to ehat extent blood doping was going on in cycling in the 1980's. I don't have a link for that interview, but I do remember it.

 

[sniper]

Re: Re:

...

But regardless, no one has responded to my question: why did climbing times improve so dramatically after EPO became available?

because it made things easier.
Nobody has (to my knowledge) claimed that blood transfusions were widespread prior to EPO. Especially in GTs, it would have been available only to a select group of riders with the means to organize it. So even if blood transfusions would give the same boost as EPO (which we don't know, but if), then we would still see a massive increase in average climbing times by the time EPO becomes widely available.

Transfusions were not banned until I think the mid-1980s,so it wasn't exactly spitting to talk about them.

I think it was.
As I pointed out earlier, there was plenty of talk behind the scenes about blood doping, within IOC and USOC, and plenty of awareness, that blood doping was/would be considered ethically wrong by the wider audience.
Also, the 1984 BB scandal was considered as a huge PR disaster (especially by sponsor 7-eleven who sponsored many of the riders involved). Dardik and Miller were immediately on the case to whitewash the whole thing. Les Earnest has written about that.
All this, despite blood boosting being legal at the time.
And Burke lied about learning about the technique only in 1983. Everything suggests he knew about the technique well before that.

Just saying, I think it's safe to assume blood boosting, if it was being done in the early/mid-80s, was being kept as secret as possible, because people knew it was not socially excepted.
The way the 84 scandal was being whitewashed provides evidence to that extent.

 

[Merckx index]

Re: Re:

because it made things easier.
Nobody has (to my knowledge) claimed that blood transfusions were widespread prior to EPO. Especially in GTs, it would have been available only to a select group of riders with the means to organize it.

Your argument is that Lemond was one of those riders, and that was the reason for his success. Why were his climbing times so inferior to those of so many riders beginning in the 90s? Not just one or two times, but dozens of times. Were all those riders naturally better than a guy who was at the least good enough to be selected for a special doping program?

So even if blood transfusions would give the same boost as EPO (which we don't know, but if), then we would still see a massive increase in average climbing times by the time EPO becomes widely available.

Well, yes, we do know. We know how much EPO can raise the HT, and we know how much transfusions can raise the HT. There is no justification for arguing that transfusions couldn’t increase performance as much as EPO, surely no justification that they couldn’t increase performance well beyond what was actually documented in the 1980s. Sure, average climbing times could improve in the 90s because more riders were using EPO than hypothetically transfused before, but I wasn’t talking about average times. I was specifically comparing the best times.

Same with the argument that EPO was easier. Being easier to use would bring more riders into the game, and improve average times, but it would not affect the elite who, according to your argument, could overcome the difficulties of transfusing.

As I pointed out earlier, there was plenty of talk behind the scenes about blood doping, within IOC and USOC, and plenty of awareness, that blood doping was/would be considered ethically wrong by the wider audience...

Just saying, I think it's safe to assume blood boosting, if it was being done in the early/mid-80s, was being kept as secret as possible, because people knew it was not socially excepted.

I understand, but the point is, it certainly wasn't considered any worse than using all the banned substances of that time. Information about the latter has leaked out; not much about transfusing has.

 

[sniper]

Re: Re:

because it made things easier.
Nobody has (to my knowledge) claimed that blood transfusions were widespread prior to EPO. Especially in GTs, it would have been available only to a select group of riders with the means to organize it.

Your argument is that Lemond was one of those riders, and that was the reason for his success. Why were his climbing times so inferior to those of so many riders beginning in the 90s?

Were they? I will have to take your word for it. In which case I don't have a ready answer, but I assume there are many possible explanations (not all of them known to us).

The shooting is obviously one possible explanation.
Lemond is on the record stating that, if it weren't for the shooting, he would probably have beaten Fignon by several minutes in 1989.
Then there is the possibility (likelihood, imo) that Lemond had simply doped too much throughout his carreer.
It was taking its toll. As of when? Who knows.

Another thing to consider: I read somewhere that the climbing times started going up already in 1989. Could it be that Lemond's climbing times also went up in 1989? His TT-ing ability certainly improved.

MI:
Well, yes, we do know. We know how much EPO can raise the HT, and we know how much transfusions can raise the HT. There is no justification for arguing that transfusions couldn’t increase performance as much as EPO, surely no justification that they couldn’t increase performance well beyond what was actually documented in the 1980s.

Do we know how well EPO works when combined with HGH? Do we know how well blood transfusions work when combined with HGH? Same for steroids.
Isn't it possible that EPO simply works better with other dope? I'm not saying it does, I'm saying we don't really know (afiact).
I remember reading, also in here, that the real game changer in the early 90s was the combination of EPO+HGH.
And there are other (more obvious) benefits from EPO when compared to BBs.
Either way, Lemond was already finished by the early 90s for reasons that had little (if anything) to do with EPO. He couldn't finish races anymore in 1992.
Meanwhile someone like Hampsten was mixing it up with the best in 1992 and 1993.

MI: I understand, but the point is, it certainly wasn't considered any worse than using all the banned substances of that time. Information about the latter has leaked out; not much about transfusing has

Fair point. Though again, that could be a consequence of the fact that steroids and amphetamines were absolutely rampant in that era, available to anyone basically....whereas blood transfusions would have been available only to those who had at least some basic medical guidance.
And do we reall know *that* much more about steroid use in European procycling in the 80s than we do about blood doping in the same period?
Sure, we know about Thevenet and some other procycling cases.
But likewise we do also have a few cases of blood doping to talk about.
1984 LA, for instance, where allegedly no-one was using steroids, only blood bags.

On the topic of Hampsten: one (major) red flag for me is that interview that I've posted up several times, where he simply pretends blood doping didn't exist in the 80s.
That, despite the fact that he was their at the OTC from 82 to 84, and despite the fact that several of the guys involved in the 84 BB scandal had been, or would later become, his teammates.
I posted about this here: viewtopic.php?p=1913570#p1913570

 

[Merckx index]

Re: Re:

Were they? I will have to take your word for it. In which case I don't have a ready answer, but I assume there are many possible explanations (not all of them known to us).

http://www.climbing-records.com/2013/07/all-time-top-100-fastest-rides-on.html

According to this site, it’s even worse than I thought. It lists the fastest 100 times up ADH, and all of them were performed in 1991 or later (no. 60 is the fastest time prior to 1994; note also that this list does not include 2013, when Quintana had a sub-40 minute climb). The bottom of the list is a time of 41:13, which is more than 30 seconds faster than the fastest time in the 1980s, according to the ADH wiki. That is 41:50, by Herrera in 1987, and Fignon in 1989. Fignon finished about 1:20 ahead of Lemond in that stage, and as far as I can tell, they were together at the foot of the climb. So Lemond did the climb in about 43:10, and as far as I know, that was his fastest effort on it.

Three years earlier, when he won his first Tour, he and Hinault finished together on ADH, in a time listed as 48:00. This is incredibly slow, and I’ve never understood how they could have won the stage with a finishing climb that slow. I know they escaped, and once they had a big lead on the others, probably let up a little. In fact, I think I recall from Slaying the Badger that Hinault was suffering and asked Greg to wait or slow down for him. But still, 48 minutes seems like a time that good climbers could do without making much of an effort.

Edit: From the same webpage as that link above, see this link: http://www.climbing-records.com/2013/07/nairo-quintana-sets-great-time-on-alpe.html

Best times up ADH:

2013 - 39:28
2011 - 41:25
2010 - 42:17
2008 - 39:30
2006 - 38:35
2004 - 37:36
2003 - 39:08
2001 - 38:03
1999 - 41:10
1997 - 36:53
1995 - 36:40
1994 - 37:15
1992 - 43:10
1991 - 40:27
1990 - 43:15
1989 - 41:50
1988 - 43:44
1987 - 41:44
1986 - 45:25*
1982 - 42:14
1979 - 43:38
1977 - 44:49

* I guess this was a rider who actually won the stage ahead of Lemond-Hinault? Either that, or was in a following group and had a faster time up the final climb

As far as I can tell, no one did much better than 42 minutes prior to 1991. Beginning in 1994, the best time was always < 40 minutes except in 1999, up to 2010, when the passport is given credit for slowing times.

The shooting is obviously one possible explanation.
Lemond is on the record stating that, if it weren't for the shooting, he would probably have beaten Fignon by several minutes in 1989.

He performed very well in the early part of that Tour, putting time on Fignon on several key climbs, and at one point said he thought he would hold the jersey till Paris. So even forgetting the shooting, he might have performed better on ADH. But they were together I think till about 4 km from the finish, when Fignon dropped him, so I don't think that even in the best of circumstances Lemond would have put several minutes into Fignon on this climb. And even if he had, that would still leave him far behind Pantani's best times.

Another thing to consider: I read somewhere that the climbing times started going up already in 1989. Could it be that Lemond's climbing times also went up in 1989? His TT-ing ability certainly improved.

Well, as I noted above, he did far better on ADH in 1989 than in 1986. He and Hinault weren't pushed in 1986, whereas he was pushed in 1989, but still the time difference is almost five minutes. But there are other possible factors like wind, and I'd want to compare some more climbs before concluding that for sure.

Isn't it possible that EPO simply works better with other dope? I'm not saying it does, I'm saying we don't really know (afiact).

Sure. One theory is that you want to increase muscle size to take advantage of greater oxygen transport. But that would apply just as well to transfusions as to EPO, and steroids should be effective as well as HGH.

The only advantage I can think of that EPO might have is that it has some stimulating effects other than on erythrocyte production. There is in fact evidence of that. But the major effect is clearly HT increase.

 

[@NL_LeMondFans]

Re: Re:

I think, certainly my problem with sniper's proposition (and your support of it), and what underpins MIs thoughtful response to the thread is that to be such an industrial doper from an early early age would leave, for Lemond, an audit trail or footprint across decades and continents..

the sparse joining of dots doesn't, in my mind cut it...8 rumours we have...not even witness accounts, rumours and some of those rumours of rumours

I can buy that blood doping was going on and might be responsible for some stand out performances in the 80's e.g. Coe's 800m WR (which is still up there despite all the gains marginal or otherwise subsequently)...and Moser's hour. But for the level of consistency across one day races, tour's and GTs across the years I find again difficult to believe.

And as alluded to by MI above, if the haphazard manner in which Eddie B oversaw the blood doping on home soil where it should have been so easy (he had been doing it for at least a decade apparently) I find it hard to believe the Lemond 'entourage' was able to do better in their 'campervan' travelling across Europe.....

which of course they must have been to get the results he was....

Plenty of riders doped from Junior to the end of their careers and we are fortunate to hear of 1 episode in their doping!

Jens Voight never tested positive in a long long career for a cyclist. Plenty like Jens.

LeMond kept his mouth firmly shut about doping going on around him when riding and even when Kimmage put his head above the parapet i don't remember LeMond wading in behind him and supporting him especially when Roche attacked Kimmage.

A lot of people had no problem with rampant doping before EPO. I think it's also due to how deeply it shifted cycling from its axis. I don't know about you but LeMond or not, by 1993 I couldn't root for anyone. I couldn't believe what I was seeing. I couldn't relate to pro cycling anymore.

Also, I have followed cycling all throughout the 80's and, in France at least, Kimmage's story was not that big of a deal. There was tension in France in 1982 when Hinault refused a test at a criterium and then the Delgado affair went big in 88 (there was also Ben Johnson at the same time), but that's pretty much it. I'm not saying it was ok not to say anything but the world was not the same, at least from the outside.

At the time, did anyone support Kimmage ? Does that make them all dopers ? Same with Bassons. I'm pretty sure there were other clean riders but they kept their mouths shut.

Kimmage's story was not a big deal because it was viewed as part of the culture.

LeMond was a boss in the peloton when Kimmage talked about doping. Clean riders, if any, keeping their mouths shut was and still is part of the problem.

Doping was not just Hinault refusing a test and Delgado in 88. Kelly tested positive and i am sure lots did but UCI swept it under carpets or like Kelly a 3 month ban. Hell Merckx who got retired in what '75/'76 tested positive 3 times prior to Hinault's refusal. Doping was common knowledge and an accepted part of the sport. Only a few refused to partake. Kimmage even partook, that strong headed guy succumbed to the culture.

So given this culture, how did LeMond avoid it and why did he really only talk out about Armstrong?

By the way, Mick Rogers getting a job after retirement shows that this sport has not changed. Far from it. Dopers present and past are fully embraced as long as they did not spit in the soup.

My post did not mean that doping was irrelevant or not part of the culture. I was just putting things into context regarding Greg not adressing Kimmage's story.

"The culture" as you put it, never prevented Greg from reaching his goals : TDF, worlds... So why should he have talked ?

Armstrong : The thing that Greg said in 2001 : "When Lance won the prologue to the 1999 Tour I was close to tears, but when I heard he was working with Michele Ferrari I was devastated. In the light of Lance's relationship with Ferrari, I just don't want to comment on this year's Tour. This is not sour grapes. I'm disappointed in Lance, that's all it is."
I believe it's the same attitude that lead him to show a motorized bike during last year's Tour : everyone knows about it, but only he speaks. What did change his attitude between the 80's and the 00's ? Hard to say. Maybe the magnitude of things. You have to admit that pro cycling in 2001 was one big f_ing joke. Of course, ego may have played a part too but I don't think it's what put things in motion, from Greg's part. Of course, a lot of you already said otherwise. That's just an opinion.

 

[@NL_LeMondFans]

Re: Re:

Never a beep from Lemond about the rigged testing.

Are you blaming Greg for not checking where his urine samples were actually going ? Does any athlete check that ?

 

[@NL_LeMondFans]

Re: Re:

You no doubt remember, with Lance (before exposure), too, we'd often get stuck on the *how*/*when*/*where's the evidence*, etc. It didn't mean Lance didn't dope.

Just as you stating "why do you hate inquiries so much ?" does not make you a former "why do you love cancer so much ?" LA fanboy.

You can't blame people from adopting a certain angle, especially since no one here has been able to define what is a proper, credible clean rider line of defense. And if there was is no such a thing, it's because every doper with a brain already used or tried to use it. Not the clean rider's fault.

 

[@NL_LeMondFans]

Re: Re:

Another thing to consider: I read somewhere that the climbing times started going up already in 1989. Could it be that Lemond's climbing times also went up in 1989? His TT-ing ability certainly improved.

Could you please provide data for that statement ? Because , for example, in the 1990 Vassivière ITT, Greg did 46" MORE, using aero bars than when he won the same stage in 1985, without aero bars.

https://greglemondfans.wordpress.com/2014/05/03/dark-side-of-the-lake/