LeMond III

[blackcat]

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.

mebbe the problem lies with us as the viewer, and expecting to have a voice as stakeholders...

 

[@NL_LeMondFans]

Re: 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 )

Thank you for this. I don't like dogs, I had not perceived the subtlety of the metaphor.

 

[@NL_LeMondFans]

Re: 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.

I agree, I shouldn't have ended my post like this. In my defense, it was the end of a really long day (I drove for 8 hours) and I was tired of everything, including this discussion.

Agreed too regarding the relevance of Greg's case as to "what's possible to do on a bike".

You know, a lot of people think Greg's career was killed by EPO. The more we go, the more I think it was due to his illness. I came to think Greg is lucky he won 3 Tours before things went bad. Charly Mottet (1990 Giro) and Andy Hampsten (1992 Tour) were not so lucky.

I don't know what Eddie B did, exactly. What I know is that it would be a big risk to give dope to a kid that is already performing really well, which, by all accounts, was Greg's case. It is all about progress. I've heard many stories of riders that doped so much on the amateur level that they had no margin anymore. Eddie B might have been a doper, but he was also a coach. As a coach it would not make sense.

I also seem to remember this issue was answered on these boards a few months ago (RaceRadio ?).

 

[Maxiton]

Re: LeMond

mebbe the problem lies with us as the viewer, and expecting to have a voice as stakeholders...

We are stakeholders, we just have to act like it. I guarantee, if you could find enough cycling fans who are still knowledgeable enough and passionate about the sport, and organize a big protest in front of UCI headquarters, at a few bike manufacturers, a few big races; throw in letter writing, petitions, boycotts; you know, a whole campaign: if you did all that, things would change in a big hurry. Why don't we do that? I'll tell you why. Because fans feel they aren't stakeholders.

I can't tell you how many people I've talked to, usually older, both in Europe and America, who are extremely knowledgeable of cyclesport - its history and so on - who used to have an intense passion for it, but who no longer follow it at all. Some of these people are like walking encyclopedias. Many of them stopped watching during the Armstrong era, or even before.

Maybe one of the reasons UCI is so big on new markets is because they need a constant churn of new fans; all the older fans keep leaving. That's no way to run a sport. We should demand better, and expect more.

 

[@NL_LeMondFans]

I don't want to sound pessimistic, but...

I think that, unfortunately, "fans" (the people who really care) are a very small part of this business. The casual public, wether it's on TV or on the side of the road, doesn't really care who's winning or how, just as long as the show is good. People love Virenque. Many people actually still love Armstrong. They feel everyone is a doper anyway, so why bother ?
It is so true that the UCI created races with no public at all. All those races in Dubai, Qatar, Oman... There was no one on top of the green mountain. Absolutely no one.

The bike business is about selling bikes. There are more cyclists than ever. There are more cycling magazines than there ever was. But most of them are about training and riding, not pro cycling. Pro cycling has become a shop window, a showroom. And of course, a few brands (team sponsors) find a good exposure. For the casual viewer, not the fans.

 

[sniper]

Re: Re:

...
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.

ok, you have a point and i see it better now.

I don't know what the official story is on Lemond's kidneys, if there is one.
I do know (he says) he'd get injections from his mom as a kid in relation to the kidney disorder. Not sure if that tells us anything?

 

[sniper]

Re: Re:

I agree, I shouldn't have ended my post like this. In my defense, it was the end of a really long day (I drove for 8 hours) and I was tired of everything, including this discussion.

Agreed too regarding the relevance of Greg's case as to "what's possible to do on a bike".

You know, a lot of people think Greg's career was killed by EPO. The more we go, the more I think it was due to his illness. I came to think Greg is lucky he won 3 Tours before things went bad. Charly Mottet (1990 Giro) and Andy Hampsten (1992 Tour) were not so lucky.

I don't know what Eddie B did, exactly. What I know is that it would be a big risk to give dope to a kid that is already performing really well, which, by all accounts, was Greg's case. It is all about progress. I've heard many stories of riders that doped so much on the amateur level that they had no margin anymore. Eddie B might have been a doper, but he was also a coach. As a coach it would not make sense.

I also seem to remember this issue was answered on these boards a few months ago (RaceRadio ?).

Thanks for the response, NL. For the record, you always strike me as a very fair and balanced poster, in spite of our dispute in here or the Indurain thread. I realize I c/should be more diplomatic at times.

Completely disregarding Lemond for now, that Eddie B. chapter is a dodgy chapter in the history of American cycling. Race Radio tried hard to deflect away from some nasty accusations, but these accusations (most notably Eddie taking juniors to Poland to teach them how to transfuse blood) are out there for everyone to see, gathered in testimonies and in print.

On a general note, to get a better picture of the role of Polish coaches etc. in 'developing' sports in western countries, check this out from Feargal's review of Millar's Racing through the Dark:

Then the *** started to hit the fan. The Cofidis affaire had begun. Marek Rutkiewicz - a former Cofidis rider being mentored by a Cofidis soigneur, Boguslaw 'Bob' Madejak - was busted at Paris Charles de Gaulle, caught in possession of doping products. Madejak was arrested next ("He was of the Eastern bloc old school. In the 1980s, as part of the Polish national cycling team, he had escaped the country and been forced to leave his family behind in Poland for two years until he could get them out. A few months in jail weren't a big deal for Bob."

Now, the following, from Eddie's Wikipedia, gives us a bit of context as to why Eddie was brought in.

He went to the Olympic Games in Montreal in 1976 as assistant for the Polish team. He went from there to New Jersey, USA, to see friends with whom he had raced for Poland. There he became associated with the North Jersey Bicycle Club, whose jersey he was wearing when he met Mike Fraysse, chairman of the American cycling federation's competition committee, in a cycle shop. The federation had gained money for coaching and support of athletes from President Jimmy Carter's inquiry into the domination in sport by what were perceived to be state-sponsored amateurs from communist countries. Fraysee spoke to Borysewicz about bringing his experience of Polish sports schools. They spoke in French because Borysewicz spoke no English. Next year the US federation took on Borysewicz as its first full-time coach.

If that doesn't speak volumes, I don't know what does. I think its telling that he didn't speak English. I mean, what kind of a coach would he have been? They'd been better off just paying him in cash for some coaching schemes, if that's really what it was all about.

I'll add this from Ed Pavelka:

“Almost two decdes ago I became friends with a man who was having an historic impact on American cycling. His name was Eddie Borysewicz (…). This coach from Poland brought something that turned the table for the US national team: a no-nonsense approach based on his inside knowledge of how the dominant Europeans trained and raced. The results were spectactular. Six years after Eddie took charge of US road and track racing, American riders won nine medals in the 1984 Olympics”.
https://books.google.pl/books?id=wbQR2rlAwA8C&pg=PP9&lpg=PP9&dq=eddie+borysewicz+1977&source=bl&ots=1f-aM2JBME&sig=0xfazJdgQoQWhAajwllQcP9iZVQ&hl=en&sa=X&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=borysewicz&f=false

As Ulrich might have said, do the math on that.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Put it to someone this way. If you had to wager on ANY pro cyclist being clean would you do it?

NO FREAKING WAY.

But the odds of Greg having been a doper are much less than most.

Someone up-thread said something like would you look Greg in the face and ask him those questions. HELL YES I WOULD. If you really want to know and you are Honest you would ask him. Then again, I don't go around asking anyone for autographs either and I doubt I would notice Greg's fat @ss these days.

 

[sniper]

Re:

Blood transfusions weren't banned when Lemond started out as a pro, so it seems fair to ask why he wouldn't be doing it.
Lemond's alleged "needle adversity" cannot be seriously given as a reason. Firstly, we have that from Lemond's mouth only, so objectively that's no evidence, or as good as any procyclist saying "I'm clean".
Second, I think 90% of mankind is needle adverse, but we'll allow any medic to put a needle in our arms if necessary. And we know per his own admission that Lemond took needles to treat his kidneys and later his anemia.

To partially answer Maxiton's question: according to this wikisite, "The US [cycling] federation banned blood-doping in January 1985" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_doping_cases_in_cycling
That was after Borysewicz+Burke's 1984 motelroom blood transfusion scheme had been uncovered.
From the same link:

The U.S. cycling team's successes were coloured by revelations that riders had blood transfusions before their events, a practice known as blood-doping. The transfusions were to increase red blood cells in riders' blood. That would take more oxygen to their muscles. They received the blood of others with similar blood types.[89] The practice, instigated by national coach Eddie Borysewicz, was not against Olympic rules although Games medical guidelines discouraged it. Borysewicz and a colleague, Ed Burke, set up a clinic in a Los Angeles motel room and four of the seven athletes who had transfusions won medals.[90] The U.S. federation banned blood-doping in January 1985. Borysewicz and Burke were fined a month's pay. Mike Fraysse, a former president of the federation, was demoted from first to third vice-president.

According to the same link, transfusions were done in cycling at least from the 60s onwards.

1960: Gastone Nencini of Italy was discovered by Tour de France doctor Pierre Dumas in his bedroom with plastic tubes running from each arm to a bottle of blood; retransfusion was a legal practice at the time.[31] In the 1930s, Scandinavian runners were believed to have used retransfusion to increase the number of corpuscles that carry oxygen to the muscles. In 1972, Dr Björn Ekblom of the Sport and Gymnastics Institute in Stockholm found that retransfusing cells increased oxygen uptake by nine per cent and athletic potential by 23 per cent.

And we know per his own admission that Zoetemelk was doing blood transfusions (interestingly to treat alleged anemia).

I think it's not unlikely that transfusions were on the (rest-)daily menu in the peloton throughout the 80s.
If that Swede is right about the 23 percent increase, hell, even if it's only 10 or 5 percent, Lemond must have been one hell of a freak of nature indeed to beat his transfusing opponents in three TdFs.

 

[arthurvandelay]

Re: 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.



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

Fascinating find. Is it possible that his doctor inadvertertently discovered "blood doping" on his own, apart from the East Germans and Eddie B? I believe that the time frame you are referencing is pretty darned early in the scheme of things. Transfusions for anemia were awfully common in the sixties and seventies before the HIV/AIDS crisis came along physicians were quick to prescribe them.

It would be interesting to try to do some "doping archaelogy" to see if other physicians/coaches/soigneurs were doing this as well with their athletes in the seventies.

 

[arthurvandelay]

Re: Re:

[

Z

I'll be damned [/quote]

Fascinating find. Is it possible that his doctor inadvertertently discovered "blood doping" on his own, apart from the East Germans and Eddie B? I believe that the time frame you are referencing is pretty darned early in the scheme of things. Transfusions for anemia were awfully common in the sixties and seventies before the HIV/AIDS crisis came along physicians were quick to prescribe them.

It would be interesting to try to do some "doping archaelogy" to see if other physicians/coaches/soigneurs were doing this as well with their athletes in the seventies.[/quote]

Oops it looks like Sniper answered my question already. Mea culpa, thanks for the info. Good stuff !

 

[GJB123]

Re: Re:

Blood transfusions weren't banned when Lemond started out as a pro, so it seems fair to ask why he wouldn't be doing it.
Lemond's alleged "needle adversity" cannot be seriously given as a reason. Firstly, we have that from Lemond's mouth only, so objectively that's no evidence, or as good as any procyclist saying "I'm clean".
Second, I think 90% of mankind is needle adverse, but we'll allow any medic to put a needle in our arms if necessary. And we know per his own admission that Lemond took needles to treat his kidneys and later his anemia.

To partially answer Maxiton's question: according to this wikisite, "The US [cycling] federation banned blood-doping in January 1985" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_doping_cases_in_cycling
That was after Borysewicz+Burke's 1984 motelroom blood transfusion scheme had been uncovered.
From the same link:

The U.S. cycling team's successes were coloured by revelations that riders had blood transfusions before their events, a practice known as blood-doping. The transfusions were to increase red blood cells in riders' blood. That would take more oxygen to their muscles. They received the blood of others with similar blood types.[89] The practice, instigated by national coach Eddie Borysewicz, was not against Olympic rules although Games medical guidelines discouraged it. Borysewicz and a colleague, Ed Burke, set up a clinic in a Los Angeles motel room and four of the seven athletes who had transfusions won medals.[90] The U.S. federation banned blood-doping in January 1985. Borysewicz and Burke were fined a month's pay. Mike Fraysse, a former president of the federation, was demoted from first to third vice-president.

According to the same link, transfusions were done in cycling at least from the 60s onwards.

1960: Gastone Nencini of Italy was discovered by Tour de France doctor Pierre Dumas in his bedroom with plastic tubes running from each arm to a bottle of blood; retransfusion was a legal practice at the time.[31] In the 1930s, Scandinavian runners were believed to have used retransfusion to increase the number of corpuscles that carry oxygen to the muscles. In 1972, Dr Björn Ekblom of the Sport and Gymnastics Institute in Stockholm found that retransfusing cells increased oxygen uptake by nine per cent and athletic potential by 23 per cent.

And we know per his own admission that Zoetemelk was doing blood transfusions (interestingly to treat alleged anemia).

I think it's not unlikely that transfusions were on the (rest-)daily menu in the peloton throughout the 80s.
If that Swede is right about the 23 percent increase, hell, even if it's only 10 or 5 percent, Lemond must have been one hell of a freak of nature indeed to beat his transfusing opponents in three TdFs.

I don't think techniques of refrigeration etc. were up to the standard were one could safely do blood transfusions on the go during any GT (remember it can be stiflingly hot in the summer in south of France). This has been fully covered in a different topic. It just seems highly unlikely. Blood doping for one day events seems much more likely and more in line with what to expect in that era. That also ties in nicely with the rise of Lasse Viren, a Finnish long distance runner, who famously won several 5k and 10k Olympic medals and it was alleged that he blood doped. That was for '72, '76 and '80 Olympics.

The fact that the US won a lot of medals in cycling in '84 thanks to Eddie B's blood doping program has also been alleged a lot (also in this thread) and also ties in with the then common practice that you could succesfully blood dope for one day events but that to do it on the go in a hectic GT as the TdF seems rather unlikely.

 

[sniper]

thats a fair point.
If you're correct, it would have to be done before the beginning of the TdF and then during rest days.
I think they started having two restdays from 1990 onwards, correct? Before that only one per TdF?
Do you or anybody know how long the advantages of transfusions would last?
Say you transfuse a few bags the months before the beginning of the TdF, and then another at the very start of the TdF. Maybe another one on the rest day.
Surely you would reap benefits?

 

[fmk_RoI]

On the history of blood doping in cycling

1 of 3 http://www.cyclingnews.com/features/a-history-on-the-use-of-blood-transfusions-in-cycling/
2 of 3 http://www.cyclingnews.com/features/a-history-on-blood-transfusions-in-cycling-part-2/
3 of 3 http://www.cyclingnews.com/features/a-history-on-blood-transfusions-in-cycling-part-3/

 

[sniper]

Re:

On the history of blood doping in cycling

1 of 3 http://www.cyclingnews.com/features/a-history-on-the-use-of-blood-transfusions-in-cycling/
2 of 3 http://www.cyclingnews.com/features/a-history-on-blood-transfusions-in-cycling-part-2/
3 of 3 http://www.cyclingnews.com/features/a-history-on-blood-transfusions-in-cycling-part-3/

cheers, good stuff. It's also where I got the Zoetemelk reference from.

This is interesting from the second link, Borysewicz' blood doping technique described:

There being insufficient time to extract blood for reinfusion they decided to use blood from compatible donors among the riders' friends and families (heterologous transfusions).

@gjb123, I guess this could've been one way to circumvent a lack of refrigeration facilities during the tour in the 80s.

At any rate, if Zoetemelk was doing it in the 70s, I find it highly implausible to assume it wasn't being done in the 80s.

 

[King Boonen]

Re:

thats a fair point.
If you're correct, it would have to be done before the beginning of the TdF and then during rest days.
I think they started having two restdays from 1990 onwards, correct? Before that only one per TdF?
Do you or anybody know how long the advantages of transfusions would last?
Say you transfuse a few bags the months before the beginning of the TdF, and then another at the very start of the TdF. Maybe another one on the rest day.
Surely you would reap benefits?

I'm unsure if that's ever been studied to be honest, most people who receive blood transfusions do so because they actually need them and as such the body is unlikely to compensate and slow production. In a healthy individual I would guess that it would provide a boost for a couple of days, but probably not more than that, especially considering ~25% of infused red blood cells are removed from the body extremely quickly.

So, to answer the questions:

You would reap benefits if you transfused during training, it can aid recovery and help you increase training load. You would also reap benefits for probably 2 days or so after infusion, but not more than that. So if ASO etc. are clever about route designs they can at least attempt to stop temptation for GC riders by not putting any decisive MTF stages straight after a rest day. Bare in mind that you also need to cope with the no needles policy and the ABP which will likely put people off blood transfusions in or around competition these days as it's much easier to spot. Blood transfusion on the rest day would be the most beneficial for a GC contender (typically the first few stages don't require much of the GC guys, a long TT or prologue may encourage it though) but would also be the riskiest.

 

[sniper]

Re: Re:

Some interesting comments from Eric Boyer about Greg Lemond's entourage at the tour:

EB: He comes with his extended family: his wife, his kids, Otto Jacome, Julien De Vries. His wife brings him comfort, calm… That was strictly forbidden with Legeay before. The rule was: no women on the races.

EB: On the Tour, he was on his own most of the time, since there were 9 of us. But as soon as someone quit, like Millar did in 1990, we were together. We also bought an extra room when there was one because his family was there, etc…

https://greglemondfans.wordpress.com/author/greglemondfans/

edit: cheers, KB, very helpful!

 

[GJB123]

Re: Re:

On the history of blood doping in cycling

1 of 3 http://www.cyclingnews.com/features/a-history-on-the-use-of-blood-transfusions-in-cycling/
2 of 3 http://www.cyclingnews.com/features/a-history-on-blood-transfusions-in-cycling-part-2/
3 of 3 http://www.cyclingnews.com/features/a-history-on-blood-transfusions-in-cycling-part-3/

cheers, good stuff. It's also where I got the Zoetemelk reference from.

This is interesting from the second link, Borysewicz' blood doping technique described:

There being insufficient time to extract blood for reinfusion they decided to use blood from compatible donors among the riders' friends and families (heterologous transfusions).

@gjb123, I guess this could've been one way to circumvent a lack of refrigeration facilities during the tour in the 80s.

At any rate, if Zoetemelk was doing it in the 70s, I find it highly implausible to assume it wasn't being done in the 80s.

I am not saying it is impossible, I am saying it is unlikely to do autologous blood doping on the go in the 70's and 80's. The story of Zoetemelk is not that he received a blood transfusion during the '77 Tour, but that he received a transfusion after crashing in the Midi Libre in 1974. The link you provided is scarce on the details when exactly he took a blood transfusion(s). Fact is that he did zilch in the TdF in 1974 and declared he wouldn't be using them anymore in 1977. Nowhere does it state that he did them while in the TdF, i.e. on a rest day or something like that, or how often.

 

[sniper]

Re: Re:

...
I am not saying it is impossible, I am saying it is unlikely to do autologous blood doping on the go in the 70's and 80's. The story of Zoetemelk is not that he received a blood transfusion during the '77 Tout, but that he received a transfusion in after crashing in the Midi Libre in 1974. The link you provided is scarce on the details when exactly he took a blood transfusion. Fact is that he did zilch in the TdF in 1974 en declared hew wouldn't be using them anymore in 1977. Nowhere does it state that he did then while in the TdF, i.e. on a rest day or something like that.

cheers, good info. point taken.

 

[blutto]

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.

....I respectably disagree.....those numbers are the major pivot in the LeMond story...it is used by him and his fans to backstop the only clean champion story and it provided much of the basis for what is being discussed here....but its funny the numbers really don't translate into performance the way one would think they should....as example LeMond was never a dominating force in time trialling ( ie he never beat anyone in the Tour when on a level playing field )....and he was never a dominating force as a climber either....assuming of course that a great VO2 number would really make a marked difference in climbing and TTing...

Cheers

 

[GJB123]

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.

....I respectably disagree.....those numbers are the major pivot in the LeMond story...it is used by him and his fans to backstop the only clean champion story and it provided much of the basis for what is being discussed here....but its funny the numbers really don't translate into performance the way one would think they should....as example LeMond was never a dominating force in time trialling ( ie he never beat anyone in the Tour when on a level playing field )....and he was never a dominating force as a climber either....assuming of course that a great VO2 number would really make a marked difference in climbing and TTing...

Cheers

What a load of horse menure. You don't end up 3rd on your first attempt in the TdF and podium the next 5 times, wining it there times and finish top ten in 6 out of your 8 attempts if you are nog good at climbing and time trialling. Sure he was more of an allrounder but he has won both ITT (1985, 1989) and mountain top finishes (1986, 1989) and was mightily close in 1990 (Luz Ardiden) where he basically towed Yndurain up the entire mountain only to be out sprinted by him.

Now some including me may have a case of rose tinted glasses, you on the other hand are direct opposite and basically can't let a chance go by to bad mouth LeMond.

 

[blutto]

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.

....I respectably disagree.....those numbers are the major pivot in the LeMond story...it is used by him and his fans to backstop the only clean champion story and it provided much of the basis for what is being discussed here....but its funny the numbers really don't translate into performance the way one would think they should....as example LeMond was never a dominating force in time trialling ( ie he never beat anyone in the Tour when on a level playing field )....and he was never a dominating force as a climber either....assuming of course that a great VO2 number would really make a marked difference in climbing and TTing...

Cheers

What a load of horse menure. You don't end up 3rd on your first attempt in the TdF and podium the next 5 times, wining it there times and finish top ten in 6 out of your 8 attempts if you are nog good at climbing and time trialling. Sure he was more of an allrounder but he has won both ITT (1985, 1989) and mountain top finishes (1986, 1989) and was mightily close in 1990 (Luz Ardiden) where he basically towed Yndurain up the entire mountain only to be out sprinted by him.

Now some including me may have a case of rose tinted glasses, you on the other hand are direct opposite and basically can't let a chance go by to bad mouth LeMond.

...thank you so very much for your most wonderful response....it was pretty near perfect....

...I chose the word dominant for a reason....because if you are the greatest endurance athlete you should be dominating...like crushing the opposition...never seen no crushing...

...I also chose level playing field for a reason...in 85 Hinault had a broken nose, and in 89 LeMond used aero bars when no one else did....on a level playing field not a winner...

Cheers

 

[sniper]

does anybody know when/how the iron shot story came out?
was it during the Giro? Or sometime after?

 

[@NL_LeMondFans]

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.

....I respectably disagree.....those numbers are the major pivot in the LeMond story...it is used by him and his fans to backstop the only clean champion story and it provided much of the basis for what is being discussed here....but its funny the numbers really don't translate into performance the way one would think they should....as example LeMond was never a dominating force in time trialling ( ie he never beat anyone in the Tour when on a level playing field )....and he was never a dominating force as a climber either....assuming of course that a great VO2 number would really make a marked difference in climbing and TTing...

Cheers

What a load of horse menure. You don't end up 3rd on your first attempt in the TdF and podium the next 5 times, wining it there times and finish top ten in 6 out of your 8 attempts if you are nog good at climbing and time trialling. Sure he was more of an allrounder but he has won both ITT (1985, 1989) and mountain top finishes (1986, 1989) and was mightily close in 1990 (Luz Ardiden) where he basically towed Yndurain up the entire mountain only to be out sprinted by him.

Now some including me may have a case of rose tinted glasses, you on the other hand are direct opposite and basically can't let a chance go by to bad mouth LeMond.

...thank you so very much for your most wonderful response....it was pretty near perfect....

...I chose the word dominant for a reason....because if you are the greatest endurance athlete you should be dominating...like crushing the opposition...never seen no crushing...

...I also chose level playing field for a reason...in 85 Hinault had a broken nose, and in 89 LeMond used aero bars when no one else did....on a level playing field not a winner...

Cheers

Never dominant but always very good : he won the Dauphiné ITT in 1984, placed 2nd at the GP des Nations in 1983. By the way, the whole 7-11 team was using the aero tri bars in 1989, including Sean Yates.

As for climbing he was always in the top 10 of every mountain stage (before 1991), coming for the win on many occasions.

 

[WildspokeJoe]

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.

....I respectably disagree.....those numbers are the major pivot in the LeMond story...it is used by him and his fans to backstop the only clean champion story and it provided much of the basis for what is being discussed here....but its funny the numbers really don't translate into performance the way one would think they should....as example LeMond was never a dominating force in time trialling ( ie he never beat anyone in the Tour when on a level playing field )....and he was never a dominating force as a climber either....assuming of course that a great VO2 number would really make a marked difference in climbing and TTing...

Cheers

What a load of horse menure. You don't end up 3rd on your first attempt in the TdF and podium the next 5 times, wining it there times and finish top ten in 6 out of your 8 attempts if you are nog good at climbing and time trialling. Sure he was more of an allrounder but he has won both ITT (1985, 1989) and mountain top finishes (1986, 1989) and was mightily close in 1990 (Luz Ardiden) where he basically towed Yndurain up the entire mountain only to be out sprinted by him.

Now some including me may have a case of rose tinted glasses, you on the other hand are direct opposite and basically can't let a chance go by to bad mouth LeMond.

...I chose the word dominant for a reason....because if you are the greatest endurance athlete you should be dominating...like crushing the opposition...never seen no crushing...

...I also chose level playing field for a reason...in 85 Hinault had a broken nose, and in 89 LeMond used aero bars when no one else did....on a level playing field not a winner...

Cheers

It’s interesting when people shine 2016 thinking on the early 80s. You call out LeMond for not being dominate. But he was. Back then, riders didn't have jet backs they could put on every couple of days and produce 'dominate' performances. If LeMond is guilty of anything, it is that he didn't ride with panache. He was an outsider brought up in a caste system. Early in his career, he was always the second banana with first chair talents.

1990 is when it all went sideways. The eastern bloc countries started racing professionally and they brought in systematic doping to the pro peloton.