LeMond III

[Nomad]

Re: Re:

Or do you have irrefutable proof that Lemond did not dope?

Pure logic tells us that's an impossible proof for anyone to arrive at about any rider/athlete, let alone for Lemond.

Spock says there are only two possibilities regarding an athlete's doping status:
i. they are or were doping (since there is clear evidence of such, e.g. an ADRV, admission etc)
ii. we don't know (since there is no clear evidence and proof of not doping is impossible to ascertain)

It's reasonable to assign a probability ranking to athletes in the latter category though.

Ranking needs be based on quality of evidence (e.g. testing the validity of primary sources) and sound reasoning (logical fallacies need not apply).

Motivated reasoning and other forms of confirmation bias needs to take a hike. High volumes of low quality evidence (e.g. here-say) are pretty worthless when assigning a ranking. One cannot cherry pick either. IOW the weight of all valid evidence is what matters when determining a ranking.

So wrt to Lemond, the probability is non-zero (since it can't be zero for anyone) but is less than 100% since clear evidence for case (i) is not satisfied.

There will be a baseline starting probability level for all elite athletes because of the mere fact of competing in a sport known for high rates of doping. If we use e.g. the Dopeology database, then a baseline probability value of 50% would seem reasonable for elite cyclists, although it could well be more/less and it has probably changed over time. It's then a case of how one adjusts that baseline probability up or down for an individual based on the balance of valid evidence.

Good analysis (I like your Spock analogy). I've been reading some of the millions of posts on this thread...it's like a never ending baseball game. But interesting and thought provoking info presented on both sides of the debate.

So, I guess if one simplifies the LeMond paradox we have no positive test, no confession & no scandal. This would be the black & white answer (i.e., the proverbial "no hard evidence")...so he's completely clean from that standpoint. But it begs the question of how could a rider win a GT clean in a sport with a history & culture of doping, particulary with GT champions? Anquetil, with his famous (or not so famous) cocktail, said the demands of the Tour make it impossible to ride without chemical assistance. Then came Merckx & Fignon with their amphetamines, Thevenent with steriods, Delgado with a masking agent, and so on. There's a consistent pattern with GT winners. And as everyone probably knows, there's science showing how destructive a 3 week GT is on the human body:

http://www.bicycling.com/racing/tour-de-france/how-racing-the-tour-de-france-changes-cyclists-bodies

Therefore, from a scientific standpoint, how could LeMond, or any GT winner, withstand the negative effects of a GT and not only finish strong but win the event, presumably against other talented contenders who are using PEDs? How did LeMond avert the fatigue & catabolic effects of a 3 week race?

The popular & prevelant PEDs of the 70s & 80s were amphetamines, steriods & testosterone. Though unlike the "rocket fuel" and transformation changing EPO of the 90s, these PEDs were performance enhancing & would not only give an equally talented rider an edge, but certainly aid in recovery and avert some of the negative physiological effects of a grueling GT. Studies have shown that steriods & T are not only anti-catabolic but stimulate erythropoiesis resulting in a modest increases in Hct .And a popular amphetamine of that time period, methylphenidate, has been shown in a study with elite cyclists to significantly improve higher power outputs, O2 consumptions, ventilation volume and perceived time to exhaustion:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19052141

So, maybe LeMond is clean. But how did his body hold up so well over 3 weeks in a grueling Tour beating other top contenders, many of whom were using the PEDs of that era?

Because it always comes back to same tenants, can someone who has the natural ability and the natural recovery beat the inferior guys who are doping. As we dont really know the exact starting reference for each individuals, it is hard to know when the natural ability ends and the chemical assistance starts. Every pro will decline over 3 weeks but will do so at differing rates depending on their physical abilities, so you end up with those with the best recovery, both physical and mentally at the top. How many of those were doing so artificially is the million dollar question. There are such things as outliers but the question is, how big is the outlier?? Is the talent big enough to overcome the doping?? Problem is, we seem to have no definitive research anywhere to demonstrate this so are left with guessing and conjecture .

Many hematological studies showed a ~15% decline in Hct with elite cyclists over a GT. I don’t see how an outlier wouldn't be affected by that, particulary when they start climbing in the third week. There's also studies that show androgenic steriods stimulate erythropoiesis resulting in increased Hct, one study as much as ~9.6%., about the same as some test subjects in the Ashenden microdose EPO study. I also posted a link on the study of methylphenidate, which was widespread in the 70s/80s, that shows significant performance enhancing benefits. I don’t see how a clean rider would not be at a disadvantage from another rider who uses these PEDs in a 3 week race. Maybe not a shorter stage race, certainly not a single day event...but a GT?

 

[pmcg76]

Re: Re:

Or do you have irrefutable proof that Lemond did not dope?

Pure logic tells us that's an impossible proof for anyone to arrive at about any rider/athlete, let alone for Lemond.

Spock says there are only two possibilities regarding an athlete's doping status:
i. they are or were doping (since there is clear evidence of such, e.g. an ADRV, admission etc)
ii. we don't know (since there is no clear evidence and proof of not doping is impossible to ascertain)

It's reasonable to assign a probability ranking to athletes in the latter category though.

Ranking needs be based on quality of evidence (e.g. testing the validity of primary sources) and sound reasoning (logical fallacies need not apply).

Motivated reasoning and other forms of confirmation bias needs to take a hike. High volumes of low quality evidence (e.g. here-say) are pretty worthless when assigning a ranking. One cannot cherry pick either. IOW the weight of all valid evidence is what matters when determining a ranking.

So wrt to Lemond, the probability is non-zero (since it can't be zero for anyone) but is less than 100% since clear evidence for case (i) is not satisfied.

There will be a baseline starting probability level for all elite athletes because of the mere fact of competing in a sport known for high rates of doping. If we use e.g. the Dopeology database, then a baseline probability value of 50% would seem reasonable for elite cyclists, although it could well be more/less and it has probably changed over time. It's then a case of how one adjusts that baseline probability up or down for an individual based on the balance of valid evidence.

Good analysis (I like your Spock analogy). I've been reading some of the millions of posts on this thread...it's like a never ending baseball game. But interesting and thought provoking info presented on both sides of the debate.

So, I guess if one simplifies the LeMond paradox we have no positive test, no confession & no scandal. This would be the black & white answer (i.e., the proverbial "no hard evidence")...so he's completely clean from that standpoint. But it begs the question of how could a rider win a GT clean in a sport with a history & culture of doping, particulary with GT champions? Anquetil, with his famous (or not so famous) cocktail, said the demands of the Tour make it impossible to ride without chemical assistance. Then came Merckx & Fignon with their amphetamines, Thevenent with steriods, Delgado with a masking agent, and so on. There's a consistent pattern with GT winners. And as everyone probably knows, there's science showing how destructive a 3 week GT is on the human body:

http://www.bicycling.com/racing/tour-de-france/how-racing-the-tour-de-france-changes-cyclists-bodies

Therefore, from a scientific standpoint, how could LeMond, or any GT winner, withstand the negative effects of a GT and not only finish strong but win the event, presumably against other talented contenders who are using PEDs? How did LeMond avert the fatigue & catabolic effects of a 3 week race?

The popular & prevelant PEDs of the 70s & 80s were amphetamines, steriods & testosterone. Though unlike the "rocket fuel" and transformation changing EPO of the 90s, these PEDs were performance enhancing & would not only give an equally talented rider an edge, but certainly aid in recovery and avert some of the negative physiological effects of a grueling GT. Studies have shown that steriods & T are not only anti-catabolic but stimulate erythropoiesis resulting in a modest increases in Hct .And a popular amphetamine of that time period, methylphenidate, has been shown in a study with elite cyclists to significantly improve higher power outputs, O2 consumptions, ventilation volume and perceived time to exhaustion:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19052141

So, maybe LeMond is clean. But how did his body hold up so well over 3 weeks in a grueling Tour beating other top contenders, many of whom were using the PEDs of that era?

Because it always comes back to same tenants, can someone who has the natural ability and the natural recovery beat the inferior guys who are doping. As we dont really know the exact starting reference for each individuals, it is hard to know when the natural ability ends and the chemical assistance starts. Every pro will decline over 3 weeks but will do so at differing rates depending on their physical abilities, so you end up with those with the best recovery, both physical and mentally at the top. How many of those were doing so artificially is the million dollar question. There are such things as outliers but the question is, how big is the outlier?? Is the talent big enough to overcome the doping?? Problem is, we seem to have no definitive research anywhere to demonstrate this so are left with guessing and conjecture .

Many hematological studies showed a ~15% decline in Hct with elite cyclists over a GT. I don’t see how an outlier wouldn't be affected by that, particulary when they start climbing in the third week. There's also studies that show androgenic steriods stimulate erythropoiesis resulting in increased Hct, one study as much as ~9.6%., about the same as some test subjects in the Ashenden microdose EPO study. I also posted a link on the study of methylphenidate, which was widespread in the 70s/80s, that shows significant performance enhancing benefits. I don’t see how a clean rider would not be at a disadvantage from another rider who uses these PEDs in a 3 week race. Maybe not a shorter stage race, certainly not a single day event...but a GT?

But thats it though, what if the outlier doesnt decrease 15%, what if they only decrease 10% whilst others decrease 15%, take steroids and get a 5/6% increase so they are still in the same ball park as the outlier. Maybe the person who gets a 9.6 increase from steroids decreases 20% in hct. Personally I dont know enough about phsiology to comment extensively on this and whilst studies shows results, those results do not represent every single person even if their is a mean average. There will still be outliers I am sure.

 

[Aragon]

Re: Re:

Many hematological studies showed a ~15% decline in Hct with elite cyclists over a GT. I don’t see how an outlier wouldn't be affected by that, particulary when they start climbing in the third week. There's also studies that show androgenic steriods stimulate erythropoiesis resulting in increased Hct, one study as much as ~9.6%., about the same as some test subjects in the Ashenden microdose EPO study. I also posted a link on the study of methylphenidate, which was widespread in the 70s/80s, that shows significant performance enhancing benefits. I don’t see how a clean rider would not be at a disadvantage from another rider who uses these PEDs in a 3 week race. Maybe not a shorter stage race, certainly not a single day event...but a GT?

The Finnish study you referred to about the 9.6 % elevation of hematocrit (Alén, 1985) after administration of anabolic steroids is somewhat suspicious, because hemoglobin level of the subjects wasn't elevated, but seems to have been slighly lower at the end. It is well established that both should be elevated (fall) in tandem and one is interchangeable to another with a coefficient.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1478211/?page=4

There was an earlier Finnish study from 1977 (Holma et all.) which showed that that both blood volume and stroke volume of well-trained subjects were elevated some 15 % after administration of methandienone (aka Dianabol), but unfortunately Vo2MAX wasn't measured at all. I have somewhere a copy of the full study and there is a vague reference by the authors that the effect of hormone is similar to blood doping in that regard, if my memory is sound.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/616206

 

[Aragon]

Re: Re:

I'd be interested in references to "many hematological studies" pointing to the 15 % fall of hematocrit during grand tours. The 1984 data from Dutch letter referred in another thread shows only some 7 % fall in hematocrit and much touted Danish 2009 study a 11.5 % fall in hemoglobin concentration with huge individual variations (7.0 % to 20.6 %).

The number of subjects is very small in both datasets and the possibility of PED use by the subjects can't be outruled. But the tendency is that the drop of values isn't uniform and it isn't that clear that the fall of hematocrit is fully explained by RBC destruction and/or lowered erythropoiesis.

 

[Alex Simmons/RST]

Re: Re:

So, I guess if one simplifies the LeMond paradox we have no positive test, no confession & no scandal. This would be the black & white answer (i.e., the proverbial "no hard evidence")...so he's completely clean from that standpoint and no further analysis needed. But it begs the question of how could a rider win a GT clean in a sport with a history & culture of doping, particulary with GT champions?

Not quite. The two doping status choices are either:
i. confirmed doper
OR
ii. we don't know (with an optional probability ranking)

The probability ranking is where the further analysis comes into play (if one is interested in such things).

Some GT winners fall into the "we don't know" category and there is still a non-zero probability, especially pre-EPO, that such a GT winner could have been clean considering the known physiological potential of human performance, but we cannot ever really know.

The probability of such an occurrence during the high use of EPO era is much smaller though because of the vastly different impact of that type of doping on performance.

I know many people want a definitive answer, or they have a certainty of belief (either way) perhaps based on motivated reasoning, but the reality is we just don't know and hence we are left with a probability state. That status will forever remain unless some definite evidence comes to light to confirm doping.

 

[djpbaltimore]

Re:

Cheers Firefly, good post.
Asking for evidence of his cleanliness, I've tried that plenty of times, but what you get in return is insults to the brain along the lines of "Gilles Delion was clean; therefore Lemond was clean". Or, "Phil Andersen said Lemond is clean, so case closed". It's intriguing to see so

When Benotti says, "Tilford is a mixed bag when it comes to USA and it's dopers. I like Tilford's blog, but he is human", that sounds about right.

Nobody is making those arguments. Those are two obvious strawmen.

 

[Nomad]

@pmcg76
It was ill-advised for me to bring up Froome on the LeMond thread. I did it not to make a cycling comparison between them but to illustrate a philosophical point. My fault...my apologies.

Yes... I read your posts. Very informative and yes - there's no comparison between Indurain & LeMond (I was never making that case in comparing Big Mig & LeMond or Froome & LeMond in the first place).

Lastly, I don’t have an agenda or a dog in this fight. Whether or not LeMond used PEDs anytime in his career I don’t lose sleep over it. Back at the start of his career I was in college and not much of cycling fan anyway. I just don't believe that any Tour winner from the last half century or so hasn't use some PED(s), whether prohibited substances and/or TUEs for performance enhancing purposes (just an opinion...nothing more).

 

[Nomad]

Re: Re:

Or do you have irrefutable proof that Lemond did not dope?

Pure logic tells us that's an impossible proof for anyone to arrive at about any rider/athlete, let alone for Lemond.

Spock says there are only two possibilities regarding an athlete's doping status:
i. they are or were doping (since there is clear evidence of such, e.g. an ADRV, admission etc)
ii. we don't know (since there is no clear evidence and proof of not doping is impossible to ascertain)

It's reasonable to assign a probability ranking to athletes in the latter category though.

Ranking needs be based on quality of evidence (e.g. testing the validity of primary sources) and sound reasoning (logical fallacies need not apply).

Motivated reasoning and other forms of confirmation bias needs to take a hike. High volumes of low quality evidence (e.g. here-say) are pretty worthless when assigning a ranking. One cannot cherry pick either. IOW the weight of all valid evidence is what matters when determining a ranking.

So wrt to Lemond, the probability is non-zero (since it can't be zero for anyone) but is less than 100% since clear evidence for case (i) is not satisfied.

There will be a baseline starting probability level for all elite athletes because of the mere fact of competing in a sport known for high rates of doping. If we use e.g. the Dopeology database, then a baseline probability value of 50% would seem reasonable for elite cyclists, although it could well be more/less and it has probably changed over time. It's then a case of how one adjusts that baseline probability up or down for an individual based on the balance of valid evidence.

Good analysis (I like your Spock analogy). I've been reading some of the millions of posts on this thread...it's like a never ending baseball game. But interesting and thought provoking info presented on both sides of the debate.

So, I guess if one simplifies the LeMond paradox we have no positive test, no confession & no scandal. This would be the black & white answer (i.e., the proverbial "no hard evidence")...so he's completely clean from that standpoint. But it begs the question of how could a rider win a GT clean in a sport with a history & culture of doping, particulary with GT champions? Anquetil, with his famous (or not so famous) cocktail, said the demands of the Tour make it impossible to ride without chemical assistance. Then came Merckx & Fignon with their amphetamines, Thevenent with steriods, Delgado with a masking agent, and so on. There's a consistent pattern with GT winners. And as everyone probably knows, there's science showing how destructive a 3 week GT is on the human body:

http://www.bicycling.com/racing/tour-de-france/how-racing-the-tour-de-france-changes-cyclists-bodies

Therefore, from a scientific standpoint, how could LeMond, or any GT winner, withstand the negative effects of a GT and not only finish strong but win the event, presumably against other talented contenders who are using PEDs? How did LeMond avert the fatigue & catabolic effects of a 3 week race?

The popular & prevelant PEDs of the 70s & 80s were amphetamines, steriods & testosterone. Though unlike the "rocket fuel" and transformation changing EPO of the 90s, these PEDs were performance enhancing & would not only give an equally talented rider an edge, but certainly aid in recovery and avert some of the negative physiological effects of a grueling GT. Studies have shown that steriods & T are not only anti-catabolic but stimulate erythropoiesis resulting in a modest increases in Hct .And a popular amphetamine of that time period, methylphenidate, has been shown in a study with elite cyclists to significantly improve higher power outputs, O2 consumptions, ventilation volume and perceived time to exhaustion:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19052141

So, maybe LeMond is clean. But how did his body hold up so well over 3 weeks in a grueling Tour beating other top contenders, many of whom were using the PEDs of that era?

Because it always comes back to same tenants, can someone who has the natural ability and the natural recovery beat the inferior guys who are doping. As we dont really know the exact starting reference for each individuals, it is hard to know when the natural ability ends and the chemical assistance starts. Every pro will decline over 3 weeks but will do so at differing rates depending on their physical abilities, so you end up with those with the best recovery, both physical and mentally at the top. How many of those were doing so artificially is the million dollar question. There are such things as outliers but the question is, how big is the outlier?? Is the talent big enough to overcome the doping?? Problem is, we seem to have no definitive research anywhere to demonstrate this so are left with guessing and conjecture .

I've heard experts say LeMond was a superb talent, an exceptional endurance athlete with his freakishly high VO2max. But I don't think being a superbly talented athlete makes one immune from using PEDs. The Kenyans, who are superbly talented and arguably the world's best distance runners, have had 41 doping postives in the last several years. Even the best in their particular discipline sometimes use PEDs.

Lance was a superbly talented athlete based on this:

In an interview Carmichael gave back in 2002, he says LA was "among the most remarkable athletes he's ever seen." He says LA had a heart 1/3 larger than an average man, a very high VO2max from lab testing, a MHR of 200+, etc. He says "Lance has unusually long thigh bones that permitted the right amount of torque to the pedals." He says "Lance trains more than his competitors." Carmichael specifically talks about the differences for LA's Tour success being better equipment, better nutrition, significant weight loss, small gains, attention to detail, etc:

 

[Nomad]

Re: Re:

Many hematological studies showed a ~15% decline in Hct with elite cyclists over a GT. I don’t see how an outlier wouldn't be affected by that, particulary when they start climbing in the third week. There's also studies that show androgenic steriods stimulate erythropoiesis resulting in increased Hct, one study as much as ~9.6%., about the same as some test subjects in the Ashenden microdose EPO study. I also posted a link on the study of methylphenidate, which was widespread in the 70s/80s, that shows significant performance enhancing benefits. I don’t see how a clean rider would not be at a disadvantage from another rider who uses these PEDs in a 3 week race. Maybe not a shorter stage race, certainly not a single day event...but a GT?

The Finnish study you referred to about the 9.6 % elevation of hematocrit (Alén, 1985) after administration of anabolic steroids is somewhat suspicious, because hemoglobin level of the subjects wasn't elevated, but seems to have been slighly lower at the end. It is well established that both should be elevated (fall) in tandem and one is interchangeable to another with a coefficient.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1478211/?page=4

There was an earlier Finnish study from 1977 (Holma et all.) which showed that that both blood volume and stroke volume of well-trained subjects were elevated some 15 % after administration of methandienone (aka Dianabol), but unfortunately Vo2MAX wasn't measured at all. I have somewhere a copy of the full study and there is a vague reference by the authors that the effect of hormone is similar to blood doping in that regard, if my memory is sound.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/616206

Thanks for the links. Yes...I did notice the descrepancy in the increase in Hct/Hb in the Alen study. However, there's a better and more recent study that I posted in the blood doping thread that demonstrated a significant concomitant linear increase in Hct/Hb (~10%) with a dose-dependent administration of testosterone in both young (19-35) and older (60+) subjects. The increase was even more dramatic in the older age group; in the realm of ~15% (I'm a competitive runner in the old fart 55+ age-division and I'm getting my butt kicked by other runners who tell me they're using T...maybe this is why. Lol)

J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2008 Mar;93(3):914-9. Epub 2007 Dec 26.

Effects of graded doses of testosterone on erythropoiesis in healthy young and older men.

Coviello AD1, Kaplan B, Lakshman KM, Chen T, Singh AB, Bhasin S

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18160461

 

[Nomad]

Re: Re:

I'd be interested in references to "many hematological studies" pointing to the 15 % fall of hematocrit during grand tours. The 1984 data from Dutch letter referred in another thread shows only some 7 % fall in hematocrit and much touted Danish 2009 study a 11.5 % fall in hemoglobin concentration with huge individual variations (7.0 % to 20.6 %).

The number of subjects is very small in both datasets and the possibility of PED use by the subjects can't be outruled. But the tendency is that the drop of values isn't uniform and it isn't that clear that the fall of hematocrit is fully explained by RBC destruction and/or lowered erythropoiesis.

Morkeberg states the ~15% decline in one of his papers:

Blood manipulation: current challenges from an anti-doping perspective." (Morkeberg, J/Hematogy Am Soc Hematol Educ Program/2013):

> "During strenuous multiday competitions, a normal physiological response is plasma volume expansion, resulting in a decrease in Hb of ∼ 15%. An athlete with a normal Hb of 14.5 g/dL ends up with an Hb of 12.3 g/dL at the end of a Grand Tour."

http://m.asheducationbook.hematologylibrary.org/content/2013/1/627.long?view=long&pmid=24319242

Morkeberg was a co-author of the study you cited (changes in blood values in elite cyclist?). He used data from a Tour which showed a lower average and wider reference range you cited. I not sure of why the descrepancies in the two papers.

In addition, I cited the amphetamine (methylphenidate) study that showed significant performance enhancing benefits with elite cyclists. Factor in the high-responder concept with PEDs and this could be even more profound.

Also, since prednisolone is a hot topic right now, and was also used in the 80s, there's a RCT that demonstrated significant endurance benefits with just a short course administration of prednisolone combined with intense training. Though the study was small based, and with amateur cyclists, it shows the potential of performance enhancing effects:

"Short-term glucocorticoid intake combined with intense training on performance and hormonal responses." (Collomp et al/Br J Sports Med/2008).

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18048433/pu...

It appears the prevelant PEDs of the 80s had significant performance enhancing effects.

 

[popular jams]

Re: Re:

Or do you have irrefutable proof that Lemond did not dope?

Pure logic tells us that's an impossible proof for anyone to arrive at about any rider/athlete, let alone for Lemond.

Spock says there are only two possibilities regarding an athlete's doping status:
i. they are or were doping (since there is clear evidence of such, e.g. an ADRV, admission etc)
ii. we don't know (since there is no clear evidence and proof of not doping is impossible to ascertain)

It's reasonable to assign a probability ranking to athletes in the latter category though.

Ranking needs be based on quality of evidence (e.g. testing the validity of primary sources) and sound reasoning (logical fallacies need not apply).

Motivated reasoning and other forms of confirmation bias needs to take a hike. High volumes of low quality evidence (e.g. here-say) are pretty worthless when assigning a ranking. One cannot cherry pick either. IOW the weight of all valid evidence is what matters when determining a ranking.

So wrt to Lemond, the probability is non-zero (since it can't be zero for anyone) but is less than 100% since clear evidence for case (i) is not satisfied.

There will be a baseline starting probability level for all elite athletes because of the mere fact of competing in a sport known for high rates of doping. If we use e.g. the Dopeology database, then a baseline probability value of 50% would seem reasonable for elite cyclists, although it could well be more/less and it has probably changed over time. It's then a case of how one adjusts that baseline probability up or down for an individual based on the balance of valid evidence.

Good analysis (I like your Spock analogy). I've been reading some of the millions of posts on this thread...it's like a never ending baseball game. But interesting and thought provoking info presented on both sides of the debate.

So, I guess if one simplifies the LeMond paradox we have no positive test, no confession & no scandal. This would be the black & white answer (i.e., the proverbial "no hard evidence")...so he's completely clean from that standpoint. But it begs the question of how could a rider win a GT clean in a sport with a history & culture of doping, particulary with GT champions? Anquetil, with his famous (or not so famous) cocktail, said the demands of the Tour make it impossible to ride without chemical assistance. Then came Merckx & Fignon with their amphetamines, Thevenent with steriods, Delgado with a masking agent, and so on. There's a consistent pattern with GT winners. And as everyone probably knows, there's science showing how destructive a 3 week GT is on the human body:

http://www.bicycling.com/racing/tour-de-france/how-racing-the-tour-de-france-changes-cyclists-bodies

Therefore, from a scientific standpoint, how could LeMond, or any GT winner, withstand the negative effects of a GT and not only finish strong but win the event, presumably against other talented contenders who are using PEDs? How did LeMond avert the fatigue & catabolic effects of a 3 week race?

The popular & prevelant PEDs of the 70s & 80s were amphetamines, steriods & testosterone. Though unlike the "rocket fuel" and transformation changing EPO of the 90s, these PEDs were performance enhancing & would not only give an equally talented rider an edge, but certainly aid in recovery and avert some of the negative physiological effects of a grueling GT. Studies have shown that steriods & T are not only anti-catabolic but stimulate erythropoiesis resulting in a modest increases in Hct .And a popular amphetamine of that time period, methylphenidate, has been shown in a study with elite cyclists to significantly improve higher power outputs, O2 consumptions, ventilation volume and perceived time to exhaustion:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19052141

So, maybe LeMond is clean. But how did his body hold up so well over 3 weeks in a grueling Tour beating other top contenders, many of whom were using the PEDs of that era?

Because it always comes back to same tenants, can someone who has the natural ability and the natural recovery beat the inferior guys who are doping. As we dont really know the exact starting reference for each individuals, it is hard to know when the natural ability ends and the chemical assistance starts. Every pro will decline over 3 weeks but will do so at differing rates depending on their physical abilities, so you end up with those with the best recovery, both physical and mentally at the top. How many of those were doing so artificially is the million dollar question. There are such things as outliers but the question is, how big is the outlier?? Is the talent big enough to overcome the doping?? Problem is, we seem to have no definitive research anywhere to demonstrate this so are left with guessing and conjecture .

I've heard experts say LeMond was a superb talent, an exceptional endurance athlete with his freakishly high VO2max. But I don't think being a superbly talented athlete makes one immune from using PEDs. The Kenyans, who are superbly talented and arguably the world's best distance runners, have had 41 doping postives in the last several years. Even the best in their particular discipline sometimes use PEDs.

Lance was a superbly talented athlete based on this:

In an interview Carmichael gave back in 2002, he says LA was "among the most remarkable athletes he's ever seen." He says LA had a heart 1/3 larger than an average man, a very high VO2max from lab testing, a MHR of 200+, etc. He says "Lance has unusually long thigh bones that permitted the right amount of torque to the pedals." He says "Lance trains more than his competitors." Carmichael specifically talks about the differences for LA's Tour success being better equipment, better nutrition, significant weight loss, small gains, attention to detail, etc:

Chris Carmichael isn't an expert on anything, and that paragraph doesn't have a true statement in it.

The truth is Armstrong was doped since his teenage years by opportunistic and morally bankrupt schmucks.

 

[Benotti69]

Re: Re:

Chris Carmichael isn't an expert on anything, and that paragraph doesn't have a true statement in it.

The truth is Armstrong was doped since his teenage years by opportunistic and morally bankrupt schmucks.

This cannot be repeated enough.

Armstrong was doping as a teenager in trialthlon, hence one can never know whether he had true ability. He had one thing and that was greed and he fed that greed with cheating his way to the top.

Carmichael was known as the beard to cover the fact they were using Ferrari. Carmichael has been earning a living ever since his association with Armstrong.

 

[gillan1969]

The argument about Lemond's physiology isn't that it proves he didn't use PEDs, its in relation to the hypothesis that as he was a GT winner he must have used PEDs.

If possible, it would only be possible with the physiology of an outlier (assuming all the other riders didn't crash)....but that is just an "if"...

It would not be possible for someone with the physiology of someone who spent a good few years as a pro being mediocre...say for example Wiggins and Froome to win a GT without PEDS...I agree on that

 

[Aragon]

Re: Re:

Morkeberg states the ~15% decline in one of his papers:

Blood manipulation: current challenges from an anti-doping perspective." (Morkeberg, J/Hematogy Am Soc Hematol Educ Program/2013):

> "During strenuous multiday competitions, a normal physiological response is plasma volume expansion, resulting in a decrease in Hb of ∼ 15%. An athlete with a normal Hb of 14.5 g/dL ends up with an Hb of 12.3 g/dL at the end of a Grand Tour."

http://m.asheducationbook.hematologylibrary.org/content/2013/1/627.long?view=long&pmid=24319242

Morkeberg was a co-author of the study you cited (changes in blood values in elite cyclist?). He used data from a Tour which showed a lower average and wider reference range you cited. I not sure of why the descrepancies in the two papers.

The article Blood manipulation: current challenges... appears to be a popular article and not original scientific on-field research and so the figure of 15 % isn't original to the article but seems to be based on two sources of which neither supports the claim (If I read the material correctly).

Be that as it may, the often-repeated claim that the fall of hematocrit during multi-week grand tours has a detrimental effect on performance isn't necessarily even true, as Morkeberg states in the article that during Grand Tours "normal physiological response is plasma volume expansion", which indicates that hemoglobin mass and thus oxygen delivery to the tissues remains more or less stable or has only slighly downward direction.

 

[MarkvW]

Blood doping seems a very poor explanation for LeMond's performance since he was very active throughout the cycling season.

 

[sniper]

Re:

Blood doping seems a very poor explanation for LeMond's performance since he was very active throughout the cycling season.

do you think professional football players blood dope?
or what about djokovic and nadal?

the other thing is that (to my knowledge) nobody claims blood doping *alone* explains lemond's performances.

 

[sniper]

Re: Re:

...
I've heard experts say LeMond was a superb talent, an exceptional endurance athlete with his freakishly high VO2max. But I don't think being a superbly talented athlete makes one immune from using PEDs. The Kenyans, who are superbly talented and arguably the world's best distance runners, have had 41 doping postives in the last several years. Even the best in their particular discipline sometimes use PEDs.

well said, and that's a good parallel.

The lack of a mid-career transformation means one red flag less for Lemond.
But the same is true for Messi, Sagan, Ullrich, Contador, Boris Becker, Phelps, Bolt, and so many others.
All superb talents from a young age. Yet I don't see anybody claiming they're clean.

Point being, the lack of a mid-career transformation doesn't wipe out other red flags (which in the case of Lemond include two of the most dodgy *mid-season* transformations that procycling has ever witnessed, going from being sick to winning the TdF both in 89 and 90).

 

[gillan1969]

Re: Re:

...
I've heard experts say LeMond was a superb talent, an exceptional endurance athlete with his freakishly high VO2max. But I don't think being a superbly talented athlete makes one immune from using PEDs. The Kenyans, who are superbly talented and arguably the world's best distance runners, have had 41 doping postives in the last several years. Even the best in their particular discipline sometimes use PEDs.

well said, and that's a good parallel.

The lack of a mid-career transformation means one red flag less for Lemond.
But the same is true for Messi, Sagan, Ullrich, Contador, Boris Becker, Phelps, Bolt, and so many others.
All superb talents from a young age. Yet I don't see anybody claiming they're clean.

Point being, the lack of a mid-career transformation doesn't wipe out other red flags (which in the case of Lemond include two of the most dodgy *mid-season* transformations that procycling has ever witnessed, going from being sick to winning the TdF both in 89 and 90).

to you they are red flags where I would read them as the opposite...he has the physiology and ability to be GT winner...when he's sick (or gets shot) his performance drops...when he's not he returns to his natural level (assuming enough miles in the legs)...and is up there...and remember these were not jaw-dropping climbing performances in either years...i think you might call them laboured at best (final '89 TT in Paris notwithstanding)...far far better in 85/86

this is in sharp contrast to the career transformations you like to conflate a season 'transformation with...

and using our friends Sir Wiggo and Froome again...we knew their natural level because they were pros for a good number of years before they became outliers...hanging about in the middle of the bell curve

 

[popular jams]

This thread proves that not all arguments are created equal, even under the guise of reasoned debate.

We're left to infer that the issue is with the poster and not just the posts. Any other conclusion is nonsense and irrationally separates the person from the position.

We'll never prove a negative and therefore LeMond doped. May as well lock the thread.

 

[Alex Simmons/RST]

Re:

We'll never prove a negative and therefore LeMond doped. May as well lock the thread.

When a positive has not been proven, then the answer (since we can't prove the negative) can only ever be "undetermined" and we are left with a probability ranking only.

The very fact that every non-positive athlete has this undetermined (impossible to prove a negative) status, when combined with the large trust deficit of elite sport wrt doping, is why these threads will continue to exist. People love to speculate, sometimes reasonably with evidence, often with nonsense, and even when the facts are sound the application of logic when interpreting them can still be flawed via a range of logical fallacies.

 

[Nomad]

Re: Re:

We'll never prove a negative and therefore LeMond doped. May as well lock the thread.

When a positive has not been proven, then the answer (since we can't prove the negative) can only ever be "undetermined" and we are left with a probability ranking only.

The very fact that every non-positive athlete has this undetermined (impossible to prove a negative) status, when combined with the large trust deficit of elite sport wrt doping, is why these threads will continue to exist. People love to speculate, sometimes reasonably with evidence, often with nonsense, and even when the facts are sound the application of logic when interpreting them can still be flawed via a range of logical fallacies.

Very interesting points...and they make a lot of sense. You're also very knowledgeable with possibility/probability factors of PED use in cycling,. Therefore, let me ask you point blank: Do you think LeMond, in your opinion, used PEDs anytime in his career? Looking over prior posts in this thread, there seems to be two camps, with affirmative PED use broken down into 2 parts: 1) 100% clean...no PEDs...ever - pure natural talent and, therefore, wouldn't need to dope (this seems to be the majority). 2) PEDs use of the 70s/80s; "low-octane" stuff that others were doing (i.e., amphetamines & androgens) and 2a) PED use in the form of 02-vector doping (this seems to be the very minority of the affirmative PED use answer).

I know some people have "no opinion," but I think in their mind it would have to be one of two answers (i.e., he either did or didn't). I also read some posts where people say "maybe," possibly" or "could have," but this to me sounds like an affirmative answer

So, what's your logical mind tell you?

 

[Alex Simmons/RST]

Re: Re:

So, what's your logical mind tell you?

That it's quite OK to accept that sometimes we just don't know.

I'm not really sure why that's such a bad thing. It's the essence of science/logical thinking to accept there are things we don't yet know or understand, but equally it's important not to make crap up just because there is a knowledge vacuum.

 

[Alex Simmons/RST]

A tangential consideration when considering probability factors for the doping status of riders of previous eras:
What were the anti-doping regulations in force at the time?

I think we need to be careful applying today's standards to an era when different standards applied. e.g. blood transfusions were not prohibited until 1986, so is injecting a blood bag before then doping? I consider doping to be an act that breaches anti-doping regulations in force at the time. Else it's just another thing one does within the rules that may confer a performance improvement. Keep in mind I'm not talking about what one might consider to be fair play / ethical, only what's considered to be doping from a rules of sport perspective.

 

[Aragon]

Re: Re:

I don’t see how a clean rider would not be at a disadvantage from another rider who uses these PEDs in a 3 week race. Maybe not a shorter stage race, certainly not a single day event...but a GT?
...
In addition, I cited the amphetamine (methylphenidate) study that showed significant performance enhancing benefits with elite cyclists. Factor in the high-responder concept with PEDs and this could be even more profound.

Also, since prednisolone is a hot topic right now, and was also used in the 80s, there's a RCT that demonstrated significant endurance benefits with just a short course administration of prednisolone combined with intense training. Though the study was small based, and with amateur cyclists, it shows the potential of performance enhancing effects:

It appears the prevelant PEDs of the 80s had significant performance enhancing effects.

To paraphrase Lance Armstrong: "You have a point"

I follow your approach completely, but still one should keep in mind the following things when applying the scientific data on real life Tour de France cyclists:

1) As it is standard procedure in the scientific research on PEDs, the subjects of the trials are at best well-trained recreational people or national level athletes, so the results aren't necessarily applicable to elite athletes. Even while the subjects of the methylphenidate-study (Swart et all, 2009) are described as "elite cyclists" and their mean Vo2Max is high as 70.6 ml/kg/min, as a group they are still far from the top echelons of the endurance sport.

2) As noticed by one Italian running coach, submaximal time-to-exhaustion based protocols measure more motivation than anything else, thus results of an ultra-boring bicycle ergometer time trial aren't necessarily applicable to real life environment where rewards, motivation, publicity and thus noradrenaline levels etc. are totally different.

For above reasons, I am even on the more skeptical side that the effect of rEPO (or blood doping) on performance is as high as has been reported ("10 percent in direct speed") even when several studies have put the actual effect on direct running/skiing speed in the range of 2-6 % with even relative low hct elevations.

There are also a few anecdotal things that make me cautious.

While there exists only anecdotal data, the consensus view is that in both in terms of amount of users and in terms of dosages, the use of rEPO was more prevalent in the 1996 "pre-health check" TDF than in the "post-Festina" 1999 edition, but nevertheless the speed was significantly higher in the latter (winner +2.7 %, 100th +2.5 %). In addition, while there is a ton of literature on the suspicious speeds of the Tour, it is rarely mentioned that the Giro d'Italia speed record of the 1983 edition (Giuseppe Saronni, 38.93 km/h) survived the attacks of the rEPO-era strikingly well.

This is not to say that you are plain wrong, but only that your case for the often assumed "dopers always prevail" ("DAP") -hypothesis is far from obvious.

 

[MarkvW]

There is nothing wrong with doping so long as doping is within the rules of the sport and the rules are evenly applied. I can freely accept that LeMond may have "doped" with substances that were not banned at the time. But, so what?

This discussion has demonstrated only that a cheater could have accomplished what LeMond accomplished, NOT that LeMond cheated.