LeMond III

[Alex Simmons/RST]

Re: Re:

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.

There is a physiological reason as well for TTE having a much greater variability. This is because the power-duration relationship is very flat at longer duration (e.g. ride at 10% under threshold and you can pretty much triple TTE). As a result of the flatness of the P-D curve, it only takes a small change in threshold power to result in a significant change in TTE for any given absolute power. Put another way, stamina improves more than threshold power does.

 

[Nomad]

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.

As you know, it would be impossible to use world class pro ahletes for any scientific trials with PEDs for ethical reasons & conflict of interest with their respective anti-doping agencies...so we'll never get that perfect opportunity. Also, the studies don't take into consideration the high-responder concept; it's a one time experiment where the subjects are not followed through with their training and any competitions. Nor do the studies use a combination of PEDs, e.g., EPO/androgens, EPO/HGH, etc, to measure any synergistic effects. Historically & presently, athletes very seldom use one single PED. The cocktail of the 90s/00s was EPO/HGH/T with a lot of riders. The EPO/anabolic steriod stack is another popular one. I would imagine the prevelant PEDs of the 80s (amphetamines/androgens) were stacked by many athletes choosing to dope to the best of their abilities & resources.

I wouldn't underestimate the power of O2-vector doping, particulary in conjunction wiith androgens and/or HGH, with a high responder. Once Ferrari got LA's PED program reorganized from his pre-cancer days and restructured his training fundalmentals focusing more on climbing, you had the magical transformation from a none GT contender with no climbing ability to one of the best climbers in the history of cycling....all compliments of the mastermind. Pantani also benefited greatly from EPO/HGH/T becoming a "superhuman" climber. Here's another high responder who adapted very well. On his Wikipedia page you can see the data on his Hct values where he fluctuates between a 40.7% baseline to over 58%. As you know, Pantani holds the top three (3) fastest ascents up Alpe d'Huez, with one of those set in the post-50% Hct limit era. He's also the last rider win the Giro-Tour double (insane...anyone think he's really that good?). IMO, it's more of how the athlete responds to EPO, and other PED combos, along with their training adaptation. These two super high-responders unleveled the playing field rather quickly (imagine that).

I think it's even more egregious in my discipline of distance running (competitor/coach), where I believe the "DAP" hypothesis usually, sadly, does prevail. For example, here's a case of the power of EPO plus an androgen, with high responders, and magical transformations: London Olympiics women's 800m final; 2 Russians; Savinova (Gold) & Poistagova (Bronze). A whistleblower recently (another Russian runner) came foward and revealed their doping program; EPO & oxandrolone ("ox"). Their PBs pre-transformation was around a pedestrian 2:15's. Post-transformation: a sizzling 1:55...all in about a year's time! In the final Savinova ran 1:56:19 (WL) - more than a full second ahead of Semenya. Our American finalist, Montano, a superb natural talent (steady, progressive palmares; California HS champion, National Jr. champion, USA title, etc. ) never had a chance to medal. She finishes 5th losing to 2 supercharged Russians, a Kenyan (suspicious, IMO, due to their extensive doping history & they're also not part of the ABP), and Semenya (who has hyperandrogenism). So much for natural talent in this case. In fact, the video shows doping not only prevails, but insidiously destroys competition at the highest level of T&F:

https://youtu.be/vHU9OFSwmEs:

I do see all your points...and they're very informative. The case I've pointed out may be anecdotal and not "confirmed" in the lab. But, IMO, dopers, particulary high-responders, have a significant advantage and it's difficult for a naturally talented athlete to overcome that. I'm sure Montano feels like she never had chance, despite the years of her hard training & sacracfices. Fwiw, WADA is calling for the 2 Russians to be banned...I won't hold my breath on that one. Lol.

 

[Aragon]

Re: Re:

For example, here's a case of the power of EPO plus an androgen, with high responders, and magical transformations: London Olympiics women's 800m final; 2 Russians; Savinova (Gold) & Poistagova (Bronze). A whistleblower recently (another Russian runner) came foward and revealed their doping program; EPO & oxandrolone ("ox"). Their PBs pre-transformation was around a pedestrian 2:15's. Post-transformation: a sizzling 1:55...all in about a year's time! In the final Savinova ran 1:56:19 (WL) - more than a full second ahead of Semenya.

I'll take a deeper look into your post at better time, but I tend to be even twice more skeptical when other side of the dialogue exaggerates his claims. As everyone can see for themselves from Wikipedia, there is no miraculous "2:15 to 1:55" transformations during "about a year's time" for either of the Russians.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mariya_Savinova
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ekaterina_Poistogova

 

[Nomad]

Re: Re:

For example, here's a case of the power of EPO plus an androgen, with high responders, and magical transformations: London Olympiics women's 800m final; 2 Russians; Savinova (Gold) & Poistagova (Bronze). A whistleblower recently (another Russian runner) came foward and revealed their doping program; EPO & oxandrolone ("ox"). Their PBs pre-transformation was around a pedestrian 2:15's. Post-transformation: a sizzling 1:55...all in about a year's time! In the final Savinova ran 1:56:19 (WL) - more than a full second ahead of Semenya.

I'll take a deeper look into your post at better time, but I tend to be even twice more skeptical when other side of the dialogue exaggerates his claims. As everyone can see for themselves from Wikipedia, there is no miraculous "2:15 to 1:55" transformations during "about a year's time" for either of the Russians.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mariya_Savinova
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ekaterina_Poistogova[/quote

 

[Nomad]

Re: Re:

For example, here's a case of the power of EPO plus an androgen, with high responders, and magical transformations: London Olympiics women's 800m final; 2 Russians; Savinova (Gold) & Poistagova (Bronze). A whistleblower recently (another Russian runner) came foward and revealed their doping program; EPO & oxandrolone ("ox"). Their PBs pre-transformation was around a pedestrian 2:15's. Post-transformation: a sizzling 1:55...all in about a year's time! In the final Savinova ran 1:56:19 (WL) - more than a full second ahead of Semenya.

I'll take a deeper look into your post at better time, but I tend to be even twice more skeptical when other side of the dialogue exaggerates his claims. As everyone can see for themselves from Wikipedia, there is no miraculous "2:15 to 1:55" transformations during "about a year's time" for either of the Russians.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mariya_Savinova
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ekaterina_Poistogova

One of the whistleblower reports I read mentioned that a former teammate said Savinova was only running around 2:15 in 2008, and ran a 1:55 or so in a practice TT in 2009 (tailwinds at the track? Lol). Letsrun had also talked about this on some older threads years ago. I'll try to find the article or the letsrun thread.


The verifiable "elephant in the room" is her ridiculous 2:06 from 16th at the prelims in the 08 World IC to 1:58 and "Gold" a year later at the 09 European IC. Not dope...then what? A late bloomer? Lol. Montano also mentions Savinova's incredible 7 month improvement in 2012 from 2:02 up to her Olympic 1:56. Mantano says she was running against "robots," and mentions that Savinova is never "gassed" after her races and looks fresh when they've raced at AT pace.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/sports/wp/2015/11/09/russias-doping-cheated-alysia-montano-out-of-an-olympic-medal-and-she-knew-it-all-along/

Also, 6th place finisher Arzhakova was DQ'd for a passport violation. Can't imagine why...Russian distance runners from the 800 up through the marathon also lead the world in the number of biological passport sanctions with 28! (Wikipedia). The number of U.S & UK sanctions? None.

I've already gone off topic enough and I apologize to the mods, so perhaps further discussion on another thread or new thread?

 

[Aragon]

Re: Re:

One of the whistleblower reports I read mentioned that a former teammate said Savinova was only running around 2:15 in 2008, and ran a 1:55 or so in a practice TT in 2009 (tailwinds at the track? Lol). Letsrun had also talked about this on some older threads years ago. I'll try to find the article or the letsrun thread.

The verifiable "elephant in the room" is her ridiculous 2:06 from 16th at the prelims in the 08 World IC to 1:58 and "Gold" a year later at the 09 European IC. Not dope...then what? A late bloomer? Lol. Montano also mentions Savinova's incredible 7 month improvement in 2012 from 2:02 up to her Olympic 1:56. Mantano says she was running against "robots," and mentions that Savinova is never "gassed" after her races and looks fresh when they've raced at AT pace.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/sports/wp/2015/11/09/russias-doping-cheated-alysia-montano-out-of-an-olympic-medal-and-she-knew-it-all-along/

Also, 6th place finisher Arzhakova was DQ'd for a passport violation. Can't imagine why...Russian distance runners from the 800 up through the marathon also lead the world in the number of biological passport sanctions with 28! (Wikipedia). The number of U.S & UK sanctions? None.

I've already gone off topic enough and I apologize to the mods, so perhaps further discussion on another thread or new thread?

As this is off-topic, I'll just try to summarize in a few paragraphs my key thesis.

If we accept the prevalent "high responder"-hypothesis, as best reach the top, the HGH/T/rEPO-fueled results should exist in almost everywhere, but necessarily this isn't so (Saronni, 1983). While there are some suspicious looking Tour results and as pointed out by Ross Tucker, in athletics there was an improvement in the speeds of both 5000m and 10000m in the 1990s, that looks suspicious.

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_ua8ycqfc4ok/Sn7MbZKXLtI/AAAAAAAABp0/i1O55mk2eN0/s400/Mens+10000m+progression.gif

What is rarely mentioned is that while there were a few Dieter Baumanns, this phenomenom was almost exclusively limited to Non-Europeans. Instead of focusing on the top one or two, if you take a closer look on the Europeans and take the three-year average running times of pre-EPO 1988-1990 vs. rEPO 1996-1998, the improvement looks very modest even when it was possible to run with a group of Kenyan and Ethiopian windbreakers and pacemakers. In addition, many endurance-related national records are still from 1970s and 1980s.

5000m
5th (13:16.90 --> 13:09.96) (-0.87 %)
10th (13:20.73 --> 13:17.44) (-0.41 %)
10000m
5th (27:42.47 --> 27:39.91) (-0.15 %)
10th (27:52.50 --> 27:54.51) (+0.12 %)

The limitation? At population level, the running motivation of European has sucked more and more with every passing decade since 1970s, but I wouldn't be too certain that the elevation in the amount suckedness could've counteracted the magic of rEPO.

As you brought up 800m, the seasonal bests of men's 1:45 were approached already in late 1950s. In terms of the seasonal best time, the improvement has been from ~1:44.5 to ~1:41.5 (ie. 3 %) in 30 years (1960s vs 1990s). As everything from coaching know-how to equipment improved, three percent doesn't sound like a lot and I just fail to see the PED-related high responders there.

One could also add that the 1972 cycling hour record (49431 m) by Eddy Merckx - performed at the end of a long season - has been barely broken with similar equipment, even when TT-specialists could've focused only on that goal in mind with all the training-knowhow and PED-cocktails unimaginable in early 1970s.

 

[Alex Simmons/RST]

Re: Re:

One could also add that the 1972 cycling hour record (49431 m) by Eddy Merckx - performed at the end of a long season - has been barely broken with similar equipment, even when TT-specialists could've focused only on that goal in mind with all the training-knowhow and PED-cocktails unimaginable in early 1970s.

When Boardman in 2000 broke that record by just 9m on similar equipment, he did so at sea level vs Merckx's altitude record in Mexico City in 1972 (a rather poorly paced ride though).

The performance difference between a comparable effort at these different altitudes is approximately 4% +/-1%, IOW Boardman at altitude could expect to travel about 4% further, or if Merckx had done his at sea level he'd expect to travel about 4% less distance. Allowing for track surface differential, the performance gap is probably a bit less perhaps 3-3.5% plus/minus 1%.

Sosenka in 2005 at Moscow subsequently added only 0.5% to the Boardman mark.

Of course doping doesn't do much for one's aerodynamics. It's really only addressing the energy supply side of the equation.

 

[Aragon]

Re: Re:

One could also add that the 1972 cycling hour record (49431 m) by Eddy Merckx - performed at the end of a long season - has been barely broken with similar equipment, even when TT-specialists could've focused only on that goal in mind with all the training-knowhow and PED-cocktails unimaginable in early 1970s.

When Boardman in 2000 broke that record by just 9m on similar equipment, he did so at sea level vs Merckx's altitude record in Mexico City in 1972 (a rather poorly paced ride though).

The performance difference between a comparable effort at these different altitudes is approximately 4% +/-1%, IOW Boardman at altitude could expect to travel about 4% further, or if Merckx had done his at sea level he'd expect to travel about 4% less distance. Allowing for track surface differential, the performance gap is probably a bit less perhaps 3-3.5% plus/minus 1%.

Sosenka in 2005 at Moscow subsequently added only 0.5% to the Boardman mark.

Of course doping doesn't do much for one's aerodynamics. It's really only addressing the energy supply side of the equation.

I agree that air resistance gives advantage at altitude, but on the other hand, oxygen saturation is lower. My impression still is that the science consensus it that it is advantageous to do the hour TT-attempt at high altitude as Merckx and Moser apparently also noticed and did with good success.

If the net net gain indeed is the figure of 4 % you mentioned, the open question is then to reason why did people give that 4 % advantage if it could've been circumvented with a relatively easy arrangement by travelling to high altitude to do the hour-TT.

 

[Alex Simmons/RST]

Re: Re:

One could also add that the 1972 cycling hour record (49431 m) by Eddy Merckx - performed at the end of a long season - has been barely broken with similar equipment, even when TT-specialists could've focused only on that goal in mind with all the training-knowhow and PED-cocktails unimaginable in early 1970s.

When Boardman in 2000 broke that record by just 9m on similar equipment, he did so at sea level vs Merckx's altitude record in Mexico City in 1972 (a rather poorly paced ride though).

The performance difference between a comparable effort at these different altitudes is approximately 4% +/-1%, IOW Boardman at altitude could expect to travel about 4% further, or if Merckx had done his at sea level he'd expect to travel about 4% less distance. Allowing for track surface differential, the performance gap is probably a bit less perhaps 3-3.5% plus/minus 1%.

Sosenka in 2005 at Moscow subsequently added only 0.5% to the Boardman mark.

Of course doping doesn't do much for one's aerodynamics. It's really only addressing the energy supply side of the equation.

I agree that air resistance gives advantage at altitude, but on the other hand, oxygen saturation is lower. My impression still is that the science consensus it that it is advantageous to do the hour TT-attempt at high altitude as Merckx and Moser apparently also noticed and did with good success.

If the net net gain indeed is the figure of 4 % you mentioned, the open question is then to reason why did people give that 4 % advantage if it could've been circumvented with a relatively easy arrangement by travelling to high altitude to do the hour-TT.

I'm talking about the performance advantage (speed/distance) that accounts for both the physiological and physical differences resulting from altitude. I've written plenty on the topic:
http://alex-cycle.blogspot.com.au/2015/06/wm2-altitude-and-hour-record-part-iii.html

The decision on whether to go to altitude however is not as simple as just going there. Logistics and costs of training near home are far less (it's not just the rider but a team of people), and includes sufficient acclimation time for the track and the lower partial pressure of oxygen (many weeks), track time bookings and so on. Far easier at your local track, or at least one in a familiar environment. And for some, e.g. Wiggins, the track was a patronage sell out - a stadium full of screaming supporters. That's good money to help offset the expense and a decent motivational aid. Rohan Dennis did his at BMCs own track so access was not a problem. Hour records are expensive to do.

In case of Wiggins (and Boardman's absolute record), the need for altitude wasn't there - they knew they would beat the existing mark, which is primarily what matters for world records. Alex Dowsett, with same form he displayed during his sea level record ride could possibly beat Wiggins's mark if he went to Aguascalientes. It would be a close run thing and of course the time, logistics and money involved are probably not worth the return.

OK, this is OT, for the hour record thread really. It was merely pointing out that comparing running and cycling is a little different because in cycling the energy demand for hour records is >90% from air resistance, and because of the cubic relationship between speed and power it takes a lot of extra power to get a small gain in speed and hence it's more than simply an expression of physiological capability. That said, the improvement in that record, accounting for such things, is still in line with the comments made wrt runners.

 

[Aragon]

Re: Re:

Apologies for my delayed response, because I felt it necessary to take the time to go through your three blog entries (I read more than a few other interesting posts also).

As one can read from you writings, the real debate should be on the physiological effect of high altitude on performance, and there are clearly open questions about this, as you cite different formulas and in addition there seem to be a lot of inter-individual variations in both in the effect of altitude as well as in the long-term adaptation as also pointed by you and by your literature.

Here the discussion goes easily to the limiting factors of oxygen delivery. While it is the consensus that the central factors (cardiac output, hemoglobin content) seems to be the most critical factors for even national level athletes, it is now-and-then claimed (for instance by the "inventor" of blood doping, Björn Ekblom) that lung capacity (diffusion) could have a more important role at the ultra-high level elite athletes. If this is the case, then two speculative things could occur:

1) The effect of fewer oxygen particles available at altitude could have larger effect on the performance capability of the absolute top level athletes (ie. larger fall at watt output).
2) Acclimatization via elevated hematocrit/2,3DPG - level isn't as effective as it doesn't deal with the main limiting factor.

On the actual formulas you use, unrelated question is how applicable the data on runners is to the physiology of cyclists as many factors such as lung adaptation to exercise, utilization of different muscles, arteriovenous oxygen difference, thermoregulation etc. are different between the two crafts. I am aware that there is no perfect data and one must always deal with proxy data and I even agree that the data of runners is at least highly indicative about the effect of cyclists. Still even small differences in formulas could have huge cumulative differences at the higher altitudes.

Above ideas are more like intuitive thoughts than disagreement, because I am not sure how much I even disagree with you. That having been written, I think most CN-readers agree that you have a very interesting blog and you do a nice work in making scientific ideas more easier to digest for laypeople like us.

 

[sniper]

The old Dutch articles I have read so far indicate that EPO was easy to get with a prescription in The Netherlands after January 1989. Around that time it was also bought over the border in Belgium and Germany.

Impossibru!

https://www.velopress.com/stage-20-la-resurrection-greg-lemond-in-the-1989-tour-de-france/

There were those who didn’t realize he was still riding. “It was just pure luck that I got better,” LeMond says. “Literally, the day after I lost 17 min- utes, and phoned my wife in tears, it started raining. I now know what my allergies do to me; I get wiped out, 25, 30 percent. I used to think I didn’t race well at the Tour of Italy because I wasn’t in shape. But in May the grass has all-time high pollen. When I raced the Tour of Italy I suffered so bad, my eyes were closed; you wouldn’t even recognize me.”

At the time, LeMond told journalists that his improvement was down to iron injections from the ADR team doctor, Yvan Vanmol. “I had three shots of iron,” LeMond says.

Vanmol, accused by Sandro Donati of being one of the first doctors to use EPO on his riders.

from the same link:

“José De Cauwer was the directeur sportif, and he was a great guy,” LeMond continues.

1995, De Cauwer:

But EPO is no doping!
https://books.google.pl/books?id=oV6YIyPOF-gC&pg=PT147&lpg=PT147&dq=jose+de+cauwer+epo&source=bl&ots=lMzoCA7d_Y&sig=JYBRLoX4qNYEueYPhQmpDai8LfU&hl=pl&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjAo_ejybzQAhUGORQKHR-2DmkQ6AEINTAC#v=onepage&q=jose%20de%20cauwer%20epo&f=false

 

[sniper]

it really was iron, and you'll prove it someday, i'm confident.

 

[pmcg76]

Re:

The old Dutch articles I have read so far indicate that EPO was easy to get with a prescription in The Netherlands after January 1989. Around that time it was also bought over the border in Belgium and Germany.

Impossibru!

https://www.velopress.com/stage-20-la-resurrection-greg-lemond-in-the-1989-tour-de-france/

There were those who didn’t realize he was still riding. “It was just pure luck that I got better,” LeMond says. “Literally, the day after I lost 17 min- utes, and phoned my wife in tears, it started raining. I now know what my allergies do to me; I get wiped out, 25, 30 percent. I used to think I didn’t race well at the Tour of Italy because I wasn’t in shape. But in May the grass has all-time high pollen. When I raced the Tour of Italy I suffered so bad, my eyes were closed; you wouldn’t even recognize me.”

At the time, LeMond told journalists that his improvement was down to iron injections from the ADR team doctor, Yvan Vanmol. “I had three shots of iron,” LeMond says.

Vanmol, accused by Sandro Donati of being one of the first doctors to use EPO on his riders.

from the same link:

“José De Cauwer was the directeur sportif, and he was a great guy,” LeMond continues.

1995, De Cauwer:

But EPO is no doping!
https://books.google.pl/books?id=oV6YIyPOF-gC&pg=PT147&lpg=PT147&dq=jose+de+cauwer+epo&source=bl&ots=lMzoCA7d_Y&sig=JYBRLoX4qNYEueYPhQmpDai8LfU&hl=pl&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjAo_ejybzQAhUGORQKHR-2DmkQ6AEINTAC#v=onepage&q=jose%20de%20cauwer%20epo&f=false

Here is the problem with people trying to remember events from almost 30 years ago and journalists exaggerating things for dramatic purposes, things get mixed up and overplayed. LeMond lost 10 minutes on the stage to Tre Cime de Lavaredo(stage 13), the video is on youtube so it is possible to count the time difference. The next stage to Corvara which included the Passo Giau, Marmolada, Pordoi & Campolongo is the one in which LeMond lost 17 minutes. That was the stage immortalised by Paul Kimmage as his hardest day on a bike due to the extreme cold and snow, for the record Kimmage lost 33 minutes that day and there were still guys 20minutes behind him. LeMond riding in the gruppetto as claimed by Richard Moore is nonsense, most days he was in the top half of the field which was still far from his best. So easy to see how journalists dramatise things for maximun effect. You dont finish top 50 in a GT by riding in the gruppetto every day.

Can EPO transform a rider from average to brilliant in the space of a week? Based on testimonies from various EPO users, Hamilton, Millar, Riis, Rasmussen etc, it was usually done in cycles which took more than a week to see improvement. Usually a rider would come into a GT on a cycle and then top up as they went along. Going from nothing to taking EPO 2 weeks into a GT makes very little sense as has been pointed out numerous times before and remember LeMond had never even met VanMol before the Giro.

Also, what has LeMond thinking DeCauwer was a good DS got to do with EPO. Jose DeCauwer was regarded as a good manager and motivator by many of his riders.

 

[sniper]

If such a 'simple' thing as iron caused that transformation, I think it's fair to assume we would have seen many more of the same kind of transformations prior to Lemond or following Lemond. Yet we haven't.

As for De Cauwer, not only did he approve of EPO ("no doping!"), I am confident you haven't forgotten that he got caught up in an ordinary drug ring in 1995. That's well publicized.
Yet, in 2009 or 10 Lemond in an interview says if he could do it all again he'd go with De Cauwer again.
Lemond also threw a fundraiser for a certain Eddie Borysewicz in 2004 (or 5), Eddie B being a widely acknowledged blooddoper.
Lemond supporting those known dopers/enablers is not *proof* of anything.
I'm merely saying that it is consistent with somebody who's doped throughout his carreer.

Lemond not only had an EPO doc at his disposal (Vanmol), he also owned shares in Weisel's Montgomery Securities and had a close relationship with Eddie B who was coaching Weisel at the time.

Then there's this nasty rumor that you've tried to downplay previously, but the existence - *existence* as opposed to *veracity* - of which has been acknowledged by Dhaenens, Boogerd, Floyd Landis, Lance Armstrong, Jan Gisbers, and an anonymous amateur cyclist in a newspaper article in 1990.

Then there's Max Testa's claim that Lemond had simply "used too much drugs" during his carreer.

If you add it all together, that's one frigging huge anti-Lemond conspiracy right there, running across different generations and nationalities.
If you wanna put on your tinfoil hat be my guest.
I'm taking the liberty to apply occam's razor.

 

[red_flanders]

It wasn't a "transformation". It was some kind of recovery. You're referring to a guy who placed third in his first TdF, and had already won the race. "Transformation" is a term reserved for comically bad or mediocre riders who transform into something they previously weren't. Not the case here.

If you think one EPO shot, which he then reported to a journalist as soon as it happened is the cause of his recovery, you don't know much about EPO or how liars act.

 

[sniper]

Re:

It wasn't a "transformation". It was some kind of recovery.

this is too funny.
Now we can't use the word transformation for Lemond, because, 'it was some kind of recovery'.
Nibali showed a similar treat last year and it was widely frowned upon.

If you think one EPO shot, which he then reported to a journalist as soon as it happened is the cause of his recovery, you don't know much about EPO or how liars act.

I don't claim to know how Lemond doped, or how many times, or exactly when or where.
Have you already found out when Lance Armstrong started doping? Or when he stopped doping? Or how many times he used EPO in 1999? Of course not.


Why did Lemond tell the journo? Dunno. Maybe the journo or somebody else saw him getting the injection(s) and Lemond needed to have a story. God knows. Do you know? Why did Lionel Messi tell us about his cortisone injections.
Honest question: do you have any link to what really happened there with the journo? A reliable account other than Lemond's own words?
Also, why did Lemond tell the other journo about Max Testa calling him a carreer-long doper?
I don't know much about liars but I do know some liars have trouble keeping the lie to themselves.

 

[ScienceIsCool]

Re:

If such a 'simple' thing as iron caused that transformation, I think it's fair to assume we would have seen many more of the same kind of transformations prior to Lemond or following Lemond. Yet we haven't.

As for De Cauwer, not only did he approve of EPO ("no doping!"), I am confident you haven't forgotten that he got caught up in an ordinary drug ring in 1995. That's well publicized.
Yet, in 2009 or 10 Lemond in an interview says if he could do it all again he'd go with De Cauwer again.
Lemond also threw a fundraiser for a certain Eddie Borysewicz in 2004 (or 5), Eddie B being a widely acknowledged blooddoper.
Lemond supporting those known dopers/enablers is not *proof* of anything.
I'm merely saying that it is consistent with somebody who's doped throughout his carreer.

Lemond not only had an EPO doc at his disposal (Vanmol), he also owned shares in Weisel's Montgomery Securities and had a close relationship with Eddie B who was coaching Weisel at the time.

Then there's this nasty rumor that you've tried to downplay previously, but the existence - *existence* as opposed to *veracity* - of which has been acknowledged by Dhaenens, Boogerd, Floyd Landis, Lance Armstrong, Jan Gisbers, and an anonymous amateur cyclist in a newspaper article in 1990.

Then there's Max Testa's claim that Lemond had simply "used too much drugs" during his carreer.

If you add it all together, that's one frigging huge anti-Lemond conspiracy right there, running across different generations and nationalities.
If you wanna put on your tinfoil hat be my guest.
I'm taking the liberty to apply occam's razor.

Oof. Not this again.

First up. No transformation. He didn't transform from A to B. He fell ill and had some bad days on the bike before he recovered.

Second swing and a miss: There was no fundraiser for Eddie B, let alone being organized by Lemond. "Eddie received over 600 letters from friends and cyclists worldwide in response to his loss. Donations totaling $120,000 allowed him to rebuild his house" - Wikipedia. Also, there's this: ""Lance sent me a big check for $10,000, so that's a big surprise," Borysewicz told 10News." - http://www.10news.com/news/olympic-coach-rebuilds-life-rekindles-friendships

Third absurdity: De Cauwer had nothing to do with Lemond until he headed up ADR in 1989. DS - not coach. You've got *nothing* with this one. Every single rider in the last 30 years has ridden under a DS connected to doping. I dare you to find one who hasn't.

Do I have to go on? Ugh. Investing your money with Montgomery Securities means what? That you've invested your money with Montgomery Securities. When Greg found out what was going on with Weisel and PEDs what did he do? Disinvested.

Max Testa... That old chestnut. The story came from Greg himself. It goes as follows: "In 1994 Cees Beers contacted Massimo Testa to see if he might have some insight to what was going on. Massimo supposedly cut to the chase with Cees and told him that I was finished and cooked because I took so many drugs in my career, especially after my comeback in 1989. Cees was shocked and told Massimo that I was not taking drugs and that there was something else going on. It never went further than that.”
http://www.velonews.com/2014/09/news/storm-exclusive-interview-greg-lemond_347148#c5BKhiPBKVQtkMkV.99

Please stop.

John Swanson

 

[sniper]

After so many pages still taking anything from the horse's mouth as fact.
Please stop indeed!

Thanks for reproducing that Testa quote.
What's your point? Testa is lying, too?
That tinfoil hat suits you well John.

 

[ScienceIsCool]

Re:

After so many pages still taking anything from the horse's mouth as fact.
Please stop indeed!

Thanks for reproducing that Testa quote.
What's your point? Testa is lying, too?
That tinfoil hat suits you well John.

What does this even mean? We can't believe anything that anyone says ever? Man, you cast so much shade I'm going to start calling you "umbrella". Seriously, what does Testa have to do with Lemond? Have they ever even met?

And just to add something else - it does indeed take a week to complete all seven stages of erythropoiesis to produce a mature blood cell. So the time from taking EPO to boosting your HCT would take probably 7-8 days with a peak HCT occurring some time after that.

John Swanson

 

[sniper]

Re: Re:

What does this even mean? We can't believe anything that anyone says ever?

Yes we can. That's why I thanked you for that Testa quote.
Why would Testa lie? With no one around. Not even a journo.
Just a one-on-one phonecall.

 

[ScienceIsCool]

Re: Re:

What does this even mean? We can't believe anything that anyone says ever?

Yes we can. That's why I thanked you for that Testa quote. Why would Testa lie? With no one around. Not even a journo.
Just a one-on-one phonecall.

Why would Lemond lie? hmm...let's see...tough one.

See what you want to see, I guess. Peace out.

John Swanson

 

[red_flanders]

Re: Re:

this is too funny.
Now we can't use the word transformation for Lemond, because, 'it was some kind of recovery'.
Nibali showed a similar treat last year and it was widely frowned upon.

You "can't use the word"? Really? Stop it. You can do whatever you want, and I'll point out the absurdity of it as long as I want. It remains that there is no "transformation" in this case and anyone with a brain, including you, can understand that.

I don't claim to know how Lemond doped, or how many times, or exactly when or where.

Yet you go on about this "iron shot", seeking to cast doubt about it. Your entire view is that he used EPO, and you use this silly event as evidence. I agree you don't know anything about whether Lemond doped, let alone when or where or how. You know basically nothing as you have constructed a post-facto version of events having not lived through the era and seen it unfold yourself.

Why did Lemond tell the journo? Dunno. Maybe the journo or somebody else saw him getting the injection(s) and Lemond needed to have a story. God knows. Do you know?
Honest question: do you have any link to what really happened there with the journo? A reliable account other than Lemond's own words?
Also, why did Lemond tell the other journo about Max Testa calling him a carreer-long doper?
I don't know much about liars but I do know some liars have trouble keeping the lie to themselves.

"Dunno" should be your default answer to these questions, because the fact is that you have no idea what went on. Nor does anyone else. Your reconstruction of these events reads like a young-earth creationist trying to poke holes in evolution by digging up and over-blowing any tiny apparent hole in the theory, somehow missing the forest for the trees.

I wish I did have time to dig it all up, but Google is your friend. But you know that, and you do know the stories are both out there, I've personally read them dozens of times. Maybe he reported what Testa supposedly said because he was pissed.

 

[sniper]

Re: Re:

...
Your reconstruction of these events...

i'm not reconstructing anything. I posted this: viewtopic.php?p=2044643#p2044643
And it triggered the same indignant responses as usual first from a guy who is now permabanned, then from pcmg76, then from scienceiscool and then from you. Why the indignation? Honest question.
The double standards here are pretty ugly. One for Sky, USPS, Contador, "Mig-hell" Indurain, etc. And one for Lemond.

a young-earth creationist trying to poke holes in evolution by digging up and over-blowing any tiny apparent hole in the theory, somehow missing the forest for the trees.

Chapeau. That's almost Brailsford-esque, Red. Lemond winning the TdF clean is now equated to evolution.
Shedding doubt on that claim is equated to creationism.

It's not only Brailsfordesque, it's also the world upsidedown. If the vast majority of grand tour winners doped to win it, it's up to you to show us why Lemond is the knight in shining armour. And from the looks of it you're not getting very far with that. Words from the horse's mouth as facts.
Now that's creationism.

And when I ask you for a link to something that could in fact back up your claims, you basically say 'go look for it yourself' and 'well, i've read it, isn't that enough?':

I wish I did have time to dig it all up, but Google is your friend. But you know that, and you do know the stories are both out there, I've personally read them dozens of times.

Got it. Red has read it, end of. No need for any kind of evidence here. It's Lemond. It's evolution.

Maybe he reported what Testa supposedly said because he was pissed.

who was pissed? Testa? Pissed at whom? why?
Was nick777 also 'pissed' when he said he knew a renowned cycling doctor who suggested Lemond had used EPO?
Was Dhaenens pissed when he said he thought Lemond introduced EPO into the peloton?
Boogerd when he said that in the peloton in which he rode it was a common assumption that Lemond introduced EPO? All pissed at Lemond and lying about him in a collective attempt to smear him?
Look, I can't and won't force you to approach this rationally. If that's the conspiracy you wanna believe in so be it.
You can believe whatever you want, and I'll point out the absurdity of it as long as I want.

 

[sniper]

Re: Re:

...
Nibali had a massive transformation in week 3 of the Il Giro!!!!

in case Nibali it just a different spin on "the engine was always there",isnt it funny how all these riders get sick before transformation? ...

Remember when nibs went from like 60th in Poland (i think???) and everyone saying he looked terrible on the bike to winning the vuelta a few weeks later? He's pulled this off before.

The Nibali transformation in the last 48 hours has made for an exciting race and a great story, but it is hard to account for.
I'd like to hear what Kimmage makes of it.

Sorry guys, but that's just absurd. I'm telling you it was 'a kind of recovery'.

 

[pmcg76]

Re: Re:

...
Your reconstruction of these events...

i'm not reconstructing anything. I posted this: viewtopic.php?p=2044643#p2044643
And it triggered the same indignant responses as usual first from a guy who is now permabanned, then from pcmg76, then from scienceiscool and then from you. Why the indignation? Honest question.
The double standards here are pretty ugly. One for Sky, USPS, Contador, "Mig-hell" Indurain, etc. And one for Lemond.

a young-earth creationist trying to poke holes in evolution by digging up and over-blowing any tiny apparent hole in the theory, somehow missing the forest for the trees.

Chapeau. That's almost Brailsford-esque, Red. Lemond winning the TdF clean is now equated to evolution.
Shedding doubt on that claim is equated to creationism.

It's not only Brailsfordesque, it's also the world upsidedown. If the vast majority of grand tour winners doped to win it, it's up to you to show us why Lemond is the knight in shining armour. And from the looks of it you're not getting very far with that. Words from the horse's mouth as facts.
Now that's creationism.

And when I ask you for a link to something that could in fact back up your claims, you basically say 'go look for it yourself' and 'well, i've read it, isn't that enough?':

I wish I did have time to dig it all up, but Google is your friend. But you know that, and you do know the stories are both out there, I've personally read them dozens of times.

Got it. Red has read it, end of. No need for any kind of evidence here. It's Lemond. It's evolution.

Maybe he reported what Testa supposedly said because he was pissed.

who was pissed? Testa? Pissed at whom? why?
Was nick777 also 'pissed' when he said he knew a renowned cycling doctor who suggested Lemond had used EPO?
Was Dhaenens pissed when he said he thought Lemond introduced EPO into the peloton?
Boogerd when he said that in the peloton in which he rode it was a common assumption that Lemond introduced EPO? All pissed at Lemond and lying about him in a collective attempt to smear him?
Look, I can't and won't force you to approach this rationally. If that's the conspiracy you wanna believe in so be it.
You can believe whatever you want, and I'll point out the absurdity of it as long as I want.

Wow, Nick777, an anon poster on an internet forum is being put forward as evidence against leMond, talk about scraping the bottom of the barrel.

Are you serioulsy asking why LeMond doesnt get as much grief as Contador(positive test)US Postal(arguably Biggest Doping scandal ever), Indurain(huge transformation from non-climber to 5 time winner at height of EPO era, confirmed link(not conjecture) with Conconi). SKY(work in progress but huge transformations from non GT riders Wiggins/Froome and now TUE scandals).

Also comparing Nibali's transformation to LeMonds Giro is ridiculous. Nibali was targeting the Giro overall but was below par but came good when needed which does arouse suspicion. LeMond was far out of contention and clearly below par but put all his focus into that final stage, his speciality the TT. If LeMond had flunked that TT, there was a real possibility he would have walked from the sport. Not the same at all.

Your "evidence" against LeMond amounts to rumours seemingly based on nothing more than conjecture and guilt by association which can be applied to absolutely any rider. You have singularly failed to produce a direct link anywhere comparable to the likes of Contador/Postal/Indurain etc.

If people want to believe it was impossible to ever win the Tour clean, fine there is nothing that can be produced that would change their minds. I can post quotes from Bernard Tapie, Paul Koechli & Steve Bauer who all said LeMond was clean at a time when saying someone was clean was not necessary/expected or not for PR gain. Will that change anybodys mind? I dont think so but the only other rider I can think of who has had that many people back them is Bassons.