LeMond III

[sniper]

The narrative is that Bauer, Hampsten, and Lemond were clean, and all suffered when EPO kicked in.
Three clean anglophones beating those pesky Europeans on their home territory.
What are the odds.
In some sources that narrative is explicitly stated, I've posted examples in multiple threads. Don't ask me to do it again.
The narrative is so hypocrite it makes Sky look sympathetic.

The clean narrative was being build around them ever since the US had their 'little' doping scandals in 83 (PanAm Games) and 84 (LA Games), the latter being a kick in the teeth of sponsor 7-eleven. The US were the first to both realize the importance of, and really push, "clean" PR.
If you didn't see that narrative unfold, you missed something.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Re:

The narrative is that Bauer, Hampsten, and Lemond were clean, and all suffered when EPO kicked in.
Three clean anglophones beating those pesky Europeans on their home territory.
What are the odds.
In some sources that narrative is explicitly stated, I've posted examples in multiple threads. Don't ask me to do it again.
The narrative is so hypocrite it makes Sky look sympathetic.

The clean narrative was being build around them ever since the US had their 'little' doping scandals in 83 (PanAm Games) and 84 (LA Games), the latter being a kick in the teeth of sponsor 7-eleven. The US were the first to both realize the importance of, and really push, "clean" PR.
If you didn't see that narrative unfold, you missed something.

That is the worlds greatest F -ed up Narrative. Has anyone learned anything?

PR CLEAN = propaganda. Which by the looks of it. We have some "buy in's " here .

 

[BullsFan22]

Re: Re:

The narrative is that Bauer, Hampsten, and Lemond were clean, and all suffered when EPO kicked in.
Three clean anglophones beating those pesky Europeans on their home territory.
What are the odds.
In some sources that narrative is explicitly stated, I've posted examples in multiple threads. Don't ask me to do it again.
The narrative is so hypocrite it makes Sky look sympathetic.

The clean narrative was being build around them ever since the US had their 'little' doping scandals in 83 (PanAm Games) and 84 (LA Games), the latter being a kick in the teeth of sponsor 7-eleven. The US were the first to both realize the importance of, and really push, "clean" PR.
If you didn't see that narrative unfold, you missed something.

That is the worlds greatest F -ed up Narrative. Has anyone learned anything?

PR CLEAN = propaganda. Which by the looks of it. We have some "buy in's " here .

Glenn!! Don't often see you enjoying the pleasures of the vulgar crowd!

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Re: Re:

The narrative is that Bauer, Hampsten, and Lemond were clean, and all suffered when EPO kicked in.
Three clean anglophones beating those pesky Europeans on their home territory.
What are the odds.
In some sources that narrative is explicitly stated, I've posted examples in multiple threads. Don't ask me to do it again.
The narrative is so hypocrite it makes Sky look sympathetic.

The clean narrative was being build around them ever since the US had their 'little' doping scandals in 83 (PanAm Games) and 84 (LA Games), the latter being a kick in the teeth of sponsor 7-eleven. The US were the first to both realize the importance of, and really push, "clean" PR.
If you didn't see that narrative unfold, you missed something.

That is the worlds greatest F -ed up Narrative. Has anyone learned anything?

PR CLEAN = propaganda. Which by the looks of it. We have some "buy in's " here .

Glenn!! Don't often see you enjoying the pleasures of the vulgar crowd!

I was his greatest fan back in the day. Now.... shades of GRAY man ROD.

But oh yeah this subject will bring me out.

 

[pmcg76]

Re:

The narrative is that Bauer, Hampsten, and Lemond were clean, and all suffered when EPO kicked in.
Three clean anglophones beating those pesky Europeans on their home territory.
What are the odds.
In some sources that narrative is explicitly stated, I've posted examples in multiple threads. Don't ask me to do it again.
The narrative is so hypocrite it makes Sky look sympathetic.

The clean narrative was being build around them ever since the US had their 'little' doping scandals in 83 (PanAm Games) and 84 (LA Games), the latter being a kick in the teeth of sponsor 7-eleven. The US were the first to both realize the importance of, and really push, "clean" PR.
If you didn't see that narrative unfold, you missed something.

Clueless, absolutely clueless. There was no big narrative that LeMond/Bauer were clean. It was barely mentioned at all as doping was spoken about so little.

Who exactly was pushing this so-called narrative, the US media? Er no, it came from Europeans. The story started with Bernard Tapie I think, French and owner of La Vie Claire being asked if he knew any clean riders in pro cycling, his response was that LeMond, Bauer were the only riders he knew were clean, he didnt mention his own French superstar Hinault or his future French star Jean Francois Bernard. Just LeMond and Bauer. Which seems odd for a primarily French team with French superstars and a French boss. Its like the opposite of the Nationalistic bias we see now.

Likewise, Paul Kochli(a known anti-doping DS) backed LeMond and Bauer when asked if it was possible to win the Tour clean.

Quite why Tapie or Kochli would give a toss about what happened at the Olympics in 84 or about US/Canadian cycling or starting a propaganda war, I have no clue.

Hampsten never really had a clean reputation that I was aware off, that came much later when he spoke out himself after he had retired suggesting that EPO had curtailed his career. That is not to say he was regarder as a dirty rider. Back then there was no big thing made about doping in ProCycling, that was why it was unusual to hear about anyone being regarded as clean, as there was no automatic assumption among the public or some of the press that you were dirty like their currently is.

As Red_Flanders says, trying to filter 80s cycling through current attitudes is simply pointless.

 

[red_flanders]

Re:

The narrative is that Bauer, Hampsten, and Lemond were clean, and all suffered when EPO kicked in.
Three clean anglophones beating those pesky Europeans on their home territory.
What are the odds.
In some sources that narrative is explicitly stated, I've posted examples in multiple threads. Don't ask me to do it again.
The narrative is so hypocrite it makes Sky look sympathetic.

The clean narrative was being build around them ever since the US had their 'little' doping scandals in 83 (PanAm Games) and 84 (LA Games), the latter being a kick in the teeth of sponsor 7-eleven. The US were the first to both realize the importance of, and really push, "clean" PR.
If you didn't see that narrative unfold, you missed something.

I'm talking about Lemond (thread topic), not Hampsten or Bauer. Mottet, Kochli, Borysewicz, Anderson and Nijs are not part of any "narrative". They are simply guys, Euorpeans or other non North Americans who on separate occasions, brought up their view on Lemond, un-bidden by questions. That's what makes their comments compelling.

To equate my posts here with a "narrative" as you define it is the worst kind of strawman argument. Not surprising, as one would have to move the goalposts and mis-state what I wrote to evade the questions and comments I've added here.

To imagine I've missed something from this era is fairly silly, and not a little ironic.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Re: Re:

The narrative is that Bauer, Hampsten, and Lemond were clean, and all suffered when EPO kicked in.
Three clean anglophones beating those pesky Europeans on their home territory.
What are the odds.
In some sources that narrative is explicitly stated, I've posted examples in multiple threads. Don't ask me to do it again.
The narrative is so hypocrite it makes Sky look sympathetic.

The clean narrative was being build around them ever since the US had their 'little' doping scandals in 83 (PanAm Games) and 84 (LA Games), the latter being a kick in the teeth of sponsor 7-eleven. The US were the first to both realize the importance of, and really push, "clean" PR.
If you didn't see that narrative unfold, you missed something.

I'm talking about Lemond (thread topic), not Hampsten or Bauer. Mottet, Kochli, Borysewicz, Anderson and Nijs are not part of any "narrative". They are simply guys, Euorpeans or other non North Americans who on separate occasions, brought up their view on Lemond, un-bidden by questions. That's what makes their comments compelling.

To equate my posts here with a "narrative" as you define it is the worst kind of strawman argument. Not surprising, as one would have to move the goalposts and mis-state what I wrote to evade the questions and comments I've added here.

To imagine I've missed something from this era is fairly silly, and not a little ironic.

compelling considering they are ALL drug cheats. I understand the argument but to consider these or any of these guys clean is a bit of a ...... comic strip.

 

[pmcg76]

Re: Re:

The narrative is that Bauer, Hampsten, and Lemond were clean, and all suffered when EPO kicked in.
Three clean anglophones beating those pesky Europeans on their home territory.
What are the odds.
In some sources that narrative is explicitly stated, I've posted examples in multiple threads. Don't ask me to do it again.
The narrative is so hypocrite it makes Sky look sympathetic.

The clean narrative was being build around them ever since the US had their 'little' doping scandals in 83 (PanAm Games) and 84 (LA Games), the latter being a kick in the teeth of sponsor 7-eleven. The US were the first to both realize the importance of, and really push, "clean" PR.
If you didn't see that narrative unfold, you missed something.

I'm talking about Lemond (thread topic), not Hampsten or Bauer. Mottet, Kochli, Borysewicz, Anderson and Nijs are not part of any "narrative". They are simply guys, Euorpeans or other non North Americans who on separate occasions, brought up their view on Lemond, un-bidden by questions. That's what makes their comments compelling.

To equate my posts here with a "narrative" as you define it is the worst kind of strawman argument. Not surprising, as one would have to move the goalposts and mis-state what I wrote to evade the questions and comments I've added here.

To imagine I've missed something from this era is fairly silly, and not a little ironic.

compelling considering they are ALL drug cheats. I understand the argument but to consider these or any of these guys clean is a bit of a ...... comic strip.

Your whole premise is based on they cannot have been clean because it was not possible. How exactly do you know this? How do you know what was possible or not possible? Were you a pro cyclist in the 80s? Do you know much drugs improved each rider? Do you know the difference in natural abilities between all the pros in the 80s?

Simply disregarding everything because to you it was impossible is not really an argument.

 

[HelmutRoole]

Re: Re:

The narrative is that Bauer, Hampsten, and Lemond were clean, and all suffered when EPO kicked in.
Three clean anglophones beating those pesky Europeans on their home territory.
What are the odds.
In some sources that narrative is explicitly stated, I've posted examples in multiple threads. Don't ask me to do it again.
The narrative is so hypocrite it makes Sky look sympathetic.

The clean narrative was being build around them ever since the US had their 'little' doping scandals in 83 (PanAm Games) and 84 (LA Games), the latter being a kick in the teeth of sponsor 7-eleven. The US were the first to both realize the importance of, and really push, "clean" PR.
If you didn't see that narrative unfold, you missed something.

I'm talking about Lemond (thread topic), not Hampsten or Bauer. Mottet, Kochli, Borysewicz, Anderson and Nijs are not part of any "narrative". They are simply guys, Euorpeans or other non North Americans who on separate occasions, brought up their view on Lemond, un-bidden by questions. That's what makes their comments compelling.

To equate my posts here with a "narrative" as you define it is the worst kind of strawman argument. Not surprising, as one would have to move the goalposts and mis-state what I wrote to evade the questions and comments I've added here.

To imagine I've missed something from this era is fairly silly, and not a little ironic.

compelling considering they are ALL drug cheats. I understand the argument but to consider these or any of these guys clean is a bit of a ...... comic strip.

Your whole premise is based on they cannot have been clean because it was not possible. How exactly do you know this? How do you know what was possible or not possible? Were you a pro cyclist in the 80s? Do you know much drugs improved each rider? Do you know the difference in natural abilities between all the pros in the 80s?

Simply disregarding everything because to you it was impossible is not really an argument.

His '89 Tour win was impossible. I mean, 34mph on the last day of the Tour reeks (REEKS!) of blood doping. Suspending your disbelief for Lemond seems done only for the sake of hero worship.

 

[@NL_LeMondFans]

Re: Re:

The narrative is that Bauer, Hampsten, and Lemond were clean, and all suffered when EPO kicked in.
Three clean anglophones beating those pesky Europeans on their home territory.
What are the odds.
In some sources that narrative is explicitly stated, I've posted examples in multiple threads. Don't ask me to do it again.
The narrative is so hypocrite it makes Sky look sympathetic.

The clean narrative was being build around them ever since the US had their 'little' doping scandals in 83 (PanAm Games) and 84 (LA Games), the latter being a kick in the teeth of sponsor 7-eleven. The US were the first to both realize the importance of, and really push, "clean" PR.
If you didn't see that narrative unfold, you missed something.

I'm talking about Lemond (thread topic), not Hampsten or Bauer. Mottet, Kochli, Borysewicz, Anderson and Nijs are not part of any "narrative". They are simply guys, Euorpeans or other non North Americans who on separate occasions, brought up their view on Lemond, un-bidden by questions. That's what makes their comments compelling.

To equate my posts here with a "narrative" as you define it is the worst kind of strawman argument. Not surprising, as one would have to move the goalposts and mis-state what I wrote to evade the questions and comments I've added here.

To imagine I've missed something from this era is fairly silly, and not a little ironic.

compelling considering they are ALL drug cheats. I understand the argument but to consider these or any of these guys clean is a bit of a ...... comic strip.

Your whole premise is based on they cannot have been clean because it was not possible. How exactly do you know this? How do you know what was possible or not possible? Were you a pro cyclist in the 80s? Do you know much drugs improved each rider? Do you know the difference in natural abilities between all the pros in the 80s?

Simply disregarding everything because to you it was impossible is not really an argument.

His '89 Tour win was impossible. I mean, 34mph on the last day of the Tour reeks (REEKS!) of blood doping. Suspending your disbelief for Lemond seems done only for the sake of hero worship.

Distance : 24.5 km. Tailwind. Profile : slight descent. Rider : Greg LeMond.

It's possible.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

I don't want this to sound or read rude.

But the things (mental gymnastics) people do in order to continue the belief is amazing.

 

[sniper]

I don't want this to sound or read rude.

But the things (mental gymnastics) people do in order to continue the belief is amazing.

Amazing indeed.
Yet, weren't we all disappointed and angry when we learned santaclaus doesn't exist.
Coming to terms with reality is an art. Some deal with it better than others.

 

[gillan1969]

Re: Re:

The narrative is that Bauer, Hampsten, and Lemond were clean, and all suffered when EPO kicked in.
Three clean anglophones beating those pesky Europeans on their home territory.
What are the odds.
In some sources that narrative is explicitly stated, I've posted examples in multiple threads. Don't ask me to do it again.
The narrative is so hypocrite it makes Sky look sympathetic.

The clean narrative was being build around them ever since the US had their 'little' doping scandals in 83 (PanAm Games) and 84 (LA Games), the latter being a kick in the teeth of sponsor 7-eleven. The US were the first to both realize the importance of, and really push, "clean" PR.
If you didn't see that narrative unfold, you missed something.

I'm talking about Lemond (thread topic), not Hampsten or Bauer. Mottet, Kochli, Borysewicz, Anderson and Nijs are not part of any "narrative". They are simply guys, Euorpeans or other non North Americans who on separate occasions, brought up their view on Lemond, un-bidden by questions. That's what makes their comments compelling.

To equate my posts here with a "narrative" as you define it is the worst kind of strawman argument. Not surprising, as one would have to move the goalposts and mis-state what I wrote to evade the questions and comments I've added here.

To imagine I've missed something from this era is fairly silly, and not a little ironic.

compelling considering they are ALL drug cheats. I understand the argument but to consider these or any of these guys clean is a bit of a ...... comic strip.

Your whole premise is based on they cannot have been clean because it was not possible. How exactly do you know this? How do you know what was possible or not possible? Were you a pro cyclist in the 80s? Do you know much drugs improved each rider? Do you know the difference in natural abilities between all the pros in the 80s?

Simply disregarding everything because to you it was impossible is not really an argument.

His '89 Tour win was impossible. I mean, 34mph on the last day of the Tour reeks (REEKS!) of blood doping. Suspending your disbelief for Lemond seems done only for the sake of hero worship.

ok...lets go with that...Mottet did nearly 32.5mph on the final stage of that Tour...does that reek, just smell, or is it simply a sillage of blood doping??? or indeed make him clean as a whistle as some also believe...(you will need to make a aero calculation regarding his set up as well as I think lemond was rear disc, aero bars and helmet)....

 

[sniper]

Tailwind.

Mottet clean.

Bang on the money, Glenn.

 

[gillan1969]

Re:

Tailwind.

Mottet clean.

Bang on the money, Glenn.

the issue is the contemporary comparison...

there were final TTs in the 'known' epo free for all era that were far slower than this

There were a lot of fast speeds that day...funnily enough a good TTr and someone riding for a Tour win went fastest....

I know, I know blood doping since age 7

 

[sniper]

True, you only get stronger when you're in yellow. Lance, Indurain, and Froome have said say so.

Glenn, bang on.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Re:

True, you only get stronger when you're in yellow. Lance, Indurain, and Froome have said say so.

Glenn, bang on.

I fell victim to this type of thought before also. Come up with ways that it is possible for someone to ride a bicycle for that long in a grand tour and still be or in almost all cases in better condition on the final TT and mountain stages than when they began the tour.

It is almost like someone pauses reality to fit what they want. The Human body will not react that way to that many endurance days. It is not possible.

 

[gillan1969]

Re:

True, you only get stronger when you're in yellow. Lance, Indurain, and Froome have said say so.

So, basically, Lemond was the best, therefore it is no surprise that he was the best, and therefore Lemond was probably clean unlike 95% of other GT winners.

Glenn, bang on.

you've discounted Lemond being a black swan of course...

which you can do however you should at least acknowledge that they can exist....

 

[gillan1969]

Re: Re:

True, you only get stronger when you're in yellow. Lance, Indurain, and Froome have said say so.

So, basically, Lemond was the best, therefore it is no surprise that he was the best, and therefore Lemond was probably clean unlike 95% of other GT winners.

Glenn, bang on.

you've discounted Lemond being a black swan of course...

which you can do however you should at least acknowledge that they can exist....

and before the usual comparisons are brought in...

a junior world champ and tour d l'avenir winner might just be a GT black swan

a second rate roadie with some track success and a guy who hangs on to motorbikes is most probably not....

 

[red_flanders]

Re: Re:

True, you only get stronger when you're in yellow. Lance, Indurain, and Froome have said say so.

Glenn, bang on.

I fell victim to this type of thought before also. Come up with ways that it is possible for someone to ride a bicycle for that long in a grand tour and still be or in almost all cases in better condition on the final TT and mountain stages than when they began the tour.

It is almost like someone pauses reality to fit what they want. The Human body will not react that way to that many endurance days. It is not possible.

Here's an idea–watch the race. In full if you can. Watch days on end when Lemond falters in the mountains and loses time, unable to respond to attacks. He starts to recover toward the end (relative to the competition) as the race eases up, and wins a couple of stages late. He does well in all the TT's, mountains included.

Watch on the other hand Fignon recover and go nuts in the mountains late, taking time on multiple stages, attacking constantly.

When asked why he didn't attack or chase at various times in the mountains, he responds that he's "too tired".

But everyone wants to focus on one downhill stage with a tailwind where a bunch of riders set crazy-fast times, because Fignon was too cocky and vain to put on a helmet riding into his hometown, and as such fell out of the fastest times.

I don't know if he was doping, but the reasons posted here to suspect him are dumb, and clearly agenda-driven by some. It's borne out of having no sense of the races he rode. No, conclusions are reached and attempts to justify them are proffered from just reading tiny excerpts of what happened from decades ago. It's just poor analysis, skewed by a total lack of context or the full story.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Re: Re:

True, you only get stronger when you're in yellow. Lance, Indurain, and Froome have said say so.

Glenn, bang on.

I fell victim to this type of thought before also. Come up with ways that it is possible for someone to ride a bicycle for that long in a grand tour and still be or in almost all cases in better condition on the final TT and mountain stages than when they began the tour.

It is almost like someone pauses reality to fit what they want. The Human body will not react that way to that many endurance days. It is not possible.

Here's an idea–watch the race. In full if you can. Watch days on end when Lemond falters in the mountains and loses time, unable to respond to attacks. He starts to recover toward the end (relative to the competition) as the race eases up, and wins a couple of stages late. He does well in all the TT's, mountains included.

Watch on the other hand Fignon recover and go nuts in the mountains late, taking time on multiple stages, attacking constantly.

When asked why he didn't attack or chase at various times in the mountains, he responds that he's "too tired".

But everyone wants to focus on one downhill stage with a tailwind where a bunch of riders set crazy-fast times, because Fignon was too cocky and vain to put on a helmet riding into his hometown, and as such fell out of the fastest times.

I don't know if he was doping, but the reasons posted here to suspect him are dumb, and clearly agenda-driven by some. It's borne out of having no sense of the races he rode. No, conclusions are reached and attempts to justify them are proffered from just reading tiny excerpts of what happened from decades ago. It's just poor analysis, skewed by a total lack of context or the full story.

I watched it. Well if you can call the coverage here in the US actual coverage. But I bought that year the recap videos of the entire tour. I waited a month for them to come in the mail from the UK. So I did watch then. I was captivated by the pure pain. I was also told by a local shop owner that "all of them were on the juice". Maybe that old man knew what he was talking about? Of course he sold Bianchi and back in those days that was a big deal so I listened to old Italian immigrant but thought he just did not like Lemond.

The more I know the more I suspect my favorite cyclist from the USA is as dirty as the rest.

Not to mention the stupid things he has flip flopped on over the recent years. His drunk dialing folks and recording conversations. F him.

 

[pmcg76]

Re: Re:

The narrative is that Bauer, Hampsten, and Lemond were clean, and all suffered when EPO kicked in.
Three clean anglophones beating those pesky Europeans on their home territory.
What are the odds.
In some sources that narrative is explicitly stated, I've posted examples in multiple threads. Don't ask me to do it again.
The narrative is so hypocrite it makes Sky look sympathetic.

The clean narrative was being build around them ever since the US had their 'little' doping scandals in 83 (PanAm Games) and 84 (LA Games), the latter being a kick in the teeth of sponsor 7-eleven. The US were the first to both realize the importance of, and really push, "clean" PR.
If you didn't see that narrative unfold, you missed something.

I'm talking about Lemond (thread topic), not Hampsten or Bauer. Mottet, Kochli, Borysewicz, Anderson and Nijs are not part of any "narrative". They are simply guys, Euorpeans or other non North Americans who on separate occasions, brought up their view on Lemond, un-bidden by questions. That's what makes their comments compelling.

To equate my posts here with a "narrative" as you define it is the worst kind of strawman argument. Not surprising, as one would have to move the goalposts and mis-state what I wrote to evade the questions and comments I've added here.

To imagine I've missed something from this era is fairly silly, and not a little ironic.

compelling considering they are ALL drug cheats. I understand the argument but to consider these or any of these guys clean is a bit of a ...... comic strip.

Your whole premise is based on they cannot have been clean because it was not possible. How exactly do you know this? How do you know what was possible or not possible? Were you a pro cyclist in the 80s? Do you know much drugs improved each rider? Do you know the difference in natural abilities between all the pros in the 80s?

Simply disregarding everything because to you it was impossible is not really an argument.

His '89 Tour win was impossible. I mean, 34mph on the last day of the Tour reeks (REEKS!) of blood doping. Suspending your disbelief for Lemond seems done only for the sake of hero worship.

Hold on a second, how do you know it wasnt possible? Did you take into consideration conditions, course etc. No you didnt.

Lets take Jesper Skibby who rounded out the Top 10 that day in 89, his average speed was 32.4481mph for the stage. Distance 24.5km. Time 28.09.

That is a faster average speed than Landis/Cancellara 32.3946(Distance 19k. Time 21.52)/Ullrich/Leipheimer/Evans in the 2005 stage one TT. Shorter than the 89 stage. Skibbys average speed which gained him 10th place in the final stage in 89 would have placed him 5th in the first stage of the 2005 race.

So two possibilities here,
1>the top 10 finishers of the final stage in 89 were more jacked up than almost the entire field of the 05 race on day one.

2>the parcours and conditions in 89 were more favourable for fast times and speeds. Thus LeMonds seemingly impossible speed.

As an anecdote, Jesper Skibby wrote a confessional book almost 10 years ago now in which he confessed to doping. He said he started doping in 1991 with steroids, moving onto cortisone/testosterone 92 and then EPO in 1993. He says he was clean the first 3 years of his career which would include 89.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesper_Skibby

So are you sure it wasnt possible? Can you explain how guys on the final stage of the 89 Tour were able to go faster than the mega dopers of 05?

Despite your accusations of blind faith, I look at facts and work things out from there, my conclusion is that when you have names like Weschelberger/Maechler/Beuker trampling over Landis/Cancellara/Ullrich in a short TT which should have favoured the times in 05(first stage/fresher riders and shorter course) then that suggests that the 89 route and conditions were incredibly favourable for fast speed/times.

 

[red_flanders]

Re: Re:

I watched it. Well if you can call the coverage here in the US actual coverage. But I bought that year the recap videos of the entire tour. I waited a month for them to come in the mail from the UK. So I did watch then. I was captivated by the pure pain. I was also told by a local shop owner that "all of them were on the juice". Maybe that old man knew what he was talking about? Of course he sold Bianchi and back in those days that was a big deal so I listened to old Italian immigrant but thought he just did not like Lemond.

The more I know the more I suspect my favorite cyclist from the USA is as dirty as the rest.

Not to mention the stupid things he has flip flopped on over the recent years. His drunk dialing folks and recording conversations. F him.

"They're all on the juice" is probably about as true then as it is now. Most of them are. Sounds like you don't like Lemond. That's fine, he's an odd character for sure. But that's not a reason to believe he's doping. I just don't see it in his performances or his history myself. It's possible. I tend to doubt it.

 

[blutto]

Re: Re:

True, you only get stronger when you're in yellow. Lance, Indurain, and Froome have said say so.

Glenn, bang on.

I fell victim to this type of thought before also. Come up with ways that it is possible for someone to ride a bicycle for that long in a grand tour and still be or in almost all cases in better condition on the final TT and mountain stages than when they began the tour.

It is almost like someone pauses reality to fit what they want. The Human body will not react that way to that many endurance days. It is not possible.

Here's an idea–watch the race. In full if you can. Watch days on end when Lemond falters in the mountains and loses time, unable to respond to attacks. He starts to recover toward the end (relative to the competition) as the race eases up, and wins a couple of stages late. He does well in all the TT's, mountains included.

Watch on the other hand Fignon recover and go nuts in the mountains late, taking time on multiple stages, attacking constantly.

When asked why he didn't attack or chase at various times in the mountains, he responds that he's "too tired".

But everyone wants to focus on one downhill stage with a tailwind where a bunch of riders set crazy-fast times, because Fignon was too cocky and vain to put on a helmet riding into his hometown, and as such fell out of the fastest times.

I don't know if he was doping, but the reasons posted here to suspect him are dumb, and clearly agenda-driven by some. It's borne out of having no sense of the races he rode. No, conclusions are reached and attempts to justify them are proffered from just reading tiny excerpts of what happened from decades ago. It's just poor analysis, skewed by a total lack of context or the full story.

The fastest time-trial is Rohan Dennis' stage 1 of the 2015 Tour de France in Utrecht, won at an average of 55.446 km/h (34.5 mph).

Greg LeMond 54.545 km/h Versailles - Paris (34.5 km) 198

David Millar 54.361 km/h Pornic - Nantes (49 km) 2003

....please note the fastest time above was done at the beginning of the Tour whereas the LeMond miracle occurred at the end of the Tour......and btw the difference in speeds can easily be attributed to much more efficient bike/vestment aerodynamics and a significantly shorter race difference...

Cheers

 

[djpbaltimore]

The Millar TT was at the end of the tour too and if Armstrong would've taken risks that day, he would've gone faster than LeMond IMO. As far as I remember, that TT was also done with a strong tailwind, albeit in rainy conditions.