LeMond III

[pmcg76]

A few days ago, a few posters were banging on abouts LeMonds final TT performance in the 89 Tour and how we were blind fanboys to believe it.

I posted a breakdown of that TT and how the 10th placed finisher that day had a faster average speed than almost all of the stage 1 times from 2005. I asked for an explantion but received none.

Also note that short TTs(10-30k flat) in the Tour are as rare as hens teeth so speed records will last longer.

It is noticeable that not one of those posters who were bleating about that stage being suspicious ever addressed that post.

We can only concude that they have no actual interest in real discussion, and have decided to bury their collective heads in the sand.

 

[pmcg76]

Re: Re:

I'm sure this has been covered, but if Lemond-1989-epo is the argument, then what's the explanation for '91 and especially '92?...

The explanation is, he was doping all along and lost his advantage when everyone else caught on.

That's a very weak and implausible explanation though, because:
a. No one asserts that epo was on the scene when he was a dominant younger rider - early '80's and into mid '80's. At earliest, it may have been adopted in the late 80's, hence the discussion about his tt in 1989. So the explanation cannot account for how he won WC's and TDF's before epo was being used. By every account, his peak was '85/'86. Is that really your assertion: that Lemond was good then because he was the only one using epo?
b. In 1992 he didn't merely 'lose his advantage.' He basically went from best GT rider in the world to totally noncompetitive. For your explanation to hold, wouldn't you need Lemond to remain constant (whilst others 'catch up'), hence producing more competitors at the same level? But this didn't happen in reality - the competitors on epo started doing extraordinary things. Indurain's tt in 1992 was outrageous. Chiapucci's breakaway was outrageous. Lemond was out the back of the groupetto on cat 4 climbs.

EPO had nothing to do with Lemonds demise. He couldn't finish races ffs. Clean Hampsten and others had no such problems.

Greg himself blamed it to sickness, particularly myopathy.
Max Testa had a more straightforward explanation: Lemond had used too much drugs throughout his career.

Note that both explanations are not mutually exclusive. A typical cause for myopathy is excessive use of steroids.

But this ground has been covered amply before. Do take your time to read back into the thread.

I agree that EPO was not the sole factor that destroyed LeMonds career, but if definitely made it harder for him in 93-94. His illness meant that he could only keep form for short periods that varied in length, thus why there was so many swings in form during the latter part of his career. His form could just fall of a cliff all of a sudden. He had very little form in spring 89/90/91 but then gained form come summer and hold it for a month or two before it would vanish again.

When he tried to get into better form in spring 92, top 10 Paris-Roubaix, winning Tour du Pont, 4th Tour of Switzerland, going well first week of the Tour, that short window(two months) of form seemed to vanish again and he was relegated to the autobus which is a huge swing in performance.

In 93/94 he was nowhere which was a combination of his illness and the more widespread usage of EPO. Maybe as someone suggested, he was overtraining to keep up with the EPO guys. I dont know. LeMond went downhill quicker those years than anyone else.

 

[Gregga]

A few days ago, a few posters were banging on abouts LeMonds final TT performance in the 89 Tour and how we were blind fanboys to believe it.

I posted a breakdown of that TT and how the 10th placed finisher that day had a faster average speed than almost all of the stage 1 times from 2005. I asked for an explantion but received none.

Also note that short TTs(10-30k flat) in the Tour are as rare as hens teeth so speed records will last longer.

It is noticeable that not one of those posters who were bleating about that stage being suspicious ever addressed that post.

We can only concude that they have no actual interest in real discussion, and have decided to bury their collective heads in the sand.

This TT was not only short but also slightly downhill, from Versailles (180 meters above sea level) to Paris (35m) which is a lot for 24km

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Re:

So now he's on oxygen vector doping since he was a junior and you know his V02 max details at various points. I guess the V02 max doesn't matter that much posts only come out when it's pointed out how high he claims it was.

Comedy.

Well his V02 seems to be a EPIC event. That is on him.

But when they were measuring it then ..... does the test then = the test now? I think not. SO much room for them to embellish the results.

 

[roundabout]

A few days ago, a few posters were banging on abouts LeMonds final TT performance in the 89 Tour and how we were blind fanboys to believe it.

I posted a breakdown of that TT and how the 10th placed finisher that day had a faster average speed than almost all of the stage 1 times from 2005. I asked for an explantion but received none.

Also note that short TTs(10-30k flat) in the Tour are as rare as hens teeth so speed records will last longer.

It is noticeable that not one of those posters who were bleating about that stage being suspicious ever addressed that post.

We can only concude that they have no actual interest in real discussion, and have decided to bury their collective heads in the sand.

This TT was not only short but also slightly downhill, from Versailles (180 meters above sea level) to Paris (35m) which is a lot for 24km

Yeah. Very roughly, presuming a constant gradient and making certain assumptions about the rider+bike weight the power gain is about 60 watts from gravity.

 

[The Hegelian]

Re: Re:

I'm sure this has been covered, but if Lemond-1989-epo is the argument, then what's the explanation for '91 and especially '92?...

The explanation is, he was doping all along and lost his advantage when everyone else caught on.

That's a very weak and implausible explanation though, because:
a. No one asserts that epo was on the scene when he was a dominant younger rider - early '80's and into mid '80's. At earliest, it may have been adopted in the late 80's, hence the discussion about his tt in 1989. So the explanation cannot account for how he won WC's and TDF's before epo was being used. By every account, his peak was '85/'86. Is that really your assertion: that Lemond was good then because he was the only one using epo?
b. In 1992 he didn't merely 'lose his advantage.' He basically went from best GT rider in the world to totally noncompetitive. For your explanation to hold, wouldn't you need Lemond to remain constant (whilst others 'catch up'), hence producing more competitors at the same level? But this didn't happen in reality - the competitors on epo started doing extraordinary things. Indurain's tt in 1992 was outrageous. Chiapucci's breakaway was outrageous. Lemond was out the back of the groupetto on cat 4 climbs.

EPO had nothing to do with Lemonds demise. He couldn't finish races ffs. Clean Hampsten and others had no such problems.

Greg himself blamed it to sickness, particularly myopathy.
Max Testa had a more straightforward explanation: Lemond had used too much drugs throughout his career.

Note that both explanations are not mutually exclusive. A typical cause for myopathy is excessive use of steroids.

But this ground has been covered amply before. Do take your time to read back into the thread.

I'm well aware of those issues. + lead poisoning etc.

But note how the argument has shifted from: "Lemond was an early adapter of epo, that explains his dominance in the 80's."

to

"Lemond used steroids in the '80's, which is what caused his decline."

Is he or is he not using epo in 1985-6?

 

[@NL_LeMondFans]

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

Get your figures right, please. The 1989 ITT was 24.5km. Half of what Millar had to ride. And somehow you point at this as an evidence against Greg ? A 1km/h difference of speed with half the distance ?

 

[@NL_LeMondFans]

Re: Re:

He starts his carreer with a vo2max of 78.
Ends it with a vo2max of 90+.
Next.

...well if you listen to Greg he had the highest ever....like ever....

Cheers

I thought we were not supposed to take anything Greg says for granted ? ("from the horse's mouth", as Sniper likes to say).

Please make up your mind.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Re: Re:

He starts his carreer with a vo2max of 78.
Ends it with a vo2max of 90+.
Next.

...well if you listen to Greg he had the highest ever....like ever....

Cheers

I thought we were not supposed to take anything Greg says for granted ? ("from the horse's mouth", as Sniper likes to say).

Please make up your mind.

ummm errrrrrrr

I think that was his point. That sarcastic hint was when he said listen to Greg. Which everyone knows could change depending on the mood or in some evenings....how many he has had.

 

[@NL_LeMondFans]

Re: Re:

He starts his carreer with a vo2max of 78.
Ends it with a vo2max of 90+.
Next.

...well if you listen to Greg he had the highest ever....like ever....

Cheers

I thought we were not supposed to take anything Greg says for granted ? ("from the horse's mouth", as Sniper likes to say).

Please make up your mind.

ummm errrrrrrr

I think that was his point. That sarcastic hint was when he said listen to Greg. Which everyone knows could change depending on the mood or in some evenings....how many he has had.

I like sarcasm myself :twisted:

My comment also included the whole Max Testa thing, which originated from Greg. People can't possibly state he lacks credibility or consistancy and then hold this against him.

That would be... lack of consistancy

 

[blutto]

Re: Re:

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

Get your figures right, please. The 1989 ITT was 24.5km. Half of what Millar had to ride. And somehow you point at this as an evidence against Greg ? A 1km/h difference of speed with half the distance ?

...so we have full bore aerodynamic packages, lots of great drugs, a huge tailwind and Millar still ends up behind the miracle time....yup that pretty much covers it....and yeah it was raining....

Cheers

 

[red_flanders]

Re: Re:

...so we have full bore aerodynamic packages, lots of great drugs, a huge tailwind and Millar still ends up behind the miracle time....yup that pretty much covers it....and yeah it was raining....

Cheers

Please address this post.

A few days ago, a few posters were banging on abouts LeMonds final TT performance in the 89 Tour and how we were blind fanboys to believe it.

I posted a breakdown of that TT and how the 10th placed finisher that day had a faster average speed than almost all of the stage 1 times from 2005. I asked for an explantion but received none.

Also note that short TTs(10-30k flat) in the Tour are as rare as hens teeth so speed records will last longer.

It is noticeable that not one of those posters who were bleating about that stage being suspicious ever addressed that post.

We can only concude that they have no actual interest in real discussion, and have decided to bury their collective heads in the sand.

Thanks.

 

[blutto]

Re: Re:

...so we have full bore aerodynamic packages, lots of great drugs, a huge tailwind and Millar still ends up behind the miracle time....yup that pretty much covers it....and yeah it was raining....

Cheers

Please address this post.

A few days ago, a few posters were banging on abouts LeMonds final TT performance in the 89 Tour and how we were blind fanboys to believe it.

I posted a breakdown of that TT and how the 10th placed finisher that day had a faster average speed than almost all of the stage 1 times from 2005. I asked for an explantion but received none.

Also note that short TTs(10-30k flat) in the Tour are as rare as hens teeth so speed records will last longer.

It is noticeable that not one of those posters who were bleating about that stage being suspicious ever addressed that post.

We can only concude that they have no actual interest in real discussion, and have decided to bury their collective heads in the sand.

Thanks.

...ok what's the explanation then..?...couldn't have been that the weather was awful for the late starting favourites would it ?....Zabriskie started way way early did he not ?.... World Champion Mick Rogers (Quick.Step) was 45th, 1'53 behind maillot jaune Zabriskie which seems to indicate not even remotely a typical day....

....so is there a point here or are you just cherry picking to backfill a narrative ?....

Cheers

 

[red_flanders]

Re: Re:

...so we have full bore aerodynamic packages, lots of great drugs, a huge tailwind and Millar still ends up behind the miracle time....yup that pretty much covers it....and yeah it was raining....

Cheers

Please address this post.

A few days ago, a few posters were banging on abouts LeMonds final TT performance in the 89 Tour and how we were blind fanboys to believe it.

I posted a breakdown of that TT and how the 10th placed finisher that day had a faster average speed than almost all of the stage 1 times from 2005. I asked for an explantion but received none.

Also note that short TTs(10-30k flat) in the Tour are as rare as hens teeth so speed records will last longer.

It is noticeable that not one of those posters who were bleating about that stage being suspicious ever addressed that post.

We can only concude that they have no actual interest in real discussion, and have decided to bury their collective heads in the sand.

Thanks.

...ok what's the explanation then..?...couldn't have been that the weather was awful for the late starting favourites would it ?....Zabriskie started way way early did he not ?....

Cheers

Not sure what you want me to explain.

I asked if you'd address pmcg76's post about the top 10 in the '89 final TT. The point of that is, of course, that Lemond's time was not the outlier many seem to want to make it out to be. A bunch of guys went really fast. Were they all on EPO that was better than in later generations? Do 'roids explain it? Or was the course just fast that day, being downhill, short, etc? This is what I'm asking you to address.

Maybe something is getting lost in all the post quoting.

 

[@NL_LeMondFans]

Re: Re:

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

Get your figures right, please. The 1989 ITT was 24.5km. Half of what Millar had to ride. And somehow you point at this as an evidence against Greg ? A 1km/h difference of speed with half the distance ?

...so we have full bore aerodynamic packages, lots of great drugs, a huge tailwind and Millar still ends up behind the miracle time....yup that pretty much covers it....and yeah it was raining....

Cheers

So, let me get this straight. Your reasoning is that Greg doped because Millar could not reach his average speed ? By 1 mere km/h ? With rain and twice the distance ?

Actually, that statement of yours puts so many of your posts in perspective. I thank you for that.

 

[blutto]

Re: Re:

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

Get your figures right, please. The 1989 ITT was 24.5km. Half of what Millar had to ride. And somehow you point at this as an evidence against Greg ? A 1km/h difference of speed with half the distance ?

...so we have full bore aerodynamic packages, lots of great drugs, a huge tailwind and Millar still ends up behind the miracle time....yup that pretty much covers it....and yeah it was raining....

Cheers

So, let me get this straight. Your reasoning is that Greg doped because Millar could not reach his average speed ? By 1 mere km/h ? With rain and twice the distance ?

Actually, that statement of yours puts so many of your posts in perspective. I thank you for that.

....au contraire it should be me thanking you for producing the bolded....there is tortured logic, there is really tortured logic and then there is what you wrote which is an insult to tortured logic....just breathtaking, by all rights you should be sent to The Hague and tried for crimes against logic....

Cheers

 

[@NL_LeMondFans]

Nice way of not answering anything.

Since I was rephrasing your logic, explain and tell me how I'm wrong ?

Let me try this way (not too fond of The Hague)

Rider 1 rides at X speed for 24.5km
Rider 2 rides ar X speed (same speed approximately) for 49km
We know rider 2 doped.

Your logic is : we can conclude rider 1 doped. Right ?

If so, I disagree. I find it twisted logic.

 

[djpbaltimore]

Re:

Nice way of not answering anything.

Since I was rephrasing your logic, explain and tell me how I'm wrong ?

Let me try this way (not too fond of The Hague)

Rider 1 rides at X speed for 24.5km
Rider 2 rides ar X speed (same speed approximately) for 49km
We know rider 2 doped.

Your logic is : we can conclude rider 1 doped. Right ?

If so, I disagree. I find it twisted logic.

That usually happens when the person is losing the argument at hand. Still no admission that the numbers posted were blatantly wrong either. Very telling.

 

[blutto]

Re:

Nice way of not answering anything.

Since I was rephrasing your logic, explain and tell me how I'm wrong ?

Let me try this way (not too fond of The Hague)

Rider 1 rides at X speed for 24.5km
Rider 2 rides ar X speed (same speed approximately) for 49km
We know rider 2 doped.

Your logic is : we can conclude rider 1 doped. Right ?

If so, I disagree. I find it twisted logic.

....nope but I do find it rather odd....a conclusion may come later but right now this is in the suspect file....you know where you have folks with motive, means and opportunity....

Cheers

 

[@NL_LeMondFans]

Re: Re:

Nice way of not answering anything.

Since I was rephrasing your logic, explain and tell me how I'm wrong ?

Let me try this way (not too fond of The Hague)

Rider 1 rides at X speed for 24.5km
Rider 2 rides ar X speed (same speed approximately) for 49km
We know rider 2 doped.

Your logic is : we can conclude rider 1 doped. Right ?

If so, I disagree. I find it twisted logic.

....nope but I do find it rather odd....a conclusion may come later but right now this is in the suspect file....you know where you have folks with motive, means and opportunity....

Cheers

In other words, that demonstration doesn't mean anything. What does is your general view on people ("folks with motive, means and opportunity") and your personal opinion on rider 1.

Which means your view is as good as mine. Agree to disagree ?

 

[casati]

Re: Re:

That's a very weak and implausible explanation though, because:
a. No one asserts that epo was on the scene when he was a dominant younger rider - early '80's and into mid '80's. At earliest, it may have been adopted in the late 80's, hence the discussion about historical tt in 1989. So the explanation cannot account for how he won WC's and TDF's before epo was being used. By every account, his peak was '85/'86. Is that really your assertion: that Lemond was good then because he was the only one using epo?
b. In 1992 he didn't merely 'lose his advantage.' He basically went from best GT rider in the world to totally noncompetitive. For your explanation to hold, wouldn't you need Lemond to remain constant (whilst others 'catch up'), hence producing more competitors at the same level? But this didn't happen in reality - the competitors on epo started doing extraordinary things. Indurain's tt in 1992 was outrageous. Chiapucci's breakaway was outrageous. Lemond was out the back of the groupetto on cat 4 climbs.

EPO had nothing to do with Lemonds demise. He couldn't finish races ffs. Clean Hampsten and others had no such problems.

Greg himself blamed it to sickness, particularly myopathy.
Max Testa had a more straightforward explanation: Lemond had used too much drugs throughout his career.

Note that both explanations are not mutually exclusive. A typical cause for myopathy is excessive use of steroids.

But this ground has been covered amply before. Do take your time to read back into the thread.

so a huge cycling star and current cycling personality had a drug problem so bad that it destroyed him and the evidence is one guy???? Sounds like Froome's dodgy fax in reverse.....

Oh, but wait, you missed the best part which sniper will omit every single time.

The source of this Max Testa rumour, the person who brought this to public attention is .............wait for it.....................................Greg LeMond himself .

LeMond was talking in an interview and the discussion was about people being suspicious of his perfromances. To illustrate the nature of the innuendo and rumours that were spread in the peloton, LeMond relayed a story about how during the worst of his poor form, 93-94, a friend of Greg's contacted Max Testa to see if he could help get to the bottom of LeMonds health problems. Testa apparently suggested to the person, that it was because Greg took too many drugs. LeMond's friend told Testa that was BS and it ended there. This all from LeMonds mouth.

So it was LeMond who brought this whole rumour to the public attention but sniper is now unbelievably trying to turn this into evidence against LeMond. Thus you will see sniper mention the Max Testa rumour repeatedly, but will never mention where that story originated. More misrepresentation as always.

Of course another sniper mantra is that you should never believe anything from the horses mouth(LeMond).............except of course when he thinks it might somehow be used as his version of "evidence".

Mind-boggling is the only word.

The same max testa- bmc doctor- ochowicz is team director who used to work for mortorola- lance, etc... connect the dots

 

[pmcg76]

Testa has been around the sport a long time, mainly connected with Ochowicz. He first worked with 7-Eleven at the Giro in 85. I can pull out a quote from an old Winning magazine in which Testa said the Americans completely refused usage of La Bomba at the Giro in 85.

That undoubtedly changed over time when they went full time in Europe, but I doubt if he was ever a Ferrari type doctor, more a Rijckaert type who reacted to what was happening around him. More a facilitator than a pusher. According to Armstrong/Swart, it was 94/95 before Motorola started using EPO which is a few years after most started to switch which would seem to back that idea.

 

[blutto]

Re: Re:

Nice way of not answering anything.

Since I was rephrasing your logic, explain and tell me how I'm wrong ?

Let me try this way (not too fond of The Hague)

Rider 1 rides at X speed for 24.5km
Rider 2 rides ar X speed (same speed approximately) for 49km
We know rider 2 doped.

Your logic is : we can conclude rider 1 doped. Right ?

If so, I disagree. I find it twisted logic.

....nope but I do find it rather odd....a conclusion may come later but right now this is in the suspect file....you know where you have folks with motive, means and opportunity....

Cheers

In other words, that demonstration doesn't mean anything. What does is your general view on people ("folks with motive, means and opportunity") and your personal opinion on rider 1.

Which means your view is as good as mine. Agree to disagree ?

...you are either being way obtuse or you really have a reading comprehension problem....

...."means nothing", well, uhhh, no, it is, as I pointed out, odd, very odd, both in the long and short term histories tied to the event, and casts suspicion on the rider, hence that rider is suspect ( as are btw any and all riders who perform miracles...read I don't much believe in miracles...improbable bounces but not miracles....) ....and there seems to be a typo? in sentence two because it doesn't make sense....

Cheers

 

[Semper Fidelis]

There is some world class denial happening here.

Members going to the moderator thread to cry is a bit embarrassing.

You think the V02 number is correct or at least the one Lemond is selling today?

 

[@NL_LeMondFans]

Re: Re:

...you are either being way obtuse or you really have a reading comprehension problem....

Maybe I do have a reading comprehension problem...

...."means nothing", well, uhhh, no, it is, as I pointed out, odd, very odd, both in the long and short term histories tied to the event, and casts suspicion on the rider, hence that rider is suspect ( as are btw any and all riders who perform miracles...read I don't much believe in miracles...improbable bounces but not miracles....) ....and there seems to be a typo? in sentence two because it doesn't make sense....

...But then again, maybe not.

We agree on one thing, though. It doesn't make sense.