LeMond III

[blutto]

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.

....we can hardily agree on that....

Cheers

 

[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.

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.

....the numbers were pulled from results sheets....so how in your mind are they blatantly wrong....

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.

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.

....the numbers were pulled from results sheets....so how in your mind are they blatantly wrong....

Cheers

When you started comparing LeMond and Millar you talked about 34.5km instead of 24.5km for the 1989 ITT. Once corrected, you acted as if it didn't make any difference (not sure you even noticed it).

IMO there is a very big difference comparing 49 Vs 34.5 and 49 Vs 24.5...

 

[red_flanders]

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

Again with the miracles. Yet you refuse to address a post which describes up to ten riders beating the times you refer to. In fact no one arguing Lemond doped is addressing that post.

You appear to be dodging pointed questions and facts which show Lemomds ride not to be a miracle at all, at least not in the way you suggest.

I invite you again to address pmcg76's post.

 

[casati]

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.

My comment was more about his loyalty to his past and current associations rather than any connection with Ferrari, which would probably would have come out already if there was any connection

 

[Escarabajo]

What's up with thread?

Now Lemond is the first EPO user of the 80's?

I thought I heard everything!

The evidence must be overwhelming.

 

[gillan1969]

Re:

What's up with thread?

Now Lemond is the first EPO user of the 80's?

I thought I heard everything!

The evidence must be overwhelming.

keep up...he was blood doping throughout the early years if his career as well

 

[ScienceIsCool]

Re: Re:

What's up with thread?

Now Lemond is the first EPO user of the 80's?

I thought I heard everything!

The evidence must be overwhelming.

keep up...he was blood doping throughout the early years if his career as well

Don't forget that he doped so hard that he contracted a genetic disorder that you can only get by inheriting it from your parents.

John Swanson

 

[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

Again with the miracles. Yet you refuse to address a post which describes up to ten riders beating the times you refer to. In fact no one arguing Lemond doped is addressing that post.

You appear to be dodging pointed questions and facts which show Lemomds ride not to be a miracle at all, at least not in the way you suggest.

I invite you again to address pmcg76's post.

....I addressed it up thread....

Cheers

 

[blutto]

Re: Re:

What's up with thread?

Now Lemond is the first EPO user of the 80's?

I thought I heard everything!

The evidence must be overwhelming.

keep up...he was blood doping throughout the early years if his career as well

Don't forget that he doped so hard that he contracted a genetic disorder that you can only get by inheriting it from your parents.

John Swanson

....not just a genetic disorder...

Mitochondrial disorders may be caused by mutations, acquired or inherited, in mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) or in nuclear genes that code for mitochondrial components. They may also be the result of acquired mitochondrial dysfunction due to adverse effects of drugs, infections, or other environmental causes (see MeSH

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

....that being said that diagnosis appeared with huge fanfare and then kinda disappeared from the narrative as EPO use by others took centre stage....just another odd occurrence in the ever evolving LeMond saga....

Cheers

 

[ScienceIsCool]

"The subclass of these diseases that have neuromuscular disease symptoms are often called a mitochondrial myopathy."

That subclass, mitochondrial myopathy, is an inherited disease.

The diagnosis is made via the presence of ragged red fibers in a muscle biopsy. It's been subsequently learned that the red ragged fibers may have other causes and therefore Greg may have ben misdiagnosed. Oodles of links to medical publications up-thread.

Can you tell me why any of this is odd?

John Swanson

 

[Semper Fidelis]

In an attempt to try.

When someone uses a narrative to explain something and then changes to a different narrative all together. That can seem a little odd to say it in a nice way.

 

[djpbaltimore]

Medicine is a lot less black and white than people want to believe.

The condition, he continued, is called mitochondrial myopathy. "I can't spell it," he said with a laugh, "but I can say it's basically dysfunctional mitochondria, which won't help me produce energy. My energy- delivery system has been off whack. It's a mild state that affects my performance at a high level but not my day-to-day living."

But Dr. Michelle Taube of the Minneapolis Sports Medicine Center, "who has worked the last three months researching me," is still not certain of the cause, LeMond said. "That's only the most likely theory."

http://www.nytimes.com/1994/12/03/sports/03iht-bike.html

 

[@NL_LeMondFans]

Re:

In an attempt to try.

When someone uses a narrative to explain something and then changes to a different narrative all together. That can seem a little odd to say it in a nice way.

That describes Sniper very well.




What you see as a "narrative" is one of the best athletes in his sport trying to understand what happened to him. Surely, it's not as sexy as a conspiracy theory.

 

[red_flanders]

Re: Re:

....I addressed it up thread....

Cheers

Can't find it. I saw you pointedly NOT address it, but that's no different than anyone else who act certain that it was a doped ride. Seems facts are deflating the enthusiasm for some folks.

 

[blutto]

Re: Re:

....I addressed it up thread....

Cheers

Can't find it. I saw you pointedly NOT address it, but that's no different than anyone else who act certain that it was a doped ride. Seems facts are deflating the enthusiasm for some folks.

.....well it took about 30 sec to find....oddly enough it was btwn two of your posts....and even more oddly you actually quoted my response, albeit in a selectively edited manner (that incidentally seemed to suit your special agenda), in the second of those two posts....my response is below in case you can't find it....

...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

Cheers

 

[blutto]

Re:

In an attempt to try.

When someone uses a narrative to explain something and then changes to a different narrative all together. That can seem a little odd to say it in a nice way.

....sorry to be late here ( that damn life thing intruded on my precious time here ) but the above pretty nicely covers the odd bit....

Cheers

...edit...thanks Glenn...

 

[red_flanders]

Re: Re:

....I addressed it up thread....

Cheers

Can't find it. I saw you pointedly NOT address it, but that's no different than anyone else who act certain that it was a doped ride. Seems facts are deflating the enthusiasm for some folks.

.....well it took about 30 sec to find....oddly enough it was btwn two of your posts....and even more oddly you actually quoted my response, albeit in a selectively edited manner (that incidentally seemed to suit your special agenda), in the second of those two posts....my response is below in case you can't find it....

...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

Cheers

I cannot fathom how this addresses the fact that up to ten riders put in historically fast times in the '89 TT and yet you keep acting like Lemomd's time is a "miracle". In fact I said clearly above, when quoting your post that I could follow your point.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Re: Re:

What's up with thread?

Now Lemond is the first EPO user of the 80's?

I thought I heard everything!

The evidence must be overwhelming.

keep up...he was blood doping throughout the early years if his career as well

Don't forget that he doped so hard that he contracted a genetic disorder that you can only get by inheriting it from your parents.

John Swanson

You fanboys Trolled yourselves! That was a funny exchange between the 3 of ya. :lol:

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Re: Re:

In an attempt to try.

When someone uses a narrative to explain something and then changes to a different narrative all together. That can seem a little odd to say it in a nice way.

That describes Sniper very well.




What you see as a "narrative" is one of the best athletes in his sport trying to understand what happened to him. Surely, it's not as sexy as a conspiracy theory.

I don't believe in the conspiracy theory. I think I have said what I believe previously in this thread, and it toes no line with conspiracy.

It is based on his own words. Words that have changed as much as the seasons cycle in one year.

I do not believe his V02 score.
His personal traits are also something that gives me pause when it comes time to listen to his stories and just buy in with belief.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Red - I broke out the old VCR last night. Had to pull it out of a storage unit along with .... my world cycling productions videos and have begun a refreshing look at the tour 1989. Get back after I finish it up.

 

[gillan1969]

Re: Re:

In an attempt to try.

When someone uses a narrative to explain something and then changes to a different narrative all together. That can seem a little odd to say it in a nice way.

That describes Sniper very well.




What you see as a "narrative" is one of the best athletes in his sport trying to understand what happened to him. Surely, it's not as sexy as a conspiracy theory.

I don't believe in the conspiracy theory. I think I have said what I believe previously in this thread, and it toes no line with conspiracy.

It is based on his own words. Words that have changed as much as the seasons cycle in one year.

I do not believe his V02 score.
His personal traits are also something that gives me pause when it comes time to listen to his stories and just buy in with belief.

why not discount his own words altogether and look at his results?

Froome's VO2 (dodgy fax) doesn't match his 2006 - 2011 results, or put the other way his results don't match someone "pushing the boundaries of human physiology"

However, Lemond's 1979 - 86 results do infer a (very) high VO2

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Re: Re:

In an attempt to try.

When someone uses a narrative to explain something and then changes to a different narrative all together. That can seem a little odd to say it in a nice way.

That describes Sniper very well.




What you see as a "narrative" is one of the best athletes in his sport trying to understand what happened to him. Surely, it's not as sexy as a conspiracy theory.

I don't believe in the conspiracy theory. I think I have said what I believe previously in this thread, and it toes no line with conspiracy.

It is based on his own words. Words that have changed as much as the seasons cycle in one year.

I do not believe his V02 score.
His personal traits are also something that gives me pause when it comes time to listen to his stories and just buy in with belief.

why not discount his own words altogether and look at his results?

Froome's VO2 (dodgy fax) doesn't match his 2006 - 2011 results, or put the other way his results don't match someone "pushing the boundaries of human physiology"

However, Lemond's 1979 - 86 results do infer a (very) high VO2

Not sure but why would you keep changing the number? Is it a alcohol or combo of alcohol and Celexa talking all the time?

Sure his V02 score was high - but why the different numbers? Is that a sign of a habit to not say the truth? Maybe not maybe so.

 

[blutto]

Re: Re:

....I addressed it up thread....

Cheers

Can't find it. I saw you pointedly NOT address it, but that's no different than anyone else who act certain that it was a doped ride. Seems facts are deflating the enthusiasm for some folks.

.....well it took about 30 sec to find....oddly enough it was btwn two of your posts....and even more oddly you actually quoted my response, albeit in a selectively edited manner (that incidentally seemed to suit your special agenda), in the second of those two posts....my response is below in case you can't find it....

...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

Cheers

I cannot fathom how this addresses the fact that up to ten riders put in historically fast times in the '89 TT and yet you keep acting like Lemomd's time is a "miracle". In fact I said clearly above, when quoting your post that I could follow your point.

...."miracle" , yeah me and the Washington Post....

LEMOND'S SELF-MADE MIRACLE

https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/lifestyle/1990/06/29/lemonds-self-made-miracle/eb9b3fe2-ee74-4b6d-9d65-b26484c27c14/?utm_term=.1e43a54be403

....and Eurosport....

1989: The Miracle

http://www.eurosport.com/cycling/an-american-in-paris_sto449073/story.shtml

....and there are many other references to 89 being a miracle for LeMond.....in the day it was commonly referred to that way....would you like me to list some more?....and rest assured they are all part of a gigantic world wide conspiracy to throw mud and awful "aspirations" at your most holy and miraculous of heroes....

Cheers

 

[gillan1969]

Re: Re:

....I addressed it up thread....

Cheers

Can't find it. I saw you pointedly NOT address it, but that's no different than anyone else who act certain that it was a doped ride. Seems facts are deflating the enthusiasm for some folks.

.....well it took about 30 sec to find....oddly enough it was btwn two of your posts....and even more oddly you actually quoted my response, albeit in a selectively edited manner (that incidentally seemed to suit your special agenda), in the second of those two posts....my response is below in case you can't find it....

...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

Cheers

I cannot fathom how this addresses the fact that up to ten riders put in historically fast times in the '89 TT and yet you keep acting like Lemomd's time is a "miracle". In fact I said clearly above, when quoting your post that I could follow your point.

...."miracle" , yeah me and the Washington Post....

LEMOND'S SELF-MADE MIRACLE

https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/lifestyle/1990/06/29/lemonds-self-made-miracle/eb9b3fe2-ee74-4b6d-9d65-b26484c27c14/?utm_term=.1e43a54be403

....and Eurosport....

1989: The Miracle

http://www.eurosport.com/cycling/an-american-in-paris_sto449073/story.shtml

....and there are many other references to 89 being a miracle for LeMond.....in the day it was commonly referred to that way....would you like me to list some more?....and rest assured they are all part of a gigantic world wide conspiracy to throw mud and awful "aspirations" at your most holy and miraculous of heroes....

Cheers

the 'miracle' is the overall story a la armstrong and winning on the final day...its a great story...its not the specific fast TT they are claiming as the 'miracle'

of course the difference between Lemond and Armstrong was this list of their previous TdF finshes before that...
LA - WD/WD/36/WD
GL - 3, 2, 1

so not really a miracle...just journos selling copy....