LeMond III

[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.

...."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

Not sure what the point of replying is at this point, but...

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.

Obviously you're using "miracle "differently, as a doping accusation. Which I already pointed out.

I notice you still haven't addressed the actual question. The deflection is rather telling.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Re: Re:

Not sure what the point of replying is at this point, but...

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.

Obviously you're using "miracle "differently, as a doping accusation. Which I already pointed out.

I notice you still haven't addressed the actual question. The deflection is rather telling.

Ok I get the point about the usage of the word "miracle".
I remember that prior to that ride in the time trial it was openly said (even in the world cycling productions video) that it would take nothing short of a miracle ride by Lemond in order to erase the difference between the two. And low and behold he pulled off a miracle. The speed was up there and I don't buy the argument it was all down hill because it was a 75 meter difference and what is described as a moderate tailwind. I can't remember if this was a straight line course that was more like a inverted ramp?

 

[ScienceIsCool]

Re: Re:

Not sure what the point of replying is at this point, but...

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.

Obviously you're using "miracle "differently, as a doping accusation. Which I already pointed out.

I notice you still haven't addressed the actual question. The deflection is rather telling.

Ok I get the point about the usage of the word "miracle".
I remember that prior to that ride in the time trial it was openly said (even in the world cycling productions video) that it would take nothing short of a miracle ride by Lemond in order to erase the difference between the two. And low and behold he pulled off a miracle. The speed was up there and I don't buy the argument it was all down hill because it was a 75 meter difference and what is described as a moderate tailwind. I can't remember if this was a straight line course that was more like a inverted ramp?

From memory and then checking google maps (search Versailles to champs elysees) the route was pretty much a straight line drag race. Take the A86 until you reach the Seine. Turn right on A14 and it's an arrow-straight line to the finish. I think the elevation loss happens mostly on the A86, so that would be ~1% descent for half the course followed by pancake flat. Depending on which way the wind was blowing, that would be one hell of a fast course.

John Swanson

 

[gillan1969]

Re: Re:

Not sure what the point of replying is at this point, but...

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.

Obviously you're using "miracle "differently, as a doping accusation. Which I already pointed out.

I notice you still haven't addressed the actual question. The deflection is rather telling.

Ok I get the point about the usage of the word "miracle".
I remember that prior to that ride in the time trial it was openly said (even in the world cycling productions video) that it would take nothing short of a miracle ride by Lemond in order to erase the difference between the two. And low and behold he pulled off a miracle. The speed was up there and I don't buy the argument it was all down hill because it was a 75 meter difference and what is described as a moderate tailwind. I can't remember if this was a straight line course that was more like a inverted ramp?

I remember it well
not a miracle (would be interesting to get holds of the odds on the day).....they (Lemond and Fignon) yo yo'd through the tour...it would need a super day from lemond and a poor one from Fignon...and that's what happened...but then that been happening already so whilst a mild shock it wasn't a total surprise. I'm sure google is your friend but i believe, from memory, Fignon also had a saddle sore and so cobbles would have been nasty..

the only miracle on that tour was when lemond sat up on the way to villard de lans...if delgado hadn't chased then that gap would have been far more than the 50 secs it turned into....

 

[GJB123]

Most people watching that TdF live expected LeMond to perhaps peg back some time but not the 58 seconds he got in the end. So in that sense it was a miracle result and I distinctly remember watching it in awe and bewilderment.

That doesn't change the fact that blutto still hasn't addressed the reasoning behind the entire top 10 of that ITT going extremely fast in comparison to other time trials. He deflects by stating it was a miracle but doesn't address that others were extremely fast also.

 

[djpbaltimore]

And the irony being that blutto also rationalizes the TT times from 2005 as partially due to the course conditions.

 

[ScienceIsCool]

Here ya go. The profile is exactly as I described it. First half is -1% (135 meters to 35 meters over 12 km). Hang a sweeping right and it's a flat and perfectly straight shot to the finish. http://hemeroteca.mundodeportivo.com/preview/1989/07/23/pagina-7/1204786/pdf.html#&mode=fullScreen

John Swanson

 

[red_flanders]

Also worth noting Lemond's remarks on the course conditions when he scoped it out in the morning.

https://youtu.be/rWyfb3H7LEg?t=11m25s

Reporter: "...did you really think it was going to be possible?"
Lemond: "When I warmed up today I didn't think it was possible 'cause we had such a strong tailwind, uh, and when you have a strong tailwind it's hard to make a difference..."

I assume anyone watching that video understands the context of the question and has no doubt that he's simply reporting the day's wind conditions.

So. Short, downhill and with a strong tailwind. Several riders go historically fast, and the 2-time Tour winner and very strong TT'er Lemond, who has everything to gain is the fastest of that bunch. The miracle is how slow Fignon was, not how fast Lemond was.

I really hope these facts can penetrate some of the misconceptions around this ride, and the rather persistent attempts to frame them otherwise. Think what you will about Lemond and whether he doped, but the facts of the day are clear. It's certainly possible to understand these facts and believe he doped, or believe he was clean. But acting like his time was somehow comparable to the EPO-doped rides of later generations doesn't hold up to scrutiny.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Ok thanks for the info. I knew it was pretty much straight but knew just from the horrible coverage we had here in the USA back then that it was not without a turn. And the 1% for half way also increased the speeds.

I think you guys take this very personal,,,,,, much like the fans of other cyclist. Sometimes in life you have to realize that not everyone is going to agree with you and shake hands and move along.

Remember back when people defend a cyclist and we all know how that turns out.

I'm almost to the point to where I don't care any more for the sport. Sad in many ways. But I would have to be honest my interest is at an all time high because Jonathan Vaughters is involved with cycling and all the other little boys who were in the gang got off with a slap on the a@@.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Re:

Also worth noting Lemond's remarks on the course conditions when he scoped it out in the morning.

https://youtu.be/rWyfb3H7LEg?t=11m25s

Reporter: "...did you really think it was going to be possible?"
Lemond: "When I warmed up today I didn't think it was possible 'cause we had such a strong tailwind, uh, and when you have a strong tailwind it's hard to make a difference..."

I assume anyone watching that video understands the context of the question and has no doubt that he's simply reporting the day's wind conditions.

So. Short, downhill and with a strong tailwind. Several riders go historically fast, and the 2-time Tour winner and very strong TT'er Lemond, who has everything to gain is the fastest of that bunch. The miracle is how slow Fignon was, not how fast Lemond was.

I really hope these facts can penetrate some of the misconceptions around this ride, and the rather persistent attempts to frame them otherwise. Think what you will about Lemond and whether he doped, but the facts of the day are clear. It's certainly possible to understand these facts and believe he doped, or believe he was clean. But acting like his time was somehow comparable to the EPO-doped rides of later generations doesn't hold up to scrutiny.

Lemond says strong tailwind. The wikipedia says moderate.

Of course info on wikipedia is suspect in many ways. You know that Red because remember the famous respectable democrat from Texas said we need to shut down wikipedia. :lol:

 

[red_flanders]

Re:

Here ya go. The profile is exactly as I described it. First half is -1% (135 meters to 35 meters over 12 km). Hang a sweeping right and it's a flat and perfectly straight shot to the finish. http://hemeroteca.mundodeportivo.com/preview/1989/07/23/pagina-7/1204786/pdf.html#&mode=fullScreen

John Swanson

Here is a screen cap of that profile.

 

[red_flanders]

Re: Re:

Also worth noting Lemond's remarks on the course conditions when he scoped it out in the morning.

https://youtu.be/rWyfb3H7LEg?t=11m25s

Reporter: "...did you really think it was going to be possible?"
Lemond: "When I warmed up today I didn't think it was possible 'cause we had such a strong tailwind, uh, and when you have a strong tailwind it's hard to make a difference..."

I assume anyone watching that video understands the context of the question and has no doubt that he's simply reporting the day's wind conditions.

So. Short, downhill and with a strong tailwind. Several riders go historically fast, and the 2-time Tour winner and very strong TT'er Lemond, who has everything to gain is the fastest of that bunch. The miracle is how slow Fignon was, not how fast Lemond was.

I really hope these facts can penetrate some of the misconceptions around this ride, and the rather persistent attempts to frame them otherwise. Think what you will about Lemond and whether he doped, but the facts of the day are clear. It's certainly possible to understand these facts and believe he doped, or believe he was clean. But acting like his time was somehow comparable to the EPO-doped rides of later generations doesn't hold up to scrutiny.

Lemond says strong tailwind. The wikipedia says moderate.

Of course info on wikipedia is suspect in many ways. You know that Red because remember the famous respectable democrat from Texas said we need to shut down wikipedia. :lol:

It's possible to think that he's referring to the wind in the morning and maybe (maybe) it was different from the wind at the time of the ride. That there was a tailwind is not in dispute. I'll go with the rider who scoped the course over the Wikipedia entry in this case, particularly when he's remarking about it in the context of surprise at the amount of time he took. When combined with the fact that rider times were unusually fast across the board, one simply concludes it doesn't matter. The course was incredibly fast, for whatever reason. Fignon simply sucked that day.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Re: Re:

Also worth noting Lemond's remarks on the course conditions when he scoped it out in the morning.

https://youtu.be/rWyfb3H7LEg?t=11m25s

Reporter: "...did you really think it was going to be possible?"
Lemond: "When I warmed up today I didn't think it was possible 'cause we had such a strong tailwind, uh, and when you have a strong tailwind it's hard to make a difference..."

I assume anyone watching that video understands the context of the question and has no doubt that he's simply reporting the day's wind conditions.

So. Short, downhill and with a strong tailwind. Several riders go historically fast, and the 2-time Tour winner and very strong TT'er Lemond, who has everything to gain is the fastest of that bunch. The miracle is how slow Fignon was, not how fast Lemond was.

I really hope these facts can penetrate some of the misconceptions around this ride, and the rather persistent attempts to frame them otherwise. Think what you will about Lemond and whether he doped, but the facts of the day are clear. It's certainly possible to understand these facts and believe he doped, or believe he was clean. But acting like his time was somehow comparable to the EPO-doped rides of later generations doesn't hold up to scrutiny.

Lemond says strong tailwind. The wikipedia says moderate.

Of course info on wikipedia is suspect in many ways. You know that Red because remember the famous respectable democrat from Texas said we need to shut down wikipedia. :lol:

It's possible to think that he's referring to the wind in the morning and maybe (maybe) it was different from the wind at the time of the ride. That there was a tailwind is not in dispute. I'll go with the rider who scoped the course over the Wikipedia entry in this case, particularly when he's remarking about it in the context of surprise at the amount of time he took. When combined with the fact that rider times were unusually fast across the board, one simply concludes it doesn't matter. The course was incredibly fast, for whatever reason. Fignon simply sucked that day.

I was just being sarcastic above with respect to the wind speed. No way you read my post about you all taking this so serious.

AnyWho have you seen where I have tried to dispute the time trial? I just say it was and still say so....it was one fast time trial. As you say in another post if someone wants to believe he doped or not is a matter of opinion. I will go with the realistic odds that he did. Obviously there could be that chance he did not. Would anyone really bet or wager money on it? Vegas would have it as a safe bet that he did take PED's.

 

[@NL_LeMondFans]

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.

You do believe in the conspiracy theory because you think Greg is inaccurate on purpose. That he has a dark secret agenda.

I don't think Greg is giving numbers for clinicians to analyze and probe (poor choice of words, I know). He just tells a story. And, quite frankly, he doesn't gives a rat's ass about how it will be interpreted. Hardly the strategy of someone with an agenda.

 

[@NL_LeMondFans]

https://twitter.com/NL_LeMondFans/status/806608720767700992

On my Twitter feed I posted both the profile and the course of that 1989 ITT (sorry, don't own a web hosting account for images).

Pretty much a straight line (all in all, only 3 turns are not full speed). Pretty much all the way down (even the climb of the Champs Elysées seems irrelevant on the profile).

 

[red_flanders]

Re: Re:

Also worth noting Lemond's remarks on the course conditions when he scoped it out in the morning.

https://youtu.be/rWyfb3H7LEg?t=11m25s

Reporter: "...did you really think it was going to be possible?"
Lemond: "When I warmed up today I didn't think it was possible 'cause we had such a strong tailwind, uh, and when you have a strong tailwind it's hard to make a difference..."

I assume anyone watching that video understands the context of the question and has no doubt that he's simply reporting the day's wind conditions.

So. Short, downhill and with a strong tailwind. Several riders go historically fast, and the 2-time Tour winner and very strong TT'er Lemond, who has everything to gain is the fastest of that bunch. The miracle is how slow Fignon was, not how fast Lemond was.

I really hope these facts can penetrate some of the misconceptions around this ride, and the rather persistent attempts to frame them otherwise. Think what you will about Lemond and whether he doped, but the facts of the day are clear. It's certainly possible to understand these facts and believe he doped, or believe he was clean. But acting like his time was somehow comparable to the EPO-doped rides of later generations doesn't hold up to scrutiny.

Lemond says strong tailwind. The wikipedia says moderate.

Of course info on wikipedia is suspect in many ways. You know that Red because remember the famous respectable democrat from Texas said we need to shut down wikipedia. :lol:

It's possible to think that he's referring to the wind in the morning and maybe (maybe) it was different from the wind at the time of the ride. That there was a tailwind is not in dispute. I'll go with the rider who scoped the course over the Wikipedia entry in this case, particularly when he's remarking about it in the context of surprise at the amount of time he took. When combined with the fact that rider times were unusually fast across the board, one simply concludes it doesn't matter. The course was incredibly fast, for whatever reason. Fignon simply sucked that day.

I was just being sarcastic above with respect to the wind speed. No way you read my post about you all taking this so serious.

AnyWho have you seen where I have tried to dispute the time trial? I just say it was and still say so....it was one fast time trial. As you say in another post if someone wants to believe he doped or not is a matter of opinion. I will go with the realistic odds that he did. Obviously there could be that chance he did not. Would anyone really bet or wager money on it? Vegas would have it as a safe bet that he did take PED's.

Seemed fair to assume you were joking, also seemed fair to assume you were serious or someone would want to argue about strong or moderate later.

Don't worry about about whether I'm a fan, or whether I'm "too serious" about this topic, it's irrelevant and a silly argument. Rather it's not an argument. You're posting here as much as I am if not more, and it doesn't matter either. What matters if we're going to have a discussion (seems like we are after several thousand posts) are that the facts are clear and agreed upon. Then everyone can draw their own conclusions.

I was a Lemond fan 30+ years ago when it mattered. I was an Armstrong fan back in the day before he proved himself to be a complete a-hole. I've been a fan of many dopers and probably a few clean guys as well. I don't really care. What I do care about is objective fact and logic in a discussion. I like this topic because I was there and feel I have something to offer having viewed several Tours every day on Belgian TV back in those days. I had a much more immersed experience than most english speakers who had to follow the race via updates on VeloNews (print) and the hilarious ABC telecasts. Or internet forum warriors seeking to reconstruct a past they didn't experience from shards of information which are warped completely out of context. So I seek to share that experience. If you think that's too serious, nothing I can do about it except share my thoughts as above. I happen to think he was actually clean. Never seen anything that made me think otherwise, and all the BS that's been debunked in the last few pages on this thread may explain why.

He was known in the sport as clean back in the day, in Europe not in America, by those who knew and rode with him. This was remarkable then to have such a reputation, as the sport was widely understood to be dirty with steroids. That you don't buy it now is hardly surprising. That's fine, but let's keep the facts clear. I'm not aiming that at you, but at the many who seem not to understand the facts.

Obvious doping is obvious. I have never seen anything obvious about Lemond.

 

[red_flanders]

Re:

https://twitter.com/NL_LeMondFans/status/806608720767700992

On my Twitter feed I posted both the profile and the course of that 1989 ITT (sorry, don't own a web hosting account for images).

Pretty much a straight line (all in all, only 3 turns are not full speed). Pretty much all the way down (even the climb of the Champs Elysées seems irrelevant on the profile).

 

[@NL_LeMondFans]

I think you guys take this very personal,,,,,, much like the fans of other cyclist. Sometimes in life you have to realize that not everyone is going to agree with you and shake hands and move along.

Remember back when people defend a cyclist and we all know how that turns out.

Absolutely. You're right about that.

I am maybe the most invested in my "fanhood" and can only speak for myself, but... This thread is pushing my buttons on so many levels... I know I should be more detached but I believe there are some lines that shouldn't be crossed.

First of all, I've never claimed anywhere that Greg was clean. I believe he was but I'm not on a crusade to prove anything. I'm totally OK with people not agreeing (and I can't blame them, really, given the overwhelming trail of cheats in this sport). What I'm not OK with is a sloppy "investigation" with opinions stated as THE TRUTH. That doesn't go well with me. At all.

It also goes down to personal values. And I am a firm believer in non-conformism. Throughout history, in the worst possible situations and environments, some individuals stand out and decide not to act accordingly. It's true of many people I admire, including Greg. So, keeping that in mind, you understand that any statement that looks like "everyone is a doper" doesn't go well with me. I am convinced that even in its darkest hours, cycling had clean riders. Not many, but still. Because the 100% a-holes probability doesn't add up, IMO. Also, Greg has been called a "hypocrite" by many people here and there but I must ask those people : what are you even doing in the Clinic if you believe everyone is a doper ? What's the point besides trolling ?

I have to pop up from time to time and call BS when I read BS. Yes, I take all things Greg LeMond very seriously. But what's ironic is that everyone claiming he doped is taking everything Greg says very seriously and points to inconsistancy all the time. Just meet Greg : he talks all the time, answers every question. He's just a great story teller. He doesn't care about facts so much. Should he ? Maybe. Should he keep his mouth shut sometimes ? Probably. But then, he wouldn't be Greg. That's just who he is. Nothing matters more to him than interacting with people. That's what makes him this amazing larger than life individual.

What you've called a "narrative" is just casual talk. It doesn't look well when Greg mixes up his VO2 figures while speaking for a clean sport. Sure. But what should he do ? Shut his mouth like all the others ? He might be the only GT winner actually standing up for a clean sport. And yet you guys are frying him for it. You blame the omerta, and you fuel the omerta. Who's the hypocrite ?

Speaking of narrative... You can totally buy the story that Greg started doping when he was 14, soon to be helped by his Dr father in law and nurse wife, bought a camper to blood transfuse the blood of his relatives with a Mexican drug dealer as the helm. Sure. You can. But don't come and tell me it's the truth. It's just a point of view. I have a different one. Period.

I'm saying this for the 10th time but I must. This thread is not what it looks like. Since it is not proving anything, it all comes down to one question, sadly : do you like Greg or not ? It shouldn't be this way but it is. Most people bashing Greg here are just looking for more reasons to hate him.

 

[Nomad]

@ red flanders

"Obvious doping is obvious. I have never seen anything obvious about Lemond."

Any idea how any GC contender could not only survive, but win a gruelling 3 week GT without some form of pharmaceutical assistance? What does the science say about the physiological changes to the body during a GT: Significant muscle damage, high cortisol levels, near anemic Hct/Hgb levels, compromised immune system, extreme fatigue - major catabolic effects:

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

If it's primarily recovery doping with riders in the 80s (the so-called "low-octane" stuff), perhaps it isn't so obvious as it would be with the later use of EPO in the 90s, where extreme improvements in climbing times was observed? Even Anquetil had his (in)famous "Anquetil's Cocktail" to get through the Tour back in the 60s. And Fignon says that cortisone was the drug of choice in the 80s, and that "everyone did it" (he doesn't say everyone...except LeMond):

http://www.podiumcafe.com/2010/7/16/1572738/we-were-young-and-carefree-the

No doubt LeMond was one heck of an athlete, but is it realistically possible that he, or for that fact any Tour champion, could compete without some form of pharmaceutical assistance, given the extreme physical demands of a GT?

 

[gillan1969]

@ red flanders

"Obvious doping is obvious. I have never seen anything obvious about Lemond."

Any idea how any GC contender could not only survive, but win a gruelling 3 week GT without some form of pharmaceutical assistance? What does the science say about the physiological changes to the body during a GT: Significant muscle damage, high cortisol levels, near anemic Hct/Hgb levels, compromised immune system, extreme fatigue - major catabolic effects:

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

If it's primarily recovery doping with riders in the 80s (the so-called "low-octane" stuff), perhaps it isn't so obvious as it would be with the later use of EPO in the 90s, where extreme improvements in climbing times was observed? Even Anquetil had his (in)famous "Anquetil's Cocktail" to get through the Tour back in the 60s. And Fignon says that cortisone was the drug of choice in the 80s, and that "everyone did it" (he doesn't say everyone...except LeMond):

http://www.podiumcafe.com/2010/7/16/1572738/we-were-young-and-carefree-the

No doubt LeMond was one heck of an athlete, but is it realistically possible that he, or for that fact any Tour champion, could compete without some form of pharmaceutical assistance, given the extreme physical demands of a GT?

to be fair i think this is known and that the case can only be as strong as, if there was a clean GT champ who would it be most likely to be......cycling being cycling

However....this thread has proponents on it who have turned that on its its head by having a case that lemond WAS being doped by parents from age (insert young age), used regular blood doping throughout career and introduced epo to the peloton...indeed he doped so much he had to retire early.....

black can be white if you really want it to be so.............................

 

[pmcg76]

@ red flanders

"Obvious doping is obvious. I have never seen anything obvious about Lemond."

Any idea how any GC contender could not only survive, but win a gruelling 3 week GT without some form of pharmaceutical assistance? What does the science say about the physiological changes to the body during a GT: Significant muscle damage, high cortisol levels, near anemic Hct/Hgb levels, compromised immune system, extreme fatigue - major catabolic effects:

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

If it's primarily recovery doping with riders in the 80s (the so-called "low-octane" stuff), perhaps it isn't so obvious as it would be with the later use of EPO in the 90s, where extreme improvements in climbing times was observed? Even Anquetil had his (in)famous "Anquetil's Cocktail" to get through the Tour back in the 60s. And Fignon says that cortisone was the drug of choice in the 80s, and that "everyone did it" (he doesn't say everyone...except LeMond):

http://www.podiumcafe.com/2010/7/16/1572738/we-were-young-and-carefree-the

No doubt LeMond was one heck of an athlete, but is it realistically possible that he, or for that fact any Tour champion, could compete without some form of pharmaceutical assistance, given the extreme physical demands of a GT?

This is not really a point about just LeMond but all top athletes. What marks the top guys as different from the rest? Yes athletes will undergo these physiological changes, but will they all decrease by the same degree? Who is that research based on? an average athelete or a top athlete? Surely the top natural athletes will suffer less from those effects than other athletes, thats what marks them out as the top. Some people will have better recovery than others. How do we know for example that the only reason some athletes can get within touching distance of top atheletes is through doping. We dont know the starting point with natural ability so its guesswork. Could be that LeMond was far naturally superior to Hinault/Fignon/Delgado etc and the only reason they could compete with him was doping. As they say, how do we know someone isnt one in a million or do you believe such people dont exist.

Basically we are reliant of information from within the peloton as there is no extensive studies to show what is possible. So we look for markers based on what people say. Like Delion was supposedly clean and finished Top 15 in his debut Tour, Mottet was supposedly clean and finished 4th twice, Bauer was supposedly clean and finished 4th. Eric Caritoux was supposedly clean and won the Vuelta. Peter Winnen claimed he was clean his first Tour, top 5. Now you can dismiss all those claims as just talk but there is nothing else to go on either way.

 

[veganrob]

@ red flanders

"Obvious doping is obvious. I have never seen anything obvious about Lemond."

Any idea how any GC contender could not only survive, but win a gruelling 3 week GT without some form of pharmaceutical assistance? What does the science say about the physiological changes to the body during a GT: Significant muscle damage, high cortisol levels, near anemic Hct/Hgb levels, compromised immune system, extreme fatigue - major catabolic effects:

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

If it's primarily recovery doping with riders in the 80s (the so-called "low-octane" stuff), perhaps it isn't so obvious as it would be with the later use of EPO in the 90s, where extreme improvements in climbing times was observed? Even Anquetil had his (in)famous "Anquetil's Cocktail" to get through the Tour back in the 60s. And Fignon says that cortisone was the drug of choice in the 80s, and that "everyone did it" (he doesn't say everyone...except LeMond):

http://www.podiumcafe.com/2010/7/16/1572738/we-were-young-and-carefree-the

No doubt LeMond was one heck of an athlete, but is it realistically possible that he, or for that fact any Tour champion, could compete without some form of pharmaceutical assistance, given the extreme physical demands of a GT?

People were completing the TdF when cigarettes and whisky were thought to be PEDs. So saying that it would be too catabolic to race it holds no water at all. However as real doping started to proliferate through the peloton, speeds increased and thereby causing more damage physically. And it really just escalated from their. More and better drugs, increased speeds. Way back the courses were far more difficult than they are now and they still finished. Somebody won. Did he smoke more or drink more? I don't think so.
So really what we have is just a sport where nearly everybody is doping and the winners, while they may have started out with more talent, still need the drugs to compete. There are of course some anomalies like Froome who has no business being anywhere near the front, yet there he is.
I believe LeMond could have competed and won being mostly clean in his era because the serious blood doping had not gotten the hold on cycling that happened later in his career.

 

[red_flanders]

@ red flanders

"Obvious doping is obvious. I have never seen anything obvious about Lemond."

Any idea how any GC contender could not only survive, but win a gruelling 3 week GT without some form of pharmaceutical assistance? What does the science say about the physiological changes to the body during a GT: Significant muscle damage, high cortisol levels, near anemic Hct/Hgb levels, compromised immune system, extreme fatigue - major catabolic effects:

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

If it's primarily recovery doping with riders in the 80s (the so-called "low-octane" stuff), perhaps it isn't so obvious as it would be with the later use of EPO in the 90s, where extreme improvements in climbing times was observed? Even Anquetil had his (in)famous "Anquetil's Cocktail" to get through the Tour back in the 60s. And Fignon says that cortisone was the drug of choice in the 80s, and that "everyone did it" (he doesn't say everyone...except LeMond):

http://www.podiumcafe.com/2010/7/16/1572738/we-were-young-and-carefree-the

No doubt LeMond was one heck of an athlete, but is it realistically possible that he, or for that fact any Tour champion, could compete without some form of pharmaceutical assistance, given the extreme physical demands of a GT?

Hey Nomad,

Good questions and appreciate the post. I think we have a pretty good idea that in the now-distant past that there were top contenders who competed clean, but we don't know for sure. I think there's enough to say for me that there were clean guys, so while certainly people degrade during the course of a GT, it seems like we know that in the past one could compete anyway. I think some good points have been made above about increased speeds and how different the sport is now, and that's probably a factor.

Regarding my "obvious" comment, I think you're right that it wasn't obvious back then who was doping, at least not in the way it is now. My comment wasn't worded or contextualized well. I think probably what I was alluding to was the notion that somehow believing Lemond was clean is the same as believing someone like Froome is clean, and further that this is a nationalistic blind spot. That false (IMO) equivalency has been thrown about on this thread recently and I find it to be garbage. Froome and many other riders in the EPO era have been comically obvious, which Lemond and frankly no one in his era were. I don't think it's reasonable to believe guys who are setting inhuman times on historic climbs are clean. I think it's reasonable to believe in the pre-EPO era that some top champions were. I think it's reasonable to believe that they weren't also, but I think the evidence people use to prop up that idea is generally nonsense, as we've seen in the last few pages of this thread. The stage 21 TT argument is nonsense, the iron shots bit is ridiculous, etc. They are attempts to link Lemond to EPO, which IMO doesn't stand up to examination.

The thing is that it does seem unlikely that Lemond was clean, if you look at it from the broader perspective. How could he be? "Everyone" was doing 'roids. I think Fignon's comment is the same "everyone was doing it" that we hear from anyone who admits to cheating. It's mostly true, but literally "everyone"? He can't know that.

That's the thing about all the rumors at the time. It wasn't some fawning admiration of Lemond and his supposed cleanliness that we heard about back then, it was more of a sneering ridicule of his naiveté. What posters who either weren't around in that era or were only hearing about Lemond from American media outlets seem to have heard (or dug up 30 years later) was that there was a narrative about the clean english-speakers who arrived on the scene at that time. That they were white knights here to globalize the sport. No doubt something close to this was propped up by shills like Ligget et. al. at the time, but what you heard in Europe was more akin to the comments you read up-thread from Nijs. ""Lemond do not want to use drugs. He is stubborn and always just rely only on his own production." Note the use of "stubborn". There's a tone there. It seemed back then the feeling was, "What an idiot. If he just used some products he'd win every big race on the calendar." It was not complimentary. The only comment from back then I've read which was complimentary was Borysewicz, who referred to Lemond as a "Diamond", a one-of-a-kind guy who didn't need drugs and refused to take them.

I think it's reasonable to believe he did some low-octane doping. Un-provable either way. I just personally have heard enough and have enough context to think that he probably did actually do it clean. I'll not lose any sleep if that turns out to be wrong. Just an opinion. What I'm mostly reacting to on this thread is the hyperbolic nonsense about him bringing EPO to the peloton and the ridiculous evidence being used to support it. It simply doesn't jive with the performances of Lemond. One has to construct a world where he was doping since childhood and other nonsense to give the theory any sort of consistency with the facts as we know them. And for all that there is simply no evidence. In fact the weight of evidence is strongly against that.

 

[sniper]

...
I think it's reasonable to believe he did some low-octane doping. Un-provable either way. I just personally have heard enough and have enough context to think that he probably did actually do it clean. I'll not lose any sleep if that turns out to be wrong. Just an opinion. What I'm mostly reacting to on this thread is the hyperbolic nonsense about him bringing EPO to the peloton and the ridiculous evidence being used to support it. It simply doesn't jive with the performances of Lemond. One has to construct a world where he was doping since childhood and other nonsense to give the theory any sort of consistency with the facts as we know them. And for all that there is simply no evidence. In fact the weight of evidence is strongly against that.

Brushing aside the possibility that Lemond introduced EPO as "hyperbolic nonsense" is rather hyperbolic.
It was rumored about in a Dutch newspaper and by the likes of Floyd Landis, Rudy Dhaenens (who indeed rode with Lemond) and Michael Boogerd (someone not exactly known for spilling beans on others).
And yes I know, it's just a rumor, of which only the existence - as opposed to the veracity - is a fact.
But although it's just a rumor, it is at the very least something that warrants scrutiny, as much as you seem to hate it. There really is nothing hyperbolic about scrutinizing a rumor that even made it into the news.

The other thing is, Lemond owned stocks in the company that was responsible for promoting EPO.
Furthermore, in his astonishing 1989 recovery year he got injections from Dr. Yvan Vanmol, a doctor who was later fingered by Donati as one of the first to use EPO on his riders.

While those two data points don't prove anything, it makes an absolute mockery of your attempt to brush the rumor aside as "hyperbolic nonsense".

 

[sniper]

@ red flanders

"Obvious doping is obvious. I have never seen anything obvious about Lemond."

Any idea how any GC contender could not only survive, but win a gruelling 3 week GT without some form of pharmaceutical assistance? What does the science say about the physiological changes to the body during a GT: Significant muscle damage, high cortisol levels, near anemic Hct/Hgb levels, compromised immune system, extreme fatigue - major catabolic effects:

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

If it's primarily recovery doping with riders in the 80s (the so-called "low-octane" stuff), perhaps it isn't so obvious as it would be with the later use of EPO in the 90s, where extreme improvements in climbing times was observed? Even Anquetil had his (in)famous "Anquetil's Cocktail" to get through the Tour back in the 60s. And Fignon says that cortisone was the drug of choice in the 80s, and that "everyone did it" (he doesn't say everyone...except LeMond):

http://www.podiumcafe.com/2010/7/16/1572738/we-were-young-and-carefree-the

No doubt LeMond was one heck of an athlete, but is it realistically possible that he, or for that fact any Tour champion, could compete without some form of pharmaceutical assistance, given the extreme physical demands of a GT?

This is a great post.
And thanks for bringing the discussion back to what it should be about: evidence of Lemond being clean.
If you have time, could you, or anyone who has Fignon's book, give us doubters the relevant quote from his book about Lemond? Would love to read it.