LeMond III

[Maxiton]

Re: Re:

@maxiton:
very fair points.
Indeed, we seem to have a slightly different perspective on the matter.
I'm personally less interested in the "did he cheat yes/no?" question, but more interested in the "did he manipulate his blood?" question.
Cheater or not, that's largely going to be a matter of taste. It's a difficult proposition. For instance:
I read somewhere else that blood transfusions were made illegal in the US already in 1985. So if he transfused in 86, was he cheat in your book?

He was competing at the Tour in Europe under UCI rules in 1986. The UCI had not proscribed blood doping at the time, so, no, if he was doing it, or having it done, it wasn't cheating.

For me, the larger, more interesting question is: "what is possible on a bike on bread and water?"
Therefore, more useful than the "cheater yes/no" question, is, imo, to know whether he won those TdFs with or without blood manipulation.

In my opinion it isn't possible to win the Tour de France paniagua, especially when your competitors are doped. But that doesn't mean you have to cheat. There's a whole raft of things you can take and do - especially back then - that are permitted by the rules, including testosterone up to a certain amount. Blood manipulation was permissible in LeMond's day, too.

The cheating question is important because it's about sporting ethics. Beating your opponents within scope of the rules is what sport is all about. It's admirable. Cheating your opponent, on the other hand, is the opposite of admirable. That's why it matters.

I can't demonstrate, through logic, that he cheated. I can demonstrate, I think, that he would have done everything allowed by the rules to win, and that he did.

Anyway, my point in reply to your post was this:
if he stopped using EPO in 1991, I personally don't think that that decision was driven by "fair-play" morals, as you seem to suggest, but rather driven by "I don't wanna drop dead" morals.

I would say that if he'd used it successfully two years running, he'd have felt pretty comfortable with it. Plus, he had medical supervision. Thickening of the blood due to EPO use isn't cumulative; it only occurs with use, and is dosage-dependent. So if he didn't use it after May of 91, in my opinion, it wasn't because he thought it might kill him, but for some other reason.

 

[sniper]

Re: Re:

...
He was competing at the Tour in Europe under UCI rules in 1986. The UCI had not proscribed blood doping at the time, so, no, if he was doing it, or having it done, it wasn't cheating.

For me, the larger, more interesting question is: "what is possible on a bike on bread and water?"
Therefore, more useful than the "cheater yes/no" question, is, imo, to know whether he won those TdFs with or without blood manipulation.

In my opinion it isn't possible to win the Tour de France paniagua, especially when your competitors are doped. But that doesn't mean you have to cheat. There's a whole raft of things you can take and do - especially back then - that are permitted by the rules, including testosterone up to a certain amount. Blood manipulation was permissible in LeMond's day, too.

The cheating question is important because it's about sporting ethics. Beating your opponents within scope of the rules is what sport is all about. It's admirable. Cheating your opponent, on the other hand, is the opposite of admirable. That's why it matters.

I can't demonstrate, through logic, that he cheated. I can demonstrate, I think, that he would have done everything allowed by the rules to win, and that he did.

I like the proposition, alot, but it remains a difficult one to defend, imo.
As damiano and others have repeatedly pointed out, if he had any fairplay/rulebook ethics, you wonder why he didn't call out his competitors. Sure, gjb123 makes the point that maybe he didn't blame his competitors for cheating, because he knew it was the system that made them do it.
But thinking about it, that's far-fetched. It's just not in the nature of mankind, let alone in the nature of pro-athletes, to say, "Ok, I'm not gonna be cheating myself, I'm gonna stick to the rulebook, but I won't blame others for cheating on me; after all, they can't help themselves, it's the system that makes them do it".
It's not in our nature, and I haven't seen anything to suggest Lemond would have been endowed with such a remarkable (and remarkably in-human) set of ethics.

I would say that if he'd used it successfully two years running, he'd have felt pretty comfortable with it. Plus, he had medical supervision. Thickening of the blood due to EPO use isn't cumulative; it only occurs with use, and is dosage-dependent. So if he didn't use it after May of 91, in my opinion, it wasn't because he thought it might kill him, but for some other reason

Point taken.

 

[Maxiton]

Re:

...
Maxiton: It's a lot more difficult to prove LeMond was a cheater than it is to demonstrate the obvious: that he took every advantage he could possibly find, without being a cheater. That's why I'm going on about this.

Why, in your view, would Lemond think about procycling in terms of cheating vs. non-cheating?
When nobody (or really very few) other proriders think in those terms? What makes you believe he had this "play by the rules" awareness?
Almost all proriders that have gone on the record about their doping have told us that what we consider cheating wasn't cheating to them. In procycling terms, cheating is when you get caught with your hands in the cooky jar. If you don't get caught, you don't cheat.
Why would Lemond have thought otherwise? Where did his fairplay awareness come from?

For the record, and you know I'm not bs-ing you, I'm not out to make the point that he cheated (although some posters will put that agenda on me, no doubt).
I just don't think his alleged fair-play morals should play much of a role in establishing what peds he took when and until when.

I'm approaching this not out of any particular love or admiration for LeMond, or assumptions about his moral compass. I'm approaching it as a logic problem. When we talk about LeMond and doping, the discussion is always cast in simplistic, zero-sum terms: Was he a doper? Was he clean? Did he cheat? Etcetera.

I'm saying that if we remove these emotion-laden, simplistic terms, and remove all unnecessary, indefensible assumptions and assertions, and just go on what we know, we can arrive at reasonable conclusions.

LeMond may have been a disreputable cheat and a fraud. He may have been a choir boy in a cycling jersey. He may have been somewhere in between. We don't need to take a position on this. We can give him the benefit of every doubt and still show, with a high degree of likelihood, that he did more than is generally acknowledged.

 

[sniper]

Re: Re:

I'm approaching this not out of any particular love or admiration for LeMond, or assumptions about his moral compass. I'm approaching it as a logic problem. When we talk about LeMond and doping, the discussion is always cast in simplistic, zero-sum terms: Was he a doper? Was he clean? Did he cheat? Etcetera.

I'm saying that if we remove these emotion-laden, simplistic terms, and remove all unnecessary, indefensible assumptions and assertions, and just go on what we know, we can arrive at reasonable conclusions.

LeMond may have been a disreputable cheat and a fraud. He may have been a choir boy in a cycling jersey. He may have been somewhere in between. We don't need to take a position on this. We can give him the benefit of every doubt and still show, with a high degree of likelihood, that he did more than is generally acknowledged.

Your proposition offers a very nice middle ground, I agree.
but I'm not sure why we would want to reach any kind of conclusion now, or give him the benefit of the doubt. What's the added value in terms of truth-finding?
Take a guy like Sastre, we're not gonna find out about his ped-abuse any time soon, but should we therefore draw any kind of conclusion on him or give him the benefit of the doubt? Why not stay agnostic and keep the question marks alive. Something might pop up.
As for Lemond, there are too many rumors out there, not just about his epo use, but also about ordinary ped-abuse.

that he did more than is generally acknowledged.

as far as i can tell, generally acknowledged (press, and non-Clinic cycling fans) is that he was clean, and a crusader in the fight against doping. (hence why he was invited to join the Change Cycling Now movement, for instance).

 

[Maxiton]

Re: Re:

I'm approaching this not out of any particular love or admiration for LeMond, or assumptions about his moral compass. I'm approaching it as a logic problem. When we talk about LeMond and doping, the discussion is always cast in simplistic, zero-sum terms: Was he a doper? Was he clean? Did he cheat? Etcetera.

I'm saying that if we remove these emotion-laden, simplistic terms, and remove all unnecessary, indefensible assumptions and assertions, and just go on what we know, we can arrive at reasonable conclusions.

LeMond may have been a disreputable cheat and a fraud. He may have been a choir boy in a cycling jersey. He may have been somewhere in between. We don't need to take a position on this. We can give him the benefit of every doubt and still show, with a high degree of likelihood, that he did more than is generally acknowledged.

Your proposition offers a very nice middle ground, I agree.
but I'm not sure why we would want to reach any kind of conclusion now, or give him the benefit of the doubt. What's the added value in terms of truth-finding?
Take a guy like Sastre, we're not gonna find out about his ped-abuse any time soon, but should we therefore draw any kind of conclusion on him or give him the benefit of the doubt? Why not stay agnostic and keep the question marks alive. Something might pop up.
As for Lemond, there are too many rumors out there, not just about his epo use, but also about ordinary ped-abuse.

that he did more than is generally acknowledged.

as far as i can tell, generally acknowledged (press, and non-Clinic cycling fans) is that he was clean, and a crusader in the fight against doping. (hence why he was invited to join the Change Cycling Now movement, for instance).

I'm giving him every benefit of the doubt because I want the absolute minimum burden of proof; I don't want to burden myself with having to prove more than I need to prove, in order to show that LeMond gave himself certain aids in his Tour wins.

 

[sniper]

that's very well put and by all means fair enough.

 

[DamianoMachiavelli]

Re: LeMond

It is absurd to think that LeMond refuses to criticize his rivals because he recognizes doping in cycling is endemic and doesn't blame the riders. LeMond has never acknowledged the extent and acceptance of doping in pro cycling. In fact he has fabricated an elaborate lie to hide it from the public, a lie he continues to this day to foist on the gullible.

He has cast himself as a barely articulate Hercule Poirot who followed the clues to the conclusion that Armstrong was doping. In his telling he used his knowledge of exercise physiology to determine Lance would have to dope to win the Tour de France. Disregarding that LeMond's knowledge of exercise physiology appears to be stuck in 1985, his story is a charade. He did not need to follow any clues. He was well aware that throwing a rock into the peloton and not hitting a doper was about as likely as finding a leprechaun in your backyard clover.

LeMond could have told the public the truth. Instead his narrative implies Lance's doping was unusual enough that he had to figure it out instead of taking it for granted that pretty much all riders at that level are doping and this has been true for a hundred years. Of course that would have opened up a quagmire that no one in cycling wants examined too closely, certainly not when it would inevitably lead to questions about what specific riders were doing in the 80s. He has diverted attention from pervasive doping by portraying the post EPO era as unique and changed instead of a continuation of the same environment he raced in.

LeMond is not just a hypocrite. He is a liar. His hypocrisy is founded on a lie, and it relies on the cycling media's unwillingness to ask obvious questions.

 

[thehog]

Re: LeMond

It is absurd to think that LeMond refuses to criticize his rivals because he recognizes doping in cycling is endemic and doesn't blame the riders. LeMond has never acknowledged the extent and acceptance of doping in pro cycling. In fact he has fabricated an elaborate lie to hide it from the public, a lie he continues to this day to foist on the gullible.

He has cast himself as a barely articulate Hercule Poirot who followed the clues to the conclusion that Armstrong was doping. In his telling he used his knowledge of exercise physiology to determine Lance would have to dope to win the Tour de France. Disregarding that LeMond's knowledge of exercise physiology appears to be stuck in 1985, his story is a charade. He did not need to follow any clues. He was well aware that throwing a rock into the peloton and not hitting a doper was about as likely as finding a leprechaun in your backyard clover.

LeMond could have told the public the truth. Instead his narrative implies Lance's doping was unusual enough that he had to figure it out instead of taking it for granted that pretty much all riders at that level are doping and this has been true for a hundred years. Of course that would have opened up a quagmire that no one in cycling wants examined too closely, certainly not when it would inevitably lead to questions about what specific riders were doing in the 80s. He has diverted attention from pervasive doping by portraying the post EPO era as unique and changed instead of a continuation of the same environment he raced in.

LeMond is not just a hypocrite. He is a liar. His hypocrisy is founded on a lie, and it relies on the cycling media's unwillingness to ask obvious questions.

All very true. And LeMond only started to learn about Lance's doping when his 3 time record was coming under threat. What are the chances?

 

[sniper]

Re: LeMond

..He was well aware that throwing a rock into the peloton and not hitting a doper was about as likely as finding a leprechaun in your backyard clover.

agree with the rest.

Indeed, the idea of pre-epo and post-epo cycling with a cut-off point at 1991 ("you could win clean before that, but not after that") is flawed at best.
Take a guy like Planckaert: was an absolute crack in the late 80s, but nowhere to be seen in the early 90s, in spite of being one of the early users of EPO by his own admission.

 

[djpbaltimore]

Re: Re:

...

as much as you try to pretend to know in what kind of condition Lemond's kidneys really were, fact is you don't.
Neither do I.
I'm not saying Lemond really was a kidney patient. All I'm saying is he himself claimed to be one.
More specifically, he claimed to have chronic kidney infections and only one functioning kidney. He additionally claimed to have anemia in 1989 Giro.
If you have more details, do share.

Now, I don't think I have to remind you that epo is used for the treatment of anemia in patients with chronic kidney disease or otherwise malfunctioning kidneys.
So the potential relevance of pointing out that lemond (says he) had chronic kidney infections..and only one functioning kidney...and anemia, all whilst rumored to have introduced epo into the peloton, is, I think, abundantly clear, even to you.

If you have more details on the state of Lemond's kidneys, do share. Otherwise, let's move on.

Oh my, here we go again. I will spell it out for you. Chronic kidney infections (treated with antibiotica) do not equal chronic kidney disease (requiring dialyses), a person can function perfectly well with only one working kidney, chronic kidney infections (if and when they were still prevalent with LeMond as a grown-up and that is a big if) do not lead to anemia. Now what part of that don't you understand?

Spot on. If we are to go by LeMond's own words as Sniper wants us too, he has never given any indication that he has Chronic Kidney Disease. Using the catch-all term kidney patient is a rhetorical device to conflate two totally different medical diagnoses. It is especially egregious when one of these diseases is transient, treatable and unrelated to anemia while the other is permanent, incurable, and associated with anemia. Connecting the dots as Sniper has done is illogical and unscientific. That is the bigger issue. I will move on only when this point is conceded and no sooner.

The whole Kidney infections/ EPO assertion is one giant red herring IMO.

Here are the main risk factors for Chronic Kidney disease. Notice that infection is not one of them

Factors that may increase your risk of chronic kidney disease include:

Diabetes
High blood pressure
Heart disease
Smoking
Obesity
High cholesterol
Being African-American, Native American or Asian-American
Family history of kidney disease
Age 65 or older

http://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/kidney-disease/basics/risk-factors/con-20026778

 

[GJB123]

Re: Re:

It is absurd to think that LeMond refuses to criticize his rivals because he recognizes doping in cycling is endemic and doesn't blame the riders. LeMond has never acknowledged the extent and acceptance of doping in pro cycling. In fact he has fabricated an elaborate lie to hide it from the public, a lie he continues to this day to foist on the gullible.

He has cast himself as a barely articulate Hercule Poirot who followed the clues to the conclusion that Armstrong was doping. In his telling he used his knowledge of exercise physiology to determine Lance would have to dope to win the Tour de France. Disregarding that LeMond's knowledge of exercise physiology appears to be stuck in 1985, his story is a charade. He did not need to follow any clues. He was well aware that throwing a rock into the peloton and not hitting a doper was about as likely as finding a leprechaun in your backyard clover.

LeMond could have told the public the truth. Instead his narrative implies Lance's doping was unusual enough that he had to figure it out instead of taking it for granted that pretty much all riders at that level are doping and this has been true for a hundred years. Of course that would have opened up a quagmire that no one in cycling wants examined too closely, certainly not when it would inevitably lead to questions about what specific riders were doing in the 80s. He has diverted attention from pervasive doping by portraying the post EPO era as unique and changed instead of a continuation of the same environment he raced in.

LeMond is not just a hypocrite. He is a liar. His hypocrisy is founded on a lie, and it relies on the cycling media's unwillingness to ask obvious questions.

Actually all he said (when asked, mind you) was that "Lance was either the greatest comeback or the greatest fraud in cycling". The reason he stated this was because he didn't like the fact that Armstrong was working with one Dr. Ferrari. Now you can apply as many revisionist history as you like, but that don't make you correct.

Oh BTW, yeah, LeMond waste only one who was saying that wining clean was virtually impossible after app. 1990-1991. Edwin van Hooydonck says hi BTW.

 

[gillan1969]

Re: LeMond

It is absurd to think that LeMond refuses to criticize his rivals because he recognizes doping in cycling is endemic and doesn't blame the riders. LeMond has never acknowledged the extent and acceptance of doping in pro cycling. In fact he has fabricated an elaborate lie to hide it from the public, a lie he continues to this day to foist on the gullible.

He has cast himself as a barely articulate Hercule Poirot who followed the clues to the conclusion that Armstrong was doping. In his telling he used his knowledge of exercise physiology to determine Lance would have to dope to win the Tour de France. Disregarding that LeMond's knowledge of exercise physiology appears to be stuck in 1985, his story is a charade. He did not need to follow any clues. He was well aware that throwing a rock into the peloton and not hitting a doper was about as likely as finding a leprechaun in your backyard clover.

LeMond could have told the public the truth. Instead his narrative implies Lance's doping was unusual enough that he had to figure it out instead of taking it for granted that pretty much all riders at that level are doping and this has been true for a hundred years. Of course that would have opened up a quagmire that no one in cycling wants examined too closely, certainly not when it would inevitably lead to questions about what specific riders were doing in the 80s. He has diverted attention from pervasive doping by portraying the post EPO era as unique and changed instead of a continuation of the same environment he raced in.

LeMond is not just a hypocrite. He is a liar. His hypocrisy is founded on a lie, and it relies on the cycling media's unwillingness to ask obvious questions.

eh...my knowledge of exercise physiology would fit in a brain an still there would be a lot of space left over (a nod to Swart's mate)...it was obvious to anyone who had watched pro cycling that Armstrong was at it...

neither did he have to figure it out...again...it was obvious to anyone he was at it

the explanation is probably far more prosiac....he was going to be usurped and his earning potential was being threatened (as of course it transpired)...

and spire...are you seriously asking why lemond's road career should be treated less suspiciously than Wiggins???? seriously?????

 

[sniper]

Re: Re:

...
The whole Kidney infections/ EPO assertion is one giant red herring IMO.

Red herring, lol.

With use of recombinant erythropoietin (EPO) and intravenous iron, the majority of hemodialysis patients can achieve target hemoglobin concentrations. EPO resistance arises as a consequence of inflammation and other processes that can adversely affect survival. We hypothesized that the EPO dose-hematocrit (EPO/Hct) ratio, also known as the EPO index, may be a surrogate for inflammation and that greater EPO/Hct ratios would be associated with decreased survival. https://ucdavis.pure.elsevier.com/en/publications/challenging-the-validity-of-the-epo-index

so let's see,
intravenous iron? check.
kidney inflammations? check.
epo? nah...

cue djbaltimore pointing out that 'infections' =/ 'inflammations'
i think it's time to move on, djbaltimore.

 

[GJB123]

Re: Re:

...
The whole Kidney infections/ EPO assertion is one giant red herring IMO.

Red herring, lol.

With use of recombinant erythropoietin (EPO) and intravenous iron, the majority of hemodialysis patients can achieve target hemoglobin concentrations. EPO resistance arises as a consequence of inflammation and other processes that can adversely affect survival. We hypothesized that the EPO dose-hematocrit (EPO/Hct) ratio, also known as the EPO index, may be a surrogate for inflammation and that greater EPO/Hct ratios would be associated with decreased survival. https://ucdavis.pure.elsevier.com/en/publications/challenging-the-validity-of-the-epo-index

so let's see,
intravenous iron? check.
kidney inflammations? check.
epo? nah...

cue djbaltimore pointing out that 'infections' =/ 'inflammations'
i think it's time to move on, djbaltimore.

Geez, really? Did you miss the word "hemodialyses" above? Do you know what that means? Apparently not!

People who are on dialyses (let's cal them kidney patients with chronic kidney disease ) are naturally more prone to having serious inflammations or infections. That stands to reason because it a process whereby blood is taken out and then put back in cleaned. This is because the kidneys are no longer able to maintain this process themselves.

The operative word therefore is hemodialyses here. Unless you show that LeMond was actually on dialyses your point is very much a red herring. You are connecting non-existing dots, as has been stated and explained multiple times now. Now the sooner you admit that, the sooner we can continue the discussion for points that might actually carry some value.

 

[Maxiton]

Re: Re:

I'm approaching this not out of any particular love or admiration for LeMond, or assumptions about his moral compass. I'm approaching it as a logic problem. When we talk about LeMond and doping, the discussion is always cast in simplistic, zero-sum terms: Was he a doper? Was he clean? Did he cheat? Etcetera.

I'm saying that if we remove these emotion-laden, simplistic terms, and remove all unnecessary, indefensible assumptions and assertions, and just go on what we know, we can arrive at reasonable conclusions.

LeMond may have been a disreputable cheat and a fraud. He may have been a choir boy in a cycling jersey. He may have been somewhere in between. We don't need to take a position on this. We can give him the benefit of every doubt and still show, with a high degree of likelihood, that he did more than is generally acknowledged.

Your proposition offers a very nice middle ground, I agree.
but I'm not sure why we would want to reach any kind of conclusion now, or give him the benefit of the doubt. What's the added value in terms of truth-finding?
Take a guy like Sastre, we're not gonna find out about his ped-abuse any time soon, but should we therefore draw any kind of conclusion on him or give him the benefit of the doubt? Why not stay agnostic and keep the question marks alive. Something might pop up.
As for Lemond, there are too many rumors out there, not just about his epo use, but also about ordinary ped-abuse.

that he did more than is generally acknowledged.

as far as i can tell, generally acknowledged (press, and non-Clinic cycling fans) is that he was clean, and a crusader in the fight against doping. (hence why he was invited to join the Change Cycling Now movement, for instance).

I'm giving him every benefit of the doubt because I want the absolute minimum burden of proof; I don't want to burden myself with having to prove more than I need to prove, in order to show that LeMond gave himself certain aids in his Tour wins.

Actually all he said (when asked, mind you) was that "Lance was either the greatest comeback or the greatest fraud in cycling". The reason he stated this was because he didn't like the fact that Armstrong was working with one Dr. Ferrari. Now you can apply as many revisionist history as you like, but that don't make you correct.

Oh BTW, yeah, LeMond waste only one who was saying that wining clean was virtually impossible after app. 1990-1991. Edwin van Hooydonck says hi BTW.

What you responded to bears no relation to what you quoted. Did you mean to quote another comment?

 

[GJB123]

Re: Re:

What you responded to bears no relation to what you quoted. Did you mean to quote another comment?

Quite right and amended. Apologies.

 

[djpbaltimore]

So, you are using a study that is looking at dialysis patients to make a point about people who have kidney infections? Sounds legit....

Maybe you should try to read the article and not just look at the abstract. Here is a key point.

Inflammation is associated with cardiovascular disease in healthy persons,(7) as well as those with CKD. (8)

I don't see any reason to let you off the hook for making unscientific claims.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Re: Re:

...
Oh my, here we go again. I will spell it out for you. Chronic kidney infections (treated with antibiotica) do not equal chronic kidney disease (requiring dialyses),

i didn't say it does.

a person can function perfectly well with only one working kidney,

i didn't say a person can't.

chronic kidney infections (if and when they were still prevalent with LeMond as a grown-up and that is a big if) do not lead to anemia.

never said it did. (agree with the big if, also)

Now what part of that don't you understand?

in understand all of that. we're in total agreement.

If we are in agreement then using exactly those arguments to link LeMond to EPO are spurious at best.

GJB123 sorry about this post in advance. I'm not sure I understand what you and sniper have been discussing.

I will try to post what I have on my mind. If someone is going through kidney infections (not dialysis) but infections can be bad enough to get into the blood and require antibiotics. I think that can happen correct me if I'm wrong. But if you have a series of this going on would it not cause other side effects to your body including anemia?

Notice before anyone goes the F off on me that I have not mentioned the need to treat with EPO or whatever. I'm just trying to understand the difference in argument here. I don't get it. There could have been a need for antibiotics and other treatments.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Re: LeMond

It is absurd to think that LeMond refuses to criticize his rivals because he recognizes doping in cycling is endemic and doesn't blame the riders. LeMond has never acknowledged the extent and acceptance of doping in pro cycling. In fact he has fabricated an elaborate lie to hide it from the public, a lie he continues to this day to foist on the gullible.

He has cast himself as a barely articulate Hercule Poirot who followed the clues to the conclusion that Armstrong was doping. In his telling he used his knowledge of exercise physiology to determine Lance would have to dope to win the Tour de France. Disregarding that LeMond's knowledge of exercise physiology appears to be stuck in 1985, his story is a charade. He did not need to follow any clues. He was well aware that throwing a rock into the peloton and not hitting a doper was about as likely as finding a leprechaun in your backyard clover.

LeMond could have told the public the truth. Instead his narrative implies Lance's doping was unusual enough that he had to figure it out instead of taking it for granted that pretty much all riders at that level are doping and this has been true for a hundred years. Of course that would have opened up a quagmire that no one in cycling wants examined too closely, certainly not when it would inevitably lead to questions about what specific riders were doing in the 80s. He has diverted attention from pervasive doping by portraying the post EPO era as unique and changed instead of a continuation of the same environment he raced in.

LeMond is not just a hypocrite. He is a liar. His hypocrisy is founded on a lie, and it relies on the cycling media's unwillingness to ask obvious questions.

And to be 100% fair LeMond could have used his knowledge in exercise physiology to determine that Mig Indurain and Jan Ullrich were doping. The two of them along with Armstrong are some fine examples of what does not look right or what can pass the BS test. I always thought that the Pirate was the closest thing to a real GT winner and we know he was doing quite a bit himself. He did have the climbing naturally I believe.

 

[GJB123]

Re: Re:

...
Oh my, here we go again. I will spell it out for you. Chronic kidney infections (treated with antibiotica) do not equal chronic kidney disease (requiring dialyses),

i didn't say it does.

a person can function perfectly well with only one working kidney,

i didn't say a person can't.

chronic kidney infections (if and when they were still prevalent with LeMond as a grown-up and that is a big if) do not lead to anemia.

never said it did. (agree with the big if, also)

Now what part of that don't you understand?

in understand all of that. we're in total agreement.

If we are in agreement then using exactly those arguments to link LeMond to EPO are spurious at best.

GJB123 sorry about this post in advance. I'm not sure I understand what you and sniper have been discussing.

I will try to post what I have on my mind. If someone is going through kidney infections (not dialysis) but infections can be bad enough to get into the blood and require antibiotics. I think that can happen correct me if I'm wrong. But if you have a series of this going on would it not cause other side effects to your body including anemia?

Notice before anyone goes the F off on me that I have not mentioned the need to treat with EPO or whatever. I'm just trying to understand the difference in argument here. I don't get it. There could have been a need for antibiotics and other treatments.

I think your summary is pretty spot on. Kidney or urinary tract infections would require antibiotics and can cause anemia as af as I am aware, although the last is not a given. I think it would require a serious infections or series of infections for that to happen and even then not in all cases. Also please note, as djpbaltimore pointed out, that the (chronic) kidney infections usually go away over time.

Now what sniper is doing is lumping all kinds of different things into one bundle to make a case that LeMond might have been exposed to EPO very early on in its inception and perhaps even required EPO from a medical point of view. In other words he is connecting non-existing dots.

 

[ScienceIsCool]

Re: Re:

...
Oh my, here we go again. I will spell it out for you. Chronic kidney infections (treated with antibiotica) do not equal chronic kidney disease (requiring dialyses),

i didn't say it does.

a person can function perfectly well with only one working kidney,

i didn't say a person can't.

chronic kidney infections (if and when they were still prevalent with LeMond as a grown-up and that is a big if) do not lead to anemia.

never said it did. (agree with the big if, also)

Now what part of that don't you understand?

in understand all of that. we're in total agreement.

If we are in agreement then using exactly those arguments to link LeMond to EPO are spurious at best.

GJB123 sorry about this post in advance. I'm not sure I understand what you and sniper have been discussing.

I will try to post what I have on my mind. If someone is going through kidney infections (not dialysis) but infections can be bad enough to get into the blood and require antibiotics. I think that can happen correct me if I'm wrong. But if you have a series of this going on would it not cause other side effects to your body including anemia?

Notice before anyone goes the F off on me that I have not mentioned the need to treat with EPO or whatever. I'm just trying to understand the difference in argument here. I don't get it. There could have been a need for antibiotics and other treatments.

Great question. I consulted doctor Google and found the Mayo Clinic's dumbed down description of anemia. http://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/anemia/symptoms-causes/dxc-20183157

Basically, the most common form of anemia is an iron deficiency. What I didn't know is that it can be caused by a lack of B12 as well. Lots of reasons you can be iron or vitamin deficient including poor uptake in the digestive tract, blood loss, etc. The common treatment is supplement (pill or injection).

Looks like there's a range of chronic diseases that can cause anemia as well, but CKD (chronic kidney disease) means that your entire body is being screwed over. http://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/kidney-disease/basics/definition/con-20026778 Again, according to the Mayo Clinic, treatment for CKD is not EPO. Repeat, not EPO. They treat the underlying causes and if you reach the point where your kidneys are totally borked you start dialysis and begin looking for a transplant. EPO is *not* part of the treatment. Perhaps at the end stage of CKD when you literally have no kidney function, but that's not really LeMond now is it?

If CKD was the cause of LeMond's anemia, he would have experienced a whole host of other nasty complications such as weak bones, fluid retention and heart disease. Not something that an iron shot or EPO would have helped with...

John Swanson

 

[sniper]

Scienceiscool:
If CKD was the cause of LeMond's anemia, he would have experienced a whole host of other nasty complications such as weak bones, fluid retention and heart disease.

luckily nobody is saying this.

 

[djpbaltimore]

GJB123 and John makes good points as usual. I'll just add that Malaria and HIV can cause anemia, but it is not an attribute of all infectious organisms and all infections. Kidney infections are almost always limited to the urinary tract and do not spread into the blood stream. Urinary tract infections are not difficult to diagnose (people who have had one are nodding their head vigorously!), so they are often caught quickly and treated with oral antibiotics at home, preventing any complications. I am teaching a class in Immunology at the local university this semester and have studied the pathogen/ host interactions for over a decade.

 

[ScienceIsCool]

Re:

Scienceiscool:
If CKD was the cause of LeMond's anemia, he would have experienced a whole host of other nasty complications such as weak bones, fluid retention and heart disease.

luckily nobody is saying this.

LeMond's anemia was treated with iron in front of a journalist (Wilcockson) while Greg described why he didn't like getting injections.

The rest (borked kidneys, EPO as treatment, connections to Amgen, medical entourage) is something that you have constructed from whole cloth.

John Swanson

 

[ScienceIsCool]

Re:

Scienceiscool:
If CKD was the cause of LeMond's anemia, he would have experienced a whole host of other nasty complications such as weak bones, fluid retention and heart disease.

luckily nobody is saying this.

I should have added that it's absurd to claim LeMond had reduced kidney function to the point he was anemic. If so, he would have had a host of other complications which he clearly did not exhibit.

John Swanson