LeMond III

[GJB123]

Re:

....there is one more thing that should be considered here ( and this comment is concerned with Indurain and how his "reign" is supposed to prove something )......the following from Hinault....

Bernard Hinault, who said: "Indurain is the best rider of his generation but he has won this Tour quietly, without great opposition. If the opposition continues to let him get away with it, his reign looks like lasting a long time".[

....this sorta corresponds to my recollection of the period....Indurain's reign came at a time when the racing really played to his strengths ( both in terms of courses which had relatively huge miles of TT, and fields which was not really that blessed with over-the-top talent who btw also did make some critical tactical errors....and lets not forget the monster team that was assembled to support Indurain ...)....

....or another way to see things...once LeMond's aero advantage was neutralized he did not have the 200 sec or so head start he enjoyed in 89 and things became very different...

Cheers

And still LeMond got very close to Indurain in the '91 ITT in Luxembourg.

But I agree that Indurain was always a guy who packed a huge engine. However I very much doubt that he would have been winning let alone been that dominant in a non-EPO era. When did he start working with Conconi?

 

[gillan1969]

Re:

^"regardless of how he achieved that"
isn't "how" the crucial question when we ask if it was a miracle or not?

clean cyclist from a non-cycling country sweeps the floor with doped-to-the-gills cyclists from traditional cycling countries.
starting at age 19.
miracle.
hunting accident, comeback, 24-hour speed transformation.
miracle
Even Lance thought it was a miracle.

"Your comeback in '89 was so spectacular. Mine was a miracle, yours was a miracle. You couldn't have been as strong as you were in '89 without EPO."

And he wasn't trying to shift copy.

i meant it as in ceteris paribis

 

[gillan1969]

Re: Re:

^"regardless of how he achieved that"
isn't "how" the crucial question when we ask if it was a miracle or not?

clean cyclist from a non-cycling country sweeps the floor with doped-to-the-gills cyclists from traditional cycling countries.
starting at age 19.
miracle.
hunting accident, comeback, 24-hour speed transformation.
miracle
Even Lance thought it was a miracle.

"Your comeback in '89 was so spectacular. Mine was a miracle, yours was a miracle. You couldn't have been as strong as you were in '89 without EPO."

And he wasn't trying to shift copy.

No, Lance was not trying to shift copy he was trying to shift around the blame.

As gillian1969 said the Giro ITT was more seen as a surprise return to form and was definitely not portrayed as a miracle in this days. Given the 1969 in the name, my guess is that gillian and myself or more or less of the same bill year and I strongly remember that for the Belgians it was no more than a reason to put LeMond back amongst the outsiders. It was only Mart Smeets of the NOS who was really surprised when LeMond did so well in the first ITT i the TdF (leave it up to good ole Mart not to be informed of the Giro ITT).

As t LeMond joining ADR, I don't think he actually had much choice post 1988. He had had the hunting accident and a Highly unsuccessful year at PDM where he left more or less acrimonious. He went to ADR for a very small fixed salary with bonuses if he managed some results and I think (not know) that he more or less accepted the small pay check (they he didn't even get paid in full) if he could just ride some GT's and be left more or less to his own devices. As with PDM LeMond didn't care that much that other riders accepted they were doped just as long as he could go his own way.

Now you can explain the above in more than 1 way. If you are a guy who thinks glasses are always half empty you can see the low pay + bonuses as a strong incentive to bend the rules to get the results and you could also say that wanting to be left to his own devices meant no more than being left to his own doping program. If you are the glass is half full kind of guy, you see a cyclist who in line with his PDM years made sure he compete in his own right without being forced to follow team rules or team doctors and who was willing to take a gamble that some his old form might actually return.

Please also note that ADR was a very small team with very little or no team organization and densely nothing we have gotten used these days with regards to team organization. It was more haphazard and that certainly applied to ADR. Do not look at that time and that team through 2016 glasses.

indeed...the 69 is a giveway...and a good vintage

got into cycling via friend, breaking away and seeing kelly's green jersey at the 82 worlds at Goodwood...extensively covered by the BBC on a wet afternoon when at boarding school (not gordonstoun )

and yes to Armstrong

armstrong was pursuing his own narrative...it wasn't a miracle comeback...it was a rider returning to slightly below where he was..the burly classics rider post-cancer winning the tour was indeed a miracle...some would say unbelievable

I was more of a Fignon and Hinault man but lemond has grown on me over time...

 

[casati]

Re: Re:

...
how can you equate 2011 Froome with that....how?

you sure like to simplify things. I'm not equating Froome with Lemond.
I'm just drawing a parallel between fragments of their respective carreers.
One could argue Froome's mid-season transformation in 2011 was similar to Lemond's mid-season transformations in 89 and 90.
Again, I grant that Froome didn't have a palmares before that. So yes, much more suspicious.
Yet, again, lack of carreer bellcurve is no evidence of cleanliness.

And so I'm not equating Sastre or Contador with Lemond either when I say neither had any bellcurves. I'm just pointing out one similarity.

I don't much comment on these pages but this info is taken from Wikipedia( wow the Internet), this is prior to 89, in no way can you compare this to froome, not even close and not even fragments:
LeMond rode his first Tour de France in 1984, finishing third in support of team leader Laurent Fignon, and winning the white jersey of the young rider classification. The following year he was brought across to La Vie Claire to ride in support of team captain Bernard Hinault who had regained his form and was attempting to win his fifth Tour.[43] French businessman and team owner Bernard Tapie signed LeMond with a $1 million contract over three years.[44] In the race Hinault led through the early mountain stages, but suffered a crash and came into difficulty. At this point it was clear that LeMond was an elite rider capable of winning the Tour in his own right.[45] LeMond possessed a natural talent for riding the Grand Tours, and got stronger over the course of a three-week race.[46] The injured Hinault was vulnerable, and his competitors knew it.[47] Stage 17 included three major climbs in the Pyrenees. On the second, the Col du Tourmalet, LeMond followed Stephen Roche in an attack, but was not given permission to help build on the gap over the field.[48] The managers of his La Vie Claire team ordered the 24-year-old LeMond not to ride with Roche, but to sit on his wheel, a tactic to use the rider in front as cover for wind resistance so the following rider uses less energy.[49][N 3] The pace Roche could put out by himself eventually slowed, and other riders came up to join the two men. Hinault recovered as well, though he did not regain the lead group. At the end of the stage LeMond was frustrated to the point of tears.[46] He later revealed that team management and his own coach Paul Köchli had misled him as to how far back Hinault had dropped during the crucial Stage 17 mountain stage.[50] Hinault won the 1985 Tour, with LeMond finishing second, 1:42 behind. LeMond had ridden as the dutiful lieutenant, and his support enabled Hinault to win his fifth Tour.[N 4][46] In repayment for his sacrifice Hinault promised to help LeMond win the Tour the following year.[46][51]


LeMond (left) in the 1986 Coors Classic
For the 1986 Tour, LeMond was a co-leader of the La Vie Claire team alongside Hinault.[51][52] Hinault's support seemed less certain the closer the race approached.[53] An unspoken condition was that his help would be contingent upon LeMond demonstrating that he was clearly the better rider.[N 5] Hinault was in superb form, and had the chance to win an unprecedented sixth Tour. Hinault chose to let the Stage 9 individual time trial be the decider for which rider would receive the full support of team La Vie Claire.[N 6] Hinault won the Stage 9 time trial, finishing 44 seconds in front of LeMond. LeMond had bad luck during the stage, having suffered a punctured tire requiring a wheel change, and later in the stage a bicycle change was required when he broke a wheel. He was frustrated with the outcome and the impact it would have on how the team would function for the remainder of the race. In Stage 12, the first mountain stage of the race in the Pyrenees, Hinault attacked the lead group and built up an overall lead. By the end of Stage 12, Hinault had a five-minute lead over LeMond and the other top riders.[55][56] He claimed he was trying to draw out LeMond's rivals, but none of these attacks were planned with LeMond.[57][N 7] He was clearly willing to ride aggressively and take advantage of the opportunities presented. LeMond was never placed in difficulty, except by his own teammate.[59] The following day Hinault broke away again early but was caught and then dropped by LeMond on the final climb of Stage 13, allowing LeMond to gain back four and a half minutes. The next three stages brought the Tour to the Alps. On Stage 17 LeMond and Urs Zimmermann dropped Hinault from the leading group, and the end of the day saw LeMond pulling on the yellow jersey of race leader, the first time it had ever been worn by a rider from the United States.[60] The following day in the Alps saw Hinault attack again early on the first climb, but he was pulled back. Attempting an escape on the descent, he was unable to separate himself from LeMond. The La Vie Claire team leaders were both excellent descenders. As they ascended up the next col they continued to pull away from the field, and maintained the gap as they reached the base of the final climb, the vaunted Alpe d'Huez. They pressed on through the crowd, ascending the twenty-one switchbacks of Alpe d'Huez and reaching the summit together. LeMond put an arm around Hinault and gave him a smile and the stage win in a show of unity,[61] but the infighting was not over. Hinault attacked again on Stage 19 and had to be brought back by teammates Andy Hampsten and Steve Bauer.[62][N 8] Commenting on the team situation prior to the final individual time trial at Stage 20, LeMond offered the following with a wry smile: "He's attacked me from the beginning of the Tour De France. He's never helped me once, and I don't feel confident at all with him."[63]

LeMond had to keep his eye on his teammate and rival throughout the race. Hinault rode aggressively and repeatedly attacked, and the division created in the La Vie Claire team was unmistakable.[64] LeMond would keep the yellow jersey to the end of the race and win his first Tour, but he felt betrayed by Hinault and the La Vie Claire team leadership.[61] LeMond later stated the 1986 Tour was the most difficult and stressful race of his career.[65]

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Re: LeMond

And to as to the repeated accusations that people who don't agree with anything sniper posts must be mere fanboys or just making it personal towards sniper, the is what I posted upthread already:

I am not saying he positively never used anything of the regular 80's stuff that for example wasn't on the banned list then but would be now, but the vast majority of the information available (both factual and circumstantial) point to the fact that he might well have done it all clean.

And can be found here: viewtopic.php?p=1870155#p1870155

It is not personal, I just take exception with bogus arguments. Problem is that there is one person very prevalent when it comes to posting bogus arguments, which might make it seem personal, when it is actually not.

I actually said that in this thread. Not sure if Sniper ever did so. I only done that to show a correlation between the back in the day (back and forth) between the LA fans and the clinic crowd. The term Fanboy was used on anyone who even tried to take up for LA on anything. That was the reason I used the term fanboy. Apologies to everyone for doing that but I thought it was appropriate given the similarities of folks taking up for LeMond vs the folks who were willing to acknowledge this is a down and dirty sport that has had problems since the inception it seems.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Re: LeMond

Can we presume blutto, like spire, you didn’t actually live through lemond’s career…it looked exactly like that of an athlete who was remarkable…he raced the classics well and the raced the grand tours very well…great results as junior, as senior, at avernir, at dauphine, then 3rd, 2nd, 1st at tour……then 1st, 1st then the demise………..

The bell curve of a top cyclist athlete (with the obvious dip for getting shot)…lets normalise those three years it I think the statisticians would say…with a sharper decline than most…

A decline which coincided with epo….an opposite effect of what you might expect if he was a beneficiary of epo

And spire has the temerity to try and compare with Froome and and Wiggis…they ain’t no bell curves (I restrained myself on the obvious joke )

Gilligan I have one question---WHO is "spire".

 

[sniper]

Re: Re:

...
EPO doesn't cause a 24 h improvement even with iron supplementation. New cells have to be made in the bone marrow and mature, so it doesn't work nearly that quickly. IMO, a radical change would be more consistent with a nutrient deficiency or a placebo effect.

probably a fair point.
you think the iron shots alone could've had that kind of impact?
i read on another forum that that isn't plausible, but then again, maybe it is.

if there was no epo and no illegal peds involved on that day with Vanmol, i do have some reservations wrt Lemond's own version of events.
basically his story is that Vanmol gave him one injection, and told him to take the other injections later.
But Lemond was allegedly needle adverse, and so he says he needed to somehow get Jacome to do the remaining injections. I find that odd, because Jacome was just a soigneur, he shouldn't be doing any injections. Why couldn't Lemond go back to Vanmol? Or, why not let Kathy do it? Kathy was there as well, and as a former nursing student I assume she sh/would have been perfectly capable of handling a needle. But Jacome?
The sense I got from that interview (I think it's Kimmage talking to Greg and Kathy) is that they were not being straight up about needles. Perhaps hiding the fact that Kathy used to handle the needle-work?
Clutching at straws, I know.
Just that that part of the story never struck me as very genuine.

 

[gillan1969]

Re: LeMond

Can we presume blutto, like spire, you didn’t actually live through lemond’s career…it looked exactly like that of an athlete who was remarkable…he raced the classics well and the raced the grand tours very well…great results as junior, as senior, at avernir, at dauphine, then 3rd, 2nd, 1st at tour……then 1st, 1st then the demise………..

The bell curve of a top cyclist athlete (with the obvious dip for getting shot)…lets normalise those three years it I think the statisticians would say…with a sharper decline than most…

A decline which coincided with epo….an opposite effect of what you might expect if he was a beneficiary of epo

And spire has the temerity to try and compare with Froome and and Wiggis…they ain’t no bell curves (I restrained myself on the obvious joke )

Gilligan I have one question---WHO is "spire".

bl**dy hell

a freudian slip...sniper

but as you ask...a character from the 'cycling plus' forums from years gone by with whom I used to joust around politics as opposed to doping.....

mind you I have also just answered my colleagues phone using the name of the girl that used to sit there over a year ago...so...must be one of the days.....

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Re: Re:

No, Lance was not trying to shift copy he was trying to shift around the blame.

As gillian1969 said the Giro ITT was more seen as a surprise return to form and was definitely not portrayed as a miracle in this days. Given the 1969 in the name, my guess is that gillian and myself or more or less of the same bill year and I strongly remember that for the Belgians it was no more than a reason to put LeMond back amongst the outsiders. It was only Mart Smeets of the NOS who was really surprised when LeMond did so well in the first ITT i the TdF (leave it up to good ole Mart not to be informed of the Giro ITT).

As t LeMond joining ADR, I don't think he actually had much choice post 1988. He had had the hunting accident and a Highly unsuccessful year at PDM where he left more or less acrimonious. He went to ADR for a very small fixed salary with bonuses if he managed some results and I think (not know) that he more or less accepted the small pay check (they he didn't even get paid in full) if he could just ride some GT's and be left more or less to his own devices. As with PDM LeMond didn't care that much that other riders accepted they were doped just as long as he could go his own way.

Now you can explain the above in more than 1 way. If you are a guy who thinks glasses are always half empty you can see the low pay + bonuses as a strong incentive to bend the rules to get the results and you could also say that wanting to be left to his own devices meant no more than being left to his own doping program. If you are the glass is half full kind of guy, you see a cyclist who in line with his PDM years made sure he compete in his own right without being forced to follow team rules or team doctors and who was willing to take a gamble that some his old form might actually return.

Please also note that ADR was a very small team with very little or no team organization and densely nothing we have gotten used these days with regards to team organization. It was more haphazard and that certainly applied to ADR. Do not look at that time and that team through 2016 glasses.

Wow I think there are quite a few 1969's in this thread. Also note Stingray is of a close year as well.

Anyhow with respect to the Belgians and EPO - I sorta remember it as others here have explained. The italians were the first rocket changes that I remember. Maybe I'm wrong. Not saying they were the only ones but it seemed they had some uptick in performances right around 90 or 91. I have to admit that it was hard for me to keep up with the tours and classics back in those years due to the fact I was in the military and had to rely on the stars and stripes newspaper or the occasional BBC update to know what the results were.

There are a few things that trouble me with respect to LeMond. One being in my mind and in my own opinion it would be impossible to win the tour de france without the use of help. Either with training recovery or manipulation of the blood with or without epo. Then there is the whole era of other special tricks that the riders got into. - what I mean is ....what was in those little brown bottles they used to pass along during the stages and at the feed zones.

During that time (Lemond's Pro Peloton years 80's-early 90's) I was well above average long distance runner, this was the same era as LeMond was competing in. I watched guys take stuff that then blew my naive way of thinking. I would forever be jaded with the sport and some of the results. Maybe that is why I find it impossible to believe LeMond competed clean.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Re: LeMond

Can we presume blutto, like spire, you didn’t actually live through lemond’s career…it looked exactly like that of an athlete who was remarkable…he raced the classics well and the raced the grand tours very well…great results as junior, as senior, at avernir, at dauphine, then 3rd, 2nd, 1st at tour……then 1st, 1st then the demise………..

The bell curve of a top cyclist athlete (with the obvious dip for getting shot)…lets normalise those three years it I think the statisticians would say…with a sharper decline than most…

A decline which coincided with epo….an opposite effect of what you might expect if he was a beneficiary of epo

And spire has the temerity to try and compare with Froome and and Wiggis…they ain’t no bell curves (I restrained myself on the obvious joke )

Gilligan I have one question---WHO is "spire".

bl**dy hell

a freudian slip...sniper

but as you ask...a character from the 'cycling plus' forums from years gone by with whom I used to joust around politics as opposed to doping.....

mind you I have also just answered my colleagues phone using the name of the girl that used to sit there over a year ago...so...must be one of the days.....

Yeah no worries. I got a kick out of you calling the sniper - spire.

Funny about the phone also!

Oh and did you guys over in the UK get the tv show called Gilligan's Island. Horrible show but had a couple of good looking girls on it.

 

[gillan1969]

Re: LeMond

Can we presume blutto, like spire, you didn’t actually live through lemond’s career…it looked exactly like that of an athlete who was remarkable…he raced the classics well and the raced the grand tours very well…great results as junior, as senior, at avernir, at dauphine, then 3rd, 2nd, 1st at tour……then 1st, 1st then the demise………..

The bell curve of a top cyclist athlete (with the obvious dip for getting shot)…lets normalise those three years it I think the statisticians would say…with a sharper decline than most…

A decline which coincided with epo….an opposite effect of what you might expect if he was a beneficiary of epo

And spire has the temerity to try and compare with Froome and and Wiggis…they ain’t no bell curves (I restrained myself on the obvious joke )

Gilligan I have one question---WHO is "spire".

bl**dy hell

a freudian slip...sniper

but as you ask...a character from the 'cycling plus' forums from years gone by with whom I used to joust around politics as opposed to doping.....

mind you I have also just answered my colleagues phone using the name of the girl that used to sit there over a year ago...so...must be one of the days.....

Yeah no worries. I got a kick out of you calling the sniper - spire.

Funny about the phone also!

Oh and did you guys over in the UK get the tv show called Gilligan's Island. Horrible show but had a couple of good looking girls on it.

it's nearly an anagram

 

[gillan1969]

Re: LeMond

Can we presume blutto, like spire, you didn’t actually live through lemond’s career…it looked exactly like that of an athlete who was remarkable…he raced the classics well and the raced the grand tours very well…great results as junior, as senior, at avernir, at dauphine, then 3rd, 2nd, 1st at tour……then 1st, 1st then the demise………..

The bell curve of a top cyclist athlete (with the obvious dip for getting shot)…lets normalise those three years it I think the statisticians would say…with a sharper decline than most…

A decline which coincided with epo….an opposite effect of what you might expect if he was a beneficiary of epo

And spire has the temerity to try and compare with Froome and and Wiggis…they ain’t no bell curves (I restrained myself on the obvious joke )

Gilligan I have one question---WHO is "spire".

bl**dy hell

a freudian slip...sniper

but as you ask...a character from the 'cycling plus' forums from years gone by with whom I used to joust around politics as opposed to doping.....

mind you I have also just answered my colleagues phone using the name of the girl that used to sit there over a year ago...so...must be one of the days.....

Yeah no worries. I got a kick out of you calling the sniper - spire.

Funny about the phone also!

Oh and did you guys over in the UK get the tv show called Gilligan's Island. Horrible show but had a couple of good looking girls on it.

and no...my early years were enhanced by Mindy

 

[sniper]

Re: Re:

...
No, Lance was not trying to shift copy he was trying to shift around the blame.

As gillian1969 said the Giro ITT was more seen as a surprise return to form and was definitely not portrayed as a miracle in this days. Given the 1969 in the name, my guess is that gillian and myself or more or less of the same bill year and I strongly remember that for the Belgians it was no more than a reason to put LeMond back amongst the outsiders. It was only Mart Smeets of the NOS who was really surprised when LeMond did so well in the first ITT i the TdF (leave it up to good ole Mart not to be informed of the Giro ITT).

As t LeMond joining ADR, I don't think he actually had much choice post 1988. He had had the hunting accident and a Highly unsuccessful year at PDM where he left more or less acrimonious. He went to ADR for a very small fixed salary with bonuses if he managed some results and I think (not know) that he more or less accepted the small pay check (they he didn't even get paid in full) if he could just ride some GT's and be left more or less to his own devices. As with PDM LeMond didn't care that much that other riders accepted they were doped just as long as he could go his own way.

Now you can explain the above in more than 1 way. If you are a guy who thinks glasses are always half empty you can see the low pay + bonuses as a strong incentive to bend the rules to get the results and you could also say that wanting to be left to his own devices meant no more than being left to his own doping program. If you are the glass is half full kind of guy, you see a cyclist who in line with his PDM years made sure he compete in his own right without being forced to follow team rules or team doctors and who was willing to take a gamble that some his old form might actually return.

Please also note that ADR was a very small team with very little or no team organization and densely nothing we have gotten used these days with regards to team organization. It was more haphazard and that certainly applied to ADR. Do not look at that time and that team through 2016 glasses.

some interesting points worth consideration.
i would like to know if that day with Vanmol was the only time the two dealt with each other.
In the Kimmage interview Lemond says he'd never seen Vanmol before.
As for Freddy Sergeant, ADR soigneur, he did say in an interview that he had Lemond on the massage table a couple of times. So I'm not entirely convinced of the "left to his own devices" part. It would be interesting to look into that. For instance, esafosfina had the story about the a-team going to Austria (iinm) for some kind of calf's blood therapy. Was Lemond there?

For the record, indeed i don't think we need to look far or hard to find incentives to cheat. There would have been plenty, especially the money.
My question (as earlier in reply to Maxiton) would be the reverse: what incentives would he have had to stick to the rules? In my view, if he was conservative with doping (or if he was clean), it would've been out of health reasons, not out of fair play reasons.

 

[kwikki]

Re: Re:

^"regardless of how he achieved that"
isn't "how" the crucial question when we ask if it was a miracle or not?

clean cyclist from a non-cycling country sweeps the floor with doped-to-the-gills cyclists from traditional cycling countries.
starting at age 19.
miracle.
hunting accident, comeback, 24-hour speed transformation.
miracle
Even Lance thought it was a miracle.

"Your comeback in '89 was so spectacular. Mine was a miracle, yours was a miracle. You couldn't have been as strong as you were in '89 without EPO."

And he wasn't trying to shift copy.

No, Lance was not trying to shift copy he was trying to shift around the blame.

As gillian1969 said the Giro ITT was more seen as a surprise return to form and was definitely not portrayed as a miracle in this days. Given the 1969 in the name, my guess is that gillian and myself or more or less of the same bill year and I strongly remember that for the Belgians it was no more than a reason to put LeMond back amongst the outsiders. It was only Mart Smeets of the NOS who was really surprised when LeMond did so well in the first ITT i the TdF (leave it up to good ole Mart not to be informed of the Giro ITT).

As t LeMond joining ADR, I don't think he actually had much choice post 1988. He had had the hunting accident and a Highly unsuccessful year at PDM where he left more or less acrimonious. He went to ADR for a very small fixed salary with bonuses if he managed some results and I think (not know) that he more or less accepted the small pay check (they he didn't even get paid in full) if he could just ride some GT's and be left more or less to his own devices. As with PDM LeMond didn't care that much that other riders accepted they were doped just as long as he could go his own way.

Now you can explain the above in more than 1 way. If you are a guy who thinks glasses are always half empty you can see the low pay + bonuses as a strong incentive to bend the rules to get the results and you could also say that wanting to be left to his own devices meant no more than being left to his own doping program. If you are the glass is half full kind of guy, you see a cyclist who in line with his PDM years made sure he compete in his own right without being forced to follow team rules or team doctors and who was willing to take a gamble that some his old form might actually return.

Please also note that ADR was a very small team with very little or no team organization and densely nothing we have gotten used these days with regards to team organization. It was more haphazard and that certainly applied to ADR. Do not look at that time and that team through 2016 glasses.

indeed...the 69 is a giveway...and a good vintage

got into cycling via friend, breaking away and seeing kelly's green jersey at the 82 worlds at Goodwood...extensively covered by the BBC on a wet afternoon when at boarding school (not gordonstoun )

and yes to Armstrong

armstrong was pursuing his own narrative...it wasn't a miracle comeback...it was a rider returning to slightly below where he was..the burly classics rider post-cancer winning the tour was indeed a miracle...some would say unbelievable

I was more of a Fignon and Hinault man but lemond has grown on me over time...

Similar vintage myself. Like you I loved the early to mid 80s, and it was Robert Millar that caught my attention. Also liked Sean Yates and Malcolm Elliot. But yeah, bad boy Hinault was mesmerising, and as a teenager I rooted for him, rather than Lemond who was too much brash Yank for my tastes.

Funny though. Now I view the two of them completely differently. Hinault still lies about his epic battle with Lemond. LeMond I view as a very genuine person, and somebody who has been pretty consistent with his views of doping.

 

[DamianoMachiavelli]

Re: Re:

Funny though. Now I view the two of them completely differently. Hinault still lies about his epic battle with Lemond. LeMond I view as a very genuine person, and somebody who has been pretty consistent with his views of doping.

You mean consistent except for applying those views to those he raced against or anyone who might know where his own skeletons are buried?

 

[kwikki]

I think he's only really bothered about EPO use. That's what sent him packing from the peloton. In the total absence of any evidence that he used dope to win, I'll hold the view that he was a clean rider. If that view is correct then I can see why the doping of others during his winning years would not particularly bother him enough to stir the hornets in his own nest. He still won.

However, the overkill of Armstrong outraged him. Not just the EPO use, but the cancer story exploitation and the fact that the guy was such a prik to those around him. I'm sure he wasn't inured to the subtleties of what was going on and the devastating nature of being given excommunicated from the pack if the pack is where you make your living.

Just remember his response to Landis. He didn't warn him to stay silent, he told him to talk.

 

[pmcg76]

Re: Re:

...
No, Lance was not trying to shift copy he was trying to shift around the blame.

As gillian1969 said the Giro ITT was more seen as a surprise return to form and was definitely not portrayed as a miracle in this days. Given the 1969 in the name, my guess is that gillian and myself or more or less of the same bill year and I strongly remember that for the Belgians it was no more than a reason to put LeMond back amongst the outsiders. It was only Mart Smeets of the NOS who was really surprised when LeMond did so well in the first ITT i the TdF (leave it up to good ole Mart not to be informed of the Giro ITT).

As t LeMond joining ADR, I don't think he actually had much choice post 1988. He had had the hunting accident and a Highly unsuccessful year at PDM where he left more or less acrimonious. He went to ADR for a very small fixed salary with bonuses if he managed some results and I think (not know) that he more or less accepted the small pay check (they he didn't even get paid in full) if he could just ride some GT's and be left more or less to his own devices. As with PDM LeMond didn't care that much that other riders accepted they were doped just as long as he could go his own way.

Now you can explain the above in more than 1 way. If you are a guy who thinks glasses are always half empty you can see the low pay + bonuses as a strong incentive to bend the rules to get the results and you could also say that wanting to be left to his own devices meant no more than being left to his own doping program. If you are the glass is half full kind of guy, you see a cyclist who in line with his PDM years made sure he compete in his own right without being forced to follow team rules or team doctors and who was willing to take a gamble that some his old form might actually return.

Please also note that ADR was a very small team with very little or no team organization and densely nothing we have gotten used these days with regards to team organization. It was more haphazard and that certainly applied to ADR. Do not look at that time and that team through 2016 glasses.

some interesting points worth consideration.
i would like to know if that day with Vanmol was the only time the two dealt with each other.
In the Kimmage interview Lemond says he'd never seen Vanmol before.
As for Freddy Sergeant, ADR soigneur, he did say in an interview that he had Lemond on the massage table a couple of times. So I'm not entirely convinced of the "left to his own devices" part. It would be interesting to look into that. For instance, esafosfina had the story about the a-team going to Austria (iinm) for some kind of calf's blood therapy. Was Lemond there?

For the record, indeed i don't think we need to look far or hard to find incentives to cheat. There would have been plenty, especially the money.
My question (as earlier in reply to Maxiton) would be the reverse: what incentives would he have had to stick to the rules? In my view, if he was conservative with doping (or if he was clean), it would've been out of health reasons, not out of fair play reasons.

It is very likely that LeMond had never met Van Mol before the Giro which is why I said you are overplaying Van Mol way too much. LeMond had a contract with ADR and Coors Light in 89, he spent the winter training in the US, then started his season at the Tour of the Americas where he rode with Coors Light. He returned to Europe for the start of March, rode Het Volk, then went to Italy for Tirreno-Adriatico, Milan-San Remo and then France for Criterium International, producing good results which people keep ignoring. Less than a week after Criterium International, he riders poorly at Flanders and subsequent races, his form seemingly vanishing overnight and then returns to the US before Liege-Bastogne-Liege. He rides the Tour de Trump for Coors Light before returning to Europe for the Giro. After the Giro back to the US for the nationals with Coors Light on June 18th before returning to ride Tour of the Mining Valleys in Spain on the 20th-23rd. Tour begins 1st July.

Apart from that 6 week window in spring, LeMond spent very little time with ADR before the Giro so how Van Mol is viewed as a big part of this, I don't know. Ironically the period when he may have possibly met Van Mol is when his form vanished

 

[blutto]

Re: Re:

...
No, Lance was not trying to shift copy he was trying to shift around the blame.

As gillian1969 said the Giro ITT was more seen as a surprise return to form and was definitely not portrayed as a miracle in this days. Given the 1969 in the name, my guess is that gillian and myself or more or less of the same bill year and I strongly remember that for the Belgians it was no more than a reason to put LeMond back amongst the outsiders. It was only Mart Smeets of the NOS who was really surprised when LeMond did so well in the first ITT i the TdF (leave it up to good ole Mart not to be informed of the Giro ITT).

As t LeMond joining ADR, I don't think he actually had much choice post 1988. He had had the hunting accident and a Highly unsuccessful year at PDM where he left more or less acrimonious. He went to ADR for a very small fixed salary with bonuses if he managed some results and I think (not know) that he more or less accepted the small pay check (they he didn't even get paid in full) if he could just ride some GT's and be left more or less to his own devices. As with PDM LeMond didn't care that much that other riders accepted they were doped just as long as he could go his own way.

Now you can explain the above in more than 1 way. If you are a guy who thinks glasses are always half empty you can see the low pay + bonuses as a strong incentive to bend the rules to get the results and you could also say that wanting to be left to his own devices meant no more than being left to his own doping program. If you are the glass is half full kind of guy, you see a cyclist who in line with his PDM years made sure he compete in his own right without being forced to follow team rules or team doctors and who was willing to take a gamble that some his old form might actually return.

Please also note that ADR was a very small team with very little or no team organization and densely nothing we have gotten used these days with regards to team organization. It was more haphazard and that certainly applied to ADR. Do not look at that time and that team through 2016 glasses.

some interesting points worth consideration.
i would like to know if that day with Vanmol was the only time the two dealt with each other.
In the Kimmage interview Lemond says he'd never seen Vanmol before.
As for Freddy Sergeant, ADR soigneur, he did say in an interview that he had Lemond on the massage table a couple of times. So I'm not entirely convinced of the "left to his own devices" part. It would be interesting to look into that. For instance, esafosfina had the story about the a-team going to Austria (iinm) for some kind of calf's blood therapy. Was Lemond there?

For the record, indeed i don't think we need to look far or hard to find incentives to cheat. There would have been plenty, especially the money.
My question (as earlier in reply to Maxiton) would be the reverse: what incentives would he have had to stick to the rules? In my view, if he was conservative with doping (or if he was clean), it would've been out of health reasons, not out of fair play reasons.

It is very likely that LeMond had never met Van Mol before the Giro which is why I said you are overplaying Van Mol way too much. LeMond had a contract with ADR and Coors Light in 89, he spent the winter training in the US, then started his season at the Tour of the Americas where he rode with Coors Light. He returned to Europe for the start of March, rode Het Volk, then went to Italy for Tirreno-Adriatico, Milan-San Remo and then France for Criterium International, producing good results which people keep ignoring. Less than a week after Criterium International, he riders poorly at Flanders and subsequent races, his form seemingly vanishing overnight and then returns to the US before Liege-Bastogne-Liege. He rides the Tour de Trump for Coors Light before returning to Europe for the Giro. After the Giro back to the US for the nationals with Coors Light on June 18th before returning to ride Tour of the Mining Valleys in Spain on the 20th-23rd. Tour begins 1st July.

Apart from that 6 week window in spring, LeMond spent very little time with ADR before the Giro so how Van Mol is viewed as a big part of this, I don't know. Ironically the period when he may have possibly met Van Mol is when his form vanished

...indeed...

...like the doctor wouldn't make house calls when things is good now would he....

Cheers

 

[red_flanders]

Re:

I think he's only really bothered about EPO use. That's what sent him packing from the peloton. In the total absence of any evidence that he used dope to win, I'll hold the view that he was a clean rider. If that view is correct then I can see why the doping of others during his winning years would not particularly bother him enough to stir the hornets in his own nest. He still won.

However, the overkill of Armstrong outraged him. Not just the EPO use, but the cancer story exploitation and the fact that the guy was such a prik to those around him. I'm sure he wasn't inured to the subtleties of what was going on and the devastating nature of being given excommunicated from the pack if the pack is where you make your living.

Just remember his response to Landis. He didn't warn him to stay silent, he told him to talk.

Maybe also the direct assault which Armstrong made on his business and reputation, which as we can see in this thread, has had lasting and lingering effects.

 

[kwikki]

Certainly true, but that came after. I think he was genuinely outraged by what Armstrong was doing to the sport. Later he was to find out to his own cost that he was right.

He was, after all, one of the first influential people to openly doubt Armstrong.

It's interesting to read here the desperate attempts to smear Lemond, but when you look at the way he went about his pursuit of Armstrong and later taking a wider role in the PED debate it doesn't fit the pattern of somebody with something to hide.

Contrast that with somebody like Paula Radcliffe, who makes calls for doping bans but doesn't actually pursue it. It doesn't really get further than the twitter stage.

 

[Digger]

Re: Re:

I think he's only really bothered about EPO use. That's what sent him packing from the peloton. In the total absence of any evidence that he used dope to win, I'll hold the view that he was a clean rider. If that view is correct then I can see why the doping of others during his winning years would not particularly bother him enough to stir the hornets in his own nest. He still won.

However, the overkill of Armstrong outraged him. Not just the EPO use, but the cancer story exploitation and the fact that the guy was such a prik to those around him. I'm sure he wasn't inured to the subtleties of what was going on and the devastating nature of being given excommunicated from the pack if the pack is where you make your living.

Just remember his response to Landis. He didn't warn him to stay silent, he told him to talk.

Maybe also the direct assault which Armstrong made on his business and reputation, which as we can see in this thread, has had lasting and lingering effects.

Absolutely no question lance made those assaults you speak of. You are totally right.

That said I do find it odd that Greg started that with his comments on Ferrari, yet goes to Australia and tells the audience there how great and clean Cadel is, when Cadel also worked with Ferrari.

 

[sniper]

Re: Re:

there is some good stuff in this age-old clinic discussion back in 2009 (!).
viewtopic.php?p=45987#p45987
viewtopic.php?p=46047#p46047

First, this R.0.t.O poster says he heard an ex-team mate say Lemond doped.

R.0.t.O wrote:
People still have this idea that Lemond was clean... I've heard at least one ex-team mate say that he doped, and there is no reason to believe that he wouldn't - the guy was at the cutting edge of everything in cycling. Look at 1990, in June he was 105th in the Giro, then 1st in the Tour... but nobody calls him on it. Greg was a popular guy doing what it took to win.

He wasn't completely out of the game in 1991. He rode a decent Tour overall to finish 7th and spent 6 days in the yellow jersey. He wasn't blown away by the new power generation. He did do far too much in the first week and then he had a couple of bad days in the mountains.

More interesting is why Armstrong's people don't uncover evidence of doping to discredit Lemond and his arguments. Answer: because Armstrong considers doping a perfectly legitimate part of the game.

In response, some very good observations from rhubroma (is he still posting in the Clinic?):

Wait a second, I never said he was clean. In fact I assume he would have taken corticoids and perhaps testosterone too, like all the others in his day. I just doubted he progressed to EPO when everybody else did. He claimed he was super trained in 91 and continued to prepare himself well in the last years. So either he just lost it if he had been taking EPO, or he wasn't really that trianed but still on it, or he wasn't really that trained and not on it, or he simply wasn't on it. Who knows about a guy who retired in 94. But if he had stayed around for the next few years, then I'd have no doubt whatsoever that he would have taken EPO with everybody else. That he retired when he did at least leaves a margin of doubt that wasn't part of that racket (with emphasis on at least a margin of doubt).

Believe me, I'm the last guy to assume any pro rider is clean. At any rate, I hope, for the sake of credibility, Lemond really stayed away from certain practices, otherwise his entire campaign against Armstrong is pathetic and hypocritical.

And +1 to your final answer.

Then R.0.t.O again, again with some good observations:

He may have been a relatively poor responder to EPO. He may not have been able to be part of a big team programme like others were. Z/Gan certainly weren't running a super-duper team doping programme like Gewiss, Festina, Telekom or US Postal did a few years later. Somehow though he made a massive turn-around from out-the-back to GC winner in a month in 1990, and somehow he was still competitive enough to make big tactical mistakes and still end up 7th overall in 1991 against super-charged Indurain, Bugno, Chiapucci etc.

He was 33 when he retired in 1994. Prior to the medical fine-tuning that occured later, 30 was a normal time to lose your GT prowess. Indurain retired at a similar age to Lemond and he was definitely on the super sauce. We have a warped view in 2009 because riders like Leipheimer are just 'discovering their GT talents' at an age where they should be hanging up their wheels.

Anyone that wants to see why people respect Lemond should see the 1992 Paris-Roubaix race where he rode brilliantly in support of Duclos-Lasalle. Compare that to how Armstrong behaves when he isn't the strongest rider in his team.

None of us are without our issues and problems. It's irrelevant to the Armstrong debate whether Lemond took EPO or not. My view is that he probably did, but it doesn't change anything about the fact that Armstrong did take EPO. It is possible for Lemond to be both hypocritical and correct. Maybe his real argument isn't against doping per se, but against the massive medical programmes which have dominated and dictated the results for the last 15 years.

To relate it to the current discussion:

...
That said I do find it odd that Greg started that with his comments on Ferrari, yet goes to Australia and tells the audience there how great and clean Cadel is, when Cadel also worked with Ferrari.

This from rhubroma is worth pondering on:
"I hope, for the sake of credibility, Lemond really stayed away from certain practices, otherwise his entire campaign against Armstrong is pathetic and hypocritical."

 

[kwikki]

Uh duh. Armstrong did try and discredit Greg, in exactly the same way he discredited Landis.

But he failed. Wonder why???

 

[sniper]

Re:

Armstrong did try and discredit Greg...
But he failed

In fairness, that was only after Greg had already tried to discredit Armstrong. And Greg didn't fail.

 

[GJB123]

Re: Re:

Armstrong did try and discredit Greg...
But he failed

In fairness, that was only after Greg had already tried to discredit Armstrong. And Greg didn't fail.

LeMond didn't fail because he was right about Armstrong. Now Armstrong failed because ..... You do the math.