LeMond III

[sniper]

Re: LeMond

so in summary...we are now speculating on if the sort of character lemond is (or is assumed to be) might mean he might have doped...

it's a slam dunk

Well, in all fairness, the whole basis for LeMond having not doped, according to him, is that he didn't need it, and that his high ethical standards precluded it. If it can be shown, then, that his ethical standards are not, after all, all that high, much of the basis for believing he didn't dope is undermined.

exactemundo.
and thanks for the bold face, because that (at least for me, and I think for some others), has always been the central underlying question: why does Lemond get the benefit of the doubt when so many others (for whom there is similarly little, or even less, evidence) do not. (Evans, Cancellara, Wiggins, Sastre, Yates, Sutton, you name them)

This is pretty simple, yet still overlooked in this thread on a daily basis:
All things equal (so disregarding all context and evidence with particular regard to Lemond), the null hypothesis, based on the history of cycling, should be that Lemond, like all those before and after him, doped to win the tdf. Like in other branches of science and reasonable debate, the null hypothesis determines where the burden of proof/evidence lies.

And so it's fair to say that Gillian (and others) are turning the tables when they ridiculize the evidence of Lemond doping, forgetting that the burden of proof, at least from a common sense cycling-historical perspective (which prevails in all Clinic threads except the Lemond thread), really lies with them, i.e. with those who claim Lemond was clean (as that hypothesis goes against the null hypothesis).

So why would Lemond be the one exception? The miracle athlete?
Now, I won't deny that there is some evidence to that extent (just as there is evidence to the contrary).
But the last few pages have gotten pretty funny, imo, with people clinging on to three unconfirmed rumors of rumors:
1. Lance allegedly searched hard for evidence on Lemond doping
2. Lance allegedly offered bribes to people to go on the record
3. Lance allegedly didn't find any evidence of Lemond doping nor anybody willing to go on the record.
And with "clinging on to" I mean "present them as fact", and subsequently as "proof" (cf. e.g. Gjb123: "do the math") that Lemond is clean.

For the record, I'm not discarding any of these unconfirmed rumors of rumors.
I'm merely pointing out the irony that those who cling on to them are the same who previously downplayed or even denied the mere existence of the rumor that Lemond used EPO, even though that rumor has been much more publicized and widespread.

(disclaimer for the likes of gjb123, red flanders, pcmg76 and race radio: no, the fact that the rumor existed doesn't make the rumor a fact. Iow, the existence of the rumor is fact, the truth of the rumor is unproven )

 

[gillan1969]

Re: LeMond

so in summary...we are now speculating on if the sort of character lemond is (or is assumed to be) might mean he might have doped...

it's a slam dunk

Well, in all fairness, the whole basis for LeMond having not doped, according to him, is that he didn't need it, and that his high ethical standards precluded it. If it can be shown, then, that his ethical standards are not, after all, all that high, much of the basis for believing he didn't dope is undermined.

exactemundo.
and thanks for the bold face, because that (at least for me, and I think for some others), has always been the central underlying question: why does Lemond get the benefit of the doubt when so many others (for whom there is similarly little, or even less, evidence) do not. (Evans, Cancellara, Wiggins, Sastre, Yates, Sutton, you name them)

This is pretty simple, yet still overlooked in this thread on a daily basis:
All things equal (so disregarding all context and evidence with particular regard to Lemond), the null hypothesis, based on the history of cycling, should be that Lemond, like all those before and after him, doped to win the tdf. Like in other branches of science and reasonable debate, the null hypothesis determines where the burden of proof/evidence lies.

And so it's fair to say that Gillian (and others) are turning the tables when they ridiculize the evidence of Lemond doping, forgetting that the burden of proof, at least from a common sense cycling-historical perspective (which prevails in all Clinic threads except the Lemond thread), really lies with them, i.e. with those who claim Lemond was clean (as that hypothesis goes against the null hypothesis).

So why would Lemond be the one exception? The miracle athlete?
Now, I won't deny that there is some evidence to that extent (just as there is evidence to the contrary).
But the last few pages have gotten pretty funny, imo, with people clinging on to three unconfirmed rumors of rumors:
1. Lance allegedly searched hard for evidence on Lemond doping
2. Lance allegedly didn't find any evidence of Lemond doping
3. Lance allegedly offered bribes to people to go on the record

For the record, I'm not discarding any of these unconfirmed rumors of rumors.
I'm merely pointing out the irony that those who cling on to them are the same who previously downplayed or even denied the mere existence of the rumor that Lemond used EPO, even though that rumor has been much more publicized and widespread.

(disclaimer for the likes of gjb123, red flanders, pcmg76 and race radio: no, the fact that the rumor existed doesn't make the rumor a fact. Iow, the existence of the rumor is fact, the truth of the rumor is unproven )

you may misunderstand my ridicule

I am not saying lemond didn't dope...he is however fruit at the top of the tree, a tree armstrong appears to have climbed

you are trying to make lemond low hanging fruit and he just isn't...

Not only is he not, for a lot of people, and that includes me, whilst not condoning doping I understand it in the context of the culture of the pro -peloton...my opprobrium is reserved for the likes of the fat boys turned good and the likes of Wiggins and Froome who are not only low, they are sticking their apple tongues out at us...

Lemond winning a GT was never taking the p*ss ceteris paribus...wiggins and froome are..

 

[ebandit]

Re: LeMond

summary

Well, in all fairness, the whole basis for LeMond having not doped, according to him, is that he didn't need it, and that his high ethical standards precluded it. If it can be shown, then, that his ethical standards are not, after all, all that high, much of the basis for believing he didn't dope is undermined.

fair comment.......

yet? lemond making poor choice acting in questionable fashion on odd occasion does

not show him to be completelyunethical....so where there is little evidence to show

that lemond doped here his word is good

Mark L

 

[sniper]

Re: LeMond

...

you may misunderstand my ridicule

could be, but when you say "slam dunk", imo you're turning the tables.
those who claim he's the exception have the burden of providing slam dunks.

Questioning lemond, like we question evans, wiggins, sastre, and any GT winner basically, shoud be the point of departure.
For many, inexplicably, the point of departure is that he's a clean athlete from a noncycling country beating doped riders from traditional cycling countries on their home ground.
Again, it's fine if you believe in miracles, but it brings along a burden of proof. Otherwise there really isn't much difference between saying Lemond is clean and believing in Santaclaus.

I am not saying lemond didn't dope...he is however fruit at the top of the tree, a tree armstrong appears to have climbed

This is a rumor of a rumor which in fact consists of three smaller rumors of rumors. All unconfirmed (see my previous post).
so my question would be: why attribute any kind of value on that rumor, but not on the comparatively much more widely publicized rumor that he used epo.

Not only is he not, for a lot of people, and that includes me, whilst not condoning doping I understand it in the context of the culture of the pro -peloton...my opprobrium is reserved for the likes of the fat boys turned good and the likes of Wiggins and Froome who are not only low, they are sticking their apple tongues out at us...

sure, but that is a bit like making the discussion about [good/ less obvious dopers] vs. [bad and obvious dopers]. Which is fair enough. And I would agree there is nothing to suggest Lemond was a blatant doper. On the contrary.
But another question is: what is possible on bread and water? And that alone I think warrants scrutinizing Lemond. However, not too many seem interested in that.
And there's the question of hypocricy: if he used epo himself, then it sheds quite a different light on his 'pursuit' of Lance.

Lemond winning a GT was never taking the p*ss ceteris paribus...wiggins and froome are..

agreed.

 

[kwikki]

Re: LeMond

so in summary...we are now speculating on if the sort of character lemond is (or is assumed to be) might mean he might have doped...

it's a slam dunk

Well, in all fairness, the whole basis for LeMond having not doped, according to him, is that he didn't need it, and that his high ethical standards precluded it. If it can be shown, then, that his ethical standards are not, after all, all that high, much of the basis for believing he didn't dope is undermined.

exactemundo.
and thanks for the bold face, because that (at least for me, and I think for some others), has always been the central underlying question: why does Lemond get the benefit of the doubt when so many others (for whom there is similarly little, or even less, evidence) do not. (Evans, Cancellara, Wiggins, Sastre, Yates, Sutton, you name them)

This is pretty simple, yet still overlooked in this thread on a daily basis:
All things equal (so disregarding all context and evidence with particular regard to Lemond), the null hypothesis, based on the history of cycling, should be that Lemond, like all those before and after him, doped to win the tdf. Like in other branches of science and reasonable debate, the null hypothesis determines where the burden of proof/evidence lies.

And so it's fair to say that Gillian (and others) are turning the tables when they ridiculize the evidence of Lemond doping, forgetting that the burden of proof, at least from a common sense cycling-historical perspective (which prevails in all Clinic threads except the Lemond thread), really lies with them, i.e. with those who claim Lemond was clean (as that hypothesis goes against the null hypothesis).

So why would Lemond be the one exception? The miracle athlete?
Now, I won't deny that there is some evidence to that extent (just as there is evidence to the contrary).
But the last few pages have gotten pretty funny, imo, with people clinging on to three unconfirmed rumors of rumors:
1. Lance allegedly searched hard for evidence on Lemond doping
2. Lance allegedly offered bribes to people to go on the record
3. Lance allegedly didn't find any evidence of Lemond doping nor anybody willing to go on the record.
And with "clinging on to" I mean "present them as fact", and subsequently as "proof" (cf. e.g. Gjb123: "do the math") that Lemond is clean.

For the record, I'm not discarding any of these unconfirmed rumors of rumors.
I'm merely pointing out the irony that those who cling on to them are the same who previously downplayed or even denied the mere existence of the rumor that Lemond used EPO, even though that rumor has been much more publicized and widespread.

(disclaimer for the likes of gjb123, red flanders, pcmg76 and race radio: no, the fact that the rumor existed doesn't make the rumor a fact. Iow, the existence of the rumor is fact, the truth of the rumor is unproven )

The downfall of your argument lies in your own words.

Your argument is that we know all Tour winners before Lemond doped. Therefore we have to assume Lemond doped.

But if we know previous winners doped, why is it that we don't know Lemond doped?

(For the record, I think post Lemond and into the EPO era, I would accept your hypothesis)

 

[sniper]

Re: LeMond

...
The downfall of your argument lies in your own words.

Your argument is that we know all Tour winners before Lemond doped. Therefore we have to assume Lemond doped.

But if we know previous winners doped, why is it that we don't know Lemond doped?

(For the record, I think post Lemond and into the EPO era, I would accept your hypothesis)

I answered this already:
we know as much (or even more) about lemond doping than we do about Wiggins doping, about Sastre doping, about Evans doping, about Indurain doping (well, debatable), about Cancellara (motor)doping, about Jens Voigt doping, and about Messi or Ronaldo or Roger Federer or Rapha Nadal doping.

Fact is that people believe in Santaclaus, but you'll agree that that fact alone doesnt suffice to prove he exists.

 

[gillan1969]

Re: LeMond

...
The downfall of your argument lies in your own words.

Your argument is that we know all Tour winners before Lemond doped. Therefore we have to assume Lemond doped.

But if we know previous winners doped, why is it that we don't know Lemond doped?

(For the record, I think post Lemond and into the EPO era, I would accept your hypothesis)

I answered this already:
we know as much (or even more) about lemond doping than we do about Wiggins doping, about Sastre doping, about Evans doping, about Indurain doping (well, debatable), about Cancellara (motor)doping, about Jens Voigt doping, and about Messi or Ronaldo or Roger Federer or Rapha Nadal doping.

Fact is that people believe in Santaclaus, but you'll agree that that fact alone doesnt suffice to prove he exists.

I wish there were studies...but there's not....so in the absence of such I shall make it up based on observation and anecdote..

Lemond was at the junction of champions winning GTs (irrespective of PED use) vs donkeys winning GTs. Donkeys could become champions by either going full ret*rd or by ensuring governing body buy-in or both.

EPO (and HGH to a degree) brought about this change and once the genie is out the bottle...........

So whilst 'all GT winners may have taken PEDS' may be true...the implications on the rider are different...

I would not equate a post-epo GT winner with a pre-epo winner

Lemond won before and so he gets a pass from me until compelling evidence suggests otherwise..

or to put it another way...for Armstrong, Horner, Wiggins or Froome to win a GT pre 1990/91 they would have needed to be so jacked up (on the drugs of the day) I doubt they would have made the start line

 

[pmcg76]

Re: LeMond

so in summary...we are now speculating on if the sort of character lemond is (or is assumed to be) might mean he might have doped...

it's a slam dunk

Well, in all fairness, the whole basis for LeMond having not doped, according to him, is that he didn't need it, and that his high ethical standards precluded it. If it can be shown, then, that his ethical standards are not, after all, all that high, much of the basis for believing he didn't dope is undermined.

exactemundo.
and thanks for the bold face, because that (at least for me, and I think for some others), has always been the central underlying question: why does Lemond get the benefit of the doubt when so many others (for whom there is similarly little, or even less, evidence) do not. (Evans, Cancellara, Wiggins, Sastre, Yates, Sutton, you name them)

This is pretty simple, yet still overlooked in this thread on a daily basis:
All things equal (so disregarding all context and evidence with particular regard to Lemond), the null hypothesis, based on the history of cycling, should be that Lemond, like all those before and after him, doped to win the tdf. Like in other branches of science and reasonable debate, the null hypothesis determines where the burden of proof/evidence lies.

And so it's fair to say that Gillian (and others) are turning the tables when they ridiculize the evidence of Lemond doping, forgetting that the burden of proof, at least from a common sense cycling-historical perspective (which prevails in all Clinic threads except the Lemond thread), really lies with them, i.e. with those who claim Lemond was clean (as that hypothesis goes against the null hypothesis).

So why would Lemond be the one exception? The miracle athlete?
Now, I won't deny that there is some evidence to that extent (just as there is evidence to the contrary).
But the last few pages have gotten pretty funny, imo, with people clinging on to three unconfirmed rumors of rumors:
1. Lance allegedly searched hard for evidence on Lemond doping
2. Lance allegedly didn't find any evidence of Lemond doping
3. Lance allegedly offered bribes to people to go on the record

For the record, I'm not discarding any of these unconfirmed rumors of rumors.
I'm merely pointing out the irony that those who cling on to them are the same who previously downplayed or even denied the mere existence of the rumor that Lemond used EPO, even though that rumor has been much more publicized and widespread.

(disclaimer for the likes of gjb123, red flanders, pcmg76 and race radio: no, the fact that the rumor existed doesn't make the rumor a fact. Iow, the existence of the rumor is fact, the truth of the rumor is unproven )

This is simple sniper, most people can differentiate between the era of the guys you mentioned Cancellara, Evans etc and the 80s. You simply keep applying modern standards of looking at doping to a different era. Also the 80s was pre Festina and there was no need to play-up the 'we are clean' angle simply because nobody cared that much. Look at the Delgado story, leader of the Tour positive, a bit of a fuss at that time but then pretty much forgotten about by one and all. It was not something that was held against him. Kelly another example.

When someone like Koechli(similar to Vayer) comes forward and says that LeMond won the Tour clean and he is 200% sure of that, then it carries some weight. There was no need to broadcast that back then as nobody really cared at the time. His other team Helvetia never got extra column inches because they were supposedly clean as happens nowadays, in fact I didnt really hear about that until years later. Proclamations of cleanliness meant little as there was no desire to look into the murkier side of the sport.

When the owner of a No1 French team with the big French names(Hinault,Bernard) comes forward and says the only guys in his team he is sure didnt dope are LeMond and Bauer, it carries some weight. Remember Bauer was 4th in the 88 Tour. It is the reverse of the National blindspot to compatriot doping. It is like Murdoch coming forward and saying the only people on SKY who were clean were Boasson Hagen and Rigobert Uran. Just imagine that for a second, what consternation there would be in the UK if questions marks were left over Wiggins/Froome/Cavendish.

So there is those and other strong words of support to suggest LeMond was clean, not rumours but people on record saying that. Then there is the people who say it was possible to win clean in the 80s, not going to list them all again as it has been done several times here so that gives context to the whole era so there is not the same need to start with the everyone doped angle.

Then there are other facts like you quoting a World Pursuit Champion to show how dirty ADR were but when I asked you if that same person won their World title clean, you ignored it even though that is what the person in question claims. How does a guy go from 4th in the Olympics to becoming World Pro Pursuit Champion the following year doing it clean. I don't doubt Colin, just pointing out your hypocrisy on the matter.

The only real questions are around LeMond after his shooting and whether the big swings in form were down to doping or health issues. Everybody asks how did he improve so quickly but nobody asks why did his form dissappear so quickly as well. If he was doping there has to be another reason for form vanishing like that, but there is no desire to address that, because people like you would have to admit it might have been his health as opposed to doping and that is unfathomable to some people.

Basically it boils down to the same old number, he doped because he just had to have doped.

 

[sniper]

Re: LeMond

...
I wish there were studies...but there's not....so in the absence of such I shall make it up based on observation and anecdote..

Lemond was at the junction of champions winning GTs (irrespective of PED use) vs donkeys winning GTs. Donkeys could become champions by either going full ret*rd or by ensuring governing body buy-in or both.

EPO (and HGH to a degree) brought about this change and once the genie is out the bottle...........

So whilst 'all GT winners may have taken PEDS' may be true...the implications on the rider are different...

I would not equate a post-epo GT winner with a pre-epo winner

Lemond won before and so he gets a pass from me until compelling evidence suggests otherwise..

for all intents and purposes, people were on epo when Greg won in 89 and 90.
American athletes were rumored to be on epo during the 88 games in seoul.

Or take Draaijer, he was on EPO not because it didn't work. By the time he died (February 1990), we may logically assume that the drug had already proven itself to be a miracle drug among the elite.

 

[gillan1969]

Re: LeMond

...
I wish there were studies...but there's not....so in the absence of such I shall make it up based on observation and anecdote..

Lemond was at the junction of champions winning GTs (irrespective of PED use) vs donkeys winning GTs. Donkeys could become champions by either going full ret*rd or by ensuring governing body buy-in or both.

EPO (and HGH to a degree) brought about this change and once the genie is out the bottle...........

So whilst 'all GT winners may have taken PEDS' may be true...the implications on the rider are different...

I would not equate a post-epo GT winner with a pre-epo winner

Lemond won before and so he gets a pass from me until compelling evidence suggests otherwise..

for all intents and purposes, people were on epo when Greg won in 89 and 90.
American athletes were rumored to be on epo during the 88 games in seoul.

Or take Draaijer, he was on EPO not because it didn't work. By the time he died (February 1990), we may logically assume that the drug had already proven itself to be a miracle drug among the elite.

sniper

no we may not...the performances didn't change until 91 (little),92 (more) and then famously 93

 

[GJB123]

Re: LeMond

so in summary...we are now speculating on if the sort of character lemond is (or is assumed to be) might mean he might have doped...

it's a slam dunk

Well, in all fairness, the whole basis for LeMond having not doped, according to him, is that he didn't need it, and that his high ethical standards precluded it. If it can be shown, then, that his ethical standards are not, after all, all that high, much of the basis for believing he didn't dope is undermined.

exactemundo.
and thanks for the bold face, because that (at least for me, and I think for some others), has always been the central underlying question: why does Lemond get the benefit of the doubt when so many others (for whom there is similarly little, or even less, evidence) do not. (Evans, Cancellara, Wiggins, Sastre, Yates, Sutton, you name them)

This is pretty simple, yet still overlooked in this thread on a daily basis:
All things equal (so disregarding all context and evidence with particular regard to Lemond), the null hypothesis, based on the history of cycling, should be that Lemond, like all those before and after him, doped to win the tdf. Like in other branches of science and reasonable debate, the null hypothesis determines where the burden of proof/evidence lies.

And so it's fair to say that Gillian (and others) are turning the tables when they ridiculize the evidence of Lemond doping, forgetting that the burden of proof, at least from a common sense cycling-historical perspective (which prevails in all Clinic threads except the Lemond thread), really lies with them, i.e. with those who claim Lemond was clean (as that hypothesis goes against the null hypothesis).

So why would Lemond be the one exception? The miracle athlete?
Now, I won't deny that there is some evidence to that extent (just as there is evidence to the contrary).
But the last few pages have gotten pretty funny, imo, with people clinging on to three unconfirmed rumors of rumors:
1. Lance allegedly searched hard for evidence on Lemond doping
2. Lance allegedly offered bribes to people to go on the record
3. Lance allegedly didn't find any evidence of Lemond doping nor anybody willing to go on the record.
And with "clinging on to" I mean "present them as fact", and subsequently as "proof" (cf. e.g. Gjb123: "do the math") that Lemond is clean.

For the record, I'm not discarding any of these unconfirmed rumors of rumors.
I'm merely pointing out the irony that those who cling on to them are the same who previously downplayed or even denied the mere existence of the rumor that Lemond used EPO, even though that rumor has been much more publicized and widespread.

(disclaimer for the likes of gjb123, red flanders, pcmg76 and race radio: no, the fact that the rumor existed doesn't make the rumor a fact. Iow, the existence of the rumor is fact, the truth of the rumor is unproven )

You know full well that it is inherently impossible to proof that someone didn't dope. Therefore by stating the "null hypothesis" must be that LeMond doped to win the TdF you are basically turning all of us into benotti. That simply makes all discussion null and void and we can al go on our merry way stating left, right and centre that all cyclists dope because we cannot proof that they don't dope.

That is proof by contradiction (or for your as a Dutch "een biers uit het ongerijmde") and that ia always a scientific fallacy.

 

[sniper]

Re: LeMond

...
Basically it boils down to the same old number, he doped because he just had to have doped.

well, again, this is merely what i would call the logical, common sense null hypothesis.
the burden of proof is with those who challenge the null hypothesis.
and so, again, there is irony in seeing challengers of the null hypothesis cling on to rumors of rumors of rumors, whilst ignoring or downplaying more widely publicized rumors in support of said hypothesis.

 

[kwikki]

Re: LeMond

...
The downfall of your argument lies in your own words.

Your argument is that we know all Tour winners before Lemond doped. Therefore we have to assume Lemond doped.

But if we know previous winners doped, why is it that we don't know Lemond doped?

(For the record, I think post Lemond and into the EPO era, I would accept your hypothesis)

I answered this already but you keep ignoring it:
we know as much (or even more) about lemond doping than we do about Wiggins doping, about Sastre doping, about Evans doping, about Indurain doping (well, debatable), about Cancellara (motor)doping, about Jens Voigt doping, and about Messi or Ronaldo or Roger Federer or Rapha Nadal doping.

Fact is that people believe in Santaclaus, but you'll agree that that fact alone doesnt suffice to prove he exists.

It's interesting that all the examples you give are riders from the EPO era. It's pretty clear that given the enormous benefits of EPO it is unlikely that a non- user could be competitive. Prior to this things are less clear given that the performance benefits of dope were an order of magnitude lower and many of them had undesirable side-effects.

It is also less clear which riders used them. So if we cannot say for sure that all pre-Lemond tour winners used drugs we cannot point to Lemond as an anomaly.

This is not about 'believing' in Lemond. It's just about discounting poorly argued propositions.

 

[pmcg76]

Re: LeMond

...
I wish there were studies...but there's not....so in the absence of such I shall make it up based on observation and anecdote..

Lemond was at the junction of champions winning GTs (irrespective of PED use) vs donkeys winning GTs. Donkeys could become champions by either going full ret*rd or by ensuring governing body buy-in or both.

EPO (and HGH to a degree) brought about this change and once the genie is out the bottle...........

So whilst 'all GT winners may have taken PEDS' may be true...the implications on the rider are different...

I would not equate a post-epo GT winner with a pre-epo winner

Lemond won before and so he gets a pass from me until compelling evidence suggests otherwise..

for all intents and purposes, people were on epo when Greg won in 89 and 90.
American athletes were rumored to be on epo during the 88 games in seoul.

Or take Draaijer, he was on EPO not because it didn't work. By the time he died (February 1990), we may logically assume that the drug had already proven itself to be a miracle drug among the elite.

Really, there might have been the odd person on EPO at that time and it is very obvious who they were as they came from well down the field. Other than maybe Rooks and Theunisse in 88, there is no amazing performance jumps from Dutch and Belgian cyclists at that time so if people were trying EPO, it was not being utilized correctly perhaps resulting in some of those unfortunate deaths. Can you point to athletes who made jumps that would be consistent with the jumps of Bugno, Chiappucci, Indurain etc in the early 90s.

 

[sniper]

Re: LeMond

...
sniper

no we may not...the performances didn't change until 91 (little),92 (more) and then famously 93

indeed.
and we know for a fact that draaijer was on epo, and many others were, pre-1991.
which undermines your attempt to equate pre-1991 with pre-epo.

 

[pmcg76]

Re: LeMond

...
Basically it boils down to the same old number, he doped because he just had to have doped.

well, again, this is merely what i would call the logical, common sense null hypothesis.
the burden of proof is with those who challenge the null hypothesis.
and so, again, there is irony in seeing challengers of the null hypothesis cling on to rumors of rumors of rumors, whilst ignoring or downplaying more widely publicized rumors in support of said hypothesis.

Clinging on to rumours of rumours? What rumours are we clinging onto? If someone states on record something, it is not a rumour. It might be a lie but it is no longer a rumour.

 

[GJB123]

Re: LeMond

...
Basically it boils down to the same old number, he doped because he just had to have doped.

well, again, this is merely what i would call the logical, common sense null hypothesis.
the burden of proof is with those who challenge the null hypothesis.
and so, again, there is irony in seeing challengers of the null hypothesis cling on to rumors of rumors of rumors, whilst ignoring or downplaying more widely publicized rumors in support of said hypothesis.

The fact that you think this a good working hypothesis doe snot mean it actually is. You keep looking at the 80's through post-EPO glasses and that taints your perspective no end. Now in itself this logic given that you haven't actually lived and seen the 80's cycling, but that doesn't make your hypothesis more correct. In fact your hypothesis is intrinsically flawed as I have explained already.

 

[gillan1969]

Re: LeMond

...
sniper

no we may not...the performances didn't change until 91 (little),92 (more) and then famously 93

indeed.
and we know for a fact that draaijer was on epo, and many others were, pre-1991.
which undermines your attempt to equate pre-1991 with pre-epo.

no...you asserted that it was "proven to be a miracle drug amongst the elite"

and as I can remember watching the races and reading about the races at the time (as opposed to looking at wikipedia - i think first hand recollection is important here) I know that there were no massive peaks in performance

I know when these were and they were as the dates given.

What proof do you have of it causing miracles in elite pro-cycling pre 91?

 

[GJB123]

Re: LeMond

...
sniper

no we may not...the performances didn't change until 91 (little),92 (more) and then famously 93

indeed.
and we know for a fact that draaijer was on epo, and many others were, pre-1991.
which undermines your attempt to equate pre-1991 with pre-epo.

no...you asserted that it was "proven to be a miracle drug amongst the elite"

and as I can remember watching the races and reading about the races at the time (as opposed to looking at wikipedia - i think first hand recollection is important here) I know that there were no massive peaks in performance

I know when these were and they were as the dates given.

What proof do you have of it causing miracles in elite pro-cycling pre 91?

I agree. The most blatant early signs were guys like Bugno and Chiapucci becoming GT-contenders out of nowhere. I wouldn't even cite Rooks as Rooks had already proven at a young age to be a pretty gifted rider at least at one day events/monuments. The sea change witnessed post-91 also meant that Rooks didn't figure significantly anymore in GT's, he also became less and less a prominent figure in one day events/monuments.

And mind you, Rooks was definitely on the normal, regular gear in the 80's, there is no doubt about that.

 

[sniper]

Re: LeMond

...
sniper

no we may not...the performances didn't change until 91 (little),92 (more) and then famously 93

indeed.
and we know for a fact that draaijer was on epo, and many others were, pre-1991.
which undermines your attempt to equate pre-1991 with pre-epo.

no...you asserted that it was "proven to be a miracle drug amongst the elite"

and as I can remember watching the races and reading about the races at the time (as opposed to looking at wikipedia - i think first hand recollection is important here) I know that there were no massive peaks in performance

I know when these were and they were as the dates given.

What proof do you have of it causing miracles in elite pro-cycling pre 91?

point taken.
fact remains, there is no evidence for, and some evidence against, the claim that [pre-1991 = pre-epo], which is what matters most i think.

 

[GJB123]

Re: LeMond

...
sniper

no we may not...the performances didn't change until 91 (little),92 (more) and then famously 93

indeed.
and we know for a fact that draaijer was on epo, and many others were, pre-1991.
which undermines your attempt to equate pre-1991 with pre-epo.

no...you asserted that it was "proven to be a miracle drug amongst the elite"

and as I can remember watching the races and reading about the races at the time (as opposed to looking at wikipedia - i think first hand recollection is important here) I know that there were no massive peaks in performance

I know when these were and they were as the dates given.

What proof do you have of it causing miracles in elite pro-cycling pre 91?

point taken.
fact remains, there is no evidence for, and some evidence against, the claim that [pre-1991 = pre-epo], which is what matters most i think.

Having watched cycling in these days how can you say there is no evidence for the claim that pre-1991 is pre-EPO? It is not like we are saying nobody was or could have been on EPO before '91, just that EPO-use was not endemic and therefore by default sporadic in the peloton (there was ome talk of some miracle drugs) and that perhaps people hadn't mastered EPO-use yet to the extent that the did post-'91 when we had for example the infamous Gewiss-train at La Flèche Wallon (in 1993 I think).

 

[sniper]

Re: LeMond

...

Having watched cycling in these days how can you say there is no evidence for the claim that pre-1991 is pre-EPO? It is not like we are saying nobody was or could have been on EPO before '91, just that EPO-use was not endemic and therefore by default sporadic in the peloton (there was ome talk of some miracle drugs) and that perhaps people hadn't mastered EPO-use yet to the extent that the did post-'91 when we had for example the infamous Gewiss-train at La Flèche Wallon (in 1993 I think).

agreed.
And so the point is, epo was used pre-1991 by riders who didn't show massive improvement in form.
And so Lemond may have been one of those early users, regardless of whether one explains his 1989 and 1990 season as "massive improvement in form" or not (which remains an unresolved point of debate).

Either way, wrt the early use of epo, there is a lot that doesn't really make sense.
for instance, Rooks claims he started using epo only in (or even after?) 1989.
yet he had his best TdF result in 1988.
double yet: he also says in his book that EPO was "necessary to perform".
How did he come to that conclusion if his 1988 TdF was better than his 1989/90 tdf?

Just saying: so many questions left. Let's stick to the facts at hand which is that epo was in use in the peloton pre-1991, and Lemond was dangerously close to the action, riding for/with PDM and for ADR/Vanmol, even getting injections from the latter.
other fact is that lemond's very place of origin places him very close to the place were epo was first distributed/tested/used. But that's so obvious i shouldn't even be mentioning it.

 

[sniper]

Re: LeMond

Other than maybe Rooks and Theunisse in 88,

i have no idea, but would love to know: do you think they were on epo already in 1988?
to my knowledge, Rooks admitted to using epo only after 1989.

there is no amazing performance jumps from Dutch and Belgian cyclists at that time so if people were trying EPO, it was not being utilized correctly perhaps resulting in some of those unfortunate deaths.

could this have been a matter of ressources (or lack thereof)?

 

[thehog]

Re: LeMond

summary

Well, in all fairness, the whole basis for LeMond having not doped, according to him, is that he didn't need it, and that his high ethical standards precluded it. If it can be shown, then, that his ethical standards are not, after all, all that high, much of the basis for believing he didn't dope is undermined.

fair comment.......

yet? lemond making poor choice acting in questionable fashion on odd occasion does

not show him to be completelyunethical....so where there is little evidence to show

that lemond doped here his word is good

Mark L

LeMond's unethical conduct at the Landis hearing certainly demonstrated that he wasn't for the antidoping movement.

 

[sniper]

worth looking again at this article:
http://www.spiegel.de/spiegel/print/d-13488551.html
Notably, it's from 10 June 1991.

- EPO is called a miracle drug by doctors and coaches. So yes, it had already proven itself to be just that in the years prior to the 10th of June 1991.
- Says the ""clinical trial stage" of epo started in the US in 1986. The drug had been developed in the early 80s.
- Says it helps increase the red blood cell count "within hours"
- Says it's officially only prescribed to people with damage to both kidneys (indeed, like Lemond in 87 after the shooting incident)
- links the deaths of several cyclists to EPO abuse, but also notes that the drug is "not dangerous when applied appropriately"
- a doctor is on the record claiming cycling is ahead of other sports in terms of epo.
- "Karriere macht die Droge derzeit vor allem in Westeuropa und in den USA." (transl: the drug is currently particularly prevalent in West Europe and USA), i.e. prevalent among countries that have the ressources to afford it.