LeMond III

[kwikki]

Re: Re:

So.......sorry. Where was the enormous (reputed to be 15-25%) leap in Lemond's performance when he started taking EPO, sniper??

I was watching really hard at the time but I must have missed it.

addressed two posts previously.

The only way your hypothesis works is if Lemond's hunting accident knocked his performance down hugely, he then started taking EPO which brought him up to a level still slightly lower than he was before.

But, despite having further time to heal the EPO stopped working in the early 90s and actually made him worse.

Whichever way you look at it no sense can be made. I'm not surprised because you are coming at this whole issue the wrong way round. You have decided to argue the case that Lemond doped, and after having made that decision you have desperately scrambled about looking for things to make a case. But because there isn't anything concrete you are resorting to using a hypothesis as evidence. It's no wonder your case is so inconsistent.

Who knows, maybe Lemond used epo, maybe he didn't, but if he did you've got to wonder why because it sure as hell isn't reflected in his performance.

we dont have to agree here, but addressed it all has been.

You may have addressed it, but not at all in a way that is anywhere near satisfactory, I'm afraid.

No strawman either, just a consideration of what 'normal' epo use tends to look like vs what Lemond looked like.

I'd like to know what you think Lemond's reasons for taking EPO might have been, and whether you think he might have been disappointed with the outcome.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Re: Re:

The straw man works both ways. You know cycling has been dirty since when? Ok then how do we get to the only bleached sheet? No way no how not in this world of cycling. Same goes for USTF I have been there and lived it. I know what is going on and it was near about the same time as Greg ....and to say anyone was playing with a clean sheet is just plain pissing in the wind ---in my opinion.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

I get it .....everyone is bitter because the prom date gave it up to everyone. But you guys banging on the Greg is clean gang is like looking for the magical lucky charm.

 

[sniper]

Re: Re:

Indurian was months away from retiral at the Tour 96...that may have had something to do with it

agreed.
whatever the reasons, "clean" wasnt one of them.

 

[sniper]

Re: Re:

The straw man works both ways. You know cycling has been dirty since when? Ok then how do we get to the only bleached sheet? No way no how not in this world of cycling. Same goes for USTF I have been there and lived it. I know what is going on and it was near about the same time as Greg ....and to say anyone was playing with a clean sheet is just plain pissing in the wind ---in my opinion.

well said. have to agree.

 

[GJB123]

Re: Re:

The straw man works both ways. You know cycling has been dirty since when? Ok then how do we get to the only bleached sheet? No way no how not in this world of cycling. Same goes for USTF I have been there and lived it. I know what is going on and it was near about the same time as Greg ....and to say anyone was playing with a clean sheet is just plain pissing in the wind ---in my opinion.

I have stated before that I cannot be sure LeMond was clean. All you can go by is the evidence (and I use that term loosely) provided and make up your own mind. For me when everything is weighed it falls on the side of clean more likely than not. If someone wants to hold a different believe, that's fine with me.

However I do feel I have as much right as anybody who wants to present arguments that LeMond must or most likely will have doped to call those arguments horse menure when they actually are (the chord kidney disease to argue the early EPO-connection for example).

 

[djpbaltimore]

The arguments are also often lacking internal consistency. At certain times, we are asked to believe that LeMond was so secretive about his doping that he kept it within his immediate family and in-laws. Other times, that his doping was such an open secret that random tri coaches and Hampsten's doctor/ trainer could speak informally about it. It all seems to be an attempt to pile up enough little hills to make the end result seem like Mt. Everest. YMMV, but each person can weigh the evidence for themselves. But without doubt, I agree with what was posted earlier that LeMond is definitely not being given a free pass.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

OK then all is fine with cycling in Greg's days

 

[blutto]

Re:

...
i think the problem is he straddled the epo revolution with no change in performance levels......in fact he got worse...hardly what you would expect from someone at the heart of the revolution...

let's put this argument to bed, because it's way past its bedtime.

Problem? For you maybe. Certainly not for the hypothesis that Lemond used EPO.

Indurain: who knows what made him go backwards in 1996. Does the fact that you don't know pose any 'problem' to the hypothesis that he doped? Of course not.
Now, I could rest my case here, but I'll give some other examples:
Planckaert: a leg problem took him out of contention, just ask pcmg76. Certainly had little to do with PLanckaert being clean.
All the PDM'ers, where did they go in the early 90s? Again, cleanliness or a lack of EPO supplies had zilch to do with the issue. Health issues, more likely. In the case of Draaijer, 'health issue' is quite the understatement.
Or take Lance 2009 and especially Lance 2010, again, who knows why he declined.
You don't. I don't. Oprah don't.
And nota bene: rumor has it that in 2009 Lance was at the very heart of what some would call a revolution, allegedly being one of the very first users of aicar. Still couldnt keep up.
What happened to Riis?
Jan Ulrich?
Boris Becker?
Tyger Woods?
Just saying: there is always stuff we don't know or have trouble fully understanding, yet in most cases (such as the above mentioned cases) this has no bearing whatsoever on the question of whether these riders doped yes or no.

Furthermore, you fail to acknowledge what most observers - except perhaps Wilcockson, Hampsten and Lemond - have acknowledged long ago, namely that EPO was already in use in the peloton in 88 if not 87. Now, Lemond didn't exactly suck in 89 or in 90, did he, nor was he that far behind in 91. And Hampsten, winning Romandy in 1992 and 4th in the TdF, with Max Testa doing his 'nutrition'. Clean? Gimme a break.


Now, as for why Lemond may have fallen behind, sure, one option is that he was clean.
But the point is: that's not even close to being the only option.
First, there was the hunting accident. You really want to trivialize the impact that shooting had on his performances and recovery? His lungs and kidney(s) got damaged. Yikes. He himself surely didn't trivialize the impact when he claimed that he'd have beaten Fignon by multiple minutes in 1989 if it hadn't been for the shooting. Even if he doped like it was 1999, what he pulled off after the shooting constitutes a small mircale.

And what to make of Max Testa, Hampsten's carreer-long coach and doc, who said Lemond had simply taken too much drugs. Far fetched? Not really. A top cycling&triathlon coach referenced by Nick777 said that at some point Lemond's blood was so thick his life was in danger.

Related: there was his mitochondria myopathy, which he himself has said put a fatal blow to his carreer.
Ow, and interestingly, albeit in the realm of speculation, his mitochondria myopathy was in some circles rumored to have been triggered by excessive steroid use. Far fetched? Again, hardly. Eddie B. we know for fact was drugging Polish and US juniors with hormones, amphetamines and blood transfusions. Steroids would not have been out of the question for Eddie. Lemond was, what, 14, 15, when Eddie took hi under his wings. 13 years later we arrive in 1991; that's plenty of time for drugs to have accumulative effect on his body.
None of that is proven, but it goes to show that there are so many possible factors that may have played a role in explaining Lemond's decline from 91 onwards.

So, no Lemond declining in 1991 doesn't pose any kind of obstacle to the hypothesis that may have used EPO.
In the end there are 'problems' (i.e. unknown elements/factors) in nearly every doping scheme. But hardly ever do these problems pose a threat to the very reality of that doping scheme.
We, Joe Public, don't have access to all the answers. Seldom does that mean that there is no doping.

...a couple of things....to the first bolded high levels of iron are a known contributing factor to developing mitochondrial myopathy ( and note there are not many reasons to dump large amounts of iron into the body...I'm sure we can all think of one reason...and further note one can deal with anemia with less that large doses which would be obvious to the attending medical people, to do otherwise is bordering on incompetant.. )....to the second bolded, add Otto's name to people who suddenly appeared in LeMond's life ( and he is real handy at either detecting low iron levels from across a parking lot or coming up with excuses for iron shots...take your pick..)

Cheers

 

[ScienceIsCool]

Re: Re:

...
i think the problem is he straddled the epo revolution with no change in performance levels......in fact he got worse...hardly what you would expect from someone at the heart of the revolution...

let's put this argument to bed, because it's way past its bedtime.

Problem? For you maybe. Certainly not for the hypothesis that Lemond used EPO.

Indurain: who knows what made him go backwards in 1996. Does the fact that you don't know pose any 'problem' to the hypothesis that he doped? Of course not.
Now, I could rest my case here, but I'll give some other examples:
Planckaert: a leg problem took him out of contention, just ask pcmg76. Certainly had little to do with PLanckaert being clean.
All the PDM'ers, where did they go in the early 90s? Again, cleanliness or a lack of EPO supplies had zilch to do with the issue. Health issues, more likely. In the case of Draaijer, 'health issue' is quite the understatement.
Or take Lance 2009 and especially Lance 2010, again, who knows why he declined.
You don't. I don't. Oprah don't.
And nota bene: rumor has it that in 2009 Lance was at the very heart of what some would call a revolution, allegedly being one of the very first users of aicar. Still couldnt keep up.
What happened to Riis?
Jan Ulrich?
Boris Becker?
Tyger Woods?
Just saying: there is always stuff we don't know or have trouble fully understanding, yet in most cases (such as the above mentioned cases) this has no bearing whatsoever on the question of whether these riders doped yes or no.

Furthermore, you fail to acknowledge what most observers - except perhaps Wilcockson, Hampsten and Lemond - have acknowledged long ago, namely that EPO was already in use in the peloton in 88 if not 87. Now, Lemond didn't exactly suck in 89 or in 90, did he, nor was he that far behind in 91. And Hampsten, winning Romandy in 1992 and 4th in the TdF, with Max Testa doing his 'nutrition'. Clean? Gimme a break.


Now, as for why Lemond may have fallen behind, sure, one option is that he was clean.
But the point is: that's not even close to being the only option.
First, there was the hunting accident. You really want to trivialize the impact that shooting had on his performances and recovery? His lungs and kidney(s) got damaged. Yikes. He himself surely didn't trivialize the impact when he claimed that he'd have beaten Fignon by multiple minutes in 1989 if it hadn't been for the shooting. Even if he doped like it was 1999, what he pulled off after the shooting constitutes a small mircale.

And what to make of Max Testa, Hampsten's carreer-long coach and doc, who said Lemond had simply taken too much drugs. Far fetched? Not really. A top cycling&triathlon coach referenced by Nick777 said that at some point Lemond's blood was so thick his life was in danger.

Related: there was his mitochondria myopathy, which he himself has said put a fatal blow to his carreer.
Ow, and interestingly, albeit in the realm of speculation, his mitochondria myopathy was in some circles rumored to have been triggered by excessive steroid use. Far fetched? Again, hardly. Eddie B. we know for fact was drugging Polish and US juniors with hormones, amphetamines and blood transfusions. Steroids would not have been out of the question for Eddie. Lemond was, what, 14, 15, when Eddie took hi under his wings. 13 years later we arrive in 1991; that's plenty of time for drugs to have accumulative effect on his body.
None of that is proven, but it goes to show that there are so many possible factors that may have played a role in explaining Lemond's decline from 91 onwards.

So, no Lemond declining in 1991 doesn't pose any kind of obstacle to the hypothesis that may have used EPO.
In the end there are 'problems' (i.e. unknown elements/factors) in nearly every doping scheme. But hardly ever do these problems pose a threat to the very reality of that doping scheme.
We, Joe Public, don't have access to all the answers. Seldom does that mean that there is no doping.

...a couple of things....to the first bolded high levels of iron are a known contributing factor to developing mitochondrial myopathy ( and note there are not many reasons to dump large amounts of iron into the body...I'm sure we can all think of one reason...and further note one can deal with anemia with less that large doses which would be obvious to the attending medical people, to do otherwise is bordering on incompetant.. )....to the second bolded, add Otto's name to people who suddenly appeared in LeMond's life ( and he is real handy at either detecting low iron levels from across a parking lot or coming up with excuses for iron shots...take your pick..)

Cheers

Except that mitochondrial myopathy is a genetic disorder. You could eat nails and it would never result in mitochondrial myopathy. https://www.mda.org/disease/mitochondrial-myopathies

John Swanson

 

[kwikki]

Re:

I get it .....everyone is bitter because the prom date gave it up to everyone. But you guys banging on the Greg is clean gang is like looking for the magical lucky charm.

Now that is a strawman. Nobody is saying Greg was clean.

We are just not at all satisfied with the arguments put forward by sniper.

 

[86TDFWinner]

Re:

Not only that, but Trek became the must have race bike post 1999. Imagine the money Trek must have paid Armstrong in return for the money he made for them.

Money money money money....

Yes he made them money...but Treks have been s;:% for years. I was given a free Trek once, I told them they could keep it

 

[@NL_LeMondFans]

Since it's widely popular, here :

http://www.connectthedots101.com/search/bicycle

Have fun !

 

[sniper]

Re: Re:

...
Let's say you got this one right (I don't think so, but let's continue) and Greg only has one kidney. Living with one kidney: https://www.kidney.org/atoz/content/onekidney <--- Save your time. There's almost zero effect.

It's not about me getting this right, it's about Lemond getting it right.
To repeat, I'm not claiming anything wrt the state of his kidneys.
I have merely pointed out to you the pieces of info one can gather from the literature on Lemond (articles, interviews, books), which are:

1. he had one kidney (not sure as of when)
2. he had chronic kidney infections (as a kid, not sure if also as adult)
3. his kidney(s) got damaged during the shooting

Whether or not parts of that are made up or falsely represented in the media, that's anybody's guess. But let's assume they are true. Also, let's ignore #2, since you and djpbaltimore seem to think that what he meant was 'bladder infections', which is fair enough.
So that leaves #1 and #3.
Now, it doesn't take a brain surgeon to figure out that if you have only one kidney (#1), then you're in trouble if the remaining kidney gets damaged during the shooting (#3).

So while you are right that living with 1 kidney doesn't necessarily pose any kind of health risk (which, indeed, i never argued to be the case), things obviously change when that one kidney gets damaged, be it by chronic infections or, more evidently, by pellets.

 

[Irondan]

It's starting to get a little too personal in the posts that I deleted.

Please keep all posts impersonal and within forum rules.

 

[aphronesis]

I'm confused. I thought we were getting somewhere: Greg is dumb as wood, but invests to 40% returns. Then pulls out when cycling, his name and drugs are on the collective rise. Is that right?

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Re:

I'm confused. I thought we were getting somewhere: Greg is dumb as wood, but invests to 40% returns. Then pulls out when cycling, his name and drugs are on the collective rise. Is that right?

Confused also. Anyhow can you imagine what sort of knots you would have to twist yourself into to decide a Pro Cyclist is clean?

 

[aphronesis]

Weird huh.

 

[ScienceIsCool]

Re: Re:

...
Let's say you got this one right (I don't think so, but let's continue) and Greg only has one kidney. Living with one kidney: https://www.kidney.org/atoz/content/onekidney <--- Save your time. There's almost zero effect.

It's not about me getting this right, it's about Lemond getting it right.
To repeat, I'm not claiming anything wrt the state of his kidneys.
I have merely pointed out to you the pieces of info one can gather from the literature on Lemond (articles, interviews, books), which are:

1. he had one kidney (not sure as of when)
2. he had chronic kidney infections (as a kid, not sure if also as adult)
3. his kidney(s) got damaged during the shooting

Whether or not parts of that are made up or falsely represented in the media, that's anybody's guess. But let's assume they are true. Also, let's ignore #2, since you and djpbaltimore seem to think that what he meant was 'bladder infections', which is fair enough.
So that leaves #1 and #3.
Now, it doesn't take a brain surgeon to figure out that if you have only one kidney (#1), then you're in trouble if the remaining kidney gets damaged during the shooting (#3).

So while you are right that living with 1 kidney doesn't necessarily pose any kind of health risk (which, indeed, i never argued to be the case), things obviously change when that one kidney gets damaged, be it by chronic infections or, more evidently, by pellets.

Then what in the world is your point? Like a broken collarbone, a bruised or lacerated kidney will heal. So by all measures he was healthy (except for the mitochondrial myopathy - a genetic disorder). What in the *world* does any of this have to do with doping?

John Swanson

 

[DamianoMachiavelli]

Re: Re:

Then what in the world is your point? Like a broken collarbone, a bruised or lacerated kidney will heal. So by all measures he was healthy (except for the mitochondrial myopathy - a genetic disorder). What in the *world* does any of this have to do with doping?

One week it is mitochondrial myopathy. The next week it lead poisoning. The week after that it is EPO use by other riders. LeMond usually skips the week where the reason is too much biscuits and gravy consumed during the off-season. Can't LeMond find one excuse and stick to it?

The dude presently claims his obesity is due to one of his usual excuses that prevents him from exercising. It is a mystery how it also prevents him from pushing away from the table.

 

[@NL_LeMondFans]

Re: Re:

Then what in the world is your point? Like a broken collarbone, a bruised or lacerated kidney will heal. So by all measures he was healthy (except for the mitochondrial myopathy - a genetic disorder). What in the *world* does any of this have to do with doping?

One week it is mitochondrial myopathy. The next week it lead poisoning. The week after that it is EPO use by other riders. LeMond usually skips the week where the reason is too much biscuits and gravy consumed during the off-season. Can't LeMond find one excuse and stick to it?

The dude presently claims his obesity is due to one of his usual excuses that prevents him from exercising. It is a mystery how it also prevents him from pushing away from the table.

You should ride with Greg. You'd see where his "obesity" can take you. I hope you're fit.

There are multiple factors to Greg's last few years as a pro. There's no simple explanation, a combination of multiple factors. Life is subtle, not binary, you know ?

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Re: Re:

Then what in the world is your point? Like a broken collarbone, a bruised or lacerated kidney will heal. So by all measures he was healthy (except for the mitochondrial myopathy - a genetic disorder). What in the *world* does any of this have to do with doping?

One week it is mitochondrial myopathy. The next week it lead poisoning. The week after that it is EPO use by other riders. LeMond usually skips the week where the reason is too much biscuits and gravy consumed during the off-season. Can't LeMond find one excuse and stick to it?

The dude presently claims his obesity is due to one of his usual excuses that prevents him from exercising. It is a mystery how it also prevents him from pushing away from the table.

His weight issues might also be from him drinking to much alcohol.

 

[ScienceIsCool]

Re: Re:

Then what in the world is your point? Like a broken collarbone, a bruised or lacerated kidney will heal. So by all measures he was healthy (except for the mitochondrial myopathy - a genetic disorder). What in the *world* does any of this have to do with doping?

One week it is mitochondrial myopathy. The next week it lead poisoning. The week after that it is EPO use by other riders. LeMond usually skips the week where the reason is too much biscuits and gravy consumed during the off-season. Can't LeMond find one excuse and stick to it?

The dude presently claims his obesity is due to one of his usual excuses that prevents him from exercising. It is a mystery how it also prevents him from pushing away from the table.

Why can't it be all of them?

John Swanson

 

[@NL_LeMondFans]

Re: Re:

...
Let's say you got this one right (I don't think so, but let's continue) and Greg only has one kidney. Living with one kidney: https://www.kidney.org/atoz/content/onekidney <--- Save your time. There's almost zero effect.

It's not about me getting this right, it's about Lemond getting it right.
To repeat, I'm not claiming anything wrt the state of his kidneys.
I have merely pointed out to you the pieces of info one can gather from the literature on Lemond (articles, interviews, books), which are:

1. he had one kidney (not sure as of when)
2. he had chronic kidney infections (as a kid, not sure if also as adult)
3. his kidney(s) got damaged during the shooting

Whether or not parts of that are made up or falsely represented in the media, that's anybody's guess. But let's assume they are true. Also, let's ignore #2, since you and djpbaltimore seem to think that what he meant was 'bladder infections', which is fair enough.
So that leaves #1 and #3.
Now, it doesn't take a brain surgeon to figure out that if you have only one kidney (#1), then you're in trouble if the remaining kidney gets damaged during the shooting (#3).

So while you are right that living with 1 kidney doesn't necessarily pose any kind of health risk (which, indeed, i never argued to be the case), things obviously change when that one kidney gets damaged, be it by chronic infections or, more evidently, by pellets.

We're getting to the core problem of your investigation, Sniper.

You "connect dots" and you get excited every time a dot connects. You don't care to verify your sources, cross exam or actually meet people. You just connect dots.

Magazines and newspaper are a good example. Online articles too. For example, have you read the article about Greg that appeared this week on Cyclingnews ?

http://www.cyclingnews.com/features/greg-lemond-we-could-find-another-rider-like-me-if-we-tapped-into-our-potential/

Do you think every piece of information on it is 100% accurate ? Can you read it again in 20 or 30 years and take it as granted ?

Well, you shouldn't. The article says Greg has 2 grandkids. He doesn't. He has just 1. Does it matter ? Not really, the point is that Greg is at a birthday party. 2 kidneys or just 1 ? It doesn't really matter. Greg had a kidney condition at one point.

The importance you give to random details is sloppy work, I'm sorry. If you want to pursue and get to something concrete, you'll have to get your hands dirty and really dig : meet people, call them on the phone, etc... (see my previous post 2 pages ago, I think).

 

[@NL_LeMondFans]

Re: Re:

Then what in the world is your point? Like a broken collarbone, a bruised or lacerated kidney will heal. So by all measures he was healthy (except for the mitochondrial myopathy - a genetic disorder). What in the *world* does any of this have to do with doping?

One week it is mitochondrial myopathy. The next week it lead poisoning. The week after that it is EPO use by other riders. LeMond usually skips the week where the reason is too much biscuits and gravy consumed during the off-season. Can't LeMond find one excuse and stick to it?

The dude presently claims his obesity is due to one of his usual excuses that prevents him from exercising. It is a mystery how it also prevents him from pushing away from the table.

His weight issues might also be from him drinking to much alcohol.

Or a medical condition. Or aliens from space. Your comment is way out of line and out of topic.