LeMond III

[DamianoMachiavelli]

Re: Re:

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.

No problem. I'll bring along a couple of Egg and Sausage McMuffins, chuck them to the side of the road, and then make my break when Greg stops to eat them.

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 ?

I like the carefully cultured explanation that has doping suddenly springing up out of nowhere to strike the White Knight down in his prime despite doping being rampant at the team's Greg raced on and his prime being in the rear view mirror with his chubby foot firmly planted on the accelerator pedal.

 

[Spawn of e]

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.

I agree NLGL fan. I drink alot of alcohol and I'm not fat.

 

[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.

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

I agree NLGL fan. I drink alot of alcohol and I'm not fat.

Well I don't know about that. I started drinking more and quit running and gained weight. Probably one or both of those things have contributed to my weight gain.

With respect to my comments about Greg might be drinking to much is not out of line. After all it was Greg who called more than one person while sauced out.

 

[Dr.Guess]

So, when did LeMond first hear about EPO again? Was it 93? Didn't he know what he was investigating in? Honest question by the way.
This thread is like the DaVinci code btw.

 

[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.

Why can't it be all of them?

Because then we'll have a hell of a time deciding which is the sickliest Tour winner in history, LeMond or Froome.

 

[gillan1969]

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?

Because then we'll have a hell of a time deciding which is the sickliest Tour winner in history, LeMond or Froome.

he always had one kidney as a pro...he got shot then got better....and eh...that's it...

that he got slower at the end is without doubt what caused it I am not sure even he knows..

certainly I don't think he onset of epo helped him

 

[sniper]

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?

John Swanson

no big point.
a few posters including you (stybjornberski another) seemed under the impression Lemond had two kidneys.
Iirc you also said his kidneys weren't 'borked'.
And so I just thought i'd point out that according to his own account he had one kidney, and this remaining kidney was damaged by the shooting.
no big point.

 

[sniper]

Re: LeMond

Allow me to set the record straight wrt Draaijer.
As you know i'm never too shy to admit a mistake, but this wasn't one of them. In fact, the only thing I know about Draaijer is that he died in 1990 and that this was allegedly due to EPO.

As for why I brought up Draaijer, well, mainly because I repeatedly saw gillian and some others argue that it is inescapable that Lemond, if on EPO, w/should have improved significantly compared to his pre-shooting performances.
Imo, Draaijer (and Planckaert, the whole of PDM, Boris Becker, and others) nicely put that argument to bed, as his case (and that of the other afore-mentioned athletes) show that going on the EPO program doesn't (or at least didn't in the late 80s/early 90s) necessarily entail a (significant) improvement in performances.

Now, I realize I used Draaijer without further explanation and with a teaspoon of irony, so any misreading of my post was certainly my own fault and I apologize if anybody felt offended by that.

 

[sniper]

@stybjornberski: this was a good post: viewtopic.php?p=1901959#p1901959
I only saw it now, sorry i didn't address it earlier. (not that I have much to add, but still)
Anyway, good post, some very good background.
Can I ask you where you have the info from?

 

[red_flanders]

Re: LeMond

Allow me to set the record straight wrt Draaijer.
As you know i'm never too shy to admit a mistake, but this wasn't one of them. In fact, the only thing I know about Draaijer is that he died in 1990 and that this was allegedly due to EPO.

As for why I brought up Draaijer, well, mainly because I repeatedly saw gillian and some others argue that it is inescapable that Lemond, if on EPO, w/should have improved significantly compared to his pre-shooting performances.
Imo, Draaijer (and Planckaert, the whole of PDM, Boris Becker, and others) nicely put that argument to bed, as his case (and that of the other afore-mentioned athletes) show that going on the EPO program doesn't (or at least didn't in the late 80s/early 90s) necessarily entail a (significant) improvement in performances.

Now, I realize I used Draaijer without further explanation and with a teaspoon of irony, so any misreading of my post was certainly my own fault and I apologize if anybody felt offended by that.

"Inescapable". Did anyone use that term? I'm not going to search the thread, but I certainly wouldn't phrase it that way.

While some rare exceptions may exist, basically you're arguing that a rider not improving isn't evidence that they didn't use EPO. Which is patently a ridiculous argument. There are a whole lot of negatives in that sentence, so I'll try and make it more plain.

The vast majority of riders improved...vastly...while on EPO. If a rider never makes a jump in performance, and never rides at speeds at which known EPO-fueled riders rode, chances are very, very good that they never did EPO. Particularly a rider who was at the top of the sport before EPO ever became a possibility.

Is is proof? No. Is it possible a rider could have done EPO and not improved? Sure. But it's extremely unlikely. No matter what argumentative gymnastic one performs to get there.

That's all. So the fact that he never put in EPO-like performances, is in fact evidence (not proof) that he never used EPO. Now one can ignore the evidence in the face of other evidence one believe to be stronger, but one can't deny that it is in fact evidence in favor of the "never did EPO" argument.

 

[DamianoMachiavelli]

Re: LeMond

"Inescapable". Did anyone use that term? I'm not going to search the thread, but I certainly wouldn't phrase it that way.

While some rare exceptions may exist, basically you're arguing that a rider not improving isn't evidence that they didn't use EPO. Which is patently a ridiculous argument. There are a whole lot of negatives in that sentence, so I'll try and make it more plain.

The vast majority of riders improved...vastly...while on EPO. If a rider never makes a jump in performance, and never rides at speeds at which known EPO-fueled riders rode, chances are very, very good that they never did EPO. Particularly a rider who was at the top of the sport before EPO ever became a possibility.

Is is proof? No. Is it possible a rider could have done EPO and not improved? Sure. But it's extremely unlikely. No matter what argumentative gymnastic one performs to get there.

That's all. So the fact that he never put in EPO-like performances, is in fact evidence (not proof) that he never used EPO. Now one can ignore the evidence in the face of other evidence one believe to be stronger, but one can't deny that it is in fact evidence in favor of the "never did EPO" argument.

You are ignoring a possibility, a likely one considering LeMond's association with Eddie B. and LeMond's team doctor doling out EPO injections in 1998: A rider who was using transfusions before EPO would not see an improvement. He might even spend years seething about something that had been a tool of elites being replaced by a tool available to the common rider, seeing those riders' wins as illegitimate even as he ignores the doping of his generation's elite riders.

 

[red_flanders]

Re: LeMond

"Inescapable". Did anyone use that term? I'm not going to search the thread, but I certainly wouldn't phrase it that way.

While some rare exceptions may exist, basically you're arguing that a rider not improving isn't evidence that they didn't use EPO. Which is patently a ridiculous argument. There are a whole lot of negatives in that sentence, so I'll try and make it more plain.

The vast majority of riders improved...vastly...while on EPO. If a rider never makes a jump in performance, and never rides at speeds at which known EPO-fueled riders rode, chances are very, very good that they never did EPO. Particularly a rider who was at the top of the sport before EPO ever became a possibility.

Is is proof? No. Is it possible a rider could have done EPO and not improved? Sure. But it's extremely unlikely. No matter what argumentative gymnastic one performs to get there.

That's all. So the fact that he never put in EPO-like performances, is in fact evidence (not proof) that he never used EPO. Now one can ignore the evidence in the face of other evidence one believe to be stronger, but one can't deny that it is in fact evidence in favor of the "never did EPO" argument.

You are ignoring a possibility, a likely one considering LeMond's association with Eddie B. and LeMond's team doctor doling out EPO injections in 1998: A rider who was using transfusions before EPO would not see an improvement. He might even spend years seething about something that had been a tool of elites being replaced by a tool available to the common rider, seeing those riders' wins as illegitimate even as he ignores the doping of his generation's elite riders.

I'm not ignoring anything, it's been brought up before and I have given it a great deal of thought. I simply find it absurd to imagine that the entirety of Lemond's career results, in a time when they raced all year long, are due to blood doping. Both in American and in Europe? When there is no evidence for him blood doping other than guilt by association? In particular I find it humorous as Eddy B. made a point to say that Lemond was a rider who never needed to dope, a claim he didn't to my knowledge make about any other rider he coached, from any country. But now we've got him blood doping until...when exactly? Then EPO to wrap things up?

In this scenario you sure have him as a remarkably consistent blood doper given his results and performances. Is it really your view that he never would have been at the top of the sport without this consistent, pervasive blood doping which he apparently engaged in for the bulk of his early career?

I find the notion that his career results are due to blood doping without remotely compelling evidence and completely without merit.

 

[gillan1969]

Re: LeMond

Allow me to set the record straight wrt Draaijer.
As you know i'm never too shy to admit a mistake, but this wasn't one of them. In fact, the only thing I know about Draaijer is that he died in 1990 and that this was allegedly due to EPO.

As for why I brought up Draaijer, well, mainly because I repeatedly saw gillian and some others argue that it is inescapable that Lemond, if on EPO, w/should have improved significantly compared to his pre-shooting performances.
Imo, Draaijer (and Planckaert, the whole of PDM, Boris Becker, and others) nicely put that argument to bed, as his case (and that of the other afore-mentioned athletes) show that going on the EPO program doesn't (or at least didn't in the late 80s/early 90s) necessarily entail a (significant) improvement in performances.

Now, I realize I used Draaijer without further explanation and with a teaspoon of irony, so any misreading of my post was certainly my own fault and I apologize if anybody felt offended by that.

sniper...that is not the case, not inescapable...I am pointing out that what we know from a multitude of sources is that epo can give a massive boost in performance...what we also know is that Lemond's performances for when (even as an early adopter) you are alleging he took epo are not at the level they were, not just before he may or may not have taken epo, but before it existed.....

A subtle difference...but as stated previously it's you who are making a case not me......

 

[gillan1969]

Re: LeMond

"Inescapable". Did anyone use that term? I'm not going to search the thread, but I certainly wouldn't phrase it that way.

While some rare exceptions may exist, basically you're arguing that a rider not improving isn't evidence that they didn't use EPO. Which is patently a ridiculous argument. There are a whole lot of negatives in that sentence, so I'll try and make it more plain.

The vast majority of riders improved...vastly...while on EPO. If a rider never makes a jump in performance, and never rides at speeds at which known EPO-fueled riders rode, chances are very, very good that they never did EPO. Particularly a rider who was at the top of the sport before EPO ever became a possibility.

Is is proof? No. Is it possible a rider could have done EPO and not improved? Sure. But it's extremely unlikely. No matter what argumentative gymnastic one performs to get there.

That's all. So the fact that he never put in EPO-like performances, is in fact evidence (not proof) that he never used EPO. Now one can ignore the evidence in the face of other evidence one believe to be stronger, but one can't deny that it is in fact evidence in favor of the "never did EPO" argument.

You are ignoring a possibility, a likely one considering LeMond's association with Eddie B. and LeMond's team doctor doling out EPO injections in 1998: A rider who was using transfusions before EPO would not see an improvement. He might even spend years seething about something that had been a tool of elites being replaced by a tool available to the common rider, seeing those riders' wins as illegitimate even as he ignores the doping of his generation's elite riders.

brilliant...what do creationists call this? irreducible complexity

so now in order to get Lemond on epo we have him undertaking a complicated blood doping program, undetected (as in nobody noticing) and in a very sophisticated manner for a decade at least, cross country and indeed cross continent...good work Holmes

 

[@NL_LeMondFans]

Re: LeMond

"Inescapable". Did anyone use that term? I'm not going to search the thread, but I certainly wouldn't phrase it that way.

While some rare exceptions may exist, basically you're arguing that a rider not improving isn't evidence that they didn't use EPO. Which is patently a ridiculous argument. There are a whole lot of negatives in that sentence, so I'll try and make it more plain.

The vast majority of riders improved...vastly...while on EPO. If a rider never makes a jump in performance, and never rides at speeds at which known EPO-fueled riders rode, chances are very, very good that they never did EPO. Particularly a rider who was at the top of the sport before EPO ever became a possibility.

Is is proof? No. Is it possible a rider could have done EPO and not improved? Sure. But it's extremely unlikely. No matter what argumentative gymnastic one performs to get there.

That's all. So the fact that he never put in EPO-like performances, is in fact evidence (not proof) that he never used EPO. Now one can ignore the evidence in the face of other evidence one believe to be stronger, but one can't deny that it is in fact evidence in favor of the "never did EPO" argument.

You are ignoring a possibility, a likely one considering LeMond's association with Eddie B. and LeMond's team doctor doling out EPO injections in 1998: A rider who was using transfusions before EPO would not see an improvement. He might even spend years seething about something that had been a tool of elites being replaced by a tool available to the common rider, seeing those riders' wins as illegitimate even as he ignores the doping of his generation's elite riders.

brilliant...what do creationists call this? irreducible complexity

so now in order to get Lemond on epo we have him undertaking a complicated blood doping program, undetected (as in nobody noticing) and in a very sophisticated manner for a decade at least, cross country and indeed cross continent...good work Holmes

Don't forget that, according to rumours, everyone knew about it all along...

 

[kwikki]

Without evidence this is all just creating speculation out of thin air.

 

[sniper]

Re: Re:

Because then we'll have a hell of a time deciding which is the sickliest Tour winner in history, LeMond or Froome.

quoted for truth.
anemia, unidentified virus, allergies, one kidney, chronic kidney infections, mytochondrial myopathy.
Am I missing something?

On the topic of Lemond's training, I remember reading an interview I think with Mike McCarthy, former teammate of Lemond's, who basically suggests Lemond's training intensity was comparatively low. I'll look for the link when I get home. Maybe NLLemondfans can confirm or correct me? What is the general consensus on Lemond's training intensity?

 

[sniper]

...
"Inescapable". Did anyone use that term?

Statements such as the following abound in this and other lemond threads:

Lemond never took EPO, if he did he would not been dropped by the legions of dopers who did.

"inescapable"? Fair enough, maybe "a matter of course" would be a better wording.

I'm not going to search the thread, but I certainly wouldn't phrase it that way.

thanks for clarifying. That's fair enough.

 

[sniper]

Re: LeMond

sniper...that is not the case, not inescapable...I am pointing out that what we know from a multitude of sources is that epo can give a massive boost in performance...

agreed, i shouldn't have put the word "inescapable" in your mouth, for which apologies. Some others have certainly presented it that way though (see my previous post in reply to Red).

what we also know is that Lemond's performances for when (even as an early adopter) you are alleging he took epo are not at the level they were, not just before he may or may not have taken epo, but before it existed.....

I'd be curious to see the evidence you have for that, as you continuously present it as fact.
Honestly. If you have climbing times, or reliable power output numbers, which we can compare pre-shooting and post-shooting, i'd be much obliged for a link to that, and you might have me convinced.

But regardless, I'm surprised that you continue to downplay his 1989 and 1990 TdFs victories. As if those performances weren't remarkable enough. Following a shooting that damaged his lungs and kidney(s). Lemond himself said that in 89 he would have crushed Fignon by minutes if it hadn't been for the shooting. And never mind his remarkable inseason turn around in 1990 following an "unidentified virus" which made him retreat in the US prior to the TdF. Never mind his in-Giro renaissance, rightly labeled 'miraculous' by Lemond himself, by other riders, by fans, and by the press.

A subtle difference...but as stated previously it's you who are making a case not me......

The case (or null hypothesis, if you like) is there already, I'm not making or creating it. You may have to take that up with the history of cycling, and with guys like Max Testa, Floyd, the Dutch whistleblower, or Oliver Starr whose claims started this thread.

 

[@NL_LeMondFans]

Re: Re:

Because then we'll have a hell of a time deciding which is the sickliest Tour winner in history, LeMond or Froome.

quoted for truth.
anemia, unidentified virus, allergies, one kidney, chronic kidney infections, mytochondrial myopathy.
Am I missing something?

On the topic of Lemond's training, I remember reading an interview I think with Mike McCarthy, former teammate of Lemond's, who basically suggests Lemond's training intensity was comparatively low. I'll look for the link when I get home. Maybe NLLemondfans can confirm or correct me? What is the general consensus on Lemond's training intensity?

I know what Greg thinks now. I don't have a lot of information about how he trained then. Nowadays Greg tends to praise intense short rides Vs long rides at a steady pace. Up until the 70's, the cycling tradition was to "put more miles", basically, to my knowledge. The 80's were a turning point in diet and training, Paul Koechli comes to mind.

I think Greg said that he was really surprised when he couldn't keep up in the 1991 TDF because his training landmarks prior to the race were very good. He mentioned sessions behind a motorcycle.

You also asked for data. I have data for Alpe d'Huez because I am writing a piece on that subject at the moment.
Greg climbed Alpe d'Huez in the Tour in 84, 86, 89, 90 and 91. Sadly the data for 1984 is not available.
Here are Greg's times (source : @ammatipyoraily on Twitter) :
86 : 48'
Context : Greg is in the the lead with Hinault, they've been riding together for 50km, including the Croix de fer where they've built a 5' gap with lonely chaser Urs Zimmermann. Hinault sets the pace.
89 : 43'34
Context : Fight between Greg & Fignon. They tear each other apart at the foot of the climb, to no avail. They climb together with Delgado and his teammate Rondon. Fignon and Delgado drop Greg 4km from the top.
90 : 45'45
Context : Greg is in the leading group with Bugno and Delgado. No one is particularly riding. Greg has a teammate Pensec as yellow jersey dropped behind. Chiappucci is already dropped. Pace is relatively slow as Breukink and Claveyrolat make their way back into the group several times.
91 : 42'23
Context : Greg starts the climb in the leading group but he is dropped soon and ends up 2' behind the leaders.

 

[Maxiton]

Let me just point out here that I'm not taking sides in this debate, just as I didn't take a side before I became a moderator. It's true that I initially took the side of those who say, "LeMond doping? No way", but once I looked further into the question I decided to suspend judgement on the matter. Since then I've merely tried to see the argument from both sides and play devil's advocate.

Now that I'm a moderator I'm even more committed to remaining objective. I don't really feel I have a dog in this fight, except insofar as the debate remains fair and impersonal.

One thing that will help in this regard is to cite your sources. If your source is an article or a book, provide a quote and a link. If your source is a previous post, again, provide a quote and a link. This is actually a rule on the forum, even though it's often not enforced. In this thread it will be enforced wherever possible.

Also, as we mods have stated numerous times in the past, avoid attacking the integrity or motivations of the poster, and don't try to make fun of each other. I like to let debate rage, and so I've kept hands-off in this regard, for the most part, up to now. Going forward, though, ridicule of any kind will be treated as what it is, baiting and trolling, and will be dealt with accordingly.

Keep it civil, keep it polite, stick to the facts.

 

[King Of Molehill]

He claims to have left PDM because he knew they were doping and didn't want to be associated with that. Except as far as I know he never made that public at the time (anyone know if he did?). So omerta rules, even with LeMond.

The only thing I find odd was his 89 Giro and Tour.

"He started the 1989 Giro d'Italia in May as preparation for the Tour to follow, but struggled in the mountains and was not in contention for any of the leaders' jerseys before the final 53 km (33 mi) individual time trial into Florence. LeMond placed a surprising second there, more than a minute ahead of overall winner Laurent Fignon.[N 9] Some of his improvement he attributed to an anti-anemia treatment he received twice during the race."

He then goes on to win the 89 Tour after admittedly saying he was thinking of quitting cycling altogether during that Giro. The infamous 'iron shots' is the only time I've ever suspected Greg may have pushed the boundaries further than he would like to admit. I'm sure this has been covered here already, just wanted to add my 2c to the Greg thread since he's a big reason I got into bike racing and have loved the sport (riding, not necessarily watching anymore) ever since.

 

[Benotti69]

Re: Re:

I became a cynic when i saw Indurain ride past Millar on a Pyrenean Col in 1992 like Millar was standing still.

The level of cynicism just grows. I used to think LeMond was one of the few who rode clean, but now i very much doubt it. When you see him sitting in car on the TdF with 3 massive big time dopers and all smiles, it leaves a bad taste in the mouth. When you read how little he says about other dopers yet went to town (justifiably) on Armstrong. When you seem him as pals on tv with Vino, Froome, and Contador i have to think, he was jealous of Armstrong's more TdF wins. His lauding of Pantani as a great as well does not make sense.

You can't hate one doper for doping and not other dopers for the same doping!

 

[sniper]

does anybody have a pdf of Greg Lemond's "Complete book of cycling"?
If you do, please pm me, i'd be much in your debt.

 

[Maxiton]

[Posting one more time for added emphasis]

Let me just point out here that I'm not taking sides in this debate, just as I didn't take a side before I became a moderator. It's true that I initially took the side of those who say, "LeMond doping? No way", but once I looked further into the question I decided to suspend judgement on the matter. Since then I've merely tried to see the argument from both sides and play devil's advocate.

Now that I'm a moderator I'm even more committed to remaining objective. I don't really feel I have a dog in this fight, except insofar as the debate remains fair and impersonal.

One thing that will help in this regard is to cite your sources. If your source is an article or a book, provide a quote and a link. If your source is a previous post, again, provide a quote and a link. This is actually a rule on the forum, even though it's often not enforced. In this thread it will be enforced wherever possible.

Also, as we mods have stated numerous times in the past, avoid attacking the integrity or motivations of the poster, and don't try to make fun of each other. I like to let debate rage, and so I've kept hands-off in this regard, for the most part, up to now. Going forward, though, ridicule of any kind will be treated as what it is, baiting and trolling, and will be dealt with accordingly.

Keep it civil, keep it polite, stick to the facts.