LeMond III

[DamianoMachiavelli]

Re:

And it worked.

They took down the biggest doper in cycling history.

So now you are admitting that it was LeMond's purpose was to attack Armstrong. If you can admit that LeMond knew what he was doing then you can accept the logical follow-up that he is not a victim, that he consciously picked a fight with LA and fired back. There goes Greg's self-pitying martyr for truth charade.

Since we have settled that issue, how do you plan on handling his hypocrisy of protecting the doping riders he raced against?

 

[@NL_LeMondFans]

Re: Re:

I confirm contributing to this thread is kind of a fight because I feel like I need to give my input and I'm not taking any satisfaction in it. It's close to being a waste of time for me. But I'm kind of drawn to it against my will because I think this discussion needs balance.

As you can guess, this thread discusses a person I care a lot about. Seeing his name covered with garbage is painful for me. Yes, this is a fight. For me, at least.

Understand you position and opinion. I respect it. Not that it would matter to you I realize.

Yes it does need balance.

It does matter, actually. Thank you. It makes it less of a fight, knowing that.

I know you didn't start it. We all need to behave.

 

[@NL_LeMondFans]

Re: Re:

And it worked.

They took down the biggest doper in cycling history.

So now you are admitting that it was LeMond's purpose was to attack Armstrong. If you can admit that LeMond knew what he was doing then you can accept the logical follow-up that he is not a victim, that he consciously picked a fight with LA and fired back. There goes Greg's self-pitying martyr for truth charade.

Since we have settled that issue, how do you plan on handling his hypocrisy of protecting the doping riders he raced against?

Nope, you're reading this backwards. Kikki isn't saying Greg attacked. He's saying his defense was better, eventually. That's different.

Greg got a lot of bashing when he was a rider because some people said he "never attacked". Suddenly he is a mastermind off the saddle ?

Greg spoke his mind. Not attacking, but speaking with integrity.
Armstrong saw this as an attack. Counter attacked.
Greg defended himself.

I don't believe Greg won, by the way, but Armstrong lost against himself.

 

[sniper]

Bringing this topic over from the US cycling scene thread.

So, Fredrick C. Hagerman: was testing anabolic steroids in 1975 (results published in 1976) and, together with Ed Burke (who later was co-responsible for the LA 84 blood doping program), did physiological (aerobic and anaerobic) testing on Eric Heiden and Greg Lemond in the late 70s at the OTC in Squaw Valley.
viewtopic.php?p=1914318#p1914318

Here's another Hagerman study of potential interest:

1975: The effects of conditioning on cardiorespiratory function in adolescent boys
Gregory B. Shasby · Federick C. Hagerman

Some general excerpts from the study:

Organized sports for the pre-pubescent youngster have increased to incredible proportions during the last 15 years. Age group swimming has had a significant effect on raising the competitive level of swimming in the U.S. to the highest in the world and a large proportion of our recent National and Olympic teams has been teen-agers. The current national interest in long-distance running has also affected the younger age groups and this is evident from the growing number of young people currently running cross-country, distance track events, road races, and marathons and the many fine performances achieved by them in these activities.
...
However, there is also evidence supporting the participation of youngsters in endurance activities. Astrand, et a1.22 and Cureton4 both observed young competitive swimmers and found that they possessed very high aerobic capacities, displayed normal cardiovascular development, and showed outstanding endurance. Several earlier studies have defended the participation of healthy young boys in endurance activities without fear of injury to the normal heart.&dquo;, 11 11 More recent data have shown that maximal physical working capacity, based on body weight measured for boys, ages 7-13 years, compared favorably with figures obtained for adult men.~ physiological responses of normal healthy boys, ages 10-17, were observed during a moderate steady state exertion and it was found that boys, ages 12-14 years, showed an elevated heart rate but deceleration after exercise was more rapid for this age group than for either younger or older subjects. There is a scarcity of data regarding the effects of conditioning on respiratory and cardiovascular fitness of teen-age boys.

Nothing wrong with that.

However, it is interesting to see who Hagerman & Shasby cite here:

Ekblom [1972] investigated the effects of physical training and no
training for a 32 month period on adolescent boys, age, 11 years, by observing changes in
certain anthropometric and cardio-respiratory function measures. Trained subjects
showed greater increases in vital capacity and maximal Vo2 and a decrease in endexercise
heart rate after the conditioning period.

Ekblom, who was that again?
Ekblom was presumably one of the first to do extensive research on blood doping in this study:

J Appl Physiol. 1972 Aug;33(2):175-80. Response to exercise after blood loss and reinfusion.Ekblom B, Goldbarg AN, Gullbring B.

Some even credit Ekblom with "discovering" blood transfusions (e.g. http://articles.latimes.com/1990-06-02/sports/sp-143_1_performance-enhancing-drug) but that's not wholly accurate, as blood transfusions for athletic purposes were around well before that.

Now, Hagerman and Shasby close their 1975 study with the following suggestions for future research:

A similar testing procedure, with some modifications, and exposure of subjects to various modern training methods might serve to help identify potential outstanding athletes. Certain Scandinavian countries are currently using cardiorespiratory testing, both in the laboratory and in the field, to screen prospective oarsmen, runners and skiers. This method has previously been utilized to identify oarsmen with outstanding physiological potential.8 There is a great deal of controversy over the relative contributions of heredity and environment to an athlete’s success and there is, at present, only limited information available concerning this important topic.3 11 Research with
younger subjects might help to clarify specific parameters involved in these contributions.

To summarize: Hagerman was testing the effects of anabolic steroids on adolescents, and here seems to be encouraging 'cardiorespiratory conditioning' on the same subjects, with the aim of "identifying outstanding athletes". Then we shift focus to the late 70s, and there he is with Ed Burke testing Heiden and Lemond:

HAGERMAN: In the late 1970s Ed Burke and I studied both Eric Heiden and Greg Lemond at the US Olympic Training Centre at Squaw Valley. They performed so well on all of our tests, both aerobic and anaerobic (...)
https://books.google.pl/books/about/Physiology_and_Nutrition_for_Competitive.html?id=AkgQAQAAMAAJ&redir_esc=y

 

[thehog]

LeMond III - Redux, Chronicles, the Return?

 

[gillan1969]

Wake me up at Lemond 50: Lemond and the curious curse of the (Polish) lesbian vampires

 

[djpbaltimore]

Tarnishing an innocent man's reputation is a low move.

http://www.hughesmoquinfuneralhome.com/fh/obituaries/obituary.cfm?o_id=2311566&fh_id=14410

good post.
and good thread topic.
there should be much more focus on this kind of stuff.
Cf. what was discussed in the pseudo-science thread: sports scientists of all sorts are publishing disposable trash on a daily basis, meanwhile there is no real research done on how doping influences performances, let alone on how it influences health.
Understandable, because writing about that, that's no way for a sports scientist to get on the payroll of pros and proteams, now is it.

I wonder/doubt if ever there is any serious autopsy done whenever a professional athlete dies of heart failure.

Try to be a little more consistent. If a scientist does research on PEDs, he becomes a 'Ped- experimenter'? I doubt you read more than the title from the 1975 paper.

 

[Benotti69]

Fair play to sniper for not letting go. Nothing worse than a rider being held up as an example of a clean athlete and then to find out they were a cheat.

I was not a fan of LeMond when he raced. I liked that he spoke out against Armstrong but i don't like that he ignores nearly all other dopers. That doesn't sit well with me. Thinks Pantani was a hero or similar. F**K OFF!

Why would he be friendly with Vino, Contador, Hinault, Indurain and Merckx? Boy diid those guys push the doping envelope!

Merckx was the guy who introduced Armstrong to Ferrari FFS and LeMond is cool with that. I am not. LeMond is cool with the current generation of riders? I am not! LeMond is happy with the current UCI? I am not!

So chapeau to sniper for continuing to dig and question.

 

[Maxiton]

Wake me up at Lemond 50: Lemond and the curious curse of the (Polish) lesbian vampires

That does indeed sound interesting.

Note to one and all: This thread has been split into three parts for easier consumption and management.
Part I can be found here, and Part II here.

Henceforth in this thread, any accusations of trolling, or questioning of the integrity or motivations of your fellow commenter(s), will result in a long vacation from the forum.

 

[sniper]

Thanks, Benotti, much appreciate it.

One correction to the previous post: unlike what the LA Times article says, Ekblom didn't "discover" blood doping.
He was presumably one of the first to do extensive research on blood doping in this study:

J Appl Physiol. 1972 Aug;33(2):175-80. Response to exercise after blood loss and reinfusion.Ekblom B, Goldbarg AN, Gullbring B.

But blood transfusions for athletic purposes had been around (well) before that, with different sources tracing it back to different dates, but all sources agreeing that it was around at least in the 60s (if not earlier).

 

[sniper]

Re:

Tarnishing an innocent man's reputation is a low move.

http://www.hughesmoquinfuneralhome.com/fh/obituaries/obituary.cfm?o_id=2311566&fh_id=14410

good post.
and good thread topic.
there should be much more focus on this kind of stuff.
Cf. what was discussed in the pseudo-science thread: sports scientists of all sorts are publishing disposable trash on a daily basis, meanwhile there is no real research done on how doping influences performances, let alone on how it influences health.
Understandable, because writing about that, that's no way for a sports scientist to get on the payroll of pros and proteams, now is it.

I wonder/doubt if ever there is any serious autopsy done whenever a professional athlete dies of heart failure.

Try to be a little more consistent. If a scientist does research on PEDs, he becomes a 'Ped- experimenter'? I doubt you read more than the title from the 1975 paper.

I don't see what his passing away has to do with anything.
To even bring that up...
The low move is completely yours here.

I acknowledge that "ped-experimenter" is an unlucky choice of words. But not wholly inaccurate. Still, I understand you point it out and I will edit it.

Indeed, I wasn't able to find the paper online. If you have it, I'd appreciate it if you could send me a PDF through PM.
I did read references to the piece in other articles, and so combined with the title I could pretty safely infer what the study is about. Anabolic steroids are being tested on adolescent subjects. Please correct me if wrong.

 

[@NL_LeMondFans]

Re:

Fair play to sniper for not letting go. Nothing worse than a rider being held up as an example of a clean athlete and then to find out they were a cheat.

I was not a fan of LeMond when he raced. I liked that he spoke out against Armstrong but i don't like that he ignores nearly all other dopers. That doesn't sit well with me. Thinks Pantani was a hero or similar. F**K OFF!

Why would he be friendly with Vino, Contador, Hinault, Indurain and Merckx? Boy diid those guys push the doping envelope!

Merckx was the guy who introduced Armstrong to Ferrari FFS and LeMond is cool with that. I am not. Lemons is cool with the current generation of riders? I am not! LeMond is happy with the current UCI? I am not!

So chapeau to sniper for continuing to dig and question.

In all fairness, you don't know what Greg is cool with or not. What you do know is what comments he is willing to make when he's on the record and who he accepts to appear with on a TV screen or a photo. No one but Greg can say what he thinks and says "off the record".

There's a good reason why you can't accuse someone without proof. Even the comments made by Greg and perceived as an "attack" on Armstrong by some people are not an accusation : "I am disappointed in Lance", "if his story is true, etc...". It is suggested, but it's not a frontal attack. Imagine Greg saying on Eurosport "I know Froome is cheating. I can't proove it but I know it". What a mess that would be. Cédric Vasseur, who was actually on a motorbike for the last TDF, said something during broadcast like "I don't believe what i'm seeing" and the whole Sky PR machine went after him, said he was irresponsible, etc... What Greg did, actually, last july, was to expose the motorized bikes by giving a demonstration. I think given the circumstances, that was the best he could do without getting into trouble. And please note no one else did it. Only Greg.

http://cyclingtips.com/2015/07/hidden-motor-demonstration-with-greg-lemond/

To the bolded : I really, genuinely think that the "white knight of anti-doping" Greg is a creation of the media who like to antagonize (think Beatles Vs Stones, for instance). Having someone express something looking as a criticism against cancer-shield Lance was a huge selling point. And it still is. To this day, if Greg gives a 30' interview with 15 seconds on Armstrong, the headline will be about him and Armstrong... If Greg is guilty of something, in my opinion, it's his willingness to answer the questions he is asked. If I were him I would avoid discussing Armstrong. But since he's been knocked by LA for a decade, I understand he enjoys his new freedom.

I'm not saying Greg is naive. The "clean" image he has now is good for business. But it's not as much something he created as a consequence of many factors. Some from his initiative, then others too.

EDIT : I know of many people that hate doping in general but absolutely love Pantani, or another doped rider. It's difficult to be insensitive to some charisma. I think it gives credit to the fact that Greg thinks the first victims of doping are the riders. You may think he is a hypocrite, I think he's a romantic.

 

[djpbaltimore]

Re: Re:

I don't see what his passing away has to do with anything.
To even bring that up...
The low move is completely yours here.

I acknowledge that "ped-experimenter" is an unlucky choice of words. But not wholly inaccurate. Still, I understand you point it out and I will edit it.

Indeed, I wasn't able to find the paper online. If you have it, I'd appreciate it if you could send me a PDF through PM.
I did read references to the piece in other articles, and so combined with the title I could pretty safely infer what the study is about. Anabolic steroids are being tested on adolescent subjects. Please correct me if wrong.

Most papers from 1975 are not digitally archived unless they are in Nature, Science, or the like. The actual book journal might be in our medical school library, but even that is doubtful. I will go see this weekend. However, since adolescent is not in the title, I fail to see how you could safely infer that the cohort being tested was adolescent. Nor would it be safe to assume IMO that the doctors administered androgens to the study cohort. To me it sounds like they were looking at the levels of androgen breakdown products to see if it could be used as a urine test (biomarker) for steroid abuse. The cohort could've been self-reported steroid users. Doctors do studies like that with drugs of abuse (cocaine/ heroin) without actually giving the drugs. Saying that he was 'testing anabolic steroids on adolescents' is another giant leap without any real supporting evidence.

 

[sniper]

@djbaltimore: thanks for the info.
I stand corrected on the subjects of hagerman's anabolic steroid study being adolescents (some may have been, but you're right that it cannot be infered).
The adolescents were the subjects of the second hagerman study i cited from.
My bad, and thanks for pointing it out.
If you find the study in your library, I'd much appreciate a brief summary.

 

[the delgados]

Re: LeMond

I respect Greg LeMond and all that he's achieved and the abuse he received from Armstrong and his camp was very unfortunate, but, I have a hard time believing LeMond wasn't on some PED's during his career. He may have been a freak of nature, like, for example, Jan Ullrich was (obviously Ullrich's career could have looked a lot more impressive than it was if he took racing and preparation far more seriously than he did) or Miguel Indurain or any other top talents, but without PED's? Not sure about that. How do you beat the top cyclists in the world, who are more than likely on PED's, by racing clean? Maybe I am completely and utterly wrong, but that's how I see it.

Me too.
The sport has been riddled with drugs since the very beginning (ok, maybe not the very beginning. Back then, trains were the drug of choice.)
Given that most everyone agrees that every winner of the Tour was on something, it still amazes me that people think Lemond never took a doping product in his life. Not once. Never.
Kimmage's book was a huge eye-opener for someone from Canada who wanted to ride Le Tour. I still remember reading passages where Kimmage describes riding the TT of his life, only to see he finished 15 minutes down on the likes of Hinault, Lemond, etc...
Regarding the whole PI thing:
What possible incentive would anyone have to "out" Greg Lemond? Seriously, if I was from that era and someone approached me to spill the beans, I'd tell them to fcuk off.
Re private investegators

 

[@NL_LeMondFans]

Re: LeMond

What possible incentive would anyone have to "out" Greg Lemond? Seriously, if I was from that era and someone approached me to spill the beans, I'd tell them to fcuk off.
Re private investegators

Just to name a few :

Money ? Either as a prize (the Armstrong story) or the "write a book" thing. Many riders from the 80's ended up bankrupt at one point or another...

Then there is the pleasure of being the center of attention : "I KNOW things"

Revenge : the guy who hates LeMond and thinks he is an hypocrite...

Prescription : the guy who figures it was so long ago, he might just as well say things...

You see, plenty of incentives, and still... Nothing. Zip. Nada. On the contrary, you'll find many people vouching for Greg.

 

[sniper]

Re: LeMond

The incentive for practically 99% of people involved in procycling is to stay schtumm.

 

[the delgados]

Re: LeMond

What possible incentive would anyone have to "out" Greg Lemond? Seriously, if I was from that era and someone approached me to spill the beans, I'd tell them to fcuk off.
Re private investegators

Just to name a few :

Money ? Either as a prize (the Armstrong story) or the "write a book" thing. Many riders from the 80's ended up bankrupt at one point or another...

Then there is the pleasure of being the center of attention : "I KNOW things"

Revenge : the guy who hates LeMond and thinks he is an hypocrite...

Prescription : the guy who figures it was so long ago, he might just as well say things...

You see, plenty of incentives, and still... Nothing. Zip. Nada. On the contrary, you'll find many people vouching for Greg.

Understood.
But I don't buy the money thing. At this point, anyone who comes forward to say Lemond was on the juice would be ridiculed--i.e. "S/he is just in this for the money! Show me the proof! etc. etc. and so on and so forth and more of the same.
i imagine the distraction and court battles wouldn't be worth it. Best just leave it be, ya know?

 

[Benotti69]

Re: Re:

Fair play to sniper for not letting go. Nothing worse than a rider being held up as an example of a clean athlete and then to find out they were a cheat.

I was not a fan of LeMond when he raced. I liked that he spoke out against Armstrong but i don't like that he ignores nearly all other dopers. That doesn't sit well with me. Thinks Pantani was a hero or similar. F**K OFF!

Why would he be friendly with Vino, Contador, Hinault, Indurain and Merckx? Boy diid those guys push the doping envelope!

Merckx was the guy who introduced Armstrong to Ferrari FFS and LeMond is cool with that. I am not. Lemons is cool with the current generation of riders? I am not! LeMond is happy with the current UCI? I am not!

So chapeau to sniper for continuing to dig and question.

In all fairness, you don't know what Greg is cool with or not. What you do know is what comments he is willing to make when he's on the record and who he accepts to appear with on a TV screen or a photo. No one but Greg can say what he thinks and says "off the record".

There's a good reason why you can't accuse someone without proof. Even the comments made by Greg and perceived as an "attack" on Armstrong by some people are not an accusation : "I am disappointed in Lance", "if his story is true, etc...". It is suggested, but it's not a frontal attack. Imagine Greg saying on Eurosport "I know Froome is cheating. I can't proove it but I know it". What a mess that would be. Cédric Vasseur, who was actually on a motorbike for the last TDF, said something during broadcast like "I don't believe what i'm seeing" and the whole Sky PR machine went after him, said he was irresponsible, etc... What Greg did, actually, last july, was to expose the motorized bikes by giving a demonstration. I think given the circumstances, that was the best he could do without getting into trouble. And please note no one else did it. Only Greg.

http://cyclingtips.com/2015/07/hidden-motor-demonstration-with-greg-lemond/

To the bolded : I really, genuinely think that the "white knight of anti-doping" Greg is a creation of the media who like to antagonize (think Beatles Vs Stones, for instance). Having someone express something looking as a criticism against cancer-shield Lance was a huge selling point. And it still is. To this day, if Greg gives a 30' interview with 15 seconds on Armstrong, the headline will be about him and Armstrong... If Greg is guilty of something, in my opinion, it's his willingness to answer the questions he is asked. If I were him I would avoid discussing Armstrong. But since he's been knocked by LA for a decade, I understand he enjoys his new freedom.

I'm not saying Greg is naive. The "clean" image he has now is good for business. But it's not as much something he created as a consequence of many factors. Some from his initiative, then others too.

EDIT : I know of many people that hate doping in general but absolutely love Pantani, or another doped rider. It's difficult to be insensitive to some charisma. I think it gives credit to the fact that Greg thinks the first victims of doping are the riders. You may think he is a hypocrite, I think he's a romantic.

In fairness, i don't really care what Greg thinks privately. That he puts his wealth before honesty and integrity puts him firmly in JV territory. Sitting in a car parading around the Champs D'Elyse with three big time dopers and all smile, in fairness that sucked!

I don't think of the riders as victims anymore, especially anyone form a western culture. There is enough information out there to know what the sport is really like before entering the pro ranks. If a rider can't see that, well as Jan Ullrich said, if you cannot see 1 plus 1 = 2 then i cannot help you.

I don't think LeMond is a romantic. Romance does not win a rider a TdF never mind 3!

I would have expected LeMond with his now found freedom to start targeting the rest of the dopers!!!! Not hang out with them!!!

 

[DamianoMachiavelli]

How many have come forward to detail Indurain's drug use? Or Hinault's? Right now Jens Voigt is playing the part of the clean rider who succeeded because he was a stubborn beast of a man who wouldn't give in to pain. He has a book in English out now to build on that image. The only thing there is on him is an offhand suggestion he purportedly made about burying drugs during the 1998 TdF with no information about whether he was one of the riders using the stuff. In private those who rode with him on CSC laugh about how much drugs he used. Images of his book's front cover along with snarky comments are being shared in private by ex-pros. That is the truth. Despite his hypocrisy, none of his old teammates have felt the need to alert the media. It is not like Stewart O'Grady will tell the world.

The doping Torquemadas have created a toxic environment. No one wants to reveal what he did in the past. Anyone who fingers LeMond was doping himself or maybe even facilitated it. Who would open himself up to criticism when the Inquisition is set to drag him to the nearest market square to be burnt at the stake?

 

[the delgados]

How many have come forward to detail Indurain's drug use? Or Hinault's? Right now Jens Voigt is playing the part of the clean rider who succeeded because he was a stubborn beast of a man who wouldn't give in to pain. He has a book in English out now to build on that image. The only thing there is on him is an offhand suggestion he purportedly made about burying drugs during the 1998 TdF with no information about whether he was one of the riders using the stuff. In private those who rode with him on CSC laugh about how much drugs he used. Images of his book's front cover along with snarky comments are being shared in private by ex-pros. That is the truth. Despite his hypocrisy, none of his old teammates have felt the need to alert the media. It is not like Stewart O'Grady will tell the world.

The doping Torquemadas have created a toxic environment. No one wants to reveal what he did in the past. Anyone who fingers LeMond was doping himself or maybe even facilitated it. Who would open himself up to criticism when the Inquisition is set to drag him to the nearest market square to be burnt at the stake?

The last paragraph of your post is a perfect summary of why no one would come forward.

 

[blackcat]

How many have come forward to detail Indurain's drug use? Or Hinault's? Right now Jens Voigt is playing the part of the clean rider who succeeded because he was a stubborn beast of a man who wouldn't give in to pain. He has a book in English out now to build on that image. The only thing there is on him is an offhand suggestion he purportedly made about burying drugs during the 1998 TdF with no information about whether he was one of the riders using the stuff. In private those who rode with him on CSC laugh about how much drugs he used. Images of his book's front cover along with snarky comments are being shared in private by ex-pros. That is the truth. Despite his hypocrisy, none of his old teammates have felt the need to alert the media. It is not like Stewart O'Grady will tell the world.

The doping Torquemadas have created a toxic environment. No one wants to reveal what he did in the past. Anyone who fingers LeMond was doping himself or maybe even facilitated it. Who would open himself up to criticism when the Inquisition is set to drag him to the nearest market square to be burnt at the stake?

in 1998 Jens wanted to dig a hole and bury the dope by the side of the road when he was on GAN when the gendarmes starting raiding hotels.

his legs told him to shut up
Jens' legs: "shut up Jens".
Jens Voigt: "shut up legs".

evidently, Jens has a dialogue with his legs. P'raps he needs to see a shrink and his psychiatrist can prescribe him some pharmacy for schizophrenia instead of anemia

 

[the delgados]

How many have come forward to detail Indurain's drug use? Or Hinault's? Right now Jens Voigt is playing the part of the clean rider who succeeded because he was a stubborn beast of a man who wouldn't give in to pain. He has a book in English out now to build on that image. The only thing there is on him is an offhand suggestion he purportedly made about burying drugs during the 1998 TdF with no information about whether he was one of the riders using the stuff. In private those who rode with him on CSC laugh about how much drugs he used. Images of his book's front cover along with snarky comments are being shared in private by ex-pros. That is the truth. Despite his hypocrisy, none of his old teammates have felt the need to alert the media. It is not like Stewart O'Grady will tell the world.

The doping Torquemadas have created a toxic environment. No one wants to reveal what he did in the past. Anyone who fingers LeMond was doping himself or maybe even facilitated it. Who would open himself up to criticism when the Inquisition is set to drag him to the nearest market square to be burnt at the stake?

in 1998 Jens wanted to dig a hole and bury the dope by the side of the road when he was on GAN when the gendarmes starting raiding hotels.

his legs told him to shut up
Jens' legs: "shut up Jens".
Jens Voigt: "shut up legs".

evidently, Jens has a dialogue with his legs. P'raps he needs to see a shrink and his psychiatrist can prescribe him some pharmacy for schizophrenia instead of anemia

"Shut up, legs! Dopage control is knocking on our door!"

 

[sniper]

Re: LeMond

...

Just to name a few :

Money ? Either as a prize (the Armstrong story)

I've tried to trace the source of this rumor (the 300.000(?) dollar reward rumor), and all I could find was Greg Lemond himself: http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/more-sports/greg-lemond-quoted-newspaper-lance-armstrong-pay-individual-doping-claims-article-1.468881

The other source for the rumor seems to be Race Radio.

It strikes me as odd that the same posters who dismiss the more widespread rumors regarding Lemond's doping as baseless insinuations seem to unquestioningly accept this rumor from the horse's mouth as some sort of fact.

A TdF winner and doping would be SSDD for cycling.
A 300,000 dollar reward for spilling would be an unprecedented conspiracy.

 

[sniper]

Hagerman testing anabolic steroids in the mid-70s, then doing testing on Lemond (and Heiden) at the OTC in the late 70s. It got me thinking again, firstly, about Testa's suggestion that Lemond basically had to quit because he'd doped too much and, secondly, about the rumors that his mitochondrial myopathy (which Lemond himself has credited as a, or even *the*, major factor in his decline) was a result of long-term drug (steroid) abuse.

Here's an example of what I'll dub the 'steroid-induced myopathy rumor', as put forward by an anonymous poster on some google-blog. The poster draws an interesting parallel with Thevenet:

My recollection from a few years back when the mitcondrial(sp?) myopathy story broke, is that one standard internal medicine text that I looked at, Clinton(?), noted that steroid abuse can cause such myopathy. Digging deeper in to the recesses of my brain, I recall Bernard Thevenet suffered a similar decline in his cycling career (he damn near fell off his bike during the 78 or 79 Giro due to fatigue) and stated publically that steroid abuse did cause him physical damage, renal and bone marrow I think. https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/rec.bicycles.racing/xAs5Ag1ABOY

And so I looked further into the myopathy issue to see if there is anything plausible about the rumor.

First thing worth noting is that when Lemond was diagnosed with myopathie he was in fact considered a very a-typical and unexpected myopathie patient:

http://articles.latimes.com/1994-12-04/sports/sp-4822_1_greg-lemond
“Rochelle Taube, LeMond's physician, said the disorder usually afflicts children and the elderly, adding it is the first known case diagnosed in a healthy person.”

Here's another source (in French) saying the same: http://www.humanite.fr/node/92565

The second thing I found is that drug-induced myopathy is in fact quite common:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3092639/

A drug-induced, or toxic, myopathy is defined as the acute or subacute manifestation of myopathic symptoms such as muscle weakness, myalgia, creatine kinase elevation, or myoglobinuria that can occur in patients without muscle disease when they are exposed to certain drugs.

A particularly common and well-studied form of drug-induced myopathy is (cortico)steroid-induced myopathy:
http://erj.ersjournals.com/content/erj/5/8/997.full.pdf

In recent years renewed attention is being paid to the involvement of the resp
iratory muscles and its consequent significance in pulmonary patients. Two different clinical patterns of steroid-induced muscular changes are known. In acute myopathy and atrophy after short term treatment with high doses of steroids, generalized muscle atrophy and rhabdomyolysis occur, including the respiratory muscles. Chronic steroid myopathy, occurring after prolonged treatment with moderate doses, is character-ized by the gradual onset of proximal limb muscle weakness and may be accompanied by reduced respiratory muscle force.

That's one of many sources on the topic. Here are some others:
http://emedicine.medscape.com/article/313842-overview
http://emedicine.medscape.com/article/313842-clinical
http://www.uptodate.com/contents/glucocorticoid-induced-myopathy
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3784879/