LeMond III

[pmcg76]

Re: Re:

Were they? I will have to take your word for it. In which case I don't have a ready answer, but I assume there are many possible explanations (not all of them known to us).

http://www.climbing-records.com/2013/07/all-time-top-100-fastest-rides-on.html

According to this site, it’s even worse than I thought. It lists the fastest 100 times up ADH, and all of them were performed in 1991 or later (no. 60 is the fastest time prior to 1994; note also that this list does not include 2013, when Quintana had a sub-40 minute climb). The bottom of the list is a time of 41:13, which is more than 30 seconds faster than the fastest time in the 1980s, according to the ADH wiki. That is 41:50, by Herrera in 1987, and Fignon in 1989. Fignon finished about 1:20 ahead of Lemond in that stage, and as far as I can tell, they were together at the foot of the climb. So Lemond did the climb in about 43’10”, and as far as I know, that was his fastest effort on it.

Three years earlier, when he won his first Tour, he and Hinault finished together on ADH, in a time listed as 48:00. This is incredibly slow, and I’ve never understood how they could have won the stage with a finishing climb that slow. I know they escaped, and once they had a big lead on the others, probably let up a little. In fact, I think I recall from Slaying the Badger that Hinault was suffering and asked Greg to wait or slow down for him. But still, 48 minutes seems like a time that good climbers could do without making much of an effort.

Edit: From the same webpage as that link above, see this link: http://www.climbing-records.com/2013/07/nairo-quintana-sets-great-time-on-alpe.html

Best times up ADH:

2013- 39:28
2011 - 41:25
2010 - 42:17
2008 - 39:30
2006 - 38:35
2004 - 37:36
2003 - 39:08
2001 - 38:03
1999 - 41:10
1997 - 36:53
1995 - 36:40
1994 - 37:15
1992 - 43:10
1991 - 40:27
1990 - 43:15
1989 - 41:50
1988 - 43:44
1987 - 41:44
1986 - 45:25 (I guess this was a rider who actually won the stage ahead of Lemond-Hinault? Either that, or was in a following group and had a faster time up the final climb)
1982 - 42:14
1979 - 43:38
1977 - 44:49

The shooting is obviously one possible explanation.
Lemond is on the record stating that, if it weren't for the shooting, he would probably have beaten Fignon by several minutes in 1989.

He performed very well in the early part of that Tour, putting time on Fignon on several key climbs, and at one point said he thought he would hold the jersey till Paris. So even forgetting the shooting, he might have performed better on ADH. But they were together I think till about 4 km from the finish, when Fignon dropped him, so I don't think that even in the best of circumstances Lemond would have put several minutes into Fignon on this climb. And even if he had, that would still leave him far behind Pantani's best times.

Another thing to consider: I read somewhere that the climbing times started going up already in 1989. Could it be that Lemond's climbing times also went up in 1989? His TT-ing ability certainly improved.

Well, as I noted above, he did far better on ADH in 1989 than in 1986. He and Hinault weren't pushed in 1986, whereas he was pushed in 1989, but still the time difference is almost five minutes. But there are other possible factors like wind, and I'd want to compare some more climbs before concluding that for sure.

Isn't it possible that EPO simply works better with other dope? I'm not saying it does, I'm saying we don't really know (afiact).

Sure. One theory is that you want to increase muscle size to take advantage of greater oxygen transport. But that would apply just as well to transfusions as to EPO, and steroids should be effective as well as HGH.

The only advantage I can think of that EPO might have is that it has some stimulating effects other than on erythrocyte production. There is in fact evidence of that. But the major effect is clearly HT increase.

On Alpe d'Huez times,

86-LeMond & Hinault were out front from as far out as descent of Galibier and had a huge lead at foot of the climb. I think Montoya was the fastest ascent that year.

87- a group of favourites arrived at the base of ADH together with Herrera attacking as soon as the climb began, he was caught again by someone(cannot remember whom) then got a second wind and rode away. That was almost like a TT for Herrera.

88-Delgado and Rooks arrived at ADH together with a small group behind a good bit behind them. I think Theunisse was the fastest but I watched this recently and the ever changing scenario on the road was fascniating, riders going strong, then dying, some recovering. The like of Pino/Hampsten were in contention, cracked and lost big time.

89-Theunisse arrives alone with a small group of favourites chasing. Fignon rode away from LeMond with a few km to go.

90- A group of 5-6 arrive together but there is a lot of stalling with only Delgado working. Bugno wins sprint.

91- A large bunch arrive at ADH as the only climb of note beforehand is the Col D'Ornon, a 2nd cat climb. First real example of a massed race from the bottom with JF Bernard pacing Indurain for a lot of the climb. The first time that it is rode akin to modern mountains stages.

 

[@NL_LeMondFans]

Re: Re:

Lemond is on the record stating that, if it weren't for the shooting, he would probably have beaten Fignon by several minutes in 1989.

I don't remember this. Do you have a source ?
To my recollection, Greg is on record for saying Fignon would have won if it wasn't for the aero bars. Greg is also on record for saying he was never as good as in 1986. But I've never read the quote you talk about.

 

[@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.

I posted this a month ago at Sniper's request and never got an answer (as usual )

viewtopic.php?p=1905319#p1905319

 

[sniper]

Re: Re:

Lemond is on the record stating that, if it weren't for the shooting, he would probably have beaten Fignon by several minutes in 1989.

I don't remember this. Do you have a source ?
To my recollection, Greg is on record for saying Fignon would have won if it wasn't for the aero bars. Greg is also on record for saying he was never as good as in 1986. But I've never read the quote you talk about.

No source yet. I do remember either reading or hearing him say it.
I do have this interview:
http://competitorradio.competitor.com/2006/08/20greg-lemond/
and I made some notes of that some time ago.
He says among other things that he was not close to his maximum capabilities in 1990 and I think he says that in the context of the shooting and how that had impacted him.
It's possible that he also makes the "would've beaten fignon by minutes if not for the shooting" comment in this interview. But it's a long interview and I don't have time to listen to it again.

He also says he almost quit cycling two months before the TdF. It's pretty clear that the shooting had had a huge impact on him. Lemond's 89/90 is indeed the greatest comeback story ever.

Some other notable things he says in the interview:
1. says he never did a blood test in two years post shooting and did first blood test at Giro d’Italia 1989.
(He contradicts this in two other interviews, one where he says he took blood tests regularly throughout his carreer, another where he says he did a blood test in the Tour de Trump, which in that year took place before the Giro, iinm)
2. says If I would have had a blood transfusion or EPO administered it would have sped my recovery dramatically,
(I had some discussions about this with djpbaltimore who claimed Lemond would never have been in a position to receive EPO)
3. says it’s just illegal to enhance your blood with hormones and all, well unless you have something chronical, but then it’s up to a doctor to decide.
(well, how convenient, with his self-alleged chronic kidney disease... )

 

[sniper]

Re: Re:

I posted this a month ago at Sniper's request and never got an answer (as usual )

viewtopic.php?p=1905319#p1905319

thanks for that.
It looks thorough.
If you can help me out: what exactly should it show/tell/suggest, or provide evidence of?

His climbing times and TT speed may or may not have gone up or down, I dont know how much it matters.
Important is that in either case, there is a plethora of possible explanations.
If you say it's because Lemond was clean, that's I guess, one possible explanation, but imo it's certainly not a compelling one. More like a far-fetched one.
We have similar 'mysteries' surrounding the performance peaks and dips of guys like Miguel Indurain (1996, wtf?), Lance Armstrong (1998 on EPO, 1999 on EPO, so why the change? And why the dip in 2010 despite being on a new powerdrug, AICAR, which made Wiggo and Froome transform?). I don't doubt that if we go look through Eddy Merckx', Anquetil, and Hinault's carreers, there too we can find times/speeds/progressions/lack of progressions which, at the face of it, don't seem to make sense if they were doping.
Or, we can put Lemond 1992/93 against Hampsten 1992/93, and that too, makes little to no sense.

I simply don't see why the fact that Lemond couldn't finish races anymore in 1992 has been claimed to be due to him riding clean. If he rode clean before and quite clearly could finish races before, well why couldn't he finish races anymore in 1992. Clearly, it was health-related.
And Hampsten didn't only finish races in 1992, he won Romandie and came 4th in the TdF.
Mottet already got the better of Lemond in 1991. If all three were clean, does it mean Mottet and Hampsten were better riders than Lemond?
And remember, Lemond was already suffering from serious health issues in 1991.
In fact, there was already talk of a "blood disorder" in 1991.

1991: Lemond says virus is taking its toll.
LeMond was forced to drop out of the Tour of Italy in June because he was suffering from fatigue. His father-in-law, Dave Morris, an immunologist, said the cause was never determined, but LeMond was getting regular blood tests.
LeMond's lawyer, Nathan Jenkins, said the blood disorder was being treated with shots.
http://articles.latimes.com/1991-07-21/sports/sp-399_1_greg-lemond

1991: Indeed, antibiotics helped tide LeMond through the three flat stages before the Alps.
http://www.si.com/vault/1991/08/05/124658/tour-de-courage-greg-lemond-fought-sickness-and-adversity-in-the-78th-tour-de-france-and-finished-a-hero-though-not-a-winner

So again, his (spectacular) downfall in 1991 and especially 1992 seems to have been health-related. There is no evidence that it was due to the rise of EPO.
Drawing a parallel with Thevenet's decline strikes me as rather plausible.

 

[@NL_LeMondFans]

Re: Re:

If you can help me out: what exactly should it show/tell/suggest, or provide evidence of?

You're turning things upside down. I answered your request of providing data. I'm not claiming anything.

On the other hand, you still have to provide any kind of data to back up this statement :

I read somewhere that the climbing times started going up already in 1989. Could it be that Lemond's climbing times also went up in 1989? His TT-ing ability certainly improved.

Knowing that, as far as ITTs are concerned, I provided data stating otherwise. At least one credible example.

 

[sniper]

Re: Re:

If you can help me out: what exactly should it show/tell/suggest, or provide evidence of?

You're turning things upside down. I answered your request of providing data. I'm not claiming anything.

On the other hand, you still have to provide any kind of data to back up this statement :

I read somewhere that the climbing times started going up already in 1989. Could it be that Lemond's climbing times also went up in 1989? His TT-ing ability certainly improved.

Knowing that, as far as ITTs are concerned, I provided data stating otherwise. At least one credible example.

It was discussed in the 'first epo users' thread.
I'll look for the link.
I guess I stand corrected wrt ITTs. I did read somewhere that one of his 1990 ITTs was still a record time.
But I suck with data, which is also why I've never really argued with or against such data in the context of Lemond.
The main point of my previous post is that all these climbing times and tt times are largely inconsequential to the question why Lemond went backwards in 1991.
Lemond was finished due to health reasons, not due to EPO coming onto the scene.

 

[@NL_LeMondFans]

Re: Re:

I guess I stand corrected wrt ITTs. I did read somewhere that one of his 1990 ITTs was still a record time.
But I suck with data, which is also why I've never really argued with or against such data in the context of Lemond.

I think you're referring to the Versailles-Paris ITT of 1989 where Greg had the record for fastest ITT (in average speed) until last year, when it was beaten by Rohann Dennis.

The main point of my previous post is that all these climbing times and tt times are largely inconsequential to the question why Lemond went backwards in 1991.

Ok, I must have read that backwards. I thought you were suggesting Greg improved his ITT performances with doping.

Lemond was finished due to health reasons, not due to EPO coming onto the scene.

On this we fully agree.

 

[@NL_LeMondFans]

Re: Re:

So again, his (spectacular) downfall in 1991 and especially 1992 seems to have been health-related. There is no evidence that it was due to the rise of EPO.
Drawing a parallel with Thevenet's decline strikes me as rather plausible.

What we disagree on is the origin of Greg's health issues. I think lead poisoning is plausible.

Thevenet's comparison does not work. Thevenet's doping habits made him do great and do poorly every other year : 1973 great, 1974 not so great, 1975 great, 1976 not so great, 1977 great, 1978 really bad... Greg never experienced that kind of up and downs on a yearly basis. Certainly not before he was shot in 1987, and from 1989 he was always able to peak for the TDF and the worlds (his major goals since he dreamt of being a pro) until he started to fade away in 1991.

I think 1991 is really interesting. Greg, Fignon, Mottet, Hampsten all do rather well and what's expected of them. It's a few guys around them that suddenly increase their speeds. Namely Bugno, Indurain, Chiappucci, even Leblanc to some extent.

If you look at the ADH times, Greg does his best time in 1991. Fignon does a bit better (as he had done in 1989. Fignon was always a better climber than Greg). It's the guys before them that are speeding up. Mottet and Hampsten are a bit younger than LeMond and Fignon. To me it's only natural that they peaked a bit later. To me they are more victims of the EPO generation than Greg and Laurent. Both Greg and Laurent had already won big races by 1991. But Mottet and Hampsten were met with stellar performers from 1990 onwards. I'm saying 1990 because I think Bugno's Giro that year is already suspicious. And Mottet was 2nd.

 

[sniper]

Re: Re:

I guess I stand corrected wrt ITTs. I did read somewhere that one of his 1990 ITTs was still a record time.
But I suck with data, which is also why I've never really argued with or against such data in the context of Lemond.

I think you're referring to the Versailles-Paris ITT of 1989 where Greg had the record for fastest ITT (in average speed) until last year, when it was beaten by Rohann Dennis.

cheers. that one indeed.
This was brought up by some posters as a suspicious performance.
I don't really know. It's definitely not something I'm going to insist on.
There are probably multiple contextual factors that shed a complicating light on that performance.

Ok, I must have read that backwards. I thought you were suggesting Greg improved his ITT performances with doping.

Well, see above, his 1989 TT, which some have put forth as a suspiciously strong performance. But again, I won't be putting that forward as evidence of anything.
Mainly I was just trying to mitigate MerckxIndex' point that (climbing) times went up after, not before, 1991. I would propose that it is not so straight forward. But maybe it is straightforward. I personally do not have the skills to review the race data, and as you yourself made clear, there is always race-specific contextual data to take into account, which makes the whole data analysis a tricky undertaking.

I do think climbing and power data can in some cases be evidence of doping (see Froome, Lance, Contador, etc.), and if you and MerckxIndex say that such evidence is absent for Lemond, I appreciate and concede that.

 

[sniper]

Re: Re:

...
Contrast that with the 1980s. Riders may have heard about the benefits of transfusion, but if they were going to use their own blood, they would have to endure a period following withdrawal when they couldn’t race or train very well.

This indeed.
And what again was it that Ed Burke and Eddie B. were caught doing in 1984?
Exactly, homologous transfusions. Which means (a) no storage/refrigeration needed, and (b) the athlete can continue training at full aerobic capacity.
Now who was the first pro-rider to insist on bringing his family (including his dad) to races? Indeed.
And his wife and father-in-law knew how to use a needle.

It might all be a coincidence. It might not be.
Just saying, we probably shouldn't get stuck on the *how*.
I think there would have been different ways for Lemond to get away with blood boosting. His entourage was close to perfect for it.

 

[Tonton]

Nice exchange .

 

[Zypherov]

Greg Lemond NEVER produced the kind of watts that all the blood dopers and Epo users attained in the 1990's and 2000's. He was nowhere near.
His performances were within the threshold of natural human performance.

 

[ScienceIsCool]

Re: Re:

...
Contrast that with the 1980s. Riders may have heard about the benefits of transfusion, but if they were going to use their own blood, they would have to endure a period following withdrawal when they couldn’t race or train very well.

This indeed.
And what again was it that Ed Burke and Eddie B. were caught doing in 1984?
Exactly, homologous transfusions. Which means (a) no storage/refrigeration needed, and (b) the athlete can continue training at full aerobic capacity.
Now who was the first pro-rider to insist on bringing his family (including his dad) to races? Indeed.
And his wife and father-in-law knew how to use a needle.

It might all be a coincidence. It might not be.
Just saying, we probably shouldn't get stuck on the *how*.
I think there would have been different ways for Lemond to get away with blood boosting. His entourage was close to perfect for it.

To address the notion of entourage, since you use that term a lot as a tool to support your arguments, it would be useful to define what you mean. For example, there is a very large difference between having family at the Tour when you are a reigning champion and having a group attending to you at the Etoile de Bessege or Liege Bastogne Liege.

I think you've given evidence of the first case (immediate family and Otto Jacome at the Tour) but not the second. To me that seems like something very innocent, not menacing. If you have evidence that a small group followed him to most of the races throughout the year, then I would agree with the idea of an entourage.

Otherwise, I think it is a term that colors the discussion where it doesn't belong. It's the whole Chomsky idea of using language to shape perception. Things like "collateral damage" versus "murder of innocents". "Entourage" is very different from "wife and father".

John Swanson

 

[aphronesis]

So historically all wives and fathers are wholesome, good and neutral--professionally above board down to the smallest details? And never part of their husband/son's professional inner circle?

 

[djpbaltimore]

In regard to blood group compatibility. A son is not always going to be compatible with his father. And repeated homologous transfusions from the same person runs the real risk of developing allergic responses to the allo-antigens found in the donated blood (even if it is an ABO/Rh match). This was well known by doctors. I find the likelihood to be exceedingly small that anybody in LeMond's 'entourage' was there to serve as a blood mule.

 

[ScienceIsCool]

Re:

So historically all wives and fathers are wholesome, good and neutral--professionally above board down to the smallest details? And never part of their husband/son's professional inner circle?

That's a completely separate notion. Did Greg Lemond actually have an entourage following him all season, or did he simply have immediate family with him at the Tour?

If he did have an "entourage" then it would be worthwhile discussing who those people are and the nature and purpose of their activities.

Merely having a wife and father is not suggestive on its own.

John Swanson

 

[aphronesis]

You're right on the whole, but I don't agree that it's automatically innocent as you imply above.

 

[sniper]

Re: Re:

If he did have an "entourage" then it would be worthwhile discussing who those people are and the nature and purpose of their activities.

I used the term "entourage" in a more loose sense, to cover both
i. the people he's worked with throughout his carreer
ii. the way he was organized during GTs
(I reckon that's not the correct definition of "entourage", but I couldn't think of a better term to cover i and ii.)

If we take a homologous transfusion scenario for GTs, Lemond would have needed
(a) people with the know-how to make him acquainted with the technique
(b) somebody with compatible blood type to donate blood
(c) somebody to help him with the actual transfusion
(d) a certain degree of isolation from his team, so as to keep this scheme secret.

His "entourage" (as defined above) included Ed Burke and Eddie B. So that's a "check" for (a).
It included his wife, a nursing student, so that's a check for (c). (I'm disregarding his father-in-law here because, although he certainly was present at some GTs, I don't have any evidence that he was always there.)
I think we can also 'check off' (c), as there are reports about his wife riding around in a van during GTs, and about Lemond renting separate rooms for his immediate confidents and family (i.e. his entourage as defined in the more classical sense).
As for (b), maybe his father, but I have no evidence that he was always there, or that his blood was indeed compatible with Greg's. So maybe the donor was somebody else. Impossible to prove of course.

 

[gillan1969]

Re: Re:

If he did have an "entourage" then it would be worthwhile discussing who those people are and the nature and purpose of their activities.

I used the term "entourage" in a more loose sense, to cover both
i. the people he's worked with throughout his carreer
ii. the way he was organized during GTs
(I reckon that's not the correct definition of "entourage", but I couldn't think of a better term to cover i and ii.)

If we take a homologous transfusion scenario for GTs, Lemond would have needed
(a) people with the know-how to make him acquainted with the technique
(b) somebody with compatible blood type to donate blood
(c) somebody to help him with the actual transfusion
(d) a certain degree of isolation from his team, so as to keep this scheme secret.

His "entourage" (as defined above) included Ed Burke and Eddie B. So that's a "check" for (a).
It included his wife, a nursing student, so that's a check for (c). (I'm disregarding his father-in-law here because, although he certainly was present at some GTs, I don't have any evidence that he was always there.)
I think we can also 'check off' (c), as there are reports about his wife riding around in a van during GTs, and about Lemond renting separate rooms for his immediate confidents and family (i.e. his entourage as defined in the more classical sense).
As for (b), maybe his father, but I have no evidence that he was always there, or that his blood was indeed compatible with Greg's. So maybe the donor was somebody else. Impossible to prove of course.

sorry if I have missed it in any of your earlier posts.....

Eddie B and Ed Burke were with lemond during his GTs?????

 

[sniper]

not to my knowledge.
why?

 

[gillan1969]

Re:

not to my knowledge.
why?

that's the implication from your post...you say he has an entourage at GTs and then name these two as part of that entourage

only they were nowhere near him at GTs

so...as John says up post....we have his in-laws...and...eh...that's it

of course Dustin Hoffman pitched up one year ('84)...should we include him...he will have been at more GTs with Greg than Eddie B.... ;-)

 

[ScienceIsCool]

Re: Re:

If he did have an "entourage" then it would be worthwhile discussing who those people are and the nature and purpose of their activities.

I used the term "entourage" in a more loose sense, to cover both
i. the people he's worked with throughout his carreer
ii. the way he was organized during GTs
(I reckon that's not the correct definition of "entourage", but I couldn't think of a better term to cover i and ii.)

If we take a homologous transfusion scenario for GTs, Lemond would have needed
(a) people with the know-how to make him acquainted with the technique
(b) somebody with compatible blood type to donate blood
(c) somebody to help him with the actual transfusion
(d) a certain degree of isolation from his team, so as to keep this scheme secret.

His "entourage" (as defined above) included Ed Burke and Eddie B. So that's a "check" for (a).
It included his wife, a nursing student, so that's a check for (c). (I'm disregarding his father-in-law here because, although he certainly was present at some GTs, I don't have any evidence that he was always there.)
I think we can also 'check off' (c), as there are reports about his wife riding around in a van during GTs, and about Lemond renting separate rooms for his immediate confidents and family (i.e. his entourage as defined in the more classical sense).
As for (b), maybe his father, but I have no evidence that he was always there, or that his blood was indeed compatible with Greg's. So maybe the donor was somebody else. Impossible to prove of course.

Thank you. In that case, I would object to the use of entourage because it isn't very accurate and has a meaning that is inflammatory and suggestive. Perhaps we could use a different term that more closely matches what actually happened. Inner circle? Maybe something else?

John Swanson

 

[sniper]

Re: Re:

not to my knowledge.
why?

that's the implication from your post...

no it's not.

you say he has an entourage at GTs and then name these two as part of that entourage

no i don't.

only they were nowhere near him at GTs

i know

 

[sniper]

Re: Re:

...
Thank you. In that case, I would object to the use of entourage because it isn't very accurate and has a meaning that is inflammatory and suggestive.

agreed, i should've defined it better at an earlier stage.

Perhaps we could use a different term that more closely matches what actually happened. Inner circle? Maybe something else?

inner circle sounds good, although it would probably exclude someone like Ed Burke, who afaict only did some testing with Lemond at the OTC.

Does anybody know how closely Lemond remained involved with (people from) the OTC/USCF (Burke, Borysewicz, maybe others) after 1980?
In the book Wheelmen Eddie B. is said to have introduced Lemond to Weisel (which at a guess would have been somewhere in the mid/late 80s). But apart from that?
Of course there's the fundraiser from 2004, which mildly suggest some sort of ongoing contact between Greg and Eddie, but I could be wrong.
Was Lemond in the habit of training at the OTC in the post-1980 period or did he ignore that place altogether?