LeMond III

[Ramon Koran]

In the stade 2 report from the start of the year on mechanical doping, Vargas said his first prototype was from 1998 and it would easily fit in a tube. What's more it was said to be effective in the case of a rider having a fast cadence. Vargas is then asked if a rider in the eraly 2000's with a high cadence was using this to which he replied in a weird manner that there was no proof. Some how I think Vargas saw what was going on and realized, remember Hautacam in 2000, armstrong tt's.... I am seriously starting to think that this is what caused Armstrong to be another level at the tour as hamilton was reffering to. If such is the case it seriously damages armstrongs legacy as he probably was the only one to have access to it. The next rumored case of mechanical doping is 2008 and Sastre so that's nearly a decade later, thus explaning armstrongs dominance.

 

[Microchip]

Re:

I couldn't figure out how Armstrong could place as high as third in the 2009 race. The PED situation was different and he himself said that Ferrari told him not to dope because 'they' are after him, so he strongly advised him to stay off the PEDs. Although he may have transfused, that method would not have been enough to place him first, yet he placed third. That is a very high placement.

In the stade 2 report from the start of the year on mechanical doping, Vargas said his first prototype was from 1998 and it would easily fit in a tube. What's more it was said to be effective in the case of a rider having a fast cadence. Vargas is then asked if a rider in the eraly 2000's with a high cadence was using this to which he replied in a weird manner that there was no proof. Some how I think Vargas saw what was going on and realized, remember Hautacam in 2000, armstrong tt's.... I am seriously starting to think that this is what caused Armstrong to be another level at the tour as hamilton was reffering to. If such is the case it seriously damages armstrongs legacy as he probably was the only one to have access to it. The next rumored case of mechanical doping is 2008 and Sastre so that's nearly a decade later, thus explaning armstrongs dominance.

 

[86TDFWinner]

Re: Re:

[quote="] And maybe Lemond should fess up to his own carreer long doping.
[/quote]

Can you please post your proof of LeMond doping? I'm sure you have the time now to post it, its been a while. You said you would post it, yet you haven't.

 

[red_flanders]

Re: Re:

I couldn't figure out how Armstrong could place as high as third in the 2009 race. The PED situation was different and he himself said that Ferrari told him not to dope because 'they' are after him, so he strongly advised him to stay off the PEDs. Although he may have transfused, that method would not have been enough to place him first, yet he placed third. That is a very high placement.

Sorry, why not? He used it to place first since 2000.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Re: Re:

I couldn't figure out how Armstrong could place as high as third in the 2009 race. The PED situation was different and he himself said that Ferrari told him not to dope because 'they' are after him, so he strongly advised him to stay off the PEDs. Although he may have transfused, that method would not have been enough to place him first, yet he placed third. That is a very high placement.

Sorry, why not? He used it to place first since 2000.

I think they are saying he moto doped.

 

[D-Queued]

Re: Re:

...
And maybe Lemond should fess up to his own carreer long doping.
...

Can you please post your proof of LeMond doping? I'm sure you have the time now to post it, its been a while. You said you would post it, yet you haven't.

Seems to be the only reason this thread exists is for sniper to perpetuate this false innuendo.

Too bad, of course.

Greg, as usual, had something interesting to say. And, it was even on one of sniper's pet topics. But, here we go again. Right back into the sewer.

Dave.

 

[sniper]

Re:

In the stade 2 report from the start of the year on mechanical doping, Vargas said his first prototype was from 1998 and it would easily fit in a tube. What's more it was said to be effective in the case of a rider having a fast cadence. Vargas is then asked if a rider in the eraly 2000's with a high cadence was using this to which he replied in a weird manner that there was no proof. Some how I think Vargas saw what was going on and realized, remember Hautacam in 2000, armstrong tt's.... I am seriously starting to think that this is what caused Armstrong to be another level at the tour as hamilton was reffering to. If such is the case it seriously damages armstrongs legacy as he probably was the only one to have access to it. The next rumored case of mechanical doping is 2008 and Sastre so that's nearly a decade later, thus explaning armstrongs dominance.

this is getting awfully off-topic.

Anyway, what you posted above is well-taken but nothing new. It is a hypothesis that has been laid out before (in very similar terms), I think in the "the motorized bike exists!" thread, but also elsewhere.

Indeed, it's not at all far-fetched that Femke-level motor technology was already available during Armstrong's years (and Varjas certainly seemed to hint at it), and so I'll be the last to discard the possibilty that he used motors. But for me personally that's all there is to say about it, for now at least.

If anybody wants to follow the Armstrong-motodoping story, an interesting lead might be that Sky hired an ex-USPS mechanic (iinm), I think it was a Dutch guy. Just thinking out loud of course.

@D-Queued, i won't forget the times when you spent page after page arguing that motor doping was science fiction. Epic stuff. To realize that that was only one or two years ago. No wonder you went off radar when Femke got caught. That said, it's always good to see you back.


@mods, maybe you could shift Armstrong motor discussions to another thread?

 

[Microchip]

Re: Re:

I couldn't figure out how Armstrong could place as high as third in the 2009 race. The PED situation was different and he himself said that Ferrari told him not to dope because 'they' are after him, so he strongly advised him to stay off the PEDs. Although he may have transfused, that method would not have been enough to place him first, yet he placed third. That is a very high placement.

Sorry, why not? He used it to place first since 2000.

Yes, but he did alot of additional things to transfusions in 2000 and up.

 

[D-Queued]

Re: Re:

...
...

@D-Queued, i won't forget the times when you spent page after page arguing that motor doping was science fiction. Epic stuff. To realize that that was only one or two years ago. No wonder you went off radar when Femke got caught. That said, it's always good to see you back.


@mods, maybe you could shift Armstrong motor discussions to another thread?

Thanks. Yes, I am guilty of that. Not why I went off-radar, but ok. And, yes, you deserve credit for foreseeing this.

Personally don't believe Armstrong used a motor. And, I think the guys on the moto checking for motors in the Tour is close to... close to pretty darned silly. Like, ok, these guys have been on a 200k breakaway and have been on live TV for hours. You really think that they are carrying around some sort of heavy battery pack for all that time?

But, I am/was intrigued that LeMond actually rode a motorized bike. IMHO there isn't anyone that could substantiate the concern better than his personal experience.

Dave.

 

[86TDFWinner]

Re: Re:

...
And maybe Lemond should fess up to his own carreer long doping.
...

Can you please post your proof of LeMond doping? I'm sure you have the time now to post it, its been a while. You said you would post it, yet you haven't.

Seems to be the only reason this thread exists is for sniper to perpetuate this false innuendo.

Too bad, of course.

Greg, as usual, had something interesting to say. And, it was even on one of sniper's pet topics. But, here we go again. Right back into the sewer.

Dave.

And as usual(and no surprise to anyone), Sniper has not responded with anything.

Typical crickets chirp, non answer...

 

[sniper]

Re: Re:

..
And, yes, you deserve credit for foreseeing this.

Not really.
Boardman foresaw this in 2009. Cassani in 2010. And after that a host of others, including Lemond, and many posters in the Clinic were on this well before I was.
Let's give credit where it's due.
I'm just having a bit of fun recollecting the days when you were discarding motors as 'false innuendo'.

 

[Digger]

Gaimon having a go at those who think moto's are in use by world tour teams - seems legit...so can we stop discussing motors - I mean the guy has a clean tattoo in his hand

 

[Jeroen Swart]

Re:

It took them a few days but as predictable as day follows night the Sky counter attack on Lemond has begun. Predictably it is Swart who has started the ball rolling to try and lend some scientific credence to their argument. When things get slightly difficult, Swart is wheeled out to pull apart an argument based on numbers. Still, he claims he is not a sky supporter and is totally 'independent'. Starts off the softening up process by saying Greg was an absolute hero of his then quickly rubbishes his point's about his buddy Froome.

Which shows that you missed the point completely.

You are so hell bent to attribute any comment I make as a defence of Sky that you are blinded to the validity of the point itself.

So I will state it more succinctly:

I watched my first Tour de France in 1985 and Lemond became my hero. I still watch the 1986 & 89 Tours every now and again for kicks. I don't think we've seen better Tours than those two.

I applaud Lemond for standing up to Lance. He suffered a great deal as a result, both financially and emotionally.

However, his latest comments do absolutely nothing to improve the situation in cycling. The comments were blatantly absurd. They seem to stem from his obsession for revenge against Lance (understandable), but they are of no relevance or merit to any current debate.

1) He claims he had a VO2max of 93 but couldn't hold 400W. Even a basic understanding of physiology would give you an insight into how off the mark that comment is.

2) He claims that it is impossible to accelerate at a high cadence or attack using a high cadence. There is good evidence demonstrating that time to peak power is shortened at higher cadences (in contrast to peak torque). A cursory glance at any track race would also be useful to refute Lemond's comment.

3) He insinuates that Lance used a motor. Although this is impossible to disprove, the time frame and development of this technology (particularly battery technology) makes this such an unlikely scenario as to be on the far reaches of improbable, bordering on impossible.

It's this kind of wild and unsubstantiated commentary that I have an issue with. If we are going to be critical, then let's at least base it on facts.

Let's ask valid and relevent questions and stick to them rather than creating all this additional white noise which allows any relevant issue to become diluted and obscured.

 

[Benotti69]

Re: Re:

It took them a few days but as predictable as day follows night the Sky counter attack on Lemond has begun. Predictably it is Swart who has started the ball rolling to try and lend some scientific credence to their argument. When things get slightly difficult, Swart is wheeled out to pull apart an argument based on numbers. Still, he claims he is not a sky supporter and is totally 'independent'. Starts off the softening up process by saying Greg was an absolute hero of his then quickly rubbishes his point's about his buddy Froome.

Which shows that you missed the point completely.

You are so hell bent to attribute any comment I make as a defence of Sky that you are blinded to the validity of the point itself.

So I will state it more succinctly:

I watched my first Tour de France in 1985 and Lemond became my hero. I still watch the 1986 & 89 Tours every now and again for kicks. I don't think we've seen better Tours than those two.

I applaud Lemond for standing up to Lance. He suffered a great deal as a result, both financially and emotionally.

However, his latest comments do absolutely nothing to improve the situation in cycling. The comments were blatantly absurd. They seem to stem from his obsession for revenge against Lance (understandable), but they are of no relevance or merit to any current debate.

1) He claims he had a VO2max of 93 but couldn't hold 400W. Even a basic understanding of physiology would give you an insight into how off the mark that comment is.

2) He claims that it is impossible to accelerate at a high cadence or attack using a high cadence. There is good evidence demonstrating that time to peak power is shortened at higher cadences (in contrast to peak torque). A cursory glance at any track race would also be useful to refute Lemond's comment.

3) He insinuates that Lance used a motor. Although this is impossible to disprove, the time frame and development of this technology (particularly battery technology) makes this such an unlikely scenario as to be on the far reaches of improbable, bordering on impossible.

It's this kind of wild and unsubstantiated commentary that I have an issue with. If we are going to be critical, then let's at least base it on facts.

Let's ask valid and relevent questions and stick to them rather than creating all this additional white noise which allows any relevant issue to become diluted and obscured.

How about you start the ball rolling?

Why dont you list out a series of questions here that in your opinion are crucial to Sky being a clean team?

 

[Jeroen Swart]

Re: Re:

It took them a few days but as predictable as day follows night the Sky counter attack on Lemond has begun. Predictably it is Swart who has started the ball rolling to try and lend some scientific credence to their argument. When things get slightly difficult, Swart is wheeled out to pull apart an argument based on numbers. Still, he claims he is not a sky supporter and is totally 'independent'. Starts off the softening up process by saying Greg was an absolute hero of his then quickly rubbishes his point's about his buddy Froome.

Which shows that you missed the point completely.

You are so hell bent to attribute any comment I make as a defence of Sky that you are blinded to the validity of the point itself.

So I will state it more succinctly:

I watched my first Tour de France in 1985 and Lemond became my hero. I still watch the 1986 & 89 Tours every now and again for kicks. I don't think we've seen better Tours than those two.

I applaud Lemond for standing up to Lance. He suffered a great deal as a result, both financially and emotionally.

However, his latest comments do absolutely nothing to improve the situation in cycling. The comments were blatantly absurd. They seem to stem from his obsession for revenge against Lance (understandable), but they are of no relevance or merit to any current debate.

1) He claims he had a VO2max of 93 but couldn't hold 400W. Even a basic understanding of physiology would give you an insight into how off the mark that comment is.

2) He claims that it is impossible to accelerate at a high cadence or attack using a high cadence. There is good evidence demonstrating that time to peak power is shortened at higher cadences (in contrast to peak torque). A cursory glance at any track race would also be useful to refute Lemond's comment.

3) He insinuates that Lance used a motor. Although this is impossible to disprove, the time frame and development of this technology (particularly battery technology) makes this such an unlikely scenario as to be on the far reaches of improbable, bordering on impossible.

It's this kind of wild and unsubstantiated commentary that I have an issue with. If we are going to be critical, then let's at least base it on facts.

Let's ask valid and relevent questions and stick to them rather than creating all this additional white noise which allows any relevant issue to become diluted and obscured.

How about you start the ball rolling?

Why dont you list out a series of questions here that in your opinion are crucial to Sky being a clean team?

1) They could give greater transparency on the Leinders issue: It deserves a complete statement and transparent response to any queries from Kimmage or others.

2) They could state a clear policy that no rider will race with a TUE for corticosteroids or any other substance that is controversial. That anyone who is sick will ride on without treatment or abandon and will not resort to a TUE to continue, despite this being within regulations.

3) They could state that no rider will use Tramadol, thyroid hormone or any other substance which is controversial, even when this is not on the prohibited list.

Those are 3 off the cuff that I would like to see implemented.

Carry on...

 

[Benotti69]

Those are statements required of Sky.

Let see some questions you want Sky to answer?

E.G.

Why did Sky not diagnose Bilharzia in Froome?

Why did they not declare Froome was asthmatic since childhood?

Why did Froome's HR remain constant when he attacked?

Why happened to Froome between Tour of Poland (83rd place on GC) to La Vuelta where he should've won it(2nd overall)?

Why is Servais Knaven still working for Sky when they have ZTP?

 

[Cannibal72]

Why not release proper power data?

 

[Jeroen Swart]

Re:

Those are statements required of Sky.

Let see some questions you want Sky to answer?

E.G.

Why did Sky not diagnose Bilharzia in Froome?

Why did they not declare Froome was asthmatic since childhood?

Why did Froome's HR remain constant when he attacked?

Why happened to Froome between Tour of Poland (83rd place on GC) to La Vuelta where he should've won it(2nd overall)?

Why is Servais Knaven still working for Sky when they have ZTP?

Fair questions.

Mostly fair questions.

Does the HR question have any relevance? He has a fairly low max so in general the values relative to power will be low. Why didn't it go up when he increases workload? The only plausible answer is heart rate lag and technical issues in the signal or interference. There is no doping related scenario to this so I don't see the relevance. The power data is derived from the crank and so if you are asking in lieu of any motor in the BB, it would lower the power as it would apply torque in the opposite direction to the strain gauge reading in a Stages power meter. So speed would go up, power would go down and heart rate would stay the same or go down. Unless there is some other aspect that I am missing and that you can fill me in on?

 

[Jeroen Swart]

Re:

Why not release proper power data?

Didn't there already do this? They released all his data to Fred Grappe and then released stage power data for last year too but they did a correction factor for the oval rings (which I believe was incorrect).

When tested at GSK the values for the Stages and Load generator were virtually the same so I think the correction factor might have been incorrectly applied. The engineering of the power meter and the physics predict that the PM would measure a lower power with oval rings but in reality this didn't occur for some reason. If you remove the correction factor they used then the power correlates well with the other published data from riders behind him.

But does the power data really tell us anything? Unless they develop a power passport which monitors the rate of change in performance variables and is validated for accuracy and reliability in the detection of prohibited substances or methods, the data doesn't really tell any story. How you get to the data is the story.

 

[Benotti69]

Re: Re:

Why not release proper power data?

Didn't there already do this? They released all his data to Fred Grappe and then released stage power data for last year too but they did a correction factor for the oval rings (which I believe was incorrect).

When tested at GSK the values for the Stages and Load generator were virtually the same so I think the correction factor might have been incorrectly applied. The engineering of the power meter and the physics predict that the PM would measure a lower power with oval rings but in reality this didn't occur for some reason. If you remove the correction factor they used then the power correlates well with the other published data from riders behind him.

But does the power data really tell us anything? Unless they develop a power passport which monitors the rate of change in performance variables and is validated for accuracy and reliability in the detection of prohibited substances or methods, the data doesn't really tell any story. How you get to the data is the story.

Grappe is not credible. He viewed Armstrong's data and claimed it did not point to doping.

 

[Jeroen Swart]

Re: Re:

Why not release proper power data?

Didn't there already do this? They released all his data to Fred Grappe and then released stage power data for last year too but they did a correction factor for the oval rings (which I believe was incorrect).

When tested at GSK the values for the Stages and Load generator were virtually the same so I think the correction factor might have been incorrectly applied. The engineering of the power meter and the physics predict that the PM would measure a lower power with oval rings but in reality this didn't occur for some reason. If you remove the correction factor they used then the power correlates well with the other published data from riders behind him.

But does the power data really tell us anything? Unless they develop a power passport which monitors the rate of change in performance variables and is validated for accuracy and reliability in the detection of prohibited substances or methods, the data doesn't really tell any story. How you get to the data is the story.

Grappe is not credible. He viewed Armstrong's data and claimed it did not point to doping.

Who is credible to make any inferences from the data? Any idea how it would tell the story?

 

[Benotti69]

Re: Re:

Why not release proper power data?

Didn't there already do this? They released all his data to Fred Grappe and then released stage power data for last year too but they did a correction factor for the oval rings (which I believe was incorrect).

When tested at GSK the values for the Stages and Load generator were virtually the same so I think the correction factor might have been incorrectly applied. The engineering of the power meter and the physics predict that the PM would measure a lower power with oval rings but in reality this didn't occur for some reason. If you remove the correction factor they used then the power correlates well with the other published data from riders behind him.

But does the power data really tell us anything? Unless they develop a power passport which monitors the rate of change in performance variables and is validated for accuracy and reliability in the detection of prohibited substances or methods, the data doesn't really tell any story. How you get to the data is the story.

Grappe is not credible. He viewed Armstrong's data and claimed it did not point to doping.

Who is credible to make any inferences from the data? Any idea how it would tell the story?

So Armstrong/Bruyneel would release their data to someone who is going to say, "ooh these speaks of unnatural ability"?

Like Sky have not ben transparent at all. Why have they not been transparent? Why do they call people pseudoscientists? Why do they ignore and avoid Kimmage?

If Sky had found a 'new method' to beat doping, it would still be performance enhancing and other teams would have learnt of it through DeJongh, Jullich, Yates, Leinders etc etc. Yet Sky are doing a better USPostal than USPostal ever did. The history of the sport points to one thing. Doping.

That all those in the sport have made a living with doping points to the continued culture of doping.

That none of the big players in the sport are vociferous in condemning doping at every opportunity points to the acceptance of the culture of doping.

Even 'dedicated his life to anti-doping' Vaughters has gone quiet on addressing the doping problem.

So how do Sky beat the doping teams of Vino/Martinelli, Tinkoff, Och/Rihs, Andersen, Saronni, Makarov, these dyed in the wool dopers and doping enablers who are constantly looking foe better ways to win?

As LeMond said, "there are no miracles in cycling".

 

[Jeroen Swart]

Re: Re:

Why not release proper power data?

Didn't there already do this? They released all his data to Fred Grappe and then released stage power data for last year too but they did a correction factor for the oval rings (which I believe was incorrect).

When tested at GSK the values for the Stages and Load generator were virtually the same so I think the correction factor might have been incorrectly applied. The engineering of the power meter and the physics predict that the PM would measure a lower power with oval rings but in reality this didn't occur for some reason. If you remove the correction factor they used then the power correlates well with the other published data from riders behind him.

But does the power data really tell us anything? Unless they develop a power passport which monitors the rate of change in performance variables and is validated for accuracy and reliability in the detection of prohibited substances or methods, the data doesn't really tell any story. How you get to the data is the story.

Grappe is not credible. He viewed Armstrong's data and claimed it did not point to doping.

Who is credible to make any inferences from the data? Any idea how it would tell the story?

So Armstrong/Bruyneel would release their data to someone who is going to say, "ooh these speaks of unnatural ability"?

Like Sky have not ben transparent at all. Why have they not been transparent? Why do they call people pseudoscientists? Why do they ignore and avoid Kimmage?

If Sky had found a 'new method' to beat doping, it would still be performance enhancing and other teams would have learnt of it through DeJongh, Jullich, Yates, Leinders etc etc. Yet Sky are doing a better USPostal than USPostal ever did. The history of the sport points to one thing. Doping.

That all those in the sport have made a living with doping points to the continued culture of doping.

That none of the big players in the sport are vociferous in condemning doping at every opportunity points to the acceptance of the culture of doping.

Even 'dedicated his life to anti-doping' Vaughters has gone quiet on addressing the doping problem.

So how do Sky beat the doping teams of Vino/Martinelli, Tinkoff, Och/Rihs, Andersen, Saronni, Makarov, these dyed in the wool dopers and doping enablers who are constantly looking foe better ways to win?

As LeMond said, "there are no miracles in cycling".

Why have you turned what was a reasonably focused discussion into a rant that has no coherence.

I was actually enjoying having meaningful discussion for a few minutes.

 

[Benotti69]

play the ball not the man.

You obviously have no questions you would like to see asked of Sky.

You posted none after posting "Let's ask valid and relevent questions".

Wasting clinic time it would appear.

 

[Jeroen Swart]

Re:

play the ball not the man.

You obviously have no questions you would like to see asked of Sky.

You posted none after posting "Let's ask valid and relevent questions".

Wasting clinic time it would appear.

Actually I gave some examples of some things I would like to see them do. You agreed.

Then you gave some examples of questions you wanted answers to. I agreed to most.

I don't see where you have gotten the conclusion from.

Why not say "Can you give a few more suggested areas or questions?"

Instead you went into full blown assault mode and continue.

Can you fit the other shoe for once and see what I mean?