LeMond III

[Alex Simmons/RST]

Re: Re:

Question about the disc wheel. They are nowhere near as stiff as a spoked, high profile wheel. Due to the type of course I would think that with hilly course, more standing and mashing involved, the disc wheel would not be the best choice because of the flexing.

The most powerful track sprinters in the world use rear disks when they pump out 2.0 - 2.5kW peak power. Doesn't seem to be a problem for them and it wouldn't be for someone knocking out 400-500W on a climb.

If your disk is that bad, get a better disk.

 

[Alex Simmons/RST]

Re: Re:

Well, the road bike is way lighter than the full TT bike plus disc wheel, plus, almost all riders with the exception of Froome, didnt have the power to climb in the tri bars.

For Froome it was the right choice though, when you have power to spare you can even stunt like that.

Rodriguez was on a full TT setup as well, he changed bikes on the foot of the climb on his normal bike.

Not sure the road bikes were really way lighter than the TT rigs. Remember those on road bikes added extra clip on TT bars, and some put disks on their road bikes too. And the small weight difference of those components is much less important than the aero losses, especially given the average speeds were over 30km/h.

Dumoulin also rode in the TT position most of the way. Why? Because he and Froome no doubt actually trained for it. Although in some images I saw Froome on the bullhorns and also out of the saddle so not sure why other cannot also do that where needed. Consider the average speeds - one should have been able to ride in at least some form of aero tuck. If you are not training specifically for such an event and preparing to optimise all elements for a crucial stage (as all ITTs are), then you choose to place yourself at a disadvantage. It's just a lack of basic prep IMO.

Thanks for the info on Rodriguez.

 

[Microchip]

Re:

Very good chart. So help me...Alexander Valverde was the only one with identical equipment...his placement is interesting.

I did a post looking at the aero equipment choices of the top 20 from stage 18 ITT. Some of the decisions made by many who have GC aspirations bemuse me. It seems to me that many simply hadn't adequately prepared for the specific course.
http://alex-cycle.blogspot.com.au/2016/07/bemusing-aero-equipment-choices-at-tour.html

 

[Alex Simmons/RST]

Re:

Alex, what about a fifth column, "motor yes/no".
Aren't you absolutely pissed off that you have no clue whatsoever who's using a motor and who's not?
Or who's doping or not?
your stats are nice, but competely, and I mean utterly, irrelevant as long as you don't know who's doping and motordoping.
Time to acknowledge that.
Interesting stats nonetheless.

The chart is about aerodynamics and rider's preparation or lack of wrt aerodynamics. It's not about tech fraud or doping.

Keep in mind that motors and doping only impact the supply side of the TT physics equation, not the demand side, which is what aero is all about. I'm addressing the issues of a lack of preparation that would impact on the demand side of the performance equation irrespective of whether one is doping or uses a motor.

But let's humour you and hypothetically say Rider X is dopingand/or uses a motor and has 10% more power as a result. Why would they not also use all available aerodynamic aids to improve their performance even further?

Doping/tech fraud and use of legitimate performance gains are not mutually exclusive.

 

[Alex Simmons/RST]

Re: Re:

Very good chart. So help me...Alexander Valverde was the only one with identical equipment...his placement is interesting.

Yes. He may have lost even more time otherwise.

While relative placement is obviously interesting, the issue is how the choices affect each individual's performance and whether or not they could have done better through undertaking specific prep helping them to make optimal set up choices.

 

[ScienceIsCool]

Re:

I can't say about Sky's program because I don't specifically know, but one does not need a wind tunnel to do good effective aero testing, there are other ways*. While I agree a 15% reduction in CdA would be pretty big (assuming that's what it equates to) it's not completely unheard of even for pro riders. There are some pretty ordinary set ups out there. More typically I see CdA reductions of ~5-10% in many riders I work with but bigger gains are not that unusual either. It's pretty cool what's possible with attention to aero detail and doing enough testing work.

Again, I've no idea about what work Froome/Sky did/did not do. But not using a tunnel does not automatically mean not doing aerodynamics optimisation. He's clearly done some work on road bike descending aerodynamics for when suitable roads were available.


* As an aside, Sky are now using the aero testing technology I've been using for some years.

I agree with the principles, but a 15% reduction for a pro from one time trial setup to another? There's also the matter of Froome's improved ability to climb which occurred at the same time. That suggests it was FTP that changed and not setup.

John Swanson

 

[ScienceIsCool]

Re: Re:

I did a post looking at the aero equipment choices of the top 20 from stage 18 ITT. Some of the decisions made by many who have GC aspirations bemuse me. It seems to me that many simply hadn't adequately prepared for the specific course.
http://alex-cycle.blogspot.com.au/2016/07/bemusing-aero-equipment-choices-at-tour.html

I was at the TT stage from 8am, in between the first and second time check I saw porte come past me once downhill and twice up hill, I think this implies he was taking it very seriously and giving proper thought to what equipment he should be using.

From a technical equipment perspective it was a difficult time trial to prepare for. A time trial bike can be a big negative if you can't find a decent position for climbing. And the lighter guys may have been worried about handling with the disc wheels. I'm pretty sure the serious GC guys have been thinking about equipment choice for many months

John Swanson

 

[Alex Simmons/RST]

Re: Re:

I did a post looking at the aero equipment choices of the top 20 from stage 18 ITT. Some of the decisions made by many who have GC aspirations bemuse me. It seems to me that many simply hadn't adequately prepared for the specific course.
http://alex-cycle.blogspot.com.au/2016/07/bemusing-aero-equipment-choices-at-tour.html

I was at the TT stage from 8am, in between the first and second time check I saw porte come past me once downhill and twice up hill, I think this implies he was taking it very seriously and giving proper thought to what equipment he should be using.

From a technical equipment perspective it was a difficult time trial to prepare for. A time trial bike can be a big negative if you can't find a decent position for climbing. And the lighter guys may have been worried about handling with the disc wheels. I'm pretty sure the serious GC guys have been thinking about equipment choice for many months

John Swanson

Yes it was difficult but that's why you do sufficient prep and assessment. These guys are meant to be pros, it's not like the course was a secret until race day or couldn't pay it a visit.

If you are having trouble handling, you practice and get the set up right so that you don't. The descents as far as I can tell were not particularly technical on this course.

If you have trouble climbing on the TT bike, you practice and get the set up right so that you don't. There is nothing to say the TT set up needs to be positionally the same as for a dead flat TT.

That's all basic prep. It's a known thing to prep for, a critical stage that you would expect to see GC positions up for grabs.

But not riding with at least a decently aero front wheel? WTF?

 

[Alex Simmons/RST]

Re: Re:

I can't say about Sky's program because I don't specifically know, but one does not need a wind tunnel to do good effective aero testing, there are other ways*. While I agree a 15% reduction in CdA would be pretty big (assuming that's what it equates to) it's not completely unheard of even for pro riders. There are some pretty ordinary set ups out there. More typically I see CdA reductions of ~5-10% in many riders I work with but bigger gains are not that unusual either. It's pretty cool what's possible with attention to aero detail and doing enough testing work.

Again, I've no idea about what work Froome/Sky did/did not do. But not using a tunnel does not automatically mean not doing aerodynamics optimisation. He's clearly done some work on road bike descending aerodynamics for when suitable roads were available.


* As an aside, Sky are now using the aero testing technology I've been using for some years.

I agree with the principles, but a 15% reduction for a pro from one time trial setup to another? There's also the matter of Froome's improved ability to climb which occurred at the same time. That suggests it was FTP that changed and not setup.

John Swanson

I agree, we are talking about a combination of performance factors. I think my point is that we can't actually know in what proportion each contributed. We can only speculate.

But like I say, small things can matter quite bit . e.g. I have tested a nearly 20W difference in skinsuit choice for one rider, and seen similar results for another client in the tunnel. Unfortunately for the first rider the worst suit was the national sponsor issue suit. Now days suits can be custom designed after scanning rider on the bike and working out optimal (legit) seam placement and fabric choice with CFD and backed up with field testing. I'm not saying this is what Froome or anyone else specifically has done, only to point out the principle in play.

It's also because of stuff like this that we can never really clear the muddy waters between riders' legit and illegitimate gains, and is why "marginal gains" is both PR puff/obfuscation as well as containing some elements of truth/reality. Legit and illegitimate gains can happen together, it's not a dichotomy. One can dope and get more aero.

 

[red_flanders]

Re: Re:

I can't say about Sky's program because I don't specifically know, but one does not need a wind tunnel to do good effective aero testing, there are other ways*. While I agree a 15% reduction in CdA would be pretty big (assuming that's what it equates to) it's not completely unheard of even for pro riders. There are some pretty ordinary set ups out there. More typically I see CdA reductions of ~5-10% in many riders I work with but bigger gains are not that unusual either. It's pretty cool what's possible with attention to aero detail and doing enough testing work.

Again, I've no idea about what work Froome/Sky did/did not do. But not using a tunnel does not automatically mean not doing aerodynamics optimisation. He's clearly done some work on road bike descending aerodynamics for when suitable roads were available.


* As an aside, Sky are now using the aero testing technology I've been using for some years.

I agree with the principles, but a 15% reduction for a pro from one time trial setup to another? There's also the matter of Froome's improved ability to climb which occurred at the same time. That suggests it was FTP that changed and not setup.

John Swanson

Not sure how much one can tell from photos or race footage, but here he is at the Worlds in 2009:

And at the Tour de Suisse in 2010:

He's a bit more stretched out in 2010. Wonder when he started using the new bike. Radically different helmet.

Not feeling the 15% here, but it is a change. Wouldn't 5% be a phenomenal change at this level?

 

[D-Queued]

Re: Re:

I did a post looking at the aero equipment choices of the top 20 from stage 18 ITT. Some of the decisions made by many who have GC aspirations bemuse me. It seems to me that many simply hadn't adequately prepared for the specific course.

... Snipped really cool chart...

I was at the TT stage from 8am, in between the first and second time check I saw porte come past me once downhill and twice up hill, I think this implies he was taking it very seriously and giving proper thought to what equipment he should be using.

From a technical equipment perspective it was a difficult time trial to prepare for. A time trial bike can be a big negative if you can't find a decent position for climbing. And the lighter guys may have been worried about handling with the disc wheels. I'm pretty sure the serious GC guys have been thinking about equipment choice for many months

John Swanson

Yes it was difficult but that's why you do sufficient prep and assessment. These guys are meant to be pros, it's not like the course was a secret until race day or couldn't pay it a visit.

If you are having trouble handling, you practice and get the set up right so that you don't. The descents as far as I can tell were not particularly technical on this course.

If you have trouble climbing on the TT bike, you practice and get the set up right so that you don't. There is nothing to say the TT set up needs to be positionally the same as for a dead flat TT.

That's all basic prep. It's a known thing to prep for, a critical stage that you would expect to see GC positions up for grabs.

But not riding with at least a decently aero front wheel? WTF?

1. Many hadn't adequately prepared

Bang on! Perhaps that is the strongest case for marginal gains. You want to win the Tour? Do your homework.

2. Climbing on a TT bike

... Is an excellent way to prepare for TT's due to the constant resistance that climbing can offer over riding on the flats. And, why does position have to be any different for climbing on a TT bike?

3. Disc wheels and handling

There are some that could and would argue a disc wheel on the rear enhances stability. Especially on a TT bike where the rider's weight is more forward. Think of race cars and physics...

4. Not riding a decent aero front wheel?

Nuts. Not only averaging over 30 k (everything over 19 k = aero), but these guys were hitting 80 kph on a straight downhill fer crissakes.

Dave.

 

[CTQ]

1. Many hadn't adequately prepared

@ D-Queued @Alex Simmons/RST
an example here with Dan Martin: to be honest, i"ve not ridden my time trial bike this year

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/tour-de-france-martin-loses-3-minutes-to-froome-but-keeps-top-10-spot/

 

[IzzyStradlin]

Re:

1. Many hadn't adequately prepared

@ D-Queued @Alex Simmons/RST
an example here with Dan Martin: to be honest, i"ve not ridden my time trial bike this year

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/tour-de-france-martin-loses-3-minutes-to-froome-but-keeps-top-10-spot/

Dan Martin also repeatedly said that he did not consider himself a gc contender.
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/dan-martin-im-not-a-tour-de-france-contender/

 

[Alex Simmons/RST]

Re: Re:

Not feeling the 15% here, but it is a change. Wouldn't 5% be a phenomenal change at this level?

Not for aerodynamics. Many pros have low hanging aero fruit to pick if they bothered, let alone marginal gains.

 

[Alex Simmons/RST]

Re: Re:

1. Many hadn't adequately prepared

@ D-Queued @Alex Simmons/RST
an example here with Dan Martin: to be honest, i"ve not ridden my time trial bike this year

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/tour-de-france-martin-loses-3-minutes-to-froome-but-keeps-top-10-spot/

Dan Martin also repeatedly said that he did not consider himself a gc contender.

The second place finisher in this year's tour also made similar comments about barely riding a TT bike.

If you are not contending for the TT stages or for GC, but rather targeting road stage wins or as a dom then Martin's strategic approach is fine, but if that were the case then why did he ride so hard to finish so high up in the TT stage result? Better to save energy I'd have thought.

 

[Alex Simmons/RST]

Re: Re:

2. Climbing on a TT bike

... Is an excellent way to prepare for TT's due to the constant resistance that climbing can offer over riding on the flats. And, why does position have to be any different for climbing on a TT bike?

It doesn't, however in the same manner that we tend to sit on our road bikes in a slightly different position when climbing and also pedal a bit differently (due to the lower crank inertial load when climbing vs flat terrain), it's also natural to change position slightly on a TT rig in a race with a decent chunk of ascending km.

You might for instance choose a different base bar set up for a hilly TT since you might use it a bit more than you would for a flat TT where you hardly ever touch the base bar, or have extensions that permit you to more readily choke down the hand position while ascending than you might find useful compared with a flat TT. IOW seek to keep the vast bulk of aero gains but enable a powerful and comfortable TT climbing position as well.

I think the approach should be how to make the TT rig suitable for sustaining good power in good position on such parcours, rather than attempt to make a road rig a bit more aero with clip ons and have those big parachute road bars out there adding chunks of unnecessary drag.

But even so, at least use aero helmet and wheels FFS :lol:

 

[86TDFWinner]

Re: Re:

Agree with John here, be a bit civilized, and, be realistic, you cant be thinking Swart is going to say anything here he cant substantiate with hard facts fellas. Just like with JV a few years ago by the way....

As a mather of fact, he has said quite a lot to be frank.

JV came here with his own agenda. He didn't come to hang and talk cycling.

Exactly! He came here solely to promote and praise himself.

 

[sniper]

What exactly is the case of Dan Martin supposed to be evidence of?
He had his best TDF GC ever, didn't he?

Marginal gains, lol.

Sky didn't put Froome in a windtunnel pre-2013.
Yet that's the period in which he transformed.
For me that's pretty much end of the marginal gains myth right there, though we could bring up (and have brought up) tons of additional examples of Sky not adhering to marginal gains yet killing the field.
It's such a nobrainer.

Every selfrespecting AND honest exercise physiologist should be furious seeing how UCI and WADA are killing thei branch. Thanks to them you can't control for the variable of doping, which is arguably the single most impactful variable in performance at the toplevel.
However, the only physiologist out there who seems to understand the problem is Ross Tucker.
The rest (Swart, Jeukendrup et al.) I assume are sold out and have embraced the predominance of PEDs in prosport.

 

[IzzyStradlin]

Re: Re:

The second place finisher in this year's tour also made similar comments about barely riding a TT bike.

If you are not contending for the TT stages or for GC, but rather targeting road stage wins or as a dom then Martin's strategic approach is fine, but if that were the case then why did he ride so hard to finish so high up in the TT stage result? Better to save energy I'd have thought.

My guess is that he wanted to see how close he could get without focusing on the details. Show he could ride strong for a full tour, leave some room to improve in the future.

Given the overall strength of EQS, he has to do some politicking to get full GC support.

 

[D-Queued]

Re: Re:

2. Climbing on a TT bike

... Is an excellent way to prepare for TT's due to the constant resistance that climbing can offer over riding on the flats. And, why does position have to be any different for climbing on a TT bike?

It doesn't, however in the same manner that we tend to sit on our road bikes in a slightly different position when climbing and also pedal a bit differently (due to the lower crank inertial load when climbing vs flat terrain), it's also natural to change position slightly on a TT rig in a race with a decent chunk of ascending km.

You might for instance choose a different base bar set up for a hilly TT since you might use it a bit more than you would for a flat TT where you hardly ever touch the base bar, or have extensions that permit you to more readily choke down the hand position while ascending than you might find useful compared with a flat TT. IOW seek to keep the vast bulk of aero gains but enable a powerful and comfortable TT climbing position as well.

I think the approach should be how to make the TT rig suitable for sustaining good power in good position on such parcours, rather than attempt to make a road rig a bit more aero with clip ons and have those big parachute road bars out there adding chunks of unnecessary drag.

But even so, at least use aero helmet and wheels FFS :lol:

Good dialog.

Yes, changing the base bar (i.e. what used to be the bullhorns) is a definite possibility - though most guys are probably comfortable with the one they have already and have already determined whether they like it or not for climbing, accelerating, etc. in TT's.

And, I suppose one could try and re-jig their TT set-up to favor power over aero.

You may have more experience than me here, but this is probably pretty hard to do. It takes a lot of wind tunnel time to refine aero position. So much so, that Lance actually used a fill-in guy, for example, with a similar build/body position. To go beyond the aero refinement and then try and use a power meter, and balance aero with power output, seems like it would be very difficult.

It kind of goes against the addage that to get fast on the TT bike you should just ride it more - which, as you have pointed out, appears to be poorly practiced within the peloton.

With so many aero wheels on the market, so many wheel sponsors, and so much data on their performance, how is it possible that these 'pros' would ignore the obvious?

There seems to be only two logical explanations:

1. Pro cycling preferentially selects folks that fail IQ tests

And/Or

2. Doping must still be involved as Doping >> Aero >> Weight >> Friction

Dave.

 

[Alex Simmons/RST]

Re: Re:

2. Climbing on a TT bike

... Is an excellent way to prepare for TT's due to the constant resistance that climbing can offer over riding on the flats. And, why does position have to be any different for climbing on a TT bike?

It doesn't, however in the same manner that we tend to sit on our road bikes in a slightly different position when climbing and also pedal a bit differently (due to the lower crank inertial load when climbing vs flat terrain), it's also natural to change position slightly on a TT rig in a race with a decent chunk of ascending km.

You might for instance choose a different base bar set up for a hilly TT since you might use it a bit more than you would for a flat TT where you hardly ever touch the base bar, or have extensions that permit you to more readily choke down the hand position while ascending than you might find useful compared with a flat TT. IOW seek to keep the vast bulk of aero gains but enable a powerful and comfortable TT climbing position as well.

I think the approach should be how to make the TT rig suitable for sustaining good power in good position on such parcours, rather than attempt to make a road rig a bit more aero with clip ons and have those big parachute road bars out there adding chunks of unnecessary drag.

But even so, at least use aero helmet and wheels FFS :lol:

Good dialog.

Yes, changing the base bar (i.e. what used to be the bullhorns) is a definite possibility - though most guys are probably comfortable with the one they have already and have already determined whether they like it or not for climbing, accelerating, etc. in TT's.

And, I suppose one could try and re-jig their TT set-up to favor power over aero.

You may have more experience than me here, but this is probably pretty hard to do. It takes a lot of wind tunnel time to refine aero position. So much so, that Lance actually used a fill-in guy, for example, with a similar build/body position. To go beyond the aero refinement and then try and use a power meter, and balance aero with power output, seems like it would be very difficult.

It kind of goes against the addage that to get fast on the TT bike you should just ride it more - which, as you have pointed out, appears to be poorly practiced within the peloton.

With so many aero wheels on the market, so many wheel sponsors, and so much data on their performance, how is it possible that these 'pros' would ignore the obvious?

There seems to be only two logical explanations:

1. Pro cycling preferentially selects folks that fail IQ tests

And/Or

2. Doping must still be involved as Doping >> Aero >> Weight >> Friction

Dave.

1. Given that some still fail doping tests, that may seem self evident, but I'd guess the average IQ of pro riders is probably no more or less than the general population.

2. impact of doping will be quite individually variable (many factors in that equation) and range from zero (no doping / non ergogenic doping substance or method / non response) to substantial (e.g. use of substantial EPO/blood infusion + rest of performance cocktail with lower natural HCT level) so where it fits in that relative ranking will be quite variable.

3. the level of natural variability in performance over a season is easily 10% in power terms, which means parsing such things as impact of doping (and if any) from things like training, legit means etc is all but impossible

4. don't forget pros are mobile billboards and ride what they are required to ride, and often that's not optimal. In case of where they have at least better options available, that's when you wonder

As for aero work, like everything it requires some time and expertise to do, but it's small compared with the time investment in training. 3 x 2-3 hour sessions would be enough to nail down a lot of things aero wise (and repeat every year to refine as there are a lot of opportunities and bikes change regularly). But if you want to win a GT then you really need to make such investments of time and resources.

 

[Cannibal72]

Given that some still fail doping tests, that may seem self evident, but I'd guess the average IQ of pro riders is probably no more or less than the general population.

Well, there is the Virenque quote, which off the top of my head is something like

INTERVIEWER: Why did you become a pro cyclist?
VIRENQUE: I wasn't clever enough to do anything else.

And Fignon became known as an intellectual because he passed his school leaving exams. (Equally, Pozzovivo and Bardet actually are intellectuals.)

A great deal of this discussion depends on how you define intelligence - for which IQ is not always an adequate proxy. A lot of pro cyclists come from poor backgrounds and never had that much schooling (it's impossible for most riders to go to university; they simply don't have the time. Teams like Drapac that mandate an education are very much the exception). That will typically lower the score on an IQ test. Does it make you less intelligent? Impossible to say.

 

[Aragon]

Re: Re:

we have documentary evidence that transfusion was being used in cycling on a regular basis in the 1970s.

Please, do share with the class your evidence transfusions being used regularly in cycling in the 1970s, it'd be fascinating to read. And please, for regularly used, we need more than Zoetemelk and the fact that Merckx was once offered a transfusion.

I don't know how relevant the following is to the subject, but when Finnish distance runner Kaarlo Maaninka confessed in 1981 having used blood doping a year before, his coach Jouko Elevaara wrote an article into a Finnish newspaper. After describing the blood doping method, he tells also the following:

One of my acquaintances is a professional cyclist from Central Europe. He has told me that high-paid professionals are blood loaded regurarly in "blood banks" located in Italian and Swiss mountains.

Apparently not first hand information, but interesting nevertheless, as this was told before the blood doping practices of Conconi circles and the University of Ferrara were revealed to the public.

 

[sniper]

that's an exciting piece of info, and yes, very relevant to the subject.

It's not just fmk_rol who will be eating humble pie for supper tonight.
Several posters were eager to dismiss the idea that Lemond could have been blood doping already in the late 70s/early 80s as far-fetched. Seems it's not that far-fetched after all.
Seeing how he was training at the OTC with our Polish friend Eddie B. and with people like Hagerman, Burke, Costill, Dardik and Ariel calling the shots in the exercise physiological department, you gotta ask yourself why Lemond would not have boosted his blood at the OTC, let alone in Europe where he was mixing it up with Guimard, Tapie and Hinault.

That said, a remaining (and intriguing) question is how feasible it was to load up with blood during GTs in the late 70s/early/mid 80s.

 

[ScienceIsCool]

Re:

that's an exciting piece of info, and yes, very relevant to the subject.

It's not just fmk_rol who will be eating humble pie for supper tonight.
Several posters were eager to dismiss the idea that Lemond could have been blood doping already in the late 70s/early 80s as far-fetched. Seems it's not that far-fetched after all.
Seeing how he was training at the OTC with our Polish friend Eddie B. and with people like Hagerman, Burke, Costill, Dardik and Ariel calling the shots in the exercise physiological department, you gotta ask yourself why Lemond would not have boosted his blood at the OTC, let alone in Europe where he was mixing it up with Guimard, Tapie and Hinault.

That said, a remaining (and intriguing) question is how feasible it was to load up with blood during GTs in the late 70s/early/mid 80s.

Timeline:

1976: A 14 year-old Lemond starts racing bikes, winning his first 11 races.

1977: Wins 27 out of 47 starts, mostly racing in northern California.

1978: Good friend Kent Gordis invites Greg to stay at his dad's house in Switzerland. Stays 2 months and starts winning races in Europe. Flew to *Poland* for 1 race which of course, Greg wins. *Eddie B* joins the OTC, can't speak a word of English.

1979: Eddie B starts coaching Greg. Quoting Greg: "He really put all of his efforts on the team time trial and teaching riders about intervals, how to train and about quality over quantity. He was a believer in very hard intervals in February, which, at the time, you just did long, slow miles." Becomes Junior World Road Champion.

1980: Goes to Europe with the national team in April. Wins the Circuit de la Sarthe at 18, becoming the youngest person to win a pro race. Guimard takes notice. Peugeot becomes interested. Negotiations begin. Signs with Renault on the last day of the Tour. Greg marries Kathy Dec. 21st

1981: Greg and Kathy to Europe in January, settling just outside of Nantes near the west coast of France. His salary that year is $12,000... Greg keeps on winning and becomes a champion.

Points to note:

1. Greg's relationship with Eddie B lasts a year and a half. Most of that time, Greg is not at the OTC but is off racing/winning. Eddie B can't speak English and everything needs to be translated. This is a very compressed timescale to not only start a blood-doping regimen, but to teach Greg how to sustain one. It would also require knowledge of a third party, the translator, who I'm sure would have talked to someone by now.

2. Eddie B. never sent Greg to Poland (you've tried to make this link before). Greg was at one race in Poland a year before starting a coaching relationship with Eddie.

3. Despite becoming a pro and being a prodigious winner, Greg's first year as a pro was spent living in the boonies surviving on $1000/month.

4. Greg was a clear champion from age 14 for a full two years before he got anywhere near the OTC or Eddie B.

So, I would have to say that although it is possible (i.e., not impossible) that Greg used blood doping, it is highly implausible. Greg was a fast-rising star who didn't need blood boosting to win. And when he became a newlywed pro, he was essentially broke and a long distance from any blood doping centers such as Switzerland. The logistics would have been beyond him - it would have required the Renault team's assistance. That would go against what people have said about Guimard and doping. And yet he kept on winning.

Your reasoning just doesn't add up in terms of what most likely happened.

John Swanson