LeMond III

[sniper]

If you wanna continue presenting horse's mouth stuff as fact, then we're pretty much done here.
Done with the Clinic, I mean, because then cycling is clean.

btw, and I believe we discussed this upthread, the genetic disorder theory was put to bed by Lemond's own medics at some point.

 

[Aragon]

Re:

So, no shots, just orally administered vitamins.
Never succumbed to the needle.
Absolute stance against any medications.

-------------------------------------
Reality is slightly different.

The key smoking gun in your "no-needle-hypothesis" is that with the following sentence, LeMond meant that he never took a needle:

QS:There is a huge culture of the needle in cycling.
Greg: Well, they all took Vitamin B12 shots…I mean, who knows what else they took.
QS: You never succumbed?
Greg: Never. I took a multi-vitamin if I remembered to take a multi-vitamin...It might be every six weeks.

Whatever he was referring to, it wasn't that he never used the needle, because only a few sentences later he tells the following:

Greg: Okay, so Yvan Van Mol, whom I had never met, was coming down to see the riders and Otto had been pushing me to go and see a doctor to get my blood levels checked. And honestly, I know that if you eat right you should be able to take iron in, and I ate a lot of red meat so I was like ‘Otto, I don’t feel like doing it.’ Part of it was that I didn’t believe that was my problem; and I don’t believe that was the only thing that changed for me there. But I believe it helped, no doubt, because my iron stores were zero. So Yvan took a blood test and said ‘Well, three shots are not going to hurt you. But it’s a treatment of three. And you need it today, three days and three days.’
QS: Now years later, when Armstrong called you and accused you of doing EPO, he mentioned Van Mol. But I always understood that it was Otto Jacome who gave you the injection?
Greg: It was Van Mol.

Why to claim "I never take needles" and contradict it shortly after with "I took three iron shots"? This is no whitewashing, but just simple logic.

 

[sniper]

I lost your point.

Mine is very simple:
Lemond (and people close to him) is on the record claiming he never took any injections.
Wiggins is on the record claiming he never took any injections (except vaccin)
Both statements were shown to be lies.
Yet for some reason Wiggins is now a doper, but Lemond is still a clean triple TdF winner.

 

[gillan1969]

In the EPO era he wasn't in the grupetto.
He won two TdFs.
After that he was in hospitals getting his myopathy diagnosed, the most plausible explanation of which is amply documented in the literature: steroid-induced myopathy.

But this is not particularly relevant now.
We're comparing Wiggins injection gate with Lemond's.

we're comparing a rider who was in the grupetto and started taking injections of the good stuff and transformed

and....eh...someone who never

it's you who introduced Lemond and as pointed out by Aargon...your reference doesn't stack up

 

[sniper]

In the EPO era he wasn't in the grupetto.
He won two TdFs.
After that he was in hospitals getting his myopathy diagnosed, the most plausible explanation of which is amply documented in the literature: steroid-induced myopathy.

But this is not particularly relevant now.
We're comparing Wiggins injection gate with Lemond's.

we're comparing a rider who was in the grupetto and started taking injections of the good stuff and transformed

and....eh...someone who never

it's you who introduced Lemond and as pointed out by Aargon...your reference doesn't stack up

I still don't get how you go from 'no mid-career transformation' to ignoring that he won 3 TdFs.

The transformation thing is overrated. As I hope you agree, plenty of guys without mid-career transformations have been shown to be outrageous dopers. And they never had anywhere near the results Greg Lemond had.
As much as you hate to admit it, results are still a (much) stronger indicator of doping than the ill-defined 'transformation' variable.

Also, you seem to operate under the weird assumption that everybody starts doping full throttle around the same age.
Which is obviously not the case.
viewtopic.php?f=20&t=30794&p=1916647&hilit=kinjah#p1916647
For Lemond, it seems that after his OTC period there was little 'scope' for any kind of transformation.

Other 'minor thingie' is that Lemond had several mid-season transformations that beat anything ever seen from Wiggins. In fact, what Lemond did in 89 and 90 is strikingly similar to Froome 2011.

 

[gillan1969]

In the EPO era he wasn't in the grupetto.
He won two TdFs.
After that he was in hospitals getting his myopathy diagnosed, the most plausible explanation of which is amply documented in the literature: steroid-induced myopathy.

But this is not particularly relevant now.
We're comparing Wiggins injection gate with Lemond's.

we're comparing a rider who was in the grupetto and started taking injections of the good stuff and transformed

and....eh...someone who never

it's you who introduced Lemond and as pointed out by Aargon...your reference doesn't stack up

I still don't get how you go from 'no mid-career transformation' to ignoring that he won 3 TdFs.

The transformation thing is overrated. As I hope you agree, plenty of guys without mid-career transformations have been shown to be outrageous dopers. And they never had anywhere near the results Greg Lemond had.
As much as you hate to admit it, results are still a (much) stronger indicator of doping than the ill-defined 'transformation' variable.

You'll agree that the other important variable is when you start doping full throttle.
For Lemond it seems to have been at a very young age.
viewtopic.php?f=20&t=30794&p=1916647&hilit=kinjah#p1916647

Other 'minor thingie' is that Lemond had several mid-season transformations that beat anything ever seen from Wiggins. In fact, what Lemond did in 89 and 90 is strikingly similar to Froome 2011.

c'mon sniper you're losing the plot on this one

seriously?!?!?!?!?!

ok...let's run with it...

Off the top of my head I'll list some of Lemond's results pre-'89

Tour 86
Tour 2nd 85
Tour 3rd 84
Avenir 81
Worlds 82
Podiums in Lombardy, Liege, Roubaix
giro 2nd 85
Throw a few podiums in Dauphine etc as well

so...now you go for Froome's pre 2011.......

 

[sniper]

cheers, more evidence of rampant career-long doping.
which merely fits with what we know from the OTC and Eddie.
and Lemond's mysterious myopathy.
and Max Testa's explanation for it.

so what's your point?

 

[sniper]

It's like listing Lionel Messi's career performances from the age of 12 onwards and presenting it as evidence that he's clean.
Or Nadal's.
Just doesn't really cut it, does it.

 

[sniper]

https://twitter.com/Digger_forum/status/777612994394071040
https://twitter.com/Thundergusset/status/777615555150880768

 

[GJB123]

Re:

I lost your point.

Mine is very simple:
Lemond (and people close to him) is on the record claiming he never took any injections.
Wiggins is on the record claiming he never took any injections (except vaccin)
Both statements were shown to be lies.
Yet for some reason Wiggins is now a doper, but Lemond is still a clean triple TdF winner.

Perhaps, just perhaps, LeMond stated that he never took vitamin shots. PERIOD You can categorically say the one thing and still take shots for other medicinal purposes.

 

[sniper]

It really is wigg ins 2016 avant la letter.
Deny use of any kind of injections. Then when caught using injections rely on fans to reinterpret your earlier denials.
Keep it going by all means, itd fun to watch, and please give wiggins a helping hand too cuz in fairness he really needs it much more right now.

 

[popular jams]

Re:

The smart money here is on "doped too much for too long".
Ask Max Testa.

That's fairly incendiary.

 

[Nomad]

Interesting discussion on LeMond...though one could spend a liftime reading through all the posts. Lol.

A question on LeMond: What was his fastest time up Alpe d'Huez? (I believe he rode it in all three of his Tour winning years). If you look at the top 100 all-time ascents up ADH, his name doesn't appear on the list with the #100 spot being Escartin (1997/41:07). In fact, all the times on the list were set from 1991 through 2015, with 95% set from 91 to 08. Four riders appear in the earliest year (91); Indurain, Bugno, Leblanc & Bernard. And five riders from the passport era (Froome, Quintana, Valverde, Porte, Rodriguez) made the list with either their 2013/15 time or both (who believes doping stopped in the passport era. Lol).

So, extrapolating through this data; "if" Lemond was O2-vector doping, any thoughts on why none of his ADH times weren't fast enough to make the list? One can clearly see that, excluding the passport era names, all the 95 fastest times were set in the prevelant EPO/blood doping time period starting in 91 through 08, where starting in 09, the passport would have restricted, but not eliminated, 02-vector doping (is it the general consensus with The Cllinic that EPO was starting to become popular in the peloton in 91, and may have been used by the first four riders?). IMO, it would seem that if any talented top GT winner in the 80s/early 90s time period (e.g., LeMond, Hinault, Fignon), who was O2-vector doping without limitations, would eventually achieve a fast enough time to make the list. Even terrible climbers like LA & Riis not only made the "top 10" once, but twice, with sub-38 times! (now that's the power of O2-vector doping).

http://www.climbing-records.com/2015/07/three-riders-make-it-into-alpe-dhuez.html?m=1

 

[veji11]

The debate about Lemond's supposedly "uber cleanliness" is moot to some extent : the fact remains that if Lemond doped, he doped like Fignon or Hinault the old fashioned way, not like the Indurains and Chiapuccis...

 

[Tienus]

There could be many reasons for not showing up on the fastest time list of a specific ascent.

This is an interesting article with Lemond
http://sportsscientists.com/2009/07/tour-de-france-2009-power-estimates/

This is a comparison between all tdf winners since 1982 by Vayer. There is a graph at the bottom for which you dont need to understand Dutch.
http://www.volkskrant.nl/vk/nl/2698/Sport/article/detail/3458329/2013/06/13/Armstrong-is-een-kleine-speler-vergeleken-bij-Indurain.dhtml

 

[sniper]

Good post nomad.

Two quickn(and overlapping) caveats:
1. High speeds in the modern era are not just down to 02 vector doping.
2. Some guys of whom we know for a fact were 02vector doping in the 80s never made that top100 list either.
Just saying, not being in that list doesn't equate no bloodboosting.
But others may have(much) more to say about this.

Persoanlly, fwiw, be it in the lance threads, indurain thrsads, contador threads, or sky threads, i have never really mingled in discussions about climbing speeds and times, simply because I am an absolute nitwit in that area and there are so many variables there that i can't get my head around.
But that doesn't mean you and others shouldn't argue using climbing speeds and times, of course. I do think you pose an interesting question here and I hope/ think others will have more to say about it.

 

[Nomad]

Re:

The debate about Lemond's supposedly "uber cleanliness" is moot to some extent : the fact remains that if Lemond doped, he doped like Fignon or Hinault the old fashioned way, not like the Indurains and Chiapuccis...

You mean like Armstrong’s characterization of "low-octane" doping?

 

[GJB123]

Re:

It really is wigg ins 2016 avant la letter.
Deny use of any kind of injections. Then when caught using injections rely on fans to reinterpret your earlier denials.
Keep it going by all means, itd fun to watch, and please give wiggins a helping hand too cuz in fairness he really needs it much more right now.

As to the bolded, does it constitute "being caught" if he himself is the one who spoke about receiving injections? He caught himself?

 

[Nomad]

Re:

Good post nomad.

Two quickn(and overlapping) caveats:
1. High speeds in the modern era are not just down to 02 vector doping.
2. Some guys of whom we know for a fact were 02vector doping in the 80s never made that top100 list either.
Just saying, not being in that list doesn't equate no bloodboosting.
But others may have(much) more to say about this.

Persoanlly, fwiw, be it in the lance threads, indurain thrsads, contador threads, or sky threads, i have never really mingled in discussions about climbing speeds and times, simply because I am an absolute nitwit in that area and there are so many variables there that i can't get my head around.
But that doesn't mean you and others shouldn't argue using climbing speeds and times, of course. I do think you pose an interesting question here and I hope/ think others will have more to say about it.

Thanks...and I see your point: not being on the list does not equate to not doping (speaking from a GT contender perspective). However, IMO, being on the list is highly suggestive of blood boosting given A) the time period (prevelant era of EPO/blood doping), and B) the names on the list, which many, if not the majority, are known or supected dopers. Also, almost every Tour winner from that period has at least one time in the top 100 .

Interestingly, we've never seen any of the great ones from the 70s & 80s on that list.

 

[fmk_RoI]

Re:

The debate about Lemond's supposedly "uber cleanliness" is moot to some extent : the fact remains that if Lemond doped, he doped like Fignon or Hinault the old fashioned way, not like the Indurains and Chiapuccis...

The old fashioned way. Oxygen vector doping, with blood bags instead of injections? Take off the rose tinted glasses. The doping in the 80s was a lot more powerful than you think.

 

[Lyon]

Re: Re:

The debate about Lemond's supposedly "uber cleanliness" is moot to some extent : the fact remains that if Lemond doped, he doped like Fignon or Hinault the old fashioned way, not like the Indurains and Chiapuccis...

The old fashioned way. Oxygen vector doping, with blood bags instead of injections? Take off the rose tinted glasses. The doping in the 80s was a lot more powerful than you think.

Exactly.

 

[sniper]

Re: Re:

The debate about Lemond's supposedly "uber cleanliness" is moot to some extent : the fact remains that if Lemond doped, he doped like Fignon or Hinault the old fashioned way, not like the Indurains and Chiapuccis...

You mean like Armstrong’s characterization of "low-octane" doping?

It is unlikely that professional cycling was running one or two decades behind other endurance(-related) sports such as (XC)skiing, running, rowing and soccer. For some of those sports it seems o2 vector doping came in practice as early as the late 60s. (see the Blood Doping thread)
And yes, also for cycling rumors of blood boosting go back to the late 60s and early 70s.

Sure, the feasibility/practicality/logistics of blood transfusions *during GTs* in the 70/s80s remains an interesting point of debate.
But if Zoetemelk could organize it in 1976, why couldn't Lemond organize it ten years later?

 

[veji11]

Oh well, I suppose you guys know better than.. I just remember seeing the difference in the early 90s and not understanding why while watching races with my grandpa we'd just not understand what was happening. But if all was the same than before, than I suppose our impressions were mistaken.

 

[sniper]

Nobody says all was the same.

 

[veji11]

Re:

Nobody says all was the same.

Well some are clearly implying it was very comparable...