LeMond: Six Steps to Eradicate Moto-fraud

[Maxiton]

Re: Re:

I see two ways of proceeding. Either implement, seriously, some version of LeMond's six points; or, completely change the nature of the sport and allow racing with motors. This latter option is radical, of course, but whatever they do they have to restore the credibility and integrity of the race.

They'll always go for the hidden 3rd option - pretend no problem exists and ignore it.

I can totally understand your cynicism; in fact, strike that; in view of their history it would be more accurate to call it realism. But they don't really have a third option this time. You left out this part of my post:

They're going to have to do something. Something credible. It won't do for UCI to treat this as they have doping, making token gestures against it while using it to control riders and race outcomes. That just won't fly, because the performances aren't credible, and there is just too much suspicion, and there are people like LeMond calling them out on it.

And perhaps you missed this, up thread:

The only thing that enables the sport to exist on a paying basis is that companies want their name associated with it, and broadcasters want to broadcast it. Neither of those is a given. If the sport loses much more credibility than it already has, it could very quickly come about that the major sponsors and broadcasters pull out. It could happen in a hot second. Think defective lithium-ion battery exploding in a downtube.

UCI could get real unlucky, real fast in this situation. Any one of multiple scenarios could play out that would discredit the UCI, and the sport, and cause the money to flee. Unlike with doping, this time UCI really do have to do something. Of course, they might be too stupid to know that, and that might have been your whole point. In which case, never mind.

 

[Maxiton]

Re: Re:

You argue that bike stopping bike changes isn't feasible–but simply calling it a 19th century rule isn't an argument.

I went a helluva lot further than simply calling it a nineteenth century rule.

If a changed bike can be checked at the end of the race, all bikes can be checked at the end of the race, making totally pointless the argument that we need to ban bike changes. Bike changes are not the problem and banning them will - as in the past - simply create yet more problems.

at the risk of overlooking previous arguments (i havent closely followed this discussion), it seems to me that even if there are going to be rigorous bike checks, the bike changes will keep the door wide open for fraud.
See Cancellara, see Froome, see Femke. Bike changes were always involved.
And note also that the state of technology of motorization seems to be such, that it benefits the rider only on shorter distances, and arguably mainly on the flat.
So if you rule out bike switches, (a) you make the bike checking so much easier and (b) you cancel out some of the benefits of motorization, i.e. the negative aspect of having to carry around dead weight becomes more apparent.

Exactly right. I think this is what lies behind LeMond's thinking. Here is what he had to say, in the article linked in the OP, about bike changes:

“This is not complicated. The fact that we allow bike racers and teams to dictate when they can change bikes is bullshit. Just the fact of the changing of the bikes is outrageous.

"Look, I raced for 14 years and you only changed the bike in the worst case scenario. Nowadays, people are changing bikes like underwear…that is, if you want to have clean underwear every hour. And there is no reason for that. There is something there. When riders are changing bikes like that, it is something suspicious.

“In racing right now, riders and teams should not be allowed to freely change bikes during a race.”

 

[red_flanders]

Re: Re:

You argue that bike stopping bike changes isn't feasible–but simply calling it a 19th century rule isn't an argument.

I went a helluva lot further than simply calling it a nineteenth century rule.

If a changed bike can be checked at the end of the race, all bikes can be checked at the end of the race, making totally pointless the argument that we need to ban bike changes. Bike changes are not the problem and banning them will - as in the past - simply create yet more problems.

at the risk of overlooking previous arguments (i havent closely followed this discussion), it seems to me that even if there are going to be rigorous bike checks, the bike changes will keep the door wide open for fraud.
See Cancellara, see Froome, see Femke. Bike changes were always involved.
And note also that the state of technology of motorization seems to be such, that it benefits the rider only on shorter distances, and arguably mainly on the flat.
So if you rule out bike switches, (a) you make the bike checking so much easier and (b) you cancel out some of the benefits of motorization, i.e. the negative aspect of having to carry around dead weight becomes more apparent.

Obviously. Thank you.

 

[MacRoadie]

Re: Re:

You argue that bike stopping bike changes isn't feasible–but simply calling it a 19th century rule isn't an argument.

I went a helluva lot further than simply calling it a nineteenth century rule.

If a changed bike can be checked at the end of the race, all bikes can be checked at the end of the race, making totally pointless the argument that we need to ban bike changes. Bike changes are not the problem and banning them will - as in the past - simply create yet more problems.

To the bolded, a changed bike can only be checked after the race if you can maintain a clean chain of custody. Take 20 teams, 60 team cars, about 500 bikes (180 riders times the ride under their ass plus spares), and an assumed desire to hide a shady bike, and you have a condition ripe for abuse.

Start on a chipped (and legal) bike, switch to the illegal (and un-chipped) bike mid-race, then back on a chipped bike before the finale'. Especially easy to do in a classics race like Paris_Roubaix, where you have spare bikes and wheels lining the course for 250K with mechanics interspersed with fans, taking side roads and short cuts to stay ahead of the peloton, etc.

 

[86TDFWinner]

Re: Re:

Lemond was an innovator with tech when he was a rider so what he has to say is very important.
Whether he wants the attention or is doing it out of his love for cycling, or both, it doesn't matter. People with this kind of drive really don't settle for second in anything in life so get over it.
He's correct on a lot of points.
1. All the bikes used in a race should be controlled.....period. Keep honest people honest.
2. His solutions to speed up yet keep checks thorough and spontaneous are good start.
3. Clear penalties.
4. Taking it seriously

Life is full of gray areas but putting a motor in your bike sucks a$$.

I read his CdA for when he used his triathlon aero kit for his record speed before the Australian Rohan Dennis was actually inferior/slower in a hypothetical v the ponytailed frenchman with the glasses.

Can someone wade/weigh in on this to confirm or deny. I definitely had read this, however, the story does read from the page of the apocryphal... it cannot be proven/disproven anyhow, if they never get in a wind tunnel, see the direction of the wind, yaw angles etc... moot and mute

Hilarious.

 

[blackcat]

Re: Re:

Lemond was an innovator with tech when he was a rider so what he has to say is very important.
Whether he wants the attention or is doing it out of his love for cycling, or both, it doesn't matter. People with this kind of drive really don't settle for second in anything in life so get over it.
He's correct on a lot of points.
1. All the bikes used in a race should be controlled.....period. Keep honest people honest.
2. His solutions to speed up yet keep checks thorough and spontaneous are good start.
3. Clear penalties.
4. Taking it seriously

Life is full of gray areas but putting a motor in your bike sucks a$$.

I read his CdA for when he used his triathlon aero kit for his record speed before the Australian Rohan Dennis was actually inferior/slower in a hypothetical v the ponytailed frenchman with the glasses.

Can someone wade/weigh in on this to confirm or deny. I definitely had read this, however, the story does read from the page of the apocryphal... it cannot be proven/disproven anyhow, if they never get in a wind tunnel, see the direction of the wind, yaw angles etc... moot and mute

Hilarious.

but I am not an ignorant beeyitch am i?

I would need to again read the original reference, i thought someone may have an inkling to what i am saying...(the reference that is)

 

[Maxiton]

Re: Re:

I read his CdA for when he used his triathlon aero kit for his record speed before the Australian Rohan Dennis was actually inferior/slower in a hypothetical v the ponytailed frenchman with the glasses.

Can someone wade/weigh in on this to confirm or deny. I definitely had read this, however, the story does read from the page of the apocryphal... it cannot be proven/disproven anyhow, if they never get in a wind tunnel, see the direction of the wind, yaw angles etc... moot and mute

Can you clarify, blackcat? I'm not sure I understand. Are you saying you read somewhere that LeMond, according to a study, should have been slower than Fignon? Or are you saying the opposite?

I recall reading a study that analyzed the drag on Fignon of his ponytail and bike setup, and then, equalizing for these factors, concluded that Fignon was actually quite a bit faster than LeMond and would have won (but for the drag). Is that what you mean?

 

[blackcat]

Re: Re:

I read his CdA for when he used his triathlon aero kit for his record speed before the Australian Rohan Dennis was actually inferior/slower in a hypothetical v the ponytailed frenchman with the glasses.

Can someone wade/weigh in on this to confirm or deny. I definitely had read this, however, the story does read from the page of the apocryphal... it cannot be proven/disproven anyhow, if they never get in a wind tunnel, see the direction of the wind, yaw angles etc... moot and mute

Can you clarify, blackcat? I'm not sure I understand. Are you saying you read somewhere that LeMond, according to a study, should have been slower than Fignon? Or are you saying the opposite?

I recall reading a study that analyzed the drag on Fignon of his ponytail and bike setup, and then, equalizing for these factors, concluded that Fignon was actually quite a bit faster than LeMond and would have won (but for the drag). Is that what you mean?

actually, if I read what you wrote, I may have interpreted the original what i read. NB. I have already offered the caveat, i may be incorrect, the memory may be incorrect...

my original reading, my memory said that actually Lemond's "aero profile" was anything but, and his triathlon aero profile, was slower than Fignon's traditional profile on the drops.

Now, I could have taken the incorrect interpretation.

The original piece, could have been implying what you have written above, that actually, Lemond did have an aero profile CdA which in effect, made him quicker that Fignon, but Fignon was putting out more watts and watts per kilo.

does this clarify it any more... ???

 

[sniper]

Re: Re:

...

Can you clarify, blackcat? I'm not sure I understand. ...

actually, if I read what you wrote, I may have interpreted the original what i read. NB. I have already offered the caveat, i may be incorrect, the memory may be incorrect...
...
does this clarify it any more... ???

Good thing there was nobody sitting in front of me when I read this. I spilled my chinese noodle soup all over the friggin table.

 

[Maxiton]

Re: Re:

The original piece, could have been implying what you have written above, that actually, Lemond did have an aero profile CdA which in effect, made him quicker that Fignon, but Fignon was putting out more watts and watts per kilo.

does this clarify it any more... ???

Ultimately, it did. And I think the bold is right.

 

[@NL_LeMondFans]

Re: Re:

The original piece, could have been implying what you have written above, that actually, Lemond did have an aero profile CdA which in effect, made him quicker that Fignon, but Fignon was putting out more watts and watts per kilo.

does this clarify it any more... ???

Ultimately, it did. And I think the bold is right.

For the whole 89 Tour, maybe. Not for the last ITT, I don't think so. Later on (I think 1991), Greg did some wind tunnel tests and found out the Giro aero helmet he used was actually dragging him like a tiny parachute because of the small holes it had. It explains why Greg rode ITTs in 1991 without a helmet.

 

[Maxiton]

Re: Re:

The original piece, could have been implying what you have written above, that actually, Lemond did have an aero profile CdA which in effect, made him quicker that Fignon, but Fignon was putting out more watts and watts per kilo.

does this clarify it any more... ???

Ultimately, it did. And I think the bold is right.

For the whole 89 Tour, maybe. Not for the last ITT, I don't think so. Later on (I think 1991), Greg did some wind tunnel tests and found out the Giro aero helmet he used was actually dragging him like a tiny parachute because of the small holes it had. It explains why Greg rode ITTs in 1991 without a helmet.

Nah, it was the ITT. That aero helmet might not have been perfect (and it weighed over 1 lbs / ~.45 kg, too) but in conjunction with the tri-bar and the rear disc, LeMond was way more aero than Fignon. (Fignon's front disk might have actually cost him time, too, due to increased difficulty in cornering.)

Anyway, as I recall that's what the study said, but who knows if it was accurate.

 

[blackcat]

may have been the article referencing what GL LemondFans writes

 

[Cannibal72]

Re: Re:

The original piece, could have been implying what you have written above, that actually, Lemond did have an aero profile CdA which in effect, made him quicker that Fignon, but Fignon was putting out more watts and watts per kilo.

does this clarify it any more... ???

Ultimately, it did. And I think the bold is right.

For the whole 89 Tour, maybe. Not for the last ITT, I don't think so. Later on (I think 1991), Greg did some wind tunnel tests and found out the Giro aero helmet he used was actually dragging him like a tiny parachute because of the small holes it had. It explains why Greg rode ITTs in 1991 without a helmet.

Nah, it was the ITT. That aero helmet might not have been perfect (and it weighed over 1 lbs / ~.45 kg, too) but in conjunction with the tri-bar and the rear disc, LeMond was way more aero than Fignon. (Fignon's front disk might have actually cost him time, too, due to increased difficulty in cornering.)

Anyway, as I recall that's what the study said, but who knows if it was accurate.

Equipment of famously dubious legality, as well.

(poor Fignon, the only man to - arguably - be cheated out of 3 separate GT wins.)

 

[carton]

Re: Re:

(poor Fignon, the only man to - arguably - be cheated out of 3 separate GT wins.)

I'll think if you tried hard enough you could rustle up a few others.

 

[Cannibal72]

Re: Re:

(poor Fignon, the only man to - arguably - be cheated out of 3 separate GT wins.)

I'll think if you tried hard enough you could rustle up a few others.

But that would be a purely subjective and arbitrary claim over the course of a whole career. Fignon, on the other hand, pointed to three very specific instances in a specific year: the 1984 giro, 1986 vuelta, 1989 tour. I don't necessarily agree with him, but it's not like suggesting, say, Moncoutie was cheated out of 3 GTs, because he wasn't cheated out of three precisely defined times (just out of a career, instead).

 

[carton]

Re: Re:

But that would be a purely subjective and arbitrary claim over the course of a whole career. Fignon, on the other hand, pointed to three very specific instances in a specific year: the 1984 giro, 1986 vuelta, 1989 tour. I don't necessarily agree with him, but it's not like suggesting, say, Moncoutie was cheated out of 3 GTs, because he wasn't cheated out of three precisely defined times (just out of a career, instead).

Yeah, Moncoutie has a case in my book, although he'd be loathe to make it himself. The same could be said of Poulidor, who lost out to the ever unapologetic duo of Anquetil and Merckx. But the flip side of that argument can also be entertained. Your namesake would likely make a case for the '69 Giro, the '75 Tour and the '76 Giro. The clearer of the two cases of fan interference would get some sympathy from me. A certain Spaniard isn't shy about stating that he was jobbed at least twice, and I'm sure he feels he feels the first half of 2012 could've played out differently as well. Someone somewhere seems somewhat obsessed with his now redacted mellow johnnies. My point is, you can make arguable cases about a lot of things. IMHO Fignon's only reasonable case would be '84, which is actually fairly tame in terms of cycling's franco-italian disputes. On the right hand '87 seems particularly flimsy in light of Fignon's obvious...let's call it bias. But YMMV.

 

[@NL_LeMondFans]

Re: Re:

The original piece, could have been implying what you have written above, that actually, Lemond did have an aero profile CdA which in effect, made him quicker that Fignon, but Fignon was putting out more watts and watts per kilo.

does this clarify it any more... ???

Ultimately, it did. And I think the bold is right.

For the whole 89 Tour, maybe. Not for the last ITT, I don't think so. Later on (I think 1991), Greg did some wind tunnel tests and found out the Giro aero helmet he used was actually dragging him like a tiny parachute because of the small holes it had. It explains why Greg rode ITTs in 1991 without a helmet.

Nah, it was the ITT. That aero helmet might not have been perfect (and it weighed over 1 lbs / ~.45 kg, too) but in conjunction with the tri-bar and the rear disc, LeMond was way more aero than Fignon. (Fignon's front disk might have actually cost him time, too, due to increased difficulty in cornering.)

Anyway, as I recall that's what the study said, but who knows if it was accurate.

Equipment of famously dubious legality, as well.

(poor Fignon, the only man to - arguably - be cheated out of 3 separate GT wins.)

In the books, maybe, but may I recall Greg's tri-bar (also used by 7-11 riders that year) was endorsed by UCI officials. He was granted permission. Those guys are to blame. Greg asked and showed his stuff around. Hardly hiding.

 

[@NL_LeMondFans]

Re:

may have been the article referencing what GL LemondFans writes

That one, you mean ?

https://greglemondfans.wordpress.com/2013/11/10/whos-cheating-now/

 

[Maxiton]

Re: Re:

The original piece, could have been implying what you have written above, that actually, Lemond did have an aero profile CdA which in effect, made him quicker that Fignon, but Fignon was putting out more watts and watts per kilo.

does this clarify it any more... ???

Ultimately, it did. And I think the bold is right.

For the whole 89 Tour, maybe. Not for the last ITT, I don't think so. Later on (I think 1991), Greg did some wind tunnel tests and found out the Giro aero helmet he used was actually dragging him like a tiny parachute because of the small holes it had. It explains why Greg rode ITTs in 1991 without a helmet.

So here blackcat makes the point that it was LeMond's aero profile that enabled him to win that ITT (and the Tour), and that without the aero profile, LeMond would have lost the ITT (and the Tour).

And you come back, no, I don't think so, because that helmet actually created drag ("like a tiny parachute").

But in your own article you just linked to, you write

A team of american students even estimated Laurent Fignon’s aero loss due to his ponytail ! Truth is, no one denies the fact that, without the aero tri-bars, LeMond would not have won the Tour. He ackowledges that himself.

 

[@NL_LeMondFans]

Re: Re:

The original piece, could have been implying what you have written above, that actually, Lemond did have an aero profile CdA which in effect, made him quicker that Fignon, but Fignon was putting out more watts and watts per kilo.

does this clarify it any more... ???

Ultimately, it did. And I think the bold is right.

For the whole 89 Tour, maybe. Not for the last ITT, I don't think so. Later on (I think 1991), Greg did some wind tunnel tests and found out the Giro aero helmet he used was actually dragging him like a tiny parachute because of the small holes it had. It explains why Greg rode ITTs in 1991 without a helmet.

So here blackcat makes the point that it was LeMond's aero profile that enabled him to win that ITT (and the Tour), and that without the aero profile, LeMond would have lost the ITT (and the Tour).

And you come back, no, I don't think so, because that helmet actually created drag ("like a tiny parachute").

But in your own article you just linked to, you write

A team of american students even estimated Laurent Fignon’s aero loss due to his ponytail ! Truth is, no one denies the fact that, without the aero tri-bars, LeMond would not have won the Tour. He ackowledges that himself.

Sorry, maybe I misunderstood what was being said or didn't make myself clear. When I talked about the parachute/Giro helmet thing, I was not trying to say Greg wasn't more aero (although he wasn't as aero as we originally thought he was), I was saying I didn't think Fignon had put more watts than him in the ITT. Hence my quote "For the whole 89 Tour, maybe. Not for the last ITT, I don't think so."

 

[Maxiton]

Re: Re:

The original piece, could have been implying what you have written above, that actually, Lemond did have an aero profile CdA which in effect, made him quicker that Fignon, but Fignon was putting out more watts and watts per kilo.

does this clarify it any more... ???

Ultimately, it did. And I think the bold is right.

For the whole 89 Tour, maybe. Not for the last ITT, I don't think so. Later on (I think 1991), Greg did some wind tunnel tests and found out the Giro aero helmet he used was actually dragging him like a tiny parachute because of the small holes it had. It explains why Greg rode ITTs in 1991 without a helmet.

So here blackcat makes the point that it was LeMond's aero profile that enabled him to win that ITT (and the Tour), and that without the aero profile, LeMond would have lost the ITT (and the Tour).

And you come back, no, I don't think so, because that helmet actually created drag ("like a tiny parachute").

But in your own article you just linked to, you write

A team of american students even estimated Laurent Fignon’s aero loss due to his ponytail ! Truth is, no one denies the fact that, without the aero tri-bars, LeMond would not have won the Tour. He ackowledges that himself.

Sorry, maybe I misunderstood what was being said or didn't make myself clear. When I talked about the parachute/Giro helmet thing, I was not trying to say Greg wasn't more aero (although he wasn't as aero as we originally thought he was), I was saying I didn't think Fignon had put more watts than him in the ITT. Hence my quote "For the whole 89 Tour, maybe. Not for the last ITT, I don't think so."

Actually, then, probably my misunderstanding. Sorry for that.

 

[@NL_LeMondFans]

No problem ;-)

 

[Cannibal72]

Re: Re:

But that would be a purely subjective and arbitrary claim over the course of a whole career. Fignon, on the other hand, pointed to three very specific instances in a specific year: the 1984 giro, 1986 vuelta, 1989 tour. I don't necessarily agree with him, but it's not like suggesting, say, Moncoutie was cheated out of 3 GTs, because he wasn't cheated out of three precisely defined times (just out of a career, instead).

Yeah, Moncoutie has a case in my book, although he'd be loathe to make it himself. The same could be said of Poulidor, who lost out to the ever unapologetic duo of Anquetil and Merckx. But the flip side of that argument can also be entertained. Your namesake would likely make a case for the '69 Giro, the '75 Tour and the '76 Giro. The clearer of the two cases of fan interference would get some sympathy from me. A certain Spaniard isn't shy about stating that he was jobbed at least twice, and I'm sure he feels he feels the first half of 2012 could've played out differently as well. Someone somewhere seems somewhat obsessed with his now redacted mellow johnnies. My point is, you can make arguable cases about a lot of things. IMHO Fignon's only reasonable case would be '84, which is actually fairly tame in terms of cycling's franco-italian disputes. On the right hand '87 seems particularly flimsy in light of Fignon's obvious...let's call it bias. But YMMV.

I'm struggling to think of any other cyclists of the EPO era who I'm confident are clean and could have won GTs had they not been cheated out of them; most of them likely never turned pro or left very, very quickly and we'll likely never know their names.
I agree with you about Fignon. Even assuming the '87 Vuelta story's true, it still feels like a very diluted version of '85 (which, much as I like Millar, I struggle to believe was really 'stolen'). If everything Fignon said about '84 was true - a big if - then I don't think it's that tame, even in that context; they flew helicopters directly in front of him and directly behind the odious cheat Moser!

 

[doperhopper]

Re: LeMond: Six Steps to Eradicate Moto-doping

back to the post No. 1, Point No. 1 - UCI takes it "seriously": checks the whole peloton

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/139-mechanical-doping-checks-carried-out-at-omloop-het-nieuwsblad

and certainly, the whole show stays in the biopassport spirit (control doping instead of fighting it, in the name of clean "image"), looking just for brutal old methods no top team is using anymore (the usual IQ test) if there are e.g. these fancy EM induction wheels