LEMOND the DOPER

[Dr. Maserati]

err I did point to a 'smell".. I compare Ulrich in his last Giro with Greg Lemond in 1989. The similarities are striking.



Did you really compare the palmares of them? I did and I was actually surprised about Lance's palmares. His classifications in tough courses was quite revealing. If we add Fleche Wallonie, World Champion, consistent high places in LBL and AGR, yes then I would say Lance's palmares is a lot closer to Mig's than I ever realized.



What does that refute? I say Lance was on the juice big time and him having the same doctor as Mig is no surprise at all. It's no contention at all.



I wasn't the first to bring Lance to the discussion, which in itself is logical as he is the 200 pound gorilla in the corner. Greg and Lance are in many ways very comparable. Both had terrible health problems, both won similar courses, both are Americans in a European dominated sport. And Greg and Lance are antagonists...

On the supposed smearing of Greg: I really hold him in high esteem... but I dare say there are certainly reasons to think he used dope. It's all circumstantial (his maturing under Guimard, his 89 resurrection), but that goes for most accusations against riders.

Pointing this out is quite appropriate in the clinic, indeed shutting up about it seems rather hypocritical if we look at this place.

You are comparing Ullrichs 2006 Giro performance with Lemonds 89 Giro - Ullrich did not throw a leg over a bike in competition until the Tour of Romandie which began on April 26th!

As for Indurain(pre 91) vs Armstrong - Lance only stage victory prior to 99 was the Tour Dupont Tour in the US. He had never shown any ability in a stage race before his 4th in the 98 Vuelta.

Indurain had shown his ability at stage racing from the start -(palmares here) he wore the yellow jersey for 4 days in his first Vuelta in 85, had won various stage races like Tour de l'Avenir, Paris Nice, Tour of Catalyuna, he had won mountain stages in the Tour de France. He also finished 2nd & 7th in the Vuelta - most of this was done while riding for his team leader Delgado.

 

[beroepsrenner]

From interviews with Peter Winnen, I got the impression that about the time after Lemond won the Tour, some amount of EPO became mandatory to win big races. Earlier, doping products did not make a really significant difference - EPO made you go clearly faster. Some riders refused to take it, and consequently they couldn't reach their previous level. So it is possible, and it would fit the observations, if Lemond used some products that were common in the eighties, but refused to go along with the EPO age.

This is a reasonable assumption as i did not become aware of EPO until at least 1990 or later.

 

[Jonathan]

The end of Greg's career indicates nothing either way. Great cyclists suddenly fading happened in the pre-epo area as well (Jan Janssen for starters). On the other hand Mig was most likely on the Epo train and also faded in a similar way. So there is no way of knowing what happened in Gregs final years as a cyclist. It could be the others using Epo, it could be just "normal degeneration".

This is possible but one remark: when Janssen won the Tour, he knew that year would be his last chance. Note that he also didn't win it because he was extremely physically dominant. When he faded, he was expecting it.

But yes, riders do 'fade away' for different reasons than those related to doping. Ofocurse they do. My point was not that Lemond's decline proves he was clean or doped. In fact, I wanted to indicate it can mean either, and that some cyclists who used less effective doping in the eighties found they couldn't perform on the same level in the nineties without EPO. Then I want to point out the timing of Lemond's decline, which is at that turning point. While the implication of this is clear, I readily admit it is not conclusive or very convincing.

I also wanted to draw attention to the fact that 'doping' can mean different things; while the doping list only recognizes banned substances, for the riders it is different. They can apply more or less intense programs, in large or small doses, with many varieties of drugs. Something that lessens the pain is different from a drug that decreases required trainig periods, which is different from increasing the oxygen in the blood. How many cyclists have done without any of these things whatsoever during their entire career? Not many, I believe, which is again an implication with regards to Greg Lemond. But unless he meticulously describes how doping in the eighties worked, we have no way of knowing for sure.

 

[pmcg76]

Absolutely true! It's how I interpret things. But it's hard to deny that the events seem to be in line with what we know about blood/epo.



Hmm:
- Lance didn't compete before the EPO era.
- He was a huge talent, his palmares was absolutely impressive.

I just checked, but there were hints of his TT capacities and his climbing all over the place. And yes, something changed (both mentally and physically), but compared to for example Miguel Indurain he had shown at least as much before his first TdF win.

Comparing Lance to Big Mig, not even on the same page mate. Indurain won the Tour de L'Avenir and wore the yellow jersey in the Vuelta in his first year as a pro. He won a load of smaller stage races and by the time he was 24, had won Paris-Nice, Criterium International, Tour of Catalonia, a mountain stage in the Tour. At the same age, Lance himself admitted that he didnt have the ability to ever win the Tour.

In the 1990 Tour, Indurain finished 12 minutes down on GC in 10th place. He lost those 12 minutes mainly on the stage to Alpe d'Huez having been away in a break and then rode his **** of to ensure the Delgado, LeMond, Bugno group had a big lead by the time they reached the foot of the Alpe. He lost 12 minutes up Alpe d'Heuz alone.

That year, Indurain finished ahead of LeMond in all 3 TTs and was the best placed rider in the Pyrennes. On another stage, he was in the break with Lemond but dropped out of it because Delgado had missed the split. I remember that race and the genareal impression that Indurain could have been a lot closer to victory if he hadnt sacrificed himself for Delgado. Going back and looking at the statistics only reinforces that notion.

Fleche Wallone, Liege dont count as direct indicators for Tour performances, yes they are the Classics where the GT contenders show, otherwise guys like Moreno Argentin, Claude Criquelion, Eric Van Lancker, Michele Bartoli would have been Tour contenders. Regardless, Indurain finished Top 10 in both Fleche and Liege in 89, it is another myth that he didnt compete in the Classiscs. The only stage race Lance showed any level of ability was the (Pro-Am) Tour Du Pont but if you go back and look at those fields, they were relatively weak in comparison to most European stage races.

Comparing pre Tour winning palmares of Lance and Indurain is like the apple/oranges comparison. As Britsh veteran Robert Millar said when Lance won the worlds "This guy will be the King of the Classics"

 

[Franklin]

Comparing pre Tour winning palmares of Lance and Indurain is like the apple/oranges comparison. As Britsh veteran Robert Millar said when Lance won the worlds "This guy will be the King of the Classics"

Last time I'll go OT:

True. I did put it rather misleading. The points I tried to make:

1. Lance was among the top of the bill of cycling from the start. What I definitely didn't say and should have; without showing the potential he later on would have at stage races. The big difference between Mig and La was that Mig was primarily good at stage races where Lance was specialist in tough stages and classics.
2. Lance was a decent enough climber: This I still hold as true. As said ad infinito, Ferrari made it otherworldly.
3. Lance did show he could TT quite well: Considering how he progressed , I dare say this shouldn't have been as surprising as it was for most of us. Becoming a good TT rider does often take time. Once again the Ferrari link helped here, but the potential was there already.

Conclusion: I dare say parts of the "Lance revolution" were there, if not at the level he showed later on and most importantly, his consistency was not that of a GC rider. What put it together... well we all have our ideas about it. Mine aren't pretty
Mig wasn't a revolution, rather one of the most inevitable things I have ever seen in cycling. As others said corectly, he was groomed and pronounced the next big thing years in advance.

 

[Digger]

Last time I'll go OT:

True. I did put it rather misleading. The points I tried to make:

1. Lance was among the top of the bill of cycling from the start. What I definitely didn't say and should have; without showing the potential he later on would have at stage races. The big difference between Mig and La was that Mig was primarily good at stage races where Lance was specialist in tough stages and classics.
2. Lance was a decent enough climber: This I still hold as true. As said ad infinito, Ferrari made it otherworldly.
3. Lance did show he could TT quite well: Considering how he progressed , I dare say this shouldn't have been as surprising as it was for most of us. Becoming a good TT rider does often take time. Once again the Ferrari link helped here, but the potential was there already.

Conclusion: I dare say parts of the "Lance revolution" were there, if not at the level he showed later on and most importantly, his consistency was not that of a GC rider. What put it together... well we all have our ideas about it. Mine aren't pretty
Mig wasn't a revolution, rather one of the most inevitable things I have ever seen in cycling. As others said corectly, he was groomed and pronounced the next big thing years in advance.

Lance losing 20 mins a go made him a 'decent enough climber'?
Losing 6 mins a go showed 'he could TT quite well'.

 

[red_flanders]

Absolutely true! It's how I interpret things. But it's hard to deny that the events seem to be in line with what we know about blood/epo.

It's rather simple to deny actually. There is no evidence whatsoever. You accuse because he rounded into form faster than you think he should have. 20+ years ago. You really followed his form that closely at the time, or are you an internet avenger, cobbling together stories you've heard?

"Hard to deny"? I've seen denials from people with the smoking gun of positive tests. I've seen denials from their fans. Pretty easy to deny a doping accusation against a rider who has ****ed off a lot of really angry and powerful people who have actively tried to smear him. And he comes out smelling like a rose. STRONG benefit of the doubt. This thread is a joke.

Hmm:
- Lance didn't compete before the EPO era.
- He was a huge talent, his palmares was absolutely impressive.

I just checked, but there were hints of his TT capacities and his climbing all over the place. And yes, something changed (both mentally and physically), but compared to for example Miguel Indurain he had shown at least as much before his first TdF win.

Well, I'm sorry but that's exceedingly revisionist. His TT and climbing were such that no one, including himself or his teammates and coaches thought he was a GT rider. Quite obviously he wasn't taking EPO in the first few years of his career in Europe. He was nothing close to "the best" at this point.

You could argue he wasn't the best because so many riders were on EPO.

 

[Choocher]

Paris-Nice, 1996

It's a small point, but Lance Armstrong did take 2nd place at P-N overall in 1996, I believe. This would show some stage racing prowess before 1998, right?

You are comparing Ullrichs 2006 Giro performance with Lemonds 89 Giro - Ullrich did not throw a leg over a bike in competition until the Tour of Romandie which began on April 26th!

As for Indurain(pre 91) vs Armstrong - Lance only stage victory prior to 99 was the Tour Dupont Tour in the US. He had never shown any ability in a stage race before his 4th in the 98 Vuelta.

Indurain had shown his ability at stage racing from the start -(palmares here) he wore the yellow jersey for 4 days in his first Vuelta in 85, had won various stage races like Tour de l'Avenir, Paris Nice, Tour of Catalyuna, he had won mountain stages in the Tour de France. He also finished 2nd & 7th in the Vuelta - most of this was done while riding for his team leader Delgado.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

It's a small point, but Lance Armstrong did take 2nd place at P-N overall in 1996, I believe. This would show some stage racing prowess before 1998, right?

He had started to work with Dr. Ferrari in the winter of 1995.

 

[Oldman]

Your story has changed - from "Greg was in California for a month before the Tour", now its a "month before the Giro". But again your facts are wrong.

Greg left for America two days after Liege-Bastogne-Liege, which was in the middle of April. He rode the Tour de Trump, which started on the5th May and ended on the 14th May..........the Giro began the following weekend!

I'm paraphrasing Greg's own description and no, I can't find the personally autographed copy. I told my wife not to move the damn thing. He described a "month" of training prior to the Tour with Otto where he was completely self-convinced to quit; Otto trying to convince him otherwise. The point is not how many consecutive calendar days were involved...it's how the dramatic improvement occurred.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

I'm paraphrasing Greg's own description and no, I can't find the personally autographed copy. I told my wife not to move the damn thing. He described a "month" of training prior to the Tour with Otto where he was completely self-convinced to quit; Otto trying to convince him otherwise. The point is not how many consecutive calendar days were involved...it's how the dramatic improvement occurred.

The point has changed.

It has been well documented that Lemond called his wife during the Giro to say he was going to leave the sport at the end of the season.

I think our views on 'dramatic improvement' differ - if someone who showed no ability in a particular ability climbing/TT/consistency like Riis suddenly finds that ability, I would call that a 'dramatic improvement'.

But when someone has already shown that ability, then loses it through injury/bad luck and recovers it (Hinault 85, Roche 87,Fignon 89) I wouldn't call it a 'dramatic improvement'.
Lemond in 89 still seemed a shadow of what he was in 85 or 86 as in the 89 Tour seemed vulnerable in the mountains.

 

[Race Radio]

It's a small point, but Lance Armstrong did take 2nd place at P-N overall in 1996, I believe. This would show some stage racing prowess before 1998, right?

According to former teammates he started using EPO and Dr Ferrari in 1995. It should not be surprising to see such a large jump in form shortly after starting the program.

 

[Oldman]

The point has changed.

It has been well documented that Lemond called his wife during the Giro to say he was going to leave the sport at the end of the season.

I think our views on 'dramatic improvement' differ - if someone who showed no ability in a particular ability climbing/TT/consistency like Riis suddenly finds that ability, I would call that a 'dramatic improvement'.

But when someone has already shown that ability, then loses it through injury/bad luck and recovers it (Hinault 85, Roche 87,Fignon 89) I wouldn't call it a 'dramatic improvement'.
Lemond in 89 still seemed a shadow of what he was in 85 or 86 as in the 89 Tour seemed vulnerable in the mountains.

You get no argument on the basis of his genetic gifts. His vulnerability in the mountains is also understandable for any rider out of the major sport that long. Maybe he was capable of barely staying in a race prior to the '89 Tour and could have resurrected his form to win without benefit of much team support. He'd be the first. That sort of form evolution is dramatic by my definition.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

You get no argument on the basis of his genetic gifts. His vulnerability in the mountains is also understandable for any rider out of the major sport that long. Maybe he was capable of barely staying in a race prior to the '89 Tour and could have resurrected his form to win without benefit of much team support. He'd be the first. That sort of form evolution is dramatic by my definition.

What great team support did Fignon or Delgado have in the 89 Tour?
In any of the mountain stages it was just the top riders in GC. On the stage to Aix Les Bains it was the top 5 who broke away.

 

[Oldman]

What great team support did Fignon or Delgado have in the 89 Tour?
In any of the mountain stages it was just the top riders in GC. On the stage to Aix Les Bains it was the top 5 who broke away.

Charley Mottet and Miguel Indurain.

 

[Pantani_lives]

My opinion is that Lemond in 1990 was the last Tour winner without EPO or blood doping.

 

[Choocher]

Ok, but why wouldn't you mention that initially, then?

Either you were aware of that result and chose to ignore it to strengthen your point of view, or you weren't aware of it and are now merely trying to cover your tracks and make yourself look all knowing.

He had started to work with Dr. Ferrari in the winter of 1995.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Ok, but why wouldn't you mention that initially, then?

Either you were aware of that result and chose to ignore it to strengthen your point of view, or you weren't aware of it and are now merely trying to cover your tracks and make yourself look all knowing.

Ok, but why wouldn't you mention that initially, then?

Either you were aware of that result and chose to ignore it to strengthen your point of view, or you weren't aware of it and are now merely trying to cover your tracks and make yourself look all knowing.

Or how about other..... I had forgotten about his PN 96 result, confusing it with PN 98, which of course was his comeback year and he did not finish.
I do not put much value in any of his performances after he teamed up with Ferrari.

I am far from all knowing. By all means show me where LA did well in a stage race and showed consistency and I will alter my view.

I have argued this on another thread - all Tour winners had shown an ability to be contenders in stage races, the first to break that mould was Riis.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Charley Mottet and Miguel Indurain.

Mottet was riding for RMO in 1989.

Indurain finished over 30 minutes behind.
As I was pointing out all the team leaders had little support from their teams when they were in the mountains.

 

[Eyjafjallajokull]

It's a small point, but Lance Armstrong did take 2nd place at P-N overall in 1996, I believe. This would show some stage racing prowess before 1998, right?

Correct, but it would have been very difficult for Armstrong to succeed in a tour in the two speed peloton of the 1990s without having a programme, just as it was for Lemond during the same period. Both these great riders suffered.

Also, pre-cancer Armstrong was an angry and aggressive young rider, by his own admission, not suited to the mental pressures of a long tour.

 

[Choocher]

Or how about other..... I had forgotten about his PN 96 result, confusing it with PN 98, which of course was his comeback year and he did not finish.
I do not put much value in any of his performances after he teamed up with Ferrari.

I am far from all knowing. By all means show me where LA did well in a stage race and showed consistency and I will alter my view.

I have argued this on another thread - all Tour winners had shown an ability to be contenders in stage races, the first to break that mould was Riis.

Fair enough, though do you think the period of suspicion regarding LA should really begin with Ferrari or even earlier? Why blame it all on him? I mean, he had bad people around him even before that, didn't he? Also, his moral compass was also pretty infamously well-known even by the time he was in his late teens, early 20's. Ferrari was just the most blatant sign post.

 

[Hugh Januss]

Fair enough, though do you think the period of suspicion regarding LA should really begin with Ferrari or even earlier? Why blame it all on him? I mean, he had bad people around him even before that, didn't he? Also, his moral compass was also pretty infamously well-known even by the time he was in his late teens, early 20's. Ferrari was just the most blatant sign post.

Ferrari was the one who raised doping and beating the tests to an art form however. He is responsible for building the TdF machine that is/was (?) Lance Armstrong. IMO.

 

[alberto.legstrong]

idle hands

I keep seeing this thread whenever I click on the new posts, so I read a little, a few pages back. seemed a little heated, so I went back to the OP to see what all this 'news' about LeMond is about. And apparently, there is no actual evidence of anything other than, 'If we all say LA is a doper, then GL is a doper b/c he beat a doper and had a comeback, too.' Or something equally distant from evidence of doping.

what is amazing is that 400 posts later, this terdferguson is still breathing life. Each of you should serve a no-life penalty by posting no less than 2 babes on bikes pics that I can access from work for each post to this thread.
(The last link was blocked due to 'adult/mature' content. If I wanted anything mature, I'd go back to work.)

Or how about going out and riding a bike???

 

[Eyjafjallajokull]

Ferrari was the one who raised doping and beating the tests to an art form however. He is responsible for building the TdF machine that is/was (?) Lance Armstrong. IMO.

Is it really that difficult to take EPO? I think Armstrong would have won the Tour several times, Ferrari or no Ferrari.

 

[Oldman]

Mottet was riding for RMO in 1989.

Indurain finished over 30 minutes behind.
As I was pointing out all the team leaders had little support from their teams when they were in the mountains.

Right you are on Mottet. Back then I think most contendersdid their own mountain work, unless you trace back to La Vie Claire with their embarrassment of riches. Besides; if you can't hang in the mountains you're not going to win. Lemond had little support until '90.