LEMOND the DOPER

[eleven]

Well you wrote the following in an earlier post....

So you appear to be no better than 'them'.

How does that equate to being "no better than them"? Perhaps I should explain a bit further: I'm of the opinion that they all dope. All of them. I don't hold it against them, but nor do I try to draw some distinction between them.

 

[eleven]

More fun things to add - LA beat known dopers in 99, and the average speed went up in that year after Festina. It was not possible to win clean, which he didn't. In 1989 it was, due to the more primitive (and less effective) forms of doping.

I'm not disagreeing about LA. I just don't see any indication that Lemond was clean, either. While the methods weren't exactly EPO, they weren't "primitive" either. They enhanced performance.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

How does that equate to being "no better than them"? Perhaps I should explain a bit further: I'm of the opinion that they all dope. All of them. I don't hold it against them, but nor do I try to draw some distinction between them.

I don't hold it against the dopers either - however I certainly don't agree that "all of them" dope.

 

[I Watch Cycling In July]

Does anyone care to address this legitimate statement, or will the CN forum denizens just hide behind the TROLL meme that's rolled out every time the conventional wisdom in here is challenged?

By legitimate statement I assume you mean that there are flaws in the logic that no clean rider will ever beat a rider that has doped. There are flaws. I wish the trolls (evidenced in this case by his deliberately ignoring the minimal performance advantages of doping prior to the EPO era) would fcuk off so there could be a rational debate on the topic.

 

[luckyboy]

I'm not disagreeing about LA. I just don't see any indication that Lemond was clean, either. While the methods weren't exactly EPO, they weren't "primitive" either. They enhanced performance.

The advantages gained were minimal when compared to the advantages gained during the EPO years. It's very plausible that a clean rider could've won big races before rEPO came along.

 

[Race Radio]

I have a touch of knowledge on the topic.

You do? Your posts do not show this.

If you did have knowledge you would know that there is a huge difference between EPO and Cortisone. To pretend that doping methods in the 80's were the same as the 90's and 2000's shows ignorance.

There was a wide range of GT riders who rode and won clean in the 80's, name one who made the top 10 of a GT from 1995-2005?

Lemond never had outsized performances. His W/Kg were in line with his Vo2 and the historic averages of the sport. This is a huge difference from the 13% increase in the 90/2000's. in 1996 Over 50 riders beat Lemond's best time up Alp d'Huez. To pretend that the performance advantages given by doping were the same is simply ignorant.

The fact remains. There is zero evidence, rumor, myth, etc. that Lemond doped.

 

[BikeCentric]

Thank you luckyboy for taking the time to restate all of this for the benefit of those too lazy to read archives and demand to be spoonfed. Perhaps you've made some stupid people smarter today.

 

[Race Radio]

I'm not disagreeing about LA. I just don't see any indication that Lemond was clean, either. While the methods weren't exactly EPO, they weren't "primitive" either. They enhanced performance.

EPO increase performance by 13%. Do you have any similar studies on Cortisone? How about Testosterone?

http://www.sportsscientists.com/2007/11/effect-of-epo-on-performance-who.html

This is no surprise as climbing speeds and W/kg improved dramatically in the 1990's and 2000's. Lemond could not even beat Coppi's best time up Alp d'huez from 30 years earlier. The best time for Ventoux stood for over 30 years. Once EPO was introduced this all changed.

You are just embarrassing yourself with this garbage.

 

[eleven]

You do? Your posts do not show this.

Color me surprised that you of all people would make that claim.

If you did have knowledge you would know that there is a huge difference between EPO and Cortisone. To pretend that doping methods in the 80's were the same as the 90's and 2000's shows ignorance.

I said as much in a previous post. Perhaps you missed that post?

There was a wide range of GT riders who rode and won clean in the 80's, name one who made the top 10 of a GT from 1995-2005?

Let's try that again: Race Radio believes there was a wide range of GT riders who rode and won clean in the 80's.

 

[eleven]

EPO increase performance by 13%. Do you have any similar studies on Cortisone? How about Testosterone?

http://www.sportsscientists.com/2007/11/effect-of-epo-on-performance-who.html

It would be helpful if you actually read my posts. Let's review:

I'm of the opinion that they all dope. All of them. I don't hold it against them, but nor do I try to draw some distinction between them.

You are just embarrassing yourself with this garbage.

You're always such a polite and peachy poster, Race Radio. You must be a real charmer at cocktail parties.

 

[eleven]

I don't hold it against the dopers either - however I certainly don't agree that "all of them" dope.

Does every rider in the top 10 of each GT?

 

[Anonymous]

Well, the influx of douchebags has officially begun. Man I will be glad when the tour is over. It used to be that this type of thing was limited to a couple of weeks before to a couple of weeks after the tour, but it seems like comeback 2.0 has emboldened the moronic masses. Hey, have fun. I am out. And to be clear, I think it is quite probable that Lemond took doping products of some sort. My protest is in relation to the transparent motivation of the troll hoards that have shown up on the last week. Though I do wonder if all of these new people happen to share ip addresses from the same block of ip's that the mentally I'll trollposts from? I suspect we are dealing with one, and at most two people I total.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Does every rider in the top 10 of each GT?

I do not know......and neither do you, unless you go for 'suspicion, rumour or innuendo".

Certainly there are many who do - but as to numbers, I have no idea.

 

[Anonymous]

To be clear, I am boycotting stupid threads like this and the douchebags who post them, not the forum.

 

[eleven]

I do not know......and neither do you, unless you go for 'suspicion, rumour or innuendo".

Certainly there are many who do - but as to numbers, I have no idea.

Well, we'll have to agree to disagree given the evidence at hand. If EPO increases performance by 13%, it would be pretty hard for a nondoper to remain the top 10 of the biggest multi-day races in the world, especially since EPO is so effective at aiding recovery.

I'm not saying your definitely wrong, and I'd love to learn differently. But I just don't see how its possible.

 

[BroDeal]

Well, the influx of douchebags has officially begun. Man I will be glad when the tour is over. It used to be that this type of thing was limited to a couple of weeks before to a couple of weeks after the tour, but it seems like comeback 2.0 has emboldened the moronic masses. Hey, have fun. I am out. And to be clear, I think it is quite probable that Lemond took doping products of some sort. My protest is in relation to the transparent motivation of the troll hoards that have shown up on the last week. Though I do wonder if all of these new people happen to share ip addresses from the same block of ip's that the mentally I'll trollposts from? I suspect we are dealing with one, and at most two people I total.

I am pretty sure that a bunch of these are the same person or a small number of people.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Well, we'll have to agree to disagree given the evidence at hand. If EPO increases performance by 13%, it would be pretty hard for a nondoper to remain the top 10 of the biggest multi-day races in the world, especially since EPO is so effective at aiding recovery.

I'm not saying your definitely wrong, and I'd love to learn differently. But I just don't see how its possible.

There has been a test for EPO since 2001 - and while there is plenty of evidence to suggest that techniques have moved - I think the Biological Passport has narrowed the extreme gains that were arond prior to the EPO test.

 

[eleven]

There has been a test for EPO since 2001 - and while there is plenty of evidence to suggest that techniques have moved - I think the Biological Passport has narrowed the extreme gains that were arond prior to the EPO test.

Interesting observation re: the Passport. A serious question: In your opinion, has the Passport forced teams / people into dramatically changing or reducing their methods? Perhaps it's pushing people into smaller gains from micro-doping? It will be interesting to see if some comparative times (for AdH, for example) go up.

 

[Race Radio]

I said as much in a previous post. Perhaps you missed that post?

Which post? The one where you wrote

Lemond beat an admitted doper in Fignon. How'd he do that? If that doesn't raise suspicion, you need to reconsider your own logic.

I can understand how you would want to back away from what you wrote but I don't see why you pretend you did not write it.

 

[Hugh Januss]

TFF is right, the silly season is starting very much earlier this year.

 

[eleven]

Which post? The one where you wrote



I can understand how you would want to back away from what you wrote but I don't see why you pretend you did not write it.

Why would I back away from that comment? Just because the benefit was less than "13%" doesn't change the facts.

But hey, you keep it classy as always.

 

[Race Radio]

Why would I back away from that comment? Just because the benefit was less than "13%" doesn't change the facts.

?

What facts? You have provided none. If you feel that a clean rider could not beat a doped rider in the 80's then please provide something to back this up. The teammates of Lemond, Hampsten, Mottet and others disagree with you.

I have shown you why a rider could not win a GT in the 90's and 2000's clean. I have shown you the extreme benefits of EPO, the dramatic increase in watts and decrease in climbing times....and all you have done is babble about cocktail parties and resort to ad hominen.

 

[Hugh Januss]

Why would I back away from that comment? Just because the benefit was less than "13%" doesn't change the facts.

But hey, you keep it classy as always.

I'm curious, what made you decide to go with your IQ as your user name?

 

[Ripper]

If i have trampled any cherished ideals or lofty rules into the gorund with my declaration of opinion i apologize and perhaps i should be sent the properforms to ...

You should apologize for terrible spelling. What the f*ck is gorund? Do you read the garbage you type before you click submit?

Oooooooooooooo, you are a funny one. You should have some relaxing tea and think of the willows blowing in the wind, chimp.

 

[Ripper]

TFF is right, the silly season is starting very much earlier this year.

Yes, it would appear so. I take some time off and come back to threads of stupidty.