LEMOND the DOPER

[Wolves-Lower]

Armstrong. Not just the greatest US cyclist, but the greatest cyclist of all time IMO.

Greg Lemond should have, could have, would have... Armstrong did.

I happen to believe Greg LeMond was a first class doper, just not with EPO.

Is that you Lance?

 

[VeloCity]

Nice post.

Is there a "ton" of evidence that anybody doped in the 80s? The only reason we know Fignon doped is because he told us. The only major flare up on doping in the 80s that I can remember is Delgado. This was before the internet stage, and I would bet if a forum like this existed when GL turned things around in 89 he would've gotten slammed as a doper. News, gossip, and rumor in 2010 is light years ahead of 1989.

I disagree - the main reason that people jump to "doper" now is because of our experience of the past decade or so, where just about every prominent rider has turned out to be a doper. Just as a personal example, in the mid-90s I thought Pantani's incredible rides were the real thing, because back then, I didn't know doping was so ingrained in the peloton. But skip to the '08 Giro and Ricco and Sella's incredible rides, knowing what I (we) know now about doping, I immediately thought "can't be real". And of course, they weren't. It's a cynicism (or maybe disillusionment) born of (bad) experience, but one that's being constantly reinforced as more and more of these guys are exposed.

In my earlier post I was not implying that GL doped, but I use the circumstantial evidence myself about others that excel today; beating known dopers is highly suspicious. Doping in this sport has been around for ages, and to completely have faith that GL dominated like he did clean is not a very open minded position to take IMO. I've said this before but placing hands over ears and hollering TROLL is pretty childish IMO.

Beating dopers is only one aspect - Evans beats a lot of riders but few call him a doper because there's little else linking Evans to doping, but also because of the way he rides - when he does win, it's barely and certainly not dominating, and he cracks and has bad days, just as you would expect a clean rider to do. Whereas a lot of people are more suspicious of say Contador or Cancellara because of their domination - they don't just win, they crush - and for ancillary reasons, like AC riding for Saiz and Bruyneel, Cancellara for Riis, etc. Evans could turn out to be the biggest doper of them all, so to speak, but there's a lot more of the "smell" factor around certain riders than there are others - Valverde, for eg, or F Schleck - and that's usually for more than one reason, not just that they "beat dopers". (Just imo, but personally I think the majority dope whether big name or unknown domestique - Friel at BMC just busted for EPO, for eg - save a small minority who are clean, and I wouldn't be in the least bit surprised at any rider turning out to be a doper, save perhaps Moncoutie - that would truly be a shocker

BTW, everybody seems to be putting down the "primitive" form of doping pre-EPO. I wonder how many of us in here have actually taken things like steroids or cortisone, and speak from experience. I doubt very many, but we just "know" their effects, don't we?

We don't have to, the athletes do it for us - if cortisone and steroids etc were more effective than EPO, they'd still be finding ways to use those products instead of EPO and blood transfusions, etc.

But more than that is the clear effect that EPO did have on the peloton - avg speeds jumped considerably starting in the early '90s. I don't have access to it, but there's a graph floating around showing how speeds (or maybe it was power, can't remember) spiked noticeably beginning in the early-mid '90s. Didn't see that pattern in the '80s.

 

[Eyjafjallajokull]

Beating dopers is only one aspect - Evans beats a lot of riders but few call him a doper because there's little else linking Evans to doping, but also because of the way he rides - when he does win, it's barely and certainly not dominating, and he cracks and has bad days, just as you would expect a clean rider to do.

In the race yesterday, it seems to me, either Evans was doped, or alternatively Contador was riding clean.

It's hard to imagine AC was the same rider that broke the power record at the tour and could pull away from the likes of Evans at will.

I don't know if trying and failing to win all of these races, and just scrapping the win at the Paris-Nice, is doing his doping credentials much good. If he's light years ahead of everyone again come the TdF then tongues will wag.

 

[red_flanders]

I wouldn't have a clue if Lemond doped. I wasn't in his hotel room. I assume there's a good chance he doped. After all, he was a professional cyclist.

[rant]

But I find it amusing, and at times, annoying, that he is singled out for rabid attention by people when there is not a sniff of evidence of him doping. How many threads have there been about Charly Mottet doping? Or Andy Hampsten? They are also people about whom no-one has any evidence of doping. I don't see people casting apparently baseless slander about them.

Seems to me, Lemond p!ssed off the wrong bloke by calling a spade a spade, and his feral acolytes decided that they would not cease from mental fight, nor the keyboard rest in their hands, until they had besmirched his name, regardless of the paucity of evidence.

So every few months when some rabid attack dog comes into whatever forum it happens to be, foaming at the mouth to begin a campaign against one man who, however hackhandedly, seems to be campaigning against doping in cycling; colour me cynical indeed.

Why not spare your opprobrium for the riders who spat on and abused Simeoni? Why not attack those who hounded Bassons so badly he was forced to retire from the Tour? Why not vent your spleen at the riders who described Manzano as a raving madman who should be locked up?

If you're going to dig into the past, throw the mud at the ones who have helped perpetuate this sham.

[/rant]

Post of the month at least, if not the year.

 

[luckyboy]

Beating dopers is only one aspect - Evans beats a lot of riders but few call him a doper because there's little else linking Evans to doping, but also because of the way he rides - when he does win, it's barely and certainly not dominating, and he cracks and has bad days, just as you would expect a clean rider to do.

I'd have a hard time saying that any rider who is up there in a GT is clean.

There's a lot more of the "smell" factor around certain riders than there are others - Valverde, for eg, or F Schleck - and that's usually for more than one reason, not just that they "beat dopers".

There's a 'smell factor' around Schleck, I'd say there was more of a 'proof factor' around Piti.

 

[Kennf1]

The lemond thing appeared out of nowhere because I read an interview with fignon and he fessed up to doping. MY thought immediately was Gregs oft repeated stance thta you cnat beat a doper woithout doping. Fignon didnt say which kind but testosterone was available then and so was blood trasfusion. Eddie B the national US elite coach was advocating in 1984 that the US team use transfusions BECAUSE HE KNEW IT WAS BEING OFFERED IN THE EUROPEAN AMATUER TEAMS.
BLOOD TRASFUSIONS DO TWO THINGS .; One- they increase plasma volume
two-they increase the amount of availiable red cells for carrying oxygen so they have an effect similiar to epo..this was available and used by amatuers in the 80s so we can fairly safely assume it was avaialiable and used by pros who had far more resources...it is effective as a performance enhancer and we wouldnt have fuentes charging tens of thousands of euros to Ullrich Basso et al in opercion puerto if it wasnt .
My original premise was if Greg allleges that if others were beating dopers
then they must be doping. If that is a valid argument does it not apply to him as well ?

I believe you're overstating the amount of blood transfusing that was going on the '80s. You're basing your statements on the use of blood transfusions at the '84 Olympics. As I recall, and handful of the track cyclists used it. The road team (Phinney, Kiefel, Grewal) did not, although Grewall later admitted to using uppers. The other instance I can think of in the '80s is Moser's use of transufusions to break the hour record. I don't think there is any evidence of its use in the grand tours. I think it's a bit of stretch to then say that blood doping was prevalent in the '80s, therefore Fignon did it, therefore Lemond must have done it too.
Then again, why am I even trying to argue logic and facts.

 

[Epicycle]

Great post by Runitout.

Though as an unbiased observer I think there are some real questions regarding Lemond's career and doping but I haven't seen them brought up in this thread.

 

[luckyboy]

I believe you're overstating the amount of blood transfusing that was going on the '80s. You're basing your statements on the use of blood transfusions at the '84 Olympics. As I recall, and handful of the track cyclists used it. The road team (Phinney, Kiefel, Grewal) did not, although Grewall later admitted to using uppers. The other instance I can think of in the '80s is Moser's use of transufusions to break the hour record. I don't think there is any evidence of its use in the grand tours. I think it's a bit of stretch to then say that blood doping was prevalent in the '80s, therefore Fignon did it, therefore Lemond must have done it too.
Then again, why am I even trying to argue logic and facts.

I can't think of much in the 80's either, but I keep going back to TdF 1960 when Pierre Dumas (TdF doctor) walked in to Nencini's room and found him transfusing blood.

 

[Race Radio]

I think it's a bit of stretch to then say that blood doping was prevalent in the '80s, therefore Fignon did it, therefore Lemond must have done it too.
Then again, why am I even trying to argue logic and facts.

Correct, it is a huge stretch.

Fignon recently wrote a book about his time as a professional. In it he detailed his doping history and how he thought it played a part in his cancer. He talked about Cortisone, Testosterone, and a verity of steroids.....blood doping is never mentioned.

Not only does Fignon never mention Blood doping but none of the books written about doping in the 80's mention it. No riders or support staff mention it and it has been pointed out the blood storage methods of the time would not support it.

 

[Kennf1]

Seems to me, Lemond p!ssed off the wrong bloke by calling a spade a spade, and his feral acolytes decided that they would not cease from mental fight, nor the keyboard rest in their hands, until they had besmirched his name, regardless of the paucity of evidence.

[/rant]

I think the term "feral acolytes" is my new favorite phrase.

 

[Eyjafjallajokull]

It would be interesting if there were any studies on the increased power outputs from drugs other than EPO. Then we could make a better assessment of whether it's possible or likely that a rider could beat that enhanced performance.

 

[Race Radio]

I can't think of much in the 80's either, but I keep going back to TdF 1960 when Pierre Dumas (TdF doctor) walked in to Nencini's room and found him transfusing blood.

This is an often miss-translated story.

L’année suivante, en 1960, le Dr Pierre Dumas, médecin du Tour de France, en entrant dans la chambre du champion italien Gastone Nencini, le trouve allongé sur son lit, « les deux bras reliés à un bocal, se prêtant à une double perfusion de sérum à base d’hormones mâles ».

'The following year, in 1960, Dr. Pierre Dumas, doctor of the Tour de France, entering the room of the Italian champion Gastone Nencini, found lying on his bed, "the two arms connected to a jar, suitable for a double infusion of serum-based male hormones.

Nencini was attempting to use an early version of testosterone, not blood doping.

http://books.google.fr/books?id=RjAI...age&q=&f=false

 

[ChrisE]

I disagree - the main reason that people jump to "doper" now is because of our experience of the past decade or so, where just about every prominent rider has turned out to be a doper. Just as a personal example, in the mid-90s I thought Pantani's incredible rides were the real thing, because back then, I didn't know doping was so ingrained in the peloton. But skip to the '08 Giro and Ricco and Sella's incredible rides, knowing what I (we) know now about doping, I immediately thought "can't be real". And of course, they weren't. It's a cynicism (or maybe disillusionment) born of (bad) experience, but one that's being constantly reinforced as more and more of these guys are exposed.

And, I disagree with you back. Maybe what you say is true but...

Testing protocols and public pressure were zilch in the 80's compared to what they are nowadays. I believe you imply above more are doping now because more get caught, but I don't agree with that outright because of this fact. Roids were easily detectable thus things like new masking agents were probably used, like Delgado, who didn't read the latest banned list but got off on a technicality.

You were a fan of Pantani because technology and news, knowledge of the hard fans like us, and testing were not as prevalent then as they are now. You could lop 10 years off of his era and this same fact would remain.

We don't have to, the athletes do it for us - if cortisone and steroids etc were more effective than EPO, they'd still be finding ways to use those products instead of EPO and blood transfusions, etc.

Never did I say in the earlier post or anywhere in any forum over the last 10+ years that cortisone or steroids are more effective than EPO. I personally don't know, and I can admit that, because no controlled testing has ever been done on this subject comparing these methods.

I said most people don't have the proof to belittle drugs other than EPO. Upthread somebody said they "probably" had little effect, or some such ignorant BS toeing the CW. Like I said above, I state "I don't know" when I don't have some data in front of me. That disease is pretty rare in here.

Thus, I don't take some book by somebody talking about people they don't know day in/day out 24/7 as proof that somebody didn't dope.

Anyway EPO variations or microdosing are easier to "hide" than the average roid or cortisone which probably makes it more prevalent as well.

You do a longitudinal test on a jacked up rider on a proper steroid regimen and compare the results of the same person clean. The difference in performance will not be miniscule. But, that isn't popular because those drugs are more easily detectable, as I say. You stop testing for roids and see what happens in the pro peloton; speeds and performances would go thru the roof IMO, EPO use would go down, and that would prove my point. Does that mean roids are better than EPO? By your logic yes.

But more than that is the clear effect that EPO did have on the peloton - avg speeds jumped considerably starting in the early '90s. I don't have access to it, but there's a graph floating around showing how speeds (or maybe it was power, can't remember) spiked noticeably beginning in the early-mid '90s. Didn't see that pattern in the '80s.

Yeah, that graph was discussed at length in the "last clean GT winner" thread. My conclusion to that is that there are too many variables on those graphs and they are mostly BS, but I agree peformances obviously increased in the 90's.

My overall point is that I don't know what a totally clean GT winner looks like because I'm not convinced that winning has been possible since the 70's without some "help". Lack of AAF's and tell all books by people other than the verfiably factual rider tell-all do little to sway my opinion.

 

[Eyjafjallajokull]

Wasn't there some story about a mainly south American team being coked off their faces during the Tour in the early 80s?

 

[Galic Ho]

So tell us... where do you think Obama was born?... no really!!

Considering Obama managed to break law and not present a birth certificate with his Presidential nomination I seriously have doubts he was born on US soil. All the other Presidents proved it. Where is a lawyer when you need one? Oh, just a phone call and $500,000 away. It pays to have been the Editor of the Harvard Law Review. So tell me, can he prove he was born in the good old USofA?. Can the first person of a nation be beyond reproach? Yes, but deceny and positive ethics suggest he should not be. He is supposed to uphold all that is good. That includes presenting documentation not using a legal team and some legal anomaly to worm ones way out of it.

Your President is a chump fool. Look at you CA deficit. He quadrupled it in a matter of months. Way worse than what Bush managed. Nice way to wave the Democrat flag. You probably think Teddy Kennedy is a hero too. Am I right? 10 years time people will regret electing an autocue reader as president. He speaks well when prepared. Give him an unprepared response and watch him crumble. Obama is a show pony, nothing more.

 

[Race Radio]

And, I disagree with you back. Maybe what you say is true but...

Testing protocols and public pressure were zilch in the 80's compared to what they are nowadays. I believe you imply above more are doping now because more get caught, but I don't agree with that outright because of this fact. Roids were easily detectable thus things like new masking agents were probably used, like Delgado, who didn't read the latest banned list but got off on a technicality.

Not exactly.

With the exception of Cortisone and Testosterone most of what was used in the 80's was easily tested for. The challenge was the lack of testing outside of the GT's. You had a large majority of races outside the GT's, Monuments, and WC that had little or no testing, however within these races it was very easy to test for most of the drugs being used.

Delgado tested positive for a drug that was not yet on the UCI banned list. It was on the IOC list but not would not be added to the UCI list until 6 months after Delgado tested positive for it.

 

[buckwheat]

Agreed, I didn't say the prevalent drugs pre-EPO were equivalent.

Now, care to address my statement or do you wish to continue to divert with LA references?

I've taken T and amphetamines and have a little bit of talent. If one has a little bit a talent no slug is going to catch them because he's juicing or hopped up on amphetamines. It it's close, it may be a difference. NO one was close to LeMond as a youth, and he was superior as a Pro. Just not as much.

Getting directly to the point, no amount of amphetamines and steroids is going to allow a Pharmstrong to hang with a LeMond in a GT. Of course Pharmstrong is a good rider. He's not a dominant one and had there been no PED's whatsoever, LeMond would have been winning by Merckx like margins.

What the stuff does is allow you to hop out of bed a little quicker and alleviate some of the morning mental fog maybe, and also there is both short term and long term blow back from speed and juice. Anyway, that's not what's measured during a GT.

This is why people that know, like Joe Parkin, say that LeMond was the best.

 

[ChrisE]

Not exactly.

With the exception of Cortisone and Testosterone most of what was used in the 80's was easily tested for. The challenge was the lack of testing outside of the GT's. You had a large majority of races outside the GT's, Monuments, and WC that had little or no testing, however within these races it was very easy to test for most of the drugs being used.

Delgado tested positive for a drug that was not yet on the UCI banned list. It was on the IOC list but not would not be added to the UCI list until 6 months after Delgado tested positive for it.

Yes, I couldn't remember the details of how he got off but I knew it was something like you described. And, as I recall it was a masking agent which is the point I made in that post. I am not arguing the typical roids were undetectable.....I know they were/are.

OK, outside of the GTs. Roids enable you to train much harder and longer, and those benefits are reaped even after you get off of them. That training does not leave your body. That is why out of competition testing is so important and probably what the chicken was up to....

If there was no testing outside of GTs that further makes my point to Velocity about more busts does not necessarily = more dopers.

 

[Race Radio]

I said most people don't have the proof to belittle drugs other than EPO. Upthread somebody said they "probably" had little effect, or some such ignorant BS toeing the CW. Like I said above, I state "I don't know" when I don't have some data in front of me. That disease is pretty rare in here.

Thus, I don't take some book by somebody talking about people they don't know day in/day out 24/7 as proof that somebody didn't dope.

It is rather obvious that EPO is more effective.

Add in the drop in climbing times of historic climbs and the evidence is rather clear.

 

[buckwheat]

Considering Obama managed to break law and not present a birth certificate with his Presidential nomination I seriously have doubts he was born on US soil. All the other Presidents proved it. Where is a lawyer when you need one? Oh, just a phone call and $500,000 away. It pays to have been the Editor of the Harvard Law Review. So tell me, can he prove he was born in the good old USofA?. Can the first person of a nation be beyond reproach? Yes, but deceny and positive ethics suggest he should not be. He is supposed to uphold all that is good. That includes presenting documentation not using a legal team and some legal anomaly to worm ones way out of it.

Your President is a chump fool. Look at you CA deficit. He quadrupled it in a matter of months. Way worse than what Bush managed. Nice way to wave the Democrat flag. You probably think Teddy Kennedy is a hero too. Am I right? 10 years time people will regret electing an autocue reader as president. He speaks well when prepared. Give him an unprepared response and watch him crumble. Obama is a show pony, nothing more.

Bro, you didn't see Obama face down more than 100 of these conservative morons at that Republican retreat thing.

That last clown Obama lost his patience and basically told him to STFU.

 

[luckyboy]

This is an often miss-translated story.

L’année suivante, en 1960, le Dr Pierre Dumas, médecin du Tour de France, en entrant dans la chambre du champion italien Gastone Nencini, le trouve allongé sur son lit, « les deux bras reliés à un bocal, se prêtant à une double perfusion de sérum à base d’hormones mâles ».



Nencini was attempting to use an early version of testosterone, not blood doping.

http://books.google.fr/books?id=RjAI...age&q=&f=false

Ah I see. Thanks for that

 

[ChrisE]

....Getting directly to the point, no amount of amphetamines and steroids is going to allow a Pharmstrong to hang with a LeMond in a GT. Of course Pharmstrong is a good rider. He's not a dominant one and had there been no PED's whatsoever, LeMond would have been winning by Merckx like margins.
....

I believe the thread is about GL, and doping suspicions in the 80's, not LA. I know it is hard not to revert to the hatefest but let's stay on topic. Thinking is much harder for me than posting insults, so please don't upset the riddum.

Can you please clarify the above? Do you mean GL would beat LA by Merckx margins, or GL would have won in the 80's by those margins if there were no PEDs? Thanks.

 

[ChrisE]

It is rather obvious that EPO is more effective.

Add in the drop in climbing times of historic climbs and the evidence is rather clear.

Like I said, my main hangup on this is the falloff until 93. Then, during that thread I recall these numbers are based upon the last col of a race by the winner, or something. I don't care to go back and look.

RR, I will not let you twist this as me belilttling the EPO era. That is not what I have been writing.

 

[buckwheat]

Yes, I couldn't remember the details of how he got off but I knew it was something like you described. And, as I recall it was a masking agent which is the point I made in that post. I am not arguing the typical roids were undetectable.....I know they were/are..

It was probenecid.

OK, outside of the GTs. Roids enable you to train much harder and longer, and those benefits are reaped even after you get off of them..

They'll narrow the gap, but they won't enable someone with only moderate O2 consumption ability to increase it that much through training. It's like the difference between an average man and a Lawrence Taylor, just not visible to the naked eye.

The effects when you get off them, can be hugely depressed T production, so no, the affects don't last.

That training does not leave your body. That is why out of competition testing is so important and probably what the chicken was up to......

Really, withdraw from a heavy steroid cycle and see what happens to your mental and physical state. That's why people have a hard time stopping that stuff. Now, if you're just using a patch or gel/cream, there's not all that much of an effect. Between two equally matched athletes it probably would make a difference but between a LeMond and a Cat 3, you could give the Cat 3 all the crap in the world (save blood manipulation) and LeMond is going to beat him by miles.

If there was no testing outside of GTs that further makes my point to Velocity about more busts does not necessarily = more dopers.

But you're still missing the point that comparing speed and the juice to EPO is like comparing a cup of coffee to steroids and uppers.

A pea shooter to an M-16.

 

[Hugh Januss]

I believe the thread is about GL, and doping suspicions in the 80's, not LA. I know it is hard not to revert to the hatefest but let's stay on topic. Thinking is much harder for me than posting insults, so please don't upset the riddum.

Can you please clarify the above? Do you mean GL would beat LA by Merckx margins, or GL would have won in the 80's by those margins if there were no PEDs? Thanks.

Hard to have a discussion of whether or not we think someone doped without bringing up one of the major dopers of the same period. I realize that the majority opinion that LA is a doper seems to upset you but you will just have to work around that for the purposes of this discussion.