LEMOND the DOPER

[ChrisE]

You seem to think you are the only one with experience here.

You can spare the lecture about their effects; I could argue these points but I'm pretty tired now.

 

[ChrisE]

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.

No, I think the same thing it is just I am not hung up on it and do not hold inner hate towards the dude.

By this logic I guess we better bring up totally irrelevant JFK philandering in the Tiger Woods thread.

 

[buckwheat]

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.

Pharmstrong is the reference and the biggest influence on all things cycling. That's a matter of fact. I'm sorry that you have to throw a hysterical hissy fit to support your position or lack thereof.

but let's stay on topic. Thinking is much harder for me than posting insults, so please don't upset the riddum. .

I don't understand any of the personal involvement in one's opinions anyway. The situation is very clear and the only thing clouding it in these issues are personal wishes of the way someone would like things to be. The fact is that LA was maybe an average to slightly above average rider amongst the Pro's. He went to an expert in blood manipulation and got incredible results. His prior use of cortisone and other muscle builders didn't have all that great of an effect.

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.

Sorry for the confusion. Both of those instances would be correct. Hinault, Fignon, and maybe Roche were the only riders approaching LeMond's level of talent. Besides LeMond and most prominently Mottet, most Pros of that era seemed to be extremely, "pragmatic" regarding PED's.

 

[Race Radio]

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.

You are correct, it is for the last climb so it is limited in scope and produces anomalies like the 93 measurement. There is much broader evidence in the individual climbing times for historic climbs which dropped dramatically after decades of stagnation.

I do not think you are trying to belittle the EPO era, that is certainly not what you have been writing. I do think you have attempted to promote the vague possibility that doping in the 80's could somehow compete. All evidence points to the contrary.

 

[buckwheat]

No, I think the same thing it is just I am not hung up on it and do not hold inner hate towards the dude.

The guy is still competing and educated opinion holds that we wouldn't even be talking about him if it were not for PED's. He's a sporting icon in an obscure sport. What you're suggesting is like having a discussion on the most evil people of all time and not including Hitler. Whether you like it or not, Lance Armstrong, like Barry Bonds, McGwire, Ben Johnson, Marion Jones....these people are SYNONYMOUS with doping.

By this logic I guess we better bring up totally irrelevant JFK philandering in the Tiger Woods thread.

Assuming the topic is prominent philanderers, what's the problem with bringing JFK into a Tiger screwing around thread?

And BTW, I couldn't give a $hit about it either, but if someone says it's not a "good" thing to be a philanderer, I'm not going to disagree with them.

What I don't understand is the ferociousness with which some people hold opinions about insignificant $hit that doesn't affect them, that they resort to calling others haters. It's like you're defending Pharmstrong's honor for goodness sake.

In the grand scheme does it matter that Pharmstrong is a doped up cheat in a fairly obscure sport? No! But if we're going to sit around engaging in our hobby talking about this stuff, then yes, it's quite obvious that LA is jacked and thinking people are not going to ignore the 800lb Gorilla in the corner.

 

[Eyjafjallajokull]

The introduction of carbon fibre really made a lot of difference.

 

[patricknd]

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.

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.

Personally, I don't know if he ever doped or not. I am open to the possibility of it, but if he did we will never find out so it's not something I dwell on. He is probably my favorite rider of all time and I enjoy watching the old footage. The greatest race I have ever seen is the 89 worlds. Being realistic about the sport's history doesn't lessen my opinion of him or his fight against doping present day.

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?

corticosteroids are great once you find your sweet spot on the dosage. you certainly won't get a 13% gain, but if you react well and find the right dosage to balance out against the side effects they can have some pretty remarkable positives with increased resistance to muscle fatigue, and recovery is almost instantaneous. as someone else mentioned, withdrawal is a *****, especially after prolonged use.

 

[Tyler'sTwin]

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

Agreed. I think it's possible in one day races. I mean, some people have high hg-levels naturally, and some have a very high VO2max despite having normal levels. But in a GT, with your legs torn up and your crit dropping by 10-15% throughout it? Nah, that's just too hard to believe.

 

[VeloCity]

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.

Well, let's agree to disagree on the other stuff and stick with this for a moment - my point simply was that professional athletes are always going to be on the forefront of doping technology, ie they are the ones who will know what works and what doesn't (well along with the advice that they get from doctors etc). If cyclists switched from steroids or cortisone or whatever to EPO in the early '90s, there was a reason for doing so, and that reason was most likely because they realized that EPO is far more effective for an endurance athlete than what was previously available, ie steroids or amphetamines etc. The testing protocols at that time didn't change, ie it's not like riders were forced to switch to EPO because steroid testing was introduced, it's because the new products available - ie EPO - and the science of how to use them to maximum effectiveness (which imo is a point that is often overlooked, ie the advent of the "doping docs" starting with Conconi and Ferrari etc) were vastly superior to what was previously available.

I think a quote from an interview with Frank Vandenbroucke pretty much sums it up: "The 34-year-old said that new drugs were introduced into the peloton by "pioneers"...Vandenbroucke...regretted never having "had the chance to be a pioneer, to try out new doping products first."

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/vandenbroucke-fought-with-equal-dirty-weapons

(also interesting: [Vandenbroucke] said that the Italian team Gewiss "was the EPO pioneer, everyone knew that. Furlan, Berzin, Argentin ... there is a reason why at a certain moment some men are riding 10 kilometres per hour faster than the others.")

 

[pmcg76]

Snipped...

Lack of AAF's and tell all books by people other than the verfiably factual rider tell-all do little to sway my opinion.

You are just playing devils advocate here, the tell-all books have pretty much reflected what was happening and has happened in pro-cycling yet they are somehow irrelevant according to you. Have you actually read Willy Voet, this guy spent more time with a lot of top riders than anybody else, team-managers, team-mates etc. He was in the sport for 30 years. He said that riders regularly confided in the sognieur about all their problems. Yeah, this guy knows nothing and its all BS right.

According to you there is a lack of research on the affects of various drugs, ok so there is nothing to go on other than what former pros have said about the benefits of EPO over previously used drugs, still not good enough for you. Then the graphs prove nothing so of course there is still absolutely no evidence that LeMond doped which was the original accusation.

Did LeMond dope, possibly but there is still absolutely no evidence that he did. Period.

 

[Oldman]

Sorry for the confusion. Both of those instances would be correct. Hinault, Fignon, and maybe Roche were the only riders approaching LeMond's level of talent. Besides LeMond and most prominently Mottet, most Pros of that era seemed to be extremely, "pragmatic" regarding PED's.

I had read and heard from pros at the time that Mottet was considered clean. In fact some DS lamented the fact that he could have accomplished more had he been an active, regular PED user. Can't recall the source, though.

 

[pmcg76]

I had read and heard from pros at the time that Mottet was considered clean. In fact some DS lamented the fact that he could have accomplished more had he been an active, regular PED user. Can't recall the source, though.

Willy Voet, Breaking the Chain, he was soigneur at RMO when Mottet was there and said that Mottet helped clean up the team. This is the same RMO team that Paul Kimmage had just left.

 

[ChrisE]

Well, let's agree to disagree on the other stuff and stick with this for a moment - my point simply was that professional athletes are always going to be on the forefront of doping technology, ie they are the ones who will know what works and what doesn't (well along with the advice that they get from doctors etc). If cyclists switched from steroids or cortisone or whatever to EPO in the early '90s, there was a reason for doing so, and that reason was most likely because they realized that EPO is far more effective for an endurance athlete than what was previously available, ie steroids or amphetamines etc. The testing protocols at that time didn't change, ie it's not like riders were forced to switch to EPO because steroid testing was introduced, it's because the new products available - ie EPO - and the science of how to use them to maximum effectiveness (which imo is a point that is often overlooked, ie the advent of the "doping docs" starting with Conconi and Ferrari etc) were vastly superior to what was previously available.

Not to split hairs, but EPO was not tested for until 2001 so that may have played a role.

 

[ChrisE]

You are just playing devils advocate here..... Period.

It's plain you don't know what I am doing, Period.

I'm glad we cleared that up.

 

[buckwheat]

I had read and heard from pros at the time that Mottet was considered clean. In fact some DS lamented the fact that he could have accomplished more had he been an active, regular PED user. Can't recall the source, though.

I agree with you on Mottet, a definite clean rider. I should have written, "in contrast to...." I read what I wrote and it's even confusing me. I have to stop with the 12 oz. treatments.

ps.

The reason to bring Pharmstrong in here is that *** is the only person who has ever suggested LeMond doped. Then his legion of fanboys chimed in.

That is actually one of the identifiers of a fanboy. Baseless accusations that LeMond doped.

 

[buckwheat]

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

Tell me if I'm wrong.

Lance is top man?

 

[buckwheat]

So many haters round here. Escarabajo, BroDeal, hfer07 etc etc... Quite funny, there views on some riders is utter nonsense.

I agree Cadel is clean, as is case with many other riders. Only the haters have a differnent view. To say Cancellara is a doper is absolute dribble.

Hey, I didn't know that creatine causes dementia.

 

[Golddigger]

sorry to burst your bubble my friend but this is about lemond not LA.
lemond has accused La contador landis indurain ...all without proof..where and when does it stop?
I have no way of knowing if lance or any other winner has doped...that is another discussion entirely...

Gee, you are the font of knowledge here, except need I point out the obvious: Idurain sat out 2 years because of a positive test for 'roids, and if you don't know (or fain to not know would have to be more like it) the Floyd follies, you likely have trouble knowing which way to sit on a saddle--much like your dis-ability to type, spell or compose a sentence.

You got nothing here but air

 

[I Watch Cycling In July]

Has anyone managed to find data on the performance enhancing effects of testosterone/anabolic steroids relevant to endurance sports? I've been prowling the interwebz for a bit and the closest I found is one estimate of 7 - 10s improvement for 1500m in East German athletics (reference Tainted Glory — Doping and Athletic Performance Timothy D. Noakes, M.D., D.Sc. The New England Journal of Medecine, Volume 351:847-849,August 26, 2004, Number 9)

 

[VeloCity]

Not to split hairs, but EPO was not tested for until 2001 so that may have played a role.

When was the last time a rider got popped for steroids? And for EPO/CERA?

Clearly riders are still using EPO - steroids, not so much. Why do you suppose that might be?

 

[pmcg76]

It's plain you don't know what I am doing, Period.

I'm glad we cleared that up.

Well lets see, your point seems to be that even though EPO has a much bigger effect on performance in cycling than other drugs used in the 80s, there is still no way that a clean rider could have beaten a doped rider in the 80s. Thus there is no way LeMond could have won cleanly.

However, there has been no conclusive scientific research to establish how much of an impact steroids and other hormones have on performance in pro cycling. We dont know one way or the other if it was possible to win cleanly or not.

The counter-argument is that it was possible to win cleanly in the 80s against doped riders. The evidence used for this is testimonies from riders, soigneurs and team-managers who were involved in the sport at that time. The most notorious figure was Willy Voet who worked closely with many top riders during that era, he named many riders as being doped in his book, Breaking the Chain, but for some reason named Charly Mottet as a clean rider and said Eric Caritoux won the 1984 Vuelta cleanly but doped at other times.

You dismiss this as just tittle-tattle because its just people saying what they want in a book. In Sean Kellys, biography, there is a chapter on how he tested positive for the stimulant, Stimul, which was described as useless to a cyclist, thus deeming it irrelevant. Then in Voets book almost 15 years later, there is a story regarding a rider who cheated a dope test by using the urine of a mechanic but the test still came back positive for stimul, the mechanic had taken it because he had to make a long drive. Voet also said stimul was useless to a cyclists. Voet of course was once Kellys soigneur and it was the same race, Paris-Brussells. Of course, this is all just tittle-tattle in your opinion but makes a pretty compelling case for others.

Laurent Fignon admitted to doping but do we know when he doped exactly, I agree that testing was much more less frequent and effective back then so we dont know who was doing what. According to Paul Kimmage who like Fignon is speaking from first hand experience, people charged up all the time once there were no controls in place but were less likely to do so if controls were present i.e at the Tour. Not so many races outside the Tour had controls. We knew Fignon doped already because he tested positive at Tour of Wallonia in 86.

In summary, there is nothing conclusive to say a clean rider couldnt beat a doped rider in the 80s. We know Fignon doped but we dont know if he was doping for the 89 Tour and we still have heard not one single shred of evidence that LeMond doped, the subject of this thread.

Of course you will stil believe that it was not possible to win without doping based on....what you think, whilst we will still believe it was possible to win cleanly based on what the riders, soigneurs etc of that time have said. The end.

 

[Golddigger]

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

The most accurate statement in the whole thread, except I think that like most imbeciles 11 exaggerates a bit!

 

[xmoonx]

maybe off topic

Anabolics are like ice cream they come in different flavors; some are great for increases in muscle mass, others increase strength with less mass and some help repair and recuperation.

Different sports have different tastes.

 

[ChrisE]

When was the last time a rider got popped for steroids? And for EPO/CERA?

Clearly riders are still using EPO - steroids, not so much. Why do you suppose that might be?

Ummmm, Landis? I'm sure there are others that have come to light. TBH, keeping up with that is not my hobby.

Roids have been one of the basis of a structured doping program. There is all kinds of info on that.

Maybe a combo of all of that and EPO is the ultimate ticket. Who knows. I'm pretty sure it wasn't "let's toss all the other stuff in the toilet, EPO is here" in 1992 onward. There's too much evidence to suggest that.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Ummmm, Landis? I'm sure there are others that have come to light. TBH, keeping up with that is not my hobby.

Roids have been one of the basis of a structured doping program. There is all kinds of info on that.

Maybe a combo of all of that and EPO is the ultimate ticket.Who knows. I'm pretty sure it wasn't "let's toss all the other stuff in the toilet, EPO is here" in 1992 onward. There's too much evidence to suggest that.

I don't believe anyone would suggest that roids or other PED's used in 80's would be tossed out.

The difference with blood boosting products was that it turned 'donkeys in to thoroughbreds".