Lemond The Last Rider To Win The Tour Clean?

[Race Radio]

EPO and cortisone are not equal. Indeed, EPO is probably a bigger jump than all previous drugs.
But blood transfusion were going on in the 80s. And amphetamines for much of the century. And those two things can definitely have significant impacts.

There's definitely no good evidence against Lemond.
But there's plenty of posts these days that say everyone in the top 20 (ie. Evans and Sastre included) must be doping, simply because everyone else is doing it. I'm not so sure that if you're going to use that logic today, you shouldn't also have used it 25 years ago. Or 35 or 45.

To clarify, there is no evidence of Grand Tour riders using blood doping in the 80's. Amphetamines were easily tested for and mostly used for the post Tour crits.

 

[slcbiker]

I don't know that I'd believe that the track guys were using transfusions at the 84 olympics and no roadies were. And according to former pros, amphetamines and things like pot belge were being used in races other than the post tour crits.

 

[ultimobici]

I don't know that I'd believe that the track guys were using transfusions at the 84 olympics and no roadies were. And according to former pros, amphetamines and things like pot belge were being used in races other than the post tour crits.

Generally speaking the major races had controls but the post Tour crits didn't. Riders knew which races would have tests hence the lack of positives. Occasionally they'd have surprise tests and someone would get popped.

There was a very good article posted the other day about the US team & blood doping. I'll see if I can find the link in the morning. Sounds like a poorly thought out plan if you could call it a plan!

 

[Tyler'sTwin]

Wouldn't Greg's wattage put him in at least the top 20, perhaps even in the top 10 today? Well, he must have been doped then since everyone in the top 50 today must be doped according to the clinic's finest.

 

[CPAvelo]

wrong. it doesn't. it has been shown over and over again that you can't equate epo/blood doping with what preceded them. epo was a gamechanger and it is why the likes of delion, lemond and even cortisone-taking fignon started going backwards starting in 1991.

lemond was not the only successful clean cyclist in the 80s. mottet was the #1 ranked rider in the world in the spring of 1989.

when you utter epo and cortisone in the same breath you are knowingly obscuring the facts.

i stick by my initial assessment. everything you say is either false or an attempt to obscure the facts. i will no longer respond or pay any attention to anything you have to add to this debate as it will be undeniably and knowingly flawed.

Your hubris is insulting. Much like all the pro riders who have denied doping to later be discovered liars, cheats, hypocrites, and worse. You are so wedded to your myopia that you seem to be unable to admit even the slightest possibility that Lemond wasn't clean. If that isn't hero worship, what is?

 

[Dr. Maserati]

EPO and cortisone are not equal. Indeed, EPO is probably a bigger jump than all previous drugs.
But blood transfusion were going on in the 80s. And amphetamines for much of the century. And those two things can definitely have significant impacts.

There's definitely no good evidence against Lemond.
But there's plenty of posts these days that say everyone in the top 20 (ie. Evans and Sastre included) must be doping, simply because everyone else is doing it. I'm not so sure that if you're going to use that logic today, you shouldn't also have used it 25 years ago. Or 35 or 45.

To the highlighted above - do you let others dictate what you think?
Everybody says it, I'd better agree?

Then you follow that up with "if you're going to use that logic today...." -firstly, there is nothing logical in that comment, nor have I seen anyone suggest that in the manner you suggest.

Between that statement and the following post on 'blood transfusions' I would recommend you doing some reading on the subject, otherwise your views come across as very misinformed.
Here is an article on blood doping within the US Olympic team from 1984.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Your hubris is insulting. Much like all the pro riders who have denied doping to later be discovered liars, cheats, hypocrites, and worse. You are so wedded to your myopia that you seem to be unable to admit even the slightest possibility that Lemond wasn't clean. If that isn't hero worship, what is?

Where did they say that? And then to suggest that having a view is much like a doped rider who denied but is eventually caught.

Of course there is a possibility LeMond (or any other rider) may have doped.
But possibility should not be confused with probability.

 

[Race Radio]

Wouldn't Greg's wattage put him in at least the top 20, perhaps even in the top 10 today? Well, he must have been doped then since everyone in the top 50 today must be doped according to the clinic's finest.

No, it wouldn't even come close. Lemond averaged 390-405 watts for the final 20 minute TT. Amstrong and Ulrich have held 495 watts for 40 minutes.

 

[blutto]

Where did they say that? And then to suggest that having a view is much like a doped rider who denied but is eventually caught.

Of course there is a possibility LeMond (or any other rider) may have doped.
But possibility should not be confused with probability.

...no confusion here...no siree...more like this perhaps...

pe·danti·cal·ly adv.
Synonyms: pedantic, academic, bookish, donnish, scholastic
These adjectives mean marked by a narrow, often tiresome focus on or display of learning and especially its trivial aspects: a pedantic writing style; an academic insistence on precision; a bookish vocabulary; donnish refinement of speech; scholastic and excessively subtle reasoning.

Cheers

blutto

 

[blutto]

Where did they say that? And then to suggest that having a view is much like a doped rider who denied but is eventually caught.

Of course there is a possibility LeMond (or any other rider) may have doped.
But possibility should not be confused with probability.

...no confusion here...no siree...more like this perhaps?...

pe·danti·cal·ly adv.
Synonyms: pedantic, academic, bookish, donnish, scholastic
These adjectives mean marked by a narrow, often tiresome focus on or display of learning and especially its trivial aspects: a pedantic writing style; an academic insistence on precision; a bookish vocabulary; donnish refinement of speech; scholastic and excessively subtle reasoning.

Cheers

blutto

 

[Alpe d'Huez]

No, it wouldn't even come close. Lemond averaged 390-405 watts for the final 20 minute TT. Amstrong and Ulrich have held 495 watts for 40 minutes.

He's not the only one. Merckx, Hilault, Fignon, Kelly, Mottet, etc. None of them were ever able to reasonably sustain 400w for very long. Yet in today's world that is very common and these guys would not likely make the top 50 in any major race. Granted, modern training, diet, equipment have helped. But maybe 10w worth. Where did Lance, Jan, Marco, Bjarne, Basso, Valverde, DiLuca, Berti, etc. get the other 80 watts?

I mean, how many "once in a lifetime, God given talent" athletes all come along at once, at the same time as wonder drugs?

 

[Nick777]

what do you have against, e.g., Sastre & Pereiro?

Have a look at Pereiro's climbing in the first part of the tour that he won. Nowhere near it. Then, when it looked like he was a chance at winning, he could suddenly stay close to the top guys. Yeah, right. Oh yeah - he is Spanish, too.

Sastre.. well, for a start, he's Spanish.

 

[slcbiker]

To the highlighted above - do you let others dictate what you think?
Everybody says it, I'd better agree?

Then you follow that up with "if you're going to use that logic today...." -firstly, there is nothing logical in that comment, nor have I seen anyone suggest that in the manner you suggest.

Between that statement and the following post on 'blood transfusions' I would recommend you doing some reading on the subject, otherwise your views come across as very misinformed.
Here is an article on blood doping within the US Olympic team from 1984.

Not sure of your point. I read the article. It says the blood-boosting was prevalent across the cycling athletes. One individual quoted estimated 50% of the endurance cyclists. That's basically what I said, and it's pretty hard to believe if that was the case in the Olympics, it wasn't also happening in Euro Pro races. Not quite as effective as EPO, but still a pretty good boost.
The 80s weren't clean.
I'd like to believe Lemond was. There's no evidence against him. He was one of the reasons why I got into racing.
But I can't really see giving him a pass and not also someone like Evans.
And I've seen no shortage of people in this forum coming out and saying all riders in the top 20 are doping. I don't think it's particularly logical either, but there you have it.

 

[CPAvelo]

Where did they say that? And then to suggest that having a view is much like a doped rider who denied but is eventually caught.

Of course there is a possibility LeMond (or any other rider) may have doped.
But possibility should not be confused with probability.

I don't dispute this. Nor do I confuse possibility with probability. I am an accountant. I can split hairs with best of them.

You are correct to call me to task. I admit I was nonplussed by Big Doopie's dismissal of my views. I may have overreacted. I also admit I have very little knowledge of contemporaneous information about Lemond since I only began following pro cycling after Armstrong's first TdF victory.

I feel it is naive to believe there was no possibility Lemond doped. I agree there very well may be insufficient evidence to conclude there is a probability Lemond doped. But, there does seem to be a divergence of opinion.

What bothers me most is when vitriol and personal attacks toward those whose views are not the most cherished about a particular rider or position are displayed with rudeness and contempt. I believe galaxy1, flicker, and blutto (and others) offer valuable input to these forums. But when their views are dismissed because they don't share the majority opinion, then I believe we all lose.

I guess I can take some refuge in that I haven't been accused as being a fanboy of any particular rider.

The real tragedy presented in the clinic is the division the whole doping culture has manifested among cycling fans. And yet, I believe we all, or most of us, want the same thing: an clean peloton.

Cheers.

 

[CPAvelo]

...no confusion here...no siree...more like this perhaps?...

pe·danti·cal·ly adv.
Synonyms: pedantic, academic, bookish, donnish, scholastic
These adjectives mean marked by a narrow, often tiresome focus on or display of learning and especially its trivial aspects: a pedantic writing style; an academic insistence on precision; a bookish vocabulary; donnish refinement of speech; scholastic and excessively subtle reasoning.

Cheers

blutto

blutto, I am not sure of your meaning. Are you suggesting I am being pedantic? If so, I assure you this is not my motive. I am interested in pursing truth and I enjoy dialogue and debate. But, I am not often considered narrow by those who know me well. One of the great limitations of these forums is we rarely meet. I'm not knocking the forums, but the internet has limitations.

Cheers

CPAvelo

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Not sure of your point. I read the article. It says the blood-boosting was prevalent across the cycling athletes. One individual quoted estimated 50% of the endurance cyclists. That's basically what I said, and it's pretty hard to believe if that was the case in the Olympics, it wasn't also happening in Euro Pro races. Not quite as effective as EPO, but still a pretty good boost.
The 80s weren't clean.
I'd like to believe Lemond was. There's no evidence against him. He was one of the reasons why I got into racing.
But I can't really see giving him a pass and not also someone like Evans.
And I've seen no shortage of people in this forum coming out and saying all riders in the top 20 are doping. I don't think it's particularly logical either, but there you have it.

My point is simple - what does it matter if some on a forum (in a forum of 16000+) have a view that "all riders in the top 20 are doping"? Some think everyone dopes - some think everyone dopes except their countryman or favourite rider.

You didn't read the article to objectively - it is very clear that the only blood boosting was on the track riders (&1 rider who did both track & road).

Also you managed to misrepresent the "one individual quoted" - he actually said "at least half of them who had a chance to win a medal blood-boosted."
Also this individual was the person responsible setting up the 'blood boosting' programme - so any claims from them should be viewed with that in mind.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

I don't dispute this. Nor do I confuse possibility with probability. I am an accountant. I can split hairs with best of them.

You are correct to call me to task. I admit I was nonplussed by Big Doopie's dismissal of my views. I may have overreacted. I also admit I have very little knowledge of contemporaneous information about Lemond since I only began following pro cycling after Armstrong's first TdF victory.

I feel it is naive to believe there was no possibility Lemond doped. I agree there very well may be insufficient evidence to conclude there is a probability Lemond doped. But, there does seem to be a divergence of opinion.

What bothers me most is when vitriol and personal attacks toward those whose views are not the most cherished about a particular rider or position are displayed with rudeness and contempt. I believe galaxy1, flicker, and blutto (and others) offer valuable input to these forums. But when their views are dismissed because they don't share the majority opinion, then I believe we all lose.

I guess I can take some refuge in that I haven't been accused as being a fanboy of any particular rider.

The real tragedy presented in the clinic is the division the whole doping culture has manifested among cycling fans. And yet, I believe we all, or most of us, want the same thing: an clean peloton.

Cheers.

Ok, I did think you 'over reacted' a bit but I will add that I thought it was wrong of 'BigDoopie' to dismiss your post without having read it fully - so i can understand your frustration.
Also when 'blutto' made his 'pedantically' remark, don't worry -it was to me, not you.

I don't understand your point on some offering "valuable input" - those you mention (with one exception) have offered nothing of substance.
Their views are not dismissed because of some "majority view", their views are dismissed because anything offered does not stand up to scrutiny.

I don't believe possibility vs probability is splitting hairs - nor have I said it is not possible he doped.
The difference between possible and probable is understanding the issue - as an accountant I am sure you remind all clients that any investment has an associated risk, ie its possible you will lose.
But with due diligence you can sort out which is a more sound investment and the probability of getting a return.

 

[Tyler'sTwin]

No, it wouldn't even come close. Lemond averaged 390-405 watts for the final 20 minute TT. Amstrong and Ulrich have held 495 watts for 40 minutes.

First of all, Greg said his FTP was 430-450 W (don't remember the exact number) when rested.

Secondly, LeMond avg 5.7 W/kg in final Tour climbs in -89 and -90. Compare that to this year. Definitely beats many guys in the top 20.

How about Greg finishing 7th in -91 with Mottet in 4th place? What about Hampsten finishing 4th in -92 and 8th in -93?

 

[blutto]

blutto, I am not sure of your meaning. Are you suggesting I am being pedantic? If so, I assure you this is not my motive. I am interested in pursing truth and I enjoy dialogue and debate. But, I am not often considered narrow by those who know me well. One of the great limitations of these forums is we rarely meet. I'm not knocking the forums, but the internet has limitations.

Cheers

CPAvelo

...no...those comments were most definitely not directed at you but at Herr Doktor who had originally issued the statement...and by the way I wholeheartedly agree with the comment you made that Herr Doktor took issue with initially...you have very neatly nailed an intellectual conceit that continually poisons discussion on this forum...

...a bit of back story...my wife is in medical research and she is at present taking some grad stats courses to stay current in the field...she was in fact doing stats homework when I asked her what the functional difference between possibility and probability was...she unequivocally said the pedantic splitting of hairs mostly...so I googled the question and presto zesto the pedantic inference popped up several times so I went with it...

...in retrospect it very nicely addressed the immediate issue and as an extra added bonus Herr Doctors debating style...so a win win situation really...just couldn't resist such an easy target...

...that being said...the forum, as a venue for reasonable debate/discussion/exchange of ideas has limitations as you pointed out, because, as much as anything, the more direct back and forth exchange of ideas that is implicit in face to face dialogue is missing...instead it can easily devolve into a simple exchange of monologues...a situation that rewards the style of discussion employed by folks such as Herr Doktor and the many others of his club...and is probably as much as anything responsible for the generally combative nature of discussion on this forum...and we have to admit this forum is really special in that regard ( ...as say, the hilarity that generally underscores almost everything on The Podium Cafe forums... )

Cheers

blutto

 

[Race Radio]

First of all, Greg said his FTP was 430-450 W (don't remember the exact number) when rested.

Secondly, LeMond avg 5.7 W/kg in final Tour climbs in -89 and -90. Compare that to this year. Definitely beats many guys in the top 20.

How about Greg finishing 7th in -91 with Mottet in 4th place? What about Hampsten finishing 4th in -92 and 8th in -93?

Contador hit 6.7 w/kg last year, a number hit or exceeded by most winners in the last 15 years. That is a huge leap from any rider pre EPO.

 

[red_flanders]

Their views are not dismissed because of some "majority view", their views are dismissed because anything offered does not stand up to scrutiny. .

I hope people can take a moment to reflect on the truth of this.

LeMond is held in high regard by many because his story has stood the test of time, often in the face of a barrage of lies and obfuscation to the contrary. Not because of some pre-arrived at notion. He has respect because he's earned it.

If someone comes out with a narrative which shows he's something other than what he's been saying for the better part of 2 decades, it's on them to prove it and convince other people of their position. That's really hard to do when you can't even remotely back up what you say. The evidence falls massively in favor of the LeMond narrative. That it offends what some people want to believe is not in question.

All arguments are not equal. They don't all deserve to be heard once debunked.

 

[Ferminal]

Sastre.. well, for a start, he's Spanish.

Sastre screamed top-up in 2008 (the time trial). I think the Time Trial was a lot more suspicious than AdH (he was already strong and just played his cards well).

On the other hand maybe they (Sastre and CVV) were clean and that was why HWSNBN was so confident coming back - why else would he have been so cocky?

However, benefit of the doubt says doper.

Pereiro is a dead certainty, many years learning his trade at Phonak rising as a solid stage racer, he was surely a heavy charger before July 2006 but then outclimbing Evans and Kloden in the Alps takes the cake.

 

[Big Doopie]

I hope people can take a moment to reflect on the truth of this.

LeMond is held in high regard by many because his story has stood the test of time, often in the face of a barrage of lies and obfuscation to the contrary. Not because of some pre-arrived at notion. He has respect because he's earned it.

If someone comes out with a narrative which shows he's something other than what he's been saying for the better part of 2 decades, it's on them to prove it and convince other people of their position. That's really hard to do when you can't even remotely back up what you say. The evidence falls massively in favor of the LeMond narrative. That it offends what some people want to believe is not in question.

All arguments are not equal. They don't all deserve to be heard once debunked.

omg. a stunningly perfect post.

 

[Big Doopie]

First of all, Greg said his FTP was 430-450 W (don't remember the exact number) when rested.

when rested.

very different from 3rd week of the tour (at least pre-refills).

lemond's largest wattage during tour was 1990's luz ardidden (400-410 watts?). this literally has nothing to do with the values that have been posted since -- in fact it is close to the 20-25% less that lemond often cites. this would explain why the rider who many other riders have said was the most naturally gifted ever could no longer keep up (particularly in the mountains) once epo was introduced.

 

[flicker]

I hope people can take a moment to reflect on the truth of this.

LeMond is held in high regard by many because his story has stood the test of time, often in the face of a barrage of lies and obfuscation to the contrary. Not because of some pre-arrived at notion. He has respect because he's earned it.

If someone comes out with a narrative which shows he's something other than what he's been saying for the better part of 2 decades, it's on them to prove it and convince other people of their position. That's really hard to do when you can't even remotely back up what you say. The evidence falls massively in favor of the LeMond narrative. That it offends what some people want to believe is not in question.

All arguments are not equal. They don't all deserve to be heard once debunked.

How true. We need to debunk that my fine young Lord Armstrong doped. Pure speculation by the haters of American excellence. By the way its Livestrong day, wear yellow and believe in miracles!