LeMond: Ullrich is the best rider of his generation, he would have won every Tour

[red_flanders]

Well I don't know how you can measure that in the current peloton but Andy Schleck brought home results early yet you believe he has no talent.

In the LeMond era, there was Hinault/Fignon whose careers overlapped with LeMond so to say those types of rider's don't appear very often is questionable. Likewise, there were plenty of guys capable of beating LeMond in one day races.

I think Schleck has no motivation. Big difference. I think he's a weenie with a lot of talent. His biggest problem is his head.

If you want to believe guys like Hinault and LeMond come along "very often" or whatever subjective label you put on it I'm not going to argue with you. You can throw Fignon and Delgado into that as well, they were great too.

The thing about Delgado, Fignon and Hinault? All caught doping and using 'roids. LeMond? Nope. But yeah, those guys were all legit. I don't think they had the talent of Greg except Hinault. But he had a far superior mentality.

You speak of LeMond as if he were Merckx but he was nowhere near that dominant.

No, I don't. That's just silly and an insult to Merckx.

 

[Netserk]

Well I don't know how you can measure that in the current peloton but Andy Schleck brought home results early yet you believe he has no talent.

In the LeMond era, there was Hinault/Fignon whose careers overlapped with LeMond so to say those types of rider's don't appear very often is questionable. Likewise, there were plenty of guys capable of beating LeMond in one day races.

You speak of LeMond as if he were Merckx but he was nowhere near that dominant.

Do you think Hinault and Fignon got a boost from their doping?

 

[pmcg76]

The ones forcing him on the pedestal is guys attacking him, which leads to people defending him due to his anti doping stance going back to 1989.

And when defending LeMond you realise how few did break omerta, so they do deserve a pedestal, more than idiots like Pantani or Simpson. He may not have been the best anti doping advocate in the world, it isn't actually a paying job, see Walsh for that.....

Your trolling of LeMond, which you readily admit too doesn't deserve a point by point exlpantion.

As for Moncoutie being clean, RaceRadio reckons Moncoutie was a juicer.

So disputing the notion that LeMond ended up as a gruppetto rider due to EPO is trolling LeMond. Please explain how LeMond finished 5th in the infamous Luxembourg TT in 92 but then was outside the time limit 5 days later. Explain how his own team-mate Eric Boyer(who LeMond says also quit because of others EPO usage) finished 12th the same year. Explain how Andy Hampsten(who again LeMond said was clean) finished 4th in the same Tour. Yet LeMond was in the gruppetto because of EPO!!! Don't think so. He coulnd't even make the 93 GAN Tour team, were all his team-mates on EPO as well considering they were going better than Greg?? LeMond suffered health problems which put him where he was, why are people so unwilling to accept that.

Please point out all these LeMond anti-doping statements from 89 to 98. That would be a good starting point to counter the claim that LeMond wasn't really outspoken at all during his career.

As for RR on Moncoutie, he heard that from a source but then retracted it when they heard a different side from other people more in the know.

 

[pmcg76]

Do you think Hinault and Fignon got a boost from their doping?

Well that it THE question, I don't know just like I don't claim to know how much of a boost the current generation is getting.

 

[Netserk]

So disputing the notion that LeMond ended up as a gruppetto rider due to EPO is trolling LeMond. Please explain how LeMond finished 5th in the infamous Luxembourg TT in 92 but then was outside the time limit 5 days later. Explain how his own team-mate Eric Boyer(who LeMond says also quit because of others EPO usage) finished 12th the same year. Explain how Andy Hampsten(who again LeMond said was clean) finished 4th in the same Tour. Yet LeMond was in the gruppetto because of EPO!!! Don't think so. He coulnd't even make the 93 GAN Tour team, were all his team-mates on EPO as well considering they were going better than Greg?? LeMond suffered health problems which put him where he was, why are people so unwilling to accept that.

Please point out all these LeMond anti-doping statements from 89 to 98. That would be a good starting point to counter the claim that LeMond wasn't really outspoken at all during his career.

As for RR on Moncoutie, he heard that from a source but then retracted it when they heard a different side from other people more in the know.

Do you have a quote on that (not that I don't believe you, but I have never seen him retract it, only dodging any further questions)?

 

[thehog]

http://greglemondfans.wordpress.com/2014/05/03/dark-side-of-the-lake/

Worth reading. The Dark Side of the Lake.

 

[MacRoadie]

The LeMond exeption exists because he's exceptional. Not because people look at him differently for no reason. They look at him differently because he deserves it.

This has to be just about the best three sentences I have ever read one here.

Chapeau.

 

[FoxxyBrown1111]

http://greglemondfans.wordpress.com/2014/05/03/dark-side-of-the-lake/

Worth reading. The Dark Side of the Lake.

I like that one:

"Wait. Is that correct ? I see Mr Indurain did some training during the 90’s, didn’t he ? He managed to improve his own performance for a staggering 5 minutes and 46 seconds (9.1%) ! Well done, Mr Indurain, you’re a hell of a rider… and you sure helped cycling ride straight into hell."

This EPO stuff surely helped. Indurain was LAesque in TT improvement. When I first visited the forum in 2009, I thought those 10% improvements b/c of EPO were myths (thought more of 1, max. 2%, including a good chunk of placebo). But the more I read over the years, 10% is closer to the truth than 1/2 %. Placebo won´t do that.

 

[red_flanders]

This has to be just about the best three sentences I have ever read one here.

Chapeau.

Wow, that's a nice thing to say. Thanks!

 

[red_flanders]

http://greglemondfans.wordpress.com/2014/05/03/dark-side-of-the-lake/

Worth reading. The Dark Side of the Lake.

Great read.

 

[Merckx index]

http://greglemondfans.wordpress.com/2014/05/03/dark-side-of-the-lake/

Worth reading. The Dark Side of the Lake.

Holy Moly, that speed increase from 1990 to 1995 implies an increase in power of more than 20% for a flat course. The course was not flat, but it was close enough. The final climb appears to be about 1.5%, and even if you assumed the entire course was an uphill 1.5% gradient, it wouldn’t affect the results that much. You need a huge increase in power to get that much speed increase in an ITT.

That seems too much, but loop ITTs like this should actually be better for estimating power than climbs, because as the blogger notes, the effect of wind is to a large degree nullified. It’s possible 1985 and 1990 were windy days and 1995 was calm, which would reduce the power increase estimate, but it’s still going to be massive. The fact that the % speed increase for Miggy was similar to that for the top 10 as a whole also shows that the increase can't be ascribed to just a major improvement in performance by one individual.

The climbs up ADH also provide some insight, though they were not officially timed until well into the EPO era. But it seems clear that they were at least 10% faster in the 90s than any times pre-1990. If you take Coppi's time of about 45' as the benchmark, the fastest times in the late 90s and early 00s were about 20% faster.

 

[Fearless Greg Lemond]

So disputing the notion that LeMond ended up as a gruppetto rider due to EPO is trolling LeMond. Please explain how LeMond finished 5th in the infamous Luxembourg TT in 92 but then was outside the time limit 5 days later. Explain how his own team-mate Eric Boyer(who LeMond says also quit because of others EPO usage) finished 12th the same year. Explain how Andy Hampsten(who again LeMond said was clean) finished 4th in the same Tour. Yet LeMond was in the gruppetto because of EPO!!! Don't think so. He coulnd't even make the 93 GAN Tour team, were all his team-mates on EPO as well considering they were going better than Greg?? LeMond suffered health problems which put him where he was, why are people so unwilling to accept that.

Isnt this all done and dusted pcmg?

To me that 1992 Time Trial says what LeMond's talent could do against epo fuelled mules. Not enough. That he was in the grupetto five days later might have been a combination of his health and him overdriving/overtraining himself to keep up with the Epo mules. Lets ask Indurain or Chiappucci how much Epo was in their veins those years shall we?

See. Done and dusted.

 

[stutue]

Quite.

I watched Lemond through the entirety of his pro career, including the bitter end.

Didn't look anything like an EPO user.

As for any other bits and pieces pre-EPO, who knows.

 

[Wallace]

It's nearly always dismissed because those usually in the discussion have not done anything to warrant the discussion.

Of course few are championing riders like Sagan, Valverde and Kwiatkowski on these boards, riders who have been winning everything since they were very young. It's always some über clown who has transformed from dog meat into a world-beater. Not that I think Sagan is going to be a GT guy, or that any of them are necessarily clean, but they have been winners since day 1.

To put it more simply, it should be "nearly always" dismissed because those kind of riders just don't appear very often.

Are you sure you want to include Piti on this list?

 

[the delgados]

@ Red Flanders:
What makes you think Froome is doping?

 

[andy1234]

No the LeMond exception rule is the fact that even though LeMond disproved all the rules, the possibility of another LeMond type person existing is nearly always dismissed.

This.
LeMond was one of the great riders of his generation, but each generation turns up equal talent, and usually more than one. For some posters, the suggestion that anyone may be the equal of LeMond, is tantamount to heracy.
Strange, considering that his peers, the likes of Hinault and Fignon at their best, could make LeMond seem surprisingly ordinary.

There are riders in the current peloton, and pelotons over the history of the sport, who are the equal of LeMond.
Who they currently are? Who knows? but they are there, and performances need to be viewed with that potential in mind.......

 

[Gung Ho Gun]

Are you sure you want to include Piti on this list?

On a list of "winners since day 1"?
Yes of course

 

[jens_attacks]

The climbs up ADH also provide some insight, though they were not officially timed until well into the EPO era. But it seems clear that they were at least 10% faster in the 90s than any times pre-1990. If you take Coppi's time of about 45' as the benchmark, the fastest times in the late 90s and early 00s were about 20% faster.

not a big fan of my blog i see

1995:13,8 km@8%---36:40---average speed 22.58 km/h(Marco Pantani)-RECORD
1994:13,8 km@8%---37:15---average speed 22.23 km/h(Marco Pantani)
---40:43---average speed 20.34 km/h(Roberto Conti)
1992:13,8 km@8%---43:19---average speed 19.12 km/h(Chiappucci-Indurain)
---44:09---average speed 18.75 km/h(Andrew Hampsten)
1991:13,8 km@8%---40:27---average speed 20.47 km/h(Gianni Bugno)
1990:13,8 km@8%---43:15---average speed 19.14 km/h(Erik Breukink) (source:http://www.sportvox.fr/article.php3?id_article=31102)
1989:13,8 km@8%---41:50---average speed 19.79 km/h(Delgado-Fignon)
---45:20---average speed 18.26 km/h(Gert-Jan Theunisse)
1988:13,8 km@8%---43:44---average speed 18.93 km/h(Gert-Jan Theunisse)
---44:34---average speed 18.58 km/h(Steven Rooks)
1987:13,8 km@8%---41:44---average speed 19.84 km/h(Luis Herrera)
1986:13,8 km@8%---45:25---average speed 18.23 km/h(Jose Reynel Montoya)
---48:00---average speed 17.25 km/h(Hinault-Lemond)
1982:13,8 km@8%---42:14---average speed 19.61 km/h(Beat Breu)
1979:13,8 km@8%---43:38---average speed 18.98 km/h(Joaquim Agostinho)
1977:13,8 km@8%---44:49---average speed 18.48 km/h(Hennie Kuiper)


http://www.climbing-records.com/2013/07/from-hennie-kuiper-to-samuel-sanchez.html


i think a 20% increase in power at the peak of epo age(1995-1996) is more than likely

 

[D-Queued]

This.
LeMond was one of the great riders of his generation, but each generation turns up equal talent, and usually more than one. For some posters, the suggestion that anyone may be the equal of LeMond, is tantamount to heracy.
Strange, considering that his peers, the likes of Hinault and Fignon at their best, could make LeMond seem surprisingly ordinary.

There are riders in the current peloton, and pelotons over the history of the sport, who are the equal of LeMond.
Who they currently are? Who knows? but they are there, and performances need to be viewed with that potential in mind.......

Show me some MVO2 numbers.

Agree that it is possible, but LeMond was way out on the curve.

How many people have had MVO2 testing? He was top 5 / top 3? Ever?

Possible, yes. Might have to wait a generation or two to make it probable.

Dave.

 

[andy1234]

Show me some MVO2 numbers.

Agree that it is possible, but LeMond was way out on the curve.

How many people have had MVO2 testing? He was top 5 / top 3? Ever?

Possible, yes. Might have to wait a generation or two to make it probable.

Dave.

MVO2 is one number....

I bet you know more about physiology, than to use this single indicator as a judge of potential success?

If races were won on MVO2 measurements only, than you might have a point.
It's another LeMondism.... Because Lemond had this MVO2, then every other athlete MUST have have a comparable MVO2 to compete.

Edit: Just out of interest, do we have a link to the data from LeMonds Vo2 max tests ?

 

[Merckx index]

not a big fan of my blog i see

What’s the problem? I said at least 10%. That was based on comparing Pantani’s fastest time with Herrera’s, which seems to be the fastest time ever recorded before the 90s; the difference was about 12%. There are some other fairly fast times pre-1990 that as far as I can tell haven’t been officially recorded because the rider didn’t win. In at least one case, IIRC, the rider might have recorded a faster time than the winner, because the winner went into the climb with a lead. In any case, as you well know, pre-1990, there is a great deal of uncertainty in most times.

This.
LeMond was one of the great riders of his generation, but each generation turns up equal talent, and usually more than one. For some posters, the suggestion that anyone may be the equal of LeMond, is tantamount to heracy.
Strange, considering that his peers, the likes of Hinault and Fignon at their best, could make LeMond seem surprisingly ordinary.

There are riders in the current peloton, and pelotons over the history of the sport, who are the equal of LeMond.
Who they currently are? Who knows? but they are there, and performances need to be viewed with that potential in mind.......

Given that we don’t know who they are, how exactly do you propose that we view current performances with that in mind? I think what you’re intending to say is that a standout rider today could very well be clean. But are you aware that a rider today performing as Lemond did in the past would be off the back of the peloton? His best recorded time up ADH was 48', which would be a complete joke today.

I think it’s likely he could have done better, but probably not so much better that he would have been among the top climbers today. The best recorded time up ADH prior to the EPO era was about 42', with typical best times thought to be in the range of 43-45'. Quintana and Rodriguez broke 40' last year (on the second pass, no less), putting them in the company of known dopers like Pantani, Riis, LA, Ulle, and (not proven, but come on) Indurain. Despite struggling, Froome was about a minute behind, along with Porte, who actually waited for Froome, and Valverde. So those five riders climbed ADH faster, by about 1-2 minutes, than it's generally accepted that any rider ever did pre-EPO.

Are climbs like that possible clean? It seems so, the VAM suggests about 6.0 watts/kg, and most observers think that is quite possible clean. You can actually plug in V02max values lower than Lemond's into the power equation, and depending on assumptions you make about efficiency and lactate threshold, you can get watts/kg values this high.

But then why could riders pre-EPO never climb that fast? Are the bikes today that much better? Is the training better? Never had tailwinds in the 80s? I don't know, but it seems that if there is a rider today with Lemond’s talent, he is either a) doping, and performing even better than Lemond did, or b) not doping, and not doing well enough to stand out. In either case, I don’t see how we’re going to recognize him.

 

[hrotha]

That Alpe d'Huez climb was hardly representative.

 

[red_flanders]

Given that we don’t know who they are, how exactly do you propose that we view current performances with that in mind? I think what you’re intending to say is that a standout rider today could very well be clean. But are you aware that a rider today performing as Lemond did in the past would be off the back of the peloton? His best recorded time up ADH was 48', which would be a complete joke today.

I think it’s likely he could have done better, but probably not so much better that he would have been among the top climbers today. The best recorded time up ADH prior to the EPO era was about 42', with typical best times thought to be in the range of 43-45'. Quintana broke 40' last year, putting him in the company of riders like Pantani, LA, Indurain, Ulle, and Riis. At the very least, we can say this is suspicious. And if it is, isn’t the performance of any rider who is about the equal of Quintana as a climber also in doubt?

So my conclusion is that if there is a rider today with Lemond’s talent, he is either a) doping, and performing even better than Lemond did, or b) not doping, and not doing well enough to stand out. In either case, I don’t see how we’re going to recognize him.

Great post. While I agree completely with Hrotha that the 48:00 time up ADH was not representative due to the day's tactics, the overall point is exactly on target. LeMond at his best (or Hinault or Fignon or Delgado) would be essentially anonymous today if they rode clean or "low octane" as it was back I the day. The times on all the climbs over their career and their TT times tell this story clearly.

None of them came close to the "clean" times of today.

 

[red_flanders]

Are you sure you want to include Piti on this list?

Yes, why do you ask ?

 

[jens_attacks]

What’s the problem? I said at least 10%. That was based on comparing Pantani’s fastest time with Herrera’s, which seems to be the fastest time ever recorded before the 90s; the difference was about 12%. There are some other fairly fast times pre-1990 that as far as I can tell haven’t been officially recorded because the rider didn’t win. In at least one case, IIRC, the rider might have recorded a faster time than the winner, because the winner went into the climb with a lead. In any case, as you well know, pre-1990, there is a great deal of uncertainty in most times.

i meant it as a joke...no idea by the way, if it's 10%,20% or whatever, i'm not a scientist. the so called official ascent times have different starting points so you can scratch that. 99% of the ascent times are timed by me. the old ones from multiple videos not just one. there is pretty much no uncertainty about none of them. both the breakaway guys and the peloton are taken into account. i highly doubt that any guys from the gruppetto climbed faster than those.

and i'm sure lemond climbed alpe faster in other editions.
but using just a climb is silly anyway. the larger the database, the better the conclusions you can make.