Official Lemond doping talk thread

[Race Radio]

I am surprised you can even write that comment without blushing given your form in disparaging other riders.

Sorry if you think it a crime to bring some levity into the forum. I just found it amusing how you in particular rushed into a pre-emptive strike as soon as the thread started.

Disparaging riders? You mean telling the truth about your hero? You call intentionality posting something you do not believe in order to bait a response from other posters "Levity"? .....Most call it trolling.

How many times have you been banned Bagster?

 

[buckwheat]

The main points invariably offered to support the hypothesis that Greg doped:
Iron shot
Testing was very poor then
Everyone doping back then
Fastest TT

And that's about it.

If anyone else has any evidence either circumstantial or otherwise, please offer it up.
Because after almost twenty years, to think this is the most anyone can come up with, speaks for itself.
Although a regular forum user, and I think it is Flicker, repeatedly claimed that a former pro who was on the same team as Greg, told him that Greg doped. I have also told this Forum user that his friend is in for a windfall from P.S. because he would be the only former team mate to have seen it.

Whoever smelt it, dealt it.

 

[reigarc]

difference gl la

GL must be innocent until proven guilty. Meaning hardcore blood testing, biological evidence, scientific proof. Nevermind many of his generation (as well as previous generations) have admitted doping, and/or any anecdotal evidence.

LA on the other hand, is guilty until proven innocent, following the same standard, LA will only be considered innocent with hardcore-blood tested-biological-scientific proof. And even then if still nothing shows up, it will only be evidence that he's bought the system.

That's it that's all folks.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

I don't know that those TT times include prologues, which are often not considered full "TTs".
As far as Z vs. Lemond, I believe Z's record was at the beginning of the Tour, on more aero gear, and he was definitely more of a TT specialist than Lemond. So I'd expect him to go faster. And there are those that would say Z also was on the stuff. So I don't know that is necessarily a point in Lemond's favor.

However, the big injustice on this thread is that Barrus told us that we can't joke What's up with that?

The main reason LeMonds TT time remained fastest in the Tour for so long was that there were no flat TTs less than 46km until DaveZ's

But back in 1985, at the Nissan Classic on a rolling course, Sean Kelly rode the 21km TT in 24.09 which averaged 52.173 kph.

No low profile bike, TT handlebars, Aero helmet.

[URL=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UGNHFFgcPQs]Video here.

 

[Race Radio]

GL must be innocent until proven guilty. Meaning hardcore blood testing, biological evidence, scientific proof. Nevermind many of his generation (as well as previous generations) have admitted doping, and/or any anecdotal evidence.

LA on the other hand, is guilty until proven innocent, following the same standard, LA will only be considered innocent with hardcore-blood tested-biological-scientific proof. And even then if still nothing shows up, it will only be evidence that he's bought the system.

That's it that's all folks.

You would have ignore the words of former teammates and support staff, 6 positives for EPO, Positive for Cortisone, payoffs to the UCI, Working with the most notorious doping doctor in the sport, questionable blood values, dumping of drugs syringes and transfusion kits etc, etc, etc for this idea to have any validity....... were is the same type of info on LeMond? It does not exist.

 

[miloman]

So let me get this straight. The criteria for deciding if one is a doper or not is if they win races? Wow, there are a lot of dopers out there!! Ullrich can't be counted among them since he finished 2nd so often. Jan is clean!!!!!!

 

[scribe]

So let me get this straight. The criteria for deciding if one is a doper or not is if they win races? Wow, there are a lot of dopers out there!! Ullrich can't be counted among them since he finished 2nd so often. Jan is clean!!!!!!

You are wise beyond your 100 posts.

 

[Darryl Webster]

Whatever the ditracters wish to put up ( all of which amounts to absalute zero ) the FACT remains Lemond has NEVER, EVER been the subject of any sanction or official enquiery by ANY regulatery body of ANY kind.
This rather "inconveniant truth" obviously wont stop the idiots from there smeer attempts..not ever...because there not in the slightest bit interested in any kind of evidence to support there view. As with the creationists evidence is a mute subject..they aint realy keen on it.
As for the science of EPO..the gains are NOT just in peak wattage..in fact I`d wager that in a GT max wattage plays only a very small part...perhaps less than a couple of hours in a 3 week GT.
The HUGE advantage of EPO is sustainability of a higher functional threshhold wattage and recovery. Both in the GT`s themselves but at least equaly importantly in training before GT`s.
Of course a clean rider can still win a stage..very few stages are ridden at max wattage ..it`s in the overal sustained wattage over the 3 week period that the gains of EPO realy show..hence the big increase in overall speeds during EPO`s uncontrolled peak years..something only a blind person wouldnt notice has actuly began to slow.
Not withstanding all that theres always tactical blunders that occasionaly alllow lesser lights and possibly clean riders to gain stages and also occasionaly even the Yellow or Pink jersey. And if they REALY mess up even the final overall...thought thats extreemly rare.
To date on no forum I`ve ever posted on have I ever put anyone on ignore but I think the time has come for the posters concerned wth evidence, facts and credibility to put on a united front and put the likes of Flicker, Spastacus Rocks, Wonderlance etc on ignore En,mass...leave em to amuse em selves with there pathetic excuse of "reason" or "humour" and distraction and to ponder the fate of there hero who IS the subject of a FDA enquiry .
As you were folks.

 

[flicker]

GL must be innocent until proven guilty. Meaning hardcore blood testing, biological evidence, scientific proof. Nevermind many of his generation (as well as previous generations) have admitted doping, and/or any anecdotal evidence.

LA on the other hand, is guilty until proven innocent, following the same standard, LA will only be considered innocent with hardcore-blood tested-biological-scientific proof. And even then if still nothing shows up, it will only be evidence that he's bought the system.

That's it that's all folks.

I have been at a cub scout meeting with one of my sons. I am getting on the horn with my friend deek Cheney as I blog. We are calling in Haliburton on this one. Sattelites are scanning waste disposal sites around the globe. We will find the hair which had been cut off Gregs' head years 1976 through his 1994 retirement. We will excavate dumps for DNA evidence and a time line on Gregs supposed doping in cycling. Boring machines and excavators are being flown into the waste dumps as we speak to find evidence from the 1989 tour. This is important. We are also interviewing nurses doctors and any family or friends who may have overheard Greg speaking of PED use while he was under pain medication after his hunting accident. All biological waste areas are being scanned as we speak by HAS-MAT teams. This is breaking news folks.

 

[Race Radio]

So let me get this straight. The criteria for deciding if one is a doper or not is if they win races? Wow, there are a lot of dopers out there!! Ullrich can't be counted among them since he finished 2nd so often. Jan is clean!!!!!!

Jan is a good man, he never tested positive.

 

[Escarabajo]

I try to be as objective as possible. And I don't care if I have to attack or point the finger at proved dopers like Contador, Armstrong or any nice rider that is a doper (like Diluca or Ullrich). Even if it is my preferred riders like Botero. There is just no place for winning and cheating at the same time. That is not correct in my book.

I know Lemond don't come across as the nicest guy out there, but to point the finger at someone for doping just because you are bitter because your hero won 7 Tours by cheating (Doping+Corruption with the UCI) and not accepting it, is being immature and stupid.

Edit: After giving some thought about it, Greg Lemond is a actually a nice guy and is fighting for a good cause. I just did not like him that much when he was racing in the 80's just because his personality was a lttle too agressive. But now I understand that most of the champions are more on the agressive side than the passive side. That's why they are champions.

 

[HoustonHammer]

If you believe that I am being obtuse then please present some evidence. My position is well supported because there is zero evidence that LeMond doped. If there was I would change my mind.

It's totally wrong for anybody to be called obtuse for disagreeing on this subject. These are differing points of view, nothing more.

I'm not aware of any evidence of Lemond doping, and I don't believe that the state of the sport when he was winning proves anything. But it's an argument of probability that I find hard to completely discount. You and others have said that it was possible to win clean in the 80's, which is probably true. But let's look at the other top performers in the tours that GL won:

1986
1: Lemond - Clean?
2: Hinault - No evidence, but 'doper' seems to be the Clinic consensus for whatever that's worth.
3: Zimmerman - No idea, although I note that his team was Carrera.
Points: Vanderaerden - Clean?
Mountains: Hinault - See above.

1989
1: Lemond - ?
2: Fignon - Admitted doper.
3: Delgado - Tested positive but not sanctioned.
Points: Kelly - Confirmed doper.
Mountains: Theunisse - Confirmed doper.

1990
1: Lemond: ?
2: Chiapucci - Conconi client; alleged to have admitted EPO use
3: Breukink - Alleged connection to doping through intralipid.
Points: Ludwig - East German; fired from T-Mobile after the OP broke.
Mountains: Claveyrolat - Not much. Maybe implicated by Kimmage?

Is this summary inaccurate? Tell me what I got wrong or missed. On the face of it, while proving nothing, it does suggest that the TdF attracted a pretty sketchy crowd even in those years. Is it really unreasonable to feel a bit of uncertainty toward GL considering that he beat all these guys?

 

[Race Radio]

It's totally wrong for anybody to be called obtuse for disagreeing on this subject. These are differing points of view, nothing more.

I'm not aware of any evidence of Lemond doping, and I don't believe that the state of the sport when he was winning proves anything. But it's an argument of probability that I find hard to completely discount. You and others have said that it was possible to win clean in the 80's, which is probably true. But let's look at the other top performers in the tours that GL won:

1986
1: Lemond - Clean?
2: Hinault - No evidence, but 'doper' seems to be the Clinic consensus for whatever that's worth.
3: Zimmerman - No idea, although I note that his team was Carrera.
Points: Vanderaerden - Clean?
Mountains: Hinault - See above.

1989
1: Lemond - ?
2: Fignon - Admitted doper.
3: Delgado - Tested positive but not sanctioned.
Points: Kelly - Confirmed doper.
Mountains: Theunisse - Confirmed doper.

1990
1: Lemond: ?
2: Chiapucci - Conconi client; alleged to have admitted EPO use
3: Breukink - Alleged connection to doping through intralipid.
Points: Ludwig - East German; fired from T-Mobile after the OP broke.
Mountains: Claveyrolat - Not much. Maybe implicated by Kimmage?

Is this summary inaccurate? Tell me what I got wrong or missed. On the face of it, while proving nothing, it does suggest that the TdF attracted a pretty sketchy crowd even in those years. Is it really unreasonable to feel a bit of uncertainty toward GL considering that he beat all these guys?

If you include the top 5 you start to see riders like Mottet and Hampsten,

EPO gave a insurmountable advantage to those that used it. What products in the 80's did the same?

I can understand the position if it is part of an overall narrative with addition supporting evidence but when it is the sole "Evidence" of doping it is meaningless, especially in the 80's

 

[flicker]

If you include the top 5 you start to see riders like Mottet and Hampsten,

EPO gave a insurmountable advantage to those that used it. What products in the 80's did the same?

I can understand the position if it is part of an overall narrative with addition supporting evidence but when it is the sole "Evidence" of doping it is meaningless, especially in the 80's

RR in my opinion dope is dope, whether it is top grade CERA or steroid Thevenet used. Likely Greg did not dope as a pro but this **** and bull story about dope that Greg has come up with is foolish. I always have gotten the feeling that Greg would look the other way if doping did not effect him. In his time it was Lord of the Flies more so than now in cycling.

 

[M Sport]

RR in my opinion dope is dope, whether it is top grade CERA or steroid Thevenet used.

You aren't getting the context of the discussion. In a non EPO era it entirely possible clean riders could win against dopers (and that answers HoustonHammers question), EPO changed that.

On a sporting penalty and suspension level I agree, dope is dope but don't assume for a moment that all performance enhancing drugs are created equal and are the same over various decades.

 

[Boeing]

Did Fignon dope?

 

[HoustonHammer]

If you include the top 5 you start to see riders like Mottet and Hampsten,

EPO gave a insurmountable advantage to those that used it. What products in the 80's did the same?

I can understand the position if it is part of an overall narrative with addition supporting evidence but when it is the sole "Evidence" of doping it is meaningless, especially in the 80's

True, it's not anything like a scientific sample. I was just trying to demonstrate that as much as we might say it was possible to win without drugs, it looks like relatively few winners chose to do so. And I really don't know much about a couple of those guys, and was hoping others could fill in the blanks.

Which products worked like EPO? None that I know of, or at least not in terms of their benefits in GT's. (A question unrelated to this thread: does that make the guys who used EPO any more or less morally culpable than the guys who used stuff that wasn't really 'necessary' to win?)

I guess I'm just pretty jaded about cycling. So much of what I've read about cycling suggests that doping was pervasive in virtually every era going back to the earliest days. I agree that without other evidence about any given rider, you don't really know, but for me the doubt will always be there.

 

[HoustonHammer]

Did Fignon dope?

Yeah, I thought he was pretty open about it, particularly when he was dying. Didn't he write about it in his book?

 

[Frank71]

Blutto's argument

On the 'Fanboy' threat blutto posted the following:

...ok...ok...so you will take innuendo as a cheap substitute for fact...well I have something here that I would love your input on and it is kinda innuendoism with some facts thrown in for good measure...its a bit of confusion at this point and badly needs some clarity...it involves numbers which is good...and seems like an interesting comparison...

...would like to start with some background assumptions...which represent some things that are generally agreed upon in these here parts...

...assume that EPO use trumps clean riders...

....assume that the EPO era started in 91...which is when Greg LeMond was faced for the first time with a peloton addled with EPO...and consequently lost because of it...

...assume that LeMond and Indurain were at reasonably similar levels in the 90 Tour...

...assume that LeMond is clean as a whistle throughout his career and Indurain is dirty post 90 ( and that his drug use directly leads to his Tour wins and LeMond's retirement )

...against this background I will introduce some wattage numbers gleaned from some graphs introduced on another thread on these forums...these graphs show wattage outputs for LeMond in 89 and Indurain in 94....when normalized for weight they show that LeMond actually had a higher output than Indurain....

...now these normalized graph numbers don't fit with our assumptions do they...as in LeMond's output as a clean rider is bigger than a doped rider who was level with him in the pre-dope days...

...so does this mean that LeMond really was the greatest rider of all time because he could beat the output of a very talented doper ( because if you run these numbers across the assumptions and the graph numbers LeMond is in the neighborhood of having an output 15% higher than Indurain, as in an absolute 5% gain as shown in the graphs plus a minus 10% to offset the gain Indurain would have gotten from drug use )...and what does it say about his reason for quitting...because according to the weighted numbers the 89 LeMond was markedly superior to the 94 Indurain...does this mean that Indurain didn't dope...or is this in realm of miraculous intervention...

...hoping you can bring some clarity to this...because I'm all mixed up...and apparently numbers don't lie...and then there are those assumptions...confusion..confusion...

....hope to hear from you soon...

Cheers

blutto

Does he have a point or is he comparing apples with oranges?

 

[Mellow Velo]

Dave Z went faster in a Short TT in 2005 that was 19km. It had about 350 feet of vertical gain while lemond's TT lost 300 feet.

I think the fastest prologue is still Chris Boardman, 1994

Giro 2001 over 7.6km:
1 Rik Verbrugghe (Bel) Lotto-Adecco 7.44 (58.895 km/h)


What this thread lacks is any evidentiary links.
Full of I fanboy "I think"s, though.

Here's a nice, topical link.
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/zirbel-breaks-armstrongs-record-at-tour-of-gruene-tt

 

[Escarabajo]

It's totally wrong for anybody to be called obtuse for disagreeing on this subject. These are differing points of view, nothing more.

I'm not aware of any evidence of Lemond doping, and I don't believe that the state of the sport when he was winning proves anything. But it's an argument of probability that I find hard to completely discount. You and others have said that it was possible to win clean in the 80's, which is probably true. But let's look at the other top performers in the tours that GL won:

1986
1: Lemond - Clean?
2: Hinault - No evidence, but 'doper' seems to be the Clinic consensus for whatever that's worth.
3: Zimmerman - No idea, although I note that his team was Carrera.
Points: Vanderaerden - Clean?
Mountains: Hinault - See above.

1989
1: Lemond - ?
2: Fignon - Admitted doper.
3: Delgado - Tested positive but not sanctioned.
Points: Kelly - Confirmed doper.
Mountains: Theunisse - Confirmed doper.

1990
1: Lemond: ?
2: Chiapucci - Conconi client; alleged to have admitted EPO use
3: Breukink - Alleged connection to doping through intralipid.
Points: Ludwig - East German; fired from T-Mobile after the OP broke.
Mountains: Claveyrolat - Not much. Maybe implicated by Kimmage?

Is this summary inaccurate? Tell me what I got wrong or missed. On the face of it, while proving nothing, it does suggest that the TdF attracted a pretty sketchy crowd even in those years. Is it really unreasonable to feel a bit of uncertainty toward GL considering that he beat all these guys?

Amphetamines ~ 1% performance increase. Clean riders = Have a chance
EPO, Blood Transfusions ~ 10%-20%. Clean riders = Don't have a chance.

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

 

[Escarabajo]

Yeah, I thought he was pretty open about it, particularly when he was dying. Didn't he write about it in his book?

Did he use EPO?

What did he say in his book?

 

[flicker]

You aren't getting the context of the discussion. In a non EPO era it entirely possible clean riders could win against dopers (and that answers HoustonHammers question), EPO changed that.

On a sporting penalty and suspension level I agree, dope is dope but don't assume for a moment that all performance enhancing drugs are created equal and are the same over various decades.

Sorry I did not understand. The only real sources I could confirm that with would be Floyd Landis,Bjarne Riis,Ferrari, Fuentes, perhaps U-baller, Ricco etc.
Knowint the little bit I know they use EPO and a little bit more....
My point is cheating is cheating.

 

[Altitude]

You aren't getting the context of the discussion. In a non EPO era it entirely possible clean riders could win against dopers (and that answers HoustonHammers question), EPO changed that.

On a sporting penalty and suspension level I agree, dope is dope but don't assume for a moment that all performance enhancing drugs are created equal and are the same over various decades.

But the great Paul Kimmage couldn't win without drugs! Nobody had more talent than that guy. Way more potential than Lemond

 

[Race Radio]

Sorry I did not understand. The only real sources I could confirm that with would be Floyd Landis,Bjarne Riis,Ferrari, Fuentes, perhaps U-baller, Ricco etc.
Knowint the little bit I know they use EPO and a little bit more....
My point is cheating is cheating.

Is anyone saying that cheating is not cheating? NO.