Official Lemond doping talk thread

[flicker]

Is anyone saying that cheating is not cheating? NO.

Alberto Contador, Ricco, Vino, Basso, etc, etc. The problem of doping let me verify, Tom Simpson, dead on Mt. Ventoux TdF 1967.

Doping is doping, EPO is just a magnification of the problem. If LeMond could go at the problem in that way instead of pinpointing Lance with his lazer-like focus I would be 100 percent behind him.

With LeMond it is the way he says what he says that I object to. Words are a problem, once they are said they cannot be taken back.

 

[scribe]

LeMond saluted today's generation as clean, as Armstrong struggled at the tour. I thought he was more hawkish than that. He must feel bad after this Fall's revelations.

 

[Race Radio]

Alberto Contador, Ricco, Vino, Basso, etc, etc. The problem of doping let me verify, Tom Simpson, dead on Mt. Ventoux TdF 1967.

Doping is doping, EPO is just a magnification of the problem. If LeMond could go at the problem in that way instead of pinpointing Lance with his lazer-like focus I would be 100 percent behind him.

With LeMond it is the way he says what he says that I object to. Words are a problem, once they are said they cannot be taken back.

You are confused.

I am referring to people on this thread. Nobody is saying that the doping methods from the 80's were not cheating, they are, but they are not the game changers that EPO is. That does not justify them but it does reduce the validity of the "He beat dopers so he must be a doper" idea

 

[Bilirubin]

You are confused.

I am referring to people on this thread. Nobody is saying that the doping methods from the 80's were not cheating, they are, but they are not the game changers that EPO is. That does not justify them but it does reduce the validity of the "He beat dopers so he must be a doper" idea

Depends how much they are using. It turns out Contador was probably blood doping at the tour but he was widely regarded as clean by people like LeMond. Micro dosing blood and EPO is no better than the drugs of choice in the 1980s.

 

[Bilirubin]

There is no hard evidence against LeMond, but there is circumstantial evidence. Doing a TT that remained one of the best well into the height of the EPO era is circumstantial evidence. Recovering from anemia to win a TT at the Giro is also circumstantial evidence. Recovery like that is unheard of.

This by no means means he is guilty, but in this sport that does give me cause to keep an open mind.

 

[blutto]

Alberto Contador, Ricco, Vino, Basso, etc, etc. The problem of doping let me verify, Tom Simpson, dead on Mt. Ventoux TdF 1967.

Doping is doping, EPO is just a magnification of the problem. If LeMond could go at the problem in that way instead of pinpointing Lance with his lazer-like focus I would be 100 percent behind him.

With LeMond it is the way he says what he says that I object to. Words are a problem, once they are said they cannot be taken back.

...dont mean to bust in on your space but the following was on another thread and someone asked me to move it here...it is a non-edited( hence the innuendo ref ) cut and paste but tells an interesting story...
-----------------------------------------------------------------

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-all soon...

Cheers

blutto

 

[Digger]

LeMond saluted today's generation as clean, as Armstrong struggled at the tour. I thought he was more hawkish than that. He must feel bad after this Fall's revelations.

link.......

 

[Polish]

infallible and all-knowing

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.

RR, you KNOW the evidence "does not exist"?
And you also believe you've NEVER been wrong in your Clinic Postings?

Geez, do you wear a Pope Hat while posting lol?

Anyway, why even compare Greg to Doper Lance?
Why don't we compare Greg to a present day Clean Rider.

A present day Clean Rider who avoids taking "legal" supplements....

A present day Clean Rider who would NEVER EVER trust or allow a Dodgy Doc to stick a big needle in their keester. "Oh, it's just Iron"....Then throw the needle in the dumpster. Is that even allowed today at the TdF?

Compared to a present day Clean Rider, Greg is stinky.

 

[Bilirubin]

link.......

Greg LeMond: "Good news on this year's Tour"

http://www.cyclingnews.com/blogs/greg-lemond/data-of-optimism

 

[Race Radio]

Depends how much they are using. It turns out Contador was probably blood doping at the tour but he was widely regarded as clean by people like LeMond. Micro dosing blood and EPO is no better than the drugs of choice in the 1980s.

Link?

As for the TT, Downhill, 12 miles, wind at the back. It has already been discussed at the start of the thread

 

[Bilirubin]

Link?

As for the TT, Downhill, 12 miles, wind at the back. It has already been discussed at the start of the thread

My link is the article by LeMond above, where he claimed Contador's tour performance was in the bounds of natural performance.

I read the discussion. Your evidence that LeMond's TT was not suspicious is that Lance Armstrong and two other people did a faster TT at the height of the EPO era. I don't find that compelling.

 

[Digger]

LeMond saluted today's generation as clean, as Armstrong struggled at the tour. I thought he was more hawkish than that. He must feel bad after this Fall's revelations.

This does not mean that the Tour is 100% clean but it does hint that things are possibly changing for the better."
http://www.cyclingnews.com/blogs/greg-lemond/data-of-optimism

This is slightly different to your sweeping statement above.

 

[Race Radio]

My link is the article by LeMond above, where he claimed Contador's tour performance was in the bounds of natural performance.

I read the discussion. Your evidence that LeMond's TT was not suspicious is that Lance Armstrong and two other people did a faster TT at the height of the EPO era. I don't find that compelling.

You ignore the fact that Lemond's TT was downhill, tailwind, and less then 1/2 the distance of Armstrong's. It is not evidence of doping as his output over 20 minutes was a fraction of what riders in the 90's and 00's were doing over twice the time.

really, if you think Lemond doped you are going to have to come up with something better then he rode his bike downhill fast.

 

[ScottLeMond]

This does not mean that the Tour is 100% clean but it does hint that things are possibly changing for the better."
http://www.cyclingnews.com/blogs/greg-lemond/data-of-optimism

This is slightly different to your sweeping statement above.

I don't want anyone to be discouraged from voicing their opinions because i post here, because i believe everyone is welcome to their opinions but what my dad, atleast to me, meant by this statement is that the tour didn't have the type of monumental performances that left the stage winner looking like he was half machine and that it was a recovery ride. We saw riders that looked like they were really giving it their all and only getting a tiny bit of time on their competitors, what racing used to look like before.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

There is no hard evidence against LeMond, but there is circumstantial evidence. Doing a TT that remained one of the best well into the height of the EPO era is circumstantial evidence. Recovering from anemia to win a TT at the Giro is also circumstantial evidence. Recovery like that is unheard of.

This by no means means he is guilty, but in this sport that does give me cause to keep an open mind.

But even your 'circumstantial evidence' is flawed.

LeMond finished 2nd in the TT at the Giro.

Also by 2001, they were doing close to the '89 TdF speed for over twice the distance on a rolling course - 59kms at 53.986kph.
Put that against the earlier TT in the 89 Tour, which was 73kms done at just 44.602kph.

 

[scribe]

link.......

http://www.cyclingnews.com/blogs/greg-lemond/bravo-to-the-new-generation

Bravo to the new generation that refuses to follow the path that was laid before them!

 

[Digger]

http://www.cyclingnews.com/blogs/greg-lemond/bravo-to-the-new-generation

This does not mean that the Tour is 100% clean but it does hint that things are possibly changing for the better."


Contrast that line from Greg to what you wrote and it's sweeping nature:
LeMond saluted today's generation as clean, as Armstrong struggled at the tour. I thought he was more hawkish than that. He must feel bad after this Fall's revelations.

 

[Race Radio]

http://www.cyclingnews.com/blogs/greg-lemond/bravo-to-the-new-generation

there were 189 riders in the Tour, good for LeMond for showing respect to the large group of clean riders.

I have been to the Tour many times over the last 30 years. I was there with a group of friends this and all of us were surprised at how decimated the fields were on hard stages. Big gaps, lots of small groups, small front group. This was not like the 90's when 60 guys would break 45 minutes on Alp d'huez

 

[flicker]

there were 189 riders in the Tour, good for LeMond for showing respect to the large group of clean riders.

I have been to the Tour many times over the last 30 years. I was there with a group of friends this and all of us were surprised at how decimated the fields were on hard stages. Big gaps, lots of small groups, small front group. This was not like the 90's when 60 guys would break 45 minutes on Alp d'huez

Pretty much Floyds' actions and that fool who left his stash back at his crib. That guy used to race for ROCK RACING right.
Those two are inadvertantly cleaning up the tour!

 

[Escarabajo]

...

Anyway, why even compare Greg to Doper Lance?
Why don't we compare Greg to a present day Clean Rider.

A present day Clean Rider who avoids taking "legal" supplements....

A present day Clean Rider who would NEVER EVER trust or allow a Dodgy Doc to stick a big needle in their keester. "Oh, it's just Iron"....Then throw the needle in the dumpster. Is that even allowed today at the TdF?

Compared to a present day Clean Rider, Greg is stinky.

Ok. Fair enough.

Give me a rider with a VO2 max of 91 and his attitude to win. Do you know who this is in present time?

 

[Altitude]

http://www.cyclingnews.com/blogs/greg-lemond/bravo-to-the-new-generation

Scribe, time to bring out the hard evidence. Where are those pictures of Greg the Great's jawline transformation?

 

[Polish]

Ok. Fair enough.

Give me a rider with a VO2 max of 91 and his attitude to win. Do you know who this is in present time?

I think the VO2 max data does not exist for many riders.
Also, what do you mean by "his attitude to win"?

I'm not sure what you are trying to get at here.....

I do believe there were more clean riders in the 2010 TdF than there were back in the 1986/1989/1990 TdFs. And I think many riders in the 2010 TdF were at least as "clean" as 86/89/90 Greg - probably many were "cleaner" imo.

Heck, I would not be suprised if 2010 TdF Lance was even "cleaner" than 89/90 Greg lol.

 

[Bilirubin]

You ignore the fact that Lemond's TT was downhill, tailwind, and less then 1/2 the distance of Armstrong's. It is not evidence of doping as his output over 20 minutes was a fraction of what riders in the 90's and 00's were doing over twice the time.

I find it hard to believe it was the only slightly downhill TT of the era.

Comparing it to the height's of the EPO era does not mean he did not dope.

 

[Bilirubin]

there were 189 riders in the Tour, good for LeMond for showing respect to the large group of clean riders.

Yet he also said Contador was maybe a rider capable of his performance this year without doping.

At the very least this shows the benefits of blood doping have been reduced to levels of doping products of the 1980s.

 

[Benotti69]

I find it hard to believe it was the only slightly downhill TT of the era.

Comparing it to the height's of the EPO era does not mean he did not dope.

you are missing the point. LeMond is the most vocal anti doping former pro cyclist. If he doped someone out there would want to shut him up by saying they saw him dope, but nothing. So lets see some evidence, some former Doctor, former Director Sportif, former team mate, something before people start accusing LeMond of doping. No one accused Armstrong till the evidence started popping up, so lets give LeMond the same treatment.