Official Lemond doping talk thread

[Dr. Maserati]

...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

I see you have put this post in 3 threads now........ why?

Where are the 'facts' that you were to "throw in"?

And where did you "introduce some wattage numbers"?

Would it be because if you posted the graphs it would show a completely different version to the story you were trying to tell?
Lets have a look:

 

[scribe]

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

 

[Bilirubin]

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.

Great to have you posting here if you are in fact the real Scottie LeMond. I don't think it's by any means certain that LeMond doped in his time, but his recovery from anemia during the Giro was something spectacular, along with his famous TT performance. I can see why some people have questions in this sport.

While your here, in one of the two article posted, LeMond shows grudging respect and surprise for Armstrong's ability to focus on the tour with the police investigation hanging over him and carry on despite the crashes and tumoil.

It seems your father now recognises that Armstrong's mental focus does set him aside from most other riders and was a key part of his dominance in the sport. Most people think Armstrong did it clean this year with the extraordinary focus on him, yet despite numerous accidents he still finish ahead of Wiggins and Evans in the overall, got in a tough breakaway the day BEFORE the rest day, and had to fire fight the Landis case every evening. At 38 years old. Even though LeMond obvious deplore's Armstrong's part in the doping culture and the way he operates off the bike, does he think he now underrated Armstrong's true abilities?

 

[Benotti69]

that's the best you can come up with major fail.

the guy in the brown jacket has a bigger chin/jaw than any in those pics

 

[Bilirubin]

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.

Doping was not institutional in the 1980s, like it was with doctors and team programs of the 1990s, so it's by no means clear that buying steroids and amphetamines from some gym rat would come back to haunt you.

 

[scribe]

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

I don't think that is the era Greg was referring to. Remember, Armstrong didn't really start riding until '99. You know, when only he was using EPO.

 

[Altitude]

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.

I believe the accusations started flying after the 1999 Prologue.

 

[Escarabajo]

I think the VO2 max data does not exist for many riders.

Not available for us, you mean. Why do you think nobody publishes this data?

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.

Including plasticizers and all? LOL.

 

[AngusW]

Link?

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

Actually, the distance was 15.3 miles (24.5km).

http://www.memoire-du-cyclisme.net/eta_tdf_1978_2005/tdf1989.php#Etapes

 

[ultimobici]

To many people in cycling take themselves to seriously, that is why I am a jokester. You notice whom I make fun of most of is myself. I will be the first to tell you that I am a nobody in the cycling world.

My issue with LeMond is he raced against dopers his whole career and then has taken a stand against Armstrong. Why, I have told you many times he is jealous and bitter.


If you do not believe me ask people who know him personally.

As far as a doper I heard he doped one time in a pursuit team or TT at an international meet. Mind you at an amatuer level. He was DQd at a race here in my town for improper gearing as a junior. I do not care about that. It is curious that he blamed the gearing infraction on his Dad.

If he doped one time with PEDs he should come out and admit it. I do not care one way or another. I just do not like hippocrites, which I think Greg is. What LeMond presents himself as, which in my opinion is a pillar of virtue I believe is a farce, no different than what the haters here comment upon about Lance.

If anyone here doesn't like my sense of humor that is their problem.

Nevertheless Greg is a great champion, the best cyclist I ever raced against or saw in person. That includes every rider I watched at the Tour of California.(Except for Lance, who as we all know is over the hill)

The thing about pot who cares, it may be legal in California tomarrow. Tim Lincecum and that Olympic swimmer smoked it it is not a PED.

So I have to ask when did you last race against Lemond, the seventies? So your knowledge is 30 years old or second/third hand.

On the strength of this faded & probably biased information you slander Lemond on a public forum. You may paint yourself as a joker, but defamation is defamation.

There is not one single person who has come forward in the 16 years since his retirement. That says a lot in the light of his very public opposition to doping in cycling.

The only bitterness I can see in all this is yours, mate.

 

[flicker]

So I have to ask when did you last race against Lemond, the seventies? So your knowledge is 30 years old or second/third hand.

On the strength of this faded & probably biased information you slander Lemond on a public forum. You may paint yourself as a joker, but defamation is defamation.

There is not one single person who has come forward in the 16 years since his retirement. That says a lot in the light of his very public opposition to doping in cycling.

The only bitterness I can see in all this is yours, mate.

Out of respect for Mr. LeMond and his son and the others on this forum I will not comment on that.

 

[Polish]

There is not one single person who has come forward in the 16 years since his retirement. That says a lot in the light of his very public opposition to doping in cycling.

.

Omerta was MUCH stronger in the 80's and 90's.
Today there is wussy omerta in comparision.

Including plasticizers and all? LOL.

Weren't riders using plastic hydration drips in the 80's lol?
Plasticizers were in more riders in 86/89/90 TdF than 2010?

 

[flicker]

So I have to ask when did you last race against Lemond, the seventies? So your knowledge is 30 years old or second/third hand.

On the strength of this faded & probably biased information you slander Lemond on a public forum. You may paint yourself as a joker, but defamation is defamation.

There is not one single person who has come forward in the 16 years since his retirement. That says a lot in the light of his very public opposition to doping in cycling.

The only bitterness I can see in all this is yours, mate.

My wife told me never ever identify myself as the flicker at any major cycling events as I would probably get punched in the nose by an errant forum poster. As usual my wife is right. (note to myself)

 

[Race Radio]

Omerta was MUCH stronger in the 80's and 90's.
Today there is wussy omerta in comparision.

BS, not even close.

Did you sell a lot of Treks during your vacation?

 

[JMBeaushrimp]

Omerta was MUCH stronger in the 80's and 90's.
Today there is wussy omerta in comparision.



Weren't riders using plastic hydration drips in the 80's lol?
Plasticizers were in more riders in 86/89/90 TdF than 2010?

How so? It was sort of a 'matter of fact' until the Festina debacle, and seemed to tighten up a lot more after that.

If I assume that you mean comments from the likes of Cav (re the acceptance of night testing et al), then yes, I'd agree with you; but the last decade of history - it being the era of the wicked blood drugs - shows that there are actually fewer riders shooting their mouth's off about entrenched doping practices (apart from Kohl and the few others with a conscience).

Help me out, Polish...

 

[Digger]

Out of respect for Mr. LeMond and his son and the others on this forum I will not comment on that.

So now that you know that Scott reads the forum, you suddenly stop with these comments and accusations. Whether Scott or indeed Greg reads this thread should in no way detract from the veracity of your comments. In fact, it's even more disrespectful to makes these claims thinking they don't read this stuff.

 

[blutto]

I see you have put this post in 3 threads now........ why?

Where are the 'facts' that you were to "throw in"?

And where did you "introduce some wattage numbers"?

Would it be because if you posted the graphs it would show a completely different version to the story you were trying to tell?
Lets have a look:

...please see the Houston Hammer post in the Indurain's physiology thread...

...the wattage numbers from the graphs adjusted for weight are LeMond 5.5 and Indurain 5.3....

Cheers

blutto

 

[Polish]

BS, not even close.

Did you sell a lot of Treks during your vacation?

Another of the plentful RR falsehoods/mistakes/defamations/insults.
I have never been a Trek Dealer. Never sold a Trek.

And Omerta today IS a joke compared to the 80's/90's.

How was Kimmage treated in 1990 upon release of his book?
Did then TdF winner Greg praise the book for its honesty and importance?
No evidence of that. Only omerta. Kimage was "spitting in the soup".

Today, everybody knows that everbody dopes. Omerrrrrrta boo lol.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

...please see the Houston Hammer post in the Indurain's physiology thread...

...the wattage numbers from the graphs adjusted for weight are LeMond 5.5 and Indurain 5.3....

Cheers

blutto

You mean the post below - you might want to read it all instead of trying to quote a small and meaningless piece.

BTW - were these the 'facts' you were going to introduce?

Quite true, but those graphs are meaningless without some description of what they're meant to portray. Certainly it seems to be a plot of estimated wattage, but then what? If Le Breton is right, and they're normalized figures, then your statement about a 10% edge being chemical is right. But if not, you have to consider body mass. They only common mountains in the two sets is Alpe d'Huez. Assuming a Lemond body mass of 68kg, and a Mig mass of 80kg, that wattage/kg comes to 5.5 for Lemond and 5.3 for Indurain.

 

[Rydberg]

...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....


blutto

Blutto, the numbers from the graphs in other threads totally contradict what you are saying. They are already normalised for weight, and show that Lemond was consistently well behind Indurain when comparing Lemond's 89 tour win and Indurain's 94. They give:
Lemond: 395, 385, 385, 395 W
Indurain: 455, 415, 425, 425, 400, 435 W
Both calculated using 70 kg rider/ 8 kg bike.

And just to make it clear that these are already weight normalised, Lemond (68kg) did Alpe 'dhuez in about 43 minutes (he was 1:19 behind Fignon whoo got up there in just under 42 minutes). Indurain (81 kg) got up Alpe d'huez in 39:30 in 1994, according to the source of those figures.

 

[Race Radio]

How was Kimmage treated in 1990 upon release of his book?

How were Landis, Manzano, Walsh, etc treated? Kimmage has had a long career in the sport, Manzano drives a truck and Landis lives in a shack.

 

[blutto]

Blutto, the numbers from the graphs in other threads totally contradict what you are saying. They are already normalised for weight, and show that Lemond was consistently well behind Indurain when comparing Lemond's 89 tour win and Indurain's 94. They give:
Lemond: 395, 385, 385, 395 W
Indurain: 455, 415, 425, 425, 400, 435 W
Both calculated using 70 kg rider/ 8 kg bike.

And just to make it clear that these are already weight normalised, Lemond (68kg) did Alpe 'dhuez in about 43 minutes (he was 1:19 behind Fignon whoo got up there in just under 42 minutes). Indurain (81 kg) got up Alpe d'huez in 39:30 in 1994, according to the source of those figures.

...as I said I was a bit confused over those numbers...HH seemed to work his numbers out using individual weights whereas you are saying they used one rider weight for both graphs?...so where do the 5.5 and 5.3 numbers fit into this?...are those wrong?...

Cheers

blutto

 

[Cobblestoned]

How were Landis, Manzano, Walsh, etc treated? Kimmage has had a long career in the sport, Manzano drives a truck and Landis lives in a shack.

Manzano is a gardener now. Nice job - fresh air.

 

[Polish]

How were Landis, Manzano, Walsh, etc treated? Kimmage has had a long career in the sport, Manzano drives a truck and Landis lives in a shack.

Sure, Landis lives in a shack and sleeps on the sofa.....
Lance has no friends....
Sure, RR, whatever you say. Lance bribed the UCI $500,000....
EPO transformed Lance...he reacts better to EPO you know....


How many dopers did Greg ride with in the 1980's that are living with secret doping pasts that have never (and will never) become public knowledge? HUNDREDS.

Hundreds protected by old school omerta. The effective kind.

 

[ultimobici]

Out of respect for Mr. LeMond and his son and the others on this forum I will not comment on that.

More like "Out of fear of being sued, I'll keep my baseless accusations to myself"