Official Lemond doping talk thread

[Escarabajo]

...
Here's another data point to throw it all out of whack. I rode Alpe d'Huez this summer. Full gas and alone. 50:55 on 340 Watts. ~40W less (though I was closer to 74kg) and almost 3 minutes slower. So, a 49 year old amateur racer was only 3 minutes off of Lemond's time on Alpe d'Huez and you're going to use Lemond's time as a comparison against other riders???? I don't think that is going to compute with your model. In fact, I can pretty much garauntee that Lemond/Hinault's time was not fast for them.

Check this out: Timtoo timing

Other than Sandy Casar, it's all just a bunch of dorks like me who took the time to rent the timing chip. Seven of them went faster than Lemond/Hinault. Does that make them virtual Tour champions?

Did you ride the Galibier and Croix de Fer before you hit Alpe D'Huez?

For practical purposes take Luis Herrera power (~390 W) in 1984 when he was riding up the Alpe full throttle so that Fignon didn't cath him. Hell, use Fignon's time who came 50 seconds later.

Here is some old data base that I have:

Les années 80 : Avoriaz 1985, Herrera, Hinault 375 w
Superbagnères 1986, Lemond 380 w
Alpe d'Huez 1987, 1989 Fignon, Delgado 390 w

Your Watts/Kg was 4.6. So what is the point here? I know you are older than a average cyclist but you still need a lot more to get to 6 watts/kg. You are still good though.

Here is an interview with Greg Lemond about his power in the last TT in 1989:

http://bikeraceinfo.com/oralhistory/lemond.html

Well wattage for the last time trial was 420-430 watts. So I did some tweaking in my formulas to match this number and the Watts per kilogram came very close to 6. Of course I knew what number to match.

 

[nslckevin]

Did you ride the Galibier and Croix de Fer before you hit Alpe D'Huez?

No I did not. My story. And I'm sticking to it... is that they go so much faster than me because they had that nice 80-90 mile warm up and a couple of HC climbs to loosen their legs up before the Alpe. After all, it couldn't be that they are just better than me.

Seriously though, after I posted I went for a ride and realized that what I wrote was also somewhat out of context. Not to mention a couple of weeks of cumulative fatigue for the guys in the Tour.

Here is an interview with Greg Lemond about his power in the last TT in 1989:

http://bikeraceinfo.com/oralhistory/lemond.html

Well wattage for the last time trial was 420-430 watts. So I did some tweaking in my formulas to match this number and the Watts per kilogram came very close to 6. Of course I knew what number to match.

Isn't he really just guessing though?

 

[Escarabajo]

...

Isn't he really just guessing though?

You could be right. I think he sat down with somebody to carefully estimate these powers because he could not be measuring this at the time. He probably checked every variable of the calculation of the course like the temperature, wind direction, strength, and position. His guess is the only one available out there. The estimates of the power in TT is one of the hardest things to do.

Having said this, my guess, IMHO, is that he over-estimated his power and under-estimated wind.

 

[petethedrummer]

Flicker, yet again when someone asks you to back up your claim, you go into one of your rambling and nonsensical soliloquys.

First of all I wish Greg no ill will.

Yet you continue with this allegation you heard that he doped and don't even provide as much as a hint as to who made it. Just some guy you know said it.

I believe in transparency and I hate doping.

oh you do, do you?

I hate to say this but I would rather believe in the myth.

But a minute ago you said you wanted transparency? Which is it? Myth or transparency? pick one.

The truth will haunt us and make us really look at ourselves.

What in God's name are you on about? The truth about doping in cycling isn't going to haunt me. Is it going to haunt you?

 

[nslckevin]

...aah more confusion...by the way the 89 and 94 numbers were both from a full bore ride up the Alpe...as for the confirmation of the validity of the 5.5/5.3 numbers...jury is still out...

...so how tough was the Alpe?...

Cheers

blutto

The first 4-5km are pretty steep. I did it twice about 5 days apart. The first time I used a 36x24 for the steeper parts. It wasn't too terribly hard, but that was more than I should have done and I paid for it later on when it flattened out and I couldn't get my power up again. The second time I rode a much steadier wattage and used a 36x27 on the lower parts and that was much better. (about 80 rpm in the saddle) On the other hand, if I was in cruising mode I probably could have just stood up more and used a bigger gear and taken it easy.

Really of all the climbs I did on that trip, it was one of the easiest as far as what it would take to just ride up at a reasonable pace. The "big climbs" that we did were the Gavia, Stelvio, Mortirolo, Pordoi, Fedia, Passo Rolle, Passo Valle, Passo San Pellegrino, Col d'Izoard, and Alpe d'Huez. By far, the Mortirolo was the hardest climb. The bottom one third or so is brutal. The Gavia and Stelvio are pretty hard mostly because they are so long and so high. Alpe d'Huez tops out almost 1,000 meters lower than the Stelvio and Gavia and is around two thirds as long and that makes a big difference.

I am looking forward to watching the Giro and Tour use some of these passes now that I have seen them first hand!

There are a couple of photographers on the climb. They take your picture and then hand you a card with a code to lookup (and hopefully buy) your picture on their web site. Which of course we did!

 

[flicker]

Flicker, yet again when someone asks you to back up your claim, you go into one of your rambling and nonsensical soliloquys.

Yet you continue with this allegation you heard that he doped and don't even provide as much as a hint as to who made it. Just some guy you know said it.

oh you do, do you?

But a minute ago you said you wanted transparency? Which is it? Myth or transparency? pick one.

What in God's name are you on about? The truth about doping in cycling isn't going to haunt me. Is it going to haunt you?

Calm down Pete and listen carefully to what the greatest cyclist on earth has to say. Note to Pete, darn it I could not have said it better myself.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OfQrav7HAWo&NR=1

 

[flicker]

Take a look at Greg. Genetically gifted, motivated, killer instinct, supreme tactician, great looking guy, Scot name but American, heads above any other Americans and yet an all American boy. An amazing pheomenon. What more can one say about Greg, all good good things.

 

[Race Radio]

Take a look at Greg. Genetically gifted, motivated, killer instinct, supreme tactician, great looking guy, Scot name but American, heads above any other Americans and yet an all American boy. An amazing pheomenon. What more can one say about Greg, all good good things.

Someone is starting to worry about a lawsuit

 

[buckwheat]

This is not about Lance and LeMond, this is about life. I have been bad here do not be like me. Life is unfair and what I see from LeMond and Lance is that one has to overcome adversity. Those two as much as they hate one another are brothers they have overcome obstacles, they have shared the same pain and the same joy, however fleeting. Such is life, enjoy it while you are here.

I don't believe LeMond hates LA at all. I think he has pity for the guy.

I think that LA hates a lot of people and evidence of that is that he has labeled a lot of people "fcuking trolls."

 

[blutto]

The first 4-5km are pretty steep. I did it twice about 5 days apart. The first time I used a 36x24 for the steeper parts. It wasn't too terribly hard, but that was more than I should have done and I paid for it later on when it flattened out and I couldn't get my power up again. The second time I rode a much steadier wattage and used a 36x27 on the lower parts and that was much better. (about 80 rpm in the saddle) On the other hand, if I was in cruising mode I probably could have just stood up more and used a bigger gear and taken it easy.

Really of all the climbs I did on that trip, it was one of the easiest as far as what it would take to just ride up at a reasonable pace. The "big climbs" that we did were the Gavia, Stelvio, Mortirolo, Pordoi, Fedia, Passo Rolle, Passo Valle, Passo San Pellegrino, Col d'Izoard, and Alpe d'Huez. By far, the Mortirolo was the hardest climb. The bottom one third or so is brutal. The Gavia and Stelvio are pretty hard mostly because they are so long and so high. Alpe d'Huez tops out almost 1,000 meters lower than the Stelvio and Gavia and is around two thirds as long and that makes a big difference.

I am looking forward to watching the Giro and Tour use some of these passes now that I have seen them first hand!

There are a couple of photographers on the climb. They take your picture and then hand you a card with a code to lookup (and hopefully buy) your picture on their web site. Which of course we did!

...thank you so very much for that...I've missed two rides/vacations thru those areas and it is kinda nice to live it a bit thru vicarious means...

Cheers

blutto

 

[flicker]

Someone is starting to worry about a lawsuit

RR I came from SF in the 60s, summer of love the dead all that, bike rides on Tam and paradise drive, no question dope was a major part of cycling culture, I accepted it as part of European cycling. Olympics were obviously doped and full of cheats 76 onward. Anyone who wants to get upset with me, please take a look at the culture first, than if you see any untruths in what I say give me your best Badger uppercut, hey I have the chin to handle truth. I will not give you the bro treatment, hey look at the reality, cycling is straight up Hunter S. Thompson and if you have never read him try fear and loathing in las vegas give it a try. It will help you understand some of our latest GTs and darn it maybe it will give you a sense of humor?

To many people here take themselves to seriously, which is OK it gives me a laugh, kinda like when I see the bike racers getting dressed over here and Floyd Landis doing his thing, pure comedy gold I will warn my kids away from cycling

though, they know the truth, not the myth and they are running away from cycling, now as you were saying? Better scouts and fun easy sports and college. Nicer life, more reliable healthier. Guys like Greg and I were drawn to cycling for a reason, and that was healthy for us too. I do not recommend that lifestyle to anyone though, too chaotic ,too dangerous ,too many pitfalls and extremely self centered.

 

[Benotti69]

Someone is starting to worry about a lawsuit

worse someone is starting to worry they can be uncloaked

 

[Digger]

Flicker your post history on Greg is still there....you talking this stuff doesn;t change that fact.

 

[ultimobici]

Flicker your post history on Greg is still there....you talking this stuff doesn;t change that fact.

Priceless! Major lack of backbone.

 

[TexPat]

In a way, this thread is one of the least useful and least productive of all time. Virtually meaningless.

Except that it has drawn more attention to the facts, which are:

1. There are no accusers who have come forward to support the poo slinging counterattacks of the una pelota fanaticas.
2. When the aforementioned fanatics who post the accusations are asked to substantiate their claims, they back pedal or scurry away like terrified rodents when a cat enters the room. Naturally, when someone mentions a lawyer, things get reallyquiet.

I have been in love with bicycles for thirty years. When I was a 9years young I bought my first ten speed. For the next ten years I rode various ten speeds around the army bases where I grew up for the pure speed and fun of it all. Call it a truly pure experience. I think of it that way.
When I was 17, I worked in a big bike shop in Dallas, where coincidentally a man named Greg Lemond came to visit after winning some bike race in France. I had no clue what professional bike racing meant before that. Lemond was my introduction, and it was one that painted the sport with a broad and bright stroke.
Now folks, down the road was another bike shop where a young kid named Lance Armstrong hung out. He and I were the same age. We went to rival high schools. (I finished.) Even then he had a reputation for being a bit brash. I really never heard a good thing about him.
Move forward ten years or so, and suddenly I find myself friends with him. We rode mountain bikes in the off-season. I built and repaired his bikes. Then I went to work for him. And during that time I quickly learned what pro cycling at that level was really about, and I was gutted to say the least. It almost ruined my enjoyment of the sport. During this period was the only time I ever heard anything bad about Greg Lemond, and it wasn't related to his doping, but rather his criticism of it. These comments came from only one source and was accompanied by a level of vitriol seen only when David Walsh's name came up.
Rather ironic, all of this talk of Greg Lemond taking PEDs. While he may not be perfect in his personal life, I believe firmly that his record as a cyclist is untarnished, and will remain that way until someone actually comes forward.
No one will.
Because it more than likely never happened.
I heard rumor after rumor about all sorts of things in the peloton.
Never about Greg Lemond doping.
Oddly enough that bright picture of the sport that he helped form in my mind as a young man is re-emerging, albeit after a bitter hiatus.
So, I'll add a few of you who keep slinging this nonsense to my ignore list; and will avoid feeding the trolls who clearly are trying to draw attention away from the real problem we've got.

 

[andy1234]

It's interesting how LeMond has become (planned or otherwise) the de facto comparison for cycling greatness. If there were no conflict between Armstrong and LeMond, the latter would be able to claim status as one of the greatest American riders, but no more than that.

As it is, he gets compared endlessly with Armstrong, when really the discussion should be comparing Armstrong, Merckx, Indurain, Hinault, Anquetil....

Considering, historically, he was never the greatest tour rider, classics rider or otherwise, he definitely (at least around here) gets his column inches.

On a publicity front, doping has served LeMond very well indeed.

 

[Roland Rat]

It's interesting how LeMond has become (planned or otherwise) the de facto comparison for cycling greatness. If there were no conflict between Armstrong and LeMond, the latter would be able to claim status as one if the greatest American riders, but no more than that.

As it is he gets compared endlessly with Armstrong, when really the discussion should be comparing Armstrong, Merckx, Indurain, Hinault, Anquetil....

Considering, historically, he was never the greatest tour rider, classics rider or otherwise, he definitely (at least around here) gets his column inches.

On a publicity front, doping has served LeMond very well indeed.

Are you having a laugh? On the publicity front, doping has hurt Lemond very much indeed as he is consistently being rubbished in comparisons against dopers, not to mention his career cut short.

 

[Benotti69]

It's interesting how LeMond has become (planned or otherwise) the de facto comparison for cycling greatness. If there were no conflict between Armstrong and LeMond, the latter would be able to claim status as one of the greatest American riders, but no more than that.

As it is, he gets compared endlessly with Armstrong, when really the discussion should be comparing Armstrong, Merckx, Indurain, Hinault, Anquetil....

Considering, historically, he was never the greatest tour rider, classics rider or otherwise, he definitely (at least around here) gets his column inches.

On a publicity front, doping has served LeMond very well indeed.

wow to actually write more rubbish than Flicky, Polish, Sparty and others in 1 post was gonna be hard to beat but this is a new low. Congrats

 

[andy1234]

Are you having a laugh? On the publicity front, doping has hurt Lemond very much indeed as he is consistently being rubbished in comparisons against dopers, not to mention his career cut short.

No, I'm not having a laugh.

I didn't really mean to say doping has served LeMond well. I meant to say his association with Armstrong and doping, PUBLICITY WISE, has served him well. Publicity is publicity, and I never said it was all positive.

His current profile is much higher now than it would be without Armstrong.

 

[JRTinMA]

It's interesting how LeMond has become (planned or otherwise) the de facto comparison for cycling greatness. If there were no conflict between Armstrong and LeMond, the latter would be able to claim status as one of the greatest American riders, but no more than that.

As it is, he gets compared endlessly with Armstrong, when really the discussion should be comparing Armstrong, Merckx, Indurain, Hinault, Anquetil....

Considering, historically, he was never the greatest tour rider, classics rider or otherwise, he definitely (at least around here) gets his column inches.

On a publicity front, doping has served LeMond very well indeed.

I think you have let this forum form your opinion of LeMond. He gets his props in here because he was likely the last clean tour winner and if its in fact true then that is an important point. This forum is not cycling's encyclopedia. To the latter bold, really?!? His business was almost ruined, many see him as bitter and jealous of LA, its hardly been a non stop party I would suggest. He's a hero in the forum but that doesn't count for crap.

 

[andy1234]

I think you have let this forum form your opinion of LeMond. He gets his props in here because he was likely the last clean tour winner and if its in fact true then that is an important point. This forum is not cycling's encyclopedia. To the latter bold, really?!? His business was almost ruined, many see him as bitter and jealous of LA, its hardly been a non stop party I would suggest. He's a hero in the forum but that doesn't count for crap.

See my post above, I agree my latter statement was worded badly.

FWIW I haven't had my opinion of LeMond formed by this Forum. I had an opinion about him long before.

 

[simoni]

The first 4-5km are pretty steep. I did it twice about 5 days apart. The first time I used a 36x24 for the steeper parts. It wasn't too terribly hard, but that was more than I should have done and I paid for it later on when it flattened out and I couldn't get my power up again. The second time I rode a much steadier wattage and used a 36x27 on the lower parts and that was much better. (about 80 rpm in the saddle) On the other hand, if I was in cruising mode I probably could have just stood up more and used a bigger gear and taken it easy.

Really of all the climbs I did on that trip, it was one of the easiest as far as what it would take to just ride up at a reasonable pace. The "big climbs" that we did were the Gavia, Stelvio, Mortirolo, Pordoi, Fedia, Passo Rolle, Passo Valle, Passo San Pellegrino, Col d'Izoard, and Alpe d'Huez. By far, the Mortirolo was the hardest climb. The bottom one third or so is brutal. The Gavia and Stelvio are pretty hard mostly because they are so long and so high. Alpe d'Huez tops out almost 1,000 meters lower than the Stelvio and Gavia and is around two thirds as long and that makes a big difference.

I am looking forward to watching the Giro and Tour use some of these passes now that I have seen them first hand!

There are a couple of photographers on the climb. They take your picture and then hand you a card with a code to lookup (and hopefully buy) your picture on their web site. Which of course we did!

That sounds like a damn fine trip!

I've ridden the Alpe 4 times I think and while I don't think its horrendously hard I've never gone well on it (1 time as it was the first climb of the holiday and another time because we'd ridden the Galibier in a snowstorm earlier in the day and all frozen on the way down from the Lauteret). I think the legend of the Alpe derives from its "theatre" like set-up and its relatively easy accessbility and possibly the fact that its at a level of difficulty where you are virtually guaranteed hard racing - hard enough to be seriously selective but not so hard that the racing is conservative (as I fear may be the case on the Galibier next year). Its also fairly unremitting with little chance for recovery - the well engineered roads tend to smooth out the gradient so you get relatively little variation.

Done plenty more in the alps with particularly tough times on the northern side of the Colombier (harder than the south side of the Joux Plane - trust me!), the Casse Deserte side of the Izoard (interminable long grind early on then steep hairpins later) and Ventoux. I've never been overly troubled with the classic long climbs - the Iseran, Galibier and Bonnette are all fairly straightforward in my view - its all about pacing yourself on those climbs.

 

[CycloErgoSum]

I'm including a chapter on Lemond's doping in my latest book, Bladeless Knives Without Handles and Other Counterfactuals

It's right before the chapter on Texarse's incorruptible moral sense.

 

[Escarabajo]

In a way, this thread is one of the least useful and least productive of all time. Virtually meaningless.

Except that it has drawn more attention to the facts, which are:

1. There are no accusers who have come forward to support the poo slinging counterattacks of the una pelota fanaticas.
2. When the aforementioned fanatics who post the accusations are asked to substantiate their claims, they back pedal or scurry away like terrified rodents when a cat enters the room. Naturally, when someone mentions a lawyer, things get reallyquiet.

I have been in love with bicycles for thirty years. When I was a 9years young I bought my first ten speed. For the next ten years I rode various ten speeds around the army bases where I grew up for the pure speed and fun of it all. Call it a truly pure experience. I think of it that way.
When I was 17, I worked in a big bike shop in Dallas, where coincidentally a man named Greg Lemond came to visit after winning some bike race in France. I had no clue what professional bike racing meant before that. Lemond was my introduction, and it was one that painted the sport with a broad and bright stroke.
Now folks, down the road was another bike shop where a young kid named Lance Armstrong hung out. He and I were the same age. We went to rival high schools. (I finished.) Even then he had a reputation for being a bit brash. I really never heard a good thing about him.
Move forward ten years or so, and suddenly I find myself friends with him. We rode mountain bikes in the off-season. I built and repaired his bikes. Then I went to work for him. And during that time I quickly learned what pro cycling at that level was really about, and I was gutted to say the least. It almost ruined my enjoyment of the sport. During this period was the only time I ever heard anything bad about Greg Lemond, and it wasn't related to his doping, but rather his criticism of it. These comments came from only one source and was accompanied by a level of vitriol seen only when David Walsh's name came up.
Rather ironic, all of this talk of Greg Lemond taking PEDs. While he may not be perfect in his personal life, I believe firmly that his record as a cyclist is untarnished, and will remain that way until someone actually comes forward.
No one will.
Because it more than likely never happened.
I heard rumor after rumor about all sorts of things in the peloton.
Never about Greg Lemond doping.
Oddly enough that bright picture of the sport that he helped form in my mind as a young man is re-emerging, albeit after a bitter hiatus.
So, I'll add a few of you who keep slinging this nonsense to my ignore list; and will avoid feeding the trolls who clearly are trying to draw attention away from the real problem we've got.

If you are telling the truth, nice reading.

Thanks for sharing with us.

 

[Rydberg]

Those numbers have no context. The only way they really mean anything is if each of those climbs by each of those riders was hit at full gas and alone. On Alpe d'Huez, Lemond and Hinault in 1986 for instance had a big gap on the chasing riders and agreed to ride together. Much different than any of Pantani's or Armstrong's rides up the Alpe. How much faster could either of them have gone if they had/wanted to? Who knows? Also note that those two got away on the previous climb and had been out front working hard for a while before they got to the climb. On the other hand Armstrong and Pantani for the most part got free rides to the bottom when they raced it. I can't remember Indurain's ride(s) up the Alpe, but I suspect that he had more of an armchair ride than Lemond and Hinault, and probably needed to ride the Alpe hard to either follow attacks, try to take time, etc.

Well, what you say is interesting, but in the data I quoted, which was Lemond '89, he was trying to hold the yellow jersey (he failed) so he presumably rode up there as fast as he could. He did that in 43 minutes (1:19 behind Fignon). in 1989, it was a 161 km stage, over the Galibier and the Croix de fer; Fignon attacked only at the foot of the final climb. In 1994, the stage was longer, 224 km, but only two 2nd cat hill before hand. As a further reference, Indurain climbed about that fast in 1995, after the HC madelaine and Croix de fer, a 162 km stage that compares well with the '89 one. He was 2nd to Pantani that year.