Reason for Lemond's decline

Page 2 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Mar 12, 2009
349
0
0
issoisso said:
Quite right. That Induráin "came out of nowhere" is an often repeated myth.

It's quite the opposite: by the time he finally won a mountain stage 1990, people had been saying for a while that he was taking so long to fulfill his tremendous promise, that quite possibly he would end up never fulfilling it.

If I remember correctly, a lot of pretty knowledgable people thought Indurain would have won the 90 Tour if he hadn't worn himself out towing a fading Delgado around France. Indurain had enough class to say that he wasn't ready to be the leader in 90.
 
BigBoat said:
I've no doubt Hamsten used epo for his Alpe D'Huez win in 1992. E-P-O! Lemond couldnt even finish that Tour.
Based on....speed alone?

Franklin said:
So no, Miguel Indurain wasn't a surprise at all.
Good post, Franklin.

As I said (like three times?!) he was a huge talent, EPO or not. Take away all doping and the difference would have been minor in his accomplishments.

A lot of people thought it would be Erik Breukink who seriously challenged Greg in 1991, but PDM got sick and he dropped. When Mig turned out to be the real challenger it wasn't "out of nowhere". He was looked upon as an up and coming star, who fulfilled his destiny with perhaps a little more jump than some expected, but not that much. A lot of people were expecting him to podium the 1991 Tour. Instead he won it.
 
marinoni said:
Mad? Nah, I'm a big boy. Thanks for the other perspective. The US network showing the Tour back then wasn't over the top like Versus is with Lance "fancy legs" but still, you weren't going to hear any criticism of Lemond there.
As for the Columbian riders, yeah what was up with that? It never seemed like they were accepted by the rest of the peloton or the cycling establishment. Pretty strange considering how good Lucho Herrera, Parra and the others were.
I felt the Colombians were pretty well liked in Europe. At the beginning they had trouble handling the bikes with the pros in the big peloton. There were points in which they embarked in fist fights against other Europeans because they didn't want them around because of the lack of bike handling abilities. Other than that they fitted pretty well with the European peloton. They fitted so well that even Bernard Hinault used Herrera in two stages in the 1985 tour to tow him up the mountains. In one of them, the one which Stephen Roche won, some people in the media even thought that Hinault was paying Herrera "under the table" to help him. He was very afraid that Greg Lemond was going to dump him in the mountains. I remember a nice picture taken from that stage which became a popular poster because there was a breakaway with 7 number ones on the back of the jerseys with Greg Lemond being the only exception. It kind of symbolized the importance of the number 1 as being the team leader. “Winning” Magazine showed it so many times. Those were good memories.

As for the 90's is concerned, EPO basically killed the Colombian cycling. Maybe the main reason would be money. Even now the Sponsors can not digest how much money they have to invest to form a pro-tour team. Maybe the doctors are getting too expensive. Herrera retired in 1992, when he was 31 years old, most likely because of the arrival of EPO. He probably felt that he didn’t have an advantage anymore. Plus he was getting old. After his retirement only very few prospered in Europe. There was a good Colombian rider that was going to be a good promise for the Country, who rode with Armstrong in Motorola. His name is Alvaro Mejia. He could only manage forth in the 1993 tour. Armstrong said that he lacked the tenacity to be a big leader. Who knows what they were up to that year. Other notable Colombians from the 90’s were Oliverio Rincon, Herman Buenahora, Victor Hugo Peña, Santiago Botero and the last one being Mauricio Soler.

Well, I hope there will be better years for the Colombian cycling in the future. I am very positive about the future of cycling. One can only hope.

I hope I didn’t bore anyone with the story.
Thanks
 

Dr. Maserati

BANNED
Jun 19, 2009
13,250
1
0
issoisso said:
Quite right. That Induráin "came out of nowhere" is an often repeated myth.

It's quite the opposite: by the time he finally won a mountain stage 1990, people had been saying for a while that he was taking so long to fulfill his tremendous promise, that quite possibly he would end up never fulfilling it.

That is exactly it! It seems like a lot on here were reading 'Winning' too :)

Indurain was looked as the likely successor to Delgado- but Delgado was still the Reynolds team No1.
Indurain was set to serve his apprenticeship in the Vuelta, but he never won that and it looked as though his physical performance had peaked.

I remember just a week before the Tour in 91 a friend asked me if I thought Indurain would win the Tour, I remember saying that a Vuelta victory may be possible but I added "Indurain will never win the Tour"....
 
Mar 19, 2009
1,311
0
0
BroDeal said:
Ha! Based upon typical BB BS, no doubt. (Beavis laugh)

I expect that soon BB will be telling us that Christophe Bassons was super jacked.

BB's over the top BS discredits everyone on this side of the fence.

Its an internet message board forum. Take a lighter path towards amusement bro. :) Its not a "war" there are no "sides."


:)
 
BigBoat said:
You gotta be kidding...Snide!
I figured you were either saying that, or you were actually there and collected some coke cans in the hotel dumpster that year. ;)

Great post Escarabajo. Nice list of names there. I think you are right about Herrera. What a great climber he was. Another whose career was cut short.

Yes, I used to subscribe to Winning! I loved that mag.
 
May 5, 2009
125
0
0
So, I have a question for everyone. We're saying that Lemond began to fade because everyone else started doping.

Why the assumption that Lemond didn't? If we assume everyone else started to, is the only reason you believe he didn't is because he says so? I am sure most of you are the same people who don't believe others who currently say that they don't dope. So, why is Lemond's word so solid, yet everyone else is a liar? I would submit that his behavior doesn't lend itself to credibility over the last 5+ years or so.
 
Mar 13, 2009
16,854
1
0
colwildcat said:
So, I have a question for everyone. We're saying that Lemond began to fade because everyone else started doping.

Why the assumption that Lemond didn't? If we assume everyone else started to, is the only reason you believe he didn't is because he says so? I am sure most of you are the same people who don't believe others who currently say that they don't dope. So, why is Lemond's word so solid, yet everyone else is a liar? I would submit that his behavior doesn't lend itself to credibility over the last 5+ years or so.
EPO was the game changer Colwildcat.

If you investigate what a well prepared PED program with O2 delivery enhancment can give, and there are reports of north of 20% FTP, then you quickly realise, that if you do not have that enhancement, you cannot compete in a selective race.

He went from quite superior, to quite inferior, in the era that EPO introduced itself into the peloton.

If you cannot get that theory, you have no chance. Do a little research.
 
Alpe d'Huez said:
Yes, I used to subscribe to Winning! I loved that mag.

I used to read Winning 90-93, a must have really but then Cycle Sport magazine appeared and was on another level but I still picked up Winning occasionally.

Maybe, us oldies should form our own club called 'The Winning club' LOL

I am sure I read a quote from Lucho Herrera saying he knew things had changed when "guys with fat bu**s started dropping him in the mountains" Could have been referring to Big Mig?

In the 80s, the Colombians had a reputation for poor bike handling. Robert Millar again in his Cycle Sport retirement issue gave his worst descender award to Fabio Parra with his usual dry humour "Parra as in parachute, if there was a stack, you could be guranteed Fabio would be at the bottom of it"

Wasnt Alvaro Mejia left teamless in 93 when the proposed team imploded, then picked up by Motorola halfway through the season, eliminated in his first race at Romandy but then finished 4th at the Tour. Now thats a comeback.

Again I think LeMonds decline was a combination of factors, not just doping. I beleve EPO usuage gradually increased from 91-93 but by 94-95, everybody was on it.

Been great chewing the fat about old times, lets do it again.
 
colwildcat said:
So, I have a question for everyone. We're saying that Lemond began to fade because everyone else started doping.

Why the assumption that Lemond didn't? If we assume everyone else started to, is the only reason you believe he didn't is because he says so? I am sure most of you are the same people who don't believe others who currently say that they don't dope. So, why is Lemond's word so solid, yet everyone else is a liar? I would submit that his behavior doesn't lend itself to credibility over the last 5+ years or so.
I really am not sure if you read all the posts on this thread. Your affirmation is not in accordance with what has been said in this thread. From what I take it was actually a combination of EPO and something else. What is that "something else" means? go and read the posts again.
Thanks.
 
May 5, 2009
125
0
0
blackcat said:
EPO was the game changer Colwildcat.

If you investigate what a well prepared PED program with O2 delivery enhancment can give, and there are reports of north of 20% FTP, then you quickly realise, that if you do not have that enhancement, you cannot compete in a selective race.

He went from quite superior, to quite inferior, in the era that EPO introduced itself into the peloton.

If you cannot get that theory, you have no chance. Do a little research.

I get what you're saying, and yes, I understand that riders using EPO have a huge advantage.

But, what I don't get, is why we assume he never doped or cheated. That seems to be the underlying assumption. Maybe he was less effective at doping, maybe even doping couldn't keep up with the fact that his conditioning, work ethic, after affects of his hunting accident, etc put him on the decline.

I've just always had a problem with people who assume every other Tour winner dopes but Lemond is somehow squeaky clean and above reproach.
 
Mar 19, 2009
1,311
0
0
colwildcat said:
I get what you're saying, and yes, I understand that riders using EPO have a huge advantage.

But, what I don't get, is why we assume he never doped or cheated. That seems to be the underlying assumption. Maybe he was less effective at doping, maybe even doping couldn't keep up with the fact that his conditioning, work ethic, after affects of his hunting accident, etc put him on the decline.

I've just always had a problem with people who assume every other Tour winner dopes but Lemond is somehow squeaky clean and above reproach.

Lemond I think missed the epo boat for sure...but yes, its possible he could have used corticos from time to time and that can be impressive the boost those give. Its obvious to everybody with a few active brain cell that using epo is doping. But maybe lemond viewed the cortisone as "medicine" and "therapy" for his knee problem and not did not understand it was doping. Corticoids are probably the 2nd biggest gain you get besides a high crit on epo or blood doping.

Lemond might have learned more and stopped the corticos... Although I think he was not on them often, its tough to tell unless Lemond spoke about it. I'm speculating on not much here tho, he might not have used them for his tour wins.
 
Mar 13, 2009
16,854
1
0
colwildcat said:
I get what you're saying, and yes, I understand that riders using EPO have a huge advantage.

But, what I don't get, is why we assume he never doped or cheated. That seems to be the underlying assumption. Maybe he was less effective at doping, maybe even doping couldn't keep up with the fact that his conditioning, work ethic, after affects of his hunting accident, etc put him on the decline.

I've just always had a problem with people who assume every other Tour winner dopes but Lemond is somehow squeaky clean and above reproach.
you actually come off as one from the Armstrong flaks megaphone mass email, to come out and place doubt on Lemond to mitigate Armstrong's doping.

There is a pretty simple logic in the assumption if Lemond was that type, and doped, he would not forgoe the advantage EPO offered. Fignon is a counterweight to this however, he took other things, but did not want this.

But, you cannot prove a negative.

Personally, I am indifferent. Lemond doped or he did not, and only his handlers and those close to him will know.

So, it is pretty moot.

But to try and mitigate Armstrong's ways, by doubting Lemond, is poor form.

The action goes
1. I have never doped
2. I have never tested positive
3. They all dope.
4. Lemond doped.

Sort of fails at the first point, no need to read on. Moot point if Lemond did or did not take corticosteroids, but we know Armstrong did. Moot point if Lemond did or did not take EPO. But we know Armstrong did.
 
colwildcat said:
I get what you're saying, and yes, I understand that riders using EPO have a huge advantage.

But, what I don't get, is why we assume he never doped or cheated. That seems to be the underlying assumption. Maybe he was less effective at doping, maybe even doping couldn't keep up with the fact that his conditioning, work ethic, after affects of his hunting accident, etc put him on the decline.

I've just always had a problem with people who assume every other Tour winner dopes but Lemond is somehow squeaky clean and above reproach.
I don't care if he used other products, but if he did not use EPO he was out. EPO is a lot more superior advantage than other products. Look at Fignon who just recently accepted using amphetamines throughout his career and could not keep up with the others when the EPO was just becoming rampant in the Peloton. Fignon also accepted that he did not want to take EPO so he no longer had a leg up on the competition. Shortly after he retired.

It is EPO what makes the big difference. Other products matter of course but not to the extent that EPO does. You can just Google away the internet on this topic. In this forum itself if has been discussed 1 million times. Sorry I don't have the references.

There is a list of riders whose career has been cut short because of not wanting to take EPO. Fignon, Herrera, Mottet, Gilles Delion, etc, etc, etc. Lemond is not in the list just because he did not retired and continued stubbornly to ride against EPO dopers.

http://books.google.com/books?id=vn...yoXCAg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1
 
Mar 19, 2009
1,311
0
0
blackcat said:
The action goes
1. I have never doped
2. I have never tested positive
3. They all dope.
4. Lemond doped.

Sort of fails at the first point, no need to read on. Moot point if Lemond did or did not take corticosteroids, but we know Armstrong did. Moot point if Lemond did or did not take EPO. But we know Armstrong did.

Yeah I always wondered about that from Lance...It sort of locks everybody on the sinking ship. Time will tell what will come from all of this. I think there's a lot of people pis$ed off at Lance, and his ex wife tried not to testify which is interesting. There is a big legal battle going on.
 
May 5, 2009
125
0
0
blackcat said:
you actually come off as one from the Armstrong flaks megaphone mass email, to come out and place doubt on Lemond to mitigate Armstrong's doping.

There is a pretty simple logic in the assumption if Lemond was that type, and doped, he would not forgoe the advantage EPO offered. Fignon is a counterweight to this however, he took other things, but did not want this.

But, you cannot prove a negative.

Personally, I am indifferent. Lemond doped or he did not, and only his handlers and those close to him will know.

So, it is pretty moot.

But to try and mitigate Armstrong's ways, by doubting Lemond, is poor form.

The action goes
1. I have never doped
2. I have never tested positive
3. They all dope.
4. Lemond doped.

Sort of fails at the first point, no need to read on. Moot point if Lemond did or did not take corticosteroids, but we know Armstrong did. Moot point if Lemond did or did not take EPO. But we know Armstrong did.

My post has nothing to do with my opinions on Armstrong. That was not my point. My point was on Lemond himself. Lemond attacks the peloton with impunity, the fact that he chooses to remain fixated on Armstrong strikes me as pathetic and desperate. He says that nobody can win without doping or cheating, yet maintains that he did.

So, he's either so insanely talented that he was the last clean rider to ever win a major bike race, or he's a douche bag. I'll go with the latter, in my humble opinion.
 
I tend to side with BigBoat here. I wouldn't be too surprised if Lemond took corticoides while riding for Guimard, or under that, as "medicine" for injuries. Maybe he didn't. Maybe he were told they were vitamin B, who knows. But he wasn't on EPO, blood doping, amphetamines or steroids.

By all accounts, from many riders, teammates, DS's, etc. Lemond was if not entirely clean, very close to it. He's never been seriously accused or involved in any doping situation of any sort. LaVie Clare DS Paul Kochli was anti-doping, and didn't want corticoids or doping products of any sort even around his team. This has been verified by many. The team was sponsored by a health food chain, and wanted no problems, and Kochli agreed.

Next, despite what people wonder, from about 1975-1990 things were relatively clean in the peloton. Relatively. You did have riders on amphetamines and corticoids, and eventually steroids. But those simply don't give you the gains that O2 boosters do. More like 2-3%, and yes, Lemond was that much more talented. So was Hinault. When Delgado tested positive for probenicid in that strange set of circumstances in 1988, it was widely assumed not that he was on steroids or testosterone like Floyd was microdosing, but that Delgado had taken something in the early season to keep his strength up, and they gave him the probenicid "just in case" because it wasn't on the list yet. Steroids were thought back then to build too much muscle too easily. It really wasn't until a decade later that they were commonly accepted as really helping endurance athletes on a frequent basis. People talk about the 1984 Olympic team blood doping, or Lasse Viren, Waldemir Cirpinski or the DDR using blood packing. This was definitely true, but no where near as sophisticated as it has been in cycling in recent years. Not even close. What cyclists blood doping there were back then, were very isolated, and likely minimal.

Armstrong fans dismiss this, but to me there is a certain ring of truth in listening to Lemond talk now that appears genuine and can't be faked. Again, not saying he was whistle clean, maybe he was, but he knew what was going on, still has some connections, and is a very good student of the sport. I think the vast majority of what he says is accurate.

Good philosophical post Blackcat. Aristotle would call that the false syllogism.
 
Jun 15, 2009
8,529
1
0
colwildcat said:
So, he's either so insanely talented that he was the last clean rider to ever win a major bike race, or he's a douche bag. I'll go with the latter, in my humble opinion.

Oh then you are complete wrong. The way he speaks out against doping, the way he raced fair, this was your true champion.

Now compare him to Lance: The keeper of omerta, never speaking out against doping, destroying the lives of (or calling them names or acting disgraceful against) Simeoni, Bassons, Andreu, Emma OReilly, Kimmage, Sastre, Vandevelde, Lemond, not playing fair (2003 Ullrich waited for him, he attacks), being arrogant (giving Pantani a stage and then telling the whole world, that is public humiliation), sayings against whole france (that is disrespectful)... and above all 8 times positiv (zero for Lemond): 6xEpo 1999, 1xCortico 1999, not allowing testers test him 2009...

You cheer for the wrong guy.
 
Mar 19, 2009
1,311
0
0
So, he's either so insanely talented that he was the last clean rider to ever win a major bike race, or he's a douche bag. I'll go with the latter, in my humble opinion.

I agree

-Lemond is a Douchbag
-Lemond doped
-Lemond is fat, ugly & old
-Lemond gave away his bikes to some people, defrauding him & Trek
-Lemond hurt Trek (sponsor of American Texas Longhorn great Armstrong)
-Lemond attacks the whole Peloton (who are all clean)
-Lemond only singles out Armstrong which is deplorable and unfair
-Lemond sucked as a rider compared to Armstrong
-Lemond sues constantly
-Lemond is crazy because he said he was sexually abused
-Lemond unfairly attacked Floyd Landis who was a victim
-

-Lance never tested positive
-Lance fights cancer
-Lance won the Tour 7 times
-Lance dated Kate and Ashley
-Lance has wonderful children
-Lances new girlfriend is a good mentor to Taylor Phinney
-Lance had another cute child with a cool new woman
-Lance is a good teacher to Taylor Phinney on how to go fast
-Lance helps USA Cycling grow
-Lance look good
-Lance helped his teamate George Hincapie many times
-Lance is from Texas and that looks good for bicycle racing which is most popular among Young Urban Professionals in Eastern metropolitan areas and California (san diego, LA)
-Lance respects Alberto Contador who of course is a cool clean rider
-Lance helped the UCI pay for the EPO test in 2000 which shows he is anti-doping
-Lance works with Chris Carmichael who specializes in top training programs far superior to hacks like Coggan, Allen
-Lance has come back to kick A$$!

Livestrong bros! Bro, fins a long climb to ride in the rain day after day...You dont ever need drugs to race at the top. In fact, if you cant make it into the Tour de France without dope it means you suck and are just not as talented.
 
Alpe d'Huez said:
I tend to side with BigBoat here. I wouldn't be too surprised if Lemond took corticoides while riding for Guimard, or under that, as "medicine" for injuries. Maybe he didn't. Maybe he were told they were vitamin B, who knows. But he wasn't on EPO, blood doping, amphetamines or steroids.

By all accounts, from many riders, teammates, DS's, etc. Lemond was if not entirely clean, very close to it. He's never been seriously accused or involved in any doping situation of any sort. LaVie Clare DS Paul Kochli was anti-doping, and didn't want corticoids or doping products of any sort even around his team. This has been verified by many. The team was sponsored by a health food chain, and wanted no problems, and Kochli agreed.

Next, despite what people wonder, from about 1975-1990 things were relatively clean in the peloton. Relatively. You did have riders on amphetamines and corticoids, and eventually steroids. But those simply don't give you the gains that O2 boosters do. More like 2-3%, and yes, Lemond was that much more talented. So was Hinault. When Delgado tested positive for probenicid in that strange set of circumstances in 1988, it was widely assumed not that he was on steroids or testosterone like Floyd was microdosing, but that Delgado had taken something in the early season to keep his strength up, and they gave him the probenicid "just in case" because it wasn't on the list yet. Steroids were thought back then to build too much muscle too easily. It really wasn't until a decade later that they were commonly accepted as really helping endurance athletes on a frequent basis. People talk about the 1984 Olympic team blood doping, or Lasse Viren, Waldemir Cirpinski or the DDR using blood packing. This was definitely true, but no where near as sophisticated as it has been in cycling in recent years. Not even close. What cyclists blood doping there were back then, were very isolated, and likely minimal.

Armstrong fans dismiss this, but to me there is a certain ring of truth in listening to Lemond talk now that appears genuine and can't be faked. Again, not saying he was whistle clean, maybe he was, but he knew what was going on, still has some connections, and is a very good student of the sport. I think the vast majority of what he says is accurate.

Good philosophical post Blackcat. Aristotle would call that the false syllogism.
Nice summary Alpe.

It looks to me that even if we provide links, information, riders interviews from the past, power output numbers, etc, etc, etc, nothing is going to matter to this Lance Armstrong lovers. Do you know why? Because now I am starting to realize that they don't know much about cycling. They are just acting like they have an “Agenda”. Jackhammer was the same way. The only reason Jack put some interest in cycling was just to put us down. He didn't really care just like these others. Again they have an Agenda.

Before I joined this forum I did not have any feelings for Lance Armstrong. Look at my posts. I actually have never bashed Lance Armstrong. Only stated few times that He doped and that’s it. I was pretty much neutral. But after listening to so many ignorant people talk nonsense about Lance, they have pushed me to the other side of not liking him. They are just relentless.

Well I felt like I wanted to express my feelings.
Keep posting like this, don't give up
 
May 5, 2009
125
0
0
BigBoat said:
I agree

-Lemond is a Douchbag
-Lemond doped
-Lemond is fat, ugly & old
-Lemond gave away his bikes to some people, defrauding him & Trek
-Lemond hurt Trek (sponsor of American Texas Longhorn great Armstrong)
-Lemond attacks the whole Peloton (who are all clean)
-Lemond only singles out Armstrong which is deplorable and unfair
-Lemond sucked as a rider compared to Armstrong
-Lemond sues constantly
-Lemond is crazy because he said he was sexually abused
-Lemond unfairly attacked Floyd Landis who was a victim
-

-Lance never tested positive
-Lance fights cancer
-Lance won the Tour 7 times
-Lance dated Kate and Ashley
-Lance has wonderful children
-Lances new girlfriend is a good mentor to Taylor Phinney
-Lance had another cute child with a cool new woman
-Lance is a good teacher to Taylor Phinney on how to go fast
-Lance helps USA Cycling grow
-Lance look good
-Lance helped his teamate George Hincapie many times
-Lance is from Texas and that looks good for bicycle racing which is most popular among Young Urban Professionals in Eastern metropolitan areas and California (san diego, LA)
-Lance respects Alberto Contador who of course is a cool clean rider
-Lance helped the UCI pay for the EPO test in 2000 which shows he is anti-doping
-Lance works with Chris Carmichael who specializes in top training programs far superior to hacks like Coggan, Allen
-Lance has come back to kick A$$!

Livestrong bros! Bro, fins a long climb to ride in the rain day after day...You dont ever need drugs to race at the top. In fact, if you cant make it into the Tour de France without dope it means you suck and are just not as talented.


Wow. Go back and read my posts here. They had nothing to do with Armstrong. So, you're saying it's impossible to dislike Lemond unless you're an Armstrong fanboy, is that it? I think there are those of us that are big enough adults to let more than the one-sided fued between Lemond and Armstrong form our opinions of the man. I can't stand him, whether or not he attacks Lance, or whether or not Lance ever doped. They are not irreparably linked in my book.

To me, he is a man who is bitter and angry about a lot of things. Whether it's the abuse in his past, the fact that he can't move on from the days he was a champion, etc, he comes across to me as desperate to stay in the news and believes the whole world is out to get him.

You may have an anti-Lance agenda here, I sure don't have a pro Lance agenda. Just can't stand Lemond, that's all.