Speech by Greg Lemond

[Animal]

There is a code of silence out there that should be broken (not by Lemond though, he has too many axes to grind).

Why not Lemond?

What axes?

He's retired, and he obviously loves the glorious sport.

 

[Mellow Velo]

what do we all think of lemond's idea for using power output numbers combined with blood value monitoring to declare someone a drug cheat?

A fine idea. Turn it into an exact science and get ride of the Marvel comic mentality.

A very entertaining, lively, if laughable thread.
Might be an idea to take 50 minutes off the keyboard and have a good listen to what Greg actually says

Seems less about being a Lance hater, takes more about American "French haters".

 

[Eldrack]

Honestly I think Lemond is talking out of his ............. It's my opinion that he was doped back when he raced, it's just that the dope wasn't as effective. I'm sure he's pretty jealous that Lance's routine scored him more TdF's and public accolades. Some of his idea's about how to catch dopers are good but he should really pipe down and let a slightly more credible figure push the anti-doping agenda.

 

[Velodrama]

Honestly I think Lemond is talking out of his ............. It's my opinion that he was doped back when he raced, it's just that the dope wasn't as effective. I'm sure he's pretty jealous that Lance's routine scored him more TdF's and public accolades. Some of his idea's about how to catch dopers are good but he should really pipe down and let a slightly more credible figure push the anti-doping agenda.

Who would you suggest? Lemond's credentials look pretty solid from where I'm sitting.

 

[Alpe d'Huez]

The real debate is lost in here. But the question remains. Is there a doping problem in cycling? I think very much so. I think almost everything Bernard Kohl recently said is true, and that current testing is painfully inept, and the system even more painfully corrupt. The other question is: What can we do about it?

Exactly how do you think they could catch the cheats?, and don't give me greg's cockamamie ideas. what can they do that they're not already doing?

Why do you think Greg's ideas are cockamamie exactly??? Keep in mind that Greg didn't think these up. The carbon monoxide test was proposed, as noted, by Michael Ashenden.

There are other ways than just CO to measure blood volume, though that would really do it.

Wattage would have to be profiled.

The other problem is that the UCI is woefully inept, and hypocritical in it's actions. And yes, corrupt. It needs to be completely flushed and overhauled, with completely independent testing implemented to clean up cycling.

The reason why Lance is the focus of so many attacks is because of his staunch insistence that he's clean and acting like doping isn't a real problem in the sport. At every opportunity he's upheld the omerta. He comes off like an arrogant *** and unrepentant doper to a lot of us. Some people find this admirable though I guess. The other reason why is because the majority of other people at or near the top suspected of highly doping have pretty much been caught, or like Denis Menchov, pretty much just keep quiet. Very quiet.

As commented on many, many times, the reason why O2 boosters are so heinous is the gains they yield are incredible. It's impossible to be clean and compete when everyone else is jacked on autologous blood doping, human identical EPO like Biopure, or plasma expanders, PFCEs and HBOCs, etc. There's a huge difference between this and amphetamines or cortisone, or even steroids used through the 80's. And while blood doping existed further back than the DDR's doping machine or Lasse Viren in the 1976 Olympics, it wasn't anywhere near as widespread or refined as it is now. Not even close. And it wasn't accepted as a normal way to compete, or necessity, as it is today.

I have to ask, if you're in mourning Jack, why in God's name are you here posting on this message board?

 

[Eldrack]

Who would you suggest? Lemond's credentials look pretty solid from where I'm sitting.

Lemond looses points on the credibility front simply by having been a professional cyclist during an era when doping was rife just perhaps not as effective as it is now. EPO had started to come in in the last couple of years of his career and blood transfusions where around as well. Everything we see suggests that cycling is broken from the inside out and so anyone who's come from the system is tainted in some way. You need to bring in someone from the outside who whilst understanding cycling hasn't been tainted by the omerta. Someone from WADA who isn't as much of an idiot as **** Pound was would be great. Drastic, yes, but necessary.

 

[Alpe d'Huez]

Some of his idea's about how to catch dopers are good but he should really pipe down and let a slightly more credible figure push the anti-doping agenda.

Who would you suggest? Lemond's credentials look pretty solid from where I'm sitting.

The big problem is, no one else will speak out against it, or when they do, they are ignored or have to remain anonymous.

When asked to be interviewed, Emma O'Reilly told David Walsh she feared for her safety when speaking to him. When people like Kohl speak out, he's labeled a liar by the UCI, and ignored by other governing bodies. David Walsh is smeared when he brings facts to attention. Frankie and Betsy Andreu were smeared, and shunned. When Michael Ashenden finally talked, he was almost completely ignored in the sporting and cycling world. It's only people like those of us on this site that keep bringing up what he said.

Andy from BikePure speaks out about doping, even on this website, and was at Greg's press conference. Does anyone listen to him? Support him? Want to hear what he has to say?

BigBoat comes on here and hits everyone over the head with a hammer about rampant doping in the sport. From what I can tell he's been a Cat 1 racer and a coach (maybe USA Cycling, but he won't verify), and he was called a troll by a lot of people. I'd love it if he revealed who he is, but I'm sure doing so would cost him work because of the omerta.

So, if you don't like Greg, who will you listen do about problems with doping and cleaning up the sport?

Eldrack - Please, look at 1990-1994 again. Greg went from being the Tour winner in impressive fashion in 1990, to finishing an hour behind the leaders on a mountain stage in 1992 and a DNF. That's what happened to Greg during that time of rampant doping.

 

[Eldrack]

He finished 7th in 1991 and then DNFed in 1992. Indurain finished 11th in 1996 then didn't race in 1997. Could list a whole load more riders who hit their peak and then declined rapidly but is there really any point? Attributing his decline to other people doping more isn't really going to stick, there are far too many other factors. I respect Lemond for his achievements as a rider but I think you're a bit naive if you think he was clean. If he admitted that he doped he'd have a bit more credibility.

 

[LugHugger]

Who would you suggest? Lemond's credentials look pretty solid from where I'm sitting.

.......+100% Lemond and Ashenden make a pretty credible team.

 

[elapid]

I've been trying to get as many details about it as possible but so far it just sounds like a scheme by which the actual riding of the bicycles becomes unimportant. The winners must be the ones with the best "numbers", and anyone who performs better than his numbers say he should is a cheat and disqualified so... might as well just skip the actual racing and hand out the awards following the lab tests each spring.

Read the TdF Physiology thread. It contains a published paper which discusses numbers.

 

[elapid]

a debatable conclusion. doing something for an advantage gives you and advantage. i don't see how you can conclude it didn't have an effect on results.



a debatable conclusion. 1993 uci world road racing champion, 2 time tour stage winner is pedigree. add a brush with death and chemo and you've got someone with displayed natural talent that's now motivated in a whole new way. i just saw what chemo did to my girlfriend's sister. are you convinced his body would have gone back to it's precancer state if not for some drug regime you seem convinced he was on? how do you account for the difference in his body post cancer. do you know of some drug cocktail that keeps your upper body from redeveloping?
lance probably did things other riders from his era were doing but if you think doctors and coaches took this poor sap with one testicle from the brink of oblivion and mediocrity, and using drugs alone turned him into secretariat... well, i know you're not nuts... but i'm not buying.
again NOT saying he's a chiorboy but i don't see how you outdope the competition to that degree. it's ludicrous.

C'mon, jackhammer. You have Coyle's paper - no loss in body weight or lean body weight. The whole body weight/composition argument is false and you know it. In regards to his pedigree, I agree Armstrong was a very good rider pre-Cancer ... but he was a very good one-day rider, he was no GT contender and he wasn't that flash in the TT either (funnily enough considering his triathlon background).

 

[TRDean]

I have stayed out of this...

but I would like to contribute my feelings. First, there is a doping problem in the peleton today. Also, I raced at a high level in the Netherlands/Belgium in the 80's..didn't make professoinal, but saw a lot. What I saw was guys doing a lot of "speed" type drugs. For instance a tablet under the back of your glove to be taken at a critical point in the race, or a needle placed under your shorts with some enhancer that when smacked with the palm of your hand went into your thigh and gave you a boost when you needed it. This was very common...and even more common in the bigger races that I did. So, performance enhancement was prevelant in the 80's and I have this through first hand knowledge. Now, that being said...the natural progression of science would necessitate that science would get better and that new and better ways of enhancement would be developed...and this has been shown. So of course riders are doing superhuman efforts now!!

What I don't understand from some of you guys is why LeMond is such a whiner and bad guy? More power to him!! Why can't he bring light to the doping issues in the peleton? I don't think it has anything to do with Armstrong winning 7 tours...it has to do with him not taking the crap that uniball deals out to people that cross him. The whole LeMond bike issue is a good case in point.

I want LeMond to keep up the good fight and take it to whom ever will listen...and if Armstrong doesn't like it he should have stayed retired.

Just my two cents...and I do agree...I get sick of people coming on here and making arguments while at the same time trying to strike sympathy with a cancer loss that is close to them. I would guess that most if not all of us have been affected by the disease!! jackhammer...I am sorry for your loss...but you can't be too upset as it looks like you have been on the board all night!!

 

[Non Grimpeur]

To me this debate comes down to personalities. An honest human being (Lemond) against a man that is obsessed with power and money(Armstrong).

I believe that Greg Lemond is a thoroughly decent human being who is extremely honest and knowledgeable about the sport of cycling. His knowledge is probably better than most contributors to this forum. I think that he is perhaps a little emotionally unstable but this is understanable given the experiences that he has faced in his life. His sporting achievements show him to be one of the best cyclists the world has ever seen.

Contrast this with Lance Armstrong. Pre-1999, he showed that he was an excellent one day racer and good at short stage races such as the Tour du Pont. He showed no ability whatsoever to compete in the mountain and time trial stages of the Tour de France. Although, it is my belief that he was competing against many riders who were using EPO.

In 1998, we have the Festina scandal and then the promised "tour of renewal"in 1999. 1998 was the fastest TDF ever to that date and was won by a rider who was later involved in doping allegations. Armstrong wins the 1999 TDF with a faster average speed and climbs the mountains as if he is going to the shops to buy a loaf of bread. 6 repeats later in front of riders who were later convicted of doping offences and there should be no surprises amongst any of the forum participants that Lance's achievements are questioned.

Lance's response? He acts like a playground bully and attempts to silence anyone that gets in his way. To talk about weight loss, pedalling styles and training regimes is an insult to the clean champions of the past. Lemond and Hampsten trained phenomenally hard and know what it takes to win clean. EPO and blood doping have destroyed the sport of cycling and other endurance sports. To have athletes flyng up mountains with their mouths shut is not credible. Thank goodness for decent people such as Greg Lemond, Andy Hampsten, David Walsh and Paul Kimmage. I wish them every success in their attempts to clean up cycling and level the playing field.

 

[Escarabajo]

but I would like to contribute my feelings. First, there is a doping problem in the peleton today. Also, I raced at a high level in the Netherlands/Belgium in the 80's..didn't make professoinal, but saw a lot. What I saw was guys doing a lot of "speed" type drugs. For instance a tablet under the back of your glove to be taken at a critical point in the race, or a needle placed under your shorts with some enhancer that when smacked with the palm of your hand went into your thigh and gave you a boost when you needed it. This was very common...and even more common in the bigger races that I did. So, performance enhancement was prevelant in the 80's and I have this through first hand knowledge. Now, that being said...the natural progression of science would necessitate that science would get better and that new and better ways of enhancement would be developed...and this has been shown. So of course riders are doing superhuman efforts now!!

What I don't understand from some of you guys is why LeMond is such a whiner and bad guy? More power to him!! Why can't he bring light to the doping issues in the peleton? I don't think it has anything to do with Armstrong winning 7 tours...it has to do with him not taking the crap that uniball deals out to people that cross him. The whole LeMond bike issue is a good case in point.

I want LeMond to keep up the good fight and take it to whom ever will listen...and if Armstrong doesn't like it he should have stayed retired.

Just my two cents...and I do agree...I get sick of people coming on here and making arguments while at the same time trying to strike sympathy with a cancer loss that is close to them. I would guess that most if not all of us have been affected by the disease!! jackhammer...I am sorry for your loss...but you can't be too upset as it looks like you have been on the board all night!!

Good summary. I appreciate your info.
Thanks.

 

[tifosa]

For the new round of drama unfolding between Lemond and Armstrong, we'll see peloton shenanigans used in the courtroom: lies, cheating, coercion, intimidation, bribery.

See, it's not so much a fact finding arena, or a truth seeking venue. Tort trials are less about justice and more about tipping the scales in a "fair" direction.

For Lemonds sake, I hope the scales tip his way (they've already tipped his way in regard to his weight - the dude is FAT!)

If anyone thought the Landis hearing was tawdry, I think this will shed a very bright light on these two cycling vestiges.

 

[Escarabajo]

The real debate is lost in here. But the question remains. Is there a doping problem in cycling? I think very much so. I think almost everything Bernard Kohl recently said is true, and that current testing is painfully inept, and the system even more painfully corrupt. The other question is: What can we do about it?



Why do you think Greg's ideas are cockamamie exactly??? Keep in mind that Greg didn't think these up. The carbon monoxide test was proposed, as noted, by Michael Ashenden.

There are other ways than just CO to measure blood volume, though that would really do it.

Wattage would have to be profiled.

The other problem is that the UCI is woefully inept, and hypocritical in it's actions. And yes, corrupt. It needs to be completely flushed and overhauled, with completely independent testing implemented to clean up cycling.

The reason why Lance is the focus of so many attacks is because of his staunch insistence that he's clean and acting like doping isn't a real problem in the sport. At every opportunity he's upheld the omerta. He comes off like an arrogant *** and unrepentant doper to a lot of us. Some people find this admirable though I guess. The other reason why is because the majority of other people at or near the top suspected of highly doping have pretty much been caught, or like Denis Menchov, pretty much just keep quiet. Very quiet.

As commented on many, many times, the reason why O2 boosters are so heinous is the gains they yield are incredible. It's impossible to be clean and compete when everyone else is jacked on autologous blood doping, human identical EPO like Biopure, or plasma expanders, PFCEs and HBOCs, etc. There's a huge difference between this and amphetamines or cortisone, or even steroids used through the 80's. And while blood doping existed further back than the DDR's doping machine or Lasse Viren in the 1976 Olympics, it wasn't anywhere near as widespread or refined as it is now. Not even close. And it wasn't accepted as a normal way to compete, or necessity, as it is today.

I have to ask, if you're in mourning Jack, why in God's name are you here posting on this message board?

Excellent summary. But take into account that these other forists were trying to sell me the idea that even in the 80's during the stage races they were doing blood doping??? I don't know about the logistics of it but it would look very funny that these riders were going from hotel to hotel with fridges and blood bags. Not to mention that they were probably doing it wrong because we can see a huge difference in speed between the 80's and the 90's in the big mountains.

 

[Escarabajo]

The real debate is lost in here. But the question remains. Is there a doping problem in cycling? I think very much so. I think almost everything Bernard Kohl recently said is true, and that current testing is painfully inept, and the system even more painfully corrupt. The other question is: What can we do about it?



Why do you think Greg's ideas are cockamamie exactly??? Keep in mind that Greg didn't think these up. The carbon monoxide test was proposed, as noted, by Michael Ashenden.

There are other ways than just CO to measure blood volume, though that would really do it.

Wattage would have to be profiled.

The other problem is that the UCI is woefully inept, and hypocritical in it's actions. And yes, corrupt. It needs to be completely flushed and overhauled, with completely independent testing implemented to clean up cycling.

The reason why Lance is the focus of so many attacks is because of his staunch insistence that he's clean and acting like doping isn't a real problem in the sport. At every opportunity he's upheld the omerta. He comes off like an arrogant *** and unrepentant doper to a lot of us. Some people find this admirable though I guess. The other reason why is because the majority of other people at or near the top suspected of highly doping have pretty much been caught, or like Denis Menchov, pretty much just keep quiet. Very quiet.

As commented on many, many times, the reason why O2 boosters are so heinous is the gains they yield are incredible. It's impossible to be clean and compete when everyone else is jacked on autologous blood doping, human identical EPO like Biopure, or plasma expanders, PFCEs and HBOCs, etc. There's a huge difference between this and amphetamines or cortisone, or even steroids used through the 80's. And while blood doping existed further back than the DDR's doping machine or Lasse Viren in the 1976 Olympics, it wasn't anywhere near as widespread or refined as it is now. Not even close. And it wasn't accepted as a normal way to compete, or necessity, as it is today.

I have to ask, if you're in mourning Jack, why in God's name are you here posting on this message board?

Great summary.

 

[Anonymous]

The real debate is lost in here. But the question remains. Is there a doping problem in cycling? I think very much so. I think almost everything Bernard Kohl recently said is true, and that current testing is painfully inept, and the system even more painfully corrupt. The other question is: What can we do about it?

even if kohl things everything he's saying is true it doesn't make it so unless he's more all seeing and all knowing than i expect he his. i'm glad he's being frank but i think he's exaggeration.

Why do you think Greg's ideas are cockamamie exactly???

i think if you ask doping experts they'll say that designing testing programs that will withstand legal challenges is a major difficulty. i think we see that with the blood passport program now. i think they are trying to be careful that they have everything right before they come after someone. this coming monday should be interesting.
i think the power tap idea opens up a technical and legal can of worms.

The other problem is that the UCI is woefully inept, and hypocritical in it's actions. And yes, corrupt. It needs to be completely flushed and overhauled, with completely independent testing implemented to clean up cycling.

if you are that cynical i don't even see how you can justify being a fan.

The reason why Lance is the focus of so many attacks is because of his staunch insistence that he's clean and acting like doping isn't a real problem in the sport.

admiting he doped would be kind of stupid don't you think? what high profile rider that is never caught ever does that? they all deny, most deny even after being caught.

I have to ask, if you're in mourning Jack, why in God's name are you here posting on this message board?

that question is very personal.
do you know of the concept of distraction?
and then there's lance as a cancer victim, and his foundation.

 

[Non Grimpeur]

admiting he doped would be kind of stupid don't you think? what high profile rider that is never caught ever does that? they all deny, most deny even after being caught.




Bjarne Riis springs to mind as a rider who was never caught who later confessed.

 

[schadenfreude]

admiting he doped would be kind of stupid don't you think? what high profile rider that is never caught ever does that? they all deny, most deny even after being caught.




Bjarne Riis springs to mind as a rider who was never caught who later confessed.

zabel. xxxxxxxxx

 

[Escarabajo]

zabel. xxxxxxxxx

Correct. And who was that famous rider that won the Tour de France that indicated that it was near impossible to win the Tour with just "bread and water"?

 

[Velodrama]

Correct. And who was that famous rider that won the Tour de France that indicated that it was near impossible to win the Tour with just "bread and water"?

Jacques Anquetil (unless my memory is playing tricks!).

 

[stephens]

"You'd get a continuous output of power recorded during a Tour stage and then if you found someone who had a VO2 Max of 80 and he was doing 500 watts for 30 minutes, you'd know that that was statistically and mathematically impossible to do. So then he's positive – boom! – he's out – that's doping. That's it – it's simple."

The big problem I have with statements like this is: how do we know for sure what someone's VO2 Max is? How do you test that in a fair way? And are the assumptions you make from that test really applicable on race day, in the heat of the battle? Is there absolutely no room for anyone to perform on race day better than in a lab test? Come on...

It's also quite clear that two people can have the same V02 max but one guy can ride 5mph faster before he hits his vo2 max than the other guy or operate at his vo2 max for much longer than the other guy is capable of 'suffering' through. Maybe one guy is better at dealing with lactate and lactic acid than another. Are we going to measure everyone's lactate/anerobic threshold and how they perform at that also? In a lab? Is that accurate compared to months later under the physical and mental conditions of an actual race? Some doctors don't even believe in threshold and think lactate accumulation is continuous, ...blah, blah, blah... the whole thing is such a mess.

 

[nobody]

A rider don't improve much in a few time. If his VO2max was not good measured, it could be not a problem because with many datas of different races we can see his real values.
That is like biopassport, a training period is needed before using it at 100%.

Today, riders receive a blood injection and increase thei power from 5 to 10% in 2 days. Easy to detect with a such measurement.

 

[ElChingon]

zabel. xxxxxxxxx

The whole '96 Telekom team!