Tadej Pogacar and Mauro Giannetti

[Extinction]

I don't know, because we never got any evidence. Do you want my answer or do you want me to just agree with you?

Yours is a false objectivity. You took access to Bruyneel, implying Lemond was not credible, on lack of evidence. So you seem to think Bruyneel has more credibility. Otherwise, why would you have have brought it up, if not to cast Lemond under suspicion? You are paying a game of deceit. Why don't you own up to this? The Belgian presents no evidence either, but who was involved in the biggest cycling scandal ever? Johan is bitter because Greg started the serious doubts over Armstrong that ultimately brought them down. And now he casts aspersions, because he still can't deal with it. Always a war to fight. It says volumes about how he and Lance bonded so well. So I ask again, what motive did Lemond have at the time to falsify his value? And what motive does Bruyneel now have in denouncing it as a hoax?

 

[Krzysztof_O]

@Extinction

Percent utilization of VO2 max at 5-km competition velocity does not determine time performance at 5 km among elite distance runners - PubMed

The present study investigated to what extent maximum oxygen uptake (VO2 max) and fractional utilization (%VO2 max) in 5-km competition speed correlate with 5-km performance times among elite long distance runners. Eight elite long distance runners with 5-km performance times of 15.10 minutes (...

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

It's about runners but it basically says that 5 km performance is very strongly related to VO2max even in strong runners group (and there was no relation to percentage utilization). Max. efforts lasting i.e. 10-15 minutes are basically VO2max execution for most of its duration (except the first couple of minutes, where anaerobic component is still substantial) so in this case the relation between VO2max and performance is strong.

We never saw LeMond doing crazy watts (comparable to nowadays) on a 15 minute climb, I guess.

 

[vappaxbipmv]

Yours is a false objectivity. You took access to Bruyneel, implying Lemond was not credible, on lack of evidence. So you seem to think Bruyneel has more credibility. Otherwise, why would you have have brought it up, if not to cast Lemond under suspicion. You are paying a game of deceit. Why don't you own up to this? The Belgian presents no evidence either, but who was involved in the biggest cycling scandal ever? Johan is bitter because Greg started the serious doubts over Armstrong that ultimately brought them down. And now he casts aspersions, because he still can't deal with it. Always a war to fight. It says volumes about how he and Lance bonded so well. So I ask again, what motive did Lemond have at the time to falsify his value? And what motive does Bruyneel now have in denouncing it as a hoax?

Do you even understand what I'm doing here? I'm not trusting Lemond's words and words alone regardless of Bruyneel. Even if Johann never said anything at all, Greg still provided 0 evidence to support his claims. That is what I have a problem with, not the fact that Johann disagrees with him. Because the alternative is to blindfully trust every single thing anyone ever said without evidence

 

[Extinction]

He likely didnt in his prime, before the quickening of the early 90s

Lemond was gone after winning the 90 Tour, he wasn't competative thereafter. His decline, apart from the led poisoning, coincided with the rise of EPO use in the peloton. Indurain took off in 91, having gotten the boost. Perhaps he was already charged in 89-90, but it was still in the experimental phase and he was still working for Delgado.

 

[Extinction]

Do you even understand what I'm doing here? I'm not trusting Lemond's words and words alone regardless of Bruyneel. Even if Johann never said anything at all, Greg still provided 0 evidence to support his claims. That is what I have a problem with, not the fact that Johann disagrees with him. Because the alternative is to blindfully trust every single thing anyone ever said without evidence

I think I do. Your real aim is to cast doubt on Lemond. You tacitly admit this by saying "Greg still provided 0 evidence to support his claims." What do you want Greg to do 40 years later? Pull out the results from a test? He was in his twenties being tested by the team for fitness. He gave no thought of keeping records for posterity's sake, to defend himself from Bruyneel of all people. I'm sure Bruyneel was also tested during his career, but doubtless did not have values to brag about. Does he still have the spread sheets?

At any rate, this is what Lemond said about the matter in an interview years ago:

Chairman Bill: Before we begin exploring your cycling career, I would like the reader to understand the extraordinary physical talent you possessed. At the risk of asking you to brag, I believe you know what the numbers are that defined your ability to perform work: VO2 max, wattage, etc. What were they and how did they compare to the population in general and to the professional peloton when you were racing?
Greg LeMond: In the 80s when I was racing we did VO2 Max testing, but it was to see the physical fitness. My first VO2 Max test was up in Squaw Valley on a treadmill and I had a 79 VO2 Max non-specific sport. But once I actually really started doing VO2 Max testing on a consistent basis in '89... now you know it depends upon the level of fitness and training...I was on average about 6.2 to 6.4 liters of Oxygen, which translated to my racing weight would be 92, 93, 94 VO2 Max. I think only cross-country skier Bjørn Dæhlie [Generally considered the greatest Nordic skier of all time, 1992 Olympic Gold Medalist 15 km, 50 km, 4 x 10 km relay cross country skiing], had those same numbers. So I think I had one of, if not the highest.

Now I don't know Merckx's. I don't think Merckx ever did a VO2 Max. So, I'm certain he was up there. I think Bernard Hinault's VO2 Max was 88. I think I was of the top....

 

[vappaxbipmv]

I think I do. Your real aim is to cast doubt on Lemond. You tacitly admit this by saying "Greg still provided 0 evidence to support his claims." What do you want Greg to do 40 years later? Pull out the results from a test? He was in his twenties being tested by the team for fitness. He gave no thought of keeping a record for posterity's sake, to defend himself from Bruyneel of all people. I'm sure Bruyneel was also tested during his career, but doubtless did have values to brag about. Does he still have the spread sheets?

At any rate, this is what Lemond said about the matter in an interview years ago:

Chairman Bill: Before we begin exploring your cycling career, I would like the reader to understand the extraordinary physical talent you possessed. At the risk of asking you to brag, I believe you know what the numbers are that defined your ability to perform work: VO2 max, wattage, etc. What were they and how did they compare to the population in general and to the professional peloton when you were racing?
Greg LeMond: In the 80s when I was racing we did VO2 Max testing, but it was to see the physical fitness. My first VO2 Max test was up in Squaw Valley on a treadmill and I had a 79 VO2 Max non-specific sport. But once I actually really started doing VO2 Max testing on a consistent basis in '89... now you know it depends upon the level of fitness and training...I was on average about 6.2 to 6.4 liters of Oxygen, which translated to my racing weight would be 92, 93, 94 VO2 Max. I think only cross-country skier Bjørn Dæhlie [Generally considered the greatest Nordic skier of all time, 1992 Olympic Gold Medalist 15 km, 50 km, 4 x 10 km relay cross country skiing], had those same numbers. So I think I had one of, if not the highest.

Now I don't know Merckx's. I don't think Merckx ever did a VO2 Max. So, I'm certain he was up there. I think Bernard Hinault's VO2 Max was 88. I think I was of the top....

I can see you don't understand. That's fine. As of this moment, this conversation is over from my side

 

[Extinction]

@Extinction

Percent utilization of VO2 max at 5-km competition velocity does not determine time performance at 5 km among elite distance runners - PubMed

The present study investigated to what extent maximum oxygen uptake (VO2 max) and fractional utilization (%VO2 max) in 5-km competition speed correlate with 5-km performance times among elite long distance runners. Eight elite long distance runners with 5-km performance times of 15.10 minutes (...

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

It's about runners but it basically says that 5 km performance is very strongly related to VO2max even in strong runners group (and there was no relation to percentage utilization). Max. efforts lasting i.e. 10-15 minutes are basically VO2max execution for most of its duration (except the first couple of minutes, where anaerobic component is still substantial) so in this case the relation between VO2max and performance is strong.

We never saw LeMond doing crazy watts (comparable to nowadays) on a 15 minute climb, I guess.

You are not considering how the science of doping has changed the sport. Lemond's climbing times cannot be compared to today's, even with a 92 VO2 max. Surely, however, were Lemond riding today with a 92 VO2 max for Gianetti, we'd see record times.

 

[Extinction]

I can see you don't understand. That's fine. As of this moment, this conversation is over from my side

Repeating I don't understand without explaining why, doesn't help your cause.

 

[Krzysztof_O]

You are not considering how the science of doping has changed the sport. Lemond's climbing times cannot be compared to today's, even with a 92 VO2 max. Surely, were Lemond riding today with a 92 VO2 max for Gianetti, we'd see record times.

The science of doping (and maybe most of all training advancements) would help with % utilization of VO2max on longer climbs (i.e. lasting 40 minutes like AdH) but LeMond should've been able to smash 10-15 minutes climbs like the best guys do today (or like guys in the 90s did).

 

[BubbaChuck]

lol lets be serius,already in 94 tyhe were pushing absurd times.lemond with 94 should push same as lance with 86.never happened.

 

[Extinction]

The science of doping (and maybe most of all training advancements) would help with % utilization of VO2max on longer climbs (i.e. lasting 40 minutes like AdH) but LeMond should've been able to smash 10-15 minutes climbs like the best guys do today.

Maybe because the climbs on stages back then were multiple, long and so were the stages. 80s cycling was about longe duree stamina and attrition, not only in the Tour, but throughout the year. Shorter climbing efforts were strategically less significant, for which cyclists didn't train to make a difference on them. Today there is more power, but the races are shorter. And we live in an age of statistics fervor, in which everyone keeps the stats on everything. I'm talking about the teams today, where everything is measured and accountable. In Lemond's day, as far as I recall, nobody was concerned with record times as a factor of "performance science", just winning races. It was a different world, a different way of cycling.

 

[BubbaChuck]

racing today is incredibly harder and more attritional than in past.pog is pushing absurd numbers for longer periods,which is preciselly why we laugh at this ''numbers'' discussion.if people only knew the whole story.

 

[red_flanders]

Nobody's ... That's the only correct answer. Until they provide evidence for their claims

I can also say that my VO2 max is 95 and your 1st response will be "proof?", and rightfully so

It's entirely reasonable and logical not to believe claims presented without evidence.

It's also fair to say Bruyneel has been caught lying and cheating to an extent that he's permanently banned from the sport, while no such doubts about Lemond exist. Further, those who have sought to cast doubt upon his statements have clear motivation, a record of lying about the topic, and no evidence to back up their doubts.

Which leaves one with a situation where neither claim is verified, but one should certainly be regarded with far more skepticism than the other. Bruyneel would need far more evidence to support his claims than Lemond. But again, neither has provided independent verification of their claims, so neither can be accepted as fact.

I think y'all are just talking past one another.

 

[Extinction]

racing today is incredibly harder and more attritional than in past.pog is pushing absurd numbers for longer periods,which is preciselly why we laugh at this ''numbers'' discussion.if people only knew the whole story.

Although I haven't seen riders brought to the brink of collapse like I have in the past. Today they go harder and faster, but they are specifically trained to increase fatigue threashold. Not to mention doping in that. The grand tours are shorter, it's another sport entirely.

 

[Tim Cahill]

I remember going down the Lemond rabbit hole years ago, there isn't a single piece of empirical or circumstantial evidence to link him to doping other than Bruyneel's nonsense remark and attempts to link iron injections to EPO use after being hit by 60 shotgun pellets.

His stance on doping has been consistent for 45 years, in and out of the peloton, his physiological efforts pre and post-epo didn't change and the relative efforts he did wouldn't be enough to win a Grand Tour stage in clean-old 2025. I'm inclined to believe him.

Alpe Recorded times

37’35 - Marco Pantani, 1997 (fastest)
38’01 - Lance Armstrong, 2001
39’45 - Miguel Indurain, 1991
41’50 - Laurent Fignon, 1989
48’00 - Bernard Hinault/Greg Lemond, 1986

 

[Red Rick]

Nobody questions LeMond because there is nothing to gain by questioning him. He's basically sanctified as America's Clean Jesus of Cycling. Bonus points for near-fatal accident and comeback story.

He can claim *** because nobody questions him. Like a VO2 max of 92.

 

[aphronesis]

Maybe the issue is less what he has to gain in being clean and/or claiming it (which I don’t really doubt) or even being loose with his VO2, than in calling out cycling’s doping culture at a certain point. I don’t spend time on it, but I’m not sure he was overly critical of Indurain, say.