Tadej Pogacar and Mauro Giannetti

[aphronesis]

Sure there is, but when it's inconvenient you can always just raise the bar for what passes as evidence.

Also that.

Which also depends on the relative stake.

 

[red_flanders]

That's my point

I was trying to support your point.

I think the language is where the hangup is happening.

• "I don't believe Lemond about his V02 max", might sound to some like you believe Lemond to be lying, but this isn't a claim I see you making.
• "I'm unconvinced by Lemond's unsupported claims about his V02 max" is probably more accurate to what you're saying, which is simply that Lemond hasn't provided enough evidence for you to be convinced of his claim.
• "Lemond is lying about his V02 max" would be its own, very different claim which would need to be supported. Not what I read you as saying.

 

[aphronesis]

Maybe when he retired there was no evidence to denounce Indurain. There was no hematocrit restriction, no EPO test. It could have also been too close to his retirement to internslise and react to the "new culture." Perhaps Greg, after the shell shock, took umbrage with someone who was stealing his throne, as the greatest American cyclists, who he knew was massively enhanced with Ferrari and did not have his natural physiologcal gifts. It's normal.

“Perhaps Greg, after the shell shock, took umbrage with someone who was stealing his throne, as the greatest American cyclist, who he knew was massively enhanced with Ferrari”

Without question. But all the rest could just as easily be a means of branding at a moment when US cycling moved from obscurity to a more general consciousness.

Also, as posted some ways back: if as a teenager in the 80s I knew about enhancement use in cross country and cycling, then it’s a stretch to believe that those closer in weren’t, at least, also aware of the possibility.

 

[red_flanders]

Indurain didn't personally and financially attack Lemond, and run his bike brand out of business. So a very different reaction.

Occam's razor and all that.

 

[aphronesis]

I personally don’t want to rehearse this tired old discussion at that level (or beat that known horse at all) other than to ask if Greg was just sitting at home innocuously when the attacks (personal, financial, etc.) were initiated, or if it’s a bit more complex than that? If the latter than what ethic is being argued exactly?

Second, his staple claim at a publicity level seems to be the harm that doping causes cyclists individually and the sport overall. Are there exceptions and workarounds for personality and good behavior? Then again the discussion and grounds are moot based on the flexible moralizing criteria. This isn’t that dialogue or conversation, and as @vappaxbipmv as suggested, it leaves one’s favorites aside in favor of the structural aspects. In this case: the history of late twentieth century doping in cycling as pertains to now.

If the order of events is reversed to make a point, then that’s simply an emotional claim and little more.

 

[Cookster15]

I have always assumed Greg Lemond had the best un-doped physiology for a for cyclist at the onset of the EPO era. In the space of one year (between 1991 and 1992) Lemond couldn't hold mediocre climbers in the mountains. I think that explains why Greg would be aggrieved at what transpired. His 1987 hunting accident was unfortunate but to then have his career cut short by a new doping wonder substance who wouldn't be? Not emotional, just a completely normal reaction for someone in his position. If Lemond didn't have such a high VO2 max score and three Tour wins I doubt he would be so annoyed at what happened in the sport at that time.

On VO2 Max, as said up-thread that is usually, but not always, a great indicator of ability in endurance sports including road cycling. In Australia we had non-climbers like Brett Aitken and Stuart O'Grady who recorded scores over 90 in the lab. Those guys won Olympic gold medals on the track (Madison) but were never renowned as great climbers or Grand Tour GC contenders on the road. On the road, O'Grady was a strong sprinter who competed for the Green jersey at the Tour. For another point of reference, Cadel Evans scored 87 in an AIS lab when he was 22 (and still a MTBer). Yet nobody is going to say O'Grady was a better Grand Tour racer than Evans.

But for Pogacar I'd be surprised if his VO2 Max was less than 90 and would more likely expect it to be close to a record score based upon what we have been seeing. I think Jonas Vingegaard was said to have scored 97 (by his father) ?

 

[vappaxbipmv]

I was trying to support your point.

I think the language is where the hangup is happening.

• "I don't believe Lemond about his V02 max", might sound to some like you believe Lemond to be lying, but this isn't a claim I see you making.
• "I'm unconvinced by Lemond's unsupported claims about his V02 max" is probably more accurate to what you're saying, which is simply that Lemond hasn't provided enough evidence for you to be convinced of his claim.
• "Lemond is lying about his V02 max" would be its own, very different claim which would need to be supported. Not what I read you as saying.

That is correct. I just simply refuse to believe a claim based on nothing but words, regardless of the person. I'm not saying that person is lying but to convince me, evidence is needed

 

[aphronesis]

@Cookster15, No O’Grady was many things, but not better overall than Evans as known. VO2 max alone probably doesn’t automatically make climbers.

The “emotional” remark was not directed at Lemond but at arguments that reverse and edit the sequence of events in his eventual selective “annoyance” and criticisms of doping/dopers to produce an uncritical narrative that says “It’s all ok because x was worse.” That’s not history beyond the level of character, barely contested and not very informative.