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.

“The American public is getting a taste of what the drug use is like in track and field,” he said. “But they haven’t even scratched the surface in that sport compared to what’s going on with the cyclists and their physicians. They are much more sophisticated at beating the tests. I would say that a good deal of what’s going on in track and field was learned from cycling.”

Drug Use Said to Concern LeMond : Attorney Claims Dutch Team Wanted Cyclist to Try Testosterone

Already beset by injuries and illness, Greg LeMond was further distressed last year because he feared his team, PDM of the Netherlands, would try to improve his lagging performances by tricking him into using a banned drug, the American cyclist's attorney said Monday.

www.latimes.com

 

[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.

 

[ramato]

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.

This reads like the Indurain-EPO-train arrived in 91 and just plowed Lemond into dust. This is just plain wrong.
Just watch the Tour 91. Lemond was 3rd in the prologue, 3s behind Marie and 1s behind Breukink. He (and Breukink) took 1:40 in stage 1 on all other rivals. In the 73km time trial he was 2nd and only 8s slower than Indurain.
He lost time in the TTT before and he had a weak team, sure. But he lead the tour with >2 min on Indurain.
On the first mountain stage, he said that he felt good physically and complained that Indurain and Delgado did not work on reeling in the Escape. But why should they? Lemond lost the yellow to Leblanc but said, that he was not worried.

Well the tour-defining second mountain stage to Val Louron:
Lemond attacked on the 3rd climb from the finish (Tourmalet), but was reeled in and dropped (18s behind the group with Indurain, Bugno, Chiapucci on the top). It was in the descent when Indurain noted that Lemond was missing, that Indurain attacked. Indurain was a great descender and gained some time while Lemond joined the group again. But there was no real cooperation, which lead to Chiapucci escaping, and joining Indurain (who waited).
At the feeding point, Bugno attacked, but Lemond caught him. Maybe this hindered Lemond to eat properly and lead to his collapse.
The group with Lemond, Bugno, Hampsten, Leblanc, Mottet and Chosas was not cooperating at all which can be easily proven by the point that Fignon caught the group after being 1 minute behind at the top of the Tourmalet and instantly went to the front and pulled. This got the group back a bit and Wikipedia even claims that they were within sight of Indurain and Chiapucci, but this can not be comfirmed by the broadcast.
Well, Lemond did pull eventually - or better - he tried to attack repeatedly and simply bonked at the Aspin and Val Louron. I think this was more psychologically than physically. He was dropped by all other members of the group except for Leblanc and was even caught by his teammate Eric Boyer. Bugno meanwhile reached the finish only 1:30 after Chiapucci. Fignon was 4th. This 1:30 gap shows that Indurain and Chiapucci were not just much much stronger than the rest. They just profited from the group 2 dynamics.
Lemond road bad tactically on that day and had not enough help from others. And after a while he just faltered.

Remind you that this was not that unexpected, because even in 89 and 90 Lemond was not really physically stronger than his rivals. And he was very lucky in both editions. E.g. in 89 in the stage 18 stage, Fignon escaped. Lemond was behind with Rooks, Lejarreta, Kelly and Theunisse. Several of them did big pulls and helped him keep the gap small even though they should have had no interest in doing so. In 1990 Chiapucci did his famous suicide attack while in yellow that lost him the tour. If he just followed Lemond, he would not have lost so much time.

Lemond had weak teams and relied on riding strategically smart, getting help from other riders / teams and being a better time trialist. It just did not work in 1991. And in the remaining 2 hard days, he rode like a madman, doing nonsensical attacks. But he could not drop the others, well he seldom could do this even in 89 and 90.

If course I do not claim that EPO had no effect on the results or that the riders were clean. Of course not. It was just a lot more nuanced than you wrote.

 

[Cookster15]

EPO had arrived but it took a few years for the peloton to perfect its use. Even by 93 there were some wild time losses by Chiappucci and Bugno on the Galibier stage won by Rominger.

But I do think Lemond’s career was prematurely curtailed in equal parts by his 1987 hunting accident but also the arrival of EPO. Lemond’s best year was 86 before EPO was known and before his hunting accident.

 

[Red Rick]

EPO was around by the late 1980s. I find it difficult to believe it was possible to win the Tour without it in 1990.

To me it's much more plausible Lemond tried it and didn't get the program down as well, wasn't as great a responder as other riders, or didn't wanna push it as far.

"I did use doping but no EPO" seems just like the standard reply for those days.

 

[aphronesis]

“I didn’t inhale”

 

[Extinction]

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?

If by complexity you mean Lemond was aware of EPO doping at the time and selectively chose not to react until Armstrong, then probably yes. The moral metric, however, ultimately lies in whether or not Lemond took EPO and failed. The irony in vindicating Bruyneel-Armstrong would be better than a Pirandello play.

 

[aphronesis]

I have to disagree. Whether Lemond doped doesn’t interest me. The fact that (there are articles out there) he was selective in how he distributed his knowledge/or suspicions of other’s doping is the bigger issue relative to his rhetoric.

But that’s surface. If any hint of doping came out, it would make the former worse. And confirm the Pirandello.

 

[Extinction]

I have to disagree. Whether Lemond doped doesn’t interest me. The fact that (there are articles out there) he was selective in how he distributed his knowledge/or suspicions of other’s doping is the bigger issue relative to his rhetoric.

But that’s surface. If any hint of doping came out, it would make the former worse. And confirm the Pirandello.

So he should have raged against the machine, gone full montey, denounced evereything? On what evidence at the time? Look, what triggered his beef with Armstrong, was the Ferrari connection. Until Lemond knew about that he was a fan. Go look at the pictures. Had anybody linked Indurain to Francesco Conconi before 2013?

My trouble with Lemond now, is that he was copasetic with Froome until clengate and is a Pogi apologist, without the least concern for his team's management and financing. I'd like him to publicly discuss the history of Gianetti-Maxtin and question the likelyhood of anyone riding for them being clean. It bothers me that Lemond apparently has no trouble with Pogi beating Pantani's record by almost 4 minutes riding for Gianetti, when he was outspoken against Armstrong. He lacks consistancy.

 

[Krzysztof_O]

My trouble with Lemond now, is that he was copasetic with Froome until clengate and is a Pogi apologist, without the least concern for his team's management and financing. I'd like him to publicly discuss the history of Gianetti-Maxtin and question the likelyhood of anyone riding for them being clean. It bothers me that Lemond apparently has no trouble with Pogi beating Pantani's record by almost 4 minutes riding for Gianetti, when he was outspoken against Armstrong. He lacks consistancy.

LeMond's opinion on Pogacar is probably based on his early success at the Tour (the youngest ever double Tour champion: while still only 22 yo), he certainly described Pogacar as "big talent" a few years back.

 

[BubbaChuck]

lemond knows pogacar is levels above.ask him.and he also knew lance is on juice from day 1.hilarius sport.

 

[aphronesis]

@Extinction, yes I’ve seen the photos. The point is that he never walked or turned on the Europeans when his own finances were on the line. The “aw shucks” routine is more than lacking consistency. Per your post, he regaled Pantani as one of the greats. It goes on and on.

 

[Extinction]

LeMond's opinion on Pogacar is probably based on his early success at the Tour (the youngest ever double Tour champion: while still only 22 yo), he certainly described Pogacar as "big talent" a few years back.

Right, but since then? Unimmaginable feats, and all to be explained by "natural talent," because he won the Tour young. No suspicion riding for Gianetti, no raised eyebrows? No questions? Mind you, it isn't just Lemond, but apparently the entire cycling journalistic world. It's baffling.

@Extinction, yes I’ve seen the photos. The point is that he never walked or turned on the Europeans when his own finances were on the line. The “aw shucks” routine is more than lacking consistency. Per your post, he regaled Pantani as one of the greats. It goes on and on.

None of the Europeans threatened his own finances. It was only when he stated Armstrong, knowing he was a patient of Ferrari, was either the sport's greatest comback story or its biggest fraud that his pockets were aggressivly hit hard. Perhaps he actually was unaware enough that it took time for him to realize the impact EPO had made. Perhaps when he did, the Ferrari-Armstrong sensation by then made him and his brand all but obsolete and, to cover his investments, needed to strike out. Although, I wouldn't chalk it all up to moral relativism or vapid opportunism.

I think you are too hard on the man. The vehemence and cruelty with which Armstrong attempted to destroy him and others, is enough to recognize who the "bad guy" is in that saga.

 

[aphronesis]

So, by your logic: Armstong’s presence threatened his finances? It could easily have enhanced them depending on how Lemond spun it.

As I suggested to @flanders, this is not a discussion about Armstrong (a story that’s tediously known), nor one of good and bad guys, but of cycling and Lemond’s positions on doping. It went on all through his career. What need to enshrine him as an ingenue?