Forum home Road cycling forum Pro race

Lemond says LA's new testing regime is "irrelevant&quot

2»

Posts

  • leguapeleguape Posts: 986
    micron wrote:
    He wasn't granted the first question at all - he simply had the balls to stand up before anyone else spoke and asked it. I understand how boring it must be to listen to legitimate criticism Leguape when it interrupts your worldview but, nevertheless, legitimate criticism it is and deserves to be asked and asked and asked again until honest and transparent responses are forthcoming. However, the next time I get questioned about cheating I'll just tell the police or my employers to 'move on' shall I?

    Like Kimmage says, you don't pick and choose what you're transparent about - it's an all or nothing thing. Any obfuscation automatically makes you look lihe you have something to hide. Armstrong needs to look at PR gaffes like this very carefully.

    The press conference begins with a preamble and then Armstrong states when he opens the floor to questions: "I see Mr Greg Lemond is here", that is "had the balls to stand up before anyone else spoke and asked it" how exactly?

    Press conferences are pretty orderly affairs and no one in the room was going to jump the line ahead of Lemond.
  • I also think that you are underestimating the value of training in the high mountains, in this post. The advances in muscular development and the lactate threshold must be pretty huge if you're constantly cycling uphill with your heart rate somewhere between 165 and 185. This is not to mention the effects of altitude on the body's production of red blood cells.

    To my knowledge, Lance did not train in the mountains prior to his cancer. H ealso did not go as deeply into the more scientific aspects of training and I also believe his workload was less. I believe it is common sense to assume that performance levels went up due to those factors.
    it really is quite pityful how little you seem to know about sports science and top level training.
    :D:D
  • KléberKléber Posts: 6,842
    leguape wrote:
    Heck he could have at least listened and given interviews afterwards, but no Greg wants to be grandstand it in front of Lance. There's plenty of footage on youtube of that moment when Greg's going off his rocker at his DS over Hinault refusing to ride for him, so don't for one moment pretend he's not a man with an ego and the ability to be every bit as ego-driven as Lance.
    I've seen the footage live, no need to relive it on youtube but why do you end up attacking Lemond? The issue here is transparency and why people in press conferences can't address an issue. Why not simply say "good point, we'll take it on board and reply with a full response on our website in a couple of weeks' time"? Instead, this looks like a move to avoid tough questions, the very thing that has dogged Armstrong and his entourage, infamous for blacklisting journalists.
  • Lemond's point that looking for the chemicals rater than statistical analysis of his power data is actually a very good point. However that data is also too valuable to Armstrong froma strategic point of view too allow it into the public domain.
    it's similar to Ferrari publishing the power and torque specs of their f1 engine. The numbers they provide are nowhere near the truth.

    Power data in the public domain will allow other coaches insight into is training methodology and will allow them to plan their race strategy because it will give them a precise idea of his fitness.

    So even though I agree with Lemonds arguement, I would not take his side in this arguement. His motives are unclear, so sit quietly in the corner twidling my thumbs
  • NJKNJK Posts: 194
    Lemond's point that looking for the chemicals rater than statistical analysis of his power data is actually a very good point. However that data is also too valuable to Armstrong froma strategic point of view too allow it into the public domain.
    it's similar to Ferrari publishing the power and torque specs of their f1 engine. The numbers they provide are nowhere near the truth.

    Power data in the public domain will allow other coaches insight into is training methodology and will allow them to plan their race strategy because it will give them a precise idea of his fitness.

    So even though I agree with Lemonds arguement, I would not take his side in this arguement. His motives are unclear, so sit quietly in the corner twidling my thumbs


    You can work out rider's power output pretty accurately these days with sites like analyticcycling although i'm no expert on this.

    I think what Lemond is saying is that significant jumps in an elite's athlete threshold power indicate doping which could be the case. I would think we are talking jumps of 20-30 watts over an hour. At elite level any increases are likely to be very small 5-10 watts? Just think at amateur level how difficult it is increase this figure when already race trained. Example Sella at Giro, big improvement and day in day out. Vino a few years ago aswell a big increase in threshold wattage in my book. Not sure this can be done in a seasoned athlete without PED's.
  • Ramanujan wrote:
    I also think that you are underestimating the value of training in the high mountains, in this post. The advances in muscular development and the lactate threshold must be pretty huge if you're constantly cycling uphill with your heart rate somewhere between 165 and 185. This is not to mention the effects of altitude on the body's production of red blood cells.

    To my knowledge, Lance did not train in the mountains prior to his cancer. H ealso did not go as deeply into the more scientific aspects of training and I also believe his workload was less. I believe it is common sense to assume that performance levels went up due to those factors.
    it really is quite pityful how little you seem to know about sports science and top level training.
    :D:D

    Do you even ride a bike? Do you know any top class international level athletes? I mean, if you did, you'd know that most see the sports science as a pretty rough guide and nothing more, Mr Sports Science.

    When we start talking about what top class athletes do to get ready for a race, they all approach it in very different ways. There is not one size that fits all. Just do the rounds and ask these people, they all have different ideas. You might learn something about PRACTICAL training in the real world, and not what you read off a computer screen.

    But it's easy to be an authority on the internet, isn't it? :wink:
  • Do you even ride a bike? Do you know any top class international level athletes? I mean, if you did, you'd know that most see the sports science as a pretty rough guide and nothing more, Mr Sports Science.
    Yes, I'm a 2nd cat road racer and have a degree in sports science from Loughborough.
    Any more questions? :D:D
  • KléberKléber Posts: 6,842
    :lol:
  • CougarCougar Posts: 100
    Ramanujan wrote:
    Do you even ride a bike? Do you know any top class international level athletes? I mean, if you did, you'd know that most see the sports science as a pretty rough guide and nothing more, Mr Sports Science.
    Yes, I'm a 2nd cat road racer and have a degree in sports science from Loughborough.
    Any more questions? :D:D

    The advice I've seen on this forum from people with sports science degrees does nothing to enhance their credibility re training and racing at elite level. By and large they have no real personal achievements in the sport and can only point to their sports degrees as to why they are right in their opinions.

    I'd keep it quiet if I were you.
  • NJKNJK Posts: 194
    Cougar wrote:
    Ramanujan wrote:
    Do you even ride a bike? Do you know any top class international level athletes? I mean, if you did, you'd know that most see the sports science as a pretty rough guide and nothing more, Mr Sports Science.
    Yes, I'm a 2nd cat road racer and have a degree in sports science from Loughborough.
    Any more questions? :D:D

    The advice I've seen on this forum from people with sports science degrees does nothing to enhance their credibility re training and racing at elite level. By and large they have no real personal achievements in the sport and can only point to their sports degrees as to why they are right in their opinions.

    I'd keep it quiet if I were you.


    Nice generalisation :cry: but yes a sports science degree doesn't mean much unless you use it to understand the physiology behind your sport. By the same token quite a few ex pro athletes/sportsmen think they can just breeze in because of who they are and their results, and they turn out to be pretty poor coaches/trainers.
  • AnonymousAnonymous Posts: 79,667
    Video of the conference now added to the story: http://www.bikeradar.com/news/article/g ... egas-18728
  • leguapeleguape Posts: 986
    Kléber wrote:
    leguape wrote:
    Heck he could have at least listened and given interviews afterwards, but no Greg wants to be grandstand it in front of Lance. There's plenty of footage on youtube of that moment when Greg's going off his rocker at his DS over Hinault refusing to ride for him, so don't for one moment pretend he's not a man with an ego and the ability to be every bit as ego-driven as Lance.
    I've seen the footage live, no need to relive it on youtube but why do you end up attacking Lemond? The issue here is transparency and why people in press conferences can't address an issue. Why not simply say "good point, we'll take it on board and reply with a full response on our website in a couple of weeks' time"? Instead, this looks like a move to avoid tough questions, the very thing that has dogged Armstrong and his entourage, infamous for blacklisting journalists.

    Here's a twitter update from Fredcast:

    "Waiting with a bunch of other media types to talk to Greg Lemond. He's having a private talk with Don Catlin." - http://twitter.com/fredcast?page=3

    I can't find a full transcript but the cyclingnews report suggests that Lemond and Caitlin agreed that they should talk:

    http://www.cyclingnews.com/news.php?id= ... nterbike08

    It was a press conference, not a platform or discussion group, you've got half an hour and the world's media to inform, it's not just for Greg's benefit.

    Part of transparency is reporting everything, another part is admitting when you don't have an answer. Caitlin did that.
  • Ramanujan wrote:
    Do you even ride a bike? Do you know any top class international level athletes? I mean, if you did, you'd know that most see the sports science as a pretty rough guide and nothing more, Mr Sports Science.
    Yes, I'm a 2nd cat road racer and have a degree in sports science from Loughborough.
    Any more questions? :D:D


    I think you'd do a lot better to make it to the elite level of the sport and achieve something there before you start throwing your weight around as though you are a big wig and a high roller. It's just a bit arrogant of you when you have absolutely nothing to back it up with.

    Most of the experts I have met don't make any reference to whether or not they have a sports science degree. You just get laughed at followed by: "and..." but, what's going to really shock you, is that they actually take onboard ideas from other people and never, for one moment, think they have aquired all the knowledge that they possibly can.
  • andypandyp Posts: 9,163
    You are a weapons grade numpty Patrick 1.0. You asked Ramanujan some questions, get answers you don't like so continue to have a go. :roll:
  • NJKNJK Posts: 194
    Patrick1.0 wrote:
    Ramanujan wrote:
    Do you even ride a bike? Do you know any top class international level athletes? I mean, if you did, you'd know that most see the sports science as a pretty rough guide and nothing more, Mr Sports Science.
    Yes, I'm a 2nd cat road racer and have a degree in sports science from Loughborough.
    Any more questions? :D:D


    I think you'd do a lot better to make it to the elite level of the sport and achieve something there before you start throwing your weight around as though you are a big wig and a high roller. It's just a bit arrogant of you when you have absolutely nothing to back it up with.

    Most of the experts I have met don't make any reference to whether or not they have a sports science degree. You just get laughed at followed by: "and..." but, what's going to really shock you, is that they actually take onboard ideas from other people and never, for one moment, think they have aquired all the knowledge that they possibly can.


    True. Unless someone is going to tell me that climbers need strong arms and shoulders?
  • how did this degrade into a personal mud slinging match...

    oh yeah, ego got in the way.
  • popettepopette Posts: 2,089
    :lol::lol::lol:
    aw, that tickled me andyp
  • micronmicron Posts: 1,843
    Leguape, though Catlin may be prepared to admit his ignorance (though he's being disingenuous on the issue at best), it is Armstrong who needs to show he is being 100% 'transparent' and it is Armstrong who is telling us all to 'move on'. That's not transparency, that's 'let's draw a large, thick veil over the things I'm trying to hide'.
  • EurostarEurostar Posts: 1,806
    Gosh, what an educational thread . :roll: Thanks for your answers everybody.

    So, to sum up:

    - Lemond is right - tests are useless against Bruyneel's trickery.
    - Armstrong is only making a comeback because Bruyneel has told him about a new drug that no-one will ever be able to test for
    - all the other Astanas are already on it. (Sorry to upset all you Alberto fans...but honestly how can you trust a GT winner from the Bruyneel stable?)

    Did I miss anything?
    <hr>
    <h6>What\'s the point of going out? We\'re just going to end up back here anyway</h6>
  • leguapeleguape Posts: 986
    micron wrote:
    Leguape, though Catlin may be prepared to admit his ignorance (though he's being disingenuous on the issue at best), it is Armstrong who needs to show he is being 100% 'transparent' and it is Armstrong who is telling us all to 'move on'. That's not transparency, that's 'let's draw a large, thick veil over the things I'm trying to hide'.

    Again, here's what the cyclingnews report says, with the actual context of that use of "move on": (Source: http://www.cyclingnews.com/news.php?id= ... nterbike08)

    "The other thing is samples will be kept frozen for a good long time so that if next year, five years a new test comes out and someone says Lance was doing something five years ago, we can pull out the samples and test them. This is longitudinal testing whereas the usual type of testing is taking a stop in time. This is where you connect the dots and is much more powerful kind of program to understand the physiology."

    "That is all irrelevant," LeMond responded. "It doesn't matter about T/E ratio but watts and power output..."

    "I don't think it is irrelevant," said Catlin. "I dare say you know this business pretty well! Come with your ideas of what we should do!"

    At that point Armstrong stepped in tried to move things along. "You've done your job," Armstrong said to LeMond. "We are here to talk about a couple of things, like the Global Clinton campaign and my comeback to cycling. It's time for us, everybody in this room, to move on. We are not going to go there, I appreciate you being here – next question."


    He stood with Caitlin afterwards in private conversation. I'd take a wild guess here that if you're trying to draw a veil over something you don't let someone like Lemond into the press conference (as used to happen to hacks) or not restrict his access to Caitlin in a public space.
  • dennisndennisn Posts: 10,601
    Eurostar wrote:
    Gosh, what an educational thread . :roll: Thanks for your answers everybody.

    So, to sum up:

    - Lemond is right - tests are useless against Bruyneel's trickery.
    - Armstrong is only making a comeback because Bruyneel has told him about a new drug that no-one will ever be able to test for
    - all the other Astanas are already on it. (Sorry to upset all you Alberto fans...but honestly how can you trust a GT winner from the Bruyneel stable?)

    Did I miss anything?

    Good one. :lol::lol::lol::lol:

    Dennis Noward
  • SNIP

    NONE of that is proof that he doped, but put the pieces of the puzzle together, it does seem rather freaking likely that LA was just as guilty as the rest. SNIP

    I could never be describe as a LA fan. But I don't think you can condemn the guy cos it's "likely" he doped. For what it's worth I think it's "likely" most of the Peloton doped up until the last few years.
  • KléberKléber Posts: 6,842
    ElLawro wrote:
    For what it's worth I think it's "likely" most of the Peloton doped up until the last few years.
    Exactly. So why should the rider who beat them all be beyond question?
  • dennisndennisn Posts: 10,601
    Kléber wrote:
    ElLawro wrote:
    For what it's worth I think it's "likely" most of the Peloton doped up until the last few years.
    Exactly. So why should the rider who beat them all be beyond question?

    I agree no one is above questioning. All people should be spied upon and watched.
    Maybe brought in once a month for a good beating and a bit of torture to see if they will confess to
    anything. People cannot be trusted. Not you, not me. We are all vermin and need to be controlled at virtually every level. If not you're going to end up with people doing things that are wrong and we can't have that. I say let the government keep track of everything we do. If you haven't got anything to hide and you toe the governments official line
    what is there to worry about? It will be a perfect world, aside from the monthly beatings.

    Dennis Noward
  • dennisn wrote:
    I agree no one is above questioning. All people should be spied upon and watched. Maybe brought in once a month for a good beating and a bit of torture to see if they will confess to anything. People cannot be trusted. Not you, not me. We are all vermin and need to be controlled at virtually every level. If not you're going to end up with people doing things that are wrong and we can't have that. I say let the government keep track of everything we do. If you haven't got anything to hide and you toe the governments official line what is there to worry about? It will be a perfect world, aside from the monthly beatings.

    Dennis Noward
    I can understand how years of living under the Republicans can result in this sort of paranoia and/or insanity. What I can`t understand is why Americans non-the-less keep on voting for them! :wink:
  • dennisndennisn Posts: 10,601
    aurelio wrote:
    dennisn wrote:
    I agree no one is above questioning. All people should be spied upon and watched. Maybe brought in once a month for a good beating and a bit of torture to see if they will confess to anything. People cannot be trusted. Not you, not me. We are all vermin and need to be controlled at virtually every level. If not you're going to end up with people doing things that are wrong and we can't have that. I say let the government keep track of everything we do. If you haven't got anything to hide and you toe the governments official line what is there to worry about? It will be a perfect world, aside from the monthly beatings.

    Dennis Noward
    I can understand how years of living under the Republicans can result in this sort of paranoia and/or insanity. What I can`t understand is why Americans non-the-less keep on voting for them! :wink:

    We have to. The beatings, remember?

    Dennis Noward
  • You are a weapons grade numpty Patrick 1.0. You asked Ramanujan some questions, get answers you don't like so continue to have a go.
    I was going to say something along those lines, but I thought, nah....what's the point.
    Some people never get it :D:D

    Anyway, as someone else said, ego and the need to be right has got in the way here of some people having an educational discussion.

    tat ta :lol:
Sign In or Register to comment.