Another Lemond interivew

iainf72

Via CFA

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/spo ... 51626.html

“It’s one thing harming yourself. I’ve done stuff I’m not proud of. Tried recreational drugs. It’s another thing when you’re consciously manipulating, and trying to cheat other people. That to me is a big difference. I see Floyd Landis and Tyler Hamilton as tragic stories. Marco Pantani as well. I know some people look on them as the problem. They’re not the problem.

dave_1

interesting...Fignon was on the baby asprin Lemond says , so not the strong stuff...so there you go , our inhouse doping experts like Aurelio, Nick Hanson.. here at bikeradar , what have you to say?

aurelio_-_banned

Dave_1 wrote:

interesting...Fignon was on the baby asprin Lemond says , so not the strong stuff...so there you go , our inhouse doping experts like Aurelio, Nick Hanson.. here at bikeradar , what have you to say?

What he says simply reinforces many things that I have often argued. For example, that the sort of dope available in Fignon's era made so little difference that a clean rider could still beat a doped one, something that is much rarer today. Also, that the use of amphetamines in the past was more or less confined to the now almost extinct circus that was after-Tour criterium circuit. (Plus the 6-Day circuit of course).

dave_1

aurelio wrote:

Dave_1 wrote:

interesting...Fignon was on the baby asprin Lemond says , so not the strong stuff...so there you go , our inhouse doping experts like Aurelio, Nick Hanson.. here at bikeradar , what have you to say?

What he says simply reinforces many things that I have often argued. For example, that the sort of dope available in Fignon's era made so little difference that a clean rider could still beat a doped one, something that is much rarer today. Also, that the use of amphetamines in the past was more or less confined to the now almost extinct circus that was after-Tour criterium circuit. (Plus the 6-Day circuit of course).

you were saying to knew that everyone was on EPOby 1987 so ruling out the possibiltity that Inudrain's results late 80s were not down to his dedication, hard training, genetics...now you are saying Fignon's era did not have sort of dope available today (EPO)??? Still I accept you were there, a top pro cyclist who really knew what went on

richard wants a baum

Dennis will be happy his "if you dont know them personally you cant comment" theory is penatrating the forum zeitgeist. I think what aurelio was saying was that it wasnt impossible to beat a doped rider back then (because the dope wasnt as effective) but for a rider to win the tour so convincingly 5 times would be a stretch.

dave_1

richard wants a baum wrote:

Dennis will be happy his "if you dont know them personally you cant comment" theory is penatrating the forum zeitgeist. I think what aurelio was saying was that it wasnt impossible to beat a doped rider back then (because the dope wasnt as effective) but for a rider to win the tour so convincingly 5 times would be a stretch.

just wanted it noted laurent Fignon raced 1982 to 1993 approx and his best years were 87-89, Lemond rates Fignon as a quite clean cyclist, so how does Aurelio's "they were all on EPO 87 onward theory sit with that fact from GL? And yeah, like or not, your level of experience of the sport DOES MATTER when you are making serious allegations...general comments on races, everyone has a right to equality, but a little more is required when you defame professional cyclists every month on a forum IMO

richard wants a baum

So unless your a ex pro then dont bother having an opinon? aurelio generally gives an opinon and can generally back it up with reasons why. Now i dont always agree with him but i dont think he needs to be an ex pro to make sense. Did you ride at the very top level? and even if you did i seen plenty of ex sports people that are as dumb as a post and wouldnt think to much of there opinons.

aurelio_-_banned

Dave_1 wrote:

just wanted it noted laurent Fignon raced 1982 to 1993 approx and his best years were 87-89

Really? Fignon won the Tour de France in 83 and 84, won the 83 Vuelta and was also second in the '84 Giro. Fignon showed huge natural talent from the start and this is what I think of as being 'Fignon's era'.

In comparison in 87 he was 7th in the Tour, in 88 his only big win was the Milan-San Remo and then in 89 he made something of a comeback, winning the Giro and coming second to Lemond in the Tour. By 1988 Fignon looked very much like a man on the decline, then came his Giro win... Perhaps Lemond was wrong about Fignon only being on 'baby asprin' in 89 and that without doping he would have been nowhere. Even if Lemond did beat a doped Fignon it still took Lemond's impressive natural talent, plus a bit of modern aerodynamic technology for him to better a man who had done nothing spectacular for 5 years. 'Go figure', as they say.

Dave_1 wrote:

how does Aurelio's "they were all on EPO 87 onward theory sit with that fact from GL?

I have never said anything of the sort. I have never said that 'all' cyclists were on Epo even in the bad old Indurain / Riis / Armstrong days. A lot were and often it was clear from their dramatic change in abilities / the way the rode who were the 'early adopters'. Also, I have never argued that talent and motivation aren't important. You have tried to argue that doping could have played no part in the transformation of riders like Indurain because it wasn't widely available prior to 1991. I have showed that it was and as such your certainty is misplaced. Now you are simply trying to set up a straw man because you are incapable of countering what I actually said!

nick hanson

Dave_1 wrote:

interesting...Fignon was on the baby asprin Lemond says , so not the strong stuff...so there you go , our inhouse doping experts like Aurelio, Nick Hanson.. here at bikeradar , what have you to say?

Never have i said i was an expert,& i didn't have to come out from a user name,as you asked,as i use my real name.
Come to think of it,you never have disclosed your ID,have you Dave_1 ?

aurelio_-_banned

richard wants a baum wrote:

So unless your a ex pro then dont bother having an opinon?

Of course, if you are a pro or ex-pro and do speak out on doping ( Bernhard Kohl, Jörg Jaksche etc) Dave will still challenge everything you say!

I think Dave's position is that no one should criticise his 'heroes', but anyone, even the most uninformed, uncritical fan boy, is fully qualified to sing their praises and to tell everyobody else that they are wrong about the extent of doping in pro cycling, and the benefits it gives*.

(*For example, Michel Audran who is a specialist in blood doping at the University of Montpellier, has talked about how micro-dosing can give all the benefits of Epo use whilst leaving no detectable traces in the rider’s blood after only a few hours. In regards to blood doping he also said that the effectiveness was 'formidable', noting that a Swedish researcher called Björn Ekblom had found that an injection of 750 millilitres of concentrated red blood cells increased VO2 max by a huge 12.8%, with these benefits being apparent immediately).

skavanagh.bikeradar

Dave_1 is obviously a a former top pro, probably with classic or grand tour wins to his name who rode with Lemond, Indurain, Armstrong et al, otherwise he wouldn't be posting on an internet forum on subjects he knows little about and people he has never met. Of course if he is a former top pro with the sort of insider knowledge and insight that I will never have then I'm looking forward to some coherent posts about his experiences, it'll help inform the debate.

aurelio_-_banned

P.s more research for Dave_1 to chew over...

Dave likes to pretend that 'altitude training' and the use of hypoxic chambers can help to explain why the pro's perform as they do. I have argued that such methods are often simply cover stories for the doping that does account for their increased performances, whilst also acting as a 'plausible' explanation for raised haemocrit levels.

I had to laugh when I saw that film of Landis' hypoxic chamber in the film 'Bigger, stronger faster'. As if Landis really sleeps in a concrete drain pipe in his back yard! Genevieve Jeanson is another one who claimed that she lived in a 'hypoxic tent nearly 300 days per year' and that this was why she had a hameocrit level of 56%. Of course the real reason was Epo abuse!

http://www.velonews.com/article/13360

Anyhow, another problem for Dave_1 is that the research into the use of such chambers shows 1) altitude affects the physiology of the rider in a rather different way to blood doping / Epo use, 2) it doesn't actually lead to the creation of large numbers of new red cells or boost VO2 max! For example:

Sports Med. 2001;31(7):533-57.
The effect of altitude on cycling performance: a challenge to traditional concepts.
Hahn AG, Gore CJ.

Living and training at altitude, or living in an hypoxic environment (approximately 2500 m) but training near sea level, are popular practices among elite cyclists seeking enhanced performance at sea level. In an attempt to confirm or refute the efficacy of these practices, we reviewed studies conducted on highly-trained athletes and, where possible, on elite cyclists.

...Our analysis of the relevant literature indicates that, in contrast to the existing paradigm, adaptation to natural or simulated moderate altitude does not stimulate red cell production sufficiently to increase red cell volume (RCV) and haemoglobin mass (Hb(mass)). Hypoxia does increase serum erthyropoietin levels but the next step in the erythropoietic cascade is not clearly established; there is only weak evidence of an increase in young red blood cells (reticulocytes). Moreover, the collective evidence from studies of highly-trained athletes indicates that adaptation to hypoxia is unlikely to enhance sea level VO2max.

aurelio_-_banned

Another study for Dave_1...

Effects of a 12-day live high, train low camp on reticulocyte production and haemoglobin mass in elite female road cyclists

Ashenden MJ, Gore CJ, Martin DT, Dobson GP, Hahn AG.

The aim of this study was to document the effect of "living high, training low" on the red blood cell production of elite female cyclists. Six members of the Australian National Women's road cycling squad slept for 12 nights at a simulated altitude of 2650 m in normobaric hypoxia (HIGH), while 6 team-mates slept at an altitude of 600 m (CONTROL). HIGH and CONTROL subjects trained and raced as a group throughout the 70-day study. Baseline levels of reticulocyte parameters sensitive to changes in erythropoeisis were measured 21 days and 1 day prior to sleeping in hypoxia (D1 and D20, respectively). These measures were repeated after 7 nights (D27) and 12 nights (D34) of simulated altitude exposure, and again 15 days (D48) and 33 days (D67) after leaving the altitude house.

There was no increase in reticulocyte production, nor any change in reticulocyte parameters in either the HIGH or CONTROL groups. This lack of haematological response was substantiated by total haemoglobin mass measures (CO-rebreathing), which did not change when measured on D1, D20, D34 or D67. We conclude that in elite female road cyclists, 12 nights of exposure to normobaric hypoxia (2650 m) is not sufficient to either stimulate reticulocyte production or increase haemoglobin mass.

dave_1

skavanagh.bikeradar wrote:

Dave_1 is obviously a a former top pro, probably with classic or grand tour wins to his name who rode with Lemond, Indurain, Armstrong et al, otherwise he wouldn't be posting on an internet forum on subjects he knows little about and people he has never met. Of course if he is a former top pro with the sort of insider knowledge and insight that I will never have then I'm looking forward to some coherent posts about his experiences, it'll help inform the debate.

:roll: :roll:

dave_1

richard wants a baum wrote:

So unless your a ex pro then dont bother having an opinon? aurelio generally gives an opinon and can generally back it up with reasons why. Now i dont always agree with him but i dont think he needs to be an ex pro to make sense. Did you ride at the very top level? and even if you did i seen plenty of ex sports people that are as dumb as a post and wouldnt think to much of there opinons.

I AM NOT SAYING WE NEED ALL BE PROS or EX PROS but when you make serious doping allegations, it a little different...obviously you think anyone should be allowed to say whatever the hell they like , which by and large this forum permits...it's a doping forum, most of you seem to have little interest in other angles on the sport.

richard wants a baum

You mean like free speech ? Carm down mate while ill discuss doping i actually prefer to talk racing but ill throw my two cents in on most issues. I think most people on this forum give a decent reason for there opinons doesnt mean you have to agree with them maybe the confrontational aspect of some of these disucsions needs to be toned down abit (from both sides).

dulldave

Dave_1 wrote:

richard wants a baum wrote:

So unless your a ex pro then dont bother having an opinon? aurelio generally gives an opinon and can generally back it up with reasons why. Now i dont always agree with him but i dont think he needs to be an ex pro to make sense. Did you ride at the very top level? and even if you did i seen plenty of ex sports people that are as dumb as a post and wouldnt think to much of there opinons.

I AM NOT SAYING WE NEED ALL BE PROS or EX PROS but when you make serious doping allegations, it a little different...obviously you think anyone should be allowed to say whatever the hell they like , which by and large this forum permits...it's a doping forum, most of you seem to have little interest in other angles on the sport.

To be fair Dave, past history would suggest that if you throw a ball randomly into the peleton it would hit a doping cyclist. Doping adds a different dimension to cycling that some people enjoy. And it's just as well, because otherwise the sport would have died on its a$$ years ago.

There are very few riders that I believe, with any conviction, are clean. If you want to believe that Indurain dominated the tour because he was physically superior to the competition then go right ahead.

nick hanson

dulldave,why do you say the sport would have died on it's a$$ years ago,without doping?.
Are you saying this because if doped,riders presumably can ride faster,longer etc?
I have said against this in the past,in that clean riders can probably 'batter' themselves each day & still recover for the next day,if the time in the saddle is kept to a reasonable time of,say,3-4 hours,with exciting racing over an imaginative,visually stimulating (for spectators,& tv coverage) course.
I've said this in the past & been shot down for it on this forum.
The VAST majority of the public don't have time to sit in front of the TV to see live coverage of a 6-8 hour stage,& the VAST majority of riders cannot fully recover from that sort of extended effort,naturally,day after day,either.