Do you think Greg Lemond was dope free?

donrhummy

He beat a man (Fignon) who has since admitted to doping in 1989. He had the fastest TT (1989) of that length or greater for many years (including all the years he claimed were full of dopers) DESPITE the fact that if you watch it, he's rocking all over the place and very un-aero and using a flexier bike than today.

One big piece of "evidence" he gives for proving he was dope free and others doped was how just one year after he won the TDF, suddenly he was finishing in the pack and beaten by others he'd beaten his whole career. But, in 1990 Lemond won with an average speed of 38.621 kph. The next year, the Big Mig won at an avg speed of 38.747 kph. That's a 0.3% difference. 1/3 of a percent.

As well, his claim that him finishing 7th the next year, and thus was beaten by dopers, doesn't hold up. If Big Mig was a doper, then wouldn't Lemond's claim also hold true for him? But Big Mig won 5 years in a row and then the next year was 11th, even bigger of a drop off than Lemond.

So...just wondering.

Richrd2205

This post is kind of what annoys me about this forum... & people in general...

Nothing personal, but bear with me.....

What do you mean by "doping" & do you suggest that all methods of doping are equal?
If you use something today that's banned tomorrow, are you a "doper"?
Is it black & white?
Do blood doping & pseudo ephedrine use give the same advantage?
If no, what's the point of your question?

So... just wondering.

(Sorry, not trying to be personal, I'm just very frustrated at the endless posts trying to polarise issues where there is a genuine spectrum)

(& for the record, GLM was almost certainly clean of "serious" dopage, IMO)

Kléber

I thought he had a small positive in the mid-80s. But he was miles away from the nonsense at PDM and then the Italian-led "industrialised" doping.

Donrhummy, there was a tailwind all the way from Versailles to Paris that day, which does not explain all but it's a factor you missed out. Same for the tri-bars.

Well said Richrd2205.

morstar

I don't think the flexi bike has a lot to do with it.

Colin Sturgess did an 18:48 10 on a normal bike in 1988. Too much emphasis on equipment. The speed of Gregs TT was only slightly faster than Sean Yates previous record which was a course double the length of the short Paris TT.

As for the other points. Seem like a fairly loose collection of unrelated facts. Mig was beginning his decline and retired near to the top. Greg obviously felt he hadn't begun the decline and yet could no longer compete.

I like to think he didn't dope. If he did, why carp on about it. Most of those that did either stay schtum or have confessed.

cougie

You've conveniently failed to mention that the whole winning of the tour depending on him beating Fignon by sufficient margin in that one TT.....

I genuinely think he was a clean rider. He was good, but not suspiciously good.

Pokerface

Well - if he did, it seems a bit odd that he is so anti-doping these days. (Not like the folks that are anti-doping after being caught).

takethehighroad

Right on cue, retweeted by Rio Ferdinand of all people

http://www.cyclingnews.com/blogs/greg-lemond/bravo-to-the-new-generation

cajun_cyclist

I voted "no idea", but I'll give my .02 cents on why I would lean to believing that he did not.

American cycling pre-Lemond seems to be relatively innocent aside from that 1984 Olympic Cycling Team at LA, Lemond does not seem to have any connection to that.

Back before an American ever got into the Tour, the top US cyclists were the likes of John Howard who rode in the '70s for the Olympic team and did things like try to break the miles per hour record with some odd contraption in the desert of Utah ( see this: http://www.canosoarus.com/08LSRbicycle/ ... %20tow.JPG Scientific American type of stuff almost), I mean US cycling was probably a bit the way US Soccer I know, I know, is now, rather untainted from negative forces and while at the same time, yes, maybe a bit clumsy and even amatuerish at times. The big US cyclists in those days did the RAAM (Race Across America), surely a notable accomplishment but not real prestigious. Also reflective of this would be the Red Zinger/Coors Classic American Race in Colorado ( portrayed in the American Flyers movie). The money was not in the road cycling racing so it probably was not a breeding ground for the use of PEDs, etc.

So, I tend to believe Lemond developed largely out of this era, I've read his own Bike Manual and I've got to believe he's relatively unscathed himself to doping.

DonRHummy writes:

One big piece of "evidence" he gives for proving he was dope free and others doped was how just one year after he won the TDF, suddenly he was finishing in the pack and beaten by others he'd beaten his whole career. But, in 1990 Lemond won with an average speed of 38.621 kph. The next year, the Big Mig won at an avg speed of 38.747 kph. That's a 0.3% difference. 1/3 of a percent.

Indeed this is interesting and I've seen this talked about how Lemond asserts he could not keep up in his later career with the rest of the cyclists. That is good you are able to pin down the information.

Lemond had his dirty little war with who? Chiapucci? who was later caught along with of course the other feuds he was involved in. Reading about those, it seems the feelings were very hard between him and his competitors. I wonder, if these guys including Lemond were doping, if that would have been game to mention because what Lemond said about his opponents seemed to be brutally honest.

---

Lastly, Bike Boom literature is entertaining to read, the few examples of it out there, I've read a book by one of the RAAM winners, a bike manual by John Marino, he won the race on a Peugeot, Lemond goes on and on in his own book about bike measurements and how he uses the French measuring system. To me, it seems his head was into other things, being really into cycling, I'd really like to take a ride some of the Lemond bikes I've seen around, especially the steel ones though I think I have a fair idea about them already.

---

Pivotal to this is what do people think about Hinault?? They were team members, it would seem Lemond would be the more impressionable one on the team.

http://oceanpark.com/~allard/bicycle/19 ... nault.html

Of course I am still affected by it. One would have the impression, in reading the commentaries, that all cyclists are doped. Hinault like Anquetil, Merckx, or Indurain! The newspapers have made it seem that all those who won the Tour could not have won it on clear water. That's stupid, but what do you think I should say to that? I have my own good conscience. - Hinault

pappubahry

I'm de-lurking because I like this sort of poll.

The 'wisdom of the crowd' when it comes to sport can be pretty useful. The best example I know of is from baseball. In baseball, it's really hard to work out how good each player is at fielding. There are companies that employ analysts to study the video of each play, break down the field into dozens of small sectors, and then count up the number of times a particular short stop got to a firmly-hit ball in sector xyz and then threw the runner out at first base, and compare that to the league average of all short stops reaching firmly-hit balls in sector xyz.... It's a huge time-consuming exercise, and they do it for the tens of thousands of plays every season.

There's another baseball analyst who just runs surveys of each team's fans, asking how good each of their players is in a few categories (throwing arm, running speed, anticipation, etc.), and then combines them. The results of the fan surveys are pretty close to the results of the massive video and computer analysis. There are particular biases that the fans have, so it's not perfect, but they're about as good as an expert scout and a lot cheaper to employ.

On doping in cycling, we can't even rely much on experts to guide us, since those who get to look at blood profiles obviously aren't going to talk about them publicly. So I would give a poll of cycling fans (at least some of whom are moderately sceptical) as much weight as the opinion of any individual. I'm sure it'd be closer to the truth, on average, than assuming that everyone is doped.

And if the fans are making their judgements based on a rider saying that he's 'tranquilo' in an interview with the Hindustan Times, well, it's still better than nothing.

cajun_cyclist

Way back then, records would show Greg was saying Indurain was 'from another planet' or maybe using the ol' "extraterrestial" line, nothing against Big Mig, just to go back to those days of GL's last Tour.

mattsy666

Lemond is one of those guys like Hinault who talks the talk way after the event and when they have nothing to lose ...

Lemond bangs on about doping ibut he cycled in a time when none of his samples were storeed and available for future scrutiny ... so it's easy to act as judge and jury with everyone else ... to me, the fact he still bangs on about it so much likely means he did dope (see David Millar for details) ...

Hinault is the same ... he was wanting riders thrown off races for littering ... but did he pick up his sweeteie wrappers whilst tooling around France? Easy to say now he doesn't have to do it ...

iainf72

mattsy666 wrote:

Lemond is one of those guys like Hinault who talks the talk way after the event and when they have nothing to lose ...

Yes, because Greg never talked about doping when he was riding :roll:

Everyone should read Fignon's book. He effectively says exactly what Lemond said about the early 90's. Fignon took some speed, sure and a bit of coke in Colombia but he says he stayed away from EPO and things like that. I tend to believe him, as I tend to believe Greg.

Steve2020

mattsy666 wrote:

to me, the fact he still bangs on about it so much likely means he did dope (see David Millar for details) ...

I think that is exactly wrong - I think it would be very difficult to be vocally anti-doping whilst hiding your own secret. For most people, lying is surprisingly difficult.

David Millar is actually a good example, because he started his career being vocal about it, then went quiet and evasive on the topic when he started to dope.

That they both talk about it now suggests they both have clear consciences.

andyp

Other than (erroneous) anecdotal evidence can you provide anything else to back up your assertion that Lemond doped? Testimony from former team mates perhaps? Links to a shady Doctor that he used? Failed dope tests?

Of course you can't because there isn't any.

I'm a complete cynic when it comes to pro cycling but it's almost universally recognised that Lemond was a natural talent (with a VO2 Max of 93, one of the highest ever recorded) who rode clean throughout his career.

iainf72

The fact this is even posted indicates Armstrong's tactics still work for some people.

Pokerface

Steve2020 wrote:

mattsy666 wrote:

to me, the fact he still bangs on about it so much likely means he did dope (see David Millar for details) ...

I think that is exactly wrong - I think it would be very difficult to be vocally anti-doping whilst hiding your own secret. For most people, lying is surprisingly difficult.

(see Lance Armstrong for details) 8)

Steve2020

iainf72 wrote:

The fact this is even posted indicates Armstrong's tactics still work for some people.

But from the responses, not many.

rjh299

Doper, just like Kimmage

k-dog

^ that is interesting.

I also find it interesting that a lot of his competitors at the time haven't turned round and said "well you were doing it too!" There isn't even much hearsay about him doping in the past.

rokkala

LA was asked by a journalist the other day to comment on Greg Lemond being subpoenaed etc. LA responded with something like 'I hope he tells the truth about 1989', and when asked to elaborate he just said to speak to some other journalist there, as he had been around a long time and will know better.

dg74

Rokkala wrote:

LA was asked by a journalist the other day to comment on Greg Lemond being subpoenaed etc. LA responded with something like 'I hope he tells the truth about 1989', and when asked to elaborate he just said to speak to some other journalist there, as he had been around a long time and will know better.

Ah that old battle between LA and LeMond is not going away, is it?

I wonder how many more people in the coming months are going to be 'persona non grata' around the Armstrong camp, with accusations being thrown left, right and centre.

But enough trolling, I think LeMond was (and I go back to what has been said before) good, very good, but as I'm learning, the borders between doping and being 'clean' are narrow.

BikingBernie

Perhaps a more telling question would be 'How much of Greg Lemond's palmarès can be attributed to doping?' I would say none, as as close to none as make no difference. This is not something that can seriously be said about Armstrong...

rjh299

I'm gonna say, no he never doped, because he never tested positive. Innocent until proven guilty. That's only fair isn't it Greg?

Garry H

Never heard any rumours, or connections to doping, so will give him the benefit of the doubt.

donrhummy

iainf72 wrote:

mattsy666 wrote:

Lemond is one of those guys like Hinault who talks the talk way after the event and when they have nothing to lose ...

Yes, because Greg never talked about doping when he was riding :roll:

Everyone should read Fignon's book. He effectively says exactly what Lemond said about the early 90's. Fignon took some speed, sure and a bit of coke in Colombia but he says he stayed away from EPO and things like that. I tend to believe him, as I tend to believe Greg.

I'm not saying he's not telling the truth but Fignon says that around that time, everyone was using EPO but he did not. So he's claiming to have beaten EPO users. EPO is a very powerful drug, with not a small performance gain. Especially in a grand tour where recovery from hard efforts is the biggest advantage. Yet, he and Lemond supposedly beat EPO users. It may be possible, but I don't know how many anti-doping scientists would agree.

donrhummy

iainf72 wrote:

The fact this is even posted indicates Armstrong's tactics still work for some people.

What are you talking about? I believe Lance likely doped. And I'm not certain about Lemond.

BTW, Lemond says that the questions following Lance were the reason he spoke out and questioned Lance. In other words, he thought, "where there's smoke, there's fire." So why can't that also be applied to Lemond? When Lemond first quit cycling and it was announced he had a blood disorder, there were a LOT of claims that doping caused his blood disorder. The newspapers spoke to a number of "expert" who believed drugs such as EPO may have caused the disorder. Personally, I disagree with Lemond that those rumors were/are enough to accuse someone, but that's what Greg originally did.

Also, I don't understand why Lemond can question everyone else but it's illegal to question him?

donrhummy

k-dog wrote:

^ that is interesting.

I also find it interesting that a lot of his competitors at the time haven't turned round and said "well you were doing it too!" There isn't even much hearsay about him doping in the past.

They might believe he was clean, but they may also know that Lemond sues people a lot. And it libelous to claim something like that without evidence.

cajun_cyclist

Okay, Steroids, plumps up one's legs and face and really can do that, it would seem in talking about Lemond, the timeline basically excludes r-EPO use.

Doesn't Gewiss-Ballan win Fleche Wallone in 1994

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gewiss-Ballan

So, that seems to rule out Lemond's career as to having used EPO.

I don't know what the drug of choice was in the 1980s, no idea if it was methedrine (speed as was used in the '50s and '60s), ephedrine or whatever else might have been out there.

One would need to see if Steroids/Cortizone could be related to this Mitochondrial Myopathy which Lemond has been said to suffer from.

cajun_cyclist

donrhummy wrote:

k-dog wrote:

^ that is interesting.

I also find it interesting that a lot of his competitors at the time haven't turned round and said "well you were doing it too!" There isn't even much hearsay about him doping in the past.

They might believe he was clean, but they may also know that Lemond sues people a lot. And it libelous to claim something like that without evidence.

Lemond sued Trek, are there any other examples?? Lemond and Trek, that's obviously a big business falling out and probably would threaten Lemond's livelihood so might be somewhat understandable.

donrhummy

cajun_cyclist wrote:

donrhummy wrote:

k-dog wrote:

^ that is interesting.

I also find it interesting that a lot of his competitors at the time haven't turned round and said "well you were doing it too!" There isn't even much hearsay about him doping in the past.

They might believe he was clean, but they may also know that Lemond sues people a lot. And it libelous to claim something like that without evidence.

Lemond sued Trek, are there any other examples?? Lemond and Trek, that's obviously a big business falling out and probably would threaten Lemond's livelihood so might be somewhat understandable.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/07/busin ... 95458.html

And there's another one but I forget what it was about.

morstar

donrhummy wrote:

cajun_cyclist wrote:

donrhummy wrote:

k-dog wrote:

^ that is interesting.

I also find it interesting that a lot of his competitors at the time haven't turned round and said "well you were doing it too!" There isn't even much hearsay about him doping in the past.

They might believe he was clean, but they may also know that Lemond sues people a lot. And it libelous to claim something like that without evidence.

Lemond sued Trek, are there any other examples?? Lemond and Trek, that's obviously a big business falling out and probably would threaten Lemond's livelihood so might be somewhat understandable.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/07/busin ... 95458.html

And there's another one but I forget what it was about.

So, basically...
15 years or more after he finished racing, he has been involved in two (possibly three) lawsuits directly related to his business dealings and nothing directly to do with pro cycling. (emphasis on directly as obviously there is a loose link in the trek one).
Yes he has recently been involved in business law suits but, there is no evidence of slander / libel cases and no evidence of any during the period prior to 2007 when he has also been outspoken about doping.

Some very weak muck raking imho.
Seems you are on a mission to create suspicion based on very weak circumstantial evidence. I accept that a n other rider is damned by many on purely circumstantial evidence and I suspect that is part of the motivation here. All I will say on that is that in that case the evidence is only circumstantial but also alarmingly abundant and from so many different sources.