Do you think Greg Lemond was dope free?

2»

Comments

  • cajun_cyclist
    cajun_cyclist Posts: 493
    Maybe it's a good thing, maybe it's not, I see this Blixseth fellow was setting up the Yellowstone properties:
    Tim Blixseth is developing Yellowstone Club World, an exclusive travel opportunity for his members with access to yachts, jets, and 25 international properties including castles in Europe.

    http://www.woopidoo.com/biography/tim-b ... /index.htm

    Rather exclusive, they are all millionaires I guess. I'm no judge and this really is not related too much to this thread.

    Yet, in turn, what if we are saying Lemond is among a few property owners which it seems who were trying to block Mr. Blixseth's efforts, I saw this whole matter was in the courts still this year.

    So indeed, this is a tangent but I think looking at this on a superficial scale, one could easily have doubts about this business enterprise.

    Anyway, I see this debate is actually one going on too at a sister sight. So I'll duck out here, I'm certainly not around to defend Lemond. I have not seen anything overtly that really causes suspicion.

    That said, I've long wondered if there was 'anything', 'anything' something could find on Lemond, so indeed, this is a worthy point of discussion concerning the doping part of the sport. I note some cycling forums shuffle off such discussions into their own subforum so I would not care to get up the gander or offend any sincere forum user with any talk on this subject.
  • moray_gub
    moray_gub Posts: 3,328
    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.mensjournal.com/greg-lemond-vs-the-world

    A few examples of litigation in there
    Gasping - but somehow still alive !
  • knedlicky
    knedlicky Posts: 3,097
    BikingBernie wrote:
    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...
    Normally I'm very 'sympathetic' to your opinions, as I think LA is a big fraud and have felt so since 2001. I also think Lemond was clean. Whether true or not, though, I think the little distinction you suggest here sounds like you're moving the goalposts to suit your argument.
  • donrhummy
    donrhummy Posts: 2,329
    Moray Gub 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.mensjournal.com/greg-lemond-vs-the-world

    A few examples of litigation in there

    Yeah, that was one of the most amazing, eye-opening articles I ever read about a cyclist. Very impressive article.
  • SpaceJunk
    SpaceJunk Posts: 1,157
    And what does it matter if he could beat Fignon who may have been doped up in '89?

    No doping product is going to remedy a saddle sore problem is it? And correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't he suffering from one during the final stages of the tdf that year?
  • sampras38
    sampras38 Posts: 1,917
    donrhummy wrote:
    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.

    But if you take a look at Mig's previous tours, whilst he pulled out early after the first two, after that he improved massively every year, and then the year before he got his first win he was 10th. I've also read that the year he got 10th he had the power to win the yellow but the team wanted to wait a while and instead had him support Delgado.
  • Monty Dog
    Monty Dog Posts: 20,614
    Funny that this comes up as the subpoenas for 'the trial' start flying - particularly as one of the allegations is that LA has offered $300,000 for an ex-pro to make allegations that Greg took drugs. It's also alleged that LA admitted to Greg that 'everyone dopes' and couldn't accept that Greg won the tour clean and hence was the primary reason for the rift.

    There is also the question of the physiological benefit that EPO and blood doping made to the rider - whilst amphetamines and the like were fairly common in the late 80's they didn't turn donkeys like Chiapucci into thoroughbreds. Likewise, nobody can explain how someone with a VO2 max of around 80 can suddenly possess the climbing abilities of someone in the high 90s?
    Make mine an Italian, with Campagnolo on the side..
  • Dgh
    Dgh Posts: 180
    The suggestion that LeMond beating Fignon in 1989 proves that the former doped is nonsense. Fignon has admitted to doing a bit of speed & things, but he has not admitted to doing them in the tour, and had he done so he would have tested positive. Fact is, Greg had a legendary VO2max, rode like a man who knew he had to give his all for victory, and beat a guy with bad saddle sores.

    Until Lance's recent insinuations about the 1989 win, there has never, to my knowledge, been any allegation that Greg was a doper. Greg's sucess is entirely consistent with what we know about his astounding physiological gifts.

    David Walsh's account of the rise of EPO doesn't place its dramatic entry at 1991, but a couple of years later. I've read John Treacey, the runner, saying he'd heard of it around about the late 1980's. Charly Mottet, another rider with a reputation for cleanliness, finished ahead of Greg in the 1991 tour, so maybe that year was going to be the start of his decline anyway.
  • donrhummy
    donrhummy Posts: 2,329
    Dgh wrote:
    The suggestion that LeMond beating Fignon in 1989 proves that the former doped is nonsense. Fignon has admitted to doing a bit of speed & things, but he has not admitted to doing them in the tour, and had he done so he would have tested positive. Fact is, Greg had a legendary VO2max, rode like a man who knew he had to give his all for victory, and beat a guy with bad saddle sores.

    Until Lance's recent insinuations about the 1989 win, there has never, to my knowledge, been any allegation that Greg was a doper. Greg's sucess is entirely consistent with what we know about his astounding physiological gifts.

    David Walsh's account of the rise of EPO doesn't place its dramatic entry at 1991, but a couple of years later. I've read John Treacey, the runner, saying he'd heard of it around about the late 1980's. Charly Mottet, another rider with a reputation for cleanliness, finished ahead of Greg in the 1991 tour, so maybe that year was going to be the start of his decline anyway.

    This VO2Max thing is ridiculous. DRUGS can raise a person's VO2Max. Just because you have a high one doesn't mean you're drug free in the least.

    In fact, WADA is now creating new rules that would make Lemond automatically considered to be doping:

    Any Athlete with a VO2 Max Over 90 ml/kg/min will Be Assumed to be Cheating
    http://nextbigfuture.com/2010/06/any-at ... er-90.html

    (You have to pay for this one now)
    http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg2 ... nline-news

    I'm not saying I agree with that new rule they're proposing, but some scientists, physiologists do.

    Also, read this article (see below) which cites studies that showed EPO can raise your VO2Max:
    http://www.sportsinjurybulletin.com/arc ... ood-doping
  • rick_chasey
    rick_chasey Posts: 75,661
    It's only cheating if you get caught isn't it?
    _

Categories