Professional Cycling - Greg LeMond, Avg Speed Time Trial, Clean rider

Ok, so i know LeMond has become controversial and all of that, but there is no denying his records, or his achievments.

An interesting fact, Greg's 89 Time Trial stage win with Avg speed of 54.545 kph, stood for almost 20 years, only being cracked by David Zabriskie, and not by much, at 54.676 km/h, a trivial beating really, in 2005.

If you read this page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_doping_cases_in_cycling

Do you guys have any thoughts or feelings on this record?
Have you guys seen the bike he rode, and the training plans and programs they had back then?

Im just wondering, if a man was this good, how could he have not won 10 Tours?

Getting shot in the off season tends to ruin a streak.

O.K. posting the wiki link in every thread is getting a little old already.

He could not win 10 tours because the tour is about a lot more than individual time trialing. Given your resonses in other threads, I know that I don't need to educate on this. So why start a thread and ask a question you already know the answer to, other than to give yourself another place to post that link?

:edit: And yes, not getting shot seems to help. I really wonder why Greg has chosen to support Tour de Cure instead of starting an initiative to support Gun Safety and Hunter Education? Now that would make all the sense in the world.

I really wonder why Greg has chosen to support Tour de Cure instead of starting an initiative to support Gun Safety and Hunter Education? Now that would make all the sense in the world.
Thats kinda funny. ;)

Any-whoo, 'bout the fancy gunshot remark from both of you, Lance got cancer and won 7.
Why dont you focus on the question instead of trying to attack me? I was hoping you both knew your cycling history better, tsk, tsk, tsk.
Guess what, he set that record AFTER he got shot

Hey mate, Greg is the one who has repeatedly credited the gun shot as one of the issues that shortened his competitive career. Now this Armstrong character comes along and has the audacity to not only eclipse Greg's Tour total but does so after cancer. What a ***** slap!

Oh, and I've already answered your question. How about answering the one I posed in kind?

Thats kinda funny. ;)

Any-whoo, 'bout the fancy gunshot remark from both of you, Lance got cancer and won 7.
Why dont you focus on the question instead of trying to attack me? I was hoping you both knew your cycling history better, tsk, tsk, tsk.
Guess what, he set that record AFTER he got shot

You are wearing on my patience. I did not attack you, I merely mentioned an obvious fact of history. You didn't ask about his record, you asked why he didn't win 10 tours.


Im just wondering, if a man was this good, how could he have not won 10 Tours?


It took two years for Lemond to recover from that accident...yes he came back, but two years off one's life is two years off one's life that cannot be recovered. Indeed, if you listen to what Lemond has said over the years, you'd know why he finally quit without having to post lame threads on the intrawebz.

Do you guys have any thoughts or feelings on this record?
Have you guys seen the bike he rode, and the training plans and programs they had back then?

Im just wondering, if a man was this good, how could he have not won 10 Tours?


I had a chance to look over the bike that Greg rode to win that T.T. and in comparison I don't believe it was on par with the equipment available to the riders during the '05 tour. That said, was it the difference between the 2 times? I don't know... Their were certainly a lot of other factors to consider as well. (Terrain, headwinds, Temp. the design of the aero bars, and the position of the rider using them etc.) Being a little bias, I would like to think that the (slightly) improved equipment used in the '05 tour might have improved Greg's time by a few seconds...

LeMond has said that most of the course in his record ITT was downhill, then flat. He also hates discussing it, and attempts to divert away from it. Perhaps because he was ot as clean as he would have us believe?

Perhaps because he was ot as clean as he would have us believe?

Don't bet on it... (But I will ask him about that particular T.T.) ;)

Hey mate, Greg is the one who has repeatedly credited the gun shot as one of the issues that shortened his competitive career. Now this Armstrong character comes along and has the audacity to not only eclipse Greg's Tour total but does so after cancer. What a ***** slap!

Oh, and I've already answered your question. How about answering the one I posed in kind?

If you have read the link I posted you dont have to click it, thanks. If you do not wish to participate in the thread, dont, thanks. Your invalid points are clearly to antagonize me, please dont, thanks.
Your post has no bearing, the record was set after his Gunshot, he won two tours de france after the gunshot.
Lastly, Greg credits his shortened career to doping scandals.

Moving on, I did think about the course, wind and so on, but still, a record of nearly 20 years? Even after Pros who have been known a Time Trial specialists?
Was the use of EPO that strong for other riders that they would destroy a man capable of riding with such strength?

Looking at the bike, I must admit, thats an extremely impressive speed.

Or, look at it this way: That record is proof positive that Greg is as big a doper as the rest. If all those that came after him had the 10-20% advantage that doping supposedly provides and yet the record stood for so long. Then logic would suggest that Greg too, was on the juice. Or, perhaps you would rather contend, Greg was/is simply 10-20% stronger than every other rider to have come along since. Wow, do you really expect that arguement to be accepted? If not. Then we must consider that for that record to have stood as long as it has, Greg was juiced to the gills for that ride.

Or, look at it this way: That record is proof positive that Greg is as big a doper as the rest. If all those that came after him had the 10-20% advantage that doping supposedly provides and yet the record stood for so long. Then logic would suggest that Greg too, was on the juice. Or, perhaps you would rather contend, Greg was/is simply 10-20% stronger than every other rider to have come along since. Wow, do you really expect that arguement to be accepted? If not. Then we must consider that for that record to have stood as long as it has, Greg was juiced to the gills for that ride.
Exactly.
If Greg was 10-20% stronger, then why didnt he win something like 8 TdFs?
Thats what Im wondering

Greg Lemond, clean? My ass.
He did the same things that everyone else was doing. When he started getting slow, he took the clean stance and quit cycling.

Personally, I don't see Lemond as a winner of anything; not because of the dope, but because how he feverishly proclaims his cleanliness in a time that was tainted, and impossible to win clean.

Greg Lemond, clean? My ass.
He did the same things that everyone else was doing. When he started getting slow, he took the clean stance and quit cycling.

Personally, I don't see Lemond as a winner of anything; not because of the dope, but because how he feverishly proclaims his cleanliness in a time that was tainted, and impossible to win clean.
Ok, fair enough, but good sir, it would seem that EPO was indeed introduced at the time Greg was quiting. So, he won and set that record before EPO.
Having said that, most other stuff was fairly easy to detect at that point in time.
So what then, could he be on if anything?

If Greg was 10-20% stronger, then why didnt he win something like 8 TdFs?
Thats what Im wondering

Having the support of a strong team surrounding you would certainly help. In his 1st win, he rode with only the support of 2 riders, Bauer and Hampsten (Hinault had the support of the rest of that team). In 1990, the support of his team was pathetic.

Yes, EPO was the only drug in 1989. You're absolutely correct.

And you can tell how easily detected drugs were back in 1989. Looka t how many times Laurent Fignon tested positive in the Tour alone, when he admitted to taking numerous drugs.



And next time, don't use over embellished proper English ironically, it makes you sound like an idiot.

Greg Lemond, clean? My ass.
He did the same things that everyone else was doing.

And of-course you have loads of facts to back this up... :rolleyes:

Yes, EPO was the only drug in 1989. You're absolutely correct.

And you can tell how easily detected drugs were back in 1989. Looka t how many times Laurent Fignon tested positive in the Tour alone, when he admitted to taking numerous drugs.



And next time, don't use over embellished proper English ironically, it makes you sound like an idiot.
Ok, your a tough nut, ill give you that.

Please look at the wiki link I posted for reference.
All the common substances were easy to detect. (Apology accepted)
Nobody said that EPO was the only drug? Why do you seem to think that? (Again, refer to the wiki link I postes)

And of-course you have loads of facts to back this up... :rolleyes:

The same amount of facts that you have to contradict me. The tests from those days have nothing solid to them. They were a step above a multiple-choice drug test.

Exactly.
If Greg was 10-20% stronger, then why didnt he win something like 8 TdFs?
Thats what Im wondering

Indurain was arguably stronger than Greg. Why didn't he win 10 TDFs?

All these doping accusations thrown around by people who know nothing. Don't like a guy? Accuse him of doping. Fuc*ing ridiculous and pathetic.

all good reasons to have "only" won three. :d:d

Let me interject here that, supporting your argument with wikipedia links in a college thesis will earn you an "F" from a reputable institution.

If I am not mistaken, doesn't he still have some buck-shot still lodge in the body??? I got to imagine the lead could have been leaching in his system and causing issues that would have effect his performance then and now.

Let me interject here that, supporting your argument with wikipedia links in a college thesis will earn you an "F" from a reputable institution. :roflmao2: :roflmao2: :roflmao2:

Let me interject here that, supporting your argument with wikipedia links in a college thesis will earn you an "F" from a reputable institution.

Is there something factually wrong in the wiki link he posted? If not, spare me the pedantics.


If I am not mistaken, doesn't he still have some buck-shot still lodge in the body??? I got to imagine the lead could have been leaching in his system and causing issues that would have effect his performance then and now.

Yes, he's alluded to this recently and may have to undergo more surgeries to remove the bird shot. It actually was bird shot.


Indurain was arguably stronger than Greg. Why didn't he win 10 TDFs?

Because a guy(Mr. 60%)who utilized dope better than Indurain did, ended his reign. LeMond said he was in the best post shooting shape of his career in '91 and yet could only finish 7th.


All these doping accusations thrown around by people who know nothing. Don't like a guy? Accuse him of doping. Fuc*ing ridiculous and pathetic.

Lighten up Francis! When you employ a guy whose only claim to fame is doping guys with EPO, it don't look too good. Sticking one's head in the sand is what's ridiculous and pathetic.


The same amount of facts that you have to contradict me. The tests from those days have nothing solid to them. They were a step above a multiple-choice drug test.

Really? They didn't catch Fignon, Delgado, Merckx, Ben Johnson? What year were you born? Jeez, they sent a man to the moon in '69. Seems to take a lot more technology to do that then to conduct any kind of doping or toxicology analysis.

Howsit, I know exactly what you're getting at. Even after the shooting accident LeMond should have won more if the sport was clean. Something changed drastically, and the Italians with Conconi, Ferrari, and Cecchini insttitutionalized doping with EPO.

So, instead of continually rehashing the fact that the history of the sport has been scarred, has anyone got a good suggestion on what needs to be done?

'Cause what's going to happen with the current direction of post dated testing for up to 7 or 8 years, is that a whole lot of riders that got sent home or didn't get the big contract they deserved are going to be doomed to even more "what if's" than Greg Lemond has ever suffered.

No, "send Lance away and it'll all be o.k." because that's already been disproven during his brief first retirement.

So, what's it going to take to clean the sport up? Instead of continually discussing the history, over, and over, and over,......................again.

Okay, okay. lets try this ... Forget about anti - dope rules.
Allow anything and everything to be used by the teams. Let
em ride till they blow ... After all, the money and availability of
dope is there, the team Docs are there to monitor usage and
control the amount and what is being used by each rider. In the
end, the rider could choose exactly what performance enhancing
drug he wanted to use to be competitive.

Hell yeah, let em go full tilt boogie. No more tests, everyone
could have, or would have, an opportunity to be equal (Genetics
aside) and ride the race of their lives.

Now this is fantasy, but at this point, it wouldn't be a bad idea.
If doping is so prevalent in the Elite ranks as claimed by so many,
then by all means dope should be legalized. It would render this
entire discussion moot.

Sure would make for an interesting race wouldn't it ?

Sure would make for an interesting race wouldn't it ?

It would make for a lot of dead kids. Not all by their own hand.

Hi, can someone please merge this thread with my "If Lance Wins the TDF / Doping thread" thanks.

They need to give lifetime bans for anyone caught doping, and they need to figure out a better dope testing procedure.

They need to give lifetime bans for anyone caught doping, and they need to figure out a better dope testing procedure.

reverse the order and you would have something......

Is there something factually wrong in the wiki link he posted? If not, spare me the pedantics.


...

Really? They didn't catch Fignon, Delgado, Merckx, Ben Johnson? What year were you born? Jeez, they sent a man to the moon in '69. Seems to take a lot more technology to do that then to conduct any kind of doping or toxicology analysis....

I do have to give this wiki entry credit for sticking to facts, and completely omitting opinion. Quite rare in my experience.

I thought Ben Johnson actually was caught by drug testing.

I do have to give this wiki entry credit for sticking to facts, and completely omitting opinion. Quite rare in my experience.

I thought Ben Johnson actually was caught by drug testing.

Johnson was caught.

Or, look at it this way: That record is proof positive that Greg is as big a doper as the rest. If all those that came after him had the 10-20% advantage that doping supposedly provides and yet the record stood for so long. Then logic would suggest that Greg too, was on the juice. Or, perhaps you would rather contend, Greg was/is simply 10-20% stronger than every other rider to have come along since. Wow, do you really expect that arguement to be accepted? If not. Then we must consider that for that record to have stood as long as it has, Greg was juiced to the gills for that ride.

Im fine with believing he just had an awesome ride. As long as Howzit is willing to admit that a rider could, through training, hard work, and as a result a hardening of his resolve through prior life experience (whether a gun shot or cancer) be better upon return, and able to withstand more pain or suffering than the rest of the field.

Although what you say may be true, I was hoping not to bring Lance into this. There is already a thread about him.

What I really want to see being discussed is the "turning point" at which Greg just failed (and possibly cycling as a sport), when seemingly, his legs, and more importantly his record I mentioned, was pretty rock solid. I mean, almost 20 years!
Iv seen Chris Boardman come and go, Iv seen Ulrich come and go, Iv seen Big Migcome and go and LeMonds time is still up there.
Surely, he should have won a lot more Tours.



The final TT of the 1989 Tour de France was the fastest time trial on record. The average speed of all the riders is faster than any other Tour TT. Mostly, its the conditions. Flat-to-downhill the entire way with a large tailwind. Couple that with a motivated two riders battling it out for the overall win. The UCI has also since outlawed the use of a smaller sized front wheel, like the one that many riders were using in the Tours then.

I have respect for Greg. None whatsoever for Armstrong. Absolutely none. Much respect for Hampsten too. Two American champions who will always be true champions.

Ok, so i know LeMond has become controversial and all of that, but there is no denying his records, or his achievments.

An interesting fact, Greg's 89 Time Trial stage win with Avg speed of 54.545 kph, stood for almost 20 years, only being cracked by David Zabriskie, and not by much, at 54.676 km/h, a trivial beating really, in 2005.

If you read this page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_doping_cases_in_cycling

Do you guys have any thoughts or feelings on this record?
Have you guys seen the bike he rode, and the training plans and programs they had back then?

Im just wondering, if a man was this good, how could he have not won 10 Tours?He doped. /thread

I do have to give this wiki entry credit for sticking to facts, and completely omitting opinion. Quite rare in my experience.

I thought Ben Johnson actually was caught by drug testing.

Yes, Ben Johnson was actually caught by drug testing as were the other guys listed. That was my point.

It was a rhetorical question. I have to learn to make declarative statements less than 7 words long.

That happened in 1988. The poster I was responding to said the testing back then, (as if it were so long ago in a different scientific era) was meaningless.

Furthermore Delgado was positive for Probenecid which was banned at the time by the IOC but not the UCI. He subsequently stayed in the '88 TdF and went on to win.

Sorry, as long as people are paid based on their physical performance enhancing that performance through the use of doping will continue. Look at your wiki link, it has gone on forever and it is not just in cycling. Athletes use every means possible to increase their performance; they train 8 hours a day, they use nutritional supplements, they use hyperberic therapy .... It is a slippery slope and it is not hard to see how an athlete sees the line as being gray not black and white. It will not end and you will never developing testing that cannot be overcome nor penalties that athletes will not risk.

Unfortunately it is part of human nature and until you have been in their shoes you cannot tell what you would do. So I see no value in arguing all of this or getting up on soap boxes, watch and enjoy the sports because as long as you pay to do so you are providing the incentive that drives it.

Having the support of a strong team surrounding you would certainly help. In his 1st win, he rode with only the support of 2 riders, Bauer and Hampsten (Hinault had the support of the rest of that team). In 1990, the support of his team was pathetic.

That is not what Hampsten says. In hte same interview where he said so he recounts 2 of the FRENCH riders pulling him back to the pack when he had blown up helping Lemond. Seems even the 75,000 Francs of 4th mattered more than a little to them.

Has anyone considered all the factors that contributed to a fast ITT?

It was a short Time Trial. It was flat and actually lost 75 meters in elevation. There was a tailwind.

Finally it was the final stage, that has not happened since. If Lemond was 9 seconds less fast all it meant was 'Nice try'. He only had 1:39 on Delgado for third, but it looks like Pedro blew up. Once that happened Lemond could afford to risk blowing up at least a bit.

Hi, can someone please merge this thread with my "If Lance Wins the TDF / Doping thread" thanks.

I moved the various Lance\Doping to the Lance Doping thread.

I moved the various Lance\Doping to the Lance Doping thread.

Jaxgtr,

I really wish you would quit running around rearranging everyone's posts for them into whatever order you would like to seem them. I didn't make that last post to the Lance thread. I made it to this one. It was in direct response to someone elses post and now I look like an even bigger moron than I am in the other thread, with the completely unrelated paragraph about Greg.

Some of us are sufficiently challenged to not look like idiots all on our own. We don't need you to remove all hope. Will ya' just F''' off and leave our posts where they belong?

Or should I just abstain from attempting in taking part?

Fred

But, the question was, why didn't Greg do more than 3? And, I submit that in addition to the reasons already presented. Perhaps, he just didn't have the willingness to endure the self inflicted boredom of suffering and pain that would be required to keep doing the same thing,...over and ,......over,......again. What more did he have or need to prove? Even Lance has aluded to the existance of this hurdle. I really doubt he would be back if a) he really had something to do with the rest of his life beyond the foundation and b)it didn't serve the purpose of that foundation.


What a stupid question... Why didn't Greg win more than 3? Why didn't Jordan win more than 6? Why didn't Terry Bradshaw win more than 4?

What a stupid question... Why didn't Greg win more than 3? Why didn't Jordan win more than 6? Why didn't Terry Bradshaw win more than 4?

Stupid it may be, but, that's the question that Howzit was supposedly posing.

It wasn't a stupid question. It was a rhetorical one. The answer being the advent of EPO. When LeMond was on the side of the road in '94 he was dejected because it was apparent he couldn't keep up for whatever reason and he still wanted to race competitively as a professional.

He was only 33 years old.

Greg Lemond, clean? My ass.
He did the same things that everyone else was doing. When he started getting slow, he took the clean stance and quit cycling.

Personally, I don't see Lemond as a winner of anything; not because of the dope, but because how he feverishly proclaims his cleanliness in a time that was tainted, and impossible to win clean.

Eddie Borysewicz, the former national coach of the US team, stated that LeMond wouldn't even take vitamin injections during his time at the Olympic Training Center. Now of course Eddie B. may have had his own reasons for trying to portray riders under his guidance as being squeaky clean, but as I remember, LeMond was an outspoken advocate of increased drug testing in the mid to late 80's, well before EPO hit the scene.

Eddie Borysewicz, the former national coach of the US team, stated that LeMond wouldn't even take vitamin injections during his time at the Olympic Training Center. Now of course Eddie B. may have had his own reasons for trying to portray riders under his guidance as being squeaky clean, but as I remember, LeMond was an outspoken advocate of increased drug testing in the mind to late 80's, well before EPO hit the scene.

And in your post lies part of the rub. If Greg was stubornly refusing to take things like vitamins(albeit by injection) that were not only legal but could have helped his competitiveness, then it's very likely that he could have remained more competitive by simply doing "all" that was allowed by the rules, instead of standing on a personal stance that may not have been the optimal stance.

And in your post lies part of the rub. If Greg was stubornly refusing to take things like vitamins(albeit by injection) that were not only legal but could have helped his competitiveness, then it's very likely that he could have remained more competitive by simply doing "all" that was allowed by the rules, instead of standing on a personal stance that may not have been the optimal stance.


That is absurd. So, what you are saying is this...

if somebody doesn't like taking vitamins, then they must be taking steroids.
if somebody doesn't like steroids, then they must love vitamins.
if somebody doesn't like too pee, then they must like going doo doo.
if somebody doesn't like peanuts, then they must like walnuts.
if somebody doesn't going to the movies, then they must like the opera.
if somebody doesn't like cycling, then they must like running.
if somebody doesn't like reading, then they must like writing.

That is absurd. So, what you are saying is this...

if somebody doesn't like taking vitamins, then they must be taking steroids.
if somebody doesn't like steroids, then they must love vitamins.
if somebody doesn't like too pee, then they must like going doo doo.
if somebody doesn't like peanuts, then they must like walnuts.
if somebody doesn't going to the movies, then they must like the opera.
if somebody doesn't like cycling, then they must like running.
if somebody doesn't like reading, then they must like writing.

Not at all. And you know it. I was simply pointing out that if we take Eddy B's comment (regarding Greg not even agreeing to take vitamins via injection) at face value, which might be arguable in itself, Greg's desire to do things not only cleanly but "naturally" could have hinders his ability to be competitive against even competitors who were within the rules but willing to do anything within said rules to gain an advantage.

Clear now?

I need a timeline of doping technology. I thought Lemond was taken down by blood doping, not EPO. It has the same effect, and was legal for a while.