Request to investigate L.A. !

Since 2001, over 90,000 cyclist's have joined Cycling Forums to discuss topics from general cycling to equipment, training, racing and travel or vacation destinations (especially in europe during the tour de france). We also feature an great deals in our online store, 100's of articles, classifieds and product reviews.

100 m height gives a huge advantage, at least 1mn, probably 2mn !

Easy to calculate. Take a slope of 10% !
On flat section rider speed at 45km/h and by riding down his speed is 90km/h. Times are 1'30 and 45s so a gain of 45s. But at 90km/h the drag is 4 times greater than at 45km/h.
So on a small slope of 1%, the rider would only speed to 48km/h, so the drag is far less and there si more time to gain.

Wow. Seems as easy to provoke a massive response here by critising GL as it is by praising LA.I was trying to make two points, but I was a smartass about it:

1) Armstrong's natural limits and abilities don't match Lemond's;

2) There's scant evidence that Lemond doped, anecdotal or otherwise; further, there's even anecdotal evidence that he went to great lengths to avoid doping, which is supported by third parties.

But, if it turns out he's a hypocrite, then I won't lose sleep. His message would be irreparably harmed, however.

Ok, i've gone at look at the numbers and that 0.3% gradient is worth around 35 watts (so massive cock up on my part by neglecting it) at the speed GL was doing. That would equate, I think, to the difference between modern Aero kit and GL's old school Aero kit so any flat course with a tailwind done by a modern day TTist is worthy for comparison.

Point of interest, Conconi doped up Moser for his 1984 world hour record, so blood doping would have been available to Lemond, which in my mind would make the figures stack.

In the end he won 3 TdF against opposition who had easy access to dope that wouldn't show up on tests, which in my mind makes it pretty much impossible for him not have been on the gear. Similar position to all the people who where saying LA was doping before the evidence (which was subsequently screwed up) came out.

On the wiggins point he would do 10k in about 11 minutes, so 25k in around 29 or something close. Would all come down to just how strong that tail wind was.

Back on topic: Yes they should investigate L.A. Hopefully then they'll be able to find something that will stand up in court and can nail him with.

Ok, i've gone at look at the numbers and that 0.3% gradient is worth around 35 watts (so massive cock up on my part by neglecting it) at the speed GL was doing. That would equate, I think, to the difference between modern Aero kit and GL's old school Aero kit so any flat course with a tailwind done by a modern day TTist is worthy for comparison.

Point of interest, Conconi doped up Moser for his 1984 world hour record, so blood doping would have been available to Lemond, which in my mind would make the figures stack.

In the end he won 3 TdF against opposition who had easy access to dope that wouldn't show up on tests, which in my mind makes it pretty much impossible for him not have been on the gear. Similar position to all the people who where saying LA was doping before the evidence (which was subsequently screwed up) came out.

On the wiggins point he would do 10k in about 11 minutes, so 25k in around 29 or something close. Would all come down to just how strong that tail wind was.Eldrack, you correct teorticly..in reality? No evidence. Remember, LeMond raced in French teams…no friends….many envy riders…in 20+ years from then and 800+ races no soigneur, no gregario, no DS, none, zero step up to blame…
Think it about. Now, compare it to dickrong…OK? respect to youhttp://cyclingforums.com/images/smilies/smile.gif

[QUOTE=Eldrack]
In the end he won 3 TdF against opposition who had easy access to dope that wouldn't show up on tests, which in my mind makes it pretty much impossible for him not have been on the gear. Similar position to all the people who where saying LA was doping before the evidence (which was subsequently screwed up) came out.
QUOTE]

Conconi used blood transfusions with Moser for a one-day event (as did some members of the U.S. Olympic team). But there's no evidence (even by the whistleblowers) that blood transfusions (which require extraction, refrigeration, and re-infusion under the guidence of a doctor) were used in the grand tours in Lemond's day. You state that the other riders had easy access to dope that wouldn't show up on tests. What specifically are you talking about? As for Lemond's 3 TdF wins against an allegedly doped competition, take note that in 1991 he finished 7th, while in pre-race preparation he felt stronger than in 1990. Meanwhile, dopers Chiappucci and Bugno finished ahead of him (with the help of our good friend Dr. Michelle Ferrari).

In the end he won 3 TdF against opposition who had easy access to dope that wouldn't show up on tests, which in my mind makes it pretty much impossible for him not have been on the gear. Similar position to all the people who where saying LA was doping before the evidence (which was subsequently screwed up) came out.Your supposition may be correct, but I bet that at least one person would have called Lemond out. Particularly in recent years (months?) given his ongoing criticism of the doping culture.

In all candidness, your argument is very weak.

Your supposition may be correct, but I bet that at least one person would have called Lemond out. Particularly in recent years (months?) given his ongoing criticism of the doping culture.

In all candidness, your argument is very weak.
Same arguement as I apply to all grand tour winners, especially the ones who win it lots of times. It's normally born out by a positive drugs test or other doping convictions (see the last 10 years worth of GT's, very high rate of doping). Of course because Lemond is from the time's when there where no proper dope tests (but of course still loads of gear) it's unlikely he'll ever be nailed down, so what I think is merely opinion, not fact as in the case of LA. Guess lots of people won't agree with me, but I reckon history stands by me.

As for people calling him out, I don't think they would even if they knew. It's part of the culture, people dope, and you're frowned upon for speaking out (e.g Simeoni). A few people do, but as a general rule it seems everyone keeps their mouth shut and keeps themself from being a hypocrit. The ones who do provide a nice flak screen for the others. Maybe some of them are clean (I have high hopes for David Millar, Brad Wiggins but in the current climate you just can't be sure), but if you say you aren't doping so vigourously when you blatantly are (LA) you look like a massive cock. Guess I'd put Voigt on that list, I mean who does he think he's kidding? Beating climbers up some seriously hard core grades in the tour of germany when he weighs 80 kilos. Yeah right.

Of course I didn't think that a few years ago when I joined cycling forums, but I've become jaded with time, I guess you could call that the Flyer effect :p .

Whether LeMond doped or not IMHO is inconsequential. In American politics I have noticed a tactic of discrediting the integrity/character of anyone who advocates or states an opinion that contradicts one's view. If LeMond is on a mission to clean up cycling, I don't really care if he is coming from a platform of a once great clean cyclist, or a once great dirty cyclist (now reformed), or even a once great dirty cyclist who implies/states/lies that he was clean. The interesting thing is the tactic of not arguing or debating his message... but to focus on how much of a prick he is, or how dirty he probably was, or how jealous he is of LA's seven wins. It's a smokescreen IMO. His message is correct. Doping kills the integrity of the sport. And it isn't/hasn't been fought with 100% integrity and vigor by the anti-doping authorities.

If more retired pro cyclists were like LeMond (or even those not retired), this problem wouldn't fester under the carpet so easily.

Whether LeMond doped or not IMHO is inconsequential. In American politics I have noticed a tactic of discrediting the integrity/character of anyone who advocates or states an opinion that contradicts one's view. If LeMond is on a mission to clean up cycling, I don't really care if he is coming from a platform of a once great clean cyclist, or a once great dirty cyclist (now reformed), or even a once great dirty cyclist who implies/states/lies that he was clean. The interesting thing is the tactic of not arguing or debating his message... but to focus on how much of a prick he is, or how dirty he probably was, or how jealous he is of LA's seven wins. It's a smokescreen IMO. His message is correct. Doping kills the integrity of the sport. And it isn't/hasn't been fought with 100% integrity and vigor by the anti-doping authorities.

If more retired pro cyclists were like LeMond (or even those not retired), this problem wouldn't fester under the carpet so easily.Very well said, both about Lemond specifically and about the tendency for character assassination of those you don't agree with more generally.

Whether LeMond doped or not IMHO is inconsequential. In American politics I have noticed a tactic of discrediting the integrity/character of anyone who advocates or states an opinion that contradicts one's view. If LeMond is on a mission to clean up cycling, I don't really care if he is coming from a platform of a once great clean cyclist, or a once great dirty cyclist (now reformed), or even a once great dirty cyclist who implies/states/lies that he was clean. The interesting thing is the tactic of not arguing or debating his message... but to focus on how much of a prick he is, or how dirty he probably was, or how jealous he is of LA's seven wins. It's a smokescreen IMO. His message is correct. Doping kills the integrity of the sport. And it isn't/hasn't been fought with 100% integrity and vigor by the anti-doping authorities.

If more retired pro cyclists were like LeMond (or even those not retired), this problem wouldn't fester under the carpet so easily.
<enter stage right karl rove and the swiftbike veterans for truth>

Whether LeMond doped or not IMHO is inconsequential. In American politics I have noticed a tactic of discrediting the integrity/character of anyone who advocates or states an opinion that contradicts one's view. If LeMond is on a mission to clean up cycling, I don't really care if he is coming from a platform of a once great clean cyclist, or a once great dirty cyclist (now reformed), or even a once great dirty cyclist who implies/states/lies that he was clean. The interesting thing is the tactic of not arguing or debating his message... but to focus on how much of a prick he is, or how dirty he probably was, or how jealous he is of LA's seven wins. It's a smokescreen IMO. His message is correct. Doping kills the integrity of the sport. And it isn't/hasn't been fought with 100% integrity and vigor by the anti-doping authorities.

If more retired pro cyclists were like LeMond (or even those not retired), this problem wouldn't fester under the carpet so easily.
I'd say that whether he doped or not does make a difference to his credibility. It would be great if all the old pro's stood up said 'I did it, I'm not proud of it now let's move on because it really screws up the sport' but that isn't going to happen because back when they did it doping was pretty much the accepted norm in the sport. Bjarne Riis would be a good example of someone who has owned up to it and is now working against the gear (new team anti doping program at CSC).

The place I look today for cleaning up the sport is teams like Slipstream. Massive in team anti doping program, with some pretty outspoken views amongst the riders on why you shouldn't dope. The main point of this is that the team is actively trying to prevent doping, rather than being the ones organising the dope (like Telekom in the 90's). People like David Millar who have been caught, don't deny what they've done (like landis, hamilton etc) and use their bad experiences to show everyone else why cheating is wrong.

What GL is doing is good, any loud voice against doping is fine by me, but I don't really think he's in a very good position to do anything but make a lot of noise. The people who really need to be shouting anti doping mantra from the rooftops are the people involved running the teams, as well as the current riders themselves.

I'd say that whether he doped or not does make a difference to his credibility. It would be great if all the old pro's stood up said 'I did it, I'm not proud of it now let's move on because it really screws up the sport' but that isn't going to happen because back when they did it doping was pretty much the accepted norm in the sport. Bjarne Riis would be a good example of someone who has owned up to it and is now working against the gear (new team anti doping program at CSC).I'm not convinced that Riis is doing anything against doping now. The anti-doping program of CSC is the same as the one used by Astana. If you think that CSC is clean, then there should be no reason to think why Astana is juiced.

I'm not convinced that Riis is doing anything against doping now. The anti-doping program of CSC is the same as the one used by Astana. If you think that CSC is clean, then there should be no reason to think why Astana is juiced.
and Andy Schleck and some of cancellaras efforts were not credible.


If anyone knows what is possible, it is B Riis

In mitigation, Riis did admit, in 2007, that he doped in the 1996.

I know that people closer to the sport (than I am) have said that Riis and the others who did admit it, made their admissions because they had little or no choice.


Despite this, I have to admit that I find Riis to be a very intriguiging character.
He's goes to great lengths to extol how his teams train harder, bond better,
dedicate every minute of their existence to the team performance.
It may all be bluster of course - but fascinating nonetheless.

In mitigation, Riis did admit, in 2007, that he doped in the 1996.

I know that people closer to the sport (than I am) have said that Riis and the others who did admit it, made their admissions because they had little or no choice.


Despite this, I have to admit that I find Riis to be a very intriguiging character.
He's goes to great lengths to extol how his teams train harder, bond better,
dedicate every minute of their existence to the team performance.
It may all be bluster of course - but fascinating nonetheless.
Lim, it is all bullshit.

It is fine to have great morale because you are winning.

You confer the "teamwork and morale" to intangibles, and great organisational behaviour and leadership from Riis.

I would say, that the morale and teamwork is a natural function of the institutional doping program they had. It produced wins.

Wins produced the morale and team spirit.

Then, when Basso got found, they did the Damsgaard PR schtick. They are cleaner now, but still dirty.

They can be better than the rest of the peloton, because his doping produced a budget that allowed him to buy the best talent in the peloton.

Lim, it is all bullshit.

It is fine to have great morale because you are winning.

You confer the "teamwork and morale" to intangibles, and great organisational behaviour and leadership from Riis.

I would say, that the morale and teamwork is a natural function of the institutional doping program they had. It produced wins.

Wins produced the morale and team spirit.

Then, when Basso got found, they did the Damsgaard PR schtick. They are cleaner now, but still dirty.

They can be better than the rest of the peloton, because his doping produced a budget that allowed him to buy the best talent in the peloton.

I'm not defending Riis or doping.

I'm anti-doping.

On the wider point, you're probably right - doping +wins=better morale=more wins.

Having said that not every rider signed to CSC has suddenly become worldbeaters.....................Michele Bartoli, for one, did not ride better there than he did previously.

I don't see why anyone professing to run a model anti-doping programme should be taken seriously. Sorry, just the conspiracy-minded southern European in me... :o

I'm not defending Riis or doping.

I'm anti-doping.

On the wider point, you're probably right - doping +wins=better morale=more wins.

Having said that not every rider signed to CSC has suddenly become worldbeaters.....................Michele Bartoli, for one, did not ride better there than he did previously.
but Baroli's final years at fassa were not brilliant neither.

I'm not defending Riis or doping.

I'm anti-doping.

On the wider point, you're probably right - doping +wins=better morale=more wins.

Having said that not every rider signed to CSC has suddenly become worldbeaters.....................Michele Bartoli, for one, did not ride better there than he did previously.
oh, and Lim, I respect your opinion. I was not saying what you asserted was BS, just the point you raised on Riis.

Spin. All it is.

You win as big and as often as CSC, enjoy great prizemoney and bonuses, ofcourse everyone is cheery happy.

Just who was "amigo de Birillo"?

If Riis was anti-doping, he would have confirmed if it was the elder Schleck, or Giovanni Lombardi. It could have been Mazzoleni.

But if he was anti-doping on CSC, you can be bet two things would have transpired. He WOULD NOT have paid Basso out his contract. Why did Riis pay Basso out?

He would have demanded a DNA sample from Schleck and Lombardi, to ensure that they were not "amigo de birillo". The Dutch media had mail on amigo being Frank Schleck.