Interesting Lemond Letter re: 20 year ITT record

That was an amazing TT wasn't it? Hinault/Merckx/ Fignon never came close to that TT speed over that distance. Of course, Fignon did not have Scott bars and he had a wind dragging ponytail. {sparse one though] And Fignon was really not to be taken seriously, having just been on the top podium step twice. 58 seconds I believe was the time re-couped by Lemond.
I remember the Lemond camp giving those bars the credit for the win.And now we have EPO that has the magical powers to turn a non-champion into a champion, we have champions wind tunnel tested, we have specialists with superior equipment, and riders still cannot match that ride.
Would Eddy have won anything if Lemond was riding during the same time frame?

Dumbass, there was not a ITT that short for twenty-five years after the one in 1989. Some slight downhill and wind assist didn't hurt either.

If you want to talk about ITTs, how about the one in 1994 where Indurain took four minutes out of all the contenders...

Bro Deal said:

Dumbass, there was not a ITT that short for twenty-five years after the one in 1989. Somes slight downhill and wind assist didn't hurt either.

If you want to talk about ITTs, how about the one in 1994 where Indurain too four minutes out of all the contenders...

Agreed.

Stage 21 of the 1989 TDF was an ITT : distance (and this is the important part) 24.5Kms in the suburbs of Paris.
It's hardly like doing an ITT up Mount Ventoux

One of the shortest ITT's in the history of any grand tour.
In addition, given that Thierry Marie (finished second was travelling at 53 Kmph) and Fignon (finished 3rd) was travelling at 52 Kmph, LeMond's time isn't that exceptional.

But as we're discussing 1989.
Check out the profile of the 2004 TDF : it's total distance and profile was very like the 1989 TDF.
Yet the winner managed to cycle it almost 4 Kmph faster, for every kilometre of the 2004 TDF, than the 1989 TDF winner.

Can't wait to hear what excuse is used to explain that differential (yawn)

Quoted post said:

Agreed.

Stage 21 of the 1989 TDF was an ITT : distance (and this is the important part) 24.5Kms in the suburbs of Paris.
It's hardly like doing an ITT up Mount Ventoux

One of the shortest ITT's in the history of any grand tour.
In addition, given that Thierry Marie (finished second was travelling at 53 Kmph) and Fignon (finished 3rd) was travelling at 52 Kmph, LeMond's time isn't that exceptional.

But as we're discussing 1989.
Check out the profile of the 2004 TDF : it's total distance and profile was very like the 1989 TDF.
Yet the winner managed to cycle it almost 4 Kmph faster, for every kilometre of the 2004 TDF, than the 1989 TDF winner.

Can't wait to hear what excuse is used to explain that differential (yawn)

The record has been beaten. By Dave Z in the 19km ITT at the beginning of the 2005 TdF. Average speed 54.67 kph. Flat un technical course. Tail/crosswind - an advantage if you're running a disk wheel according to wind tunnel testing. So we can say that conditions where pretty similar for both TT's, give or take maybe .5kph.

Next let's consider equipment. Lemond was riding a road bike with rudimentry TT bars, and wearing an aero helmet, rear disk. Dave Z was riding a full TT bike with disk rear wheel, deep section at the front, full aero TT frame. Dimpled skin suite, shoe covers, full aero helmet.

Such technology offers a huge advantage. Look at the difference between Chris Boardman's hour records. 7kph difference there due to technology. Obviously Dave Z's technological advantage isn't quite as big as Lemond was using some fancy kit but there is a large advantage none the less. Maybe, say 3kph (that's a fairly conservative estimate).

Next: Dave Z will have peaked for the time trial, which was at the beginning of the TdF. Lemond had raced 20 hard stages before he did his TT.

From these facts I would suggest that Lemonds speed in the 1989 final time trial is highly anomalous. Sure it was a fast day, but so was the 2005 TT. And the riders in the 2005 TT had a massive technological advantage which the conditions in the 1989 TT cannot have overcome.

Lastly look at the competition. Who did Dave Z beat to get his win? A certain Lance Armstrong.

So, two possibilities. Either Dave Z and LA are clean, which puts forward the possibility that Lemond was also clean, he was after all a pretty good TTist. Neither are doped so that put's them on a level setting (well, Dave Z and LA have the advantage of being fresh/much better training programs/all that lovely new tech).

The second option is that Lance is doped, so Dave Z is most likely doped. In this situation there is pretty much zero probability that Lemond was clean. The figures just don't add up unless you add in that wonderful power boost you get from taking drugs. (Please note that I don't particulary care which of these two situations is true).

I would suggest therefore, based on the scientific evidence, that your position is untenable. You believe Lance doped. Therefore, based on the evidence Greg Lemond must have been doped. Yet you say he was the last clean TdF winner?

limerickman said:

One of the shortest ITT's in the history of any grand tour.

You're dismissing the prologue. It too is a ITT that goes by a different name. And contested seriously by many, far more then most contest ITT's later in the race for GC. And the riders are fresh, not broken down by riding a entire TDF before hand.

Lets look at how amazing Lemonds ride was.

1.....Chris Boardman holds the record for the average prologue speed: 55.152 kph on Lille-Euralille in 1994.

2.........There was a very similar ITT comparable to Lemond's won by Zabriske on a flat course with a tailwind, 54.674 over 19kms in 2005 Prologue. LA finished 2 seconds back.
Then there was Lemonds.
So basically, Lemond matched Armstrongs best short TDF time trial under the same conditions. There is no EPO advantage there. Armstrongs tt was just 4kms longer. And he was fresh, not after racing across France.
Where is the EPO advantage?

And when you compare the overall speeds at the TDF that is not a comparison that means as much as comparing short TT's. The average peloton speed looks at the entire peloton. The prolouge looks at just the individual winner out there all by themselves. That makes it a fair comparison.

And lets look at other prologue times over the EPO years......
Remember .These riders are fresh and some are specialists. [Again, a few of them were on more difficult courses]

2006 Thor Husvold 51.428
2004 Fabian Cancellera 53.560
2003 Brad McGee 48.7
2002 Lance Armstrong 45k +
2001 Christopher Moreau

So Lemond speed is way faster over a slightly longer course then all of the short TT's during the EPO years except 2.


But to believe he beat a doped JU, Boardman [more then once and probably not doped],Abraham Olano, and Indurain at short TT's over many years is looking as if Lemond rode an unbelievable ride. And he beat Hinault's best.

Again the question...... In the short TT's the GT's have every year, is it possible to post the 3rd best time ever, even over the magically doped EPO riders?
Today we have superior equipment
great dope
hopefully better knowledge

Argue.......

Lemond had a top of the line TT bike for that era. 26 inch front wheel with V section rim radial laced spokes, rear Mavic disc wheel. Oval tube Botechia(spl) frame, standard TT type bike for the time, sloping top tube, Mavic TT bars with the Scott areo bars bolted on. I still have the GIRO poster with him coming around the last turn with the Arc De Triumph in the back ground. He rode the same bike in the prologue. I think he did ride his standard rode bike with the Scott bars on for one of the TT's because their was some small hills. I can't remember were I read it but I do remember reading a quote for his old Renault DS saying that Lemond was one of the few riders who could race without "preparation". Do I think he never doped. I wouldn't bet on it. And I to had heard the rumors that Lemond "discovered" EPO while recovering from his hunting accident but when the Dutch guys started dropping dead in their sleep he stopped.

1988dist3champ said:

And I to had heard the rumors that Lemond "discovered" EPO while recovering from his hunting accident but when the Dutch guys started dropping dead in their sleep he stopped.

A question that has crossed my mind a few times..........Putting aside doping allegations and dislikes of certain riders, what I find interesting is that Lemond came back from a serious injury, LA came back from cancer, and didn't Pantani have a real serious crash mid career and then came back to win the TDF in a few years?
The thing that has crossed my mind is this......... If a rider trains real hard through his younger days, maybe his body reaches a set point where it cannot be bumped up to the level of fitness. Then with a injury which allows a break in the training and no stress on the body , maybe when they start training again the set point is allowed to go higher........
Sometimes I wonder if a talented rider who seems to not quite ride up to his potential with proper training took a mid career break, if he could possibly come back stronger with the correct training?
Just a thought........

wolfix said:

didn't Pantani have a real serious crash mid career and then came back to win the TDF in a few years?

He broke his leg in a couple places when he hit a car (I think) on a descent in Milan-Turin. This was also one of the first glimpses into the doping as it was widely reported that he his hematocrit readings in the hospital were ~60% when he showed up.

I also seem to remember that something very odd happened in the hospital and his hematocrit started fluctuating wildly and dropped real low?

Wayne666 said:

He broke his leg in a couple places when he hit a car (I think) on a descent in Milan-Turin. This was also one of the first glimpses into the doping as it was widely reported that he his hematocrit readings in the hospital were ~60% when he showed up.

I also seem to remember that something very odd happened in the hospital and his hematocrit started fluctuating wildly and dropped real low?

Oh dear.......for the record it took Pantani and LeMond a good 3 years to get back to being competitive..... not winning the Tour 1 year after cancer...... When LeMond won the Tour he was riding for a 2nd rate team that allowed him a leave of absence to ride for a [censored] American team 6 months of the year.... lets keep it all in perspective.... as for Patani he spent 7 months in physiotherapy just to walk again let along ride a farkin bike...... calm down.......

wolfix said:

You're dismissing the prologue. It too is a ITT that goes by a different name. And contested seriously by many, far more then most contest ITT's later in the race for GC. And the riders are fresh, not broken down by riding a entire TDF before hand.

Lets look at how amazing Lemonds ride was.

1.....Chris Boardman holds the record for the average prologue speed: 55.152 kph on Lille-Euralille in 1994.

Lille-Euraille 1994 Prologue was a total distance of .........7.2kms.
Boardmans performance is superb given the short distance of that parcours.

wolfix said:

2.........There was a very similar ITT comparable to Lemond's won by Zabriske on a flat course with a tailwind, 54.674 over 19kms in 2005 Prologue. LA finished 2 seconds back.
Then there was Lemonds.
So basically, Lemond matched Armstrongs best short TDF time trial under the same conditions. There is no EPO advantage there. Armstrongs tt was just 4kms longer. And he was fresh, not after racing across France.
Where is the EPO advantage?

LeMond's 1989 ITT was 5kms longer than Zabriskies ITT in 2005.

There is also another factor which you, Serafino and Eldtrack overlook.

LeMond in the 1989 ITT was fighting, in that last stage to win the overall title against Fignon.
In addition, LeMond was a superb ITT'ist up against another superb ITT'ist
(fignon).
Given the closeness in time gaps coming in to the ITT, a superb performance
was required from both riders in order to secure overall victory.
In addition, both second and third place in that ITT cycled at 53kmph and 52Kmph respectively.

wolfix said:

And when you compare the overall speeds at the TDF that is not a comparison that means as much as comparing short TT's. The average peloton speed looks at the entire peloton. The prolouge looks at just the individual winner out there all by themselves. That makes it a fair comparison.

I didn't compare the overall peleton speeds in the 1989 and 2004 T'sDF.
I compared the winning time of Greg LeMond in 1989 and the winning time of
Armstrong in 2004 and their respective average speeds.

1989 TDF covered 3,277 kms and LeMond's time 87hrs 38 mins = average speed (for him) 37.50 kmph.
2004 TDF covered 3,391 Kms and ASrmstrongs time was 83hrs 36 mins = average speed (for him) 40.68 Kmph.
That's 4 Kmph quicker for every kilometre raced, over 3,000 kilometre distance.
That comparison is fair.

That is also an unbelievable improvment.

whiteboytrash said:

Oh dear.......for the record it took Pantani and LeMond a good 3 years to get back to being competitive..... not winning the Tour 1 year after cancer...... When LeMond won the Tour he was riding for a 2nd rate team that allowed him a leave of absence to ride for a [censored] American team 6 months of the year.... lets keep it all in perspective.... as for Patani he spent 7 months in physiotherapy just to walk again let along ride a farkin bike...... calm down.......

Oh dear, dear dear.......
For the correct non-flaming record it took Lemond just over 26 months from the moment he was shot to the time he won the TDF. Barely raced in the fall of 1987 after being shot in the spring. Raced 1988 with PDM but had a hard year due to a leg injury and returned home. Very few starts.
1989 started badly too. Of course we never had the faith we should have had, considering 2 months before his epic TDF win he barely finished the Giro and was considered wash -upped. But luckily for Greg, the night before the Giro's final ITT his soigneur suggested he get a shot for anemia. Greg Lemond's own words told the story of how before the iron shot he barely could ride up a hill.
"We know Greg, we saw you finishing badly every day."
Then an iron shot, next day a second place in a hilly TT in the Giro. Overnight !!!!! Not the Podunk Big Wheel Criterium in backwoods America, but the Giro with the big boys that ride 10 speeds with no fenders.

Throw in a TDF victory and a Worlds over the next few months....... More soigneurs should suggest iron shots so we can see miraculous recovery overnight. [* Hint...Floyd Landis's lawyers}

Armstrong came back for a 1998 season that was a complete bust, then races in the 1999 season where he finally came through for a TDF victory. Same story as Lemond. [Hint again Floyd Landis..see the pattern]

The Armstrong/Lemond story is almost the same and almost the same time frame for recovery after training began and winning the TDF. . If you read Lemond's career story that was written for the American market, you see the exact same story as Armstrongs......

"Poor boy almost dies and comes back to beat up European bullies."

That is always a good selling story in America , first penned by General Patton back in the day when he won everything in sight during the Italian, French, Belgium armored tank seasons.

The only difference between Armstrong and Lemond's story is that Armstrong wrote a book that sold more. And Armstrong had a hot mom. Oh yeah ...... Armstrongs victories was attributed to a faster cadence where Lemonds was due to a iron shot.......[ This is where helmutRoole jumps in and confirms the iron shooting benifits ]

I think I would be rather suspicison of both if I didn't have some good money invested in autographed Lemond/Armstrong jerseys. It's easier to be doubtful of Lemond when I know he doesn't like paying his share of the tab.

*My success in cycling is attributed to Oreo's dunked in beer. Read it in my recovery book as soon as my ex-wife shoots me next spring on a turkey hunt.

wolfix said:

The only difference between Armstrong and Lemond's story is that Armstrong wrote a book that sold more. And Armstrong had a hot mom. Oh yeah ...... Armstrongs victories was attributed to a faster cadence where Lemonds was due to a iron shot.......[ This is where helmutRoole jumps in and confirms the iron shooting benifits ]

You forgot one major detail...that Lemond had already won the tour (and could have won two if his team allowed it) prior to his accident and was clearly the most dominant rider at that time. Armstrong was mediocre prior to cancer.

I will concede that the 'iron shot' story never made much sense, but perhaps it provided a placebo effect for Lemond. If you really think something strange was in the iron shot, what do you think it was? One dose of EPO - not gonna make a difference. One steroid dose - probably a little more helpful, but certainly not going to win you the TdF. The drug regimens back then just weren't as advanced, even if the drugs themselves were available.

I also don't find his TT that amazing because he didn't blow away the competition. I imagine the course conditions that day were very favorable to allow such speeds. To beat Fignon by 57 sec by using aero bars, and having a little extra drive (Fignon already acted as if he had won), is reasonable. I remember bolting on my first set of Scott aero bars and seeing my TT speed increase by 1-2 mph. Lemonds bike, although not quite as fancy as todays, was certainly aerodynamic.

Comparing prologue speeds to ITT speeds is irrelevant. Prologues typically are technical and riders are unable to get into a groove. Also, A short ITT will also be riden at or near AT just a prologue would be so I wouldn't expect speeds to be too much different.

Its ridiculous to assert that Lemond must be clean because he says so. Everyone else was doped to the gills (before and after) but Greg was the one exception to the rule 🙄

If Lance rode such a TT almost 20 years ago on an antiquated Steel bike with prehistoric aero components (compared to today) you'd all have crucified him as being doped.

But, of course, Lemond's effort was all due to superior "training" and the Scott aero bars 🙄

Double standard.

Serafino said:

Its ridiculous to assert that Lemond must be clean because he says so. Everyone else was doped to the gills (before and after) but Greg was the one exception to the rule 🙄

If Lance rode such a TT almost 20 years ago on an antiquated Steel bike with prehistoric aero components (compared to today) you'd all have crucified him as being doped.

But, of course, Lemond's effort was all due to superior "training" and the Scott aero bars 🙄

Double standard.

There's no double standard.

I can't recall anyone here suggesting that because LeMond says he's clean - that they accept that LeMond was clean.
No one here suggested that.

The fact of the matter is that LeMond and riders in that era and riders in previous eras were riding GT's at an average speed of between 34-37Kmph.
LeMond didn't improve GT average speed times nor did he write books in an effort to try to explain away his performances.

In the 1990's - we have certain riders riding GT's at speeds far in excess of those previous average speeds and who claim that they did so, cleanly.

A 4Kmph increase in average speed in GT's for every kilometre cycled warrants explanation.

wolfix said:

Armstrong came back for a 1998 season that was a complete bust, then races in the 1999 season where he finally came through for a TDF victory. Same story as Lemond. [Hint again Floyd Landis..see the pattern]

Not the same story in fact.

In the 1998 Vuelta, September 1998, Armstrong finished 4th and had started to demolish the field in the last week of the Vuelta when he started climing like Pantani.

Only for his poor start to the 98 Vuelta prevented Armstrong from winning it.
So 1998 wasn't a bust - as you call it.

Not bad from a man who claimed to be dying in October 1996.

Serafino said:

Greg LeMond and record ITTs

Having watched the recent hearing with regards to Floyd Landis' "AAF" and read all of the recent doping confessions with the same passion and commitment that I follow the racing season with, there's been something that's been bothering me and I feel its time to speak up.

Firstly, let me state clearly that I am saddened by all of the recent revelations and I, as any true cycling fan, want to believe in the heroes that I cheer for. To some, I'm optimistic, and to some I'm naive, and perhaps I just choose to turn a blind eye but my heart still tells me to believe that most racers do race clean and not to judge until "proven" guilty, and I don't mean by some flawed science.

The flawed science I speak of ultimately brings me to the reason I felt compelled to write: one Greg Lemond. I bought my first road bike at age 15 in 1992, a used Panasonic DX2000 with SIS shifting on the down tube. I was in love with the bike and the sport for only one reason, I happened to catch the 30 minute daily highlight show on ESPN about the Tour while doing nothing on those boring summer days away from school. I happened to fall in love with cycling in 1990, watching Lemond win the Tour, not knowing at the time what he had done before. Hell, I even bought a Scott aero bar for that famed Panasonic just to emulate my hero just a bit further. I use all this as a lead in to explain just what my affinity for Greg Lemond was. And yes, the use of the word "was" is intentional.

I wish I could understand what is going on in your head. I wish, like all of us I'm sure, I knew just what you're true motivation is. You continually knock the character of recent American champions, despite not really knowing them. You continually makes accusations, without all the facts (the recent revelations about your troubled childhood notwithstanding, which no matter the circumstances involved is a horrible thing to have to live with and even more horrible to have someone use that past against you).

I don't recall you making accusations against Indurain, or Riis, or Ullrich or Pantani for that matter. It only seems to be the Americans. This provoked me to do a little digging, since I always remember how it's talked about that you, Mr. Lemond used to have the fastest ITT recorded in TDF history. If I'm not mistaken, you still hold the record for fastest ITT (other than a prologue) under 30 km at 54.545 km/hr from 1989. My question is this, Mr. Lemond: given the inevitable advancement of technology and the understanding of human physiology, how is it possible that someone who was not doped can still hold one of the fastest ITT's ever nearly 20 years on?

My hope is it's because you weren't doped, and neither have your recent compatriots been. Either way, the numbers you put up are comparable to the numbers current cyclists put up, and either you're all doped, or you're all not, or even a more accurate explanation, maybe some are just physically gifted, even when facing others who are doped.

I'm a local Cat 3 working stiff who rides and races only for the passion of the sport and nothing else. I know my optimum cadence, heart rate zones, caloric intake and expenditure, and power outputs. I've studied Landis's power output from the legendary stage 17 comeback, and guess what? Even as a Cat 3 that will never amount to a hill of beans on a bicycle who routinely gets his butt handed to him, I don't find those numbers as astronomical as to only be attained by doping. Average of 289 watts for the day? Come on, that's certainly not the biggest number that's ever been posted. I could do that. I could only do it for a half an hour or an hour or so, but if I had the chance to train for 15 to 20 thousand miles a year instead of 5 thousand, do I find it could be possible to attain that? Yes I do, and I know I don't dope.

All these numbers are just the facts. There is no speculation or conjecture. Please, Mr. Lemond, I would like to know, as would many of us, just what motivates you. Obviously, modern day cyclists aren't that far ahead of you, and one could make the argument the only reason things are faster now is due only to the advancement of technology. I really hope your intentions are pure and you really just want to clean up the sport, but mostly, it just sounds like sour grapes. Maybe Mr. Landis did it, maybe he didn't, but when he can't time trial as fast as you did on technology that is 20 years more advanced and you know you raced clean, perhaps......maybe, just maybe......there's a chance that the 2006 edition of Le Tour was won clean as well.

CyclingNews.com

A few points:

A few months ago, LIm linked an extensive audio interview with Lemond that provided a detailed insight to his views on doping. In that interview, he implicates a number European cyclists and doctors that had likely turned on to EPO around the end of his career. I recall Chiapuci (sp?) as one of the non-American cyclists he names, but there were others. It is simply incorrect to allege that he only criticizes American cyclists, and for some reason posters here cling to that misperception, although it has been shown to be incorrect a number of times. Go back and listen to that interview.

In that same interview, Lemond specifically states that power outputs during the 2005 TdF were lower than in previous years, and thus he initially believed that year's race might have been cleaner than recent ones. Not only does he not question Floyd's output power, he specifically states that FL's power level in and of itself did not suggest doping. His belief that Floyd doped is based on a failed drug test - a pretty reasonable position.

I wasn't following cycling in 1989, but the distance and average speed that have been quoted for Greg's famous ITT would mean that he finished the thing in less than one half hour. Such a short exertion isn't where the real benefit of EPO is maximized. Not to say it couldn't have an impact, but I think it is much more illustrative of the impact of EPO to look at average power output during multiple long climbs up mountain passes, where aero bars, tail winds and 20-something minutes of adrenaline can't explain today's performances. Poulidor linked a study by Vayer that shows Lemond's power during several major clims of the TdF and it was much lower than level attained after the advent of EOP in the early 90's. Lemond makes reference to this in the interview I mentioned.

It is generally regarded that EPO wasn't available in the peleton in 1989, so Lemond couldn't have been using it then. If you're trying to make the case that because he wasn't using it then and he did one short time trial that was as fast as today's performances, therefore none of today's cyclists must be using it either, I think that is a flawed argument. We KNOW that cyclists today are using EPO. That fact is beyond debate. Millar admitted it, Telekom's doctor's and riders admitted it, Armstrong's 1999 samples demonstrate it, truckloads of it have been seized in raids by the authorities, team cars have been nailed with bootloads of it, etc. I think you've chosen a poor candidate as an isolated sample result on which to draw wide-ranging conclusions about things that can be more effectively determined another way.

limerickman said:

LeMond didn't improve GT average speed times nor did he write books in an effort to try to explain away his performances.

Yes he did......He wrote that his success was due to training harder then the Europeans. That was his mantra here in the states for years. Many articles were written about Lemonds desire to win against all odds and hard training made him Europes premier rider. Warner Brothers was even going to make a movie about his comeback.
The fact is if Lemond rode that TT today, be would be crucified. And many of the prolouges were close to that distance...... That ride is very difficult to explain....... beating Fignon by 58 seconds in 15kms is not easily explained away.
The iron shot is even harder yet to explain..... going from a guy who can barely finish to a second place position in a hilly ITT in a 12 hour span is what?????? And to diagnosed by a non medical person?
If that story was released today this forum would be all over him.

Quoted post said:

1989 TDF covered 3,277 kms and LeMond's time 87hrs 38 mins = average speed (for him) 37.50 kmph.
2004 TDF covered 3,391 Kms and ASrmstrongs time was 83hrs 36 mins = average speed (for him) 40.68 Kmph.
That's 4 Kmph quicker for every kilometre raced, over 3,000 kilometre distance.
That comparison is fair.

40.68kmph-37,5kmph= 4 kmph?
Looks more like 3,18 kmph to me...🙄

the triathlete handlebar is enough to explain the difference between Fignon and Lemond, it's a big advantage !
The last TT was Versailles-Paris, even I didn't seen it again, I think there is few corners on a such course, and it was easy to keep the speed.
Wind tunnel were used by many riders in middle 80's, helmets too, so the major improvements were already done.