Greg's Evidence



Status
Not open for further replies.

Gregers

New Member
Feb 1, 2007
534
0
0
65
Long before the current revelations I had concluded-based on a wealth of public knowledge, personal experience and my own somewhat unattractive cynicism-that in all probability no Grand Tour winner in history had ever won without the use of some form of PED. From strychnine laced champagne to EPO every era has had its own drugs of choice-albeit that we now have 'assistance' of an altogether more sophisticated and pervasive nature.
I was therefore a little surprised to hear Greg LeMond state in the Landis hearing that he had never used PEDs.This was probably not said on oath and Greg might simply have been being strategically economical with the verite.
OK, he might have been lying. I've always quite admired the guy but recent events have given me the merest inkling that truth, honour and professional cycling are not necessarily compatible.
Does anybody believe his assertion, which if true makes him IMO possibly the only TDF winner to do so clean.
Incidentally, I have already discounted the well ventilated opinions of worshipers of St. Lance the Martyr that their hero won because of his superior athletic ability, work ethic and transmogrified cancer cells.
 

kennf

New Member
Jan 29, 2004
609
0
0
Gregers said:
Long before the current revelations I had concluded-based on a wealth of public knowledge, personal experience and my own somewhat unattractive cynicism-that in all probability no Grand Tour winner in history had ever won without the use of some form of PED. From strychnine laced champagne to EPO every era has had its own drugs of choice-albeit that we now have 'assistance' of an altogether more sophisticated and pervasive nature.
I was therefore a little surprised to hear Greg LeMond state in the Landis hearing that he had never used PEDs.This was probably not said on oath and Greg might simply have been being strategically economical with the verite.
OK, he might have been lying. I've always quite admired the guy but recent events have given me the merest inkling that truth, honour and professional cycling are not necessarily compatible.
Does anybody believe his assertion, which if true makes him IMO possibly the only TDF winner to do so clean.
Incidentally, I have already discounted the well ventilated opinions of worshipers of St. Lance the Martyr that their hero won because of his superior athletic ability, work ethic and transmogrified cancer cells.


He made the statement while being cross-examined by Landis's attorney, so yes he was under oath. Doesn't establish that it's true of course, but it was sworn testimony.
 

cdy291

New Member
Nov 23, 2006
102
0
0
33
The last few years that Greg was in the Tour were not his best. He did not go out winning like Lance did. Infact he didn't even finish his last tour; just got in the sag vehicle and quit. Would this have happened if he had doped?
 

Serafino

New Member
Jul 30, 2005
501
0
0
Under oath in an arbitration panel. What are the rules of perjury in this case?

The only clean TdF winner is a bit much and self serving.

Interesting that he refused to talk about Lance even though his lawyer later indicated he had no legal reason for preventing him from doing so ....
 

classic1

Well-Known Member
Jul 29, 2006
11,427
2,015
113
Gregers said:
Long before the current revelations I had concluded-based on a wealth of public knowledge, personal experience and my own somewhat unattractive cynicism-that in all probability no Grand Tour winner in history had ever won without the use of some form of PED.
The story goes that Eric Caritoux was clean when he won the Vuelta in 84.

A family friend rode the Giro in the 70's and reckoned Bernt Johansen was clean when he got third in 1979.

All the rest of them are dirty though:p
 

House

Banned
Aug 9, 2004
850
0
0
cdy291 said:
The last few years that Greg was in the Tour were not his best. He did not go out winning like Lance did. Infact he didn't even finish his last tour; just got in the sag vehicle and quit. Would this have happened if he had doped?
Of course Greg likes to conveniently forget his health problems that he believes are a result of the pellets still in his body. The ones that cause him to have issues recovering and being able to go at a high rate for multiple days. The ones that nobody knows if doping would negate or not.
 

Dead Star

New Member
Jul 6, 2004
793
0
0
37
cdy291 said:
The last few years that Greg was in the Tour were not his best. He did not go out winning like Lance did. Infact he didn't even finish his last tour; just got in the sag vehicle and quit. Would this have happened if he had doped?

Indeed. I've got a video of the 1992 Tour and he really suffered like a dog on the mountain stages before packing it in at the feeding zone during stage to Alpe d'Huez.
 

limerickman

Well-Known Member
Jan 5, 2004
16,130
220
63
Gregers said:
Long before the current revelations I had concluded-based on a wealth of public knowledge, personal experience and my own somewhat unattractive cynicism-that in all probability no Grand Tour winner in history had ever won without the use of some form of PED. From strychnine laced champagne to EPO every era has had its own drugs of choice-albeit that we now have 'assistance' of an altogether more sophisticated and pervasive nature.
I was therefore a little surprised to hear Greg LeMond state in the Landis hearing that he had never used PEDs.This was probably not said on oath and Greg might simply have been being strategically economical with the verite.
OK, he might have been lying. I've always quite admired the guy but recent events have given me the merest inkling that truth, honour and professional cycling are not necessarily compatible.
Does anybody believe his assertion, which if true makes him IMO possibly the only TDF winner to do so clean.
Incidentally, I have already discounted the well ventilated opinions of worshipers of St. Lance the Martyr that their hero won because of his superior athletic ability, work ethic and transmogrified cancer cells.


Part of the issue is, how does one define a PED, isn't it?

For example, is something which dulls the pain (such as morphine), a PED?
Or do we define a PED as something which makes you train/race at a higher level than your limits?

Talking to people who raced in Europe during the 1980's : the view is that LeMond was regarded as an exceptional cyclist from his amateur days.
His palmares bears out these opinions.
 

ilpirata

New Member
Aug 19, 2004
410
4
18
limerickman said:
Part of the issue is, how does one define a PED, isn't it?

For example, is something which dulls the pain (such as morphine), a PED?
Or do we define a PED as something which makes you train/race at a higher level than your limits?

Talking to people who raced in Europe during the 1980's : the view is that LeMond was regarded as an exceptional cyclist from his amateur days.
His palmares bears out these opinions.

That would be my definition. I find Lemond more believable than Lance or Floyd.
 

Bro Deal

New Member
Jun 26, 2006
6,698
4
0
House said:
Of course Greg likes to conveniently forget his health problems that he believes are a result of the pellets still in his body. The ones that cause him to have issues recovering and being able to go at a high rate for multiple days. The ones that nobody knows if doping would negate or not.
I think Lemond initially thought he was over the hill after '90 because of ambiguous health problems but only later came to realize he was getting killed because all the competitors were using EPO. It was not until the late 90's that it became well known that Bugno, Chiapucci, Rominger, Indurain, etc. were using EPO. Then Lemond got angry about it as he has a right to.

What other cyclist has publicly said he was cheated out of wins because of dopers? They don't say anything about it. Pereiro has talked about "unfortunate what as happend to Landis" is. He should be hopping mad.
 

azdroptop

New Member
May 25, 2005
871
0
0
limerickman said:
Part of the issue is, how does one define a PED, isn't it?

For example, is something which dulls the pain (such as morphine), a PED?
Or do we define a PED as something which makes you train/race at a higher level than your limits?

Talking to people who raced in Europe during the 1980's : the view is that LeMond was regarded as an exceptional cyclist from his amateur days.
His palmares bears out these opinions.
Lim, no offense ment here at all, but I remember you saying something similar about Jan and look where we are with him now? I'd like to believe Lemond, Lance, Meryckx and the like were all clean, but it seems incredibly unlikely. I'm new to the cycling game and to be honest love the racing regardless. Watching the pro races makes me want to go out and ride all day.
 

Serafino

New Member
Jul 30, 2005
501
0
0
So what if Lemond have a great palmares. You can argue that its only "evidence" of doping. Seems to me it all depends upon your predetermined view of the athlete.

Great results = no doping or Great Results = doping.

BTW, does anyone have any data on the average TdF speed over the past 25 years. Then, discounting discrepencies in the route, technology (Steel vs. Carbon, etc.) what does the data say?
 

azdroptop

New Member
May 25, 2005
871
0
0
Serafino said:
So what if Lemond have a great palmares. You can argue that its only "evidence" of doping. Seems to me it all depends upon your predetermined view of the athlete.

Great results = no doping or Great Results = doping.

BTW, does anyone have any data on the average TdF speed over the past 25 years. Then, discounting discrepencies in the route, technology (Steel vs. Carbon, etc.) what does the data say?
Seems this has been discussed somewhere on the board. I believe it shows pretty strongly that the speeds have increased by 2 or 3 mph. Maybe it was kph. Somebody help. :)
 

kennf

New Member
Jan 29, 2004
609
0
0
azdroptop said:
Seems this has been discussed somewhere on the board. I believe it shows pretty strongly that the speeds have increased by 2 or 3 mph. Maybe it was kph. Somebody help. :)


2-3 mph sounds more like it. It also been shown that the power outputs on the climbs have surged dramatically. This has been discussed in depth.
 

kennf

New Member
Jan 29, 2004
609
0
0
azdroptop said:
Lim, no offense ment here at all, but I remember you saying something similar about Jan and look where we are with him now? I'd like to believe Lemond, Lance, Meryckx and the like were all clean, but it seems incredibly unlikely. I'm new to the cycling game and to be honest love the racing regardless. Watching the pro races makes me want to go out and ride all day.

But the big difference in riders pre and post-1992 (roughly) is the explosion in the use of EPO and transfusions (although I suspect EPO was much more popular than the transfusion method up to 2000).

It's true that many riders took pain killers, amphetamines, etc. in the "old days," but I find it hard to believe that those are the types of PEDs that can make a mediocre rider win a grand tour. A one-day classic maybe, but you can't just pop amphetamines for 3 weeks straight. The science of doping was nothing back then like it is now.
 

azdroptop

New Member
May 25, 2005
871
0
0
kennf said:
But the big difference in riders pre and post-1992 (roughly) is the explosion in the use of EPO and transfusions (although I suspect EPO was much more popular than the transfusion method up to 2000).

It's true that many riders took pain killers, amphetamines, etc. in the "old days," but I find it hard to believe that those are the types of PEDs that can make a mediocre rider win a grand tour. A one-day classic maybe, but you can't just pop amphetamines for 3 weeks straight. The science of doping was nothing back then like it is now.
Just curious, why do you think epo was more popular pre-2000? Didn't hit the scene in the late 90's?

I've heard EPO 8% gain in power. Transfusion up to 12% gain. That is amazing!
 

limerickman

Well-Known Member
Jan 5, 2004
16,130
220
63
Serafino said:
So what if Lemond have a great palmares.

So what if LeMond had a great palmares???????????
The fact that a rider debuts at a very high level in the peloton, like LeMond did, objectively shows that the rider is a superb cyclist.

In addition, having spoken with guys who raced at the very highest levels of the sport in the 1980's, their view, the objective view, is that LeMond was a brilliant talent.


Serafino said:
Seems to me it all depends upon your predetermined view of the athlete.

Great results = no doping or Great Results = doping.

The fact that a rider debuts at a very high level in the peloton, like LeMond did, objectively shows that the rider is a superb cyclist.

In addition, having spoken with guys who raced at the very highest levels of the sport in the 1980's, their view, the objective view, is that LeMond was a brilliant talent.

And I ask the qquestion again - what constitutes doping?
Is something which dulls the pain (such as morphine), a PED?
Or do we define a PED as something which makes you train/race at a higher level than your limits?


Serafino said:
BTW, does anyone have any data on the average TdF speed over the past 25 years. Then, discounting discrepencies in the route, technology (Steel vs. Carbon, etc.) what does the data say?


The average TDF speed in the 1989 TDF which LeMond won, covering 3,500
kilometeres was 37kmph.

The 2004 TDF average speed, was 41kmph, covering 3,500 kilometres.
Both routes had much the same profile in terms of climbing distances/gradients.
That's an increase of 4Kmph for each and every kilometre cycled - in both events.
If you do cycle - try cycling 4Kpmh or 2.5mph faster for every kilometre/miles
Then you might begin to understand how such a differential is practically impossible to explain away by "better equipment/losing weight/"I train harder than anyone else in history, Blah, blah, blah"

For the rest of you - here are the average speed and distances for the TDF
1984 to 2006.


Year Distance (kms) Av Speed (Kms)

1984 4,020 34kmph

1985 4,127 36Kmph

1986 4,083 37Kmph

1987 4,231 36Kmph

1988 3,285 38Kmph

1989 3,285 37Kmph

1990 3,403 37Kmph

1991 3,914 38Kmph

1992 3,983 39Kmph

1993 3,512 37Kmph

1994 3,978 38Kmph

1995 3,635 39Kmph

1996 3,764 39Kmph

1997 3,943 39Kmph

1998 3,728 40Kmph

1999 3.686 40Kmph

2000 3,661 39Kmph

2001 3,454 40Kmph

2002 3,277 39Kmph

2003 3,426 41Kmph

2004 3,391 41Kpmh

2005 3,607 41.6Kmph

2006 3,654 38Kmph
 

discobean7

New Member
Nov 13, 2003
206
0
0
EPO had FDA approval in 1990 and probably hit the peloton by 1991. There is simply no comparison between doping pre- and post-1991.
 

kennf

New Member
Jan 29, 2004
609
0
0
azdroptop said:
Just curious, why do you think epo was more popular pre-2000? Didn't hit the scene in the late 90's?

I've heard EPO 8% gain in power. Transfusion up to 12% gain. That is amazing!


EPO hit the scene in the early '90s. I've heard much higher figures on the power gains, but every individual's results would vary. They began testing for EPO in 2000/2001, so it's widespread use may have tapered a little. But that may only mean that masking agents had to be used.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads