I am sure that "in Greg's day" things like this didnt happen - oh, and he would have won any damn way.

---

----------------------------------------------------------

What if the Hokey Pokey is what it is all about?

He's being put on the stand as a "champion cyclist" and an "expert in cycling tactics". My guess is they want him to contradict Floyd's argument that testosterone wouldn't help a cyclist in the middle of a stage race. But the real answer is he'll say whatever he wants...

Greg who and what's he doing tomorrow?

---

"How bad can it be?" - SimpleS

I fail to see how Lemond wopuld be deemed credible in either a postive or negative light.........

I was thinking the same thing. What makes him a good choice?

The testimony is a big deal because Greg Lemond is one of the more famous American bike riders ever.

There are two kinds of witnesses: fact and expert. To really simplify things, fact witnesses testify about what they pereceived through their senses. Expert witnesses take evidence from other sources and interpret in light of knowledge, training and experience. So, I understand that some people believe that Floyd’s ride in Stage 17 was so incredible that he could not have done it without some outside assistance, like, say, PEDs. Especially when he had cracked badly a day or two before. If this is the case, then the facts of the ride, when interpreted in the light of what usually goes in on stage races, is evidence tending to support the lab’s finding regarding the samples from that stage. So, if you were an attorney trying to prove that the lab’s finding were valid, you could offer the testimony of someone with Greg Lemond’s background to establish with expert testimony just how incredible the ride was for that part of the Tour under those circumstances.

If this is the case, then the facts of the ride, when interpreted in the light of what usually goes in on stage races, is evidence tending to support the lab’s finding regarding the samples from that stage. So, if you were an attorney trying to prove that the lab’s finding were valid, you could offer the testimony of someone with Greg Lemond’s background to establish with expert testimony just how incredible the ride was for that part of the Tour under those circumstances.

Not attempting to make a judgement either way, but I fail to see why people were so shocked by Floyd's "day after" ride. People have good and bad days all the time. Greg ought to know that better than anyone after he mashed Laurent Fignon in Briancon and then the time trial at Ocierre-Merlette and then was dropped like a heavy rock going up Alpe D'Huez. In fact, anybody who has done any sort of high volume training can tell you that the body can be a mystery sometimes. One day you feel like death and the next you can't imagine from where all the energy is coming. The Tour is littered with examples of "down one day" and "up the next".

How about the '87 Tour where J-F Bernard takes the time trial on top Mont Ventoux, loses it the next day on a horrible ride, then leads Stephen Roche up Alpe D'Huez the day after, where Roche loses the jersey. Some days you have it; others you don't.

Chad

I would think the expertise of a forensic physiologist would be more compelling than Greg Lemond's speculation about Floyd's physiological capabilities. That said, Lemond does have the name recognition and the knowledge of what it's actually like out there in the Tour. I just don't see that being all that important unless it's put in a physiological context of what is and is not possible from the body. Unless Lemond has some medical credentials, his opinion on that is speculative. Of course, this isn't a U.S. court of law, and the evidence rules are most likely much different, so it may not matter a whit.

---

''The enemy isn't conservatism. The enemy isn't liberalism. The enemy is bulls**t.''

—Lars-Erik Nelson

Just to play devil's advocate, you do realize that there are other reasons one could posit for those dramatic turnarounds as well, right? We probably all want to believe in the purity of the miraculous charge up the mountain, but ultimately, there's not likely to be a single person here that can definitively say what fueled it.

cramer

But in the case of Floyd his ride was super human. The peleton's tatics on that day where just super strupid.

---

customerjon @gmail.com is where information happens.

Did he dope? While I do not know one way or the other I will agree that the Peloton was rather lacodasical when Floyd launched his attack that day, I do not think his ride was anywhere near super human. Didn't Allen Lim review/post his power file for that day's ride and indicate that overall his, power numbers where mostly comparable to the previous days stage? The riders at the front of the peloton that day gambled when they let him go, obviously thinking Landis would crater or they could reel him back in at anytime but by the time the pack realized Landis was not going to falter, it was too late to chase him down.

---

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

I have to agree with this.

It's not as though the peloton can wait to the last minute and throw down on the last 2 climbs and catch a contender with a big lead. The peloton has a limit--and that limit is their ability to go uphill. Sastre was taking time back on the last mountain, just not enough.

Floyd proved that he was a better climber than the rest of the peloton every day. Well except for the day before.

I'm not saying he did or didn't dope, I'm saying the peloton played their cards poorly.

I will say that if he was French, Pereiro wouldn't be waiting around to see if he gets to be the 2006 TdF Champion.

And Greg LeMond...what can he possibly testify too? That if he couldn't do what Floyd did it can't be done?

Jeez.