“Lance essentially destroyed him and his fledgling Lemond brand”
Greg destroyed it himself - publically naysaying the current star athlete from the same sponsor is never a good look - the company probably dropped him based on his detrimental lack of professionalism in the press - most contracts have a clause about it
I love revisionist history.
he may have admitted to an IV to raise his red blood cell count artificially, but this was already cleared up - it was only vitamin B - totally legal
its perfectly normal that his TT speed record, set on the last day of the 3 week tour, lasted for 26 years - other riders just couldnt match his natural talent
.
what was the actual chain of events then?
what was the actual chain of events then?
When the Ferrari / LA relationship was revealed, Lemond said he was disappointed in LA and said “If Lance it clean, it is the greatest comeback in the history of sports. If he isn’t, it would be the greatest fraud,” he never made any allegations against LA, accused him of doping or anything else. A simple, accurate observation when asked about the Ferrari / LA relationship.
from there, LA went on the warpath against Lemond, verbally threatening him and going to Dick Burke @ Trek and pressuring him to reduce their commitment to the Lemond brand.
Well documented…go look it up.
of course I saw all that too, but to say “If he isn’t, it would be the greatest fraud” on tv, is already casting speculation on Treks main rider, and totally unprofessional toward his sponsor. I understand if he has beef with Lance, but he cant be surprised if his sponsor turns and pulls the plug - there is no brand loyalty in his statement
of course I saw all that too, but to say “If he isn’t, it would be the greatest fraud” on tv, is already casting speculation on Treks main rider, and totally unprofessional toward his sponsor. I understand if he has beef with Lance, but he cant be surprised if his sponsor turns and pulls the plug - there is no brand loyalty in his statement
We are just gonna have to agree to disagree…your “version” of the events are in conflict with reality. Trek didn’t just turn and “pull the plug”…they slowly reduced their support of the Lemond brand over years, all at Lance’s bidding.
You are entitled to your own opinion, but not your own facts. Lemond never accused LA of anything…he made a simple, accurate statement when asked what his reaction was to the Ferrari / LA relationship.
Okay if you like facts,
“between September 2001 and June 2007, Trek only sold $10,393 worth of LeMond bikes in France, a country in which LeMond remains both famous and popular”
Thats 2 superbikes in todays money - in 6 years
Lance is blamed for a lot of things but Lemonds popularity was being eclipsed and I still think that his public media comments of dissapointment and allusions to possiblility of fraud probably didnt help his brand relationship.
Okay if you like facts,
“between September 2001 and June 2007, Trek only sold $10,393 worth of LeMond bikes in France, a country in which LeMond remains both famous and popular”
Thats 2 superbikes in todays money - in 6 years
.
Stop…just stop. You don’t know what you are talking about. The vast majority of the Lemond brand’s sales were in the US, not France. Citing the sales in France, where Trek focused on primarily on the Trek brand, is simply deflecting.
its not deflection just quoting what he sited in his own lawsuit s evidence that he wasnt promoted enough
.
It’s always the same with him, If he attacked this much as a rider he would have won much more.
This week in an interview with L’Equipe, Greg Lemond said:
“When I raced, I had a VO2 max of 93, and I never developed more than 400 watts. Armstrong’s VO2 max, which Ed Coyle mistakenly revealed, was no more than 78. So, considering his weight - 73 kg, he could never produce 500 watts to ride up the Madonna as he said, or 475 watts on the climb of L’Alpe-d’Huez. With his VO2 max, he couldn’t exceed 375 watts. To increase his performance by 30%, he had to dope. But did he achieve his performance only with doping? What doping did he use that others didn’t? All I know is that there are 50-70 watts missing, which we don’t know the origin of. There is something that I still do not understand.â€
I’ve never heard of a direct correlation between vo2 max and power at or around threshold. Is Lemond way off base here, or is there an actual documented correlation?
I mean, I know of quite a few guys who push 400+ watts (and with Strava, it’s pretty easy to see what some top pros are doing to more or less verify that), but a vo2 max of 93 seems like rare territory indeed.
Where does the 78 figure come from?
http://www.topendsports.com/testing/records/vo2max.htm
This site states that Lance has a V02 max of 84.
This week in an interview with L’Equipe, Greg Lemond said:
“When I raced, I had a VO2 max of 93, and I never developed more than 400 watts. Armstrong’s VO2 max, which Ed Coyle mistakenly revealed, was no more than 78. So, considering his weight - 73 kg, he could never produce 500 watts to ride up the Madonna as he said, or 475 watts on the climb of L’Alpe-d’Huez. With his VO2 max, he couldn’t exceed 375 watts. To increase his performance by 30%, he had to dope. But did he achieve his performance only with doping? What doping did he use that others didn’t? All I know is that there are 50-70 watts missing, which we don’t know the origin of. There is something that I still do not understand.â€
I’ve never heard of a direct correlation between vo2 max and power at or around threshold. Is Lemond way off base here, or is there an actual documented correlation?
I mean, I know of quite a few guys who push 400+ watts (and with Strava, it’s pretty easy to see what some top pros are doing to more or less verify that), but a vo2 max of 93 seems like rare territory indeed.
Where does the 78 figure come from?
http://www.topendsports.com/testing/records/vo2max.htm
This site states that Lance has a V02 max of 84.
This week in an interview with L’Equipe, Greg Lemond said:
“When I raced, I had a VO2 max of 93, and I never developed more than 400 watts. Armstrong’s VO2 max, which Ed Coyle mistakenly revealed, was no more than 78. So, considering his weight - 73 kg, he could never produce 500 watts to ride up the Madonna as he said, or 475 watts on the climb of L’Alpe-d’Huez. With his VO2 max, he couldn’t exceed 375 watts. To increase his performance by 30%, he had to dope. But did he achieve his performance only with doping? What doping did he use that others didn’t? All I know is that there are 50-70 watts missing, which we don’t know the origin of. There is something that I still do not understand.â€
I’ve never heard of a direct correlation between vo2 max and power at or around threshold. Is Lemond way off base here, or is there an actual documented correlation?
I mean, I know of quite a few guys who push 400+ watts (and with Strava, it’s pretty easy to see what some top pros are doing to more or less verify that), but a vo2 max of 93 seems like rare territory indeed.
Where does the 78 figure come from?
http://www.topendsports.com/testing/records/vo2max.htm
This site states that Lance has a V02 max of 84.
http://jap.physiology.org/...keytype2=tf_ipsecsha
Am I missing something? It’s a long article, but this is what I found “we estimate his V̇o2 max to have been at least 85 ml·kg−1·min−1 during the period of his victories in the Tour de France.”
Much higher than 78…
I knew many in the medical community who think he’s a total cheat. All you need to do is read the old Sports Illustrated article when he was named athlete of the year. In his own words (not mine, so don’t say that I’m falsely accusing him) he mentions how his soigner Otto Jacome diagnosed him as being anemic during the Giro in '89 and gave him an Iron treatment via IV, miraculously 5 weeks later his hematocrit is at a level to win the tour. It does not work that fast. THIS IS HIS STORY. But, yes, as he wrote today in Cycling News, miracles don’t happen. He should know. I’m an MD, and have asked many Hematologists about his story and they all laugh and roll their eyes. Until he can show the world his old CBC’s from back then, he should be treated as if he’s under a cloud of suspicion. He’s made himself judge and jury. Oh, and BTW, EPO was available in '89. ( not pointing a finger, just saying) I’m just so tired of him and the entire cycling press corp giving him a pass, when his own story raises serious medical red flags that just do not add up. Enough of his V02 max, where are the CBC’s. Sorry Greg miracles don’t happen, IV iron does not work that fast.
Here is a fun fact. In 1988 the team doctor at ADR, Dr. Van Mol, diagnosed team riders with anemia. His treatment was EPO, which was in clinical trials at the time. LeMond joined ADR the following year. That is some coincidence. Greatest comeback or greatest fraud?
Why is Lemond so butthurt? He acts like my unprovoked 4 yo. You would think at his age he would understand that nothing is accomplished by perseverating on the past. Maybe he is like the Kardasian’s & has to create a story when he is being ignored by the media.
This week in an interview with L’Equipe, Greg Lemond said:
“When I raced, I had a VO2 max of 93, and I never developed more than 400 watts. Armstrong’s VO2 max, which Ed Coyle mistakenly revealed, was no more than 78. So, considering his weight - 73 kg, he could never produce 500 watts to ride up the Madonna as he said, or 475 watts on the climb of L’Alpe-d’Huez. With his VO2 max, he couldn’t exceed 375 watts. To increase his performance by 30%, he had to dope. But did he achieve his performance only with doping? What doping did he use that others didn’t? All I know is that there are 50-70 watts missing, which we don’t know the origin of. There is something that I still do not understand.â€
I’ve never heard of a direct correlation between vo2 max and power at or around threshold. Is Lemond way off base here, or is there an actual documented correlation?
I mean, I know of quite a few guys who push 400+ watts (and with Strava, it’s pretty easy to see what some top pros are doing to more or less verify that), but a vo2 max of 93 seems like rare territory indeed.
Where does the 78 figure come from?
http://www.topendsports.com/testing/records/vo2max.htm
This site states that Lance has a V02 max of 84.
http://jap.physiology.org/...keytype2=tf_ipsecsha
Am I missing something? It’s a long article, but this is what I found “we estimate his V̇o2 max to have been at least 85 ml·kg−1·min−1 during the period of his victories in the Tour de France.”
Much higher than 78…
If Lemond were going to rely solely on Coyle’s data, the highest directly-measured value would have been 81.2 mL/min/kg (6.10 L/min) in September of 1993. So, agreed, not sure where he got only 78 mL/min/kg (except perhaps from faulty recall of exact values). Still, it is Coyle he cites.
ETA: Looking at the data in that study, and knowing how Ed determines LT, Armstrong could easily have maintained 400+ W at “threshold”, at least when race-fit.
what was the actual chain of events then?
When the Ferrari / LA relationship was revealed, Lemond said he was disappointed in LA and said “If Lance it clean, it is the greatest comeback in the history of sports. If he isn’t, it would be the greatest fraud,” he never made any allegations against LA, accused him of doping or anything else. A simple, accurate observation when asked about the Ferrari / LA relationship.
from there, LA went on the warpath against Lemond, verbally threatening him and going to Dick Burke @ Trek and pressuring him to reduce their commitment to the Lemond brand.
Well documented…go look it up.
Oh, brother. You bought the LeMond lie hook, line, and sinker.
Here are the real facts. LeMond didn’t have to figure out Armstrong was doping using his pop physiology that has not been updated since the 80s. He raced as a pro. Despite his stupidity act, he knew everyone was doping while he was racing, everyone doped for a hundred years before he raced, and everyone continued to dope after he retired. Doping was the norm and it was accepted by the riders. Everyone but naive fanboys, who joined the sport in 1999 and thought they were experts because they watched the Tour on cable TV, knew that not only were all the top riders doping but everyone but a few odd ducks was too.
LeMond deliberately picked a fight with Armstrong. He could have been honest. He could have told the truth about the riders he raced against. He could have revealed to the mugs that it would be difficult to find a single major cycling race that was ever won without drugs, especially after the advent of EPO. Instead he attacked one rider with an elaborate lie that had him figuring out a winner of the Tour was doping, as if he didn’t already know. To this day he maintains the fiction that Lance was unique. He refuses to call out any of the riders of his era who doped, not even the ones who doped their way to victories over him. Fort thirty years he has whinged about being the rightful winner of the 1985 Tour but he cannot find it in himself to point out the obvious about Indurain? In fact he does publicity events with Hinault, Merkcx, and Indurain; glad hands Sean Kelly; and labels Pantani a great champion.
Funny coincidence. Lance is slated to win three Tours and LeMond attacked him in the press. Now that Froome is on his way to three wins, LeMond attacks him in the press. Riders doping and winning years after he retired offends LeMond’s conscious. Riders who doped and stole wins from him, not so much–actually not at all. Explain that.
And why is Lemond (one of the most bitter disgruntled people I know of in cycling!) still even talking?
He had a real bone to pick with Lance. He was right that Lance was doping, but had no evidence other than “When I raced it was like this, and now he’s riding like that so he must be doping”. (and everyone else was juiced too)
IF Lemond is keen to clean up cycling, why isn’t he chasing the current crop of pro’s? Exact times in particular locations (ie Ventoux) aren’t particularly relevant as evidence, as conditions will always be different (wind), as will the specific racing scenario. (ie, if someone is attacking or not, or whether the pace to the base of the climb was fast or slow).
I reckon he’s trying to become one of the Kardashian’s by being famous for nothing more than being famous. If he wants to be an anti-PED zealot, then that’s great and amirable, but doping didn’t end with Lance, so please Greg, chase the latest crop of fast pro’s, and don’t bother waiting for evidence, your suspicion was good enough then so surely it’s good enough now.
p.s, someone give Quintana some EPO, to spice things up a bit this year.
I knew many in the medical community who think he’s a total cheat. All you need to do is read the old Sports Illustrated article when he was named athlete of the year. In his own words (not mine, so don’t say that I’m falsely accusing him) he mentions how his soigner Otto Jacome diagnosed him as being anemic during the Giro in '89 and gave him an Iron treatment via IV, miraculously 5 weeks later his hematocrit is at a level to win the tour. It does not work that fast. THIS IS HIS STORY. But, yes, as he wrote today in Cycling News, miracles don’t happen. He should know. I’m an MD, and have asked many Hematologists about his story and they all laugh and roll their eyes. Until he can show the world his old CBC’s from back then, he should be treated as if he’s under a cloud of suspicion. He’s made himself judge and jury. Oh, and BTW, EPO was available in '89. ( not pointing a finger, just saying) I’m just so tired of him and the entire cycling press corp giving him a pass, when his own story raises serious medical red flags that just do not add up. Enough of his V02 max, where are the CBC’s. Sorry Greg miracles don’t happen, IV iron does not work that fast.
Here is a fun fact. In 1988 the team doctor at ADR, Dr. Van Mol, diagnosed team riders with anemia. His treatment was EPO, which was in clinical trials at the time. LeMond joined ADR the following year. That is some coincidence. Greatest comeback or greatest fraud?
Whats your point? You could say the same about nearly every single team in the peloton from that time period, going forward to the present day. That doesn’t mean 100% of all riders have doped. Christophe Bassons was on doped to gills Festina team for 3 years, including the giant team drug bust at the 1998 TdF, and is universally considered to have never doped, and was on the TdF team.
what was the actual chain of events then?
When the Ferrari / LA relationship was revealed, Lemond said he was disappointed in LA and said “If Lance it clean, it is the greatest comeback in the history of sports. If he isn’t, it would be the greatest fraud,” he never made any allegations against LA, accused him of doping or anything else. A simple, accurate observation when asked about the Ferrari / LA relationship.
from there, LA went on the warpath against Lemond, verbally threatening him and going to Dick Burke @ Trek and pressuring him to reduce their commitment to the Lemond brand.
Well documented…go look it up.
Oh, brother. You bought the LeMond lie hook, line, and sinker.
Here are the real facts. LeMond didn’t have to figure out Armstrong was doping using his pop physiology that has not been updated since the 80s. He raced as a pro. Despite his stupidity act, he knew everyone was doping while he was racing, everyone doped for a hundred years before he raced, and everyone continued to dope after he retired. Doping was the norm and it was accepted by the riders. Everyone but naive fanboys, who joined the sport in 1999 and thought they were experts because they watched the Tour on cable TV, knew that not only were all the top riders doping but everyone but a few odd ducks was too.
LeMond deliberately picked a fight with Armstrong. He could have been honest. He could have told the truth about the riders he raced against. He could have revealed to the mugs that it would be difficult to find a single major cycling race that was ever won without drugs, especially after the advent of EPO. Instead he attacked one rider with an elaborate lie that had him figuring out a winner of the Tour was doping, as if he didn’t already know. To this day he maintains the fiction that Lance was unique. He refuses to call out any of the riders of his era who doped, not even the ones who doped their way to victories over him. Fort thirty years he has whinged about being the rightful winner of the 1985 Tour but he cannot find it in himself to point out the obvious about Indurain? In fact he does publicity events with Hinault, Merkcx, and Indurain; glad hands Sean Kelly; and labels Pantani a great champion.
Funny coincidence. Lance is slated to win three Tours and LeMond attacked him in the press. Now that Froome is on his way to three wins, LeMond attacks him in the press. Riders doping and winning years after he retired offends LeMond’s conscious. Riders who doped and stole wins from him, not so much–actually not at all. Explain that.
And right on cue…College returns to defend Armstrong yet again.