Shouldn’t all of LA’s testing results have an asterisk, given his career of extensive doping? I don’t think any researcher, you, or anyone else studying LA truly knows what his clean VO2 Max or power would or could be or when he first started doping. Given that Armstrong’s teenage triathlete coach has admitted to doping cyclists, that his teammates Strock and Kaiter on the us national team won $250,000 damages each against USA cycling for being systematically doped by their USA cycling coaches, etc. There is a lot of smoke in LA’s history from his early days, imo, and defining race fit and clean is something that will most likely never be known when it last occurred.
Lemond is neglecting that there is your VO2max and then there is the % of your VO2max that you can sustain at threshold. That second number isn’t the same for everyone, and Lance was known have a fairly high % even back in his pre-EPO days.
Lemond tends to oversimplify stuff, that being said, I have no doubt he was clean. Firstly, because Greg is a guy with incredible integrity and a very strong sense of fair play. Secondly, he was a huge natural talent from day1. He podium’d in his first TdF, finished second in his second, and won his third (all before EPO existed, btw). Prior to EPO, Tour winners were standout talents pretty much from the start of their careers. Merckx, Hinault, and Fignon all won their first Tours. Riders didn’t suddenly become grand tour contenders mid-career the way Indurain, Riis, Froome, etc. did. Also in '89 Fignon was the stronger rider; Greg only beat him due to time gains from the aerobars (worth well more than his 8sec. margin of victory).
Armstrong’s doping is essentially irrelevant to the question at hand. That is, either his VO2max (doping enhanced or not) was high enough that he could have sustained 400 W, or not.
Armstrong’s doping is essentially irrelevant to the question at hand. That is, either his VO2max (doping enhanced or not) was high enough that he could have sustained 400 W, or not.
I’m not disagreeing with that, but Lemond is focusing in his VO2 Max and what wattage could be produced (clean). I think stating any VO2 number, clean, and LA in the same sentence is highly suspect, at best
The minimal VO2max required to be able to sustain 400 W will depend on your maximal metabolic steady state (“threshold”) relative to your VO2max as well as your cycling economy (efficiency). Lemond is therefore off-base by stating that it is impossible for someone with a VO2max of “only” 5.7 L/min (I.e., 78 X 73 divided by 1000) to be able to sustain 400 W.
Note that Armstrong’s VO2max was reported to be closer to 6 L/min in an article published in Scientific American in 1996, which would make 400 W even more achievable.
Of course, none of this addresses the extent to which Armstrong’s performance was enhanced by doping, but clearly he would not have needed a motor as Lemond attempts to imply.
I attempted to explain and chart these variables in this post a few years ago:
http://alex-cycle.blogspot.com.au/...king-under-hood.html
and took a similar look at Froome’s recent test data:
http://alex-cycle.blogspot.com.au/...er-froomes-hood.html
I’d have posted an image of the chart but I don’t seem to be able to do that on here.
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-EvWpY-Wi0QQ/VmDh5Ax1UBI/AAAAAAAAB2c/e_UqupyWqYY/s1600/FTP_VO2_GME%2B90%2525%2BFroome.JPG
Lemond has made this mistake before. He should be corrected again.
And yet they are still breaking records after cycling has been cleaned up.
I doubt they’re breaking climbing records from the doping era. ~7+w/kg for 45-60 minutes is now considered blatant doping and plenty were putting up those numbers back then (and just overstating weight not to rouse suspicion.) You just don’t see pros putting up ~500w for close to an hour anymore. Froome is doing a bit over 6w/kg for an hour on some climbs which is not considered high enough to be obvious cheating.
Froome is clearly holding back and doing just enough to avoid even more suspicion. The Sky train is so jacked up that no one can attack and Froome cruises. Reminds me of another team, long, long ago, in a galaxy far, far away…
Shouldn’t all of LA’s testing results have an asterisk, given his career of extensive doping? I don’t think any researcher, you, or anyone else studying LA truly knows what his clean VO2 Max or power would or could be or when he first started doping. Given that Armstrong’s teenage triathlete coach has admitted to doping cyclists, that his teammates Strock and Kaiter on the us national team won $250,000 damages each against USA cycling for being systematically doped by their USA cycling coaches, etc. There is a lot of smoke in LA’s history from his early days, imo, and defining race fit and clean is something that will most likely never be known when it last occurred.
Erich Kaiter was a very talented Junior who went to the same New Hampshire boarding school with Tyler Hamilton, graduating in 87. He went straight to Europe to race and train and was subsequently totally doped by the coaches there. He burned out within a couple of years and dropped out of cycling. Because of his experience I never once believed Lemond was really racing clean, drugs were so pervasive even then. He was telling people back then what was happening to him, I am surprised it took so long for all of this to be confirmed.
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.
This is not true. Five weeks can be more than enough to see a significant effect.
To quote Uptodate: “The hemoglobin concentration will rise slowly, usually beginning after approximately one to two weeks of treatment, and will rise approximately 2 g/dL over the ensuing three weeks. The hemoglobin deficit should be halved by approximately one month, and the hemoglobin level should return to normal by six to eight weeks.”
Armstrong’s doping is essentially irrelevant to the question at hand. That is, either his VO2max (doping enhanced or not) was high enough that he could have sustained 400 W, or not.
I’m not disagreeing with that, but Lemond is focusing in his VO2 Max and what wattage could be produced (clean).
The way I read the story, he was focusing on VO2max, period (i.e., clean or dirty), and claiming that there was still a discrepancy that could be explained by use of a motor.
Armstrong’s doping is essentially irrelevant to the question at hand. That is, either his VO2max (doping enhanced or not) was high enough that he could have sustained 400 W, or not.
I’m not disagreeing with that, but Lemond is focusing in his VO2 Max and what wattage could be produced (clean).
The way I read the story, he was focusing on VO2max, period (i.e., clean or dirty), and claiming that there was still a discrepancy that could be explained by use of a motor.
That’s pretty much my read of it too. Clean or dirty, there’s still a gap to be explained–>insert motor theory.
It will certainly generate traffic to one’s webpage and rile up the haters.
andy, you’re close to the ground on this, i’m not. i have always wondered this and now i guess i’ll ask it. and i’m not taking a side on lemond’s claim on this. just, lemond’s 93ml/kg/min. do you believe that number? is that a realistic number? from the POV of someone in that industry, i.e., you?
andy, you’re close to the ground on this, i’m not. i have always wondered this and now i guess i’ll ask it. and i’m not taking a side on lemond’s claim on this. just, lemond’s 93ml/kg/min. do you believe that number? is that a realistic number? from the POV of someone in that industry, i.e., you?
I am certainly not Andy but I think he is exaggerating that number. Unless he is a Nordic x-country skier or dodgy I believe its pretty unlikely. That is an extraordinary number.
that was my sense. not that i don’t think he was told that number. but in the OLD days, when i was in college, which admittedly when we nailed our cleats to our shoes, really need a nordic skier to generate the high number, and that high number was low-80s. prefontaine had the highest for a runner, at 84. the highest recorded is a nordic skier, 94. i just wonder about these highest recorded. what would happen in a second test, by another ex fizzer? is 93 a realistic number for anybody? any athlete?
not that it matters, except that if you’re claiming that 93 and extrapolating, straight line, to bike power, the relevance depends on accurate vo2max numbers.
Armstrong’s doping is essentially irrelevant to the question at hand. That is, either his VO2max (doping enhanced or not) was high enough that he could have sustained 400 W, or not.
I’m not disagreeing with that, but Lemond is focusing in his VO2 Max and what wattage could be produced (clean).
The way I read the story, he was focusing on VO2max, period (i.e., clean or dirty), and claiming that there was still a discrepancy that could be explained by use of a motor.
That’s pretty much my read of it too. Clean or dirty, there’s still a gap to be explained–>insert motor theory.
It will certainly generate traffic to one’s webpage and rile up the haters.
Or maybe Lance was a super responder to his drug cocktails. Just like he beat cancer with his drug therapy. The motor theory would have come out. Plus his early tt tour winning bike was the litespeed blade, and he crushed it them. That bike would seem to be a harder material to manipulate versus carbon for a motor.
that was my sense. not that i don’t think he was told that number. but in the OLD days, when i was in college, which admittedly when we nailed our cleats to our shoes, really need a nordic skier to generate the high number, and that high number was low-80s. prefontaine had the highest for a runner, at 84. the highest recorded is a nordic skier, 94. i just wonder about these highest recorded. what would happen in a second test, by another ex fizzer? is 93 a realistic number for anybody? any athlete?
not that it matters, except that if you’re claiming that 93 and extrapolating, straight line, to bike power, the relevance depends on accurate vo2max numbers.
Lemond was crushing his competitors from day one, to winning Jr world’s road race, to winning top tier euro races year one as a euro pro, to winning the tour de l’avenir by a record margin, to placing 3rd overall in his first TdF while supporting another rider, and winning the white Jersey, etc. His palmares scream of genetic freak beyond nearly all other genetic freaks. This is forgotten or not known by many, especially when he makes comments that may upset fans of other riders and the focus is on some sour grapes.
all that was true. by accident of geography (twice) i was fortunate to be there, up close, for both lemond’s and armstrong’s late-teen years, and there is no comparison in my mind between them, at that age. armstrong was a very good but not overwhelming rider. lemond was one of america’s best riders at age-16, one year after picking up the sport.
that isn’t my question, however. i’m wondering if it’s really possible to have a vo2max of 93, and i wonder whether measuring vo2max is as precise a science as, say, measuring grams of drag in the wind tunnel. i’m not questioning. i’m just asking.
i wonder whether measuring vo2max is as precise a science as, say, measuring grams of drag in the wind tunnel. i’m not questioning. i’m just asking.
In the proper hands, test-retest reproducibility is excellent, i.e., +/- 2%, with most of that variability being biological, not technological, in origin.
Lemond has an ax to grind with Lance… and IMO with good reason. Lance essentially destroyed him and his fledgling Lemond brand. I think Greg is a good guy with a serious physical gift… where MAYBE he was able to compete at a high level because of his freakish VO2. I could be wrong though, he could be a doper too WITH a freakish VO2. 
I have a friend that was run out of cycling because of not wanting to dope and being a whistle blower… I think he told me Lemond was clean as far as he knew.
That said Greg is over thinking this one… Lance doped as did many others… that’s how he exceeded his capabilities. Cycling is still a dirty sport IMO at the pro level for the majority of riders.
While I agree there was controversy about the Lemond brand, it had a 13 year relationship with Trek and was around even before that.
http://www.slowtwitch.com/Opinion/Trek_dumps_LeMond_analysis_309.html
“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.
One of the other problems with the Lemond brand is that most of the geometries were designed around Greg’s particular proportions and fit philosophy, resulting in bikes that often did not fit well for the general population. I worked at a shop that was a Lemond and Fisher (but not Trek) dealer prior to Lance’s TdF wins, and we just could not sell the bikes. We finally gave up and dropped Lemond and picked up Trek, all before Lance even made his comeback from cancer…
Armstrong’s doping is essentially irrelevant to the question at hand. That is, either his VO2max (doping enhanced or not) was high enough that he could have sustained 400 W, or not.
I’m not disagreeing with that, but Lemond is focusing in his VO2 Max and what wattage could be produced (clean).
The way I read the story, he was focusing on VO2max, period (i.e., clean or dirty), and claiming that there was still a discrepancy that could be explained by use of a motor.
That’s pretty much my read of it too. Clean or dirty, there’s still a gap to be explained–>insert motor theory.
It will certainly generate traffic to one’s webpage and rile up the haters.
Or maybe Lance was a super responder to his drug cocktails. Just like he beat cancer with his drug therapy. The motor theory would have come out. Plus his early tt tour winning bike was the litespeed blade, and he crushed it them. That bike would seem to be a harder material to manipulate versus carbon for a motor.
??
Please don’t misinterpret my response as the motor theory being my opinion. It’s not.
I think Lemond’s not given enough evidence to support his position. One can speculate what would explain any discrepencies, but until the actual #s are given, WITH uncertainty attached, it’s a moot point trying to explain differences that may or may not be statistically relevant. I think Slowman and ACoggan are trying to sort through all that now.