Lemond on drugs, Pound and Floyd Options

[RADUSA]

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news.php?id=new...ov06/nov21news2

sorry if this was covered elswhere but quite interesting

[susie b]

Is it the consensus that EPO "gives you a performance increase of 30%" (quote by Greg Lemond)?


30%?! That is huge. Is it true?

[floyd]

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news.php?id=new...ov06/nov21news2

sorry if this was covered elswhere but quite interesting

Let me sum up my opinion on Lemonds' statements. I would ask Satan for advice before calling Lemond.

[Jimmy]

Let me sum up my opinion on Lemonds' statements. I would ask Satan for advice before calling Lemond.

SO if I read the article correctly - what does Satan think you should do?

[shag]

Let me sum up my opinion on Lemonds' statements. I would ask Satan for advice before calling Lemond.

floyd - your presence here would be much more helpful if you'd stop beating around the bush so much!

[jr.]

well, Floyd, it sound like Lemond thinks you did.

[chris t]

Let me sum up my opinion on Lemonds' statements. I would ask Satan for advice before calling Lemond.

I thought your name was Floyd not Faust

[jellotrip]

"I'm convinced that Dick Pound is on the right path; that he can pull cycling out of the dirt. "
-LeMond

Even if you were to ask Satan for advice, I wonder if he would be able to concentrate on listening to you, what with the distraction of GL's nose being pressed so tightly to his ass.

[ludwig]

The main thing about Lemond's statements that bothers me is that he continuously implies that he himself won the Tour on nothing more than bread and water. In Walsh's book, he quotes Lemond's wife's account of a phone conversation between Lemond and Armstrong, where Armstrong (allegedly) argued that Lemond couldn't have possibly won the Tour in 89 without taking EPO. If everything we hear (and everything Lemond says) about the doping culture is correct....then it would seem unlikely Lemond won without any PED assistance.

Nonetheless it's nice to have a respected voice dissenting from the prevailing equivocations.

This post has been edited by ludwig: Nov 21 2006, 06:51 PM

[susie b]

So, can I assume Satan did not only NOT talk to Floyd but does not know squat about EPO & I can stop trying to figure out ways to get my hands on some? I was figuring if it could do that for cyclists it could also help me be a multi-tasking wiz like all the fine people here who work full-time & post all day long.... Or maybe that's everybody's little secret on the Forum?!! Does DICK Pound know about this?




Footnote : please tell me I'm not the only one who automatically hears the Churchlady's rendition when they see the word "Sa-TAN"?

[Stephen]

The main thing about Lemond's statements that bothers me is that he continuously implies that he himself won the Tour on nothing more than bread and water. In Walsh's book, he quotes Lemond's wife's account of a phone conversation between Lemond and Armstrong, where Armstrong (allegedly) argued that Lemond couldn't have possibly won the Tour in 89 without taking EPO. If everything we hear (and everything Lemond says) about the doping culture is correct....then it would seem unlikely Lemond won without any PED assistance.

Nonetheless it's nice to have a respected voice dissenting from the prevailing equivocations.

Lemond is always the king insinuation and Ego. So here is an insiuation for Lemond. Despite the super light super aero-bikes no one has been able to beat his full length TT record at the TDF for years and years. Certainly not Lance. So if Lance HAD to be on EPO then certainly Lemond was. Tail wind slightly down hill, whatever. Lance never got there, if Lance was on EPO and it increased his performance 30% then surely Lemond was doped to the gils if you use "Lemond logic".

I would also suggest that EPO would be of only marginal (<3%)value as power at MLSS is a much better predictor of cycling performance, especially TT performance.

This Study:
http://www.ms-se.com/pt/re/msse/abstract.0...#33;8091!-1

Suggest that even the most blatant EPO regime only increases V02Max 6.7%.

[Cyclingheroes]

Let me sum up my opinion on Lemonds' statements. I would ask Satan for advice before calling Lemond.

Ok. But please explain how did you come to that opinion?

[jr.]

as to Lemond's claim of 30% advantage, its hard to say what he meant increased 30%. The scientific articles usually claim 9% to 10% with appropriate injectable iron supplementation to maximize benefit, Ashenden did some of that work years ago.

If he meant VO2 max, to give an example, if you believe LA's natural VO2 Max is somewhere around 82 that would mean his epo enhanced Vo2 Max to be about 106.6.

If its overall performance, and you assume for the sake of argument that LA doped in 2005 and Moreau didn't, and they had roughly equivalent skills w/o doping, LA should have finished about 25 hours in advance of Moreau instead of a touch over 16 minutes ahead of him (.3% overall). The difference in the final time trial was about a 4% difference.

using times from this site: http://www.bikeraceinfo.com/tdf/tdfstats.html

I averaged 6 years 1980-1985, clearly pre EPO years, I averaged 1995-2000, all EPO years with no testing except the hematocrit from 1997 on and after the advent of the notorious doping docs. Average speed of the TDF 80-85--36.75 mph Average speed of TDF from 95-00--39.41 mph. No 30% increase in speed.

[jsf]

Ledmond: i love you dick pound! yes! join me and together we can defeat and take down lance together! (austin powers dr. evil laughs ring out...)

[zekeydekey]

Lance never got there, if Lance was on EPO and it increased his performance 30% then surely Lemond was doped to the gils if you use "Lemond logic".

Is this opinion or fact? I don't recall his having tested for anything.

[shag]

Average speed of the TDF 80-85--36.75 mph Average speed of TDF from 95-00--39.41 mph. No 30% increase in speed.

I don't really get into this sort of thing, but I would point out that a 30% increase in power is nothing like a 30% increase in speed. You know, wind resistance, blah, blah, blah. As a total seat-of-the-pants guess, taking an ITT as an example, boosting power 30% at those speeds would probably yield what, a 5 km/hr increase (maybe 10%)?

[fab]

A comparaison between years

http://www.cyclismag.com/article.php?sid=2433
It's in french but graphics and number are for all.
It's enough to see how are the things.

and this link , but only for french reader
http://forums.france2.fr/france2/cyclisme/...ujet-3830-1.htm

I post directly the 2 graphics





Les années 80 : Avoriaz 1985, Herrera, Hinault 375 w
Superbagnères 1986, Lemond 380 w
Alpe d'Huez 1987, Herrera 395 w, 1989 Fignon, Delgado 390 w
Les années 90 : Luz-Ardiden 1990, Indurain, Lemond 390 w
Saint Lary 1993, Indurain, Jaskula, Rominger 430 w
Val Thorens 1994, Pantani 437 w
Alpe d'Huez 1995, Pantani 460 w
La Plagne 1995, Indurain 448 w
Arcalis 1997,Ullrich 474 w
Les Deux Alpes 1998, Pantani 450 w
Les années 2000 : Hautacam 2000, Armstrong 449 w
Alpe d'Huez 2001, Armstrong 442 w
Luz-Ardiden 2003, Armstrong 442 w
Courchevel 2005, Valverde, Armstrong 449 w
edited: to append
The calculation of the power is based on a rider who weighs 78kg.

This post has been edited by fab: Nov 21 2006, 09:49 PM

[dbrower]

My, the bottom graph is disingenuous, carefully chopping off the bottom of the lines to exaggerate the differences.

-dB

[jr.]

shaq

Lemond used performance, he didn't say watts, so again, we have to speculate by what he meant by performance, yes, watts would leave a different calculation. But there's a long thread somewhere, the first one FL showed up in I believe to argue how watts translates to performance and the science brains at the board couldn't agree if the change was even linear, let alone exactly what the numbers would be, so being me and not one of the brains, I won't even go there for the calculation.

As for the cyclisme article, long posts on that as well with some of the more scientific people saying the numbers aren't reliable. Again, without a full report of how the numbers were figured, I have doubts based on what others have said. FL made the point most of the numbers people speculate about don't match what his meter reads.

Again, the real science done in a lab doesn't support Lemond's number.

[jr.]

http://www.analyticcycling.com/ForcesSpeed_Page.html

Shaq

I have no idea if this site actually has an accurate calculator, but on the default setting of the calculator, about 30% in watts looks to be about 5kph. If you use 390 watts you get 9.81 m/s which I calculate should be 35.32k/h and if you increase to 507 watts you get 11.34 ms and 40.82 kph. The numbers seem to have higher watts for speed then I would expect, but maybe I'm used to seeing numbers for being in the peloton with the benefits derived from that.