Le Mond is at it again

PainIsTemporary

Le Mond questioning the yellow jersey holder again by the looks of it. Surprise surprise!

tunney

Any sane cycling fan should be I think.

RobFowl

Otra pregunta

Bunnyhopper

It is depressing - even as I watched it I caught myself wondering "Is he doping? Is that why he's so much faster?" I have to presume he isn't doping, but it was a depressing reminder of how hard it now is simply to enjoy the spectacle and admire the riders.

Doesn't look like he covered himself in glory with the press. Interesting though that Cancellara seems to have been most annoyed about the motorbikes.

http://www.bikeradar.com/blogs/article/contadors-annecy-faux-pas-22537

The LeMond Le Monde (??) article is here - but only in French.

jinka

Am I missing the English version?!

Bunnyhopper

It's in French on the Le Monde site - not sure if there's an original English version anywhere. You could try the machine-translated version, which is not great, but readable.

http://translate.google.com/translate?prev=hp&hl=en&js=y&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.lemonde.fr%2Fsports%2Farticle%2F2009%2F07%2F23%2Falberto-prouve-moi-qu-on-peut-croire-en-toi-par-greg-lemond_1221871_3242.html&sl=fr&tl=en&history_state0=

Liamo08

Well long and short of it Lemond is claiming Contador would have needed a VO2 max of 99.5 to do what he did on Verbier not sure how he works that out but if his calculations are accurate then it's pretty damning.

jefferson73

Greg Lemond in Le Monde about Contador.

"Sunday 19 July, during the climb to Verbier, Alberto Contador has established a speed record: he walked the 8.5 km climb (7.5% average slope) in 20 min 55. Not a rider of the Tour had risen so quickly. How to explain such a performance? According to the latest data published by the former Festina trainer and specialist in performance, Antoine Vayer, in Libération, the Spanish rider would have required a VO2 max (maximal oxygen consumption) of 99.5 ml / min / kg to produce the effort.

To my knowledge, this is a figure that has never been achieved by any athlete in any sport. It is like a beautiful Mercedes leaving a lounge car was aligned on a Formula 1 circuit and won the race. There is something wrong. It would be interesting to know what's under the hood. A rider traveling at the clear water can reach the speed of ascent and power output in Verbier? Maybe. If the studies conducted by Antoine Vayer is correct, then Alberto Contador is the first human being to reach such a level of performance.

Assuming the validity of tests of physiological effort, the VO2 max and various mathematical equations that reflect state of mind without the sporting value, the burden is then Alberto Contador to prove he is physically capable of performing this feat without the use of performance-enhancing products. Because of the recent history of our sport, doubt is required. And should lead us to ask ourselves about the performance. That is why the skeptic that I am now want to ask Alberto Contador to convince us.

I would like to know the real benchmark for VO2 max. By knowing, we could explain this result which makes him the fastest climber of the Tour's history. The future of doping control requires not only the methods of detection of blood and urine but the assessment of physiological parameters of each individual. To establish a reliable profile, should begin the evaluation at the first pedal strokes among juniors.

Like the blood passport that tracks over time the evolution of haematological parameters of a rider, it would monitor the VO2 max. By measuring the power developed by the riders and their VO2 max, it would establish the equivalent of DNA files used to confuse a criminal. I do not know the true values of Alberto Contador as I do not know the weather conditions (wind, etc.) during the stage of Verbier. I can bring here any judgments without more information.

During the Festina trial in 2000 in Lille, testimony argued that riders with VO2 max in the 70 were able to bring about 90. This jumping performance was so important that no rider could then own match. If we had used the method for evaluating the V02 Max, you could have seen the use of EPO and blood transfusions in the pack long before these practices are also deeply rooted in our sport. That is why I remain skeptical response to any performance that seems too good to be true".

jinka

Cheers
Very interesting piece

Be careful
I got a warning for talking about lance and opinions re his performances on the athletics board.
Seems like Nazi Germany on this sometimes re free speech

alfalad

He is only saying what a lot of people are thinking to be honest!!

Granted after the past maybe he should have said nothing but he's an honest guy!!

Liamo08

Don't think he said anything wrong, I'm sure he has a fairly standard calculation for working his figures out. He hasn't directly accused Contador of doing anything.

RobFowl

jefferson73 wrote: »

During the Festina trial in 2000 in Lille, testimony argued that riders with VO2 max in the 70 were able to bring about 90. This jumping performance was so important that no rider could then own match. If we had used the method for evaluating the V02 Max, you could have seen the use of EPO and blood transfusions in the pack long before these practices are also deeply rooted in our sport. That is why I remain skeptical response to any performance that seems too good to be true".

That is quite frightening. Andy Hampsten won the Giro in 1988 with a VO2 max of 74.
Mine at when I was young and skinny was 64. I am an extremely average 3rd cat (being generous) . Basically I could have transformed myself into a grand tour rider by doping with EPO (assuming every else was clean).
The temptation must be huge.

Anyway still hoping the Twig is clean

JacksonHeightsOwn

its kinda hard to fathom how a skinny, near anorexic guy can attack like billyo on a treachorous climb one day ,then beat the olympic time trialist the following day, and still look as fresh as a daisy, when he was going up the climb in the time trial, he didnt look human, it was just odd

Orizio

LeMond is probably right if we are going to be honest. People don't just stroll up the greatest mountains in pro cycling as if they were molehills.

nitrogen

jinka wrote: »

Cheers
Very interesting piece

Be careful
I got a warning for talking about lance and opinions re his performances on the athletics board.
Seems like Nazi Germany on this sometimes re free speech

WTF! What did you exactly say?

tunney

It's just the athletics and tri crowd. If they don't talk about doping then their
sports don't have a doping problem.

Raam

tunney wrote: »

It's just the athletics and tri crowd. If they don't talk about doping then their
sports don't have a doping problem.

Bloody eck. If they banned that talk here... that would rule out half of the threads.

buck65

A bit harsh Tunney? Most of the posts and threads in the Athl/Tri forum is about people runing the marathon and taking up triathlons. Very little actual athletics discussion. Most I'm sure are aware of the prevelance of doping in athletics it's just not too many are actually interested in watching athletics!

el tel

When I watch the tour i'm always disappointed at the lack of coverage at the riders at the back, the ones struggling up the hills and suffering. It's not being masochistic but just a desire to see something believable to my eyes. Like in any walk of life there will always be riders who are head and shoulders above the others but to make it look like it was no effort at all and doing it day after day just seems too hard to fathom. To my memory Armstrong never looked as casual as Contador when the racing and routes started to get tough.

For what they might be worth, if only there were more stats comparing riders over certain climbs over history.

TinyExplosions

jinka wrote: »

Cheers
Very interesting piece

Be careful
I got a warning for talking about lance and opinions re his performances on the athletics board.
Seems like Nazi Germany on this sometimes re free speech

It's no really about free speech, but iirc the libel laws in this country -boards don't want to have to fend off a litigious Armstrong (or anybody) who claims to have been slandered or libeled on here

Vélo

TinyExplosions wrote: »

It's no really about free speech, but iirc the libel laws in this country -boards don't want to have to fend off a litigious Armstrong (or anybody) who claims to have been slandered or libeled on here

So a bit more "Allegedly" then!

BryanL

do a search for Lemond on here or david Walsh

http://www.competitorradio.com/archive.php

ednwireland

i must say i pretty much watch any sport and see and exceptional performance and the first question is what are they on, a certain sprinters country had no out of comp.testing before the last olympics suddenly they have a batch of young sprinters out there (male and female) if contador leaves jb i see a postive coming up ( funny how that happens
so whats tom watson on eh!

Hermy

BryanL wrote: »

do a search for Lemond on here or david Walsh

http://www.competitorradio.com/archive.php

+1
I see Tyler Hamilton is there latest guest.
The comments suggest this wasn't the hardest hitting interview.

EDIT: Just listening to it now - the sHamilton Show continues.:mad:

Quigs Snr

Remarkable isn't it how anyone who has left the Johann and the boys has had a positive not long after... (or admitted to doping directly or indirectly). Their program must be excellent, I'd love to know how it works. What are they doing differently ? There was a tiny insight into it via the Vaughters/Andreu chat transcript that was intercepted a few years ago but it told nothing of how they avoid detection.

Lemond is right of course and history will eventually prove it, the trouble with Greg is that he gets too emotional about it and makes it easy for his detractors to dismiss him as a bitter crank. I am torn in all of this, its obvious that the drugs have not gone away (the fact that books like from lance to landis, bad blood etc... can be published without being sued for slander speaks volumes, not to mention the various web articles), yet it doesn't diminish my love of the whole spectacle. I would prefer if they did it clean however. I have come to view the drugs busts as part of the soap opera of cycling now. Dare I say it, a few drugs busts would really up the entertainment factor of this years tour. Bring back Ricco ! I think I laughed myself to sleep the night of his amazing attack last year, I just shook my head when he went and thought to myself that he would regret that ! The way he just blasted away without drawing a breath and time trialled down the descent home... Haven't seen anything that implausible since, well yesterday infact.

griffin100

I assume that the prevalence of drug use in the peleton is around 100% and enjoy the spectacle non the less.

PainIsTemporary

tunney wrote: »

It's just the athletics and tri crowd. If they don't talk about doping then their
sports don't have a doping problem.

Get your head out of your ass

petethedrummer

PainIsTemporary wrote: »

Get your head out of your ass

I presume being a Triathlete that he was having a laugh.

....but maybe you're having a laugh too and I misunderstood.

PainIsTemporary

Le Monde/Kimmage/et al are­ getting tiring and repetitive at this stage. Can't­ we just enjoy the Tour without someone throwing out­ allegations and giving the armchair critics another­ reason to question every performance/cyclist in the­ Tour? This years Tour has been brilliant. Le­ Monde/Kimmage/et al sicken me.

Plenty of examples of riders who improved­ Time Trialing ability to become Tour champions.­ Lance being one example. Used to get beaten handily early on in his career­ and became unbeatable at his peak. Contador has­ followed the same curve.

Every possibility Lemond may be right. But has­ he ever put his time trial against Fignon in 86 against­ his own criteria? It was the fastest Time Trial in tour history. Was­ it 2-3 seconds per kilometer faster than his closest­ competitor at the end of 3 weeks...in an era when cycling was apparently rife with drugs? Why doesn't he use the same criteria to judge his own performace that day as he does to others now? Can we not give Contador the benefit of the­ doubt and can't­ we just enjoy the Tour without someone throwing out­ allegations and giving the armchair critics another­ reason to question every performance/cyclist in the­ Tour?

Le Monde a doper with a guilty conscience???

PainIsTemporary

petethedrummer wrote: »

I presume being a Triathlete that he was having a laugh.

....but maybe you're having a laugh too and I misunderstood.

Right...apologies so. Was getting one my high horse there

Captain Havoc

In the words of Tom Clancy (I think) "What's the difference between fiction and reality? Fiction has to be believable"

petethedrummer

PainIsTemporary wrote: »

Le Monde/Kimmage/et al are* getting tiring and repetitive at this stage.

The doping is getting repetitive. Everthing LEMOND and Kimmage have been saying since the 80's has turned out to be true.

PainIsTemporary wrote: »

can't* we just enjoy the Tour without someone throwing out* allegations and giving the armchair critics another* reason to question every performance/cyclist in the* Tour?

You can. If you want to put your blinkers on and believe in the likes of these, then by all means believe.

Captain Havoc

Whilst I don't like the way people fire out doping claims left right and centre, I also don't like the dopers. I believe that people shouldn't accuse Contador so easily of doping, equally I feel if he's caught he shouldn't get a one or two year ban while another team builds him up ready for a comeback, he should be banned for life as should all dopers. If a rider knew his career would for sure be over it would make them think twice.

Orizio

griffin100 wrote: »

I assume that the prevalence of drug use in the peleton is around 100% and enjoy the spectacle non the less.

Wouldn't really agree, even in the nineties, where I think its fair to say doping, and the testing in place, was much worse, it was no where near that high. You have always had a significant amount of riders who simply thought doping was ethically wrong.

Quigs Snr

Interesting point though. Lemond had to be clean, otherwise he'd have been exposed by now after all of his outbursts someone somewhere would have nailed him.

However... it would be interesting to see how Gregs numbers stacked up in 89, I think I saw something about that before. The question though is if Gregs TT came out of nowhere or was he always a great TT rider who that day just happened to have a massive technical advantage with his aero setup (since proven to automatically give an experienced user of same equipment the kind of advantage which he ended up winning by).

The fact that it remained the fastest in history though was interesting. Did he have a tailwind that day or particularly favourable conditions ? (i.e. straight run in with tail wind rather than an out and back course)

Orizio

jerseyeire wrote: »

Whilst I don't like the way people fire out doping claims left right and centre, I also don't like the dopers. I believe that people shouldn't accuse Contador so easily of doping, equally I feel if he's caught he shouldn't get a one or two year ban while another team builds him up ready for a comeback, he should be banned for life as should all dopers. If a rider knew his career would for sure be over it would make them think twice.

I think it has to be flexible - if you dope, get caught and refuse to co-operate, its a life time ban in every facet of the sport, if you do co-operate then leniency should be shown. It would actually be counter-productive in certain ways to put in place an unchanging life time ban for dopers.

Quigs Snr

I'd agree with Orizio too, its not 100%. A former pro who has ridden a grand tour told me that unless you are on one of the very largest teams preferably with organised doping programs which are considered an investment to put the team at the top of the podium, that the average domestique (we are talking about the guys who barely scrape a place as a bottle carrier on one of the smaller / wildcard teams) literally cannot afford the doping programs (apparently if you are an entry level rider on 40k with a team, then your entire salary would be gone on doping/doping evasion programs)

So there are clean riders out there. Lets not forget that either... (not too many of them in the top 50 though if you examine the stats historically)

BryanL

very easy to explain why Greg was faster than the rest in that time trial.

He was always faster than most and He used aero bars!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

everyone else thought they impeded your breathing and performance, he took the chance.
From an under 16 he was world class at time trialing.

Lemond also had a very high VO2 Max throughout his career and it didn't vary by the amounts now seen.

where would cycling be without Kimmage,Lemond,Walsh?(These guys love cycling)

still transfusing blood, riders still dying in their sleep?

Bryan

Captain Havoc

Orizio wrote: »

I think it has to be flexible - if you dope, get caught and refuse to co-operate, its a life time ban in every facet of the sport, if you do co-operate then leniency should be shown. It would actually be counter-productive in certain ways to put in place an unchanging life time ban for dopers.

Obviously it would be impossible to make it as straight forward as I previously mentioned, I mean it would be unfair to ban someone where there could be a doubt but things like EPO, I don't believe can accidently or wrongly be prescribed as it's used for more serious illness.

Orizio

Quigs Snr wrote: »

I'd agree with Orizio too, its not 100%. A former pro who has ridden a grand tour told me that unless you are on one of the very largest teams preferably with organised doping programs which are considered an investment to put the team at the top of the podium, that the average domestique (we are talking about the guys who barely scrape a place as a bottle carrier on one of the smaller / wildcard teams) literally cannot afford the doping programs (apparently if you are an entry level rider on 40k with a team, then your entire salary would be gone on doping/doping evasion programs)

So there are clean riders out there. Lets not forget that either... (not too many of them in the top 50 though if you examine the stats historically)

Money and stature is an important point - in Voet's 'Breaking The Chain', he noted the Festina team that was going to the Tour De France - Virenque, Moreau etc - were those being doped, whereas the rest of the team weren't. Both groupsused to sit in different areas to eat, used to train in different areas and so on. He also stated there was many who simply refused to dope, Lefevre and Mottet for example, or else somw who doped constantly or some who doped only sporadically.

It was often a matter of degrees, and thats how we should view things now, rather then just jupming to extremes like 'they are all dopers!' or 'no, now none of them are doping!', the truth is more complicated and probably something in between.

petethedrummer

PainIsTemporary wrote: »

But has* he ever put his time trial against Fignon in 86 against* his own criteria?

I'm going to endevour to find this info.

All I've got so far is estimates of power on some climbs:
http://www.sportsscientists.com/2009/07/tour-de-france-2009-power-estimates.html

You have to concede Lemond was consistent. See attached gif (can't link it for some reason).

petethedrummer

PainIsTemporary wrote: »

But has* he ever put his time trial against Fignon in 86 against* his own criteria?

Well whadda ya know??......little footballs.....I mean.....Lemond's own estimates

GL: What wattage was he doing? I would look more at wattage because the rate of vertical ascent could vary so much depending on the pavement. Wattage is the ultimate truth. You know I'm very controversial because I think that you have to look at numbers.

My wattage, relative to VO2 Max...a VO2 Max of 92 or 93 in a fully recovered way...I think I was capable of producing 450 to 460 watts. The truth is, even at the Tour de France, my Tour de France climb times up l'Alpe d'Huez yielded a wattage of around 380 and 390. That was the historic norm for Hinault and myself. You've got times going back many, many years. But what was learned recently, in the last 5 years, was that when you start the Tour de France, you start with a normal hematocrit of, say, 45 percent. By the time you finish, it's probably down 10 or 15 percent. Which means my VO2 Max dropped 10 or 15 percent. So that's why I was never producing the same wattage. And then there a lot of other factors that help performance if you've recovered. My last time trial in '89, I averaged about 420, 430 watts, which would match or be slightly down from what my real VO2 Max was.

Of course, in the '90s drugs came on the scene, so the wattages have gone out. There are some things that are just not explainable, people with VO2 Maxs in the low 80s producing 500 watts. A physiologist friend of my said that for a person to do that, 500 watts, he has to have to have nearly 100 milliliters of Oxygen. There are a lot of questions there for me.

When I start seeing wattage down to the historic norm, I'll know that the battle of the drugs is starting to get back in place.

http://www.bikeraceinfo.com/oralhistory/lemond.html

Now, whether these are accurate figures or not, I don't know. But it seems he has set the 89 TT against his own criteria.

ROK ON

To follow Occams Razor, then you have to make a lot of assumptions to make sense of AC's performances.
The simplest explanation, is that it is not possible for anything less than a super human effort or a medically enhanced effort.

BryanL

I don't think anyone should see Lemond as an enemy of cycling.
Bryan

doccy

I've watched the Tour since I was a little boy and Contadors performance strikingly reminds me of Riis when he won the Tour. I sadly think there is a genuine reason for suspicion at his level of performance. That said, in a level playing field, Contador is undoubtedly the best cyclist in the world.
If we had a crystal ball I wonder how many of the winners of the Tour in the last 30 years were clean, Roche et al. What about Bradley Wiggins performance on this tour?
I guess I'll do what I've always done when watching the Tour, suspend my morals and enjoy the greatest race on earth.

iregk

I'm impressed. 3 pages on doping in le tour centered around AC and not one mention of the Puerto Case. Nice going.

Me personally I fully agree with GL. AC should have been stripped of his last tour victory but he must have the best pharmacist on the market. In my opinion and I may well be wrong here but Astana are rife with it. Contodor, Armstrong and lets not forget Astana's past. They must have a better avoision policy now.

petethedrummer

iregk wrote: »

I'm impressed. 3 pages on doping in le tour centered around AC and not one mention of the Puerto Case. Nice going.

Mentioned in 2 other threads this week, mainly by me.

doccy

Why stop at Contador though? Like I said Bradley Wiggins performance has raised eyebrows too.
The problem with professional cycling is that if you scratch below the surface you won't like what you find. Landis was stripped of his win for doping, Armstrong has failed a retro test for doping, Bjarne Riis admitted to doping when he won his tour, Marco Pantani failed a doping test in the Giro.
Like I said earlier Contador is the best cyclist in the world today. It just grates a little bit that he is so good. Or in other words i have my doubts that anyone has that acceleration over a mountain top. Well apart from Pantani or Rasmussen or Riis.
But that is the tour, and it has always been so.

Orizio

It should be pointed out that numerous scources have cast doubt on Le Mond and his Vo2 argument re: Contador.

BryanL

One thing about Wiggins, while his climbing has improved his time trialling hasn't, which is what you'd expect.
AC and LA both bucked that trend.

mewso

I've always thought they should just legalise the dope and allow teams to compete in their manufacturing of it and be awarded on points for the performance of their drugs overall just like the constructors championship of F1. So then we would have the Yellow, Green, Polkodot and Minge Jerseys.