Talk:Greg LeMond/Archive 1

Pronunciation

A recent edit claims the name "should be pronounced like the fruit rather than in French". I'm surprised, since I recall sportscasters calling him "luh-MOND" and not "LEHMM-ind" (capitals for emphasized syllable, but a bad attempt at phoentics, sorry). Anyways, if someone can confirm this fact, I've pasted together what I believe the IPA phoentic spelling for the name would be (based on that of "lemon"). IPA: [ˈlemənd]. (If pronunciation is going to be specified, phoenetics is a more absolute method, rather than by comparison to another word.) --Ds13 23:30, 2005 Apr 14 (UTC)

That edit was from a detractor. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.184.15.5 (talk) 17:03, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Galibier, Télégraphe AND Alpe d'Huez?

I've been sprucing up this article--I'm a big fan of LeMond--but I got stuck on sentence from an earlier contributor that refers to "...a stage that included the brutal climbs of the Col du Galibier, the Col du Télégraphe and the Alpe d'Huez..." I know that the Galibier and the Télégraphe are contiguous, but the Alpe d'Huez can't be in the same stage, can it? It's too far away for one thing, and no human being could do all three climbs, for another. I'm deleting the reference to the Alpe d'Huez for now. Can anyone advise? BitQuirky 21:08, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

They are in fact very close, and tour riders do 3 such climbs per stage on a regular basis. see: http://www.cyclingnews.com/road/2003/tour03/?id=stages/stage8 Dwyatt 101 16:00, 18 May 2007 (UTC). The July 22, 2011 stage included all three climbs.

There's even an cyclosportive called La Marmotte which climbs these cols plus Croix de Fer in just 1 day. Yeah its tough, but is not impossible (I did it anyway, along with tousands others back in 2005) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.83.55.140 (talk) 23:14, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

More info on doping

Could someone more knowledeable about cycling than myself expand on doping in cycling and LeMond? I read an interview a few years back where he said that he was forced out of the sport prematurely by the new wave of dopers, and that he refused to partake in it as every other pro rider started doing.

While he did retire just as EPO usage was really starting to explode, his stated reason for retiring was his mitochondrial myopathy, and its hard to see him competing sucessfully with such a condition 83.245.24.88 19:35, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

This is a complicated issue. Certainly his medical condition was a key factor in his retirement. It's also true that in the last few years of competition he had a hard time getting good results. The big question is whether LeMond was slowing down because of his condition, or whether the rest of the peloton was dramatically speeding up. It's certainly possible that it was both. Clearly doping was becoming more prevalent in the 1990's, particularly EPO. An edition of "Fearless" on OLN (now Versus) contains some dialogue from LeMond on this. In that program, he remarked that the peloton got noticeably faster, and that riders who were formerly average pros were suddenly much stronger. As more and more doping admissions continue to emerge, eventually we may see that many riders in the early 1990's were under the influence of banned substances. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.180.220.61 (talk) 23:05, July 16, 2007

That is true, but he also said that it might have just been his impression - that when he was struggling he couldn't help but wonder how it was that other riders were going faster, as any frustrated person might wonder. I believe his comments show his ability to look objectively at his own psyche. Certainly no one touched his time trial time from the final stage of the 1989 Tour for many years. At his best, he most definitely was capable of riding as fast as any rider of the nineties, and could do so on consecutive days. Gunbirddriver (talk) 21:21, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Personal Life

Someone should add a section for LeMond's personal life. I have a relation to his son and that could present a conflict of interest. However, this stilll should be added. 76.109.187.138 18:42, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Done - finally... joepa^T 20:11, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Competition with Hinault

The article tends towards POV when it talks about the 1985 and particularly the 1986 TdF. It si claimed that "It was clear that Hinault was riding aggressively against his teammate" and that he "cracked". Without proper reference, such language should not be part of a encyclopaedia entry. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 134.226.32.57 (talk) 14:24, June 5, 2007

And such comments should be signed ;) Severo^TC 15:43, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I believe that problem is corrected now. Hinault did crack and was dropped by the leading group, allowing separation. "Cracking" is a cycling term for being unable to keep the pace. They will also say a rider fatiguing is "on the rivet", and when he cannot keep the pace will say he's "popped". It does not imply mental breakdown. Greg was able to attack the remaining leaders and opened up a time gap that put him in the lead. He watched Hinault carefully throughout the rest of the race, feeling Hinault would attack again if the opportunity presented itself, and believing his French team's management would not discourage such an attack. Gunbirddriver (talk) 08:28, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

1. Numbered list item

Mitochondrial myopathy

"Infection: The Uninvited Universe", by Gerald N. Calahan, PhD, mentions mitochondrial myopathy ended his career. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.66.55.24 (talk) 19:25, June 24, 2007

In the January 2008 issue of Procycling, Lemond says he believes he never had the illness, that his symptoms were caused by overtraining. I have added that to the text Les woodland (talk) 20:02, 29 December 2007 (UTC)les woodland

I saw that. In an interview he gave to the Irish Times Greg reported being evaluated at the Mayo clinic, and they felt that heavy training resulted in a catabolic cycle that caused the lead in the pellets to leach into his system, making him ill. He said he avoids over training now. Provided the reference on the page. Gunbirddriver (talk) 08:23, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Personal section

I also think there should be a section added pertaining to Lemond's personal life. I notice that there is no references to his father, who was a halfway decent cyclist in his own right. He finished top 10 in the Coors Classic one year, if memory serves. I think the dad's name is Bob Lemond (not the dead guy I got when I did a search on wiki.)

Greg Lemond published an autobiography sometime during the 90s, which would make a good reference, if anyone could find a copy of it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.30.196.29 (talk) 05:07, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree - there's a reference under the Floyd Landis section about LeMond having suffered childhood abuse, but nothing in the article. Details would be useful? 94.174.108.74 (talk) 15:05, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

There is now a mention of this in the article - that LeMond is a victim of sexual abuse (along w/ ADHD, btw) - and details on the fact that he and his wife are both on the board of directors of the 1in6 charity. This information is sourced and the references include quotes that expand on the molestation revelations, so a reader following them will have access to the full story. Take a look at it and let us know what you think, if it's substantial enough or what. joepa^T 20:14, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Classing the article : up to B-class. How to get to A-class?

Seems to me this is a B-class article already... Haven't read it closely enough to help it move up the ranks... but it doesn't look far off. What might be the to do list? --Smilo Don (talk) 05:53, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Finally getting around to this, 3.5 years later... joepa^T 08:50, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Palmares

The article text correctly credits LeMond with winning the UCI Junior World Championship men's road race in 1979. However, the list of LeMond's palmares at the bottom of the page instead credits LeMond with winning the U23 championship. These are two different races based upon two different age cutoffs. Peirce's Signs (talk) 16:14, 1 June 2009 (UTC) I made the correction to the main page but someone may want to check to make sure I have done so correctly. Peirce's Signs (talk) 16:17, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Racing Career

The sentence "LeMond was a standout junior rider and quickly established himself as a talent." has some grammatical issues. I'll leave it to the rest of you to figure out what it should say. --Thumb10.40 (talk) 06:53, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Thumb, don't leave it to "us", just fix it! Anyway, I believe I already have. Nevertheless I am struck that the article on one of the greatest cyclists the United States has ever produced has spent so little time on his racing career and so much on his post career issues with Trek, Armstrong and Landis. It wasn't that long ago. Surely we can find some archived source information and bring those days of racing back to life. Gunbirddriver (talk) 21:13, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Coggan's Dispute of Vayer/LeMond's Contador/Verbier claims

I have amended the article to include the inherent contradiction in Andrew Coggan's dispute of LeMond/Vayer's claims regarding Contador's Verbier performance. Unless it can somehow be demonstrated that it does not contradict Coggan's claims, it should remain, and I will continue to edit it. Spanish for shark (talk) 17:10, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Racing Career

I believe the section on his career should be broken up into smaller segments Gunbirddriver (talk) 08:20, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

I concur!! ;) joepa^T 19:07, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Good Article (GA) status - what's needed?

I'd like to see a discussion started to determine what is required for this article to reach GA-status. One can review the Cycling Project quality scale for basic info on the characteristics pertaining to each article class, but let's identify exactly what's necessary for improving LeMond's article. As a subject matter expert, I'm happy to contribute to this effort, if there are other editors with an interest in the topic willing to assist... joepa^T 20:50, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

• more pictures.
• there is nothing in the article about his early life. where'd he grow up? what was school like? when did he start racing?
• the 'other activities' section is too "list of stuff"-ish. it could be written to have a better flow, with more details about other activities, like the speeches he has given such as "Drugs are killing cycling".
• his French article has some interesting stuff + pics fr:Greg_LeMond. Id also note that the French article has a slightly different list of 'teams' (equipes) than the English version does.
• His comments about the 2012 USADA fallout would be useful as well.
• there is nothing about his personal life. married? kids? most 'good' biographies will briefly mention these types of things.
• the 'end of career' section needs more wiki links
• the entire 'lance armstrong' and 'floyd landis' sections need to be shortened, made more efficient, cleaner, and more concise. the long quotes, as they stand, are possibly copyright violations, and besides that, they are not bracketed by quotation marks. but most of all, the casual reader cannot tell the 'jist' of what happened by skimming.. instead there is a massive wall of text and counter text. and its not really clear that ultimately, Greg was proven correct.
• it might be possible to shorten the 'lemond cycles international' section, and somehow stop it from repeating information from the 'lance armstrong' section. i think it would also be useful to talk about LCI before the Armstrong thing - IIRC Trek said that they were a very profitable business division in the late 1990s. Also it would be good to note the LCI 'brands' ultimate fate, briefly, and how LeMond sells branded exercise equipment. Of course, reorganizing all of this is a bit difficult since armstrong, trek, and LCI are all bound together
• shorten the alberto contador section. make it clear what the controversy is about from the get go, dont drag me through numbers and vo2/max things without explaining to me where the paragraph is going in the first sentence or two.
• in general, something feels 'off' about having an entire section devoted to feuds. it seems like there should be some other way to organize this stuff, but im just not sure what it is.

im not an expert on any of this, dont know a lick about cycling, but the above list are things that strike me from looking at the thing. i really wouldn't feel comfortable editing unless i had read a book or two about LeMond (which i havent and probably wont), to get a 'birds eye view' before delving into a big edit. Decora (talk) 00:41, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Decora, especially on the amount of space devoted to various feuds with other cyclists about doping in cycling. As to pictures, they are rather hard to come by. It would be great to get pictures in of Greg competing, but WikiCommons doesn't have them. Those that can be found on the web are copyrighted by the photographer.Gunbirddriver (talk) 08:26, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

this is great feedback guys, and Decora, thanks for sharing your views as a "non-expert," since in that way you're not affected by any bias and can comment on it more from the non-LeMond-sepcialist's perspective. I also agree w/ the comments re. the "feuds" and walls of text. ("in general, something feels 'off' about having an entire section devoted to feuds. it seems like there should be some other way to organize this stuff, but im just not sure what it is." There is as much that needs to come out of the article as might need to go in. And w/ respect to the feuds, I would think their place in the article should be minor, relatively speaking, or at least proportional to content pertaining to his actually racing career. I haven't looked at the dates, but it seems like what probably happened is that material was being added while the subject was current and extremely topical.

What's the appropriate process for pulling stuff out and making these reductive edits? Can someone just start doing them, or does it have to be discussed and approved first, or...? Also, re. photographs, if someone w/ an eye for this suggests specifically what kind of photo(s) would be appropriate, I can reach out to Greg and ask if he himself has rights to any that he could release. But I've also had luck in the past w/ other articles in simply contacting the photo copyright holder (when they're non-professionals, ie, not Graham Watson, for ex.) and asking them if they will release the photo(s) into public domain. So if flickr is trolled, for ex., and there are some good LeMond shots there, it wouldn't hurt to ask the copyright holder if they'd contribute it to the wikipedia article.

Lastly, how does one track the effort to get to GA-status? Is it just something we'd keep a list of here on the talk page? Cheers. Oh, and I guess I'll start by proposing that the sections Anti-doping stance and controversy perhaps be made into its own article, so that the focus of this article can be on LeMond the person, and not the feuds that LeMond the person had w/ other notables. Cheers. joepa^T 19:47, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

There are six major critieria listed on the "Good Article" page:

1. Well-written.

2. Factually accurate and verifiable.

3. Broad in its coverage.

4. Neutral.

5. Stable.

6. Illustrated, if possible with images.

As to the process of editing an article, it would depend on how "well-defended" an article might be. An article that has a lot of watchers and where opinions run high would merit discussing major edits on the talk page before making the change. The Greg LeMond article has 39 editors that have listed it as an article they watch, which is not an imposing number of watchers. I would think the only areas that might incite high opinion would be on the doping allegations, charges, counter charges and so forth. Oh, and perhaps also the 1986 Tour and teammate Bernard Hinault. I think the thing to do would be for us to just begin to edit the article, and if we bump into something that other editors have strong feelings on we would attempt to resolve it here on the article's talk page.

Once we get the article closer we would nominate it for good article status. Currently there is a very long back log of articles waiting to be reviewed. A reviewer would then look the article over and either accept it or make suggestions for what is needed to make it meet criteria. I would prefer to spruce up the article before troubling a reviewer to look at it. Once reviewed the process does not end. Even if the article does not qualify we will have been given ideas as to where the article needs to improve. We then would have opportunity to fix the problems and submit it again. It's all a process. As to photos, there are a lot out there. It would be great if you could get some released and added to Wikicommons for the article. Here are a couple of web pages with great photos from his career:

from the 1989 Tour: http://freeflite.com/articles/new-lemond-alpe-dhuez-pg423.htm

from the 1990 Tour: http://fotos.rennrad-news.de/p/180660

and there are lots more. If you could talk to some of these magazine potographers and get a photo released or talk to Greg and get a few released that would be the cat's meow. This is great! I look forward to this project.Gunbirddriver (talk) 02:49, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

yup, sounds good. I had a few mins now and have done some editing to include info on LeMond's charitable/volunteer work (all appropriately sourced, of course). I also added a section for personal life and other activities, but I'm thinking about replacing that with a section on his business interests and then consolidated the material that wouldn't go there w/ the personal interests section. I also added mention in the intro about family, volunteer work and his being an entrepreneur. Oh, I also in the body included info about LeMond Fitness, Inc., which is different than the LeMond Cycles that Trek was involved with earlier... joepa^T 20:20, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Regarding the section http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greg_LeMond#Anti-doping_stance_and_controversy, should a separate article be created out of this, and just a summary left on LeMond's page, or is it not worth a separate article, and the info here should just be radically pared down? joepa^T 21:03, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

I believe it should be it's own article, as it is a significant topic in its own right, and is too much for the bibliography page on LeMond. Taking it out and making it its own article will require a request for feedback on the question. I've seen it done but have never initiated the process. I'll see if I can find out how that is best done. Looks good so far. Gunbirddriver (talk) 21:31, 27 November 2012 (UTC)~

An editor has directed me to this section on Wikipedia:Splitting. We could list the article in Category:Articles to be split and an editor could split it if it seems reasonable, and discussion amongst editors supports the move. We would leave a small summary and a redirect to the new page for the split out seciton on Anti-doping stance and doping controversies.Gunbirddriver (talk) 18:02, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Just a heads up, I think the Alberto Contador article may actually have GA-status or otherwise be rated highly ("Alberto Contador has been listed as one of the Sports and recreation good articles under the good article criteria"). It might be helpful to look there for an example of successful composition and editing when the subject is a pro cyclist. I can't wait til we have something like this going on here on this talk page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Alberto_Contador#GA_Review joepa^T 19:13, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Can we proceed w/ submitting the article for status review now, rather than wait any longer, for example, for my 2-3 intro sentences (or paragraph) to Greg's cycling career? That's not going to make a tremendous difference compared to how it reads now, although it will be a detail improvement. But it's not something so crucial that I would suggest holding back the review request. I know that it was observed that the review process can take a long time...is there anything we can do to expedite that by appealing to Administrators who are involved in the cycling project? And do we request review for "A-Class" or go straight to "Good article" review? We've certainly done enough work to reasonably request GA-class, given how effective and focused our edits have been. I guess what I want to say is that the material i'm going to add is not so crucial as to necessitate holding back the review request. Just sayin'... BTW: are there any other editors out there w/ an interest in this besides Gunbirddriver and me, and a few others who've commented briefly, recently? Cheers! joepa^T 05:51, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

I would feel better if someone went through the article and looked at neutrality. We are both big fans of Greg LeMond, and as such superlatives tend to slip into our writing about him. Words like astounding, amazing, blazing, brilliant, incredible and so forth. I don't know if they are in there or not, but I wouldn't be surprised to find them. Some call these "peacock" words, and they mark an article as failing in neutrality. It is fine if we are quoting a source and they are using these words, but the editors are encouraged not to use them themselves. That, and check on our citations, be sure that claims made are sourced adequately. That being done I think we are good to go. The article looks much better, and has gained a wealth of valuable information that was missing, plus some really great photos that bring it all back to life. Great job, Joe! Gunbirddriver (talk) 18:29, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Okay, I think we are ready, Joe. Let's put it up for Good Article. We will have to watch the article and be ready to make changes or respond as reviewers evaluate the article. Gunbirddriver (talk) 21:16, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

While over there I noticed the article on Bradley Wiggins is up for Good Article status as well. Gunbirddriver (talk) 21:43, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

OK! Yea! What a great day! Great job, now let's hope that others agree. Is there a specific URL I should watch to see how the review is evolving, and what suggestions are coming back? I've really enjoyed working on this with you. I think we did a great job.joepa^T 23:52, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

What should happen is that some time over the next three weeks or so an editor other than you or I will see the LeMond article on the list to be reviewed, come to Greg's talk page and use the link in the Good Article Nomination to create a review page. That page will be transcluded to this talk page (what is written there will also appear here), and the editor will go through a check list, make recommendations and assign pass fail marks. We will then have an opportunity to fix the problem or make an argument as to why it should be as it is. As long as we are available (not off on vacation or some such thing) it should be no problem to monitor what is going on and provide the fixes required. So far so good. Thanks so much for your kind words, Joe. Gunbirddriver (talk) 00:54, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

You're welcome, and in return, I say thanks for the explanation. I'm actually quite looking forward to constructive feedback from editors who don't have much personal stake in the article (if any). As you said, even if one is endeavoring to maintain neutral POV, it's almost impossible. Even journalists aren't really neutral - they bring their own personal perspectives and biases. I made a conscious effort to write more dryly and w/o much colorful language at all to reduce the chance of being perceived as biased. Hopefully that comes across to the reviewers. I'm glad the submission has been made though. Cheers! joepa^T 07:28, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Please let me be the first to wish you all congratulations on the success of your efforts, and the article's receipt of GA-status. ¡Felicidades! Azx2 06:28, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Splitting out section on Anti-doping and doping controversies

It has been suggested that this section be split into it's own page. The section is rather long, nearly as long as the rest of the biography of Greg LeMond. It is also an area of high contention, and is not stable, as new information seems to be coming out monthly. I find that it distracts from the main purpose of the page and is a topic of enough material to warrant its own page.

Support I support making a split of the article.Gunbirddriver (talk) 18:10, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Support I agree with the idea of splitting that content and creating a new article out of it, and just summarizing it here in the main LeMond bio. While a summary certainly fits into LeMond's main entry, as it stands now, the length of that section is disproportionate relative to the rest of the material that must be effectively covered in a biography of a living person and is contentious enough (and evolving) to merit coverage via a unique, separate article. joepa^T 18:33, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Well I think we're in agreement on this, though of course it will take some effort to effectively summarize what we intend to split off into a new article. I don't know if anyone else is interested, so I'd say we've got consensus, pending the appearance of some other editors with an interest in this. joepa^T 18:29, 3 December 2012 (UTC) We are currently at 68.5 kilobytes of content, with some biographical information about his days growing up still to be added. The article is a tad long as it stands, which also argues for splitting out the doping controversies section. Gunbirddriver (talk) 18:15, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Joe, could you go ahead and make an attempt at the summary paragraph and place it here for now. I am going to try to see how to get an administrator to review the idea of splitting the article, and help us accomplish it if approved. Thanks. Gunbirddriver (talk) 19:51, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

I will as soon as I can get to it, which I unfortunately don't think will be today - I've had some high-priority non-wikipedia stuff come up in my normal daily life that I have to resolve asap. :( joepa^T 20:31, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Support I agree with the proposal. Unfortunately, I cannot contribute to the summary but I will try to review it once done. Anurag Garg (talk) 18:58, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, Anurag Garg, for sharing your feedback and expressing your position. I have not had an opportunity yet to attempt the summary but may be able to begin the process tonight. I'll keep everyone advised... Oh and just to confirm, would we be in agreement that the latest news about LeMond's being put forth as a candidate for UCI President to replace McQuaid would warrant inclusion in the summary? (sourced appropriately, of course...) joepa^T 19:20, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I should think so, with a more expansive explanation that could be placed on the new page. Gunbirddriver (talk) 04:02, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

I worked a bit on an intro to that section that could also be the summary, though it's not done.joepa^T 09:52, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

We are now at 86.5 kilobytes of content. Gunbirddriver (talk) 03:40, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Geez. I worked on that summary paragraph today for the section we'd like to remove, but I also had to add info to the personal section (though I now consider that relatively complete). I'm still in favor of removing all of the section below the summary, once I've added the remaining elements to the summary (which might not be much...I have to reassess. Am tired...).joepa^T 08:56, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

I just looked again at what I wrote today - the two intro/summary paragraphs to this section - and I personally would be fine w/ splitting out the subsections now, w/o adding to the two paragraphs (Which conclude w/ a reference to the run for UCI presidency). Someone else can add more to the two paragraphs but, like I said, I'd be OK leaving it as-is and sending people to the new article for specific details on each "feud," so-to-speak. Thoughts? joepa^T 09:32, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Support I have not edited this page for much, just starting to, but I also agree that the controversial section on controversies should be extracted and made into a separate article. Good luck and keep up good work! Azx2 07:52, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your input - I think it's pretty clear that there is consensus among those interested editors to extract the relevant information and turn it into a new stand-alone article. I'm not sure how that's done though, so it's not really in my hands. There's not a lot left to do to this article before we submit it for a quality review, but if you have anything to add, or see corrections that need to be made, please just go for it. But do note that we're mindful of the article's already-significant size. Cheers! joepa^T 21:06, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

It looks pretty good, guys. I have a note to a couple of editors asking if they know an administrator that could help us with the article split. When that happens the section will be gone, but there will need to be a brief summary paragraph that will take its place. We could write one and park it somewhere. Joe's been doing a lot of heavy lifting, so I could give it a go and park it on my talk page to bring over when needed. Hopefully we will get the split accomplished soon as we appear to have a consensus of editors. After we get the split I think we are ready to apply for Good Article status. We should go through the article once more and be sure that important points have adequate citations backing them up. Thanks guys. Gunbirddriver (talk) 23:10, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

GBD, just to clarify, the two paragraphs I've thus far written that are placed at the top of that section, before the specific-sub sections begin, are about all I'm able to contribute right now as a summary+intro combination. I definitely realize that simply mentioning the names of who has feuded w/ LeMond re. doping isn't necessarily effectively summarizing what happened, but if you look at the names in the context of those two paragraphs, maybe it could be enough? I won't repost them here but I'll head over to your talk page and paste them up and you can do what you want, move 'em to a sandbox or whatever. I just can't put more time into that particular section right now as I have a few things for the career intro I need to focus on accomplishing. Cheers! joepa^T 00:49, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Oh, well that's handy, as I used those as the basis for the summary I tried to put together. Here is what I have, for your consideration:

New page created, summary inserted. Hope that all works. Gunbirddriver (talk) 23:37, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Great to know. Thanks for taking the lead on that. I haven't reviewed the change in the main article yet, but the important thing is that the section is summarized now and the excess content removed to a new article. I'm sure whatever you went with is an effective way of saying things, and if there are improvements that can be made or summary material that needs to be included or cited or removed from the summary, that can all be done at any point down the line - if at all. I'll have to find a barnstar for you b/c what was most important was what I just said: splitting it off and summarizing it, and you accomplished that! Thanks!

I will say I was disappointed that only a few other editors expressed any interest or provided feedback, when we reached out to the community to ensure consensus. Oh well. Not our problem. I still haven't had a chance to enter that pre-pro career detail but will tomorrow then I'd consider complete my pre-review work (save for proofreading and adding wiki links and cleaning-up the sources/references, which I'm not familiar w/ doing in technical terms. Anyway, good job, GBD! joepa^T 04:44, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Call for PHOTOS

Anyone with good quality photos of LeMond (to which they hold copyright) that would be suitable for inclusion in this article is encouraged to make them available via the WikiMedia Commons. Thanks. joepa^T 05:00, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

I spoke with two photographers tonight who agreed to share pics of LeMond, but there is room for a significant number of images given Greg's extraordinary career and the breadth and scope of his accomplishments. I'll add the new pics as soon as I see that they're available.joepa^T 05:03, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Very good!Gunbirddriver (talk) 17:59, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Added one of them - a group shot from the 1991 Giro d'Italia - to the corresponding section of his race career. Although it's not a solo shot, I think it's still valuable and illustrative of his relative status in the peloton at that point, given that Fignon is climbing w/ him in the same group! (along w/ Cipollini!! which could certainly be a jumping off point for a discussion about when EPO arrived in the Giro d'Italia! Anyway, also waiting on a nice solo shot of Greg climbing while seated in the Tour, and another pic of him cornering during a stage of the Coors Classic in San Francisco.joepa^T 20:00, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

That photo helps a lot, Joe. Now if we could just get one of the man himself, up close and flying along... Gunbirddriver (talk) 22:39, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks - and I'm working on the kind of photo you suggest - a solo shot. I have a commitment from someone to upload a shot of Greg climbing. If they don't upload it soon, as long as their release-license is correct, I'll pull it out of flickr and upload it myself on their behalf. Also, I edited the caption and note that you yourself edited for that photo, and just wanted to let you know why: unfortunately, in that picture Greg is not climbing "at the front of the peloton," which, on a big mountain stage to Sestriere in the Giro, is very different than what he was actually doing - climbing towards the front of the "laughing group" or the "autobus" - the last group on the road, typically containing sprinters and flatlanders (in this case represented by Mario Cipollini and Franco Ballerini). It is surprising to see a former Giro winner with him, however (Fignon had won in 1989), but now we know that EPO was entering the peloton at that time and skewing results and affecting performances on the road, and that neither LeMond nor Fignon partook in that bit of special medicine. Thanks for all the hard work you've been putting in. joepa^T 00:06, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

File:Greg LeMond 1988 Vuelta a Andalucia.jpg

LeMond in 1988 Vuelta a Andalucía

Hey guys, I was able to add one of the aforementioned photos, a shot of LeMond from the 1986 Coors Classic. I included it in the appropriate chronological career subsection, but let me know what you think about the exact positioning and the photo caption. Thanks to the photographer for agreeing to make this available to us and for cropping the original print!! joepa^T 21:51, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

This is the shot from the 1989 TdF final TT in B&W http://www.flickr.com/photos/bw94/2927911618/ that I'm waiting for permission on to be able to add to the article. I spoke w/ the photographer yesterday and he committed to making the photo available under a compatible license, so hopefully it will go into the article soon. And I'll work on that summary paragraph ASAP. I'm so slammed I won't even be able to ride tonight! joepa^T 21:21, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

I added the B&W shot, but Gunbirddriver, if you could take a look at the positioning of the photo in relation to the others, and perhaps work a rearrange or something to make sure we have best layout. That would be great. I'll try to start that summary tonight, when things will hopefully quiet down for me.joepa^T 19:10, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Just a heads up that I re-added a shot of LeMond in PDM colors at the 1988 Vuelta a Andalucia, after resolving the licensing issue with the photographer. If someone wants to review where I inserted the image and the specs to ensure that it's compatible w/ the overall photo layout, please feel free. And just so you know - all of these "new" images I've sourced are the result of simply finding privately-held pics published on flickr and contacting the photographer and asking them to contribute the work to our project. While a few haven't responded, no one has refused outright. So if you spot a good shot of LeMond - or any wikipedia subject - on flickr, be aware that there's an automated process to confirm the validity of the license once the image is uploaded to the wikimedia commons. So as long as the photographer ensures that the correct license is selected for the photo on flickr (which can be done after-the-fact) then we can upload it to the commons and use it. Therefore, don't hesitate to ask them to support the project! joepa^T 19:49, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

That's a great shot of Greg on a climb. That's amazing that you are just getting these on board by asking. I loaded up some US Navy photos to wikipedia commons a while back, but some bot kicked them out. I wasn't sure how to do it. There probably is a general release for photos taken by US Navy personnel. If your knowledge extends that far and you could show me anything about how that all is done it would be greatly appreciated. Gunbirddriver (talk) 02:47, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Keep your eye out for more LeMond photos on Flickr. If you see any good ones that are obviously not from Watson or other pros and just stolen and uploaded by users, but which might be actually the property of the uploader there, let me know and I'll hit them up to see if they'll contribute them. W/ respect to the military photos, I'll respond briefly on your talk page. joepa^T 23:18, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Wow, the article is really improved compared with how it was in 2010. Great content & photos now. Gracias, editors. Jack B108 (talk) 16:22, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the kind words. Gunbirddriver (talk) and I made a huge effort over the course of many weeks to improve the article, and some very gracious photographers who we discovered online agreed to make their images of LeMond available for use in this article. There's still work to be done, including tracking down additional photos (LeMond as a junior or very young adult, and LeMond fly-fishing, for example) and following-up on the edits necessary to qualify the article for featured status, but yes, this is the new-and-improved-version of Greg LeMond and hopefully it keeps getting better! joepa^T 20:53, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

1991-1994 media coverage... fascinating context and perspective, plus lots of good detail and info for Greg LeMond article

Found this great NY Times piece by Sam Abt, the greatest cycling writer ever: LeMond Begins Uphill Grind Toward '94. It's worth reading even if you don't plan to edit based on it, though it's got great quotes and useful material, including:

"I know about training. I wrote a book about training. But I got away from what I used to do. I was doing cross-country skiing and easy riding in the winter and I'm starting to go in the opposite way now, working on my power, lifting weights with my legs, working on increasing my oxygen consumption. I'm watching my weight. I need to build my power and strength up as high as I can and then worry about my endurance. Endurance is the easiest aspect to build up. What I'm doing now is the opposite of what I've been doing, always working on my endurance. Except in 1989, when I did a lot of power training in the winter and that year I had great results as early as February. I'm not going to rush. I'm going to build up slowly, that's my goal, to really have a good base so that when I start racing hard in February, March and April, my body doesn't get tired from it and I get better. Which hasn't been the case the last couple of years."

I highly recommend you read it if you have a chance. joepa^T 06:02, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Check out this one, too: http://www.cyclingnews.com/blogs/greg-lemond (Sorry I don't have time to make it look pretty w/ quotes and stuff).joepa^T 06:05, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

This amazing CycleSport article on LeMond and Calfee Design is well worth reading and is a great reference source for those who come after and perhaps want to clean up this Greg LeMond article. We've already integrated some of it. joepa^T 05:09, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Hall of Fame?

Should it be noted somewhere in the article that LeMond was inducted into the US Bicycling Hall of Fame (along w/ Eddie Borysewicz, among others) on June 8, 1996? joepa^T 03:42, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

I didn't know that! Yes, certainly we should mention it, probably at the end of the last section on his competitive cycling. Gunbirddriver (talk) 06:56, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Yup! And as an aside, I have hanging above my bed the induction-day poster (featuring the old newark velodrome) signed by all of the HoF inductees from that class, including LeMond of course. That was an exciting time as I was being mentored by the president of USCF and interacted a lot w/ these ppl. Anyway, I'll add the reference now along w/ a source. joepa^T 19:56, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

1989 Giro and Anemia

I have heard that LeMond was thought to be anemic at the Giro, and recieved an injection of iron for this. In fact, this was a part of Armstrong's counter claim against LeMond. What truth there is to it is unknown to me. Iron is very hard to absorb into the system, so if one was iron deficient to receive weekly injections would be reasonable. Would one expect LeMond to be iron deficient? Ordinarily, a young healthy male with a balanced diet, and the answer is no, unless he had significant blood loss. Could he still be iron deficient secondary to the blood loss he suffered in the hunting accident? Perhaps, but a single injection of iron would make little difference and what effect it would have would take weeks for a benefit to be apparent in his performance. This whole area is dangerous ground and needs some sort of definitive citation supporting the claim before we place it into the article on LeMond. Gunbirddriver (talk) 03:27, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Obviously ANYTHING even remotely controversial or fitting the other criteria in the MOS needs to be substantiated with reputable sources. No material should be added to this article that ISN'T backed up by such sources, whether it's allegations of doping or anemia or mental illness or alcoholism or philandering or whatever - if someone wants to put it into this article and see it stay, they need to be able to back it up w/ a reputable source. Especially while we're waiting for this article to be reviewed for Good Article status, expect any un-sourced or otherwise inappropriate material (especially that which is added anonymously and w/o substantiation) to be removed and reverted as soon as it's discovered. Others' contributing is welcomed, warmly, but according to the protocols of the manual of style and other best practices, please... joepa^T 20:51, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, of course. My problem here is that though I believe what Greg has said, and I do see it mentioned in the SI article, I just am not sure what it all means. He is struggling, his soigneur says "You look anemic. I can give you an iron shot that will fix you up." Greg, seeing this is not doping, agrees and is given the injection. What just happened? I am not comfortable putting it in the article, even though it is sourced, because I really don't know what it all means. Can we document the anemia? No. Can we look at what was given to him? No. Should we be talking about it in the article as though it were a significant event? I would say no. I have a hard time believing a single injection of iron would cause a great enough boast in red blood cell production, even in a person known to be iron deficient, that it would effect the outcome of a race. Even two shots of iron. What ever did happen, and it may very well be that all he was given was an injection of iron, it is clear to me that Greg LeMond was never looking for an artificial means to boost his performance. He is not a doper, was never a doper, and this little episode, no matter what actually transpired, does not change that. Anyway, as the other editors seemed determined to leave it in I did so, but I believe that since we don't really know what happened and it was an insignificant event no matter what actually occured, it would be best if we did not mention it. That is why I was trying to direct them to the talk page so we could discuss it together. Gunbirddriver (talk) 22:14, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

I understand what you're concerned about, I think, and at the same time don't know that the way it's stated now gives any indication or suggestion of doping, although it should either be stated explicitly that he received two injections during the course of the race, or not mention the injection and state simply that he was treated for anemia, which is plausible over the course of a three week race in such a way as to naturally improve performance by improving recovery and enhancing red cell production and ensuring the hemoglobin can do its job. Or maybe put all of the following text into one of your crafty "notes" that you create when I inject too much material into the article (pun intended):

Before the shooting accident LeMond was one of the most daunting cyclists in the mountains, a climber who thrived on the steepest grades. Now he was the one being dropped. "The hardest part about coming back from an injury is you always remember yourself at your best," he says. "Never the way you were when things were going badly. I kept remembering how I rode in the '86 Tour de France, when I floated up hills or when I could ride 30 miles per hour for an hour and a half during the time trials."

LeMond had his blood tested near the end of the Tour de Trump to see if that might yield some clue to his disappointing performances. It revealed nothing. He returned to Europe to prepare for the Tour of Italy, one of cycling's most prestigious events after the Tour de France. There, too, he faltered. In the first mountain stage LeMond lost eight minutes to the leaders. His masseur, Otto Jacome, who has been a friend of the LeMond family since Greg was 15, took one look at him afterward and said, "You are white. You need iron."

Again LeMond had his blood tested. This time he was diagnosed as anemic, and his doctor immediately gave him an injection of iron. "I was riding myself into the ground," LeMond says. "I was pushing so hard that I was eating into my muscles." The worst was still to come. In the 11th stage of the Tour of Italy, during a climb called the Tre Cime di Laverado, LeMond finished 17 minutes behind the leaders. If it hadn't been for the Italian spectators urging him on, he figures he would have finished 25 to 30 minutes down. Riders he had once dominated were pedaling away from him with bewildering ease. How did they do it? he wondered. He was more impressed than angry, feeling for the first time in his career that he was out of his league.

"I came back to the room and was ready to cry," he recalls. "I called Kathy that night and told her, 'Get ready to sell everything. I want no obligations. If things don't turn around, I'm quitting at the end of the year.' " She didn't try to talk him out of it. It was the lowest point in his cycling career.

Shortly after that phone call, things began to turn. LeMond had a second injection of iron and started feeling stronger. He actually stayed within shouting distance of the leaders on a late mountain stage of the Tour of Italy, which was such a morale booster that he wanted an all-out test. Being hopelessly out of contention in the overall standings, LeMond decided to go for broke in the final stage of the Tour of Italy, an individual time trial of just under 34 miles. He would hold nothing back, start to finish. If he ran out of gas—"blew up," in cycling parlance—so be it. But LeMond didn't blow up. He finished second, a whopping minute and 18 seconds ahead of Fignon, the overall winner. "It changed my entire outlook," says LeMond. "Obviously, there was nothing wrong with me physically."

I actually wouldn't mind seeing some of the above pop up if a reader hovered over a note or reference right around the anemia mention. Let me ask this though, what's your specific concern, GBD? That the mention of an iron injection insinuates doping for the reader who doesn't have a working knowledge of anemia and blood doping and how it could be possible for a former TdF winner to be in that situation in the first place (needing his soigneur to give him an injection rather than having proper medical supervision like we see now from WorldTour teams...keep in mind, at the time, ADR was bottom-basement, despite LeMond's half-million dollar salary. joepa^T 03:20, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Here is some info very quickly lifted from a site that speaks to what we're talking about (how quickly iron injection can work): Iron injections can be a helpful treatment for iron deficiency and anemia, but it may take a while for them to reach their full effect. “Iron deficiency itself can cause some symptoms and an iron injection may make you feel better right away. But it will take about 10-13 days for the full effects of improved red blood cell production to alleviate symptoms,” reported Dr. Nissenson. joepa^T 04:27, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Greg LeMond/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Azx2 (talk · contribs) 05:19, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Intend to formally review article now. Azx2 05:19, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

---

This is excellent writing/researching and documenting that complies with the good article criteria.

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   Prose is clear and concise, quotes are referenced/cited and no apparent plagiarism. Article summary is especially strong, though one sentence strikes me as the possible target for editing: "LeMond was born in Lakewood, California, and raised in ranch country on the eastern slopes of the Sierra Nevada mountain range,[1] about an hour's drive from Reno, Nevada." Is the detail of the driving time from Reno necessary - that level of detail - in the intro summary? If you believe it is, OK, all I say is it's one of only examples of awkward wordiness in the prose that stood out to me. Oh, and w/ respect to phrase "winning in dramatic fashion" - whilst I am inclined to absolutely agree that the win was dramatic in its fashion, and even Phil Ligget has said as much, perhaps there is a quote you can excerpt and cite to avoid any suggestion of puffery there? The same with "After his storybook 1989-season..." - again, it is factual for sure, but be on guard with a quote to extract such a phrase from and prepare to cite it if you want to be considered unfallible in this regard.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   Excellent use of sources, and no original research. If you choose to leave in the reference to LeMond's suffering anemia in 1989 Giro, which is something documented in the Sports Illustrated article, it may be valuable to the reader for you to pull more from that particular reference into the actual article. But because you've cited the anemia story, you've avoided an OR. Make sure the format of your references remains consistent, however, and that you do not double or even triple-list a source in the citations, when you could be naming a single source and then referring back to it. (Example: Citations #47 and 48)

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   Seasons 1982 and 1983 may be of interest to reader such that you wish to provide more information than is currently documented, but this is not mandatory and I recognize that the article might be considered "long" by some as it is. But the current length should not deter you from building out those two seasons such that they're proportionate to 1981, for example - if you think they merit it. You might also consider shifting some of the material from the LeMond Cycles business sub-section to the separate article on LeMond Cycles (not necessarily to the separate anti-doping controversies article though), starting with "The two parties first found themselves at odds in July 2001..." though again, this is not necessary against the GA criteria, and it's clear to me how and why those paragraphs could be of interest to the reader in this article itself. I also want to highlight for specific praise your collaborative effort to remove material pertaining to anti-doping controversies to a separate article, and to summarize that for the reader. I think you have done a wonderful job here - truly wonderful and very effective. There is a synergistic effect b/w the material in the LeMond Cycles section I make mention of and the anti-doping controversies summary, so again, I don't think you need to split those paragraphs off, but if you decided not to delete some of the quotes from reference citations that are adding to the article "size," then those paragraphs could be targets.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   I believe you handled especially-well the intro to the Racing Career sections, clearly establishing that LeMond was genuinely considered one of the most talented professional cyclists ever while still remaining neutral in your point of view. As it stands I don't see any POV issues.

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

   Clearly there is stability and the current cadre of editors are predisposed to seeking consensus for any material even remotely controversial (such as the mention of iron injections and what that might imply about needles and doping). Only suggestion is to maintain this vigilance and to handle any potential conflict (which I don't see brewing) on the Talk page.

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   Excellent use of images and this aspect of the criteria has been nailed perfectly. I applaud you all for the improvement of the article in this particular area compared to its previous iterations. There are certainly no deficiencies w/ respect to images (and I am especially impressed by your collaborative process of seeking out public images and negotiating with the creator to secure proper CC licensing, via flickr, for ex.), but it would be nice if you could obtain an image from even earlier in the athlete's career, showing him perhaps as an amateur still, and also a contemporary image that shows him engaged either in his sport (riding the bike) or practicing another (like perhaps the fly fishing).

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   Well done. Good luck with your future work on this article - it certainly is reasonable to imagine your continuing to improve it to the point of obtaining featured-status.