Log in:  

Register

LeMond III

The Clinic is the only place on Cyclingnews where you can discuss doping-related issues. Ask questions, discuss positives or improvements to procedures.

Moderators: Eshnar, King Boonen, Red Rick, Pricey_sky

LeMond III

25 Feb 2016 08:27

MODERATOR'S NOTE: This thread has been split into three parts for easier consumption and management.
Part I can be found here, and Part II here.


Maxiton wrote:...
I give LeMond the benefit of doubt because try as they might no one has been able to turn up anything against him;
I used to give him the benefit of the doubt too. Until I heard about the Dhaenens rumor. Since then I've been sitting on the fence, with an inclination towards scepticism.

An honest question I have is: do you give Froome, Wiggins, Evans, Cancellara and Sastre the benefit of the doubt? If not, why not? I'd love to discuss this and get your (and other posters') view on this.
There is arguably more circumstantial evidence against Lemond than there is against any of those guys. But I guess it depends on how one weighs different pieces of evidence?

but also because he competed prior to EPO, when it was possible to compete without dope if you happened to be a genetic freak.
But there was a thing called blood transfusions. Arguably, in most endurance sports in the 80s, you wouldn't be anywhere near the top without it. As I think you know, Lemond happened to be discovered by someone who was later proven to have blood doped minors. (Don't hesitate to ask me for details if that's new info for you.) This is not evidence that Lemond did it. But I guess my question is why does Lemond get the benefit of the doubt, and Cadel, Wiggins, Sastre and others don't.
We can't prove a negative, but in the case of Lemond we somehow can?

Also be aware that many would advance the same argument for Cancellara, Evans, Sastre, Froome, Hesjedal and Wiggins: thanks to the passport and Operacion Puerto etc. it is (since 2007/8-ish) possible to compete and win without dope if you happen to be a genetic freak. You'll agree that that's bollocks though.

And I can guarantee you, not even Vaughters would claim there had been any sort of culture change in cycling in the 80s. It was rotten to the core and the omerta was as strong as ever.
sniper
Veteran
 
Posts: 13,578
Joined: 15 Oct 2010 23:36

Re:

25 Feb 2016 10:58

sniper wrote:
Maxiton wrote:...
I give LeMond the benefit of doubt because try as they might no one has been able to turn up anything against him;
I used to give him the benefit of the doubt too. Until I heard about the Dhaenens rumor. Since then I've been sitting on the fence, with an inclination towards scepticism.

An honest question I have is: do you give Froome, Wiggins, Evans, Cancellara and Sastre the benefit of the doubt? If not, why not? I'd love to discuss this and get your (and other posters') view on this.
There is arguably more circumstantial evidence against Lemond than there is against any of those guys. But I guess it depends on how one weighs different pieces of evidence?

but also because he competed prior to EPO, when it was possible to compete without dope if you happened to be a genetic freak.
But there was a thing called blood transfusions. Arguably, in most endurance sports in the 80s, you wouldn't be anywhere near the top without it. As I think you know, Lemond happened to be discovered by someone who was later proven to have blood doped minors. (Don't hesitate to ask me for details if that's new info for you.) This is not evidence that Lemond did it. But I guess my question is why does Lemond get the benefit of the doubt, and Cadel, Wiggins, Sastre and others don't.
We can't prove a negative, but in the case of Lemond we somehow can?

Also be aware that many would advance the same argument for Cancellara, Evans, Sastre, Froome, Hesjedal and Wiggins: thanks to the passport and Operacion Puerto etc. it is (since 2007/8-ish) possible to compete and win without dope if you happen to be a genetic freak. You'll agree that that's bollocks though.

And I can guarantee you, not even Vaughters would claim there had been any sort of culture change in cycling in the 80s. It was rotten to the core and the omerta was as strong as ever.


Because Canc etal are in a different era, after the introduction of EPO where the consensus says they couldn't compete without it. Mix in the hyper internet rumor mill and feces slinging, and the answer to your question is obvious. If today's internet existed in the 80's then things would be different IMO.

The other obvious answer is that GL is LA's enemy. Lot's of rope goes along with that. Even obvious dopers get sympathy from the clinic if LA is mean to you at dinner or takes your TT wheels.

BTW, what if EPO would have been introduced before steroids instead of vice versa? This game changer BS with PED's taken in cocktail piled upon one another is more GL fanboy BS.
Spawn of e
Junior Member
 
Posts: 194
Joined: 09 Aug 2015 13:31

Re:

25 Feb 2016 12:30

sniper wrote:
Maxiton wrote:...
I give LeMond the benefit of doubt because try as they might no one has been able to turn up anything against him;
I used to give him the benefit of the doubt too. Until I heard about the Dhaenens rumor. Since then I've been sitting on the fence, with an inclination towards scepticism.

An honest question I have is: do you give Froome, Wiggins, Evans, Cancellara and Sastre the benefit of the doubt? If not, why not? I'd love to discuss this and get your (and other posters') view on this.
There is arguably more circumstantial evidence against Lemond than there is against any of those guys. But I guess it depends on how one weighs different pieces of evidence?

but also because he competed prior to EPO, when it was possible to compete without dope if you happened to be a genetic freak.
But there was a thing called blood transfusions. Arguably, in most endurance sports in the 80s, you wouldn't be anywhere near the top without it. As I think you know, Lemond happened to be discovered by someone who was later proven to have blood doped minors. (Don't hesitate to ask me for details if that's new info for you.) This is not evidence that Lemond did it. But I guess my question is why does Lemond get the benefit of the doubt, and Cadel, Wiggins, Sastre and others don't.
We can't prove a negative, but in the case of Lemond we somehow can?

Also be aware that many would advance the same argument for Cancellara, Evans, Sastre, Froome, Hesjedal and Wiggins: thanks to the passport and Operacion Puerto etc. it is (since 2007/8-ish) possible to compete and win without dope if you happen to be a genetic freak. You'll agree that that's bollocks though.

And I can guarantee you, not even Vaughters would claim there had been any sort of culture change in cycling in the 80s. It was rotten to the core and the omerta was as strong as ever.


I've been reading through the last few pages of this thread and I just have to say some of HelmutRoole's posts are amazing. Funny stuff.

But, anyway, here it is. Most of us who have been around cycling for awhile and have a few brain cells to knock around, know what a cesspool of lucre and drugs and god knows what the pro peloton was in the 80s, 70s, 60s, and probably before. And since then it hasn't gotten cleaner or less corrupt, it's gotten worse. Arguably a lot worse, if that's possible.

So, anyway, in the 80s along comes this bright-eyed boy from America, Greg LeMond, with the brain of a beagle and the body of a greyhound, who wins the Tour convincingly three times. And because he's bright-eyed and blond and because he's American, he wins them clean (roll-eyes face). Great story.

Cut to the turn of the century and a new American champion, not quite so bright-eyed, maybe, but his name is Lance. What could be more All-American than that? And he's a cancer survivor, for Christ's sake. Even better story.

Lance knows cycling better than any of us. He knows where the bodies are buried and not just in Europe. He knows about Eddie B, has direct experience, and about the doping of juniors (ditto), and about how the sport works, especially at the head of the race.

So he's the new American champion and everything's looking good, adulation all around. Until one day he hears LeMond say this about him: "Lance is either the greatest comeback story in the history of cycling, or the greatest fraud."

If you're Lance Armstrong, at this point you've got to be thinking, "What a hypocrite is this guy, huh! F*ucking scumbag!" But Greg won't shut up. If you're Lance Armstrong and his circle of sponsors and business brethren, you've also got to be thinking: this guy's harshing my yellow, or threatens to. So if you're Lance-effing-Armstrong, what do you do?

You find a good investigative journalist, maybe in the U.S., maybe on the continent, maybe both, and you pay him on the down-low to develop the story. You give him a budget so that he can hire private detectives, talk to people, tap phone lines, hack servers. And you do more than that, too, but for our purposes this will do.

There's just one problem: your investigators don't come back with anything. Nothing. If there was something to find, and there must be something, they should have found it, but they don't. Empty handed.

Now, do we know for a fact that Lance hired investigators, put someone on LeMond's tail? No, we don't. Or at least I don't. But knowing Lance Armstrong, and knowing what was at stake for him, and ASO, and UCI, and Nike, and so on, but knowing especially Lance Armstrong, it seems almost impossible to believe he didn't.

In any case, nothing incriminating on LeMond has ever turned up. I mean, anybody can spread a rumor, but it takes a particularly vindictive, well-funded, determined person to follow up on a rumor and find some evidence - of some kind - and yet nothing's been seen.

This, really, is the basis for my giving LeMond the benefit of the doubt, even despite knowing what I do about how the sausage is made.
2016: Year of the Red Fire Monkey
User avatar Maxiton
Senior Member
 
Posts: 4,833
Joined: 14 May 2010 15:24
Location: Northern California

Re: LeMond

25 Feb 2016 12:40

Maxiton,+1000 here.
SOLO LA VITTORIA È BELLA
User avatar Tonton
Senior Member
 
Posts: 3,982
Joined: 17 May 2013 18:59

25 Feb 2016 13:58

Maxiton, great post, thanks for that.
though obviously you're not the first to point that out. (not the second either ;))
My rebuttal is going to be comparatively short and concise (as it was last time this was brought up):
Carmichael.

I can expand on that if you wish, but what it comes down to is that whatever dirt Lance may have had on Lemond, Carmichael would have urged Lance not to spill it. Especially if such dirt would have concerned 1989, amgen, epo.
Hell would freeze over before Carmichael allows Lance to spill that.

Also, Lance has never come clean about his early years, nor about his last two years.
So it's not as if Lance has nothing to loose anymore.
Just saying there are several good reasons why he's not spilling beans, be it on Lemond, be it on Verbruggen, be it on anybody. Lance is still omerta, and that's not because of good will. It's because of what he has to loose if he'd spill.

To be sure, this is not me saying Lance has dirt on Lemond. I don't know, I can only guess.
Merely it's me saying that the argument that
(a) Lance doesn't have dirt on Lemond; therefore (b) there is no dirt on Lemond
doesn't stack up.
sniper
Veteran
 
Posts: 13,578
Joined: 15 Oct 2010 23:36

Re:

25 Feb 2016 14:27

sniper wrote:Maxiton, great post, thanks for that.
though obviously you're not the first to point that out. (not the second either ;))
My rebuttal is going to be comparatively short and concise (as it was last time this was brought up):
Carmichael.

I can expand on that if you wish, but what it comes down to is that whatever dirt Lance may have had on Lemond, Carmichael would have urged Lance not to spill it. Especially if such dirt would have concerned 1989, amgen, epo.
Hell would freeze over before Carmichael allows Lance to spill that.

Also, Lance has never come clean about his early years, nor about his last two years.
So it's not as if Lance has nothing to loose anymore.
Just saying there are several good reasons why he's not spilling beans, be it on Lemond, be it on Verbruggen, be it on anybody. Lance is still omerta, and that's not because of good will. It's because of what he has to loose if he'd spill.

To be sure, this is not me saying Lance has dirt on Lemond. I don't know, I can only guess.
Merely it's me saying that the argument that
(a) Lance doesn't have dirt on Lemond; therefore (b) there is no dirt on Lemond
doesn't stack up.


I see your point, but raise you two:

Lance could have brought down LeMond if he had the info, without bringing down Carmichael; he could have just brought down someone else. Because if LeMond was a regular doper throughout his career, he'd have had complicity with many people.

And by now, Lance would have taken the Nuclear option with LeMond, even if it meant destroying Carmichael. Lance has so much dirt on Carmichael, there wouldn't be anything the latter could do about it.

Edit: Something occurred to me: if Lance would secretly fund an investigative journalist to put together the story on LeMond, is there any reason to believe LeMond wouldn't do the same . . . . :) All the more reason then to go nuclear on LeMond, if he could.
Last edited by Maxiton on 25 Feb 2016 14:43, edited 1 time in total.
2016: Year of the Red Fire Monkey
User avatar Maxiton
Senior Member
 
Posts: 4,833
Joined: 14 May 2010 15:24
Location: Northern California

Re: Re:

25 Feb 2016 14:39

Maxiton wrote:..
I see your point, but raise you two:

Lance could have brought down LeMond if he had the info, without bringing down Carmichael; he could have just brought down someone else. Because if LeMond was a regular doper throughout his career, he'd have had complicity with many people.

And by now, Lance would have taken the Nuclear option with LeMond, even if it meant destroying Carmichael. Lance has so much dirt on Carmichael, there wouldn't be anything the latter could do about it.

Why would Lance want to spill anything on anybody at this point? What would he have to win there?
A lot to loose, that's for sure.

Ask yourself:

1. why hasn't he spilled on Verbruggen yet or on Pat? Both have humiliated him in the aftermath of the USADA file. Surely you're not gonna tell it's because he has nothing on them?
2. if he'd spill on Lemond, who'd believe him? Who'd take him seriously, as opposed to calling him a bitter jealous loser and proven liar with an axe to grind?
3. he's still facing multiple legal cases. Does he want another few for libel? Of course not.
4. who says he won't spill in a couple of years from now? Why the hurry? I don't think he will, mind. But still, it took Floyd ten years to spill, so time-wise it's a bit early to conclude Lance has nothing on Lemond.
5. I don't get why you think he'd go nuclear on Carmichael at all. Why would he? The alternative - keeping Carmichael on his side - is so much more attractive.
sniper
Veteran
 
Posts: 13,578
Joined: 15 Oct 2010 23:36

Re: Re:

25 Feb 2016 14:47

sniper wrote:
Maxiton wrote:..
I see your point, but raise you two:

Lance could have brought down LeMond if he had the info, without bringing down Carmichael; he could have just brought down someone else. Because if LeMond was a regular doper throughout his career, he'd have had complicity with many people.

And by now, Lance would have taken the Nuclear option with LeMond, even if it meant destroying Carmichael. Lance has so much dirt on Carmichael, there wouldn't be anything the latter could do about it.

Why would Lance want to spill anything on anybody at this point? What would he have to win there?
A lot to loose, that's for sure.

Ask yourself:

1. why hasn't he spilled on Verbruggen yet or on Pat? Both have humiliated him in the aftermath of the USADA file. Surely you're not gonna tell it's because he has nothing on them?
2. if he'd spill on Lemond, who'd believe him? Who'd take him seriously, as opposed to calling him a bitter jealous loser and proven liar with an axe to grind?
3. he's still facing multiple legal cases. Does he want another few for libel? Of course not.
4. who says he won't spill in a couple of years from now? Why the hurry? I don't think he will, mind. But still, it took Floyd ten years to spill, so time-wise it's a bit early to conclude Lance has nothing on Lemond.
5. I don't get why you think he'd go nuclear on Carmichael at all. Why would he? The alternative - keeping Carmichael on his side - is so much more attractive.


He could easily spill on LeMond, or Verdruggem, or anyone else, without having his hand seen in it: just quietly slip the word, via third party, to an enterprising journalist or rival. Why would he do it? For revenge! He wouldn't need any other reason than that.
2016: Year of the Red Fire Monkey
User avatar Maxiton
Senior Member
 
Posts: 4,833
Joined: 14 May 2010 15:24
Location: Northern California

Re: Re:

25 Feb 2016 14:50

Maxiton wrote:
sniper wrote:Maxiton, great post, thanks for that.
though obviously you're not the first to point that out. (not the second either ;))
My rebuttal is going to be comparatively short and concise (as it was last time this was brought up):
Carmichael.

I can expand on that if you wish, but what it comes down to is that whatever dirt Lance may have had on Lemond, Carmichael would have urged Lance not to spill it. Especially if such dirt would have concerned 1989, amgen, epo.
Hell would freeze over before Carmichael allows Lance to spill that.

Also, Lance has never come clean about his early years, nor about his last two years.
So it's not as if Lance has nothing to loose anymore.
Just saying there are several good reasons why he's not spilling beans, be it on Lemond, be it on Verbruggen, be it on anybody. Lance is still omerta, and that's not because of good will. It's because of what he has to loose if he'd spill.

To be sure, this is not me saying Lance has dirt on Lemond. I don't know, I can only guess.
Merely it's me saying that the argument that
(a) Lance doesn't have dirt on Lemond; therefore (b) there is no dirt on Lemond
doesn't stack up.


I see your point, but raise you two:

Lance could have brought down LeMond if he had the info, without bringing down Carmichael; he could have just brought down someone else. Because if LeMond was a regular doper throughout his career, he'd have had complicity with many people.

And by now, Lance would have taken the Nuclear option with LeMond, even if it meant destroying Carmichael. Lance has so much dirt on Carmichael, there wouldn't be anything the latter could do about it.

Edit: Something occurred to me: if Lance would secretly fund an investigative journalist to put together the story on LeMond, is there any reason to believe LeMond wouldn't do the same . . . . :) All the more reason then to go nuclear on LeMond, if he could.




Not disagreeing with you but 80’s amphetamines and EPO/blood have vastly different transportation methods.

Amphetamines can be easily concealed, come in pill form, are the size of a fingernail and do not need to be preserved in ice.

EPO requires proper storage at the right temperature, must be injected. Blood requires a doctor, storage, centrifuge, and injection. Neither EPO or blood transfusions are easily far from easily concealed. You need a drug network for EPO/blood transfusions, you need logistics and transportation.

Many more people will know about EPO/Blood as opposed to 80’s styled drugs which can be a one person purchase/consumption and no one else would ever know.
User avatar thehog
Veteran
 
Posts: 21,466
Joined: 27 Jul 2009 20:00

Re: Re:

25 Feb 2016 14:58

Maxiton wrote:
sniper wrote:Maxiton, great post, thanks for that.
though obviously you're not the first to point that out. (not the second either ;))
My rebuttal is going to be comparatively short and concise (as it was last time this was brought up):
Carmichael.

I can expand on that if you wish, but what it comes down to is that whatever dirt Lance may have had on Lemond, Carmichael would have urged Lance not to spill it. Especially if such dirt would have concerned 1989, amgen, epo.
Hell would freeze over before Carmichael allows Lance to spill that.

Also, Lance has never come clean about his early years, nor about his last two years.
So it's not as if Lance has nothing to loose anymore.
Just saying there are several good reasons why he's not spilling beans, be it on Lemond, be it on Verbruggen, be it on anybody. Lance is still omerta, and that's not because of good will. It's because of what he has to loose if he'd spill.

To be sure, this is not me saying Lance has dirt on Lemond. I don't know, I can only guess.
Merely it's me saying that the argument that
(a) Lance doesn't have dirt on Lemond; therefore (b) there is no dirt on Lemond
doesn't stack up.


I see your point, but raise you two:

Lance could have brought down LeMond if he had the info, without bringing down Carmichael; he could have just brought down someone else. Because if LeMond was a regular doper throughout his career, he'd have had complicity with many people.

And by now, Lance would have taken the Nuclear option with LeMond, even if it meant destroying Carmichael. Lance has so much dirt on Carmichael, there wouldn't be anything the latter could do about it.


....the bolded is really a big part of the narrative isn't it....just for fun assume for a moment that isn't the case.... one of the things about this reasoning is that it really doesn't much sense....as in, the secret with doing something nefarious successfully is getting away clean ( you don't blab to a 1000 of your closest friends about how you got away with something ) and while, as Max said LeMond might be a beagle, but even the dumbest thief knows getting away clean is the only winning move.... now remove that card from the table and go thru the narrative again to see how it hangs together ....in that regard a good way to start " an investigation " is to go Cop Show 101 and look at the suspects in terms of motive, means, and opportunity....

Cheers
User avatar blutto
Veteran
 
Posts: 9,573
Joined: 04 Jul 2009 19:27

Re: Re:

25 Feb 2016 15:15

thehog wrote:
Not disagreeing with you but 80’s amphetamines and EPO/blood have vastly different transportation methods.

Amphetamines can be easily concealed, come in pill form, are the size of a fingernail and do not need to be preserved in ice.

EPO requires proper storage at the right temperature, must be injected. Blood requires a doctor, storage, centrifuge, and injection. Neither EPO or blood transfusions are easily far from easily concealed. You need a drug network for EPO/blood transfusions, you need logistics and transportation.

Many more people will know about EPO/Blood as opposed to 80’s styled drugs which can be a one person purchase/consumption and no one else would ever know.


Thanks for that, Hog. I believe the original suggestion was that LeMond might have been blood doping, due to his connection with Eddie B. This would be the type of doping, for reasons you state, that would be hardest to hide.

But lets say it was just cortisone, testosterone, or even just pills. With any of those things, other people would have to be involved. A doctor, perhaps, in the case of the first two, or a soigneur, or even, in the case of pills, just an errand boy.
2016: Year of the Red Fire Monkey
User avatar Maxiton
Senior Member
 
Posts: 4,833
Joined: 14 May 2010 15:24
Location: Northern California

Re: Re:

25 Feb 2016 15:21

blutto wrote:....the bolded is really a big part of the narrative isn't it....just for fun assume for a moment that isn't the case.... one of the things about this reasoning is that it really doesn't much sense....as in, the secret with doing something nefarious successfully is getting away clean ( you don't blab to a 1000 of your closest friends about how you got away with something ) and while, as Max said LeMond might be a beagle, but even the dumbest thief knows getting away clean is the only winning move.... now remove that card from the table and go thru the narrative again to see how it hangs together ....in that regard a good way to start " an investigation " is to go Cop Show 101 and look at the suspects in terms of motive, means, and opportunity....

Cheers


Qui bono. Who benefits. LeMond had the opportunity, had the means at hand. He might have had the motivation, but what if his motivation was to win without doping? And if you do dope, how do you dope, dope serially, without somebody, somewhere, being able to tie it to you? Even if it's just pills?
2016: Year of the Red Fire Monkey
User avatar Maxiton
Senior Member
 
Posts: 4,833
Joined: 14 May 2010 15:24
Location: Northern California

25 Feb 2016 15:27

....here is maybe a relevant question.....when did EPO become a "controlled" substance....as in when did it require a prescription and when was it banned for sporting activities....

Cheers
User avatar blutto
Veteran
 
Posts: 9,573
Joined: 04 Jul 2009 19:27

Re: Re:

25 Feb 2016 15:48

Maxiton wrote:...
He could easily spill on LeMond, or Verdruggem, or anyone else, without having his hand seen in it: just quietly slip the word, via third party, to an enterprising journalist or rival. Why would he do it? For revenge! He wouldn't need any other reason than that.
to use a race radio-ism: you sort of proved my point.
He hasn't spilled anything on Verbruggen even though he could.
Does that mean he doesn't have anything on Verbruggen? Of course it doesnt.

The revenge argument is a bit farfetched.
You think with those million dollar claims against him, Lance gives a **** about revenge on Lemond? It would be the very last thing on his priority list.
The possible downsides are uncountable. Any lawyer with a quarter of a brain would advice LAnce to not pick a fight with Lemond let alone with Carmichael. Not now. Maybe not ever.
sniper
Veteran
 
Posts: 13,578
Joined: 15 Oct 2010 23:36

Re: Re:

25 Feb 2016 15:53

Maxiton wrote:...
Qui bono. Who benefits. LeMond had the opportunity, had the means at hand. He might have had the motivation, but what if his motivation was to win without doping? And if you do dope, how do you dope, dope serially, without somebody, somewhere, being able to tie it to you? Even if it's just pills?

Why do/would you make that assumption for Lemond but not for, say, Froome, Wiggins, Cancellara, Evans or Sastre?
sniper
Veteran
 
Posts: 13,578
Joined: 15 Oct 2010 23:36

Re: Re:

25 Feb 2016 15:56

Maxiton wrote:...
Thanks for that, Hog. I believe the original suggestion was that LeMond might have been blood doping, due to his connection with Eddie B. This would be the type of doping, for reasons you state, that would be hardest to hide.

But lets say it was just cortisone, testosterone, or even just pills. With any of those things, other people would have to be involved. A doctor, perhaps, in the case of the first two, or a soigneur, or even, in the case of pills, just an errand boy.

And the very same is true for Cancellara, Froome, Wiggins, Evans and Sastre and tens of others.
Still, we have nothing but rumors on most of those guys.
So again it boils down to your "Lance wants revenge on Lemond rather than keep his millions" argument, which i think is far-fetched.
sniper
Veteran
 
Posts: 13,578
Joined: 15 Oct 2010 23:36

Re: Re:

25 Feb 2016 16:12

blutto wrote:...
....the bolded is really a big part of the narrative isn't it....just for fun assume for a moment that isn't the case.... one of the things about this reasoning is that it really doesn't much sense....as in, the secret with doing something nefarious successfully is getting away clean ( you don't blab to a 1000 of your closest friends about how you got away with something ) and while, as Max said LeMond might be a beagle, but even the dumbest thief knows getting away clean is the only winning move.... now remove that card from the table and go thru the narrative again to see how it hangs together ....in that regard a good way to start " an investigation " is to go Cop Show 101 and look at the suspects in terms of motive, means, and opportunity....

Cheers

agreed.
I would add that the "complicity" argument, if it applies at all, should be applied across the board to people like Wiggins, Hoy, Boardman, Froome, Sastre, Cancellara, and god knows who, hell even to Indurain.
Are we gonna assume they were all clean because none of their co-workers ever leaked anything?
If it doesn't apply to them, I don't see why it would apply to Lemond.
sniper
Veteran
 
Posts: 13,578
Joined: 15 Oct 2010 23:36

Re: Re:

25 Feb 2016 16:32

sniper wrote:
blutto wrote:...
....the bolded is really a big part of the narrative isn't it....just for fun assume for a moment that isn't the case.... one of the things about this reasoning is that it really doesn't much sense....as in, the secret with doing something nefarious successfully is getting away clean ( you don't blab to a 1000 of your closest friends about how you got away with something ) and while, as Max said LeMond might be a beagle, but even the dumbest thief knows getting away clean is the only winning move.... now remove that card from the table and go thru the narrative again to see how it hangs together ....in that regard a good way to start " an investigation " is to go Cop Show 101 and look at the suspects in terms of motive, means, and opportunity....

Cheers

agreed.
I would add that the "complicity" argument, if it applies at all, should be applied across the board to people like Wiggins, Hoy, Boardman, Froome, Sastre, Cancellara, and god knows who, hell even to Indurain.
Are we gonna assume they were all clean because none of their co-workers ever leaked anything?


The complicity argument only works if someone spared no effort to find something on LeMond. No one, so far as we know, has made any effort at all to find something on Wiggins, Hoy, Boardman, Froome, Sastre, Cancellara.

I'm not saying a priori that LeMond "had motivation to win without doping"; I'm just saying that the means/opportunity/motivation test only works if we can say what his motivation was.

Probably, though, this last test would be more correctly stated as means/opportunity/motive. A correct test actually undermines my own argument, but there it is. We don't know what LeMond's motivation was, because that's subjective, but we do know there was an objective motive to cheat, should he choose to: win the Tour de France. So, he had means at hand, he had opportunity, and he had motive.

Unfortunately, though, this is not sufficient to convict him. Doubt him, yes, but not convict.

Let's take another look at the hypothetical info Lance would have on LeMond. And let's say you are correct and that, for whatever reason, Lance has not spilled it. Why would he need to?

Instead, wouldn't he have used this info long ago to blackmail LeMond into supporting him?
2016: Year of the Red Fire Monkey
User avatar Maxiton
Senior Member
 
Posts: 4,833
Joined: 14 May 2010 15:24
Location: Northern California

Re: Re:

25 Feb 2016 16:45

Maxiton wrote:...
The complicity argument only works if someone spared no effort to find something on LeMond. No one, so far as we know, has made any effort at all to find something on Wiggins, Hoy, Boardman, Froome, Sastre, Cancellara.
so again it boils down to your assumption that Lance -- whilst faced with million dollar claims and possible jail sentence -- spared no effort to find dirt on Lemond, even though such a search would entail a possible conflict with Carmichael, a guy who has so many hands in so many pies Lance would be foolish to distance him.
It's not impossible, but it's far-fetched.

Your argument that Lance could slip 'the word' to a third party has me asking:
1. What third party? Who'd be interested in writing an unconfirmed doping story on Lemond with only an anonymous source to back it up? Very few, if any.
2. What 'word'? If the word is about EPO/Amgen/1989, there are simply powers that are MUCH bigger than Lance and Lemond and Carmichael together, powers that would keep this 'word' from leaking. If the word is about Lemond taking amphetamines and some steroids, well see point 1.

Unfortunately, though, this is not sufficient to convict him. Doubt him, yes, but not convict.

We're definitely on the same page here. This is not about convicting Lemond, it's about applying the same level of skepticism/scrutiny to him as we do to other GT winners.

Let's take another look at the hypothetical info Lance would have on LeMond. And let's say you are correct and that, for whatever reason, Lance has not spilled it. Why would he need to? Instead, wouldn't he have used this info long ago to blackmail LeMond into supporting him?

I don't know if he has anything on Lemond. If he does, sure, he may have tried to blackmail Lemond. (From that telephone call that Lemond reported on, it seems Lance did in fact try.)
But as I said earlier, Lance has never come clean about his early Carmichael years either, nor about his 2009/10 seasons. So it's not as if Lance could not be 'blackmailed' back.
But this is all clutching at straws. I don't see why we should even try to make so many assumptions wrt Lance having possible dirt on Lemond and what he might or might not do with it.
We simply don't know. In any case there's no a priori reason to assume that, should Lance have any dirt on Lemond, he would spend energy and time on spilling it and in the process risk the support of Carmichael and probably many others.
He hasn't spilled on Verbruggen and Phat either. I don't think he's into spilling much. Not yet in any case.
Last edited by sniper on 25 Feb 2016 17:07, edited 1 time in total.
sniper
Veteran
 
Posts: 13,578
Joined: 15 Oct 2010 23:36

Re: Re:

25 Feb 2016 17:06

sniper wrote:
Maxiton wrote:...
The complicity argument only works if someone spared no effort to find something on LeMond. No one, so far as we know, has made any effort at all to find something on Wiggins, Hoy, Boardman, Froome, Sastre, Cancellara.
so again it boils down to your assumption that Lance -- whilst faced with million dollar claims and possible jail sentence -- spared no effort to find dirt on Lemond, even though such a search would entail a possible conflict with Carmichael, a guy who has so many hands in so many pies Lance would be foolish to distance him.
It's not impossible, but it's far-fetched.

Your argument that Lance could slip 'the word' to a third party has me asking:
1. What third party? Who'd be interested in writing an unconfirmed doping article on Lemond with only an anonymous source to back it up? Very few, if any.
2. What 'word'? If it's about EPO/Amgen, there are simply powers that are MUCH bigger than Lance and Lemond. If it's about Lemond taking amphetamines and some steroids, well see point 1.

Unfortunately, though, this is not sufficient to convict him. Doubt him, yes, but not convict.

We're definitely on the same page here. This is not about convicting Lemond, it's about applying the same level of skepticism/scrutiny to him as we do to other GT winners.

Let's take another look at the hypothetical info Lance would have on LeMond. And let's say you are correct and that, for whatever reason, Lance has not spilled it. Why would he need to? Instead, wouldn't he have used this info long ago to blackmail LeMond into supporting him?

I don't know if he has anything on Lemond. But as I said, Lance has never come clean about his early Carmichael years either, nor about his 2009/10 seasons. So it's not as if Lance could not be 'blackmailed' back. But this is all clutching at straws. I don't see why we should even try to make so many assumptions wrt Lance having possible dirt on Lemond. We simply don't know, and there's no a priori reason to assume that, should Lance have dirt on Lemond, he would spend energy and time on spilling it and in the process risk the support of Carmichael and probably many others.


To the bold, Armstrong would have got the investigation going circa 2001.

Anyway, I've just got some new info from an anonymous source that I have to develop before posting here. Let's just say it's looking good for your position, not so good for mine.
2016: Year of the Red Fire Monkey
User avatar Maxiton
Senior Member
 
Posts: 4,833
Joined: 14 May 2010 15:24
Location: Northern California

Next

Return to The Clinic

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: calcando, GraftPunk and 23 guests

Back to top