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

Re: Re:

22 Nov 2016 21:42

sniper wrote:[list=][/list]
ScienceIsCool wrote:What does this even mean? We can't believe anything that anyone says ever?
Yes we can. That's why I thanked you for that Testa quote. Why would Testa lie? With no one around. Not even a journo.
Just a one-on-one phonecall.

Why would Lemond lie? hmm...let's see...tough one.

See what you want to see, I guess. Peace out.

John Swanson
ScienceIsCool
Member
 
Posts: 1,733
Joined: 05 Jul 2009 15:34

Re: Re:

22 Nov 2016 23:09

sniper wrote:this is too funny.
Now we can't use the word transformation for Lemond, because, 'it was some kind of recovery'.
Nibali showed a similar treat last year and it was widely frowned upon.


You "can't use the word"? Really? Stop it. You can do whatever you want, and I'll point out the absurdity of it as long as I want. It remains that there is no "transformation" in this case and anyone with a brain, including you, can understand that.

I don't claim to know how Lemond doped, or how many times, or exactly when or where.


Yet you go on about this "iron shot", seeking to cast doubt about it. Your entire view is that he used EPO, and you use this silly event as evidence. I agree you don't know anything about whether Lemond doped, let alone when or where or how. You know basically nothing as you have constructed a post-facto version of events having not lived through the era and seen it unfold yourself.

Why did Lemond tell the journo? Dunno. Maybe the journo or somebody else saw him getting the injection(s) and Lemond needed to have a story. God knows. Do you know?
Honest question: do you have any link to what really happened there with the journo? A reliable account other than Lemond's own words?
Also, why did Lemond tell the other journo about Max Testa calling him a carreer-long doper?
I don't know much about liars but I do know some liars have trouble keeping the lie to themselves.


"Dunno" should be your default answer to these questions, because the fact is that you have no idea what went on. Nor does anyone else. Your reconstruction of these events reads like a young-earth creationist trying to poke holes in evolution by digging up and over-blowing any tiny apparent hole in the theory, somehow missing the forest for the trees.

I wish I did have time to dig it all up, but Google is your friend. But you know that, and you do know the stories are both out there, I've personally read them dozens of times. Maybe he reported what Testa supposedly said because he was pissed.
User avatar red_flanders
Veteran
 
Posts: 6,055
Joined: 03 Apr 2009 06:45

Re: Re:

23 Nov 2016 07:59

red_flanders wrote:...
Your reconstruction of these events...

i'm not reconstructing anything. I posted this: viewtopic.php?p=2044643#p2044643
And it triggered the same indignant responses as usual first from a guy who is now permabanned, then from pcmg76, then from scienceiscool and then from you. Why the indignation? Honest question.
The double standards here are pretty ugly. One for Sky, USPS, Contador, "Mig-hell" Indurain, etc. And one for Lemond.

a young-earth creationist trying to poke holes in evolution by digging up and over-blowing any tiny apparent hole in the theory, somehow missing the forest for the trees.
Chapeau. That's almost Brailsford-esque, Red. Lemond winning the TdF clean is now equated to evolution.
Shedding doubt on that claim is equated to creationism.

It's not only Brailsfordesque, it's also the world upsidedown. If the vast majority of grand tour winners doped to win it, it's up to you to show us why Lemond is the knight in shining armour. And from the looks of it you're not getting very far with that. Words from the horse's mouth as facts.
Now that's creationism.

And when I ask you for a link to something that could in fact back up your claims, you basically say 'go look for it yourself' and 'well, i've read it, isn't that enough?':
I wish I did have time to dig it all up, but Google is your friend. But you know that, and you do know the stories are both out there, I've personally read them dozens of times.
Got it. Red has read it, end of. No need for any kind of evidence here. It's Lemond. It's evolution.

Maybe he reported what Testa supposedly said because he was pissed.

who was pissed? Testa? Pissed at whom? why?
Was nick777 also 'pissed' when he said he knew a renowned cycling doctor who suggested Lemond had used EPO?
Was Dhaenens pissed when he said he thought Lemond introduced EPO into the peloton?
Boogerd when he said that in the peloton in which he rode it was a common assumption that Lemond introduced EPO? All pissed at Lemond and lying about him in a collective attempt to smear him?
Look, I can't and won't force you to approach this rationally. If that's the conspiracy you wanna believe in so be it.
You can believe whatever you want, and I'll point out the absurdity of it as long as I want.
sniper
Veteran
 
Posts: 13,578
Joined: 15 Oct 2010 23:36

Re: Re:

23 Nov 2016 09:02

Benotti69 wrote:...
Nibali had a massive transformation in week 3 of the Il Giro!!!!

saganftw wrote:in case Nibali it just a different spin on "the engine was always there",isnt it funny how all these riders get sick before transformation? ...

IzzyStradlin wrote:Remember when nibs went from like 60th in Poland (i think???) and everyone saying he looked terrible on the bike to winning the vuelta a few weeks later? He's pulled this off before.

Stingray34 wrote:The Nibali transformation in the last 48 hours has made for an exciting race and a great story, but it is hard to account for.
I'd like to hear what Kimmage makes of it.

Sorry guys, but that's just absurd. I'm telling you it was 'a kind of recovery'. ;)
sniper
Veteran
 
Posts: 13,578
Joined: 15 Oct 2010 23:36

Re: Re:

23 Nov 2016 11:50

sniper wrote:
red_flanders wrote:...
Your reconstruction of these events...

i'm not reconstructing anything. I posted this: viewtopic.php?p=2044643#p2044643
And it triggered the same indignant responses as usual first from a guy who is now permabanned, then from pcmg76, then from scienceiscool and then from you. Why the indignation? Honest question.
The double standards here are pretty ugly. One for Sky, USPS, Contador, "Mig-hell" Indurain, etc. And one for Lemond.

a young-earth creationist trying to poke holes in evolution by digging up and over-blowing any tiny apparent hole in the theory, somehow missing the forest for the trees.
Chapeau. That's almost Brailsford-esque, Red. Lemond winning the TdF clean is now equated to evolution.
Shedding doubt on that claim is equated to creationism.

It's not only Brailsfordesque, it's also the world upsidedown. If the vast majority of grand tour winners doped to win it, it's up to you to show us why Lemond is the knight in shining armour. And from the looks of it you're not getting very far with that. Words from the horse's mouth as facts.
Now that's creationism.

And when I ask you for a link to something that could in fact back up your claims, you basically say 'go look for it yourself' and 'well, i've read it, isn't that enough?':
I wish I did have time to dig it all up, but Google is your friend. But you know that, and you do know the stories are both out there, I've personally read them dozens of times.
Got it. Red has read it, end of. No need for any kind of evidence here. It's Lemond. It's evolution.

Maybe he reported what Testa supposedly said because he was pissed.

who was pissed? Testa? Pissed at whom? why?
Was nick777 also 'pissed' when he said he knew a renowned cycling doctor who suggested Lemond had used EPO?
Was Dhaenens pissed when he said he thought Lemond introduced EPO into the peloton?
Boogerd when he said that in the peloton in which he rode it was a common assumption that Lemond introduced EPO? All pissed at Lemond and lying about him in a collective attempt to smear him?
Look, I can't and won't force you to approach this rationally. If that's the conspiracy you wanna believe in so be it.
You can believe whatever you want, and I'll point out the absurdity of it as long as I want.


Wow, Nick777, an anon poster on an internet forum is being put forward as evidence against leMond, talk about scraping the bottom of the barrel.

Are you serioulsy asking why LeMond doesnt get as much grief as Contador(positive test)US Postal(arguably Biggest Doping scandal ever), Indurain(huge transformation from non-climber to 5 time winner at height of EPO era, confirmed link(not conjecture) with Conconi). SKY(work in progress but huge transformations from non GT riders Wiggins/Froome and now TUE scandals).

Also comparing Nibali's transformation to LeMonds Giro is ridiculous. Nibali was targeting the Giro overall but was below par but came good when needed which does arouse suspicion. LeMond was far out of contention and clearly below par but put all his focus into that final stage, his speciality the TT. If LeMond had flunked that TT, there was a real possibility he would have walked from the sport. Not the same at all.

Your "evidence" against LeMond amounts to rumours seemingly based on nothing more than conjecture and guilt by association which can be applied to absolutely any rider. You have singularly failed to produce a direct link anywhere comparable to the likes of Contador/Postal/Indurain etc.

If people want to believe it was impossible to ever win the Tour clean, fine there is nothing that can be produced that would change their minds. I can post quotes from Bernard Tapie, Paul Koechli & Steve Bauer who all said LeMond was clean at a time when saying someone was clean was not necessary/expected or not for PR gain. Will that change anybodys mind? I dont think so but the only other rider I can think of who has had that many people back them is Bassons.
pmcg76
Senior Member
 
Posts: 3,481
Joined: 06 Mar 2009 17:56

23 Nov 2016 11:56

The fact that you view nick777's in isolation doesn't bode well for your analytical skills.

So nick777, an anon poster on an internet forum, was just making all that stuff up, inventing that doctor, or at the very least lying about what the doctor told him. Scraping the bottom of the barrel indeed.
And of course Boogerd was making that rumor up too.
Ow, and Dhaenens too.
And wait, Floyd and Lance, just bitter and angry, too.
And don't get me started about Max Testa. Bitter jealous loser with an axe to grind. In a one on one telephone convo ffs.

That tinfoil hat suits you well!
sniper
Veteran
 
Posts: 13,578
Joined: 15 Oct 2010 23:36

Re:

23 Nov 2016 12:29

sniper wrote:The fact that you view nick777's in isolation doesn't bode well for your analytical skills.

So nick777, an anon poster on an internet forum, was just making all that stuff up, inventing that doctor, or at the very least lying about what the doctor told him. Scraping the bottom of the barrel indeed.
And of course Boogerd was making that rumor up too.
Ow, and Dhaenens too.
And wait, Floyd and Lance, just bitter and angry, too.
And don't get me started about Max Testa. Bitter jealous loser with an axe to grind. In a one on one telephone convo ffs.

That tinfoil hat suits you well!


Yes, anon posters on the internet do not count as any sort of evidence as they can make anything up. That is kinda irrerefutable. You go to anyone saying you heard something on a internet forum and present it as evidence, you will be laughed at.

We have been over the rumour thing a million times before. It is more than clear that the rumours started based on the same conjecture that is in that Dutch newpaper article. EPO was produced in the US, was expensive and came into circulation around 89 when LeMond bounced back. It is clear that people jumped to conclusions based on nothing but conjecture and thus started a rumour, no doubt aided by PDM/Dhaenans who did have reason for being pissed at LeMond. The fact that this was a rumour does not make it true regardless of who repeated it afterward. A false rumour is still a false rumour. Before, I gave the example of Floyds blood being poured down the toilet because Lance was pissed at him. It wasnt true but hey it was repeated lots of times so it must be true, right.

The fact that this has now been repeated to you numerous times and you still dont seem to get it shows how much of a troll you are.
pmcg76
Senior Member
 
Posts: 3,481
Joined: 06 Mar 2009 17:56

23 Nov 2016 12:39

Yikes, your logic is all over the place.
So to get this straight, anonymous people on forums can make anything up.
But non-anonymous people cannot?
Therefore we should reject everything anonymous people say, whilst accepting everything non-anonymous people say?

Race Radio won't be amused. ;)

And you're still not getting the 'evidence' thingie are you.
sniper
Veteran
 
Posts: 13,578
Joined: 15 Oct 2010 23:36

Re:

23 Nov 2016 12:52

sniper wrote:Yikes, your logic is all over the place.
So to get this straight, anonymous people on forums can make anything up.
But non-anonymous people cannot?
Therefore we should reject everything anonymous people say, whilst accepting everything non-anonymous people say?

Race Radio won't be amused. ;)

And you're still not getting the 'evidence' thingie are you.


There is a thing called accountability, if someone lies in public, they can be held to that lie e.g Lance or proven to be be a fraud. Not so much on the internet where anyone can claim anything with no way of verifying the truth. That fact you dont get that shows how dumb this whole thing has become.





Any
pmcg76
Senior Member
 
Posts: 3,481
Joined: 06 Mar 2009 17:56

23 Nov 2016 13:17

You don't look at, or judge, statements in isolation. You just don't.
Well, except you do. Which indeed neatly
shows how dumb this whole thing has become.


But you're right. Race Radio was making all that stuff about Lance up. After all, on the internet anyone can claim anything with no way of verifying the truth. Period.
sniper
Veteran
 
Posts: 13,578
Joined: 15 Oct 2010 23:36

Re:

23 Nov 2016 13:45

sniper wrote:You don't look at, or judge, statements in isolation. You just don't.
Well, except you do. Which indeed neatly
shows how dumb this whole thing has become.


But you're right. Race Radio was making all that stuff about Lance up. After all, on the internet anyone can claim anything with no way of verifying the truth. Period.


Race Radio showed time and again that they were in tune with what was happening as they were consistently proven correct. There is a world of difference between one spurious claim that nobody has anything to back up with and someone being proven correct repeatedly. Regardless, what Race Radio posted still would not have stood up in public and they had a public twitter account and I think RR was known to many people.

The fact that you are focusing on what an anon poster claims rather than addressing the issue at hand shows just how little you have got. Now, how about addressing the accuracy of those rumours, can you show they were based on some form of reality and not just made up.

Can you explain why the rumours are likely to be any more true than those concerning Floyd having his blood poured down the team bus toilet.
pmcg76
Senior Member
 
Posts: 3,481
Joined: 06 Mar 2009 17:56

23 Nov 2016 13:48

sigh. the only one focusing on the anon poster is you. you singled him out, started discrediting him.
whereas I repeatedly told you not to single him out.
sniper
Veteran
 
Posts: 13,578
Joined: 15 Oct 2010 23:36

Re:

23 Nov 2016 14:02

sniper wrote:sigh. the only one focusing on the anon poster is you. you singled him out, started discrediting him.
whereas I repeatedly told you not to single him out.


Once you bring anon posters into your "evidence", then it is open to ridicule. You are now trying to focus on that rather than address other issues.

If a poster comes in here and says they know for a fact that Chris Froome is clean, that is sufficent to put forward as evidence that Chris Froome is clean and you would accept that?, because this is essentially what you are saying. Are you really that dumb?
pmcg76
Senior Member
 
Posts: 3,481
Joined: 06 Mar 2009 17:56

23 Nov 2016 14:09

you just cemented my point, for which i owe you gratitude.
sniper
Veteran
 
Posts: 13,578
Joined: 15 Oct 2010 23:36

Re:

23 Nov 2016 14:15

sniper wrote:you just cemented my point, for which i owe you gratitude.


I think it is clear to anyone with a shred of intelligence you dont actually have a point other than to troll. You just repeatedly ignore any questions asked and then claim you have made some ridiculous point.
pmcg76
Senior Member
 
Posts: 3,481
Joined: 06 Mar 2009 17:56

23 Nov 2016 14:27

agreed, and nice talking to you too. ;)
sniper
Veteran
 
Posts: 13,578
Joined: 15 Oct 2010 23:36

Re: Re:

23 Nov 2016 15:00

pmcg76 wrote:
sniper wrote:
red_flanders wrote:...
Your reconstruction of these events...

i'm not reconstructing anything. I posted this: viewtopic.php?p=2044643#p2044643
And it triggered the same indignant responses as usual first from a guy who is now permabanned, then from pcmg76, then from scienceiscool and then from you. Why the indignation? Honest question.
The double standards here are pretty ugly. One for Sky, USPS, Contador, "Mig-hell" Indurain, etc. And one for Lemond.

a young-earth creationist trying to poke holes in evolution by digging up and over-blowing any tiny apparent hole in the theory, somehow missing the forest for the trees.
Chapeau. That's almost Brailsford-esque, Red. Lemond winning the TdF clean is now equated to evolution.
Shedding doubt on that claim is equated to creationism.

It's not only Brailsfordesque, it's also the world upsidedown. If the vast majority of grand tour winners doped to win it, it's up to you to show us why Lemond is the knight in shining armour. And from the looks of it you're not getting very far with that. Words from the horse's mouth as facts.
Now that's creationism.

And when I ask you for a link to something that could in fact back up your claims, you basically say 'go look for it yourself' and 'well, i've read it, isn't that enough?':
I wish I did have time to dig it all up, but Google is your friend. But you know that, and you do know the stories are both out there, I've personally read them dozens of times.
Got it. Red has read it, end of. No need for any kind of evidence here. It's Lemond. It's evolution.

Maybe he reported what Testa supposedly said because he was pissed.

who was pissed? Testa? Pissed at whom? why?
Was nick777 also 'pissed' when he said he knew a renowned cycling doctor who suggested Lemond had used EPO?
Was Dhaenens pissed when he said he thought Lemond introduced EPO into the peloton?
Boogerd when he said that in the peloton in which he rode it was a common assumption that Lemond introduced EPO? All pissed at Lemond and lying about him in a collective attempt to smear him?
Look, I can't and won't force you to approach this rationally. If that's the conspiracy you wanna believe in so be it.
You can believe whatever you want, and I'll point out the absurdity of it as long as I want.


Wow, Nick777, an anon poster on an internet forum is being put forward as evidence against leMond, talk about scraping the bottom of the barrel.

Are you serioulsy asking why LeMond doesnt get as much grief as Contador(positive test)US Postal(arguably Biggest Doping scandal ever), Indurain(huge transformation from non-climber to 5 time winner at height of EPO era, confirmed link(not conjecture) with Conconi). SKY(work in progress but huge transformations from non GT riders Wiggins/Froome and now TUE scandals).

Also comparing Nibali's transformation to LeMonds Giro is ridiculous. Nibali was targeting the Giro overall but was below par but came good when needed which does arouse suspicion. LeMond was far out of contention and clearly below par but put all his focus into that final stage, his speciality the TT. If LeMond had flunked that TT, there was a real possibility he would have walked from the sport. Not the same at all.

Your "evidence" against LeMond amounts to rumours seemingly based on nothing more than conjecture and guilt by association which can be applied to absolutely any rider. You have singularly failed to produce a direct link anywhere comparable to the likes of Contador/Postal/Indurain etc.

If people want to believe it was impossible to ever win the Tour clean, fine there is nothing that can be produced that would change their minds. I can post quotes from Bernard Tapie, Paul Koechli & Steve Bauer who all said LeMond was clean at a time when saying someone was clean was not necessary/expected or not for PR gain. Will that change anybodys mind? I dont think so but the only other rider I can think of who has had that many people back them is Bassons.


....funny, but if you check the record LeMond was not a dominant time trailer...he was real good but not dominant, neither flat nor mountain....

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

23 Nov 2016 15:33

Well, yeah. That's what it used to mean to be a top GC rider. You were really good at each aspect (climbing, TT, sprint, etc) but weren't as dominant as the specialists. The guys whose bodies were tuned to their specialty like when being a climber meant that you were small and thin. TT'ers like Indurain were big and muscular. Then EPO came along and all of a sudden guys could do it all.

GTs used to be way more fun... And don't get me started about race radios!

John Swanson
ScienceIsCool
Member
 
Posts: 1,733
Joined: 05 Jul 2009 15:34

23 Nov 2016 16:01

The anti-Lemond conspiracy thickens.

Tienus wrote:...
This full page article by ex-rider turned into journalist Bennie Ceulen is from 1990. He has one ex rider a soigneur and two team doctors admitting they know cyclists are using epo. In the top right colum Bennie writes: "It seems to have been first used by American athletes"
http://www.delpher.nl/nl/kranten/view?coll=ddd&query=%28dialyse+epo%29&cql%5B%5D=%28date+_gte_+%2201-01-1988%22%29&cql%5B%5D=%28date+_lte_+%2231-12-1990%22%29&identifier=ddd%3A010623773%3Ampeg21%3Aa0485&resultsidentifier=ddd%3A010623773%3Ampeg21%3Aa0485
sniper
Veteran
 
Posts: 13,578
Joined: 15 Oct 2010 23:36

Re:

23 Nov 2016 16:12

ScienceIsCool wrote:Well, yeah. That's what it used to mean to be a top GC rider. You were really good at each aspect (climbing, TT, sprint, etc) but weren't as dominant as the specialists. The guys whose bodies were tuned to their specialty like when being a climber meant that you were small and thin. TT'ers like Indurain were big and muscular. Then EPO came along and all of a sudden guys could do it all.

GTs used to be way more fun... And don't get me started about race radios!

John Swanson


....but but but....look at Hinault's time trialing when he was in his prime, or Fignon in that magic year....they were dominant....I believe LeMond only ever beat Hinault once, and that when Hinault had a broken nose....and the much maligned Indurain was faster than LeMond in a mountain TT in a pre-EPO Tour stage ( and this after busting his balls day in day out as a domestique )....

....and yeah, race radios, a serious yuk....how to suck the life out of races in one foul swoop....

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

PreviousNext

Return to The Clinic

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: davebqvst and 22 guests

Back to top