Andrew McQuaid accusses LeMond

[86TDFWinner]

Hardy mad, just perplexed?

1) I have no idea when he learned of them

2) why would it matter?

I just don't understand why you keep bringing it up, except for some pathological desire to "prove" that LeMond suddenly became bitter when LA "won" his 3rd tour.

Bingo! That and he HAS to find some sort of issue with Lemond, so that the heat will be taken off Wonderboy. His sole intent is to try to tear down & smear GL, with baseless, unsubstantiated, nonsense.

 

[sniper]

...
Contador defenders are pretending as much as the Wonderboy faithful. They were helped along by a crazy finding from CAS. Contador's team claims the source of Clen was not in tainted supplements in their arguments, CAS says it was anyway. ???!!???

saxo's candytrip to israel paid off.

 

[86TDFWinner]

Hi Chris,

Take it easy - they did not accuse you, they merely asked for you to state your position.

Anyway, to answer your question - Greg heard of LAs V02 max through a presentation done by Ed Coyle in April 2001.
I am suprised you do not remember that - its in From Lance to Landis.

It's not that he "doesn't remember", he doesn't WANT to remember it.

 

[acoggan]

For grins-and-giggles I searched through the abstracts of the 2001 and 2002 ACSM meetings, and could find no indication that Coyle would have presented any data on Armstrong at ACSM. However, he (Coyle) does list this talk on his CV:

"Ergogenic Aids and Drug Use In Cycling
American Medical Society for Sports Medicine: Annual Meeting
San Antonio, Texas 4/8/01"

Unfortunately, the AMSSM is rather young and small, and their website only has programs from their annual meetings back to 2003, so I haven't been able to learn anything else. Given the small size of the society (and the fact that it is a scientific society in the first place, not, e.g., Interbike), though, I'd be surprised if Lemond were there, unless perhaps he was also an invited speaker? The date is certainly correct...

Ah, the wonders of the internet (Lemond spoke immediately after Coyle on 4/8/2001):

http://www.newamssm.org/AmssmAnnualProg.html

 

[DirtyWorks]

Most cycling fans probably believed every cyclist in the pro peloton were doping. Thus .....the cyclist knew everyone in the peloton were doping.

Sweeping generalization that leads to a false conclusion? Check.

Greg being a former pro and fan of cycling probably believed the peloton was doping.

Another non-specific generalization that leads to a false conclusion? Check.

He only became concerned when Lance was about to bite into Greg's cycling history.

A more specific claim that is utterly false if a reader would take the time to review the history of Greg Lemond's public statements.

I have to give you credit for getting a *little* tiny bit more specific there in the end. But it's still wrong.

If Lemond doped as the fakers claim then it is only matter of posting names, dates, drugs. We'll be into the 300th post and there will still be no specifics.
Let me give you fakers a hint, "everyone" is not specific.

C'mon now. If you can find someone to finger Lemond, then Wonderboy has already stated he'd pay a bounty for the information. What's the use of your pollution if you can just go to Wonderboy and get a bounty for it? By now it's a box of yellow wristbands and a flawed tee shirt, but the glory in being right is worth it!

 

[D-Queued]

The point is simple let me help out some.

Most cycling fans probably believed every cyclist in the pro peloton were doping. Thus .....the cyclist knew everyone in the peloton were doping.

Greg being a former pro and fan of cycling probably believed the peloton was doping. He only became concerned when Lance was about to bite into Greg's cycling history.

At least that is what I think ChrisE questions are trying to point out.

I gave it my best shot ...hope my simple explanation clears it up for you.

Not sure if you noticed, but your paraphrasing of ChrisE sounds remarkably more like Armstrong quotes out of Tyler's book than anything Greg has ever said.

So, yes, if you take the Armstrong perspective on the world then you might leap to the assumption that "all those other f*ckers" think and act just like you do.

On the other hand, the world is never that simple. Moreover, your assumptions on how other people think and might behave is never an acceptable defense for criminal behavior.

Dave.

 

[VeloCity]

I see that the mountains of evidence is concentrated to these quotes. It is really evidence of Armstrongesque proportions. Hang them high.

And yet the panel is assuming everyone of the non english-speaking riders has been on the juice despite many of them being in the same position as Mr Lemond regarding the lack of evidence. Of course after having moved the EPO-timeline to where the local hero begun to falter.

No, albatross said that there had never been anything linking Indurain to doping. There has been, from his own teammate.

And - er, what? In case you haven't noticed, this forum has been pretty tough on English-speaking riders.

Look, simple fact is, there is no evidence of Lemond doping. None. Zip. Zero. There is evidence that many of his rivals - Delgado, Indurain, Chiappucci, Bugno, Roche (hey did you notice? English-speaking), etc etc - were doping. But there's absolutely nothing on Lemond. Maybe one day something will emerge, but it hasn't yet.

 

[Lukenwolf]

Maybe one day something will emerge, but it hasn't yet.

There is nothing. If it were Armstrong would have shouted it to the world from the highest mountain when he started to smear Lemond.

 

[VeloCity]

That is a strong argument, but mine is stronger: it is impossible to win the Tour de France without doping. More than 100 years of happening and I stand by it.

OK I'll believe you that Greg Lemond was doping if you can also provide evidence that Odile Defraye was doping in the 1912 Tour.

Just saying it isn't enough, Albatros. You need evidence. There was some right from '99 with Armstrong, and it only accumulated over the years, which is why so many cycling fans thought he was doping. There is evidence linking Fignon, Roche, Indurain, Delgado, Chiappucci, Bugno, a lot of the riders from the late '80s-early '90s, to doping. But to this day there isn't a shred of evidence regarding Lemond.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Sweeping generalization that leads to a false conclusion? Check.



Another non-specific generalization that leads to a false conclusion? Check.



A more specific claim that is utterly false if a reader would take the time to review the history of Greg Lemond's public statements.

I have to give you credit for getting a *little* tiny bit more specific there in the end. But it's still wrong.

If Lemond doped as the fakers claim then it is only matter of posting names, dates, drugs. We'll be into the 300th post and there will still be no specifics.
Let me give you fakers a hint, "everyone" is not specific.

C'mon now. If you can find someone to finger Lemond, then Wonderboy has already stated he'd pay a bounty for the information. What's the use of your pollution if you can just go to Wonderboy and get a bounty for it? By now it's a box of yellow wristbands and a flawed tee shirt, but the glory in being right is worth it!

I can't decide if you just glossed over the fact that I was trying to explain the point that ChrisE was trying to make or if you just somehow confused your own dumb self into glossing over all the previous posts I have made concerning Greg Lemond??????

Please help me out because from where I'm sitting and from what I am understanding ,,,, you somehow have me confused with someone else who happens to think Greg doped and I don't...

Next time don't confuse what the **** I post. Thanks very much.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Not sure if you noticed, but your paraphrasing of ChrisE sounds remarkably more like Armstrong quotes out of Tyler's book than anything Greg has ever said.

So, yes, if you take the Armstrong perspective on the world then you might leap to the assumption that "all those other f*ckers" think and act just like you do.

On the other hand, the world is never that simple. Moreover, your assumptions on how other people think and might behave is never an acceptable defense for criminal behavior.

Dave.

Dave,,,,,,,We have been around the world in other places but I thought you knew my own personal opinions regarding Greg????? You are starting to sound like this assclown dirtyworks who called me a faker ore fakers above.

Let me give you and dirtyworks another hint......I am a FAN of Greg. I believe he rode clean. NOW if the two of you do not mind ....please stop stepping on my ****.

 

[skidmark]

The point is simple let me help out some.

Most cycling fans probably believed every cyclist in the pro peloton were doping. Thus .....the cyclist knew everyone in the peloton were doping.

Greg being a former pro and fan of cycling probably believed the peloton was doping. He only became concerned when Lance was about to bite into Greg's cycling history.

At least that is what I think ChrisE questions are trying to point out.

I gave it my best shot ...hope my simple explanation clears it up for you.

Well, if that's it, the whole 'he jumped on board to call doubt because he was jealous' explanation, that's tough for me to support. It seems to rely on alot of specious reasoning (as DirtyWorks pointed out). Thanks for setting up the straw man more clearly for me!

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Ah, the wonders of the internet (Lemond spoke immediately after Coyle on 4/8/2001):

http://www.newamssm.org/AmssmAnnualProg.html

acoggan thanks for this link.

I sure hope ChrisE does not see this. He well have these guys climbing walls before the night ends.

 

[D-Queued]

Dave,,,,,,,We have been around the world in other places but I thought you knew my own personal opinions regarding Greg????? You are starting to sound like this assclown dirtyworks who called me a faker ore fakers above.

Let me give you and dirtyworks another hint......I am a FAN of Greg. I believe he rode clean. NOW if the two of you do not mind ....please stop stepping on my ****.

Hi Glenn,

My bad.

Sorry, I was not clear.

I didn't mean you, Glenn, I meant 'you' someone behaving/thinking like Lance.

Again, my bad.

Thanks for reflecting on the long history and dialog and not flaming.

Dave.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Well, if that's it, the whole 'he jumped on board to call doubt because he was jealous' explanation, that's tough for me to support. It seems to rely on alot of specious reasoning (as DirtyWorks pointed out). Thanks for setting up the straw man more clearly for me!

Hey wedgie,,,,,,I tried to explain what I think he is arguing. I have no doubt he will come along and tell me how wrong my attempt was. Lets just let him get back online so you guys can all attack him instead of me.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Hi Glenn,

My bad.

Sorry, I was not clear.

I didn't mean you, Glenn, I meant 'you' someone behaving/thinking like Lance.

Again, my bad.

Thanks for reflecting on the long history and dialog and not flaming.

Dave.

I'm glad to read that you did not mean me. hehe

 

[DirtyWorks]

Dave,,,,,,,We have been around the world in other places but I thought you knew my own personal opinions regarding Greg????? You are starting to sound like this assclown dirtyworks who called me a faker ore fakers above.

Let me give you and dirtyworks another hint......I am a FAN of Greg. I believe he rode clean. NOW if the two of you do not mind ....please stop stepping on my ****.

It wasn't specific to you, more about the false arguments you summarized. I was too swift with the reply.

There's so much junk in this thread I think a discussion of humans riding dinosaurs as proof that Lemond doped will be introduced. I run out of patience with the cheap talk.

 

[131313]

What do you base your belief on? You buy into the clueless act. Got it.

So, when LA goes from classic rider to dominant GT winner after cancer, the pressroom is rolling their eyes in 99 after Sestriere, no EPO test in existence, French open an investigation in 2000, and GL only becomes suspicious when an article appears about the Ferrari link, and the following phone conversation results in him casting doubt on LA's winnings because of his low VO2 numbers?

You really believe all of that ****, seriously?

Yeah, I do. LeMond actually strikes me as pretty naive in many ways, whether it's believing that Hinault would work for him or that Landis was clean (which he believed for a week until the positive test came out), he actually seems more optimistic than your average clinic poster. It seems to be a pretty clear pattern. So, I could see him buying the whole "lost weight/renewed focus" nonsense.

And since Dr. Coggan answered your question, it would appear that he learned of LA's vo2 numbers right before he won his 3rd tour...

So yeah, I'm basing my opinion on that information. You've really never answered my question though?

 

[86TDFWinner]

OK I'll believe you that Greg Lemond was doping if you can also provide evidence that Odile Defraye was doping in the 1912 Tour. Just saying it isn't enough, Albatros. You need evidence. There was some right from '99 with Armstrong, and it only accumulated over the years, which is why so many cycling fans thought he was doping. There is evidence linking Fignon, Roche, Indurain, Delgado, Chiappucci, Bugno, a lot of the riders from the late '80s-early '90s, to doping. But to this day there isn't a shred of evidence regarding Lemond.

LOL(crickets chirp)

 

[86TDFWinner]

There's so much junk in this thread I think a discussion of humans riding dinosaurs as proof that Lemond doped will be introduced. I run out of patience with the cheap talk.

LOL, I ran out a long time ago. This is hysterical though, brilliant!

 

[skidmark]

Hey wedgie,,,,,,I tried to explain what I think he is arguing. I have no doubt he will come along and tell me how wrong my attempt was. Lets just let him get back online so you guys can all attack him instead of me.

Okay, what? I said 'thanks for setting up the strawman for me', meaning, I thought clearly, that I appreciated you paraphrasing and recognizing that you didn't actually support that position (as I read the responses in between). I understand that you could misinterpret that, but I don't really see anything justifying you calling me names. I'm not an idiot (well, according to me at least) and I'm not attacking you. I hope that is clear enough in that statement.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Okay, what? I said 'thanks for setting up the strawman for me', meaning, I thought clearly, that I appreciated you paraphrasing and recognizing that you didn't actually support that position (as I read the responses in between). I understand that you could misinterpret that, but I don't really see anything justifying you calling me names. I'm not an idiot (well, according to me at least) and I'm not attacking you. I hope that is clear enough in that statement.

Ok. Thanks and I apologize for the name calling. Well you're not an idiot for sure ...now me on the other hand,,,,

 

[python]

Another flaming attempt when roundly checked is followed by a worthless apology

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Another flaming attempt when roundly checked is followed by a worthless apology

Can you read and comprehend? Try not to Bait like a little child.

 

[Benotti69]

Can you read and comprehend? Try not to Bait like a little child.

Try to post like an adult!