dirtiest cheater in cycling history?

[blutto]

Re:

Ok who are the three clowns that voted for GL right after he's put back on?

Was it the tri-bars or the iron shots that did it for you?

...don't know what's goin' on here but a mob has appeared near the LeMond section of the poll...and contrary to early reports they are not remotely funny...

Cheers

 

[MacRoadie]

Re: Re:

rehash? tired old arguments?
it's the first time i posted that.
trolling much?

In this thread maybe....

Seems whenever something new is said about Lemond in relation to possible doping, people like gjb123 and macroadie are allowed to discard it with the strawman that it's "rehasing old arguments".

Mods, can we perhaps ask gjb123 and macroadie to back up their claim that it's "rehashing old arguments" by providing links to posts where I (or any other clinic member) have said those things before?
Particularly the stuff about Lemond going to Poland in 1978, and his father in law being an immunologist and former surgeon who traveled with Lemond to various races including the TdF.

We all know they won't be able to provide the links, but let's ask them just for fun.

With pleasure:

viewtopic.php?p=1873055#p1873055

 

[sniper]

Re: Re:

rehash? tired old arguments?
it's the first time i posted that.
trolling much?

In this thread maybe....

Seems whenever something new is said about Lemond in relation to possible doping, people like gjb123 and macroadie are allowed to discard it with the strawman that it's "rehasing old arguments".

Mods, can we perhaps ask gjb123 and macroadie to back up their claim that it's "rehashing old arguments" by providing links to posts where I (or any other clinic member) have said those things before?
Particularly the stuff about Lemond going to Poland in 1978, and his father in law being an immunologist and former surgeon who traveled with Lemond to various races including the TdF.

We all know they won't be able to provide the links, but let's ask them just for fun.

With pleasure:

viewtopic.php?p=1873055#p1873055

thanks for unequivocally proving my point.

 

[MacRoadie]

Re: Re:

rehash? tired old arguments?
it's the first time i posted that.
trolling much?

In this thread maybe....

Seems whenever something new is said about Lemond in relation to possible doping, people like gjb123 and macroadie are allowed to discard it with the strawman that it's "rehasing old arguments".

Mods, can we perhaps ask gjb123 and macroadie to back up their claim that it's "rehashing old arguments" by providing links to posts where I (or any other clinic member) have said those things before?
Particularly the stuff about Lemond going to Poland in 1978, and his father in law being an immunologist and former surgeon who traveled with Lemond to various races including the TdF.

We all know they won't be able to provide the links, but let's ask them just for fun.

With pleasure:

viewtopic.php?p=1873055#p1873055

thanks for unequivocally proving my point.

And here's where you complained the last time in the moderator thread about people pointing out your constant rehashing:

viewtopic.php?p=1875033#p1875033

So clearly you have never brought up the LeMond/EPO argument anywhere else before this thread.

 

[sniper]

don't take it so personally.

 

[sniper]

...
Indurain and the entire Banesto team were spotted at Ferrara University working with Dr Conconi. The team bus was parked outside the good doctor's lab. He was also mentioned in the reports by Sandro Donati, along with Carrera's Roche and Chiappucci.

as gjb123 and macroadie would say, stop rehashing those same tired old arguments.

 

[blutto]

Re:

Miguelón, basically, was a cheat, but he often gets, if not a free pass, less of a grilling than many because of the kind of character he was. He didn't lord it over the péloton, compared to a Blaireau or Armstrong he was always a gentleman and didn't throw his weight around, and when it all got to a level that was too much for him and he couldn't go with it anymore, he quit and backed away. He preferred to give an implicit admission of doping to a radio interviewer rather than give an outright bald-faced lie. So while in the pure terms of "how much cheating they did" Indurain might be high up, the fact that we've added in the modifier "dirtiest" rather changes things. Indurain cheated by doping, in comparison Lance and his crew pulled every trick in the book including writing some new ones, completely razing the ground around him and taking advantage of every shortcut available. He destroyed careers and livelihoods based on petty grudges, performing decades-long public character assassinations; he brazenly cheated all the way to the top and did so openly, knowing his media position was strong enough that he could crush anybody who stood up to him. He paid off the authorities, paid people to falsify stories around his mythical superhero cult of personality, defrauded people and made millions doing it. He did so whilst mocking his opposition, many of whom were using as many advantages as they could get away with themselves. He rallied fellow riders to circle the wagons and ostracize naysayers and hound them from the sport.

And he only got brought down because when a friend who'd been caught, who'd tried to fight it, who'd used the Lance playbook without success, whose career, life and marriage had fallen apart, when that friend came to him begging cap in hand for a leg up to put his life back in order, Lance metaphorically spat in his face.

That's not just cheating, but being really dirty about it. Miguelón sometimes gets a freer ride than he ought to, but in a thread like this, he just doesn't compare.

....not exactly dismissing your post out of hand or anything but some small teensie amount of conclusive irreducible proof would be nice...you know just to maybe back up the innuendo just a wee bit...otherwise you end up looking like some bog standard LeMond detractor howling needlessly at the moon and that is not good is it...just sayin' eh...

Cheers

 

[blutto]

Re: Re:

rehash? tired old arguments?
it's the first time i posted that.
trolling much?

In this thread maybe....

...maybe eh?....that's all the proof I need...off with the knave's head....

Cheers

 

[Libertine Seguros]

Re: Re:

....not dismissing your post but some small amount of conclusive irreducible proof would be nice...you know just to maybe back up the innuendo just a wee bit...otherwise you end up looking like some bog standard LeMond detractor howling needlessly at the moon and that is not good...just sayin' eh...

Cheers

What did my post have to do with LeMond?

 

[blutto]

Re: Re:

....not dismissing your post but some small amount of conclusive irreducible proof would be nice...you know just to maybe back up the innuendo just a wee bit...otherwise you end up looking like some bog standard LeMond detractor howling needlessly at the moon and that is not good...just sayin' eh...

Cheers

What did my post have to do with LeMond?

...it didn't...I used the word like to make a comparison....and bog standard LeMond detractor was one of the two things compared....and oh, it seems you forgot to include the conclusive irreducible proof in your response...

Cheers

 

[sniper]

Libertine, it's about the double standards of evidence used (not necessarily by you btw), one for Indurain (and a host of other TdF winners) and another for Lemond.
You can call Indurain a cheat and a doper, but based on what evidence exactly?
I don't say I disagree with your assessment of Indurain, I just say it raises the question why Lemond can or should not be spoken of in the same terms. Nobody really seems to want to address this issue (see gjb123 and macroadie's posts one page back).
Personally, I think if we quantify the evidence against Indurain on the one hand and against Lemond on the other, they sort of balance each other out.
If you think there's more evidence against Indurain than against Lemond, it would be good to hear your views as to why/what.

 

[Libertine Seguros]

Re:

Libertine, it's about the double standards of evidence used (not necessarily by you btw), one for Indurain (and a host of other TdF winners) and another for Lemond.
You can call Indurain a cheat and a doper, but based on what evidence exactly?
I don't say I disagree with your assessment of Indurain, I just say it raises the question why Lemond can or should not be spoken of in the same terms. Nobody really seems to want to address this issue (see gjb123 and macroadie's posts one page back).
Personally, I think if we quantify the evidence against Indurain on the one hand and against Lemond on the other, they sort of balance each other out.
If you think there's more evidence against Indurain than against Lemond, it would be good to hear your views as to why/what.

José María García: Señor Indurain, contésteme la verdad, si no va a contestar la verdad, no me conteste: ¿Ha usado usted alguna vez sustancias dopantes?

Indurain: Pasemos a otra pregunta.

José María García: Si no quieres hablar, das a entender que sí te dopabas.

Indurain: Siguiente pregunta.

 

[sniper]

Re: Re:

Libertine, it's about the double standards of evidence used (not necessarily by you btw), one for Indurain (and a host of other TdF winners) and another for Lemond.
You can call Indurain a cheat and a doper, but based on what evidence exactly?
I don't say I disagree with your assessment of Indurain, I just say it raises the question why Lemond can or should not be spoken of in the same terms. Nobody really seems to want to address this issue (see gjb123 and macroadie's posts one page back).
Personally, I think if we quantify the evidence against Indurain on the one hand and against Lemond on the other, they sort of balance each other out.
If you think there's more evidence against Indurain than against Lemond, it would be good to hear your views as to why/what.

José María García: Señor Indurain, contésteme la verdad, si no va a contestar la verdad, no me conteste: ¿Ha usado usted alguna vez sustancias dopantes?

Indurain: Pasemos a otra pregunta.

José María García: Si no quieres hablar, das a entender que sí te dopabas.

Indurain: Siguiente pregunta.

So, Miguel admitting to it. That's Miguel scoring sympathy points in my book.

Look, it's irrefutable that Miguel doped, I think I've seen (most of) the evidence against him.
The question is why the pieces of evidence against Lemond are weighed differently, or, better yet, are not weighed at all by some.
(And I trust you won't argue that him not admitting to doping is evidence of cleanliness.)

And for the record, you can add to the Indurain the names of Froome, Wiggins, Sastre, Evans, Cancellara and a dozen of other top riders. Why are 'we' so certain those guys doped, even in the complete lack of any tangible evidence (Sastre, Evans), yet when it comes to discussing Lemond, all 'we' can muster is deflection and ridicule?

 

[frenchfry]

Re:

Pascal Hervé.

Astute choice. If not the dirtiest certainly one of the most unrepenting.

 

[May0maniac]

I'd like to mention Francesco Moser, mostly because of his arrogance, they guy seems to be really proud of his hour record as a blood doping pioneer who worked with Conconi and his Giro win (The whole helicopter thing is one of the biggest disgraces in the Giro's history, it's disgusting).

 

[Spawn of e]

For one the evidence against Indurain is much strionger. Conconi, beating EPO dopers before any test, increase in performance from first to last victory.

 

[sniper]

Re:

For one the evidence against Indurain is much strionger. Conconi, beating EPO dopers before any test, increase in performance from first to last victory.

If that's all there is on Indurain it makes him look like a choir boy compared to Lemond.

 

[noddy69]

I think in the interests of fairness I would put them all in the same boat. Just cheaters who ruin sport and many a dream for lots of kids...and those who cheated prior to them may have ruined theirs. You have to include all in that from domestique to leader.

There is maybe a good poll behind who has benefited the most from cheating and in different sports.


In cycling Lance is the most high profile but he is getting punished eventually including financially.
Indurain isnt so has he benefited more.
As a tested positive cheat probably Gatlin is right up there- you know who ranking number 1 in athletics amongst all the others who ruin the sport.

I think my point is that it takes more than one cheater to destroy a sport- the sport has to be rotten from the inside out, so its ot who is the dirtiest but who got away with the most.
Who was the biggest pr**k is another good one.

 

[Eshnar]

sniper, you don't need to mention Lemond in every post of yours. You made your point already.

 

[noddy69]

Re: Re:

For one the evidence against Indurain is much strionger. Conconi, beating EPO dopers before any test, increase in performance from first to last victory.

If that's all there is on Indurain it makes him look like a choir boy compared to Lemond.

Really..Indurain a choir boy...the 80kg mountain goat

 

[gillan1969]

Re:

Libertine, it's about the double standards of evidence used (not necessarily by you btw), one for Indurain (and a host of other TdF winners) and another for Lemond.
You can call Indurain a cheat and a doper, but based on what evidence exactly?
I don't say I disagree with your assessment of Indurain, I just say it raises the question why Lemond can or should not be spoken of in the same terms. Nobody really seems to want to address this issue (see gjb123 and macroadie's posts one page back).
Personally, I think if we quantify the evidence against Indurain on the one hand and against Lemond on the other, they sort of balance each other out.
If you think there's more evidence against Indurain than against Lemond, it would be good to hear your views as to why/what.

sniper...you do know Indurian's time up that steep climb in last year's giro...the one where alberto had to chase??? evidence????

 

[sniper]

Re:

sniper, you don't need to mention Lemond in every post of yours.

Eshnar, with all respect.
Every post? in this thread you mean? It's barely three pages long, so yeah, could be.
But what do you have against it? Honest question, I'd be grateful for a brief response to it, here or in pm.
btw, I think I also mentioned Indurain in every post.

Also note that the first page had three or four posters mentioning Lemond before I did.
When I mentioned him I got several responses, to which I replied, altogether making it rather logical that I would mention Lemond again. So again, what's the problem?

Also, I got baited by strawmen from macroadie and gjb123. Are you modding that by any chance? Or just letting it pass, because..well, why exactly? Fair if you let it pass, but to then complain about me mentioning Lemond is strange.

You made your point already.

Could you maybe elaborate on what that point is? Not everybody seems to know, and most would in fact claim I don't have a point.

 

[Eshnar]

Re: Re:

sniper, you don't need to mention Lemond in every post of yours. You made your point already.

Eshnar, with all respect.
Every post? in this thread you mean? It's barely three pages long, so yeah, could be.
btw, I think I also mentioned Indurain in every post.
Either way, what do you have against it? Honest question, I'd be grateful for a brief response to it, here or in pm.

Also note that the first page had three or four posters mentioning Lemond before I did.
When I mentioned him I got several responses, to which I replied, altogether making it rather logical that I would mention Lemond again. So again, what's the problem?

Also, I got baited by strawmen from macroadie and gjb123. Are you modding that by any chance? Or just letting it pass, because..well, why exactly?

And could you please elaborate on what 'my point' is? Not everybody seems to know, and most would even claim I don't have a point.

You made your point: you believe Lemond doped, or at least he is very suspicious. Some people do not believe so. Since it seems clear you're not gonna convince them, nor are they gonna convince you, I suggest everybody (not just you) takes a deep breath and starts, maybe, to also discuss the other riders in the poll, without making this an exclusive Lemond thread (because it is not).
Always in a civil manner, of course.

 

[rghysens]

So little love for Mauro Gianetti in this thread?

 

[sniper]

Re: Re:

sniper, you don't need to mention Lemond in every post of yours. You made your point already.

Eshnar, with all respect.
Every post? in this thread you mean? It's barely three pages long, so yeah, could be.
btw, I think I also mentioned Indurain in every post.
Either way, what do you have against it? Honest question, I'd be grateful for a brief response to it, here or in pm.

Also note that the first page had three or four posters mentioning Lemond before I did.
When I mentioned him I got several responses, to which I replied, altogether making it rather logical that I would mention Lemond again. So again, what's the problem?

Also, I got baited by strawmen from macroadie and gjb123. Are you modding that by any chance? Or just letting it pass, because..well, why exactly?

And could you please elaborate on what 'my point' is? Not everybody seems to know, and most would even claim I don't have a point.

You made your point: you believe Lemond doped, or at least he is very suspicious. Some people do not believe so. Since it seems clear you're not gonna convince them, nor are they gonna convince you, I suggest everybody (not just you) takes a deep breath and starts, maybe, to also discuss the other riders in the poll, without making this an exclusive Lemond thread (because it is not).
Always in a civil manner, of course.

Thanks, Eshnar, for reducing my point to that. Great moderation.

Who am I trying to convince? I replied to simultaneously to four posters all of whom argued Lemond shouldn't be in the thread. All i did was ask: if Lemond out, why Indurain not also out? What's the big deal?
Subsequently we see the same guys as ever coming in to hammer me. Mods do nothing.
Look at gjb123's repertoire, you'll find that roughly 90% of all his Clinic postings is in reply to me.
Is he stalking me? I don't know. Is he baiting and insulting me whenever he gets the chance? He sure is. Have the mods ever acted upon it? No they haven't.

I'm in the dark why you decided to moderate me, and not one of those baiting posts.