dirtiest cheater in cycling history?

[GJB123]

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. Oh well.

As you suggested to pcmg in the moderator-thread: please back up your claim with evidence.

Furthermore you don't know what the mods did or did not discuss with me via PM. Also I don't find veiled requests for a ban very classy. Espacially from Someren who actually already received a permaban once. You don't see me asking me to reinstate that ban do you?

Lastly you should stop crying when you get called out on posting nonsensical stuff.

 

[Mr.White]

I see Lemond is progressing in the poll, he might even end up first ahead of Lance!

 

[Eshnar]

Re: Re:

Lastly you should stop crying when you get called out on posting nonsensical stuff.

I didn't call anybody on posting nonsensical stuff. I told everybody to move on from the Lemond topic.
Also from the Lemond/Indurain comparison, since Lemond has been put back in, just like Indurain is, so there is nothing to complain about.

 

[blutto]

Re:

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).

....excellent point that often slips by unnoticed....

Cheers

 

[Oldermanish]

Re: Re:

Eddie doped but I would certainly not call him the dirtiest cheater in the sport. Not even close.

For me the dirtiest are those who buy races, corrupt officials to gain protection and even to throw competitors under the bus, and also things such as mechanical cheating or taking short cuts during races by jumping into cars etc. Guys like Lance and Vinokourov. Both of who are serious criminals.

Try as I might I just can't lump Vino in with Lance, at least Vino entertained with his kamikazi attacks.

I'd agree. Vino was clearly another chemistry experiment but he seemed to like racing. Lance just liked being the celebrity.
Chiapucci probably did proportionately more as did the entire Festina team, Argentine/Geweiss, perhaps not as well as Armstrong.

Lemond being on the list and receiving votes near to Lance is just stoopid. He liked to party and would probably be banned if caught now for late night recreational escapades. He may have dabbled in blood doping and epo but that's a tough one to isolate. Lance left a shiny trail on the ground...

 

[blutto]

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

...March 3rd 2016 is hardly old....that's just a hair past last week or so....

Cheers

 

[blutto]

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

...a couple of things...first there was this guy named Merckx who did pretty good in bike racing who wasn't exactly small....and second....what folks tend to overlook when they look at the win numbers is that they corresponded to Tours that were very TT heavy...

Indurain was a strong time trialist, gaining on rivals and riding defensively in the climbing stages. Indurain won only two Tour stages that were not individual time trials: mountain stages to Cauterets (1989) and Luz Ardiden (1990) in the Pyrenees. During his five consecutive Tour de France wins he never won a stage that was not a time trial. These superior abilities in the discipline fit perfectly with the TT heavy Tours of the era, with many featuring between 150 and 200 km of time trialling vs the more common 50–80 km today.

....and no he wasn't a dominant climber but he was no slouch either...that being said he saved a few Tours by being able to catch dangerous breaks on the down hills, and he had a dominant team....

In 1984 he rode the Olympic Games in Los Angeles and then turned professional on 4 September[4] for Reynolds.[1][7][9] He won his first professional race a week later, a time trial in the Tour de l'Avenir.[10] In 1985 he started the Vuelta a España and came second in the prologue, behind Bert Oosterbosch. Oosterbosch lost time on the second stage and Indurain became leader, the youngest rider to do it.[

...read, he didn't have to be a mountain goat ( and btw his Tour weight was less than the much obsessed about 80kg...and btw his Tour weight prorated to Merckx is pretty much the same...so if one is going to bang Indurain on weight you may as well bang Eddie too and good luck on that...)....often times its horses for courses and during his day in the sun those courses really favoured his strengths and didn't much expose his weaknesses...

...and oh this....( be curious how other overweight retired cyclists would compare )...

Indurain was subjected to further physical testing at age 46, 14 years after his retirement, in a 2012 published study to determine age-related fitness decline. His maximal values were oxygen uptake 5.29 L/min (57.4 mL · kg-1 · min-1) and aerobic power output 450 W (4.88 W/kg) and was found to have seen greater changes in body composition than aerobic capacity as he weighed 92 kg at the time. However, his absolute maximal and submaximal oxygen uptake and power output in 2012 still compared favorably with those exhibited by active professional cyclists.[

Cheers

 

[HelmutRoole]

Re: Re:

..
Again, what about Indurain?
There isn't more or less evidence against Indurain than against Lemond, is there?
Or is this about being anglophone after all?

Anyway, I'm a bit at a loss as to why Lemond is tabuisized...again.

At least Indurain got caught once. This poll is just a pathetic, veiled attempt by the OP to restart the Lemond discussion. Your posts just proof my point.

Quit trolling.

 

[Irondan]

Please do not call out trolling in your comments, use the PM system.

 

[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

...March 3rd 2016 is hardly old....that's just a hair past last week or so....

Cheers

"Old" wasn't my word, that came from GJB123. Sniper didn't quote the post he was responding to:

viewtopic.php?p=1889605#p1889605

I was responding specifically to sniper's "it's the first time i posted that" comment to GJB123, which clearly wasn't true, whether it was yesterday, last month, or last year. That it was only two weeks ago, and still fresh in more than a few people's memories, is even more telling.

Cheers

 

[Cannibal72]

Nice bit of trolling, both putting LeMond in the poll and calling out Merckx as the dirtiest.

What the ****? Merckx was caught countless times and <b> payed his teammates based on performances, </b> while getting the best palmarés ever and being quick to judge anyone that was busted.

Lemond was one of the biggest Lance supporters, despite the obvious, and then decided to turn on him and being a champion of clean cycling. Some people might hate that. He either is the stupidest guy ever or... The biggest hypocrite. That deserves a potential spot.

Yeah, LS, I forgot about the hog.

You realise this is literally how cycling works, including openly today, right? Every single rider in this poll 'paid their teammates based on their performances'; in other news, Merckx was Belgian and the Pope remains Catholic...

(Also, it's factually untrue to claim Merckx was way ahead of the curve on doping. He was charging, yes, but he was hardly a Chiappucchi/Atmstrong-like innovator. Even when he got busted for something new, it was alongside Pollentier and Maertens.)

 

[Hugh Januss]

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.

Curious to hear what this damning evidence against LeMond is exactly. Maybe you can enlighten a poor blinded fanboy? If you don't have any more than what Armstrong paid $300K for then perhaps you should just slink away quietly. Seriously? You don't think if there was 1 flicker of flame Lance wouldn't have been all over it proclaiming Greg as the real doper not him?

Edit: Read back a bit, so if a pro cyclist's parents work then that is proof of doping?
Maybe you are right LeMond was a big cheater, why I once saw him disqualified for taking a water bottle outside the feed zone after winning the Pro 1-2 Holy Hill RR at Super Week in Milwaukee, as a 16 year old Junior.

 

[sniper]

Re: Re:

...
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

...March 3rd 2016 is hardly old....that's just a hair past last week or so....

Cheers

"Old" wasn't my word, that came from GJB123. Sniper didn't quote the post he was responding to:

viewtopic.php?p=1889605#p1889605

I was responding specifically to sniper's "it's the first time i posted that" comment to GJB123, which clearly wasn't true, whether it was yesterday, last month, or last year. That it was only two weeks ago, and still fresh in more than a few people's memories, is even more telling.

Cheers

The EPO rumor, sure, I posted it many times (and you still haven't addressed it, oh well ).
But the other stuff in that post (see boldface above, which you deliberately ignored), i have never posted that before and (thanks again) the links you provided to my posts only cement that.

<edited by mods>, or why the mods allow you to, but hey, I've seen stranger things.

 

[Eshnar]

Re: Re:

Lastly you should stop crying when you get called out on posting nonsensical stuff.

I didn't call anybody on posting nonsensical stuff. I told everybody to move on from the Lemond topic.
Also from the Lemond/Indurain comparison, since Lemond has been put back in, just like Indurain is, so there is nothing to complain about.

 

[King Boonen]

Contador.

 

[sniper]

Some riders who deserve special mention:

Adri Van der Poel
Gert Jan Theunisse
Joop Zoetemelk
Gerrie Knetemann
Erik Dekker
Jeroen Blijlevens
Servais Knaven
Steven de Jongh

Cadel Evans
Dario Cioni
Max Sciandri

 

[gillan1969]

if Lemond ever gets implicated sniper will be known as 'The clinic 1'...

 

[sniper]

Re: Re:

...
Curious to hear what this damning evidence against LeMond is exactly. Maybe you can enlighten a poor blinded fanboy? If you don't have any more than what Armstrong paid $300K for then perhaps you should just slink away quietly. Seriously? You don't think if there was 1 flicker of flame Lance wouldn't have been all over it proclaiming Greg as the real doper not him?

You're a bit late to the party there Hugh. You can always ask the mods to reopen the *guy whose name i shall not mention* thread if you find any new evidence that he was clean.

Edit: Read back a bit, so if a pro cyclist's parents work then that is proof of doping?
Maybe you are right LeMond was a big cheater, why I once saw him disqualified for taking a water bottle outside the feed zone after winning the Pro 1-2 Holy Hill RR at Super Week in Milwaukee, as a 16 year old Junior.

"damning evidence", "big cheater", "proof of doping", those are your words, not mine.

if Lemond ever gets implicated sniper will be known as 'The clinic 1'...

touche, though in fairness it'll be the Clinic 3 or maybe even 4. That said, I don't think he'll ever get implicated.

on a side, I like the guy a lot, i honestly do, but what I think about his character has nothing to do with anything I discuss in the clinic. Also, I think an open debate would do his reputation more good than all these veiled attempts at omerta from some pro-Lemond posters (not you, mind).

 

[Tonton]

This will be my only contribution to this thread, which is unfortunately turning into a brawl like many others. I remember the time when we could agree to disagree, respectfully.

It is my opinion that EPO brought doping (the biggest element of cheating) to a whole new level. Yes, doping is doping and I don't condone pre-EPO performance enhancement. Some here may argue that a fruit is a fruit: I would respectfully push back and refuse to compare apples and oranges. It's pretty obvious to me that Pre-EPO, you could win clean. Post-EPO, no-way. Gains went from getting an edge to turning mediocre riders into big-time winners. For this reason, I take all the pre-EPO riders in this poll out.

After that, it's a matter of weighting arguments as it relates to (in short): palmares, earnings, denials, promoting and/or benefiting from corruption. As much as I like the Vino option, no one has hurt the credibility of the sport, forged a palmares, denied, bullied whistleblowers, bribed/corrupted officials and journos like Lance Armstrong.

 

[GJB123]

Good post tonton and i wholeheartedly agree with all of it. I have been guilty of inciting (part of) the brawl in this thread and I do apologize for that. I'll best stick to the conclusion that the Lemond nay-sayers and myself will probably never agree, so I will let it rest at that, because as far as I am concerned, just about everything has been said (more than once, mind).

Just one pet peeve though: @ sniper it is LeMond not Lemond (note the capital M).

 

[Spawn of e]

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.

Now you're exhibiting troll-like behavior, which has put me in the uncomfortable position of somewhat defending GL. After all, he is running away with the poll right now with LA.

I have read most of your posts on this subject in this and the other thread. Don't soil it by saying the evidence is vastly more damming than Indurains. I also bet if you scour the internet like you have with GL, you could find alot of coincidental dot connecting on Indurain above the stuff I listed.

 

[Spawn of e]

This will be my only contribution to this thread, which is unfortunately turning into a brawl like many others. I remember the time when we could agree to disagree, respectfully.

It is my opinion that EPO brought doping (the biggest element of cheating) to a whole new level. Yes, doping is doping and I don't condone pre-EPO performance enhancement. Some here may argue that a fruit is a fruit: I would respectfully push back and refuse to compare apples and oranges. It's pretty obvious to me that Pre-EPO, you could win clean. Post-EPO, no-way. Gains went from getting an edge to turning mediocre riders into big-time winners. For this reason, I take all the pre-EPO riders in this poll out.

After that, it's a matter of weighting arguments as it relates to (in short): palmares, earnings, denials, promoting and/or benefiting from corruption. As much as I like the Vino option, no one has hurt the credibility of the sport, forged a palmares, denied, bullied whistleblowers, bribed/corrupted officials and journos like Lance Armstrong.

Really? Please post a link to the test of athletes on cycles of roids with no OOC testing vs clean athletes to prove 'the obvious'. Take your time.

 

[DFA123]

If we're talking about legacy and influence on public opinion, then I think Pantani has to be in with a serious shout. The guy was a massive doper throughout his career, achieved ridiculous things that only a doper could do - and is still regarded with extreme affection (including by me, I'm somewhat ashamed to admit ).

There are statues dedicated to him on half the climbs in Italy, and he continues to have a near mythical status as the most recent rider to do the Giro & TdF double. If he hadn't doped, he'd be a mid-pack rider no-one had heard of.

I can't think of any top riders whose reputation came out of the EPO era as well as his. Even Big-Mig has his critics; Pantani seems untouchable.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

This will be my only contribution to this thread, which is unfortunately turning into a brawl like many others. I remember the time when we could agree to disagree, respectfully.

It is my opinion that EPO brought doping (the biggest element of cheating) to a whole new level. Yes, doping is doping and I don't condone pre-EPO performance enhancement. Some here may argue that a fruit is a fruit: I would respectfully push back and refuse to compare apples and oranges. It's pretty obvious to me that Pre-EPO, you could win clean. Post-EPO, no-way. Gains went from getting an edge to turning mediocre riders into big-time winners. For this reason, I take all the pre-EPO riders in this poll out.

After that, it's a matter of weighting arguments as it relates to (in short): palmares, earnings, denials, promoting and/or benefiting from corruption. As much as I like the Vino option, no one has hurt the credibility of the sport, forged a palmares, denied, bullied whistleblowers, bribed/corrupted officials and journos like Lance Armstrong.

You've lost the plot tonto because some of the old timers can be quoted as saying there is no way to win without something a little extra. It is impossible that all of the pro tour winners won clean. The burden of proff is on the cyclist because of the history within the sport.

AnyWho it is quite amusing watching the fan-boys squirm with the respect to the OP erecting his poll here for everyone to vote on.
Also I note that it has been said that you all need to be careful with the troll craft accusations less there be some LeModeration going down which could lead to someone getting banninated.

Last night as I had some fine ales with a friend on a big deck with the bushes trimmed all neat--- we decided to take a peek at the Poll. The Horror the fan-boys must have felt down deep while gazing at the results of this Poll it was 7 la and 9 le, what a Poll.

 

[blutto]

This will be my only contribution to this thread, which is unfortunately turning into a brawl like many others. I remember the time when we could agree to disagree, respectfully.

It is my opinion that EPO brought doping (the biggest element of cheating) to a whole new level. Yes, doping is doping and I don't condone pre-EPO performance enhancement. Some here may argue that a fruit is a fruit: I would respectfully push back and refuse to compare apples and oranges. It's pretty obvious to me that Pre-EPO, you could win clean. Post-EPO, no-way. Gains went from getting an edge to turning mediocre riders into big-time winners. For this reason, I take all the pre-EPO riders in this poll out.

After that, it's a matter of weighting arguments as it relates to (in short): palmares, earnings, denials, promoting and/or benefiting from corruption. As much as I like the Vino option, no one has hurt the credibility of the sport, forged a palmares, denied, bullied whistleblowers, bribed/corrupted officials and journos like Lance Armstrong.

....if you had raced in that era you may change your mind on that one...not to say that EPO was not a game-changer....

Cheers