Greg Lemond on Doping

[Slo Mo]

You would have to have been following cycling before July 1999 to know that though.

Greg was my idol since the early '80s when he was selflessly helping Hinault win the TDF.

 

[Mongol_Waaijer]

It has nothing to do with the objective! He just wants to get the no. 1 spot again. Because of that, any enemy of Lance is his ally... even if that one is an enemy of his! Floyd!!

Oh FFS....here we go again.

In any case you;re wrong. If Lance goes down (and man i hope he does) most casual observers will conclude that all cyclists anywhere ever have doped, and Lemond will be soiled by association.

It might just be about the truth, and about not wanting to be bullied into silence by a sociopath and his corporate backers and bureaucrat apparatchiks anymore.

 

[ilillillli]

google 'utter lack of cultural understanding'

forgive me for asking for any level of detail. no, "cutting of the head to kill the beast" and other vacuous slogans will work just fine.

a summary of ideas to fix pro cycling:

1. burn it down
2. cut off it's head
3. egg it's house
4. date it's sister


all of that should be perfectly clear and requires no further explanation.

 

[Slo Mo]

Oh FFS....here we go again.

In any case you;re wrong. If Lance goes down (and man i hope he does) most casual observers will conclude that all cyclists anywhere ever have doped, and Lemond will be soiled by association.

It might just be about the truth, and about not wanting to be bullied into silence by a sociopath and his corporate backers and bureaucrat apparatchiks anymore.

You sound like you also have a personal crusade against Lance.

I, on the otherhand, just love cycling. I loved Greg during his greatness and now Lance. If they did it by cheating and gets caught and put down in the end, I won't lose sleep over it. I have my life.

 

[python]

This is the first time (to my knowledge) LeMond has publicly, for the media said that Armstrong admitted to his EPO use to him. Everyone here knows the story about this phone call but I have never seen it in a newsppaper like USA Today. Wow. Dominoes are starting to fall... slowly. I hope Novitzky confirms soon less this whole thing blows over....

does anyone recall if greg had recorded that conversation ? i dont remember it mentioned.

if the tape exists (even if the legality of the recording can be challenged or the admission was indirect) that could be a real beginning of the undoing the cycling's worst fraudster ever.

so was the recording ever mentioned ? it could be a nice supplement dated (2001) to flandis's accusations.

 

[MacRoadie]

The same can be told for Greg L, he came back from death to win the Tour, no testing back thenm was he dirty or clean ? Those who shout the loudest are usually dirty in my experience. Just Sayin.

He really wants to clean up cycling... NOT! He will never stop until he gets rid of Lance so he can recapture the title of "The greatest American cyclist of all time". That has been the objective since day one!

Lemond has no credibility, just like Landis has no credibility. I find it amazing that no one is asking for their contributions back from Landis. and yes Lemond is nothing more than a mean , disgruntled paunchy ex- rider.

With a grand total of 7 posts between them, Huey, Dewey and Louie check in to the game...

 

[offbyone]

More accusations without any evidence. Quit wasting our time.

Lemond really cracks me up-

"I hope all of this sheds light on all the corporate enabling that went on, especially the one that tried to take my brand away from me,"

So corporate enabling is ok when it is his corporation but not someone else? bahahahaaa.

 

[Race Radio]

More accusations without any evidence. Quit wasting our time.

Lemond really cracks me up-



So corporate enabling is ok when it is his corporation but not someone else? bahahahaaa.

Greg's corporation enable doping?

 

[Digger]

Susan can we get some troll assistance here please.

 

[offbyone]

Greg's corporation enable doping?

When he says corporate enabling he is referring to the fact that organizations are looking the other way because of all the corporate money. He is still ****ed off that the corporate backing moved on from him.

 

[BikeCentric]

gotcha. burning it down=cutting off the beast's head. now can someone explain what that means.

sorry, i realize "trashing the UCI" is popular and probably wouldn't be a bad thing, but I still don't know how, given current technology, you can do much better than the bio passport and more testing. more testing, better testing... that's the least creative (but still best) solution i can come up with.

in competition everyone is going to be looking for a competitive advantage. doesn't matter if their the current riders we're about to burn down or the new, surely virtuous, ones that will take their place. undetectable doping, unfortunately, is a competitive advantage. ergo, in my opinion you've got to minimize undetectable doping simply by doing more and better testing.

that's not as sexy as "burn it down," or "cut off the head to kill the beast" but it's all i've got.

Ultimately I agree with you that testing is the solution and lack of effective testing is the problem.

However, the UCI should have nothing to do with the testing; it's a conflict of interest. Furthermore the UCI has been shown to be corrupt and inconsistant in its approach to anti-doping; another reason why the UCI needs to go.

 

[this_is_edie]

Ultimately I agree with you that testing is the solution and lack of effective testing is the problem.

However, the UCI should have nothing to do with the testing; it's a conflict of interest. Furthermore the UCI has been shown to be corrupt and inconsistant in its approach to anti-doping; another reason why the UCI needs to go.

Given that (it has been alleged) that the riders knew the testers were coming and/or positive test results were hidden under the carpet, I am now left to wonder how ineffective really are the tests?

Yes Landis did say he was able to get around the tests with micro-dosing but was that only possible because he knew when the testers would show up?

And I agree that the UCI has a vested interest (big money) in keeping the status quo especially with its cash cow Armstrong.

 

[ilillillli]

Ultimately I agree with you that testing is the solution and lack of effective testing is the problem.

However, the UCI should have nothing to do with the testing; it's a conflict of interest. Furthermore the UCI has been shown to be corrupt and inconsistant in its approach to anti-doping; another reason why the UCI needs to go.

nice post, i agree. separating the UCI from the testing body would probably be a good idea.

this isn't so much cutting of the beasts head as it is asking the beast for a blood transfusion to save the life of a younger and less-corrupt secondary beast.

 

[Race Radio]

When he says corporate enabling he is referring to the fact that organizations are looking the other way because of all the corporate money. He is still ****ed off that the corporate backing moved on from him.

You are still not making sense.

They "Moved on from him" because he questioned doping in the sport. It is clear that Trek and Greg have different views on the topic, Trek has no problem sponsoring dopers, Greg thinks this enabling them is not helping the sport. It is the same issue with the ASO and UCI who want to protect their gravy train, regardless of the long term damage to the sport it may cause.

 

[Anonymous]

You sound like you also have a personal crusade against Lance.

I, on the otherhand, just love cycling. I loved Greg during his greatness and now Lance. If they did it by cheating and gets caught and put down in the end, I won't lose sleep over it. I have my life.

You certainly do. Something like 40+ of your usernames been banned now?

 

[offbyone]

You are still not making sense.

They "Moved on from him" because he questioned doping in the sport. It is clear that Trek and Greg have different views on the topic, Trek has no problem sponsoring dopers, Greg thinks this enabling them is not helping the sport. It is the same issue with the ASO and UCI who want to protect their gravy train, regardless of the long term damage to the sport it may cause.

Just because a corporation has sponsored an athlete that has doped doesn't mean they don't have a problem with it. By your logic Trek has no problem, nike has no problem, reebok has not problem, astana, liquigas, bmc, etc. You couldn't name a cycling sponsor that hasn't done so. They rely on the system. It is not the sponsor's job to enforce doping and it shouldn't be. It is the sport's governing body.

They moved on from him because he wasn't a national icon anymore. That is a fact. You don't sponsor a nobody, it is bad business. Lemond's brand is based on his image and frankly his popularity was on a steady decrease especially if you look outside of hard core cycling circles. The people who are still interested in lemond now associate him as someone who whines about armstrong and doping. Sorry, that is not the kind of image you want to sponsor even if it is true. It is hard to disagree with Trek's business decision to move on from lemond, armstrong has created more publicity than lemond ever did.


Of course they want to protect the gravy train, they wouldn't survive without it. That is life. Personally I think lemond's main issue is that the attention and money isn't on him anymore. The fact that he is whining about his brand shows that he cares about the gravy train as much as everyone else. He is so righteous about it, but he needs to realize business is business.

 

[oldschoolnik]

does anyone recall if greg had recorded that conversation ? i dont remember it mentioned.

if the tape exists (even if the legality of the recording can be challenged or the admission was indirect) that could be a real beginning of the undoing the cycling's worst fraudster ever.

so was the recording ever mentioned ? it could be a nice supplement dated (2001) to flandis's accusations.

Over the years GL has made reference to a few recorded conversations but I think the only one we know about for certain is the Stephanie McIlvain call where she admits to lying in the SCA deposition due to her situation (as a fan of GL not one of his high points but I understand why he did it).

However, at a charity event in NYC this past winter a few of us were speaking with him and Cathy after the talk and he made reference to some other heavy duty evidence he had that he would "only use in an extreme situation" [he was refering to a hypothetical situation - if he and Lance ever got really into again for example] he could use this evidence - I have no idea whther it was doping related or just threat related or what but when one of us asked him to elaborate he said he keeps it in a safe deposit box or something like that... so maybe he does have other evidence like tapes.

 

[Slo Mo]

You certainly do. Something like 40+ of your usernames been banned now?

Hahaha... you sound like a femme bully!

 

[python]

Over the years GL has made reference to a few recorded conversations but I think the only one we know about for certain is the Stephanie McIlvain call where she admits to lying in the SCA deposition due to her situation (as a fan of GL not one of his high points but I understand why he did it).

However, at a charity event in NYC this past winter a few of us were speaking with him and Cathy after the talk and he made reference to some other heavy duty evidence he had that he would "only use in an extreme situation" [he was refering to a hypothetical situation - if he and Lance ever got really into again for example] he could use this evidence - I have no idea whther it was doping related or just threat related or what but when one of us asked him to elaborate he said he keeps it in a safe deposit box or something like that... so maybe he does have other evidence like tapes.

let's put aside the recording's existence for a moment.

it would be more than probable that novitzky by now have heard what greg said to the usa today. i cant imagine him not being interested in the brand new fact of armstrong's self-admitted doping in 2001 provided the fda investigation is a reality. now, he jots on his day planner to call greg.

what does greg do when novitzky finally rings him?

he accepts an invitation for an interview, confirms his 100% readiness to take a witness stand if required and by the end of the interview throws a final bit - 'i have proof corroborating my statements'.

we know that greg's wife has corroborated pieces of that telecon. he must have something.

if i were greg, i would offer the recording or whatever the evidence was regardless of the formal legality.

what would be the impediments for greg to hold back the corroborating evidence ?

im not a lawyer but i see none. are there any ?

 

[Wolves-Lower]

I see CN has no mention of Lemonds quote in USA about Lance telling him he used EPO...

I am afraid all the Lance Pop-Up-advertisements have gotten in the way of CN reporting the news. Omerta at its best!

 

[offbyone]

let's put aside the recording's existence for a moment.

it would be more than probable that novitzky by now have heard what greg said to the usa today. i cant imagine him not being interested in the brand new fact of armstrong's self-admitted doping in 2001 provided the fda investigation is a reality. now, he jots on his day planner to call greg.

what does greg do when novitzky finally rings him?

he accepts an invitation for an interview, confirms his 100% readiness to take a witness stand if required and by the end of the interview throws a final bit - 'i have proof corroborating my statements'.

we know that greg's wife has corroborated pieces of that telecon. he must have something.

if i were greg, i would offer the recording or whatever the evidence was regardless of the formal legality.

what would be the impediments for greg to hold back the corroborating evidence ?

im not a lawyer but i see none. are there any ?

Sorry I just can't buy it. Lemond is one angry guy, if he had evidence surely he would have put it to the public by now. He has made enough accusations, why would he hide the evidence until now?

 

[python]

................................

 

[offbyone]

sorry but i am not interested in your opinion.

I didn't blast you or say anything personal, i just disagreed with the logic in your post. If you don't want other people to weigh in on a topic, then I suggest that you shouldn't post on a public forum.

 

[BikeCentric]

Given that (it has been alleged) that the riders knew the testers were coming and/or positive test results were hidden under the carpet, I am now left to wonder how ineffective really are the tests?

Yes Landis did say he was able to get around the tests with micro-dosing but was that only possible because he knew when the testers would show up?

And I agree that the UCI has a vested interest (big money) in keeping the status quo especially with its cash cow Armstrong.

Yes, this is yet another problem with the UCI. However Ashenden and Catlin have recently verified (see ESPN Bonnie Ford article) that Landis' claims that IV EPO injection has only a 6 hour test window are correct. So pretty much the EPO test has never worked as 6 hours is going to catch very few riders.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Just because a corporation has sponsored an athlete that has doped doesn't mean they don't have a problem with it. By your logic Trek has no problem, nike has no problem, reebok has not problem, astana, liquigas, bmc, etc. You couldn't name a cycling sponsor that hasn't done so. They rely on the system. It is not the sponsor's job to enforce doping and it shouldn't be. It is the sport's governing body.

They moved on from him because he wasn't a national icon anymore. That is a fact. You don't sponsor a nobody, it is bad business. Lemond's brand is based on his image and frankly his popularity was on a steady decrease especially if you look outside of hard core cycling circles. The people who are still interested in lemond now associate him as someone who whines about armstrong and doping. Sorry, that is not the kind of image you want to sponsor even if it is true. It is hard to disagree with Trek's business decision to move on from lemond, armstrong has created more publicity than lemond ever did.


Of course they want to protect the gravy train, they wouldn't survive without it. That is life. Personally I think lemond's main issue is that the attention and money isn't on him anymore. The fact that he is whining about his brand shows that he cares about the gravy train as much as everyone else. He is so righteous about it, but he needs to realize business is business.

On your first paragraph - no-one suggested it was 'all sponsors'.

Greg's comments were directed at Trek - and how they pulled his brand, not because of his anti-doping comments, but because they were instructed to by LA.

Yes, most sponsors of most sports are in many ways 'ignoring' what is done to achieve success - but in Treks case it did not just ignore the problem, it chose a side when it did not need to.