• The Cycling News forum is looking to add some volunteer moderators with Red Rick's recent retirement. If you're interested in helping keep our discussions on track, send a direct message to @SHaines here on the forum, or use the Contact Us form to message the Community Team.

    In the meanwhile, please use the Report option if you see a post that doesn't fit within the forum rules.

    Thanks!

Greg Lemond: Tour legend and anti-doping crusader

Page 4 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Apr 20, 2009
960
0
0
Visit site
Moose McKnuckles said:
1999 EPO use. But you knew that already. And corticosteroids.

Good of you to admit you have ZERO evidence against Lemond. Zero. Yet you fanboys still try to discredit a true American champion in favor of your 7* time fraud.

Let me make sure I have this right: If there's no direct evidence someone doped, your claim is that they never doped?
 
eleven said:
Let me make sure I have this right: If there's no direct evidence someone doped, your claim is that they never doped?

Not only is there no direct evidence against Lemond, there isn't even a hint. No allegations, no complaints, nothing. Show me something against Lemond. Anything that doesn't come from the worthless fanboys that have sprouted on this forum.

I consider the evidence against Ulrich direct even though he never tested positive. Same with Armstrong, except he DID test positive. Multiple times.
 
eleven said:
Let me make sure I have this right: If there's no direct evidence someone doped, your claim is that they never doped?

Not exactly. If there is no direct evidence they have ever doped then I cannot claim that they did. The null hypothesis is that they did not dope. I simply cannot reject the null. I can't say for sure whether they doped or not. I simply have to gather evidence against the null before I proceed further.

Why this hypothesis testing concept so hard for some of you to grasp?
 
Apr 20, 2009
960
0
0
Visit site
Moose McKnuckles said:
Not exactly. If there is no direct evidence they have ever doped then I cannot claim that they did. The null hypothesis is that they did not dope. I simply cannot reject the null. I can't say for sure whether they doped or not. I simply have to gather evidence against the null before I proceed further.

Why this hypothesis testing concept so hard for some of you to grasp?

I understand the null hypothesis just fine, thanks. I simply believe you can reject the null that they did not dope for anyone at the pointy end of the peloton in the past 20 years...with a p-value of at least .05.
 
eleven said:
I understand the null hypothesis just fine, thanks. I simply believe you can reject the null that they did not dope for anyone at the pointy end of the peloton in the past 20 years...with a p-value of at least .05.

I think we agree on that. I don't think you can reject it either, especially with the EPO era in the 1990s.

But that time frame doesn't include Lemond. That was my point.
 
Mar 31, 2010
18,136
2
0
Visit site
eleven said:
So all of the current riders who have never been caught are clean?

Indurain was clean?

The non-Festina folks from 1998 were clean?

to my personal opinion no, but to any judge yes. I have no proove

and lemond was washed away when that epo period came along.
 
Jun 18, 2009
374
0
0
Visit site
killermeter said:
Really, well all my verification is in the same place and Lemonds verification that Lance doped.

Lemond used Ferrari? And admitted doping to the Andreus? And his urine tested positive to EPO?

Spooky.
 
Jul 18, 2010
707
0
0
Visit site
auscyclefan94 said:
How does Lemond say that things are cleaner now especially after some performances at the tour this year? Not trying to implicat anyone but I think he is talking shhit!

What performances are you referring to? You're implying that certain rider's performances were suspicious. I'm curious to hear who in particular since I don't really recall seeing anything extraordinary occur that would send up any signals/flags.
 
Jul 18, 2010
707
0
0
Visit site
rata de sentina said:
Tut tut..you should know that in acf94's world anyone Spanish (or Dutch) who beats CE = suspicious. So doping was especially rife this year. :D

That would've have been my uncensored response, I figured I'd be a bit more diplomatic to get an entertaining spin out of ACF.
 
Jul 18, 2010
707
0
0
Visit site
auscyclefan94 said:
I am not saying ALL are on the juice but I think it is an absurd to say such things that others are saying about people doping and it being a clean tour. Are you saying that because there were no positive tests?

Maybe you should read this thread and have a look at the poll results and which posters voted for what!
Do all top riders dope?

People who voted "yes"
Yes
2beacoup, 53 x 11, 595RED, alberto.legstrong, Andrichuk, Animal, arvens, auto de fé, battery89, bbsmyle, Big GMaC, BikeCentric, blackcat, BroDeal, broken chain, Bronstein, Carols, Cerberus, Cobblestones, Colm.Murphy, cyclelicious, CycloErgoSum, DJ Sprtsch, DonTickles, DrNoTime, Escarabajo, Ex-trackie, fatandfast, Ferminal, forumlurker, fruit bars with eyes, Full genius, Galic Ho, Gee333, guruhits, hfer07, hornet, Hugh Januss, icefire, IntheMidwest, issoisso, Jan the Man, john_d, Jukebox, Krap Police, L29205, Magnific0, Martinello, mikkemus23, MrContador, Neworld, Nick777, oldschoolnik, pedaller, poupou, progressor, R.0.t.O, ratatata, red_explosions, sagard, scribe, sometriguy, spanky wanderlust, The fridge in the blue trees, this_is_edie, Thoughtforfood, titan_90, tockit, tubularglue, usedtobefast, VeloFidelis, velotn, wattage, Willy_Voet, Yo Momma

I don't mean to single you out Galic, but I am just amking a point about your statement.

Since I'm not one of the above will you simply answer my previously posted question? You obviously have someone(s) whose performance(s) caught your attention in order for you to make that statement.
 
Jul 18, 2010
707
0
0
Visit site
Belokki said:
he had to react...

he does not attack anyone, unless attacked first...and then he will destroy you... ask Greg, Simoni or anyone else...

From the sound of your posts regarding Armstrong one would think that you have an altar with a picture of Armstrong in the place of a cross where you genuflect each time you pass it.
 
Jul 18, 2010
707
0
0
Visit site
killermeter said:
The funny thing is that Lemond has forgotten that he beat cyclists that were juicing when he rode, what does that say about his performance? Also he and his physician at the time were also named in doping related performances in court papers. How come he was never investigated?
The final TT of this tour showed an amazing performance by Cancellara who blistered the TT. Yet his average speed is still less than Lemonds was when he beat Fignon. So if Greg still holds that record ( and I believe he does) after a 3 week GT with better equipment, wheels, bikes, helmets etc. now, better training methods now, what does that say about Lemonds performance. Lemond isn't trying to clean up the sport he loves, he is a contradicting bitter old man with an agenda that has nothing to due with the good of the sport. If Lance is guilty of something then we will find out when it is all said and done. If Novitsky finds something on Lance legally ( not the way he gathered info on Barry Bonds) then so be it. I still think that if you believe an idiot like Landis, then you probably donated to his defense fund and he has F**ked you twice.

If I recall correctly Lemond's TT win vs. Fignon was on a course that virtually all downhill with a decent tailwind. Please someone correct if my memory has failed me.
 
Aug 13, 2009
12,855
1
0
Visit site
La Pandera said:
If I recall correctly Lemond's TT win vs. Fignon was on a course that virtually all downhill with a decent tailwind. Please someone correct if my memory has failed me.

You are correct. This fact is intentionally ignored by the Groupies.

Fact is Armstrong averaged as fast over a course that was twice as long with multiple climbs
 

TRENDING THREADS