Greg was right

[andy1234]

I think I can figure out the who but out of respect I wont bother you about it.

Happy to talk offline.

 

[ChrisE]

Do not change my quote, please.

To the highlighted, actually I answered that - even if you offer a very limited time frame, why is that?
I don't think "big names" likes of Ullrich, Heras, Hamilton, Basso or Pantani would agree with your assessment.

To the blue - as I didn't ask you that question I am not interested in your limited answer.

Doping & omerta certainly didn't start in 1999 with Armstrong - but unless you can show another rider who got as much preferential treatment as Armstrong then LeMonds assertion (which is what the thread is about) remains valid.

This is all too funny. I really do not believe that you believe what you are actually shoveling around here. It's not even worth my time to respond to this circular drivel.

So OK guy, you win. I'm not gonna roll around in the dirt with your petty word splitting and gotcha posting methods. Declare victory and move on.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

This is all too funny. I really do not believe that you believe what you are actually shoveling around here. It's not even worth my time to respond to this circular drivel.

So OK guy, you win. I'm not gonna roll around in the dirt with your petty word splitting and gotcha posting methods. Declare victory and move on.

No, whats 'funny' is when I present something to you that you fail to respond - why is that?

Didn't you already say that you were going "to sign off on this thread" 15 pages ago?

I see you crawled out from under your shell for another one of your patented out-of-context drive by posts. Then, you accuse me of an ad hominem where none exists. What I know about steroid use is irrelevant because their effects on strength gain is well known and documented. You know the "power" part of those funny little formulas you and other smart people toss out to compare climbing data.

I hesitated putting that sentence in my post because somebody such as yourself would cling onto a toss-down statement from my own experience out of context, that has nothing to do with the subject. That is on me, so I can only blame myself for that because that is what you do, of course, to discredit people that bust your narrative up. It's a pretty worn out schtick, doctor. I should have learned it by now.

And with that, I think I will sign off from this thread. No introspective is to be expected from you people.

 

[Le breton]

.........
It may be possible that LeMond's team may ultimately have followed the EPO bandwagon. But, the example of a former teammates death along with a culture of not doping (as you well articulated) likely closed the door forever on that possibility.

Dave.

another quote :
at a forum on the legal issues of testing for performance enhancing drugs, Greg LeMond told a story about a former teammate who had left his team at the time, Gan, in favor of an Italian team that would provide access to doping products.

Philippe C. was playing in a fund-raising game, Officially he was said to have died from an aneurism. At the time I didn't think it was related to doping.

His death really shocked me as we had met during the last Bordeaux-Paris (1988) ever raced. He was 24 and I was nearly twice his age, he a pro and me a modest amateur.
At one point, about 450-500 km into the race, he rolled by my side and started chatting with me for quite a long time, I only knew him by name.

Such a warm and nice fellow.

 

[D-Queued]

Don't be getting angry at 'D-Queued' for putting up an erroneous quote - you were the one who wants to pick it apart and question Gregs motives, if its that important to you then it was up to you to check it

You say you don't think "I don't believe a doper beating other dopers constitutes a fraud" - what about a doper beating clean athletes and asking them to leave the sport?
Or what about when you finally do get a positive, where others have had to sit out their bans and suffer the consequences Armstrong gets to buy his way out of it?

Is this what all of the arm-waving is about, whether or not I provided the exact quote? C'mon, you should know that I lean to heavily on Google to make it up from memory.

This quote is the one that was provided by Times, Wikipedia, etc.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/sport/more_sport/.../article7139602.ece

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greg_LeMond

http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/...ys-threetimes-tour-winner-lemond-1701848.html

If you think the quote is errant, please provide the correct version of it.

Dave.

 

[Nick777]

It is important to understand the environment of the sport in the 80’s to understand Greg’s experience.

[Snipped]

For almost a decade Armstrong harassed Greg. The best he can hope for now is to recover a portion of his reputation that Armstrong and his buddies worked so hard to shred

Mandatory reading... great post.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Is this what all of the arm-waving is about, whether or not I provided the exact quote? C'mon, you should know that I lean to heavily on Google to make it up from memory.

This quote is the one that was provided by Times, Wikipedia, etc.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/sport/more_sport/.../article7139602.ece

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greg_LeMond

http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/...ys-threetimes-tour-winner-lemond-1701848.html

If you think the quote is errant, please provide the correct version of it.

Dave.

The 'arm waving' was being done by ChrisE, not me.

I understood immediately what the spirit of your OP was and didn't feel the need to correct it. ChrisE was the one who wished to pull it apart in an attempt to lessen its substance.

I checked for the original article but it is not available on The Times website (and the link you provided is a 404) -so I use the quote from Walsh himself in his books LA Confidential and FLTL

LA Confidential link here.

 

[Red Lobster]

Translation: There is no proof of the $300k except what GL says.

Next on National Clinic Enquirer: Greg Lemond comments on Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy. Stay tuned.

Pretty much true. And pretty much parallel to your theories on LeMond's doping. So I'll put them on par for now.

 

[Race Radio]

RR, my 5th hand conception of La Vie Claires Tapie outfit, was they were not clean from top to bottom. Perhaps not Greg, but I heard Tapie's teams weren't kosher.

Was my conception incorrect?'

Tapie's teams were certainly not clean. Interesting to note the only rider Tapie ever said he was sure won the Tour clean was Greg.....not Hinault

 

[Cobblestoned]

Mandatory reading... great post.

Yeah, nice GL fanboy post(s).
Now it all makes sense. Why didn't I notice that earlier ?
RR, D-cute, etc....

Many of the GL fanboy posts are focused on EPO, or Greg not taking EPO EPO EPO. This is the new apologist-distraction-tactics, now that Greg's "right" mission was questioned again.
But yes, I think I agree here. Greg didn't take EPO. wuhu
Now fanboys claimed of course that he was even totally clean and not even taking all the usual (forbidden) stuff around there at that era.
Little here little there from the "light stuff" doesn't make it any better I guess.
Well, good luck with that dear dreaming GL fanboys.
Me at least won't buy that story, because its obviously just a dream and ridiculous.

Because of that, Saint Greg's mission has still to be questioned. Glasshouse etc...

But do whatever you want - it tells a lot.

 

[Le breton]

Tapie's teams were certainly not clean. Interesting to note the only rider Tapie ever said he was sure won the Tour clean was Greg.....not Hinault

Tapie was probably right. Le Blaireau certainly used speed for "criterium" races.
Something I heard him say once (he stopped in the middle of his sentence before going too far) seemed to imply - if you try to read between the lines - that he blamed Guimard for pushing cortisone on his racers, leading to his (BH) knee problems and having to give up once in the TdF (1980 I believe it was) and leading also to similar problems for Fignon.

All that said, I would bet one of my bikes that Hinault was not a heavy doper (unlike Fignon).

 

[VeloCity]

Yeah, nice GL fanboy post(s).
Now it all makes sense. Why didn't I notice that earlier ?
RR, D-cute, etc....

Many of the GL fanboy posts are focused on EPO, or Greg not taking EPO EPO EPO. This is the new apologist-distraction-tactics, now that Greg's "right" mission was questioned again.
But yes, I think I agree here. Greg didn't take EPO. wuhu
Now fanboys claimed of course that he was even totally clean and not even taking all the usual (forbidden) stuff around there at that era.
Little here little there from the "light stuff" doesn't make it any better I guess.
Well, good luck with that dear dreaming GL fanboys.
Me at least won't buy that story, because its obviously just a dream and ridiculous.

Because of that, Saint Greg's mission has still to be questioned. Glasshouse etc...

But do whatever you want - it tells a lot.

Until there is evidence that Lemond doped, he's free to say what he wants to say about Armstrong or Contador or anyone else without being hypocritical. I have no idea whether or not Lemond doped, but there's nothing to suggest that he did so he gets the benefit of the doubt for the time being.

And let's face it, the only reason you or anyone else has a problem with Lemond is because of what he said about Armstrong. Odd that no one seems to have much of a problem with what Lemond has said about Contador, for eg.

 

[D-Queued]

...

I checked for the original article but it is not available on The Times website (and the link you provided is a 404) -so I use the quote from Walsh himself in his books LA Confidential and FLTL

LA Confidential link here.

Here is the quote from that page:

If it is true," said LeMond, "it is the greatest comeback in the history of sport; if it is not, it is the greatest fraud"

CBS's 60 Minutes has shone a little light on the extent of the fraud. So, I guess we can start to debate that point. Is this a greater fraud than the Black Sox and shoeless joe?

.. D-cute....

...

But do whatever you want - it tells a lot.

Yes, it does.

This is not the first time you have tried to manipulate my handle. I have no idea what your goal is.

It doesn't bother me, and is actually very funny as DQ'd is already self-mocking. The joke is thus on you, but thanks for calling me cute!

Hugs and kisses.

Dave.

 

[jamesporpoise]

Many of the GL fanboy posts are focused on EPO, or Greg not taking EPO EPO EPO. This is the new apologist-distraction-tactics , now that Greg's "right" mission was questioned again.

/me reads again

<blinks>

Just wanted to highlight that portion in case you can't see the irony.

Edit: Oh, and the flailing by ChrisE in this thread brings a tear of joy to my eye. He's loved Armstrong since Armstrong was an adolescent, you know.

 

[Cobblestoned]

Until there is evidence that Lemond doped, he's free to say what he wants to say about Armstrong or Contador or anyone else without being hypocritical. I have no idea whether or not Lemond doped, but there's nothing to suggest that he did so he gets the benefit of the doubt for the time being.

And let's face it, the only reason you or anyone else has a problem with Lemond is because of what he said about Armstrong. Odd that no one seems to have much of a problem with what Lemond has said about Contador, for eg.

Wow, you seem to have understood the glasshouse-logics.
Yeah, thats right and obvious.
You will also find posts by me, regarding GL vs. AC, and those great conclusions based on wrong maths. So I guess your "LA fanboy hating Greg"-argument fails. Especially because I don't hate Greg and never will.
I am only questioning him, one of the best performing cyclists ever in a dirty sport, beeing the right man to throw stones.
I mostly question those fanboys calling him absolutely clean.
Same people regularly freak out if there is someone here who claims Lance would actually be clean. While I of course never saw such a statement or such posters around here and I never stated something like that myself for sure. No one can be that ignorant, and LA haters obviously argue about non existent ghosts to laugh about whoever to look somehow clever, superior and special.

At least Greg admitted beeing wrong about this extraterrestrial calculation somewhere later, in a quiet and nearly unvisible sidenote.

But who cares about a clarification, when it hardly reaches public and "damage" is already done. Media don't promote those clarifications like they do with the "sensations". They hardly recognize or promote them.
Always the same. But may be nearly unsignificant now that Contador was tested positive and speaking about "damaged reputation" would be the wrong description now, perhaps.

Please go on about Saint Greg. You need hard hard evidence when it's about Greg and just freak out when there is the slightest doubt about Greg's cleanliness - but you don't even need something like evidence when it's about building all the disgusting, ridiculous and clearly overdone szenarios and posts about LA. lol

Heavy doublestandards. Impressive.

 

[VeloCity]

Wow, you seem to have understood the glasshouse-logics.
Yeah, thats right and obvious.
You will also find posts by me, regarding GL vs. AC, and those great conclusions based on wrong maths. So I guess your "LA fanboy hating Greg"-argument fails. Especially because I don't hate Greg and never will.
I am only questioning him, one of the best performing cyclists ever in a dirty sport, beeing the right man to throw stones.
I mostly question those fanboys calling him absolutely clean.
Same people regularly freak out if there is someone here who claims Lance would actually be clean. While I of course never saw such a statement or such posters around here and I never stated something like that myself for sure. No one can be that ignorant, and LA haters obviously argue about non existent ghosts to laugh about whoever to look somehow clever, superior and special.

At least Greg admitted beeing wrong about this extraterrestrial calculation somewhere later, in a quiet and nearly unvisible sidenote.

But who cares about a clarification, when it hardly reaches public and "damage" is already done. Media don't promote those clarifications like they do with the "sensations". They hardly recognize or promote them.
Always the same. But may be nearly unsignificant now that Contador was tested positive and speaking about "damaged reputation" would be the wrong description now, perhaps.

Please go on about Saint Greg. You need hard hard evidence when it's about Greg and just freak out when there is the slightest doubt about Greg's cleanliness - but you don't even need something like evidence when it's about building all the disgusting, ridiculous and clearly overdone szenarios and posts about LA. lol

Heavy doublestandards. Impressive.

Apparently you need to learn what a double standard means. It's only a double standard if the two people in question are in the same situation but judged differentially, which in the case of Lemond and Armstrong, they're clearly not.

It would only be a double standard if either there was a ton of evidence that GL was doping and people still gave him a pass or if there was no evidence that LA was doping but people still condemned him as a doper. And obviously that's not the situation.

People believe Lemond is clean because there's zero evidence to suggest that he was doping. People believe Armstrong was doping because there's a ton of evidence suggesting that he was doping. It really is as simple as that, and not all that difficult to understand.

 

[pmcg76]

The crux of the matter is not whether LeMond doped, it is whether you believe it was possible to win or compete cleanly before the introduction of EPO. A number of riders, managers, soigneurs from that era have stated it WAS possible to compete cleanly and Race Radio has a list of these names. Not going through them again.

The problem for the Lance fanboys is not whether it was possible to compete clean pre-EPO, its just that if they admit it might have been possible then because there is zero evidence of LeMond doping, they might have to accept that LeMond done it clean. It has nothing to do with what was possible pre-EPO.

One example is Charly Mottet who Willy Voet singled out as a clean rider in a dirty peloton. Mottet finished 4th x 2 in the Tour and 6th once pre-EPO. He won Dauphine Libere 3 times. If you accept that Mottet was clean, there is nothing to suggest a more talented rider could not have won cleanly. But this is what people have a problem accepting. They will believe someone like Voet as long as they are listing doping riders but name a clean rider, oh no, thats BS, impossible. Its called hypocrisy.

 

[skippythepinhead]

There is no double standard. None. What is being presented by those who feel that impugning Lemond somehow improves Armstrong is called a "false dichotomy."

If there were any attempt being made to stop them from presenting evidence, then that would be a double standard. Far from that, we are literally begging for the evidence. What is it? Please, please present something.

 

[Cobblestoned]

Apparently you need to learn what a double standard means. It's only a double standard if the two people in question are in the same situation but judged differentially, which in the case of Lemond and Armstrong, they're clearly not.

It would only be a double standard if either there was a ton of evidence that GL was doping and people still gave him a pass or if there was no evidence that LA was doping but people still condemned him as a doper. And obviously that's not the situation.

People believe Lemond is clean because there's zero evidence to suggest that he was doping. People believe Armstrong was doping because there's a ton of evidence suggesting that he was doping. It really is as simple as that, and not all that difficult to understand.

Its obvious that we have different standards when it comes to evidence and identifing double standards.
He was one of the most successfull pro cyclists. Thats evidence enough.
Widely enough for me - maybe not for you.

I guess you are one of those who believed in clean Lance until a certain point - I never believed in that, even without evidence and even before 1999.

This has always been a relatively dirty sport, not even starting to talk about the big players and topriders.
I won't change my standards and ignore all experience and knowledge just for Mr.Greg Lemond.
In best case, if he only sniffed a tiny fingertip of amphetamines one time - thats enough for me to say that he shouldn't throw stones.

Anyway, it's dreamers-land to believe in someone winning TdF totally "pure".
In reality, and like mentioned earlier, no one really believes that. Of course you have to be honest and certain people would never admit their true thoughts around here.

And again, this is not against Greg or about taking something away from him.
It's just about the dreamers.

 

[skippythepinhead]

So the evidence is: your opinion that since the invention of the bicycle no one has ever won a race and not been a doper? Wow. So your cynicism makes every winner a liar and every loser a winner. Instead of just trying to apply some set of criteria, rules, or standards, it all comes down to, "Eh, whatever."

So now the question remains why you bother to take the time to concoct such long posts when you could just write over and over (like so many who actually get paid to post such things: "who cares? They're all dopers."

 

[kurtinsc]

For me, Lemond's last win in the Tour is the last winner where I'm unsure if he doped.

I'm not going to claim he was clean... there were lots of things still in use at the time he won his last victory. But from Indurain on, I simply can't view any winner as having done it "naturally".

Steroids, blood doping, amphetimines... all were around prior to Lemond's peak. But the onset of widespread EPO usage came right as he stopped getting results. It FEELS like that was the gamechanger with doping... the one you had to have in order to compete that made doping mandatory even for the most talented riders.

 

[Boeing]

Greg needs a new bike line. Small company/production.

I was thinking the same thing. Is his settlement with Trek, did he regain naming rights? Do we know?"

 

[Cobblestoned]

So the evidence is: your opinion that since the invention of the bicycle no one has ever won a race and not been a doper? Wow. So your cynicism makes every winner a liar and every loser a winner. Instead of just trying to apply some set of criteria, rules, or standards, it all comes down to, "Eh, whatever."

So now the question remains why you bother to take the time to concoct such long posts when you could just write over and over (like so many who actually get paid to post such things: "who cares? They're all dopers."

I identified you as one of those who are normally not worth wasting time with, and even trying to follow your usual argumentations and posts results in a "WTF and whatever"-moment.

Anyway...what is your point ?
My cynicism makes every winner a true winner.
It's your problem when you are/were cheated and when you still didn't accept that all high level athletes are doping, and are also full of all that nasty "legal" pharma-products since day one, since the Romans.
You make it too hard for yourself like this, if you don't just accept and trust those people's love for their own live on their way to maximum success.
Of course hope or just ignoring the obvious is never forbidden.
I think you are one of those who would even be surprised to know what stuff pro athlets put into their body legally, or for example, how many products are actually on the list that teams(doctors) have to send in before a GT.
There are often more than 100 products on that.
But its ok and also needed to keep, or to get healthy. Especially over 3 weeks.
I guess it's too hard for you to understand or not acceptable for whatever reason.

Like often said, I have 2 categories:
- dopers
- caught dopers

None of them ever lied to me, neither did he cheat me.
It has always been, sometimes more sometimes less "dirty", but for sure a "dirty" sport and all this already happens even before athlets become professionals.
Even Greg can't change that fact. Like I said earlier, he smoked weed and started heavier drinking.
That doesn't mean anything, but means something. Beeing accessible for drugs. I don't need that evidence and don't care about smoking weed, but it was just to show something.

You have to be very very optimistic to consider him beeing "clean" during his career and just.............godlike ,while all that whining about him beeing the BIG victim of everything is overdone.

 

[skippythepinhead]

You have got to be kidding me.

Go ahead and put me on whatever little lists you need to. Oh, and please be sure to put me on your list of people to contact when your campaign to get Landis his Tour title back starts to take off; I will be happy to kick in $50 for that.

 

[pmcg76]

Exhibit Number 1 to back up my earlier point:

I identified you as one of those who are normally not worth wasting time with, and even trying to follow your usual argumentations and posts results in a "WTF and whatever"-moment.

Anyway...what is your point ?
My cynicism makes every winner a true winner.
It's your problem when you are/were cheated and when you still didn't accept that all high level athletes are doping, and are also full of all that nasty "legal" pharma-products since day one, since the Romans.
You make it too hard for yourself like this, if you don't just accept and trust those people's love for their own live on their way to maximum success.
Of course hope or just ignoring the obvious is never forbidden.
I think you are one of those who would even be surprised to know what stuff pro athlets put into their body legally, or for example, how many products are actually on the list that teams(doctors) have to send in before a GT.
There are often more than 100 products on that.
But its ok and also needed to keep, or to get healthy. Especially over 3 weeks.
I guess it's too hard for you to understand or not acceptable for whatever reason.

Like often said, I have 2 categories:
- dopers
- caught dopers

None of them ever lied to me, neither did he cheat me.
It has always been, sometimes more sometimes less "dirty", but for sure a "dirty" sport and all this already happens even before athlets become professionals.
Even Greg can't change that fact. Like I said earlier, he smoked weed and started heavier drinking.
That doesn't mean anything, but means something. Beeing accessible for drugs. I don't need that evidence and don't care about smoking weed, but it was just to show something.

You have to be very very optimistic to consider him beeing "clean" during his career and just.............godlike ,while all that whining about him beeing the BIG victim of everything is overdone.

The fanboy whose only justification for his man is that every winner ever doped, got the message, there has never been a clean winner or top guy ever, period.

Obviously such a person has a far better insight into the pro peloton than say someone like Willy Voet or Peter Winnen or Paul Koechli. What do they know in comparison to someone like Cobblestoned.

Clearly Voet is not credbile as he was a dope mule. He pointed the finger at so many guys but is clearly protecting just Mottet because......

Winnen is not credible because he admitted to doping without a positive test. How could anyone believe such a person, also he writes books so that's an alterior motive too.

Koechli is not credible becasue he tried to run a clean team in Weinmann/Helvetia which is just BS, biggest liar ever.

Clearly if any of these men were correct in their assertations, that would give Greg a lot more believablitiy so of course they will reject what these people have to say regardless of their experiences in the pro peloton.