Greg was right

[red_flanders]

Always the same, LeMond doped because well, he just had to have doped, no evidence but yeah he definitely doped. Not one teammate, DS, or support staff says he did.

Posters seem to ignore the people in the know like Laurent Fignon who said it was possible to win clean in the 80s even though he doped himself.

Like Willy Voet who said there were clean top riders like Charly Mottet despite naming countless people who did dope.

Like Paul Koechli, who ran a clean team in Helvetia/La Suiise without any needles and said LeMond won the Tour clean. Before people say that was because he was his manager, Koechli never said Hinault won the tour clean and he was his manager too. Bernard Tapie, owner of the team said the only guys he knew that definitely didnt dope were LeMond and Bauer, not Hinault, not Bernard.

Like Peter Winnen who says it was possible to win clean in the 80s but everything changed with EPO. And it was not 1990. Most rider say the big change happened in 1992, 93, 94. Lemond was falling off the back by then., If he was on EPO nobody could hang with him.

Just like the entire Russian national team could not drop him at the Coors classic the trolls have zero evidence he doped.

What more really needs to be said? Great post.

Absolutely feeble comments in response.

 

[velobabee]

i love Greg and Andy. what about alexi grewal? he worked hard, but had a background of doing herbals for his olympic gold. hey everybody, buy silver coins and stomp out JPMorgue† one tiny step towards reform, BUY SILVER COINS, we can take back this once great country with real currency money, gold and silver. you can be a winner by purchasing your gold, silver, bronze. coins

 

[Benotti69]

i love Greg and Andy. what about alexi grewal? he worked hard, but had a background of doing herbals for his olympic gold. hey everybody, buy silver coins and stomp out JPMorgue† one tiny step towards reform, BUY SILVER COINS, we can take back this once great country with real currency money, gold and silver. you can be a winner by purchasing your gold, silver, bronze. coins

WTF are you 'talking' about????

I use 'talking' in a very liberal sense.

 

[Cimacoppi49]

Perhaps it is time to bring this old yarn forward:

"If Armstrong's clean, it's the greatest comeback. And if he's not, then it's the greatest fraud."

It has been ten years since then, and not all the evidence is in, but I think we are beginning to see a pattern emerge.

@TheRaceRadio: Greg, Frankie, Betsy, Floyd, Tyler, Christophe, Filipo, David, Pierre, The list of good people smeared to maintain the myth is endless

Dave.

Steffan Prentis, MD

 

[ChrisE]

WTF are you 'talking' about????

I use 'talking' in a very liberal sense.

I agree. I tried to wash that thru babbelfish but I couldn't figure out the "from" part to English.

 

[blutto]

DING DING DING HELLO!!!!! Does this post slip by the normally astute posters?

Hampsten rode and thrived in the years of EPO, which began in 90. Don't let that little fact stop the Hampsten clean hero party, though.

...actually it was officially available in Europe in late 88 ( see recent VeloNews article on the history of EPO )....and was activelly shopped around to cyclists in early 89 ( see earlier post which has a quote from someone who has knowledge of this jobbing...unfortunately the internet reference for this has been scrubbed???? )...

Cheers

blutto

 

[andy1234]

i love Greg and Andy. what about alexi grewal? he worked hard, but had a background of doing herbals for his olympic gold. hey everybody, buy silver coins and stomp out JPMorgue† one tiny step towards reform, BUY SILVER COINS, we can take back this once great country with real currency money, gold and silver. you can be a winner by purchasing your gold, silver, bronze. coins

Another friday night on the Pot Belge?

 

[ChrisE]

...actually it was officially available in Europe in late 88 ( see recent VeloNews article on the history of EPO )....and was activelly shopped around to cyclists in early 89 ( see earlier post which has a quote from someone who has knowledge of this jobbing...unfortunately the internet reference for this has been scrubbed???? )...

Cheers

blutto

YIIIIIIIIIIIIIIKES!!!!!

 

[gregod]

i love Greg and Andy. what about alexi grewal? he worked hard, but had a background of doing herbals for his olympic gold. hey everybody, buy silver coins and stomp out JPMorgue† one tiny step towards reform, BUY SILVER COINS, we can take back this once great country with real currency money, gold and silver. you can be a winner by purchasing your gold, silver, bronze. coins

WTF? by the way, grewal admitted doping for his gold medal.

WTF are you 'talking' about????

I use 'talking' in a very liberal sense.

+1

 

[VeloCity]

But I find it a stretch to buy the cleanliness BS when he competed against the like of Hinault, Fignon, Delgado.

So what you're saying is that you're going to believe what you want to believe despite there being a complete lack of evidence.

Didn't you just mock posters in the Hamilton thread for doing exactly that?

 

[Elagabalus]

...He said that? Well what kind of idiot is Fignon? Why take the chance on getting caught, especially since the PED's at that time offered little or no benefit to world class cyclists?

It's like I can get drunk by looking at this lamp, but I'm gonna go spend $ on a case of bud light and drive around in my car tossing cans out. What an idiotic statement by Fignon, and I express surprise you would post such a thing lol....

No, no, no. In order to get drunk, You, have to go out an spend $ on a case of bud light. Other fortunate souls do not have spend $ on case of bud light• because they can get drunk simply by looking at a lamp. See the difference?




*And yet still others would never get drunk on bud light because they would never allow that swill to touch their lips.

 

[ChrisE]

So what you're saying is that you're going to believe what you want to believe despite there being a complete lack of evidence.

Didn't you just mock posters in the Hamilton thread for doing exactly that?

I'm saying that I do not dismiss the effects of PED's used at that time, and I believe they had a great effect especially since there was no OOC testing. One of the great benefits of roids is they allow you to put in alot of mileage weeks at a time. The benefits of that become evident weeks or months after the cycle. Don't talk to me about the benefits of steroids and how ineffective they are; it proves your cluelessness but I will not expand on how I know that.

EPO and these "outdated" 80's drugs are still used in conjuntion with eachother today. Did they have as much of effect as EPO for example? I don't know, I seem to agree (that is a guess on my part because of what I have read) but to what extent....do you have a link from a controlled experiment from somebody on a detailed roid program vs one on EPO? If not, then it is all conjecture, used to suit your argument about whether or not a clean GL could have beaten these other riders on roids and whatnot in the 80's. It keeps with your narrative, because GL and LA are enemies thus GL can never be questioned about whether he could beat doped riders in the 80's, or the point at which he cease to become LA's fan that coincidentally coincided with LA's 3rd win.

Whether you want to hang your hat on "nobody has any proof" inre to published statements from people during that time then that is fine by me. I don't for reasons I have plainly stated in this thread which you apparently haven't read. I have zero proof GL doped and nether do you; I just use logic to address the subject and don't dismiss it because LA is his enemy. You use google and if you don't find the opinion about GL that suits your narrative, you dismiss it. That's your choice. Let's agree to disagree.

BTW, I was being sarcastic in the TH thread and I made that clear to ferminal.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

I'm saying that I do not dismiss the effects of PED's used at that time, and I believe they had a great effect especially since there was no OOC testing. One of the great benefits of roids is they allow you to put in alot of mileage weeks at a time. The benefits of that become evident weeks or months after the cycle. Don't talk to me about the benefits of steroids and how ineffective they are; it proves your cluelessness but I will not expand on how I know that.

EPO and these "outdated" 80's drugs are still used in conjuntion with eachother today. Did they have as much of effect as EPO for example? I don't know, I seem to agree (that is a guess on my part because of what I have read) but to what extent....do you have a link from a controlled experiment from somebody on a detailed roid program vs one on EPO? If not, then it is all conjecture, used to suit your argument about whether or not a clean GL could have beaten these other riders on roids and whatnot in the 80's. It keeps with your narrative, because GL and LA are enemies thus GL can never be questioned about whether he could beat doped riders in the 80's, or the point at which he cease to become LA's fan that coincidentally coincided with LA's 3rd win.

Whether you want to hang your hat on "nobody has any proof" inre to published statements from people during that time then that is fine by me. I don't for reasons I have plainly stated in this thread which you apparently haven't read. I have zero proof GL doped and nether do you; I just use logic to address the subject and don't dismiss it because LA is his enemy. You use google and if you don't find the opinion about GL that suits your narrative, you dismiss it. That's your choice. Let's agree to disagree.

BTW, I was being sarcastic in the TH thread and I made that clear to ferminal.

So - the highlighted, rather than help inform others of what you claim to 'know' you would rather spend time writing long ad hominens.

No-one has "dismissed' the effects of the PEDs at that time - indeed quite the opposite it has been argued often enough, however there effects pale in comparison to blood boosters like EPO.

 

[Kennf1]

So everyone in cycling was doping. All pro teams are/were sponsored by major bicycle manufacturers. Therefore, all major bicycle manufacturers are to be avoided. That's your logic right? Or are you singling out Trek?

You can single out Trek because of its owner, John Burke. Good bike brands will always sponsor doped riders--there's no avoiding that. But when Burke launched his smear campaign against Greg, it went to another level.

 

[Zweistein]

Reread my posts, closely this time, about how I don't give a rat's *** about what people think they know. They don't live with him, just like people don't live with me and know what I am up to.



He said that? Well what kind of idiot is Fignon? Why take the chance on getting caught, especially since the PED's at that time offered little or no benefit to world class cyclists?

It's like I can get drunk by looking at this lamp, but I'm gonna go spend $ on a case of bud light and drive around in my car tossing cans out. What an idiotic statement by Fignon, and I express surprise you would post such a thing lol.



Again, see my post about how people know what. I may have had a wild party with barnyard animals in my house last night, but my neighbor doesn't know. This "proof" trotted out by the GL fanboy trolls, based purely upon opinion and what people claim they know, when they really don't know anything, is getting boring. Is this all you have? You sound like a broken record.



Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz. Huh....snort....cough. Wake me when you are thru with the "opinions" of others. Thanks.

But, you do prove my point about Hampsten, who was still thriving in 92 and 93, and you prove my point that gregod is clueless about when EPO started. Thank you RR. Prepare to get flamed....not. You provide a valuable resource for knowledge, but that knowledge seems to have a vast pipeline. We can't let the RR fanboys know this, of course.



So, you are saying the doped up Russian team couldn't drop the clean GL? Is the russian team a doped up Delgado, Fignon, and Hinault? Maybe there are pix around showing a doped up turtle unable to drop a hare to lend more credence to your point.

ChrisE, you never disappoint. I would have thought you were having a laugh had you not been posting the same dribble on dailypeloton for years until you got banned.

 

[ChrisE]

So - the highlighted, rather than help inform others of what you claim to 'know' you would rather spend time writing long ad hominens.

No-one has "dismissed' the effects of the PEDs at that time - indeed quite the opposite it has been argued often enough, however there effects pale in comparison to blood boosters like EPO.

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.

 

[gregod]

You can single out Trek because of its owner, John Burke. Good bike brands will always sponsor doped riders--there's no avoiding that. But when Burke launched his smear campaign against Greg, it went to another level.

i seem to remember this was discussed here in the forum a while ago both pro and anti trek. on balance, plus what i saw at my own LBS, lemond really got the shaft from trek.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

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.

The highlighted is an ad honimen -the blue was an attempt at ad hominen but it failed as actually I never use the "power" part of those funny little formulas".

Sorry to see you sign off and not back up what you say - at any time you can come back and discuss the issue but I suggest you please drop the personal stuff and treat me with the same respect I show you.

 

[Benotti69]

any chance since chrissie has signed off a mod can delete his BS

 

[D-Queued]

You can single out Trek because of its owner, John Burke. Good bike brands will always sponsor doped riders--there's no avoiding that. But when Burke launched his smear campaign against Greg, it went to another level.

One might also want to consider the negative brand appeal that is being created.

Kind of like how Tiger Woods went from #1 to #1,000 in pitch-man value. I suspect Arnold is following a similar plunge right now. It sucks when the pitch man has major personality issues.

The analogy, of course, not being kind to Tiger as he is not being pursued for money laundering among other things.

In other words, the value of a vintage 'LeMond' steed has risen considerably over an over-priced Madone this week.

I must admit, that I have great difficulty with Giro helmets. LeMond made them famous, but now they are tarnished. Tough call.

Dave.

PS - ...REMOVED...

 

[andy1234]

any chance since chrissie has signed off a mod can delete his BS

Why don't you just report him?

 

[Benotti69]

Why don't you just report him?

have done and others

 

[andy1234]

have done and others

Good for you.

 

[ultimobici]

I'm saying that I do not dismiss the effects of PED's used at that time, and I believe they had a great effect especially since there was no OOC testing. One of the great benefits of roids is they allow you to put in alot of mileage weeks at a time. The benefits of that become evident weeks or months after the cycle. Don't talk to me about the benefits of steroids and how ineffective they are; it proves your cluelessness but I will not expand on how I know that.

EPO and these "outdated" 80's drugs are still used in conjuntion with eachother today. Did they have as much of effect as EPO for example? I don't know, I seem to agree (that is a guess on my part because of what I have read) but to what extent....do you have a link from a controlled experiment from somebody on a detailed roid program vs one on EPO? If not, then it is all conjecture, used to suit your argument about whether or not a clean GL could have beaten these other riders on roids and whatnot in the 80's. It keeps with your narrative, because GL and LA are enemies thus GL can never be questioned about whether he could beat doped riders in the 80's, or the point at which he cease to become LA's fan that coincidentally coincided with LA's 3rd win.

Whether you want to hang your hat on "nobody has any proof" inre to published statements from people during that time then that is fine by me. I don't for reasons I have plainly stated in this thread which you apparently haven't read. I have zero proof GL doped and nether do you; I just use logic to address the subject and don't dismiss it because LA is his enemy. You use google and if you don't find the opinion about GL that suits your narrative, you dismiss it. That's your choice. Let's agree to disagree.

BTW, I was being sarcastic in the TH thread and I made that clear to ferminal.

Looking at your posts I get the feeling that you cannot divine when some one has weighed the evidence available to them and formed an opinion. I and others haven't stated that GL rode clean as fact, but merely stated that it is our opinion that he was clean.

In the same way I am of the opinion that Armstrong was doping from 1998 onwards at least and probably from before his cancer. I base this opinion on the amount of evidence, albeit some is circumstantial, but it is all I have to base my opinion on.

Now what part of that do you need help comprehending?

 

[hiero2]

i'm not so sure. he did not create this mess, but he gained nothing and lost alot by getting involved. although lemond was dragged into this cesspool, he is still stained with its contents.

Wow - well there was a couple of pages of good thread, quickly descended into a flaming mess.

But - I would like to respond to this quote - I can not agree that lemond gained nothing. He wanted to keep bicycling a respectable sport - not another pro wrestling or body-builders competition entertainment circus. His payoff was large - at least it was for Greg. Not all motivation is monetary. And, as for what he lost? Well, Greg was a nice guy - but was not the most political charmer. The thing is, when you have flaws like that, you don't see them. That is part of being human - we have a hard time seeing our own flaws as others see them. And, Greg is not a crystal ball - he can not predict the future any more than you or I. So, I can see where he saw a positive payoff for him. And failed to see, or did not care, the negative consequences that came later.