Greg was right

[mewmewmew13]

Perhaps one of the best parts of the downfall will be the extent of smear campaign against Greg will finally be exposed.

THIS is one part that will make me very happy.

 

[MacRoadie]

Seems to have been the sentiment today on Mt. Baldy...

 

[skippythepinhead]

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.

The fraud in question is much much larger than "sport."

 

[JMBeaushrimp]

Lots of great input from RR, pmcg, ultimo, DQ, and the usual sharper tools in the shed.

Lots of obfuscation and circolumcution from the duller ones...

To what end? The endless debate of whether old-school drugs versus new-era drugs have the same impact on a rider, and cycling in general, is getting to the level of "beat your head against a wall" pointlesness.

Here's a rudimentary primer:

-Steroids (in the cycling-use sense) speed up your recovery and increase your strength a bit. Therefore allow you to train harder and push the envelope of what a rider is naturally capable of.

-EPO et al fundamentally change the physiology (O2 carrying capacity of the blood) of a rider, and allows them to perform beyond what their natural capabilities are. To say nothing of increased recovery time and all the other nice bits that go along with these drugs.

It's true that 'cheating is cheating', but the newer era of drugs changed the paradigm of pro cycling beyond recognition.

If the contrarians can't see that distinction, then there's no hope for them and they should just be ignored.

 

[compete_clean]

Wanna know the REAL tragedy in all this?

After all is said and done, not one American cyclist who rode in Europe after Lemond retired could say he did it clean, either by strong implication/association or getting caught outright.

Not one.

Do you consider Andy Hampsten to be the generation after Greg Lemond?

 

[patricknd]

Hi Patrick. I'm disappointed you didn't post the stuff Glenn sent you. We figured you had the longest rope here in terms of getting banned. I was willing to buy you all the alcohol you could drink for a 1 month period if you posted those. But, oh well I guess you have your reasons. Maybe you should send them to Susan for clearance before you post them.

No, I believe he was iron deficient. He also got shot, which would screw up anybody's day. His 89 season was an inspiration to me since that is the first year I started racing cat 4. With no internet the only TdF results I could get was the Houston Post blurb at the end of the sports sectione very day. He was, and still is, a hero to me in sporting terms.

I don't think there is enough rope for those pics. I wouldn't mind the ban but they'd deletethem as well. When I throw myself on a grenade I want the medal.

 

[compete_clean]

Seems to have been the sentiment today on Mt. Baldy...

I want this shirt.

 

[Race Radio]

Andy on Greg

I admire Greg's courage to speak his mind on the doping problems that still plague cycling. Like him, I feel that this problem is out of hand. Something needs to be done to clean it up, not only for the sake of the riders’ health, but also for the sake of returning our sport to the truths of human spirit, valor, and talent.

The English version of the Eurosport article makes a huge point of Greg’s personal experience with Lance and the resulting conflict. Obviously, Lance and Greg have their own private relationship. While I know and respect both of these champions, having raced with both of them over the years, their personal interaction is none of my business, and speculating on conflict between the two only distracts from the bigger and more important issue of doping.

What I found more compelling was the complete Le Monde text. It clearly shows Greg, who remains unquestionably the father of the modern era of American cycling champions, standing up and declaring that professional cycling has been and, regrettably, still is rotten with drugs.

Greg has put himself into personal and business difficulties by speaking out and getting involved with the issue of drugs in today's cycling. Voluntarily placing himself in this position shows me honesty and bravery far beyond what most of us could muster. Lemond could instead follow the cycling world's expectations for past champions and sit around "a fumer le pipe" ('chilling' in cycling slang) in silence. But, his legitimate concern for the health and lives of today’s athletes and future riders drives him to do what he can to return cycling to a healthy level. I want to see the same. Since the early 90s both doping and the medical excesses placed upon riders’ health have gotten out of control.

Most of us will probably need to put aside our Tour time emotions and resist making the judgment that Greg is trying to gain something personal or is simply jealous of being eclipsed as the dominant American cyclist. I saw Greg race as a champion through the 80s, and into the 90s when the cycling community as a whole turned a blind eye towards doping and consciously ignored the onslaught of EPO in the peloton.

Like Greg, I too saw what I believe were the effects of EPO when it entered pro cycling in the early 90s. In the first years it grew from a few individuals reaping obscene wins from exploiting its “benefits,” to entire teams relying on it, essentially forcing all but the most gifted racers to either use EPO to keep their place in cycling, quit, or become just another obscure rider in the group.

I had the honor of racing in eight Tours. Being happily retired, I can reflect on my small part in that race and enjoy seeing it motivate kids just as it did me. So like Greg Lemond, I cannot just sit idly by watching our sport continue to suffer from cheating. It’s time to tell the truth.

Why now? Remember that while the Tour de France is the pinnacle of cycling, it is also the leading force in fighting drugs in cycling. Right now, while public attention is still on the Tour, is a good time to address the problem of doping.

Dr. Michele Ferrari is known to have supported the use of EPO to increase his riders’ performances. In ’94, while his riders dominated the Ardennes Classic, he publicly ridiculed making rules against EPO saying it was safe to use and should not be made illegal in cycling. I believe behavior like this and the use of these products should not be tolerated. Violators should receive meaningful bans from the sport, bans that significantly outweigh any perceived benefits.

Many aspiring racers have confronted drug use as they rose through the ranks. Unfortunately, their silent answer to this insanity is often to quit racing at this level. Otherwise, they risk succumbing to the conventional wisdom that “since everyone takes drugs to be competitive, you should too.” This must not continue to be the choice facing promising young racers.

Now, in his retirement, Greg Lemond is fighting to bring racing back to a natural level of honest riders racing to their limits and living a long life to talk about it. I am writing to support him in this fight.

Both Greg and I are involved with a junior racing team, so this matter continues to concern us as we support and urge kids to go as far as they can in the sport we love, both for their own personal rewards, and to keep cycling growing. It is irresponsible for us to encourage kids to race and potentially turn pro without doing all we can to change cycling back to a sport where they will not likely be asked to take drugs that could ultimately destroy their natural good health, their characters, and their bodies.

Thanks for listening,

Andy Hampsten

 

[Race Radio]

Seems to have been the sentiment today on Mt. Baldy...

The back of that shirt is good as well. Long list of people who were right.

 

[Alpe d'Huez]

The back of that shirt is good as well. Long list of people who were right.

Is that you RR?

Yes, I'd like to see the back as well. Someone should print several of these up.

 

[on3m@n@rmy]

LeMond has looked pretty good to me for a very long time. Never understood what about him there wasn't to like.

It doesn't take confirmation to know when you're listening to a liar and when you're listening to someone telling the truth. If you're listening.

I read through all the posts to see if anyone put in their 2 cents on this, but didn't see any replies, so I'll give it a shot. First, after what's happened the past week, what I'm about to say about Greg is NOT true. Just to set that straight.

When Greg came out against Lance's performance and victories, it appeared his motives were selfish. I've got video from World Cycling Productions that has a segment of WCP interviewing Greg while he was riding his bike (he was leading a small bike tour group) around the time of the Tour (2001 I think it was, when Lance had only 2 victories). During the interview, Greg was very clearly expressing with words and expression that he was really excited about what Lance was doing. Sometime after that 3rd Tour victory of LA, things changed. People in the USA started touting LA as bigger than Greg. Greg later came out with his attacks against LA. Because LA was beginning to surpass what Greg had done on the bike, that's why I say it appeared Greg's motives were misplaced.

Now it is so obvious Greg was right about his suspicions. He was not always gracious or tactful about how he went about voicing his opinions. But now I don't think I can criticize him for that. I have to cut him a lot of slack. Maybe my next bike will be a LeMond.
(BTW... now I think I'd feel odd sitting on a Trek).

Next... the Andreu's. In light of what's going on now, I feel really good for them. I have always liked Frankie, and enjoyed his commentary (rider diary) from his days with USPS. He seems to be a good guy. Anyone like that who'd take the time to reply to my email must be ok.

 

[flicker]

I read through all the posts to see if anyone put in their 2 cents on this, but didn't see any replies, so I'll give it a shot. First, after what's happened the past week, what I'm about to say about Greg is NOT true. Just to set that straight.

When Greg came out against Lance's performance and victories, it appeared his motives were selfish. I've got video from World Cycling Productions that has a segment of WCP interviewing Greg while he was riding his bike (he was leading a small bike tour group) around the time of the Tour (2001 I think it was, when Lance had only 2 victories). During the interview, Greg was very clearly expressing with words and expression that he was really excited about what Lance was doing. Sometime after that 3rd Tour victory of LA, things changed. People in the USA started touting LA as bigger than Greg. Greg later came out with his attacks against LA. Because LA was beginning to surpass what Greg had done on the bike, that's why I say it appeared Greg's motives were misplaced.

Now it is so obvious Greg was right about his suspicions. He was not always gracious or tactful about how he went about voicing his opinions. But now I don't think I can criticize him for that. I have to cut him a lot of slack. Maybe my next bike will be a LeMond.
(BTW... now I think I'd feel odd sitting on a Trek).

Next... the Andreu's. In light of what's going on now, I feel really good for them. I have always liked Frankie, and enjoyed his commentary (rider diary) from his days with USPS. He seems to be a good guy. Anyone like that who'd take the time to reply to my email must be ok.

Some people never return my emails.Darn.I wonder why.Kinda hurts my one feeling.

 

[D-Queued]

Seems to have been the sentiment today on Mt. Baldy...

I want this shirt.

I already have one.

The back of that shirt is good as well. Long list of people who were right.

Apparently he does too!

Dave.

 

[I Watch Cycling In July]

'...'When Greg came out against Lance's performance and victories, it appeared his motives were selfish. I've got video from World Cycling Productions that has a segment of WCP interviewing Greg while he was riding his bike (he was leading a small bike tour group) around the time of the Tour (2001 I think it was, when Lance had only 2 victories). During the interview, Greg was very clearly expressing with words and expression that he was really excited about what Lance was doing. Sometime after that 3rd Tour victory of LA, things changed. People in the USA started touting LA as bigger than Greg. Greg later came out with his attacks against LA. Because LA was beginning to surpass what Greg had done on the bike, that's why I say it appeared Greg's motives were misplaced.'...'

I think Greg started changing his tune after LA's 2001 victor, when LA'S relationship with Ferrari was discovered.

It's really creepy that the narrative which prevailed then was Lemond is jealous and bitter instead of Lemond has every reason to suspect Armstrong, (e.g. Dodgy TUE, ET power numbers, and now Ferrari.)

WTF were people thinking? Had nobody heard of Festina? More importantly, how did LA manage to inspire such an appalling outbreak of group-think in so many people who should have known better? Creepy.

The amount of riders who still wear the jaundiced bracelet is creepy too, but I digress.

 

[seatpost]

Andy Hampsten.

He was on the Motorola team with Lance. He quit racing because he wouldn't dope and without it he was pack fodder.

One time 1st in the Giro.
Two times 4th in the TdF.
Winner of L'alpe d'Huez.

... and DFL at the Columbian Worlds in 1995

 

[DirtyWorks]

Andy and Frankie?

My guess is USAC members won't care that they will likely be paying felons to run their federation from jail in the near future. In a land of rainbows and free ponies, getting Andy and/or Frankie to run USAC would be a nice change.

 

[andy1234]

Steve Tilford on Lemond
http://stevetilford.com/?p=11375

Greg, 17 year old world champion

So LeMond made Hinault and Armstrong look like amateurs?
If the emphasis is on "when he set his mind to it"? Was he setting his mind to it when they were asleep?

LeMond is one of the greats, but Steve Tilford is talking out of his @55 with that comparison.

 

[Yeahright]

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

Not saying I agree with Mr E but your post is typical of others that you have written about posters who disagree with your view on a topic; i.e. anyone who has a different opinion is talking BS and should be edited or deleted.

Not a great premise for a forum for supposedly a free exchange of opinions.

If he is not convinced that GL didn't take PED's thats his opinion and he is entitled to express it. If you want to believe that GL raced clean and was still able to beat the likes of Fignon who doped and the whole Russian team who would almost have definitely doped, then good for you but wearing your insecurities on your sleeve is not a good look.

 

[Benotti69]

Not saying I agree with Mr E but your post is typical of others that you have written about posters who disagree with your view on a topic; i.e. anyone who has a different opinion is talking BS and should be edited or deleted.

Not a great premise for a forum for supposedly a free exchange of opinions.

If he is not convinced that GL didn't take PED's thats his opinion and he is entitled to express it. If you want to believe that GL raced clean and was still able to beat the likes of Fignon who doped and the whole Russian team who would almost have definitely doped, then good for you but wearing your insecurities on your sleeve is not a good look.

When people post about LeMond's alleged doping with some kind of 'dots' then i feel they can make a comment about it. But if you have read the thread and the other LeMond thread where fans of Armstrong have tried very very hard to implicate LeMond as a doper, you will have realised that this thread was started to try and take the focus of Hamilton's revelations that he and Armstrong took EPO and other PEDs.

There is a great post in this thread by RaceRadio which sums up LeMond and his no doping. There has not been any allegation whatsoever of LeMond doping, EVER. Armstrong offered $300,000.00 to anyone who could prove LeMond doped. No one collected because it is not true. LeMond has sacrificed his business success by standing up against doping. You go figure why anyone would do that if he doped.

I dont understand why the thread was not closed and people referred to the LeMond thread where it would have died a death very quickly like the time before.

Have you got any evidence of LeMond's doping, any hearsay from any former team mates, former DS, former mechanic, former soigneur, former masseuse? LeMond rode as a pro from 1981-1994, 13 years and not a whiff. Yet lots from the sport have defended him as a rider who did not dope.

ChrisE has a history of being banned here and an alleged troll on other sites.

 

[ultimobici]

So LeMond made Hinault and LeMond look like amateurs?
If the emphasis is on "when he set his mind to it"? Was he setting his mind to it when they were asleep?

LeMond is one of the greats, but Steve Tilford is talking out of his @55 with that comparison.

Evidently you didn't read the whole paragraph.

That is Greg LeMond. He could have won the Tour de France when he was a junior. I saw him do so many unbelievable things on a bike, I couldn’t even begin to list them. I raced with Fignon, Hinault, Van der Poel, Pascal Richard, and a ton of other “champions”. Lance Armstrong also. Greg made these guys look like amateurs when he set his mind to it. Now I witness on a constant basis, riders doing these special things. Sorry, but there aren’t that many Greg LeMonds around.

The last sentence puts the rest of the paragraph into context. While Tilford's assertion comes across as ridiculous in isolation, it makes sense in conjunction with the latter part.

 

[pmcg76]

I read through all the posts to see if anyone put in their 2 cents on this, but didn't see any replies, so I'll give it a shot. First, after what's happened the past week, what I'm about to say about Greg is NOT true. Just to set that straight.

When Greg came out against Lance's performance and victories, it appeared his motives were selfish. I've got video from World Cycling Productions that has a segment of WCP interviewing Greg while he was riding his bike (he was leading a small bike tour group) around the time of the Tour (2001 I think it was, when Lance had only 2 victories). During the interview, Greg was very clearly expressing with words and expression that he was really excited about what Lance was doing. Sometime after that 3rd Tour victory of LA, things changed. People in the USA started touting LA as bigger than Greg. Greg later came out with his attacks against LA. Because LA was beginning to surpass what Greg had done on the bike, that's why I say it appeared Greg's motives were misplaced.

Now it is so obvious Greg was right about his suspicions. He was not always gracious or tactful about how he went about voicing his opinions. But now I don't think I can criticize him for that. I have to cut him a lot of slack. Maybe my next bike will be a LeMond.
(BTW... now I think I'd feel odd sitting on a Trek).

Next... the Andreu's. In light of what's going on now, I feel really good for them. I have always liked Frankie, and enjoyed his commentary (rider diary) from his days with USPS. He seems to be a good guy. Anyone like that who'd take the time to reply to my email must be ok.

As somebody else said, this narrative leaves out the main point. The Ferrari-Lance link was made public during the 2001 Tour and I think LeMond was asked a direct question about the link.

Now Dr.Ferrari had a apreutation going back to 1994 in regards to doping.

Willy Voet described Ferrari as 'the myth' and going to Ferrari was making it obvious that you were doping. That was circa 2000 I think.

I think LeMonds response was genuine and based on this information, he was disappointed and so were a lot of people. Imagine discovering any top athlete is working with a person intrinsically linked to doping

The only problem was LeMond was honest and didnt toe the Lance line.

 

[Yeahright]

When people post about LeMond's alleged doping with some kind of 'dots' then i feel they can make a comment about it. But if you have read the thread and the other LeMond thread where fans of Armstrong have tried very very hard to implicate LeMond as a doper, you will have realised that this thread was started to try and take the focus of Hamilton's revelations that he and Armstrong took EPO and other PEDs.

There is a great post in this thread by RaceRadio which sums up LeMond and his no doping. There has not been any allegation whatsoever of LeMond doping, EVER. Armstrong offered $300,000.00 to anyone who could prove LeMond doped. No one collected because it is not true. LeMond has sacrificed his business success by standing up against doping. You go figure why anyone would do that if he doped.

I dont understand why the thread was not closed and people referred to the LeMond thread where it would have died a death very quickly like the time before.

Have you got any evidence of LeMond's doping, any hearsay from any former team mates, former DS, former mechanic, former soigneur, former masseuse? LeMond rode as a pro from 1981-1994, 13 years and not a whiff. Yet lots from the sport have defended him as a rider who did not dope.

ChrisE has a history of being a banned here and an alleged troll on other sites.

Well I certainly am not interested in getting into the Armstrong vs Le Mond debate but I will answer the points you raise:

RR quoting others opinions is also not fact, it is hearsay and therefore while some of the opinions may be valid they are just that: opinions. As I said in an earlier post, there was no evidence out there against Fignon either before he confessed to doping.

Secondly LeMond 'sacrificing' his business success as you put it means little. Landis sacrificed all his own money and the money of others proclaiming his innocence. Did that give his claims any greater validity in retrospect? I would suggest not.

Thirdly, no I have absolutely no evidence that LeMond doped. I do find several of his performances remarkable given that others around him were doping to some degree. Particularly his return TdF win following his shooting accident. That being said, personally while I am skeptical, I have no barrow to push against GL.

 

[pmcg76]

Well I certainly am not interested in getting into the Armstrong vs Le Mond debate but I will answer the points you raise:

RR quoting others opinions is also not fact, it is hearsay and therefore while some of the opinions may be valid they are just that: opinions. As I said in an earlier post, there was no evidence out there against Fignon either before he confessed to doping.

Secondly LeMond 'sacrificing' his business success as you put it means little. Landis sacrificed all his own money and the money of others proclaiming his innocence. Did that give his claims any greater validity in retrospect? I would suggest not.

Thirdly, no I have absolutely no evidence that LeMond doped. I do find several of his performances remarkable given that others around him were doping to some degree. Particularly his return TdF win following his shooting accident. That being said, personally while I am skeptical, I have no barrow to push against GL.

Nope, Laurent Fignon tested positive in the 80s either Fleche Wallone or GP Wallone 86, dont remember so the no evidence line is incorrect.

The thing here is people are making out that there was no difference between the pre- and post- EPO era, i.e. it was impossible to win without doping.

Quite a few riders, managers, soigneurs have gone on record as saying before EPO it was possible to compete/win unaided. A few have specifically singled out LeMond as well as Steve Bauer, Charly Mottet, Eric Caritoux in the 84 Vuelta, Giles Delion to name a few. Paul Koechli had a reputation of running a clean team with a no neddles policy at Weinmann/Helvetia but unfortunately a lot of those riders went on to be involved in doping in the 90s.

It is people's opinion but it is people who were heavily involved in the sport at the time, not just some random poster making these claims.

 

[Benotti69]

Well I certainly am not interested in getting into the Armstrong vs Le Mond debate but I will answer the points you raise:

RR quoting others opinions is also not fact, it is hearsay and therefore while some of the opinions may be valid they are just that: opinions. As I said in an earlier post, there was no evidence out there against Fignon either before he confessed to doping.

I never said anything was fact. I said 'dots', which is what the clinic mostly discusses and debates in the absence of evidence or hard facts. Even JV the DS of Garmin uses the 'dot' system to judge some riders. Neither did RR give hard facts. He pointed to a lot of people who knew about doping and none of them had a problem saying LeMond was clean. Fignon confessed. EDIT: see pmcg76's post about Fignon testing positive. I searched and couldn't find the info.

Secondly LeMond 'sacrificing' his business success as you put it means little. Landis sacrificed all his own money and the money of others proclaiming his innocence. Did that give his claims any greater validity in retrospect? I would suggest not.

Apples and Coal. LeMond and Landis are not comparable. Landis sacrificed everything after testing positive. Testing positive might have had something to do with it. Landis rode with Armstrong and saw how his former boss got away with it and he claims Armstrong told him to deny. I bet LeMond would have told him something different.

As for sacrificing your business is everything. That is not an argument. He fought tooth and nail against Trek over his line of bikes.

Thirdly, no I have absolutely no evidence that LeMond doped. I do find several of his performances remarkable given that others around him were doping to some degree. Particularly his return TdF win following his shooting accident. That being said, personally while I am skeptical, I have no barrow to push against GL.

So why are you skeptical?

 

[ChrisE]

When people post about LeMond's alleged doping with some kind of 'dots' then i feel they can make a comment about it. But if you have read the thread and the other LeMond thread where fans of Armstrong have tried very very hard to implicate LeMond as a doper, you will have realised that this thread was started to try and take the focus of Hamilton's revelations that he and Armstrong took EPO and other PEDs.

There is a great post in this thread by RaceRadio which sums up LeMond and his no doping. There has not been any allegation whatsoever of LeMond doping, EVER. Armstrong offered $300,000.00 to anyone who could prove LeMond doped. No one collected because it is not true. LeMond has sacrificed his business success by standing up against doping. You go figure why anyone would do that if he doped.

I dont understand why the thread was not closed and people referred to the LeMond thread where it would have died a death very quickly like the time before.

Have you got any evidence of LeMond's doping, any hearsay from any former team mates, former DS, former mechanic, former soigneur, former masseuse? LeMond rode as a pro from 1981-1994, 13 years and not a whiff. Yet lots from the sport have defended him as a rider who did not dope.

ChrisE has a history of being banned here and an alleged troll on other sites.

Yeah, I've been banned here. So what? What other sites have I been banned from, so I will be sure not to log into those again lol.

You do nothing but just mouth off and try to ban people who you don't agree with. As I have many times on here before, I believe LA doped just as much as the lead pitchfork carrier such as yourself. Just because I point out circumstances in the 80s that could possibly shed a bad light on your hero (ie somebody that hates LA is your hero), then you start squealing like a pig.

As for the "reward" LA put up, see my post about the trees. You are grasping at straws. Why don't you just agree to disagree like yeahright suggests? I would never try to get you or anybody else banned, even though we disagree. Your SOP is obviously not in line with mine when it comes to debate.