Greg was right

[andy1234]

Evidently you didn't read the whole paragraph.



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.

The last sentence does not put things into context.
It emphasises that too many riders are riding at a level that they shouldn't.

It doesn't explain the statement that LeMond made Hinault look like an amateur when he put his mind to it. He couldn't and didn't.

 

[Big Doopie]

Particularly his return TdF win following his shooting accident.

have you actually watched that tour?

lemond struggles on several stages, has bad days and looks nothing like the doped performers we have become accustomed to.

the racing of that time is very different.

 

[ChrisE]

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.....

You just slammed the Hampsten fanboys, who cheered their boy on at AdH in the EPO era of 92 after the death march to Sestriere, and finished 4th in that tour....you know AH and the GL fanboys are one in the same, which you are a card carryng member of. You must be masochistic.

I asked this upthread...please post a link showing a controlled experiment showing the power and endurance numbers of a cyclist on a roid program vs one on an EPO one.

One doesn't exist? Oh no.....that means you are just stating your opinion. Off to the ban house for you!

 

[Big Doopie]

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

precisely.

in fact, we have come to find out that lemond had heard rumors already that armstrong and USP may be doping, but he kept his "public" mouth shut about it until he knew more.

it is only when the connection with ferrari was made and lemond was confronted with that connection that he said what he said. and what he said was actually diplomatic and true. it is only because the sociopath had such an aggressive (and guilty) response that lemond's comments have been misinterpreted by the legion of fans who were drinking the koolade.

the timing had nothing to do with how many tours armstrong had won.

 

[pmcg76]

You just slammed the Hampsten fanboys, who cheered their boy on at AdH in the EPO era of 92 after the death march to Sestriere, and finished 4th in that tour....you know AH and the GL fanboys are one in the same, which you are a card carryng member of. You must be masochistic.

I asked this upthread...please post a link showing a controlled experiment showing the power and endurance numbers of a cyclist on a roid program vs one on an EPO one.

One doesn't exist? Oh no.....that means you are just stating your opinion. Off to the ban house for you!

Question, how do you know when the EPO era started?

 

[Benotti69]

thread about Greg LeMond or Andy Hampsten.

 

[andy1234]

precisely.

in fact, we have come to find out that lemond had heard rumors already that armstrong and USP may be doping, but he kept his "public" mouth shut about it until he knew more.

it is only when the connection with ferrari was made and lemond was confronted with that connection that he said what he said. and what he said was actually diplomatic and true. it is only because the sociopath had such an aggressive (and guilty) response that lemond's comments have been misinterpreted by the legion of fans who were drinking the koolade.

the timing had nothing to do with how many tours armstrong had won.[/QUOTE]

Funny that.
Just about everyone who knew anything about cycling had their supicions of Armstrong, the moment he won the prologue in 99.

It only became a LeMond issue at Tour number 3 though.
Nice timing.

 

[andy1234]

Question, how do you know when the EPO era started?

When the early adopters started having heart attacks.

 

[ChrisE]

Question, how do you know when the EPO era started?

It obviously started when GL started getting dropped lol which would be 1991. No way it could have been before then because that would screw up your narrative.

Everybody attributes Indurains dominance to EPO. Blutto upthread said it was 88 when it was introduced.

I will stop now. Are you seriously asking me this question? Do a search on the forum...I don't have time for your CYA games and your goalpost moving to place immunity upon your heroes.

 

[Benotti69]

Funny that.
Just about everyone who knew anything about cycling had their supicions of Armstrong, the moment he won the prologue in 99.

It only became a LeMond issue at Tour number 3 though.
Nice timing.

No it only became an issue when LeMond learned about Armstrong using Ferarri.

Again posters trying to paint LeMond as a doper, without any evidence or any hearsay from people who may have been close to him at a time when Armstrong has been all but convicted, the story is now that everyone did it. Well nearly all did, but LeMond finished his career when the EPO had taken control of the peloton and he couldn't hack it anymore, aged 33, when if had been on the EPO he might have won mountains stages and the overall at ToC when he was 39.

 

[ultimobici]

The last sentence does not put things into context.
It emphasises that too many riders are riding at a level that they shouldn't.

It doesn't explain the statement that LeMond made Hinault look like an amateur when he put his mind to it. He couldn't and didn't.

Suggest you go back and reread it. If you take the words' meaning literally, then you'll come to the conclusion you already have. If you read it with a less simplistic view you will see that Tilford is being a little OTT to emphasise the differing situations.

Not hard is it?

 

[andy1234]

No it only became an issue when LeMond learned about Armstrong using Ferarri.

Again posters trying to paint LeMond as a doper, without any evidence or any hearsay from people who may have been close to him at a time when Armstrong has been all but convicted, the story is now that everyone did it. Well nearly all did, but LeMond finished his career when the EPO had taken control of the peloton and he couldn't hack it anymore, aged 33, when if had been on the EPO he might have won mountains stages and the overall at ToC when he was 39.

Im not painting LeMond as a doper.
But he's not automatically clean because he went up against Armstrong.

As an amateur I witnessed doping in riders who are still pros today
Guess what? They have never even had a rumour of doping either.

LeMond could well have been clean, but hiding doping at the time would not have been difficult.

Do I get reported to the Mods for this?

 

[pmcg76]

It obviously started when GL started getting dropped lol which would be 1991. No way it could have been before then because that would screw up your narrative.

Everybody attributes Indurains dominance to EPO. Blutto upthread said it was 88 when it was introduced.

I will stop now. Are you seriously asking me this question? Do a search on the forum...I don't have time for your CYA games and your goalpost moving to place immunity upon your heroes.

No I just wanted to establish something, you and a few others have been slating others for quoting the statements of cyclists who said it was possible to compete/win before EPO. Basically you are dismissing them as fodder.

Yet you are accepting that EPO was being used from about 1990 onwards yet there is absolutely no proof of this other than what has been said by riders, team-managers, etc. In fact from 1990 to 1998, there is no proof of EPO usage apart from what we heard from within the peloton.

You are asking for scientific proof that EPO had a greater benefit than steroids yet ask you how you know EPO was being used in 1992, response: do a search on the forum. What you believe about the EPO era is based on the exact same group of people upon whom we believe said it was possible to win cleanly pre-EPO.

Blutto stated EPO became available in late 88, what connection is there that cyclists started using EPO immediatley. None so that is rubbish as well.

That is clearly double standards and shows what you are about here.

Just to clarify one thing, based on what the people involved in that era said, EPO usage began with a few individual riders but by 94 was widespread. What stage it was at in 1992, we have no idea. Was it still a few individuals or was it teams. If it were still individuals then Hampstens performances might not seem so outrageous. Also what were the circumstances of AHs win on Alpe d'huez?

 

[andy1234]

Suggest you go back and reread it. If you take the words' meaning literally, then you'll come to the conclusion you already have. If you read it with a less simplistic view you will see that Tilford is being a little OTT to emphasise the differing situations.

Not hard is it?

Is it like one of those pictures where it only becomes clear if you cross your eyes?
No, still don't see it.

 

[ChrisE]

editting due to misreading.

 

[pmcg76]

You see, the bolded part above is the uber-hypocrisy you and others display on a daily basis.

Those same team managers, riders, etc. that you and others prop up when they say it is possible to win without doping and GL was as clean as the driven snow, is of the same group now that you criticize when they talk about the introduction of EPO.

No, you are are the one with double standards, cherry picking what you need to defend your heroes. Keep up the cool posts your sycophants like to quote to show how smart you are. You guys are like a cult.

This is where you fail, we are not cherry picking. I think most on here people believe what the guys involved in the sport said about the introdcution of EPO. I definitely dont disagree with it.

My line is clear, I give credence to what was said about the pre-EPO era and I continue to give credence to what is said about that early EPO era. You do the opposite, you dismiss what is said pre EPO as BS yet happily go along with what is said about the introduction of EPO.

I think that is plain to see for everybody on here.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Im not painting LeMond as a doper.
But he's not automatically clean because he went up against Armstrong.

As an amateur I witnessed doping in riders who are still pros today
Guess what? They have never even had a rumour of doping either.

LeMond could well have been clean, but hiding doping at the time would not have been difficult.

Do I get reported to the Mods for this?

Wait - doping was not hard to cover up at the time and your reasoning on this is because you witnessed people doping??

 

[ChrisE]

No I just wanted to establish something, you and a few others have been slating others for quoting the statements of cyclists who said it was possible to compete/win before EPO. Basically you are dismissing them as fodder.

Yet you are accepting that EPO was being used from about 1990 onwards yet there is absolutely no proof of this other than what has been said by riders, team-managers, etc. In fact from 1990 to 1998, there is no proof of EPO usage apart from what we heard from within the peloton.

You are asking for scientific proof that EPO had a greater benefit than steroids yet ask you how you know EPO was being used in 1992, response: do a search on the forum. What you believe about the EPO era is based on the exact same group of people upon whom we believe said it was possible to win cleanly pre-EPO.

Blutto stated EPO became available in late 88, what connection is there that cyclists started using EPO immediatley. None so that is rubbish as well.

That is clearly double standards and shows what you are about here.

Just to clarify one thing, based on what the people involved in that era said, EPO usage began with a few individual riders but by 94 was widespread. What stage it was at in 1992, we have no idea. Was it still a few individuals or was it teams. If it were still individuals then Hampstens performances might not seem so outrageous. Also what were the circumstances of AHs win on Alpe d'huez?

The difference is fact vs opinion.

The point at which EPO was introduced into the peloton is pretty much a fact, regardless of your goalpost moving. Whether or not clean cyclists could compete, on a consistent basis, in GT's vs people roided up is an opinion. I happen to be skeptical of that opinion, but I am perfectly willing to be wrong. Are you? There is no endgame to this debate because what we are debating about cycling in the 80's is opinion. There are no studies that I noted.

If you wish to argue the fact of when EPO was introduced and say it was 94, then that means the greatest superman cyclist of all time got beaten in 1991 by a big dude with mediocre GT results up to that point, that went on to win 5 in a row apparently without EPO.

It also means he got trashed by somebody in 1991 he made up 10 minutes or so on the previous year to win.

Yeah, EPO was introduced in 1994 lol. I have drug testing at my work, or I would be right there with you.

 

[ChrisE]

This is where you fail, we are not cherry picking. I think most on here people believe what the guys involved in the sport said about the introdcution of EPO. I definitely dont disagree with it.

My line is clear, I give credence to what was said about the pre-EPO era and I continue to give credence to what is said about that early EPO era. You do the opposite, you dismiss what is said pre EPO as BS yet happily go along with what is said about the introduction of EPO.

I think that is plain to see for everybody on here.

I misread your post. Sorry.....I didn't edit my reply out in time.

 

[andy1234]

Wait - doping was not hard to cover up at the time and your reasoning on this is because you witnessed people doping??

Not sure how you got to that, but no.

 

[Benotti69]

LeMond could well have been clean, but hiding doping at the time would not have been difficult.

when the patron of the peloton is trying to sink your boat with an offer of $300,000.00 someone is gonna try and find something and as hiding it would be difficult, look how many have been found out in that era, so that in my book makes him along with his anti doping actions very very likely clean.

 

[pmcg76]

The difference is fact vs opinion.

The point at which EPO was introduced into the peloton is pretty much a fact, regardless of your goalpost moving. Whether or not clean cyclists could compete, on a consistent basis, in GT's vs people roided up is an opinion. I happen to be skeptical of that opinion, but I am perfectly willing to be wrong. Are you? There is no endgame to this debate because what we are debating about cycling in the 80's is opinion. There are no studies that I noted.

If you wish to argue the fact of when EPO was introduced and say it was 94, then that means the greatest superman cyclist of all time got beaten in 1991 by a big dude with mediocre GT results up to that point, that went on to win 5 in a row apparently without EPO.

It also means he got trashed by somebody in 1991 he made up 10 minutes or so on the previous year to win.

Yeah, EPO was introduced in 1994 lol. I have drug testing at my work, or I would be right there with you.

Backtracking and wiggling now are we, misrepresentation of stated figures is it.

How is EPO being introduced in 1990 a fact, it is generally accepted EPO was introduced in 1990 as it is generally accepted that EPO gave greater benefits than steroids, hormones. There is no scientific proof to back either claim. Either both are true or both false. If you can explain how one is a fact and the other an opinion I would be grateful.

I never said EPO wasnt introduced in 1990, I said it was being used by individuals and I stated this clearly, I said it was around 1994 before it became widespread among the peloton in that everyone was using it. My point is there is no real evidence of how widespread it was in 92. Was it still individuals or full teams using it?

 

[pmcg76]

I misread your post. Sorry.....I didn't edit my reply out in time.

No problem, I am incredibly slow at typing so happens me all the time.

 

[andy1234]

when the patron of the peloton is trying to sink your boat with an offer of $300,000.00 someone is gonna try and find something and as hiding it would be difficult, look how many have been found out in that era, so that in my book makes him along with his anti doping actions very very likely clean.

I bet you do things in private that an offer of 300k still couldnt expose.
Doesn't mean you don't do them.

Im not sugessting you do anything illegal BTW.

 

[ChrisE]

Backtracking and wiggling now are we, misrepresentation of stated figures is it.

How is EPO being introduced in 1990 a fact, it is generally accepted EPO was introduced in 1990 as it is generally accepted that EPO gave greater benefits than steroids, hormones. There is no scientific proof to back either claim. Either both are true or both false. If you can explain how one is a fact and the other an opinion I would be grateful.

I never said EPO wasnt introduced in 1990, I said it was being used by individuals and I stated this clearly, I said it was around 1994 before it became widespread among the peloton in that everyone was using it. My point is there is no real evidence of how widespread it was in 92. Was it still individuals or full teams using it?

"Generally accepted" when it was introduced based upon results. I gave you the the example of Indurain and Chiapucci's performance beginning in 1991 as my proof. You give opinions about what effect roids have and whether or not somebody could win GT's vs competition that used them.

I have no idea when EPO use became "widespread" as you define it. Do you think that Indurain and Chiapucci, and Bugno for example beat GL on powerbars and gatorade? If so, then how did they beat superman?

It that is the case, the nerve of those "inferior" cyclists have by beating the great GL, that could've won the TdF as a junior lol, without using EPO.

Or, was it that disease he claimed at the time that caused him to lose the wheels, until he discovered it was really EPO about the same time LA broke his record?