Hampsten vs LeMond - 1991 thru 1994

[kwikki]

Re: Re:

And with all due respect, this "I saw it, therefore I know it" argument is getting a bit rusty.
I mean, you saw what, exactly?

I watched the story unfold...I saw the context...events and facts happened in real time...i am not joining

Actually gillan is right.

I'm getting the distinct impression from the threads in which I am participating that some/many posters, but in particular those with the most itchy trigger fingers when it comes to accusations of doping, are relatively new to the sport but also to life. By that, I mean that they are under 30, and so have not even experienced the 1980s let alone the 80s and 90s with the viewpoint of an adult.

Why does this matter? Context...as Gillian says.

You might be able to Google results for races you weren't alive to see, and you might even be able to watch some of the major ones on YouTube. But what you can't do is Google up an understanding of what else was going on or not and it is a very easy mistake to interpret historical events from the perspective of today.

Let me give a more concrete example. I've read people criticising riders for not 'speaking out' about doping at the time. But here's the thing...they did. You can't Google it because it wasn't reported, and it wasn't reported because cycling had nothing of the profile it has today. Not only that but communication technology was limited to print and perhaps a total of 3 television channels. Certainly there was no possibility for public discussion and sharing of information prior to the growth of Internet use, which didn't really happen jntil the turn of the millennium.

It's hard to overstate just how much the world has changed over the last 40 years, but if you didn't actually live it you'll struggle to understand.

I'm not saying this in a patronising way, and I certainly am not trying to discourage the young from having and expressing an opinion.

You make, IMO, an excellent point. But if you don't mind my saying so it would be a stronger if you could manage to back it up with concrete examples. Maybe some quotes from print media, scans of print media, that sort of thing. Or even some anecdotal recollections.

Well that is sort of the point. It's not out there very publicly. Besides, we tend to assume these days that anything published means also being published on the Web. We assume that there there is a historical record reflected on the Web of things published pre-web, but this isn't the case.

This is why it is a little frustrating when one sees people asking for Web links as evidence or proof of a point with the implicit idea that if one can't be found the point or claim is false. This is a fallacy.

ALL of LeMond's career was pre-Web. The absence of a web-searchable record proves nothing.

 

[sniper]

Re:

I don't discount the possibility at all.

what possibility?

EPO less so, as the performance evidence is contrary to that.

contrary to what? Contrary to Lemond using EPO? As pointed out just two-ish posts previously: no it isn't. (See also Maxiton's point wrt Indurain.

With regards to contemporaries suggesting Lemond doped (and we certainly aren't there yet in concrete terms)

how concrete do you like it? Testa is pretty concrete. The EPO rumor as a whole is pretty concrete and was brought into the world by Lemond contemporaries.

there is another element which is peculiar to corrupt practices. Without going into too much personal detail, at various points in my professional working life I have been pressured to join in unethical practices. Guaranteed that one of the opening gambits from whoever was trying to do the persuading would be "everyone is doing it so you shouldn't feel bad about it".....but crucially, and more subtley they would also be using this same rationale to justify their own unethical behaviour to themself. In other words normalising abnormal behaviour so that it no longer is in conflict with normal behaviour.

So when I read of doping doctor Max Testa claiming privately that Lemond was burnt out through drug use I am reminded of this.

That's a bit too much of the cool aid. And very easy to counter.
Testa is all over the place in interviews saying "yes, you can win clean", "Hampsten didn't need drugs", "we do it differently from those italian teams", "we didn't need peds", et.ce.te.ra.
See the Testa thread.
Also, Testa is still active in cycling. He still has a clear interest in pretending you can win clean.

So no, when Testa says Lemond used drugs, he's not saying that to brag or to justify unethical behavior.

 

[kwikki]

He didn't say publicly that Lemond doped though did he. We don't know the context. Did he dope Lemond? If it wasn't him how would he know? And if it wasn't him then my point about legitimising behaviour stands. And of course he'd promote the 'you can win clean' line.

I don't understand what you mean by too much cool aid.

 

[sniper]

Re:

...
People are complex.

And that's your problem in a nutshell: you have to resort to all kinds of complex theories about the mind, about social media, about how false rumors might come into the world, it's starting to look much like one big complex anti-Lemond/Hampsten conspiracy.

Meanwhile, just imagine for a sec that Lemond and Hampsten, like most if not all other GT winners, actually doped to get there. Hardly believable, I know...

 

[sniper]

Re:

Did he dope Lemond?

very unlikely.

If it wasn't him how would he know?

Through Hampsten perhaps, but could be any of the various contacts shared between Lemond and Testa.

...I don't understand what you mean by too much cool aid

i think it means 'rich', but i might be wrong, maybe a native speaker can confirm or correct me?

 

[kwikki]

Re: Re:

...
People are complex.

And that's your problem in a nutshell: you have to resort to all kinds of complex theories about the mind, about social media, about how false rumors might come into the world, it's starting to look much like one big complex anti-Lemond/Hampsten conspiracy:

That's a bit cool aid coming from you

 

[sniper]

let occam,s razor be your guide, is all i,m saying.

 

[kwikki]

I'll go back to a point I made earlier. If we know that most GT winners doped, why is it that the one rider we don't know about is Lemond.

Let Occam's razor be your guide.

 

[djpbaltimore]

Re: Re:

Did he dope Lemond?

very unlikely.

If it wasn't him how would he know?

Through Hampsten perhaps, but could be any of the various contacts shared between Lemond and Testa.

...I don't understand what you mean by too much cool aid

i think it means 'rich', but i might be wrong, maybe a native speaker can confirm or correct me?

It doesn't mean 'rich'. It has much darker connotations. A generous interpretation for its use would be that it suggests that a person is not thinking critically about a topic. But it is more often used as an adhom against someone for blind obedience to a person or an idea. IMO, it is more akin to calling someone a 'bot'. Google Jim Jones and the Jonestown tragedy for more context. And it is spelled Kool-Aid. A suger-laden staple of my childhood.

I think kwikki has made good points about context and doping. I remember snippets of LeMond and Indurain (probably from Wide World of Sports), but my first firm memories of cycling was the infamous Tour de Riis. It is interesting and informative to hear opinions about LeMond and Hampsten from those who actually followed cycling throughout the 80s.

 

[Spawn of e]

Re:

I'll go back to a point I made earlier. If we know that most GT winners doped, why is it that the one rider we don't know about is Lemond.

Let Occam's razor be your guide.

Yes, let's.

Do you think that Lemond was more talented than Merckx, and do you think doping was more widespread in the mid 60's to mid 70's than in the 80's?

 

[kwikki]

We know about Merckx.

We know about Hinault.

We know about Fignon.

We don't know about LeMond. Why is that?

 

[thehog]

Let us guess, ummmm, 'never tested positive'?

Just like Lance, who would have thought?

No test for EPO until 2001, shocking why no one tested positive prior

 

[Spawn of e]

Re:

We know about Merckx.

We know about Hinault.

We know about Fignon.

We don't know about LeMond. Why is that?

I take you could not answer those simple yes or no questions because of some type of agenda, or you are working on some type of pretzel logic to type up later.

Do you want another chance? Was GL more talented than Merckx? Yes or no?

 

[kwikki]

I didn't answer it because it's an impossible and frankly meaningless question.

Also (and your post above confirmed it) I got the distinct sense you you might not be able to discuss in a friendly manner. Let's leave it there shall we.

 

[Spawn of e]

Re:

I didn't answer it because it's an impossible and frankly meaningless question.

Also (and your post above confirmed it) I got the distinct sense you you might not be able to discuss in a friendly manner. Let's leave it there shall we.

BS. We all have opinions about who we think is the best at whatever. You refuse to answer because it creates a problem with your narrative.

 

[sniper]

Re:

I'll go back to a point I made earlier. If we know that most GT winners doped, why is it that the one rider we don't know about is Lemond.

biased much?
'we' don't 'know' about hampsten, sastre, wiggins, froome, saronni, indurain, horner, de muynck, etc.

 

[kwikki]

Re: Re:

I'll go back to a point I made earlier. If we know that most GT winners doped, why is it that the one rider we don't know about is Lemond.

biased much?
'we' don't 'know' about hampsten, sastre, wiggins, froome, saronni, indurain, horner, de muynck, etc.

We know that most of those rode in the EPO era. Different ballgame. Post 1991 I'm with you 100%.

Before? Not so clear cut.

 

[Spawn of e]

After the 1991 stage 13 of the TdF I believe lol.

 

[sniper]

Re: Re:

'the one rider we don't know about'. lol.

 

[Spawn of e]

He never tested positive. Kwikki likes his credibility lol.

 

[kwikki]

Re: Re:

'the one rider we don't know about'. lol.

OK, he's not the only one, but he stands out as having nothing to taint him.

Saronni was never exposed as a rider (I think), but was at the very least associated with doping via Lampre and the Mantova case. De Muynck? Sorry, don't know anything about him.

 

[sniper]

Let us guess, ummmm, 'never tested positive'?

Just like Lance, who would have thought?

never tested positive...and never confessed.
much like sastre, saronni, de muynck, and plenty of other GT winners.
Riis never tested positive, but at least had the decency to confess

I just love how Mottet used to be the to-go-guy for 'clean cycling' in the clinic...until it turned out he did dope after all.
now the story goes "he only used amphetamines". A bit like saying Indurain only used salbutamol.

 

[thehog]

Let us guess, ummmm, 'never tested positive'?

Just like Lance, who would have thought?

never tested positive...and never confessed.
much like sastre, saronni, de muynck, and plenty of other GT winners.
Riis never tested positive, but at least had the decency to confess

I just love how Mottet used to be the to-go-guy for 'clean cycling' in the clinic...until it turned out he did dope after all.
now the story goes "he only used amphetamines". A bit like saying Indurain only used salbutamol.

Giles Delion is the new Mottet go to clean guy which "proves" you can win clean, lol!.

And of course the UCI were doing an awesome job with drug testing during the LeMond reign. So many guys were testing positive and they were testing all the time with sophisticated means

 

[sniper]

...
And of course the UCI were doing an awesome job with drug testing during the LeMond reign. So many guys were testing positive and they were testing all the time with sophisticated means

to be fair, ADR (with doctor Vanmol) had four positives in two years, one in 87 and three in 88. But that didn't deter Lemond, did it. And so Vanmol went clean in 1989 when Lemond raced for ADR. When Lemond left, Vanmol went straight back to his old habits of drugging riders.

 

[Spawn of e]

...
And of course the UCI were doing an awesome job with drug testing during the LeMond reign. So many guys were testing positive and they were testing all the time with sophisticated means

to be fair, ADR (with doctor Vanmol) had four positives in two years, one in 87 and three in 88. But that didn't deter Lemond, did it. And so Vanmol went clean in 1989 when Lemond raced for ADR. When Lemond left, Vanmol went straight back to his old habits of drugging riders.

Hey now, GL left dirty PDM in 88 because of the doping. I'm sure ADR made assurances all was clean, which was good enough for him. Fits in nicely with his clueless routine up until July 2001.