Lemond and the current inquiry

[marknbecker]

I'm not sure why Cycling News is providing a venue for Greg Lemond to publish his often times factually flawed commentary or why he is considered to be above suspicion when it comes to doping. The expression "thou doth protest too much" comes to mind. Isn't he the one who holds the record for the highest average speed in an individual time trial? Am I to believe that as a clean athlete he has outperformed all the cyclists who have doped over the years? Every time I hear what he has to say I find his voice to be that of a whiner who's obvious intention is to discredit the athlete who far eclipsed his cycling accomplishments. Lemond was a whiner when he rode and continues to be one till this day.

I find it unbelievable that the feds think that to investigate Lance Armstrong is a good use of our tax dollars. The man does more good for humanity in a day then Lemond has done in his lifetime.

 

[scribe]

You ever heard of Public Strategies? If you haven't, get ready, you are about to.

 

[Colm.Murphy]

I'm not sure why Cycling News is providing a venue for Greg Lemond to publish his often times factually flawed commentary or why he is considered to be above suspicion when it comes to doping. The expression "thou doth protest too much" comes to mind. Isn't he the one who holds the record for the highest average speed in an individual time trial? Am I to believe that as a clean athlete he has outperformed all the cyclists who have doped over the years? Every time I hear what he has to say I find his voice to be that of a whiner who's obvious intention is to discredit the athlete who far eclipsed his cycling accomplishments. Lemond was a whiner when he rode and continues to be one till this day.

I find it unbelievable that the feds think that to investigate Lance Armstrong is a good use of our tax dollars. The man does more good for humanity in a day then Lemond has done in his lifetime.

You get a C-.

You left out some standards:

-Most tested, all negative.
-Hardest working, better training.

You omitted attacks on Landis:

-Sour milk is still sour past first sip.
-We like our word.
-He is a drunk/perjurer/confessed doper.
-He took millions for his cause.

You nailed the others, so, good try. But try harder.

 

[StyrbjornSterki]

...[Lance Armstrong] ...does more good for humanity in a day then Lemond has done in his lifetime.

I agree. We should exempt him for prosecution for any crime, and exempt him from paying income tax, too.

 

[Ryo Hazuki]

I'm not sure why Cycling News is providing a venue for Greg Lemond to publish his often times factually flawed commentary or why he is considered to be above suspicion when it comes to doping. The expression "thou doth protest too much" comes to mind. Isn't he the one who holds the record for the highest average speed in an individual time trial? Am I to believe that as a clean athlete he has outperformed all the cyclists who have doped over the years? Every time I hear what he has to say I find his voice to be that of a whiner who's obvious intention is to discredit the athlete who far eclipsed his cycling accomplishments. Lemond was a whiner when he rode and continues to be one till this day.

I find it unbelievable that the feds think that to investigate Lance Armstrong is a good use of our tax dollars. The man does more good for humanity in a day then Lemond has done in his lifetime.

seriously. lemond started to suck as soon as epo came into the peloton 1991/1992 same for the colombians who lost their magic around that time./ to me it's no coincidance and I follow cycling intensely for years and in my book lemond was as clean as they get, like most were in the 80s because there wasn't epo or bloodtransfusions yet. and amfetamines, caffein and other crap won't make a difference. back then you could have a hematocrite as high as you wanted and that's why epo was such wonderstuff. just look up the 1995 gewiss ballan hematocrites of the riders. or even better look up the results of those riders before 1992/1991...

ever wondered why riis who couldn't climb if his life depended on it suddenly in 1992 became a climber?? or why ugrumov all of a sudden would become 2nd in the tour at age 38??

or why don't you ask edwig van hooydonck how sprinter museeuw from one year to the next rode 2 gears bigger than he did, and van hooydonck never won flanders again and he retired barely 28... ask frans maassen too

 

[Moose McKnuckles]

You ever heard of Public Strategies? If you haven't, get ready, you are about to.

Oh, this muppet has heard of Public Strategies. They write his paycheck.

Look at the sheer numbers of these frauds who registered here in July 2010.

 

[scribe]

seriously. lemond started to suck as soon as epo came into the peloton 1991/1992 same for the colombians who lost their magic around that time./ to me it's no coincidance and I follow cycling intensely for years and in my book lemond was as clean as they get, like most were in the 80s because there wasn't epo or bloodtransfusions yet. and amfetamines, caffein and other crap won't make a difference. back then you could have a hematocrite as high as you wanted and that's why epo was such wonderstuff. just look up the 1995 gewiss ballan hematocrites of the riders. or even better look up the results of those riders before 1992/1991...

ever wondered why riis who couldn't climb if his life depended on it suddenly in 1992 became a climber?? or why ugrumov all of a sudden would become 2nd in the tour at age 38??

or why don't you ask edwig van hooydonck how sprinter museeuw from one year to the next rode 2 gears bigger than he did, and van hooydonck never won flanders again and he retired barely 28... ask frans maassen too

That would be incorrect.

 

[red_flanders]

I'm not sure why Cycling News is providing a venue for Greg Lemond to publish his often times factually flawed commentary or why he is considered to be above suspicion when it comes to doping. The expression "thou doth protest too much" comes to mind. Isn't he the one who holds the record for the highest average speed in an individual time trial? Am I to believe that as a clean athlete he has outperformed all the cyclists who have doped over the years? Every time I hear what he has to say I find his voice to be that of a whiner who's obvious intention is to discredit the athlete who far eclipsed his cycling accomplishments. Lemond was a whiner when he rode and continues to be one till this day.

I find it unbelievable that the feds think that to investigate Lance Armstrong is a good use of our tax dollars. The man does more good for humanity in a day then Lemond has done in his lifetime.

I guess you didn't see that there is already a thread on this.

Curious first post. Are you a cycling fan? You seem to have missed a great season so far, including a big race in France which just wrapped up. If I understand you correctly, your main focus is on which former TdF champions Cycling News has writing for their site?

Any chance of a sneak preview into next month's talking points, or are you guys feeling this is getting good traction?

 

[red_flanders]

You ever heard of Public Strategies? If you haven't, get ready, you are about to.

Pre-emptive statements of that which is obvious doesn't make it any less obvious.

 

[Ryo Hazuki]

That would be incorrect.

and what prove do you have of epo in the 80s??

and bloodtransfusions. many riders of the 80s have admitted but none to either of them as far as I am aware. but I could be wrong. still the trend of epo in the peloton is easily seen around early 90s I think, not the 80s

 

[outrage9]

Foolish July, Lance lover/haters, whatever silly comments aside, I wonder too what Lemond's purpose is. I don't understand why anyone would care what he says because he wasn't there, has no evidence, what good is it to subpoena him for testimony, because he believes Floyd.

There is a lot he could do to actually help American cycling and cycling overall worldwide but attacking people like Gomer Pyle yelling "citizens arrest, citizens arrest" at other riders doesn't really help anything. It just makes him come off as what everyone thinks he is, a bitter former cyclist.

 

[MacRoadie]

Foolish July, Lance lover/haters, whatever silly comments aside, I wonder too what Lemond's purpose is. I don't understand why anyone would care what he says because he wasn't there, has no evidence, what good is it to subpoena him for testimony, because he believes Floyd.

There is a lot he could do to actually help American cycling and cycling overall worldwide but attacking people like Gomer Pyle yelling "citizens arrest, citizens arrest" at other riders doesn't really help anything. It just makes him come off as what everyone thinks he is, a bitter former cyclist.

Hi BPC

Ignore

 

[Apolitical]

You're right, we should put a dollar amount on how much we're willing to spend to prosecute people. That way only the less fortunate go to jail. (Though, that might put too many high dollar lawyers out of business)

On top of that, if anyone has, belongs to, or donates to a good charitable cause we shouldn't prosecute them no matter what.

 

[Goldberger]

The feelings of the threadstarter is the exact same that i have.

What makes LeMond the most educated man in doping?

Last year he publicly insulted and questioned Contador's peformance in Verbier, while in his new article for cyclingnews he praises today's riders for being clean. The man is driven by hatred, and can in no circumstances be objective in anything regarding Lance Armstrong or doping in general.

 

[red_flanders]

Foolish July, Lance lover/haters, whatever silly comments aside, I wonder too what Lemond's purpose is. I don't understand why anyone would care what he says because he wasn't there, has no evidence, what good is it to subpoena him for testimony, because he believes Floyd.

There is a lot he could do to actually help American cycling and cycling overall worldwide but attacking people like Gomer Pyle yelling "citizens arrest, citizens arrest" at other riders doesn't really help anything. It just makes him come off as what everyone thinks he is, a bitter former cyclist.

I continue to be fascinated that the first posts of so many members (pun intended) are about this topic. Strange that so many new people share this singular focus.

 

[scribe]

I continue to be fascinated that the first posts of so many members (pun intended) are about this topic. Strange that so many new people share this singular focus.

It might actually be items like Nightline that are bringing attention here. (or the black helicopters are dropping them from the sky)

 

[red_flanders]

It might actually be items like Nightline that are bringing attention here. (or the black helicopters are dropping them from the sky)

Probably. I thought that story was about Landis though. Weird that it generates traffic all aimed at the Armstrong camp's weekly talking point.

I guess that's probably it though, I'm sure you're right.

 

[scribe]

The feelings of the threadstarter is the exact same that i have.

What makes LeMond the most educated man in doping?

Last year he publicly insulted and questioned Contador's peformance in Verbier, while in his new article for cyclingnews he praises today's riders for being clean. The man is driven by hatred, and can in no circumstances be objective in anything regarding Lance Armstrong or doping in general.

I don't know about the hatred part following that gem I highlighted, but he is certainly driven on a certain level to compete with Armstrong's celebrity. Oh, and he might have a point about Armstrong's doping.

 

[BigMig]

Will Sheryl Crow or Lance's ex-wife testify on the probe

I wonder if Cheryl Crow will be asked questions in the Fed probe, specially since she spent a great deal of time in Girona Spain with Lance (she was writing songs and while he could have been juicing and training). I'm certain Sheryl Crow is smart to know if something strange was going on, especially when she was sharing the fridge with Lance.

With regards to his 1st ex-wife, things may be a little more delicate, due to the children and any $$ she receives on child support.

 

[scribe]

and what prove do you have of epo in the 80s??

and bloodtransfusions. many riders of the 80s have admitted but none to either of them as far as I am aware. but I could be wrong. still the trend of epo in the peloton is easily seen around early 90s I think, not the 80s

You are getting closer. It is correct that EPO is a 90's development.

 

[outrage9]

This isn't the only cycling forum out there so dont confuse a first post on this one with someone that just watched their first TdF. If you don't have anything to contribute other than trying to read between the lines and determine if someone is a Lance lover or hater no need to respond. The topic was relevant.

 

[outrage9]

Hi BPC

Ignore

Don't know who that is, but I'm not anyone you know from this forum in the past.

 

[CleanHappyPedals]

I always questioned that. I just registered to Forum to state exactly what you said. Lemond clean? Give me a brake!

 

[SilentAssassin]

seriously. lemond started to suck as soon as epo came into the peloton 1991/1992 same for the colombians who lost their magic around that time./ to me it's no coincidance and I follow cycling intensely for years and in my book lemond was as clean as they get, like most were in the 80s because there wasn't epo or bloodtransfusions yet. and amfetamines, caffein and other crap won't make a difference. back then you could have a hematocrite as high as you wanted and that's why epo was such wonderstuff. just look up the 1995 gewiss ballan hematocrites of the riders. or even better look up the results of those riders before 1992/1991...

ever wondered why riis who couldn't climb if his life depended on it suddenly in 1992 became a climber?? or why ugrumov all of a sudden would become 2nd in the tour at age 38??

or why don't you ask edwig van hooydonck how sprinter museeuw from one year to the next rode 2 gears bigger than he did, and van hooydonck never won flanders again and he retired barely 28... ask frans maassen too

EPO has been around since 1969...Merckx tested positive for it. Most likely, Lemond cheated. The idea that EPO wasn't widespread in cycling until the 90s is fiction...manufactured most likely by Lemond himself. Lemond is sour because Trek severed ties with Lemond's business, and feels Lance had something to do with it.

 

[outrage9]

No reason to debate if Lemond was clean or not, just don't get what his point is. Does he think he's making a better cycling by trying to prove something that happened 10 years ago? He either has something to gain or a huge beef.