LeMond I

[Jeremiah]

My point?

LeMond's first stage win was over Hinault in the '85 Lac de Vassivière TT. He was 24 years old.

LeMond at his peak was always one of the best two or three time trialists and even though there was no, or very limited blood manipulation at the time, there was extensive use of cortisone, steroids and amphetamines.

This is keeping in mind that LeMond never got to reach what would have been his peak because of the shooting. Hinault was 30 years old and LeMond was trading victories with him in TT's.

LeMond was also racing a very full schedule and was competitive in all of the classics throughout his career.

And your point is? Blutto is talking about GL's performance vs Indurain, inre to the GL quote from the previous link.

The rest of your post is just conjecture. You will fit in good here with your off-topic replies and making stuff up.

Blutto posited that GL was never a dominant force in TT's.

It depends by one's definition of dominant. He was a threat to win every TT he entered.

Did he really ever get the chance to be dominant? He was shot in early 1987. He was 25 years old, going on 26. How many WC podiums and GT podiums did he have by that time?

What is conjecture?

Isn't the topic LeMond?

What did I make up?

Why are you so angry?

 

[ChrisE]

the authorities already knew what GL knew. If they didn't know then, they knew in early '94 because LA's future doctor announced it to the world.

Also remember what the most tested athlete of all time said after Fleche Wallonne in 1994.

Nothing.

By the next year he had a new doctor.

And then he started winning again before he discovered the tumors.

More deflection, with the standard clinic line "Bbbbbut LA did this...". How predictable. I need to go into the sockpuppet thread and do some guessing about our new member here.

This thread is about GL, and Polish's post was about why GL didn't try to break Omerta when he heard he was getting beaten due to EPO in 1993.

Stay on topic.

 

[ChrisE]

Blutto posited that GL was never a dominant force in TT's.

It depends by one's definition of dominant. He was a threat to win every TT he entered.

Did he really ever get the chance to be dominant? He was shot in early 1987. He was 25 years old, going on 26. How many WC podiums and GT podiums did he have by that time?

What is conjecture?

Isn't the topic LeMond?

What did I make up?

Why are you so angry?

Blutto wrote he wasn't "dominant". In my book that means you kick everybody's *** nearly all the time in TT. Indurain was dominant, LA was dominant. GL won a few and was near the top but wasn't "dominant". He did miraculously win the last TT of a long and difficult GT on the very last day with the fastest TT of all time on power bars and water vs doped competition, but that is just a coincidence.

Besides, his point as I pointed out to you was his fascination with Indurain beating him in the first TT in 91. It's not that hard to keep up here, is it?

BTW, how do you know I am angry? I usually have a difficult time figuring out people's mood just from their writing, and it can be very frustrating at work with email. These forums and email for example convey little, and those that get defensive and start calling out what they think others feel usually means they are insecure about the BS they are spouting.

So, why don't we just try to stay on topic. If you don't have a rebuttal to blutto's assertion about GL vs Mig then it is ok not to post. Thanks.

 

[Jeremiah]

No problem.

Blutto wrote he wasn't "dominant". In my book that means you kick everybody's *** nearly all the time in TT. Indurain was dominant, LA was dominant. GL won a few and was near the top but wasn't "dominant". He did miraculously win the last TT of a long and difficult GT on the very last day with the fastest TT of all time on power bars and water vs doped competition, but that is just a coincidence.

Besides, his point as I pointed out to you was his fascination with Indurain beating him in the first TT in 91. It's not that hard to keep up here, is it?

BTW, how do you know I am angry? I usually have a difficult time figuring out people's mood just from their writing, and it can be very frustrating at work with email. These forums and email for example convey little, and those that get defensive and start calling out what they think others feel usually means they are insecure about the BS they are spouting.

So, why don't we just try to stay on topic. If you don't have a rebuttal to blutto's assertion about GL vs Mig then it is ok not to post. Thanks.

I understand that you're stressed at work so don't worry about it.

I and most likely GL probably just thought that it was extremely unusual for mature riders like Mig and LA to have such a leap of quality so late in their careers.

Thanks for letting me know that I don't have to post. I'm ok though.

 

[blutto]

LeMond's first stage win was over Hinault in the '85 Lac de Vassivière TT. He was 24 years old.

LeMond at his peak was always one of the best two or three time trialists and even though there was no, or very limited blood manipulation at the time, there was extensive use of cortisone, steroids and amphetamines.

This is keeping in mind that LeMond never got to reach what would have been his peak because of the shooting. Hinault was 30 years old and LeMond was trading victories with him in TT's.

LeMond was also racing a very full schedule and was competitive in all of the classics throughout his career.

...there was no trading of victories, there was domination on Hinault's part...except for that one TT where Hinault was competing with a broken nose( and LeMond crushed him by all of 5 sec ) ...and having had several broken noses I know that doing anything that involves long term exertion is virtually impossible ( gawd knows how Hinault actually finished that year's Tour let alone do so well in that TT...now that guy was a real bad A$$.. )...

Cheers

blutto

 

[ChrisE]

I understand that you're stressed at work so don't worry about it.

I and most likely GL probably just thought that it was extremely unusual for mature riders like Mig and LA to have such a leap of quality so late in their careers.

Thanks for letting me know that I don't have to post. I'm ok though.

Wrong again, buckaroo!

I am not at work. So, not only is your mood-detector busting a spring, but your employment-status gauge is off kilter as well.

Yes, I am sure GL thought it was weird that Indurain beat him after Mig showed he could beat him in the past, and beat him in a MTF in 1990 as well. And that was before EPO, right? What a confusing conundrum we have here!

What is even weirder that, according to you, he thought it so unusual for LA's jump in TT prowess that he was an LA supporter until July 2001. LA won 3 TT's in 99, 1 in 2000, and 2 in 2001 so that makes 6 before GL thought LA's performances were "extremely unusual".

I think 6 is more TdF TT's than GL has ever won, and that fact along with LA tying his record in July 2001 I am sure recalibrated Gl's "unusual" meter. Perhaps you can send your employment status gauge and mood ring to the same recallibration center he sent his "unusual" detector to.

 

[Jeremiah]

Wrong again, buckaroo!

I am not at work. So, not only is your mood-detector busting a spring, but your employment-status gauge is off kilter as well.

Yes, I am sure GL thought it was weird that Indurain beat him after Mig showed he could beat him in the past, and beat him in a MTF in 1990 as well. And that was before EPO, right? What a confusing conundrum we have here!

What is even weirder that, according to you, he thought it so unusual for LA's jump in TT prowess that he was an LA supporter until July 2001. LA won 3 TT's in 99, 1 in 2000, and 2 in 2001 so that makes 6 before GL thought LA's performances were "extremely unusual".

I think 6 is more TdF TT's than GL has ever won, and that fact along with LA tying his record in July 2001 I am sure recalibrated Gl's "unusual" meter. Perhaps you can send your employment status gauge and mood ring to the same recallibration center he sent his "unusual" detector to.

At this point in time, rational people know that neither Mig or LA won any TT's. It's just a matter of how many "victories" USADA will retreive from LA.

We do know what GL's palmares are without a hint of scandal.

 

[ChrisE]

At this point in time, rational people know that neither Mig or LA won any TT's. It's just a matter of how many "victories" USADA will retreive from LA.

We do know what GL's palmares are without a hint of scandal.

Ok then why didn't GL find any of LA's performances 'unusual' before late July 2001?

BTW I remember the name of the joint GL sent his 'unusual' meter to. I think it is called The Jealousy Shop.

 

[thehog]

At this point in time, rational people know that neither Mig or LA won any TT's. It's just a matter of how many "victories" USADA will retreive from LA.

We do know what GL's palmares are without a hint of scandal.

Correct. Hopefully when USADA strike it might be the impetus for Lance to start paying back his victims.

I enjoy how LeMond stirs up so emotion in the Lance fans. They just can't stand the fact that he is the best American cyclist of all time.

 

[patricknd]

....really don't understand this fascination with a TT loss to Indurain in 91...LeMond was never a dominant rider in the race of truth...not against Hinault when he was in his prime, and certainly not against Indurain in 89( where Miquel beat him in the one more or less level playing field TT...that race was a mountain TT that had a lessened aero advantage that LeMond enjoyed in the other TT's of that year..) or 90 ( where LeMond was beat three times by Indurain...and the aero advantage was neutralized )....

...that loss in 91 was just business as usual...

Cheers

blutto

Wrong again, buckaroo!

I am not at work. So, not only is your mood-detector busting a spring, but your employment-status gauge is off kilter as well.

Yes, I am sure GL thought it was weird that Indurain beat him after Mig showed he could beat him in the past, and beat him in a MTF in 1990 as well. And that was before EPO, right? What a confusing conundrum we have here!

What is even weirder that, according to you, he thought it so unusual for LA's jump in TT prowess that he was an LA supporter until July 2001. LA won 3 TT's in 99, 1 in 2000, and 2 in 2001 so that makes 6 before GL thought LA's performances were "extremely unusual".

I think 6 is more TdF TT's than GL has ever won, and that fact along with LA tying his record in July 2001 I am sure recalibrated Gl's "unusual" meter. Perhaps you can send your employment status gauge and mood ring to the same recallibration center he sent his "unusual" detector to.

i think you're both overlookng the obvious here- indurain must have invented a super drug that allowed him to defeat lemond in a time trial. i mean come on, a spanish rider beating an american in a time trial? really? it must have been cheating!!!

 

[ChrisE]

i think you're both overlookng the obvious here- indurain must have invented a super drug that allowed him to defeat lemond in a time trial. i mean come on, a spanish rider beating an american in a time trial? really? it must have been cheating!!!

No, no! It depends on which American it is. We are talking about Captain America here being beaten by the Spanish pack peasant both pre and post EPO!!!!!

Alpuerto Clentador beating LA is to be applauded because LA was mean to him about his wheels and at dinner.

 

[ChrisE]

Correct. Hopefully when USADA strike it might be the impetus for Lance to start paying back his victims.

I enjoy how LeMond stirs up so emotion in the Lance fans. They just can't stand the fact that he is the best American cyclist of all time.

7 > 3. Scoreboard.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Ok then why didn't GL find any of LA's performances 'unusual' before late July 2001?

BTW I remember the name of the joint GL sent his 'unusual' meter to. I think it is called The Jealousy Shop.

That's easy - it was in early 2001 that LeMond heard about Armstrong working with the good Doctor Ferrari and it was made public just before the Tour.
Glad to help clear up your continued confusion on this matter.

 

[Hugh Januss]

7 > 3. Scoreboard.

As long as you believe that the cycling world revolves around the Tour Day France.

 

[Polish]

At this point in time, rational people know that neither Mig or LA won any TT's. It's just a matter of how many "victories" USADA will retreive from LA.

We do know what GL's palmares are without a hint of scandal.

So "rational people" know that neither Big Mig or LA won any TT's. Hey, I thought CN frowned on people using the term "rational". Or maybe I am thinking of the term "***". Could be.

Anyway, I can understand how the minions turned against Lance when he tied GL's TdF record in 2001. After all, it was one thing to be touted as the "next Greg Lemond" and quite another to actually surpass him. Ouch, that must have hurt.

But I will never understand why the minions and Greg himself turned against Big Mig. I take that back. I do understand.

 

[thehog]

7 > 3. Scoreboard.

Yay! It's Chris 2002 back again.

I'll wait for the USADA readjustment coming shortly before scoreboarding.

 

[Polish]

That's easy - it was in early 2001 that LeMond heard about Armstrong working with the good Doctor Ferrari and it was made public just before the Tour.
Glad to help clear up your continued confusion on this matter.

By 2001 an EPO test was available. Fine time to be "disappointed". If the lid was blown off the usage of EPO back in 1993, when Greg "first became aware of it" supposedly - think of how cycling would have changed!

Would young Zulle and young Dicky and young Jan have become users? No!
Would the peloton have been as EPO drenched post 1993? No!
Would Festina have been confident in their EPO usage? No!
Would Lance still have on Seven TdF's? Of course, duh!

Nasty Nasty Omerta in the mid to late 90's. Nasty.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

By 2001 an EPO test was available. Fine time to be "disappointed". If the lid was blown off the usage of EPO back in 1993, when Greg "first became aware of it" supposedly - think of how cycling would have changed!

Would young Zulle and young Dicky and young Jan have become users? No!
Would the peloton have been as EPO drenched post 1993? No!
Would Festina have been confident in their EPO usage? No!
Would Lance still have on Seven TdF's? Of course, duh!

Nasty Nasty Omerta in the mid to late 90's. Nasty.

Polish - I know you struggle with facts and the sports history so you may not know that the authorities already knew about EPO and it's effects, as CONI and the IOC were already trying to get Conconi to come up with a test by then.
Glad to help clear your confusion.

 

[ultimobici]

His interviews, quotes, and actions are all over the map even to this day, and defy explanation.

No they don't.

They are perfectly reasonable reactions to a situation where the facts of what is going on are not fully known. As more information is revealed or discovered, so one's opinion develops or changes.

Lemond's comments over the years have been made with the prevailing knowledge, not the full picture.

 

[ultimobici]

7*< 3 Clean. Scoreboard.

Fixed it for you

 

[Polish]

Polish - I know you struggle with facts and the sports history so you may not know that the authorities already knew about EPO and it's effects, as CONI and the IOC were already trying to get Conconi to come up with a test by then.
Glad to help clear your confusion.

The test would have been developed a LOT sooner had the lid been blown off the EPO epidemic in 1993. Should NOT have taken until 2001 for the test to be in place.

Nasty Nasty Omerta in the mid to late 90's.
Nastiest in the entire history of Pro Cycling.

And then have the nerve to be "dissapointed" in 2001.
Only after EPO gets replaced by EddyB's 80's transfusion technology.

I do struggle with facts like you say.
Sometimes the facts hurt.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

The test would have been developed a LOT sooner had the lid been blown off the EPO epidemic in 1993. Should NOT have taken until 2001 for the test to be in place.

Nasty Nasty Omerta in the mid to late 90's.
Nastiest in the entire history of Pro Cycling.

And then have the nerve to be "dissapointed" in 2001.
Only after EPO gets replaced by EddyB's 80's transfusion technology.

I do struggle with facts like you say.
Sometimes the facts hurt.

Indeed you do struggle with facts - the IOC were already aware of the potential abuse of EPO. That is why they got Conconi involved in 1993, however they were not to know that he was supplying EPO to the Carrera team at the time.
That is why it took so long for the test to be developed.

 

[thehog]

7 > 3. Scoreboard.

Fixed it for you

Of course ChrisE is only about the Tour de France because that's all his knows.

LeMomd's scoreboard is much better than Amstrong's race for race.

Greg even lost two of his best years to a shocking injury but still amassed more wins than Armstrong.

 

[MacRoadie]

Just checking in to see if anyone has found any evidence yet that LeMond doped...

 

[Berzin]

7 > 3. Scoreboard.

What will the scoreboard read when Armstrong gets stripped of a Tour title or two, eh Edison?