LeMond I

[Polish]

That of course is completely incorrect. First, I'm not sure what "threatened his legacy", since his palmares are what they are...but if you're referring to Armstrong's tour victories, he was very outspoken on the subject long before Lance won his first tour: http://www.roble.net/marquis/coaching/lemond98.html

Should he have been more outspoken while he was riding? Yes, maybe. I don't really know what exactly he knew and when he knew it. But to suggest he didn't start speaking out until his "legacy was threatened" is factually incorrect.

Greg said he did not know about EPO until 1993. Bumpkinlike. When did Greg first break the EPO Omerta? 1993? 1994?

These days most Joe Public Americans do not even know who Greg is. Those who do, many of them, think "isn't he one of those guys falsely accusing Lance? Floyd whats-his-name and Greg Leemond?"

The best thing Greg could do for the Sport of Cycling and himself would be to appear in a Press Conference with Lance.

Greg could appear on stage first. Applause. He could then solemnly apologize for not breaking Omerta in 1993. Explain that young riders entering the sport at that time were forced to dope if the wanted to be a part of the peleton.

And then introduce the young rider who began his career in 1993 - Lance Armstrong. Thunderous applause. Arm in arm, the 2 could point towards Cycling's Future. As a cleaner sport. Things are different today. Cleaner.

That would be good for the sport. Heck, a lot more people would know who Greg is. Good for Greg, Good for Lance, Great for the Sport.

Did not break Omerta in 1993.
Break Omerta in 2012 Greg. Great for the Sport if you do.
Open letter to Greg - Break Omerta in 2012. You will feel better.

 

[patricknd]

Greg said he did not know about EPO until 1993. Bumpkinlike. When did Greg first break the EPO Omerta? 1993? 1994?

These days most Joe Public Americans do not even know who Greg is. Those who do, many of them, think "isn't he one of those guys falsely accusing Lance? Floyd whats-his-name and Greg Leemond?"

The best thing Greg could do for the Sport of Cycling and himself would be to appear in a Press Conference with Lance.

Greg could appear on stage first. Applause. He could then solemnly apologize for not breaking Omerta in 1993. Explain that young riders entering the sport at that time were forced to dope if the wanted to be a part of the peleton.

And then introduce the young rider who began his career in 1993 - Lance Armstrong. Thunderous applause. Arm in arm, the 2 could point towards Cycling's Future. As a cleaner sport. Things are different today. Cleaner.

That would be good for the sport. Heck, a lot more people would know who Greg is. Good for Greg, Good for Lance, Great for the Sport.

Did not break Omerta in 1993.
Break Omerta in 2012 Greg. Great for the Sport if you do.
Open letter to Greg - Break Omerta in 2012. You will feel better.

he should probably pay lance restitution as well

 

[gerundium]

Huge 2 page article in the local newspaper today. Apparently Lemond was in the netherlands (something to do with a book?) and paper managed to interview him. Article touches on Armstrong USADA case and the child abuse story. Ill try to find a web version of the article or if i have time translate it myself.

EDIT: there is a shortened version online here: http://www.ad.nl/ad/nl/1063/Tour-de...-zijn-tourzeges-kwijt-hij-is-een-vergif.dhtml

i'll try and translate it myself tonight if i have the time.

 

[joe_papp]

Just to hep ya out a bit....

Lemond was a domestique when he took third in 1984 (his first tour).

There's a difference b/w being a domestique, and riding as an heir-apprentice, being groomed as a future Tour winner from your very first appearance in the race. Indurain in 1985 did not start the Tour de France w/ the expectation of winning it a few years later, or even being able to finish on the podium. And it's disingenuous of you to even suggest that LeMond was a "domestique" during his first Tour in the traditional sense of the word. The role LeMond filled for Fignon in 1984 is not a role that Indurain could fulfill for Delgado the following year.

Huge 2 page article in the local newspaper today. Apparently Lemond was in the netherlands (something to do with a book?) and paper managed to interview him. Article touches on Armstrong USADA case and the child abuse story. Ill try to find a web version of the article or if i have time translate it myself.

EDIT: there is a shortened version online here: http://www.ad.nl/ad/nl/1063/Tour-de...-zijn-tourzeges-kwijt-hij-is-een-vergif.dhtml

i'll try and translate it myself tonight if i have the time.

You probably know this, but for those who don't, if you open the above link in Chrome, it will automatically render an acceptable translation of it for you...

 

[BotanyBay]

There's a difference b/w being a domestique, and riding as an heir-apprentice, being groomed as a future Tour winner from your very first appearance in the race. Indurain in 1985 did not start the Tour de France w/ the expectation of winning it a few years later, or even being able to finish on the podium. And it's disingenuous of you to even suggest that LeMond was a "domestique" during his first Tour in the traditional sense of the word. The role LeMond filled for Fignon in 1984 is not a role that Indurain could fulfill for Delgado the following year.

I'll agree they were not the same, but if Cyrille drove up and told Greg to haul some water for Laurent, you can be damn sure that Greg was expected to do it.

 

[rhubroma]

I believe that part of the sport is dirty, and part of it is corrupt.
I also agree that the sport has been this way almost from inception.

LeMond was a part of that sport, and knew it to be so.

As long as the drugs and corruption were not at the level that impacted him, it was acceptable. The moment it began impacting upon him. the lid needed taking off. Thats not integrity, that self preservation.

As such, I view everything LeMond has to say, in the same way I view what anybody has to say, by filtering the motive behind the words.

Anyone who takes what LeMond says at face value, without filtering, is just as bad as anyone who takes the word of Armstrong without filtering.
Challenging the word of LeMond, however, is not a popular concept in the clinic.

I don't doubt Lemond had/has his motives. Personally I don't mind if part of his motivation was egotistical, because the other part about denouncing a sport that was just becoming ridiculous, because of what the science of doping was able to do to certain performances by athletes who really weren't as talented as he was afterward, but ended up in the record books being greater "champions" than Greg I'm in agreement with.

It appears as if Greg won his titles on his own two legs, with the heart and lungs and a pedigree that was way above the norm, even among his colleagues.

The EPO era ended that. Indurain would not have one his five Tours the same way without it, Riis not his one, nor Pantani (Ullrich, yes, though) and certainly Wonderboy would have not won his 7 (I don't think without the program he was on even one was possible).

The possibility that Greg took cortisone shots is not impossible, testosterone probably far less so. Yet these did not change the natural talent that he was, the way EPO and blood doping did for the Indurain-Armstrong era. To see your whole legacy diminished that way was, evidently, more than one could take. And I can't blame the guy who gave his whole youth to cycling and played the game as fair as it was going to be played back then for a little self -interest, before the entire show turned into a farcical charade when the likes of businessman-medic Ferrari turned the sport into a castle of illegality, corruption and fraud. Lance, furthermore, stood for the Ferrari system unconditionally, and even threatened to ruin Greg for daring to tell him to stop their relationship.

But if the sport had had more Gregs and decidedly less Lances, the dimensions of the farce would have been significantly less monumental. Greg’s cause, on this ground alone, is to be appreciated as a result.

 

[Big Doopie]

I don't doubt Lemond had/has his motives. Personally I don't mind if part of his motivation was egotistical, because the other part about denouncing a sport that was just becoming ridiculous, because of what the science of doping was able to do to certain performances by athletes who really weren't as talented as he was afterward, but ended up in the record books being greater "champions" than Greg I'm in agreement with.

It appears as if Greg won his titles on his own two legs, with the heart and lungs and a pedigree that was way above the norm, even among his colleagues.

The EPO era ended that. Indurain would not have one his five Tours the same way without it, Riis not his one, nor Pantani (Ullrich, yes, though) and certainly Wonderboy would have not won his 7 (I don't think without the program he was on even one was possible).

The possibility that Greg took cortisone shots is not impossible, testosterone probably far less so. Yet these did not change the natural talent that he was, the way EPO and blood doping did for the Indurain-Armstrong era. To see your whole legacy diminished that way was, evidently, more than one could take. And I can't blame the guy who gave his whole youth to cycling and played the game as fair as it was going to be played back then for a little self -interest, before the entire show turned into a farcical charade when the likes of businessman-medic Ferrari turned into the sport into a castle of illegality, corruption and fraud. Lance, furthermore, stood for the Ferrari system unconditionally, and even threatened to ruin Greg for daring to tell him to stop their relationship.

But if the sport had had more Gregs and decidedly less Lances, the dimensions of the farce would have been significantly less monumental. Greg’s cause, on this ground alone, is to be appreciated as a result.

excellent post.

 

[ultimobici]

I don't doubt Lemond had/has his motives. Personally I don't mind if part of his motivation was egotistical, because the other part about denouncing a sport that was just becoming ridiculous, because of what the science of doping was able to do to certain performances by athletes who really weren't as talented as he was afterward, but ended up in the record books being greater "champions" than Greg I'm in agreement with.

It appears as if Greg won his titles on his own two legs, with the heart and lungs and a pedigree that was way above the norm, even among his colleagues.

The EPO era ended that. Indurain would not have one his five Tours the same way without it, Riis not his one, nor Pantani (Ullrich, yes, though) and certainly Wonderboy would have not won his 7 (I don't think without the program he was on even one was possible).

The possibility that Greg took cortisone shots is not impossible, testosterone probably far less so. Yet these did not change the natural talent that he was, the way EPO and blood doping did for the Indurain-Armstrong era. To see your whole legacy diminished that way was, evidently, more than one could take. And I can't blame the guy who gave his whole youth to cycling and played the game as fair as it was going to be played back then for a little self -interest, before the entire show turned into a farcical charade when the likes of businessman-medic Ferrari turned into the sport into a castle of illegality, corruption and fraud. Lance, furthermore, stood for the Ferrari system unconditionally, and even threatened to ruin Greg for daring to tell him to stop their relationship.

But if the sport had had more Gregs and decidedly less Lances, the dimensions of the farce would have been significantly less monumental. Greg’s cause, on this ground alone, is to be appreciated as a result.

Very well put.

 

[MacRoadie]

I'll agree they were not the same, but if Cyrille drove up and told Greg to haul some water for Laurent, you can be damn sure that Greg was expected to do it.

If Guimard drove up and told you to wash his car, you can be damn sure you were expected to do it...LOL

 

[joe_papp]

I'll agree they were not the same, but if Cyrille drove up and told Greg to haul some water for Laurent, you can be damn sure that Greg was expected to do it.

lol ok now i see you're just arguing to argue and be difficult.

So I'll rest w/:

Greg LeMond: future Tour winner in his early-20's
Miguel Indurain: not a future Tour winner in his early-20's, w/o later administration of EPO

 

[Zarvinov]

Fail.

While it's true Indurain won l'Avenir, as did LeMond, that race alone does not a TdF winner predict, and it certainly doesn't approximate for the same "test" as racing a 3 week Tour. So that there's no confusion as to what I'm saying, it's that Indurain only won 5 Tours because he doped himself to the gills with EPO and other products, and without the drugs never would've been more than Delgado's bottle-fetcher and a stage winner

Can You please provide unequivocal evidence that Miguel Indurain was "doped to the gills with EPO and other products " during his five consecutive Tour De France victories, from 1991 - 1995. Thank You.

 

[patricknd]

Can You please provide unequivocal evidence that Miguel Indurain was "doped to the gills with EPO and other products " during his five consecutive Tour De France victories, from 1991 - 1995. Thank You.

maybe he sold it to him

 

[Krebs cycle]

Not casting any suspicion on Lemond, but why is everyone so sure that everyone was using EPO in the 90s but nobody was using steroids in 80s?

If the 90s were the EPO era, the 80s were the steroid era. recombinant HGH was developed in the early 80s. I don't know if athletes were using it from mid-late 80s but if was around, then its possible. Do not ignore the following facts:

1. in terms of recovery, steroids (and/or HGH) are the main players, NOT epo
2. steroids hormones stimulate the production of EPO, therefore, performance would have been enhanced via increased oxygen transport (albeit not as much as much as with EPO)
3. there are numerous other potential mechanisms whereby steroids could improve endurance performance, but the magnitude remains unknown

Regarding Lemond in particular, looking at the list of his early achievements and if indeed his VO2 was 92, then certainly he had the goods to possibly become a clean tour winner (its hard to say though because we don't really know what performance advantage was afforded during GTs using the PEDs at the time), but why should he be above suspicion when he was a pro-cyclist at a time that was just as equally as tainted by drug use as the 90s?

 

[robow7]

Furthermore, length has nothing to do with climbing, it's weight-vs power. Indurain was quite skinny, having a huge power-weight ratio.

Indurain isn't a surprise at all. And no, I do not remotely claim he was clean. I just keep on debunking the myth that Big Mig was the first "transformed" Epo surprise.

Where did you see me mention his height, there have been plenty of tall climbers but they didn't weigh in at 175 lbs.. Again one day maybe but not over three weeks can a mere mortal carry that over those mountains.

 

[joe_papp]

Not casting any suspicion on Lemond, but why is everyone so sure that everyone was using EPO in the 90s but nobody was using steroids in 80s?...

When has anyone said that it was impossible for LeMond to have possibly used testosterone, cortisone, ACTH...?

 

[Krebs cycle]

When has anyone said that it was impossible for LeMond to have possibly used testosterone, cortisone, ACTH...?

I can't say if anyone has siad it is "impossible" but its pretty common that whenever someone suggests Lemond was not beyond suspicion, they get attacked and howled down. It happened to me actually a couple of yrs ago.

Rhuborama said just a few posts ago that it was far less likely that Lemond took testosterone and that he won clean. How would he know? How would anyone know?

 

[Dr. Maserati]

I can't say if anyone has siad it is "impossible" but its pretty common that whenever someone suggests Lemond was not beyond suspicion, they get attacked and howled down. It happened to me actually a couple of yrs ago.

Rhuborama said just a few posts ago that it was far less likely that Lemond took testosterone and that he won clean. How would he know? How would anyone know?

Who attacked you - what did you say, what did they say?

 

[131313]

I can't say if anyone has siad it is "impossible" but its pretty common that whenever someone suggests Lemond was not beyond suspicion, they get attacked and howled down. It happened to me actually a couple of yrs ago.

No offense, but that's nonsense. Everyone who's ever raced a bike professionally is under suspicion. However, LeMond has never

-tested positive (like, for real, not just made the claim)

-had numerous teammates (over a dozen) claim first-hand knowledge of his doping

-been alleged to intimidate witnesses to his doping

-been implicated in a team-wide conspiracy to his doping

-gone from a one-day rider with some (in my opinion) legit "potential" in grand tours to dominating them

This list goes on...seriously, I could type until my fingers get tired. Trying to play this card is right out of the Lance Apologist playbook, and it's all been answered a million times before. I know you're smarter than this.

Secondly, you're obfuscating history quite a bit here. Steroids and HGH weren't used really introduced into endurance sports until the late 80's and early 90's, with the advent of sports doctors working in cycling. Prior to Conconi and his disciples (and the Dutch guys who were concurrently were working on things--but fell out of favor after killing a bunch of people), drugs were used in a much less-sophisticated fashion. Steroids were considered something to be used by weightlifters and sprinters. Not until the revolution of the cycling doctors, led by Conconi, were these products widely used by endurance athletes. There's zero evidence to suggest otherwise.

 

[DirtyWorks]

Regarding Lemond in particular, looking at the list of his early achievements and if indeed his VO2 was 92, then certainly he had the goods to possibly become a clean tour winner (its hard to say though

It's not "hard to say." The guy clearly ruled every amateur race he was in. The nature of bike racing being, the strongest guy does not always win means he's not on the top step every time.

, but why should he be above suspicion when he was a pro-cyclist at a time that was just as equally as tainted by drug use as the 90s?

The eighties drugs were not the 90's EPO. Pre-EPO results, not just Lemond's, make that abundantly clear. They cannot be compared or made analogous unless you want to maintain some outlook that flies in the face of the facts.

 

[131313]

Can You please provide unequivocal evidence that Miguel Indurain was "doped to the gills with EPO and other products " during his five consecutive Tour De France victories, from 1991 - 1995. Thank You.

Unfortunately, that will be difficult since while he supposed be developing a test to catch people using EPO,Conconi was instead using CONI's money to dope up the athletes he was coaching. Hence, there was no EPO test available at the time.

You can draw your own conclusions. I've drawn mine: Indurain is in my opinion as big a fraud as Armstrong, if not bigger.

 

[rhubroma]

I can't say if anyone has siad it is "impossible" but its pretty common that whenever someone suggests Lemond was not beyond suspicion, they get attacked and howled down. It happened to me actually a couple of yrs ago.

Rhuborama said just a few posts ago that it was far less likely that Lemond took testosterone and that he won clean. How would he know? How would anyone know?

In fact I never said I knew if Lemond took testosterone, only I thought it less likely than him having done some cortisone. Regardless he was certainly not on a heavy and sophisticated PEDs program. In this sence, for me his Tours were legit.

Whereas I'm certain Indurain was on EPO and followed by a medic through and through, and I am absolutely certain Armstrong was on the most sophisticated and advanced doping program that money can by. Hence he is a fraud. At least Miguel wasn't a **** head, though.

 

[Hugh Januss]

Not casting any suspicion on Lemond, but why is everyone so sure that everyone was using EPO in the 90s but nobody was using steroids in 80s?

If the 90s were the EPO era, the 80s were the steroid era. recombinant HGH was developed in the early 80s. I don't know if athletes were using it from mid-late 80s but if was around, then its possible. Do not ignore the following facts:

1. in terms of recovery, steroids (and/or HGH) are the main players, NOT epo
2. steroids hormones stimulate the production of EPO, therefore, performance would have been enhanced via increased oxygen transport (albeit not as much as much as with EPO)
3. there are numerous other potential mechanisms whereby steroids could improve endurance performance, but the magnitude remains unknown

Regarding Lemond in particular, looking at the list of his early achievements and if indeed his VO2 was 92, then certainly he had the goods to possibly become a clean tour winner (its hard to say though because we don't really know what performance advantage was afforded during GTs using the PEDs at the time), but why should he be above suspicion when he was a pro-cyclist at a time that was just as equally as tainted by drug use as the 90s?

I am not sure what point you are really trying to make, but you are falling all over yourself in the effort. Granted cycling has always been tainted by drug use but there is no way that you can say the 80s was "just as equally as tainted" as the 90s. For a myriad of reasons including but not limited to police actions, internet access, numbers of suspensions, media attention not to even mention the ever increasing efficiency of doping no previous era comes close to the 90s and the 2000s are even worse.

 

[Zarvinov]

You can draw your own conclusions. I've drawn mine: Indurain is in my opinion as big a fraud as Armstrong, if not bigger.

Yes that is quite possible. It is a point that will always be open to speculation, given the fact of Indurain's remarkable performances during the birth of the EPO era.

 

[Maxiton]

No offense, but that's nonsense. Everyone who's ever raced a bike professionally is under suspicion. However, LeMond has never

-tested positive (like, for real, not just made the claim)

-had numerous teammates (over a dozen) claim first-hand knowledge of his doping

-been alleged to intimidate witnesses to his doping

-been implicated in a team-wide conspiracy to his doping

-gone from a one-day rider with some (in my opinion) legit "potential" in grand tours to dominating them

This list goes on...seriously, I could type until my fingers get tired. Trying to play this card is right out of the Lance Apologist playbook, and it's all been answered a million times before. I know you're smarter than this.

Secondly, you're obfuscating history quite a bit here. Steroids and HGH weren't used really introduced into endurance sports until the late 80's and early 90's, with the advent of sports doctors working in cycling. Prior to Conconi and his disciples (and the Dutch guys who were concurrently were working on things--but fell out of favor after killing a bunch of people), drugs were used in a much less-sophisticated fashion. Steroids were considered something to be used by weightlifters and sprinters. Not until the revolution of the cycling doctors, led by Conconi, were these products widely used by endurance athletes. There's zero evidence to suggest otherwise.

Not sure about HGH, but steroids have been popular in endurance sports since at least the early seventies. 1972 Decathlon champion Bruce Jenner transformed himself by use of steroids, or so said a close colleague of his.

The thing that convinces me Lemond was mostly or wholly clean, however, is the fact that Lance and all his wealthy connections would pay a pretty penny for convincing testimony that Lemond had taken something, anything - and yet nothing and no one has ever turned up. Also, if he was doping in his career, he'd have been hip to EPO before he retired; and had he been hip to it, escalating to its use would have been a no-brainer for someone who was doping anyway.

EDIT: And by "hip to it" I mean hip to what it could do for his career, and for prolonging that career.

 

[131313]

Not sure about HGH, but steroids have been popular in endurance sports since at least the early seventies. 1972 Decathlon champion Bruce Jenner transformed himself by use of steroids, or so said a close colleague of his.

While there's obviously an endurance component to it, decathlon on the whole really isn't an endurance event. If you remove the 1,500m the rest of the events are anaerobic and alactic in nature, just the sort of explosive stuff for which steroids were originally used.

Remember too that in the absence of medical professionals, cycling was a traditional sport. Steroids made you "big", or so they thought, and weight has always been an issue in cycling. Until doctors became involved it seems amphetamines, cortisone, other pain killers and narcotics were really the drugs of choice in various combinations and permutations. That stuff was supplied by team mechanics and soigneurs. Those guys really weren't on the cutting edge of doping.