LeMond I

[ChewbaccaD]

Right you are, squire.
We can continue this, the next time you wash my car.

You misspelled "rack."

 

[andy1234]

I don't really know how to go any further with the "mom" jokes. I'll go ask my 10 year old and get back to you.

Past that, please provide proof Lemond doped.

I have no proof LeMond doped.
I don't even believe he did.

I just think, that if the current riders deserve the scrutiny, so does LeMond.
If he's done nothing wrong, it will never come out.....

Do you really have a 10 year old? I sure hope he knows how to conjugate his verbs

 

[ChewbaccaD]

Maybe the real question isn't if Greg has a needle aversion,
or if you have a cockroach aversion, or if D-Mas has a
dentist aversion. Maybe the real question is how, why,
when, where Greg learned to draw his own blood? Let's
for a moment think what the uproar would be if say Dear
Wiggo found out BMW was taking his own blood samples
in Tenerife (and to my knowledge Sir Brad has not claimed
to be needle adverse). The Clinic would jump to all sorts of
conclusions and want to know how long he has been taking
his own blood samples and who taught him to take those
samples and why did he learn how to take those samples.

It is common knowledge that Greg's father-in-law Dr. David
Morris accompanied Greg and his family at some races
and perhaps he taught Greg to take his own blood
samples to monitor his health and fitness in a totally
ethical and legal manner. However, if this was the case,
it would be most honest and transparent to mention it in
an interview where Greg's aversion to needles was
discussed. It would also make sense to mention it so
no one would try and make a connection to other
American cyclists and coaches that employed blood
doping and intravenous administration of steroids.

Of course, none of this indicates in any way Lemond doped, but keep flogging the donkey hoping a crease in the space/time continuum will open and you can go back in time and give Armstrong that Baretta "Come on kid, you can do this clean" speech to keep him from doping. I would suggest choosing 1988 or so if you want to reach him early enough to actually do any good.

 

[ChewbaccaD]

I have no proof LeMond doped.
I don't even believe he did.

I just think, that if the current riders deserve the scrutiny, so does LeMond.
If he's done nothing wrong, it will never come out.....

Do you really have a 10 year old? I sure hope he knows how to conjugate his verbs

Lemond deserves the same scrutiny of riders who are actually riding in the peloton today or even 10 years ago? When the massive doping scandal of the 80's is revealed, we will get right on that.

EDIT: He is much smarter than his father, so I tread lightly in critiquing him.

 

[andy1234]

Lemond deserves the same scrutiny of riders who are actually riding in the peloton today or even 10 years ago? When the massive doping scandal of the 80's is revealed, we will get right on that.

EDIT: He is much smarter than his father, so I tread lightly in critiquing him.

Just as much dope was floating around the 80s peloton.
It just wasn't as effective.

Does that make it less of a scandal?
I think not.

 

[ChewbaccaD]

Just as much dope was floating around the 80s peloton.
It just wasn't as effective.

Does that make it less of a scandal?
I think not.

When you read the accounts of the riders in the 90's you see stories of guys who were forced to dope or find another profession. That was not the case in the 80's. EPO changed everything and ignoring that fact weakens your argument severely.

 

[hiero2]

Maybe the real question isn't if Greg has a needle aversion, . . .Maybe the real question is how, why,
when, where Greg learned to draw his own blood? . . .
it would be most honest and transparent to mention it in
an interview where Greg's aversion to needles was
discussed. . . .

Well, now, I agree that there is a lot of heat in this forum for current riders when it comes to the possibility of doping. And I will agree that the level of scrutiny is unrelenting. I also don't agree that is necessarily deserved.

However, I still think you are overdramatizing the blood draw. It isn't that hard to learn to draw blood. And to expect it to come up in an interview? Sheesh, it was an interview, not a detailed biography. Because the question occurred to you does not automatically mean it was logical, or that it would occur to the interviewer, or even that it would be of interest to the general public in an interview. "Honest and transparent", yes, it would have been. But, frankly, from my seat I don't think the question even crossed their minds. Doing a blood draw, even for someone who hates needles, is just not that big a deal.

As for your other point - that Lemond would have had the same level of scrutiny as Wiggins, if the internet had existed in the 1980's. Probably. But it is also quite true that Lemond participated in the sport before EPO was widespread. And, that the likely scrutiny would not have been as heated because of that small fact. I don't see you adding that little fact to your arguments, when it is, at least imho, a "game-changer" for this discussion.

 

[hiero2]

Just as much dope was floating around the 80s peloton.
It just wasn't as effective.

Does that make it less of a scandal?
I think not.

Actually, no. Not "just as much". Somewhat less, by the very reason you note "It just wasn't as effective." So, I think it is understood that dope was plenty available, if you were inclined to use it to cheat back then. But it wasn't, especially given what we've learned this past year, "just as much". Considerably less, amof.

Does that make it less of a scandal? Imo, yes. Not because cheating is ever less scandalous, but because the doping methodology back then was far riskier, and thus, to a degree, self-punishing (unless you were out of the DDR program, in which case you weren't told the risks).

 

[andy1234]

When you read the accounts of the riders in the 90's you see stories of guys who were forced to dope or find another profession. That was not the case in the 80's. EPO changed everything and ignoring that fact weakens your argument severely.

So the unrelenting scrutiny of current riders in the clinic, isn't because of doping, but because of the type of doping?

Donkey steroids, and black bombers are not worthy of scrutiny, but blood doping is?
If Wiggins could potentially only get access to steroids and HGH, 80s style, but not blood doping, would the scrutiny become less?
I don't think so, somehow.

So why should the scrutiny be less for LeMond?

 

[pmcg76]

So the unrelenting scrutiny of current riders in the clinic, isn't because of doping, but because of the type of doping?

Donkey steroids, and black bombers are not worthy of scrutiny, but blood doping is?
If Wiggins could potentially only get access to steroids and HGH, 80s style, but not blood doping, would the scrutiny become less?
I don't think so, somehow.

So why should the scrutiny be less for LeMond?

I think this is more about the fact that you don't like SKY and Wiggins being scrutinized than it is about LeMond.

If LeMond had rode in an era where blood doping was the norm and had underwent a transformation like Wiggins or Froome, then yes there would be more comparable scrutiny.

Perhaps you will point to LeMond's 89 turnaround as evidence of a transformation but LeMond had shown beforehand that he had that talent and that it was health problems holding him back. LeMond was never the same rider he was pre-shooting.

I think the big think here is the fact 23 years have passed since LeMond won his last Tour and there has still never been a wisper about him doping. Compared to most of his rivals of the time who nearly all have links to doping. But you already know all of this.

You have said in the past that you had ties with Chris Boardman who was of course team-mates with LeMond at GAN so if anyone on here is likely to have heard stuff, it would be you so let's hear it if there is something to know.

If 20 years pass and none of the SKY boys are ever implicated in doping, then I am sure they might be afforded the same level of respect.

 

[ChewbaccaD]

So the unrelenting scrutiny of current riders in the clinic, isn't because of doping, but because of the type of doping?

Donkey steroids, and black bombers are not worthy of scrutiny, but blood doping is?
If Wiggins could potentially only get access to steroids and HGH, 80s style, but not blood doping, would the scrutiny become less?
I don't think so, somehow.

So why should the scrutiny be less for LeMond?

If you are just going to paraphrase my point in a way that only fits your narrative, we can't have a productive discussion.

EPO changed the speed so much that to be a pro in Europe and compete, you HAD to dope. It wasn't an option. Thus the number of people doping increased, dramatically most likely.

Wigans, Froome, and holy dog sh!t Ritchie Porte are under scrutiny for the similarity in which they developed and are winning compared to known blood dopers...and they are riding RIGHT NOW.

Lemond isn't riding now, and rode and won before the advent of team-wide chemical blood doping programs.

These points are simple and easy to understand. Please try to actually address them if you are going to respond.

 

[ChewbaccaD]

I think this is more about the fact that you don't like SKY and Wiggins being scrutinized than it is about LeMond.

If LeMond had rode in an era where blood doping was the norm and had underwent a transformation like Wiggins or Froome, then yes there would be more comparable scrutiny.

Perhaps you will point to LeMond's 89 turnaround as evidence of a transformation but LeMond had shown beforehand that he had that talent and that it was health problems holding him back. LeMond was never the same rider he was pre-shooting.

I think the big think here is the fact 23 years have passed since LeMond won his last Tour and there has still never been a wisper about him doping. Compared to most of his rivals of the time who nearly all have links to doping. But you already know all of this.

You have said in the past that you had ties with Chris Boardman who was of course team-mates with LeMond at GAN so if anyone on here is likely to have heard stuff, it would be you so let's hear it if there is something to know.

If 20 years pass and none of the SKY boys are ever implicated in doping, then I am sure they might be afforded the same level of respect.

This x 10000

 

[D-Queued]

So the unrelenting scrutiny of current riders in the clinic, isn't because of doping, but because of the type of doping?

Donkey steroids, and black bombers are not worthy of scrutiny, but blood doping is?
If Wiggins could potentially only get access to steroids and HGH, 80s style, but not blood doping, would the scrutiny become less?
I don't think so, somehow.

So why should the scrutiny be less for LeMond?

You think LeMond was under less scrutiny?

You think cycling only developed a bad reputation about doping since his retirement and/or since Al Gore invented the Intarweb?

LeMond did not have the benefit of protection, nor the aura of being the anointed one, the great white hope saving us from the evils of Festina. LeMond was not cancer jesus.

LeMond was an outsider in a sport controlled by the Euros and the Euros didn't like him.

Cycling was already dirty.

Unlike the situation today, a number of LeMond's competitors have freely admitted their doping, without any pressure to do so.

Lance took doping, fraud and Omerta to the next level.

Have any pictures of LeMond giving someone the zippered mouth sign?

Was LeMond able to protect himself from the 'choads'?

Any stories about LeMond running the team through intimidation?

There was doping then, but it wasn't as effective. And, it wasn't very effective for stage races.

Without EPO and modern storage techniques as well as a supply pipeline, blod doping was completely impractical for anything other than a single event like the Olympics. For someone that did the classics and the big tours, Blood doping was a non-starter.

With LeMond we have the benefit of even more time.

In time, truth will out.

Time continues to instruct us that he was clean.

Forget about the Internet. It is irrelevant here.

If anything, thanks to Lance's mission to destroy Greg and his reputation, there has been far more scrutiny of LeMond than any other cyclist of his era or the previous era.

Extreme ongoing focus. No evidence.

Please identify one person on this forum or any other that would not accept clear evidence on Greg.

Then consider all of the Armstrong and SKY Fanboys who refuse to accept the blindingly obvious when donkeys transition to racehorses.

Dave.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Maybe the real question isn't if Greg has a needle aversion,
or if you have a cockroach aversion, or if D-Mas has a
dentist aversion. Maybe the real question is how, why,
when, where Greg learned to draw his own blood? Let's
for a moment think what the uproar would be if say Dear
Wiggo found out BMW was taking his own blood samples
in Tenerife (and to my knowledge Sir Brad has not claimed
to be needle adverse). The Clinic would jump to all sorts of
conclusions and want to know how long he has been taking
his own blood samples and who taught him to take those
samples and why did he learn how to take those samples.

So you just want to be LeMonds 'Dear Wiggo' type?
My thoughts on DW would get me a deserved long ban - so perhaps you should reconsider what your objective is and also perhaps pick an easier target, like Rominger or Kelly.

It is common knowledge that Greg's father-in-law Dr. David
Morris accompanied Greg and his family at some races
and perhaps he taught Greg to take his own blood
samples to monitor his health and fitness in a totally
ethical and legal manner. However, if this was the case,
it would be most honest and transparent to mention it in
an interview where Greg's aversion to needles was
discussed. It would also make sense to mention it so
no one would try and make a connection to other
American cyclists and coaches that employed blood
doping and intravenous administration of steroids.

Or perhaps he didn't mention it because it didn't happen? Crazy I know.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

So the unrelenting scrutiny of current riders in the clinic, isn't because of doping, but because of the type of doping?

Donkey steroids, and black bombers are not worthy of scrutiny, but blood doping is?
If Wiggins could potentially only get access to steroids and HGH, 80s style, but not blood doping, would the scrutiny become less?
I don't think so, somehow.

So why should the scrutiny be less for LeMond?

I highlighted the reason there is more discussion of current riders, current events, or current practices. .
You're welcome.

 

[aphronesis]

Well, now, I agree that there is a lot of heat in this forum for current riders when it comes to the possibility of doping. And I will agree that the level of scrutiny is unrelenting. I also don't agree that is necessarily deserved.

However, I still think you are overdramatizing the blood draw. It isn't that hard to learn to draw blood. And to expect it to come up in an interview? Sheesh, it was an interview, not a detailed biography.

Perhaps, but the interview was posted with a distinct set of polemics. If you think that none would sift through and question, that takes away most of the useful sense of agora.

 

[MarkvW]

Well, now, I agree that there is a lot of heat in this forum for current riders when it comes to the possibility of doping. And I will agree that the level of scrutiny is unrelenting. I also don't agree that is necessarily deserved.

However, I still think you are overdramatizing the blood draw. It isn't that hard to learn to draw blood. And to expect it to come up in an interview? Sheesh, it was an interview, not a detailed biography. Because the question occurred to you does not automatically mean it was logical, or that it would occur to the interviewer, or even that it would be of interest to the general public in an interview. "Honest and transparent", yes, it would have been. But, frankly, from my seat I don't think the question even crossed their minds. Doing a blood draw, even for someone who hates needles, is just not that big a deal.

As for your other point - that Lemond would have had the same level of scrutiny as Wiggins, if the internet had existed in the 1980's. Probably. But it is also quite true that Lemond participated in the sport before EPO was widespread. And, that the likely scrutiny would not have been as heated because of that small fact. I don't see you adding that little fact to your arguments, when it is, at least imho, a "game-changer" for this discussion.

I think that people also need to put doping and doping methods into historical perspective. Things like blood draws didn't necessarily indicate doping behavior in Lemond's time because needles could be used for legitimate purposes then (like electrolyte replacement, for example).

 

[dolophonic]

I think this is more about the fact that you don't like SKY and Wiggins being scrutinized than it is about LeMond.

If LeMond had rode in an era where blood doping was the norm and had underwent a transformation like Wiggins or Froome, then yes there would be more comparable scrutiny.

Perhaps you will point to LeMond's 89 turnaround as evidence of a transformation but LeMond had shown beforehand that he had that talent and that it was health problems holding him back. LeMond was never the same rider he was pre-shooting.

I think the big think here is the fact 23 years have passed since LeMond won his last Tour and there has still never been a wisper about him doping. Compared to most of his rivals of the time who nearly all have links to doping. But you already know all of this.

You have said in the past that you had ties with Chris Boardman who was of course team-mates with LeMond at GAN so if anyone on here is likely to have heard stuff, it would be you so let's hear it if there is something to know.

If 20 years pass and none of the SKY boys are ever implicated in doping, then I am sure they might be afforded the same level of respect.

Yes well said and thanks for setting it straight.
Greg did it the hard way. No wifi / facebook / home comforts..
He went to Europe and raced the best ..hats off to him.

 

[Race Radio]

I just think, that if the current riders deserve the scrutiny, so does LeMond.
If he's done nothing wrong, it will never come out.....

Do you really think LeMond's career has not been scrutinized? For 10 years Wonderboy and his buddies probed every aspect of his career. They talked to dozens of former teammates, friends, staff, trying to find one who would say Greg doped. None would. They offered large sums of money to former teammates to say Greg doped, none would lie for the cash. When this failed they launched a well organized smear campaign against him.

Richard Moore wrote a great book called Slaying the Badger. He talked to dozens for former teammates and staff. He examied every aspect of Greg's career. He found story after story of Greg being vocally anti doping for his entire career.

If there was the internet back in the 80's then perhaps more people would have know how against doping Greg was then. Those in the sport certainly did

 

[Big Doopie]

Do you really think LeMond's career has not been scrutinized? For 10 years Wonderboy and his buddies probed every aspect of his career. They talked to dozens of former teammates, friends, staff, trying to find one who would say Greg doped. None would. They offered large sums of money to former teammates to say Greg doped, none would lie for the cash. They launched a well organized smear campaign against him.

Richard Moore wrote a great book called Slaying the Badger. He talked to dozens for former teammates and staff. He examied every aspect of Greg's career. He found story after story of Greg being vocally anti doping for his entire career.

If there was the internet back in the 80's then perhaps more people would have know how against doping Greg was then. Those in the sport certainly did

bingo.

can we now finally put this one to rest?

 

[D-Queued]

bingo.

can we now finally put this one to rest?

Unfortunately not apparently.

Armstrong made the race to the bottom a popular deflection tactic. As mimicry is the sincerest form of flattery, then the SKY-bots apparently aspire to be like the Lance-bots.

Dave.

 

[cycling1776]

Do you really think LeMond's career has not been scrutinized? For 10 years Wonderboy and his buddies probed every aspect of his career. They talked to dozens of former teammates, friends, staff, trying to find one who would say Greg doped. None would. They offered large sums of money to former teammates to say Greg doped, none would lie for the cash. When this failed they launched a well organized smear campaign against him.

Source? Just curious

 

[hiero2]

Perhaps, but the interview was posted with a distinct set of polemics. If you think that none would sift through and question, that takes away most of the useful sense of agora.

Wow. Even looking up to make sure I understood the meaning of polemics and agora, your statement doesn't make sense to me. The interview posting here targeted no intended polemic that I can identify.

Useful sense of agora? While this forum is an open forum - (hachacha, words!) - or "marketplace" if you will - the interview was not. Thus, I lose the sensibility - the logic - of what you are saying. It doesn't make sense.

Unless - somehow - you are intending the word choice as humor? Lost me.

Later - editing: whoa, I think I got it. "If you think that none would question . . ." Well, yes, and no. It was an interview - the interviewer could have asked other questions - I just do not think that was likely - especially given that it did not happen. Nor, based on having lived through the days when Lemond was the up and coming star, do I think such a question, as posited by andy1234, would be likely, or be of interest. I do NOT say that "none would question", but given the circumstances, and all the bits and pieces put together, I highly doubt that anyone would. This should not shake anyone's "sense of agora", since this is not a free-speech matter.

Damn - you're not doing anything for my reputation of being wordy, eh?

 

[MarkvW]

Source? Just curious

It's like Citizen Kane, except it's Citizen LeMond. You just gotta see the movie.

 

[Big Doopie]

Source? Just curious

Been covered and sourced ad nauseum.

Do a search.