LeMond I

[Hugh Januss]

Its hard to accuse LeMond because there is no proof on the guy.

The only thing you thought you had was trying to accuse "certain posters" of something. Yet you have ignored naming them, so you actually have nothing to discuss.

And yet he continues to use up a lot of bandwidth not discussing it. He is not here to do anything other than troll us for responses, and at that he actually is doing quite well.

 

[ferryman]

And yet he continues to use up a lot of bandwidth not discussing it. He is not here to do anything other than troll us for responses, and at that he actually is doing quite well.

I take it as granted by now that everyone knows that this has very little to do with Lemond

 

[Big Doopie]

or let your rival wheelsuck you up every bloody climb!

or if your perico miss the prologue start by 2 1/2 minutes!

Oh, puhleez. And fignon... gained 50 secs in the ttt.

Give me a break.

1989 stands as perhaps the greatest tactical ride of all time. Absolutely zero teammates as soon as they hit the first mountain. What was lemond to do? Set the pace for the entire peloton.

1989 was pure tactical genius.

And his ds also played a part on l'alpe.

And who gives a fuq about Delgado, a total doper.

 

[hiero2]

Wow . yeah "results in disgust" and labeling here which proves some points in many different ways. There is no way anyone should be taking a different side around here. Done with it. disgust all around.

I have no problems with someone taking a different side - but a refusal to recognize rational reality? Repeatedly? Continued attempts to inflate the value of some arguments in order to discredit and devalue other arguments/reasoning? If it is done rationally, no problem. When rational logic and known facts are repeatedly ignored is a different story.

I don't have to provide proof, because I haven't accused him of anything. . . .

Yes, you have. Repeatedly. You are creating a straw man argument against Lemond, by spotlighting some very small incidents/possibilities, and saying that the results of any investigation would be the same as the suspicion surrounding riders with considerably more events/incidents/possibilities associated.

Receiving an injection of any type from Yvan Van Mol is enough to raise eyebrows.

If any rider today received "vitamin" treatment from a known doping doctor, It would have the clinic massive, hollering like a group of apes..... Never mind a doping doctor who the rider had allegedly never met before. . . .

If LeMond was riding in the days of the Interweb, his actions, would have received waaaay more negative attention.
Every morsel of data, from every incident, would have been analysed, until there were enough dots joined, to draw the Sistine chapel.

His clean reputation would NOT have been permitted to grow. Simple association to the whispering that would have taken place, would have seen to that.
Injection....doping doctor....rapid increase in form.......?..?.?..?

The legitimacy of the claims are almost irrelevant. The clinic would have had its way, regardless.

In the blue text - you are implicating Lemond. In the red text, you are making an ad hominem attack on the members and posters of the clinic. And you are making an assumption about "the Clinic" behaviorally that is not demonstrated historically. Thus your claim - based on cherry-picking and biased generalizations - that the Clinic is itself biased, and not yourself.

You aren't holding Lemond to the same candle at all. You are holding Lemond to a much hotter and brighter candle, and trying to say they are the same. You are saying Lemond has not been held to the same standards, or scrutiny, that is applied to riders today. You have repeatedly been demonstrated incorrect in this view, yet you persist. You say:

. . .
Oh and I'm happy for endless scrutiny to be placed on any rider, just as long as that scrutiny is applied without prejudice, to ALL riders.

in spite of it being shown that such scrutiny has been applied, the questions you raised answered, and even riders today are not being held to intense scrutiny by the whole group, without more cause than you have given to re-scrutinize Lemond.

You say that steroids, and speed are the same as O2 vector stuff for cycling. Disregarding all the arguments against this view. Fignon on the matter:

"In my day, doping methods were derisory and the riders' exploits were massive. For the last fifteen years or so, it has been the other way around: there is a huge number of ways in which riders can dope and any exploits are derisory."

I don't see that I'm ever going to convince you otherwise.

http://www.informationisbeautiful.net/visualizations/rhetological-fallacies/

 

[MacRoadie]

I guess it's about time for my bi-annual "Has anyone found an iota of evidence yet that Greg doped?" post...

 

[hiero2]

. . . If the interview had simply been posted to the thread that would be one thing. It wasn't. There was a qualifying lead in. Agora is a forum. This ostensibly is one. You want to quash dissent, it won't be.

Who's quashing dissent? I've posted counter arguments to some arguments/points. That is not quashing dissent.

It made complete sense. I'll use small words for you Bro. People took issue with the claims in the article as is their right. It's numbingly simple. . . .

. . .
agora was a plant no doubt.

My problem was that the logic and comments you referred to were about the INTERVIEW, not this forum. The interview was not an agora in any sense. So, I think RR was closer to right - your comment was not so "numbingly simple" to readers as it was to you.

And, as I said, I saw no polemics involved. In hindsight, granting the "qualifying lead in", as you call it, I can see that some would regard the "EPO . . . nonsense" as a polemic, but not, I believe, the majority here.

If I wanted to shut down dissent - you wouldn't know the post was ever there. It would be gone. But it's not, is it?

 

[hiero2]

I guess it's about time for my bi-annual "Has anyone found an iota of evidence yet that Greg doped?" post...

I've enjoyed the exchange - to a small extent. But it has gone on too long. I don't think the various parties have in any way altered their opinions. I know I've seen nothing except validation for POV I came to long ago.

So, as a fellow poster - I'm done on this particular exchange.

 

[BroDeal]

It made complete sense. I'll use small words for you Bro. People took issue with the claims in the article as is their right. It's numbingly simple. Shouldn't you get back to whining about things?

Don't stop for me. It's always good for a laugh. Who can forget gems like these:

Aphro: Plenty of real Americans in London: they gape at the old buildings.
Bro: They are astonished they have not been knocked down to build a Walmart.
Aphro: No, they are astonished in not being able to connect the trajectory from one to the other. You try it.

Classic. What's the meaning? Who knows, but it sounds impressive if you go for smug pomposity.

 

[Zweistein]

Oh and I'm happy for endless scrutiny to be placed on any rider, just as long as that scrutiny is applied without prejudice, to ALL riders.

You are absolutely applying with prejudice. 30 years have past and not one rider or coach has had anything to say. The same can't be said for Fignon, Delgado, Indurian, Hinault, or Roche. You want to bring up a topic for which there is no evidence and only innuendo, which is of your creation.

Lance. if you need to beleive that everyone doped, you are free to beleive that if it helps you sleep at night.

 

[ChewbaccaD]

I have no problems with someone taking a different side - but a refusal to recognize rational reality? Repeatedly? Continued attempts to inflate the value of some arguments in order to discredit and devalue other arguments/reasoning? If it is done rationally, no problem. When rational logic and known facts are repeatedly ignored is a different story.



Yes, you have. Repeatedly. You are creating a straw man argument against Lemond, by spotlighting some very small incidents/possibilities, and saying that the results of any investigation would be the same as the suspicion surrounding riders with considerably more events/incidents/possibilities associated.




In the blue text - you are implicating Lemond. In the red text, you are making an ad hominem attack on the members and posters of the clinic. And you are making an assumption about "the Clinic" behaviorally that is not demonstrated historically. Thus your claim - based on cherry-picking and biased generalizations - that the Clinic is itself biased, and not yourself.

You aren't holding Lemond to the same candle at all. You are holding Lemond to a much hotter and brighter candle, and trying to say they are the same. You are saying Lemond has not been held to the same standards, or scrutiny, that is applied to riders today. You have repeatedly been demonstrated incorrect in this view, yet you persist. You say:
in spite of it being shown that such scrutiny has been applied, the questions you raised answered, and even riders today are not being held to intense scrutiny by the whole group, without more cause than you have given to re-scrutinize Lemond.

You say that steroids, and speed are the same as O2 vector stuff for cycling. Disregarding all the arguments against this view. Fignon on the matter: I don't see that I'm ever going to convince you otherwise.

http://www.informationisbeautiful.net/visualizations/rhetological-fallacies/

Also note that in the past, Andy was hypercritical of the accusations that Armstrong doped...until he no had argument left against them. Double standard, but several Armstrong fans have that problem.

Then he comes in with the false narrative: "Why do you guys always have to bring up Armstrong," completely ignoring the reality that the reason Lemond began receiving so much scrutiny was due to his suggestion that Armstrong doped.

As has been pointed out: All the king's horses, and all the king's men couldn't prove Lemond doped even a single time.

Hey, what happened with all that scrutiny turned on Armstrong anyway...

Lastly, the Sky hyperventilation is just a smoke screen.

 

[86TDFWinner]

I don't have to provide proof, because I haven't accused him of anything.

Ah, but you have actually. In a roundabout sorta way. You continue blabbering on about that 88 PDM team, when I(and SEVERAL OTHERS)have explained to you that he couldn't have doped as he(and follow me here, since you missed it the first 6 or so times people pointed it out): didn't race in '88(or '87 for that matter), he was recovering from a hunting accident, he was shot and almost died from it. He still has several pellets from said accident in his body.


Now, what about that is so hard for you to understand? You've also been asked several times, to explain this fallacy you have about him being supposedly "scrutinized like other riders". Yet, I(along with several others) pointed it to you AGAIN, that LeMond hasn't ridden competitively in 19+yrs and counting. He retired in 94, why would he get scrutinized now, or need to be? please explain?

Don't let the truth get in the way of your outrage though.

What "truth" are you talking about? Please provide ANY credible source that Lemond doped, can you do that please? and what on earth would I be "outraged" about? absolutely zero. I love your "tuck and run" style though, when you're called out on your blatant trolling/nonsensical posting repeatedly(by about 2 dozen people), you tuck and run and still try sticking to something that's been shot down over a dozen times by members here.

No winking, no sorta, kinda....

Exactly, so please provide it, or (as you like to say)"Move on!!" And it has to be CREDIBLE(Varifiable PROOF HE DID IT) dates/times/who gave him said dope/etc.

Simple statement of facts. If it upsets you to discuss them, move on.

Facts? you haven't provided us with any facts, just simply your weak opinion/arguement. When you're asked to provide anything to back up your statement(s), you run and don't post any. Good try though. If you have any, please provide them(broken record time).

Why would you think this upsets me or anyone else? It doesn't. But again, if this makes your fallacy and yourself happy, good for you.

 

[86TDFWinner]

Saying that it should be discussed is an accusation. It is a serious accusation when the topic has had the amount of discussion that it has had.

It has been discussed. When you have some proof, please re-open the discussion.

Otherwise, your assertions are disingenuous.

Dave.

Thanks Dave. Jebus.......

 

[86TDFWinner]

Its hard to accuse LeMond because there is no proof on the guy.

The only thing you thought you had was trying to accuse "certain posters" of something. Yet you have ignored naming them, so you actually have nothing to discuss.

LOL, nor does he have any facts.

 

[aphronesis]

Who's quashing dissent? I've posted counter arguments to some arguments/points. That is not quashing dissent.





My problem was that the logic and comments you referred to were about the INTERVIEW, not this forum. The interview was not an agora in any sense. So, I think RR was closer to right - your comment was not so "numbingly simple" to readers as it was to you.

And, as I said, I saw no polemics involved. In hindsight, granting the "qualifying lead in", as you call it, I can see that some would regard the "EPO . . . nonsense" as a polemic, but not, I believe, the majority here.

If I wanted to shut down dissent - you wouldn't know the post was ever there. It would be gone. But it's not, is it?

You intervened in your capacity as mod to suggest that people were making too much of the needle discrepancy.

The comments were placed in this forum. Not sure why that's difficult for you to grasp. Similarly, the interview was posted to this forum--and even if it weren't, once a public figure allows their words--willingly--into the public domain, they're subject to scrutiny. I have no idea why you're sticking so hard on this.

Equally, if you didn't see a polemic in RR's introduction of the interview that he posted than I can't help you.

Moreover, the "numbingly simple" remark was directed at BroDeal, who waded in to stir *** and nothing else. If he, RR, or you for that matter--instead of wandering around in your circuitous "aw shucks" prose style, which you've recently dropped in favor of something more direct and incisive--were unclear on the meaning, then you or they could have asked for clarification. No one did--because it frankly wasn't an issue until you gave license. So don't be coy in the first instance and indignant and self aware in the second.

 

[aphronesis]

Don't stop for me. It's always good for a laugh. Who can forget gems like these:

Aphro: Plenty of real Americans in London: they gape at the old buildings.
Bro: They are astonished they have not been knocked down to build a Walmart.
Aphro: No, they are astonished in not being able to connect the trajectory from one to the other. You try it.

Classic. What's the meaning? Who knows, but it sounds impressive if you go for smug pomposity.

I don't claim to be the voice of America as you clearly do--myopic and provincial as that might be. As I said in the above post, if you don't know the meaning, you could ask. But you don't really care about that, do you; never mind the fact that you would never admit to ignorance? No need to break all exchange and communication down to Fox News level soundbites just to sate your insecurities.

 

[andy1234]

Ah, but you have actually. In a roundabout sorta way. You continue blabbering on about that 88 PDM team, when I(and SEVERAL OTHERS)have explained to you that he couldn't have doped as he(and follow me here, since you missed it the first 6 or so times people pointed it out): didn't race in '88(or '87 for that matter), he was recovering from a hunting accident, he was shot and almost died from it. He still has several pellets from said accident in his body.

What you don't understand is, that I know more about LeMond than you give me credit for.

The PDM blood doping point, as I have already pointed out (6 or so times?), is that leading riders in the TDF were using blood doping. In order to win a TDF it follows that the winner would have to beat riders who were.... wait for it......blood doping.
Of course PDM may have only used this successful doping method in 88, and then forgotten about it in subsequent years, but I doubt it somehow.
Of course, that doesn't mean LeMond had to dope to compete with them in 89, but it is a deviation from the previously believed timeline of blood doping in the peloton.


Oh, and just a small point, LeMond raced plenty in 88, for PDM.
Given that everything to do with LeMond has been discussed ad nauseum, and hence, shouldn't be discussed any more, it seems to be a strange mistake to make.
Just maybe, you don't know everything there is to know...

 

[Stingray34]

Some people here are really upset their hero is a sanctioned cheat and liar. They're lashing out like wounded animals.

So sad.

It's not Lemond's fault your hero is a loser.

 

[andy1234]

Some people here are really upset their hero is a sanctioned cheat and liar. They're lashing out like wounded animals.

So sad.

It's not Lemond's fault your hero is a loser.

The Dalai Lama is a sanctioned cheat and Liar?

Damn....

 

[northstar]

The Dalai Lama is a sanctioned cheat and Liar?

Where ignorance is our master, there is no possibility of real peace.

 

[Stingray34]

The Ignoble Eight-Tour Path came unstuck in 09.

Damn you Alpuerto and Floyd.

 

[Fearless Greg Lemond]

For Andy:
http://bestoflemond.blogspot.nl/

LeMonds racedays in 1988:
http://www.greglemondfan.com/1988.html

 

[andy1234]

For Andy:
http://bestoflemond.blogspot.nl/

LeMonds racedays in 1988:
http://www.greglemondfan.com/1988.html

Thanks, but there are others who need those links more than me....
He sure looks good in that PDM kit, in 88.

 

[Benotti69]

Thanks, but there are others who need those links more than me....
He sure looks good in that PDM kit, in 88.

Not a good as Boardman does in his GAN kit during the EPO era

 

[Dr. Maserati]

What you don't understand is, that I know more about LeMond than you give me credit for.

The PDM blood doping point, as I have already pointed out (6 or so times?), is that leading riders in the TDF were using blood doping. In order to win a TDF it follows that the winner would have to beat riders who were.... wait for it......blood doping.
Of course PDM may have only used this successful doping method in 88, and then forgotten about it in subsequent years, but I doubt it somehow.
Of course, that doesn't mean LeMond had to dope to compete with them in 89, but it is a deviation from the previously believed timeline of blood doping in the peloton.


Oh, and just a small point, LeMond raced plenty in 88, for PDM.
Given that everything to do with LeMond has been discussed ad nauseum, and hence, shouldn't be discussed any more, it seems to be a strange mistake to make.
Just maybe, you don't know everything there is to know...

That's an interesting theory.

You have convinced yourself that it was indeed a blood transfusion that those riders got on PDM - well, if that's the case and this method was so successful how is it PDM never had a rider win the Tour? And indeed in 88 why was Muller so far behind even though he was using such a fantastic technique?

 

[86TDFWinner]

What you don't understand is, that I know more about LeMond than you give me credit for.

You could've fooled everyone. You certainly do not.

The PDM blood doping point, as I have already pointed out (6 or so times?), is that leading riders in the TDF were using blood doping. In order to win a TDF it follows that the winner would have to beat riders who were.... wait for it......blood doping.

However, you have yet to "point out"(after being asked 7 times), how Greg supposedly doped, can you please post that info?

Of course PDM may have only used this successful doping method in 88, and then forgotten about it in subsequent years, but I doubt it somehow.
Of course, that doesn't mean LeMond had to dope to compete with them in 89, but it is a deviation from the previously believed timeline of blood doping in the peloton.

So yet again, you are accusing him of supposed doping, despite providing no proof? For someone who claims to know about LeMond, you sure are out of the loop here.

Oh, and just a small point, LeMond raced plenty in 88, for PDM.
Given that everything to do with LeMond has been discussed ad nauseum, and hence, shouldn't be discussed any more, it seems to be a strange mistake to make.

Did he race the tour though? sorry I wasn't clearer when I said he didnt race in 88, he did in a handful of races, w/o any wins. I knew he raced here and there, but didn't race the TDF.

Just maybe, you don't know everything there is to know..

Lol, again you stray from answering whats asked, not surprising. Ive never claimed to know everything about Greg, but good attempt.


The irony of your statement considering you've lost your arguement tenfold, is quite hilarious to us.