LeMond I

[sublimit]

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



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




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.





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.



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.

Err this is the clinic where its dog eat dog, fan against fanboy and nothing is based on substance.

You are not that naive surely.

 

[andy1234]

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



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




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.





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.



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.

I'm not arguing with anyone, you are.
I'm stating facts and you are getting frustrated, because you have nothing to counter against.
Facts only, not accusations.

I'm glad you finally remembered his 88 season.

 

[GJB123]

I'm not arguing with anyone, you are.
I'm stating facts and you are getting frustrated, because you have nothing to counter against.
Facts only, not accusations.

I'm glad you finally remembered his 88 season.

That is a bit disingenuous to say the least. You indeed mention a number of facts but to suggest but you did not choose those facts randomly without inferring or suggesting LeMond doped or might have doped or at least taking the calculated risk that people might think you are asking then to join the dots with you. So now playing innocent is not really fair and could even be construed as a bit of, dare I say it, trolling.

 

[andy1234]

That is a bit disingenuous to say the least. You indeed mention a number of facts but to suggest but you did not choose those facts randomly without inferring or suggesting LeMond doped or might have doped or at least taking the calculated risk that people might think you are asking then to join the dots with you. So now playing innocent is not really fair and could even be construed as a bit of, dare I say it, trolling.

If people wish to Join dots, that's fine.
If they wish to refute the facts, that's fine too.
This is the Greg LeMond thread, not the Greg LeMond appreciation thread.

I'm not playing innocent, But I'm not making things up either....

If its too frustrating to discuss any of these elements again, other threads are available.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

If people wish to Join dots, that's fine.
If they wish to refute the facts, that's fine too.
This is the Greg LeMond thread, not the Greg LeMond appreciation thread.

I'm not playing innocent, But I'm not making things up either....

Actually you are.

You have convinced yourself that the mention of blood on the PDM notebooks in 88 was blood transfusions. Yet even if it was there effect appears to have been limited. Which makes transfusions at the time not very effective or that the 'blood' was not a transfusion.

 

[Fearless Greg Lemond]

Actually you are.

You have convinced yourself that the mention of blood on the PDM notebooks in 88 was blood transfusions. Yet even if it was there effect appears to have been limited. Which makes transfusions at the time not very effective or that the 'blood' was not a transfusion.

Uh, you did see Rooks and Theunisse that year? Donkeys turned into GT contenders.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Uh, you did see Rooks and Theunisse that year? Donkeys turned into GT contenders.

Hardly donkeys.
Theunisese was a bit of a mystery, but Rooks had won LBL in 83 and had already a top ten in TdF before 88.

 

[andy1234]

Uh, you did see Rooks and Theunisse that year? Donkeys turned into GT contenders.

Zakje bloed, 2 days before Alpe d'huez....happy days.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Zakje bloed, 2 days before Alpe d'huez....happy days.

So Andy - were they donkeys or not?
Were they donkeys that got a massive boost from 'zakje bloed'?
Or we're they pretty talented riders that got a minor boost?

You can pretend to use facts if you wish - but here is a fact for you, LeMond was not a donkey.

 

[Fearless Greg Lemond]

Hardly donkeys.
Theunisese was a bit of a mystery, but Rooks had won LBL in 83 and had already a top ten in TdF before 88.

They were GT donks doc, especially that testosterone wonder, doesnt matter with regards to LeMond. Those guys on 'a zakje bloed' were no threat to him. Even on fresh blood those guys were far inferior to LeMond. When the 'Dutch Dynamic Duo' left PDM for Panasonic it soon came out what their true potential was, a bit like when Julich left Cofidis for Credit Agricole.

And, the notes from the soigneur were from 1988, LeMond did not ride that Tour because he was still sh!t from the hunting accident.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

They were GT donks doc, especially that testosterone wonder, doesnt matter with regards to LeMond. Those guys on 'a zakje bloed' were no threat to him. Even on fresh blood those guys were far inferior to LeMond. When the 'Dutch Dynamic Duo' left PDM for Panasonic it soon came out what their true potential was, a bit like when Julich left Cofidis for Credit Agricole.

And, the notes from the soigneur were from 1988, LeMond did not ride that Tour because he was still sh!t from the hunting accident.

Thats your opinion, which I am not in disagreement with.

But I am interested in Andys, he is the one who says he has the 'facts' so I am wondering how they wish to explain these guys performance and how it somehow, somewhere relates to LeMond.

And not only was Lemond not part of the 88 TdF squad he broke his contract with them - this article from 89:

Already beset by injuries and illness, Greg LeMond was further distressed last year because he feared his team, PDM of the Netherlands, would try to improve his lagging performances by tricking him into using a banned drug, the American cyclist's attorney said Monday.

Although LeMond's break with PDM, the sport's dominant team, was primarily the result of a financial dispute, Ron Stanko of Reading, Pa., said the cyclist was believed to be out of the contract before this year because of his philosophical differences with the team's officials regarding banned substances.

..........

 

[pmcg76]

If people wish to Join dots, that's fine.
If they wish to refute the facts, that's fine too.
This is the Greg LeMond thread, not the Greg LeMond appreciation thread.

I'm not playing innocent, But I'm not making things up either....

If its too frustrating to discuss any of these elements again, other threads are available.

I think it is very clear you are trying to make people connect the dots.

You talk about PDM blood doping in 88 and then in another post you mention how good LeMond looks in a PDM kit in 88. It is very clear what you are inferring but it is done in a nudge, nudge, wink, wink style so to then claim innocence of trying to get people to connect the dot's is BS.

Regardless, following on from what you are inferring about LeMond in 88, perhaps you can explain why LeMond was so poor in 88 if he was indeed doping and why he was so happy to quit PDM that season. Also care to explain why LeMond might mention to his lawyer that PDM were trying to dope the whole team. Hardly sounds like a guy who was part of the scene at PDM??

Following on further from your points, so LeMond knows PDM are blood doping and see the effects of blood doping in the 88 Tour. If he then started blood doping with the assistance of Yvan Van Mol as you once more inferred, why would he wait until a few days before the end of the Giro to do so and why stop working with Van Mol afterward if that was a key component in his success??

Surely if Van Mol was a significant factor in LeMond's health during 89, LeMond would not have returned home to the US for almost 2 months in the middle of the season, logically he would have stayed in Belgium to work with Van Mol and taken Van Mol with him to the Z team.

You also try to twist the logic of certain poster's on it's head even though you don't actually believe it yourself because if you did, then that automatically makes your personal hero Chris Boardman guilty of doping also. I think most people would believe that in a race where one or two might be blood doping effectively, it might still be possible for others to win but in a race where the majority of guys are blood doping make's that possibility unlikely, there is a clear difference but once again you are trying to conflate those facts as if to suggest that LeMond beat an entire field of blood doping riders..

The one fact we do know for definite is you are now arguing something that you personally claim to know is not true i.e. it is impossible for a clean rider to beat blood doping riders.

I also asked you before about your knowledge of LeMond owing to your association with GAN and you brushed it off as nothing because LeMond was already finished so there was nothing to know but now you are back claiming that you know more about LeMond than people think. If you know something then put it forward instead of this twisting strawman logic you are currently trying to troll with.

 

[86TDFWinner]

I'm not arguing with anyone, you are.

I see you continue having difficulties with the quote buttons here, pretty easy to use really.

I'm stating facts and you are getting frustrated, because you have nothing to counter against

.

Well, since (ONCE AGAIN)you still haven't "stated any facts" from the beginning(and apparently refuse to do so still after repeated attempts from folks asking you to),I'll ask you again just what "facts" you have posted please? Stop ignoring the questions, you continue to bury yourself in the process when you do. Post these so called "facts" you claim to have? Post said "facts" on LeMond 100% doping, I'm also asking you to please post "facts" stating: who administered said drugs, what times, dates, where, who was in the room to see it, etc etc, can you do that or no? Afterall, you're the self proclaimed "LeMond Expert" right? You know more about him then we think you do(you said so yourself)that makes you an expert over all of us, please explain. Keep in mind, these so called "facts" you claim to have, must be VERIFIABLE(Meaning=they have to be backed up by sources, and easily attainable for all of us to get to and read).

Facts only, not accusations.

See above....time for YOU to do just that "LeMond Expert", c'mon, we're all waiting, spill the beans and show us all what "facts" you have. Time for you to fess up, and post it if you got it. Can you do that please? simple question you refuse to answer.

I'm glad you finally remembered his 88 season.

Never forgot it, I don't consider it a season for him, as he didn't ride the Tour, the Roubaix, or other races, he was recovering from a hunting accident. But thank you for reminding me nonetheless.

 

[86TDFWinner]

Originally Posted by andy1234

If they wish to refute the facts, that's fine too.

You've posted no "facts" for us to refute, please point them out, so that we can all see these "facts".

This is the Greg LeMond thread, not the Greg LeMond appreciation thread.

LOL, Actually, it IS a "LeMond appreciation thread", and you're smack dab in the center of it with your obvious trolling, on a subject you can't win at.

I'm not playing innocent, But I'm not making things up either....

AGAIN, about 30 people have asked you to please post your said "facts" to back up your weak, strawman arguements, and you've refused at every turn. Not looking good for you here. Can you please post your "facts", so we can all see them?

If its too frustrating to discuss any of these elements again, other threads are available.

Exactly, so why not go there and post your "facts" that you don't have?

 

[andy1234]

I think it is very clear you are trying to make people connect the dots.

You talk about PDM blood doping in 88 and then in another post you mention how good LeMond looks in a PDM kit in 88. It is very clear what you are inferring but it is done in a nudge, nudge, wink, wink style so to then claim innocence of trying to get people to connect the dot's is BS.

Regardless, following on from what you are inferring about LeMond in 88, perhaps you can explain why LeMond was so poor in 88 if he was indeed doping and why he was so happy to quit PDM that season. Also care to explain why LeMond might mention to his lawyer that PDM were trying to dope the whole team. Hardly sounds like a guy who was part of the scene at PDM??

Following on further from your points, so LeMond knows PDM are blood doping and see the effects of blood doping in the 88 Tour. If he then started blood doping with the assistance of Yvan Van Mol as you once more inferred, why would he wait until a few days before the end of the Giro to do so and why stop working with Van Mol afterward if that was a key component in his success??

Surely if Van Mol was a significant factor in LeMond's health during 89, LeMond would not have returned home to the US for almost 2 months in the middle of the season, logically he would have stayed in Belgium to work with Van Mol and taken Van Mol with him to the Z team.

You also try to twist the logic of certain poster's on it's head even though you don't actually believe it yourself because if you did, then that automatically makes your personal hero Chris Boardman guilty of doping also. I think most people would believe that in a race where one or two might be blood doping effectively, it might still be possible for others to win but in a race where the majority of guys are blood doping make's that possibility unlikely, there is a clear difference but once again you are trying to conflate those facts as if to suggest that LeMond beat an entire field of blood doping riders..

The one fact we do know for definite is you are now arguing something that you personally claim to know is not true i.e. it is impossible for a clean rider to beat blood doping riders.

I also asked you before about your knowledge of LeMond owing to your association with GAN and you brushed it off as nothing because LeMond was already finished so there was nothing to know but now you are back claiming that you know more about LeMond than people think. If you know something then put it forward instead of this twisting strawman logic you are currently trying to troll with.

Let me make this clear, there is no nudge nudge wink wink going on.

The reference to LeMond looking good in a PDM jersey in 88 was simply a dig at 86tdfwinner "forgetting" that LeMond had actually raced throughout the 88 season. A strange mistake to make for someone with his username.

I am not inferring Lemond MUST have doped, simply that the doping landscape is not quite what we believed before the PDM blood doping information. The discussion is relevant, because it is information that was not available until recently, so the "ad nauseum" discussions probably didn't cover it.

I am not inferring I have inside information on LeMond, that others do not.
I stated that I knew more about LeMond than 86tdfwinner was giving me credit for. If he thought he needed to tell me about LeMonds shooting incident, he clearly does not comprehend my level of experience.

Read the posts back, you will see this is true.

As you accurately point out, I know that clean riders have won big, in some of the worst doping years, and have posted to that effect in the past. Based on that, using other riders doping as proof that LeMond must have doped, would be strange to say the least.

If you can believe that I simply have an open mind on the subject of LeMond doping, rather than seeing every post as a devious plan to smear his reputation, you will see that all I have done is commented on actual events, and how they could be perceived.

If this is too much for you or other posters to believe, than that isn't my problem.
This is why the clinic is here. Stirling reputation or not, its all open for discussion.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Let me make this clear, there is no nudge nudge wink wink going on.

The reference to LeMond looking good in a PDM jersey in 88 was simply a dig at 86tdfwinner "forgetting" that LeMond had actually raced throughout the 88 season. A strange mistake to make for someone with his username.

I am not inferring Lemond MUST have doped, simply that the doping landscape is not quite what we believed before the PDM blood doping information. The discussion is relevant, because it is information that was not available until recently, so the "ad nauseum" discussions probably didn't cover it.

I am not inferring I have inside information on LeMond, that others do not.
I stated that I knew more about LeMond than 86tdfwinner was giving me credit for. If he thought he needed to tell me about LeMonds shooting incident, he clearly does not comprehend my level of experience.

Read the posts back, you will see this is true.

As you accurately point out, I know that clean riders have won big, in some of the worst doping years, and have posted to that effect in the past. Based on that, using other riders doping as proof that LeMond must have doped, would be strange to say the least.

If you can believe that I simply have an open mind on the subject of LeMond doping, rather than seeing every post as a devious plan to smear his reputation, you will see that all I have done is commented on actual events, and how they could be perceived.

Where exactly?
I have read all your theories about PDM and blood, yet you go in to hiding when asked how this related to LeMond.

If this is too much for you or other posters to believe, than that isn't my problem.
This is why the clinic is here. Stirling reputation or not, its all open for discussion.

Again, at any point where you wish to actually add to the discussion on LeMond, please let us know.

 

[D-Queued]

...

And not only was Lemond not part of the 88 TdF squad he broke his contract with them - this article from 89:

andy1234 already knew that.

In summary, we know the following for certain,

- we have an obscure reference to 'bloed'
- we know that blood doping was not commonly practiced for GTs pre-EPO
- we know that prior to EPO, modern storage techniques, and modern delivery techniques, blood doping was very risky
- we know that blood doping would have been detrimental to performance in other events pre-EPO
- we know that LeMond DNF'd most of his races, and was not a factor in 1988*
- we know that LeMond didn't participate in the race in question
- we know that LeMond wasn't even on the team in question
AND
- we have wasted pages and pages on a red herring

Dave.

*Edit to add:

- Any extraction(s) would not only have further impacted his performance, but should be viewed as a serious health risk for someone recovering from gunshot wounds. The seriousness of that health risk cannot be underestimated given his obvious poor health.

 

[Benotti69]

andy1234 already knew that.

In summary, we know the following for certain,

- we have an obscure reference to 'bloed'
- we know that blood doping was not commonly practiced for GTs pre-EPO
- we know that prior to EPO, modern storage techniques, and modern delivery techniques, blood doping was very risky
- we know that blood doping would have been detrimental to performance in other events pre-EPO
- we know that LeMond DNF'd most of his races, and was not a factor in 1988
- we know that LeMond didn't participate in the race in question
- we know that LeMond wasn't even on the team in question
AND
- we have wasted pages and pages on a red herring

Dave.

His purpose is to rile and bait. It is working. Ask him about Boardman beating others during the height of the epo era and watch him blow a fuse.

 

[Race Radio]

Zakje bloed, 2 days before Alpe d'huez....happy days.

Kinda funny how Rooks writes a book about his doping, lots of details about EPO, Cortisone, Test......but said he never did a transfusion.

Bishop says he never doped, a claim backed up by others on PDM. Also says he never saw or heard of transfusions, but talks about a lot of other drugs being used.

You are welcome to pretend that the unconfirmed 25 year old notes of a massage therapist are reliable but don't expect anyone else to share your view

 

[Dr. Maserati]

His purpose is to rile and bait. It is working. Ask him about Boardman beating others during the height of the epo era and watch him blow a fuse.

But it's not working.
The bandwidth is free, he can waste as much as possible on their meaningless 'facts'.

He is attempting to say that there is some standard for others that is not being applied to LeMond. So, they should not be discouraged from posting but in fact encouraged to do so. The only one getting riled is themselves.

 

[86TDFWinner]

Zakje bloed, 2 days before Alpe d'huez....happy days.

What is a "Bloed'? please explain....

 

[Benotti69]

What is a "Bloed'? please explain....

Zakje bloed = bag of blood

 

[86TDFWinner]

Let me make this clear, there is no nudge nudge wink wink going on.

How do you know? you've alluded to it many many times here, yet have still not posted any of the "facts" you keep going on about that you have.

The reference to LeMond looking good in a PDM jersey in 88 was simply a dig at 86tdfwinner "forgetting" that LeMond had actually raced throughout the 88 season. A strange mistake to make for someone with his username.

Once again, you're misinformed. I didn't "forget" anything, I said earlier(which you again failed to comprehend), that i didn't consider him to havr raced in '88, since he didn't ride the Tour , the Roubaix, and other races. Only a handful, and it wasn't "throughout the season", it was a handful of races, scattered throughout that he mostly DNF'd because of what reason? the gunshot wound. I'm well aware of EVERY team he's ever ridden for, and the years.

I am not inferring Lemond MUST have doped, simply that the doping landscape is not quite what we believed before the PDM blood doping information. The discussion is relevant, because it is information that was not available until recently, so the "ad nauseum" discussions probably didn't cover it.

Ah, but you have in a "wink wink, nudge nudge" sort of way, then you said you didn't, then you say you did, and now you say you didn't again.

I am not inferring I have inside information on LeMond, that others do not.
I stated that I knew more about LeMond than 86tdfwinner was giving me credit for. If he thought he needed to tell me about LeMonds shooting incident, he clearly does not comprehend my level of experience

.


Well, you DID say you were a "Lemond Expert" did you not? you've gone on and on so much about how he "kinda sorta doped", alluded to it many times, then when folks called you out on it, you ran for the hills. You don't know much about LeMond, despite your contradictory opinion. if you did know about LeMond, you'd know that he isn't a doper, and you'd know all of this other stuff w/o having any of us having to point it out to you several times. You have no "level of experience" with anything, since you've refused to post anything of relevance, or to back up your fallacy/claims that LeMond somehow should be:

A) Scrutinized(when folks have asked you what about, you disappeared)

B) When LeMond supposedly doped(see response to answer A)

Read the posts back, you will see this is true.

As you accurately point out, I know that clean riders have won big, in some of the worst doping years, and have posted to that effect in the past. Based on that, using other riders doping as proof that LeMond must have doped, would be strange to say the least.

Well, what proof either way do you nhave to back up this statement, since it's so "obvious"?

If you can believe that I simply have an open mind on the subject of LeMond doping, rather than seeing every post as a devious plan to smear his reputation, you will see that all I have done is commented on actual events, and how they could be perceived.

What " actual events" involving LeMond have you commented on? We've asked you ad nauseum to post your "facts", yet you've still failed to do so.

If this is too much for you or other posters to believe, than that isn't my problem.

Nor is it our problem that you're clearly and "obviously" misinformed on all things related to LeMond, and you know less about much here, then you claim to.

This is why the clinic is here. Sterling reputation or not, its all open for discussion.

Yes, of which you still don't understand.

 

[86TDFWinner]

Zakje bloed = bag of blood

Thanks Benotti, never heard it called that before.

 

[Fearless Greg Lemond]

Kinda funny how Rooks writes a book about his doping, lots of details about EPO, Cortisone, Test......but said he never did a transfusion.

Bishop says he never doped, a claim backed up by others on PDM. Also says he never saw or heard of transfusions, but talks about a lot of other drugs being used.

You are welcome to pretend that the unconfirmed 25 year old notes of a massage therapist are reliable but don't expect anyone else to share your view

So there was no blooddoping according to you on PDM in the 1988 Tour team?

[PDM had a not normal year, to say the least]

All long ago but for me Parra was the winner of that Tour, with Bauer and Boyer next to him on the podium.

Thanks Benotti, never heard it called that before.

It is French.