LeMond I

[Race Radio]

Source? Just curious

Greg has talked about it a few times.

Armstrong’s offer to pay $300,000 to one of her husband’s former teammates to claim that he had seen LeMond use the oxygen-boosting drug. The teammate declined the offer.

http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/m...ully-downfall-article-1.1188512#ixzz2PjimNGuZ

I have heard Vincent Barteau and Johan Lammerts were the teammates.

 

[BroDeal]

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.

It's not supposed to make sense. The goal is not communication. It's to impress people enough that no one dares point out the emperor has no clothes. Unfortunately, sometimes an uppity hayseed stops to think, "Hey, WTF! This does not appear to make any sense." Maybe the hayseed is even gauche enough to point it out to others. Then the illusion comes crashing down.

It is what passes for writing in academic papers these days.

 

[ultimobici]

Greg has talked about it a few times.



http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/m...ully-downfall-article-1.1188512#ixzz2PjimNGuZ

I have heard Vincent Barteau and Johan Lammerts were the teammates.

Not to mention Julien De Vries, who was Lemond's personal mechanic at Z & Gan, worked for Armstrong at USPS & Discovery.

If Lemond had just retired & not spoken out one could question why nothing had come out, but Lemond has effectively been shouting from the rooftops for years. In spite of this not one solitary peep has been heard about his doing anything illegal in his cycling career. I don't think I've ever read of him so much as suggesting legal action over doping either. That suggests a man certain of his integrity and not someone with anything to hide.

So could all the modern day dopers' apologists just wake up and realise that there has been 20 years + of scrutiny with no change in result, and MOVE ON!!!

Please?

 

[aphronesis]

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?

This isn't that complicated. Others in the thread have already made the same observation. 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.

 

[aphronesis]

It's not supposed to make sense. The goal is not communication. It's to impress people enough that no one dares point out the emperor has no clothes. Unfortunately, sometimes an uppity hayseed stops to think, "Hey, WTF! This does not appear to make any sense." Maybe the hayseed is even gauche enough to point it out to others. Then the illusion comes crashing down.

It is what passes for writing in academic papers these days.

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?

 

[Race Radio]

It made complete sense.

To you. The rest of us asked "What the hell is he talking about?"

 

[Race Radio]

Great news. Richard Moore's excellent book "Slaying the Badger" is going to be made into a documentary for ESPN

http://willpughdop.tumblr.com/post/47070846146/slaying-the-badger-an-espn-feature-documentary

 

[aphronesis]

To you. The rest of us asked "What the hell is he talking about?"

really? i see you and bro weighing in. not an impartial, nor, can it be said, open minded set of readers. viz your impatience with merckx in the ullrich thread.

agora was a plant no doubt.

 

[andy1234]

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.

Yet again, someone unable to discuss LeMond, without mentioning Armstrong.

Armstrong is dead, move on....

The debate is simply whether LeMond should be scrutinised, it has nothing to do with the other American cyclist.

If there is nothing to be found, nothing will be found.
So no one needs to get upset when questions are asked.

Despite many years of investigations of the PDM team, over the years, no mention of blood doping had ever been made......until Bertus Fok's diary confirmed it happened. Not only that, but in the middle of the Tour.
It just proves that just because 20 odd years have passed, we still can't guarantee we know everything that was happening at the time.


Clearly blood doping was an option, and it certainly was practiced at the time.
It's effectiveness, given the constraints, is the only uncertainty.

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.

 

[ultimobici]

Yet again, someone unable to discuss LeMond, without mentioning Armstrong.

Armstrong is dead, move on....

The debate is simply whether LeMond should be scrutinised, it has nothing to do with the other American cyclist.

If there is nothing to be found, nothing will be found.
So no one needs to get upset when questions are asked.

Despite many years of investigations of the PDM team, over the years, no mention of blood doping had ever been made......until Bertus Fok's diary confirmed it happened. Not only that, but in the middle of the Tour.
It just proves that just because 20 odd years have passed, we still can't guarantee we know everything that was happening at the time.


Clearly blood doping was an option, and it certainly was practiced at the time.
It's effectiveness, given the constraints, is the only uncertainty.

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.

But there were strong rumours ever since the intralipid affair in 1991. The difference with Lemond is nothing has ever been suggested other than in the Clinic and by the uniballer. Neither party has brought forward anything other than conjecture.

I agree that all riders should expect to have their careers examined closely. That has happened with Lemond for nigh on a dozen years with nothing emerging.

As for Armstrong being linked every time, he was the catalyst for trying to debunk Lemond and expose him as a doper. In the 7 years or so since he retired nothing was suggested, not even in the wake of the Festina Affair. So it is entirely reasonable to draw parallels to show the idiocy of the allegations.

 

[BillytheKid]

Yet again, someone unable to discuss LeMond, without mentioning Armstrong......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.

Yes indeed. It is just so.

 

[Race Radio]

Yet again, someone unable to discuss LeMond, without mentioning Armstrong.

Greg was smeared for a decade. It is ok to correct the lies but ignore the person who pushed the lies? Really? We should never mention WHY some people have a completely uninformed image of Greg?

 

[Scott SoCal]

Greg was smeared for a decade. It is ok to correct the lies but ignore the person who pushed the lies? Really? We should never mention WHY some people have a completely uninformed image of Greg?

Sure. Andy wants to write the rules of discourse.

"We must investigate due to the nature of the allegations..."

A fools errand to be sure but then consider who's being provocative...

 

[D-Queued]

Yet again, someone unable to discuss LeMond, without mentioning Armstrong.

Armstrong is dead, move on....

The debate is simply whether LeMond should be scrutinised, it has nothing to do with the other American cyclist.

If there is nothing to be found, nothing will be found.
So no one needs to get upset when questions are asked.

Despite many years of investigations of the PDM team, over the years, no mention of blood doping had ever been made......until Bertus Fok's diary confirmed it happened. Not only that, but in the middle of the Tour.
It just proves that just because 20 odd years have passed, we still can't guarantee we know everything that was happening at the time.


Clearly blood doping was an option, and it certainly was practiced at the time.
It's effectiveness, given the constraints, is the only uncertainty.

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.

Yet again, someone who cannot handle the obvious implications about donkey to racehorse transitions on their favorite team without full regard for the history of the sport, without trying to use the 'maybe Greg did argument, and without stooping to Ad hominems.

You win.

What is the sound of one hand clapping?

It is the same as trying to discuss whether LeMond doped without discussing Lance's mission to get someone, anyone, to claim that they know he did.

That is the only known fact about LeMond doping.

You want to talk about whether LeMond doped? Then you must want to talk about the Lance Armstrong vendetta as there is nothing else to talk about.

Dave.

 

[MarkvW]

This thread is about people who want to discuss Lemond and doping.

Logically, only two categories of people would want to participate in this thread: (a) people who want to discuss LeMond and doping; and (b) trolls.

Coming into this thread and attacking people for discussing LeMond and doping is just trolling.

Seems to me LeMond's record stands on its own and doesn't need any defense from unseemly trolls.

 

[Hugh Januss]

This thread is about people who want to discuss Lemond and doping.

Logically, only two categories of people would want to participate in this thread: (a) people who want to discuss LeMond and doping; and (b) trolls.

Coming into this thread and attacking people for discussing LeMond and doping is just trolling.

Seems to me LeMond's record stands on its own and doesn't need any defense from unseemly trolls.

Isn't questioning people's motives for arriving at the opinion that LeMond doped via wild flight of fancy a legit part of the debate?

 

[MarkvW]

Isn't questioning people's motives for arriving at the opinion that LeMond doped via wild flight of fancy a legit part of the debate?

If the facts about Lemond don't speak for themselves, then nothing else will.

 

[86TDFWinner]

Yet again, someone unable to discuss LeMond, without mentioning Armstrong.

Armstrong is dead, move on....

I can and will here. Do you have ANY sort of credible(and FACTUAL) proof that anything you've said here about LeMond or questioned is truthful and/or has any merit whatsoever? Now's the time to fess up and post what you have to back anything up, or let it go yourself.

The debate is simply whether LeMond should be scrutinised, it has nothing to do with the other American cyclist.

So, lemme see if i understand you're attempt at trying to make an arguement here: You think LeMond should be "scrutinized" for what exactly, NOT doping? NOT falling prey to pressure, and doing what other riders at the time did? Can't he just be clean, and be left alone for doing so? Sorry if I'm not understanding your intention in continuing on asking something you yourself have no proof of either way. I'm scratching my head here admittedly.

If there is nothing to be found, nothing will be found.
So no one needs to get upset when questions are asked.

There hasn't been anything found, yet you're STILL asking(despite us all knowing you've known from the beginning that LeMond was/is clean, there's never been 1 shred of evidence from ANYONE claiming he doped, yet you're on some sort of "witchhunt" apparently, to see LeMond get buried like other riders have.

Despite many years of investigations of the PDM team, over the years, no mention of blood doping had ever been made......until Bertus Fok's diary confirmed it happened. Not only that, but in the middle of the Tour.
It just proves that just because 20 odd years have passed, we still can't guarantee we know everything that was happening at the time.

FYI: LeMond didn't even race in 88, he was still recovering from the gunshot accident, remember? Kind of negates your attempt at a "point" you failed to make here. LeMond was out of action in 87/88 and only returned to the TDF in 89/90(which he won).

Clearly blood doping was an option, and it certainly was practiced at the time.
It's effectiveness, given the constraints, is the only uncertainty.

So knowing all of this, what exactly is your point? How much simpler can we make it, so you'll understand he didn't dope, despite having all of these so called "options" you keep going on about? Like I've asked others before you, PLEASE PROVIDE ANY CREDIBLE(AND VERIFIABLE) PROOF THAT HE DID dope?

(By "credible/verifiable" I'm talking: dates/times/who administered said drugs to him/any teammates/former riders who SAW him do it, and ALL of this info can be backed up.) Can you do that please? Not something your dog told you, or you heard your goldfish 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.

We're all in agreeance here, 'cept I'm still not sure why you have to keep pointing it out, since everyone here agreed with you. You're just trying to phish for some juicy info, in hopes of finding some kind of thread of evidence LeMond was/is dirty, that's all this is about IMO. You've been shown post after post of credible/verifiable evidence that he didn't, yet you're STILL not satisified, and still wish to continue on with this poor, disappointing "witchhunt" in order to try to smear another rider, you have no knowledge about.


As the old saying goes: IF you got it, bring it!!!

 

[andy1234]

I can and will here. Do you have ANY sort of credible(and FACTUAL) proof that anything you've said here about LeMond or questioned is truthful and/or has any merit whatsoever? Now's the time to fess up and post what you have to back anything up, or let it go yourself.




So, lemme see if i understand you're attempt at trying to make an arguement here: You think LeMond should be "scrutinized" for what exactly, NOT doping? NOT falling prey to pressure, and doing what other riders at the time did? Can't he just be clean, and be left alone for doing so? Sorry if I'm not understanding your intention in continuing on asking something you yourself have no proof of either way. I'm scratching my head here admittedly.



There hasn't been anything found, yet you're STILL asking(despite us all knowing you've known from the beginning that LeMond was/is clean, there's never been 1 shred of evidence from ANYONE claiming he doped, yet you're on some sort of "witchhunt" apparently, to see LeMond get buried like other riders have.






FYI: LeMond didn't even race in 88, he was still recovering from the gunshot accident, remember? Kind of negates your attempt at a "point" you failed to make here. LeMond was out of action in 87/88 and only returned to the TDF in 89/90(which he won).






So knowing all of this, what exactly is your point? How much simpler can we make it, so you'll understand he didn't dope, despite having all of these so called "options" you keep going on about? Like I've asked others before you, PLEASE PROVIDE ANY CREDIBLE(AND VERIFIABLE) PROOF THAT HE DID dope?

(By "credible/verifiable" I'm talking: dates/times/who administered said drugs to him/any teammates/former riders who SAW him do it, and ALL of this info can be backed up.) Can you do that please? Not something your dog told you, or you heard your goldfish say.




We're all in agreeance here, 'cept I'm still not sure why you have to keep pointing it out, since everyone here agreed with you. You're just trying to phish for some juicy info, in hopes of finding some kind of thread of evidence LeMond was/is dirty, that's all this is about IMO. You've been shown post after post of credible/verifiable evidence that he didn't, yet you're STILL not satisified, and still wish to continue on with this poor, disappointing "witchhunt" in order to try to smear another rider, you have no knowledge about.


As the old saying goes: IF you got it, bring it!!!

You seem to be under the impression that I have accused LeMond of something?
Please point out where I did that.

As for the blood doping point, I guess 88 was the only year blood doping could have been used? Rooks and Theunisse, on discovering they could ride away from a tour field in 88, decided not to bother again?
I'm not accusing LeMond of blood doping, just that, unlike previous assertions, blood doping would appear to have been making an impact on racing, even then.

Lastly, take everything you have stated about proof, and apply it to any current rider. If there is no proof, such as dates and times and who administered etc, I guess everyone should STFU?

Great, it's a deal.......

 

[oldcrank]

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).

Yes, I agree that should be the case, except in the article
that RR posted that started this discussion (which i guess
you may not have seen or read) Greg says "I've never had
an IV...there is no reason to have an IV, zero reason" as
well as saying he has had an aversion to needles since
childhood and also saying he might take a multi-vitamin
every six weeks, which seemed to mean he didn't ever
receive a b12 shot. Contrast that to the interview he
gave in 1993 to Sports Illustrated where he said he took
his own blood sample and then drove two hours with it
to get it examined at a clinic. It just seems there is a bit
of an inconsistency in the two interviews, it doesn't
mean he was blood-doping or using intravenously
administered steroids.
As I said in a previous post, he could have learned to
draw blood for completely ethical and legal reasons
(his father-in-law is a doctor) but that just doesn't seem
to be consistent with what he was saying in the original
interview RR posted.

 

[oldcrank]

perhaps you should reconsider what your objective is and also perhaps pick an easier target, like Rominger or Kelly.

Sorry, guess I missed the interview where Sean said he had an
aversion to needles and had never received a B12 shot.

 

[Fearless Greg Lemond]

I tend to think to line of la roba in Colombia is more shocking but I bet oldcrank has just his own special agenda here.

 

[D-Queued]

This thread is about people who want to discuss Lemond and doping.

Logically, only two categories of people would want to participate in this thread: (a) people who want to discuss LeMond and doping; and (b) trolls.

Coming into this thread and attacking people for discussing LeMond and doping is just trolling.

Seems to me LeMond's record stands on its own and doesn't need any defense from unseemly trolls.

Hmmm. Next post after mine.

Are you calling me a troll?

I can remember when LeMond won his first Tour. I had three virtually instantaneous concomitant (= at the same time) reactions:

1. This was a truly amazing accomplishment by a North American
2. He is a cyclist, therefore he was probably doping
3. It will probably never happen again

I was right on the first, and wrong on the second and third.

That was in 1986. It is now 2013.

For almost thirty years I have been willing to accept that LeMond doped. Problem is, for thirty years there has been nothing to validate the guilt by association except Wonderboy's failed vendetta.

To put a finer point on it, I suspected LeMond had doped decades before the Interweb thingy that Andy1234 claims would change the scrutiny level.

Anyone that thinks that doping in cycling wasn't an issue back in the 80s obviously wasn't born before Star Wars or before the wall came down.

Later, when I was racing with another North American my first reaction was not about whether he was doping or not, but what an *sshole he was.

Turns out I was more than right about that.

Dave.

 

[pmcg76]

You seem to be under the impression that I have accused LeMond of something?
Please point out where I did that.

As for the blood doping point, I guess 88 was the only year blood doping could have been used? Rooks and Theunisse, on discovering they could ride away from a tour field in 88, decided not to bother again?
I'm not accusing LeMond of blood doping, just that, unlike previous assertions, blood doping would appear to have been making an impact on racing, even then.

Lastly, take everything you have stated about proof, and apply it to any current rider. If there is no proof, such as dates and times and who administered etc, I guess everyone should STFU?

Great, it's a deal.......

I don't get what it is you want here. You are not accusing LeMond of doping but want to see it discussed which it has been numerous times and the consensus each time is that the only thing linking LeMond with possible doping is the fact that Yvan Van Mol was a team doctor at ADR in 1989.

LeMond clearly had very little contact with Van Mol so that's it. What else is there to discuss. If something new transpires, then by all mean's it should be discussed. What aspect of LeMond possibly doping do you wish to be addressed??

There is a difference in discussing something where there is no new incriminating evidence after 20 years and discussing something that is happening right now.

Whatever way it is spun, SKY have revolutionized the sport in a way that has not been seen since the introduction of EPO so of course there will be suspicions. Especially when it is guy's who were previously mid-ranking road riders who are now tearing it up. The fact that SKY have proven to be hypocritical in their actions has only made their situation worse.

As I said before, you have alluded in the past to having connections with GAN and Chris Boardman so you are likely to know of any rumours about LeMond more than anyone else on here so why not put up or politely shut-up.

 

[86TDFWinner]

If the facts about Lemond don't speak for themselves, then nothing else will.

Never let facts get in the way of some people's attempts to smear others, knowing that the facts are what they are, and they still choose to go forth with it.

We have folks questioning facts on LeMond that have been pointed out no less than I'd say 30-40 times, yet some STILL choose to ignore them, in hopes of drumming up some sort of fallacial fantasy to back up their agenda.