LeMond I

[sittingbison]

So LeMond has admitted to cocaine use, while racing with Renault.
I don't recall this being discussed, other than as a rumour.

Not doping, but worthy of further discussion,no?

No

10 chars

 

[Semper Fidelis]

I take it the original article was written in Newfie speak!

That would be tough no doubt. I guess I could post something that Newfie's say but I'm not sure how to phonetically spell it. Something like,,

"yessss boi". or "they are from upalong".

 

[Semper Fidelis]

No

10 chars

why not?

"Cocaine is a helluva drug"

 

[andy1234]

No

10 chars

You sit this one out then.....

In the meantime, doing coke, especially at a race, is really at odds with an athlete determined not to dope.
It doesn't by any means show that he was prepared to dope, but it shows a willingness to step outside the boundaries.

This also, wasn't in the public domain, until Fignon effectively put it there.
I'm surprised with all the digging, it wasn't made public earlier.

 

[GJB123]

You sit this one out then.....

In the meantime, doing coke, especially at a race, is really at odds with an athlete determined not to dope.
It doesn't by any means show that he was prepared to dope, but it shows a willingness to step outside the boundaries.

This also, wasn't in the public domain, until Fignon effectively put it there.
I'm surprised with all the digging, it wasn't made public earlier.

Sorry again, but you really need to perfect your forum searching skills. This has been done and dusted long tome ago. Don't let that get in your way though.

Lots of people transgress and use "party drugs" at some time in their life. It's private. However for someone with the traumatic past of LeMond it doesn't surprise me at all. But most importantly it says absolutely didly sh!t about using PED's. Which ever way you turn it. Or is a sportsman smoking pot more likely to use HGH or EPO in your opinion?

Your comments would be laughable if they weren't numbingly sad (and clueless).

 

[andy1234]

Sorry again, but you really need to perfect your forum searching skills. This has been done and dusted long tome ago. Don't let that get in your way though.

Lots of people transgress and use "party drugs" at some time in their life. It's private. However for someone with the traumatic past of LeMond it doesn't surprise me at all. But most importantly it says absolutely didly sh!t about using PED's. Which ever way you turn it. Or is a sportsman smoking pot more likely to use HGH or EPO in your opinion?

Your comments would be laughable if they weren't numbingly sad (and clueless).

LeMond admitting to cocaine use, during his racing days, has been discussed?
I couldn't find that discussion, when I did a search.
The only discussions seemed to discuss the rumours, not the fact.
Maybe you could point me in the right direction?

If you feel uncomfortable discussing this, I understand, but don't blame me for simply bringing up something LeMond, himself, already has.

Also, for the record, I have been around athletes of all levels, almost my entire life. I can honestly say, I cannot recall a single athlete, friend or otherwise, who took coke, speed, E's etc socially, who weren't prepared to dabble in other substances when they were training or competing.

I fully expect the usual hysteria in response to this statement, but while entirely subjective, is absolutely true.

Other people's experiences, may of course, differ.

 

[GJB123]

LeMond admitting to cocaine use, during his racing days, has been discussed?
I couldn't find that discussion, when I did a search.
The only discussions seemed to discuss the rumours, not the fact.
Maybe you could point me in the right direction?

If you feel uncomfortable discussing this, I understand, but don't blame me for simply bringing up something LeMond, himself, already has.

Also, for the record, I have been around athletes of all levels, almost my entire life. I can honestly say, I cannot recall a single athlete, friend or otherwise, who took coke, speed, E's etc socially, who weren't prepared to dabble in other substances when they were training or competing.

I fully expect the usual hysteria in response to this statement, but while entirely subjective, is absolutely true.

Other people's experiences, may of course, differ.

You can also turn that statement around and it would still be true and in the mean time show you the fallacy of your thinking.

I can honestly say, I cannot recall a single athlete, friend or otherwise, who took EPO, HGH, cortisones etc for performance enhancement, who weren't prepared to dabble in coke socially.

In other words: "All cows are animals, but all animals are cows."

Regards
GJ

 

[Race Radio]

Did you guys hear that LeMond got an iron shot at the 89 Giro?


Figured I would save Andy the effort.......the circle of (Troll) life

 

[RownhamHill]

You can also turn that statement around and it would still be true and in the mean time show you the fallacy of your thinking.



In other words: "All cows are animals, but all animals are cows."

Regards
GJ

I don't really follow the point you're making. Surely turning the statement around would leave it at something like:

I can honestly say, I cannot recall a single athlete, friend or otherwise, who took PEDs when they were training or competing, who weren't prepared to dabble with coke, speed, E's etc socially.

Which as a single statement is fairly useless, because it begs the follow up question about whether Andy could honestly recall a single athlete, friend or otherwise, who didn't take PEDs when they were training or competing, but was prepared to dabble with coke, speed, E's etc socially.

But he's already answered that with his original statement, which implies that if all the athletes he's met who dabbled with social drugs also dabbled with PEDs as well, then therefore he can't recall a 'clean' (in PED terms) athlete who dabbled with social drugs.

So I'm lost as to why his existing statement is a logical fallacy?

That said, while maybe interesting in and of itself, Andy's experience doesn't cast any light on LeMond at all. I know plenty of people who have taken cocaine but have never, and would never, break a host of other laws, rules and regulations - they just don't consider the rules around cocaine use to be based on any worthwhile justification/authority, whereas other rules (like not killing people, or not cheating on your taxes or whatever) they do consider just. It's not hard to imagine a cyclist sharing a similar view of cocaine versus EPO.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Did you guys hear that LeMond got an iron shot at the 89 Giro?


Figured I would save Andy the effort.......the circle of (Troll) life

Have you a source for this? I don't remember ever hearing about this.

This would be extraordinary because I just had it confirmed that LeMond beat a guy in the Tour that year by just 8 seconds, and the other guy admitted to taking drugs.

Hopefully yourself and Andy can keep the rest of the forum abreast of this breaking news.

 

[Fearless Greg Lemond]

For Andy:

http://www.cyclismag.com/article.php?sid=2500

Les années 80 :
Avoriaz 1985, Herrera, Hinault 375 w
Superbagnères 1986, Lemond 380 w
Alpe d'Huez 1987, Herrera 395 w, 1989 Fignon, Delgado 390 w

Les années 90 :
Luz-Ardiden 1990, Indurain, Lemond 390 w
Saint Lary 1993, Indurain, Jaskula, Rominger 430 w
Val Thorens 1994, Pantani 437 w
Alpe d'Huez 1995, Pantani 460 w
La Plagne 1995, Indurain 448 w
Arcalis 1997,Ullrich 474 w
Les Deux Alpes 1998, Pantani 450 w

Les années 2000 :
Hautacam 2000, Armstrong 449 w
Alpe d'Huez 2001, Armstrong 442 w
Luz-Ardiden 2003, Armstrong 442 w
Courchevel 2005, Valverde, Armstrong 449 w

One does not have to be a wizard to understand those numbers. Or maybe Portelau is also a quack? Seems LeMond was just not effcient enough

 

[GJB123]

I don't really follow the point you're making. Surely turning the statement around would leave it at something like:

I can honestly say, I cannot recall a single athlete, friend or otherwise, who took PEDs when they were training or competing, who weren't prepared to dabble with coke, speed, E's etc socially.

Which as a single statement is fairly useless, because it begs the follow up question about whether Andy could honestly recall a single athlete, friend or otherwise, who didn't take PEDs when they were training or competing, but was prepared to dabble with coke, speed, E's etc socially.

But he's already answered that with his original statement, which implies that if all the athletes he's met who dabbled with social drugs also dabbled with PEDs as well, then therefore he can't recall a 'clean' (in PED terms) athlete who dabbled with social drugs.

So I'm lost as to why his existing statement is a logical fallacy?

That said, while maybe interesting in and of itself, Andy's experience doesn't cast any light on LeMond at all. I know plenty of people who have taken cocaine but have never, and would never, break a host of other laws, rules and regulations - they just don't consider the rules around cocaine use to be based on any worthwhile justification/authority, whereas other rules (like not killing people, or not cheating on your taxes or whatever) they do consider just. It's not hard to imagine a cyclist sharing a similar view of cocaine versus EPO.

Quite right, edited my comment. Hope it makes more sense now. My point is not that his is a logical fallacy as such but that his statement proofs nothing other than that his sampling of coke snorting athletes is too small to find any who refused PED's while at the same tome doing coke socially. Or the other way around do all PED-user also snort coke. Both are equally idiotic and add nothing to the discussion.

 

[Benotti69]

Quite right, edited my comment. Hope it makes more sense now. My point is not that his is a logical fallacy as such but that his statement proofs nothing other than that his sampling of coke snorting athletes is too small to find any who refused PED's while at the same tome doing coke socially. Or the other way around do all PED-user also snort coke. Both are equally idiotic and add nothing to the discussion.

Andy is in this thread to possibly try and distract from other threads and or stories of doping.

 

[andy1234]

Quite right, edited my comment. Hope it makes more sense now. My point is not that his is a logical fallacy as such but that his statement proofs nothing other than that his sampling of coke snorting athletes is too small to find any who refused PED's while at the same tome doing coke socially. Or the other way around do all PED-user also snort coke. Both are equally idiotic and add nothing to the discussion.

Well duh....
That's why It was made as a subjective point.

There are probably lots of vehemently clean athletes who enjoy nothing more than a bit of blow on the weekend, meanwhile rejecting even the simplest of medical help during the week.
I just haven't met one.

Saline drip during a searing French summer? Not for me!
Bit of coke?, don't mind if I do.

 

[Race Radio]

Well duh....
That's why It was made as a subjective point.

There are probably lots of vehemently clean athletes who enjoy nothing more than a bit of blow on the weekend, meanwhile rejecting even the simplest of medical help during the week.
I just haven't met one.

Saline drip during a searing French summer? Not for me!
Bit of coke?, don't mind if I do.

The same twisted logic would assume that a rider who admitted to using coke would also admit to using PED.....if he had used them.

 

[Sogineur]

The same twisted logic would assume that a rider who admitted to using coke would also admit to using PED.....if he had used them.

So basically Lemond was that good ‘clean’ that the rest of the peloton,(the best professional cyclists in the world) a large percentage of whom were doping, using testosterone, cortisone, amphetamines, steroids and possibly blood doping, and whatever other cocktail of drugs that were being abused at the time, used these drugs just to be able to keep up with the pace of the ‘clean’ Lemond and still couldn’t beat him. This scenario is logically impossible and belongs in the realm of mythology. Thats the conclusion that any free thinking, logical and rational human being would arrive at. Lemond doped like all the rest. He was just never caught. You can be an outspoken critic like Lemond, who speaks out against drug use in the sport. Being an outspoken critic proves absolutely nothing about the ‘cleanliness’ of a cyclist and is a further attempt by Lemond to preserve his false legacy as a clean cyclist.

 

[D-Queued]

So basically Lemond was that good ‘clean’ that the rest of the peloton,(the best professional cyclists in the world) a large percentage of whom were doping, using testosterone, cortisone, amphetamines, steroids and possibly blood doping, and whatever other cocktail of drugs that were being abused at the time, used these drugs just to be able to keep up with the pace of the ‘clean’ Lemond and still couldn’t beat him. This scenario is logically impossible and belongs in the realm of mythology. Thats the conclusion that any free thinking, logical and rational human being would arrive at. Lemond doped like all the rest. He was just never caught. You can be an outspoken critic like Lemond, who speaks out against drug use in the sport. Being an outspoken critic proves absolutely nothing about the ‘cleanliness’ of a cyclist and is a further attempt by Lemond to preserve his false legacy as a clean cyclist.

Welcome to the Clinic.

Glad to see you brought your baggage with you.

Dave.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Well duh....
That's why It was made as a subjective point.

There are probably lots of vehemently clean athletes who enjoy nothing more than a bit of blow on the weekend, meanwhile rejecting even the simplest of medical help during the week.
I just haven't met one.

Saline drip during a searing French summer? Not for me!
Bit of coke?, don't mind if I do.

Wow, so instead of it being one time at a party in Columbia, LeMond was at it every weekend?
This new story is developing fast - thank you Andy for keeping us updated, I will refresh this page every minute and attempt to keep up.

 

[Race Radio]

So basically Lemond was that good ‘clean’ that the rest of the peloton,(the best professional cyclists in the world) a large percentage of whom were doping, using testosterone, cortisone, amphetamines, steroids and possibly blood doping, and whatever other cocktail of drugs that were being abused at the time, used these drugs just to be able to keep up with the pace of the ‘clean’ Lemond and still couldn’t beat him. This scenario is logically impossible and belongs in the realm of mythology. Thats the conclusion that any free thinking, logical and rational human being would arrive at. Lemond doped like all the rest. He was just never caught. You can be an outspoken critic like Lemond, who speaks out against drug use in the sport. Being an outspoken critic proves absolutely nothing about the ‘cleanliness’ of a cyclist and is a further attempt by Lemond to preserve his false legacy as a clean cyclist.

Wow! thanks for the amazingly unique and new look at this complex topic.

as you know this babble has been addressed over, and over, and over.....

 

[andy1234]

The same twisted logic would assume that a rider who admitted to using coke would also admit to using PED.....if he had used them.

Well based on your logic, every time a criminal got caught for one offence, he would automatically confess to all other crimes.....
The police would be thrilled, I'm sure.

 

[horsinabout]

The general tennant of Lemonds interview here is noble talk without question - but listen 1.30mins in when he gets popped the little question. Not very scientific you will argue, however, my lie detector antenni started to bleep! Stuttering, definately dry mouth, eye contact not constant.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PYsp4NKUo_M&list=HL1365696568

 

[D-Queued]

The general tennat of Lemonds interview here is noble talk - but listen 1.32mins in when he gets popped the little question. Not very scientific you will argue, however, my lie detector antenni started to bleep! Stuttering, dry mouth, avoiding eye contact....oh yes..see for yourselves.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PYsp4NKUo_M&list=HL1365696568

Thanks.

Perhaps you need to check your Internet connection.

He looked right at the camera/interviewer and seemed to have no hesitation with his answer that "I'd rather not finish the race than cheat..." followed up by the poignant observation about his teammate who died.

He was far more vague when discussing anti-oxidants just before that.

Dave.

 

[blackcat]

greg is just not that eloquent. i see no probs.

perhaps he took some uppers one day, amphetmines. p'raps not even pot belge. but did he dope like the rest of his generation, the consensus from R E A S O N A B L E posters is NO

 

[L29205]

The general tennant of Lemonds interview here is noble talk without question - but listen 1.30mins in when he gets popped the little question. Not very scientific you will argue, however, my lie detector antenni started to bleep! Stuttering, definately dry mouth, eye contact not constant. Only saying.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PYsp4NKUo_M&list=HL1365696568

Just watched the whole interview start to finish. I saw no change in the way he responded throughout the interview.

 

[horsinabout]

Thanks.

Perhaps you need to check your Internet connection.

He looked right at the camera/interviewer and seemed to have no hesitation with his answer that "I'd rather not finish the race than cheat..." followed up by the poignant observation about his teammate who died.

He was far more vague when discussing anti-oxidants just before that.

Dave.

I don't care what the concensus is on the clinic on Lemond. I'am making a genuine observation.