LeMond I

[Albatros]

No problem with your rule - but if you believe what Mottet says, then he finished 4th in TdF without resorting to other types of PEDs like steroids or blood boosters.
Suspicion on anything and everyone will always be there, regardless of what they say.

Well not for some who fully believe some cyclists.

I just find it impossible to believe that suddenly a cyclist is able to win completely clean when the bloody whole history of the sport is rotten with drug use.

We are coming from a sport where organisers supplied the drugs to the cyclists.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Well not for some who fully believe some cyclists.

I just find it impossible to believe that suddenly a cyclist is able to win completely clean when the bloody whole history of the sport is rotten with drug use.

We are coming from a sport where organisers supplied the drugs to the cyclists.

Again, you are perfectly entitled to your view, as is anyone else entitled to their view on how the adjudge an athlete to be doped or not.

However, if your view is that it is "impossible" for any rider to be clean, then I wonder why you argue any point. You don't have to waste time with positives or confessions or worry about the watts, form, wind conditions .... its simple for you, they cycle, they dope.

 

[Albatros]

John Tracey? He is Irish, not American - and more importantly he said he heard about the benefits of EPO, not directly that it was available.

There is a link from a 1988 document that discusses the benefits of EPO, it was hardly a secret what its potential in sports was going to be.

But he was talking about the benefits from a doping point of view, not medical. Ok, he may have heard about someone speculating how good EPO would be compared to blood doping, but also he may have heard about someone experimenting with it.

 

[Albatros]

Again, you are perfectly entitled to your view, as is anyone else entitled to their view on how the adjudge an athlete to be doped or not.

However, if your view is that it is "impossible" for any rider to be clean, then I wonder why you argue any point. You don't have to waste time with positives or confessions or worry about the watts, form, wind conditions .... its simple for you, they cycle, they dope.

To be clean and to win big. That is my stand, then I try to corroborate it with facts.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

But he was talking about the benefits from a doping point of view, not medical. Ok, he may have heard about someone speculating how good EPO would be compared to blood doping, but also he may have heard about someone experimenting with it.

So was the report -"Blood doping - a literature review" from 1988:

Perhaps the discovery and isolation of erythropoetin will make blood doping irrelevant. Erythropoietin is a direct stimulus to further red cell production
and is a potentially cleaner method of achieving the
same effects. Erythropoietin is not currently a banned
substance and the potential for it being used to confer
an unfair disadvantage is considerable.

 

[mountaindew]

....and on top of that sickness he had anemia....something that he had some real issues with after his brother-in-law mistook him for a turkey and shot him ( his hem numbers were @19 at one point) ....so halfway during the Giro he reached into the medicine cabinet and took the second best solution available, an iron injection ( which is also needed to support the use of you what )...and some b-12 ( which oddly enough is also a very effective masking agent for steroid use)..again could be nothing....just more little niggly dots...

Cheers

blutto

B12 a masking agent? Such ********.

 

[Race Radio]

Greg took banned substances while an active rider - end of story.

......Link?

 

[Darryl Webster]

......Link?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pyj2qL-bQ4E

 

[Big Doopie]

humans have walked on the moon during my lifetime.

i am human.

therefore i walked on the moon. (despite no evidence)

this is the logic that is being taken by many on this thread. and it is ridiculous beyond belief.

lemond apparently never doped. tough, i know, for the chamois sniffers to deal with that reality.

 

[Fearless Greg Lemond]

lemond apparently never doped. tough, i know, for the chamois sniffers to deal with that reality.

Maybe he did, but, and this is a big BUT, I am pretty sure it wasn't oxigene vector dope. Maybe a little amphetamines, maybe. A big maybe.

This guy rocked from 1982 till 1990, when his carreer was cut short by donkeys like Bugno and Indurain.

By the way, yesterday I rode for the first time in ages in this shirt:

I still kinda fit in it, I must be on oxigene vector stuff.i.

 

[Jeremiah]

...btw he married into a family of doctors and his wife was a nurse, who oddly enough had a habit of showing at certain special times during GT's....these little dots may mean everything or maybe nothing at all....but they are dots...

Cheers

blutto

Because he had no results before he was married.

...that TT is also used as evidence that GL was a cycling god as well...just depends which side your butter your bread on doesn't it....

Cheers

blutto

Because he had no results before that TT.

 

[D-Queued]

I'm going to go through and muck out this thread at some point today.

There have been calls for the mods to close this thread. But why?

Consider this: "There has NEVER been any proof that Lemond/Armstrong/Wiggins doped!!!!! No one is allowed to say that!!!!! Close this thread immediately!!!"

Nope.

Susan

The subject of Lemond's doping is ultimately raised as part of the never tested positive defense and follows on the ongoing malicious behavior of Lance towards Greg. The classic follow-the-leader results in scores of Lance fanboys sh*t disturbing in threads like these.

Of these three, Greg, Wiggo and Lance, there is one striking relationship. Lance has yet to tell Wiggo that he could find ten people that would testify he doped.

Oddly, there are far more than ten people that we know have testified about Lance doping.

Yet, not a single piece of evidence on Greg and not a single person has come forward.

If Greg had not prevailed in the Trek vs Lemond case, for example, we might have some evidence of some type of 'bad sport' action on the part of Greg.

But, no, Lemond prevailed. And the subtext is that because the root of the case is that Trek favored Lance over Greg, and impinged sales of Lemond bikes, Lemond prevailed over Lance through the Trek v Lemond case.

There is probably nary a 'Lemond supporter' who would not be interested in evidence of Lemond doping. I have said it before, and I will say it again. I would be very interested in anything that pointed to his doping.

Until then, threads like this are a pure red herring whose sole purpose is to take the low road and try and bring Greg down with Lance.

Dave.

 

[Benotti69]

The subject of Lemond's doping is ultimately raised as part of the never tested positive defense and follows on the ongoing malicious behavior of Lance towards Greg. The classic follow-the-leader results in scores of Lance fanboys sh*t disturbing in threads like these.

Of these three, Greg, Wiggo and Lance, there is one striking relationship. Lance has yet to tell Wiggo that he could find ten people that would testify he doped.

Oddly, there are far more than ten people that we know have testified about Lance doping.

Yet, not a single piece of evidence on Greg and not a single person has come forward.

If Greg had not prevailed in the Trek vs Lemond case, for example, we might have some evidence of some type of 'bad sport' action on the part of Greg.

But, no, Lemond prevailed. And the subtext is that because the root of the case is that Trek favored Lance over Greg, and impinged sales of Lemond bikes, Lemond prevailed over Lance through the Trek v Lemond case.

There is probably nary a 'Lemond supporter' who would not be interested in evidence of Lemond doping. I have said it before, and I will say it again. I would be very interested in anything that pointed to his doping.

Until then, threads like this are a pure red herring whose sole purpose is to take the low road and try and bring Greg down with Lance.

Dave.

I think they are trying desperately to raise Armstrong out of the gutter to the level Lemond is on.

Failing miserably of course. 20 years and still nothing.

 

[thehog]

The subject of Lemond's doping is ultimately raised as part of the never tested positive defense and follows on the ongoing malicious behavior of Lance towards Greg. The classic follow-the-leader results in scores of Lance fanboys sh*t disturbing in threads like these.

Of these three, Greg, Wiggo and Lance, there is one striking relationship. Lance has yet to tell Wiggo that he could find ten people that would testify he doped.

Oddly, there are far more than ten people that we know have testified about Lance doping.

Yet, not a single piece of evidence on Greg and not a single person has come forward.

If Greg had not prevailed in the Trek vs Lemond case, for example, we might have some evidence of some type of 'bad sport' action on the part of Greg.

But, no, Lemond prevailed. And the subtext is that because the root of the case is that Trek favored Lance over Greg, and impinged sales of Lemond bikes, Lemond prevailed over Lance through the Trek v Lemond case.

There is probably nary a 'Lemond supporter' who would not be interested in evidence of Lemond doping. I have said it before, and I will say it again. I would be very interested in anything that pointed to his doping.

Until then, threads like this are a pure red herring whose sole purpose is to take the low road and try and bring Greg down with Lance.

Dave.

I think Lance is proud he hooked up Wiggins. He probably boasted to the fact.

 

[Benotti69]

I think Lance is proud he hooked up Wiggins. He probably boasted to the fact.

But did he do it for his own motives?

 

[Susan Westemeyer]

Stay on topic or face bans.

Every time any rider wins anything, a thread in the Clinic opens "Is XX doping???".

The mods really do not see any reason why the issue of whether or not Lemond doped should not be discussed.

If you wish to discuss that theme further, do so in the About the Forum subforum. Not here.

Susan

 

[Fearless Greg Lemond]

Stay on topic or face bans.

Every time any rider wins anything, a thread in the Clinic opens "Is XX doping???".

The mods really do not see any reason why the issue of whether or not Lemond doped should not be discussed.

If you wish to discuss that theme further, do so in the About the Forum subforum. Not here.

Susan

When is the last time you saw Greg race?

If ever.

No pun intended of course.

 

[ultimobici]

Well not for some who fully believe some cyclists.

I just find it impossible to believe that suddenly a cyclist is able to win completely clean when the bloody whole history of the sport is rotten with drug use.

You evidently haven't grasped the difference between the benefits conferred by dope pre EPO and those of the EPO era have you?

We are coming from a sport where organisers supplied the drugs to the cyclists.

One thing that was expressly not supplied by the organisers was doping products.

 

[Susan Westemeyer]

When is the last time you saw Greg race?

I'm a lot older than you evidently think.

I am not saying Lemond did or not dope. I would never express such an opinion publicly about any rider. But there is no reason why others should not be allowed to express their opinions on the matter.

Susan

 

[Hugh Januss]

Originally Posted by Hugh Januss
And all the LA chamois sniffers want to believe that Greg doped too, even though there is virtually zero evidence to suggest it, and not even Lance's offer of a bounty for anyone who could uncover any such evidence produced anything. You guys are lame.

Why did this post get removed, while the below post that it was in response to is left up?

Anybody who doesn't sing the praises of St Greg, he who does battle with the evil Necrolancer is not a real cycling fan.

 

[ItalianJoe]

Oliver Starr, known him for 30 years. What a piece of work. I couldn't stand him then, and I see that he still is the same old Oliver. I will give him this -- he is an expert on doping.

 

[GJB123]

Isn't enough proof that an American athlete is stating its benefits in 1991 from what he heard from 2 to 3 years earlier?

No, it isn't and I have a sneaking hunch that you know that very well. And besides that, how does that then provide evidence that Lemond used EPO in 1989. It is a leap in the dark based on one athlete's statement (a non-cyclist at that) that EPO might have been used pre-1990/1991 to assuming that if it was used Lemond would have been an early beneficiary of the product. There is not a shred of evidence to prove that point.

And while we are at it, why not finally answer the query an the '89 final TT. How do you explain away the fact that not only Lemond bu a host of other riders were really fast on that specific day? All on EPO? Please, please enlighten us with your doubtlessly unrivalled expertise.

Regards
GJ

 

[GJB123]

To be clean and to win big. That is my stand, then I try to corroborate it with facts.

Please do corroborate your point with facts, because until now the facts were sorely lacking from the points you were trying to make with regards to Lemond. I can't wait what yet unkwon facts you have been able to uncover.

Regards
GJ

 

[Albatros]

Maybe he did, but, and this is a big BUT, I am pretty sure it wasn't oxigene vector dope. Maybe a little amphetamines, maybe. A big maybe.

This guy rocked from 1982 till 1990, when his carreer was cut short by donkeys like Bugno and Indurain.

By the way, yesterday I rode for the first time in ages in this shirt:

I still kinda fit in it, I must be on oxigene vector stuff.i.

His careers was cut short by Mottet and Hamsten. No need to go further than that.

 

[Albatros]

So was the report -"Blood doping - a literature review" from 1988:

Fair enough. It could have been based on such report.