LeMond I

[Albatros]

Oh, and although you profess to be quite the expert and cycling historian, please allow me to point something out to you: Henri Desgrange never said that.

In fact, Henri Desgrange never rode the Tour (in fact he didn't even follow the full race at first). He was the co-founder of the French newspaper L'Auto-Vélo , and the first organizer of the Tour. That's pretty common knowledge (it's where the Yellow Jersey gets its color)...

That quote belongs to Henri Pelissier. Next time you decide to use Wikipedia, read a bit more carefully.

That defeats my whole point, Sir. Next time I will make sure I quote the right name from wikipedia and other sources. Otherwise my argument will lose strength.

 

[Fearless Greg Lemond]

Compared to you I feel borderline genius.

Thurau achieved the same in the eighties as your hero in the 90's . But Thurau has not excuse of being robbed as he is a confessed doper.

According to his words e needed the dope to win in the 70's, but couldn't win with it in the 80's Big deal. He may have still won if the rest were clean.

Okay so you are and a German and a sore loser, or are those 2 coherent? Never mind though.

According to LeMond he never had to dope, this instead of your amfetamine addict hero/countryman. And, again, what did good old Didi win again? The crown of four times caught taking dope? Even three times in one year? What an example in a threat on a rider never even brought up in a dope inquiry.

Too bad for your try.

Keep fishing, please.

Wonder who your next example will be.

 

[Franklin]

According to LeMond he never had to dope,

Whatever Lemond claimed has no value in this discussion, however much I like the guy.

 

[ultimobici]

Give me facts like someone asked me earlier.

I can give dozens of quotes of ex cyclists (and very big names by the way) of the great benefits of riding doped.

This is the crux of the matter.

Doesn't anyone smell a rat when someone is saying that it is possible to win the Tour pre EPO era clean and at the same time hear numeorus accounts of top riders saying exactly the opposite?

Who do you believe? I know who I believe.

You have to understand the context of the comments made by Coppi & Anquetil. Both of them raced when it was a given that you raced year round. After the Tour one had to do the criterium circuit to capitalise on your fame. Come October it was the 6 day circuit until February when the road season started up again. Cycling, as with most sports up until the modern era, was not paid that well. That is why amphetamine was so prevalent. Cortisone & testosterone allowed riders to ride through the pain but also it prevented the body's own defence mechanisms working. Remember Hinault's withdrawal from the 1893 Tour? Most likely as a result of his Vuelta ride which destroyed his knee.

Lemond was one of the first riders to eschew this traditional merry-go-round. Together with Phil Anderson he revolutionised contract negotiations, becoming the first million dollar rider in late 1984. Many top riders today can only dream of such a contract 28 years later!

In the 23 years since that 8 second win over Fignon Lemond has spoken out about doping in sport extensively, yet Fignon has never commented adversely about it. If Lemond was in any way a doper, even a little speed, I find it incredible that none of his peers has called him out. Would you stand by quietly while a contemporary of yours spouted off so hypocritically? I know I couldn't keep schtum. I'd have to say something about it.

 

[MacRoadie]

That defeats my whole point, Sir. Next time I will make sure I quote the right name from wikipedia and other sources. Otherwise my argument will lose strength.

Of course it defeats your whole point. You try to argue from a position of knowledge and authority, and suggest that you are a long time fan (back to Luis Ocana).

That you must rely on snippets from Wikipedia (a source that someone earlier pointed out can be accessed by any 10 year old), and also mis-quote it to-boot, belies your true ignorance of the subject matter.

Over and over, you posit what you represent as "facts" to support your fallacious argument, only to have others repeatedly point out your errors, omissions, and lack of understanding as to the context in which much of what you quote was actually stated.

1. You don't know who made the comment.
2. You don't know why the comment was made.
3. You don't know the historical or chronological context within which it was made.

Why on earth would your argument lose strength?

 

[7_7_7_7]

Sunday, July 23, 1989, Versailles - Paris, 24.5km Individual Time Trial.

A : Start on the Av.de Paris in front of the Château de Versailles.

B : Turn at the top of the Champs-Elysées at the Arc de Triomphe.

C : Finish on the Champs-Elysées.

Versailles>-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------->Paris

 

[Albatros]

Of course it defeats your whole point. You try to argue from a position of knowledge and authority, and suggest that you are a long time fan (back to Luis Ocana).

That you must rely on snippets from Wikipedia (a source that someone earlier pointed out can be accessed by any 10 year old), and also mis-quote it to-boot, belies your true ignorance of the subject matter.

Over and over, you posit what you represent as "facts" to support your fallacious argument, only to have others repeatedly point out your errors, omissions, and lack of understanding as to the context in which much of what you quote was actually stated.

1. You don't know who made the comment.
2. You don't know why the comment was made.
3. You don't know the historical or chronological context within which it was made.

Why on earth would your argument lose strength?

Sorry but those quotes are not fallacious arguments but quotes from ex cyclists who stated very clearly that doping was essential to survive the rigours of the Tour. This is the nub of the matter and what I am trying to get at. And a statement that has been repeated throughout the Tour history.



Many many years later

"Every day, another race. It was detestable but you had to win money. You'd be taking amphetamines every two or three days. In the Tour it was always the same thing: an injection in the morning and pills in the evening."


Johan van der Velde 1989

 

[Albatros]

Okay so you are and a German and a sore loser, or are those 2 coherent? Never mind though.

According to LeMond he never had to dope, this instead of your amfetamine addict hero/countryman. And, again, what did good old Didi win again? The crown of four times caught taking dope? Even three times in one year? What an example in a threat on a rider never even brought up in a dope inquiry.

Too bad for your try.

Keep fishing, please.

Wonder who your next example will be.

It does not matter or should not matter my nationality. By the way, I am not German and have stated already that it is not a nationality issue, but a doping one.

So, we discard this guy's opinion on the effects of doping because he was caught a few times with it. Ok, so is it good enough for you Lemond opinion on steroids? "They help tremendously".

I wonder how you are going to come out of it unscathed.

 

[Albatros]

You have to understand the context of the comments made by Coppi & Anquetil. Both of them raced when it was a given that you raced year round. After the Tour one had to do the criterium circuit to capitalise on your fame. Come October it was the 6 day circuit until February when the road season started up again. Cycling, as with most sports up until the modern era, was not paid that well. That is why amphetamine was so prevalent. Cortisone & testosterone allowed riders to ride through the pain but also it prevented the body's own defence mechanisms working. Remember Hinault's withdrawal from the 1893 Tour? Most likely as a result of his Vuelta ride which destroyed his knee.

Lemond was one of the first riders to eschew this traditional merry-go-round. Together with Phil Anderson he revolutionised contract negotiations, becoming the first million dollar rider in late 1984. Many top riders today can only dream of such a contract 28 years later!

In the 23 years since that 8 second win over Fignon Lemond has spoken out about doping in sport extensively, yet Fignon has never commented adversely about it. If Lemond was in any way a doper, even a little speed, I find it incredible that none of his peers has called him out. Would you stand by quietly while a contemporary of yours spouted off so hypocritically? I know I couldn't keep schtum. I'd have to say something about it.

Well after Coppi and Anquetil similar claims have been produced by other cyclists where they have statated under no uncertain terms that doping in cycling was a must.

So I go with the most prevalent opinion, opinion shared by Lemond by the way.

And if you read accounts on the internet of amateurs talking about the effects of steroids, they very much match those of ex cyclists. Steroids are a significant perfomance booster, not a minor help.

 

[Albatros]

Because nobody has picked on this I will put it up again for scrutiny.


This is one of Lemond stances on doping:

"First of all, you have to understand the doping mentality. I don't think there's a rider in the peloton that prefers to take drugs. It's simply what doing to keep up with competition, and if they think everyone's getting away with it, they feel like they need to use it, too. Half of these guys haven't finished high school, have a wife and three kids at home, and if they don't perform, they won't get paid. The problem with Americans is that our ethics are sometimes a bit nave-don't get me wrong, the American ethic is really good, I like the American attitude, but it doesn't really bite into the reality of situation."


Is he not condoning doping on this paragraph?


Why then he goes after Armstrong with such virulence? Was it because the American ethics should never be broken again?

Did they bite into the reality of the situation once Armstrong started winning Tours de France?

Just curious.

 

[Caruut]

Because nobody has picked on this I will put it up again for scrutiny.


This is one of Lemond stances on doping:

"First of all, you have to understand the doping mentality. I don't think there's a rider in the peloton that prefers to take drugs. It's simply what doing to keep up with competition, and if they think everyone's getting away with it, they feel like they need to use it, too. Half of these guys haven't finished high school, have a wife and three kids at home, and if they don't perform, they won't get paid. The problem with Americans is that our ethics are sometimes a bit nave-don't get me wrong, the American ethic is really good, I like the American attitude, but it doesn't really bite into the reality of situation."


Is he not condoning doping on this paragraph?


Why then he goes after Armstrong with such virulence? Was it because the American ethics should never be broken again?

Did they bite into the reality of the situation once Armstrong started winning Tours de France?

Just curious.

How do you know that is his stance on doping? It sounds to me like he's explaining the mindset of htose who dope and saying that he doesn't necessarily think that it is "evil" and that many of the riders won't think that they are cheating.

Something both LeMond and Fignon say is that during that era, whatever you took, the cream rose to the top. Maybe 3rd became 1st, but you didn't have situations where pack-fodder became world-beaters and world-beaters became pack-fodder.

I think LeMond's harsher stance on Armstrong than the joke PED users of his era is partly because there is a strong argument that Armstrong would have been a nobody in GTs without the program. Armstrong is also an absolute ****. Everyone and anyone was expendable and he didn't care how many lives got ruined so long as he was sitting pretty. People like that need taking down.

 

[krinaman]

Something both LeMond and Fignon say is that during that era, whatever you took, the cream rose to the top. Maybe 3rd became 1st, but you didn't have situations where pack-fodder became world-beaters and world-beaters became pack-fodder.

Obviously, if everyone is doping equally the best rider still wins. What starts getting unbelievable is that a clean rider is beating a peloton full of dopers.

I agree Armstrong would be nothing without doping. Just like anybody else who didn't dope in his era. But the thing is he used the same dope his opponents did. I'm not sure how one could argue that it helped him more than them.

 

[the big ring]

This is one of Lemond stances on doping:

"First of all, you have to understand the doping mentality. I don't think there's a rider in the peloton that prefers to take drugs. It's simply what doing to keep up with competition, and if they think everyone's getting away with it, they feel like they need to use it, too. Half of these guys haven't finished high school, have a wife and three kids at home, and if they don't perform, they won't get paid. The problem with Americans is that our ethics are sometimes a bit nave-don't get me wrong, the American ethic is really good, I like the American attitude, but it doesn't really bite into the reality of situation."
.

Context. This paragraph is entirely meaningless without context. Provide it.

 

[Race Radio]

Sunday, July 23, 1989, Versailles - Paris, 24.5km Individual Time Trial.

also prevailing tailwind, 13-17 mph

 

[Fearless Greg Lemond]

So, we discard this guy's opinion on the effects of doping because he was caught a few times with it. Ok, so is it good enough for you Lemond opinion on steroids? "They help tremendously".

I wonder how you are going to come out of it unscathed.

Why do those arguments always come from convicted dopers on their downfall?

Nevertheless, 23 to go.

 

[aphronesis]

Armstrong is also an absolute ****. Everyone and anyone was expendable and he didn't care how many lives got ruined so long as he was sitting pretty. People like that need taking down.

Sorry, but this is complete off-topic anachronistic rubbish. Rubbish, because it is the previous things-never mind the vengeful sentiment it expresses.

That said, why the veterans of the cycling scene and this board are entertaining the insinuations put to long known and long available-situational-simple facts that can be applied to LeMond as dredged up in Albatros' posts is an entirely different matter.

Maybe for argument's sake (and not really as applied to Greg, as I mostly share the opinion of those who saw him move through the ranks from the ground up) a differentiation between enhancement, cheating and "doping", let's say, might be useful. There may be threads for this: certainly some of the older posters have articulated aspects of the differences.

 

[ultimobici]

FFS Albatross. Read the whole answer. While you're at it bear in mind that interview is from 1998 prior to Festina kicking off IIRC.

Bicyclist: Then let me restate the question. Do you feel that drug use is prevalent in the pro peloton?

LeMond: Well, it's hard to say. I don't know if it's drugs, but there are substances. I don't know that I buy the excuse by people who say they didn't perform well in a one-day race because the winners were on drugs. In a one-day race, there's no reason you cannot perform as well as someone taking drugs. EPO (Erythropoeitin, a naturally-ocurring and synthesized hormone that increases red blood cell count) just increases your red blood cells. Here in America you can train at altitude any time you want and get the same benefit from altitude as from EPO. Steroids, on the other hand, accelerate recovery. I went steroid free throughout my whole career. There were always rumors of guys taking stuff, but more than steroids it was the cortisone, the catabolic, not the anabolic. Of course there were tests, and people have been caught with testosterone. The Italians, somewhere in the '80s, figured out how to take small amounts to be on the legal side of it, which does help recovery and would help tremendously in a three week race. I've heard two sides of the drug issue. First of all, you have to understand the doping mentality. I don't think there's a rider in the peloton that prefers to take drugs. It's simply what doing to keep up with competition, and if they think everyone's getting away with it, they feel like they need to use it, too. Half of these guys haven't finished high school, have a wife and three kids at home, and if they don't perform, they won't get paid. The problem with Americans is that our ethics are sometimes a bit nave-don't get me wrong, the American ethic is really good, I like the American attitude, but it doesn't really bite into the reality of situation. I know my old teammate, Eric Boyer, retired because he didn't want to touch the stuff, and I know many other people who made it through clean, such as Andy Hampsten and Steve Bauer. Every rider on La Vie Claire was clean, that was Paul Keochli's big deal to make sure he had a clean team. But I do know in the early '90s there was a huge movement in Italy. Riders that had been racing for six or seven years were suddenly riding really well. To me, that looks a little suspicious. The drug issue is something I often thought about during my career. Toward the end, I always wondered, 'Is everyone taking drugs, while I stay clean, causing me to perform so poorly?' But there wasn't a drug in the world that would've helped me. One thing I do know is that a teammate of mine went to an Italian team and he died of a heart attack a year later. It was a little disappointing. I do think the riders are trying to say, 'Hey, we're for control testing.' The riders are the ones who pushed for the haematocrit level tests, so people would stay within the limits.

WRT LeMond "going after" Armstrong, he didn't at all. He was asked to comment on the revelation of Armstrong working with Ferrari in the light of the latter being investigated for doping offences. Armstrong attacked him and LeMond merely defended himself.

For the rest of the posters here interested here's the link to the interview http://www.roble.net/marquis/coaching/lemond98.html

 

[Benotti69]

Obviously, if everyone is doping equally the best rider still wins. What starts getting unbelievable is that a clean rider is beating a peloton full of dopers.

I agree Armstrong would be nothing without doping. Just like anybody else who didn't dope in his era. But the thing is he used the same dope his opponents did. I'm not sure how one could argue that it helped him more than them.

Armstrong used lots more than his opponents. How do we know this? Vaughters, also he had bribed UCI, he met with the Lausanne Lab director and he never failed a test and even during comeback 2.0 he was allowed a 20 minute shower on his own all against the rules.

This is the problem with doping, it doesn't make things equal. The only bar by which to judge equality is for everyone to ride clean and use their natural talent, coupled with hard work, effort and mental strenght and that is how we see the true deserving winners.

Lemond has shown all these qualities, yet still after the guy retired nearly 20 years ago no one has come out and said he took this that or the other and there was an offer of $300,00 for info on Lemond doping.

Lemond doped? it seems like he didn't no matter what the trolling in this thread would have posters believe.

Armstrong fans want to drag Armstrong up to the level of Lemond to try and justify the behaviour of a GT donkey's extreme doping who had none of the natural GT talents that Lemond possessed.

 

[Race Radio]

Still no positive tests, doping doctors, statements from teammates and staff? Nothing.

It is entertaining watching the struggle to come up with something, anything, that ties Greg to doping.

 

[GJB123]

Because nobody has picked on this I will put it up again for scrutiny.


This is one of Lemond stances on doping:

"First of all, you have to understand the doping mentality. I don't think there's a rider in the peloton that prefers to take drugs. It's simply what doing to keep up with competition, and if they think everyone's getting away with it, they feel like they need to use it, too. Half of these guys haven't finished high school, have a wife and three kids at home, and if they don't perform, they won't get paid. The problem with Americans is that our ethics are sometimes a bit nave-don't get me wrong, the American ethic is really good, I like the American attitude, but it doesn't really bite into the reality of situation."


Is he not condoning doping on this paragraph?


Why then he goes after Armstrong with such virulence? Was it because the American ethics should never be broken again?

Did they bite into the reality of the situation once Armstrong started winning Tours de France?

Just curious.

Ah the cat is out of the bag. it is all about he who must not be named.

How about finally answering the query on the 1989 TT and all the other riders who were so fast they must also have been early EPO-users? You remain very quiet on that issue.

Regards
GJ

 

[pmcg76]

Compared to you I feel borderline genius.

Thurau achieved the same in the eighties as your hero in the 90's . But Thurau has not excuse of being robbed as he is a confessed doper.

According to his words e needed the dope to win in the 70's, but couldn't win with it in the 80's Big deal. He may have still won if the rest were clean.

I would just like to add some context to Thurau and his sweeping generalisations. In 1987 Thurau was part of the Skala-Roland team and tested positive at the Tour de France.

Also on the same Skala-Roland team was a young Danish neo-pro called Jepser Skibby. Skibby himself admitted to doping in his career but says that he only started doping around 1990. Prior to that he took just the normal vitamin injections and other legal substances.

Skibby finished 3rd on the long TT stage of the Tour in 87 and finished Top 30 overall, well in front of Thurau who was obvioulsy doping. So clearly when Thurau says everyone was doping, he somehow missed that there were riders on his own team who were not doping but still preforming better than he was and capable of scoring top results at the Tour.

Perhaps maybe Thuraus's comments were tailored a little to justify his own actions rather than give an accurate assessment of the state of doping in the peleton.

 

[Fearless Greg Lemond]

Perhaps maybe Thuraus's comments were tailored a little to justify his own actions rather than give an accurate assessment of the state of doping in the peleton.

Let's keep honest, even in LeMond's team there were notorious guys like Kim Andersen, not to mention the whole bunch at PDM. ADR also weren't that squicky clean of course.

Thurau was probably comparable with Anderson though, notorious bada$$es.

 

[pmcg76]

Let's keep honest, even in LeMond's team there were notorious guys like Kim Andersen, not to mention the whole bunch at PDM. ADR also weren't that squicky clean of course.

Thurau was probably comparable with Anderson though, notorious bada$$es.

Not doubting that, it is likely that Thurau was a massive charger so the idea that someone else could do it clean probably seemed entirely implausible to him. Hence why he completely ignored a clean rider on his own team, he probably just assumed that Skibby had to be doping.

The other rider quoted was Johan Van der Velde who was once again a massive charger who actually became addicted to amphetamines. He was so off his trolley he turned to petty crime and his life went completely of the rails resulting in him ending up in jail.

In 1989 he was riding for the TVM team(ironically with Skibby) and one night during the Giro he just upped and left without telling a soul, strangely half the team bikes disappeared at the same time and after initial concern, Van der Velde was found at home completely untroubled in the Netherlands.

Thankfully Van der Velde did eventually get his life sorted and both he and Thurau have sons riding in the pro peleton.

 

[Caruut]

Sorry, but this is complete off-topic anachronistic rubbish. Rubbish, because it is the previous things-never mind the vengeful sentiment it expresses.

That said, why the veterans of the cycling scene and this board are entertaining the insinuations put to long known and long available-situational-simple facts that can be applied to LeMond as dredged up in Albatros' posts is an entirely different matter.

Maybe for argument's sake (and not really as applied to Greg, as I mostly share the opinion of those who saw him move through the ranks from the ground up) a differentiation between enhancement, cheating and "doping", let's say, might be useful. There may be threads for this: certainly some of the older posters have articulated aspects of the differences.

This post doesn't really make sense.

We were talking about Greg's motivations for being very anti-Lance. That could have been one of them. Not really sure what you're blathering on about beyond that.

 

[kielbasa]

Fastest TdF TT's:

1. Zabriskie - 54.676 km/h, 2005 Stage 1, 19km flat (AFAIK)
2. Armstrong - 54.589 km/h, 2005 Stage 1, 19 km flat
3. LeMond - 54.55 km/h, 1989 Stage 21, 24.5 slight downhill (as shown)

This wikipedia entry has it wrong saying that LeMond holds the 2nd fastest TT "ever ridden" in TdF history.