LeMond II

[D-Queued]

Re:

It is quite amazing how every debate somehow ends being brought back to SKY by the same people. Surely it is possible to debate without bringing SKY into everything.

People used to get all twirled up about discussions coming back to Lance.

Getting twirled up about SKY just makes me laugh? Who cares?

There are only two possible explanations, and two reasonable reactions.

1. It makes sense based upon the context of the conversation. In that case one nods their head up and down and embraces the added insight.

2. It doesn't make sense based upon the context of the conversation. In that case, one simply moves on to the rest of the post or the next post in search of new insight.

No reason to worry about non sequiturs.

Dave.

 

[thehog]

Re:

It is quite amazing how every debate somehow ends being brought back to SKY by the same people. Surely it is possible to debate without bringing SKY into everything.

Because Sky are riding today and are the biggest and most successful team. Why wouldn't you use them as a barometer or as a measure to previous teams/riders?

That's why Sky get brought into discussion, because it brings relevancy to this debate. It's very simple.

Which why it makes it so odd why you brought Floyd Lanids into the discussion. That made no sense.

 

[pmcg76]

Re: Re:

It is quite amazing how every debate somehow ends being brought back to SKY by the same people. Surely it is possible to debate without bringing SKY into everything.

Because Sky are riding today and are the biggest and most successful team. Why wouldn't you use them as a barometer or as a measure to previous teams/riders?

That's why Sky get brought into discussion, because it brings relevancy to this debate. It's very simple.

Which why it makes it so odd why you brought Floyd Lanids into the discussion. That made no sense.

You see, I see through you

In fairness the only thing you see is the tail you keep trying to chase.

I said your bait that Voet had no credibility was incredily similar to the jibes thrown against Floyd. All done for the purpose of trying to negate the message they were talking about. Other than that, Floyd is not really relevant here either. For the record, I believe in pretty much everything Floyd said as well.

Funny when a poster is muddled, its like "oh stuck here, mention SKY to try and create a diversion"

 

[Benotti69]

Re: Re:

A clean rep doesnt mean much. One of my Russian mates was using EPO and I was the ONLY person in cycling that knew he was.

Also Willy might have been giving Mottet props just to piss off other people that burnt him in cycling.

You can't guarantee 100% that a famous rider is natty just cos someone in the industry says they are.

Willy was using pot belge himself so he could drive the team bus for 5 days straight! He used to test the drugs on himself to test the clearance zone. He'd even inject Virenque with iron and tell him it was the black plauge so he'd ride faster under placebo! Excuse me whist we take what Willy says with a grain of salt. Mottett rode for Systeme U for crying out load and RMO!

Bassons rode for Festina for crying out loud. Usual double standards here. Even when Kimmage was at RMO, there were riders who didn't give into the drug-taking. It is there in black and white in his book. Try reading it some time.

Bassons was nicknamed 'Mr Clean'....not seen any similar nicknames since. We have the shark, cobra, gorilla, etc but no Mr Soap, Mr Pure, Mr Straight.........

I think since EPO changed doping and cycling forever, there are no more possibilities to have a career in pro cycling without some kind of performance enhancement. Teams cannot take the risk that riders cant 'perform'. Also why risk putting a rider with morals amongst the amoral.

 

[Afrank]

I'm not really sure what bringing up Sky does for this debate or how a posters thoughts on an issue concerning them is on topic with the debate. But there are plenty of other threads that are more appropriate to talk about Sky in then this one.

And Hog, please avoid using the term "botlogic" to diminish the opinion/thoughts of others. Thank you.

 

[Metabolol]

I believe Lemond is one of the cleanest TDF winners of all time. I wouldn't be surprised if he experimented a little with steroids/corticos/stimulants at some point but he probably didn't need them to win and it's possible he won most of his races completely clean.

Indurain on the other hand was a Conconi product who was probably blood doping for several years (EPO/blood bags) before he won his first TDF. A guy who certainly had natural talent but was turned into a freak with the help of italian doctors.

 

[thehog]

Re:

I'm not really sure what bringing up Sky does for this debate or how a posters thoughts on an issue concerning them is on topic with the debate. But there are plenty of other threads that are more appropriate to talk about Sky in then this one.

And Hog, please avoid using the term "botlogic" to diminish the opinion/thoughts of others. Thank you.

Agreed.

The reference to Sky wasn't about Sky. I brought up Vayer in relation to Festina and Voet, which was part of the discussion about Mottet. I only mentioned Sky as Vayer has views on Froome/Sky. I was actually talking about whether Voet, Vayer or anyone can be trusted from Festina in saying x or y rider was clean.

Although none of that had anything to do with LeMond, I was sticking to the topic.

I consider the topic over and will not pursue.

 

[mrhender]

I think it's time to move on towards discussing Lemond, and not all sorts of sidetracks leading nowhere good.

Please refrain from any further off topic/personal stuff/settling scores.

Also I'll probably do some cleanup of the last few pages,

Thank you.

 

["Jeff"]

Re: Re:

Well, ometra breaker No 1 Willy Voet told us that Charly Mottet was a clean pro and he finished 4th twice at the Tour and 6th in 89. He even finished ahead of LeMond in 91. My query thus, why would it be unbelievable for a clean rider to win if we are to believe Voet that Mottet were indeed clean.

Giles Delion, another rider with a clean rep finished 15th in 1990 in his first Tour. Whilst Delion was seen as a big talent, I don't think he was as highly rated as a young LeMond. Delion regulary beat doped riders before illness and the arrival of EPO scuppered his career. For the record Delion finished ahead of Moreno Argentin at Milan-San Remo in 1990 when Argentin was already working with a certain Dr.Ferrari.

Far to easy to throw out the 'Clean rider cannot beat doped rider' even though we have examples to the contrary, especially in the pre-EPO era.

You are totally right. I agree with you most of the time anyway.

Saying Delion finished before Argentin in a specific race is a little bit too much for my liking, but I get your point.

Personally I think Lemond was one the cleanest but his downfall was not only a result of doping abuse by others, like some like to pretend. No doubt there were plenty of riders too, who werent doped while others on the team were. That's something some can not deal with either. Here in the clinic, immdiately the whole team was on a program.