LeMond II

[Benotti69]

i think LeMond is making a big mistake if he thinks speeds are down and Cookson is not another old school Pres.

Big Mistake.

I dont have a problem with LeMond selling bikes. But the sentence where he talks about riders not being at fault,

......you get to know the riders, they are good people, they are not bad people, most of the riders… they are part of a team, and they get dragged into it.

Well this is definitely omerta speak. Come on Greg, the riders dont get dragged into anything. They make a choice. Simple.

Too many people, LeMond included, have adopted the attitude that Armstrong, Johan and Pat were the triumvirate of evil in the sport and now they are gone everything is sweetness and light, hurrah!

Well read what Jaksche says

“Doping is still part of the system. In cycling, only the athletes have been sacked, team leaders, managers, soigneurs, who were involved in the system remained.”

Sorry Greg. Better take those new blinkers off.

PS and talking to Neal 'Armstrong lover extraordinaire' Rogers sticks a bit in the craw! But that is business and he wants to sell bikes now.

 

[sniper]

the point is that interviewer is terrible. has his head waaay too deep up greg's behind.
how is he gonna get anything interesting/provoking out of Lemond with such a fanboy attitude?

the light has been shown...

the curtain has been lifted. The air is clear.
...
The clouds have lifted, the sun is out..

perhaps if one would try, one might actually get more out of Lemond.

 

[rhubroma]

the point is that interviewer is terrible. has his head waaay too deep up greg's behind.
how is he gonna get anything interesting/provoking out of Lemond with such a fanboy attitude?



perhaps if one would try, one might actually get more out of Lemond.

I have to say Lemond comes across as disingenuous and he seems to only approve of riders who won't diminish his achievements. Doping was already a problem in his generation, hence the sport didn't get murky only after he retired.

I'd like to know what he thinks of Alberto Contador. He never mentions him, as if the most talented rider of this generation for Lemond doesn't exist. I suspect it's because Greg thinks the Spaniard is a huge sporting fraud (like Armstrong?). So then when I hear him mention Froome as one of the big greats, I must admit I'm rather put off. Since I can't accept that at their level everyone isn't preparing to the standards of their rivals. To think otherwise is either foolish or hipocritical.

 

[D-Queued]

i think LeMond is making a big mistake if he thinks speeds are down and Cookson is not another old school Pres.

Big Mistake.

I dont have a problem with LeMond selling bikes. But the sentence where he talks about riders not being at fault,

Well this is definitely omerta speak. Come on Greg, the riders dont get dragged into anything. They make a choice. Simple.

Too many people, LeMond included, have adopted the attitude that Armstrong, Johan and Pat were the triumvirate of evil in the sport and now they are gone everything is sweetness and light, hurrah!

Well read what Jaksche says

“Doping is still part of the system. In cycling, only the athletes have been sacked, team leaders, managers, soigneurs, who were involved in the system remained.”

Sorry Greg. Better take those new blinkers off.

PS and talking to Neal 'Armstrong lover extraordinaire' Rogers sticks a bit in the craw! But that is business and he wants to sell bikes now.

I read your Jaksche quote, and I read your post.

Sorry, but I think the specific quote from Jaksche is about the most supportive quote you could find for the LeMond comment that you are trying to criticize.

If, as Jaksche says, the entire apparatus, save the athletes, remained then wouldn't new athletes be dragged into doping by that apparatus? That conclusions seems inescapable.

You are right, at some point the athletes make a choice and say yes. But what choice do they really have in that environment?

Thus, I think you have undermined your own argument.

Just saying.

Is it really practical that multiple athletes chose cycling in order to get on a doping program? (Other than Lance, of course, who was looking to satisfy his psychopathic dreams by distorting anything and everything.)

Imagine the conversation and/or thought pattern that these non-doping cyclists would have to have had to follow your choice theory: 'I want to start doping. I can't wait to get on a pro team. They all have great doping programs, and I really want a great doping program.'

Only in Lance's case do we have the 'I want to work with the greatest experts in doping, and I want to create the greatest doping program, ever.'

Dave.

 

[Fearless Greg Lemond]

Nice interview if you can skip the Armstrong part. Too bad Rogers gets paid for these questions though.

 

[biokemguy]

Testa

I found this bit to be the most interesting part of the interview.

In 1994 Cees Beers contacted Massimo Testa to see if he might have some insight to what was going on. Massimo supposedly cut to the chase with Cees and told him that I was finished and cooked because I took so many drugs in my career, especially after my comeback in 1989. Cees was shocked and told Massimo that I was not taking drugs and that there was something else going on. It never went further than that.”

Testa just couldn't imagine that anyone would ride without drugs, and he's still at Phonak 2.0. Makes me sad for the young guys on that team.

 

[Race Radio]

I found this bit to be the most interesting part of the interview.



Testa just couldn't imagine that anyone would ride without drugs, and he's still at Phonak 2.0. Makes me sad for the young guys on that team.

One year after Max tells this to Cees he is giving the Motorola guys classes on how to use EPO

 

[sniper]

...
But what choice do they really have in that environment?

have to agree.
i would argue if your existence depends on saying yes to PEDs you don't have much of a reasonable choice.
among those who do decide to stay clean, i doubt they do it out of moral considerations. I think many who stay clean do so merely because they fear what PEDs will do to their bodies, not out of any fair play considerations.
those who do have genuine moral qualms about doping will probably not get very far in procycling because they lack a win-at-all-costs mentality.

 

[86TDFWinner]

The truth I was referring to was that Greg is not a bitter, crazy, loser. Trek and Lance worked hard to smear him.

Bingo!! Problem is....there's STILL some folks who just don't "get" this.

 

[Benotti69]

One year after Max tells this to Cees he is giving the Motorola guys classes on how to use EPO

Did he give Taylor the same lesson and how come LeMond doesn't think BMC are a problem in today's peloton, these enablers have not gone away you know!

 

[86TDFWinner]

Thanks for proving my point.

LOL! Which is/was what exactly?

The interview is filled with stuff about how great Lemond and his bikes are.

LOL! RR's point: YOU DIDN'T READ THE ARTICLE, which isn't surprising. So YOU'VE "proven his point".

It also appears he has jumped on the "everything is now clean, speeds are down" bandwagon. I guess being anti doping doesnt make you money anymore. Now its all about cashing in on the new clean era.

Ummm, you are aware he's not "jumped" on ANY band wagon or agenda? He's a "CLEAN" rider, has been for 20+ yrs, has stuck to his morals, and more SINCE THIS WHOLE NONSENSE HAS BEGUN. Nice of you to not realize that, even after all that's happened. That too is not surprising.

Maybe he can write a book about sky too?

I'd love that...I'd buy a copy tomorrow.

 

[Benotti69]

I read your Jaksche quote, and I read your post.

Sorry, but I think the specific quote from Jaksche is about the most supportive quote you could find for the LeMond comment that you are trying to criticize.

If, as Jaksche says, the entire apparatus, save the athletes, remained then wouldn't new athletes be dragged into doping by that apparatus? That conclusions seems inescapable.

You are right, at some point the athletes make a choice and say yes. But what choice do they really have in that environment?

Thus, I think you have undermined your own argument.

Just saying.

Is it really practical that multiple athletes chose cycling in order to get on a doping program? (Other than Lance, of course, who was looking to satisfy his psychopathic dreams by distorting anything and everything.)

Imagine the conversation and/or thought pattern that these non-doping cyclists would have to have had to follow your choice theory: 'I want to start doping. I can't wait to get on a pro team. They all have great doping programs, and I really want a great doping program.'

Only in Lance's case do we have the 'I want to work with the greatest experts in doping, and I want to create the greatest doping program, ever.'

Dave.

I am trying hard not come down on LeMond like a ton of bricks, but it is hard. His work on europsort lost him loads of credibility imo. The parade in the car with 3 big time dopers on the Champs Elysse was again hard to watch.

I think Contador, Piti, Wiggins, Froome, Nibali and others all want the best program and the best experts to execute those programs in order for wins, why only Armstrong? Armstrong's desire to win is not greater than many others nor unique, what he had in his favour was a lot of support for his 'mytholigical cancer comeback' and apparently UCI by the balls over failure to spot his testosterone level anomalies after testing him.

LeMond had a big desire to win and innovate products to help him win. Lots would've quit after getting shot so badly but his desire was equal to Armstrong's does that mean that LeMond would've doped to win as that desire needed to be satisfied, hmmm, cracks are appearing.

There is definitely a willingness on LeMond's part to ignore past doping by the likes of Hinault, Merckx, Pantani, undurain and others, but not Armstrong's. I can understand why the Armstrong this doesn't get a pass, he did try to destroy LeMond, but the others shouldn't get a pass if LeMond was truly anti doping. His 'buddyness' to Vino was too much as is his willingness to accept the likes of Froome as clean and speeds are down when they are clearly not!

 

[86TDFWinner]

I think Contador, Piti, Wiggins, Froome, Nibali and others all want the best program and the best experts to execute those programs in order for wins, why only Armstrong? Armstrong's desire to win is not greater than many others nor unique, what he had in his favour was a lot of support for his 'mytholigical cancer comeback' and apparently UCI by the balls over failure to spot his testosterone level anomalies after testing him.

Funny you mention Nibali. I agree completely with you here, but when I brought his name up here a few times that i thought he wasn't as "clean" as everyone kept claimning him to be, most shot it down. I have no proof he's dirty mind you, but too many things about his win just don't add up with me. Of course that's my opinion.

Also, I do enjoy lol'ng at all the love Contador has received again as of late. Even some of the non doping crowd has somewhat embraced him again, which is funny to me.

 

[the sceptic]

LOL! Which is/was what exactly?



LOL! RR's point: YOU DIDN'T READ THE ARTICLE, which isn't surprising. So YOU'VE "proven his point".




Ummm, you are aware he's not "jumped" on ANY band wagon or agenda? He's a "CLEAN" rider, has been for 20+ yrs, has stuck to his morals, and more SINCE THIS WHOLE NONSENSE HAS BEGUN. Nice of you to not realize that, even after all that's happened. That too is not surprising.




I'd love that...I'd buy a copy tomorrow.

Lemond being supposedly clean has nothing to do with his current agenda. To me it seems obvious that he doesnt care one bit about doping anymore. The interview is filled with omerta speak and "new era" PR. Not something you would expert from someone who is anti doping.

Im starting to doubt if Lemond was ever anti doping in the first place. Going after Lance was personal. (not that I blame him for that).

 

[86TDFWinner]

Lemond being supposedly clean has nothing to do with his current agenda. To me it seems obvious that he doesnt care one bit about doping anymore.

That's your take on it I guess. The interviewer asked him, he responded, sorry if it wasn't what YOU wanted to hear.

The interview is filled with omerta speak and "new era" PR. Not something you would expert from someone who is anti doping.

I didn't get that at all, and neither did most. You claimed earlier it was "filled with stuff about his bikes"...well, the guy's been out of the game for something like 10+ yrs, of course he's going to hype his new bike line. But he didn't do it as much as you claim he did, he simply answered questions that were asked of him.

Im starting to doubt if Lemond was ever anti doping in the first place. Going after Lance was personal. (not that I blame him for that).

That's certainly your right to do that, I think he's tired of talking about it, and still hurt by what's transpired from it.

As to your last statement, wasn't it that way with Wonderboy going after LeMond and Betsy and others? of course. Lance made it personal.......I don't blame anyone who'd want to go after Wonderboy after that. Lance tried to destroy careers, and lives...you don't think he doesn't deserve to be gone after by anyone? You're foolish if you don't think so.

 

[D-Queued]

I am trying hard not come down on LeMond like a ton of bricks, but it is hard. His work on europsort lost him loads of credibility imo. The parade in the car with 3 big time dopers on the Champs Elysse was again hard to watch.

I think Contador, Piti, Wiggins, Froome, Nibali and others all want the best program and the best experts to execute those programs in order for wins, why only Armstrong? Armstrong's desire to win is not greater than many others nor unique, what he had in his favour was a lot of support for his 'mytholigical cancer comeback' and apparently UCI by the balls over failure to spot his testosterone level anomalies after testing him.

LeMond had a big desire to win and innovate products to help him win. Lots would've quit after getting shot so badly but his desire was equal to Armstrong's does that mean that LeMond would've doped to win as that desire needed to be satisfied, hmmm, cracks are appearing.

There is definitely a willingness on LeMond's part to ignore past doping by the likes of Hinault, Merckx, Pantani, undurain and others, but not Armstrong's. I can understand why the Armstrong this doesn't get a pass, he did try to destroy LeMond, but the others shouldn't get a pass if LeMond was truly anti doping. His 'buddyness' to Vino was too much as is his willingness to accept the likes of Froome as clean and speeds are down when they are clearly not!

Can't comment on the Eurosport stuff.

How do you compare desire to win? How do you determine that it was equal?

Lance is a recidivist rule breaker. He cheated over and over again starting from at least the defrauding of the Thrift Drug prize, and probably earlier.

Greg pushed the limits, legally. But, he didn't do absolutely everything and he didn't rig the prize itself. No back-dated TUE's, no Actovegin, no six EPO positives, no Ferrari, no Vrijman, no TdS cover-up, no SCA Hole-in-One-Contract, no plans to buy the Tour with Hein, no cancer charity with six figure appearance fees, no turning against your teammate a la the way he tried to screw Contador, no sorry you don't believe in miracles, no conspiring with Trek to defame and destroy someone. And, for that matter, no plans to run for Governor of Texas.

So how do you compare these efforts? How on earth can you determine them to be equal?

Looks more like Greg didn't want it bad enough to cheat, mercilessly.

Dave.

 

[RobbieCanuck]

Can't comment on the Eurosport stuff.

How do you compare desire to win? How do you determine that it was equal?

Lance is a recidivist rule breaker. He cheated over and over again starting from at least the defrauding of the Thrift Drug prize, and probably earlier.

Greg pushed the limits, legally. But, he didn't do absolutely everything and he didn't rig the prize itself. No back-dated TUE's, no Actovegin, no six EPO positives, no Ferrari, no Vrijman, no TdS cover-up, no SCA Hole-in-One-Contract, no plans to buy the Tour with Hein, no cancer charity with six figure appearance fees, no turning against your teammate a la the way he tried to screw Contador, no sorry you don't believe in miracles, no conspiring with Trek to defame and destroy someone. And, for that matter, no plans to run for Governor of Texas.

So how do you compare these efforts? How on earth can you determine them to be equal?

Looks more like Greg didn't want it bad enough to cheat, mercilessly.

Dave.

Bang on Dave.

 

[Hugh Januss]

Bang on Dave.

Yup................

 

[MarkvW]

Greg Lemond is (a) one of the very greatest champions; and (b) a complete idiot.

 

[rhubroma]

Greg Lemond is (a) one of the very greatest champions; and (b) a complete idiot.

I think Lemond is more interested now in rebuilding his capital within the sport, then objective analysis, hence he needs to say "the speeds are down," "the sports cleaned up a lot," etc., because the market he targets wants it (or, like himself, wants to believe it).

Cycling, like all modern professional sports, has praxis that are only "against the rules" when somebody gets caught. Since we aren't little children, one has to voluntarily suspend one's rational side, forget the known that's bad and watch the battles in the races for what they are, not what we would like them to be, or else abstain from watching altogether.

Of course this doesn't mean give up the battle for clean cycling, however, there are still no champions on bread and water alone at the top of the sport. It's not humanly possible, given the drugs everybody is on.

Armstrong's case was particular, because it wasn't just about doping, but how one ruthless personality ruled over a corrupt sport, while presenting himself as a paladin of the sick, even while deviously inflicting ills and woes on anyone that dared to get in his way, or expose him.

 

[Amazinmets73]

I have to say Lemond comes across as disingenuous and he seems to only approve of riders who won't diminish his achievements. Doping was already a problem in his generation, hence the sport didn't get murky only after he retired.

I'd like to know what he thinks of Alberto Contador. He never mentions him, as if the most talented rider of this generation for Lemond doesn't exist. I suspect it's because Greg thinks the Spaniard is a huge sporting fraud (like Armstrong?). So then when I hear him mention Froome as one of the big greats, I must admit I'm rather put off. Since I can't accept that at their level everyone isn't preparing to the standards of their rivals. To think otherwise is either foolish or hipocritical.

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/contadors-climbing-credibility-questioned

 

[Benotti69]

Can't comment on the Eurosport stuff.

How do you compare desire to win? How do you determine that it was equal?

Lance is a recidivist rule breaker. He cheated over and over again starting from at least the defrauding of the Thrift Drug prize, and probably earlier.

Greg pushed the limits, legally. But, he didn't do absolutely everything and he didn't rig the prize itself. No back-dated TUE's, no Actovegin, no six EPO positives, no Ferrari, no Vrijman, no TdS cover-up, no SCA Hole-in-One-Contract, no plans to buy the Tour with Hein, no cancer charity with six figure appearance fees, no turning against your teammate a la the way he tried to screw Contador, no sorry you don't believe in miracles, no conspiring with Trek to defame and destroy someone. And, for that matter, no plans to run for Governor of Texas.

So how do you compare these efforts? How on earth can you determine them to be equal?

Looks more like Greg didn't want it bad enough to cheat, mercilessly.

Dave.

In order to win a 2 week GT ones has to have tremendous desire to win to ingore your body and mind telling you to stop, take it easy, rest, dont try hard, listen to the pain in your legs etc.....

In that case i think all GT contenders who ignore what their bodies are telling them is because the desire to win is making them override those calls.

Now yes one cannot compare what Armstrong did to win with what LeMond is known to have done to win. I will at this stage err on the side of LeMond being clean, but i am beginning to dislike his willingness to only call out Armstrong the doper and not all the others who seems to have no problem shaking their hands, pictures with, riding in cars around Paris for the fans with etc etc......I find that too much.

He cannot have my respect while he calls Armstrong bad doper and the rest good riders who had no choice.....Why did LeMond not dope if the riders have no choice? How come LeMond had a choice?

This is what Digger would call the hypocrisy of the whole sport on the Armstrong saga and others like Ricco, Frei, Jaksche, Manzano, Sayer who are all castigated as bad guy dopers, but Millar, half Garmin, Conta, Piti, Popo, Jens etc get portrayed in a light that ignores their past sporting misdameanours.

I get the hate for Armstrong, no problem, the guy was no ordinary rider who doped, he took it to the furtherest extremes possible and deserves everything that came and everything that is coming his way, but Vino who never admitted, Piti same who never admitted, Contador, all good guys to LeMond. Nah not in my book.

So it appears LeMond is prepared to whitewash riders doping in order to sell bikes? Not good.

 

[Avoriaz]

Now yes one cannot compare what Armstrong did to win with what LeMond is known to have done to win. I will at this stage err on the side of LeMond being clean, but i am beginning to dislike his willingness to only call out Armstrong the doper and not all the others who seems to have no problem shaking their hands, pictures with, riding in cars around Paris for the fans with etc etc......I find that too much.

He cannot have my respect while he calls Armstrong bad doper and the rest good riders who had no choice.....Why did LeMond not dope if the riders have no choice? How come LeMond had a choice?.

I feel that, though Lemond may be anti doping, his number one goal is to protect his legacy as greatest American cyclist. Those other riders don't affect that.

 

[Benotti69]

I feel that, though Lemond may be anti doping, his number one goal is to protect his legacy as greatest American cyclist. Those other riders don't affect that.

That definitely could be one interpretation.

 

[grizzlee]

In order to win a 2 week GT ones has to have tremendous desire to win to ingore your body and mind telling you to stop, take it easy, rest, dont try hard, listen to the pain in your legs etc.....

In that case i think all GT contenders who ignore what their bodies are telling them is because the desire to win is making them override those calls.

Now yes one cannot compare what Armstrong did to win with what LeMond is known to have done to win. I will at this stage err on the side of LeMond being clean, but i am beginning to dislike his willingness to only call out Armstrong the doper and not all the others who seems to have no problem shaking their hands, pictures with, riding in cars around Paris for the fans with etc etc......I find that too much.

He cannot have my respect while he calls Armstrong bad doper and the rest good riders who had no choice.....Why did LeMond not dope if the riders have no choice? How come LeMond had a choice?

This is what Digger would call the hypocrisy of the whole sport on the Armstrong saga and others like Ricco, Frei, Jaksche, Manzano, Sayer who are all castigated as bad guy dopers, but Millar, half Garmin, Conta, Piti, Popo, Jens etc get portrayed in a light that ignores their past sporting misdameanours.

I get the hate for Armstrong, no problem, the guy was no ordinary rider who doped, he took it to the furtherest extremes possible and deserves everything that came and everything that is coming his way, but Vino who never admitted, Piti same who never admitted, Contador, all good guys to LeMond. Nah not in my book.

So it appears LeMond is prepared to whitewash riders doping in order to sell bikes? Not good.

not sure what u mean, can you clarify?, and im being genuine, i actually dont know what u mean?