LeMond II

[Digger]

Yeah, the vitriol directed at Greg while Kimmage's similar words are ignored is rather hypocritical.

Most understand the complexity of the topic. I think Floyd is one of the most talented riders in history and would have multiple Tours in a level playing field. Yeah, he is a doper but I still think he could have won. Guess that makes me a hypocrite.

Ultimately I know that I do not have to agree with everyone 100% of the time. That is what makes the world interesting.

what part of me arguing with Paul directly, AND HEATEDLY, about these matters don't you understand? even as late as this summer I talked on twitter about how there was zero evidence to back up the claim that EPO had caused the deaths of cyclists in Holland in the early 90's, this was in direct response to his article about Johannes Draijer. So I call out Greg and will continue to do so...and you absolutely are a hypocrite. You continuously talk of obsession and looking for conflict - you forgetting what you've done the last decade...
Also you talk of it being a complicated matter - it absolutely is not. Omerta, friendships and desire to stay with the in crowd are what make It difficult - you are the perfect example of this.
And you say similar words - I don't recall Paul saying Oleg is great for the sport, that marco was a great rider - in fact Paul was going mad at Greg's words on Eurosport this year...about Vino, Marco, Oleg....


As regards your views on Floyd - you see after your words on Horner, and why you said it, who knows what you really believe.....and you say it's me looking for conflict...when you basically are looking to troll lance....go right ahead....but now and again, maybe people such as greg can spread the net a little wider than lance...

Also, marco is a great rider in Greg's eyes...Paul has been going mad about this infatuation and even spoke to pinotti about it. How it was a joke...how you can reconcile greg saying this about marco, ullrich etc and yet say lance wasn't even a top 30 rider, yet still not concede there is hypocrisy is laughable...and that's ignoring him interjecting himself into Floyd's case...testimony that other authorities established at a later date wasn't true.

 

[Race Radio]

me arguing with Paul directly, AND HEATEDLY,

You got angry about something? I am shocked

 

[Digger]

You got angry about something? I am shocked

Nice deflection from the matters at hand. True to form for you when you are a beaten docket.

It's only ok to be angry at lance it seems.

 

[Scott SoCal]

Nice deflection from the matters at hand. True to form for you when you are a beaten docket.

It's only ok to be angry at lance it seems.

This is beyond tedious.


There are two types of people in the world; The Decent and The Indecent.


LA (at least for a time) was or perhaps still is clearly in the second category. I'm stumped as to why you just can't figure that out.

 

[thehog]

This is beyond tedious.

There are two types of people in the world; The Decent and The Indecent.

LA (at least for a time) was or perhaps still is clearly in the second category. I'm stumped as to why you just can't figure that out.

The fact that we live at the bottom of a deep gravity well, on the surface of a gas covered planet going around a nuclear fireball 90 million miles away and think this to be normal is obviously some indication of how skewed our perspective tends to be.

 

[Race Radio]

Nice deflection from the matters at hand. True to form for you when you are a beaten docket.

It's only ok to be angry at lance it seems.

Ha. You fill your posts with babble then claim victory.

Maybe you can provide of a list of people we need to hate as it is hard to keep up and your posts are increasingly incomprehensible

 

[Granville57]

The fact that we live at the bottom of a deep gravity well, on the surface of a gas covered planet going around a nuclear fireball 90 million miles away and think this to be normal is obviously some indication of how skewed our perspective tends to be.

Good post, hog.





















Wait, scratch that. What I meant to say was:

Dude, WTF?!?!

 

[Benotti69]

What!?! Kimmage sat with dopers? But, but.... the outrage machine says we have to hate him now. I don't care what they say, I still like Paul

Kimmage did dope. Be a bit much to not sit with them!

LeMond has definitely put his brand first and other 'matters' second.

 

[thehog]

Good post, hog.


Wait, scratch that. What I meant to say was:

Dude, WTF?!?!

Not a fan of poor reasoning. “The Decent and The Indecent” – There simply is no known system of judging people based on this criteria alone. The world is not that simple and there are grey lines on either side of the argument. Its selection bias. Adds nothing to a discussion. You are either x or y and we all know y is bad so you’re an idiot.

In relation to LeMond, I like him. Always have. Phenomenal bike rider. The Lance issue is close to him, its personal. Greg most recently hasn’t called other dopers out and doesn’t appear to care as much about Pantani etc. Whilst I’m sure he is upstanding gent, I’m not sure his opinion on all things Armstrong is well balanced. Last week I pointed to the Landis hearing whereby LeMond refused to respond to questions in relation to Armstrong. That I find troubling. Along with the fact he had a business relationship he was trying to protect with Trek. That being the case he shouldn't have appeared at the hearing.

LeMond has been through a lot. But I think he is now just tired and can’t be bothered being suspect again like he was with Armstrong. Too much pain, so he just says what most want to hear. And he's a TV commentator so like Phil Liggett he doesn't call out dopers like he did with Lance. And not to forget the settlement with Trek, which maybe was the issue and not so much the doping per se?

My opinion, obviously.

 

[Granville57]

Kimmage did dope.

Damn straight. Hard core!

it was a brief period in 1987 when I used amphetamines three times in one month for three criteriums.

 

[Scott SoCal]

Not a fan of poor reasoning. “The Decent and The Indecent” – There simply is no known system of judging people based on this criteria alone. The world is not that simple and there are grey lines on either side of the argument. Its selection bias. Adds nothing to a discussion. You are either x or y and we all know y is bad so you’re an idiot.

In relation to LeMond, I like him. Always have. Phenomenal bike rider. The Lance issue is close to him, its personal. Greg most recently hasn’t called other dopers out and doesn’t appear to care as much about Pantani etc. Whilst I’m sure he is upstanding gent, I’m not sure his opinion on all things Armstrong is well balanced. Last week I pointed to the Landis hearing whereby LeMond refused to respond to questions in relation to Armstrong. That I find troubling. Along with the fact he had a business relationship he was trying to protect with Trek. That being the case he shouldn't have appeared at the hearing.

LeMond has been through a lot. But I think he is now just tired and can’t be bothered being suspect again like he was with Armstrong. Too much pain, so he just says what most want to hear. And he's a TV commentator so like Phil Liggett he doesn't call out dopers like he did with Lance. And not to forget the settlement with Trek, which maybe was the issue and not so much the doping per se?

My opinion, obviously.

It's actually pretty simple.

If you or Digger or whomever else want to pretend there to be no difference (in the context of pro-cycling) between Lance, LeMond, Indurain, Pantani, Kimmage.... that LA somehow received a raw deal and he didn't do anything more or less than, say, Zabriskie or VdV then there's really not much to discuss.

There are grey lines which exactly explains why a reluctant rule breaker (Zabriskie) is altogether different compared to the bully pusher with a bent towards destroying those that "crossed" him.

Most on this planet understand this concept and it goes a long way to explain why someone like Indurain is treated far different than someone like Armstrong.

But then you knew all this already.

 

[thehog]

There are grey lines which exactly explains why a reluctant rule breaker (Zabriskie) is altogether different compared to the bully pusher with a bent towards destroying those that "crossed" him.
Most on this planet understand this concept and it goes a long way to explain why someone like Indurain is treated far different than someone like Armstrong.

But then you knew all this already.

Try not to make it so personal.

If you think Zabriskie, reluctantly doped to winning the opening ITT in 2005 with CSC then perhaps you need to check the term "perspective".

I think what you're doing is trying to draw party lines - Digger/Hog vs. the good guys etc. Us vs. them. Either your with us or against us.

That's neither discussion nor debate. That's just making a bunch of angry statements.

 

[ralphbert]

Most on this planet understand this concept and it goes a long way to explain why someone like Indurain is treated far different than someone like Armstrong.

While that is true from a personal point of view it should not be the case from the sports administration. They are there to enforce the rules equability not make moral judgments on who has a PHD in ******baggery.

 

[Digger]

While that is true from a personal point of view it should not be the case from the sports administration. They are there to enforce the rules equability not make moral judgments on who has a PHD in ******baggery.

Perfect. This. There isn't a bye law which states you get extra for being a bully.

 

[Race Radio]

While that is true from a personal point of view it should not be the case from the sports administration. They are there to enforce the rules equability not make moral judgments on who has a PHD in ******baggery.

Last I checked LeMond, the subject of this thread, was not in Sports Administration.

 

[ralphbert]

Last I checked LeMond, the subject of this thread, was not in Sports Administration.

Fair point. I guess what sticks in my craw is Lemond stands up for anti-doping but his actions are more anti-Armstrong than anti-doping. I don't have a problem with being anti-Armstrong, I can't stand him personally but I have always been clear, don't mind dopers, can't stand bullies.

 

[Scott SoCal]

Last I checked LeMond, the subject of this thread, was not in Sports Administration.

Yep, this.

 

[Scott SoCal]

Try not to make it so personal.

If you think Zabriskie, reluctantly doped to winning the opening ITT in 2005 with CSC then perhaps you need to check the term "perspective".

I think what you're doing is trying to draw party lines - Digger/Hog vs. the good guys etc. Us vs. them. Either your with us or against us.

That's neither discussion nor debate. That's just making a bunch of angry statements.

Nope. I'm saying when you draw no distinction then there's a near infinite amount of points to troll over.

I'm also saying your POV is purposeful. See the underlined.

 

[Scott SoCal]

Perfect. This. There isn't a bye law which states you get extra for being a bully.

Perhaps LA ought to attorney up and right some wrongs.

 

[thehog]

Yep, this.

Yes & no.

LeMond has chosen to put himself within Sport Adminstration. He sided with USADA on the Landis case and testified on behalf of USADA. He then stopped short and refused to respond on cross.

LeMond is a part of what played out because he chose to make comment and inserted himself into the process.

I think he's more anti-Lance than anti-doping but won't change the opinion that's he's a darn good cyclist.

 

[Scott SoCal]

While that is true from a personal point of view it should not be the case from the sports administration. They are there to enforce the rules equability not make moral judgments on who has a PHD in ******baggery.

The argument (in my mind) is not whether LA received too harsh a penalty. DZ and the others? That's a valid discussion imo.

 

[ralphbert]

The argument (in my mind) is not whether LA received to hash a penalty. DZ and the others? That's a valid discussion imo.

Yes agree. I don't have a problem with Armstrong getting a life ban. Legends of the sport receiving next to no scrutiny and Armstrongs pears receiving bans of 6 months is a joke.

 

[Scott SoCal]

Yes & no.

LeMond has chosen to put himself within Sport Adminstration. He sided with USADA on the Landis case and testified on behalf of USADA. He then stopped short and refused to respond on cross.

LeMond is a part of what played out because he chose to make comment and inserted himself into the process.

I think he's more anti-Lance than anti-doping but won't change the opinion that's he's a darn good cyclist.

Ok.

So, therefore, what?

 

[Digger]

As ralphbert above is alluding to, there is a difference between being anti lance and being anti doping. That's been the disappointing aspect. So much is still going on, it's blatant, and lance is still the devil in these people's eyes. Lance being a bully or being whatever negative you can imagine, should have no bearing on his ban.
Going back to Greg - he had such a chance with the trek case...witnesses were ready to testify...and he settled.

 

[red_flanders]

Did everyone forget all the unbelievable **** Lance did? **** him, he got what he deserved.