LeMond II

[Digger]

Find me the quote, and I'm confident we'll see Greg was referring to Oleg's idea of the million dollar trophy, not his way of dealing with his team and/or doping.

Eurosport last July. Long before Oleg mentioned that prize.

 

[@NL_LeMondFans]

He did go after Floyd. He kept talking to the press. Then they spoke on the phone. Greg then voluntarily went to usada with his version of this call. A call nobody else knew occurred. He then told usada his version of the call. Later established by Feds to not have happened. The contents that is.

I don't remember any of this. But then again, I'm the fanboy

 

[@NL_LeMondFans]

Eurosport last July. Long before Oleg mentioned that prize.

That's not a quote. That's your memory of it. It's good, and probably better than mine, but not the same.

 

[Digger]

I don't remember any of this. But then again, I'm the fanboy

well then if you can't remember something as fundamental as Greg testifying against Floyd at the USADA hearing, and the contents of what he said......

 

[blackcat]

Greg's anti doping stance. Awesome. I mean he was clearly forced into this. And forced to do the Pantani documentary where he criticised lance for making it look too easy on ventoux when he passed out Marco....yet both were doping. And then said Marco was a great rider. He says lance was never a great rider and was top 30 at best. Fair enough. But then says Marco was great. Joke.

shelley prometheus murdoch ridley scott guy pierce

 

[Dr. Juice]

Excellent post. Cheating is cheating, you do, or you don't. Coppi, Merckx, Finault, they would have EPOd or blood bagged if it was available.

Fignon had EPO available. Just look at his team. He refused it otherwise we would have seen Fignon transform and win the Tour in 1992. Of course it's a form of cheating to take amphetamine if that substance is banned....but from a moral point of view...a pill here and there at the end of a race for a bit of extra power....it's what probably 90% would do.
To do injections of EPO and store your own blood is a whole different level not only performance related. It's a clear cut line between just popping a pill once in a while (harmless as long you don't do it Tom Simpson style + alcohol) or being a completely chemical dependent artificial product in first place.

For me, if something is ethically in the grey area or tolerated and the health risks are calculable, it doesn't matter what the law says. The law should always be in function of the humans. Translated to cycling: If something doesn't give you a real performance benefit and you wan't to wash it down, then be free to do it.
Ban the substances which are really performance enhancing and distort the relative strenghts (performance level between riders).

 

[@NL_LeMondFans]

well then if you can't remember something as fundamental as Greg testifying against Floyd at the USADA hearing, and the contents of what he said......

Twisting my comments will not help, Digger...

I said I do not remember Greg going to USADA to testify and not the other way around (USADA contacting Greg).

 

[@NL_LeMondFans]

Fignon had EPO available. Just look at his team. He refused it otherwise we would have seen Fignon transform and win the Tour in 1992. Of course it's a form of cheating to take amphetamine if that substance is banned....but from a moral point of view...a pill here and there at the end of a race for a bit of extra power....it's what probably 90% would do.
To do injections of EPO and store your own blood is a whole different level not only performance related. It's a clear cut line between just popping a pill once in a while (harmless as long you don't do it Tom Simpson style + alcohol) or being a completely chemical dependent artificial product in first place.

For me, if something is ethically in the grey area or tolerated and the health risks are calculable, it doesn't matter what the law says. The law should always be in function of the humans. Translated to cycling: If something doesn't give you a real performance benefit and you wan't to wash it down, then be free to do it.
Ban the substances which are really performance enhancing and distort the relative strenghts (performance level between riders).

Well put. And that's precisely the difference between Fignon and, say, Stephen Roche.

 

[ray j willings]

How was it a "witch hunt" when it was proven that Wonder boy was a massive cheater, who got busted? Please explain.

Also, that "deflection of massive doping going on" was found to be correct as well. No "witch hunt".

How many riders admitted under oath that they doped? How many riders were implicated in Puerto? How many riders had been busted before and after the Armstrong era? Do A WIKI and you will see just about every major rider has a bust to their name including Merckx. We Knew Festina doped, We knew telecom were doping, CSC doping, in-fact Postal's doping programme was comical and nowhere near as sophisticated as some of the other teams.
So Tygart gets is *** kicked by Armstrong in a court of law then smartly uses all the testimony he got to get Armstrong busted in the media.
Armstrong doped but so did everyone else.
Do your wiki google and you will see riders doped before and after Armstrong.
Your hatred of Armstrong and belief that "it's all his fault" is not rational it's more about your own opinions of Armstrong....For instance Bradley Wiggins slags Armstrong off yet in another interview he his spelling out his admiration for Panatani and what a great climber he was "hypocritical bullsh%%"
Fine, if you don't like Armstrong that's you choice but doping and drugs and all kinds of crazy sh%t have been going on in cycling for nearly a 100 years before Armstrong came on the scene. Many thanks

 

[Benotti69]

Fignon had EPO available. Just look at his team. He refused it otherwise we would have seen Fignon transform and win the Tour in 1992. Of course it's a form of cheating to take amphetamine if that substance is banned....

but from a moral point of view...a pill here and there at the end of a race for a bit of extra power....it's what probably 90% would do.

To do injections of EPO and store your own blood is a whole different level not only performance related. It's a clear cut line between just popping a pill once in a while (harmless as long you don't do it Tom Simpson style + alcohol) or being a completely chemical dependent artificial product in first place.

For me, if something is ethically in the grey area or tolerated and the health risks are calculable, it doesn't matter what the law says. The law should always be in function of the humans. Translated to cycling: If something doesn't give you a real performance benefit and you wan't to wash it down, then be free to do it.
Ban the substances which are really performance enhancing and distort the relative strenghts (performance level between riders).

Doping is doping, whether or not 99% do it doesn't lessen it. Amphetamines or EPO, both are doping and cross the line.

Once you cross the line it doesn't matter how far on you go past, you have crossed it.

 

[webvan]

Fignon had EPO available. Just look at his team. He refused it otherwise we would have seen Fignon transform and win the Tour in 1992. Of course it's a form of cheating to take amphetamine if that substance is banned....but from a moral point of view...a pill here and there at the end of a race for a bit of extra power....it's what probably 90% would do.
To do injections of EPO and store your own blood is a whole different level not only performance related. It's a clear cut line between just popping a pill once in a while (harmless as long you don't do it Tom Simpson style + alcohol) or being a completely chemical dependent artificial product in first place.

For me, if something is ethically in the grey area or tolerated and the health risks are calculable, it doesn't matter what the law says. The law should always be in function of the humans. Translated to cycling: If something doesn't give you a real performance benefit and you wan't to wash it down, then be free to do it.
Ban the substances which are really performance enhancing and distort the relative strenghts (performance level between riders).

Well put indeed, but I bolded the part that we don't really know about...for Fignon for instance. In his book he says he was annoyed that Alain Gallopin wasn't available (his wife was about to give birth I think) to accompany him on a training ride so he decided to take some speed...huh, like everyone has speed hanging around in their house ? Right...Same thing with his EPO narrative at Gatorade, it doesn't make sense, he must have been the richest rider in the peloton at the time with everyone happy to get him anything he needed, bred with the "culture of doping" ingrained in cycling, EPO not detectable and he passes ? Dunno...I was a huge fan of the guy but I don't buy it and I know people who were involved in cycling at the time who don't either. I can understand that some guys might think twice about blood transfusion but EPO was a straight injection.

Not sure I understand the comment above about Roche, who's to say he wasn't doing what everyone else always did in cycling since day one ?

 

[@NL_LeMondFans]

huh, like everyone has speed hanging around in their house ? Right...

It's exactly what I thought when I read it. Fignon's book is full of justifications like this.

I can understand that some guys might think twice about blood transfusion but EPO was a straight injection.

You Have to take into account that some people were actually dying at the time...

Not sure I understand the comment above about Roche, who's to say he wasn't doing what everyone else always did in cycling since day one ?

I think Roche's name appeared in an investigation... Maybe Conconi ? It appeared the Carrera of Chiappucci was an EPO fest.

 

[Dr. Juice]

Good point about the dying. Many were scared to take EPO but took the risk when they realised it was THE big thing.

About "crossing the line" (Benotti): I think there is a difference between slapping someone into the face or shooting him in the head.

It doesn't make sense to ban amphetamine at all. Performance effect basically 0 or very marginal ( a bit of a push psychologically) and if you take it too much, it has catabolic effects. If the riders want to pop it then let them.
In the 50's riders drank alcohol. Performance benefit 0 and well...if it wasn't for coordination/balance impaired (danger for others) I'd say let them.
It's not like " everybody does it so be it". If EPO and steroids are common...it's still NOT okay to take them.
What do we want? Cyclist to be like angels, always perfect etc ....or do we want a normal competition without performance enhancing substances which distort the performance level of the riders (becoming a farce) ? I go for the second option

As long as the competition is fair and no unfair performance benefits achieved...let them do what they want.
I think we are being to hard to cyclist sometimes. They should be allowed to live like other human beings too. Drink, f##k , smoke, take whatever.

There are xxxxx substances banned and a lot of them have basically no benefits. Concentrate on the real competition killers would be better.

 

[Benotti69]

Good point about the dying. Many were scared to take EPO but took the risk when they realised it was THE big thing.

About "crossing the line" (Benotti): I think there is a difference between slapping someone into the face or shooting him in the head.

It doesn't make sense to ban amphetamine at all. Performance effect basically 0 or very marginal ( a bit of a push psychologically) and if you take it too much, it has catabolic effects. If the riders want to pop it then let them.
In the 50's riders drank alcohol. Performance benefit 0 and well...if it wasn't for coordination/balance impaired (danger for others) I'd say let them.
It's not like " everybody does it so be it". If EPO and steroids are common...it's still NOT okay to take them.
What do we want? Cyclist to be like angels, always perfect etc ....or do we want a normal competition without performance enhancing substances which distort the performance level of the riders (becoming a farce) ? I go for the second option

As long as the competition is fair and no unfair performance benefits achieved...let them do what they want.
I think we are being to hard to cyclist sometimes. They should be allowed to live like other human beings too. Drink, f##k , smoke, take whatever.

There are xxxxx substances banned and a lot of them have basically no benefits. Concentrate on the real competition killers would be better.

kimmage wrote about amphetamines in his book and was not ZERO.

There is a difference between slapping someone and shooting them, but they both constitute violence and violence is the line that is crossed.

I want clean cycling. I think it is easy where to draw the line. I dont think the sport believes in cycling without doping. Too many make too much money out of doping for them to think any other way.

 

[mewmewmew13]

I'm a fan of Mr. Lemond, and all of the stupidity posted here suggesting that his feud with Armstrong is his fault is just that, fu*king stupid. He made a small comment (that was completely legitimate regarding using Ferrari, lets not pretend otherwise), and Armstrong blew it into a full-blown war, and Greg suffered because of that. It's just troll BS to suggest otherwise.

That being said, if he was praising Cadel in Australia, and saying that Cuddles was a "victim." That's stupid also. No way around it. Cuddles was as complicit as anyone, and didn't just dope to hang around. He was full-program, and to think that he was a victim in that is blind.

Either way, he's still the only American winner of the Tour de France, so he's obviously a nation treasure also.

EDIT: I also agree with your point about hypocrisy, however, when a certain poster likes to use the term "Fu*k the hypocrisy," and they are in turn a massive hypocrite, it really can be galling to read their drivel.

Good post Chewie

a lot of drivel-- and immaturity and foot stomping when someone doesn't agree with a label of 'hypocrite'..
which is pretty much missing the whole point of trying to take the sport to a new level .
back off the finger pointing and constant blame
Move it forward folks..

if we all agree to call EVERYONE a 'hypocrite' then can we move on??

 

[thehog]

Good post Chewie

a lot of drivel-- and immaturity and foot stomping when someone doesn't agree with a label of 'hypocrite'..
which is pretty much missing the whole point of trying to take the sport to a new level .
back off the finger pointing and constant blame
Move it forward folks..

if we all agree to call EVERYONE a 'hypocrite' then can we move on??

I think you're saying there's hypocrites in the hypercritical world of cycling?

 

[mewmewmew13]

I think you're saying there's hypocrites in the hypercritical world of cycling?

I'm saying that if the biggest crime in the world is being a hypocrite..which I would bet even the biggest finger pointers here are in real life..
then BFD let's all assume the label and try to figure out how to make cycling better.
Jeezus F

Troll city here..

 

[Digger]

Good post Chewie

a lot of drivel-- and immaturity and foot stomping when someone doesn't agree with a label of 'hypocrite'..
which is pretty much missing the whole point of trying to take the sport to a new level .
back off the finger pointing and constant blame
Move it forward folks..

if we all agree to call EVERYONE a 'hypocrite' then can we move on??

so taking the sport to a new level is turning a blind eye to doping - awesome!

 

[mewmewmew13]

so taking the sport to a new level is turning a blind eye to doping - awesome!

sorry but that is not what I said. at all.

you are following the pattern.

 

[mewmewmew13]

Digger..it seems you are so hung up on the word 'hypocrite' that if we all embrace it and use it until it loses its potency then maybe you can find a more productive way of contributing to cycling.

 

[del1962]

Doping is doping, whether or not 99% do it doesn't lessen it. Amphetamines or EPO, both are doping and cross the line.

Once you cross the line it doesn't matter how far on you go past, you have crossed it.

Does that mean Kimmage was as much a doper as Chiappucci?

 

[Digger]

Digger..it seems you are so hung up on the word 'hypocrite' that if we all embrace it and use it until it loses its potency then maybe you can find a more productive way of contributing to cycling.

Do you realise how much damage someone like greg does by lauding some dopers and crucifying others? (not lance I am alluding to as obviously there was far more to that)

Dopers end up with serious depression when caught in many cases - because of the lack of consistency.

 

[Digger]

Digger..it seems you are so hung up on the word 'hypocrite' that if we all embrace it and use it until it loses its potency then maybe you can find a more productive way of contributing to cycling.

like greg

 

[thehog]

like greg

I'm leaving this thread to tune into CVV on NBC. I prefer the good dopers

 

[ChewbaccaD]

Good post Chewie

a lot of drivel-- and immaturity and foot stomping when someone doesn't agree with a label of 'hypocrite'..
which is pretty much missing the whole point of trying to take the sport to a new level .
back off the finger pointing and constant blame
Move it forward folks..

if we all agree to call EVERYONE a 'hypocrite' then can we move on??

Especially when the person screaming loudest about hypocrisy is the biggest hypocrite posting in this thread...I guess if you make your twitter handle related to the subject, that might fool everyone...

Anyway, you're right, little but Grade D TrollKraft going on. SSDD.