LeMond II

[86TDFWinner]

Re: Re:

Sniper for looking things there are not. Give it a rest.

was actually looking for other things related to late 80s.

(I quote you here)

Jesus flipping Christ


No, what you're "Actually" doing is : BEATING THAT "DEAD HORSE" I mentioned earlier, that you took issue with.
FGL was spot on(as others in this thread have been as well), you just refuse to give up, just refuse to let it go. There is no "new news" you're looking for, you're simply "looking for" something that isn't there, in hopes to boost your ego, or some other agenda.

You just can't seem to understand what everyone's tried pointing out to you in COUNTLESS posts: There is nothing to see here about LeMond and doping, it's all been covered, innuendo, rumors, speculation, blatant lies...ALL BEEN covered by my friends here, but yet we STILL have folks who refuse to just let it go, and refuse to accept that there could be a few guys that were clean that raced.

Sniper, time to let this go, time to put it to rest, you're not getting the desired info you're seeking. You're not looking very "educated" here, you're looking like you have some sort of agenda or hate against LeMond.

Just my opinion.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Re: Re:

Sniper for looking things there are not. Give it a rest.

was actually looking for other things related to late 80s.

(I quote you here)

Jesus flipping Christ


No, what you're "Actually" doing is : BEATING THAT "DEAD HORSE" I mentioned earlier, that you took issue with.
FGL was spot on(as others in this thread have been as well), you just refuse to give up, just refuse to let it go. There is no "new news" you're looking for, you're simply "looking for" something that isn't there, in hopes to boost your ego, or some other agenda.

You just can't seem to understand what everyone's tried pointing out to you in COUNTLESS posts: There is nothing to see here about LeMond and doping, it's all been covered, innuendo, rumors, speculation, blatant lies...ALL BEEN covered by my friends here, but yet we STILL have folks who refuse to just let it go, and refuse to accept that there could be a few guys that were clean that raced.

Sniper, time to let this go, time to put it to rest, you're not getting the desired info you're seeking. You're not looking very "educated" here, you're looking like you have some sort of agenda or hate against LeMond.

Just my opinion.

He or She has their opinion also. why not let them have an opinion regardless of the horse?

 

[86TDFWinner]

Re: Re:

Sniper for looking things there are not. Give it a rest.

was actually looking for other things related to late 80s.

(I quote you here)

Jesus flipping Christ


No, what you're "Actually" doing is : BEATING THAT "DEAD HORSE" I mentioned earlier, that you took issue with.
FGL was spot on(as others in this thread have been as well), you just refuse to give up, just refuse to let it go. There is no "new news" you're looking for, you're simply "looking for" something that isn't there, in hopes to boost your ego, or some other agenda.

You just can't seem to understand what everyone's tried pointing out to you in COUNTLESS posts: There is nothing to see here about LeMond and doping, it's all been covered, innuendo, rumors, speculation, blatant lies...ALL BEEN covered by my friends here, but yet we STILL have folks who refuse to just let it go, and refuse to accept that there could be a few guys that were clean that raced.

Sniper, time to let this go, time to put it to rest, you're not getting the desired info you're seeking. You're not looking very "educated" here, you're looking like you have some sort of agenda or hate against LeMond.

Just my opinion.

He or She has their opinion also. And you are acting like a child wanting to take the ball home. Or in adult terms more like a biach. YMMV and why not let them have an opinion regardless of the horse?

And he/shes opinion is fine...but he/she keeps digging, when there's really no need to. It's been answered ad nauseum here, I'm sorry you have such issues with what I said as well.

 

[runninboy]

Re:

from the kimmage interview.
Lemond's account of his first iron shot from Van Mol (whom we know epo-doped most of his later teams):

My guess is it had to be iron since Amgen had not even gotten a patent for EPO at the time.

And about your apparent shock at the thought of someone other than a doctor being able to spot someone who is potentially low on iron, it isn't difficult especially if you have a close relationship. I spotted my sisters anemia with even less medical experience than Otto.

Oh and often anemia can be tied to bleeding ulcers which are pretty common for people under stress.
and my sister responded so well from just one iron shot they decided that was all that was needed.
I would imagine a trained athlete would probably have a similar if not better response to treatment.

feel free to keep insinuating that someone took a drug that was yet to be invented tho, i always need a laugh.

 

[runninboy]

Re: LeMond

Sorry i just picture this conspiracy and it is too funny

Amgen employee #1 "Hey there is some Mexican at the door. claims he knows about our top secret project"?
AE#2 " you can't mean Pro Crit, "
#1 "exactly right. Claims he knows all about it and wants some to stick his boss with in Italy"
#2 " Sure why not? and while we're at it, let's send some to all of our competitor's so they can get rich off our work and we can go broke."

yep sounds good to me..

 

[blutto]

Re: Re:

from the kimmage interview.
Lemond's account of his first iron shot from Van Mol (whom we know epo-doped most of his later teams):

My guess is it had to be iron since Amgen had not even gotten a patent for EPO at the time.

And about your apparent shock at the thought of someone other than a doctor being able to spot someone who is potentially low on iron, it isn't difficult especially if you have a close relationship. I spotted my sisters anemia with even less medical experience than Otto.

Oh and often anemia can be tied to bleeding ulcers which are pretty common for people under stress.
and my sister responded so well from just one iron shot they decided that was all that was needed.
I would imagine a trained athlete would probably have a similar if not better response to treatment.

feel free to keep insinuating that someone took a drug that was yet to be invented tho, i always need a laugh.

My guess is it had to be iron since Amgen had not even gotten a patent for EPO at the time.


....here is how it works sparky....Amgen applied for a patent for its "EPO" product on 30 November 1984....note that the patent is awarded after studies are conducted and those studies would of course require "EPO"....and further note there were studies being done in both Europe and North America ( a separate patent was issued in Europe in late 88...a few months before the approval of Amgen's patent... ) ....these studies would have started several years before the granting of the patent and "EPO" would have had to been available before the studies started ( the first North American study was published in Jan 87 and its safe to assume that production in some quantity started very soon after the 84 date )....and btw there is a reference in another thread dealing with this issue to a European source with access to "EPO" that was earmarked for a study that was offering it to various athletes....so conceivably the same type of offering could have made in North America either to appropriate athletes or perhaps patients in very dire need ( not to say it was but it could well have been )...

....so... your guess is pretty patently silly....

Cheers

 

[Dr.Guess]

Wasn't lemond good in both the mountains and the tts?

 

[sniper]

Re: Re:

....here is how it works sparky....Amgen applied for a patent for its "EPO" product on 30 November 1984....note that the patent is awarded after studies are conducted and those studies would of course require "EPO"....and further note there were studies being done in both Europe and North America ( a separate patent was issued in Europe in late 88...a few months before the approval of Amgen's patent... ) ....these studies would have started several years before the granting of the patent and "EPO" would have had to been available before the studies started ( the first North American study was published in Jan 87 and its safe to assume that production in some quantity started very soon after the 84 date )....and btw there is a reference in another thread dealing with this issue to a European source with access to "EPO" that was earmarked for a study that was offering it to various athletes....so conceivably the same type of offering could have made in North America either to appropriate athletes or perhaps patients in very dire need ( not to say it was but it could well have been )...

cheers, interesting.
as far as i'm aware (and it takes a simple google search to confirm it) indeed the late 80s is generally considered the time of introduction of EPO into the european peloton. Not sure what runninboy is on about. Here's a good thread for him to read up on the topic:
viewtopic.php?f=20&t=9589
The consensus in there is clear: late 80s.

In that context, it is interesting to note that Lemond (and also Hampsten, in defense of Lemond) has claimed in press a few times that EPO was introduced in the early 90s, whereas it's clear that it was introduced earlier.
Either they were honestly clueless, or being deliberately dishonest.

 

[sniper]

Re: Re:

The only horse in the room is a horse called "give it a rest" and 86tdfwinner is beating it to death.
There've been some other Lemond threads and if you look at them the pattern is the same. It starts with some posters asking legitimate questions, which then either get ignored or get dismissed as mudthrowing by Lemond fans. Meanwhile the questions remain unanswered.

Furthermore, in the Kerrison thread, there was a discussion about Pendleton's recent kidney infection and people were speculating about it being related to EPO abuse. Two things in that respect:
1. Nobody was dismissing the speculation as 'baseless' or telling anybody to 'give it a rest'. It seems Lemond-specific that such things cannot be discussed.
2. There was not a single reference to Lemond's kidney infection in that Pendleton discussion, nor am I finding it mentioned elsewhere. In other words, very few seem to know about it, which is odd because it is a rather serious condition, especially for a 'needle adverse' pro-cyclist. Is it something lemond invented for the kimmage interview?

Which reminds me: he says he was "needle adverse", but he also admits that he's been receiving injections for his chronic kidney infection. Since his condition is chronic and he suffered from it "from the day I was born", he must have been receiving a whole lot of those injections throughout his carreer. Still, he claims he was scared and hesitant when Vanmol gave him his first iron injection...mkay.
The other thing about his 'needle adversity' is that there is an anecdote (published in Sports Illustrated) where, i think in the early 90s, he's drawing a syringe of his own blood and even transports the sample himself to have it tested in some lab. How does that square with his alleged needle adversity? I'm not needle adverse, but i would be pretty clueless if i'd had to fill a syringe with my own blood.
Oldcrank has been pointing this out a few times in this thread, and Dr. Mas agreed that it was odd.

 

[ScienceIsCool]

There's 168 pages of this nonsense and you're complaining that discussion is being shut down!? Alrighty then.

Also, I suppose this is one of those "you had to be there" things. If you had raced or watched racing in the 80's you would have seen with your own eyes how Lemond was an absolute phenom in his teens from the first moment he swung a leg over a top-tube. He was a champion through and through. One of the best talents of all time and widely acknowledged as such by his peers.

Trying to discuss "reasonable" arguments about Lemond possibly doping is kind of like meeting a 20 year-old who has his first encounter with moon landing hoax conspiracies. Sure, you've "discovered" all this evidence and will surely be the first to prove it was all a big lie. But really, you end up coming off as a nutter.

Lemond was the real deal. Oxygen vector doping and Lemond was *never* a thing and it's so mind-blowingly obvious. It's been near 30 years - if we were ever going to have a convincing argument that he doped we would have heard it by now.

John Swanson

 

[MacRoadie]

Re:

Trying to discuss "reasonable" arguments about Lemond possibly doping is kind of like meeting a 20 year-old who has his first encounter with moon landing hoax conspiracies. Sure, you've "discovered" all this evidence and will surely be the first to prove it was all a big lie.

Flawless analogy.

Cheers

 

[sniper]

cheers, john.
brilliantly proving my point.

 

[sniper]

Re: Re:

it's remarkable to see lemond's story ticking so many of the froome-bilharzia boxes, most notably the blood disease and the mid-season transformation.

he even had a tailwind
viewtopic.php?p=963323#p963323
viewtopic.php?p=963646#p963646

 

[sniper]

Earlier in the thread, Albatros (amongst others) had a couple of good - very neutral - questioning posts wrt Lemond.
It's amazing the sarcasm he got thrown at him in basically every reply.

Here's one of his post that deserves to be repeated wrt the introduction of EPO into the peloton:
viewtopic.php?p=963605#p963605

 

[sniper]

Re:

Anybody got any real proof yet that LeMond doped? Just checking.
And still waiting...

more Froome parallels

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Re: Re:

from the kimmage interview.
Lemond's account of his first iron shot from Van Mol (whom we know epo-doped most of his later teams):

My guess is it had to be iron since Amgen had not even gotten a patent for EPO at the time.

And about your apparent shock at the thought of someone other than a doctor being able to spot someone who is potentially low on iron, it isn't difficult especially if you have a close relationship. I spotted my sisters anemia with even less medical experience than Otto.

Oh and often anemia can be tied to bleeding ulcers which are pretty common for people under stress.
and my sister responded so well from just one iron shot they decided that was all that was needed.
I would imagine a trained athlete would probably have a similar if not better response to treatment.

feel free to keep insinuating that someone took a drug that was yet to be invented tho, i always need a laugh.

My guess is it had to be iron since Amgen had not even gotten a patent for EPO at the time.


....here is how it works sparky....Amgen applied for a patent for its "EPO" product on 30 November 1984....note that the patent is awarded after studies are conducted and those studies would of course require "EPO"....and further note there were studies being done in both Europe and North America ( a separate patent was issued in Europe in late 88...a few months before the approval of Amgen's patent... ) ....these studies would have started several years before the granting of the patent and "EPO" would have had to been available before the studies started ( the first North American study was published in Jan 87 and its safe to assume that production in some quantity started very soon after the 84 date )....and btw there is a reference in another thread dealing with this issue to a European source with access to "EPO" that was earmarked for a study that was offering it to various athletes....so conceivably the same type of offering could have made in North America either to appropriate athletes or perhaps patients in very dire need ( not to say it was but it could well have been )...

....so... your guess is pretty patently silly....

Cheers

Great info Bluto. Be careful some here might not like the use of the name sparky.

 

[sniper]

i like this oldie from blutto:
viewtopic.php?p=964998#p964998
afaict blutto was spot on, but the only thing he yielded was sarcasm.

 

[Tonton]

Re: LeMond

To be fair to both sides, no, there's no evidence or shred of evidence that he doped. Facts actually suggest that he wasn't: I already mentioned the '92 Luxembourg ITT. The LA clan unable to expose him. IMO, he is the last clean TdF winner.

To be fair to both sides, instead of exposing EPO, he only mentioned blood poisoning due to remaining pellets when explaining how he had become much less competitive in '91-'92. He knew. And now that he's back at the table getting his share of the pie, no more Lemond the crusader that some (including me) once wanted to run for UCI Prez.

I was a huge fan of his as a rider. And as a victim of LA's bullying. But clearly, he's an hypocrite.

 

[sniper]

Re:

Going through the thread is amazing.
If there's one place where Sky fans get their arguments from, it must be this one.
It's all in there.
The continuous asking for proof.
The downplaying of Lemond's record times by means of tailwind and comparable arguments.
Uncritically taking what Lemond says in press to be true.
etc.

I'm going to go through and muck out this thread at some point today.
There have been calls for the mods to close this thread. But why?
Consider this: "There has NEVER been any proof that Lemond/Armstrong/Wiggins doped!!!!! No one is allowed to say that!!!!! Close this thread immediately!!!"
Nope.
Susan

good post Susan!

 

[@NL_LeMondFans]

We could ramble on for 300 more pages and still stand at the same place. Unless someone comes up with something new, it's up to everyone to make his/her own mind.

So far I've not seen anything conclusive either way. I choose to believe Greg's story because I think it adds up, IMO. That's just me.

One thing I am sure of, though, is that if you bend and interpret facts to fit your original theory, you will always succeed. That's what conspiracy theories are made of. I've seen a lot of this on this thread.

Tonton, your view of Greg as a hypocrite is based on your interpretation of his public image. Even at the "Change Cycling Now" press conference, he was stating his UCI presidency candidacy was not serious. He was put on the front line by the rest of the group as a symbol.

On the matter of EPO, I discussed this with Eric Boyer recently and what he told me is interesting : even in 92, Greg was not focused on other riders taking EPO, he was focused on trying to understand what was happening to him first and foremost. It took 2 years to understand his mitochondria was being compromised by lead poisoning. And even when he did, his first thought was that he was going to be able to beat this and come back. Which he couldn't, eventually.

Another thing we should all keep in mind when analyzing rider's quotes is that we rely on books and magazines when they rely solely on their memory. I don't know how yours is, but mine isn't perfect. Not as perfect as a book, anyway.

 

[ScienceIsCool]

Re:

cheers, john.
brilliantly proving my point.

You know, to a certain extent I totally understand. We now have a full generation that have never seen a clean race. They have nothing to compare with today and struggle to define "normal". And yes, the old normal included amphetamines, but it never, ever, ever turned a Froome into a Merckx. All it ever did was blunt the pain so guys could keep going. At their natural level of ability.

And if you want a first hand account of the times, here it is: The transformation occurred with Indurain, Chiappucci, Bugno, et al right around 1991-92. That's when it happened.

John Swanson

 

[Tonton]

Re:

Tonton, your view of Greg as a hypocrite is based on your interpretation of his public image. Even at the "Change Cycling Now" press conference, he was stating his UCI presidency candidacy was not serious. He was put on the front line by the rest of the group as a symbol.

On the matter of EPO, I discussed this with Eric Boyer recently and what he told me is interesting : even in 92, Greg was not focused on other riders taking EPO, he was focused on trying to understand what was happening to him first and foremost. It took 2 years to understand his mitochondria was being compromised by lead poisoning. And even when he did, his first thought was that he was going to be able to beat this and come back. Which he couldn't, eventually.

See, that "Greg was not focused on other riders taking EPO" is hard to believe. Sure, his primary focus was his own body and performance. But considering his stance, declarations, calling out dopers after he retired, why did he keep quiet then? Unlike a Bassons, for example, he was too big a fish to be broken and discarded by the cycling mafia. This, and now him buddy-buddy with he very people he should despise deeply disappoint me.

A quick word about Eric Boyer: in the 80's to mid 90's, I lived just a few miles from Eric Boyer's house, 25 miles or so south west of Paris. In '91 or '92, a great friend of mine started dating (and later married) the daughter of Boyer's next-door neighbor. On one occasion in '93, I had the chance to chat with Eric Boyer. At one point, he brought up the topic of doping, lamenting that pretty much the entire peloton doped. Nice guy, who looked very sincere and disgusted. Too bad he chose to close his eyes when DS for Cofidis.

 

[Franklin]

Re:

On the matter of EPO, I discussed this with Eric Boyer recently and what he told me is interesting : even in 92, Greg was not focused on other riders taking EPO, he was focused on trying to understand what was happening to him first and foremost. It took 2 years to understand his mitochondria was being compromised by lead poisoning. And even when he did, his first thought was that he was going to be able to beat this and come back. Which he couldn't, eventually.

Sorry man, that's just too much of the koolaid.

As you are Dutch you will also realize the rumors about Epo hit our papers pretty quick. You will also know that according to recent (tearful) testimonies Epo was not just an Italian/Spanish party drug, many riders from different teams were experimenting with it. Also, many riders are on record saying they were being left in the dust by obviously charged riders.

Now somehow we are going to believe the narrative that insiders like Greg and Laurent were blissfully unaware of what was going on until 1993? I don't buy this for a fraction of a second.

I'm comfortable with the notion that Greg never used Epo, but the naivity around it strikes me as windowdressing. Greg simply never smeared colleagues and he does not seem to have much problems with people using Epo. He's still buddies with Miguel Indurain. Laurent and Greg simply were(are!) part of the Omerta and hid(e) that by saying "we never knew".

And you know what? I'm actually pretty okay with that. I see no obligation for Greg to smear people he clearly sees as friends. It's not his problem.

 

[woodburn]

Re: Re:

Not impressed with LeMond taking the line that the sport is now cleanER and so talking to the likes of Vino and today Mick Rogers is all well and good. It aint.

The guy is rich, not billionaire rich, but he dont need to do this to earn a crust!

It really points to LeMond being only anti Armstrong. All those dopers and doping enablers that raced against Armstrong are still there....bar 1 or 2..

there's a good kimmage interview with Lemond out there (here: viewtopic.php?p=1190970#p1190970).
There's one point where Paul asks him if he'd ever seen doping happening around him e.g. from the French teammates at Peugeot he roomed with. Lemond does a Voigt-Yates immitation there saying he'd never seen anything.
When Kimmage asks him if he was at all aware of the doping culture, Greg says 'Yeah, but it didn’t matter to me.'
I have no reason to assume he's lying there, but it further supports the idea that he's never really been anti-doping.

He rode for Peugeot when he first was a pro about age 20. He is answering about how he felt then when first aware of it. At that point, doping was totally different than it became and wasn't something he experienced as a negative in his career because he was successful.

It's a pretty large reach to then say it supports he's never really been anti-doping.

 

[@NL_LeMondFans]

Re: Re:

See, that "Greg was not focused on other riders taking EPO" is hard to believe. Sure, his primary focus was his own body and performance. But considering his stance, declarations, calling out dopers after he retired, why did he keep quiet then? Unlike a Bassons, for example, he was too big a fish to be broken and discarded by the cycling mafia. This, and now him buddy-buddy with he very people he should despise deeply disappoint me.

Bassons was much later. It was after the Festina affair. You can't possibly compare outing riders before and after Festina.

To come back on Boyer, he told me it's only when he went to Polti in 95 that he understood what he was suspecting was true.

I think many people here lack a bit of humility. None of us can possibly understand what riders endured late 80's/early 90's. It's very easy, in retrospect, to say "you should have called out names". Much harder in real life. Especially when you have no substantial proof. And I maintain Greg had other things on his mind, like "what is this disease that's eating me away ?"