LeMond III

[sniper]

Re: Re:

I was going to say that. I'm afraid this way of investigating gives way to much credit to rumours.

we give credit to rumors in the sky threads and indurain threads. we gave credit to rumors in teh lance threads. we give alot of credit to rumors in the cancellara thread.
as tonton said: riders usually know who's doing what. So when riders talk, that should never be taken lightly.
Riders have talked plentifully about lemond, thoug, admittedly, also in good ways.

...I also have to ask : if Poland had so much "expertise" on the matter, how come they didn't come to pass as a dominant country for the olympics, at the very least?

If you look at their olympic medal achievements, they have a spike in performances from the 60s onwards, with a peak in 1976. 1980s was also decent with a 10th place in the medal table, though admittedly that's not outstanding. They didn't participate in 84.
Also, Polish soccer had a golden spell during the 70s and 80s.
The 70s was the period when blood transfusions were making drastic inroads into soccer (see the Beckenbauer admission).
So I guess it's not farfetched to assume the expertise was there.

 

[sniper]

Re:

...
Do you remember when I asked if you dared ask Greg those questions ? My comment was lazy and out of line but I think the idea I had in the back of my mind is this : go to any of the riders we talked about : Froome, Cancellara, Wiggins, Indurain... And ask them. They will dismiss you or give you the politically correct answer. Ask Greg : he will sit down and talk with you. This I'm sure of.

you know what, I wouldn't mind if this is where the thread would end. Very well said.
Admittedly, from what I know of him, I would definitely say you are right on this.

I'm gonna go with Maxiton's account from here on and give it a rest.

 

[djpbaltimore]

Having read more about the 1984 blood doping at the Olympics, I don't think it sounds like an operation that could be called a rousing success. The results were terrific, but how much of that was due to the doping and the how much about the boycotts.

It should also be mentioned that the mid to late 1980s were a time when there was a great paranoia about tainted blood/ syringes because of HIV. That may have led to a hiatus on some of these transfusions out of fear.

 

[blutto]

Re: Re:

...
Do you remember when I asked if you dared ask Greg those questions ? My comment was lazy and out of line but I think the idea I had in the back of my mind is this : go to any of the riders we talked about : Froome, Cancellara, Wiggins, Indurain... And ask them. They will dismiss you or give you the politically correct answer. Ask Greg : he will sit down and talk with you. This I'm sure of.

you know what, I wouldn't mind if this is where the thread would end. Very well said.
Admittedly, from what I know of him, I would definitely say you are right on this.

I'm gonna go with Maxiton's account from here on and give it a rest.

...yep, pretty well, yep...though I do have an issue with Max's thoughts about the "keeping with the spirit" thingee....

Cheers

 

[Irondan]

Re: Re:

...
Do you remember when I asked if you dared ask Greg those questions ? My comment was lazy and out of line but I think the idea I had in the back of my mind is this : go to any of the riders we talked about : Froome, Cancellara, Wiggins, Indurain... And ask them. They will dismiss you or give you the politically correct answer. Ask Greg : he will sit down and talk with you. This I'm sure of.

you know what, I wouldn't mind if this is where the thread would end. Very well said.
Admittedly, from what I know of him, I would definitely say you are right on this.

I'm gonna go with Maxiton's account from here on and give it a rest.

I agree, but will keep the thread open unless there's others that feel this is a good place to close the 'Lemond' thread. Continuing on from here would just be rehashing old information.

 

[blutto]

Re: Re:

...
Do you remember when I asked if you dared ask Greg those questions ? My comment was lazy and out of line but I think the idea I had in the back of my mind is this : go to any of the riders we talked about : Froome, Cancellara, Wiggins, Indurain... And ask them. They will dismiss you or give you the politically correct answer. Ask Greg : he will sit down and talk with you. This I'm sure of.

you know what, I wouldn't mind if this is where the thread would end. Very well said.
Admittedly, from what I know of him, I would definitely say you are right on this.

I'm gonna go with Maxiton's account from here on and give it a rest.

I agree, but will keep the thread open unless there's others that feel this is a good place to close the 'Lemond' thread. Continuing on from here would just be rehashing old information.

...would say this last recent little while has seen some valuable new information put forth....the Rooks' revelations as a good example of that....so maybe it wouldn't necessarily just be rehashing though I'm sure there will be much of that....

...but for now a rest might be a fine idea...

Cheers

 

[GJB123]

Re: Re:

...He couldn't have gotten much more right than he did at '84 Olympics, right?

this.

me too I don't understand where the notion comes from that Eddie's 1984 program was a **** up.

Look at the cycling medals:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cycling_at_the_1984_Summer_Olympics

Lasse Virén got it right in '72. And again in '76. it ain't rocket science.

That should be "allegedly got it right" unless you know more than is currently on the internet.

 

[GJB123]

Re: Re:

It seems to me LeMond was committed to playing by the rules, but also committed to going as far as the rules would allow. This is exactly what a competitor should be doing. Anything less isn't really competing.

LeMond's position is fair and ethically unassailable and fully in keeping with the spirit of sports competition. But this doesn't mean he is under any obligation to reveal all his secrets.

good post and thoughts.

Otoh, if Lemond was blooddoping pre-86, it's difficult to fathom he'd drop the procedure post-1986.
It's (imo) not how doping and dopers work. If program X worked for you, you don't just drop it. Well, Hesjedal and the 6-monthers did, but apart from them...
Even if the real physical effects of a given method/product would be limited, there's still the placebo effects to benefit from.
Also, while transfusions were banned in 85/86, they were still a looong way from being able to detect it.
It reminds me a bit of the AICAR discussion wrt Wiggins 2009. Aicar wasn't banned in 2009, but I don't think it's farfetched to speculate that (a) Wiggins was doing other illegal stuff in 2009, not just AICAR and (b) Wiggins continued to use AICAR even after it got banned in 2011.

And I don't see any a priori reason to believe ethics (i.e. it being banned) played any role in Lemond's decision making. Ethics haven't played a role in the decision making of any of cycling's greats. I haven't seen too many reasons to believe Lemond would be different.
Which brings me to Lemond's PDM conflict and his whistleblowing on the use of testosterone.
I admit that that whistleblowing act should not be taken lightly.
I'd like to discuss that episode. For instance, I wonder why, if he did that out of ethical considerations, why he didn't spill on ADR. There's no denying that he knew what was going on there.
Which brings me back to esafosfina who rode for ADR in 1989. In here he's mentioned that Vanmol would sent around postpackages which included banned substances.
So why spill on PDM but not on ADR?

You really don't understand THE first thing about LeMond. He good on PDM because they tried to force him into also doping not because because they doped, period.

As esfosfina stated you could decide not to dope. LeMond never was and never will be the Don Quichote of anti-doping.

 

[GJB123]

Re: Re:

...
Do you remember when I asked if you dared ask Greg those questions ? My comment was lazy and out of line but I think the idea I had in the back of my mind is this : go to any of the riders we talked about : Froome, Cancellara, Wiggins, Indurain... And ask them. They will dismiss you or give you the politically correct answer. Ask Greg : he will sit down and talk with you. This I'm sure of.

you know what, I wouldn't mind if this is where the thread would end. Very well said.
Admittedly, from what I know of him, I would definitely say you are right on this.

I'm gonna go with Maxiton's account from here on and give it a rest.

I agree, but will keep the thread open unless there's others that feel this is a good place to close the 'Lemond' thread. Continuing on from here would just be rehashing old information.

Close it already. The deed horse has been flogged enough, me thinks.

 

[Maxiton]

Re: Re:

...
Do you remember when I asked if you dared ask Greg those questions ? My comment was lazy and out of line but I think the idea I had in the back of my mind is this : go to any of the riders we talked about : Froome, Cancellara, Wiggins, Indurain... And ask them. They will dismiss you or give you the politically correct answer. Ask Greg : he will sit down and talk with you. This I'm sure of.

you know what, I wouldn't mind if this is where the thread would end. Very well said.
Admittedly, from what I know of him, I would definitely say you are right on this.

I'm gonna go with Maxiton's account from here on and give it a rest.

I agree, but will keep the thread open unless there's others that feel this is a good place to close the 'Lemond' thread. Continuing on from here would just be rehashing old information.

Close it already. The deed horse has been flogged enough, me thinks.

There's really no point in closing it. If somebody comes up with something new, they won't have anyplace to post it if the thread is closed. If nothing new develops, on the other hand, the thread will fade into the back pages on its own. So I concur with Irondan: leave it open.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Might as well close down all the speculation threads down if you close this one. In my opinion.

If we had the interwebs back in the day. What would have been said about the cyclist of the 60's-early90's?

You can't have this both ways folks.

Live with it. There is suspicion and speculation for ANY and ALL pro cyclist from the beginning until now. Just the way it is.

 

[pmcg76]

Re: Re:

...
Do you remember when I asked if you dared ask Greg those questions ? My comment was lazy and out of line but I think the idea I had in the back of my mind is this : go to any of the riders we talked about : Froome, Cancellara, Wiggins, Indurain... And ask them. They will dismiss you or give you the politically correct answer. Ask Greg : he will sit down and talk with you. This I'm sure of.

you know what, I wouldn't mind if this is where the thread would end. Very well said.
Admittedly, from what I know of him, I would definitely say you are right on this.

I'm gonna go with Maxiton's account from here on and give it a rest.

I agree, but will keep the thread open unless there's others that feel this is a good place to close the 'Lemond' thread. Continuing on from here would just be rehashing old information.

Close it already. The deed horse has been flogged enough, me thinks.

There's really no point in closing it. If somebody comes up with something new, they won't have anyplace to post it if the thread is closed. If nothing new develops, on the other hand, the thread will fade into the back pages on its own. So I concur with Irondan: leave it open.

This was a ghost thread and was ressurected by sniper even though nothing new had come forward and we got loads more pages of rehashing the same stuff to arrive at the same point as at the start. As always stuff was left out that should be included.

1. Claims that blood-doping was common in the 80s. If it were common, how is it that Paul Kimmage never mentioned it in his book as a practice in procycling at that time. He was a pro from 86-89 so surely he would at least have heard about it. On the US 1984 Blood doping success, Connie Carpenter won Gold and she was one of those who did not receive a transfusion, so was the success of the US team more down to the transfusions or the lack of the entire Eastern Bloc, especially on the track.

2. Eddie B- Steve Tilford who is a bit of a hero to many around here has defended Eddie B on more than one occasion. Tilford was a junior around the same time as LeMond and also worked under Eddie B and said that nothing was ever suggested to him or many other athletes re doping by Eddie B. He has rightly received criticism for his hypocritical stance but has remained steadfast in his position that Eddie B did not encourage them to dope during that period.

3. The Rudy Dhaenens supposed rumour. I don't know how anyone could put much faith in a so-called rumour from a man who has been deceased for almost 20 years. He is not here to refute or confirm it, so people can literally attribute anything to him without any shred of evidence to back it up.

4. Sniper as always is embellishing the truth and completely fabricating stuff whilst completely clueless. He selectively quotes a former pro Colin Sturgess who was at ADR in 89 and witnessed doping but according to himself stayed clean. Sturgess was World Pursuit Champion that year.
How does that sit in the 'not possible to beat dopers' category. Sturgess said there were whispers about LeMond but it was all hersay which if you applied the same mirror to Sturgess, the same could be applied. Sturgess actually made a comeback in the mid 90s and still rose to international amateur level, finishing well up in the TT of Langkawi.

5. Once again, the success of the likes of Eric Caritoux, Charly Mottet, Steve Bauer & Giles Delion as clean performances has been completely ignored even though they have been held up as clean performers as well. This is ignored in favour of the 'just had to have doped' mantra.

6. LeMond actually had a dual contract in 89 with Coors Light and ADR, he rode for Coors Light in the US and ADR in Europe. He actually started 89 very well, 3rd Tour of the Americas, 6th Tirreno-Adriacto, 4th Criterium International and top 20 at Het Volk where he was an animator. Then his form just vanished as quickly as it came back at the Giro. That suggests a health problem rather than a doping one.

There are definite questions around LeMond, especially his post shooting career. In fact 1990 is way more dodgy than 89 regards his Tour preparations but it is clear to us that winessed his career, that it was primarily his health that let him down in the early 90s. EPO just sped up the downfall. He said at the time that his form could just come and go in a flash which is exactly what happened. Nothing new has come forward to suggest doping but people seem desperate to get links.

 

[Maxiton]

Re: Re:

I agree, but will keep the thread open unless there's others that feel this is a good place to close the 'Lemond' thread. Continuing on from here would just be rehashing old information.

Close it already. The deed horse has been flogged enough, me thinks.

There's really no point in closing it. If somebody comes up with something new, they won't have anyplace to post it if the thread is closed. If nothing new develops, on the other hand, the thread will fade into the back pages on its own. So I concur with Irondan: leave it open.

This was a ghost thread and was ressurected by sniper even though nothing new had come forward and we got loads more pages of rehashing the same stuff to arrive at the same point as at the start. As always stuff was left out that should be included.

1. Claims that blood-doping was common in the 80s. If it were common, how is it that Paul Kimmage never mentioned it in his book as a practice in procycling at that time. He was a pro from 86-89 so surely he would at least have heard about it. On the US 1984 Blood doping success, Connie Carpenter won Gold and she was one of those who did not receive a transfusion, so was the success of the US team more down to the transfusions or the lack of the entire Eastern Bloc, especially on the track.

2. Eddie B- Steve Tilford who is a bit of a hero to many around here has defended Eddie B on more than one occasion. Tilford was a junior around the same time as LeMond and also worked under Eddie B and said that nothing was ever suggested to him or many other athletes re doping by Eddie B. He has rightly received criticism for his hypocritical stance but has remained steadfast in his position that Eddie B did not encourage them to dope during that period.

3. The Rudy Dhaenens supposed rumour. I don't know how anyone could put much faith in a so-called rumour from a man who has been deceased for almost 20 years. He is not here to refute or confirm it, so people can literally attribute anything to him without any shred of evidence to back it up.

4. Sniper as always is embellishing the truth and completely fabricating stuff whilst completely clueless. He selectively quotes a former pro Colin Sturgess who was at ADR in 89 and witnessed doping but according to himself stayed clean. Sturgess was World Pursuit Champion that year.
How does that sit in the 'not possible to beat dopers' category. Sturgess said there were whispers about LeMond but it was all hersay which if you applied the same mirror to Sturgess, the same could be applied. Sturgess actually made a comeback in the mid 90s and still rose to international amateur level, finishing well up in the TT of Langkawi.

5. Once again, the success of the likes of Eric Caritoux, Charly Mottet, Steve Bauer & Giles Delion as clean performances has been completely ignored even though they have been held up as clean performers as well. This is ignored in favour of the 'just had to have doped' mantra.

6. LeMond actually had a dual contract in 89 with Coors Light and ADR, he rode for Coors Light in the US and ADR in Europe. He actually started 89 very well, 3rd Tour of the Americas, 6th Tirreno-Adriacto, 4th Criterium International and top 20 at Het Volk where he was an animator. Then his form just vanished as quickly as it came back at the Giro. That suggests a health problem rather than a doping one.

There are definite questions around LeMond, especially his post shooting career. In fact 1990 is way more dodgy than 89 regards his Tour preparations but it is clear to us that winessed his career, that it was primarily his health that let him down in the early 90s. EPO just sped up the downfall. He said at the time that his form could just come and go in a flash which is exactly what happened. Nothing new has come forward to suggest doping but people seem desperate to get links.

I really don't see the point of making these arguments. I think we've established through logic a certain set of probabilities everyone can live with.

You really can't take anything away from LeMond, or the legitimacy of his wins. Maybe that will change someday if somebody comes up with something substantive, but for now we are at a standstill.

I really don't see anything wrong with resurrecting the thread, though. I think we are a little closer to the truth now than we were with the myth of a Saint LeMond. That wasn't fair to anyone, least of all LeMond.

And given the way any questioning of LeMond, the man or the myth, used to get shut down here, I'm not surprised people still have questions and doubts. Best to air it all out, which, for now, I think we have done.

 

[pmcg76]

Re: Re:

I agree, but will keep the thread open unless there's others that feel this is a good place to close the 'Lemond' thread. Continuing on from here would just be rehashing old information.

Close it already. The deed horse has been flogged enough, me thinks.

There's really no point in closing it. If somebody comes up with something new, they won't have anyplace to post it if the thread is closed. If nothing new develops, on the other hand, the thread will fade into the back pages on its own. So I concur with Irondan: leave it open.

This was a ghost thread and was ressurected by sniper even though nothing new had come forward and we got loads more pages of rehashing the same stuff to arrive at the same point as at the start. As always stuff was left out that should be included.

1. Claims that blood-doping was common in the 80s. If it were common, how is it that Paul Kimmage never mentioned it in his book as a practice in procycling at that time. He was a pro from 86-89 so surely he would at least have heard about it. On the US 1984 Blood doping success, Connie Carpenter won Gold and she was one of those who did not receive a transfusion, so was the success of the US team more down to the transfusions or the lack of the entire Eastern Bloc, especially on the track.

2. Eddie B- Steve Tilford who is a bit of a hero to many around here has defended Eddie B on more than one occasion. Tilford was a junior around the same time as LeMond and also worked under Eddie B and said that nothing was ever suggested to him or many other athletes re doping by Eddie B. He has rightly received criticism for his hypocritical stance but has remained steadfast in his position that Eddie B did not encourage them to dope during that period.

3. The Rudy Dhaenens supposed rumour. I don't know how anyone could put much faith in a so-called rumour from a man who has been deceased for almost 20 years. He is not here to refute or confirm it, so people can literally attribute anything to him without any shred of evidence to back it up.

4. Sniper as always is embellishing the truth and completely fabricating stuff whilst completely clueless. He selectively quotes a former pro Colin Sturgess who was at ADR in 89 and witnessed doping but according to himself stayed clean. Sturgess was World Pursuit Champion that year.
How does that sit in the 'not possible to beat dopers' category. Sturgess said there were whispers about LeMond but it was all hersay which if you applied the same mirror to Sturgess, the same could be applied. Sturgess actually made a comeback in the mid 90s and still rose to international amateur level, finishing well up in the TT of Langkawi.

5. Once again, the success of the likes of Eric Caritoux, Charly Mottet, Steve Bauer & Giles Delion as clean performances has been completely ignored even though they have been held up as clean performers as well. This is ignored in favour of the 'just had to have doped' mantra.

6. LeMond actually had a dual contract in 89 with Coors Light and ADR, he rode for Coors Light in the US and ADR in Europe. He actually started 89 very well, 3rd Tour of the Americas, 6th Tirreno-Adriacto, 4th Criterium International and top 20 at Het Volk where he was an animator. Then his form just vanished as quickly as it came back at the Giro. That suggests a health problem rather than a doping one.

There are definite questions around LeMond, especially his post shooting career. In fact 1990 is way more dodgy than 89 regards his Tour preparations but it is clear to us that winessed his career, that it was primarily his health that let him down in the early 90s. EPO just sped up the downfall. He said at the time that his form could just come and go in a flash which is exactly what happened. Nothing new has come forward to suggest doping but people seem desperate to get links.

I really don't see the point of making these arguments. I think we've established through logic a certain set of probabilities everyone can live with.

You really can't take anything away from LeMond, or the legitimacy of his wins. Maybe that will change someday if somebody comes up with something substantive, but for now we are at a standstill.

I really don't see anything wrong with resurrecting the thread, though. I think we are a little closer to the truth now than we were with the myth of a Saint LeMond. That wasn't fair to anyone, least of all LeMond.

And given the way any questioning of LeMond, the man or the myth, used to get shut down here, I'm not surprised people still have questions and doubts. Best to air it all out, which, for now, I think we have done.[/quote]

So if nothing new was discussed, why was the thread resurrected? Why is it now an issue to introduce things that were ignored but add context to what was being discussed?

 

[Maxiton]

Re: Re:

So if nothing new was discussed, why was the thread resurrected? Why is it now an issue to introduce things that were ignored but add context to what was being discussed?

If you want to keep the discussion going, it's okay with me. Knock yourself out.

 

[red_flanders]

Re: Re:

Best to air it all out, which, for now, I think we have done.

Air out what, exactly? I still have yet to hear, in 30+ years, any remotely convincing piece of evidence.

People who weren't around at the time, who have no sense of the sport at the time, bringing their modern, blood-doped view of the peloton to a time when such things didn't exist in any real sense in the sport. It's drivel. BS claims that Lemond gets "a pass". No, he's been examined for decades and the only logical conclusion is that there is nothing whatsoever against him. It's not a pass, it's a conclusion.

Ignorance. Not fair play, not an even view, just ignorance masquerading as inquiry. This particular salvo of drivel doesn't even have Lance fueling it...unless Lance has rejoined the forum...

 

[Maxiton]

Re: Re:

Best to air it all out, which, for now, I think we have done.

Air out what, exactly? I still have yet to hear, in 30+ years, any remotely convincing piece of evidence.

People who weren't around at the time, who have no sense of the sport at the time, bringing their modern, blood-doped view of the peloton to a time when such things didn't exist in any real sense in the sport. It's drivel. BS claims that Lemond gets "a pass". No, he's been examined for decades and the only logical conclusion is that there is nothing whatsoever against him. It's not a pass, it's a conclusion.

Ignorance. Not fair play, not an even view, just ignorance masquerading as inquiry. This particular salvo of drivel doesn't even have Lance fueling it...unless Lance has rejoined the forum...

People have questions, and need to ask those questions and discuss them in a fair way. It's not like we're talking about a religious figure here. He's a cyclist, for God's sake.

For my part, I'm satisfied, as I mentioned above, that he played by the rules. I don't see any compelling reason to think otherwise. As for what he did within those rules, it doesn't really matter to me. That's his business.

In fact, everyone involved in the discussion here seemed to pretty much agree, so why keep picking at it?

 

[red_flanders]

Re: Re:

Best to air it all out, which, for now, I think we have done.

Air out what, exactly? I still have yet to hear, in 30+ years, any remotely convincing piece of evidence.

People who weren't around at the time, who have no sense of the sport at the time, bringing their modern, blood-doped view of the peloton to a time when such things didn't exist in any real sense in the sport. It's drivel. BS claims that Lemond gets "a pass". No, he's been examined for decades and the only logical conclusion is that there is nothing whatsoever against him. It's not a pass, it's a conclusion.

Ignorance. Not fair play, not an even view, just ignorance masquerading as inquiry. This particular salvo of drivel doesn't even have Lance fueling it...unless Lance has rejoined the forum...

People have questions, and need to ask those questions and discuss them in a fair way. It's not like we're talking about a religious figure here. He's a cyclist, for God's sake.

For my part, I'm satisfied, as I mentioned above, that he played by the rules. I don't see any compelling reason to think otherwise. As for what he did within those rules, it doesn't really matter to me. That's his business.

In fact, everyone involved in the discussion here seemed to pretty much agree, so why keep picking at it?

You're asking me, "why keep picking at it"? I think your question is misdirected.

 

[Maxiton]

Re: Re:

Best to air it all out, which, for now, I think we have done.

Air out what, exactly? I still have yet to hear, in 30+ years, any remotely convincing piece of evidence.

People who weren't around at the time, who have no sense of the sport at the time, bringing their modern, blood-doped view of the peloton to a time when such things didn't exist in any real sense in the sport. It's drivel. BS claims that Lemond gets "a pass". No, he's been examined for decades and the only logical conclusion is that there is nothing whatsoever against him. It's not a pass, it's a conclusion.

Ignorance. Not fair play, not an even view, just ignorance masquerading as inquiry. This particular salvo of drivel doesn't even have Lance fueling it...unless Lance has rejoined the forum...

People have questions, and need to ask those questions and discuss them in a fair way. It's not like we're talking about a religious figure here. He's a cyclist, for God's sake.

For my part, I'm satisfied, as I mentioned above, that he played by the rules. I don't see any compelling reason to think otherwise. As for what he did within those rules, it doesn't really matter to me. That's his business.

In fact, everyone involved in the discussion here seemed to pretty much agree, so why keep picking at it?

You're asking me, "why keep picking at it"? I think your question is misdirected.

We all decided to give it a rest. On the basis that LeMond had probably played by the rules, we agreed to stop talking about it. But apparently that wasn't good enough. Someone stepped in wanting to keep the discussion going in defense of LeMond. And then you stepped in.

After we agreed to give it a rest, the consensus seemed to be to keep the thread open, in case anything new should arise in future. Is that what this is about? Are you trying to provoke a fight in order to get the thread closed? We all say, yeah, we're pretty much satisfied he played by the rules, but that's not good enough for you? You won't be happy til the thread is closed? Fine, close it. When something else comes up we'll start a new thread.

 

[red_flanders]

Re: Re:

Best to air it all out, which, for now, I think we have done.

Air out what, exactly? I still have yet to hear, in 30+ years, any remotely convincing piece of evidence.

People who weren't around at the time, who have no sense of the sport at the time, bringing their modern, blood-doped view of the peloton to a time when such things didn't exist in any real sense in the sport. It's drivel. BS claims that Lemond gets "a pass". No, he's been examined for decades and the only logical conclusion is that there is nothing whatsoever against him. It's not a pass, it's a conclusion.

Ignorance. Not fair play, not an even view, just ignorance masquerading as inquiry. This particular salvo of drivel doesn't even have Lance fueling it...unless Lance has rejoined the forum...

People have questions, and need to ask those questions and discuss them in a fair way. It's not like we're talking about a religious figure here. He's a cyclist, for God's sake.

For my part, I'm satisfied, as I mentioned above, that he played by the rules. I don't see any compelling reason to think otherwise. As for what he did within those rules, it doesn't really matter to me. That's his business.

In fact, everyone involved in the discussion here seemed to pretty much agree, so why keep picking at it?

You're asking me, "why keep picking at it"? I think your question is misdirected.

We all decided to give it a rest. On the basis that LeMond had probably played by the rules, we agreed to stop talking about it. But apparently that wasn't good enough. Someone stepped in wanting to keep the discussion going in defense of LeMond. And then you stepped in.

After we agreed to give it a rest, the consensus seemed to be to keep the thread open, in case anything new should arise in future. Is that what this is about? Are you trying to provoke a fight in order to get the thread closed? We all say, yeah, we're pretty much satisfied he played by the rules, but that's not good enough for you? You won't be happy til the thread is closed? Fine, close it. When something else comes up we'll start a new thread.

Potentially consider I've not followed all the posts in this thread.

Why on earth would this thread get closed? Comical.

 

[sniper]

Re: Re:

@pmcg76: good info, all your points are conceded, except the following one, which needs to be clarified:

...
3. The Rudy Dhaenens supposed rumour. I don't know how anyone could put much faith in a so-called rumour from a man who has been deceased for almost 20 years. He is not here to refute or confirm it, so people can literally attribute anything to him without any shred of evidence to back it up.
...

First of all, it was a rumor. Not a "supposed" rumor, whatever that may be.
NB: True or not is a different question altogether, but a rumor it was.

Secondly, when I brought it up in this thread I dubbed it 'the Dhaenens rumor', because as far as I could tell at the time he was the first to mention it. (btw, the Dhaenens rumor is mentioned by the cycling journalist Hans VandeWeghe.)

But clearly (and this has been pointed out several times before) the rumor didn't just belong to Dhaenens.

It was also Gisbers. It was also Lance Armstrong (as you surely should remember). Now, if you say "discard those two", I would agree, because both can be argued to have had underhand reasons to smear Lemond.

However, it wasn't just Dhaenens, Gisbers, and Armstrong who rumored it, no.
The rumor was known also to Michael Boogerd and, according to Boogerd, to the peloton he rode in:

Arnout: According to Michael Boogerd, in the peloton at the time he was riding, it was rumored LeMond brought EPO in the peloton. Dunno if it's true or not, but I always find it a bit puzzling to see the clinic always earmarking LeMond as off-limits, like some sort of saint.
viewtopic.php?p=1366022#p1366022

You might have reasons unknown to me to doubt Arnout's credibilty. But to me it seems he got that first-hand from Boogerd himself.

But fair enough, maybe you'll say Boogerd got it from Lance, or from Gisbers, and so ultimately this was all part of a anti-Lemond smear campaign. Possible.
Which is why it is relevant to note that it was also this Dutch/Belgian poster on a Dutch/Belgian cycling forum and some proriders he was in contact with, notably in the pre-Boogerd period.

(my translation
In the nineties some pro's told me that the story in the peloton was that Greg Lemond had brought EPO into the peloton.

[2nd post from same poster, again my translation:]
It is as I say it is: in the first half of the 90s in the propeloton the story circulated that Lemond was the guy who had brought EPO into the peloton. At the time I got this information first hand, it's not something I read somewhere.

http://www.fiets.nl/forum/viewtopic.php?f=14&t=29194&sid=c750c183bdcf6dde782b3f0551a847d3&start=1608

Certainly you wouldn't argue that Lance's Lemond-smear campaign dates back to the first half of the 90s, would you?

Make of all that what you will. But let's conclude the rumor isn't just Dhaenens', nor was it a "supposed" rumor.
It was a rumor, and it seems to have been fairly widespread in the peloton from the early 90s (Dhaenens+that Dutch poster) through to the mid-2000s (Boogerd+Lance).

 

[sniper]

Re: Re:

I still have yet to hear, in 30+ years, any remotely convincing piece of evidence.

Maybe that's in part due to the fact that by your own admission you haven't been keeping up with the thread. (which, mind, I don't blame you. Just saying it could explain it)

To get back to what I call the Dhaenens rumor (which wasn't just Dhaenens, see my previous post):
In my humble opinion, I don't see the problem with calling this 'a piece of evidence', at least from a common sense debate perspective. It's certainly not conclusive in any way; but then again, "to be conclusive" is not a necessary characteristic of 'a piece of evidence', is it?
Is it also "convincing" evidence, you may ask? Well, if you look at how widespread the rumor was, and stretchign over more than a decade, and if you add it to the timing of the iron shot episode (including mid-Giro transformation) which coincides (or at least seems to have overlapped) with the timing of the introduction of EPO in cycling, and add to that Lemond's alleged kidney disorder which would have made him the 'ideal' EPO labrat, and mix in the inconsistencies in those iron shot & kidney disorder stories...then tell me what according to you constitutes 'a convincing piece of evidence'.

On the other hand, as Maxiton has been stressing, even if it's evidence: evidence of what? Evidence that he's been pushing the envelope, but arguably within the rules of what was medically allowed at the time. So that's that. Point is: the Dhaenens rumor provided plenty of new food for thought: it hadn't been mentioned once in this thread before, so that seemed a fair enough reason to put 'the curious case of Lemond' on the table again.

Out of curiosity: if you discard the EPO rumors as unconvincing hear-say, what do you make of the rumors about motorization in the peloton, or the rumors about AICAR being used by riders in 2009 and beyond? Unconvincing?

 

[fmk_RoI]

Re: Re:

Was the expertise there in France/Europe in the early 80s?

One more time, I respectfully refer you to the articles on blood transfusion previously linked to. Whether the expertise was in Europe in the 1980s is clearly addressed there.

As for the effectiveness of LA84 - do some research and don't just read Wiki. It's a well known story at this stage.

re Eddie B allegedly taking riders to Poland to learn abt transfusions - citation, please.

 

[fmk_RoI]

Re:

here's another question:
if you would have been found injecting EPO in 89 or 90, did the UCI have any kind of rule in place that would have covered it viz. that would have made it illegal?

That question has already been answered.

 

[fmk_RoI]

Re: Re:

Look at the cycling medals:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cycling_at_the_1984_Summer_Olympics

Of those medalists, who was on the transfusion list and who was not? Come on, show me you actually know what you're talking about here, please.

Off the top of my head and without going to my notes to get the names I can tell you that Connie Carpenter wasn't on the list but did medal. So, for you, in order to prove the effectiveness of transfusions, you have to add in the medals won by athletes who did not transfuse?