LeMond III

[sniper]

Re: Re:

fgl, good 2 see ya.
i remember you spoke of the rumor that lemond introduced creatine, which is not banned, so no doping story here, but it fits nicely with Maxiton's "the pioneering, super competitive athlete" depiction.

i like the "google better" suggestion
but is there anything in the donati report that hasn't been covered yet?
i thought that was merely about Lemond 'working' with Vanmol, which brings us straight back to ADR 1989 and iron shots.
or was there more to it?

How many times have I told you to back up your sources?

I back up my sources, I will give you a bonus:



So, for the record, an unnamed amateur cyclist, presumably Dutch, is said to be claiming in ''Het Haarlems Dagblad'' - yep, a local, regional newspaper, no other newspaper ever re-printed this story, while we in Holland dont have newspaper Gestapo like in some other very close countries - Greg LeMond is taking incredibly expensive doping only he and other American citizens can buy.

Lets make a switch now:

A review about ''Het Laatste Geel'', a book about the last Dutch yellow yersey in the Tour de France...

http://www.parool.nl/sport/steven-rooks-nam-epo~a249092/

Oud-sprinter Hermans had destijds als ploegarts de Spaanse dokter Eufemiano Fuentes, momenteel de spil in Operación Puerto, het grote Europese bloeddopingschandaal. ''Je weet toch wie onze ploegarts was?" vraagt Hermans aan Smeets. ''Die kende het product." Op de vraag of hij het zelf heeft gebruikt: ''Het was toen niet verboden. Laat ik het zo stellen: Ik heb mijn sport op een nette manier bedreven. Mag ik het zo zeggen?"

for non-Dutch:

Matthieu Hermans states here he used EPO while being on Caja Rural, where he had Fuentes as a doctor, at a mediocre Spanish team.

google translate give this:

Former sprinter Hermans time had as a team physician to the Spanish doctor Eufemiano Fuentes, currently the linchpin in Operación Puerto, the major European blood doping scandal. '' You know who was our team doctor? "Herman asked Smeets." "They knew the product." When asked whether he used it: '' It was not prohibited. Let me put it this way: I have my sport practiced in a decent way. I may say so? "

So, Hermans winning five stages in the 1988 Vuelta with Fuentes on a mediocre team like Caja Rural, versus the INCREDIBLE expensive new drug called EPO taken by LeMond?

Does this mean LeMond didnt took it? No.

But it beats everything I have read here the last few days by a mile. Come on, Eddy B? 1984?

Again, google better and get your sources sorted out or you will look like a fool.

And, please take note of when Fuentes worked at Caja Rural - and when LeMond had a shitty season at PDM - , you can check on Dopeology, it seems Larry has his sources right every now and then....

great stuff. Thanks for that.

I'm not following your argument though wrt Hermans. How do his 5 Vuelta stage wins suggest Lemond wasn't doing EPO?
From what year is the Dutch article? It has "bingo" written all over it if he's referring to EPO from pre-clinical trials being available only to Americans. A poster named altitude, who appeared in this thread a few times and then disappeared, suggested Lemond was on EPO in 86/87. He sounded pretty sure of his case. Could have been Lance in disguise, but no a priori reason to discard it.
If mortals like Hermans and Rooks were using it in 1988, it seems plausible to assume it had been available to americans earlier.

 

[blutto]

Re: Re:

Sure, but don't forget the historical context. In the context of the 1970s transfusion wasn't a crime, it wasn't even cheating. That's why athletes were talking about it at press conferences and to Stern magazine, and why the French Cycling Federation mentioned it publicly in its own magazine (even if it was for the purpose of discouraging the practice). It may have been something frowned on by certain members of the general public, who preferred to think of their athletic heroes as totally paniagua, but among those athletes, administrators, journalists, and informed fans who knew about it, it was merely another aid to performance.

As an aid to performance it would have been recommended by those team doctors who were aware of it. If a rider tried it and found it to be a big help, there is no reason to think he wouldn't inquire about the practice upon arriving at another team where the technique was not in use.

...to the bolded...depends what you are selling....squeaky clean, at least to me sounds a whole lot better than not illegal, but most maybe ethically dodgy....and LeMond had been banging that all-Merikan boy against those dastardly Euros drum to great effect in the home market for quite a while ( so yeah context is important )....

Cheers

But in the post you were originally addressing, I wasn't talking about LeMond; I was talking about how the practice of transfusion must have propagated in the sport from the early 1970s.

...maybe was too tangential but was playing off the theme of context....sorry but some of my stuff today was done in haste so maybe not as polished as it could be...assuming you were referring to the above post and not my previous post...read I'm confused, sorry...

Cheers

 

[blutto]

Re: Re:

fgl, good 2 see ya.
i remember you spoke of the rumor that lemond introduced creatine, which is not banned, so no doping story here, but it fits nicely with Maxiton's "the pioneering, super competitive athlete" depiction.

i like the "google better" suggestion
but is there anything in the donati report that hasn't been covered yet?
i thought that was merely about Lemond 'working' with Vanmol, which brings us straight back to ADR 1989 and iron shots.
or was there more to it?

How many times have I told you to back up your sources?

I back up my sources, I will give you a bonus:



So, for the record, an unnamed amateur cyclist, presumably Dutch, is said to be claiming in ''Het Haarlems Dagblad'' - yep, a local, regional newspaper, no other newspaper ever re-printed this story, while we in Holland dont have newspaper Gestapo like in some other very close countries - Greg LeMond is taking incredibly expensive doping only he and other American citizens can buy.

Lets make a switch now:

A review about ''Het Laatste Geel'', a book about the last Dutch yellow yersey in the Tour de France...

http://www.parool.nl/sport/steven-rooks-nam-epo~a249092/

Oud-sprinter Hermans had destijds als ploegarts de Spaanse dokter Eufemiano Fuentes, momenteel de spil in Operación Puerto, het grote Europese bloeddopingschandaal. ''Je weet toch wie onze ploegarts was?" vraagt Hermans aan Smeets. ''Die kende het product." Op de vraag of hij het zelf heeft gebruikt: ''Het was toen niet verboden. Laat ik het zo stellen: Ik heb mijn sport op een nette manier bedreven. Mag ik het zo zeggen?"

for non-Dutch:

Matthieu Hermans states here he used EPO while being on Caja Rural, where he had Fuentes as a doctor, at a mediocre Spanish team.

google translate give this:

Former sprinter Hermans time had as a team physician to the Spanish doctor Eufemiano Fuentes, currently the linchpin in Operación Puerto, the major European blood doping scandal. '' You know who was our team doctor? "Herman asked Smeets." "They knew the product." When asked whether he used it: '' It was not prohibited. Let me put it this way: I have my sport practiced in a decent way. I may say so? "

So, Hermans winning five stages in the 1988 Vuelta with Fuentes on a mediocre team like Caja Rural, versus the INCREDIBLE expensive new drug called EPO taken by LeMond?

Does this mean LeMond didnt took it? No.

But it beats everything I have read here the last few days by a mile. Come on, Eddy B? 1984?

Again, google better and get your sources sorted out or you will look like a fool.

And, please take note of when Fuentes worked at Caja Rural - and when LeMond had a shitty season at PDM - , you can check on Dopeology, it seems Larry has his sources right every now and then....

great stuff. Thanks for that.

I'm not following your argument though wrt Hermans. How do his 5 Vuelta stage wins suggest Lemond wasn't doing EPO?
From what year is the Dutch article? It has "bingo" written all over it if he's referring to EPO from pre-clinical trials being available only to Americans. A poster named altitude, who appeared in this thread a few times and then disappeared, suggested Lemond was on EPO in 86/87. He sounded pretty sure of his case. Could have been Lance in disguise, but no a priori reason to discard it.
If mortals like Hermans and Rooks were using it in 1988, it seems plausible to assume it had been available to americans earlier.

...yeah if you run the timeline back from the approval of EPO thru the various studies and clinical trials and the manufacturing process set-up it is entirely conceivable/to very likely that EPO was available in 86 ( assuming a back-channel could be found thru which to procure it )....

....also note that an EPO variant was approved in Europe in late 88....but not knowing much about how their approvals/studies/trials system works not sure where backing down that timeline would lead time wise...

Cheers

 

[sniper]

Re: Re:

btw, in that dutch article fgl linked it says that, although Viren denied blooddoping in the 70s, different finnish athletes admitted that transfusions were common place in Finland in the 70s.
So that's Finland, the mecca of endurance sports and medical sports science.

 

[Fearless Greg Lemond]

Re: Re:

btw, in that dutch article fgl linked it says that, although Viren denied blooddoping in the 70s, different finnish athletes admitted that transfusions were common place in Finland in the 70s.
So that's Finland, the mecca of endurance sports and medical sports science.

Again missing the plot...

I gave you a very bad source, no major Dutch newspaper - without the Gestapo stuff - took over this 'news', yet you take the rest of the article for truth?

Give the journo a ring/email.

I bet he doesnt even remember him writing it.

 

[sniper]

Re: Re:

btw, in that dutch article fgl linked it says that, although Viren denied blooddoping in the 70s, different finnish athletes admitted that transfusions were common place in Finland in the 70s.
So that's Finland, the mecca of endurance sports and medical sports science.

Again missing the plot...

I gave you a very bad source, no major Dutch newspaper - without the Gestapo stuff - took over this 'news', yet you take the rest of the article for truth?

Give the journo a ring/email.

I bet he doesnt even remember him writing it.

you're too cryptic for me. what plot? this is just an aside in relation to how widespread transfusions may have been in the 70s. I'm not taking anything for truth. You want me to make that caveat every single time I post?
I'll put it in my signature.

Anyway, from what year was the article?

 

[Maxiton]

Re: Re:

btw, in that dutch article fgl linked it says that, although Viren denied blooddoping in the 70s, different finnish athletes admitted that transfusions were common place in Finland in the 70s.
So that's Finland, the mecca of endurance sports and medical sports science.

In the Eddy Merckx biography I quoted earlier, it mentions Finnish distance runners transfusing prior to 1972.

 

[86TDFWinner]

Re: Re:

Now I have to step in and call utter BS.

I conducted the Boyer interview. What he meant was that when they were 9 riders, Greg had the lonely room, which makes sense since he's the team leader. When a teammate did quit, or they were in even numbers, Greg went back to sharing the room with Eric Boyer. Greg never "isolated" himself. BS.

The fact that Greg was the first to have his family is noticeable in terms of culture. At the time it was frowned upon. Kelly even inflicted himself a 2 weeks no sex rule before a big race. Again, pure BS. Going from "spending time with my family" to "suspicious activities" is outrageous.

Although we disagree on the interpretation of different pieces of information, and how to weigh these pieces of info (evidence, no evidence, etc.), I have to give you credit for at least normally addressing the arguments being put forward by me and some others.

I stand at least partially corrected wrt Lemond 'isolating' himself, though I definitely think the rest days would be an interesting aspect to look at more closely.
For the record: I don't think it was 'suspicious behaviour'. I do think his father-in-law being an MD and Kathy being a nurse is, well, an interesting fact.
The point I was making is: if, and I stress IF, Lemond would have wanted to gear up or transfuse during GT rest days, he seems to have had the opportunity to do so without his teammates knowing.
In part that is a response to gjb123's suggestion that transfusing during GTs in the 80s would have been complicated to organize.
Whether Lemond actually did gear up or transfuse is a totally different question. Just saying, imo, he could , if he wanted.

As for the Dhaenens rumour. I would like it to remain what it is : a RUMOUR ! Remember that girl in college that refused to have sex with the football marvel ? He said she was a ****, then someone else said he'd done it with her and by the end of the first semester you had a list of partners and the price they had paid. Rumours are created and spread and escalate because people like to feel important and need an excuse to do bad thing. This rumour, as such, should be taken as anything. When I read the word "evidence" right next to it, I call BS again. In fact, by spreading and escalating the rumour yourself, you are guilty of diffamation, if only in my opinion.

Yes, it's a rumor. I know, and I said that everytime I posted about it.
But so is the use of motorized bikes and AICAR among pro's.
btw, if you check the definition of "evidence", you'll have to agree that an EPO rumor running through the peloton is indeed evidence. Whether the EPO rumor is WEAK or STRONG evidence, is a different matter, and I guess to some extent a matter of taste. Also depends on whether, and if so how, we factor in other pieces of info, such as the timing of the introduction of EPO combined with the timing of the iron shot episode, and combined with his kidney disorder. Imo, these pieces of info/evidence should not be considered in isolation.

I respect your view on the EPO rumor, and don't necessarily disagree with your take on it, but will remain on the fence with an inclination towards skeptical.

How was it the entire peloton? As usual you are widly exaggerating. Dhaenans, Gisbers and later Boogerd is not the entire peloton. The reality for those who were around at the time is that the stories were all about the Italians and there are quotes from riders on record to that effect, not "rumours" surfacing 25 yrs later.

You want us to addresss this rumour but what is there to address? Why did it start? Try this for size.
LeMond rode for PDM were Gibers was a DS and Dhaenans a rider. He was paid big money whilst there but didn't perform and broke his contract to leave. The next season LeMond returns as Tour Champion. How do you think the guys at PDM felt? Did it ever occur to you that the "rumour" may have been started malicioulsy out of bitterness. Or maybe like many others, they just put 2+2 together and came up with 5 and have no real insight or knowledge. Perhaps he was using EPO in 1988 to ride the likes of the Tour of Holland or Nissan Classic.

If EPO=iron shots, then it seems a strange time to start taking EPO and would suggest that someone else introduced it. As I pointed out before, LeMond had a good early season in 89 but then his form just vanished from April to mid Giro. Surely if he were taking EPO, he would have been doing it whilst preparing for the Giro(which was a major target)when he was back home in the US during May. I don't think starting to take EPO during the middle of a GT is normal practice.

The other things is this, the other early benefactos of EPO were allegedly the likes of Bugno/Argentin/Chiappucci who all had doctors to advise them on how to use EPO effectively. Who was advising LeMond? It was not Van Mol as he seemed to have had little contact with LeMond. You might claim his wife or father-in-law but would they really know how to effectively ally it to an athletes needs. The likes of Ferrari/Conconi were specialists in exercise and phsiology which is why they became the kings of doping as they knew how to match the medicine with the exercise.

If LeMond were using EPO in 1990, why were his Z team(later GAN) supposedly one of the last teams to switch to using EPO. Anyone remember the poor preformances of GAN in 93/94. Isn't Eric Boyer on record somewhere as saying he only got to know the full insight on EPO when he moved to Polti which was 1994 if I recall correctly. Nicolas Aubier who broke ometra pre Festina and rode for GAN said the first time he was offered EPO was at another team.

Talking in "whats ifs", anything is possible.

Game. Set. Match. Ibtl

 

[Maxiton]

Re: Re:

Game. Set. Match. Ibtl

You haven't been following the thread too closely, apparently . . . .

 

[86TDFWinner]

Re: Re:

Perhaps before announcing when somebody has lost credibility you could come up with a new argument or at least one other clean guy, lol!

From Dan Martin to Froome to LeMond to the Jan Ullrich thead you keep feefing us the same #%#%# guy... "Giles #%#! Delion"!

search.php?keywords=Giles+Delion&fid%5B0%5D=20

I'm pretty sure I can come up with "one other clean guy" for you Hog/Sniper/Whomever:

Andy Hampsten! I'm/we're anxiously awaiting your attempts to discredit Hampsten as "a clean rider", fire away. But as I and MANY others have stated though, you have to have 100% credible VERIFIABLE proof/evidence before you go shooting arrows in hopes of anything sticking.

So please by all means, lets see the info you have claiming Hampsten doped and isn't clean either?

 

[86TDFWinner]

Re: Re:

Game. Set. Match. Ibtl

You haven't been following the thread too closely, apparently . . . .

Don't need to, it usually goes something like this:

"LeMond doped too....my sisters, cousins, best friends, step uncle in laws dog saw him do it once in 1989, he told me so it's true."


Then, when asked for the 1,000,001th time to provide any sort of credible, factual, verifiable proof to back up the claim, it's crickets chirp.

These "LeMond doped too" nonsensical posts seem to come around every so often and just like EVERY OTHER TIME, are shot down, as the op is usually just trolling and knows he/she is incorrect from the get go.


So yeah, dont need to really "follow along" with the sAme old, tired "LeMond doped too" periodical posts to know what they're about.

 

[@NL_LeMondFans]

Re:

If LeMond was playing by the rules, he was almost certainly the only GC rider doing so. Why isn't he allowed to do whatever he can to be competitive within the scope of those rules? Why this insistence on LeMond the saint? If we can't have Saint LeMond, we can't have any LeMond at all? How about LeMond the pioneering, super competitive athlete who insisted on playing by the rules? Isn't that enough? It's more than you'd get with any other TdF champion.

I return the question : why the need to tarnish someone who could be the real deal until proven otherwise ?

Why the need to have everyone agree to what you are saying ? It's funny that me, the fanboy, is not the one doing that...

Why employ "Saint LeMond" as others employ "GL fanboys" when you're clearly out of reasonable options ?

Why automatically discredit people who do not share your opinion ?

I think you're a clever person and you raise good points. But you failed to convince me. Get over it.

I'm not sorry.

 

[Maxiton]

Re: Re:

Game. Set. Match. Ibtl

You haven't been following the thread too closely, apparently . . . .

Don't need to, it usually goes something like this:

"LeMond doped too....my sisters, cousins, best friends, step uncle in laws dog saw him do it once in 1989, he told me so it's true."


Then, when asked for the 1,000,001th time to provide any sort of credible, factual, verifiable proof to back up the claim, it's crickets chirp.

These "LeMond doped too" nonsensical posts seem to come around every so often and just like EVERY OTHER TIME, are shot down, as the op is usually just trolling and knows he/she is incorrect from the get go.


So yeah, dont need to really "follow along" with the sAme old, tired "LeMond doped too" periodical posts to know what they're about.

Okay. Well, in that case I'm sure no one will bother themselves with your Hampsten query.

 

[@NL_LeMondFans]

Re: Re:

Giro 1989 : Greg never had a team of doctors. And if he had, after the 1986 "check the urine samples" incident, I am pretty sure he wouldn't let any unidentified product near him. Greg had his family (they weren't on the Giro) and his personal soigneur, Otto Jacome.

But the product wasn't unidentified; it was identified as "iron shots".

TDF 1989 : if Greg had had access to EPO and used it, he would have won by minutes, not seconds.

By 1989, Greg had been shot and nearly killed. It's nothing less than a miracle that he was racing at all. But maybe not such a miracle . . . .

That last comment is so pernicious... We're here asking for facts and you mention a "miracle", then throw a rock in the air... You can still delete it.

 

[Maxiton]

Re: Re:

If LeMond was playing by the rules, he was almost certainly the only GC rider doing so. Why isn't he allowed to do whatever he can to be competitive within the scope of those rules? Why this insistence on LeMond the saint? If we can't have Saint LeMond, we can't have any LeMond at all? How about LeMond the pioneering, super competitive athlete who insisted on playing by the rules? Isn't that enough? It's more than you'd get with any other TdF champion.

I return the question : why the need to tarnish someone who could be the real deal until proven otherwise ?

Why the need to have everyone agree to what you are saying ? It's funny that me, the fanboy, is not the one doing that...

Why employ "Saint LeMond" as others employ "GL fanboys" when you're clearly out of reasonable options ?

Why automatically discredit people who do not share your opinion ?

I think you're a clever person and you raise good points. But you failed to convince me. Get over it.

I'm not sorry.

No worries, dude. I think your restraint and openmindedness are commendable. Not trying to convince anyone, really, and still less trying to trash LeMond, whom I esteem as an athlete. I don't really know what he did or didn't do, I'm just trying to explore the possibilities, and maybe look for a midpoint whereby he might have "done" something while remaining an athlete with honor and ethics.

 

[sniper]

Re: Re:

I return the question : why the need to tarnish someone who could be the real deal until proven otherwise ?

Why the need to have everyone agree to what you are saying ? It's funny that me, the fanboy, is not the one doing that...

Why employ "Saint LeMond" as others employ "GL fanboys" when you're clearly out of reasonable options ?

Why automatically discredit people who do not share your opinion ?

I think you're a clever person and you raise good points. But you failed to convince me. Get over it.

I'm not sorry.

An article surfaced on the previous page of the thread containing what some would call 'testimonial evidence' of Lemond using epo. You might wanna have a look. I can translate parts for you if you want.

 

[86TDFWinner]

Re:

If LeMond was playing by the rules, he was almost certainly the only GC rider doing so. Why isn't he allowed to do whatever he can to be competitive within the scope of those rules? Why this insistence on LeMond the saint? If we can't have Saint LeMond, we can't have any LeMond at all? How about LeMond the pioneering, super competitive athlete who insisted on playing by the rules? Isn't that enough? It's more than you'd get with any other TdF champion.

Because some folks.and fanboys want.to tear down the one guy they can't.

 

[86TDFWinner]

Re: Re:

Game. Set. Match. Ibtl

You haven't been following the thread too closely, apparently . . . .

Don't need to, it usually goes something like this:

"LeMond doped too....my sisters, cousins, best friends, step uncle in laws dog saw him do it once in 1989, he told me so it's true."


Then, when asked for the 1,000,001th time to provide any sort of credible, factual, verifiable proof to back up the claim, it's crickets chirp.

These "LeMond doped too" nonsensical posts seem to come around every so often and just like EVERY OTHER TIME, are shot down, as the op is usually just trolling and knows he/she is incorrect from the get go.


So yeah, dont need to really "follow along" with the sAme old, tired "LeMond doped too" periodical posts to know what they're about.

Okay. Well, in that case I'm sure no one will bother themselves with your Hampsten query.

Probably a smart idea on their part because the outcome/answer will be the same.

 

[@NL_LeMondFans]

Sniper (quote) : "A poster named altitude, who appeared in this thread a few times and then disappeared, suggested Lemond was on EPO in 86/87. He sounded pretty sure of his case. Could have been Lance in disguise, but no a priori reason to discard it. "

Are you kidding me ?

We have an anonymous poster, with no record and no fact at all, throwing a bombshell with absolutely nothing backing it and we should take this into consideration ???

I've been mocked multiple times on these boards for taking what Greg says at "face value" and I should accept that ???

No f***ing way.

 

[86TDFWinner]

Re: Re:

I return the question : why the need to tarnish someone who could be the real deal until proven otherwise ?

Why the need to have everyone agree to what you are saying ? It's funny that me, the fanboy, is not the one doing that...

Why employ "Saint LeMond" as others employ "GL fanboys" when you're clearly out of reasonable options ?

Why automatically discredit people who do not share your opinion ?

I think you're a clever person and you raise good points. But you failed to convince me. Get over it.

I'm not sorry.

An article surfaced on the previous page of the thread containing what some would call 'testimonial evidence' of Lemond using epo. You might wanna have a look. I can translate parts for you if you want.

Please do....and please post the 100% factual, credible, verifiable proof(your link) that he 100% factually, credibly did/introduced/whatever to the peloton and he himself was doing it.


Your move Sniper

 

[sniper]

Re:

Sniper (quote) : "A poster named altitude, who appeared in this thread a few times and then disappeared, suggested Lemond was on EPO in 86/87. He sounded pretty sure of his case. Could have been Lance in disguise, but no a priori reason to discard it. "

Are you kidding me ?

We have an anonymous poster, with no record and no fact at all, throwing a bombshell with absolutely nothing backing it and we should take this into consideration ???

I've been mocked multiple times on these boards for taking what Greg says at "face value" and I should accept that ???

No f***ing way.

Why are you taking these things in isolation?
I'd argue the individual pieces of evidence (cons and pros!) are worhtless in isolation, but gain interest in relation to each other. Again, franklin did it in that brilliant post of his. I'll link it again if you're interested.

 

[@NL_LeMondFans]

Re: Re:

I return the question : why the need to tarnish someone who could be the real deal until proven otherwise ?

Why the need to have everyone agree to what you are saying ? It's funny that me, the fanboy, is not the one doing that...

Why employ "Saint LeMond" as others employ "GL fanboys" when you're clearly out of reasonable options ?

Why automatically discredit people who do not share your opinion ?

I think you're a clever person and you raise good points. But you failed to convince me. Get over it.

I'm not sorry.

An article surfaced on the previous page of the thread containing what some would call 'testimonial evidence' of Lemond using epo. You might wanna have a look. I can translate parts for you if you want.

About the "testimonial evidence", is this the one about which you said yourself "LeMond is not named" ?

I am confused. I have to take at "face value" something that does not concern Greg and a testimony from some forum user we don't know ?

 

[sniper]

Re: Re:

About the "testimonial evidence", is this the one about which you said yourself "LeMond is not named" ?

no.

 

[red_flanders]

Re: Re:

I don't really know what he did or didn't do, I'm just trying to explore the possibilities, and maybe look for a midpoint whereby he might have "done" something while remaining an athlete with honor and ethics.

Well there's the source of the reaction to your approach. You are seeking a way to fit the facts into a conclusion you want to find. Why are you looking for anything? Why not just take the facts and arrive at a conclusion?

It's more clear now why you give credence to nonsense debunked over and over again. You're looking "for a midpoint". Maybe it exist, I don't know. But I've seen nothing to suggest it does. The fact that blood doping and EPO existed at the time are not evidence. All those facts do is make the allegation possible. They don't support it.

 

[@NL_LeMondFans]

Re: Re:

Sniper (quote) : "A poster named altitude, who appeared in this thread a few times and then disappeared, suggested Lemond was on EPO in 86/87. He sounded pretty sure of his case. Could have been Lance in disguise, but no a priori reason to discard it. "

Are you kidding me ?

We have an anonymous poster, with no record and no fact at all, throwing a bombshell with absolutely nothing backing it and we should take this into consideration ???

I've been mocked multiple times on these boards for taking what Greg says at "face value" and I should accept that ???

No f***ing way.

Why are you taking these things in isolation?
I'd argue the individual pieces of evidence (cons and pros!) are worhtless in isolation, but gain interest in relation to each other. Again, franklin did it in that brilliant post of his. I'll link it again if you're interested.

I am taking things in isolation for everyone to take note, including you. 1000 rumours have never, ever made a fact. This is a very dangerous way of thinking. Especially when you consider the weakness of the source.

I've spent almost all my life researching and collecting stuff about Greg. My opinion on him is made of this and my meetings with him. So yes, when I read BS, I take this as an attack. When the word "fanboy" is used, I take this as an attack. When the expression "Saint LeMond" is used, I take this as an attack.