LeMond III

[Cannibal72]

Re: Re:

If I remember correctly, the original contention was that LeMond was the first adopter or one of the very first adopters of EPO in the pack. That can't have been before 1986, because EPO wasn't around, or in 1987/88, because LeMond wasn't around. I seem to remember Bugno's 1990 Giro victory is taken as EPO-fuelled, and LeMond fell off a cliff after 1990, so the only plausible date is 1989 (and sniper's already referenced the 1989 Giro.) this offer 3 possibilities.

a) Both LeMond and Fignon were on EPO
This is unlikely for three reasons.
1) The two were on roughly the same level as before EPO was even invented; I imagine that a survey of cycling fans at the start of the 1984 Tour would have seen the two prodigies - one the yellow jersey, the other in the rainbow bands - as overwhelming favourites to dominate the Tour for years to come.
(Proving they were on roughly the same level as before is the final name on the podium. Delgado finished 3'34" down, which is not remotely implausible in itself, and is made even less implausible by the fact that 2'40" of that is down to how he bizarrely missed his start time for the prologue. Fignon +8, Delgado +54...that's a far, far tighter race than any in the EPO era, and shows precisely no miraculous improvement for three gifted Tour winners. Looking at the results sheet alone, there's nothing that would make you think that there is anything up with this race - or that EPO was even around, given the dominance of proven and talented pre-EPO riders.)
2) It's highly unlikely a highly experimental PED in its formative stages would have been introduced to the pack simultaneously by the two number one GC cyclists in the world.
(And when you consider how close Delgado would have been, you've got to make it the top three.)
3) i consider the visceral revulsion Fignon wrote about with regard to hormones and blood doping as plausible.

b) LeMond, not Fignon, was on EPO
When two riders pretty much equal in ability and palmares are separated and just one is given EPO, the juiced one does not scrape the narrowest win in GT history thanks to a very slightly more aerodynamic helmet. He crushes the other guy.

c) Neither were using
The one plausible option.

If LeMond was blood doping prior to '89, then my arguments above still stand, I would suggest. (The 1984 Giro adds a bit of interest, though, maybe leaning the other way.)

....the 84 Tour?....the one where Fignon rode to one of the most dominating victories of all time ...in which he crushed Hinault by over 10min....

http://www.bikeraceinfo.com/tdf/tdf1984.html

....and just for fun check the TT placings ....

Cheers

At the start of the 84 tour, ie before the Tour started, ie before anyone without gifts of prophecy knew the results yet.

 

[@NL_LeMondFans]

Maybe Fignon was on something that year but, in all fairness, Hinault was diminished (recovering from surgery the previous year) and LeMond was sick (bronchitis).

 

[Cannibal72]

Re:

Maybe Fignon was on something that year but, in all fairness, Hinault was diminished (recovering from surgery the previous year) and LeMond was sick (bronchitis).

Fignon was definitely on something, he admitted addictions to all kinds of things and regular use of PEDs like amphetamines. He probably wasn't blood doping, though.

Oh, and Simon was banned.

 

[sniper]

Re: Re:

The revenge argument is a bit farfetched.
You think with those million dollar claims against him, Lance gives a **** about revenge on Lemond? It would be the very last thing on his priority list.
The possible downsides are uncountable. Any lawyer with a quarter of a brain would advice LAnce to not pick a fight with Lemond let alone with Carmichael. Not now. Maybe not ever.

Very true... NOW.

That was not the case 15 years ago. If Armstrong's had any investigation going on with Greg, it was probably in the years 2001-2005, maybe a bit later. I remember Armstrong claiming "Greg will have to tell the truth about the 1989 TDF" on french TV. It was in 2009 or 2010, with Laurent Fignon next to him. Think about it, the guy actually tried to exploit Fignon's terminal condition (from cancer, ironically) to get back at LeMond. That's how strong his revenge feelings were at the time. So... Not far-fetched at all. Not at the time. Point being : if he had had something serious/credible, he would have gotten it out, because he stopped at nothing.

About the difference between LeMond's hypothetical accomplices and the Sastre/Wiggins et al... Two things : 1/It's been 30 years so people are way more talkative overtime. Who knows what the Sky guys will spill in 30 years ? Maybe nothing. Maybe a lot of stuff. 2/and that goes also for the "wanted to win clean" argument, the guys you talk about started racing when EPO was already a reality and quite rampant. Hence, maybe (I said maybe) they had already made a choice to dope (or not).

good post.
Didn't know about that 2009 tv incident.

have to agree with you on the 30 years more talkative argument.

where do you and Maxiton have the idea from that Lance was digging into Lemond's background already in 2001? I may have missed something in that regard.

 

[@NL_LeMondFans]

Re: Re:

Maybe Fignon was on something that year but, in all fairness, Hinault was diminished (recovering from surgery the previous year) and LeMond was sick (bronchitis).

Fignon was definitely on something, he admitted addictions to all kinds of things and regular use of PEDs like amphetamines. He probably wasn't blood doping, though.

Oh, and Simon was banned.

Fignon admitted use, not addictions. But I agree, he probably was on something, he was never as strong before of after that Tour.

Simon was 1983. Caught using after the Dauphiné (that he had won, LeMond was 2nd), then quit the Tour while wearing the yellow jersey because he broke a collarbone or something in that area.

 

[Maxiton]

Re: Re:

where do you and Maxiton have the idea from that Lance was digging into Lemond's background already in 2001? I may have missed something in that regard.

That was in my original post up thread. It was in 2001, I think, that LeMond first said of Armstrong, "Either greatest comeback or greatest fraud."

 

[sniper]

Re: Re:

where do you and Maxiton have the idea from that Lance was digging into Lemond's background already in 2001? I may have missed something in that regard.

That was in my original post up thread. It was in 2001, I think, that LeMond first said of Armstrong, "Either greatest comeback or greatest fraud."

cheers, apologies for missing that, and yes it does strengthen your case.

 

[@NL_LeMondFans]

Re: Re:

The revenge argument is a bit farfetched.
You think with those million dollar claims against him, Lance gives a **** about revenge on Lemond? It would be the very last thing on his priority list.
The possible downsides are uncountable. Any lawyer with a quarter of a brain would advice LAnce to not pick a fight with Lemond let alone with Carmichael. Not now. Maybe not ever.

Very true... NOW.

That was not the case 15 years ago. If Armstrong's had any investigation going on with Greg, it was probably in the years 2001-2005, maybe a bit later. I remember Armstrong claiming "Greg will have to tell the truth about the 1989 TDF" on french TV. It was in 2009 or 2010, with Laurent Fignon next to him. Think about it, the guy actually tried to exploit Fignon's terminal condition (from cancer, ironically) to get back at LeMond. That's how strong his revenge feelings were at the time. So... Not far-fetched at all. Not at the time. Point being : if he had had something serious/credible, he would have gotten it out, because he stopped at nothing.

About the difference between LeMond's hypothetical accomplices and the Sastre/Wiggins et al... Two things : 1/It's been 30 years so people are way more talkative overtime. Who knows what the Sky guys will spill in 30 years ? Maybe nothing. Maybe a lot of stuff. 2/and that goes also for the "wanted to win clean" argument, the guys you talk about started racing when EPO was already a reality and quite rampant. Hence, maybe (I said maybe) they had already made a choice to dope (or not).

good post.
Didn't know about that 2009 tv incident.

have to agree with you on the 30 years more talkative argument.

where do you and Maxiton have the idea from that Lance was digging into Lemond's background already in 2001? I may have missed something in that regard.

I don't remember the specifics, to tell you the truth. I remember a whole campaign from Armstrong to try and make Greg look like an alcoholic moron. I surely remember the "why do you love cancer so much" slogans... The Trek case... It just seems plausible LA would do such a thing.

 

[Maxiton]

Re: Re:

where do you and Maxiton have the idea from that Lance was digging into Lemond's background already in 2001? I may have missed something in that regard.

That was in my original post up thread. It was in 2001, I think, that LeMond first said of Armstrong, "Either greatest comeback or greatest fraud."

cheers, apologies for missing that, and yes it does strengthen your case.

Not necessarily. Of the two cyclists, Lemond and Armstrong, only one had an investigative reporter on his ass for thirteen years. So maybe I had the right idea but wrong way round. Maybe.

 

[Maxiton]

I just posted this in the "Is Walsh on The Sky Bandwagon?" thread.

Here's something to think about. Here's a guy, Walsh, who spent years investigating Armstrong, and did really solid work, too. I mean, he basically put the whole case together. Lots of shoe leather. Lots of phone calls. Lots and lots of interviews and fact checking. Can't have been easy, especially given who and what he was up against.

L.A. Confidentiel: Les secrets de Lance Armstrong (L.A. Confidential: Lance Armstrong's Secrets) (2003)

That one got him sued. But it didn't stop him.

From Lance to Landis: Inside the American Doping Controversy at the Tour de France (2007)

This guy is relentless, seemingly. Up against big odds and big power, he powers on, determined to expose the truth. No other investigative journalist in the world, inside sport or outside it, is as dogged as David Walsh.

Finally, the case he put together against Armstrong actually gets investigated, and we saw how that played out. Walsh writes a follow up, recounting his 13-year fight to bring out the truth.

Seven Deadly Sins: My Pursuit of Lance Armstrong (2012)

Think of it. Thirteen years dedicated to bringing out the truth. That is a lot of dedication to the truth.

To be so single-minded, so dogged, so dedicated, and so fearless, you'd have to be a special person, one of absolutely staunch integrity, and resolute about it, too.

So now this same reporter, with all that reputation, goes for a joy ride with the new Sky Team, and writes utter tripe about how clean they are, how very clean. And when challenged he defends it, no matter how weak and see-through an argument he has to use.

How does this paragon of pursuit of the truth, this exemplar of journalistic virtue, go from what he did with Armstrong to what he is now doing with Sky?

Maybe he was never the fearless defender of truth to begin with. Maybe then as now it was all about working at someone's behest. Have pen, will travel.

 

[red_flanders]

Re:

Maxiton, great post, thanks for that.
though obviously you're not the first to point that out. (not the second either )
My rebuttal is going to be comparatively short and concise (as it was last time this was brought up):
Carmichael.

I can expand on that if you wish, but what it comes down to is that whatever dirt Lance may have had on Lemond, Carmichael would have urged Lance not to spill it. Especially if such dirt would have concerned 1989, amgen, epo.
Hell would freeze over before Carmichael allows Lance to spill that.

Also, Lance has never come clean about his early years, nor about his last two years.
So it's not as if Lance has nothing to loose anymore.
Just saying there are several good reasons why he's not spilling beans, be it on Lemond, be it on Verbruggen, be it on anybody. Lance is still omerta, and that's not because of good will. It's because of what he has to loose if he'd spill.

To be sure, this is not me saying Lance has dirt on Lemond. I don't know, I can only guess.
Merely it's me saying that the argument that
(a) Lance doesn't have dirt on Lemond; therefore (b) there is no dirt on Lemond
doesn't stack up.

Is it your sense that Carmichael had sway over Lance such that he could "allow" Lance to do anything?

Based on what I've heard others on the team say about the relationship, Lance "allowed" Carmichael to ride his coattails, nothing more. The idea that Carmichael had any control over Lance, is I think, comical. To invoke a pun.

 

[Irondan]

Re: Re:

Maxiton, great post, thanks for that.
though obviously you're not the first to point that out. (not the second either )
My rebuttal is going to be comparatively short and concise (as it was last time this was brought up):
Carmichael.

I can expand on that if you wish, but what it comes down to is that whatever dirt Lance may have had on Lemond, Carmichael would have urged Lance not to spill it. Especially if such dirt would have concerned 1989, amgen, epo.
Hell would freeze over before Carmichael allows Lance to spill that.

Also, Lance has never come clean about his early years, nor about his last two years.
So it's not as if Lance has nothing to loose anymore.
Just saying there are several good reasons why he's not spilling beans, be it on Lemond, be it on Verbruggen, be it on anybody. Lance is still omerta, and that's not because of good will. It's because of what he has to loose if he'd spill.

To be sure, this is not me saying Lance has dirt on Lemond. I don't know, I can only guess.
Merely it's me saying that the argument that
(a) Lance doesn't have dirt on Lemond; therefore (b) there is no dirt on Lemond
doesn't stack up.

Is it your sense that Carmichael had sway over Lance such that he could "allow" Lance to do anything?

Based on what I've heard others on the team say about the relationship, Lance "allowed" Carmichael to ride his coattails, nothing more. The idea that Carmichael had any control over Lance, is I think, comical. To invoke a pun.

I would agree with that statement. I've never seen anything that would indicate anything other than Carmichael being in the right place at the right time.

 

[sniper]

cheers Red & Dan, and fair point, I may have overstated Carmichael's potential influence on Lance.
To be sure, I am anything but an expert on the late 80s/early 90s US cycling scene. (More like a layman)
So if you say that his influence on Lance is/was negligible, I will stand corrected.

But regardless of Carmichael, I think there remain plenty of powers in the mix that are waaaaaay stronger than Lance Armstrong, powers which Armstrong would be foolish to piss off, and powers which, I can imagine, have an interest in
(a) keeping the Lemond-Clean-Champ story line alive and kicking and
(b) ensuring that anything related to the release of (and experimentation with) EPO in 1989-ish remains nice and firmly under the carpet.

So granted, I should maybe keep Carmichael out of this. But thinking about it, it doesn't seem to change my argument much. The question whether or not Lance has dirt on Lemond, I would argue, has little to no bearing on the question whether or not Lemond was dirty.

As Maxiton says, Lance, not Lemond, had investigators on his tail for 12+ years.

 

[BullsFan22]

Re: LeMond

I respect Greg LeMond and all that he's achieved and the abuse he received from Armstrong and his camp was very unfortunate, but, I have a hard time believing LeMond wasn't on some PED's during his career. He may have been a freak of nature, like, for example, Jan Ullrich was (obviously Ullrich's career could have looked a lot more impressive than it was if he took racing and preparation far more seriously than he did) or Miguel Indurain or any other top talents, but without PED's? Not sure about that. How do you beat the top cyclists in the world, who are more than likely on PED's, by racing clean? Maybe I am completely and utterly wrong, but that's how I see it.

 

[sniper]

Also, don't underestimate the Dhaenens rumor. I mean, it wasn't just Dhaenens.
When I searched for this rumor some months ago (or when was it), I quickly learned that others close to the peloton (Boogerd and Gisbers being two examples) have publicly stated to be under the impression that Lemond introduced EPO.
Just saying, if Lance had had any real genuine interest in smearing Lemond, he would hardly have needed the help of a private investigator.

 

[@NL_LeMondFans]

Re:

Also, don't underestimate the Dhaenens rumor. I mean, it wasn't just Dhaenens.
When I searched for this rumor some months ago (or when was it), I quickly learned that others close to the peloton (Boogerd and Gisbers being two examples) have publicly stated to be under the impression that Lemond introduced EPO.
Just saying, if Lance had had any real genuine interest in smearing Lemond, he would hardly have needed the help of a private investigator.

That's the difference between rumour and fact. To really diminish and get to someone you need hard evidence. I don't think it means Armstrong didn't look for dirt. Most likely, it could mean he found no one to corroborate any dirt.

Don't underestimate LA's grief over Greg. The guy pretty much destroyed Greg's life for this sole sentence "If LA's story is true, it's the biggest comeback. If it's not, it's the biggest fraud". Highly hypothetical. And yet, Armstrong went to great lenght to destroy and diffame him. And the fact that this thread sometimes looks like we're trying to do the same is a bit sad, to be honest.

In 1989/1990, Greg won the Tour and did rather poor performances in other races. I can totally imagine managers from other teams using this to convince their riders to use what were, at the time, lethal products. "Take this, that's what LeMond is taking !".

 

[sniper]

Re: Re:

Also, don't underestimate the Dhaenens rumor. I mean, it wasn't just Dhaenens.
When I searched for this rumor some months ago (or when was it), I quickly learned that others close to the peloton (Boogerd and Gisbers being two examples) have publicly stated to be under the impression that Lemond introduced EPO.
Just saying, if Lance had had any real genuine interest in smearing Lemond, he would hardly have needed the help of a private investigator.

That's the difference between rumour and fact. To really diminish and get to someone you need hard evidence. I don't think it means Armstrong didn't look for dirt. Most likely, it could mean he found no one to corroborate any dirt.

Don't underestimate LA's grief over Greg. The guy pretty much destroyed Greg's life for this sole sentence "If LA's story is true, it's the biggest comeback. If it's not, it's the biggest fraud". Highly hypothetical. And yet, Armstrong went to great lenght to destroy and diffame him. And the fact that this thread sometimes looks like we're trying to do the same is a bit sad, to be honest.

In 1989/1990, Greg won the Tour and did rather poor performances in other races. I can totally imagine managers from other teams using this to convince their riders to use what were, at the time, lethal products. "Take this, that's what LeMond is taking !".

through your glasses, i don't doubt that's what it looks like.

to others, it's just about discussing did the guy dope or not.
It's sort of what the Clinic was designed for, isn't it?

I do hope the claim of Lemond's cleanliness doesn't rest solely on the premise that Lance never spilled the beans on him, because that's rather thin.

 

[gillan1969]

Re: Re:

Also, don't underestimate the Dhaenens rumor. I mean, it wasn't just Dhaenens.
When I searched for this rumor some months ago (or when was it), I quickly learned that others close to the peloton (Boogerd and Gisbers being two examples) have publicly stated to be under the impression that Lemond introduced EPO.
Just saying, if Lance had had any real genuine interest in smearing Lemond, he would hardly have needed the help of a private investigator.

That's the difference between rumour and fact. To really diminish and get to someone you need hard evidence. I don't think it means Armstrong didn't look for dirt. Most likely, it could mean he found no one to corroborate any dirt.

Don't underestimate LA's grief over Greg. The guy pretty much destroyed Greg's life for this sole sentence "If LA's story is true, it's the biggest comeback. If it's not, it's the biggest fraud". Highly hypothetical. And yet, Armstrong went to great lenght to destroy and diffame him. And the fact that this thread sometimes looks like we're trying to do the same is a bit sad, to be honest.

In 1989/1990, Greg won the Tour and did rather poor performances in other races. I can totally imagine managers from other teams using this to convince their riders to use what were, at the time, lethal products. "Take this, that's what LeMond is taking !".

through your glasses, i don't doubt that's what it looks like.

to others, it's just about discussing did the guy dope or not.
It's sort of what the Clinic was designed for, isn't it?

I do hope the claim of Lemond's cleanliness doesn't rest solely on the premise that Lance never spilled the beans on him, because that's rather thin.

Having lived through the majority of Lemond's pro career (and all of the mutants that followed), the claim of lemond's cleanliness rest predominately on his career never raising any red falgs..its what one of the best riders ever produced looks like and feels like...he's great when he starts, he stays great gets shot returns to form and then drops off when all the fat arse's start taking epo...he climbs well but not brilliantly, he TTs well not brilliantly and he can look after himself in the one day races...

compare and contrast with your subsequent GT winners...

 

[sniper]

3 times TdF champ. With one kidney and corresponding blood disease.
This isn't darts you know.
Discovered by Eddy B. and receiving iron shots from Ivan Vanmol.
No red flags you say?

And there could be tons of reasons why he fell behind in the 90s. Why did Indurain fall behind in 1996? Surely not because he'd been riding clean.

More to the point, I haven't seen any plausible answer to the question: why would Lemond not have doped?
What made him belong to this hypothetical 1% of clean proriders in the 80s who we don't even know existed and who, if they did exist, were likely to have been riding at the very back of the pack.
To claim he was a freak of nature is possible, but it's clutching at straws, and even if he was, that doesn't answer the question why he wouldn't additionally have dipped into the hot sauce too.
He was under enough pressure to perform, you'll know that better than most.

If you lived through Lemond's carreer, I don't have to tell you why Lemond didn't go to the Olympics in 1984.
And I don't have to tell you about Eddy B. either.
Eddy B? Junior blood doper? Who cares, let's throw the guy a fundraiser in 2005 and invite at least a handful of athletes who've admitted to blood doping under Eddy B.

None of that is evidence of Lemond's wrongdoing. But neither is it evidence of some PED-refusing moral that some seem to think was innate to Lemond for some reason.

 

[gillan1969]

Re:

Yikes, that's more thin ice.
3 times TdF champ. This isn't darts you know.
With one kidney and corresponding blood disease.
Discovered by Eddy B. and receiving iron shots from Ivan Vanmol.
No red flags you say?

And there could be tons of reasons why he fell behind in the 90s. Why did Indurain fall behind in 1996? Surely not because he'd been riding clean.

More to the point, I haven't seen any plausible answer to the question: why would Lemond not have doped?
What made him belong to this hypothetical 1% of clean riders in the 80s who we don't even know existed and who, if they did exist, were likely to have been riding at the very back of the pack.
To claim he was a freak of nature is possible, but it's clutching at straws, and even if he was, that doesn't answer the question why he wouldn't additionally have dipped into the hot sauce too.
He was under enough pressure to perform, you'll know that better than most.

If you lived through Lemond's carreer, I don't have to tell you why Lemond didn't go to the Olympics in 1984.
And I don't have to tell you about Eddy B. either.
Eddy B? Junior blood doper? Who cares, let's throw the guy a fundraiser in 2005 and invite at least a handful of athletes who've admitted to blood doping under Eddy B.

None of that is evidence of Lemond's wrongdoing. But neither is it evidence of some PED-refusing moral that some seem to think was innate to Lemond for some reason.

Lemond turned pro in '81...Olympics was not a big race when you had already been world champ in any event...still isn't

if you are familiar with the series The League of Gentlemen then think the village vet...his modus operandi is sophisticated compared to Eddy Bs blood doping program in '84

if your not familair I would watch...it's very good

 

[@NL_LeMondFans]

Re: Re:

Also, don't underestimate the Dhaenens rumor. I mean, it wasn't just Dhaenens.
When I searched for this rumor some months ago (or when was it), I quickly learned that others close to the peloton (Boogerd and Gisbers being two examples) have publicly stated to be under the impression that Lemond introduced EPO.
Just saying, if Lance had had any real genuine interest in smearing Lemond, he would hardly have needed the help of a private investigator.

That's the difference between rumour and fact. To really diminish and get to someone you need hard evidence. I don't think it means Armstrong didn't look for dirt. Most likely, it could mean he found no one to corroborate any dirt.

Don't underestimate LA's grief over Greg. The guy pretty much destroyed Greg's life for this sole sentence "If LA's story is true, it's the biggest comeback. If it's not, it's the biggest fraud". Highly hypothetical. And yet, Armstrong went to great lenght to destroy and diffame him. And the fact that this thread sometimes looks like we're trying to do the same is a bit sad, to be honest.

In 1989/1990, Greg won the Tour and did rather poor performances in other races. I can totally imagine managers from other teams using this to convince their riders to use what were, at the time, lethal products. "Take this, that's what LeMond is taking !".

through your glasses, i don't doubt that's what it looks like.

to others, it's just about discussing did the guy dope or not.
It's sort of what the Clinic was designed for, isn't it?

I do hope the claim of Lemond's cleanliness doesn't rest solely on the premise that Lance never spilled the beans on him, because that's rather thin.

Well... In the Indurain thread, you claimed it was unfair LeMond was given a pass and not investigated as strongly as others. On here you talked about Walsh investigating LA for 12 years and zip for LeMond.

Hinault, Merckx, Kelly, Roche, Fignon... All contemporaries of Greg's, all investigated the same way as Greg's (or less) and different conclusions. I don't have to tell you how different Greg was to other riders and how much he revolutionized the sport. Maybe being clean was part of it.

Also, I don't see anywhere else in the clinic a thread of 182 (!!!) pages investigating a rider that quit pro cycling more than 20 years ago.

And yet, the most plausible things against Greg are : "everybody was doing it" and "bad people around him".

I say that's pretty thin too.

 

[@NL_LeMondFans]

Re:

3 times TdF champ. With one kidney and corresponding blood disease.
This isn't darts you know.
Discovered by Eddy B. and receiving iron shots from Ivan Vanmol.
No red flags you say?

And there could be tons of reasons why he fell behind in the 90s. Why did Indurain fall behind in 1996? Surely not because he'd been riding clean.

More to the point, I haven't seen any plausible answer to the question: why would Lemond not have doped?
What made him belong to this hypothetical 1% of clean proriders in the 80s who we don't even know existed and who, if they did exist, were likely to have been riding at the very back of the pack.
To claim he was a freak of nature is possible, but it's clutching at straws, and even if he was, that doesn't answer the question why he wouldn't additionally have dipped into the hot sauce too.
He was under enough pressure to perform, you'll know that better than most.

If you lived through Lemond's carreer, I don't have to tell you why Lemond didn't go to the Olympics in 1984.
And I don't have to tell you about Eddy B. either.
Eddy B? Junior blood doper? Who cares, let's throw the guy a fundraiser in 2005 and invite at least a handful of athletes who've admitted to blood doping under Eddy B.

None of that is evidence of Lemond's wrongdoing. But neither is it evidence of some PED-refusing moral that some seem to think was innate to Lemond for some reason.

What about the 84 Olympics ???

 

[sniper]

@gillan:
I'm not quite following, but that could be me.

So you think he was clean or not? I wouldn't want to be arguing with windmills here.

Anyway, how many riders have you seen with a similarly steady carreer path as lemond?
I'd argue hundreds. Many of them anonymous in the pack for years.
If you wanna use steadiness as an indicator of cleanliness, you're still safer off looking for clean riders among those hundreds many of whom never won anything in their lives.
Look, I totally agree that the lack of a steady carreer progression is often an indicator of doping.
But to reversely claim that a steady carreer path is an indicator of cleanliness, there just is no basis whatsoever for that. And you'd then have to account for several proven dopers with perfectly steady carreer paths.

 

[sniper]

Re: Re:

deleted...

 

[gillan1969]

Re: Re:

3 times TdF champ. With one kidney and corresponding blood disease.
This isn't darts you know.
Discovered by Eddy B. and receiving iron shots from Ivan Vanmol.
No red flags you say?

And there could be tons of reasons why he fell behind in the 90s. Why did Indurain fall behind in 1996? Surely not because he'd been riding clean.

More to the point, I haven't seen any plausible answer to the question: why would Lemond not have doped?
What made him belong to this hypothetical 1% of clean proriders in the 80s who we don't even know existed and who, if they did exist, were likely to have been riding at the very back of the pack.
To claim he was a freak of nature is possible, but it's clutching at straws, and even if he was, that doesn't answer the question why he wouldn't additionally have dipped into the hot sauce too.
He was under enough pressure to perform, you'll know that better than most.

If you lived through Lemond's carreer, I don't have to tell you why Lemond didn't go to the Olympics in 1984.
And I don't have to tell you about Eddy B. either.
Eddy B? Junior blood doper? Who cares, let's throw the guy a fundraiser in 2005 and invite at least a handful of athletes who've admitted to blood doping under Eddy B.

None of that is evidence of Lemond's wrongdoing. But neither is it evidence of some PED-refusing moral that some seem to think was innate to Lemond for some reason.

What about the 84 Olympics ???

well america didn't go to 80 and then lemond couldn't ride 84, 88, and 92...and was retired when he could ride in '96