- Status
Re: Re:
hence why i posted this comment from rhubroma:
well that's the question.kwikki said:sniper said:In fairness, that was only after Greg had already tried to discredit Armstrong. And Greg didn't fail.kwikki said:
Greg didn't fail because he was telling the truth.
Armstrong failed because he wasn't.
hence why i posted this comment from rhubroma:
- Apr 3, 2016
- 1,508
- 0
- 0
Of course, but the mere fact of rhumbomba making that assertion doesn't make it more likely that the negative corollary contained within it is actually true. That is a common mistake known as 'proof by assertion', or in other words just saying something is true doesn't add anything to the statement's relationship with the truth.
It's a similar statement to the famous one Lemond made about Armstrong.....which did turn out to be true. As you are fond of quoting famous clichés, here's one for you... I like Lemond's credibility
It's a similar statement to the famous one Lemond made about Armstrong.....which did turn out to be true. As you are fond of quoting famous clichés, here's one for you... I like Lemond's credibility
Re: Re:
oh well.
so you still haven't moved beyond the "Lance couldnt find anything; ergo, Lemond is clean" argument.GJB123 said:
oh well.
- Apr 3, 2016
- 1,508
- 0
- 0
No.
In the post you quoted initially, the implication is that Armstrong didn't find any dirt on Lemond because he didn't look. He didn't look because he considered doping to be legitimate.
That clearly is untrue, not least because there are witnesses who attest to Armstrong offering bribes to discredit Lemond.
In the post you quoted initially, the implication is that Armstrong didn't find any dirt on Lemond because he didn't look. He didn't look because he considered doping to be legitimate.
That clearly is untrue, not least because there are witnesses who attest to Armstrong offering bribes to discredit Lemond.
Re:
it's in dutch but i'll translate it for you free of charge.
edit:
and if you get the chance, do show me some links to those witnesses you talk of.
i'm not discarding that Lance did that, hell, it wouldn't be beyond him, obviously.
but again, thus far I can't find any confirmation other than via Race Radio's posts.
did lance offer bribes to this guy? http://postimg.org/image/vgxgqxt7f/kwikki said:
it's in dutch but i'll translate it for you free of charge.
edit:
and if you get the chance, do show me some links to those witnesses you talk of.
i'm not discarding that Lance did that, hell, it wouldn't be beyond him, obviously.
but again, thus far I can't find any confirmation other than via Race Radio's posts.
Mark, question:
you know that Lance searched, how exactly?
because kwikki says so?
And even if Lance searched, how do you know Lance found f'all?
Because kwikki and gjb123 say so?
edit: That's you giving a lot of credit to unconfirmed anonymous rumors.
I think it was NLLemondfans who said "even a thousand rumors don't make a fact". Well said.
you know that Lance searched, how exactly?
because kwikki says so?
And even if Lance searched, how do you know Lance found f'all?
Because kwikki and gjb123 say so?
edit: That's you giving a lot of credit to unconfirmed anonymous rumors.
I think it was NLLemondfans who said "even a thousand rumors don't make a fact". Well said.
- Apr 3, 2016
- 1,508
- 0
- 0
Re: Re:
Apologies, I misremebered the incident. LeMond said a former team mate was offered $300k to say Lemond doped.
No matter though. The salient fact is that Armstrong didn't challenge the accusation, and let's face it the accusation was exceptionally easy to challenge. If such an offer wasn't made Armstrong could simply have asked for a testimony from the alledgedly rider in the knowledge that Lemond wouldn't be able to provide one...if it were not true.
But Armstrong, a man known for fighting everything and lawyering up over anything, didn't.
I wonder why. Join the dots....
sniper said:did lance offer bribes to this guy? http://postimg.org/image/vgxgqxt7f/kwikki said:
it's in dutch but i'll translate it for you free of charge.
edit:
and if you get the chance, do show me some links to those witnesses you talk of.
i'm not discarding that Lance did that, hell, it wouldn't be beyond him, obviously.
but again, thus far I can't find any confirmation other than via Race Radio's posts.
Apologies, I misremebered the incident. LeMond said a former team mate was offered $300k to say Lemond doped.
No matter though. The salient fact is that Armstrong didn't challenge the accusation, and let's face it the accusation was exceptionally easy to challenge. If such an offer wasn't made Armstrong could simply have asked for a testimony from the alledgedly rider in the knowledge that Lemond wouldn't be able to provide one...if it were not true.
But Armstrong, a man known for fighting everything and lawyering up over anything, didn't.
I wonder why. Join the dots....
so lemond (in this particular case a.k.a. 'the horse's mouth') is your source?
no other links?
compelling
no other links?
compelling
Re: Re:
No translation needed, thank you, I read Dutch quite well.
You keep bringing up this article like it's the Holy Grail in the LeMond doping narrative. But anybody who can actually read Dutch can tell it says very little in the way of substantive accusations. It quotes a Dutch amateur cyclist who claims that LeMond might be on EPO. Who is this person? Why would an amateur cyclist know what LeMond is doing PED-wise? And you accusing us of only basing our arguments on rumors but what exactly have you brought forward other than rumors, conjecture and false medical conclusions? Something with a kettle being called black by a pot.
sniper said:did lance offer bribes to this guy? http://postimg.org/image/vgxgqxt7f/kwikki said:
it's in dutch but i'll translate it for you free of charge.
edit:
and if you get the chance, do show me some links to those witnesses you talk of.
i'm not discarding that Lance did that, hell, it wouldn't be beyond him, obviously.
but again, thus far I can't find any confirmation other than via Race Radio's posts.
No translation needed, thank you, I read Dutch quite well.
You keep bringing up this article like it's the Holy Grail in the LeMond doping narrative. But anybody who can actually read Dutch can tell it says very little in the way of substantive accusations. It quotes a Dutch amateur cyclist who claims that LeMond might be on EPO. Who is this person? Why would an amateur cyclist know what LeMond is doing PED-wise? And you accusing us of only basing our arguments on rumors but what exactly have you brought forward other than rumors, conjecture and false medical conclusions? Something with a kettle being called black by a pot.
- Oct 10, 2015
- 3,115
- 1,652
- 16,680
Re:
I can remember Frankie Andreu saying in an affidavit to USADA that Armstrong saying he would take LeMond down but it didn't mention anything about offering money to people to do it. Who knows, it wouldn't surprise me if Armstrong did that or people around him did try and bribe people to discredit LeMond but I've never seen anything concrete confirming this.
sniper said:so lemond (in this particular case a.k.a. 'the horse's mouth') is your source?
no other links?
compelling
I can remember Frankie Andreu saying in an affidavit to USADA that Armstrong saying he would take LeMond down but it didn't mention anything about offering money to people to do it. Who knows, it wouldn't surprise me if Armstrong did that or people around him did try and bribe people to discredit LeMond but I've never seen anything concrete confirming this.
Re:
It's clear that if Lemond was doping, not many would have known.
And to be sure, Lemond is no exception in that regard.
The exception is Lance.
Dope? Obviously, but just don't talk about it too much. That is and always has been the rule.
Had Lance sticked to that rule, he would still have his jerseys.
and indeed, that's just one of many differences.
Additionally, Lemond had his own private entourage, with his own doctor, his own soigneur (who is also said to have been his 'trainer'), and his own nurse. They needed four cars and five hotel rooms (or five cars and four hotel rooms) to accomodate his entourage at the 1991 tdf. Go figure. Put bluntly, he didn't need a procycling team for anything other than his monthly salary.
And so it is interesting that the rumor about his epo abuse still managed to get out in the open.
Seems as if at some point he did let 'outsiders' interfere with his program. Like that one night at the Giro 1989 perhaps? But then again, it's just a rumor.
Either way, I think it's time we bury the idea that Lance somehow traveled back through time to bribe people into saying Lemond used epo.
most definitely.lenric said:
It's clear that if Lemond was doping, not many would have known.
And to be sure, Lemond is no exception in that regard.
The exception is Lance.
Dope? Obviously, but just don't talk about it too much. That is and always has been the rule.
Had Lance sticked to that rule, he would still have his jerseys.
and indeed, that's just one of many differences.
Additionally, Lemond had his own private entourage, with his own doctor, his own soigneur (who is also said to have been his 'trainer'), and his own nurse. They needed four cars and five hotel rooms (or five cars and four hotel rooms) to accomodate his entourage at the 1991 tdf. Go figure. Put bluntly, he didn't need a procycling team for anything other than his monthly salary.
And so it is interesting that the rumor about his epo abuse still managed to get out in the open.
Seems as if at some point he did let 'outsiders' interfere with his program. Like that one night at the Giro 1989 perhaps? But then again, it's just a rumor.
Either way, I think it's time we bury the idea that Lance somehow traveled back through time to bribe people into saying Lemond used epo.
Rumors getting out is a conditio sine qua non for rumors, otherwise they wouldn't be rumors. So that a rumor floats around can hardly be called surprising. The truth getting out on the other hand is something completely different.
The truth getting out in the cas elf Armstrong was not down to Armstrong talking too much it was down to the fact that he snubbed Landis when he came looking for a job. Inherently the set-up was such that a lot of people knew about the doping (team-wide set-up) and I agree that in this respect the chance it was coming out was always bigger than when an individual sets up his own program.
The truth getting out in the cas elf Armstrong was not down to Armstrong talking too much it was down to the fact that he snubbed Landis when he came looking for a job. Inherently the set-up was such that a lot of people knew about the doping (team-wide set-up) and I agree that in this respect the chance it was coming out was always bigger than when an individual sets up his own program.
Re: Re:
Armstrong didn't challenge anything related to the USADA stuff. He basically plead no contest and walked away, even though he would have been better off if he had forced USADA to abide by the statute of limitations like Bruyneel did. This if he didn't challenge it then it must be true is a rationalization. All you have is the word of LeMond, a man with an agenda who is known to lie and distort the situation when it comes to Armstrong.
Even if it is true, have you considered the reason LA might make such an offer is that it was well known in the peloton that LeMond doped and he wanted someone to go on record?
kwikki said:
Armstrong didn't challenge anything related to the USADA stuff. He basically plead no contest and walked away, even though he would have been better off if he had forced USADA to abide by the statute of limitations like Bruyneel did. This if he didn't challenge it then it must be true is a rationalization. All you have is the word of LeMond, a man with an agenda who is known to lie and distort the situation when it comes to Armstrong.
Even if it is true, have you considered the reason LA might make such an offer is that it was well known in the peloton that LeMond doped and he wanted someone to go on record?
Re: Re:
so the bribes-story is something of a rumor of a rumor of a rumor.
Smells like an anti-Lance smear campaign to me.
to be sure, no, it wouldn't surprise me either.
but it's hilarious to see people trying desperately to deflect away from the (comparatively well publicized) Lemond-epo rumor, and downplay the Donati-Vanmol-epo evidence, by clinging on to an unconfirmed rumor of a rumor of a rumor that apparently only circulates on the internet.
cheers.StryderHells said:
so the bribes-story is something of a rumor of a rumor of a rumor.
Smells like an anti-Lance smear campaign to me.
to be sure, no, it wouldn't surprise me either.
but it's hilarious to see people trying desperately to deflect away from the (comparatively well publicized) Lemond-epo rumor, and downplay the Donati-Vanmol-epo evidence, by clinging on to an unconfirmed rumor of a rumor of a rumor that apparently only circulates on the internet.
Re: Re:
don't get your hopes up high though.
you'll get a bike-*** level response to this.
double touche.DamianoMachiavelli said:
don't get your hopes up high though.
you'll get a bike-*** level response to this.
I hope the link is correct but I think this "conversation" circa 2004 is what lies at the heart of the Lance offered a reward to anyone who knew or would say Lemond doped story.
http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/news/story?id=1841300
http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/news/story?id=1841300
Re: Re:
Wait, a while ago you were quoting posts from various posters who all had 'heard' that LeMond was a doper. Now you are saying very few would have known. Likewise you went to great lengths to show what a nefarious character Van Mol was and stated he was LeMonds doctor, now you are saying LeMond didn't need a doctor because he had his own private team for doping.
A rumour does not 'get out', it is started. I posted a plausible explanation of why a rumour might have been started about LeMond and gave examples of rumours that were completely false. You have yet to address that and keep on ignoring it. You have also yet to address the fact of LeMonds form vanishing so quickly, that is not a rumour, that is a fact. You would think that if LeMond had his own personal doping team with his expert father-in-law doctor, they would have been able to figure out what was wrong with him and rectify it.
You were demanding people address the rumour about LeMond yet you want to bury the rumour that Lance was offering a reward for someone to say LeMond doped.
Amazing that you seem to be very good at googling up any sort of nonsense that you think might show LeMond in a bad light yet you couldn't find out why Eddy Planckaert had a poor final season or how Dirk Demol won Paris-Roubaix. You were corrected on it, again you ignored it.
There is zero info connecting LeMonds father-in-law to being involved in doping other than the fact that he is a doctor and visited the Tour in 1991. You are just assuming these things which is shameful when you know nothing about their family ties.
Comparing LeMond to Froome in any way or not knowing LeMond was shot is just ridiculous. That is like not knowing Armstrong had cancer.
sniper said:
Wait, a while ago you were quoting posts from various posters who all had 'heard' that LeMond was a doper. Now you are saying very few would have known. Likewise you went to great lengths to show what a nefarious character Van Mol was and stated he was LeMonds doctor, now you are saying LeMond didn't need a doctor because he had his own private team for doping.
A rumour does not 'get out', it is started. I posted a plausible explanation of why a rumour might have been started about LeMond and gave examples of rumours that were completely false. You have yet to address that and keep on ignoring it. You have also yet to address the fact of LeMonds form vanishing so quickly, that is not a rumour, that is a fact. You would think that if LeMond had his own personal doping team with his expert father-in-law doctor, they would have been able to figure out what was wrong with him and rectify it.
You were demanding people address the rumour about LeMond yet you want to bury the rumour that Lance was offering a reward for someone to say LeMond doped.
Amazing that you seem to be very good at googling up any sort of nonsense that you think might show LeMond in a bad light yet you couldn't find out why Eddy Planckaert had a poor final season or how Dirk Demol won Paris-Roubaix. You were corrected on it, again you ignored it.
There is zero info connecting LeMonds father-in-law to being involved in doping other than the fact that he is a doctor and visited the Tour in 1991. You are just assuming these things which is shameful when you know nothing about their family ties.
Comparing LeMond to Froome in any way or not knowing LeMond was shot is just ridiculous. That is like not knowing Armstrong had cancer.
Re:
Quite the evidence we have there for concluding that Lemond was clean.
irrefutable
yes, i think it is. Thanks for digging that up.Nick C. said:
Quite the evidence we have there for concluding that Lemond was clean.
irrefutable
- Status
TRENDING THREADS
-
Teams & Riders The Remco Evenepoel is the next Eddy Merckx thread- Started by DNP-Old
- Replies: 36K
-
Teams & Riders Tadej Pogačar discussion thread- Started by Lequack
- Replies: 41K
-
Teams & Riders The Great Big Cycling Transfers, Extensions, and Rumours Thread- Started by RedheadDane
- Replies: 13K
-
-
-
Teams & Riders Everybody needs a little bit of Roglstomp in their lives- Started by johnymax
- Replies: 23K
-
Teams & Riders Jonas Vingegaard thread: Love in Iberia- Started by Samu Cuenca
- Replies: 10K
Latest posts
-
-
-
-
Teams & Riders The Red Bull - Bora - Hansgrohe team thread
- Latest: vappaxbipmv
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram