LeMond III

[kwikki]

Re: Re:

@ the hog
If he wasn't implying the climb was drug fuelled what on earth do you think he was implying?

Come on. Let's not be affecting a lack of brain just to try and obfuscate a point you've already lost. I've read quite a few of your posts. You are better than that.

As to "exagerrating" Lemond's anti-doping work, can you name me a successful top tier cyclist who has done as much?

I've laid out concrete examples of where Lemond has acted for anti-doping. For you to try and downplay it as nothing smacks of intellectual dishonesty, especially considering you have failed to produce a counter argument. Just saying Lemond did nothing proves nothing, my friend.

 

[kwikki]

Re: Re:

Particularly as Lemond went on to be consistent in his attitude and stance on the issue, to his own financial detriment, after briefly deciding to stay quiet.

The only thing consistent about LeMond is his hypocrisy. Find a single statement by LeMond where he criticizes one of his competitors for beating him while doping. Find a single one. It should be easy. This is Saint LeMond, the anti-doping advocate who has built a myth of a career ended because of other riders doping. Find one complaint by him where he names a doping competitor and says he was robbed of a deserved win.

Well that is interesting, and it shows that you have missed an important point about Lemond's attitude to doping.

He wasn't going to waste time on the past. His motivation was cleaning up the present.

 

[sniper]

@scienceiscool:

Lemond had only one kidney before he got shot.
According to the reports, the shooting damaged his kidney, so it seems fair to assume it was the remaining kidney that got damaged. Correct me if wrong

So yes, according to his own story and the media reports, he is likely to have had two borked(?) kidneys when he was in the hospital in 1987, which would have made him a pretty good candidate for EPO.
Geographically (California/US is where the history of EPO starts) and financially (EPO is said to have been friggin expensive in the trial phase), he ticks the boxes as well.
He may not have been the perfect candidate, but still a better candidate than any other pro-cyclist of the time I can think of.
Sorry, I notice all this infuriates you, but try to take it lightly, it's not personal.

Ow, and whether the "one kidney" is a bogus story or not, I don't know, to be honest.
You will have to take that up with Lemond and his PR team.

 

[thehog]

Re: Re:

Particularly as Lemond went on to be consistent in his attitude and stance on the issue, to his own financial detriment, after briefly deciding to stay quiet.

The only thing consistent about LeMond is his hypocrisy. Find a single statement by LeMond where he criticizes one of his competitors for beating him while doping. Find a single one. It should be easy. This is Saint LeMond, the anti-doping advocate who has built a myth of a career ended because of other riders doping. Find one complaint by him where he names a doping competitor and says he was robbed of a deserved win.

Agreed, considering Fignon admitted that he doped, LeMond has a hard time talking about him in the same way as Armstrong.

 

[kwikki]

Past vs Present?

Which one matters?

Ps. Fignon has been dead in the ground for a while now. Why would Lemond dig him up?

 

[djpbaltimore]

The clinical trial cohort would not have included trauma patients if the trial was for treatment for CKD or cancer. The primary endpoints has to be the same for all the patients.

 

[sniper]

Re: Re:

...
...evidence please...
Cheers

no evidence needed for that one.
pcmg76 knows, that should settle it.

like the earlier 'fact' that mottet was clean, pcmg76 just knew.
only problem was that mottet wasn't really clean after all.

 

[thehog]

Re: LeMond

LeMond is certainly is very adept at the secrecy aspects, if his recording of phone conversations is anything to go by. He also had no issues in lying to procure what he needed. Breaking the law didn't appear to concern him either. Not a stretch to think he would conduct himself in the same manner when it came to doping.

I think what you have to ask yourself is what it is that he needed and why, since you are talking about motivation.

Doesn't seem to unfair to me when you consider who he was up against and just how much money and influence that person had.

Taking the law into your own hands to procure illegal evidence is not how the world works, sorry. The courts are the place to resolve business disputes.

Lying, recording and then releasing personal information about a single mother onto the internet with the intention to harm and embarrass is probably as low as its gets. Sure, if LA is the target, target him via the courts, he can defend himself.

Again back to my original point, it does go someway in demonstrating that the ethic and moral issues of doping wouldn't be a hurdle for LeMond.

Lol! Loved the pity party/lets feel bad for the single mother excuse, hilarious.

You mean that same, poor, single mother WHO LIED UNDER OATH to protect herself by standing by a pathological liar? Nice choice she made. I don't feel bad for her one bit and actually am still flabbergasted that Jokely retained her after doing so. Mcillvane is a fraud and a phoney just like her man Wonderboy is.

What's next, we should feel bad for Chris Carmichael?

I also laugh daily how Jokely hitched their wagon to Wonderboy, then decided to start paying LeMond again. Good for Greg, I hope there were many zeros at the end of the checks.....

I've heard this before; two wrongs don't make a right. LeMond never should have recorded her, specifically when she asked if he was recoding the call.

With regards to her deposition, she still to this day has not stated that she heard the supposed hospital confession from Armstrong. Perhaps to the Grand Jury but we will never know that.

There is no evidence of her on record confirming that it actually occurred (apart from LeMond coercing her to say it on the recording).

 

[Fearless Greg Lemond]

Re: LeMond

Well, after all this compelling, and, accumilating evidence I must change my stance on Saint Greg. Not only did he introduce blood transfusions - thanks Eddy B - into the European peloton which made him win all those races in the States, Junior Track World Championships etc etc, but also blood doped himself to winning the Tour de l' Avenir etc etc at very young age.

Thanks to Eddy B he was able to win the Tour of 1986, then he got shot and decided singlehandedly to change to EPO, just in time for the Tour of 1989, and, again in 1990.

Yep, I agree.

Guilty as charged.

Look, I have often criticized LeMond for being just anti - Armstrong and not being more vocal anti - dopingwise. Yet, as we internerd fokkers dont have a multi million bike buisiness to attend to we cant judge on that.

The moment Kimmage criticizes LeMond I will change my stance on him.

Dont listen to DIgger on these matters, he will eat the *** of grey manrod on a plate, the same grey that said some pretty nasty things - with his lawyer - about LeMonds' childhood abuse. Digger knows very little about cycling, is not his fault, he just wasnt around.

Upthread I posted a source citing an article where an amateur rider from Holland accuses LeMond of using ''peperdure doping'' = ''extremely expensive doping'', but, also citing professional Dutch riders like Matthieu Hermans claiming to use EPO in 1988 at Caja Rural. Cant you guys do some maths? Are you stupid?

Look, I will repeat LeMonds own words: either he was one of the biggest talents the sport has ever seen [ Il grande Fignon was better though ] or he was one of the biggest frauds. I tend to the first but I give everyone the room to convince me he was the second.

 

[rhubroma]

Re:

@scienceiscool:

Lemond had only one kidney before he got shot.
According to the reports, the shooting damaged his kidney, so it seems fair to assume it was the remaining kidney that got damaged. Correct me if wrong

So yes, according to his own story and the media reports, he is likely to have had two borked(?) kidneys when he was in the hospital in 1987, which would have made him a pretty good candidate for EPO.
Geographically (California/US is where the history of EPO starts) and financially (EPO is said to have been friggin expensive in the trial phase), he ticks the boxes as well.
He may not have been the perfect candidate, but still a better candidate than any other pro-cyclist of the time I can think of.
Sorry, I notice all this infuriates you, but try to take it lightly, it's not personal.

Ow, and whether the "one kidney" is a bogus story or not, I don't know, to be honest.
You will have to take that up with Lemond and his PR team.

I'm trying to follow this. Lemond won the Tour in 86, EPO came into the peleton in 92, or thereabouts. How then, if EPO was available before, did he have such a hard time beating Fignon and Chiappucci in 89, 90? Had he been on Epo, would he have not destroyed them? Or was everyone already on Epo?

 

[thehog]

Re: Re:

@scienceiscool:

Lemond had only one kidney before he got shot.
According to the reports, the shooting damaged his kidney, so it seems fair to assume it was the remaining kidney that got damaged. Correct me if wrong

So yes, according to his own story and the media reports, he is likely to have had two borked(?) kidneys when he was in the hospital in 1987, which would have made him a pretty good candidate for EPO.
Geographically (California/US is where the history of EPO starts) and financially (EPO is said to have been friggin expensive in the trial phase), he ticks the boxes as well.
He may not have been the perfect candidate, but still a better candidate than any other pro-cyclist of the time I can think of.
Sorry, I notice all this infuriates you, but try to take it lightly, it's not personal.

Ow, and whether the "one kidney" is a bogus story or not, I don't know, to be honest.
You will have to take that up with Lemond and his PR team.

I'm trying to follow this. Lemond won the Tour in 86, EPO came into the peleton in 92, or thereabouts. How then, if EPO was available before, did he have such a hard time beating Fignon and Chiappucci in 89, 90? Had he been on Epo, would he have not destroyed them? Or was everyone already on Epo?

The devil is in the detail.

In the first stage a powerful break that included LeMond's teammate Ronan Pensac arrived at the finish over 9 minutes ahead of the pack. In that break was Claudio Chiappucci, who proved to be a tenacious Yellow Jersey. LeMond ate away at the gap stage after stage until he captured the lead in the stage 20 individual time trial.

http://bikeraceinfo.com/tdf/tdf1990.html

LeMond took back a staggering 12 minutes on Chiappucci, which is not bad for being cleans

 

[Fearless Greg Lemond]

Re: Re:

LeMond took back a staggering 12 minutes on Chiappucci, which is not bad for being cleans

Are you talking about the King Of The Mountains of the Giro 1990?

Too bad CQ Ranking doesnt have stats for that period, cause, Cappucino would look like Frooomey these days...

Tour 1990, LeMond on Luz Ardiden: plus minus 5.6 W/K : EPO power boyz and girls.

I sometimes wonder if people even watched those races at the time, just googling isnt enough girls.

 

[red_flanders]

Re: Re:

@scienceiscool:

Lemond had only one kidney before he got shot.
According to the reports, the shooting damaged his kidney, so it seems fair to assume it was the remaining kidney that got damaged. Correct me if wrong

So yes, according to his own story and the media reports, he is likely to have had two borked(?) kidneys when he was in the hospital in 1987, which would have made him a pretty good candidate for EPO.
Geographically (California/US is where the history of EPO starts) and financially (EPO is said to have been friggin expensive in the trial phase), he ticks the boxes as well.
He may not have been the perfect candidate, but still a better candidate than any other pro-cyclist of the time I can think of.
Sorry, I notice all this infuriates you, but try to take it lightly, it's not personal.

Ow, and whether the "one kidney" is a bogus story or not, I don't know, to be honest.
You will have to take that up with Lemond and his PR team.

I'm trying to follow this. Lemond won the Tour in 86, EPO came into the peleton in 92, or thereabouts. How then, if EPO was available before, did he have such a hard time beating Fignon and Chiappucci in 89, 90? Had he been on Epo, would he have not destroyed them? Or was everyone already on Epo?

The devil is in the detail.

In the first stage a powerful break that included LeMond's teammate Ronan Pensac arrived at the finish over 9 minutes ahead of the pack. In that break was Claudio Chiappucci, who proved to be a tenacious Yellow Jersey. LeMond ate away at the gap stage after stage until he captured the lead in the stage 20 individual time trial.

http://bikeraceinfo.com/tdf/tdf1990.html

LeMond took back a staggering 12 minutes on Chiappucci, which is not bad for being cleans

FFS. He took back that time over 20 stages, the break was on stage 1. So did any number of riders including Bugno and Breukink. The only surprising thing was how long it took the favorites to reel him back and the fact that other stronger riders like Bauer and Pensec faded long before Chiappucci.

Chiappucci was a relative nobody at that point on a crap team which couldn't support him in the mountains.

The leaders chiseled at that lead for the better part of 3 weeks, taking time in TT's and finally some big chunks in the mountains.

If anyone was on EPO in that tour, the obvious one to look at was the Italian, Chiappucci who was a client of our good friend and EPO dottore, Conconi.

But yeah. Lemond was the doper in that race.

 

[kwikki]

Chiapucci testified that he first took EPO in 1993. He retracted this admission later. But it wasn't 1990 when key riders noted the change in the peloton
It was 1992, the year of Chiapucci's Serestriere.

Fignon later commented in Vélo that “Nineteen-ninety-two was probably the first year where we see lots of suspicious things and we get clear confirmation in 1993"

 

[pmcg76]

Re: Re:

...
...evidence please...
Cheers

no evidence needed for that one.
pcmg76 knows, that should settle it.

like the earlier 'fact' that mottet was clean, pcmg76 just knew.
only problem was that mottet wasn't really clean after all.

No, I addressed that. I was quite aware that Mottet had admitted to trying amphetamines once in a criterium. But as I pointed out, that does not make him a doper in my eyes. Likewise Kimmage tried amphetamines a few times but I do not consider him a doper either and I think most people would agree.

If I smoked a cigarette once, would that make me a smoker? I will stand by what Willy Voet said about Mottet.

 

[thehog]

Re: Re:

I'm trying to follow this. Lemond won the Tour in 86, EPO came into the peleton in 92, or thereabouts. How then, if EPO was available before, did he have such a hard time beating Fignon and Chiappucci in 89, 90? Had he been on Epo, would he have not destroyed them? Or was everyone already on Epo?

The devil is in the detail.

In the first stage a powerful break that included LeMond's teammate Ronan Pensac arrived at the finish over 9 minutes ahead of the pack. In that break was Claudio Chiappucci, who proved to be a tenacious Yellow Jersey. LeMond ate away at the gap stage after stage until he captured the lead in the stage 20 individual time trial.

http://bikeraceinfo.com/tdf/tdf1990.html

LeMond took back a staggering 12 minutes on Chiappucci, which is not bad for being cleans

FFS. He took back that time over 20 stages, the break was on stage 1. So did any number of riders including Bugno and Breukink. The only surprising thing was how long it took the favorites to reel him back and the fact that other stronger riders like Bauer and Pensec faded long before Chiappucci.

Chiappucci was a relative nobody at that point on a crap team which couldn't support him in the mountains.

The leaders chiseled at that lead for the better part of 3 weeks, taking time in TT's and finally some big chunks in the mountains.

If anyone was on EPO in that tour, the obvious one to look at was the Italian, Chiappucci who was a client of our good friend and EPO dottore, Conconi.

But yeah. Lemond was the doper in that race.

Important note the detail; LeMond didn't "struggle" to beat Chiappucci (as was posted), he simply just pegged back the 10 minutes he gave him on Stage 1 then took another 3 minutes for fun.

All cleans as well

 

[red_flanders]

Re:

Chiapucci testified that he first took EPO in 1993. He retracted this admission later. But it wasn't 1990 when key riders noted the change in the peloton
It was 1992, the year of Chiapucci's Serestriere.

Fignon later commented in Vélo that “Nineteen-ninety-two was probably the first year where we see lots of suspicious things and we get clear confirmation in 1993"

I find the performances of Indurain, Bugno and Chiappucci, extremely suspicious well before 1992. What has been confirmed is that Conconi doped the Carrera team in 1993. Certainly that doesn't mean this was necessarily the start of it.

 

[Fearless Greg Lemond]

Re: Re:

FFS. He took back that time over 20 stages, the break was on stage 1. So did any number of riders including Bugno and Breukink. The only surprising thing was how long it took the favorites to reel him back and the fact that other stronger riders like Bauer and Pensec faded long before Chiappucci.

Chiappucci was a relative nobody at that point on a crap team which couldn't support him in the mountains.

The leaders chiseled at that lead for the better part of 3 weeks, taking time in TT's and finally some big chunks in the mountains.

If anyone was on EPO in that tour, the obvious one to look at was the Italian, Chiappucci who was a client of our good friend and EPO dottore, Conconi.

But yeah. Lemond was the doper in that race.

I am willing to up the stakes.

I bet LeMond, and his soigneur Otto off course, perfected the EPO vs iron ratio, sold it to Conconi - after the death of Draaijer of course [ liability and stuff - not consciouswise because LeMond has none like Wonderboy - ] and then just decided to quit cycling, make himself look like a fool till 1994, hiring Adrie van Diemen and his powermeter training just as beard.

LeMond/Fignon on EPO would have made Indurain/Pantani scream for their mums.

Jeez, La Plagne Fignon, google it, LeMond Luz Ardided, google it you internerd warriors. Compare that to Luz Ardiden 1993 or 1992 where Perico was five minutes faster....

Beating on a dead horse.

 

[red_flanders]

Re: Re:

I'm trying to follow this. Lemond won the Tour in 86, EPO came into the peleton in 92, or thereabouts. How then, if EPO was available before, did he have such a hard time beating Fignon and Chiappucci in 89, 90? Had he been on Epo, would he have not destroyed them? Or was everyone already on Epo?

The devil is in the detail.

In the first stage a powerful break that included LeMond's teammate Ronan Pensac arrived at the finish over 9 minutes ahead of the pack. In that break was Claudio Chiappucci, who proved to be a tenacious Yellow Jersey. LeMond ate away at the gap stage after stage until he captured the lead in the stage 20 individual time trial.

http://bikeraceinfo.com/tdf/tdf1990.html

LeMond took back a staggering 12 minutes on Chiappucci, which is not bad for being cleans

FFS. He took back that time over 20 stages, the break was on stage 1. So did any number of riders including Bugno and Breukink. The only surprising thing was how long it took the favorites to reel him back and the fact that other stronger riders like Bauer and Pensec faded long before Chiappucci.

Chiappucci was a relative nobody at that point on a crap team which couldn't support him in the mountains.

The leaders chiseled at that lead for the better part of 3 weeks, taking time in TT's and finally some big chunks in the mountains.

If anyone was on EPO in that tour, the obvious one to look at was the Italian, Chiappucci who was a client of our good friend and EPO dottore, Conconi.

But yeah. Lemond was the doper in that race.

Important note the detail; LeMond didn't "struggle" to beat Chiappucci (as was posted), he simply just pegged back the 10 minutes he gave him on Stage 1 then took another 3 minutes for fun.

All cleans as well

So you still have never watched the race.

It took the top rider in the world 19 stages to crawl back into the lead against a nobody. He rode down a mountain with his head and shoulders literally over the front of his bars, in the most insane descent I've ever seen to take back time. It was a massive struggle. You couldn't be more wrong.

 

[Fearless Greg Lemond]

Re: Re:

Tour 1990 was great to watch, sad for those who couldnt watch it cause not born.

I do hope I can read up the next week about new revelations at six in the morning.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Re: LeMond

Well, after all this compelling, and, accumilating evidence I must change my stance on Saint Greg. Not only did he introduce blood transfusions - thanks Eddy B - into the European peloton which made him win all those races in the States, Junior Track World Championships etc etc, but also blood doped himself to winning the Tour de l' Avenir etc etc at very young age.

Thanks to Eddy B he was able to win the Tour of 1986, then he got shot and decided singlehandedly to change to EPO, just in time for the Tour of 1989, and, again in 1990.

Yep, I agree.

Guilty as charged.

Look, I have often criticized LeMond for being just anti - Armstrong and not being more vocal anti - dopingwise. Yet, as we internerd fokkers dont have a multi million bike buisiness to attend to we cant judge on that.

The moment Kimmage criticizes LeMond I will change my stance on him.

Dont listen to DIgger on these matters, he will eat the **** of grey manrod on a plate, the same grey that said some pretty nasty things - with his lawyer - about LeMonds' childhood abuse. Digger knows very little about cycling, is not his fault, he just wasnt around.

Upthread I posted a source citing an article where an amateur rider from Holland accuses LeMond of using ''peperdure doping'' = ''extremely expensive doping'', but, also citing professional Dutch riders like Matthieu Hermans claiming to use EPO in 1988 at Caja Rural. Cant you guys do some maths? Are you stupid?

Look, I will repeat LeMonds own words: either he was one of the biggest talents the sport has ever seen [ Il grande Fignon was better though ] or he was one of the biggest frauds. I tend to the first but I give everyone the room to convince me he was the second.

Some things are disturbing about the Floyd and LeMon's issues. But Greg tried to manipulate Floyd and I think Floyd realized that. Everyone denies the facts that somehow Greg was trying to play Floyd to get at a larger catch. To me that is bad.

Lots of bad karma out there for more than a few of our "merikan" winners of the tour. The only one to hold onto his titles is Greg. I sure Hope to F!23 he never gets exposed for more than drunk dialing.

 

[kwikki]

Having watched every Tour since the early 80s, my memory of 1990 accords with Red Flanders's. I remember it distinctly because it was the start of my disaffection from pro cycling.

It was a great race, but Lemond fought like a dog to drag himself back into contention. There was something very odd about Lemond's level of suffering.

Of course it took a couple of years before it became clear that something very unusual was going on with Chiapucci at the forefront. By Indurain's second win I'd lost interest. I barely watched it. In fact, ironically it was Armstrong who drew me back in just because of the sheer lunacy over it all. Quite mesmeric.

So no. Having watched Lemond's entire Tour career at the time, and therfore in context, he was the counterpoint to the new wave of EPO freaks.

 

[thehog]

Re: LeMond

Well, after all this compelling, and, accumilating evidence I must change my stance on Saint Greg. Not only did he introduce blood transfusions - thanks Eddy B - into the European peloton which made him win all those races in the States, Junior Track World Championships etc etc, but also blood doped himself to winning the Tour de l' Avenir etc etc at very young age.

Thanks to Eddy B he was able to win the Tour of 1986, then he got shot and decided singlehandedly to change to EPO, just in time for the Tour of 1989, and, again in 1990.

Yep, I agree.

Guilty as charged.

Look, I have often criticized LeMond for being just anti - Armstrong and not being more vocal anti - dopingwise. Yet, as we internerd fokkers dont have a multi million bike buisiness to attend to we cant judge on that.

The moment Kimmage criticizes LeMond I will change my stance on him.

Dont listen to DIgger on these matters, he will eat the **** of grey manrod on a plate, the same grey that said some pretty nasty things - with his lawyer - about LeMonds' childhood abuse. Digger knows very little about cycling, is not his fault, he just wasnt around.

Upthread I posted a source citing an article where an amateur rider from Holland accuses LeMond of using ''peperdure doping'' = ''extremely expensive doping'', but, also citing professional Dutch riders like Matthieu Hermans claiming to use EPO in 1988 at Caja Rural. Cant you guys do some maths? Are you stupid?

Look, I will repeat LeMonds own words: either he was one of the biggest talents the sport has ever seen [ Il grande Fignon was better though ] or he was one of the biggest frauds. I tend to the first but I give everyone the room to convince me he was the second.

Some things are disturbing about the Floyd and LeMon's issues. But Greg tried to manipulate Floyd and I think Floyd realized that. Everyone denies the facts that somehow Greg was trying to play Floyd to get at a larger catch. To me that is bad.

Lots of bad karma out there for more than a few of our "merikan" winners of the tour. The only one to hold onto his titles is Greg. I sure Hope to F!23 he never gets exposed for more than drunk dialing.

LeMond certainly tried to manipulate Landis's hearing to being about Armstrong. The refusal to answer questions was highly unethical of LeMond. It was not the time or the place for him to attempt to settle scores with Armstrong.

 

[red_flanders]

Re: Re:

Maybe "wrong" is the wrong word, since I don't buy for a minute you actually believe what you're posting. Preposterous.

I guess that is the correct wording.

And, if hog wasnt around at the time it is his loss. Tour 1990 was great to watch, sad for those who couldnt watch it cause not born.

YouTube is magical in that it has pretty much every stage if anyone's actually interested in knowing what happened and understanding the character of the race and the performances.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Re:

Having watched every Tour since the early 80s, my memory of 1990 accords with Red Flanders's. I remember it distinctly because it was the start of my disaffection from pro cycling.

It was a great race, but Lemond fought like a dog to drag himself back into contention. There was something very odd about Lemond's level of suffering.

Of course it took a couple of years before it became clear that something very unusual was going on with Chiapucci at the forefront. By Indurain's second win I'd lost interest. I barely watched it. In fact, ironically it was Armstrong who drew me back in just because of the sheer lunacy over it all. Quite mesmeric.

So no. Having watched Lemond's entire Tour career at the time, and therfore in context, he was the counterpoint to the new wave of EPO freaks.

I have to agree with that 100%. I was either watching or reading depending on the year back in 89-90. Things were different. And yes even I had a lull in my interest with the Big Mig winning for 5 straight. I never gave up on it but was not as drawn in. It was in fact the Pirate that peaked my interest back into cycling. Lance was an added bonus and I would be a liar if I said I did not enjoy him winning. It was fun to root for an American again in the grand tour even if I knew he was on the sauce. To what extent - I really never got that deep into thought over it. It was not until the true advent of message boards did the faction of crusaders against Armstrong really show up. Even then I had fun with it.

I still think some form or another Greg was on the juice. Not EPO but no doubt he played the European Peloton game and to do so and win well I think we all know where that could take one.