LeMond III

[@NL_LeMondFans]

Re: Re:

I became a cynic when i saw Indurain ride past Millar on a Pyrenean Col in 1992 like Millar was standing still.

The level of cynicism just grows. I used to think LeMond was one of the few who rode clean, but now i very much doubt it. When you see him sitting in car on the TdF with 3 massive big time dopers and all smiles, it leaves a bad taste in the mouth. When you read how little he says about other dopers yet went to town (justifiably) on Armstrong. When you seem him as pals on tv with Vino, Froome, and Contador i have to think, he was jealous of Armstrong's more TdF wins. His lauding of Pantani as a great as well does not make sense.

You can't hate one doper for doping and not other dopers for the same doping!

For once and for all, Greg always said riders (clean riders as well as dopers) are the first victims of doping. The problem he had with Armstrong was the bullying and the Trek/Oakley/Giro dispute. Doping was the least of his problems with Armstrong.

"The doctors, the management, the officials, they're the ones that have corrupted riders. The riders are the only ones that pay the price"

Greg LeMond - 'Cycling is dying through Drugs' at Play the Game Conference, 27:00 and 44:00 Play the Game Conference, Coventry University, 2009 Jun 12, retr 2012 10 14

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greg_LeMond_anti-doping_stance_and_controversies

 

[sniper]

Re: Re:

...
For once and for all, Greg always said riders (clean riders as well as dopers) are the first victims of doping. The problem he had with Armstrong was the bullying and the Trek/Oakley/Giro dispute. Doping was the least of his problems with Armstrong.

"The doctors, the management, the officials, they're the ones that have corrupted riders. The riders are the only ones that pay the price"

What's your view on Lemond's account of when he found out about EPO?
(it was discussed previously e.g. here: viewtopic.php?p=1771945#p1771945)

How in your view does it add up that he hadn't heard about EPO before 1993-ish (see previous link) when meanwhile he was investing in Thom Weisel's Montgomery Securities, a company at the very centre of the commercial exploitation of EPO, starting already in 1983?
http://web.stanford.edu/~learnest/cyclops/dopestrong.htm (search for "montgomery")

Thom Weisel, in turn, took on Eddie B. as a personal cycling coach as early as in 1985.
link: https://books.google.pl/books?id=niuGT_sHBpwC&pg=PA153&dq=thom+weisel+eddie+1985+training&hl=en&sa=X&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=thom%20weisel%20eddie%201985%20training&f=false

You will agree that it is very likely that Eddie B. and Greg Lemond remained in contact even after their coach-rider relationship was ended in the early 80s(?). Their friendship was hardly a secret (link: https://books.google.pl/books?id=Axu2AAAAIAAJ&dq=%22Complete+Book+of+Bicycling%22&focus=searchwithinvolume&q=eddie+b, search for "eddie b")

Btw, do you perhaps know when Greg began to invest in Montgomery Securities?
I've looked, but can't find a date or even a year.
From how I read the passage in Wheelmen (google book preview), it suggests the investment was made prior to 1993, but I could be wrong.
(link to Wheelmen google books preview:
https://books.google.pl/books?id=XOninQEACAAJ&dq=wheelmen+cycling&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwid16T-4p_MAhXCEiwKHbtLChoQ6wEIKzAA
use search box to find relevant passages)

And if even someone like Kathleen Sharp had heard about EPO in 1988, and about rumors that (US) cyclists were using it, how likely is it, really, that Lemond (with an MD as father in law and a nursing student as wife, and his contacts to Eddie B.) hadn't heard about it?
http://web.stanford.edu/~learnest/cyclops/dopestrong.htm (search for "1988", or "Kathleen Sharp")

 

[sniper]

from the link at the bottom of my last post:

Doping ignored
In 1979 and following years at the Red Zinger and its successor, the Coors International, I noticed that riders were systematically required to submit urine samples but no one ever tested positive. When I looked into that I learned that these tests were just for show and that all urine samples were submitted to the "toilet test," being flushed down the drain so as to save the substantial costs of having them tested.
The Coors race subsequently started doing actual lab tests, probably as a result of my inquiry, but even that program went off track in 1984 just before the Olympic Games. At the Coors race that year in Vail, Alexi Grewal, who had been selected for the U.S. Olympic Road Race team, tested positive for taking ephedrine and admitted it, which would bar him from participating in the Olympics. However under the existing rules his confession didn't count--it had to be proven by a lab test. The Executive Director of USCF then recruited the Chief Medical Officer of the U.S. Olympic Committee and, ignoring the fact that they were both responsible for enforcing drug control regulations, they concocted a defense claiming that the drug test had not been done properly, which got Grewal off the hook and allowed him to win a gold medal in the 1984 Los Angeles Olympic Games. For a more complete account see:

Les Earnest, Coors is safer than tea, Cyclops USA, August 1988.

Yikes.
Grewal, who, by the way, was there at Lemond's fundraiser in 2004 for Eddie B.
http://www.cyclingnews.com/features/greg-lemonds-fantasy-cycling-camp/

 

[sniper]

Re: LeMond

...
You are ignoring a possibility, a likely one considering LeMond's association with Eddie B. and LeMond's team doctor doling out EPO injections in 1998: A rider who was using transfusions before EPO would not see an improvement. He might even spend years seething about something that had been a tool of elites being replaced by a tool available to the common rider, seeing those riders' wins as illegitimate even as he ignores the doping of his generation's elite riders.

excellent point.
On the topic of blood transfusions in the US:

I helped officiate at cycling events in the '84 Olympics and just afterward learned that the U.S. cycling team had done blood doping there in the stupidest possible way. Since I was then responsible for rule enforcement I initiated an investigation but was seriously hampered by others playing political games. For example, the U.S. Olympic Committee claimed that they had a rule against blood doping whereas in fact there was none. There had been strong evidence of blood doping in the Olympics since at least 1976 but because they didn't have a good laboratory test for it they buried their heads in the sand and pretended it wasn't happening. For more on this fiasco and some later doping see the articles below.

Les Earnest, Cardiovascular capers, Cyclops USA, January 1985

Wink Andanod, Blood bath, Cyclops USA, January 1985

Les Earnest, Stoned, Cyclops USA, April 1985

Les Earnest, Please be polite!, Cyclops USA, April 1985

Les Earnest, Blood dopes of the 1984 Olympic Games, Cyclops USA, August 1988

Joe Papp, The toll of doping—was it worth it?, Cyclops USA, January 2010

http://web.stanford.edu/~learnest/cyclops/dopestrong.htm

 

[DamianoMachiavelli]

Re: LeMond

In particular I find it humorous as Eddy B. made a point to say that Lemond was a rider who never needed to dope, a claim he didn't to my knowledge make about any other rider he coached, from any country.

So you are taking the word of Eddie B. now? How many riders did Eddie B. say needed to dope? Can you name one?

What is consistent about LeMond is his lies to the public about the extent of doping in the 80s. He has constructed a false narrative about a change in the sport that leaves him and his contemporary competitors as different from the riders who came after him. If this was any other rider then LeMond fanboys would be ridiculing his distortion of drug use in cycling and his refusal to criticize riders of his era for the same actions by riders in the 2000s that he denounces so vociferously.

 

[ScienceIsCool]

Re: LeMond

"Inescapable". Did anyone use that term? I'm not going to search the thread, but I certainly wouldn't phrase it that way.

While some rare exceptions may exist, basically you're arguing that a rider not improving isn't evidence that they didn't use EPO. Which is patently a ridiculous argument. There are a whole lot of negatives in that sentence, so I'll try and make it more plain.

The vast majority of riders improved...vastly...while on EPO. If a rider never makes a jump in performance, and never rides at speeds at which known EPO-fueled riders rode, chances are very, very good that they never did EPO. Particularly a rider who was at the top of the sport before EPO ever became a possibility.

Is is proof? No. Is it possible a rider could have done EPO and not improved? Sure. But it's extremely unlikely. No matter what argumentative gymnastic one performs to get there.

That's all. So the fact that he never put in EPO-like performances, is in fact evidence (not proof) that he never used EPO. Now one can ignore the evidence in the face of other evidence one believe to be stronger, but one can't deny that it is in fact evidence in favor of the "never did EPO" argument.

You are ignoring a possibility, a likely one considering LeMond's association with Eddie B. and LeMond's team doctor doling out EPO injections in 1998: A rider who was using transfusions before EPO would not see an improvement. He might even spend years seething about something that had been a tool of elites being replaced by a tool available to the common rider, seeing those riders' wins as illegitimate even as he ignores the doping of his generation's elite riders.

I'm not ignoring anything, it's been brought up before and I have given it a great deal of thought. I simply find it absurd to imagine that the entirety of Lemond's career results, in a time when they raced all year long, are due to blood doping. Both in American and in Europe? When there is no evidence for him blood doping other than guilt by association? In particular I find it humorous as Eddy B. made a point to say that Lemond was a rider who never needed to dope, a claim he didn't to my knowledge make about any other rider he coached, from any country. But now we've got him blood doping until...when exactly? Then EPO to wrap things up?

In this scenario you sure have him as a remarkably consistent blood doper given his results and performances. Is it really your view that he never would have been at the top of the sport without this consistent, pervasive blood doping which he apparently engaged in for the bulk of his early career?

I find the notion that his career results are due to blood doping without remotely compelling evidence and completely without merit.

Well that, and he'd have to have been a blood doper from the age of fifteen (crushing the seniors) for any of this to make sense.

John Swanson

 

[@NL_LeMondFans]

Re: Re:

...
For once and for all, Greg always said riders (clean riders as well as dopers) are the first victims of doping. The problem he had with Armstrong was the bullying and the Trek/Oakley/Giro dispute. Doping was the least of his problems with Armstrong.

"The doctors, the management, the officials, they're the ones that have corrupted riders. The riders are the only ones that pay the price"

What's your view on Lemond's account of when he found out about EPO?
(it was discussed previously e.g. here: viewtopic.php?p=1771945#p1771945)

How in your view does it add up that he hadn't heard about EPO before 1993-ish when meanwhile he was investing in Thom Weisel's Montgomery Securities, a company at the very centre of the commercial exploitation of EPO, starting already in 1983?
http://web.stanford.edu/~learnest/cyclops/dopestrong.htm (search for "montgomery")

Thom Weisel, in turn, took on Eddie B. as a personal cycling coach as early as in 1985.
link: https://books.google.pl/books?id=niuGT_sHBpwC&pg=PA153&dq=thom+weisel+eddie+1985+training&hl=en&sa=X&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=thom%20weisel%20eddie%201985%20training&f=false

You will agree that it is very likely that Eddie B. and Greg Lemond remained in contact even after their coach-rider relationship was ended in the early 80s(?). Their friendship was hardly a secret (link: https://books.google.pl/books?id=Axu2AAAAIAAJ&dq=%22Complete+Book+of+Bicycling%22&focus=searchwithinvolume&q=eddie+b, search for "eddie b")

Btw, do you perhaps know when Greg began to invest in Montgomery Securities?
I've looked, but can't find a date or even a year.
From how I read the passage in Wheelmen (google book preview), it suggests the investment was made prior to 1993, but I could be wrong.
(link to Wheelmen google books preview:
https://books.google.pl/books?id=XOninQEACAAJ&dq=wheelmen+cycling&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwid16T-4p_MAhXCEiwKHbtLChoQ6wEIKzAA
use search box to find relevant passages)

And if even someone like Kathleen Sharp had heard about EPO in 1988, and about rumors that cyclists were using it, how likely is it, really, that Lemond (with an MD as father in law and a nursing student as wife, and his contacts to Eddie B.) hadn't heard about it?
http://web.stanford.edu/~learnest/cyclops/dopestrong.htm (search for "1988", or "Kathleen Sharp")

My view is that every interview of Greg has to be taken with a pinch of salt. First because when he answers a journalist, his main concern is the message, the story but not consistency. He has the gift of spontaneity. I guess it comes with it.

You'll be disappointed but I'm not really interested in the Weisel/Eddie B./Montgomery stuff. I only know what I've read on this forum. I don't care to research what I'm not interested in. I'm not on a quest to find if Greg doped or not.

Greg was a US pro in the 80's. He encountered / worked with lots of dubious people. Does that make him a cheater ? I don't think so. That's not enough. As I said earlier, if that was enough we would not need the clinic in the first place.

As I already said, I think Greg's story adds up. I've studied his style, races and his way of thinking. I know a bit about cycling. That's enough for me. I don't need to scream on rooftops that I believe he was clean. I don't pretend I detain the truth. What I need to share is that I believe he is an incredible cyclist and a great guy. I have a blog and a website for it.

I don't recall who Kathleen Sharp is (you've probably mentioned her before). But I remember you once posted a link of an anonymous source saying Greg probably took EPO while recovering from his hunting accident in 1986. Is it off the table ?

I don't know what's the relationship with Greg and his father in law. Are they close ? I don't know.

Was every doctor aware of EPO in 1988 ? I don't know.

I see your description of Kathy has moved from "nurse" to "nursing student". I think it's more accurate.

I'm posting what I posted earlier so that you can adress it, please (I removed the sarcasms) :

Have you read the article about Greg that appeared this week on Cyclingnews ?

http://www.cyclingnews.com/features/greg-lemond-we-could-find-another-rider-like-me-if-we-tapped-into-our-potential/

Do you think every piece of information on it is 100% accurate ? Can you read it again in 20 or 30 years and take it as granted ?

Well, you shouldn't. The article says Greg has 2 grandkids. He doesn't. He has just 1. Does it matter ? Not really, the point is that Greg is at a birthday party. 2 kidneys or just 1 ? It doesn't really matter. Greg had a kidney condition at one point.

End of story.

 

[@NL_LeMondFans]

Re: LeMond

In particular I find it humorous as Eddy B. made a point to say that Lemond was a rider who never needed to dope, a claim he didn't to my knowledge make about any other rider he coached, from any country.

So you are taking the word of Eddie B. now? How many riders did Eddie B. say needed to dope? Can you name one?

What is consistent about LeMond is his lies to the public about the extent of doping in the 80s. He has constructed a false narrative about a change in the sport that leaves him and his contemporary competitors as different from the riders who came after him. If this was any other rider then LeMond fanboys would be ridiculing his distortion of drug use in cycling and his refusal to criticize riders of his era for the same actions by riders in the 2000s that he denounces so vociferously.

What false narrative are you talking about ? From the day he announced he was done with pro cycling he mentioned his medical condition first.

Or are you suggesting doping before EPO had the same effects as doping on EPO ?

 

[blutto]

...one of things that seems to continue to hinder this, uhhh, debate is that a great deal of the information from the late 80's and early 90's has never fully migrated into the digital era ( read the magazines, and newspaper articles that informed us then are now more likely to be found in private collections or archives in musty basements and not accessible by everyone on the internets...and the stuff that does exist is generally found in books that have editorialized the material either for effect or to push a very particular agenda and as result paint a rather biased view )....

...so we end up grabbing any and all snippets of still existing information and making them into unassailable benchmarks that define the route our search thru the period in question takes...the problem is that those snippets may not necessarily be the most important ones, or their importance must balanced against other important snippets that are now lost to us....

....was rummaging thru a thread page that sniper referenced above and found the following....it addresses an issue that we in this debate take as gospel truth, that is that race speeds increased dramatically thru the 90's ( with this increase of course measured against the period that immediately preceded it...)....find below something that everyone who has participated in this debate assuming that the huge relative 90's increase is absolutely and unequivocally true should take a look at ( it may change your world view...or at least put it into a different perspective...)...

....here is the quote I used earlier in this thread...

" In agreement with conclusions drawn by Lodewijkx and Brouwer[7], our results substantiate that the 1980s appear to be key in the rapid evolution of pro cyclists’ performances and not the 1990s, at least in the three Grand Tours which we investigated"

....and here is the reference link....

http://article.sapub.org/10.5923.j.sports.20120203.02.html

Cheers

 

[DamianoMachiavelli]

Re: Re:

For once and for all, Greg always said riders (clean riders as well as dopers) are the first victims of doping. The problem he had with Armstrong was the bullying and the Trek/Oakley/Giro dispute. Doping was the least of his problems with Armstrong.

The sole problem LeMond had with Armstrong is that Lance had replaced him as America's most recognizable cyclist and Armstrong was not gracious enough to put his arm around LeMond to give him credit for paving the way for the U.S.'s success in Europe. That was it. LeMond has always been a media wh0re, and Armstrong was taking up all the limelight, leaving none for Greg.

LeMond did not accidentally get in a dispute with Lance. He knew all the top riders as well as nearly all the domestiques were doping. He deliberately attacked Armstrong's legitimacy while pretending he was a naive bystander who did not know the reality of pro European cycling. He picked a fight and received a beatdown. Now he portrays himself as a victim instead of manning up and admitting that his problems were caused by his own jealousy and scheming to get back in the public eye.

 

[blutto]

Re: LeMond

In particular I find it humorous as Eddy B. made a point to say that Lemond was a rider who never needed to dope, a claim he didn't to my knowledge make about any other rider he coached, from any country.

So you are taking the word of Eddie B. now? How many riders did Eddie B. say needed to dope? Can you name one?

What is consistent about LeMond is his lies to the public about the extent of doping in the 80s. He has constructed a false narrative about a change in the sport that leaves him and his contemporary competitors as different from the riders who came after him. If this was any other rider then LeMond fanboys would be ridiculing his distortion of drug use in cycling and his refusal to criticize riders of his era for the same actions by riders in the 2000s that he denounces so vociferously.

What false narrative are you talking about ? From the day he announced he was done with pro cycling he mentioned his medical condition first.

Or are you suggesting doping before EPO had the same effects as doping on EPO ?

...the real bottom line is that they both created advantages and all things being equal the doper would win...now would a doped donkey beat a thoroughbred, well of course not but then there were no real donkeys in pro racing ( that is a bit of a bogus strawman argument because everyone in the peloton had a huge amount of talent...the real donkeys were safely battling among themselves in Senior 3....)....

...I raced in the stone ages where steroids were the nuclear option and from personal experience I can tell you several, uhhh, ok riders became thoroughbreds and absolutely dominated proceedings....yeah EPO changed things but the old options could also change things most significantly...

Cheers

 

[thehog]

Re: Re:

For once and for all, Greg always said riders (clean riders as well as dopers) are the first victims of doping. The problem he had with Armstrong was the bullying and the Trek/Oakley/Giro dispute. Doping was the least of his problems with Armstrong.

The sole problem LeMond had with Armstrong is that Lance had replaced him as America's most recognizable cyclist and Armstrong was not gracious enough to put his arm around LeMond to give him credit for paving the way for the U.S.'s success in Europe. That was it. LeMond has always been a media wh0re, and Armstrong was taking up all the limelight, leaving none for Greg.

LeMond did not accidentally get in a dispute with Lance. He knew all the top riders as well as nearly all the domestiques were doping. He deliberately attacked Armstrong's legitimacy while pretending he was a naive bystander who did not know the reality of pro European cycling. He picked a fight and received a beatdown. Now he portrays himself as a victim instead of manning up and admitting that his problems were caused by his own jealousy and scheming to get back in the public eye.

That is a very good assessment, agreed. I think some thought 1999 was a fluke and he may not win much more than one. Then he had two, three, then LeMond became nervous his record would fall and threw the first punch.

 

[blutto]

Re: Re:

For once and for all, Greg always said riders (clean riders as well as dopers) are the first victims of doping. The problem he had with Armstrong was the bullying and the Trek/Oakley/Giro dispute. Doping was the least of his problems with Armstrong.

The sole problem LeMond had with Armstrong is that Lance had replaced him as America's most recognizable cyclist and Armstrong was not gracious enough to put his arm around LeMond to give him credit for paving the way for the U.S.'s success in Europe. That was it. LeMond has always been a media wh0re, and Armstrong was taking up all the limelight, leaving none for Greg.

LeMond did not accidentally get in a dispute with Lance. He knew all the top riders as well as nearly all the domestiques were doping. He deliberately attacked Armstrong's legitimacy while pretending he was a naive bystander who did not know the reality of pro European cycling. He picked a fight and received a beatdown. Now he portrays himself as a victim instead of manning up and admitting that his problems were caused by his own jealousy and scheming to get back in the public eye.

...yeah its funny but when he was America's darling he was sold as the most astute rider in the peloton always aware of the latest technological advancements and of the newest training techniques....he was a genius who outwitted those old guard Euros with his smarts and new ways of doing stuff....a naïve waif buffeted by the harsh winds of Euro reality was never part of the story when he became a success...

...and then presto zesto he becomes a hapless passenger in the weird cycling circus and doesn't even know what is going on in his own team..?..didn't someone earlier say something about something pathological something or other....?....but to his credit he did realize his base uncritically swallowed the first load of crap so he had a fairly good expectation they would just pull up and swallow the next load....

Cheers

 

[@NL_LeMondFans]

Re: Re:

For once and for all, Greg always said riders (clean riders as well as dopers) are the first victims of doping. The problem he had with Armstrong was the bullying and the Trek/Oakley/Giro dispute. Doping was the least of his problems with Armstrong.

The sole problem LeMond had with Armstrong is that Lance had replaced him as America's most recognizable cyclist and Armstrong was not gracious enough to put his arm around LeMond to give him credit for paving the way for the U.S.'s success in Europe. That was it. LeMond has always been a media wh0re, and Armstrong was taking up all the limelight, leaving none for Greg.

LeMond did not accidentally get in a dispute with Lance. He knew all the top riders as well as nearly all the domestiques were doping. He deliberately attacked Armstrong's legitimacy while pretending he was a naive bystander who did not know the reality of pro European cycling. He picked a fight and received a beatdown. Now he portrays himself as a victim instead of manning up and admitting that his problems were caused by his own jealousy and scheming to get back in the public eye.

I'm not saying Greg doesn't have an ego. He does. I deny the "media whore" allegations. First, for the poor choice of words and second because I don't think he needed attention as much as he drew attention on him. From a european point of view, you have to understand Greg was very different. First, as an American, he was exotic. Second, he's always been open and all smiles. At the very same time, the journalists were having huge issues with Hinault because he was fed up with them and didn't want to play anymore. From day 1 Greg considered talking to the press or appearing on TV as "part of the job". He embraced it. He was the first to do so, in cycling. It was in his culture that exposition was good, it meant sponsors and notoriety. And he's always been good at it because he enjoys talking with people. I've seen this many times. He has people coming from all sides and he's always taking time to talk to them. That's in his nature. You see it as something false, hypocrite and calculated, but that's in his DNA. Just as being grumpy was in Hinault's DNA (he softened a lot lately).

I think Greg could handle when asked about Armstrong. I think Greg could handle being asked about Armstrong winning the Tour more than once. What Greg could not handle, was when he was asked about Armstrong and Ferrari. He had to speak his mind.

What I understand from the last few comments is that you seem to think Greg went a crusade against Armstrong. But I don't think Greg picked his phone to go to the press. It's only natural thet, as the previous US winner of the Tour, journalists called him for comment. My view is that he just answered when people asked him a question. Before the Armstrong / Ferrari question, I don't think for a second anyone went to Greg to ask "do you think Indurain doped ?" "Do you think Kelly doped ?" "do you think Hinault doped ?"... Truth is these questions came with Armstrong. And when you ask a question to Greg, he'll give you an answer. You can burn him for that and criticize the lack of consistency in his answers, but I don't think he went deliberately this way.

 

[Nick C.]

Re: Re:

Isn't this the quote from that article that relates to the topic at hand?

"Their approach to the whole subject of hormones is like something from Mars," Stanko said of PDM's efforts to rehabilitate LeMond. "Their philosophy is that anything natural is permissible, even if it is acquired through artificial means.

"I had discussions with them myself, in which I explained to them that we were not interested in using chemicals to improve performances. That is Greg's position, 100%."

 

[@NL_LeMondFans]

Re: LeMond

In particular I find it humorous as Eddy B. made a point to say that Lemond was a rider who never needed to dope, a claim he didn't to my knowledge make about any other rider he coached, from any country.

So you are taking the word of Eddie B. now? How many riders did Eddie B. say needed to dope? Can you name one?

What is consistent about LeMond is his lies to the public about the extent of doping in the 80s. He has constructed a false narrative about a change in the sport that leaves him and his contemporary competitors as different from the riders who came after him. If this was any other rider then LeMond fanboys would be ridiculing his distortion of drug use in cycling and his refusal to criticize riders of his era for the same actions by riders in the 2000s that he denounces so vociferously.

What false narrative are you talking about ? From the day he announced he was done with pro cycling he mentioned his medical condition first.

Or are you suggesting doping before EPO had the same effects as doping on EPO ?

...the real bottom line is that they both created advantages and all things being equal the doper would win...now would a doped donkey beat a thoroughbred, well of course not but then there were no real donkeys in pro racing ( that is a bit of a bogus strawman argument because everyone in the peloton had a huge amount of talent...the real donkeys were safely battling among themselves in Senior 3....)....

...I raced in the stone ages where steroids were the nuclear option and from personal experience I can tell you several, uhhh, ok riders became thoroughbreds and absolutely dominated proceedings....yeah EPO changed things but the old options could also change things most significantly...

Cheers

FYI, I was just trying to understand Damiano's point.

I don't think pre-EPO doping was without consequences. But I believe it was very different, still.

And I don't know what's Greg stance on this. I know Fignon was ok with pre-EPO stuff, but not with EPO. There must be a reason.

 

[red_flanders]

Re: LeMond

In particular I find it humorous as Eddy B. made a point to say that Lemond was a rider who never needed to dope, a claim he didn't to my knowledge make about any other rider he coached, from any country.

So you are taking the word of Eddie B. now? How many riders did Eddie B. say needed to dope? Can you name one?

What is consistent about LeMond is his lies to the public about the extent of doping in the 80s. He has constructed a false narrative about a change in the sport that leaves him and his contemporary competitors as different from the riders who came after him. If this was any other rider then LeMond fanboys would be ridiculing his distortion of drug use in cycling and his refusal to criticize riders of his era for the same actions by riders in the 2000s that he denounces so vociferously.

None that I'm aware of. The point is that he went out of his way, in his book, to make a point about how good Lemond was, how much better he was than anyone else. That he was a "diamond" that didn't need dope. You should read the book if you haven't.

Do I hold Eddy B's word as immutable truth? No. I simply wonder why he would take pains to write something like that in a book about bike racing tactics, a book in which he discusses many other riders at length and makes no similar claims. He talks about Knickman, Hampsten, guys on the Polish teams he coached whose names I won't try and recall, among many others. He celebrates their achievements and talks about his affinity for them. None of them he mentions that he thinks they're clean, but he makes this point with Lemond, in a book published in 1985, in order to make a point about how special Lemond was.

Now I really don't know why he and many others, people who would actually know, would go out of their way to make that point, un-bidden.

Is it proof? Nope, it's just testimonial evidence. I buy it because of the time and context in which the comment was made. There were no accusations against Lemond at that time. Is it true? I don't know. It's just part of the picture.

I find it more compelling than people saying, "Lemond! Eddy B! He must have doped".

Does the fact that he worked with Eddy B raise questions? Yes. Are there any answers? No. Is it enough to form the view that Lemond doped? Not for me. Is it ammo in the scarce, tortured bag of evidence some use to form the view that Lemond doped? Sure looks like it.

The point is that shouting "Eddy B" isn't really evidence, particularly when Eddy B himself is on record, for no reason at all as saying Lemond was special, a cut above, a "diamond" who didn't need dope.

Proof? No. Just part of the story.

 

[Stingray34]

Re: Re:

For once and for all, Greg always said riders (clean riders as well as dopers) are the first victims of doping. The problem he had with Armstrong was the bullying and the Trek/Oakley/Giro dispute. Doping was the least of his problems with Armstrong.

The sole problem LeMond had with Armstrong is that Lance had replaced him as America's most recognizable cyclist and Armstrong was not gracious enough to put his arm around LeMond to give him credit for paving the way for the U.S.'s success in Europe. That was it. LeMond has always been a media wh0re, and Armstrong was taking up all the limelight, leaving none for Greg.

LeMond did not accidentally get in a dispute with Lance. He knew all the top riders as well as nearly all the domestiques were doping. He deliberately attacked Armstrong's legitimacy while pretending he was a naive bystander who did not know the reality of pro European cycling. He picked a fight and received a beatdown. Now he portrays himself as a victim instead of manning up and admitting that his problems were caused by his own jealousy and scheming to get back in the public eye.

...yeah its funny but when he was America's darling he was sold as the most astute rider in the peloton always aware of the latest technological advancements and of the newest training techniques....he was a genius who outwitted those old guard Euros with his smarts and new ways of doing stuff....a naïve waif buffeted by the harsh winds of Euro reality was never part of the story when he became a success...

...and then presto zesto he becomes a hapless passenger in the weird cycling circus and doesn't even know what is going on in his own team..?..didn't someone earlier say something about something pathological something or other....?....but to his credit he did realize his base uncritically swallowed the first load of crap so he had a fairly good expectation they would just pull up and swallow the next load....

Cheers

"...he was sold as..." There's your answer, or are you insinuating that in addition to training and racing, Lemond wrote all his own copy in the 80's?

The guy has been asked questions on cycling for 35+ years. He answered them. Take up the 'loads of crap' claim with the journalists.

 

[aphronesis]

Nonsense Stingray: that's more of the unreflexive line: innocent Greg, boy next door, had nothing to do with constructing and enabling his own persona in the press. Same line that has it he didn't know about dope until he retired.

 

[pmcg76]

Re: LeMond

...
8) Or that he claimed Johanes Draijeer career went downhill in the 90s despite him taking EPO. The poor guy died in early 1990.

The joke is fine, but please allow me to set the record straight wrt Draaijer.
As you know i'm never too shy to admit a mistake, but this wasn't one of them. In fact, the only thing I know about Draaijer is that he died in 1990 and that this was allegedly due to EPO.

As for why I brought up Draaijer, well, mainly because I repeatedly saw you, gillian and some others argue that it is inescapable that Lemond, if on EPO, w/should have improved significantly compared to his pre-shooting performances.
Imo, Draaijer (and Planckaert, the whole of PDM, Boris Becker, and others) nicely put that argument to bed, as his case (and that of the other afore-mentioned athletes) show that going on the EPO program doesn't (or at least didn't in the late 80s/early 90s) necessarily entail a (significant) improvement in performances.

Now, I realize I used Draaijer without further explanation and with a teaspoon of irony, so your misreading of my post was certainly my own fault and I apologize if you (or anybody) felt offended by that.

I guess someone must have pointed out your mistake. But as you seem to be in conciliatory mood, maybe you can address these points whilst you are at it. Then we will see if you deserve forgiveness or not.

Why is it not possible for you to simply google what caused Planckaert to retire? Surely there must be links in Dutch/Flemish somewhere on the web. You keep claiming he went downhill despite using EPO but as it was 91 his final seaosn, we never got to see what impact it had yet you repeat it as fact.

To the PDM riders declining(Rooks, Theunisse??), yes they did decline in the 90s but it was gradual rather than abrupt like LeMond. Still capable of Top 10s in GTs in 92/93 compared to LeMond getting eliminated. I aksed you if can provide the context of Rooks statement that he started taking EPO after 89. Can you? Theunisse also tested positive again in 1990 which saw him sit out a suspension and then fight a legal case to show he had a naturally high testosterone level. I think the spotlight was on him after that.

Also you have claimed numerous times that Eddie B gave transfusions to juniors and doped them with other drugs. I have looked through the thread but do not see a link to any articles detailing this. The first time you mention it, you just say "ask me?" So now I am asking you for a link to verify those claims and please don't come with some random poster on the internet claiming this happened.

If you can answer these questions, maybe all will be forgiven

 

[blutto]

Re: Re:

For once and for all, Greg always said riders (clean riders as well as dopers) are the first victims of doping. The problem he had with Armstrong was the bullying and the Trek/Oakley/Giro dispute. Doping was the least of his problems with Armstrong.

The sole problem LeMond had with Armstrong is that Lance had replaced him as America's most recognizable cyclist and Armstrong was not gracious enough to put his arm around LeMond to give him credit for paving the way for the U.S.'s success in Europe. That was it. LeMond has always been a media wh0re, and Armstrong was taking up all the limelight, leaving none for Greg.

LeMond did not accidentally get in a dispute with Lance. He knew all the top riders as well as nearly all the domestiques were doping. He deliberately attacked Armstrong's legitimacy while pretending he was a naive bystander who did not know the reality of pro European cycling. He picked a fight and received a beatdown. Now he portrays himself as a victim instead of manning up and admitting that his problems were caused by his own jealousy and scheming to get back in the public eye.

...yeah its funny but when he was America's darling he was sold as the most astute rider in the peloton always aware of the latest technological advancements and of the newest training techniques....he was a genius who outwitted those old guard Euros with his smarts and new ways of doing stuff....a naïve waif buffeted by the harsh winds of Euro reality was never part of the story when he became a success...

...and then presto zesto he becomes a hapless passenger in the weird cycling circus and doesn't even know what is going on in his own team..?..didn't someone earlier say something about something pathological something or other....?....but to his credit he did realize his base uncritically swallowed the first load of crap so he had a fairly good expectation they would just pull up and swallow the next load....

Cheers

"...he was sold as..." There's your answer, or are you insinuating that in addition to training and racing, Lemond wrote all his own copy in the 80's?

The guy has been asked questions on cycling for 35+ years. He answered them. Take up the 'loads of crap' claim with the journalists.

...no, of course not, that is silly, but a lot of people did....magazines, tv and other facets of the star making machinery....they were selling cycling as maybe another next big thing and LeMond was their ticket ( and its not like he ran away from the attention, he was, as someone up thread pointed out more than happy to deal with the press and expand his market ( to as much as anything get more endorsement deals...which is something he did put some substantial effort into ))...

Cheers

 

[Stingray34]

Re:

Nonsense Stingray: that's more of the unreflexive line: innocent Greg, boy next door, had nothing to do with constructing and enabling his own persona in the press. Same line that has it he didn't know about dope until he retired.

The 'unreflexive line' you mention is a media construct. It fits a narrative about a down-home, corn-fed boy that Americans used to love to read about themselves when one of their own make it in a new domain. Aussies love doing this, too.

Was Lemond going 'EPO regime' to 'EPO regime' with Chiappucci in 1990? Is that what you're trying to insinuate? Are you saying Lemond knew about EPO then or was actually using it?

 

[aphronesis]

I wasn't insinuating anything of the sort. In the context of the resurrected debate, I was strictly taking issue with the notion that LeMond didn't participate in his own spin. And implying--by extension--how naturalizing that process produces a its own counter conspiracy set of beliefs. As comes through in at least every third post by defenders.

 

[sniper]

Re: LeMond

...
Why is it not possible for you to simply google what caused Planckaert to retire? Surely there must be links in Dutch/Flemish somewhere on the web. You keep claiming he went downhill despite using EPO but as it was 91 his final seaosn, we never got to see what impact it had yet you repeat it as fact.

Because it's irrelevant to my point why he retired.
The only point I wanted to make is: there are plenty of different reasons why ryder xyz might not improve whilst going on the EPO program. Planckaert, Becker, Draaijer, PDM, and others prove this point.
Even Lance proves this point, albeit in a reverse way: he improved massively in 1999, despite being on EPO already pre-1999.

So, as far as I can tell, Lemond not improving in 89/90/91 compared to pre-shooting (which is in itself a debatable issue, at least wrt 89/90, not wrt 91 and beyond, obviously) can mean many things. Him being clean certainly is one possible explanation, but, just as certainly, it's not the only explanation. Max Testa and the doc/coach referred to by Nick777 gave another possible explanation: too much dope. The mitochondiral myopathy is another possibile explanation. The shooting is yet another. Or simply too old, lack of motivation, lack of training intensity, who knows. Or a combination of factors.

To the PDM riders declining(Rooks, Theunisse??), yes they did decline in the 90s but it was gradual rather than abrupt like LeMond. Still capable of Top 10s in GTs in 92/93 compared to LeMond getting eliminated. I aksed you if can provide the context of Rooks statement that he started taking EPO after 89. Can you? Theunisse also tested positive again in 1990 which saw him sit out a suspension and then fight a legal case to show he had a naturally high testosterone level. I think the spotlight was on him after that.

I have to give this more thought. I'm not sure if I'm following your Rooks/Theunisse argument/question. Maybe you can rephrase?
Either way, it's a period I am only gradually learning more about. For now, I have to admit and accept that that period is still covered with clouds and uncertainties, especially to me and others who didn't live it.

Also you have claimed numerous times that Eddie B gave transfusions to juniors and doped them with other drugs. I have looked through the thread but do not see a link to any articles detailing this. The first time you mention it, you just say "ask me?" So now I am asking you for a link to verify those claims and please don't come with some random poster on the internet claiming this happened.

I'm glad you ask. But give me an hour or three-four to get them together. The info is spread out in google preview books and old pre-90s articles that are hard to find and I am about to go offline, but will get back to this, promised.

 

[blutto]

Re: Re:

...
For once and for all, Greg always said riders (clean riders as well as dopers) are the first victims of doping. The problem he had with Armstrong was the bullying and the Trek/Oakley/Giro dispute. Doping was the least of his problems with Armstrong.

"The doctors, the management, the officials, they're the ones that have corrupted riders. The riders are the only ones that pay the price"

What's your view on Lemond's account of when he found out about EPO?
(it was discussed previously e.g. here: viewtopic.php?p=1771945#p1771945)

How in your view does it add up that he hadn't heard about EPO before 1993-ish when meanwhile he was investing in Thom Weisel's Montgomery Securities, a company at the very centre of the commercial exploitation of EPO, starting already in 1983?
http://web.stanford.edu/~learnest/cyclops/dopestrong.htm (search for "montgomery")

Thom Weisel, in turn, took on Eddie B. as a personal cycling coach as early as in 1985.
link: https://books.google.pl/books?id=niuGT_sHBpwC&pg=PA153&dq=thom+weisel+eddie+1985+training&hl=en&sa=X&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=thom%20weisel%20eddie%201985%20training&f=false

You will agree that it is very likely that Eddie B. and Greg Lemond remained in contact even after their coach-rider relationship was ended in the early 80s(?). Their friendship was hardly a secret (link: https://books.google.pl/books?id=Axu2AAAAIAAJ&dq=%22Complete+Book+of+Bicycling%22&focus=searchwithinvolume&q=eddie+b, search for "eddie b")

Btw, do you perhaps know when Greg began to invest in Montgomery Securities?
I've looked, but can't find a date or even a year.
From how I read the passage in Wheelmen (google book preview), it suggests the investment was made prior to 1993, but I could be wrong.
(link to Wheelmen google books preview:
https://books.google.pl/books?id=XOninQEACAAJ&dq=wheelmen+cycling&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwid16T-4p_MAhXCEiwKHbtLChoQ6wEIKzAA
use search box to find relevant passages)

And if even someone like Kathleen Sharp had heard about EPO in 1988, and about rumors that cyclists were using it, how likely is it, really, that Lemond (with an MD as father in law and a nursing student as wife, and his contacts to Eddie B.) hadn't heard about it?
http://web.stanford.edu/~learnest/cyclops/dopestrong.htm (search for "1988", or "Kathleen Sharp")

My view is that every interview of Greg has to be taken with a pinch of salt. First because when he answers a journalist, his main concern is the message, the story but not consistency. He has the gift of spontaneity. I guess it comes with it.

You'll be disappointed but I'm not really interested in the Weisel/Eddie B./Montgomery stuff. I only know what I've read on this forum. I don't care to research what I'm not interested in. I'm not on a quest to find if Greg doped or not.

Greg was a US pro in the 80's. He encountered / worked with lots of dubious people. Does that make him a cheater ? I don't think so. That's not enough. As I said earlier, if that was enough we would not need the clinic in the first place.

As I already said, I think Greg's story adds up. I've studied his style, races and his way of thinking. I know a bit about cycling. That's enough for me. I don't need to scream on rooftops that I believe he was clean. I don't pretend I detain the truth. What I need to share is that I believe he is an incredible cyclist and a great guy. I have a blog and a website for it.

I don't recall who Kathleen Sharp is (you've probably mentioned her before). But I remember you once posted a link of an anonymous source saying Greg probably took EPO while recovering from his hunting accident in 1986. Is it off the table ?

I don't know what's the relationship with Greg and his father in law. Are they close ? I don't know.

Was every doctor aware of EPO in 1988 ? I don't know.

I see your description of Kathy has moved from "nurse" to "nursing student". I think it's more accurate.

I'm posting what I posted earlier so that you can adress it, please (I removed the sarcasms) :

Have you read the article about Greg that appeared this week on Cyclingnews ?

http://www.cyclingnews.com/features/greg-lemond-we-could-find-another-rider-like-me-if-we-tapped-into-our-potential/

Do you think every piece of information on it is 100% accurate ? Can you read it again in 20 or 30 years and take it as granted ?

Well, you shouldn't. The article says Greg has 2 grandkids. He doesn't. He has just 1. Does it matter ? Not really, the point is that Greg is at a birthday party. 2 kidneys or just 1 ? It doesn't really matter. Greg had a kidney condition at one point.

End of story.

...not much unlike asking if every doctor is aware of penicillin....it was a huge breakthrough drug...and frankly if you were doing your job and keeping up with the literature ( that is btw part of the job description ) even on a cursory level you would know...

Cheers