LeMond III

[sniper]

good post, thanks.

i'm not saying anybody is naive or stupid for believing in Lemond.
i'm just asking people who do to provide some arguments to that extent.
this is a discussion forum after all, and I'm curious whether, and if so why, people believe he rode clean.
i'm not hearing much. instead, people are nitpicking on small things and using it to discredit me and a whole series of objective information.

Dardik and Ariel planning to do PED testing and blood boosting on adolescents in the OTCs of Squaw Valley and Colorado Springs was very real.
It's an objective fact. Now, the objective fact that Lemond was there at the OTC of Colorado and occasionally Squaw Valley, from 1978 to 1980, should be a great concern to you and to any Lemond fan.

Eddie B. blood doping juniors, and vocally defending the legitimacy of blood doping, is very real.
An objective fact.The objective fact that Eddie was providing Lemond's nutrition and training schedules in the 78-80 period should, again, be of great concern to you, or to any true Lemond fan who has hitherto been under the impression that Lemond rode clean.

Ed Burke (one of the architects of the 84 blood boosting programme) and Fredrick Hagerman (with an anabolic steroid testing paper from 1975 and 'cardiorespiratory testing on adolescents' paper from 1976, the latter containing references to Gerschler, Ekblom, Saltin, and Astrand, and recommendations to do more testing on adolescents following the Scandinavian example) did physiological testing on Lemond in the late 70s, right then and there when Lemond made his big breakthrough.
That, too, are objective facts.
And to anybody who wants best for Lemond, and for clean cycling, those facts should be a great worry.

In short: plenty of objective facts for you and Lemond fans to be rather concerned about.
Yet, for some reason, I don't see you being concerned, at all.
Rather, I see you and others counter all those objective facts with platitudes of the type "it's just an opinion", "sniper is an idiot", etc. I'm not playing victim here. And I might be an idiot. But no, it's not opinion.
None of the above is opinion. They're facts.
Now, these facts in and of themselves don't prove Lemond doped. I've never said they do.
But they place him in the middle of 'the action', so to say, and therefore they provide plenty of objective reason to be concerned, at least to those who, hitherto, were under the impression that Lemond was a clean three-time winner of the TdF.

Now, I'd honestly like to hear from you (or other posters who think Lemond was clean) whether, and if so why, you think we need not be worried about those ties between Lemond and all these people with doping practices on their resumee?


-------------------
And that's just fact talking. There are also the rumors.
Testa rumoring that Lemond was finished because he'd doped too much.
The multiple rumors in and around the peloton that he doped and used/introduced EPO.
Again, my question would be: why should you not be worried?
Don't you want to get to the bottom of those rumors?

Perhaps a bit of a lame analogy, but if person X hears rumors about his wife, whom he trusts and loves more than anything in his life, sleeping with another guy, I don't think person X is gonna sit around and say "ow, that's just an opinion". Instead, person X is likely to want to get to the bottom of that rumor.

In your/Lemond's case, I don't see that intention to get to the bottom of things, at all.
I'm curious to know whether I'm having this wrong (i.e. whether you are, in fact, concerned or not)?

 

[gillan1969]

Re: Re:

Guys, You've all done a great job of keeping the conversation civil since the thread has reopened. I've only had to do a little editing here and there (while watching over the thread like a mother hen).

Lately, though, it's starting to get back into sarcasm and accusation, and we can't be having that. The next time I have to edit a comment, no matter who makes it, that person is taking a vacation. Too much more of this and we will be locking the thread.

Point taken.
sniper has done a ton of research to expose what I perceive to be a myth.
I don't want my snarky commentary to play a role in closing a very interesting thread.
I will shut my yap.
Please continue.

research...or good research is bias free, or at least as bias free as is possible

the exercise here is to prove something a la WMD. Or as is pointed out confirmation bias

The santa analogy, presumably like god, doesn't hold water. It pervades everything/everyone whereas the provenance of Lemond's performances are of concern to a subset of a subset of a subset....of a subset.

Although as ever, follow the money.

Notwithstanding offers of payments, the Armstrong case would benefit greatly from having these matters public. Indeed, the current whistleblower case would arguably be a lot easier for Armstrong if he could demonstrate that the previous American winner had been not just doped but seemingly doped to the gils since his junior days. It also looks as if most of the actors are the same....

So why has Armstrong remained quiet...why have witnesses not spoken up?

 

[sniper]

Re: Re:

The view that Lance would benefit from smearing Lemond is not based in fact.
The fact that you present it as fact, is, with all respect, an example of the confirmation bias you accuse others of.

So why have witnesses not spoken up? For the same reason witnessses hardly ever speak up in cycling.
And still there are more rumors about Lemond than there are about many other GT winners.

The analogy is perfectly in order.
There are no analogies where part A of the analogy corresponds 100% to part B of the analogy.
If it did, it wouldn't be an analogy.

 

[gillan1969]

Re: Re:

The view that Lance would benefit from smearing Lemond is not based in fact.
The fact that you present it as fact, is, with all respect, an example of the confirmation bias you accuse others of.

So why have witnesses not spoken up? For the same reason witnessses hardly ever speak up in cycling.
And still there are more rumors about Lemond than there are about many other GT winners.

The analogy is perfectly in order.
There are no analogies where part A of the analogy corresponds 100% to part B of the analogy.
If it did, it wouldn't be an analogy.

It would not do the Govts case much good if the previous American TdF winner was doped to the gills and had been as part of the US cycling establishment...what USPS didn't know?!?!?!?!?!?

Indeed it would simply be a case of one arm of government not talking to another

Now, if only Armstrong's lawyers had some information that could prove that...

 

[sniper]

Re: Re:

The view that Lance would benefit from smearing Lemond is not based in fact.
The fact that you present it as fact, is, with all respect, an example of the confirmation bias you accuse others of.

So why have witnesses not spoken up? For the same reason witnessses hardly ever speak up in cycling.
And still there are more rumors about Lemond than there are about many other GT winners.

The analogy is perfectly in order.
There are no analogies where part A of the analogy corresponds 100% to part B of the analogy.
If it did, it wouldn't be an analogy.

It would not do the Govts case much good if the previous American TdF winner was doped to the gills and had been as part of the US cycling establishment...what USPS didn't know?!?!?!?!?!?

Indeed it would simply be a case of one arm of government not talking to another

Now, if only Armstrong's lawyers had some information that could prove that...

you're overseeing a number of things:

1. "prove of doping" in the court of law has a very high standard (and rightly so, I guess). None of what's been discussed here in the Lemond thread would stand up as "prove of doping" in the court of law. The same is of course true for guys like Wiggins, Hampsten, or Cancellara, or even Froome and Indurain and a whole host of other GT winners: good luck proving in the court of law that they doped.
As you well know, Lance's case was an absolute exception, made possible mainly by himself.

2. From everything i've read about Lemond, one thing I know for 100% sure: if he doped, he did it the total opposite way from Lance. Where Lance talked openly about it with colleagues, encouraged others to dope, and got involved with the UCI, etc., Lemond would never have.
Quite on the contrary. We've discussed that, amply, too.
Here's what esafosfina, who was on the ADR team in 1989, has to say on that topic:

It is entirely possible that Greg was a freakishly talented and endowed athlete. It's entirely possible; I had a VO2max of 89.6 (and higher) and can assure you that I was clean.

To play Devil's advocate for a moment: it is also entire plausible that Greg was 'glowing' and no-one knew... Some of the old boys on ADR were very open and told tales of cheating dope-tests etc... some never said a word. http://velorooms.com/index.php?topic=1904.0

Another example: you may recall Lemond's conflict with Toshiba, one part of the conflict being that Lemond insisted on having his own soigneur, Otto Jacome. http://www.nytimes.com/1988/06/05/magazine/struggling-back.html?pagewanted=all
So, if he was doping, he'd have done it with a decent amount of secrecy and largely within his own entourage (Kathy, Bob, Jacome, David). (And, nb: he seemed to make an exception in 1989, accepting treatment from teamdoctor Yvan Vanmol, and look what that brought him: a whole bunch of nasty rumors.)

So whom would Lance be able to get on the record? Kathy? Jacome? David Morris? Bob? Eddie? Not in this lifetime. Those are all people who have nothing, zilch, nada to gain from spilling on Lemond. On the contrary.
Unlike Floyd and the Garmin 6-monthers, who had plenty to gain from spilling on Lance.

So at best, Lance could go on some smearing campaign, pointing out the rumors, and pointing out Eddie's dodgy past, pointing out the dodgy past of the OTCs, pointing out god knows what else we've pointed out in here.
What would it bring him other than mockery? It's very clear how that hypothetical chapter would end: "Lance is a proven liar, bitter, jealous, and with an axe to grind".

3. You're still ignoring Weisel. I don't think you should. Or that anybody should. Lance definitely shouldn't.
So great, Lemond might have been one of the very first EPO users, with EPO provided by Weisel (possibly through Eddie). It's by all means a plausible hypothesis, with gone through that extensively. Now, how could Lance go about to try and prove that in court? By getting Weisel on the record?

 

[gillan1969]

Re: Re:

The view that Lance would benefit from smearing Lemond is not based in fact.
The fact that you present it as fact, is, with all respect, an example of the confirmation bias you accuse others of.

So why have witnesses not spoken up? For the same reason witnessses hardly ever speak up in cycling.
And still there are more rumors about Lemond than there are about many other GT winners.

The analogy is perfectly in order.
There are no analogies where part A of the analogy corresponds 100% to part B of the analogy.
If it did, it wouldn't be an analogy.

It would not do the Govts case much good if the previous American TdF winner was doped to the gills and had been as part of the US cycling establishment...what USPS didn't know?!?!?!?!?!?

Indeed it would simply be a case of one arm of government not talking to another

Now, if only Armstrong's lawyers had some information that could prove that...

you're overseeing a number of things:

1. "prove of doping" in the court of law has a very high standard (and rightly so, I guess). None of what's been discussed here in the Lemond thread would stand up as "prove of doping" in the court of law. The same is of course true for guys like Wiggins, Hampsten, or Cancellara, or even Froome and Indurain and a whole host of other GT winners: good luck proving in the court of law that they doped.
As you well know, Lance's case was an absolute exception, made possible mainly by himself.

2. From everything i've read about Lemond, one thing I know for 100% sure: if he doped, he did it the total opposite way from Lance. Where Lance talked openly about it with colleagues, encouraged others to dope, and got involved with the UCI, etc., Lemond would never have.
Quite on the contrary. We've discussed that, amply, too.
Here's what esafosfina, who was on the ADR team in 1989, has to say on that topic:

It is entirely possible that Greg was a freakishly talented and endowed athlete. It's entirely possible; I had a VO2max of 89.6 (and higher) and can assure you that I was clean.

To play Devil's advocate for a moment: it is also entire plausible that Greg was 'glowing' and no-one knew... Some of the old boys on ADR were very open and told tales of cheating dope-tests etc... some never said a word. http://velorooms.com/index.php?topic=1904.0

Another example: you may recall Lemond's conflict with Toshiba, one part of the conflict being that Lemond insisted on having his own soigneur, Otto Jacome. http://www.nytimes.com/1988/06/05/magazine/struggling-back.html?pagewanted=all
So, if he was doping, he'd have done it with a decent amount of secrecy and largely within his own entourage (Kathy, Bob, Jacome, David). (And, nb: he seemed to make an exception in 1989, accepting treatment from teamdoctor Yvan Vanmol, and look what that brought him: a whole bunch of nasty rumors.)

So whom would Lance be able to get on the record? Kathy? Jacome? David Morris? Bob? Eddie? Not in this lifetime. Those are all people who have nothing, zilch, nada to gain from spilling on Lemond. On the contrary.
Unlike Floyd and the Garmin 6-monthers, who had plenty to gain from spilling on Lance.

So at best, Lance could go on some smearing campaign, pointing out the rumors, and pointing out Eddie's dodgy past, pointing out the dodgy past of the OTCs, pointing out god knows what else we've pointed out in here.
What would it bring him other than mockery? It's very clear how that hypothetical chapter would end: "Lance is a proven liar, bitter, jealous, and with an axe to grind".

3. You're still ignoring Weisel. I don't think you should. Or that anybody should. Lance definitely shouldn't.
So great, Lemond might have been one of the very first EPO users, with EPO provided by Weisel (possibly through Eddie). It's by all means a plausible hypothesis, with gone through that extensively. Now, how could Lance go about to try and prove that in court? By getting Weisel on the record?

allegations in the arms of investigators and lawyers can easily become testimonies and proof...with $millions on the line I might encourage my legal team to do just that...look what you have done with, which I can only presume is, little in the way of resources...

 

[sniper]

You make two assumptions
1. "allegations in the arms of investigators and lawyers can easily become testimonies and proof"
2. Lance's case would benefit from proving Lemond doped
I have doubts about both, but even assuming they're both correct, then Weisel's millions might still encourage Lance's legal team to steer clear from that.

 

[@NL_LeMondFans]

Re:

In short: plenty of objective facts for you and Lemond fans to be rather concerned about.
Yet, for some reason, I don't see you being concerned, at all.
Rather, I see you and others counter all those objective facts with platitudes of the type "it's just an opinion", "sniper is an idiot", etc. I'm not playing victim here. And I might be an idiot. But no, it's not opinion.
None of the above is opinion. They're facts.
Now, these facts in and of themselves don't prove Lemond doped. I've never said they do.
But they place him in the middle of 'the action', so to say, and therefore they provide plenty of objective reason to be concerned, at least to those who, hitherto, were under the impression that Lemond was a clean three-time winner of the TdF.

Now, I'd honestly like to hear from you (or other posters who think Lemond was clean) whether, and if so why, you think we need not be worried about those ties between Lemond and all these people with doping practices on their resumee?


-------------------
And that's just fact talking. There are also the rumors.
Testa rumoring that Lemond was finished because he'd doped too much.
The multiple rumors in and around the peloton that he doped and used/introduced EPO.
Again, my question would be: why should you not be worried?
Don't you want to get to the bottom of those rumors?

Perhaps a bit of a lame analogy, but if person X hears rumors about his wife, whom he trusts and loves more than anything in his life, sleeping with another guy, I don't think person X is gonna sit around and say "ow, that's just an opinion". Instead, person X is likely to want to get to the bottom of that rumor.

In your/Lemond's case, I don't see that intention to get to the bottom of things, at all.
I'm curious to know whether I'm having this wrong (i.e. whether you are, in fact, concerned or not)?

I feel like I already did it a number of times,but here goes...

My appreciation of Greg is not based on wether he doped or not. I am not saying it doesn't matter, I'm saying it doesn't define him, as a person. If tomorrow Greg said he doped one way or another, I wouldn't be "surprised", because, the odds are against him. Every pro cyclist with results is suspicious. Would I be disappointed ? Yes. Would I still support him ? Yes, I probably would because I support him as a person. I don't let down my friends when they make mistakes.

That being said, I believe I am an expert in Greg's career, results. I think I've nailed him, as a person (no expertise here, but a strong opinion). I might be wrong, but I basically understand who he is. And most of the theories that were made on these boards don't fit the profile. On these boards, Greg has been described as a mastermind of physiology with an exceptional talent for hiding things and corrupt everyone around him... Then he has been described as a moron who speaks nonsense as soon as a microphone is handed to him... Not only those 2 descriptions don't fit the profile, but they're not even consistent with one another. You can't be super bright and super stupid at the same time.

It's funny you're using the "cheating your wife" analogy because I used the exact same one for you to adress a few weeks ago and you didn't. To answer your analogy : It largely depends on who the whistleblower is (his credibility, his agenda, the kind of story he tells, etc...). So far, I am not "shaken" about Greg because I have heard a lot of stories since day 1. For example, the "he stopped because he took too much drugs" was here from day one, and not only for Greg, but for everyone. And not without reasons, because, as you know the kind of drugs dopers were using at the time could do a lot of damage in the long run. In Greg's case, the lead poisoning theory is solid, IMO. To be honest, I think Greg's demise was a trauma for him and (he can't remember the specifics of the last 2 seasons he rode), to this day, he's still searching the exact answer to this. The mitochondria theme gives some answers, but not entirely satisfactory.

My analogy was about your investigation method: If you suspect your wife is cheating on you, you will interpret every one of her moves as a sign she's cheating on you, won't you ? What can she possibly say, what evidence can she produce that will assure you she never did ?

 

[djpbaltimore]

Re: Re:

but those exercise physiologists were not in bed with dardik and ariel at the OTC in the late 70s doing physiological testing on junior athletes whilst faced with political pressure to produce olympic champions.

and what bias do you guys mean?
if you mean the hypothesis that Lemond doped, that,s not a bias by any stretch of the meaning.
it,s merely a plausible assumption informed by the history and nature of procycling.

and what facts are sloppy? sure, hagerman is not a hematologist. but that is hardly relevant; I could have said he was a shoemaker, and it wouldnt have made any difference to the likelihood that he helped dope juniors.

Definition of Confirmation bias: the tendency to interpret new evidence as confirmation of one's existing beliefs or theories.

The Hagerman example is a textbook case. Your theory has been that LeMond has been doping since a very young age. You have also created a new thread expounding on the idea that the USA was a hotbed of covert doping in the 70s. So you have interpreted innocuous events that you have recently read about Hagerman to construct a narrative that he was involved in blood doping of adolescents, providing a source for LeMond to learn how to blood dope under his tutelege at the OTC. Of course, you also presented incorrect facts about Hagerman being a hematologist and giving steroids to adolescents to build that case, which is where the sloppiness comes into play. Both of those would've been key pillars in the argument, if not properly fact checked. A shoemaker would not likely have the expertise to blood dope, unlike say... a hematologist, so that is not a relevant example.

Regarding political pressure for success, it might be time to address the lack of medals from the USA rowing team during his era (1972-2012). He stayed around for quite a while despite a paucity of results (USA couldn't even beat Canada in the 8's in 1984). The 8's was an event that was traditionally dominated by the USA, but not after 1964. Considering that he had a full time gig at a university (tenured at some point), earning awards for his teaching ability to boot, I fail to see why he would feel pressure to dope anybody.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Olympic_medalists_in_rowing_(men)

 

[blutto]

Re: Re:

but those exercise physiologists were not in bed with dardik and ariel at the OTC in the late 70s doing physiological testing on junior athletes whilst faced with political pressure to produce olympic champions.

and what bias do you guys mean?
if you mean the hypothesis that Lemond doped, that,s not a bias by any stretch of the meaning.
it,s merely a plausible assumption informed by the history and nature of procycling.

and what facts are sloppy? sure, hagerman is not a hematologist. but that is hardly relevant; I could have said he was a shoemaker, and it wouldnt have made any difference to the likelihood that he helped dope juniors.

Definition of Confirmation bias: the tendency to interpret new evidence as confirmation of one's existing beliefs or theories.

The Hagerman example is a textbook case. Your theory has been that LeMond has been doping since a very young age. You have also created a new thread expounding on the idea that the USA was a hotbed of covert doping in the 70s. So you have interpreted innocuous events that you have recently read about Hagerman to construct a narrative that he was involved in blood doping of adolescents, providing a source for LeMond to learn how to blood dope under his tutelege at the OTC. Of course, you also presented incorrect facts about Hagerman being a hematologist and giving steroids to adolescents to build that case, which is where the sloppiness comes into play. Both of those would've been key pillars in the argument, if not properly fact checked. A shoemaker would not likely have the expertise to blood dope, unlike say... a hematologist, so that is not a relevant example.

Regarding political pressure for success, it might be time to address the lack of medals from the USA rowing team during his era (1972-2012). He stayed around for quite a while despite a paucity of results (USA couldn't even beat Canada in the 8's in 1984). The 8's was an event that was traditionally dominated by the USA, but not after 1964. Considering that he had a full time gig at a university (tenured at some point), earning awards for his teaching ability to boot, I fail to see why he would feel pressure to dope anybody.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Olympic_medalists_in_rowing_(men)

....hahaha....hahaha....they lost to a great crew, that was really well coached, so suck it up( late edit forgot to insert first time thru )....and Canadians have had a fair of success since, the USA not as much ( so did coaching become an ongoing issue from that point on...or are there other excuses...and yeah, you guys were great, 50 years ago....)....

Cheers

 

[djpbaltimore]

Re: Re:

....hahaha....hahaha....they lost to a great crew, that was really well coached, so suck it up....and Canadians have had a fair of success since, the USA not as much ( so did coaching become an ongoing issue from that point on...or are there other excuses...and yeah you guys were great 50 years ago....)....

Cheers

At first, I was going to use the term 'piddly little country like Canada', but didn't know if you would see the tongue-in-cheek nature of the comment. Once Scott Walker starts building a wall on the Northern Border, then you will see who is Lord of the Oars.

OT: Full credit to some of the things that were un-earthed in this thread over the past few months about LeMond. I learned a lot, especially about Steroids and Myopathy. Everybody will weigh the evidence on their own and can come to a conclusion. Don't think there will ever be consensus.

 

[blutto]

Re: Re:

....hahaha....hahaha....they lost to a great crew, that was really well coached, so suck it up....and Canadians have had a fair of success since, the USA not as much ( so did coaching become an ongoing issue from that point on...or are there other excuses...and yeah you guys were great 50 years ago....)....

Cheers

At first, I was going to use the term 'piddly little country like Canada', but didn't know if you would see the tongue-in-cheek nature of the comment. Once Scott Walker starts building a wall on the Northern Border, then you will see who is Lord of the Oars.

OT: Full credit to some of the things that were un-earthed in this thread over the past few months about LeMond. I learned a lot, especially about Steroids and Myopathy. Everybody will weigh the evidence on their own and can come to a conclusion. Don't think there will ever be consensus.

...well...maybe you should have, and I could have stuck my tongue into my cheek harder...looking back at my response it came off much harder than I had originally intended....but truth be known, in a series of small world stories, I had several really cool/nice/valuable interactions with both that 84 crew and their coaching staff so I had a dog in that final and gawd did I scream and dance when they won it....and that glow it is still there as it coloured my post above....like those were my boys man ! and don't diss my boys ...

...as for the LeMond thread over the last little while...I agree there has been some good solid new information put forth...maybe something more will still be unearthed, or maybe not....and agree a consensus may never be found....

Cheers

 

[the delgados]

Re: Re:

Guys, You've all done a great job of keeping the conversation civil since the thread has reopened. I've only had to do a little editing here and there (while watching over the thread like a mother hen).

Lately, though, it's starting to get back into sarcasm and accusation, and we can't be having that. The next time I have to edit a comment, no matter who makes it, that person is taking a vacation. Too much more of this and we will be locking the thread.

Point taken.
sniper has done a ton of research to expose what I perceive to be a myth.
I don't want my snarky commentary to play a role in closing a very interesting thread.
I will shut my yap.
Please continue.

research...or good research is bias free, or at least as bias free as is possible

the exercise here is to prove something a la WMD. Or as is pointed out confirmation bias

The santa analogy, presumably like god, doesn't hold water. It pervades everything/everyone whereas the provenance of Lemond's performances are of concern to a subset of a subset of a subset....of a subset.

Although as ever, follow the money.

Notwithstanding offers of payments, the Armstrong case would benefit greatly from having these matters public. Indeed, the current whistleblower case would arguably be a lot easier for Armstrong if he could demonstrate that the previous American winner had been not just doped but seemingly doped to the gils since his junior days. It also looks as if most of the actors are the same....

So why has Armstrong remained quiet...why have witnesses not spoken up?

Are you a lawyer?
I already stated that my previous comments were glib and unworthy of the discussion taking place.
That said, if there's money to be made by stating a largely uneducated opinion--i.e. I don't know if Lemond took doping products, but I have enough experience in the sport to assume he did--then yeah, give me the cash. I could use it, for sure.
Hello, Lance? Pharmstrong? You there? Get in touch, buddy.

 

[StyrbjornSterki]

Re: Re:

]...gentlemen....sniper got some kidney stuff wrong, you full stopped mito....no blood, no fowl, errr, foul, ok...lets take Max's advice and go tranquillo....

No.

Those errors are significant because they are evidence to motive, level of due diligence observed, and degree of interest in the promotion of facts on their own merits and without regard for where they might lead. Better information was available, and widely reported on the Internet, but either was not sought or was ignored.

Where sniper has attempted to use medical "fact" to support his case, he largely has been shouted down. Ergo the grassy knoll argument yet stands. What remains generally is inductive reasoning bolstered with arguments of guilt by association. Yet every morsel is offered as probative, and therefore the resulting mass of circumstantial evidence is overwhelming.

Except these are not facts leading to an obvious conclusion, these are coincidental details being led to a predetermined destination.

 

[aphronesis]

So details aren't facts. Or the other way around?

(And apologies Irondan, I'm not strictly looking to be contrarian.) Sniper may have had an agenda and many may not support it, but I don't really think that's the point here. We all have a different potential perspective on things than was generally available at the time, and for those of us (and there are a handful) who were active in NA cycling back then, much of what Sniper has brought out is provocative and invites at least potential revision of the seamless narratives that were siloed through cycling media and 80s ideologies back then.

And if it's all good, then no one should be threatened anyway.

 

[blackcat]

Re:

So details aren't facts. Or the other way around?

(And apologies Irondan, I'm not strictly looking to be contrarian.) Sniper may have had an agenda and many may not support it, but I don't really think that's the point here. We all have a different potential perspective on things than was generally available at the time, and for those of us (and there are a handful) who were active in NA cycling back then, much of what Sniper has brought out is provocative and invites at least potential revision of the seamless narratives that were siloed through cycling media and 80s ideologies back then.

And if it's all good, then no one should be threatened anyway.

the fact that we can never obtain the proof either way that anyone is seeking makes this somewhat a fools errand.

the more interesting question, is the values transferred upon the individual in question, and what values we are ascribing to i) doping in itself, and/or ii) pane e acqua alternative.

I dont think it is one and the same. I think we ascribe deleterious value to doping, plus ascribe and deify bread and water cycling.

which then raises an altogether different question, what does Greg see bread and water cycling as. Does he see this as, and has he convinced himself it is, a personal apotheosis. How does he reconcile this with riding cheek and jowl, cos now they have jowls, at Etape du Tour, alongside Eddy and Bernard and Miguel?

doping schmoping. Its cycling, if there was no doping, there would be no professional cycling. This doping question seems ringfenced to the anglophone countries. Why? well, easy to speculate.

This aint about doping yay or nay. Its about value judgements imo. It actually does not change my opinion of Greg one lick, either way.

also, as corollary, what the Italian riders said about Garmin was mightily funny, or mighty funny... <words to effect of> "those (Garmin) @rseholes".

 

[blackcat]

Re: Re:

also, as corollary, what the Italian riders said about Garmin was mightily funny, or mighty funny... <words to effect of> "those (Garmin) @rseholes".

#scatology #enemas #clyster #douche #loofer #coloncleansing #transanalirrigation #analcleansing #Skycyclingmarginalgainsliquidrectalfeedingdiets

its procycling stupid. so much laffs, so many laffs

who knew you could irrigate your bowels? do you reckon they did that in the marshes or mesopotamia, or when the romans did the elevated aqueducts?

i think wiggins is the expert now on alternate methods of nutrition and absorption, we better ask him.

 

[aphronesis]

That was never in question.

 

[sniper]

Re: Re:

...
which then raises an altogether different question, what does Greg see bread and water cycling as.

This one is easy.

Otto Jacome 1988: '[H]e's clean - he's never taken any drugs. He won't even take vitamin shots. That will help him, too.''
''It's his cardiovascular system,'' Jacome said, tapping his chest. ''It's a gift, you have to be born with it.
http://www.nytimes.com/1988/06/05/magazine/struggling-back.html?pagewanted=all

Phil Anderson 2012:
I recall LeMond’s absolute stance against any medications during his career.
...
He, like many cyclists, has had to deal with losses at the hands of the cheats. He, like many, chose not to take advice and gifts of treatments from soigneur’s ‘vitamins’ – the contents of which were not know to him."
http://www.velonation.com/News/ID/13448/Anderson-vouches-for-LeMonds-integrity-as-a-pro-says-he-could-make-solid-interim-UCI-President.aspx

QS: There is a huge culture of the needle in cycling.
Greg: Well, they all took Vitamin B12 shots…I mean, who knows what else they took.
QS: You never succumbed?
Greg: Never. I took a multi-vitamin if I remembered to take a multi-vitamin...It might be every six weeks.
https://www.facebook.com/2Rmag/posts/534227359949423

1999:
Lemond was confronted by statements from a Dutch doctor recently, who claimed Lemond had introduced the dangerous hormore EPO into the peloton. "***", he responds angrily. "I only took Vitamin B and C pills".
https://retro.nrc.nl/W2/Lab/Tour99/d150799.html

So, no shots, just orally administered vitamins.
Never succumbed to the needle.
Absolute stance against any medications.

-------------------------------------
Reality is slightly different.

1989: After a few [iron] injections, he started to make a remarkable recovery.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/lifestyle/1990/06/29/lemonds-self-made-miracle/eb9b3fe2-ee74-4b6d-9d65-b26484c27c14/

1991: LeMond was forced to drop out of the Tour of Italy in June because he was suffering from fatigue. His father-in-law, Dave Morris, an immunologist, said the cause was never determined, but LeMond was getting regular blood tests.
LeMond's lawyer, Nathan Jenkins, said the blood disorder was being treated with shots.

1991: Indeed, antibiotics helped tide LeMond through the three flat stages before the Alps.
http://www.si.com/vault/1991/08/05/124658/tour-de-courage-greg-lemond-fought-sickness-and-adversity-in-the-78th-tour-de-france-and-finished-a-hero-though-not-a-winner

1993: Allergist David Morris, LeMond's father-in-law, said Greg is being treated with flu vaccine injections that help improve his immune system. http://articles.latimes.com/1993-07-03/sports/sp-9645_1_greg-lemond

 

[blutto]

Re: Re:

In short: plenty of objective facts for you and Lemond fans to be rather concerned about.
Yet, for some reason, I don't see you being concerned, at all.
Rather, I see you and others counter all those objective facts with platitudes of the type "it's just an opinion", "sniper is an idiot", etc. I'm not playing victim here. And I might be an idiot. But no, it's not opinion.
None of the above is opinion. They're facts.
Now, these facts in and of themselves don't prove Lemond doped. I've never said they do.
But they place him in the middle of 'the action', so to say, and therefore they provide plenty of objective reason to be concerned, at least to those who, hitherto, were under the impression that Lemond was a clean three-time winner of the TdF.

Now, I'd honestly like to hear from you (or other posters who think Lemond was clean) whether, and if so why, you think we need not be worried about those ties between Lemond and all these people with doping practices on their resumee?


-------------------
And that's just fact talking. There are also the rumors.
Testa rumoring that Lemond was finished because he'd doped too much.
The multiple rumors in and around the peloton that he doped and used/introduced EPO.
Again, my question would be: why should you not be worried?
Don't you want to get to the bottom of those rumors?

Perhaps a bit of a lame analogy, but if person X hears rumors about his wife, whom he trusts and loves more than anything in his life, sleeping with another guy, I don't think person X is gonna sit around and say "ow, that's just an opinion". Instead, person X is likely to want to get to the bottom of that rumor.

In your/Lemond's case, I don't see that intention to get to the bottom of things, at all.
I'm curious to know whether I'm having this wrong (i.e. whether you are, in fact, concerned or not)?

I feel like I already did it a number of times,but here goes...

My appreciation of Greg is not based on wether he doped or not. I am not saying it doesn't matter, I'm saying it doesn't define him, as a person. If tomorrow Greg said he doped one way or another, I wouldn't be "surprised", because, the odds are against him. Every pro cyclist with results is suspicious. Would I be disappointed ? Yes. Would I still support him ? Yes, I probably would because I support him as a person. I don't let down my friends when they make mistakes.

That being said, I believe I am an expert in Greg's career, results. I think I've nailed him, as a person (no expertise here, but a strong opinion). I might be wrong, but I basically understand who he is. And most of the theories that were made on these boards don't fit the profile. On these boards, Greg has been described as a mastermind of physiology with an exceptional talent for hiding things and corrupt everyone around him... Then he has been described as a moron who speaks nonsense as soon as a microphone is handed to him... Not only those 2 descriptions don't fit the profile, but they're not even consistent with one another. You can't be super bright and super stupid at the same time.

It's funny you're using the "cheating your wife" analogy because I used the exact same one for you to adress a few weeks ago and you didn't. To answer your analogy : It largely depends on who the whistleblower is (his credibility, his agenda, the kind of story he tells, etc...). So far, I am not "shaken" about Greg because I have heard a lot of stories since day 1. For example, the "he stopped because he took too much drugs" was here from day one, and not only for Greg, but for everyone. And not without reasons, because, as you know the kind of drugs dopers were using at the time could do a lot of damage in the long run. In Greg's case, the lead poisoning theory is solid, IMO. To be honest, I think Greg's demise was a trauma for him and (he can't remember the specifics of the last 2 seasons he rode), to this day, he's still searching the exact answer to this. The mitochondria theme gives some answers, but not entirely satisfactory.

My analogy was about your investigation method: If you suspect your wife is cheating on you, you will interpret every one of her moves as a sign she's cheating on you, won't you ? What can she possibly say, what evidence can she produce that will assure you she never did ?

....that doesn't match my life experience...have met several rather successful people who match that description quite nicely...

Cheers

 

[ScienceIsCool]

Re: Re:

...
which then raises an altogether different question, what does Greg see bread and water cycling as.

This one is easy.

Otto Jacome 1988: '[H]e's clean - he's never taken any drugs. He won't even take vitamin shots. That will help him, too.''
''It's his cardiovascular system,'' Jacome said, tapping his chest. ''It's a gift, you have to be born with it.
http://www.nytimes.com/1988/06/05/magazine/struggling-back.html?pagewanted=all

Phil Anderson 2012:
I recall LeMond’s absolute stance against any medications during his career.
...
He, like many cyclists, has had to deal with losses at the hands of the cheats. He, like many, chose not to take advice and gifts of treatments from soigneur’s ‘vitamins’ – the contents of which were not know to him."
http://www.velonation.com/News/ID/13448/Anderson-vouches-for-LeMonds-integrity-as-a-pro-says-he-could-make-solid-interim-UCI-President.aspx

QS: There is a huge culture of the needle in cycling.
Greg: Well, they all took Vitamin B12 shots…I mean, who knows what else they took.
QS: You never succumbed?
Greg: Never. I took a multi-vitamin if I remembered to take a multi-vitamin...It might be every six weeks.
https://www.facebook.com/2Rmag/posts/534227359949423

1999:
Lemond was confronted by statements from a Dutch doctor recently, who claimed Lemond had introduced the dangerous hormore EPO into the peloton. "******", he responds angrily. "I only took Vitamin B and C pills".
https://retro.nrc.nl/W2/Lab/Tour99/d150799.html

So, no shots, just orally administered vitamins.
Never succumbed to the needle.
Absolute stance against any medications.

-------------------------------------
Reality is slightly different.

1989: After a few [iron] injections, he started to make a remarkable recovery.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/lifestyle/1990/06/29/lemonds-self-made-miracle/eb9b3fe2-ee74-4b6d-9d65-b26484c27c14/

1991: LeMond was forced to drop out of the Tour of Italy in June because he was suffering from fatigue. His father-in-law, Dave Morris, an immunologist, said the cause was never determined, but LeMond was getting regular blood tests.
LeMond's lawyer, Nathan Jenkins, said the blood disorder was being treated with shots.

1991: Indeed, antibiotics helped tide LeMond through the three flat stages before the Alps.
http://www.si.com/vault/1991/08/05/124658/tour-de-courage-greg-lemond-fought-sickness-and-adversity-in-the-78th-tour-de-france-and-finished-a-hero-though-not-a-winner

1993: Allergist David Morris, LeMond's father-in-law, said Greg is being treated with flu vaccine injections that help improve his immune system. http://articles.latimes.com/1993-07-03/sports/sp-9645_1_greg-lemond

You've highlighted perfectly how he only took shots when it was necessary to treat a medical condition and refused them when it was intended for recovery or doping.

John Swanson

 

[sniper]

Froome, Yates, regardless.
There always is a medical condition.
So what's your point?

He took at least some of those needles during stage races and continued racing when, alterantively, he could have quit. It was one of the main points of critique leveled at Sky and Froome wrt the 2013 Tour de Romandie: if Froome was really ill, why didn't Sky just pull him out of the race...
So just saying, Lemond "never succumbed to the needle", "only took vitamin pills", and "had absolute stance against any kind of medication", it's all rewriting history. Pretty much full stop.
And yes, his "needle adversity" sounds like a bit of a stretch, too.

On a side, and I will have to look for this, but there is an anecdote out there about Lemond drawing a bag of his own blood in 1993 and bringing it to a hospital in Belgium to have it tested. Anybody know more about this?

On another side, Lemond says he had chronic kidney infections and, at least as a kid, was treated for that with antibiotics on a regular basis. How do you go from there to having an "absolute stance against any kind of medication". @scienceiscool: I honestly think it's time you start questioning some of Phil "failed the Coors IQ test" Anderson's statements, rather than putting them forward as evidence of some sort.

 

[djpbaltimore]

I think parsing the term 'medication' ignores the context in which it was being discussed by Anderson. He was clearly talking euphemistically about things that were PEDs and how some would tacitly dope by not questioning whether the vitamins were actually vitamins. Context is important IMO, not just 7 words uttered in isolation.

 

[sniper]

Re:

I think parsing the term 'medication' ignores the context in which it was being discussed by Anderson. He was clearly talking euphemistically about things that were PEDs and how some would tacitly dope by not questioning whether the vitamins were actually vitamins. Context is important IMO, not just 7 words uttered in isolation.

another possibility is that it was just another cheap PR line trotted out by one doper to cover for another.
it's not as if that hasn't happened before.

 

[aphronesis]

Re: Re:

...
which then raises an altogether different question, what does Greg see bread and water cycling as.

This one is easy.

Otto Jacome 1988: '[H]e's clean - he's never taken any drugs. He won't even take vitamin shots. That will help him, too.''
''It's his cardiovascular system,'' Jacome said, tapping his chest. ''It's a gift, you have to be born with it.
http://www.nytimes.com/1988/06/05/magazine/struggling-back.html?pagewanted=all

Phil Anderson 2012:
I recall LeMond’s absolute stance against any medications during his career.
...
He, like many cyclists, has had to deal with losses at the hands of the cheats. He, like many, chose not to take advice and gifts of treatments from soigneur’s ‘vitamins’ – the contents of which were not know to him."
http://www.velonation.com/News/ID/13448/Anderson-vouches-for-LeMonds-integrity-as-a-pro-says-he-could-make-solid-interim-UCI-President.aspx

QS: There is a huge culture of the needle in cycling.
Greg: Well, they all took Vitamin B12 shots…I mean, who knows what else they took.
QS: You never succumbed?
Greg: Never. I took a multi-vitamin if I remembered to take a multi-vitamin...It might be every six weeks.
https://www.facebook.com/2Rmag/posts/534227359949423

1999:
Lemond was confronted by statements from a Dutch doctor recently, who claimed Lemond had introduced the dangerous hormore EPO into the peloton. "******", he responds angrily. "I only took Vitamin B and C pills".
https://retro.nrc.nl/W2/Lab/Tour99/d150799.html

So, no shots, just orally administered vitamins.
Never succumbed to the needle.
Absolute stance against any medications.

-------------------------------------
Reality is slightly different.

1989: After a few [iron] injections, he started to make a remarkable recovery.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/lifestyle/1990/06/29/lemonds-self-made-miracle/eb9b3fe2-ee74-4b6d-9d65-b26484c27c14/

1991: LeMond was forced to drop out of the Tour of Italy in June because he was suffering from fatigue. His father-in-law, Dave Morris, an immunologist, said the cause was never determined, but LeMond was getting regular blood tests.
LeMond's lawyer, Nathan Jenkins, said the blood disorder was being treated with shots.

1991: Indeed, antibiotics helped tide LeMond through the three flat stages before the Alps.
http://www.si.com/vault/1991/08/05/124658/tour-de-courage-greg-lemond-fought-sickness-and-adversity-in-the-78th-tour-de-france-and-finished-a-hero-though-not-a-winner

1993: Allergist David Morris, LeMond's father-in-law, said Greg is being treated with flu vaccine injections that help improve his immune system. http://articles.latimes.com/1993-07-03/sports/sp-9645_1_greg-lemond

You've highlighted perfectly how he only took shots when it was necessary to treat a medical condition and refused them when it was intended for recovery or doping.

John Swanson

You were there throughout? Excellent.