LeMond III

[blutto]

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.

....to the bolded....absolutely bang on....so much of the material and background from the pre-digital days is now simply gone missing and all we have left are the shiny editorialized to maximum effect narratives....the fans, and I'll wager most of them came on board after 89, have no access or never had access to the contrast state the 80's represent...

Cheers

 

[acoggan]

Re: Re:

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.

I definitely wouldn't make the same claim, having only raced against him as a junior a few times, not being a huge fan of pro cycling, and only spending an evening and a day with him many years later (on his dime). My impression based on the latter experience, however, is that he is more than sufficiently intelligent to understand the physiology of exercise and training, but at the same time is not formally educated in the area, and thus may not always use precisely the same terminology or describe things exactly the same way that a scientist would, even if he understands the basics well enough. He also seems to be one of those people who just says whatever he's thinking at the moment, without considering how it might be received. Combine the two, and I can see how based on his public statements he could be painted as both a master manipulator and as someone who is not very bright, especially on a forum such as this one.

 

[@NL_LeMondFans]

Re: Re:

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.

I definitely wouldn't make the same claim, having only raced against him as a junior a few times, not being a huge fan of pro cycling, and only spending an evening and a day with him many years later (on his dime). My impression based on the latter experience, however, is that he is more than sufficiently intelligent to understand the physiology of exercise and training, but at the same time is not formally educated in the area, and thus may not always use precisely the same terminology or describe things exactly the same way that a scientist would, even if he understands the basics well enough. He also seems to be one of those people who just says whatever he's thinking at the moment, without considering how it might be received. Combine the two, and I can see how based on his public statements he could be painted as both a master manipulator and as someone who is not very bright, especially on a forum such as this one.

Totally agree.

 

[sniper]

...

I definitely wouldn't make the same claim, having only raced against him as a junior a few times, not being a huge fan of pro cycling, and only spending an evening and a day with him (on his dime). My impression based on the latter experience, however, is that he is more than sufficiently intelligent to understand the physiology of exercise and training, but at the same time is not formally educated in the area, and thus may not always use precisely the same terminology or describe things exactly the same way that a scientist would, even if he understands the basics well enough. .

agreed.
But importantly, most of the inconsistencies in his background story have very little, if anything, to do with his education.
Maybe the VO2max stuff, that might be due to (a lack of) formal education.
But when he assures us he only took vitamin pills, whereas there are several records of him taking injections during stage races, that has nothing to do with his education.
When he says he had no blood tests two years after the shooting...
When he says he only learned about EPO in 1993 through an ONCE rider, or that doping came on the scene in the 90s...
When he says he quit PDM over drugs, but then signed for the one team that had most positives in 87-88, a known cortisone doc, a future distributor of pot belge as a masseur, and a coach who would later get caught up in a belgian PED ring bust...again, you cannot attribute that to his (lack of) education.

acoggan:
... I can see how based on his public statements he could be painted as both a master manipulator and as someone who is not very bright

i don't think anybody would, or has tried to, paint him as a master manipulator. As just another doper with difficulties to keep his story straight, perhaps.
If he doped, the fact that he still has such a considerable share of fans who think he's clean, imo he owes that (a) to being very careful with his doping and not talking about it with people outside his direct entourage and (b) to a number of historical and social factors that he's had no influence on (see the US cycling thread for more thoughts on that).

 

[sniper]

Re: 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.

....to the bolded....absolutely bang on....so much of the material and background from the pre-digital days is now simply gone missing and all we have left are the shiny editorialized to maximum effect narratives....the fans, and I'll wager most of them came on board after 89, have no access or never had access to the contrast state the 80's represent...

Cheers

someone who did have access to the state of cycling in the 80s is Willy Voet, who was quoted saying:

Asked about such stars as five-time Tour de France champion Miguel Indurain of Spain (1991 through '95), and Americans Greg LeMond, a three-time Tour winner (1986, '89, '90), and Lance Armstrong, the '93 road race world champion, Voet chose his words carefully. "In my book I only wrote about things I saw with my own eyes," he said. "I never worked with LeMond or those other great champions, so I cannot say for certain they were doing that. But virtually all the good racers I worked with were taking drugs. And that was also true in the '80s." http://simon-ville.blogspot.com/2011/01/willy-voet-revealed-all-what-is-wrong.html

 

[ScienceIsCool]

Re: 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.

Another possibility is he was talking about nanobots. Nanotechnology really took off in the late eighties. You should really look into that. Greg might be the first to introduce nano-organisms into pro cycling. I bet you could find all *kinds* of links.

John Swanson

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Re: 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.

Another possibility is he was talking about nanobots. Nanotechnology really took off in the late eighties. You should really look into that. Greg might be the first to introduce nano-organisms into pro cycling. I bet you could find all *kinds* of links.

John Swanson

Wow you really do have a problem with sniper looking up information. Why so personal?

 

[Irondan]

Let's keep it on topic, and impersonal please.

Mr. Swanson will not be answering any questions for a week.

Cheers

 

[Dr.Guess]

Re:

Let's keep it on topic, and impersonal please.

Mr. Swanson will not be answering any questions for a week.

Cheers

That was a fun way of putting it..

 

[harryh]

Re: Re:

Let's keep it on topic, and impersonal please.

Mr. Swanson will not be answering any questions for a week.

Cheers

That was a fun way of putting it..

Yeah, I think we all giggle a little for that

 

[@NL_LeMondFans]

Re:

But importantly, most of the inconsistencies in his background story have very little, if anything, to do with his education.
Maybe the VO2max stuff, that might be due to (a lack of) formal education.
But when he assures us he only took vitamin pills, whereas there are several records of him taking injections during stage races, that has nothing to do with his education.
When he says he had no blood tests two years after the shooting...
When he says he only learned about EPO in 1993 through an ONCE rider, or that doping came on the scene in the 90s...
When he says he quit PDM over drugs, but then signed for the one team that had most positives in 87-88, a known cortisone doc, a future distributor of pot belge as a masseur, and a coach who would later get caught up in a belgian PED ring bust...again, you cannot attribute that to his (lack of) education.

You forget one tiny thing : when he answered journalists, Greg ignored he was facing a trial and that everything he said would be held against him. We should stop thinking what was reported in a magazine 20 or 30 years ago is gospel.

i don't think anybody would, or has tried to, paint him as a master manipulator. As just another doper with difficulties to keep his story straight, perhaps.
If he doped, the fact that he still has such a considerable share of fans who think he's clean, imo he owes that (a) to being very careful with his doping and not talking about it with people outside his direct entourage and (b) to a number of historical and social factors that he's had no influence on (see the US cycling thread for more thoughts on that).

So... a)He was very careful with his entourage but at the same time totally aloof with journalists ? That's hardly a doper strategy. Or a really bad one.
b)While a lot of the case brought up here is based on the fact that the odds of Greg being clean are very slim, suddenly he's lucky as hell, say one in a trillion, because "historical and social factors" played out well for him ? Good odds = doper. Bad odds = doper too.

 

[sniper]

Re: Re:

...b)While a lot of the case brought up here is based on the fact that the odds of Greg being clean are very slim, suddenly he's lucky as hell, say one in a trillion, because "historical and social factors" played out well for him ? Good odds = doper. Bad odds = doper too.

Not sure what you mean here.
Most dopers get lucky. It's why most pros dope.

 

[sniper]

on bread and water?

He turned 20 during the Coors race and single-handedly defeated the Big Red Machine, the Soviet Union team. It earned LeMond national publicity, including a story in Sports Illustrated. "It was one of my better wins," LeMond said, "because of the publicity and the Russians. "There is a lot of controversy about them because they are so-called amateurs. They are really pros and they compete against the pros and beat them sometimes. "I still get a lot of press from it because I basically beat them by myself. They were shocked because team-wise they were much superior. Our team just sent its young riders, 21- and 22-years-old, and they were all 25 and 26, older and more mature." LeMond's teammates were no match for what is considered the best international field ever in a U.S. race. LeMond, however, went against the Russians on his own. He won the leader's jersey on the sixth of eight days of racing. And, he kept it until the end, fighting off a belated power play by the Soviet Union team in the last long stage, the 92-mile Morgul-Bis-marck in the mountains outside of Boulder.

https://www.newspapers.com/newspage/149469742/

 

[sniper]

http://www.roble.net/marquis/coaching/lemond98.html

Lemond rewriting history

"Here in America you can train at altitude any time you want and get the same benefit from altitude as from EPO.
...
"The problem with Americans is that our ethics are sometimes a bit naive-don't get me wrong, the American ethic is really good, I like the American attitude, but it doesn't really bite into the reality of situation."

Naive...

on a side, I'd be curious to hear what Hagerman, Burke and Eddie were doing with him at the OTCs in Colorado.

"Steroids, on the other hand, accelerate recovery. I went steroid free throughout my whole career. "

Blame the Italians:

...I do think, however, that the Italians have changed the sport in a really bad way.

So why did your clean buddies at 7-Eleven bring Max Testa on board again?

That interview, like so many other Lemond interviews when on the topic of doping.
I'm sorry...It just doesn't quite cut it. And that's putting it mildly.

 

[blutto]

Re:

http://www.roble.net/marquis/coaching/lemond98.html

Lemond rewriting history

"Here in America you can train at altitude any time you want and get the same benefit from altitude as from EPO.
...
"The problem with Americans is that our ethics are sometimes a bit naive-don't get me wrong, the American ethic is really good, I like the American attitude, but it doesn't really bite into the reality of situation."

Naive...

on a side, I'd be curious to hear what Hagerman, Burke and Eddie were doing with him at the OTCs in Colorado.

"Steroids, on the other hand, accelerate recovery. I went steroid free throughout my whole career. "

Blame the Italians:

...I do think, however, that the Italians have changed the sport in a really bad way.

So why did your clean buddies at 7-Eleven bring Max Testa on board again?

That interview, like so many other Lemond interviews when on the topic of doping.
I'm sorry...It just doesn't quite cut it. And that's putting it mildly.

....of course its naïve....like really, what else could it possibly be ?....

Cheers

 

[sniper]

Re: Re:

...
....of course its naïve....like really, what else could it possibly be ?....
Cheers

Lemond and Hampsten playing dumb about drugs/peds is such a give away.

The stuff I'm reading, I mean, steroids, amphetamines, hormones, diuretics, testosterone, all that stuff was absolutely *rampant* in the US throughout the 70s and 80s, in all sports.
From the late 60s onwards USOC knew all about it but shoved it under the carpet. Saying they 'ignored' it would be wrong. They didn't ignore it. Rather, they organized internal testing and seminars teaching athletes how long certain drugs would stay in their bodies.

Both Lemond and Hampsten went through the OTC and never lost their connections to the American cycling scene. The chances that they didn't get wind of any of this are close to zero, imo.

And if the wider US audience was at all 'naive' about PEDs, that certainly ceased to be the case after the 1983 Pan Am Games and the 1984 LA Games.

There are quite a few good articles and books on the topic of steroid/ped abuse in the US in the 70s and 80s.
The article "Anabolic Steroids: The Gremlins of Sport" gives a pretty good overview and some good references for further reading.

 

[sniper]

Briefly getting back to the Jacome issue and the question "why hire a Mexican coach/soigneur", here's a paragraph from the above mentioned article "Anabolic Steroids: The Gremlins of Sport" (1987, Terry Todd):

An Ohio drug dealer who was arrested by FDA officials in 1985 consented to
talk about the extent of the drug network in the United States. A former world
champion with a good job, he began dealing steroids on the side during the late
seventies. At first, it was simply a way for him to cover the expense of his own
drug use; he saw himself as helping his fellow lifters. His insights into the extent
of the drug traffic in athletics are important in understanding the size of the
industry.

"I can’t be sure, of course, but I think there may be as many as 10 dealers in the
U.S. who grossed at least $l,000,000 last year, and they’ll net at least half of that.
And some do more. The way it works with the domestic stuff is that the big dealers either get it from drug manufacturing companies, from drug wholesale houses, from pharmacists, or from other big dealers and then sell it either to users or to local distributors Most of the main dealers have two or three hungry pharmacists in their pocket.
You’ve got to realize that pharmacists can make more by spending a few hours a
month ordering steroids for a big dealer than they can all the rest of the month
running a drug store. Figure it out. They can get Dianabol, for instance, for around
$7 a bottle, and it will sell on the street for $20 or $30 or even as much as $40 and
$50 on the West Coast. I can get it for $11 a bottle, so you can see there’s a lot of
money made as it changes hands. I believe there must be at least 200 pharmacists
in the U.S. dealing steroids on the black market."

"Another way the stuff gets on the market is through Mexico. My guess is that at
least 100 guys go down regularly to buy drugs and then smuggle them across the
Texas or California border. The Mexican connection is really valuable because of the devaluation of the peso. You can buy Primabolin down there for maybe 30 to 40 cents a unit and sell it up here for four dollars."

 

[the delgados]

re Andy Hampsten:
I recall reading an interview in which he said he would discourage kids from taking up the sport.
That doesn't sound like something a clean rider would say.
Seems to me a clean rider who won the Giro would actively encourage the next generation to take up the sport.

 

[gillan1969]

re Andy Hampsten:
I recall reading an interview in which he said he would discourage kids from taking up the sport.
That doesn't sound like something a clean rider would say.
Seems to me a clean rider who won the Giro would actively encourage the next generation to take up the sport.

when was the interview?

if in 88/89 he might have actively encouraged the next generation

if the interview was in the tail end of his career with Ferrari et al he might have answered rather differently

but hey.....he floats, oops sorry he sinks...oh well burn him anyway

 

[the delgados]

re Andy Hampsten:
I recall reading an interview in which he said he would discourage kids from taking up the sport.
That doesn't sound like something a clean rider would say.
Seems to me a clean rider who won the Giro would actively encourage the next generation to take up the sport.

when was the interview?

if in 88/89 he might have actively encouraged the next generation

if the interview was in the tail end of his career with Ferrari et al he might have answered rather differently

but hey.....he floats, oops sorry he sinks...oh well burn him anyway

Point taken.
Again, I'm a nobody who does not profess to know if Lemond and/or Hampsten took doping products.
I'm just here to read and add a few off the cuff stuff statements here and there.
To answer your question: I recall reading the Velonews interview a few years ago; so yeah, well past his Giro win.

 

[@NL_LeMondFans]

Re:

Briefly getting back to the Jacome issue and the question "why hire a Mexican coach/soigneur", here's a paragraph from the above mentioned article "Anabolic Steroids: The Gremlins of Sport" (1987, Terry Todd):

An Ohio drug dealer who was arrested by FDA officials in 1985 consented to
talk about the extent of the drug network in the United States. A former world
champion with a good job, he began dealing steroids on the side during the late
seventies. At first, it was simply a way for him to cover the expense of his own
drug use; he saw himself as helping his fellow lifters. His insights into the extent
of the drug traffic in athletics are important in understanding the size of the
industry.

"I can’t be sure, of course, but I think there may be as many as 10 dealers in the
U.S. who grossed at least $l,000,000 last year, and they’ll net at least half of that.
And some do more. The way it works with the domestic stuff is that the big dealers either get it from drug manufacturing companies, from drug wholesale houses, from pharmacists, or from other big dealers and then sell it either to users or to local distributors Most of the main dealers have two or three hungry pharmacists in their pocket.
You’ve got to realize that pharmacists can make more by spending a few hours a
month ordering steroids for a big dealer than they can all the rest of the month
running a drug store. Figure it out. They can get Dianabol, for instance, for around
$7 a bottle, and it will sell on the street for $20 or $30 or even as much as $40 and
$50 on the West Coast. I can get it for $11 a bottle, so you can see there’s a lot of
money made as it changes hands. I believe there must be at least 200 pharmacists
in the U.S. dealing steroids on the black market."

"Another way the stuff gets on the market is through Mexico. My guess is that at
least 100 guys go down regularly to buy drugs and then smuggle them across the
Texas or California border. The Mexican connection is really valuable because of the devaluation of the peso. You can buy Primabolin down there for maybe 30 to 40 cents a unit and sell it up here for four dollars."

So, your interpretation of all this is that Otto Jacome was employed to access the Mexican drugs market ?

My interpretation is that if he had wanted to dope, Greg could have settled with any "drug dealer from Ohio" or anyone of the "200 pharmacists" and/or the "100 guys" that were flooding the market already.

Furthermore, if I follow your narrative you were saying that only Greg LeMond had enough money to acquire the fully medically equipped van needed for blood transfusions during the Tour. So why would he need to by "cheap" products ? Unless you're saying he was selling drugs too ? I'm confused.

 

[sniper]

My only point in that previous post was to show that Otto would have had ready access drugs.
But you're right of course. Greg would have gotten his dope without Otto as well. Just like Lance would have gotten his without Ferrari. Or Contador without Pepe.

You do know that soigneur is widespread procycling jargon for fixer, do you?
So why in your opinion did Otto come to play such a dominant role in Lemond's carreer, going from being his trainer to his confident and soigneur?
Did you ever ask him about it? If not, why not?
And do you have any idea what happened to Otto after Lemond's carreer?
Somebody should try to track him down, interview the guy.

 

[pmcg76]

Re:

My only point in that previous post was to show that Otto would have had ready access drugs.
But you're right of course. Greg would have gotten his dope without Otto as well. Just like Lance would have gotten his without Ferrari. Or Contador without Pepe.

You do know that soigneur is widespread procycling jargon for fixer, do you?
So why in your opinion did Otto come to play such a dominant role in Lemond's carreer, going from being his trainer to his confident and soigneur?
Did you ever ask him about it? If not, why not?
And do you have any idea what happened to Otto after Lemond's carreer?
Somebody should try to track him down, interview the guy.

No, a soigneur was primarily a person who gave massage to the riders. There were soigneurs who got into the doping side of things and they were those who did not. Just a read of Christophe Bassons would educate you on that one. Not all soigneurs were fixers but as usual you like to make that assumption.

Again, anyone who has any background knowledge of the sport would know that riders had favourites when it came to giving massage. They formed a personal between soigneur and rider, for example Bassons had a bond with the soigneurs at Festina who were not pushing dope. The chances are LeMond liked Jacome becuase he liked how he was looked after and he trusted him. Maybe that trust was based on knowing Jacome wouldn't push anything on him, maybe it is the opposite.

I don't think anyone is going to try and track down Jacome for an interview just so people can twist his words to fit whatever narrative they are pushing.

 

[sniper]

Re: Re:

No,

no what?

 

[@NL_LeMondFans]

Re:

My only point in that previous post was to show that Otto would have had ready access drugs.
But you're right of course. Greg would have gotten his dope without Otto as well. Just like Lance would have gotten his without Ferrari. Or Contador without Pepe.

You do know that soigneur is widespread procycling jargon for fixer, do you?

No, I don't.

So why in your opinion did Otto come to play such a dominant role in Lemond's carreer, going from being his trainer to his confident and soigneur?

The answer is simple : they became friends. The fact that you ignore the most simple and plausible explanation is very revelatory of your method.

Did you ever ask him about it? If not, why not?

What I do or do not do with Greg is none of your business.

And do you have any idea what happened to Otto after Lemond's carreer?
Somebody should try to track him down, interview the guy.

Be careful when you track down a "Mexican drug dealer".