LeMond III

Page 58 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Status
Not open for further replies.
Oct 16, 2010
19,912
2
0
Re: Re:

@NL_LeMondFans said:
sniper said:
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.

sniper said:
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.

sniper said:
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.
that's all fair enough.

Be careful when you track down a "Mexican drug dealer".
true story :)

for the record, otto is just another dodgy character in his entourage, one that nobody has ever been able to shed any kind of light on. It's all rather compatible with the view of Lemond as an early doper.
Not so much with a clean rider who has nothing to hide.
But we can do without Otto.
 
Just to highlight a few more non-sensical posts here.

An analogy was made about investigating rumours concerning a wife.

Well to equate it with the LeMond case, the rumours would have been started by a jilted ex lover(PDM) who thought they had found the one(LeMond to win the Tour) but then found themselves dumped when it didn't work out(separating on bad terms) and then had to watch as the ex(LeMond) went onto do what they had always dreamed off(winning the Tour) with another person(ADR). The jilted ex never found the one(to win the Tour) and it all ended rather badly for them(intralipid affair) when they tried to experiment with others.

We know how much credence is given to 'rumours' from jilted ex-lovers, thus why nobody gives the PDM rumours much consideration.

It has also been argued that the iron shots in 89 were actually EPO that transformed LeMond in less than a week. But then we have the same poster(sniper) claiming LeMond taking 2 months out in spring 1990 as suspicious. If it took less than a week to work in 89, they why would it take over 2 months in 1990?? disreagrding the fact that when LeMond did come back after the 'break' in 1990 at the Tour de Trump, he was rubbish and this is where we have Oliver Starr(again used as a claim by the same poster) claiming LeMond could not have improved enough in 2 months from Trump to win the Tour. Utterly baffling notions that totally contradict each other but are all viewed as 'evidence'.

For the record, a lot earlier in this thread that has now been hacked to bits, Joe Papp(who knows a thing or two about doping) pointed out that a cycle of EPO took about 4 weeks to make a difference. Even those guys who transformed in the 90s, it didn't just happen in a week. Bjarne Riis said the first time he tried EPO was late 1992, when did he start producing results to match? well into 1993. The big breakout was the Tour 93 which was a good 8/9 months and more after he started on EPO. Yet LeMond did the same transformation in a week :eek: .
 
Oct 16, 2010
19,912
2
0
pmcg76 said:
Just to highlight a few more non-sensical posts here.

An analogy was made about investigating rumours concerning a wife.

Well to equate it with the LeMond case, the rumours would have been started by a jilted ex lover(PDM) who thought they had found the one(LeMond to win the Tour) but then found themselves dumped when it didn't work out(separating on bad terms) and then had to watch as the ex(LeMond) went onto do what they had always dreamed off(winning the Tour) with another person(ADR). The jilted ex never found the one(to win the Tour) and it all ended rather badly for them(intralipid affair) when they tried to experiment with others.

We know how much credence is given to 'rumours' from jilted ex-lovers, thus why nobody gives the PDM rumours much consideration.

It has also been argued that the iron shots in 89 were actually EPO that transformed LeMond in less than a week. But then we have the same poster(sniper) claiming LeMond taking 2 months out in spring 1990 as suspicious. If it took less than a week to work in 89, they why would it take over 2 months in 1990?? disreagrding the fact that when LeMond did come back after the 'break' in 1990 at the Tour de Trump, he was rubbish and this is where we have Oliver Starr(again used as a claim by the same poster) claiming LeMond could not have improved enough in 2 months from Trump to win the Tour. Utterly baffling notions that totally contradict each other but are all viewed as 'evidence'.
maybe you should stop pretending we should have an answer to everything, or know exactly why a given rider does xyz and not xyz.
I remember when the Floyd emails broke. And even before that. The reaction of the pro-Lance-camp against doping accusations was typically along the lines of: "if Lance doped, then why did he do that and that, and why didn't he do that and that. If he doped, this and this doesn't make sense".
Now much the same with Froome and Sky. "If they dope, then why aren't they winning everything, why do they suck at one day races", etc.
It's just better to accept that we don't know all the details about these doping programs. Some illnesses might be faked, others might be real. Etc. Such is procycling.

If this is the best case you can build for why Lemond is different from all those other GT winners, it's not looking good.

Also, stop putting words in my mouth. It's getting a bit tiresome.
"sniper used Starr as a claim", what does that even mean?
 
sniper said:
maybe you should stop pretending we should have an answer to everything, or know exactly why a given rider does xyz and not xyz.

But isn't it exactly what you're doing when you write this (to the bolded) ? Because that seems to be your answer to everything.

sniper said:
for the record, otto is just another dodgy character in his entourage, one that nobody has ever been able to shed any kind of light on. It's all rather compatible with the view of Lemond as an early doper.
Not so much with a clean rider who has nothing to hide.
But we can do without Otto.

Then...

sniper said:
I remember when the Floyd emails broke. And even before that. The reaction of the pro-Lance-camp against doping accusations was typically along the lines of: "if Lance doped, then why did he do that and that, and why didn't he do that and that. If he doped, this and this doesn't make sense".
Now much the same with Froome and Sky. "If they dope, then why aren't they winning everything, why do they suck at one day races", etc.
It's just better to accept that we don't know all the details about these doping programs. Some illnesses might be faked, others might be real. Etc. Such is procycling.

For once and for all, can you tell us how a clean rider is supposed to defend himself ? What is a credible answer to doping accusations that has not been employed by former dopers helped by a legal team ? Seriously, I'm curious.
 
Oct 16, 2010
19,912
2
0
@NL_LeMondFans said:
But isn't it exactly what you're doing when you write this (to the bolded) ? Because that seems to be your answer to everything.
if pcmg tells me those two months in 1990 dont mean much either way, thats fair enough. i can live with that :)
afaic remember, i pointed out those periods as part of a long list of illnesses.
he was ill twice that year, with unspecified viruses. i dont pretend to know what he did in those two months, or what he was suffering from.
 
sniper said:
pmcg76 said:
Just to highlight a few more non-sensical posts here.

An analogy was made about investigating rumours concerning a wife.

Well to equate it with the LeMond case, the rumours would have been started by a jilted ex lover(PDM) who thought they had found the one(LeMond to win the Tour) but then found themselves dumped when it didn't work out(separating on bad terms) and then had to watch as the ex(LeMond) went onto do what they had always dreamed off(winning the Tour) with another person(ADR). The jilted ex never found the one(to win the Tour) and it all ended rather badly for them(intralipid affair) when they tried to experiment with others.

We know how much credence is given to 'rumours' from jilted ex-lovers, thus why nobody gives the PDM rumours much consideration.

It has also been argued that the iron shots in 89 were actually EPO that transformed LeMond in less than a week. But then we have the same poster(sniper) claiming LeMond taking 2 months out in spring 1990 as suspicious. If it took less than a week to work in 89, they why would it take over 2 months in 1990?? disreagrding the fact that when LeMond did come back after the 'break' in 1990 at the Tour de Trump, he was rubbish and this is where we have Oliver Starr(again used as a claim by the same poster) claiming LeMond could not have improved enough in 2 months from Trump to win the Tour. Utterly baffling notions that totally contradict each other but are all viewed as 'evidence'.
maybe you should stop pretending we should have an answer to everything, or know exactly why a given rider does xyz and not xyz.
I remember when the Floyd emails broke. And even before that. The reaction of the pro-Lance-camp against doping accusations was typically along the lines of: "if Lance doped, then why did he do that and that, and why didn't he do that and that. If he doped, this and this doesn't make sense".
Now much the same with Froome and Sky. "If they dope, then why aren't they winning everything, why do they suck at one day races", etc.
It's just better to accept that we don't know all the details about these doping programs. Some illnesses might be faked, others might be real. Etc. Such is procycling.

If this is the best case you can build for why Lemond is different from all those other GT winners, it's not looking good.

Also, stop putting words in my mouth. It's getting a bit tiresome.
"sniper used Starr as a claim", what does that even mean?

It means when you were doing your dot joining, you used Starrs claims of LeMond doping as a dot against LeMond. Simples.

I love how now you don't have answers but you can still use whatever unfounded claims you wish to make accusations against people.
 
sniper said:
@NL_LeMondFans said:
But isn't it exactly what you're doing when you write this (to the bolded) ? Because that seems to be your answer to everything.
if pcmg tells me those two months in 1990 dont mean much either way, thats fair enough. i can live with that :)
afaic remember, i pointed out those periods as part of a long list of illnesses.
he was ill twice that year, with unspecified viruses. i dont pretend to know what he did in those two months, or what he was suffering from.

I think you miss the point. IMO, this sole sentence resumes the whole thread "It's all rather compatible with the view of Lemond as an early dope".

We are dismissed for "nitpicking" a lot. You can't get away with something as vague as "I say it because it's compatible". Again, bein a pro-cyclist makes every rider compatible with doping, for many reasons. But it needs more than that.
 
Re: Re:

sniper said:
for the record, otto is just another dodgy character in his entourage, one that nobody has ever been able to shed any kind of light on. It's all rather compatible with the view of Lemond as an early doper.
Not so much with a clean rider who has nothing to hide.

But we can do without Otto.

Otto becomes dodgy only because you make him look dodgy. And all the "dodginess" rests on him being Mexican.

Why on Earth should Otto "come into the light" for ? Not everyone is begging for attention.

The bolded comment is unfounded, at best. Rather pernicious, IMO.
 
Oct 16, 2010
19,912
2
0
Again, bein a pro-cyclist makes every rider compatible with doping, for many reasons.
agreed. which is why the null hypothesis is as it is.
and yes, most of what i,m finding on lemond seems to provide support for the null hypothesis.
i,m not finding anything that speaks against it.
are you?
 
sniper said:
Again, bein a pro-cyclist makes every rider compatible with doping, for many reasons.
agreed. which is why the null hypothesis is as it is.
and yes, most of what i,m finding on lemond seems to provide support for the null hypothesis.
i,m not finding anything that speaks against it.
are you?

Then why are you even trying to prove it. If you believe in null hypothesis, they you should not have to try to prove it, it is what you believe regradless of what evidence there is or isn't. This is clearly something you dont seem to get. Therefore there would seem to be only one reason for your continous posting on the subject.
 
May 26, 2010
28,143
5
0
The reason to continue posting is to try and get a discussion going and it has done. Well done sniper.

Some have held up LeMond (including me on previous occasions) as the outlier of clean racing and performance. That is doubted now by people (including me) as LeMond has not been as anti-doping as he could be and is happy to share the stage with known dopers.

There is no harm to review his career and look to try and see if LeMond is another one of the of the guys who doped and got a way with it. Heck even Kimmage doped! The culture was and has remained to dope to perform. Why is LeMond any different? I dont see Hinault, Merckx or Indurain coming out about their doping, no expects any rider to admit (with rare exceptions mainly those caught) so LeMond is in good company if he doped and is keeping schtum.
 
Re:

Benotti69 said:
The reason to continue posting is to try and get a discussion going and it has done. Well done sniper.

Some have held up LeMond (including me on previous occasions) as the outlier of clean racing and performance. That is doubted now by people (including me) as LeMond has not been as anti-doping as he could be and is happy to share the stage with known dopers.

There is no harm to review his career and look to try and see if LeMond is another one of the of the guys who doped and got a way with it. Heck even Kimmage doped! The culture was and has remained to dope to perform. Why is LeMond any different? I dont see Hinault, Merckx or Indurain coming out about their doping, no expects any rider to admit (with rare exceptions mainly those caught) so LeMond is in good company if he doped and is keeping schtum.

Except there has been precious little discussion unless you call 'discussion' posters making things up, distorting facts, ignoring anything to the contrary and just in general not having a clue what they are talking about. If you have to resort to that level of posting, then it is very clear that is not a discussion, period.

After all this rambling, what actual 'new' evidence of LeMond doping has come to light that hasn't been distorted, twisted, inferred or insinuated by sniper?
 
Oct 16, 2010
19,912
2
0
Re: Re:

pmcg76 said:
...
After all this rambling, what actual 'new' evidence of LeMond doping has come to light that hasn't been distorted, twisted, inferred or insinuated by sniper?
seems you were right all along.
Mottet was clean, which shows that you could win clean, ergo Lemond and Hampsten were clean.
 
May 26, 2010
28,143
5
0
Re: Re:

pmcg76 said:
Benotti69 said:
The reason to continue posting is to try and get a discussion going and it has done. Well done sniper.

Some have held up LeMond (including me on previous occasions) as the outlier of clean racing and performance. That is doubted now by people (including me) as LeMond has not been as anti-doping as he could be and is happy to share the stage with known dopers.

There is no harm to review his career and look to try and see if LeMond is another one of the of the guys who doped and got a way with it. Heck even Kimmage doped! The culture was and has remained to dope to perform. Why is LeMond any different? I dont see Hinault, Merckx or Indurain coming out about their doping, no expects any rider to admit (with rare exceptions mainly those caught) so LeMond is in good company if he doped and is keeping schtum.

Except there has been precious little discussion unless you call 'discussion' posters making things up, distorting facts, ignoring anything to the contrary and just in general not having a clue what they are talking about. If you have to resort to that level of posting, then it is very clear that is not a discussion, period.

After all this rambling, what actual 'new' evidence of LeMond doping has come to light that hasn't been distorted, twisted, inferred or insinuated by sniper?

I think LeMond's actions speak louder than words. Sharing a car with some major dopers and being all smiles about it kind of tells me a lot about the mindset of LeMond.
 
Re: Re:

Benotti69 said:
pmcg76 said:
Benotti69 said:
The reason to continue posting is to try and get a discussion going and it has done. Well done sniper.

Some have held up LeMond (including me on previous occasions) as the outlier of clean racing and performance. That is doubted now by people (including me) as LeMond has not been as anti-doping as he could be and is happy to share the stage with known dopers.

There is no harm to review his career and look to try and see if LeMond is another one of the of the guys who doped and got a way with it. Heck even Kimmage doped! The culture was and has remained to dope to perform. Why is LeMond any different? I dont see Hinault, Merckx or Indurain coming out about their doping, no expects any rider to admit (with rare exceptions mainly those caught) so LeMond is in good company if he doped and is keeping schtum.

Except there has been precious little discussion unless you call 'discussion' posters making things up, distorting facts, ignoring anything to the contrary and just in general not having a clue what they are talking about. If you have to resort to that level of posting, then it is very clear that is not a discussion, period.

After all this rambling, what actual 'new' evidence of LeMond doping has come to light that hasn't been distorted, twisted, inferred or insinuated by sniper?

I think LeMond's actions speak louder than words. Sharing a car with some major dopers and being all smiles about it kind of tells me a lot about the mindset of LeMond.

Pretty tight view of public associations to guilt. Not sure anyone can measure up to that standard...
 
sniper said:
Again, bein a pro-cyclist makes every rider compatible with doping, for many reasons.
agreed. which is why the null hypothesis is as it is.
and yes, most of what i,m finding on lemond seems to provide support for the null hypothesis.
i,m not finding anything that speaks against it.
are you?

Here lies all the problem. I don't deny you've put a lot of valuable energy on this, but it is incredibly easy to insinuate a pro cyclist doped "just throw a rock in the air you're bound to hit someone guilty". It is very easy to insinuate bad things and question people. It's never been that easy in the human history. Should I bring back the "cheating your wife" analogy ? Hey, an anonymous person saw Mr X's wife with a guy the other day, they were having fun. Hey why else would she take an appointment to the dentist on a saturday morning, really ? Hey, Mr X found "50 shades of Grey" in her nightstand, what else could it mean (than her having an affair) ? Mr X met this co worker of hers the other day, he gave him the weirdest look... Paranoia.

Nothing you'll find on your online search will "speak against it". Even poor Otto on whom you had absolutely no information was dragged into the gutter. Because "nothing speaks against it". Kathy LeMond's father was portrayed as a doper because "nothing speaks against it". The LeMond family van was described as a blood exchange clinic between family members because "nothing speaks against it". Greg's deceased ex-teammates actually link him to doping because "nothing speaks against it". Greg's efforts to improve his performances make him a doper because "nothing speaks against it". Greg's demise is also a sign of too much doping since "nothing speaks against it". Greg's attempts at understanding why is performances decreased are suspicious since "nothing speaks against it"...

Yeah, nothing speaks against it... Except when you actually meet the guy and realize he is one of the most genuine, down to earth person you've met.

Told you I was a Star Wars fan ? I'll tell you this. At a very young age I decided I would not give in to the dark side and spend my energy on positive thoughts, feelings and attitudes. Regarding Greg, I made a website, I wrote a blog. Some people feed this thread. We all have to choose our own path, young padawans.

Luke: Is the dark side stronger?
Yoda: No, no, no. Quicker, easier, more seductive.
Luke: But how am I to know the good side from the bad?
Yoda: You will know... when you are calm, at peace, passive. A Jedi uses the Force for knowledge and defense, NEVER for attack.
 
@NL_LeMondFans said:
sniper said:
Again, bein a pro-cyclist makes every rider compatible with doping, for many reasons.
agreed. which is why the null hypothesis is as it is.
and yes, most of what i,m finding on lemond seems to provide support for the null hypothesis.
i,m not finding anything that speaks against it.
are you?

Here lies all the problem. I don't deny you've put a lot of valuable energy on this, but it is incredibly easy to insinuate a pro cyclist doped "just throw a rock in the air you're bound to hit someone guilty". It is very easy to insinuate bad things and question people. It's never been that easy in the human history. Should I bring back the "cheating your wife" analogy ? Hey, an anonymous person saw Mr X's wife with a guy the other day, they were having fun. Hey why else would she take an appointment to the dentist on a saturday morning, really ? Hey, Mr X found "50 shades of Grey" in her nightstand, what else could it mean (than her having an affair) ? Mr X met this co worker of hers the other day, he gave him the weirdest look... Paranoia.

Nothing you'll find on your online search will "speak against it". Even poor Otto on whom you had absolutely no information was dragged into the gutter. Because "nothing speaks against it". Kathy LeMond's father was portrayed as a doper because "nothing speaks against it". The LeMond family van was described as a blood exchange clinic between family members because "nothing speaks against it". Greg's deceased ex-teammates actually link him to doping because "nothing speaks against it". Greg's efforts to improve his performances make him a doper because "nothing speaks against it". Greg's demise is also a sign of too much doping since "nothing speaks against it". Greg's attempts at understanding why is performances decreased are suspicious since "nothing speaks against it"...

[b]Yeah, nothing speaks against it... Except when you actually meet the guy and realize he is one of the most genuine, down to earth person you've met.
[/b]
Told you I was a Star Wars fan ? I'll tell you this. At a very young age I decided I would not give in to the dark side and spend my energy on positive thoughts, feelings and attitudes. Regarding Greg, I made a website, I wrote a blog. Some people feed this thread. We all have to choose our own path, young padawans.

Luke: Is the dark side stronger?
Yoda: No, no, no. Quicker, easier, more seductive.
Luke: But how am I to know the good side from the bad?
Yoda: You will know... when you are calm, at peace, passive. A Jedi uses the Force for knowledge and defense, NEVER for attack.

No one who ever met Tyler Hamilton would say you could "never speak against" the claim he was a genuine, down to earth guy.
Also, no one could ever 'speak against' the legends of cycling who claim you cannot win the Tour on bread and water.
Unless you ask, say, Big Mig. Hey wait, has anyone asked the Migster?
 
the delgados said:
No one who ever met Tyler Hamilton would say you could "never speak against" the claim he was a genuine, down to earth guy.
Also, no one could ever 'speak against' the legends of cycling who claim you cannot win the Tour on bread and water.
Unless you ask, say, Big Mig. Hey wait, has anyone asked the Migster?

In other words, you agree the "nothing speaks against it" posture doesn't work.
 
@NL_LeMondFans said:
the delgados said:
No one who ever met Tyler Hamilton would say you could "never speak against" the claim he was a genuine, down to earth guy.
Also, no one could ever 'speak against' the legends of cycling who claim you cannot win the Tour on bread and water.
Unless you ask, say, Big Mig. Hey wait, has anyone asked the Migster?

In other words, you agree the "nothing speaks against it" posture doesn't work.

If we were in a court of law, then yes, I fully agree.
 
Mar 13, 2009
16,853
2
0
the delgados said:
@NL_LeMondFans said:
the delgados said:
No one who ever met Tyler Hamilton would say you could "never speak against" the claim he was a genuine, down to earth guy.
Also, no one could ever 'speak against' the legends of cycling who claim you cannot win the Tour on bread and water.
Unless you ask, say, Big Mig. Hey wait, has anyone asked the Migster?

In other words, you agree the "nothing speaks against it" posture doesn't work.

If we were in a court of law, then yes, I fully agree.

think the proof burden is in the lemond camp, and we dont wish for the platitudes and shibboleths from teammates and team principals.

i mean, the motherhood statements are not worth a lick, you can shove them where the son dont shine afaic.

i think camp lemond needs to recognise in cycling, the burden falls squarely on the rider to prove his ínnocence, and i use the term 'innocence' with reticence, because i aint using in the context of judgement nor conviction.

now, when the rider happens to be winning GTs, this burden falls with an exponential weight more. /grammar.

those who wish to indict GL, p'raps they have implicit, the inability to prove the negative. shout out to Kurt Goedel umlaut #incompletenesstheorem

and the value judgement and transference of some constructed lens of morality on this issue, loses the point and reduces the investigation to mere diatribe.

typo sun, not son
 
Oct 16, 2010
19,912
2
0
@delgados: nice point about Hamilton. Very true. Difficult not to like the guy.

@blackcat: agreed, when GTs are being won, there is an exceptional burden of proof.

"shove them where the sun don't shine" :D
 
Oct 16, 2010
19,912
2
0
As I linked to earlier, one part of the conflict between Toshiba and Lemond in 1987 was that Lemond insisted on having his own soigneur, Otto Jacome. Now, Lemond has always insisted that La Vie Claire/Toshiba/Koechli was 100% clean, so why was he insisting on having his own soigneur?

on a related note, I like these comments from US cycling legend John Howard when asked about PEDs:
QS: Doping scandals are an unfortunate part of our sport today. Back in the 1970s, did you see much of that?

JH: We were never tempted because it was never offered to us. We didn’t have the soigneurs. We didn’t have the team doctors.
We were just green amateurs racing against professionals. We were good. We had our day. I look at it today, and I’m just so glad we were never in a position to be corrupted. I watched some of these guys climbing in the (1974) world championships in Montreal — these are guys I’ve ridden stage races with, the Tour of Britain, the Tour of Ireland. I wondered, how are they climbing Mount Royal in their big chain ring? I can’t do that. I can’t get that kind of power. Maybe the justification for that is I’m still enjoying my bike and some of them are gone. So, I think the payback, if there is one, was longevity.
http://www.pezcyclingnews.com/interviews/pez-talk-the-legendary-john-howard/#.VzwsXb4jWM9
 
Re:

sniper said:
As I linked to earlier, one part of the conflict between Toshiba and Lemond in 1987 was that Lemond insisted on having his own soigneur, Otto Jacome. Now, Lemond has always insisted that La Vie Claire/Toshiba/Koechli was 100% clean, so why was he insisting on having his own soigneur?

Maybe for the same reason he insisted on having Vincent Barteau with him at PDM : he liked having friends around him and he liked helping out a friend.
Why shouldn't he have that kind of request ? Every top athlete relies on people he/she trusts and it's often part of the negociation.
Why do film directors hire the same actors, DP, editor, etc... ? they trust that person, and they are in a position they can afford whomever they want.

There are many reasons why Greg wanted to leave Toshiba, Jean-François Bernard was 3rd of the 1987 TDF and a favorite of team owner Bernard Tapie. I don't think Greg wanted to re-live the 1986 Hinault/LeMond duel, knowing that Koechli and Tapie might not support him.


sniper said:
on a related note, I like these comments from US cycling legend John Howard when asked about PEDs:
QS: Doping scandals are an unfortunate part of our sport today. Back in the 1970s, did you see much of that?

JH: We were never tempted because it was never offered to us. We didn’t have the soigneurs. We didn’t have the team doctors.
We were just green amateurs racing against professionals. We were good. We had our day. I look at it today, and I’m just so glad we were never in a position to be corrupted. I watched some of these guys climbing in the (1974) world championships in Montreal — these are guys I’ve ridden stage races with, the Tour of Britain, the Tour of Ireland. I wondered, how are they climbing Mount Royal in their big chain ring? I can’t do that. I can’t get that kind of power. Maybe the justification for that is I’m still enjoying my bike and some of them are gone. So, I think the payback, if there is one, was longevity.
http://www.pezcyclingnews.com/interviews/pez-talk-the-legendary-john-howard/#.VzwsXb4jWM9

Sadly, that's not the case anymore. I have the feeling new PEDs like EPO are actually good for longevity.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.