LeMond III

[sniper]

Re: Re:

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.

yeah, fair points.

btw, PDM in 1988 did take Otto on board, I mean I think they officially hired him, but to my knowledge there is nothing to suggest that Otto worked with any PDM rider besides Lemond that year.

 

[gillan1969]

Re: Re:

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.

yeah, fair points.

btw, PDM in 1988 did take Otto on board, I mean I think they officially hired him, but to my knowledge there is nothing to suggest that Otto worked with any PDM rider besides Lemond that year.

top riders brought others (soigneurs/domestiques) with them when they moved team...it was common...it was just part of the package

 

[sniper]

so why wouldn't koechli hire otto? (at least according to Lemond)

 

[gillan1969]

Re:

so why wouldn't koechli hire otto? (at least according to Lemond)

maybe was having an affair with his wife...who knows...a million possible reasons....

when you only look through one prism you will only find one thing...

 

[sniper]

Re: Re:

deleted.

 

[@NL_LeMondFans]

Re:

so why wouldn't koechli hire otto? (at least according to Lemond)

Did Koechli say he wouldn't ? If you have a report of Greg saying Koechli wouldn't hire Otto, hence he's leaving the team, it's probably a diplomatic way for Greg to say "f**k off" to Koechli and Tapie while respecting his contract. In fact, the team probably broke the contract when they refused Greg his soigneur. Both parties wanted to part ways, who knows ?

Every new piece of information you gather, you can link it somehow to a doping practice. Because "nothing speaks against it". It's not getting us closer to the truth but it's creating a smokescreen that's gonna be hard to dissipate because everyone loves a conspiracy theory.

 

[blutto]

Re: Re:

so why wouldn't koechli hire otto? (at least according to Lemond)

maybe was having an affair with his wife...who knows...a million possible reasons....

when you only look through one prism you will only find one thing...

...to the first bolded...yup makes absolute sense....the real story behind the real story...maybe you should get a hold of Walsh with this breaking news... ....

....to the second bolded...no kidding....

Cheers

 

[sniper]

Re: Re:

so why wouldn't koechli hire otto? (at least according to Lemond)

Did Koechli say he wouldn't ? If you have a report of Greg saying Koechli wouldn't hire Otto, hence he's leaving the team, it's probably a diplomatic way for Greg to say "f**k off" to Koechli and Tapie while respecting his contract. In fact, the team probably broke the contract when they refused Greg his soigneur. Both parties wanted to part ways, who knows ?

cheers, and fair enough.

Every new piece of information you gather, you can link it somehow to a doping practice. Because "nothing speaks against it". It's not getting us closer to the truth but it's creating a smokescreen that's gonna be hard to dissipate because everyone loves a conspiracy theory.

Take it up with the Clinic. If I want to know Otto's or Greg's favorite music, I'll go somewhere else.

 

[@NL_LeMondFans]

Re: Re:

Take it up with the Clinic. If I want to know Otto's or Greg's favorite music, I'll go somewhere else. Here we discuss them in the context of doping.

No. You link every new piece of information to doping (connecting dots) and you leave it there to see if anyone contradicts you (see my "nothing speaks against it" rant). I guess this is how the clinic works but I maintain it's much easier to connect dots accusing someone or covering him/her with suspicion that the opposite (see the "cheating your wife" analogies).

You still fail to answer this question : how is a clean rider supposed to defend himself ?

 

[sniper]

Re: Re:

...
You still fail to answer this question : how is a clean rider supposed to defend himself ?

The wider question, "what can a rider do to prove he's clean", is a bit off topic I think. And in the past and current pro-cycling climate, it's not a realistic question. The system has to change top-down, root-branch surgery, etc. Once a more or less reliable testing system is in place, we can start talking about who the clean riders are and what they can do to defend themselves.

That said, look at a guy like Sastre. Nobody cares whether he doped.
But should he be in the newspaper tomorrow accusing Contador of doping because his vo2 max wasn't up there with the best, then people might start looking into Sastre.
It's the hypocrisy that many people including me have real problems with. Not so much with the doping itself (which I can't really blame riders in the current climate/system)

 

[@NL_LeMondFans]

Re: Re:

...
You still fail to answer this question : how is a clean rider supposed to defend himself ?

The wider question, "what can a rider do to prove he's clean", is a bit off topic I think. And in the past and current pro-cycling climate, it's not a realistic question. The system has to change top-down, root-branch surgery, etc. Once a more or less reliable testing system is in place, we can start talking about who the clean riders are.

On the contrary, I think this is 100% on topic. This thread relies a lot on talks "from the horse's mouth" and how :
-They're inconsistent
-They lack credibility
-They don't make sense
-They tend to build an "official" false narrative

And you've previously made the following points :

just another doper with difficulties to keep his story straight, perhaps.

viewtopic.php?p=1919400#p1919400

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.

viewtopic.php?p=1919819#p1919819

(just to name a few from the last few pages)

As you pointed out in another thread, "you can't have the cake and eat it". You can't say everything Greg says or said or did is compatible with doping since "nothing speaks against it" while, at the same time being completely ignorant or unable to give an example of how a clean rider should speak/act/ride/train/go out with, etc...

That said, look at a guy like Sastre. Nobody cares whether he doped.
But should he be in the newspaper tomorrow accusing Contador of doping because his vo2 max wasn't up there with the best, then people might start looking into Sastre.
It's the hypocrisy that many people including me have real problems with. Not so much with the doping itself (which I can't really blame riders in the current climate/system)

Thanks for confirming what I thought. This thread is not about Greg doping or not, it is about liking him and the way he does things. Or not.

 

[sniper]

Good. Fair enough. Really.

So back to Lemond at the OTC, 1978-1980.

Dardik and Ariel publicly stating the need to experiment with blood doping and steroids in order to 'identify outstanding Olympic athletes'.
Full support from Don Miller; internal testing provided by USOC.
Two exercise physiologists and one biomechanical expert there, all three with publications on the use of anabolic steroids as a performance enhancer. Hagerman with a publication alluding to the works of certain Scandinavian scientists, expressing the need to take that Scandinavian route with adolescents. Costill with additional publications on diuretics (masking agents), and a publication together with Bengt Saltin, again, referring to the work of Astrand. Costill's publication on steroids referring back to the work of Hagerman and Ariel. Burke and Eddie in the mix, two of the three architects of the 84 BB program. Eddie, according to Thompson and Bohlmann the "Father of American doping". Eddie, recruited (like Kris Korzeniowski) in the context of the Amateur Sports Act with the unambiguous aim of closing the gap with bloc-country sports 'science'.

Then we have Hagerman on the record doing aerobic and anaerobic testing on Lemond.
Burke doing testing on Lemond. Eddie B. providing Greg's training and nutritional programs and being like 'a second father' to him.
Lemond in 1978-1980 beating juniors and seniors alike, excelling in races in Belgium, France, Poland.

Now give me one plausible reason why you still think he went through those OTC years clean.

 

[@NL_LeMondFans]

Re:

Good. Fair enough. Really.

...

Now give me one plausible reason why you still think he went through those OTC years clean.

You can't say "fair enough" and ask me that question. You agreed that you have absolutely no idea how a clean rider could defend himself. You admit you don't know what could possibly be plausible for a clean rider. So why bother ?

I think this way of thinking is at a dead end. I suggest we lock this thread for good.

 

[sniper]

Re: Re:

Good. Fair enough. Really.

...

Now give me one plausible reason why you still think he went through those OTC years clean.

You can't say "fair enough" and ask me that question. You agreed that you have absolutely no idea how a clean rider could defend himself. You admit you don't know what could possibly be plausible for a clean rider. So why bother ?

I think this way of thinking is at a dead end. I suggest we lock this thread for good.

Question wasn't directed solely at you.
Others may respond, too.
Why would you want to lock the thread?
It's not other people's responsibility to find arguments for you.

 

[@NL_LeMondFans]

Re: Re:

Good. Fair enough. Really.

...

Now give me one plausible reason why you still think he went through those OTC years clean.

You can't say "fair enough" and ask me that question. You agreed that you have absolutely no idea how a clean rider could defend himself. You admit you don't know what could possibly be plausible for a clean rider. So why bother ?

I think this way of thinking is at a dead end. I suggest we lock this thread for good.

Question wasn't directed solely at you.
Others may respond, too.
Why would you want to lock the thread?
It's not other people's responsibility to find arguments for you.

I think the thread is biting its own tail. You are the driving force, I'll give you that. You are very creative about connecting dots to doping. But you admitted yourself you have no idea of a single dot connecting to "cleanliness", how it would look or sound like. To me, this accredits the "cheating wife" analogy that we've fallen in a sort of paranoia, that no reasonable explanation will meet your approval.

Then, it is pointless. There are 3 threads filled with a lot of stuff upon which anyone can draw his/hers own conclusion.

All this "dot connecting" is sugarcoating for "I don't like LeMond" and you're not even denying that. Hence, I think this attempt at destroying someone's reputation should stop because it is going nowhere healthy.

 

[sniper]

Re: Re:

Good. Fair enough. Really.

...

Now give me one plausible reason why you still think he went through those OTC years clean.

You can't say "fair enough" and ask me that question. You agreed that you have absolutely no idea how a clean rider could defend himself. You admit you don't know what could possibly be plausible for a clean rider. So why bother ?

I think this way of thinking is at a dead end. I suggest we lock this thread for good.

Question wasn't directed solely at you.
Others may respond, too.
Why would you want to lock the thread?
It's not other people's responsibility to find arguments for you.

I think the thread is biting its own tail. You are the driving force, I'll give you that. You are very creative about connecting dots to doping. But you admitted yourself you have no idea of a single dot connecting to "cleanliness", how it would look or sound like.

did I? No I didn't.
I said the question is off topic here. And irrelevant to the issue.
I could give you tons of things I'd like to hear or actions I'd like to see from a pro-athlete regarding doping.
Lemond certainly has said some good things regarding doping in the last few years, but unfortunately it's largely inconsistent with the things he said (and didn't say) on the topic before he got into a fight with Lance.

 

[@NL_LeMondFans]

Re: Re:

you admitted yourself you have no idea of a single dot connecting to "cleanliness", how it would look or sound like.

did I? No I didn't.
I said the question is off topic here. And irrelevant to the issue.

Here's what you said : viewtopic.php?p=1923216#p1923216

...
You still fail to answer this question : how is a clean rider supposed to defend himself ?

(...)it's not a realistic question.(...)

It's not a realistic question (your words) but with every single one of your posts we are supposed to answer it. Now, do you see why it's leading nowhere ?

 

[Semper Fidelis]

I read and continue to be suprised.

What is it about LeMond that brings out the type of replies we get here?

Walked into one of the many sky threads and there is some of the same type of replies.

This is the clinic. Anyone who treads into this area should not be suprised that folks spend time trying to connect dots against Pro Cyclist. The sport is full of it -past and present.

The game that LeMond plays now is dirty and I have to admit his own actions caused me to rethink many opinions I had for him. The more this thread plays out like it has the deeper my opinions root.

When it was someone everybody had hate for - fair game. Dots were connected and simple opinions were put up as proof many times. We even had folks who were on the inside who came in to drop hints for upcoming fireworks etc.

Now that it is a cyclist that folks hold up as an angel, we roll out the problems for connecting dots.

Seems to me that the folks with the problem are becoming more and more transparent. (greg are you here?) If he is or was then I would be recording it.

 

[@NL_LeMondFans]

Re:

What is it about LeMond that brings out the type of replies we get here?

All you need is love, bro.

The game that LeMond plays now is dirty and I have to admit his own actions caused me to rethink many opinions I had for him. The more this thread plays out like it has the deeper my opinions root.

Except we don't agree on who plays the game. I think many people on this thread see Greg posing as the "white knight of anti-doping". I strongly disagree. The only things Greg did towards this are :
-Participating in the "Change Cycling Now" movement ==>because he wanted the UCI to move on from Pat McQuaid
-Answering questions asked by journalists ==>because he won't shut up

Now that it is a cyclist that folks hold up as an angel, we roll out the problems for connecting dots.

Maybe it's been a problem all along but no one cared to point to it because there was too much fun going on.

Seems to me that the folks with the problem are becoming more and more transparent. (greg are you here?) If he is or was then I would be recording it.

I mentioned paranoia before... For my part, I couldn't be more transparent as to put "LeMond Fans" in my forum name. I can't be sure but I'd be VERY surprised if Greg allowed himself to lose some precious time over this thread. And if he was posting here, I believe he would do it on his own name and... Let's just say he would not care about the forum rules. He'd be furious reading all that nonsense and react pretty quickly. He wouldn't be able to hide

 

[Merckx index]

Re:

Good. Fair enough. Really.

So back to Lemond at the OTC, 1978-1980.

Dardik and Ariel publicly stating the need to experiment with blood doping and steroids in order to 'identify outstanding Olympic athletes'.
Full support from Don Miller; internal testing provided by USOC.
Two exercise physiologists and one biomechanical expert there, all three with publications on the use of anabolic steroids as a performance enhancer. Hagerman with a publication alluding to the works of certain Scandinavian scientists, expressing the need to take that Scandinavian route with adolescents. Costill with additional publications on diuretics (masking agents), and a publication together with Bengt Saltin, again, referring to the work of Astrand. Costill's publication on steroids referring back to the work of Hagerman and Ariel. Burke and Eddie in the mix, two of the three architects of the 84 BB program. Eddie, according to Thompson and Bohlmann the "Father of American doping". Eddie, recruited (like Kris Korzeniowski) in the context of the Amateur Sports Act with the unambiguous aim of closing the gap with bloc-country sports 'science'.

Then we have Hagerman on the record doing aerobic and anaerobic testing on Lemond.
Burke doing testing on Lemond. Eddie B. providing Greg's training and nutritional programs and being like 'a second father' to him.
Lemond in 1978-1980 beating juniors and seniors alike, excelling in races in Belgium, France, Poland.

Now give me one plausible reason why you still think he went through those OTC years clean.

I haven’t followed this thread very closely, but what I need now is a summary of the evidence that any of the OTC players were studying the benefits of PEDs. I think we can rule out Costill. You saw my posts in the thread on cycling in the 70s and 80s. His one study of steroids showed a potentially detrimental effect, it wasn't even designed to look at performance enhancement. Likewise with his studies of dehydration and diuretics.

You have mentioned Dardik and Hagerman. Dardik is definitely a shady character, was stripped of his medical license, but his publication list does not show any studies of steroids or blood doping. I found one article by Hagerman, back in 1975, studying enzyme levels in relation to steroids. I don't have access to the abstract, but it doesn’t appear to be a performance enhancement study. Like the dehydration studies of Costill, it appears to be looking at some physiological effects that might be relevant to performance enhancement, but are most likely to be indicators of detrimental effects.

Do you really have any evidence at all that any of these researchers were studying the performance enhancement properties of various drugs or manipulations? Whether they were or weren't, it doesn't necessarily mean that doping wasn't going on at the OTC, but I don't see any support for this based on the published studies of this time.

 

[djpbaltimore]

Merckx index, I found the journal in our med school library, and scanned a pdf copy of the hagerman steroid study when it came up earlier in the thread. As the title suggested, you were right to surmise that it was health and not performance that was being scrutinized.

 

[sniper]

Re: Re:

Good. Fair enough. Really.

So back to Lemond at the OTC, 1978-1980.

Dardik and Ariel publicly stating the need to experiment with blood doping and steroids in order to 'identify outstanding Olympic athletes'.
Full support from Don Miller; internal testing provided by USOC.
Two exercise physiologists and one biomechanical expert there, all three with publications on the use of anabolic steroids as a performance enhancer. Hagerman with a publication alluding to the works of certain Scandinavian scientists, expressing the need to take that Scandinavian route with adolescents. Costill with additional publications on diuretics (masking agents), and a publication together with Bengt Saltin, again, referring to the work of Astrand. Costill's publication on steroids referring back to the work of Hagerman and Ariel. Burke and Eddie in the mix, two of the three architects of the 84 BB program. Eddie, according to Thompson and Bohlmann the "Father of American doping". Eddie, recruited (like Kris Korzeniowski) in the context of the Amateur Sports Act with the unambiguous aim of closing the gap with bloc-country sports 'science'.

Then we have Hagerman on the record doing aerobic and anaerobic testing on Lemond.
Burke doing testing on Lemond. Eddie B. providing Greg's training and nutritional programs and being like 'a second father' to him.
Lemond in 1978-1980 beating juniors and seniors alike, excelling in races in Belgium, France, Poland.

Now give me one plausible reason why you still think he went through those OTC years clean.

I haven’t followed this thread very closely, but what I need now is a summary of the evidence that any of the OTC players were studying the benefits of PEDs.

have little time now, will respond in more detail later.
but already i want to ask you: could you show me (/ link to) an example of a scientific paper/article where, according to you, the authors are studying the effects of PEDs on performance whilst promoting their use? Just so as to have a standard for comparison and have an idea of what you would consider 'evidence' in this regard.

 

[86TDFWinner]

Re: Re:

[quote="sniper[/url

but also because he competed prior to EPO, when it was possible to compete without dope if you happened to be a genetic freak.

But there was a thing called blood transfusions. Arguably, in most endurance sports in the 80s, you wouldn't be anywhere near the top without it. As I think you know, Lemond happened to be discovered by someone who was later proven to have blood doped minors. (Don't hesitate to ask me for details if that's new info for you.) This is not evidence that Lemond did it. But I guess my question is why does Lemond get the benefit of the doubt, and Cadel, Wiggins, Sastre and others don't.

So that automatically casts Greg as a doper, because of his association with this person? Is there any sort of factual documentation by anyr's/teammates/etc/etc claiming that LeMond received blood transfusions from said person(s)? Many here would love to see this info, please share it?

Please answer the questions....

We can't prove a negative, but in the case of Lemond we somehow can?

Do you have said proof LeMond has any positives? Please provide the credible/verifiable links to back this up?

Also be aware that many would advance the same argument for Cancellara, Evans, Sastre, Froome, Hesjedal and Wiggins: thanks to the passport and Operacion Puerto etc. it is (since 2007/8-ish) possible to compete and win without dope if you happen to be a genetic freak. You'll agree that that's bollocks though.

Why would someone agree to that being "bullocks" when LeMond has proven just what you claim?

And I can guarantee you, not even Vaughters would claim there had been any sort of culture change in cycling in the 80s. It was rotten to the core and the omerta was as strong as ever

Have any proof to back up your "guarantee"? We'd all love to see it, please share your info, since you claim to know so much? Has to prove what you're claiming too

The other obvious answer is that GL is LA's enemy. Lot's of rope goes along with that. Even obvious dopers get sympathy from the clinic if LA is mean to you at dinner or takes your TT wheels.

I for one don't give any "sympathy" to any dopers, regardless of who they might be. Many here are sympathetic and fan boys of: Contadoper, and Nibali, and others, and I don't understand why. I somewhat agree that the hypocrisy is funny. But if you're caught doping, and you've won any races while doing so, you should have ALL results stripped from you and the record books. IF you've been proven to have doped. Not bny rumors, or innuendo, but by actual proof.

BTW, what if EPO would have been introduced before steroids instead of vice versa? This game changer BS with PED's taken in cocktail piled upon one another is more GL fanboy BS.

[/quote]

How so, explain to us all please? Has LeMond now been accused of both doping and taking steroids?

 

[86TDFWinner]

Re: Re:

You can't say "fair enough" and ask me that question. You agreed that you have absolutely no idea how a clean rider could defend himself. You admit you don't know what could possibly be plausible for a clean rider. So why bother ?

He(and others) have also failed MISERABLY to support/back up their weak arguments, by the lack of providing any sort of proof stating such.

He(and many others commenting) have been asked many many times to provide said proof, and it's crickets chirp, or the subject "suddenly" is changed, with no answer given.

[/quote]I think this way of thinking is at a dead end. I suggest we lock this thread for good.[/quote]

Wishful thinking, but we all know...if it gets locked, 10 more threads just like this, will pop up soon after. The Mods keep allowing it to happen, so it's pointless to ask for something, we know won't happen.

 

[Zypherov]

There are no evidence that Lemond ever took performance enhancing drugs. Any effort to uncover such will prove futile. For all intends and purposes in my opinion if he did it would be out in the open by now.