LeMond III

[86TDFWinner]

Re:

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.

Correct. This has been rehashed a few thousand times here, but for some, it doesn't matter, Greg is "dirty" and no amount of anything will change that opinion.

There was even a hilarious "poll"(since removed), claiming Greg was "the dirtiest cyclist/cheater/doper...blah blah blah...in history". It was quite comical to read.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Re:

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.

No way a pro cyclist would take performance enhancing drugs. It is futile to believe otherwise.

Greg made cycling great again.


There was an erected poll before that proved the only person in cycling to take performance enhancing drugs was Evgeni Berzin. They took it down due to all the Berzin fans getting bent out of shape.

 

[sniper]

if indurain/wiggins/cancellara/sastre/hinault/froome/evans/gilbert/chiochioli/de muynck/voigt/roche/yates/sutton/barry/horner doped, the evidence would be out in the open now.

 

[Zypherov]

Re: Re:

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.

No way a pro cyclist would take performance enhancing drugs. It is futile to believe otherwise.

Greg made cycling great again.


There was an erected poll before that proved the only person in cycling to take performance enhancing drugs was Evgeni Berzin. They took it down due to all the Berzin fans getting bent out of shape.

It's highly doubtful that Lemond would of called out Armstrong for his ties to Dr. Ferrari if he had of been on the juice, Lemond that is, because its highly likely Armstrong would of found out through all his connections. Try as he did though calling his 1989 victory a miracle like his own Tour wins and offering $300,000 to a teammate to say Lemond took EPO, who by the way turned it down, was scraping the bottom of the barrel.

 

[Merckx index]

Re: Re:

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.

That sounds like a trick question, but I'm going to take it at face value. Remember the beetroot juice discussion we had here a number of years ago? There were published studies reporting performance enhancement, and while it's generally not the role of scientists to advocate the use of something they're researching (that's why I think your question was a trick one), the effect of such articles was no doubt to get riders interested in beetroot juice. Same with altitude tents, and studies of the effect of training and/or living at altitude.

As you know, there have also been studies of the effect of EPO on performance enhancement. In that case, the authors of course did not promote its use.

Studies like these all demonstrate the kind of approach taken when scientists want to document whether, and/or to what degree, some substance or protocol is performance enhancing. Generally, they measure either macro-physiological parameters, such as V02max or watts, or performance directly, such as TT times. This is very different from the kind of studies Costill and Hagerman performed, which looked at effects on processes like enzyme levels, muscle excitability, red blood cell volume, blood lipid levels, and the like. Changes in these parameters, whatever the magnitude and direction, are not likely to provide much insight into performance enhancement.

 

[ebandit]

from another thread ....i liked these thoughts....credit were credit is due

these words were from one more thoughtful than myself

'When you start from the assumption that a rider is doping and work backwards to try and rationalise it, virtually any turn of events can be construed as "proof" of doping.'

Mark L

 

[blackcat]

Re:

from another thread ....i liked these thoughts....credit were credit is due

these words were from one more thoughtful than myself

'When you start from the assumption that a rider is doping and work backwards to try and rationalise it, virtually any turn of events can be construed as "proof" of doping.'

Mark L

its cycling, and the premise you started with was a value judgement. I dont care if he did or did not dope. Material proportion of folks ascribe negative virtue on doping in sport and doping in cycling. If you remove this input, the concern that someone may or may not be doping, is relieved and the conversation can attain a greater clarity

 

[aphronesis]

Or Greg never tested positive! Which seems where some want to hold the discussions.

 

[gillan1969]

Re:

Or Greg never tested positive!Which seems where some want to hold the discussions.

in a post-Lance World, that has two opposite meanings though..................

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Re: Re:

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.

No way a pro cyclist would take performance enhancing drugs. It is futile to believe otherwise.

Greg made cycling great again.


There was an erected poll before that proved the only person in cycling to take performance enhancing drugs was Evgeni Berzin. They took it down due to all the Berzin fans getting bent out of shape.

It's highly doubtful that Lemond would of called out Armstrong for his ties to Dr. Ferrari if he had of been on the juice, Lemond that is, because its highly likely Armstrong would of found out through all his connections. Try as he did though calling his 1989 victory a miracle like his own Tour wins and offering $300,000 to a teammate to say Lemond took EPO, who by the way turned it down, was scraping the bottom of the barrel.

I was talking about Berzin and you done a pop goes the weasel on me with the Lance and 300,000 dollars. Hey where is that proof for that? Which teammate did he offer that to?

 

[@NL_LeMondFans]

Re: Re:

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.

No way a pro cyclist would take performance enhancing drugs. It is futile to believe otherwise.

Greg made cycling great again.


There was an erected poll before that proved the only person in cycling to take performance enhancing drugs was Evgeni Berzin. They took it down due to all the Berzin fans getting bent out of shape.

It's highly doubtful that Lemond would of called out Armstrong for his ties to Dr. Ferrari if he had of been on the juice, Lemond that is, because its highly likely Armstrong would of found out through all his connections. Try as he did though calling his 1989 victory a miracle like his own Tour wins and offering $300,000 to a teammate to say Lemond took EPO, who by the way turned it down, was scraping the bottom of the barrel.

I was talking about Berzin and you done a pop goes the weasel on me with the Lance and 300,000 dollars. Hey where is that proof for that? Which teammate did he offer that to?

No proof of that, but in one of his last 2 Tours (I think it was 2010), I remember Armstrong stating live on french TV "LeMond will have to tell the truth about 1989 one day" which means he surely investigated Greg and thought he was on to something. Of course since he had no proof he wasn't in a position to put things in motion. My conclusion is that Armstrong did lead an investigation and couldn't come with something substantial. How much did he/was he willing to spend on this ? I don't know and I don't think the figure matters that much.

I'll add that, while he was saying this, LA was looking at Fignon who was standing right next to him. You've read this right. In order to get back at Greg, LA used Fignon, who would die of cancer just a few weeks after that. I think it gives you an idea of how determined LA was to tarnish Greg's legacy.

 

[sniper]

Lance didn't need to investigate to get wind of the EPO rumor.
It was fairly widespread in the peloton he rode in.
And if Lemond ever used EPO, Lance w/could have gotten wind of it also through other channels (e.g. Weisel, Borysewicz, or even Hampsten). Again, no investigation needed.
To prove it in front of court would yet be a completely different matter.
I see no reason why Lance would even try to go down that road.
Loose-loose.

 

[@NL_LeMondFans]

Re:

Lance didn't need to investigate to get wind of the EPO rumor.
It was fairly widespread in the peloton he rode in.
And if Lemond ever used EPO, Lance w/could have gotten wind of it also through other channels (e.g. Weisel, Borysewicz, or even Hampsten). Again, no investigation needed.
To prove it in front of court would yet be a completely different matter.
I see no reason why Lance would even try to go down that road.
Loose-loose.

It's funny that, when it comes to Greg's motives against Armstrong, ego is often among the first to come, but when it's the other way arounf it's never the case. As if Armstrong didn't care about that little spot on his ego sunshine.

Armstrong wanted to destroy Greg. He wanted to destroy his business, wanted to destroy his reputation. He tried to break him, as a person. And he nearly succeded. You mentioned Greg "rewriting cycling history". You're rewriting the LeMond/Armstrong story.

And you forget the Fignon/cancer shield point that is a testimony of the magnitude of LA's motivation to break Greg.

 

[gillan1969]

Re:

Lance didn't need to investigate to get wind of the EPO rumor.
It was fairly widespread in the peloton he rode in.
And if Lemond ever used EPO, Lance w/could have gotten wind of it also through other channels (e.g. Weisel, Borysewicz, or even Hampsten). Again, no investigation needed.
To prove it in front of court would yet be a completely different matter.
I see no reason why Lance would even try to go down that road.
Loose-loose.

fairly widespread?

 

[@NL_LeMondFans]

Re:

no investigation needed.
To prove it in front of court would yet be a completely different matter.

Hence the investigation.

I see no reason why Lance would even try to go down that road.
Loose-loose.

Just because he could. Don't you think LA is a man of power ?

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Re: Re:

No proof of that, but in one of his last 2 Tours (I think it was 2010), I remember Armstrong stating live on french TV "LeMond will have to tell the truth about 1989 one day" which means he surely investigated Greg and thought he was on to something. Of course since he had no proof he wasn't in a position to put things in motion. My conclusion is that Armstrong did lead an investigation and couldn't come with something substantial. How much did he/was he willing to spend on this ? I don't know and I don't think the figure matters that much.

I'll add that, while he was saying this, LA was looking at Fignon who was standing right next to him. You've read this right. In order to get back at Greg, LA used Fignon, who would die of cancer just a few weeks after that. I think it gives you an idea of how determined LA was to tarnish Greg's legacy.

Not sure you will care but what you done above in your post is the exact thing you have accused others about.

You saw the interview and made a conclusion. We don't know 100% that he investigated or had him investigated. Yet you say "which means he surely investigated".

In my opinion your conclusions are pretty close to what was happening then. But to make statements is a bit hypocritical in my opinion.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Re: Re:

Lance didn't need to investigate to get wind of the EPO rumor.
It was fairly widespread in the peloton he rode in.
And if Lemond ever used EPO, Lance w/could have gotten wind of it also through other channels (e.g. Weisel, Borysewicz, or even Hampsten). Again, no investigation needed.
To prove it in front of court would yet be a completely different matter.
I see no reason why Lance would even try to go down that road.
Loose-loose.

fairly widespread?

Widespread by definition is a stretch but more than one person or cyclist saying so could be interpreted as widespread by some. Not me but by someone else's standard.

 

[@NL_LeMondFans]

Re: Re:

No proof of that, but in one of his last 2 Tours (I think it was 2010), I remember Armstrong stating live on french TV "LeMond will have to tell the truth about 1989 one day" which means he surely investigated Greg and thought he was on to something. Of course since he had no proof he wasn't in a position to put things in motion. My conclusion is that Armstrong did lead an investigation and couldn't come with something substantial. How much did he/was he willing to spend on this ? I don't know and I don't think the figure matters that much.

I'll add that, while he was saying this, LA was looking at Fignon who was standing right next to him. You've read this right. In order to get back at Greg, LA used Fignon, who would die of cancer just a few weeks after that. I think it gives you an idea of how determined LA was to tarnish Greg's legacy.

Not sure you will care but what you done above in your post is the exact thing you have accused others about.

You saw the interview and made a conclusion. We don't know 100% that he investigated or had him investigated. Yet you say "which means he surely investigated".

In my opinion your conclusions are pretty close to what was happening then. But to make statements is a bit hypocritical in my opinion.

First, it's the second time you write a direct answer to one of my posts assuming I "won't care". I don't know in what box you've put me in, but please don't. Thanks.

Second, your assessment would be accurate if I had not stated "My conclusion" right after that. That being said, I was thinking out loud while I was typing and should have minded my choice of words better.

Third, it would be hypocritical if it was made on purpose, no ?

 

[gillan1969]

Re: Re:

Lance didn't need to investigate to get wind of the EPO rumor.
It was fairly widespread in the peloton he rode in.
And if Lemond ever used EPO, Lance w/could have gotten wind of it also through other channels (e.g. Weisel, Borysewicz, or even Hampsten). Again, no investigation needed.
To prove it in front of court would yet be a completely different matter.
I see no reason why Lance would even try to go down that road.
Loose-loose.

fairly widespread?

Widespread by definition is a stretch but more than one person or cyclist saying so could be interpreted as widespread by some. Not me but by someone else's standard.

widespread I would take to mean either a majority or a sizeable or significant minority...I don't think that is a controversial definition

if epo did take hold in sniper's timeline that would mean the peloton he rode in would number in the thousands....

fairly widespread?

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Re: Re:

First, it's the second time you write a direct answer to one of my posts assuming I "won't care". I don't know in what box you've put me in, but please don't. Thanks.

Second, your assessment would be accurate if I had not stated "My conclusion" right after that. That being said, I was thinking out loud while I was typing and should have minded my choice of words better.

Third, it would be hypocritical if it was made on purpose, no ?

I made a conclusion you would might not like what I was about to post - hence I said you might not care. That is all. I certainly did not place you in a box. So please don't jump to conclusions when it comes to me placing members in a box. Thanks.

In my opinion it is hypocritical to connect dots on one subject but not let a member connect them on another subject.

 

[@NL_LeMondFans]

Re: Re:

Lance didn't need to investigate to get wind of the EPO rumor.
It was fairly widespread in the peloton he rode in.
And if Lemond ever used EPO, Lance w/could have gotten wind of it also through other channels (e.g. Weisel, Borysewicz, or even Hampsten). Again, no investigation needed.
To prove it in front of court would yet be a completely different matter.
I see no reason why Lance would even try to go down that road.
Loose-loose.

fairly widespread?

Widespread by definition is a stretch but more than one person or cyclist saying so could be interpreted as widespread by some. Not me but by someone else's standard.

I don't agree. I think the widespread rumour is that every cyclist is a doper. That's the definition of the widespread rumour. That includes Greg, every TDF winner, etc...

Sniper is suggesting "LeMond introduced EPO" is a widespread rumour. I studied Greg for 30 years and I had never heard of this before Sniper said so. The closer I came to this was a statement from Chiappucci who said "LeMond was lucky I was so naive in the 1990 Tour". My interpretation (but it's only my interpretation) was that, in order to have Chiappucci agree on taking EPO (I couldn't say it was during the 1990 TDF, I personally think it was in 1991), his team probably told him Greg was on it.

The "widespread rumour" is that LeMond, Fignon, Mottet, Delgado, Roche... All that generation was blown to pieces by "generation EPO". Some trying to adapt (Roche), some declining (Fignon, LeMond). I think this is a far more accurate widespread rumour.

 

[aphronesis]

Re: Re:

Or Greg never tested positive!Which seems where some want to hold the discussions.

in a post-Lance World, that has two opposite meanings though..................

Not by the lights of the post above mine. And they're not opposite, so much as alternative. Why not entertain both?

 

[@NL_LeMondFans]

Re: Re:

I made a conclusion you would might not like what I was about to post - hence I said you might not care. That is all. I certainly did not place you in a box. So please don't jump to conclusions when it comes to me placing members in a box. Thanks.

You "made a conclusion" but that doesn't put me in a box. Ok. That's subtle. I think we're using different words for the same thing, but that's just me.

In my opinion it is hypocritical to connect dots on one subject but not let a member connect them on another subject.

Except I use the words "I think" or "I believe" a lot, which makes it clear it's an opinion, not fact. I have no problem with "connecting dots" as long as a theory is not disguised as some "truth".

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Re: Re:

I made a conclusion you would might not like what I was about to post - hence I said you might not care. That is all. I certainly did not place you in a box. So please don't jump to conclusions when it comes to me placing members in a box. Thanks.

You "made a conclusion" but that doesn't put me in a box. Ok. That's subtle. I think we're using different words for the same thing, but that's just me.

In my opinion it is hypocritical to connect dots on one subject but not let a member connect them on another subject.

Except I use the words "I think" or "I believe" a lot, which makes it clear it's an opinion, not fact. I have no problem with "connecting dots" as long as a theory is not disguised as some "truth".

Which is why I pointed out that sniper's posting style is misinterpreted here in my opinion. He uses widespread to which I took as meaning more than one or a few. We have already seen that yours and others opinions on this use of widespread is different.

I will stay far away from any widespread use of placing people in a box.

 

[@NL_LeMondFans]

Re: Re:

I will stay far away from any widespread use of placing people in a box.

Love it.