LeMond III

[sniper]

Re: Re:

good post, Glenn, especially that last sentence cuts it.

Testa conducted activities at Motorola but it wasn't necessarily a team-sponsored operation.

that sounds plausible.

One fact was clear: they used the "fact" that the Euros were all doping to justify their activity. It was self-serving and clear they were willing to lie to their own riders.

That's interesting insight and puts some statements in perspective. Otoh, there are also statements e.g. by former 7-eleven soigneur Shelley Verses who said that in her carreer she's seen a remarkable lot of riders, especially star riders, with attach'e cases with doping products. It's difficult to maintain she too was just guessing.

We could be fairly certain that was standard operating procedure for the entire culture.

If I may ask, in your view, where(approximately) in the average GC of the GTs of the (mid)80s, would we find the first bread-and-water rider(s)?

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Re: Re:

I don't know Testa but you seem to think he's a well known doper. If that's the case, doping is his business. It's in his interest to make believe everyone is a doper. If a clean rider does better than the riders he's doping, it's bad for business. There's a difference between what Testa would say and what Testa would know. My theory : Testa knew Greg was clean, he said Greg was finished because "too much dope", suggesting Greg would not have been finished if he had been taken care of by Testa. Testa knowing his craft, and knowing what to take/what not to take, and in which quantities.

Yes that is one way to look at the statement of Testa.

I'n my opinion I don't agree but we all have to make up our own minds what Testa was saying when he said Greg was finished because he done "too much dope". He done gone and blown up from toooooooooooo much DOPE! I'm only exaggerating that last sentence but I tend to believe Testa meant what he said.

 

[djpbaltimore]

Re: Re:

Basically what we have here is called 2nd hand info. Sometimes even 3rd hand but in this instance I want to believe it is 2nd hand. In the legal realm they call it hearsay. Here in the clinic which is not a court of any type and dang sure is not a place where the truth and nothing but the whole truth is posted, it seems good enough to either take his word for it or to discount it. In my opinion I will go along and believe for now. I'm expecting to see a upcoming SI article and also to see Floyd over the pond for the TDF.

We can get along like this or we can basically go for pages and pages where folks ask for him or her to provide links and other proof. Why? I really don't think it is that hard for us to move along and either discuss or not.

But the context of the claim is important. Recently, you challenged someone on the $300K Armstrong bounty under similar circumstances.

viewtopic.php?p=1923932#p1923932

 

[sniper]

Re: Re:

Basically what we have here is called 2nd hand info. Sometimes even 3rd hand but in this instance I want to believe it is 2nd hand. In the legal realm they call it hearsay. Here in the clinic which is not a court of any type and dang sure is not a place where the truth and nothing but the whole truth is posted, it seems good enough to either take his word for it or to discount it. In my opinion I will go along and believe for now. I'm expecting to see a upcoming SI article and also to see Floyd over the pond for the TDF.

We can get along like this or we can basically go for pages and pages where folks ask for him or her to provide links and other proof. Why? I really don't think it is that hard for us to move along and either discuss or not.

But the context of the claim is important. Recently, you challenged someone on the $300K Armstrong bounty under similar circumstances.

viewtopic.php?p=1923932#p1923932

the $300K Armstrong bounty is not even a 3rd hand rumor.
it's from the horse's mouth.
http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/more-sports/greg-lemond-quoted-newspaper-lance-armstrong-pay-individual-doping-claims-article-1.468881

 

[@NL_LeMondFans]

Re: Re:

Basically what we have here is called 2nd hand info. Sometimes even 3rd hand but in this instance I want to believe it is 2nd hand. In the legal realm they call it hearsay. Here in the clinic which is not a court of any type and dang sure is not a place where the truth and nothing but the whole truth is posted, it seems good enough to either take his word for it or to discount it. In my opinion I will go along and believe for now. I'm expecting to see a upcoming SI article and also to see Floyd over the pond for the TDF.

We can get along like this or we can basically go for pages and pages where folks ask for him or her to provide links and other proof. Why? I really don't think it is that hard for us to move along and either discuss or not.

But the context of the claim is important. Recently, you challenged someone on the $300K Armstrong bounty under similar circumstances.

viewtopic.php?p=1923932#p1923932

the $300K Armstrong bounty is not even a 3rd hand rumor.
it's from the horse's mouth.
http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/more-sports/greg-lemond-quoted-newspaper-lance-armstrong-pay-individual-doping-claims-article-1.468881

Says you. I'd argue that, by now, it's become a "fairly widespread rumor".

Since we accept rumors originated by Max Testa or Jan Gisbers, why not "from the horse's mouth" ?

 

[djpbaltimore]

You left out the key part. Another poster here on the forum also confirmed this according to you. If people accept the 'Floyd confirmed the EPO rumor' as presented by DM, they should hold the $300K rumor to the same standard. I tend to be skeptical about both based on the available evidence, but each individual can make up their own mind. But people should be consistent.

viewtopic.php?p=1914614#p1914614

 

[sniper]

There is a reason why we don't take stuff from the horse's mouth as fact, be it here, or in the Indurain threads, or in the Sky threads, or in the Contador threads, or previously in the Lance threads.

Max Testa is a great example.
Had zero reason to lie about Lemond.

 

[@NL_LeMondFans]

Re: Re:

I don't know Testa but you seem to think he's a well known doper. If that's the case, doping is his business. It's in his interest to make believe everyone is a doper. If a clean rider does better than the riders he's doping, it's bad for business. There's a difference between what Testa would say and what Testa would know. My theory : Testa knew Greg was clean, he said Greg was finished because "too much dope", suggesting Greg would not have been finished if he had been taken care of by Testa. Testa knowing his craft, and knowing what to take/what not to take, and in which quantities.

Yes that is one way to look at the statement of Testa.

I'n my opinion I don't agree but we all have to make up our own minds what Testa was saying when he said Greg was finished because he done "too much dope". He done gone and blown up from toooooooooooo much DOPE! I'm only exaggerating that last sentence but I tend to believe Testa meant what he said.

Well, since the "accusation" is based on interpretations, I think it's fair to allow a different tune, especially when it's not too far fetched.

The same people (I don't mean you, Glenn) that believe Greg LeMond is a pathological liar tend to take at face value what Max Testa is saying, while arguing that Testa is a massive doper which, by all accounts, is a proof of righteousness.

 

[sniper]

you still miss the point about (a) testa's statement vs. (b) horse's mouth statement.
(a) zero reason to make that up
(b) plenty of reason to make that up

 

[@NL_LeMondFans]

Re:

There is a reason why we don't take stuff from the horse's mouth as fact, be it here, or in the Indurain threads, or in the Sky threads, or in the Contador threads, or previously in the Lance threads.

There's a difference between "we don't take stuff from the horse's mouth as fact" and implying everything Greg says is a strategic lie, as it's been suggested here and there.
All the while giving credit to rumors and anonymous posters...

Max Testa is a great example.
Had zero reason to lie about Lemond.

I gave you two. Great example indeed.

 

[@NL_LeMondFans]

Re:

you still miss the point about (a) testa's statement vs. (b) horse's mouth statement.
(a) zero reason to make that up
(b) plenty of reason to make that up

a)says you
b)except if he's clean

 

[sniper]

Re: Re:

There is a reason why we don't take stuff from the horse's mouth as fact, be it here, or in the Indurain threads, or in the Sky threads, or in the Contador threads, or previously in the Lance threads.

There's a difference between "we don't take stuff from the horse's mouth as fact" and implying everything Greg says is a strategic lie, as it's been suggested here and there.
All the while giving credit to rumors and anonymous posters...
.

It's not black vs. white or true vs. false.
It's merely about a certain type of statements objectively yielding more skepticism than others.
Again, (a) testa's statement vs. (b) horse's mouth statement =
(a) zero reason to make that up vs. (b) plenty of reason to make that up
I'm not sure which part of that equation you wish to contest.

 

[Benotti69]

Re: Re:

I think, certainly my problem with sniper's proposition (and your support of it), and what underpins MIs thoughtful response to the thread is that to be such an industrial doper from an early early age would leave, for Lemond, an audit trail or footprint across decades and continents..

the sparse joining of dots doesn't, in my mind cut it...8 rumours we have...not even witness accounts, rumours and some of those rumours of rumours

I can buy that blood doping was going on and might be responsible for some stand out performances in the 80's e.g. Coe's 800m WR (which is still up there despite all the gains marginal or otherwise subsequently)...and Moser's hour. But for the level of consistency across one day races, tour's and GTs across the years I find again difficult to believe.

And as alluded to by MI above, if the haphazard manner in which Eddie B oversaw the blood doping on home soil where it should have been so easy (he had been doing it for at least a decade apparently) I find it hard to believe the Lemond 'entourage' was able to do better in their 'campervan' travelling across Europe.....

which of course they must have been to get the results he was....

Plenty of riders doped from Junior to the end of their careers and we are fortunate to hear of 1 episode in their doping!

Jens Voight never tested positive in a long long career for a cyclist. Plenty like Jens.

LeMond kept his mouth firmly shut about doping going on around him when riding and even when Kimmage put his head above the parapet i don't remember LeMond wading in behind him and supporting him especially when Roche attacked Kimmage.

 

[@NL_LeMondFans]

Re: Re:

There is a reason why we don't take stuff from the horse's mouth as fact, be it here, or in the Indurain threads, or in the Sky threads, or in the Contador threads, or previously in the Lance threads.

There's a difference between "we don't take stuff from the horse's mouth as fact" and implying everything Greg says is a strategic lie, as it's been suggested here and there.
All the while giving credit to rumors and anonymous posters...
.

It's not black vs. white or true vs. false.
It's merely about a certain type of statements objectively yielding more skepticism than others.
Again, (a) testa's statement vs. (b) horse's mouth statement =
(a) zero reason to make that up vs. (b) plenty of reason to make that up
I'm not sure which part of that equation you wish to contest.

You say it's not all true or false but you seem to think Greg is always "false".

As for the rest, you said in another thread it's difficult to discuss if we ignore your links
viewtopic.php?p=1925127#p1925127

I'd say it's difficult to discuss with you since you ignore my posts and almost systematically avoid answering the questions I ask, but let's move on.

Here's what I said about Testa :

I don't know Testa but you seem to think he's a well known doper. If that's the case, doping is his business. It's in his interest to make believe everyone is a doper. If a clean rider does better than the riders he's doping, it's bad for business. There's a difference between what Testa would say and what Testa would know. My theory : Testa knew Greg was clean, he said Greg was finished because "too much dope", suggesting Greg would not have been finished if he had been taken care of by Testa. Testa knowing his craft, and knowing what to take/what not to take, and in which quantities.

 

[@NL_LeMondFans]

Re: Re:

I think, certainly my problem with sniper's proposition (and your support of it), and what underpins MIs thoughtful response to the thread is that to be such an industrial doper from an early early age would leave, for Lemond, an audit trail or footprint across decades and continents..

the sparse joining of dots doesn't, in my mind cut it...8 rumours we have...not even witness accounts, rumours and some of those rumours of rumours

I can buy that blood doping was going on and might be responsible for some stand out performances in the 80's e.g. Coe's 800m WR (which is still up there despite all the gains marginal or otherwise subsequently)...and Moser's hour. But for the level of consistency across one day races, tour's and GTs across the years I find again difficult to believe.

And as alluded to by MI above, if the haphazard manner in which Eddie B oversaw the blood doping on home soil where it should have been so easy (he had been doing it for at least a decade apparently) I find it hard to believe the Lemond 'entourage' was able to do better in their 'campervan' travelling across Europe.....

which of course they must have been to get the results he was....

Plenty of riders doped from Junior to the end of their careers and we are fortunate to hear of 1 episode in their doping!

Jens Voight never tested positive in a long long career for a cyclist. Plenty like Jens.

LeMond kept his mouth firmly shut about doping going on around him when riding and even when Kimmage put his head above the parapet i don't remember LeMond wading in behind him and supporting him especially when Roche attacked Kimmage.

A lot of people had no problem with rampant doping before EPO. I think it's also due to how deeply it shifted cycling from its axis. I don't know about you but LeMond or not, by 1993 I couldn't root for anyone. I couldn't believe what I was seeing. I couldn't relate to pro cycling anymore.

Also, I have followed cycling all throughout the 80's and, in France at least, Kimmage's story was not that big of a deal. There was tension in France in 1982 when Hinault refused a test at a criterium and then the Delgado affair went big in 88 (there was also Ben Johnson at the same time), but that's pretty much it. I'm not saying it was ok not to say anything but the world was not the same, at least from the outside.

At the time, did anyone support Kimmage ? Does that make them all dopers ? Same with Bassons. I'm pretty sure there were other clean riders but they kept their mouths shut.

 

[sniper]

Re: Re:

Here's what I said about Testa :

I don't know Testa but you seem to think he's a well known doper. If that's the case, doping is his business. It's in his interest to make believe everyone is a doper. If a clean rider does better than the riders he's doping, it's bad for business. There's a difference between what Testa would say and what Testa would know. My theory : Testa knew Greg was clean, he said Greg was finished because "too much dope", suggesting Greg would not have been finished if he had been taken care of by Testa. Testa knowing his craft, and knowing what to take/what not to take, and in which quantities.

This theory (regardless of its possible validity in other cases) has zero bearing on this case, because this is nothing to do with the context in which Testa made those claims.
He said it in a private 1 on 1 conversation with Cees Beers (who had called him, not the other way round). Beers isn't a cyclist.
There really was no obvious reason for Testa to make that up, even less so in that particular context.

 

[Oldermanish]

Re:

There is a reason why we don't take stuff from the horse's mouth as fact, be it here, or in the Indurain threads, or in the Sky threads, or in the Contador threads, or previously in the Lance threads.

Max Testa is a great example.
Had zero reason to lie about Lemond.

Yes, yes he did. He, Och and others were working for Lance. Fact: he did not know what his riders were taking but did offer to administer. Lance is well known for encouraging the internal team arm's race.
If Testa didn't know what individual team riders were taking; how could he know what anyone was taking unless he put the needle into the a*s himself?
Perhaps the speculation is getting to far off reality.

 

[Oldermanish]

Re: Re:

good post, Glenn, especially that last sentence cuts it.

Testa conducted activities at Motorola but it wasn't necessarily a team-sponsored operation.

that sounds plausible.

One fact was clear: they used the "fact" that the Euros were all doping to justify their activity. It was self-serving and clear they were willing to lie to their own riders.

That's interesting insight and puts some statements in perspective. Otoh, there are also statements e.g. by former 7-eleven soigneur Shelley Verses who said that in her carreer she's seen a remarkable lot of riders, especially star riders, with attach'e cases with doping products. It's difficult to maintain she too was just guessing.

We could be fairly certain that was standard operating procedure for the entire culture.

If I may ask, in your view, where(approximately) in the average GC of the GTs of the (mid)80s, would we find the first bread-and-water rider(s)?

Mid-eighties? Presumably none have access to EPO, blood doping is still legal...I'd say none because 'roids were governed by "levels" and almost everyone topped off. They rode many, many races and it is unlikely any of them could survive. The amount and abuse could vary among riders but I would doubt any top 10 rider took absolutely nothing by today's puritan standards. Under that scenario the advantages gained would be relatively slight.

 

[sniper]

Re: Re:

There is a reason why we don't take stuff from the horse's mouth as fact, be it here, or in the Indurain threads, or in the Sky threads, or in the Contador threads, or previously in the Lance threads.

Max Testa is a great example.
Had zero reason to lie about Lemond.

Yes, yes he did. He, Och and others were working for Lance. Fact: he did not know what his riders were taking but did offer to administer. Lance is well known for encouraging the internal team arm's race.
If Testa didn't know what individual team riders were taking; how could he know what anyone was taking unless he put the needle into the a*s himself?
Perhaps the speculation is getting to far off reality.

I agree with that.
I'm just saying he didn't have a reason to make up the rumor.
If he said that to Cees Beers, I think that's what he thought, or what he'd heard from others. I don't think he was attempting to fool or lie to Cees Beers in that phonecall. (Or at least i have trouble seeing why he would do that.)
That doesn't make the rumor true, of course.

 

[python]

i've been reading the thread from time to time, as well as its previous versions...

the only conclusive conclusion i can see is that it contributed to the highest number of the least likely (in my interpretation) bans of the otherwise content-adding members. the hammer fell on both sides, but lately it was clearly not sparing the lemond supporters...

in that regard, i am frank, i have 2 questions.

what exactly did continuing the discussion achieve (given the previous thread lockouts) in terms of advancing the factual basis that lemond may have/may have not doped ? i mean something hard, tangible that would produce an effect contrary to the public knowledge of lemond never failing a test or being suspected by his teammates ?

the 2nd Q is about glen's position...i am genuinely confused. i recall (the doubters should prove me wrong by a search on his posts) glen referring to himself as one of greg's sympathizers. 'i own his bike etc..' i am being careful NOT calling him a greg fan, b/c i don't recall he said so. almost a fan ? then now i am reading a bunch of posts that i'd describe as 'neutral' leaning on doubting lemond. either position is can have the validity, but his is the only one that i read as somewhat artificially ambiguous...as if to leave a backdoor to a reversal...

what am i missing ? why is this thread still going ?

 

[sniper]

liking or hating greg or owning his equipment...
how does that have any bearing on the doping question?
if anything, glenn being a lemond sympathizer adds weight to his viewpoints, because you cant accuse him of bias.
not sure what the problem is there.

as to ur 1st question: as mentioned earlier, if there werent these unsupported theories about Lemond being some kind of miracle athlete who won the TdF 3 times on bread and water, this thread would be long gone. Lemond would be another Sastre or another Evans: not interesting enough to discuss at length.

 

[python]

at this point i can only see that your obsession with 'lemond possibly doping' and others seeing it otherwise is the only driver for the thread. as i said, to me it produced very little to change or acquire an opinion. and i consider myself open-minded on the issue. as to glen, you called it a problem, i only tried to figure where the guy stands.

 

[pmcg76]

Re: Re:

There is a reason why we don't take stuff from the horse's mouth as fact, be it here, or in the Indurain threads, or in the Sky threads, or in the Contador threads, or previously in the Lance threads.

There's a difference between "we don't take stuff from the horse's mouth as fact" and implying everything Greg says is a strategic lie, as it's been suggested here and there.
All the while giving credit to rumors and anonymous posters...
.

It's not black vs. white or true vs. false.
It's merely about a certain type of statements objectively yielding more skepticism than others.
Again, (a) testa's statement vs. (b) horse's mouth statement =
(a) zero reason to make that up vs. (b) plenty of reason to make that up
I'm not sure which part of that equation you wish to contest.

Except who was it that brought the Testa rumour to public attention? Erm, Greg LeMond.

So you are more or less arguing that nothing from LeMonds mouth should be believed...........except for that Testa rumour of course.

Does anyone else see the futility of this.

 

[the delgados]

Re:

at this point i can only see that your obsession with 'lemond possibly doping' and others seeing it otherwise is the only driver for the thread. as i said, to me it produced very little to change or acquire an opinion. and i consider myself open-minded on the issue. as to glen, you called it a problem, i only tried to figure where the guy stands.

What else are we going to talk about in the Clinic?
Pretty much everyone here agrees that every elite level athlete in every sport except for darts uses some form of PED's.
Lemond is the final frontier.

 

[pmcg76]

Re: Re:

at this point i can only see that your obsession with 'lemond possibly doping' and others seeing it otherwise is the only driver for the thread. as i said, to me it produced very little to change or acquire an opinion. and i consider myself open-minded on the issue. as to glen, you called it a problem, i only tried to figure where the guy stands.

What else are we going to talk about in the Clinic?
Pretty much everyone here agrees that every elite level athlete in every sport except for darts uses some form of PED's.
Lemond is the final frontier.

No, that is patently false. IMO there are a lot of people who believe that since the introduction of EPO, the likelihood of top riders riding totally clean is slim to none but that doping ebbed and flowed depending on circumstances.

Likewise there are a lot of people who believe that it was possible to compete clean in the pre EPO era but still subscribe to the first view also.

What I see is people imposing the first view onto the second and trying to draw the same conclusions.

For example, there are posters who try to knock me for bringing Giles Delion into discussion about the pre EPO era and dismiss him as irrelevant but I want to know how someone whose reputation is on a par with Christophe Bassons can be deemed irrelevant.