LeMond III

[sniper]

Eddie b. Organized his racing in poland. It's written down in the gordis lemond book of which I can send you an epub file

 

[@NL_LeMondFans]

Re: Re:

So, I would have to say that although it is possible (i.e., not impossible) that Greg used blood doping, it is highly implausible. Greg was a fast-rising star who didn't need blood boosting to win. And when he became a newlywed pro, he was essentially broke and a long distance from any blood doping centers such as Switzerland. The logistics would have been beyond him - it would have required the Renault team's assistance. That would go against what people have said about Guimard and doping. And yet he kept on winning.

Your reasoning just doesn't add up in terms of what most likely happened.

John Swanson

It has been pointed out (by me, and admitted by others) that this thread largely relies on wether or not you like Greg. The people who do not like Greg tend to believe he would "Stop at nothing" (pun intended). Which leads to imagine very sophisticated scenarii That are described at lenght here and there.

The thing is... It's down to anyone's opinion. If someone is willing to believe that Greg was a teenage blood-doping and PEDs addict, as well as his whole family, his wife's family, whole teams and crews were involved in prescient doping methods... Good for him/her. There is nothing I can do or say that can contradict that kind of nonsense because it is based mostly on the opinion that Greg is a very, very, very bad person. And in that hypothesis, everything that is theoratically possible becomes conveniently certain.

 

[ScienceIsCool]

Re:

Eddie b. Organized his racing in poland. It's written down in the gordis lemond book of which I can send you an epub file

It would only make sense that Eddie would recommend a race in Poland and then make arrangements with the organizer. He's from there and speaks the language... I'm not sure what you can infer from a single race in Poland during a two month sojourn in Europe.

John Swanson

 

[ScienceIsCool]

Re: Re:

So, I would have to say that although it is possible (i.e., not impossible) that Greg used blood doping, it is highly implausible. Greg was a fast-rising star who didn't need blood boosting to win. And when he became a newlywed pro, he was essentially broke and a long distance from any blood doping centers such as Switzerland. The logistics would have been beyond him - it would have required the Renault team's assistance. That would go against what people have said about Guimard and doping. And yet he kept on winning.

Your reasoning just doesn't add up in terms of what most likely happened.

John Swanson

It has been pointed out (by me, and admitted by others) that this thread largely relies on wether or not you like Greg. The people who do not like Greg tend to believe he would "Stop at nothing" (pun intended). Which leads to imagine very sophisticated scenarii That are described at lenght here and there.

The thing is... It's down to anyone's opinion. If someone is willing to believe that Greg was a teenage blood-doping and PEDs addict, as well as his whole family, his wife's family, whole teams and crews were involved in prescient doping methods... Good for him/her. There is nothing I can do or say that can contradict that kind of nonsense because it is based mostly on the opinion that Greg is a very, very, very bad person. And in that hypothesis, everything that is theoratically possible becomes conveniently certain.

I suspect that you're right. To me, it's just that the timelines of both EPO and blood doping and Greg's exposure to possible facilitators doesn't come even remotely close to matching Lemond's career. I'd certainly agree about the theoretically possible becoming an established truth. Unfortunate.

John Swanson

 

[gillan1969]

Re: Re:

So, I would have to say that although it is possible (i.e., not impossible) that Greg used blood doping, it is highly implausible. Greg was a fast-rising star who didn't need blood boosting to win. And when he became a newlywed pro, he was essentially broke and a long distance from any blood doping centers such as Switzerland. The logistics would have been beyond him - it would have required the Renault team's assistance. That would go against what people have said about Guimard and doping. And yet he kept on winning.

Your reasoning just doesn't add up in terms of what most likely happened.

John Swanson

It has been pointed out (by me, and admitted by others) that this thread largely relies on wether or not you like Greg. The people who do not like Greg tend to believe he would "Stop at nothing" (pun intended). Which leads to imagine very sophisticated scenarii That are described at lenght here and there.

The thing is... It's down to anyone's opinion. If someone is willing to believe that Greg was a teenage blood-doping and PEDs addict, as well as his whole family, his wife's family, whole teams and crews were involved in prescient doping methods... Good for him/her. There is nothing I can do or say that can contradict that kind of nonsense because it is based mostly on the opinion that Greg is a very, very, very bad person. And in that hypothesis, everything that is theoratically possible becomes conveniently certain.

correct.....to keep that quiet he is either far, far, more bad-assed than a certain LA (with presumably their spat serving as a double bluff... ) and everyone is scared

or

...he is super nice and nobody is squealing...

 

[sniper]

What did he keep quiet?

 

[sniper]

this you just hate excellence defence is as old as doping and has been shown to be bollox dozens of times. (Wording borrowed from fmk)
So no, this thread is not about whether you like lemond or not. Well for you guys it seems to be. Or its what you want it to be about.
For others its just about whether he doped or not. If you have nothing of substance to say about that, that's nothing to be ashamed of you know.
So back on topic. The last serious argument against Lemond being similar to all other gt winners was that he couldn't have blood doped in the early 80s. I think that argument just got blown out of the sky.

 

[sniper]

@john
I hope you realize this 'he didn't dope because be didnt need to dope' argument is awfully circular.
You can do better.

 

[djpbaltimore]

Correction, I think the argument is that LeMond could not have plausibly blood doped in the 80s. I haven't seen evidence to disprove that assertion. Blood doping was an implausible possibility for any athlete starting in the 70s.

 

[sniper]

@john, again
If you think 14 year olds don't dope or get doped, well your going to wake up to a very dark and evil reality one day.
If you look at Dad Lemonds involvement and add that Mexican coach in the mix, your argument really doesn't stand up to scrutiny.

 

[Nick C.]

Re:

this you just hate excellence defence is as old as doping and has been shown to be bollox dozens of times. (Wording borrowed from fmk)
So no, this thread is not about whether you like lemond or not. Well for you guys it seems to be. Or its what you want it to be about.
For others its just about whether he doped or not. If you have nothing of substance to say about that, that's nothing to be ashamed of you know.
So back on topic. The last serious argument against Lemond being similar to all other gt winners was that he couldn't have blood doped in the early 80s. I think that argument just got blown out of the sky.

Depends what you mean. That a person confessed to blood doping and referenced cyclists before 1980 = blood doping existed and therefore one cannot claim blood doping did not exist then, then OK, though "blown out of the sky is a bit strong." The problem is as corroborated as that he was a lover of John Travolta's. Travolta has had rumors, they both were in California, it was the 70s/80s when things were loosey goosey ... Connect the dots.

 

[gillan1969]

Re:

@john, again
If you think 14 year olds don't dope or get doped, well your going to wake up to a very dark and evil reality one day.
If you look at Dad Lemonds involvement and add that Mexican coach in the mix, your argument really doesn't stand up to scrutiny.

have we not done this...he was a local coach that happened to be mexican...perhaps Trump should be reading this

 

[Nick C.]

Re: Re:

@john, again
If you think 14 year olds don't dope or get doped, well your going to wake up to a very dark and evil reality one day.
If you look at Dad Lemonds involvement and add that Mexican coach in the mix, your argument really doesn't stand up to scrutiny.

have we not done this...he was a local coach that happened to be mexican...perhaps Trump should be reading this

Amazingly there were lots of Mexicans or people of Mexican heritage in California and the southwest US. Ted Williams the baseball player had a Mexican mother, the Dead have a song "Mexicali Blues", Keith Hernandez was from northern California, nicknamed "Mex" and hooked up with Elaine Benes.

 

[sniper]

Gillian turning the tables again. Plus ca change indeed.
You forget what he null hypothesis is.
We don't need to prove Jacome doped lemond. Suffice to note he could have.
For some bizarre reason john claims he couldn't have.

 

[sniper]

Btw. Lemond doping as a junior also nicely fits the whole OTC set up. The explicitly expressed aims of thw otc were twofold:
- identify talented juniors
- dope them East German style

Lemons doping as a junior also fits his myopathy and Max Testas suggestion that he simply doped too much.

Also, even tdf86winner admits Heiden was likely doped. I don't see how you go from "Ok, heiden doped" to "but lemond was clean".
Thats like going from the world isn't flat to but Santa really does exist.

Back to jacome.
oldman, a poster whose been closer to the game than any of us, had several posts pointing at Jacome and lemond dodgy off season training sessions hinting at doping. Id really think twice before defending a soigneur.

All occams razor 101.

 

[sniper]

Re: Re:

this you just hate excellence defence is as old as doping and has been shown to be bollox dozens of times. (Wording borrowed from fmk)
So no, this thread is not about whether you like lemond or not. Well for you guys it seems to be. Or its what you want it to be about.
For others its just about whether he doped or not. If you have nothing of substance to say about that, that's nothing to be ashamed of you know.
So back on topic. The last serious argument against Lemond being similar to all other gt winners was that he couldn't have blood doped in the early 80s. I think that argument just got blown out of the sky.

Depends what you mean. That a person confessed to blood doping and referenced cyclists before 1980 = blood doping existed and therefore one cannot claim blood doping did not exist then, then OK, though "blown out of the sky is a bit strong." The problem is as corroborated as that he was a lover of John Travolta's. Travolta has had rumors, they both were in California, it was the 70s/80s when things were loosey goosey ... Connect the dots.

fair enough.
But again, like with jacome: there is no need to prove that lemond blood doped. Suffice to note he had the possibility to do so.

 

[gillan1969]

Re:

Gillian turning the tables again. Plus ca change indeed.
You forget what he null hypothesis is.
We don't need to prove Jacome doped lemond. Suffice to note he could have.
For some bizarre reason john claims he couldn't have.

i don't claim lemond never doped only that his overall career looked like someone who didn't, or at least less likely to have......it has a very natural flow to it
and...the highs were so high that, if he was, it must have started very young...for this to have been the case we would have heard about before now and certainly something more concrete than the circumstantial (at best) info gathered here....

 

[sniper]

What would we have heard?
I've heard more about lemond than about indurain, zastre, Wiggins Heiden, borg, you name them.
And that *despite * the fact that there was no social media arounaround, and that lem.ond spent time and energy on keepikeeping distance between him and the team he rode for. He had his own entourage of confidents.
Jacome's story speaks volumes in that regard.

 

[gillan1969]

Re:

What would we have heard?
I've heard more about lemond than about indurain, zastre, Wiggins Heiden, borg, you name them.
And that *despite * the fact that there was no social media arounaround, and that lem.ond spent time and energy on keepikeeping distance between him and the team he rode for. He had his own entourage of confidents.
Jacome's story speaks volumes in that regard.

Hieden was never better than an average pro and sastre was between eras...in terms of indurian and wiggins (who i am better qualified to talk about) you don't need any info...their trajectory and times tell you all you need to know

that isn't the case with lemond

 

[ScienceIsCool]

Re:

@john, again
If you think 14 year olds don't dope or get doped, well your going to wake up to a very dark and evil reality one day.
If you look at Dad Lemonds involvement and add that Mexican coach in the mix, your argument really doesn't stand up to scrutiny.

Sorry, not going to get down in the mud with you on this one. Personally, I find your Mexican = drug dealer insinuations to be racist and degrading. Involved parents are suspicious? Yeah. You'll have to enjoy this all on your own.

John Swanson

 

[sniper]

Re: Re:

What would we have heard?
I've heard more about lemond than about indurain, zastre, Wiggins Heiden, borg, you name them.
And that *despite * the fact that there was no social media arounaround, and that lem.ond spent time and energy on keepikeeping distance between him and the team he rode for. He had his own entourage of confidents.
Jacome's story speaks volumes in that regard.

Hieden was never better than an average pro and sastre was between eras...in terms of indurian and wiggins (who i am better qualified to talk about) you don't need any info...their trajectory and times tell you all you need to know

that isn't the case with lemond

it is the case with lemond too.
0-hypothesis is what it is. For historically sound reasons.

 

[@NL_LeMondFans]

Re:

@john, again
If you think 14 year olds don't dope or get doped, well your going to wake up to a very dark and evil reality one day.
If you look at Dad Lemonds involvement and add that Mexican coach in the mix, your argument really doesn't stand up to scrutiny.

Thanks for that post which proves exactly what I meant earlier.

You assume everyone acts according to your gospel, i/e mainly in a bad way. Your opinion on people generally, and cyclists in particular, clouds your judgement.

What you fail to realize is that Greg failed to behave as it was expected of him. He didn't fit and, to this day, fails to behave accordingly to what most people expect of him. That's why he leaves such an impression on people around him and inspires them.

But, of course, that does not fit your narrative.Your assumptions are much safer and require less work.

 

[sniper]

Your making this about me again.
I don't have a narrative. Nor do I have burden of proof or even burden of evidence.
People who claim lemond is a historical exception to the rule do. They are the ones applying one set of standards to indurain and Wiggins, and another set of standards to lemond and Hampsten.

So again. I don't care if Jacome doped him. Point is he may well have, and Jacome s early involvement is merely one of several reasons why John's argument about lemond being good as a junior and therefore clean falls into pieces.
I'm not sure what your arguing against. You think Jacome could not have? Not a chance? A soigneur and cycling coach with ethics and morals different from most other soigneurs?
That's fine if u thinkthink that but then at least argue why. Or don't bother. But stop making this about me.

 

[ebandit]

.............so after all these pages we're still at...................'may have.....'

Mark L

 

[@NL_LeMondFans]

Re: Re:

Your making this about me again (...) stop making this about me.

Ok, I'm sorry you took this personally, that wasn't my intent. Let's just play the "Sniper method", then. Shall we ? Shoot the message, not the messenger.

there is no need to prove that lemond blood doped. Suffice to note he had the possibility to do so.

It might come as a shock to those praising "Saint leMond" but here it is : it's possible that Greg LeMond is a mass murderer. Here's why.

First, Greg is American. Everyone in the world will tell you these people are bloodthirsty potential killers and the US are renowned for their crime rate, especially between the 70's and the 90's.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_the_United_States

Then he had access. Guns have been widespread in the US for decades, especially in the southern states. And Greg is not just any gun shooter. He is a champion. From the horse's mouth : "I used to trapshoot. I was actually a junior national champion."
http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/g/greglemond663849.html

And where did Greg win his world champion title as a junior ???... Buenos Aires, Argentina. Yes, you read it right. It is highly possible that Greg was indeed trained by the Death Squads there :

"The "Dirty War" (Spanish: Guerra Sucia), also known as the Process of National Reorganization (Spanish: Proceso de Reorganización Nacional or El Proceso), was the name used by the Argentine Military Government for a bloody war against marxism in Argentina[1] from roughly 1974[2][3] to 1983 (some sources date the beginning to 1969), during which military and security forces and right-wing death squads in the form of the Argentine Anticommunist Alliance (Triple A)[4][5] hunted down and killed left-wing terrorist guerrillas,[6][7] political dissidents, and anyone believed to be associated with socialism.[8][9][10][11] The victims of the violence were 7,158[1] [12][13][14] left-wing activists, terrorists and militants, including trade unionists, students, journalists and Marxists and Peronist guerrillas"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dirty_War

If you read further, you will learn that, in Argentina not only there were experts in targeted killing but also in hiding and freezing dead bodies :
"The junta justified this mass terror by exaggerating the guerrilla threat, and even staged attacks to be blamed on guerillas and used frozen dead bodies of guerilla fighters that had been kept in storage for this purpose"

I mean, why else would Greg go to Buenos Aires ? And what better cover than to be a young and successful athlete ?

Greg has a strong motive : his father in law was an immunologist. As any physician researcher, he needed fresh corpses to pursue his experiments. Body shortage has always been an issue and still is :
https://www.theguardian.com/science/2015/mar/10/body-medical-research-donate-death-science-brain

That's where Greg's wife (daughter to the immunologist) comes into play. She was a nurse student. Who better than a nurse to prep the bodies ?
I hear you, if Greg was a mass murderer there would be evidence, witnesses, traces of some sort... That's where "The Mexican" comes in handy. As a Mexican, Otto was well trained in the art of intimidating people, eliminating the trail of proofs, no matter how. For those believing I'm making a racist comment, you should read this and wake up :
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_Mexico

I'm just connecting dots, here... replace "murder" with "doping", replace "guns" with "dope", replace "trap shoot champion" with "iron shots" and there you go : Sniper's method.