LeMond III

[gillan1969]

Re:

@gillan:
I'm not quite following, but that could be me.

So you think he was clean or not? I wouldn't want to be arguing with windmills here.

Anyway, how many riders have you seen with a similarly steady carreer path as lemond?
I'd argue hundreds. Many of them anonymous in the pack for years.
If you wanna use steadiness as an indicator of cleanliness, you're still safer off looking for clean riders among those hundreds many of whom never won anything in their lives.
Look, I totally agree that the lack of a steady carreer progression is often an indicator of doping.
But to reversely claim that a steady carreer path is an indicator of cleanliness, there just is no basis whatsoever for that. And you'd then have to account for several proven dopers with perfectly steady carreer paths.

well its pro cycling but with lemond..on balance....clean

nobody has been that good and steady in my following of the sport...apart from maybe Nicole Cooke

from junior world's through.....................

he was also...to the point of it being discussed a lot...well divorced from the 'culture' and so i could imagine it being the case...also did willy de voet not single him out?

 

[sniper]

Re: Re:

...
well its pro cycling but with lemond..on balance....clean

nobody has been that good and steady in my following of the sport...apart from maybe Nicole Cooke

from junior world's through.....................

he was also...to the point of it being discussed a lot...well divorced from the 'culture' and so i could imagine it being the case...also did willy de voet not single him out?

all other things equal, you'll agree that a "bad and steady" rider is still more likely to be clean than a "good and steady" rider? Now, you'll find hundreds of "bad and steady" riders, many of whom were likely dopers. Why would the "(incredibly) good and steady" one be the clean one?

 

[gillan1969]

Re: Re:

...
well its pro cycling but with lemond..on balance....clean

nobody has been that good and steady in my following of the sport...apart from maybe Nicole Cooke

from junior world's through.....................

he was also...to the point of it being discussed a lot...well divorced from the 'culture' and so i could imagine it being the case...also did willy de voet not single him out?

all other things equal, you'll agree that a "bad and steady" rider is still more likely to be clean than a "good and steady" rider? Now, you'll find hundreds of "bad and steady" riders, many of whom were likely dopers. Why would the "(incredibly) good and steady" one be the clean one?

because he was incredibly good...a corollary would be incredibly bad in which case they wouldn't be a pro or would not get contract renewed...

my moral compass is perhaps different than others and I don't really have a problem with the doping...its part of their job...

what I have a problem with is when it turns nature on its head...and post Lemond that is what we have seen most notably via oxygen doping...I can collude with the sport up to a point....

Lemond due to his early ability and career, clears the bar easily...Froome, due to his ridiculous transformation and lies, trips up before he has even started his run up....

 

[sniper]

Re: Re:

...
well its pro cycling but with lemond..on balance....clean

nobody has been that good and steady in my following of the sport...apart from maybe Nicole Cooke

from junior world's through.....................

he was also...to the point of it being discussed a lot...well divorced from the 'culture' and so i could imagine it being the case...also did willy de voet not single him out?

all other things equal, you'll agree that a "bad and steady" rider is still more likely to be clean than a "good and steady" rider? Now, you'll find hundreds of "bad and steady" riders, many of whom were likely dopers. Why would the "(incredibly) good and steady" one be the clean one?

because he was incredibly good...a corollary would be incredibly bad in which case they wouldn't be a pro or would not get contract renewed...

my moral compass is perhaps different than others and I don't really have a problem with the doping...its part of their job...

what I have a problem with is when it turns nature on its head...and post Lemond that is what we have seen most notably via oxygen doping...I can collude with the sport up to a point....

Lemond due to his early ability and career, clears the bar easily...Froome, due to his ridiculous transformation and lies, trips up before he has even started his run up....

Fair points.
except, who's gonna tell the difference between incredibly bad and incredibly clean?
There is a former pro on the record here in the clinic, he posted under the name of esafosfina.
you should look some of his posts up. Makes for interesting reading.
amongst other things, he said he was considered by his peers as "freakishly good".
But he refused to dope, and never made it beyond the semi-pro stage.
Goes to show, clean riders normally don't even get a chance to show how incredibly good and steady they would have been.

 

[GJB123]

Re:

3 times TdF champ. With one kidney and corresponding blood disease.
This isn't darts you know.
Discovered by Eddy B. and receiving iron shots from Ivan Vanmol.
No red flags you say?

And there could be tons of reasons why he fell behind in the 90s. Why did Indurain fall behind in 1996? Surely not because he'd been riding clean.

More to the point, I haven't seen any plausible answer to the question: why would Lemond not have doped?
What made him belong to this hypothetical 1% of clean proriders in the 80s who we don't even know existed and who, if they did exist, were likely to have been riding at the very back of the pack.
To claim he was a freak of nature is possible, but it's clutching at straws, and even if he was, that doesn't answer the question why he wouldn't additionally have dipped into the hot sauce too.
He was under enough pressure to perform, you'll know that better than most.

If you lived through Lemond's carreer, I don't have to tell you why Lemond didn't go to the Olympics in 1984.
And I don't have to tell you about Eddy B. either.
Eddy B? Junior blood doper? Who cares, let's throw the guy a fundraiser in 2005 and invite at least a handful of athletes who've admitted to blood doping under Eddy B.

None of that is evidence of Lemond's wrongdoing. But neither is it evidence of some PED-refusing moral that some seem to think was innate to Lemond for some reason.

As to the bolded. There were plenty of riders whom we know or are pretty sure they were clean in the 80's and early 90's besides LeMond. And they were winning also and not just riding at the back of the pack until the onslaught of blood vector doping.

Why would LeMond not have doped? Simple, in the era you could also win clean and he could win clean (Mottet, Delion, Van Hooydonk to name but a few), so no reason for him to dope. Remember even Fignon, who did dope with the usual 80's stuff, claimed that a talented rider could win clean in the 80's. Now why would he say that it wasn't true? Once he came clean the easiest thing for hi to say was that you need to dope to win if only to justify his own PED-abuse, yet he didn't.

And as to blood doping in the 80's during GT's. This was discussed and put to bed a long time ago in this very Clinic. It is just simply not very plausible at that time given the amount of organization and equipement needed. For one day races maybe yes, but doing large scale blood transfusions on the go. I don't think so.

Also LeMond didn't get better by leaps and bounds in the 80's. He was there or thereabouts early in hos career well before EPO and was still there after the hunting accident only on a lesser level than before. There is no red flag there like there is with some later contemporaries who all of sudden found a new lease of life. If LeMond was doing EPO combined with freak of nature physique why wasn't he able to keep up with the Joneses after 1990? Did het stop suing EPO all of a sudden.

I am not saying he positively never used anything of the regular 80's stuff that for example wasn't on the banned list then but would be now, but the vast majority of the information available (both factual and circumstantial) point to the fact that he might well have done it all clean.

 

[gillan1969]

Re: Re:

...
well its pro cycling but with lemond..on balance....clean

nobody has been that good and steady in my following of the sport...apart from maybe Nicole Cooke

from junior world's through.....................

he was also...to the point of it being discussed a lot...well divorced from the 'culture' and so i could imagine it being the case...also did willy de voet not single him out?

all other things equal, you'll agree that a "bad and steady" rider is still more likely to be clean than a "good and steady" rider? Now, you'll find hundreds of "bad and steady" riders, many of whom were likely dopers. Why would the "(incredibly) good and steady" one be the clean one?

because he was incredibly good...a corollary would be incredibly bad in which case they wouldn't be a pro or would not get contract renewed...

my moral compass is perhaps different than others and I don't really have a problem with the doping...its part of their job...

what I have a problem with is when it turns nature on its head...and post Lemond that is what we have seen most notably via oxygen doping...I can collude with the sport up to a point....

Lemond due to his early ability and career, clears the bar easily...Froome, due to his ridiculous transformation and lies, trips up before he has even started his run up....

Fair points.
except, who's gonna tell the difference between incredibly bad and incredibly clean?
There is a former pro on the record here in the clinic, he posted under the name of esafosfina.
you should look some of his posts up. Makes for interesting reading.
amongst other things, he said he was considered by his peers as "freakishly good".
But he refused to dope, and never made it beyond the semi-pro stage.
Goes to show, clean riders normally don't even get a chance to show how incredibly good and steady they might be.

yup I remember him...rode on Lemond's team...fast pursuiter...him and webster turned pro at the wrong time if you wanted to be clean....done to death but I think you could compete pre-epo clean...but post-epo forget it...makes me wonder about boardman who moved into the epo era seamlessly

 

[GJB123]

Re: Re:

...
well its pro cycling but with lemond..on balance....clean

nobody has been that good and steady in my following of the sport...apart from maybe Nicole Cooke

from junior world's through.....................

he was also...to the point of it being discussed a lot...well divorced from the 'culture' and so i could imagine it being the case...also did willy de voet not single him out?

all other things equal, you'll agree that a "bad and steady" rider is still more likely to be clean than a "good and steady" rider? Now, you'll find hundreds of "bad and steady" riders, many of whom were likely dopers. Why would the "(incredibly) good and steady" one be the clean one?

because he was incredibly good...a corollary would be incredibly bad in which case they wouldn't be a pro or would not get contract renewed...

my moral compass is perhaps different than others and I don't really have a problem with the doping...its part of their job...

what I have a problem with is when it turns nature on its head...and post Lemond that is what we have seen most notably via oxygen doping...I can collude with the sport up to a point....

Lemond due to his early ability and career, clears the bar easily...Froome, due to his ridiculous transformation and lies, trips up before he has even started his run up....

Fair points.
except, who's gonna tell the difference between incredibly bad and incredibly clean?
There is a former pro on the record here in the clinic, he posted under the name of esafosfina.
you should look some of his posts up. Makes for interesting reading.
amongst other things, he said he was considered by his peers as "freakishly good".
But he refused to dope, and never made it beyond the semi-pro stage.
Goes to show, clean riders normally don't even get a chance to show how incredibly good and steady they would have been.

In what period did he race? (I know I could perhaps look it up, but I am lazy). Because if that was in the 90's onwards I am not surprised at al that he couldn't hack it clean. Just ask Gilles Delion and Edwin van Hooydonk how they fared clean against the EPO-monsters of that day? And if he raced with LeMond what did he say on record about him? I think I remember and I think it was that the word within the peloton was largely that LeMond was clean, but I am happy to be corrected on that.

Also remember that LeMond annihilated senior fields back in the US while still a junior (with hardly the standard of equipment that was used by the seniors in those races). Now he could have been doped to his eye balls while still a junior in the US, but the more likely explanation is that he just was that good already at a very early age. A freak of nature of the kind you get once every few decades.

 

[@NL_LeMondFans]

Re: Re:

...
well its pro cycling but with lemond..on balance....clean

nobody has been that good and steady in my following of the sport...apart from maybe Nicole Cooke

from junior world's through.....................

he was also...to the point of it being discussed a lot...well divorced from the 'culture' and so i could imagine it being the case...also did willy de voet not single him out?

all other things equal, you'll agree that a "bad and steady" rider is still more likely to be clean than a "good and steady" rider? Now, you'll find hundreds of "bad and steady" riders, many of whom were likely dopers. Why would the "(incredibly) good and steady" one be the clean one?

because he was incredibly good...a corollary would be incredibly bad in which case they wouldn't be a pro or would not get contract renewed...

my moral compass is perhaps different than others and I don't really have a problem with the doping...its part of their job...

what I have a problem with is when it turns nature on its head...and post Lemond that is what we have seen most notably via oxygen doping...I can collude with the sport up to a point....

Lemond due to his early ability and career, clears the bar easily...Froome, due to his ridiculous transformation and lies, trips up before he has even started his run up....

Fair points.
except, who's gonna tell the difference between incredibly bad and incredibly clean?
There is a former pro on the record here in the clinic, he posted under the name of esafosfina.
you should look some of his posts up. Makes for interesting reading.
amongst other things, he said he was considered by his peers as "freakishly good".
But he refused to dope, and never made it beyond the semi-pro stage.
Goes to show, clean riders normally don't even get a chance to show how incredibly good and steady they might be.

yup I remember him...rode on Lemond's team...fast pursuiter...him and webster turned pro at the wrong time if you wanted to be clean....done to death but I think you could compete pre-epo clean...but post-epo forget it...makes me wonder about boardman who moved into the epo era seamlessly

There are hundreds of examples of riders amazingly good as amateurs that do not perform as pros. Just because they mature very early and their progression curve reaches the top very quickly. It's not necessarily linked to doping.

 

[@NL_LeMondFans]

Re: Re:

3 times TdF champ. With one kidney and corresponding blood disease.
This isn't darts you know.
Discovered by Eddy B. and receiving iron shots from Ivan Vanmol.
No red flags you say?

And there could be tons of reasons why he fell behind in the 90s. Why did Indurain fall behind in 1996? Surely not because he'd been riding clean.

More to the point, I haven't seen any plausible answer to the question: why would Lemond not have doped?
What made him belong to this hypothetical 1% of clean proriders in the 80s who we don't even know existed and who, if they did exist, were likely to have been riding at the very back of the pack.
To claim he was a freak of nature is possible, but it's clutching at straws, and even if he was, that doesn't answer the question why he wouldn't additionally have dipped into the hot sauce too.
He was under enough pressure to perform, you'll know that better than most.

If you lived through Lemond's carreer, I don't have to tell you why Lemond didn't go to the Olympics in 1984.
And I don't have to tell you about Eddy B. either.
Eddy B? Junior blood doper? Who cares, let's throw the guy a fundraiser in 2005 and invite at least a handful of athletes who've admitted to blood doping under Eddy B.

None of that is evidence of Lemond's wrongdoing. But neither is it evidence of some PED-refusing moral that some seem to think was innate to Lemond for some reason.

What about the 84 Olympics ???

well america didn't go to 80 and then lemond couldn't ride 84, 88, and 92...and was retired when he could ride in '96

I know, but I don't see the relevance of this information in this context ?

 

[sniper]

Borysewic was into blooddoping juniors.
Doping juniors was highly common in that era (and still is of course), especially at the high end.
It's not far-fetcehd to speculate Lemond benefitted from his know-how early on.

Why was borysewic hired in the first place? Eddie's Wiki gives you the answer: to help the US beat the eastern European doping teams.

Why did Lemond throw him a nice fundraiser in 2005? That's another unanswered question.

The mere possibility that he was an early doper is hard to discard, and it makes most of the arguments i've heard in favor of his cleanliness rather circular/redundant.

On a side, what do you guys make of Eric Heiden?
No need to introduce him I hope. This should take away the last bit of doubt you might have about whether or not he doped:

After his sports career, Heiden became a physician, and as of 2012 is the team doctor for the BMC Racing Team.

right.
Now, you gotta suspend reason to somehow argue that Heiden was doped but Lemond was clean.
These two grew up in the same era, exponents of the very same system, same set up.

 

[gillan1969]

Re: Re:

3 times TdF champ. With one kidney and corresponding blood disease.
This isn't darts you know.
Discovered by Eddy B. and receiving iron shots from Ivan Vanmol.
No red flags you say?

And there could be tons of reasons why he fell behind in the 90s. Why did Indurain fall behind in 1996? Surely not because he'd been riding clean.

More to the point, I haven't seen any plausible answer to the question: why would Lemond not have doped?
What made him belong to this hypothetical 1% of clean proriders in the 80s who we don't even know existed and who, if they did exist, were likely to have been riding at the very back of the pack.
To claim he was a freak of nature is possible, but it's clutching at straws, and even if he was, that doesn't answer the question why he wouldn't additionally have dipped into the hot sauce too.
He was under enough pressure to perform, you'll know that better than most.

If you lived through Lemond's carreer, I don't have to tell you why Lemond didn't go to the Olympics in 1984.
And I don't have to tell you about Eddy B. either.
Eddy B? Junior blood doper? Who cares, let's throw the guy a fundraiser in 2005 and invite at least a handful of athletes who've admitted to blood doping under Eddy B.

None of that is evidence of Lemond's wrongdoing. But neither is it evidence of some PED-refusing moral that some seem to think was innate to Lemond for some reason.

What about the 84 Olympics ???

well america didn't go to 80 and then lemond couldn't ride 84, 88, and 92...and was retired when he could ride in '96

I know, but I don't see the relevance of this information in this context ?

agree...not sure snipers point

sniper?

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Re: Re:

Maxiton, great post, thanks for that.
though obviously you're not the first to point that out. (not the second either )
My rebuttal is going to be comparatively short and concise (as it was last time this was brought up):
Carmichael.

I can expand on that if you wish, but what it comes down to is that whatever dirt Lance may have had on Lemond, Carmichael would have urged Lance not to spill it. Especially if such dirt would have concerned 1989, amgen, epo.
Hell would freeze over before Carmichael allows Lance to spill that.

Also, Lance has never come clean about his early years, nor about his last two years.
So it's not as if Lance has nothing to loose anymore.
Just saying there are several good reasons why he's not spilling beans, be it on Lemond, be it on Verbruggen, be it on anybody. Lance is still omerta, and that's not because of good will. It's because of what he has to loose if he'd spill.

To be sure, this is not me saying Lance has dirt on Lemond. I don't know, I can only guess.
Merely it's me saying that the argument that
(a) Lance doesn't have dirt on Lemond; therefore (b) there is no dirt on Lemond
doesn't stack up.

Is it your sense that Carmichael had sway over Lance such that he could "allow" Lance to do anything?

Based on what I've heard others on the team say about the relationship, Lance "allowed" Carmichael to ride his coattails, nothing more. The idea that Carmichael had any control over Lance, is I think, comical. To invoke a pun.

I would agree with that statement. I've never seen anything that would indicate anything other than Carmichael being in the right place at the right time.

None of us know who had any influence with Lance Armstrong at that time. But to be specific there were a small group that were around lance that did have some pull. This will probably fly over your heads because you might not know the details but there once was a dinner at a TexMex place in Austin at which 3 or 4 of the most influential folks to Lance were in attendance. This was before the TDF win in 99.

 

[GJB123]

Re:

Borysewic was into blooddoping juniors and doping juniors was highly common in that era (and still is of course), especially at the high end.
Why was borysewic hired in the first place? Why did Lemond throw him a nice fundraiser in 2005? Other unanswered questions.
Ever looked into Eric Heiden?

The mere possibility that he was an early doper is hard to discard, and it makes most of the arguments in favor of his cleanliness rather circular/redundant.

So, what do you guys make of Eric Heiden?
No need to introduce him I hope. This should take away the last bit of doubt you might have about whether or not he doped:

After his sports career, Heiden became a physician, and as of 2012 is the team doctor for the BMC Racing Team.

right.
Now, you gotta suspend reason to somehow argue that Heiden was doped but Lemond was clean.
These two grew up in the same era, exponents of the very same system, same set up.

Eric Heiden had zilch to do with Lemond. Were they neighbors, training together, sharing the same trainers, etc? No I don't think so. They are not Americans who were successful in sports that were very small in the US in those days and there was no system whatsoever of for those sports in the US at that time, so to suggest they were "exponents of the same system" is a quite desperate attempt to paint them both with the same (tar) brush.

Oh, while we are at it. What proof do you have that Heiden was doped. That he became a physician is proof? That he won (a lot) is proof now? That he later worked at BMC? How about that he won zilch at cycling although allegedly he was doped to the gills in skating and not in cycling? Cycling were doping is actually much more effective because you don't actually need to master any difficult techniques like you have to do in skating? You completely lost me here.

 

[sniper]

Re: Re:

Borysewic was into blooddoping juniors and doping juniors was highly common in that era (and still is of course), especially at the high end.
Why was borysewic hired in the first place? Why did Lemond throw him a nice fundraiser in 2005? Other unanswered questions.
Ever looked into Eric Heiden?

The mere possibility that he was an early doper is hard to discard, and it makes most of the arguments in favor of his cleanliness rather circular/redundant.

So, what do you guys make of Eric Heiden?
No need to introduce him I hope. This should take away the last bit of doubt you might have about whether or not he doped:

After his sports career, Heiden became a physician, and as of 2012 is the team doctor for the BMC Racing Team.

right.
Now, you gotta suspend reason to somehow argue that Heiden was doped but Lemond was clean.
These two grew up in the same era, exponents of the very same system, same set up.

Eric Heiden had zilch to do with Lemond. Were they neighbors, training together, sharing the same trainers, etc? No I don't think so. They are not Americans who were successful in sports that were very small in the US in those days and there was no system whatsoever of for those sports in the US at that time, so to suggest they were "exponents of the same system" is a quite desperate attempt to paint them both with the same (tar) brush.

Fair enough, I should've stated that with less conviction.
From memory, Ed Burke was involved with both, but I could be wrong.

Oh, while we are at it. What proof do you have that Heiden was doped. That he became a physician is proof? That he won (a lot) is proof now? That he later worked at BMC? How about that he won zilch at cycling although allegedly he was doped to the gills in skating and not in cycling? Cycling were doping is actually much more effective because you don't actually need to master any difficult techniques like you have to do in skating? You completely lost me here.

I like this, because at least you are being consistent.

That was my original point: we should apply one level of skepticism / demand the same burden of evidence...across the board.

If one wants to celebrate Lemond as clean champ, one might as well celebrate Heiden, Cancellara, Sastre, Contador (if not for that unlucky 2010 contamination), Federer, Ronaldo. etc.

Lemond may have been clean, but thus far, I don't feel the burden of evidence to that extent has been met sufficiently.

 

[@NL_LeMondFans]

Re: Re:

Borysewic was into blooddoping juniors and doping juniors was highly common in that era (and still is of course), especially at the high end.
Why was borysewic hired in the first place? Why did Lemond throw him a nice fundraiser in 2005? Other unanswered questions.
Ever looked into Eric Heiden?

The mere possibility that he was an early doper is hard to discard, and it makes most of the arguments in favor of his cleanliness rather circular/redundant.

So, what do you guys make of Eric Heiden?
No need to introduce him I hope. This should take away the last bit of doubt you might have about whether or not he doped:

After his sports career, Heiden became a physician, and as of 2012 is the team doctor for the BMC Racing Team.

right.
Now, you gotta suspend reason to somehow argue that Heiden was doped but Lemond was clean.
These two grew up in the same era, exponents of the very same system, same set up.

Eric Heiden had zilch to do with Lemond. Were they neighbors, training together, sharing the same trainers, etc? No I don't think so. They are not Americans who were successful in sports that were very small in the US in those days and there was no system whatsoever of for those sports in the US at that time, so to suggest they were "exponents of the same system" is a quite desperate attempt to paint them both with the same (tar) brush.

Fair enough, I should've stated that with less conviction.
From memory, Ed Burke was involved with both, but I could be wrong.

Oh, while we are at it. What proof do you have that Heiden was doped. That he became a physician is proof? That he won (a lot) is proof now? That he later worked at BMC? How about that he won zilch at cycling although allegedly he was doped to the gills in skating and not in cycling? Cycling were doping is actually much more effective because you don't actually need to master any difficult techniques like you have to do in skating? You completely lost me here.

I like this, because at least you are being consistent.

That was my original point: we should apply one level of skepticism / demand the same burden of evidence...across the board.

If one wants to celebrate Lemond as clean champ, one might as well celebrate Heiden, Cancellara, Sastre, Contador (if not for that unlucky 2010 contamination), Federer, Ronaldo. etc.

Lemond may have been clean, but thus far, I don't feel the burden of evidence to that extent has been met sufficiently.

But you said it yourself, you can't prove clean. There won't be a burden of evidence. Maybe the fact that there isn't a burden of evidence that he doped is enough for most people to give Greg a pass.

Unless it's "guilty until proven innocent", then ?

After 184 pages of rambling on the same stuff, what is there possibly to add ?

 

[sniper]

Re: Re:

After 184 pages of rambling on the same stuff, what is there possibly to add ?

A kind reminder that participation in the thread is not compulsory.

 

[@NL_LeMondFans]

Re: Re:

After 184 pages of rambling on the same stuff, what is there possibly to add ?

A kind reminder that participation in the thread is not compulsory.

Precisely. Unless something new is brought to the table.

 

[sniper]

Re: Re:

After 184 pages of rambling on the same stuff, what is there possibly to add ?

A kind reminder that participation in the thread is not compulsory.

Precisely. Unless something new is brought to the table.

if you don't like it you can ignore it and continue discussing Miguel "nobrainer" Indurain.

there's good discussion here. I like it. If you don't, apply for a mod position or get over it.
your constant metacomplaining doesn't add anything. that much is certain.

 

[StyrbjornSterki]

Re: Re:

After 184 pages of rambling on the same stuff, what is there possibly to add ?

A kind reminder that participation in the thread is not compulsory.

Plato is reputed to have said, "The price good men pay for indifference to public affairs is to be ruled by evil men." Were there not still posters attempting to do an evil to the reputation of one of cycling's last true heroes, a man who unquestionably deserves better, those with the more balanced perspective would not be being compelled to participate. Because if this thread -- which better would have been locked a hundred pages ago -- were to have persisted this long without their counterpoint, it would become the embodiment of V.I. Lenin's "lie told often enough." And newcomers who chanced across it might be persuaded falsely to believe that their allegations have some tiny speck of merit.

 

[red_flanders]

Re:

3 times TdF champ. With one kidney and corresponding blood disease.
This isn't darts you know.
Discovered by Eddy B. and receiving iron shots from Ivan Vanmol.
No red flags you say?

Have you read Eddy B's book? In it he discusses many of his favored riders, including several Polish riders and many of the Americans. Lemond is something of an afterthought, as he didn't coach him for very long. Despite much longer discussions of other riders, he goes out of his way to say that Lemond did it clean, a claim he puts on none of the other riders who he clearly loved and celebrates. Keep in mind the very different climate back then, and the lack at the time of any accusations against Lemond. He simply brings it up because in his words, Greg was a "diamond" who didn't need drugs.

Convincing? No, but interesting and simply another person who knew what was going on, going out of their way to say Lemond was clean. These kinds of things, and actually watching him race are the things that made a lot of us understand that Lemond did very likely do it all clean.

He struggled at times, had bad days and good days, he carved out wins with tactics, and he relied on TT prowess to seal wins. He did not ever appear superhuman, he didn't win all the time on climbs and in TT's, he didn't have rides which defied logic or credulity, and his body looked like the type of rider he was–-strong, powerful and a great TT rider who could also climb.

The iron shots thing is such a joke. It's not as if he got caught sticking a needle in his arm and had to come up with an explanation, he volunteered the information to a journalist who would have had no idea.

I never saw Lemond do anything which made me think he used. Fignon in that 89 tour on the other hand showed startling powers of recovery late in the race, which allowed him to get the lead that Lemond finally overcame. He was incredible, in every sense of the word, getting stronger as the race wore on.

There's your doper if you're concerned. Verified.

 

[@NL_LeMondFans]

Re: Re:

After 184 pages of rambling on the same stuff, what is there possibly to add ?

A kind reminder that participation in the thread is not compulsory.

Precisely. Unless something new is brought to the table.

if you don't like it you can ignore it and continue discussing Miguel "nobrainer" Indurain.

there's good discussion here. I like it. If you don't, apply for a mod position or get over it.
your constant metacomplaining doesn't add anything. that much is certain.

I have every right to express my opinion regarding the lack of evidence or new element in this discussion.

 

[red_flanders]

Re: Re:

As to the bolded. There were plenty of riders whom we know or are pretty sure they were clean in the 80's and early 90's besides LeMond. And they were winning also and not just riding at the back of the pack until the onslaught of blood vector doping.

Why would LeMond not have doped? Simple, in the era you could also win clean and he could win clean (Mottet, Delion, Van Hooydonk to name but a few), so no reason for him to dope. Remember even Fignon, who did dope with the usual 80's stuff, claimed that a talented rider could win clean in the 80's. Now why would he say that it wasn't true? Once he came clean the easiest thing for hi to say was that you need to dope to win if only to justify his own PED-abuse, yet he didn't.

And as to blood doping in the 80's during GT's. This was discussed and put to bed a long time ago in this very Clinic. It is just simply not very plausible at that time given the amount of organization and equipement needed. For one day races maybe yes, but doing large scale blood transfusions on the go. I don't think so.

Also LeMond didn't get better by leaps and bounds in the 80's. He was there or thereabouts early in hos career well before EPO and was still there after the hunting accident only on a lesser level than before. There is no red flag there like there is with some later contemporaries who all of sudden found a new lease of life. If LeMond was doing EPO combined with freak of nature physique why wasn't he able to keep up with the Joneses after 1990? Did het stop suing EPO all of a sudden.

I am not saying he positively never used anything of the regular 80's stuff that for example wasn't on the banned list then but would be now, but the vast majority of the information available (both factual and circumstantial) point to the fact that he might well have done it all clean.

Outstanding post.

 

[HelmutRoole]

Re: Re:

As to the bolded. There were plenty of riders whom we know or are pretty sure they were clean in the 80's and early 90's besides LeMond. And they were winning also and not just riding at the back of the pack until the onslaught of blood vector doping.

Why would LeMond not have doped? Simple, in the era you could also win clean and he could win clean (Mottet, Delion, Van Hooydonk to name but a few), so no reason for him to dope. Remember even Fignon, who did dope with the usual 80's stuff, claimed that a talented rider could win clean in the 80's. Now why would he say that it wasn't true? Once he came clean the easiest thing for hi to say was that you need to dope to win if only to justify his own PED-abuse, yet he didn't.

And as to blood doping in the 80's during GT's. This was discussed and put to bed a long time ago in this very Clinic. It is just simply not very plausible at that time given the amount of organization and equipement needed. For one day races maybe yes, but doing large scale blood transfusions on the go. I don't think so.

Also LeMond didn't get better by leaps and bounds in the 80's. He was there or thereabouts early in hos career well before EPO and was still there after the hunting accident only on a lesser level than before. There is no red flag there like there is with some later contemporaries who all of sudden found a new lease of life. If LeMond was doing EPO combined with freak of nature physique why wasn't he able to keep up with the Joneses after 1990? Did het stop suing EPO all of a sudden.

I am not saying he positively never used anything of the regular 80's stuff that for example wasn't on the banned list then but would be now, but the vast majority of the information available (both factual and circumstantial) point to the fact that he might well have done it all clean.

Outstanding post.

Yes. It's the feel good post of the decade.

Not.

It completely disregards the benefits of testosterone doping in a GT.

It completely disregards the '89 miracle TT in which LeMond defeated a doped Fignon in a ride that, if it were to happen today, people would be calling BS from the hilltops.

Completely disregards the longterm benefits of testosterone and steroid doping.

Disregards the fact the EPO doesn't work the same for everyone.

LeMond was a great rider but he was as dirty as the rest. To think otherwise is comic book super hero fantasy.

 

[Cannibal72]

Re: LeMond

Such a miracle that it would have swung the other way but for Fignon's haircut. What dominance!
(Also, the 'if it happened today' argument is disingenuous bollocks in every circumstance.)

 

[MarkvW]

Re: LeMond

Such a miracle that it would have swung the other way but for Fignon's haircut. What dominance!
(Also, the 'if it happened today' argument is disingenuous bollocks in every circumstance.)

Fignon had a bad saddle sore that day, also, didn't he? Shouldn't that be considered in the mix?

And a doped Fignon does not equate to an EPO-doped Fignon, right?