LeMond III

[kwikki]

Re: Re:

For once and for all, Greg always said riders (clean riders as well as dopers) are the first victims of doping. The problem he had with Armstrong was the bullying and the Trek/Oakley/Giro dispute. Doping was the least of his problems with Armstrong.

The sole problem LeMond had with Armstrong is that Lance had replaced him as America's most recognizable cyclist and Armstrong was not gracious enough to put his arm around LeMond to give him credit for paving the way for the U.S.'s success in Europe. That was it. LeMond has always been a media wh0re, and Armstrong was taking up all the limelight, leaving none for Greg.

LeMond did not accidentally get in a dispute with Lance. He knew all the top riders as well as nearly all the domestiques were doping. He deliberately attacked Armstrong's legitimacy while pretending he was a naive bystander who did not know the reality of pro European cycling. He picked a fight and received a beatdown. Now he portrays himself as a victim instead of manning up and admitting that his problems were caused by his own jealousy and scheming to get back in the public eye.

Great post, but short on facts and even shorter on knowledge of how the media works.

LeMond didn't approach the press...they approached him, and before you continue to try and denigrate the messenger Lance-stylee just remember who was actually telling the truth. Love the later creation of a narrative about Lemond's creation of a narrative. It doesn't work like that at all. The press invent the narrative, not the rider. Why do you think Sky co-opted Walsh? The media cannot be relied upon to tell the truth. They arrive with a narrative and will bend facts to fit.

Just as you and sniper are trying to do here.

 

[@NL_LeMondFans]

Re: Re:

...
For once and for all, Greg always said riders (clean riders as well as dopers) are the first victims of doping. The problem he had with Armstrong was the bullying and the Trek/Oakley/Giro dispute. Doping was the least of his problems with Armstrong.

"The doctors, the management, the officials, they're the ones that have corrupted riders. The riders are the only ones that pay the price"

What's your view on Lemond's account of when he found out about EPO?
(it was discussed previously e.g. here: viewtopic.php?p=1771945#p1771945)

How in your view does it add up that he hadn't heard about EPO before 1993-ish when meanwhile he was investing in Thom Weisel's Montgomery Securities, a company at the very centre of the commercial exploitation of EPO, starting already in 1983?
http://web.stanford.edu/~learnest/cyclops/dopestrong.htm (search for "montgomery")

Thom Weisel, in turn, took on Eddie B. as a personal cycling coach as early as in 1985.
link: https://books.google.pl/books?id=niuGT_sHBpwC&pg=PA153&dq=thom+weisel+eddie+1985+training&hl=en&sa=X&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=thom%20weisel%20eddie%201985%20training&f=false

You will agree that it is very likely that Eddie B. and Greg Lemond remained in contact even after their coach-rider relationship was ended in the early 80s(?). Their friendship was hardly a secret (link: https://books.google.pl/books?id=Axu2AAAAIAAJ&dq=%22Complete+Book+of+Bicycling%22&focus=searchwithinvolume&q=eddie+b, search for "eddie b")

Btw, do you perhaps know when Greg began to invest in Montgomery Securities?
I've looked, but can't find a date or even a year.
From how I read the passage in Wheelmen (google book preview), it suggests the investment was made prior to 1993, but I could be wrong.
(link to Wheelmen google books preview:
https://books.google.pl/books?id=XOninQEACAAJ&dq=wheelmen+cycling&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwid16T-4p_MAhXCEiwKHbtLChoQ6wEIKzAA
use search box to find relevant passages)

And if even someone like Kathleen Sharp had heard about EPO in 1988, and about rumors that cyclists were using it, how likely is it, really, that Lemond (with an MD as father in law and a nursing student as wife, and his contacts to Eddie B.) hadn't heard about it?
http://web.stanford.edu/~learnest/cyclops/dopestrong.htm (search for "1988", or "Kathleen Sharp")

My view is that every interview of Greg has to be taken with a pinch of salt. First because when he answers a journalist, his main concern is the message, the story but not consistency. He has the gift of spontaneity. I guess it comes with it.

You'll be disappointed but I'm not really interested in the Weisel/Eddie B./Montgomery stuff. I only know what I've read on this forum. I don't care to research what I'm not interested in. I'm not on a quest to find if Greg doped or not.

Greg was a US pro in the 80's. He encountered / worked with lots of dubious people. Does that make him a cheater ? I don't think so. That's not enough. As I said earlier, if that was enough we would not need the clinic in the first place.

As I already said, I think Greg's story adds up. I've studied his style, races and his way of thinking. I know a bit about cycling. That's enough for me. I don't need to scream on rooftops that I believe he was clean. I don't pretend I detain the truth. What I need to share is that I believe he is an incredible cyclist and a great guy. I have a blog and a website for it.

I don't recall who Kathleen Sharp is (you've probably mentioned her before). But I remember you once posted a link of an anonymous source saying Greg probably took EPO while recovering from his hunting accident in 1986. Is it off the table ?

I don't know what's the relationship with Greg and his father in law. Are they close ? I don't know.

Was every doctor aware of EPO in 1988 ? I don't know.

I see your description of Kathy has moved from "nurse" to "nursing student". I think it's more accurate.

I'm posting what I posted earlier so that you can adress it, please (I removed the sarcasms) :

Have you read the article about Greg that appeared this week on Cyclingnews ?

http://www.cyclingnews.com/features/greg-lemond-we-could-find-another-rider-like-me-if-we-tapped-into-our-potential/

Do you think every piece of information on it is 100% accurate ? Can you read it again in 20 or 30 years and take it as granted ?

Well, you shouldn't. The article says Greg has 2 grandkids. He doesn't. He has just 1. Does it matter ? Not really, the point is that Greg is at a birthday party. 2 kidneys or just 1 ? It doesn't really matter. Greg had a kidney condition at one point.

End of story.

...not much unlike asking if every doctor is aware of penicillin....it was a huge breakthrough drug...and frankly if you were doing your job and keeping up with the literature ( that is btw part of the job description ) even on a cursory level you would know...

Cheers

Says who ? Are you/were you a doctor ?

There are so many specialists, I imagine one cannot keep up and follow just about every new drug on the market ? Especially if it's not in his/her field of expertise. And no google in 1988...

 

[djpbaltimore]

Good point. In 1988, people had to keep up with the literature the old fashioned way through reading medical journals. If you go to pubmed, the number of articles mentioning the drug form of EPO really skyrocketed in early 1989. I don't really know when doctors first knew about it en masse. It's use with cancer was published later and that would've been a more prominent finding.

 

[ScienceIsCool]

Re: LeMond

...
Why is it not possible for you to simply google what caused Planckaert to retire? Surely there must be links in Dutch/Flemish somewhere on the web. You keep claiming he went downhill despite using EPO but as it was 91 his final seaosn, we never got to see what impact it had yet you repeat it as fact.

Because it's irrelevant to my point why he retired.
The only point I wanted to make is: there are plenty of different reasons why ryder xyz might not improve whilst going on the EPO program. Planckaert, Becker, Draaijer, PDM, and others prove this point.
Even Lance proves this point, albeit in a reverse way: he improved massively in 1999, despite being on EPO already pre-1999.

So, as far as I can tell, Lemond not improving in 89/90/91 compared to pre-shooting (which is in itself a debatable issue, at least wrt 89/90, not wrt 91 and beyond, obviously) can mean many things. Him being clean certainly is one possible explanation, but, just as certainly, it's not the only explanation. Max Testa and the doc/coach referred to by Nick777 gave another possible explanation: too much dope. The mitochondiral myopathy is another possibile explanation. The shooting is yet another. Or simply too old, lack of motivation, lack of training intensity, who knows. Or a combination of factors.

To the PDM riders declining(Rooks, Theunisse??), yes they did decline in the 90s but it was gradual rather than abrupt like LeMond. Still capable of Top 10s in GTs in 92/93 compared to LeMond getting eliminated. I aksed you if can provide the context of Rooks statement that he started taking EPO after 89. Can you? Theunisse also tested positive again in 1990 which saw him sit out a suspension and then fight a legal case to show he had a naturally high testosterone level. I think the spotlight was on him after that.

I have to give this more thought. I'm not sure if I'm following your Rooks/Theunisse argument/question. Maybe you can rephrase?
Either way, it's a period I am only gradually learning more about. For now, I have to admit and accept that that period is still covered with clouds and uncertainties, especially to me and others who didn't live it.

Also you have claimed numerous times that Eddie B gave transfusions to juniors and doped them with other drugs. I have looked through the thread but do not see a link to any articles detailing this. The first time you mention it, you just say "ask me?" So now I am asking you for a link to verify those claims and please don't come with some random poster on the internet claiming this happened.

I'm glad you ask. But give me an hour or three-four to get them together. The info is spread out in google preview books and old pre-90s articles that are hard to find and I am about to go offline, but will get back to this, promised.

This line of reasoning is spurious because *every* rider is going to have a decline in performance at some point. Well, maybe not pappy. Horner won't reach his peak until 10 minutes before they wheel into the morgue.

On the other hand, sudden jumps "up" in performance are pretty darn suspicious for a well-trained, healthy, elite athlete.

John Swanson

 

[sniper]

Re: LeMond

[...
This line of reasoning is spurious because *every* rider is going to have a decline in performance at some point. Well, maybe not pappy. Horner won't reach his peak until 10 minutes before they wheel into the morgue.

On the other hand, sudden jumps "up" in performance are pretty darn suspicious for a well-trained, healthy, elite athlete.

John Swanson

I totally agree here.

 

[sniper]

darn, i still owe pcmg76 those eddie b links.
There's more to come tomorrow (it's officially past my bedtime), but I will already leave this here:

"I don't know why it took so long for this to come out," the elder Van Haute said from his home in Chicago. "I was out there in Los Angeles for the Games. Everybody knew about it. From what I understand, if you didn't do it, you wouldn't be on the team."

The elder Van Haute supplied Danny's phone number, but he wasn't available for comment. Neither were the other implicated medalists. But Van Haute's father explained that Danny first had learned of the procedure during a trip to Poland with the Junior Team.
http://articles.mcall.com/1985-01-12/sports/2463039_1_blood-doping-olympic-trials-elder

And this:

U.S. cycling coach defends blood doping

Mercury News Wire Services

Blood doping is legal and should be a personal matter left to the individual athlete, the coach of the U.S. Olympic cycling team says.

"Blood doping is a legal thing. When it's legal, why does the media make it a big problem?" asked Olympic team coach Edward Borysewicz, who also is national coaching director of the U.S. Cycling Federation.

Blood doping, also known as blood packing or blood boosting, is a procedure in which an individual receives transfusions of his own or a relative's blood. The technique is aimed at increasing an athlete's red-blood-cell count and oxygen level, thereby increasing stamina.

Some doctors and members of the U.S. Olympic Committee have claimed that some cyclists received such transfusions before their Olympic events.

"It's legal; it's not illegal," Bory­sewicz said in Honolulu. "So when it's legal, then whose business is it

who's getting the injections?

"To even ask the question I think is not polite," he said. "That is an invasion of privacy, and that is not polite, and it's illegal."

http://web.stanford.edu/~learnest/cyclops/polite.htm

and this (directly related to the previous):

Somehow, Coach Eddie B. did not get the message. About a month later, he was again being quoted in the press as saying “Blood doping is legal and should be a personal matter left up to the athlete.” Only after the Executive Director wrote him another letter telling him politely to shut up did the he stop talking about this.http://web.stanford.edu/~learnest/cyclops/dopes.htm

 

[DamianoMachiavelli]

Re: Re:

The sole problem LeMond had with Armstrong is that Lance had replaced him as America's most recognizable cyclist and Armstrong was not gracious enough to put his arm around LeMond to give him credit for paving the way for the U.S.'s success in Europe. That was it. LeMond has always been a media wh0re, and Armstrong was taking up all the limelight, leaving none for Greg.

LeMond did not accidentally get in a dispute with Lance. He knew all the top riders as well as nearly all the domestiques were doping. He deliberately attacked Armstrong's legitimacy while pretending he was a naive bystander who did not know the reality of pro European cycling. He picked a fight and received a beatdown. Now he portrays himself as a victim instead of manning up and admitting that his problems were caused by his own jealousy and scheming to get back in the public eye.

Great post, but short on facts and even shorter on knowledge of how the media works.

LeMond didn't approach the press...they approached him, and before you continue to try and denigrate the messenger Lance-stylee just remember who was actually telling the truth. Love the later creation of a narrative about Lemond's creation of a narrative. It doesn't work like that at all. The press invent the narrative, not the rider. Why do you think Sky co-opted Walsh? The media cannot be relied upon to tell the truth. They arrive with a narrative and will bend facts to fit.

Wow. You have really bought into LeMond's mythology, hook, line, and sinker. According to LeMond apologists he was minding his own business when the press hounded him into making a statement. It wasn't his fault the press contacted him and he said something, as though LeMond was a media naif. This is ridiculous. LeMond's truth is a selective truth that excuses his friends and contemporaries even as he rails against his enemies for doing the same thing. He is a hypocrite with an agenda.

LeMond knew exactly what he was doing when he attacked Armstrong's relationship with Ferrari in the press. He could have lambasted the drug use by dozens of riders after he retired, not to mention nearly every rider he rode against. He did not lack opportunity to talk. Every major victory in the EPO era was accomplished with the use of EPO and transfusions, and nearly every victory prior to that was accomplished with the use of amphetamines and steroids. Yet LeMond could not find a single winner to criticize until Armstrong equaled his number of Tour wins. Convenient. Funny how he never felt compelled to complain about Hinault's use of corticosteroids and instead blames his 1985 loss on being lied to by his team manager. He cannot even bring himself to criticize Indurain, the man who ended his Tour career. Now he is seen glad-handing the guy as they laugh about the good ol' times, the times when doping was okay because the typical American fan did not know what was going on.

 

[thehog]

Re: Re:

The sole problem LeMond had with Armstrong is that Lance had replaced him as America's most recognizable cyclist and Armstrong was not gracious enough to put his arm around LeMond to give him credit for paving the way for the U.S.'s success in Europe. That was it. LeMond has always been a media wh0re, and Armstrong was taking up all the limelight, leaving none for Greg.

LeMond did not accidentally get in a dispute with Lance. He knew all the top riders as well as nearly all the domestiques were doping. He deliberately attacked Armstrong's legitimacy while pretending he was a naive bystander who did not know the reality of pro European cycling. He picked a fight and received a beatdown. Now he portrays himself as a victim instead of manning up and admitting that his problems were caused by his own jealousy and scheming to get back in the public eye.

Great post, but short on facts and even shorter on knowledge of how the media works.

LeMond didn't approach the press...they approached him, and before you continue to try and denigrate the messenger Lance-stylee just remember who was actually telling the truth. Love the later creation of a narrative about Lemond's creation of a narrative. It doesn't work like that at all. The press invent the narrative, not the rider. Why do you think Sky co-opted Walsh? The media cannot be relied upon to tell the truth. They arrive with a narrative and will bend facts to fit.

Wow. You have really bought into LeMond's mythology, hook, line, and sinker. According to LeMond apologists he was minding his own business when the press hounded him into making a statement. It wasn't his fault the press contacted him and he said something, as though LeMond was a media naif. This is ridiculous. LeMond's truth is a selective truth that excuses his friends and contemporaries even as he rails against his enemies for doing the same thing. He is a hypocrite with an agenda.

LeMond knew exactly what he was doing when he attacked Armstrong's relationship with Ferrari in the press. He could have lambasted the drug use by dozens of riders after he retired, not to mention nearly every rider he rode against. He did not lack opportunity to talk. Every major victory in the EPO era was accomplished with the use of EPO and transfusions, and nearly every victory prior to that was accomplished with the use of amphetamines and steroids. Yet LeMond could not find a single winner to criticize until Armstrong equaled his number of Tour wins. Convenient. Funny how he never felt compelled to complain about Hinault's use of corticosteroids and instead blames his 1985 loss on being lied to by his team manager. He cannot even bring himself to criticize Indurain, the man who ended his Tour career. Now he is seen glad-handing the guy as they laugh about the good ol' times, the times when doping was okay because the typical American fan did not know what was going on.

Agreed. Which is why LeMond chose David Walsh, to make the infamous "or the biggest fraud" comment to... because he knew it would be published and not cut. LeMond wanted it out there, it was part insecurity and part business strategy on LeMond's behalf.

 

[blutto]

Re: Re:

The sole problem LeMond had with Armstrong is that Lance had replaced him as America's most recognizable cyclist and Armstrong was not gracious enough to put his arm around LeMond to give him credit for paving the way for the U.S.'s success in Europe. That was it. LeMond has always been a media wh0re, and Armstrong was taking up all the limelight, leaving none for Greg.

LeMond did not accidentally get in a dispute with Lance. He knew all the top riders as well as nearly all the domestiques were doping. He deliberately attacked Armstrong's legitimacy while pretending he was a naive bystander who did not know the reality of pro European cycling. He picked a fight and received a beatdown. Now he portrays himself as a victim instead of manning up and admitting that his problems were caused by his own jealousy and scheming to get back in the public eye.

Great post, but short on facts and even shorter on knowledge of how the media works.

LeMond didn't approach the press...they approached him, and before you continue to try and denigrate the messenger Lance-stylee just remember who was actually telling the truth. Love the later creation of a narrative about Lemond's creation of a narrative. It doesn't work like that at all. The press invent the narrative, not the rider. Why do you think Sky co-opted Walsh? The media cannot be relied upon to tell the truth. They arrive with a narrative and will bend facts to fit.

Wow. You have really bought into LeMond's mythology, hook, line, and sinker. According to LeMond apologists he was minding his own business when the press hounded him into making a statement. It wasn't his fault the press contacted him and he said something, as though LeMond was a media naif. This is ridiculous. LeMond's truth is a selective truth that excuses his friends and contemporaries even as he rails against his enemies for doing the same thing. He is a hypocrite with an agenda.

LeMond knew exactly what he was doing when he attacked Armstrong's relationship with Ferrari in the press. He could have lambasted the drug use by dozens of riders after he retired, not to mention nearly every rider he rode against. He did not lack opportunity to talk. Every major victory in the EPO era was accomplished with the use of EPO and transfusions, and nearly every victory prior to that was accomplished with the use of amphetamines and steroids. Yet LeMond could not find a single winner to criticize until Armstrong equaled his number of Tour wins. Convenient. Funny how he never felt compelled to complain about Hinault's use of corticosteroids and instead blames his 1985 loss on being lied to by his team manager. He cannot even bring himself to criticize Indurain, the man who ended his Tour career. Now he is seen glad-handing the guy as they laugh about the good ol' times, the times when doping was okay because the typical American fan did not know what was going on.

Cheers

 

[kwikki]

And yet Lemond was proved totally right...

 

[blackcat]

Re:

And yet Lemond was proved totally right...

but who of the Insiders did not know?

classic paradigm Insider Outsider

 

[@NL_LeMondFans]

Re: Re:

The sole problem LeMond had with Armstrong is that Lance had replaced him as America's most recognizable cyclist and Armstrong was not gracious enough to put his arm around LeMond to give him credit for paving the way for the U.S.'s success in Europe. That was it. LeMond has always been a media wh0re, and Armstrong was taking up all the limelight, leaving none for Greg.

LeMond did not accidentally get in a dispute with Lance. He knew all the top riders as well as nearly all the domestiques were doping. He deliberately attacked Armstrong's legitimacy while pretending he was a naive bystander who did not know the reality of pro European cycling. He picked a fight and received a beatdown. Now he portrays himself as a victim instead of manning up and admitting that his problems were caused by his own jealousy and scheming to get back in the public eye.

Great post, but short on facts and even shorter on knowledge of how the media works.

LeMond didn't approach the press...they approached him, and before you continue to try and denigrate the messenger Lance-stylee just remember who was actually telling the truth. Love the later creation of a narrative about Lemond's creation of a narrative. It doesn't work like that at all. The press invent the narrative, not the rider. Why do you think Sky co-opted Walsh? The media cannot be relied upon to tell the truth. They arrive with a narrative and will bend facts to fit.

Wow. You have really bought into LeMond's mythology, hook, line, and sinker. According to LeMond apologists he was minding his own business when the press hounded him into making a statement. It wasn't his fault the press contacted him and he said something, as though LeMond was a media naif. This is ridiculous. LeMond's truth is a selective truth that excuses his friends and contemporaries even as he rails against his enemies for doing the same thing. He is a hypocrite with an agenda.

LeMond knew exactly what he was doing when he attacked Armstrong's relationship with Ferrari in the press. He could have lambasted the drug use by dozens of riders after he retired, not to mention nearly every rider he rode against. He did not lack opportunity to talk. Every major victory in the EPO era was accomplished with the use of EPO and transfusions, and nearly every victory prior to that was accomplished with the use of amphetamines and steroids. Yet LeMond could not find a single winner to criticize until Armstrong equaled his number of Tour wins. Convenient. Funny how he never felt compelled to complain about Hinault's use of corticosteroids and instead blames his 1985 loss on being lied to by his team manager. He cannot even bring himself to criticize Indurain, the man who ended his Tour career. Now he is seen glad-handing the guy as they laugh about the good ol' times, the times when doping was okay because the typical American fan did not know what was going on.

I think we should settle that it's OK to disagree on this. There is no way you will convince me. Everything I know about Greg LeMond tells me you're wrong. I understand your point of view and I accept it, but I strongly disagree.

I'm only asking you to make sure this opinion doesn't cloud your judgement on posters that do not agree with you. I'm not calling you a "hater". Don't call me a "LeMond apologist" or a "fanboy". I'm a fan. It doesn't mean I consider Greg as some kind of god. On the contrary, I admire him even more because of his humanity.

 

[Dr.Guess]

Sorry for the messiness but wrote this on the cell on the bus. Hope you get the info and my points about the different countries corporations. Also say hi to my new nickname.


According to this article http://articles.mcall.com/1985-01-14/sports/2462862_1_blood-doping-international-olympic-committee-rules-american-cyclists
almost everyone in the cycling world knew about blood doping.

"
But according to Ian Jackson, technical manager of the Lehigh County Velodrome, it certainly enhances performance.

"The East Europeans have been using it for years," Jackson, an Australian, said Friday. "It gives your body a boost, they say. This is almost common knowledge in cycling around the world."

But also. During the Cold War the eastern bloc wasn't into professional sport. Perhaps there are different groups of countries that developed blood doping and later the epo use side by side. The Italians worked closely with the Finns to (source: that Finnish documentary about the Finnish doping in Latvia 2001). So perhaps when Eddie B was told to be quite about the use it was also to protect the new breed of American pro cyclists trying to win grand tours. Eddie B jumped the communist ship and sold the information to the us cycling team. The development of epo and its use was probably a kept secret at first and different doctors, trainers and countries experimented with it to get the most benefit of it.

 

[sniper]

Re:

Sorry for the messiness but wrote this on the cell on the bus. Hope you get the info and my points about the different countries corporations. Also say hi to my new nickname.


According to this article http://articles.mcall.com/1985-01-14/sports/2462862_1_blood-doping-international-olympic-committee-rules-american-cyclists
almost everyone in the cycling world knew about blood doping.

"
But according to Ian Jackson, technical manager of the Lehigh County Velodrome, it certainly enhances performance.

"The East Europeans have been using it for years," Jackson, an Australian, said Friday. "It gives your body a boost, they say. This is almost common knowledge in cycling around the world."

But also. During the Cold War the eastern bloc wasn't into professional sport. Perhaps there are different groups of countries that developed blood doping and later the epo use side by side. The Italians worked closely with the Finns to (source: that Finnish documentary about the Finnish doping in Latvia 2001). So perhaps when Eddie B was told to be quite about the use it was also to protect the new breed of American pro cyclists trying to win grand tours. Eddie B jumped the communist ship and sold the information to the us cycling team. The development of epo and its use was probably a kept secret at first and different doctors, trainers and countries experimented with it to get the most benefit of it.

you make interesting points.

I posted this yesterday about blood doping in the US in the 70s and 80s:

I helped officiate at cycling events in the '84 Olympics and just afterward learned that the U.S. cycling team had done blood doping there in the stupidest possible way. Since I was then responsible for rule enforcement I initiated an investigation but was seriously hampered by others playing political games. For example, the U.S. Olympic Committee claimed that they had a rule against blood doping whereas in fact there was none. There had been strong evidence of blood doping in the Olympics since at least 1976 but because they didn't have a good laboratory test for it they buried their heads in the sand and pretended it wasn't happening...
http://web.stanford.edu/~learnest/cyclops/dopestrong.htm

http://forum.cyclingnews.com/viewtopic.php?f=20&t=17091&p=1905399&hilit=1976#p1905399

 

[gillan1969]

Re: Re:

Sorry for the messiness but wrote this on the cell on the bus. Hope you get the info and my points about the different countries corporations. Also say hi to my new nickname.


According to this article http://articles.mcall.com/1985-01-14/sports/2462862_1_blood-doping-international-olympic-committee-rules-american-cyclists
almost everyone in the cycling world knew about blood doping.

"
But according to Ian Jackson, technical manager of the Lehigh County Velodrome, it certainly enhances performance.

"The East Europeans have been using it for years," Jackson, an Australian, said Friday. "It gives your body a boost, they say. This is almost common knowledge in cycling around the world."

But also. During the Cold War the eastern bloc wasn't into professional sport. Perhaps there are different groups of countries that developed blood doping and later the epo use side by side. The Italians worked closely with the Finns to (source: that Finnish documentary about the Finnish doping in Latvia 2001). So perhaps when Eddie B was told to be quite about the use it was also to protect the new breed of American pro cyclists trying to win grand tours. Eddie B jumped the communist ship and sold the information to the us cycling team. The development of epo and its use was probably a kept secret at first and different doctors, trainers and countries experimented with it to get the most benefit of it.

you make interesting points.

I posted this yesterday about blood doping in the US in the 70s and 80s:

I helped officiate at cycling events in the '84 Olympics and just afterward learned that the U.S. cycling team had done blood doping there in the stupidest possible way. Since I was then responsible for rule enforcement I initiated an investigation but was seriously hampered by others playing political games. For example, the U.S. Olympic Committee claimed that they had a rule against blood doping whereas in fact there was none. There had been strong evidence of blood doping in the Olympics since at least 1976 but because they didn't have a good laboratory test for it they buried their heads in the sand and pretended it wasn't happening...
http://web.stanford.edu/~learnest/cyclops/dopestrong.htm

http://forum.cyclingnews.com/viewtopic.php?f=20&t=17091&p=1905399&hilit=1976#p1905399

so? what's the new narrative? everyone knows about it but only lemond is doing it?

 

[sniper]

Re: Re:

...
so? what's the new narrative? everyone knows about it but only lemond is doing it?

Just take the info for what it is, or provide some constructive comments on it.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Re: Re:

so? what's the new narrative? everyone knows about it but only lemond is doing it?

I don't think it was posted for a new narrative. I think it was proof that it was going on and EB was into it. Somewhere up thread someone asked for a link to this or proof that EB was into it etc. Seems that was what the intention of the links and post was.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Re: Re:

I think Aphronesis said before that someone would have to be dumb as a box of rocks to not know what was going on around them in cycling. So far we have a coach / trainer who supported blood doping who happened to be Greg's pal. But that relationship seems a bit suspicious considering cycling?

 

[blutto]

Re: Re:

...
For once and for all, Greg always said riders (clean riders as well as dopers) are the first victims of doping. The problem he had with Armstrong was the bullying and the Trek/Oakley/Giro dispute. Doping was the least of his problems with Armstrong.

"The doctors, the management, the officials, they're the ones that have corrupted riders. The riders are the only ones that pay the price"

What's your view on Lemond's account of when he found out about EPO?
(it was discussed previously e.g. here: viewtopic.php?p=1771945#p1771945)

How in your view does it add up that he hadn't heard about EPO before 1993-ish when meanwhile he was investing in Thom Weisel's Montgomery Securities, a company at the very centre of the commercial exploitation of EPO, starting already in 1983?
http://web.stanford.edu/~learnest/cyclops/dopestrong.htm (search for "montgomery")

Thom Weisel, in turn, took on Eddie B. as a personal cycling coach as early as in 1985.
link: https://books.google.pl/books?id=niuGT_sHBpwC&pg=PA153&dq=thom+weisel+eddie+1985+training&hl=en&sa=X&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=thom%20weisel%20eddie%201985%20training&f=false

You will agree that it is very likely that Eddie B. and Greg Lemond remained in contact even after their coach-rider relationship was ended in the early 80s(?). Their friendship was hardly a secret (link: https://books.google.pl/books?id=Axu2AAAAIAAJ&dq=%22Complete+Book+of+Bicycling%22&focus=searchwithinvolume&q=eddie+b, search for "eddie b")

Btw, do you perhaps know when Greg began to invest in Montgomery Securities?
I've looked, but can't find a date or even a year.
From how I read the passage in Wheelmen (google book preview), it suggests the investment was made prior to 1993, but I could be wrong.
(link to Wheelmen google books preview:
https://books.google.pl/books?id=XOninQEACAAJ&dq=wheelmen+cycling&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwid16T-4p_MAhXCEiwKHbtLChoQ6wEIKzAA
use search box to find relevant passages)

And if even someone like Kathleen Sharp had heard about EPO in 1988, and about rumors that cyclists were using it, how likely is it, really, that Lemond (with an MD as father in law and a nursing student as wife, and his contacts to Eddie B.) hadn't heard about it?
http://web.stanford.edu/~learnest/cyclops/dopestrong.htm (search for "1988", or "Kathleen Sharp")

My view is that every interview of Greg has to be taken with a pinch of salt. First because when he answers a journalist, his main concern is the message, the story but not consistency. He has the gift of spontaneity. I guess it comes with it.

You'll be disappointed but I'm not really interested in the Weisel/Eddie B./Montgomery stuff. I only know what I've read on this forum. I don't care to research what I'm not interested in. I'm not on a quest to find if Greg doped or not.

Greg was a US pro in the 80's. He encountered / worked with lots of dubious people. Does that make him a cheater ? I don't think so. That's not enough. As I said earlier, if that was enough we would not need the clinic in the first place.

As I already said, I think Greg's story adds up. I've studied his style, races and his way of thinking. I know a bit about cycling. That's enough for me. I don't need to scream on rooftops that I believe he was clean. I don't pretend I detain the truth. What I need to share is that I believe he is an incredible cyclist and a great guy. I have a blog and a website for it.

I don't recall who Kathleen Sharp is (you've probably mentioned her before). But I remember you once posted a link of an anonymous source saying Greg probably took EPO while recovering from his hunting accident in 1986. Is it off the table ?

I don't know what's the relationship with Greg and his father in law. Are they close ? I don't know.

Was every doctor aware of EPO in 1988 ? I don't know.

I see your description of Kathy has moved from "nurse" to "nursing student". I think it's more accurate.

I'm posting what I posted earlier so that you can adress it, please (I removed the sarcasms) :

Have you read the article about Greg that appeared this week on Cyclingnews ?

http://www.cyclingnews.com/features/greg-lemond-we-could-find-another-rider-like-me-if-we-tapped-into-our-potential/

Do you think every piece of information on it is 100% accurate ? Can you read it again in 20 or 30 years and take it as granted ?

Well, you shouldn't. The article says Greg has 2 grandkids. He doesn't. He has just 1. Does it matter ? Not really, the point is that Greg is at a birthday party. 2 kidneys or just 1 ? It doesn't really matter. Greg had a kidney condition at one point.

End of story.

...not much unlike asking if every doctor is aware of penicillin....it was a huge breakthrough drug...and frankly if you were doing your job and keeping up with the literature ( that is btw part of the job description ) even on a cursory level you would know...

Cheers

Says who ? Are you/were you a doctor ?

There are so many specialists, I imagine one cannot keep up and follow just about every new drug on the market ? Especially if it's not in his/her field of expertise. And no google in 1988...

....I just did in case you hadn't noticed....and no I am not a doctor but that doesn't mean that I would have no knowledge of how the medical field works....there is a historical speciality called the history of medicine that can give one a great insight into "doctor culture"....then there are the group of doctors who I have ridden with and known as friends over the last 4 decades...and then there is the wife who has worked as a medical researcher for over 25 years....the culture is not that difficult to know or understand...

....and let me repeat myself....and "I'll type this slowly" .... this was a huge breakthrough drug that would have been talked about and advertised in the periodical literature ( something that btw any reasonably competent doctor would have to keep abreast of because that in an important and expected part of his job )...

Cheers

 

[@NL_LeMondFans]

Fair enough. That leaves the question as to wether Greg's docs were competent in that regard, then.

 

[gillan1969]

Re: LeMond

so with such widespread knowledge, every doc would know and every cyclist with access to a doc would know?

 

[sniper]

Re:

Fair enough. That leaves the question as to wether Greg's docs were competent in that regard, then.

his father in law is a distinguished allergist. yes he is competent.

vanmol? won 1 tdf providing crucial medical care that enabled the win. Won plenty of prizes after that. Not all clean, but that's not the point: competent he very clearly was.

who were his other doctors?

and what about his coaches and close friends? Good luck arguing Eddie "blood doping should be legal" B didn't know about EPO very early on.
Was Thom "Montgomery" Weisel's personal coach from 1985 onwards.

Guys, let's keep it real shall we. It cannot be proven, but Lemond very likely knew about EPO at least in the late 80s.

 

[blutto]

Re: LeMond

so with such widespread knowledge, every doc would know and every cyclist with access to a doc would know?

"every competent doc would know and every cyclist with access to a competent doc would know" might be a more better way of saying this...

....you have to keep in mind the doctors and various other practitioners ( like vets for instance ) who worked with cyclists would in many cases be doing things that were either illegal or at the very least unethical or may well be beyond their ability to understand ( that is one of the problems of using drugs off label , you are using something for a procedure it was not designed for or tested for and which has no researched application protocol )...read, there is a good chance the doc is a hack or a criminal....so the idea that a doctor bound by oaths and a reasonable expectation of proper care is taking care of your special cycling needs is pretty well out the window....

...this problem is one of the reasons why people like Conconi Ferrari etc etc became so important to the cycling culture....they devised and knew the protocols that would not only make you fast but also keep you alive ( because as we have seen the early forays into the use this drug neither provided consistent results nor necessarily kept you alive )...

Cheers

 

[GJB123]

Re: Re:

Fair enough. That leaves the question as to wether Greg's docs were competent in that regard, then.

his father in law is a distinguished allergist. yes he is competent.

vanmol? won 1 tdf providing crucial medical care that enabled the win. Won plenty of prizes after that. Not all clean, but that's not the point: competent he very clearly was.

who were his other doctors?

and what about his coaches and close friends? Good luck arguing Eddie "blood doping should be legal" B didn't know about EPO very early on.
Was Thom "Montgomery" Weisel's personal coach from 1985 onwards.

Guys, let's keep it real shall we. It cannot be proven, but Lemond very likely knew about EPO at least in the late 80s.

I agree with that. There must a video floating around the webz where at least Kathy LeMond and I think Greg also about the death of Johannes Draaijer. Kathy talks about being called in the middle of the night by Draaijers' wife who was in a blink panic that her husband was't breathing anymore. Now I don't how many years after his death that was recorded but I distinctly remember either Kathy or Greg or both talking about the possibility at the time of his death that his death was due to a new type of drugs that was being used by sportsmen. Now it can be coloring the facts years after the death (if that was when the interview took place) or it is what is that LeMond was aware that something was amiss.

EDIT: the interview was a later date and basically Lemond stated he didn't know until the time Draaijer died.

 

[red_flanders]

Comments from Steve Tilford in his blog:

Guys-I was hesitant to do this post because of the “issues” that Eddie B. had, especially the 1984 Olympic games. Doping in the sport of cycling was a completely different animal back in the 80’s. If you did happen happen to come back positive, you sat out 2 weeks. Look at Alexi’s history. How many days did he serve for, what, 3 doping violations?

What happened in LA with the blood transfusions was inexcusable. Ed Burke, Falsetti, Eddie and gang got very lucky they didn’t kill someone in that fiasco. But, it wasn’t against the rules. No one lost an Olympic medal, no one had to sit out a day.

I don’t think it is fair to label Eddie B. as the “Father of Doping”. Not even close. I have never run into one rider that has told me to my face that Eddie B. encouraged them to use drugs to race bicycles. (Inga, are you stating that here, that he offered or explicitly said to you that you needed to take drugs to race bicycles?)

Like I stated in my post, Eddie and I didn’t get along very well for a very long time. But, there was never any issue with anything to do with doping in the sport. I know lots of guys that Eddie trained early in their careers. And none of them ever took drugs to race bicycles, ever. And they all would have told me if Eddie was trying to get them on a program.

Eddie was definitely not into Title IX or women’s lib, being from an Eastern European country. He said many things that seemed un-American at the time. But, I think he was trying to be funny, and get a reaction, not being sexist.

I guess I was just writing about my own interaction with Eddie B. I got out from under his tutelage as soon as I had the opportunity. It was more of a personality conflict, not a moral one.

Full blog post:
http://stevetilford.com/2013/02/19/eddie-b/

That's first-person narrative from someone who was there and knew all the guys, and has never had doping associated with his name.