LeMond III

[sniper]

Re: Re:

...

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

the people who've spoken about the rumor is a handful, but they've all said that it was rumored in the peloton.
And that's from people stretching from 1990 (Dhaenens, the anonymous Dutch amateur in the newspaper, the Belgian blogger) until quite recently (Floyd, Lance, Boogerd). So that's at least two generations.
If that's correct, 'widespread' seems a fair assessment. At least within the peloton.
Lance even said "everybody knows", but I'll stick to widespread for now.
And that's just the EPO rumor.
Apparently a certain Max Testa had heard a thing or two about Lemond's doping.
Oliver Starr and some others, too.

Given what we know about cycling, and about Lemond's entourage starting age 15, the rumors make sense.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Re: Re:

...

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

the people who've spoken about the rumor is a handful, but they've all said that it was rumored in the peloton.
And that's from people stretching from 1990 (Dhaenens, the anonymous Dutch amateur in the newspaper, the Belgian blogger) until quite recently (Floyd, Lance, Boogerd). So that's at least two generations.
If that's correct, 'widespread' seems a fair assessment. At least within the peloton.
Lance even said "everybody knows", but I'll stick to widespread for now.
And that's just the EPO rumor.
Apparently a certain Max Testa had heard a thing or two about Lemond's doping.
Oliver Starr and some others, too.

Given what we know about cycling, and about Lemond's entourage starting age 15, the rumors make sense.

I understood your point. These folks have seemed to have grown in the numbers.

With respect to the 300 large. Someone here said a while back that a wrench who now lives in NZ with a bike shop could tell us all we need to know. I would not take his word for after what I read somewhere else.
I have read on Steve Tilford's blog where he talked about the problem with drugs. I might have been linked to that blog from here but can't find it. A former cyclist from back in the Trump tour days says that he believes Greg doped. In the comments section that wrench threatened to punch him in his face. Why would you do that if you were confident with your position. Someone might go back and delete those comments.

 

[dolophonic]

Re: Re:

...

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

the people who've spoken about the rumor is a handful, but they've all said that it was rumored in the peloton.
And that's from people stretching from 1990 (Dhaenens, the anonymous Dutch amateur in the newspaper, the Belgian blogger) until quite recently (Floyd, Lance, Boogerd). So that's at least two generations.
If that's correct, 'widespread' seems a fair assessment. At least within the peloton.
Lance even said "everybody knows", but I'll stick to widespread for now.
And that's just the EPO rumor.
Apparently a certain Max Testa had heard a thing or two about Lemond's doping.
Oliver Starr and some others, too.

Given what we know about cycling, and about Lemond's entourage starting age 15, the rumors make sense.

I like your guys credibility.. i mean LAnce and Floyd .. two real stand up guys...

oh Max Testa.. yes he's solid .. a real truth teller..

when you say rumors make sense ..maybe to you.

The way i would have possibly understood if he did hit the sauce it would have been after the shooting to make the comeback possible and thats if..

 

[gillan1969]

Re: Re:

...

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

the people who've spoken about the rumor is a handful, but they've all said that it was rumored in the peloton.
And that's from people stretching from 1990 (Dhaenens, the anonymous Dutch amateur in the newspaper, the Belgian blogger) until quite recently (Floyd, Lance, Boogerd). So that's at least two generations.
If that's correct, 'widespread' seems a fair assessment. At least within the peloton.
Lance even said "everybody knows", but I'll stick to widespread for now.
And that's just the EPO rumor.
Apparently a certain Max Testa had heard a thing or two about Lemond's doping.
Oliver Starr and some others, too.

Given what we know about cycling, and about Lemond's entourage starting age 15, the rumors make sense.

I like your guys credibility.. i mean LAnce and Floyd .. two real stand up guys...

oh Max Testa.. yes he's solid .. a real truth teller..

when you say rumors make sense ..maybe to you.

The way i would have possibly understood if he did hit the sauce it would have been after the shooting to make the comeback possible and thats if..

I like the numbers....... 8, and what an 8

 

[djpbaltimore]

Re: Re:

I like your guys credibility.. i mean LAnce and Floyd .. two real stand up guys...

oh Max Testa.. yes he's solid .. a real truth teller..

when you say rumors make sense ..maybe to you.

The way i would have possibly understood if he did hit the sauce it would have been after the shooting to make the comeback possible and thats if..

Add to the fact that Floyd has never even been confirmed to have said this. The claim relies on the word of an anonymous poster as far as I am aware. Anybody got a link to prove otherwise?

 

[sniper]

attacking the messengers.
SSDD.

 

[86TDFWinner]

Re:

attacking the messengers.
SSDD.

When are you going to start answering questions?

 

[dolophonic]

Re:

attacking the messengers.
SSDD.

HaHaHaHA... in order to be a messenger you must have a message.. no ?

I understand this is one of your "things"

I am not here to adamantly defend Greg.

The irony that you use LAnce to decry Lemond.. your good.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Re:

attacking the messengers.
SSDD.

At least no one here has threatened you to go over to NZ and get punched / beat up.

 

[sniper]

Re: Re:

attacking the messengers.
SSDD.

HaHaHaHA... in order to be a messenger you must have a message.. no ?

I understand this is one of your "things"

I am not here to adamantly defend Greg.

The irony that you use LAnce to decry Lemond.. your good.

if they have no message, why the need to attack them?

 

[sniper]

Re: Re:

attacking the messengers.
SSDD.

At least no one here has threatened you to go over to NZ and get punched / beat up.

true story

 

[Merckx index]

Re:

attacking the messengers.
SSDD.

No, impeaching the witnesses.

Let me summarize Sniper’s case, as I understand it:

1) In the early 70s, there were several scientists/research groups that studied the performance enhancing effects of steroids, and of blood transfusions;
2) These researchers, and/or scientists very familiar with their work, played a key role in creating the Olympic Training Center;
3) Greg Lemond spent time at that Center

In traditional crime investigation lingo, we have:

Motive – America wanted to maximize the potential of its athletes
Opportunity- There was an institution devoted to doing this
No Alibi – Greg was at that institution, and interacted with these researchers

What we don’t have is a smoking gun: reliable witnesses (I’m pretty sure the testimony of people who have claimed Lemond doped would not stand up in court), or positive tests (which admittedly doesn’t mean much, as there was no test for blood doping at that time, indeed there still isn’t for autologous doping, other than the passport).

There are some other salient points:

1) Lemond clearly showed great potential as a bike racer even before he worked with researchers at the OTC. He was winning races at age 14-15.
2) If Lemond’s success was due to blood transfusions, why weren’t other riders doing them? After EPO became commercially available, it wasn’t long before pro cyclists started using it, and not long after that before most of the peloton apparently was on it. Given that the notion of performance enhancement by blood transfusions was imported from Europe, wouldn’t one expect other riders to be using them? Maybe some were, but if most of them were, then Greg’s success can’t be ascribed to this, unless one wants to make the high responder case. Also, if most of them were, one would expect that the introduction of EPO would have far less effect on performance than it actually did. I can imagine riders switching to EPO from transfusions for convenience, but this change shouldn’t have had the huge effect on the peloton that it actually did have.
3) If other riders weren’t transfusing, then we have to conclude that it was possible to be a great performer without blood doping. Hinault is considered one of the greatest riders of all time, and Fignon was another giant of that time. If two riders from France could win multiple Tours without transfusing, is it so hard to accept that one American could have as well?
4) It’s one thing to transfuse at the 1984 Olympics, when the riders were on their home soil, and had all the support in the world. It would be very different at the Tour and other European races, where riders were staying in hotels in small towns. In this century, riders figured out how to transport and store blood during a GT without attracting attention. It was collective knowledge. Would it have been that easy back in the 1980s? If the doping was homologous, using someone else’s blood, as apparently was the case in 1984, Lemond would have to have someone supplying this blood whenever he needed it, or go to the time and expense of separating red cells from plasma and freezing the cells. If it was autologous, using one’s own blood, he would have to either take several weeks off from training or racing to recover from withdrawal, or begin a series of withdrawals in the off season, and withdraw and transfuse at regular intervals up to the time of the targeted competition. I’m not saying this wasn’t possible, but the logistics really are not that simple. I have trouble thinking Greg really went through with this.

 

[blutto]

Re: Re:

attacking the messengers.
SSDD.

No, impeaching the witnesses.

Let me summarize Sniper’s case, as I understand it:

1) In the early 70s, there were several scientists/research groups that studied the performance enhancing effects of steroids, and of blood transfusions;
2) These researchers, and/or scientists very familiar with their work, played a key role in creating the Olympic Training Center;
3) Greg Lemond spent time at that Center

In traditional crime investigation lingo, we have:

Motive – America wanted to maximize the potential of its athletes
Opportunity- There was an institution devoted to doing this
No Alibi – Greg was at that institution, and interacted with these researchers

What we don’t have is a smoking gun: reliable witnesses (I’m pretty sure the testimony of people who have claimed Lemond doped would not stand up in court), or positive tests (which admittedly doesn’t mean much, as there was no test for blood doping at that time, indeed there still isn’t for autologous doping, other than the passport).

There are some other salient points:

1) Lemond clearly showed great potential as a bike racer even before he worked with researchers at the OTC. He was winning races at age 14-15.
2) If Lemond’s success was due to blood transfusions, why weren’t other riders doing them? After EPO became commercially available, it wasn’t long before pro cyclists started using it, and not long after that before most of the peloton apparently was on it. Given that the notion of performance enhancement by blood transfusions was imported from Europe, wouldn’t one expect other riders to be using them? Maybe some were, but if most of them were, then Greg’s success can’t be ascribed to this, unless one wants to make the high responder case. Also, if most of them were, one would expect that the introduction of EPO would have far less effect on performance than it actually did. I can imagine riders switching to EPO from transfusions for convenience, but this change shouldn’t have had the huge effect on the peloton that it actually did have.
3) If other riders weren’t transfusing, then we have to conclude that it was possible to be a great performer without blood doping. Hinault is considered one of the greatest riders of all time, and Fignon was another giant of that time. If two riders from France could win multiple Tours without transfusing, is it so hard to accept that one American could have as well?
4) It’s one thing to transfuse at the 1984 Olympics, when the riders were on their home soil, and had all the support in the world. It would be very different at the Tour and other European races, where riders were staying in hotels in small towns. In this century, riders figured out how to transport and store blood during a GT without attracting attention. It was collective knowledge. Would it have been that easy back in the 1980s? If the doping was homologous, using someone else’s blood, as apparently was the case in 1984, Lemond would have to have someone supplying this blood whenever he needed it, or go to the time and expense of separating red cells from plasma and freezing the cells. If it was autologous, using one’s own blood, he would have to either take several weeks off from training or racing to recover from withdrawal, or begin a series of withdrawals in the off season, and withdraw and transfuse at regular intervals up to the time of the targeted competition. I’m not saying this wasn’t possible, but the logistics really are not that simple. I have trouble thinking Greg really went through with this.

....during that period it was not quite de rigueur for high school football players to be juiced but it was almost everywhere....and to see some eager young junior high kid hitting the weight room eager to be on the varsity team was not that uncommon....it quickly became part of the culture where winning was the only thing....and parents became more involved and money was being spent on camps and coaches/facilitators which also became an indispensable part of the winning culture.....

...just sayin' eh....

Cheers

 

[blutto]

Re: Re:

attacking the messengers.
SSDD.

No, impeaching the witnesses.

Let me summarize Sniper’s case, as I understand it:

1) In the early 70s, there were several scientists/research groups that studied the performance enhancing effects of steroids, and of blood transfusions;
2) These researchers, and/or scientists very familiar with their work, played a key role in creating the Olympic Training Center;
3) Greg Lemond spent time at that Center

In traditional crime investigation lingo, we have:

Motive – America wanted to maximize the potential of its athletes
Opportunity- There was an institution devoted to doing this
No Alibi – Greg was at that institution, and interacted with these researchers

What we don’t have is a smoking gun: reliable witnesses (I’m pretty sure the testimony of people who have claimed Lemond doped would not stand up in court), or positive tests (which admittedly doesn’t mean much, as there was no test for blood doping at that time, indeed there still isn’t for autologous doping, other than the passport).

There are some other salient points:

1) Lemond clearly showed great potential as a bike racer even before he worked with researchers at the OTC. He was winning races at age 14-15.
2) If Lemond’s success was due to blood transfusions, why weren’t other riders doing them? After EPO became commercially available, it wasn’t long before pro cyclists started using it, and not long after that before most of the peloton apparently was on it. Given that the notion of performance enhancement by blood transfusions was imported from Europe, wouldn’t one expect other riders to be using them? Maybe some were, but if most of them were, then Greg’s success can’t be ascribed to this, unless one wants to make the high responder case. Also, if most of them were, one would expect that the introduction of EPO would have far less effect on performance than it actually did. I can imagine riders switching to EPO from transfusions for convenience, but this change shouldn’t have had the huge effect on the peloton that it actually did have.
3) If other riders weren’t transfusing, then we have to conclude that it was possible to be a great performer without blood doping. Hinault is considered one of the greatest riders of all time, and Fignon was another giant of that time. If two riders from France could win multiple Tours without transfusing, is it so hard to accept that one American could have as well?
4) It’s one thing to transfuse at the 1984 Olympics, when the riders were on their home soil, and had all the support in the world. It would be very different at the Tour and other European races, where riders were staying in hotels in small towns. In this century, riders figured out how to transport and store blood during a GT without attracting attention. It was collective knowledge. Would it have been that easy back in the 1980s? If the doping was homologous, using someone else’s blood, as apparently was the case in 1984, Lemond would have to have someone supplying this blood whenever he needed it, or go to the time and expense of separating red cells from plasma and freezing the cells. If it was autologous, using one’s own blood, he would have to either take several weeks off from training or racing to recover from withdrawal, or begin a series of withdrawals in the off season, and withdraw and transfuse at regular intervals up to the time of the targeted competition. I’m not saying this wasn’t possible, but the logistics really are not that simple. I have trouble thinking Greg really went through with this.

....do remember, he did have paid help from the beginning....which in and of itself is pretty, uhhhh, unique to say the least....

Cheers

 

[DamianoMachiavelli]

Re: Re:

Add to the fact that Floyd has never even been confirmed to have said this. The claim relies on the word of an anonymous poster as far as I am aware. Anybody got a link to prove otherwise?

Like everything people tell their friends has a hyperlink. I like my credibility.

Floyd will be in France in July. He bought his ticket a couple of days ago. The new SI interview should drop before that.

 

[86TDFWinner]

Re: Re:

Add to the fact that Floyd has never even been confirmed to have said this. The claim relies on the word of an anonymous poster as far as I am aware. Anybody got a link to prove otherwise?

Like everything people tell their friends has a hyperlink. I like my credibility.

Floyd will be in France in July. He bought his ticket a couple of days ago. The new SI interview should drop before that.

What new SI interview and with who, Floyd?

 

[@NL_LeMondFans]

Re: Re:

I’m not saying this wasn’t possible, but the logistics really are not that simple. I have trouble thinking Greg really went through with this.

....do remember, he did have paid help from the beginning....which in and of itself is pretty, uhhhh, unique to say the least....

Cheers

What "paid help" are you refering to ?

 

[gillan1969]

Re: Re:

attacking the messengers.
SSDD.

No, impeaching the witnesses.

Let me summarize Sniper’s case, as I understand it:

1) In the early 70s, there were several scientists/research groups that studied the performance enhancing effects of steroids, and of blood transfusions;
2) These researchers, and/or scientists very familiar with their work, played a key role in creating the Olympic Training Center;
3) Greg Lemond spent time at that Center

In traditional crime investigation lingo, we have:

Motive – America wanted to maximize the potential of its athletes
Opportunity- There was an institution devoted to doing this
No Alibi – Greg was at that institution, and interacted with these researchers

What we don’t have is a smoking gun: reliable witnesses (I’m pretty sure the testimony of people who have claimed Lemond doped would not stand up in court), or positive tests (which admittedly doesn’t mean much, as there was no test for blood doping at that time, indeed there still isn’t for autologous doping, other than the passport).

There are some other salient points:

1) Lemond clearly showed great potential as a bike racer even before he worked with researchers at the OTC. He was winning races at age 14-15.
2) If Lemond’s success was due to blood transfusions, why weren’t other riders doing them? After EPO became commercially available, it wasn’t long before pro cyclists started using it, and not long after that before most of the peloton apparently was on it. Given that the notion of performance enhancement by blood transfusions was imported from Europe, wouldn’t one expect other riders to be using them? Maybe some were, but if most of them were, then Greg’s success can’t be ascribed to this, unless one wants to make the high responder case. Also, if most of them were, one would expect that the introduction of EPO would have far less effect on performance than it actually did. I can imagine riders switching to EPO from transfusions for convenience, but this change shouldn’t have had the huge effect on the peloton that it actually did have.
3) If other riders weren’t transfusing, then we have to conclude that it was possible to be a great performer without blood doping. Hinault is considered one of the greatest riders of all time, and Fignon was another giant of that time. If two riders from France could win multiple Tours without transfusing, is it so hard to accept that one American could have as well?
4) It’s one thing to transfuse at the 1984 Olympics, when the riders were on their home soil, and had all the support in the world. It would be very different at the Tour and other European races, where riders were staying in hotels in small towns. In this century, riders figured out how to transport and store blood during a GT without attracting attention. It was collective knowledge. Would it have been that easy back in the 1980s? If the doping was homologous, using someone else’s blood, as apparently was the case in 1984, Lemond would have to have someone supplying this blood whenever he needed it, or go to the time and expense of separating red cells from plasma and freezing the cells. If it was autologous, using one’s own blood, he would have to either take several weeks off from training or racing to recover from withdrawal, or begin a series of withdrawals in the off season, and withdraw and transfuse at regular intervals up to the time of the targeted competition. I’m not saying this wasn’t possible, but the logistics really are not that simple. I have trouble thinking Greg really went through with this.

....during that period it was not quite de rigueur for high school football players to be juiced but it was almost everywhere....and to see some eager young junior high kid hitting the weight room eager to be on the varsity team was not that uncommon....it quickly became part of the culture where winning was the only thing....and parents became more involved and money was being spent on camps and coaches/facilitators which also became an indispensable part of the winning culture.....

...just sayin' eh....

Cheers

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

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

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

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

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

 

[sniper]

Re: Re:

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

why? I can give, and have given, plenty of names of guys who never left any kind of trail and who were, nonetheless, obvious dopers, even to you.

More importantly, Lemond did in fact leave quite some trails, and more trails than many other GT winner. The rumors of his doping ran through the peloton. That's quite a trail. There's a newspaper article in 1990 with a dutch anonyumous whistleblower accusing Lemond of using EPO. That's quite the trail, too.
There's Testa's suggestion that Lemond was finished because of doping. Testa isn't just anybody. It's somebody who would be in the know if Lemond was clean or not.
There's the iron shot incident. Any selfrespecting doctor without a stake in procycling will tell you that mere iron shots can never explain his sudden performance increase in the Giro. Again, quite the trail he left there.
Then the whole series of contradictions in his (medical) background story. Those are trails alright.
Some would say the myopathy is quite a big trail.
His love for, and contacts with, Eddie, untill well into the 2000s. If that isn't a trail, I don't know what is. It's comparable to Wiggins working with Leinders. You do know Eddie, too, has been exposed. Lemond's fundraiser for Eddie is comparable to Wiggins inviting Bruyneel for his hour record after party.
Lemond's investgment in Montgomery, the company with a big stake in commercializing EPO and taking Amgen public. Big trail.

So yes, that's trails across continents and across decades.

 

[sniper]

Re: Re:

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

it wasn't haphazard, though Dardik and Miller (the both of them lead the investigation into the scandal ) sure tried hard to make you believe that, and not without success.

 

[@NL_LeMondFans]

Re: Re:

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

why? I can give, and have given, plenty of names of guys who never left any kind of trail and who were, nonetheless, obvious dopers, even to you.

More importantly, Lemond did in fact leave quite some trails, and more trails than many other GT winner. The rumors of his doping ran through the peloton. That's quite a trail. There's a newspaper article in 1990 with a dutch anonyumous whistleblower accusing Lemond of using EPO. That's quite the trail, too.
There's Testa's suggestion that Lemond was finished because of doping. Testa isn't just anybody. It's somebody who would be in the know if Lemond was clean or not.
There's the iron shot incident. Any selfrespecting doctor without a stake in procycling will tell you that mere iron shots can never explain his sudden performance increase in the Giro. Again, quite the trail he left there.
Then the whole series of contradictions in his (medical) background story. Those are trails alright.
Some would say the myopathy is quite a big trail.
His love for, and contacts with, Eddie, untill well into the 2000s. If that isn't a trail, I don't know what is. It's comparable to Wiggins working with Leinders. You do know Eddie, too, has been exposed. Lemond's fundraiser for Eddie is comparable to Wiggins inviting Bruyneel for his hour record after party.
Lemond's investgment in Montgomery, the company with a big stake in commercializing EPO and taking Amgen public. Big trail.

So yes, that's trails across continents and across decades.

I can't let that pass.

Rumours and anonymous whistleblower cannot be taken as a trail in itself. To me, those rumours have 2 causes :
-In order for Chiappucci, Indurain and others to jump on the EPO bandwagon, which was lethal at the time, team coaches needed a strong incentive. "LeMond's on it" was the perfect incentive, wether he did it or not. To me, the chances it was 100% fabricated out of thin air are huge.
-From the moment he signed at La Vie Claire for the best contract in cycling, rumours started spreading that Greg was lazy, just motivated by money, etc... The minute his status changed (while he was not winning a lot of races, in 84/85), jealousy motivated a lot of people to speak ill of Greg. It's very apparent in the European press : up until 1984 he's wonderboy and everybody loves him. From 1985 everybody's questioning him and he has to justify his every moves.

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

Iron shots : it's not because the iron shots in themselves do not explain Greg's increase in perfomance that only doping does. I've read the story of a random rider who asked a famous rider what he should take to win. As a joke, the famous rider gave him a suppository shaped piece of cheese. The random rider took it and won the race. It's called the placebo effect. In the 1989 Giro, Greg had struggled for 2 years to get back in shape, and failed. It was his first GT since he was shot, his first GT since the 1986 TDF he had won. When he finished 15 minutes behind in the snowy stage of Tre chime di Lavaredo, he thought he was finished, done. He felt miserable. He called his wife "that's it, I quit". Then the anemia thing, and the iron shots. In Greg's mind, he was sick and his sickness was treated. It's possible that, whatever was blocking him in terms of motivation, this triggered him. The last ITT of the Giro, where Greg finished 2nd, was where Greg was to decide wether he was still a pro cyclist or not. He bet his life on it. Don't underestimate that.

Medical story : The contradiction you point are from interviews. If you think interviews are made of forensics quality accuracy, then I believe you're wrong. Greg is telling a story to a journalist. He's following his story. Facts can vary. take for instance the Luz Ardiden 1985 TDF stage. From one article to the other, Greg will say Hinault was 2, 3 or 5 minutes behind. He's just telling a story. Then, consider journalists mistakes : just a few weeks ago, a Cyclingnews journalist said Greg had 2 grandkids. He just has one.

Eddie B /Montgomery, I have no knowledge on those.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Re: Re:

Add to the fact that Floyd has never even been confirmed to have said this. The claim relies on the word of an anonymous poster as far as I am aware. Anybody got a link to prove otherwise?

Like everything people tell their friends has a hyperlink. I like my credibility.

Floyd will be in France in July. He bought his ticket a couple of days ago. The new SI interview should drop before that.

What new SI interview and with who, Floyd?

Seems like that is what he said. Well at least my interpretation of it.

 

[djpbaltimore]

Re: Re:

Add to the fact that Floyd has never even been confirmed to have said this. The claim relies on the word of an anonymous poster as far as I am aware. Anybody got a link to prove otherwise?

Like everything people tell their friends has a hyperlink. I like my credibility.

Floyd will be in France in July. He bought his ticket a couple of days ago. The new SI interview should drop before that.

So, I take it there is no link after all. The problem as I see it is that Floyd's claims against LeMond are being attributed as gospel without any verification besides your own. People who weren't part of the early debate lose the context of this evidence the farther we get from it being introduced. See the link for why this matters IMO.

viewtopic.php?p=1905832#p1905832

 

[Oldermanish]

Re: Re:

So yes, that's trails across continents and across decades.[/quote]

I can't let that pass.

Rumours and anonymous whistleblower cannot be taken as a trail in itself. To me, those rumours have 2 causes :
-In order for Chiappucci, Indurain and others to jump on the EPO bandwagon, which was lethal at the time, team coaches needed a strong incentive. "LeMond's on it" was the perfect incentive, wether he did it or not. To me, the chances it was 100% fabricated out of thin air are huge.
-From the moment he signed at La Vie Claire for the best contract in cycling, rumours started spreading that Greg was lazy, just motivated by money, etc... The minute his status changed (while he was not winning a lot of races, in 84/85), jealousy motivated a lot of people to speak ill of Greg. It's very apparent in the European press : up until 1984 he's wonderboy and everybody loves him. From 1985 everybody's questioning him and he has to justify his every moves.

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

Iron shots : it's not because the iron shots in themselves do not explain Greg's increase in perfomance that only doping does. I've read the story of a random rider who asked a famous rider what he should take to win. As a joke, the famous rider gave him a suppository shaped piece of cheese. The random rider took it and won the race. It's called the placebo effect. In the 1989 Giro, Greg had struggled for 2 years to get back in shape, and failed. It was his first GT since he was shot, his first GT since the 1986 TDF he had won. When he finished 15 minutes behind in the snowy stage of Tre chime di Lavaredo, he thought he was finished, done. He felt miserable. He called his wife "that's it, I quit". Then the anemia thing, and the iron shots. In Greg's mind, he was sick and his sickness was treated. It's possible that, whatever was blocking him in terms of motivation, this triggered him. The last ITT of the Giro, where Greg finished 2nd, was where Greg was to decide wether he was still a pro cyclist or not. He bet his life on it. Don't underestimate that.

Medical story : The contradiction you point are from interviews. If you think interviews are made of forensics quality accuracy, then I believe you're wrong. Greg is telling a story to a journalist. He's following his story. Facts can vary. take for instance the Luz Ardiden 1985 TDF stage. From one article to the other, Greg will say Hinault was 2, 3 or 5 minutes behind. He's just telling a story. Then, consider journalists mistakes : just a few weeks ago, a Cyclingnews journalist said Greg had 2 grandkids. He just has one.

Eddie B /Montgomery, I have no knowledge on those.[/quote]

This is one of the most insightful responses on Lemond speculation I've seen. Testa conducted activities at Motorola but it wasn't necessarily a team-sponsored operation. He only knew what was told to him by each rider and would have to assume what he was told was truthful. Meaning he really didn't know. Any speculation he or others would have about Lemond would be just that, not testifiable fact. One fact was clear: they used the "fact" that the Euros were all doping to justify their activity. It was self-serving and clear they were willing to lie to their own riders. We could be fairly certain that was standard operating procedure for the entire culture.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Re: Re:

Add to the fact that Floyd has never even been confirmed to have said this. The claim relies on the word of an anonymous poster as far as I am aware. Anybody got a link to prove otherwise?

Like everything people tell their friends has a hyperlink. I like my credibility.

Floyd will be in France in July. He bought his ticket a couple of days ago. The new SI interview should drop before that.

So, I take it there is no link after all. The problem as I see it is that Floyd's claims against LeMond are being attributed as gospel without any verification besides your own. People who weren't part of the early debate lose the context of this evidence the farther we get from it being introduced. See the link for why this matters IMO.

viewtopic.php?p=1905832#p1905832

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

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