LeMond III

[sniper]

Re:

Always like hearing Greg Lemond give his thoughts on a topic.

must give him some credit for this interview in a time when dissonant voices are increasingly scarce.
still yesterday Sky's PR department was celebrating the lack of doping questions from the press as some kind of victory.

 

[veganrob]

Re: Re:

Always like hearing Greg Lemond give his thoughts on a topic.

must give him some credit for this interview in a time when dissonant voices are increasingly scarce.
still yesterday Sky's PR department was celebrating the lack of doping questions from the press as some kind of victory.

Yes, This is very fair of you Sniper. Greg is open to a lot of criticism and rightfully so. He has been very erratic to say the least numerous times. But he should be applauded for calling out the Sky BS at a time like this. He deserves some props for this.

 

[D-Queued]

Re: Re:

Always like hearing Greg Lemond give his thoughts on a topic.

must give him some credit for this interview in a time when dissonant voices are increasingly scarce.
still yesterday Sky's PR department was celebrating the lack of doping questions from the press as some kind of victory.

Shouldn't you also consider offering him some credit on the issue of mechanical doping?

Didn't you have some strong opinions on that?

Sounds like without LeMond nobody was going to even think about investigating.

Dave.

 

[gooner]

Re: Re:

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/greg-lemond-miracles-in-cycling-still-dont-exist/
I admire his attitude however he's opening himself up to a world of hurt.
First of all Sky are powerful enough to keep him quiet secondly if he is alluding to mechanical doping for Armstrong he could end up in a court case he can't win as there is no way it can be proven, no checks were ever made on Lance's bike so there's no proof and finding out if he bought a motor is neerly impossible. What's more if we ever were to find that out you still can proved he used one so it's not a winnable argument. Time for Greg to rest on his laurels relax and stop putting himself in trouble, it could cost him deerely one day. He has enough money to relax and let it go.

This reads like a threat.

I agree with much of what Greg has to say here but I think the point on Lance is a fair one. Even with Lance, the logic should still apply that a new accusation like this has to be substantiated when implying something. Greg seems to be just interpreting it this way than any knowledge of it.

For all we know, Lance may never have used a motor. Why didn't Floyd or Tyler ever say it?

 

[ontheroad]

It took them a few days but as predictable as day follows night the Sky counter attack on Lemond has begun. Predictably it is Swart who has started the ball rolling to try and lend some scientific credence to their argument. When things get slightly difficult, Swart is wheeled out to pull apart an argument based on numbers. Still, he claims he is not a sky supporter and is totally 'independent'. Starts off the softening up process by saying Greg was an absolute hero of his then quickly rubbishes his point's about his buddy Froome.

 

[Cycle Chic]

Re: LeMond goes motorised

Greg has found the motorised bike - a clip of him and Eric Boyer doing a recon on yesterdays stage - Lemond pedalling egg beater style ala Froome - Boyer riding normally and out of breath at the end of the ride which was a climb...Boyer is slim.

FATTY Lemond wasnt even puffing !

 

[Cannibal72]

Re: LeMond goes motorised

Greg has found the motorised bike - a clip of him and Eric Boyer doing a recon on yesterdays stage - Lemond pedalling egg beater style ala Froome - Boyer riding normally and out of breath at the end of the ride which was a climb...Boyer is slim.

FATTY Lemond wasnt even puffing !

LeMond does actually own a motorised bike. It was in the Le Monde article about the custom maker whose name escapes me.

 

[sniper]

Re: Re:

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/greg-lemond-miracles-in-cycling-still-dont-exist/
I admire his attitude however he's opening himself up to a world of hurt.
First of all Sky are powerful enough to keep him quiet secondly if he is alluding to mechanical doping for Armstrong he could end up in a court case he can't win as there is no way it can be proven, no checks were ever made on Lance's bike so there's no proof and finding out if he bought a motor is neerly impossible. What's more if we ever were to find that out you still can proved he used one so it's not a winnable argument. Time for Greg to rest on his laurels relax and stop putting himself in trouble, it could cost him deerely one day. He has enough money to relax and let it go.

This reads like a threat.

I agree with much of what Greg has to say here but I think the point on Lance is a fair one. Even with Lance, the logic should still apply that a new accusation like this has to be substantiated when implying something. Greg seems to be just interpreting it this way than any knowledge of it.

For all we know, Lance may never have used a motor. Why didn't Floyd or Tyler ever say it?

you missed a negation in the first sentence, right? (I think -> I don't think)
I agree.
It would be classy of Lemond to drop the topic of Armstrong for a while. Armstrong's been brought down.
And maybe Lemond should fess up to his own carreer long doping.
Going back to the topic of Armstrong each chance he gets and now insinuating motors really does smell of sour grapes.

To be sure, he's not the first to speculate about Lance and motors.
However, fwiw, I personally don't remember any Cance 2010 RvV/PR or Froome Ventoux-13 kinds of physiologically unreal accellerations from Lance.
It means we don't need a motor to explain the type of performances we've seen from Lance. Which doesn't mean we should exclude the possibility, mind, but just that it's pure and rather baseless speculation, for now.
And so I have no idea why Lemond feels compelled to go there.

That said, didn't Sky employ a former-USPS mechanic?

 

[gooner]

Re: Re:

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/greg-lemond-miracles-in-cycling-still-dont-exist/
I admire his attitude however he's opening himself up to a world of hurt.
First of all Sky are powerful enough to keep him quiet secondly if he is alluding to mechanical doping for Armstrong he could end up in a court case he can't win as there is no way it can be proven, no checks were ever made on Lance's bike so there's no proof and finding out if he bought a motor is neerly impossible. What's more if we ever were to find that out you still can proved he used one so it's not a winnable argument. Time for Greg to rest on his laurels relax and stop putting himself in trouble, it could cost him deerely one day. He has enough money to relax and let it go.

This reads like a threat.

I agree with much of what Greg has to say here but I think the point on Lance is a fair one. Even with Lance, the logic should still apply that a new accusation like this has to be substantiated when implying something. Greg seems to be just interpreting it this way than any knowledge of it.

For all we know, Lance may never have used a motor. Why didn't Floyd or Tyler ever say it?

you missed a negation in the first sentence, right? (I think -> I don't think)
I agree.
It would be classy of Lemond to drop the topic of Armstrong for a while. Armstrong's been brought down.
And maybe Lemond should fess up to his own carreer long doping.
Going back to the topic of Armstrong each chance he gets and now insinuating motors really does smell of sour grapes.

To be sure, he's not the first to speculate about Lance and motors.
However, fwiw, I personally don't remember any Cance 2010 RvV/PR or Froome Ventoux-13 kinds of physiologically unreal accellerations from Lance.
It means we don't need a motor to explain the type of performances we've seen from Lance. Which doesn't mean we should exclude the possibility, mind, but just that it's pure and rather baseless speculation, for now.

That said, didn't Sky employ a former-USPS mechanic?

"I think" the point Ramon Koran made on Lance was a fair one.

 

[sniper]

Re: LeMond goes motorised

Greg has found the motorised bike - a clip of him and Eric Boyer doing a recon on yesterdays stage - Lemond pedalling egg beater style ala Froome - Boyer riding normally and out of breath at the end of the ride which was a climb...Boyer is slim.

dopers in arms.

they (or at least Lemond) seem happy to talk about motors.
probably makes them feel less hypocrit because they really genuinely never used motors.

 

[BullsFan22]

Re: Re:

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/greg-lemond-miracles-in-cycling-still-dont-exist/
I admire his attitude however he's opening himself up to a world of hurt.
First of all Sky are powerful enough to keep him quiet secondly if he is alluding to mechanical doping for Armstrong he could end up in a court case he can't win as there is no way it can be proven, no checks were ever made on Lance's bike so there's no proof and finding out if he bought a motor is neerly impossible. What's more if we ever were to find that out you still can proved he used one so it's not a winnable argument. Time for Greg to rest on his laurels relax and stop putting himself in trouble, it could cost him deerely one day. He has enough money to relax and let it go.

This reads like a threat.

I agree with much of what Greg has to say here but I think the point on Lance is a fair one. Even with Lance, the logic should still apply that a new accusation like this has to be substantiated when implying something. Greg seems to be just interpreting it this way than any knowledge of it.

For all we know, Lance may never have used a motor. Why didn't Floyd or Tyler ever say it?

you missed a negation in the first sentence, right? (I think -> I don't think)
I agree.
It would be classy of Lemond to drop the topic of Armstrong for a while. Armstrong's been brought down.
And maybe Lemond should fess up to his own carreer long doping.
Going back to the topic of Armstrong each chance he gets and now insinuating motors really does smell of sour grapes.

To be sure, he's not the first to speculate about Lance and motors.
However, fwiw, I personally don't remember any Cance 2010 RvV/PR or Froome Ventoux-13 kinds of physiologically unreal accellerations from Lance.
It means we don't need a motor to explain the type of performances we've seen from Lance. Which doesn't mean we should exclude the possibility, mind, but just that it's pure and rather baseless speculation, for now.
And so I have no idea why Lemond feels compelled to go there.

That said, didn't Sky employ a former-USPS mechanic?

Maybe Lance's accelerations are different, but: Sestriere 1999, Ventoux 2000, Alpe d'Huez 2001, Aix Les Thermes 2001, Pla d'Adet 2001, Plateau de Baille 2002/Ventoux 2002...

 

[GJB123]

Re: Re:

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/greg-lemond-miracles-in-cycling-still-dont-exist/
I admire his attitude however he's opening himself up to a world of hurt.
First of all Sky are powerful enough to keep him quiet secondly if he is alluding to mechanical doping for Armstrong he could end up in a court case he can't win as there is no way it can be proven, no checks were ever made on Lance's bike so there's no proof and finding out if he bought a motor is neerly impossible. What's more if we ever were to find that out you still can proved he used one so it's not a winnable argument. Time for Greg to rest on his laurels relax and stop putting himself in trouble, it could cost him deerely one day. He has enough money to relax and let it go.

This reads like a threat.

I agree with much of what Greg has to say here but I think the point on Lance is a fair one. Even with Lance, the logic should still apply that a new accusation like this has to be substantiated when implying something. Greg seems to be just interpreting it this way than any knowledge of it.

For all we know, Lance may never have used a motor. Why didn't Floyd or Tyler ever say it?

you missed a negation in the first sentence, right? (I think -> I don't think)
I agree.
It would be classy of Lemond to drop the topic of Armstrong for a while. Armstrong's been brought down.
And maybe Lemond should fess up to his own carreer long doping.
Going back to the topic of Armstrong each chance he gets and now insinuating motors really does smell of sour grapes.

To be sure, he's not the first to speculate about Lance and motors.
However, fwiw, I personally don't remember any Cance 2010 RvV/PR or Froome Ventoux-13 kinds of physiologically unreal accellerations from Lance.
It means we don't need a motor to explain the type of performances we've seen from Lance. Which doesn't mean we should exclude the possibility, mind, but just that it's pure and rather baseless speculation, for now.
And so I have no idea why Lemond feels compelled to go there.

That said, didn't Sky employ a former-USPS mechanic?

That is pretty rich coming from THE King of Baseless Speculation! Weren't you the one who said never to exclude any possibility of cheating when cycling is involved?

 

[sniper]

@bullsfan:
unreal (= seated, no increased upper body movement, yet crazy acceleration) is what Cance did at least twice in 2010 and Froome at least once in 2013.
never seen that from Lance.

 

[Pantani_lives]

I find Lemond's explorations of the mountain stages more enjoyable to watch than the race itself.

 

[popular jams]

What snipey does isn't baseless speculation; he's outright claiming that LeMond doped while offering no sources or even the slightest bit of evidence.

 

[DanielSong39]

Re:

What snipey does isn't baseless speculation; he's outright claiming that LeMond doped while offering no sources or even the slightest bit of evidence.

Guys, this is the clinic. We're supposed to make "baseless" speculations.

 

[Tienus]

What snipey does isn't baseless speculation; he's outright claiming that LeMond doped while offering no sources or even the slightest bit of evidence.

If you read back a in this tread you will find that Sniper offered a lot of sources and evidence.

 

[StyrbjornSterki]

Re:

If you read back a in this tread you will find that Sniper offered a lot of sources and evidence.

Circumstantial evidence, mostly non sequitirs and guilt by association, dotted with errors of fact and claims to facts not in evidence, all too voluminous to discredit point by point unless you were willing to give up your day job. Slipshod "research" at best.

Always inevitably ending up back at the grassy knoll.

 

[StyrbjornSterki]

Here's the upshot. If it were so easy that Greg's guilt could be proved while sitting at a PC keyboard, don't you think some industrious journo already would have done so?

The cycling media suggested all the way back in 1999 that Armstrong's performance was suspicious. Some continued to say it, even though it imperiled their career. When have you heard similar written or said in legitimate cycling media about Lemond? If we are to accept sniper's theory, we necessarily also must accept that the same media have failed in their due diligence, failed to apply the same scrutiny to Lemond. That sniper alone has succeeded where the whole of the world of sports media have failed for a quarter of a century.

 

[sniper]

is this strawman celebration day?
stybjornsterki, you still dont know the difference between proof and evidence?
that's poor.

 

[D-Queued]

Re:

is this strawman celebration day?
stybjornsterki, you still dont know the difference between proof and evidence?
that's poor.

You could be right.

He prolly only gets the difference between independently confirmed proof and things like personal agendas, innuendo, wishful thinking, baseless accusations and fabricated evidence.

Dave.

 

[adamfo]

Why not just ask one of Armstrong's former wrench men ? Someone retired from the sport. The technology must of somewhat clunky back then with wires sticking out all over the place. They and Tyler Hamilton would surely of known.

I'd like to know if LeMond's "iron injection" at the Giro was a euphemism for a blood transfusion or similar vampirism ? Was it legal back then ?

 

[Ironhead Slim]

Re:

Why not just ask one of Armstrong's former wrench men ? Someone retired from the sport. The technology must of somewhat clunky back then with wires sticking out all over the place. They and Tyler Hamilton would surely of known.

I'd like to know if LeMond's "iron injection" at the Giro was a euphemism for a blood transfusion or similar vampirism ? Was it legal back then ?

Besides if he used motors in steel frames with thin tubes the motor tech must of been other worldly!

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Re: Re:

is this strawman celebration day?
stybjornsterki, you still dont know the difference between proof and evidence?
that's poor.

You could be right.

He prolly only gets the difference between independently confirmed proof and things like personal agendas, innuendo, wishful thinking, baseless accusations and fabricated evidence.

Dave.

Or it could be just plain ole ------PRO CYCLIST DOPE talk. Which playing the odds all these fools doped. Could be that ... or maybe it is just wishful thinking that maybe all cycling fans should know this by now.

 

[adamfo]

Re: Re:

Why not just ask one of Armstrong's former wrench men ? Someone retired from the sport. The technology must of somewhat clunky back then with wires sticking out all over the place. They and Tyler Hamilton would surely of known.

I'd like to know if LeMond's "iron injection" at the Giro was a euphemism for a blood transfusion or similar vampirism ? Was it legal back then ?

Besides if he used motors in steel frames with thin tubes the motor tech must of been other worldly!

OK, that seems to be one valid reason.

I remember after last years tour Lemond had a chance for a one on one interview with Froome on Eurosport.
His line of questioning was no confused and garbled Froome had to politely prompt him and offer up answers.