LeMond III

[pmcg76]

Re:

I think we all want to know how/why lemond couldn't finish races anymore and his immune system wasn't working properly anymore. We also want to know how he was able to win three tours, beating known dopers and blood dopers. We also want to know where all those doping and epo rumours about lemond come from. And, we want to know why he invested in Montgomery securities. We also want to know what happened to him at the OTC and why he threw a fundraiser for blood doper Eddie B. We want to know the answer to all that.
There is an answer. In fact there is an answer which answers them all.
You don't have an answer to any of those questions.
Simples, really.

In fact most of those questions have been answered. His illness has been discussed at length in these threads so now to plead ignorance of it is BS. The likely origin of the EPO rumours has been explained to you several times also, but you choose to ignore it. PDM were most likely pissed that LeMond didnt perform for them but a year later won the Tour which was their big aim. EPO was coming into the peloton from the US at that time so like many they put 2+2 together, came up with 5 and the the rumour started. Gisbers and Dhaenans are the earliest stated source so it makes sense. The rumour about Landis having his blood poured down the toilet wasnt true either but clearly it was a rumour in the peloton. Somehow it started as well, didnt make it true.

Montgomery was an investment company was it not? a successful one, so an athlete investing their money in a successful investment company is hardly unusual. Could be as Weisel was already in the small US cycling community, that is how they were acquainted. I think it was LeMonds father Bob who looked after his finances. My personal GP is also in our cycling club, does that mean he is doping me too?

Steve Tilford already answered what happened at the OTC but you have of course dismissed it. It was also pointed out that in one of your links, that over 200 athletes attended the OTC per year from a variety of sports so multiply that over a number of years and that is a lot of athletes who would have been theoretically doped. For nobody to have ever come forward if there were doping happening seems unusual in a democratic and free country, unlike say the USSR or East Germany. Also with that many athletes involved, how much contact would LeMond have had with people at the OTC, I would imagine very little contact other than for testing.

Despite Eddie B and the 84 scandal, many of those who rode for Eddie B had respect for him as a trainer. Simple really. Roy Knickman who was later named by Matt DeCanio as a coach who believed in clean cycling was also a big fan of Eddie B. Inga Thompson didnt like Eddie B but he never told her to dope, that is her own personal interpetation but then people often take different meaning from the same situation. Also care to explain how Inga could beat all the Eddie B disciples and most of the top female cyclists in the World including the Top Soviets and East Germans.

You have yet to show who all these blood dopers were during the 80s. Based on the climbing times from that era, if there were blood doping happening, it clearly was not very beneficial. I will also throw in Giles Delion as always, a rider who had a Bassons reputation and is the one rider who Bassons actually admired, top 15 on his debut Tour in 90 and White jersey winner along with a host of other successful results. Pretty good for a totally clean rider. Oh thats right, you say Delion is somehow not relevant. I want to know why not as we are talking about clean athletes beating dopers.

All of the above has been addressed before but as I pointed out, you are only interested in ont thing so choose to ignore the answers.

Would also like to add Eddie B was in charge of Postal in 96 when they first went to Europe, Tyler Hamilton described how they were so naive compared to the Euro teams and were not using EPO even though it had been on the scene for 6 years. The team doctor was Steffen Prentice who was famously anti-doping and was fired along with Eddie B at the end of that season in favour of Johnny Weltz and the Spanish Doc. The Postal team of Eddie B does not sound like a major doping team.

 

[pmcg76]

Re: Re:

I think we all want to know how/why lemond couldn't finish races anymore and his immune system wasn't working properly anymore. We also want to know how he was able to win three tours, beating known dopers and blood dopers. We also want to know where all those doping and epo rumours about lemond come from. And, we want to know why he invested in Montgomery securities. We also want to know what happened to him at the OTC and why he threw a fundraiser for blood doper Eddie B. We want to know the answer to all that.
There is an answer. In fact there is an answer which answers them all.
You don't have an answer to any of those questions.
Simples, really.

I think at this point we all understand what you're getting at. If you haven't already, why not just come out and say plainly that it's your belief that LeMond doped? The pseudo-intellectual arguments are hollow and a poor attempt at argument to an outsider.

Also, it might help to understand what drives your need to believe that LeMond doped.

Care to share?

The answer to that question has been obvious for a long time.

sniper was putting forward plentiful opinions on LeMond without even knowing that LeMond had been shot, then compounded that by insinuating that the shooting was a possible ruse to cover up doping. I kid you not.

 

[Benotti69]

Tilford wont call out BMC's doping, who his partner Trudi, works for so not that great a source in favour of LeMond.

As for Eddie B and Prentice not knowing about EPO, well doping is doping, just because you are not using everything available don't give you a pass.

I have not seen hard facts that LeMond doped, but then again there are lots in the peloton like that, who we know were major players in the EPO era. But LeMond really doesn't have a problem with some serious dopers, Hnault, Merckx, Indurain, Pantani, Vino, etc.

It seems LeMond disliked other USA TdF winners. Not good.

 

[gillan1969]

Re: Re:

I think we all want to know how/why lemond couldn't finish races anymore and his immune system wasn't working properly anymore. We also want to know how he was able to win three tours, beating known dopers and blood dopers. We also want to know where all those doping and epo rumours about lemond come from. And, we want to know why he invested in Montgomery securities. We also want to know what happened to him at the OTC and why he threw a fundraiser for blood doper Eddie B. We want to know the answer to all that.
There is an answer. In fact there is an answer which answers them all.
You don't have an answer to any of those questions.
Simples, really.

I think at this point we all understand what you're getting at. If you haven't already, why not just come out and say plainly that it's your belief that LeMond doped? The pseudo-intellectual arguments are hollow and a poor attempt at argument to an outsider.

Also, it might help to understand what drives your need to believe that LeMond doped.

Care to share?

The answer to that question has been obvious for a long time.

sniper was putting forward plentiful opinions on LeMond without even knowing that LeMond had been shot, then compounded that by insinuating that the shooting was a possible ruse to cover up doping. I kid you not.

the clinic 1

 

[pmcg76]

Re:

Tilford wont call out BMC's doping, who his partner Trudi, works for so not that great a source in favour of LeMond.

As for Eddie B and Prentice not knowing about EPO, well doping is doping, just because you are not using everything available don't give you a pass.

I have not seen hard facts that LeMond doped, but then again there are lots in the peloton like that, who we know were major players in the EPO era. But LeMond really doesn't have a problem with some serious dopers, Hnault, Merckx, Indurain, Pantani, Vino, etc.

It seems LeMond disliked other USA TdF winners. Not good.

Even though Tilford is hypocritic, I can understand why he would protect his wifes position, but why would he protect Eddie B even though he admitted he didnt have a great relationship with him.

Who says Eddie B and Prentice didn't know. I think everyone knew by 96, hell there was articles in cycling magazines about EPO at that time. As sniper would say, why wouldn't they use it?

Of course there is a possibility that LeMond doped, there always has been and some of the performances in 89/90/91 should definitely raise questions, but there is still no real solid black marks against LeMond. If people want to believe winning the Tour clean was not possible, fair enough, but the BS being floated as 'evidence' is well.......

 

[sniper]

My pensum is up for tonight. But I'll say this: Gilles Delion proves that you can win clean. I kid you not. :S

@benotti, good point about Tilford. No he can't be trusted to speak openly on the topic of Lemond. He also got pricked up by Lemonds step dad when he was still active as a rider.

 

[Benotti69]

Re: Re:

Tilford wont call out BMC's doping, who his partner Trudi, works for so not that great a source in favour of LeMond.

As for Eddie B and Prentice not knowing about EPO, well doping is doping, just because you are not using everything available don't give you a pass.

I have not seen hard facts that LeMond doped, but then again there are lots in the peloton like that, who we know were major players in the EPO era. But LeMond really doesn't have a problem with some serious dopers, Hnault, Merckx, Indurain, Pantani, Vino, etc.

It seems LeMond disliked other USA TdF winners. Not good.

Even though Tilford is hypocritic, I can understand why he would protect his wifes position, but why would he protect Eddie B even though he admitted he didnt have a great relationship with him.

Who says Eddie B and Prentice didn't know. I think everyone knew by 96, hell there was articles in cycling magazines about EPO at that time. As sniper would say, why wouldn't they use it?

Of course there is a possibility that LeMond doped, there always has been and some of the performances in 89/90/91 should definitely raise questions, but there is still no real solid black marks against LeMond. If people want to believe winning the Tour clean was not possible, fair enough, but the BS being floated as 'evidence' is well.......

Fignon did not like or did not use EPO even though he was aware of it, not sure which. AFAIK, Motorola did use EPO, according to Swart.

Was it not Ferrari who had the knowledge about proper use for EPO and hence the rise of Armstrong, who had already taken EPO?

But yep, I err on the side LeMond doped. I have not seen proof that he did, but i cant see why he wouldn't. Dont remember his outrage at Kimmage's book. In fact I dont remember reading anything from LeMond commenting on Rough Ride's contents. But that is along time ago and i threw out my cycling mags in the mid 90s and gave up buying them when big fat asses started destroying climbers.

I dont think in modern times, from the late 60s on, it was possible to win a GT clean. 3 weeks is a long time to ride a bike day after day against people trying to gain every advantage possible, taking every pill/injection/iv/peds....

Tilford is a mixed bag when it comes to USA and it's dopers. I like Tilford's blog, but he is human.

 

[firefly]

Re: Re:

Tilford wont call out BMC's doping, who his partner Trudi, works for so not that great a source in favour of LeMond.

As for Eddie B and Prentice not knowing about EPO, well doping is doping, just because you are not using everything available don't give you a pass.

I have not seen hard facts that LeMond doped, but then again there are lots in the peloton like that, who we know were major players in the EPO era. But LeMond really doesn't have a problem with some serious dopers, Hnault, Merckx, Indurain, Pantani, Vino, etc.

It seems LeMond disliked other USA TdF winners. Not good.

Even though Tilford is hypocritic, I can understand why he would protect his wifes position, but why would he protect Eddie B even though he admitted he didnt have a great relationship with him.

Who says Eddie B and Prentice didn't know. I think everyone knew by 96, hell there was articles in cycling magazines about EPO at that time. As sniper would say, why wouldn't they use it?

Of course there is a possibility that LeMond doped, there always has been and some of the performances in 89/90/91 should definitely raise questions, but there is still no real solid black marks against LeMond. If people want to believe winning the Tour clean was not possible, fair enough, but the BS being floated as 'evidence' is well.......

Fignon did not like or did not use EPO even though he was aware of it, not sure which. AFAIK, Motorola did use EPO, according to Swart.

Was it not Ferrari who had the knowledge about proper use for EPO and hence the rise of Armstrong, who had already taken EPO?

But yep, I err on the side LeMond doped. I have not seen proof that he did, but i cant see why he wouldn't. Dont remember his outrage at Kimmage's book. In fact I dont remember reading anything from LeMond commenting on Rough Ride's contents. But that is along time ago and i threw out my cycling mags in the mid 90s and gave up buying them when big fat asses started destroying climbers.

I dont think in modern times, from the late 60s on, it was possible to win a GT clean. 3 weeks is a long time to ride a bike day after day against people trying to gain every advantage possible, taking every pill/injection/iv/peds....

Tilford is a mixed bag when it comes to USA and it's dopers. I like Tilford's blog, but he is human.

Emphasis mine. I don't know you, I have no proof that you're a time traveler who killed Martin Luther King, Jr., but I don't see why you wouldn't have.

I err on the side of you and sniper not waiting until enough neurons fired before clicking "Submit".

I have lurked for a while, but your post pushed me into joining.

So, someone that does not agree with your viewpoint is guilty of "not waiting until enough neurons fired before clicking "Submit""?

seems like you suffer from exactly what you accuse others of....

Or do you have irrefutable proof that Lemond did not dope?

or is just that your opinion is more valid than others?

 

[sniper]

Cheers Firefly, good post.
Asking for evidence of his cleanliness, I've tried that plenty of times, but what you get in return is insults to the brain along the lines of "Gilles Delion was clean; therefore Lemond was clean". Or, "Phil Andersen said Lemond is clean, so case closed". It's intriguing to see some intelligent people completely switch off on the topic of Lemond.
It seems to be more of a "I want to believe" or "I need a hero" kind of thing.

Briefly back to Tilford and why he shouldn't be expected to question Lemond or Hampsten:

PEZ: What has been your favourite part of your career?
ST: When I was on the Levis team with Andy Hampsten and Roy Knickman; when we were outside the US we got to race for la Vie Claire in races like the RCN classic in Columbia but then when they were in the US for the Coors Classic, we’d be racing against the guys we’d been team mates with. Back then there were two good teams, Levi and 7-11; and the sport is still a little like that, a few good teams and then a lot of other teams.http://www.pezcyclingnews.com/interviews/pez-talk-american-legend-steve-tilford/#.V-ZDEDUjUo4

That's from 2010 btw.

I would love to see Tilford explain Hampsten's 1992 season.

He also says this:

What’s the biggest change you’ve seen in the sport?
ST: Drug usage; I rant about it on my blog – I’m not naive, there were drugs about when I started but the drugs now are so much more effective. I’ve never been away from the sport so I can tell which guys are on it – it’s not as prevalent in the US but there will still be 5 guys out of 150 who are on it.

Good one, Steve.

When Benotti says, "Tilford is a mixed bag when it comes to USA and it's dopers. I like Tilford's blog, but he is human", that sounds about right.

 

[Benotti69]

Re: Re:

<<<snipped>>>>>>.

While i may or may not be linked to time travel and Martin Luther King JR is up for debate.

But LeMond rode in Europe for European teams at a time when it was par for the course to dope, the culture was to dope and those who tried to go against that culture got short thrift. See Kimmage and the reaction of the peloton to him exposing what he saw.

Hinault refused to race post tour crits if there was going to be testing.

So while i may not have seen or read of LeMond's doping, i seriously doubt the guy won 3 GTs clean in a sport riddled with cheating and the endless search for an edge. Sniper has been trying to figure it out and kudos to him for trying, because LeMond is held up as the outlier of clean cycling. Some of us doubt it. We give voice to that doubt in the clinic. You are welcome to counter that with your own voice.

 

[Gung Ho Gun]

For the record, I don't think LeMond was "clean". Rik Van Steenbergen said in a TV interview that all winning cyclists in his time took the same pills during races. Or as Boogerd once said, "every athlete has his own personal line that he won't cross, for some that line is just way further than for others". I just don't see any indication that LeMond's line was firmly in the realm of avant-garde doping/EPO. He may well have been as clean as professional athletes come.

 

[popular jams]

Re: Re:

I have lurked for a while, but your post pushed me into joining.

So, someone that does not agree with your viewpoint is guilty of "not waiting until enough neurons fired before clicking "Submit""?

seems like you suffer from exactly what you accuse others of....

Or do you have irrefutable proof that Lemond did not dope?

or is just that your opinion is more valid than others?

Opinions are interesting because they're different than facts or informed suppositions. Postulating that LeMond doped when the vast majority of signs point to the contrary is indicative of flawed reasoning, impaired cognitive abilities, or malicious intent. Take your pick.

 

[popular jams]

Re: Re:

<<<snipped>>>>>>.

While i may or may not be linked to time travel and Martin Luther King JR is up for debate.

But LeMond rode in Europe for European teams at a time when it was par for the course to dope, the culture was to dope and those who tried to go against that culture got short thrift. See Kimmage and the reaction of the peloton to him exposing what he saw.

Hinault refused to race post tour crits if there was going to be testing.

So while i may not have seen or read of LeMond's doping, i seriously doubt the guy won 3 GTs clean in a sport riddled with cheating and the endless search for an edge. Sniper has been trying to figure it out and kudos to him for trying, because LeMond is held up as the outlier of clean cycling. Some of us doubt it. We give voice to that doubt in the clinic. You are welcome to counter that with your own voice.

Yeah, he's really been trying to figure it out. We've got the makings of a PhD thesis in his posts, certainly. I hope someone here's been aggregating and organizing his posts for eventual publication and peer review.

I guess even blowhard crackpots can have followers. I'll stick with critical thinking and stay on the sane side of the tracks, thanks.

Coming to a forum like this and presenting absurd questions as valid lines of inquiry under the guise of "trying to figure it out" is complete hogwash. There's a motive here that hasn't been stated by sniper, and it's certainly not an above-board attempt to find the truth. Asserting that there's evidence that LeMond doped is the "teaching the controversy" of cycling internet forums; it's just as absurd and as easy to dismiss as giving the same weight to arguments for creationism and evidence in support of evolution.

Your opinion that LeMond doped is equally as valid as my opinion that you're a time-travelling assassin. Sniper takes it to another level with thinly veiled accusations and, at times, statements that make one wonder if libel statues and intentional malice and reckless disregard tests could be applied.

 

[Nomad]

Re: Re:

<<<snipped because of personal attack>>>>>>.

While i may or may not be linked to time travel and Martin Luther King JR is up for debate.

But LeMond rode in Europe for European teams at a time when it was par for the course to dope, the culture was to dope and those who tried to go against that culture got short thrift. See Kimmage and the reaction of the peloton to him exposing what he saw.

Hinault refused to race post tour crits if there was going to be testing.

So while i may not have seen or read of LeMond's doping, i seriously doubt the guy won 3 GTs clean in a sport riddled with cheating and the endless search for an edge. Sniper has been trying to figure it out and kudos to him for trying, because LeMond is held up as the outlier of clean cycling. Some of us doubt it. We give voice to that doubt in the clinic. You are welcome to counter that with your own voice.

...but the Sky worshipers say Froome won 3 GTs clean, so why couldn't LeMond? Lol. It's funny that the Sky worshipers are more open to the possibility that LeMond doped than their sacred holier-than-thou hero would. The problem with this LeMond paradox, IMO, is that we have this terrible "villian" Armstrong that most everyone loves to hate. The idea that LeMond may have doped is too far-fetched for most of them to believe. Afterall, it's LeMond who gets to ride in the convertible with the other legends while Armstrong is left with 7 stripped titles and the wrath of the world. In American cycling the line is clearly drawn with LA being that "horrible, disgraced" athlete, the "Marion Jones" of men's cycling, so to speak, and LeMond the iconic hero, who in their belief would never, ever dope...no matter how many others were doping in that era. Only Lance would be so low to do such a thing...

 

[popular jams]

It's easier for fans of particular riders to invent a universe where LeMond was a prolific and leading-edge sports cheat than it is to try to argue away the actual evidence against most GT contenders since the early 90s.

I think it's that simple. Also, I think some personal connections (to LeMond or to those other riders) may be tucked away behind the veil of anonymity that we all cherish in Internet discourse.

 

[sniper]

Re:

For the record, I don't think LeMond was "clean". Rik Van Steenbergen said in a TV interview that all winning cyclists in his time took the same pills during races. Or as Boogerd once said, "every athlete has his own personal line that he won't cross, for some that line is just way further than for others".

interesting, cheers.

I just don't see any indication that LeMond's line was firmly in the realm of avant-garde doping/EPO. He may well have been as clean as professional athletes come.

Since when is winning three TdFs no longer an indication of avant-garde doping?
Whatever Lemond geared up with, it is merely plausible to assume it was state of the art.
And this is (pro-)cycling. Not darts or snooker. So we're not talking about beer and beta blockers.

Secondly, you seem to just step over the fact that Lemond spent nearly three years at the OTC (1978-80).
The publicly stated aim of the OTC was to compete with (and copy from) East Bloc countries in terms of sports science. (For links and discussion, please see the US cycling scene thread, and also further back in this thread.)
If that wasn't avant-garde, I don't know what is, and Lemond was right there in the middle of it.
The funny thing is: has any journalist ever made any serious attempt to research what was going on at the OTC from 78-80? Not that I'm aware, despite the fact that OTC founders Dardik and Ariel (who went to Koeln (WG) and the Leipzig Hochschule fuer Koerperkultur (EG) respectively to do internships) explicitly talked about the need to experiment with blood doping and steroids. In that context, if you're interested you should read up on the Amateur Sports Act and ask yourself why people like Borysewicz were brought into the OTC.

Thirdly, you're ignoring that Lemond's father-in law and sister in law count to very best immunologists of the US.

Fourthly: avant-garde doping costs. If anyone could afford it, it was procycling's first millionaire Greg Lemond.

In sum: if there was any procyclist in the 80s with the means and know how around him to organize avantgarde doping in the 80s, it would have been Lemond.

link to US cycling scene thread: viewtopic.php?f=20&t=30776&hilit=70s+80s
link to Amateur Sports Act: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amateur_Sports_Act_of_1978

 

[gillan1969]

Re:

Snipey, do you have corkboard on your walls with string, pins and newspaper cutouts all connected together? Perhaps blacked out windows and a dead-man's switch on your PC which will release your trove of LeMond documentation should the Illuminati take you out?

Self-awareness is a trait, you know. Reading your posts is comical.

Rumours and conjecture about Lemond by individuals here are now being presented as evidence in themselves in a circular vortex which will...eh...leave you're head spinning...actually, quite 'Brailsford like' really...we say we are clean and then use the fact you have said you are clean to prove you are clean (recent Team Sky Wiggins statement being case in point)

That and a number of threads set up with the the seeming intention of linking Lemond to ALL things doping

 

[djpbaltimore]

Re: Re:

Snipey, do you have corkboard on your walls with string, pins and newspaper cutouts all connected together? Perhaps blacked out windows and a dead-man's switch on your PC which will release your trove of LeMond documentation should the Illuminati take you out?

Self-awareness is a trait, you know. Reading your posts is comical.

Rumours and conjecture about Lemond by individuals here are now being presented as evidence in themselves in a circular vortex which will...eh...leave you're head spinning...actually, quite 'Brailsford like' really...we say we are clean and then use the fact you have said you are clean to prove you are clean (recent Team Sky Wiggins statement being case in point)

That and a number of threads set up with the the seeming intention of linking Lemond to ALL things doping

And also the highjacking of extant threads at the faintest provocation IMO like what happened in the Froome only thread the other day.

 

[Alex Simmons/RST]

Re: Re:

Or do you have irrefutable proof that Lemond did not dope?

Pure logic tells us that's an impossible proof for anyone to arrive at about any rider/athlete, let alone for Lemond.

Spock says there are only two possibilities regarding an athlete's doping status:
i. they are or were doping (since there is clear evidence of such, e.g. an ADRV, admission etc)
ii. we don't know (since there is no clear evidence and proof of not doping is impossible to ascertain)

It's reasonable to assign a probability ranking to athletes in the latter category though.

Ranking needs be based on quality of evidence (e.g. testing the validity of primary sources) and sound reasoning (logical fallacies need not apply).

Motivated reasoning and other forms of confirmation bias needs to take a hike. High volumes of low quality evidence (e.g. here-say) are pretty worthless when assigning a ranking. One cannot cherry pick either. IOW the weight of all valid evidence is what matters when determining a ranking.

So wrt to Lemond, the probability is non-zero (since it can't be zero for anyone) but is less than 100% since clear evidence for case (i) is not satisfied.

There will be a baseline starting probability level for all elite athletes because of the mere fact of competing in a sport known for high rates of doping. If we use e.g. the Dopeology database, then a baseline probability value of 50% would seem reasonable for elite cyclists, although it could well be more/less and it has probably changed over time. It's then a case of how one adjusts that baseline probability up or down for an individual based on the balance of valid evidence.

 

[Nomad]

Re: Re:

I have lurked for a while, but your post pushed me into joining.

So, someone that does not agree with your viewpoint is guilty of "not waiting until enough neurons fired before clicking "Submit""?

seems like you suffer from exactly what you accuse others of....

Or do you have irrefutable proof that Lemond did not dope?

or is just that your opinion is more valid than others?

Opinions are interesting because they're different than facts or informed suppositions. Postulating that LeMond doped when the vast majority of signs point to the contrary is indicative of flawed reasoning, impaired cognitive abilities, or malicious intent. Take your pick.

Mind control vs free thinking?

If you substitute "LeMond" with "Froome" in your statement, that's exactly what the Sky worshipers joyously sing when their sacred hero is accused of doping.

I used to post a lot over on the mother ship and your statement is a typical response to any Froome accusations...almost verbatim (that and the proverbial there's "no hard eveidence").

So, if the majority believe a certain athlete is clean and the minority think differently, that's "impaired cognitive abilities?"

 

[pmcg76]

Re: Re:

I have lurked for a while, but your post pushed me into joining.

So, someone that does not agree with your viewpoint is guilty of "not waiting until enough neurons fired before clicking "Submit""?

seems like you suffer from exactly what you accuse others of....

Or do you have irrefutable proof that Lemond did not dope?

or is just that your opinion is more valid than others?

Opinions are interesting because they're different than facts or informed suppositions. Postulating that LeMond doped when the vast majority of signs point to the contrary is indicative of flawed reasoning, impaired cognitive abilities, or malicious intent. Take your pick.

Mind control vs free thinking?

If you substitute "LeMond" with "Froome" in your statement, that's exactly what the Sky worshipers joyously sing when their sacred hero is accused of doping.

I used to post a lot over on the mother ship and your statement is a typical response to any Froome accusations...almost verbatim (that and the proverbial there's "no hard eveidence").

So, if the majority believe a certain athlete is clean and the minority think differently, that's "impaired cognitive abilities?"

<edited by mods> Also comparing Froome to LeMond is ridiculous. One was a superstar from a very young age and the other came from nowhere to be a dominant rider at the Tour. Chalk and Cheese. As good as LeMond was, he was never dominant in the Froome manner.

As I said previously, if people want to believe it was impossible to win a Tour clean pre EPO, fair enough, that at least is consistent and I dont see many people attacking anyone thinking that, and is also part of a larger discussion rather than just a LeMond discussion. It is when posters start posting nonsense in a desperate effort to 'prove' LeMond doped that grates with people. There is no real evidence out there so trying to shoehorn invented garbage into the debate is nothing more than trolling.

As for why people believe it might have been possible to win a GT clean, there is a natural benchmarking system in place.
There are people who believe that it was impossible to become a pro without doping but we have Paul Kimmage.
There are people who believe it would be impossible to ride a GT without doping but again we have Kimmage.
Then there are those who would tell you it was impossible to win a stage or finish in the Top 20 at the Tour without doping but we have Giles Delion.
Then there are those who claim it would be impossible to podium a GT without doping but we have Charly Mottet.
So you will have naysayers at each benchmark who will say it was impossible but there always seems to have been exceptions. So after each benchmark, you move to the next one which at this stage is whether it was possible to win the Tour clean. If the naysayers were incorrect at all the other benchmarks, why not the top one?

OTOH, can we definitively say all these performances were clean? No, but all the above had clean repuations or were vouched for by people within the sport. Again that can mean something or it can mean nothing. Posters didnt 'invent' those reputations, they already existed.

People vouched for LeMond(and Bauer) like Koechli or Tapie, now people will say of course they did because they were all part of the same team, but these guys did not vouch for Hinault or Jeff Bernard and considering it was a French team, that would be highly unusual. Tapie was a Frenchman who owned the best French team with the best French rider and said the only 2 people on his team he could say were clean were LeMond and Bauer. Again, that is not invented or misrepresenting anything, those are existing views from the 80s at a time when the issue of being clean was not really a thing. Testing positive at the Tour resulted in a 10minute penalty, a fine and a suspeded 3 month suspension which reflects the seriousness of anti-doping at the time. Nobody cared, so stating someone was clean would seem to have actually carried some weight as opposed to the modern 'talk, talk' of being clean.

The possibility that LeMond doped is still there, always has been, just that it is less clear cut than other cases. Problem is you have posters claiming there is less evidence against Indurain than LeMond. Lets see.
Indurain worked with Conconi, fact.
Indurain went from riding with Kimmage in the mountains in his early years to being a 7 time GT winner, fact.
Indurains rise coincided with the arrival of EPO, fact.
Indurain dominated at the height of the EPO era, fact.
Indurain tested positive, fact.

Compare that to LeMond
LeMond beat doped riders, fact.
Eddie B was LeMonds coach on US Junior National team, fact.
Everything else is conjecture.

No comparison really.

 

[Nomad]

Re: Re:

Or do you have irrefutable proof that Lemond did not dope?

Pure logic tells us that's an impossible proof for anyone to arrive at about any rider/athlete, let alone for Lemond.

Spock says there are only two possibilities regarding an athlete's doping status:
i. they are or were doping (since there is clear evidence of such, e.g. an ADRV, admission etc)
ii. we don't know (since there is no clear evidence and proof of not doping is impossible to ascertain)

It's reasonable to assign a probability ranking to athletes in the latter category though.

Ranking needs be based on quality of evidence (e.g. testing the validity of primary sources) and sound reasoning (logical fallacies need not apply).

Motivated reasoning and other forms of confirmation bias needs to take a hike. High volumes of low quality evidence (e.g. here-say) are pretty worthless when assigning a ranking. One cannot cherry pick either. IOW the weight of all valid evidence is what matters when determining a ranking.

So wrt to Lemond, the probability is non-zero (since it can't be zero for anyone) but is less than 100% since clear evidence for case (i) is not satisfied.

There will be a baseline starting probability level for all elite athletes because of the mere fact of competing in a sport known for high rates of doping. If we use e.g. the Dopeology database, then a baseline probability value of 50% would seem reasonable for elite cyclists, although it could well be more/less and it has probably changed over time. It's then a case of how one adjusts that baseline probability up or down for an individual based on the balance of valid evidence.

Good analysis (I like your Spock analogy). I've been reading some of the millions of posts on this thread...it's like a never ending baseball game. But interesting and thought provoking info presented on both sides of the debate.

So, I guess if one simplifies the LeMond paradox we have no positive test, no confession & no scandal. This would be the black & white answer (i.e., the proverbial "no hard evidence")...so he's completely clean from that standpoint and no further analysis needed. But it begs the question of how could a rider win a GT clean in a sport with a history & culture of doping, particulary with GT champions? Anquetil, with his famous (or not so famous) cocktail, said the demands of the Tour make it impossible to ride without chemical assistance. Then came Merckx & Fignon with their amphetamines, Thevenent with steriods, Delgado with a masking agent, and so on. There's a consistent pattern with GT winners. And as everyone probably knows, there's science showing how destructive a 3 week GT is on the human body:

http://www.bicycling.com/racing/tour-de-france/how-racing-the-tour-de-france-changes-cyclists-bodies

Therefore, from a scientific standpoint, how could LeMond, or any GT winner, withstand the negative effects of a GT and not only finish strong but win the event, presumably against other talented contenders who are using PEDs? How did LeMond avert the fatigue & catabolic effects of a 3 week race?

The popular & prevelant PEDs of the 70s & 80s were amphetamines, steriods & testosterone. Though unlike the "rocket fuel" and transformation changing EPO of the 90s, these PEDs were performance enhancing & would not only give an equally talented rider an edge, but certainly aid in recovery and avert some of the negative physiological effects of a grueling GT. Studies have shown that steriods & T are not only anti-catabolic but stimulate erythropoiesis resulting in a modest increases in Hct. And a popular amphetamine of that time period, methylphenidate, has been shown in a study with elite cyclists to significantly improve higher power outputs, O2 consumptions, ventilation volume and perceived time to exhaustion:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19052141

So, maybe LeMond is clean. But how did his body hold up so well over 3 weeks in a grueling Tour beating other top contenders, many of whom were using the PEDs of that era?

 

[pmcg76]

Re: Re:

Or do you have irrefutable proof that Lemond did not dope?

Pure logic tells us that's an impossible proof for anyone to arrive at about any rider/athlete, let alone for Lemond.

Spock says there are only two possibilities regarding an athlete's doping status:
i. they are or were doping (since there is clear evidence of such, e.g. an ADRV, admission etc)
ii. we don't know (since there is no clear evidence and proof of not doping is impossible to ascertain)

It's reasonable to assign a probability ranking to athletes in the latter category though.

Ranking needs be based on quality of evidence (e.g. testing the validity of primary sources) and sound reasoning (logical fallacies need not apply).

Motivated reasoning and other forms of confirmation bias needs to take a hike. High volumes of low quality evidence (e.g. here-say) are pretty worthless when assigning a ranking. One cannot cherry pick either. IOW the weight of all valid evidence is what matters when determining a ranking.

So wrt to Lemond, the probability is non-zero (since it can't be zero for anyone) but is less than 100% since clear evidence for case (i) is not satisfied.

There will be a baseline starting probability level for all elite athletes because of the mere fact of competing in a sport known for high rates of doping. If we use e.g. the Dopeology database, then a baseline probability value of 50% would seem reasonable for elite cyclists, although it could well be more/less and it has probably changed over time. It's then a case of how one adjusts that baseline probability up or down for an individual based on the balance of valid evidence.

Good analysis (I like your Spock analogy). I've been reading some of the millions of posts on this thread...it's like a never ending baseball game. But interesting and thought provoking info presented on both sides of the debate.

So, I guess if one simplifies the LeMond paradox we have no positive test, no confession & no scandal. This would be the black & white answer (i.e., the proverbial "no hard evidence")...so he's completely clean from that standpoint. But it begs the question of how could a rider win a GT clean in a sport with a history & culture of doping, particulary with GT champions? Anquetil, with his famous (or not so famous) cocktail, said the demands of the Tour make it impossible to ride without chemical assistance. Then came Merckx & Fignon with their amphetamines, Thevenent with steriods, Delgado with a masking agent, and so on. There's a consistent pattern with GT winners. And as everyone probably knows, there's science showing how destructive a 3 week GT is on the human body:

http://www.bicycling.com/racing/tour-de-france/how-racing-the-tour-de-france-changes-cyclists-bodies

Therefore, from a scientific standpoint, how could LeMond, or any GT winner, withstand the negative effects of a GT and not only finish strong but win the event, presumably against other talented contenders who are using PEDs? How did LeMond avert the fatigue & catabolic effects of a 3 week race?

The popular & prevelant PEDs of the 70s & 80s were amphetamines, steriods & testosterone. Though unlike the "rocket fuel" and transformation changing EPO of the 90s, these PEDs were performance enhancing & would not only give an equally talented rider an edge, but certainly aid in recovery and avert some of the negative physiological effects of a grueling GT. Studies have shown that steriods & T are not only anti-catabolic but stimulate erythropoiesis resulting in a modest increases in Hct .And a popular amphetamine of that time period, methylphenidate, has been shown in a study with elite cyclists to significantly improve higher power outputs, O2 consumptions, ventilation volume and perceived time to exhaustion:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19052141

So, maybe LeMond is clean. But how did his body hold up so well over 3 weeks in a grueling Tour beating other top contenders, many of whom were using the PEDs of that era?

Because it always comes back to same tenants, can someone who has the natural ability and the natural recovery beat the inferior guys who are doping. As we dont really know the exact starting reference for each individuals, it is hard to know when the natural ability ends and the chemical assistance starts. Every pro will decline over 3 weeks but will do so at differing rates depending on their physical abilities, so you end up with those with the best recovery, both physical and mentally at the top. How many of those were doing so artificially is the million dollar question. There are such things as outliers but the question is, how big is the outlier?? Is the talent big enough to overcome the doping?? Problem is, we seem to have no definitive research anywhere to demonstrate this so are left with guessing and conjecture .

 

[blutto]

Re: Re:

I have lurked for a while, but your post pushed me into joining.

So, someone that does not agree with your viewpoint is guilty of "not waiting until enough neurons fired before clicking "Submit""?

seems like you suffer from exactly what you accuse others of....

Or do you have irrefutable proof that Lemond did not dope?

or is just that your opinion is more valid than others?

Opinions are interesting because they're different than facts or informed suppositions. Postulating that LeMond doped when the vast majority of signs point to the contrary is indicative of flawed reasoning, impaired cognitive abilities, or malicious intent. Take your pick.

Mind control vs free thinking?

If you substitute "LeMond" with "Froome" in your statement, that's exactly what the Sky worshipers joyously sing when their sacred hero is accused of doping.

I used to post a lot over on the mother ship and your statement is a typical response to any Froome accusations...almost verbatim (that and the proverbial there's "no hard eveidence").

So, if the majority believe a certain athlete is clean and the minority think differently, that's "impaired cognitive abilities?"

<edited by mods> Also comparing Froome to LeMond is ridiculous. One was a superstar from a very young age and the other came from nowhere to be a dominant rider at the Tour. Chalk and Cheese. As good as LeMond was, he was never dominant in the Froome manner.

As I said previously, if people want to believe it was impossible to win a Tour clean pre EPO, fair enough, that at least is consistent and I dont see many people attacking anyone thinking that, and is also part of a larger discussion rather than just a LeMond discussion. It is when posters start posting nonsense in a desperate effort to 'prove' LeMond doped that grates with people. There is no real evidence out there so trying to shoehorn invented garbage into the debate is nothing more than trolling.

As for why people believe it might have been possible to win a GT clean, there is a natural benchmarking system in place.
There are people who believe that it was impossible to become a pro without doping but we have Paul Kimmage.
There are people who believe it would be impossible to ride a GT without doping but again we have Kimmage.
Then there are those who would tell you it was impossible to win a stage or finish in the Top 20 at the Tour without doping but we have Giles Delion.
Then there are those who claim it would be impossible to podium a GT without doping but we have Charly Mottet.
So you will have naysayers at each benchmark who will say it was impossible but there always seems to have been exceptions. So after each benchmark, you move to the next one which at this stage is whether it was possible to win the Tour clean. If the naysayers were incorrect at all the other benchmarks, why not the top one?

OTOH, can we definitively say all these performances were clean? No, but all the above had clean repuations or were vouched for by people within the sport. Again that can mean something or it can mean nothing. Posters didnt 'invent' those reputations, they already existed.

People vouched for LeMond(and Bauer) like Koechli or Tapie, now people will say of course they did because they were all part of the same team, but these guys did not vouch for Hinault or Jeff Bernard and considering it was a French team, that would be highly unusual. Tapie was a Frenchman who owned the best French team with the best French rider and said the only 2 people on his team he could say were clean were LeMond and Bauer. Again, that is not invented or misrepresenting anything, those are existing views from the 80s at a time when the issue of being clean was not really a thing. Testing positive at the Tour resulted in a 10minute penalty, a fine and a suspeded 3 month suspension which reflects the seriousness of anti-doping at the time. Nobody cared, so stating someone was clean would seem to have actually carried some weight as opposed to the modern 'talk, talk' of being clean.

The possibility that LeMond doped is still there, always has been, just that it is less clear cut than other cases. Problem is you have posters claiming there is less evidence against Indurain than LeMond. Lets see.
Indurain worked with Conconi, fact.
Indurain went from riding with Kimmage in the mountains in his early years to being a 7 time GT winner, fact.
Indurains rise coincided with the arrival of EPO, fact.
Indurain dominated at the height of the EPO era, fact.
Indurain tested positive, fact.

Compare that to LeMond
LeMond beat doped riders, fact.
Eddie B was LeMonds coach on US Junior National team, fact.
Everything else is conjecture.

No comparison really.[/quotecomparison really.

Edited by mods

....you're new to these parts ain't you ?....btw fine post but altogether way too reasonable for this region...

...just sayin' eh...

Cheers

 

[pmcg76]

Re: Re:

I have lurked for a while, but your post pushed me into joining.

So, someone that does not agree with your viewpoint is guilty of "not waiting until enough neurons fired before clicking "Submit""?

seems like you suffer from exactly what you accuse others of....

Or do you have irrefutable proof that Lemond did not dope?

or is just that your opinion is more valid than others?

Opinions are interesting because they're different than facts or informed suppositions. Postulating that LeMond doped when the vast majority of signs point to the contrary is indicative of flawed reasoning, impaired cognitive abilities, or malicious intent. Take your pick.

Mind control vs free thinking?

If you substitute "LeMond" with "Froome" in your statement, that's exactly what the Sky worshipers joyously sing when their sacred hero is accused of doping.

I used to post a lot over on the mother ship and your statement is a typical response to any Froome accusations...almost verbatim (that and the proverbial there's "no hard eveidence").

So, if the majority believe a certain athlete is clean and the minority think differently, that's "impaired cognitive abilities?"

<edited by mods> Also comparing Froome to LeMond is ridiculous. One was a superstar from a very young age and the other came from nowhere to be a dominant rider at the Tour. Chalk and Cheese. As good as LeMond was, he was never dominant in the Froome manner.

As I said previously, if people want to believe it was impossible to win a Tour clean pre EPO, fair enough, that at least is consistent and I dont see many people attacking anyone thinking that, and is also part of a larger discussion rather than just a LeMond discussion. It is when posters start posting nonsense in a desperate effort to 'prove' LeMond doped that grates with people. There is no real evidence out there so trying to shoehorn invented garbage into the debate is nothing more than trolling.

As for why people believe it might have been possible to win a GT clean, there is a natural benchmarking system in place.
There are people who believe that it was impossible to become a pro without doping but we have Paul Kimmage.
There are people who believe it would be impossible to ride a GT without doping but again we have Kimmage.
Then there are those who would tell you it was impossible to win a stage or finish in the Top 20 at the Tour without doping but we have Giles Delion.
Then there are those who claim it would be impossible to podium a GT without doping but we have Charly Mottet.
So you will have naysayers at each benchmark who will say it was impossible but there always seems to have been exceptions. So after each benchmark, you move to the next one which at this stage is whether it was possible to win the Tour clean. If the naysayers were incorrect at all the other benchmarks, why not the top one?

OTOH, can we definitively say all these performances were clean? No, but all the above had clean repuations or were vouched for by people within the sport. Again that can mean something or it can mean nothing. Posters didnt 'invent' those reputations, they already existed.

People vouched for LeMond(and Bauer) like Koechli or Tapie, now people will say of course they did because they were all part of the same team, but these guys did not vouch for Hinault or Jeff Bernard and considering it was a French team, that would be highly unusual. Tapie was a Frenchman who owned the best French team with the best French rider and said the only 2 people on his team he could say were clean were LeMond and Bauer. Again, that is not invented or misrepresenting anything, those are existing views from the 80s at a time when the issue of being clean was not really a thing. Testing positive at the Tour resulted in a 10minute penalty, a fine and a suspeded 3 month suspension which reflects the seriousness of anti-doping at the time. Nobody cared, so stating someone was clean would seem to have actually carried some weight as opposed to the modern 'talk, talk' of being clean.

The possibility that LeMond doped is still there, always has been, just that it is less clear cut than other cases. Problem is you have posters claiming there is less evidence against Indurain than LeMond. Lets see.
Indurain worked with Conconi, fact.
Indurain went from riding with Kimmage in the mountains in his early years to being a 7 time GT winner, fact.
Indurains rise coincided with the arrival of EPO, fact.
Indurain dominated at the height of the EPO era, fact.
Indurain tested positive, fact.

Compare that to LeMond
LeMond beat doped riders, fact.
Eddie B was LeMonds coach on US Junior National team, fact.
Everything else is conjecture.

No comparison really.[/quotecomparison really.

<edited by mods>

There is a world of difference between an opinion and a very clear agenda backed with constant misrepresentations, unqualafied claims and repeated insinuations. You dont seem to like SKY fans believing Froome is clean either so what makes you any different. Why are SKY fans not allowed to blieve that, they get shouted down all the time here and if you are not even a SKY fan, you get dumb insults thrown your way if you dont join the party line.

I listed several discussion areas around LeMond in my post but you dont actually seem interested in discussing LeMond, only moaning about a poster getting called out.

For those of us who have been here long enough, we are very aware of the posting styles of certain people over a long period of time. A poster who has been banned numerous times for trolling and indeed permabanned for then setting up a sockpuppet account tells it own story. Those are not misrepresentations or invented accusations, they are facts. There is a phrase that is thrown around here very often against cyclists, if it walks like a duck, talks like a duck then.....