LeMond III

[@NL_LeMondFans]

Re:

And to add to that, I'd like to ask you:
Is there a precedent of cyclists spreading *false* rumors about other cyclists because they are bitter and jealous?

I mean, of course I think it's fair to say that Floyd, Jaksche, and Rasmussen decided to spill the beans out of some sort of bitterness, but they hardly spilled any *false* rumors, did they?

We do have precedent for something else: omerta viz. don't spit in the soup.
In fact, we have ample documentation of that phenomenon, and tbh it goes directly counter to your conspiracy theory. Rather, I would argue:

Other things equal: procyclists (or enablers like Testa) have no motivation to spill beans in the first place, and they have even less motivation to spill *false* beans.

It means that, in those rare cases that beans are actually spilled (or rumors spread), there is more likely than not some kind of truth to those beans/rumors.

Not necessarily because rumour becomes a fact overtime, wether it happened or not. I think the Boogerd case is probably it : he thinks that since it was so long ago and taken as granted by so many people, it is true.

I don't know if you have teenagers around you but ask them about Apollo 11. Give a few decades and men never went on the moon. Everything was shot in a studio by Stanley Kubrick.

 

[sniper]

...
Everything any athlete says in an autobiography has to be taken with a pinch of salt. It's true of Hinault, it's true of Fignon. Greg LeMond has yet to write one. Writing your own book and answering questions in an interview is very different. When writing a book, every author has an agenda. It is the piece of information that will stick. Hence they are very conservative about it. But not in terms of fact checking. For it is also the last chance for an athlete to interpret historical facts at their own advantage, omit stuff, etc... For example, explaining his positive in 89, Fignon explains he lacked courage to go train after his defeat at the Tour, etc... But it requires 1/having the stuff handy and 2/knowing what stuff you should take. Fignon downplays his doping, even when he admits to it.

Facing the media, Fignon tried to maintain a cool, fair play profile. But in truth he absolutely hated Greg. Someone told me once he never referred to him by his name but by nicknames.

Interesting cheers, and I agree.
I respect Lemond for not going all Wiggins on us by producing one biography after the other.

But so what did Fignon say about Lemond? From Nomad's post (which I can't find at the moment) I gathered that Fignon said everybody used steroids (cortisone?) except Lemond. But maybe I misunderstood.


You make some very cogent points in your other two posts. Very informative, I have little to add to that.
I reckon much of it will remain a matter of different levels of scepticism and of believe in terms of what can and cannot be achieved clean.

 

[ScienceIsCool]

How can someone write so much and say so little?

Sniper, I think it would be interesting if you could make a single, long thread detailing all of your claims and their sources. Maybe make a cogent analysis and make some conclusions.

It's tiresome and boring to play whack-a-mole with your posts. The trend seems to be a claim or two with a bit of exposition and then another claim or two that has been thoroughly debunked. Skating right on the edge of the forum posting guidelines. Things like collecting a handful of rumors from dubious sources and then insinuating very heavily that it's common knowledge.

I think it's possible to have a constructive, interesting conversation but this ain't it.

John Swanson

 

[sniper]

Re:

The sound of butthurt.

..
It's tiresome and boring to play whack-a-mole with your posts.

But I've never addressed a single post to you.

 

[ScienceIsCool]

Re: Re:

The sound of butthurt.

..
It's tiresome and boring to play whack-a-mole with your posts.

But I've never addressed a single post to you.

Then I'm out. Enjoy the thread, it's all yours.

John Swanson

 

[sniper]

You know I love you, but you're all over the place here, John.

Nllemondfans directed some comments at me, I directed some at him.
We had a conversation.

Where is the problem?

 

[blutto]

If you have time, could you, or anyone who has Fignon's book, give us doubters the relevant quote from his book about Lemond? Would love to read it.

Yeah, good idea. Consult the person on Earth who hated LeMond the most to get reliable information on LeMond.

Good thinking, there.

I'm not sure what you mean here.
I thought Fignon spoke in favor of Lemond. Now you're saying we shouldn't believe Fignon?

Everything any athlete says in an autobiography has to be taken with a pinch of salt. It's true of Hinault, it's true of Fignon. Greg LeMond has yet to write one. Writing your own book and answering questions in an interview is very different. When writing a book, every author has an agenda. It is the piece of information that will stick. Hence they are very conservative about it. But not in terms of fact checking. For it is also the last chance for an athlete to interpret historical facts at their own advantage, omit stuff, etc... For example, explaining his positive in 89, Fignon explains he lacked courage to go train after his defeat at the Tour, etc... But it requires 1/having the stuff handy and 2/knowing what stuff you should take. Fignon downplays his doping, even when he admits to it.

Facing the media, Fignon tried to maintain a cool, fair play profile. But in truth he absolutely hated Greg. Someone told me once he never referred to him by his name but by nicknames.

...."Someone told me once" LeMond introduced EPO to the peloton....so there is that too eh....

Cheers

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Re: Re:

....
As a member of the doping commission of the Belgian Cycling Federation Nijs wrote a training for Maertens according to Eastern European schemes. Nijs made Maertens sign a contract in which the rider is required only to consume the food, minerals and vitamins prescribed by him. During the Tour de France it was announced that Maertens has broken with Nijs. "I felt more and more like a guinea pig"

Interesting.

So we have Nijs (a) providing Freddy Maertens with "Eastern European" training schemes in 1981 and (b) providing amphetamines to certain riders up to at least 1984.
Indeed, it raises the question why Lemond worked with him in 1989.


Here's Lemond in 2014 having diner with Freddy Maertens, multiple caught doper, for old times' sake I guess:

Greg LeMond Verifizierter Account
‏@GregLemond

Greg and Freddy Maertens at dinner last night in Belgium. http://ow.ly/i/6b60g

That Menu is something else. I wonder what someone could order off the menu? :lol:

 

[@NL_LeMondFans]

If you have time, could you, or anyone who has Fignon's book, give us doubters the relevant quote from his book about Lemond? Would love to read it.

Yeah, good idea. Consult the person on Earth who hated LeMond the most to get reliable information on LeMond.

Good thinking, there.

I'm not sure what you mean here.
I thought Fignon spoke in favor of Lemond. Now you're saying we shouldn't believe Fignon?

Everything any athlete says in an autobiography has to be taken with a pinch of salt. It's true of Hinault, it's true of Fignon. Greg LeMond has yet to write one. Writing your own book and answering questions in an interview is very different. When writing a book, every author has an agenda. It is the piece of information that will stick. Hence they are very conservative about it. But not in terms of fact checking. For it is also the last chance for an athlete to interpret historical facts at their own advantage, omit stuff, etc... For example, explaining his positive in 89, Fignon explains he lacked courage to go train after his defeat at the Tour, etc... But it requires 1/having the stuff handy and 2/knowing what stuff you should take. Fignon downplays his doping, even when he admits to it.

Facing the media, Fignon tried to maintain a cool, fair play profile. But in truth he absolutely hated Greg. Someone told me once he never referred to him by his name but by nicknames.

...."Someone told me once" LeMond introduced EPO to the peloton....so there is that too eh....

Cheers

Too funny, I knew you would pick this up.

Difference is, this is not a rumor but a first-hand account of someone who's friends with Greg and was also friends with Fignon.

To compare this with your example, you would need someone who actually saw Greg take EPO and not only that but he'd have to do it before anyone else. Take your time, I'm waiting.

 

[@NL_LeMondFans]

Re: Re:

....
As a member of the doping commission of the Belgian Cycling Federation Nijs wrote a training for Maertens according to Eastern European schemes. Nijs made Maertens sign a contract in which the rider is required only to consume the food, minerals and vitamins prescribed by him. During the Tour de France it was announced that Maertens has broken with Nijs. "I felt more and more like a guinea pig"

Interesting.

So we have Nijs (a) providing Freddy Maertens with "Eastern European" training schemes in 1981 and (b) providing amphetamines to certain riders up to at least 1984.
Indeed, it raises the question why Lemond worked with him in 1989.


Here's Lemond in 2014 having diner with Freddy Maertens, multiple caught doper, for old times' sake I guess:

Greg LeMond Verifizierter Account
‏@GregLemond

Greg and Freddy Maertens at dinner last night in Belgium. http://ow.ly/i/6b60g

That Menu is something else. I wonder what someone could order off the menu? :lol:

Besides being a doper, Freddy Maertens is also a nice guy with a sad history and real problems. So... Maybe (just maybe) there are other motives in Greg having dinner with him

 

[MarkvW]

When someone bases their entire argument on guilt by association and innuendo, reason is wasted. That is what is happening here.

 

[sniper]

Re:

When someone bases their entire argument on guilt by association and innuendo, reason is wasted. That is what is happening here.

Fixed it for you. *** mods edited markvW's quote to reflect what was originally said.

Seriously though, let's not turn the tables Mark.
The null hypothesis is clear to everybody who hasn't been living in a cave or under a rock in the past two to three decades. You normally don't win GTs on bread and water. If you think Lemond was an exception, it's time to start building your case. Otherwise it's just that, blind faith. And that's a rather objective state of affairs. If you don't like it either take it up with the history of the sport or, well, start reasoning.

Lemond mixing it up with dopers is no more and no less evidence than Froome mixing it up with Vino, or Wiggins with Lance. The case that Froome dopes does not at all rest on his friendly ties with Vino. But we still post up those pictures of them hanging out together, don't we. Same with Wiggo and Lance. Even if Wiggins really "never rode with Lance", he'd still be a doper in the eyes of everybody with a quarter of a brain. But that doens't make it less salient to post up those quotes where he says he loves Lance.
I'm not sure why you're expecting us to treat Lemond differently.

Props to NLLemondfans, who at present seems to be the only one trying to address some of the issues surrounding the Lemond-is-clean hypothesis, rather than deflect or whine.

NLLemondFans:
Besides being a doper, Freddy Maertens is also a nice guy with a sad history and real problems. So... Maybe (just maybe) there are other motives in Greg having dinner with him

very fair, and agreed.

 

[@NL_LeMondFans]

Re: Re:

The null hypothesis is clear to everybody who hasn't been living in a cave or under a rock in the past two to three decades.

You can't rule out clean riders either.

You normally don't win GTs on bread and water.

"Normally" is the key word. Nothing about Greg's career was "normal". Him being clean could qualify as being "abnormal" as a pro cyclist.

If you think Lemond was an exception, it's time to start building your case.

Why ? Don't you see we differ on opinions based on the same facts ?

Otherwise it's just that, blind faith. And that's a rather objective state of affairs. If you don't like it either take it up with the history of the sport or, well, start reasoning.

So, everyone not agreeing with you is blind ? Everyone not agreeing with you is deprived of reason ?

Lemond mixing it up with dopers is no more and no less evidence than Froome mixing it up with Vino, or Wiggins with Lance. The case that Froome dopes does not at all rest on his friendly ties with Vino. But we still post up those pictures of them hanging out together, don't we. Same with Wiggo and Lance. Even if Wiggins really "never rode with Lance", he'd still be a doper in the eyes of everybody with a quarter of a brain.
I'm not sure why you're expecting us to treat Lemond differently.

Ok, you've made your case. Somehow, we disagree. Get over it.
Speaking for myself, I couldn't care less about any of the riders you've just named.

 

[@NL_LeMondFans]

Re: Re:

Props to NLLemondfans, who at present seems to be the only one trying to address some of the issues surrounding the Lemond-is-clean hypothesis, rather than deflect or whine.

NLLemondFans:
Besides being a doper, Freddy Maertens is also a nice guy with a sad history and real problems. So... Maybe (just maybe) there are other motives in Greg having dinner with him

very fair, and agreed.

Thanks. You were still editing while I was typing.

And sorry to prove you wrong with my previous post. I think I ruined it unintentionally.

 

[sniper]

please check last part of my previous post.

 

[@NL_LeMondFans]

Re: Re:

I'm not sure why you're expecting us to treat Lemond differently.

Well... Besides the fact that LeMond is different in many ways... You can't blame people for treating people they love differently. Very human basic reaction. And, be honest, admit that you've treated Greg differently too, with that investigation of yours. I shall return the question : why the need to prove Greg is a doper, which could ultimately lead to everyone is a doper. What's in it for you ?

 

[@NL_LeMondFans]

Re:

please check last part of my previous post.

Sorry, we keep typing at the same time. Check my 2-3 last posts.

 

[sniper]

Re: Re:

I'm not sure why you're expecting us to treat Lemond differently.

Well... Besides the fact that LeMond is different in many ways... You can't blame people for treating people they love differently. Very human basic reaction. And, be honest, admit that you've treated Greg differently too, with that investigation of yours. I shall return the question : why the need to prove Greg is a doper, which could ultimately lead to everyone is a doper. What's in it for you ?

Again, the null hypothesis is clear. All I've done is provide some evidence that supports it.
And even in the absence of that evidence (or in the case you don't find it evidence), the null hypothesis remains unchanged. The null hypothesis is not an opinion. It's based on historical patterns.

I'm just fascinated by the believe, in the absence of evidence, that Greg is clean.
Me and a few others started posting some things up that suggest Lemond is no different from other GT winners, and from that point onwards we faced a whole serious of bogus counterarguments which have kept this thread going and going. The EPO rumor being "the words of a man who's been dead for 20 years" is a nice case in point.

And please remember why this thread was bumped a few days ago in the first place: because evidence surfaced that people were on EPO already in 1989.
One of Lemond's fiercest defenders, Race Radio, had previously claimed the view of riders being on EPO in 1989 was "revisionist history".
I think that deserved to be corrected, don't you? (honest question)

Speaking of which, it's funny how the same people who are constantly preaching me about "facts" and "lies" and "agendas", weren't in the least bothered by Race Radio's misinformation.

But enough metacommentary.

Let me try to get this back on topic with a serious question.
If Mathieu - the Lantern Rouge - and Jacobs were on EPO already in 1989, how many EPO-fueled riders do you think Lemond had to beat in 1990?

 

[@NL_LeMondFans]

Re: Re:

I'm just fascinated by the believe, in the absence of evidence, that Greg is clean.

You know it's impossible to prove a negative. In the absence of proof of negative and positive, it's up to anyone's opinion, I guess.

Me and a few others started posting some things up that suggest Lemond is no different from other GT winners, and from that point onwards we faced a whole serious of bogus counterarguments which have kept this thread going and going. The EPO rumor being "the words of a man who's been dead for 20 years" is a nice case in point.

I'm afraid in this discussion there has been a lot bogus arguments from all sides.

And please remember why this thread was bumped a few days ago in the first place: because evidence surfaced that people were on EPO already in 1989.
One of Lemond's fiercest defenders, Race Radio, had previously claimed the view of riders being on EPO in 1989 was "revisionist history".
I think that deserved to be corrected, don't you? (honest question)

I have a different perspective, I think, because I came into this discussion very late in the game. It seems that some people on these boards have a strong relationship and history. Agendas, manipulations occurred over time and I think it explains the animosity in some posts and the will (for some people) to get a revenge or "right back at you". I can't really judge since I wasn't around when the drama occurred but from where I stand it looks silly and even a bit immature. But then again I've seen this on other (non cycling) boards and know that forums are sometimes flamed with passion. Which is a good thing if it stays under control.

To the bolded : I didn't follow the whole "EPO in 1989" thing too closely but if true it's a fair point.

Speaking of which, it's funny how the same people who are constantly preaching me about "facts" and "lies" and "agendas", weren't in the least bothered by Race Radio's misinformation.

I just met Race Radio once on a bike sportive and he was a super nice guy. Accusing him of "misinformation" seems harsh because, as you pointed out it would imply a desire from him to hide or cover something. I just think he is convinced about what he says. Maybe he's wrong. Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe you're wrong. Just my opinion.

Let me try to get this back on topic with a serious question.
If Mathieu - the Lantern Rouge - and Jacobs were on EPO already in 1989, how many EPO-fueled riders do you think Lemond had to beat in 1990?

Again, from my perspective it took a while before EPO became widespread and truly efficient because dopers didn't figure out how to use it until after a few trials. Are Mathieu and Jacobs real names ? I don't know them.
In my eyes the first EPO ride from a high profile rider is Bugno's 1990 Giro. Ironically Mottet was second that year. Then the 1-2 spots at the 1990 worlds by Dhaenens and De Wolf... In 1991 all hell breaks loose with Chiapucci at the Tour, Chioccioli at the Giro, Mauri at the Vuelta. All frauds. And it was just the start. "Mig-Hell" as you like to remind me, benefited from this but, contrary to those frauds he was a very strong rider from the get go.
To answer your question : Bugno was probably on it but didn't use it as well as in the Giro, Chiappucci I'd say not yet or, more likely, only at the end of the Tour, which would explain his attack on the Luz Ardiden stage.

 

[@NL_LeMondFans]

Re: Re:

And please remember why this thread was bumped a few days ago in the first place: because evidence surfaced that people were on EPO already in 1989.
One of Lemond's fiercest defenders, Race Radio, had previously claimed the view of riders being on EPO in 1989 was "revisionist history".
I think that deserved to be corrected, don't you? (honest question)

Speaking of which, it's funny how the same people who are constantly preaching me about "facts" and "lies" and "agendas", weren't in the least bothered by Race Radio's misinformation.

I want to add this : this you're bringing up "revisionism" and "misinformation", I think I've read on these boards people starting to say maybe there weren't as many deaths as we thought linked to EPO in the late 80's/early 90's. I think it would be advised to stay very, very cautious about those things. We're talking about dead persons. It's more than serious.

 

[Nick C.]

This may be old but isn't Lemond treated differently because he has a straight line of success at every level? There are no pictures of his giving up his bike to the early 80s equivalent of a Greg Henderson and pushing him off. Nor did he spend tours as a supposed TT specialist, never finishing in the mix outside of maybe a 4 days of Dunkerque

 

[Benotti69]

Re:

This may be old but isn't Lemond treated differently because he has a straight line of success at every level? There are no pictures of his giving up his bike to the early 80s equivalent of a Greg Henderson and pushing him off. Nor did he spend tours as a supposed TT specialist, never finishing in the mix outside of maybe a 4 days of Dunkerque

Plenty had the straight line of success at all levels and still doped.

I dont think anyone is posting that LeMond was a donkey turned racehorse by doping.

I agree that LeMond should not get a pass based on his calling out Armstrong and Landis.

He is happy to call Pantani a great, be friends with Vino, Contador, Hinault, Indurain and Merckx!!! Hardly a bunch of good clean guys and not too different from Armstrong/Landis in doping terms.

That trip down the Champs-Élysées with 3 big time dopers was pretty disgusting from LeMond. But hey he has bikes to sell.......

 

[@NL_LeMondFans]

Re: Re:

That trip down the Champs-Élysées with 3 big time dopers was pretty disgusting from LeMond. But hey he has bikes to sell.......

...Except he had no bikes to sell at the time.

 

[red_flanders]

You normally don't win GTs on bread and water. If you think Lemond was an exception, it's time to start building your case. Otherwise it's just that, blind faith.

I'm just fascinated by the believe, in the absence of evidence, that Greg is clean.

Many posters, @NL_LeMondFans and myself included, have posted evidence for Lemond being clean and explained in detail our reasons why we accept or tend to accept that evidence. You are aware of this. The evidence includes numerous testimonies from contemporaries which assert he was clean, Lemond's performances over time...among other things, too many to list here.

You have responded to these posts almost without fail, addressing the evidence in one way or another. This shows your claim that there is no evidence is to be not only demonstrably false, but shows that you are misrepresenting the discussion and that the misrepresentations appear to be intentional.

One can reasonably dispute some of the evidence, one can come to another conclusion based on the evidence, but one absolutely cannot claim there is no evidence.

I would simply like the blatant and apparently intentional misrepresentations in this discussion to stop. I don't think that's too much to ask. One might even go out on a limb and suggest that doing otherwise is a violation of forum rules.

 

[The Hegelian]

Right so what's the argument here? GL rides better than one of the all time greats in '85, beats him in '86, then becomes an early adopter of epo in '89/'90 where his performances are, by any measure, significantly worse.

Not compelling.

What would be a compelling narrative: GL gains 5-10% on his '85-'86 form with the early uptake of epo and absolutely smashes the competition. Climbs like Riis in '96 or Froome in '13.

But no, in reality, his '89/'90 wins were at least 5% worse than his '86 win (and '85 form).