LEMOND the DOPER

Page 4 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Apr 20, 2009
960
0
0
Race Radio said:
?

What facts? You have provided none.

The facts being discussed in this conversation.

If you feel that a clean rider could not beat a doped rider in the 80's then please provide something to back this up.

You expect to send me off to prove a negative?

The teammates of Lemond, Hampsten, Mottet and others disagree with you.

Well isn't that convenient. Team mates sticking up for other team-mates. What a novel concept! I'm sure Kloden would defend Jan.

I have shown you why a rider could not win a GT in the 90's and 2000's clean.

No you haven't. You've simply pointed to a single study that claims a 13% improvement. Even if it's true, it doesn't prove your point.

all you have done is babble about cocktail parties and resort to ad hominen.

Surely you see the irony in that statement, no? That's rich. Review our conversation - both this and previous ones - and see who resorted to ad hominens first in each case.
 
Aug 13, 2009
12,854
2
0
eleven said:
edited by mod


Ok, if that works for you.

You choose to ignore the study, the climbing times, the output. The claims of multiple support staff, riders, and commentators. The Complete lack of evidence. We should not be surprised as you ignore your own ad hominen attacks.
 
Jul 23, 2009
2,891
1
0
Thoughtforfood said:
To be clear, I am boycotting stupid threads like this and the douchebags who post them, not the forum.

Hear, hear. I actually read through all this crap hoping that there would be something to suggest that Lemond had taken doping products. But no, nothing there but a poor attempt to troll for an argument. Boring.
 
Sep 10, 2009
5,663
0
0
eleven said:
The point was stated in my earlier post: It's amazing the lengths folks here will go to defend those they like (Lemond) while using every possible innuendo, rumor and suspicion to throw others under the bus.
Lemond went from a Tour winner to a guy who couldn't even keep pace with the peloton in the space of a year or two, not coincidentally right at the same time that EPO was becoming widespread in the peloton.

The reason everyone knows that Armstrong/Ullrich/Pantani etc were doping is because there's a ton of evidence deriving from a variety of different sources that they were doping. The reason that a lot of people believe Cancellara/Contador etc are doping is because we've seen those types of dominating performances before and they never end well - see Landis, Ricco, Sella, Schumacher, etc. - and because of the spotty reputations of the managers and teams that they associate themselves with. In the age of EPO/CERA/transfusions, what is too good to be true is way too often not true.

In contrast, the reason most people think Lemond may have been clean is because there isn't a ton of evidence to suggest that he was doping. In fact, there isn't any evidence at all. Moreover, as has been pointed out a number of times already, Fignon et al. were doping in the pre-EPO days. All doping is not equal.

It's not freakin' rocket science.
 
Add the fact that several of his compatriots and coaches have gone out of their way, long before the Armstrong era to say that they all considered Lemond to be a clean rider.

That and the fact that some very motivated, connected and wealthy people with a MAJOR axe to grind against him have come up empty trying to find any evidence against him. Jack. Nada. Squat.
 
Dr. Maserati said:
I would assume the reason the OP's been taken as a troll is because he starts a thread called "LEMOND the DOPER" and then appears clueless to many of the details.

And also because he stomps straight in and starts slagging off respected, long-term, unbanned posters as if somehow, he knew them.

I wouldn't worry. There's no credibility in his ranting.
 
Mar 18, 2009
4,186
0
0
Thoughtforfood said:
Well, the influx of douchebags has officially begun. Man I will be glad when the tour is over. It used to be that this type of thing was limited to a couple of weeks before to a couple of weeks after the tour, but it seems like comeback 2.0 has emboldened the moronic masses. Hey, have fun. I am out. And to be clear, I think it is quite probable that Lemond took doping products of some sort. My protest is in relation to the transparent motivation of the troll hoards that have shown up on the last week. Though I do wonder if all of these new people happen to share ip addresses from the same block of ip's that the mentally I'll trollposts from? I suspect we are dealing with one, and at most two people I total.

Luckily it's not in full force just yet.

Have no doubt I'm not showing up on the forum for the duration of July.
It was bad enough last year. The Lance fans, the Contador fans. Jesus.

At one point I posted that X would happen. Two angry Contador fans yelled at me. Then it happened. So they proceeded to yell at me.

I'm staying away in July for the good of my sanity :(
 
May 18, 2009
3,757
0
0
VeloCity said:
Lemond went from a Tour winner to a guy who couldn't even keep pace with the peloton in the space of a year or two, not coincidentally right at the same time that EPO was becoming widespread in the peloton.

The reason everyone knows that Armstrong/Ullrich/Pantani etc were doping is because there's a ton of evidence deriving from a variety of different sources that they were doping. The reason that a lot of people believe Cancellara/Contador etc are doping is because we've seen those types of dominating performances before and they never end well - see Landis, Ricco, Sella, Schumacher, etc. - and because of the spotty reputations of the managers and teams that they associate themselves with. In the age of EPO/CERA/transfusions, what is too good to be true is way too often not true.

In contrast, the reason most people think Lemond may have been clean is because there isn't a ton of evidence to suggest that he was doping. In fact, there isn't any evidence at all. Moreover, as has been pointed out a number of times already, Fignon et al. were doping in the pre-EPO days. All doping is not equal.

It's not freakin' rocket science.

Nice post.

Is there a "ton" of evidence that anybody doped in the 80s? The only reason we know Fignon doped is because he told us. The only major flare up on doping in the 80s that I can remember is Delgado. This was before the internet stage, and I would bet if a forum like this existed when GL turned things around in 89 he would've gotten slammed as a doper. News, gossip, and rumor in 2010 is light years ahead of 1989.

In my earlier post I was not implying that GL doped, but I use the circumstantial evidence myself about others that excel today; beating known dopers is highly suspicious. Doping in this sport has been around for ages, and to completely have faith that GL dominated like he did clean is not a very open minded position to take IMO. I've said this before but placing hands over ears and hollering TROLL is pretty childish IMO.

Personally, I don't know if he ever doped or not. I am open to the possibility of it, but if he did we will never find out so it's not something I dwell on. He is probably my favorite rider of all time and I enjoy watching the old footage. The greatest race I have ever seen is the 89 worlds. Being realistic about the sport's history doesn't lessen my opinion of him or his fight against doping present day.

BTW, everybody seems to be putting down the "primitive" form of doping pre-EPO. I wonder how many of us in here have actually taken things like steroids or cortisone, and speak from experience. I doubt very many, but we just "know" their effects, don't we? :rolleyes:
 
Jun 16, 2009
647
0
0
ChrisE said:
Nice post.

BTW, everybody seems to be putting down the "primitive" form of doping pre-EPO. I wonder how many of us in here have actually taken things like steroids or cortisone, and speak from experience. I doubt very many, but we just "know" their effects, don't we? :rolleyes:

There certainly weren't any drugs that could turn a chunky classics specialist with a VO2 max in the low 70's who lost 5 minutes to the GC men in TT's and 25 minutes in the mountains into a 7 time tour dominator.
 
Jun 18, 2009
374
0
0
I wouldn't have a clue if Lemond doped. I wasn't in his hotel room. I assume there's a good chance he doped. After all, he was a professional cyclist.

[rant]

But I find it amusing, and at times, annoying, that he is singled out for rabid attention by people when there is not a sniff of evidence of him doping. How many threads have there been about Charly Mottet doping? Or Andy Hampsten? They are also people about whom no-one has any evidence of doping. I don't see people casting apparently baseless slander about them.

Seems to me, Lemond p!ssed off the wrong bloke by calling a spade a spade, and his feral acolytes decided that they would not cease from mental fight, nor the keyboard rest in their hands, until they had besmirched his name, regardless of the paucity of evidence.

So every few months when some rabid attack dog comes into whatever forum it happens to be, foaming at the mouth to begin a campaign against one man who, however hackhandedly, seems to be campaigning against doping in cycling; colour me cynical indeed.

Why not spare your opprobrium for the riders who spat on and abused Simeoni? Why not attack those who hounded Bassons so badly he was forced to retire from the Tour? Why not vent your spleen at the riders who described Manzano as a raving madman who should be locked up?

If you're going to dig into the past, throw the mud at the ones who have helped perpetuate this sham.

[/rant]
 
Jul 29, 2009
118
0
0
Runitout said:
Seems to me, Lemond p!ssed off the wrong bloke by calling a spade a spade, and his feral acolytes decided that they would not cease from mental fight, nor the keyboard rest in their hands, until they had besmirched his name, regardless of the paucity of evidence.



[/rant]
I think this is the crux- Lemond is a brave man who has risked a fair amount - he could easily have sat back and said nothing - I am sure Eurosport would have cleared a seat next to Kelly for him..

Lemond has suffered the same fate as anyone else who has spoken out since Kimmage - "sad, loser, maverick, axe to grind, questionable mental state, probably a doper himself, nothing to see here - move on"
 
Apr 19, 2010
1,112
0
0
Of course Lemond doped, no one who's ridden the tour is 100% "clean", elementary.
Everyone rode away from him because he had a permanent case of the slows. :(
 
May 18, 2009
3,757
0
0
Mongol_Waaijer said:
There certainly weren't any drugs that could turn a chunky classics specialist with a VO2 max in the low 70's who lost 5 minutes to the GC men in TT's and 25 minutes in the mountains into a 7 time tour dominator.

Agreed, I didn't say the prevalent drugs pre-EPO were equivalent.

Now, care to address my statement or do you wish to continue to divert with LA references?
 
Apr 20, 2009
960
0
0
Race Radio said:
Ok, if that works for you.

You choose to ignore the study, the climbing times, the output. The claims of multiple support staff, riders, and commentators. The Complete lack of evidence. We should not be surprised as you ignore your own ad hominen attacks.

Did you really just edit my quote and claim I said something I didn't? What a fine piece of posting, Race Radio.
 
luckyboy said:
It is plausible to say that Greg Lemond's physical ability (oft-quoted VO2 Max of 92.5ml/kg/min) could have won him the Tour without doping.

What is the actual source of this 92,5 VO2 Max claim? Lemond himself has repeated different numbers. He has said that he had 92, 93, 94 and I have seen one direct quote from him, where he claims that he had 95 VO2 Max. So, whats the original source of this 92,5, (indeed often quoted)?
 
ChrisE said:
Nice post.

Is there a "ton" of evidence that anybody doped in the 80s? The only reason we know Fignon doped is because he told us. The only major flare up on doping in the 80s that I can remember is Delgado. This was before the internet stage, and I would bet if a forum like this existed when GL turned things around in 89 he would've gotten slammed as a doper. News, gossip, and rumor in 2010 is light years ahead of 1989.

In my earlier post I was not implying that GL doped, but I use the circumstantial evidence myself about others that excel today; beating known dopers is highly suspicious. Doping in this sport has been around for ages, and to completely have faith that GL dominated like he did clean is not a very open minded position to take IMO. I've said this before but placing hands over ears and hollering TROLL is pretty childish IMO.

Personally, I don't know if he ever doped or not. I am open to the possibility of it, but if he did we will never find out so it's not something I dwell on. He is probably my favorite rider of all time and I enjoy watching the old footage. The greatest race I have ever seen is the 89 worlds. Being realistic about the sport's history doesn't lessen my opinion of him or his fight against doping present day.

BTW, everybody seems to be putting down the "primitive" form of doping pre-EPO. I wonder how many of us in here have actually taken things like steroids or cortisone, and speak from experience. I doubt very many, but we just "know" their effects, don't we? :rolleyes:

Well both Fignon and Delgado tested positive so we didnt need them to tell us they doped. I agree that a lot of people were doping in the 80s but having read all the books by Kimmage, Voet, Parkin and countless interviews and statements from riders who rode in the 80s/90s, it seems that doping in the 80s was more haphazard and less effective. I dont think it is posters claiming this, we are just going by what was said by numerous people involved with the sport at that time.

Willy Voet who named everyone who doped also named Charly Mottet as a clean rider and Mottet was a World No1 in the 80s as well as a GT contender 4th, 4th, 6th at Tour, 2nd at Giro, as far as I am concerned if Mottet could compete clean, I dont see any reason why others couldnt win clean. He also said Eric Caritoux won the Vuelta in 84 clean so it was obviously possible to win in that era cleanly. I know I have said all this before and some will claim Mottet is irrelevant but you can fairly compare Mottet with someone like Evans/F.Schleck/Sastre in the current peloton based on their palmares.

How many people have said that once EPO arrived, everything changed and as someone who followed the results during that era and with the benefit of hindsight, that is abundantly clear. If EPO made no difference, why was everyone obsessed with it in the 90s.

In summary, is their a possibility that Lemond doped, of course but there is absolutely no evidence at all and people try to implicate by perfromance in comparison with modern times but as many from that era have pointed out, it was possible for the truly talented to win cleanly during that era. Therefore LeMond gets the benefit of the doubt becaue there is no evidence whatsoever. If he had done such things in the 90s/00s, we would be screaming no way, definite doper.

TBH most of the doping threads relate to something that is currently happening in the sport or in the news, but this LeMond thread has appeared out of nowhere and Greg has not been in the news for ages so it just seems like a case of trolling.
 
Jun 16, 2009
647
0
0
ChrisE said:
Agreed, I didn't say the prevalent drugs pre-EPO were equivalent.

Now, care to address my statement or do you wish to continue to divert with LA references?

The issue is that different types of doping have different effects in different individuals. Steroids, testosterone, cortisone, amphatamine and old school techniques probably just add a few % to a rider, regardless of his original ability.

It appears blood manipulation favours riders with lesser natural oxygen delivery over " supertalents" as they have far more " room" for artificial gains.

Plus the fact that the more (EPO) you risked taking (either regarding a positive test or health) the faster you'd go.
 
Jun 20, 2009
81
0
0
blood doping

The lemond thing appeared out of nowhere because I read an interview with fignon and he fessed up to doping. MY thought immediately was Gregs oft repeated stance thta you cnat beat a doper woithout doping. Fignon didnt say which kind but testosterone was available then and so was blood trasfusion. Eddie B the national US elite coach was advocating in 1984 that the US team use transfusions BECAUSE HE KNEW IT WAS BEING OFFERED IN THE EUROPEAN AMATUER TEAMS.
BLOOD TRASFUSIONS DO TWO THINGS .; One- they increase plasma volume
two-they increase the amount of availiable red cells for carrying oxygen so they have an effect similiar to epo..this was available and used by amatuers in the 80s so we can fairly safely assume it was avaialiable and used by pros who had far more resources...it is effective as a performance enhancer and we wouldnt have fuentes charging tens of thousands of euros to Ullrich Basso et al in opercion puerto if it wasnt .
My original premise was if Greg allleges that if others were beating dopers
then they must be doping. If that is a valid argument does it not apply to him as well ?
 

Dr. Maserati

BANNED
Jun 19, 2009
13,250
1
0
roadfreak44 said:
The lemond thing appeared out of nowhere because I read an interview with fignon and he fessed up to doping. MY thought immediately was Gregs oft repeated stance thta you cnat beat a doper woithout doping. Fignon didnt say which kind but testosterone was available then and so was blood trasfusion. Eddie B the national US elite coach was advocating in 1984 that the US team use transfusions BECAUSE HE KNEW IT WAS BEING OFFERED IN THE EUROPEAN AMATUER TEAMS.
BLOOD TRASFUSIONS DO TWO THINGS .; One- they increase plasma volume
two-they increase the amount of availiable red cells for carrying oxygen so they have an effect similiar to epo..this was available and used by amatuers in the 80s so we can fairly safely assume it was avaialiable and used by pros who had far more resources...it is effective as a performance enhancer and we wouldnt have fuentes charging tens of thousands of euros to Ullrich Basso et al in opercion puerto if it wasnt .
My original premise was if Greg allleges that if others were beating dopers
then they must be doping
. If that is a valid argument does it not apply to him as well ?

I have mentioned your "original premise" before - can you show where Lemond makes that the sole reason for his suspicions of certain riders.

Also you suggest that you decided to start this thread because you "read an interview" where Fignon admitted to doping. He admitted he doped in June last year!
 
eleven said:
The facts being discussed in this conversation.



You expect to send me off to prove a negative?



Well isn't that convenient. Team mates sticking up for other team-mates. What a novel concept! I'm sure Kloden would defend Jan.



No you haven't. You've simply pointed to a single study that claims a 13% improvement. Even if it's true, it doesn't prove your point.



Surely you see the irony in that statement, no? That's rich. Review our conversation - both this and previous ones - and see who resorted to ad hominens first in each case.

I think you should quit while you're behind.
 
Von Mises said:
What is the actual source of this 92,5 VO2 Max claim? Lemond himself has repeated different numbers. He has said that he had 92, 93, 94 and I have seen one direct quote from him, where he claims that he had 95 VO2 Max. So, whats the original source of this 92,5, (indeed often quoted)?
Here.

http://www.bikeraceinfo.com/oralhistory/lemond.html

My wattage, relative to VO2 Max...a VO2 Max of 92 or 93 in a fully recovered way...I think I was capable of producing 450 to 460 watts. The truth is, even at the Tour de France, my Tour de France climb times up l'Alpe d'Huez yielded a wattage of around 380 and 390.
 
Aug 13, 2009
12,854
2
0
roadfreak44 said:
The lemond thing appeared out of nowhere because I read an interview with fignon and he fessed up to doping. MY thought immediately was Gregs oft repeated stance thta you cnat beat a doper woithout doping. Fignon didnt say which kind but testosterone was available then and so was blood trasfusion. Eddie B the national US elite coach was advocating in 1984 that the US team use transfusions BECAUSE HE KNEW IT WAS BEING OFFERED IN THE EUROPEAN AMATUER TEAMS.
BLOOD TRASFUSIONS DO TWO THINGS .; One- they increase plasma volume
two-they increase the amount of availiable red cells for carrying oxygen so they have an effect similiar to epo..this was available and used by amatuers in the 80s so we can fairly safely assume it was avaialiable and used by pros who had far more resources...it is effective as a performance enhancer and we wouldnt have fuentes charging tens of thousands of euros to Ullrich Basso et al in opercion puerto if it wasnt .
My original premise was if Greg allleges that if others were beating dopers
then they must be doping. If that is a valid argument does it not apply to him as well ?

This has been discussed many times.

There is ZERO evidence that Lemond, or any other GT rider, used blood doping in the 80's.
 
Aug 13, 2009
12,854
2
0
ChrisE said:
In my earlier post I was not implying that GL doped, but I use the circumstantial evidence myself about others that excel today; beating known dopers is highly suspicious.

Performance alone is never the sole indicator of doping.

Contador rode for Siaz when he had an team wide doping program. His phone number and initials were in Fuente's wallet.

Cancellara has ridden for a series of teams with institutional doping programs, worked with one of the sports most notorious doping doctors who had many riders test positive.

the list goes on and on. Performance is never the sole reason for suspecting.

With lemond there is nothing, in fact the opposite. He rode for DS's that were firm that training could compete against the primitive doping methods of the time. When Lemond realized that one of the teams he was on PDM, had an organized program, he negotiated an early exit from his contract. His former teammates and support staff all say that Greg did not dope..... despite being offered significant amounts of $$$$ to change their story.