LEMOND the DOPER

[ChrisE]

Well lets see, your point seems to be that even though EPO has a much bigger effect on performance in cycling than other drugs used in the 80s....

BZZZZZZ!!!

Wrong conclusion. We have nice parting gifts for you.....a vial of Deca!

You put alot of thought into your long post I am sure.....sorry, but I stopped reading after this part. Fiction turns me off unless I am in the mood. I'm sure buckwheat is probably whacking off to it right so at least some good will come of it.

Maybe next time you should put the mischaracterization of my opinion, written thoughout this thread in English, in the last paragraph instead of the first so your effort to educate me is not wasted.

 

[xmoonx]

yes

Chris is on the money

 

[ChrisE]

I don't believe anyone would suggest that roids or other PED's used in 80's would be tossed out.

The difference with blood boosting products was that it turned 'donkeys in to thoroughbreds".

Sorry, I was responding to velocity's post, in which I believe he was suggesting roids were not common since nobody gets busted for them. He must be going thru a bout of selective memory loss (SLM), since he forgot about Landis.

You are going off on a tangent and I am not sure what your point is by saying I am suggesting it is CW in here that roids are not used today. Is this another diversionary tactic, like tossing the irrelevant LA reference into a thread?

 

[Race Radio]

Ummmm, Landis? I'm sure there are others that have come to light. TBH, keeping up with that is not my hobby.

Roids have been one of the basis of a structured doping program. There is all kinds of info on that.

Maybe a combo of all of that and EPO is the ultimate ticket. Who knows. I'm pretty sure it wasn't "let's toss all the other stuff in the toilet, EPO is here" in 1992 onward. There's too much evidence to suggest that.

Steroids are certainly still part of the program, but they are no longer the key building block. Blood related doping is the cornerstone of all modern doping methods.....why? Because it works.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Sorry, I was responding to velocity's post, in which I believe he was suggesting roids were not common since nobody gets busted for them. He must be going thru a bout of selective memory loss (SLM), since he forgot about Landis.

You are going off on a tangent and I am not sure what your point is by saying I am suggesting it is CW in here that roids are not used today. Is this another diversionary tactic, like tossing the irrelevant LA reference into a thread?

Well I certainly did not bring LA in to this thread - is "this another diversionary tactic" by yourself, because I have not actually read where you made "a point" in this thread?

 

[Tyler'sTwin]

..........................

 

[I Watch Cycling In July]

ChrisE, does this comment from pmcg76's sum up your opinion or not?

However, there has been no conclusive scientific research to establish how much of an impact steroids and other hormones have on performance in pro cycling. We dont know one way or the other if it was possible to win cleanly or not.

If not, would you care to clarify, because I also seem to be missing the point.

 

[luckyboy]

Steroids are certainly still part of the program, but they are no longer the key building block. Blood related doping is the cornerstone of all modern doping methods.....why? Because it works.

Something to back this up

 

[Hugh Januss]

BZZZZZZ!!!

Wrong conclusion. We have nice parting gifts for you.....a vial of Deca!

You put alot of thought into your long post I am sure.....sorry, but I stopped reading after this part. Fiction turns me off unless I am in the mood. I'm sure buckwheat is probably whacking off to it right so at least some good will come of it.

Maybe next time you should put the mischaracterization of my opinion, written thoughout this thread in English, in the last paragraph instead of the first so your effort to educate me is not wasted.

I sympathize with pmcg though, sometimes it is devilishly hard to figure just what point Chris is trying to make.

 

[ChrisE]

ChrisE, does this comment from pmcg76's sum up your opinion or not?

Yes. My point is lost because of mischaracterizations, which happens alot in this forum when opinions stray.

Seriously in summary, I would love to see some formal testing results of different PED regimens in a controlled setting. I find it ludicrous to dismiss the effects of doping in the 80s, by people that don't know WTF they're talking about in terms of effects of these PEDs, and use that as "proof" that GL was clean. You can go back thru this thread and see that "opinion" is prevalent.

My input in this thread started when it was suggested doping was not prevalent because of lack of AAFs in the 80s. I posted what I thought and I am not sure there has been a rational comeback to that.

Also, guilt-by-busted-competition is a common theme in here, and one that I prescribe to. I think it is a legitimate discussion to bring the admission by Fignon, and Delgado's transgressions into this discussion. Just because it is GL people get shouted down when that is even suggested.

I will tell you what I "think", which is different that the certainty other posters are sure of. GL must have known others were doping in the 80s...he couldn't have been that clueless. And, if so, why didn't he speak up then? Don't tell me Omerta silenced him....we use this as proof others dope in real time. For some reason he is exempt from this criticism.

I would not bet my life he was always clean, but he is so far out on a limb I would give him the benefit of the doubt. I don't dwell on it TBH. Like I implied earlier, this opinion does not effect my view of him as a racer or as a human being, and he is my all time favorite.

I just think I am inflicted with realism. I'm sure I will survive it.

 

[ChrisE]

I sympathize with pmcg though, sometimes it is devilishly hard to figure just what point Chris is trying to make.

Yes, something out of line with "GL=Good/clean, LA=dirty antichrist" gets a little confusing in here.

 

[roadfreak44]

Gee, you are the font of knowledge here, except need I point out the obvious: Idurain sat out 2 years because of a positive test for 'roids, and if you don't know (or fain to not know would have to be more like it) the Floyd follies, you likely have trouble knowing which way to sit on a saddle--much like your dis-ability to type, spell or compose a sentence.

You got nothing here but air

Really? Indurain never posted a time trial as fast as gregs whatever the conditions. Yet Greg said and I quote "there were two speeds in the peloton." If indurain never moved as fast as Greg at his best then Greg was right but it doesnt prove what he intended.
Much has been made of the "increase in speed" but I looked at the avg kph
in the 80s vs. when Merckx was racing and they didnt seem significantly faster. I do remember greg showing up at the tour after the last one that he won and he looked overweight, though a lack of conditioning couldnt have had anything to do with it
You seem like a person driven by logic- my original thread was posed to the premise that greg has offered before. If other top competitors are doping then it takes dope to beat them so does that make him a doper given fignons confession which i just recently read.? Should he be held to his own logi?
I dont know if he doped or not but it seems suspicious.
As for spelling I do have a difficult time editing as I am legally blind a **** poor excuse I know but I have a hard time seeing the screen. Nonetheless it si a sad day when a persoin is judged on whether or not they can spell as opposed to their stated premise but then thats the kind of wonderful human you are -)

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Really? Indurain never posted a time trial as fast as gregs whatever the conditions. Yet Greg said and I quote "there were two speeds in the peloton." If indurain never moved as fast as Greg at his best then Greg was right but it doesnt prove what he intended.
Much has been made of the "increase in speed" but I looked at the avg kph
in the 80s vs. when Merckx was racing and they didnt seem significantly faster. I do remember greg showing up at the tour after the last one that he won and he looked overweight, though a lack of conditioning couldnt have had anything to do with it
You seem like a person driven by logic- my original thread was posed to the premise that greg has offered before. If other top competitors are doping then it takes dope to beat them so does that make him a doper given fignons confession which i just recently read.? Should he be held to his own logi?
I dont know if he doped or not but it seems suspicious.
As for spelling I do have a difficult time editing as I am legally blind a **** poor excuse I know but I have a hard time seeing the screen. Nonetheless it si a sad day when a persoin is judged on whether or not they can spell as opposed to their stated premise but then thats the kind of wonderful human you are -)

Ya - I asked you about your "premise" - where has Lemond ever made an argument solely on the grounds that "if other top competitors are doping then it takes dope to beat them"?

 

[Mambo95]

As far as LeMond is concerned, he's been up against some powerful adversaries - Trek (million dollar lawsuits), Armstrong and Landis. Had GL been up to no good those parties wouldn't have had too much trouble finding out about it. They have/had a lot to lose, so had he doped they would have got the information and either blackmailed or discredited him. But nothing came out and GL never backed down (and we know that a Landis associate tried bringing up the child abuse stuff).

That is why I think he was totally clean.

 

[ChrisE]

As far as LeMond is concerned, he's been up against some powerful adversaries - Trek (million dollar lawsuits), Armstrong and Landis. Had GL been up to no good those parties wouldn't have had too much trouble finding out about it. They have/had a lot to lose, so had he doped they would have got the information and either blackmailed or discredited him. But nothing came out and GL never backed down (and we know that a Landis associate tried bringing up the child abuse stuff).

That is why I think he was totally clean.

And I have never screwed a stripper, or done any drugs. Or, done any drugs with strippers or on strippers.

Get all the $ in the world to prove me wrong and you won't find any proof.

This game is easy.

 

[Oncearunner8]

So tell us... where do you think Obama was born?... no really!!

that don't not belong hurr.

 

[Eyjafjallajokull]

Steroid use is known to increase red blood cell count. Not as effective as EPO of course.

 

[Oncearunner8]

Sorry, I was responding to velocity's post, in which I believe he was suggesting roids were not common since nobody gets busted for them. He must be going thru a bout of selective memory loss (SLM), since he forgot about Landis.

You are going off on a tangent and I am not sure what your point is by saying I am suggesting it is CW in here that roids are not used today. Is this another diversionary tactic, like tossing the irrelevant LA reference into a thread?

Dude Lance had to be in this thread because these guys have to wack off at least 4 to 5 times a day when they read something negative about the goldstrong. LMAO

 

[Oncearunner8]

Ya - I asked you about your "premise" - where has Lemond ever made an argument solely on the grounds that "if other top competitors are doping then it takes dope to beat them"?

Ya know your right about this.

 

[ChrisE]

Steroid use is known to increase red blood cell count. Not as effective as EPO of course.

It decreased the blood in my privates. According to my GF at the time, things were just like a peanut....both small and salty. YMMV.

 

[Oncearunner8]

That is why I think he was totally clean.

I was with you on the some of the other parts of the post. With this well there is evidence others in the same era were not doing everything clean. I have a hard time beLEABING anyone in cycling was or is clean.

He veloflash you in here?

 

[patricknd]

The introduction of carbon fibre really made a lot of difference.

looks to me like indurain was the cleanest of the bunch for a couple of years. i thought lemond lost because of a 2-speed peloton. maybe he just sucked in 91. or did his drop mean he was cleaner than past years?

 

[ChrisE]

looks to me like indurain was the cleanest of the bunch for a couple of years. i thought lemond lost because of a 2-speed peloton. maybe he just sucked in 91. or did his drop mean he was cleaner than past years?

I've got to log off. This just pushed me over the edge and I'm out of beer.

You owe me a keyboard.

 

[Oncearunner8]

looks to me like indurain was the cleanest of the bunch for a couple of years. i thought lemond lost because of a 2-speed peloton. maybe he just sucked in 91. or did his drop mean he was cleaner than past years?

I do not know but Pantani Owned them foowalz.

 

[VeloCity]

mischaracterizations, which happens alot in this forum when opinions stray.

by people that don't know WTF they're talking about

I am not sure there has been a rational comeback to that.

Just because it is GL people get shouted down when that is even suggested.

the certainty other posters are sure of.

For some reason he is exempt from this criticism.

I just think I am inflicted with realism.

Irony, of course, is that you're as hyperbolic, dismissive, and prone to overgeneralization as you accuse everyone else of being. That ain't "realism", Chris, that's being a hypocrite. People have responded in m any different ways and mostly you simply dismiss them as not "rational" or not knowing "wtf they are talking about", etc etc.

You posted this exact same stuff over at DPF several times, and you wouldn't budge an inch then and you won't now. Dogmatism is tough to argue with, I agree.