LEMOND the DOPER

[Golddigger]

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 -)

RF,

Sorry to learn of your physical disability, but when I type a word that is not recognised by my computer I get a red line under it, which helps a dyslexic spell correctly, maybe you should invest in something modern, because when your posts (such as your second or third one in this series) is so riddled with mis-spellings, it becomes next to impossible to comprehend what you are talking about.

regarding BigMig: yes 2 years which ended just before he won TdF for the first time.

More importantly, you "Claim" that you don't know if GL doped, so why start a thread that explicitly calls him a doper?

Also you might consider the context of GL's original statement which is your only shred of "evidence". He was referring to a time when PEDs had substantial affects on performance capability, so it is chalk and cheese to turn the statement back on its head.

I think it was 1977 when in Fresno CA, a 16 year-old GL finished behind John Howard in 100 mile, very hilly RR by <1 second in a flat out sprint (JHs speciality) because JH had benefit of a 112 inch gear whilst GL was using a jr gear restriction (86 in I think was the limit then). The kid had amazing talent from the first time he swung a foot over a top tub, and there has never been the slightest shred of evidence that he ever needed anything more than natural talent and hard work training (which he did relentlessly) to dominate.

 

[ludwig]

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.

No, LA is too smart for that sort of tactic. It would backfire, and come back to bite him in the ***. Violate omerta to punish an omerta-breaker? Pretty much the only thing not on the table is exposing Lemond's doping (assuming he did dope).

According to GL and his wife, LA was unable to believe Lemond didn't use EPO in his last Tour win. If LA or an associate were to provide evidence Lemond was doped up, that would just be another example of why it would be hard to believe in LA's innocence.

Agree in any case that it doesn't make a lot of sense that Lemond would be so active an anti-doping advocate had he doped. However Lemond is a very complex dude...he seems to have alot of 'guilt' and 'past' and 'issues'. Especially when we consider what documentation there is about the overall context, it doesn't seem too far out of the ballpark that Lemond used PEDs and perhaps there is a guilt involved that's he trying to atone for.

It certainly seems likelier than not that Lemond is genuine about EPO changing the sport dramatically and this indicates Lemond was never into EPO.

But this is all speculation at best. Maybe he was clean. I hope so, but I wouldn't bet any dough on it.

 

[ChrisE]

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.

It's easy to take things out of context. I forgive you for that, but your post shows the power of that diversionary tactic. I do appreciate the demonstration.

I was over at huffpost reading this, but looked back over here and decided to log in just for you.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/04/22/the-most-absurd-break-up_n_547764.html

Now this is hilarious, so do what I have done and relax with this comedy. Take care.

 

[buckwheat]

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, there is still no way that a clean rider could have beaten a doped rider in the 80s. Thus there is no way LeMond could have won cleanly.

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.

The counter-argument is that it was possible to win cleanly in the 80s against doped riders. The evidence used for this is testimonies from riders, soigneurs and team-managers who were involved in the sport at that time. The most notorious figure was Willy Voet who worked closely with many top riders during that era, he named many riders as being doped in his book, Breaking the Chain, but for some reason named Charly Mottet as a clean rider and said Eric Caritoux won the 1984 Vuelta cleanly but doped at other times.

You dismiss this as just tittle-tattle because its just people saying what they want in a book. In Sean Kellys, biography, there is a chapter on how he tested positive for the stimulant, Stimul, which was described as useless to a cyclist, thus deeming it irrelevant. Then in Voets book almost 15 years later, there is a story regarding a rider who cheated a dope test by using the urine of a mechanic but the test still came back positive for stimul, the mechanic had taken it because he had to make a long drive. Voet also said stimul was useless to a cyclists. Voet of course was once Kellys soigneur and it was the same race, Paris-Brussells. Of course, this is all just tittle-tattle in your opinion but makes a pretty compelling case for others.

Laurent Fignon admitted to doping but do we know when he doped exactly, I agree that testing was much more less frequent and effective back then so we dont know who was doing what. According to Paul Kimmage who like Fignon is speaking from first hand experience, people charged up all the time once there were no controls in place but were less likely to do so if controls were present i.e at the Tour. Not so many races outside the Tour had controls. We knew Fignon doped already because he tested positive at Tour of Wallonia in 86.

In summary, there is nothing conclusive to say a clean rider couldnt beat a doped rider in the 80s. We know Fignon doped but we dont know if he was doping for the 89 Tour and we still have heard not one single shred of evidence that LeMond doped, the subject of this thread.

Of course you will stil believe that it was not possible to win without doping based on....what you think, whilst we will still believe it was possible to win cleanly based on what the riders, soigneurs etc of that time have said. The end.

Great post! Where do you find the patience?

You left out only one thing. GL's ONLY named accuser.

 

[Oncearunner8]

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.

Come on City! You know he is bouncing off the wall in his house boat!

Man He has has the bromance hard!

 

[Oncearunner8]

It's easy to take things out of context. I forgive you for that, but your post shows the power of that diversionary tactic. I do appreciate the demonstration.

I was over at huffpost reading this, but looked back over here and decided to log in just for you.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/04/22/the-most-absurd-break-up_n_547764.html

Now this is hilarious, so do what I have done and relax with this comedy. Take care.

My favorite is when dave wants beth to tell him he is big and she does but IT WAS ALL A LIE! JUST LIKE CLEAN CYCLING!

 

[patricknd]

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

You owe me a keyboard.

just doing my part to entertain and amuse.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

It's easy to take things out of context. I forgive you for that, but your post shows the power of that diversionary tactic. I do appreciate the demonstration.

I was over at huffpost reading this, but looked back over here and decided to log in just for you.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/04/22/the-most-absurd-break-up_n_547764.html

Now this is hilarious, so do what I have done and relax with this comedy. Take care.

Ok - having read the first letter, I think we can agree on something this evening.

 

[patricknd]

i swear my nickname isn't dave

 

[ChrisE]

Ok - having read the first letter, I think we can agree on something this evening.

Doc, I love you more than 100000 sparkly trampolines. Too bad we disagree on certain things.

 

[VeloCity]

It's easy to take things out of context. I forgive you for that, but your post shows the power of that diversionary tactic. I do appreciate the demonstration.

I was over at huffpost reading this, but looked back over here and decided to log in just for you.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/04/22/the-most-absurd-break-up_n_547764.html

Now this is hilarious, so do what I have done and relax with this comedy. Take care.

Case in point. Take care.

 

[Oncearunner8]

Case in point. Take care.

chill out smug! dang ding it.

 

[Oncearunner8]

i swear my nickname isn't dave

easy BIG BOY!

 

[VeloCity]

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.

Actually that's not what I was suggesting, nor said, at all. Just keep seeing what you want to see, though.

 

[VeloCity]

chill out smug! dang ding it.

smug? doesn't the Velo part kinda give it away oar?

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Doc, I love you more than 100000 sparkly trampolines. Too bad we disagree on certain things.

What...... I thought you said before it was "100,000,000"..... bitch

 

[Oncearunner8]

smug? doesn't the Velo part kinda give it away oar?

Yeah but I thought your post was a perfect match from him.

I wish he would come over.

If him and House could go at it over here...Man good times!

 

[Oncearunner8]

What...... I thought you said before it was "100,000,000"..... bitch

DR in the Hizzzouse! man nice post.

Seriously Lemond was not a doper in any spectulation. I mean Rance was but Lemond has never been named. But I dEEgress.

 

[patricknd]

easy BIG BOY!

i love it when you call me that.

 

[ChrisE]

What...... I thought you said before it was "100,000,000"..... bitch

That was before you wrote me that letter with a picture of you riding that giraffe.

That sucked 1000 times over, so I knocked 3 zeros off of the sparkling trampoline scale.

 

[Escarabajo]

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?

Here. It was discussed in detail. Basically most posters agree that it was not only EPO but also his natural decline.

http://forum.cyclingnews.com/showthread.php?t=1860

 

[buckwheat]

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

Q. Who are you?

A. Nobody!

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

Your performances with the strippers, as opposed to LeMond's rides, are not noteworthy. No one cares enough to pay a dime to prove you wrong. Pharmstrong would pay big money to uncover the dirt on LeMond if there was any.

This game is easy.

You have the reasoning ability of a toaster.

 

[Susan Westemeyer]

Let's cool it with the personal stuff, everyone.

This is actually my day off and I will get testy if I have to start handing out warnings and suspensions on my free day.....

Susan

 

[buckwheat]

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

Dude, Lance (I guess we're on a first name basis) has to be in here because He is the only person of any standing in cycling who has made a doping allegation against LeMond!

 

[joe_papp]

I believe Greg was a Clean Rider.

As a matter of fact, I believe Greg was the ONLY clean rider of his era!

But for the life of me I can't figure out WHY.
If we can figure that out - it might help us defeat the doping problem.

Was it because Greg was not interested in Fame & Fortune?
Nope, not in your wildest dreams.

Was it because Greg had a moral compass that pointed towards Good?
Lets just say No again and leave it there, wink wink nudge nudge.

Maybe Greg had Mentors and Coaches who were clean and strict?
Nopeski there for sure.

Maybe all the Dope Dealers sensed that Greg was the WhistleBlowing Type?
Maybe that is the reason. But how could they have known?
Joe Papp, any insights?

Anyway, Greg is awesome.

All of my editing to this was done when my machine crashed. I'll redo it this afternoon. Gist? That Greg LeMond was one in a thousand, the best of his era. And prior to the refinement of EPO after its mastery by Ferrari - there was no drug that could give him an advantage that he didn't already have.