LEMOND the DOPER

[Digger]

At the time of his retirement, he claimed he was getting his a$$ dropped because of some disease. Yet, he subsequently retracted that and now he says his power numbers were the same or better than previous years.

WTF? The old "I was sick and had no power" got changed to "I was stronger than ever" over the course of time.

I also, like you, scratch my head that he was clueless of what was going on around him. Apparently he only considers doping to be cheating only if the dope is good enough to enable others to beat him.

If Charly Mottet is relegated to also ran behind dopers Fignon and Delgado, then no big deal.

Something else....

GL claims to have stopped winning because of the "two speeds" of the peloton, which is claimed to be the result of oxygen increasing products like EPO superceding the useless steroids and cortisone.

Those types of products, along with other methods like infusions and now HGH, are still prevalent so there should still be two speeds.

Yet, people like Evans and Gilbert have this purity halo in here that they are clean. Taking that into consideration, one can only conclude that Evans and Gilbert are better cyclists than GL ever was because they can excel against the same type of doped competition that he failed at beating.

I'm not sure anybody in here would ever claim that, so hopefully somebody can clear up this bit of confusion brought on by simple deductive reasoning.

I hope this can be cleared up before Digger admonishes us for discussing these outlandish observations.

Are you trying to say that steroids gave the same performance enhancement as EPO? Or as Ferrari told his clients, a thirty percent performance increase.
Evans has no purity halo.
Gilbert yes, but come back to me when he has challenged seriously for a Grtand Tour, where the advantges to blood doping become so crucial.

 

[ChrisE]

Are you trying to say that steroids gave the same performance enhancement as EPO? Or as Ferrari told his clients, a thirty percent performance increase.
Evans has no purity halo.
Gilbert yes, but come back to me when he has challenged seriously for a Grtand Tour, where the advantges to blood doping become so crucial.

You must not have a canned response for the non-bolded parts.

Maybe you should read thru this thread instead of hopping in on the end of it admonishing people. The answer to your question about my opinion of EPO is somewhere in the previous 200 posts. Here's a hint; you won't find anything you are accusing me of.

Yes, Gilbert can be competitive for 9 months in 250+ km monuments, on power bars and water. I'm glad you cleared that up.

 

[Digger]

You must not have a canned response for the non-bolded parts.

Maybe you should read thru this thread instead of hopping in on the end of it admonishing people. The answer to your question about my opinion of EPO is somewhere in the previous 200 posts. Here's a hint; you won't find anything you are accusing me of.

Yes, Gilbert can be competitive for 9 months in 250+ km monuments, on power bars and water. I'm glad you cleared that up.

A doped *** never won the Derby - this all changed with EPO - Who said that? Willy Voet.
Gilbert - so being able to compete in classics on specific Sundays, is the same as racing 200 plus Kms day after day for three weeks. This has the same impact on the HCT does it?

What exactly are you trying to say? Are you saying you think there's a fair chance Lemond doped? Or you dislike the way he speaks out?

 

[buckwheat]

At the time of his retirement, he claimed he was getting his a$$ dropped because of some disease. Yet, he subsequently retracted that and now he says his power numbers were the same or better than previous years.

It was going to be "brick" but I settled on the electronic appliance because I thought it was more fair. Was probably unfair to the inanimate objects because they usually don't exhibit "evil" intent.

At any rate, your timeline is screwed up. LeMond said his power numbers were better in '91 when he was two time defending TdF champion. He subsequently came in 7th? if I recall correctly. He retired in '94 and the period of his retirement was when he said his power numbers were down which led him to seek answers. He initially thought it was the muscle wasting condition but settled on what has come to be known as passive doping. The guy was so competitive that he was trying to keep up with the high octane guys and couldn't understand why he couldn't. This fact does point to his possible naivte re what was going on.

WTF? The old "I was sick and had no power" got changed to "I was stronger than ever" over the course of time.

It's called perspective. Get some!

I also, like you, scratch my head that he was clueless of what was going on around him. Apparently he only considers doping to be cheating only if the dope is good enough to enable others to beat him.

When you're on top of the world, you don't worry about the chatter of the riff raff below. This is illustrated by LeMond's quote below:

"When you get second place, you say 'I could have won it here, I could have won it there.' When you win, you never say anything; it's finished."

If Charly Mottet is relegated to also ran behind dopers Fignon and Delgado, then no big deal..

Toaster v. Strawman. Damn the strawman won here.

GL claims to have stopped winning because of the "two speeds" of the peloton, which is claimed to be the result of oxygen increasing products like EPO superceding the useless steroids and cortisone. .

Evidently they were fairly useless against him. I guess he was winning enough and didn't realize he'd have been winning more and by bigger margins. Then again if you win by 8 seconds or 10 minutes it doesn't really matter, does it?

I'm not sure anybody in here would ever claim that, so hopefully somebody can clear up this bit of confusion brought on by simple deductive reasoning.

sigh, Obviously the circuitry of appliances hasn't come close to a simple computer much less the human brain.


Back to the OP. The point is not that it's possible GL doped. It's to show any kind of evidence whatsoever, anything, that he did dope.

Not only is there no proof, there are not even any accusations, by anyone except Lance Armstrong.

 

[ChrisE]

Buckwheat,

Why do you insist on stalking me around the forum? Is it some type of mancrush? I hope you never find out who I am or where I live, else I may come home one day to find one of my pets boiling on the stove.

You probably need to broaden the things you are passionate about, instead of zeroing in on the forum entity "ChrisE" like a laser beam.

It is not healthy. I want to be your friend, but I am scared you would try to take that too far.

So, I will not respond to your post on this thread. It would be like giving crack to Daryl Strawberry, and I will not have that on my hands. Thanks.

Digger,

You have alot of nerve jumping in here at the end of the thread, admonishing those that have had spirited discussion within it, then asking me what my opinion is.

I have probably posted 15-20 times in this thread, and I will not subsidize your laziness by summarizing it now for you.

So, read up and then get back with me and you can join in on the wonderful concept of discussion on the internet.

In closing, I pray that in real life that you don't use the technique of criticising before you learn about the discussion. I am sure the people in your life do not deserve that. Thanks.

 

[joe_papp]

The question that the OP really wanted to ask...

In a no-holds-barred, steel-cage match between Floyd Landis, Greg LeMond, Lance Armstrong, Ivan Basso's sister and Vino, who would win - if there was doping control both immediately before and after the event?

edited by mod

 

[ChrisE]

In a no-holds-barred, steel-cage match between Floyd Landis, Greg LeMond, Lance Armstrong, Ivan Basso's sister and Vino, who would win - if there was doping control both immediately before and after the event?

edited by mod

In Jello? I'll take Vino....his low center of gravity would give him the edge.

HEY, how do you get the correct results from a GIS of Elisa Basso?

 

[Dr. Maserati]

At the time of his retirement, he claimed he was getting his a$$ dropped because of some disease. Yet, he subsequently retracted that and now he says his power numbers were the same or better than previous years.

WTF? The old "I was sick and had no power" got changed to "I was stronger than ever" over the course of time.

I also, like you, scratch my head that he was clueless of what was going on around him. Apparently he only considers doping to be cheating only if the dope is good enough to enable others to beat him.

If Charly Mottet is relegated to also ran behind dopers Fignon and Delgado, then no big deal.

Something else....

GL claims to have stopped winning because of the "two speeds" of the peloton, which is claimed to be the result of oxygen increasing products like EPO superceding the useless steroids and cortisone.

Those types of products, along with other methods like infusions and now HGH, are still prevalent so there should still be two speeds.

Yet, people like Evans and Gilbert have this purity halo in here that they are clean. Taking that into consideration, one can only conclude that Evans and Gilbert are better cyclists than GL ever was because they can excel against the same type of doped competition that he failed at beating.

I'm not sure anybody in here would ever claim that, so hopefully somebody can clear up this bit of confusion brought on by simple deductive reasoning.

I hope this can be cleared up before Digger admonishes us for discussing these outlandish observations.

Ok - Chris I don't know if you are merely posting to 'discuss' or to be obtuse* - because much of what you write and attribute to Lemond is simply incorrect, which is why I understand the frustration of others.

In your above you attribute GL to saying racing was at"two speeds" - this phrase only came during 1999, after Festina.

Here is an excellent interview Lemonddid in 1998 - right before the Festina affair.

In it he talks about doping - which again removes another smear that he only became outspoken about doping when LA started winning - but also you can see he is ignorant to just how much EPO was being abused within the peloton, as indeed we all were at the time.

Festina in '98 was the 'game-changer', the lid was lifted on cycling's badly kept secret and the only difference between Greg's interviews pre and post Festina was that he became more knowledgeable about the performance advantage of EPO and how it had spread to every corner of the peloton.

*(If it is the latter then just send me a pic of a giraffe - I will know, and wont be too upset)

 

[flicker]

In a no-holds-barred, steel-cage match between Floyd Landis, Greg LeMond, Lance Armstrong, Ivan Basso's sister and Vino, who would win - if there was doping control both immediately before and after the event?
edited by mod

Joe you have excellent taste Chapaeu, bravissimo!

 

[ChrisE]

Ok - Chris I don't know if you are merely posting to 'discuss' or to be obtuse* - because much of what you write and attribute to Lemond is simply incorrect, which is why I understand the frustration of others.

In your above you attribute GL to saying racing was at"two speeds" - this phrase only came during 1999, after Festina.

Here is an excellent interview Lemonddid in 1998 - right before the Festina affair.

In it he talks about doping - which again removes another smear that he only became outspoken about doping when LA started winning - but also you can see he is ignorant to just how much EPO was being abused within the peloton, as indeed we all were at the time.

Festina in '98 was the 'game-changer', the lid was lifted on cycling's badly kept secret and the only difference between Greg's interviews pre and post Festina was that he became more knowledgeable about the performance advantage of EPO and how it had spread to every corner of the peloton.

*(If it is the latter then just send me a pic of a giraffe - I will know, and wont be too upset)

The only time before now I've heard the word "obtuse" used outside of a trigonometry class was on Shawshank Redemption. Calling the warden that gets you tossed into solitary confinement, so I concluded it was bad without taking the time to look it up.

Now, you call me this so I finally look up the definition. Note, calling me "obtuse" could result in me lowering your sparkly trampoline index rating down even further than the giraffe riding pictures, and calling me bytch on an earlier post is also making me reevaluate my opinion of you.

Moving on, the "two speeds" reference I believe is one that can span time. Obtuse, for example, could be used to describe somebody that lived prior to the time of the Shawshank Redemption.

Attacking me by saying I cannot refer to GL getting dropped by a faster peloton as there being "two speeds" is, TBH, petty and frankly surprising coming from you. I expect some such lightweight debate from some of the other posters in here (recent in this thread), but not you.

Furthermore, what somebody "says" is just that. People have the freedom to believe that the GL "golly, I didn't know" schtick may be suspect. You cannot take that freedom away. I'm not sure you are American but I am, and we don't take shyt like somebody trying to control our thoughts lightly.

I also see what you are doing here. Dropping Festina into the conversation, which has nothing to do with the topic of this thread, is typical CN forum GL fanboy/LA hate diversionary tactics 101. So, I implore you to stay on topic and stop acting like you have a final say on what words can be used to describe what. Thanks.

 

[joe_papp]

In Jello? I'll take Vino....his low center of gravity would give him the edge.

HEY, how do you get the correct results from a GIS of Elisa Basso?

I'd go with Basso (Ivan), because out of all of them, he's the only one, apparently, who is willing to cheat. All the others are steadfast in their declarations of having competed, competing, and intending to compete - "cleanly," w/o the use of performance enhancing drugs. In my mind, the guy who is willing to admit to looking for that illegal edge is also the one who won't be afraid to let his sister be a doping mule, errr, I mean, won't be afraid to use his sister as a...errr, no, I mean...lol. Time to close this thread!

GIS of Elisa Basso: http://is.gd/bGq6R

 

[Digger]

Buckwheat,


Digger,

You have alot of nerve jumping in here at the end of the thread, admonishing those that have had spirited discussion within it, then asking me what my opinion is.

I have probably posted 15-20 times in this thread, and I will not subsidize your laziness by summarizing it now for you.

So, read up and then get back with me and you can join in on the wonderful concept of discussion on the internet.

In closing, I pray that in real life that you don't use the technique of criticising before you learn about the discussion. I am sure the people in your life do not deserve that. Thanks.

Firstly, was admonish a Sesame street word for the day? Or are you getting paid each time you use it?
To my immense regret, i have followed this thread all week, but haven't been able to log on.
Your posts mostly equate to you complaining about other posters and then trying to act all high and mighty when you quote Susan. Maybe you might want to see how long I've been on this forum and how many posts I have...and you will see that this topic has been discussed so many times. And still not one piece of evidence.

By the way, this spirited discussion you speak of. Is this the same one whereby you're constantly b****ing about other users for most of your posts and compaining to Susan? Because this thread is alot of things, but spirited is not one of them.

You say you don't know about steroids etc in comparison to EPO. Well we know from people with first hand experience what the differences are, yet you don't seem to want to accept that. Anyway, you also say that you didn't believe it anyone to have won a Grand Tour since the 70s whilst clean - take out Lemond, what about Eric Caritoux? You seem to be taking a position that is deliberately argumentative and that's why I ask you what you really believe, because your posts are contradictory and seem to depend on who you are replying to. You're going around in circles almost arguing with yourself, holding a position that is untenable and defies logic in most instances. And yeah, you are being obtuse in many of your points. You only accept things that suit your own preconceived ideals. Are you the type of person who asks what the weather is like, but goes to check it yourself, because you won't believe that person?
One other thing, you make comments like testing was zilch then compared to now. There's far, far more to test for now, and still many of the products are undetectable, and we still have a governing body which is not bothered about catching the big guys - so that comment is competely redundant.

And by the way, thanks for the condescending words of wisdom....in reply, I hope you are not as argumentative and illogical with your own, because discussions in your house must be fun if that is the case.

 

[ChrisE]

....Are you the type of person who asks what the weather is like, but goes to check it yourself, because you won't believe that person?
*snip all other ad hominen attack part of thread*

Yes, as a matter of fact I am.

The NOAA wind forecast said last night wind would be 5-10 out of the west this morning. Normally that would be good for fishing but I was very skeptical.

I didn't believe it because I knew a front was coming in, so I slept in. Here is what the actual readings from a buoy on Trinity Bay said this morning:

04 24 8:54 am NNW 8.0 14.0
04 24 8:48 am NNW 11.1 15.0
04 24 8:42 am NNW 12.0 15.0
04 24 8:36 am NNW 13.0 18.1
04 24 8:30 am NW 12.0 24.1
04 24 8:24 am NNW 12.0 24.1
04 24 8:18 am NNW 12.0 21.0
04 24 8:12 am NNW 13.0 19.0
04 24 8:06 am NNW 14.0 17.1
04 24 8:00 am NNW 11.1 22.9
04 24 7:54 am NNW 15.0 22.9
04 24 7:48 am NNW 13.0 25.1
04 24 7:42 am NNW 14.0 25.1
04 24 7:36 am NW 15.9 25.1
04 24 7:30 am NW 9.9 24.1
04 24 7:24 am NW 15.0 24.1
04 24 7:18 am NW 12.0 20.0
04 24 7:12 am WNW 13.0 20.0
04 24 7:06 am WNW 13.0 24.1
04 24 7:00 am NW 13.0 22.0
04 24 6:54 am NW 13.0 18.1
04 24 6:48 am WNW 13.0 21.0
04 24 6:42 am WNW 15.9 22.0

The first number is steady wind, the second is gusts.

Does that look like 5-10 out of the west to you? Maybe it does to you, which would explain some of the positions you are taking here.

Using your logic, I should've just taken what they said last night and gone out and bobbed up and down in whitecaps all morning, while telling myself it wasn't happening.

Also, you seem to imply you are smarter than me because your post count is higher. Whoop-de-do. Maybe Stephen Hawking can create an account and you can jump into his first post and tell him how much smarter you are because your post count is higher.

 

[Digger]

Yes, as a matter of fact I am.

The NOAA wind forecast said last night wind would be 5-10 out of the west this morning. Normally that would be good for fishing but I was very skeptical.

I didn't believe it because I knew a front was coming in, so I slept in. Here is what the actual readings from a buoy on Trinity Bay said this morning:

04 24 8:54 am NNW 8.0 14.0
04 24 8:48 am NNW 11.1 15.0
04 24 8:42 am NNW 12.0 15.0
04 24 8:36 am NNW 13.0 18.1
04 24 8:30 am NW 12.0 24.1
04 24 8:24 am NNW 12.0 24.1
04 24 8:18 am NNW 12.0 21.0
04 24 8:12 am NNW 13.0 19.0
04 24 8:06 am NNW 14.0 17.1
04 24 8:00 am NNW 11.1 22.9
04 24 7:54 am NNW 15.0 22.9
04 24 7:48 am NNW 13.0 25.1
04 24 7:42 am NNW 14.0 25.1
04 24 7:36 am NW 15.9 25.1
04 24 7:30 am NW 9.9 24.1
04 24 7:24 am NW 15.0 24.1
04 24 7:18 am NW 12.0 20.0
04 24 7:12 am WNW 13.0 20.0
04 24 7:06 am WNW 13.0 24.1
04 24 7:00 am NW 13.0 22.0
04 24 6:54 am NW 13.0 18.1
04 24 6:48 am WNW 13.0 21.0
04 24 6:42 am WNW 15.9 22.0

The first number is steady wind, the second is gusts.

Does that look like 5-10 out of the west to you? Maybe it does to you, which would explain some of the positions you are taking here.

Using your logic, I should've just taken what they said last night and gone out and bobbed up and down in whitecaps all morning, while telling myself it wasn't happening.

Also, you seem to imply you are smarter than me because your post count is higher. Whoop-de-do. Maybe Stephen Hawking can create an account and you can jump into his first post and tell him how much smarter you are because your post count is higher.

I didn't imply that, I implied I've been on this forum longer than you and have seen this type of thread on Lemond more than you. But if you are that insecure about your intelligence, I apologise.

Snip all other ad hominen attack oh my god that's one of the most hypocritical lines I've ever seen here. From the guy who hardly ever goes a post without insulting the poster you quote. Even the previous post from you was signed off with an insult.

But this doesn't stop you from pontificating to the rest of us about how we should all behave, as if the world would be a better place if we just followed your example. And you say below about how badly you were treated. Would it ever occur to you that your own insulting behaviour and condescending remarks led to this? You have these opinions, which seem strange, because you don't believe anything you read, so one wonders how you learn anything in cycling. And on this thread, there seems little doubt but that you are being deliberately argumentative with posters, even if your post is slightly inconsistent with your previous ones.

Anyway, regardless of your beliefs, which we don't know how you came to form, since you don't believe what you read, we know that it was possible to win a GT clean in the 80s.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

The only time before now I've heard the word "obtuse" used outside of a trigonometry class was on Shawshank Redemption. Calling the warden that gets you tossed into solitary confinement, so I concluded it was bad without taking the time to look it up.

Now, you call me this so I finally look up the definition. Note, calling me "obtuse" could result in me lowering your sparkly trampoline index rating down even further than the giraffe riding pictures, and calling me bytch on an earlier post is also making me reevaluate my opinion of you.

Moving on, the "two speeds" reference I believe is one that can span time. Obtuse, for example, could be used to describe somebody that lived prior to the time of the Shawshank Redemption.

Attacking me by saying I cannot refer to GL getting dropped by a faster peloton as there being "two speeds" is, TBH, petty and frankly surprising coming from you. I expect some such lightweight debate from some of the other posters in here (recent in this thread), but not you.

Furthermore, what somebody "says" is just that. People have the freedom to believe that the GL "golly, I didn't know" schtick may be suspect. You cannot take that freedom away. I'm not sure you are American but I am, and we don't take shyt like somebody trying to control our thoughts lightly.

I also see what you are doing here. Dropping Festina into the conversation, which has nothing to do with the topic of this thread, is typical CN forum GL fanboy/LA hate diversionary tactics 101. So, I implore you to stay on topic and stop acting like you have a final say on what words can be used to describe what. Thanks.

Meh....I would have preferred if you had just sent the picture of the giraffe.

I take it you didn't actually read the GL interview I gave you - as you mention nothing of its content. Or is your above post a "diversionary tactic"?

You can "implore" me to keep on topic - even though I linked in a relevant GL interview and another link to where "two speeds" is first acknowledged in 1999, because YOU wrote this earlier.

GL claims to have stopped winning because of the "two speeds" of the peloton, which is claimed to be the result of oxygen increasing products like EPO superceding the useless steroids and cortisone.

By all means change my opinion by showing where Greg made a comment about a "two speed" peloton before 1999.

Since you want to get back to discussing the "topic of the thread" - then I wont ask you to fruitlessly search for where I "attacked" you, wont make an irrelevant comment on either my or your nationality,give my opinions on Shawshack Redemption, or admit that I couldn't give a shit what your opinion of me is but will retain the right to mention Festina if it is relevant to the topic.............

So, Greg Lemond?


Obtuse... blunt in form .

 

[Digger]

Joe show me the math that Greggy boy is clean or dirty. PS Do they let you e-mail from the pen?

You are some piece of sh**. How can you not be banned?

 

[Echoes]

I won't hide I don't really like LeMond but I first of all think he's got the right to have his name written correctly. It writes with a capital M and should be pronounced as if we had to pronounce the name of French newspaper Le Monde and not lemon (stress on the second syllable).


I like the way he rode before the hunting accident. He fought for every Classic included Paris-Roubaix and then for the tours.

After the accident he focused on the Tour de France (OK + the Worlds), just like his doped successors. The thing I hate the most in cycling. And by the way he cheated with the handlebar.

And then I think he's just kidding us by vociferously express his opinion against present-day doping while he was very happy about the Texan's the boring Tour de France. I think he even said that towards the end of his career he was approaching the same pedal frequence as the Texan. But he was already ill.

The rest is all suspicion, which, I know, has no credibility but I assume it.

But first of all, is such a come back possible after such a serious accident?

How could he be so strong in the last Giro TT '89 while he was so suffering in the mountain? In my opinion if you suffer for 2 weeks and a half, you suffer for the last half week. Looks like synacthen.

Someone posted here that he left PDM because he realized that they organized doping but it could also have been because the doctors were incompetent. You all know that these rats are responsible for the death of many young riders.

And by the way in ADR he collaborated with van Mol who would eventually become Museeuw's guru.

All this could raise questions.

 

[patricknd]

Been busy with work to add to this thread. Alpe, it's one of the worst I've seen on here. The vitriol I've seen sprouted by people towards Greg is incredible - especially by the OP, Flicker (who seems to lose his trolling role at times) and Green Tea. Everything from child molestation to mental issues to being shot has been brought into the equation. Flicker you could make a sh** load of money with those accusations that you continue to speak about on here. Lance's crew tried for years to get a story like that and failed. So yeah, contact them. After reading through this drivel, i feel like Moreau when he found out about Landis' defence:
"Here, we have reached rock bottom. He has created a fund to gather money for his defense. Landis is positive with his A and B samples and he has the nerve to go begging for dollars while his lawyers look for the comma that is out of place, that will show up some technical irregularity."

To all the people who think Lemond doped, the only thing you have is that you think everyone in the 80s doped, so he must have doped - oh and Flicker's 'rumour' that he keeps rehashing from time to time. No positive tests, no teammates, no doping programmes - no doping products found - NOTHING. So yee can clutch at straws all yee want, but the reality is that yee wanting Lemond to have doped, because he criticised the second coming, is not going to make it so. Yee have no evidence whatsoever - and as RR points out, if yee have, contact Lance's people, and there will be big money in it for yee.

i thought that no positive tests was meaningless. or is that only the case with certain riders? why the double standard around here? seems to me that the rules of evidence change pretty frequently depending on who is being discussed.
i personally think that lemond was clean, but i also think the same standards should apply across the board. i'd hate to have some of you people on a jury.

 

[Green Tea]

Greg was asked for comment:


I would not dope in a boat
I would not dope in a car
I would not, could not dope in France

Would you? Could You? For some cash?

I would not, Could not for some cash

Greg I am, I am not Lance

Poor Greg & the jealously that stems from him, Didn't win the Tour 7 times?, (Greg being able to win 6 TdF's is totally speculative) ousted from his pedestal as the greatest US rider of all time.

That's what I like about Lance. He's physically superior and mentally superior.

Why has Greg got too keep on with the bashing?. Hate.

Watch your life expectancy Greg, hate kills.

 

[Digger]

i thought that no positive tests was meaningless. or is that only the case with certain riders? why the double standard around here? seems to me that the rules of evidence change pretty frequently depending on who is being discussed.
i personally think that lemond was clean, but i also think the same standards should apply across the board. i'd hate to have some of you people on a jury.

Except that Lance does have positive tests.
Secondly, the positive tests are but one facet of what I was talking about, as I'm sure you are able to read. For example, if we had teammates pointing fingers as witnesses, we had doping products found, links to doping doctors, and you defended someone with a negative test - then that negative test would not mean much in most people's eyes. For Lemond we have none of those. So I hope you can understand now.

 

[Digger]

I won't hide I don't really like LeMond but I first of all think he's got the right to have his name written correctly. It writes with a capital M and should be pronounced as if we had to pronounce the name of French newspaper Le Monde and not lemon (stress on the second syllable).


I like the way he rode before the hunting accident. He fought for every Classic included Paris-Roubaix and then for the tours.

After the accident he focused on the Tour de France (OK + the Worlds), just like his doped successors. The thing I hate the most in cycling. And by the way he cheated with the handlebar.

And then I think he's just kidding us by vociferously express his opinion against present-day doping while he was very happy about the Texan's the boring Tour de France. I think he even said that towards the end of his career he was approaching the same pedal frequence as the Texan. But he was already ill.

The rest is all suspicion, which, I know, has no credibility but I assume it. [/B]

But first of all, is such a come back possible after such a serious accident?

How could he be so strong in the last Giro TT '89 while he was so suffering in the mountain? In my opinion if you suffer for 2 weeks and a half, you suffer for the last half week. Looks like synacthen.

Someone posted here that he left PDM because he realized that they organized doping but it could also have been because the doctors were incompetent. You all know that these rats are responsible for the death of many young riders.

And by the way in ADR he collaborated with van Mol who would eventually become Museeuw's guru.

All this could raise questions.

Enough said.....

 

[Dr. Maserati]

i thought that no positive tests was meaningless. or is that only the case with certain riders? why the double standard around here? seems to me that the rules of evidence change pretty frequently depending on who is being discussed.
i personally think that lemond was clean, but i also think the same standards should be apply across the board. i'd hate to have some of you people on a jury.

Sorry Patrick - no positive tests are meaningless but where did Digger say anything about 'no positive tests' or use that in his argument for GL?

If he used that in his posts it would be hypocritical - or double standards - but he never said that.

This thread is up to 300 posts - I have yet to see one single solid argument that I haven't heard about or checked. I am not saying that there is nothing on GL or that he is clean but quite frankly there is nothing new here.

EDIT: it has been brought to my attention that Digger did mention 'no positives' in a post, so apologies Patrick. I guess this means GL is guilty.

 

[I Watch Cycling In July]

...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...

With you so far. Not sure whether your main gripe is about the specific "logic" of those defending Greg, or that they seem to defend Greg more enthusiastically than others.... but here goes on some specific points from several of your posts.

.... the "two speeds" reference I believe is one that can span time....

It might span time. For steroids/test etc, we don't have much solid evidence of the real gain pros get from taking these PEDs, so it can't entirely be ruled out. But this means there is no solid evidence that the gains from PED use prior to EPO make a clean super talent unable to compete. Therefore any accusation along this line is groundless. There is a difference between proving Greg didn't dope, and demonstrating that an accusation is groundless. The arguments in this thread are generally the latter. IMO the onus is on anyone who cares to make an accusation, to provide some evidence which demonstrates their accusation is not groundless.

... 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.

It doesn't matter who gets accused on this basis, I think it's complete bollox. Pretty normal human behavior to turn a blind eye to rumor, innuendo, and what your teammates/close friends might or might not be doing in that hotel room.

At the time of his retirement, he claimed he was getting his a$$ dropped because of some disease. Yet, he subsequently retracted that and now he says his power numbers were the same or better than previous years.

In the 1998 interview Dr Mas linked he implies that he thinks EPO is not a big advantage. So his belief about what caused his demise seems to have changed when he learned more about the effects of EPO later.

Yet, people like Evans and Gilbert have this purity halo in here that they are clean. Taking that into consideration, one can only conclude that Evans and Gilbert are better cyclists than GL ever was because they can excel against the same type of doped competition that he failed at beating.... I'm not sure anybody in here would ever claim that, so hopefully somebody can clear up this bit of confusion brought on by simple deductive reasoning.

You're forgetting ACF . There's actually very few forum members who subscribe to the YARDSTICK view of post EPO era pro cycling and think some top riders are clean. I'm hoping you're going to call someone on it though, should make for some entertaining reading.

 

[pmcg76]

Way back in this thread, I suggested Chris E was playing 'Devils advocate' and he said I didnt know what I was talking about. I then laid out what he seemed to be saying but that was also wrong. Having read through many more pages, it seems that a lot of other posters are also confused as to what his point is. He keeps suggesting people read his previous posts but then nobody 'understands' them so if thats the case, then we must all be totally thick or he is just talking BS. He keeps moving the goalposts like certain other posters consistenly do.

On double standards, yes it would seem that using the 'no postive tests' line is poor but the difference between LeMond and Lance is this, LeMond has no positive tests but neither does he have a load of doping rumours/stories swelling around him. That is not the case with LeMond.

There are other guys like Hinault/Moser/Roche/Rooks/Alcala/Breukink from the 80s who have no positive tests either but have plenty of rumours & stories linking them to doping. Contrast that with Mottet/LeMond, that is the difference, LeMond has no positive tests and none of the other stuff linking him to doping so there is absolutely nothing.

I dont think there is many of us who are saying with 100% certainy that LeMond didnt dope but we also believe that it was possible to win cleanly in the 80s. Therefore as LeMond has no positive tests and not a single rumour/story linking him with doping, then its unfair to taint him purely because of his stance on Lance/modern doping. Too many people think its unfair because we apply double standards between the 80s and the 90s/00s when we are just in fact going with the prevailing belief of what was/is possible in the respective eras.

I think the only people who really believe Evans is definitely clean are the Evans fanboys. There is no way people like Dr.Maserait/Digger or many others would back any Pro 100% to be clean. I posted it in another thread, Bbox are the only team I would have any high level of belief in and even then I leave room for error.

 

[patricknd]

Except that Lance does have positive tests.
Secondly, the positive tests are but one facet of what I was talking about, as I'm sure you are able to read. For example, if we had teammates pointing fingers as witnesses, we had doping products found, links to doping doctors, and you defended someone with a negative test - then that negative test would not mean much in most people's eyes. For Lemond we have none of those. So I hope you can understand now.

read my entire post, and actually read it. what i am saying is apply the same standards of evidence to all riders. tha's a-l-l and that spells all.

why do you immediately assume that this has anything to do with armstrong? what is you're obsession?

go back and read my post again, and tell me where i mentioned armstrong, or where i suggested that lemond was a doper. then perhaps we can discuss things in a rational manner.

ditto for you dr. mas. turn off the defense mechanisms and read for god's sake.