LEMOND the DOPER

[Hugh Januss]

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.

It is an unfortunate side effect of your prior rabid defense of all things Armstrong.

 

[patricknd]

It is an unfortunate side effect of your prior rabid defense of all things Armstrong.

go back and find my prior rabid defense of all things armstrong. i think you confuse me with someone else.

 

[Hugh Januss]

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.

Bla bla bla other good stuff.




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.

That is a pretty thorough response to all of Chris's points(?). Unfortunately all that means is he will either deny he said those things or tell you that he only read the beginning of your post and that you haven't posted enough times in this thread to have an opinion, or else just pile up such a bunch of manure that you will give up trying to talk to him.

 

[Hugh Januss]

go back and find my prior rabid defense of all things armstrong. i think you confuse me with someone else.

That should have read 'all things Livestrong'. On a cursory look it seems that the majority of your posts are directed less at defending Armstrong, but rather at attempting to drag LeMond down to Lance's level. Kudos on recognizing an indefensible position.

 

[patricknd]

That should have read 'all things Livestrong'. On a cursory look it seems that the majority of your posts are directed less at defending Armstrong, but rather at attempting to drag LeMond down to Lance's level. Kudos on recognizing an indefensible position.

i call bull****. please quote where i tried to drag lemond down, and be sure to read all the responses i made.

 

[Race Radio]

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.

I see your point but the fact is in the 80's many riders had positive tests with limited penalties. It was common and happened to most of the big names of the sport in the 80's.....except Lemond.

Angel Arroyo tested positive in the Vuelta in 1982, all they did with give him a 10 minute penalty. Sean Kelly was positive after Paris-Bruxelles in 1984. This was a big surprise to him as he had used the urine of his mechanic....who had used some amphetamines to stay up late washing bikes. Gert-Jan Theunisse also tested positive in 1988, he was also given a 10 minute penalty. In 1989 Laurent Fignon tested positive for amphetamines

Delgado, Ulrich, Armstrong, Merckx, and many others tested positive with little or no penalty.

The fact is with the exception of Coritsone and HGH (Very expensive at the time) most dope used in the 80's was easy to test for, but the penalties were week.

 

[patricknd]

I see your point but the fact is in the 80's many riders had positive tests with limited penalties. It was common and happened to most of the big names of the sport in the 80's.....except Lemond.

Angel Arroyo tested positive in the Vuelta in 1982, all they did with give him a 10 minute penalty. Sean Kelly was positive after Paris-Bruxelles in 1984. This was a big surprise to him as he had used the urine of his mechanic....who had used some amphetamines to stay up late washing bikes. Gert-Jan Theunisse also tested positive in 1988, he was also given a 10 minute penalty. In 1989 Laurent Fignon tested positive for amphetamines

Delgado, Ulrich, Armstrong, Merckx, and many others tested positive with little or no penalty.

The fact is with the exception of Coritsone and HGH (Very expensive at the time) most dope used in the 80's was easy to test for, but the penalties were week.

i agree, and if you check my posts you'll find where i've said that i think lemond was clean. my stand has been that the same standards regarding the "evidence" should apply to all riders. suspicion is natural given the circumstancesof cycling in general, but i am offended when i see it stated that rider "a" is a doper because he rode for this team, or won this race. i understand that it's an intenet forum, but some standards of decency should apply.
if you have a dog i don't think that is sufficient cause to call you a dog ****er. if however, the dog won't turn it's back on you...........

 

[flicker]

Please leave Lord Pharmstrong out of this discussion.
By reading the forum you have convinced me of what that white satan has done.

We are talking bout Greggy boy here. Not Lord Pharmstong.

I havn't evidence that Greg was a doper. Just some idol talk from former teamates. However I do know that many of his former teamates may have partaken in the magic elixers.

Frankly I do not care. If Greg would like to pull a Don Quixote on some windmills he should go for it. It makes him look bad, and cycling.

I never would have said anything if Greg had not made a fool of cycling and himself with Floyd Contador and Pharmstrong.

For some reason the forumites here think that Greggy is a saint. Well Greg fanboys he is because he chased down and put a hurt on Boyer in the worlds.

If anyone would like to put a cyberspanking on me feel free. I already had a cat. 4 rider tell me how to ride today. It lowers my blood pressure!

However his behavior off the bike has turned me off.

 

[Hugh Januss]

i call bull****. please quote where i tried to drag lemond down, and be sure to read all the responses i made.

All through out the Trek/LeMond thread. Maybe you should go back and read them?

 

[ChrisE]

That is a pretty thorough response to all of Chris's points(?). Unfortunately all that means is he will either deny he said those things or tell you that he only read the beginning of your post and that you haven't posted enough times in this thread to have an opinion, or else just pile up such a bunch of manure that you will give up trying to talk to him.

Now that is not fair.

I responded to you earlier that much confusion arises when somebody has a different opinion than the CW in here, or floats the possibility that things are not as they seem. This is being proven here in this thread, so I rest my case on that.

Please point out where I denied saying something, only to have proof of the contrary. If it is so prevalent it should be easy to find with the search functions of this forum.

I am confident you cannot find what you claim, so I will rest easy tonite.

 

[ChrisE]

i call bull****. please quote where i tried to drag lemond down, and be sure to read all the responses i made.

patrick, any question of GLs saintlyness or request to apply equal criticism towards all riders means you are trying to drag him down, fyi.

 

[Race Radio]

i agree, and if you check my posts you'll find where i've said that i think lemond was clean. my stand has been that the same standards regarding the "evidence" should apply to all riders. suspicion is natural given the circumstancesof cycling in general, but i am offended when i see it stated that rider "a" is a doper because he rode for this team, or won this race. i understand that it's an intenet forum, but some standards of decency should apply.
if you have a dog i don't think that is sufficient cause to call you a dog ****er. if however, the dog won't turn it's back on you...........

My dog tucks his tail between his legs when I walk by.

I was not inferring that you were questing Lemond's cleanliness or lack of. I was only pointing out the difference between the various decades.

The team thing is a tough one. I find it hard to believe and of the top riders who rode for Lefevre, Ferretti, Siaz, Godefroot, etc. were clean. The team wide doping programs at these teams are well documented. Of course even Festina had Moncutie and Bassons. While it may not be a clear indication when combined with a variety of other evidence it can certainly contribute to the overall narrative.

 

[Hugh Januss]

Please leave Lord Pharmstrong out of this discussion.
By reading the forum you have convinced me of what that white satan has done.

We are talking bout Greggy boy here. Not Lord Pharmstong.

I havn't evidence that Greg was a doper. Just some idol talk from former teamates. However I do know that many of his former teamates may have partaken in the magic elixers.

Frankly I do not care. If Greg would like to pull a Don Quixote on some windmills he should go for it. It makes him look bad, and cycling.

I never would have said anything if Greg had not made a fool of cycling and himself with Floyd Contador and Pharmstrong.

For some reason the forumites here think that Greggy is a saint. Well Greg fanboys he is because he chased down and put a hurt on Boyer in the worlds.

If anyone would like to put a cyberspanking on me feel free. I already had a cat. 4 rider tell me how to ride today. It lowers my blood pressure!

However his behavior off the bike has turned me off.

His "behavior off the bike" has always been consistent with having the insider info that comes from having been there and wanting to do something to clean up pro cycling.
Greg did not make a fool of cycling, I think you should look to McQuaid, Armstrong, Riis, Basso (both, apparently), Landis, Bruyneel, Lefévère, Virenque, Hamilton, etc. etc. etc. They "made a fool" of pro cycling.
We wind up talking about Armstrong for the reason that he is the only one of LeMonds contemporaries to ever accuse him of having doped. The only one, and not until Greg began asking "inconvienient questions".
The fact that you have been convinced that LA most likely is a doper but you still believe the Lance lies about LeMond just shows how strong the PR campaign is.
Finally, maybe the cat. 4 was right?

 

[patricknd]

All through out the Trek/LeMond thread. Maybe you should go back and read them?

maybe you should go back and read them all, and i do mean all. my point has been consistent, and the point is that suspicion does not equal guilt.

 

[Hugh Januss]

maybe you should go back and read them all, and i do mean all. my point has been consistent, and the point is that suspicion does not equal guilt.

The OJ defense.

 

[patricknd]

My dog tucks his tail between his legs when I walk by.

I was not inferring that you were questing Lemond's cleanliness or lack of. I was only pointing out the difference between the various decades.

The team thing is a tough one. I find it hard to believe and of the top riders who rode for Lefevre, Ferretti, Siaz, Godefroot, etc. were clean. The team wide doping programs at these teams are well documented. Of course even Festina had Moncutie and Bassons. While it may not be a clear indication when combined with a variety of other evidence it can certainly contribute to the overall narrative.

precisely my point. but depending on the team or the persons involved, the overall narrative is a finding of guilt and a statement of such as fact. and that is wrong.

 

[patricknd]

The OJ defense.

attempts to divert don't change the fact that you're wrong. you're weak.

 

[flicker]

His "behavior off the bike" has always been consistent with having the insider info that comes from having been there and wanting to do something to clean up pro cycling.
Greg did not make a fool of cycling, I think you should look to McQuaid, Armstrong, Riis, Basso (both, apparently), Landis, Bruyneel, Lefévère, Virenque, Hamilton, etc. etc. etc. They "made a fool" of pro cycling.
We wind up talking about Armstrong for the reason that he is the only one of LeMonds contemporaries to ever accuse him of having doped. The only one, and not until Greg began asking "inconvienient questions".
The fact that you have been convinced that LA most likely is a doper but you still believe the Lance lies about LeMond just shows how strong the PR campaign is.
Finally, maybe the cat. 4 was right?

Sorry Hugh,

Anyone who shares personal secrets with Mr. Floyd Landis after Mr. Landis has shared with Mr. LeMond that he won the tour doped is a Hugh Januss.

 

[Race Radio]

precisely my point. but depending on the team or the persons involved, the overall narrative is a finding of guilt and a statement of such as fact. and that is wrong.

I would not say it is a finding of guilt, but adds to the suspicion of guilt. I would not say a rider team is enough to question....but if that rider has ridden for a series of doping teams, openly worked with doping doctors, and had questionable performances then expect questions to be asked.

 

[Alpe d'Huez]

Greg didn't dope, no way. He was a gifted talent, who beat riders who were clean, riders on some cortisone, and maybe several on steroids out of competition. But he couldn't beat the 10%+ gains others were getting on EPO, starting really in 1991. What flat out sucks though is watching the 1991 Tour, is he had that Tour completely taken away from him by dopers. Charley Mottet did as well, as the race really should have been between the two of them. I'm not going to apologize for saying this. It was drug cheats beating honest talent, and what ended his career unjustly.

I believe when we got to the 2000's it was merely a matter of superior programs of blood doping and tailored programs to athletes that were better responders that made the bigger difference. No one since Greg's 1990 Tour has won a major GT clean in my opinion. Some were cleaner, yes, but clean the way LeMond was clean? No.

For what it's worth, I also think Hinault won the 1985 Tour clean. Maybe 1981 and 1982 as well during the race, as he was so dominant at that time, though I do not think he was clean his entire career, even he hints at that.

 

[Race Radio]

It is also good to note the type of drugs used in the 80's. Their primary function was recovery. Yes, they were performance enhancing, but the main thing they enhanced was the riders ability to race constantly all year long and make a living.

There was nothing that could make you climb 10% fast but there was plenty that could help you race 30 more races a year.

Lemond was one of the first top riders to not chase a year around campaign. While he would occasionally have a good classic's campaign his main focus was always the Tour. He was usually home for a month by the time Lombardia came around.

While he was often criticized for this during his career I would think it helped in his ability to compete without using the doping products that were common at the time.

 

[Hugh Januss]

Sorry Hugh,

Anyone who shares personal secrets with Mr. Floyd Landis after Mr. Landis has shared with Mr. LeMond that he won the tour doped is a Hugh Januss.

What?.........

 

[Hugh Januss]

attempts to divert don't change the fact that you're wrong. you're weak.

If you want to take on the position of doper defense attorney that is fine, knock yourself out. You will have a tough time of it on this forum because people here actually pay attention. I would suggest taking this over to RBR or maybe the Radioshack fansite, they seem much more ready to give the riders the benefit of the doubt.

 

[Race Radio]

What?.........

It's 5:00 somewhere

 

[knewcleardaze]

I'm not ambitious enough to scrutinize all the doping cases in professional sport.
Though I do vaguely remember some quotes from former riders.
Surely you don't think one wins this race on bread and water alone.
If you can't put 2+2 together, then you are beyond my help.
Think about this.
A hundred and fifty km a day.
For 23 days.
At a high pace.