LEMOND the DOPER

[patricknd]

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.

sorry if my belief in decency and fairness offend you. tell everyone in the lynch mob i said hello.

 

[buckwheat]

If you cant put 2+2 together, then you are beyond my help..

It's important to know the context. The above partial quote was Ullrich talking about what happened to cycling in the 90's.

Actually this is more vindication for LeMond.

 

[buckwheat]

sorry if my belief in decency and fairness offend you. tell everyone in the lynch mob i said hello.

Nice hyperbole and hysteria. Anyway, do you know what a lynch mob does?

They lynch people.

We're just ridiculing them.

 

[patricknd]

Nice hyperbole and hysteria. Anyway, do you know what a lynch mob does?

They lynch people.

We're just ridiculing them.

hence the hyperbole. i think that even forums with idiotic members such as us should have standards that resemble decent society. obviously i'm in the minority.

 

[buckwheat]

Great point

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.

LeMond said; "In the last seven years, I've had four months that I felt good. And in those four months I won two T'sdF and the WC. But in the rest of those years I've just been struggling.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

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.

Fair enough - I jumped in defended Digger and missed his comment - again I apologise.

 

[patricknd]

Fair enough - I jumped in defended Digger and missed his comment - again I apologise.

no sweat. on a serious note, why do so many people assume that eveything is a greg vs lance thing? they aren't the only guys that have ever raced.

 

[buckwheat]

hence the hyperbole. i think that even forums with idiotic members such as us should have standards that resemble decent society. obviously i'm in the minority.

Speaking for myself, I know I can be an idiot.

Anyway, it's clear the standards for Pro Cycling are very low or you've missed the last couple of thousand memo's through the decades?

 

[patricknd]

Speaking for myself, I know I can be an idiot.

Anyway, it's clear the standards for Pro Cycling are very low or you've missed the last couple of thousand memo's through the decades?

i must have mised a few. i think i'll stay the **** out of the clinic.

 

[Hugh Januss]

i must have mised a few. i think i'll stay the **** out of the clinic.

No don't do that, but listen to what is said here with an open mind, rather than thinking that you have to defend guys who when caught redhanded will admit to "thinking of doping" while their sister is a bike racer drug runner.
This sport is dirty top to bottom, guys wives and girlfriends and fathers help them to "be all that they can be" by transporting illegal drugs across national boundries. If caught they seem ready to take one for the team, I don't think that's right, do you?

 

[patricknd]

No don't do that, but listen to what is said here with an open mind, rather than thinking that you have to defend guys who when caught redhanded will admit to "thinking of doping" while their sister is a bike racer drug runner.
This sport is dirty top to bottom, guys wives and girlfriends and fathers help them to "be all that they can be" by transporting illegal drugs across national boundries. If caught they seem ready to take one for the team, I don't think that's right, do you?

i'm not operating under any illusions regarding guilt of riders that are sanctioned. my problem is with standards unevenly applied in the court of popular opinion.

you know we're not on opposing sides of the issue. we differ only in our approach.

 

[Hugh Januss]

i'm not operating under any illusions regarding guilt of riders that are sanctioned. my problem is with standards unevenly applied in the court of popular opinion.

you know we're not on opposing sides of the issue. we differ only in our approach.

The point is though, the ones who are caught by tests in most cases are using things that would give them huge advantages over guys who are not using. Were they winning all of their races by 5-10 minutes? If they were the only ones cheating they should have been. Almost every GT podium in the past 15 years has either been tested positive or caught in a dope scandal or implicated in one, still awaiting the final word. Others who seem cleaner also somehow seem to be still competitive with those guys. I see nothing unfair with assuming the worst from the sport as a whole and from every individual in it.

 

[Digger]

no sweat. on a serious note, why do so many people assume that eveything is a greg vs lance thing? they aren't the only guys that have ever raced.

It is a direct consequence of certain people criticising Greg, simply because he cast doubt on their hero. For me, i just want to point out that these certain people are not mentioning Lance, but clearly have him in mind, as this is they reason they are casting doubt on Greg in the first place.
Again, take out Lance....my original point still stands. If we have a rider who has been named my team mates, had links with dirty DSs etc etc, and failed a test, one one assume that they guy doped.
Conversely, if a rider had none of these, in no particular order, and with none of them taking precendence over the other, it should be noted. You seem to think I mentioned the no positive tests for Greg has the soul defence of him, when again I reiterated that this is only a relatively minor part of a reason I believe him clean.
And yes it is very hard at times to not mention Lance, because I honestly believe if it wasn't for Lance's campaign, there would have been no questioning of Greg in the first place. So Lance and Lance fans take a bow there.
When a guy as cynical as Kimmage says that Lemond is the only guy he will give the benefit of the doubt to over the past thirty years, I tend to take notice.

 

[ChrisE]

It is a direct consequence of certain people criticising Greg, simply because he cast doubt on their hero. For me, i just want to point out that these certain people are not mentioning Lance, but clearly have him in mind, as this is they reason they are casting doubt on Greg in the first place.
.

That works both ways.

If GL would never have spoken up, the defense of him wouldn't be so rabid either. His feud with LA has clearly cost him alot of $ and grief so his doing so is admirable, but still even if he would've "played it safe" that shouldn't have any impact on this thread, but it does.

 

[Digger]

That works both ways.

If GL would never have spoken up, the defense of him wouldn't be so rabid either. His feud with LA has clearly cost him alot of $ and grief so his doing so is admirable, but still even if he would've "played it safe" that shouldn't have any impact on this thread, but it does.

His defence is there because for the first time he was being questioned as regards doping - directly as a result of Lance. For me it's clear that not all, but the vast majority of people questioning Greg are actually Lance fans looking for something to dirty the name of a guy who has criticised their hero. So for me you need to take that up with the Lance fans who have suddenly become convinced that Greg doped.

 

[patricknd]

The point is though, the ones who are caught by tests in most cases are using things that would give them huge advantages over guys who are not using. Were they winning all of their races by 5-10 minutes? If they were the only ones cheating they should have been. Almost every GT podium in the past 15 years has either been tested positive or caught in a dope scandal or implicated in one, still awaiting the final word. Others who seem cleaner also somehow seem to be still competitive with those guys. I see nothing unfair with assuming the worst from the sport as a whole and from every individual in it.

then at least you are consistent, which is part of my rant.

 

[patricknd]

It is a direct consequence of certain people criticising Greg, simply because he cast doubt on their hero. For me, i just want to point out that these certain people are not mentioning Lance, but clearly have him in mind, as this is they reason they are casting doubt on Greg in the first place.
Again, take out Lance....my original point still stands. If we have a rider who has been named my team mates, had links with dirty DSs etc etc, and failed a test, one one assume that they guy doped.
Conversely, if a rider had none of these, in no particular order, and with none of them taking precendence over the other, it should be noted. You seem to think I mentioned the no positive tests for Greg has the soul defence of him, when again I reiterated that this is only a relatively minor part of a reason I believe him clean.
And yes it is very hard at times to not mention Lance, because I honestly believe if it wasn't for Lance's campaign, there would have been no questioning of Greg in the first place. So Lance and Lance fans take a bow there.
When a guy as cynical as Kimmage says that Lemond is the only guy he will give the benefit of the doubt to over the past thirty years, I tend to take notice.

first of all, i think most of us would assume that a rider with a dirty test doped. second, i know that you didn't use "no positive tests" as a soul defense. my point was, and continues to be, depending on who the rider is, the "no positive test" evidence is very often dismissed completely. it's evidence or it isn't, the standard doesn't change depending on the rider in question.

by quoting you originally, i certainly wasn't singling you out in that regard.

personally, i think that saying rider A has no positives and therefore must be clean is useless as evidence, no matter who the rider, and no matter what the additional evidence may be. all that means is that the test turned up nothing on the day they took it. i've seen the results of enough employee drug tests to know that.

as to the guilt by association, as race radio mentioned even festina had a couple that are thought by most to be clean. you may be comfortable painting with a broad brush, but i think i'll use a narrower one myself.

 

[ChrisE]

His defence is there because for the first time he was being questioned as regards doping - directly as a result of Lance. For me it's clear that not all, but the vast majority of people questioning Greg are actually Lance fans looking for something to dirty the name of a guy who has criticised their hero. So for me you need to take that up with the Lance fans who have suddenly become convinced that Greg doped.

That's ludicrous on it's surface. Surely you are not saying that the only reason he never spoke up about doping in the sport prior to LA is nobody asked him.

Maybe you got this from somewhere....do you have a link so I won't take this out of context? Thanks.

I think you are a little paranoid about your "enemy" in this debate, even to the point that you cover your ears to anything that may upset your black/white line of thinking.

My problem is that many have belittled the effects of drugs pre-EPO without proof or even firsthand knowledge (sans Buckwheat, who I don't think is being truthful about roids), discounting the ability of GL's admitted and proven doped top level adversaries at the time, having uncritical thinking of his meandering stance on his downfall over time, and putting him on a pedestal beyond reproach, the reason I believe has more to do with his stance against LA than anything else. We should be looking at these things without emotion.

In here I get branded as anti-GL because I choose to look at these issues critically, but nothing could be further from the truth as I have stated earlier a couple of times.

 

[patricknd]

That's ludicrous on it's surface. Surely you are not saying that the only reason he never spoke up about doping in the sport prior to LA is nobody asked him.

Maybe you got this from somewhere....do you have a link so I won't take this out of context? Thanks.

I think you are a little paranoid about your "enemy" in this debate, even to the point that you cover your ears to anything that may upset your black/white line of thinking.

My problem is that many have belittled the effects of drugs pre-EPO without proof or even firsthand knowledge (sans Buckwheat, who I don't think is being truthful about roids), discounting the ability of GL's admitted and proven doped top level adversaries at the time, having uncritical thinking of his meandering stance on his downfall over time, and putting him on a pedestal beyond reproach, the reason I believe has more to do with his stance against LA than anything else. We should be looking at these things without emotion.

In here I get branded as anti-GL because I choose to look at these issues critically, but nothing could be further from the truth as I have stated earlier a couple of times.

do a quick read on dexamethasone and high altitude mountaineering.

 

[Digger]

That's ludicrous on it's surface. Surely you are not saying that the only reason he never spoke up about doping in the sport prior to LA is nobody asked him.

Maybe you got this from somewhere....do you have a link so I won't take this out of context? Thanks.

I think you are a little paranoid about your "enemy" in this debate, even to the point that you cover your ears to anything that may upset your black/white line of thinking.

My problem is that many have belittled the effects of drugs pre-EPO without proof or even firsthand knowledge (sans Buckwheat, who I don't think is being truthful about roids), discounting the ability of GL's admitted and proven doped top level adversaries at the time, having uncritical thinking of his meandering stance on his downfall over time, and putting him on a pedestal beyond reproach, the reason I believe has more to do with his stance against LA than anything else. We should be looking at these things without emotion.

In here I get branded as anti-GL because I choose to look at these issues critically, but nothing could be further from the truth as I have stated earlier a couple of times.

Firstly you have bene given numerous examples first hand of their experience of both eras, the effects of steroids and EPO, yet you disregard them. What more can we do?

As regards the first line of your post....wires crossed, or you are deliberately misreading what I said. My point about Lemond is that the vast majority of people levelling accusations at him, are Lance fans, who got irate at Greg's comments about Ferrari in 2001. I can't fathom where you got the idea that I said what you thought I did.

And to be honest, you say you look at these things critically. You do in SOME instances, in others, as i said yesterday, you disregard what you don't want to hear.

As for Greg, I would ask you to look at the following clip where he talks about teammates dying, where there is hardly any mention of Lance. He also alludes to his 'downfall', which is not 'meandering', in your words.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A9u3AQNI9FI

I have no doubt whatsoever that this clip will make not one jot of difference though, as you don't believe anything that does not support your preconceived ideas.

 

[Race Radio]

Greg spoke up about doping far before Lance ever became LanceTM

When Paul Keochli started putting together Le Vie Clair the Anti-doping stance was clear. He later left PDM with a year left on his contract because of th organized doping on the team

Here is an interview from Early 1998, 18 months prior to Armstrong winning his first Tour. Toward the end of the interview Greg goes in depth about how doping doctors are changing the sport.
http://www.roble.net/marquis/coaching/lemond98.html

the Italians have changed the sport in a really bad way. It has become much more medical

As usual Lance likes to claim it is all about him, as usual he is wrong. Greg has been talking doping in the sport for decades. He seldom mentions Lance but Armstrong, and his media machine, play it that way

 

[Digger]

first of all, i think most of us would assume that a rider with a dirty test doped. second, i know that you didn't use "no positive tests" as a soul defense. my point was, and continues to be, depending on who the rider is, the "no positive test" evidence is very often dismissed completely. it's evidence or it isn't, the standard doesn't change depending on the rider in question.

by quoting you originally, i certainly wasn't singling you out in that regard.

personally, i think that saying rider A has no positives and therefore must be clean is useless as evidence, no matter who the rider, and no matter what the additional evidence may be. all that means is that the test turned up nothing on the day they took it. i've seen the results of enough employee drug tests to know that.

as to the guilt by association, as race radio mentioned even festina had a couple that are thought by most to be clean. you may be comfortable painting with a broad brush, but i think i'll use a narrower one myself.

Guilt by asscociation - no....guilt by stance on doping, working with doping doctors, teammates and soigneurs, friends with first hand witness statements are all factors taken into account. Again, I've NEVERr accused someone of doping ONLY because they worked for a dirty DS. However, I have taken all these things together when forming opinions. IMO, if there are a number of the issues at play, as outlined above, AND there is a dirty DS, then one cannot just over look it.

 

[elapid]

do a quick read on dexamethasone and high altitude mountaineering.

Dexamethasone and high altitude mountaineering having nothing to do with performance enhancement in endurance sports. Nothing.

Dexamethasone does not enhance a climber's ability to ascend a mountain. Dexamethasone is used to treat altitude-induced cerebral and/or pulmonary edema. Dexamethasone is a medical treatment for a life-threatening condition in the high mountains, not a performance enhancer for mountaineers.

 

[buckwheat]

That's ludicrous on it's surface. Surely you are not saying that the only reason he never spoke up about doping in the sport prior to LA is nobody asked him. .

What's ludicrous is that LeMond did speak up prior to Armstrong. It's linked in this thread. You've decided to ignore it

Maybe you got this from somewhere....do you have a link so I won't take this out of context? Thanks. .

You take a lot out of context. Like the melding of LeMond's statement in '91 that he was stronger than at any time since the shooting and his statement about his supposed muscle wasting condition which referred to '94.

I think you are a little paranoid about your "enemy" in this debate, even to the point that you cover your ears to anything that may upset your black/white line of thinking.

No, it's just that your arguments don't make sense, and there is also nothing to support the nonsense. The only name attached to what you say is LA's.

My problem is that many have belittled the effects of drugs pre-EPO without proof or even firsthand knowledge (sans Buckwheat, who I don't think is being truthful about roids),

You're right! I just had a shot of horsebol Friday and I'm all set for my 250km hammerfest in 20 minutes.

Everyone knows that these drugs work well, but their effects are limited by having to ride up mountains in 90 degree plus heat.

discounting the ability of GL's admitted and proven doped top level adversaries at the time,

There were a few guys approaching his ability. Hinault, Fignon, Kelly, Roche.....The PED's of the time still didn't confer enough of an advantage to make up the difference though.


LeMond's superiority can be explained easily by his greater capacities than those of his opponents.

having uncritical thinking of his meandering stance on his downfall over time, ,

I addressed the time line of your obfuscating narrative. Did you read it. LeMond was in better shape in '91 than at any time after the accident.

In '94 he was down 30%. That's three years. Why do you continue to lie?

and putting him on a pedestal beyond reproach, the reason I believe has more to do with his stance against LA than anything else. We should be looking at these things without emotion.

Reproach him with what? Talk about emotion, why do you hate LeMond so much?

In here I get branded as anti-GL because I choose to look at these issues critically,.

Psychology was established for your kinds of issues. Just about everything you write is a distortion designed to fit your predjudiced off kilter narrative.

but nothing could be further from the truth as I have stated earlier a couple of times.

Your whole argument is that there were PED's before EPO. Give a number. How much do they help a cyclist performance wise on a percentage basis?

 

[buckwheat]

Greg spoke up about doping far before Lance ever became LanceTM

When Paul Keochli started putting together Le Vie Clair the Anti-doping stance was clear. He later left PDM with a year left on his contract because of th organized doping on the team

Here is an interview from Early 1998, 18 months prior to Armstrong winning his first Tour. Toward the end of the interview Greg goes in depth about how doping doctors are changing the sport.
http://www.roble.net/marquis/coaching/lemond98.html


As usual Lance likes to claim it is all about him, as usual he is wrong. Greg has been talking doping in the sport for decades. He seldom mentions Lance but Armstrong, and his media machine, play it that way

Not according to the delusional ChrisE. He posts more than you so I'll go with him.

His thinking probably goes somewhat like this....

Pharmstrong has been recognized and endorsed by Anheuser Busch. I (Buckwheat)happen to like Busch beer and it's very inexpensive. My man la knows all about corporate politics, (he's b!tch slapped them into place) and also has a way with the b!tches themselves. What has LeMond done? Heh! He doesn't even have his own bike endorsement!