LEMOND the DOPER

[Oldman]

For me the thing LA and GL had in common was being invisible (read preparing in the USA) before and after the TdF untill the WC. That's definitely oversimplifying it, but it does count for both of them.

I always used to think that GL did the usual American athlete thing: juice up, train hard and come prepared. Note steroids etc. help with training/recup from training. It's not Epo, but it does work.

Then the '89 incdent with the infamous iron shot. The odd thing was that it was a quack treatment... unless you couple it with Epo (realisation came later) where iron shots are not unheard of.

Don't forget that ±89 is seen as the start of Epo (Oosterbosch and Draaijer anyone?). That year had the ressurection as GT specialists of both Laurent Fignon and Greg Lemond.

Is this proof GL was dirty.. no. But I personally think he did dope and quite structural as well. Why? It's just the sport and his nationality. In the 80's American sporters did dope and did get wavers form the Usa sport organisations.

And was Lance clean? well suffice to say odds in his case are so long that I won't say anything about him He's not the most likable person, I got to say that that annoys me the most.

But in the end both are great champions. I prefer to leave it at that.

I'll say it again at the risk of flogging a really dead horse-'89 was too much of a break out/resurrection Tour to not be suspicious. Add to that the state of affairs related to general blood quality in pros...wasn't there supposed to be an alarming amount of riders in the early '90's/00s potentially afflicted with iron toxicity? I think insulin supplementation was added to banned substances near that same period because it became obvious that blood boosting was occuring some way. The test for EPO didn't yet exist but the perimeter indicators were there.
Showing old school again, here but going to the Canary Islands or a "special" climbing/recon camp for a month does not improve a clean rider's training like racing. Experience says it is total and complete bulls*t. I'd like a serious pro's view on this, please.

 

[buckwheat]

Its much easier to stick to really simple facts - that gets them every time.
As an example - Greg is back in the USA 'preparing' for the Tour, even though he was riding the Giro?? Or is it Otto or Yvan? Really simple stuff.

Please whatever you do, don't ever lose that special ChrisE ability to repeatedly be shown a 7 and continue to insist that it is a 3.

Have sympathy. The combination of psychological issues and learning disabilities is a tough one to overcome.

BTW, this is not a joke.

 

[ChrisE]

Have sympathy. The combination of psychological issues and learning disabilities is a tough one to overcome.

BTW, this is not a joke.

Thanks for your sympathy about what you think aflicts me.

To show that I am not as cold as you probably think, FYI I too do not envy your psychological issues brought on by closetted homosexuality and mancrush/stalking of fellow posters.

I wish you well.

 

[Colm.Murphy]

I'll say it again at the risk of flogging a really dead horse-'89 was too much of a break out/resurrection Tour to not be suspicious. Add to that the state of affairs related to general blood quality in pros...wasn't there supposed to be an alarming amount of riders in the early '90's/00s potentially afflicted with iron toxicity? I think insulin supplementation was added to banned substances near that same period because it became obvious that blood boosting was occuring some way. The test for EPO didn't yet exist but the perimeter indicators were there.
Showing old school again, here but going to the Canary Islands or a "special" climbing/recon camp for a month does not improve a clean rider's training like racing. Experience says it is total and complete bulls*t. I'd like a serious pro's view on this, please.

To your specific point about going to a special "camp":

When a rider does the Giro or Dauhpine, settling in to a very structured training camp, to maximize things like volume of riding, diet, weather, etc., is pretty common and, to me, is not a suspicious thing in itself, unless you tell the UCI you are in Mexico instead of Italy.

It can be far better to have this kind of control rather than simply go race the Suisse or other. You need to recover and then ramp up after the Giro or Dauphine, not go bury yourself in racing. I cite Ullrich as an example of what not to do, regarding Suisse tour.

 

[Oldman]

To your specific point about going to a special "camp":

When a rider does the Giro or Dauhpine, settling in to a very structured training camp, to maximize things like volume of riding, diet, weather, etc., is pretty common and, to me, is not a suspicious thing in itself, unless you tell the UCI you are in Mexico instead of Italy.

It can be far better to have this kind of control rather than simply go race the Suisse or other. You need to recover and then ramp up after the Giro or Dauphine, not go bury yourself in racing. I cite Ullrich as an example of what not to do, regarding Suisse tour.

I would agree for a reasonable duration, say two-three weeks. The big name players can certainly tailor their efforts in a week long racing event to suit the maximum output they would need and still leave time for recovery. It's nonsense that a rider can prepare independent of racing for monthsand arrive ready for a 3 week GT, unless he's riding the prologue or unless he's on his program.

 

[Oldman]

Thanks for your sympathy about what you think aflicts me.

To show that I am not as cold as you probably think, FYI I too do not envy your psychological issues brought on by closetted homosexuality and mancrush/stalking of fellow posters.

I wish you well.

Thanks for your sympathy for me in restoring the avatar. It's difficult typing one-handed, though.

 

[Franklin]

Its much easier to stick to really simple facts - that gets them every time.
As an example - Greg is back in the USA 'preparing' for the Tour, even though he was riding the Giro??

Indeed a good point; he did ride the Giro a lot and did get high rankings there. Obviously my memory is faulty there as I was convinced he was pretty much invisible besides the TdF.

 

[Kennf1]

Indeed a good point; he did ride the Giro a lot and did get high rankings there. Obviously my memory is faulty there as I was convinced he was pretty much invisible besides the TdF.

Giro, as well as Het Volk, Paris-Nice, Paris Roubaix, Milan San Remo, Dauphine Libere, Tour de Suisse, Tour of Lambardy (late season).

Lemond had a house in Belgium, as I recall, and pretty much stayed in Europe March-September.

 

[Boeing]

Tea Party/Palin logic

 

[Oldman]

Originally Posted by Dr. Maserati
Its much easier to stick to really simple facts - that gets them every time.
As an example - Greg is back in the USA 'preparing' for the Tour, even though he was riding the Giro??

Giro, as well as Het Volk, Paris-Nice, Paris Roubaix, Milan San Remo, Dauphine Libere, Tour de Suisse, Tour of Lambardy (late season).

Lemond had a house in Belgium, as I recall, and pretty much stayed in Europe March-September.

Not in '89, fellas. The facts are really simple: Lemond sucked in the Tour de Trump and was ready to quit. He went home (California) and trained for a month until the Giro. He sucked horribly (losing almost an hour to Fignon) up until the final several days. Then Otto J thought he needed iron supplementation. Lemond finished second in the final time trial at that Giro. No big wins, just that finish prior to the '89 Tour. Read pages 190, 191 of Samuel Abt's book, In High Gear. I believe Lemond's own book related similar details; I just can't find that.
I've yet to meet anyone that took iron supplements and had huge improvements, nearly overnight.

 

[pmcg76]

Ok, people constantly refer to LeMonds amazing leap in form in 89. I think people are making a comparison with riders who had never competed at such a high level (e.g.Wiggins) and then suddenly became competitive. LeMond was already the best rider in the world when the hunting accident occured.

2 possible outcomes then, he wasnt riding to his 85/86 level because -
a/ he wasnt on the dope or
b/ he was suffering health problems.

Likewise, he came back to his previous level because-
a/ he finally got his health problems sorted out or
b/ he took some drugs that transformed him from chump to champ in under a month.

Lets remember there was only 3 weeks between the end of the Giro and start of the Tour in 89.

 

[pmcg76]

The myths of LeMond

Something I see referred to frequently in reference to LeMond is that he never rode any races outside the Tour. I just want to put a few facts out there on LeMond.

His best seasons were 85/86
Results 85
4th Het Volk
7th Tour of Flanders
18th Ghent-Wevelgem
4th Paris-Roubaix
17th Liege-Bastogne-Liege
3rd Giro d'Italiaa
2nd Tour de France
2nd Worlds
1st Coors Classic

Results 86
2nd Milan-San Remo
11th Tour of Flanders
19th Ghent-Wevelgem
30th Paris-Roubaix(Mechanical problems)
5th Fleche Wallone
14th Liege-Bastogne-Liege
4th Giro d'Italia
3rd Tour of Switzerland
1st Tour de France
4th GP Suisse
7th Worlds
1 stage Coors Classic

Those are very impressive results, especially in the Spring Classics. LeMond has Top 10 finishes in all the major Spring Classics except Amstel Gold. How many GT riders have that level of quality.

LeMond broke his wrist in Tirreno-Adriacto in 87 which led to him being back in the US when the hunting accident occured. During his recovery, he suffered acute appendicits which necessitated an operation.

He signed for PDM in 88 for a much reduced salary, he finished 4th in the Tour of Americas and rode a few spring classics gaining a 30th in Tour of Flanders but then crashed in a minor race hurting his leg which eventually led to another operation in June of that year, he returned late in the year but was far of form.

Signing for ADR in 89, his form was very up and down, riding reasonable well in Criterium International and finishing 17th in Het Volk but slumping to 63rd in Flanders. He then returned to the US and suffered in Trump as Oldman pointed out. Everyone knows the rest.

It was only really in 90/91 that he began to focus on the Tour/Worlds.

In 1990 he returned to Europe early in the season but was badly overweight, he suffered through Paris-Nice and then suffering from a virus, returned to the US missing the entire Spring Classics campaign. He rode poorly in the Tour de Trump but was fitter looking when he returned to Europe for the Giro. His fitness did increase during the Giro and he featured in a long break in the mountains. He then finished 10th in the Tour of Switzerland before winning the Tour again without dominating anywhere.

LeMond done a similar programme in 91 including the Classics, his from was better in 91 and of course LeMond claims his form for the Tour was the best he had since 86. He was very aggressive in the first week but then faded in the mountains.

Following the failure of 91, the programme was changed in 1992, LeMond still rode the early season races in Europe and done well in the classics, finishing 9th in Paris-Roubaix helping team-mate Duclos-Lassalle to the victory. LeMond won the Tour du Pont in the US but did not ride the Giro, instead doing the Dauphine as preparation. the Tour was a disaster.

93 and 94 were of course complete disasters after which he retired. People can make up their own mind on LeMond. I just wanted to dispel a few of the myths and put the facts out there for people to see and know.

 

[Nick777]

Originally Posted by Dr. Maserati
Its much easier to stick to really simple facts - that gets them every time.
As an example - Greg is back in the USA 'preparing' for the Tour, even though he was riding the Giro??
Not in '89, fellas. The facts are really simple: Lemond sucked in the Tour de Trump and was ready to quit. He went home (California) and trained for a month until the Giro. He sucked horribly (losing almost an hour to Fignon) up until the final several days. Then Otto J thought he needed iron supplementation. Lemond finished second in the final time trial at that Giro. No big wins, just that finish prior to the '89 Tour. Read pages 190, 191 of Samuel Abt's book, In High Gear. I believe Lemond's own book related similar details; I just can't find that.
I've yet to meet anyone that took iron supplements and had huge improvements, nearly overnight.

I did
The difference was astounding.

 

[Franklin]

2 possible outcomes then, he wasnt riding to his 85/86 level because -
a/ he wasnt on the dope or
b/ he was suffering health problems.

Reality isn't that simple. Or he had personal issues, or he didn't train, or all of the above....

Likewise, he came back to his previous level because-
a/ he finally got his health problems sorted out or
b/ he took some drugs that transformed him from chump to champ in under a month.

Lets remember there was only 3 weeks between the end of the Giro and start of the Tour in 89.

Again there are many ways to look at this: Hypothesis mode, but one that isn't weird in the cycling world:

1. GL and his trainer know what to do: they know his abilities, but need to close the gap (the lost years).
2. They decide to do a taper, something which was well known even back then.
3. He lays relatively low until the end of the giro where he tests himself.
4. Now the part where I will go over the deep end: This is combined with epo. Part of this is the infamous iron shot. -> Note that this could also be done with bloodtransfusion, which was quite well known even back then.

My inspiration? 1,2,3,4= Jan Ulrich

And yes, Lolo had this miraculous Resurrection for one year as well, in no way do I imply Greg wasn't simply the best. (I don't blame Lance for Epo either for that matter, he was the best. I do blame him for being obnoxious)

 

[red_flanders]

Reality isn't that simple. Or he had personal issues, or he didn't train, or all of the above....

Again there are many ways to look at this: Hypothesis mode, but one that isn't weird in the cycling world:

1. GL and his trainer know what to do: they know his abilities, but need to close the gap (the lost years).
2. They decide to do a taper, something which was well known even back then.
3. He lays relatively low until the end of the giro where he tests himself.
4. Now the part where I will go over the deep end: This is combined with epo. Part of this is the infamous iron shot. -> Note that this could also be done with bloodtransfusion, which was quite well known even back then.

My inspiration? 1,2,3,4= Jan Ulrich

And yes, Lolo had this miraculous Resurrection for one year as well, in no way do I imply Greg wasn't simply the best. (I don't blame Lance for Epo either for that matter, he was the best. I do blame him for being obnoxious)

2 things.

1. Pure speculation, backed up by nothing other than supposition.
2. Lance was quite demonstrably not the best before EPO.

 

[Franklin]

2 things.

1. Pure speculation, backed up by nothing other than supposition.

Absolutely true! It's how I interpret things. But it's hard to deny that the events seem to be in line with what we know about blood/epo.

2. Lance was quite demonstrably not the best before EPO.

Hmm:
- Lance didn't compete before the EPO era.
- He was a huge talent, his palmares was absolutely impressive.

I just checked, but there were hints of his TT capacities and his climbing all over the place. And yes, something changed (both mentally and physically), but compared to for example Miguel Indurain he had shown at least as much before his first TdF win.

 

[Runitout]

Absolutely true! It's how I interpret things. But it's hard to deny that the events seem to be in line with what we know about blood/epo.



Hmm:
- Lance didn't compete before the EPO era.
- He was a huge talent, his palmares was [sic] absolutely impressive.

I just checked, but there were hints of his TT capacities and his climbing all over the place. And yes, something changed (both mentally and physically), but compared to for example Miguel Indurain he had shown at least as much before his first TdF win.

I don't see what relevance Armstrong has to do with Lemond's doping or otherwise. This thread has nearly 400 posts and 15,000 views, and no-one has posted anything that might suggest that Lemond doped. That doesn't mean he didn't, but in the absence of even a smell, what is the fuss all about?

As for your previous post - to compare Indurain's two mountain stage wins in the Tour to Armstrong's pre-Ferrari palmares is a futile exercise. Moreover, Indurain's team doctor moved to USPS, so I'm not quite sure you are making the point you want to...

In any event, it's irrelevant. Could someone please come up with even a skerrick of information regarding Lemond or shut up until they do?

 

[Franklin]

This thread has nearly 400 posts and 15,000 views, and no-one has posted anything that might suggest that Lemond doped. That doesn't mean he didn't, but in the absence of even a smell, what is the fuss all about?

err I did point to a 'smell".. I compare Ulrich in his last Giro with Greg Lemond in 1989. The similarities are striking.

As for your previous post - to compare Indurain's two mountain stage wins in the Tour to Armstrong's pre-Ferrari palmares is a futile exercise.

Did you really compare the palmares of them? I did and I was actually surprised about Lance's palmares. His classifications in tough courses was quite revealing. If we add Fleche Wallonie, World Champion, consistent high places in LBL and AGR, yes then I would say Lance's palmares is a lot closer to Mig's than I ever realized.

Moreover, Indurain's team doctor moved to USPS, so I'm not quite sure you are making the point you want to...

What does that refute? I say Lance was on the juice big time and him having the same doctor as Mig is no surprise at all. It's no contention at all.

In any event, it's irrelevant. Could someone please come up with even a skerrick of information regarding Lemond or shut up until they do?

I wasn't the first to bring Lance to the discussion, which in itself is logical as he is the 200 pound gorilla in the corner. Greg and Lance are in many ways very comparable. Both had terrible health problems, both won similar courses, both are Americans in a European dominated sport. And Greg and Lance are antagonists...

On the supposed smearing of Greg: I really hold him in high esteem... but I dare say there are certainly reasons to think he used dope. It's all circumstantial (his maturing under Guimard, his 89 resurrection), but that goes for most accusations against riders.

Pointing this out is quite appropriate in the clinic, indeed shutting up about it seems rather hypocritical if we look at this place.

 

[Runitout]

err I did point to a 'smell".. I compare Ulrich in his last Giro with Greg Lemond in 1989. The similarities are striking.

If you think that that is evidence of doping, then there's not much more to say. Surely you jest. Is every rider who rides into form a doper because Ullrich once did? That's the best you can do?

You don't have a disenfranchised teammate or soigneur? A liason with a doping doctor? Something?

Did you really compare the palmares of them? I did and I was actually surprised about Lance's palmares.

I am quite aware of their respective palmares.

His classifications in tough courses was quite revealing. If we add Fleche Wallonie, World Champion, consistent high places in LBL and AGR, yes then I would say Lance's palmares is a lot closer to Mig's than I ever realized.

The comparison was between Armstrong pre-Ferrari and Indurain pre 1991. He started seeing Ferrari in 1995/6. And yes - his palmares improved considerably until he caught cancer, then improved still further upon his return. I still don't see how Indurain pre the EPO era is in any way comparable to Armstrong before it is alleged he started to use EPO.

What does that refute? I say Lance was on the juice big time and him having the same doctor as Mig is no surprise at all. It's no contention at all.

So what on earth are you bringing it up for? It's the Chewbacca Defence yet again.

I wasn't the first to bring Lance to the discussion, which in itself is logical as he is the 200 pound gorilla in the corner. Greg and Lance are in many ways very comparable. Both had terrible health problems, both won similar courses, both are Americans in a European dominated sport. And Greg and Lance are antagonists...

And both have thirty two teeth and two feet. What on earth does this have to do with the paucity of evidence about Lemond allegedly doping? "Look at the silly monkey! If Chewbacca lives on Endor, you must acquit."

On the supposed smearing of Greg: I really hold him in high esteem... but I dare say there are certainly reasons to think he used dope. It's all circumstantial (his maturing under Guimard, his 89 resurrection), but that goes for most accusations against riders.

The best you can do is that he improved his form in 1989. That makes you think he doped? That's not circumstantial evidence of anything. It's speculation. It's fine to indulge in speculation, but if you rest on such feeble speculation as the basis of alleging that a rider doped, don't be surprised if people think there's a roo loose in the top paddock.

It's move #32 in the anti-Greg playbook. "I love the man, I just can't help but think that the fact that he won the 1989 Giro ITT means he was on a systematic EPO program. I mean, one follows the other as night follows day."

Alright. You win. It's incontrovertible. I don't know why Greg is even bothering to deny. He is just so brazen, no?

 

[beroepsrenner]

Although I can offer no solid evidence one way or the other, I find it hard to believe that Lemond had no involvement with doping. He entered the pro peloton with the Renault Gitane team under Guimard and along side the likes of Hinault, Fignon etc. This was an era when doping was not concealed amongst the riders themselves and considered a normal part of pro racing. Racing as a professional myself during this time I can assure you all that it was almost impossible to be a part of a pro team and not be a part of the system.

 

[Jonathan]

Although I can offer no solid evidence one way or the other, I find it hard to believe that Lemond had no involvement with doping. He entered the pro peloton with the Renault Gitane team under Guimard and along side the likes of Hinault, Fignon etc. This was an era when doping was not concealed amongst the riders themselves and considered a normal part of pro racing. Racing as a professional myself during this time I can assure you all that it was almost impossible to be a part of a pro team and not be a part of the system.

From interviews with Peter Winnen, I got the impression that about the time after Lemond won the Tour, some amount of EPO became mandatory to win big races. Earlier, doping products did not make a really significant difference - EPO made you go clearly faster. Some riders refused to take it, and consequently they couldn't reach their previous level. So it is possible, and it would fit the observations, if Lemond used some products that were common in the eighties, but refused to go along with the EPO age.

 

[Franklin]

If you think that that is evidence of doping, then there's not much more to say. Surely you jest. Is every rider who rides into form a doper because Ullrich once did? That's the best you can do?

Are you jesting? First of, Ulrich did a bit more than "ride into form" secondly the infamous "Iron shot" certainly fits smack into an Epo preparation. Is it really far fetched to see the similarities? Or do you actually take Greg on his word and believe in the magical "Iron shot", even though it has no medical application (beside certain plasma related things).

You don't have a disenfranchised teammate or soigneur? A liason with a doping doctor? Something?

Sorry but this is ridiculous. You accuse me of foul -play just because I doubt Greg is squeaky clean? This is the clinic.. and I have a theory which has both some theoretical as circumstantial support. There is nothing strange or hidden agenda about it.

I am quite aware of their respective palmares.


The comparison was between Armstrong pre-Ferrari and Indurain pre 1991. He started seeing Ferrari in 1995/6. And yes - his palmares improved considerably until he caught cancer, then improved still further upon his return. I still don't see how Indurain pre the EPO era is in any way comparable to Armstrong before it is alleged he started to use EPO.

I fail to see what Ferrari has to do with it(as there is in my eyes no denying Lance was in it from the start of his career), but I will play along. Look at the palmares pre-95. It was already among the best of his generation. I haven't researched, but I think only Ulrich had better results in that period as a youngster.

So what on earth are you bringing it up for? It's the Chewbacca Defence yet again.

You denied the palmares is comparable, so I refute it. I wasnt the first one to name the Gorilla.. Btw, the Chewbacca defense is a funny line, but you overuse it (not just in this thread).

And both have thirty two teeth and two feet. What on earth does this have to do with the paucity of evidence about Lemond allegedly doping? "Look at the silly monkey! If Chewbacca lives on Endor, you must acquit."

It has nothing to do with doping. But it does stand very strong as an interesting comparison.

We can of course snip Greg out of his environment, but the truth is that cycling was already dirty back then and that he rode with alledged dopers (Lolo), matures at a rather controversial DS (Guimard) and that 89-90 was a turning point in cycling.

The best you can do is that he improved his form in 1989. That makes you think he doped? That's not circumstantial evidence of anything. It's speculation. It's fine to indulge in speculation, but if you rest on such feeble speculation as the basis of alleging that a rider doped, don't be surprised if people think there's a roo loose in the top paddock.

Hmmmm, Guimard as a tutor... a mysterious "iron shot". Speculation; certainly, but far fetched? No. It's in line with all we know about how cycling and doping interact.

It's move #32 in the anti-Greg playbook. "I love the man, I just can't help but think that the fact that he won the 1989 Giro ITT means he was on a systematic EPO program. I mean, one follows the other as night follows day."

Are you for real? It's foul play to think Greg in 89 is fishy? Everyone who even thinks that way uses "the antiGreg playbook"? You got to be kidding.

Alright. You win. It's incontrovertible. I don't know why Greg is even bothering to deny. He is just so brazen, no?

Thanks for agreeing with me^^.

More serious, I hope you see the slight issue with using the "denying" as indicative for being clean?

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Not in '89, fellas. The facts are really simple: Lemond sucked in the Tour de Trump and was ready to quit. He went home (California) and trained for a month until the Giro. He sucked horribly (losing almost an hour to Fignon) up until the final several days. Then Otto J thought he needed iron supplementation. Lemond finished second in the final time trial at that Giro. No big wins, just that finish prior to the '89 Tour. Read pages 190, 191 of Samuel Abt's book, In High Gear. I believe Lemond's own book related similar details; I just can't find that.
I've yet to meet anyone that took iron supplements and had huge improvements, nearly overnight.

Your story has changed - from "Greg was in California for a month before the Tour", now its a "month before the Giro". But again your facts are wrong.

Greg left for America two days after Liege-Bastogne-Liege, which was in the middle of April. He rode the Tour de Trump, which started on the5th May and ended on the 14th May..........the Giro began the following weekend!

 

[Franklin]

So it is possible, and it would fit the observations, if Lemond used some products that were common in the eighties, but refused to go along with the EPO age.

The end of Greg's career indicates nothing either way. Great cyclists suddenly fading happened in the pre-epo area as well (Jan Janssen for starters). On the other hand Mig was most likely on the Epo train and also faded in a similar way. So there is no way of knowing what happened in Gregs final years as a cyclist. It could be the others using Epo, it could be just "normal degeneration".

 

[Runitout]

Are you jesting? First of, Ulrich did a bit more than "ride into form" secondly the infamous "Iron shot" certainly fits smack into an Epo preparation. Is it really far fetched to see the similarities? Or do you actually take Greg on his word and believe in the magical "Iron shot", even though it has no medical application (beside certain plasma related things).



Sorry but this is ridiculous. You accuse me of foul -play just because I doubt Greg is squeaky clean? This is the clinic.. and I have a theory which has both some theoretical as circumstantial support. There is nothing strange or hidden agenda about it.



I fail to see what Ferrari has to do with it(as there is in my eyes no denying Lance was in it from the start of his career), but I will play along. Look at the palmares pre-95. It was already among the best of his generation. I haven't researched, but I think only Ulrich had better results in that period as a youngster.



You denied the palmares is comparable, so I refute it. I wasnt the first one to name the Gorilla.. Btw, the Chewbacca defense is a funny line, but you overuse it (not just in this thread).



It has nothing to do with doping. But it does stand very strong as an interesting comparison.

We can of course snip Greg out of his environment, but the truth is that cycling was already dirty back then and that he rode with alledged dopers (Lolo), matures at a rather controversial DS (Guimard) and that 89-90 was a turning point in cycling.



Hmmmm, Guimard as a tutor... a mysterious "iron shot". Speculation; certainly, but far fetched? No. It's in line with all we know about how cycling and doping interact.



Are you for real? It's foul play to think Greg in 89 is fishy? Everyone who even thinks that way uses "the antiGreg playbook"? You got to be kidding.



Thanks for agreeing with me^^.

More serious, I hope you see the slight issue with using the "denying" as indicative for being clean?

I referred to the Chewbacca Defence repeatedly because it is being used ad nauseum on the forum today. Whether you think Lance had an impressive palmares is irrelevant to whether Lemond doped. So is whether Indurain's palmares was comparable. So is whether Lance and Greg were American, Martian, had nostril hair or all four. They are red herrings. Misdirection is not proof of anything.

I am under no illusions about procycling. If a rider was a pro, then I think it likely that he doped. I would not lay a rusty penny on any pro being clean - Lemond included. Certainly a denial is irrelevant - a self-serving statement is inadmissible as evidence.

But I am concerned that the ferocity of the attacks on Lemond are vastly disproportionate to the evidence they purport to posit.

They are repeated, forceful efforts to smear one man - always the same man, always lacking in anything beyond speculation and a 'but he must have!' kind of circuitous logic. That to me, speaks of the agenda of the accuser, rather than the strength of the argument.

I am quite prepared to believe that Lemond doped; but no amount of baying hounds slavering over a piece of bark will convince me I am looking at a fox. Come up with something new; a shred of evidence. Till then all I see is a desperate attempt to smear one man, failing miserably.