Lemond The Last Rider To Win The Tour Clean?

[VeloCity]

Sastre-rode on Kelme. Manzano told us all about the doping on Kelme. He also road on CSC when they had Checcini as team "Coach".

Did you mean ONCE? Don't think Sastre ever rode for Kelme - you might be getting him mixed up w/Valverde? In any case, Sastre rode for Saiz at ONCE and we all know what Saiz was up to.

 

[blutto]

You clearly have not been paying attention. The Evidence is far more for all of these guys.

Indurian- Used Conconi and Sabino Padilla, both proven doping doctors. Tested positive for Clenbuterol. Teamate Thomas Davy testified that there was an organized, team wide, doping program on the team.

Sastre-rode on Kelme. Manzano told us all about the doping on Kelme. He also road on CSC when they had Checcini as team "Coach".

Ulrich-really? Jef d'Hont said he injected Ulrich with EPO. Ulrich is the guy who said "Whoever still can't put one and one together about what happened in cycling is beyond my help."

The fact is when EPO came in it offer such a huge advantage, 10-15%, that you had to dope to win. The dope used in Lemonds day was used so a rider could race 200 days a year. It was not going to make you climb faster.

...It was not going to make you climb faster...huh?...you obviously didn't race in the late 70s and the 80s....

Cheers, your special friend

blutto

 

[samerics]

...are we to assume that your response here is similar to the earlier assertion that since there is no evidence against LeMond therefore he was clean....so according to this reasoning LeMond is as clean as Patani...Herr Doktor your logic and reason is irrefutable...seems like a slam-dunk from where I`m sitting...yeah, cool I say, I can live with that...or am I missing something here?...

Cheers

blutto

It's like trying to reason with a two year old..... Nothing like being deliberately obtuse, blutto!

 

[Race Radio]

...are we to assume that your response here is similar to the earlier assertion that since there is no evidence against LeMond therefore he was clean....so according to this reasoning LeMond is as clean as Patani...Herr Doktor your logic and reason is irrefutable...seems like a slam-dunk from where I`m sitting...yeah, cool I say, I can live with that...or am I missing something here?...

Cheers

blutto

Your trolling is getting too obvious......Read the book "The Death of Marco Pantani"

 

[galaxy1]

You clearly have not been paying attention. The Evidence is far more for all of these guys.

Indurian- Used Conconi and Sabino Padilla, both proven doping doctors. Tested positive for Clenbuterol. Teamate Thomas Davy testified that there was an organized, team wide, doping program on the team.

Sastre-rode on Kelme. Manzano told us all about the doping on Kelme. He also road on CSC when they had Checcini as team "Coach".

Ulrich-really? Jef d'Hont said he injected Ulrich with EPO. Ulrich is the guy who said "Whoever still can't put one and one together about what happened in cycling is beyond my help."

the only problem with most of these bits of hearsay is that they aren't hard evidence against those you are condemning. even more so, the absence of such hearsay (or your refusal to accept it) is not hard evidence in favour of those you choose to exonerate.

the testing, the investigations, the scandals, etc. did not catch all the cheats. not everyone who could have spoken out, spoke out.

The fact is when EPO came in it offer such a huge advantage, 10-15%, that you had to dope to win. The dope used in Lemonds day was used so a rider could race 200 days a year. It was not going to make you climb faster.

even if this were strictly true, it is irrelevant. a less effective doper is still a doper.

 

[Race Radio]

...It was not going to make you climb faster...huh?...you obviously didn't race in the late 70s and the 80s....

Cheers, your special friend

blutto

Lived and raced in Europe for 6 years, mostly in the 80's and early 90's.

 

[VeloCity]

...It was not going to make you climb faster...huh?...you obviously didn't race in the late 70s and the 80s....

Cheers, your special friend

blutto

So do you have evidence that Lemond doped or not? I'm guessing "not".

Hell, Lemond could've been doped to the gills with the blood of aliens from the planet Zoron for all I know but as it stands, there is nothing.

 

[Race Radio]

the only problem with most of these bits of hearsay is that they aren't hard evidence against those you are condemning. even more so, the absence of such hearsay (or your refusal to accept it) is not hard evidence in favour of those you choose to exonerate.

the testing, the investigations, the scandals, etc. did not catch all the cheats. not everyone who could have spoken out, spoke out.



even if this were strictly true, it is irrelevant. a less effective doper is still a doper.

You are confused. You wrote "The evidence against them is the same as it is against Lemond" the fact is it is not. The is zero evidence against LeMond, that is not the case with the riders you listed.

My point about EPO is absolutely relevant. Performance's is an indicator of doping when EPO is involved, less so when it is not.

 

[gerigeri]

Only 1 km of the TT course was cobbled, the rest was downhill, straight, with the wind at his back. It was also only 12 miles long.

This has been repeated over and over and over but some continue post it in the lame attempt that some clueless person will think that it is evidence of LeMond doping.

You misunderstand me... I just questioning why should I believe more to LeMond than (for example) to Armstrong? BTW, don't forget LeMond's TT was at the end of a long tiring Tour, not a prologue. And why shouldn't I believe to the other cyclists who never produced a positive sample?

 

[flicker]

You misunderstand me... I just questioning why should I believe more to LeMond than (for example) to Armstrong? BTW, don't forget LeMond's TT was at the end of a long tiring Tour, not a prologue. And why shouldn't I believe to the other cyclists who never produced a positive sample?

sorry lance haters leMOND lovers on this forum only on the foru.m strike from the record.

 

[Race Radio]

You misunderstand me... I just questioning why should I believe more to LeMond than (for example) to Armstrong? BTW, don't forget LeMond's TT was at the end of a long tiring Tour, not a prologue. And why shouldn't I believe to the other cyclists who never produced a positive sample?

Did LeMond ever work with Ferrari? Pepe Marti?
Was anyone on his team found dumping drugs, transfusion kits and syringes?
Multiple teammates, support staff, and employees have talked about Armstrong's doping. Where is the same for Greg?
Did Greg ever test positive? Lance has.

I could go on, and on. There is zero evidence of LeMond doping, with Armstrong there is a mountain of it. Far more then his rapid improvement after he started using EPO

 

[Dr. Maserati]

well he did fail that "health check", for example.

Yes its a 'health check' - not a positive or sanction.

So, how can you put Pantani in as someone who doped and then disregard the others?

Either your standard is you're only a doper if you get sanctioned or confess or its not.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

...are we to assume that your response here is similar to the earlier assertion that since there is no evidence against LeMond therefore he was clean....so according to this reasoning LeMond is as clean as Patani...Herr Doktor your logic and reason is irrefutable...seems like a slam-dunk from where I`m sitting...yeah, cool I say, I can live with that...or am I missing something here?...

Cheers

blutto

Ya - you're missing lots.

 

[gerigeri]

Indurian- Used Conconi and Sabino Padilla, both proven doping doctors. Tested positive for Clenbuterol. Teamate Thomas Davy testified that there was an organized, team wide, doping program on the team.

What? Indurain never tested positive...

 

[galaxy1]

You are confused. You wrote "The evidence against them is the same as it is against Lemond" the fact is it is not. The is zero evidence against LeMond, that is not the case with the riders you listed.

My point about EPO is absolutely relevant. Performance's is an indicator of doping when EPO is involved, less so when it is not.

there is hearsay only against any of these guys. including Lemond (see upthread). i'm sure Lemond was working with scientific and medical advisors too. the principle difference is that his home in the US was relatively isolated from the rumor mill of europe. as a result i try not to read anything into the differential amount of rumor - i want to take facts.

your point about EPO is still totally irrelevant, but it is quite telling that you want to force the point, it shows firstly that you don't want to engage logically, and secondly that you want your hero to be judged by different criteria to everyone else under discussion (i.e. even if he was doping it wasn't really doping).

 

[Dr. Maserati]

there is hearsay only against any of these guys. including Lemond (see upthread). i'm sure Lemond was working with scientific and medical advisors too. the principle difference is that his home in the US was relatively isolated from the rumor mill of europe. as a result i try not to read anything into the differential amount of rumor - i want to take facts.

your point about EPO is still totally irrelevant, but it is quite telling that you want to force the point, it shows firstly that you don't want to engage logically, and secondly that you want your hero to be judged by different criteria to everyone else under discussion (i.e. even if he was doping it wasn't really doping).

Can you name his scientific and medical advisors? LeMond neve had a doctor throughout his career.
Also he lived in Belgium, in Kortrijk and only went home briefly during the season.

 

[pmcg76]

I started a thread not long ago about the Helvetia/ La Suisse team & their manager Paul Koechli, this team competed during the late 80s early 90s and were widely regarded as a clean team. Koechli was regarded as a vocal advocate of clean cycling and spoke openly about the subject when it was very much a taboo subject. The original 'Mr Clean' Giles Delion said Helvetia was the only team were doping was never discussed.

During the course of the thread, Steve Bauer who rode with this team and finished 4th in the 88 Tour became the main focus and seemed to be universally deemed as a clean rider. Someone backed long term Koechli rider Nikki Ruttiman as another clean rider and indeed fellow Swiss rider Urs Zimmermann.

How does this all relate to LeMond, well Koechli was team director at La Vie Claire in 85/86 with LeMond. The riders I named above, Bauer, Ruttimann, Zimmermann all finished top 10 in the Tour during the late 80s. Add the names of Charly Mottet and Andy Hampsten as other clean riders who finished Top 10 in the Tour riding cleanly and thats not a bad list.

If these guys could finish Top 10 and some in the Top 5/podium, I see absolutely no reason why LeMond couldnt win cleanly. Its not really a question of Lemond, its a question if you believe it was possible to win cleanly before EPO. I personally believe it was and therfore as there is no evidence against LeMond, have to accept he could have done it cleanly.

 

[galaxy1]

Yes its a 'health check' - not a positive or sanction.

So, how can you put Pantani in as someone who doped and then disregard the others?

Either your standard is you're only a doper if you get sanctioned or confess or its not.

you've got a fair point. i used to think of that health check as being like a sanction, being as it was the closest thing available to an EPO/blood doping suspension. but strictly speaking it isn't the same thing, you're right.

i don't really want to debate Marco Pantani specifically because there is so much other circumstantial data against him, i think it could cause the discussion to go off-topic, and i don't think his innocence or otherwise weakens my central point. i certainly don't want to condemn him because he was always one of my favourite riders.

 

[galaxy1]

Can you name his scientific and medical advisors? LeMond neve had a doctor throughout his career.
Also he lived in Belgium, in Kortrijk and only went home briefly during the season.

who did he go to when he was ill or injured then? i thought he recovered from multiple bullet wounds? no wonder he nearly died if he didn't have any medical support.

 

[VeloCity]

i want to take facts.

well, the basic fact is that there is nothing to suggest that Lemond was doping so I really don't get what the point of trying to drag Lemond down to the level of "just another doper" is other than simply trying to undermine or discredit him.

 

[pmcg76]

What? Indurain never tested positive...

Indurain actually tested positive for salbutamol but was not sanctioned because he had the necessary asthmatic TUE paperwork which a lot of pro-sports people seemed to have. Plus sabutamol was only banned in France and not other countries.

 

[galaxy1]

I started a thread not long ago about the Helvetia/ La Suisse team & their manager Paul Koechli, this team competed during the late 80s early 90s and were widely regarded as a clean team. Koechli was regarded as a vocal advocate of clean cycling and spoke openly about the subject when it was very much a taboo subject. The original 'Mr Clean' Giles Delion said Helvetia was the only team were doping was never discussed.

aren't these last two statements contradictory?
the last sentence doesn't reflect well Lemond
i'm generally very sceptical of "widely regarded as" clean and "vocal advocates of clean cycling". not much testing went on in those days, so we'll never know.

If these guys could finish Top 10 and some in the Top 5/podium, I see absolutely no reason why LeMond couldnt win cleanly. Its not really a question of Lemond, its a question if you believe it was possible to win cleanly before EPO. I personally believe it was and therfore as there is no evidence against LeMond, have to accept he could have done it cleanly.

he definitely could have done it cleanly. i think its more a question of what you are prepared to believe based on only circumstantial evidence (both before and after EPO).

 

[galaxy1]

well, the basic fact is that there is nothing to suggest that Lemond was doping so I really don't get what the point of trying to drag Lemond down to the level of "just another doper" is other than simply trying to undermine or discredit him.

that isn't what i'm saying. i am questioning the different treatment he is getting compared to lots of other successful riders with no evidence against them.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

you've got a fair point. i used to think of that health check as being like a sanction, being as it was the closest thing available to an EPO/blood doping suspension. but strictly speaking it isn't the same thing, you're right.

i don't really want to debate Marco Pantani specifically because there is so much other circumstantial data against him, i think it could cause the discussion to go off-topic, and i don't think his innocence or otherwise weakens my central point. i certainly don't want to condemn him because he was always one of my favourite riders.

So whats your criteria?

You're right, theres quite a bit of circumstancial evidence against Pantani (60.1% hct) and indeed all the riders you mentioned with the exception of Sastre. Every other rider has had a lot of suspicion against them.

Yet with LeMond, nothing.
Unless you count a fast TT - or getting back close to his previous form prior to his shooting.

No teammates saying anything, no DS's, no reporters.

 

[Darryl Webster]

there is hearsay only against any of these guys. including Lemond (see upthread). i'm sure Lemond was working with scientific and medical advisors too. the principle difference is that his home in the US was relatively isolated from the rumor mill of europe. as a result i try not to read anything into the differential amount of rumor - i want to take facts.

your point about EPO is still totally irrelevant, but it is quite telling that you want to force the point, it shows firstly that you don't want to engage logically, and secondly that you want your hero to be judged by different criteria to everyone else under discussion (i.e. even if he was doping it wasn't really doping).

Lance+ Shed load of evidence+ possitive samples = Guilty

Lemond + Absalutely no credible "evidence"..not a sausage, Zilch, Non, Nicht, + no possitive samples = Suspision???

Care to explain how these comparisons hold up?
Notice a flaw in the logic?
Is Lemond under investigation, has he ever been under investigation? No.
So what exactly is the Lemond knockers point?

Please...just one genuine reason , one tiny , weenie bit of evidence....one direct answer for your continued and very feeble efforts to discredit Lemond.
Almost 30 years and I`ve never seen even the one clear answer to that.