Lemond The Last Rider To Win The Tour Clean?

[Dr. Maserati]

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.

Oh, Im sorry, I thought you meant cycling related Doctors.

In this case yes I believe Greg took drugs. He once took a tylenol for a headache.

 

[pmcg76]

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.


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).

I can see how they seem contradictory, Koechli talked about doping in public, whilst Delion was referring to riders within the team.

You are right, there was not much testing in the 80s but taking a clean stance was unheard of in an era when the subject was simply not discussed. Ometra had a firm grip on the peloton. In the lack of tests, the only evidence seems to be through the grapevine so to speak, how does a team/rider get a clean reputation? Why did Willy Voet say that Mottet was a clean rider?.

Remember he also claimed Eric Caritoux won the 84 Vuelta cleanly and Peter Winnen who finished Top 5 in his first Tour riding cleanly but never made the podium again when he started doping.

 

[VeloCity]

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.

Because, as has been pointed out over and over and over again, there IS evidence that the other successful riders you noted were doping which you conveniently choose to ignore, while with Lemond there is nothing. And that's not proof that Lemond was clean, but you need at least something to suggest that he was doping and - again, unlike the others - there isn't a single thing.

 

[pmcg76]

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.

Perhaps you can name the riders he is getting compared to with no evidence against them. Would help explain why he is somehow getting treated better.

 

[pmcg76]

Oh, Im sorry, I thought you meant cycling related Doctors.

In this case yes I believe Greg took drugs. He once took a tylenol for a headache.

LeMond did have a trainer I believe, I think it was Adie Van Diemen who now trains Dan Martin. Dont think I ever heard Van Diemen being linked with drugs though.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

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.

Like who?

And you can qualify that by answering what your basis is for what is or is not evidence.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

LeMond did have a trainer I believe, I think it was Adie Van Diemen who now trains Dan Martin. Dont think I ever heard Van Diemen being linked with drugs though.

Yes but you said "i'm sure Lemond was working with scientific and medical advisors too".

I asked you who?
And you give Adrie the trainer.

 

[pmcg76]

Yes but you said "i'm sure Lemond was working with scientific and medical advisors too".

I asked you who?
And you give Adrie the trainer.

Doc, Think you are mixing me up with someone else, I never asked that question, just merely highlighting the fact that LeMond didnt have a doctor but did have a trainer.

 

[Race Radio]

LeMond did have a trainer I believe, I think it was Adie Van Diemen who now trains Dan Martin. Dont think I ever heard Van Diemen being linked with drugs though.

He also trains much if the Slipstream team.

 

[Race Radio]

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).

There is not even hearsay against Lemond. If you are so sure Greg was working with a Medical advisor then it should be easy for name them.

EPO gives a far greater amount of improvement then anything available in the 80's. That you try to dismiss this as irrelevant shows you are either ignorant or playing games.

As for testing. Now, yes riders are tested more but from 1990-2004 they were not. The fact is riders in the 80's were tested more because they raced more. With the exception of Test and Cortisone the products available to them were also easy to test for. Compare this to the 90's where the primary doping products were untestable and riders raced a fraction of what they did in the 80's. Add in the introduction of doping doctors like Ferrari and it is no surprise that it was impossible to compete without drugs during much of the 90's

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Doc, Think you are mixing me up with someone else, I never asked that question, just merely highlighting the fact that LeMond didnt have a doctor but did have a trainer.

Ooops - I did mix it up (and almost did it again in the edit) time for food, think I'l have some steak with Vino - that should perk me up.

 

[MacRoadie]

Ooops - I did mix it up (and almost did it again in the edit) time for food, think I'l have some steak with Vino - that should perk me up.

But Vino didn't eat the steak, that's why he didn't test positive...

 

[CPAvelo]

Ooops - I did mix it up (and almost did it again in the edit) time for food, think I'l have some steak with Vino - that should perk me up.

Be careful. I have learned this week that your steak may be contaminated with clenbuterol.

 

[CPAvelo]

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.

I don't see this whole debate as an attempt to discredit Lemond as much as it shows the introduction of EPO significantly changed the PED landscape. I think it is relevant to discuss Lemond for two reasons:

1. He excelled at a time when EPO was first being introduced into pro cycling and other riders who were not caught later admitted to using PEDs (Fignon being this most notorious).

2. Greg Lemond has not conducted himself in the most intelligent and favorable manner. He has come off as a pious "holier than thou" type beginning when his status as America's most legendary cyclist was becoming challenged by Lance Armstrong's success by interjecting himself into the a personal crusade against PEDs. I always felt Lemond's motivation was singularly personal, i.e. to preserve his legacy, even at great personal cost. Granted, there is a serious investigation underway now that may exonerate Lemond compared to Armstrong. But, if Lemond hadn't beat his chest to seemingly bring attention to himself as the only martyr American cycling has known, I think his image would have remained untarnished.

Truth is we will never know whether Lemond used PEDs unless he himself admits he did. I agree the anecdotal evidence overwhelmingly supports he rode clean. I extol Lemond for attempting to change cycling's omerta, but it seems few on the inside are listening. I am hopeful the Armstrong investigation will result in indictments and convictions of a scope that reveals the risk of cheating in cycling are greater than had been expected by the perps.

I believe most of us are fans first of cycling before particular riders and we want a clean peloton.

 

[Darryl Webster]

Truth is we will never know whether Lemond used PEDs unless he himself admits he did. QUOTE]

Im sure your aware of the difficulty of "proving" the non existance of something for which theres no evidence...not a jot.

The existance of God?...despite zero evidence theres plent of peeps use the argumant that cus no one can provide proof possitive against God existance plenty of illogical peeps see that as evidence of Gods probable existance.

The more enlightend see it as the fraudilent manipulation of simantics.

 

[CPAvelo]

Truth is we will never know whether Lemond used PEDs unless he himself admits he did. QUOTE]

Im sure your aware of the difficulty of "proving" the non existance of something for which theres no evidence...not a jot.

The existance of God?...despite zero evidence theres plent of peeps use the argumant that cus no one can provide proof possitive against God existance plenty of illogical peeps see that as evidence of Gods probable existance.

The more enlightend see it as the fraudilent manipulation of simantics.

I am very aware of the difficulty of proving the non existence of something. That was not the point I was trying to make.

To be more blunt, and this is not singular toward you or any other poster: it is disingenuous to call someone a troll because one doesn't agree with a particular point of view about this or that cherished rider.

Your reference to the question of the existence of God in relation to your belief in the innocence of Lemond is specious. A basic problem is that there is no universally accepted definition of God or existence. The same applies to some extent about cheating in cycling. I think some cyclists have believed that is not cheating if the banned practice or substance was impossible to detect. I believe many riders viewed autologous blood transfusions this way. But, now detection techniques are becoming more sophisticated.

I do not disagree about the absence of evidence against Lemond. I only sought to shed light on why the matter is still being discussed with respect to Lemond.

For example, I don't agree with everything blutto and galaxy1 post, but I value their comments and believe the dialogue and debate is informative and entertaining.

Unfortunately, so many get caught up with having to be right. God, how thankful I am for the absence of unanimity. It would dreadfully boring if we all thought the same.

 

[gerigeri]

Eh...

You guys still don't get the point... I don't care if LeMond not doped and Armstrong did! The issue is still Contador's case. If he will be disqualified, sponsors will withdraw their money and this great sport will go downhill. If he won't, a lot of people will say a doper can win, and sponsors will withdraw their money... The german TV already considering not to broadcast the Tour...

 

[gerigeri]

BTW, if you want LeMond rumor, he worked together with Eddie B. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eddie_Borysewicz) who's riders used blood dope...

 

[Race Radio]

BTW, if you want LeMond rumor, he worked together with Eddie B. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eddie_Borysewicz) who's riders used blood dope...

Nice try, but nope.

Greg left for Europe when the US boycotted the 1980 games. He turned Pro in 1981. He had little to do with Eddie B

 

[kurtinsc]

My personal belief is that Lemond never cheated.

I don't think he ever did anything specifically against the doping rules of cycling while he rode. I think he likely tried to get any advantage he could that was legal, both from equipment and from chemistry/biology.

Blood doping wasn't illegal until 1986, and I'm sure other things remained legal during much of his career. I'm betting he used all he knew about as long as it wasn't cheating.

 

[flicker]

Nice try, but nope.

Greg left for Europe when the US boycotted the 1980 games. He turned Pro in 1981. He had little to do with Eddie B

Race Radio: Denial is one of the first stages of grief. Polish, Blutto and myself are here to hold your hand through your difficult times... Flicker

 

[Dr. Maserati]

I don't see this whole debate as an attempt to discredit Lemond as much as it shows the introduction of EPO significantly changed the PED landscape. I think it is relevant to discuss Lemond for two reasons:

1. He excelled at a time when EPO was first being introduced into pro cycling and other riders who were not caught later admitted to using PEDs (Fignon being this most notorious).

2. Greg Lemond has not conducted himself in the most intelligent and favorable manner. He has come off as a pious "holier than thou" type beginning when his status as America's most legendary cyclist was becoming challenged by Lance Armstrong's success by interjecting himself into the a personal crusade against PEDs. I always felt Lemond's motivation was singularly personal, i.e. to preserve his legacy, even at great personal cost. Granted, there is a serious investigation underway now that may exonerate Lemond compared to Armstrong. But, if Lemond hadn't beat his chest to seemingly bring attention to himself as the only martyr American cycling has known, I think his image would have remained untarnished.

Truth is we will never know whether Lemond used PEDs unless he himself admits he did. I agree the anecdotal evidence overwhelmingly supports he rode clean. I extol Lemond for attempting to change cycling's omerta, but it seems few on the inside are listening. I am hopeful the Armstrong investigation will result in indictments and convictions of a scope that reveals the risk of cheating in cycling are greater than had been expected by the perps.

I believe most of us are fans first of cycling before particular riders and we want a clean peloton.

Firstly - I have no idea if LeMond used PEDs.

But I do know that there is a concerted effort to show that he did - without a shred of evidence - and thats anybody definition of 'evidence'. The history of the 80's has been chronicled, and yet theres no teammates pointing fingers, no innuendo in books (actually the opposite is true) not even a rumour, unless you take Flickers friend who knows someone...


To your point 2: - can you give me some examples? Not being a pain, but when I have asked this before I get 'velonews' type answers.
In fact you have almost given one of the stock answers - "He has come off as a pious "holier than thou" type beginning when his status as America's most legendary cyclist was becoming challenged by Lance Armstrong's success" - actually he commented only when he was informed of LAs partnership with Dr. Ferrari.

Sure, he is a poor public speaker - and he would be bettering himself if he remained silent. His problem appears to be that he speaks from the heart - not through a PR team.

To the Blue - you have actually hit the point - and what does that tell as!

 

[CPAvelo]

To your point 2: - can you give me some examples? Not being a pain, but when I have asked this before I get 'velonews' type answers.
In fact you have almost given one of the stock answers - "He has come off as a pious "holier than thou" type beginning when his status as America's most legendary cyclist was becoming challenged by Lance Armstrong's success" - actually he commented only when he was informed of LAs partnership with Dr. Ferrari.

Sure, he is a poor public speaker - and he would be bettering himself if he remained silent. His problem appears to be that he speaks from the heart - not through a PR team.

To the Blue - you have actually hit the point - and what does that tell as!

I can't speak to any examples and it probably has more to do with my filtering and recall of so many things played out in the media the past decade. My "holier than thou" remark was not intended as one of the stock answers. I guess in gives at least anecdotal evidence of the effectiveness of media and PR spin. When the whole Armstrong/Lemond affair began, I admit I was pro-Armstrong. I am not especially proud of this now. I didn't follow cycling when Lemond raced, so I also admit I have become jaundiced by the fall of so many American cyclists that I am skeptical about Lemond.

As to the "it seems few on the inside are listening," I find this troubling. It is interesting in light of revelations about AC. It appears there may be an interest among the cycling establishment in sweeping this under the rug and exonerating AC to mitigate the risk of subtler forms of doping fraud, like micro-dosing and autologous transfusions, being exposed. I'm merely speculating.

I appreciate your questions regarding Lemond, because it compels me to rethink my views, especially when they have been influenced by former illusions and prejudices.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

I can't speak to any examples and it probably has more to do with my filtering and recall of so many things played out in the media the past decade. My "holier than thou" remark was not intended as one of the stock answers. I guess in gives at least anecdotal evidence of the effectiveness of media and PR spin. When the whole Armstrong/Lemond affair began, I admit I was pro-Armstrong. I am not especially proud of this now. I didn't follow cycling when Lemond raced, so I also admit I have become jaundiced by the fall of so many American cyclists that I am skeptical about Lemond.

As to the "it seems few on the inside are listening," I find this troubling. It is interesting in light of revelations about AC. It appears there may be an interest among the cycling establishment in sweeping this under the rug and exonerating AC to mitigate the risk of subtler forms of doping fraud, like micro-dosing and autologous transfusions, being exposed. I'm merely speculating.

I appreciate your questions regarding Lemond, because it compels me to rethink my views, especially when they have been influenced by former illusions and prejudices.

Likewise -I appreciate your views, for the very same reasons.

I wouldn't go as far as to call myself an LA fan in 2001 (I prefer classic riders) but I did follow his career with interest and admiration. It was around then he brought out his book, which had me starting to query his career.

But it is since comeback 2.0 I realize how much influence he (and other US riders, FL,TH) had over the english speaking media. The online & magazines are for the most part fanboys not neutral observers.

Its almost why - today when i heard about AC, I was "thanks Alberto for your comments - now lets try and find the real story".

To your second last paragraph, sadly, I completely agree.

 

[MacRoadie]

Race Radio: Denial is one of the first stages of grief. Polish, Blutto and myself are here to hold your hand through your difficult times... Flicker

I'm going to suggest to RR that he not take you up on that offer. Many of us on here have strong suspicions about what you guys do with those hands while you're not on here (and quite possibly while you are too)...