• The Cycling News forum is still looking to add volunteer moderators with. If you're interested in helping keep our discussions on track, send a direct message to @SHaines here on the forum, or use the Contact Us form to message the Community Team.

    In the meanwhile, please use the Report option if you see a post that doesn't fit within the forum rules.

    Thanks!

Lemond The Last Rider To Win The Tour Clean?

Page 6 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Jan 27, 2010
168
0
0
VeloCity said:
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.

given access to all available evidence, prosecutors with willpower, and no statute of limitations, i do not believe there is enough evidence to suspend many of the TdF winners mentioned upthread for doping infractions. including Greg Lemond.

without the confession i don't think Riis could have been caught. without the confession i don't think Fignon was particularly suspected.

Race Radio said:
There is not even hearsay against Lemond.
i really want to avoid going into specifics here because i don't want to get into comparing the merits of different bits of hearsay, or mudslinging. however in fact there are already several such tidbits posted on this thread, for example post #118. so you cannot say there is no hearsay.

Race Radio said:
If you are so sure Greg was working with a Medical advisor then it should be easy for name them.
trying to deny this makes it hard to believe other stuff you say. who do you think suggested the iron and B12 shots? who drew up the training plans? who operated after his injuries? who prescribed antibiotics when he had a cold?

Race Radio said:
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.
it still seems to be pretty irrelevant to me. what exactly is your point with this? i'm very worried that you keep bringing it up as a sort of "even if he was doping it wasn't a big deal" type of defense.
 
Jun 12, 2010
1,234
0
0
galaxy1 said:
i really want to avoid going into specifics here because i don't want to get into comparing the merits of different bits of hearsay, or mudslinging. however in fact there are already several such tidbits posted on this thread, for example post #118. so you cannot say there is no hearsay.





QUOTE] You call post 18 plausable sugestion?. A brief connection to Eddie B when he was a junior on the American National Squad, or just past?. Lemond was World Junior Rd champ in 1979, in Argentina ..in 81 he went to France.
Clutching at straws to the enth degree I`d call that. Neither is it "several titbits".
The real point to Lemonds detracters is nothing short of proof that he doped will ever satisfy em and in the total absance of ANY evidence keeping up the sugestion its possible will have to do...cus the seeds of doupt can be almost as damaging.
No differant to God believers as I sugested earlier. :rolleyes:
Pretty shamefull attitude realy.
 

Dr. Maserati

BANNED
Jun 19, 2009
13,250
1
0
galaxy1 said:
given access to all available evidence, prosecutors with willpower, and no statute of limitations, i do not believe there is enough evidence to suspend many of the TdF winners mentioned upthread for doping infractions. including Greg Lemond.

without the confession i don't think Riis could have been caught. without the confession i don't think Fignon was particularly suspected.


i really want to avoid going into specifics here because i don't want to get into comparing the merits of different bits of hearsay, or mudslinging. however in fact there are already several such tidbits posted on this thread, for example post #118. so you cannot say there is no hearsay.


trying to deny this makes it hard to believe other stuff you say. who do you think suggested the iron and B12 shots? who drew up the training plans? who operated after his injuries? who prescribed antibiotics when he had a cold?


it still seems to be pretty irrelevant to me. what exactly is your point with this? i'm very worried that you keep bringing it up as a sort of "even if he was doping it wasn't a big deal" type of defense.

You want to avoid specifics? Why is that?
Would it be because you have no specific 'evidence' (even by your standard) of anything against LeMond?

You're asking about EddyB? I think you need to do some research on when LeMond went to Europe. Here is a good piece.

Also - you appear not to understand the difference between having a family Doctor and a 'medical team' for cycling. Have you ever been to a Doctor - do you use PEDs?

BTW - RR did not say or suggest that.
Oh and Riis was known as Mr60% long before he confessed.
 
CPAvelo said:
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 (Fignon being this most notorious).

um...fignon actually has denied ever using epo. he left the pro peloton almost the same time as lemond after showing a similarly "dramatic slip in ability", and having many of the same feelings.

since this statement of yours is uninformed and false.

i will conclude that the rest follows suit.

it reeeeeally bothers the public strategies gangp that the most outspoken anti-doping cyclist just happens to have been right about basically...everything.

looks like he was right about contidope and verbiers too.

he just doesn't stop being right about the extent of the epo/blood doping since 1991.

drives you nuts, doesn't it?
 
Jan 27, 2010
168
0
0
Darryl Webster said:
You call post 18 plausable sugestion?
i call it hearsay. which it is. just one example from this thread.

Darryl Webster said:
The real point to Lemonds detracters is nothing short of proof that he doped will ever satisfy em and in the total absance of ANY evidence keeping up the sugestion its possible will have to do...cus the seeds of doupt can be almost as damaging.
No differant to God believers as I sugested earlier. :rolleyes:
Pretty shamefull attitude realy.
it really is theological with you, isn't it. can it ever be acceptable, i wonder, to look at a question involving Greg Lemond and hold no strong opinion? i'm thinking of declaring once and for all that i don't know what brand of toothpaste he used to use - but i don't want to cause a controversy.
 
Jan 27, 2010
168
0
0
Dr. Maserati said:
You want to avoid specifics? Why is that?
Would it be because you have no specific 'evidence' (even by your standard) of anything against LeMond?
i set quite a high standard for factual evidence, which is why i don't entertain any of the tripe on this thread as evidence. i want to avoid specifics precisely to avoid branching off into tedious discussions like this:

Dr. Maserati said:
You're asking about EddyB? I think you need to do some research on when LeMond went to Europe. Here is a good piece.
it seems unlikely that the two never came across each other. they would have been friends of a friend, at least (and in cycling, that is also true of numerous other shady characters, of course)

Dr. Maserati said:
Also - you appear not to understand the difference between having a family Doctor and a 'medical team' for cycling. Have you ever been to a Doctor - do you use PEDs?
someone tried to claim he did not have a doctor or trainer - in reality he had extremely sophisticated medical and scientific backup.

Dr. Maserati said:
Oh and Riis was known as Mr60% long before he confessed.
i'm not aware of any doping suspension or legal conviction based entirely on the evidence of a nickname.


overall, to be honest, it strikes me as entirely disingenuous to pursue, as you do, the arguments that your particular hero did not have the means or the motive to dope. it was impossible to be a pro cyclist in the 80s without being surrounded by dopers and doping. assuming for a moment Lemond was entirely clean, he would still have been friends with dopers, raced with and against dopers, etc.
 

flicker

BANNED
Aug 17, 2009
4,153
0
0
Dr. Maserati said:
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!
Dr. M.

Come to Nor-Cal and ask around. Go talk to all the members on the national teams LeMond has raced on. Talk to his managers in the U.S.. Talk to his family and his wifes' family.

Don't ask me as I get all my info from WIKIPEDIA and listening to Greg LeMond. That is the most factual and informative to get information and truthfulness from someone.
 
flicker said:
Dr. M.

Come to Nor-Cal and ask around. Go talk to all the members on the national teams LeMond has raced on. Talk to his managers in the U.S.. Talk to his family and his wifes' family.

Wow, that's quite a conspiracy to keep under wraps all these years...
 

flicker

BANNED
Aug 17, 2009
4,153
0
0
MacRoadie said:
Wow, that's quite a conspiracy to keep under wraps all these years...

As I have said all pro-cyclists are guilty of doping until proven innocent. Nothing against Greg he is still a great champion. I do not have the time to prove the innocence of Greg for the LeMond chamois sniffers.
 
Mar 17, 2009
1,863
0
0
galaxy1 said:
i call it hearsay. which it is. just one example from this thread.


it really is theological with you, isn't it. can it ever be acceptable, i wonder, to look at a question involving Greg Lemond and hold no strong opinion? i'm thinking of declaring once and for all that i don't know what brand of toothpaste he used to use - but i don't want to cause a controversy.
Difference is Darryl actually rode in the same peloton at the same time Lemond was riding.
That alone gives him an almost unique point of view compared to most on this and many other fora.

While none of us can prove categorically that Lemond was clean, it is striking that, despite numerous contemporaries of his coming clean, there isn't a single whiff of a rumour that he was of the same ilk. Fignon, Rooks, Theunisse, Delgado, Kuiper, Hinault , Mottet, Bauer.....not one of them has even hinted that he is not all that he makes out to be. Despite Armstrong's claims & $300K nothing has surfaced.

Begs the question, why? The answer is simple - he didn't dope at all.
 
May 26, 2010
28,143
5
0
flicker said:
As I have said all pro-cyclists are guilty of doping until proven innocent. Nothing against Greg he is still a great champion. I do not have the time to prove the innocence of Greg for the LeMond chamois sniffers.

as you are obviously too busy sniffing the dirtiest chamois ever :rolleyes:
 
Jan 27, 2010
168
0
0
it's one possible answer. we don't know whether it is the answer.

if, say, Lance Armstrong had ridden in that era, there would have been no suspicions of him either. minimal/no testing, certainly no retroactive testing, no L'Equipe journalists nosing around, no outspoken contemporaries, no notoriety of cycling doctors, no equivalent of the Landis case, etc. etc.
in those days, as long as you paid off the right people and kept quiet, you got away with it.
 
Jul 4, 2009
9,666
0
0
MacRoadie said:
Wow, that's quite a conspiracy to keep under wraps all these years...

...sorry to be the bearer of bad news but the world of cycling is still very much in the thralls of a conspiracy...the Contador thing being but the latest chapter...and sometimes it appears everyone is in on it...the players...the overseers...the media...the fans...( with admittedly some exceptions )

...it seems its an anything goes attitude on most everyone's part in the ongoing attempt to make sure the circus/spectacle/cash machine keeps going ...sad but unfortunately true...

Cheers

blutto
 

Dr. Maserati

BANNED
Jun 19, 2009
13,250
1
0
galaxy1 said:
i set quite a high standard for factual evidence, which is why i don't entertain any of the tripe on this thread as evidence. i want to avoid specifics precisely to avoid branching off into tedious discussions like this:


it seems unlikely that the two never came across each other. they would have been friends of a friend, at least (and in cycling, that is also true of numerous other shady characters, of course)


someone tried to claim he did not have a doctor or trainer - in reality he had extremely sophisticated medical and scientific backup.


i'm not aware of any doping suspension or legal conviction based entirely on the evidence of a nickname.


overall, to be honest, it strikes me as entirely disingenuous to pursue, as you do, the arguments that your particular hero did not have the means or the motive to dope. it was impossible to be a pro cyclist in the 80s without being surrounded by dopers and doping. assuming for a moment Lemond was entirely clean, he would still have been friends with dopers, raced with and against dopers, etc.

Actually - you are being disingenious.

You say you have high standards for evidence - and then appear to suggest guilt through association because "it was impossible to be a pro cyclist in the 80s without being surrounded by dopers and doping".

How can you suggest that using 'your high' standards where a confessed doper like Riis does not count. By that measure, Fignon, kimmage, Rooks, Grewal, etc are cleam too.
Do you race? If you do, then through some association you will know someone who has doped.

You misrepresented RR's post earlier - and now you are doing the same to me. Please do not misrepresent what I say - that could be looked at by some as trolling.

I never said LeMond was a "hero" of mine nor did I suggest he does not know EddyB (he does) nor did I suggest he did not have the means or motives to do so.
 

flicker

BANNED
Aug 17, 2009
4,153
0
0
ultimobici said:
Difference is Darryl actually rode in the same peloton at the same time Lemond was riding.
That alone gives him an almost unique point of view compared to most on this and many other fora.

While none of us can prove categorically that Lemond was clean, it is striking that, despite numerous contemporaries of his coming clean, there isn't a single whiff of a rumour that he was of the same ilk. Fignon, Rooks, Theunisse, Delgado, Kuiper, Hinault , Mottet, Bauer.....not one of them has even hinted that he is not all that he makes out to be. Despite Armstrong's claims & $300K nothing has surfaced.

Begs the question, why? The answer is simple - he didn't dope at all.

Shood i beleeve Darryl? Darryl cannt spil. I MEAN SPELL.
 
Aug 13, 2009
12,855
1
0
So to summarize the "evidence"

While Greg was living and racing in Europe there was a coach in the US doping riders. The fact that Greg and this coach did not get along, did not speak for over a decade, and lived 6,000 miles away should not taken into consideration.

One time Greg told a journalist how he hates needles, not just because he did not like shots but for what they represented. He tells the Journalist that he had to take an iron shot for anemia. Of course this "Iron shot" was code word for a super drug that had yet to be approved by the FDA.

Oh, and Cortisone gives the same benefit as EPO.

Yup, it all makes sense. :rolleyes:
 
Mar 17, 2009
1,863
0
0
flicker said:
Shood i beleeve Darryl? Darryl cannt spil. I MEAN SPELL.
Careful, I'll start checking your spelling and grammar. I suspect you won't fare too well either, sunshine!
 
Jan 27, 2010
168
0
0
Dr. Maserati said:
You say you have high standards for evidence - and then appear to suggest guilt through association because "it was impossible to be a pro cyclist in the 80s without being surrounded by dopers and doping".
in context, that isn't what i was suggesting.

Dr. Maserati said:
How can you suggest that using 'your high' standards where a confessed doper like Riis does not count. By that measure, Fignon, kimmage, Rooks, Grewal, etc are cleam too.
i said that Riis was not caught - the evidence against him is his confession. likewise Fignon.

Dr. Maserati said:
Do you race? If you do, then through some association you will know someone who has doped.
at the level i compete, i'm pretty sure there are more performance degrading drugs than performance enhancing! nevertheless, i agree with you - and it would be equally ridiculous if my 'disciples' were to assert that i was definitely clean and everyone else was doping.

Dr. Maserati said:
You misrepresented RR's post earlier - and now you are doing the same to me. Please do not misrepresent what I say - that could be looked at by some as trolling.
not intentionally, i apologise unreservedly if that is really the case. it would be nice if you also refrained from misrepresenting what is really a very simple and logical argument. there is not sufficient evidence to exonerate or convict Lemond.

Dr. Maserati said:
I never said LeMond was a "hero" of mine nor did I suggest he does not know EddyB (he does) nor did I suggest he did not have the means or motives to do so.
both of you have repeatedly used fallacious arguments to defend Lemond against a perceived threat. you have missed few opportunities to distance Lemond from possible means, even though it is obvious that the temptation would have all around him.
 

flicker

BANNED
Aug 17, 2009
4,153
0
0
It is all a moot point as greg already has survived the 8 year drug conviction time frame.
 
May 26, 2010
28,143
5
0
flicker said:
It is all a moot point as greg already has survived the 8 year drug conviction time frame.

Still trying to tarnish LeMond without a shred of evidence becuase he did what your boy couldn't :rolleyes:

FAIL!
 
flicker said:
Shood i beleeve Darryl? Darryl cannt spil. I MEAN SPELL.

Wow, real classy making fun of someone who has openly stated that they suffer from dyslexia.

Daryl Webster was a Euro pro in the 80s winning a stage of the old Nissan Classic. That puts him closer to the info than any of us I would think.
 
Nov 17, 2009
2,388
0
0
My view is Lemond is the last rider that I feel MIGHT have won a Tour without breaking doping rules. That alone is a big deal.

I personally believe he may have used things that later were illegal but allowed at the time, but there's nothing wrong with that. I think a guy who was constantly looking for an edge through equipment and diet would also do so through legal suplements and pharmaceuticals. If it's not against the rules at the time I can't see why there would be a problem.

I have zero faith that any winner since Lemond was clean in any way, shape or fashion.
 
May 20, 2010
119
0
0
Big Doopie said:
um...fignon actually has denied ever using epo. he left the pro peloton almost the same time as lemond after showing a similarly "dramatic slip in ability", and having many of the same feelings.

since this statement of yours is uninformed and false.

i will conclude that the rest follows suit.

I think you misunderstood my point therefore easily dismissing as uniformed and false. If you read it carefully and in its context, I did not indicate Fignon used EPO.

My point was simply this: If one of Lemond's leading competitors admitted using PEDs, then it raises suspicion regarding Lemond's claims that he won clean. Just trying to connect dots here.