Lemond The Last Rider To Win The Tour Clean?

[Dr. Maserati]

in context, that isn't what i was suggesting.


i said that Riis was not caught - the evidence against him is his confession. likewise Fignon.


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.


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.


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.

What has been "fallicious" in my arguement?
In fact you are the person that brings up 'medical assistance' and then deliberatley confuses a General Practisioner or surgeon with a Doctor retained for sporting - thats fallicious.

You say you have a very high standard - but I don't see it as being "very simple or logical" when you suggest that "there is not sufficient evidence to exonerate or convict Lemond".

BTW - you mentioned earlier that Fignon was not particularly suspect, he actually failed 2 drugs tests during his career.

 

[Benotti69]

What has been "fallicious" in my arguement?
In fact you are the person that brings up 'medical assistance' and then deliberatley confuses a General Practisioner or surgeon with a Doctor retained for sporting - thats fallicious.

You say you have a very high standard - but I don't see it as being "very simple or logical" when you suggest that "there is not sufficient evidence to exonerate or convict Lemond".

BTW - you mentioned earlier that Fignon was not particularly suspect, he actually failed 2 drugs tests during his career.

and admitted to PED use in his recent autobiography.

 

[flicker]

it just cracks me up that everyone is so concerned about Greg and uniballer. If they wish to carry on like spoiled princesses have a laugh on them.

Everyone here is so danged serious. You realize that uniballer and Greg strut their stuff like a couple of fighting c0cks for our attention. yellow buna man does not tape calls like Greg and then play them back in court. that does not entertain me. Greg going after contador during the tour does not entertain me.
putting on black 28 jerseys in the tour after Lance failed to get 8 does entertain me. And Floyd wearing a T-Shirt in a TT is funny as heck. What a card Floyd is.

 

[LemonDrop]

Lemond may well have been clean but all the same, I think his conduct is troubling. If he is down on one cyclist that he believes doped, chances are the next guy and the next and the next who would have won instead are doing it too. I think GL knows it, he has lost his moral authority and elderly statesman status at least some it seems to me.

Big Mig, I read it again the other day, he had big big lungs, http://boards.fool.co.uk/quotindurain-lung-capacityquot-8021151.aspx?sort=username and other benefits for being the kind of physical specimen he was. I don't necessarily come to the conclusion he used. He steadily progressed in the tour and was riding for a # of years before winning.

What a card Floyd is.

I agree, he always seemed to be the closest thing to the "common man" when he won in '06. There really isn't anything to dislike about him except per this year, his acts against the Empire.

Hamilton and Landis were not teflon, ol' Reagain was called the teflon president because nothing stuck and it may pertain to some cycling personalities out there.

 

[MacRoadie]

And Floyd wearing a T-Shirt in a TT is funny as heck. What a card Floyd is.

Rule 2: When it's pointed out that you have no clue what you're talking about, try misdirection...

 

[Darryl Webster]

Shood i beleeve Darryl? Darryl cannt spil. I MEAN SPELL.

Whats to believe?..nothing I or others can say will alter your conviction.

ALL pros did NOT and likely some still dont dope.

Tottaly unproveable in any way of course. So in your mind there all guilty untill "proven" innocent. Accept in this case as with all others innocence is unprovable.
That said the best evidence sugests Lemond was clean...Grace...something you might want to look into, is accepting innocence untill evidence sugests otherwise. There is NO such evidence in the case of Lemond.
My spelling is crap cus Im dislexic...and cant be bothered to spell check..its a forum, not a speling B.
Have you missunderstood something or just being a pedantic **** ?

 

[ultimobici]

Big Mig, I read it again the other day, he had big big lungs, http://boards.fool.co.uk/quotindurain-lung-capacityquot-8021151.aspx?sort=username and other benefits from his body build. I don't necessarily come to the conclusion he used

Miguel may have had large lungs, but to give him a pass on that basis is flawed in my opinion.
That he was talented and physically gifted is not in question. But to manage to maintain the margin he did in the dawn of the EPO era is incredible. Couple that with Fignon's comments about a certain French domestique driving the peloton (Rue?) and one has to wonder....
It was only as things really hotted up that I think Indurain lost his nerve in the doping arms race. I don't doubt that he was using, but my assumption is that he wasn't prepared to go past a certain level of HCT. Riis, Pantani et al were prepared to gamble with their health, Indurain, for whatever reason wasn't.

 

[galaxy1]

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.

what do you have against, e.g., Sastre & Pereiro?

 

[flicker]

Whats to believe?..nothing I or others can say will alter your conviction.

ALL pros did NOT and likely some still dont dope.

Tottaly unproveable in any way of course. So in your mind there all guilty untill "proven" innocent. Accept in this case as with all others innocence is unprovable.
That said the best evidence sugests Lemond was clean...Grace...something you might want to look into, is accepting innocence untill evidence sugests otherwise. There is NO such evidence in the case of Lemond.
My spelling is crap cus Im dislexic...and cant be bothered to spell check..its a forum, not a speling B.
Have you missunderstood something or just being a pedantic **** ?

I am 56 and have been following cycling for a while. Ever read International Cycle Sport? I think lets see thats 1971, who did I watch De Vlaemink Eric and Rodger, Merckx, Goodefroot, Sercu,Plaankert,Marc DeMeyer Moser Giamondi, Battaglin,Basso, tell me Darryl which of those doped and did not dope. Freddy Maertens? VanImpe? Joop ZoetemelkThe great Spanish Climbers? Well before
LeMond I was around. I can tell you who doped definitely there at that time
I suspect they all did. Still great riders though.

 

[galaxy1]

Miguel may have had large lungs, but to give him a pass on that basis is flawed in my opinion.
That he was talented and physically gifted is not in question. But to manage to maintain the margin he did in the dawn of the EPO era is incredible.

he wasn't the one setting speed records in TdF TTs.

 

[ultimobici]

he wasn't the one setting speed records in TdF TTs.

Not that red herring again, surely? Downhill, tailwind etc....

 

[LemonDrop]

The link may be obsolete now, I am getting though a snippet per websearch:

Former Swiss rider Rolf Järmann said that Miguel Indurain used....

http://www.eitb24.com/new/en/B24_53114/sports/Former-rider-Jarmann-says-Indurain-used-banned-drugs/

 

[ultimobici]

The link may be obsolete now, I am getting though a snippet per websearch:



http://www.eitb24.com/new/en/B24_53114/sports/Former-rider-Jarmann-says-Indurain-used-banned-drugs/

Spanish article

http://www.evri.com/media/article;j...jsessionid=1rcmft4hyw7w5&referring_title=Evri

 

[Darryl Webster]

I am 56 and have been following cycling for a while. Ever read International Cycle Sport? I think lets see thats 1971, who did I watch De Vlaemink Eric and Rodger, Merckx, Goodefroot, Sercu,Plaankert,Marc DeMeyer Moser Giamondi, Battaglin,Basso, tell me Darryl which of those doped and did not dope. Freddy Maertens? VanImpe? Joop ZoetemelkThe great Spanish Climbers? Well before
LeMond I was around. I can tell you who doped definitely there at that time
I suspect they all did. Still great riders though.

I never said a lot didnt or that a lot dont. Most most certainly do.
But most is NOT all. Everyone you listed doped,all were also capable of winning clean.....but not often.
And thats a real issue for those that dont..they limit there oppertunities to win and if they speek out about what they know ( and clean riders are defo kept at a distance from a lot of knowledge....for obvious reason) they might as well look for a new job.
The whole idea that the entire peloton dopes is a terribly daming perspective...if peeps realy believe that why the debate?...why watch pro racing or have any concern?.
Might as well watch pro wresting and see it in that light,as pure entertainment with no pretence to sporting endevour.

 

[LemonDrop]

I am 56 and have been following cycling for a while. Ever read International Cycle Sport? I think lets see thats 1971, who did I watch De Vlaemink Eric and Rodger, Merckx, Goodefroot, Sercu,Plaankert,Marc DeMeyer Moser Giamondi, Battaglin,Basso, tell me Darryl which of those doped and did not dope. Freddy Maertens? VanImpe? Joop ZoetemelkThe great Spanish Climbers? Well before
LeMond I was around. I can tell you who doped definitely there at that time
I suspect they all did. Still great riders though.

If You are rape stalking someone, can you state their names as you are telling us names of people? No one needs for the bigots to discriminate people out of more places. I will leave now rather than be made the victim of predator acts here you scumbag. You have any thing to say about using the most severe racist/discriminatory terms? If not, leave people alone!

 

[CPAvelo]

The answer to the OP's question is inconclusive. It may or may not be relevant. It is evident strong opinions exist and consensus is not likely to be reached. Rationalization is the key here. And much of it seems based in belief on both sides.

I don't have a strong belief either way about Lemond. However, it might be useful for the sake of this forum to consider a three factor analysis used in embezzlement detection.

Motive: I believe it is accurate to conclude motive existed for Lemond to use PEDs. To win. Motive is nearly always present, but not normally acted upon.

Opportunity: There seems to be consensus on this forum that Lemond had the means available to obtain and benefit from PEDs. Maybe, but probably not EPO. But, it seems the doping culture was already well established.

Rationalization: This is the crux. This is an issue of integrity and probably the most important factor affecting whether embezzlement, or any other form of cheating/fraud, occurs. This is why I commented in an earlier post that the only way we would ever know if Lemond doped is if he admits it.

Some say, "cream always rises to the top." But doesn't it depend on the right circumstances? What I mean is, if the peloton today is replete with dopers, and if there has been a long history of doping in cycling, and if several of Lemond's peers have admitted cheating, then it becomes more difficult to believe Lemond stood alone as a clean Tour winner of his and subsequent generations.

Alternatively, if Lemond didn't dope, then he is an extraordinary champion. I would love to believe this, I just have my doubts. Some of the way Lemond has conducted himself in the past decade has reinforced those doubts. Other things have shown him to be of high integrity. Given that he has sacrificed much and endured contempt, ridicule, and a barrage of PR attacks from Armstrong, Lemond displays integrity and consistency.

The outcome of the present investigation into allegations raised by Landis about doping by Armstrong/US Postal team may be very telling. If Armstrong is shown to be what Landis has alleged, the Lemond will to some extent be exonerated. I hope for this.

 

[flicker]

If You are rape stalking someone, can you state their names as you are telling us names of people? No one needs for the bigots to discriminate people out of more places. I will leave now rather than be made the victim of predator acts here you scumbag. You have any thing to say about using the most severe racist/discriminatory terms? If not, leave people alone!

Take a chill pill there brother. Sorry I ruffled your feathers not intentional I assure you.

 

[flicker]

I never said a lot didnt or that a lot dont. Most most certainly do.
But most is NOT all. Everyone you listed doped,all were also capable of winning clean.....but not often.
And thats a real issue for those that dont..they limit there oppertunities to win and if they speek out about what they know ( and clean riders are defo kept at a distance from a lot of knowledge....for obvious reason) they might as well look for a new job.
The whole idea that the entire peloton dopes is a terribly daming perspective...if peeps realy believe that why the debate?...why watch pro racing or have any concern?.
Might as well watch pro wresting and see it in that light,as pure entertainment with no pretence to sporting endevour.

Darryl I respect you. As a rider and an ex pro you know more than I I was pack fodder. I believe that in order to be a pro bike rider and stay a pro for more than 3 years it is necessary procedure. It is sickening and yes it is like pro wrestling. That is why I do not read Walshs' book nor buy a dog in his hat etc. I would rather speculate than know the absolute truth. Because the absolute truth is god awful. Even my kids see me blog here and read what has been written here and know its the doping in cycling is the god awful truth. I see doping here in these little races here where I live. What are these guys doping to get? A 700c inner tube. Disgraceful it is. It is a weird sport, why would anyone want to endure such vile pain for such a small monetary payoff? I think we are all nuts including myself. Bleedin masochists we are.

 

[slcbiker]

If You are rape stalking someone, can you state their names as you are telling us names of people? No one needs for the bigots to discriminate people out of more places. I will leave now rather than be made the victim of predator acts here you scumbag. You have any thing to say about using the most severe racist/discriminatory terms? If not, leave people alone!

Whoah!? Awful thin skin for the Intardnet. I don't remember seeing Flickr use any particularly hostile terms to attack anyone.

At any rate, Merckx was busted at least once. Anquetil admitted it. Doping has been used by a lot of folks for a long time. Someone mentioned "Dog in a Hat" earlier. One gets the impression from that book that virtually everyone in the Euro pro pelotn was at least offered some PEDs, if not actually using.

That said, there's not really any evidence against Lemond. It's basically just that many of his direct competitors were almost certainly using, and from there we go to the same question of could a rider be as sucessful as Lemond against a bunch of people using PEDs without being on them himself? I don't know the answer to that one.

 

[Escarabajo]

he wasn't the one setting speed records in TdF TTs.

...............................................

 

[CPAvelo]

Darryl I respect you. As a rider and an ex pro you know more than I I was pack fodder. I believe that in order to be a pro bike rider and stay a pro for more than 3 years it is necessary procedure. It is sickening and yes it is like pro wrestling. That is why I do not read Walshs' book nor buy a dog in his hat etc. I would rather speculate than know the absolute truth. Because the absolute truth is god awful. Even my kids see me blog here and read what has been written here and know its the doping in cycling is the god awful truth. I see doping here in these little races here where I live. What are these guys doping to get? A 700c inner tube. Disgraceful it is. It is a weird sport, why would anyone want to endure such vile pain for such a small monetary payoff? I think we are all nuts including myself. Bleedin masochists we are.

The trickle down of doping/cheating is very real. I agree it doesn't make sense. I have only raced as an amateur, but ride with former pros who all confirm "Dog in a Hat," etc. But cheating seems to be increasingly common in Western societies. Journalist David Callahan wrote a book published in 2004 about this: The Cheating Culture: Why More Americans Are Doing Wrong to Get Ahead. It is a good, bad sad read.

Bicycle racing is an exciting, epic sport. I think most us would like it to be authentic.

 

[Race Radio]

Spanish article

http://www.evri.com/media/article;j...jsessionid=1rcmft4hyw7w5&referring_title=Evri

Thomas Davy, Indurian's teammate, testified at the Festina trial that there was a team doping program at Banesto. Can't ignore the multiple positives from Sabino Padilla and Conconi patents.

Now were is the same for LeMond? Greg broke his contract with PDM as soon as he saw they were starting a team doping program. He has been critical of doping doctors for decades and has no connections to any. Riders, DS', support staff are on record saying that Lemond did not dope.......but the disinformation campaign continues because he dared question the myth.

 

[Big Doopie]

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.

wrong. it doesn't. it has been shown over and over again that you can't equate epo/blood doping with what preceded them. epo was a gamechanger and it is why the likes of delion, lemond and even cortisone-taking fignon started going backwards starting in 1991.

lemond was not the only successful clean cyclist in the 80s. mottet was the #1 ranked rider in the world in the spring of 1989.

when you utter epo and cortisone in the same breath you are knowingly obscuring the facts.

i stick by my initial assessment. everything you say is either false or an attempt to obscure the facts. i will no longer respond or pay any attention to anything you have to add to this debate as it will be undeniably and knowingly flawed.

 

[slcbiker]

EPO and cortisone are not equal. Indeed, EPO is probably a bigger jump than all previous drugs.
But blood transfusion were going on in the 80s. And amphetamines for much of the century. And those two things can definitely have significant impacts.

There's definitely no good evidence against Lemond.
But there's plenty of posts these days that say everyone in the top 20 (ie. Evans and Sastre included) must be doping, simply because everyone else is doing it. I'm not so sure that if you're going to use that logic today, you shouldn't also have used it 25 years ago. Or 35 or 45.

 

[warmfuzzies]

Give me a huge break, people. They need to change the domain name to this site from http://www.cyclingnews.com to http://www.IloveGregLemond.com. The guy is clearly an ***, has a huge victim mentality going back to when he was riding and is just a whiny ****hole. Lance and all the others probably did dope but I'd still rather go back and rewatch those races than hear Greg Lemond whine or read more about your Lemond love.

+1 on the perspectives fostered in this site's forums. The Greg description might be equally valid for others who influence forum content. Except for the former professional rider part.