LeMond: Ullrich is the best rider of his generation, he would have won every Tour

[hrotha]

Got this info from where?

Not to be rude, but questioning any aspect of the well-known orange juice statement (including its date) by now is, I dunno, like asking for proof that the Earth orbits the Sun.

edit: here it is, April 1994
http://autobus.cyclingnews.com/riders/2003/interviews/?id=ferrari03b#equipe

 

[Benotti69]

Do I understand you right? You mean nobody spoke out about him, because he didn´t make enemys like LA did? Given the "omerta family of cycling", and the wide spread doping of the 80s, this makes the most sense...

No it doesn't. LeMond was talking about doping since 1989, how is that part of "omerta family of cycling"?

Jeez you post loads of crap!

 

[Benotti69]

Admittedly, not everyone knew how effective or significant it was, but to suggest that LeMond didn't know what time it was, by the time he retired, is simply a fallacy. Roger Legeay was in fact one of the first to discuss the EPO issue.

Why he chose to claim ignorance, is anybody's guess.

Boardman did well in the EPO era and LeMond didn't.

 

[D-Queued]

And all of this has exactly what to do with Ullrich?

Perhaps you folks can take this outside. Alternately, start a 'I don't/I do believe LeMond' thread.

Dave.

 

[andy1234]

Boardman did well in the EPO era and LeMond didn't.

Neither rider won a GT in the EPO era, so they have that in common.
LeMond would probably have had a similar palmares to Boardman, if his pro career started in 93....

 

[andy1234]

And all of this has exactly what to do with Ullrich?

Perhaps you folks can take this outside. Alternately, start a 'I don't/I do believe LeMond' thread.

Dave.

You did read the thread title didn't you?
It has little to do Ullrich and plenty to do with LeMond.

 

[Escarabajo]

LeMond may have been privately against doping but he was hardly outspoken publically on the subject. I have no recollection of him calling out the Italian doctors. I know when he retired he said in an interview that "there were some questionable things going on in cycling" and thas was as far as he went on the subject. It was hardly in 94 that the questionable things began!!

I have no problems with believing in LeMond but when you look at the teams he was with, the doctors he was loosely connected with and some of his amazing transformations from gruppetto to No 1, if he were around today nobody would believe in him yet there are plenty of posters who lambast every current rider, yet herald LeMond as the superclean hero and fail to see any degree of hypocrisy. The fact that he still seems to have such high regard for the like's of Sean Kelly, Cyril Guimard and the Renault team would also see him miserably fail the clinic doper worshipper test.

That is why I call it the LeMond Exception rule. Whatever thing is used to tar a current rider with the doping accusation, LeMond seem's to be exempt from it. Transforming from gruppetto at the Giro to Tour winner in less than a month, oh Greg could do that but nobody else could or can. Beat riders on EPO, Greg could do that but nobody else can. Admire dopers, oh Greg can do that too.

The million dollar question is if LeMond were around today with all the latest technology, training methods etc. What would he be capable of doing? Tour Winner? Top 10? Top 50?

You are going a little too far here pmg76. Eventual days going in the grupprto can happen to the most talented riders every now and then if you are feeling sick or weak. Just not frequently from the beginning and then converting into a race horse. I think that is different.

 

[kingjr]

And all of this has exactly what to do with Ullrich?

Perhaps you folks can take this outside. Alternately, start a 'I don't/I do believe LeMond' thread.

Dave.

There are generally too many threads already in this forum.

 

[D-Queued]

You did read the thread title didn't you?
It has little to do Ullrich and plenty to do with LeMond.

So why didn't the OP just say 'Latest LeMond bashing session to begin now'?

IOW, this has degenerated.

It doesn't matter when / how much LeMond learned about EPO. He obviously didn't use it.

Ok?

If he had, his results would have differed against the likes of Indurain, etc.

Moreover, LeMond didn't understand the full benefits of EPO.

Ok?

If he had, he wouldn't have been confused about his performance and wouldn't have looked for answers in Mitochondrial Myopia.

Dave.

 

[andy1234]

So why didn't the OP just say 'Latest LeMond bashing session to begin now'?

IOW, this has degenerated.

It doesn't matter when / how much LeMond learned about EPO. He obviously didn't use it.

Ok?

If he had, his results would have differed against the likes of Indurain, etc.

Moreover, LeMond didn't understand the full benefits of EPO.

Ok?

If he had, he wouldn't have been confused about his performance and wouldn't have looked for answers in Mitochondrial Myopia.

Dave.

Everyone gets bashed. You just don't like that its LeMond's next turn on the merry go round.

The conversation is also about LeMond's selective and inconsistent messages on doping, so no need for the knee jerk.

 

[D-Queued]

Everyone gets bashed. You just don't like that its LeMond's next turn on the merry go round.

The conversation is also about LeMond's selective and inconsistent messages on doping, so no need for the knee jerk.

Ok, another distraction from real doping, ongoing cover-ups and continued doping-based profiteering.

Maybe LeMond should get with the times and write a book to say he was sorry he didn't dope since he cannot apologize now for doping, so that he could also profit from books about apologies about doping.

Then we could have a 1,000+ post thread on whether he is really sorry about not doping because he couldn't apologize for doping.

Dave.

 

[red_flanders]

Everyone gets bashed. You just don't like that its LeMond's next turn on the merry go round.

The conversation is also about LeMond's selective and inconsistent messages on doping, so no need for the knee jerk.

Everyone doesn't get bashed. Mostly, those who deserve to get bashed get bashed.

And LeMond. Because he's everything the LeMond bashers wish their particular hero was, but aren't. He's the exception which proves the rule and people just can't stand it.

 

[Fearless Greg Lemond]

Neither rider won a GT in the EPO era, so they have that in common.
LeMond would probably have had a similar palmares to Boardman, if his pro career started in 93....

British humour is still the best.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IqhlQfXUk7w

You still think that Lotus bike did the trick in 1992?

 

[andy1234]

British humour is still the best.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IqhlQfXUk7w

You still think that Lotus bike did the trick in 1992?

The Lotus bike helped, but not as much as a vo2 max in the late 80s....
Funny hey?

If you ever get the chance, maybe ask your namesake what he thought of Boardmans abilities.

 

[pmcg76]

Everyone doesn't get bashed. Mostly, those who deserve to get bashed get bashed.

And LeMond. Because he's everything the LeMond bashers wish their particular hero was, but aren't. He's the exception which proves the rule and people just can't stand it.

Really, the likes of Boardman, Moncoutie, Dan Martin deserved to be bashed??

There is a difference between offering some critical analysis and bashing. Who exactly is accusing LeMond of doping. Nobody that I can see. I am certainly not.

As I have highlighted many times, the fact that many of the links that are made for others in relation to accusations of doping are not applied with the same fervour to LeMond. Hence why I call it the 'LeMond exception rule'.

Too many people put LeMond on a pedestal and twist stuff to make him look better than he is whether it is claiming he was, 'vocally anti-doping throughout his career' or quit 'because of EPO', those are very disputable notions and I don't see any reason why then cannot be analysed like with any other cyclist.

LeMond has a framed photo of himself racing against Sean Kelly(a known doper) in his home and is proud of it and expresses admiration for Kelly. Sorry but if any of the supposed current clean riders behaved in the same way toward Contador, they would be slammed everywhere in the Clinic. That is what I and most rational people would call double standards. Not because of some dislike for LeMond but for the reality of the duplicity.

The fact that so many who mock the SKY fanboys behave in the exact same manner when anyone dares question LeMond says it all really. Nobody is untouchable and as hrotha said before, let the facts in favour of LeMond speak for themselves.

 

[Benotti69]

Really, the likes of Boardman, Moncoutie, Dan Martin deserved to be bashed??

There is a difference between offering some critical analysis and bashing. Who exactly is accusing LeMond of doping. Nobody that I can see. I am certainly not.

As I have highlighted many times, the fact that many of the links that are made for others in relation to accusations of doping are not applied with the same fervour to LeMond. Hence why I call it the 'LeMond exception rule'.

Too many people put LeMond on a pedestal and twist stuff to make him look better than he is whether it is claiming he was, 'vocally anti-doping throughout his career' or quit 'because of EPO', those are very disputable notions and I don't see any reason why then cannot be analysed like with any other cyclist.

LeMond has a framed photo of himself racing against Sean Kelly(a known doper) in his home and is proud of it and expresses admiration for Kelly. Sorry but if any of the supposed current clean riders behaved in the same way toward Contador, they would be slammed everywhere in the Clinic. That is what I and most rational people would call double standards. Not because of some dislike for LeMond but for the reality of the duplicity.

The fact that so many who mock the SKY fanboys behave in the exact same manner when anyone dares question LeMond says it all really. Nobody is untouchable and as hrotha said before, let the facts in favour of LeMond speak for themselves.

All this post says is how upset you are that LeMond is clean but likes Kelly and why is the clinic not crucifying LeMond!

Sprinkle a little Garmin, Sky and bingo we have a fan who desperately wants to believe the his heroes are clean or cleanER!

 

[Fearless Greg Lemond]

Boohoo, I like Kelly too, what a shameless confession.

Boohoo, one doper - low octane of course -. One non - caught doper but the one who brought doc Andrei Michailov to TVM and one grand champion. Indeed great pic.

Why ffs wouldnt anyone like King Kelly? What does this proof?

 

[pmcg76]

All this post says is how upset you are that LeMond is clean but likes Kelly and why is the clinic not crucifying LeMond!

Sprinkle a little Garmin, Sky and bingo we have a fan who desperately wants to believe the his heroes are clean or cleanER!

This post highlights how clueless you are about my thoughts on LeMond.

I defended LeMond countless times when the Armstrong fans were slamming him back in the day. Go back and check any of the threads on LeMond from back at the start of the forum. I actually introduced some of the facts that others now use to defend LeMond.

I believe LeMond was clean, I believe others were clean like the Helvetia team, Hampsten, Bauer, Mottet etc. If anything, it is the performances of those riders that I look at when trying work out what a clean athlete might be capable of in the current peloton.

However I also believe that LeMond is put on too much of a pedestal in here and this idea that LeMond was the most talented cyclist ever is pure BS. There is simply no way of proving that and who knows how many LeMonds there might be in the peloton currently.

Others seem to baulk at that notion, I don't.

Oh and of course your post reads 'I have nothing to refute the points so instead I will attack the poster and accuse them of being a SKY/Garmin fanboy.'

 

[pmcg76]

Boohoo, I like Kelly too, what a shameless confession.

Boohoo, one doper - low octane of course -. One non - caught doper but the one who brought doc Andrei Michailov to TVM and one grand champion. Indeed great pic.

Why ffs wouldnt anyone like King Kelly? What does this proof?

Wasn't that pic, it was one from a Paris-Roubaix with just Kelly and LeMond, think it was 84/85.

 

[red_flanders]

Really, the likes of Boardman, Moncoutie, Dan Martin deserved to be bashed??

There is a difference between offering some critical analysis and bashing. Who exactly is accusing LeMond of doping. Nobody that I can see. I am certainly not.

As I have highlighted many times, the fact that many of the links that are made for others in relation to accusations of doping are not applied with the same fervour to LeMond. Hence why I call it the 'LeMond exception rule'.

Too many people put LeMond on a pedestal and twist stuff to make him look better than he is whether it is claiming he was, 'vocally anti-doping throughout his career' or quit 'because of EPO', those are very disputable notions and I don't see any reason why then cannot be analysed like with any other cyclist.

LeMond has a framed photo of himself racing against Sean Kelly(a known doper) in his home and is proud of it and expresses admiration for Kelly. Sorry but if any of the supposed current clean riders behaved in the same way toward Contador, they would be slammed everywhere in the Clinic. That is what I and most rational people would call double standards. Not because of some dislike for LeMond but for the reality of the duplicity.

The fact that so many who mock the SKY fanboys behave in the exact same manner when anyone dares question LeMond says it all really. Nobody is untouchable and as hrotha said before, let the facts in favour of LeMond speak for themselves.

So much animation! Wow.

There is no LeMond exception rule in the sense that people have some kind of blind spot for LeMond. Watching him race back in the day, I assumed him to be on all the same dope everyone else was on, or at least that's what my father, aunt and uncle thought and it made sense to me. Giant thighs, big gears, looked like a guy using 'roids to me.

Turns out though that over the years, so many people came out and for no particular reason mentioned how LeMond was the one of the only clean riders they knew or competed against who was clean. From early coaches, to teammates, to competitors. Even Fignon who accused him of using "illegal" tri-bars to beat him in '89 and was a 'roid user never says a peep about LeMond using anything. Based on his performances and the testimony of those who know, his stance against dopers, and also the utter lack of a single piece of compelling evidence against him, I came to change my mind.

Nothing has ever been turned up on him, ever. LeMond has stood the test of time. The only people who accuse him, and there have been plenty on this thread, this board and on cycling boards in general, are people who are new to the sport and just assume that "he must have been". Which is fine, unless they want to stick their fingers in their ears and not listen when those who actually have a lot of information to share speak up. The LeMond exeption exists because he's exceptional. Not because people look at him differently for no reason. They look at him differently because he deserves it.

And yeah, it's been Armstrong fans who needed Greg to be dirty, and now you see the same from Froome fans. The problem is that there is no comparison of the two.

 

[red_flanders]

Boohoo, I like Kelly too, what a shameless confession.

Boohoo, one doper - low octane of course -. One non - caught doper but the one who brought doc Andrei Michailov to TVM and one grand champion. Indeed great pic.

Why ffs wouldnt anyone like King Kelly? What does this proof?

Kelly was so great. His like hasn't been around since. Pure bad-***.

Yep, he doped.

 

[pmcg76]

So much animation! Wow.

There is no LeMond exception rule in the sense that people have some kind of blind spot for LeMond. Watching him race back in the day, I assumed him to be on all the same dope everyone else was on, or at least that's what my father, aunt and uncle thought and it made sense to me. Giant thighs, big gears, looked like a guy using 'roids to me.

Turns out though that over the years, so many people came out and for no particular reason mentioned how LeMond was the one of the only clean riders they knew or competed against who was clean. From early coaches, to teammates, to competitors. Even Fignon who accused him of using "illegal" tri-bars to beat him in '89 and was a 'roid user never says a peep about LeMond using anything. Based on his performances and the testimony of those who know, his stance against dopers, and also the utter lack of a single piece of compelling evidence against him, I came to change my mind.

Nothing has ever been turned up on him, ever. LeMond has stood the test of time. The only people who accuse him, and there have been plenty on this thread, this board and on cycling boards in general, are people who are new to the sport and just assume that "he must have been". Which is fine, unless they want to stick their fingers in their ears and not listen when those who actually have a lot of information to share speak up. The LeMond exeption exists because he's exceptional. Not because people look at him differently for no reason. They look at him differently because he deserves it.

And yeah, it's been Armstrong fans who needed Greg to be dirty, and now you see the same from Froome fans. The problem is that there is no comparison of the two.

No the LeMond exception rule is the fact that even though LeMond disproved all the rules, the possibility of another LeMond type person existing is nearly always dismissed.

As I said if anything I see LeMond as a yardstick for what a talented clean rider might do nowadays. For the record I would put LeMond finishing much higher in the Tour than you did. Moncoutie finished 13th in a heavily doped early 00s Tour. Is Moncoutie a bigger talent than LeMond?

 

[red_flanders]

No the LeMond exception rule is the fact that even though LeMond disproved all the rules, the possibility of another LeMond type person existing is nearly always dismissed.

It's nearly always dismissed because those usually in the discussion have not done anything to warrant the discussion.

Of course few are championing riders like Sagan, Valverde and Kwiatkowski on these boards, riders who have been winning everything since they were very young. It's always some über clown who has transformed from dog meat into a world-beater. Not that I think Sagan is going to be a GT guy, or that any of them are necessarily clean, but they have been winners since day 1.

To put it more simply, it should be "nearly always" dismissed because those kind of riders just don't appear very often.

 

[Benotti69]

This post highlights how clueless you are about my thoughts on LeMond.

I defended LeMond countless times when the Armstrong fans were slamming him back in the day. Go back and check any of the threads on LeMond from back at the start of the forum. I actually introduced some of the facts that others now use to defend LeMond.

I believe LeMond was clean, I believe others were clean like the Helvetia team, Hampsten, Bauer, Mottet etc. If anything, it is the performances of those riders that I look at when trying work out what a clean athlete might be capable of in the current peloton.

However I also believe that LeMond is put on too much of a pedestal in here and this idea that LeMond was the most talented cyclist ever is pure BS. There is simply no way of proving that and who knows how many LeMonds there might be in the peloton currently.

Others seem to baulk at that notion, I don't.

Oh and of course your post reads 'I have nothing to refute the points so instead I will attack the poster and accuse them of being a SKY/Garmin fanboy.'

The ones forcing him on the pedestal is guys attacking him, which leads to people defending him due to his anti doping stance going back to 1989.

And when defending LeMond you realise how few did break omerta, so they do deserve a pedestal, more than idiots like Pantani or Simpson. He may not have been the best anti doping advocate in the world, it isn't actually a paying job, see Walsh for that.....

Your trolling of LeMond, which you readily admit too doesn't deserve a point by point exlpantion.

As for Moncoutie being clean, RaceRadio reckons Moncoutie was a juicer.

 

[pmcg76]

It's nearly always dismissed because those usually in the discussion have not done anything to warrant the discussion.

Of course few are championing riders like Sagan, Valverde and Kwiatkowski on these boards, riders who have been winning everything since they were very young. It's always some über clown who has transformed from dog meat into a world-beater. Not that I think Sagan is going to be a GT guy, or that any of them are necessarily clean, but they have been winners since day 1.

To put it more simply, it should be "nearly always" dismissed because those kind of riders just don't appear very often.

Well I don't know how you can measure that in the current peloton but Andy Schleck brought home results early yet you believe he has no talent.

In the LeMond era, there was Hinault/Fignon whose careers overlapped with LeMond so to say those types of rider's don't appear very often is questionable. Likewise, there were plenty of guys capable of beating LeMond in one day races.

You speak of LeMond as if he were Merckx but he was nowhere near that dominant.