• The Cycling News forum is looking to add some volunteer moderators with Red Rick's recent retirement. 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!

LOL! McQuack Calls Lemond "Arrogant"

Page 4 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Apr 20, 2012
6,320
0
0
Visit site
Alpe d'Huez said:
Back to the topic, that interview with Pat was comedy gold! Serious laughs there.
Extremely good idea Alpe! Here the same, just laughing my a@@ off. Never did anything for cycling the last 25 years that arrogant soab LeMond. Did not win twice the Tour, never adressed doping. Just an arrogant sour old man that wants to sell his bikes!

The big question is of course what did Pat McQuaid, really, an Irishman at head of state in cycling [even worse than a Dutchman], do for cycling the last 25, or even the last 7, years? Covering up doping isn't pro - cycling mister McQuaid. Allowing your son to do dirty buisiness as a manager is not pro - cycling Pat.

Pat, just go away.

And indeed, LeMond only wanted to be an interim trouble shooter.
 
Alpe d'Huez said:
Back to the topic, that interview with Pat was comedy gold! Serious laughs there.

Agree with Doc. Greg only agreed to be considered for interim president, and said Pat should resign. I don't recall him lobbying to take over the helm at all, let alone on a permanent basis.

I wouldn't believe too much of what Boyer has to complain about, considering his own dark past, and what happened to Greg in his youth.

Greg was friends with Fignon up until the day Laurent passed away. Greg even refers to Hinault with great reverence in recent times, not bitterness. So to say Greg has a lot of enemies seems quite off. While I've never met the man, I know for a fact he lives in a nice house in Minnesota and isn't struggling at all. Also considering he donated $200k to ADHD and child abuse causes recently also says something.

If you don't like the guy, for whatever the reason, fine. But to question his intentions and principles regarding cycling is just trolling.

As is raising the question of his doping. In fact, this is the 'tell'.

wrt PDM, since this was raised above, here is a statement direct from Greg himself taken from a 2007 Interview in L'Express:

"Doped riders are like drug-addicts"
...
E: You never doped?

GL: No. And I didn't always understand what I was told. I am American, not french or belgian. For long I didn't get the subtilities of the language. When I was asked if I was "medically taken care of properly", I was answering that I wasn't sick. When asked if I was well "prepared", I was showing my training schedules books. It's probably in 1988, after my hunting accident, that I was the closest in touch to doping. I signed with the dutch team PDM and they had decided to try "things" on their riders. Their doctor was asserting that I needed to be physiologically "re-equilibrated" because I had lost a lot of blood the preceeding year. Luckily that year I hardly raced. On the other hand, Gert Jan Theunisse, one of the leaders of the team, was banned from the Tour de France after being tested positive to testosterone. "


As is the inevitable conclusion, there is no evidence.

Trying to argue 'possibility' is a game of semantics targeted at shielding a troll.

This unlikeliest of possibilities has nothing to do with subject of this thread.

Dave.
 
Oct 16, 2010
19,912
2
0
Visit site
D-Queued said:
As is raising the question of his doping. ..
Dave.

Last time I checked taboos there are none in the clinic.
to be sure: the discussion wasn't about whether Lemond doped or not (we all agree the odds are favorable), but about whether any rumors in that regard circulate in the first place. See the difference? Now, 1986winnerTDF said there had never been any rumors wrt Lemond and doping. In reply, I pointed out efasofina's post, which by implication raises a suspicion wrt Lemond and doping at ADR and can thus objectively be classified as a rumor. C'est tout. Now back on topic.
 
Apr 20, 2012
6,320
0
0
Visit site
sniper said:
Fourth: I reposted efasofina's post, which by implication raises a suspicion wrt Lemond and can thus objectively be classified as a rumor wrt Lemond. 1986winnerTDF said there had never been any rumors wrt Lemond, which I showed to be incorrect by reposting efasofina's post.

Five: Now breath out.
Lets all breath and stay on topic. But, when efasofina is who I think he is I think he did not have a lot to do with Greg at ADR. I think only Johan Lammerts had anything to do with Greg, he won that 1989 Tour without any help of his teammates, minus Lammerts. He was the only one who could follow untill 10k before every single mountain top...
 
Fearless Greg Lemond said:
There is always a possibility, even how small it is. But given the statements of riders, it is quite a fact Greg was clean. Only one passage in Fignon's book was worrying, regarding the 1989 Champs TT, where he claims he saw 'a different rider'. Could of course have been the adrenaline pumping through LeMonds vains.


Thank you....I've said from the beginning, if there's any sort of proof, even a small amount, it wouldve come out by now. I don't think folks realize the magnitude of the Armstrong witchhunt(notice what i did there?:)), into the "Lemond doped too" Fiasco. He was willing to pay ANYONE, to come forward with even so much as a rumor showing Greg doped, and where did that lead? NOWHERE!! So, IMO, that negates/shoots down/disqualifies ANY "possibility"(even small) of him doping. You don't think there weren't any fanboys who weren't willing to jump through hoops for the guy to show how "honest" he was?

I totally get what you're saying, and that of Sniper, I just get sick of reading the whole "well, there's innuendo that this one time in 1987 when i was riding and i saw a bunch of riders doing it, and Greg was there, but never actually saw him do it"....Nonsense so many keep bringing up/clinging to years later.

Greg's been retired for over 18 years, and his last win was 22 yrs ago, in all that time, there's never been 1 FACTUAL/CREDIBLE source that's claimed he's doped. I can say "well I was @ the 85 TDF, and as a fan, I happened to see Hinault and Lemond taking something, but I cant be for sure what it was, so i dont want to speculate", and some will believe me, but most won't. if i can't back it up, it's kind of pointless to say it IMO, especially when it comes to Lemond and doping.
 
D-Queued said:

Thank you........no disrespect to Sniper, I don't dislike him, and there's no beef with him personally. I just think he's trying to grasp at straws that aren't there, haven't been, nor ever will be. Fignon doesn't name Greg, so how does he know if he did or didn't? he can assume he did, but without proof, it's all hearsay, or "My dog saw him",etc.

The "possibility" he puts forth isn't really a "possibility" at all, because there is no proof to back up any "possibility".


Just sayin.
 
to be sure: the discussion wasn't about whether Lemond doped or not (we all agree the odds are favorable),


But yet you then turn around, and start throwing out the "possibility" response.....if you already KNEW he was clean, then why did you bring it back around and then quote a statement from a supposed former rider who didn't have proof/evidence he did?

but about whether any rumors in that regard circulate in the first place. See the difference? Now, 1986winnerTDF said there had never been any rumors wrt Lemond and doping.


LOL, never said "rumors".....I said "PROOF/EVIDENCE" THAT HE ACTUALLY DOPED. My dog can claim he saw Greg dope, anyone can lay claim to that, thats a rumor/innuendo/assumption/etc...without "proof/evidence" to back it up, he doesn't look very good or credible does he? No. Since no one can produce any proof that he did, you can use all the 'rumors/innuendo" you want, but it still ends the same way: no proof he did anything, and that he's clean. That's what i've been saying from the beginning.


Now, back onto the topic. Pat is a shady dude, and we as cycling fans can only hope he gets booted through the uprights and replaced.
 
Oct 16, 2010
19,912
2
0
Visit site
86TDFWinner said:
...snipped for brevity..
you completely misunderstood me. no problems with Lemond whatsoever.
here it is:
i have a problem with the implication that if there is no proof or rumors that Mr. X doped then we should consider it a fact that Mr. X did not dope. I have no problem adopting this logic with particular regard to Lemond. But the problem arises when we apply the same logic to the rest of the peloton. I wouldn't put my hand in the fire for too many of them, even in the absence of proof or rumors. take sastre. no proof no rumors. clean? I doubt it.
So your implication fails as a general rule, even though it probably holds for Lemond.
 
Oct 16, 2010
19,912
2
0
Visit site
86TDFWinner said:
But yet you then turn around, and start throwing out the "possibility" response.....if you already KNEW he was clean, then why did you bring it back around and then quote a statement from a supposed former rider who didn't have proof/evidence he did?




LOL, never said "rumors".....I said "PROOF/EVIDENCE" THAT HE ACTUALLY DOPED. My dog can claim he saw Greg dope, anyone can lay claim to that, thats a rumor/innuendo/assumption/etc...without "proof/evidence" to back it up, he doesn't look very good or credible does he? No. Since no one can produce any proof that he did, you can use all the 'rumors/innuendo" you want, but it still ends the same way: no proof he did anything, and that he's clean. That's what i've been saying from the beginning.


Now, back onto the topic. Pat is a shady dude, and we as cycling fans can only hope he gets booted through the uprights and replaced.

sigh. even Dave understood it was a semantic issue.
 
sniper said:
you completely misunderstood me. no problems with Lemond whatsoever.
here it is:
i have a problem with the implication that if there is no proof or rumors that Mr. X doped then we should consider it a fact that Mr. X did not dope. I have no problem adopting this logic with particular regard to Lemond. But the problem arises when we apply the same logic to the rest of the peloton. I wouldn't put my hand in the fire for too many of them, even in the absence of proof or rumors. take sastre. no proof no rumors. clean? I doubt it.
So your impli
cation fails as a general rule, even though it probably holds for Lemond.

I see....the "you misunderstood me" response, when we have nothing else. Nothing for me to "misunderstand" really, just asked for you to back up your "possibility" claim, you couldnt do that. You assumed Greg doped because he "chased after" a lazy, ******y, Boyer and beat him. I'm sorry that you dislike what Greg did to Mr. Boyer that day.

Why do you keep on with this? we'll agree to disagree.

As to your last statement, I thought we were talking about LEMOND and NOT "other riders"? Since we were, YOU admit what I said holds true for him, so there shouldnt be any arguement. I dont care about "other riders", I care about Greg. YOU took issue with me asking for proof to back up your ridiculous "possibility" nonsense, when you couldn't produce any(since There isn't any), we're now here, He's been retired for 18 yrs, so no "possibility" exists that he's doped.


Now, please.....FOR THE LAST TIME, lets move on, you won't win this arguement you keep
trying to that just isn't there. Can you not let it go and move on?
 
Oct 16, 2010
19,912
2
0
Visit site
86TDFWinner said:
I see....the "you misunderstood me" response, when we have nothing else. Nothing for me to "misunderstand" really, just asked for you to back up your "possibility" claim, you couldnt do that. You assumed Greg doped because he "chased after" a lazy, ******y, Boyer and beat him. I'm sorry that you dislike what Greg did to Mr. Boyer that day.

Why do you keep on with this? we'll agree to disagree.

As to your last statement, I thought we were talking about LEMOND and NOT "other riders"? Since we were, YOU admit what I said holds true for him, so there shouldnt be any arguement. I dont care about "other riders", I care about Greg. YOU took issue with me asking for proof to back up your ridiculous "possibility" nonsense, when you couldn't produce any(since There isn't any), we're now here, He's been retired for 18 yrs, so no "possibility" exists that he's doped.


Now, please.....FOR THE LAST TIME, lets move on, you won't win this arguement you keep
trying to that just isn't there. Can you not let it go and move on?
not the brightest bulb, are you? even dave understood it was about semantics.
you're chasing ghosts, but don't let me stop you.
 
May 26, 2009
460
0
0
www.parrabuddy.blogspot.com
Anyone seen this ?
http://www.irishexaminer.com/sport/...nt-resigning-218116.html#.UN7cUgKAuN4.twitter

So here we have " ArrogoPHAT " stating that he met Greg L. in 1986 and has not noticed what he has done since ?

NO WONDER the UCIless is behind the times !

What was phat's job until 2005 ? Nothing to do with Racers ? No time to read the newspapers ?

Spent all his time in a " Bomb shelter " as the storm passed him by ?

Everything he says , contradicts something else he says in the same article !

When he gets up in the morning , he must ask himself , " What piece of drivel can i foist on the Cycling Community "!

Without any experience , even @gaudryt could do a better job ! Only the sick & infirm could think thsat phat works when he appears in aigle to collect his salary !
 
86TDFWinner said:
No disrespect, but it's been mentioned here MANY times that Wonderboy had a "bounty" of sorts for people with "info" on whether or not Greg doped, and it went NOWHERE(& we're talking ALOT of money), no hearsay, no bs rumors made up to cash in, nothing. What does that say to people questioning the subject? it says it most likely didnt happen(or surely it wouldve come out by now). Besides, that poster offers NOTHING in the evidence/proof dept stating 100% for sure Lemond doped, no times/dates/drs who administered it, nothing, it's basically his opinion(he even says so in the post).

Greg afaic, is the real deal, and clean. Hampsten/Bauer/Knickman/someone wouldve come out by now if Greg doped.

Hampsten et al. haven't implicated a single soul, so what makes you think they'd out Lemond?
Stop being so silly. Bauer had Armstrong's back right up until the bloody end.
No one here has said that Lemond doped. Some folks have rightfully suggested that it would be a miracle if he didn't take anything at all.
The way you pounce like a rabid dog on anyone who merely suggests he may have ridden on something more than bread and water makes me think you're related to Lemond.
 
Jun 1, 2011
2,500
0
0
Visit site
No proof, just doubts and wonder at why he would take on the UCI role. Interim or not.Speaking of doubt...the ugly thought he's wanting to cover his tracks if he did.

"Let's put a lid on it," because I have few enemies of my own....

There's too much "good guy" self interest whatever the case. He's still involve in making money from the sport. Trainers are probably a good niche ( I've heard they are not bad) and you can jump start a rebrand and go up from there. Business is business, but I fear another self seeker. The impact on USA cycling from USADA is still unknown which could have a number of implications in biz of the sport...more questions than answers.

If your looking for someone interim, look from outside the sport completely.
 
BillytheKid said:
No proof, just doubts and wonder at why he would take on the UCI role. Interim or not.Speaking of doubt...the ugly thought he's wanting to cover his tracks if he did.

"Let's put a lid on it," because I have few enemies of my own....

There's too much "good guy" self interest whatever the case. He's still involve in making money from the sport. Trainers are probably a good niche ( I've heard they are not bad) and you can jump start a rebrand and go up from there. Business is business, but I fear another self seeker. The impact on USA cycling from USADA is still unknown which could have a number of implications in biz of the sport...more questions than answers.

If your looking for someone interim, look from outside the sport completely.

Billy I vote for you! You'd do an excellent job! :rolleyes:
 
Jun 1, 2011
2,500
0
0
Visit site
thehog said:
Billy I vote for you! You'd do an excellent job! :rolleyes:

I was thinking of someone who's never thrown a leg over a bike in competition.

But in all self-interest, I will take the nomination because I need the cash.

That was too quick on the comeback, Hog. Too quick.
 
Aug 13, 2009
12,855
1
0
Visit site
the delgados said:
Hampsten et al. haven't implicated a single soul, so what makes you think they'd out Lemond?

Nonsense

Andy wrote this in 2004

Andy Hampsten Speaks on the Dopage Issue

July 24, 2004

Dear Fellow Cyclists and Cycling Fans,

Like many of you, I have read Greg Lemond's recent comments regarding doping in cycling and his interactions with Lance Armstrong. For those not up to speed, see this link for a concise account of Greg’s statements in English:

http://www.eurosport.com/home/pages/V4/L0/S18/sport_Lng0_Spo18_Sto613945.shtml

The original complete text in French appears here:

http://www.lemonde.fr/web/recherche_articleweb/1,13-0,36-372691,0.html

I admire Greg's courage to speak his mind on the doping problems that still plague cycling. Like him, I feel that this problem is out of hand. Something needs to be done to clean it up, not only for the sake of the riders’ health, but also for the sake of returning our sport to the truths of human spirit, valor, and talent.

The English version of the Eurosport article makes a huge point of Greg’s personal experience with Lance and the resulting conflict. Obviously, Lance and Greg have their own private relationship. While I know and respect both of these champions, having raced with both of them over the years, their personal interaction is none of my business, and speculating on conflict between the two only distracts from the bigger and more important issue of doping.

What I found more compelling was the complete Le Monde text. It clearly shows Greg, who remains unquestionably the father of the modern era of American cycling champions, standing up and declaring that professional cycling has been and, regrettably, still is rotten with drugs.

Greg has put himself into personal and business difficulties by speaking out and getting involved with the issue of drugs in today's cycling. Voluntarily placing himself in this position shows me honesty and bravery far beyond what most of us could muster. Lemond could instead follow the cycling world's expectations for past champions and sit around "a fumer le pipe" ('chilling' in cycling slang) in silence. But, his legitimate concern for the health and lives of today’s athletes and future riders drives him to do what he can to return cycling to a healthy level. I want to see the same. Since the early 90s both doping and the medical excesses placed upon riders’ health have gotten out of control.

Most of us will probably need to put aside our Tour time emotions and resist making the judgment that Greg is trying to gain something personal or is simply jealous of being eclipsed as the dominant American cyclist. I saw Greg race as a champion through the 80s, and into the 90s when the cycling community as a whole turned a blind eye towards doping and consciously ignored the onslaught of EPO in the peloton.

Like Greg, I too saw what I believe were the effects of EPO when it entered pro cycling in the early 90s. In the first years it grew from a few individuals reaping obscene wins from exploiting its “benefits,” to entire teams relying on it, essentially forcing all but the most gifted racers to either use EPO to keep their place in cycling, quit, or become just another obscure rider in the group.

I had the honor of racing in eight Tours. Being happily retired, I can reflect on my small part in that race and enjoy seeing it motivate kids just as it did me. So like Greg Lemond, I cannot just sit idly by watching our sport continue to suffer from cheating. It’s time to tell the truth.

Why now? Remember that while the Tour de France is the pinnacle of cycling, it is also the leading force in fighting drugs in cycling. Right now, while public attention is still on the Tour, is a good time to address the problem of doping.

Dr. Michele Ferrari is known to have supported the use of EPO to increase his riders’ performances. In ’94, while his riders dominated the Ardennes Classic, he publicly ridiculed making rules against EPO saying it was safe to use and should not be made illegal in cycling. I believe behavior like this and the use of these products should not be tolerated. Violators should receive meaningful bans from the sport, bans that significantly outweigh any perceived benefits.

Many aspiring racers have confronted drug use as they rose through the ranks. Unfortunately, their silent answer to this insanity is often to quit racing at this level. Otherwise, they risk succumbing to the conventional wisdom that “since everyone takes drugs to be competitive, you should too.” This must not continue to be the choice facing promising young racers.

Now, in his retirement, Greg Lemond is fighting to bring racing back to a natural level of honest riders racing to their limits and living a long life to talk about it. I am writing to support him in this fight.

Both Greg and I are involved with a junior racing team, so this matter continues to concern us as we support and urge kids to go as far as they can in the sport we love, both for their own personal rewards, and to keep cycling growing. It is irresponsible for us to encourage kids to race and potentially turn pro without doing all we can to change cycling back to a sport where they will not likely be asked to take drugs that could ultimately destroy their natural good health, their characters, and their bodies.

Thanks for listening,

Andy Hampsten



Always the same, LeMond doped because well, he just had to have doped, no evidence but yeah he definitely doped. :rolleyes:

They seem to ignore the people in the know like Laurent Fignon who said it was possible to win clean in the 80s even though he doped himself.

Like Willy Voet who said there were clean top riders like Charly Mottet despite naming countless people who did dope.

Like Paul Koechli, who ran a clean team in Helvetia/La Suiise without any needles and said LeMond won the Tour clean. Before people say that was because he was his manager, Koechli never said Hinault won the tour clean and he was his manager too. Bernard Tapie, owner of the team said the only guys he knew that definitely didnt dope were LeMond and Bauer, not Hinault, not Bernard.

Like Peter Winnen who says it was possible to win clean in the 80s but everything changed with EPO.

Teammates, staff and fellow riders have story after story about how Greg was anti doping for decades, yet some prefer to ignore this.

These poster are not just refuting other posters, they are refuting guys from that period who were involved in cycling, people who have said they doped themselves or that doping was present.
 
Oct 16, 2010
19,912
2
0
Visit site
the delgados said:
...
No one here has said that Lemond doped. Some folks have rightfully suggested that it would be a miracle if he didn't take anything at all.
The way you pounce like a rabid dog on anyone who merely suggests he may have ridden on something more than bread and water makes me think you're related to Lemond.
+1

Race Radio said:
Teammates, staff and fellow riders have story after story about how Greg was anti doping for decades, yet some prefer to ignore this.
These poster are not just refuting other posters, they are refuting guys from that period who were involved in cycling, people who have said they doped themselves or that doping was present.
which posters? Nobody has claimed Lemond is likely to have doped. Everybody thinks he was probably clean. That said, it's logically impossible to be sure, even if it's highly likely, that he was clean. So what's the big deal with Lemond? I love the guy, and we all agree he was most likely clean, but to suggest we shouldn't discuss him in relation to doping is a bit lame, to say the least.
 
@Race Radio
I'm tempted to substitute the name Wiggins for Lemond in the first sentence of your post, but I don't want people to hate me.
I've been reading these forums for a while and I acknowledge that folks like you know way more than I about the sport, so I will stand corrected.
That said, don't blame for asking the question.
 
Oct 16, 2010
19,912
2
0
Visit site
the delgados said:
...
No one here has said that Lemond doped. Some folks have rightfully suggested that it would be a miracle if he didn't take anything at all.
The way you pounce like a rabid dog on anyone who merely suggests he may have ridden on something more than bread and water makes me think you're related to Lemond.
+1
it seems taboo to use the words Lemond and doping in one sentence.
a bit lame if you ask me.

Race Radio said:
Nonsense
Teammates, staff and fellow riders have story after story about how Greg was anti doping for decades, yet some prefer to ignore this.

These poster are not just refuting other posters, they are refuting guys from that period who were involved in cycling, people who have said they doped themselves or that doping was present.
which poster(s)? I don't recall a single poster suggesting Lemond was likely doped.