• 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!

Mediocrity Era!

Page 2 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Jul 22, 2009
754
1
0
Visit site
kurtinsc said:
Too much smoke with Indurain to think he's clean.

I'm betting neither Lemond nor Fignon would ever defend Indurain as not using EPO.

Indurain was one of the riders LeMond was indirectly referring to when he said (sort of) "all of a sudden riders who, the year prior, I was dropping at the base of a climb were not only keeping up but also attacking me".
 
Jan 19, 2010
214
0
0
Visit site
sida-mot said:
So if you're beaten by those that dope it proves that you are clean? No. Sorry it doesn't work that way.

me said:
So, then by your application of logic, then Fignon is full of crap when he says that those that were out riding him were on EPO and he was not.

hrotha said:
You're not very good at logic.

So, tell me then with your superior use of logic...

If Fignon says, people must be using EPO because they beat him.

And if Indurain, said people only beat me because they were doping (Ullrich, Riis, etc...)

So, "if you're beaten by those that dope it proves that you are clean" "doesn't work", then how can people think Fignon was clean but Indurain was not?

Plenty of people in the 80's and early 90's doped. Why should we believe Fignon? After all, steroid abuse has been linked to development of cancer (and I have read in the clinic people speculating that LA's doping caused his cancer).

Or did you just want to make a personal attack on me?
 

Polish

BANNED
Mar 11, 2009
3,853
0
0
Visit site
It is somewhat sad that Mr Fignon did not live long enough to witness the birth of clean cycling, but at least he witnessed the end of the "Epo era".

Like others on the forum, my earliest memories of Pro Cycling include Laurent - as the bristly antagonist as I rooted for Greg....Great Tour, 1989!

As the years have passed, however, Laurent became less of an antagonist in my eyes. And as I watch the old videos these days, I find myself now rooting for the "Professor":)

Thanks, Mr Fignon, for the great racing memories!
 
Squares said:
So, tell me then with your superior use of logic...

If Fignon says, people must be using EPO because they beat him.

And if Indurain, said people only beat me because they were doping (Ullrich, Riis, etc...)

So, "if you're beaten by those that dope it proves that you are clean" "doesn't work", then how can people think Fignon was clean but Indurain was not?

Plenty of people in the 80's and early 90's doped. Why should we believe Fignon? After all, steroid abuse has been linked to development of cancer (and I have read in the clinic people speculating that LA's doping caused his cancer).

Or did you just want to make a personal attack on me?
Fignon admitted to doping, just not with EPO. EPO was not like the PEDs that were around in the 80s, it gave an advantage that could be measured in the tens percent. Indurain has never said he was beaten because he was clean and others weren't.
 
Señor_Contador said:
And please, those of you who think Greg Lemond did not take certain things too... put down the crack pipe!

His entire moral superiority trip, I bet, is based on the fact that he was (comparatively) chewing on coca leaves, while this new generation was shooting up heroin, smoking crack and doing meth.

Really? "I bet"? That's your best take? "I bet" and accusing him of coke use?

You might want to back that up.
 
May 18, 2009
3,757
0
0
Visit site
Escarabajo said:
Who said that?

Why are you upset?

Why are we discussing Greg Lemond performances again, like for the million time????:confused:

Maybe because GL claimed to be good buddies with Fignon after their retirement, even after Fignon admitted drug use. So, GL didn't appear to have a problem with Fignon, Delgado, or any of the others that cheated while competing against him. Hmm.

In his book Fignon even takes a stab at GL claiming the bars were "illegal" even, but still BFF's. :D

This is relevant because they both claim the same thing.....EPO caused them to quit. At least Fignon didn't come up with some BS diagnosis as an excuse before a fellow countryman started winning more tours. :cool:
 
May 26, 2010
28,143
5
0
Visit site
ChrisE said:
Maybe because GL claimed to be good buddies with Fignon after their retirement, even after Fignon admitted drug use. So, GL didn't appear to have a problem with Fignon, Delgado, or any of the others that cheated while competing against him. Hmm.

In his book Fignon even takes a stab at GL claiming the bars were "illegal" even, but still BFF's. :D

This is relevant because they both claim the same thing.....EPO caused them to quit. At least Fignon didn't come up with some BS diagnosis as an excuse before a fellow countryman started winning more tours. :cool:

The difference with GL and Fignon is that Fignon was a GT contender from day 1 as was GL and GL and Fignon probably sorted their differences privately.

As for GL and LA, didn't GL ask LA was he PEDing and it was denied by LA, then when GL heard, he said the famous quote to a journalist, " greatest comeback ever or greatest fraud" and that was published in the media and LA's retaliation has been non stop since with GL constantly having to defend himself and GL has been pointing to the mounting evidence about LA that we are all very aware of. LA made it a dirty battle between the 2, which the fanboys and fangirls constantly ignore.........

If GL doped i bet Fignon would have mentioned it in his book. I bet other riders would have talked about it by now. No one, except the Uniballer, has ever cast a shred of doubt over GL's ability on a bike, not even Hinualt who rode on the same team.....so give it up till you produce something like evidence and not hearsay and he must have cos Fignon did etc......
 
May 18, 2009
3,757
0
0
Visit site
Benotti69 said:
The difference with GL and Fignon is that Fignon was a GT contender from day 1 as was GL and GL and Fignon probably sorted their differences privately.

*snip whining about LA*

If GL doped i bet Fignon would have mentioned it in his book. I bet other riders would have talked about it by now. No one, except the Uniballer, has ever cast a shred of doubt over GL's ability on a bike, not even Hinualt who rode on the same team.....so give it up till you produce something like evidence and not hearsay and he must have cos Fignon did etc......

LOL. So since Fignon was a GT contender from day one GL has no problem he cheated while competing against him. :rolleyes:

Is that your opinion? Seriously? :D

If GL doped Fignon would have mentioned it? LOL (again, you're killing me). Do you know if your coworker is on drugs? What he/she does in their private time?

Why didn't GL mention Fignon doped, or Hinault in any interview or book? It's no fun when we turn this around is it? After all, everybody knows what everybody else does except saintly GL with his head in the clouds beating the dopers with water and powerbars. :rolleyes:

Do you think Hinault doped? Fignon? Delgado? Theunise? Rooks? Why didn't GL talk about them at the time or since? Things that make you go hmmm when you trot out an argument that is easy to shoot holes in, bennotti. But, we don't want to go there because it makes us look critical at GL. That's off limits in CN forums. :cool:
 
Jun 12, 2010
1,234
0
0
Visit site
ChrisE said:
LOL. So since Fignon was a GT contender from day one GL has no problem he cheated while competing against him. :rolleyes:

Is that your opinion? Seriously? :D

If GL doped Fignon would have mentioned it? LOL (again, you're killing me). Do you know if your coworker is on drugs? What he/she does in their private time?

Why didn't GL mention Fignon doped, or Hinault in any interview or book? It's no fun when we turn this around is it? After all, everybody knows what everybody else does except saintly GL with his head in the clouds beating the dopers with water and powerbars. :rolleyes:

Do you think Hinault doped? Fignon? Delgado? Theunise? Rooks? Why didn't GL talk about them at the time or since? Things that make you go hmmm when you trot out an argument that is easy to shoot holes in, bennotti. But, we don't want to go there because it makes us look critical at GL. That's off limits in CN forums. :cool:

A charlatan makes obscure what is clear; a thinker makes clear what is obscure. Hugh Kingsmill
 
May 18, 2009
3,757
0
0
Visit site
Darryl Webster said:
A charlatan makes obscure what is clear; a thinker makes clear what is obscure. Hugh Kingsmill

I agree. You surely muddied up some things with this post. If you care to quote sections of my post you wish to debate then I am game. Thanks.
 

Dr. Maserati

BANNED
Jun 19, 2009
13,250
1
0
Visit site
ChrisE said:
LOL. So since Fignon was a GT contender from day one GL has no problem he cheated while competing against him. :rolleyes:

Is that your opinion? Seriously? :D

If GL doped Fignon would have mentioned it? LOL (again, you're killing me). Do you know if your coworker is on drugs? What he/she does in their private time?

Why didn't GL mention Fignon doped, or Hinault in any interview or book? It's no fun when we turn this around is it? After all, everybody knows what everybody else does except saintly GL with his head in the clouds beating the dopers with water and powerbars. :rolleyes:

Do you think Hinault doped? Fignon? Delgado? Theunise? Rooks? Why didn't GL talk about them at the time or since? Things that make you go hmmm when you trot out an argument that is easy to shoot holes in, bennotti. But, we don't want to go there because it makes us look critical at GL. That's off limits in CN forums. :cool:

Is it ok if I 'jump in' and discuss your post?
Can you explain the bolded part -if true, why has your post not been removed?


Can you name all the riders that LeMond has named and accused of doping - if you need extra space you can use 2 or 3 posts.
This may also answer your question on why GL never mentioned the names you provided.
 
ChrisE said:
LOL. So since Fignon was a GT contender from day one GL has no problem he cheated while competing against him. :rolleyes:

Is that your opinion? Seriously? :D

If GL doped Fignon would have mentioned it? LOL (again, you're killing me). Do you know if your coworker is on drugs? What he/she does in their private time?

Why didn't GL mention Fignon doped, or Hinault in any interview or book? It's no fun when we turn this around is it? After all, everybody knows what everybody else does except saintly GL with his head in the clouds beating the dopers with water and powerbars. :rolleyes:

Do you think Hinault doped? Fignon? Delgado? Theunise? Rooks? Why didn't GL talk about them at the time or since? Things that make you go hmmm when you trot out an argument that is easy to shoot holes in, bennotti. But, we don't want to go there because it makes us look critical at GL. That's off limits in CN forums. :cool:
Chris,

I have heard Lemond talk about the differences between EPO and old dope. He has been critical of the new drugs and for some reason not of the old ones, I believe. I am not sure if that is the correct approach for a guy who is an antidoper crusader but to me that's what I understand he is doing.

Having said that, that's why he is not so critical of Fignon or Hinault or Delgado. He believes, and that includes me, that they all had huge natural talent because:

1- Natural talent has to show from day 1
2- Amphetamines don't turn a dunkey into a "race horse". 1-2% performance Enhancing versus 10-20% increases (Including HGH).

Then. that's my take on it.
 
Escarabajo said:
...
1- Natural talent has to show from day 1
...
To add to this theory. Fignon in an interview at the beginning of this thread confessed to be climbing with the best in the Giro at age 22 from day 1. He did not realize he was so good until they put him there. The same goes for Delgado. He confessed in an interview I read that they put him in his first Tour in 1983 and he all of the sudden found himself climbing in the first mountain stage with the best. It was a surprise to him, but then he realized that he had natural talent. Same goes for Lemond. From day 1.

I have challenged all posters in this forum more than once, to give me one single name from the past, pre-epo era, that developed as a talent late in their pro- career. I have found nobody. In fact 131313 came up with one name, which I don't remember, but it was challenged immediately by the good poster Popou. That's why Lemond is so outspoken about those riders who did not show talent at an early age and then becoming GT contenders.
 
May 26, 2010
28,143
5
0
Visit site
flicker said:
jUST keep on talking, LeMond will crack and we will get the truth. Please keep talking LeMond...

This has been the Uniballer's approach from the day GL realised LA doped and spoke out loud, best form of defense for the guilty is to attack, take the emphasis off yourself and put it on others, accuse the accusers.

Greg Lemond last won the TdF in 1990, 20 years ago. How many cyclists have spoken out about GL and his PED use and how it took results away from other riders, how he could not have done it without PEDs etc....How many journalists have spoken about GL and his PED use, difference in TTs times over a period over years before he ever won, losing huge time in mountain stages and then suddenly winning mountain stages.

Flicker, you fail yet again!

Keep spewing the LIESTRONG line as it is good to see it repeated ad nauseam lest some forget the Uniballer's PED use is what made him a TdF winner.
 
May 26, 2010
28,143
5
0
Visit site
ChrisE said:
LOL. So since Fignon was a GT contender from day one GL has no problem he cheated while competing against him. :rolleyes:

Is that your opinion? Seriously?

No what i suggested is that they made their peace in private. read my post.

ChrisE said:
If GL doped Fignon would have mentioned it? LOL (again, you're killing me). Do you know if your coworker is on drugs? What he/she does in their private time?

Considering the whole peloton knows what everyone is on,as human nature means people gossip and talk. Secrets never remain secret for long in the world of sport.

ChrisE said:
Why didn't GL mention Fignon doped, or Hinault in any interview or book? It's no fun when we turn this around is it? After all, everybody knows what everybody else does except saintly GL with his head in the clouds beating the dopers with water and powerbars. :rolleyes:

I'm sure GL has already has answered this, but i do not have the asnwer to hand. The PED of his era pre Indurain were not such a huge % boost to perfromance. Why did Fignon retire? EPO.

ChrisE said:
Do you think Hinault doped? Fignon? Delgado? Theunise? Rooks? Why didn't GL talk about them at the time or since? Things that make you go hmmm when you trot out an argument that is easy to shoot holes in, bennotti. But, we don't want to go there because it makes us look critical at GL. That's off limits in CN forums. :cool:

The reason GL has such a beef with LA is because LA made it into such a beef due to GL's quote that was published in the media, "greatest comeback or greatest fraud" and i have already posted this. GL broke the omerta bigtime with that comment and damaged LA's results and put a tiny crack into the image that was never their before outside of the peloton and that could not be permitted so LA went after GL as a personal vendetta. But since you are such an LA fanboy you can only see it from one side, LAs.

There are a lot of disgruntled ex pros out there, who i imagine would be livid at GLs statements about PED use in the sport if they new he was a participant in taking PEDs. A former DS could probably speak out about it and get a few $$$$ for it, but why has no one, NO ONE, except LA claimed GL used PEDS??????

With LA there is a huge amount of evidence* pointing to a huge amount of PED use, but with GL nothing but fanboy innuendo that the whole peloton was using so GL must have......RUBBISH

*evidence that is extremely strong, so strong that the Feds are investigating it, there has been at least 2 books written about it, and to date numerous articles about it.......not too many sane and normal people out in the real world believe he is innocent of PED use. But like attracts like hey?
 
Sep 25, 2009
7,527
1
0
Visit site
the original poster buckwheat, in memory of fignon, brought up fignon's point from his book specifically related to epo '... doping in cycling was revolutionized by the arrival of the blood-booster EPO in the early '90s'

how did this thread evolve into discussing lemond doping again ? how did fignon's criticizing epo use become a discussion of lemond not hating on fignon the the admitted doper ?

as benotto, pointed out if there were differences between lemond and fignon, they were likely settled in private.

again, the subject was that according to fignon epo revolutionized doping. everything else is either red herring or an intentional off-topic and derailing of the thread into a territory traveled many times.
 
Jul 15, 2009
84
0
0
Visit site
Prior to 1991 and EPO. Lemond was not beaten in the tour by another rider as a consequence of the winner being on PEDs.

1984 - First Tour, can be forgiven for not winning.
1985 - Team orders meant Hinault won, despite Lemond being stronger.
1986 - Won
1987 - Injured
1988 - Injured
1989 - Won
1990 - Won
1991 onwards - EPO
 
May 18, 2009
3,757
0
0
Visit site
hrotha said:
For me, the difference between older PEDs and EPO is like the difference between stealing candy at a store and robbing a bank.

Is the use of either against the rules? You don't need to answer that.

GL gives a pass to his contemporaries that competed against him doped, while lashing out at a countryman that doped when he beat his record.

Of course, they settled this in private over a beer or something since they were all GC guys lol. You guys crack me up.
 
Now what if, GL really WAS a genetical exception. That although he had a French name, and tried to integrate, he was always an outsider, not part of the omerta of his era. His tests do point towards that, and his adversaries (that rode more than a season or two in the 80's) won't step up to question his natural ability, despite his big mouth. Not even the French.

If 90's PEDs really only offer a small percentual gain, and GL was doing so well, so motivated, in a killer body, he may have gotten his wins against less talented dopers. he stuck out more above the rest of the top rider than PEDs could compensate. Until EPO. Which made him worry about PEDs for the first time, it was an issue, and he was all at once an also-ran.

I don't like the way GL runs his PR (he's just really stupid at it), but his story is more believable than anyone else's.

Lance knows "everyone" doped in the 80's, and feels confident pressing GL for confessing about it. But reall, had they been born the same year, and ridden their races together, and shared meals and what the heck even PEDs, GL would have been the big maestro. Lance got to show how good he was clean, supposedly the early 90's. A good one-day racer when he had his day. Decent time trialist. Compare that to GL.
 
ChrisE said:
Is the use of either against the rules? You don't need to answer that.

GL gives a pass to his contemporaries that competed against him doped, while lashing out at a countryman that doped when he beat his record.

Of course, they settled this in private over a beer or something since they were all GC guys lol. You guys crack me up.
Are you familiar with the concept of analogy? Did you even read my post?