• We're giving away a Cyclingnews water bottle! Find out more here!

Official Lance Armstrong Thread: Part 4 (Post-Settlement)

Page 11 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
So again, you have nothing?

Still waiting on that info, I keep checking my inbox here & nothing.

How did someone come to the conclusion that "LeMond doped too" or that Big Miggy doped, yet STILL haven't provided ANY SHRED of credible, factual info regarding either? The offer of PMing it to me, is open to EVERYONE. It must be credible/easily verifiable info, from credible sources, not something your dog Rusty told you, or you heard it from so and so, who got the info from so and so, who got that info from his best friends sisters cousins step uncle in law.

Please stop avoiding/dodging/deflectiing & just ANSWER by providing the info i asked about.


Not surprising.
Again. I'm suggesting Lemond DID NOT DOPE. Teammates and close associates feel the same way so the evidence is.....there is no evidence. I won't disclose who I've spoken to about it as they don't need harassment on this count either.
I can see the need to provide specifics, particularly when alleging someone committed a violation of some sort.
 
Again. I'm suggesting Lemond DID NOT DOPE. Teammates and close associates feel the same way so the evidence is.....there is no evidence. I won't disclose who I've spoken to about it as they don't need harassment on this count either.
I can see the need to provide specifics, particularly when alleging someone committed a violation of some sort.
Hard to understand how you could suggest anyone in the pro peloton "DID NOT DOPE" that seems to be a very naive view of pro cycling.
 
Reactions: fmk_RoI
Hard to understand how you could suggest anyone in the pro peloton "DID NOT DOPE" that seems to be a very naive view of pro cycling.
Current history aside you're welcome to the generalized opinion.
When I reference the opinions or confirmations from riders that I know, trained/raced with, coached or represented in contract negotiations I have a real sense of their honesty. There are riders that went an entire pro career without doping and there are current riders that are clean. The two Americans on Jumbo are among them according to guys around here that raced with them. I can tell you that they displayed their true talent when they were juniors so I'm going to "suggest" that they aren't suspicious until someone like you puts in the research to prove otherwise. 86TDF may have another path, though. Not sure.
 
Hard to understand how you could suggest anyone in the pro peloton "DID NOT DOPE" that seems to be a very naive view of pro cycling.
Gilles Delion is one practically the whole peloton agreed on from LeMond's time. The blesséd Christophe Bassons is another from a later era. Team bosses like Paul Köchli are well known for having tried to run clean teams. Pierre Ducrot is a swannie known to have been against doping. They're just some of the names that are pretty much universally agreed on as having been clean. Suggesting that someone in the pro peloton did not dope is not a sign of naivety, it can be a sign of knowing the history. Which, on this one, I'm sorry, you don't seem to know.
 
Reactions: Oldermanish
Gilles Delion is one practically the whole peloton agreed on from LeMond's time. The blesséd Christophe Bassons is another from a later era. Team bosses like Paul Köchli are well known for having tried to run clean teams. Pierre Ducrot is a swannie known to have been against doping. They're just some of the names that are pretty much universally agreed on as having been clean. Suggesting that someone in the pro peloton did not dope is not a sign of naivety, it can be a sign of knowing the history. Which, on this one, I'm sorry, you don't seem to know.
Right and I don't believe a word any one of them says.
I only started watching cycling because of the current clean era , for example wiggans and frooms.
 
Reactions: 42x16ss and fmk_RoI
Current history aside you're welcome to the generalized opinion.
When I reference the opinions or confirmations from riders that I know, trained/raced with, coached or represented in contract negotiations I have a real sense of their honesty. There are riders that went an entire pro career without doping and there are current riders that are clean. The two Americans on Jumbo are among them according to guys around here that raced with them. I can tell you that they displayed their true talent when they were juniors so I'm going to "suggest" that they aren't suspicious until someone like you puts in the research to prove otherwise. 86TDF may have another path, though. Not sure.
That is a very narrow way to think about cycling considering the history of it all.
Sad that you mention how you know these guys are clean and then talk about poloticians in another thread as most have doped. Its the exact same thing No?
 
You Wonderboy disciples are some butthurt folks.

Feel free to keep supporting him. I can't believe some here are still trying to defend him & what he did.

Your choice. I'm just going to continue posting Wonderboy related articles and so forth here.

Time to move on.

By all means you should post new information. It’s not clear what anything else you say has to do with the “post” “confession” situation.

Like a few others on this board I’d suggest you spend time with the concepts of repression, projection and identification. But hey
 
That is a very narrow way to think about cycling considering the history of it all.
Sad that you mention how you know these guys are clean and then talk about poloticians in another thread as most have doped. Its the exact same thing No?
You again have problem with deductive analysis. I believe Lemond did not dope based on reliable people. I couldn't prove either way whether he didn't or did. Nor can you so this is a waste of one of our time. fmk_Rol was absolutely correct about noteworthy clean riders. Still you find no room for belief and no possible knowledge or proof to back it up. You do seem capable of cut/paste responses.

When I spoke of politicians actions I wasn't speaking about one person, a race, a nationality or gender. I was joking about a group of public figures that occasionally are forced to admit they are the same as everyone else. Although one disappointing guy admitted to "smoking...pot...but not inhaling". A cowardly and stupid admission.

In any case; one example was based on personal experience and analysis. The other case was a lame attempt at a joke about no particular person so, no. Not the same thing.
 
Reactions: PrimusPilus12
Chesterton: "the new rebel is a Sceptic, and will not entirely trust anything. He has no loyalty; therefore he can never be really a revolutionist. And the fact that he doubts everything really gets in his way when he wants to denounce anything. For all denunciation implies a moral doctrine of some kind; and the modern revolutionist doubts not only the institution he denounces, but the doctrine by which he denounces it."
 
Reactions: Oldermanish
By all means you should post new information. It’s not clear what anything else you say has to do with the “post” “confession” situation.

Like a few others on this board I’d suggest you spend time with the concepts of repression, projection and identification. But hey
Thanks for your advice....time to move on.

I'm sure you find it difficult to figure stuff out that's posted here, so that's not at all surprising.
 
Reactions: fmk_RoI
Aug 29, 2016
261
19
3,060
The cyclist who implicitly thought that Indurain was on EPO was Greg LeMond quoted in Bad Blood by Jeremy Whittle.
I look 1991 as the crossroads in EPO use... There were propably sixty or seventy guys that year on EPO. I looked at my team, who'd won the race overall the previous year, and the difference between us and the dopers got more and more pronounced as the race went on...
When you take the spread between a guy whose [Hct] level drops to thirty-eight percent, compared to a guy who's racing at fifty-five per cent, and then run that over a three-week race - where the difference becomes increasingly pronounced - no matter how talented the first rider is, there's no way he's able to compete against the guy who's taking EPO.
 
Aphro..as an enormous favor to me. One that is not owed to me in any way..
please elaborate on when,where and why you listened to someone say "butthurt" . On additionally..no matter the facts..please tell me it was somewhere in Brooklyn. Preferably Park Slope or Prospect Heights..
Do tell.
 
Wigans and Froome? Cleans?

For a second I thought you were a Wonderlance impersonator, lol.
Lmao! None of those three are the cleans
It’s true. I do struggle with legal adults who say things like “butthurt” and pass it off as discourse. But that really says more about them than me.

I believe you struggle with more than just that as a functioning adult.
 
Time to move on? Maybe take ones own suggestion?
Nah, This is an Armstrong thread, here you go Wonderboy fanboi! More Wonderboy goodness. Remember, He didn't dope, honestly, how come? He "was on his bike 6 hours a day & was tested 947 times & never 1 positive. He could get 10 people to say you doped too Greg"(upon offering up the princely sum of $300k I believe it was to ANYONE who'd say they saw him(Greg)dope too- no one took him up on his generous offer-it was crickets chirp from everyone, including his dog).

 
Last edited:
Reactions: fmk_RoI
What kind of twisted measuring stick allows you to ridicule the notion of Froome or Wiggins being clean while indignantly asking for proof that Indurain doped?
Do you have proof neither have? I dont know either way myself, so i can't give you something I don't have, but i wouldnt be at all surprised if either were or did. They've had Wonderboy type excuses and explanations for their results IIRC. I'm still waiting for someone to provide proof Big Miggy doped, oh and Hinault as well. It's been going on weeks now, wonder why no one's posted it as of yet? Would it be because Neither exists?(AGAIN for those reading, remember, it's got to be something CREDIBLE/VERIFIABLE, not something your best friends, sisters, cousins, step uncle in law told you @ a family gathering, something we can easily look up and verify)
 
Last edited:
Reactions: fmk_RoI
I'm still waiting for someone to provide proof Big Miggy doped, oh and Hinault as well. It's been going on weeks now, wonder why no one's posted it as of yet?
Do you understand that the EPO test didn't arrive until 2001, so proof of EPO use for ANY rider who retired before then (or before 1998, when retroactive testing was applied) is almost impossible to come by? Even the HT test only came into use in 1997 (shortly after Indurain retired).

Why do we know that Riis doped? Because he admitted it.

Why do we know that Ullrich, Pantani and LA doped? Because their careers extended into a period when WADA had a fighting chance of catching them.

In fact, of all the riders who won the TDF, Giro or Vuelta in the 1990s, everyone except Mauri either: a) was sanctioned for doping; or b) retired before the HT and EPO tests were used. We don't know about Mauri, but his Veulta win came early in the decade, 1991, and was at the least the product of considerable luck, including being a member of a very strong TTT, and having a key mountain stage cancelled because of wealther.

Asking for the same standard to be applied to Indurain as was applied to riders like LA and Ullrich is totally inappropriate. It can't be. What we can conclude is that he rode during a period when we know there was heavy use of EPO; virtually all of the GT winners of that period who were still around when the HT or EPO test became possible were shown to have doped. There is very strong reason to believe that Indurain, who dominated GT s more than any other rider in that decade, was not clean, and had he not retired when he did, there was a good chance of this being established with a positive test.

Apologists for presumed dopers routinely hide behind the false premise that if there is no positive test, then we can't conclude anything about doping, and must let the matter rest. In fact, reams of evidence make it very clear that the the default conclusion has to be doping until proven otherwise. Just because WADA demands a very rigorous standard to sanction someone doesn't mean that we on a forum can't use logic and strong if circumstantial evidence to come to the conclusion that doping is far more likely than not.
 
Last edited:

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS