Official Lemond doping talk thread

[Race Radio]

And you know this to a certainty? Please, provide your evidence. I do not claim to "know" that Lemond doped, only that I highly suspect he did. You on the other hand seem to be positive that he didn't. There is no chance that Greg Lemond took PED's at any point in his career? If your answer to that is "yes" then you are being extremely obtuse.

By the way, I happen to know someone who raced with Bauer and he gives a slightly different version.

If you believe that I am being obtuse then please present some evidence. My position is well supported because there is zero evidence that LeMond doped. If there was I would change my mind.

 

[Altitude]

WW1, are Pot Belge and Bromptons' Cocktail considered doping? I am kind of naive. How about Benzedrine and dexedrine. Are those doping products. I want to know because I am clueless.

Couldn't tell you

 

[Altitude]

If you believe that I am being obtuse then please present some evidence. My position is well supported because there is zero evidence that LeMond doped. If there was I would change my mind.

I feel that his 3 Tour wins are enough to raise suspicion-- based soley on the history of the sport. This suspicion is reasonable. It is unreasonable to act as if there is no possible way Greg Lemond could have doped. He was either doped or he wasn't, we just don't know. You can't present your opinion as fact (well you could, but then you come across as obtuse).

 

[python]

I feel that his 3 Tour wins are enough to raise suspicion-- based soley on the history of the sport. This suspicion is reasonable. It is unreasonable to act as if there is no possible way Greg Lemond could have doped. He was either doped or he wasn't, we just don't know. You can't present your opinion as fact (well you could, but then you come across as obtuse).

it means you're desperate because you can't find other evidence. it also means that you're a flaming hypocrite if you call those who find someone's 7 wins suspicious..you call them haters. i won't waste anymore time on you, hater.

 

[JPM London]

If you couldn't win in the 50s and 60s without drugs, chances are you couldn't in the 80s either.

And who says you couldn't win clean in the 50s and 60s? Just because there was doping back then as well, doesn't mean you couldn't win without it.

...

If Greg made a stink about EPO in the early 90s I would have more respect for Greg.

Well, he did. Several times. I especially like his interview when he got off the bike in the 94 Tour saying something along the lines of "I didn't sign up for this".

And you know this to a certainty? Please, provide your evidence. I do not claim to "know" that Lemond doped, only that I highly suspect he did. You on the other hand seem to be positive that he didn't. There is no chance that Greg Lemond took PED's at any point in his career? If your answer to that is "yes" then you are being extremely obtuse.

And how do you prove something didn't happen? It's a weird upside-down world where someone has to prove one's innocence. Can you prove you have never stolen a car? Well, if not then I highly suspect you did...

By the way, I happen to know someone who raced with Bauer and he gives a slightly different version.

Ah, sorry. Guess that's it then - case closed. Anon sources from anon people on the internet are never ever wrong... Especially when they only insinuate and don't really say anything.

 

[Altitude]

And who says you couldn't win clean in the 50s and 60s? Just because there was doping back then as well, doesn't mean you couldn't win without it.



Well, he did. Several times. I especially like his interview when he got off the bike in the 94 Tour saying something along the lines of "I didn't sign up for this".



And how do you prove something didn't happen? It's a weird upside-down world where someone has to prove one's innocence. Can you prove you have never stolen a car? Well, if not then I highly suspect you did...



Ah, sorry. Guess that's it then - case closed. Anon sources from anon people on the internet are never ever wrong... Especially when they only insinuate and don't really say anything.

Fausto Coppi and Jacques Anquetil.


When someone provides a fact, I think a request of evidence is warranted. Don't you?


You don't have to believe it.

 

[WonderLance]

Its obvious he did. I saw him do it. Case closed.

 

[miloman]

This is whole Lemond thing is crazy. Without any evidence to the contrary, in the court of public opinion, it must be assumed that he rode clean. No one should make false accusations – even in a forum -- for any reason. You can certainly have your opinion, but say as much! What if someone stated a thread and accused me and half the senior members of doping while writing? It may be true -- at least about me-- but there is no proof. Unless we come out and admit our nefarious practices, we will go down as the generation of “clean” posters. No proof, then spell it out as opinion, or conjecture or even a fairy tale. Don’t pass it off as fact with the lame “someone told me,” or “I know someone, who knows someone, who. . .” We deserve no less and even “jerk” cyclists deserve the same consideration.

 

[scribe]

If you believe that I am being obtuse then please present some evidence. My position is well supported because there is zero evidence that LeMond doped. If there was I would change my mind.

Lance says he knows 10 people who saw him do it.

 

[flicker]

This is whole Lemond thing is crazy. Without any evidence to the contrary, in the court of public opinion, it must be assumed that he rode clean. No one should make false accusations – even in a forum -- for any reason. You can certainly have your opinion, but say as much! What if someone stated a thread and accused me and half the senior members of doping while writing? It may be true -- at least about me-- but there is no proof. Unless we come out and admit our nefarious practices, we will go down as the generation of “clean” posters. No proof, then spell it out as opinion, or conjecture or even a fairy tale. Don’t pass it off as fact with the lame “someone told me,” or “I know someone, who knows someone, who. . .” We deserve no less and even “jerk” cyclists deserve the same consideration.

If alcohol is considered a dope than I am guilty of doping while "forum posting."

 

[Race Radio]

I feel that his 3 Tour wins are enough to raise suspicion-- based soley on the history of the sport. This suspicion is reasonable. It is unreasonable to act as if there is no possible way Greg Lemond could have doped. He was either doped or he wasn't, we just don't know. You can't present your opinion as fact (well you could, but then you come across as obtuse).

You are presenting your opinion as fact as you have zero evidence......I would use the O word that you seem to love but that would be ad hominem

I have never said there is "no possible way" Greg doped. I have said there is zero evidence, which is true as you and your buddies have yet to present any.

 

[miloman]

If alcohol is considered a dope than I am guilty of doping while "forum posting."

The truth shall set you free!!! Now write a book and throw some of us under the bus.

 

[Altitude]

You are presenting your opinion as fact as you have zero evidence......I would use the O word that you seem to love but that would be ad hominem

I have never said there is "no possible way" Greg doped. I have said there is zero evidence, which is true as you and your buddies have yet to present any.

What does that mean? I have never claimed to know that Lemond doped, only that I suspect he did-- see the difference?

You gave a list of riders who according to you won without doping, including Lemond. You presented that post as a fact, which it is not. If you had said "these are riders I believe to be clean" I wouldn't have said anything.

 

[washedup]

Five points to anyone who scores that interview with Lemond talking about how he "didn't sign up for this..." and how much faster it has gotten.

I know I have seen it at some point over the years. Kind of put me in the shoes of the guys who lost careers back then from the poo hitting the fan. Would love to see it again. No luck on youtube.

 

[SpartacusRox]

Thanks for stating the obvious, but we're talking about natural talent. Everyone was "better" around 2000.

Incidentally, Zabriskie holds the record for the fastest TT in the Tour, not Lemond. For some reason that error still gets repeated here.

My comment was meant as a joke to get a rise from the GL fanboys who immediately rushed to head off at the pass anyone who might attempt to post disparaging remarks about their hero. I think they managed to fill the first two or three pages.

I actually really liked GL as a rider, he showed a lot of guts. Of course he was winning in an era where all his competitiors were also riding clean (Fignon excepted of course). To say otherwise would infer that he could possibly win against a plethora of doped riders.

 

[miloman]

Five points to anyone who scores that interview with Lemond talking about how he "didn't sign up for this..." and how much faster it has gotten.

I know I have seen it at some point over the years. Kind of put me in the shoes of the guys who lost careers back then from the poo hitting the fan. Would love to see it again. No luck on youtube.

I think there is something like that in the '92 or '93 Tour. If I remember correctly, LeMond said something like that as he was abandoning. It was a sad sight seeing him go out that way.

 

[Altitude]

I think there is something like that in the '92 or '93 Tour. If I remember correctly, LeMond said something like that as he was abandoning. It was a sad sight seeing him go out that way.

Brought a tear to my eye..

 

[Race Radio]

What does that mean? I have never claimed to know that Lemond doped, only that I suspect he did-- see the difference?

You gave a list of riders who according to you won without doping, including Lemond. You presented that post as a fact, which it is not. If you had said "these are riders I believe to be clean" I wouldn't have said anything.

do you realize how absurd your post is?

 

[Race Radio]

My comment was meant as a joke to get a rise from the GL fanboys .

Good of you to admit you are a troll

 

[The Hitch]

Stage 19 of the 2000 tour was 2 1/2 times longer (58.5 km) Armstrong averaged 53.986 kmph with Ulrich only 25 second behind.

I applaud your research.

Have prologues really not gone faster than this? its surprising.

 

[Race Radio]

I applaud your research.

Have prologues really not gone faster than this? its surprising.

Dave Z went faster in a Short TT in 2005 that was 19km. It had about 350 feet of vertical gain while lemond's TT lost 300 feet.

I think the fastest prologue is still Chris Boardman, 1994

 

[Altitude]

do you realize how absurd your post is?

No I don't. Please explain how it is absurd.

 

[slcbiker]

I don't know that those TT times include prologues, which are often not considered full "TTs".
As far as Z vs. Lemond, I believe Z's record was at the beginning of the Tour, on more aero gear, and he was definitely more of a TT specialist than Lemond. So I'd expect him to go faster. And there are those that would say Z also was on the stuff. So I don't know that is necessarily a point in Lemond's favor.

However, the big injustice on this thread is that Barrus told us that we can't joke What's up with that?

 

[Race Radio]

No I don't. Please explain how it is absurd.

There is no need to put a disclaimer on every post. This is a message board, not a legal document. You like my new signature?

_______________
All views expressed in this post are the opinions of the poster. Unless otherwise noted and linked to supporting evidence they are based on the posters personal beliefs and experience.

 

[SpartacusRox]

Good of you to admit you are a troll

I am surprised you can even write that comment without blushing given your form in disparaging other riders.

Sorry if you think it a crime to bring some levity into the forum. I just found it amusing how you in particular rushed into a pre-emptive strike as soon as the thread started.