• 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!

Reason for Lemond's decline

Page 3 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.

Dr. Maserati

BANNED
Jun 19, 2009
13,250
1
0
Visit site
colwildcat said:
Wow. Go back and read my posts here. They had nothing to do with Armstrong. So, you're saying it's impossible to dislike Lemond unless you're an Armstrong fanboy, is that it? I think there are those of us that are big enough adults to let more than the one-sided fued between Lemond and Armstrong form our opinions of the man. I can't stand him, whether or not he attacks Lance, or whether or not Lance ever doped. They are not irreparably linked in my book.

To me, he is a man who is bitter and angry about a lot of things. Whether it's the abuse in his past, the fact that he can't move on from the days he was a champion, etc, he comes across to me as desperate to stay in the news and believes the whole world is out to get him.

You may have an anti-Lance agenda here, I sure don't have a pro Lance agenda. Just can't stand Lemond, that's all.

I have reread all posts - and agree you said nothing about Armstrong. But not everyone here said Lemond is squeaky clean either - just that it is assumed he did not get caught up in the EPO arm's race.
I don't think he is "bitter" but I think he is "angry" about the current state of cycling. If you saw the video he did in the UK recently he did not "attack" the peloton at all. He is sympathetic to the riders as he understands that that many are prisoners of the road.

colwildcat said:
My post has nothing to do with my opinions on Armstrong. That was not my point. My point was on Lemond himself. Lemond attacks the peloton with impunity, the fact that he chooses to remain fixated on Armstrong strikes me as pathetic and desperate. He says that nobody can win without doping or cheating, yet maintains that he did.

So, he's either so insanely talented that he was the last clean rider to ever win a major bike race, or he's a douche bag. I'll go with the latter, in my humble opinion.

Again in that interview he mentioned that he was in a legal dispute with LA as part of his introduction and only made one further comment in answering a direct question at the end.
As I said he did not "attack the peleton with impunity" - he does rightly point out the UCI and other stakeholders as having at best ignored and at worse facilitated in the doping problem.
 
Mar 19, 2009
1,311
0
0
Visit site
colwildcat said:
Wow. Go back and read my posts here. They had nothing to do with Armstrong. So, you're saying it's impossible to dislike Lemond unless you're an Armstrong fanboy, is that it? I think there are those of us that are big enough adults to let more than the one-sided fued between Lemond and Armstrong form our opinions of the man. I can't stand him, whether or not he attacks Lance, or whether or not Lance ever doped. They are not irreparably linked in my book.

To me, he is a man who is bitter and angry about a lot of things. Whether it's the abuse in his past, the fact that he can't move on from the days he was a champion, etc, he comes across to me as desperate to stay in the news and believes the whole world is out to get him.

You may have an anti-Lance agenda here, I sure don't have a pro Lance agenda. Just can't stand Lemond, that's all.
Oh sorry, I didnt follow you all the way though. I still agree with you bro here:

BigBoat said:
I agree

-Lemond is a Douchbag
-Lemond doped
-Lemond is fat, ugly & old
-Lemond gave away his bikes to some people, defrauding him & Trek
-Lemond hurt Trek (sponsor of a great american Tour winner)
-Lemond attacks the whole Peloton (who are all clean)
-Lemond only singles out another american Tour winner which is deplorable and unfair
-Lemond sucked as a rider compared to somebody else
-Lemond sues constantly
-Lemond is crazy because he said he was sexually abused
-Lemond unfairly attacked Floyd Landis who was a victim
-

Livestrong bro,

Cheers :)

No flames
 
Mar 18, 2009
2,553
0
0
Visit site
BigBoat said:
-Lance works with Chris Carmichael who specializes in top training programs far superior to hacks like Coggan.

If that were really true, then why does Carmichael's right-hand man (you know, the guy in the videos wearing the Ferrari hat, whose ex-wife won a world championship) periodically call me for suggestions/advice/input?
 

Eva Maria

BANNED
May 24, 2009
387
0
0
Visit site
acoggan said:
If that were really true, then why does Carmichael's right-hand man (you know, the guy in the videos wearing the Ferrari hat, whose ex-wife won a world championship) periodically call me for suggestions/advice/input?

Coggan? Are you embarrassed you stood up for that fraud Coyle? You lost a ton of credibility with that.
 
Mar 19, 2009
1,311
0
0
Visit site
Eva Maria said:
Coggan? Are you embarrassed you stood up for that fraud Coyle? You lost a ton of credibility with that.

Their all sellouts, Eva. Coggan loves cycling and he loves the lies & denials, otherwise he wouldnt live off the industry. Its fun, a good show! Thats why doping should be legalized. Check out my other thread.

:)
 
Lemond

I was told, face to face, by one of the world's top triathlon coaches (multiple world champions at all distances) that by the end of his career, Lemond's blood was so thick, that he was being woken up every hour & walked for 5-10 minutes, so as to stop him dying in his sleep.
 
Mar 19, 2009
1,311
0
0
Visit site
Nick777 said:
I was told, face to face, by one of the world's top triathlon coaches (multiple world champions at all distances) that by the end of his career, Lemond's blood was so thick, that he was being woken up every hour & walked for 5-10 minutes, so as to stop him dying in his sleep.

No need to jack that high. 57% is safe to sleep on with a couple baby aspirin before bed, as an antiplatelet, which inhibits thrombus formation; increasing oxygen to the heart with low blood pressure while sleeping...
 
Alpe d'Huez said:
Good post Runningboy. Couldn't have said it better myself.

I'd add this. My gut tells me Greg had a hunch riders were using EPO, maybe as early as 1991, but thought it wouldn't do much more than corticoids, which he didn't need. But it was either disbelief, or the fact that he wasn't certain about it, plus the omerta that caused him to look elsewhere. If he would have just come out and said "There's this new drug, EPO, and everyone's on it", with ZERO proof of any sort, that would have certainly been the end of his career.

Years later his then presumptions became more obvious, and now are pretty much accepted.

I will add one more thing. Indurain was a physical specimen. Yes, Conconi helped him a great deal. Probably took him from podiums and wins, to multi-champion. But the guy had loads of talent, and I'll stick by what I said in my previous post about his career.

Agreed. I also think given Lemond's American background in a sport that was not particularly popular in the US, that he remained this naive all-American "kid," in a world of cynical and aware Euro men who had no illusions as to how the pro cycling game was to be played. So long as the major drugs were things like corticoids and testosterone, Lemond's great genetics (for he had great genetics) allowed him to win and to maintain his "innocence" relatively in tact . When, however, doping got much more serious with EPO and medics like Conconi, Lemond's genetics were no longer sufficient and his naivness had now become a handicap.
 
Nick777 said:
I was told, face to face, by one of the world's top triathlon coaches (multiple world champions at all distances) that by the end of his career, Lemond's blood was so thick, that he was being woken up every hour & walked for 5-10 minutes, so as to stop him dying in his sleep.

In light of your comment, perhaps my previous thoughts were themselves completely naive.

But if Lemond were so jacked on EPO, then why wasn't he competative?
 
Jul 11, 2009
40
0
0
Visit site
lemond

rhubroma said:
In light of your comment, perhaps my previous thoughts were themselves completely naive.

But if Lemond were so jacked on EPO, then why wasn't he competative?

mmm if you take epo or any other dope you still have to train right look at Big Jan and he got beat and we all know what he took.
as for Lemond first guy to go 55kph average in a TT AND what I got told he was one of the first riders to take EPO after the shooting ,thats if you want to believe this and after all his father is a doctor
I dont know if he doped but you have to ask .But he was a great rider and did a lot for cycling which is a lot more than most of the EURO riders from his era have done.
 
People still have this idea that Lemond was clean... I've heard at least one ex-team mate say that he doped, and there is no reason to believe that he wouldn't - the guy was at the cutting edge of everything in cycling. Look at 1990, in June he was 105th in the Giro, then 1st in the Tour... but nobody calls him on it. Greg was a popular guy doing what it took to win.

He wasn't completely out of the game in 1991. He rode a decent Tour overall to finish 7th and spent 6 days in the yellow jersey. He wasn't blown away by the new power generation. He did do far too much in the first week and then he had a couple of bad days in the mountains.

More interesting is why Armstrong's people don't uncover evidence of doping to discredit Lemond and his arguments. Answer: because Armstrong considers doping a perfectly legitimate part of the game.
 

Eva Maria

BANNED
May 24, 2009
387
0
0
Visit site
Nick777 said:
I was told, face to face, by one of the world's top triathlon coaches (multiple world champions at all distances) that by the end of his career, Lemond's blood was so thick, that he was being woken up every hour & walked for 5-10 minutes, so as to stop him dying in his sleep.

Yet another of example of how Triathletes know nothing about pro cycling, yet try to pretend they do.

Lemond never took EPO, if he did he would not been dropped by the legions of dopers who did.
 
Escarabajo said:
I don't care if he used other products, but if he did not use EPO he was out. EPO is a lot more superior advantage than other products. Look at Fignon who just recently accepted using amphetamines throughout his career and could not keep up with the others when the EPO was just becoming rampant in the Peloton. Fignon also accepted that he did not want to take EPO so he no longer had a leg up on the competition. Shortly after he retired.

Fignon finished 6th in 1991, when apparently the über-dopers of the 90s were making it impossible for the cleaner riders of the 80s to keep up. The following year he rode superbly in support of Gianni Bugno and won a stage for himself. He was 32 by then and coming to the natural conclusion of his cycling career but still raced the following year. These days with even more advanced dope programmes you could still be winning GT's at that age, but even Indurain won his last Tour at 31 and then retired the following year.

As with Lemond, there are two possible conclusions to draw:
1. Oxygen-vector doping doesn't really make as much difference as everyone says it does,
or
2. The dopers of the 80s got onto the new doping programme, but were at the end of their careers anyway so naturally in decline.

I think I'll go with.... no 2.
 
fatterboy said:
...as for Lemond first guy to go 55kph in a TT AND what I got told he was one of the first riders to take EPO after the shooting ,thats if you want to believe this and after all his father is a doctor
I dont know if he doped but you have to ask .But he was a great rider and did a lot for cycling which is a lot more than most of the EURO riders from his era have done.
At least tell us your source or any hint of when on earth you got that information from?

Maybe Conconi and Cecchini were involved in a secret project with Greg's Father ;)
Or maybe Greg's father was ahead of the game and new all the ins and outs of the EPO doping before Conconi and Checchini ever did;)

If you are trying to discredit someone at least try to learn more about the sport
 
Nick777 said:
I was told, face to face, by one of the world's top triathlon coaches (multiple world champions at all distances) that by the end of his career, Lemond's blood was so thick, that he was being woken up every hour & walked for 5-10 minutes, so as to stop him dying in his sleep.
Are you a Lance Armstrong Lawyer?
or Public Relations person?
 
R.0.t.O said:
People still have this idea that Lemond was clean... I've heard at least one ex-team mate say that he doped, and there is no reason to believe that he wouldn't - the guy was at the cutting edge of everything in cycling. Look at 1990, in June he was 105th in the Giro, then 1st in the Tour... but nobody calls him on it. Greg was a popular guy doing what it took to win.

He wasn't completely out of the game in 1991. He rode a decent Tour overall to finish 7th and spent 6 days in the yellow jersey. He wasn't blown away by the new power generation. He did do far too much in the first week and then he had a couple of bad days in the mountains.

More interesting is why Armstrong's people don't uncover evidence of doping to discredit Lemond and his arguments. Answer: because Armstrong considers doping a perfectly legitimate part of the game.

Wait a second, I never said he was clean. In fact I assume he would have taken corticoids and perhaps testosterone too, like all the others in his day. I just doubted he progressed to EPO when everybody else did. He claimed he was super trained in 91 and continued to prepare himself well in the last years. So either he just lost it if he had been taking EPO, or he wasn't really that trianed but still on it, or he wasn't really that trained and not on it, or he simply wasn't on it. Who knows about a guy who retired in 94. But if he had stayed around for the next few years, then I'd have no doubt whatsoever that he would have taken EPO with everybody else. That he retired when he did at least leaves a margin of doubt that wasn't part of that racket (with emphasis on at least a margin of doubt).

Believe me, I'm the last guy to assume any pro rider is clean. At any rate, I hope, for the sake of credibility, Lemond really stayed away from certain practices, otherwise his entire campaign against Armstrong is pathetic and hypocritical.

And +1 to your final answer.
 
Mar 19, 2009
1,311
0
0
Visit site
Lemond was a freak to still get 7th in that first epo Tour without epo...Most guys would have just had to drop out of that Tour without epo.
 
Jun 16, 2009
860
0
0
Visit site
Eva Maria said:
Yet another of example of how Triathletes know nothing about pro cycling, yet try to pretend they do.

Lemond never took EPO, if he did he would not been dropped by the legions of dopers who did.

Spot on. I would think a Pro cyclist like Paul Kimmage would be a much more reliable source than a triathlete coach. I don't think Lemond spent much time in triathlete circles. probably his only connection to triathlon would be...
Lance Armstrong.
an interesting side note about the cycling intelligence of Triathletes, I raced in the 80's against a field of Pros including Newby-Fraser & Huddle.
The bike course climbed from Lake Mead to Boulder City so there was a substantial elevation gain. I took my lightest bike & climbing wheels.
The top triathletes ran heavy discs, most front & rear. Anyone else remember how much those Campy Discs used to weigh? Yeah that was smart...
I was in T2 five minutes ahead of second place
 
rhubroma said:
Wait a second, I never said he was clean. In fact I assume he would have taken corticoids and perhaps testosterone too, like all the others in his day. I just doubted he progressed to EPO when everybody else did. He claimed he was super trained in 91 and continued to prepare himself well in the last years. So either he just lost it if he had been taking EPO, or he wasn't really that trianed but still on it, or he wasn't really that trained and not on it, or he simply wasn't on it. Who knows about a guy who retired in 94. But if he had stayed around for the next few years, then I'd have no doubt whatsoever that he would have taken EPO with everybody else. That he retired when he did at least leaves a margin of doubt that wasn't part of that racket (with emphasis on at least a margin of doubt).

Believe me, I'm the last guy to assume any pro rider is clean. At any rate, I hope, for the sake of credibility, Lemond really stayed away from certain practices, otherwise his entire campaign against Armstrong is pathetic and hypocritical.

And +1 to your final answer.

He may have been a relatively poor responder to EPO. He may not have been able to be part of a big team programme like others were. Z/Gan certainly weren't running a super-duper team doping programme like Gewiss, Festina, Telekom or US Postal did a few years later. Somehow though he made a massive turn-around from out-the-back to GC winner in a month in 1990, and somehow he was still competitive enough to make big tactical mistakes and still end up 7th overall in 1991 against super-charged Indurain, Bugno, Chiapucci etc.

He was 33 when he retired in 1994. Prior to the medical fine-tuning that occured later, 30 was a normal time to lose your GT prowess. Indurain retired at a similar age to Lemond and he was definitely on the super sauce. We have a warped view in 2009 because riders like Leipheimer are just 'discovering their GT talents' at an age where they should be hanging up their wheels.

Anyone that wants to see why people respect Lemond should see the 1992 Paris-Roubaix race where he rode brilliantly in support of Duclos-Lasalle. Compare that to how Armstrong behaves when he isn't the strongest rider in his team.

None of us are without our issues and problems. It's irrelevant to the Armstrong debate whether Lemond took EPO or not. My view is that he probably did, but it doesn't change anything about the fact that Armstrong did take EPO. It is possible for Lemond to be both hypocritical and correct. Maybe his real argument isn't against doping per se, but against the massive medical programmes which have dominated and dictated the results for the last 15 years.
 
Eva Maria said:
Yet another of example of how Triathletes know nothing about pro cycling, yet try to pretend they do.

Lemond never took EPO, if he did he would not been dropped by the legions of dopers who did.

This triathlon coach pretended he knew a lot about cycling. In fact, he pretended his way to coaching more than one cyclist to become world champion on the track. He was a cycling coach first & foremost before he realized how much money a lot of triathletes have.

Lemond did pretty well when EPO first started.
 

TRENDING THREADS