• 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!

Speech by Greg Lemond

Page 3 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Apr 19, 2009
190
0
0
Visit site
rapistwit said:
You're kidding, right?
Why is it that this thread is dominated by people that look at the pre-1990s through rose colored glasses?

Not rose colored glasses.....

You are just another Armstrong supporter that doens't want to beleive he benefited from the science of medical blood improvement.

I am not dissing Armstrong, I am just pointing out your hatred for Lemond and how you think he has done less than Lance. Do i think guys took crap back then yes, but it doesn't have the potency of the drugs and programs tey have today.
 
Mar 18, 2009
1,844
1
0
Visit site
Mister rapistwit...it is spelled that way because of the absolute stupidity of the movie...get it? I am also not questioning your intelligence...if it came off that way I do apologize!!! Not my intention.
 
May 12, 2009
66
0
0
Visit site
Kennf1 said:
Lemond was never caught or implicated in doping. The only pro rider to have ever suggested Lemond doped was Armstrong, when he was ****ed about Lemond's comments about Dr. Ferrari.

He sues constantly? The only other suit I recall was related to a real estate deal. Are you thinking of Armstrong perhaps?

An Armstrong hate thread? No, it's a give **** about the future of the sport thread.

What I find truly amazing about this thread is the simple fact that it would not have existed in 2003 or 2004. It would have been 99% pro-Armstrong, anti-Lemond.


I've heard otherwise on Lemond.
I don't believe any top notch rider in cycling has been clean for the last thirty years but if you're going to give Lemond a pass (when there were very few doping controls and its now impossible to test old Lemond samples) because he was never caught wouldn't that logic apply to Armstrong? Armstrong has never been officially caught nor sanctioned. Do I believe Armstrong dopes? Sure but so does everyone else.
Am I excusing it? No. Cycling (along with pretty much every other sport that has huge money) has lost most of it luster.
What I find weird is the fixation on Armstrong alone while touting other cyclists who have been implicated or caught.
 
May 12, 2009
66
0
0
Visit site
TRDean said:
Mister rapistwit...it is spelled that way because of the absolute stupidity of the movie...get it? I am also not questioning your intelligence...if it came off that way I do apologize!!! Not my intention.

No biggie. It's just getting a little heated in here. I should avoid these threads. They just go round and round.
 
May 12, 2009
66
0
0
Visit site
euphrades said:
Not rose colored glasses.....

You are just another Armstrong supporter that doens't want to beleive he benefited from the science of medical blood improvement.

I am not dissing Armstrong, I am just pointing out your hatred for Lemond and how you think he has done less than Lance. Do i think guys took crap back then yes, but it doesn't have the potency of the drugs and programs tey have today.

No I don't think drugs were as potent back then but all that matters is relativity in cycling.
Look at the 1984 US cycling team. They systematically doped and won.
Look at the sprinter Ben Johnson. Look at the East Germans. etc.
My point is that doping was becoming a science in the 70's and 80's and to pretend the great evil was the introduction of EPO seems off target. That was just a further symptom of the greater doping problem.
Call me cynical but I don't think any professional athlete is clean.
Track and field, cycling, swimming, football, baseball, etc are all saturated
with artificial performance enhancers.
 
Apr 9, 2009
976
0
0
Visit site
rapistwit said:
I've heard otherwise on Lemond.
I don't believe any top notch rider in cycling has been clean for the last thirty years but if you're going to give Lemond a pass (when there were very few doping controls and its now impossible to test old Lemond samples) because he was never caught wouldn't that logic apply to Armstrong? Armstrong has never been officially caught nor sanctioned. Do I believe Armstrong dopes? Sure but so does everyone else.
Am I excusing it? No. Cycling (along with pretty much every other sport that has huge money) has lost most of it luster.
What I find weird is the fixation on Armstrong alone while touting other cyclists who have been implicated or caught.

The fixation on Armstrong is simply due to his domination of the TdF for 7 years, and the unprecedented money he was able to accumulate from that success through the deals with Nike, Trek, Bristol Myers, etc. From an anti-doping standpoint, I think most would agree that the 10 years spanning '98 to '08 have been the most tumultuous (I'm talking about scandals and busts , not usage). Since Armstrong's career is smack dab in the middle of that period, the fixation on him in the anti-doping debate seems logical.

But back to Lemond's speech, he made the comment about being told something by Patrice Clerc while riding in a car that "blew him away," but declined to elaborate. I hate it when people leave something hanging like that. Perhaps it will come out in the litigation, who knows.
 
Mar 10, 2009
7,268
1
0
Visit site
rhubroma said:
And if things keep going the way they are now, we're liable to get Armstrong as the US President. How pathetic! And all because there is a flock of sheep with stupid yellow bands around their wrists supporting a man who has gotten away with murder and who are thus dragging society down to a state of indecent and obscence vulgarity.

+1! Let's not have him for president, he could even be worse then that other son of a gun. He could boycott the press. Or perhaps he'd have a hell of a speech writer advising him through the race radio.

And for that whole wristband cult, that's pathetic indeed. You identify yourself through a cheap plastic token with whatever 'victim'? It's like what the catholics did in the Middle Ages, when someone sinned. (S)he could buy a letter issued by the priest or bishop, for a small fee, after which the sinner would be redeemed. It's a false token of care to pacify your own conscience while publicly flaunting your involvement with the issue. That's what celebrities do to create a positive public image of self.
 
Jun 10, 2009
2
0
0
Visit site
The 47-year-old recalled meeting Ferrari in 1994. "I had an SRM meter and he looked down at me and said, 'What is that?' I said, 'It's a watt-measuring device'. He said, 'What do you need that for?' I said, 'So I can see if I'm progressing, when I should be recovering and when I should train again'... He had no concept of it.

Now I don't want to defend Dr. Ferrari, but I knew him while I was a medical student in Bologna, Italy during the late 80' and 90's. He was also one of the first Italians to race triathlons at that time. I also had the opportunity for him perform Conconi tests on myself and the other members of my team numerous times during that period. I remember seeing him in the fall of '91 and discussing wattage based training methods. While I was a medical student, I had the type of conversation with him that he is referring to. Only it was in 1991. In fact, the office based Conconi tests were performed on a stationary cycle that read watts. He was obsessed with watt/kg numbers. Lemond makes some interesting points when he discusses doping, but this statement is flat out wrong. Unfortunately, there are very few people who can call him him out on this type of stuff. Now it makes me wonder about the other stuff he spews.
 
Mar 10, 2009
6,158
1
0
Visit site
Lo Scallatore said:
The 47-year-old recalled meeting Ferrari in 1994. "I had an SRM meter and he looked down at me and said, 'What is that?' I said, 'It's a watt-measuring device'. He said, 'What do you need that for?' I said, 'So I can see if I'm progressing, when I should be recovering and when I should train again'... He had no concept of it.

What I don't get is why they ran into each other? Its 1994, Lemond is out of Pro racing, Ferrari an Italian Doctor of some kind, yet they're running into each other? Small world?
 
This whole thing started when LeMond said he was disappointed to hear Lance was working with Dr.Ferrari. To me this was a pretty harmless comment which I think most people agreed with, I think if it was discovered Usain Bolt (100,200m Olympic Champion, World record holder) was working with one of the BALCO coaches, a lot of people would be dissappointed. If Michael Johnson reacted like LeMond, would we say he was wrong or out of line. Dont think so. Everyman & his dog knew what Dr.Ferrari was most associated with and it wasnt anything good

Lances reaction to LeMonds innocuos comment spoke volumes about his character, he called up LeMond, abused him and threatened him. Why?because LeMond said what most cycling fans felt (Not Lance fans) and should have felt when a big star is working with somebody with a very shady reputation. He didnt accuse Lance of anything at the time, just that he was dissappointed to hear he was associated with Ferrari.

There is a misconception among Lance fans like rapist wit that we dont like Lance because of his success. The fact is most of us started out as Lance supporters but through his behaviour, actions and failure to accept the slightest bit of criticism or natural analysis, he turned many people including LeMond into enemies. LeMond has become more outspoken over time because of the way Lance reacted to his initial comment so Lance helped create the 'whining. LeMond so dont try and compare Lance & LeMond as similar.

Plus if LeMond did take drugs in his career, it would be like comparing someone who smokes pot to a heroin addict. Both illegal and wrong but worlds apart in so many ways, its not even right to compare them. LeMond was a Tour contender from his first major Tour, Lance was not. LeMond stayed at the same level throughout his career until EPO arrived in the peloton. Lance only became a top Tour guy in 99 when drug taking became even more secretive than before.

If there is a candidate, (not that I believe that) to be Lance on here, it could very well be rapist wit.
 
rapistwit said:
I've heard otherwise on Lemond.
I don't believe any top notch rider in cycling has been clean for the last thirty years but if you're going to give Lemond a pass (when there were very few doping controls and its now impossible to test old Lemond samples) because he was never caught wouldn't that logic apply to Armstrong? Armstrong has never been officially caught nor sanctioned. Do I believe Armstrong dopes? Sure but so does everyone else.
Am I excusing it? No. Cycling (along with pretty much every other sport that has huge money) has lost most of it luster.
What I find weird is the fixation on Armstrong alone while touting other cyclists who have been implicated or caught.

Let's put it this way, plain and simple:

1- Did Lemmond have the opportunity of using EPO when it was untraceable? Yes. Did he use it? No
2- Did Armstrong most likely used EPO during his career? Yes. Did he have the choice to use it? Yes.

There is the difference. Regardless of whether Greg used other substances or not.
 
Jun 10, 2009
2
0
0
Visit site
Escarabajo said:
Why do you want to incite fights in this forum? I did not see anything wrong with the speech. What is your objective in this forum? I still don't get it.
Thanks.

Not trying to start a fight, but Lemond is making inaccurate statements.
Thought I would address the content of his speech. Those were not fighting, words. I come in peace.
 
May 12, 2009
66
0
0
Visit site
Escarabajo said:
Let's put it this way, plain and simple:

1- Did Lemmond have the opportunity of using EPO when it was untraceable? Yes. Did he use it? No
2- Did Armstrong most likely used EPO during his career? Yes. Did he have the choice to use it? Yes.

There is the difference. Regardless of whether Greg used other substances or not.


Such religious zeal. How do you know Lemond never took a performance enhancer?
 
rapistwit said:
Such religious zeal. How do you know Lemond never took a performance enhancer?
I don't know 100%. But in my opinion, taking into account his stamina and pedigree, I would assume that he would have done a lot better in the GC standings after 1990 if he was using EPO. A mean a rider that had won 3 Tour de France without EPO and then using EPO would have made him even better.
But again, that's my opinion. No rocket science here.
Thanks.
 
Apr 19, 2009
190
0
0
Visit site
rapistwit said:
Such religious zeal. How do you know Lemond never took a performance enhancer?


We don't and you haven't provided any proof he has, but I am convinced every rider has taken somethng that wasn't on the banned list at that time. There is proof that Armstrong has, physical and tesitimonial proof.

Now, what we do know is that EPO was very new at that time Lemond finished his career and became popular in the 90s by the big riders: Riis, and two other Telekom racers whose names escape me. I am sure others on that team but the admitted it. Many others suspected......

We also know that during the 80s that riders did not go all out from Stage 1 to the Champs Elleyses. They would go all out at the end of the flat stages. The Giro was used as a warm up.....many other points can be brought up and in other threads they have.

Plain and simple......pro-riders dope today but its a full blown system built into the team dynamics. It is organized, and its all riders not just Armstrong and Armstrong didn't create the system. He only benefitted it.
 
Mar 11, 2009
267
0
0
Visit site
Escarabajo said:
Why do you want to incite fights in this forum? I did not see anything wrong with the speech. What is your objective in this forum? I still don't get it.
Thanks.

Don't want to start a fight! that's LeMonds speciality! And it stinks, like cycling doesn't have enough problems nowadays! Expecially now with Kohl, Valverde and Colom...if the man wants to do something good for cycling he should keep his mouth shut in times like these, not further tearing the wound!

I'm not picking side in this, but this is Armstrongs bussines aggainst his own! Thats why he's singling him out!
 
Belokki said:
Don't want to start a fight! that's LeMonds speciality! And it stinks, like cycling doesn't have enough problems nowadays! Expecially now with Kohl, Valverde and Colom...if the man wants to do something good for cycling he should keep his mouth shut in times like these, not further tearing the wound!

I'm not picking side in this, but this is Armstrongs bussines aggainst his own! Thats why he's singling him out!

Yup. The world would be such a better place if only people refused to point out inconvenient truths, especially at inconvenient times. In fact the truth should never be told. It is just too painful.
 
Mar 10, 2009
1,384
0
0
Visit site
Belokki said:
Don't want to start a fight! that's LeMonds speciality! And it stinks, like cycling doesn't have enough problems nowadays! Expecially now with Kohl, Valverde and Colom...if the man wants to do something good for cycling he should keep his mouth shut in times like these, not further tearing the wound!

I'm not picking side in this, but this is Armstrongs bussines aggainst his own! Thats why he's singling him out!

Could you identify where Lemond's business interests are in conflict with Armstrong's, please?
 
Apr 19, 2009
190
0
0
Visit site
Belokki said:
Don't want to start a fight! that's LeMonds speciality! And it stinks, like cycling doesn't have enough problems nowadays! Expecially now with Kohl, Valverde and Colom...if the man wants to do something good for cycling he should keep his mouth shut in times like these, not further tearing the wound!

I'm not picking side in this, but this is Armstrongs bussines aggainst his own! Thats why he's singling him out!

Yea lets bring it up after....draw out the dark could that overshadows cycling.

All Greg has said was what was on peoples minds, now he has done some serious research and can show the truth behind the lies. Again the Omerta is the one that is complaining as the truth only hurts them.
 
May 12, 2009
66
0
0
Visit site
Escarabajo said:
I don't know 100%. But in my opinion, taking into account his stamina and pedigree, I would assume that he would have done a lot better in the GC standings after 1990 if he was using EPO. A mean a rider that had won 3 Tour de France without EPO and then using EPO would have made him even better.
But again, that's my opinion. No rocket science here.
Thanks.


Lemond's 1989 season is really suspect. He went from barely being able to hang with the peleton to magically winning the Tour and the Worlds.
My guess is something funny was going on in the Giro. He was riding poorly then suddenly stormed to a high finish in a TT.
On top of that Lemond had spent a season with PDM, which again is really suspect.
I don't really know what you mean by "pedigree"?
Armstrong has always been considered a top class cyclist.
Maybe not a Tour winner early on but a Sean Kelly caliber rider.
But hey look at Indurains Tour performances. He was well down on the GC for years.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
rapistwit said:
Lemond's 1989 season is really suspect. He went from barely being able to hang with the peleton to magically winning the Tour and the Worlds.
My guess is something funny was going on in the Giro. He was riding poorly then suddenly stormed to a high finish in a TT.
On top of that Lemond had spent a season with PDM, which again is really suspect.
I don't really know what you mean by "pedigree"?
Armstrong has always been considered a top class cyclist.
Maybe not a Tour winner early on but a Sean Kelly caliber rider.
But hey look at Indurains Tour performances. He was well down on the GC for years.

Ah yes, the Armstrong "Lemond's '89 ride was the gateway to EPO" talking point. Its funny, you are just so subtle, yet still completely transparent.....especially considering that Lemond covered this in his speech. Guess you didn't have time to watch it, huh?