Tadej Pogacar and Mauro Giannetti

[aphronesis]

Sure there is, but when it's inconvenient you can always just raise the bar for what passes as evidence.

Also that.

Which also depends on the relative stake.

 

[red_flanders]

That's my point

I was trying to support your point.

I think the language is where the hangup is happening.

• "I don't believe Lemond about his V02 max", might sound to some like you believe Lemond to be lying, but this isn't a claim I see you making.
• "I'm unconvinced by Lemond's unsupported claims about his V02 max" is probably more accurate to what you're saying, which is simply that Lemond hasn't provided enough evidence for you to be convinced of his claim.
• "Lemond is lying about his V02 max" would be its own, very different claim which would need to be supported. Not what I read you as saying.

 

[aphronesis]

Maybe when he retired there was no evidence to denounce Indurain. There was no hematocrit restriction, no EPO test. It could have also been too close to his retirement to internslise and react to the "new culture." Perhaps Greg, after the shell shock, took umbrage with someone who was stealing his throne, as the greatest American cyclists, who he knew was massively enhanced with Ferrari and did not have his natural physiologcal gifts. It's normal.

“Perhaps Greg, after the shell shock, took umbrage with someone who was stealing his throne, as the greatest American cyclist, who he knew was massively enhanced with Ferrari”

Without question. But all the rest could just as easily be a means of branding at a moment when US cycling moved from obscurity to a more general consciousness.

Also, as posted some ways back: if as a teenager in the 80s I knew about enhancement use in cross country and cycling, then it’s a stretch to believe that those closer in weren’t, at least, also aware of the possibility.

 

[red_flanders]

Indurain didn't personally and financially attack Lemond, and run his bike brand out of business. So a very different reaction.

Occam's razor and all that.

 

[aphronesis]

I personally don’t want to rehearse this tired old discussion at that level (or beat that known horse at all) other than to ask if Greg was just sitting at home innocuously when the attacks (personal, financial, etc.) were initiated, or if it’s a bit more complex than that? If the latter than what ethic is being argued exactly?

Second, his staple claim at a publicity level seems to be the harm that doping causes cyclists individually and the sport overall. Are there exceptions and workarounds for personality and good behavior? Then again the discussion and grounds are moot based on the flexible moralizing criteria. This isn’t that dialogue or conversation, and as @vappaxbipmv as suggested, it leaves one’s favorites aside in favor of the structural aspects. In this case: the history of late twentieth century doping in cycling as pertains to now.

If the order of events is reversed to make a point, then that’s simply an emotional claim and little more.