Why is Cyclingnews giving LeMond a platform?

[ThaiPanda]

No, you're mistaken. 2002 is when USPS were doing the most stupid shyt on the front of the peloton, and JU didn't ride that tour. That tour got alot of talk on the forums. CN ticker is unclear on who was driving up the Tourmalet in 2004 when JU dropped but I don't remember it being Hincapie.

My tactic? I just asked a question about Ferrari that RR cleared up, then you chime in with a bunch of babble that has some factual "inacuracies". I read things pretty closely so maybe you are not used to that, or used to being called out on BS. I know it doesn't happen alot because when somebody points some BS out from the rabid LA hate crowd they usually get banned. So, I understand this has probably knocked you off kilter a little bit.

Keep patting yourself on your back about me "accepting" your timeline lol. Like you are the keeper of all knowledge on this. Get over yourself.

And, I actually agree with you that Ferrari helped the team, not just LA. Maybe you and RR can clear this up on PM and come back with a concerted effort here to discredit what I say.

Yours Truly,
Mongkut (special CN forum troll/unpaid Public Strategy plant)

 

[Race Radio]

No, you're mistaken. 2002 is when USPS were doing the most stupid shyt on the front of the peloton, and JU didn't ride that tour. That tour got alot of talk on the forums. CN ticker is unclear on who was driving up the Tourmalet in 2004 when JU dropped but I don't remember it being Hincapie.

My tactic? I just asked a question about Ferrari that RR cleared up, then you chime in with a bunch of babble that has some factual "inacuracies". I read things pretty closely so maybe you are not used to that, or used to being called out on BS. I know it doesn't happen alot because when somebody points some BS out from the rabid LA hate crowd they usually get banned. So, I understand this has probably knocked you off kilter a little bit.

Keep patting yourself on your back about me "accepting" your timeline lol. Like you are the keeper of all knowledge on this. Get over yourself.

And, I actually agree with you that Ferrari helped the team, not just LA. Maybe you and RR can clear this up on PM and come back with a concerted effort here to discredit what I say.

Yours Truly,
Mongkut (special CN forum troll/unpaid Public Strategy plant)

Alphonse, I am not saying that Ferrari did not help with the team I am saying that it was not exclusive when it came to the team.

 

[Big Doopie]

<edited by big doopie>

um, rr and i are not debating.

i am talking to you and you alone <edited by big doopie>.

hincapie was in the leading group that day and, um, no one was even talking about 2002 -- so that came out of left field.

again, thank you for accepting the absolute logic of my timeline.

<edited by big doopie>

 

[ThaiPanda]

Alphonse, I am not saying that Ferrari did not help with the team I am saying that it was not exclusive when it came to the team.

Uhh, what?

Speaking of sockpuppets, I'm beginning to think you are that ellenbrook clown after this post. Is there a diagram that you can post to maybe clear this up?

Thanks,
Mongkut (special CN forum troll/unpaid Public Strategy plant)

 

[ThaiPanda]

yeh, alphonse, don't get your panties in a tangle.

um, rr and i are not debating.

i am talking to you and you alone, my sick little puppy.

hincapie was in the leading group that day and, um, no one was even talking about 2002 -- so that came out of left field.

again, thank you for accepting the absolute logic of my timeline.

and, um, get some help.

Yes, you are talking to me and I am listening. I am on the edge of my seat listening to your brilliance.

What type of help do you suggest? Is there some PED I can take to bring me down to your intelligence level? Let me finish this 12 pack and maybe we can have a fair debate.

Yours Truly,
Mongkut (special CN forum troll/unpaid Public Strategy plant/sick puppy)

 

[Big Doopie]

<edited by big doopie>

 

[Susan Westemeyer]

Cool it, folks. Discuss the topic or stay out of the thread.

Susan

 

[tockit]

Tockit, in 99, when LA tested + for cortioids, wasn't that a trace amount, well below the threshhold, for a saddle sore cream? Is that the + you're referring to?

Of course it is, but by omitting the last part of the sentence " presented to the UCI, thus he was cleared of any offence" shows that you are waging a smear campaign. Also to suggest that a claim made by a French newspaper about LA as being either "proof or incriminating evidence" is laughable.

Claims by newspapers and trace amounts of saddle sore cream do not constitute anything more than sensationalist news by people who are seeking to discredit someone. If you, or the French media or Floymond or anyone else can bring real evidence to the table then justice will be done.

Seriously, trying to sell that sore bum cream story as a positive drug test result, I thought only L'Équipe could go that low.

Oh, that's right, it was a cream for saddle sores!

Darn it, I forgot about that, thanks for pointing that out for me!

In 1999, the year Armstrong re-emerged as a champion racer, he tested positive for corticosteroids.

The charge was dismissed when Armstrong produced a post-dated doctor’s note explaining that he had been using a prescription salve for saddle sores.

(At the time, Armstrong’s personal masseuse was quoted as being surprised to hear about saddle sores, since she massaged the cyclist and noticed none.)

 

[Big Doopie]

I actually agree with you...and I am listening. I am on the edge of my seat listening to your brilliance.

thank you.

 

[richwagmn]

Oh, that's right, it was a cream for saddle sores!

Darn it, I forgot about that, thanks for pointing that out for me!

In 1999, the year Armstrong re-emerged as a champion racer, he tested positive for corticosteroids.

The charge was dismissed when Armstrong produced a post-dated doctor’s note explaining that he had been using a prescription salve for saddle sores.

(At the time, Armstrong’s personal masseuse was quoted as being surprised to hear about saddle sores, since she massaged the cyclist and noticed none.)

They look at the riders crotch??? ewwww.

 

[yourwelcome]

(At the time, Armstrong’s personal masseuse was quoted as being surprised to hear about saddle sores, since she massaged the cyclist and noticed none.)[/color]

That settles it beyond doubt

 

[Hangdog98]

I assume you mean heresy.

Now that's funny!

 

[Hangdog98]

Oh, that's right, it was a cream for saddle sores!

Darn it, I forgot about that, thanks for pointing that out for me!

In 1999, the year Armstrong re-emerged as a champion racer, he tested positive for corticosteroids.

The charge was dismissed when Armstrong produced a post-dated doctor’s note explaining that he had been using a prescription salve for saddle sores.

(At the time, Armstrong’s personal masseuse was quoted as being surprised to hear about saddle sores, since she massaged the cyclist and noticed none.)

Mr tockit, sometimes cyclists get skin irritations in the crack around the anus which present as a type of itchy dermatitus caused by sweat and friction of the cheeks of ones derrière. The prescription for this is a corticosteroid ointment and often an antibiotic cream to control infection. Of course only riders who've done more than 3000k over a 6 week training cycle would know this type of saddle sore. Commuter cyclists like yourself may struggle to understand why a masseuse wouldn't be poking around the puckered orifice, unless you pay extra of course.

Cortico-steroids, as opposed to anabolic-steroids aren't used as performance enhancing drugs. This is why the UCI laughed of the newspaper allegations and why we should all laugh at you Mr tockit.

 

[ThaiPanda]

Anybody read the article today by GL?

He heaps praise on Contador's talent and his supposed cleanliness in this tour. You guys remember Contador, before LA was mean to him which in turn caused him to reach hero status in the forum? Well, it has effected GL as well. The enemy of LA is the friend of the hate crowd, and all is forgotten.

The Contador that used to ride for JB. The Contador that sprinted up cols with the Chicken in 2007. The Contador that rode out of this world in 2009 both in the mountains and even beating FC in a TT. The Contador that won 2 GTs in 2008. Etc.

Yet now all GL can say is how talented he is, with no mention of any of this previous information. CN has given him a forum to blast LA about stuff that happened years ago and the next article praises AC. If he would have dropped in some "unlike his last suspect performances, the AC of 2010...." then that would soften some of this up for me. He even leaves out his insane performances by saying blood doping occured in "the 90's and early 2000's", which is not to subtle code for you know what about you know who. He can't even let it go in an article like this.

You see, this is what alot of us don't like about how GL is acting. It's not that we don't believe the stuff he says about LA, but it is he won't shut up about it and rarely if ever criticizes the peloton as a whole. Even FL the other night was hesitant to call LA a fraud because if he didn't dope then somebody else that did would have won. FL understands the bigger problem. GL is blinded by hate and doesn't care about anything else IMO. That's probably why he has god like status in here and he can't be criticized.....alot of mirror gazing in here.

The problem is bigger than LA. GL should go get some counseling to get over it and use some perspective.

 

[Mongol_Waaijer]

Cortico-steroids, as opposed to anabolic-steroids aren't used as performance enhancing drugs. This is why the UCI laughed of the newspaper allegations and why we should all laugh at you Mr tockit.

This is completely wrong, laughably so.

Cyclists have been taking cortisone for years as PED.

even if it wasn't performance enhancing why the F is it banned?

If the UCI laughed off cortisone positive tests, as you claim, why bother banning it? Why not just allow it?

Maybe living strong on all those training rides has dulled your brain....

 

[velosopher54]

Anybody read the article today by GL?

He heaps praise on Contador's talent and his supposed cleanliness in this tour. You guys remember Contador, before LA was mean to him which in turn caused him to reach hero status in the forum? Well, it has effected GL as well. The enemy of LA is the friend of the hate crowd, and all is forgotten.

The Contador that used to ride for JB. The Contador that sprinted up cols with the Chicken in 2007. The Contador that rode out of this world in 2009 both in the mountains and even beating FC in a TT. The Contador that won 2 GTs in 2008. Etc.

Yet now all GL can say is how talented he is, with no mention of any of this previous information. CN has given him a forum to blast LA about stuff that happened years ago and the next article praises AC. If he would have dropped in some "unlike his last suspect performances, the AC of 2010...." then that would soften some of this up for me. He even leaves out his insane performances by saying blood doping occured in "the 90's and early 2000's", which is not to subtle code for you know what about you know who. He can't even let it go in an article like this.

You see, this is what alot of us don't like about how GL is acting. It's not that we don't believe the stuff he says about LA, but it is he won't shut up about it and rarely if ever criticizes the peloton as a whole. Even FL the other night was hesitant to call LA a fraud because if he didn't dope then somebody else that did would have won. FL understands the bigger problem. GL is blinded by hate and doesn't care about anything else IMO. That's probably why he has god like status in here and he can't be criticized.....alot of mirror gazing in here.

The problem is bigger than LA. GL should go get some counseling to get over it and use some perspective.

It's really funny how people criticise Greg when he is negative about cycling, and now is criticised for being too positive! And my FIRST thought about blood doping in the late 90's and early 2000's was LA but that comes from my time in this forum. But my 2nd thought, more accurately is that all the Tour contenders were doped and I think that's what Greg meant. Keep your mind out of the gutter!

 

[flicker]

It's really funny how people criticise Greg when he is negative about cycling, and now is criticised for being too positive! And my FIRST thought about blood doping in the late 90's and early 2000's was LA but that comes from my time in this forum. But my 2nd thought, more accurately is that all the Tour contenders were doped and I think that's what Greg meant. Keep your mind out of the gutter!

here here, I have always seen greg as a harbinger of truth. He has always been consistent about contador. why would he evever question a man like pistol boy who rode for discovery and what was is wurth libertine suguros. i am sure about that and the q+a last year with lemond Conti, greg you are a beaut. Better get coached for Friday.

 

[alberto.legstrong]

What's with this blatant contradiction.

I think Greg is mostly concerned about the systematic and institutional defiling of the legitimacy of the sport. I am as bitter over it as he is, maybe more. I give him credit for still believuing in it. I am just about to walk away myself as I have this ongoing argument with myself whether or not the best cyclists win or the best 'program' wins. What's the point of cheering on a guy who won because his body reacts more favorably to the juice than the next guy?

 

[ThaiPanda]

It's really funny how people criticise Greg when he is negative about cycling, and now is criticised for being too positive! And my FIRST thought about blood doping in the late 90's and early 2000's was LA but that comes from my time in this forum. But my 2nd thought, more accurately is that all the Tour contenders were doped and I think that's what Greg meant. Keep your mind out of the gutter!

Then why doesn't he say what he means, instead of depending on your thick a$$ to decipher it on a forum?

OK, smart guy. When did the "early 2000's" stop, and after that what was everybody on? FL was blood doping in 2006. What was going on in 2007 and 2008? Cera probably, but GL only talks about blood doping because that is what implicates LA. Why doesn't he talk about what AC was on last year when talking about the more realistic numbers this year????

Look, I am not defending LA by a long shot. I am criticizing GL's inverted mancrush on LA.

 

[buckwheat]

Although I am sure this subject will send the 'anti-doping' crowd into orbit for daring to question the orthodoxy, I have a serious question for cyclingnews: Why are you giving Greg LeMond a platform to publically rehash the same tired information?

If Jimmy Page showed up at a club or concert, do you think he'd be invited on stage or thrown off?

 

[buckwheat]

Then why doesn't he say what he means, instead of depending on your thick a$$ to decipher it on a forum?

OK, smart guy. When did the "early 2000's" stop, and after that what was everybody on? FL was blood doping in 2006. What was going on in 2007 and 2008? Cera probably, but GL only talks about blood doping because that is what implicates LA. Why doesn't he talk about what AC was on last year when talking about the more realistic numbers this year????

Look, I am not defending LA by a long shot. I am criticizing GL's inverted mancrush on LA.

Do you watch politics at all?

You see politicians get completely ridiculed and rightfully so and they never give up, they have a thousand lives.

If this doping issue was not doggedly pursued we'd have never gotten to this point with Pharmstrong.

I know this is really difficult for you to see and all.

 

[ThaiPanda]

Do you watch politics at all?

You see politicians get completely ridiculed and rightfully so and they never give up, they have a thousand lives.

If this doping issue was not doggedly pursued we'd have never gotten to this point with Pharmstrong.

I know this is really difficult for you to see and all.

Not quite difficult to see at all. It seems that GL has some psychological fixation on bringing down LA, while ignoring the obvious peloton wide problem. As I said upthread, LA is not the problem....PED use existed before he arrived and it will exist after he is gone, and it existed during his retirement.

We are at this point with LA because of FL, period. GL's rants have nothing to do with it. If you are having a hard time understanding what I am saying I can type slower. Just let me know.

 

[Hangdog98]

This is completely wrong, laughably so.

Cyclists have been taking cortisone for years as PED.

even if it wasn't performance enhancing why the F is it banned?

If the UCI laughed off cortisone positive tests, as you claim, why bother banning it? Why not just allow it?

Maybe living strong on all those training rides has dulled your brain....

*Sigh* Mongol_Whatever, not all the drugs on the banned list are PED's. This is a rookie mistake and I forgive you. Cortico-steroids like Cortisone are banned because they can be used to mask an injury. Cortico-Steroids act like adrenal cortex hormones and are important in reducing inflammation in injuries and allergic responses. So, by using Cortico-Steroids, an athlete could mask an injury and do further damage to themselves. Possible side effects include stomach irritation, ulcers, mental irritation and long-term effects and most importantly, weakening of bones and muscles. Many drugs are permitted in certain concentrations. L'equipe took a report of a detection of such a substance, well below the permitted threshold, consistent with the application of a topical cream, and mis-reported it as a positive drug test.

Laughter is still the best medicine and it's not on the banned list. Oh, have you actually seen the list?

 

[guilder]

What you don't know can't hurt you is the logic behind CN's association with Lemond.

CN's intro of Lemond:
"Articulate and informed in his opinions, LeMond has always been a forthright advocate of cycling's true values and we are delighted to welcome Greg to the Cyclingnews team for the duration of the Tour de France"

1)We've all been introduced to Lemond's lack of articulation so it couldn't be that, and he lies openly.
2)We haven't seen Greg's biological passport stats b/c it don't exist.
3)We haven't seen Greg's eye witness accounts of doping b/c he's careful not to accuse anyone of his generation. We must conclude he's a participant in "omerta", for the purpose of maintaining an untarnished record. He eventually blamed the whole peloton for doping without evidence because he was dropped but there has been photo evidence countering Greg's accusations as he attempted racing while grossly overweight.
4)Perhaps the points above are "cycling's true values"?

 

[Hugh Januss]

*Sigh* Mongol_Whatever, not all the drugs on the banned list are PED's. This is a rookie mistake and I forgive you. Cortico-steroids like Cortisone are banned because they can be used to mask an injury. Cortico-Steroids act like adrenal cortex hormones and are important in reducing inflammation in injuries and allergic responses. So, by using Cortico-Steroids, an athlete could mask an injury and do further damage to themselves. Possible side effects include stomach irritation, ulcers, mental irritation and long-term effects and most importantly, weakening of bones and muscles. Many drugs are permitted in certain concentrations. L'equipe took a report of a detection of such a substance, well below the permitted threshold, consistent with the application of a topical cream, and mis-reported it as a positive drug test.

Laughter is still the best medicine and it's not on the banned list. Oh, have you actually seen the list?

So a drug that allows you to perform at a higher level with an injury than you would be able to perform without taking that drug (given the injury) is not a Performance Enhancing Drug?

If laughter is the best medicine then thanks for the cure.