Why is Cyclingnews giving LeMond a platform?

[Dr. Maserati]

#2: business has been bad since big Tex set up shop across the street some 10 years ago.

What business?

I assume from your post that you know little about Lemonds businesses after he retired - he appeared to do very well, not from his celebrity, but from his investments - Lance, or no Lance would have had little impact on that.
In fact he could have ridden the wave of 'new' enthusiasts of cycling had he 'celebrated' in Lances success.

 

[Race Radio]

cripes...here we go again....conspiracy....do you really think there is just one of us who disagrees with you?


ok....in between covering up the JFK assassination and causing the BP oil spill....I found the time to post a thread entitled "Why I am proud to be a fanboy..."

Please feel free to read it and bang your angry, paranoid little head against a wall with indignation and moral outrage if you wish....

night

No conspiracy, you just claimed to have done something that you had not.

 

[andy1234]

who is portraying him that way? I certainly haven't seen it. He feels Armstrong screwed him over and he doesn't like him. He's certainly never made that a secret. I have no idea what his motives are, and I doubt he completely does, either. Except that people who don't like what he has to say immediately bust out "he's just jealous, he's just bitter, etc.". I'm sure there are elements of many things which factor into his speaking about against doping in general and Armstrong in particular.



like what?? I doubt his life will be much different after a year of "I told you so's". He's a whiny guy by nature. He'll have something else to whine about.



That's simply not true. He's been critical of doping his entire career. One big difference though it that the '90s dope worked so well that you simply couldn't be competitive without it.



He's spoken out about all of those guys, and yet anytime he says anything, people go on about how he should just shut up...

People just don't seem to like hearing the truth, and it's harder when it comes from someone like LeMond. He can't be written off like a Bassons or Mark Scanlon, where people will just say "oh, they're just mad because they never accomplished anything". Doesn't work with a guy with his palmares.

The real injustice here is that Cyclingnews will give column space to a guy who rambles on for paragraphs at a time, and then puts "so, anyways..." in print! WTF?? If people want to complain about LeMond, they should take it out on his writing style, as it's downright painful to read.

Ok, I will ask again. Show me Lemonds outspoken views with respect to other riders. Where is the indignation about Cecchini's relationship with Hamilton. Ullrich et al? Ferrari is not the only notorious doctor...
Where are his outspoken comments on Hincapie? His 2005 stage win to Pla d'Adet is one of the most "unbelivable" performances I can recall seeing.

His comments centre on Armstrong, not the problem with cycling in general.

As far as not wanting to hear the truth... I believe almost everything Lemond has to say about Armstrong and am happy to hear it, but its a lie to say that hes doing it for the good of the sport. He's doing it to settle some scores and for the good of Greg Lemond.

 

[Benotti69]

cripes...here we go again....conspiracy....do you really think there is just one of us who disagrees with you?

nah there's just you and BPCs multiple personalities..

i wonder if BPC is Paddy McQuacks aka straypuppy's illegitimate child who wont go away..

 

[Benotti69]

ing.

His comments centre on Armstrong, not the problem with cycling in general.

the media tends to only reports the comments about Armstrong. How many interviews articles have you read by LeMond? Post them up.

He gave a 2 hour radio interview on competitor radio, go listen.

 

[andy1234]

the media tends to only reports the comments about Armstrong. How many interviews articles have you read by LeMond? Post them up.

He gave a 2 hour radio interview on competitor radio, go listen.

I have read many articles by Lemond, and I will repeat myself....
Lemond showed almost no interest in doping before Armstrong arrived on the scene. You post up evidence to the contrary and I will review my ideas.

Was this 2 hour interview recorded before 1999?

 

[callac]

Lemond showed almost no interest in doping before Armstrong arrived on the scene.

Indeed, LeMond was never interested in doping

Seriously, let's rephrase it: english speaking media showed no interest in asking LeMond what he thought of doping before Armstrong arrived on the scene.

 

[andy1234]

Indeed, LeMond was never interested in doping

Seriously, let's rephrase it: english speaking media showed no interest in asking LeMond what he thought of doping before Armstrong arrived on the scene.

Or lets rephrase it another way. Greg Lemond showed no interest in pushing his views on doping to the English media before Armstrong arrived on the scene.

I never stated that Lemond had no interest in doping (before Armstrong) But it was just that, an interest, not a crusade.

 

[Benotti69]

.....


Was this 2 hour interview recorded before 1999?

No.


.....but a lot of interviews pre 99 will not have been archived and available on the internet.

 

[andy1234]

No.


.....but a lot of interviews pre 99 will not have been archived and available on the internet.

Understood, but I am also going from memory of the events and reactions at the time. Lemond wasnt exactly outspoken on the subject.

 

[Benotti69]

Understood, but I am also going from memory of the events and reactions at the time. Lemond wasnt exactly outspoken on the subject.

No he wasn't but he did not turn a blind eye to it either.

After kimmage's book which he was black listed by everyone in Pro cycling, Roche, his friend threatened to sue him, meant that one had to be very brave to open one's mouth about it. And journalists were not interested in asking either, as witnessed in the Armstrong years, where apart from Pierre Ballaster and David Walsh not too many were interested in the doping, even though there were at the time serious questions over LAs performance.

 

[callac]

Understood, but I am also going from memory of the events and reactions at the time. Lemond wasnt exactly outspoken on the subject.

Not as outspoken as today, I agree on that. What exactly do you expect as 'a crusade' at the beginning of the 90's? Suing italian and spanish teams because their dominance looked very suspicious?
I think he had a good idea of what was going on, but not something clear enough to go crusade against.

If we go for "memory of the events", the first time I read the word EPO was in an interview of LeMond, circa 1993-1994, in a french cycling magazine, I can't remember if it was Le Cyclisme International or Le Miroir du Cyclisme. He was asked about doping and noted that EPO was going to be the big problem for the future.

I remember reading that, and thinking "is he implying that he doesn't win because others are doping?" and feeling that it was a low blow.

 

[andy1234]

Not as outspoken as today, I agree on that. What exactly do you expect as 'a crusade' at the beginning of the 90's? Suing italian and spanish teams because their dominance looked very suspicious?
I think he had a good idea of what was going on, but not something clear enough to go crusade against.

If we go for "memory of the events", the first time I read the word EPO was in an interview of LeMond, circa 1993-1994, in a french cycling magazine, I can't remember if it was Le Cyclisme International or Le Miroir du Cyclisme. He was asked about doping and noted that EPO was going to be the big problem for the future.

I remember reading that, and thinking "is he implying that he doesn't win because others are doping?" and feeling that it was a low blow.

I would be interested to see that article you refer to. That would be a fascinating read.

As far as "crusading" Im not even talking about as far back as the early 90's.
If Lemond needed a target to voice his opinion, how about Indurain, Pantani, Riis, Ulrich. All of those guys were suspicious before Armstrong came on the scene.
I am asking a genuine question, in that, why did he not speak out earlier? Cecchini (or Conconi) was as prevelant a figure in relation to those riders as Ferrari was to Armstrong. It didnt seem to keep Lemond awake at night though.

 

[Race Radio]

I have read many articles by Lemond, and I will repeat myself....
Lemond showed almost no interest in doping before Armstrong arrived on the scene. You post up evidence to the contrary and I will review my ideas.

Was this 2 hour interview recorded before 1999?

OK,

1989, Lemond Leaves PDM because of they wanted him to take Testosterone and were starting an institutionalized doping program.
LA Times

Lemond talks about the detrimental effect that Italian doctors, like Ferrari, are having on the sport. This is months prior to Armstrong returned from cancer.
http://www.roble.net/marquis/coaching/lemond98.html

I do think, however, that the Italians have changed the sport in a really bad way. It has become much more medical.

Need to revise those talking points because Greg has been talking about doping for decades. Of course much of this was prior to the internet becoming widespread.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

I would be interested to see that article you refer to. That would be a fascinating read.

As far as "crusading" Im not even talking about as far back as the early 90's.
If Lemond needed a target to voice his opinion, how about Indurain, Pantani, Riis, Ulrich. All of those guys were suspicious before Armstrong came on the scene.
I am asking a genuine question, in that, why did he not speak out earlier? Cecchini (or Conconi) was as prevelant a figure in relation to those riders as Ferrari was to Armstrong. It didnt seem to keep Lemond awake at night though.

As has been pointed out to you there are a number of interviews that Lemond made where he is outspoken against doping - and this was before the Festina affair in 1998.

Up until that point most outsiders (to which Lemond admitted being,in one of those interviews) assumed that EPO was mainly used by Italian riders, or Italian teams.

Lemond continued to be outspoken until 2001 - which is when he received the call frrom Armstrong and he had his wings clipped by Trek.

 

[andy1234]

OK,

1989, Lemond Leaves PDM because of they wanted him to take Testosterone and were starting an institutionalized doping program.
LA Times

Lemond talks about the detrimental effect that Italian doctors, like Ferrari, are having on the sport. This is months prior to Armstrong returned from cancer.
http://www.roble.net/marquis/coaching/lemond98.html


Need to revise those talking points because Greg has been talking about doping for decades. Of course much of this was prior to the internet becoming widespread.

Thanks for that. A couple of points though....
The Roble article is the same one that has been rolled out in various edited forms each time I have asked for some links to his pre Armstrong standpoint. As I said before, it really is non commital at best.

The PDM story, I actually remember pretty well. Greg may well have had a problem with PDMs drug programme, but it also just happened to be used in the dispute with the team regarding his early termination of a two year contract. Lemond used the argument to place himself in a better light in the dispute.

The articles are hardly an example of Lemonds desire to help cycling and his long term battle against doping.

 

[andy1234]

As has been pointed out to you there are a number of interviews that Lemond made where he is outspoken against doping - and this was before the Festina affair in 1998.

Up until that point most outsiders (to which Lemond admitted being,in one of those interviews) assumed that EPO was mainly used by Italian riders, or Italian teams.

Lemond continued to be outspoken until 2001 - which is when he received the call frrom Armstrong and he had his wings clipped by Trek.

You are right, it has been pointed out that Lemond was outspoken about doping prevous to Armstrong and that there are articles to support this. However, aside from a rehashed version of the same placid article, nobody has provided me with the links to review this for myself.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

You are right, it has been pointed out that Lemond was outspoken about doping prevous to Armstrong and that there are articles to support this. However, aside from a rehashed version of the same placid article, nobody has provided me with the links to review this for myself.

We have:

This is from Bicyclist in early 1998.
This is from the New York Times in July 1998.

While both done within months of each other they are 2 completely seperate articles.

 

[on3m@n@rmy]

I can't believe I actually agree with everyone on this. Am I turning into a fence rider? Everyone has good points. But I lean to the side of the original post question "...why... give Greg a platform?" for the following reasons. Much of what is published about what Greg says or does is old information, and as a reader I get tired of hearing the same ol' thing, especially when it comes to doping. Why? Because I'm a cyclist, I love cycling, and all the talk about doping at some point is a negative distraction. Secondly, if it is old information, I've already heard it and don't want to hear it repeated. I tell my kids: "Based on the information you have given me, I say 'no', end of discussion. But if you bring me NEW information I am willing to listen, and I might even change my mind." If my kids keep returning to old information it's not a good discussion. But they bring me new information... amazing what kind of team building and bonding goes on then.

 

[Race Radio]

Thanks for that. A couple of points though....
The Roble article is the same one that has been rolled out in various edited forms each time I have asked for some links to his pre Armstrong standpoint. As I said before, it really is non commital at best.

The PDM story, I actually remember pretty well. Greg may well have had a problem with PDMs drug programme, but it also just happened to be used in the dispute with the team regarding his early termination of a two year contract. Lemond used the argument to place himself in a better light in the dispute.

The articles are hardly an example of Lemonds desire to help cycling and his long term battle against doping.

I am pretty sure that no matter what I gave you it would have been dismissed.

The fact remains that Lemond has talked about, publicly and privately, the issue of doping in the sport for decades. You can pretend that this is not the case because it does not fit your preconceived idea of him but it is.

Beyond what he has said in interview you also have his former teammates, DS', and staff saying he was anti doping.

 

[callac]

The articles are hardly an example of Lemonds desire to help cycling and his long term battle against doping.

What exactly could be a proof for you? That he invented BikePure in 1979 and was selling blue rubber bracelets all through his career?

When an article pre-Armstrong era has the title: LeMond: Defender of the clean machine, how much clearer can it get? His reputation and stance is already there...

How was his "crusade" different since LA? Media asked questions, he answered, without sugar coating it.
When media gave him space to explain how he would do to clean up cycling, he explained... He's helping cleaning up cycling by not shutting up about what he knows.

What else do you have in mind?

 

[buckwheat]

extreme density.

I have read many articles by Lemond, and I will repeat myself....
Lemond showed almost no interest in doping before Armstrong arrived on the scene. You post up evidence to the contrary and I will review my ideas.

Was this 2 hour interview recorded before 1999?

You're already repeating yourself.

Or lets rephrase it another way. Greg Lemond showed no interest in pushing his views on doping to the English media before Armstrong arrived on the scene.
I never stated that Lemond had no interest in doping (before Armstrong) But it was just that, an interest, not a crusade.

Oh, almost no interest, which btw, you never stated.

.....but a lot of interviews pre 99 will not have been archived and available on the internet.

Yes, I was also reading that Ann Coulter claimed Al Gore said he "invented" the internet.

Understood, but I am also going from memory of the events and reactions at the time. Lemond wasnt exactly outspoken on the subject.

I would be interested to see that article you refer to. That would be a fascinating read.

As far as "crusading" Im not even talking about as far back as the early 90's.
If Lemond needed a target to voice his opinion, how about Indurain, Pantani, Riis, Ulrich. All of those guys were suspicious before Armstrong came on the scene.
I am asking a genuine question, in that, why did he not speak out earlier? Cecchini (or Conconi) was as prevelant a figure in relation to those riders as Ferrari was to Armstrong. It didnt seem to keep Lemond awake at night though.

Thanks for that. A couple of points though....
The Roble article is the same one that has been rolled out in various edited forms each time I have asked for some links to his pre Armstrong standpoint. As I said before, it really is non commital at best.

The PDM story, I actually remember pretty well. Greg may well have had a problem with PDMs drug programme, but it also just happened to be used in the dispute with the team regarding his early termination of a two year contract. Lemond used the argument to place himself in a better light in the dispute.

The articles are hardly an example of Lemonds desire to help cycling and his long term battle against doping.

You are right, it has been pointed out that Lemond was outspoken about doping prevous to Armstrong and that there are articles to support this. However, aside from a rehashed version of the same placid article, nobody has provided me with the links to review this for myself.

There may not be any links as Benotti and Race Radio tried to drill into the rock you call a skull.

You're relentless and dense.

Remember LeMond and Armstrong in the photo together during the '99 Tour before the stage? LeMond looked pretty happy for Pharmstrong, didn't he? Maybe he believed Armstrong was clean and that it was possible for him to win clean?

Then, 2 years later Walsh revealed the Pharmstrong had the long standing relationship with Ferrari after which LeMond made his famous 'greatest comeback or greatest fraud' comment. Jeez....

Looks like LeMond is turning out AGAIN to be right. Greatest fraud in sports history indeed. But wait, it's a witch hunt now.

 

[unsheath]

CN can't bring those anti troll measures in fast enough. Another ruined thread.

 

[buckwheat]

I can't believe I actually agree with everyone on this. Am I turning into a fence rider? Everyone has good points. But I lean to the side of the original post question "...why... give Greg a platform?" for the following reasons. Much of what is published about what Greg says or does is old information, and as a reader I get tired of hearing the same ol' thing, especially when it comes to doping. Why? Because I'm a cyclist, I love cycling, and all the talk about doping at some point is a negative distraction. Secondly, if it is old information, I've already heard it and don't want to hear it repeated. I tell my kids: "Based on the information you have given me, I say 'no', end of discussion. But if you bring me NEW information I am willing to listen, and I might even change my mind." If my kids keep returning to old information it's not a good discussion. But they bring me new information... amazing what kind of team building and bonding goes on then.

You've dismissed a mountain of ah old information because it's old?

It's negative? Are you a 14 year old girl?

You realize there are statute's of limitations that last YEARS and in some crimes there are no time limits?

 

[buckwheat]

I am pretty sure that no matter what I gave you it would have been dismissed.

The fact remains that Lemond has talked about, publicly and privately, the issue of doping in the sport for decades. You can pretend that this is not the case because it does not fit your preconceived idea of him but it is.

Beyond what he has said in interview you also have his former teammates, DS', and staff saying he was anti doping.

I'm going to say a prayer for the simple people and bromance idealists.