Why is Cyclingnews giving LeMond a platform?

[Dr. Maserati]

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.

It appears to be 'new' information for 'Andy1234' - and indeed there would be a lot of new people to cycling who may not have heard what Lemond has to say.

You're right, doping in cycling is a negative distraction - but ignoring it wont make it go away. When you hear 'old' information, repeated consistently then it might be better to tackle the issue, not the messenger.

 

[flicker]

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.

Ity is LeMond not Lemond. If you are going to talk about the man it is LeMond.

 

[andy1234]

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.

Im sure it's not intentional, but you have just posted up the same articles that everyone else has.

 

[andy1234]

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.

Totally untrue. I asked you to provide evidence of Lemonds aggressive anti drug stance so that I could review my opinion and you didn't.

Im sure you wouldnt base your beliefs on a person based on hearsay and third hand information and neither would I.

By the way. The statement regarding Lemonds issue with PDM's drug programme was issued by his lawyer. Greg was unavailable for comment. Does that sound like a strong stance on drugs to you?

 

[andy1234]

It appears to be 'new' information for 'Andy1234' - and indeed there would be a lot of new people to cycling who may not have heard what Lemond has to say.

You're right, doping in cycling is a negative distraction - but ignoring it wont make it go away. When you hear 'old' information, repeated consistently then it might be better to tackle the issue, not the messenger.

Non of this is new information to me. I would like some new information but Im still waiting.

FWIW Im not new to cycling. I watched my first Tour in 1978, was at the final bend at Goodwood in 1982 when lemond was second in the Worlds to Saronni, and have competed for my country on the Road.

I dont come on hear to tell peple how much I know, but rather ask a question so that I can challenge other peoples opinions.
And yes, I AM willing to have my opinion changed.

Andy

 

[andy1234]

You're already repeating yourself.



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.

This is not a pro Armstrong debate, do you get that?
Now jog on.

 

[flicker]

Totally untrue. I asked you to provide evidence of Lemonds aggressive anti drug stance so that I could review my opinion and you didn't.

Im sure you wouldnt base your beliefs on a person based on hearsay and third hand information and neither would I.

By the way. The statement regarding Lemonds issue with PDM's drug programme was issued by his lawyer. Greg was unavailable for comment. Does that sound like a strong stance on drugs to you?

Are we talking some other guy here Lemond? It is LeMond.!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[callac]

Andy,

Your first question on this thread was

Would Lemond really care if Armstrong didnt eclipse him (particularly in the USA) so dramatically?

(LeMond it is indeed... )

We have provided you with more than one proof that he did care, that he always had a clear anti-doping stance, long before Armstrong won his first TdF.

Now you slowly inflated it to something like "show me that he aggressively fought against doping... ".
How did you get there? Did any of us paint Greg LeMond as a holy knight crusading all his life against doping and doing nothing else but that?

I repeat my question from before: What kind of crusade or aggressivity are you refering to?

 

[andy1234]

Andy,

Your first question on this thread was

(LeMond it is indeed... )

We have provided you with more than one proof that he did care, that he always had a clear anti-doping stance, long before Armstrong won his first TdF.

Now you slowly inflated it to something like "show me that he aggressively fought against doping... ".
How did you get there? Did any of us paint Greg LeMond as a holy knight crusading all his life against doping and doing nothing else but that?

I repeat my question from before: What kind of crusade or aggressivity are you refering to?

Im not suggesting that LeMond did not care about the drugs issue.
What I am questioning is if LeMond would have pressed the issue if the main player in Pro cycling wasnt an American that eclipsed his status of greatest American cyclist.
Why did he not go after the previous dopers in the pleton with the same effort?
If someone could show me that the aggressive anti doping stance he has today was always there, then I will concede that truth.
But I havn't seen it yet.

 

[Digger]

Im not suggesting that LeMond did not care about the drugs issue.
What I am questioning is if LeMond would have pressed the issue if the main player in Pro cycling wasnt an American that eclipsed his status of greatest American cyclist.
Why did he not go after the previous dopers in the pleton with the same effort?
If someone could show me that the aggressive anti doping stance he has today was always there, then I will concede that truth.
But I havn't seen it yet.

Because you are unwilling to admit that you are wrong. The evidence has been shown to you over and over - but you dismiss it readily, because to do otherwise, would be a tacit admission that all your posts on this thread have been a waste of time and more pertinent - wrong. No matter what is presented to you, it will not suffice.

 

[VeloCity]

Im not suggesting that LeMond did not care about the drugs issue.
What I am questioning is if LeMond would have pressed the issue if the main player in Pro cycling wasnt an American that eclipsed his status of greatest American cyclist.
Why did he not go after the previous dopers in the pleton with the same effort?
If someone could show me that the aggressive anti doping stance he has today was always there, then I will concede that truth.
But I havn't seen it yet.

Course, LeMond's "gone after" Contador recently as well, but that doesn't fit in to your theory now does it?.

But let's play along with your implication that LeMond is only going after Armstrong because he's jealous.

So what?

What does it change? Nothing.

Does it somehow invalidate anything LeMond has said? No.

Is LeMond wrong about Armstrong's doping? No.

So even if LeMond is "going after" Armstrong for personal reasons, I ask again, so what?

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Im not suggesting that LeMond did not care about the drugs issue.
What I am questioning is if LeMond would have pressed the issue if the main player in Pro cycling wasnt an American that eclipsed his status of greatest American cyclist.
Why did he not go after the previous dopers in the pleton with the same effort?
If someone could show me that the aggressive anti doping stance he has today was always there, then I will concede that truth.
But I havn't seen it yet.

What agressive anti-doping stance has he today? The articles he has written recently on this site are much the same as he said in various interviews over the last 15 years.
He is "pressing the issue" in the same way he did before Armstrong - the only difference is he was effectively silenced by Trek/PublicStrategies/Armstrong for much of the last 10 years.

And yes, it was my intention to repost the 2 links that already had been posted - as you clearly said they were 'rehashed' pieces, when they are clearly not.

 

[callac]

What I am questioning is if LeMond would have pressed the issue if the main player in Pro cycling wasnt an American that eclipsed his status of greatest American cyclist.

He pressed the issue before (see previous posts... ), I don't see why he should have stopped doing that had Armstrong not been there... Though, without LA, one can easily imagine things wouldn't have gotten that bad.

If someone could show me that the aggressive anti doping stance he has today was always there, then I will concede that truth.

Again, what is his 'aggressive' anti doping stance today as opposed to the past?
If by 'aggressive', you mean that he is more often interviewed now in the english speaking media than in the 90's, then we can say that 'aggressivity' wouldn't be there without LA... but it's nothing he can decide himself.

 

[andy1234]

Ok - you guys win.
Im wrong.
Have a nice day.

 

[MacRoadie]

Never mind...

 

[Race Radio]

Ity is LeMond not Lemond. If you are going to talk about the man it is LeMond.

I am far too lazy to capitalize the M

 

[buckwheat]

This is not a pro Armstrong debate, do you get that?
Now jog on.

Dude, this is the title of the thread; "Why is Cyclingnews giving LeMond a platform?"

Are you serious?

This is a joke, correct?

I'm pretty sure if Pharmstrong wanted to spread his propaganda on this website, Cycling News would probably give him free reign.

Bet it doesn't happen. You want to ask yourself why it won't happen? I'll give you a clue. Because all the forumites would tear that bs to shreds and because the Federal Investigation would use it to completely dismantle any of the phantom integrity Pharmstrong may still have.

I venture to say that any decent cycling publication would enable a blog by any current or former prominent professional cyclist.

What is your issue with LeMond btw?

 

[buckwheat]

Good Lord!

Im not suggesting that LeMond did not care about the drugs issue.

Actually, you are.

What I am questioning is if LeMond would have pressed the issue if the main player in Pro cycling wasnt an American that eclipsed his status of greatest American cyclist..

LeMond made 1 famous statement, after which, Pharmstrong tried to destroy him.

Why did he not go after the previous dopers in the pleton with the same effort?..

One reason was that he kicked all their asses. Another reason is that none of them tried to destroy him.

If someone could show me that the aggressive anti doping stance he has today was always there, then I will concede that truth.
But I havn't seen it yet.

Give it up bro! First of all, why would he be all that concerned with doping when he was in his heyday? He had other issues and didn't need it himself. If I was jacked to the sky, and you could just roll out of bed and drop me like a bad habit, why in hell would you care what I was doing? It wouldn't even register on your radar.

He comes back from the shooting, wins two T'sdF, and is in even better shape for the third, and gets trounced by guys who couldn't even carry his jock strap before, and he wonders wtf is up. He was only 31 at the time. Then it gets worse up till '94.

 

[flicker]

Course, LeMond's "gone after" Contador recently as well, but that doesn't fit in to your theory now does it?.

But let's play along with your implication that LeMond is only going after Armstrong because he's jealous.

So what?

What does it change? Nothing.

Does it somehow invalidate anything LeMond has said? No.

Is LeMond wrong about Armstrong's doping? No.

So even if LeMond is "going after" Armstrong for personal reasons, I ask again, so what?

Everything you have said is OK except for this:So even if LeMond is "going after" Armstrong for personal reasons, I ask again, so what?[/QUOTE]This destroys all the good that Greg could have done. It makes the accusor Greg seem small bitter and jelaous.

 

[Merckx index]

Lemond's latest suggestions

In case this hasn’t been posted before, Lemond’s suggestions for changes in anti-doping policies seem relevant here. My comments in [brackets].

http://www.velonation.com/News/ID/5...stions-for-a-credible-future-for-cycling.aspx

1: Use external agencies: “The first thing is to eliminate the drug testing from the UCI completely. Separate it from them. Work with WADA and Interpol and bodies like the AFLD [the French Anti-Doping Agency] and the different countries in the European communities. The key is separating the drug tests from the governing body…you can’t have somebody accepting gifts from Armstrong.”

[I don’t see how separating the drug testing from the governing body would prevent bribery, but there are other good reasons for doing this. The problem is that these agencies are constantly at war with each other, and it’s difficult to get them to agree on any cooperative measures.]

2: Get the UCI to hand over testing funds: “The money for drug testing is currently being spent by the UCI. Why not put those funds towards an independent group that has cheques and balances and transparency?”

[Sure, I definitely think the cat should be belled.]

3: Continuously change the people calling the shots: “Rotating the elections of drug enforcement is something that should be looked into, so you don’t get one guy in power who decides to take a payoff and keep ‘fixing’ stuff. You have to do checks and balances so that there is trust put back in the system.”

[My Greg, you really have no faith in these people at all, do you? Seems to me the organization should be set up, and I thought it was set up, so that the highest officials have no knowledge of who tests and what the test results are].

4: Use more than one lab to test samples, thus backing up results: “Currently with urine tests or blood tests, you do A and B samples…what if you did A,B, C and D? I don’t know the quantity that you need of blood and urine, but I believe that there has got to be enough to get four samples, two each to two different labs.

[I think that will be difficult sometimes, and certainly more expensive. But how about testing A and B at different places? A lot of people have suggested that.]

“I don’t like it if someone casts doubts against the lab…this is what Armstrong and Floyd have done in the past [with the LNDD in Paris]. If you have two different labs involved, it creates transparency. I’m saying this because I believe the French lab is absolutely a credible one. I believe they are the ones who are being honest.”

5: Establish norms for all riders in order to be able to pinpoint sudden changes. “Use wattage, VO2 Max, O2 profiling and blood testing to start tracking these riders.”

LeMond’s idea is to utilise VO2 Max tests plus power meters to establish an ability-level for riders. His belief is that if a rider has a VO2 Max of a certain level, it should be possible to work out the likely limits to his or her performance, in terms of time trial and climbing speeds.

[This is bound to be controversial. Every time a rider improves, he will attract suspicion. And surely Lemond of all people knows performance isn’t just about V02. The passport works on the same general principle and is less likely to have problems.]

Any significant improvement on this baseline would be investigated in order to eliminate the possibility that the rider has been doping. The process would be a form of physiological profiling, much as the current UCI bio passport establishes an average value for blood parameters.

6: Reward those who cooperate with investigations/positive cases: “With the criminal aspect, I think a plea-bargaining deal would be really important. Relax the penalties for those who provide significant information, and punish those who refuse to do so.”

[Definitely. I have long felt that there should be reduced penalties for those who confess. I understand that the objection is that riders who have wrongly tested positive will feel pressured to confess to something they didn’t do, but something needs to be done to encourage riders to come clean]


t

 

[Race Radio]

The UCI has a direct financial interest in the sport, WADA and the AFLD do not.

Most can understand why Greg, and many others, have no faith in the UCI. That place needs an enema.

The wattage ideas are already being used by Garmin and Columbia and have been for 2-3 years.

 

[The Freak]

The UCI has a direct financial interest in the sport, WADA and the AFLD do not.

Most can understand why Greg, and many others, have no faith in the UCI. That place needs an enema.

The wattage ideas are already being used by Garmin and Columbia and have been for 2-3 years.

LeMond has a lot of faith in the UCI these days. He admits in his blogs during the tour that the UCI's measures haved largely cleaned up the sport.

Strange then that he is in favour of this investigation that is about raking over the past and will do more harm than good to the current riders and the sport.

Of course, he didn't have the guts to do this himself. He's left that to finanically ruined Landis, a broken man, to do that for him, rather than going through with it during his dispute with Trek.

I'm sure you will be delighted if Landis decides to abandon testifying against Armstrong because he doesn't want the stress, like you claimed to be when LeMond chickened out.

 

[LoveShack]

I just finished an excellent article from Men's Journal (July, 2008) in Adobe format (.pdf) that gives a detailed view into Greg's perspective from a couple of years ago. This is well worth the read and very informative. I can see why he is relieved that things are finally coming to a head with Novitsky:

Greg LeMond vs. The World
http://cyclingintro2.webs.com/GLMJ0708.pdf

 

[NashbarShorts]

Not having read the whole thread:

As a Lemond fan, I have to say his blog entries were.....damn horrible. Except for his final entry -- which was quite good --, they were almost laughable.

Read the one entitled "Surviving the rest day". You'd think it'd be about what a smart pro does on the rest day to conserve energy, keep his body from shutting down, and managing the demands for interviews, etc. NOPE. Instead it was about....Lemond. In '89.

Having said that, the question should not be "Why is CN giving Lemond a plaform?", is should be "What the hell was CN thinking giving FERRARI a plaform"??

That they posted his "open letter" is a frigging travesty. What a joke.

 

[rata de sentina]

Having said that, the question should not be "Why is CN giving Lemond a plaform?", is should be "What the hell was CN thinking giving FERRARI a plaform"??

That they posted his "open letter" is a frigging travesty. What a joke.

You need to be a bit more cunning. If you give them a bit of rope there no telling what sort of mess they might get themselves into. Ferrari sticking his head above the parapet shouldn't be discouraged. Someone in Ferrari's position shouldn't really be attracting attention to himself. There's been a lot swept under the carpet over the years and someone might have a notion to lift that carpet and poke around.