Why is Cyclingnews giving LeMond a platform?

[andy1234]

**For Dr M. ** Copied from my other post.

On the LeMond front. Right from the beginning, I asked for evidence of LeMonds "crusades" against doping previous to Armstrong being a target. I was making the point that LeMond showed minimal interest in drug abuse in cycling before it infringed on his status as the best US rider ever.
Crusade indicates a strong stance, dont you think?

I was presented with a couple of articles, all of them non commital to say the least. One of the articles even stated that LeMond was not available to comment!!!

I asked for evidence and didnt get it.

I then changed my description from "crusade" to "aggressive", as it was clear that some people did not understand what I was asking for.
I'm still waiting for a breakthrough.
I will state again, that I am willing to change my mind.

On the Armstrong front, I have realised that there is NO way to discuss him without it becoming an inflammatory remark. Skirting around his Lanceness, or smacking people in the face with him, It all invokes the same response. So no apologies for my first post (although I didnt know this at the time)

Andy

 

[L'arriviste]

... 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.

I think it's great, actually. I say give all the actors in this particular piece a platform. I've enjoyed all of these quite revealing items and I'd be happy to see more of them.

 

[VeloCity]

**For Dr M. ** Copied from my other post.

On the LeMond front. Right from the beginning, I asked for evidence of LeMonds "crusades" against doping previous to Armstrong being a target. I was making the point that LeMond showed minimal interest in drug abuse in cycling before it infringed on his status as the best US rider ever.
Crusade indicates a strong stance, dont you think?

I was presented with a couple of articles, all of them non commital to say the least. One of the articles even stated that LeMond was not available to comment!!!

I asked for evidence and didnt get it.

I then changed my description from "crusade" to "aggressive", as it was clear that some people did not understand what I was asking for.
I'm still waiting for a breakthrough.
I will state again, that I am willing to change my mind.

On the Armstrong front, I have realised that there is NO way to discuss him without it becoming an inflammatory remark. Skirting around his Lanceness, or smacking people in the face with him, It all invokes the same response. So no apologies for my first post (although I didnt know this at the time)

Andy

Cause you're asking for something impossible to locate and you know it. For one thing, "doping" didn't become truly emergent in the public consciousness until the Festina scandal - ie '98, the year before Armstrong's emergence - so even if LeMond had been aware of doping in the peloton before then, why would he talk about it publicly? I don't remember anyone talking publicly about doping until after Festina. And it happens that the raised public awareness about doping in the peloton in the wake of Festina just happened to coincide with the rise of Armstrong.

And why is it that you ignore that LeMond has also talked about Landis' doping, he's all but accused Contador of doping, etc, and only focus on Armstrong?

And is LeMond wrong about Armstrong? Nope. Is he making stuff up about Armstrong? Nope. Does it somehow destroy LeMond's credibility? Nope.

What, exactly, is the problem?

 

[Dr. Maserati]

**For Dr M. ** Copied from my other post.

On the LeMond front. Right from the beginning, I asked for evidence of LeMonds "crusades" against doping previous to Armstrong being a target. I was making the point that LeMond showed minimal interest in drug abuse in cycling before it infringed on his status as the best US rider ever.
Crusade indicates a strong stance, don't you think?

I was presented with a couple of articles, all of them non commital to say the least. One of the articles even stated that LeMond was not available to comment!!!

I asked for evidence and didnt get it.

I then changed my description from "crusade" to "aggressive", as it was clear that some people did not understand what I was asking for.
I'm still waiting for a breakthrough.
I will state again, that I am willing to change my mind.

On the Armstrong front, I have realised that there is NO way to discuss him without it becoming an inflammatory remark. Skirting around his Lanceness, or smacking people in the face with him, It all invokes the same response. So no apologies for my first post (although I didn't know this at the time)

Andy

The only person who brought up the word "crusades" is you - LeMond was not on a "crusade" then, nor is he on one now - he has been outspoken (or whatever adjective you wish to use) on his views in doping and has been consistent in that approach.

Again - this goes back to you bringing up a point that LeMond was not 'outspoken' on PED's before Armstrong threatened his record - this has been shown to be untrue.

Armstrong? No, you can mention any rider (Valverde, Cav, Cadel) it will get the same response, but if you say anyone of them is clean/doper than expect someone to respond.

I don't understand how you did not know this at the time of your first post when you said in another post you lurked for "a few years" (later qualified to "18months")......

 

[andy1234]

The only person who brought up the word "crusades" is you - LeMond was not on a "crusade" then, nor is he on one now - he has been outspoken (or whatever adjective you wish to use) on his views in doping and has been consistent in that approach.

Again - this goes back to you bringing up a point that LeMond was not 'outspoken' on PED's before Armstrong threatened his record - this has been shown to be untrue.

Armstrong? No, you can mention any rider (Valverde, Cav, Cadel) it will get the same response, but if you say anyone of them is clean/doper than expect someone to respond.

I don't understand how you did not know this at the time of your first post when you said in another post you lurked for "a few years" (later qualified to "18months")......

I know I used the word "crusades", no one else.
I used it because I wanted to know if LeMond had a STRONG stance on drugs before Armstrong. Not a few throw away comments, not a minor discussion about the topic, but a STRONG stance.
I asked this question, and I was specific about it.
If he didn't thats fine, if he did but no one can prove it, that's fine too, but don't say he did, then provide no evidence.

There is a very big difference between commenting within the context of many subjects and turning up at trade shows etc to confront someone directly, wouldn't you agree?

Believe it or not I hope that LeMond gets what he wants, but lets not kid ourselves that it's being done for the good of cycling.

As far as the Armstrong thing..
Cav,Valverde and Evans provoking the same response as Armstrong when brought up in a drugs topic? I just cannot see how you can say that....
In my time lurking and consequently posting that is one thing that I can be very sure of.

Anyway, Im tired of discussing this. Not because I dont respect your views etc etc but to be honest Im kind of starting to bore myself.

Andy

 

[redtreviso]

I know I used the word "crusades", no one else.
I used it because I wanted to know if LeMond had a STRONG stance on drugs before Armstrong. Not a few throw away comments, not a minor discussion about the topic, but a STRONG stance.
I asked this question, and I was specific about it.
If he didn't thats fine, if he did but no one can prove it, that's fine too, but don't say he did, then provide no evidence.

There is a very big difference between commenting within the context of many subjects and turning up at trade shows etc to confront someone directly, wouldn't you agree?

Believe it or not I hope that LeMond gets what he wants, but lets not kid ourselves that it's being done for the good of cycling.

As far as the Armstrong thing..
Cav,Valverde and Evans provoking the same response as Armstrong when brought up in a drugs topic? I just cannot see how you can say that....
In my time lurking and consequently posting that is one thing that I can be very sure of.

Anyway, Im tired of discussing this. Not because I dont respect your views etc etc but to be honest Im kind of starting to bore myself.

Andy

LeMond certainly had an anti doping stance long before Festina and Armstrong...He retired because of it..but no one listened much..""AW poor greg is just washed up and looking for excuses."". In LeMond's 1986 book he was very clear on the subject, at Fignon's expense no less..but no one listened much.. Did you read Alexi Grewal's confesssion and the articles "Is Alexi Grewal the Jose' Canseco of Cyling"? I bet you didn't or didn't care. So unnoticed was this they repackaged the title for Landis..."Is Floyd Landis the Jose' Canseco of Cycling?"
Greg LeMond is not on any crusade..He was asked about Dr Ferrari and said what was on his mind and now the Armstrong Mafia has a number one enemy and plenty of little lackies to do their bidding.

 

[andy1234]

LeMond certainly had an anti doping stance long before Festina and Armstrong...He retired because of it..but no one listened much..""AW poor greg is just washed up and looking for excuses."". In LeMond's 1986 book he was very clear on the subject, at Fignon's expense no less..but no one listened much.. Did you read Alexi Grewal's confesssion and the articles "Is Alexi Grewal the Jose' Canseco of Cyling"? I bet you didn't or didn't care. So unnoticed was this they repackaged the title for Landis..."Is Floyd Landis the Jose' Canseco of Cycling?"
Greg LeMond is not on any crusade..He was asked about Dr Ferrari and said what was on his mind and now the Armstrong Mafia has a number one enemy and plenty of little lackies to do their bidding.

What is your point about Grewal - Im not sure I follow.

Lemond has done much more than comment when asked with regards to Armstrong. He has confronted him directly, many times.
Im not sure that you are referring to me, but FWIW I'm definately not a part of the Armstrong mafia....

 

[callac]

He has confronted him directly, many times.

Aside from Interbike 2009, I don't see when...

I think there's a misunderstanding because you're mixing "strong stance against doping" and whatever feud has been going on between Armstrong and LeMond.

It's been showed here that LeMond always had a clear anti-doping stance. He's expressed it whenever asked. And since he's the only great past champion doing it so clearly, he's been more and more asked about it over time.

And when he was asked about it concerning Armstrong in 2001, he just showed his disappointment that he was seeing Ferrari.
And a lot of things seem to have happened from then on, away from the public eyes. It seems quite clear that Armstrong has tried to destroy LeMond from then on. And LeMond doesn't give up... Armstrong seems to have silenced many people, but not LeMond.

Armstrong comes back in 2009, says he will post his bio data and set up a program with Catlin to prove he is clean. And no journalist had the right questions about it... Even if it did make him look 'weird' at Interbike, LeMond had the guts to ask the right questions (And guess what? the anti-dope program was thrown away very quickly... )

All in all, if LeMond is asked about doping, he answers, and always had very consistently, about doping.
If he's asked about Armstrong, he doesn't sugar coat his answers and answers about Armstrong.

 

[redtreviso]

What is your point about Grewal - Im not sure I follow.

Lemond has done much more than comment when asked with regards to Armstrong. He has confronted him directly, many times.
Im not sure that you are referring to me, but FWIW I'm definately not a part of the Armstrong mafia....

""He has confronted him directly, many times"" So what? Somebody needed to...(how dare him?) Did you think he had a loyalty oath? Is Armstrong **** Cheney? As far as Alexi..No one cared,,he just further damaged his already damaged reputation. Stop worrying about Greg LeMond , Armstrong has enough problems with Landis.

 

[andy1234]

""He has confronted him directly, many times"" So what? Somebody needed to...(how dare him?) Did you think he had a loyalty oath? Is Armstrong **** Cheney? As far as Alexi..No one cared,,he just further damaged his already damaged reputation. Stop worrying about Greg LeMond , Armstrong has enough problems with Landis.

Why don't you read the rest of the thread before you comment, Brainiac?
Im not criticising him for it!!!

 

[Digger]

I know I used the word "crusades", no one else.
I used it because I wanted to know if LeMond had a STRONG stance on drugs before Armstrong. Not a few throw away comments, not a minor discussion about the topic, but a STRONG stance.
I asked this question, and I was specific about it.
If he didn't thats fine, if he did but no one can prove it, that's fine too, but don't say he did, then provide no evidence.

There is a very big difference between commenting within the context of many subjects and turning up at trade shows etc to confront someone directly, wouldn't you agree?

Believe it or not I hope that LeMond gets what he wants, but lets not kid ourselves that it's being done for the good of cycling.

As far as the Armstrong thing..
Cav,Valverde and Evans provoking the same response as Armstrong when brought up in a drugs topic? I just cannot see how you can say that....
In my time lurking and consequently posting that is one thing that I can be very sure of.

Anyway, Im tired of discussing this. Not because I dont respect your views etc etc but to be honest Im kind of starting to bore myself.

Andy

Do you realise he was asked to come by Lance's representatives, in order to ask doping related questions, because Catlin would be in attendance?

 

[andy1234]

Do you realise he was asked to come by Lance's representatives, in order to ask doping related questions, because Catlin would be in attendance?

No I didnt. That definately puts a different perspective on it.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

I know I used the word "crusades", no one else.
I used it because I wanted to know if LeMond had a STRONG stance on drugs before Armstrong. Not a few throw away comments, not a minor discussion about the topic, but a STRONG stance.
I asked this question, and I was specific about it.
If he didn't thats fine, if he did but no one can prove it, that's fine too, but don't say he did, then provide no evidence.

There is a very big difference between commenting within the context of many subjects and turning up at trade shows etc to confront someone directly, wouldn't you agree?

Believe it or not I hope that LeMond gets what he wants, but lets not kid ourselves that it's being done for the good of cycling.

As far as the Armstrong thing..
Cav,Valverde and Evans provoking the same response as Armstrong when brought up in a drugs topic? I just cannot see how you can say that....
In my time lurking and consequently posting that is one thing that I can be very sure of.

Anyway, Im tired of discussing this. Not because I dont respect your views etc etc but to be honest I'm kind of starting to bore myself.

Andy

LeMond was at the 'tradeshow' because he was there for his bike business - as he had been for many other years.
It was Lance who "turned up" at the 'tradeshow' - to publicize his anti-doping strategy that Don Catlin was going to do - (what happened that?)

LeMond asked if he could put forth a question, and was allowed - and his question was to Catlin not LA - so you are very much mistaken in saying "turning up at trade shows etc to confront someone directly".

Again your original point was suggesting LeMond only started talking about doping because Lance was threatening his record - this is not true.
Strong/crusade, whatever you want to call it - he has been consistently outspoken on doping.

As for other riders when doping is brought up -you can check out these threads, Valverde, Cav, Cadel.(although my point was not specific to doping - just how criticizing/supporting a rider will always provoke a strong response)

 

[MacRoadie]

No I didnt. That definately puts a different perspective on it.

That's how Greg ended up in the front row, center seat. Armstrong knew Greg was going to be there.

 

[andy1234]

Cheers for your input, I have definately learned a few things.
Andy

 

[Kennf1]

I think the other thing to keep in mind in all of this is that before 2001, when the Lance feud erupted, the press really didn't care much about talking to Greg about doping in cycling. In the eyes of the press, it just wasn't newsworthy. Once Lemond made the comment about Armstrong, the press swarmed on it. It wasn't that Lemond's stance or message had suddenly come to life, it was just given a bigger platform than before. Also, I think at a certain point, Lemond just got ****ed off, so perhaps his delivery of the message became more aggressive. To some, this equated to being more shrill. But I really believe that from 2001 on, he felt like he was under personal attack from the Armstrong camp, and of course, his relationship with Trek began to spriral downwards.