# John Burke tells why Trek is giving up on LeMond



## jd3 (Oct 8, 2004)

Youtube video of John Burke's address to the company on the history of the problems with Greg Lemond and the Lemond bike brand. It's in 4 parts
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hTgsWBZBc4U


----------



## master2129 (Mar 30, 2007)

jd3 said:


> Youtube video of John Burke's address to the company on the history of the problems with Greg Lemond and the Lemond bike brand. It's in 4 parts
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hTgsWBZBc4U


Fantastic thread!!!

I HATE Greg Lemond. He's the ultimate super chump!


----------



## Forrest Root (Dec 22, 2006)

I can't blame Trek. Things would be different if LeMond had any concrete evidence against Armstrong (or for that matter, Landis), but he doesn't. He only rants on, based on suspicion and assumption. I'm not a business lawyer, but I suspect that's not adequate excuse for smearing your business partners. LeMond clearly knew what he was doing. He knew the association between Trek and Armstrong, and he knew just how valuable that association was.


----------



## buck-50 (Sep 20, 2005)

Sad thing about LeMond is that he proves that you can be right AND a total douche all at the same time.


----------



## master2129 (Mar 30, 2007)

buck-50 said:


> Sad thing about LeMond is that he proves that you can be right AND a total douche all at the same time.


Right about what? Everything he has said in the media has been pure speculation. In fact, I would call it SLANDER. The guy is a straight up hill billy dumb a** who hasn't quite figured out his mouth from his a**hole. 

I'm ashamed that he can still call himself an American. The guy is a disgrace not only to his country, but the Sport that used to grace him.


----------



## 32and3cross (Feb 28, 2005)

master2129 said:


> Right about what? Everything he has said in the media has been pure speculation. In fact, I would call it SLANDER. The guy is a straight up hill billy dumb a** who hasn't quite figured out his mouth from his a**hole.
> 
> I'm ashamed that he can still call himself an American. The guy is a disgrace not only to his country, but the Sport that used to grace him.


Not quite sure how you get that hes a disgrace to his country. 

And you ashamed he can still call himself and American, why, are interested in living in a country where what someone says can have them stripped of citizenship? If so there are several countries that operate on that idea the US isn't one of them.


----------



## buck-50 (Sep 20, 2005)

master2129 said:


> Right about what? Everything he has said in the media has been pure speculation. In fact, I would call it SLANDER. The guy is a straight up hill billy dumb a** who hasn't quite figured out his mouth from his a**hole.
> 
> I'm ashamed that he can still call himself an American. The guy is a disgrace not only to his country, but the Sport that used to grace him.


When he speaks out about doping, he's right. Doping=bad. He _might not_ be right about who he's accusing, but he's right to say that drugs are really hurting the sport.

As for the rest, slagging the new guy is pretty much expected from former TDF winners. Eddy Merckxx wasn't exactly kind to Lance, either... 

Slagging Lance doesn't make him a bad american, just a jerk.


----------



## master2129 (Mar 30, 2007)

32and3cross said:


> Not quite sure how you get that hes a disgrace to his country.
> 
> And you ashamed he can still call himself and American, why, are interested in living in a country where what someone says can have them stripped of citizenship? If so there are several countries that operate on that idea the US isn't one of them.


C'mon give me a break! Are you related to Greg or something?


----------



## 32and3cross (Feb 28, 2005)

master2129 said:


> C'mon give me a break! Are you related to Greg or something?


No and Im not even defending him your comments are just so over top.


----------



## lookrider (Dec 3, 2006)

One question to all of you LeMond haters. 

When is Lance Armstrong coming out with his lawsuit against Random House, the publisher of From Lance to Landis?

Huh, I can't hear you.

LA has a lot of money and Random House has even *more * money.

With all of the damage done to his sterling reputation, I'd estimate millions of dollars at least, you'd think Mr Litigious would sue.


I don't think I'll hold my breath...


----------



## master2129 (Mar 30, 2007)

lookrider said:


> One question to all of you LeMond haters.
> 
> When is Lance Armstrong coming out with his lawsuit against Random House, the publisher of From Lance to Landis?
> 
> ...


And your point is?


----------



## blackhat (Jan 2, 2003)

master2129 said:


> And your point is?


his point, I think, is that LA was a jellobloodeddopefiend that made a 2nd career out of suing anyone and everyone that dared suggest as much but has suddenly found that he'd rather ignore it and hope that it goes away.


----------



## Doctor Who (Feb 22, 2005)

master2129 said:


> Right about what? Everything he has said in the media has been pure speculation. In fact, I would call it SLANDER. The guy is a straight up hill billy dumb a** who hasn't quite figured out his mouth from his a**hole.
> 
> I'm ashamed that he can still call himself an American. The guy is a disgrace not only to his country, but the Sport that used to grace him.



Funny enough, LeMond still garners more respect from those across the pond than LA EVER did. 

And yes, if what LeMond is saying is slander, then why hasn't LA come out and hit him with a huge lawsuit? I mean, if what LeMond is saying is false, then it would be easy for LA to prove him wrong and absolutely pummel LeMond in the court of law. It would be in LA's best interest to prove LeMond wrong, as this kind of publicity is by no means good, contrary to the old truism.

Oh, wait...there's no lawsuit for slander and defamation? Yeah, exactly.


----------



## lookrider (Dec 3, 2006)

*yeah*



blackhat said:


> his point, I think, is that LA was a jellobloodeddopefiend that made a 2nd career out of suing anyone and everyone that dared suggest as much but has suddenly found that he'd rather ignore it and hope that it goes away.


thanks


----------



## Forrest Root (Dec 22, 2006)

Wow. Look at all the doping experts popping out of the woodwork. Everyone has the straight scoop, apparently, on who did what. Wow. This is all so enlightening.

It's cool that LeMond still garners uber respect from his doping generation peers, eh? That's what you meant, right?

Once again, we see why doping will never be reduced: no one cares to think or rely on any sense of justice. Nope. Rumor and innuendo is all we need.

This thread does our schools proud.


----------



## Einstruzende (Jun 1, 2004)

Forrest Root said:


> Wow. Look at all the doping experts popping out of the woodwork. Everyone has the straight scoop, apparently, on who did what. Wow. This is all so enlightening.
> 
> It's cool that LeMond still garners uber respect from his doping generation peers, eh? That's what you meant, right?
> 
> ...


Circumstantial evidence is pretty strong if you ask me. Some folks believe that France just hates America. Or, perhaps there are indeed folks that want clean sport.

How many former Tour winners in this thread? Elite pro cyclists? Who is better able to speculate on the circumstantial evidence? Us chumps or Greg LeMond?

And to think LeMond is jealous is just plain crazy. After all, Greg is still the first American to win Road WC and TdF. And he did both multiple times. (don't forget the U23 WC as well).


----------



## Forrest Root (Dec 22, 2006)

Einstruzende said:


> Circumstantial evidence is pretty strong if you ask me. Some folks believe that France just hates America. Or, perhaps there are indeed folks that want clean sport.
> 
> How many former Tour winners in this thread? Elite pro cyclists? Who is better able to speculate on the circumstantial evidence? Us chumps or Greg LeMond?
> 
> And to think LeMond is jealous is just plain crazy. After all, Greg is still the first American to win Road WC and TdF. And he did both multiple times. (don't forget the U23 WC as well).


So, in other words, you verify what I said: you've got nothing but suspicion and what you call circumstantial evidence. I'm glad that's the standard we aspire to. I could care less who's guilty and who isn't, but the standard by which people are willing to damn someone is laughably low. Ridiculously low. Pathetically low.

I'll remember the circumstantial evidence thing. That's hilarious.

Clearly, LeMond must be a saint, and he knows exactly what is going on with everyone....even if he never rode with them.

Those are come clarion clear points. Wow.


----------



## Rubber Lizard (May 10, 2007)

Greg LeMond has always had a very rough relationship with Trek. Greg LeMond is also amazingly stupid when it comes to business. Remember when LeMond branded accessories appeared (briefly) at stores like Target 10 years ago or so. Yeah, Trek **** themselves with that one. Oh and it doesn't help LeMond's case that he has another company that makes cheesy exercise bike product with his name on it. 
John Burke is also an ass. LeMond may be dumb as hell with business, but Burke wasn't holding his end of the bargain with marketing LeMond bikes. LeMond had been a low priority for Trek for the last 5 years or so. Trek didn't need the LeMond name to sell bikes anymore and started to neglect the brand. 
Even if this lawsuit didn't happen Trek would have severed their relationship next year when the license agreement ended. Not like this is big news for industry insiders. It just happened unexpectedly.


----------



## danl1 (Jul 23, 2005)

Top to bottom:

Lemond was a champ. No argument. 

He's right that doping is pernicious and (has been) much too prevalent. No argument.

As for his _beliefs _about LA, that's 6-to-5 and pick 'em. For that matter, it's usually the loudest preachers that have the dirtiest sheets. Lemond's generation was worse - testing was a joke, and certain amounts and types of doping were simply accepted. If you believe that the lemond of '87 could race in today's protocols, you are delusional. 

As for why LA doesn't sue: First, he's a pretty bright fella, and unlike Lemond, understands who is buttering his bread; and second, it's nearly impossible to prove a negative (and would only provide bad press to try.)

But above all, anyone who's watched the arc of Lemond's career sees a man who, when anything goes right, attributes it to his own personal greatness, and when anything isn't perfect, attributes it to all the evil ones out to debase him. It reads through this present story as it has right along. I'm not qualified to determine if it's egotism, narcissism, or good ol' fashioned paranoia. 

FWIW, check out the velonews.com and roadbikerider.com stories for balanced coverage.


----------



## master2129 (Mar 30, 2007)

danl1 said:


> Top to bottom:
> 
> Lemond was a champ. No argument.
> 
> ...


Great points. I also read the two other articles. Sounds like Trek has a portion of blame in all this too. For the record, I absolutely agree that Greg Lemond is an idiot when it comes to business. He can blame only himself for the ultimate downfall of his brand. 

As a prostate cancer survivor myself I can say without a hint of doubt that I ride 100% stronger now than I did before I got sick. The drugs I take to keep the cancer at bay does something to my blood. I was just in Lake Tahoe training and I seriously popped about 3 cans of whoop a** on that 15% avg. grade mega climb to Spooner up Highway 50. Dropped 4 of my team mates 1/2 way up. [we were told to go if we could. So I went and stayed away the entire climb] The cancer also shed about 45 lbs of mass off my body. So I can honestly say that I am a much better racer post cancer than I ever was before cancer. It's a blessing and a curse I guess. I make no excuse. I am definitely in LA's corner. But I think it has to do more with the hell I know he went thru to get back to the top of the sport. I seriously think that cancer drugs make you an O2 sponge. My doctor's have all said that I'm in better shape now than I ever was before. I just thank God that I am alive and able to still race my bike.


----------



## Sintesi (Nov 13, 2001)

buck-50 said:


> When he speaks out about doping, he's right. Doping=bad. He _might not_ be right about who he's accusing, but he's right to say that drugs are really hurting the sport.
> 
> As for the rest, slagging the new guy is pretty much expected from former TDF winners. Eddy Merckxx wasn't exactly kind to Lance, either...
> 
> Slagging Lance doesn't make him a bad american, just a jerk.


Speaking of jerks, you ever met Armstrong in person? I have and he's not exactly mr. niceguy. Thought he was just having a tough day then I read Lance Armstrong's War and yep I guess he's an A-hole to people all the time. There's a long list of ex team mates who no longer speak w/ him (going way back - coaches too) not to mention his track record w/ the significant women in his life. 

I'm just saying that although the 7 tours and the cancer thing is very nice it doesn't mean the guy isn't an overbearing rude meathead. 

I like Lemond fine. He's chatty and friendly. I wouldn't cross a street to meet Armstrong these days.

I


----------



## saccycling (Sep 30, 2004)

Spooner summit is no where near a 15% grade. When Lemond was going for his 4th TdF. The performance level of all the racers increased so much that he knew everybody was doping. Thats when he retired. He has a right to be pissed about doping.


----------



## AidanM (Aug 11, 2006)

that burke guy is a horrible public speaker, and to heck with trek for being such a lance suck up, they only provided the bikes, big whoop, he would have won the tour on a cervelo too.


----------



## Cruzer2424 (Feb 8, 2005)

AidanM said:


> that burke guy is a horrible public speaker


rofl. I was thinking the same thing.

... and that is ALL I'm going to add to this whole mess.


----------



## lookrider (Dec 3, 2006)

*Circumstantial evidence*



Forrest Root said:


> So, in other words, you verify what I said: you've got nothing but suspicion and what you call circumstantial evidence. I'm glad that's the standard we aspire to. I could care less who's guilty and who isn't, but the standard by which people are willing to damn someone is laughably low. Ridiculously low. Pathetically low.
> 
> I'll remember the circumstantial evidence thing. That's hilarious.
> 
> ...


For someone so smart you should probably try to know what you're talking about before you go off half cocked.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circumstantial_evidence

My emphasis added

*A popular misconception is that circumstantial evidence is less valid or less important than direct evidence.* This is only partly true: direct evidence is generally considered more powerful, but successful criminal prosecutions often rely largely on circumstantial evidence, and civil charges are frequently based on circumstantial or indirect evidence. In practice, circumstantial evidence often has an advantage over direct evidence in that it is more difficult to suppress or fabricate. Eyewitness testimony is notoriously inaccurate at times, and many persons have been convicted on the basis of perjured or otherwise mistaken testimony. Good strong circumstantial evidence can be a far more reliable basis on which to make a determination of guilt. It should be noted that circumstantial evidence normally requires a witness, such as the police officer who found the evidence, or an expert who examined it, to lay the foundation for its admission.

I'll also add this. Ever since that ridiculous O.J. trial most people seem to think you need a "smoking gun" to prove anything in court. Wake up people.....


----------



## blackhat (Jan 2, 2003)

Forrest Root said:


> So, in other words, you verify what I said: you've got nothing but suspicion and what you call circumstantial evidence. I'm glad that's the standard we aspire to. I could care less who's guilty and who isn't, but the standard by which people are willing to damn someone is laughably low. Ridiculously low. Pathetically low.
> 
> I'll remember the circumstantial evidence thing. That's hilarious.
> 
> ...


you seem like a well intentioned enough sort, if perhaps ill informed. One of my favorite domestic journalists that writes about doping is joe lindsey. he's posted 2 excellent blog entries regarding the trek/lemond CF. check them out and consider the possibility that he's right.

http://boulderreport.bicycling.com/2008/04/trek-and-lemond.html

http://boulderreport.bicycling.com/2008/04/treklemond-the.html


----------



## Crithater (Sep 27, 2005)

Man was that funny.... He made tour of georgia, tour of california and the top 100 trek dealers meeting sound like an unvailing of lemond bikes only. Boy I bet there were no new trek bikes from next years line at these events (sarcasm). America is heading towards a recession, there will probably be a major decline in bike sales and trek needs to cut costs. Thanks for saying things about our number one guy Greg it made it easier to drop you from our family....What a joke.....Mr. C


----------



## RoyIII (Feb 24, 2007)

Apparantly Lemond is not making Trek any money.


----------



## fabsroman (Jul 14, 2006)

People are sometimes convicted of murder based solely upon circumstantial evidence. Should we require a higher evidentiary burden for people that cheat in sport?


----------



## Forrest Root (Dec 22, 2006)

lookrider said:


> For someone so smart you should probably try to know what you're talking about before you go off half cocked.
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circumstantial_evidence
> 
> ...


Uh-huh. I guess that proves everything. Wow. Congrats.

It's always easier to do the easy thing that it is to do something hard, like be objective, analyze all sides of an issue and evidence with that objective eye. 

And the reference to court, why that cinches things, don't it? After all, courts have been shown to be extremely fair, eh? Yup. The legal system is all about justice, ain't it?

I'll just send my daughter to you so you can raise her with the right feeling of vengeance, disdain, and so on. That'll be better, 'cuz she won't have to be bothered with that whole thinking thing.


----------



## Sintesi (Nov 13, 2001)

RoyIII said:


> Apparantly Lemond is not making Trek any money.


According to the article posted Trek sells $700 million worth of bike a year and Lemond's bikes brought in $15 million/yr.


----------



## lookrider (Dec 3, 2006)

*Think about this objectively*



Forrest Root said:


> Uh-huh. I guess that proves everything. Wow. Congrats.
> 
> It's always easier to do the easy thing that it is to do something hard, like be objective, analyze all sides of an issue and evidence with that objective eye.
> 
> ...


* Walsh interview with LA, April 2001 when Walsh discovered LA was a client of Ferrari.*

DW: Are you saying on the morning after that race,(Fleche Wallonne 1994)you were 100 percent a believer they had done it clean?

LA: The next morning there was obviously articles and people said certain things. If I have to look at that guy and say, "They're cheaters, he's a cheater, the team's a cheater," how could I get up every day and go do my job?

DW: Their doctor, Michele Ferrari, made his famous statement on the evening of that race about r-EPO being no more dangerous than orange juice. Do you remember your reaction to that? 

LA: (Long pause) Ahmm, no.

DW:You didn't wonder what r-EPO was?

LA:I think that sometimes quotes can get taken out of context and I think even at that time I recognized that.

DW:Ferrari didn't come along afterwards and say "I never mentioned this drug." [The doctor actually said he had been quoted accurately in L'Equippe.] Had you been aware of r-EPO?

LA:Here we're talking seven years ago. Had I heard of it? Probably.

DW:Ferrari was, in effect, saying he gave it to his guys?

LA:I didn't read the article, I don't know.

DW:It is obvious to everybody r-EPO became a big thing in cycling in '95 and '96. How conscious were you guys in Motorola that r-EPO had become a factor in race results?

LA: We didn't think about it. It wasn't an issue for us. Is wasn't an option. Jim Ochowicz ran the program that he set out to run, a clean program. Max Testa, the doctor, set out to run a clean program, and that wasn't part of our medical program.

DW:You must have been frustrated at the thought that these guys were using a substance which Ferrari had talked about?

LA:There's no proof of that. I wasn't going to sit around and talk about it. This is ages ago for me; that part of my career, that part of my life is finished.

DW: Did you know that Kevin [Livingston, fellow U.S. Postal Service rider] was linked with the [police] investigation into Michele Ferrari in Italy?

LA: Yes.

DW: Did you discuss it with him?

LA: No.

DW: Never?

LA: (Nods his head)

DW:Even though you would have known he was a rider who was on Ferrari's books, that was printed in loads of newspapers?

LA: You keep coming up with these side stories. I can only comment on Lance Armstrong. I don't want to speak for others. I don't meddle in [other] people's business.

DW: A guy who was your best friend?

LA: In an indirect way, you are trying to implicate our sport again.

DW: I would have thought it natural you would say, "Kevin, what's this about? Did you go to Ferrari? Is this being made up, did he put your name in his files when you never visited?" You never discussed it, ever?

LA: No.

DW: Would it shock you to realize that there are Ferrari files on Kevin that indicate he was using r-EPO?

LA:I wouldn't believe that.

DW:Even if you saw the files?

LA:I wouldn't believe that.

DW:There are files I have seen where Kevin's hematocrit is listed for July 1998 at 49.7. The previous December it is listed at 41.2. Most medical people say a near nine-point difference in a hematocrit level in a six-month period is highly unusual.

LA: I haven't seen the files. I don't know.

DW: Did you ever visit Michele Ferrari?

LA:I did know Michele Ferrari.

DW:How did you get to know him?

LA: In cycling when you go to races, you see people. There's trainers, doctors, I know every team's doctor. It's a small community.

DW: Did you ever visit him?

LA:Have I been tested by him, gone and been there and consulted on certain things? Perhaps.

DW:You did?

LA: (Nods in affirmative.)

DW:He's going to be tried for criminal conspiracy.

LA:I think the prosecutors and judges should pursue everybody, regardless of who it is. It is their job to do that.

*No, I'm not objectively analyzing anything at all. What's your objective analysis of ANYTHING besides your ridiculous sarcastic remarks?*


----------



## lookrider (Dec 3, 2006)

fabsroman said:


> People are sometimes convicted of murder based solely upon circumstantial evidence. Should we require a higher evidentiary burden for people that cheat in sport?


Evidently for this poster we need this mysterious unnamed "higher evidentiary burden." Your guess is as good as mine as to what that should be.



Forrest Root said:


> Uh-huh. I guess that proves everything. Wow. Congrats.
> 
> It's always easier to do the easy thing that it is to do something hard, like be objective, analyze all sides of an issue and evidence with that objective eye.
> 
> ...



He doesn't realize that arguably the most notorious murderer in American history, Charles Manson, was sentenced to death 7 times for the Tate- LaBianca murders and the *only* evidence against him was circumstantial.

Legal genius Vincent Bugliosi convicted him on a Beatles song and a crazy theory about an impending race war. 

Forrest, do you suggest we release Manson?

Manson was convicted in the Shorty Shea murder and they didn't even find the body till about 20 years after Manson was convicted...

What standards do you propose, videotapes of Armstrong getting injected and signed affadavits of the whole US Postal and Discovery organizations.

Forrest, really, this is too easy...

Damn, even *with* the videos the cops beat most of the charges in the Rodney King episode...


----------



## Howzitbroke (Jun 1, 2005)

John Burke..........is...........a............very............good............reader. Watched all four. Why? Don't know. Lemond has a serious case of the bitterness, with foot in mouth disease. Maybe he was clean and the tide went dirty. Who knows. Maybe Lance is clean too. All I know is that the entire racing wing of the sport doesn't really matter to me anymore. Just ride.


----------



## lookrider (Dec 3, 2006)

*Aww c'mon*



Cruzer2424 said:


> rofl. I was thinking the same thing.
> 
> ... and that is ALL I'm going to add to this whole mess.


this is so good Ima gonna have to run to 7-11 to get some beers..


----------



## Forrest Root (Dec 22, 2006)

lookrider said:


> blah....blah....blah.....interview....blah.....blah...blah[/B]


Holy Cow! You've found it! My god, if that isn't rock solid evidence, I don't know what is! Has Dick Pound interviewed you yet?


----------



## lookrider (Dec 3, 2006)

Forrest Root said:


> Holy Cow! You've found it! My god, if that isn't rock solid evidence, I don't know what is! Has Dick Pound interviewed you yet?


No, not by itself, just another nail in the coffin.

Remember the time and context. 12 Cylinder Man is saying in April of 2001, "perhaps" he did some testing with Ferrari when he already had a well established 5 and a half year relationship with him.

No one knew of this at the time. Why would Mr. Honesty be so evasive? He doesn't discuss the Ferrari investigation with Kevin Livingston, an investigation his best friend and teammate is linked to? 

Of course not, Mr. Meticulous, Mr. Millimeter, Mr. Control Freak and arrogant ba$tard himself, doesn't ask best friend Kevin Livingston wtf is going on, a frigging guy , LA, introduced to Ferrari, to help Livingston and Tyler Hamilton prepare to escort him to a 3rd TdF title. LA doesn't ask Livingston what is going on? Who on any of these forums, with any knowledge of LA at all, would ever believe this?

What world are you living in Forrest?

If there is nothing wrong with Mr (10 liters of OJ) Ferrari why is LA so reluctant to divulge their relationship. Ferrari's training methods are rocket science?

Forrest, do you believe that Livingston introduced Lance to Ferrari? The files they are talking about were from Dec '97 and July '98. Lance started working with Ferrari in '95.

Oh and btw, Lance didn't think of r-EPO in '95. It wasn't an issue for him. Besides, it was ages ago. That was a past life for him......ROTFLMAO

This interview is 2 or 3 pages of more than 300 pages of *evidence* and even a semi literate can put the pieces together.

Do a little thinking here instead of coming up with your silly quips that require no thought at all.

Back to that mysterious standard of guilt you require, it seems only 3 year olds with their hands in the cookie jar require such a standard...


----------



## rollinrob (Dec 8, 2002)

[. I was just in Lake Tahoe training and I seriously popped about 3 cans of whoop a** on that 15% avg. grade mega climb to Spooner up Highway 50.

Dude, spooner summit is maybe 5% grade. WTF.


----------



## lookrider (Dec 3, 2006)

rollinrob said:


> [. I was just in Lake Tahoe training and I seriously popped about 3 cans of whoop a** on that 15% avg. grade mega climb to Spooner up Highway 50.
> 
> Dude, spooner summit is maybe 5% grade. WTF.


Don't ruin it for him.

What am I talking about. I'm guilty of spilling the beans on the biggest *open secret*
in sports..

Man, I had a tough day, I had a 9 hour fight with a 2,000 pound marlin today. I'm setting sail before sunrise this morning. I gotta get some sleep..


----------



## master2129 (Mar 30, 2007)

rollinrob said:


> [. I was just in Lake Tahoe training and I seriously popped about 3 cans of whoop a** on that 15% avg. grade mega climb to Spooner up Highway 50.
> 
> Dude, spooner summit is maybe 5% grade. WTF.


Not coming up from 395 on the Carson City side. Read the meter baby. Some areas of the climb were 19% grade. 

The ironic thing about this route is that its Lemond's old training route when he lived in Washoe Valley. What a great place to train. Absolultely enjoyed it. :thumbsup:


----------



## AlexCad5 (Jan 2, 2005)

I can't be sure there is a single top racer that is clean. There are so many smoking guns around Armstrong, it's scary. Plus he's not a nice guy. But I'm not going to say he is was a doper, and I hope they never find him to have been one. It was bad enough when they busted Landis.


----------



## velomonkey (Jul 8, 2003)

A smoking gun is circumstantial evidence. Literally. 

Sorry, if you have a "Let Levi Ride" icon you're kind of showing your cards. No beef against you per se, but come on. Also, if you really think Armstrong never did dope, then you're naive. I agree, the guy hasn't ever been caught, but then most cheaters as of late weren't caught with the battery of tests. They were caught with the substances on their person. 

My issue with LA and, to a lesser degree, Trek is that they really don't care about the sport. The only American teams that compete oversees are basically glorified clubs with a big budget. That can't last for long. Where is Amstrong? Ran away as soon as the doors starting closing in.


----------



## velomonkey (Jul 8, 2003)

danl1 said:


> Top to bottom:
> 
> As for his _beliefs _about LA, that's 6-to-5 and pick 'em. For that matter, it's usually the loudest preachers that have the dirtiest sheets. Lemond's generation was worse - testing was a joke, and certain amounts and types of doping were simply accepted. If you believe that the lemond of '87 could race in today's protocols, you are delusional.
> 
> As for why LA doesn't sue: First, he's a pretty bright fella, and unlike Lemond, understands who is buttering his bread; and second, it's nearly impossible to prove a negative (and would only provide bad press to try.)


LA a bright fellow? Not so sure about that. He pays people to be bright for him, but he himself is no mental giant. I agree on the protocols of today being better, but under LA they weren't all that good. Most everyone was busted when they found the substance on their person (Miller was caught, the Russian who got third in the tour, remember his wife was caught with it). Only lately has testing caught up and caught people in their urine and blood test. Even Rasmussen wasn't caught via blood or urine. So don't kid yourself that testing all of sudden got better in the 90s or early 00s, cause that is certainly not buttressed with the people who were caught.

I agree LeMond can be a whiner, but I met both of them in the 95 during the fuji world tour for disabled cyclist. Without question LeMond was the more charismatic and nicer guy. Lance was a total dud. To be fair this is before his media training, but on the other side it appears obvious no one really likes the guy and he's kind of a jerk.

Remember too Lemond won the tour on the last day, taking the jersey away from a Frenchman on the bicentennial of Bastille Day and did so with a Belgium team - and all of France loved him. The guy was a great ambassador for American cycling regardless of his recent transgressions.


----------



## FatTireFred (Jan 31, 2005)

how convenient that this (nicely filmed and edited) company update makes it onto youtube


----------



## jupiterrn (Sep 22, 2006)

velomonkey said:


> LA a bright fellow? Not so sure about that. He pays people to be bright for him, but he himself is no mental giant. I agree on the protocols of today being better, but under LA they weren't all that good. Most everyone was busted when they found the substance on their person (Miller was caught, the Russian who got third in the tour, remember his wife was caught with it). Only lately has testing caught up and caught people in their urine and blood test. Even Rasmussen wasn't caught via blood or urine. So don't kid yourself that testing all of sudden got better in the 90s or early 00s, cause that is certainly not buttressed with the people who were caught.
> 
> I agree LeMond can be a whiner, but I met both of them in the 95 during the fuji world tour for disabled cyclist. Without question LeMond was the more charismatic and nicer guy. Lance was a total dud. To be fair this is before his media training, but on the other side it appears obvious no one really likes the guy and he's kind of a jerk.
> 
> Remember too Lemond won the tour on the last day, taking the jersey away from a Frenchman on the bicentennial of Bastille Day and did so with a Belgium team - and all of France loved him. The guy was a great ambassador for American cycling regardless of his recent transgressions.



wow all this from the guy who posted this gem in the lounge the other day

http://forums.roadbikereview.com/showthread.php?t=127420


----------



## MB1 (Jan 27, 2004)

*Great links.*



blackhat said:


> you seem like a well intentioned enough sort, if perhaps ill informed. One of my favorite domestic journalists that writes about doping is joe lindsey. he's posted 2 excellent blog entries regarding the trek/lemond CF. check them out and consider the possibility that he's right.
> 
> http://boulderreport.bicycling.com/2008/04/trek-and-lemond.html
> 
> http://boulderreport.bicycling.com/2008/04/treklemond-the.html


The first is quite enlightening and the second is just so sad......what might have been.


----------



## Coolhand (Jul 28, 2002)

Not sure we need a 5th thread on this. Moving to trek with one of the other to consolidate. For your doping ranters please you the appropriate forum next time.


----------

