# Greg Lemond Vindicated



## AdamM

Tonight as Armstrong now pleads guilty to the doping he lied about for years, I think its worthwhile to appreciate Greg Lemond. Lemond was often mocked, slandered and made an outcast for calling out Armstrong for something that now is acknowledged to be true. Lemond is great TDF champion and good man.


----------



## The Tedinator

....who was ruined by Lance Armstrong. That sticks in my craw.


----------



## Fireform

Amen. Lemond still is and has always been the greatest US cyclist.


----------



## goloso

Fireform said:


> Amen. Lemond still is and has always been the greatest US cyclist.


And now the only American to win the TdF.


----------



## ronderman

LeMond is the man and will ALWAYS be the cyclist who did the most for American cycling. I've met him, and Lance (met them at the same event once) and LeMond is one of the nicest guys ever. 

Lance is an asshat and deserves this and then some. Liar and he did it on the back of cancer - despicable.


----------



## pedalruns

Fireform said:


> Amen. Lemond still is and has always been the greatest US cyclist.


Agree... 100%!! 

Lemond called it years ago.. "LA.. the greatest fraud" He was pretty much correct on all that he said back then. He paid a huge price, but at least now the truth is finallly coming out. 

A toast to Lemond!


----------



## wiz525

They are both douches.


----------



## deviousalex

ronderman said:


> LeMond is the man and will ALWAYS be the cyclist who did the most for American cycling. I've met him, and Lance (met them at the same event once) and LeMond is one of the nicest guys ever.
> 
> Lance is an asshat and deserves this and then some. Liar and he did it on the back of cancer - despicable.


I haven't met Lance but I have met LeMond and he is indeed a really nice guy! He likes to talk a lot and he likes his beer.


----------



## pulser955

Grate so the second biggest A-hole in cycling just got a little bit bigger.


----------



## BassNBrew

Won't be long until Lemond is ratted out for doping.


----------



## OneGear

Get a grip, thousands of people accused LA of doping, are we going to honour them too?

Just because he's a nice guy doesn't mean **** to his credibility.


----------



## OldEndicottHiway

OK. 

What??? 

I've been working a lot lately and have not heard the latest "lance" gossip. 

But yes, I've always had a greater personal admiration for LeMond over Lance. I remember seeing in an interview where he (Greg) stated along the lines of 'all of a sudden guys that were lanterne rouges the year before were now flying by me...' 

Dopers suck.

I loved to watch Armstrong ride and compete...but by gawd what a Caligula he was. 

I'd have_ no_ problem seeing Lemond supplant Armstrong as the greatest N American TdF champion. Perhaps it was his rightful place all along.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

Thank you Greg


----------



## key

Seriously lets all get off our soap boxes and realize that all of them where doing something to gain an unfair advantage, LeMond included. Lemond's now just goes down as a sad and bitter man and he ruined his legacy by the campaign he took. Today isn't a victory for anyone...


----------



## SystemShock

BassNBrew said:


> Won't be long until Lemond is ratted out for doping.


Kinda doubt it. But I saw Lance going down a long time ago.
.


----------



## cda 455

......


----------



## il sogno

I have always liked Lemond. He didn't have it easy. The way he had to battle Hinault and then getting shot and coming back to win the Tour. He has grit.


----------



## cda 455

il sogno said:


> I have always liked Lemond. He didn't have it easy. The way he had to battle Hinault and then getting shot and coming back to win the Tour. He has grit.



^^^Totally agree^^^


----------



## Tomahawk

key said:


> Seriously lets all get off our soap boxes and realize that all of them where doing something to gain an unfair advantage, LeMond included. Lemond's now just goes down as a sad and bitter man and he ruined his legacy by the campaign he took. Today isn't a victory for anyone...


Couldn't agree more. Short sighted and deliberately ignorant thread.


----------



## trailrunner68

LeMond had the stones to stand up and call out the Armstrong dope show when everyone else in cycling was feeding the public BS. Legend.


----------



## SystemShock

trailrunner68 said:


> LeMond had the stones to stand up and call out the Armstrong dope show when everyone else in cycling was feeding the public BS. Legend.


Well, yeah.

I'm sure the Lance brigade is going to curse GL's name forever, and say a lot of stuff along the lines of "I bet he doped TOO!!!", but my guess is history will be quite kind to LeMond. Lance? Not so much.

It is what it is, and crying about it won't change much.
.


----------



## kbwh

All well and fine, but wasn't Lemond young and carefree too?


----------



## Fireform

Speaking as someone who watched the whole situation unfold as an adult, Lemond was clearly an elite talent from the word go. Thats why Hinault and his management traveled to the US to recruit him--unheard-of for an American rider. Armstrong was only slightly better than middle of the pack before the cancer diagnosis, and was evidently doping to reach that level. IMO there is no comparison. 

Had Lemond not been so deferential to Hinault, who played him big time in 85, and not been shot in a hunting accident, he could have easily won 6 tours.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

Armstrong was obsessed with Greg. He relentlessly smeared him, both publicly and privately. Interfered with his business, offered former leMond teammates money to lie and say that Greg doped. Even though the offers got up to $300,000 none of them were willing to lie. 

Greg was right, now how does he get his reputation back?


----------



## OldEndicottHiway

Doctor Falsetti said:


> Armstrong was obsessed with Greg. He relentlessly smeared him, both publicly and privately. Interfered with his business, *offered former leMond teammates money to lie and say that Greg doped. Even though the offers got up to $300,000 none of them were willing to lie. *
> 
> Greg was right, now how does he get his reputation back?



Really?

I hadn't heard about that. Got any links? 

It certainly wouldn't surprise me if that was truly the case.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

OldEndicottHiway said:


> Really?
> 
> I hadn't heard about that. Got any links?
> 
> It certainly wouldn't surprise me if that was truly the case.





> "I cannot say who it is, because he still works in cycling, but last year he was offered $300,000 to claim that I had used EPO,"


Greg LeMond quoted in newspaper saying Lance Armstrong tried to pay individual to make doping claims - New York Daily News

While Greg doesn't want to say I have no problem saying it was Vincent Barteau and Johan Lammerts who were approached


----------



## champamoore

Um, can the Tedinator please explain exactly how Armstrong "ruined" LeMond's life? It seems a pretty huge charge to level. 

We are all responsible for the quality of our own lives. No one can ruin my life unless I let them.


----------



## Chaz955i

Greg vindicated, sure. Because anyone with a functioning brain (LA apologists aside) couldn’t figure long ago that 2+2 doesn’t equal 7.
I’m amazed at the hero worship thrown Greg’s way. IMO anything he did regarding bringing doping to light was completely self-serving. He knew of the problem when he retired but only felt the need to jump on the soapbox when Lance’s record of tour victories as an American winner outstretched his own. I seem to remember, perhaps incorrectly, that when Greg retired it was attributed to a blood disorder and some speculated the disorder may have been linked to the shooting. Is this all myth now that the latest explanation was the introduction of EPO? Where was the moral outrage when he was pushed out of his vocation by a bunch of cheats? Why the sudden concern for the welfare of the sport? Could it simply be he was worried solely about his legacy as well as his financial interests in his bicycle company? I think it is and there is nothing wrong with it, but looking out for one’s own interests has little to do with being heroic. Greg is so concerned about adult men being presented the choice of taking drugs to compete. Maybe Greg could have affected the lives of those in situations where they have little choice such as child victims of abuse? Supposedly, Greg has some insight there. To give him accolades for the fight against doping is somewhat a joke when the cause he chose to be so outspoken about is trivial compared to child sexual abuse. Anything I’ve heard about Greg indicates he is a nice guy. There are a lot of nice guys out there, not many of them are heroes. Personally, I admire his accomplishments on the bike, but his altruism is suspect at best. JMO


----------



## ronderman

Most everything you said is just made up - Greg was speaking up against doping and specifically EPO back when Lance was in a motorola jersey and long before he won a tour.

You need to tell it straight or stop wasting time.





Chaz955i said:


> Greg vindicated, sure. Because anyone with a functioning brain (LA apologists aside) couldn’t figure long ago that 2+2 doesn’t equal 7.
> I’m amazed at the hero worship thrown Greg’s way. IMO anything he did regarding bringing doping to light was completely self-serving. He knew of the problem when he retired but only felt the need to jump on the soapbox when Lance’s record of tour victories as an American winner outstretched his own. I seem to remember, perhaps incorrectly, that when Greg retired it was attributed to a blood disorder and some speculated the disorder may have been linked to the shooting. Is this all myth now that the latest explanation was the introduction of EPO? Where was the moral outrage when he was pushed out of his vocation by a bunch of cheats? Why the sudden concern for the welfare of the sport? Could it simply be he was worried solely about his legacy as well as his financial interests in his bicycle company? I think it is and there is nothing wrong with it, but looking out for one’s own interests has little to do with being heroic. Greg is so concerned about adult men being presented the choice of taking drugs to compete. Maybe Greg could have affected the lives of those in situations where they have little choice such as child victims of abuse? Supposedly, Greg has some insight there. To give him accolades for the fight against doping is somewhat a joke when the cause he chose to be so outspoken about is trivial compared to child sexual abuse. Anything I’ve heard about Greg indicates he is a nice guy. There are a lot of nice guys out there, not many of them are heroes. Personally, I admire his accomplishments on the bike, but his altruism is suspect at best. JMO


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

Chaz955i said:


> Greg vindicated, sure. Because anyone with a functioning brain (LA apologists aside) couldn’t figure long ago that 2+2 doesn’t equal 7.
> I’m amazed at the hero worship thrown Greg’s way. IMO anything he did regarding bringing doping to light was completely self-serving. He knew of the problem when he retired but only felt the need to jump on the soapbox when Lance’s record of tour victories as an American winner outstretched his own. I seem to remember, perhaps incorrectly, that when Greg retired it was attributed to a blood disorder and some speculated the disorder may have been linked to the shooting. Is this all myth now that the latest explanation was the introduction of EPO? Where was the moral outrage when he was pushed out of his vocation by a bunch of cheats? Why the sudden concern for the welfare of the sport? Could it simply be he was worried solely about his legacy as well as his financial interests in his bicycle company? I think it is and there is nothing wrong with it, but looking out for one’s own interests has little to do with being heroic. Greg is so concerned about adult men being presented the choice of taking drugs to compete. Maybe Greg could have affected the lives of those in situations where they have little choice such as child victims of abuse? Supposedly, Greg has some insight there. To give him accolades for the fight against doping is somewhat a joke when the cause he chose to be so outspoken about is trivial compared to child sexual abuse. Anything I’ve heard about Greg indicates he is a nice guy. There are a lot of nice guys out there, not many of them are heroes. Personally, I admire his accomplishments on the bike, but his altruism is suspect at best. JMO


Greg spoke out about doping far before Lance ever won a Tour

In the late 80's he broke his contract with PDM when they tried to get him to use Testosterone. In 1997 he talked about the damage that Italian doping doctors like Ferrari were doing to the sport, before Lance, before Festina. 

Greg has always been vocally against doping, which made him a target from dopers like Lance. He response was to push Trek to drop Greg's brand, offer $$ to teammates to falsely claim Greg doped, and push Livestrong interns to spew anti-Lemond BS online. 

When we look back at the few public statements Greg made about lance they seem tame today


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

champamoore said:


> Um, can the Tedinator please explain exactly how Armstrong "ruined" LeMond's life? It seems a pretty huge charge to level.
> 
> We are all responsible for the quality of our own lives. No one can ruin my life unless I let them.


Really? 

So when Lance made the proclamation to a dinner table filled with people that he was going to call John Burke and get him to "Sink" Greg's bike line that had no effect? 

When he instructed Livestrong interns to smear Greg on line that did nothing? 

When he got friendly journalists to parrot the talking points this did nothing?

Really?


----------



## den bakker

funny how the tone changes suddenly. 
I'd encourage anyone that wants a laugh (in a sad way) to browse the archive for people statement on Lemond.


----------



## cda 455

AdamM said:


> Tonight as Armstrong now pleads guilty to the doping he lied about for years, I think its worthwhile to appreciate Greg Lemond. Lemond was often mocked, slandered and made an outcast for calling out Armstrong for something that now is acknowledged to be true. Lemond is great TDF champion and good man.



Someone needs to 'update' this pic  !


----------



## Chaz955i

Doctor Falsetti said:


> Greg spoke out about doping far before Lance ever won a Tour
> 
> In the late 80's he broke his contract with PDM when they tried to get him to use Testosterone. In 1997 he talked about the damage that Italian doping doctors like Ferrari were doing to the sport, before Lance, before Festina.
> 
> Greg has always been vocally against doping, which made him a target from dopers like Lance. He response was to push Trek to drop Greg's brand, offer $$ to teammates to falsely claim Greg doped, and push Livestrong interns to spew anti-Lemond BS online.
> 
> When we look back at the few public statements Greg made about lance they seem tame today


What rider when asked wouldn't say they are against doping? That is hardly taking a stand. Greg specifically targeting one rider who was about to eclipse his win total is a little different. He must have known who the cheaters were when he was racing. Did he expose any of them? If so, did he do it when he was still racing against them? Again, I don't think Greg is a bad guy for anything he's said or done and I feel bad for anyone villified for telling the truth. I just think his motives have little to do with the benefit of the sport and are far from being anything worthy of admiration.


----------



## cda 455

Doctor Falsetti said:


> Really?
> 
> So when Lance made the proclamation to a dinner table filled with people that he was going to call John Burke and get him to "Sink" Greg's bike line that had no effect?
> 
> When he instructed Livestrong interns to smear Greg on line that did nothing?
> 
> When he got friendly journalists to parrot the talking points this did nothing?
> 
> Really?


And that's just off the top of your head. 



Didn't LA threaten to expose Greg's sexual abuse history (Greg being the SA victim)?


----------



## Fireform

cda 455 said:


> And that's just off the top of your head.
> 
> 
> 
> Didn't LA threaten to expose Greg's sexual abuse history (Greg being the SA victim)?


Yes he did. That's the quality of man LA is.


----------



## slamy

Lemond has always been the best cyclist I've seen come from the US. A lot of people never got a chance to watch how strong he was. If it wasn't for that hunting accident he would have won at least 5 TDF's. He still has one of the highest vo2 maxes ever recorded. I feel sorry for cycling about this scandal, but at this point there weren't many people who believed Lance anymore. Who are they going to give the victories to? Most of the 2nd and 3rd place finishers had doping issues also.


----------



## cda 455

Fireform said:


> Yes he did. * That's the quality of man LA is.*



Sad, isn't it?


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

Chaz955i said:


> What rider when asked wouldn't say they are against doping? That is hardly taking a stand. Greg specifically targeting one rider who was about to eclipse his win total is a little different. He must have known who the cheaters were when he was racing. Did he expose any of them? If so, did he do it when he was still racing against them? Again, I don't think Greg is a bad guy for anything he's said or done and I feel bad for anyone villified for telling the truth. I just think his motives have little to do with the benefit of the sport and are far from being anything worthy of admiration.


Wrong again. 

Greg went public in 1989 that PDM tried to push him into using Testosterone so he broke his contract with them 

Greg went public regarding the damage Italian doping doctors were doing to the sport, this was before Festina,before lance won the Tour

What has he said about Armstrong? A few tepid quotes, but Lance goes after anyone who questions the myth


----------



## jnbrown

I will never forget the day I went to a race back around 1980.
It was shortly before LeMond turned pro and of course I had heard about him.
At the time I was going to races in Mexico and this race was called Tour de Tijuana and I had never ridden it. Everybody was gathering around the start getting ready and a Mercedes drives up. Greg Lemond and his dad get out of the car and pull out their bikes. I am like in amazement that I am going to be in a race with Lemond. Long story short I stayed in the lead group for about 2/3 of the race and actually sucked Greg's wheel for a time. Greg won the race and I placed pretty high up in my category and won some pesos. Probably the best I ever did in a race. I never liked Lance and his arrogance but now I feel sorry for him in a pathetic way that it has come to this. Too bad he just didn't come clean a long time ago.


----------



## badge118

Umm he wasn't ruined by Lance. He ruined himself. He knew what he was getting into when he made a deal with trek. They ff'd Rolf, they ff'd Klein, they are ffing Gary Fisher. He signed a contract and then knowingly violated the wording of that contract.

I am not trying to protect Lance here but Lemond ff'd himself because he let his pride get in the way.

BTW I would bet a year's salary that Lemond doped too tbh. before people rage it is not without some support.

1. over a of a couple of days, mid 1989, he went from being shelled out the back and even dropped by the sprinters in the mountains of the Giro to finishing on the podium during the final time trial - and then going onto win the Tour and the Worlds. Early in the season he had more than a few DNFs due to an "iron deficiency" to the point he almost quit. Then he has a Christmas Miracle "recovery" from aenemia by vitamin B12 and iron shots from his soigneur, then WHAMMO back into form.

2. He had no problem keeping up with the dopers in 89 and 90 but suddenly in 94 it's an issue?

3. Everyone was doping but him BUT he still had the fastest TdF time trial? fastest TT ever over 20k btw and that was in a race against another Champ who admitted he doped that year.

4. His HUGE claim that he didn't dope was how he was suddenly getting shelled. REALLY? Lemond wins in 1990 with an average speed of 38.621 kph. 1991 Indurain wins with 38.747kph. 0.3% difference. Yeah, that is being shelled.

Also odd how in 1997 he says that he retired because of a type of mitochondrial disease or disorder that made it more and more difficult for his muscles to function effectively. Then he sells his bike name to Trek, it does well until the Trek branded bike wins TdF's. His brand and thus profits go in the shadows....then suddenly in the middle of law suits and everything else...it was doping that did him in?

Now do I think he doped in as sophisticated a way as Armstrong. HELL NO!!!!! At the time Doping was just becoming a science and was still an "art" of sorts. The substances were not as advanced and neither was the testing. Lemonds watt estimates were actually HIGHER in 1989 and 1990 than Indurain's in 1991 when he won. Hell if you look at LA's 1999 win when he was doping, he is barely higher in Watts than Lemond was a decade prior with flexier equipment (watts going into the bike and not onto the road) etc.










then the sky is the limit. IMO this is not a sign of doping starting (else would not Indurains be higher as wel out of the gatel?) I think rather it is a sign of the advancing science of doping.


----------



## Chaz955i

Doctor Falsetti said:


> Wrong again.
> 
> Greg went public in 1989 that PDM tried to push him into using Testosterone so he broke his contract with them
> 
> Greg went public regarding the damage Italian doping doctors were doing to the sport, this was before Festina,before lance won the Tour
> 
> What has he said about Armstrong? A few tepid quotes, but Lance goes after anyone who questions the myth


Thanks for the info. I was not aware of him going public about PDM while still riding. 

I'll disagree about how tepid his comments were regarding Armstrong, specifically the one about greatest comeback or greatest fraud. I didn't find any ambiguity about the message being sent or the timing. Bigger fraud than Indurain? Then again. Indurain wasn't going to take the title as US rider with most tour wins. He was most certainly not taking a passive role when he took a front row seat at a LA press conference or with the questions he asked. 


Have a good weekend. Looking forward to getting some riding in.


----------



## badge118

Fireform said:


> Speaking as someone who watched the whole situation unfold as an adult, Lemond was clearly an elite talent from the word go. Thats why Hinault and his management traveled to the US to recruit him--unheard-of for an American rider. Armstrong was only slightly better than middle of the pack before the cancer diagnosis, and was evidently doping to reach that level. IMO there is no comparison.
> 
> Had Lemond not been so deferential to Hinault, who played him big time in 85, and not been shot in a hunting accident, he could have easily won 6 tours.


Sorry but the whole lance was middle of the pack is just a TAD off...well a lot off...

-at 19 #1 in age group USA Triathlete
-national Sprint tri course champ ages 18 and 19
-1991 Won Amature US champ road race.
-1992 Summer Olympics 14th
-1993 won 10 one day road races or stages in stage races with Motorola (neo pro year)
-same year at 21 became the youngest rider to win the Worlds on a damn tough course in crap weather, US National Champ and got 1 million for the Thrfit Drug triple crown (sorry know this one because I am a Philly boy. Fell in love with the sport thanks to Eric Heiden winning here).










-1994 2nd Liege Bastogne Liege and San Sebastian
-1995 won San Sebastian, Tour DuPont, other victories in Europe including a TdF stage
-1996 Win Fleche and DuPont again... cancer starts to kick his ass.

That is NOT a middle of the pack 3 year haul. Now I will grant this however. He was definitely more of one day/week long stage race kinda guy with a bent towards the TT. If he had not gotten the cancer and gone the route that derail took him I would have seen him as developing in a direction similar to Fabian Canchellara. Pick up one day wins and either podiums or wins in kinda balanced week long stage races (read NOT the Vuelta Ciclista al País Vasco lol). Tdf 7 time champ? Hell no. Doper? Yep. Middle of the pack? Definitely not that.


----------



## Special Eyes

AdamM said:


> Tonight as Armstrong now pleads guilty to the doping he lied about for years, I think its worthwhile to appreciate Greg Lemond. Lemond was often mocked, slandered and made an outcast for calling out Armstrong for something that now is acknowledged to be true. Lemond is great TDF champion and good man.


Can't you read??? Lance admitted to nothing. He just abandoned the fight.


----------



## badge118

Doctor Falsetti said:


> Really?
> 
> So when Lance made the proclamation to a dinner table filled with people that he was going to call John Burke and get him to "Sink" Greg's bike line that had no effect?
> 
> When he instructed Livestrong interns to smear Greg on line that did nothing?
> 
> When he got friendly journalists to parrot the talking points this did nothing?
> 
> Really?


Ummm you do know Trek has a history of sinking everyone that isn't trek and that the sinking began well before that dinner right? Rolf barely got out in time with his patents. Klein was destroyed (but trek made sure they got his patents for the welding process for their aluminum bikes), hell poor Gary is on his way out. They absorbed his brand into now the trek "Gary Fisher Collection" the first year had face time for his collection on the home page but now? You have to hunt for it.

Trek is all about buying stuff and then digesting slowly over time until there is only Trek. I look at them like the Pitcher Plant of the bicycle industry. Armstrong is an ******* but he didn't need to do anything for Trek to do what they did and Lemond violating his contract with trek just gave them an excuse to speed up the process. I dislike Armstrong but I HATE Trek for what they have done to some damn creative people.


----------



## Fogdweller

Fireform said:


> Speaking as someone who watched the whole situation unfold as an adult, Lemond was clearly an elite talent from the word go. Thats why Hinault and his management traveled to the US to recruit him--unheard-of for an American rider. Armstrong was only slightly better than middle of the pack before the cancer diagnosis, and was evidently doping to reach that level. IMO there is no comparison.
> 
> Had Lemond not been so deferential to Hinault, who played him big time in 85, and not been shot in a hunting accident, he could have easily won 6 tours.


Very few know about those days. I watched him race as a junior for Avocet and lap Sr 1/2 fields once and sometimes twice. It was clear that he was a prodigy @ 16 and 17 yrs old. Always defended him here even when he chose a less than diplomatic path in his professional life. Talking with him over the years at various events, he's a very genuine person with the same flaws we all have.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

badge118 said:


> Ummm you do know Trek has a history of sinking everyone that isn't trek and that the sinking began well before that dinner right? Rolf barely got out in time with his patents. Klein was destroyed (but trek made sure they got his patents for the welding process for their aluminum bikes), hell poor Gary is on his way out. They absorbed his brand into now the trek "Gary Fisher Collection" the first year had face time for his collection on the home page but now? You have to hunt for it.
> 
> Trek is all about buying stuff and then digesting slowly over time until there is only Trek. I look at them like the Pitcher Plant of the bicycle industry. Armstrong is an ******* but he didn't need to do anything for Trek to do what they did and Lemond violating his contract with trek just gave them an excuse to speed up the process. I dislike Armstrong but I HATE Trek for what they have done to some damn creative people.


Lemond's license deal with Trek was one of their first, how would he have known they sucked?


----------



## trailrunner68

champamoore said:


> Um, can the Tedinator please explain exactly how Armstrong "ruined" LeMond's life? It seems a pretty huge charge to level.
> 
> We are all responsible for the quality of our own lives. No one can ruin my life unless I let them.


Armstrong ordered employees of Livestrong to badmouth LeMond in Internet forums and comment sections of newspaper articles. Your cancer awareness dollars at work.


----------



## Fogdweller

cda 455 said:


> Didn't LA threaten to expose Greg's sexual abuse history (Greg being the SA victim)?


No, that was Landis, or at least his friend/manager who leaked it.


----------



## cda 455

Fogdweller said:


> No, that was Landis, or at least his friend/manager who leaked it.


Ah; O.K. 


I could of sworn it was LA's gang of thugs.


----------



## Zombie John

trailrunner68 said:


> Armstrong ordered employees of Livestrong to badmouth LeMond in Internet forums and comment sections of newspaper articles. Your cancer awareness dollars at work.


Seems like common knowledge, but do you have a link for this?


----------



## badge118

Doctor Falsetti said:


> Lemond's license deal with Trek was one of their first, how would he have known they sucked?


I am not saying that Lemond KNEW it was coming when he signed. However by the time the crap really hit the fan and Greg gave them their excuse, Rolf had gotten out and Klein was already pretty much done getting screwed. The same time frame he notes for Trek not selling his bikes properly (2001 through 2007) is basically the same time that they did all that to Klein's stuff (the Palamino, a darn good trail bike IMO) was stopped in 2005. He licensed in 1992, Klein in 1995. This was just Trek SOP. Their bikes didn't sell that well. LeMond was famous as a racer and Klein's bikes were seen as revolutionary for aluminum. They licensed Lemonds name, licensed Klein's patents (except the Maverick FS design and the fork that also went with the Palamino, he was at least smart there) and then sold them BOTH down the river when they could make the lion's share off the trek name. 

Listen, again I am not saying Armstrong is a nice guy, only that here it is really a Trek "business as usual" thing.


----------



## cyclesport45

I vote for no winners of the TDF from 1999 to 2005.


----------



## TerminatorX91

I think it's foolish to operate with certainty on the assumption that Lemond didn't dope.


----------



## OneGear

Jan Ullrich deserves all the recognition he won in 2000, 2001 and 2003.


----------



## badge118

TerminatorX91 said:


> I think it's foolish to operate with certainty on the assumption that Lemond didn't dope.


Agreed. Here is my thought process noted earlier in the thread

BTW I would bet a year's salary that Lemond doped too tbh. before people rage it is not without some support.

1. over a of a couple of days, mid 1989, he went from being shelled out the back and even dropped by the sprinters in the mountains of the Giro to finishing on the podium during the final time trial - and then going onto win the Tour and the Worlds. Early in the season he had more than a few DNFs due to an "iron deficiency" to the point he almost quit. Then he has a Christmas Miracle "recovery" from aenemia by vitamin B12 and iron shots from his soigneur, then WHAMMO back into form.

2. He had no problem keeping up with the dopers in 89 and 90 but suddenly in 94 it's an issue?

3. Everyone was doping but him BUT he still had the fastest TdF time trial? fastest TT ever over 20k btw and that was in a race against another Champ who admitted he doped that year.

4. His HUGE claim that he didn't dope was how he was suddenly getting shelled. REALLY? Lemond wins in 1990 with an average speed of 38.621 kph. 1991 Indurain wins with 38.747kph. 0.3% difference. Yeah, that is being shelled.

Also odd how in 1997 he says that he retired because of a type of mitochondrial disease or disorder that made it more and more difficult for his muscles to function effectively. Then he sells his bike name to Trek, it does well until the Trek branded bike wins TdF's. His brand and thus profits go in the shadows....then suddenly in the middle of law suits and everything else...it was doping that did him in?

Now do I think he doped in as sophisticated a way as Armstrong. HELL NO!!!!! At the time Doping was just becoming a science and was still an "art" of sorts. The substances were not as advanced and neither was the testing. Lemonds watt estimates were actually HIGHER in 1989 and 1990 than Indurain's in 1991 when he won. Hell if you look at LA's 1999 win when he was doping, he is barely higher in Watts than Lemond was a decade prior with flexier equipment (watts going into the bike and not onto the road) etc.{see chart in OP} After that the sky is the limit. IMO this is not a sign of doping starting (else would not Indurains be higher as wel out of the gatel?) I think rather it is a sign of the advancing science of doping.


----------



## love4himies

cyclesport45 said:


> I vote for no winners of the TDF from 1999 to 2005.


Me too.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

badge118 said:


> Agreed. Here is my thought process noted earlier in the thread
> 
> BTW I would bet a year's salary that Lemond doped too tbh. before people rage it is not without some support.
> 
> 1. over a of a couple of days, mid 1989, he went from being shelled out the back and even dropped by the sprinters in the mountains of the Giro to finishing on the podium during the final time trial - and then going onto win the Tour and the Worlds. Early in the season he had more than a few DNFs due to an "iron deficiency" to the point he almost quit. Then he has a Christmas Miracle "recovery" from aenemia by vitamin B12 and iron shots from his soigneur, then WHAMMO back into form.
> 
> 2. He had no problem keeping up with the dopers in 89 and 90 but suddenly in 94 it's an issue?
> 
> 3. Everyone was doping but him BUT he still had the fastest TdF time trial? fastest TT ever over 20k btw and that was in a race against another Champ who admitted he doped that year.
> 
> 4. His HUGE claim that he didn't dope was how he was suddenly getting shelled. REALLY? Lemond wins in 1990 with an average speed of 38.621 kph. 1991 Indurain wins with 38.747kph. 0.3% difference. Yeah, that is being shelled.
> 
> Also odd how in 1997 he says that he retired because of a type of mitochondrial disease or disorder that made it more and more difficult for his muscles to function effectively. Then he sells his bike name to Trek, it does well until the Trek branded bike wins TdF's. His brand and thus profits go in the shadows....then suddenly in the middle of law suits and everything else...it was doping that did him in?
> 
> Now do I think he doped in as sophisticated a way as Armstrong. HELL NO!!!!! At the time Doping was just becoming a science and was still an "art" of sorts. The substances were not as advanced and neither was the testing. Lemonds watt estimates were actually HIGHER in 1989 and 1990 than Indurain's in 1991 when he won. Hell if you look at LA's 1999 win when he was doping, he is barely higher in Watts than Lemond was a decade prior with flexier equipment (watts going into the bike and not onto the road) etc.{see chart in OP} After that the sky is the limit. IMO this is not a sign of doping starting (else would not Indurains be higher as wel out of the gatel?) I think rather it is a sign of the advancing science of doping.


I am sure you are a nice guy, but you have no idea what you are talking about

As soon as EPO came into the sport Greg was suddenly dropping down the GC, even though his output was as good as ever

His TT was short, downhill, and the wind was at his back. He only beat Therry Marie by 33 seconds that day. 

Greg held 405 watts for 26 minutes. Lance held 495 watts for 40 minutes. 

The fact is Greg has been vocally against doping in the sport for decades. Not a single former teammate, friend, or staff member has said that he dope.....in fact they say over and over how clean he was. 

This has been discussed over an over. There is zero evidence Lemond doped. None


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

cyclesport45 said:


> I vote for no winners of the TDF from 1999 to 2005.


Agreed, leave it blank


----------



## badge118

And a teammate friend or staff member who said Merckx doped? Indurain? Sorry but the sport has been a dope ridden hive at the top level since Henri Pelissier said "we race on dynamite" and Albert Londres called them Les Forçats de la Route.

As I said I do not deny that later (it was much later that LA pulled that 495 not 1999) doping was much more sophisticated but to somehow think that in a sea of dopers Lemond was clean I think is niave. Simply because EPO was not used in his prime does not mean doping did not happen. 

How did Simpson die? Complications of Meth. 6 day racers used strychnine and nitroglycerine. Anquetil never hid it and even got into a debate with a government minister on French television when he said only a fool would imagine it was possible to ride Bordeaux–Paris on just water. Merckx tested positive 3 time in his caree, once for Reactivan, once for Mucantil and once for Pemoline. Hell he went so far as to ask to have a win rewarded to him since WADA took a substance he got nailed for off their list of banned substances . 

I could go on but then I would have written a novel. To think that suddenly there is this brief little period that, between the retirement of Merckx and decline of Lemond, there was a golden age where the top riders did not dope simply beggars imagination.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

badge118 said:


> And a teammate friend or staff member who said Merckx doped? Indurain? Sorry but the sport has been a dope ridden hive at the top level since Henri Pelissier said "we race on dynamite" and Albert Londres called them Les Forçats de la Route.
> 
> As I said I do not deny that later (it was much later that LA pulled that 495 not 1999) doping was much more sophisticated but to somehow think that in a sea of dopers Lemond was clean I think is niave. Simply because EPO was not used in his prime does not mean doping did not happen.
> 
> How did Simpson die? Complications of Meth. 6 day racers used strychnine and nitroglycerine. Anquetil never hid it and even got into a debate with a government minister on French television when he said only a fool would imagine it was possible to ride Bordeaux–Paris on just water. Merckx tested positive 3 time in his caree, once for Reactivan, once for Mucantil and once for Pemoline. Hell he went so far as to ask to have a win rewarded to him since WADA took a substance he got nailed for off their list of banned substances .
> 
> I could go on but then I would have written a novel. To think that suddenly there is this brief little period that, between the retirement of Merckx and decline of Lemond, there was a golden age where the top riders did not dope simply beggars imagination.



Indurain's Teammate, Thomas Davy, said under oath there was an organized doping program on the team. Indurain used two doping doctors, Padilla and Conconi. Both who had multiple athletes test positive. Indurain suddenly could climb with the world greatest climbers. 

You are confused, EPO is no the same as uppers or Cortisone. There were plenty of clean riders in the 80's and it was possible to ride and win clean. This was not the case once EPO took hold of the sport


----------



## Chris-X

Doctor Falsetti said:


> Indurain's Teammate, Thomas Davy, said under oath there was an organized doping program on the team. Indurain used two doping doctors, Padilla and Conconi. Both who had multiple athletes test positive. Indurain suddenly could climb with the world greatest climbers.
> 
> You are confused, EPO is no the same as uppers or Cortisone. There were plenty of clean riders in the 80's and it was possible to ride and win clean. This was not the case once EPO took hold of the sport


What's pathetic and ironic is all the fanboys who invoked legal bs have no problem casually defaming LeMond with no evidence at all.

I'm out.:nono:


----------



## zero85ZEN

Your post reveals, at the very least, some ignorance or misunderstanding of the topic you are discussing. 

You may want to do more research of LeMond's career. Particularly just exactly when he "suddenly" couldn't keep up with the dopers. (Hint, it happened way before '94. In the '91 Tour he lost the yellow jersey due to exhaustion/over exertion because he kept trying to defend it against a peloton that was suddenly much MUCH faster...the EPO era was hitting full stride.)




badge118 said:


> Umm he wasn't ruined by Lance. He ruined himself. He knew what he was getting into when he made a deal with trek. They ff'd Rolf, they ff'd Klein, they are ffing Gary Fisher. He signed a contract and then knowingly violated the wording of that contract.
> 
> I am not trying to protect Lance here but Lemond ff'd himself because he let his pride get in the way.
> 
> BTW I would bet a year's salary that Lemond doped too tbh. before people rage it is not without some support.
> 
> 1. over a of a couple of days, mid 1989, he went from being shelled out the back and even dropped by the sprinters in the mountains of the Giro to finishing on the podium during the final time trial - and then going onto win the Tour and the Worlds. Early in the season he had more than a few DNFs due to an "iron deficiency" to the point he almost quit. Then he has a Christmas Miracle "recovery" from aenemia by vitamin B12 and iron shots from his soigneur, then WHAMMO back into form.
> 
> 2. He had no problem keeping up with the dopers in 89 and 90 but suddenly in 94 it's an issue?
> 
> 3. Everyone was doping but him BUT he still had the fastest TdF time trial? fastest TT ever over 20k btw and that was in a race against another Champ who admitted he doped that year.
> 
> 4. His HUGE claim that he didn't dope was how he was suddenly getting shelled. REALLY? Lemond wins in 1990 with an average speed of 38.621 kph. 1991 Indurain wins with 38.747kph. 0.3% difference. Yeah, that is being shelled.
> 
> Also odd how in 1997 he says that he retired because of a type of mitochondrial disease or disorder that made it more and more difficult for his muscles to function effectively. Then he sells his bike name to Trek, it does well until the Trek branded bike wins TdF's. His brand and thus profits go in the shadows....then suddenly in the middle of law suits and everything else...it was doping that did him in?
> 
> Now do I think he doped in as sophisticated a way as Armstrong. HELL NO!!!!! At the time Doping was just becoming a science and was still an "art" of sorts. The substances were not as advanced and neither was the testing. Lemonds watt estimates were actually HIGHER in 1989 and 1990 than Indurain's in 1991 when he won. Hell if you look at LA's 1999 win when he was doping, he is barely higher in Watts than Lemond was a decade prior with flexier equipment (watts going into the bike and not onto the road) etc.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> then the sky is the limit. IMO this is not a sign of doping starting (else would not Indurains be higher as wel out of the gatel?) I think rather it is a sign of the advancing science of doping.


----------



## zero85ZEN

Fireform said:


> Speaking as someone who watched the whole situation unfold as an adult, Lemond was clearly an elite talent from the word go. Thats why Hinault and his management traveled to the US to recruit him--unheard-of for an American rider. Armstrong was only slightly better than middle of the pack before the cancer diagnosis, and was evidently doping to reach that level. IMO there is no comparison.
> 
> Had Lemond not been so deferential to Hinault, who played him big time in 85, and not been shot in a hunting accident, he could have easily won 6 tours.


^ This. +1 gazillion!


----------



## badge118

I was never a fan boy. I said he doped. I had questions about the legal issues and procedures. That's all. Excuse me for pondering instead of pontificating.


----------



## badge118

If you say so Doc. To me doping is dope and other than wishful thinking it makes no logical sense whatsoever to assume a single decade of cleanliness at the top of the sport when all decades before and after had doping. I believe I have been pretty consistent about this point as well. Whenever I am asked about doping I just say Les Forçats de la Route. Then if they stare blankly at me I explain the story.


----------



## mmoose

badge118 said:


> If you say so Doc. To me doping is dope and other than wishful thinking it makes no logical sense whatsoever to assume a single decade of cleanliness at the top of the sport when all decades before and after had doping. I believe I have been pretty consistent about this point as well. Whenever I am asked about doping I just say Les Forçats de la Route. Then if they stare blankly at me I explain the story.


Badge,
When I was following (naively) in the late 80s and getting the basics explained to me by someone who knew racing (and refused to go pro "too many needles"..)
That Giro to Tour thing was a bit suspicious. Just Iron/Vit B shots? isn't that code for something? now a days, yes. But then...?

I believe that GL never knowingly took any PEDs, but maybe some was given without his knowledge. 

So I hear ya and point is taken. Circumstantial evidence and all that.

(EPO is a very different animal as noted, a big game changer. But dope is dope.)


----------



## Chaz955i

badge118 said:


> If you say so Doc. To me doping is dope and other than wishful thinking it makes no logical sense whatsoever to assume a single decade of cleanliness at the top of the sport when all decades before and after had doping. I believe I have been pretty consistent about this point as well. Whenever I am asked about doping I just say Les Forçats de la Route. Then if they stare blankly at me I explain the story.


Sure it makes sense to define "degrees" of cheating when it supports the argument. Apparently cheating is cheating, except for when Lemond was riding. I guess riding against guys hopped up on amphetamines, coke, opium or whatever they could jack into a vein was ok as long as Lemond could still beat them. When ole EPO hit the scene he wasn't too happy. Now we get to look back and and choose the "good dopers" from the "bad dopers". Any guess why people outside the sport view it as a joke?


----------



## The Human G-Nome

key said:


> Seriously lets all get off our soap boxes and realize that all of them where doing something to gain an unfair advantage, LeMond included. Lemond's now just goes down as a sad and bitter man and he ruined his legacy by the campaign he took. Today isn't a victory for anyone...


I am another one in your line. LeMond has been far from irreproachable along his journey.


----------



## SilasCL

badge118 said:


> If you say so Doc. To me doping is dope and other than wishful thinking it makes no logical sense whatsoever to assume a single decade of cleanliness at the top of the sport when all decades before and after had doping. I believe I have been pretty consistent about this point as well. Whenever I am asked about doping I just say Les Forçats de la Route. Then if they stare blankly at me I explain the story.


Dope is dope and cheating is cheating, but that wasn't Falsetti's point. The gains made through EPO as it was used from the early 90s up to very recently (maybe...) were huge. Riders who didn't use EPO couldn't compete with riders who did, nevermind the use of EPO in a program like Ferrari's. The gains made through ampetamines or other drugs used in Lemonds era were not nearly as significant. A clean rider could be good enough naturally to compete with riders who used drugs in that time period.

I'm not stating this to insist Lemond was clean, I only know of that what I read here. But to say that cycling has had drugs forever and if you were ever a pro cyclist then you are a cheat is asinine.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

Chaz955i said:


> Sure it makes sense to define "degrees" of cheating when it supports the argument. Apparently cheating is cheating, except for when Lemond was riding. I guess riding against guys hopped up on amphetamines, coke, opium or whatever they could jack into a vein was ok as long as Lemond could still beat them. When ole EPO hit the scene he wasn't too happy. Now we get to look back and and choose the "good dopers" from the "bad dopers". Any guess why people outside the sport view it as a joke?


Who is saying anything like this? My point is that in the 80's it was possible to ride, and win, clean. The drugs at the time enabled a rider to race 250 days a year but did little to increase output. 

Here is what Vaughters said about the different eras



> I think it's very hard to quantify the differences things like cortisone and testosterone make. Both were available and used in the 1980's, but yet i don't think were overly effective. Even if they did help, it wasn't to the degree that a clean rider could not win, which is what happens with o2 vector doping.
> 
> With both test and cortisone, it probably varies from athlete to athlete. Am athlete with low natural testosterone would probably benefit quite a bit from supplemental. Conversely, someone with high test probably would not. Using it to the point of actually gaining muscle mass is a mixed bag too. More muscle, more weight.
> 
> Cortisone, same thing. It's anti-inflammatory properties can help you "feel" fast, but it's a catabolic hormone, and that has big downsides on performance too.
> 
> I am over simplifying, but these doping agents are not that effective. It's still cheating and I'm sure there are some performance gains to be had, but it's not game changing, like o2 vector stuff. With this stuff, "just say no" is totally viable, and winning races clean viable as well.
> 
> With 15% increases in hemoglobin? forget about it...


Here is what Andy Hampsten said when Greg spoke out about doping 10 years ago

G


> Greg has put himself into personal and business difficulties by speaking out and getting involved with the issue of drugs in today's cycling. Voluntarily placing himself in this position shows me honesty and bravery far beyond what most of us could muster. Lemond could instead follow the cycling world's expectations for past champions and sit around "a fumer le pipe" ('chilling' in cycling slang) in silence. But, his legitimate concern for the health and lives of today’s athletes and future riders drives him to do what he can to return cycling to a healthy level. I want to see the same.* Since the early 90s both doping and the medical excesses placed upon riders’ health have gotten out of control.*
> 
> 
> Like Greg, I too saw what I believe were the effects of EPO when it entered pro cycling in the early 90s. In the first years it grew from a few individuals reaping obscene wins from exploiting its “benefits,” to entire teams relying on it, essentially forcing all but the most gifted racers to either use EPO to keep their place in cycling, quit, or become just another obscure rider in the group.
> 
> .......... So like Greg Lemond, I cannot just sit idly by watching our sport continue to suffer from cheating. It’s time to tell the truth.
> 
> 
> Dr. Michele Ferrari is known to have supported the use of EPO to increase his riders’ performances. In ’94, while his riders dominated the Ardennes Classic, he publicly ridiculed making rules against EPO saying it was safe to use and should not be made illegal in cycling. I believe behavior like this and the use of these products should not be tolerated. Violators should receive meaningful bans from the sport, bans that significantly outweigh any perceived benefits.
> 
> Many aspiring racers have confronted drug use as they rose through the ranks. Unfortunately, their silent answer to this insanity is often to quit racing at this level. Otherwise, they risk succumbing to the conventional wisdom that “since everyone takes drugs to be competitive, you should too.” This must not continue to be the choice facing promising young racers.
> 
> Now, in his retirement, *Greg Lemond is fighting to bring racing back to a natural level of honest riders racing to their limits and living a long life to talk about it. I am writing to support him in this fight.*
> 
> Both Greg and I are involved with a junior racing team, so this matter continues to concern us as we support and urge kids to go as far as they can in the sport we love, both for their own personal rewards, and to keep cycling growing. It is irresponsible for us to encourage kids to race and potentially turn pro without doing all we can to change cycling back to a sport where they will not likely be asked to take drugs that could ultimately destroy their natural good health, their characters, and their bodies.



They seem to ignore the people in the know like Laurent Fignon who said it was possible to win clean in the 80s even though he doped himself.

Like Willy Voet who said there were clean top riders like Charly Mottet despite naming countless people who did dope.

Like Paul Koechli, who ran a clean team in Helvetia/La Suiise without any needles and said LeMond won the Tour clean. Before people say that was because he was his manager, Koechli never said Hinault won the tour clean and he was his manager too. Bernard Tapie, owner of the team said the only guys he knew that definitely didnt dope were LeMond and Bauer, not Hinault, not Bernard.

Like Peter Winnen who says it was possible to win clean in the 80s but everything changed with EPO.

These posters are not just refuting other posters, they are refuting guys from that period who were involved in cycling, people who have said they doped themselves or that doping was present.


----------



## Chris-X

*More irony!*



badge118 said:


> I was never a fan boy. I said he doped. I had questions about the legal issues and procedures. That's all. *Excuse me for pondering instead of pontificating*.


Engaging in recriminations and indicting someone from on high with no evidence at all is pondering and not pontificating?

Face it. Your "legal" analysis was baseless and now you're defaming a guy who called the whole thing more than 10 years ago.

“If Lance is clean, it is the greatest comeback in the history of sport. If he isn’t, it would be the greatest fraud.”

A lot more economy than your analysis. Now you'll try to chop him down?


----------



## Chris-X

_Cyrille Guimard, a famous French team director during his time, meanwhile reiterated that it was necessary to pursue doping cases until their resolution, even if it took anti-doping authorities several years. "USADA had the possibility of finalising its investigations. Is this going to be the final outcome? We don't know yet. Armstrong has still won his seven Tours. But everyone knows that they were tainted. It's hard to change past events. But there's no real possibility of fighting doping if we don't see the cases through until the very end.

"We thought that with Armstrong, it wouldn't go through. But it did. It means that nobody, even the one who won the Olympics three weeks ago, cannot be disqualified in two or three years. We have to go all the way in these affairs."
_

French Cycling Reacts: "Armstrong To Lose Tour Titles" | Cyclingnews.com


----------



## Tschai

My thoughts:

1. Greg, as one of the first North Americans to compete at a top level in Europe, was not entrenched in the European racing culture of the time. Indeed, he came into that culture as one of the top racing prospects of all time and he did so without the prior use of drugs. He didn't need them and the drug culture in the world of US cycling simply did not exist at that time. It is common knowledge that he did things differently than the Europeans, from diet to time with the family to rider compensation and so on. Why would he remain a staunch maverick on those issues (diet, etc.) while caving in to the drug culture, to the extent there was one? 

2. If Greg doped, I suspect he would remain silent on this issue during and after his career. He has done the opposite. He is either very stupid, a magician or raced clean. Common sense says the latter.

3. Not many, if any, people connected to Lance's career and/or in the know, have unequivocally come out and stated that he raced clean. Hell, even Georgie boy is vague on this issue. Lots of Greg's former teammates and coaches and the like have clearly stated he was clean.

4. If he did dope in the 80's and early 90's, why the hell didn't he use EPO when it came on the scene? Did he have some moral high ground when it came to EPO, but he stepped in it when it came to the older drugs.

5. If your image is still untarnished, you don't come out and criticize one of the most powerful forces in cycling because you are bitter. You better believe in your cause and you better not have any dope ghosts in your closet. Again, he is either as stupid as it gets or he is telling the truth. I choose truth.


----------



## Fireform

Good for Guimard.


----------



## The Human G-Nome

For the folks so zealous in their lambasting of Armstrong and their simultaneous defense of Lemond, this all comes out reading like a bunch of Repubs debating Libs on a politics forum. You cherry-pick the "evidence" that suits your agenda while omitting the deleterious undertones.. Anyone that says they know for any kind of fact that Lemond did not dope is absolutely kidding themselves, but go ahead and lend out your talking points until you're blue in the face if it provides you with intrigue. 

For Dr. Falsetti, specifically, you should be getting paid for this with as much effort as you put in to defending someone based almost entirely on heresay. One would think you must have a personal stake in this, but I suppose it's just about proving yourself to the strangers on these forums instead. Who is anyone to say how you should be enjoying yourself though... 

Personally, I am convinced that Armstrong doped just as I remain unconvinced that Lemond doped. Still, remaining unconvinced is a far cry from compelling me to go to bat for a professional cyclist in the realm of doping.


----------



## rubbersoul

Doctor Falsetti said:


> Who is saying anything like this? My point is that in the 80's it was possible to ride, and win, clean. The drugs at the time enabled a rider to race 250 days a year but did little to increase output.
> 
> Here is what Vaughters said about the different eras
> 
> 
> 
> Here is what Andy Hampsten said when Greg spoke out about doping 10 years ago
> 
> G
> 
> 
> They seem to ignore the people in the know like Laurent Fignon who said it was possible to win clean in the 80s even though he doped himself.
> 
> Like Willy Voet who said there were clean top riders like Charly Mottet despite naming countless people who did dope.
> 
> Like Paul Koechli, who ran a clean team in Helvetia/La Suiise without any needles and said LeMond won the Tour clean. Before people say that was because he was his manager, Koechli never said Hinault won the tour clean and he was his manager too. Bernard Tapie, owner of the team said the only guys he knew that definitely didnt dope were LeMond and Bauer, not Hinault, not Bernard.
> 
> Like Peter Winnen who says it was possible to win clean in the 80s but everything changed with EPO.
> 
> These posters are not just refuting other posters, they are refuting guys from that period who were involved in cycling, people who have said they doped themselves or that doping was present.


Fantastic Post. Hampsten is a class act.


----------



## Tschai

The Human G-Nome said:


> For the folks so zealous in their lambasting of Armstrong and their simultaneous defense of Lemond, this all comes out reading like a bunch of Repubs debating Libs on a politics forum. You cherry-pick the "evidence" that suits your agenda while omitting the deleterious undertones.. Anyone that says they know for any kind of fact that Lemond did not dope is absolutely kidding themselves, but go ahead and lend out your talking points until you're blue in the face if it provides you with intrigue.
> 
> For Dr. Falsetti, specifically, you should be getting paid for this with as much effort as you put in to defending someone based almost entirely on heresay. One would think you must have a personal stake in this, but I suppose it's just about proving yourself to the strangers on these forums instead. Who is anyone to say how you should be enjoying yourself though...
> 
> Personally, I am convinced that Armstrong doped just as I remain unconvinced that Lemond doped. Still, remaining unconvinced is a far cry from compelling me to go to bat for a professional cyclist in the realm of doping.


And this post makes you look good. Geez. Perhaps you should get a better understanding of hearsay. Start with spelling it correctly.


----------



## The Human G-Nome

Tschai said:


> And this post makes you look good. Geez. Perhaps you should get a better understanding of hearsay. Start with spelling it correctly.


So your defense is just to become a spelling nazi? Yeah, you look swell here. If you can't debate the message, just go ad hominem.


----------



## trailrunner68

Tschai said:


> 4. If he did dope in the 80's and early 90's, why the hell didn't he use EPO when it came on the scene? Did he have some moral high ground when it came to EPO, but he stepped in it when it came to the older drugs.


LeMond started with a VO2Max of over 90. If he would have used EPO then he would have rocketed up the mountains, hit a col, and just kept going, right into orbit. If the climb was facing the wrong direction then he might have circled the earth in the wrong direction and reversed time like Superman. For the safety of himself and the earth's timeline, he had to stand down and let chumps like Chiapucci dope their way past him. It is all pretty logical when you think about it.


----------



## Tschai

The Human G-Nome said:


> So your defense is just to become a spelling nazi? Yeah, you look swell here. If you can't debate the message, just go ad hominem.


Apparently you missed the part where I suggested you get a better understanding of hearsay by starting with the spelling. This suggests that you should probe further into its actual meaning, because it seems that you don't understand it. Furthermore, in addition to poor spelling, your reading comprehension seems myopic, otherwise I would not have to explain this to you. Sorry, but you can't hide behind the spelling nazi crud. 

In any case, enough with the so called ad hominem mumbo jumbo. You have no message to debate. I need not have a defense. Your original rant makes you look like a killjoy, at best . This is an internet forum. It is entertainment. Your unprovoked attack on others, including the doctor, is shameful. Post your opinion, but leave the personal attacks at home.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

The Human G-Nome said:


> SNip.


Post, not poster

You are welcome to pretend the evidence is the same but we both know that this is not true. 

Armstrong failed 3 tests for Testosterone in the 90's, Cortisone in 1999, EPO in 1999 and 2001. Worked with the best doping doctor in the business, over a dozen witnesses said they say him dope and had wacky blood values his entire career. He has been banned for life and will be stripped of all his wins from 1999 onward

Anything like this for Greg? Nope


----------



## earlfoss

It's possible LeMond wasn't a good "responder" to EPO. I really want him to have been a 100% clean rider but realistically what are the chances of that? Really? That said he's the reason I got into cycling and I still admire his style and courage on the bike in the tour and Paris Roubaix and everything in between. 

Different people respond differently to EPO treatment and at least in the Minneapolis cycling scene's older crowd it's said he had complications with it in the tour leading to some bad days on the road. Remember those pictures of Duclos Lasalle pacing him up the hills in the rain? Lance apparently was considered a phenomenal responder to treatment and his results reflect that.


----------



## OldEndicottHiway

Fogdweller said:


> Very few know about those days. I watched him race as a junior for Avocet and lap Sr 1/2 fields once and sometimes twice. * It was clear that he was a prodigy @ 16 and 17 yrs old. Always defended him here even when he chose a less than diplomatic path in his professional life.* *Talking with him over the years at various events, he's a very genuine person with the same flaws we all have*.



That's what I understand as well, pamper tantrums and all. 

I met him once back in the day when I was a googly-eyed teen just getting into the sport. He signed my cap. It got stolen. I'm still fuming over it to this day.


----------



## Chaz955i

Doctor Falsetti said:


> Who is saying anything like this? My point is that in the 80's it was possible to ride, and win, clean. The drugs at the time enabled a rider to race 250 days a year but did little to increase output.


And if there was no benefit then nobody would be doing it. The people that made the choice to ride clean were still at a disadvantage whether it came to power output or just being wasted at the end of the season. Whether from a performance or monetary standpoint the cheaters were still screwing someone. Now we are just arguing how bad the screw job was when it should have never been acceptable. That "little" increase in power output likely had an impace on the standings. Is it ok because it shuffled some no-name from 34th to 35th? My point was that the top riders some who may have ridden clean seem to have not had the same vitriol toward the cheaters because they had the talent to win. 

I don't think we should go back and start testing all the guys from the 80's. Vilifing cheaters based on their choice of drug or because they chose to use the most powerful dope available just doesn't make sense to me. They are all cheats and anytime they were in a race it was to a clean rider's detriment.


----------



## Chris-X

*what a disgrace..*



earlfoss said:


> It's *possible* LeMond wasn't a good "responder" to EPO. I really want him to have been a 100% clean rider but realistically what are the chances of that? Really? That said he's the reason I got into cycling and I still admire his style and courage on the bike in the tour and Paris Roubaix and everything in between.
> 
> Different people respond differently to EPO treatment and at least in the Minneapolis cycling scene's older crowd it's *said* he had complications with it in the tour leading to some bad days on the road. Remember those pictures of Duclos Lasalle pacing him up the hills in the rain? Lance apparently was considered a phenomenal responder to treatment and his results reflect that.


Apparently you don't understand the difference between proving what's possible and *what actually happened.*

I say it's possible that in between posts on this forum, you literally are adding to the skeletons you might have in your closet. It's possible!


----------



## David Loving

IMO Lemond is as corrupt as all the riders in his generation. A refusal to arbitrate is not a plea. That's why the lawsuit was filed - to explain it.


----------



## cda 455

David Loving said:


> IMO Lemond is as corrupt as all the riders in his generation. A refusal to arbitrate is not a plea. That's why the lawsuit was filed - to explain it.



Any thing to back up the corrupt LeMond comment? I'm all ears/eyes.


The same with Big Mig.


----------



## Fireform

You have no factual basis for your statement about Lemond. No one who ever rode with him ever said he was dirty, and many, including confessed dopers themselves, are on record saying he raced clean. 

Lance just can't abide the total loss of his legacy that would follow the testimony of teammate after teammate that he doped and lied about it for so many years. I guess he thinks crying victim and trying to preserve the shreds of his reputation is better than admitting the truth.


----------



## FR hokeypokey

Interesting comments in support of LeMond. 

I have never met the man and he seems to have a reputation as a "nice guy". Seeing his interviews and comments over the years he has always seemed a bit bitter and sad. He seems to always feel under appreciated. Perhaps just a perception created by the media.

Anyway, there is no admission of guilt by Armstrong. Semantics I know. We can (and probably will) argue about the truthfulness of the evidence against Armstrong. But in reality he has decided to stop fighting a system he does not feel is just. Another thing that can/will be argued. 

But in reality the assumptions and anecdotal evidence against Armstrong is just as valid as what can be said about Lemond. Would Lemond withstand the same retro-testing and scrutiny as Armstrong?


----------



## earlfoss

Talk with Duane Dickey.


----------



## Fireform

What's comical is the people who post here about how ill used Armstrong is, despite the positive tests, numerous people from his inner circle who are confessed dopers, and many others who say he doped and supplied the dope, and yet sling mud at Lemond with no such evidence at all. The evidence against Lance is solid--he would have fought it otherwise. There is no evidence against Lemond on the doping score, period, and trying to pretend there's some kind of equivalence just makes you look like fools.


----------



## Tschai

FR hokeypokey said:


> But in reality the assumptions and anecdotal evidence against Armstrong is just as valid as what can be said about Lemond. Would Lemond withstand the same retro-testing and scrutiny as Armstrong?


Wrong! How many times do we have to explain it? There are numerous witnesses against Lance that have stated they have seen him dope with their own eyes. This is what is known as eyewitness testimony. It is direct evidence. It is not hearsay. It is not assumption. It is not anecdotal. Direct evidence like this can often be strong enough to convict people of murder. 

As to Lemond, there are absolutely no direct witnesses that state they saw him dope. The difference between these is as HUGE as it gets. So yes, Lemond would withstand.


----------



## deviousalex

Tschai said:


> Wrong! How many times do we have to explain it? There are numerous witnesses against Lance that have stated they have seen him dope with their own eyes. This is what is known as eyewitness testimony. It is direct evidence. It is not hearsay. It is not assumption. It is not anecdotal. Direct evidence like this can often be strong enough to convict people of murder.
> 
> As to Lemond, there are absolutely no direct witnesses that state they saw him dope. The difference between these is as HUGE as it gets. So yes, Lemond would withstand.


+1

Everyone seems to conveniently forget this when they are arguing for Lance. The whole point of this was to have Lance defend himself against these allegations, which he did not do.


----------



## trailrunner68

It is sad that Lance faithful are so desperate to lessen the gravity of their guy's doping that with no evidence whatsoever they resort to lying about LeMond. Yet these are the same people who are up in arms about witch hunts and who claim the massive amounts of evidence that Armstrong doped cannot be trusted. There is a serious refusal to deal with reality here.


----------



## Chris-X

earlfoss said:


> Talk with Duane Dickey.


Who?:ciappa::nono::frown2::lol::sad::ciappa:ut:


----------



## Legs McNeil

The war on doping is as futile as the war on drugs.


----------



## jorgy

Fogdweller said:


> Very few know about those days. I watched him race as a junior for Avocet and lap Sr 1/2 fields once and sometimes twice. It was clear that he was a prodigy @ 16 and 17 yrs old. Always defended him here even when he chose a less than diplomatic path in his professional life. Talking with him over the years at various events, he's a very genuine person with the same flaws we all have.


"Middle of the pack" World Champion before cancer.

Sorry, this should have been a reply to Fireform.


----------



## Fireform

How many tours did he finish pre-cancer? As a GC rider and climber, to call him middle of the pack is kind.


----------



## jorgy

Fireform said:


> How many tours did he finish pre-cancer? As a GC rider and climber, to call him middle of the pack is kind.


You said:



Fireform said:


> Speaking as someone who watched the whole situation unfold as an adult, Lemond was clearly an elite talent from the word go. Thats why Hinault and his management traveled to the US to recruit him--unheard-of for an American rider. Armstrong was only slightly better than middle of the pack before the cancer diagnosis, and was evidently doping to reach that level. IMO there is no comparison.
> 
> Had Lemond not been so deferential to Hinault, who played him big time in 85, and not been shot in a hunting accident, he could have easily won 6 tours.


There's no reference to Grand Tours (still isn't even in your most recent post) or climbing in your original statement calling Armstrong middle-of-the-pack.

"GC" isn't specific to grand tours. Cancellara won the GC in Tirreno-Adriatico, which is a week long, multi-stage race. Cancellara has no chance of winning a Grand Tour. I guess he's "middle of the pack," too, by your most recent _implied_ definition, i.e., Grand Tours.


----------



## trailrunner68

Fireform said:


> How many tours did he finish pre-cancer? As a GC rider and climber, to call him middle of the pack is kind.


True. Armstrong had a crappy record at the Tour. For real comedy look up the results of Wiggins. Before his transformation into a Tour contender, he could not crack the top 100 in the Tour. He was placing in the one hundred and forties of climbing stages.

Using Armstrong's WC win as a sign of a future GT winner is bogus. How many WC champions win GTs? Where are Bettini's GT wins? The '93 worlds race was a crap shoot. Conditions were wet and treacherous. And we now know from Andy Bishop, who just talked to the press, that Armstrong was using EPO during that time.


----------



## den bakker

trailrunner68 said:


> True. Armstrong had a crappy record at the Tour. For real comedy look up the results of Wiggins. Before his transformation into a Tour contender, he could not crack the top 100 in the Tour. He was placing in the one hundred and forties of climbing stages.
> 
> Using Armstrong's WC win as a sign of a future GT winner is bogus. How many WC champions win GTs? Where are Bettini's GT wins? The '93 worlds race was a crap shoot. Conditions were wet and treacherous. And we now know from Andy Bishop, who just talked to the press, that Armstrong was using EPO during that time.


not like he did not back up the wc later. fleche-wallone, san sebastian, Züri-Metzgete, 2*second in Liege etc. not all that shabby. and a 36th in the tour in 95. That does not mean one is GC material but he was a very good rider pre-cancer as well.


----------



## Fireform

jorgy said:


> You said:
> 
> 
> 
> There's no reference to Grand Tours (still isn't even in your most recent post) or climbing in your original statement calling Armstrong middle-of-the-pack.
> 
> "GC" isn't specific to grand tours. Cancellara won the GC in Tirreno-Adriatico, which is a week long, multi-stage race. Cancellara has no chance of winning a Grand Tour. I guess he's "middle of the pack," too, by your most recent _implied_ definition, i.e., Grand Tours.


Before cancer Armstrong had every appearance of becoming a strong classics rider. Armstrong had never finished a TdF, and had no shot at being the GC contender for any team, anywhere. Post cancer Armstrong rarely seriously competed in anything other than the TDF, for the most part treating every other race as training or tuneup for the big event. 

Armstrong's emphatic definition of himself, his very identity, is as a GC guy, and not even that but specifically a TdF guy. It's hardly unfair to judge him on his chosen turf.


----------



## Mike T.

AdamM said:


> I think its worthwhile to appreciate Greg Lemond. Lemond was often mocked, slandered and made an outcast for calling out Armstrong for something that now is acknowledged to be true. Lemond is great TDF champion and good man.


And Lemond was the *only one* in pro cycling that wasn't doped up? Riiiggghhhttt. Excuse me a second - *Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahah !!!*


----------



## trailrunner68

den bakker said:


> not like he did not back up the wc later. fleche-wallone, san sebastian, Züri-Metzgete, 2*second in Liege etc. not all that shabby. and a 36th in the tour in 95. That does not mean one is GC material but he was a very good rider pre-cancer as well.


Those were all after he started paying Dr. Ferrari.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

den bakker said:


> not like he did not back up the wc later. fleche-wallone, san sebastian, Züri-Metzgete, 2*second in Liege etc. not all that shabby. and a 36th in the tour in 95. That does not mean one is GC material but he was a very good rider pre-cancer as well.


All these results were after he met his good friend EPO


----------



## Uomo del Ghiaccio

*Greg Lemond is GUILTY too!*

Greg Lemond is just as guilty as the other cyclists that he accuses. His miracle performance while being anemic is a good example. He blew away other cyclists who admitted that they doped, but some how he was clean? I don't think so. Greg Lemond is just a cheat who whines a lot.


----------



## Uomo del Ghiaccio

deviousalex said:


> I haven't met Lance but I have met LeMond and he is indeed a really nice guy! He likes to talk a lot and he likes his beer.


I also met Greg Lemond and he was NOT a guy, I would clasify Greg Lemond as being arrogant and full of himself.


----------



## Uomo del Ghiaccio

trailrunner68 said:


> It is sad that Lance faithful are so desperate to lessen the gravity of their guy's doping that with no evidence whatsoever they resort to lying about LeMond. Yet these are the same people who are up in arms about witch hunts and who claim the massive amounts of evidence that Armstrong doped cannot be trusted. There is a serious refusal to deal with reality here.


The sad fact is that both of them are probably GUILTY of doping, however Greg Lemond is also a hypocrite and a whiner.


----------



## Mike T.

Uomo del Ghiaccio said:


> Greg Lemond is just as guilty as the other cyclists that he accuses. His miracle performance while being anemic is a good example. He blew away other cyclists who admitted that they doped, but some how he was clean? I don't think so. Greg Lemond is just a cheat who whines a lot.


And there's nothing worse than a holier-than-thou hypocrite.


----------



## Fireform

Uomo del Ghiaccio said:


> The sad fact is that both of them are probably GUILTY of doping, however Greg Lemond is also a hypocrite and a whiner.


It's much sadder that you feel you can make statements like this with no support and no qualms.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

It used to make the groupies crazy that Greg told the truth about the myth. Now that he is the only American winner of the Tour they have lost it.


----------



## SicBith

Doctor Falsetti said:


> It used to make the groupies crazy that Greg told the truth about the myth. Now that he is the only American winner of the Tour they have lost it.


A little premature. The UCI hasn't ruled on this yet.


----------



## Tschai

Uomo del Ghiaccio said:


> Greg Lemond is just as guilty as the other cyclists that he accuses. His miracle performance while being anemic is a good example. He blew away other cyclists who admitted that they doped, but some how he was clean? I don't think so. Greg Lemond is just a cheat who whines a lot.


Nope. Although I believe cyclists can have "miracle" performances without doping, I don't really count Lance's come back and his change from Classics rider to Grand Tour GC contender as evidence that he doped. I also don't count Greg's comeback as evidence that he doped. 

There is plenty of real evidence against Lance. There is no real evidence against Lemond.


----------



## roddjbrown

Uomo del Ghiaccio said:


> The sad fact is that both of them are probably GUILTY of doping, however Greg Lemond is also a hypocrite and a whiner.


Just to be clear, you're saying Lance Armstrong, Mr "I'm sorry you can't believe in miracles", is not a hypocrite...


----------



## ronderman

Uomo del Ghiaccio said:


> Greg Lemond is just as guilty as the other cyclists that he accuses. His miracle performance while being anemic is a good example. He blew away other cyclists who admitted that they doped, but some how he was clean? I don't think so. Greg Lemond is just a cheat who whines a lot.


This is, possibly, the dumest thing I have read thus far - I literally felt my head cave reading it. 

Who, exactly, are these other riders he dropped that were already any decent and then admitted to full-fledge doping? Greg might wine, I'll kida sorta give you that, are you EVER going to say Lance Armstrong isn't a big time male appendage. Or, would you let him date your daughter, get her pregnant and then dump her. Anything less and you're the hypocrite.


----------



## charlox5

Tschai said:


> Nope. Although I believe cyclists can have "miracle" performances without doping, I don't really count Lance's come back and his change from Classics rider to Grand Tour GC contender as evidence that he doped. I also don't count Greg's comeback as evidence that he doped.
> 
> There is plenty of real evidence against Lance. There is no real evidence against Lemond.


this is what i find curious about the LA supporters who are quick to pile on Lemond. In one breath, LA has never failed a drug test. In the next, Lemond was probably doping too, in spite there being even less evidence that Lemond doped than there is against LA.

those who are just skeptical of lemond and have no alliegiance to Armstrong are free to be as skeptical as they want.


----------



## pedalruns

Uomo del Ghiaccio said:


> Greg Lemond is just as guilty as the other cyclists that he accuses. His miracle performance while being anemic is a good example. He blew away other cyclists who admitted that they doped, but some how he was clean? I don't think so. Greg Lemond is just a cheat who whines a lot.


This is such a uninformed statement.. and then I noticed you only have 4 posts and all are on this thread? So did you just join to bad mouth GL?


----------



## charlox5

pedalruns said:


> This is such a uninformed statement.. and then I noticed you only have 4 posts and all are on this thread? So did you just join to bad mouth GL?


someone do an iplookup and see if he's posting from the livestrong offices


----------



## badge118

I think the point is what's good for the goose is good for the gander. What started the LA ball rolling was the environment in which he dominated and his come back from cancer. The investigations basically started for that reason. It would be illogical not to apply the same metric to Lemond would it not.


----------



## martinrjensen

I was not aware that Lance Armstrong plead guilty. Where did you read that?


AdamM said:


> Tonight as Armstrong now pleads guilty to the doping he lied about for years, I think its worthwhile to appreciate Greg Lemond. Lemond was often mocked, slandered and made an outcast for calling out Armstrong for something that now is acknowledged to be true. Lemond is great TDF champion and good man.


----------



## zero85ZEN

badge118 said:


> I think the point is what's good for the goose is good for the gander. What started the LA ball rolling was the environment in which he dominated and his come back from cancer. The investigations basically started for that reason. It would be illogical not to apply the same metric to Lemond would it not.


What?

The investigations of Armstrong started because evidence of doping plus some people spilling the beans about what went on in the team came to light.

There has never been any evidence that LeMond doped. In fact everything points to the exact opposite.


----------



## cda 455

charlox5 said:


> someone do an iplookup and see if he's posting from the livestrong offices



Or a recently banned member  !


----------



## Chris-X

*That's the criminal case..*



martinrjensen said:


> I was not aware that Lance Armstrong plead guilty. Where did you read that?


He just quit here. Is there a "plea" for quitting?


----------



## Chris-X

badge118 said:


> I think the point is what's good for the goose is good for the gander. What started the LA ball rolling was the environment in which he dominated and his come back from cancer. The investigations basically started for that reason. It would be illogical not to apply the same metric to Lemond would it not.


Theory crafting again? Armstrong tested positive for cortisone in '99 and EVERYONE knows that.

European journalists were literally laughing at Armstrong's Sestriere exploits.

One guy cited a relationship with a notorious doping doctor. The other guy engaged in recriminations and extortion.

What you're saying isn't logical. It's being party to a smear campaign.



zero85ZEN said:


> What?
> 
> The investigations of Armstrong started because evidence of doping plus some people spilling the beans about what went on in the team came to light.
> 
> There has never been any evidence that LeMond doped. In fact everything points to the exact opposite.


Yes.


----------



## goloso

SicBith said:


> A little premature. The UCI hasn't ruled on this yet.


Oh man, I hope they ignore the USADA. WADA will try freeze them out of the IOC and then everyone has to pick a side. That would be fun to watch.


----------



## martinrjensen

I suppose you can read into it what ever you want but there is a difference. No, he did not "plead guilty" unless you read something I didn't read. If you say that you are flat out incorrect, no if's ands or buts about it. You can say that "IYO" his actions mean he is guilty (which is a stretch technically) but you didn't say that.


Chris-X said:


> He just quit here. Is there a "plea" for quitting?


----------



## badge118

zero85ZEN said:


> What?
> 
> The investigations of Armstrong started because evidence of doping plus some people spilling the beans about what went on in the team came to light.
> 
> There has never been any evidence that LeMond doped. In fact everything points to the exact opposite.


I am talking about people saying he was a doper due to his performance and the environment going back to his 1999 win. Hell people started saying it after his Vuelta. It was then non-stop and there were investigations into USPS well prior to the US Fed and USADA investigations. The French Police had one open for years that was eventually closed. 

Call me a weird guy but I do not think unusual performances are something that do NOT justify digging. It's like looking at the unemployed guy driving the brand new luxury car. If they hang out with drug dealers or mobster and are driving that car every day, they ask for a little extra attention, even if you have yet to catch them committing a crime.

Same thing happened to LA (and imo proven to be a doper) so what, other than his own protestations means we should not give Lemond the same suspicious eye? Heck the theory now that doping happens in conspiracies even adds fuel to the fire. I remember him writing in his blog about a team mate that died due to doping (or so Lemond's blog infers). One could take two things away from that. A worldly athlete and team leader who did not know his team mate was doping or a worldly athlete and team leader who knew his team mate was doping but wrote the blog post to distance himself from involvement. It would not be the first time self serving lies and half truths were said to reinforce the idea of innocence.

Now I am not saying that Lemond doped. Only that there is much the same circumstances surrounding Lemond as there was LA during the 1999 through mid 2000 time frame. What is good for the goose is good for the gander.


----------



## badge118

Chris-X said:


> Theory crafting again? Armstrong tested positive for cortisone in '99 and EVERYONE knows that.
> 
> European journalists were literally laughing at Armstrong's Sestriere exploits.
> 
> One guy cited a relationship with a notorious doping doctor. The other guy engaged in recriminations and extortion.
> 
> What you're saying isn't logical. It's being party to a smear campaign.


No it's not a smear campaign. It is applying the same logic pre festina and has been applied post. If we are honest with ourselves, pre-Festina people could give a damn about doping. After Festina though how many performances had journalists laughing? If we apply that same logic a decade earlier journalists would have been laughing at the famous TT especially after the guy who lost admitted to doping. How many people didn't say "cortisone".... and then go on a long diatribe about performances, recovery from an almost fatal illness etc. The more subjective sources of suspicion are all a part of Lemond's history as well.

As I said, I am not saying that Lemond doped but if we look at everything in the exact same light as we do Lance you simply can not discount the possibility and then even pretend to be looking at things even impartially. Hell I apply the same rule to Sagan this season (as an example) and I like the kid and hope he keeps getting better. This is not simply a Lemond smear.


----------



## badge118

goloso said:


> Oh man, I hope they ignore the USADA. WADA will try freeze them out of the IOC and then everyone has to pick a side. That would be fun to watch.


I wouldn't bet whether the UCI accepts it or not tbh, too damn uncertain. The UCI for more than a few years has been more concerned about making their authority absolute alla FIFA in soccer and this seems to have become part of that story. They have felt seriously threatened in this goal. First a pissing match with the big three organizers. Later the rider's association and team owners with a threat of a break away league. They are still trying to make sense of RCS and the revenue sharing with the teams and what if anything this means for the UCI. They could cut their loses and enforce the ban or they could say no in the context of trying to enforce their authority over the sport. 

I have no clue which it will be but I am pulling out the pop corn.


----------



## Fireform

Badge, you're just making stuff up. I don't know why you find that entertaining, but it's not.

Lance wasn't the victim of excessive scrutiny or some kind of generalized suspicion based on the era in which he raced. He doped, he tested positive, his associates started to speak up. That's why he drew the attention of investigators, and if anything he was treated far more deferentially than other suspects in the doping era because he had so many victories and was so openly vengeful. People feared him. He gave them good reason.

Taking this kind of "well he must have doped because he was so good and everybody did it anyway" invention and using it to smear riders like Lemond or Hampsten who are well known to have raced clean is contemptible. Maybe you just can't accept that Armstrong was an unusually crooked snake, I don't know. But I wish you would knock it off.


----------



## Chris-X

*And you*



martinrjensen said:


> I suppose you can read into it what ever you want but there is a difference. No, he did not "plead guilty" unless you read something I didn't read. If you say that you are flat out incorrect, no if's ands or buts about it. You can say that "IYO" his actions mean he is guilty (which is a stretch technically) but you didn't say that.


can insinuate anything you'd like to.

Armstrong did not contest the charges. In addition to being a known doper for many years now it's completely legitimate to preface his name with "disgraced cyclist," or "drug cheat," especially in news reports.

Carry on.ut:


----------



## badge118

Fireform said:


> Badge, you're just making stuff up. I don't know why you find that entertaining, but it's not.
> 
> Lance wasn't the victim of excessive scrutiny or some kind of generalized suspicion based on the era in which he raced. He doped, he tested positive, his associates started to speak up. That's why he drew the attention of investigators, and if anything he was treated far more deferentially than other suspects in the doping era because he had so many victories and was so openly vengeful. People feared him. He gave them good reason.
> 
> Taking this kind of "well he must have doped because he was so good and everybody did it anyway" invention and using it to smear riders like Lemond or Hampsten who are well known to have raced clean is contemptible. Maybe you just can't accept that Armstrong was an unusually crooked snake, I don't know. But I wish you would knock it off.


You are misinterpreting what I am saying. I thought LA doped for years. I am not saying he is a victim of anything, except perhaps his own arrogance. One of the reasons I, and most who thought he doped for years, did so was because we said "Zulle, Ullrich, Hamilton, Mayo <insert top 5 riders until you run out> doped. These guys were damn good athletes naturally so what kind of an alien/human hybrid must LA be if he is winning clean?" Answer? It is possible he is doping too.

All I am doing is applying the same logic, that it is a possibility that Lemond was also doping. I am not defending LA by any stretch of the imagination but if I wish to remain logically consistent and not simply be branded as a "hater" I need to still apply this logic hence I am suspicious of Sagan, Wiggins and Froome today.

Tbh I am amused because the defenses I am seeing of Lemond here are not to different than the "most tested athlete.." arguments that were used during much of Armstrong's career. It is largely academic though because if tomorrow a picture surfaced of Lemond with a transfusion bag in one arm, nothing would or could be done. WADA did not exist and it is over 20 years now.


----------



## Fireform

My point is that your statements about Lemond have no basis in evidence and are contradicted by the statements of his teammates, rivals and trainers, even those who were admitted dopers, like Fignon for instance. 

You think you're applying the same logic, but you're doing nothing of the kind. Armstrong didnt run afoul of baseless innuendo, he ran afoul of tests and eyewitness testimony. Why you want to persist is beyond me, but hey, it's the Internet.


----------



## goloso

badge118 said:


> that it is a possibility that Lemond was also doping.


One would think that someone so ostentatiously familiar with all matters legal would offer a bit of evidence before making pronouncements like this


----------



## aclinjury

This is a speech Lemond gave in 2009
Greg LeMond - 'Cycling is dying through Drugs' at Play the Game Conference - YouTube

Pretty insightful

At the end, one of the journalists asked Lemond if Armstrong would come clean, to which Lemond answered:

"Absolutely not. He has no conscience"


----------



## aclinjury

charlox5 said:


> someone do an iplookup and see if he's posting from the live*wrong* offices


fixed!


----------



## badge118

goloso said:


> One would think that someone so ostentatiously familiar with all matters legal would offer a bit of evidence before making pronouncements like this


That is why I said "possibility". I wish before people said this they would at least pretend the same logic wasn't applied to Armstrong or any of his contemporaries. The fact that they do not I think says a lot.

That said lets look at criminal investigations. Joey is un or under employed. He lives in a nice house drives a new Cadillac, sends his kids to a private school and associates with known drug distributors. Do you honestly think that law enforcement is not going to suspect, or rather "think it possible" that Joey is also involved in illegal activity? Now when everything is said and done maybe they find out Joey won big in a civil suit or that mommy and daddy are rich and all Joey does is buy a little product for personal use or these are just old friends from high school. This is rarely the case, but even if in the end it turns out to be true, the cops would have been suspicious of the guy and looked into it within the limits of the law.

So now is this enough to arrest? Hell no. Is it even enough to get a search warrant or court ordered wire tap? Nope not even close. BUT the police could call the IRS and get him flagged for an audit. This could then perhaps give them enough evidence to justify warrants or subpoenas. The police could also do trash pulls or tail him to see if they can get enough evidence to justify the above. They could do investigations involving his known drug dealing associates and see if he comes up on them.

The same principle applies here. One can have suspicions based on circumstantial evidence, that do not rise to the level of probable cause for arrest or warrant but do potentially justify further investigation. This is typically called proactive policing. Hell on the street level it's done all the time. You have worked the same district for years and know the faces. 

Lets say you are a cop and see a person at 3 am that doesn't belong in the neighborhood. A good cop gets out to talk with the guy. The cop can ask to talk to anyone he wants, it is called a mere encounter. If the guy says "I don't want to talk" you let him go. If however he conscents to talk to you (and they usually do surprisingly enough) and he gives contradictory answers as to who he is, why he was there etc., and you can show it is a high crime area, you have now justified a pat down search for your safety. If during the pat down you feel contraband you can arrest him. All of this just because he was out of place at a late hour and someone conscented to have a chat with you. Through training and experience you could show a legal progression from a mere encounter to reasonable suspicion to probable cause, all started from a "he is possibly there for illegal reason."

Now as I said in Lemond's case it is all academic due to how long ago the possible events occurred but to dismiss them because it is somehow legally untenable to have a suspicion based on such information is false.


----------



## goloso

badge118 said:


> That is why I said *"possibility"*. I wish before people said this they would at least pretend the same logic wasn't applied to Armstrong or any of his contemporaries. The fact that they do not I think says a lot.
> 
> That said lets look at criminal investigations. Joey is un or under employed. He lives in a nice house drives a new Cadillac, sends his kids to a private school and associates with known drug distributors. Do you honestly think that law enforcement is not going to suspect, or rather "think it possible" that Joey is also involved in illegal activity?
> 
> Now is this enough to arrest? Hell no. Is it even enough to get a search warrant or court ordered wire tap? Nope not even close. BUT the police could call the IRS and get him flagged for an audit. This could then perhaps give them enough evidence to justify warrants or subpoenas. The police could also do trash pulls or tail him to see if they can get enough evidence to justify the above. They could do investigations involving his known drug dealing associates and see if he comes up on them.
> 
> The same principle applies here. One can have suspicions based on circumstantial evidence, that do not rise to the level of probable cause for arrest or warrant but do potentially justify further investigation. This is typically called proactive policing. Hell on the street level it's done all the time. You have worked the same district for years and know the faces.
> 
> Lets say you are a cop and see a person at 3 am that doesn't belong in the neighborhood. A good cop gets out to talk with the guy. The cop can ask to talk to anyone he wants, it is called a mere encounter. If the guy says "I don't want to talk" you let him go. If however he conscents to talk to you (and they usually do surprisingly enough) and he gives contradictory answers as to who he is, why he was there etc., and you can show it is a high crime area, you have now justified a pat down search for your safety. If during the pat down you feel contraband you can arrest him. All of this just because he was out of place at a late hour and someone conscented to have a chat with you. Through training and experience you could show a legal progression from a mere encounter to reasonable suspicion to probable cause, all started from a "he is possibly there for illegal reason."
> 
> Now as I said in Lemond's case it is all academic due to how long ago the possible events occurred but to dismiss them because it is somehow legally untenable to have a suspicion based on such information is false.


You "possibly" have a tenuous grasp of the topic under discussion


----------



## badge118

goloso said:


> You "possibly" have a tenuous grasp of the topic under discussion


If you say so. Then I have some questions. Simple yes or no.

Is it true that a great many people (myself included) believed it possible that Armstrong doped in large part because he came back from a traumatic illness to beat people who are/were known dopers during a period when a majority of the peleton is now believed to have been doping?

In my experience the answer is yes. I am not talking about proven but damn since he got 4th place in the 1998 Vuelta people have been saying it. I waited a bit, was probably 2002 when I finally started acknowledging the truth, but this is what happened.

If ones applies this same logic to Lemond you end up with the same answer though may end up looking at different drugs since the FDA did not approve EPO until 1989. The only way you do not end up with this is when you allow the personalities of the two subjects to cloud your suspicion.

Like I said elsewhere Armstrong asked for this. He was not your "traditional" racer who did his season and went home. He went "hollywood" and when people questioned him rather than being demure he was a pit bull and acted the bully and people don't like bullies. It is far easier to suspect people you dislike than those you do. I just try to not let that cloud my mind. Both to me were great athletes, LA an arrogant jerk and Lemond a nice guy (for the most part). I am just trying to apply the same rules. The reason I think this is relevant to the discussion is that it should be a concern if someone being "vindicated" is possibly just as bad. Hell some people I believe have tried to split hairs over doping with EPO vs other pre EPO substances. The need to do that should show there is an issue.

As an aside...for those who said that this would change people's minds who defend LA and see him as a Champion for cancer survives or a persecuted hero... the Livestrong Foundation, while still possibly facing long term issues, actually saw a spike of donations, 20 times higher on the Friday after his announcement. 75k bucks in spontaneous one day (read not related to organized fund raising activity) donations is incredible for a charity of that size.


----------



## Salsa_Lover

badge118 said:


> Is it true that a great many people (myself included) believed it possible that Armstrong doped in large part because he came back from a traumatic illness to beat people who are/were known dopers during a period when a majority of the peleton is now believed to have been doping?.


I don't think that's the case.

It appears more like due to the cancer treatment the doctors discovered that LA was one individual who could produce a large performance improvement with EPO ( remember not all organisms respond the same to the drug), and then the team decided to mount a large doping/masking/concealing scheme around him.

This was not to make the field "level" but on the contrary, it propelled doping to a higher level, which most probably forced others to follow the tendency.


----------



## badge118

Salsa_Lover said:


> I don't think that's the case.
> 
> It appears more like due to the cancer treatment the doctors discovered that LA was one individual who could produce a large performance improvement with EPO ( remember not all organisms respond the same to the drug), and then the team decided to mount a large doping/masking/concealing scheme around him.
> 
> This was not to make the field "level" but on the contrary, it propelled doping to a higher level, which most probably forced others to follow the tendency.


What does that have to do with people at the time being suspicious of his achievements without any medical data. Also if we are going to take Lemond at his word, EPO became to go to drug a decade before LA came back from cancer. Heck the chart I posted earlier with estimated watts per KG pretty much bares that idea out. Look at the huge jump in power from Big Mig.


----------



## roddjbrown

badge118 said:


> The UCI for more than a few years has been more concerned about making their authority absolute *alla *FIFA in soccer and this seems to have become part of that story.


Whatever your views, please stop misspelling this! It's à la, French.

Otherwise, I agree with the FIFA point


----------



## badge118

roddjbrown said:


> Whatever your views, please stop misspelling this! It's à la, French.
> 
> Otherwise, I agree with the FIFA point


Jeez.... I post on a smart phone. Punctuations is a pita so sometimes I go phonetic. I will try to do better though .

I think a stronger governing body would be good for the sport BUT I think it needs to be one more like say the NFL. If team owners and a strong players organization have input the conflicting interests will tend to keep a little honesty. 

If people think the UCI is shady with the fractured authority they have over the sport all they need to do is look at the recent revelations regarding bribery at the highest levels of FIFA, the body they wish to emulate. Payments of 1.6 million pounds to a Swiss court to be dropped which they deducted from their taxes  and part of the deal was to seal all the records until the Swiss Supreme court just ordered their release.

This kind of power is what McQuaid wants for the UCI. /shudder.


----------



## roddjbrown

badge118 said:


> Jeez.... I post on a smart phone. Punctuations is a pita so sometimes I go phonetic. I will try to do better though .
> 
> I think a stronger governing body would be good for the sport BUT I think it needs to be one more like say the NFL. If team owners and a strong players organization have input the conflicting interests will tend to keep a little honesty.
> 
> If people think the UCI is shady with the fractured authority they have over the sport all they need to do is look at the recent revelations regarding bribery at the highest levels of FIFA, the body they wish to emulate. Payments of 1.6 million pounds to a Swiss court to be dropped which they deducted from their taxes  and part of the deal was to seal all the records until the Swiss Supreme court just ordered their release.
> 
> This kind of power is what McQuaid wants for the UCI. /shudder.


FIFA is a great example of the sporting equivalent of an investment bank. A mututally beneficial club to enhance it's members' wealth with no consideration for those that it's technically supposed to serve. A great club if you're in it and a horrific one to be outside of. Roll on the perfectly ethically appropriate World Cup in Qatar...


----------



## champamoore

Doctor Falsetti said:


> Really?
> 
> So when Lance made the proclamation to a dinner table filled with people that he was going to call John Burke and get him to "Sink" Greg's bike line that had no effect?
> 
> When he instructed Livestrong interns to smear Greg on line that did nothing?
> 
> When he got friendly journalists to parrot the talking points this did nothing?
> 
> Really?


Pardon my ignorance, I simply didn't know the history. I was not trolling. 

Personally, I don't believe anyone can "ruin" anyone else's life without permission. I also don't believe Lance Armstrong is responsible for what journalists say. I don't believe he is respsonsible for what his interns do. Each of them has a choice in their actions. People can beat you, cheat you, kill your business, even kill _you_. Having someone *try *to ruin your life sucks, and such attempts are worthy of condemnation. But each individual has the ability to HTFU and make lemonade when life hands them lemons - even lemons as bitter and and needy and greedy as Lance Armstrong. 

At any rate, didn't we all do steroids in one way or another?


----------



## ronderman

champamoore said:


> Pardon my ignorance, I simply didn't know the history. I was not trolling.
> 
> Personally, I don't believe anyone can "ruin" anyone else's life without permission. I also don't believe Lance Armstrong is responsible for what journalists say. I don't believe he is respsonsible for what his interns do. Each of them has a choice in their actions. People can beat you, cheat you, kill your business, even kill _you_. Having someone *try *to ruin your life sucks, and such attempts are worthy of condemnation. But each individual has the ability to HTFU and make lemonade when life hands them lemons - even lemons as bitter and and needy and greedy as Lance Armstrong.
> 
> At any rate, didn't we all do steroids in one way or another?


What you said makes no sense - sorry, just had to say.


----------



## champamoore

trailrunner68 said:


> Your cancer awareness dollars at work.


Not mine.


----------



## aclinjury

Salsa_Lover said:


> I don't think that's the case.
> 
> It appears more like due to the cancer treatment the doctors discovered that LA was one individual who could produce a large performance improvement with EPO ( remember not all organisms respond the same to the drug), and then the team decided to mount a large doping/masking/concealing scheme around him.
> 
> This was not to make the field "level" but on the contrary, it propelled doping to a higher level, which most probably forced others to follow the tendency.


To add to this, Armstrong had access to some of the top research doctors from the big pharmco, particular Bristol Meyers. BM and LA had mutual interest; BM wanted to use LA's image to promote its cancer drugs and treatments, and LA wanted access to top doctors to dope.


----------



## goloso

badge118 said:


> If you say so. Then I have some questions. Simple yes or no.
> 
> Is it true that a great many people (myself included) believed it possible that Armstrong doped in large part because he came back from a traumatic illness to beat people who are/were known dopers during a period when a majority of the peleton is now believed to have been doping?
> 
> In my experience the answer is yes. I am not talking about proven but damn since he got 4th place in the 1998 Vuelta people have been saying it. I waited a bit, was probably 2002 when I finally started acknowledging the truth, but this is what happened.
> 
> If ones applies this same logic to Lemond you end up with the same answer though may end up looking at different drugs since the FDA did not approve EPO until 1989. The only way you do not end up with this is when you allow the personalities of the two subjects to cloud your suspicion.
> 
> Like I said elsewhere Armstrong asked for this. He was not your "traditional" racer who did his season and went home. He went "hollywood" and when people questioned him rather than being demure he was a pit bull and acted the bully and people don't like bullies. It is far easier to suspect people you dislike than those you do. I just try to not let that cloud my mind. Both to me were great athletes, LA an arrogant jerk and Lemond a nice guy (for the most part). I am just trying to apply the same rules. The reason I think this is relevant to the discussion is that it should be a concern if someone being "vindicated" is possibly just as bad. Hell some people I believe have tried to split hairs over doping with EPO vs other pre EPO substances. The need to do that should show there is an issue.
> 
> As an aside...for those who said that this would change people's minds who defend LA and see him as a Champion for cancer survives or a persecuted hero... the Livestrong Foundation, while still possibly facing long term issues, actually saw a spike of donations, 20 times higher on the Friday after his announcement. 75k bucks in spontaneous one day (read not related to organized fund raising activity) donations is incredible for a charity of that size.


Hey, I just said "possibly."

I think most people paying attention believed he doped because of the constant stream of reports of shady dealings around drug tests and the statements made by people close to him (haters and trolls in the parlance of the time) not his change in performance. 

All improvements in performance are due to doping. Got it.


----------



## badge118

goloso said:


> All improvements in performance are due to doping. Got it.


Nope never said that, else I would be saying Christian doped because he hadn't won a stage race since the 2008 Tour of Missouri, but flippant answers that don't address the underlying issues are always par for the course in these arguments.


----------



## goloso

badge118 said:


> ... but flippant answers that don't address the underlying issues are always par for the course in these arguments.


......


----------



## aliensporebomb

Guys: Greg might have absorbed some abuse from LA including losing some lucrative business deals and probably peace of mind..

But I think Greg is doing okay:
Greg LeMond's house (Bing Maps) - Virtual Globetrotting

That's out here in Medina, Minnesota. Nice place I'd wager.


----------



## Tschai

badge118 said:


> That is why I said "possibility". I wish before people said this they would at least pretend the same logic wasn't applied to Armstrong or any of his contemporaries. The fact that they do not I think says a lot.
> 
> That said lets look at criminal investigations. Joey is un or under employed. He lives in a nice house drives a new Cadillac, sends his kids to a private school and associates with known drug distributors. Do you honestly think that law enforcement is not going to suspect, or rather "think it possible" that Joey is also involved in illegal activity? Now when everything is said and done maybe they find out Joey won big in a civil suit or that mommy and daddy are rich and all Joey does is buy a little product for personal use or these are just old friends from high school. This is rarely the case, but even if in the end it turns out to be true, the cops would have been suspicious of the guy and looked into it within the limits of the law.
> 
> So now is this enough to arrest? Hell no. Is it even enough to get a search warrant or court ordered wire tap? Nope not even close. BUT the police could call the IRS and get him flagged for an audit. This could then perhaps give them enough evidence to justify warrants or subpoenas. The police could also do trash pulls or tail him to see if they can get enough evidence to justify the above. They could do investigations involving his known drug dealing associates and see if he comes up on them.
> 
> The same principle applies here. One can have suspicions based on circumstantial evidence, that do not rise to the level of probable cause for arrest or warrant but do potentially justify further investigation. This is typically called proactive policing. Hell on the street level it's done all the time. You have worked the same district for years and know the faces.
> 
> Lets say you are a cop and see a person at 3 am that doesn't belong in the neighborhood. A good cop gets out to talk with the guy. The cop can ask to talk to anyone he wants, it is called a mere encounter. If the guy says "I don't want to talk" you let him go. If however he conscents to talk to you (and they usually do surprisingly enough) and he gives contradictory answers as to who he is, why he was there etc., and you can show it is a high crime area, you have now justified a pat down search for your safety. If during the pat down you feel contraband you can arrest him. All of this just because he was out of place at a late hour and someone conscented to have a chat with you. Through training and experience you could show a legal progression from a mere encounter to reasonable suspicion to probable cause, all started from a "he is possibly there for illegal reason."
> 
> Now as I said in Lemond's case it is all academic due to how long ago the possible events occurred but to dismiss them because it is somehow legally untenable to have a suspicion based on such information is false.


I tell my clients when we go to trial, that they should speak as little as possible. The person talking the most is losing. Your criminal investigation hypothetical is a nice long story that shows and says nothing.

If you do count the "change in performance" evidence as raising suspicion, which I don't, the arrow still strongly points to Lance and not to Lemond. Lemond ran circles around everyone before he went to Europe. He placed third, then second, then first in his first three Tours. His 1989 comeback was not a change in performance. It was a comeback, which by the way, took a few years. Lance morphed into something he never was before.

In any case, I don't really look at the change in performance argument. It is pointless in the face of all the hard and real evidence against Lance and the lack of any real evidence against Lemond. Even if you do count the change in performance evidence as something to look at, there is enough significant evidence in favor of Lemond that the change in performance evidence is rendered meaningless. There was simply not enough suspicion to start any kind of investigation against him, even if they wanted to and/or did such things back then.


----------



## trailrunner68

aliensporebomb said:


> Guys: Greg might have absorbed some abuse from LA including losing some lucrative business deals and probably peace of mind..
> 
> But I think Greg is doing okay:
> Greg LeMond's house (Bing Maps) - Virtual Globetrotting
> 
> That's out here in Medina, Minnesota. Nice place I'd wager.


LeMond won tens of millions of dollars from a Montana resort a few years back. I think they paid about half before filing for bankruptcy. Trek paid him a settlement. His new trainer is pretty awesome if you want a good road feel.

The dude is not hurting for cash.


----------



## zyzbot

trailrunner68 said:


> LeMond won tens of millions of dollars from a Montana resort a few years back. I think they paid about half before filing for bankruptcy. Trek paid him a settlement. His new trainer is pretty awesome if you want a good road feel.
> 
> The dude is not hurting for cash.


The Trek settlement went to a charity.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

zyzbot said:


> The Trek settlement went to a charity.


Some of it did.


----------



## YamaDan

Couple of things after reading through this..

Armstrong did not admit doping. He stopped fighting against a system that took lab test results and ignored them all, instead, took the heresay word of people that had issues with him. He tried to fight it via due process, when he found out there was none, he quit. This to me is not a win for anti doping, it's a huge loss for the sport of cycling. Anytime a goverment body can effectivly take away anyones rights, guilty or not, well, that's just scary. Fact, LA never tested positive in any test. beleive he dopped or not, the lab results don't say he did. So now you're taking the word of someone that says he did, oh, and they can't give dates when he did, they can't give details, they just "know" he did. This doesn't scare anyone else?

I've met Greg LeMond, and I'd be willing to bet he's not really happy with how all this went down either. It is a huge black eye for the US Cycling's governing body.. 

Side note, the UCI is evaluating the "evidence" to see if it's credible enough to pursue.

Read the article in Forbes..it's pretty good.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/trevorb...nti-doping-agencys-disregard-for-due-process/


----------



## PinarelloGirl

I read the YD post and it's easy to recognize that LA's PR team continues to drive the same messaging. They're counting on the gullible public to gobble up the pablum they serve.


----------



## kbwh

YamaDan said:


> Fact, LA never tested positive in any test.


 False. In 1999 he tested positive for cortisone, but got away with it after producing a back dated medical certificate.


----------



## roddjbrown

YamaDan said:


> Fact, LA never tested positive in any test.


Oh dear..Maybe research this before you post again


----------



## cda 455

YamaDan said:


> Couple of things after reading through this..
> 
> Armstrong did not admit doping. He stopped fighting against a system that took lab test results and ignored them all, instead, took the heresay word of people that had issues with him. He tried to fight it via due process, when he found out there was none, he quit. This to me is not a win for anti doping, it's a huge loss for the sport of cycling. Anytime a goverment body can effectivly take away anyones rights, guilty or not, well, that's just scary. _* Fact, LA never tested positive in any test.*_ beleive he dopped or not, the lab results don't say he did. So now you're taking the word of someone that says he did, oh, and they can't give dates when he did, they can't give details, they just "know" he did. This doesn't scare anyone else?
> 
> I've met Greg LeMond, and I'd be willing to bet he's not really happy with how all this went down either. It is a huge black eye for the US Cycling's governing body..
> 
> Side note, the UCI is evaluating the "evidence" to see if it's credible enough to pursue.
> 
> Read the article in Forbes..it's pretty good.
> 
> The Kafkaesque Trial Of Lance Armstrong: A Former Federal Prosecutor On The US Anti Doping Agency's Disregard For Due Process - Forbes




You're late to the party, dear...........


----------



## YamaDan

cda 455 said:


> You're late to the party, dear...........


Well, sorry, I was crossing 6th ave and then a firetruck came by...

It's ironic that those who complain "positive" tests with medical certificates and about the PR machine continue to say the same thing. Bottomline, there's going to be E-haters, and E-supporters, I guess that will never change.:mad2:

What boggles my mind is how you don't see the way it's being done as a bigger issue? When did losing our rights to due process become a good thing? 

I'll leave you guys to be bitter about LA, continue on, go broken justice system:thumbsup:


----------



## Chris-X

*Strawman alert!*



YamaDan said:


> Well, sorry, I was crossing 6th ave and then a firetruck came by...
> 
> It's ironic that those who complain "positive" tests with medical certificates and about the PR machine continue to say the same thing. Bottomline, there's going to be E-haters, and E-supporters, I guess that will never change.:mad2:
> 
> What boggles my mind is how you don't see the way it's being done as a bigger issue? When did losing our rights to due process become a good thing?
> 
> I'll leave you guys to be bitter about LA, continue on, go broken justice system:thumbsup:


A guy who gets expelled from competition and loses his palmares through a process he AGREED to be subjected to, doesn't equate to a broken justice system.

I suspect you have no problem with "right to work" states and will become a prominent activist in one of those states? 

You agree that all "right to work" laws are unconstitutional and violate due process?

You agree that Armstrong had much greater protections than workers have in "right to work" states?


----------



## YamaDan

Chris-X said:


> A guy who gets expelled from competition and loses his palmares through a process he AGREED to be subjected to, doesn't equate to a broken justice system.


That has to be one of the smartest things said so far in this thread. And I agree with your point, and I wont argue it, however, it's still disturbing the way this process has evolved. Neither side looks good. There is not a winner. Justice, as I understand it, has not been served. As I see it, we're back to Goya's ghosts..


----------



## YamaDan

Chris-X said:


> A guy who gets expelled from competition and loses his palmares through a process he AGREED to be subjected to, doesn't equate to a broken justice system.
> 
> I suspect you have no problem with "right to work" states and will become a prominent activist in one of those states?
> 
> You agree that all "right to work" laws are unconstitutional and violate due process?
> 
> You agree that Armstrong had much greater protections than workers have in "right to work" states?


PS.. Thanks for the Rep Chris:thumbsup:


----------



## Chris-X

*Nope!*



YamaDan said:


> That has to be one of the smartest things said so far in this thread. And I agree with your point, and I wont argue it, however, it's still disturbing the way this process has evolved. Neither side looks good. There is not a winner. Justice, as I understand it, has not been served. As I see it, we're back to Goya's ghosts..


I'm an idiot however I'm a master of seeing what's obviously right in front of my face.

There is nothing disturbing about what happened.

Most people aren't famous and would would welcome the idea that they could air their workplace disputes and have a worldwide audience instead of just being summarily dismissed with NO recourse.

Armstrong accepted EVERY single one of USADA's processes, as a condition of his being allowed to compete. Part of the reason for the stringent process was so cycling would be looked upon as a credible sport instead of a universally acknowledge dirty sport, which it had been. 

Cycling was moving in that direction until the "Cancer, " as Paul Kimmage so aptly labeled Armstrong, returned.

Not only did he accept his workplace rules, he, through his personal agent/attorney had a huge hand in formulating those rules.

If there is any doubt that Armstrong is a complete fraud, his actions regarding the handing of his doping case should dispel any notion that he has even a speck of honesty...


----------



## Tschai

YamaDan said:


> ...took the heresay word of people that had issues with him... So now you're taking the word of someone that says he did, oh, and they can't give dates when he did, they can't give details, they just "know" he did. This doesn't scare anyone else?



OMFG!!!!!!!!!! Unbelievable! How many GD times does it need to be said. The evidence IS NOT HEARSAY!!!!!!! Hearsay would be Tyler Hamilton testifying that Floyd Landis told him (Tyler) that Lance doped. Direct eyewitness (NON-HEARSAY) evidence is when Tyler testifies that he (Tyler) saw Lance dope with his own freaking eyes. Please, please, please, before you people drop the hearsay bomb, please know what it is. 

USADA has 10 or more people, teammates, coaches, etc. that are lined up to testify that they saw Lance dope and the like. Eyewitness testimony. None of this is hearsay. When someone sees a murder with their own eyes and testifies to that, it is direct evidence. Nobody has a problem understanding this. You don't need a video or a smoking gun to send someone to prison for life for murder. If there were 10 witnesses that saw it, that is a freaking mountain of evidence. 

As to details, there are plenty. The witnesses have dates, details and the like. Stop pulling shite from your tushy.


----------



## zero85ZEN

Tschai said:


> OMFG!!!!!!!!!! Unbelievable! How many GD times does it need to be said. The evidence IS NOT HEARSAY!!!!!!! Hearsay would be Tyler Hamilton testifying that Floyd Landis told him (Tyler) that Lance doped. Direct eyewitness (NON-HEARSAY) evidence is when Tyler testifies that he (Tyler) saw Lance dope with his own freaking eyes. Please, please, please, before you people drop the hearsay bomb, please know what it is.
> 
> USADA has 10 or more people, teammates, coaches, etc. that are lined up to testify that they saw Lance dope and the like. Eyewitness testimony. None of this is hearsay. When someone sees a murder with their own eyes and testifies to that, it is direct evidence. Nobody has a problem understanding this. You don't need a video or a smoking gun to send someone to prison for life for murder. If there were 10 witnesses that saw it, that is a freaking mountain of evidence.
> 
> As to details, there are plenty. The witnesses have dates, details and the like. Stop pulling shite from your tushy.


+ 1,000,000,000!

Preach it Brudah!!!! 

I just shake my head at all the Lance apologists....


----------



## cda 455

Chris-X said:


> _*A guy who gets expelled from competition and loses his palmares through a process he AGREED to be subjected to, doesn't equate to a broken justice system.*_
> 
> I suspect you have no problem with "right to work" states and will become a prominent activist in one of those states?
> 
> You agree that all "right to work" laws are unconstitutional and violate due process?
> 
> You agree that Armstrong had much greater protections than workers have in "right to work" states?


_Bingo!_


Good points as well.


----------



## cda 455

Tschai said:


> OMFG!!!!!!!!!! Unbelievable! How many GD times does it need to be said. The evidence IS NOT HEARSAY!!!!!!! Hearsay would be Tyler Hamilton testifying that Floyd Landis told him (Tyler) that Lance doped. Direct eyewitness (NON-HEARSAY) evidence is when Tyler testifies that he (Tyler) saw Lance dope with his own freaking eyes. Please, please, please, before you people drop the hearsay bomb, please know what it is.
> 
> USADA has 10 or more people, teammates, coaches, etc. that are lined up to testify that they saw Lance dope and the like. Eyewitness testimony. None of this is hearsay. When someone sees a murder with their own eyes and testifies to that, it is direct evidence. Nobody has a problem understanding this. You don't need a video or a smoking gun to send someone to prison for life for murder. If there were 10 witnesses that saw it, that is a freaking mountain of evidence.
> 
> As to details, there are plenty. The witnesses have dates, details and the like. Stop pulling shite from your tushy.


Excellent points


But you're responding to a member who's brand new here and hasn't read _*any*_ poasts or threads before he/she/it started poasting.

As such, he/she/it is at least two years behind current events.


----------



## mpre53

zero85ZEN said:


> + 1,000,000,000!
> 
> Preach it Brudah!!!!
> 
> I just shake my head at all the Lance apologists....


It just defies common sense and logic. In order to continue drinking the Lance Kool-Aid, you have to start with the premise that riding clean, he rose from the mediocrity of the middle of the pack AFTER beating a potentially fatal disease, and dominated the next best 30 or so cyclists in the word in the sport's showcase event, all of whom were doping and have been demonstrated to have been doping, in a way that no other cyclist, not even the great Merckx, did before. For seven consecutive years, when they could have made whatever doping adjustments they and their teams could have come up with to play catch-up.

What are the chances of that?


----------



## Addict07

Sadly it appears to me from randomly scanning various comment lists following articles on this topic, that the vast majority of people know nothing other than Lance's talking points and don't seem interested in educating themselves further. Nothing worse than a combination of conviction and ignorance.


----------



## burgrat

Chris-X said:


> A guy who gets expelled from competition and loses his palmares through a process he AGREED to be subjected to, doesn't equate to a broken justice system.


+1,000,000!
In addition, Lance and his lawyers stated in his SCA Promotions lawsuit that the USADA has full authority over USAC licensed athletes in doping-related issues, but now that they are acting on his doping actions, he says the USADA has no authority to sanction him. 
Unfortunately, the soundbites and propaganda the Lance's PR team has spewed is working on many people that don't look beyond the Livestrong press releases.


----------



## sir duke

Yeah, Forbes magazine is my go to read when I require updating on the machinations of the cycling world.. I hope your grip on finance is surer than your understanding of legal matters.


----------



## Tschai

cda 455 said:


> Excellent points
> 
> 
> But you're responding to a member who's brand new here and hasn't read _*any*_ poasts or threads before he/she/it started poasting.
> 
> As such, he/she/it is at least two years behind current events.


LOL. 

In any case, I am just getting tired of people spewing out the word hearsay anywhere on an internet forum when they are clueless as to what it means.


----------



## Tschai

zero85ZEN said:


> + 1,000,000,000!
> 
> Preach it Brudah!!!!
> 
> I just shake my head at all the Lance apologists....


They must be the same people that believe 9/11 was a government conspiracy.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

YamaDan said:


> Well, sorry, I was crossing 6th ave and then a firetruck came by...
> 
> It's ironic that those who complain "positive" tests with medical certificates and about the PR machine continue to say the same thing. Bottomline, there's going to be E-haters, and E-supporters, I guess that will never change.:mad2:
> 
> What boggles my mind is how you don't see the way it's being done as a bigger issue? When did losing our rights to due process become a good thing?
> 
> I'll leave you guys to be bitter about LA, continue on, go broken justice system:thumbsup:


When did Armstrong lose his rights to due process? 

Lance took his case to a Federal court. They said the USADA process provided him ample due process. Did the judge get it wrong?


----------



## Fogdweller

*More details about Landis/Lemond*



Fireform said:


> Yes he did. That's the quality of man LA is.


Found the details from the story... man, that was a crazy time in the sport.
_"The drama continued when LeMond, under direct questioning from Barnett, said he received a phone call Wednesday night from a mysterious caller, who identified himself only as “Uncle Ron.”

LeMond said he was perplexed at first, but that changed to concern when the caller made direct references to the conversation about sexual abuse that he had with Landis last August.“He said ‘Hi Greg, this is your uncle. This is your uncle Ron and I’m going to be there tomorrow,’” LeMond recalled. “I said, ‘Who is this?’ He said, ‘I’m going to be there and we can talk about how we used to hide your weenie.’ I got the picture right away that there are very few people who know about that. I figured this was intimidation.”

The three-time Tour champ said the caller then hung up, and when LeMond redialed he got a voicemail message identifying the call recipient as “Will.”

LeMond said he tried calling back three more times, finally getting an answer from someone who identified himself only as “Bill.” The conversation was inconclusive, so LeMond hung up and then called the police. A subsequent check of the number saved on LeMond’s mobile phone showed that it belonged to Landis’s business manager Will Geoghegan."_

LeMond drops bombshell at Landis hearing


----------



## cda 455

Fogdweller said:


> Found the details from the story... man, that was a crazy time in the sport.
> _"The drama continued when LeMond, under direct questioning from Barnett, said he received a phone call Wednesday night from a mysterious caller, who identified himself only as “Uncle Ron.”
> 
> LeMond said he was perplexed at first, but that changed to concern when the caller made direct references to the conversation about sexual abuse that he had with Landis last August.“He said ‘Hi Greg, this is your uncle. This is your uncle Ron and I’m going to be there tomorrow,’” LeMond recalled. “I said, ‘Who is this?’ He said, ‘I’m going to be there and we can talk about how we used to hide your weenie.’ I got the picture right away that there are very few people who know about that. I figured this was intimidation.”
> 
> The three-time Tour champ said the caller then hung up, and when LeMond redialed he got a voicemail message identifying the call recipient as “Will.”
> 
> LeMond said he tried calling back three more times, finally getting an answer from someone who identified himself only as “Bill.” The conversation was inconclusive, so LeMond hung up and then called the police. A subsequent check of the number saved on LeMond’s mobile phone showed that it belonged to Landis’s business manager Will Geoghegan."_
> 
> LeMond drops bombshell at Landis hearing


Thanks for the link.

I remember reading the article back when it was first published.



It was Landis and one of his goons and not LA.


----------



## Tschai

cda 455 said:


> Thanks for the link.
> 
> I remember reading the article back when it was first published.
> 
> 
> 
> It was Landis and one of his goons and not LA.


I think Landis finally apologized to Lemond after Landis admitted that he doped.


----------



## YamaDan

cda 455 said:


> But you're responding to a member who's brand new here and hasn't read _*any*_ poasts or threads before he/she/it started poasting.
> 
> As such, he/she/it is at least two years behind current events.


Well, not true. But, I found this forum while educating myself on carbon bikes from China. I thought I could have a semi intelligent conversation re the current LA saga. I don't pretend to have all the answers, and I am very open to others points of views, however, when I'm attacked and given bad ratings for posting, I don't feel very welcome.

But, it is what it is, people are who they are, this isn't the only forum I'm on, and I've got thicker skin than you might think, so bring it on  

So far, there really hasn't been much information posted to the original poster's point. I'm still looking for GL's vindication! :idea:


----------



## Addict07

YamaDan said:


> Well, not true. But, I found this forum while educating myself on carbon bikes from China. I thought I could have a semi intelligent conversation re the current LA saga. I don't pretend to have all the answers, and I am very open to others points of views, however, when I'm attacked and given bad ratings for posting, I don't feel very welcome.
> 
> But, it is what it is, people are who they are, this isn't the only forum I'm on, and I've got thicker skin than you might think, so bring it on
> 
> So far, there really hasn't been much information posted to the original poster's point. I'm still looking for GL's vindication! :idea:


The regular posters on here largely have followed the LA saga for years and will generally respond in a rational manner to well reasoned arguments or observations, and offer their own freely if you ask questions. But when your first post here is "he passed 500 tests!" and "lack of due process!", two of the most easily dispatched arguments, you are going to get lit up.


----------



## badge118

It's more complicated than that. Look at it from Joe Six Pack's point of view.

1. Comes back from near terminal cancer to compete.
2. Does not only compete but wins.
3. Not only that but almost as soon as he comes back starts a cancer foundation "giving back"
4. wins 7 times beating that "Euro Trash" at their own game.
5. French Criminal Investigation. Closed.
6. Lawsuit allegeding he doped. Won.
7. US Federal Criminal Investigation. Closed.

They do not accept that the anti-doping system in the sport is just. They buy into the arguments, NOT that LA has made but rather their favorite football and baseball players have made, and they feel that cycling having the system it does is wrong NOT that football and baseball are wrong.

To understand what is going on in the mind of the average American you have to stop, forget everything you know about cycling and pretend that the only time you tuned into cycling as a sport was to see Armstrong win BUT you watch Monday Night Football religiously. Even if they were to educate themselves, since they support he arguments of privacy rights and proceedures that main stream US sports players make, they would see the USADA system as unjust because as opposed to the criminal justice system and the other sports anti-doping rules, it is unjust. 

I agree with the system myself but anyone who claims that the accused in a USADA case enjoys the same rights and protections as someone in a regular court case or in non-WADA sports is smoking dope.


----------



## YamaDan

Addict07 said:


> But when your first post here is "he passed 500 tests!" and "lack of due process!", two of the most easily dispatched arguments, you are going to get lit up.


Fair enough, next time I'll have the flame suit ready:thumbsup:

I haven't been following it for the years other clearly have been, but rather have been reading articles that I have come accross via FB and emails. I do not, I repeat do not claim to be or pretend to be an expert by any means. I'm just asking questions based on the limited information I have.

Based on that, it still does seem that the USADA has handled this badly, even in the "Right to work" states, it is very common for arbitration cases to become civil, and are often settled before they even see a court room due to costs incurred by the respondent. This case would be a little different as the USADA has substantially deeper pockets.. just saying.

And I'm still not sure what all this has to do with Greg being vindicated?

Wasn't Andy Hampston on Lance's team back in the day? That's a guy who was always great to his fan's!

Flame away folks, flame away!


----------



## Chris-X

*Can't give you more negative rep, damn!*



YamaDan said:


> Fair enough, next time I'll have the flame suit ready:thumbsup:
> 
> I haven't been following it for the years other clearly have been, but rather have been reading articles that I have come accross via FB and emails. I do not, I repeat do not claim to be or pretend to be an expert by any means. I'm just asking questions based on the limited information I have.


You mean drawing conclusions which you continue to do below.



YamaDan said:


> Based on that, it still does seem that the USADA has handled this badly, even in the "Right to work" states, it is very common for arbitration cases to become civil, and are often settled before they even see a court room due to costs incurred by the respondent. This case would be a little different as the USADA has substantially deeper pockets.. just saying.
> 
> And I'm still not sure what all this has to do with Greg being vindicated?


Actually, it doesn't seem like that but that won't stop you.:thumbsup:



YamaDan said:


> Wasn't Andy Hampston on Lance's team back in the day? That's a guy who was always great to his fan's!
> 
> Flame away folks, flame away!


"Very common?" You mean every peon that gets summarily dismissed from some minimum wage job takes their case to arbitration? Or even someone who loses a decent paying job goes to arbitration and this is common?

LeMond was vindicated if someone took the thread o/t, well that bs has to be rebutted.


----------



## Tschai

YamaDan said:


> based on that, it still does seem that the usada has handled this badly, even in the "right to work" states, it is very common for arbitration cases to become civil, and are often settled before they even see a court room due to costs incurred by the respondent. This case would be a little different as the usada has substantially deeper pockets.. Just saying.!


Yikes!!!! I give up.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

http://www.facebook.com/DearGregLeMondIApologize

Greg was right. He should not have been a target for telling the truth


----------



## YamaDan

badge118 said:


> It's more complicated than that. Look at it from Joe Six Pack's point of view.
> 
> 1. Comes back from near terminal cancer to compete.
> 2. Does not only compete but wins.
> 3. Not only that but almost as soon as he comes back starts a cancer foundation "giving back"
> 4. wins 7 times beating that "Euro Trash" at their own game.
> 5. French Criminal Investigation. Closed.
> 6. Lawsuit allegeding he doped. Won.
> 7. US Federal Criminal Investigation. Closed.
> 
> They do not accept that the anti-doping system in the sport is just. They buy into the arguments, NOT that LA has made but rather their favorite football and baseball players have made, and they feel that cycling having the system it does is wrong NOT that football and baseball are wrong.
> 
> To understand what is going on in the mind of the average American you have to stop, forget everything you know about cycling and pretend that the only time you tuned into cycling as a sport was to see Armstrong win BUT you watch Monday Night Football religiously. Even if they were to educate themselves, since they support he arguments of privacy rights and proceedures that main stream US sports players make, they would see the USADA system as unjust because as opposed to the criminal justice system and the other sports anti-doping rules, it is unjust.
> 
> I agree with the system myself but anyone who claims that the accused in a USADA case enjoys the same rights and protections as someone in a regular court case or in non-WADA sports is smoking dope.


Good post.:thumbsup:


----------



## SystemShock

I'm just tryin' to get to 16,000 posts.
.


----------



## gebbyfish

YamaDan said:


> Wasn't Andy Hampston on Lance's team back in the day? That's a guy who was always great to his fan's!
> 
> Flame away folks, flame away!


If you read Hamilton's book and "Slaying the Badger", and read between the lines, it would appear that Hampsten left the sport when he didn't want to take it to the next level with blood doping and epo. 

Just one of those riders I guess that when the decision needed to be made, to cheat or not cheat, chose rather not to.


----------



## Fireform

Yep. Hampsten took the palmares he could win clean and pedaled into the sunset. Good for him.


----------



## rydbyk

OneGear said:


> Jan Ullrich deserves all the recognition he won in 2000, 2001 and 2003.


Do what now??


----------



## Tschai

Fireform said:


> Yep. Hampsten took the palmares he could win clean and pedaled into the sunset. Good for him.


Yes, but would he do the same thing if he was younger and started racing when the EPO era first hit the scene? He had an excellent career prior to the EPO era, so he was not faced with quite the same decision as later riders were. Don't get me wrong, he is up there on my list of all time noble athletes.


----------



## AntiUSADA

Lemond is just a big a doper as the rest of them.


----------



## Salsa_Lover

Obvious troll is obvious


----------



## Fireform

AntiUSADA said:


> Lemond is just a big a doper as the rest of them.


Whatever you say, Lance.


----------



## cda 455

AntiUSADA said:


> Lemond is just a big a doper as the rest of them.


Which current member is _*this *_alias  ???


----------



## cyclesport45

AntiUSADA said:


> Lemond is just a big a doper as the rest of them.


Yes. Yes, of course. And I can ride for hours at 30, maybe 40 miles an hour. Because if I type it in a forum, it must be so.


----------



## robdamanii

AntiUSADA said:


> Lemond is just a big a doper as the rest of them.


Got any proof of that? 

I'm starting to wonder whose sock you may be.


----------



## cyclesport45

robdamanii said:


> Got any proof of that?
> 
> I'm starting to wonder whose sock you may be.


Now, THAT'S COMEDY!!


----------



## runningboy

Uomo del Ghiaccio said:


> Greg Lemond is just as guilty as the other cyclists that he accuses. His miracle performance while being anemic is a good example. He blew away other cyclists who admitted that they doped, but some how he was clean? I don't think so. Greg Lemond is just a cheat who whines a lot.


Did you ever notice that not ONE of Gregs contemporaries has ever accused him of doping
only people on internet forums
Conversly many ex pros and anti doping advocates stand up for Greg and insist he was clean. Paul Kimmage went after alot of dopers in a Rough Ride but made a point of insisting that the one rider he believed to be totally clean was in fact Lemond. 
I have heard these sentiments echoed by many ex pros
the only people accusing Lemond are internet wannabe's


----------



## ronderman

runningboy said:


> Did you ever notice that not ONE of Gregs contemporaries has ever accused him of doping
> only people on internet forums
> Conversly many ex pros and anti doping advocates stand up for Greg and insist he was clean. Paul Kimmage went after alot of dopers in a Rough Ride but made a point of insisting that the one rider he believed to be totally clean was in fact Lemond.
> I have heard these sentiments echoed by many ex pros
> the only people accusing Lemond are internet wannabe's



Thank you!!! i love how the same people who are like "there is NO evidence Armstrong doped" - "this is a witch hunt" - then go to "it was a level playing field" and then proclaim - "of course LeMond doped." 

I mean what a foolish, idiotic thought pattern. Doping aside, LeMond did enough ass kicking in Paris Roubaix to get my respect - sure no Merckx or even Hinault, but the dude lined up, got some epic top five finishes and had team mates win (my favorite: a wheel changed from Kelly's team, but only when he was 3 minutes down, dude still got back up to Kelly!!!). The self proclaimed god of all things, that would be sir Lance, never even lined up for the race - and that's before and after cancer. FAIL!!!!


----------



## aclinjury

runningboy said:


> Did you ever notice that not ONE of Gregs contemporaries has ever accused him of doping
> only people on internet forums
> Conversly many ex pros and anti doping advocates stand up for Greg and insist he was clean. Paul Kimmage went after alot of dopers in a Rough Ride but made a point of insisting that the one rider he believed to be totally clean was in fact Lemond.
> I have heard these sentiments echoed by many ex pros
> the only people accusing Lemond are internet wannabe's


LA fanboys will not accept your logic. lol


----------



## Tschai

runningboy said:


> Did you ever notice that not ONE of Gregs contemporaries has ever accused him of doping
> only people on internet forums
> Conversly many ex pros and anti doping advocates stand up for Greg and insist he was clean. Paul Kimmage went after alot of dopers in a Rough Ride but made a point of insisting that the one rider he believed to be totally clean was in fact Lemond.
> I have heard these sentiments echoed by many ex pros
> the only people accusing Lemond are internet wannabe's


In addition, I am not aware of any of Lemond's contemporaries admitting to using EPO during the Tours he won. Fignon and many others have stated that during Lemond's time, a clean rider could beat someone using dope. That is, prior to the EPO era, clean riders could beat dirty riders because the dope available did not provide the sustained benefits EPO does. 

Furthermore, I myself have experienced first hand the body's ability to go from very poor fitness to very good fitness in a fairly short period of time. There is no question that an athlete of Lemond's ability could drastically improve his fitness over the course of the Giro (and the early part of the Tour). Also, even nutritional changes can make a huge difference. Look at Tom Danielson and his gluten free diet.


----------



## 88 rex

Tschai said:


> In addition, I am not aware of any of Lemond's contemporaries admitting to using EPO during the Tours he won. Fignon and many others have stated that during Lemond's time, a clean rider could beat someone using dope. That is, prior to the EPO era, clean riders could beat dirty riders because the dope available did not provide the sustained benefits EPO does.
> 
> Furthermore, I myself have experienced first hand the body's ability to go from very poor fitness to very good fitness in a fairly short period of time. There is no question that an athlete of Lemond's ability could drastically improve his fitness over the course of the Giro (and the early part of the Tour). Also, even nutritional changes can make a huge difference. Look at Tom Danielson and his gluten free diet.


Tommy D doped.


----------



## Coolhand

Tschai said:


> Also, even nutritional changes can make a huge difference. Look at Tom Danielson and his gluten free diet.


Umm didn't his own DS out him as a doper?


----------



## cda 455

88 rex said:


> Tommy D doped.





Coolhand said:


> Umm didn't his own DS out him as a doper?



I'll add this:_ Bigtime!_


----------



## slegros

Tschai said:


> Yes, but would he do the same thing if he was younger and started racing when the EPO era first hit the scene? He had an excellent career prior to the EPO era, so he was not faced with quite the same decision as later riders were. Don't get me wrong, he is up there on my list of all time noble athletes.


Agreed on Hampsten. Charly Mottet was another one who AFAIK always rode clean. Both classy riders and sportsmen.


----------



## slegros

zero85ZEN said:


> Your post reveals, at the very least, some ignorance or misunderstanding of topic you are discussing.
> 
> You may want to do more research of LeMond's career. Particularly just exactly when he "suddenly" couldn't keep up with the dopers. (Hint, it happened way before '94. In the '91 Tour he lost the yellow jersey due to exhaustion/over exertion because he kept trying to defend it against a peloton that was suddenly much MUCH faster...the EPO era was hitting full stride.)


I almost respect LeMond more for the '91 ride than for any of his wins. He could have stopped fighting and cruised to 3rd or 4th, but he just wouldn't give up. Its kind of sad to watch now, knowing you are watching one of the all-time great natural talents lose to riders who were almost certainly using EPO.

There was a part in Fignon's bio about EPO. He said it was one of his later tours where he was climbing as well as he ever had in his career and was shocked to be caught and passed by a fairly significant group. Hampsten also made similar comments.


----------



## Tschai

88 rex said:


> Tommy D doped.


Yes, but I still think his claim about a gluten free diet is legitimate. Indeed, many professional athletes that probably haven't doped go gluten free to increase performance and the like.


----------



## 88 rex

Tschai said:


> Yes, but I still think his claim about a gluten free diet is legitimate. Indeed, many professional athletes that probably haven't doped go gluten free to increase performance and the like.


Unless you have celiac, or some kind of mild sensitivity to gluten, it is unlikely that you will see a noticable difference in performance. I'm not against the diet, but it's not a magical diet. Tommy doped.


----------



## Tschai

88 rex said:


> Unless you have celiac, or some kind of mild sensitivity to gluten, it is unlikely that you will see a noticable difference in performance. I'm not against the diet, but it's not a magical diet. Tommy doped.


I have no doubt he doped, but the fact remains that he and others went gluten free. Did they do so solely to cover up the doping? I doubt it. Going gluten free is a fairly big change to a pro's diet. My point being that fixing an iron deficiency or a change in diet can result in an increase in performance.


----------



## bikerjulio

I haven't read this whole thread but just popped in to say thanks to Greg for what he did for cycling and as an inspiration to me personally back in the day.


----------



## loona

a magazine was put out a few years ago, maybe, the bicycling editor produced it i think 
which showed nearly 100 times lance was caught and how each time a team of lawyers pounced on anyone who came forward with the facts and photos and evidence . 
or the reporter who witnessed the act was fired by what ever agency he worked for shortly after reporting the story and lawyers got involved .
not sure when greg lemond's parents decided to place him on dope and send him to Poland to train with Eddy Merckx coach (sarcasm) 
but greg was really talented at very young age.

if greg did not face an Olympic boycott or hunting accident injury. 
i am sure his trophy cabinet would be filled with additional silver bars shaped like france.
i only rode in two races in 98 with lance and he finished back of the pack in one 
and dropped out of the other because of fatigue or what ever.
but a short time later, lance was the world's best cyclist.
i look forward to a lemond movie 
or something to address the man who set a record that cannot be broken.

a few hundred years from now when someone asks. 

"who was the first american to win the the tour ?"

some records cannot be broken ...

the first american to win the tour of france.


----------



## pedalruns

Congrats to Greg Lemond... 

The ONLY United States Tour De France winner!!


----------



## Brad the Bold

Zombie John said:


> Seems like common knowledge, but do you have a link for this?


Here's an interesting summary article of people that have been bullied and supressed by LA and his team. From the NYDN over the weekend.

Victims of Lance Armstrong's strong-arm tactics feel relief and vindication in the wake of U.S. Anti-Doping Agency report - NY Daily News


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

Armstrong and Trek used a company called Public Strategies in their all out effort to smear Greg. Today Mark McKinnon, former head guy at Public Strategies and Livestrong board member, apologized to Greg LeMond

I Pushed the Lance Armstrong Lie: An Open Letter to Greg LeMond - The Daily Beast


----------



## Local Hero

That's a nice letter.


----------



## SystemShock

aclinjury said:


> LA fanboys will not accept your logic. lol


There's fewer of those by the day. 

Still a few dead-enders, though.


----------



## SystemShock

Local Hero said:


> That's a nice letter.


Yup. It sums it up quite well.


----------



## love4himies

Very nice to see somebody taking responsibility for their actions. Trek and many others need to publish an apology letter too


----------



## jmorgan

Anyone notice Lemond has never said he didn't use testosterone, steroids, amphetamines, ect.... he just says he never used EPO or did transfusions.


----------



## den bakker

love4himies said:


> Very nice to see somebody taking responsibility for their actions. Trek and many others need to publish an apology letter too


yeah that will make it ok. 
Sorry guys, did not mean it. time to move on. 
time kinda passed on that kind of crap.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

jmorgan said:


> Anyone notice Lemond has never said he didn't use testosterone, steroids, amphetamines, ect.... he just says he never used EPO or did transfusions.


Ever notice how most of your posts are complete nonsense

Once Was King: An interview with Greg LeMond



> I went steroid free throughout my whole career





> 'Is everyone taking drugs, while I stay clean, causing me to perform so poorly?'





> E: You never doped?
> 
> GL: No.


Better to get a flat than to get shot: "L'Express" interview from July, 12th, 2007


----------



## pedalruns

"For years your bright light was darkened by a blizzard of lies, cheating and innuendo.
And despite all this, from all the objective accounts that I’ve now read about you, unlike Lance, you are honest, humble and kind.
For all this, and more, I say to all the people suffering with and through cancer, or any other disease or fight, if you want a role model for inspiration, you should look to a true hero, Greg LeMond.
Thanks, Greg."
Belatedly,
Mark McKinnon

Thanks for posting!!

A little late, but nice to read, very nice..


----------



## rcharrette

I gotta say I bought into the lie. I saw how Lance transformed training, spent time pre-ridding key tour stages and generally brought a new focus not seen before to the sport. I bought into it all and saw Greg as a bitter old man.
Yep, I've got egg on my face for sure!
That being said, I feel at the top level (and it's proven) they were all cheating. This doesn't make it right as they screwed a lot of guys out of good results and maybe out of the sport. The biggest problem I have in this is how Lance went after anyone who crossed him and crushed their character and anything else he could. For that reason alone I have a hard time getting past it all.
I hope he can get back to doing some good in the cancer community and maybe slowly he can rebuild some character?


----------



## badge118

rcharrette said:


> I gotta say I bought into the lie. I saw how Lance transformed training, spent time pre-ridding key tour stages and generally brought a new focus not seen before to the sport. I bought into it all and saw Greg as a bitter old man.
> Yep, I've got egg on my face for sure!
> That being said, I feel at the top level (and it's proven) they were all cheating. This doesn't make it right as they screwed a lot of guys out of good results and maybe out of the sport. The biggest problem I have in this is how Lance went after anyone who crossed him and crushed their character and anything else he could. For that reason alone I have a hard time getting past it all.
> I hope he can get back to doing some good in the cancer community and maybe slowly he can rebuild some character?


Its funny most of the people I know who are "bothered" are Americans and I think I know why. In America there is an unspoken but open attitude exemplified in the motto "winning isn't everything it is the only thing." 

With US Sports we delude ourselves in terms of doping. Heck in football you first don't even have what violation you got caught out on advertised because they athlete is "in treatment" as if doping for sport is the same as alcoholism. 

In essence we are happy to be fooled into thinking that a 300 lbs guy can do 4 second 40 in a combine without chemical assistance. If people acknowledge that LA was doping then they had to acknowledge their other "heroes" likely were. Even if many or most around them are doping our innate sense of fair play is contradictory to the motto above. To reconcile them requires a cycle of self deception. In my experience people are used to being lied to. They get annoyed but that is about it. When they get really angry is when they realize they lied to themselves.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

badge118 said:


> Its funny most of the people I know who are "bothered" are Americans


David Walsh, Pierre Balister, Ettore Torri, Damien Ressiot, Paul Kimmage etc. are Americans? Have you ever been to the Tour? 










Spent anytime in Germany? The Telekom scandal destroyed the sport. Races and teams died. The national broadcaster pulled the the Tour, even though they had a year left on their contract. 

This is far from just an American thing


----------



## badge118

Doctor Falsetti said:


> David Walsh, Pierre Balister, Ettore Torri, Damien Ressiot, Paul Kimmage etc. are Americans? Have you ever been to the Tour?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spent anytime in Germany? The Telekom scandal destroyed the sport. Races and teams died. The national broadcaster pulled the the Tour, even though they had a year left on their contract.
> 
> This is far from just an American thing


I am referring to the people angered that they bought into a particular lie. The people you note tried to expose it. When I respond it is the context of the post I respond to.

There is, imo, a distinctly different tone when you hear someone reacting to doping as it is revealed or while trying to reveal it and the person who bought into a decade of lies and finds out they got played. The later tends to be either more depressed (in the case of those who are mature enough to admit they got played "my hero let me down" kinda thing) or more shrill (in the case of those who refuse to acknowledge the fact that they bought the lie hook line and sinker).


----------



## atpjunkie

badge118 said:


> I am referring to the people angered that they bought into a particular lie. The people you note tried to expose it. When I respond it is the context of the post I respond to.
> 
> There is, imo, a distinctly different tone when you hear someone reacting to doping as it is revealed or while trying to reveal it and the person who bought into a decade of lies and finds out they got played. The later tends to be either more depressed (in the case of those who are mature enough to admit they got played "my hero let me down" kinda thing) or more shrill (in the case of those who refuse to acknowledge the fact that they bought the lie hook line and sinker).


and it's always interesting to try to estimate who suffers from what
who is jilted by an individual or the whole sport?

do they still watch other sports knowing the athletes are most likely more doped than cyclists?

someone could do a Psych PhD on it


----------



## headloss

jmorgan said:


> Anyone notice Lemond has never said he didn't use testosterone, steroids, amphetamines, ect.... he just says he never used EPO or did transfusions.


anyone ever notice that jmorgan has never explicitly stated that he is not, in fact, Lance Armstrong? Makes you wonder...


----------



## Bluenote

Armstrong's response.

https://mobile.twitter.com/lancearmstrong/status/494848695549321216


----------



## spade2you

headloss said:


> anyone ever notice that jmorgan has never explicitly stated that he is not, in fact, Lance Armstrong? Makes you wonder...


It's not like PDM encouraged doping or anything.....


----------



## headloss

Bluenote said:


> Armstrong's response.
> 
> https://mobile.twitter.com/lancearmstrong/status/494848695549321216


Classy, as always.



spade2you said:


> It's not like PDM encouraged doping or anything.....


So, guilt by association? I wasn't one of the ones trying to burn L.A. at the stake... I gave him the benefit of the doubt (on doping, not on being an ahole) until it was no longer possible to do so.


----------



## spade2you

headloss said:


> So, guilt by association? I wasn't one of the ones trying to burn L.A. at the stake... I gave him the benefit of the doubt (on doping, not on being an ahole) until it was no longer possible to do so.


Isn't it ok for US Postal/Disco riders being guilty by association? 

I've had bosses who "encouraged" stuff, which means ya do it or pay a price.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

spade2you said:


> It's not like PDM encouraged doping or anything.....


It's not like Greg did not leave PDM because they tried to get him to dope

Drug Use Said to Concern LeMond : Attorney Claims Dutch Team Wanted Cyclist to Try Testosterone - Los Angeles Times


----------



## SystemShock

Bluenote said:


> Armstrong's response.
> 
> https://mobile.twitter.com/lancearmstrong/status/494848695549321216


Tsk. Once a douchenozzle, always a douchenozzle.


----------



## love4himies

SystemShock said:


> Tsk. Once a douchenozzle, always a douchenozzle.


You would think he would at least try to work on his public image a bit.


----------



## spade2you

love4himies said:


> You would think he would at least try to work on his public image a bit.


Why? What's he going to get back?


----------



## Bluenote

spade2you said:


> Why? What's he going to get back?


A both in Vegas, next to Charlie Hustle, signing memorobelia?


----------



## deviousalex

spade2you said:


> Why? What's he going to get back?


He's actively trying to get back on the Livestrong board. This probably isn't helping. Hopefully the Livestrong board will consider acts like this another reason they shouldn't have him on their board.


----------



## spade2you

It's Livestrong. Does it even matter if Armstrong is or isn't involved?


----------



## 41ants

Doctor Falsetti said:


> It's not like Greg did not leave PDM because they tried to get him to dope
> 
> Drug Use Said to Concern LeMond : Attorney Claims Dutch Team Wanted Cyclist to Try Testosterone - Los Angeles Times


However, there isn't any evidence proving that Lemond didn't Dope. This is a sport where the presumption is guilt.


----------



## deviousalex

41ants said:


> However, there isn't any evidence proving that Lemond didn't Dope. This is a sport where the presumption is guilt.


Holy $|-|1tb4lls batman. The people who would hold onto the single shred of thought that Lance didn't dope are now the ones holding onto the hope that LeMond did dope. By this logic next time I show up to my local amateur race I'm gonna ***** to USADA about all the competitors that beat me.

There is plenty of evidence proving that Lemond didn't dope.
- That article. LeMond is calling out his old team management.
- Lance tried to bribe old team mates of LeMond into saying LeMond doped. All of them said he was clean.

Give it a rest.


----------



## 41ants

I am of the thought that all pros dope and it really doesn't bother me. Im going to still watch and follow pro cycling about the same I always have.. 3 races per year.


----------



## mpre53

deviousalex said:


> Holy $|
> T
> - Lance tried to bribe old team mates of LeMond into saying LeMond doped. All of them said he was clean.
> 
> Give it a rest.


As well as Guimard and Koechli. And of course, Fignon, who had very few good things to say about him otherwise, in his autobiography.


----------



## burgrat

41ants said:


> I am of the thought that all pros dope and it really doesn't bother me. Im going to still watch and follow pro cycling about the same I always have.. *3 races per year*.


The Tour of California, Tour of Utah, and US Pro Challenge?


----------



## Big-foot

QUOTE=Bluenote;4682045]A booth in Vegas, next to Charlie Hustle, signing memorobelia?[/QUOTE]


----------



## mpre53

Drinking Michelob Ultra? Hang the dick. :lol:


----------



## n2deep

Tomahawk said:


> Couldn't agree more. Short sighted and deliberately ignorant thread.


+ 1, Sad Day for Cyclists. I do not believe that either one is without fault, both have good and bad sides and both are great riders. 

End of the day, I want the tour(s)/sport to thrive and for future generations to enjoy it as much as I have.. There is no honor in cheating. Maybe LA came clean to save his soul.


----------



## den bakker

n2deep said:


> There is no honor in cheating. Maybe LA came clean to save his soul.


yeah that must be it. lol. read how it went.


----------



## SystemShock

deviousalex said:


> Holy sh**balls, batman. The people who would hold onto the single shred of thought that Lance didn't dope are now the ones holding onto the hope that LeMond did dope.


Yup. The few LA fanboys that are left can't stand the fact that their hero turned out to be a zero, so now EVERY rider must suck, so they can feel better. Haterade at its lamest.

It's almost like Gollum in Lord of the Rings... "that nasty Lemondses, he has golden jerseys still and we have none, we hates it FOREVER, my preciousssss!...." :skep:


----------



## n2deep

SystemShock said:


> Yup. The few LA fanboys that are left can't stand the fact that their hero turned out to be a zero, so now EVERY rider must suck, so they can feel better. Haterade at its lamest.
> 
> It's almost like Gollum in Lord of the Rings... "that nasty Lemondses, he has golden jerseys still and we have none, we hates it FOREVER, my preciousssss!...." :skep:


Too Funny!!! Did you give all of the non-Lemond fans a bad point or just a select few?


----------



## n2deep

I know this will inflame the Lemond Jihadists, feel free to go and give me some more bad rep points, it's OK, but I need to ask the question; Why do you feel that Greg needs to be protected against the big bad Armstrong? His record as the TDF Champ is a great achivement. IMHO, Greg will never get the level of recognition that Lance received, not because he is not entitled but because he does not seek the recognition.. These guys are on the opposite ends of the spectrum as far as personality goes.


----------



## den bakker

n2deep said:


> I know this will inflame the Lemond Jihadists, feel free to go and give me some more bad rep points, it's OK, .


Jihadist? Really?


----------



## Bluenote

den bakker said:


> Jihadist? Really?


Its the trifecta.
1) arguing Armstrong vs. Lemond
2) Rep whining
3) accusing people of being haters

Now all we need is the blood of an innocent (Bassons?) to usher in the end of days!


----------



## n2deep

Bluenote said:


> Its the trifecta.
> 1) arguing Armstrong vs. Lemond
> 2) Rep whining
> 3) accusing people of being haters
> 
> Now all we need is the blood of an innocent (Bassons?) to usher in the end of days!


My vote for post of the year!!!!!!!!!!!!! Still laughing,, Thanks!!!


----------



## SystemShock

n2deep said:


> My vote for post of the year!!!!!!!!!!!!! Still laughing,, Thanks!!!


No, thank _you_. Your 'LeMond Jihadist' crack was Pure Unintentional Comedy Gold™. 

"Come, Abdul! We must strike quickly, in the name of Greg from Reno!!!". :lol:

n2, you should do stand-up, you slay me.


----------



## Bluenote

SystemShock said:


> No, thank _you_. Your 'LeMond Jihadist' crack was Pure Unintentional Comedy Gold™.
> 
> "Come, Abdul! We must strike quickly, in the name of Greg from Reno!!!". :lol:
> 
> n2, you should do stand-up, you slay me.


SS, you fool no one, we know you're just in it for the virgins.


----------



## SystemShock

Bluenote said:


> SS, you fool no one, we know you're just in it for the virgins.


Well, that and the cool white robes and scimitars.

.


----------



## Bluenote

SystemShock said:


> Well, that and the cool white robes and scimitars.
> 
> .


But do you have a big... turban?

At 100 Lbs., Avtar Singh Mauni May Have World's Largest Turban


----------



## SystemShock

Bluenote said:


> But do you have a big... turban?


Ask the virgins.


----------



## spade2you

Bluenote said:


> Its the trifecta.
> 1) arguing Armstrong vs. Lemond
> 2) Rep whining
> 3) accusing people of being haters
> 
> Now all we need is the blood of an innocent (Bassons?) to usher in the end of days!


You forgot trying to take personal jabs like discrediting their day job.


----------



## RIL49

Greg Lemond was never the angel his worshipers had hoped for. Next subject.


----------



## charlox5

RIL49 said:


> Greg Lemond was never the angel his worshipers had hoped for. Next subject.


nope, just the only american to win the TdF. that's all he needs to be imo


----------



## SystemShock

charlox5 said:


> nope, just the only american to win the TdF. that's all he needs to be imo


+1. .


----------



## den bakker

RIL49 said:


> Greg Lemond was never the angel his worshipers had hoped for. Next subject.


worshippers? jihaddists dammit.


----------



## Horze

BassNBrew said:


> Won't be long until Lemond is ratted out for doping.


What, 20+ years later?
Even any specimen samples would have 'decomposed' by now.


----------



## Horze

GL has such a loyal and obedient wife. That's all one could really need or hope for.
Not some schmuck forum posters anonymously rooting for him.


----------



## Horze

Big-foot said:


> View attachment 299525
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bluenote said:
> 
> 
> 
> A booth in Vegas, next to Charlie Hustle, signing memorobelia?
Click to expand...

No memorobelia, no fans.


----------



## deviousalex

Horze said:


> Not some schmuck forum posters anonymously rooting for him.


Someone took their steroids this morning....


----------



## SystemShock

deviousalex said:


> Someone took their steroids this morning....


Or as some like to call it, a Bowl O' Rage™. :lol: :skep:


----------



## J.R.

SystemShock said:


> Or as some like to call it, a Bowl O' Rage™. :lol: :skep:


Is that anything like a "suitcase of courage"?


----------



## everything motorcycles

AdamM said:


> Tonight as Armstrong now pleads guilty to the doping he lied about for years, I think its worthwhile to appreciate Greg Lemond. Lemond was often mocked, slandered and made an outcast for calling out Armstrong for something that now is acknowledged to be true. Lemond is great TDF champion and good man.


 GL knew that something was up, not just w Lance, but all. However, I've often said, Lance wasn't winning because he was the only one doping, he was the best of ALL the dopers. The Lemond's of the worlds got screwed, but since 'they were ALL using them' he was indeed the best of the dopers!


----------



## Local Hero

*LeMond Gets a Life?*

_Greg LeMond lost his star status and his livelihood after taking a stand against doping. Now the champion cyclist has regained his rank and is rebuilding his life._

More: Greg LeMond moves forward after '12 years of hell'


----------



## Jackhammer

*I don't understand?*

One of the most innovative figures of modern cycling and a famous champion to boot, shouldn't be able to make a living in his chosen profession because of a massive fraud perpetrated against him and others who exposed a scandal?


----------



## SystemShock

Local Hero said:


> LeMond gets a life?
> 
> _Greg LeMond lost his star status and his livelihood after taking a stand against doping. Now the champion cyclist has regained his rank and is rebuilding his life._
> 
> More: Greg LeMond moves forward after '12 years of hell'


Pretty sure LeMond always had a life... even though Lance tried to make it suck for awhile for telling the truth.


----------



## Fireform

badge118 said:


> And a teammate friend or staff member who said Merckx doped? Indurain? Sorry but the sport has been a dope ridden hive at the top level since Henri Pelissier said "we race on dynamite" and Albert Londres called them Les Forçats de la Route.
> 
> As I said I do not deny that later (it was much later that LA pulled that 495 not 1999) doping was much more sophisticated but to somehow think that in a sea of dopers Lemond was clean I think is niave. Simply because EPO was not used in his prime does not mean doping did not happen.
> 
> How did Simpson die? Complications of Meth. 6 day racers used strychnine and nitroglycerine. Anquetil never hid it and even got into a debate with a government minister on French television when he said only a fool would imagine it was possible to ride Bordeaux–Paris on just water. Merckx tested positive 3 time in his caree, once for Reactivan, once for Mucantil and once for Pemoline. Hell he went so far as to ask to have a win rewarded to him since WADA took a substance he got nailed for off their list of banned substances .
> 
> I could go on but then I would have written a novel. To think that suddenly there is this brief little period that, between the retirement of Merckx and decline of Lemond, there was a golden age where the top riders did not dope simply beggars imagination.


A little knowledge is a dangerous thing.


----------



## n2deep

Jackhammer said:


> One of the most innovative figures of modern cycling and a famous champion to boot, shouldn't be able to make a living in his chosen profession because of a massive fraud perpetrated against him and others who exposed a scandal?


Not trying to inflame the post, Greg deserves his due,, however, what cycling innovations/patents are attributed to Greg..


----------



## den bakker

n2deep said:


> Not trying to inflame the post, Greg deserves his due,, however, what cycling innovations/patents are attributed to Greg..


probably not ponytails.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

n2deep said:


> Not trying to inflame the post, Greg deserves his due,, however, what cycling innovations/patents are attributed to Greg..


He significantly increased rider salaries. Was one of the 1st riders to specialize instead of racing all season. His TT bike, Helmet, and bars. He significantly raised the profile of the sport around the world. Was the first cyclist to be named SI Sportsman of the year.


----------



## Jackhammer

One of the 1st riders to incorporate SRM into training and racing. 

PEZ Interviews: SRM Founder Uli Schoberer - PezCycling News

Advocated lower volume, higher intensity training...


----------



## n2deep

Thanks!!


----------



## Local Hero

SystemShock said:


> Pretty sure LeMond always had a life... even though Lance tried to make it suck for awhile for telling the truth.


I'm sure he had a life too, at least I hope so. It's really funny that the article makes it sound like he hasn't made progress in over a decade, "Greg LeMond moves forward after '12 years of hell'"

It would be awful if being anti-Armstrong (or anti anything) was his sole mission in life, even though he has been vindicated. Sad really. It's like when Amigo Montoya finally killed the guy with five fingers who murdered his dad. Now what?


----------



## SystemShock

Local Hero said:


> It would be awful if being anti-Armstrong (or anti anything) was his sole mission in life, even though he has been vindicated. Sad really. It's like when Amigo Montoya finally killed the guy with five fingers who murdered his dad. Now what?


You mean Inigo Montoya. And I very much doubt LeMond ever defined himself as the 'anti-Lance', much less to the exclusion of all else... that's probably just a leftover meme from the Lance fanboi alternate universe.

They'll always be mad at Greg, oddly perhaps even more so now that he's been proven right.


----------



## Local Hero

SystemShock said:


> I very much doubt LeMond ever defined himself as the 'anti-Lance', much less to the exclusion of all else... that's probably just a leftover meme from the Lance fanboi alternate universe.


You should take this up with the editor who wrote the title of that article. Or maybe LeMond himself, as he's the one who described his life as 12 years of hell. 

_Greg LeMond moves forward after '12 years of hell'_


----------



## SystemShock

Local Hero said:


> You should take this up with the editor who wrote the title of that article. Or maybe LeMond himself, as he's the one who described his life as 12 years of hell.
> 
> _Greg LeMond moves forward after '12 years of hell'_


Honestly, I don't care enough to bother... one take from one journalist isn't going to affect LeMond or his legacy one whit. Far as Greg himself goes, I very much doubt he would describe himself as you postulated, i.e. 'cycling's Inigo Montoya'. :lol:

In other words... Zzzzzzz.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

Local Hero said:


> It would be awful if being anti-Armstrong (or anti anything) was his sole mission in life,


Trolltastic!

Of course most can see that Greg seldom talked about Lance in those 12 years. Even Trek could only find a handful of tame quotes for their lawsuit. Greg's "Sole Mission" was to protect his livelihood from Armstrong's attempt to destroy him.

Lance targeted Greg. He announced to a table filled with people he would ruin him then set out to do so. Trek bowed to Lance's demands and rapidly started to kill Greg's bike brand. Refusing dealer requests, Not displaying the brand at Trekworld, killing advertising, etc.

Lance hired a PR firm, Public Strategies, to actively smear LeMond. Lance's groupies eagerly spewed the talking points all over the internet, even though the talking points were nonsense. The head of Public Strategies recently apologized for taking part in this attempt to destroy Greg, when will the groupies who smeared him here do the same? 

I Pushed the Lance Armstrong Lie: An Open Letter to Greg LeMond - The Daily Beast

Mark was not the only insider to regret being part of Armstrong's obsession with Greg. When it was made clear to Stephen Whisnant (Livestrong executive director) that hating LeMond was a key part of Livestrong's mission he did the right thing and resigned.


----------



## Local Hero

Doctor Falsetti said:


> Trolltastic!


Agreed. Startribune is a troll rag. Greg LeMond moves forward after '12 years of hell' | Star Tribune


----------



## everything motorcycles

SystemShock said:


> Honestly, I don't care enough to bother... one take from one journalist isn't going to affect LeMond or his legacy one whit. Far as Greg himself goes, I very much doubt he would describe himself as you postulated, i.e. 'cycling's Inigo Montoya'. :lol:
> 
> In other words... Zzzzzzz.


Think I understand what you are trying to say. Get over it Greg. You were my favorite, but don't blame Lance for losing your biz. ALL the top riders were using. You are commended for not doing so!


----------



## kiwisimon

everything motorcycles said:


> Think I understand what you are trying to say. *Get over it Greg*. You were my favorite, but don't blame Lance for losing your biz. ALL the top riders were using. You are commended for not doing so!


 i think u miss the point of the article, nothing to *get over*, just leave all the bad sh!t Lance inc threw at him in the past. they have and it's obviously a lighter road to hoe now. it wasn't the lemonds to get over, the crap is all on lance and his corporate toadies. lance couldn't get over being called out as a cheat, he still cant get over it and was even this month trying to weasel back into cycling.


----------



## Local Hero

kiwisimon said:


> i think u miss the point of the article, nothing to *get over*, just leave all the bad sh!t Lance inc threw at him in the past. they have and it's obviously a lighter road to hoe now. it wasn't the lemonds to get over, the crap is all on lance and his corporate toadies. lance couldn't get over being called out as a cheat, he still cant get over it and was even this month trying to weasel back into cycling.


Well whether accurate or a fiction created by Armstrong's PR hitmen, LeMond is stigmatized as being an Armstrong hater. This reputation overshadows his TdF victories in the same unfair fashion that Armstrong's cycling achievements overshadow LeMond's achievements on the bike.


----------



## everything motorcycles

kiwisimon said:


> i think u miss the point of the article, nothing to *get over*, just leave all the bad sh!t Lance inc threw at him in the past. they have and it's obviously a lighter road to hoe now. it wasn't the lemonds to get over, the crap is all on lance and his corporate toadies. lance couldn't get over being called out as a cheat, he still cant get over it and was even this month trying to weasel back into cycling.


 did not miss the point, I was commenting on someone else post.


----------



## kiwisimon

everything motorcycles said:


> did not miss the point, I was commenting on someone else post.


my bad.


----------



## Jackhammer

Local Hero said:


> Agreed. Startribune is a troll rag. Greg LeMond moves forward after '12 years of hell' | Star Tribune


I don't think he was talking about the newspaper.

Back to the op, you don't think GL was vindicated?


----------



## SystemShock

Local Hero said:


> Well whether accurate or a fiction created by Armstrong's PR hitmen, LeMond is stigmatized as being an Armstrong hater.


Nah. And even if it were so, it's hardly a stigma these days to dislike Lance... 




> This reputation overshadows his TdF victories in the same unfair fashion that Armstrong's cycling achievements overshadow LeMond's achievements on the bike.


What color is the sky in the world you live in? :lol:


----------



## SystemShock

everything motorcycles said:


> Think I understand what you are trying to say. Get over it Greg. You were my favorite, but don't blame Lance for losing your biz.


WTF? That's obviously not what I'm trying to say. And yes, Lance did go out of his way to pressure Trek to drop Greg, in retaliation for Greg telling the truth.

You're welcome.


----------



## SystemShock

Local Hero said:


> Agreed. Startribune is a troll rag.


Well, if you're going to be passive-aggressive about this, might as well have fun...


----------



## Local Hero

Jackhammer said:


> I don't think he was talking about the newspaper.
> 
> Back to the op, you don't think GL was vindicated?


Welcome back.


SystemShock said:


> Nah. And even if it were so, it's hardly a stigma these days to dislike Lance...
> 
> 
> 
> What color is the sky in the world you live in? :lol:


Changing tack here? 

Let's not fool ourselves. If you saw a thread titled "LeMond's Latest Quote..." would you assume that it was a quote about Armstrong before opening the thread?


SystemShock said:


> Well, if you're going to be passive-aggressive about this, might as well have fun...


Let's work on something! See if you can respond without attacking me personally.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

Local Hero said:


> LeMond is stigmatized as being an Armstrong hater. This reputation overshadows his TdF victories


Only for a handful of Armstrong groupies, the rest can see through the nonsense


----------



## David Loving

Fireform said:


> A little knowledge is a dangerous thing.


B-118 sums up the thread invisibly running through this Doping forum. Very well said, sir! This topic is over 2 years old!


----------



## Local Hero

Doctor Falsetti said:


> Only for a handful of Armstrong groupies, the rest can see through the nonsense


Yet we all knew what this thread was about based on the title alone. Would anyone think LeMond's "vindication" had to do with anything other than Armstrong? Like it or not, LeMond and Armstrong appear to be nemeses. 

He may not be the worst though. He *does* have other things going like his business and 1in6 (I just donated $10 to it..wee!).


----------



## spade2you

Local Hero said:


> Let's work on something! See if you can respond without attacking me personally.


Attacking Armstrong groupies is allowed, n00b.


----------



## Local Hero

Evidently it was not enough for SystemShock to personally attack and insult me on the forum. 










My comments hurt him so deeply that he negatively repped me.


----------



## kiwisimon

Local Hero said:


> Evidently it was not enough for SystemShock to personally attack and insult me on the forum.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My comments hurt him so deeply that he negatively repped me.


Now you know how Greg felt. LA and his team did it with money not RBR feel good vibes.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

Local Hero said:


> Evidently it was not enough for SystemShock to personally attack and insult me on the forum.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My comments hurt him so deeply that he negatively repped me.


Ouch! do you want me to call you an Waaaambulance?


----------



## spade2you

Doctor Falsetti said:


> Ouch! do you want me to call you an Waaaambulance?


No, you should neg rep people and bait them to try to get them banned.


----------



## Fireform

I'm laughing so hard I can barely type! 

Mommy! That mean boy neg repped me! Waaaaaaaa!!!!!


----------



## spade2you

Fireform said:


> I'm laughing so hard I can barely type!
> 
> Mommy! That mean boy neg repped me! Waaaaaaaa!!!!!


It's perhaps a little more sad that an adult would neg rep someone in the first place. Of course, this is where you take a cheap shot because I don't hate Armstrong with my whole heart and soul.


----------



## SystemShock

Local Hero said:


> If you saw a thread titled "LeMond's Latest Quote..." would you assume that it was a quote about Armstrong before opening the thread?Let's work on something! See if you can respond without attacking me personally.


Sigh. Summon the 'waaaahmbulance'. 

No one cares, Local. You obviously have a problem with Greg. Fine. But don't be a little punk who passively-aggressively 'concern trolls' while hiding behind a newspaper article. Just come out and say what's on your mind.

I won't agree with you, most likely, but I will respect you more for being direct.


----------



## SystemShock

Doctor Falsetti said:


> Only for a handful of Armstrong groupies, the rest can see through the nonsense


+1. There's always going to be a few 'dead enders' out there, but their view of things doesn't really matter much anymore. 

The Oprah interview was pretty much Lance's 'last stand', and it didn't work. The verdict is in, and Lance is pretty much considered a douchenozzle. That's unlikely to ever change. 

*Poll: Most want Lance Armstrong prosecuted - POLITICO.com*


----------



## SystemShock

Local Hero said:


> Evidently it was not enough for SystemShock to personally attack and insult me on the forum.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My comments hurt him so deeply that he negatively repped me.



Would you like some cheese with your whine? :wink5:


----------



## SystemShock

spade2you said:


> It's perhaps a little more sad that an adult would neg rep someone in the first place.


Rep is a forum feature, I don't recall its use being restricted to a certain age group.

I do remember neg rep'ing you once, you going bananas about it, and a lot of ppl making fun of you for it. 

Do you feel left out this time 'round, and wish for me to neg rep you again? I can if you want me to.


----------



## SystemShock

Fireform said:


> I'm laughing so hard I can barely type!
> 
> Mommy! That mean boy neg repped me! Waaaaaaaa!!!!!


LOL. Sums it up.


----------



## spade2you

SystemShock said:


> Rep is a forum feature, I don't recall its use being restricted to a certain age group.
> 
> I do remember neg rep'ing you once, you going bananas about it, and a lot of ppl making fun of you for it.
> 
> Do you feel left out this time 'round, and wish for me to neg rep you again? I can if you want me to.


The irony is that people piss and moan about Armstrong being a bully, yet are willing to be interw3b bullies if they don't share their views. That's just lame. The fact that you're threatening to neg rep me again speaks volumes. 

$$$$$ says you'd never talk like that to someone in person. I know I'm just from Nebraska, but I have yet to see too many cyclists who behave like this forum. I once made a shop employee turn red and walk out of the room for calling Honey Stingers Lance Armstrong communion wafers. He takes things very seriously and is boycotting racing because of a judge he doesn't like who _might_ be there. Everyone else in my area "gets it". 

For being a forum about cycling, lots of negativity. Same with guitar forums. I get that they're dominated by middle agers who aren't happy with how their lives turned out. Boo hoo, no need to take it out on others who had nothing to do with that.


----------



## SystemShock

spade2you said:


> The irony is that people piss and moan about Armstrong being a bully, yet are willing to be interw3b bullies if they don't share their views. That's just lame. The fact that you're threatening to neg rep me again speaks volumes.
> 
> $$$$$ says you'd never talk like that to someone in person. I know I'm just from Nebraska, but I have yet to see too many cyclists who behave like this forum. I once made a shop employee turn red and walk out of the room for calling Honey Stingers Lance Armstrong communion wafers. He takes things very seriously and is boycotting racing because of a judge he doesn't like who _might_ be there. Everyone else in my area "gets it".
> 
> For being a forum about cycling, lots of negativity. Same with guitar forums. I get that they're dominated by middle agers who aren't happy with how their lives turned out. Boo hoo, no need to take it out on others who had nothing to do with that.



Thank you for proving my point.



SystemShock said:


> _I do remember neg rep'ing you once, *you going bananas about it*, and a lot of ppl making fun of you for it. _


----------



## spade2you

SystemShock said:


> Thank you for proving my point.


You win teh interw3b. Place it next to all the rest of your accomplishments.


----------



## SystemShock

spade2you said:


> You win teh interw3b. Place it next to all the rest of your accomplishments.


But are u mad, bro?


----------



## spade2you

SystemShock said:


> But are u mad, bro?


Nah, just pointing out how classy you're being. I'm being civil and you're taking cheap shots. Hell, you celebrated other people making fun of me a few posts ago. What is this, middle school, bro?


----------



## SystemShock

spade2you said:


> Nah, just pointing out how classy you're being. I'm being civil and you're taking cheap shots. Hell, you celebrated other people making fun of me a few posts ago. What is this, middle school, bro?


Go and re-read your post #316. You're not being civil, you're just being pissed-off. As usual.

It is things like this that cause ppl not to take you very seriously.


----------



## spade2you

SystemShock said:


> Go and re-read your post #316. You're not being civil, you're just being pissed-off. As usual.
> 
> It is things like this that cause ppl not to take you very seriously.


Pointing out that this forum is mostly angry MAMILs is just stating the obvious. As is that this subforum relishes ganging up on "Armstrong groupies". I don't support the negativity of this forum from anyone. Other than Armstrong and politics, this forum is barely what constitutes a cycling forum. Not a fan of that. 

I eagerly await some responses. Sadly, it'll mostly be cheap shots and baiting attempts to get me banned.

As for "ppl" who don't take me seriously, you might be surprised. They are unfortunately obligated to keep their mouths shut because of people like, well, most of the people who frequent this place.


----------



## SystemShock

spade2you said:


> Pointing out that this forum is mostly angry MAMILs is just stating the obvious. As is that this subforum relishes ganging up on "Armstrong groupies". I don't support the negativity of this forum from anyone. Other than Armstrong and politics, this forum is barely what constitutes a cycling forum. Not a fan of that.
> 
> I eagerly await some responses. Sadly, it'll mostly be cheap shots and baiting attempts to get me banned.
> 
> As for "ppl" who don't take me seriously, you might be surprised. They are unfortunately obligated to keep their mouths shut because of people like, well, most of the people who frequent this place.


If you hate this forum and everyone in it so much, why are you here? 

The interwebs are a vast place. Surely you find someplace else more to your liking, one that won't cause you to rage-out so frequently.


----------



## Coolhand

*Moderators Note*

Some day we will have one of these threads not end in a trainwreck. That day isn't today clearly.


----------

