# Lemond Shocked!



## covenant (May 21, 2002)

“I find it hard to believe that a professional like Alberto Contador would risk a detectable drug and I can’t believe how many people have left a certain team and then gone positive,” LeMond told Cyclingnews after hearing the news.
I’m all for eliminating drugs but the powerful ones aren’t detectable but I don’t think that this is a black and white drug test. Look at the quantities that he was detected with,” he said.
There’s some crazy stuff in cycling with people going positive for things that have little to no benefit to performance. To risk a Tour de France victory for this….
Anything like this is devastating but this is like someone going positive for marijuana, I don’t think there’s a benefit to it but if it’s on the list, it’s on the list. I’m trying to walk a fine line but I don’t believe in the transparency of the sport or that there’s equal treatment for everyone out there. It just blows me away.”


http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/lemond-shocked-by-contador-positive


----------



## Brad the Bold (Jun 8, 2010)

I doubt he'd be as shocked or remotely conciliatory if it were Armstrong.


----------



## rward325 (Sep 22, 2008)

I really want to say what I think about LeMond but I don't feel like having to go back and edit later. With all of the mud slinging he has done towards LA and then to come and try and excuse AC I think speaks volumes for the man! I didn't think he could sink any lower but I guess I was wrong.


----------



## 55x11 (Apr 24, 2006)

covenant said:


> “I find it hard to believe that a professional like Alberto Contador would risk a detectable drug and I can’t believe how many people have left a certain team and then gone positive,” LeMond told Cyclingnews after hearing the news.
> I’m all for eliminating drugs but the powerful ones aren’t detectable but I don’t think that this is a black and white drug test. Look at the quantities that he was detected with,” he said.
> There’s some crazy stuff in cycling with people going positive for things that have little to no benefit to performance. To risk a Tour de France victory for this….
> Anything like this is devastating but this is like someone going positive for marijuana, I don’t think there’s a benefit to it but if it’s on the list, it’s on the list. I’m trying to walk a fine line but I don’t believe in the transparency of the sport or that there’s equal treatment for everyone out there. It just blows me away.”
> ...



Sounds like he cuts Contador some slack.
Translation:
"I don't think this proves anything clearly about Contador, but it clearly shows that Armstrong was doping". Seriously, he appears to be more concrete in making connections to "certain former Astana rider", and then excusing Contador's positive as a fluke of some sort.


----------



## blackjack (Sep 7, 2010)

rward325 said:


> I really want to say what I think about LeMond but I don't feel like having to go back and edit later. With all of the mud slinging he has done towards LA and then to come and try and excuse AC I think speaks volumes for the man! I didn't think he could sink any lower but I guess I was wrong.


What do you think about LeMond?

I think it's an honest opinion from him.

The "mud slinging" towards Armstrong is proving to be justified.

LeMond says he's shocked that AC was caught with such a tiny amount of a drug that's easily detectable and according to some, isn't all that performance enhancing.

LeMond is also aware of the allegations that LA bribed the corrupt UCI more than once and there is a long history of guys leaving his teams and then turning up positive later for whatever reason.


----------



## wiz525 (Dec 31, 2007)

i have no idea why anyone would ask what Lemond thinks. Most likely because people will read it and that's all. LeMond's obviously going to swing this back to Armstrong as fast as possible, which he did, and I guess that sells advertising.


----------



## Dwayne Barry (Feb 16, 2003)

rward325 said:


> I really want to say what I think about LeMond...


I have always remained completely out of the silly bashing of Lemond or Armstrong (beyond what I think is his obvious doping and denial of it).

But I've got to admit when I read this story all I could think was what a douchebag.

I mean how can anyone be surprised when a top cyclist is popped these days? 

And the public jab at Postal/Discovery was simply unnecessary (plenty of reasons to think there was widespread doping on those teams, if not team organized, but it's pure speculation that their ex-riders are being set up to fail drug tests once they leave the team).


----------



## rward325 (Sep 22, 2008)

blackjack said:


> What do you think about LeMond?
> 
> I think it's an honest opinion from him.
> 
> ...


So by your assertion it is okay for AC to dope and show positive even for trace amounts while a member of Team Radio Shack was given a 2 year suspension for the exact same offense? No amount of the substance in the blood is legal by UCI riules. The minimum listed is for certification of the labs that they must be able to detect this as a minimum.

Whether LA is guilty or not(I really have no doubt that he is) LeMond wants to give AC a free pass while continuing to crucify LA. He probably still thinks Floyd is innocent to. Sounds like a real prickish thing to do in my book. AC obviously doped and got caught, tainted meat my ass. LeMond is an *******, always has been always will be. 

As for all of these guys showing up dirty after they leave LA's teams is a matter of who was playing the game the best. I am a realist and believe they are all dirty in this. Some are just better at cheating than others. As long as there is money and sport there will be cheats. they will continue to sporadically get caught and passed in front of the press as if the sport is trying to clean it up. The athletes will continue to find new ways to cheat and get away with it.


----------



## Brad the Bold (Jun 8, 2010)

He is cutting AC slack that he would never give to Lance. The level is really low...I don't think there is a benifit...

So what Greg? The acceptable level is zero. 

What really chaps my ass about LeMond is that he probably doped to the gills too. 

They all frickin doped and now they are just squabbling like *****es, pointing fingers at each other, and calling eachother names.


----------



## wiz525 (Dec 31, 2007)

don't you know the rules of this forum??? if you don't like Lemond, it means you are an LA fanboy.... apparently you can't dislike both on here....


----------



## bnoojin (Mar 24, 2002)

i don't think Lemond doped. he seems to be a naive sort of person who sees himself as the victim of different situations. his childhood had to be pretty painful. his perception of Hinault's betrayal (a rider he admired). the gunshot wound almost ending his life and career. the peloton passing him by in the early 90's,(if Lemond was doped, he probably would've been able to keep up at that time). then America falls in love with Armstrong in a way Lemond never got. what Landis tried to do to him was pretty despicable...

his reaction to AC is probably tainted by his negative feelings for Armstrong. the enemy of my enemy... although didn't Lemond grill AC about his climbing performances in the Tour last year casting aspersions on the valididity of that kind of sustained power.(I never believed AC at 138 lbs could overpower world class time trialists in a flat tt without extracurricular help) now Lemond's an apologist for AC? Lemond is a cycling fan/LA hater that truly wants to believe in a clean sport.


----------



## loudog (Jul 22, 2008)

.....


----------



## loudog (Jul 22, 2008)

lemond reminds me of the preachers that are anti-gay that turn out to be gay themselves. LA is a cheater. Floyd is a cheater. AC is a cheater. Lemond is a d!ckhead.


----------



## slegros (Sep 22, 2009)

wiz525 said:


> don't you know the rules of this forum??? if you don't like Lemond, it means you are an LA fanboy.... apparently you can't dislike both on here....


I love LeMond... He brings a sort of WWE thing to cycling.... Does wonders for the sport....


----------



## pianopiano (Jun 4, 2005)

I completely agree with bnoojin's opinion on this one. :thumbsup: 
I also find it quite fascinating that people take LeMonds opinions so personally and become so angry that they resort to namecalling, as well as claiming that he and all other cyclists have doped too.


----------



## blackjack (Sep 7, 2010)

rward325 said:


> So by your assertion it is okay for AC to dope and show positive even for trace amounts while a member of Team Radio Shack was given a 2 year suspension for the exact same offense?


Hold it! Where did I say what you assert?

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/radioshacks-li-fuyu-positive-test-confirmed

Has the UCI even issued a definite 2 year ban yet? This link says he's provisionally suspended.




rward325 said:


> No amount of the substance in the blood is legal by UCI riules. The minimum listed is for certification of the labs that they must be able to detect this as a minimum..


That's true. Both Fuyu and Contador are apparently using the same expert to try to show that it's possible that they did accidentally injest this substance. AFAIK, the jury is still out on that contention.




rward325 said:


> Whether LA is guilty or not(I really have no doubt that he is) LeMond wants to give AC a free pass while continuing to crucify LA...


Did you even read the article? The main thing I got out of it was that LeMond was perplexed by Contador's situation. It seemed he was withholding judgement and just giving his opinion like we're doing here.

You obviously have very strong feelings about LeMond. You don't think that LeMond should have incredibly strong feelings about Lance Armstrong, especially with what is coming to light to us, and what LeMond has known for years?



rward325 said:


> He probably still thinks Floyd is innocent to....


You're not aware that the fighting between Floyd and LeMond was due to the fact that LeMond believed Floyd to be guilty, and he wasn't hesitant to announce it in the media?



rward325 said:


> Sounds like a real prickish thing to do in my book. AC obviously doped and got caught, tainted meat my ass.....


I believe AC cheats. I don't think this incident proves it though, as it doesn't make much sense, which is pretty much what LeMond stated.



rward325 said:


> LeMond is an *******, always has been always will be. .


My original question was why? You really just gave an overly emotional response.



rward325 said:


> As for all of these guys showing up dirty after they leave LA's teams is a matter of who was playing the game the best..


What game is that? Bribery and influence peddling?



rward325 said:


> I am a realist and believe they are all dirty in this..


Many are dirty. I'm not ready to say all. I will say that the sport was trying to clean up on two occasions during Armstrong's era and he was a chief enforcer of the Omerta both times. For informed observers, this is indisputable.



rward325 said:


> Some are just better at cheating than others. As long as there is money and sport there will be cheats. they will continue to sporadically get caught and passed in front of the press as if the sport is trying to clean it up. The athletes will continue to find new ways to cheat and get away with it.



As someone else pointed out, there is even cheating when no money is involved, competition is the only thing that is required.

Maybe the tiny amount of clenbuterol that was detected in AC will discourage cheating among most. Maybe that's wishful thinking.


----------



## bnoojin (Mar 24, 2002)

piano said:


> I completely agree with bnoojin's opinion on this one. :thumbsup:
> I also find it quite fascinating that people take LeMonds opinions so personally and become so angry that they resort to namecalling, as well as claiming that he and all other cyclists have doped too.


thanks, piano. after following Lemonds career I believe in a certain genuineness about him. 

I think the vitriol about Lemond is an effect of he and Lance being enemies and the inherent polarization of people's opinions that LA produces.


----------



## Brad the Bold (Jun 8, 2010)

bnoojin said:


> i don't think Lemond doped. he seems to be a naive sort of person who sees himself as the victim of different situations. his childhood had to be pretty painful. his perception of Hinault's betrayal (a rider he admired). the gunshot wound almost ending his life and career. the peloton passing him by in the early 90's,(if Lemond was doped, he probably would've been able to keep up at that time). then America falls in love with Armstrong in a way Lemond never got. what Landis tried to do to him was pretty despicable...
> 
> his reaction to AC is probably tainted by his negative feelings for Armstrong. the enemy of my enemy... although didn't Lemond grill AC about his climbing performances in the Tour last year casting aspersions on the valididity of that kind of sustained power.(I never believed AC at 138 lbs could overpower world class time trialists in a flat tt without extracurricular help) now Lemond's an apologist for AC? Lemond is a cycling fan/LA hater that truly wants to believe in a clean sport.


We will never know for sure if LeMond doped. We do know LeMond had a "legendary" VO2 max. 

http://nextbigfuture.com/2010/06/any-athlete-with-vo2-max-over-90.html

Based on this, WADA would be highly suspicious of several of LeMond's best days as "beyond all norms" if they occured in a recent tour.

The tragedy of professional cycling is we all yearn to see superhuman performances out of human cyclists. LeMond was superhuman. We know how most of the recent superhuman riders got their powers, we will never be sure about LeMond.

My cynical view is to assume they are all doped so I never get my heart broken. It sucks that it has to be that way.


----------



## bnoojin (Mar 24, 2002)

Brad the Bold said:


> We will never know for sure if LeMond doped. We do know LeMond had a "legendary" VO2 max.
> 
> no, we'll never know for sure, but I can live with that.
> 
> ...


I can understand that. I could hardly watch for a couple years after Hamilton, Landis and others started falling. when cycling bodies started showing a lot more will in weeding out the dopers and there's seems to be a new generation of riders outspoken going against the grain of doping, I found new hope. even if there are only a minority of riders to pull for then I say it's worth it to believe in them and root for them.


----------



## blackjack (Sep 7, 2010)

Brad the Bold said:


> We will never know for sure if LeMond doped. We do know LeMond had a "legendary" VO2 max.
> 
> http://nextbigfuture.com/2010/06/any-athlete-with-vo2-max-over-90.html
> 
> ...



Don't you think you have it a little backwards?

What days did LeMond have that were beyond all norms or out of line with a natural progression of his career? 

There is not one indication that LeMond doped. No rumor, nothing.


----------



## ghost6 (Sep 4, 2009)

loudog said:


> lemond reminds me of the preachers that are anti-gay that turn out to be gay themselves. LA is a cheater. Floyd is a cheater. AC is a cheater. Lemond is a d!ckhead.


:thumbsup:


----------



## Brad the Bold (Jun 8, 2010)

blackjack said:


> What days did LeMond have that were beyond all norms or out of line with a natural progression of his career?


The 1989 time trial? It still stands above "all norms" of human performance. Despite decades of bike science and doping science for that matter, it has been rarely exceded.

Here's a snip from an article about LeMond comments on AC's 2009 climbing ability from the Guardian.



> "No one in the Tour has ever climbed as fast as that," LeMond wrote, going on to talk about the findings published recently in Libération, in which Antoine Vayer, a performance expert and former trainer with the defunct Festina team, estimated that, judging by his results, Contador must have a VO2 max figure – the measurement of a body's ability to take in and use oxygen – so high that, in LeMond's view, it would have to be superior to that of any athlete who ever lived.
> 
> If one accepted Vayer's figures,LeMond continued: "Contador must be asked to prove that he is physically capable of achieving these feats without the use of performance-enhancing substances."


By his own standards LeMond's ITT should be highly questionable. 

But it can never be proven or disproven. We'll never know for sure if he was really clean.


----------



## blackjack (Sep 7, 2010)

Brad the Bold said:


> The 1989 time trial? It still stands above "all norms" of human performance. Despite decades of bike science and doping science for that matter, it has been rarely exceded.
> 
> Here's a snip from an article about LeMond comments on AC's 2009 climbing ability from the Guardian.
> 
> ...


You really should educate yourself before tossing off accusations.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1989_Tour_de_France#cite_note-3

_The final stage from Versailles to Paris was billed as a showdown, but many did not expect LeMond to catch Fignon.[3] On the stage, LeMond used the famous triathlon handlebars while Fignon rode a conventional bike. LeMond told his team not to give him his time splits as he wanted to ride all-out. The final time trial was over a course approximately 25 kilometres (15.5 mi) long, with a net elevation loss of 75 metres (247 ft). The riders had a moderate tailwind. LeMond's effort was the fastest individual time trial for a distance longer than 10 km ever ridden. A November 1989 Bicycling Magazine article, supported by wind-tunnel data, estimated that LeMond may have gained 1 minute on Fignon through the use of the new aerobars.[4] He also could have gained 16 seconds by wearing his aero helmet with a slightly elongated tail section for better aerodynamics, while Fignon rode bare-headed with his ponytail exposed to the wind. Fignon did perhaps gain a 5-second advantage by using a disk front wheel, while LeMond used a 24-spoke bladed radially spoked front wheel. Fignon finished third in the final time trial with an average speed of 53.59 km/h (33.33 mph)._

Yeah, Fignon wasn't even second and had a bad back, a saddle sore and supposedly wasn't feeling well.

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE67U3GD20100831

LeMond only beat Thierry Marie by 33 seconds. 

It was estimated that LeMond's aero bars and helmet saved him 75 seconds over the competition.

The course had an elevation drop of 250 feet and there was what was characterized as a moderate tailwind. It was only 25k. It doesn't bother you that riders were going twice that distance in the 90's and during Armstrong's era and riding almost as fast in long TT's which were out and back rather than point to point?

It's a little tiring that people keep bringing this race up to possibly illustrate nefarious activities on LeMond's part.


----------



## Wookiebiker (Sep 5, 2005)

blackjack said:


> Don't you think you have it a little backwards?
> 
> What days did LeMond have that were beyond all norms or out of line with a natural progression of his career?
> 
> There is not one indication that LeMond doped. No rumor, nothing.


Aside from the "Vitamin B12 Shot" he received in front of a reporter, or the fastest ITT ever in the tour....even though riders after him were doped to the gills?

You can give the, well it was downhill with a tailwind argument, or it was short, or whatever argument you want to give…however, that speed has never been achieve and the only one that was close was Armstrong on a very flat ITT, though longer.

Guys like Big Mig couldn’t beat Lemond’s time and his hour power numbers were in the mid 500 watt range!!!  And he was beating the rest of the field by several minutes on average...sometimes by as much as 5 minutes...against fields that were beyond doped to the gills.


----------



## blackjack (Sep 7, 2010)

Wookiebiker said:


> Aside from the "Vitamin B12 Shot" he received in front of a reporter, or the fastest ITT ever in the tour....even though riders after him were doped to the gills?
> 
> You can give the, well it was downhill with a tailwind argument, or it was short, or whatever argument you want to give…however, that speed has never been achieve and the only one that was close was Armstrong on a very flat ITT, though longer.
> 
> Guys like Big Mig couldn’t beat Lemond’s time and his hour power numbers were in the mid 500 watt range!!!  And he was beating the rest of the field by several minutes on average...sometimes by as much as 5 minutes...against fields that were beyond doped to the gills.


Vitamin b 12 shots are doping? I think it was an iron shot btw.

What part of Thierry Marie finishing 33 seconds back and an ailing Fignon finishing under a minute behind didn't you read?

Indurain was 5 minutes ahead of epo doped fields. LeMond was 33 seconds ahead of ammphetamine and steroid doped fields.

Also by 1991 LeMond was a 2x defending TdF champ who couldn't hang with guys he was previously destroying only 2 years before. He was only 30 years old.

Seems like you're proving my case. I guess the strong tailwind and other factors on course contributed to the speeds, not epo fueled power outputs.

In addition, you have no evidence and not a peep from anyone other that the cynics on this forum.:thumbsup:


----------



## wiz525 (Dec 31, 2007)

blackjack-
you're fun to discuss this stuff with, but you're as blinded to Lemond as everyone else is to Armstrong. and for the record, i think Armstrong was doped to the gills.

just one question: you can say unequivocally that you believe Lemond was not doping while recording the fastest ITT in Tour history? there have been enough ITTs downwind and downhill by guys doped out of their mind, yet a clean Lemond was better? There's obviously no way to prove this, but I find it interesting that people can be so strongly convinced on Lemond, yet destroy obvious dopers that couldn't come close to Lemond...


----------



## blackjack (Sep 7, 2010)

wiz525 said:


> blackjack-
> you're fun to discuss this stuff with, but you're as blinded to Lemond as everyone else is to Armstrong. and for the record, i think Armstrong was doped to the gills....


LeMond there's no evidence. Armstrong there is volumes..




wiz525 said:


> just one question: you can say unequivocally that you believe Lemond was not doping while recording the fastest ITT in Tour history? there have been enough ITTs downwind and downhill by guys doped out of their mind, yet a clean Lemond was better? There's obviously no way to prove this, but I find it interesting that people can be so strongly convinced on Lemond, yet destroy obvious dopers that couldn't come close to Lemond...


33 seconds is pretty close, no? It's not the 5 minutes Indurain was winning by. Thierry Marie was a prologue specialist having won 3 in the tour. Mottet, a rider universally regarded as clean, as was LeMond, was eighth.


----------



## pianopiano (Jun 4, 2005)

*blinded*

I must be one of those 'blinded' people as well, because I honestly don't believe that Greg LeMond doped. I don't recall Greg having ever being investigated by the federal government for fraud and doping violations either, but I might have missed that one.  

It's funny, but I just checked out Lance's Wikipedia page and had a good laugh. It sounds like it was written by Mark Fabiani. There's barely a mention of Lance's investigation, even though it's been in the headlines quite a bit, and it's hidden away on a secondary page and only briefly refered to as 'the probe'  

I guess that a future governor of Texas has a reputaton to uphold. :thumbsup:


----------



## DMFT (Feb 3, 2005)

*Well said...*



rward325 said:


> So by your assertion it is okay for AC to dope and show positive even for trace amounts while a member of Team Radio Shack was given a 2 year suspension for the exact same offense? No amount of the substance in the blood is legal by UCI riules. The minimum listed is for certification of the labs that they must be able to detect this as a minimum.
> 
> Whether LA is guilty or not(I really have no doubt that he is) LeMond wants to give AC a free pass while continuing to crucify LA. He probably still thinks Floyd is innocent to. Sounds like a real prickish thing to do in my book. AC obviously doped and got caught, tainted meat my ass. LeMond is an *******, always has been always will be.
> 
> As for all of these guys showing up dirty after they leave LA's teams is a matter of who was playing the game the best. I am a realist and believe they are all dirty in this. Some are just better at cheating than others. As long as there is money and sport there will be cheats. they will continue to sporadically get caught and passed in front of the press as if the sport is trying to clean it up. The athletes will continue to find new ways to cheat and get away with it.



+ 1
:thumbsup:


----------



## DMFT (Feb 3, 2005)

*There....*



blackjack said:


> LeMond there's no evidence. Armstrong there is volumes of hear-say by former team members who couldn't cut the mustard..
> 
> Fixed it for you.


----------



## pianopiano (Jun 4, 2005)

DMFT said:


> blackjack said:
> 
> 
> > LeMond there's no evidence. Armstrong there is volumes of hear-say by former team members who couldn't cut the mustard..
> ...


----------



## wipeout (Jun 6, 2005)

blackjack said:


> What do you think about LeMond?


He was a great racer on his day, now he is a rabid dog chasing Lance Armstrong.. I wish he would just shut the eff up.


----------



## blackjack (Sep 7, 2010)

wipeout said:


> He was a great racer on his day, now he is a rabid dog chasing Lance Armstrong.. I wish he would just shut the eff up.



You don't think Armstrong went after LeMond first?


----------



## DMFT (Feb 3, 2005)

blackjack said:


> You don't think Armstrong went after LeMond first?


 Uhhhh, "what" exactly did L.A "do" to LeMond before Greg opened up his yapper and proclaimed his dissapointment in L.A about his colaboration with Dr. F. ???????????


----------



## Axe (Sep 21, 2004)

blackjack said:


> You don't think Armstrong went after LeMond first?


Who cares? This is not an elementary school pissing match.

LeMond would have been well served keeping his yapper shut. You too.


----------



## ultimobici (Jul 16, 2005)

Axe said:


> Who cares? This is not an elementary school pissing match.
> 
> LeMond would have been well served keeping his yapper shut. You too.


While you're entitled to your opinion on Lemond's actions, your attitude to free speech is off to say the least.


----------



## Axe (Sep 21, 2004)

ultimobici said:


> While you're entitled to your opinion on Lemond's actions, your attitude to free speech is off to say the least.


What does "free speach" have to do with that?


----------



## ultimobici (Jul 16, 2005)

Axe said:


> What does "free speech" have to do with that?


You have every right to disagree with any poster you want to, but your way of expressing that disagreement left a lot to be desired. Your spelling is also deficient.


----------



## Brad the Bold (Jun 8, 2010)

blackjack said:


> Vitamin b 12 shots are doping? I think it was an iron shot btw.


Those iron and B12 shots really turned around his 89 season. 

He looked pretty miserable in the early part of the Giro but was suffering from "Iron deficiency". A few vitamins and some iron shots fixed that up and he was on the podium for a later stage. He goes on to win the TDF and the Worlds in 89. It's a great story and in high school I bought it hook line and sinker.

But if it happened in 2009 and not 1989, I'd be "Yeah right, vitamin shots". 

In my lifetime, all my other heros in pro cycling have turned out to be cheats. Am I a cynic. Hell yeah.


----------



## blackjack (Sep 7, 2010)

Brad the Bold said:


> Those iron and B12 shots really turned around his 89 season.
> 
> He looked pretty miserable in the early part of the Giro but was suffering from "Iron deficiency". A few vitamins and some iron shots fixed that up and he was on the podium for a later stage. He goes on to win the TDF and the Worlds in 89. It's a great story and in high school I bought it hook line and sinker.
> 
> ...


Well then, you have to realize cynicism as your limitation.

Lacking essential vitamins and nutrients is known to be debilitating.

Are you going to convict LeMond on this "evidence" alone?


----------



## Brad the Bold (Jun 8, 2010)

blackjack said:


> Well then, you have to realize cynicism as your limitation.


Cynicism is definiately my limitation. One of many, in fact.

But my cynicism has been well earned in the case of professional cycling, no? 

LeMond, Armstrong, Landis, Contador all get painted by that broad brush in my mind. Every miracle comeback, every dominant climb, every inspiring victory is under the shadow.

And for what it is worth *LeMond wants me to be cycical when looking at all these guys.* But not him?



blackjack said:


> Lacking essential vitamins and nutrients is known to be debilitating.
> 
> Are you going to convict LeMond on this "evidence" alone?


Never. All I can tell you is that it sets off my BS detector.

As a physician, I know that vitamins and iron shots don't work that way, or that well. They don't take you from getting dropped on the opening climbs to a stage podium in the course of one stage race. You also don't *need* to inject either iron or B12, eating our nutrients works, and has for millenia of evolutionary history. But there are many substances that you need to inject that were available to the connected and not testable for at the time.

LeMond say he quit because he could not compete in the rEPO era of the 90s, but the 90s are considered the rEPO era becasue that's when we started catching people for rEpo. But that's not likely when athletes first started using rEpo.

EPOGEN was being produced and used in clincal trials starting in the mid 80s. Those trials were being reported in the medical literature no later than 1987 and Epogen was approved by the FDA in 1989. It is highly unlikely that the doping docs waited through the long approval process before they started their own "experimental trials".

The optimist in me wants to take a man at his word. 

But the cynic in me has a circumstatial case:
LeMond's VO2 max of 92+ would place him under suspicion under today's WADA standards. 
He had motive (To compete against the best in the world, many of whom admit doping too.
He had opportunity. 
He had a reasonable certainty he would not be caught.


----------



## PhatTalc (Jul 21, 2004)

Wookiebiker said:


> Aside from the "Vitamin B12 Shot" he received in front of a reporter, or the fastest ITT ever in the tour....even though riders after him were doped to the gills?
> 
> You can give the, well it was downhill with a tailwind argument, or it was short, or whatever argument you want to give…however, that speed has never been achieve and the only one that was close was Armstrong on a very flat ITT, though longer.
> 
> Guys like Big Mig couldn’t beat Lemond’s time and his hour power numbers were in the mid 500 watt range!!!  And he was beating the rest of the field by several minutes on average...sometimes by as much as 5 minutes...against fields that were beyond doped to the gills.


Zabriskie beat that speed. Indurain was more like 500 W max for the hour record (you seriously think Indurain put out 550W for an hour?); Indurain put 4 minutes into Lemond in the Luxembourg TT in 1992, so why couldn't Greg repeat his performance (he said he was in great shape in 1992, better than 1991 when he won). Why is is that the 1989 TT sticks out like a sore thumb - even Fignon and the 2nd place rider were above 53 km/h. Lemond beat Fignon by a similar amount in the earlier TT that year (adjusted for length) so why is that TT not also suspect? By the way, the downhill tailwind are essential for putting that TT in context, unless you think that wind/gradient are not important in timetrialing.


----------



## blackjack (Sep 7, 2010)

DMFT said:


> blackjack said:
> 
> 
> > LeMond there's no evidence. Armstrong there is volumes of hear-say by former team members who couldn't cut the mustard..
> ...


----------



## blackjack (Sep 7, 2010)

DMFT said:


> Uhhhh, "what" exactly did L.A "do" to LeMond before Greg opened up his yapper and proclaimed his dissapointment in L.A about his colaboration with Dr. F. ???????????



Obviously LeMond is a prominent person in cycling. Dr. Ferrari had an extraordinary reputation as a fraud in the professional peloton. Armstrong had been working with him from late 1995 till 2001, when this fact was revealed and LeMond commented on this fact. 

I don't know what field you are in, but if you are or were at the top of your profession and you're recognized as an expert don't you think it would be your prerogative to comment on the state of your profession?


Granted LeMond made controversial remarks, but he took a risk in making them. Now that we can look back, time has proven LeMond correct in everything he's said and we've also seen that Armstrong is both guilty as sin, and vindictive as hell.

BTW, wasn't Armstrong the one who said re Ferrari something to the effect of 'extraordinary accusations require extraordinary proof?'


----------



## wipeout (Jun 6, 2005)

blackjack said:


> DMFT said:
> 
> 
> > What is your interest in seeing Armstrong get away with cheating and criminality?
> ...


----------



## spade2you (May 12, 2009)

blackjack said:


> Vitamin b 12 shots are doping?


Only if you consider a Long Island Iced Tea to be....tea. Lots of athletes have been getting "vitamin shots" over the years. The truth is that the athletes either know what's in that shot or are not asking for the sake of deniability. There's ZERO reason to give vitamin shots to an athlete.


----------



## blackjack (Sep 7, 2010)

spade2you said:


> Only if you consider a Long Island Iced Tea to be....tea. Lots of athletes have been getting "vitamin shots" over the years. The truth is that the athletes either know what's in that shot or are not asking for the sake of deniability. There's ZERO reason to give vitamin shots to an athlete.


For the record I think it was an Iron shot and LeMond had been diagnosed with an iron deficiency after the shooting. The tablets he was taking hadn't been effective. 

He had lost so much blood that shock was an immediate concern at the time of the accident and he still has more than 30 pellets in his body.

Anyway, there is not one scintilla of evidence, hear say, witness testimony, rumor, anything, that LeMond doped and advancing unfounded rumors is scurrilous.


----------



## loudog (Jul 22, 2008)

Wookiebiker said:


> Aside from the "Vitamin B12 Shot" he received in front of a reporter, or the fastest ITT ever in the tour....even though riders after him were doped to the gills?
> 
> You can give the, well it was downhill with a tailwind argument, or it was short, or whatever argument you want to give…however, that speed has never been achieve and the only one that was close was Armstrong on a very flat ITT, though longer.
> 
> Guys like Big Mig couldn’t beat Lemond’s time and his hour power numbers were in the mid 500 watt range!!!  And he was beating the rest of the field by several minutes on average...sometimes by as much as 5 minutes...against fields that were beyond doped to the gills.


i get the impression that lemond doesnt consider the use of stimulants as doping.


----------



## loudog (Jul 22, 2008)

blackjack said:


> Well then, you have to realize cynicism as your limitation.
> 
> Lacking essential vitamins and nutrients is known to be debilitating.
> 
> Are you going to convict LeMond on this "evidence" alone?


lemond has previously made quips that he didnt know what they were injecting him with.


----------



## blackjack (Sep 7, 2010)

wipeout said:


> What's your interest in this entire matter either way?


I'm a fan of clean sport.



wipeout said:


> Are you a budding professional cyclist? What is professional sports anyway? ENTERTAINMENT...nothing else.


So cheating and unethical behavior is ok?




wipeout said:


> I admired Greg as a cyclist. I don't admire what he has become and I certainly don't care what you think.


What has he become?

You don't care what I think? Do you live in an echo chamber?


----------



## blackjack (Sep 7, 2010)

Brad the Bold said:


> Cynicism is definiately my limitation. One of many, in fact.
> 
> But my cynicism has been well earned in the case of professional cycling, no?
> 
> ...


You really think that's a circumstantial case?

LeMond was always a performance outlier in cycling.

Also, most put the timeline of widespread EPO use in the peloton at 1994. Indurain and others were using in 1991. 

When LeMond was shot in '87 he lost a great deal of blood and didn't even get a transfusion because there was fear the UC Davis Med Center blood bank was contaminated with AIDS. I don't even think the virus was being called HIV at that time.

http://www.anemia.org/patients/feature-articles/content.php?contentid=000403

Who can receive iron injections?

Iron injections are often given because patients are not able to take their full dose of oral iron or their body cannot properly absorb iron through their digestive tract. They may also be given to patients who have extremely low levels of iron or who have lost a large amount of blood.3 Because iron by injection does not have to be absorbed through the intestines, but is delivered directly to your circulatory system, it can help build red blood cells more quickly than oral iron.


----------



## spade2you (May 12, 2009)

blackjack said:


> For the record I think it was an Iron shot and LeMond had been diagnosed with an iron deficiency after the shooting. The tablets he was taking hadn't been effective.
> 
> He had lost so much blood that shock was an immediate concern at the time of the accident and he still has more than 30 pellets in his body.
> 
> Anyway, there is not one scintilla of evidence, hear say, witness testimony, rumor, anything, that LeMond doped and advancing unfounded rumors is scurrilous.


There is so much misinformation in what you've said that I don't know where to start other than there is NO medical basis for what you just said other than he has pellets in him.


----------



## blackjack (Sep 7, 2010)

spade2you said:


> There is so much misinformation in what you've said that I don't know where to start other than there is NO medical basis for what you just said other than he has pellets in him.


It was a short post. Fire away.

I reread what I wrote. No misinformation there.

http://www.roble.net/marquis/coaching/lemond98.html

Bicyclist: In a sense, the '89 Tour, then, proved to be a moment of vindication? 

LeMond: It was, but it was still hard, since most of the European press still didn't understand the extent of my accident two years earlier. It seems like most of the Europeans view the hunting incident as a minor gun accident. Gilbert Duclos-Lasalle, my teammate, got shot, also. But the bullet only penetrated his hand, and he had surgery on it. By comparison, I had pellets that went straight through me, I still have five in the lining of my heart, five in my liver, and my spine. I lost 25 pounds of muscle mass, lost 60 percent of my blood volume. I was fifteen minutes away from dying. When we did finally hold a press conference, the doctors said, 'Oh he's fine, he'll be back racing.' So the Europeans assumed that I didn't really have such a bad accident. When I did come back to Europe, there was absolutely no sympathy. Every time I raced poorly the press ridiculed me for lacking motivation, and not training hard. That pretty much became the story of the last four years of my career. The press would say, 'Look, he's gained ten pounds. He doesn't want to train anymore.'


----------



## wiz525 (Dec 31, 2007)

blackjack said:


> Because iron by injection does not have to be absorbed through the intestines, but is delivered directly to your circulatory system, it can help build red blood cells more quickly than oral iron.


sounds like the definition of doping. 

and cyclists/dopers are _way_ cognizant of what's immediately on the market. and beforehand. admittedly, i can't comment on the late 80s/early 90s, but dopers are shockingly knowledgeable in pharmacokinetics/pharmacodynamics of drugs that aren't even in clinical trials yet...


----------



## spade2you (May 12, 2009)

blackjack said:


> No misinformation there.


I'm a in the medical profession. Other than the fact that Lemond was shot, there wasn't a nugget of factual info in your posts. I'd go in depth, but if you believe it was a shot because the pills simply weren't working, there's not much you'd be able to comprehend/learn in the first place.


----------



## blackjack (Sep 7, 2010)

spade2you said:


> I'm *a in the* medical profession. Other than the fact that Lemond was shot, there wasn't a nugget of factual info in your posts. I'd go in depth, but if you believe it was a shot because the pills simply weren't working, *there's not much you'd be able to comprehend/learn* in the first place.


You're a what, in the medical profession?


I had read he was taking iron tablets. Can't find the link.

Try me if you have so much to say about misinformation. You're extraordinarily condescending by the way.

Here's what I wrote:

For the record I think it was an Iron shot and LeMond had been diagnosed with an iron deficiency after the shooting. The tablets he was taking hadn't been effective. 

He had lost so much blood that shock was an immediate concern at the time of the accident and he still has more than 30 pellets in his body.

Anyway, there is not one scintilla of evidence, hear say, witness testimony, rumor, anything, that LeMond doped and advancing unfounded rumors is scurrilous.


----------



## spade2you (May 12, 2009)

blackjack said:


> You're a what, in the medical profession?
> 
> 
> I had read he was taking iron tablets. Can't find the link.
> ...


I have no doubt he took iron tablets, but it's extremely rare that people need an iron or b-12 injection. If an iron tablet isn't working, GIVE MORE. It's not that difficult. 

Lemond's shooting was far enough away from his rides from the TdF that he would not have had residual anemia at the time for that. Yes, he lost a lot of blood, but he received transfusions and his body would have been able to rebuild his RBCs well before he even began competition. If he still had anemia while training and riding the TdF, he wouldn't have stood a chance finishing.


----------



## blackjack (Sep 7, 2010)

spade2you said:


> I have no doubt he took iron tablets, but it's extremely rare that people need an iron or b-12 injection. If an iron tablet isn't working, GIVE MORE. It's not that difficult.
> 
> Lemond's shooting was far enough away from his rides from the TdF that he would not have had residual anemia at the time for that. Yes, he lost a lot of blood, but he received transfusions and his body would have been able to rebuild his RBCs well before he even began competition. If he still had anemia while training and riding the TdF, he wouldn't have stood a chance finishing.



This contention or yours being conclusive proof of his doping.


----------



## Brad the Bold (Jun 8, 2010)

blackjack said:


> You really think that's a circumstantial case?
> 
> LeMond was always a performance outlier in cycling.


Which, by LeMond's own standards and WADA's, places him under suspicion.

The list of "performance outliers" that are *not* proven dopers is growing shorter every year...



blackjack said:


> Also, most put the timeline of widespread EPO use in the peloton at 1994. Indurain and others were using in 1991.


If I were to use my medical skills for evil and help the "best of the best" dope, I would avoid the drugs in "widespread" use. That would be begging to get caught. When steroids are widespread, use EPO. When EPO is widespread, use Darbopoetin. Then switch to CERA and so on. The most connected can, and will be the "early adopters".

How do you think that Armstrong (almost) got away with doping for almost a decade as "the most tested athlete in the world?" He stayed ahead of the curve.

It's also exactly why LeMond was "shocked" about the AC news. He was not shocked that he doped. No, he was shocked that he got caught on something widely detectable.


----------



## spade2you (May 12, 2009)

blackjack said:


> This contention or yours being conclusive proof of his doping.


I wouldn't call it conclusive, but certainly suspicious. There's ZERO reason to give an athlete IV iron or misc. vitamins.


----------



## DMFT (Feb 3, 2005)

blackjack said:


> Obviously LeMond is a prominent person in cycling. Dr. Ferrari had an extraordinary reputation as a fraud in the professional peloton. Armstrong had been working with him from late 1995 till 2001, when this fact was revealed and LeMond commented on this fact.
> 
> I don't know what field you are in, but if you are or were at the top of your profession and you're recognized as an expert don't you think it would be your prerogative to comment on the state of your profession?
> 
> ...



Wow. You're good at dancing around direct questions and spinning things to suit your belief.

LeMond wasn't at the "top" of his game and LeMond was an "Expert" at what? Cycling. That's what..... 

- Keep em' coming, I'm sure you will!


----------



## blackjack (Sep 7, 2010)

DMFT said:


> Wow. You're good at dancing around direct questions and spinning things to suit your belief.
> 
> LeMond wasn't at the "top" of his game and LeMond was an "Expert" at what? Cycling. That's what.....
> 
> - Keep em' coming, I'm sure you will!


Read carefully then comment.

LeMond is obviously an expert commentator on all things Cycling. If you can't understand that, it speaks more to your comprehension of the issues than anything else.

What direct questions btw?

LeMond is a doper because of some shots he self reported to a writer?

Scurrilous accusations.

It's not LeMond's fault a sociopath tried to victimize him. Unfortunatately for the sociopath, that sociopath ran into a person who would defend himself in the face of an onslaught of lies.


----------



## blackjack (Sep 7, 2010)

DMFT said:


> blackjack said:
> 
> 
> > LeMond there's no evidence. Armstrong there is volumes of hear-say by former team members who couldn't cut the mustard..
> ...


----------



## DMFT (Feb 3, 2005)

blackjack said:


> DMFT said:
> 
> 
> > This viewpoint of yours really speaks volumes about your reasoning capabilities.
> ...


----------



## DMFT (Feb 3, 2005)

blackjack said:


> Read carefully then comment.
> 
> LeMond is obviously an expert commentator on all things Cycling. If you can't understand that, it speaks more to your comprehension of the issues than anything else.
> 
> ...


- You should take your own advice and read then reply...


----------



## spade2you (May 12, 2009)

blackjack said:


> *All the former teammates of Armstrong who are testifying before a Federal Grand Jury are haters who "couldn't cut the mustard?"*


No, they're testifying before a grand jury because they're all involved with this case and don't realy have a choice about giving a sworn testimony.


----------



## blackjack (Sep 7, 2010)

spade2you said:


> No, they're testifying before a grand jury because they're all involved with this case and don't realy have a choice about giving a sworn testimony.


You realize that I didn't write the quote you're responding to.

Do you think what's currently being revealed about Armstrong shows his great integrity, or proves that he's a cheating criminal?


----------



## blackjack (Sep 7, 2010)

DMFT said:


> blackjack said:
> 
> 
> > You, me, nor ANYONE really know what's gone on or been said in front of said Grand Jury..... I suggest you stop dreaming that a person is going to go down in flames when there has been no decision made yet by the powers that be.
> ...


----------



## spade2you (May 12, 2009)

blackjack said:


> Do you think what's currently being revealed about Armstrong shows his great integrity, or proves that he's a cheating criminal?


It doesn't show anything definitive either way at this point. We'll all know when the courts make their final ruling. However, justice can be purchased by the highest bidder, so I doubt we'll ever know the full truth to everything.


----------



## pianopiano (Jun 4, 2005)

*speculation, and more speculation*



spade2you said:


> However, justice can be purchased by the highest bidder, so I doubt we'll ever know the full truth to everything.


Sadly, this is usually the truth.


----------



## terzo rene (Mar 23, 2002)

@blackjack - Wait just a minute! Ferrari isn't known as a fraud in the cycling community - he's known as a fabulous doping doctor. His clients are frauds but he's the real deal!


----------



## Perico (Mar 15, 2010)

blackjack- Can you please provide factual proof of the following:

1) An iron injection can give as big of a performance boost as Lemond experienced within days of it being administered.

2) That Lemond did not receive any sort of transfusion after being 15 minutes away from bleeding out. 

Thanks.


----------



## spade2you (May 12, 2009)

Perico said:


> 2) That Lemond did not receive any sort of transfusion after being 15 minutes away from bleeding out.


I have no doubt he was transfused for that. It's not exactly blood doping when you're replacing a very low blood volume. However, it's far from the same as a healthy athlete getting an autologous transfusion after they've already replaced the RBCs.


----------



## Perico (Mar 15, 2010)

spade2you said:


> I have no doubt he was transfused for that. It's not exactly blood doping when you're replacing a very low blood volume. However, it's far from the same as a healthy athlete getting an autologous transfusion after they've already replaced the RBCs.


That has nothing to do with my question. Go back and read post #51 by blackjack.


----------



## spade2you (May 12, 2009)

Perico said:


> That has nothing to do with my question. Go back and read post #51 by blackjack.


Ah, gotha.


----------



## blackjack (Sep 7, 2010)

Perico said:


> blackjack- Can you please provide factual proof of the following:
> 
> 1) An iron injection can give as big of a performance boost as Lemond experienced within days of it being administered..


It wasn't a double blind test when he got the iron shot, was it? You've never felt terrible one day for no apparent reason and then felt great a day or two later?



Perico said:


> 2) That Lemond did not receive any sort of transfusion after being 15 minutes away from bleeding out.
> 
> Thanks.


I believe he didn't receive a blood transfusion because there was fear the UC Davis blood bank was contaminated.

They probably just used volume expanders.

If I can find a link I'll post it, but I'm pretty sure.


----------



## blackjack (Sep 7, 2010)

spade2you said:


> It doesn't show anything definitive either way at this point. We'll all know when the courts make their final ruling. However, justice can be purchased by the highest bidder, so I doubt we'll ever know the full truth to everything.


So, they're taking on a very powerful individual because they want to go on a fishing expedition?

We know an awful lot now from publicly available information. 

Your caveat is quite absurd btw. Money and its purchasing power is the reason that Armstrong hasn't been sanctioned yet.


----------



## Perico (Mar 15, 2010)

blackjack said:


> It wasn't a double blind test when he got the iron shot, was it? You've never felt terrible one day for no apparent reason and then felt great a day or two later?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


In summation:

1) You have no proof.

2) You "believe" but have no proof.

Why is excrement like that allowed to be posted on this forum?!?!?!


----------



## spade2you (May 12, 2009)

blackjack said:


> It wasn't a double blind test when he got the iron shot, was it?


You just learned what that was, didn't you?


----------



## blackjack (Sep 7, 2010)

spade2you said:


> You just learned what that was, didn't you?



You're very condescending as I mentioned before.

You also still believe that Armstrong is clean?

You believe the mountain of evidence against Armstrong equates with the complete lack of evidence against LeMond, but that won't stop you from engaging in recriminations.

You don't believe that is indicative of your intellectual capacity or your emotional dependence on idols?

Ride your bike, enjoy it. No need to support sociopaths who are going to get their just desserts with a prison sentence.


----------



## blackjack (Sep 7, 2010)

Perico said:



> In summation:
> 
> 1) You have no proof.
> 
> ...



You do realize the onus is on you to prove your unfounded allegations?

Prove you're not a serial killer?

This is an Alice in Wonderland world you live in?

OTOH, the Federal Government is assembling their mountain of evidence into a case against your hero.


----------



## blackjack (Sep 7, 2010)

spade2you said:


> I wouldn't call it conclusive, but certainly suspicious. There's ZERO reason to give an athlete IV iron or misc. vitamins.



IV iron. How do you know it was IV? From my understanding it was intramuscular?

At any rate I don't know if your aware that EPO is usually injected subcutaneous, but Floyd testified that they were microdosing it IV. That testimony is against the subject, Lance Armstrong.


----------



## blackjack (Sep 7, 2010)

spade2you said:


> I wouldn't call it conclusive, but certainly suspicious. There's ZERO reason to give an athlete IV iron or misc. vitamins.



IV iron. How do you know it was IV? From my understanding it was intramuscular?

At any rate I don't know if your aware that EPO is usually injected subcutaneous, but Floyd testified that they were microdosing it IV. That testimony is against the subject, Lance Armstrong.


----------



## Axe (Sep 21, 2004)

blackjack said:


> You do realize the onus is on you


Yes, and anus is on you. As in Cranial-Rectal inversion syndrome.

Perico had it right.


----------



## blackjack (Sep 7, 2010)

Axe said:


> Yes, and anus is on you. As in Cranial-Rectal inversion syndrome.
> 
> Perico had it right.


You're projecting.

This descrbes your actual, or sought after relationship to your cycling hero.


----------



## ultimobici (Jul 16, 2005)

Perico said:


> blackjack- Can you please provide factual proof of the following:
> 
> 1) An iron injection can give as big of a performance boost as Lemond experienced within days of it being administered.
> 
> ...


Point 2 Page 121 The Incredible Comeback - "He lost nearly 2 quarts of blood in the shooting, but the doctors decided not to give him transfusions because they were worried about the possibility of the AIDS virus in donated blood."


----------



## spade2you (May 12, 2009)

blackjack said:


> You're very condescending as I mentioned before.
> 
> You also still believe that Armstrong is clean?
> 
> ...


My condescing is pretty mild. Consider yourself lucky more people don't rip into you. The content of most of your posts is pretty weak and reflects not knowing much. There are plenty of people who I don't agree with, but at least their posts make sense.

I have no idea if Armstrong was clean. Maybe, but probably not. I've never doubted that certain dopers are allowed to dope for the sake of ratings and $. To be honest, I almost don't care if he doped given that much of the TdF podium were dopers during the LA era. 

I am not aware of a "mountain of evidence" against LA. The fact that this campagn is basically being lead by Landis, there's already a lot of credibility lost from the start. Props to him for finally coming clean, but I can't believe much any more.

Just because there's little evidence with Lemond doesn't mean nothing happened. I have no clue what was really in those b-12 shots, but at this point, nothing can be proven this late in the game. 

I don't really have idols, so I can't really answer that statement. 

If LA, Lemond, the pope, etc. get busted, it will not change anything. A bike race is a bike race. It's not a battle of good vs. evil.


----------



## blackjack (Sep 7, 2010)

spade2you said:


> My condescing is pretty mild. Consider yourself lucky more people don't rip into you. *The content of most of your posts is pretty weak and reflects not knowing much.* There are plenty of people who I don't agree with, but at least their posts make sense.
> 
> *I have no idea if Armstrong was clean. Maybe, but probably not.* I've never doubted that certain dopers are allowed to dope for the sake of ratings and $. To be honest, I almost don't care if he doped given that much of the TdF podium were dopers during the LA era.
> 
> ...


You're defending Armstrong very strenuously for you not taking this whole thing seriously.



spade2you said:


> I have no doubt he was transfused for that. It's not exactly blood doping when you're replacing a very low blood volume. However, it's far from the same as a healthy athlete getting an autologous transfusion after they've already replaced the RBCs.





ultimobici said:


> Point 2 Page 121 The Incredible Comeback - "He lost nearly 2 quarts of blood in the shooting, *but the doctors decided not to give him transfusions because they were worried about the possibility of the AIDS virus in donated blood*."



A couple quick questions.

Do you live on planet earth?

Are you part of the reality based community?



Perico said:


> blackjack- Can you please provide factual proof of the following:
> 
> 1) An iron injection can give as big of a performance boost as Lemond experienced within days of it being administered.
> 
> ...





Perico said:


> In summation:
> 
> 1) You have no proof.
> 
> ...



I take it you're going to STFU now? That goes for the other "person" mentioned above too.


----------



## spade2you (May 12, 2009)

blackjack said:


> You're defending Armstrong very strenuously for you not taking this whole thing seriously.
> 
> 
> A couple quick questions.Do you live on planet earth? Are you part of the reality based community?
> ...



I'm neither defending Armstrong, but I'm not really attacking him. However, I don't recall Lance taking vitamin shots........ I don't follow baseball that closely, but I seem to recall a lot of them getting vitamin shots. Fwahahahahahahahah. 

It's been a long time since AIDS was a huge scare in the blood bank. I was in gradeschool and most of the trauma docs I know weren't in practice during this time. In the real world, most docs would have transfused regardless of the threat of AIDS. When we're forced to save someone NOW vs. the risk of something ~10 years later, I'll let reality show which decision is made. 

The other "clowns" are beating you senselessly. While I have no doubt you think of yourself as brilliant, but you're about the only one.


----------



## Axe (Sep 21, 2004)

spade2you said:


> My condescing is pretty mild. Consider yourself lucky more people don't rip into you.


Yeah, most people do not entertain themselves by stepping on a turd on Sundays. I have an excuse - I am at work - what is yours? 



spade2you said:


> The content of most of your posts is pretty weak and reflects not knowing much.


Understatement of the day.


----------



## spade2you (May 12, 2009)

Axe said:


> Yeah, most people do not entertain themselves by stepping on a turd on Sundays. I have an excuse - I am at work - what is yours?


Speaking of turds, my damn corgi decided to roll in his yesterday!


----------



## Perico (Mar 15, 2010)

blackjack- You are a trip. You get called out for things you claim, can't provide proof, then say the onus is on others to provide proof and then and when someone else provides possible proof (Simply saying "it said so in his book" means little without a link to that actual quote and brings up the question of why you are willing to believe some things from a book but not others.) you go for the anonymous internet tough guy routine? Pathetic.


----------



## Perico (Mar 15, 2010)

ultimobici said:


> Point 2 Page 121 The Incredible Comeback - "He lost nearly 2 quarts of blood in the shooting, but the doctors decided not to give him transfusions because they were worried about the possibility of the AIDS virus in donated blood."


It's interesting the things you believe from books...and the things you refuse to believe.


----------



## blackjack (Sep 7, 2010)

spade2you said:


> I'm neither defending Armstrong, but I'm not really attacking him. However, I don't recall Lance taking vitamin shots........ I don't follow baseball that closely, but I seem to recall a lot of them getting vitamin shots. Fwahahahahahahahah.
> 
> It's been a long time since AIDS was a huge scare in the blood bank. I was in gradeschool and most of the trauma docs I know weren't in practice during this time. In the real world, most docs would have transfused regardless of the threat of AIDS. When we're forced to save someone NOW vs. the risk of something ~10 years later, I'll let reality show which decision is made.
> 
> The other "clowns" are beating you senselessly. While I have no doubt you think of yourself as brilliant, but you're about the only one.


But it was a huge scare and you are in your own bubble. Guess you feel safe to second guess the trauma docs with 23 years 20/20 hindsight. 

You're parents told you, you were wonderful, and you believed it. That's the way they do it with the current generation.

Every punk in the world wasn't walking around with a cell phone then either.


You ever see that Monte Python film where the tough guy gets his arms and legs chopped off by his adversary, but the torso still wants to fight? Can't recall the name.

I'll give you some advice, quit while you're a torso.


----------



## blackjack (Sep 7, 2010)

Perico said:


> blackjack- You are a trip. You get called out for things you claim, can't provide proof, then say the onus is on others to provide proof and then and when someone else provides possible proof (Simply saying "it said so in his book" means little without a link to that actual quote and brings up the question of why you are willing to believe some things from a book but not others.) you go for the anonymous internet tough guy routine? Pathetic.


You're as off the wall as the other one. I don't go walking around with my own private notary because I have to prove something to some know it all on the net. I told you I was pretty sure he didn't have a transfusion and I'm right, and you're talking out of your %#@.

You're making unfounded accusations re LeMond. It's up to you to back them up.

I assure you, I'm not some anonymous internet toughguy. 

The bike competition is pretty harmless unless you let your pride get the best of you and wind up having a heart attack trying to keep up.:thumbsup: 

Believe me, it would happen.


----------



## blackjack (Sep 7, 2010)

Perico said:


> It's interesting the things you believe from books...and the things you refuse to believe.



A book is a better reference than you pulling it out of your %&*, which for some reason you think is sufficient.


----------



## spade2you (May 12, 2009)

blackjack said:


> But it was a huge scare and you are in your own bubble. Guess you feel safe to second guess the trauma docs with 23 years 20/20 hindsight.
> 
> You're parents told you, you were wonderful, and you believed it. That's the way they do it with the current generation.
> 
> ...


Yes, I feel safe with these trauma docs with about 20 years experience. 

20:1 odds you're only aware of the AIDS scare because ultimobici just mentioned it. I'd suspect that most in practice have forgotten the bloodbank scare years ago. 

My parents never told me I was wonderful. I don't care and don't seek affirmation. 

Cell phones were so large, expensive, and unreliable that MDs would carry a beeper. 

Your Montey Python ref had good intentions, but your execution was so poor and sloppy that it draws attention away from me and back to you. 

No, kiddo, it's not just a flesh wound.......


----------



## Perico (Mar 15, 2010)

blackjack

1) You are the one who made two claims. You are the one who refused to provide proof of these claims. 
2) Do you feel like a big man because you curse at people, insult them and add personal attacks?
3) What did I pull out of my butt? Please show me one claim I made that was false. Step up tough guy.
4) Yes you are anonymous internet tough guy and have proven multiple times on page 4 alone.


----------

