# Lemond's drug test solution



## Sintesi (Nov 13, 2001)

This is Greg's proposal:


"It's all very well checking blood values," LeMond continued. "But if you're a smart doctor, you just always keep your rider's blood values high. EPO is only detectable within a few days, and that's why it's hard to detect it. Autologous blood transfusions, however, are not detectable at all – except through a carbon monoxide test, which is something [project co-ordinator of the Science and Industry Against Blood Doping] Michael Ashenden has proposed. It tests the volume of haemoglobin in the body, and can prove a positive for autologous blood transfusions. That's the kind of testing we must do, along with profiling athletes' natural oxygen intake and watts."

LeMond wants to see SRM-type power meters employed to measure riders' power outputs. "In SRMs, we have a quantitative way to do that, but unfortunately there have only been a few riders who have ever given out that personal information," bemoans LeMond. "I talked to [now former] ASO boss Patrice Clerc about having everyone on an SRM that's sealed. It would be controlled and calibrated by doctors, the police – but not the teams.

"You'd get a continuous output of power recorded during a Tour stage and then if you found someone who had a VO2 Max of 80 and he was doing 500 watts for 30 minutes, you'd know that that was statistically and mathematically impossible to do. So then he's positive – boom! – he's out – that's doping. That's it – it's simple."

...

It should be up to a group like WADA. The riders just want to know that they can trust the system – that's all. If a crime's a crime, you're going to get busted. Cycling is so black and white when it comes to watts and we can have that data now – it's not a mystery. Last year there were climbers doing 450 watts but weighing 58-60kg – that's nearly 8 watts per kilo. That's impossible – unless we've all had some kind of genetic mutation over the past 15 years.

"There are certain physiologists who could blow the sport apart," says LeMond. "But they all earn their living by the sport, too, so they have something to lose, so there's this omerta [code of silence - ed]. That's the thing about cycling – it has its chance to make itself clean, and that's the direction the Tour de France organisation was going in."

http://www.bikeradar.com/news/article/interview-greg-lemond-18929


Comments??


----------



## jorgy (Oct 21, 2005)

I think his criticism of Garmin et al. is wrong. Yes, it should be an organizing body independently doing the tests. But there is no organizing body doing it. What else are the teams supposed to do?

And I don't know whether VO2max or power testing are infallible enough around which to base an anti-doping program.

I like LeMond. For people in my age demographic (40+), he'll always be the first person we think of when someone says American winner of the Tour de France. But he's not a scientist. And I also have to wonder if he owns SRM stock...


----------



## Dwayne Barry (Feb 16, 2003)

jorgy said:


> And I don't know whether VO2max or power testing are infallible enough around which to base an anti-doping program.


It's fundamentally the same problem you run into with the blood passport (i.e. determining what is normal for a given rider and then how much deviation from the norm is naturally possible). 

I forget who it was, someone from one of the French teams who said that they only see ~10% variation in power from their (presumably) clean riders during the year.


----------



## mohair_chair (Oct 3, 2002)

Unless he can come up with a way to verify the calibration and operation of the SRM (in essence, providing an A- and B-sample) I don't see this as a realistic proposal. That's where the trust in the system comes from: verification and validation of the methods used.


----------



## sevencycle (Apr 23, 2006)

jorgy said:


> I think his criticism of Garmin et al. is wrong. Yes, it should be an organizing body independently doing the tests. But there is no organizing body doing it. What else are the teams supposed to do?
> 
> And I don't know whether VO2max or power testing are infallible enough around which to base an anti-doping program.
> 
> I like LeMond. For people in my age demographic (40+), he'll always be the first person we think of when someone says American winner of the Tour de France. But he's not a scientist. And I also have to wonder if he owns SRM stock...


*Lemond is a piece of crap with 3 tarnished yellow jerseys and I am 50+.*


----------



## Einstruzende (Jun 1, 2004)

sevencycle said:


> *Lemond is a piece of crap with 3 tarnished yellow jerseys and I am 50+.*


Did he tarnish them by speaking out for clean sport? And I'm 34.


----------



## Spin42 (Sep 8, 2004)

Correct me if I'm wrong...
EPO and CERA don't give you the ability to put out more power, it allows you to go longer at Threshold, right? If that's true, then I don't see how Lemonds test can be accurate. He said there were 130lb riders putting out 450 watts and that's impossible. That shouldn't be possible if you're on EPO or CERA either.


----------



## Digger28 (Oct 9, 2008)

sevencycle said:


> *Lemond is a piece of crap with 3 tarnished yellow jerseys and I am 50+.*


why are they tarnished? Give me evidence that those jerseys are tarnished...i.e. that he doped...bearing in mind that before EPO, 1991, it was possible to beat cyclists who may have doped....
You know what...Give me just ONE piece of evidence that Lemond doped...circumstantial or otherwise....you come on a doping forum and talk about his 'tarnished yellow jerseys' simpl because he has the courage to speak out....and there's people in the European media, the most cycnical journalists you can imagine, who accept without question that the last clean winner was Lemond...show me even ONE person who has second hand account of Lemond doping...


----------



## PhatTalc (Jul 21, 2004)

*EPO increases "aerobic power"*



Spin42 said:


> Correct me if I'm wrong...
> EPO and CERA don't give you the ability to put out more power, it allows you to go longer at Threshold, right? If that's true, then I don't see how Lemonds test can be accurate. He said there were 130lb riders putting out 450 watts and that's impossible. That shouldn't be possible if you're on EPO or CERA either.


I think you are wrong. If a rider can produce 400W for 5 minutes before he dopes, and after doping can produce 400W for 1 hour, then he has increased the power that he can hold for 1 hour. This argument is quite general. What Lemond means is that sustained power of 450W from a 130lb rider is impossible... presumably Michal Rassmussen can make more than 450W in a sprint!


----------



## Slim Again Soon (Oct 25, 2005)

*LeMond = Champion = Hero*

Don't do that thing with the "tarnished" jerseys. Show some respect.


----------



## Dwayne Barry (Feb 16, 2003)

Spin42 said:


> Correct me if I'm wrong...
> EPO and CERA don't give you the ability to put out more power, it allows you to go longer at Threshold, right? If that's true, then I don't see how Lemonds test can be accurate. He said there were 130lb riders putting out 450 watts and that's impossible. That shouldn't be possible if you're on EPO or CERA either.


It would increase the power you can sustain over any duration where aerobic capacity comes into play, not sure how short that would be? Even in something like a maximum 1 minute effort, half of the energy is being aerobically produced. Something like an hour, it's pretty much all aerobic.

If you believe the power numbers from the doped-to-the-gills era, the best riders were sustaining something like 450 watts on a 20-30 minute climb whereas in the not-so-doped era it's more like 400 watts or so.


----------



## bigpinkt (Jul 20, 2006)

sevencycle said:


> *Lemond is a piece of crap with 3 tarnished yellow jerseys and I am 50+.*


Congratulations on being old. You forgot to add that you started following the sport in 99


Much of Greg says is very valid and is not anything that others haven't been saying for years. It is refreshing for someone of his stature to say it openly instead of just talk around the caravan like most. 

While most of his points are valid the use of sealed SRM's sounds like a bit of a challenge. For internal testing though it makes sense and that is why Columbia has been using power output as a measure of possible doping for 2-3 years


----------



## gray8110 (Dec 11, 2001)

Spin42 said:


> Correct me if I'm wrong...
> EPO and CERA don't give you the ability to put out more power, it allows you to go longer at Threshold, right? If that's true, then I don't see how Lemonds test can be accurate. He said there were 130lb riders putting out 450 watts and that's impossible. That shouldn't be possible if you're on EPO or CERA either.


EPO and CERA (etc) don't inherently increase the wattage you can output, but that's really beside the point - their most significant effect is that they increase the ability to transport oxygen to your muscles - a side effect of that is improved endurance. Any rider can put out 450 watts. The question is for how long. An untrained rider might be able to do it for 30 seconds - a cat 2 can probably do it for 5-10 minutes and Lance could do it for 35-45 minutes on the final climb of a tour stage. Blood boosters (and blood doping) increase your ability to hold a higher wattage because more oxygen is being delivered to your working muscles. Those same blood boosters probably aren't going to increase your absolute maximum wattage, but unless you're a sprinter, that doesn't really matter.


----------



## sir duke (Mar 24, 2006)

> and I am 50+.


Why don't you brag about your I.Q. in the Lounge? That's where I usually go for comedy.


----------



## PhatTalc (Jul 21, 2004)

gray8110 said:


> EPO and CERA (etc) don't inherently increase the wattage you can output, but that's really beside the point - their most significant effect is that they increase the ability to transport oxygen to your muscles - a side effect of that is improved endurance. Any rider can put out 450 watts. The question is for how long. An untrained rider might be able to do it for 30 seconds - a cat 2 can probably do it for 5-10 minutes and Lance could do it for 35-45 minutes on the final climb of a tour stage. Blood boosters (and blood doping) increase your ability to hold a higher wattage because more oxygen is being delivered to your working muscles. Those same blood boosters probably aren't going to increase your absolute maximum wattage, but unless you're a sprinter, that doesn't really matter.


I would say that your example is stating that Lance Armstrong is more powerful than the Cat 2 etc - even if they all had the same maximum power. Increased oxygen transport means more power produced aerobically which means higher sustained power, which you can also call improved endurance.


----------



## carbon13 (Dec 23, 2007)

There was an indirect test developed in Australia for the Sydney Olympics for EPO that was proven over an large demographic to be 100% accurate.
But non direct tests are a bit of a stretch for science dogma and they therefor don't stand up in law.
In time science will change and it will be accepted.
We may be all dead by then and another drug will come but it will happen.


----------



## DIRT BOY (Aug 22, 2002)

Slim Again said:


> Don't do that thing with the "tarnished" jerseys. Show some respect.


And you know for a FACT, Greg was clean?


----------



## Digger28 (Oct 9, 2008)

DIRT BOY said:


> And you know for a FACT, Greg was clean?


I don;t believe ANYONE here said they knew for a fact that Lemond was clean, thus nobody here has to prove that he was clean...on the contrary, many people here seem to be throwing mud at Lemond and insinuating that he doped, when they have NO evidence high up or low down that he doped...now considering the amount of people he rode with, the amount of people who support lance and would like to bring him down, this is saying something...at least people such as myself and the many others on this forum who believe that Lance doped, we can provide mountains of evidence to support our argument...


----------



## sevencycle (Apr 23, 2006)

Einstruzende said:


> Did he tarnish them by speaking out for clean sport? And I'm 34.


He tarnished his Hero status by being a shitty father and a drunk and making his family pay for his deflated ego


----------



## sir duke (Mar 24, 2006)

> He tarnished his Hero status by being a shitty father and a drunk and making his family pay for his deflated ego


So failure to buy your kids an ice-cream and an over-fondness for alchohol are reasons to hate a deserved 3 time Tour winner. Ad hominem BS.! I forget, how much did his family pay for his deflated ego? D'ya think they'd stump up the cash to deflate Lance's? You, sir, are truly the King of Comedy.


----------



## Digger28 (Oct 9, 2008)

sevencycle said:


> He tarnished his Hero status by being a shitty father and a drunk and making his family pay for his deflated ego


Evidence that he was a shitty father, drunk and made his family pay for his deflated ego?
Evidence that he was a drunk? Lance said so?!!!!
I would've thought his personal problems were in relation to his sexual abuse...just guessing like...
But, according to your 'logic', one has to have a perfect character in order for that person to keep an 'untarnished' jersey!!!!! :mad2: And by the way, you went from tarnishing the jerseys to referring to his hero status...all because St. Lance has had run ins with the man...
You have NO evidence of doping, so you do what Lance does and attack his character and possible human flaws...which you couldn't possibly know to be true...when a person is on a doping forum using character assassination, again with no evidence, what are the Mods up to here?!!! I mean, you're 'argument' is bordering on the farcical...but i think in your heart you know this, and you are clutching at straws...
Don't agree with him or like him...your problem...but don't come on here and use that kind of substantiated rubbish about him...


----------



## MG537 (Jul 25, 2006)

sevencycle said:


> He tarnished his Hero status by being a shitty father and a drunk and making his family pay for his deflated ego


Are you Lemond Jr?


----------



## SwiftSolo (Jun 7, 2008)

sevencycle said:


> *Lemond is a piece of crap with 3 tarnished yellow jerseys and I am 50+.*


Mate,
Where have you been? Have you not partaken of the dope forum "wisdom" before?

To get you in touch with the "reality" that is common "knowledge" here on the dope forum you need to understand that it is not possible to race a bicycle unless you are doped or your name is Greg. Hell, it may not be possible to even ride one unless it says Lemon on the down tube.


----------



## Bry03cobra (Oct 31, 2006)

Digger28 said:


> Evidence that he was a shitty father, drunk and made his family pay for his deflated ego?
> Evidence that he was a drunk? Lance said so?!!!!
> I would've thought his personal problems were in relation to his sexual abuse...just guessing like...
> But, according to your 'logic', one has to have a perfect character in order for that person to keep an 'untarnished' jersey!!!!! :mad2: And by the way, you went from tarnishing the jerseys to referring to his hero status...all because St. Lance has had run ins with the man...
> ...


----------------------
So there is NO POSSIBILITY that LeMond doped? I don't think he did, but I can't say that I'm 100% sure he didn't. After hearing about his child abuse, is it fair to say he doesn't trust people that easily? Look what Hinault did to him. Let's say he did dope, would he use openly in front of teamates like Lance? I doubt it. If he did use, it would be secretly. During his time it was much easier to get away with doping.


----------



## gray8110 (Dec 11, 2001)

PhatTalc said:


> I would say that your example is stating that Lance Armstrong is more powerful than the Cat 2 etc - even if they all had the same maximum power. Increased oxygen transport means more power produced aerobically which means higher sustained power, which you can also call improved endurance.


It's a semantic issue, both points are valid and essentially the same. I just feel saying that a "130lb rider doing 450 watts is impossible" is a meaningless statement because 450watts is achievable for anyone for some duration. It may however be nearly impossible for a 130lb rider to do 450 for 45 minutes. 

Just to posit on the semantics of this... Who is more powerful? The world class time trialist who can sustatin 450w for 45 minutes but can't hit 1,000w in a sprint or the world class track sprinter who can't sustain 450w for 10 minutes but sprints at 2,000w? Probably a rhetorical question.


----------



## Digger28 (Oct 9, 2008)

Bry03cobra said:


> ----------------------
> So there is NO POSSIBILITY that LeMond doped? I don't think he did, but I can't say that I'm 100% sure he didn't. After hearing about his child abuse, is it fair to say he doesn't trust people that easily? Look what Hinault did to him. Let's say he did dope, would he use openly in front of teamates like Lance? I doubt it. If he did use, it would be secretly. During his time it was much easier to get away with doping.


Look, this thread was never meant to be about Lemond doping or not doping. Some idiot, made a post where he said Lemond's jerseys were tainted due to ego, alchohol and selfishness towards his family...I am not having that...I believe Lance was doped to the gills, but even I don't think it's right to go into his private life and his family life. 
In relation to Lemond, I'm getting tetchy here because this is the third time today I'm saying this. None of us are saying we know for certain that he didn;t dope. However, 20 years later, ther is NO evidence high up or low down that he doped. On the contrary, it is taken as a given by people who rode with him, by journalists, mechanics etc, that he was the last clean winner of the Tour. And in relation to your point that it was easier to get away with it back then, I don;t agree at all, because we now know that Anquetil, Merckx, Hinault, Moser, Kelly, Maertens, Roche all doped...aside from all this, his career is totally consistent with a clean rider...success so young for example...also, I don;t see what need he had to dope, with his genetic make up...genetically he was far superior to his rivals in the first place...but I could give you MANY OTHER reasons and pieces of evidence why I feel he didn;t dope...
I love the way many people (sarcasm by me!!!), not you, have jumped on the Lemond doped bandwagon, simply because Lance said so. Incredible, because there isn;t one shred of evidence to support this. Lance said to Lemond in that phone call that 'I can get ten people to show you used EPO'...Evidently, Lance has not found ONE....


----------



## sevencycle (Apr 23, 2006)

MG537 said:


> Are you Lemond Jr?


10-4 good buddy


----------



## DMFT (Feb 3, 2005)

Digger28 said:


> I don;t believe ANYONE here said they knew for a fact that Lemond was clean, thus nobody here has to prove that he was clean...on the contrary, many people here seem to be throwing mud at Lemond and insinuating that he doped, when they have NO evidence high up or low down that he doped...now considering the amount of people he rode with, the amount of people who support lance and would like to bring him down, this is saying something...at least people such as myself and the many others on this forum who believe that Lance doped, we can provide mountains of evidence to support our argument...



- Don't you think that most of the folks that used to be in LA's inner-circle or whatever you want to call it may be looking for a PAYCHECK off of some mud-slinging????? There are lot's of jealous people out there......

- And just like you said : Nobody knows for sure that Greg cheated or not, same goes for LA because if there was any REAL PROOF he would have been sanctioned.


----------



## bigpinkt (Jul 20, 2006)

DMFT said:


> - Don't you think that most of the folks that used to be in LA's inner-circle or whatever you want to call it may be looking for a PAYCHECK off of some mud-slinging????? There are lot's of jealous people out there......


The compensation would not be enough to balance out the relentless attacks by his cult. I know 3 of his former teammates and they have each told smiler stories of what went on on Postal, none have gone completely public with what they know. 



DMFT said:


> And just like you said : Nobody knows for sure that Greg cheated or not, same goes for LA because if there was any REAL PROOF he would have been sanctioned.


The evidence against Lance is overwhelming. There is NO evidence, rumor, or anything that indicates that Greg doped. 

You place far too much faith in the governing bodies. The fact is that they are only just now catching up with what Lance was doing for years. 

-Do you think that any team today could get away with dumping PED's during the Tour like Postal did in 2000?
-Lance's back dated TUE for his Cortisone positive in 99, no way you could do that today
-One would assume the raising you HCT from 41 to 48.5 like Lance did would get you at least a letter from the Bio Passport people
-De Lucca was suspended for 3 months for Talking to his doping doctor, how many would Lance get suspended for?
-Schleck is suspended for giving Fuentes 7,000 Euros, why would Lance not be suspended for giving Ferrari 100 X as much?
-There was not a test for EPO in 99....you know the rest.

Basso never tested positive, nor did Scarponi, or Millar, Police action is what brought them down not the UCI.


----------



## Digger28 (Oct 9, 2008)

DMFT said:


> - Don't you think that most of the folks that used to be in LA's inner-circle or whatever you want to call it may be looking for a PAYCHECK off of some mud-slinging????? There are lot's of jealous people out there......
> 
> - And just like you said : Nobody knows for sure that Greg cheated or not, same goes for LA because if there was any REAL PROOF he would have been sanctioned.


Yip all these people: Mike Ashenden, Stephen Swart, Betsy Andreu, Frankie Andreu, Vaughters, Emma O'Reilly, Julien DeVriese, Greg Lemond, Prentice Steffen, off the top of my head...all these people were looking for a paycheck!!! Educate yourself before you rehash the same old lines which Lance supporters invariably do..Real proof that lance cheated...I could give you mountains...but even failed drug tests don;t seem to suffice for some people!!!! If you don't want to see the truth, that's your problem...keep your head buried in the sand...

As regards Lemond, you deduced wrongly from my post, that I said nobody can say for sure that Lemond did not sope...and what I actually said is that nonody on this forum who supports Lemond EVER said they know for sure. So you, like aabout four others yesterday are trying to make an argument to suit your own hypothesis....all I'll say is that there is a MOUNTAIN of evidence for Lance to have doped, Lemond, not a shred...and considering over twenty years have passed, that's saying something...But trying to convince some people is pointless...because you don't want to believe your hero could be the bad guy...and as a consequence of that, you don't want to believe the so called bad guy in the scene, could actually be the good guy........

all I'll say is that you need to expand your reading outside of Lance's two autobiographies before you come one here and make such statements


----------



## Digger28 (Oct 9, 2008)

DMFT said:


> -
> 
> - same goes for LA because if there was any REAL PROOF he would have been sanctioned.


I have to come back to this statement...I mean it really beggars belief...what more do you want? A picture of Lance injecting himself with a syringe, and on the syringe is EPO?:mad2: 
Real proof? How can you possibly discount all the evidence against him? 
And trying to make a comparison between Lemond and Lance, as regards doping, is again incredible...one person has a fu$$ing mountain against him...the other not a shred...
Seriously. if Lance made a confession, would people like you even believe him? Or would it possibly be an imposter, in Lance's body?!!!
The hypocrisy...when Lance speaks of himself never failing a test in his defence, but then when tests show EPO (I'll leave out the cortisone), the lab was at fault...so the lab was doing a great job one minute!!! Also, the way he defended Tyler and Floyd, saying that the labs couldn't be trusted, is another disgrace...do you people trust these labs for Kohl, Vino, Ricco? You can't have it both ways...
It's the same pattern though...any person who has doped in the past, and not been caught, will NEVER criticise a rider with a positive test...Sean Kelly is a prime example on Eurosport...any time there's a positive, silence...because he knows that morally he can't criticise, simply because he doped himself...
Now, I could give you an awful LOT of reasons why I'm positive that Lemond did not dope, but do people honestly think he'd be such a vociferous anti-doping person, if he had in fact doped himself, and he'd know that he was leaving himself wide open...Lance has done his level best to find people to show that Lemond doped...He has not found ONE...
NO REAL PROOF...FU$$ING HELL!!!!:mad2:


----------



## DMFT (Feb 3, 2005)

Digger28 said:


> I have to come back to this statement...I mean it really beggars belief...what more do you want? A picture of Lance injecting himself with a syringe, and on the syringe is EPO?:mad2:
> Real proof? How can you possibly discount all the evidence against him?
> And trying to make a comparison between Lemond and Lance, as regards doping, is again incredible...one person has a fu$$ing mountain against him...the other not a shred...
> Seriously. if Lance made a confession, would people like you even believe him? Or would it possibly be an imposter, in Lance's body?!!!
> ...



- Dude, you should relax a little.... 

If LNDD, Lequipe, WADA, ASO or any body had anything "concrete" on the guy he'd be cooked. Period. He couldn't pay EVERYONE off, no chance of him orchestrating that BIG of a conspiracy to hide all of the "mountains" as you say of evidence.

Just chill Digger, it's only "sport" or "spectacle".


----------



## bigpinkt (Jul 20, 2006)

DMFT said:


> - Dude, you should relax a little....
> 
> If LNDD, Lequipe, WADA, ASO or any body had anything "concrete" on the guy he'd be cooked. Period. He couldn't pay EVERYONE off, no chance of him orchestrating that BIG of a conspiracy to hide all of the "mountains" as you say of evidence.
> 
> Just chill Digger, it's only "sport" or "spectacle".


WADA and the ASO had no jurisdiction over testing during much of Wonderboy's fraud. Lequipe is not a governing body and most rational people believe they have already "Cooked" him many times. 

You may be onto something when you talking about payoffs. For much of the time the UCI was in charge, although most would say asleep at the wheel. A nice $500,000 "Donation" gets you all the advanced notice you need for OOC testing. 


The fact is many others careers have ended for much less. The Cancer Halo allows many to ignore the obvious.


----------



## jorgy (Oct 21, 2005)

*Marion Jones never tested positive.*

And she was suspected of doping and tested a bunch, in and out of competition. Following from this, the absence of a positive test cannot be taken as proof someone is clean. There are definitely dopers that are _never _caught.

[Yes, she had a non-negative for EPO of an A-sample, but the B-sample didn't confirm it so no official positive. She admitted to using the steroid 'the clear.']


----------



## fabsroman (Jul 14, 2006)

Didn't know that about Lemond. The only thing I remember about his wife and kids is the few times I saw them in TdF coverage. He seemed like he was a family man. If he treated them poorly, that would put him in the poop category for me. Same goes for Armstrong and his divorce from his wife and the example he sets for his 2 kids. What is wrong with athletes nowadays?

I just heard Chris Carter on ESPN blame Pacman Jones' 4 game suspension on Jerry Jones for not having a good enough support system put in place for Pacman. Hello!! How about blaming Pacman himself. Why does an adult making millions playing a kids' game need a baby sitter? Anyway, I digress.


----------



## fabsroman (Jul 14, 2006)

Who was going to give them a paycheck for giving up the goods on Lance? Were they trying to black mail Lance? If so, why hasn't he ever mentioned it.

Sometimes, when there are enough stories from people about somebody doing something, they become hard to ignore, especially when there really is no financial gain from it. Show me what these people would have gained from bringing Lance down, and I might start to believe that "paycheck" stuff.

Me, I believe Lance got the newest and greatest drugs from the drug companies themselves so they could then use him in their commercials. There is definitely a lot more dirt on Lance than there is on Lemond, and you would think that people would have been looking for paychecks in the late 80's and early 90's too.


----------



## Chris Oz (Oct 8, 2005)

I think it it pretty clear that Lance and his generation doped. There is enough evidence floating around to indicate that was the case. He was probably both lucky and smarter that the rest which is why he go away with a little smoke damage so to speak.

LeMond may have doped but it is pretty unlikely - there is no evidence. More importantly people tend to forget that before the early 90s people were very open about doping particularly in professional sports. It was one of these poorly kept 'industry' secrets, everyone on the inside knew what is going on. Someone is likely to know if he did. Give he seems to have got a lot people offside I would imagine that this would have come out. Hence I tend to believe that he was probably clean.


----------



## BAi9302010 (Mar 7, 2002)

Lemond didn't need to dope.....

"Greg LeMond: In the 80s when I was racing we did VO2 Max testing, but it was to see the physical fitness. My first VO2 Max test was up in Squaw Valley on a treadmill and I had a 79 VO2 Max non-specific sport. But once I actually really started doing VO2 Max testing on a consistent basis in ’89… now you know it depends upon the level of fitness and training…I was on average about 6.2 to 6.4 liters of Oxygen, which translated to my racing weight would be 92, 93, 94 VO2 Max. I think only cross-country skier Bjørn Dæhlie [Generally considered the greatest Nordic skier of all time, 1992 Olympic Gold Medalist 15 km, 50 km, 4 x 10 km relay cross country skiing], had those same numbers. So I think I had one of, if not the highest.

Now I don’t know Merckx’s. I don’t think Merckx ever did a VO2 Max. So, I’m certain he was up there. I think Bernard Hinault’s VO2 Max was 88. I think I was of the top…."

from... http://www.bikeraceinfo.com/oralhistory/lemond.html

Lance Armstrong has a VO2 max of 83.8, which is VERY high, but in the world of professional cycling wouldn't lead one to expect from him the kind of domination that he produced. There are far less successful riders with higher VO2 max results than him.


----------



## ti-triodes (Aug 14, 2006)

Chris Oz said:


> LeMond may have doped but it is pretty unlikely - there is no evidence. ..... Hence I tend to believe that he was probably clean.


You're right, he was the only one who was clean.  :rolleyes5: 

:17:


----------



## Digger28 (Oct 9, 2008)

ti-triodes said:


> You're right, he was the only one who was clean.  :rolleyes5:
> 
> :17:


What evidence do you have that Lemond was not clean? And what evidence do you have that EVERYONE else was doping? 
Hint: Charley Mottet was NOT doping


----------



## sevencycle (Apr 23, 2006)

Lemond Never used EPO. My guess is he doped his own blood.Look at old footage he was way more dominant than Lance ever was.Back in his day doping was much more tolerated and excepted. It was not considered cheating as it is today. In his own sick (unarguably a unhealthy mind) he feels he was clean.


----------



## Digger28 (Oct 9, 2008)

sevencycle said:


> Lemond Never used EPO. My guess is he doped his own blood.Look at old footage he was way more dominant than Lance ever was.Back in his day doping was much more tolerated and excepted. It was not considered cheating as it is today. In his own sick (unarguably a unhealthy mind) he feels he was clean.


Well you're right that he never took EPO, because it wasn't in cycling until 1991...but the rest of your post is a joke...are you actually serious? Are you just trying to wind people up with such a nonsensical post?

Lemond's winning margins for his three tours: 3m 10s, 8 secs, 2m 16m

Lance's winning margins for the 7 tours: 7m 37s, 6m 02m, 6m 44m, 7m 00, 1m 01s, 6m 19s, 4m 40s

One of Lemond's wins, was, and still is the smallest winning margin of all time...

These figures speak for themselves...so where is this old footage of Greg being more dominant than Lance? Because the maths sure as hell point to the opposite...and any footage I've seen of Greg is of him being matched for the most part on the mountains...even being left behind by Fignon in 1989...
Secondly, it is very arguable that doping was more acceptable back then than up until Operation Puerto in 2006...Look at Festina, Operation Puerto, Tyler, Floyd, Pantani, T-Mobile Systemic doping, Rasmussen etc etc, and we can see how prevalent it still was/is...There has been a change, to some extent, since 2006 alright, but Lance retired in 2005...Back in the 80s there was an Omerta, no dount about it, which was clearly still there in Lance's time, as evidenced by the bullying of Simeoni and Bassons...Also look at the way people like Jorge Jaksche have been ostracised...By the way, people think there was no tests in the 80s, or so it seems...Pedro Delgado the 1988 Tour winner tested positive for Probenacide, a masking agent, during the 1988 Tour...Sean Kelly tested positive during his career...even Merckx did...

I am looking for a crumb of evidence that (a) Lemond blood doped...and (b) why he is 'unarguably an unhealthy mind'?
The latter denotes that nobody would argue wiht you on this point!!!!!


----------



## sevencycle (Apr 23, 2006)

Tour winning margins do not show the dominance.Your figures do not speak for themselves as I said "look at the footage. Lemond did not have a full team behind him. Half is team was against him. Lance's bullying of Simeoni is any proof of anything? Lance 1999 sample is not proof but I guess its a crumb to feed your hatred. EPO wasn't in cycling until 1991, I'm sure you really know that to be a fact. Yes, doping was much more tolerated and excepted. It was not considered cheating as it is today.


----------



## Digger28 (Oct 9, 2008)

sevencycle said:


> Tour winning margins do not show the dominance.Your figures do not speak for themselves as I said "look at the footage. Lemond did not have a full team behind him. Half is team was against him. Lance's bullying of Simeoni is any proof of anything? Lance 1999 sample is not proof but I guess its a crumb to feed your hatred. EPO wasn't in cycling until 1991, I'm sure you really know that to be a fact. Yes, doping was much more tolerated and excepted. It was not considered cheating as it is today.



My God, this post is bordering on being insane...'tour winning margins do not show the dominance, but footage does'!!!! Even though this is nonsense, what footage shows this? Because I've seen the footage from every Tour since 86...and the only person who got even near the dominance which Lance exhibited, was Indurain...and even he only followed in the mountains...unlike Lance who dominated in both the moutains and time trials...
I produced facts and figures to support my argument that Lance was by far the more dominant Tour rider, you told me look at the footage!!!

Half of Lemond's team was against him? This is nonsense because Lemond had three separate teams each time he won the Tour!! La Vie Claire, ADR and the Z team...there was a dispute between Hinault and Lemond in '86, yet Hinault still paced Lemond towards the end of the moutain stages, as he knew that Lemond was a worthy champion..

Lemond won five stages in the Tour de France, Lance won 22!!!

You spoke about dopng being more accepted in Lemond's time...evidence you failed to provide...I gave an example to show this being very arguable...Lance bullied Simeoni for speaking out against doping in the sport...the Omerta was every bit as prevalent then as it was in Paul Kimmage's time, which was also Lemond's time...Why did Lance bully a rider who spoke out against doping? Oh and by the way, that day that Lance led a protest against Simeoni for speaking out, Simeoni rode back to the back of the peleton with spit rolling down his body from all the other cyclists who were annoyed that he had broken the Omerta code...so doping was more accepted back then?!!!!!!!!!
Evidence that doping was not considered cheating back then? I showed you positive tests from that time to show that it was cheating and I could also give you numerous examples of how they beat the testers in the 80s...so it was always cheating...another nonsense statement...I mean, if it wasn't cheating, why did Kimmage not cheat in the Tour de France? Why did Charley Mottet not cheat?

Yes I do know it to be a fact about EPO, because every journalist, doctor, physician, massuer, cyclist all say that the speeds which the Tour started going at in the early 90s were farcical...People like Willy Voet, Greg Lemond, Andy Hampsten, Phil Anderson, David Walsh, Pierre Ballester, Laurent Fignon, Professor Conconi was the first doctor to administer it for cycling purpose...and his files also correlate with the early 90s...Conconi was the mentor for a certain Michele Ferrari, Lance's 'advisor'...

I never brought up the EPO test of '99...I can assure you that there is a moutain of other evidence which is there for the public to see in relation to Lance doping...It's all been covered in other threads...but i imagine a confession wouldn't even suffice for you!!!!
By the way, that EPO test...Lance blamed the lab in 2005...There is a quote for the public, which Lance made in 2004, in which he praised the professionalism and integrity of that Lab!!!!!


Greg Lemond had a VO2 Max of 93, Lance had one in the early 80s (four tests actually had him in the late 70s), Lance consistently pumped out wattages which were far in excess of Greg...How is this possible? And if you find the answer, if it doesn't involve drugs, contact Chris Carmichael and tell him you'll be running him out of business, because physiologists all over the world such as Antoine Vayer and Mike Ashenden in Australia will be very delighted to find the answer...again as I say, providing that doping is not involved...

I've provided evidence to support my arguments...you said that you felt Lemond blood doped...evidence please...you said that Lemond was mentally unstable...evidence please...you said that Lemond was far more dominant than Lance...evidence please...I'm curious to know what you are basing this perceived dominance on....point me in the direction of that famous 'footage' which it seems only you has seen!!! Because I can assure you, I've seen it all...Figures don't lie.....

You been following cycling since '99, and you;ve read Lance's two books...You'll be roaring out Go Mellow Johnny and Lance you the man next Summer...and no matter what evidence is presented to you that Lance doped, and that maybe, just maybe Lemond is actually looking out for the Tayloy phinneys of this world (the next generation), you'll disregard it, because Lance is your hero...

Enjoy the fantasy


----------



## Digger28 (Oct 9, 2008)

sevencycle said:


> T Lance 1999 sample is not proof but I guess its a crumb to feed your hatred.


I am getting so sick of the Lance fans saying that we all hate him, because we think he doped...As if we all know him personally and have decided collectively to bring him down!!!!
It's such a lazy argument which fits nicely into the general hypothesis that if anyone says anything which throws doubt, then it;s a personal vendetta and they're only trying to make money!!!!
I obviously have never met him and the vast majority clearly haven't either...so personally we all could not possibly hate him in that regard...as regards cycling though, I am so angry about the effect that Lance and the other dopers have had and are having on the sport...I put Lance up there with the likes of Contador, Tyler, Floyd, Vino, Ricco, Jan, Heras, Basso etc etc...The sport is in a bad bad way in Europe...It's a sport I genuinely love and have done since '87...Why should the likes of Garmin/Chipotle suffer for the sins of others? Sponsors are deserting the sport...audience figures are way down...races are being cancelled...I want justice for the clean riders...not all riders dope...


----------



## bigpinkt (Jul 20, 2006)

sevencycle said:


> Tour winning margins do not show the dominance.Your figures do not speak for themselves as I said "look at the footage. Lemond did not have a full team behind him. Half is team was against him. Lance's bullying of Simeoni is any proof of anything? Lance 1999 sample is not proof but I guess its a crumb to feed your hatred. EPO wasn't in cycling until 1991, I'm sure you really know that to be a fact. Yes, doping was much more tolerated and excepted. It was not considered cheating as it is today.


"Half his team was against him"? 

Judging by your posts you have not followed the sport for long. In 86 there was a split in the team but in 89 and 90 they were 100% behind Greg. Can you think of a better rider to sit on the front all day and pull then Museew? His last two Tours were very close and Greg was far from dominate. Go buy the DVD

As for doping. Yes, riders doped in the 80's, but doping as we see it today in GT's did not exist. Blood Vector doping can turn a good rider into a champion (Riis, Chiapucchi) There were many riders who did not dope and could still compete and win, something that was not possible from 93-2004. 

If you are going to continue with this myth that Greg doped perhaps some evidence? Any failed tests? backdated TUE's? associations with doping doctors? admissions to teammates? Nope.


----------



## SwiftSolo (Jun 7, 2008)

It's always good to see the same people posting and changing the subject to LA. The idea of getting a life may be a good one but it is clear--that is not going to happen unless LA is put to death! Till then, every dope thread will lead to Lance! 

It would be great if he were to win again. It'll give us another 10 years of "irrefutable evidence" that Lance has paid off nearly everyone in cycling except the French tabloids and Greg -- to whom he will have secretely admitted doping.


----------



## Digger28 (Oct 9, 2008)

SwiftSolo said:


> It's always good to see the same people posting and changing the subject to LA. The idea of getting a life may be a good one but it is clear--that is not going to happen unless LA is put to death! Till then, every dope thread will lead to Lance!
> 
> It would be great if he were to win again. It'll give us another 10 years of "irrefutable evidence" that Lance has paid off nearly everyone in cycling except the French tabloids and Greg -- to whom he will have secretely admitted doping.


If you are referring to the mini thread which has formed between sevencycle and myself...you may want to check the origin of when Lance was first mentioned...by sevencycle me thinks...Untruths were sprouted about Lemond, when compared with Lance...the same type of untruths which you've proven so adept at SwiftSolo...So if someone wants to come on a doping forum, talk nonsense about Lance and Lemond, like you and one or two others (definitely the minority), it's only right that these people should be asked for evidence to support their views (when we all know that evidence to support untruths and downright lies are rather difficult to come by!!!)...again, like you, this is rarely forthcoming

Maybe you should come back on the thread when you've addressed the questions I put to you...the ones you were unable to answer...Incidentally SwiftSolo, why did you refuse to answer all thise questions I asked you? The ones where I asked you to provide some semblance of evidence to back up your points (over and over I asked, and over and over you failed to deliver)....and where are you getting the French tabloid thing from? Evidence that L'Equipe is a tabloid please!!!! But you've been told that it is a highly respected broadhsheet a number of times...but sure why believe the truth...fantasy is so much better when it comes to this stuff right?!!!!
Oh and you might want to add a number of broadsheets from a number of European countries to your list!!!


----------



## SwiftSolo (Jun 7, 2008)

Digger28 said:


> If you are referring to the mini thread which has formed between sevencycle and myself...you may want to check the origin of when Lance was first mentioned...by sevencycle me thinks...Untruths were sprouted about Lemond, when compared with Lance...the same type of untruths which you've proven so adept at SwiftSolo...So if someone wants to come on a doping forum, talk nonsense about Lance and Lemond, like you and one or two others (definitely the minority), it's only right that these people should be asked for evidence to support their views (when we all know that evidence to support untruths and downright lies are rather difficult to come by!!!)...again, like you, this is rarely forthcoming
> 
> Maybe you should come back on the thread when you've addressed the questions I put to you...the ones you were unable to answer...Incidentally SwiftSolo, why did you refuse to answer all thise questions I asked you? The ones where I asked you to provide some semblance of evidence to back up your points (over and over I asked, and over and over you failed to deliver)....and where are you getting the French tabloid thing from? Evidence that L'Equipe is a tabloid please!!!! But you've been told that it is a highly respected broadhsheet a number of times...but sure why believe the truth...fantasy is so much better when it comes to this stuff right?!!!!
> Oh and you might want to add a number of broadsheets from a number of European countries to your list!!!


Let's see mate,
I'm supposed to provide evidence that LA never used PEDs, that the size of L'Equipe's pages are not "about 14 inches by 12 inches wide" (tabloid definition) and answers to what other logically challenged questions?

Perhaps you could start by proving that Mother Teresa never used PEDs (I think she did). Once you've completed that assignment, pick up a sample of LA's blood from 1999 and let's have it tested. That should be fairly easy in view of the people who, by your account, have apparently already done so ( they were willing to give those samples to tabloids, so they should give them to you).

Thanks in advance for your help in settling these questions. I know that I'll be spending some sleepless nights waiting.


----------



## bigpinkt (Jul 20, 2006)

SwiftSolo said:


> Let's see mate,
> I'm supposed to provide evidence that LA never used PEDs, that the size of L'Equipe's pages are not "about 14 inches by 12 inches wide" (tabloid definition) and answers to what other logically challenged questions?
> 
> Perhaps you could start by proving that Mother Teresa never used PEDs (I think she did). Once you've completed that assignment, pick up a sample of LA's blood from 1999 and let's have it tested. That should be fairly easy in view of the people who, by your account, have apparently already done so ( they were willing to give those samples to tabloids, so they should give them to you).
> ...


Dude, you are embarrassing yourself.


----------



## Digger28 (Oct 9, 2008)

SwiftSolo said:


> Let's see mate,
> I'm supposed to provide evidence that LA never used PEDs, that the size of L'Equipe's pages are not "about 14 inches by 12 inches wide" (tabloid definition) and answers to what other logically challenged questions?
> 
> Perhaps you could start by proving that Mother Teresa never used PEDs (I think she did). Once you've completed that assignment, pick up a sample of LA's blood from 1999 and let's have it tested. That should be fairly easy in view of the people who, by your account, have apparently already done so ( they were willing to give those samples to tabloids, so they should give them to you).
> ...


More nonsense...you're consistent there anyway...look at the long list of questions from last weekend...these questions above weren't the questions and you know it full well...have you ever read L'Equipe?...I dare you to go to France and call it a tabloid!!!! We know what a tabloid is...but what basis again is L'Equipe (and specifically L'Equipe) a tabloid?...you say 'am I supposed to prove the pages are not about 14in by 12in?' When you tell blatant lies about a newspaper, simply because Lanec called it one, yes you do have to provide evidence...Examples of stories from that newspaper which are factually inaccurate...what part of that story do you find factually inaccurate...bearing in mind that Lance never questioned it's veracity in a court of law...he did not seek an apology, eventhough it is far far the most damaging to his reputation...That's that...The lab gave details of positives but did NOT give the names of the people...they were identified by numbers...A certain Mr. Lance Armstrong gave permission to give the numbers, which corresponded to his name, to that journalist (the irony of Lance helping in beautiful don't you think!!!!), as he did not realise that they were being retested...In fact his manager Johan Bruyneel was totally against the idea of handing those codes out...Another reason why he wouldn't sue perhaps...

SwiftSolo...you whole modus operandi is to criticise the messengers on a personal viewpoint...we all hate him pathologically, we are all conspiracy theorists, we all need to get a life...etc etc...however you rarely if ever address the points we raise, provide evidence to support your views or supply evidence to show us how wrong we are...you really are sinking lower and lower in your need to show that your hero is clean...Your post, just above, is like that which a ten year old would write...honestly...

And if the likes of you are Lance supporters, then I'm delighted!!! Serious lack of knowledge of the sport, untruths, ignorant posts, insults to distract from your lack of knowledge....you're on the right side that's for sure...Please stay there and stay believing in Lance!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## MG537 (Jul 25, 2006)

Allow me to add one more point Digger.

If LA had decided to ride off into the sunset and stay there for good back in 2005, then very few people would've been "obsessed" by him today. Just like very few people, at least this side of the pond, are talking about Miguel Indurain's exploits nowadays.
But Lance decided to come back out of retirement and hook up with his old buddy Johann again. Furthermore he's doing it in a totally "transparent" way according to his marketeers. The problem is when the very few people that do actually question him on his new found "transparency" he then goes off in the direction of "cancer awareness". To many of us this is the same old Lance coming back.
If he really wants to be, as he puts it "transparent" and really wants to prove that he rode and won all those tours "clean", he should really put his money where his mouth is and authorize all samples from 2000 to 2005 to be retested and matched with the numbers stored in Switzerland. Like he "accidentally" did for his 1999 samples.
But that's not likely to happen now, is it?
For the Lance fans it's because "French" labs and tabloids can not be trusted.
For the rest of us, we pretty much know the story.


----------



## Digger28 (Oct 9, 2008)

MG537 said:


> Allow me to add one more point Digger.
> 
> If LA had decided to ride off into the sunset and stay there for good back in 2005, then very few people would've been "obsessed" by him today. Just like very few people, at least this side of the pond, are talking about Miguel Indurain's exploits nowadays.
> But Lance decided to come back out of retirement and hook up with his old buddy Johann again. Furthermore he's doing it in a totally "transparent" way according to his marketeers. The problem is when the very few people that do actually question him on his new found "transparency" he then goes off in the direction of "cancer awareness". To many of us this is the same old Lance coming back.
> ...


You're absolutey correct...Johnathon Vaughters in this month's edition of CycleSport makes a great point...Lance speaks of his comeback having transparency...fair enough...well how;s this for transparency by Garmin/Chipotle this year...Kimmage contacted Vaughters a number of weeks before the Tour, and said straight out that I think you're full of sh**, but I would like to follow the team around for the duration of the Tour...But I want FULL access at ALL times, and I'll sleep in a camper van out the front of the hotel...Vaughters agreed, because of the transparency issue...now anyone who has read Kimmage's articles during the Tour can see the effect it had on him...he went from being deeply cycnical to actually trusting VAughters and his team...and considering Millar was in the team, this was quite something...Vaughters said that he still finds some parts of Kimmage's articles to be harsh, but that he wouldn't have it any other way, due to the his desire to keep transparency, and for the public to be able to see this is a clean team...Vaughters asks out loud, Will David Walsh, Damien Rissot or Paul Kimmage be given this access to Lance and Astana? Well let's see...at the end of the 2005 Tour, it was apparently easier to list the journalists NOT blacklisted by Lance because they asked the doping questions...photographs of the journalists in question were taken, so as not to allow them into press conferences...Cycle Sport magazine hasn't been given direct access to Lance for a number of years, since 2002....
So on we go...Cycle Sport sent off an email shortly after the announcement of the comeback in Vanity Fair magazine...Last winter, they were give access to Garmin.Chipotle for a week during a training camp...they were allowed EVERYWHERE they wanted to go, at ALL times...Transparency...Cycle Sport has still not received a reply which would allow them permission to do this...
Greg Lemond asks questions two weeks ago at the press conference, which Don Catlin attended, questions which were very reasonable, intelligent and well thouhgt out...if there was full transparency, Lance would not have grabbed the microphone from Catlin and said this is about raising global awareness for cancer!!!! Why would Lance not allow Catlin answer?
Kimmage hit the nail on the head though as he always does, 'a pig with lipstick is still a pig'!!!

So what kind of tranparency is it where you pick and choose journalists to this extent? A transparency where each interview given, even to the choose few, has to be given the final ok by Lance and Bruyneel, before publication...it rings a bell...it's called Propaganda...

and if you've nothing to hide, why the secrecy?


----------



## sevencycle (Apr 23, 2006)

Vaughters used Kimmage as a marketing tool for his team. Lance does not need Kimmage and his "van down by the river" following and getting in the way.Lance is big time and Vaughters is working his way up.Come on take things into perspective.Love the Sport dont *Hate*.


----------



## bigpinkt (Jul 20, 2006)

sevencycle said:


> Vaughters used Kimmage as a marketing tool for his team. Lance does not need Kimmage and his "van down by the river" following and getting in the way.Lance is big time and Vaughters is working his way up.Come on take things into perspective.Love the Sport dont *Hate*.


You write a post denigrating Vaughters and Kimmage and you say "Don't hate"?

It is always comical to see members of the Lance cult try to claim the moral high ground by calling people haters. The list of people they hate grows daily...Lemond, Kimmage, Frankie, Betsy, Emma, Sephen, Wittle, Matt, Walsh, Balester, Rissott,....it is endless. 

The idea that Lance is above question is absurd. Those of us who love the sport prefer to work to improve it, rather then ignore it's issues, intimidate those that try to improve it, and ask people to believe in miracles.


----------



## Digger28 (Oct 9, 2008)

sevencycle said:


> Vaughters used Kimmage as a marketing tool for his team. Lance does not need Kimmage and his "van down by the river" following and getting in the way.Lance is big time and Vaughters is working his way up.Come on take things into perspective.Love the Sport dont *Hate*.


Ah but I do love the sport...why do you think I'm bothering posting on this forum and engaging with other people who love the sport...I hate the effect the dopers are having on the sport...it's not exclusive to Lance I can assure you...eventhough this theory would suit the Lance fans down to the ground...

Lance is big time!!!! I think you're missing the point here...Vaughters even acknowledged, and I can verify, because I read the articles in question, that the articles were far from glowing in places...how is a team, being painted in a negative light, a marketing tool?!!!! If he wanted a markteing tool, he would in no way give that kind of access...he would be selective about the access given...

Secondly, the point Vaughters is making is that Lance talks about transparency with the press...this means access and not the prison like secrecy of USP and Disco...Incidentally, you never addressed the fact that Lance won;t talk to journalists, who he has blacklisted due to doping questions being asked...anyway, if Lance is being transparent, why is he so selective? Why won;t he talk to so many journalists? How is this transparency? Lance can;t come out boasting of this new transparency he is willing to give, and then be the usual, secretive, barricaded team....And Lance is undoubtedly a big name, you're right there...but there is also an incredible amount of suspicion surrounding his teams in the past and Astanan in the present I may add...not helped by amongst other things the dumping of Activogen at a roadside dumpster (amongst SO MUCH other things)...with this kind of suspicion seriously damaging his name, something which is obviously part of his comeback, what better way to help dispel the doubts if you've nothing to hide???? Also, if indeed he is genuine about his'global cancer awareness campaign', surely all this kind of openness and transparency to the press can only be good!!!!!!!!!!!

Or maybe, just maybe, the 'Global Cancer Campaign' is a load of bullsh**!!!!


----------



## grrrah (Jul 22, 2005)

bigpinkt said:


> The idea that Lance is above question is absurd. Those of us who love the sport prefer to work to improve it, rather then ignore it's issues, intimidate those that try to improve it, and ask people to believe in miracles.


By your posts, all you want is the ability to say "I told you so". Proving LA was a doper among dopers will get you that, but we would respond "And what?". You want to bring the sport 2 steps back just to say I told you so. Maybe LA did dope, and morally its probably wrong for him to continue to say he never did, but so it is for 99% of riders that raced in the 90's. I am willing to give every doper from the 90's the pass to move on clean as I have for LA. It was a tainted SPORT that practically encouraged doping. For people that continue to dope now, I have different feelings for, especially since some teams are making genuine efforts to clean up the sport and be transparent.

You guys really think that by LA being exposed for stuff he may have done back then is the way to move the sport forward? Maybe it would to the casual fan, but most fans that pay attention can live with the fact that he doped, and beat an entire sport that doped. If he were the only doper in the 90s, then I would agree with you.

Ive mentioned previously, I am a fan of LA because of what he has done for cancer and how he has affected the non-cyclists. His 7 wins were fun to watch, but not why I am a fan. You guys keep saying that he is hiding behind his Livestrong efforts. Well, if so, then he is hiding the dirty laundry of the whole sport, not just his own. And in turn, he has given a benefit that is greater than any other athelete in any other sport in our generation.


----------



## SwiftSolo (Jun 7, 2008)

You boys just keep feeding one another that pablum. These points have all been answered a hundred times before.

Poor security and mishandling of samples, plus a number of other problems were brought to light during the Landis hearings. Beyond that, negative test results would only generate an entire new set of conspiracy theories by members of your ilk. There is no way that the lack of evidence could change your....a...minds. With nothing to gain and eveything to lose, he'd have to be an idiot to agree.

I kind of miss the good old days when you boys were focused on Bush blowing up the twin towers. I'll bet if you'd call Greg, he'd tell you that Bush confessed in a private converstaion.


----------



## Digger28 (Oct 9, 2008)

SwiftSolo said:


> You boys just keep feeding one another that pablum. These points have all been answered a hundred times before.
> 
> Poor security and mishandling of samples, plus a number of other problems were brought to light during the Landis hearings. Beyond that, negative test results would only generate an entire new set of conspiracy theories by members of your ilk. There is no way that the lack of evidence could change your....a...minds. With nothing to gain and eveything to lose, he'd have to be an idiot to agree.
> 
> I kind of miss the good old days when you boys were focused on Bush blowing up the twin towers. I'll bet if you'd call Greg, he'd tell you that Bush confessed in a private converstaion.



Did you or did you not say that Landis was guilty last week?

Also, a certain Mr Lance Armstrong is quoted in 2004 as praising the integrity and professionalism of that particular lab...2005 it's the epitome of the opposite in his eyes...and in Floyd's eyes...So what exactly were the other troubles which Landis experienced with that Lab? A lab which THREE sporting bodies (including American ones) felt had acted appropriately.......
So let's keep on Floyd, do you believe he didn;t dope?
Or was that another pointless post? Oh and in relation to all of us 'hating' Lance et al, is that not hypocritical, considering the things you personally have said about Greg? In fact, you talk about our obsession wiht Lance, you may want to look at the amount of times you mention Greg in a critical way...did he hurt your feelings when he spoke the truth about your hero?!!! And how many times exactly did Greg claim a cyclist confessed?!!! More exaggeration and nonsense...more untruths...different day, same bullsh** from you SwiftSolo.,...as I say, get reading and get some knowledge...you're making a joke out of this...yet another 9/11 mention!!!!! Cone back to me when you have some evidence to back up your points...the inaccuracies I asked you for, just today, in the L'Equipe story being one....


----------



## MG537 (Jul 25, 2006)

SwiftSolo said:


> You boys just keep feeding one another that pablum. These points have all been answered a hundred times before.
> 
> Poor security and mishandling of samples, plus a number of other problems were brought to light during the Landis hearings. Beyond that, negative test results would only generate an entire new set of conspiracy theories by members of your ilk. There is no way that the lack of evidence could change your....a...minds. With nothing to gain and eveything to lose, he'd have to be an idiot to agree.
> 
> I kind of miss the good old days when you boys were focused on Bush blowing up the twin towers. I'll bet if you'd call Greg, he'd tell you that Bush confessed in a private converstaion.


I will not comment on the Landis case since as you so eloquently put it, it's been discussed hundreds of times. So if you want to believe that the French lab technicians are a bunch of "incompetent moreons" then keep on believing that. Just please try to bring some evidence when trying to convince us. For example: The exogenous testosterone test that the LNDD performed can not be used because of so and so reasons mentioned in this article http://www.myfavoritedopinglink.com.

As far as myself or Digger or anyone else challenging your reasoning goes, why do you try to put us in the same basket as "Bush blew up the twin towers" crowd? Dou you have any evidence of that? Please show us a link from the RBR "Politics Only" forum where we bring forward such opinion. I especially love the part where Greg would confirm the above mentioned theory. Are you claiming to have read Greg Lemond's mind. Or is this some "feeble" attempt to discredit us?


----------



## Digger28 (Oct 9, 2008)

sevencycle said:


> Vaughters used Kimmage as a marketing tool for his team. Lance does not need Kimmage and his "van down by the river" following and getting in the way.Lance is big time and Vaughters is working his way up.Come on take things into perspective.Love the Sport dont *Hate*.



This is a furtherance of the point made my bigpinkt...he hits the nail on the head...and it's to sevencycle and Siftsolo in particular...People such as myself who believe Lance doped get labelled 'Lance haters' and hating him 'pathologically'...very convenient argument, very lazy also...
Last week a Lance supporter called Lemond 'a piece of crap with 3 tarnished yellow jerseys and I am 50+.' 
This person was asked why he tarnished the jerseys..

The reply: He tarnished his Hero status by being a shitty father and a drunk and making his family pay for his deflated ego 
Another person said that they lost all respect for Lemond when he testified against Floyd...for telling the truth that person lost respect for Lemond...

Not once, have I, or the other guys on here, to the best of my knowledge, made a personal attack on Lance...i.e. around his family etc...whereas it's a continuous process with the Lance supporters against Vaughters, Andreus, Emma O'Reilly, etc etc...

Now, this to me is rather hypocritical don't the Lance supporters think?


----------



## Digger28 (Oct 9, 2008)

grrrah said:


> By your posts, all you want is the ability to say "I told you so". Proving LA was a doper among dopers will get you that, but we would respond "And what?". You want to bring the sport 2 steps back just to say I told you so. Maybe LA did dope, and morally its probably wrong for him to continue to say he never did, but so it is for 99% of riders that raced in the 90's. I am willing to give every doper from the 90's the pass to move on clean as I have for LA. It was a tainted SPORT that practically encouraged doping. For people that continue to dope now, I have different feelings for, especially since some teams are making genuine efforts to clean up the sport and be transparent.
> 
> You guys really think that by LA being exposed for stuff he may have done back then is the way to move the sport forward? Maybe it would to the casual fan, but most fans that pay attention can live with the fact that he doped, and beat an entire sport that doped. If he were the only doper in the 90s, then I would agree with you.
> 
> Ive mentioned previously, I am a fan of LA because of what he has done for cancer and how he has affected the non-cyclists. His 7 wins were fun to watch, but not why I am a fan. You guys keep saying that he is hiding behind his Livestrong efforts. Well, if so, then he is hiding the dirty laundry of the whole sport, not just his own. And in turn, he has given a benefit that is greater than any other athelete in any other sport in our generation.


Grrrah, I didn't agree last week with the stuff you said, but on balance I found you to be reasonable enough...but this post is really bereft of logic....
You have NO evidence to say that the percentage which doped in the 90s was that high...even the most cynical, for want of a better word, don't put the figures that high...
The French, after 1998, were extremely clean, due to the system of testing in France after the Festina affair...they also made it a criminal offense...so that period correlates with Lance...Now even if we accept that every other nation;s riders were dirty, which is a rediculous assumption, the clean riders were done an injustice by the dopers...How can you give people from that 90s/00s an amnesty? How is this fair to the clean riders?
I mean there is just so much wrong with your argument...I hardly know where to start..so if ANYTHING is in the past, we should just let it slide?
Frank Schleck is in trouble for a payment to a doctor in 2006...do you think he should be let go free because it's in the past?
It was a tainted sport, but some riders rode clean and those riders deserve justice...they were done out of money, glory, recognition etc by dopers...not just Lance I may add...I am NOT saying Lance was the only doper...so don;t throw that at me...but for the clean riders like Bassons, who left the sport due to dopers, do you not think he deserves justice? David Moncoutie, Phillip Gilbert, Thor Hushovd, Jimmy Casper were all clean riders at this time....
I said to you already, if we apply this reasoning in a court of law, there would be mayhem!!! We need to be answerable for our actions...and surely the fact that he is returning is another reason why he should come under scrutiny again....if we presuupose that EVERYONE doped when he won, bullsh**, but anyway, how are you so confident he has changed his ways?
He won in 2005, that's only three years ago man...Jan Ullrich retired from the sport due to an impending ban...why should he suffer, and Lance gets a free pass...it's rediculous

You admit it was 'fun' to watch...what do you think it was like for the likes of me to watch dopers such as Vino, Lance, Floyd, Tyler, Jan etc etc doing this to a sport we love? Again, what's fun about wtching a clean rider not being able to keep up with the doped riders...I'm glad it was fun...but doping is doping...it's a f***ing travesty and is destroying sport....And we're expected to welcome him back next Summer?...:mad2: 
How can you be so confident that Lance, Astana and Bruyneel won't dope next Summer?

Also, he absolutely does hide behind the cancer thing...cycling and cancer are separate issues here...if you want to praise him for his work in cancer fair enough...but the two are mutually exclusive...they shouldn't cloud our views of him as a cyclist...again this is just wrong...we, the people who believe he doped, get thrown this line 'oh, but look at the work he does in cancer etc?' what does cancer have to do with riding a mountain or doping?
Sorry to over simplify, but it needs to be said...as I say, you want to praise his cancer efforts, go on a website which deals with such things...I am not being disrespectful towards this cancer thing...It's an awful disease, and it has affected us all one way or another...sorry to those it has deeply affected...but I honestly believe it shoud be kept out of this debate....

And to give you an example of how he does use the cancer card...he is racing the Tour Down Under, the Giro, The Tour of California and maybe the Tour de France...would it not be more beneficial to race in the Tour of Burkina Faso or the Tour of the Philippines? Why race in American, Australia, Italy and France, such highly developed countries, when the latter two would benefit far more greatly?
Because it's propaganda and a smokescreen...he;s worried about his legacy and his reputation, because there is NO DOUBT his reputation has taken a fair battering since 2005...


----------



## sevencycle (Apr 23, 2006)

such highly developed countries have more money to spend on research....DUH


----------



## grrrah (Jul 22, 2005)

Digger28 said:


> snip...Jan Ullrich retired from the sport due to an impending ban...why should he suffer, and Lance gets a free pass...it's rediculous
> ..snip


alright, fine then, I take back my "99%" figure, and lets say somewhere between 50-90%.

As for Ullrich, I agree that he shouldn't have to suffer while many other dopers get off scotch free. Neither should Lance. And can you bet 100% sure the guys you mentioned were 100% clean?

I know its not a perfect world, and this would never happen, but in my opinion, draw a line/ point in time which the teams make a concerned effort to clean up the sport, say with the contract signings each rider had to do a couple years ago, to ride clean. Anyone busted after that date should be banned for as long as you want. Anyone caught transferring money before that time should get a slap on the wrist and subject to much more testing at any time.

As I said in another thread, yes, I welcome him back, and if he tries to dope again, then hang him high. I am not confident he has changed his ways, but I am willing to give him and anyone else from the 90's a chance to race clean from here forward. The answer about schleck is where you want to draw the line. 

I know I am in a fantasy world, and you are not and want 100% exposure of everything in the past. 

As for where he races, come on. common sense.


----------



## bigpinkt (Jul 20, 2006)

SwiftSolo said:


> You boys just keep feeding one another that pablum. These points have all been answered a hundred times before.
> 
> Poor security and mishandling of samples, plus a number of other problems were brought to light during the Landis hearings. Beyond that, negative test results would only generate an entire new set of conspiracy theories by members of your ilk. There is no way that the lack of evidence could change your....a...minds. With nothing to gain and eveything to lose, he'd have to be an idiot to agree.
> 
> I kind of miss the good old days when you boys were focused on Bush blowing up the twin towers. I'll bet if you'd call Greg, he'd tell you that Bush confessed in a private converstaion.


Read the CAS decision and you might realize that the Landis invention of the "mishandled " defense had no basis in reality. 

The conspiracy myths have come from Lance, Landis, and Tyler....they rest of us believe the obvious, that they doped. No need to invent unbelievable myths to sucker people out of their donations.


----------



## Digger28 (Oct 9, 2008)

grrrah said:


> alright, fine then, I take back my "99%" figure, and lets say somewhere between 50-90%.
> 
> As for Ullrich, I agree that he shouldn't have to suffer while many other dopers get off scotch free. Neither should Lance. And can you bet 100% sure the guys you mentioned were 100% clean?
> 
> ...


Oh the contract singings a couple of years ago?!!!! How convenient...you keep talking of an amnesty in the 90s, he raced in the 00s, until 2005, except for one year...and before you say it, I mean he won the Tour from 99 to 05...although maybe in your own mind, putting in the 90s makes your argument sound better...
Surely you can see the abuse whcih would take place...the lawyers would keep dragging the procedure out...and then bang, it's too late!!!!

You;re not even confident he's changed his ways....this says it all!!!! Thank you!!!

Oh and the common sense...is the cancer campiagn genuine or not? If so, there is much more to be gained in developing countries where the problem is even more of a issue...Lance already has plenty exposure in the countries he plans to race...basically he was going to ride those races anyway and the cancer issue had little if anything to do with his choices...If his motives were pure, could he not ride in even the Tour of Malysia? And this is a well recognised tour...Look most of us know the real reasons...enough said


----------



## Digger28 (Oct 9, 2008)

sevencycle said:


> such highly developed countries have more money to spend on research....DUH



You've just reinforced my original point!!!!!!!!!!! Thank you though...I thought you were a Lance fan...
Yes indeed they do have more money to spend on research...so why go there and not go to countries which need campaigning and funding even more?...Tour of Malaysia would be a good race, pretty high quality field....Huge target audience...as I said already, the answer is that it is a smokescreen....
Oh and I forgot to add yesterday in my post about the hypocrisy of Lance fans calling us haters...I gave a couple of examples...how could I leave out your most recent comments about, yet again, Greg Lemond: 'he is unarguably mentally unstable!!!!!' Duh!!!!

Me thinks you don;t like Greg...what with these personal attacks on his character...not on what he actually says...which to be fair to you is common amongst the lance fans...attack the character of the messenger, and take the focus from the message, which should be the focal point obviously...

EVERYONE is labelled a liar with a vendetta...that's a given!!!! (usually no resaon for the vendetta is given) but on we go.....
We've had the Andreus labelled as being money grabbers (would like to see where they made the money, but sure anyway)....Emmas O'Reilly was labelled a sl**...David Walsh, Paul Kimmage, Pierre Ballester...they were labelled bitter, losers, jealous (a usual one for all) 
Lemond has been labelled everything you could or could not imagine...jealous that Lance is now the most well known American cyclist being one of the most pleasant...Money grabbers is another common one for all...Tabloid thrash is the umbrella term for any newspaper which raises doping questions in relation to Lance...Conspiracy theorists (9/11 references are common here) and haters to label the likes of me, who believe he doped..The French are jealous he won, which is why they're out to get him...The lab is in a conspiracy with L'Equipe because they want a French winner....There is huge Anti-American sentiment due to Iraq!!!!!


----------



## grrrah (Jul 22, 2005)

fine again, 80's, 90's, first half of the 00's. Before you say EPO started in '91, there is more to doping than just EPO. You like taking my generalizations, and picking them apart as if I am being very detailed. I'm not even trying to argue with you. Ive said in the past, these are my views, you have yours, which are fine and probably true, but belaboring and IMO wouldn't be productive. 

Yes, I know lawyers and other abuses would make it nearly impossible, thats why I said it was a fantasy, but I'd rather they work in that direction than just trying to prove the past dirt on a select few riders and let most of the peleton get off free. Even if they are the 1 or 2 with the most exposure. 

About me being confident LA will be clean next year, I'm not confident 100%, but I would think he would be a fool to come back doped up, and as I said many times, I give him and anyone the benefit of the doubt moving forward. To twist my words to make me say I think he will come back doped is, well, what youve been doing with all your arguments using our quotes.

Regarding racing in 3rd world countries, you really are belaboring that point without using your common sense. The stage, the competition, the fund raising, etc... The Giro will reach more tvs around the world than the tour of malaysia. Like I said, common sense. You don't have to stretch it to win an argument that you are having on your own. You have a decent gripe against LA, but your constant gripes against his cancer efforts are getting lame, and have been tiring.

Also, cancer isn't necessarily worse in third world countries. I'm not the medical expert, but it doesn't spread due to ignorance such as other diseases like HIV. It picks its victims a bit more randomly and doesn't discriminate. Early detection is an issue, and maybe he should do more to spread the word about checkups, but his foundation is based on fundraising for research and support for victims. Maybe GL or someone else should help and start working on the early detection front.


----------



## Digger28 (Oct 9, 2008)

grrrah said:


> fine again, 80's, 90's, first half of the 00's. Before you say EPO started in '91, there is more to doping than just EPO. You like taking my generalizations, and picking them apart as if I am being very detailed. I'm not even trying to argue with you. Ive said in the past, these are my views, you have yours, which are fine and probably true, but belaboring and IMO wouldn't be productive.
> 
> Yes, I know lawyers and other abuses would make it nearly impossible, thats why I said it was a fantasy, but I'd rather they work in that direction than just trying to prove the past dirt on a select few riders and let most of the peleton get off free. Even if they are the 1 or 2 with the most exposure.
> 
> ...


I'll start at your first point here because your post is farcical, yet again...
Yes there is alot more to doping than EPO...But it was possible to compete against doped athletes until the advent of EPO...EPO made top class athletes out of very average cyclists...Marco Pantani being one...so it was not possible to beat an athlete on EPO and blood doping in a three week Grand Tour..

Next, I want a clean sport...you want a hero, his reputation to remain intact, and in my opinion you're not a true cycling fan...you;re making up guidelines as you go along and some of them are nonsensical...

Next, I've twisted other people's words apparently...In fact I've even used direct quotes ffs....most of these quotes I've used were a disgrace to this forum, for the way they ripped into Greg Lemond for example...

I never ONCE said that you said he'll come back doped...I said the fact that you;re not 100% confident says alot...get your facts straight....

You give him and anyone the benefit of the doubt going forward...how long have you followed the sport? If you'd seen what the most of us have seen as regards doping, you wouldn't be as likely to give a person, with this much incriminating evidence against them, the benefit of the doubt...the sport is getting cleaner, but blood doping is the method of the resourceful and is well nigh impossible to detect...as of yet...

By the way, the cancer view which I take is certainly not one I'm taking on my own..an awful lot of people are of that view..don;t believe me, look for yourself, in this forum and elsewhere ....if you read these forums you;d see that point...also, far more prominent people, like journalists (Paul Kimmage only being one...a man with an incredible knowledge of doping, cycling and it's main protagonists) and others in the sport are also of this view as regards the cancer...my gripes are getting lame? Well I'm hardly on my own, or amongst anyone else who has not been blinded to such an extent like so many of the Lance fans...

I say again, the cancer issue does not have a role to play amongst Lance supporters in a cycling forum...And before you say it, you said it yourself yesterday that one of the reasons you like him is the cancer issue...it is clouding people's judgements...

The Giro will reach more tvs than the Tour of Malaysia!?!!!!! You may want to check that out...a few countries around and including that country may have another opinion...

You telling me how cancer spreads?!!! How bloody patronising...How dare you...Of course cancer is not necessarily worse in these countries......but the degree of education in these countries is far less than in Italy...and these countries would benefit more than a country like Italy, which already has a very good health system....it's like preaching to the converted....do cancer victims in these countries not need 'support' as you say!!! His racing programme shows no big difference in terms of countries visited than before his 'Global Cancer Awareness'!!!!
And you telling me to use my common sense on the cancer issue..again don't patronise....Basically using common sense, in your eyes, involves turning a blind eye, regardless of his past wrongs...
Your amnesty is a farce..and is completely lacking in objectivity...I cannot fathom how a real cycling fan would come out with such tripe...it was farcical last week and still is this week...you even admit that he probably doped...he's a doper and he should be banned...no ifs buts or maybes...him and his teams have done the sport incredible damage...when Lance is gone, you and your ilk will quickly lose interest...and the rest of the real fans will be left with the consequences...

Another Greg Lemond comment with negative connotations thrown in there...Got a problem with him because he challenges your hero...Just like David Walsh and the rest...God at least you're consistent.....

I do not want anything more to do with your posts...I can't be dealing with someone who is so bereft of knowledge of the sport, outside of Lance, and lacking in any kind of fairness or justice for clean riders.......


----------



## sevencycle (Apr 23, 2006)

Digger28 does not ride a bike.He did stay at a Holiday Inn once. Now its back to moms basement for him.


----------



## Digger28 (Oct 9, 2008)

sevencycle said:


> Digger28 does not ride a bike.He did stay at a Holiday Inn once. Now its back to moms basement for him.


I mean, that's not even funny!!!!
Ah the maturity...you gotta love it...and there was me talking about doping in cycling...any more insults for me, to distract from your lack of education, or knowledge of cycling? Or any other comments about Greg?

You can't refute the points I make...so you go for the personal insults!!!! Different day, same sh** from you...Consistency...


----------



## grrrah (Jul 22, 2005)

Digger28 said:


> blah blah blah.


I stand by my opinion of your arguments that I have addressed. If you want to think I am patronizing you, then go ahead, but its your lame arguments bringing it on. How much of your factual arguements about LA doping have I patronized you on? Its only when you constantly call his Livestrong efforts a smokescreen, farce, fraud, a load of bullsh**!!!! that will lead me to patronize you. and IMO, rightfully so. You are the one tying them together, then telling us go to a Cancer board to argue it.. whatver.

Look into the mirror before you accuse people of patronizing. At least I can admit to it.

If you think LA is my hero, which you constantly arguing, then you really haven't understood my points and you have a skewed opinion of me. I don't really care that he won 7 tours, or that he is coming back or how well he does. My opinions for him coming back would be the same for anyone else that wasn't busted by the previous doping standards. I do have a great appreciation for what he has done with Livestrong. 

I'm making up guidelines as the sport goes forward. You are making up guidelines about races in the past. That really is my only point. You even said Ulrich shouldn't be hung out to dry while others are getting off free. Many riders passed the tests in the past (as lame or weak as they were), so set up stricter ones moving forward.


----------



## bigpinkt (Jul 20, 2006)

sevencycle said:


> Digger28 does not ride a bike.He did stay at a Holiday Inn once. Now its back to moms basement for him.


If you are unable to intelligently debate the topic resorting to insults only weakens your point.....if you have one.


----------



## ToF (Jan 18, 2008)

sevencycle said:


> Digger28 does not ride a bike.He did stay at a Holiday Inn once. Now its back to moms basement for him.



An _*ad hominem*_ argument, also known as _*argumentum ad hominem*_ (Latin: "argument to the man", "argument against the man") consists of replying to an argument or factual claim by attacking or appealing to a characteristic or belief of the person making the argument or claim, rather than by addressing the substance of the argument or producing evidence against the claim. The process of proving or disproving the claim is thereby subverted, and the _argumentum ad hominem_ works to change the subject.
It is most commonly used to refer specifically to the _ad hominem as abusive, sexist, racist_, or _argumentum ad personam_, which consists of criticizing or *attacking the person* who proposed the argument (*personal attack*) in an attempt to discredit the argument. It is also used when an opponent is unable to find fault with an argument, yet for various reasons, the opponent disagrees with it.


----------



## bigpinkt (Jul 20, 2006)

Back to the topic. Here is an quote from Vaughters

"Initially, when Allan [Lim] and I were talking about getting the ACE thing together, we didn't actually say that you can correlate changes in red blood cell mass with changes in power output, and if you see an increase in power output that correlates with an increase in red blood cell mass, then that's really suspicious."

something that Catlin could utilize.


----------



## sevencycle (Apr 23, 2006)

Digger28 said:


> I mean, that's not even funny!!!!
> Ah the maturity...you gotta love it...and there was me talking about doping in cycling...any more insults for me, to distract from your lack of education, or knowledge of cycling? Or any other comments about Greg?
> 
> You can't refute the points I make...so you go for the personal insults!!!! Different day, same sh** from you...Consistency...


I.E. I dont ride.


----------



## serbski (Dec 2, 2002)

sevencycle said:


> I.E. I dont ride.



How does this relate to Lemond's testing ideas? I guess we could just delve into some Don Rickles-styled commentary... Here's a bit off topic nonsense - Sevencycle, how did you manage to get the bars seemingly higher than the saddle on that 12lb Scott of yours? Honestly, by the size of the headtube that is a small(est?) frame. That must make you a bit of a diminutive fellow. OK, so does that add to this intelligent debate? Honestly, let's stay on topic and lose the insults... (I'm actually a bit shocked that I posted this but you really seem a nasty bit of work) I apologize to anyone on the shorter side who might be offended by this (except ol' Sevencycle)


----------



## sevencycle (Apr 23, 2006)

Yep I am a diminutive fellow. XS Scott CR1.What am I doing, bike racing is a big guys sport.


----------



## Digger28 (Oct 9, 2008)

sevencycle said:


> I.E. I dont ride.


This is actually quite sad...obviously with this kind of reply/nonsene, you;re pretty lost in this forum...you have no knowledge of the sport...none whatsoever, outside of a very very limited amount on Lance...What are you hoping to achieve with this kind of post? And it's hardly the first time with you either...Grow up man, do a bit of reading, listen to interviews...get some background knowledge....otherwise, you;re making a fool out of yourself...I genuinely can't believe you;re an adult and that you expect to be treates seriously on here........


----------

