# David Walsh: Contador Is A Cheat!



## Hairnet (Dec 17, 2006)

Don't shoot the messenger:

http://www.macleans.ca/canada/features/article.jsp?content=20070727_150415_8508


----------



## MB1 (Jan 27, 2004)

Yes but David Walsh thinks everyone is a cheat and makes his living by calling tour winners cheats and then selling books with the "expose details."


----------



## MikeBiker (Mar 9, 2003)

They should then use radar guns to measure the riders speeds. Anyone who goes faster than Walsh likes will then immediately be banned for doping.


----------



## Hairnet (Dec 17, 2006)

MB1 said:


> Yes but David Walsh thinks everyone is a cheat and makes his living by *calling tour winners cheats *and then selling books with the "expose details."


To be fair to Walsh on that point, the only Tour winners not implicated in a doping scandal have been LeMond and Van Impe.

btw - Basso was initially cleared in Operación Puerto, just like Contador.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astana-Würth_Team

http://www.velonews.com/tour2007/news/articles/12964.0.html


----------



## asgelle (Apr 21, 2003)

Hairnet said:


> To be fair to Walsh on that point, the only Tour winners not implicated in a doping scandal have been LeMond and Van Impe.


But using Walsh's logic, doesn't the fact that LeMond holds the record for the fastest tour time trial, faster than all those riders Walsh believes are or were doping, prove that LeMond must have been doping too?


----------



## bsdc (Feb 15, 2002)

MikeBiker said:


> They should then use radar guns to measure the riders speeds. Anyone who goes faster than Walsh likes will then immediately be banned for doping.


BLAM!


----------



## lookrider (Dec 3, 2006)

Read Walsh's latest book. The circumstancial evidence is fairly overwhelming. I'd like to have believed LA didn't cheat. Can't do that anymore.


----------



## FondriestFan (May 19, 2005)

It's a lot easier to just close your eyes and be a fanboy than spend the time to read the evidence.

Despite all of this, maybe the good Armstrong has done as a result of his victories has been worth it.

Sure's he's become rich, but he's also provided inspiration to millions. That's worth something.


----------



## stevesbike (Jun 3, 2002)

*setting the record straight on Lemond's time*

I guess most people didn't actually watch Lemond's 1989 time trial because when they mention it as indication that he was cheating they dont seem to realize 1) it was only 24.5 kilometers long, 2) there was an elevation decline between start to finish.

It was long enough to be included as a regular time trial, but really at 24 km it was somewhat between a prologue (which don't count in terms of the record) and the longer 50+ km time trials. There is no way Lemond could have kept that average up if it was a 50km TT. Plus, the guy basically just went out and rode as hard as he could asking not to be told times.


----------



## asgelle (Apr 21, 2003)

stevesbike said:


> I guess most people didn't actually watch Lemond's 1989 time trial because when they mention it as indication that he was cheating they dont seem to realize 1) it was only 24.5 kilometers long, 2) there was an elevation decline between start to finish.


My point exactly. It's impossible to argue that rider A is doping based on comparison to rider B's performance though Walsh continues to do so (selectively). From http://www.macleans.ca/canada/features/article.jsp?content=20070727_150415_8508
Just change Contador and Rasmussen to LeMond and Gourette-Col d'Aubisque to time trial

DW (Walsh) ... Alberto Contador, is definitely cheating.

M: How can you tell he’s cheating?

DW: Michael Rasmussen went up the Gourette-Col d'Aubisque faster than Lance Armstrong ever went up it. Alberto Contador was alongside him the whole way.


----------



## karategirl (Aug 27, 2006)

Well, I hope he's not cheating, but my level of cynicism has risen to the point where I think that he probably is. Maybe they should tell us of cyclists they suspect are clean.


----------



## barbedwire (Dec 3, 2005)

FondriestFan said:


> It's a lot easier to just close your eyes and be a fanboy than spend the time to read the evidence.
> 
> Despite all of this, maybe the good Armstrong has done as a result of his victories has been worth it.
> 
> Sure's he's become rich, but he's also provided inspiration to millions. That's worth something.





I believe that there is alot of inherent truths in what you say. It is far easier to know the "image" of Armstrong as a cancer survivor and endless supporter against the fight for cancer cures than it is to know the dark side of Armstrong. One of a intimidating, litigous bully who, I believe, did take drugs (EPO, Actovegin, corticosteroids, HGH, you name it) in his tour wins. Many of his teammates have been busted and it can be argued that his teammates in the mountains played big roles in helping him win those 7 tainted tours.


----------



## JohnHemlock (Jul 15, 2006)

Phuck David Walsh. Relativism cannot be used to prove someone is doping - comparing Rider A to Rider B several years prior is worthless. Find Contador in the men's room with a syringe, otherwise piss up a rope.


----------



## stevesbike (Jun 3, 2002)

well, there is the small fact that Contador comes from Manolo Saiz's Liberty Seguros-Würth team. Just to refresh things, Saiz managed Zulle, Olano, Igor González, Beloki, Heras, Vino, and a certain Johan Bruyneel. In terms of pedigree, that's about as dirty as they come. He is named in the OP documents (but appears to have struck a deal with Spanish cycling authorities, who have yet to act against a single Spanish rider). But, if you believe that a 24 year old Spaniard can climb like Delgado and time trial like Indurain then cheers to you.


----------



## JohnHemlock (Jul 15, 2006)

I am not saying I believe Contador is clean - given recent developments, to assume anyone is clean in the pro peloton would be foolish. This does not mean we should assume their guilt, either. I am not privy to any information other than what I read on the interwebs. But in the absence of anything more than A beat B or A begat B and B begat C, which proves that Z is a cheater, I am going to stick to my original advice to David Walsh and his ilk. Piss up a rope.


----------



## ti-triodes (Aug 14, 2006)

Walsh is trying to sell books. Until there is some proof-- and there are some serious questions about the French lab doing the testing now- Walsh has little credibility.


----------



## Bianchigirl (Sep 17, 2004)

Walsh is enormously credible - and a highly respected, award winning sporting journalist whose been writing on the Tour for many years - his book 'Inside the Tour de France' is one of the best written about the race.

The only people who question Walsh's credibility are those who have either no idea of his career or who slavishly follow the Disco PR line.


----------



## philippec (Jun 16, 2002)

Agreed -- 

but how do you reconcile the fact that anyone not following the Disco PR line is, by definition, not credible? 

Fanboyz almost always grow up ... we'll see in a few years how the Armstrong legacy weathers time and scrutiny.


----------



## Bianchigirl (Sep 17, 2004)

I'd be most interested to know how those same fanboys would react if Contador had won whilst still riding for Liberty/Astana - I suspect he would be open to considerably more scrutiny than he is now...


----------



## Guest (Jul 30, 2007)

barbedwire said:


> It is far easier to know the "image" of Armstrong as a cancer survivor and endless supporter against the fight for cancer cures than it is to know the dark side of Armstrong. One of a intimidating, litigous bully who, I believe, did take drugs (EPO, Actovegin, corticosteroids, HGH, you name it) in his tour wins.


There is NO way LA took HGH in his post cancer years. As far as the rest, I wouldn't be suprised at all.


----------



## karategirl (Aug 27, 2006)

No offense, but WHY is there no way LA took HGH in his post-cancer years? If you believe he took other drugs post cancer, what about HGH do you believe he would refuse?


----------



## MB1 (Jan 27, 2004)

*So which am I?*



Bianchigirl said:


> ......The only people who question Walsh's credibility are those who have either no idea of his career or who slavishly follow the Disco PR line.


Since there seems to be no third way?


----------



## philippec (Jun 16, 2002)

All I can say is the reason I wouldn't take HGH is that is reputed to be a cancer accelerator .... oh, and the 1000 euros/month cost....oh, and the fact that I can live with myself as a middle-of-the-road competitor whose occasional flashes of brilliance on the bike have been acquired only through natural means (and I'm not referring to homologous vs. autologous blood transfusions here!)


----------



## Len J (Jan 28, 2004)

AJL said:


> There is NO way LA took HGH in his post cancer years.


Based on what?

& don't give me that he had cancer, he would never put anything like that in his body BS. Ever see someone in Lung cancer remission smoking? Ever see somone recovering from a Heart attack go off their diet & exercise regime? Heman nature isn't that predictible.

Len


----------



## blackhat (Jan 2, 2003)

MB1 said:


> Yes but David Walsh thinks everyone is a cheat and makes his living by calling tour winners cheats and then selling books with the "expose details."



unfortunately he's usually right. he faced much the same mockery he's getting here when he questioned the legitimacy of the Irish swimmer Michelle Smith's gold medals in the '96 olympics yet she was later shown to have tampered with a drug test and got a 4 year ban.


----------



## Dwayne Barry (Feb 16, 2003)

German media is keeping the spotlight on Contador. New interview with Jaksche that doesn't really say much other than, if I understand correctly, the handwriting on Document #31 is Fuente's and that doping was also regular on the development team that Contador was on for a time.

Much more damning if true, German anti-doping crusader Werner Franke claims to be in possesion of a OP document taken from Fuente's apartment detailing Contador's doping. Typical hormone type program of Insulin, "fertility" drug and asthma medicine.


----------



## wipeout (Jun 6, 2005)

lookrider said:


> Read Walsh's latest book.


No thanks, I refuse to support that asshat.


----------



## Hairnet (Dec 17, 2006)

wipeout said:


> No thanks, I refuse to support that asshat.



Yeah, he was wrong about Lance. Actually, he never made any proclamation regarding Lance. I believe he told his readers to review the evidence and decide for themselves if he was a doper.

And now it may turn out that Contador was the only clean rider at Liberty.


----------



## Tschai (Jun 19, 2003)

stevesbike said:


> I guess most people didn't actually watch Lemond's 1989 time trial because when they mention it as indication that he was cheating they dont seem to realize 1) it was only 24.5 kilometers long, 2) there was an elevation decline between start to finish.
> 
> It was long enough to be included as a regular time trial, but really at 24 km it was somewhat between a prologue (which don't count in terms of the record) and the longer 50+ km time trials. There is no way Lemond could have kept that average up if it was a 50km TT. Plus, the guy basically just went out and rode as hard as he could asking not to be told times.


Yes. I saw it on British TV. Also, you need to add a third reason - Lemond was the only rider using superior technology - aerobars. Let's not forget that. I think that may have had more to do with it than anything else. 

By the way, that Tour and the last day were the greatest Tours and single stages I have ever seen. Fignon, while really hip-like, was not a very likable fella.


----------



## Tschai (Jun 19, 2003)

stevesbike said:


> But, if you believe that a 24 year old Spaniard can climb like Delgado and time trial like Indurain then cheers to you.


Dopers these are too.


----------



## cyclelogic72 (Dec 1, 2006)

Please, the 'Walsh is just trying to sell books' line is lazy thinking. One may just as lazily, and insinuatingly, say, 'riders are just trying to win races'--and indeed they are; however, some, as we now know, to the degree that will do *anything* to acheive that goal. 

In some senses, as a journalist, Walsh has *more* credibility at stake than an Iban Mayo or Alberto Contador (or whoever)--a cyclist rides bikes for a living while a many a journalist's raison d'etre is to uncover facts and tell the 'truth'. That is what they aim to do. (And, yes, I am well-versed in discussions about the nature of 'truth', but let's not go there here.) Yes, there are lying journalists, but they get weeded out and hung to dry early in their career. I've been reading Walsh for years and the man is hardly a snake-oil salesman. I would also recommend reading the writings of ex-pro, and fellow-Irishman, Paul Kimmage. These two, among other voices in the cycling press, strike me as straight-shooters.


----------



## TurboTurtle (Feb 4, 2004)

Bianchigirl said:


> Walsh is enormously credible - and a highly respected, award winning sporting journalist whose been writing on the Tour for many years - his book 'Inside the Tour de France' is one of the best written about the race.
> 
> The only people who question Walsh's credibility are those who have either no idea of his career or who slavishly follow the Disco PR line.


The fans say anyone who speaks against Disco/Armstrong is lying. The haters say that anyone that doesn't condemn them is lying. What's the difference?

The vast majority of us do not believe everything the the cyclists, teams and their PR people print and that Walsh, Pond, etc. are little (if any) better. They all have more financial interests and egos than credibility.

TF


----------



## Pedro (Feb 25, 2006)

*From Lance to Landis..*

I was just given Walsh's latest book as a gift and I'm about 1/3 of the way through it. I wouldn't go and buy this book myself but so far it's actually quite an eye opener. If you skim over Walsh's (rather poor and melodramatic) writing and just read it for the interviews/ excerpts from the riders and others involved in the sport it's pretty interesting. It seems clear that doping became endemic in the 90's with EPO and that teams/ riders really didn't have a lot of choice in the matter (if they wanted to stay competitive and keep their jobs!)


----------



## goloso (Feb 4, 2004)

*while it is tough to refute...*



JohnHemlock said:


> Phuck David Walsh. Relativism cannot be used to prove someone is doping - comparing Rider A to Rider B several years prior is worthless. *Find Contador in the men's room with a syringe*, otherwise piss up a rope.


...such an elegant and articulate argument, please allow me to try.

The standard for conviction for a doping offense can be found here.

As you might read in sections 14-16 there are quite a few ways you can be convicted for doping without having even doped!


The more you know....


----------



## separated shoulder (Jan 10, 2007)

JohnHemlock said:


> Phuck David Walsh. Relativism cannot be used to prove someone is doping - comparing Rider A to Rider B several years prior is worthless. Find Contador in the men's room with a syringe, otherwise piss up a rope.



Think about professional bodybuilding. The "natural" leagues drug-test their athletes, and the competitors are downright puny compared to the roid-heads you see winning Mr. Olympia. In body-building I can say with 100% confidence that the best 190 competitors are all on steroids. Clean guys are extremely inferior.

The relativism used by Walsh may be reasonable because it is impossible for a natural bodybuilder to beat the drug users. I don't know if the results of PEDs in endurance sports are as dramatic but I imagine they are.

:thumbsup:


----------



## Jesse D Smith (Jun 11, 2005)

Len J said:


> Based on what?
> 
> & don't give me that he had cancer, he would never put anything like that in his body BS. Ever see someone in Lung cancer remission smoking? Ever see somone recovering from a Heart attack go off their diet & exercise regime? Heman nature isn't that predictible.
> 
> Len


What do any of us know about HGH? 
How exactly does it help a cyclist? 
What are the effects? 
How do they test for it?
Outside of a positive test, what are the possible indications of use? 
Has Lance ever been tested for it? 
How common is it? 
Who in cycling has tested positive for it? 
Until someone answers these questions we have no reason to suspect him or anyone else. But if you want to continue on floundering in speculation, have at it. It's the easy way out because the possibilities are endless. It's like the Sci-Fi channels slogen:
*What if?.....*


----------



## DrSmile (Jul 22, 2006)

This reminds me of the arguments by cigarette companies that smoking doesn't really cause cancer... Yes there may be the occasional exception but you're a fool if you don't see the truth by now. I myself can not think of a single TDF winner or even top 3 placers in the last 15 years that I would believe was clean.


----------



## danielc (Oct 24, 2002)

What about the fact that Mayo used EPO and he still couldn't stay on the wheels of the best climbers? And what's worst, he got busted for it!


----------



## Dwayne Barry (Feb 16, 2003)

Jesse D Smith said:


> What do any of us know about HGH?


There is no test for HGH.


----------



## lookrider (Dec 3, 2006)

MB1 said:


> Since there seems to be no third way?


No, you're clean or you're not. You believe they're clean or you don't.

Clear demarcation.

Wasn't that 3rd way stuff from Gingrich?

Then there's definitely no 3rd way! lmao..


----------



## TurboTurtle (Feb 4, 2004)

cyclelogic72 said:


> Please, the 'Walsh is just trying to sell books' line is lazy thinking. One may just as lazily, and insinuatingly, say, 'riders are just trying to win races'--and indeed they are; however, some, as we now know, to the degree that will do *anything* to acheive that goal.
> 
> In some senses, as a journalist, Walsh has *more* credibility at stake than an Iban Mayo or Alberto Contador (or whoever)--a cyclist rides bikes for a living while a many a journalist's raison d'etre is to uncover facts and tell the 'truth'. That is what they aim to do. (And, yes, I am well-versed in discussions about the nature of 'truth', but let's not go there here.) Yes, there are lying journalists, but they get weeded out and hung to dry early in their career. I've been reading Walsh for years and the man is hardly a snake-oil salesman. I would also recommend reading the writings of ex-pro, and fellow-Irishman, Paul Kimmage. These two, among other voices in the cycling press, strike me as straight-shooters.


WHAT??? "...a journalist's raison d'etre is to uncover facts and tell the 'truth'." A journalist’s job is to entertain and a sports journalist’s job is to entertain about entertainment. They also "...will do *anything* to achieve that goal." What a joke. - TF


----------



## philippec (Jun 16, 2002)

Just because this may be the case in the newstertainment world of N. America doesn't make it so everywhere in the world. There still are serious and credible journalists around -- although you might not know it from what passes as "news" these days in many parts of the States!


----------



## lookrider (Dec 3, 2006)

*Stirring the pot, blast from the past.*



cyclelogic72 said:


> Please, the 'Walsh is just trying to sell books' line is lazy thinking. One may just as lazily, and insinuatingly, say, 'riders are just trying to win races'--and indeed they are; however, some, as we now know, to the degree that will do *anything* to acheive that goal.
> 
> In some senses, as a journalist, Walsh has *more* credibility at stake than an Iban Mayo or Alberto Contador (or whoever)--a cyclist rides bikes for a living while a many a journalist's raison d'etre is to uncover facts and tell the 'truth'. That is what they aim to do. (And, yes, I am well-versed in discussions about the nature of 'truth', but let's not go there here.) Yes, there are lying journalists, but they get weeded out and hung to dry early in their career. I've been reading Walsh for years and the man is hardly a snake-oil salesman. I would also recommend reading the writings of ex-pro, and fellow-Irishman, Paul Kimmage. These two, among other voices in the cycling press, strike me as straight-shooters.


LeMond was 2nd in the Dauphine at 19, unbelievable!

Greg LeMond Interview : Paul Kimmage 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Pual Kimmage interview with Greg LeMond : 1st July 2007.

The American won the Tour de France three times, twice with shotgun pellets lodged in his heart after a shooting accident. But his triumphs felt hollow as he struggled with the secret of his abuse as a child The Big Interview: Greg LeMond



Roy Hobbs (Robert Redford): “I could have been better. I could have broken every record in the book.”

Iris Gaines (Glenn Close): “And then?”

Roy Hobbs: “And then? And then when I walked down the street people would’ve looked and they would’ve said, ‘There goes Roy Hobbs, the best there ever was in this game’.” – The Natural 

It is a hot Monday afternoon in July 1986 and I am sitting in a white van with my friend Andre Chappuis, driving south to the Alpine city of Grenoble, France. We have spent the night in Paris, celebrating the end of the Tour de France. The smiling face of the winner, Greg LeMond, adorns the front page of L’Equipe, the French sports newspaper.

"What does it say about us?” Andre asks with a grin.

“It’s a scandal,” I reply. “They’ve written four pages on LeMond and ignored us completely . . . No, I’m wrong: we’re listed in the results: Chappuis, 118th, at 2hr 17min 19sec [behind LeMond]; Kimmage, 131st, at 2hr 44min 36sec.” 

“Our place in history,” Andre says with a smile. “Don’t knock it.”

“Sure, but I’d rather be Greg LeMond right now,” I say. “Can you imagine how good that must feel? To win the Tour de France! To be the first American to do it! Imagine the fame, the glory, the money he’s going to make. They say he’s flying back to the US for a reception with Reagan at the White House this week.”

“Well, I can tell you what he won’t be doing,” Andre says, “and that’s sweating his bollocks off in a van with no air-conditioning for the next six hours.”

“Too right.” I laugh. “Have you ever spoken to him?” “No,” I reply. “Me neither, but he always comes across as a pretty decent guy. And de Dieu! What a bike rider!”

“Yeah. In my next life I want to come back as LeMond,” I observe. “I want to be born in California with legs like Eddie Merckx and looks like Robert Redford.”

“Yes,” Andre says, “some guys get it all.” But what did we know? What do we ever know?




GREG LEMOND is sitting in the kitchen of his splendid home in Medina, Minnesota. An interview that started with a question about his memories of the last time the Tour visited Britain – in 1994, which turned out to be his final race as a professional – has entered its fourth hour. We have been weaving our way gently through the peaks and valleys of life: his debut as a young professional in 1981; his first world title in 1983; his first Tour win and titanic battle with the great Frenchman Bernard Hinault in 1986; the hunting accident that almost killed him in 1987; his incredible return after two years in the doldrums to the Tour in 1989; his third and final triumph in the race a year later.

Still on the agenda are the sport’s doping problem, some dubious mutual acquaintances and his much-publicised spats with his countrymen Floyd Landis and Lance Armstrong. He is starting to tire (perhaps the first time in his life he has struggled to keep pace with me) and apologises again for the tendency to wander, which has afflicted him since childhood. “I’m sorry,” he says. “What was the question again?”

“It was an observation about your life,” I say. “Does it feel extraordinary to you? Do you feel like you have led an extraordinary life?”

“I feel very fortunate in many ways,” he replies, “but if you knew my whole story, it has been a heartache too . . .”

He pauses and his eyes suddenly well with tears. His wife Kathy, who has been sitting at his side for the duration of the interview, places a comforting hand on his arm. He tries to compose himself and resumes, his voice breaking.

“It appears extraordinary, you know . . . It appeared that everything was always perfect in my life, but it’s been far from perfect. I am fortunate where I am today and I am fortunate that I have been able to look at myself in the mirror and address the stuff that I was never able to address . . . But I can tell you, compared to what I’ve been through in the past three or four years, the Tour de France is easy.”

“You’ll have to explain that,” I say. “Well, what I mean is the whole . . . It’s very narcissistic. Racing is a very selfish, self-centred, self-glorifying thing. My wife’s life for 14 years was centred around me. It was all about me. It was all for my ego . . . I read somewhere recently that [the former Italian rider Claudio] Chiappucci lived with his mom until he was 30 and I thought, ‘God! When are we going to grow up?’ Okay, so you can look at what we did and say, ‘Well, that’s what it takes to be successful’, but is it healthy? Is it really healthy?

“There are a lot of unhealthy people that are driven to sports and they are driven by their own demons, their own past. You see it in business too; I’ve known some very successful, wealthy people and they are the most unhappy people you will ever meet. They can’t ever get enough money. They can’t ever get enough glory. They can’t ever fill the hole.

“There was a part of me with a hole that I could never fill and it almost destroyed me, but I have been able to work through a lot of those difficulties and it feels so empowering now that nobody can hold anything over me. I don’t give a **** what people say, because it really doesn’t matter. My life is about my wife, my kids and the few friends that I have.”

He smiles at Kathy and pulls the ring on a can of Dr Pepper.

“What was the hole?” I ask. 

IT IS A warm Monday morning in July 1989 and Greg LeMond is staring at the bedroom ceiling of a plush hotel in Paris on the morning after his second triumph in the Tour de France. The night has been short. He has not slept well. He never sleeps well. The elation he felt on the Champs-Elysees has abated. He is wondering about the hole. Will this second Tour victory fulfil him? It didn’t in 1986.

He glances at the phone. When is he going to call? The shadow has not lifted.

The hours have been hectic since they applauded him on the podium: so many hands to shake and commitments to fulfil; so many cameras and microphones stretching to record his words. He will be front-page news around the globe this morning; the nuts and bolts of LeMond explained in the four corners of Le Monde.

The story of how the boy from Lakewood, California, swaps his passion of skiing for cycling and is immediately acclaimed as a natural. The story of his parents, Bob and Bertha, and his two sporting sisters and the genes bestowed on them. The story of his first trip to Europe in 1978 and the wonder that envelopes him when he sees the Tour de France. The story of the objectives he lists that summer on a yellow pad:

1. Place well for experience in the 1978 junior world championships. (He finishes ninth.)

2. Win the 1979 junior world championships. (He wins.)

3. Win the 1980 Olympic road race in Moscow. (America boycotts the Games.)

4. Win the world professional championships by the age of 22 or 23. (He finishes second in 1982, when he is 21, and wins in 1983.)

5. Win a first Tour de France by the age of 24 or 25. (He finishes second in 1985, at 24, and wins in 1986.)

The story of the hunting accident in 1987 when he comes within 20 minutes of bleeding to death after being shot by his brother-in-law. The story of the 37 lead pellets that remain in his body, two in the lining of his heart. The story of his emergency appendectomy a few months later.

The story of his return to racing in 1988, when he struggles among the also-rans and is sidelined from the Tour with injury. The story his return to form in 1989 when he wins the Tour by eight seconds with a brilliant performance in the final stage of the race, a time trial through the streets of Paris. The story of a champion. The story of what happens now and where he races next. The story of Greg LeMond. But not the story. There will be no mention of the secret that continues to haunt his life.

GREGORY JAMES LEMOND is 13 years old. His father is a real-estate broker. His mother is a mom. Home is a house shared with his sisters, Kathy and Karen, in Washoe Valley, Nevada. It is ranch country and the boy enjoys the outdoor life; flyfishing for brook trout in the stream behind their home; hunting and trapshooting and backpacking in summer; downhill skiing in winter. He is Gregory James LeMond, wholesome as apple pie. What would it take to blow a hole in this boy’s life?

Meet Ron from Lake Tahoe. Ron has been a friend of the family since 1969. They go hunting and fishing and skiing together. Ron is a stand-up guy, and when Bob and Bertha’s marriage begins to creak, Ron is there to fill the void. He is plying Greg with attention and preparing him for manhood. He is manipulating his mind with books and magazines and sexual talk that the boy finds strangely stimulating. And then . . .

LeMond is not sure how long he was subjected to the abuse – “it might have been three months or a year and three months” – but remembers that it ended in April or May of 1975. His parents had stopped arguing and were getting on well again. He thinks they must have noticed the change in his behaviour, but the abuse was never discussed. A few months later, at a ski camp near Vancouver, Canada, he was informed that cycling was an ideal complement to skiing in the off-season.

He earned $130 cutting logs, bought a Raleigh Grand Prix and took it for a ride. A few days later, his father went to the bike shop and they were soon training regularly together and travelling as a family to races. It was the door to a new life.

“Cycling was a way for me to reinvent myself,” he says. “It was the first time I really had my dad in my life. It united my parents, united my family, and I think that’s what really drove me. It felt so good to feel good about yourself and do something that my parents were proud of.”

He started making lists and ticking off his targets. He dreamt every night about the world’s great racers and the cols (mountain passes) of the Tour de France. His life unfolded like a wondrous fairy tale. By the age of 25 he had it all: a great wife, a beautiful son, the rainbow jersey of world champion, le maillot jaune of the Tour de France champion. But the shadow of Ron never left him.

“I wanted to be seen as a good person,” LeMond says, “and never wanted to let people down, but I found it hard to handle the fame or adulation. I didn’t feel worthy of it. I was ashamed by who I thought I was because I felt partly responsible [for the abuse] and I was never able to enjoy the stuff I should have been able to enjoy. My first thought when I won the Tour was: ‘My God, I’m going to be famous’, and then I thought, ‘He’s going to call’. I was always waiting for that phone call. I lived in fear that anyone would ever find out.”

And finally they did. Six weeks ago he was driving with Kathy to a hotel in Malibu, California, on the eve of his appearance as a witness for the US AntiDoping Agency at an arbitration hearing into alleged doping by Landis, last year’s Tour winner, when his phone rang; odd accent, southern twang.

“Hello.” “Greg?” “Yeah, this is Greg.” “Hi Greg, this is your uncle.” “My uncle?!?” he exclaimed, confused. “This is your uncle. Do you remember me?”

“Who is this?” “This is your uncle and I’m going to be there tomorrow and we can talk about how we used to play hide the weenie.”

“Who the f*** is this?” The line went dead. LeMond exploded with rage.

“He couldn’t stop shaking,” Kathy recalls. “I didn’t think he would be able to testify. Our lawyer sat up in the lobby with me until one in the morning; Greg was so shook up, he could not fill out the police report. I was worried about him.”

The next day LeMond showed the court his phone and the number of the person who had called him. It belonged to Will Geoghegan, Landis’s friend and business manager. He was sacked on the spot.

LeMond was front-page news again.

THE MONTH is July 2001. Seven seasons have passed since LeMond’s last bike race and he is about to be replaced as America’s pre-eminent cyclist by Lance Armstrong. LeMond has never been close to the Texan and he finds himself at the centre of a storm when he is informed by a journalist that Armstrong has been working with Michele Ferrari, an Italian sports doctor who was about to stand trial on doping charges. Ferrari was eventually cleared last year.

“The only thing I said about Lance was that I was disappointed he was seeing Ferrari,” LeMond explains. “I mean, who wouldn’t be? We’re talking about a sport that had been brought to its knees [by the Festina doping scandal three years earlier]. Why would you associate with someone like that if you wanted to portray an image that the sport was trying to change?”

Two weeks later Armstrong phoned him and an angry spat ensued.

“Greg, this is Lance.” “Hi, Lance, what are you doing?” “I’m in New York.” “Ah, okay.” “Greg, I thought we were friends.” “I thought we were friends.” “Why did you say what you said?” “About Ferrari? Well, I have a problem with Ferrari. I’m disappointed you are seeing someone like Ferrari. I have a personal issue with Ferrari and doctors like him. I feel my career was cut short. I saw a teammate die. I saw the devastation of innocent riders losing their careers. I don’t like what has become of our sport.”

The fallout was massive. Fans who had once venerated LeMond wrote angry blogs accusing him of sour grapes. A couple of prominent businessmen he regarded as friends phoned and advised him to stay on-side. And then he received a call from John Burke, the chief executive of Trek, the company with a licensing agreement with LeMond to manufacture, market and distribute LeMond Racing Cycles.

Burke was in a difficult position. Trek also sponsored Armstrong and his US Postal team. Criticism of the great cancer survivor was not good for business. LeMond was reminded of the clause in his contract with the company that invalidated the contract if he damaged Trek’s interests. Armstrong’s people were insisting on an apology. LeMond tried to resist, but eventually caved in. In August 2001 an apology to Armstrong was issued. LeMond read it and wept.

The two years that followed were the worst of his life. Ron was still lurking on his shoulder. He still hadn’t told Kathy or anyone about the abuse and he began smoking and drinking and became severely depressed. “I got so drunk one night where I wanted to tell my wife, because I knew that if I didn’t, something was going to happen,” he says. “I couldn’t do it. I said, ‘I’ll tell you on my death bed’. I just ran.

“I left home and ran from my family. I felt I needed to lose everything: my wife, my kids, my house, every cent I had. I thought that if I put myself in the gutter, I would find myself. I did some stuff against my wife I wasn’t proud of. Kathy knew instantly what was going on. My wife is an angel; I’ve always felt that I didn’t deserve her, but it was only when I felt I might lose her that I came home and broke down and told her everything.

“She begged me to see a therapist. I read a couple of books by Alice Miller – The Drama Of The Gifted Child and The Truth Will Set You Free – and cried the whole way though them. It was me. I went through a period where I needed to coast and get stronger, and the last four years has been the proudest period of my life. I’m holding people accountable now. I’ve hired an investigator to find the guy who abused me, to get him on a [paedophile] list. Nobody is going to take advantage of me. I’m not taking **** from anybody.”

THE CONVERSATION has returned to the Tour de France in 1994, the last time the race visited Britain and his last race as a professional.

The end is rarely easy for any professional sportsman and he left Europe and returned to the US with few fond memories of his last three seasons. There was talk of a new drug, EPO, fuelling the peloton and LeMond could no longer compete.

“I went to Europe with a dream,” he says, “and I know there was doping in the 80s and I’m certain a lot of riders were doing stuff and that cortisone was a drug of choice, but I was always able to perform and win races against those guys. At 19 years old I finished third in the Dauphine [France’s second-biggest stage race]; at 20 I won the Tour de L’Avenir by 10 minutes and finished second in the worlds [championships]. I was fortunate I was successful right away and didn’t get drawn into that.

“By 1993 I was just so fatigued and I don’t know if it was because everybody was on EPO, I really don’t, but I was checked out for every possible problem there could be health-wise. I went to see a sports doctor and he said, ‘Greg, there is nothing wrong with you; if you want to race well, you go to [Dr X], you need to contact him, because if you’re not on EPO, you don’t have a chance’.”

“And did you?” I ask. “No.” “You never considered it?” “I had already won three Tours – and I don’t know if this is on the record – but I don’t think I could have survived a positive drug test. I’m talking psychologically.” “Why do you not want that on the record?” I ask.

“Because it has to do with my sexual abuse.”

“I think you can put that on the record,” says Kathy. “Everybody knows what happened.”

Her husband’s eyes well with tears. “I know,” he counters, “but it’s something I wasn’t prepared to come out with until I was forced to, until that phone call [from Geoghegan] . . . I’ve dealt with a lot of therapy on this and . . .”

He pauses to compose himself. “We’ve done a lot of talking about this,” Kathy says. “Why wouldn’t Greg have gone to [Dr X]? Why not? I think Greg was carrying such a load of shame that, like he said, he couldn’t have survived a positive drug test, he probably couldn’t. He had to have something to hold on to that was pure and good about himself, and cycling was that.”

“I wasn’t prepared for what happened with the Floyd Landis thing,” LeMond continues. “I met his family last year at the Tour of Georgia and they seemed such a nice family. I even suspended belief when he won that stage [in last year’s Tour, Landis mounted a spectacular breakaway in a stage to Morzine the day after he had lost eight minutes to his nearest rivals]; I thought there was a chance that this could be a cleaner Tour. But then he tests positive and I instantly get about 20 calls from journalists, and having a muzzle is no fun, so I tell them what I think.”

“And then you get a call from Floyd?” “I thought it was a prank call at first. I kept saying, ‘Come on, who is this?’ It took me about five minutes before I realised it was him. So he says, ‘I’m trying to find out where you’re coming from’. I said, ‘What do you mean?’ He said, ‘Why are you speaking out like this?’ I said, ‘I hate to say this, Floyd, but you’ve got an A and a B positive [riders’ urine samples are tested a second time if a positive outcome is returned in the first test] for synthetic testosterone; I don’t think you’re going to get out of this’.

“So I’m telling him, ‘Don’t do what Tyler Hamilton did [the American cyclist was caught doping and banned from the sport, but has always denied using drugs], because you might get away with it, but if you have any conscience, it’s going to kill you in the end. If you can come clean, you could be the one person that saves the sport. The sport is already dying, but you could change it. “‘But if you don’t, you are going to be known as the Ben Johnson of cycling – the first Tour de France winner that has ever been stripped of the title, and I don’t know, but I couldn’t survive that’. And that was when I went into my story and the secret that nearly destroyed me.”

“It was a pretty frank admission,” I suggest.

“Because Floyd wasn’t angry,” he says. “He was like a deer in the headlights. I think he was really calling to ask, ‘What should I do?’ This was a phone call looking for guidance. He will deny that now, but I can tell you, it’s true.

“I told him my story. I said, ‘I’m telling it to you because by keeping it a secret it nearly killed me’. He said, ‘Greg, if I come clean, I would destroy all of my friends and hurt so many people’. I said, ‘Floyd, I’m 15 years older than you. Do you think your friends in cycling are your friends? They’re just acquaintances. You think your whole life is cycling, but it’s just a small part of it. There is so much more beyond that’.

“And that’s how we finished the deal. He asked me to keep the conversation between us, and that suited me fine. I had no intention of going public with the abuse.”

“But things turn ugly,” I say. “Yeah, somebody told Floyd that I had been speaking to Wada [the world antidoping body] and he posted this stuff about me on his website [ “The facts that he (LeMond) divulged to me would damage his character severely and I would rather not do what has been done to me. However, if he ever opens his mouth again and the word Floyd comes out, I will tell you all some things that you will wish you didn’t know.”] He never apologised and never took it down. I decided I would testify about the conversation we’d had.”

“On the eve of your appearance you get the call from Will Geoghegan?”

“Yeah.” “What effect did that have on you?” “It was one of the most emotionally disturbing things that has ever happened to me and I’m hoping that the LA police and the DA [district attorney] are going to charge both Floyd and Will, because under his testimony, Floyd essentially admitted he was right there with Will all the way through. How else would he get the number?”

The exact involvement of Landis in the making of the call has yet to be determined.

“The thing that really bugs me,” Kathy says, “is that he has never apologised. He knew damn well how traumatic this is for Greg.”

“He actually said under testimony that what I had told him had traumatised him!” LeMond snorts. “I just hope the DA goes after him. The whole thing is sick – the cover-up, the threats – it’s just sick. This sport needs to bleed to death before it can rebuild. And even then, I don’t know . . .” AS THE interview draws to a close, the first shadows of evening have descended on LeMond’s lawns. Almost nine hours have passed since we began this morning and I am feeling almost as tired as when we used to race as he escorts me to my car. We have both started riding our bikes again, pale shadows of our former selves. I have always felt comfortable with my shadow. LeMond, at last, feels comfortable with his.

Ride to glory: the life and times of Greg LeMond

— The Californian was named to the 1980 Olympic cycling team as a 19-year-old but was unable to compete due to the US boycott of the Moscow Games

— He proved to be a forceful one-day rider with a silver medal at the 1982 world championships and became the first American to win the title the following year

— He rode his first Tour de France in 1984, finishing third and the next year, under team orders, he was second behind Bernard Hinault, the last truly great French rider, who won five Tours and was nicknamed the Badger for his cunning

— In 1986 LeMond became the first American cyclist to win the Tour after an epic duel with his teammate Hinault, who shadowed his every move

— The following year he was shot and seriously injured by his brother-in-law in a hunting accident and almost bled to death. He returned in 1989, when, with 37 shotgun pellets remaining in his body, including some in the lining of his heart, he beat the Frenchman Laurent Fignon by just eight seconds, the narrowest margin in the history of the race, after a storming final-day time trial through the streets of Paris

— When he took the title again in 1990, he became one of only eight cyclists to have won the Tour de France three or more times. He retired in 1994


----------



## Under ACrookedSky (Nov 8, 2005)

LOLZ. This is hilarious. The same gaggle of doping apologists crawl out from under their rocks whenever Armstrong is mentioned. It comes complete with a load of crap about Walsh, LNDD, and LeMond.

I thought you guys had mostly retreated to the "It was a level playing field" argument or had flocked together with the rest of the homers on The Paceline.


----------



## mtbbmet (Apr 2, 2005)

Put it to bed already!
Why don't you go out and get a job instead of digging up these year old threads?


----------



## lookrider (Dec 3, 2006)

*The Natural*



mtbbmet said:


> Put it to bed already!
> Why don't you go out and get a job instead of digging up these year old threads?



It's still timely, no?

It will be a story in the TdF this year as Astana is not in the race.

Why the anger or exasperation? It's the doping forum and it's interesting to read peoples take on things.

That's why I included the LeMond story by Kimmage.

One of the big arguments by the doping apologists was that LeMond was a whiner who was engaging in sour grapes.

These threads _have _ to be kept alive so the apologists can be reminded about the correctness of LeMond's position.

They also have to be reminded that LeMond truly was *Roy Hobbs.*

When Armstrong says he's not worthy of the yellow jersey, I think these types of threads can be put to bed.

What's very interesting is that both the dopers and their apologists resort to personal attacks in order to cover their own tracks.

It's an interesting pathology, and can probably also be used to drive the dopers out. 

Call LeMond a whiner, you're out, attack Walsh, the same. LMAO


----------



## lookrider (Dec 3, 2006)

*I've outdone myself*



mtbbmet said:


> Put it to bed already!
> Why don't you go out and get a job instead of digging up these year old threads?


View Poll Results: is Lance a doper? 
yes 26 19.70% 
no 89 67.42% 
depends what the meaning of 'is' is 17 12.88% 


http://forums.roadbikereview.com/showthread.php?p=39570&page=2

Four year old thread.

It's fun reading history sometimes.


----------



## mtbbmet (Apr 2, 2005)

See, the thing is that no one is saying Lance never doped. We all know he did. But why do you care so much? And why is Lemond free of suspicion when he one two Tours in the height of EPO abuse with lead embedded into his heart and being out of the sport for two years? Cause he says he was? Cause it would have "destroyed him" if he got caught?


----------



## lookrider (Dec 3, 2006)

*Huh?*



mtbbmet said:


> See, the thing is that no one is saying Lance never doped.


Really?




mtbbmet said:


> We all know he did.


So his TdF titles will be stripped like Riis? When are "they" taking away his titles and prize money...



mtbbmet said:


> But why do you care so much?


Now my interests are the focus of the doping forum? This is a strategy for argument on this forum? Why do you care so much to respond on this forum? Do you see what I'm saying? Who cares why any of us post here. We're not the issue.

The issue is, did Lance dope.

Now, we know it's still relevant because, Riis was stripped of his titles. Marion Jones was stripped of her gold medals. Mark Mc Gwire continues to be denied entry to the Hall of Fame.



mtbbmet said:


> And why is Lemond free of suspicion


Because there is *absolutely no* evidence in any form that he doped. None. Nada..



mtbbmet said:


> when he one two Tours in the height of EPO abuse


No, '89 and '90 were not the height of EPO abuse. Ferrari made his orange juice statement in '94.



mtbbmet said:


> with lead embedded into his heart and being out of the sport for two years?


Testament to how great a champion LeMond was. Also LeMond tried to come back in '88 I believe.



mtbbmet said:


> Cause he says he was?


That's part of it. :lol: 

The other part is that no one says LeMond was using EPO except LA and his 10 mystery witnesses. 



mtbbmet said:


> Cause it would have "destroyed him" if he got caught?


yes, I've ascertained that LeMond is an honest man.:lol:


----------



## mtbbmet (Apr 2, 2005)

Well, I've ascertained that he is not. I have also come to the conclusion that he was on the juice when he was racing. It's your problem if you don't want to believe it. In that respect you are just like all the other "lance fanboys" that frequent the paceline but your hardon is for Greg Lemond.


----------



## bigpinkt (Jul 20, 2006)

edit: already covered


----------



## asgelle (Apr 21, 2003)

bigpinkt said:


> I have to ask, every time you post this multiple people come out to show how clueless this is....why do you keep writing it?
> 
> The facts are clear,
> -Lemonds TT was short, 15 miles long. Most Tour TT's are at least twice as long
> ...


Hardly clueless. It shows the same depth of reasoning and logic that Walsh used to reach his conclusions.See post #10.


----------



## asgelle (Apr 21, 2003)

bigpinkt said:


> edit: already covered


If you choose to resurrect a nine month old post, that's your decision, but stand by it. Don't delete the post and let replies hang out there.


----------



## bigpinkt (Jul 20, 2006)

asgelle said:


> If you choose to resurrect a nine month old post, that's your decision, but stand by it. Don't delete the post and let replies hang out there.


I edited, minutes after I posted it, as I saw that it had been covered already and saw that this thread was nine months old. I assume even you have realized by now that using Lemonds final TT as evidence of doping is absurd.

Your desperate grasp to compare this to Walsh's position does not make sense. Walsh compares assent times on the same climb. Even you would have to admit that this comparison has more relivence then comparing a 15 mile, straight, down hill, TT with a 35 mile TT with multiple climbs


----------



## lookrider (Dec 3, 2006)

mtbbmet said:


> Well, I've ascertained that he is not. I have also come to the conclusion that he was on the juice when he was racing. It's your problem if you don't want to believe it. In that respect you are just like all the other "lance fanboys" that frequent the paceline but your hardon is for Greg Lemond.


Really, what evidence am I ignoring regarding LeMond?

I'm waiting...........


----------



## asgelle (Apr 21, 2003)

bigpinkt said:


> I edited, minutes after I posted it, as I saw that it had been covered already and saw that this thread was nine months old. I assume even you have realized by now that using Lemonds final TT as evidence of doping is absurd.


Well, you seem to have gotten half the meaning.


----------



## Under ACrookedSky (Nov 8, 2005)

lookrider said:


> http://forums.roadbikereview.com/showthread.php?p=39570&page=2
> 
> Four year old thread.
> 
> It's fun reading history sometimes.


LOL. That thread is hilarious. You would have a hard time finding message board with such a large group of morons today. 

Always good to know the moderator is just as clueless back then as he is today.

The most ironic comment in light of subsequent events is this one:

_The French authorities took and frooze a sample of his blood years ago then tested it for EPO a year or two later. If he was doping he would have been using EPO at the time the blood test was taken like everyone else because there was no test for it.
Seems as close to proof as well ever get that he is clean._

A year and half after the thread, the results of the testing were revealed and showed that Armstrong was not only using EPO, he was using more EPO than anyone else in the race.


----------



## lookrider (Dec 3, 2006)

Under ACrookedSky said:


> LOL. That thread is hilarious. You would have a hard time finding message board with such a large group of morons today.
> 
> Always good to know the moderator is just as clueless back then as he is today.
> 
> ...


Yeah, I had cut and pasted a few "highlights" from that thread and botched it, so I just posted the link.

I got a good laugh too....


----------



## lookrider (Dec 3, 2006)

*What about this gem?*



Under ACrookedSky said:


> LOL. That thread is hilarious. You would have a hard time finding message board with such a large group of morons today.
> 
> Always good to know the moderator is just as clueless back then as he is today.
> 
> ...


_I am talking about Lance specifically, not athletes in general. I know far less about Barry Bonds and his circumstances, for instance, than I do about Lance and his. Not all athletes value things the same way Lance does, and some would certainly risk all the privileges they have for the sake of fame and glory. The evidence, as I see it, says that Lance would not do that._

Not all athletes value things the same way Lance does?

No comment.


----------



## jhamlin38 (Oct 29, 2005)

*drugs in cycling*

Perhaps cyclists in the pro peleton should be required to take various medications and drugs. Perhaps based on the team. One team uses EPO, the other team uses testosterone, another a different form.
Which one is best? which team has less dead riders at the end of the year? Which rider has the kid with the most arms, legs, ears, eyes or even heads?
In womens cycling, which woman turns into a man fastest. Which woman grows the longest penis.
the possibilities are endless by adding drugs and doping to cycling.
I absolutely love this sport, but not opposed to laughing at how rediculous its become.


----------



## HikenBike (Apr 3, 2007)

asgelle said:


> My point exactly. It's impossible to argue that rider A is doping based on comparison to rider B's performance though Walsh continues to do so (selectively). From http://www.macleans.ca/canada/features/article.jsp?content=20070727_150415_8508
> Just change Contador and Rasmussen to LeMond and Gourette-Col d'Aubisque to time trial
> 
> DW (Walsh) ... Alberto Contador, is definitely cheating.
> ...


Not exactly... Contador and Levi were tag teaming Rasmussen the whole way up that mtn. Evans(?) dropped off first. Then Levi dropped off. Then Contador dropped off as Ras sprinted up to the summit. After the race the media interviewed all those guys. Levi and Contador were totally spent and could hardly speak clearly. On the other hand, Ras spoke as if he just finished a weekend club ride. To climb that hill like that 'naturally' is hard to fathom; all three riders included. I knew that Ras was doping after that stage. I suspect that Levi and Contador might be doping as well, but not as aggressively as Ras.

It's a shame that after any strong showing in the Tour, the first reaction is to suspect fowl play.


----------

