# Interesting opinion...



## The Weasel (Jul 20, 2006)

from Velonews:
LeMond remembered “one of the greater champions, who was recognized more for his loss in the (1989) Tour de France than his first two victories”.

“It’s a really sad day. I see him as one of the great riders who was hampered by injuries. He had a very, very big talent — much more than anyone recognized,” LeMond told France 24 television.

“We were also teammates, competitors, but also friends,” said the three-time Tour de France champion.

“The saddest thing for me is that for the rest of his career he said he won two Tours de France, when in reality we both could have won that race.”



Odd that Lemond could expouse so much admiration for Fignon (a proven cheater), yet spew so much vitriol for Armstrong (based on his own gut feelings and hearsay).

To me this only points towards his jealously of Armstrong as the reason for his attacks. Afterall, he did write history against Fignon, making it much easier. I know you're not supposed to speak bad of the dead, but given his stern stance on the use of PEDs, his response could've been more neutral, rather tha using the terms 'greater champions'. Hypocracy at its near finest.

Well Laurent,RIP.


----------



## DMFT (Feb 3, 2005)

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/laurent-fignon-passes-away

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/lemond-remembers-fignon

- First off - R.I.P. Mr. Fignon....

- Secondarily, does G.L. sound like a hipocrite in his article to anyone besides me?  

Discuss.........


----------



## ultimobici (Jul 16, 2005)

DMFT said:


> http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/laurent-fignon-passes-away
> 
> http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/lemond-remembers-fignon
> 
> ...


The guy's not yet cold and you expect Lemond to condemn him for his positive in Eindhoven 21 years ago?

It's called respecting his dignity. Lemond was not only his rival, but an ex-team mate. Lemond talks about a relationship that extended after their retirement. How's the funeral likely to be if he sticks the boot in on various websites worldwide?


----------



## Coolhand (Jul 28, 2002)

post moved from Pro Cycling


----------



## Coolhand (Jul 28, 2002)

DMFT said:


> http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/laurent-fignon-passes-away
> 
> http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/lemond-remembers-fignon
> 
> ...


Because he was just as (if not twice as) dirty? Hypocracy and Lemond are great friends- see e.g. his new found love of uber-doper and former top foe Landis.


----------



## den bakker (Nov 13, 2004)

The Weasel said:


> from Velonews:
> LeMond remembered “one of the greater champions, who was recognized more for his loss in the (1989) Tour de France than his first two victories”.
> 
> “It’s a really sad day. I see him as one of the great riders who was hampered by injuries. He had a very, very big talent — much more than anyone recognized,” LeMond told France 24 television.
> ...


Nice choice of nick :thumbsup:


----------



## terzo rene (Mar 23, 2002)

Given the drugs available before the early 90's were no more effective than placebos in enhancing performance why should he care that Fignon, or anyone else, used them?


----------



## Coolhand (Jul 28, 2002)

terzo rene said:


> Given the drugs available before the early 90's were no more effective than placebos in enhancing performance why should he care that Fignon, or anyone else, used them?


This is absurd. There were plenty of effective doping methods back to the 80's, nevermind the crazy crap the teams were doing pre-Festina. 

Yes the racers for the 80's and 90's were doped to the gills, the testing was a joke, the penalties minor, and the rewards great. Pre-Festina the french teams were doping all their GC riders under the gise of "preparation". The strong Omerta and fear of litigation are protecting the few remaining non-outed dopers of that era, but you would have to be delusional to think that any GT winner from the 80's or 90's was_ remotely_ clean.


----------



## ultimobici (Jul 16, 2005)

Coolhand said:


> This is absurd. There were plenty of effective doping methods back to the 80's, nevermind the crazy crap the teams were doing pre-Festina.
> 
> Yes the racers for the 80's and 90's were doped to the gills, the testing was a joke, the penalties minor, and the rewards great. Pre-Festina the french teams were doping all their GC riders under the gise of "preparation". The strong Omerta and fear of litigation are protecting the few remaining non-outed dopers of that era, but you would have to be delusional to think that any GT winner from the 80's or 90's was_ remotely_ clean.


That doping of any sort is immoral is not in dispute, however there was a distinct difference in efficacy before EPO and other blood manipulation techniques arrived on the scene. 

Pre EPO methods did not skew the results any where near as grotesquely as EPO, HGH & the like did. Riders like Mottet, Delion, Bauer & Lemond could and did compete with riders using cortisone, testosterone & amphetamine because the effects were not anything like as radical.

A rider in the 80's was able to take the position of riding clean without consigning their career to the dustbin. Come 92/93 and on that was a distant memory. Hence Delion's retirement in 92 at 28, and Lemond's & Fignon's accelerated demises, IMO.


----------



## Wookiebiker (Sep 5, 2005)

ultimobici said:


> Pre EPO methods did not skew the results any where near as grotesquely as EPO, HGH & the like did. Riders like Mottet, Delion, Bauer & Lemond could and did compete with riders using cortisone, testosterone & amphetamine because the effects were not anything like as radical.
> 
> A rider in the 80's was able to take the position of riding clean without consigning their career to the dustbin. Come 92/93 and on that was a distant memory. Hence Delion's retirement in 92 at 28, and Lemond's & Fignon's accelerated demises, IMO.


I'd disagree with this.

"Blood Packing" has been around since the 60's (maybe before) and has been proven to be quite effective with enhancing performance, especially over the duration of a 3 week race. 

Add in designer steroids that could easily enhance recovery as well as strength and they had plenty of PED's that greatly manipulated results in races....dating back to the 60's.

Then figure some amphetamines to help boost performance, some good pain medication to hold off fatigue longer and you have other methods to increase performance while on the bike...especially during 3 week races.

EPO and HGH may be more efficient and to an extent more effective...but there are plenty of other methods that were very effective dating well before the EPO/HGH era.

To beat those guys as a "clean" rider would be similar to saying a clean rider could beat those in the EPO/HGH era.


----------



## cmdrpiffle (Mar 28, 2006)

I'd strongly agree with him. (Wookiebiker) Mid 80's we had copious amounts of inosine and gamma-Hydroxybutyric acid, yeah, that stuff.

As well, cocaine and other assorted amphetimines were somewhat widely used from the pros on down. Caffeine suppositories and 'B' vitamins were absolutely commonplace. Alupent (Metaproterenol), for those that had a waiver and perscription were often freely passed around prior to team events. 

Of course, we used to carry unwrapped PowerBars literally wrapped around the handlebars near the stem. (Early 80's PowerBars were all but impossible to unwrap after having been in a jersey pocket, the later Mylar packaging made a huge difference.)

Cheers!
To beat those guys as a "clean" rider would be similar to saying a clean rider could beat those in the EPO/HGH era.[/QUOTE]


----------



## RRRoubaix (Aug 27, 2008)

Coolhand said:


> post moved from Pro Cycling


But why, Coolhand? :lol:


----------



## rubbersoul (Mar 1, 2010)

6 degrees of separation...all roads lead back to Lance


----------



## DMFT (Feb 3, 2005)

Coolhand said:


> This is absurd. There were plenty of effective doping methods back to the 80's, nevermind the crazy crap the teams were doing pre-Festina.
> 
> Yes the racers for the 80's and 90's were doped to the gills, the testing was a joke, the penalties minor, and the rewards great. Pre-Festina the french teams were doping all their GC riders under the gise of "preparation". The strong Omerta and fear of litigation are protecting the few remaining non-outed dopers of that era, but you would have to be delusional to think that any GT winner from the 80's or 90's was_ remotely_ clean.



+ 1,000,000%


----------



## cyclesport45 (Dec 10, 2007)

[


Odd that Lemond could expouse so much admiration for Fignon (a proven cheater), yet spew so much vitriol for Armstrong (based on his own gut feelings and hearsay).

Two reasons.... 1. Fignon DIED. 2. Fignon never verbally attacked or tried to smear Lemond like Armstrong did


----------



## aptivaboy (Nov 21, 2009)

_Two reasons.... 1. Fignon DIED. 2. Fignon never verbally attacked or tried to smear Lemond like Armstrong did_

I think that's about right. Also, Lemond and Fignon raced against each other, and there does develop a grudging respect when you compete that hard against the same individual. It may be fair to say that the only person who really understood Fignon was, in a way, Lemond, and vice versa. 

_Pre EPO methods did not skew the results any where near as grotesquely as EPO, HGH & the like did. Riders like Mottet, Delion, Bauer & Lemond could and did compete with riders using cortisone, testosterone & amphetamine because the effects were not anything like as radical._

_A rider in the 80's was able to take the position of riding clean without consigning their career to the dustbin. Come 92/93 and on that was a distant memory. Hence Delion's retirement in 92 at 28, and Lemond's & Fignon's accelerated demises, IMO._

I totally agree with this, too. Riders could choose to not dope back then, or if they did to dope in a very minor way (that's not defending it, just stating that there were varying levels of doping). Nowadays, the designer drugs, HGH, and especially EPO make riding clean or close to it an impossibility. Yes, Fignon did dope, but compared to the guys doping today he was a saint, relatively. The drugs they took back then don't appear to have made anyone an instant superman. The playing field remained more or less level. EPO changed everything.


----------



## rydbyk (Feb 17, 2010)

cyclesport45 said:


> [
> 
> 
> Odd that Lemond could expouse so much admiration for Fignon (a proven cheater), yet spew so much vitriol for Armstrong (based on his own gut feelings and hearsay).
> ...



Correct, but LeMond went a little overboard with admiration considering his stance on PEDs. This is why we feel that his comments are a bit hypocritical. Based on his comments about a known PEDer, Lance too should be labled a great champion by LeMond..


----------



## terzo rene (Mar 23, 2002)

Not that I'm a fan of arguments from authority but Peter Winnen and others who rode in both the pre and post EPO era have also said it was possible to win clean before EPO.

More convincing to me is that the drugs available before EPO consistently fail to show statistically significant benefits in endurance sports in double blind controlled studies.


----------



## terzo rene (Mar 23, 2002)

.....


----------



## DMFT (Feb 3, 2005)

ultimobici said:


> The guy's not yet cold and you expect Lemond to condemn him for his positive in Eindhoven 21 years ago?
> 
> It's called respecting his dignity. Lemond was not only his rival, but an ex-team mate. Lemond talks about a relationship that extended after their retirement. How's the funeral likely to be if he sticks the boot in on various websites worldwide?



No. I expect LeMond to not contradict everything he "stands for".... 
He is making himself a hipocrite.


----------



## Perico (Mar 15, 2010)

Has it really come down to the best argument to go after LA while ignoring dopers in the era before him being that the drugs weren't as good? That's pathetic. That's like saying a kid today who cheats on a test by having a photo of the answers on his cell phone is worse then a kid in the 80's having the answers from a friends test (who got a 96%) on a piece of paper. They are both cheating...period.


----------



## pedalruns (Dec 18, 2002)

You guys are missing one big point here between Fignon and Armstrong... Fignon was a class guy and ADMITTED to doping.... on the other side... you have Armstrong who DENIES, DENIES, DENIES everything.


----------



## ultimobici (Jul 16, 2005)

Perico said:


> Has it really come down to the best argument to go after LA while ignoring dopers in the era before him being that the drugs weren't as good? That's pathetic. That's like saying a kid today who cheats on a test by having a photo of the answers on his cell phone is worse then a kid in the 80's having the answers from a friends test (who got a 96%) on a piece of paper. They are both cheating...period.


Lemond has not "gone after" Armstrong alone. He has had to defend himself after LA attacked him in 2001. But his concerns have been for cycling's clean up generally.

As for his comments regarding Fignon, do you really expect him to not say anything regarding the death of his rival in the most electric Tour in modern history? Or are you just incensed that he didn't slag off a man not even cold and unable to defend himself? 

As the previous poster said, Fignon admitted to doping without having it dragged out of him, whereas LA continues to deny, but more importantly LA threatens Lemond with outing him as a doper! Why in earth would Lemond kick Fignon when he's dead, that would be beyond the pale.


----------



## rubbersoul (Mar 1, 2010)

pedalruns said:


> You guys are missing one big point here between Fignon and Armstrong... Fignon was a class guy and ADMITTED to doping.... on the other side... you have Armstrong who DENIES, DENIES, DENIES everything.



+1. It's funny / sad / pathetic to see all the hypocritical bashing of certain cyclists who have admitted to doping while blindly idolizing others who continue to adamantly deny despite multiple sources of testimony / evidence. Seriously how about getting a life?


----------



## Wookiebiker (Sep 5, 2005)

Perico said:


> Has it really come down to the best argument to go after LA while ignoring dopers in the era before him being that the drugs weren't as good? That's pathetic. That's like saying a kid today who cheats on a test by having a photo of the answers on his cell phone is worse then a kid in the 80's having the answers from a friends test (who got a 96%) on a piece of paper. They are both cheating...period.


Unfortunately....yes it has :mad2: 

Everybody has their favorite racer, "admitted/accused/caught" doper or not, and they will defend that riders actions in any manner that helps them sleep at night. To them it's kind of like a "White Lie" it wasn't as big of a deal therefore it's not as important because nobody was really hurt were they? :aureola:


----------



## cmdrpiffle (Mar 28, 2006)

Even though I posted a couple days ago, I guess I just re read all the posts.

Didn't realize Laurent Fignon had died. A great loss. His 'attitude' and 'swagger' were one of the few reasons that American media took notice of the events in the European peloton back then. Love him or hate him, he caused the otherwise disinterested American media to at least acknowledge profesional cycling.

Back then it was "Greg Lemond" Greg's shot, Greg wins. Greg retires. That many American cyclists raced in Europe, that Andy Hampsten took the Giro.....you'd never have known it living in the States.

Vaya con Dios Laurent


----------



## Perico (Mar 15, 2010)

ultimobici said:


> Lemond has not "gone after" Armstrong alone. He has had to defend himself after LA attacked him in 2001. But his concerns have been for cycling's clean up generally.
> 
> As for his comments regarding Fignon, do you really expect him to not say anything regarding the death of his rival in the most electric Tour in modern history? Or are you just incensed that he didn't slag off a man not even cold and unable to defend himself?
> 
> As the previous poster said, Fignon admitted to doping without having it dragged out of him, whereas LA continues to deny, but more importantly LA threatens Lemond with outing him as a doper! Why in earth would Lemond kick Fignon when he's dead, that would be beyond the pale.


Gotta love it, the only thing you came close to discussing what I said was your first sentence and it conveniently ignores the fact that Lemond went after LA first...but then you have made it clear that ignoring facts to push your LA hate is your forte.

P.S.- If Lemond was so concerned about "cyclings clean up generally" then why was he silent until LA started winning Tours? Why does he rarely speak about anyone other then Americans who win the Tour? Why did he claim his downfall in cycling was from a disease thought to be from his gunshot accident until recently when it became about others doping?


----------



## pedalruns (Dec 18, 2002)

Perico said:


> Gotta love it, the only thing you came close to discussing what I said was your first sentence and it conveniently ignores the fact that Lemond went after LA first...but then you have made it clear that ignoring facts to push your LA hate is your forte.
> 
> P.S.- If Lemond was so concerned about "cyclings clean up generally" then why was he silent until LA started winning Tours? Why does he rarely speak about anyone other then Americans who win the Tour? Why did he claim his downfall in cycling was from a disease thought to be from his gunshot accident until recently when it became about others doping?



Check your history, Armstrong started it and went after Lemond for stating facts about the famous Dr. LA was seeing... and then LA/Trek bullied Lemond into silence... A recent trial, including Trek and Lemond was settled in Lemond's favor about this very thing... Lemond did think that the gunshots had caused his problems, and they probably did to some extent, but now that the truth is coming out.. we now know how rampant EPO use was in the early 90's and how it changed the sport... 

BTW... all of this has been discussed many times before on these forums.. but I look around and see all the Ad's w/LA here on RBR and kind of know that this forum is pretty one sided. Even the obvious that has been pointed out on this thread, even by the many LA supporters here, that LA has indeed probably doped, but at the same time it is fine that he lies about it... I just have a different opinion about that than most here on this forum. But that is ok, everyone has their opinion....


----------



## spade2you (May 12, 2009)

pedalruns said:


> Check your history, Armstrong started it and went after Lemond for stating facts about the famous Dr. LA was seeing... and then LA/Trek bullied Lemond into silence... A recent trial, including Trek and Lemond was settled in Lemond's favor about this very thing... Lemond did think that the gunshots had caused his problems, and they probably did to some extent, but now that the truth is coming out.. we now know how rampant EPO use was in the early 90's and how it changed the sport...
> 
> BTW... all of this has been discussed many times before on these forums.. but I look around and see all the Ad's w/LA here on RBR and kind of know that this forum is pretty one sided. Even the obvious that has been pointed out on this thread, even by the many LA supporters here, that LA has indeed probably doped, but at the same time it is fine that he lies about it... I just have a different opinion about that than most here on this forum. But that is ok, everyone has their opinion....


While the whole Trek fiasco seemed to look poorly on LA, Lemond's attacks were simply a bad business move given that LA was big $ to Trek and making Lemond's bikes. 

I guess the odd thing about Lemond's stance is that he has only gone after American riders. Why no fuss about Big Mig? Why no fuss about LA's podium as well? I mean, if he were discredited from his wins, most of the podium eventually got busted.


----------



## ultimobici (Jul 16, 2005)

Perico said:


> Gotta love it, the only thing you came close to discussing what I said was your first sentence and it conveniently ignores the fact that Lemond went after LA first...but then you have made it clear that ignoring facts to push your LA hate is your forte.
> 
> P.S.- If Lemond was so concerned about "cyclings clean up generally" then why was he silent until LA started winning Tours? Why does he rarely speak about anyone other then Americans who win the Tour? Why did he claim his downfall in cycling was from a disease thought to be from his gunshot accident until recently when it became about others doping?


It's not rocket science mate -

Lemond has made several comments regarding the general effect of EPO on him and his peers (Fignon, Delion etc) in the early 1990's.
Armstrong attacked him for the comment he made in the light of the Ferrari link


> _"When Lance won the prologue to the 1999 Tour I was close to tears, but when I heard he was working with Michele Ferrari I was devastated. In the light of Lance's relationship with Ferrari, I just don't want to comment on this year's Tour. This is not sour grapes. I'm disappointed in Lance, that's all it is."_



The focus on US riders in interviews is only natural as Lemond is an American, his detractor is American and he's often interviewed by the English speaking press. It doesn't help that of the three US winners one was proven to have doped and another has serious questions being asked of his wins.
The lack of criticism of Indurain, Fignon and other contemporaries is a little interesting. But unlike Armstrong there is only suspicion about Indurain. Plus Indurain is a documented freak on the lung capacity front. His Tour performances in the 80's were progressive, so perhaps he was less adventurous than Riis, Chiappucci. Who knows?
He was diagnosed in 1993 with a degenerative disease. The lack of expected degeneration over several years led to that diagnosis being questioned and reassessed. In the light of what we now know of EPO's use in cycling it was not hard to come to the conclusion that he was misdiagnosed.
I don't hate Armstrong at all. As a fan I am disappointed though.
Rides such a short season
Ignores the Classics
Backdated TUE
Bassons
Simeoni
Bush-like "you're either with us or against us" attitude
Didn't have the good grace to stay retired


----------



## spade2you (May 12, 2009)

ultimobici said:


> [*]The lack of criticism of Indurain, Fignon and other contemporaries is a little interesting. But unlike Armstrong there is only suspicion about Indurain. Plus Indurain is a documented freak on the lung capacity front. His Tour performances in the 80's were progressive, so perhaps he was less adventurous than Riis, Chiappucci. Who knows?
> [*]He was diagnosed in 1993 with a degenerative disease. The lack of expected degeneration over several years led to that diagnosis being questioned and reassessed. In the light of what we now know of EPO's use in cycling it was not hard to come to the conclusion that he was misdiagnosed.
> [*]I don't hate Armstrong at all. As a fan I am disappointed though.
> Rides such a short season
> ...


I only have a little time on my hands, but keep in mind, Indurain was easily more talented, but didn't have as structured of a training program. Big Mig's team was good, but didn't seem to be built around him, which I could argue makes him a much stronger rider than LA. So...Indurain could be a freak of nature, but not Lance?

Nothing is proven against Lemond, but nothing is proven against LA, either. Could that be a conclusion? Perhaps. It's possible to train and ride yourself into a permanent state of being overtrained and never recover. I'll give him htat.

LA's season was short: his goal was ONLY to win the TdF. You can blame LA as much as you want, but enough is known about training and peaking that riders have chosen to specialize. What classics did Contador ride? Exactly. 

His Bush like attitude: he's from Texas. That ain't no crime, y'all. 

Retiring poorly: he thought he had a shot and he took it. I'm only an amateur racer, but DFL>DNF>DNS any day.


----------



## rydbyk (Feb 17, 2010)

pedalruns said:


> Check your history, Armstrong started it and went after Lemond for stating facts about the famous Dr. LA was seeing... and then LA/Trek bullied Lemond into silence... A recent trial, including Trek and Lemond was settled in Lemond's favor about this very thing... Lemond did think that the gunshots had caused his problems, and they probably did to some extent, but now that the truth is coming out.. we now know how rampant EPO use was in the early 90's and how it changed the sport...
> 
> BTW... all of this has been discussed many times before on these forums.. but I look around and see all the Ad's w/LA here on RBR and kind of know that this forum is pretty one sided. Even the obvious that has been pointed out on this thread, even by the many LA supporters here, that LA has indeed probably doped, but at the same time it is fine that he lies about it... I just have a different opinion about that than most here on this forum. But that is ok, everyone has their opinion....



What? Huh?


----------



## Perico (Mar 15, 2010)

Pedalruns- Sorry but saying if LA doped (based only on him working with Ferrari) then he is a fraud is not simply stating facts.

ultramobici- Apparently it is rocket science because you clearly have no clue.


----------



## ultimobici (Jul 16, 2005)

Perico said:


> Pedalruns- Sorry but saying if LA doped (based only on him working with Ferrari) then he is a fraud is not simply stating facts.


Evidently you have difficulty understanding basic English - _"When Lance won the prologue to the 1999 Tour I was close to tears, but when I heard he was working with Michele Ferrari I was devastated. In the light of Lance's relationship with Ferrari, I just don't want to comment on this year's Tour. This is not sour grapes. I'm disappointed in Lance, that's all it is."_ 
There is no mention of doping at all in that quote, merely Lemond commenting on Lance's relationship with Ferrari. 



> ultramobici- Apparently it is rocket science because you clearly have no clue.


You manage to draw wholly different conclusions from the same information. Well, you have your opinion, I have mine.

Time will tell who, if either of us, is closer to being right.


----------



## spade2you (May 12, 2009)

ultimobici said:


> Time will tell who, if either of us, is closer to being right.


Meh, the truth is for sale to the highest bidder.


----------



## Perico (Mar 15, 2010)

ultimobici said:


> Evidently you have difficulty understanding basic English - _"When Lance won the prologue to the 1999 Tour I was close to tears, but when I heard he was working with Michele Ferrari I was devastated. In the light of Lance's relationship with Ferrari, I just don't want to comment on this year's Tour. This is not sour grapes. I'm disappointed in Lance, that's all it is."_
> There is no mention of doping at all in that quote, merely Lemond commenting on Lance's relationship with Ferrari.
> 
> You manage to draw wholly different conclusions from the same information. Well, you have your opinion, I have mine.
> ...


1) Interesting how you choose certain things to quote while ignoring many other items. Not surprised as that is your M.O. as evidenced by:

2) Time won't tell because you are already wrong about most of what you posted. You, my friend, couldn't be a rocket scientist if someone spotted you 190 IQ points.


----------



## SilasCL (Jun 14, 2004)

Perico said:


> Pedalruns- Sorry but saying if LA doped (based only on him working with Ferrari) then he is a fraud is not simply stating facts.
> 
> ultramobici- Apparently it is rocket science because you clearly have no clue.


Seems ripe for a permaban...


----------



## ultimobici (Jul 16, 2005)

Perico said:


> 1) Interesting how you choose certain things to quote while ignoring many other items. Not surprised as that is your M.O. as evidenced by:


I quoted the initial comment made in 2001 that started the whole LA v GL "war". How is that selective?



> 2) Time won't tell because you are already wrong about most of what you posted. You, my friend, couldn't be a rocket scientist if someone spotted you 190 IQ points.


Tell me, oh wise one, so that I may learn where I have erred. What was wrong with the facts, rather than my opinion?


----------



## alexb618 (Aug 24, 2006)

LF didnt take advantage of dying cancer victims to fund his new house/helicopter/girlfriend

i cant believe people are asking why GL loves LF but not LA


----------



## Perico (Mar 15, 2010)

alex- GL loves Floyd because he got busted and is not a threat to him anymore.

silasCL- Perhaps you would like to discuss the topic instead of trying to play moderator.

ultra- I looked through your long winded posts and saw very few facts and what ones you posted were spun to your obvious LA-hate agenda. Oh, what the heck, I'll rip your nonsense to pieces even though I know you will spin and move the goalposts in order to try to claim you are right...as you always do.



> 1. Lemond has made several comments regarding the general effect of EPO on him and his peers (Fignon, Delion etc) in the early 1990's


 He has made comments, just nothing until LA started winning Tours and all his comments are only "poor me, I am a victim" comments.

.


> 2. Armstrong attacked him for the comment he made in the light of the Ferrari


So you admit Lemond made comments first. Thanks for admitting I am correct...even if you can't stand to see it.


> 3. The focus on US riders in interviews is only natural as Lemond is an American, his detractor is American and he's often interviewed by the English speaking press. It doesn't help that of the three US winners one was proven to have doped and another has serious questions being asked of his wins.


1) One problem, Lemond starting talking focusing on saying or implying LA is/was doping as soon as he started winning, not after questions arose or FL got busted. Nice try to spin.
2) Yet they ask people like Hinault and Indurain about riders who aren't French and Spanish, respectively, when they are on French speaking or Spanish speaking stations. Keep trying.


> 4. The lack of criticism of Indurain, Fignon and other contemporaries is a little interesting. But unlike Armstrong there is only suspicion about Indurain. Plus Indurain is a documented freak on the lung capacity front. His Tour performances in the 80's were progressive, so perhaps he was less adventurous than Riis, Chiappucci. Who knows?


Hmmm, some of he things you say sound exactly like things said about LA, but you are cool with saying them about others and not LA.


> 5. He was diagnosed in 1993 with a degenerative disease. The lack of expected degeneration over several years led to that diagnosis being questioned and reassessed. In the light of what we now know of EPO's use in cycling it was not hard to come to the conclusion that he was misdiagnosed.


Are you saying Lemond used EPO or simply creating an excuse for GL changing his excuse for getting old and slow that a child could do better then?


> 6. I don't hate Armstrong at all. As a fan I am disappointed though.
> 1. Rides such a short season
> 2. Ignores the Classics
> 3. Backdated TUE
> ...


Yet every thread you spend all your time going after LA, spinning, playing ight with the truth, attacking people who don't hate LA, etc.
Now about each point:

1) It's called specialization, it's common in all sports these days. Times change. You would be surprised at how many current riders do short seasons focusing on their specialty and certain races in particular.
2) Where is the hate for TT specialists or classics specialists not riding all the climbing races?
3) I keep looking for proof of this yet never find more then hearsay. Can you provide some definitive proof?
4) Now this is petty, especially if you choose to look at all of the story.
5) LA was wrong to ride him down but, from everything I have read and seen, Simeoni (a proven doper) burned a lot of bridges in cycling simply by being an ass.
6) Asinine. Politics have no place here, so get over it.
7) I'd say this one is essentially you proving that you hate him. Probably the dumbest comment you have ever made around here...and that is saying a lot.

Thanks for playing, enjoy your stewing with anger while you spin, play light with the truth and move the goalposts.:lol:

P.S.- For both you and Alex, Lemond is the reason I started racing back in the mid 80's.


----------



## Coolhand (Jul 28, 2002)

SilasCL said:


> Seems ripe for a permaban...


No, but just stick to the points if you can.


----------



## pacificaslim (Sep 10, 2008)

That '89 tour was the moment where class and style in cycling died in favor of Lemond's superhero looking future of funny hats and flashy technology. And then Lance evolved it further, into the era where the body is also a machine to be modified.

I wish we could turn back time and give that one to Fignon and maybe today's cycling world would have much more class.


----------



## rydbyk (Feb 17, 2010)

Is "permaban" a new type of PED? I can't believe you are all still debating all of this. I hit LA overload a month ago. I have become pretty desensitized to the whole idea of doping in pro cycling. Every time I see ANY pro athlete now that would benefit from an endurance enhancing drug, I just assume that are doped. It is kind of funny that I can look at a male (female?) tennis player now and think.."yep...why not?" Every single pro NBA player could benefit greatly too....so....why not? And on and on and on and on......


----------



## ultimobici (Jul 16, 2005)

Perico said:


> ultra- I looked through your long winded posts and saw very few facts and what ones you posted were spun to your obvious LA-hate agenda. Oh, what the heck, I'll rip your nonsense to pieces even though I know you will spin and move the goalposts in order to try to claim you are right...as you always do.
> 
> 
> He has made comments, just nothing until LA started winning Tours and all his comments are only "poor me, I am a victim" comments.
> ...


It was 2 years before he commented on LA's win & the revelation that LA was working with Ferrari.


> 2) Yet they ask people like Hinault and Indurain about riders who aren't French and Spanish, respectively, when they are on French speaking or Spanish speaking stations. Keep trying.


Fair point. Although Lemond was the natural "go to" person as far as English speaking publications were concerned, especially when the story was LA.




> Hmmm, some of he things you say sound exactly like things said about LA, but you are cool with saying them about others and not LA.
> 
> 
> Are you saying Lemond used EPO or simply creating an excuse for GL changing his excuse for getting old and slow that a child could do better then?


No. I took the trouble to read up a bit on Mitochondrial Myopathy. Apart from the fact that it is hereditary, it also is a degenerative & debilitating disease. It makes sense that Lemond was not suffering from this as more than a decade after retirement, he shows no signs of the disease, let alone it advancing. In the light of the Gewiss team & Ferrari's work, the Festina Affair as well as the general information that has emerged regarding EPO it makes sense to re-evaluate that diagnosis.

Yet every thread you spend all your time going after LA, spinning, playing ight with the truth, attacking people who don't hate LA, etc.
Now about each point:



> 1) It's called specialization, it's common in all sports these days. Times change. You would be surprised at how many current riders do short seasons focusing on their specialty and certain races in particular.


There's specialisation and then there's specialisation. LA hardly rode before late April and stopped by 1st August. That's barely a third of the season. No Giro, no World's, No LBL, Amstel, Fleche, Lombardia. AS is a GT rider yet he's at all of these as is Cadel Evans. As a fan I don't expect rides to all flog themselves from February to October, but 3 months FFS?? 


> 2) Where is the hate for TT specialists or classics specialists not riding all the climbing races?


It's not hate it's disappointment. I remember LA in San Sebastian in 92 finishing last and then winning the next edition. Gilbert & Cancellara ride a season that starts earlier and finishes later than most GT contenders. Quite often their role changes during the GT's to domestique/stage hunter. LA never reversed the roles outside of the Daupine when he was on his Tour offensive.


> 3) I keep looking for proof of this yet never find more then hearsay. Can you provide some definitive proof?


LA "failed" a test for cortisone in the 99 Tour, but had a TUE. Only problem was he repeatedly stated that he had never had a TUE. Walsh made the claim in LA Confidentiel that it was backdated. Instead of suing for defamation in France, LA merely sought to block it being published in English. Begs the question that something ain't right. If a falsehood is published why not defend your reputation vigorously?


> 4) Now this is petty, especially if you choose to look at all of the story.


I do. His actions were that of a bully, plain & simple. He did not act in a manner befitting a Grand Champion.


> 5) LA was wrong to ride him down but, from everything I have read and seen, Simeoni (a proven doper) burned a lot of bridges in cycling simply by being an ass.


See 4


> 6) Asinine. Politics have no place here, so get over it.


It's a simile. LA has the same black or white attitude, there's no middle ground.


> 7) I'd say this one is essentially you proving that you hate him. Probably the dumbest comment you have ever made around here...and that is saying a lot.


The sport was moving on, there were different faces on the front of Procycling & Cyclesport. Fewer overly long socks too!




> P.S.- For both you and Alex, Lemond is the reason I started racing back in the mid 80's.


Glad he inspired you.


----------



## Perico (Mar 15, 2010)

Yep, precisely what I said you would do. You are so predictable.


----------



## Perico (Mar 15, 2010)

pacificaslim said:


> That '89 tour was the moment where class and style in cycling died in favor of Lemond's superhero looking future of funny hats and flashy technology. And then Lance evolved it further, into the era where the body is also a machine to be modified.
> 
> I wish we could turn back time and give that one to Fignon and maybe today's cycling world would have much more class.


1) Lemond simply continued the evolution of technology that was already happening in cycling and was going to happen whether it was done by him or Fignon or Indurain, etc. Oh and check out some pics of ITT and TTT's of previous years and you will see people like Fignon wearing "funny hats."

2) Fignon showed a lack of class many times.


----------



## ultimobici (Jul 16, 2005)

Perico said:


> 2) Fignon showed a lack of class many times.


Once or twice he lost it with a journalist or two but quite often they were asking for it.

Nice thing is that he and Guimard gave us the structure that virtually all modern teams use to this day. In 87 they were ahead of their time by several years.


----------



## ultimobici (Jul 16, 2005)

Perico said:


> Yep, precisely what I said you would do. You are so predictable.


As are you!

Rude, patronising & incapable of debate without resorting to cheap insults.


----------



## Perico (Mar 15, 2010)

ultimobici said:


> As are you!
> 
> Rude, patronising & incapable of debate without resorting to cheap insults.


If you are going to continue describing yourself don;t forget to add, spinning, playing light with the truth, moving the goalposts and afraid to admit when you are wrong.

I am done with you on this topic, but I am sure you will need to get in a last word, so enjoy yourself.


----------



## spade2you (May 12, 2009)

ultimobici said:


> Once or twice he lost it with a journalist or two but quite often they were asking for it.


Your bias could not be more obvious.


----------



## Big-foot (Dec 14, 2002)

"Did so."
"Did not!"
"Yeah huh!"
"No way-ay!"


----------



## ultimobici (Jul 16, 2005)

spade2you said:


> Your bias could not be more obvious.


I make no apologies for the fact. I preferred it when a champion rode a proper season. That's one thing Lemond gave us that I am not overly keen on.


----------



## spade2you (May 12, 2009)

ultimobici said:


> I make no apologies for the fact. I preferred it when a champion rode a proper season. That's one thing Lemond gave us that I am not overly keen on.


While Greg Lemond became the poster child of "modern training" and peaking, if it weren't him, someone else would have eventually stumbled on to this training strategy eventually. Perhaps it's unfortunate, but it is what it is and it works. Racing is about winning and you'd be hard pressed to stay competitive against specialists. I don't blame Saecco for the lead out train.


----------



## ultimobici (Jul 16, 2005)

spade2you said:


> While Greg Lemond became the poster child of "modern training" and peaking, if it weren't him, someone else would have eventually stumbled on to this training strategy eventually. Perhaps it's unfortunate, but it is what it is and it works. Racing is about winning and you'd be hard pressed to stay competitive against specialists. I don't blame Saecco for the lead out train.


I realise that progress is unstoppable, but the trend to shorten & shorten the season to the point that some have is a shame and devalues their achievements a little IMO.

As for Saeco inventing the lead-out train, not quite - they borrowed the idea from Rik Van Looy's Flandria who are acknowledged to have been the first train named the "Red Guard"

http://velonews.competitor.com/2006/04/news/paris-roubaix-boonen-in-the-tracks-of-rik-van-looy_9706

Cippolini & Saeco did take it to another level though.


----------



## spade2you (May 12, 2009)

ultimobici said:


> I realise that progress is unstoppable, but the trend to shorten & shorten the season to the point that some have is a shame and devalues their achievements a little IMO.
> 
> As for Saeco inventing the lead-out train, not quite - they borrowed the idea from Rik Van Looy's Flandria who are acknowledged to have been the first train named the "Red Guard"
> 
> ...


Flandria. I haven't heard that name in a super long time. I'd say I almost forgot about them and the original red guard, but I honestly forgot. 

I'd agree that it's somewhat unfortunate that most cyclists have evolved into 1 trick ponies for a limited time, but until the competition changes, specialists are the way it will always be. 

Given the minimal talent on my own part and limited training schedule, I certainly appreciate the idea of a nice specialty and picking a time to be on my best form. I have my early season race with the inly hilltop finish, then I'll switch to TT mode for mid summer. Sure, I could do better overall if I didn't try to specialize, but this method gives me a better shot at the podium, in theory at least.


----------

