# Rooks confesses doping- another 80's rider on EPO



## Coolhand (Jul 28, 2002)

Only a few left to come clean, including well you know who.

http://www.velonews.com/article/93581/rooks-admits-to-epo-use


----------



## robdamanii (Feb 13, 2006)

But...but...Cool....he's IIIIIINNNNOOOCENT!


----------



## terzo rene (Mar 23, 2002)

may be an 80's rider but he confessed to using EPO after 1989, which makes him a 90's doper.


----------



## Bry03cobra (Oct 31, 2006)

I thought there was no doping in cycling from 86-90??? 

Hey doesn't rook post here?:thumbsup:


----------



## den bakker (Nov 13, 2004)

Where in the article does he say he doped in the 80s?
edit/ should have read all responses first, sorrty terzo


----------



## bigpinkt (Jul 20, 2006)

Did you even read the article or has your Lemond obsession blinded you?

*insisted he had only started taking EPO after 1989 when he finished seventh overall in the Tour and won a stage.*


----------



## mohair_chair (Oct 3, 2002)

bigpinkt said:


> Did you even read the article or has your Lemond obsession blinded you?
> 
> *insisted he had only started taking EPO after 1989 when he finished seventh overall in the Tour and won a stage.*


Hmm. So is this proof that guys taking EPO in the 1990 tour? Who won that one?


----------



## Coolhand (Jul 28, 2002)

mohair_chair said:


> Hmm. So is this proof that guys taking EPO in the 1990 tour? Who won that one?


Ouch. Yeah, who was that. "miracle" comeback. Beat tons of other known dopers. Was on the "cutting edge" and was know for "innovation to go faster". Very good friends with an admitted doper. Been sued a lot.

Can't quite remember. . .


----------



## robdamanii (Feb 13, 2006)

Coolhand said:


> Ouch. Yeah, who was that. "miracle" comeback. Beat tons of other known dopers. Was on the "cutting edge" and was know for "innovation to go faster". Very good friends with an admitted doper. Been sued a lot.
> 
> Can't quite remember. . .


C'mon Cool, it couldn't have been Greg. He hates LA after all! And anyone who hates LA and says he didn't dope is a god, right?


----------



## Bry03cobra (Oct 31, 2006)

mohair_chair said:


> Hmm. So is this proof that guys taking EPO in the 1990 tour? Who won that one?


What ya trying to say?? There is NO WAY Lord Greg touched any drug/blood. The preists of the church of Lemond say so. I'm sure those same preists will find a way to blame Lance for Rook's EPO use.


----------



## Coolhand (Jul 28, 2002)

robdamanii said:


> C'mon Cool, it couldn't have been Greg. He hates LA after all! And anyone who hates LA and says he didn't dope is a god, right?


To think he didn't at this point you would have to have blinders on. Hell, if Eddy can get busted for running on high test, they all were doing it. Pre-Festina 1985-2000 I am not sure any GT contender of note was remotely clean. Different era, different mentality. Sadly, too many of the one-day riders were running high-test too. Bleh. I remember being a huge fan of Pantani. . .

But you can't let being a fan blind you to reality, or no one will take you seriously.


----------



## loudog (Jul 22, 2008)

most in the doping forum condemn any successful rider as having doped if they have a good performance. so now we know that lemond was beating doped riders - fignon and rooks. you all thing greg doped now?


----------



## Coolhand (Jul 28, 2002)

loudog said:


> most in the doping forum condemn any successful rider as having doped if they have a good performance. so now we know that lemond was beating doped riders - fignon and rooks. you all thing greg doped now?


Yep- but many of us have all along. Pre-Festina is was a different era. Given the organized team doping of the team, and the laughably bad testing (and lacking will to really test) and how few of the dopers they caught who later admitted they doped *for years* it is silly to play the "but, but, but he never got caught" line for a racer for that era. Clearly you could ride to the start line with a needle sticking in your arm just about. . .


----------



## robdamanii (Feb 13, 2006)

Coolhand said:


> To think he didn't at this point you would have to have blinders on. Hell, if Eddy can get busted for running on high test, they all were doing it. Pre-Festina 1985-2000 I am not sure any GT contender of note was remotely clean. Different era, different mentality. Sadly, too many of the one-day riders were running high-test too. Bleh. I remember being a huge fan of Pantani. . .
> 
> But you can't let being a fan blind you to reality, or no one will take you seriously.


This is exactly the point I'm making.

Everybody does this. If you beat a doped field while doped yourself, you're still the better man.

Anguishing over who has/has not doped takes the fun out of all sports.


----------



## iliveonnitro (Feb 19, 2006)

loudog said:


> most in the doping forum condemn any successful rider as having doped if they have a good performance. so now we know that lemond was beating doped riders - fignon and rooks. you all thing greg doped now?


EPO testing and use started before 1990, too.

I've always thought GL doped. I also believe that there is no evidence available for him to get caught. It's not like they can save and retest those samples after 20 years...


----------



## lookrider (Dec 3, 2006)

LeMond is bitter, a whiner, evidently not well liked, but no insiders have revealed anything about him. Not a peep. Why is this? He was teammates with Hinault, Fignon. He had the same mechanic as Merckx and Armstrong.

Nothing has come out about LeMond though, No rumor, no innuendo(except from the mouth breathers on the internets).

No off the record comments. No unnamed sources? Nothing.

Any ideas why that may be?


----------



## Wookiebiker (Sep 5, 2005)

iliveonnitro said:


> EPO testing and use started before 1990, too.
> 
> I've always thought GL doped. I also believe that there is no evidence available for him to get caught. It's not like they can save and retest those samples after 20 years...


Watch out...Lemond faithful will be calling everybody posting anything negative about Lemond in this thread a liar in 5, 4, 3, 2, 1.....  *(Edit: wow, did I call that one...1 minute before posting this....the Lemond faithful show up*  *)*

Considering the first successful trials were published in January of 1987 I'd be willing to bet that team doctors made the connection pretty quick and were able to get samples of EPO for riders to use by mid 1987....just as many riders have access to drugs now before they are released to the general public (that's how they stay ahead of the system).

The riders may or may not have known what it was at the time and may have only been told..."This will make you faster" or "This will help you recover faster" etc. and riders didn't ask questions because it did, making them much faster which is what they wanted in the first place.

As others have said...if a rider is beating known dopers, chances are the rider winning was a doper as well :blush2:


----------



## giovanni sartori (Feb 5, 2004)

lookrider said:


> LeMond is bitter, a whiner, evidently not well liked, but no insiders have revealed anything about him. Not a peep. Why is this? He was teammates with Hinault, Fignon. He had the same mechanic as Merckx and Armstrong.
> 
> Nothing has come out about LeMond though, No rumor, no innuendo(except from the mouth breathers on the internets).
> 
> ...


Mouth breathers? That's comical coming from someone that posts innuendo about marital affairs between LA and HP. Very comical indeed.


----------



## lookrider (Dec 3, 2006)

Wookiebiker said:


> Watch out...Lemond faithful will be calling everybody posting anything negative about Lemond in this thread a liar in 5, 4, 3, 2, 1.....
> 
> Considering the first successful trials were published in January of 1987 I'd be willing to bet that team doctors made the connection pretty quick and were able to get samples of EPO for riders to use by mid 1987....just as many riders have access to drugs now before they are released to the general public (that's how they stay ahead of the system).
> 
> ...


By most accounts Pharmstrong didn't start on EPO until 1995. He couldn't bridge to the EPO boys at Fleche Wallone in 1994 and the whole peloton couldn't catch them either.

LeMond was on the stuff in '89 and '90 though? The FDA didn't approve it until june of '89 although is was likely used before then.


----------



## blackhat (Jan 2, 2003)

Wookiebiker said:


> Considering the first successful trials were published in January of 1987 I'd be willing to bet that team doctors made the connection pretty quick and were able to get samples of EPO for riders to use by mid 1987....just as many riders have access to drugs now before they are released to the general public (that's how they stay ahead of the system).
> 
> The riders may or may not have known what it was at the time and may have only been told..."This will make you faster" or "This will help you recover faster" etc. and riders didn't ask questions because it did, making them much faster which is what they wanted in the first place.


who were his "team doctors" in 1987? 

"I don't believe it was ever organised before then. <b>I was never on a team with a doctor. </b>When someone began promoting the use of drugs in the PDM team in the late Eighties, I left the team. I mean, there are always going to be guys who will cheat, but I truly believe that all the peloton want is to be equal one way or another."

http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/...nd-defender-of-the-clean-machine-1107226.html


----------



## lookrider (Dec 3, 2006)

giovanni sartori said:


> Mouth breathers? That's comical coming from someone that posts innuendo about marital affairs between LA and HP. Very comical indeed.


Unfortunately it's true and just another indication LA's character.

You keeping burying your head in the sand though.


----------



## bigpinkt (Jul 20, 2006)

Why is it that those posters who complain the most about "rumor and innuendo" on the doping board are the same who in their desperation wish there was some about Lemond? 

You frustration that you can't find anything on the guy is evident in your posts.....and you guys call Greg a bitter whiner?
:cryin:


----------



## Wookiebiker (Sep 5, 2005)

blackhat said:


> who were his "team doctors" in 1987?
> 
> "I don't believe it was ever organised before then. <b>I was never on a team with a doctor. </b>When someone began promoting the use of drugs in the PDM team in the late Eighties, I left the team. I mean, there are always going to be guys who will cheat, but I truly believe that all the peloton want is to be equal one way or another."
> 
> http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/...nd-defender-of-the-clean-machine-1107226.html


Where did I mention Lemond taking EPO in my response? Way to jump on the immediate....*Must Defend Lemond At Any Cost*....*Head About To Explode*  

All I said is "The Lemond faithful will show up in 5, 4, 3, 2, 1...." and guess what...the timing was spot on! 

Well that and..."If a rider is beating known dopers, chances are the rider winning is a doper as well". You automatically made the jump to Lemond, I didn't mention Lemond in either of those statements...insuated, sure...mention his name...nope!

On a side note...do you seriously believe everything you read and every statement made by Lemond. How many cyclists have come out defending their good name, only to later find out they were lying through their teeth? Lemond is just very, very, very lucky his time was so long ago nobody gives a rip any longer.


----------



## Wookiebiker (Sep 5, 2005)

bigpinkt said:


> Why is it that those posters who complain the most about "rumor and innuendo" on the doping board are the same who in their desperation wish there was some about Lemond?
> 
> You frustration that you can't find anything on the guy is evident in your posts.....and you guys call Greg a bitter whiner?
> :cryin:


Honestly, I could care less if Lemond doped or not...but it sure is fun to get the "Lemond is the *ONLY* clean TDF winner ever"...crowd riled up  

Regardless, other than to a few Lemond fanatics...Lemond he has basically turned himself into a complete wacko with a vendetta. Every time he opens his mouth it just makes him look that much worse....except to the Lemond fanatics


----------



## bigpinkt (Jul 20, 2006)

Wookiebiker said:


> Honestly, I could care less if Lemond doped or not...but it sure is fun to get the "Lemond is the *ONLY* clean TDF winner ever"...crowd riled up
> 
> Regardless, other than to a few Lemond fanatics...Lemond he has basically turned himself into a complete wacko with a vendetta. Every time he opens his mouth it just makes him look that much worse....except to the Lemond fanatics


The fanatics I see here are those that are obsessed with Lemond. Have I ever called Lance a "Complete Wacko"? The insults and complete lack of evidence only serves to devalue, not enhance, your position.


----------



## bigpinkt (Jul 20, 2006)

loudog said:


> most in the doping forum condemn any successful rider as having doped if they have a good performance. so now we know that lemond was beating doped riders - fignon and rooks. you all thing greg doped now?


Do you think Andy Hampsten doped? Charly Mottet? Do you even know who those riders are?


----------



## blackhat (Jan 2, 2003)

Wookiebiker said:


> Where did I mention Lemond taking EPO in my response? Way to jump on the immediate....*Must Defend Lemond At Any Cost*....*Head About To Explode*
> 
> All I said is "The Lemond faithful will show up in 5, 4, 3, 2, 1...." and guess what...the timing was spot on!
> 
> ...


so..that's a "no" on naming lemond's "team doctors" that you "insinuated" exist and provided him with "samples of EPO"?


----------



## giovanni sartori (Feb 5, 2004)

lookrider said:


> Unfortunetly it's true and just another indication LA's character.
> 
> You keeping burying your head in the sand though.


How do you know its true? Why should we believe you if you know its true? How is this different than any other "mouth breather" that claims Lemond has doped in the past? Do you believe them just because they say it?


----------



## giovanni sartori (Feb 5, 2004)

lookrider said:


> By most accounts Pharmstrong didn't start on EPO until 1995. He couldn't bridge to the EPO boys at Fleche Wallone in 1994 and the whole peloton couldn't catch them either.
> 
> LeMond was on the stuff in '89 and '90 though? The FDA didn't approve it until june of '89 although is was likely used before then.


I love it. Lance couldn't bridge to the EPO boys in '94 therefore he wasn't on EPO until 1995. That's a gem. Keep them coming. I sincerely appreciate your posts.


----------



## giovanni sartori (Feb 5, 2004)

bigpinkt said:


> Do you think Andy Hampsten doped? Charly Mottet? Do you even know who those riders are?


Why would they? Because only the truly knowledgeable fans were cycling fans before 1999 right?


----------



## bigpinkt (Jul 20, 2006)

giovanni sartori said:


> I love it. Lance couldn't bridge to the EPO boys in '94 therefore he wasn't on EPO until 1995. That's a gem. Keep them coming. I sincerely appreciate your posts.


Not exactly. There is sworn testimony to back up those dates. 

Stephen Swart said that the doping program that Lance said was the only way to win started in early 1995. He started with Ferrari late 1995.


----------



## Coolhand (Jul 28, 2002)

bigpinkt said:


> Do you think Andy Hampsten doped? Charly Mottet? Do you even know who those riders are?


Probably is the answer to that question sadly. As mentioned earlier, everyone prior to the Festina affair is open to questions. Unfortunately doping wasn't seen in the same light as it is now. It was seen as being professional. Add in the horrible testing of the time and yeah, I wouldn't be surprised. As much as it kills the Lemond fans and Lance fans, I wouldn't be surprised if either doped sometime in their career. If you think one did, and the other didn't, that's pretty naive. Could the pre-cancer Armstrong have doped- probably yeah. Did Lemond dope to aid his come-back and beat *all* those other dopers who couldn't be caught on the road otherwise as noted above- yeah he probably did. Does that explain many of his later actions? Yeah it sure seems to. 

I think doping is wrong but like with Steroids in Baseball, there needs to be an asterisk around this period: the blood doping/EPO era. That includes Lemond who is starting the sound a bit like Pete Rose (to extend the Baseball analogy).


----------



## mohair_chair (Oct 3, 2002)

blackhat said:


> who were his "team doctors" in 1987?
> 
> "I don't believe it was ever organised before then. <b>I was never on a team with a doctor. </b>When someone began promoting the use of drugs in the PDM team in the late Eighties, I left the team. I mean, there are always going to be guys who will cheat, but I truly believe that all the peloton want is to be equal one way or another."


So you need a team doctor to dope? Remind me again, for which team was Michele Ferrari the team doctor? Fuentes was a team doctor, but not the team doctor for a lot of guys who got busted in OP. How many guys got their drugs through a doctor not associated with the team? The statement above is hopelessly naive.


----------



## stevesbike (Jun 3, 2002)

here's an honest question to the Lemond detractors. If Lemond did in fact take EPO why wasn't he more successful. I was at the Tour in 1990 and 1991. In 1990, I recall watching Indurain hanging on to Lemond's wheel while Lemond dragged him up a climb in the Pyrenees (Indurain's first Tour stage win). In 1991, Lemond was doing well through the Pyrenees but ran out of gas - to the same Indurain that could barely hold his wheel. In my opinion, Lemond was probably the most naturally gifted stage racer of all time. So, if he got on the program like Indurain and the others, why wasn't he more successful?


----------



## bigpinkt (Jul 20, 2006)

mohair_chair said:


> So you need a team doctor to dope? Remind me again, for which team was Michele Ferrari the team doctor?


Gewiss. 

Here are some of the results of his work. The Hct increase of some of the members of the 1995 team

Vladislav Bobrik (Rus) : 42.7 to 53
Bruno Cenghialta (Ita): 37.2 to 54.5
Francesco Frattini (Ita) : 46 to 54
Giorgio Furlan (Ita) : 38.8 to 51
Nicola Minali (Ita) : 41.7 to 54
Piotr Ugrumov (Rus) : 32.8 to 60
Alberto Volpi (Ita) : 38.5 to 52.6


----------



## mohair_chair (Oct 3, 2002)

And how many athletes did Ferrari work with where he wasn't their team doctor? It's painfully clear that it's irrelevant if the team doctor is involved in doping. If your team doctor isn't on board, there are plenty of outside doctors you can call who will give you what you need.


----------



## Wookiebiker (Sep 5, 2005)

stevesbike said:


> here's an honest question to the Lemond detractors. If Lemond did in fact take EPO why wasn't he more successful. I was at the Tour in 1990 and 1991. In 1990, I recall watching Indurain hanging on to Lemond's wheel while Lemond dragged him up a climb in the Pyrenees (Indurain's first Tour stage win). In 1991, Lemond was doing well through the Pyrenees but ran out of gas - to the same Indurain that could barely hold his wheel. In my opinion, Lemond was probably the most naturally gifted stage racer of all time. So, if he got on the program like Indurain and the others, why wasn't he more successful?


I'm not really a Lemond "Detractor" as much as I am a realist in believing the history of cycling when it comes to doping and how long before the 80's blood doping (non EPO doping) as well as other drugs had been around.

First, you are assuming that Lemond wasn't doing other things before the advent of EPO. He could quite possibly have been using the "Original" method of blood doping...i.e. adding in additional blood before big stages as well as using other methods. When EPO came along, he could have switched to that since it was a less noticeable way of doping. 

Having already been doping it would have looked like he was falling behind others that were just hanging onto his wheel when they started their doping programs, because he had already reached his potential.

Second, as has been mentioned many times on these forums drugs interact with riders differently. Some get more gain than others...so it could be that EPO wasn't as effective for Lemond as it was for others...i.e. Indurain. So when others picked it up they surpassed Lemond...who was nearing the end of his career at this time anyway.

Third as has been stated...he left a team because they brought on a "Team" doctor...? Could that be because he didn't want others to find out what he was doing? The less people that know, the more likely it is to remain a secret isn't it?

It's all theory and conjecture until evidence comes up....but then it always is regardless of the situation...but a lot of old riders are coming out and saying they were doping at the time.

Again, if a rider is beating other known dopers....chances are that rider is doping as well.


----------



## bigpinkt (Jul 20, 2006)

mohair_chair said:


> And how many athletes did Ferrari work with where he wasn't their team doctor? It's painfully clear that it's irrelevant if the team doctor is involved in doping. If your team doctor isn't on board, there are plenty of outside doctors you can call who will give you what you need.


After 97 perhaps but all of those "Outside doctors" you refer to got their start as a team doctor. After 97 most teams because far more selective.


----------



## bigpinkt (Jul 20, 2006)

Wookiebiker said:


> I'm not really a Lemond "Detractor" as much as I am a realist in believing the history of cycling when it comes to doping and how long before the 80's blood doping (non EPO doping) as well as other drugs had been around.


if you knew the history of doping in the sport you would know that there were many riders inn the 70's and 80's who rode, and won, clean. 


Wookiebiker said:


> First, you are assuming that Lemond wasn't doing other things before the advent of EPO. He could quite possibly have been using the "Original" method of blood doping...i.e. adding in additional blood before big stages as well as using other methods. When EPO came along, he could have switched to that since it was a less noticeable way of doping.


There is ZERO evidence to support this myth. If there was you would have presented it.


----------



## Wookiebiker (Sep 5, 2005)

bigpinkt said:


> if you knew the history of doping in the sport you would know that there were many riders inn the 70's and 80's who rode, and won, clean.
> 
> There is ZERO evidence to support this myth. If there was you would have presented it.


And if you knew the history of cycling you would know it goes back to when the sport began  

And who said it's "Myth" other than you? It's called a "Theory" as to why Lemond at first was holding Indurain off, then couldn't later in his career. 

The question was: "If Lemond did in fact take EPO why wasn't he more successful."

I put a "Theory" out that makes sense for the time and that other riders were using to race successfully. He wasn't more successful because he was on the same playing field as others at the time....sometimes the simplest answer is the correct one.

Such is life though....it's the same basis on one of the other threads where people don't understand the difference between relevant evidence to a case and irrelevant evidence just to try and "Out" somebody.


----------



## bigpinkt (Jul 20, 2006)

Wookiebiker said:


> And if you knew the history of cycling you would know it goes back to when the sport began
> 
> And who said it's "Myth" other than you? It's called a "Theory" as to why Lemond at first was holding Indurain off, then couldn't later in his career.
> 
> ...


Many have said it is a myth as there is nothing to support it. Any evidence to support your "Theory"? It makes no sense and there is nothing to support it. 

If you watched the 90 Tour you would have seen Indurain wasting himself to support Delgado, he should have at least been on the podium. His sudden improvement came from Conconi.


----------



## giovanni sartori (Feb 5, 2004)

bigpinkt said:


> Not exactly. There is sworn testimony to back up those dates.
> 
> Stephen Swart said that the doping program that Lance said was the only way to win started in early 1995. He started with Ferrari late 1995.


Great, well at least we can rest knowing Lance was clean for '93 worlds, and wasn't that the year Lemond said the peloton just got "faster"? See, Lance is a genetic freak and clearly didn't/doesn't need PED's.


----------



## stevesbike (Jun 3, 2002)

Wookiebiker said:


> Honestly, I could care less if Lemond doped or not...but it sure is fun to get the "Lemond is the *ONLY* clean TDF winner ever"...crowd riled up
> 
> Regardless, other than to a few Lemond fanatics...Lemond he has basically turned himself into a complete wacko with a vendetta. Every time he opens his mouth it just makes him look that much worse....except to the Lemond fanatics


what precisely was so wacko about his "play the game' talk?


----------



## FondriestFan (May 19, 2005)

Coolhand said:


> Only a few left to come clean, including well you know who.
> 
> http://www.velonews.com/article/93581/rooks-admits-to-epo-use


Armstrong?


----------



## FondriestFan (May 19, 2005)

Coolhand said:


> To think he didn't at this point you would have to have blinders on. Hell, if Eddy can get busted for running on high test, they all were doing it. Pre-Festina 1985-2000 I am not sure any GT contender of note was remotely clean. Different era, different mentality. Sadly, too many of the one-day riders were running high-test too. Bleh. I remember being a huge fan of Pantani. . .
> 
> But you can't let being a fan blind you to reality, or no one will take you seriously.


You think anyone takes you seriously?


----------



## FondriestFan (May 19, 2005)

So we have a response of ZERO evidence against LeMond so far.

Duly noted. 

This is getting comical. The same Lance fanboys who ignore all the evidence against Lance now are bashing LeMond despite ZERO evidence against him.

I'm not saying the guy was clean. Maybe he doped. If he did, why hasn't anyone said anything? Is there even a shred of evidence?


----------



## Coolhand (Jul 28, 2002)

FondriestFan said:


> You think anyone takes you seriously?


One can hope. . .


----------



## Wookiebiker (Sep 5, 2005)

FondriestFan said:


> So we have a response of ZERO evidence against LeMond so far.
> 
> Duly noted.
> 
> ...


I don't think anybody ignores the evidence against Armstrong and pretty much everybody believes he isn't clean and wasn't during any of his 7 tour wins....but then neither was/is the rest of the peloton. 

However Lemond supporters / Lance haters all say that toward anybody that says a positive word about Armstrong or a negative word about Lemond. It's quite comical in it's own right actually 

I may be wrong but didn't Lemond admit to getting the infamous "Vitamin B-12" shots? It seems that's what all the riders say they were using when they turn a positive test....then come clean and admit to what it really was.

Vitamin B-12 shots = "Code word" for blood doping.

As for nobody saying anything...if only your doctor (who can't say anything due to Dr./Patient confidentiality) and maybe a few of your closest friends who you haven't alienated or ticked off know....it's not going to get leaked. Seems like a pretty simple concept actually.

Why didn't anybody come out against Rooks before his admission? Why not Riis before his admission? Why not Indurain before his admission? Why not any rider that turned out to be a doper before they turned a positive or actually came out and admitted it?

Just because nobody has presented any evidence against another person doesn't mean they didn't dope...it just means they can't prove it, which means they can be sued for slander. 

Some people either don't want to deal with the court battle that will ensue or just could give a rip because everybody else has done it...what's the point in publicly tearing down somebody if you don't have an issue with them? 

Or in many cases...the people that know were dopers as well, but don't want it coming out that they were doing it as well so they remain silent about it.


----------



## SwiftSolo (Jun 7, 2008)

bigpinkt said:


> Why is it that those posters who complain the most about "rumor and innuendo" on the doping board are the same who in their desperation wish there was some about Lemond?
> 
> You frustration that you can't find anything on the guy is evident in your posts.....and you guys call Greg a bitter whiner?
> :cryin:


Geez,
I find myself agreeing with you!! Anyone asserting with certainty that anyone is guilty of using PEDs without going through the judicial system is a dumba$$. It is a reflection of the kindergarten mentality that has become popular in recent times. They use a small number of judicial failures to justify membership in a lynch mob. 

Deja vu--all over again!


----------



## loudog (Jul 22, 2008)

bigpinkt said:


> if you knew the history of doping in the sport you would know that there were many riders inn the 70's and 80's who rode, and won, clean.
> 
> 
> There is ZERO evidence to support this myth. If there was you would have presented it.



wow. are you just not counting amphetamines as doping? whats your limit? having read many cycling biographies seems to me that all kinds of pharmaceuticals were used openly and accepted.


----------



## loudog (Jul 22, 2008)

FondriestFan said:


> So we have a response of ZERO evidence against LeMond so far.
> 
> Duly noted.
> 
> ...



from mens health article favorable to lemond in 2008:

Others point to his final time trial in 1989, when he made up a 50-second deficit to leader Laurent Fignon in just 15 miles, ripping through the course at 34 mph and setting a Tour de France time-trial record that stood for 16 years — well into the EPO era. It’s still the third-fastest long time trial ever, surpassing all of Armstrong’s blazing-fast rides. Then there was the incident from the Giro d’Italia in that same year, when LeMond was struggling. In front of a VeloNews reporter, LeMond received three injections — of iron, he insists, nothing illegal. Nevertheless, his performance improved dramatically.


----------



## Wookiebiker (Sep 5, 2005)

loudog said:


> from mens health article favorable to lemond in 2008:
> 
> Then there was the incident from the Giro d’Italia in that same year, when LeMond was struggling. In front of a VeloNews reporter, LeMond received three injections — of iron, he insists, nothing illegal. Nevertheless, his performance improved dramatically.


I always love the part about how he "Found his legs" in the Giro....Another codeword for doping....One day, suffering like a dog, the next flying up mountains like it's nothing....and it fits in with the beginning of the EPO era. 

I thought it was Vitamin B-12 shots not Iron...but either way, taking injections during a Grand Tour.

Gotta love it


----------



## stevesbike (Jun 3, 2002)

Re the 89 time trial, look at the profile of the course - it includes a 5km section that loses elevation (in other words, a 5km long downhill section). Time trial times mean nothing without taking into account the profile/weather conditions. The fastest tour stage times are also ones with strong tailwinds.


----------



## Wookiebiker (Sep 5, 2005)

stevesbike said:


> Re the 89 time trial, look at the profile of the course - it includes a 5km section that loses elevation (in other words, a 5km long downhill section). Time trial times mean nothing without taking into account the profile/weather conditions. The fastest tour stage times are also ones with strong tailwinds.


I like how you neglected to say anything about the three "Iron" shots he took, then suddenly "Found" his legs  

Focus on what you can explain away and ignore that which you can't...:blush2:


----------



## loudog (Jul 22, 2008)

stevesbike said:


> Re the 89 time trial, look at the profile of the course - it includes a 5km section that loses elevation (in other words, a 5km long downhill section). Time trial times mean nothing without taking into account the profile/weather conditions. The fastest tour stage times are also ones with strong tailwinds.


i dont think the time trial is the point. the point is that people say crap, doesnt mean its true. people choose who and what to believe and the lemond fanatics talk as if hes the cleanest guy around. clearly he is willing to flip flop his position on LA maybe he has flip flopped on other things as well. i personally dont think lemond doped but i also question the guys mental stability and do think his protesting so much is more about him and less about doping. hes always been a guy that felt he didnt get his due... read the national geographic article about him back in 1989, even at the top of his game he had a bit of paranoia and super entitlement. the guy lives with a trained attack dog, Yester i think its name is.


----------



## bigpinkt (Jul 20, 2006)

Wookiebiker said:


> I like how you neglected to say anything about the three "Iron" shots he took, then suddenly "Found" his legs
> 
> Focus on what you can explain away and ignore that which you can't...:blush2:


Lemond did not take three injections in front of Bill. He took one then came down to get an interview. During that interview he *told* Bill that he had just received an Iron injection and how it was strange for him as he made it through his career without any injections but the oral iron supplements were not working. He then talks about how against injections he was even then. 

Bill has relayed this story correctly in the past, funny how the facts get twisted when someone has an agenda


----------



## ultimobici (Jul 16, 2005)

Wookiebiker said:


> I don't think anybody ignores the evidence against Armstrong and pretty much everybody believes he isn't clean and wasn't during any of his 7 tour wins....but then neither was/is the rest of the peloton.
> 
> However Lemond supporters / Lance haters all say that toward anybody that says a positive word about Armstrong or a negative word about Lemond. It's quite comical in it's own right actually
> 
> ...


The thing that I find intriguing is this.
If Lemond had doped in the 80's and 90's, his staunch condemnation of doping now would have to stick in someone's craw. Yet no one from that era who raced with or against him has pulled him up on it. No admissions from the likes of Rooks, Fignon or Riis have been qualified with comments about Lemond. 
Lemond has set out his stall knowing that, if he is exposed as a doper himself, it all comes crashing down. All his work to rid our sport of this corrosion would be for nought. 
It's not like there hasn't been enough time for the evidence to surface is it?


----------



## bigpinkt (Jul 20, 2006)

ultimobici said:


> The thing that I find intriguing is this.
> If Lemond had doped in the 80's and 90's, his staunch condemnation of doping now would have to stick in someone's craw. Yet no one from that era who raced with or against him has pulled him up on it. No admissions from the likes of Rooks, Fignon or Riis have been qualified with comments about Lemond.
> Lemond has set out his stall knowing that, if he is exposed as a doper himself, it all comes crashing down. All his work to rid our sport of this corrosion would be for nought.
> It's not like there hasn't been enough time for the evidence to surface is it?


Good point.If Lemond is the litigious crazy man what is Armstrong with 10 times the legal cases? If Lemond is such a nut job where are all the former teammates, support staff, and friends coming out to attack him? In fact the opposite is true. The list of Armstrong's former associates that have voiced their hatred for him, publicly and privately, is long. Where is the same for Greg? 

Armstrong does not have friends, he has employees.


----------



## bigpinkt (Jul 20, 2006)

Back on topic.

Rooks says in an interview with Sportwereld that he was not able to see the same improvements as some from EPO. His natural Hct was high, 48. His doctor would only allow him to get to 52 as he thought it was too dangerous. He talks about rumors of some Italians starting to use the drug in 1990 and then many others after that. 

Is is easy to see that a rider with a natural 39 would benefit much more using EPO to raise to 52 then Rooks.


----------



## tidi (Jan 11, 2008)

bigpinkt said:


> Lemond did not take three injections in front of Bill. He took one then came down to get an interview. During that interview he *told* Bill that he had just received an Iron injection and how it was strange for him as he made it through his career without any injections but the oral iron supplements were not working. He then talks about how against injections he was even then.
> 
> Bill has relayed this story correctly in the past, funny how the facts get twisted when someone has an agenda


i cannot help but thinking, just cause Lemond said it was an iron shot does that mean it is the truth? 
gee if it was another american rider in that circumstance saying that was an iron shot he just took i'm sure a lot of people would have locked him up and thrown away the key by now. just sayin


----------



## papisimo9807 (May 7, 2007)

loudog said:


> from mens health article favorable to lemond in 2008:
> 
> Others point to his final time trial in 1989, when he made up a 50-second deficit to leader Laurent Fignon in just 15 miles, ripping through the course at 34 mph and setting a Tour de France time-trial record that stood for 16 years — well into the EPO era. It’s still the third-fastest long time trial ever, surpassing all of Armstrong’s blazing-fast rides. Then there was the incident from the Giro d’Italia in that same year, when LeMond was struggling. In front of a VeloNews reporter, LeMond received three injections — of iron, he insists, nothing illegal. Nevertheless, his performance improved dramatically.


Did you happen to notice that Lemond was using aero bars, a primitive TT helmet, shoe covers, and other aerodynamic contraptions on his bike? If I remember correctly, he basically turned his road bike into a TT bike.
Fignon wasn't even wearing a helmet, had a pony tail, no aero bars, NOTHING but a standard road bike. 
If you think about it and take in all the course/weather factors(and the fact that lemond was an excellent tt'er) this is all very feasible.
Beamon's world record long jump stood for almost 30 years. His record blew away any previous or post attempts by a long ways. Sometimes, it just all comes together.
By the way, I've been training hard and feeling SH#@TY, for a good while. Went to the doc, she gave me some blood tests, went back, told me what was going on. She gave me a b-12 shot. Big deal.


----------



## FondriestFan (May 19, 2005)

loudog said:


> from mens health article favorable to lemond in 2008:
> 
> Others point to his final time trial in 1989, when he made up a 50-second deficit to leader Laurent Fignon in just 15 miles, ripping through the course at 34 mph and setting a Tour de France time-trial record that stood for 16 years — well into the EPO era. It’s still the third-fastest long time trial ever, surpassing all of Armstrong’s blazing-fast rides. Then there was the incident from the Giro d’Italia in that same year, when LeMond was struggling. In front of a VeloNews reporter, LeMond received three injections — of iron, he insists, nothing illegal. Nevertheless, his performance improved dramatically.



So, once again, ZERO evidence. 

BTW, the course was a generally downhill one, with a loss of 247 feet, and a tailwind.

Still waiting for your evidence.

If the "iron shots" is all you have, I'm sure you must be outraged at the US Postal/Discovery years.


----------



## stevesbike (Jun 3, 2002)

papisimo9807 said:


> Did you happen to notice that Lemond was using aero bars, a primitive TT helmet, shoe covers, and other aerodynamic contraptions on his bike? If I remember correctly, he basically turned his road bike into a TT bike.
> Fignon wasn't even wearing a helmet, had a pony tail, no aero bars, NOTHING but a standard road bike.
> If you think about it and take in all the course/weather factors(and the fact that lemond was an excellent tt'er) this is all very feasible.
> Beamon's world record long jump stood for almost 30 years. His record blew away any previous or post attempts by a long ways. Sometimes, it just all comes together.
> By the way, I've been training hard and feeling SH#@TY, for a good while. Went to the doc, she gave me some blood tests, went back, told me what was going on. She gave me a b-12 shot. Big deal.


for the record, Fignon was on a TT bike - had aero tubing, sloping top tube, short headtube etc. Also, he had double disc wheels. Lemond's helmet was apparently less aero than thought (less than no helmet). The bars of course help. Fignon reported having a severe saddle sore - if you watch him in the TT you'll notice him shifting around a lot -likely cost him time.


----------



## loudog (Jul 22, 2008)

FondriestFan said:


> So, once again, ZERO evidence.
> 
> BTW, the course was a generally downhill one, with a loss of 247 feet, and a tailwind.
> 
> ...


i'm not trying to prove that greg doped. merely that because someone calls something in doubt doesnt make it so. its like some of the evidence everyone uses to convict lance and others. many folks here are blind in their hatred of lance and love of lemond.

i wish that doping would go away and it is a scourge on cycling and many other sports. yet the reality is that the riders dont want it to stop. i'm for lifetime bans and criminal charges.


----------



## TheDon (Feb 3, 2006)

Is it possible that LeMond's doctor told him it was an iron shot even though it was something else completely?


----------



## pianopiano (Jun 4, 2005)

papisimo9807 said:


> Did you happen to notice that Lemond was using aero bars, a primitive TT helmet, shoe covers, and other aerodynamic contraptions on his bike? If I remember correctly, he basically turned his road bike into a TT bike.
> Fignon wasn't even wearing a helmet, had a pony tail, no aero bars, NOTHING but a standard road bike.
> If you think about it and take in all the course/weather factors(and the fact that lemond was an excellent tt'er) this is all very feasible.
> Beamon's world record long jump stood for almost 30 years. His record blew away any previous or post attempts by a long ways. Sometimes, it just all comes together.
> By the way, I've been training hard and feeling SH#@TY, for a good while. Went to the doc, she gave me some blood tests, went back, told me what was going on. She gave me a b-12 shot. Big deal.


Hey papisimo,
Did you 'find your legs' after the B12 shot? If you did, it means that your doctor had actually doped you.


----------



## Wookiebiker (Sep 5, 2005)

TheDon said:


> Is it possible that LeMond's doctor told him it was an iron shot even though it was something else completely?


Very possible...and that's what I've said many times. The riders don't necessarily know what they are taking, they just put their trust in the doctors. The DR. tells them "This will help you recover faster" or "This will help you get faster" and the rider just says...."OK, your the doc" and goes back to training.

I'd be willing to guess that back before doping was such a big deal that many riders doped without even knowing it.

The East German machine back in the 60's, 70's and 80's did this to athletes. The drugged them to near death and most athletes had no "Real" idea what was going on at the time other than they were getting better at what they were doing.

It happens....:mad2:


----------



## bigpinkt (Jul 20, 2006)

The desperation is getting comical. Next someone will post that it was possible that space aliens injected Lemond with some special sauce. 

How about a little evidence? Positive tests?, Dumped bags of dope? Confessions to teammates? First hand accounts by team staff? 

anything tangible are you just going to continue the"What if" game?


----------



## Alaska Mike (Sep 28, 2008)

Wookiebiker said:


> Very possible...and that's what I've said many times. The riders don't necessarily know what they are taking, they just put their trust in the doctors. The DR. tells them "This will help you recover faster" or "This will help you get faster" and the rider just says...."OK, your the doc" and goes back to training.
> 
> I'd be willing to guess that back before doping was such a big deal that many riders doped without even knowing it.
> 
> ...


Surprising that Floyd didn't use this defense. A little "special" chamois cream without his knowledge...

Nahhh.


----------



## rook (Apr 5, 2009)

bigpinkt said:


> The fanatics I see here are those that are obsessed with Lemond. Have I ever called Lance a "Complete Wacko"? The insults and complete lack of evidence only serves to devalue, not enhance, your position.



It's pretty clear that most of the people on this forum got involved in cycling after Lemond retired. I've read through several errors in doping practices and pharmacologic agents available during this time. There are no accusations against Lemond except from Armstrong supporters, all on the internet.


----------



## mohair_chair (Oct 3, 2002)

Evidence from an era when they didn't collect it? From an era when the good stuff was still done in secret and teams weren't involved? From an era when they didn't have tests for the stuff guys were using? From an era when the punishment was a month off and a $600 fine? Yeah, right. 

There was no evidence that Rooks was doping, and surprise! He admitted it in 2000, and again in 2009. But how could that be true? There was no evidence. There were no positive tests. There were no dumped bags of dope. There were no confessions to teammates. There were no first hand accounts by team staff. Because there is no evidence, he must be wrong. Rooks can not be a doper. Why is he lying? Why is he making this stuff up?


----------



## Coolhand (Jul 28, 2002)

Well, with the posts getting personal probably time to wrap this one up. We laughed, we cried, just about everyone was called a fan boy. Good times...


----------

