# Contador won't respond to Lemond's questions



## kokothemonkey (Jul 7, 2004)

I didn't see this posted here yet, Contador will have to do a little better than this when everyone questions his amazing TT today. At least Lemond is there giving it to Contador just like he did Lance eh? :thumbsup: 

http://tour-de-france.velonews.com/article/95742/contador-ducks-doping-questions


----------



## lookrider (Dec 3, 2006)

The more interesting inteview might be Cancellera.

How did he say he was feeling today?


----------



## mohair_chair (Oct 3, 2002)

Good for Contador. Lemond is an ass.


----------



## lookrider (Dec 3, 2006)

http://twitter.com/procycling_mag

http://www.bikeradar.com/blogs/article/contadors-annecy-faux-pas-22537

Alberto Contador just produced one of most woeful press conference displays in history.

_It’s a universal truth of being a journalist at the Tour de France, that you collect the best material when you least expect it, and usually in the most surprising places. 

So it was this afternoon when my conversation with another rider in the ground floor bar of Annecy’s Impérial Palace was interrupted by a fusillade of expletives originating from the mouth of Fabian Cancellara.

It’s fair to say that the rider known as Spartacus wasn’t overly thrilled with his second place behind Alberto Contador. Call it a hunch, but that’s the impression I got from the multilingual tirade to no-one in-particular with which Cancellara announced his arrival. 

The object of his dismay? Not so much Contador as the motorbikes which, Cancellara believed, had hoovered the Spaniard to victory.

Several “Vaffancullos!” later, Cancellara had just about calmed down. He then sank a cold beer and threatened to “buy a motorbike to do my next time trial on.”

Cancellara should take heart from the fact that, while he did the business on the road, Contador’s performance in his post-race press conference was, by all accounts, horrendous. I wasn’t there, but for once it didn’t take long to catch up on whatever juicy sound bites I’d missed. 

That’s because Contador was asked three questions -- all vaguely connected to a column penned by Greg LeMond in the newspaper Le Monde this morning -- and he refused to answer all three.

The title of LeMond’s piece was self-explanatory: “Alberto, prove to me that we can believe in you.”

The three press conference questions, two of which came from a Le Monde journalist, were as follows:

1. Can you please respond to what Greg LeMond said in Le Monde about proving that you’re not doped?

2. You were the fastest up Verbier, and now you’re the fastest in this time trial. Can you explain that ?

3. Can you please tell us what your VO2 Max is?

Contador’s three answers were identical: “Next question”.

Now, you might say that Contador did well not to dignify such loaded questions with a response. You might say that, but if you do, you’re sorely mistaken. 

Whether Contador has something to hide or not, I’m sorry, but it takes a fool to think that refusing to answer questions about doping is a smart PR move. Or to think that it’s the best way to nip such scrutiny in the bud. A fool or just someone who was born yesterday and not, as Contador’s birth certificate states, long before Festina or Operacion Puerto or any of the other scandals that have brought professional cycling to its knees over the past decade.

For us journalists – or at least those who heard him – it must have been like traveling back in time to that execrable half-hour we spent hanging on Floyd Landis’s every guilt-ridden word in Montceau-les-Mines in 2006. The Tour was about to finish and Landis was the champion elect. A bit like Contador’s today, the American didn’t wanted to answer any questions even vaguely related to doping. 

We all know what happened next.

At the end of a Tour whose scandals have been mercifully confined to the road, it would have been nice to feel that trend will continue when Contador steps onto the podium in Paris and even beyond. 

Tonight, he had an opportunity to instill that confidence. Tonight, Contador made his first major faux pas of the Tour._

Follow Friebe's Procycling Magazine Twitter postings at twitter.com/procycling_mag.

As for another poster's characterization of LeMond. He's a cycling legend. When he goes on the record about anything cycling related, it's newsworthy enough for the cycling press to cover it. LeMond knows this. 

Some in the peanut gallery evidently do not.


----------



## Mike T. (Feb 3, 2004)

kokothemonkey said:


> Lemond is there giving it to Contador just like he did Lance eh?


Oh isn't it safe for Lemond to flap his fat mouth when no-one has any of his samples to check back on? Remember some of the great rides he did as a pro? Remember when he overhauled Fignon on the last TdF day to squeak an 8-second win? Remember how he raced in the senior ranks in the USA when he was still a junior and whupped most of (all of?) the top guys?

If he saw someone doing those things today he'd accuse them of doping. So how come HE can do superhuman things and no-one else can? Who's next on his smear campaign - mini-Phinney?

I wish Lance would ask Lemond if he ever doped. I'd love to watch his reaction. Hypocrite bastard.


----------



## kef3844 (May 30, 2008)

Contador really only needs to address these questions if he is found positive. Until then its just the usual speculation.


----------



## joeqp1 (Sep 12, 2006)

kef3844 said:


> Contador really only needs to address these questions if he is found positive. Until then its just the usual speculation.


Why would he need to address them if he tested positive? Wouldn't the test result speak for itself?


----------



## rcharrette (Mar 27, 2007)

*Go away Lemond!*

I use to have respect for you. Now your just a bitter old man trying to smear anyone who has success. It's really very sad:cryin:


----------



## jptaylorsg (Apr 24, 2003)

Point taken, but it's his right not to answer questions. He is tested every day as the leader of the Tour. If he doesn't come back positive, then there you go. If he does, then bounce him. 
He's under no obligation to answer loaded questions like: "Alberto, Greg LeMond contends that every rider who ever rode faster than him is a cheat, a murderer and doesn't love Jesus! How do you respond?"

The only thing this press conference proves is that he isn't a PR whiz. I forgive him.


----------



## mohair_chair (Oct 3, 2002)

jptaylorsg said:


> The only thing this press conference proves is that he isn't a PR whiz.


Actually, I think this was exactly the right move PR-wise. If bitter ex-riders and the press want to accuse him of doping, that's fine, but he doesn't have to play along. The best response in this situation is no response. Anything else just feeds the machine.


----------



## nate (Jun 20, 2004)

mohair_chair said:


> Actually, I think this was exactly the right move PR-wise. If bitter ex-riders and the press want to accuse him of doping, that's fine, but he doesn't have to play along. The best response in this situation is no response. Anything else just feeds the machine.


I agree. In fact, I think Armstrong got more benefit of the doubt regarding doping until he started going on the offensive. Responding is a no-win since every answer will be interpreted by the questioner as an indication of evasiveness or guilt, and also make it a bigger deal for the press. There are probably some exceptions, but I don't think this was one of those for Contador.

Just to go on record about my stance, I think at least five of the top six GC riders right now are past and/or currrent dopers. The only one I don't know much about is Wiggins. However, in terms of PR, Contador did the right thing by not responding.


----------



## asgelle (Apr 21, 2003)

lookrider said:


> 1. Can you please respond to what Greg LeMond said in Le Monde about proving that you’re not doped?


"I am a cyclist. I am not a medical doctor, endocrinologist, hematologist, exercise physiologist, biochemist, analytic chemist or any other type of scientist who is knowledgeable in the sciences necessary to answer that. Next question."


----------



## rcharrette (Mar 27, 2007)

*Sorry*

I thought we were talking about Contador? Must have the wrong thread.


----------



## SwiftSolo (Jun 7, 2008)

rcharrette said:


> I use to have respect for you. Now your just a bitter old man trying to smear anyone who has success. It's really very sad:cryin:


I agree with you. It is sad to see this pathetic old fool make such an ass of himself. 

This is not a comment on AC's guilt or innocence. I'll wait for the results of the final testing for that. Until then he will remain a great rider with no brains in my mind.


----------



## Snakebitten (Jun 26, 2008)

They are not going to find anything jsut like with Lance. Im an AC fan but he is disturbingly refreshed looking at all post race interviews, even when he is still on the bike, compared to everyone else. Its been almost 3 weeks and he still looks as fresh as the first day. His recovery is very good and his conditioning is top notch. I hope to god he is clean as I really enjoy watching an athlete that is head and shoulders above the rest a la Jordan, Federer etc.


----------



## Henry Porter (Jul 25, 2006)

I see Lemond's side, it must rip apart a former competitor to see the sport full of PEDs. That said, I wouldn't be pushing it like he is but maybe that's why I'm not a professional athlete.

On the other hand, how can he prove he isn't doping other than what he's doing?


----------



## TheDon (Feb 3, 2006)

I have a feeling we will see Conti popped for something. He's probably been blood packing, maybe they'll tout their test for that finally?


----------



## lookrider (Dec 3, 2006)

rcharrette said:


> I use to have respect for you. Now your just a bitter old man trying to smear anyone who has success. It's really very sad:cryin:


He's been vindicated in *everything* he's said.



Mike T. said:


> Oh isn't it safe for Lemond to flap his fat mouth when no-one has any of his samples to check back on?


LeMond was a big innovator. He was one of the first to use an SRM and his power numbers were always consistent. His VO2 max and O2 consumption were always very high and consistent. The same for his blood parameters which he can produce. His Hct was never over 45 and he grew up and lived at altitude.



Mike T. said:


> Remember some of the great rides he did as a pro?


Yup, I also remember him climbing the Alpe in 48 minutes when he went up with Hinault in '86. I also remember Fignon cracking him on the Alpe in '89.



Mike T. said:


> Remember when he overhauled Fignon on the last TdF day to squeak an 8-second win?


Here's the results of the stage, not the super human performance all the LeMond haters keep talking about.

http://www.cyclingweekly.co.uk/archive/382887/1989-tour-de-france-stage-21.html

STAGE RESULT
1. Greg LeMond (USA) ADR 26-57
2. Thierry Marie (Fra) Super-U at 33secs
3. Laurent Fignon (Fra) Super-U at 58secs
4. Jelle Nijdam (Ned) Superconfex at 1-07
5. Sean Yates (GB) 7-Eleven at 1-10

Yeah, downhill, tailwind, used aerobars, and helmet; Fignon didn't. Remember also that Fignon took 3rd in that TT, not 2nd.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1989_Tour_de_France

_The final time trial was over a course approximately 25 kilometres (15.5 mi) long, with a net elevation loss of 75 metres (247 ft). The riders had a moderate tailwind. LeMond's effort was the fastest individual time trial for a distance longer than 10 km ever ridden. A November 1989 Bicycling magazine article, supported by wind-tunnel data, estimated that LeMond may have gained 1 minute on Fignon through the use of the new aerobars. He also could have gained 16 seconds by wearing his aero helmet with a slightly elongated tail section for better aerodynamics, while Fignon rode bare-headed with his ponytail exposed to the wind. Fignon did perhaps gain a 5-second advantage by using a disk front wheel, while LeMond used a 24-spoke bladed radially spoked front wheel. Fignon finished third in the final time trial with an average speed of 53.59 km/h (33.33 mph)._​


Mike T. said:


> Remember how he raced in the senior ranks in the USA when he was still a junior and whupped most of (all of?) the top guys?


Most experts think the fact you cited is an indicator that such a person is *NOT* doping.

What do you suggest he was taking in 1976 and 1977 when he was 15 and 16 years old and beating Pro's?

LeMond's father was also a very talented rider so he had the bloodline.

Steroids and Amphetamines? Steroids are primarily a recovery drug and have you looked at LeMond lately. He's so hyped up I don't think he ever needed uppers.



Mike T. said:


> If he saw someone doing those things today he'd accuse them of doping.


Actually you're not aware of the facts. He had not been to the Tour for a few years in the 90's and went specifically in '97 because of all he had heard about Ullrich.

He was also initially very supportive of LA. It was only when David Walsh called him up in 2001 asking for his reaction to LA working with Ferrari that he started to suspect LA was not clean.



Mike T. said:


> So how come HE can do superhuman things and no-one else can?.


Within his physical parameters, everything he did was possible and he was competing against people who gained a couple of % points from less effective PED's than EPO. At the top level he was never as dominant as LA was.




Mike T. said:


> Who's next on his smear campaign - mini-Phinney?


Quite the opposite and he's gone on the record as being critical of Taylor Phinney being developed as a classics racer. LeMond believes he has the physical capacity to be a Tour winner.



Mike T. said:


> I wish Lance would ask Lemond if he ever doped. I'd love to watch his reaction. Hypocrite bastard.


He did threaten LeMond that he would find 10 people to say he used EPO. We're still waiting.


----------



## SicBith (Jan 21, 2008)

Lemond used PEDs as much as everyone else. Do you really think someone can have their gut loaded with lead, and still compete at his level. 
Don't bring up cancer either. Just don't. 
It might not have been EPO, but I'm sure there were many forms of stimulants, and recovery drugs easily available to him, and used by him and all his peers. All of the real racing high end GC racing has been accomplished with great training, great technology, and great doctors. Believe it


----------



## lookrider (Dec 3, 2006)

SicBith said:


> Lemond used PEDs as much as everyone else. Do you really think someone can have their gut loaded with lead, and still compete at his level.
> Don't bring up cancer either. Just don't.
> It might not have been EPO, but I'm sure there were many forms of stimulants, and recovery drugs easily available to him, and used by him and all his peers. All of the real racing high end GC racing has been accomplished with great training, great technology, and great doctors. Believe it


According to your opinion which really doesn't count for much of anything. 

Also the whole doctor phenomenon didn't really exist until the late eighties, early nineties. LeMond specifically left PDM because they were becoming involved in this crap.

Don't you think it's odd the neither Fignon or Hinault are calling LeMond on his denials if they are in fact untrue? They're both in a position to know what the heck he was up to.

Funny but we haven't heard a peep out of anyone except for the peanut galleries of online forums. Why do you think that is?


----------



## WeakMite (Feb 20, 2005)

I wonder what Lemond's thoughts about Wiggins are this July_?_


----------



## Coolhand (Jul 28, 2002)

lookrider said:


> According to your opinion which really doesn't count for much of anything.
> 
> Also the whole doctor phenomenon didn't really exist until the late eighties, early nineties. LeMond specifically left PDM because they were becoming involved in this crap.
> 
> ...


"According to your opinion which really doesn't count for much of anything. " 

No doctors involved until after Lemond- really? The rest is just Lemond's propaganda. Funny how Omerta explains everyone's undetected doping, except for Captain Lawsuit. 

BTW, careful for the peanut shells on the floor- they are slippery.


----------



## lookrider (Dec 3, 2006)

Coolhand said:


> "According to your opinion which really doesn't count for much of anything. "
> 
> No doctors involved until after Lemond- really? The rest is just Lemond's propaganda. Funny how Omerta explains everyone's undetected doping, except for Captain Lawsuit.
> 
> BTW, careful for the peanut shells on the floor- they are slippery.


Oh yes, Omerta is the reason that no one has said anything about LeMond?

Where are the 10 people who Lance was going to get to say LeMond took EPO or doped? 

Nice evasions though. Walsh can come up with a whole book, many people who were willing to go on the record and break the silence, and yet still, nothing on LeMond.

Answer that question and name one rider who has ever named LeMond. If you can't do that you have nothing, which is obviously the case.

Name a lawsuit LeMond has lost....

LeMond is an "ass" doesn't count you know but nice try.

A lot of "company" men here....


----------



## Mike T. (Feb 3, 2004)

lookrider said:


> Oh yes, Omerta is the reason that no one has said anything about LeMond?
> Where are the 10 people who Lance was going to get to say LeMond took EPO or doped?
> Nice evasions though. Walsh can come up with a whole book, many people who were willing to go on the record and break the silence, and yet still, nothing on LeMond.
> Answer that question and name one rider who has ever named LeMond. If you can't do that you have nothing, which is obviously the case.
> ...


And Lemond can pull off the exploits he did against top riders in probably what was the most drug-infested era in the history of cycling and he was *clean*? I knew he was good but was he *that* good? Maybe others have got better things to do than to stalk* him* around the world making insinuations about his performances?


----------



## joeqp1 (Sep 12, 2006)

Mike T. said:


> And Lemond can pull off the exploits he did against top riders in probably what was the most drug-infested era in the history of cycling and he was *clean*? I knew he was good but was he *that* good? Maybe others have got better things to do than to stalk* him* around the world making insinuations about his performances?


The majority of LeMond's career occurred before the introduction of widespread EPO use (early 1990s approximately). How can you say that LeMond's exploits occurred in the 'the most drug-infested era in the history of cycling' when the majority of his career occurred prior to the introduction of EPO? Shouldn't the EPO era onwards be considered the most drug-infested era?


----------



## rocco (Apr 30, 2005)

joeqp1 said:


> The majority of LeMond's career occurred before the introduction of widespread EPO use (early 1990s approximately). How can you say that LeMond's exploits occurred in the 'the most drug-infested era in the history of cycling' when the majority of his career occurred prior to the introduction of EPO? Shouldn't the EPO era onwards be considered the most drug-infested era?



Not necessarily... more like the drugs became more effective.


----------



## Mike T. (Feb 3, 2004)

joeqp1 said:


> The majority of LeMond's career occurred before the introduction of widespread EPO use (early 1990s approximately). How can you say that LeMond's exploits occurred in the 'the most drug-infested era in the history of cycling' when the majority of his career occurred prior to the introduction of EPO? Shouldn't the EPO era onwards be considered the most drug-infested era?


What the heck's EPO got to do with it? Where were controls in the 60's, 70's & 80's (yessss I know Lemond wasn't racing in the 60's) for the drugs du jour? Remember Tom Simpson? How many times did Eddy, Jacques, Abdu, Roche, Kelly etcetera etcetera etcetera get caught for doping? Oh maybe there were all clean.


----------



## mohair_chair (Oct 3, 2002)

joeqp1 said:


> The majority of LeMond's career occurred before the introduction of widespread EPO use (early 1990s approximately). How can you say that LeMond's exploits occurred in the 'the most drug-infested era in the history of cycling' when the majority of his career occurred prior to the introduction of EPO? Shouldn't the EPO era onwards be considered the most drug-infested era?


This myth is thrown around a lot, but it is absolutely not true. EPO was being used in the peloton in 1990, while Lemond was still racing. In fact, Lemond won the TDF that year. His buddy Rooks admitted it.

http://forums.roadbikereview.com/showthread.php?t=177141


----------



## SicBith (Jan 21, 2008)

lookrider said:


> According to your opinion which really doesn't count for much of anything.
> 
> Also the whole doctor phenomenon didn't really exist until the late eighties, early nineties. LeMond specifically left PDM because they were becoming involved in this crap.
> 
> ...


I don't think any rider stands to gain anything on calling out any other rider of that era. Even in this era you don't hear a lot of the real GC contenders calling out each other on doping in some cases even when caught. Wiggins has called out Di Luca, but I don't see Menchov saying much. 
As for not hearing much from the cycling world. There are better stories about Lemond than the fact that he used the popular PEDs of the time. His legal issues, and laughable press conference antics have limited anyone in the press really giving a s**t about him. 
You call all the current and popular riders of the late 90s and present out for PEDs, but in an era when testing technology almost ensured doping without consequence you look at the floor turn your head to the left and make an excuse. 
That is my opinion which shouldn't offend as it doesn't count for much.


----------



## joeqp1 (Sep 12, 2006)

mohair_chair said:


> This myth is thrown around a lot, but it is absolutely not true. EPO was being used in the peloton in 1990, while Lemond was still racing. In fact, Lemond won the TDF that year. His buddy Rooks admitted it.
> 
> http://forums.roadbikereview.com/showthread.php?t=177141


What is the myth exactly? I don't see how what I wrote is inconsistent with your statement that EPO was being used in 1990 - I said early 1990s approximately.


----------



## mohair_chair (Oct 3, 2002)

joeqp1 said:


> What is the myth exactly? I don't see how what I wrote is inconsistent with your statement that EPO was being used in 1990 - I said early 1990s approximately.


The myth is that EPO wasn't around when Lemond was racing. The truth is that Lemond's career was well inside the "EPO era," and plenty of top cyclists were using it. During the 1991 tour, the whole PDM team withdrew because they got sick after taking EPO. PDM was probably the dirtiest team in cycling at the time. Guess who rode for PDM for one year? Yep, Lemond.


----------



## kokothemonkey (Jul 7, 2004)

SicBith said:


> I don't think any rider stands to gain anything on calling out any other rider of that era. Even in this era you don't hear a lot of the real GC contenders calling out each other on doping in some cases even when caught. Wiggins has called out Di Luca, but I don't see Menchov saying much.
> As for not hearing much from the cycling world. There are better stories about Lemond than the fact that he used the popular PEDs of the time. His legal issues, and laughable press conference antics have limited anyone in the press really giving a s**t about him.
> You call all the current and popular riders of the late 90s and present out for PEDs, but in an era when testing technology almost ensured doping without consequence you look at the floor turn your head to the left and make an excuse.
> That is my opinion which shouldn't offend as it doesn't count for much.


I agree completely. If I was clean and in 2nd and the 1st place got popped for doping I would be screaming my head off telling them to test me. Nobody does that, which indicates to me that none of them are really clean. Otherwise whenever someone gets popped everyone should be calling each other out.


----------



## joeqp1 (Sep 12, 2006)

Mike T. said:


> What the heck's EPO got to do with it? Where were controls in the 60's, 70's & 80's (yessss I know Lemond wasn't racing in the 60's) for the drugs du jour? Remember Tom Simpson? How many times did Eddy, Jacques, Abdu, Roche, Kelly etcetera etcetera etcetera get caught for doping? Oh maybe there were all clean.


I'm basing my opinion on the significantly greater performance benefits that can be gained from EPO use in comparison to the substances available prior to the introduction if EPO. I don't believe you can realistically expect a clean rider to be consistently competitive against those using EPO or blood doping. Therefore I think that most riders are almost forced into doping if they wish be competitive and renew their contract. This is why I said the EPO era should be considered the most drug-infested. To be clear, I am aware that doping in professional cycling has a long history. I am not claiming that everyone was pure before 1990.


----------



## rogger (Aug 19, 2005)

mohair_chair said:


> The myth is that EPO wasn't around when Lemond was racing. The truth is that Lemond's career was well inside the "EPO era," and plenty of top cyclists were using it. During the 1991 tour, the whole PDM team withdrew because they got sick after taking EPO. PDM was probably the dirtiest team in cycling at the time. Guess who rode for PDM for one year? Yep, Lemond.


Nope, PDM used intralipid, a fat emulsion for injection that wasn't going to do any good anyway, that was stored opened and unrefrigerated. In a sense it really _was_ food poisoning, albeit an intravenous one.


----------



## rogger (Aug 19, 2005)

joeqp1 said:


> The majority of LeMond's career occurred before the introduction of widespread EPO use (early 1990s approximately). How can you say that LeMond's exploits occurred in the 'the most drug-infested era in the history of cycling' when the majority of his career occurred prior to the introduction of EPO? Shouldn't the EPO era onwards be considered the most drug-infested era?


Before EPO came along there was plenty of doping going on with doping cocktails such as 'le pot Belge' that consisted of such fine substances as amphetamines, cocaine and opiates. Apart from such stimulants 'off-label' use of medication was probably as wide spread in the pre-EPO era as it is now.


----------



## joeqp1 (Sep 12, 2006)

mohair_chair said:


> The myth is that EPO wasn't around when Lemond was racing. The truth is that Lemond's career was well inside the "EPO era," and plenty of top cyclists were using it. During the 1991 tour, the whole PDM team withdrew because they got sick after taking EPO. PDM was probably the dirtiest team in cycling at the time. Guess who rode for PDM for one year? Yep, Lemond.


LeMond rode for PDM in 1988 according to Wikipedia. He was riding for Z-Peugeot in 1991. So what is the relevance of LeMond riding for PDM 3 years before 1991? 

With regards to the myth, I never said that EPO wasn't around when LeMond was racing, only for the majority of his career.


----------



## mohair_chair (Oct 3, 2002)

joeqp1 said:


> LeMond rode for PDM in 1988 according to Wikipedia. He was riding for Z-Peugeot in 1991. So what is the relevance of LeMond riding for PDM 3 years before 1991?


PDM was the dirtiest team in cycling, and not surprisingly, the top team in cycling of that era. Since the start of the team in 1986, it was "known" that the team was into doping in a big way. A common joke at the time was that the letters PDM stood for "Pills, Drugs and Medicine" or ""Plein de Manipulations de Dopage" in French. A police investigation uncovered all the doping at PDM, including the EPO program, which began in 1990. 

You have to wonder why Mr. Clean would join a team with that kind of reputation.


----------



## joeqp1 (Sep 12, 2006)

mohair_chair said:


> PDM was the dirtiest team in cycling, and not surprisingly, the top team in cycling of that era. Since the start of the team in 1986, it was "known" that the team was into doping in a big way. A common joke at the time was that the letters PDM stood for "Pills, Drugs and Medicine" or ""Plein de Manipulations de Dopage" in French. A police investigation uncovered all the doping at PDM, including the EPO program, which began in 1990.
> 
> You have to wonder why Mr. Clean would join a team with that kind of reputation.


Have you got any links about PDM doping since 1986? I'd like to read about it if possible. I've only seen this - http://autobus.cyclingnews.com/results/archives/nov97/nov28a.html. Thanks.


----------



## mohair_chair (Oct 3, 2002)

joeqp1 said:


> Have you got any links about PDM doping since 1986? I'd like to read about it if possible. I've only seen this - http://autobus.cyclingnews.com/results/archives/nov97/nov28a.html. Thanks.


That's the first part of a series of articles on PDM. You'll find the rest of the parts at these two links. Look for entries with the name "Drugs Scandal."

http://autobus.cyclingnews.com/results/archives/nov97.html
http://autobus.cyclingnews.com/results/archives/dec97.html


----------



## Coolhand (Jul 28, 2002)

joeqp1 said:


> The majority of LeMond's career occurred before the introduction of widespread EPO use (early 1990s approximately). How can you say that LeMond's exploits occurred in the 'the most drug-infested era in the history of cycling' when the majority of his career occurred prior to the introduction of EPO? Shouldn't the EPO era onwards be considered the most drug-infested era?


Because EPO was in the Peloton pretty early and all the other doping methods were there and run by the teams (see the Festina affair for details). The most drug infested due to the poor testing, widespread team organized doping of the Pre-Festina era. 

But Lemond was "magic".


----------



## Coolhand (Jul 28, 2002)

joeqp1 said:


> LeMond rode for PDM in 1988 according to Wikipedia. He was riding for Z-Peugeot in 1991. So what is the relevance of LeMond riding for PDM 3 years before 1991?
> 
> With regards to the myth, I never said that EPO wasn't around when LeMond was racing, only for the majority of his career.


Do you _seriously_ think PDM wasn't team doping in 1988 too?


----------



## nate (Jun 20, 2004)

joeqp1 said:


> Have you got any links about PDM doping since 1986? I'd like to read about it if possible. I've only seen this - http://autobus.cyclingnews.com/results/archives/nov97/nov28a.html. Thanks.


There is another Cycling News link, http://autobus.cyclingnews.com/results/archives/nov97/nov29a.html, plus a couple other links that I haven't read at the end of the Wikipedia entry on PDM.


----------



## lookrider (Dec 3, 2006)

SicBith said:


> I don't think any rider stands to gain anything on calling out any other rider of that era.


From Hinault who is very outspoken and has been noted to believe it's ok to use substances to get oneself back to "normal" levels. Nothing.

Fignon, nailed for amphetamines and EPO and who is very outspoken, nothing.

Merckx nailed for amphetamines on a couple of occasions and who considers LA a close friend almost like family. Again, nothing.

It seems to me these very outspoken, powerful, influential, people would have called GL out on his "antics" as you put it. Well, it hasn't happened.

Sean Kelly, Roche, Delgado, all dopers, none have said anything. 


Please tell me why that is? Nothing from anyone.....:idea: 

It's not that LeMond has many friends, is it?



SicBith said:


> Even in this era you don't hear a lot of the real GC contenders calling out each other on doping in some cases even when caught. Wiggins has called out Di Luca, but I don't see Menchov saying much.


Menchov?:lol: 




SicBith said:


> As for not hearing much from the cycling world. There are better stories about Lemond than the fact that he used the popular PEDs of the time.


Stories? That the guy is ADHD? That's a story? Do you get out much?



SicBith said:


> His legal issues,.


Yeah, here's one of his latest legal issues. 

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/14/business/14yellow.html?pagewanted=5&_r=1

HERE’S what Yellowstone members say galls them most: Even as the Blixseths spent heaps of money on properties around the world, they neglected the club that they had borrowed against. 

They say that for a time, potholes went unrepaired and sewage backed up at the main ski lodge. The power grid was meant for 80 homes; as it strained to meet the needs of 300, the ski lifts would occasionally creak to a halt. 

*But no one took action until Greg LeMond began examining the Credit Suisse loan. Mr. LeMond, the renowned American cyclist, was an early Yellowstone member and a minority investor. *In 2006, he sued Mr. Blixseth and his various corporate entities in a Montana district court, alleging what would eventually number 30 counts of malfeasance. The suit contended that Mr. Blixseth tried to bully his partners into selling their Yellowstone shares. Then, having failed to force that deal, the suit said, Mr. Blixseth obtained the Credit Suisse loan without consulting his investors and without sharing the loan proceeds. 

Ms. Blixseth eventually agreed to pay Mr. LeMond and others a $21.5 million settlement; she’s paid only $8 million of that amount, and Mr. LeMond and others are now among her creditors.​
Wow, the guy has the balls to sue when he's wronged and then gets a big settlement in his favor. This is a story that undermines his credibility?





SicBith said:


> and laughable press conference antics have limited anyone in the press really giving a s**t about him. .


The problem for you is that only people (cycling press) who want to keep their heads in the sand are ignoring him. I assure you they aren't laughing. They're very concerned that LeMond's "antics" will reveal cycling to be the cesspool that it is.

Mainstream publications like LeMonde, the NYT, and Sports Illustrated take him very seriously and they, unlike you, don't find what he has to say to be funny. 




SicBith said:


> You call all the current and popular riders of the late 90s and present out for PEDs, but in an era when testing technology almost ensured doping without consequence.


You're blaming the testing technology for the lack of consequences? This is the biggest laugh of these forums. 

Merckx, Fignon, and Delgado tested positive and in Delgado's case they kept him in the Tour so he could win, on a technicality. *Cycling authorities are to blame for the lack of Consequences. They are the ones who said that one could dope with impunity.*

The technology was good enough to nail Ben Johnson in the marquee event of the Olympics. *Did he face consequences?*



SicBith said:


> you look at the floor turn your head to the left and make an excuse. .


I make an excuse from what? I turn my head away from what? 

*Provide any evidence from anywhere that LeMond doped.*



You're the one who's trying to drag someone into the cesspool based on nothing but chronology.

You're the one making unfounded allegations to distract attention from what the real issue is.



SicBith said:


> That is my opinion which shouldn't offend as it doesn't count for much.


What offends is your use of recriminations based on absolutely nothing so you can keep a personal fantasy alive.

It's just shocking that so many people share an opinion that is based on a guy having a mild mental disorder not presenting himself well.

Why don't you go down to the psych ward. That'll be a laugh riot for you.


----------



## mohair_chair (Oct 3, 2002)

lookrider said:


> Sean Kelly, Roche, Delgado, all dopers, none have said anything.


Oh jeeze. Roche, Delgado, Sean Kelly? Like any of them are going to say anything. In fact, read the words of your hero Paul Kimmage, "Kelly kept his head down and never told the tales."

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/sport/columnists/paul_kimmage/article1845407.ece


----------



## joeqp1 (Sep 12, 2006)

Coolhand said:


> Do you _seriously_ think PDM wasn't team doping in 1988 too?


I didn't know what they were doing. That's why I asked mohair_chair for some links so that I could read about it. Based on what I read, it seems likely that PDM riders were doping in 1988.

Whether or not you can accuse LeMond of guilt by association is debatable, especially considering his claim that 'when someone began promoting the use of drugs in the PDM team in the late Eighties, I left the team' (http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/...d-defender-of-the-clean-machine-1107226.html). What do you think of this claim? 

What about the other teams LeMond rode for? Is there evidence of team doping similar to that of PDM, while LeMond was riding for each of them?


----------



## lookrider (Dec 3, 2006)

mohair_chair said:


> Oh jeeze. Roche, Delgado, Sean Kelly? Like any of them are going to say anything. In fact, read the words of your hero Paul Kimmage, "Kelly kept his head down and never told the tales."
> 
> http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/sport/columnists/paul_kimmage/article1845407.ece


I was aware that Kelly is reticent as opposed to Roche. Kimmage has felt the wrath of Roche.

You say my hero is Paul Kimmage as if Kimmage is someone who is not praiseworthy.

What exactly is your problem with Kimmage? It seems like you hold a known POS like Armstrong in higher esteem...

And back to the original question before your poaching distractions. 

Why has no one said *anything* about LeMond?

We haven't heard Hinault say for instance, 'c'mon, Greg was doing the same stuff as everyone else.'

We haven't heard that from anyone except from people who don't know from anything, like you, for instance.


----------



## dagger (Jul 22, 2004)

http://www.sportsscientists.com/


----------



## mohair_chair (Oct 3, 2002)

lookrider said:


> Why has no one said *anything* about LeMond?


You say that like he's the only one not talked about. Why are they not talking about Lemond? Because they aren't talking about ANYONE.

Who has said much about _anyone_ of that era? The fact is, beyond a few small players, like Kimmage, riders of that era have not gone on record about other riders of that era. This includes plenty of admitted dopers.

It's not happening. It's not going to happen. There are plenty of riders who have stories to tell, and they refuse to tell them. You don't think Kelly has stories to tell? Rooks? Fignon? Delgado? Indurain? Why are they quiet? How many dopers who confess actually implicate anyone else? When almost every member the 1996 Telekom TDF team confessed to using EPO, how many of them named any other riders on the team, even riders who had already confessed?

Face it. Riders don't talk about this stuff. So you can stop trot out this bit of "evidence." It's absolutely useless for establishing anything regarding Lemond.


----------



## lookrider (Dec 3, 2006)

mohair_chair said:


> You say that like he's the only one not talked about. .


The point, which you're missing, is that LeMond is very high profile, and he's set himself up as a target. 

The other guy, who has set himself up as a target is LA, and many, many, many people have taken aim at him.



mohair_chair said:


> Why are they not talking about Lemond? Because they aren't talking about ANYONE..



That's not really true, because riders of the previous era have said things like doping was always necessary, and that anyone who thinks a pro can ride 235 days a year without help is an idiot so it was assumed that everyone was doping. That attitude carried over into LeMond's era.



mohair_chair said:


> Who has said much about _anyone_ of that era? The fact is, beyond a few small players, like Kimmage, riders of that era have not gone on record about other riders of that era. This includes plenty of admitted dopers..


Small players? Cycling is a sport of small players. How many people even know who Roche and Delgado are outside of cycling fans? 

But it's also true that not many have taken the stance of LeMond when he was at the top of the sport. He's always spoken out against doping (diplomatically without naming names) even when he was riding.



mohair_chair said:


> It's not happening. It's not going to happen. There are plenty of riders who have stories to tell, and they refuse to tell them.


Stories to tell about LeMond?




mohair_chair said:


> You don't think Kelly has stories to tell? Rooks? Fignon? Delgado? Indurain?


Again, stories to tell about LeMond? No, I don't think they have stories to tell about LeMond as I've stated.



mohair_chair said:


> Why are they quiet?


Many reasons. The most obvious is that they don't have anything to say.

Indurain doesn't want to attract attention to himself and was always seen to be a nice guy.

I think if there was anything, someone like Fignon would say it.



mohair_chair said:


> How many dopers who confess actually implicate anyone else? .


Wow, so even though Ullrich denies it to this day, his "Whoever still can't put one and one together about what happened in cycling is beyond my help" is both an implication of everybody and a confession.

Kohl implicated everyone. Simeoni, everyone who mattered.

*Landis didn't confess, but he did tell Martin Dugard, that LA doped and that appeared in the Orange Coast Magazine.*

http://www.orangecoastmagazine.com/article.aspx?id=156

Why didn't this get bigger play? One of the biggest stories in the world and no one picks it up except some relatively obscure magazine.

*So I don’t tell them that Floyd once offhandedly told me over burritos at a Chipotle near his home, “Just so you know, Marty, Lance doped.” Or that Floyd said it casually, as if it was common insider knowledge.*





mohair_chair said:


> When almost every member the 1996 Telekom TDF team confessed to using EPO, how many of them named any other riders on the team, even riders who had already confessed?


I better start speaking very slowly here. Do I need to ask you if you can put one and one together? When these guys confessed, they were confessing to the biggest open secret in the world. Why is Riis not a worthy champion if absolutely everyone is doping? Unworthy is what came from his mouth.




mohair_chair said:


> Face it. Riders don't talk about this stuff. So you can stop trot out this bit of "evidence." It's absolutely useless for establishing anything regarding Lemond.




Riders *do *talk about this stuff as evidenced by what Ullrich said. Maybe they're giving too much credit as to the intelligence of the audience.

Then you have LeMond who has done more talking than anyone, in the process turning himself into the biggest target in cycling... and you know what, not one word, rumor, peep... Nada....


Your comment is both laughable, ignorant, and pathetic. *You* are the one who can convict someone based on nothing.

There doesn't have to be any evidence as to whether LeMond is clean *because no one who matters has made the accusations.*

That can't be said about Armstrong.


----------



## dagger (Jul 22, 2004)

I remember back in the early 80"s when I was a runner, packing blood cells was a common thing and was even openly discussed in Runners World if I remember correctly.


----------



## Coolhand (Jul 28, 2002)

*Moderators note.*

I was hoping there would be one thread on Lemond in which you didn't lose your temper and go after other posters who differed with your opinion. Yet after multiple warnings and vacations you continue to follow the same pattern. Not anymore. 



> I better start speaking very slowly here.
> .
> .
> .
> ...


----------

