# Who would you most like to see exposed as a doper?



## Bluenote (Oct 28, 2012)

I admit, this is a shameless rip off from the clinic. But it's a good question. 

So who would you most like to see exposed as a doper?


----------



## DrSmile (Jul 22, 2006)

It has to be Wiggins. In my mind it would completely discredit all professional cycling in any organized fashion. When (not if) it happens there really can't be any doubters left. Then again the same was said about Lance...


----------



## spade2you (May 12, 2009)

I don't like anyone doping. I wouldn't mind seeing Spain do some tap dancing or back pedaling with Big Mig. 

Jens fans would cry, which would simply be entertaining more than the doping itself.

I did hear a rumor that Moncoutie was offered EPO but fainted when he saw the needle. 


....I just made up the Moncoutie thing, but I could imagine something like that happening.


----------



## sandiegosteve (Mar 29, 2004)

I'm still not sure I care... but I do think I'd be shocked if I heard any tour winner wasn't doing something now classified as illegal.

It would be most interesting when Lemond is exposed as the ripple with that high profile vendetta would be interesting to read about.


----------



## ivanthetrble (Jul 7, 2004)

spade2you said:


> I don't like anyone doping. I wouldn't mind seeing Spain do some tap dancing or back pedaling with Big Mig.
> 
> Jens fans would cry, which would simply be entertaining more than the doping itself.
> 
> ...


I'm going to have to agree with this.


----------



## Mike T. (Feb 3, 2004)

Bluenote said:


> So who would you most like to see exposed as a doper?


Lemond.


----------



## Fireform (Dec 15, 2005)

Mike T. said:


> Lemond.


^^^^^Why?


----------



## Wookiebiker (Sep 5, 2005)

Mike T. said:


> Lemond.


+1 ...


----------



## regnaD kciN (Mar 2, 2013)

Fireform said:


> ^^^^^Why?


Good question. Maybe the irony of the situation? (For the record, I'd be shocked if it was the case.)


----------



## mariomal99 (Mar 4, 2012)

Greg Lemond


----------



## Local Hero (Jul 8, 2010)

Cycling will finally get cleaned up once the Greg Lemond's doping comes out.


----------



## Big-foot (Dec 14, 2002)

Bluenote said:


> I admit, this is a shameless rip off from the clinic. But it's a good question.
> 
> So who would you most like to see exposed as a doper?


The what?!


----------



## regnaD kciN (Mar 2, 2013)

Local Hero said:


> Cycling will finally get cleaned up once the Greg Lemond's doping comes out.


Does anyone seriously think he's guilty? And, if so, is there any concrete evidence for the charge? For the record, I thought LeMond was a world-class whiner and general PITA but, in retrospect, he seems to have been one of the last "clean" cycling champions.


----------



## SauronHimself (Nov 21, 2012)

We've run out of ideas when we're starting to fish for dopers. As if this sport needs any more tainting.


----------



## Bluenote (Oct 28, 2012)

SauronHimself said:


> We've run out of ideas when we're starting to fish for dopers. As if this sport needs any more tainting.


I'm not sure how much it's fishing and how much it's - these guy's performance is unbelievable, it'd be nice to have confirmation.


----------



## kbiker3111 (Nov 7, 2006)

Jens.


----------



## Slartibartfast (Jul 22, 2007)

Betsy Andreu.


----------



## Local Hero (Jul 8, 2010)

Travis Tygard.


----------



## love4himies (Jun 12, 2012)

Slartibartfast said:


> Betsy Andreu.


That's too funny. I burst out laughing when I read her name.


----------



## Mike T. (Feb 3, 2004)

love4himies said:


> That's too funny. I burst out laughing when I read her name.


Me too.  I thought the OP wanted serious ideas - like my post of "Lemond".


----------



## Samadhi (Nov 1, 2011)

Ted Nugent


----------



## Mike T. (Feb 3, 2004)

Samadhi said:


> Ted Nugent


Julie Andrews. Mr Dressup. Mr Rogers.


----------



## Bluenote (Oct 28, 2012)

Mike T. said:


> Me too.  I thought the OP wanted serious ideas - like my post of "Lemond".


Nah. The OP just wants to get a sense of what others are thinking. Threads about Armstrong or Lemond get a lot if traffic and debate. Threads about other anti-doping, not so much. Based on the responses here, it seems like people don't like hypocrisy and self righteousness, and are pretty jaded about doping.


----------



## nOOky (Mar 20, 2009)

The list of people exposed for being clean would be much shorter, I'd like to see who has been racing without doping.


----------



## BGEPizza (Sep 28, 2009)

phil


----------



## WildBill (May 11, 2006)

Sky ...... just not a fan .


----------



## Local Hero (Jul 8, 2010)

Michelle Obama.


----------



## Local Hero (Jul 8, 2010)

Mike T. said:


> Julie Andrews. Mr Dressup. Mr Rogers.


Doctor Falsetti.


----------



## spade2you (May 12, 2009)

Local Hero said:


> Michelle Obama.


Keep Obama in president, ya know? He gave us a phone.


----------



## regnaD kciN (Mar 2, 2013)

Local Hero said:


> Michelle Obama.


I agree -- her breakaway win at Alpe d'Huez last year seemed mighty suspicious.


----------



## Squrkey (Mar 24, 2012)

Oprah Winfrey


----------



## MG537 (Jul 25, 2006)

Since you did not limit this question to cycling, tehn I would have to say Usain Bolt.


----------



## Bluenote (Oct 28, 2012)

MG537 said:


> Since you did not limit this question to cycling, tehn I would have to say Usain Bolt.


I would agree there.


----------



## Robert1 (Mar 27, 2012)

When you look at list of known doping, you're right.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_doping_cases_in_cycling#1988



nOOky said:


> The list of people exposed for being clean would be much shorter, I'd like to see who has been racing without doping.


----------



## spade2you (May 12, 2009)

Robert1 said:


> When you look at list of known doping, you're right.
> 
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_doping_cases_in_cycling#1988


The rest are just people who didn't get caught (yet?). 

Like others, I wish other professional sports would crack down. Some fat-ass arm-chair quarterback was telling me how dirty cycling was. I highly doubt there are many football players not using steroids.


----------



## mpre53 (Oct 25, 2011)

MG537 said:


> Since you did not limit this question to cycling, tehn I would have to say Usain Bolt.


Except that I'd have the same "yeah, right, no sh!t " reaction as I would if Mig got outed.


----------



## Local Hero (Jul 8, 2010)

Coolhand.


----------



## badge118 (Dec 26, 2002)

regnaD kciN said:


> Does anyone seriously think he's guilty? And, if so, is there any concrete evidence for the charge? For the record, I thought LeMond was a world-class whiner and general PITA but, in retrospect, he seems to have been one of the last "clean" cycling champions.


Well in retrospect Moser blood doped to his hour record, De Vlaeminck also spoke of blood doping at Gis. Fignon doped, the USA and Italian Cycling teams are known to have blood doped at the LA Games, Joop Zoetemelk admitted to doing it in the 1970s and there are rumors that it was going all the way back to the 1960s if we are honest.

What it comes down to with Lemond is do you believe him or not. If you believe what he says then no he did not dope. If you are more cynical however and look around then you can easily say maybe he did and not be a complete tin foil hat guy with all the other "greats" both before and contemporary with him that have been caught out, admitted or rumored. To be honest at this point I think it would take a VERY optimistic person to say there was ever a last "clean" Champion in cycling after it went professional. To say that presupposes that there was a clean period in the sport at all and the facts say this is not the case.


----------



## Bluenote (Oct 28, 2012)

badge118 said:


> Well in retrospect Moser blood doped to his hour record, De Vlaeminck also spoke of blood doping at Gis. Fignon doped, the USA and Italian Cycling teams are known to have blood doped at the LA Games, Joop Zoetemelk admitted to doing it in the 1970s and there are rumors that it was going all the way back to the 1960s if we are honest.
> 
> What it comes down to with Lemond is do you believe him or not. If you believe what he says then no he did not dope. If you are more cynical however and look around then you can easily say maybe he did and not be a complete tin foil hat guy with all the other "greats" both before and contemporary with him that have been caught out, admitted or rumored. To be honest at this point I think it would take a VERY optimistic person to say there was ever a last "clean" Champion in cycling after it went professional. To say that presupposes that there was a clean period in the sport at all and the facts say this is not the case.


Blood doping wasn't banned until 1985. So Moser and USA Cycling technically weren't 'doping'.

But your point stands. Look at PDMs doping diary. Can clean cyclists beat so many dirty ones?


----------



## spade2you (May 12, 2009)

With regards to LeMond, I kinda believe him. I find his problem is that people can and will take advantage of him. Here, take this vitamin shot. There was a clip of him getting a vitamin shot I saw on youtube, but can't find at the moment. What was _really_ in that shot? Vitamins. Uh-huh.


----------



## Mike T. (Feb 3, 2004)

spade2you said:


> With regards to LeMond, I kinda believe him.


Just about everyone else in his era has been discredited due to the d-word. So you really think he was the only one *not* on the d-word?


----------



## spade2you (May 12, 2009)

Mike T. said:


> Just about everyone else in his era has been discredited due to the d-word. So you really think he was the only one *not* on the d-word?


I give him a slim chance, which is better than the zero chance I'm giving everyone else.


----------



## Mike T. (Feb 3, 2004)

spade2you said:


> I give him a slim chance, which is better than the zero chance I'm giving everyone else.


Has anyone ever sat him down and asked him outright? Uhhh but then Lance answered that one with a straight face many times. I notice how quiet Kelly gets when he's doing race commentary when the d-word comes up.


----------



## spade2you (May 12, 2009)

Mike T. said:


> Has anyone ever sat him down and asked him outright? Uhhh but then Lance answered that one with a straight face many times. I notice how quiet Kelly gets when he's doing race commentary when the d-word comes up.


No arguments there. I simply hope he didn't for the sake of this not being a 100% total farce. At this point, we're at about 97%.


----------



## Mike T. (Feb 3, 2004)

spade2you said:


> No arguments there. I simply hope he didn't for the sake of this not being a 100% total farce. At this point, we're at about 97%.


Yeah I know Lemond was an incredible talent when in his teens and he was allowed to race in the USA against the elite riders - and he beat them many times too. So he was gifted. But when up against the best in the world and faced with The Choice, is it reasonable to think that he was the *only one* who had the strength or the credibility to resist? The stakes and pressure were so high. Plus there wasn't the testing back then and as we have seen in recent years, even *with* the testing, the chances of getting caught were almost zero.


----------



## badge118 (Dec 26, 2002)

Bluenote said:


> Blood doping wasn't banned until 1985. So Moser and USA Cycling technically weren't 'doping'.
> 
> But your point stands. Look at PDMs doping diary. Can clean cyclists beat so many dirty ones?


Yeah my main point continues to be that doping as we call it today sadly appears to be at the heart of the sport we all love and it becomes harder and harder to say with certainty that any Champion did not dope. I even have to admit my personal cycling hero, Fausto Coppi, was a doping SOB according to modern standards.


----------



## spade2you (May 12, 2009)

Mike T. said:


> Yeah I know Lemond was an incredible talent when in his teens and he was allowed to race in the USA against the elite riders - and he beat them many times too. So he was gifted. But when up against the best in the world and faced with The Choice, is it reasonable to think that he was the *only one* who had the strength or the credibility to resist? The stakes and pressure were so high. Plus there wasn't the testing back then and as we have seen in recent years, even *with* the testing, the chances of getting caught were almost zero.


No arguments there, either.

It would be a shame to destroy Armstrong for the sole reason of staying America's _only_ champion.


----------



## Fireform (Dec 15, 2005)

It's not what LeMond says that matters, because they all denied it. It's what the people who raced with and against him said that is persuasive. Even guys like Fignon, who really couldn't stand him, admitted that Greg raced clean. 

Also, his trainer with La Vie Claire was stridently anti doping and left the sport at the dawn of the EPO era, undoubtedly because he was a numbers guy and could clearly see the handwriting on the wall. 

Finally, name me another star of that era who left his team specifically because they were pressuring him to take PEDs? I can wait.


----------



## spade2you (May 12, 2009)

How would Fignon know what LeMond did behind closed doors?


----------



## Bluenote (Oct 28, 2012)

Mike T. said:


> Has anyone ever sat him down and asked him outright? Uhhh but then Lance answered that one with a straight face many times. I notice how quiet Kelly gets when he's doing race commentary when the d-word comes up.


Kelly got pipped a couple of times for doping. Willie Voet was his trainer, for freaks sake.


----------



## Fireform (Dec 15, 2005)

spade2you said:


> How would Fignon know what LeMond did behind closed doors?


They were teammates, ffs.


----------



## spade2you (May 12, 2009)

Fireform said:


> They were teammates, ffs.


Aware of that, but ya gotta have some privacy every now and then. Besides, I don't recall LeMond pointing fingers at Fignon when they were competitors despite him knowing damn well that Fignon doped.

Also, please refrain from even abbreviated profanity if you're going to report me for it or get uber offended in the past.


----------



## mpre53 (Oct 25, 2011)

spade2you said:


> With regards to LeMond, I kinda believe him. I find his problem is that people can and will take advantage of him. Here, take this vitamin shot. There was a clip of him getting a vitamin shot I saw on youtube, but can't find at the moment. What was _really_ in that shot? Vitamins. Uh-huh.


Good point, but the thing that really gives me pause is this: given how outspoken and sanctimonious he was about doping, you'd think that if someone had the goods on him, they would have outed him by now. But it won't be Jacome. He'll go to his grave insisting that it was "Vitamin B".


----------



## Fireform (Dec 15, 2005)

spade2you said:


> Aware of that, but ya gotta have some privacy every now and then. Besides, I don't recall LeMond pointing fingers at Fignon when they were competitors despite him knowing damn well that Fignon doped.
> 
> Also, please refrain from even abbreviated profanity if you're going to report me for it or get uber offended in the past.


Really? Again with the whining about getting reported? FYI, I've never reported you for anything and can't imagine a scenario in which I would bother to do so. So please HTFU. 

Secondly, your logic seems to require that LeMond abandon his team and his fat pro contract over the very public charge that they were pressuring him to dope, while at the same time he was doping in secret, so carefully that not even his teammates or trainers ever saw a thing. What kind of sense does that make?


----------



## spade2you (May 12, 2009)

mpre53 said:


> Good point, but the thing that really gives me pause is this: given how outspoken and sanctimonious he was about doping, you'd think that if someone had the goods on him, they would have outed him by now. But it won't be Jacome. He'll go to his grave insisting that it was "Vitamin B".


People have taken bigger secrets to the grave. I've met more than a few people who could keep that kind of a secret.


----------



## spade2you (May 12, 2009)

Fireform said:


> Really? Again with the whining about getting reported? FYI, I've never reported you for anything and can't imagine a scenario in which I would bother to do so. So please HTFU.
> 
> Secondly, your logic seems to require that LeMond abandon his team and his fat pro contract over the very public charge that they were pressuring him to dope, while at the same time he was doping in secret, so carefully that not even his teammates or trainers ever saw a thing. What kind of sense does that make?


What kind of sense does it make to be an anti-doping advocate if you won't even report your competitors? Of course, knowing the doping that went on within his own teams and not reporting it until later also doesn't look good.


----------



## Fireform (Dec 15, 2005)

spade2you said:


> People have taken bigger secrets to the grave. I've met more than a few people who could keep that kind of a secret.


That's the thing about a good conspiracy theory. The less evidence of its existence, the more assured the theorist. 

Some day these guys will get over their Lance fixation. Just evidently not this day.


----------



## Bluenote (Oct 28, 2012)

If he was a doper, wouldn't he have just hopped on EPO in the early 90s like everyone else and extended his career winning? 

He wins the Tour in 1990, but drops off pretty sharply after that at only 31? Loosing to... Big Mig? 

Andy Hampsten quit because he felt you couldn't win clean any more. Which maintains he was winning clean before. So it's hypothetically possible, if not true in every case.

I don't know if Lemond doped or not. But there is circumstantial evidence for both positions.


----------



## Bluenote (Oct 28, 2012)

spade2you said:


> What kind of sense does it make to be an anti-doping advocate if you won't even report your competitors? Of course, knowing the doping that went on within his own teams and not reporting it until later also doesn't look good.


Lots of people aren't comfortable being "snitches". Besides, at that time there were low penalties for doping and no focus on non-analytical positives. 

Had Lemond snitched all that would have come of it is a lot of riders butthurt with him. That'd be comfy in the peloton.


----------



## Bluenote (Oct 28, 2012)

Fireform said:


> That's the thing about a good conspiracy theory. The less evidence of its existence, the more assured the theorist.
> 
> Some day these guys will get over their Lance fixation. Just evidently not this day.


+1

And ten characters


----------



## spade2you (May 12, 2009)

Bluenote said:


> If he was a doper, wouldn't he have just hopped on EPO in the early 90s like everyone else and extended his career winning?
> 
> He wins the Tour in 1990, but drops off pretty sharply after that at only 31? Loosing to... Big Mig?
> 
> ...


Keep in mind that Hampsten still got some good results during the early 90's, including 4th place overall and a win up Mt. Ventoux. The end of his career was definitely during the thick of EPO use, but he had also had a reasonably long career.

Another thing to keep in mind is that doping didn't totally eliminate the chances of falling apart. Pantani fell apart in 2000 while doped to the gills and just about caused Lance to do the same. (Viva Pantani!)

Doping (or not) aside, I think part of LeMond's problem is that he was a very emotional guy, which could work both ways with his performance. Once he was defeated, his mind and body seemed to shut down.


----------



## spade2you (May 12, 2009)

Bluenote said:


> Lots of people aren't comfortable being "snitches". Besides, at that time there were low penalties for doping and no focus on non-analytical positives.
> 
> Had Lemond snitched all that would have come of it is a lot of riders butthurt with him. That'd be comfy in the peloton.


You can't be an advocate of cleaning up cycling if you're not willing to do the same thing to your own peloton. 

I once snitched at work about something vile. The fallout dang near got me fired. It wasn't worth all the repercussions, but I'm not ashamed for going for it.


----------



## Bluenote (Oct 28, 2012)

spade2you said:


> Keep in mind that Hampsten still got some good results during the early 90's, including 4th place overall and a win up Mt. Ventoux. The end of his career was definitely during the thick of EPO use, but he had also had a reasonably long career.
> 
> Another thing to keep in mind is that doping didn't totally eliminate the chances of falling apart. Pantani fell apart in 2000 while doped to the gills and just about caused Lance to do the same. (Viva Pantani!)
> 
> Doping (or not) aside, I think part of LeMond's problem is that he was a very emotional guy, which could work both ways with his performance. Once he was defeated, his mind and body seemed to shut down.


Pantani also used coke. Makes him a pretty bad bench mark. +10% for doping, - 15% for coke. Or is it 20 and 5? Impossible to say. But I'd say coke makes you fall apart. And die young. 

Hampsten had a trickle of results - the occasional stage win. But not the kind of solid results you need to win a GT. 

If Lemond were on EPO, why would Big Mig beat him so consistently? You've got to address that point to support your 'Lemond was a doper' theory.


----------



## Bluenote (Oct 28, 2012)

spade2you said:


> You can't be an advocate of cleaning up cycling if you're not willing to do the same thing to your own peloton.
> 
> I once snitched at work about something vile. The fallout dang near got me fired. It wasn't worth all the repercussions, but I'm not ashamed for going for it.


You're arguing apples to oranges here. 

First you say - Lemond must himself be a doper, since he didn't snitch. 

Then you say he can't be an anti-doping advocate if he's not a snitch. 

It is possible that he didn't dope during his career, but didn't feel safe, like he had enough evidence, etc... To snitch. 

After retirement, Festina, Armstrong and much stronger penalties for doping, his feelings may have changed. he may have decided he had to take the risk. People do sometimes 'stay out of stuff that's not their business' until it gets out if hand.

As you claim to be a licensed professional, I would expect you to report wrong doing. Higher standard and all that.


----------



## Fireform (Dec 15, 2005)

Bluenote said:


> Hampsten had a trickle of results - the occasional stage win. But not the kind of solid results you need to win a GT.


Hampsten won the Giro in 1988. Last I checked, that was a GT. He also won Suisse twice and Romandie once. Pretty good trickle if you ask me.


----------



## Bluenote (Oct 28, 2012)

Fireform said:


> Hampsten won the Giro in 1988. Last I checked, that was a GT. He also won Suisse twice and Romandie once. Pretty good trickle if you ask me.


Post EPO. His results turned to a trickle post EPO. He then retired, feeling he couldn't win. 

EPO happened sometime in the early 90s. 

If it had been around the peloton in 88, it would have showed in the PDM notebook, most likely. Those guys took everything else.


----------



## spade2you (May 12, 2009)

Bluenote said:


> You're arguing apples to oranges here.
> 
> First you say - Lemond must himself be a doper, since he didn't snitch.
> 
> ...


Yes, not reporting doping on one's own team is condoning it. That wasn't a mistake. Condoning doping and/or doping makes anyone part of the problem. Coming clean later is a little too convenient for integrity. 

I felt obligated to report the wrong doing. Unfortunately, the people who were much deeper involved did not come forward out of fear. The few who came forward paid for it. I'd like to think the outcome would have been much better if more came forward. They didn't and I'm about the only person still there.


----------



## spade2you (May 12, 2009)

Bluenote said:


> Post EPO. His results turned to a trickle post EPO. He then retired, feeling he couldn't win.
> 
> EPO happened sometime in the early 90s.
> 
> If it had been around the peloton in 88, it would have showed in the PDM notebook, most likely. Those guys took everything else.


EPO or not, ya can't race top level forever.


----------



## Bluenote (Oct 28, 2012)

spade2you said:


> Yes, not reporting doping on one's own team is condoning it. That wasn't a mistake. Condoning doping and/or doping makes anyone part of the problem. Coming clean later is a little too convenient for integrity.
> 
> I felt obligated to report the wrong doing. Unfortunately, the people who were much deeper involved did not come forward out of fear. The few who came forward paid for it. I'd like to think the outcome would have been much better if more came forward. They didn't and I'm about the only person still there.


Still doesn't prove your point that not snitching proved he did dope. 

I'm not saying he's saint Lemond. I'm just saying the circumstantial evidence could be argued both ways. So I give him the presumption of innocence. If more evidence comes out in the future (like say the peloton was all on blood in the late 80s) I'd change my mind.

You're not making your employer sound very good, btw. Bad stuff happening? You nearly got canned for speaking out? Others refusing to speak out? Jesus.


----------



## badge118 (Dec 26, 2002)

This is not evidence. How many times have we heard from the neighbors...

"He was nice, kinda quiet, we never would have thought...."


----------



## badge118 (Dec 26, 2002)

mpre53 said:


> Good point, but the thing that really gives me pause is this: given how outspoken and sanctimonious he was about doping, you'd think that if someone had the goods on him, they would have outed him by now. But it won't be Jacome. He'll go to his grave insisting that it was "Vitamin B".


Omerta is MUCH stronger in the pre-99er generation. Much of the breaking of Omerta we see now is because people are jockeying to preserve what little career or financial chances they have in the face of growing criminal and civil investigations. The Lemond generation is well past those kinds of incentives.


----------



## spade2you (May 12, 2009)

Bluenote said:


> Still doesn't prove your point that not snitching proved he did dope.
> 
> I'm not saying he's saint Lemond. I'm just saying the circumstantial evidence could be argued both ways. So I give him the presumption of innocence. If more evidence comes out in the future (like say the peloton was all on blood in the late 80s) I'd change my mind.
> 
> You're not making your employer sound very good, btw. Bad stuff happening? You nearly got canned for speaking out? Others refusing to speak out? Jesus.


I have little or no doubt that LeMond witnessed doping with the likes of Fignon and The Badger in the act of pharmacological enhancement. Perhaps they bullied him into silence or perhaps his "change of heart" didn't mean narking on friends. Heck, half the people who wanted to bust Lance didn't because they also doped.

As for what happened at work, let's just say there's a reason I dream about cycling all day. The others were afraid to speak out because it would have been career suicide. Mine was a mere career blowing off my big toe. Fortunately, I'm finally invisible again.


----------



## Bluenote (Oct 28, 2012)

spade2you said:


> EPO or not, ya can't race top level forever.


Hampsten's last good big results were in 1992, when he was just 30. Young for a GT to decline. Particularly a GT like him, known to live a quiet life, watch his weight, etc...

And who was beating him? Big Mig, Gianni Bungo, etc...

Hampsten maintains that he didn't dope. He says he retired because you couldn't win clean anymore. Here's a quote from him. (The rest of the article is boring). 

Andy Hampsten : Red Kite Prayer


----------



## spade2you (May 12, 2009)

Bluenote said:


> Hampsten's last good big results were in 1992, when he was just 30. Young for a GT to decline. Particularly a GT like him, known to live a quiet life, watch his weight, etc...
> 
> And who was beating him? Big Mig, Gianni Bungo, etc...
> 
> ...


He might even be telling the truth. Hopefully he didn't state this in a book. That seems to be a bad trend as of late.


----------



## Bluenote (Oct 28, 2012)

spade2you said:


> He might even be telling the truth. Hopefully he didn't state this in a book. That seems to be a bad trend as of late.


He's kept a pretty low profile since retiring. The occasional interview, that's about it.


----------



## il sogno (Jul 15, 2002)

Indurain. Just cause those Tours were so dang boring.


----------



## roddjbrown (Jan 19, 2012)

Nadal

And nodding-dog Voeckler


----------



## tobes88 (Jan 4, 2012)

I find it pretty sad that here on a US forum LeMond's greatness gets denied on the basis of what Armstrong did.

I'm not American. But LeMond was your true great. 

I suppose if your faith has been completely shattered, you could remain agnostic - which would mean putting every single rider in history in brackets.

But to be atheist - being openly skeptical of past champions purely on the basis that they were champions - is pretty silly. And pretty unjust.


----------



## Slartibartfast (Jul 22, 2007)

"I suppose if your faith has been completely shattered, you could remain agnostic - which would mean putting every single rider in history in brackets."

I actually do the opposite -- I remove the brackets from every single rider. I believe they were all trying as hard as they could to win, in every era of the sport. Upon "removing the brackets," LeMond is revealed as great, as is Armstrong, Indurain, Coppi, and Wiggins. Believe me, it's a lot easier and less stressful to follow cycling -- and still enjoy it -- using this simple strategy.

BTW -- I didn't have a career wrecked because I was a rider who refused to dope in a peloton full of dopers. I would no doubt feel differently if I were.


----------



## ultimobici (Jul 16, 2005)

I find it staggering the way Lemond & Hampsten can be lumped in with Armstrong & Co on the basis they didn't speak out at the time. In the 80's it was a very different time in Cycling. Methods of doping were relative to the 90's and beyond were comparatively primitive. Riders of the calibre of Lemond or Hampsten could and did win regularly, as the 80's doping methods of choice didn't allow a rider to do what EPO & blood bags would later on.

As for Lemond's lack of speaking out, remember cycling in the 80's was an almost exclusively European sport. Lemond was an outsider as far as the sport was concerned, despite his talent & palmares. Come 1988 when he had his run-in with PDM, he was also a rider desperate to get back to where he had been prior to his hunting accident. Speaking out then would have been career suicide. No team, not even ADR, would have touched him with a 100 ft pole. A measure of his lack of clout came in 89 when ADR thought they could stop paying him his salary in April. I'm sure Lemond was aware of doping happening around him, but I get the impression from interviews with him that he didn't think it actually affected him that much, plus I think he may have felt that he was always the guest, so to speak, in their sport.

With regard to his anti-doping stance since the 90's, he's set himself up to be felled in spectacular style if he did dope. With his no compromise stance it must rankle with someone who has evidence, however circumstantial. Yet there hasn't been so much as a peep, not a dickiebird! I wonder why? Perhaps he is even more manipulative than Armstrong, able to silence detractors for almost two decades of retirement, plus a decade of a career.


----------



## cda 455 (Aug 9, 2010)

DrSmile said:


> It has to be Wiggins. In my mind it would completely discredit all professional cycling in any organized fashion. When (not if) it happens there really can't be any doubters left. Then again the same was said about Lance...





WildBill said:


> Sky ...... just not a fan .


^^^These^^^


Being a Yankee, the British arrogance really irritates me :lol: ! 

But yeah, 2012 will come back and haunt them. The doping doctor they employed last season will somehow end up being the catalyst of their demise.


----------



## tobes88 (Jan 4, 2012)

ultimobici said:


> I find it staggering the way Lemond & Hampsten can be lumped in with Armstrong & Co on the basis they didn't speak out at the time. In the 80's it was a very different time in Cycling. Methods of doping were relative to the 90's and beyond were comparatively primitive. Riders of the calibre of Lemond or Hampsten could and did win regularly, as the 80's doping methods of choice didn't allow a rider to do what EPO & blood bags would later on.
> 
> As for Lemond's lack of speaking out, remember cycling in the 80's was an almost exclusively European sport. Lemond was an outsider as far as the sport was concerned, despite his talent & palmares. Come 1988 when he had his run-in with PDM, he was also a rider desperate to get back to where he had been prior to his hunting accident. Speaking out then would have been career suicide. No team, not even ADR, would have touched him with a 100 ft pole. A measure of his lack of clout came in 89 when ADR thought they could stop paying him his salary in April. I'm sure Lemond was aware of doping happening around him, but I get the impression from interviews with him that he didn't think it actually affected him that much, plus I think he may have felt that he was always the guest, so to speak, in their sport.
> 
> With regard to his anti-doping stance since the 90's, he's set himself up to be felled in spectacular style if he did dope. With his no compromise stance it must rankle with someone who has evidence, however circumstantial. Yet there hasn't been so much as a peep, not a dickiebird! I wonder why? Perhaps he is even more manipulative than Armstrong, able to silence detractors for almost two decades of retirement, plus a decade of a career.


Yeah, it is pretty staggering. If there are good reasons to justify an inference of doubt, then so be it.

I don't see any good reasons at all, with respect to Lemond. The good reasons seem to justify an inference of non-doubt.


----------



## tobes88 (Jan 4, 2012)

I'm an Aussie, and I reckon they're hateable for a number of reasons:
1. Owned by Murdoch
2. Ugly black jerseys
3. Consistently dominating stage races by closing down any possibility of mountain attacks
4. Methodology of quantification and scientific precision
5. They're British

3 and 4 give us some reason to _speculate_ about doping. However, I reckon that the only rider who is really dubious is Mick Rogers. Note that he left quietly this year after the zero tolerance policy came in.

I thought his form was highly dubious during the tour last year. 

At this stage, I don't see anything on Wiggins at all. Assuming that it's a 'when' not an 'if' is just conflating all the good reasons for hating Sky with a desire to have them stained.


----------



## mpre53 (Oct 25, 2011)

badge118 said:


> Omerta is MUCH stronger in the pre-99er generation. Much of the breaking of Omerta we see now is because people are jockeying to preserve what little career or financial chances they have in the face of growing criminal and civil investigations. The Lemond generation is well past those kinds of incentives.


True, but I would think that if there's one thing that would rankle those old school hard-asses, it would be sanctimonious hypocrisy.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

spade2you said:


> You can't be an advocate of cleaning up cycling if you're not willing to do the same thing to your own peloton.


Greg broke his contract with PDM after they tried to push him to dope. He was hardly silent, He was vocal about it at the time. 

Drug Use Said to Concern LeMond : Attorney Claims Dutch Team Wanted Cyclist to Try Testosterone - Los Angeles Times


----------



## badge118 (Dec 26, 2002)

mpre53 said:


> True, but I would think that if there's one thing that would rankle those old school hard-asses, it would be sanctimonious hypocrisy.


It would rankle indeed but to speak out against any of their contemporaries is to throw mud on themselves as well. They simply do not have the motive. It makes little sense at this stage in their lives to throw anyone else under the bus because the inevitable result is they join them laying in the street. 

If you look at most of our current whistle blowers they are people that have either legal or financial incentives to do so. The old school guys would be performing a self destructive act on principal? Not likely.


----------



## Local Hero (Jul 8, 2010)

Cavendish.


----------



## ultimobici (Jul 16, 2005)

tobes88 said:


> I'm an Aussie, and I reckon they're hateable for a number of reasons:
> 1. Owned by Murdoch
> 2. Ugly black jerseys
> 3. Consistently dominating stage races by closing down any possibility of mountain attacks
> ...


I hate to be the one that breaks it to you, but Murdoch is your countryman. And Mick, he's an Aussie too! Oh and little Richie also an Aussie, albeit from across the Tasman Straight! Much if the team is not British for that matter!


----------



## ultimobici (Jul 16, 2005)

cda 455 said:


> ^^^These^^^
> 
> 
> Being a Yankee, the British arrogance really irritates me :lol: !
> ...


Coming from an American, that's rich! The only country arrogant enough to have "World Series" in sports not played anywhere else in the world!


----------



## Coolhand (Jul 28, 2002)

Voeckler and that whole team.


----------



## Coolhand (Jul 28, 2002)

spade2you said:


> The rest are just people who didn't get caught (yet?).
> 
> Like others, I wish other professional sports would crack down. Some fat-ass arm-chair quarterback was telling me how dirty cycling was. I highly doubt there are many football players not using steroids.


HGH is much more of an issue for the NFL.


----------



## cda 455 (Aug 9, 2010)

Doctor Falsetti said:


> Greg broke his contract with PDM after they tried to push him to dope. He was hardly silent, He was vocal about it at the time.
> 
> Drug Use Said to Concern LeMond : Attorney Claims Dutch Team Wanted Cyclist to Try Testosterone - Los Angeles Times


I wonder if Pharmstrong read your poast :lol: ?!


Because that is what he is claiming now:

Lance Armstrong on doping, Oprah, Tom Brokaw, bevy of lawsuits - More Sports - Michael McCann - SI.com



> During my interview, Armstrong added details to his some of his much-criticized responses to Oprah. For instance, while he refused to lay blame elsewhere for suing people who spoke truthfully about him, he asserted that companies with which he signed endorsement contracts expected him to refute allegations. If he didn't, Armstrong believed, he might have lost those deals. If Armstrong's claim is true, would it excuse those lawsuits? Hardly. But it offers some explanation as to why he sued people he knew were telling the truth.



​


----------



## badge118 (Dec 26, 2002)

ultimobici said:


> Coming from an American, that's rich! The only country arrogant enough to have "World Series" in sports not played anywhere else in the world!


hmmm really?

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_baseball_outside_the_United_States

and

http://www.10topten.com/2012/03/most-popular-sports-in-the-world/

see cycling other? nope. I do however see that Baseball in number 4.

maybe since the little league world series, which indeed a world competition, is in my back yard, I have a firmer grasp of the reality.

fyi one of the biggest reasons baseball was not in the 2012 Olympics was because MLB would not do a mid season break the way Hockey does to allow players to travel to the games. 

regardless, haters gonna hate.


----------



## ukbloke (Sep 1, 2007)

Every rider faster than me climbing Old La Honda on Strava.


----------



## spade2you (May 12, 2009)

Coolhand said:


> HGH is much more of an issue for the NFL.


Fair enough.


----------



## Local Hero (Jul 8, 2010)

Who would I really like to see exposed as a doper? How about the local Cat 1 guy who beat me two weeks in a row at the circuit race! 





JK. That guy is pretty damned cool. And he's probably clean. (It didn't take much for him to ride me off his wheel.)


----------



## mariomal99 (Mar 4, 2012)

all these guys in this list

List of Tour de France winners - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## tobes88 (Jan 4, 2012)

ultimobici said:


> I hate to be the one that breaks it to you, but Murdoch is your countryman. And Mick, he's an Aussie too! Oh and little Richie also an Aussie, albeit from across the Tasman Straight! Much if the team is not British for that matter!


Thanks my friend, but I'm well aware of those facts.


----------



## ukbloke (Sep 1, 2007)

Robert1 said:


> When you look at list of known doping, you're right.
> 
> List of doping cases in cycling - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


That's a great read. I like:



> The acceptance of drug-taking in the Tour de France was so complete by 1930 that the rule book, distributed by Henri Desgrange, reminded riders that drugs would not be provided by the organisers.


----------



## thighmaster (Feb 2, 2006)

Phelps


----------



## regnaD kciN (Mar 2, 2013)

thighmaster said:


> Phelps


Michael or Fred?


----------



## saird (Aug 19, 2008)

Lemond or Chris Hoy.


----------



## badge118 (Dec 26, 2002)

saird said:


> Lemond or Chris Hoy.


I actually think Hoy is less likely than Lemond. As others pointed out with Moser etc., many of the things we calling "doping" today, were not banned practices back them so tbh it's kinda likely that Lemond did something that was considered acceptable then that would be frowned upon today.

Hoy on the other hand has something that Lemond, hell that most modern cyclists don't have to be concerned about. Much of his training regime is paid for by the National Lottery. If he gets caught out doping the least of his concerns would be a ban from competition and returning of medals, he would have some serious issues with criminal charges.

It's actually why I wish the UN Convention on Doping in Sport actually went beyond just having nations signing on with WADA but also having to pass criminal legislation. Not only would it increase penalties BUT look at what has been going on in Italy the last few years. The majority of the Italians caught out over that time frame were caught out because Law enforcement got dirt on them in Criminal Investigations and then passed the evidence they gathered onto CONI. Hell if anyone thinks Armstrong would have been caught out the way he was without the Federal Investigation they are fooling themselves imo. The power of the subpoena, search warrant and wire tap can never be under estimated.


----------



## wagg (Aug 11, 2012)

Keith Richards


----------



## thighmaster (Feb 2, 2006)

regnaD kciN said:


> Michael or Fred?


There are two, OK, then both


----------



## Big-foot (Dec 14, 2002)

wagg said:


> Keith Richards



View attachment 277208


----------



## Mike T. (Feb 3, 2004)

wagg said:


> Keith Richards


He doesn't need exposing. He freely admits it about 10x on every page of his biography.


----------



## spade2you (May 12, 2009)

They say Kieth can't be killed by conventional weapons.


----------



## Mike T. (Feb 3, 2004)

spade2you said:


> They say Kieth can't be killed by conventional weapons.


He's pre-embalmed just like a McDonald's french-fry - in a thousand years it wouldn't look any different than it does now.


----------



## BGEPizza (Sep 28, 2009)

Anyone who admits to snorting his own FATHER doesn't need to be exposed. He needs to be committed.

Day I snorted my father's ashes, by Keith Richards | Mail Online


----------

