# The Greg Lemond Thread



## ultimobici (Jul 16, 2005)

OK, at the risk of being heckled, ridiculed or banned, I'll ask the question.

Other than the iron injection, is there any credible evidence of Lemond doping?

Let's leave out innuendo and conjecture. I'm curious if anyone has actually gone on record like Emma Reilly and co.


----------



## cyclesport45 (Dec 10, 2007)

I don't know. But nobody seems to be writing any books detailing Lemonds' doping practices....


----------



## Coolhand (Jul 28, 2002)

> Let's leave out innuendo and conjecture.


That would drop posting levels in Doping by 70%!

 

Let's at least leave out personal attacks.


----------



## iliveonnitro (Feb 19, 2006)

I don't think any "evidence" or testimony has ever come out. The closest thing we have is how he beat other dopers, EPO was in the peloton at the time, etc.

I also think GL knows this, which is why he can be so outspoken about it.


----------



## jupiterrn (Sep 22, 2006)

Never heard or seen anything credible but is HE sure he was injected with iron?


----------



## lookrider (Dec 3, 2006)

iliveonnitro said:


> I don't think any "evidence" or testimony has ever come out. The closest thing we have is how he beat other dopers, EPO was in the peloton at the time, etc.
> 
> I also think GL knows this, which is why he can be so outspoken about it.


You should really leave out the loose talk. Any time you can take a shot you do so. Is there *ANY* talk by any known person in the sport who accuses LeMond of *ANYTHING*?

The guy was winning huge international races from '79 till '86 and there was no EPO in the peloton at the time. Those years might seem prehistoric to you, but the stuff the was available was also detectable. One of the biggest busts ever was the Ben Johnson thing in '88 so it's not like people had no idea of what was going on in sport.

When he started racing he won his first eleven races and there were more juniors in California then there are now.

Were you even born when they guy was tearing it up?


----------



## Wookiebiker (Sep 5, 2005)

lookrider said:


> You should really leave out the loose talk. Any time you can take a shot you do so. Is there *ANY* talk by any known person in the sport who accuses LeMond of *ANYTHING*?
> 
> The guy was winning huge international races from '79 till '86 and there was no EPO in the peloton at the time. Those years might seem prehistoric to you, but the stuff the was available was also detectable. One of the biggest busts ever was the Ben Johnson thing in '88 so it's not like people had no idea of what was going on in sport.
> 
> ...


However...there was blood packing, designer steroids, amphetamines, etc.

Just because there was no EPO doesn't mean there were not many ways for riders to cheat the system and use PED's. And I can guarantee there were riders doing this at the time, however how much do you hear about those racers? Anybody talking about them? Why not? 

The question is whether GL did any of these....just because nobody has talked about it doesn't mean it didn't happen  

But for the GL faithful no word = no doping.....and the "Iron" shot is just dismissed, even if it's well known that "Iron Shots"..."B-12" shots, etc. are well known as code words for doping :blush2:


----------



## SwiftSolo (Jun 7, 2008)

lookrider said:


> You should really leave out the loose talk. Any time you can take a shot you do so. Is there *ANY* talk by any known person in the sport who accuses LeMond of *ANYTHING*?
> 
> The guy was winning huge international races from '79 till '86 and there was no EPO in the peloton at the time. Those years might seem prehistoric to you, but the stuff the was available was also detectable. One of the biggest busts ever was the Ben Johnson thing in '88 so it's not like people had no idea of what was going on in sport.
> 
> ...


Mate, you might want to read his post one more time. Did you accidentally reply to someone else's post Or is this just the attitude that drives your life?


----------



## loudog (Jul 22, 2008)

lemond says it was iron but why would it have been 3 shots? if lemond doped he didnt know it but who knows what his team doctor gave him. also, it seems like a lot of pros make a distinction between doping with epo and using stimulants etc.


----------



## ti-triodes (Aug 14, 2006)

Look at it this way. If LeMond wasn't doing anything back then, he was the only one.


BTW, Greg spreads a little more sunshine. 

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/sport/2009/0627/1224249651626.html


----------



## ultimobici (Jul 16, 2005)

Wookiebiker said:


> However...there was blood packing, designer steroids, amphetamines, etc.
> 
> Just because there was no EPO doesn't mean there were not many ways for riders to cheat the system and use PED's. And I can guarantee there were riders doing this at the time, however how much do you hear about those racers? Anybody talking about them? Why not?
> 
> ...


Iron shots aside, Lemond has a lot to lose by being so outspoken. The vast majority of his contemporaries are alive and kicking, so it is a little suprising that no one has impugned his record. In the same way that Charly Mottet & Giles Delion do not have their credibility questioned. Why is that?


----------



## lookrider (Dec 3, 2006)

Wookiebiker said:


> However...there was blood packing, designer steroids, amphetamines, etc.



Designer steroids at that time? I don't think so, but I may be wrong. Do have anything about designer steroids in the 70's and 80's? From what I understand that was more of a recent phenomenon.



Wookiebiker said:


> Just because there was no EPO doesn't mean there were not many ways for riders to cheat the system and use PED's.


Sure,



Wookiebiker said:


> And I can guarantee there were riders doing this at the time, however how much do you hear about those racers?


Actually, a decent amount. 




Wookiebiker said:


> Anybody talking about them?


Actually yes. Voet,Kimmage was prominent among them and Hampsten has spoken of the widespread use of stuff. I mean c'mon, Rooks and Fignon have just spoken about themselves recently.



Wookiebiker said:


> Why not?


You don't spit in the soup, and it was assumed the vast majority were doping.

Merckx was positive two or three times and Delgado, Kelly, and Roche were outed years ago.



Wookiebiker said:


> The question is whether GL did any of these....just because nobody has talked about it doesn't mean it didn't happen


How many times have you cheated on your income taxes and your wife? Just because no one knows or suspects........



Wookiebiker said:


> But for the GL faithful no word = no doping.....


What other standard would you use? Would I bet my life on it? No..

This irrational reasoning of yours is quite annoying. I'm not predisposed to like LeMond any more than anyone else. It's just that there is *NOTHING* on him. There's not even rumor or innuendo about the guy other than the stuff from anonymous internet posters. If you have anything at all post it.



Wookiebiker said:


> and the "Iron" shot is just dismissed, even if it's well known that "Iron Shots"..."B-12" shots, etc. are well known as code words for doping :blush2:


And LeMond revealed these shots himself for what reason?


----------



## lookrider (Dec 3, 2006)

SwiftSolo said:


> Mate, you might want to read his post one more time. Did you accidentally reply to someone else's post Or is this just the attitude that drives your life?


Bro, I read the post, did you? Was EPO in the Peloton from 1983 to 1986, when LeMond was World Champ and Tour champion with two other podium finishes in the Tour?

It probably was not being used to anything other than a small degree in '89 or '90 either. Armstrong probably didn't even start using EPO until 1995 and we know that guy has very few if any scruples about anything.

If you have something of substance to say let fly with it, but if it's just to blather with nothing coming out, spare me.


----------



## Coolhand (Jul 28, 2002)

Pre-Festina the teams often ran the doping and it was seen being professional. All his contemporaries as TdF GC contendors were doping, and he managed to beat them easily. He rode in an extremely poorly tested era, where the establishment looked the other way more often then not. Some of his "miracle" comebacks match the doping pattern. The _especially_ last TdF win = hmm. He was best pals/mentor to Frank Andreu- who was a doper. 

A known "innovator" who pushed boundaries to win. Why hasn't anyone outed him yet? Greg was very secretive and paranoid, even as a racer (another doper attribute). Convinced his teammates and then _the entire peloton_ was conspiring against him. It is likely he did his doping himself (if he did it). Why hasn't anyone outed him? Because he never trusted anyone, the 80's rider Omerta is now barely just coming down (the Professor admitted it finally- so how did Greg beat him if doping works so well?). Not to mention Greg's love of litigation- how many times he been sued and sued others now? Like Pete Rose, I think he will wait too long to admit what he has done.


----------



## lookrider (Dec 3, 2006)

Coolhand said:


> Like Pete Rose, I think he will wait too long to admit what he has done.


Nice agenda!

Like Pete Rose? Pete Rose was caught with his hand in the cookie jar.

He'll wait too long? For what? Pete Rose went to prison and he won't get in the Hall of Fame.

Nice narrative though. I like the way you weave the bits and pieces together with your armchair psychology nonsense.. All from a superficial analysis of the '85 Tour.

I don't know if you've been paying attention but LeMond just won a big lawsuit over the development in Montana.

It looks like he's going to win another one against Trek.

You have some imagination.

Your post would have been part of the 70% which would have been eliminated if you weren't relying on innuendo and just making stuff up.





Coolhand 
flinty-eyed moderator



Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 6,947 Quote:
Let's leave out innuendo and conjecture. 


That would drop posting levels in Doping by 70%!


----------



## stevesbike (Jun 3, 2002)

QUOTE: "Greg was very secretive and paranoid, even as a racer" 

This isn't speculation, it's fabrication. I was involved in the race scene during Lemond's era - Lemond was one of the most open riders of his time. He was also probably the best-liked and most respected team leader in the peloton. Lemond was known as a practical joker and a funny guy in the peloton (and spoke French in it). Ask his Z mechanic about practical jokes - like when Lemond hid all the team bikes after a tour stage and told him they had been stolen. In terms of being open, Lemond helped 7-Eleven with US-based training - guys like Roll and Shapiro just couldn't keep up with Lemond's training pace. Ask a French rider like Duclos-Lasalle about Lemond. Ask a guy like Bauer about Lemond. Like when Lemond had a stomach bug and rode a Tour stage with crap leaking out of his shorts with his teammates surrounding him so the media wouldn't get an embarrassing shot. He was a guy who had total respect from riders and earned their loyalty (not through intimidation like some other team leaders).


----------



## Coolhand (Jul 28, 2002)

You need to use the quote function- it is the third button from the right on the second row. That's how you get clean quotes (like below). 



> Nice agenda!


And knowing is half the battle!


----------



## Coolhand (Jul 28, 2002)

stevesbike said:


> He was also probably the best-liked and most respected team leader in the peloton.



Really- I think the Badger would disagree. As would those in the peloton when Greg accused them conspiring against him. 

Or my favorite Greg video clip from versus the other day the "do you want me to punch you in the face!" whine/threat. Classy.


----------



## Wookiebiker (Sep 5, 2005)

lookrider said:


> How many times have you cheated on your income taxes and your wife? Just because no one knows or suspects........


Nice personal attack there....can't ever keep it clean can you?  

Seems like you have to make it personal every time regardless of what's said...such is life


----------



## stevesbike (Jun 3, 2002)

Coolhand said:


> Really- I think the Badger would disagree. As would those in the peloton when Greg accused them conspiring against him.
> 
> Or my favorite Greg video clip from versus the other day the "do you want me to punch you in the face!" whine/threat. Classy.


Both of your examples need to be clarified. Lemond never accused other riders during his racing career. Re the punch in the face, he was addressing to a journalist - not a rider - right after he gifted the 85 Tour to Hinault. He would have ended up with a 5+ minute lead over Hinault had he been allowed to race that day - pretty understandable that he was upset with a reporter right after. Lemond was a lot better liked than Hinault in the peloton - and Hinault has always acknowledged Lemond's team sacrifice in 85.


----------



## lookrider (Dec 3, 2006)

Wookiebiker said:


> Nice personal attack there....can't ever keep it clean can you?
> 
> Seems like you have to make it personal every time regardless of what's said...such is life


You know, you're ridiculous. I was making a point.

I obviously don't know what you do with your taxes or even if you're married, but you don't even realize you're doing the exact same thing to LeMond, that I just did to you.

That is, I made an accusation, based on nothing other than the fact that a lot of people cheat on both their taxes and their wives. Therefore, you're guilty of the same thing, even though I have no evidence whatsoever.

This is exactly what you're doing to LeMond.

There's no personal attack. It's an illustration.

Good grief, really are you joking? 

A personal attack?


----------



## pedalruns (Dec 18, 2002)

*Andy Hampston has high praise for Greg Lemond*

http://velonews.com/article/6660

"I saw Greg race as a champion through the '80s, and into the '90s when the cycling community as a whole turned a blind eye towards doping and consciously ignored the onslaught of EPO in the peloton.Like Greg, I, too, saw what I believe were the effects of EPO when it entered pro cycling in the early '90s. In the first years it grew froma few individuals reaping obscene wins from exploiting its “benefits,”to entire teams relying on it, essentially forcing all but the most giftedracers to either use EPO to keep their place in cycling, quit or becomejust another obscure rider in the group"

This letter is from 2004... a small paragrah I copied above... it is worth the read... 


And all this crap about Lemond doping is just that, grasping at straws because there is and never has been anything againt him... I think Greg is the true hero... he tried in vain to race without it until he finally retired in 1994.


----------



## iliveonnitro (Feb 19, 2006)

lookrider said:


> You should really leave out the loose talk. Any time you can take a shot you do so. Is there *ANY* talk by any known person in the sport who accuses LeMond of *ANYTHING*?
> 
> The guy was winning huge international races from '79 till '86 and there was no EPO in the peloton at the time. Those years might seem prehistoric to you, but the stuff the was available was also detectable. One of the biggest busts ever was the Ben Johnson thing in '88 so it's not like people had no idea of what was going on in sport.
> 
> ...


You took this out of context. Easy on your trigger finger. You also missed the obvious references to some other well-known rider.

EPO is not the only drug. There are, and were, plenty of drugs that could not be detected (hence the "etc"). There was also plenty of tests that do not exceed limits that would trigger a "positive."

I refuse to argue about the rest of your personal attacks and hypocrisy.


----------



## Coolhand (Jul 28, 2002)

> The battle between two teammates became very stressfull for Greg and asked for his own cook, fearing a conspiracy against him.


One of about a thousand hits on google.


----------



## Wookiebiker (Sep 5, 2005)

lookrider said:


> This is exactly what you're doing to LeMond.
> 
> There's no personal attack. It's an illustration.



Actually....it's not the same thing, and your "Illustration" is a personal attack.

You are so obsessed with protecting Lemond you can't see that there are some questions raised with his performances whether you want to admit it or not. Also the fact that he's a public figure opens him to this.

The fact that there were plenty of legitimate PED's in the peloton at the time Lemond was racing...the fact that he was racing against other dopers and beating them, sometimes quite soundly...the fact he was taking "Iron" shots.

All raise questions about his performance

See I can use size 7 font as well....LOL  

However, you using my wife and or taxes is a personal attack against me to get a rise out of me. You have nothing to go on except that you can throw it out there on the internet for all to see....where as Lemond has some legitimate questions surrounding him.

That's what you fail to see.

Your's was a personal attack....mine is a question as to whether he won clean or not given the surrounding circumstances.

Now...lets see more of that size "7" font you love to use....Now that's laughable


----------



## SwiftSolo (Jun 7, 2008)

lookrider said:


> Bro, I read the post, did you? Was EPO in the Peloton from 1983 to 1986, when LeMond was World Champ and Tour champion with two other podium finishes in the Tour?
> 
> It probably was not being used to anything other than a small degree in '89 or '90 either. Armstrong probably didn't even start using EPO until 1995 and we know that guy has very few if any scruples about anything.
> 
> If you have something of substance to say let fly with it, but if it's just to blather with nothing coming out, spare me.


Below is his post in it's entirety
"I don't think any "evidence" or testimony has ever come out. The closest thing we have is how he beat other dopers, EPO was in the peloton at the time, etc.

I also think GL knows this, which is why he can be so outspoken about it."

To help you run along, I'd like to point out that he even suggests that there is no real evidence that GL doped. 

The "he beat other dopers" is likely in response to the rabid LA haters who use that as evidence that LA doped. He likely only asserts that, if that is the evidence on which anyone bases their case against LA, it would also apply to GL.

If you have anything rational to add to the discussion, bring it!


----------



## lookrider (Dec 3, 2006)

Wookiebiker said:


> Actually....it's not the same thing, and your "Illustration" is a personal attack.


What reasonable person is going to see my example as a personal attack? I don't know anything about you whatsoever other than I believed you're an American, (therefore obligated to pay taxes), and thought you might be married, (therefore bound to fidelity.)

My statements are so general, and it's apparent that I don't know you, so to construe my example as a personal attack just goes to point out your methods, or lack of, logic and reasoning.



Wookiebiker said:


> You are so obsessed with protecting Lemond you can't see that there are some questions raised with his performances whether you want to admit it or not. Also the fact that he's a public figure opens him to this..


I could not care about LeMond personally, I don't know him. 

There may be questions about his performance, but do you think you're answering them fairly?

The thing you don't get is that there is not one shred of evidence he cheated, and you're not producing any. Just like I cannot present one shred of evidence about you. 



Wookiebiker said:


> The fact that there were plenty of legitimate PED's in the peloton at the time Lemond was racing...the fact that he was racing against other dopers and beating them, sometimes quite soundly...the fact he was taking "Iron" shots.
> 
> All raise questions about his performance


Ok, you have legitimate questions. So what's the next step? Conviction? You have no evidence to support your assertions.



Wookiebiker said:


> See I can use size 7 font as well....LOL


Well, it's good you're laughing, we're here to have fun.



Wookiebiker said:


> However, you using my wife and or taxes is a personal attack against me to get a rise out of me. You have nothing to go on except that you can throw it out there on the internet for all to see....where as Lemond has some legitimate questions surrounding him.


I told you, a lot of people cheat on their taxes and wives, therefore, you're suspect at least according to your logic. The IRS may have some legitimate concerns as well as the Jerry Falwell, Conservative Christian types whose party has just been voted out of power.



Wookiebiker said:


> That's what you fail to see..


I fail to see how you're convicting a guy with no evidence. Then when I merely make you suspect with similiar evidence, with a general hypothetical example you choose to become offended, which is laughable.



Wookiebiker said:


> Your's was a personal attack......


I don't know anything about you. How could I make a personal attack?



Wookiebiker said:


> mine is a question as to whether he won clean or not given the surrounding circumstances.


You seem to believe that just because there is a question, you take the next giant step to concluding he's guilty. 

There's a question about whether people cheat on their taxes and wives because it's known that a substantial number do. Does that mean we conclude that all do cheat because it's possible?



Wookiebiker said:


> Now...lets see more of that size "7" font you love to use....Now that's laughable


I don't understand your sense of humor but go ahead, have a good laugh.


----------



## Coolhand (Jul 28, 2002)

1. Its call the "ignore" feature, you two clearly would be better off using it.

2. The seven point font thing is getting old, let's give it a break. 

3. People are going to have different opinions than yours with regards to what is "evidence" and what isn't. People have speculated on every major GC rider and TdF winner over the past 20+ years. Given the era and circumstances in which Lemond rode, this isn't an unreasonable inquiry and others may come to different conclusions than you. 

4. So everyone take a deep breath prior to hitting "submit reply".


----------



## lookrider (Dec 3, 2006)

pedalruns said:


> http://velonews.com/article/6660
> 
> "I saw Greg race as a champion through the '80s, and into the '90s when the cycling community as a whole turned a blind eye towards doping and consciously ignored the onslaught of EPO in the peloton.Like Greg, I, too, saw what I believe were the effects of EPO when it entered pro cycling in the early '90s. In the first years it grew froma few individuals reaping obscene wins from exploiting its “benefits,”to entire teams relying on it, essentially forcing all but the most giftedracers to either use EPO to keep their place in cycling, quit or becomejust another obscure rider in the group"
> 
> ...


Hampsten? Isn't he a doper too?

How did he win on L'alpe unless he was doping.

I'm just joking.

For many here that counts as logical thinking even though not even a syllable has been uttered about Hampsten doping.

We have people here arguing over what is evidence. 

I almost feel embarrassed for them.


----------



## DMFT (Feb 3, 2005)

lookrider said:


> Nice agenda!
> 
> relying on innuendo and just making stuff up.




- Who are you? That's right, just another anonymous internet poster like the rest of the participants in this forum. And what YOU claim as "evidence" is JUST rumor & inuendo. Just because it was written in a book does NOT make it fact FYI.....

And as far as "nothing" being shed on GL, there is, and I posted it in a (now) locked thread. And, YES, it too is just one persons word, spoke in my local peloton by the first American to ride Le Tour......


----------



## loudog (Jul 22, 2008)

*dude, chill on the giant font.*



lookrider said:


> What reasonable person is going to see my example as a personal attack? I don't know anything about you whatsoever other than I believed you're an American, (therefore obligated to pay taxes), and thought you might be married, (therefore bound to fidelity.)
> 
> My statements are so general, and it's apparent that I don't know you, so to construe my example as a personal attack just goes to point out your methods, or lack of, logic and reasoning.
> 
> ...



can you stop the giant font. it makes your posts even more painful to read.

heres a lame lemond quote:
“Also, talk to any psychiatrist with a brain and he’ll tell you Type A personalities are in cycling. They come into cycling because it calms their brain down. But the thing about cycling is that it creates depression. It’s natural to seek a stimulant to get out of that. And that can become highly addictive. It’s not performance enhancing. It’s just the beginning of the end.”


----------



## stevesbike (Jun 3, 2002)

that lame quote sure is incriminating - I guess anyone who said it must have doped...


----------



## WeakMite (Feb 20, 2005)

https://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/sport/2009/0627/1224249651626.html


----------



## loudog (Jul 22, 2008)

lemond is in it for the money and fame. he wont win the trek lawsuit. he'll continue to babble incoherently about doping and solidify his legacy as a tragi-comic figure. he was a great racer with huge successes but couldnt tolerate a life away from competition. armstrong is pathological too but that doesnt absolve lemond.


----------



## pedalruns (Dec 18, 2002)

loudog said:


> lemond is in it for the money and fame.


Not hardly.... Lemond was forced to make an apology after he spoke his opinion in 2001: "When Lance won the prologue to the 1999 Tour I was close to tears, but when I heard he was working with Michele Ferrari I was devastated. In the light of Lance's relationship with Ferrari, I just don't want to comment on this year's Tour. This is not sour grapes. I'm disappointed in Lance, that's all it is."

That is what Greg Lemond said... and Mr. Bully Lance Armstrong and Trek MADE him apoligize and make a statement that he thought LA was great.... This is how the whole LA/Lemond thing started. 

So to say it is about the money and fame is crazy and uninformed... It's about the truth, and Lemond has spoken the truth and his opinion and has been raked thru the coals for it.


----------



## loudog (Jul 22, 2008)

pedalruns said:


> Not hardly.... Lemond was forced to make an apology after he spoke his opinion in 2001: "When Lance won the prologue to the 1999 Tour I was close to tears, but when I heard he was working with Michele Ferrari I was devastated. In the light of Lance's relationship with Ferrari, I just don't want to comment on this year's Tour. This is not sour grapes. I'm disappointed in Lance, that's all it is."
> 
> That is what Greg Lemond said... and Mr. Bully Lance Armstrong and Trek MADE him apoligize and make a statement that he thought LA was great.... This is how the whole LA/Lemond thing started.
> 
> So to say it is about the money and fame is crazy and uninformed... It's about the truth, and Lemond has spoken the truth and his opinion and has been raked thru the coals for it.


if it was about doping he would have walked away from the trek deal. clearly trek has a reasonable case - have you read the lawsuit? i have. also, just because lemond says it that doesnt make it true & lance doesnt own trek. lemond agreed to a certain course of action regarding his opinions on LA and did not follow thru. lemond harmed his deal with trek by undercutting dealers and exploited his ability to buy bikes at a discount. clearly speaks volumes about his integrity. moreover, the fact that he retracted his original LA statement tells me that 1. it was about the money 2. that he doesnt have as much integrity as you seem to think he does. 

as much as you favor lemond you are blind to his faults. like i said he was a great racer but thats about all.


----------



## Coolhand (Jul 28, 2002)

Even the more objective Lemond fans are now taking note of his personality and litigation issues:

http://www.competitivecyclist.com/r...arkin's+New+Blog.+_+klihdy&utm_term=WN+070209


----------

