Greg Lemond Press Conf against Lance



When a car is built to be as fast as 100km/h. There is doping if the car raises 120km/h with no wind and on a flat road!
 
RdBiker said:
Oh hey there's Vino lurking behind that tree...

Vino's Dad who supplies his blood to the entire team is standing on the far right. Strong as an Ox & ****** as fart most days.
 
Simple summary:

Once upon a time there was a cyclist called Lance who cheated and won 7 tours. There was also another man called Greg Lemond who also cheated but didn't win as many tours and so was jealous of the man who had cheated better than him and won 7. And so he whined and whined a lot.

Blah blah blah blah sick of all this **** blah blah blah blah blah
 
Eldrack said:
Simple summary:

Once upon a time there was a cyclist called Lance who cheated and won 7 tours. There was also another man called Greg Lemond who also cheated but didn't win as many tours and so was jealous of the man who had cheated better than him and won 7. And so he whined and whined a lot.

Blah blah blah blah sick of all this **** blah blah blah blah blah
Simple but inaccurate. I'm sick of all your ****.
 
Eldrack said:
Simple summary:

Once upon a time there was a cyclist called Lance who cheated and won 7 tours. There was also another man called Greg Lemond who also cheated but didn't win as many tours and so was jealous of the man who had cheated better than him and won 7. And so he whined and whined a lot.

Blah blah blah blah sick of all this **** blah blah blah blah blah

+1

Lemond = pot, kettle, black, has been scrabbling for some lime light...
 
Eldron, Eldrack, Wolfix.......?

WTF is this, Lord or the Ring-holes or something?
 
I love those comments on the Youtube page :) :)

On another note, here we can clearly see the effects of doping: we can't really know who's clean and who's not. There's no real real evidence that Lemond didn't dope, there are just suspicions like we have with Armstrong. Though with Lance it's the other way around since there's more suspicion of him being dirty than clean.
 
RdBiker said:
On another note, here we can clearly see the effects of doping: we can't really know who's clean and who's not. There's no real real evidence that Lemond didn't dope, there are just suspicions like we have with Armstrong. Though with Lance it's the other way around since there's more suspicion of him being dirty than clean.
To compare suspicions between Lance and Greg is too much!
For Lance we need a full library, for the second we have just Lance saying he could pay someone to say that Greg used EPO when nobody in pro-cycling were extremely probably using it!
Don't forget that with Lance there is more than suspicions, all clues are indicating doping (improvement, performance, VO2max, team, manager, context, doping cases, lies, ...)
 
Heh, funny. As soon as more than one person has a similar opinion on something you are accused of being the same person!

Sure the drugs that Lance used where more effective than the ones old Greg used but cheating is cheating plain and simple. I think they both doped, feel free to disagree about Greg doping in the same way that the Lance fanboys still think he didn't dope. Only reason we have more circumstancial evidence against Lance is because he was around more recently, media interest is higher, such is life. Obviously the head + sand option seems great but music is playing....

As for now... well they're both dickheads but they're both doing at least some good even if it's just to feed their own ego's. Lance helps lots of people with cancer, Greg seems serious about pushing to get all the doping out of cycling. At least some good can come out of the limelight grabbing antics.

Yours faithfully
A hardened Cynic.
 
poulidor said:
To compare suspicions between Lance and Greg is too much!
For Lance we need a full library, for the second we have just Lance saying he could pay someone to say that Greg used EPO when nobody in pro-cycling were extremely probably using it!
Don't forget that with Lance there is more than suspicions, all clues are indicating doping (improvement, performance, VO2max, team, manager, context, doping cases, lies, ...)
so, by your inference, the badger doped even better than lemond. or do you believe that lemond was riding clean against a clean hinault and later doped or had been doping all along and hinault was superhuman, or what do you mean?
 
poulidor said:
To compare suspicions between Lance and Greg is too much!
For Lance we need a full library, for the second we have just Lance saying he could pay someone to say that Greg used EPO when nobody in pro-cycling were extremely probably using it!
Don't forget that with Lance there is more than suspicions, all clues are indicating doping (improvement, performance, VO2max, team, manager, context, doping cases, lies, ...)

You got me wrong. What I meant to say was that there's beacoup suspicion that Armstrong has doped and there's beacoup suspicion that Lemond didn't dope. Whether LeMond doped or not I'm not gonna say anything since I don't know (anything) about him.
I was just saying that it's a pity that since lots of riders dope and have doped we can't be 100% sure that LeMond was clean because we can't prove it one-hundred-percent - even though we have evidence that he wouldn't have doped. So the same goes for Lance, it's just the other way around: no matter how much we doubt his performances we can't be 100% sure that he's doped, no matter how much evidence we have.

Did this clear things or did I just mess my message more? :)
 
RdBiker said:
You got me wrong. What I meant to say was that there's beacoup suspicion that Armstrong has doped and there's beacoup suspicion that Lemond didn't dope. Whether LeMond doped or not I'm not gonna say anything since I don't know (anything) about him.
I was just saying that it's a pity that since lots of riders dope and have doped we can't be 100% sure that LeMond was clean because we can't prove it one-hundred-percent - even though we have evidence that he wouldn't have doped. So the same goes for Lance, it's just the other way around: no matter how much we doubt his performances we can't be 100% sure that he's doped, no matter how much evidence we have.

Did this clear things or did I just mess my message more? :)
OK it was not easy to understand your first message like this.
 
slovakguy said:
so, by your inference, the badger doped even better than lemond. or do you believe that lemond was riding clean against a clean hinault and later doped or had been doping all along and hinault was superhuman, or what do you mean?
Nothing more than there is tons of clues and evidences supporting Lance's doping but there is nothing supporting Lemond's doping.
 
huge apology, poulidor. totally misread your post. thank you for setting me straight. again, my apologies.