Greg Lemond



oldbobcat

Well-Known Member
Aug 31, 2003
3,233
194
48
70
In the grown-up world there's a difference between making a point and throwing allegations and insinuations and hoping something sticks.

There's a cabal that's trying to implicate Johan Bruyneel, Lance Armstrong, and Trek in EPO. For all I know they might be right, but right now they have no proof. Greg LeMond's antics add nothing to their case.

Crankyfeet, I presume the clean cyclist you're talking about is Armstrong, and frankly, I don't know why he would maintain his relationship with Dr. Ferrari either, but neither do you or LeMond. Yes, the whole thing smells, but LeMond has responsibilities to the sport and his business, his reputation, and the sport, and you and I don't. We don't even give out our real names.
 

Crankyfeet

New Member
Jun 5, 2007
10,817
0
36
oldbobcat said:
In the grown-up world there's a difference between making a point and throwing allegations and insinuations and hoping something sticks.
But that's your opinion. LeMond has being fighting doping in cycling before Armstrong began winning TdF's as kennf points out. There is plenty of circumstantial evidence that Lance doped. But the reason that he has never been taken to court is the same reason that they only eventually got Al Capone on tax evasion charges. You need a smoking gun as evidence in court.

oldbobcat said:
There's a cabal that's trying to implicate Johan Bruyneel, Lance Armstrong, and Trek in EPO. For all I know they might be right, but right now they have no proof. Greg LeMond's antics add nothing to their case.
This "cabal" mindset is something you've read about huh? What evidence do you have that there is a "cabal"? That is the conspiratorial spin that the Armstrong brigade have managed to get into your head without any evidence. "Evidence" being a requirement that you use as an argument to counter other allegatios.

L'Equippe found retroactively 6 EPO positives on Lance's 1999 samples that were blind-tested in a lab (there were 12 anonymous B samples from the 99 TdF, of which the 6 that tested positive were all matched to Lance after the lab tests). In 1999 there was no test for EPO, even though it was illegal. The French newspaper L'Equippe that organized the tests and released the findings is not a French tabloid newspaper, as the Armstrong brigade like to paint them as. And furthermore, they stood to lose millions of dollars in litigation awards if their findings could not be substantiated. All Lance had to do was sue them. He blathered in the media as usual, threatened a few actions, but did nothing AFAIK. It isn't that difficult to convince the Lancophiles in America that it was all some French conspiracy.

There is a lot of vested interests that want to keep the clean Lance myth going. A lot of people are still making money out of his success. The only loser is cycling, truth and integrity... as it is just another example of cycling not owning up to it's problems IMO.
oldbobcat said:
Crankyfeet, I presume the clean cyclist you're talking about is Armstrong, and frankly, I don't know why he would maintain his relationship with Dr. Ferrari either, but neither do you or LeMond. Yes, the whole thing smells, but LeMond has responsibilities to the sport and his business, his reputation, and the sport, and you and I don't. We don't even give out our real names.
I am not trying to get into a slanging match here. Just debating the point. I hear what you say about LeMond's responsibilities. But I think when one has conflicting responsibilities... the truth should be the one to side with, that trumps all others. I'm not even saying that necessarily LeMomd's opinion of the truth is 100% the truth. All I'm saying is that I admire someone who stands up for HIS principles and definition of the truth... despite corporate and monetary pressures.
 

Pendejo

Member
Apr 8, 2006
589
10
0
Pro cyclists take illegal drugs because they know doing so will help them go faster, longer. We also know that all of Armstrong's main rivals took them. Yet Armstrong still dominated them all for the better part of a decade. So, if he took illegal drugs, he was the greatest cyclist in the world on a level (though illegal) playing field. And if he was clean, then his superiority was almost beyond measure. I would bet against the latter. But even so, his greatness can't be disputed.
 

Crankyfeet

New Member
Jun 5, 2007
10,817
0
36
Pendejo said:
Pro cyclists take illegal drugs because they know doing so will help them go faster, longer. We also know that all of Armstrong's main rivals took them. Yet Armstrong still dominated them all for the better part of a decade. So, if he took illegal drugs, he was the greatest cyclist in the world on a level (though illegal) playing field. And if he was clean, then his superiority was almost beyond measure. I would bet against the latter. But even so, his greatness can't be disputed.
Different people repond differently to PED's. Please don't ask for proof of how I know this... ;) :p

Yes. He is probably a great fraud cyclist. Like they all have to be I suppose due to the doped-up mess that the governing bodies semi-condoned.
 

kennf

New Member
Jan 29, 2004
609
0
0
But the issue with Lemond is not really "was Armstrong the greatest doped athlete of 1999-2005." Maybe he was, maybe he wasn't. That's not really the point of the the things Lemond has been talking about, and which are now serving as the basis for the current litigation.

The main point of Lemond's interviews is that cycling underwent a fundamental change in the early 90's, brought on by the advent of epo. The current methods are different (smaller doses of epo now that there's a test, and autologous transfusions), but the "change" remains. That is, if you donlt have a "medical progam" you can't compete. Hopefully, the greater disclosure, and the trend of teams having outside monitoring agencies, will bring the sport back to center. Shouting down the whistleblowers is not the way back to "normalcy." They are not conspiring to bring down Johann Bruyneel or Trek, they just want their sport back away from the hematologists.
 

ghostpedal

New Member
Jul 26, 2004
260
0
0
I think Lemond is bitter. Regardless of his motives, he seems jealous of the attention Armstrong has gotten. Lemond was (is) famous for his racing, but nothing like Lance. It's true he helped pave the way for those after him, but most everything he says now seems like a grumpy old man who wants attention. Next he'll be saying he walked to school 10 miles uphill both ways in the snow with no shoes. I like him, but I think the manner he is using is tarnishing his legacy.
 

Crankyfeet

New Member
Jun 5, 2007
10,817
0
36
Here's an hour long conference presentation LeMond gave back in February on ethics, doping and the future of cycling if anyone is interested. There are chapter headings below if one wants to skip straight to a topic. It's not about Armstrong. But one gets a glimpse at what he's about in a little deeper fashion than the usual media soundbites and spin.


http://fora.tv/2008/02/17/Ethics_Doping_and_the_Future_of_Cycling
 

kennf

New Member
Jan 29, 2004
609
0
0
And here's a pretty good radio interview, mostly along the same subjects, with some amusing anecdotes.

http://www.competitorradio.com/shows/47Competitors-GregLeMond-08-22-06(1hr12min).mp3
 

oldbobcat

Well-Known Member
Aug 31, 2003
3,233
194
48
70
kennf said:
And here's a pretty good radio interview, mostly along the same subjects, with some amusing anecdotes.
The thing of it is, I'm a Greg fan. Have been since his world championship in 1983. Thanks for the link. It shows Greg in front of the mic at his best.