Lemond Accuses Armstrong?



Mattdaniel said:
yeah, he is the dogs nads of the racing world, and Im glad if I've upset any/everyone saying that.


He is the best rider , he deserves to win but there are doubts about him that need to be addressed in a sensible manner , not a did -didn´t style of argument .
This not really about EPO , more the modern types of steroids like THG - designed to be undetectable and who´s principle effects are to enable you to train much , much harder and for longer : something said to be the secret of LA´s success . Incidentally ,even before he tested positive , people had been talking about Ben Johnston in the months before the olympics because he was so " cut " and also because he was always so very angry - a condition now refered to as " steroid rage " and seen quite commonly in the body-building fraternity , in fact there was a murder commited in , I think , Sweden where steroid abuse was used as part of the ( unsuccessful ) defence .

Incidentally the postmortem on Pantani reveals that he died of a cocaine overdose ( probablly accidental due to the unusual purity ) and that his body had no symtems / damage to indicate that he´d been using performance inhancing drugs . ( personally I´ll never forgive LA for calling him a " f**king sh*t stirrer " on live television in an after race interview after the Postals had had to try and chase down Pantani - and he´s still a very angry man when crossed , ask Simioni :- Virenque won that stage by the way )
 
cydewaze said:
So what's the basis of the suspicion? His performance? By that standard, the last four 5-time winners are also suspect.

Armstrong has incredible genetoc potential, so it makes sense he could tie the four other 5-time winners. Everyone seems to be doping crazed these days. Sheesh.
The basis of his suspicion was Lance Armstrong's association with Dr. Ferrari. The basis of his knowledge, if you believe his story (and his wife's story), is that Armstrong basically admitted to it and threatened them.

I don't see where Lemond has anything to gain by making this up. He does have everything to lose. Perhaps the only motivation would be jealousy, but Lemond never struck me as that type from what I know and have read about him. He was a big supporters of LA at one time. Notice Lance is not filing a lawsuit for defamation agains Lemond. Maybe he just wants it to go away or maybe he has something to hide. Think about that.

I don't know if Lance Armstrong dopes, but he has brought the conversation to the forefront again by his childish behavior towards Filippo Simeoni. If Lance really wants to clean up cycling, why would he act like this towards a man that is testifying against someone who almost openly admits that he advocates performance enhancing drugs, Ferrari? Ferrari's pharmacist is already in jail for supplying the drugs so why should we believe Ferrari is innocent.

Armstrong claims that Simeoni is a liar because he changed his story. Claudio Chiapucci also changed his story. At first he implicated Ferrari and then pulled back on his claims. Is he a liar as well just because he changed his story? By Lance's own reasoning that would make Ferrari guilty.

I was a big fan of Lance Armstrong's until I read his books recently and until his latest behavior in the Tour. I don't see how Simeoni is out to destroy cycling by testifying in a courtroom. Wouldn't he be helping cycling?

On the Greg Lemond side of things, I have seen many people say he was not the cyclist Lance was. I disagree. Lance has 8 other riders with no ambitions working for him all the time. Lemond won in 1986 with 2 riders from his team working for him and 5 or 6 working against him, including a 5 time winner of the tour. Not to mention that he was ordered not to win the Tour in 1985 when he was clearly superior to Hinault. Hinault is in denial if he thinks he really beat Lemond that year. Lemond came back from near death to win two more tours.

Armstring may or may not be doping, but he is not someone to be held up as a paragon of everything that is good as the American Media has been doing. I read his books and by his own pen I see a bitter little kid inside that incredibly strong rider. Bitter and unforgiving towards his step-father and his real father. He was probably a little pain in the rear that needed a beating. My Dad beat me when I deserved it, but from what I read of Armstrong's self-serving book is that he has no capability for self-introspection or the ability to see that maybe his own behavior and attitudes were the problem. At the very least, it is classless to use your bully pulpit to make charges someone else cannot deny. I wonder if Terry Armstrong could take Lance to court to print a rebuttal in his book, as he wanted the luxury to do with the LA Confidential book.

He judges his own father and cannot forgive him. He should think about that. How does he think his own children feel when they see Daddy kissing his new girlfriend after every stage? Maybe someday they will not forgive him for leaving their Mom. Maybe then he will learn. We reap what we sow.

I see that same bitter behavior in the way he treats Filippo Simeoni. If Simeoni is really lying, why bother giving him the time of day. It will be shown in court that he is lying.

I never believed that Lance was a doper, but his behavior towards Simeoni actually has me questioning it. Simeoni never accused Armstrong of anything.
 
duluth_rider said:
The basis of his suspicion was Lance Armstrong's association with Dr. Ferrari. The basis of his knowledge, if you believe his story (and his wife's story), is that Armstrong basically admitted to it and threatened them.

I don't see where Lemond has anything to gain by making this up. He does have everything to lose. Perhaps the only motivation would be jealousy, but Lemond never struck me as that type from what I know and have read about him. He was a big supporters of LA at one time. Notice Lance is not filing a lawsuit for defamation agains Lemond. Maybe he just wants it to go away or maybe he has something to hide. Think about that.

I don't know if Lance Armstrong dopes, but he has brought the conversation to the forefront again by his childish behavior towards Filippo Simeoni. If Lance really wants to clean up cycling, why would he act like this towards a man that is testifying against someone who almost openly admits that he advocates performance enhancing drugs, Ferrari? Ferrari's pharmacist is already in jail for supplying the drugs so why should we believe Ferrari is innocent.

Armstrong claims that Simeoni is a liar because he changed his story. Claudio Chiapucci also changed his story. At first he implicated Ferrari and then pulled back on his claims. Is he a liar as well just because he changed his story? By Lance's own reasoning that would make Ferrari guilty.

I was a big fan of Lance Armstrong's until I read his books recently and until his latest behavior in the Tour. I don't see how Simeoni is out to destroy cycling by testifying in a courtroom. Wouldn't he be helping cycling?

On the Greg Lemond side of things, I have seen many people say he was not the cyclist Lance was. I disagree. Lance has 8 other riders with no ambitions working for him all the time. Lemond won in 1986 with 2 riders from his team working for him and 5 or 6 working against him, including a 5 time winner of the tour. Not to mention that he was ordered not to win the Tour in 1985 when he was clearly superior to Hinault. Hinault is in denial if he thinks he really beat Lemond that year. Lemond came back from near death to win two more tours.

Armstring may or may not be doping, but he is not someone to be held up as a paragon of everything that is good as the American Media has been doing. I read his books and by his own pen I see a bitter little kid inside that incredibly strong rider. Bitter and unforgiving towards his step-father and his real father. He was probably a little pain in the rear that needed a beating. My Dad beat me when I deserved it, but from what I read of Armstrong's self-serving book is that he has no capability for self-introspection or the ability to see that maybe his own behavior and attitudes were the problem. At the very least, it is classless to use your bully pulpit to make charges someone else cannot deny. I wonder if Terry Armstrong could take Lance to court to print a rebuttal in his book, as he wanted the luxury to do with the LA Confidential book.

He judges his own father and cannot forgive him. He should think about that. How does he think his own children feel when they see Daddy kissing his new girlfriend after every stage? Maybe someday they will not forgive him for leaving their Mom. Maybe then he will learn. We reap what we sow.

I see that same bitter behavior in the way he treats Filippo Simeoni. If Simeoni is really lying, why bother giving him the time of day. It will be shown in court that he is lying.

I never believed that Lance was a doper, but his behavior towards Simeoni actually has me questioning it. Simeoni never accused Armstrong of anything.

Broadly I agree with your points : but I just want to re-iterate a point that
you have made.
People - and I notice it from a lot of USA posters - disparage the achievements of Greg LeMond.
Perhaps time has dimmed memories - perhaps people don't like him atacking Lance.
But I would ask people to look at his achievements - he was an awesome cyclist.

In Ireland we had two of our own great cyclists called Sean Kelly and Stephen Roche.
More often than not, Greg LeMond was the obstacle to their gaining even more success.
Greg was a superb cyclist.
His palmares shows a cyclist in the very top 5% of all time.
I think he deserves to be remembered as a great cyclist, at the very least,
and a very brave man to come out and be counted.
He brought a lot of glory to the USA and he was the original "pioneering"
cyclist from the USA.
 
duluth_rider said:
The basis of his suspicion was Lance Armstrong's association with Dr. Ferrari. The basis of his knowledge, if you believe his story (and his wife's story), is that Armstrong basically admitted to it and threatened them.

I don't see where Lemond has anything to gain by making this up. He does have everything to lose. Perhaps the only motivation would be jealousy, but Lemond never struck me as that type from what I know and have read about him. He was a big supporters of LA at one time. Notice Lance is not filing a lawsuit for defamation agains Lemond. Maybe he just wants it to go away or maybe he has something to hide. Think about that.

I don't know if Lance Armstrong dopes, but he has brought the conversation to the forefront again by his childish behavior towards Filippo Simeoni. If Lance really wants to clean up cycling, why would he act like this towards a man that is testifying against someone who almost openly admits that he advocates performance enhancing drugs, Ferrari? Ferrari's pharmacist is already in jail for supplying the drugs so why should we believe Ferrari is innocent.

Armstrong claims that Simeoni is a liar because he changed his story. Claudio Chiapucci also changed his story. At first he implicated Ferrari and then pulled back on his claims. Is he a liar as well just because he changed his story? By Lance's own reasoning that would make Ferrari guilty.

I was a big fan of Lance Armstrong's until I read his books recently and until his latest behavior in the Tour. I don't see how Simeoni is out to destroy cycling by testifying in a courtroom. Wouldn't he be helping cycling?

On the Greg Lemond side of things, I have seen many people say he was not the cyclist Lance was. I disagree. Lance has 8 other riders with no ambitions working for him all the time. Lemond won in 1986 with 2 riders from his team working for him and 5 or 6 working against him, including a 5 time winner of the tour. Not to mention that he was ordered not to win the Tour in 1985 when he was clearly superior to Hinault. Hinault is in denial if he thinks he really beat Lemond that year. Lemond came back from near death to win two more tours.

Armstring may or may not be doping, but he is not someone to be held up as a paragon of everything that is good as the American Media has been doing. I read his books and by his own pen I see a bitter little kid inside that incredibly strong rider. Bitter and unforgiving towards his step-father and his real father. He was probably a little pain in the rear that needed a beating. My Dad beat me when I deserved it, but from what I read of Armstrong's self-serving book is that he has no capability for self-introspection or the ability to see that maybe his own behavior and attitudes were the problem. At the very least, it is classless to use your bully pulpit to make charges someone else cannot deny. I wonder if Terry Armstrong could take Lance to court to print a rebuttal in his book, as he wanted the luxury to do with the LA Confidential book.

He judges his own father and cannot forgive him. He should think about that. How does he think his own children feel when they see Daddy kissing his new girlfriend after every stage? Maybe someday they will not forgive him for leaving their Mom. Maybe then he will learn. We reap what we sow.

I see that same bitter behavior in the way he treats Filippo Simeoni. If Simeoni is really lying, why bother giving him the time of day. It will be shown in court that he is lying.

I never believed that Lance was a doper, but his behavior towards Simeoni actually has me questioning it. Simeoni never accused Armstrong of anything.

You make some very good points here. I used to be a big fan of LeMond until he started making these statements implying that Lance is or may be doping. If he has some real evidence then I say "out with it Greg" but if it's just specualtion and hearsay, I think it's in very poor form for him to make these allegations. It does make it seem as though he's doing out of envy. Let's face it, LeMond didn't get anywhere near the publicity, endorsements, recognition (and I'm sure money!) that Armstrong has received.
 
limerickman said:
Broadly I agree with your points : but I just want to re-iterate a point that
you have made.
People - and I notice it from a lot of USA posters - disparage the achievements of Greg LeMond.
Perhaps time has dimmed memories - perhaps people don't like him atacking Lance.
But I would ask people to look at his achievements - he was an awesome cyclist.

In Ireland we had two of our own great cyclists called Sean Kelly and Stephen Roche.
More often than not, Greg LeMond was the obstacle to their gaining even more success.
Greg was a superb cyclist.
His palmares shows a cyclist in the very top 5% of all time.
I think he deserves to be remembered as a great cyclist, at the very least,
and a very brave man to come out and be counted.
He brought a lot of glory to the USA and he was the original "pioneering"
cyclist from the USA.
A lot of people are new to cycling and do not even remember who Greg Lemond was. There is a certain phemomenon associated with Lance Armstrong surviving cancer. I am not saying that is a bad thing. I am glad cycling has become more popular and we have gone from 2 hours a week coverage to over 2 hours a day.

Lemond was a remarkable cyclist. I agree with you. As were Sean Kelly and Stephen Roche.

I wonder how many people that have disparaged Lemond know how close he was to death in '87. Every bit as close as Lance was.

I am just dissapointed in Lance because I was one on his bandwagon until I read his books. Then I wanted Tyler Hamilton to win. It wasn't until I read the full story, or at least everything in English, on the Filippi Simeoni thing that I really didn't want Lance to win.

I think he should considerate himself fortunate that Simeoni showed some class in that stage. If it was me I think I would have been mad enough to cause him an accident.

Sometimes you have to be very careful how far you push people. I hope Simeoni gets a stage win next year.
 
meehs said:
You make some very good points here. I used to be a big fan of LeMond until he started making these statements implying that Lance is or may be doping. If he has some real evidence then I say "out with it Greg" but if it's just specualtion and hearsay, I think it's in very poor form for him to make these allegations. It does make it seem as though he's doing out of envy. Let's face it, LeMond didn't get anywhere near the publicity, endorsements, recognition (and I'm sure money!) that Armstrong has received.
From what I have read the only evidence he has is the conversation he had with Armstrong in which he say's Armstrong basically told him, "C'mon, everybody is doing it." Armstrong told Lemond that he could find 10 people to testify that Lemond doped.

Certainly this would be hearsay evidence and unadmissable in a court, but to a man that is true to his convictions, as maybe Lemond is, it is all he needs to believe it. Unless Lemond is just being a jealous baby. We may never know. Lemond is somewhat bitter as he believes doping ruined his chances in 1991. He felt that their were a lot of dirty people in that Tour and he does seem bitter about doping, as I think any of us would be if we were clean.

Lemond did get his share of publicity. Just not as many people paid attention to it. I think the "cancer survivor" angle really had intrigued people and the media. Cancer has touched all of us in some way. Lemond was an SI Sportsman of the year.

In Armstrong's defense, it is ridiculous that so many in Europe boo him while making idols out of Virenique and Pantini. Pantini was a tortured soul, but no angel. People should be more consistent, in my opinion.

This whole thing has turned me off to pro cycling somewhat.
 
duluth_rider said:
The basis of his suspicion was Lance Armstrong's association with Dr. Ferrari. The basis of his knowledge, if you believe his story (and his wife's story), is that Armstrong basically admitted to it and threatened them.
Please correct me if I am wrong, and I am sure you will, but isn't reported that LA call GL in response to a doping comment much in the manner he has today. It would appear he called GL angrily, and rightfully so, to defend himself and at no time did he ever admit to GL that he doped. This is an instance where "basically" does not apply. You either admit or defend yourself against such fabrications.

duluth_rider said:
I don't see where Lemond has anything to gain by making this up. He does have everything to lose. Perhaps the only motivation would be jealousy, but Lemond never struck me as that type from what I know and have read about him. He was a big supporters of LA at one time. Notice Lance is not filing a lawsuit for defamation agains Lemond. Maybe he just wants it to go away or maybe he has something to hide. Think about that.
Lemond does not strike me as that kind of cad either. Notice Limerickman has called LA a doper and he is not suing him either. Lots of folks have accused of doping. Could you imagine how much time it would take to bring suit against every naysayer he has. Greg was a great cyclist and should be remembered as such and probably is among cycling cultures popular in Europe and the like. Unfortunately fact is this America, Greg is pretty much a forgotten cyclist, his 3 TDF victories have now been doubled and shadowed by the current 6 TDF victories courtesy of LA. That is the simple truth-It is all about the hear and now.

duluth_rider said:
By Lance's own reasoning that would make Ferrari guilty.
What? Huh? That does not make any since. Help!

duluth_rider said:
I was a big fan of Lance Armstrong's until I read his books recently and until his latest behavior in the Tour. I don't see how Simeoni is out to destroy cycling by testifying in a courtroom. Wouldn't he be helping cycling?
I can see how his latest temper tantrum leaves a bad taste in your mouth, but, reading his books makes you less of a fan? Were you actually ever a fan?

duluth_rider said:
On the Greg Lemond side of things, I have seen many people say he was not the cyclist Lance was. I disagree. Lance has 8 other riders with no ambitions working for him all the time. Lemond won in 1986 with 2 riders from his team working for him and 5 or 6 working against him, including a 5 time winner of the tour. Not to mention that he was ordered not to win the Tour in 1985 when he was clearly superior to Hinault. Hinault is in denial if he thinks he really beat Lemond that year. Lemond came back from near death to win two more tours.
Lemonds win was incredible even in the face of his team. To say that USPS cyclists have no ambition is ludicrous. Are you high? What about Heras, Hamilton. Why even ride if you have no ambition to achieve anything? I think every cyclist on the circuit has ambition to ride each ones differing from the next.

duluth_rider said:
Armstring may or may not be doping, but he is not someone to be held up as a paragon of everything that is good as the American Media has been doing. I read his books and by his own pen I see a bitter little kid inside that incredibly strong rider. Bitter and unforgiving towards his step-father and his real father. He was probably a little pain in the rear that needed a beating. My Dad beat me when I deserved it, but from what I read of Armstrong's self-serving book is that he has no capability for self-introspection or the ability to see that maybe his own behavior and attitudes were the problem. At the very least, it is classless to use your bully pulpit to make charges someone else cannot deny. I wonder if Terry Armstrong could take Lance to court to print a rebuttal in his book, as he wanted the luxury to do with the LA Confidential book.
Dear Mr. Duluth. Do you have any idea what it feels like to have not had a real father there for you? By your own account you can not empathize with that feeling. Do you have any idea what it feels like to have a Christian hypocrit, bottom feeding scumsucker for a step parent? I do. It makes you mad, embitters you. And do you have any idea what kind of impact people like this can make on your life. I do and I personally resent your comments. Do you know what you do with feelings like that? Can you possibly think or concieve of an answer. You use all that bottled up hate to fuel you motivations to achieve great things. He judges his own father because his own father has been too much of a coward to defend himself. So much of a coward that he abandoned his own family. What F&%#ing man. The reason you will never find the lowlife, two timing, abusive a&*hole Terry bringing a libel suit against LA is because all of the accusations against this holier than thou d#@%head are true. Do you actually know anything about discipling a child. You NEVER, EVER discipline a child out of anger because it is good Christian ethic. Give me a break! Looks to me like LA is actually in his childrens life. To stoop so low as to bring his children and his personal relationships past and present into you argument in any forum as an argument against LA is deplorable and deserves a good f@#$ing beating. Please see your father above for that.

Sincerely, Bite Me
 
pobserver03 said:
Please correct me if I am wrong, and I am sure you will, but isn't reported that LA call GL in response to a doping comment much in the manner he has today. It would appear he called GL angrily, and rightfully so, to defend himself and at no time did he ever admit to GL that he doped. This is an instance where "basically" does not apply. You either admit or defend yourself against such fabrications.

I was not privy to the conversation, but Lemond was and if you believe his account then Armstrong said everyone is doing it. Since Armstrong would be one of everyone, then he would be doing it. I don't know who is telling the truth and neither do you. We can only base our opinion about what we know publically about the two individuals involved. Assuming neither one of us knows LA or GL personally, which I don't.




I can see how his latest temper tantrum leaves a bad taste in your mouth, but, reading his books makes you less of a fan? Were you actually ever a fan?

A very big fan of his and a very big fan of cycling. Certainly two people can read the same book and end up with a different opinion of the person the story is about. I was impressed by his strength and determination in beating cancer. No one can dispute that.

Lemonds win was incredible even in the face of his team. To say that USPS cyclists have no ambition is ludicrous. Are you high? What about Heras, Hamilton. Why even ride if you have no ambition to achieve anything? I think every cyclist on the circuit has ambition to ride each ones differing from the next.

In the tours that Hamilton and Heras rode for U.S. Postal they had no ambitions. They had to leave U.S. Postal to have Tour de France ambitions of their own. No USPS rider is riding for a green jersey, stage win or anything but a yellow jersey for LA. I am not saying that is wrong. It is great strategy and they are a great team. It just makes Lemond's victory more impressive in my opinion. Since you have chosen to get nasty at this point I will say that if you do not understand the difference than you understand nothing about the race.

Dear Mr. Duluth. Do you have any idea what it feels like to have not had a real father there for you? By your own account you can not empathize with that feeling. Do you have any idea what it feels like to have a Christian hypocrit, bottom feeding scumsucker for a step parent? I do. It makes you mad, embitters you. And do you have any idea what kind of impact people like this can make on your life. I do and I personally resent your comments. Do you know what you do with feelings like that? Can you possibly think or concieve of an answer. You use all that bottled up hate to fuel you motivations to achieve great things. He judges his own father because his own father has been too much of a coward to defend himself. So much of a coward that he abandoned his own family. What F&%#ing man. The reason you will never find the lowlife, two timing, abusive a&*hole Terry bringing a libel suit against LA is because all of the accusations against this holier than thou d#@%head are true. Do you actually know anything about discipling a child. You NEVER, EVER discipline a child out of anger because it is good Christian ethic. Give me a break! Looks to me like LA is actually in his childrens life. To stoop so low as to bring his children and his personal relationships past and present into you argument in any forum as an argument against LA is deplorable and deserves a good f@#$ing beating. Please see your father above for that.

We all make decisions in life and some of them are bad decisions. My point was that LA is not a very forgiving person against people in his life and he does not seem to think he is ever in the wrong. That is what I got from his books and what I have read about him. The fact that my point sends you into a profanity laced tirade is incomprehensible to me. Surely anyone can see the irony of someone that won't even meet their own father because of a mistake he made, leaving his wife and kids for a rock star.

Sincerely, Bite Me
No thanks. I am not hungry and if I am I will eat a Power Bar.
 
duluth_rider said:
From what I have read the only evidence he has is the conversation he had with Armstrong in which he say's Armstrong basically told him, "C'mon, everybody is doing it." Armstrong told Lemond that he could find 10 people to testify that Lemond doped.

Certainly this would be hearsay evidence and unadmissable in a court, but to a man that is true to his convictions, as maybe Lemond is, it is all he needs to believe it. Unless Lemond is just being a jealous baby. We may never know. Lemond is somewhat bitter as he believes doping ruined his chances in 1991. He felt that their were a lot of dirty people in that Tour and he does seem bitter about doping, as I think any of us would be if we were clean.

Lemond did get his share of publicity. Just not as many people paid attention to it. I think the "cancer survivor" angle really had intrigued people and the media. Cancer has touched all of us in some way. Lemond was an SI Sportsman of the year.

In Armstrong's defense, it is ridiculous that so many in Europe boo him while making idols out of Virenique and Pantini. Pantini was a tortured soul, but no angel. People should be more consistent, in my opinion.

This whole thing has turned me off to pro cycling somewhat.

Good points again. I can understand your growing aversion to pro cycling in the wake of all of this BS! Hopefully it'll pass.

With regard to LeMond; I think you're right concerning the fact that people tend to forget about LeMond's hunting accident. It nearly did him in! And his comeback was nearly as remarkable as Armstrong's.

I know that Greg got some recognition, especially from people "within the cycling community". I do remember him being named SI Sportsman of the year! I think it was the first time it was ever given to a cyclist (at least in my memory). I don't remember LeMond having all of the commercial endorsements and TV appearances that Armstrong is getting though. Nowhere near in fact!