Professional Cycling For the Fans - Presentation from LeMond on Doping

This was crossposted from Lance's twitter account today. Thoughts?

http://www.playthegame.org/conferences/play-the-game-2009/on-demand-streaming/presentation-by-three-time-tour-de-france-winner-greg-lemond.html

This was crossposted from Lance's twitter account today. Thoughts?

http://www.playthegame.org/conferences/play-the-game-2009/on-demand-streaming/presentation-by-three-time-tour-de-france-winner-greg-lemond.html

Why do winners of yesteryear turn into cranky old men? Hinault, Lemond - did their mood meds wear off in the past 3 months?

I privately believe that Reid Rothschild is Lemond. I've gotten two or three emails from "greg lemond" in the past few years and they tend to sound a bit like RR ... :twitchy:

This was crossposted from Lance's twitter account today. Thoughts?

http://www.playthegame.org/conferences/play-the-game-2009/on-demand-streaming/presentation-by-three-time-tour-de-france-winner-greg-lemond.html


was this what the haterade comment was about? It wouldnt come up on my phone last night and cant twitter at work.

I am really happy Greg had this, and I hope some of you learned something.
"Lance will never come clean....he has no conscience" thats spot on.

Well, he might if he ever gets caught.

I'm finding it difficult to believe that Armstrong is doping at this point. Why bother to come back at all in that case?

he comes off as a bumbling fool. there were about 3 minutes of content in that presentation.

Why do winners of yesteryear turn into cranky old men? Hinault, Lemond - did their mood meds wear off in the past 3 months?
...

You missed at least one name, and not all of them turn into cranks before they retire.

All I have to say is that I sincerely hope that LeMond is not required to testify in his case against LA and Trek. If he is, he will very quickly eliminate what little bit of credibility he has left.

And how are his claims that Lance dopes any different than the claims that he doped when he won back to back?

All that I can see is a washed up former great rider who is bitter that he could not even act as a domestique for his replacement.

The saddest thing is that LeMond and Armstrong are probably the greatest cyclist this country has ever produced, but cannot simply move on with his life.

You missed at least one name, and not all of them turn into cranks before they retire.

It is not before they retire, it is AFTER they retire.

And some do the opposite. Fignon seemed to be a crank when he rode, but now he seems to be a great man.

I'm finding it difficult to believe that Armstrong is doping at this point. Why bother to come back at all in that case?

If you listened to what LeMond is talking about, he gives the reason Lance is making a comeback.
Cycling is a business, and Lance is getting paid off big dollars by people who we dont even know about.
In any case, it is very obvious to anybody with half a brain why Lance is making comeback, read the other thread about this topic.
As for doping, Lance and LeMonds comments, i guess almost all the riders in the last 12 years who have been at the top of the sport are admitting they doped, got caught doping or are involved in investigations on doping, BUT OH WAIT!!! Lance is the only one who didnt dope and won 7 in a row, gosh, how can anyone possibly think he doped?

There is no way Lance is doping right now, he is such a target and 1 positive test at this point would destroy his legacy.. I have seen a few videos with Lemond and this is one of the worst ones, he is very disjointed with his speech..

Having read some of the testing they did with Lance's samples from 1999, it sure seems to support that he was doping for his 1st TDF win.. But after that the info is not as supportive that he was doping from 2000-2005..

Jeez is this EVER going to end:deadhorse:?

I think Lemond is bitter that he didn't dope because he could have won a few more Tours.

Jeez is this EVER going to end:deadhorse:?

I agree.

Why do winners of yesteryear turn into cranky old men? Hinault, Lemond - did their mood meds wear off in the past 3 months?

I privately believe that Reid Rothschild is Lemond. I've gotten two or three emails from "greg lemond" in the past few years and they tend to sound a bit like RR ... :twitchy:

You might be on to something here.

I privately believe that Reid Rothschild is Lemond.
Armstrong's ex-wife?

Nah. She'd have a lot more ammunition than these clowns.

I thought that had some great information about cycling and doping. LeMond may not be the most eloquent speaker, but at least he's trying to spread the word. I see no reason to question his credibility, he only turns out to lose by speaking out, there's no motive for gain. On the other hand, all the riders doping having everything to gain. Anybody who believes cycling is a clean sport is a day-dreamer.

You might be on to something here.

Keep the fanboys guessing!

I thought that had some great information about cycling and doping. LeMond may not be the most eloquent speaker, but at least he's trying to spread the word. I see no reason to question his credibility, he only turns out to lose by speaking out, there's no motive for gain. On the other hand, all the riders doping having everything to gain. Anybody who believes cycling is a clean sport is a day-dreamer.

Be careful. Rational thought is in short supply here!

I don't blame anybody for having an opinion differing from mine. I just hate people who sling *&$# without any basis in such a manner as to negatively affect other peoples lives. I don't buy any performance as weak as that one. Another bunch of sour grapes.

As to the doping being rampant in cycling now and condemning cycling, Bull.... There are stories of doping from the beginning of the event. It wasn't even tested for or enforced until this last generation of cyclists. I like the reference to the doping problem in the sport just since I left and Lance started. What a farce. The only difference is that there used to be no testing. There were no banned drugs. I was apalled to learn that blood doping used to be a standard tool used by Olympic Track and Field athletes until it was banned. I forget which year I read that the entire American olympic team was blood doping, it was in the 80's.

I believe that there is less doping than in the past, especially since there is testing. Remember how many riders have died in the past from overdosing their drugs. I forget which old French champion's wife got hold of his "mix" and she got so stoned, she did a strip tease for the crowd.

In reference to the professionalism of the Labs,,,,,,,,, "are they paying Lemond?" He claimed it is impossible to spike EPO into a sample from 1999. (who was he attacking) Since it was acceptable for the tech doing Landis' test to just change the baseline to make it "look better", I question the science. Any rider in the Tour should be taking double samples and saving one.

Last but not least, is cycling that boring to the fans? Why is all the news about doping? Why all the headlines? What about the racing? Certain members of the press are more interested in publishing hematocrit levels than talking about why a rider may have screwed up attacking too early in a race. Personally, I like to watch and read about cycling, not doping. There is no other sport that makes doping the headline rather than the sport itself. I know a good scandal sells newspapers, but I for one am tired of the b.s. and witch hunts. Rant over.

I don't blame anybody for having an opinion differing from mine. I just hate people who sling *&$# without any basis in such a manner as to negatively affect other peoples lives. I don't buy any performance as weak as that one. Another bunch of sour grapes.

As to the doping being rampant in cycling now and condemning cycling, Bull.... There are stories of doping from the beginning of the event. It wasn't even tested for or enforced until this last generation of cyclists. I like the reference to the doping problem in the sport just since I left and Lance started. What a farce. The only difference is that there used to be no testing. There were no banned drugs. I was apalled to learn that blood doping used to be a standard tool used by Olympic Track and Field athletes until it was banned. I forget which year I read that the entire American olympic team was blood doping, it was in the 80's.

I believe that there is less doping than in the past, especially since there is testing. Remember how many riders have died in the past from overdosing their drugs. I forget which old French champion's wife got hold of his "mix" and she got so stoned, she did a strip tease for the crowd.

In reference to the professionalism of the Labs,,,,,,,,, "are they paying Lemond?" He claimed it is impossible to spike EPO into a sample from 1999. (who was he attacking) Since it was acceptable for the tech doing Landis' test to just change the baseline to make it "look better", I question the science. Any rider in the Tour should be taking double samples and saving one.

Last but not least, is cycling that boring to the fans? Why is all the news about doping? Why all the headlines? What about the racing? Certain members of the press are more interested in publishing hematocrit levels than talking about why a rider may have screwed up attacking too early in a race. Personally, I like to watch and read about cycling, not doping. There is no other sport that makes doping the headline rather than the sport itself. I know a good scandal sells newspapers, but I for one am tired of the b.s. and witch hunts. Rant over.

YOU SHOULD KNOW WHAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT BEFORE RANTING. IT WAS THE '84 OLYMPIC CYCLING TEAM THAT WAS BLOOD DOPING. ANYWAY, DOPING IS CURRENTLY THE CHIEF DETERMINANT IN WHO WINS THE TOUR de FRANCE. WAKE UP.

You might be on to something here.

I called it first. :D

Here's a question I've been pondering lately.
One of the points of contention in any doping allegation is that the rider in question
always out performs other riders who are doping (i.e. Lance vs Vino vs Jan etc. etc.).
It's a logical question of how can one rider be 'better' than any number of riders who are doping.
With the recent treatment of Fignon for cancer and the discussion of his doping (admitted). I have
to wonder what this does to Greg's statement that he was always clean. By the above
one would have to question how he could beat Fignon when he (Fignon) was doping. . .
live by the sword, die by the sword.

Marty

Here's a question I've been pondering lately.
One of the points of contention in any doping allegation is that the rider in question
always out performs other riders who are doping (i.e. Lance vs Vino vs Jan etc. etc.).
It's a logical question of how can one rider be 'better' than any number of riders who are doping.
With the recent treatment of Fignon for cancer and the discussion of his doping (admitted). I have
to wonder what this does to Greg's statement that he was always clean. By the above
one would have to question how he could beat Fignon when he (Fignon) was doping. . .
live by the sword, die by the sword.

Marty

During the 80's there was not systemic doping with EPO. A superior athlete can overcome an inferior one who is taking amphetamines, steroids and corticoids. However, it is believed that EPO can confer an advantage of more than, 20% in performance. That kind of advantage can enable a Cat 1 rider, previously unable to make it to the next level, to make it into the pro ranks,

Even though Greg was probably the most physically talented rider ever, weakened by the hunting accident, and handicapped by his opponents EPO usage, he didn't have a chance of winning at the end of his career.

In the hospital, Armstrong admitted to using EPO, steroids, corticoids, HgH, and a couple of other substances.

The only thing I have is this: Lance Armstrong is divorced. He has tons of money. He has several kids. The ex-wife gets money from him. She could have taken 1/2 and never needed money again. If Lance was doping, she would have busted him on it. She would have had proof to do it with, and it would have been over

Since she didn't do it, there simply cannot be reliable proof he ever did.

Well, all of this misses the point completely. You can't really say the current testing regime is working. Something needs to change. Occasionally they catch someone but every one of them that comes clean says they've been doping forever and finally got caught. I really admired Ricardo Ricco's statement last year. Don't have the statement in front of me but basically the officials were saying that they caught him on two tests. Ricco replied that they'd tested him 13 times and he was guilty every time - he got away with it 11 times.

It's too bad that LA is such a hot button and over shadows everything. I don't know if he's clean or not. I like to think he is and a lot of things point to that (especially his comeback). But the fact that he's been linked to guys like Dr. Ferrari and more importantly absolutely dominated proven dopers for years, that's gotta create questions. Remember, EVERY rider that has shared the podium with LA has either been proven a doper or strongly linked with systematic doping.

Every time there's a new bust, it looks more and more like the entire peloton is doped. I hope not, but it sure looks like it.

So how about a new direction for this thread? Discuss this: are doping products not as strong as some people say? Are they not as beneficial? Let's leave Lance aside here - is it really likely that riders like Menchov, Contador, Sastre, Evans, etc. can be clean and consistently beat a bunch of doped riders?

Chris

In the hospital, Armstrong admitted to using ...

References? Or is this more of your secret knowledge?


Besides, wouldn't that have been like 1994?

YOU SHOULD KNOW WHAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT BEFORE RANTING. IT WAS THE '84 OLYMPIC CYCLING TEAM THAT WAS BLOOD DOPING. ANYWAY, DOPING IS CURRENTLY THE CHIEF DETERMINANT IN WHO WINS THE TOUR de FRANCE. WAKE UP.

YOU NEED TO QUIT SHOUTING!!! YOU MAY HAVE ANGER ISSUES!!!NICE ATTITUDE, DUDE!!!

I noticed those who spew such vile crap usually are overcompensating for no legs, no lungs, no balls, etc............I still like to watch cycling, not sit home and bit#8 about doping, especially with NO PROOF! Get a Life, clyde...............

References? Or is this more of your secret knowledge?


Besides, wouldn't that have been like 1994?

I think this is linked to the Betsy Andreu testimony. In one of the lawsuits she allegedly alleged that when the doctor showed up at LA's bed when he was in Indianapolis he rambled off a list of drugs, hormones, and substances. IIRC, the doctor who was produced by the hospital to refute this had a different name than she remembered was unable to produce records indicating he was on duty that day. Interstingly, she was not sued by LA for it.

It's been a couple years since I read that but that's what I recall of it. I'm sure there's a wiki article on it. Or those sordid souls over at NPR have archived an article (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5508863) they produced on it. It's a little different than what I recall, but the substance is basically the same.

(pause for someone to read the linked article)

It appears some people have commited perjury, but who? The only people from the article making money off the deal are those who allege he did not dope; the others appear (to me) to be making statements against interest.

Do I think he's clean today? I don't know.
Do I think he doped? I'd really like to believe he did not, but when I look at all the people who stood on or near the podium with him the best I can do is a skeptical agnosticism.

Here's a question I've been pondering lately.
One of the points of contention in any doping allegation is that the rider in question
always out performs other riders who are doping (i.e. Lance vs Vino vs Jan etc. etc.).
It's a logical question of how can one rider be 'better' than any number of riders who are doping.
With the recent treatment of Fignon for cancer and the discussion of his doping (admitted). I have
to wonder what this does to Greg's statement that he was always clean. By the above
one would have to question how he could beat Fignon when he (Fignon) was doping. . .
live by the sword, die by the sword.

Marty
Not only did Lemond beat an admitted doper (just like Armstrong), he never
tested positive (just like Armstrong). Thus, we are left with the obvious
conclusion: Lemond (just like Armstrong) was a doper.

How does that in any way diminsh his fight against doping. Like I said earlier (and of course was completely ignored because of the Armstrong "thing") the current system doesn't work. LeMond is offering a new way.

Do I think he's clean today?
Yes. Way too much testing, including baseline analysis.


Do I think he doped?At some point in the past? Frankly, yes. But probably in training, not in events. And at some point, maybe as early as his return or maybe as late as his 2nd TdF, he quit. IOW, for the majority of his victories he was clean.

Look, there's taking shortcuts to improve conditioning, and then there's blatant stupidity. Anyone that gets caught in an event nowadays should be roundly condemned first for the tiny size of his brain, second for lack of balls, and only then for cheating. Lance may be an *******, but his is NOT stupid, and his ball is about the same size and consistency of a 9-lb solid shot. I'm convinced he'd rather lose then get caught cheating.


What chaps my ass is not his (possible) doping, but the people who single him out as if what he did (<- unproven assumption) was any worse than what anyone else did (proven facts and admissions).

Lance tested positive in his first Tour win.
He conveniently had a prescription.

And by the way, doses of growth hormone speeds up the growth of a lot of things.... including cancer. Think about that.

Lance tested positive in his first Tour win.
He conveniently had a prescription.

And by the way, doses of growth hormone speeds up the growth of a lot of things.... including cancer. Think about that.

A prescription that is approved erases the non-negative. The governing body approves whether or not you are allowed to ride with whatever substance in your body.

Further, the amount shown was not even in the "positive" range.

And....wow. His cancer was his own fault? Geez, that's a hater comment. Personally, if you don't like someones racing style, stand on that. Don't make allegations no one could possibly prove, that there's no evidence of.

A prescription that is approved erases the non-negative. The governing body approves whether or not you are allowed to ride with whatever substance in your body.
...
Post dated, and that gives me considerable pause.

Wasn't there a 500,000 Euro donation to WADA shortly after that?

Not comforting.

This was crossposted from Lance's twitter account today. Thoughts?

http://www.playthegame.org/conferences/play-the-game-2009/on-demand-streaming/presentation-by-three-time-tour-de-france-winner-greg-lemond.html

Cue cards, Greg, cue cards.

A prescription that is approved erases the non-negative. The governing body approves whether or not you are allowed to ride with whatever substance in your body.

Further, the amount shown was not even in the "positive" range.

And....wow. His cancer was his own fault? Geez, that's a hater comment. Personally, if you don't like someones racing style, stand on that. Don't make allegations no one could possibly prove, that there's no evidence of.

yes, lets explain away and make all the appropriate excuses shall we. A positive result is a positive result Mr Bill Clinton.

And arent you one to jump to conclusions. I merely stated a fact about growth hormones and other such peptides. What you conclude from your conscience is up to you my friend. Haters or not, facts are facts... sorry.

Post dated, and that gives me considerable pause.

Wasn't there a 500,000 Euro donation to WADA shortly after that?

Not comforting.
And someone who is awake, thank you.

References? Or is this more of your secret knowledge?


Besides, wouldn't that have been like 1994?

:roflmao2:

SECRET KNOWLEDGE? THE MC ILVAINE TAPE RECORDING WAS ALL OVER THE INTERNET, PRESENTED AT THE SCA TRIAL, AND IN THE POSSESION OF SI'S AUSTIN MURPHY AND HE ALLUDED TO THAT FACT IN A LENGTHY ARTICLE HE WROTE PREVIEWING FROM LANCE TO LANDIS. YOU CAN GOOGLE THAT ARTICLE IN WHICH HE MOCKS PHARMSTRONG AS "12 CYLINDER MAN." THE HOSPITAL ROOM EPISODE TOOK PLACE IN OCT,1996. IT WOULD BE 5 YEARS BEFORE IT WAS REVEALED THAT FERRARI WAS CONTINUOUSLY WORKING WITH PHARMSTRONG. WHY DO YOU THINK PHARMSTRONG HAD AN EXCLUSIVE CONTRACT WITH FERRARI WHICH PREVENTED HIM FROM WORKING WITH ANY OTHER RIDERS? PHARMSTRONG PAID FERRARI SOMETHING LIKE 20% OF HIS SALARY FOR ADVICE ON TRAINING?:roflmao2::roflmao2::roflmao2:

And....wow. His cancer was his own fault? Geez, that's a hater comment. Personally, if you don't like someones racing style, stand on that. Don't make allegations no one could possibly prove, that there's no evidence of.

Very possibly his cancer was his own fault. When you're taking steroids, corticoids, EPO, HgH and who knows what else, insulin perhaps, no one knows what the heck can happen. It is well known that corticoids depress the immune system. Jeez, there are concerns that even caffeine can stimulate tumor growth.

Hater comment? :roflmao2: Please....

YOU NEED TO QUIT SHOUTING!!! YOU MAY HAVE ANGER ISSUES!!!NICE ATTITUDE, DUDE!!!

I noticed those who spew such vile crap usually are overcompensating for no legs, no lungs, no balls, etc............I still like to watch cycling, not sit home and bit#8 about doping, especially with NO PROOF! Get a Life, clyde...............


shhhh, you're right! There's lots of proof though. Sweet dreams.

Very possibly his cancer was his own fault. When you're taking steroids, corticoids, EPO, HgH and who knows what else, insulin perhaps, no one knows what the heck can happen. It is well known that corticoids depress the immune system. Jeez, there are concerns that even caffeine can stimulate tumor growth.

Hater comment? :roflmao2: Please....

Simply, you can't prove even if he doped (im not saying he didn't im just saying theres nothing more than innuendo out there. All other proof is purely circumstantial), that the drug was the cause of his cancer or the growth of his cancer. You're saying some scientists think it could happen, but proving it happened in his case is impossible, so you need to drop it.

The only thing I have is this: Lance Armstrong is divorced. He has tons of money. He has several kids. The ex-wife gets money from him. She could have taken 1/2 and never needed money again. If Lance was doping, she would have busted him on it. She would have had proof to do it with, and it would have been over

Since she didn't do it, there simply cannot be reliable proof he ever did.

Within the Cat 2/3's around here there is doping, and they won't even tell their team mate that is doping too! It is not discussed. Period.

They laugh and joke maybe about some stuff, but there is no open discussion or admission. Doping works, and you can't get caught unless you do something very stupid.

BTW- Half of nothing when he gets outed as a cheat???????/What were you thinking when you posted this????????????

Dammit Reid, I won't have you yelling at me. I used to think you had a modicum of wit and style. Now I think you never progressed past your 9th birthday.

Welcome to my Ignore list.

BTW- Half of nothing when he gets outed as a cheat???????/What were you thinking when you posted this????????????

She already got a 1 time payment that cant be taken from her that more than sets her and the kids up for the rest of her life. I dont believe she gets further alimony, so she cant be hurt if he goes down.

She already got a 1 time payment that cant be taken from her that more than sets her and the kids up for the rest of her life. I dont believe she gets further alimony, so she cant be hurt if he goes down.

Every woman thinks nothing of her kids when they get divorced.

"Yes, Luke.........I ratted your pops and ruined your life too, your father the TDF Champion is nothing but a no-good cheat that I just happened to marry etc."

And yes, she does get hurt if he goes down.

By his wife not saying anything, means absolutely nothing.

You could be right, but that doesn't count as evidence (or lack of) that I see.

Dammit Reid, I won't have you yelling at me. I used to think you had a modicum of wit and style. Now I think you never progressed past your 9th birthday.

Welcome to my Ignore list.

Reid is Flyer.

But, he is 100% correct.

During the 80's there was not systemic doping with EPO. A superior athlete can overcome an inferior one who is taking amphetamines, steroids and corticoids. However, it is believed that EPO can confer an advantage of more than, 20% in performance. That kind of advantage can enable a Cat 1 rider, previously unable to make it to the next level, to make it into the pro ranks,

Even though Greg was probably the most physically talented rider ever, weakened by the hunting accident, and handicapped by his opponents EPO usage, he didn't have a chance of winning at the end of his career.

In the hospital, Armstrong admitted to using EPO, steroids, corticoids, HgH, and a couple of other substances.

You know, we really need Mr. Lemond to join BikeForums so that he can speak directly. I'd be most interested in hearing from the real deal.

East Hill

Simply, you can't prove even if he doped (im not saying he didn't im just saying theres nothing more than innuendo out there. All other proof is purely circumstantial), that the drug was the cause of his cancer or the growth of his cancer. You're saying some scientists think it could happen, but proving it happened in his case is impossible, so you need to drop it.

Nothing more than innuendo?

1st off, there's the '99 positive for corticoids which even the UCI regards as a positive. The prescription was nonsense and backdated.

2nd, circumstantial evidence puts people on death row and people have been executed on cases relying on wholly circumstantial evidence. You speak of this type of evidence as if it is weak. Nothing can be further from the truth.

Finally, as I've said, it's very possible all of the stuff he admitted to taking could have given him cancer. I really don't need to drop it either.