Presentation from LeMond on Doping
 

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

http://www.playthegame.org/conferenc...eg-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:

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.

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.

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.

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.

I agree.

You might be on to something here.

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.

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.

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

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.