Road Bike, Cycling Forums banner

1 - 18 of 18 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
462 Posts
The best part will be his grand jury testimony in a week or so. After regurgitating all of the here-say he has, he will be asked if he personally has any direct knowledge or proof of Lance doping-to which he will answer no (lets face it if he had anything concrete he would have burned Lance with it by now...) All paid for by the U.S. taxpayer!
 

·
Masters Neophyte
Joined
·
2,209 Posts
Jesus. Well, if I needed any more proof that Greg's bitterness had turned his mind to mush, that article seems to confirm it.
A writer, he is not.
Sooo... nothing new once again? Ooh, Chinese researchers are looking at sea turtle hemoglobin? (Of course, China is the same country that thinks rhino horn is an aphrodesiac)

I'm sure the prosecutors hope he has a helluva lot more ammo than this rambling garbage.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
11,474 Posts
Discussion Starter · #5 ·
RRRoubaix said:
Jesus. Well, if I needed any more proof that Greg's bitterness had turned his mind to mush, that article seems to confirm it.
Agree—if he's smart, he'll pull that drivel off the web before someone finds it and uses it to seriously diminish his credibility.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
766 Posts
Thanks for posting... I thought it was an excellent article. Bravo Lemond!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,113 Posts
I wonder if Lemond's mental capacity has been affected by the lead pellets that are still lodged inside his body. I can't believe the rubbish that he's spewing. I heard through the grapevine somewhere that LA is not going to finish the tour this year. He's going to either quit or abandon. Really???? Now Lemond is back pedaling on his own words & clarifying that if he was Lance he would have dropped out due to all the pressure from a federal investigation.

Which begs the question, why would one drop out due to a federal investigation unless one is guilty? Wouldn't that action be more blatant & clearly indicating guilt. As Lance has stated, he sleeps very well at night. Subpoenaing Lemond before a grand jury is going to turn this into a circus & a waste of taxpayers $$$'s. They better have better witnesses than Lemond is all I have to say.

A rather interesting take on this is from Robert Millar, Lemond's ex-teammate at Z. From cyclingnews:

CN: What do you think of the Landis accusations and more recently the things Greg Lemond has said?

RM: Difficult question... One of those he said she said things. I don't think it's fair to anyone to blame someone or make comments on something you don't have knowledge of. The only people who know what happened in the past are those involved and while it might be the job of the media to speculate, until there's a proper investigation no-one can say what the truth is or isn't. It's probably best to let Feds sort it out if they feel they have to but it's not good for the sport to have this stuff going on.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
11,474 Posts
Discussion Starter · #8 ·
pedalruns said:
Thanks for posting... I thought it was an excellent article. Bravo Lemond!
Welcome. It could have been an excellent article if he had a competent editor look at it before sending it off. As it stands, the writing is so bad that it discredits his claims.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
38 Posts
I think he might have a real future as a fantasy writer, some of that Chinese medicine talk would fit great into a Harry Potter novel.....
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,065 Posts
wim said:
Mr. Lemond talks of his disappointment about not being able to sabotage Mr. Armstrong's last Tour de France attendance, then follows up with disconnected bits and pieces of rumor, innuendo and speculation. There are some entertaining, if bizarre, paragraphs on sea turtle- and crocodile hemoglobin.

http://www.cyclingnews.com/blogs/greg-lemond/bravo-to-the-new-generation
Why, why, why can't Lemond comment on some aspect of cycling that is not doping-related? You have two top cyclists, separated by just 8 seconds on GC, isn't that reminiscent of some other historic situation that he was a part of?

For a lot of top athletes, or just about anyone trying to be the best at basically anything, the drive to be the #1, to become the best in the WORLD, often comes packaged with obsessive paranoia/delusion about anyone who dares to throw them off their throne by being better than them.

The true sign of professionalism and a sign of a great champion and a decent human being is to find the strength to resist these temptations. Greg Lemond is an EPIC FAIL in this regard.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
183 Posts
Pathetic... He needs to get off of his high horse and get over himself. I am becoming less and less of a GL supporter by the day. I understand, as do most people here, that he is an advocate for clean cycling. Everyone else in the world, or nearly everyone, is able to provide some non-doping-related cycling commentary. Greg should read the July 22nd cyclingnews.com interview with Robert Millar - obviously another accomplished ex-professional - and learn how to do something more productive than badger "Mr. Armstrong". I almost hope that Lance goes down (much to the delight of grouchy Greg and Floyd) so I can see what will happen to US cycling. If George, Levi, Dave Z, Lance... are all discredited and US cycling does collapse, I'll be in line to thank GL and FL by giving them a less-than-pleasant hand signal. What a joke... seriously.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
11,561 Posts
wim said:
There are some entertaining, if bizarre, paragraphs on sea turtle- and crocodile hemoglobin.
I didn't read the article because what's the point? So I'm not sure what he actually said.

That being said, apparently the reptile hemoglobin stuff was (is?) being investigated as an oxygen carrying substitute for humans.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
317 Posts
Maybe you are on to something...

gamara said:
I wonder if Lemond's mental capacity has been affected by the lead pellets that are still lodged inside his body.

I take it you're kidding but I was thinking about this today and if it could effect his mental state. Obviously having a over abundance of any metal in your body could cause some sort of imbalance.
 

·
BikerFox Wannabe
Joined
·
696 Posts
wim said:
Welcome. It could have been an excellent article if he had a competent editor look at it before sending it off. As it stands, the writing is so bad that it discredits his claims.
I'm a writer/editor and I've seen plenty of poorly written copy. Greg's article is not that bad at all. Sure, it could be better, but, for the most part, it's a blog post...so what exactly are you expecting? It's completely comprehensible.

I see nothing in the article to lead me to believe it's the mad ramblings of an 'unhinged' individual.

LeMond certainly has more connections and credibility in the world of Pro Cycling than probably all of the posters on these forums. I find it amusing how many posters here have labeled him a paranoid, bitter old hater simply because he has consistently spoken honestly about the drug problem that he sees in the sport.
 

·
classiquesklassieker
Joined
·
3,106 Posts
55x11 said:
Why, why, why can't Lemond comment on some aspect of cycling that is not doping-related? You have two top cyclists, separated by just 8 seconds on GC, isn't that reminiscent of some other historic situation that he was a part of?

For a lot of top athletes, or just about anyone trying to be the best at basically anything, the drive to be the #1, to become the best in the WORLD, often comes packaged with obsessive paranoia/delusion about anyone who dares to throw them off their throne by being better than them.

The true sign of professionalism and a sign of a great champion and a decent human being is to find the strength to resist these temptations. Greg Lemond is an EPIC FAIL in this regard.
Well, at least he doesn't complain about Hinault anymore ....
 

·
Administrator
Joined
·
12,959 Posts
orange_julius said:
Well, at least he doesn't complain about Hinault anymore ....
That's cause nobody asks.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,674 Posts
zero85ZEN said:
I'm a writer/editor and I've seen plenty of poorly written copy. Greg's article is not that bad at all. Sure, it could be better, but, for the most part, it's a blog post...so what exactly are you expecting? It's completely comprehensible.

I see nothing in the article to lead me to believe it's the mad ramblings of an 'unhinged' individual.

LeMond certainly has more connections and credibility in the world of Pro Cycling than probably all of the posters on these forums. I find it amusing how many posters here have labeled him a paranoid, bitter old hater simply because he has consistently spoken honestly about the drug problem that he sees in the sport.
At last, someone who's rational about it. Thankyou.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,674 Posts
Well he hasn't left doping out but there are no attacks on anyone that I can see.

http://www.cyclingnews.com/blogs/greg-lemond/data-of-optimism

Hating to be the bearer of bad news too often, I am really happy to be able to see some real positive statistics come out of this year's Tour de France. The race between Alberto Contador and Andy Schleck was great to watch. Either one could have won this year’s Tour de France. What made the racing so exciting was how close the competition was. Most importantly their rides are believable and fall within the historic norms of athletic ability.
I have been very critical of the sport and, I believe, justifiably so. I am a cyclist who took up cycling by accident. This sport is so exciting, so romantic and so beautiful that I spent half of my life dedicated to it. My only hope is to see cycling right itself and gain back the credibility that any sport needs to thrive.
With that said, how do we eliminate the huge advantages of doping? The best way is to use the science and technology that already exists today to help eliminate the possibility of getting the huge benefit from taking doping products. This way a clean rider will have the chance to win in any event that he decides to compete in.
To get a better idea of what I mean, go to this website, http://www.sportsscientists.com, and read what two very knowledgeable scientists have to say regarding the performance of the riders in this year's Tour. I have read quite a few of their studies and they seem to know what they are talking about. They are very knowledgeable about the physiology and science of cycling, and have been doing this for years now.
When I read what their data indicates, I get hopeful that there has been a big effort to change the old habits of the past. This does not mean that the Tour is 100% clean but it does hint that things are possibly changing for the better.
I think that when you see levels of 5.8 or 5.9 watts per kilo for over 20 minutes, it is believable and falls into historical norms. It depends on the VO2 Max, of course, but I believe that a rider like Contador has a lot of talent and is therefore capable of that.
After reading their article, all I could think of was why doesn't the sport embrace scientists like these two to help figure out a better way to control the doping that has destroyed the integrity of cycling? I am a big believer in science and in the end it is the science that will stand the test of time.
The sportsscientists.com guys were saying that in the 90s and early 2000s, most of the climbs were done at 6.2, 6.3 and even up to 6.7 watts per kilo; this is a sign of blood doping.
As regards the future of drug testing, a better term might be drug controlling, controlling the drugs that really boost an athlete's performance. That would be done by using a combination of blood profiling, wattage output, using a system like the SRM Power meter, and profiling of O2 intake.
If you combine the above with criminal consequences for drug distribution and with the possibility for a positive rider to plea bargain his return back to racing (though only if the positive rider names his or her supplier, and with a life ban for those who refuse to cooperate), you might be able to slowly take out those people who have been a large part of the doping problem.
By controlling the hormones and blood boosting drugs plus the transfusions, all that might be left will be drugs that might give the rider a minimal benefit. The placebo effect can have more power to change a rider's ability than some of the drugs on the list. Hopefully talent, focus and motivation could make up the small difference.
Every athlete has a genetic max. Yes, there are things that even the best sports scientists might not be able to explain or understand at this point but eventually, science will discover the answer to the unanswered. One thing that I believe to be true is that huge gains in wattage cannot occur in a short period of time in a sport that is as competitive as cycling. This sport has been highly competitive for over 40 years and I believe that the performances of riders like Merckx would still stand up to the best in today's cycling.
There is some very good data out there that indicates little improvement in aerobic capacity when you look back at many of the Tour de France champions from the pre-EPO era. Hopefully steps will continue to be taken to ensure that the Tour de France is won by someone with natural talent who shows that his performance is backed up by his natural ability.
One thing is for sure - Alberto Contador is very talented and I am happy to see some data that indicates his victory could be the result of natural ability.
Overall, to me it looked much more like the racing I knew. There was a lot more fatigue and exhaustion - the attacks go, but then they fade. There is this hesitation in the riders, too - when you feel the suffering, you are going to start racing more tactically. That is what I have seen in this Tour. It's very different to the Tours you saw five years ago - then, the flat stages had the bunch in one long line. And when people got to the climbs, they were being dropped, but there was no sign of suffering. This year looked a lot better.
Finishing up, there's been a lot of talk about the chain problem that Schleck had the other day, and the fact that Contador and a few other riders didn't wait. I don't think his victory should be overshadowed by what ifs, as this is part of racing.
I think if it's 30 or 40 kilometers out, then absolutely - wait. But if it's three kilometers from the finish of an uphill, it is different. When you are racing like Contador was, you are not sitting there lucid and aware [of everyone]. You are completely focused on what you are doing.
If you look at the replay, Vinokourov was between Contador and Schleck and I think that obscured his view. I think that Contador did finally see that Schleck had stopped suddenly, but I don't think that he had any idea that he then got off his bike and had to put his chain back on, being further delayed.
It is certainly tragic for Schleck as it was clear that day that he was strong, and perhaps stronger than Contador, but I don't think Contador's victory should have an asterisk next to it. I don't think that Contador took an advantage.
When I look at my own career, I flatted on the last climb going into Pau in 1990. I think it was the Marie Blanc. Chiappucci saw me, got his teammates and just took off and attacked. I think that's different, when you consciously see someone flat and then you take off.
Anyway, I didn't like it, but the fact is that it was part of the race and I had to deal with it. I was more annoyed that my team car wasn't there. We were two minutes down and if it wasn't for Gilbert Duclos Lassalle and, I think, Kvalsvoll, who were up front yet sat and waited for me, I would have definitely lost the Tour.
Admittedly he has the 1990 attack slightly wrong. According to the, sadly defunct, Kennedy Brothers Tour 90 Annual Delgado & Chiappucci attacked and Lemond punctured as he responded. They then doubled their efforts once they were made aware of the puncture. Nevertheless, he was gracious enough at the time to not bang on about it and to commend his team-mates' sacrifice. D-L had a sure fire win in his home town of Pau had he not waited for Lemond.
 
1 - 18 of 18 Posts
Top