|Lemond = Sore loser||Bosephus|
Aug 3, 2001 5:40 AM
|Check out this article on ESPN.com. |
You know I really use to consider Lemond a good guy from the interviews and stuff I saw of him. Not anymore... talk about sour grapes and being a sore loser. The ridiculous part is he has nothing to defend. It's not like anyone that knows anything about cycling is saying Lance has beaten out the old American cycling king. Three and three ... Three in a row vs. three years holds no water in my book. There's too many other factors involved. If Lance wins another or maybe another two then we can start making judgement calls.
Bottom line Lemond is a shmuck!
Aug 3, 2001 5:48 AM
|I'm sick of hearing the media try and convince everyone that Lance is on drugs. I'm sick of hearing Lance defend himself for not being on drugs. |
Keep testing ... keep riding ... shut up about it already.
Maybe, I'm gullible but I have a hard time believing that someone in Lance's position as the most prominent cyclist in the American publics eye (and for many in Europe), would put himself in that much risk by using drugs. Think about what the guy has to lose. He seems like a fairly intelligent guy why the hell would he risk not only his entire career, but also his credibility. Think about the effect it would have on his support of cancer research. Think about all the other people it would effect other than himself. He's way too involved and way too prominent to be that dumb.
Just because the guy works his @ss off to the point that it seems inhuman doesn't mean he's on drugs, and it doesn't mean that the pathetic out of shape media needs to attempt to belittle his accomplishments by sayinghe's on drugs.
I'm so sick of this discussion ...
Aug 3, 2001 6:07 AM
|all lemond said is that he was disappointed that lance was working with a guy who has been an strong advocate of drug use to enhance performance. fair enough!
by doing so lance has put himself under suspicion. its like being caught leaving a bar and claiming you haven't been drinking.
Aug 3, 2001 6:14 AM
|Being caught in a bar? The doctor is a sports doctor who specializes in cycling. Lets also slow down the conviction train and let him have his day in court with regard to these latest charges. By assuming Lances only reason to associate himself with this guy is drugs we would be making a mistake. Maybe Lance still can learn from the guy?|
Aug 3, 2001 10:57 AM
|Lance is right for the loyalty he has exhibited toward Ferrari. Ferrari has yet to be convicted of anything and Lance has based his judgment of Ferrari, rightfully, on his own association with him during which he states he has never observed Ferrari conduct himself in an improper or illegal manner. Lemond, on the other hand, feels that just the appearance of impropriety should have motivated Lance to cut all ties. Who would you rather have for a friend, someone like Lemond who bails out at the first sign of trouble or Lance who you can count on to stick by your side. I'll take Armstrong.|
|turn the question||JohnnyA|
Aug 3, 2001 11:17 AM
|Who would Lance rather have as friend - Lemond who is willing to call B.S. or Ferrari.......? Lance's choice. |
BTW - Lance is on the record for criticizing Ferrari's position on EPO. Oh, geeze, that would make LA a turncoat bailing on his buddy. One set of rules for LA another for GL?
|missed the point||nutmegger|
Aug 3, 2001 5:47 PM
|The point I made was not about criticism. The point has to do with the inference which can be drawn from Lemond's criticism of Lance's position regarding Ferrari which is that Lance should dump Ferrari overboard in order to preclude the appearance of wrongdoing. Apparently this is the course of action Lemond would choose were he in Lance's position. Lance takes the more difficult road which is to stand by Ferrari until he is proven guilty and not to prejudge him before he gets his day in court. One set of rules Johnny.|
Aug 4, 2001 10:28 AM
|I don't drink ...||Bosephus|
Aug 3, 2001 6:19 AM
|but I do go to bars. Just about every Friday and Saturday night. It happens to be where all my friends like to socialize. Does this mean I'm lieing and I actually do drink. Maybe ... ok how about if I had a breathalizer test taken everytime I left a bar and it was completely clean, would you still think I was lieing. No ... |
Why should no name me be any different than the guy that everyone is jealous of because he just stomped all over everyone else in one of the worlds toughest races.
Just thoughts ... I don't know. I'm not 100% in disagreement with you here just playing devil's advocate mainly.
Aug 5, 2001 7:24 PM
|So LA goes to a doc who's been accused (but not convicted) of dispensing illegal drugs, and he's guilty?? That's like walking out of a coffee shop that's been rumored to serve alcohol and claiming you haven't been drinking. There's a difference.|
Aug 3, 2001 6:08 AM
|Another Lance fan? If you're so sick of the discussion, don't post this stuff... bring it on.|
|Fair enough but...||Bosephus|
Aug 3, 2001 6:23 AM
|I'm not sick of this discussion I guess. It's more the discussion that specifically revolves around did he use drugs or not. I'm sick of the media driven degradation of an amazing accomplishment. |
I'm not sure ... can you see the subtle difference here?
Aug 3, 2001 6:38 AM
|Don't be so naive.
LA has stated more than once that he hasn't tested positive and that's true.
In this sport, they have ways to beat testing. The most popular is to take performance enhancers that aren't on the banned list.
Dr. Michael Ferrari has made a career out of it. He advises on what perfromance enhancers to take that are not on the banned list and will aid the riders.
IMO, Lance Armstrong is doping. But his competition is also doing it. He's on a level playing field and in no way does this de-value his accomplishments.
But don't be so naive to think he doesn't dope.
Aug 3, 2001 7:09 AM
|So what you are saying is since he has not tested positive for any banned drugs he must be taking drugs that are not banned? Why dont you believe that he's clean because he is really clean? I dont believe for a second that all pro cyclists dope.|
Aug 3, 2001 7:39 AM
|I never said all cyclists dope. I tend to believe that the majority of the top classified riders do, at least the ones that have large contracts and make alot of $$$ for the sponsors and their teams.
Why? Well, the history of the sport tells me so. From Coppi & Anquitiel to Merckx & Hinault to Pantani & Armstrong.
Now, I may be dumb, but I'm certainly not stupid (I'm in no way implying that you are). LA was on his death bed 5 years ago. We all know his story regarding testicular cancer. And now he has won the TdF 3 years in row, arguably the most grueling competition in the world (along with the Giro d'Italia).
You mean to tell me that he did that without the aid of performance enhancers? That LA did it by training 6 hours a day on the bike 4-5 days a week and the other 2-3 days training with running and weight training and by eating right and taking vitamins like a good little boy?
If you believe that, great. You're probably a better person than me.
I choose not to believe it.
Aug 3, 2001 7:25 AM
|Why is it naive to take someone at their word? If Lance says he isn't doping, it's not naive to think he isn't, it just shows faith in someone you respect. It may be naive to think that nobody is doping, but to disregard the evidence, and to flat out ignore Lance's denial is cynical. I'll choose naivete over cynicism any day. If I wake up with egg on my face then I'll make an omelet, but at least I will have enjoyed Lance's victories for now.|
Aug 3, 2001 8:09 AM
|Continue to enjoy LA's victories for as long as they last.
I have no problem whatsoever with the 3 in row TdF victories he has achieved even if I believe he isn't clean because I also believe his competition isn't clean.
But what I do have a problem is with those cycling fans who believe that in no way LA could or would use performance enhancers.
The history of this sport tells us otherwise and LA is not the exception, IMO.
|He's never said he isn't doping.......||Len J|
Aug 3, 2001 11:11 AM
|instead, if you listen closly, he says that he has never tested positive. These are two incredibly different things. If he would say, unequivically, that he does not take performance enhancing drugs, and that he never has, this controversy would go away. Instead, he keeps repeating the same thing over and over again, "I have never tested positive for a banned substance." Think about the difference.
The most credible hypothesis that I have ever heard about Lance & Drugs was that it was illegal drugs which caused his cancer in the first place. If this were true, then Lance is caught between a rock & a hard place (even if he is not using now (which would be likely if it caused his cancer))in anything he says right now. If he goes public with this as an anti-drug statement, he gets banned from racing, so he is stuck with the vague statement about never having tested positive. I don't know if this is true, but it certainly fits the apparent facts and statements.
At the end of the day we will probably never know, and so we will be forced to choose what to believe (just like Lemond). I hope he is not using, as Sports gives me a glimpse into the human potential. I would hate to think that what he is doing is "aided".
|He's never said he isn't doping.......||bhague|
Aug 5, 2001 7:30 PM
|Why on earth is that the most credible hypothesis?? I lost my grandfather to cancer, was he taking illegal drugs too? People get cancer, Len. It happens. People also succeed in sports w/o using drugs. If you choose to believe he dopes, so be it. But don't blame cancer on drug abuse.|
|He's never said he isn't doping.......||Len J|
Aug 6, 2001 3:27 AM
|I wasn't blaming cancer on drugs, I was putting forth a posswible explanation for all of Lance's "non-denials".|
|LeMond where it hurts||jbrown2036|
Aug 3, 2001 6:27 AM
|I say respond with your wallet, like I am. I don't think Greg's comments have any merit or class, so I'm avoiding his products. I was recommending the Zurich model to my Brother and his Wife who are interested in cycling (inspired by Lance's accomplisments and class), and now I'm just going to steer them to another manufacturer.
As for myself, I was going to a fitting this weekend for a tete de course-Looks like I'll be getting a custom Seven instead.
|LeMond where it hurts||lemondiswashedup|
Aug 3, 2001 6:31 AM
|the seven will be much nicer anyhow|
|LeMond where it hurts||Gary in VA|
Aug 3, 2001 6:48 AM
|I was about to head out the door to testride a LeMond Poprad. After hearing about what Greg said I can now cross that bike off my list of possibles.|
|LeMond owned by trek!!!||Michael Y.|
Aug 3, 2001 8:18 AM
|Since Trek is LeMond's parent company, I do not know how much that will really help. Basically Lance and Greg have the same boss!!!
I think Lemond's attitude is wrong. It is the same "Guilt by Association" or "Guilty before proven innocent" tactics used by the French Press. He could have mentioned the fact that Lance never failed a drug test with his statement. I do not think it is appropriate for him to further fuel the fire of speculation. As an American, it would have been nice for him to Defend Armstrong.
If not for his hunting accident Lemond could have won 5 TDFs. His victories in 86 and 89 were unforgettable. His legend will always be secure. It is too bad he cannot be more secure in his legend.
|Same Boss Good||jbrown2036|
Aug 3, 2001 9:24 AM
|When Trek starts to see sales drop of Mr. LeMond's bikes I hope they address his comments to him. It works to the advantage of the consumer. I agree with your comments.|
|re: Lemond = Sore loser||badabill|
Aug 3, 2001 6:31 AM
|First off let me say I dont think lance uses drugs, and until some evidence that he does comes up i'll take his word that he doesn't. But hiring this doctor was a mistake. He had to know that with all the bad pub about this doctor it could cause problems. With all the sports doctors out there you would think LA could find a better choice. I look at it more from a bad PR move, he should have known better.|
Aug 3, 2001 6:43 AM
|I would have to say I agree with you on this.|
Aug 3, 2001 7:04 AM
|I applaud LA, but I would be disappointed to learn that he was doping. I think that is what Lemond was trying to say, but the press probably urges some controversy. They like to compare living sports legends to the next greatest thing and get that living legend to criticize newer stars. Magic Johnson is one example of a person who is happy to do this. I have read where Lemond has praised Armstrong for his cycling and activism, so his latest comments are surprising. Lemond could have put a more gracious spin on it. And he is pointing out the obvious: a relationship with this doctor is a little suspicious.
And to those who say Lemond is "washed up." Sure, he's retired. But a "loser?" No way.
Aug 3, 2001 7:39 AM
|Lance opened himself up to this kind of criticism when he chose to consult with Ferrari. Lemond is not accusing LA of doping. Lemond is entitled to his opinion (which I may add is probably more well informed than any of ours). This crying about Lemond and boycotting his bikes is silly, but just like Greg, you are entitled to your opinion.|
Aug 3, 2001 7:42 AM
|Lemond knows what he's talking about, and he's not a sore loser. Lemond put American cycling on the map. He has no reason to be jealous of Lance.|
Aug 3, 2001 9:40 AM
|LeMond's been around a couple of blocks that none of us can lay any claim to and certainly knows more about Ferrari and his reputation than any of us. LeMond never said that Armstrong was doped, just that he was disappointed in him. Armstrong has had unrivalled success with the coaching and guidance of Chris Carmichael. What could Ferrari possibly bring to the table that is worth the stigma associated with his now dubious reputation? I've never heard of LeMond having anything but praise for Armstrong before this, so I'm inclined to believe his sentiments of disappointment are genuine. LeMond was always outspoken about the need for the sport to clean itself up, and probably sees Armstrong's association with Ferrari as a further blow to the sport's reputation, whether there's anything illicit going on or not. It's bad PR, and Armstrong should have known better.|
Aug 5, 2001 7:37 PM
|I agree about LeMond - he knows more about this than anyone on this post. But don't forget that LA consulted Ferrari BEFORE the allegations against the doc.
It's ironic that cycling supposedly has a "doping" problem, when many of the drugs banned in the sport are accepted in other sports. If an NFL player gets hurt, he gets a cortisone shot and goes back on the field. If a cyclist crashes and gets a cortisone shot to go back in the peloton, he's banned. To say nothing of the rampant steroid use in the NFL. Give me a break; as an overall athlete, I'd put LeMond or LA up against any "mainstream" athlete in pro sports - natural or otherwise.
|Whiners = schmucks||steeveo|
Aug 3, 2001 9:24 AM
|For God's SAKE, first you people crucify that poor sad workaday journalist down in Alabama (?) for DARING to not adore Lance/cycling, then you bash LeMond -- a true great -- as a loser and a scmuck for DARING to have a mildly negative reaction to the drug-doctor story. Lighten up. None of this sh!t means squat in the big scheme of things. It's JUST bike riding, and Lance is no god.|
|Lance IS a god... HERE||peteey|
Aug 3, 2001 9:42 AM
Aug 3, 2001 9:41 AM
|Should I restate what I had said before about LeMond?
He's just pulling the same old crap. What crap that is shall be posted upon request.
|re: Lemond = Sore loser||rodemiles|
Aug 3, 2001 9:47 AM
|This whole controversy over whether or not Lance used drugs to enhance his natural abilities is similar to what I experienced after coming home from Vietnam. Drug use was absolutely rampant in Vietnam, and quite a few of the returning veterans said "everyone" did drugs over there. Well, everyone didn't. I didn't, neither did my 2 roommates. Were we the definite minority? Absolutely. But what upset me was after I came home when acquaintances would offer me drugs; when I would refuse, they would respond that they "knew" I had done drugs in Vietnam, everyone did. I came periliously close to decking a know it all uncle who asked me if I was still doing drugs after my return. I still seethe when I think of that.
The bottom line is: no one who is convinced Lance is doping will believe any amount of tests that come up negative. No one who believes in his innocence will be convinced by any amount of rhetoric from the other side, short of a positive test.
My personal opinion is that Lance is clean; he just has too much to lose by being proven to have used dope. I'm very saddened to hear people try and minimize what he's done by insinuating he's been juiced. I'll choose to be naive over being a cynic any day. Lemond's comments have tarnished my image of him.
|Can't we all just get alnong :-)||Mike K|
Aug 3, 2001 10:35 AM
|If, and since no evidence exists that he is taking banned substances, the rampant accusation is that Armstrong is taking drugs that have not been banned then, by extension, how can he be doping?
Many of us, myself included, take stuff to help enhance our performance on the bike: I drink a pre-ride drink like Cytomax or just Gatorade, sometimes I drink CytoSport while I ride, and I usually eat a Jogmate Muscle Recovery bar after my rider - all of these things are "performance enhances," at least they are claimed to be. And I use then because I believe they help me ride longer and stronger.
None of these products are banned, even though they may have the effect of enhancing performance, therefore I'm not doping.
I think that arguing that someone is a doper even if he admits (which is not the case here) to taking substances that are not banned is absurd. Dope is defined as a drug used ILLEGALLY. UCI keeps a pretty lengthy list of drugs considered illegal to the sport and does some pretty extensive testing.
Anyway, how do we know that LeMond was not hopped up of something when he won? I don't think he was, I hope he was not, but there is no way I can prove that he was not. Personally, I just wish he would have chosen his words a bit more carefully.
It seems that fans are polarized between the only two well known American cycling figures. If you like Lance you better hate Greg, etc. Just does not make sense.
If you are going to argue that Armstrong could not come back from cancer to win without drugs how can you argue that LeMond could come back from getting half his a$$ shot off to win twice without them as well?
I hope that both of them are/were clean. I want to be able to celebrate BOTH of their achievements.
|Did Lemond dope?||E3|
Aug 3, 2001 11:19 AM
|He was winning during a time when testing was much less sophisticated (was there any testing at all?). Surely performance enhancer usage was rampant in the '80s, as it has traditionally been in the pro ranks.
I haven't noticed anyone pressing Lemond on his drug usage. Maybe they have somewhere, but I haven't seen it. Like LA, he came back from a devastating physical setback. Did he do it au natural? Mmmm.....
|Did Lemond dope?||jbrown2036|
Aug 3, 2001 11:48 AM
|Nope. Actually, in the Peloton the consenus is that he was clean or rode "auclear".|
|Love goes out the door when money flies innuendo. Groucho Marx||Tom C|
Aug 3, 2001 6:29 PM
|re: Lemond = Sore loser||jkgrossi|
Aug 4, 2001 7:37 AM
|I have to admit that as a huge fan of Lemond, I was a little disapointed in his comments regarding Lance's association w/Ferrari. To make a judgement on Lance based soley on an association that he has is not fair. I think that it shows integrety on Lance's part to stick by Ferrari in light of his reputation. It just doesn't make sense to me why someone in Lance's position would use illegal performance enhancing drugs when he has so much at risk. Aside from professional risk, what about risk on his life. He went through hell during his cancer treatment; why would he put himself in a position to potentially end up back in therepy? Besides, it's not like Lance doesn't have a great track record - World Champion at age 21 less than a year after turning pro, a Tour de France stage win in the same year etc. Why is it such a surprise that he has gone on to win the TDF? Lance was always regarded as a cyclist with a lot of potential. In '96 American Cycling took a big hit - Lance's diagnosis, a major American sponsor pulling out (Motorolla), withdrawl of the Tour DuPont (the U.S.'s only significant stage race that attracted European racers). Lance's victorys in the past three years has done so much to put a spark back in American Cycling. If anything, Lemond should have given Lance the benefit of the doubt. I think that it just looks bad for Lemond to be so critical of Lance. As far as performance enhancing substances, what do you think of Cytomax? I have a friend that I go riding with who always uses it, and while the rest of us are suffering from Lactic Acid build up, he's still flying. I tried it a couple of times, and it made a huge difference in how long I could sustain my LT pace! If I use this in a race and everyone else doesn't, wouldn't that be regarded as an unfair advantage on my part? If Lance isn't using anyting that is "Illegal" (and, btw, he is tested every day while wearing the Yellow Jersey), I dont' see what the problem is. What if tomorrow they make Cytomax illegal? Would I have been considered to have been "doping" while I was using it? In the end, Lemond's comments aren't worthy of a champion.|| |