Agreed: LeMond was the greatest [Archive]

--D-y

February 25th 12, 07:08 PM

On Feb 25, 8:43*am, "Dave Lee" > wrote:
> >"--D-y" *wrote in message
> ....
> >On Feb 24, 1:22 pm, cicero venatio > wrote:
> >> Can we all agree now that Greg LeMond was America's greatest Tour
> >> rider?
> >When did "now" start? I mean, what happened to start a new now, or
> >whatever it is that you might be possibly be referencing-- giving you
> >the credit for "referencing" anything?
> >Short answer: No.
> >--D-y
>
> How about 'now' being the time/date stamp of the post - DUH!

I'll try again.
When did "now" start? I mean, what happened-- IF ANYTHING-- to start a
"new 'now'", or whatever it is that the OP might possibly be
referencing?
Since there was no answer from the OP, I can only guess that there
wasn't some event, happening, court finding, etc. etc. that might have
somehow changed Greg Lemond's "ugliest loser" status.

IOW, for example: despite the howling from some quarters, the expected
(in some quarters) legal prosecution of Lance Armstrong et al. was
dropped. That's the latest news I remember seeing. I could have easily
missed some sort of news or "intelligence" regarding, for example, the
drive (from some quarters) to take one or more of Lance Armstrong's
Tour de France victories away from him. That's the only way Greg
Lemond is going to somehow climb back up to the top of the "America's
Greatest Tour Rider" ladder. Not forgetting for a New York second that
Greg Lemond fit the "doper profile", himself.

Did that help with your "duh" problem?
--D-y

Dave Lee

February 26th 12, 02:17 AM

"--D-y" wrote in message
...

>I'll try again.
>When did "now" start? I mean, what happened-- IF ANYTHING-- to start a
>"new 'now'", or whatever it is that the OP might possibly be
>referencing?
>Since there was no answer from the OP, I can only guess that there
>wasn't some event, happening, court finding, etc. etc. that might have
somehow changed Greg Lemond's "ugliest loser" status.

>IOW, for example: despite the howling from some quarters, the expected
>(in some quarters) legal prosecution of Lance Armstrong et al. was
>dropped. That's the latest news I remember seeing. I could have easily
>missed some sort of news or "intelligence" regarding, for example, the
>drive (from some quarters) to take one or more of Lance Armstrong's
>Tour de France victories away from him. That's the only way Greg
>Lemond is going to somehow climb back up to the top of the "America's
>Greatest Tour Rider" ladder. Not forgetting for a New York second that
>Greg Lemond fit the "doper profile", himself.

>Did that help with your "duh" problem?
>--D-y

The post above attempting to make the concept of 'now' something requiring
an explanation speaks for itself and I have nothing to add.

dave

Fredmaster of Brainerd

February 26th 12, 04:00 AM

On Feb 25, 7:17*pm, "Dave Lee" > wrote:
>
> The post above attempting to make the concept of 'now' something requiring
> an explanation speaks for itself and I have nothing to add.
>

With the new retroactive results-altering regime at the
UCI/WADA, all determinations of "greatest rider"
and other hero-worship are "now." Tomorrow, the
greatest rider of all time may be different. Live for
the moment.

It's all very be-here-now, Baba Ram Dass of them.

Fredmaster Ben
RBR Guru

Brad Anders

February 26th 12, 04:00 AM

On Feb 24, 12:22*pm, cicero venatio > wrote:
> Can we all agree now that Greg LeMond was America's greatest Tour
> rider?

Andy Hampsten was the greatest, because he won the Giro by winning the
Stelvio stage in the snow and beating that Dutch guy. Greg Lemond
never did that.

Simply Fred

February 26th 12, 09:47 AM

Fredmaster of Brainerd wrote:
> With the new retroactive results-altering regime at the
> UCI/WADA, all determinations of "greatest rider"
> and other hero-worship are "now." Tomorrow, the
> greatest rider of all time may be different. Live for
> the moment.

<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xmUZ6nCFNoU>

--D-y

February 26th 12, 01:35 PM

On Feb 25, 8:17*pm, "Dave Lee" > wrote:
> "--D-y" *wrote in message
>
> ...
>
> >I'll try again.
> >When did "now" start? I mean, what happened-- IF ANYTHING-- to start a
> >"new 'now'", or whatever it is that the OP might possibly be
> >referencing?
> >Since there was no answer from the OP, I can only guess that there
> >wasn't some event, happening, court finding, etc. etc. that might have
>
> somehow changed Greg Lemond's "ugliest loser" status.
>
> >IOW, for example: despite the howling from some quarters, the expected
> >(in some quarters) legal prosecution of Lance Armstrong et al. was
> >dropped. That's the latest news I remember seeing. I could have easily
> >missed some sort of news or "intelligence" regarding, for example, the
> >drive (from some quarters) to take one or more of Lance Armstrong's
> >Tour de France victories away from him. That's the only way Greg
> >Lemond is going to somehow climb back up to the top of the "America's
> >Greatest Tour Rider" ladder. Not forgetting for a New York second that
> >Greg Lemond fit the "doper profile", himself.
> >Did that help with your "duh" problem?
> >--D-y
>
> The post above attempting to make the concept of 'now' something requiring
> an explanation speaks for itself and I have nothing to add.

You didn't have anything to add except "duh"-- remember?

Kind of like pretending something had happened to re-elevate a former
"hero" to his former (old, old history) "greatest whatever" status.
Before he became the Greatest Ever Alcoholic Whiner Hypocrite and
dupe of the "drug crusaders" in the Press. Which IMHO was real "duh".
"Hey, let's get that rummy up there in front of the cameras and get
him going! This should be good!".
--D-y

Randall

February 27th 12, 03:52 AM

Let's get real here. With 7 tour de frances and sevaral classic wins
there is no comparison to Greg Lemond. Despite 3 tdf wins Greg never
won a classic in his career. One can argue that the won World road
championhip, but that is technically not a classic.

On Feb 24, 11:22*am, cicero venatio > wrote:
> Can we all agree now that Greg LeMond was America's greatest Tour
> rider?

DirtRoadie

February 27th 12, 04:37 AM

On Feb 26, 8:52*pm, Randall > wrote:
> Let's get real here. With 7 tour de frances and sevaral classic wins
> there is no comparison to Greg Lemond. Despite 3 tdf wins Greg never
> won a classic in his career. One can argue that the won World road
> championhip, but that is technically not a classic.
>

And Lemond did have 2 WRC's, but LA had 1.
DR

Randall

February 27th 12, 04:46 AM

On Feb 26, 8:37*pm, DirtRoadie > wrote:
> On Feb 26, 8:52*pm, Randall > wrote:
>
> > Let's get real here. With 7 tour de frances and sevaral classic wins
> > there is no comparison to Greg Lemond. Despite 3 tdf wins Greg never
> > won a classic in his career. One can argue that the won World road
> > championhip, but that is technically not a classic.
>

Yes that's true, you cannot compare World Championship to the major
classics. The world championships does not relationship to to who is
doing well that season. Sean Kelly dominated the classics and never
won the world road championships.
> And Lemond did have 2 WRC's, *but LA had 1.
> DR

--D-y

February 27th 12, 04:11 PM

On Feb 26, 9:52*pm, Randall > wrote:
> Let's get real here. With 7 tour de frances and sevaral classic wins
> there is no comparison to Greg Lemond. Despite 3 tdf wins Greg never
> won a classic in his career. One can argue that the won World road
> championhip, but that is technically not a classic.

No Classics for Lance, either. Fleche Wallone, GP San Sebastian is as
close as he got.
Or, if you want to differentiate between "Classics" and "Monuments",
fine, and FW and San Sebastian can be included.

Point being, Greg could have kept his status as revered pioneer, and
far ahead of George Mount or Boyer. And "beating Hinault at his own
game", maybe.

Too bad. (He fit the doper profile. Which might have been forgotten in
the light of his true accomplishments on the bike.)
Sauce for the goose...
--D-y

Geraard Spergen[_3_]

February 27th 12, 10:42 PM

On Feb 27, 8:11*am, --D-y > wrote:
>
> No Classics for Lance, either. Fleche Wallone, GP San Sebastian is as
> close as he got.
> Or, if you want to differentiate between "Classics" and "Monuments",
> fine, and FW and San Sebastian can be included.
>

There are eight "orthodox" classics: the five monuments, the Flèche
Wallone,
Paris-Bruxelles, and Paris-Tours.

Clasica San Sebastian only counts in the most unorthodox of
definitions. Any looser and we'd have to include the Thrift Drug
Classic and the Nevada City Classic, wins at both ends of LANCE!s
career. So as of *now*, LANCE! is America's Greatest Classics Rider -
loosely defined or not.

--D-y

February 28th 12, 12:47 AM

On Feb 27, 4:42*pm, Geraard Spergen > wrote:
> On Feb 27, 8:11*am, --D-y > wrote:
>
>
>
> > No Classics for Lance, either. Fleche Wallone, GP San Sebastian is as
> > close as he got.
> > Or, if you want to differentiate between "Classics" and "Monuments",
> > fine, and FW and San Sebastian can be included.
>
> There are eight "orthodox" classics: the five monuments, the Flèche
> Wallone,
> Paris-Bruxelles, and Paris-Tours.
>
> Clasica San Sebastian only counts in the most unorthodox of
> definitions. *Any looser and we'd have to include the Thrift Drug
> Classic and the Nevada City Classic, wins at both ends of LANCE!s
> career. *So as of *now*, LANCE! is America's Greatest Classics Rider -
> loosely defined or not.

Thank you.
Dang. LA is both best Tour (de France) rider *and* the best Classics
rider.

At least Greg won more at Nevada City. It's something.
--D-y

Geraard Spergen[_3_]

February 28th 12, 12:52 AM

On Feb 27, 4:47*pm, --D-y > wrote:
>
> Thank you.
> Dang. LA is both best Tour (de France) rider *and* the best Classics
> rider.
>
> At least Greg won more at Nevada City. It's something.
> --D-y- Hide quoted text -

He's a virtual third to Hincapie in the Classics competition of
Americans.

--D-y

February 28th 12, 04:34 AM

On Feb 27, 6:52*pm, Geraard Spergen > wrote:
> On Feb 27, 4:47*pm, --D-y > wrote:
>
>
>
> > Thank you.
> > Dang. LA is both best Tour (de France) rider *and* the best Classics
> > rider.
>
> > At least Greg won more at Nevada City. It's something.
> > --D-y- Hide quoted text -
>
> He's a virtual third to Hincapie in the Classics competition of
> Americans.

That virtual thing really hurt Greg. Bad.
He was a hero and a pioneer. If he'd had anything approaching
Armstrong's drive to win, who knows what he might have *really*
accomplished.
--D-y

Ryan Cousineau

February 29th 12, 09:23 PM

On Feb 27, 8:34*pm, --D-y > wrote:
> On Feb 27, 6:52*pm, Geraard Spergen > wrote:
>
> > On Feb 27, 4:47*pm, --D-y > wrote:
>
> > > Thank you.
> > > Dang. LA is both best Tour (de France) rider *and* the best Classics
> > > rider.
>
> > > At least Greg won more at Nevada City. It's something.
> > > --D-y- Hide quoted text -
>
> > He's a virtual third to Hincapie in the Classics competition of
> > Americans.
>
> That virtual thing really hurt Greg. Bad.
> He was a hero and a pioneer. If he'd had anything approaching
> Armstrong's drive to win, who knows what he might have *really*
> accomplished.

The "virtual win" thing is overblown by the bright lights here in rbr.
Greg gave an interview or two in which he speculated that, given the
right team dynamics at the start of his career, and better muzzle
discipline by his brother-in-law during the middle, he would have won
more.

DUH!

Admittedly, there's an "if 'ifs and buts' were fruits and nuts..."
quality to the argument (and everyone from Bartali to Merckx to
Contador has an excuse for why circumstance and misfortune reduced
their potential victories), but so what?

"Hurt" Greg's reputation. As if. Running up against Lance, both in
what he said and through the Trek/Lemond thing has hurt him magnitudes
more, both reputationally and financially.

And does anyone doubt that Greg is, fundamentally, _right_ most of the
time? Yes, the occasional gym-teacher "pas naturellement" argument and
demented public speaking engagement have been awful, but about the big
things, the things that actually did hurt his reputation, he's almost
certainly right.

So that leaves rbr received wisdom holding up pathetic "I don't like
the way he said it" arguments that, given the typical level of
discourse on rbr, are bat**** insane. Also, in the real world, once
you object to the way someone says something you don't like? It's not
them, it's you*.

*This isn't to say that rhetoricians should actually say it that way.
Choosing an alienating rhetorical tone is also stupid, unless you
don't actually care about convincing others. Full disclosure:
sometimes I get to a certain level of wading into some angry dumbass
rant that may have a kernel of truth to it, and I get...tired. Those
who would convince others should try to make their arguments good and
compelling. A lot of arguing (especially here in rbr**) is not done to
convince the doubtful or opposing. At best, it's about comforting the
like-minded, which is simply sad.

**rbr has the virtuous tendency to argue in bad faith for the purpose
of lulz. I can respect that, sort of.

--D-y

February 29th 12, 11:38 PM

On Feb 29, 3:23*pm, Ryan Cousineau > wrote:

> The "virtual win" thing is overblown by the bright lights here in rbr.

I disagree. It's only my opinion but it's one of the sourest things he
said. Why? Because he lacked the singleness of purpose, the dedication
to winning, that was Armstrong's forte. Remember when he "drove all
night" to the start of the TdF so he could bring wifey along, and the
look on Duclos-Lasalle's face (American TV coverage), the complete
disbelief that someone with a team depending on him would do such an
incredibly stupid thing, to start the Tour exhausted?

> Greg gave an interview or two in which he speculated that, given the
> right team dynamics at the start of his career, and better muzzle
> discipline by his brother-in-law during the middle, he would have won
> more.

Or if he had travelled with the team and left wifey at home to mind
the store like she was supposed to do, so he could train and race
properly...

> Admittedly, there's an "if 'ifs and buts' were fruits and nuts..."
> quality to the argument (and everyone from Bartali to Merckx to
> Contador has an excuse for why circumstance and misfortune reduced
> their potential victories), but so what?

Lance paid attention and won seven in a row.

> "Hurt" Greg's reputation. As if. Running up against Lance, both in
> what he said and through the Trek/Lemond thing has hurt him magnitudes
> more, both reputationally and financially.

Well, the point there is that he decided to take on Lance and Trek and
he lost. Then go to the motivation for taking on Lance and Trek, his
being eclipsed as "the best American Tour rider". And that, whether
Lance cheated or not.

> And does anyone doubt that Greg is, fundamentally, _right_ most of the
> time?

He can be "right" but he fit the doper profile, himself. Remember what
his father-in-law did for a living?

>Yes, the occasional gym-teacher "pas naturellement" argument and
> demented public speaking engagement have been awful, but about the big
> things, the things that actually did hurt his reputation, he's almost
> certainly right.

My point has always been that he should, and could, have kept his
mouth shut and bided his time.

> So that leaves rbr received wisdom holding up pathetic "I don't like
> the way he said it" arguments that, given the typical level of
> discourse on rbr, are bat**** insane. Also, in the real world, once
> you object to the way someone says something you don't like? It's not
> them, it's you*.

Let's put it this way: if Lemond had kept his mouth shut, where would
he be today? I mean, kept it shut even past all the "Lance is guilty"
stuff that came out later. What if he'd taken the high road, in other
words? There's a lot of wisdom in taking the high road.

I'm not talking about what "should be"; I'm talking about what is.

> *This isn't to say that rhetoricians should actually say it that way.
> Choosing an alienating rhetorical tone is also stupid, unless you
> don't actually care about convincing others. Full disclosure:
> sometimes I get to a certain level of wading into some angry dumbass
> rant that may have a kernel of truth to it, and I get...tired. Those
> who would convince others should try to make their arguments good and
> compelling. A lot of arguing (especially here in rbr**) is not done to
> convince the doubtful or opposing. At best, it's about comforting the
> like-minded, which is simply sad.

Another: "Pick your fights carefully".
--D-y

Frederick the Great

March 1st 12, 08:58 AM

In article
>,
Ryan Cousineau > wrote:

> And does anyone doubt that Greg is, fundamentally, _right_ most of the
> time?

I know he is not fundamentally right most of the time.

--
Old Fritz

Frederick the Great

March 1st 12, 09:03 AM

In article
>,
Ryan Cousineau > wrote:

> On Feb 27, 8:34Â*pm, --D-y > wrote:
> > On Feb 27, 6:52Â*pm, Geraard Spergen > wrote:
> >
> > > On Feb 27, 4:47Â*pm, --D-y > wrote:
> >
> > > > Thank you.
> > > > Dang. LA is both best Tour (de France) rider *and* the best Classics
> > > > rider.
> >
> > > > At least Greg won more at Nevada City. It's something.
> > > > --D-y- Hide quoted text -
> >
> > > He's a virtual third to Hincapie in the Classics competition of
> > > Americans.
> >
> > That virtual thing really hurt Greg. Bad.
> > He was a hero and a pioneer. If he'd had anything approaching
> > Armstrong's drive to win, who knows what he might have *really*
> > accomplished.
>
> The "virtual win" thing is overblown by the bright lights here in rbr.
> Greg gave an interview or two in which he speculated that, given the
> right team dynamics at the start of his career, and better muzzle
> discipline by his brother-in-law during the middle, he would have won
> more.
>
> DUH!
>
> Admittedly, there's an "if 'ifs and buts' were fruits and nuts..."
> quality to the argument (and everyone from Bartali to Merckx to
> Contador has an excuse for why circumstance and misfortune reduced
> their potential victories), but so what?
>
> "Hurt" Greg's reputation. As if. Running up against Lance, both in
> what he said and through the Trek/Lemond thing has hurt him magnitudes
> more, both reputationally and financially.
>
> And does anyone doubt that Greg is, fundamentally, _right_ most of the
> time? Yes, the occasional gym-teacher "pas naturellement" argument and
> demented public speaking engagement have been awful, but about the big
> things, the things that actually did hurt his reputation, he's almost
> certainly right.
>
> So that leaves rbr received wisdom holding up pathetic "I don't like
> the way he said it" arguments that, given the typical level of
> discourse on rbr, are bat**** insane. Also, in the real world, once
> you object to the way someone says something you don't like? It's not
> them, it's you*.
>
> *This isn't to say that rhetoricians should actually say it that way.
> Choosing an alienating rhetorical tone is also stupid, unless you
> don't actually care about convincing others. Full disclosure:
> sometimes I get to a certain level of wading into some angry dumbass
> rant that may have a kernel of truth to it, and I get...tired. Those
> who would convince others should try to make their arguments good and
> compelling. A lot of arguing (especially here in rbr**) is not done to
> convince the doubtful or opposing. At best, it's about comforting the
> like-minded, which is simply sad.
>
> **rbr has the virtuous tendency to argue in bad faith for the purpose
> of lulz. I can respect that, sort of.

Many accusations here. Even though you
acknowledge lulz, most of the time you
do not get the joke. You can always tell
a Canadian, but you cannot tell him much.

--
Old Fritz

Steve Freides[_2_]

March 1st 12, 01:41 PM

Frederick the Great wrote:

> You can always tell a Canadian, but you cannot tell him much.

rof,l - hadn't heard that one before.

Could we have a new thread in this forum, please?

-S-

--D-y

March 1st 12, 02:30 PM

On Mar 1, 3:03*am, Frederick the Great > wrote:
> In article
> >,
> *Ryan Cousineau > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Feb 27, 8:34*pm, --D-y > wrote:
> > > On Feb 27, 6:52*pm, Geraard Spergen > wrote:
>
> > > > On Feb 27, 4:47*pm, --D-y > wrote:
>
> > > > > Thank you.
> > > > > Dang. LA is both best Tour (de France) rider *and* the best Classics
> > > > > rider.
>
> > > > > At least Greg won more at Nevada City. It's something.
> > > > > --D-y- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > > He's a virtual third to Hincapie in the Classics competition of
> > > > Americans.
>
> > > That virtual thing really hurt Greg. Bad.
> > > He was a hero and a pioneer. If he'd had anything approaching
> > > Armstrong's drive to win, who knows what he might have *really*
> > > accomplished.
>
> > The "virtual win" thing is overblown by the bright lights here in rbr.
> > Greg gave an interview or two in which he speculated that, given the
> > right team dynamics at the start of his career, and better muzzle
> > discipline by his brother-in-law during the middle, he would have won
> > more.
>
> > DUH!
>
> > Admittedly, there's an "if 'ifs and buts' were fruits and nuts..."
> > quality to the argument (and everyone from Bartali to Merckx to
> > Contador has an excuse for why circumstance and misfortune reduced
> > their potential victories), but so what?
>
> > "Hurt" Greg's reputation. As if. Running up against Lance, both in
> > what he said and through the Trek/Lemond thing has hurt him magnitudes
> > more, both reputationally and financially.
>
> > And does anyone doubt that Greg is, fundamentally, _right_ most of the
> > time? Yes, the occasional gym-teacher "pas naturellement" argument and
> > demented public speaking engagement have been awful, but about the big
> > things, the things that actually did hurt his reputation, he's almost
> > certainly right.
>
> > So that leaves rbr received wisdom holding up pathetic "I don't like
> > the way he said it" arguments that, given the typical level of
> > discourse on rbr, are bat**** insane. Also, in the real world, once
> > you object to the way someone says something you don't like? It's not
> > them, it's you*.
>
> > *This isn't to say that rhetoricians should actually say it that way.
> > Choosing an alienating rhetorical tone is also stupid, unless you
> > don't actually care about convincing others. Full disclosure:
> > sometimes I get to a certain level of wading into some angry dumbass
> > rant that may have a kernel of truth to it, and I get...tired. Those
> > who would convince others should try to make their arguments good and
> > compelling. A lot of arguing (especially here in rbr**) is not done to
> > convince the doubtful or opposing. At best, it's about comforting the
> > like-minded, which is simply sad.
>
> > **rbr has the virtuous tendency to argue in bad faith for the purpose
> > of lulz. I can respect that, sort of.
>
> Many accusations here. Even though you
> acknowledge lulz, most of the time you
> do not get the joke. You can always tell
> a Canadian, but you cannot tell him much.

One last try???
"Admire the deeds, not the person".

And another (I'm a sucker for our Friends to the North):
As a friend who used to be on a "team" and had a "record" (and has a
IMHO healthy perspective) once said: "They're just people who happen
to be able to ride a bike fast".
--D-y

Anton Berlin

March 2nd 12, 02:13 AM

Lemond doped

dave a

March 2nd 12, 02:33 AM

On 3/1/2012 6:13 PM, Anton Berlin wrote:
> Lemond doped

This entire thread really begs the obvious question, who was the
greatest doper in cycling? Assuming that doping of one sort or another
has been around since the beginning of the sport, which cyclist used
PEDs to the best advantage? And how do you measure that? Most negative
tests? Fastest Alpe d'Huez time? Most wins? Hour record?

Strangely, except for the first, all of the measures you might use are
basically the same one would use to answer the question of who is the
best cyclist of all time. In that case, all this talk of doping is
pointless and we really should get back to something more racing-like.

- dave a

Fredmaster of Brainerd

March 2nd 12, 03:47 AM

On Wednesday, February 29, 2012 2:23:41 PM UTC-7, Ryan Cousineau wrote:
>
> And does anyone doubt that Greg is, fundamentally, _right_ most of the
> time? Yes, the occasional gym-teacher "pas naturellement" argument and
> demented public speaking engagement have been awful, but about the big
> things, the things that actually did hurt his reputation, he's almost
> certainly right.
>
> So that leaves rbr received wisdom holding up pathetic "I don't like
> the way he said it" arguments that, given the typical level of
> discourse on rbr, are bat**** insane. Also, in the real world, once
> you object to the way someone says something you don't like? It's not
> them, it's you*.

Greg is right the way Lafferty is right. They are
all in fact dopers. However, both Greg and Lafferty
make accusations without evidence, or with ridiculous
evidence. An argument that uses fallacious or unprincipled
logic (or no logic) to reach a conclusion that happens to
be true is not "right."

It's the old "Even a guilty man can be framed" principle.

Also, Greg's become a huge irritating nut who thinks
the world is out to get him for his position as beacon
of truth. I honestly couldn't really care. I'm just
tapping his telephone to be mean.

Fredmaster Ben

Simply Fred

March 2nd 12, 08:22 AM

Fredmaster of Brainerd wrote:
> I'm just tapping his telephone to be mean.

Ah, so rbr has its own Dept. of Homeland Security.

A. Dumas[_2_]

March 2nd 12, 04:24 PM

On 02/03/2012 04:47, Fredmaster of Brainerd wrote:
> I'm just tapping his telephone

Eeew.

--D-y

March 3rd 12, 12:42 AM

On Mar 1, 9:47*pm, Fredmaster of Brainerd > wrote:

> Greg is right the way Lafferty is right. *They are
> all in fact dopers. *However, both Greg and Lafferty
> make accusations without evidence, or with ridiculous
> evidence. *An argument that uses fallacious or unprincipled
> logic (or no logic) to reach a conclusion that happens to
> be true is not "right."

Lafferty convinced me that Lemond doped. But Laff was still glad to
see Lemond's performances IRT Lance doping.

"We knew they were doping".
--D-y

Frederick the Great

March 3rd 12, 08:56 PM

In article
>,
--D-y > wrote:

> On Mar 1, 3:03Â*am, Frederick the Great > wrote:
> > In article
> > >,
> > Â*Ryan Cousineau > wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > > On Feb 27, 8:34Â*pm, --D-y > wrote:
> > > > On Feb 27, 6:52Â*pm, Geraard Spergen > wrote:
> >
> > > > > On Feb 27, 4:47Â*pm, --D-y > wrote:
> >
> > > > > > Thank you.
> > > > > > Dang. LA is both best Tour (de France) rider *and* the best Classics
> > > > > > rider.
> >
> > > > > > At least Greg won more at Nevada City. It's something.
> > > > > > --D-y- Hide quoted text -
> >
> > > > > He's a virtual third to Hincapie in the Classics competition of
> > > > > Americans.
> >
> > > > That virtual thing really hurt Greg. Bad.
> > > > He was a hero and a pioneer. If he'd had anything approaching
> > > > Armstrong's drive to win, who knows what he might have *really*
> > > > accomplished.
> >
> > > The "virtual win" thing is overblown by the bright lights here in rbr.
> > > Greg gave an interview or two in which he speculated that, given the
> > > right team dynamics at the start of his career, and better muzzle
> > > discipline by his brother-in-law during the middle, he would have won
> > > more.
> >
> > > DUH!
> >
> > > Admittedly, there's an "if 'ifs and buts' were fruits and nuts..."
> > > quality to the argument (and everyone from Bartali to Merckx to
> > > Contador has an excuse for why circumstance and misfortune reduced
> > > their potential victories), but so what?
> >
> > > "Hurt" Greg's reputation. As if. Running up against Lance, both in
> > > what he said and through the Trek/Lemond thing has hurt him magnitudes
> > > more, both reputationally and financially.
> >
> > > And does anyone doubt that Greg is, fundamentally, _right_ most of the
> > > time? Yes, the occasional gym-teacher "pas naturellement" argument and
> > > demented public speaking engagement have been awful, but about the big
> > > things, the things that actually did hurt his reputation, he's almost
> > > certainly right.
> >
> > > So that leaves rbr received wisdom holding up pathetic "I don't like
> > > the way he said it" arguments that, given the typical level of
> > > discourse on rbr, are bat**** insane. Also, in the real world, once
> > > you object to the way someone says something you don't like? It's not
> > > them, it's you*.
> >
> > > *This isn't to say that rhetoricians should actually say it that way.
> > > Choosing an alienating rhetorical tone is also stupid, unless you
> > > don't actually care about convincing others. Full disclosure:
> > > sometimes I get to a certain level of wading into some angry dumbass
> > > rant that may have a kernel of truth to it, and I get...tired. Those
> > > who would convince others should try to make their arguments good and
> > > compelling. A lot of arguing (especially here in rbr**) is not done to
> > > convince the doubtful or opposing. At best, it's about comforting the
> > > like-minded, which is simply sad.
> >
> > > **rbr has the virtuous tendency to argue in bad faith for the purpose
> > > of lulz. I can respect that, sort of.
> >
> > Many accusations here. Even though you
> > acknowledge lulz, most of the time you
> > do not get the joke. You can always tell
> > a Canadian, but you cannot tell him much.
>
> One last try???
> "Admire the deeds, not the person".

Does not compute. The deeds comprise the man.

> And another (I'm a sucker for our Friends to the North):
> As a friend who used to be on a "team" and had a "record" (and has a
> IMHO healthy perspective) once said: "They're just people who happen
> to be able to ride a bike fast".

So long as they just ride a bike fast and do not
put themselves in the public eye. Recently
Tyler Farrar made an intemperate remark.
Afterward he said (paraphrasing) that we all
say intemperate things, but he has the advantage
that his are broadcast immediately to the whole,
wide world.

--
Old Fritz

Ryan Cousineau

March 6th 12, 02:13 AM

On Feb 29, 3:38*pm, --D-y > wrote:
> On Feb 29, 3:23*pm, Ryan Cousineau > wrote:
>
> > The "virtual win" thing is overblown by the bright lights here in rbr.
>
> I disagree. It's only my opinion but it's one of the sourest things he
> said. Why? Because he lacked the singleness of purpose, the dedication
> to winning, that was Armstrong's forte. Remember when he "drove all
> night" to the start of the TdF so he could bring wifey along, and the
> look on Duclos-Lasalle's face (American TV coverage), the complete
> disbelief that someone with a team depending on him would do such an
> incredibly stupid thing, to start the Tour exhausted?

I'll grant you that Lance had more will to win, in so many ways (Lance
focused exclusively on racing the TdF in a way that LeMond did not,
and I hadn't heard the drove-all-night story). But the most obvious
"virtual" wins were in the two years where he was recuperating from
shotgunning. But sour? This is not an extraordinarily sour thing to
say, and as far as I know, he has not dwelt much on it. Virtual wins
are not a recurring theme in Lemond's public speech (whereas doping
is), only in rbr. You can find a hundred athletes who are on the
record musing about what might have been, and while lots of athletes
love pretending they have complete control over outcomes, many are
smart enough to acknowledge the role of chance in sports. And when the
athletes themselves don't claim virtual wins, their fans routinely do
it for them. I did it in this thread for Bartali. Every injury-
shortened athletic career ever gets this theme.

> Let's put it this way: if Lemond had kept his mouth shut, where would
> he be today? I mean, kept it shut even past all the "Lance is guilty"
> stuff that came out later. What if he'd taken the high road, in other
> words? There's a lot of wisdom in taking the high road.

High road? Omerta is the high road?

The answer is, Lemond would still have a bike business, what his uncle
did to him would still be his little secret, and...what else? I don't
judge the rightness of an act by the cost to the actor.

(However, the question of whether Lemond has changed public attitudes
towards doping is another question entirely. I can believe that Lemond
did what he thought was right for the noblest of reasons, but it had
no important effects. This is a worthy critique (why incur a cost for
no benefit?) but also one that assumes Greg could have predicted (or
should have anticipated) the actual outcome. He may have regarded the
present state of affairs as a possible, even probable, outcome, and
decided to make the bet regardless. I'm not Canadian enough to make
claims of special knowledge about Lemond's motives or desires, but I
can't reasonably assume the worst of motives).

> I'm not talking about what "should be"; I'm talking about what is.
>
> > *This isn't to say that rhetoricians should actually say it that way.
> > Choosing an alienating rhetorical tone is also stupid, unless you
> > don't actually care about convincing others. Full disclosure:
> > sometimes I get to a certain level of wading into some angry dumbass
> > rant that may have a kernel of truth to it, and I get...tired. Those
> > who would convince others should try to make their arguments good and
> > compelling. A lot of arguing (especially here in rbr**) is not done to
> > convince the doubtful or opposing. At best, it's about comforting the
> > like-minded, which is simply sad.
>
> Another: "Pick your fights carefully".

Being mad at Lemond because he lost is rbr-grade silly. Being mad at
Lemond because he said what we say in rbr twice a week is...ok, I'm
being trolled here. Canadians have no innate sense of sarcasm, so
gulling us is like convincing Americans to overeat: amusing, but not
impressive.

Oh, I can't resist! OK: I'm not putting myself out and using my bully
pulpit to tell people the Truth About Doping In Cycling. Nobody would
care if I did. People care if Lemond does. The problem with your line
of argument is, more or less, Lemond shouldn't tell the truth
because...why? This is, more or less, being mad at Ralph Nader for
saying the Corvair was dangerous.

Fred Flintstein

March 6th 12, 02:13 PM

On 3/5/2012 8:13 PM, Ryan Cousineau wrote:
> But the most obvious
> "virtual" wins were in the two years where he was recuperating from
> shotgunning.

He has repeatedly claimed 1985 as a virtual win, and he does
so to this day. That's nothing other than dishonest and is
the foundation for the crap he takes here.

He can only sell that in North America and only because his
friend Kent Gordis ****ed up the TV coverage here.

F

Steven Bornfeld[_2_]

March 6th 12, 05:18 PM

On 3/5/2012 9:13 PM, Ryan Cousineau wrote:
> On Feb 29, 3:38 pm, > wrote:
>> On Feb 29, 3:23 pm, Ryan > wrote:
>>
>>> The "virtual win" thing is overblown by the bright lights here in rbr.
>>
>> I disagree. It's only my opinion but it's one of the sourest things he
>> said. Why? Because he lacked the singleness of purpose, the dedication
>> to winning, that was Armstrong's forte. Remember when he "drove all
>> night" to the start of the TdF so he could bring wifey along, and the
>> look on Duclos-Lasalle's face (American TV coverage), the complete
>> disbelief that someone with a team depending on him would do such an
>> incredibly stupid thing, to start the Tour exhausted?
>
> I'll grant you that Lance had more will to win, in so many ways (Lance
> focused exclusively on racing the TdF in a way that LeMond did not,
> and I hadn't heard the drove-all-night story). But the most obvious
> "virtual" wins were in the two years where he was recuperating from
> shotgunning. But sour? This is not an extraordinarily sour thing to
> say, and as far as I know, he has not dwelt much on it. Virtual wins
> are not a recurring theme in Lemond's public speech (whereas doping
> is), only in rbr. You can find a hundred athletes who are on the
> record musing about what might have been, and while lots of athletes
> love pretending they have complete control over outcomes, many are
> smart enough to acknowledge the role of chance in sports. And when the
> athletes themselves don't claim virtual wins, their fans routinely do
> it for them. I did it in this thread for Bartali. Every injury-
> shortened athletic career ever gets this theme.
>
>> Let's put it this way: if Lemond had kept his mouth shut, where would
>> he be today? I mean, kept it shut even past all the "Lance is guilty"
>> stuff that came out later. What if he'd taken the high road, in other
>> words? There's a lot of wisdom in taking the high road.
>
> High road? Omerta is the high road?
>
> The answer is, Lemond would still have a bike business, what his uncle
> did to him would still be his little secret, and...what else? I don't
> judge the rightness of an act by the cost to the actor.
>
> (However, the question of whether Lemond has changed public attitudes
> towards doping is another question entirely. I can believe that Lemond
> did what he thought was right for the noblest of reasons, but it had
> no important effects. This is a worthy critique (why incur a cost for
> no benefit?) but also one that assumes Greg could have predicted (or
> should have anticipated) the actual outcome. He may have regarded the
> present state of affairs as a possible, even probable, outcome, and
> decided to make the bet regardless. I'm not Canadian enough to make
> claims of special knowledge about Lemond's motives or desires, but I
> can't reasonably assume the worst of motives).
>
>> I'm not talking about what "should be"; I'm talking about what is.
>>
>>> *This isn't to say that rhetoricians should actually say it that way.
>>> Choosing an alienating rhetorical tone is also stupid, unless you
>>> don't actually care about convincing others. Full disclosure:
>>> sometimes I get to a certain level of wading into some angry dumbass
>>> rant that may have a kernel of truth to it, and I get...tired. Those
>>> who would convince others should try to make their arguments good and
>>> compelling. A lot of arguing (especially here in rbr**) is not done to
>>> convince the doubtful or opposing. At best, it's about comforting the
>>> like-minded, which is simply sad.
>>
>> Another: "Pick your fights carefully".
>
> Being mad at Lemond because he lost is rbr-grade silly. Being mad at
> Lemond because he said what we say in rbr twice a week is...ok, I'm
> being trolled here. Canadians have no innate sense of sarcasm, so
> gulling us is like convincing Americans to overeat: amusing, but not
> impressive.
>
> Oh, I can't resist! OK: I'm not putting myself out and using my bully
> pulpit to tell people the Truth About Doping In Cycling. Nobody would
> care if I did. People care if Lemond does. The problem with your line
> of argument is, more or less, Lemond shouldn't tell the truth
> because...why? This is, more or less, being mad at Ralph Nader for
> saying the Corvair was dangerous.

Only if GL rand for POTUS and drew enough votes from BO so that MR got in.

S.

--
Mark & Steven Bornfeld DDS
http://www.dentaltwins.com
Brooklyn, NY
718-258-5001

--D-y

March 6th 12, 07:34 PM

On Mar 5, 8:13*pm, Ryan Cousineau > wrote:
> But the most obvious
> "virtual" wins were in the two years where he was recuperating from
> shotgunning. But sour? This is not an extraordinarily sour thing to
> say, and as far as I know, he has not dwelt much on it. Virtual wins
> are not a recurring theme in Lemond's public speech (whereas doping
> is), only in rbr. You can find a hundred athletes who are on the
> record musing about what might have been, and while lots of athletes
> love pretending they have complete control over outcomes, many are
> smart enough to acknowledge the role of chance in sports. And when the
> athletes themselves don't claim virtual wins, their fans routinely do
> it for them. I did it in this thread for Bartali. Every injury-
> shortened athletic career ever gets this theme.
>
> > Let's put it this way: if Lemond had kept his mouth shut, where would
> > he be today? I mean, kept it shut even past all the "Lance is guilty"
> > stuff that came out later. What if he'd taken the high road, in other
> > words? There's a lot of wisdom in taking the high road.
>
> High road? Omerta is the high road?

Touché, but only in admiration for your rhetorical skill. Because
"mitochondrial myopathy" that Lemond allegedly suffered from can be a
tell-tale for steroid use.
That's "doper profile" and frankly, people who live in glass houses
and have MD father-in-laws who are "blood specialists" probably
shouldn't be throwing stones even if they don't have urine or blood
samples stored and ready for retro-testing and they know their
opponents do.

And there very much is a "high road" in Omerta. Indurain seems to have
taken it. "Silence" is maybe the most direct, and even "easiest" path,
but failing that, Lemond could have been a whole lot smarter in what
he said and still been "truthful".

> The answer is, Lemond would still have a bike business, what his uncle
> did to him would still be his little secret, and...what else? I don't
> judge the rightness of an act by the cost to the actor.

There's truth whole truth nothing but the truth and then there's
practicality, consideration of consequences, and even "tact".

I'd go so far as to say that if Greg wanted to take on Lance
Armstrong, he could have been a whole lot more effective than he was,
by being at least a little bit clever about it.
Call it "high road" or whatever, the object is to get the peanut
butter out of the jar without getting it all over your hands instead
of on the bread, you know what I mean?

> (However, the question of whether Lemond has changed public attitudes
> towards doping is another question entirely. I can believe that Lemond
> did what he thought was right for the noblest of reasons, but it had
> no important effects. This is a worthy critique (why incur a cost for
> no benefit?) but also one that assumes Greg could have predicted (or
> should have anticipated) the actual outcome.

Totally with you there. The side-stories about his alcohol use didn't
help him any; he didn't admit having a problem there but it seems he
may well have had a lack of control on that front, also.

> He may have regarded the
> present state of affairs as a possible, even probable, outcome, and
> decided to make the bet regardless. I'm not Canadian enough to make
> claims of special knowledge about Lemond's motives or desires, but I
> can't reasonably assume the worst of motives).

Canadian got nothing to do with it, eh?

> Being mad at Lemond because he lost is rbr-grade silly. Being mad at
> Lemond because he said what we say in rbr twice a week is...ok, I'm
> being trolled here. Canadians have no innate sense of sarcasm, so
> gulling us is like convincing Americans to overeat: amusing, but not
> impressive.

Not mad, per se. Disappointed. Spoiled kid ---> grownup with no sense
of propriety, and no "nous", either.

> Oh, I can't resist! OK: I'm not putting myself out and using my bully
> pulpit to tell people the Truth About Doping In Cycling. Nobody would
> care if I did. People care if Lemond does. The problem with your line
> of argument is, more or less, Lemond shouldn't tell the truth
> because...why? This is, more or less, being mad at Ralph Nader for
> saying the Corvair was dangerous.

Ralph Nader made his bones by killing the Corvair, right about the
time that Chevrolet fixed the handling problem, with the '65 models.
Not to mention, he could have "picked on" lots of other early-to-late
60's cars. Like the Volkswagon bug, or even worse, the VW van. Give me
a break...

Um, "short but sweet": Lemond stepped on his dick, big time.
--D-y