Lemond / Armstrong relationship (was end of interview.)

"Michael" wrote in
:

Why don't they like each other?

I think they do get along now. There were various periods when the two were
at odds, most recently over some comments Lemond made after Armstrong's
2001 win: "If Lance is clean, it is the greatest comeback in the history of
sport. If he isn't, it would be the greatest fraud."

See the tail-end of this New Yorker profile
http://www.michaelspecter.com/ny/200..._15_lance.html

TimBenz wrote in message . 196...
"Michael" wrote in
:

Why don't they like each other?

I think they do get along now. There were various periods when the two were
at odds, most recently over some comments Lemond made after Armstrong's
2001 win: "If Lance is clean, it is the greatest comeback in the history of
sport. If he isn't, it would be the greatest fraud."

See the tail-end of this New Yorker profile
http://www.michaelspecter.com/ny/200..._15_lance.html

Doesn't Lance get dope tests after each event? Or before/during the
TDF? After his win in Stage 15 (Bagnères-de-Bigorre Luz-Ardiden),
didn't they give Lance a dope test? At least, this is what I read in
this month's SI.

Doesn't Lance get dope tests after each event? Or before/during the
TDF? After his win in Stage 15 (Bagnères-de-Bigorre Luz-Ardiden),
didn't they give Lance a dope test? At least, this is what I read in
this month's SI.

Passing a dope test doesn't mean you're clean.

Passing a dope means you are clean .... just give up, won't you? Lance is
the man.
"Kyle Legate" wrote in message
s.com...
Doesn't Lance get dope tests after each event? Or before/during the
TDF? After his win in Stage 15 (Bagnères-de-Bigorre Luz-Ardiden),
didn't they give Lance a dope test? At least, this is what I read in
this month's SI.

Passing a dope test doesn't mean you're clean.

"Hank Sniadoch" wrote in message
...
Passing a dope means you are clean .... just give up, won't you? Lance is
the man.

And you are what? His girl?

lol

Dashii

"Hank Sniadoch" wrote in message
...
Passing a dope means you are clean .... just give up, won't you? Lance is
the man.
"Kyle Legate" wrote in message
s.com...
Doesn't Lance get dope tests after each event? Or before/during the
TDF? After his win in Stage 15 (Bagnères-de-Bigorre Luz-Ardiden),
didn't they give Lance a dope test? At least, this is what I read in
this month's SI.

Passing a dope test doesn't mean you're clean.



Passing a dope test means you have not been detected for any banned
substances, which is not the same as clean.

At this point in time every vested interest in cycling is in maintaining
the status quo. ie: "The riders are clean" "The sport is clean" and ergo
"Lance is clean".

Even if a top rider tested positive according to the levels set
right now I would suspect it is in the best interest of the UCI or
Tour de (any tour) to allow the rider to continue and conceal the
positive results.

A random inconsequential rider should be found testing positive at each
event to make appearances look good.

We know from studies that all of these athletes are within a few percent
of each other and we know from studies that the advantage gained from a
single doping procedure or substance can be as great as 8%. It only goes
to follow that any cyclist that tests positive and is not winning the
tour is a clear indication that everyone ahead of him is doping.

There are those that argue that the finishing order remains the same and
the 'dopers' all are on a level playing field. The equation has now
become n * EPO + n * HGH + n * IGF + n * corticosteroids,
bronchodilators, vasodilators and vasoconstrictors, potent analgesics
creatine (etc) = winner

To some this is acceptable but to riders that ride clean it is
detestable.

I have been gather information that makes me certain that for the most
part almost all athletes in all sports use procedures or substances that
violate the rules or the spirit of the rules in almost every sport and
at almost every level once economic gain is perceived by the athlete or
his handlers.

I don't know why Lemond is so upset about Lance's doping. There is quite
a bit of evidence that Lemond used procedures and substances while
working with Eddie B and beyond.

Armstrong has right to be upset as there is usually a code of silence
among criminals.



--
--------------------------
Posted via cyclingforums.com
http://www.cyclingforums.com

never_doped wrote in news:3f2dac60$1_2
@news.chariot.net.au:

At this point in time every vested interest in cycling is in maintaining
the status quo. ie: "The riders are clean" "The sport is clean" and ergo
"Lance is clean".

Very well put note. Your thoughts and sentiments, while certainly
unvarnished, mirror mine very closely.

T.

"never_doped" wrote in message
...
At this point in time every vested interest in cycling is in maintaining
the status quo. ie: "The riders are clean" "The sport is clean" and ergo
"Lance is clean".

Even if a top rider tested positive according to the levels set
right now I would suspect it is in the best interest of the UCI or
Tour de (any tour) to allow the rider to continue and conceal the
positive results.

A random inconsequential rider should be found testing positive at each
event to make appearances look good.

We know from studies that all of these athletes are within a few percent
of each other and we know from studies that the advantage gained from a
single doping procedure or substance can be as great as 8%. It only goes
to follow that any cyclist that tests positive and is not winning the
tour is a clear indication that everyone ahead of him is doping.

There are those that argue that the finishing order remains the same and
the 'dopers' all are on a level playing field. The equation has now
become n * EPO + n * HGH + n * IGF + n * corticosteroids,
bronchodilators, vasodilators and vasoconstrictors, potent analgesics
creatine (etc) = winner

To some this is acceptable but to riders that ride clean it is
detestable.

I have been gather information that makes me certain that for the most
part almost all athletes in all sports use procedures or substances that
violate the rules or the spirit of the rules in almost every sport and
at almost every level once economic gain is perceived by the athlete or
his handlers.

I don't know why Lemond is so upset about Lance's doping. There is quite
a bit of evidence that Lemond used procedures and substances while
working with Eddie B and beyond.

Armstrong has right to be upset as there is usually a code of silence
among criminals.


A very interesting and eloquent post. Unfortunately, it's long on innuendo
and short on evidence.

Bob C.

"never_doped" wrote in message
...

Even if a top rider tested positive according to the levels set
right now I would suspect it is in the best interest of the UCI or
Tour de (any tour) to allow the rider to continue and conceal the
positive results.

Remember, Pantani got booted out of the 1999 Giro when he was in pink.

We know from studies that all of these athletes are within a few percent
of each other and we know from studies that the advantage gained from a
single doping procedure or substance can be as great as 8%. It only goes
to follow that any cyclist that tests positive and is not winning the
tour is a clear indication that everyone ahead of him is doping.

That's not true. I could dope up to the max, enter even a domestic pro race
and be in the bottom half. That doesn't mean everyone ahead of me is doped.

Some riders dope up in amateur levels just to make it to the pro level.
After that, they go nowhere.

There are those that argue that the finishing order remains the same and
the 'dopers' all are on a level playing field. The equation has now
become n * EPO + n * HGH + n * IGF + n * corticosteroids,
bronchodilators, vasodilators and vasoconstrictors, potent analgesics
creatine (etc) = winner

IGF? What's that?

I have been gather information that makes me certain that for the most
part almost all athletes in all sports use procedures or substances that
violate the rules or the spirit of the rules in almost every sport and
at almost every level once economic gain is perceived by the athlete or
his handlers.

Of course. Just like there is insider trading in amont the corporate higher
ups in the stock market.

I don't know why Lemond is so upset about Lance's doping. There is quite
a bit of evidence that Lemond used procedures and substances while
working with Eddie B and beyond.

This is just speculation of course, but I think Lemond is upset at being sup
erceded as the greatest ever American cyclist. He probably didn't imagine
that his reign would end so soon.