Lemond calls for reform

iainf72

Few words from Greg

http://www.cyclingnews.com/features/lem ... ad-reforms

"I hope it's a bloodbath and a cleansing," he told Cyclingnews.

dave_1

the bloodbath and cleansing won't hit Greg's finances but hard to disagree in some ways ...2006 shows 1998-Festina did not change anything. Armstrong is who he wants taken down.., any price worth paying

dennisn

Dave_1 wrote:

.......... Armstrong is who he wants taken down.., any price worth paying

I tend to agree. It would seem that way. At least on the surface, but I'm betting a bit of revenge fits into the picture as opposed to it being all about "cleaning up the sport".
Who will come out on top? Can't even begin to speculate but I do know one thing. It won't do ANY of them involved in all this, one bit of good. Well, maybe in the books sales category it might.

micron

Why is it that Lemond's desire to clean up the sport - because it inevitably involves Armstrong - makes him 'out for revenge' or 'jealous'? Why are those with a desire to clean up the sport never seen as doing it simply and solely because they love the sport?

moray_gub

micron wrote:

Why is it that Lemond's desire to clean up the sport - because it inevitably involves Armstrong - makes him 'out for revenge' or 'jealous'?

Probably becuase when it comes to Lemond thats exactly how it is.

dennisn

micron wrote:

Why is it that Lemond's desire to clean up the sport - because it inevitably involves Armstrong - makes him 'out for revenge' or 'jealous'? Why are those with a desire to clean up the sport never seen as doing it simply and solely because they love the sport?

We all have different opinions. I don't really care what Lemonds motives are. I'm just saying that I don't believe that they are "squeaky clean". Has he worked hard all these years since his retirement, to clean up the sport?? I think not. And besides revenge is a very common emotion, or so I'm told , and GL is, after all, a human with human emotions.

blazing_saddles

Moray Gub wrote:

micron wrote:

Why is it that Lemond's desire to clean up the sport - because it inevitably involves Armstrong - makes him 'out for revenge' or 'jealous'?

Probably becuase when it comes to Lemond thats exactly how it is.

I suppose since you are only defending impartiality, not Lance, you are allowed to make such a sweeping assumption. :roll:

dave_1

micron wrote:

Why is it that Lemond's desire to clean up the sport - because it inevitably involves Armstrong - makes him 'out for revenge' or 'jealous'? Why are those with a desire to clean up the sport never seen as doing it simply and solely because they love the sport?

you're very trusting. I admire GregL the athlete but he's lucky he's so rich that he won't be affected by his tough talk

micron

An interesting anecdote - a French cycling magazine interviewed all the living TdF champions for the Centenary of the race. They spent hours with Lemond, drinking fine vintages and talkimng deep into the night about the history and patrimoine of the sport. Armstrong gave them a beer, answered a handful of questions and then threw them out.

Now, whilst Armstrong was still an active rider at the time and therefore inclined to be more monklike than Lemond, it was the total passion for the sport in one and the utter absence of passion for the history and legends of the sport in the other that was really telling in. Therefore, trusting or not, I would rather see people like Lemond, true lovers of the sport, at the forefront of deciding its future, than the likes of Armstrong/Bruyneel who see it solely as a business and how it can profit them.

Lemond's wealth is pretty paltry as opposed to that of Armstrong, so I really find that a spurious argument. What may be at stake is the future of the sport and whether you'd prefer to see it cleaner or have to pay for any access (WARNING have used exaggeration as a dramatic device but perhaps no moreso than Dave_1's 'hundreds of innocent unemployed cyclists' line )

dave_1

micron wrote:

An interesting anecdote - a French cycling magazine interviewed all the living TdF champions for the Centenary of the race. They spent hours with Lemond, drinking fine vintages and talkimng deep into the night about the history and patrimoine of the sport. Armstrong gave them a beer, answered a handful of questions and then threw them out.

Now, whilst Armstrong was still an active rider at the time and therefore inclined to be more monklike than Lemond, it was the total passion for the sport in one and the utter absence of passion for the history and legends of the sport in the other that was really telling in. Therefore, trusting or not, I would rather see people like Lemond, true lovers of the sport, at the forefront of deciding its future, than the likes of Armstrong/Bruyneel who see it solely as a business and how it can profit them.

Lemond's wealth is pretty paltry as opposed to that of Armstrong, so I really find that a spurious argument. What may be at stake is the future of the sport and whether you'd prefer to see it cleaner or have to pay for any access (WARNING have used exaggeration as a dramatic device but perhaps no moreso than Dave_1's 'hundreds of innocent unemployed cyclists' line )

I didn't ask you to compare the wealth of the two, just admit what you and everyone else knows is true- Lemond is a multi millionaire who doesn't need the sport for an income and you do agree that is true...albeit in your round about way of admitting it

Next question,which you won't answer again , like the first, why do you trust Greg Lemond when he has a lot to gain from taking down LA? It puts GL back on the top of the pile in the USA as best cyclist and you think Lemond has no ego? You're saying he has no selfish reason , just love of the sport. Why should we believe that?

No_Ta_Doctor

Why does Lemond have to have a single motivation anyway? Revenge on LA and wanting a clean sport aren't incompatible.

mididoctors

what does it matter if he is?

rick_chasey

mididoctors wrote:

what does it matter if he is?

This.

FransJacques

What does LA have to gain from NOT cleaning up the sport and outing what some say was done in hotel rooms, Dr's offices, lay-bys late at night, dropped off in garbage cans by unmarked team cars etc.? Everything. The whole house of cards.

Why did he send some Irish masseuse across national boundaries on a 1000km trip when he could have gone himself? The original Walsh book has some serious stuff in it that's never gone further that I'd be interested to hear the true story of.

What's really sad is that Willy Voet's book is 10 years old now and no one on this forum or any other I've read has ANY clue what these dudes really get up to.

As they say on good ol Sailing Anarchy "Pics or it didn't happen". I like that rule.

micron

All I'm saying is I'd rather trust the future of the sport to someone who quite clearly cares about it like Lemond than entrust it to Armstrong/Bruyneel and their Formula 1 business model - one is acting in the interests of the sport, the other in the interests of a handful of powerful people who want to make money.

symo

Greg Lemond = Hero
Liestrong = Zero

Greg has a true passion for 2 wheel whereas the Johaan/Lance model is to screw for their benefit. Let us not forget how they got Trek to get rid of it's best range of bikes because of what Lemond wasn't scared to say.

The future of the sport does not lie with the UCI either which has proven itself time and time again to be corrupt and inefficient. We need a new body which is made up of people with zero tolerance attitudes like Lemond. LA and all those tainted with EPO bring nothing but shame on what could be a sport with the appeal on the same level of football.

Gavin Cook

Who cares what Greg Lemonds motivation is for cleaning up the sport, if he manages to do some good and help get rid of doping in cycling then good luck to him.

bazbadger

micron wrote:

All I'm saying is I'd rather trust the future of the sport to someone who quite clearly cares about it like Lemond than entrust it to Armstrong/Bruyneel and their Formula 1 business model - one is acting in the interests of the sport, the other in the interests of a handful of powerful people who want to make money.

To think that pro sport is still about 'sport' is a little quaint.

Like it or not, sport is about business. The interests of the sport is making money. That's how it is. It's been like that for a while.

moray_gub

mididoctors wrote:

what does it matter if he is?

It doesnt but it helps to understand where he is coming from and jealousy and revenge are emotions that run very very deep in Greg Lemond and are more of his reasons for doing what he does than having cleaner sport.

moray_gub

symo wrote:

Greg Lemond = Hero
Liestrong = Zero

Greg has a true passion for 2 wheel whereas the Johaan/Lance model is to screw for their

.

All good and well in this world of conspiracies and tooth fairies but back in the real world a lenghty court case couldnt prove anything of the sort.

iainf72

Moray Gub wrote:

All good and well in this world of conspiracies and tooth fairies but back in the real world a lenghty court case couldnt prove anything of the sort.

You mean the one where Trek paid to settle out of court?

moray_gub

bazbadger wrote:

micron wrote:

All I'm saying is I'd rather trust the future of the sport to someone who quite clearly cares about it like Lemond than entrust it to Armstrong/Bruyneel and their Formula 1 business model - one is acting in the interests of the sport, the other in the interests of a handful of powerful people who want to make money.

To think that pro sport is still about 'sport' is a little quaint.

Like it or not, sport is about business. The interests of the sport is making money. That's how it is. It's been like that for a while.

+1

Its been like that mostly since its inception as the major races mostly started to make money for towns/newspapers. THis idea of a having a sport as pure as the driven snow etc and not about money is up their with the flat earth society.

moray_gub

iainf72 wrote:

Moray Gub wrote:

All good and well in this world of conspiracies and tooth fairies but back in the real world a lenghty court case couldnt prove anything of the sort.

You mean the one where Trek paid to settle out of court?

I mean the one where there was a settlement but we dont know the terms of it what it was and how much it may have other than a charity donation, so yes that one the one that didnt prove what was alleged.

calvjones

Why would LeMond be jealous of someone

- he knows (or thinks he knows) won his 7 TdFs using PEDs that indirectly ended his own career
- is disdained by (taking a straw poll of this forum) by 80%+ of cycling followers
- is under federal investigation
- is demonstrably unable to restrain from showing his own petty attitude
- is responsible for the frankly execrable livestrong.com site

OK, maybe Greg really want's Lance's slightly bigger pile of money but does anyone here think

7TdF + loads of drug allegations > 3TdF + considered the only clean winner, perhaps ever?

Now revenge, hell yeah.

I wonder how in 10 years LA will be remembered? Even after he's long gone, the ramifications of his interference in ASO might live on.

Homer J

Busting LA for peds aint going to clean up the sport, it's pro sport, people are always going to look for an advantage.

dulldave

Since the Landis email, there is now a general acceptance on this forum that LA doped. Many of those who were arguing LA's corner seem to be saying he probably doped. Except Moray it seems.

Without getting into the evidence or lack there of, do you still think he never doped Moray?

flattythehurdler

Moray Gub wrote:

iainf72 wrote:

Moray Gub wrote:

All good and well in this world of conspiracies and tooth fairies but back in the real world a lenghty court case couldnt prove anything of the sort.

You mean the one where Trek paid to settle out of court?

I mean the one where there was a settlement but we dont know the terms of it what it was and how much it may have other than a charity donation, so yes that one the one that didnt prove what was alleged.

You are invariably quick to quote uncertainty where it suits, but you state GL's motives as fact having, I suspect, never met him, nor discussed them with him. :?:

moray_gub

flattythehurdler wrote:

Moray Gub wrote:

iainf72 wrote:

Moray Gub wrote:

All good and well in this world of conspiracies and tooth fairies but back in the real world a lenghty court case couldnt prove anything of the sort.

You mean the one where Trek paid to settle out of court?

I mean the one where there was a settlement but we dont know the terms of it what it was and how much it may have other than a charity donation, so yes that one the one that didnt prove what was alleged.

You are invariably quick to quote uncertainty where it suits, but you state GL's motives as fact having, I suspect, never met him, nor discussed them with him. :?:

Well who among us here has met and dicussed anything with any of these riders ? you ? me ? dennisn ? iainf72? klleber?blazing ? probably none but they all have an opinion on it and thats mine. Or are you of the opinion that unless youve met and discussed x y and z with a rider then you cant have a view on it ?

Dgh

I don't agree that it's in Greg's financial or personal interest to diss Lance. Interest in cycling in the USA could only benefit Greg, with more bike sales (for a company selling his brand), more interest in and appreciation of his own comeback (beating two legends of the sport, unlike Lance). Moreover, the evidence is that Greg was, in 1999, cheering for Lance until certain things were said to him.

So I for one am happy to accept that Greg's motivation is sincere. If he weren't, why would he have been so magnanimous towards Landis? He if were just bitter, why would he be advocating keeping former dopers who co-operate with investigations in the sport? I think Greg is motivated by a desire to see the sport in a state in which a clean athlete can win. If he's a bit miffed about not winnign 5 tours, who can blame him? Who thinks Delgado or Roche would have won if he'd not ben shot? As for 1991, maybe he was on the decline by then, as Mottet finished ahead of him and he was clean too.

As for Lance, we shouldn't be too hard on him. David Walsh has come up with a persuasive case, but I would love to hear at attempt to answer it (properly, not just by shooting messengers). His work on cancer should be applauded. If he did dope, that makes him no worse than most top cyclists, just no better either. Admittedly, his treatment of people like Simeoni or Bassons has been very poor, but if he doped let's hope he'll come clean one day.

moray_gub

dulldave wrote:

Since the Landis email, there is now a general acceptance on this forum that LA doped. Many of those who were arguing LA's corner seem to be saying he probably doped. Except Moray it seems.

Without getting into the evidence or lack there of, do you still think he never doped Moray?

I was one of the few in here who said it was ridiculous that Landis has went from being a pariah to somehow a believeable individual in the space of one email. His standing on forums in general was lower than snakes balls and he was scorned to the max. So i take it all with a pinch of salt they may turn out to have substance they may not but its too earlry to be writing of LA just yet. So in answer to your question he may have doped he may not have until its proved i will give him the benefit of the doubt.

mididoctors

Moray Gub wrote:

mididoctors wrote:

what does it matter if he is?

It doesnt but it helps to understand where he is coming from and jealousy and revenge are emotions that run very very deep in Greg Lemond and are more of his reasons for doing what he does than having cleaner sport.

probably yeah.. not like he reacted during the indurain/banesto/Gweiss/rominger era..dont tell me no one thought Tony was clean..virtually bragged about it

when Massi was busted.. TR said PPhing "what a shame all that hard work wasted"

but still doesn't really answer the question..

my objection to Lemond is the same as for all of them ... who can we trust with in cycling to be some guiding light?

I think the whole thing needs to overseen by those with NO previous invested interest emotional or otherwise..

so reform root and branch yeah... but your out and all greg