Forum home Road cycling forum Pro race

LeMond interview

Gazzetta67Gazzetta67 Posts: 1,890
edited October 2012 in Pro race
http://media.newstalk.ie/podcast/67851/popup.

Will Pat now go after him ? :D

Posts

  • jawoogajawooga Posts: 530
    Thanks. :o really really interesting interview. Speaks with a lot of integrity, openness and credibility.
  • Mikey23Mikey23 Posts: 5,306
    excellent piece... thanks for sharing it
  • Can anyone make out what LeMond is actually saying when he talks about Indurain, Delgado and doping? It all seems to get a bit muddled at that point
  • dave_1dave_1 Posts: 9,512
    Can anyone make out what LeMond is actually saying when he talks about Indurain, Delgado and doping? It all seems to get a bit muddled at that point


    He didn't want to answer the question. I don't mind him leaving Delgado be...it was minor stuff in the 1980s..but surprised he didn't say too much about Indurain.
  • deejaydeejay Posts: 3,138
    Dave_1 wrote:

    He didn't want to answer the question. I don't mind him leaving Delgado be...it was minor stuff in the 1980s..but surprised he didn't say too much about Indurain.
    That's OK because we have you to tell us all about it.
    Far from being "Minor Stuff" Delgado was caught but the excuse was the drug had not got on the banned list just yet.
    Organiser, National Championship 50 mile Time Trial 1972
  • calvjonescalvjones Posts: 3,850
    deejay wrote:
    Dave_1 wrote:

    He didn't want to answer the question. I don't mind him leaving Delgado be...it was minor stuff in the 1980s..but surprised he didn't say too much about Indurain.
    That's OK because we have you to tell us all about it.
    Far from being "Minor Stuff" Delgado was caught but the excuse was the drug had not got on the banned list just yet.

    Dave means it wasn't blood boosting unti Big Mig. Probably.
    ___________________

    Strava is not Zen.
  • dennisndennisn Posts: 10,584
    deejay wrote:
    Dave_1 wrote:

    He didn't want to answer the question. I don't mind him leaving Delgado be...it was minor stuff in the 1980s..but surprised he didn't say too much about Indurain.
    That's OK because we have you to tell us all about it.
    Far from being "Minor Stuff" Delgado was caught but the excuse was the drug had not got on the banned list just yet.

    How does "...the drug had not got on the banned list yet." equate to being anything MORE than "minor stuff". Not on the list means it's NOT on the list and therefore....
    Well, I hope you know where I'm going with that.
  • frenchfighterfrenchfighter Posts: 30,642
    tumblr_mbk54j2ryI1qbljjlo1_500.jpg
    Contador is the Greatest
  • dave_1dave_1 Posts: 9,512
    I did like the Greg as a rider, and glad he has spoken up at times, defended Kimmage BUT I still don't think he's as pure as the driven snow either. He chased down his own team mate Jonathan Boyer at Goodwood Worlds 1982 (available on yotube and a low blow at Boyer)... wonder if he couldn't stand to see another American take the limelight that day. He's also made so much money he can say anything about pro cycling without going broke or worrying about his job BUT some of the riders/ex-riders we judge harshly and scream omerta at for not shooting from the hip Greg style actually need their salary and job next year so keep their traps shut more than Lemond does.
  • deejaydeejay Posts: 3,138
    Dave_1 wrote:
    I did like the Greg as a rider, and glad he has spoken up at times, defended Kimmage BUT I still don't think he's as pure as the driven snow either. He chased down his own team mate Jonathan Boyer at Goodwood Worlds 1982 (available on yotube and a low blow at Boyer)... wonder if he couldn't stand to see another American take the limelight that day. He's also made so much money he can say anything about pro cycling without going broke or worrying about his job BUT some of the riders/ex-riders we judge harshly and scream omerta at for not shooting from the hip Greg style actually need their salary and job next year so keep their traps shut more than Lemond does.
    well at last you posted something I more or less agree with.
    Another rider returned from deaths door.
    Organiser, National Championship 50 mile Time Trial 1972
  • iainf72iainf72 Posts: 15,784
    To be fair, I stood a better chance of winning at Goodwood than Boyer did.
    Fckin' Quintana … that creep can roll, man.
  • deejaydeejay Posts: 3,138
    dennisn wrote:

    How does "...the drug had not got on the banned list yet." equate to being anything MORE than "minor stuff". Not on the list means it's NOT on the list and therefore....
    Well, I hope you know where I'm going with that.
    Sure do and down the usual avenue.
    Well at the time the "Bust" was very fishy and the fall guy became "Geronimo".

    With you lot and the Internet at that time, I can assure you it would have been made into a very "Major Stuff"
    Organiser, National Championship 50 mile Time Trial 1972
  • dennisndennisn Posts: 10,584
    deejay wrote:
    dennisn wrote:

    How does "...the drug had not got on the banned list yet." equate to being anything MORE than "minor stuff". Not on the list means it's NOT on the list and therefore....
    Well, I hope you know where I'm going with that.

    Sure do and down the usual avenue.

    So, explain to me how something NOT on the list is a crime. :?
  • keydonkeydon Posts: 144
    Apparently, according to a comment on the YT video, the US road champs were decided at the World road race Champs that and maybe other years. I have seen a semi pro(Brett Perez) come out of an ordinary road race wondering why all these team mates kept attacking each other. They were having their club champs in the middle of our race and Brett, although only guiding his girl friend around, was well bewildered. If this story is true then it makes perfect sense. There is also an attributed, but unverified quote from Greg that he told the other guy that he didn't care who won as long as he(Boyer) didn't. If this is the best the Greg no likers can do then I think we are safe. I chased down a guy one night and made sure the break was caught. His previous attempt to undermine me for telling the straight truth means I would do anything to stop him winning, he being deserving of nothing. Maybe Greg had something similar going on!!
  • keydonkeydon Posts: 144
    The quote from the Lemond thread in the Clinic on CyclingNews website and not YT video::



    "You know that before 1985, there wasn't an official pro national championship, and Boyer was trying to get the world's to act as the US National Championships, so whoever finished highest for the Americans got to claim themselves as national champion, which LeMond thought was idiotic because it would force them to ride as individuals, Boyer attacked LeMond the whole time, then when LeMond went for the win, a little too early, Boyer becomes the victim.
    "
  • dave_1dave_1 Posts: 9,512
    Lemond had no way to know if Saronni had the kick he did but you'd agree he was definitely concerned about a fellow American winning the Worlds hence the chase down. Anyway, I enjoyed Greg's career and am glad he has stood up for Kimmage, but don't think for a minute he'd be as tough on doping if he needed his pay cheques from the sport because he wouldn't.
  • dennisn wrote:
    deejay wrote:
    dennisn wrote:

    How does "...the drug had not got on the banned list yet." equate to being anything MORE than "minor stuff". Not on the list means it's NOT on the list and therefore....
    Well, I hope you know where I'm going with that.

    Sure do and down the usual avenue.

    So, explain to me how something NOT on the list is a crime. :?
    It wasn't a crime so Delgado wasn't punished. They found Probenicide in a drugs test and it was banned on the IOC list.
    It wasn't yet banned on the UCI list but was about to be, later on that year.
    If I remember correctly, Probenicide is a masking agent rather than a performance enhancer.
    If suffer we must, let's suffer on the heights. (Victor Hugo).
  • dennisndennisn Posts: 10,584
    zippypablo wrote:
    dennisn wrote:
    deejay wrote:
    dennisn wrote:

    How does "...the drug had not got on the banned list yet." equate to being anything MORE than "minor stuff". Not on the list means it's NOT on the list and therefore....
    Well, I hope you know where I'm going with that.

    Sure do and down the usual avenue.

    So, explain to me how something NOT on the list is a crime. :?
    It wasn't a crime so Delgado wasn't punished. They found Probenicide in a drugs test and it was banned on the IOC list.
    It wasn't yet banned on the UCI list but was about to be, later on that year.
    If I remember correctly, Probenicide is a masking agent rather than a performance enhancer.

    Interesting. Thanx
  • dougzzdougzz Posts: 1,833
    Dave_1 wrote:
    He didn't want to answer the question. I don't mind him leaving Delgado be...it was minor stuff in the 1980s..but surprised he didn't say too much about Indurain.

    I'm starting to think this view is wrong. I understand that the blood doping makes a bigger difference, and is a significant game changer, as compared to stimulants used earlier. But cheating is cheating, and I think it's fair to say that the mindset that cheated with what was available in the 60/70/80's would have cheated with what was available in the 90s. Once you've made the decision to cheat, you're going to go with the best chance to change things. All the testimony in the 'Reasoned Decision' is along the lines of everyone else was, so we had to, once you've made the decision to dope, what's available is just down to where the research is at that point. I'm thinking that the continued 'rose tinted' view of the old guys is just time making them remembered more fondly, and then seeking to justify their cheating over the modern counterparts.
  • mididoctorsmididoctors Posts: 11,110
    dougzz wrote:
    Dave_1 wrote:
    He didn't want to answer the question. I don't mind him leaving Delgado be...it was minor stuff in the 1980s..but surprised he didn't say too much about Indurain.

    I'm starting to think this view is wrong. I understand that the blood doping makes a bigger difference, and is a significant game changer, as compared to stimulants used earlier. But cheating is cheating, and I think it's fair to say that the mindset that cheated with what was available in the 60/70/80's would have cheated with what was available in the 90s. Once you've made the decision to cheat, you're going to go with the best chance to change things. All the testimony in the 'Reasoned Decision' is along the lines of everyone else was, so we had to, once you've made the decision to dope, what's available is just down to where the research is at that point. I'm thinking that the continued 'rose tinted' view of the old guys is just time making them remembered more fondly, and then seeking to justify their cheating over the modern counterparts.

    thats a good point

    the target is the mindset... however there are still degrees of commitment that greys the issue, but on balence I think your point stands
    "If I was a 38 year old man, I definitely wouldn't be riding a bright yellow bike with Hello Kitty disc wheels, put it that way. What we're witnessing here is the world's most high profile mid-life crisis" Afx237vi Mon Jul 20, 2009 2:43 pm
  • deejaydeejay Posts: 3,138
    zippypablo wrote:
    dennisn wrote:
    deejay wrote:
    dennisn wrote:

    How does "...the drug had not got on the banned list yet." equate to being anything MORE than "minor stuff". Not on the list means it's NOT on the list and therefore....
    Well, I hope you know where I'm going with that.

    Sure do and down the usual avenue.

    So, explain to me how something NOT on the list is a crime. :?
    It wasn't a crime so Delgado wasn't punished. They found Probenicide in a drugs test and it was banned on the IOC list.
    It wasn't yet banned on the UCI list but was about to be, later on that year.
    If I remember correctly, Probenicide is a masking agent rather than a performance enhancer.

    deejay wrote:
    Far from being "Minor Stuff" Delgado was caught but the excuse was the drug had not got on the banned list just yet.
    dennisn wrote:
    So, explain to me how something NOT on the list is a crime. :?
    Now where did I say a crime had been committed

    So, did Delgado have the drug in his body when tested positive, or not.
    Thanks for filling in the details but why did they make a public statement about the above info. If he was Clean. ? :?:
    Therefore my memory didn't fail me except the full drug detail.

    dennisn :- How can anybody explain anything to you, when for many years people have "Tried" to explain to you about a big-headed drug taking Texan and you still havn't got it. ! :roll:
    Organiser, National Championship 50 mile Time Trial 1972
  • dennisndennisn Posts: 10,584
    deejay wrote:
    zippypablo wrote:
    dennisn wrote:
    deejay wrote:
    dennisn wrote:

    How does "...the drug had not got on the banned list yet." equate to being anything MORE than "minor stuff". Not on the list means it's NOT on the list and therefore....
    Well, I hope you know where I'm going with that.

    Sure do and down the usual avenue.

    So, explain to me how something NOT on the list is a crime. :?
    It wasn't a crime so Delgado wasn't punished. They found Probenicide in a drugs test and it was banned on the IOC list.
    It wasn't yet banned on the UCI list but was about to be, later on that year.
    If I remember correctly, Probenicide is a masking agent rather than a performance enhancer.

    deejay wrote:
    Far from being "Minor Stuff" Delgado was caught but the excuse was the drug had not got on the banned list just yet.
    dennisn wrote:
    So, explain to me how something NOT on the list is a crime. :?
    Now where did I say a crime had been committed


    dennisn :- How can anybody explain anything to you, when for many years people have "Tried" to explain to you about a big-headed drug taking Texan and you still havn't got it. ! :roll:

    Who said I never believed all these guys weren't taking drugs. And that includes most, if not all, sports. All I ever asked of anyone was to simply "prove it" if you're going to make an accusation. I don't think that's asking too much. And while the hole in the dike gets bigger every day and more and more is exposed I would remind you that none of you has ever uncovered a single piece of evidence(with the exception of the late, great biking bernies chart / graph :wink: ) that was used, in any way, by anyone. While that may be a bit harsh it is none the less true. All you have done is follow things and that's easy enough. I do it. :twisted:
Sign In or Register to comment.