Odd rambling speech by Lemond

I did a book report on his book in 2nd grade.

I agree that it was odd and rambling, but it got stronger as it went on. I had mixed feelings about Lemond during his competitive career, but I admire what he's been doing and saying in recent years, despite much ridicule and efforts to ruin him financially. Toward the end, his reflections about Marco Pantani and others were poignant, his use of the term "omerta" apt, and his final comment about Lance Armstrong wonderfully defiant.

not great as a public speaker, but the info is quite enlightening.

I usually consider myself pretty jaded but I never even considered payoff in T&F or cycling.

Can you imagine Nike paying off X Kenyan to let Y Nike athlete win? I can see that happening very very easily.

worthy of a bump

i didn't know youtube had 50 minute videos

it should have been divided in 5 parts.

Lemond says that greatly inconsistent with at times extraordinary performance on climbs can be highly indicative of doping.

I've watched 1/2 of his presentation so far, between doing other things.

His views are credible, though one thing is he agrees with those who say that blood tests are a human rights violation, but scoffs and says well don't compete if that's how you feel. No, that is not right. People should be able to compete without having their human rights violated. I will watch the rest of it later.

All right!

Listen to the part from 24:40 to 28:10.

I agree with this 100 percent and feel it's the best - and only - solution to the issue of drugs.

agree with AN, more than weird it was just unusually-paced and asymmetrical. Still, very direct, interesting, inside stuff.

Here's what I posted on it:

t’s a speech worth watching in its entirety. Importantly, Lemond notes the interest taken in cycling by his son but that given the state of affairs of pro cycling, he wouldn’t want his son to get into it. He speaks of how this wonderful, dramatic sport has been ruined by robotic participants.

He notes that Trek, which manufactured the Lemond brand of bikes until it terminated him for disparagement, never had a problem with his speaking out against drug use until Lance Armstrong won the Tour. He says that the hopes that the Tour de France would act independently of the corrupt UCI — the sport’s governing body — were dashed when Armstrong announced his return and the people fighting for change were gone.

And his last line, to the question of whether Armstrong would admit to drug use — throughout he makes it clear that riders who came clean should be given a second chance and embraced by the sport but that the code of omerta hangs over the peleton — he syas no, “he has no conscience.”

http://runwestchester.wordpress.com/2009/06/16/greg-lemond/

Lemonds' time trial at the end of the '89 tour was very short, slightly downhill, with a following wind, and almost as much aerodynamic advantage as they have now.

Did Lemond use blood transfusions? Why don't you ask him face to face and report back?

The sport I hope is cleaner, but will it ever be clean? Will pigs fly?

Sure Lance is awesome, but in his heyday, don't you think that about 18 of the top 20 finishers in the Tour were using EPO?

This is misleading as you are just rehashing what LeMond has said. His son is not in any way able to pursue pro cycling because he is not good enough. His son went to Northwestern and raced at MSU a few yrs ago, he was not even one of the best that day in that race.

And Trek asked Lemond to stop trashing Lance Armstrong. They gave him many chances to stop attacking LA specifically, but he kept doing it and that just isn't good for business. I don't think they had a problem with him being a voice for change in pro cycling, but Lemond kept at it after LA had retired.

Lemond is well known for having bad judgment on what to say and when to say it, and for not having any "filter" on what is appropriate to talk about.

This is well known by people who know Lemond and know cycling. You guys coming on here and talking about it is just like cyclists trashing Paul Tergat and Daniel Komen (long since retired and probably dopers) ... it doesn't prove anything, it doesn't help anyone, it isn't entertaining, and you don't know enough to talk about it.

Think about this: Lemond turned pro at 19 and was immediately successful. He rode the Tour at a young age and finished 3rd in his first try.

After being shot, he returned to win two more after taking two yrs to recover. He also had a miraculous return to better form in the '89 Giro after lagging way down on GC and his soigneur gave him a "B-12 injection" and he finished the long TT in second and 39th overall in the Giro.

Next month he wins his second TdF after being out of racing for two seasons. The guy that he beat (in one of the most exciting Tours ever) was Laurent Fignon. Fignon has admitted doping and is now suffering from stomach cancer and has commented that "the doping he did" he doesn't think contributed to his current cancer.

So, I have no dog in this fight, I am not particularly a fan or a detractor of Lemond or Armstrong or Fignon or Landis ... or any of the riders that so many like to trash as if they were really tight with them and know just what they are doing every day. But think about this: Lemond won the biggest races in an era when there was just as much drugs (and blood doping by transfusion was legal and cannot be tested for) and testing was definitely at a much lower level than post-Festina-Affair. He also beat riders that were caught for doping or admitted to doping later.

Then he came back from a gunshot wound that nearly killed him and beat everyone in two tours. Sound much like another great American's pro career?

Not saying he doped or that he is full of shit or that he is correct about the stuff he says today, but I am saying that it is fashionable to say that Lance has doped for his nearly 20-year-career or to vehemently deny that he has. Very few people in the world really know whether he has or not ... and Lemond is NOT one of them.

The testing was

wellnow wrote:

Lemonds' time trial at the end of the '89 tour was very short, slightly downhill, with a following wind, and almost as much aerodynamic advantage as they have now.

FYI: It was 25k and he had not the wheels, the frames, the wind-tunnel tested positions and equipment or anywhere NEAR the light weight of the bikes they have today.

There have been plenty of 20k+ time trials since then on much better equipment. The conditions were good but there have been fast time trial conditions since then as well.

Armstrong managed close to the same speed as Lemond over nearly twice the distance in a tt.

I think people realize that aero advantages and lighter bikes play a very small part in tt performances.

I don't know why I should be taken to task -- "misleading" -- for rehashing what Lemond said when I said I was rehashing what Lemond said.

I further admit to being an amateur in this and stand ready to acknowledge my limitations and the limited information that I have and that I don't know what happened. That said, you make valid points. The only point I'll make is that Lemond began as a top stage-race rider and Armstrong did not and I think that his suddenly becoming one raises a red-flag.

SMJO wrote:

Armstrong managed close to the same speed as Lemond over nearly twice the distance in a tt.

I think people realize that aero advantages and lighter bikes play a very small part in tt performances.

Regarding weight, you think correctly.

Regarding aero: You think wrongly. The cumulative effect of frames, wheels, etc is big. We're talking hundreds of grams of drag.

Besides, The guys today have their POSITIONS tuned in the wind tunnel as well. The body position is 70% of the drag.

darkness,

you provide more insight into the arguement-development but your entry point is unclear:

what do you mean about GL's son one-day/one-race performance? Are you evaluating his ability/talent/potential based only on one day/one race?

Also closing point:

"it is fashionable to say that Lance has doped for nearly 20-year-career or to vehemently deny the testing was"... the testing was what?

Realize you have no dog in this fight. I don't think i have either. But since you wrote quite a bit and seem informed it would help if you clarify.

In any case, Thank-you.

wellnow wrote:

Lemonds' time trial at the end of the '89 tour was very short, slightly downhill, with a following wind, and almost as much aerodynamic advantage as they have now.

Exactly.

"Forrest for the trees" Gentlemen! You guys are getting bogged down in minutia and ignorning the overall statement LaMond made about doping and the overall condition of cycling.

He really hit some big topics. His point about how the bikers themselves are just lab rats, the "omerta" about drug use, the real cover up by the managment teams, sucide rate amoung athletes, etc.. That's where the real meat of this is, not whether LeMond went .02 sec faster on some tt 25 yrs ago.