Apologies to Greg LeMond

Am I right to think the only reason he did not do more TdF is because he did not dope rather than his results?

Got to respect the man. He cycled with Danny Pate who is now with Sky.

http://velorooms.com/index.php?topic=4167.0

Jonathan Tiernan-Locke represented Britain at the world championships in 2012 which was the year he returned the adverse analytical findings. He then went on to SKY (I believe this is what you are referencing)

Froome produced a TUE AFTER he was popped reminiscent to the Armstrong corticoid affair.

http://m.independent.ie/sport/other-sports/cycling/paul-kimmage-chris-froome-in-the-eye-of-the-storm-part-1-30391816.html

Part 2 of Froome interview.

http://m.independent.ie/sport/other-sports/paul-kimmage-chris-froome-in-the-eye-of-the-storm-part-2-30394950.html

Hopespringseternal wrote:Then it becomes a self regulating system with those who refuse and speak up being kicked out.

Please organize your thoughts before typing them, and leave the stream-of-consciousness writing to me.

Signed, James Joyce

P.S. Seriously, are you truly unable to see the utter horridness of your sentence structure? Even though message boards call for less formality, you still should be completely embarrassed.

English Bob wrote: Seriously, are you truly unable to see the utter horridness of your sentence structure? Even though message boards call for less formality, you still should be completely embarrassed.

Some people have a way with words, and other people...oh...not have way, I guess.

Hopespringseternal wrote:

I would seriously love his view on whether it is possible to compete with dopers IF a team that was clean competed on a level field/road. I feel they could and would. It seems to me in looking at this stuff that a lot of psychology supports the 'need' for doping. Then it becomes a self regulating system with those who refuse and speak up being kicked out.

Usual control tactics that make it impossible to change the system unless shamed as cycling has been. However, once shamed only a small window of time allows real deep change that is fast. Otherwise slow and gradual or none happens. Slow and gradual often ends in surface changes. Which means more damaged lives.

Agree agree totally with you agree completely. Speaking Lemond might/could/may/should have opinions thoughts ideas about his possible tdf chances battles had epo/peds not been introduced to the tdf before/after/during his reign before he retired from the sport between rehab for gunshot wounds and falling out with Hinault and cancer with Armstrong. All things equal. Except for aero bars. But those kicked out because of being kicked out because of EPO help regulate shame in small windows and damaged lives.

I am so not embarrassed. Why apologise then be so stuffy?

My apologies, good sir. I was in a bad mood when I wrote my post. I had a difficult time making through college, but I persevered and I survived. I received B grades in my English classes, so I knows the language real wells.

I was thinking your typos were a sly joke....maybe not.

I am not looking to be graded. I am looking for some intelligent debate about whether doping is unbeatable. If you guys are too shallow or immature to partake I shall not bother.

Hopespringseternal wrote:

My apologies, good sir. I was in a bad mood when I wrote my post. I had a difficult time making through college, but I persevered and I survived. I received B grades in my English classes, so I knows the language real wells.

I was thinking your typos were a sly joke....maybe not.

I am not looking to be graded. I am looking for some intelligent debate about whether doping is unbeatable. If you guys are too shallow or immature to partake I shall not bother.

You're sort of just rambling on. I think there have been plenty of good points and articles. As for that Decanio guy, could have ridden in the tour? I think for sure he could have. Could he have been a GC contender? Not really in the position to answer that. I'm just a fan of the sport. It really is a shame for him. Even though he still doped, it sounds like it was an awful experience. Hopefully it isn't the same experience for the riders today. Maybe All of this nonsense will be able to provide some inside. Who knows?

Thank you for politely highlighting what seems to bug some people I. This thread.

That should have read 'on this thread'. Thumbs too big

I still like both guys (I'm torn on Lance), but this is idiotic. How do you know? Lemond was the best cyclist in the world and we are quite sure he was drug free, many of his opponents were not, we don't know how good Lance was without drugs. This is a foolish statement.

Le Monde wrote:

LeMond is a jealous old man. He is like any other once-was-a-star athlete: he cannot stand that someone might be faster than he was.

Sure Lance took advantage, but in a LeMond vs Armstrong drug-free race, Armstrong wins.

I just watched Slaying The Badger on Netflix - great documentary! I didn't realize how good LeMond was.

However the person I'm most impressed with is The Badger itself, Bernard Hinault. What a boss! His desire to win and his toughness remind me of Armstrong.

killer instincts wrote: However the person I'm most impressed with is The Badger itself, Bernard Hinault. What a boss! His desire to win and his toughness remind me of Armstrong.

And as I alluded before, Hinault's desire to win manifested itself in the same deplorable character flaws we saw in Lance as he tried to defend himself against detractors. At least Lance came clean when he was backed into a corner; even now, Hinault cannot bring himself to acknowledge that he essentially tried to screw over LeMond in 1986. If a man is only as good as his word, Hinault is not much of a man.

I disagree. It's normal for an athlete to want to win. Hinault helped LeMond and LeMond helped him, but at the end of the race, if they are close and each has a chance to win, it's normal/fair/expected to go for it. And what about the fans? Should we tell them, Greg is the leader this year, he will win no matter what? Why bother to watch Le Tour then? It's like fixing a game.

And yes, I understand that LeMond didn't go for it in 85, but I believe it was his mistake.

If LeMond didn't like his team and riding with a top cyclist who had a chance to win, he should have changed teams. I think he said as much in the documentary.

LeMond was an incredible talent, but mentally I think he was too "nice" and didn't have enough leadership.

killer instincts wrote:

I disagree. It's normal for an athlete to want to win. Hinault helped LeMond and LeMond helped him, but at the end of the race, if they are close and each has a chance to win, it's normal/fair/expected to go for it. And what about the fans? Should we tell them, Greg is the leader this year, he will win no matter what? Why bother to watch Le Tour then? It's like fixing a game.

And yes, I understand that LeMond didn't go for it in 85, but I believe it was his mistake.

You might want to watch the documentary again. In 1985 LeMond was a domestique whose job it was to support Hinault to the win. Despite the fact LeMond was the better rider that year and WANTED to go for the win, he was instructed NOT to do so. LeMond did his job and supported Hinault. LeMond showed character, loyalty and responsibility to his job.

The agreement related to the above was that Hinault would support LeMond in 1986. Whether or not it was the result of his competitive nature is beside the point; the bottom line is that Hinault did not keep his word. Hinault showed zero character, zero loyalty, zero gratitude and zero responsibility to his job as a supporting domestique. And even now, he shows zero accountability for his behavior. Hinault was a both a world class cyclist and world class scumbag.

The only saving grace is that LeMond kicked Hinault's a$$ even though Hinault's actions fractured the team dyanamic and forced LeMond to earn victory without total support of the domestiques.

"The only saving grace is that LeMond kicked Hinault's a$$ even though Hinault's actions fractured the team dyanamic and forced LeMond to earn victory without total support of the domestiques."

Just goes to show how good Lemond was! To win the Tour without a full team against Hinault and all the other contenders.

You might want to watch the documentary again. In 1985 LeMond was a domestique whose job it was to support Hinault to the win. Despite the fact LeMond was the better rider that year and WANTED to go for the win, he was instructed NOT to do so. LeMond did his job and supported Hinault. LeMond showed character, loyalty and responsibility to his job.

This is the same bullshit LeMond has been shovelling for the last twenty years. Hinault was the strongest rider in 1985. By stage 14 he was 5 1/2 minutes ahead of LeMond, who was in second place. Stephen Roche was another 30 seconds back. When the Colombian climber, Herrara, went ahead on stage 14, LeMond followed. Hinault stayed back and marked Roche and Phil Anderson. He did not follow LeMond so Roche would not be dragged back. This was to allow LeMond to cement his second place position.

LeMond always goes on about how following team orders cost him the 1985 race, but he never mentions that if Hinault would not have been following team strategy to get a 1-2 finish then he would have never been in a position to win.