INTERVIEW: Greg LeMond Irish Times

dohouch

INTERVIEW: Greg LeMond is no stranger to adversity. Since the early 1980s he has spoken out against the drug culture in cycling; he has found himself bitterly pitted against the sport’s leading lights, on and off the road; in 1987 he was shot and just two years later he won the Tour de France. But his biggest achievement was learning to deal with the abuse he suffered as a child, he tells KEITH DUGGAN

HERE

Wicklowrider

Well worth the read - thanks for posting it

mattser

Just one other pathetic swipe at Lance Armstrong and his extraordinary achievements on and off the bike.

AstraMonti

mattser wrote: »

Just one other pathetic swipe at Lance Armstrong and his extraordinary achievements on and off the bike.

Even Chuck Norris agrees with you.

531

Hey Mattser, don't be paranoid for Lance. He has a small mention in a very good article, better than recent nonsense the Times had about cycling and cyclists.

Focus on the nice mention of Laurent Fignon instead.

Astra Monti, I expected better from you.

blorg

mattser wrote: »

Just one other pathetic swipe at Lance Armstrong and his extraordinary achievements on and off the bike.

Did you read the interview? There is very little mention of Armstrong. FFS.

mattser

Yes I did read the interview. It was going along fine, until the inevitable theme of jealousy on the part of some riders and so called journalists raised it's ugly head once more.
I'm entitled to my opinion, and respect others.

AstraMonti

531 wrote: »

Astra Monti, I expected better from you.

How can I do better when he clearly didn't even read the article and came about ranting about LA? The article is about Lemond and how he overcame an incredible difficult issue. Whatever, each to their own.

531

Astra Monti, I apologise. I misinterpreted your posting.

Mattser, to quote Stephen Stills: 'Paranoia strikes deep, into your life it will creep'

I must learn to do the quote things on here properly.

Hermy

mattser wrote: »

...Lance Armstrong and his extraordinary achievements on and off the bike.

Would you care to list them?

Beasty

Hermy wrote: »

Would you care to list them?

Let's not turn this into an Armstrong thread ....

BryanL

Lemond was some guy on a bike, was at the Tour in '86 and '89 when he won.

I think some of his efforts have helped slow the times on the climbs in this years tour and added to the excitement as riders have good and bad days.

blorg

And 1990! He won the Tour three times. How many have done that? How many have done that without assistance? And it could have been more were it not for the team rivalry with Hinault and accidents. Roche was fortunate he wasnt there in '87. The man was naturally gifted; the idea he is jealous of Armstrong is ridiculous.

mattser

Hermy wrote: »

Would you care to list them?

If you are not aware you know very little of the sport. You're in good begrudger company here though. Over and out, all.

Morrisseeee

blorg wrote: »

He won the Tour three times. How many have done that? How many have done that without assistance?

He got great assistance in '86 :pac:, Hinault nearly drove him mad, I read extracts from 'Slaying the Badger', a great read.

FISMA

blorg wrote: »

And 1990! He won the Tour three times. How many have done that? How many have done that without assistance? And it could have been more were it not for the team rivalry with Hinault and accidents.

+1 soooooo true.

LeMond never had the backing that Armstrong did nor often did he have many domestiques there solely to sacrifice for him.

All of those that love our tricked out bikes, fancy wheels, aero bars, and cool looking helmets should thank LeMond. He was one of the innovators in cycling, one that really took technology and aerodynamics to a new level.

I met him at the Tour duPont in the states, a really down to Earth guy. Despite the crowd that enveloped him, we were actually able to talk to him and learn a bit.

Class act.

ROK ON

As a kid my favourite cyclists were Kelly Millar and Lemond.
Lemond was such a classy cyclist. While in later years he specialised in the tour, up to his mid 20's he rode everything. He was successful from a very very early age.
An unreal athlete. A legend of the sport.

petethedrummer

http://bestoflemond.blogspot.com/
http://stevetilford.com/?p=11375

manafana

i remember reading abit about lemond when he started out in states, he wore a yellow jersey to his first ace, didnt go down well, but his natural talent meant he won races from when he started.

nitrogen

Great article. Thanks for sharing.

Will Geoghegan really sounds like a horrible person.

ugsparky

I've only returned to cycling over the last year or two ... from what I've read on these posts some of you guys are nearly semi - pro's ...

I used to follow the TdF on Channel Four but lost interest in it when i started reading and hearing about all the doping scandals.

My interest has thankfully returned and I really enjoyed this years tour ... I thought Voekler's courage was commendable ... but for the uninitiated can someone please point me in the direction of balanced articles about Lance Armstrong. Is he a villain or superhero ? - I've wiki'ed him and from what I've read, a lot of what is claimed about him is third hand quotes and hearsay. Was he genuinely brilliant or was he flawed ? The bike media and professional bike community do not appear to have roundly condemned the accusations made against him. I really would like to believe the man is a hero and an inspirational figure

TinyExplosions

ugsparky wrote: »

I've only returned to cycling over the last year or two ... from what I've read on these posts some of you guys are nearly semi - pro's ...

I used to follow the TdF on Channel Four but lost interest in it when i started reading and hearing about all the doping scandals.

My interest has thankfully returned and I really enjoyed this years tour ... I thought Voekler's courage was commendable ... but for the uninitiated can someone please point me in the direction of balanced articles about Lance Armstrong. Is he a villain or superhero ? - I've wiki'ed him and from what I've read, a lot of what is claimed about him is third hand quotes and hearsay. Was he genuinely brilliant or was he flawed ? The bike media and professional bike community do not appear to have roundly condemned the accusations made against him. I really would like to believe the man is a hero and an inspirational figure

There is no balanced article -most are either very pro, or very anti, so just do some googling and make up your own mind!

ugsparky

... I was looking for some factual references so I could do just that ... that's why I asked for direction from people who may be pro or anti Armstrong

mattser

ugsparky wrote: »

... I was looking for some factual references so I could do just that ... that's why I asked for direction from people who may be pro or anti Armstrong

Don't hold your breath waiting for the latter. Regarding the former, suffice to say L.A. is one of, if not the most tested people in the history of his or any other sport.
That's fact enough, wouldn't you think ?

Lumen

mattser wrote: »

L.A. is one of, if not the most tested people in the history of his or any other sport. That's fact enough, wouldn't you think ?

No.

Mark OK

ugsparky wrote: »

I've only returned to cycling over the last year or two ... from what I've read on these posts some of you guys are nearly semi - pro's ...

I used to follow the TdF on Channel Four but lost interest in it when i started reading and hearing about all the doping scandals.

My interest has thankfully returned and I really enjoyed this years tour ... I thought Voekler's courage was commendable ... but for the uninitiated can someone please point me in the direction of balanced articles about Lance Armstrong. Is he a villain or superhero ? - I've wiki'ed him and from what I've read, a lot of what is claimed about him is third hand quotes and hearsay. Was he genuinely brilliant or was he flawed ? The bike media and professional bike community do not appear to have roundly condemned the accusations made against him. I really would like to believe the man is a hero and an inspirational figure

Read David Walsh's book - 'LA Confidential' or read what Paul kimmage has to say, both top Journalists who really understand and care about cycling.

Great article about Lemond, he should replace Pat McQuaid as head of the UCI or even better a brand new drugs free version of the UCI, the guy is class.

cormpat

mattser wrote: »

L.A. is one of, if not the most tested people in the history of his or any other sport.
That's fact enough, wouldn't you think ?

So was Ivan Basso.

petethedrummer

This is a Greg Lemond Awesomeness thread, so here's another awesome link http://www.bikeraceinfo.com/oralhistory/lemond.html

This is the Lance is not so awesome thread: http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055916588

@Mattser and ugsparky it contains plenty of background links.

Guybrush T

ugsparky wrote: »

Was he genuinely brilliant or was he flawed ?

Yes.
He won seven consecutive TdFs at a time when the use of performance enhancing substances was common in professional cycling. Regardless of how he did it, it's a remarkable achievement.
No-one who has read 'It's Not About The Bike' would say he wasn't flawed

mattser wrote: »

suffice to say L.A. is one of, if not the most tested people in the history of his or any other sport.
That's fact enough, wouldn't you think ?

Is there a source of this factoid that doesn't come with ©Livestrong stamped on the bottom?

RobFowl

cormpat wrote: »

So was Ivan Basso.

And Valverde, Ullrich and Pantani and none of the failed an actual PED test.
(Ullrich tested pos for amphetamines after a "party" and Pantani failed a "health check" blood test. )
Basso and Valverde only got bans after a police investigation into a doping ring and the sequela from that.
Riis, Virenque, Moreau, Neil Stephens and many more also took EPO and never failed a dope test.

spokeydokey

all assuming that the 'never failed a test' bit is true.... which may people would contest

TheBlaaMan

There's no black or white argument in the Armstrong thing, merely shades of grey depending on what side you wish to take. Evidence is (and will probably remain) thin and may be mostly circumstancial, but if a guy built for classics racing, suddenly starts dropping pure climbers on HC climbs and goes on to win 7 Tours where those he beat have amost all been proven or admitted to being on the sauce, it sure takes a leap of faith to believe that the good ol' boy from Texas was the only one cycling clean. There, now you know what side I stand on ! :rolleyes:

ugsparky

I have to say that when I think on the subject of drugs used by sports people I feel that it is cheating. I believe that the only truthful drugs test is that whereby the competitor can with clear conscience say "I have never used a drug or medical enhancement procedure that can have at any time enhanced or allow me to perform at previous best performance levels". Of course there must be a list of drugs and performance techniques such as blood doping etc that are stated as banned by a governing body within that sport. But where this fails is when an individual can say "I passed a test so therefore I'm clean" or when a drug or practice hitherto unknown is used to enhance performance - the fact that it has not been recognised by a governing body does not make it fair and legal.

I've often thought that the use of pain killing injections given to footballers is wrong and constitutes cheating. If Lance Armstrong or any other professional cyclist has achieved victory using substances or practices that have later proven to have enhanced or boosted the performance over his competitors, then that in my way of thinking is cheating.

I do appreciate that within his life the man has faced great adversity and has taken prescribed medication and treatments out of necessity. He cannot and should never be denied his greatness for overcoming his illness. I don't believe that any accusation that treatments and medication he used during this time can be described as performance enhancing, including whatever effects they may or may not have when he resumed his cycling career.

I thank you guys for the references and directional pointers on this subject - I'll read more and satisfy myself if he is guilty or not - I genuinely hope that the man is on the level. I'm only a recreational cyclist - I wish I had kept it up when I was in my 20's - but it still annoys me when people ask me about my cycling and then in the next breath say " ... but sure them guys are all taking drugs - it's a sport full of cheats".

I suppose like everyone I want my heroes to be superclean.

petethedrummer

ugsparky wrote: »

but it still annoys me when people ask me about my cycling and then in the next breath say " ... but sure them guys are all taking drugs - it's a sport full of cheats".

Some responses for you: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/sport/football/article396203.ece
http://www.english.rfi.fr/france/20100825-former-french-football-doctor-makes-suspect-blood-sample-claims
http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/football/premier-league/wenger-suspects-imports-of-doping-543006.html

nitrogen

ugsparky wrote: »

I've only returned to cycling over the last year or two ... from what I've read on these posts some of you guys are nearly semi - pro's ...

I used to follow the TdF on Channel Four but lost interest in it when i started reading and hearing about all the doping scandals.

My interest has thankfully returned and I really enjoyed this years tour ... I thought Voekler's courage was commendable ... but for the uninitiated can someone please point me in the direction of balanced articles about Lance Armstrong. Is he a villain or superhero ? - I've wiki'ed him and from what I've read, a lot of what is claimed about him is third hand quotes and hearsay. Was he genuinely brilliant or was he flawed ? The bike media and professional bike community do not appear to have roundly condemned the accusations made against him. I really would like to believe the man is a hero and an inspirational figure

Have a listen to both parts of this radio program called The Competitors who talk to David Walsh - http://competitorradio.competitor.com/tag/david-walsh/

ugsparky

Thanks guys - I'm a Gooner so Arsene Wenger's comments surprised and saddened me - did he knowingly sign players who previously doped ... I sincerely hope not

G2ECE

Lance has been tested over and over, but the real question is "what drugs are on the list of substances he is allowed to take because of his medical history?" this has never been made available to the public. His relationship with Michele Ferari as well as revelations by Landis, Tyler Hamilton and his former masseuse. I would love to think that Lance achieved all he did without doping but I just can't. He is also very slow to condemn fellow pro's who have tested posistive. As has been said many times, because of UCI drug policy, riding clean and not testing positive are 2 very different things indeed.

TinyExplosions

ugsparky wrote: »

Thanks guys - I'm a Gooner so Arsene Wenger's comments surprised and saddened me - did he knowingly sign players who previously doped ... I sincerely hope not

Wouldn't surprise me in the slightest -I'd not be too shocked if it came out that there's team sanctioned / supplied doping going on in football these days

Joxer_S

ugsparky wrote: »

I do appreciate that within his life the man has faced great adversity and has taken prescribed medication and treatments out of necessity. He cannot and should never be denied his greatness for overcoming his illness. I don't believe that any accusation that treatments and medication he used during this time can be described as performance enhancing, including whatever effects they may or may not have when he resumed his cycling career.

I'm not aware of any accusation that treatments he received in the course of his recovery from cancer had any link to the current charges of performance enhancement, and I'd find any such suggestion ridiculous.

While obvious that his recovery is an intrinsic part of the Lance Armstrong myth, it has no relevance as to whether he did or did not not use EPO. It bothers me to constantly see the two referred to in the same paragraphs (not just picking on the above post), inferring that his recovery and subsequent association with Livestrong in some way absolves him of responsibility for his actions.

Dermot Illogical

Who's this thread about again? :pac:

Morrisseeee

I thought this thread was about LeMond, but sure, hey, I'll continue the off-topicness with my favourite cheating story, the TDF started in 1903 but the cheating didn't start until..............well.........straight away actually, with riders taking trains etc. Then the next year the first 4 in GC were disqualified, 12 altogether, & all stage winners. Offences ranged from illegal feeding, bribery, taking a car ride but the best of all > rigging up a towing device: a cork attached to a car by a length of wire that the rider gripped with his teeth :eek:

petethedrummer

RT66 wrote: »

Who's this thread about again? :pac:

The greatest american cyclist of all time.

ugsparky

Joxer_S wrote: »

I'm not aware of any accusation that treatments he received in the course of his recovery from cancer had any link to the current charges of performance enhancement, and I'd find any such suggestion ridiculous.

While obvious that his recovery is an intrinsic part of the Lance Armstrong myth, it has no relevance as to whether he did or did not not use EPO. It bothers me to constantly see the two referred to in the same paragraphs (not just picking on the above post), inferring that his recovery and subsequent association with Livestrong in some way absolves him of responsibility for his actions.

"In June 2006, French newspaper Le Monde reported claims by Betsy and Frankie Andreu during a deposition that Armstrong had admitted using performance-enhancing drugs to his physician just after brain surgery in 1996. The Andreus' testimony was related to litigation between Armstrong and SCA Promotions, a Texas company attempting to withhold a $5-million bonus; this was settled out of court with SCA paying Armstrong and Tailwind Sports $7.5 million, to cover the $5-million bonus plus interest and lawyers' fees. The testimony stated ...

"And so the doctor asked him a few questions, not many, and then one of the questions he asked was... have you ever used any performance-enhancing drugs? And Lance said yes. And the doctor asked, what were they? And Lance said, growth hormone, cortisone, EPO, steroids and testosterone." Armstrong suggested Betsy Andreu may have been confused by possible mention of his post-operative treatment which included steroids and EPO that are taken to counteract wasting and red-blood-cell-destroying effects of intensive chemotherapy.

The Andreus' allegation was not supported by any of the eight other people present, including Armstrong's doctor Craig Nichols, or his medical history. According to Greg LeMond (who has been embroiled with his own disputes with Armstrong), he (LeMond) had a recorded conversation, the transcript of which was reviewed by National Public Radio, with Stephanie McIlvain (Armstrong's contact at Oakley Inc.) in which she said of Armstrong's alleged admission 'You know, I was in that room. I heard it.' However, McIlvain has contradicted LeMond allegations on the issue and denied under oath that the incident in question ever occurred in her sworn testimony".

This is what I refered to Joxer ... taken from wiki which I know is not to be taken as gospel but does provide links to other referal points.

ugsparky

I was just reading back through these posts ... and I am delighted to say that I will ride with the greatest ever American cyclist and only American winner (3 times) of the Tour de France next Sunday - the great Mr. Greg Lemond ... a remarkable man and cyclist

macnab

ugsparky wrote: »

I was just reading back through these posts ... and I am delighted to say that I will ride with the greatest ever American cyclist and only American winner (3 times) of the Tour de France next Sunday - the great Mr. Greg Lemond ... a remarkable man and cyclist

Me too, looking forward to it.

ednwireland

one of the most memorable tour ending s i remember, cant remember if this was on live or watching the highlights but remember it so well

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xs02oztH0S4

mcgratheoin

BTW BlaaMan, I'm aware you're not a Lance apologist, but I'm getting a bit fed up with other smokescreens attacking the type of evidence without ever addressing the content, so I'm just picking the first mention of circumstantial evidence in this thread.

TheBlaaMan wrote: »

Evidence is (and will probably remain) thin and may be mostly circumstancial, :

This is one of the great triumphs of the Lance PR team (in conjunction with an over-proliferation of crappy legal shows on TV). Circumstantial is just a word to describe a diffferent type of evidence, it does not diminish the quality of that evidence. Circumstantial merely means that a connection needs to be inferred between the evidence and the act.
It's right up there with people describing eye-witness testimony as hearsay.

Here's the difference;
Tyler Hamilton told me he saw Lance inject EPO and I testify about it - hearsay
Tyler Hamilton testifies he saw Lance inject EPO - direct evidence
EPO vials are found in somebody's fridge - circumstantial evidence

Which one of these would you rather rely on? In the latter, the inference must be made that the EPO is for doping (not a great leap of faith admittedly) but the point here is that the word circumstantial is thrown around in an attempt to devalue evidence. As a matter of fact there also exists direct forensic evidence (yes forensic evidence can also be circumstantial) in the form of the blood samples from 1999.

mcgratheoin

Joxer_S wrote: »

I'm not aware of any accusation that treatments he received in the course of his recovery from cancer had any link to the current charges of performance enhancement, and I'd find any such suggestion ridiculous.

While obvious that his recovery is an intrinsic part of the Lance Armstrong myth, it has no relevance as to whether he did or did not not use EPO.

Except that he can't make up his mind about it He said in his book that he was given EPO as part of his treatment, yet in an interview in July 99 he flatly denied that he ever took EPO as part of the treatment for his cancer.

leftism

mattser wrote: »

I'm entitled to my opinion, and respect others.

Opinion in the face of overwhelming evidence starts to look at best like blind ignorance and at worse like fanaticism. Refer to "evolution vs. intelligent design" for a better example.

Interestingly, a huge number of those intelligent design folks wear livestrong apparel. There's probably a decent sociological study in the making there...

deandean

Greg LeMond is cool. Like this :cool:

I met Greg during the 1996 Atlanta Olympics we were both spectators. I have his autograph on the back of my olympic ticket somewhere! Lovely guy, we had a good chat.

TheBlaaMan

mcgratheoin wrote: »

BTW BlaaMan, I'm aware you're not a Lance apologist, but I'm getting a bit fed up with other smokescreens attacking the type of evidence without ever addressing the content, so I'm just picking the first mention of circumstantial evidence in this thread.




This is one of the great triumphs of the Lance PR team (in conjunction with an over-proliferation of crappy legal shows on TV). Circumstantial is just a word to describe a diffferent type of evidence, it does not diminish the quality of that evidence. Circumstantial merely means that a connection needs to be inferred between the evidence and the act.
It's right up there with people describing eye-witness testimony as hearsay.

Here's the difference;
Tyler Hamilton told me he saw Lance inject EPO and I testify about it - hearsay
Tyler Hamilton testifies he saw Lance inject EPO - direct evidence
EPO vials are found in somebody's fridge - circumstantial evidence

Which one of these would you rather rely on? In the latter, the inference must be made that the EPO is for doping (not a great leap of faith admittedly) but the point here is that the word circumstantial is thrown around in an attempt to devalue evidence. As a matter of fact there also exists direct forensic evidence (yes forensic evidence can also be circumstantial) in the form of the blood samples from 1999.

I take your point - even if it the matter reads a bit easier 10 weeks after the initial thread and postings. A LOT of water has flowed under the bridge in those past two months.

I've no doubt whatsoever about his guilt; as far as I'm concerned, he can burn in hell for the deceit he has created under the guise of anti-cancer campaigning and his bare-faced lies in the past. I was merely trying to point out that the whole world awaits the USADA documentation so we can read for ourselves the testimonies of the principles concerned and see it there, in black and white. I think that a lot of folks will need to see this in order for their opinions to change - it cant come soon enough.