Hope you do not mean he should of raced Kona. Can I steal a bunch of stuff from you and after I lie saying I do not have it, you see it in my garage and its ok you do not get it back?

And what happened in the tour. Two guys coming off a for one the Vuelta win who then started three minutes down at the start and another who won the Giro who had to win the doulble and had horrible saddle sores, to the point he would of not lost that famous tt. But a doper never dopes once, so where is any other evidence for his other races. ...You know epo was not rampant in 89 or 90. It was invented but not rampant Conconi(sp?) would of been the first coach back then suspect, not Lemonds. So what other races

He has a recorded VO2 max in 90s. Lance was an 84, and Indurain was 88. I guess Lemond had great genes.

Lemond came up through one of the most successful cycling teams at the time (Hinault's), and we know what usually underlies successful teams in cycling...

The only thing that would convince me is a book from Bernard Hinault saying 1) yeah I doped 2) everyone else on my team was doping 3) I hate Greg Lemond but 4) he never doped. No way he'd tell those three truths and then lie about the fourth.

All the "golden boy" assurances don't work. Landis was a Mennonite, he'd never do that, and all that jazz.

Read his account of Otto Jacome diagnosing him with anemia after the '89 Giro. Then go and study the physiology of red blood cell production. I'm not a hematologist, though I am a MD. If my medical students told me this story, and believed it, there would be serious questions regarding their knowledge base. This is not a false accusation. I am not making this up. Lemond and his then trainer put this out there over 20 years ago. His words not mine. It's fair game to question what does not make medical sense. This occurred while I was in medical school, and at the time I showed it to my physiology professor, who found it amusing, but not credible. Anemic in June, cured with an Iron transfusion for July.

I know the doubts with that. Also though Lemonds ride in 89 was more akin to Voekler's a couple of years ago. He hung on and was very fortunate with Delgado and Fignon's issues and both of them going in with tired legs. Reynolds had the rumors of doping (Delgaldo) but never even out of the peloton or all the people that have wanted to prove Lemond doped since has there been any hint of doping. Again, a doper does not dope once, so besides the whole iron thing with the Giro, where has there been innuendo from competitors or other indications elsewhere.

So that is a "no" then from both if you re: actual evidence then...got it.

You have supposition, innuendo and insinuation covered....I'll give you that. But none of what you posted is evidence.

I'll defer to your knowledge re: the iron shot shot, doc....dunno. But that is not evidence of doping.....sorry, it just isn't. It can be used to discredit a story, but doesn't prove or even indicate doping.

I defended LA throughout all his tour wins...until the '99 samples came back positive. At that point, the mountain of evidence was overwhelming. Not supposition, not "gee, that performance is odd", actual evidence. The eyewitnesses, the 99 samples, the back dated TUE, the Actovegin, etc.

Show me anything even half of that for Lemond and I'll listen.

As for the iron shot,mwhich supposedly caused the turnaround in the Giro, no shot of dope would do that. Not EPO (doesn't work that fast), not testosterone, etc.

---

Chicago Cubs - 2016 WORLD SERIES Champions!!!!

"If ever the time should come, when vain and aspiring men shall possess the highest seats in government, our country will stand in need of its experienced patriots to prevent its ruin." - Samuel Adams

You cant say that about the system when the system is corrupt. If UCI had followed their own rules, Lance would have been popped at least 3 times. So saying the justice needs to be timely doesnt count in this case.

He was the most blatant cheater because he even paid off the UCI to do it. Saying thats less blatant than others is literally the exact opposite of the facts. The exact reason he wasnt caught is that he bought off the system through money and influence. Bribing officials in our system of government is a crime, covering up a crime is another crime, and conspiring to cover up a crime is also another crime.

And finally it isnt a decade after the fact. Some of the most compelling evidence outside of the testimony is the blood values from 2009 that 4 members of the passport committee said if theyd been presented would have said it was a violation. Because the UCI was in lance's pocket, it was never presented.

Yes, Conconi, who was Ferrari's mentor at the University of Ferrara was an early adapter. These guys knew about EPO before it was approved in the US. They were following the clinical trials, and knew it was the magic potion. When Moser went to Mexico City to attempt the hour record, they brought along 2 ABO suitable donors. They understood how many problems EPO was going to solve.
I'm not going to write about other races, and situations. I'll wind up in the penalty box. But the facts surrounding Lemond's own account of the events after '89 Giro and the '89 Tour open a discussion on how he corrected his anemia. Again, this is not based on a third party point of view. It's based on his own words.
Until someone can explain in physiologic terms how he reversed his anemia, I will have questions.

And let's not forget that the investigation started in 2010 but was then put on the back burner once the Feds started their criminal investigation. Once the Feds dropped their case, USADA resumed theirs.

And by that time, LA was racing professionally as a triathlete. So was USADA just supposed to say " meh, forget the evidence and the fact he is a current professional athlete. He isn't racing bikes anymore,mso we'll just forget the whole thing. "?

---

Chicago Cubs - 2016 WORLD SERIES Champions!!!!

"If ever the time should come, when vain and aspiring men shall possess the highest seats in government, our country will stand in need of its experienced patriots to prevent its ruin." - Samuel Adams

 

I'll defer to your knowledge re: the iron shot shot, doc....dunno. But that is not evidence of doping.....sorry, it just isn't. It can be used to discredit a story, but doesn't prove or even indicate doping.

This is the problem, making arguments that miss the point. My question is so central to any argument on doping, that all else does not matter. It appears that in the current environment, unexplained physiologic responses are now more accurate than tests that actually look for banned substances. An unexplained rise in HCT is now considered an positive test.

What natural physiological reasons are there for a sudden increase in HCT?

---

Chicago Cubs - 2016 WORLD SERIES Champions!!!!

"If ever the time should come, when vain and aspiring men shall possess the highest seats in government, our country will stand in need of its experienced patriots to prevent its ruin." - Samuel Adams

Depends on the time frame. Quickly, take diuretics. But that will not change your RBC's. Go high altitude, that will increase the RBC's. Otherwise, it's pretty tough, and based on the events of the past few months, most of it is not legal.

Ok again what i said before, even if you take the 89 as suspect, though I disagree, where is there any other smoke in his career. Dopers do not do it once. Nothing has ever come of it but look whats come from team Reynolds ect... So where are the other rumors?

But changes from altitude don't happen suddenly, right? If I go up to Aspen, my HCT is not gonna suddenly shoot up to 52%. Acclimatization takes time.

So, given that the are really no natural physiological reasons for sudden increases in HCT, why shouldn't such a test result be viewed suspiciously?

---

Chicago Cubs - 2016 WORLD SERIES Champions!!!!

"If ever the time should come, when vain and aspiring men shall possess the highest seats in government, our country will stand in need of its experienced patriots to prevent its ruin." - Samuel Adams

Yes it takes time it isnt immediate, per Vaughters

Don't forget possibly pushing the case for Insurance Fraud. The SCA Bonus was an insurance policy.

If the UCI strips the titles, as well as the evidence shows that Lance knowingly was doping/cheating and should have had a reasonable expectation that if caught, he would lose his titles, let alone the chance that one or more bribes were paid to hide failed test...

Pretty much almost the same of staging an auto accident with a friend to then charge an insurance company for pain and suffering that didn't really happen or was a set-up.

I am not sure if Lemond did or didn't.

Doping was pervasive, but unlike Lance, I have never heard rumors, accusation, let alone the payoffs and bribes that Lance did.

Also, given the longer history, it would be more than likely that these materials against Lemond would have been present by now.

Maybe he did. He may have been even smarter and did it all on his own, i.e. no doctors, no teammates, and hence no one to really say "we did it together" etc.

I have been one of the most vocal against Lance, but the evidence to me as well as the far to numerous "coincidences" were to use Nike's words "insurmountable" in my mind.

Lemond was a little more before my time in terms of following / awareness, but until I hear teammates making statements and accusations, or here stories like meeting at a lab, making a $100K donation, etc. I am more inclined to think he was either clean, or at least far less dirty.

Yeah, I've been wondering about insurance fraud with this. I don't think your analogy is necessarily applicable though. In your example, what you describe is explicitly illegal. However, Lance arguably didn't break any (US) laws by taking PEDs, and his insurance contract did not stipulate that he must not take PEDs. So, put simply, he had a contract that would give him a payout if he won the TdF and these payouts were insured via SCA, Lloyds and Chubb. (Note, he received win bonuses for earlier TdFs too, which were paid by SCA, Lloyds and Chubb, and his 2004 bonus was actually $10m, $5m of which was the SCA amount that SCA tried to withhold. Lloyds and Chubb paid their $5m total unquestioned. So all these insurance companies may want to get all that money back now.)

But my point here is, the insurance companies may struggle to prove insurance fraud - although it's possible, and they may throw that on the dockett too. However, better and cleaner it seems, they should wait for the UCI (or CAS if UCI appeals) decision, and if LA has been stripped of his titles, then they sue for the win bonuses back based on the fact that he didn't, in retrospect, win.

The fact that he perjured himself in the process of fighting for his win bonus does make him potentially criminally liable for perjury, but not sure insurance fraud. He was put in a very difficult situation when SCA refused to pay:

a) Sue them and perjure himself saying he didn't dope
b) Don't fight for the $5m SCA win bonus and just be content with the $5m from Lloyds and Chubb (ironically, in hindsight this was probably the best option but his greed got in his way)
c) Sue them, but plead the 5th when asked if he took PEDs to avoid perjuring himself and keep his wins (clearly not ideal)

ETA: By the way, LA's lawyer claims the terms of the final settlement with SCA (after SCA lost the trial) dictate that SCA has no further recourse to ever recoup their money, under any circumstances. Assuming that's true, I'm not sure if such an agreement could be voided based on the fact that LA perjured himself in order to win that agreement. Any lawyers care to offer an opinion?

I was under the impression that part of the agreement with "pro's" is that their blood/urnine samples are available to be tested years after when new test come out.

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/cycling/1998/tourdefrance/tourdefrancearchive/tour2.html


Now an Iron infusion at best will increase hemoglobin 2-3% over a 4 week period. Then during the Tour he would still be subject to the normal physiologic response that occurs during a grand tour, and drop his hg probably more than 2-3% increase that his iron infusion gave him. Now, if he had a mild anemia, say a Hg of 9- 11 ( HCT of 27-33%) Given, that he was supposedly looking pale, that would suggest a Hg even lower. So increasing his Hg 2-3% does not put him at a level that can win a TdF. Even with his 90+ Vo2max. So now we have a situation where an anemic rider is winning the TdF. Does this sound plausible? Do the math. This is a legit question, not an accusation.

The one injection is well "documented" only because it was the only one ever mentioned. Is it plausible that he received multiple iron infusions between the Giro & the Tour?

---

Chicago Cubs - 2016 WORLD SERIES Champions!!!!

"If ever the time should come, when vain and aspiring men shall possess the highest seats in government, our country will stand in need of its experienced patriots to prevent its ruin." - Samuel Adams

Wait a second...

""Doping was pervasive,""

Really, is there any evidence that during Lemond's time that doping was pervasive? I was under the impression that there was no doping, or how we would refer to it in these "modern" times. Is there anecdotal evidence that other riders were doping at that time?

In my mind, the issue of Lance doping pales in light of his other, far, far, more horrible behavior of being a supplier, and forcing others into cheating. He is not and should not be seen as, being in the company of other doping riders: he is at another level.

I see your points, but the big clincher to me becomes the $100K payment, {cough} I mean donation to the UCI.

It also becomes a matter of was he eligible for his payout. I he knowingly cheated, and if discovered the cheating would have nullified his wins, then claiming a prize creates fraud. I think further more, if it can be reasonably shown that the $100K was paid to UCI to cover up failed tests that would have nullified the policy, that shows complicit action to defraud.

As for Lance's lawyers... I trust them as much as I trust Lance. It might be particularly interesting as well and may allow doors to other wise be opened if they can show that Lance and others acted in a conspiracy to conceal the wrong doings. If the $100K can be shown to be a bribe and now appears that Nike may have made an earlier payment to the UCI, it may open doors more.

It is not cut and dry, but I think still possible.

after the sponsor support said bye, Lance revealed a new shirt....

EPO was all over in the 90s, as well as Mercxx was even caught for some abuses. The drugs may have been different, it was by far not as sophisticated as the microdoses and transfusions, synthetic steroids and masking agents, but the issue did not start with Lance... He only was the first one to really push it to new levels and then use his fame and celebrity to create a hit-team of lawyers sent out to "break legs" so to speak and destroy lives of anyone who dare shine a light on his dirty secret.

"According to Andy Hampsten, a cyclist who raced in the 1980s and ’90s, riders were only using amphetamines and anabolics, and both had drawbacks. “Amphetamines made riders stupid … Anabolics made people bloated.” “EPO changed everything,” he said. It boosted a rider’s red-blood cells so they could carry more oxygen, leading to greater endurance. Between 1980 and 1990, the average speed of a Tour de France rider was 37.5 kilometers per hour. From 1995 to 2005, it was 41.6kph."