Andy Hampsten comments on current ruckus

[Steve Hampsten]

Thanks to e-Richie, Dr Brooks, the jerk and the rest of you for giving this topic the thoughtful respect it deserves. Today, Brother Andy writes:


July 24, 2004

Dear Fellow Cyclists and Cycling Fans,

Like many of you, I have read Greg Lemond's recent comments regarding doping in cycling and his interactions with Lance Armstrong. For those not up to speed, see this link for a concise account of Greg’s statements in English:

http://www.eurosport.com/home/pages/V4/L0/S18/sport_Lng0_Spo18_Sto613945.shtml

The original complete text in French appears here:

http://www.lemonde.fr/web/recherche_articleweb/1,13-0,36-372691,0.html

I admire Greg's courage to speak his mind on the doping problems that still plague cycling. Like him, I feel that this problem is out of hand. Something needs to be done to clean it up, not only for the sake of the riders’ health, but also for the sake of returning our sport to the truths of human spirit, valor, and talent.

The English version of the Eurosport article makes a huge point of Greg’s personal experience with Lance and the resulting conflict. Obviously, Lance and Greg have their own private relationship. While I know and respect both of these champions, having raced with both of them over the years, their personal interaction is none of my business, and speculating on conflict between the two only distracts from the bigger and more important issue of doping.

What I found more compelling was the complete Le Monde text. It clearly shows Greg, who remains unquestionably the father of the modern era of American cycling champions, standing up and declaring that professional cycling has been and, regrettably, still is rotten with drugs.

Greg has put himself into personal and business difficulties by speaking out and getting involved with the issue of drugs in today's cycling. Voluntarily placing himself in this position shows me honesty and bravery far beyond what most of us could muster. Lemond could instead follow the cycling world's expectations for past champions and sit around "a fumer le pipe" ('chilling' in cycling slang) in silence. But, his legitimate concern for the health and lives of today’s athletes and future riders drives him to do what he can to return cycling to a healthy level. I want to see the same. Since the early 90s both doping and the medical excesses placed upon riders’ health have gotten out of control.

Most of us will probably need to put aside our Tour time emotions and resist making the judgment that Greg is trying to gain something personal or is simply jealous of being eclipsed as the dominant American cyclist. I saw Greg race as a champion through the 80s, and into the 90s when the cycling community as a whole turned a blind eye towards doping and consciously ignored the onslaught of EPO in the peloton.

Like Greg, I too saw what I believe were the effects of EPO when it entered pro cycling in the early 90s. In the first years it grew from a few individuals reaping obscene wins from exploiting its “benefits,” to entire teams relying on it, essentially forcing all but the most gifted racers to either use EPO to keep their place in cycling, quit, or become just another obscure rider in the group.

I had the honor of racing in eight Tours. Being happily retired, I can reflect on my small part in that race and enjoy seeing it motivate kids just as it did me. So like Greg Lemond, I cannot just sit idly by watching our sport continue to suffer from cheating. It’s time to tell the truth.

Why now? Remember that while the Tour de France is the pinnacle of cycling, it is also the leading force in fighting drugs in cycling. Right now, while public attention is still on the Tour, is a good time to address the problem of doping.

Dr. Michele Ferrari is known to have supported the use of EPO to increase his riders’ performances. In ’94, while his riders dominated the Ardennes Classic, he publicly ridiculed making rules against EPO saying it was safe to use and should not be made illegal in cycling. I believe behavior like this and the use of these products should not be tolerated. Violators should receive meaningful bans from the sport, bans that significantly outweigh any perceived benefits.

Many aspiring racers have confronted drug use as they rose through the ranks. Unfortunately, their silent answer to this insanity is often to quit racing at this level. Otherwise, they risk succumbing to the conventional wisdom that “since everyone takes drugs to be competitive, you should too.” This must not continue to be the choice facing promising young racers.

Now, in his retirement, Greg Lemond is fighting to bring racing back to a natural level of honest riders racing to their limits and living a long life to talk about it. I am writing to support him in this fight.

Both Greg and I are involved with a junior racing team, so this matter continues to concern us as we support and urge kids to go as far as they can in the sport we love, both for their own personal rewards, and to keep cycling growing. It is irresponsible for us to encourage kids to race and potentially turn pro without doing all we can to change cycling back to a sport where they will not likely be asked to take drugs that could ultimately destroy their natural good health, their characters, and their bodies.


Thanks for listening,

Andy Hampsten

[e-RICHIE]

bravo!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
attaboy!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
way-to-go!!!!!!!!!!!!
e-RICHIE

ps


:banana: :banana: :banana:
:banana: :banana: :banana:
:banana: :banana: :banana:

arrange disorder

[EdK]

Thanks Steve for the relay and pass on my thanks to Andy! If only Lemond had Andy's ability to articulate.......

[Sandy]

Mr. A. Hampsten's letter was quite well done and shows the genuine concern that many have about drug useage in cycling (and elsewhere). I found particularly interesting that Greg Lemond's position taken had negative personal and business ramifications. That makes sense and perhaps shows the great conviction in what he is saying.

Sandy

[Climb01742]

andy's statement is a clear, articulate, reasoned stance against doping. without a single note of personal animous (sp?).

greg's comments cannot be characterized by any of those adjectives. greg made it personal. whatever the reasons for that personal attack, it colors his statement, motives and objectives.

andy's statement enriches his stature. greg's improverishes his.

[e-RICHIE]

Climb90210...
you make sense.
hopefully, andy's letter will deflect some of the lance/greg
part of this and bring much needed attention to the problem
in a more neutral way.
e-RICHIE

:) :rolleyes: :)
:rolleyes: :) :rolleyes:
:rolleyes: :) :)

arrange disorder

[Bill Bove]

Sponors want results-riders want sponsors money. Get caught doping, lifetime ban for athlete, ten year ban for sponsor.

[shaq-d]

until hampsten and lemond confess to doping, their own comments on doping are worth nothing.

sd

[e-RICHIE]

i'd be happy if they/anybody would just admit that
drugs are used - even if the drugs were not from
the banned list. to the outside world, "drugs" are
insidious; if these guys just copped to the fact that
they're not racing on powerbars it would be a head
start. i can even be on delgado's side when he tested
positive for a drug yet to make the banned list. it's
the holier-than-thou, "we don't take drugs" stuff that gets
old to me.
e-RICHIE

ps

:no: :no: :no:
:confused: :confused: :confused:
:D :D :D

arrange disorder

[Russ]

....Many aspiring racers have confronted drug use as they rose through the ranks. Unfortunately, their silent answer to this insanity is often to quit racing at this level.....
I can only speak for myself on this matter, but I like to tell you that this was the very reason I quit cycling when I was on my way up....

e-Richie, your comments are so true! I wish more of us would think that way.

[Russ]

Sponors want results-riders want sponsors money. Get caught doping, lifetime ban for athlete, ten year ban for sponsor.

:) Bill Bove for President!!!! :)

[scottcw]

So because Lance does not make cleaning up the peleton his priority and Greg makes a huge stink of it always around Tour time, Lance is vilified and Greg is praised? Time to tell the truth? what does it matter if nobody believes you? Lance can claim to be clean and even test clean for the rest of his life. It will not make a difference because the allegations are out there. Since everyone in the peleton is doping, I have to assume that Greg doped.

Lance has raised big money and awareness for cancer research. What has Greg contributed to society outside of the country club of cycling? his line of bikes that he so magnanimously puts at risk by talking about doping every July? big whoop. Where are his comments the rest of the year? Why does he only feel the need to be so concerned about the time everyone is paying attention to another American cyclist?

[scottcw]

until hampsten and lemond confess to doping, their own comments on doping are worth nothing.

+1

[Louis]

My $0.02:

I’ve concluded that despite their denials, most if not all elite-level cyclists probably do use some form of illegal performance enhancing substances. Some more than others. Since the BALCO story broke I trust no one.

While the pro racers/teams themselves do bear some of the responsibility, in my opinion, the UCI and other regulatory bodies that have allowed the situation to become what it is are the most culpable. Most folks, especially very competitive ones, will try to get away with as much as they can. A prosaic example: How many of you out there drive the speed limit on the highway? Might you drive even faster than limit + 10 if the State Troopers did nothing about it? Racers are no different. You push the envelope as far as you can until the system pushes back. We all do it to some degree or other in our lives. When there is as much to be gained as there is in this game, human nature will take over and the envelope will be pushed to the breaking point.

In the case of pro cycling the folks who should regulate the system have failed. It’s just that simple. You can’t expect the racers to unilaterally disarm. Someone else has to do it, and until that happens at its top levels the sport will be dirty. That doesn’t prevent me from having a good time and enjoying it at my level, but it does make me feel a bit less proud of my sport.

Louis

[djg]

Mr. Hampsten seems to have offered some clear and heartfelt thoughts about the problem of doping in the pro ranks. No mud slinging there, just concern for a sport he knows and loves.

He has also offered an exceedingly charitable reading of LeMond's remarks about Lance Armstrong. LeMond's words are not just words of concern for cycling generally, they are an attack on a particular individual, an attack containing suggestions of wrongdoing that are not elliptical, veiled . . . or substantiated. If LeMond has put his position and livelihood at risk, it is not just--and perhaps not chiefly--because he has taken a strong stance about doping per se.

I don't know Armstrong or LeMond personally and I don't know who may have started their pissy fit. But whoever started this, I cannot help but think that LeMond's accusations are--given the evidence--an unfounded disgrace. I say this not because I know Lance to be clean and not because I'm unaware of doping in cycling more generally. I say this because LeMond's published comments about LA, on their face, seem to go beyond the pale. To this reader, they are more dumb than brave.

[bostondrunk]

<burp><burp><burp><burp>
Man <burp> the bD is drunk agane on a Staurday night...woohoo
I loveith this sport <burp> anyway, drugs and <burp> all. These guys are so far above any of you <burp> .......................and me, regardles of what they ar on!<burp> :beer: :beer: :beer:

[e-RICHIE]

djg-issimo writes:
"I don't know Armstrong or LeMond personally and I don't know who may have started their pissy fit. But whoever started this, I cannot help but think that LeMond's accusations are--given the evidence--an unfounded disgrace."



who "really" knows the timeline - but if you read the reports associated with this letter, in 2001 greg suggested to lance to disassociate himself with the doctor due his reputation as (these are the journalist's words) "...an Italian who is recognised as the chemical architect behind some of cycling's more dubious teams." lance then insinuated that greg could not have won without epo. regardless, this sets up the chronology of who said what first. as fate would have it, the media comes into this story again in 04 and paints greg in a questionable light; bitter, jealous, yada-yada. when i read the entire chapter, including todd balf's 90s piece on lance in outside mag, i don't come away thinking greg is bitter at all. i think the 04 media has an agenda, and now it's "all lance. all the time".

to sum it up, andy's letter comes at a good time. it is fortuitous. it will help deflect some of the energy away from the lance vs greg crap.
e-RICHIE

ps

:cool: :cool: :cool:
:p :p :p
:D :D :D

arrange disorder

[va rider]

I agree with Climb.

Andy's took the high road and made his point in a clear and convincing manner. IMHO, he is right and pro cycling and all of pro sports need to clean up their acts. (This is not a problem limited to cycling).

LeMond, otoh, showed no class in personalizing his point just as Armstrong wins his 6th tdf. If he has first hand evidence that Armstrong is doping, then he should bring it forward. If not, he should take a lesson on tact from Andy.

My dad used to tell me there is time and place for everything. LeMond's comments accusing Armstrong were ill-timed at best. It just does not sit well.

[e-RICHIE]

va rider-issimo wrote:
"LeMond's comments accusing Armstrong were ill-timed at best."


read my last post. if you follow the reported history of this, the accusations began earlier - circa 2001 - from lance. just because we have this media circus now does not mean that greg woke up last february and called lance a user. there are many layers to this story and neglecting its origins is not fair. just my opinion...
e-RICHIE

:beer: :beer: :beer:
:beer: :beer: :beer:
:beer: :beer: :beer:

arrange disorder

[Johny]

http://www.siglamag.com/features/angels.shtml MUST READ!!!

Some of it:

Francesco Moser had beaten Eddy Merckx's Hour Record, which had stood since 1972. Moser did it not once but twice, in the space of one weekend stretching it from 49.431 kms to 50.808 kms and then 51.151 kms. When Merckx set his record it was claimed he had been unable to sit down for four days afterwards. Yet here was Moser, with behind-the-scenes help from Italian doctors Francesco Conconi and Michele Ferrari, breaking the record twice in one weekend. And he had used blood-doping to help him do it.

But by 1987 ...That drug was EPO... Moser's medical adviser, Conconi, was among the first to develop a way for athletes to use EPO without fear of detection. At the time of doing this, he was also employed by the UCI, charged with developing anti-doping tests.

Conconi's protege, Ferrari, claimed in 1994 that EPO was as harmless as orange juice. Even today, Ferrari insists that EPO is not a dangerous drug.

The UCI claims it is fighting the drugs war and that they will win. But their heel-dragging in signing up to the World Anti-Doping Agency's (WADA) code of practice (they will only be signing after the end of this year's Tour - they are the only Olympic federation not yet to sign up to WADA's code of practice) suggests they are not nearly as serious as they claim to be. Without the sort of random out-of-competition testing that WADA requires and the punitive bans they impose for those who fail dope tests, the dopers will always be able to stay at least one step ahead of the testers.

In the eyes of many cycling fans the biggest crime is not doping. It is the claims of many that there is no doping in cycling, despite all the evidence to the contrary. Cycling has never been a clean sport, and it will probably never be a clean sport. Everyone who has followed cycling, even at a distance, knows the role drugs play in the sport.

Jacques Anquetil (Tour winner 1957, 1961-64) admitted that "you don't win the Tour de France on mineral water." He had led a riders' revolt in the 1966 Tour when drug tests were introduced: "We find these tests degrading. Why do cyclists have to be suspected and controlled while any other free man can do what he likes and take what he likes?"

Questioned about the role of amphetamines in cycling and whether he had used amphetamines, Fausto Coppi (Tour winner 1949 and 1953) replied "Only when necessary." Asked how often that was, Coppi replied "Almost all the time." Go back to the 1924 Tour and remember the words of Henri Pelissier: "Do you want to see how we keep going? That's cocaine to go in our eyes. Chloroform for our gums. This is ointment to warm the knees. And pills, do you want to see the pills?" His brother, Francis, added: "We keep going on dynamite. In the evenings we dance around our rooms instead of sleeping."

remember these words from Antoine Blondin:
"As sports fans, we prefer to dream about angels on wheels, Simon Pures somehow immune to the uppers and downers of our own pill-popping society. There is, all the same, a certain nobility in those who have gone down into God knows what hell in search of the best of themselves. We might feel tempted to tell them they should not have done it, but we can remain secretly proud of what they have done. Their wan, haggard looks are for us an offering."

P.S.
Lance: What these people need to remember is that I was the World Champion in 1993 when no one had heard of drugs, no one had heard of EPO. I've proven my class, I've shown my class from Day 1. -- http://www.lancearmstrong.com/99tdfwords.html

BTW, the erythropoietin (EPO) gene was first cloned and expressed... in 1985 by Dr. Lin (Amgen owns the patent). http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=3865178

[Needs Help]

Questioned about the role of amphetamines in cycling and whether he had used amphetamines, Fausto Coppi (Tour winner 1949 and 1953) replied "Only when necessary." Asked how often that was, Coppi replied "Almost all the time."

Hahahahaha!

[e-RICHIE]

johny-issimo.
that is a great, GREAT link.
http://www.siglamag.com/features/angels.shtml
thanks for posting it. i come away feeling more convinced that lemond's initial motivation was to steer lance away from this pr!ck of a doctor. nothing more.
when the story is fully told, i'll be waiting to read how it was justified to keep ferarri on lance's payroll.
e-RICHIE

ps

:confused: :confused: :confused:
:confused: :confused: :confused:
:no: :no: :no:

arrange disorder

[Brian Smith]

Here is the French:
Le problème avec Lance, c'est qu'on ne peut pas discuter avec lui.

Pour lui, soit tu es un menteur comme Christophe Bassons ou Jesus Manzano, soit tu cherches à détruire le cyclisme. Moi, je dis seulement que je veux voir la vérité quand je regarde le Tour de France. Lance est prêt à faire n'importe quoi pour garder son secret. Mais je ne sais pas comment il pourra continuer à convaincre tout le monde de son innocence.


My translation:

The problem with Lance, is that you can't discuss (it) with him.
To him, (blah blah) to destroy cycling. Me, I'm only saying that I wasnt to see the truth when I look at the Tour de France. Lance is ready to do anything to keep his secret. But I don't know how he will be able to continue to be able to convince everyone of his innocence.



I think (and this does not read "I am anti-Lance") that LeMond has a point there, that it is hard to get Lance to talk about doping. Perhaps its a Texan way of handling allegations that some of the rest of us don't fully appreciate?

[Johny]

In the May (2004) issue of Procycling, " "Pills, Thrills, and Bellyaches" by Les Woodland is worth reading. " You think dope taking is new, that it all started about the time that you got interested in cycling? Sadly, it ain't necessary so"-- a long list of doping methods since the 19th century.

Confession from one more Tour champion:

"Careers were ruined, among them Bernard Thevenet's. After Tour wins in 1975 and 1977, which included riding past Eddy Merckx on Pra-Loup while still in his big ring, his career fell to bits. He climbed off at the start of the mountains in 1978 and told France-velo in November that year that " I have been doped with cortisone for three years and you can see the result today: I can scarecely ride a bike"."

[Russ]

First of all, don't take this reply as a personal attack, but I think that some of the points you are stating are examples of some of the reasons the issues at hand (doping) tend to get off track and never gets resolved!

Let me explain...

....Lance has raised big money and awareness for cancer research.....
So? How does this exonerate him? Could we, let's say, absolve our current and previous Presidents for their wrong doing, just because they have done more good than harm? Shall we forgive other Sports Stars if they commit a crime, just because they are involved in some great charity?
....What has Greg contributed to society outside of the country club of cycling?...
What has Hinault, Merckx, Indurain... What has Lance done for those of us that are not affected directly or indirectly with cancer? Not much more, has he? When was the last time that a bike lane was built on Lance's name in my town? Or to celebrate Lance's great comeback, when did a strong nation-wide law was enacted to protect cyclists from careless drivers?

Read Johny's post, it's a great one! I think it will bring you back to the real issue here...

[vaxn8r]

Lemond has done nothing wrong. Some of you guys believe only what you want to believe despite evidence to the contrary.

Professional cycling is all about doping. Those of you waiting for incontestable evidence through postive drug tests have your heads in the sand. There are no tests. Doping is at least a decade or more ahead of blood or urine testing. testing is extremely costly and also underfunded. Who pays for it? Testing as it now stands looks for chemicals which are years out of date. Furthermore, you have the UCI which has a huge interest in keeping the results hidden even if there were evidence. Are you kidding? The UCI wants to blow up their own sport?

So all of you who feel Simoni or Lemond or Hampsten or anybody else who has the courage to take an unpopular stand is only ruining the sport. Well, you get what you deserve...the sport is a farce as it now stands.

And those who can stand behind Lance after yesterday...I just don't get it. He showed all the world what happens when you cross him. He's vindictive and mean-spirited. If his actions yesterday don't convince you that he and all the others are doping then I guess you'll just never be convinced. Keep waiting for that positive drug test. Right!

[shinomaster]

I just read all of these posts.

What we know is that Pro cyclists have always used performance enhancing drugs. As do modern day Baseball, football , X country skiers, track stars , etc... The list goes on...The Vikings did drugs before battle....making them berzerk! We give our AirForce fighter piolets amphetamenes to fly more missions.

Human males clearly have it within their collective conscience to take drugs to get better results, weather it be to climb a mountain fastest, or survive a bloody battle, or even have bettter sex. (Blush..)

We are the same humans we have always been.

If a racer has a broken body should he not take a drug to rebuild it? To survive? To keep his career? I can legally take a shot of something to fix my knee. Why not a pro racer? I would take drugs if it were safe, and it would make me a stronger man. If it would make me ride faster..
EPO is safe if properly taken. It's a prescription drug after all. Half the Peloton would have died in the 90's if it killed it's user. Ferarri was probably quite right.
Did Lance win all of his tour because of drugs? I doubt it...Some ? Who knows? We never will. Does he train harder than Jan Ullrich? YES.. IS he more Talented than Beloki and Simoni and Pantani? YES, obviously...

Has Lance ever been caught ? NO.. IS he clean? We clearly don't know..

Are we all just wasting our time here? Probably...

I bet Andy and Greg know a lot more about this than any of us computer clowns. Will any sport ever be totally "clean" No way...

Is Lance good for cycling in the country? YES.

what can you do?



:confused:

[keno]

Just last week, Jame Carney, a two-time Olympian track cyclist, was giving a clinic at Trexlertown. During the course of it during a rain delay, one of the participants asked about drug use and drug testing. Carney commented that, in his opinion, the only people who truly care about drug testing are the clean racers. None of the others with more than a "talking" interest in the sport wants to have to deal with or suffer the effects of a positive drug test, an event which impacts negatively on the sport and those who govern it, as a whole, and the economic interests of those having them.

His view struck me at the time as making very good sense. Having read the prior posts on the subject, it makes even more good sense to me.

keno

[victoryfactory]

Thanks to Shinomaster:
"What we know is that Pro cyclists have always used performance enhancing drugs. As do modern day Baseball, football , X country skiers, track stars , etc... The list goes on...The Vikings did drugs before battle....making them berzerk! We give our AirForce fighter piolets amphetamenes to fly more missions."

This is the real issue, not what some group of experts decides about what is a "drug" and what is not.

Aspirin? caffine? epo?

We put a substance on one side of the fence or another, make a
commission of "experts" to rule on what's legal then, voila! this mess.

The reason athletes still take epo is because it works
I'm pessimistic, I don't see how this problem is really solved, except to
let them do whatever they want, and watch as they suffer (or not) later
in life for their choice....

Welp the caffine just kicked in, I'm goin' for a ride......

VF, who will watch the pagent in Paris today with mixed feelings.....

[bostondrunk]

I think the only thing they can really do to -try- to solve the problem is to say that when someone tests positive for a particular drug (ie. maybe not include such things as cold medicine, etc.), they are banned for life. Simple. Otherwise stop bothering them and let them do what they want.

[Bill Bove]

I think the only thing they can really do to -try- to solve the problem is to say that when someone tests positive for a particular drug (ie. maybe not include such things as cold medicine, etc.), they are banned for life. Simple. Otherwise stop bothering them and let them do what they want.

Yep! Like I said earlier, the demands the sponsers put on the riders to perform almost neccesatates that they juice up. And if you kick one guy out for doping, two more will step up to get his spot on the team and hope that they don't get tested. The only way to effectively end doping is for the punishment be so severe nobody will consider it. Lifetime ban. Fini. Caputo. Done. Go home and don't bother showing up for an amatuer race either, you're done. And to keep the sponsers from putting adverse pressure "to perform" kick them out too. You think Festina would've been happy having their name dragged through the mud? They were as guilty as Virinque.

[Russ]

....The only way to effectively end doping is for the punishment be so severe nobody will consider it. Lifetime ban. Fini. Caputo. Done.....you're done. And to keep the sponsers from putting adverse pressure "to perform" kick them out too...

1) No appeals allowed, if you got caught, you were using it... None of these non-sense: "Oh, my Aunty Gina gave me some cookies that had cocaine..." or "Man, that EPO was for my ill grandma..."

2) Strip them suckers out of their previous Palmares: Oh, by the way, you won the Tour in 1987... Give me that trophy! The guy in second is now the champ!

[Dekonick]

Its the theme that will never die...

I am conflicted about how I feel regarding dope and professional sports. On one hand, I love watching super human cyclists perform feats that utterly amaze mere mortals such as myself. On the other, I would enjoy watching the same feats (even if they are not quite as amazing) in a drug free peleton. Drugs or no drugs, I am enthralled with the sport (as are most of us - no?)

Cycling itself, indeed professional sports, finds itself stuck in this quagmire we call doping. I will watch as long as it is televised. I know there will always be some who are using chemical aids to enhance their performance! Do I wish this were not the case? Yes. Is it reality to believe it can ever be so? NO!

I don't think its fair to implicate a single rider in this affair - its an issue that runs much deeper than that. I dont mind a single athlete using what he or she may need to make it through the day, week, season. What is of concern is the team manager, doctor, coach, and/or sponsor that encourages this practice. What an individual does is of less consequence - IMHO - than what an individual is TOLD to do. It is a difficult task, at best, to say NO (to dope) when your family relies on your performance. How can a rider say no to his or her boss? Not easily. Putting pasta on the plate, and a roof (or tent in Lance's case) over your head take priority.

I think that we all feel and agree that using drugs to enhance performance is less desirous than, say, not doing so - but is it reality? Can it be changed? Who do you punish?

I have not looked at the entire list of contraband - but I know that many substances others have mentioned here have medicinal purposes that aid in healing, or treat injuries/illness unrelated to an athletes performance. (Remember the bee sting in the face a few years back?)

Using chemistry for better living is part of what makes humans human. I do not see any problem with chemical intervention when used with the guidance of a trained medical professional - Many of the medications you and I use to treat every day injuries or illnesses are listed as contraband! Why?

I dont know the answer. I do know that drugs can positively impact society - just ask anyone who has had a headache and an asprin made their day. Drugs can also a detriment - Look at Cocaine as an example. It has medicinal use, and has huge non medicinal abuse. Morphine is another - given for pain its one of the best medications known to man. Abused it leaves legions of mindless addicts in its wake.

The list can go on and on - EPO, Cocaine, MSO4, Steroids, Catacholamines, etc...

It all comes back to who is responsible for the medications - the user or the supplier?

The Doctor, pharmacist, manager, coach, etc... are more to blame than the individual athlete. They cant just go pick up EPO at the corner store can they?

Place blame where blame should be placed - dont blame the victim. Thats just like blaming an addict when its the dealer who is really at fault. - No supply = no problem.

I know it is not possible to do this so we do whats easy - blame the athlete.

I think it sucks.

Well... I am going to go back and re-watch some of my favorite stages on my TiVO while people more important than me point fingers...

Hope to see yall on the road! :bike:

********

as far as the original thread - Lance VS Simeoni - I'll reserve judgement until I know more.

[Needs Help]

Place blame where blame should be placed - dont blame the victim.

Yep, you shouldn't be responsible for your own actions. It has to be someone else's fault. Free will doesn't exist.

[Kevan]

avoiding topics involving religion and politics, it seems I need to add to my restraint the topic of "performance enhancing drugs" too. :D

Except for now...

I think we're all past the naive state in believing in a level playing field. As a father to two teenagers, I try, with considerable support from my SO, to raise our kids with a firm sense of ethics. We don't support the view that everyone cheats. As they face the real world, they will be facing the decisions as to whether they should lie or cheat and I can only hope that my values will serve as a counterweight.

My kids have before them a hard decision. Society loves the winner in all walks. And heck, even when a winner has fallen, succumbed to the weakness of lying and cheating, society seems to love them that much more for being human, particularly in the entertainment and sports business. Go figure.

To Lance, I say congratulations on #6; I’m glad he works as hard as he does to be the best that he is. Working hard to be the best is the greatest reward.

To Greg, I wish him the best with his new endeavor with the TIAA/CREF Cycling Team he’s now involved in. Having worked at Teacher’s early in my career, I hold a fond memory of that employer. I wish them well.

Now back to helping Sandy improve…

[Dekonick]

Needs Help -

I am not say'n that the athlete who uses doesnt take some of the blame - but nobody wants to do anything to the sponsor, coach, MD, etc...

Its too easy to point the finger -

The peer pressure to have success - day after day -

Imagine it -

Coach to athlete - 'if you dont improve by xxx you are off of the team'
athlete hears about a MD that the 'team' knows may be able to help...
athlete - with the fear of losing their job and all they love - go to MD and take xxxx -

Coach next month - great job! your have improved... yadda yadda yadda

Who is to blame? The athlete? or the system that creates the dilema that results in the use of said chemical enhancers.

I do not condone or like the fact that this problem is pervasive in professional sports -

I do not support using any medication without medical direction - even if its as simple as the instructions on the bottle...

I wish that the need to succeed was not so great that athletes make poor choices - but if you are going to blame anyone, blame the source of the problem. Any MD who will give a scrip of EPO to anyone who does not have a hemacrit problem - like an athlete - IS the problem.

- you cant cook up EPO in your kitchen
- you cant cook up steroids in your kitchen
etc...

they all come from a 'professional' source - and thats where the problem exists. Want to stop the supply? Start revoking medical licenses and see what happens. Start not allowing sponsors to have a team and see what happens. Ill bet things would change...

What if Confidis, for example, was not allowed to have a team because they allowed their athletes to dope - perhaps by turning a blind eye, perhaps not (but probably by quietly assisting...). As soon as they realize they have a problem then they need to police themselves. It is no different than management tolerating a hostile work environment. It exists because they allow it - not because someone is harassing others. A policy of zero tolerance, that is ENFORCED works. Ask any corporation that has been sued and paid out big bucks... Ill bet they will tell you that they now have zero tolerance policies, and ill bet they are enforced. I know that where I work that is the case - and it only took a few MANAGERS being fired to change attitudes -

I dunno - the situation sucks.

Regardless, I still feel the little guy is getting the blame for a problem that exists more as a result of those in power.

oh well... nothing I can do will stop it so Ill watch the tour, vuelta, fleche wallone etc... and continue to be utterly amazed at the skill of the athletes.

[BigMac]

I find the innuendo and assumptions accorded this topic to be extremely disturbing. Are we to assume from this that Mr.’s Lemond and A. Hampsten somehow see themselves as guardians of the sport that provided them a living and yet wish to condemn its current members and specifically its greatest current star based on presumptions and innuendo’s without any factual data. The FACT of the matter is that cycling is unequivocally the most policed professional sport in the world; only the Olympic Games approach this level of drug testing and enforcement.

Do drugs exist in our sport? Yes, based solely on a handful of positive tests. Has Lance ever tested positive? No. So some clown writer looking to sell a book makes a few accusations, supported by the “testimonials” of former colleagues or employees very distantly associated with Mr. Armstrong and suddenly these folks garner greater credibility than Lance, the UCI and registered testing lab results. Why? I call it rubber neckers disease, the phenomenon where everybody cranes their necks to see the train wreck. No train wreck…let’s make one. It’s a book and in most countries the freedom of speech is protected with greater vigor than is personal liability.

The most disturbing aspect is how a few folks, not current members of peloton mind you, jumped to the defense of some putz that whined about being chased down in a breakaway. Has any other rider EVER whined about being chased down in a breakaway? Absolutely not, his own team’d drop him like a bad habit. Of course many chose to speculate this was related to some pending litigation between the two participants, probably true but that would be speculation and is beyond the scope of public consumption, imo.

So if we assume this was Lance demonstrating a little police action on a certain member of the Peloton, what is exactly wrong with this? This is precisely what makes sports fair, honorable and compelling, on all levels. I submit that if all sports policed themselves in similar fashion, the game itself would be more entertaining. Perhaps some folks in these parts are too young to remember football or baseball the way it was played 30-40 years ago. Hitters did not stand on top of plate as they do today and there were no post HR hitting poses, if their were, guys named Gibson, Marichal or Drysdale policed the situation. Not with head-high fastballs that might seriously hurt somebody, rather a mid 90’s fastball in the ribcage, something that might bruise for the next 2 weeks. In my era of football, we did not have 1/3 the penalties the game labors with today. Games were fast, efficient and clean. Certainly chop blocks, head slaps and leg whips existed, but they were answered succinctly and efficiently by teammates w/o the need for referee interference.

How should cycling be policed? In my opinion, the continued random drug testing with continued development of testing methodology. Stiff penalties already exist for those failing tests and should continue to be enforced. Ill behavior needs to be policed by the riders themselves, as Lance demonstrated and was openly supported by the Peloton. The most disturbing however is when a guy like Lemond, ungracefully receding from the cycling spotlight with Lance’s emergence, opens his yap as a self-proclaimed patron of cycling and dismisses the sport as cloaked in drug problems. If he truly believes this to be true, terrific take an active role with UCI or USCF in attempting to address the problem. Discuss the situation privately with testing lab facility directors to determine what additional testing or measures can be taken to alleviate the problem. To step in front of a mike with some yahoo looking to publish a juicy story regardless of facts and make inflammatory and irresponsible accusations is NOT the actions of a patron. Those who truly love their sport, the very sport with which they are identified and have made a living, do not make such remarks…if they do love their sport.

Ride On! :banana: :banana: :banana:

[shaq-d]

I find the innuendo and assumptions accorded this topic to be extremely disturbing. Are we to assume from this that Mr.’s Lemond and A. Hampsten somehow see themselves as guardians of the sport that provided them a living and yet wish to condemn its current members and specifically its greatest current star based on presumptions and innuendo’s without any factual data. The FACT of the matter is that cycling is unequivocally the most policed professional sport in the world; only the Olympic Games approach this level of drug testing and enforcement.


well, i agree with most of the rest, but it's not a fact, or not true, that cycling is the most policed professional sport, at least, in the way that you intend that statement. if it was, cycling wouldn't be one of the last sports to have embraced the WAD; cycling wouldn't have a 50% hematocrit legal level maximum (which, as the UCI main man himself admitted, is a _compromise_; and is also why riders like zabel say "there's a speed limit, why can't i go above it if everyone else is"?).

sd

[rnhood]

Well said Big Mac. Very well said.

[e-RICHIE]

BigMac wrote (snipped):
"The most disturbing aspect is how a few folks, not current members of peloton mind you, jumped to the defense of some putz that whined about being chased down in a breakaway. Has any other rider EVER whined about being chased down in a breakaway? Absolutely not, his own team’d drop him like a bad habit. Of course many chose to speculate this was related to some pending litigation between the two participants, probably true but that would be speculation and is beyond the scope of public consumption, imo.
So if we assume this was Lance demonstrating a little police action on a certain member of the Peloton, what is exactly wrong with this?"

that's a stretch. would he have chased him down earlier in the race? no. and he didn't. did he chase him down on his own - a guy who poses no threat to gc - in an action that even postal directors said was unplanned and had no explanation for? yes, he did. why? we all know why, but to paraphrase the headlines in the ny times, it was "...to settle a grudge". paranthetically, how much support would he get if he chased walsh down the street? these guys all have pending legal cases. let them continue their day jobs and settle the differences in court. i lost all respect for lance for pulling that stunt the other day...

also:
"The most disturbing however is when a guy like Lemond, ungracefully receding from the cycling spotlight with Lance’s emergence, opens his yap as a self-proclaimed patron of cycling and dismisses the sport as cloaked in drug problems..."

he was asked his opinion by the media and he gave it. why paint the wrong picture? before he ever said word one, it was well documented that ferarri, the fellow who really is at the core of these rumors, was condoning epo use.
also - if the sport isn't cloaked in drug problems, how do you explain away a current world champion who never tested positive, denying it until the cows come home, and then copping to epo use?

if anyone is bored, there are great posts here from a guy called russw19:
http://forums.roadbikereview.com/showthread.php?t=10964

e-RICHIE

ps

:no: :no: :no:
:no: :no: :no:
:no: :no: :no:

arrange disorder

[Johny]

Those who truly love their sport, the very sport with which they are identified and have made a living, do not make such remarks…if they do love their sport.


I still encourage people to read http://www.siglamag.com/features/angels.shtml . Keep open-minded and leave all judgment up to God.

Love never fails. Unfortunately, human love does...

[weisan]

This is an issue that exists in many levels and its root cause reaches far deeper than most people are willing to admit or consider.

At the end of it, when the complete truth be told, I am hoping that people in both camps will be humbled by the frailty of our existence, have a deeper appreciation for the human struggle, and hopefully, take a more resolute stand to do better in all counts....or else, I mean seriously, why even bother.

I am just waiting to be taught an object lesson in life.
:p

weisan

[Dekonick]

RUS makes some good points. Worth reading his posts (See E-Richie's post for the link)

I still admire any professional cyclist - :D

[BigMac]

E-Richie:

No he did not chase him down earlier, however what's your point whether he did or not. Why do you insist on knowing why he did this time. Whether it was his way of enforcing a rule or not, it was within the context of the race. The problem does not exist with Lance chasing or not chasing, the problem is the clown that whines about it afterward. If he doesn't like Lance chasing him down, be a man and keep pushing if you got the 'nads to put a hurt into him. If he can't do that, then he should shut the hell up instead of crying about it. Please though, let's not quote the NY Times, hardly a bastion of integrity and sensibility.

What should Lemond have done when asked his opinion? Get up and walk away. If he just had to see his dialogue in press, say "no comment" or "I have no opinion on that subject". If I were in Lemond's shoes at that time, I would have grabbed the mike, thrown it on ground and stepped on it before walking away. Its called respect...for the sport, a great champion and fellow countryman, his own legacy and his own integrity. I know in today's freewheeling, no hold barred media and web environment, respect may no longer be sexy but I expect it from a man of Lemond's stature, age and experience. Maybe I expect too much.

This guilt by association lynch mob mentality is extremely frustrating and unacceptable to my sensibilities. I will simply agree to disagree with your viewpoint.

Ride on! :banana: :banana: :banana:

[shinomaster]

Yes the riders take the drugs because the sport is probably too damned hard. Or they just don't know when to quit, or retire, or give up.

I'm sure people take drugs for many different reasons.

To win, to cheat, to finish the race, to survive, to feed one's family, to keep his job, to help his team, his leader. What is more important? Keeping your job and surviving or taking a shot?

None of us except the jerk have any Idea of what these men go though. We have no concept of how hard it is, or if its is even possible with out "help".

The racing season is so long and the races are so fast and more competative than ever, for UCI points..

None of us are in any position to judge. We are a bunch of arm-chair critics with no real understanding of how hard it must be to race a bicycle for a living...

[vaxn8r]

Big Mac, I don't know a lot about cycling...maybe 1% of what you know...but in this one case I think you are wrong. First of all I think you underestimate the scope of the problem. You said:

Do drugs exist in our sport? Yes, based solely on a handful of positive tests. Has Lance ever tested positive? No.

Here's a quote from another thread:

"The problem is that it is a fuzzy line with top level riders having a huge advantage as they can afford to use drugs that haven't hit the banned lists yet, thereby staying out of trouble, and some guys ideals that if they aren't trying to win races, but only to do a job that everyone else is doing, then it's also not cheating."

I would add to "drugs that haven't yet hit the banned list" with undectable or untestable drugs. These are the ones that cost so much. You have to be making good money to afford these...thousands of dollars every month or two.

So how does one make a dent in the doping problem? You say join with the UCI. How? Do you think it's in the UCI's interest to expose the scope of the problem? I don't see MLB jumping headlong into solving their rampant doping problem. Sports governing bodies want to make examples of a few to make it look like they are doing their jobs. That's it.

You have people willing to speak up and they are immediately ostracized, whether it be from within the pro ranks or right here on this forum. You say Lemond and Hampsten are trying to kill the sport that was so good to them. Another interpretation is that they are just trying to save it.

But what do I know? Not a lot more than anyone else...just human nature, what the possiblities (for doping) are and what's being done in other pro sports. There's a lot of smoke around this issue and I personally don't buy that Lemond and Hampsten and others are acting solely out of jealousy or pettiness. To me they have everything to lose by coming forth and nothing to lose by staying silent. But that's just my opinion...

[Needs Help]

To step in front of a mike with some yahoo looking to publish a juicy story regardless of facts and make inflammatory and irresponsible accusations is NOT the actions of a patron. Those who truly love their sport, the very sport with which they are identified and have made a living, do not make such remarks…if they do love their sport.
Those who truly love their sport, the very sport with which they are identified and have made a living, do not make such remarks…if they do love their sport.

Aye. Shut up and let what is be. Don't make waves. Don't try to change things for the better. Don't try to punish the cheats. Don't try to save lives...if you love the sport. Sounds like a Lance Armstrong quote.

If I were in Lemond's shoes at that time, I would have grabbed the mike, thrown it on ground and stepped on it before walking away. Its called respect..

Others might consider that selling out. If you want to change something, it's often necessary to shine a spotlight on it and expose it to the public, but I think sports generate too much money, and things will never change because most people don't care if the athletes they admire are doping.

[e-RICHIE]

Shinomaster-issimo wrote (snipped):
"None of us are in any position to judge. We are a bunch of arm-chair critics with no real understanding of how hard it must be to race a bicycle for a living..."

you're correct about the "...position to judge" part. i'm not sure anyone really is being judgemental - most are just discussing it, as fans are known to do. i thought about my previous post overnight and would like to add that i love the sport no less because of all these drug and personality sidebars; it's been the same sport since i started following it in the merckx era. the only concise way i can sum up my point of view is to state that, if i really liked the wwf and was told adamantly that wrestling was a staged event, i'd probably not care because i'd already decided that i liked the wwf.
lame logic, perhaps. but applicable here.
e-RICHIE

ps


;) ;) :D
:confused: :p :p
:cool: :) :confused:

arrange disorder

[Too Tall]

My heros have always been cowboys.

What would the Duke do? "Fill Your Hand, You @#$%!&*#!" Why is that relevant? Because we and others face low lifes, cheats and scoundrels every day IN LIFE.

When we get beat and yes we get beat ALOT, there is great satisfaction knowing our own accomplishments are OURS. And when we bring it boy do we bring it and I'd hate to pay "their" shrink bills.

These guys are G-ds and we know they can not be so un-earthly without mortal flaws. They are forgiven in advance.

At's my story and I'm sticking to it!!!

[Andreu]

"Shinomaster-issimo wrote (snipped):
"None of us are in any position to judge. We are a bunch of arm-chair critics with no real understanding of how hard it must be to race a bicycle for a living..."
and then E-Richie...
"you're correct about the "...position to judge" part"

I am not sure I agree. Every few years I vote in a general election and I don´t know diddly squat about economics or other things like the art of going to war. And I couldn´t imagine (in my worst nightmares) how hard the job of the president of the USA or the PM of UK or pres. of Spain is. Nor have I ever ridden in a fully profesional race (does being paid for coming in the top 50 in a race in Belgium count?...probably not) but I still have a valid judgement and I believe armchair spud recyclers who dream of winning the Tdf from their armchairs have a valid part to play too (they buy into all the commercial crap like I do when I part with my hard-earned for a tdf bidon sponsored by "Weareallzombies" Inc.).

What should we do: leave the decision making to the professional cyclists?

The worrying thing is that a bunch of blazer-wearing meddlesome halfwits called the UCI cannot fix "the problem" either.

SNAFU

Sometimes the smug bubble of unreality needs to be burst; I am not sure who or how it´s going to be done but it needs to be done. I love cycling and I believe this needs to be done for the long term life of the sport (the wwf analogy is interesting because that´s exactly what professional cycling is slowly becoming!)...It´s probably going to get worse before it gets better but talking about it here is a good start.
A

[djg]

history, as well as your very numerous and repetitive posts on this topic. I still don't know the character or content of various moves in the he-said/he-said saga and I'm not sure it matters all that much. Rather than simply repeat or rephrase some of my own prior posts, I'll leave them stand.

[William]

Wow,
I'm off-line for a couple of days and and this breaks out.

A lot of good points made.

I would like to believe that Lance is clean. Until someone comes out with definitive proof otherwise, that's what I will stick to.

As far as Lemond and Hampsten coming out and pointing fingers (directly or indirectly), please qualify your statements. If doping is prevalent in the pro peloton, please provide your proof. Did you witness this first hand? Have you witnessed others involved in management of the teams administer or provide performance enhancing drugs? Have you (Mr. Lemond) or Mr. Hampsten ever taken performance enhancing drugs (legal or illegal) in your amateur and/or pro careers? What about during your big wins in the Tour or the Giro?

If you know? How do you know? First hand involvement? Eye witness? Heard it from a friend, who heard it from a friend who...?

I would be more apt to believe them if they provided the particulars other than directly or indirectly pointing fingers. You know, just like AA meetings..."Hi, my names Greg/Andy and I'm an X-doper. I know what the doping is like in the pros because I was there and I did it/saw it administered by..." (Disclaimer: Hypothetical scenario, Not saying actor "Greg" or "Andy" are real people). :)

If you guys "REALLY" love the sport, spill it all. Name names. Give dates and races effected. Break it wide open and let the chips fall where they may. Then they can start over from scratch. Otherwise it just appears to be lip service.

Until Lance says he's using, or he gets caught, I'll give him the benefit of the doubt. If others really know something, spill it all.

FWIW, :rolleyes:

William

[jeffg]

I find the innuendo and ***umptions accorded this topic to be extremely disturbing. Are we to ***ume from this that Mr.’s Lemond and A. Hampsten somehow see themselves as guardians of the sport that provided them a living and yet wish to condemn its current members and specifically its greatest current star based on presumptions and innuendo’s without any factual data.

The most disturbing aspect is how a few folks, not current members of peloton mind you, jumped to the defense of some putz that whined about being chased down in a breakaway. Has any other rider EVER whined about being chased down in a breakaway? Absolutely not, his own team’d drop him like a bad habit. Of course many chose to speculate this was related to some pending litigation between the two participants, probably true but that would be speculation and is beyond the scope of public consumption, imo.




Amen.

[Russ]

if anyone is bored, there are great posts here from a guy called russw19:
http://forums.roadbikereview.com/showthread.php?t=10964


Thanks for the note e-Richie....

After reading the post on that forum, I can just sit back and sigh... So true! Seen it with my own eyes....

Furthermore, I think people are forgetting about a current situaton, a great example of what that post was describing: the TWO top domestiques for Cunego in the '04 Giro (Tonti and Mazzoleni, I think) have tested positive and are under investigation/suspended, no? I thought they were not allowed to enter the Tour. These were the two guys that practically paced Cunego to victory on the last mountain stage at the Giro...

PS
I found the article about Mazzoleni: http://www.cyclingnews.com/news.php?id=news/2004/jun04/jun18news

[e-RICHIE]

russ
are you also russw19 on rbr.com?
e-RICHIE

[my2cents]

is greg saying that he is the only american who can win the tour clean? Is andy saying that he is the only american who can win alpe 'huez clean?

why is the word of greg so much better than the word of lance? and why is the word of andy so much better than the word of lance?

what drugs was lance on when he was 15 and winning/competing in national and world cl*** trialthons?

Back in late 80's, why does it seem plausable for me to compete cleanly at superweek, cat 2. racing 16 out of 18 days but only training 20-60 miles per day leading up to the race, but improbably for lance to compete cleanly in the tour, 21 out 0f 23 days, training as he does?

To the lance skeptics, do you not believe that human kind produces great individuals every now and again. How much EPO does yo yo ma take? Remind me again what drugs helped einstein do his thing? And hilary and shakelton, what precurser to EPO allowed them to overcome their 'unsurmountable' barriers?

just wondering.

[e-RICHIE]

"is greg saying that ..."


this is silly.
i think the only thing that anyone is on record as "saying" is that greg, when interviewed, suggested to lance to distance himself from dr ferarri. within the context of "that" interview, there were words between the two tdf winners. iirc, that interview was in 2001.

[vaxn8r]

To the lance skeptics, do you not believe that human kind produces great individuals every now and again. How much EPO does yo yo ma take? Remind me again what drugs helped einstein do his thing? And hilary and shakelton, what precurser to EPO allowed them to overcome their 'unsurmountable' barriers?

You're kidding right?

[my2cents]

instead of 'saying', perhaps insert 'implying' instead.

[my2cents]

enlighten me about the follies of my thinking.

[e-RICHIE]

let's keep the playing feel even.
according to those published reports, during that conversation it was also "implied" that greg won with help.

[jeffg]

"is greg saying that ..."


this is silly.
i think the only thing that anyone is on record as "saying" is that greg, when interviewed, suggested to lance to distance himself from dr ferarri. within the context of "that" interview, there were words between the two tdf winners. iirc, that interview was in 2001.

E-Richie --

What about the interview in LeMonde published this July? This is not a 2001 interview. Just read the comments and how thinly-veiled, if at all, the accustations are. Greg claims that the drug problem has poisoned the sport over the past ten years, where he and his "clean" Team Z could no longer compete due to the proliferation of EPO use. His further comments:

Greg: "Now [with drugs] you can turn a mule into a stallion!"
Q: "So you don't believe in Armstrong's miraculous comeback from cancer?"
Greg: "There are no miracles, there is always an explanation." [He then goes on to talk about EM's, Hinault's and his early GC successes at the Tour; implication -- Lance was not a GC rider until after his bout with cancer, and thus reaks of doping; he cites his VO2max as being the highest at that time, and now claims he wouldn't be in the top fifty. He dispute the ability of training to effect this change and ascribes this development to doping since training methods have not changed significantly since he retired and do not make a significant difference anyway. Whiny implication: I was the best, my accomplishments should be considered genuine,all those after me are tainted by the presumption of doping and do not compare.]

Q: "And if Armstrong becomes the first rider to win the tour six times?"
Greg: "People will say I am jealous, because I was the first american to win the Tour, but even six victories cannot be compared to past achievments. Due to everything that has been going on in the past ten years [doping -- conveniently entering the peloton as Greg exits the sport], [Armstrong's] six tours would not compare with Hinault's five, for example." [Implication: or with my three for that matter, since mine were all clean and his are dirty.]

And if there were any doubt about where Greg was going with all this:

"Lance is ready to do anything to preserve his secret, but I don't know how long he will be able to convince the world of his innocence."


So, Richie, is all Greg said is that Lance should distance himself from Ferrari!!? I am not sure where you are getting your information, but this seems to me to be the basis of a real defamation case. More importantly, Greg has shown himself to be a person bereft of class, integrity, and humility. The interview showcases him as a bitter, jealous man who impugns champions where he has no proof and he elevates his achievments above others by painting them all with the brush of doping, again without substanitating any of his claims. I am sorry, but what's silly is anyone claiming that Greg is doing this out of interest for the sport. Greg is a meglomaniacal coward whose ego does his legacy and the sport grave damage.

[Climb01742]

i'm with 2 cents here...not all greatness is the result of cheating...you can not look at an extraordinary accomplishment and, simply because 99.9% of humanity can't do it, say that it can't be done naturally and honestly.

i'm not arguing that drugs haven't fueled many amazing athletic feats...but you can't infer the opposite...that amazing feats must be drug-fueled.

[e-RICHIE]

jeffg -
"...this is not a 2001 interview"

i was refering to the espn interview in which it was stated that, in a 2001 conversation between the 2 riders. that conversation was also referenced in a sam abt story "back then". if, during this day, i can find the "interview" in which that text was noted, i'll paste it.

btw - i won't pass judgement on either of these two. your last paragraph is a road i don't care to go down.

[vaxn8r]

Ditto.

Jeffg, your last paragraph is so over the top. You are doing exactly what you accuse Lemond of doing. You have not one idea of Greg's motives. Let's stop with the "implication" and interpretation and stick to facts. Especially when you are trying to quote someone verbatim. That really is low ball--adding your commmentary to a quote.

In your opinion what would it take to satisfy you that drug use is rampant, not neccessarily universal but commonplace, in the Pro circuit?

[jeffg]

jeffg -
"...this is not a 2001 interview"

i was refering to the espn interview in which it was stated that, in a 2001 conversation between the 2 riders. that conversation was also referenced in a sam abt story "back then". if, during this day, i can find the "interview" in which that text was noted, i'll paste it.

btw - i won't pass judgement on either of these two. your last paragraph is a road i don't care to go down.

This thread was initiated by Steve Hampsten's posting of Andy's comments, which reference LeMond's most recent comments in LeMonde -- This is the definition of "on the record." Like Andy, I do not have anything to say about Greg and Lance's personal history, since we only have the accounts of the individuals involved, and not a recording of the call itself.

If we stick with the LeMonde interview, I truly have difficulty reconciling Andy Hampsten's characterization of Greg's comments as "speaking out" in defense of the sport. As I have stated, it is rife with innuendo, put-downs, and self-serving comparisons. It provides no evidence against Lance, and the peloton en masse is written off as a group of unworthy dopers whose accomplishments do not measure up to his "golden era" of cycling. Those are the facts to anyone capable of reading the French text. I view these statements as ethically deficient, to say the least. If you do not, that is your choice.

It seems to me you are quick to give credence to all stories about doping, yet gloss over the highly-dubious context in which (at least) LeMond's comments were made. As for judging, you were quick to denounce Lance for chasing down Simeoni and claiming you had lost all respect for him as a representative of the sport. If chasing down a rider (who has no right to complain under the rules) is damning of an individual, how about making accusations without proof and denigrating the accomplishments of others while exalting yours? It seems I have more than enough of a basis for concluding that Greg is not worthy of my respect as an individual, no matter his accomplishments.

[e-RICHIE]

what do you want me to say - that these guys never bring their personal agendas to each and every interview they give, and - in these cases here - interviews about each other???

regarding the simeoni thing: i just don't agree with it. period.

regarding all the "implying" that's going down: you and i are each excercising our subjectivity. from "all this", all i've taken away is what i came with: the sport and drugs are intertwined. i never said any "one" was a user, but i have generalized that the issue exists on a grand scale. if the tdf in all its spectacle serves as a venue to out the issue, i really don't care who said what about whom nor who said it first. as i noted this a.m., i am a fan despite the warts i see as part of it all.

[jeffg]

Ditto.

Jeffg, your last paragraph is so over the top. You are doing exactly what you accuse Lemond of doing. You have not one idea of Greg's motives. Let's stop with the "implication" and interpretation and stick to facts. Especially when you are trying to quote someone verbatim. That really is low ball--adding your commmentary to a quote.

In your opinion what would it take to satisfy you that drug use is rampant, not neccessarily universal but commonplace, in the Pro circuit?

Vaxn8r -- Low ball? At least I am indicating where Greg's comments end and my commentary begins. And these are in fact the implications of what Greg is saying.

As for what would convince me, there is enough evidence to convince me doping is a problem. On the other hand, to state that doping is so rampant that Lance's accomplishments do not stack up to tours won before EPO (there was, of course, doping in Greg's day), the implication must be that Lance is juiced. If, in fact, he were clean and beating all the cheaters, then his six tours would be a superior accomplishment since greg admitted he could not compete with the juiced peloton. But, that would make Lance's accomplishments greater than Greg's, no? Of course, Greg makes it clear he believes the opposite is the case, and in fact must be the case.

So, am I doing what I accuse Greg of? Let's see. He is making accusations without proof, whereas I am criticizing Greg for what he said (he has not disavowed any of the statements published in LeMonde) and what it says about him. Yes, I am drawing out their implications and interpreting his comments. And if you think there is meaning in language without interpretation, then I would suggest you are wrong. Peace.

E-Richie --

Your point is well taken. Peace to you too ...

[Climb01742]

it may be time to discuss something safe...like religion...or politics...or how fine your mamma looks. :beer:

[bulliedawg]

As a sports writer covering college athletics in the south, specifically football and basketball, I've learned to live with the ambiguities of competition at the highest levels. In NCAA football and basketball, especially in the south, money and cars are passed out to our "amateur" athletes with regularity, as are passing grades. That doesn't take away from enjoyment or interest. The Southeastern Conference still made tens of million of dollars, and over 6 million people attended the games. All with the full knowledge that the teams cheat like hell.

One would have to be exceedingly naive to think that Lance and others are not cheating. Just like everybody in the SEC is cheating. The saying where I come from is "If you ain't cheating, you ain't trying hard enough." Let's just admit that drug use is happening, and, as cynical as this might sound, it makes for better "viewing." As for worrying about the health of the athletes, they're big boys and they can worry about their own health.

[Russ]

russ
are you also russw19 on rbr.com?
e-RICHIE

No e-Richie. I only post in this forum, but the coincidence is funny....

[ShutupandRide]

This problem with drug use in cycling didn't happen over night and I can only hope that with time and new measures in place drug use will slow and eventually disappear for good. Racing is just one part of of cycling. There are a lot of cyclists not concerned with riding faster than the friend or fellow rider next to them. Remember you can always wait at the top for the slower riders or even better go down and turn around getting in a better work-out. Lets not forget how fun cycling is and all the positive benefits we reap from those hours in the saddle.

[r_mutt]

5 and a half years. that's some dig...

[e-RICHIE]

5 and a half years. that's some dig...
yeah - that even woke me up atmo.

ps

arrange disorder

:cool: :cool: :)
:) :) :cool:
:) :cool: :cool:

[zap]

christ e-someone ordering a frame then would have just gotten it.

[rounder]

wrong thread. sorry.

[William]

Wow, a blast from the past. I even got in on this one. Oh well....BigMac, where are you?!?!?! :confused: :(





William