gitaneusa.com :: View topic

lofter

well what do you think ?in fignons book he supposedly says doping was rampid during his years . so ive got to ask this question .laurent says he doped , so why not all the hatred for him too?or is it , oh it was one of my teamates so hes ok with that?wheres all the hatred for fignon ? maybe he doped in 83 or 84 ? and won his tours dirty like lance is supposed to have ?seems to me a double standard here .if it was so rampid whose to say lemond wasnt doping too ? i really think he is searously jealous of lance and is still bitter and has axe to grind out .just wanted to ask this . i was a big lemond fan ,thats why i bought the winning mags and dreamed of having my own gitane.

sandranian · Site Admin

I think the issue is more complicated than that. If you read Fignon's book, he does talk about "doping". But the doping he admits to consists of cocaine, stimulants, and cortisone. Fignon deemed these products as 'doping' for sure...but not 'performance enhancing'. I guess the better word would be 'transformative': It would not make a mediocre bicycle racer into a great one.

When Fignon retired, he noticed the same thing that Lemond did: Riders who he once trounced were now able to keep up and even pass him on the road, with minimal effort. Fignon says in his book that he didn't take EPO...not because of some ethical stand, but just that he made the choice not to do it (and he was afraid of it). But he said that EPO had the power to change riders significantly...from average to great, and he didn't want to have anything to do with that.

Fignon's book lays out when he took drugs, and it wasn't during the tour. I don't think he omitted anything. He was dying when the book came out, and he had nothing to lose. The book appears to be completely sincere. I just don't think it was in Fignon's character to mislead on the subject, because he didn't give a rats ass what people thought of him.

Lemond's beef is that the riders are taking products that are changing them physiologically. I think Fignon would understand...but the difference is that Fignon didn't have a problem with it: He just didn't do it.

scozim

Well said, Stephan. Fignon definitely made a differentiation between the two types of doping platforms.

lofter

so its kinda like the boonen thing then ? snort all the cocaine u want but its ok as long as u test clean come race time Rolling Eyes

but we r to believe boonen is a clean rider come classic time.... well because he seems sincere too.

sandranian · Site Admin

I wasn't talking about Boonen...we were talking about Fignon in the 1980's...prior to EPO, HGH, testosterone, and steroid use (widespread).

I read something interesting this morning, which summed up the difference between the "olden days" of doping and the "new era": Amphetamines and stimulants would help you believe you could go faster. EPO, HGH, etc. would actually MAKE you go faster.

nicolas

Agreed.

And don't forget that the LeMond Vs Armstrong thing started when Greg expressed being disappointed (not even implying Armstrong doped at this point) to learn that Armstrong worked with Ferrari. Then Lance, in typical Lance "the godfather" mood (i/e Bassons, Simeoni, etc...) started threatening him and made Trek give up on LeMond bikes... Destroying a lifetime business.

Jealous is not the right word. I think Greg is angry at Lance Armstrong and has every reason to be.

lofter

so do u think this whole crusade by lemond and landis then is motivated by money and hatred towards lance or really wanting to clean up the sport ? so armstrong isnt allowed to protect his image or lifework also eh?everybody can have their own opinion ,but when u start to go public with that, u run the risk of ticking off the wrong people in the wrong places.

its like walking down a trail and going right past a snake . u walk right past and nothing happened , the snake was minding his own buisness. then u turn around and start poking at it with at stick. what do u think will happen? the snake will try and bite back to protect himself. and just might bite back a get u on the hand. (and the comparison is a awsome one i thought ) Wink

and i think armstrong doped too .

verktyg

Landis is the HYPOCRITE!

I wanted to believe Floyd and I argued his position for several years but he lied! Confused

Now can anything that he says be trusted?

HE'S A LIAR AND A CHEAT! Evil or Very Mad

You can trust me because I'm always right and I never lie! Shocked

nicolas

lofter

kinda like lemonds ego getting in the way too eh nicolas? couldnt help but poke at that snake . if you dont think lemond doesnt have a big ego BOY r u mistaken. anyone who shows up to try and show up armstrong at a press conference has a huuuuge ego i told back when i sent u that magazine awhile back that i was concrned that lemond wasnt stable . and i guess u didnt get that i was refering that armstrong was the snake.

nicolas

nicolas

sandranian · Site Admin

Whatever your opinion of Landis and Lemond, I don't think it is fair to put them or what they are saying in the same category. Clearly, Landis has some issues regarding veracity that I just don't see Lemond having at this point.

Lemond has not lied, to date, about anything regarding the doping issue. I do not think he has any reason to do so. In fact, he has every reason to NOT attack Armstrong, both financial and otherwise. I believe that he is doing what he feels is right for the sport.

Landis, on the other hand, is a completely different story. The latest is that Landis as filed suit in Federal Court against Armstrong on behalf of the US Government (it is called a "whistleblower" lawsuit). This should help to force the issue and the investigation, and may also force Armstrong to provide further testimony under oath. The US Government can intervene in the lawsuit...who knows if they will. In the end, Landis stands to gain 1/3 of any award, so there is a financial incentive as well. At this point though, I think Landis isn't so concerned about money, but rather about vindication.

I just don't think the two can be lumped together when talking about this issue.

lofter

hey no prob nicolas , i respect ur descision too man , i really do . like i said earlier , greg was the shining light to me . my cyclng hero, it was greg who i followed not the others . do i believe him that he was clean , yes i really do . at least the early years. do i believe armstrong was clean no i do not. i really dont believe anyone was clean from the 90s up till now ,none. everybody is dirty to me . everybody . the whole darn era. even big mig . and what has really irked me about the whole thing is gregs im wholier than tho attitude.and it really does stem from the trek fiasco. i did alot of reading last night about that dispute just to get an insight to what went down between the two .

http://www.scribd.com/doc/2472821/Trek-Bikes-lawsuit-vs-cyclist-Greg-Lemond
heres a copy of the suit. its good reading. from what ive read alot of lemonds struggles with trek were his own doing. just couldnt keep his mouth shut .if it were not for trek ,his brand wouldnt even have survived . thanks inpart to his dad driving his company in the ground.
everyone wants the sport clean .gregs constant obsession with lance to me , is driven by jealousy and hate for which i do not like greg for . why not go after big mig too? no its about his hatred for lance . in which armstrong had money invested in trek also. so i can see him protecting his intrest also.

Wisey

I still remember an interview that Greg did with Phil Ligget on the rest day in the 1990 TdF. Greg had been criticised by Eddy Merckx and Bernard Hinault and Phil was asking Greg what he thought of that. Greg's response was to simply say that when I am older and retired, I hope that I'm not so critical of the current crop of riders. At the time I thought that to be a somewhat mature and reasonable response from Greg. You can decide for yourselves whether Greg is critical of the riders or the drug problems, or if there is a difference.