LeMond on Contador

Wow. I nominate you for cycling saint of the year: "I am high on
life; this petty squabbling is beneath me."

What self righteous, self-important hogwash.

Did it ever occur to you that all the Master Fatties, the clubbies and
the Cat 4's and below in this world get the same satisfaction as you.
Even me.

But I suspect if you were a Cat 3 or above other people's doping just
might hit a tad closer to the bone in your personal cycling - where
your satisfaction might be more geared to your objective placing and
your points and not just your isolated and pristine subjective world.
Then you would have to decide just how above it all you really were.
Would you still stay above the fray? Would you get on your Greg
Lemond soapbox and excoriate the dopers? Or would you risk your own
health and join the club?

Somehow I doubt you've ever had to face making such a decision.

The cycling "witch hunt" makes page 10 of the newspapers in USA. On
page 1 is Barry Bonds, professional baseball and steroids. Page 2 is
American football. Page 3 is steroids and the PGA. Page 4 is doping
and the Olympics. Etc. Then there's European football. Etc.

The point is that all these spectator sports are HUGE in terms of the
money, the following, the actual importance in people's lives, even if
they are "mere diversions." Clean athletes are important on many
levels. Otherwise why would anybody be talking about it at all?

Sorry dude. Your "I'm above it all and the cure is worse than the
disease" is an unrealistic, out of touch attitude.

You got all that out of these two paragraphs?

You don't get it at all. Bill knows perfectly well what goes on or has
a pretty good idea, like we all have. Why are you on such a mission?
We mostly don't care. Or at least, I care about cycling as a spectacle
and think that the witch hunt is much worse than the doping.

I also care about cycling as a participant but then, too, the doping
is totally unimportant. Who cares if others dope? I get my
satisfaction from training, suffering and improving. It's just a
passtime.

When I was a lowly Cat-2, racing with Cat 1 & Pros, doping was there in the
background. People knew of it, but, I dunno why, it just didn't matter. It
was a choice that others made to cheat, although I don't think some of us
even saw it as cheating per se. It was more like an extension of the
recreational drug usage so popular at the time (mid-70s). Did I have less
chance of winning because I didn't dope? I never thought of it that way.
Factually, it *may* have been true, but I believed then, and still believe
now, my biggest obstacle to my own success was found in the mirror. I
thought then, and still believe now, that you can win without doping. It may
not be as easy, and you may have to work a lot harder.

I'm not suggesting we shouldn't go after those doping. I'm just saying that
it doesn't have to kill the sport for the rest of us, whether we're
spectators or Masters Fatties or whatever.

--Mike Jacoubowsky
Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReaction.com
Redwood City & Los Altos, CA USA

benjo maso wrote:
Anyhow, according to dr. Jeanne-Pierre de Modenard, probably world's
greatest expert in the field of the history of doping, writer of six
extremel;y informative books on the subject, and owner of an incredible rich
archive, declared a few days ago that he is convinced that Greg Lemond is
the only TdF-winner after the war who never deliberately used doping.

Poor Gino is turning over in his grave.

Bob Schwartz

On Fri, 27 Jul 2007 06:21:40 -0700, wrote:

On Jul 27, 8:38 am, Bill C wrote:
On Jul 27, 5:12 am, Morten Reippuert wrote:





JC wrote:
http://www.foxsports.com.au/story/0,...-23218,00.html
-------
LeMond said: "If Rasmussen got caught, and if you want to be equal, you have
to implicate other riders, too.
"You have a lot of riders against whom there's a lot of evidence and
relations to certain doctors. Those riders are getting away with it.
"Alberto Contador and Rasmussen are at 60kgs each and both are climbing as
fast as Pantani did. That's a red flag right there," he said in a reference
to the late Italian Marco Pantani, a superb climber who won both the Tour de
France and Giro d'Italia in 1998.
"Contador has been involved in 'Operation Puerto'," he added, citing the
doping scandal that rocked Spain.
"I'm not pointing fingers at Contador. I'm just saying that if you point
fingers at Rasmussen, you have to look at the riders next to him."
LeMond said he thinks the Tour de France would be better served if it didn't
name a champion this year.
"I would prefer to see a non-Tour de France winner," he said.
--------

My respect for Lemond is the uttermost. If cycling really want's to
be a clean sport it needs to start taking the few people telling the
truth seriously, insted of dismissing their motives. Jachkse, Simioni
and Mazano's are the only heros.

We still have an all dirty podium:

Evans and Leipheimer are clients of Dr. Ferari, Contardor is deeply
involved with operation puerto and rumord to still have Manolo Saiz
as his personal adviser.

Rasmussen is out because of a case of extremely bad press handling.

Acording to CSC's pressagent, Brian Nygaard, Rabobanks pressagent
Jacob Bergman has done just about everything wrong. Nyggard said that
he would have called an pressconference before the tour when Michael
Rasmussen got his 2nd warnming from the UCI and told the press about
the warnings and the exclusion from the dansih national team.
After that there wouldn't have been a case. I'd guess a team like
Discovery would have handled it simmilar to what Nygaard's suggesting
and steared clear.

Nygaard says that he has even tried counceling Jacob Bergsma durring
the last two weeks but Bergman hasn't been open to suggestions.

--
Morten Reippuert Knudsen :-) http://blog.reippuert.dk

Merlin Works CR-3/2.5 & Campagnolo Chorus 2007.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Well your aproach would validate Greg because they would all be banned
for life, except Greg, 'cause he's the only one who didn't cheat, and
he'd be the virtual winner of everything, or there would be no
winners, and no races either.
That's a perfect solution.
Next witch to the stake please!
Bill C- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Bill

You are the Epitomy of the cycling enthusiast in denial.

You can see smoke, feel the heat, smell the burning, see the damage,
but you just cant admit there is a fire in the house because the
flames arn't visible from the outside.

You are so bereft of clue. This entire tantrum amounted to nothing more than
"they're faster than me, they must be dirty." That really is all he's got.

And you know what? Even if they are all doping, they can put down the needle,
but Greg is still going to be an asshole who has to live with himself 24 hours
of every hellish day.

BTW, does he drink heavily?

Ron

On Fri, 27 Jul 2007 15:32:00 GMT, "Mike Jacoubowsky"
wrote:


When I was a lowly Cat-2, racing with Cat 1 & Pros, doping was there in the
background. People knew of it, but, I dunno why, it just didn't matter. It
was a choice that others made to cheat, although I don't think some of us
even saw it as cheating per se. It was more like an extension of the
recreational drug usage so popular at the time (mid-70s). Did I have less
chance of winning because I didn't dope? I never thought of it that way.
Factually, it *may* have been true, but I believed then, and still believe
now, my biggest obstacle to my own success was found in the mirror. I
thought then, and still believe now, that you can win without doping. It may
not be as easy, and you may have to work a lot harder.

I'm not suggesting we shouldn't go after those doping. I'm just saying that
it doesn't have to kill the sport for the rest of us, whether we're
spectators or Masters Fatties or whatever.

First, from where I sit Cat. 2 is not lowly; it's god-like :-)

Second, anybody who posts or lurks on rbr - whether all year or only
in July - loves the sport and doesn't want it killed. We loved this
year's tour when Kodi, Vino and Skeletor were in it, and the podium
was an actual competition, dope or no dope.

It's just that some of us have a naive belief that a level playing
field of athletes competing on just "food" and training, and not stuff
that has to be injected with needles, is preferable to the status quo,
and also the innocent hope that it somehow can be pulled off.

On Jul 27, 11:32 am, "Mike Jacoubowsky"
wrote:
Wow. I nominate you for cycling saint of the year: "I am high on
life; this petty squabbling is beneath me."

What self righteous, self-important hogwash.

Did it ever occur to you that all the Master Fatties, the clubbies and
the Cat 4's and below in this world get the same satisfaction as you.
Even me.

But I suspect if you were a Cat 3 or above other people's doping just
might hit a tad closer to the bone in your personal cycling - where
your satisfaction might be more geared to your objective placing and
your points and not just your isolated and pristine subjective world.
Then you would have to decide just how above it all you really were.
Would you still stay above the fray? Would you get on your Greg
Lemond soapbox and excoriate the dopers? Or would you risk your own
health and join the club?

Somehow I doubt you've ever had to face making such a decision.

The cycling "witch hunt" makes page 10 of the newspapers in USA. On
page 1 is Barry Bonds, professional baseball and steroids. Page 2 is
American football. Page 3 is steroids and the PGA. Page 4 is doping
and the Olympics. Etc. Then there's European football. Etc.

The point is that all these spectator sports are HUGE in terms of the
money, the following, the actual importance in people's lives, even if
they are "mere diversions." Clean athletes are important on many
levels. Otherwise why would anybody be talking about it at all?

Sorry dude. Your "I'm above it all and the cure is worse than the
disease" is an unrealistic, out of touch attitude.

You got all that out of these two paragraphs?

You don't get it at all. Bill knows perfectly well what goes on or has
a pretty good idea, like we all have. Why are you on such a mission?
We mostly don't care. Or at least, I care about cycling as a spectacle
and think that the witch hunt is much worse than the doping.

I also care about cycling as a participant but then, too, the doping
is totally unimportant. Who cares if others dope? I get my
satisfaction from training, suffering and improving. It's just a
passtime.

When I was a lowly Cat-2, racing with Cat 1 & Pros, doping was there in the
background. People knew of it, but, I dunno why, it just didn't matter. It
was a choice that others made to cheat, although I don't think some of us
even saw it as cheating per se. It was more like an extension of the
recreational drug usage so popular at the time (mid-70s). Did I have less
chance of winning because I didn't dope? I never thought of it that way.
Factually, it *may* have been true, but I believed then, and still believe
now, my biggest obstacle to my own success was found in the mirror. I
thought then, and still believe now, that you can win without doping. It may
not be as easy, and you may have to work a lot harder.

I'm not suggesting we shouldn't go after those doping. I'm just saying that
it doesn't have to kill the sport for the rest of us, whether we're
spectators or Masters Fatties or whatever.

Indeed. It seems to me that the real objection is that doping is not
"fair". For the life of me, I can't think of a single thing in this
life that _is_ fair. I can understand the disappointment when a
sporting hero is exposed for a cheat, but, really, what do you
expect? People are attempting to legislate stupidity out of existence
and "fairness" into existence. Ain't gonna happen. Get over it and
get on with the business at hand.

The thing that I find most unfortunate is that Munchkin being booted
happened at the end of the mountain stages and now all we're left with
are some flats and a TT. Disappointment and denouement were not part
of the script. All the riders just want to go home. Let's just skip
to the TT, put an asterisk next to the winner's name and move on.
There's always next year.

R

On Jul 27, 6:52 am, Doug Taylor wrote:


Bottom line: how can you slam a guy who DID win the TdF 3 times while
clean?



****tard -


He's no longer actively involved in the racing end of cycling. He has
no firsthand knowledge whatsoever of what the current riders are or
are not doing.

For a good example of the way to act: Eddy Merckx, Bernard Hinault,
Miguel Indurain. If they don't know something, they don't pretend to.
The epitome of the graceful former champions.

For a good example of the way not to act: Greg Lemond. Self-righteous
blowhard. He's so egocentric he doesn't realize he's no different than
those who accused Lemond of doing drugs.


thanks,

K. Gringioni.

On Jul 27, 7:43 am, Doug Taylor wrote:


The point is that all these spectator sports are HUGE in terms of the
money,



Ignoramous -


The budget of all the Protour teams combined is only about $200
million (if that). That's a lot of money for an individual, but
compared to the entire economy it's nothing.


thanks,

K. Gringioni.

On Jul 27, 6:32 am, Ewoud Dronkert
wrote:
wrote:
You are the Epitomy of the cycling enthusiast in denial.

You don't get it at all. Bill knows perfectly well what goes on or has
a pretty good idea, like we all have. Why are you on such a mission?
We mostly don't care. Or at least, I care about cycling as a spectacle
and think that the witch hunt is much worse than the doping.

I also care about cycling as a participant but then, too, the doping
is totally unimportant. Who cares if others dope? I get my
satisfaction from training, suffering and improving. It's just a
passtime.

Exacta-moon-dough

On Jul 27, 7:43 am, Doug Taylor wrote:

But I suspect if you were a Cat 3 or above other people's doping just
might hit a tad closer to the bone in your personal cycling - where
your satisfaction might be more geared to your objective placing and
your points and not just your isolated and pristine subjective world.

You're a nut. I was and I never cared in the least bit if someone was
doping. If someone doesn't want to cycle-race, no one is forcing them
to do it.

Otherwise why would anybody be talking about it at all?

Because you are a loud-mouth.

On Jul 27, 9:46 am, Doug Taylor wrote:

Second, anybody who posts or lurks on rbr - whether all year or only
in July - loves the sport and doesn't want it killed. We loved this
year's tour when Kodi, Vino and Skeletor were in it, and the podium
was an actual competition, dope or no dope.

I enjoy it. But really, I don't care if cycling lives or dies. If it
can't survive on its own merits, then bye-bye. You think bike racing
is important. It isn't to me.