Agreed: LeMond was the greatest

On Mar 1, 9:47*pm, Fredmaster of Brainerd wrote:

Greg is right the way Lafferty is right. *They are
all in fact dopers. *However, both Greg and Lafferty
make accusations without evidence, or with ridiculous
evidence. *An argument that uses fallacious or unprincipled
logic (or no logic) to reach a conclusion that happens to
be true is not "right."

Lafferty convinced me that Lemond doped. But Laff was still glad to
see Lemond's performances IRT Lance doping.

"We knew they were doping".
--D-y

In article
,
--D-y wrote:

On Mar 1, 3:03Â*am, Frederick the Great wrote:
In article
,
Â*Ryan Cousineau wrote:









On Feb 27, 8:34Â*pm, --D-y wrote:
On Feb 27, 6:52Â*pm, Geraard Spergen wrote:

On Feb 27, 4:47Â*pm, --D-y wrote:

Thank you.
Dang. LA is both best Tour (de France) rider *and* the best Classics
rider.

At least Greg won more at Nevada City. It's something.
--D-y- Hide quoted text -

He's a virtual third to Hincapie in the Classics competition of
Americans.

That virtual thing really hurt Greg. Bad.
He was a hero and a pioneer. If he'd had anything approaching
Armstrong's drive to win, who knows what he might have *really*
accomplished.

The "virtual win" thing is overblown by the bright lights here in rbr.
Greg gave an interview or two in which he speculated that, given the
right team dynamics at the start of his career, and better muzzle
discipline by his brother-in-law during the middle, he would have won
more.

DUH!

Admittedly, there's an "if 'ifs and buts' were fruits and nuts..."
quality to the argument (and everyone from Bartali to Merckx to
Contador has an excuse for why circumstance and misfortune reduced
their potential victories), but so what?

"Hurt" Greg's reputation. As if. Running up against Lance, both in
what he said and through the Trek/Lemond thing has hurt him magnitudes
more, both reputationally and financially.

And does anyone doubt that Greg is, fundamentally, _right_ most of the
time? Yes, the occasional gym-teacher "pas naturellement" argument and
demented public speaking engagement have been awful, but about the big
things, the things that actually did hurt his reputation, he's almost
certainly right.

So that leaves rbr received wisdom holding up pathetic "I don't like
the way he said it" arguments that, given the typical level of
discourse on rbr, are bat**** insane. Also, in the real world, once
you object to the way someone says something you don't like? It's not
them, it's you*.

*This isn't to say that rhetoricians should actually say it that way.
Choosing an alienating rhetorical tone is also stupid, unless you
don't actually care about convincing others. Full disclosu
sometimes I get to a certain level of wading into some angry dumbass
rant that may have a kernel of truth to it, and I get...tired. Those
who would convince others should try to make their arguments good and
compelling. A lot of arguing (especially here in rbr**) is not done to
convince the doubtful or opposing. At best, it's about comforting the
like-minded, which is simply sad.

**rbr has the virtuous tendency to argue in bad faith for the purpose
of lulz. I can respect that, sort of.

Many accusations here. Even though you
acknowledge lulz, most of the time you
do not get the joke. You can always tell
a Canadian, but you cannot tell him much.

One last try???
"Admire the deeds, not the person".

Does not compute. The deeds comprise the man.

And another (I'm a sucker for our Friends to the North):
As a friend who used to be on a "team" and had a "record" (and has a
IMHO healthy perspective) once said: "They're just people who happen
to be able to ride a bike fast".

So long as they just ride a bike fast and do not
put themselves in the public eye. Recently
Tyler Farrar made an intemperate remark.
Afterward he said (paraphrasing) that we all
say intemperate things, but he has the advantage
that his are broadcast immediately to the whole,
wide world.

--
Old Fritz

On Feb 29, 3:38*pm, --D-y wrote:
On Feb 29, 3:23*pm, Ryan Cousineau wrote:

The "virtual win" thing is overblown by the bright lights here in rbr.

I disagree. It's only my opinion but it's one of the sourest things he
said. Why? Because he lacked the singleness of purpose, the dedication
to winning, that was Armstrong's forte. Remember when he "drove all
night" to the start of the TdF so he could bring wifey along, and the
look on Duclos-Lasalle's face (American TV coverage), the complete
disbelief that someone with a team depending on him would do such an
incredibly stupid thing, to start the Tour exhausted?

I'll grant you that Lance had more will to win, in so many ways (Lance
focused exclusively on racing the TdF in a way that LeMond did not,
and I hadn't heard the drove-all-night story). But the most obvious
"virtual" wins were in the two years where he was recuperating from
shotgunning. But sour? This is not an extraordinarily sour thing to
say, and as far as I know, he has not dwelt much on it. Virtual wins
are not a recurring theme in Lemond's public speech (whereas doping
is), only in rbr. You can find a hundred athletes who are on the
record musing about what might have been, and while lots of athletes
love pretending they have complete control over outcomes, many are
smart enough to acknowledge the role of chance in sports. And when the
athletes themselves don't claim virtual wins, their fans routinely do
it for them. I did it in this thread for Bartali. Every injury-
shortened athletic career ever gets this theme.

Let's put it this way: if Lemond had kept his mouth shut, where would
he be today? I mean, kept it shut even past all the "Lance is guilty"
stuff that came out later. What if he'd taken the high road, in other
words? There's a lot of wisdom in taking the high road.

High road? Omerta is the high road?

The answer is, Lemond would still have a bike business, what his uncle
did to him would still be his little secret, and...what else? I don't
judge the rightness of an act by the cost to the actor.

(However, the question of whether Lemond has changed public attitudes
towards doping is another question entirely. I can believe that Lemond
did what he thought was right for the noblest of reasons, but it had
no important effects. This is a worthy critique (why incur a cost for
no benefit?) but also one that assumes Greg could have predicted (or
should have anticipated) the actual outcome. He may have regarded the
present state of affairs as a possible, even probable, outcome, and
decided to make the bet regardless. I'm not Canadian enough to make
claims of special knowledge about Lemond's motives or desires, but I
can't reasonably assume the worst of motives).

I'm not talking about what "should be"; I'm talking about what is.

*This isn't to say that rhetoricians should actually say it that way.
Choosing an alienating rhetorical tone is also stupid, unless you
don't actually care about convincing others. Full disclosu
sometimes I get to a certain level of wading into some angry dumbass
rant that may have a kernel of truth to it, and I get...tired. Those
who would convince others should try to make their arguments good and
compelling. A lot of arguing (especially here in rbr**) is not done to
convince the doubtful or opposing. At best, it's about comforting the
like-minded, which is simply sad.

Another: "Pick your fights carefully".

Being mad at Lemond because he lost is rbr-grade silly. Being mad at
Lemond because he said what we say in rbr twice a week is...ok, I'm
being trolled here. Canadians have no innate sense of sarcasm, so
gulling us is like convincing Americans to overeat: amusing, but not
impressive.

Oh, I can't resist! OK: I'm not putting myself out and using my bully
pulpit to tell people the Truth About Doping In Cycling. Nobody would
care if I did. People care if Lemond does. The problem with your line
of argument is, more or less, Lemond shouldn't tell the truth
because...why? This is, more or less, being mad at Ralph Nader for
saying the Corvair was dangerous.

On 3/5/2012 8:13 PM, Ryan Cousineau wrote:
But the most obvious
"virtual" wins were in the two years where he was recuperating from
shotgunning.

He has repeatedly claimed 1985 as a virtual win, and he does
so to this day. That's nothing other than dishonest and is
the foundation for the crap he takes here.

He can only sell that in North America and only because his
friend Kent Gordis ****ed up the TV coverage here.

F

On 3/5/2012 9:13 PM, Ryan Cousineau wrote:
On Feb 29, 3:38 pm, wrote:
On Feb 29, 3:23 pm, Ryan wrote:

The "virtual win" thing is overblown by the bright lights here in rbr.

I disagree. It's only my opinion but it's one of the sourest things he
said. Why? Because he lacked the singleness of purpose, the dedication
to winning, that was Armstrong's forte. Remember when he "drove all
night" to the start of the TdF so he could bring wifey along, and the
look on Duclos-Lasalle's face (American TV coverage), the complete
disbelief that someone with a team depending on him would do such an
incredibly stupid thing, to start the Tour exhausted?

I'll grant you that Lance had more will to win, in so many ways (Lance
focused exclusively on racing the TdF in a way that LeMond did not,
and I hadn't heard the drove-all-night story). But the most obvious
"virtual" wins were in the two years where he was recuperating from
shotgunning. But sour? This is not an extraordinarily sour thing to
say, and as far as I know, he has not dwelt much on it. Virtual wins
are not a recurring theme in Lemond's public speech (whereas doping
is), only in rbr. You can find a hundred athletes who are on the
record musing about what might have been, and while lots of athletes
love pretending they have complete control over outcomes, many are
smart enough to acknowledge the role of chance in sports. And when the
athletes themselves don't claim virtual wins, their fans routinely do
it for them. I did it in this thread for Bartali. Every injury-
shortened athletic career ever gets this theme.

Let's put it this way: if Lemond had kept his mouth shut, where would
he be today? I mean, kept it shut even past all the "Lance is guilty"
stuff that came out later. What if he'd taken the high road, in other
words? There's a lot of wisdom in taking the high road.

High road? Omerta is the high road?

The answer is, Lemond would still have a bike business, what his uncle
did to him would still be his little secret, and...what else? I don't
judge the rightness of an act by the cost to the actor.

(However, the question of whether Lemond has changed public attitudes
towards doping is another question entirely. I can believe that Lemond
did what he thought was right for the noblest of reasons, but it had
no important effects. This is a worthy critique (why incur a cost for
no benefit?) but also one that assumes Greg could have predicted (or
should have anticipated) the actual outcome. He may have regarded the
present state of affairs as a possible, even probable, outcome, and
decided to make the bet regardless. I'm not Canadian enough to make
claims of special knowledge about Lemond's motives or desires, but I
can't reasonably assume the worst of motives).

I'm not talking about what "should be"; I'm talking about what is.

*This isn't to say that rhetoricians should actually say it that way.
Choosing an alienating rhetorical tone is also stupid, unless you
don't actually care about convincing others. Full disclosu
sometimes I get to a certain level of wading into some angry dumbass
rant that may have a kernel of truth to it, and I get...tired. Those
who would convince others should try to make their arguments good and
compelling. A lot of arguing (especially here in rbr**) is not done to
convince the doubtful or opposing. At best, it's about comforting the
like-minded, which is simply sad.

Another: "Pick your fights carefully".

Being mad at Lemond because he lost is rbr-grade silly. Being mad at
Lemond because he said what we say in rbr twice a week is...ok, I'm
being trolled here. Canadians have no innate sense of sarcasm, so
gulling us is like convincing Americans to overeat: amusing, but not
impressive.

Oh, I can't resist! OK: I'm not putting myself out and using my bully
pulpit to tell people the Truth About Doping In Cycling. Nobody would
care if I did. People care if Lemond does. The problem with your line
of argument is, more or less, Lemond shouldn't tell the truth
because...why? This is, more or less, being mad at Ralph Nader for
saying the Corvair was dangerous.


Only if GL rand for POTUS and drew enough votes from BO so that MR got in.

S.

--
Mark & Steven Bornfeld DDS
http://www.dentaltwins.com
Brooklyn, NY
718-258-5001

On Mar 5, 8:13*pm, Ryan Cousineau wrote:
But the most obvious
"virtual" wins were in the two years where he was recuperating from
shotgunning. But sour? This is not an extraordinarily sour thing to
say, and as far as I know, he has not dwelt much on it. Virtual wins
are not a recurring theme in Lemond's public speech (whereas doping
is), only in rbr. You can find a hundred athletes who are on the
record musing about what might have been, and while lots of athletes
love pretending they have complete control over outcomes, many are
smart enough to acknowledge the role of chance in sports. And when the
athletes themselves don't claim virtual wins, their fans routinely do
it for them. I did it in this thread for Bartali. Every injury-
shortened athletic career ever gets this theme.

Let's put it this way: if Lemond had kept his mouth shut, where would
he be today? I mean, kept it shut even past all the "Lance is guilty"
stuff that came out later. What if he'd taken the high road, in other
words? There's a lot of wisdom in taking the high road.

High road? Omerta is the high road?

Touché, but only in admiration for your rhetorical skill. Because
"mitochondrial myopathy" that Lemond allegedly suffered from can be a
tell-tale for steroid use.
That's "doper profile" and frankly, people who live in glass houses
and have MD father-in-laws who are "blood specialists" probably
shouldn't be throwing stones even if they don't have urine or blood
samples stored and ready for retro-testing and they know their
opponents do.

And there very much is a "high road" in Omerta. Indurain seems to have
taken it. "Silence" is maybe the most direct, and even "easiest" path,
but failing that, Lemond could have been a whole lot smarter in what
he said and still been "truthful".

The answer is, Lemond would still have a bike business, what his uncle
did to him would still be his little secret, and...what else? I don't
judge the rightness of an act by the cost to the actor.

There's truth whole truth nothing but the truth and then there's
practicality, consideration of consequences, and even "tact".

I'd go so far as to say that if Greg wanted to take on Lance
Armstrong, he could have been a whole lot more effective than he was,
by being at least a little bit clever about it.
Call it "high road" or whatever, the object is to get the peanut
butter out of the jar without getting it all over your hands instead
of on the bread, you know what I mean?

(However, the question of whether Lemond has changed public attitudes
towards doping is another question entirely. I can believe that Lemond
did what he thought was right for the noblest of reasons, but it had
no important effects. This is a worthy critique (why incur a cost for
no benefit?) but also one that assumes Greg could have predicted (or
should have anticipated) the actual outcome.

Totally with you there. The side-stories about his alcohol use didn't
help him any; he didn't admit having a problem there but it seems he
may well have had a lack of control on that front, also.

He may have regarded the
present state of affairs as a possible, even probable, outcome, and
decided to make the bet regardless. I'm not Canadian enough to make
claims of special knowledge about Lemond's motives or desires, but I
can't reasonably assume the worst of motives).

Canadian got nothing to do with it, eh?

Being mad at Lemond because he lost is rbr-grade silly. Being mad at
Lemond because he said what we say in rbr twice a week is...ok, I'm
being trolled here. Canadians have no innate sense of sarcasm, so
gulling us is like convincing Americans to overeat: amusing, but not
impressive.

Not mad, per se. Disappointed. Spoiled kid --- grownup with no sense
of propriety, and no "nous", either.

Oh, I can't resist! OK: I'm not putting myself out and using my bully
pulpit to tell people the Truth About Doping In Cycling. Nobody would
care if I did. People care if Lemond does. The problem with your line
of argument is, more or less, Lemond shouldn't tell the truth
because...why? This is, more or less, being mad at Ralph Nader for
saying the Corvair was dangerous.

Ralph Nader made his bones by killing the Corvair, right about the
time that Chevrolet fixed the handling problem, with the '65 models.
Not to mention, he could have "picked on" lots of other early-to-late
60's cars. Like the Volkswagon bug, or even worse, the VW van. Give me
a break...

Um, "short but sweet": Lemond stepped on his dick, big time.
--D-y

He has repeatedly claimed 1985 as a virtual win, and he does
so to this day. That's nothing other than dishonest and is
the foundation for the crap he takes here.

I lived in France at the time and it seemed obvious to me that Lemond would
have won in 1985 if he hadn't worked for Hinault. I remember Hinault on TV
right after the last stage saying "next year it's Greg's turn" (though of
course he changed his mind later), basically acknowledging Lemond's
sacrifice.

Steven Bornfeld wrote:
Only if GL rand for POTUS and drew enough votes from BO so that MR got in.

Shirley you could work something about Romney's penis size into that.

On 3/6/2012 7:23 PM, Bertrand wrote:
He has repeatedly claimed 1985 as a virtual win, and he does
so to this day. That's nothing other than dishonest and is
the foundation for the crap he takes here.

I lived in France at the time and it seemed obvious to me that Lemond
would have won in 1985 if he hadn't worked for Hinault. I remember
Hinault on TV right after the last stage saying "next year it's Greg's
turn" (though of course he changed his mind later), basically
acknowledging Lemond's sacrifice.

http://groups.google.com/group/rec.b...n&dmode=source

F