oldbobcat said:In the grown-up world there's a difference between making a point and throwing allegations and insinuations and hoping something sticks.
But that's your opinion. LeMond has being fighting doping in cycling before Armstrong began winning TdF's as kennf points out. There is plenty of circumstantial evidence that Lance doped. But the reason that he has never been taken to court is the same reason that they only eventually got Al Capone on tax evasion charges. You need a smoking gun as evidence in court.
oldbobcat said:There's a cabal that's trying to implicate Johan Bruyneel, Lance Armstrong, and Trek in EPO. For all I know they might be right, but right now they have no proof. Greg LeMond's antics add nothing to their case.
This "cabal" mindset is something you've read about huh? What evidence do you have that there is a "cabal"? That is the conspiratorial spin that the Armstrong brigade have managed to get into your head without any evidence. "Evidence" being a requirement that you use as an argument to counter other allegatios.
L'Equippe found retroactively 6 EPO positives on Lance's 1999 samples that were blind-tested in a lab (there were 12 anonymous B samples from the 99 TdF, of which the 6 that tested positive were all matched to Lance after the lab tests). In 1999 there was no test for EPO, even though it was illegal. The French newspaper L'Equippe that organized the tests and released the findings is not a French tabloid newspaper, as the Armstrong brigade like to paint them as. And furthermore, they stood to lose millions of dollars in litigation awards if their findings could not be substantiated. All Lance had to do was sue them. He blathered in the media as usual, threatened a few actions, but did nothing AFAIK. It isn't that difficult to convince the Lancophiles in America that it was all some French conspiracy.
There is a lot of vested interests that want to keep the clean Lance myth going. A lot of people are still making money out of his success. The only loser is cycling, truth and integrity... as it is just another example of cycling not owning up to it's problems IMO.
oldbobcat said:Crankyfeet, I presume the clean cyclist you're talking about is Armstrong, and frankly, I don't know why he would maintain his relationship with Dr. Ferrari either, but neither do you or LeMond. Yes, the whole thing smells, but LeMond has responsibilities to the sport and his business, his reputation, and the sport, and you and I don't. We don't even give out our real names.
I am not trying to get into a slanging match here. Just debating the point. I hear what you say about LeMond's responsibilities. But I think when one has conflicting responsibilities... the truth should be the one to side with, that trumps all others. I'm not even saying that necessarily LeMomd's opinion of the truth is 100% the truth. All I'm saying is that I admire someone who stands up for HIS principles and definition of the truth... despite corporate and monetary pressures.
