LeMond raced during a time in which EPO was not a thing. He knows enough about wattage outputs, physiology and all of that, to be able to proffer an educated opinion on the matter. He is not afraid to call cyclists out and to say it as he sees it. He has nothing to gain by sugar coating the subject.
I am going to look for that interview I mentioned and post the link.
Starting at about 23:00 to 28:00. At 28:00 LeMond starts into a discussion about "mechanical doping," aka, bike motors.
Mechanical doping was a real problem at one point. There is one well known instance in which Fabian Cancellara easily sprinted away from Tom Boonen, one of the strongest finishing sprinters of his time. It appeared to be obvious mechanical doping.
I doubt that you'll watch the video or listen to any arguments about doping, Armstronglivs, because I've read enough of your thoughts to know that you firmly have your mind made up on the subject.
You have to ask yourself why you think cycling would be relatively clean now when doping was the norm at the top. Is it because cyclists have a different set of ethics today - why would that be? They still want to succeed as much as ever - or is it because they are afraid of being caught doping - which is unlikely because doping remains well ahead of antidoping. There are no reasons I can think of as to why cyclists wouldn't still be doing today what they have long done and what athletes in every other sport are doing.
This post was edited 54 seconds after it was posted.
So you don't understand that doping has developed in the sport over time. You forgot to ask me about Pheidippides.
According to Armlaugh, no clean athlete is just close to some current WR. Asking him concretely about Coe, who 42 years ago has achieved an arguably better mark (tracks and shoes) than the current WR he avoids an answer - see his laughable reply.
42 years ago, Sebastian Coe has achieved a mark at least (!) as good as the current WR. You, Armstrong, have said that no clean athlete just can come close to any current WR.
What's your conclusion about Coe, Armstrong? Or about your statement?
Coe may have doped - I don't know - but doping has continued to increase since his era and it has become ridiculously obvious with wr's over every kind of distance being set on a monthly basis - beating previously doped world marks - and the latest farce with Assefa and now Kiptum. The drugs are available, they typically can't be detected and athletes will doing anything to succeed. So that is where the sport is now - like so many others.
LeMond is a cyclist in a known dirty sport. Would he be expected to concede that the sport still dopes as much as it always has?
LeMond raced during a time in which EPO was not a thing. He knows enough about wattage outputs, physiology and all of that, to be able to proffer an educated opinion on the matter. He is not afraid to call cyclists out and to say it as he sees it. He has nothing to gain by sugar coating the subject.
I am going to look for that interview I mentioned and post the link.
Of course he has something to gain. If he was the best in a dirty sport that virtually says he also was a doper. Nor would he wish to sport to be seen as an exercise in doping. He cannot be impartial.
According to Armlaugh, no clean athlete is just close to some current WR. Asking him concretely about Coe, who 42 years ago has achieved an arguably better mark (tracks and shoes) than the current WR he avoids an answer - see his laughable reply.
42 years ago, Sebastian Coe has achieved a mark at least (!) as good as the current WR. You, Armstrong, have said that no clean athlete just can come close to any current WR.
What's your conclusion about Coe, Armstrong? Or about your statement?
Coe may have doped - I don't know - but doping has continued to increase since his era and it has become ridiculously obvious with wr's over every kind of distance being set on a monthly basis - beating previously doped world marks - and the latest farce with Assefa and now Kiptum. The drugs are available, they typically can't be detected and athletes will doing anything to succeed. So that is where the sport is now - like so many others.
What a laughable reply.
Armstrong: No clean athlete just can come close to any current WR.
Coe was close to the current 800m WR - with a mark achieved 42 years ago! On an inferior track, with inferior shoes, while he had to run wide in the curve and lost 2 tenths. Physically, this was a performance better than the current WR.
According to you, Coe WAS doped, OK, Armbraindead? Not: he may have, I don't know. You know it, he WAS doped. Or your statement just is utter nonsense (like many, many others) , OK, Armbraindead?
Coe may have doped - I don't know - but doping has continued to increase since his era and it has become ridiculously obvious with wr's over every kind of distance being set on a monthly basis - beating previously doped world marks - and the latest farce with Assefa and now Kiptum. The drugs are available, they typically can't be detected and athletes will doing anything to succeed. So that is where the sport is now - like so many others.
What a laughable reply.
Armstrong: No clean athlete just can come close to any current WR.
Coe was close to the current 800m WR - with a mark achieved 42 years ago! On an inferior track, with inferior shoes, while he had to run wide in the curve and lost 2 tenths. Physically, this was a performance better than the current WR.
According to you, Coe WAS doped, OK, Armbraindead? Not: he may have, I don't know. You know it, he WAS doped. Or your statement just is utter nonsense (like many, many others) , OK, Armbraindead?
It's not often we can see someone experiencing some kind of fit on this place.
Armstrong: No clean athlete just can come close to any current WR.
Coe was close to the current 800m WR - with a mark achieved 42 years ago! On an inferior track, with inferior shoes, while he had to run wide in the curve and lost 2 tenths. Physically, this was a performance better than the current WR.
According to you, Coe WAS doped, OK, Armbraindead? Not: he may have, I don't know. You know it, he WAS doped. Or your statement just is utter nonsense (like many, many others) , OK, Armbraindead?
It's not often we can see someone experiencing some kind of fit on this place.
This is from Mr. Braindead himself:
"I have my own views as to what is possibly a clean level of performance in athletics but it is nowhere near the current world records and many of the best times being recorded today."
Clean: nowhere near the current WR.
All the athletes who are at least as close to the current WR than Coe is to the 800m WR with his performance set 42 years ago, on inferior tracks, with inferior shoes, while running wide in one curve:
According to Mr. Braindead, all the WRs are equally good.
According to Mr. Braindead's view, Coe is the most obvious doper besides the WR holders.
But he says :"Maybe Coe doped, I don't know".
If Coe could have achieved 1:41.73 and 2:12.18 clean, so any other performance also could have been achieved clean.
Or if all the others are dopers without any doubt because of performances too good to be achieved clean, so was Coe - without any doubt. OK, Armbraindead?
It's not often we can see someone experiencing some kind of fit on this place.
This is from Mr. Braindead himself:
"I have my own views as to what is possibly a clean level of performance in athletics but it is nowhere near the current world records and many of the best times being recorded today."
Clean: nowhere near the current WR.
All the athletes who are at least as close to the current WR than Coe is to the 800m WR with his performance set 42 years ago, on inferior tracks, with inferior shoes, while running wide in one curve:
According to Mr. Braindead, all the WRs are equally good.
According to Mr. Braindead's view, Coe is the most obvious doper besides the WR holders.
But he says :"Maybe Coe doped, I don't know".
If Coe could have achieved 1:41.73 and 2:12.18 clean, so any other performance also could have been achieved clean.
Or if all the others are dopers without any doubt because of performances too good to be achieved clean, so was Coe - without any doubt. OK, Armbraindead?
"I have my own views as to what is possibly a clean level of performance in athletics but it is nowhere near the current world records and many of the best times being recorded today."
Clean: nowhere near the current WR.
All the athletes who are at least as close to the current WR than Coe is to the 800m WR with his performance set 42 years ago, on inferior tracks, with inferior shoes, while running wide in one curve:
According to Mr. Braindead, all the WRs are equally good.
According to Mr. Braindead's view, Coe is the most obvious doper besides the WR holders.
But he says :"Maybe Coe doped, I don't know".
If Coe could have achieved 1:41.73 and 2:12.18 clean, so any other performance also could have been achieved clean.
Or if all the others are dopers without any doubt because of performances too good to be achieved clean, so was Coe - without any doubt. OK, Armbraindead?
You need to take your pills.
No argument, just plain nothing. As in dozens and dozens of threads where he sprouts his nonsense.
Other events, all the athletes at least as close to the current WR than Coe is to the 800m WR with a performance achieved 42 years ago, on a inferior track, with inferior shoes, while running wide:
What's your way of discussing some subject? Also without arguments? But I agree, you can't reach him with arguments.
You should try. But so far I haven't seen any. Keep taking your pills.
You have seen, but you're winding like an eel to not give an answer.
Anybody close to a current WR is a doper (Armstrong). Coe is close to the current WR in the 800m (with a performance set 42 years ago on a inferior track, with inferior shoes while running little bit wide in one curve). Good reasons, to call it the best 800m performance in history.
If your premise is correct, Coe WAS a doper, OK, Armbraindead? (not: I don't know, maybe...). He WAS.
If Coe was clean, your premise is wrong (as so often).
Which one is correct, Armbraindead?
There are dozens and dozens of athletes much farther away (see the lists which I made for you) from the current WR which you tell day in day out are dopers because of too good performances. If Coe could have achieved his performance clean, than practically any other performance also could have been achieved clean (definitely not all were, for sure).
You should try. But so far I haven't seen any. Keep taking your pills.
You have seen, but you're winding like an eel to not give an answer.
Anybody close to a current WR is a doper (Armstrong). Coe is close to the current WR in the 800m (with a performance set 42 years ago on a inferior track, with inferior shoes while running little bit wide in one curve). Good reasons, to call it the best 800m performance in history.
If your premise is correct, Coe WAS a doper, OK, Armbraindead? (not: I don't know, maybe...). He WAS.
If Coe was clean, your premise is wrong (as so often).
Which one is correct, Armbraindead?
There are dozens and dozens of athletes much farther away (see the lists which I made for you) from the current WR which you tell day in day out are dopers because of too good performances. If Coe could have achieved his performance clean, than practically any other performance also could have been achieved clean (definitely not all were, for sure).
As I said a while ago, you have nothing worth discussing.
You have seen, but you're winding like an eel to not give an answer.
Anybody close to a current WR is a doper (Armstrong). Coe is close to the current WR in the 800m (with a performance set 42 years ago on a inferior track, with inferior shoes while running little bit wide in one curve). Good reasons, to call it the best 800m performance in history.
If your premise is correct, Coe WAS a doper, OK, Armbraindead? (not: I don't know, maybe...). He WAS.
If Coe was clean, your premise is wrong (as so often).
Which one is correct, Armbraindead?
There are dozens and dozens of athletes much farther away (see the lists which I made for you) from the current WR which you tell day in day out are dopers because of too good performances. If Coe could have achieved his performance clean, than practically any other performance also could have been achieved clean (definitely not all were, for sure).
As I said a while ago, you have nothing worth discussing.
Like an eel.
Because of his terrible character, he just can't give a mature reply like:
"I stick to my statement, anybody close to a current WR is a doper, so Coe also was a doper"
"Coe might have been clean, so no, not anybody close to a current WR has to be a doper".