Cycling Doping History: What's Your Version?

Whenever I ride at night on a darkened street,
And storms are heard at dusk all-day-
O friend defenseless, ill and homeless,
Before me suddenly your shadow gleams.
Nikolay Nekrasov

Actually, the poem title is Whenever I Drive at Night (1847), not ride; but according to a book I read, the poem was an adaption of Alexander Pushkin: Wherever I may Wander (1833), which is probably misleading!  Being a poor liberal arts student with a smattering of biology, who am I to not suffer from confusion, especially when I was not there to inquire of the poet himself as to his supposed plagiarism, and had to guess instead.  Or incapable, through lack of specialized knowledge; I must rely upon and accept expert opinions of other people, who are supposed to be all-knowing, and subject to vetting and fact checks before publishing a load of rot.  You think I trust Greg LeMond for one instant after the load of crap he has disseminated on the cycling community?  Well, I don't.  Do you think my case against Greg LeMond is insufficient to prove that there were opportunities for Greg LeMond and the peloton of his era to dope with both blood and drugs?  The fact that the 1984 USA Olympic team used blood transfusions to medal in the Olympic games, where America as a country had not won an Olympic medal since 1912 when Carl Schutte won a bronze medal in the individual time trial, and the American team, Carl Shutte, Alvin Loftus, Albert Krushel, and Walter Martin won bronze medals in the team time trial; is pointless to discuss, because there was no official Olympic games prohibition against using blood transfusions in 1984 or 1912!  Nevertheless, according to the La Vie Claire apologists, blood doping was a top-secret venture unknown to the professional peloton, (except for the East Germans): La Vie Claire, Greg LeMond, and Bernard Hinault were completely ignorant of these methods, and even if they were aware, they would never stoop so low.  But, perhaps you are joking about the impeccable honesty and integrity of Tour de France champions of the past, which is sheer nonsense, regardless of your psychological bias or selective references.  The Lance Armstrong haters spit vitriol for years with no scientific proof, yet they were convinced of their correctness, and woe to anyone who would have the audacity to disagree with them!  Of course, you can't disagree with the Greg LeMond groupies or their rock-solid scientific grounds, the man never failed a dope test, even if methods of doping that existed at the time had no known tests or the fact there was no prohibition as to the use of some of these methods; even if they had known performance-enhancing qualities.  But, we are devolving into illogical semantics: if it is not prohibited, then can it be cheating? Can a person rationalize the use of substances known to improve performance because they are not yet illegal, as an acceptable practice to win prizes and accolades?  Then there are bleating sheep, who, when suspecting others of using the same methods now prohibited by statute, encourage them to confess their crimes, to come clean, to display what? a guilty consciousness?  Or do these tears of remorse, as to the damage done to cycling by miscreant present-day dopers merely display your own repressed guilty cognitive subconsciousness, and are you, Mr. LeMond, trying to assuage your old crimes by casting stones at others, when you yourself did not suffer any penalty?  Do your pleas for clean riding and your accusations express the fact that you cheated your fellow cyclists like a worthless scoundrel; or the fact that your sordid conduct was rewarded with laurels?

So who developed the test to detect synthetic EPO?  Was it Jacques de Ceaurriz?  Or was it LNDD without Jacques de Ceaurriz?  Was it Don Calin at UCLA?  Or was it Christiane Ayotte in Montreal?  What was the true role Francesco Conconi played in the development of a test to detect recombinant erythropoietin, and what role did the International Olympic Committee play in the development of this test?  Perhaps claims made in certain cycling reference books should be subjected to better editing before publishing, because certain "facts" presented as "truth" may in fact be nothing more than grossly misleading rubbish.  If you suspect books or articles of spouting disinformation, then why not invest some of your time and your effort to write a book review pointing out all of the errors yourself.  Or better yet, why don't you offer your services as an editor, since your knowledge is all-encompassing.  Don't forget to provide references to support your assertions.  And if you have something to say, say it publicly, you don't need to hide behind a veil of secrecy.  Because, as it stands, your corrections are selective, incomplete, and based on an agenda.  Not quite an objective way of proving things, is it?

I would rather be reading Alexi Pisemsky, One Thousand Souls, than worry about who was doping with what, or when, in the 1980s; or concern myself with who is cheating now.  Because, even contemporary truth is subjected to fraud, fiction, cover-up, ignored, or distorted by evil people who have mercenary motives to mislead the public.  This misleading agenda leads directly to disagreements and factual errors.  Thus your version may not exactly coincide with my version, but that does not mean that I will forego my version to accommodate a popular cycling opinion invented by Greg LeMond; using the resources available to me.  Of course, I expect you to do the same, never claiming a monopoly as to what constitutes historical truth or to what constitutes historical fallacy.  That way we can agree to co-exist.

Finally, I don't do promotions or advertising on my blog spot!