What would you do: team bike or replica?

[lewisfoto]

7 tour wins graphic'd on the seat tube ! i don't think i could file a law suit and claim my £130 + emotional trauma !

I thought about this same thing when Lance's sponsors wanted to sue him for lying...

I mean was Trek going to issue refunds to it USPS bike customers if they won in court? Otherwise it would be fraud.

 

[rusty bodie]

for those of you who, like me, grew up with the 1980s/1990s tours, this is a fascinating insight to the real dodgy dealings inside the pro ranks at that time. lemond is a complete star for standing up for what's right and also for his understanding of why the "lesser" men did what they did.. ie to keep their jobs..

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LLVOCV5Nlms

 

[riddim-track]

I'd go bike 2, no one needs a shamed bike! I actually bid on a couple of Jimmy Savile's old bikes, I'm really pleased I didn't win one now

Don't tell me he was doping too!!!



Regarding the bike choice, personally I'm slightly superstitious about these kind of things since being in a similar situation to you. I bought a frame, also previously owned by a pro rider of questionable moral standards. Subsequently it got stolen from me.

On another occasion I bought a frame off ebay which when it arrived showed all the signs of having been nicked and (badly) stripped down for parts etc. (It didn't show up on the stolen bike database for the record) On the 3rd or 4th time I rode it I got knocked off by a cab driver in a hit and run, broke my leg, spent a week in hospital and as a result had to postpone my wedding, which my wife still reminds me of whenever I'm in the dog house

Karma?

My advice, if there's any doubt in your mind about the dodgy one then don't bother as you'll never truly enjoy it.

 

[rusty bodie]

I'd go bike 2, no one needs a shamed bike! I actually bid on a couple of Jimmy Savile's old bikes, I'm really pleased I didn't win one now

Don't tell me he was doping too!!!

Karma?

My advice, if there's any doubt in your mind about the dodgy one then don't bother as you'll never truly enjoy it.

absolutely not, i'm glad to say - perhaps one of only a handful of riders who were naturals at riding at that level. no one ever pointed the finger at lemond and i guess that's why he was so against the regime that killed so many riders and propelled armstrong and co to superstar status.

watch it - it's riveting!

 

[riddim-track]

I'd go bike 2, no one needs a shamed bike! I actually bid on a couple of Jimmy Savile's old bikes, I'm really pleased I didn't win one now

Don't tell me he was doping too!!!

Karma?

My advice, if there's any doubt in your mind about the dodgy one then don't bother as you'll never truly enjoy it.

absolutely not, i'm glad to say - perhaps one of only a handful of riders who were naturals at riding at that level. no one ever pointed the finger at lemond and i guess that's why he was so against the regime that killed so many riders and propelled armstrong and co to superstar status.

watch it - it's riveting!

Lol, I meant Sir Jimmy Saville, it was a poor attempt at a joke. I'm not sure how/when Lemond became indicated in this discussion.

I'm very aware of Lemond's position on doping and have always had huge respect for him. FWIW my 13th birthday present from my parents was a book call "1989 A great year for Lemond - The fabulous world of cycling vol.8". I still have it here now with a note from my parents written inside the cover. Lemond along with Robert Millar were my childhood heros.

 

[andymuza]

Who cares? Really, it's not the bike that cheated. How can it be called cheating if everyone was doing the same? Surely it was just making things equal.

For me I would go with bike 2 only because you want to use it everyday.

If I bought bike 1 it would be to get it back to it's former glory and for the occasional ride. I would stay well away from bike 1 if it wasn't backed up by all it's paper work.

It's up to you, if you bought bike one it doesn't mean you condone doping, it just means you appreciate a bikes history.

 

[hamster]

How can it be called cheating if everyone was doing the same?

It is still cheating. Not sticking to the rules is cheating, and the fact that everyone else (might) have been doing it is not, and never has been, any form of defence.

I think the organisers decision to avoid chaos and simply not award a new winner is the best policy.

 

[Deleted member 24574]

How can it be called cheating if everyone was doing the same?

It is still cheating. Not sticking to the rules is cheating, and the fact that everyone else (might) have been doing it is not, and never has been, any form of defence.

I think the organisers decision to avoid chaos and simply not award a new winner is the best policy.

I'll add to that that cheating is not a binary situation and some were cheating a lot more than others ... far from a level playing field.

I would never want a US postal bike ... tainted if you ask me ... although someone will probably now question Delgardo's record and my ownership of a Pinarello ...

 

[rusty bodie]

interesting watching that video as i think that everyone in the early 90s was under the impression that lemond's health was packing up - if you watch the video he states that it was more a case of everyone else becoming "superhuman" overnight with the new doping regimes!! it's a real insight to what actually went on and i urge anyone to watch the video if they have an hour or two spare.

all said, it doesn't spoil anything for me. the minute i see those old vhs tours de france i'm right back in my teens again and loving every minute of it. all the more so now knowing that the blue eyed boy from nevada was thrashing the others with his legs and nothing else.

as for delgado, nah, he'll always be an incredible rider in my book!

:twisted:

 

[Deleted member 24574]

My carbon bike is a LeMond, great rider and probably the only clean winner in a very wide date range.