pmcg76 said:
Guess who, when it was revealed that somebody was connected with Dr.Ferrari, LeMond made the simple statement that he was dissappointed with the connection. You know, like when a parent discovers their kid is hanging around with the local drug dealer. Maybe they are not taking drugs but well.....
The certain somebody then went ballistic, threatning LeMond and forcing him to make a grovelling apology. Since then Greg LeMond has been on the front foot.
Mottet is my favourite clean rider as backed by Willy Voet, he was one of my favourite riders when I was getting into cycling. Voet reckoned he helped clean up the RMO team a certain Paul Kimmage had just left so just maybe a strong leader can have an influence. Mottet was competitive in the same era as LeMond 4th 87 & 91 Tours, 6th 89. 3 Dauphine Liberes, Tour of Lombardy and much, much more. His performances dropped of around 93/94 and he retired at the young age of 32. Wonder why.
If Mottet was clean and in the top bracket of pros, why not LeMond.
Yeah. Greg has quite a bit of experience facing down sadness and disappointment.
Others here have undoubtedly seen this before, and I wish I could acknowledge the original source, but here's another sad story about Greg:
"Minneapolis, MN -- Greg Lemond today released a statement that said he has, reluctantly and with great sadness, been forced to add the 2006 Tour de France to the long list of tours that he should have won. Lemond initially believed, and was even quoted in an earlier interview as saying, that this was the first clean Tour de France in many years. However, in light of the recent positive doping test of tour winner Floyd Landis, Lemond has concluded that, in all likelihood, he himself should have won the tour this year.
This brings the total number of Tours de France That Lemond Should Have Won (TDFTLSHW) to 167. Lemond first won the tour in 1986. However, as he has explained many times over the years since, he should have won the Tour in 1985, but was lied to by Bernard Hinault and cheated out of the race victory. Lemond next should have won the Tour in 1987 and 1988, but was incapacitated by a shotgun blast from his brother-in-law. While the incident was ruled an accident by the police, Lemond believes that his brother-in-law was working with Hinault and a young Texan by the name of Lance Armstrong to remove him from the sport.
Lemond came back to win the Tour in 1989 and 1990, but lost in 1991 due to the fact that, as incredible as it may sound, every other rider in the Tour de France besides Lemond was taking performance enhancing drugs. Lemond believes these drugs were supplied by Bernard Hinault, who realized that if nothing were done, Lemond would continue to win the Tour for the next 50 years. The drug-tainted Tour would continue through 2005, including the reign of Lance Armstrong. In the absence of doping, Lemond clearly would have won the Tour from 1991 to 2005, bringing the total number of TDFTLSHW to 21.
Going back before 1985, Lemond believes that in all likelihood, he would have won the Tour de France each year since his birth in 1961 if a) he had known about it and b) he had not had the small stature and limited leg length common to children between the ages of 0 and 10. As Lemond explains, clearly it would be unfair to him to discount the Tour wins he should have achieved were he only able to reach the pedals of his bicycle. This brings the TDFTLSHW to 45.
While Lemond concedes that some may believe him to be "stretching it" by including in his TDFTLSHW years from Tours before his birth, he claims that if one is to think about it logically, the only possible conclusion is that the greatest bike rider in the history of the Tour would absolutely have won the Tour since its inception in 1903, if only he had been alive at that time. It was not Greg Lemond's fault that his parents were not alive and able to conceive him in time to ride the initial Tour in 1903; thus, it would be unfair to strip him of the Tour wins that he rightly should have been awarded.
Note that there have been 11 years since its creation in 1903 that the Tour de France was not held due to the two World Wars. Clearly, stopping the Tour due to worldwide war would have been unfair to Greg Lemond, had he been alive, and would have in all likelihood, been a move orchestrated by Bernard Hinault, had he himself been alive, to keep Lemond from winning the tour. Thus, Lemond believes that these years should also be included in the TDFTLSHW, giving him a total of 103 wins.
Finally, Lemond explains that he has included the years between the invention of the bicycle to the first Tour de France (1839 to 1903) in the TDFTLSHW. Had the French had the foresight to create the Tour de France in a more timely manner, Lemond would have definitely won it each and every year, again assuming he had been alive (see above). Obviously Lemond cannot be blaimed for the shortsightedness and general ineptitude of the French, and therefore the victory from the Tours de France that should have been held in these years must be credited to Lemond, bringing the final tally of TDFTLSHW to 167.
Note that while Lemond has not yet been able to rationalize including years before the invention of the bicycle in the TDFTLSHW, he has created a company to pursue such an effort. The company is hard at work on a rationalization and hopes to produce one for him within the year. "
I love reading people's opinions on who is clean, you just know it's only a matter of time before someone says Laurent Fignon or Evgeni Berzin. Actually, someone already said Stephen Roche. Quality.
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram