Lemond vs. Armstrong

[colwildcat]

I think that Greg Lemond should be congratulated for being one of the few to take on the sport's heirarchy. Contrary to what people believe, Greg talks about a lot of other things besides Mr Armstrong. In his recent speech at the Play the Game conference in the UK, he talked specifically about LA for no more than 10 minutes in a speech lasting almost an hour. He even says that he lays the blame primarily at the officials and not the athletes.

I agree that he is not the most articulate person in the world or the best orator. However, if eveyone asked the questions he does then things might be different.

I think that a lot of Armstrong and Landis supporters are like the people in cults who genuinely believe that when they die spaceships will come down and take them away. What we need is a lot more sceptics like Greg LeMond.

lemond has zero credibility for me because he cannot answer one simple question: why should I believe he didn't cheat. He asserts that to win you must cheat. Yet, when winning the Tour, he won with one of the, if not the fastest stage in history, and he was racing against guys we know cheated. So, he won't accept Lances word that he won clean, yet we're supposed to believe him?

It smacks not of skepticism, but at his desire to keep himseld in the limelight. His presence at the Landis trial was a tragedy and a joke at the same time. Why he did that, I'll never know. It added zero. To me, he is a sad shell of the hero that brought me to the sport.

 

[TrapperJohn]

Considering that CERA wasn't approved for use in Europe until August 2007 and did not become available outside of clinical trials before the start of 2008, there wouldn't be much point in testing the 2007 Tour samples for it, would there?

LeMond was one of my heroes and idols way back when. Certainly, while he was riding, he presented a far classier image to the general public. He may well be the last truly clean champion, certainly was the last one before the biotech drugs of the 90's.

However, over the last couple of years his statements have become increasingly erratic. LA didn't have to smear LeMond in public, he's done it to himself.

Shut up, Greg. You're becoming your own worst enemy. Get back in shape like Eddy did, so I can believe in you again.

 

[SlantParallelogram]

You would have to be a total dumba$$ to ever believe that someone could be that dominate without doping.

You would be naive to believe that doping is a new thing or that it isn't totally widespread.

 

[nobody]

lemond has zero credibility for me because he cannot answer one simple question: why should I believe he didn't cheat. He asserts that to win you must cheat. Yet, when winning the Tour, he won with one of the, if not the fastest stage in history, and he was racing against guys we know cheated. So, he won't accept Lances word that he won clean, yet we're supposed to believe him?

You have misunderstood Lemond who stated that it was not possible to win against blood doped athletes! Very different to beat a rider using amphetamine.

The fastest stage was a long downhill TT (2% average). You should say that that day all riders were full doped and were faster than most of today riders.

It smacks not of skepticism, but at his desire to keep himseld in the limelight. His presence at the Landis trial was a tragedy and a joke at the same time. Why he did that, I'll never know. It added zero. To me, he is a sad shell of the hero that brought me to the sport.

His presence at Landis' hearing was usefull to point what was doing the Landis' camp, especially the predicted action by messages on a forum.
Sure people like that would never cheat!

 

[colwildcat]

You have misunderstood Lemond who stated that it was not possible to win against blood doped athletes! Very different to beat a rider using amphetamine.

The fastest stage was a long downhill TT (2% average). You should say that that day all riders were full doped and were faster than most of today riders.


His presence at Landis' hearing was usefull to point what was doing the Landis' camp, especially the predicted action by messages on a forum.
Sure people like that would never cheat!

All due respect, I haven't misunderstood him. He accuses many who have never been caught of doping or cheating, yet never explains how he was able to win without cheating himself. He seems to want us to believe that he won by pure talent and hard work, yet everyone who won after him did it through pharmaceutical means.

You can't have it both ways. Either all Tour winners are cheaters, including him, or some have won it naturally, including some of those he rails against constantly (I won't mention names for fear of being labeled a fanboy).