LeMond's letter to McQuaid

Page 5 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
GoGarmin said:
The time for Vaughter's breakaway league has never been more ripe.
His league is long on ideas and short on principals, just like his rhetoric. Vaughters is a much more sophisticated version of a Pat or Hein.

He wouldn't do stupid/petty things like Pat and Hein, but I bet he adopts the total control of anti-doping efforts that the UCI uses to great effect to manage cycling.
 
Jun 18, 2012
90
0
0
roadfreak44 said:
snipped for drivel. Merckx was 45th in his first. Indurain 58th armstrong 55th Hinault 40th...but squeaky clean Greg riding for Old school Guimard places third but hes clean? snipped for lots more drivel
Merckx won his debut tour in 1969 and the Badger won on his first ride in 1978. Don't care about the two EPO guzzlers you mention after them.

Really, the standard of trolls has gone down considerably.
 

Dr. Maserati

BANNED
Jun 19, 2009
13,250
1
0
Moose McKnuckles said:
Now all the LA Losers who tossed Armstrong's salad for the last decade are trying to attack Lemond? Sad pathetic people, your lot.

Just hop on your Livestrong Treks with your RadioShack team kits and ride off into the sunset with your lame-*** d-bag "hero".
Must admit - I wasn't one of those who thought Lance would lose a huge fortune from his recent 'difficulties' - but the standard of intern lately is really low quality.
 
thegripo said:
* his "increible" performances (ie his 1st tour), beating admitted dopers.
You mean how Greg raced at the sharp end of practically every race entirely unlike every EPO super-responder that came after?

Lemond's performance as an amateur were soul-crushing to every Pro Cycling hopeful that had to race with him. Yes, he was that good. Unlike EPO responders who are 'good' a few times a year, with Lemond it was all year long on a much harder schedule than modern racers.

Clearly you were not following the sport in Lemond's era otherwise you would know how this ridiculous claim eliminates any possible credibility you might have had.

thegripo said:
* considering his "never tested positive" argument as invalid as Lances, Hincapie's and many others.
The vague allegations that Lemond doped are in full-swing right now, clearly fueled by Wonderboy believers on a number of cycling-related sites. Lemond's defenders use this one and it's a bad argument.

If anything, the case can be made that Lemond's exit from bike racing is the perfect test case for dopers. He was getting beat like pack-fill his last TdF. Clearly he was not on EPO and other riders who WERE pack-fill pre-EPO were killing it.

At the time, riders were dying of EPO induced heart attacks and Hein was pretending nothing was wrong. Meanwhile, the IOC pretended EPO did not exist either until it became ridiculous.

In fact, let's dredge-up that era one more time because it highlights how entirely corrupt cycling was and still is under Hein's control and makes Lemond look like a saint.

thegripo said:
* ignoring USADA mistakes and putting ALL blame on UCI (eventhough UCI/verbruggen/mcquaid are no doubt corrupt and incompetent)
The "problems" with the USADA's case are manufactured. Greg's letter is on the mark.
 
Dr. Maserati said:
Must admit - I wasn't one of those who thought Lance would lose a huge fortune from his recent 'difficulties' - but the standard of intern lately is really low quality.
Seriously. Anyone who pays low-level twits like roadfreak44 for anything else other than picking dingleberries is getting ripped off.
 
Sep 12, 2011
8
0
0
roadfreak44 said:
Lets be clear about something . Lemond is a fraud and a liar. I dont think greg wants to punch him in the face but he does want the job...thats clear in gregs mind there is no one but him that can save cycling. Greg the great clean crusader.
problem is we do have to question motives here and FACTS...Heres a guy who as a neo pro with no grand tour experience who was third in his first tour. A Neo pro THIRD? never happened before or since except with raimundas...who was found to be positive. Merckx was 45th in his first. Indurain 58th armstrong 55th Hinault 40th...but squeaky clean Greg riding for Old school Guimard places third but hes clean? Good one :D...Guimard had a "program" guided himault fingnon and lemond...I suppose the ever so clean greg never noticed anything or did anything while there. Funny he has never spoken of Guimard, Fignons Positives or Hinaults steroid road rage. ..mmm hmmm. From my years racing I was always able to tell the dopers. The ones whose performances stood out above and beyond the average top pros . Gregs first year performance with no experience whatsoever in the tour landing third is not exemplary its obviously unbeleivable but he did have a good docotr and guimard... Lotsa boy scouts on here who want to beleive otherwise but greg has always been an unethical individual. Remember when he chased down Jaques Boyer in the worlds becuase he didnt want him to win? He said it was because "He thought Boyer had said somethings about him in french during an interview but he didnt know what they were." When i read that I realized he was fundamentally paranoid and still is. When we look at the long list of dopers that have been caught by uci and wada for lemond to say they are not doing their job is a joke. they also instituted the biological passport which creates baseline parameters to judge riders performances. Lemond is whining about the UCI what about his buddy travis at USADA? If we want to talk about incompetence lets put that horse in the right stable...where in the hell was Tygart the hundreds of times that LA competed in the usa?
Not to mention levi hincpaie and the dozens of others of whom NONE usada caught.. Why werent they doing their job? I am truly upset that they let a cheat like armstrong and all the others get away with that and they did let him. LA wasnt in control of doping tests in the usa , USADA was so why arent they being held accountable? They totally screwed up. What we have seen is a tacit admission that they couldnt catch him because they werent smart enough...translation...incompetent...
Menawhile where is greg? Where are his vcomplaints aobut their incompetence? He doesnt want THAT job ;-)
What about WADA? they are the ones that actually administer the tests . They took hair samples from armstrong...It is impossible to cheat on hair samples...if there was epo in his hair samples why didnt they report it?
why sint greg whining about wada? he doesnt want that job... The uci is a governing body not a testing body. Lemond knows this so why is he crowing so loudly? He wants the job but methinks he protesteth too much. His other teamate Fignon was a known doper. Lemond set a record speed for a time trial beatign figtnon who admitted he was doping after!Hinault was famous for his steroid induced road rage but greg who beat them both was a boy scout? are you idiots??? Raimundas was the ONLY OTHER RIDER who placed third coming from nowhere and the uci was critical of him and he was caught(once again they did the job they have done all along)the world is populated with true believers but sorry guys your idol is made of brass...not gold...There is nothing Lemond can or would do that would make thing s any better. He just wants the limelight again..truth is WADA and USADA are far more incompetent thna the uci if they administer hundreds of tests but cant catch a cheat. This isnt hyperbole,..its a fact...
You are an idiot. Coming from nowhere? I won't go into detail but if i do remember, He won the world championships at 22 then the next year got 3rd in the Tour de France, then second then won it. LeMond was signed by Renault as the successor to Hinault.
 
Oct 25, 2012
15
0
0
Circuit said:
You are an idiot. Coming from nowhere? I won't go into detail but if i do remember, He won the world championships at 22 then the next year got 3rd in the Tour de France, then second then won it. LeMond was signed by Renault as the successor to Hinault.
Pretty much. it is doubtful that Lemond doped in his career, mostly because of the time frame in which he raced and how he exited the sport. The guy went from winning the tour one year, to having one more solid effort the next, and then ultimately being pack-fodder to terrible for a couple more years before hanging it up. What is significant about his decline? It just so happens that the decline in relative performance of one of the all-time greats (at an age where he should be in his prime mind you) coincides with the introduction of EPO into the peloton.

Andy Hampsten had a similar end to his career. Hmm.

but let's assume the troll is right and Lemond was doping early in his career. What doping elements would he have access to? EPO didn't exist, stimulants don't help you in a grand tour, and steroids don't help you climb. That leaves blood doping, a technique that was in it's infancy at that point and wouldn't get him on the podium without cratering the rest of his season. Oddly enough, blood doping was also legal until 85 so even if he took a blood bag in 84 he still wasn't cheating.

Basically, in order for Lemond's results to have been reliant on doping, he would have had to been on the cutting edge of doping technology at the start of his career and then never made any changes to his program once EPO surfaced. That seems kind of doubtful for a hyper competitive athlete who has already rationalized cheating. Seems to me that the guy was more than likely clean.
 
Aug 10, 2010
6,286
0
0
zachateseverything said:
Pretty much. it is doubtful that Lemond doped in his career, mostly because of the time frame in which he raced and how he exited the sport. The guy went from winning the tour one year, to having one more solid effort the next, and then ultimately being pack-fodder to terrible for a couple more years before hanging it up. What is significant about his decline? It just so happens that the decline in relative performance of one of the all-time greats (at an age where he should be in his prime mind you) coincides with the introduction of EPO into the peloton.

Andy Hampsten had a similar end to his career. Hmm.

but let's assume the troll is right and Lemond was doping early in his career. What doping elements would he have access to? EPO didn't exist, stimulants don't help you in a grand tour, and steroids don't help you climb. That leaves blood doping, a technique that was in it's infancy at that point and wouldn't get him on the podium without cratering the rest of his season. Oddly enough, blood doping was also legal until 85 so even if he took a blood bag in 84 he still wasn't cheating.

Basically, in order for Lemond's results to have been reliant on doping, he would have had to been on the cutting edge of doping technology at the start of his career and then never made any changes to his program once EPO surfaced. That seems kind of doubtful for a hyper competitive athlete who has already rationalized cheating. Seems to me that the guy was more than likely clean.
Good first post!
 
May 26, 2010
28,144
2
0
thegripo said:
instead of attacking the messenger (a la armstrong) why don't you address the issues raised by roadfreak?

being lemond's fanboy does take you to the same level as an LA one..
aah another who bought into the yellow myth.

The Freak made no coherent argument that was worth addressing

We have thread which deals with this issue. There is no credible evidence that LeMond doped. I have posted in it numerous times.

Why dont you make a credible case for LeMond's doping?

20 years and not one rider, masseuse, soigneur, DS or mechanic came out and said "Hypocrite!"

So get back in to your LIEStrong PJs and find a more gullible forum for these lies.
 
Aug 10, 2010
6,286
0
0
Circuit said:
You are an idiot. Coming from nowhere? I won't go into detail but if i do remember, He won the world championships at 22 then the next year got 3rd in the Tour de France, then second then won it. LeMond was signed by Renault as the successor to Hinault.
You're new. There is a recent LeMond thread where the attacks against LeMond were comprehensively refuted. Over and over again. The ignore feature of this forum is useful, also.
 
Aug 18, 2012
1,171
0
0
Dr. Maserati said:
Must admit - I wasn't one of those who thought Lance would lose a huge fortune from his recent 'difficulties' - but the standard of intern lately is really low quality.
Seriously they hold Livestrong board meetings, discussing ways to smear Greg Lemond and this is the best they can come up with.
 
McQuaid's exit - LeMond's VO2Max & the Polka

It’s reasonable for McQuaid to leave. It is unreasonable for McQuaid to remain.

http://www.bikeraceinfo.com/oralhistory/lemond.html
LeMond’s VO2 Max was the thing. It is believable that LeMond was clean. Yet I would not be surprised to hear anything regarding cycling, anymore.

Do the Polka. I wanted a polka dot jersey. Still do. I could buy a polka dot jersey but I can not earn one.
 
Oct 14, 2012
78
0
0
Moose McKnuckles said:
Now all the LA Losers who tossed Armstrong's salad for the last decade are trying to attack Lemond? Sad pathetic people, your lot.

Just hop on your Livestrong Treks with your RadioShack team kits and ride off into the sunset with your lame-*** d-bag "hero".
Those who attack Lemond, either have a lack of insight, or they are just attempting to stir things. Personally, I would pay no heed.
 
May 12, 2011
241
0
0
BroDeal said:
http://nyvelocity.com/content/features/2012/open-letter-pat-mcquaid-greg-lemond#comment-107135

Open Letter to Pat McQuaid from Greg LeMond
Thu, 10/25/2012 - 2:31am by Andy Shen

I have a file with what I believe is well documented proof that will exonerate Paul.

Greg
One could easily view that part as threatening ( or bullying to use a term in common use here ).

BTW, FWIW, I'm in the " great sentiment, needs better composition camp".

OTOH, I've had nearly enough of St Greg at this point. He has ranted for so long that it stops having any probative effect.
 
May 26, 2010
28,144
2
0
Aleajactaest said:
One could easily view that part as threatening ( or bullying to use a term in common use here ).

BTW, FWIW, I'm in the " great sentiment, needs better composition camp".

OTOH, I've had nearly enough of St Greg at this point. He has ranted for so long that it stops having any probative effect.
So you prefer the doping culture?

So few are openly ranting about it, maybe you are in agreement with the omerta.

LeMond wrote a letter from the heart.

I applaud that. Especailly after all the dopers coming out with the PR scripted and carefully worded half truths. F*** them and their pathetic sh!t.

Ranting is what is needed right now for change, not some carefully worded letter.
 
Oct 25, 2012
12
0
0
Benotti69 said:
aah another who bought into the yellow myth.

The Freak made no coherent argument that was worth addressing

We have thread which deals with this issue. There is no credible evidence that LeMond doped. I have posted in it numerous times.

Why dont you make a credible case for LeMond's doping?

20 years and not one rider, masseuse, soigneur, DS or mechanic came out and said "Hypocrite!"

So get back in to your LIEStrong PJs and find a more gullible forum for these lies.
dude, you could make a much better case without the ad hominem attacks..

I'm not, by far, defending Armstrong, he is guilty of all that he's charged for. no doubt, and his downfall is 100% deserved. No surprise there, anyone seriously following cycling had to suspect LA doped at least since watching him climb in Sestriere 99, and it only got worse from there.

Still, Armstrong would not have existed in vacuum. If an "Armstrong affair" would have exploded in 2000, someone would have come next year to take his place.

What I find incredibly hypocritical, is the "surprise" of anybody involved in cycling that doping was so ingrained. Meaning sponsors like Nike, cyclists like Wiggins, race directors, etc. Everytime I read some high profile person saying they are "surprised" with USADA/LA findings, I automatically distrust the source.

I don't know if Lemond doped, MAYBE he did, MAYBE he didn't.

Many of the arguments against LA apply to Lemond (MANY does not mean ALL, please don't go into the ones that obviously don't apply)

* Is it really forbidden to question Lemond?
* Was he really that much better than a doped Fignon/Kelly, etc?
* Is it not suspicious that he came 3rd in his 1st TDF?

Still, these arguments would have no end, nobody's gonna prove Lemond did/didn't dope. BUT, you have to be able to question it, you can't pretend it's simply not a possibility.

Cycling's issues are much deeper then LA, and go back way more than 1999.

If you pretend getting rid of Lance and McQuaid will solve everything, and that now cycling's really clean this time, you're just going back to 98 post festina. Setting it up for the next Lance.
 

Dr. Maserati

BANNED
Jun 19, 2009
13,250
1
0
thegripo said:
dude, you could make a much better case without the ad hominem attacks..

I'm not, by far, defending Armstrong, he is guilty of all that he's charged for. no doubt, and his downfall is 100% deserved. No surprise there, anyone seriously following cycling had to suspect LA doped at least since watching him climb in Sestriere 99, and it only got worse from there.

Still, Armstrong would not have existed in vacuum. If an "Armstrong affair" would have exploded in 2000, someone would have come next year to take his place.

What I find incredibly hypocritical, is the "surprise" of anybody involved in cycling that doping was so ingrained. Meaning sponsors like Nike, cyclists like Wiggins, race directors, etc. Everytime I read some high profile person saying they are "surprised" with USADA/LA findings, I automatically distrust the source.

I don't know if Lemond doped, MAYBE he did, MAYBE he didn't.

Many of the arguments against LA apply to Lemond (MANY does not mean ALL, please don't go into the ones that obviously don't apply)

* Is it really forbidden to question Lemond?
* Was he really that much better than a doped Fignon/Kelly, etc?
* Is it not suspicious that he came 3rd in his 1st TDF?

Still, these arguments would have no end, nobody's gonna prove Lemond did/didn't dope. BUT, you have to be able to question it, you can't pretend it's simply not a possibility.

Cycling's issues are much deeper then LA, and go back way more than 1999.

If you pretend getting rid of Lance and McQuaid will solve everything, and that now cycling's really clean this time, you're just going back to 98 post festina. Setting it up for the next Lance.
Lance is dead to cycling - get over him.
A new star to protect could emerge (remember the Contador fiasco) when you have the same corrupt fools in charge.

You can question LeMond and if he doped or not by going in to any of the other threads that were started trying to find if he doped, if you have something new post it there.
 
thegripo said:
* Is it really forbidden to question Lemond?
Only the people attempting to discredit Lemond are suggesting that. Lemond's possible doping has been explored ad-nauseum in other threads and the answer is still "no."
thegripo said:
* Was he really that much better than a doped Fignon/Kelly, etc?
Yes. Again with the "doped" references. Kelly's dope was not oxygen vector. Lemond's last TdF is proof positive that EPO use had reached the elite peloton and Lemond did not take it.
thegripo said:
* Is it not suspicious that he came 3rd in his 1st TDF?
No. Every result leading up to it suggested it. Pre-oxygen vector doping, the talent raced at the sharp end, all season long and Greg was there. Every. Single. Time. Oxygen vector responders went from hero to zero depending on where they were in their doping cycle.

thegripo said:
Still, these arguments would have no end, nobody's gonna prove Lemond did/didn't dope.
Yes, you can. At this point someone long, long after it mattered would have called him out. Like Wonderboy's situation, the allegations would finally be verified many different ways. Here we are 30+ years on and not a single specific claim.
 
May 26, 2010
28,144
2
0
thegripo said:
dude, you could make a much better case without the ad hominem attacks..
They dont need me to make fools of themselves. But since they are on a public forum i call it!

thegripo said:
I'm not, by far, defending Armstrong, he is guilty of all that he's charged for. no doubt, and his downfall is 100% deserved. No surprise there, anyone seriously following cycling had to suspect LA doped at least since watching him climb in Sestriere 99, and it only got worse from there.
Histor in here has proven that those who need to declare they are not defending Armstrong usually end up been proven as trolling for him. Be warned.

thegripo said:
Still, Armstrong would not have existed in vacuum. If an "Armstrong affair" would have exploded in 2000, someone would have come next year to take his place.
No. Armstrong arrived as a cancer survivor. Blue eyed Yank who was a maketing mans wet dream. Stapleton realised this back in 1997. He and Weisel knew with Armstrong they could generate huge income if he could win.
There were other dopers, but none had the cancer shield that could be employed in so many ways to defend any allegations of wrong and also become a cash cow.

What other rider had that? None.

After 1998 lots in the sport wanted to clean it up. That Armstrong in the 1999 TdF showed that he was prepared to dope meant everyone else had to if they wanted to compete. That none had the integrity to call out Armstrong, ASO and UCI meant they got Amrstrong for another 6 long years.

thegripo said:
What I find incredibly hypocritical, is the "surprise" of anybody involved in cycling that doping was so ingrained. Meaning sponsors like Nike, cyclists like Wiggins, race directors, etc. Everytime I read some high profile person saying they are "surprised" with USADA/LA findings, I automatically distrust the source.
This has been called big time. But they are in the business of making money. Look at Nike. Didn't drop Marion Jones or Tiger Woods.

thegripo said:
I don't know if Lemond doped, MAYBE he did, MAYBE he didn't.
What dont you know? He never tested positive! He ha been extremely anti doping. He never had a team mate call him out for doping. He never had a Directeur Sportif call him out for doping. He never had a soigneur call him out for doping. He never had a Team Doctor call him out for doping. He never had a mechanic call him out for doping.

In 20 years since LeMond retired he ha been talking about anti doping. Someone somewhere would by now have been pi$$ed of with him and his hypocrisy and said I am going to put an end to this! But nada, zilch, niente, nothing.

What dont you know?

thegripo said:
He never had a team mate call him out for doping.
Many of the arguments against LA apply to Lemond (MANY does not mean ALL, please don't go into the ones that obviously don't apply)

* Is it really forbidden to question Lemond?
* Was he really that much better than a doped Fignon/Kelly, etc?
* Is it not suspicious that he came 3rd in his 1st TDF?
What makes LeMond's TdF wins stand out is that he showed huge early promise as a GT rider. He did not ride when there were oxygen vector drugs available as a youngster so he was a natural at GTs. That is beyond question.

thegripo said:
Still, these arguments would have no end, nobody's gonna prove Lemond did/didn't dope. BUT, you have to be able to question it, you can't pretend it's simply not a possibility.
Time proves it. Anecdotes, stories, dots are joined etc. With LeMond this is not happening. In the world of social media and internet forums LeMond is not been shown to be anything else but a ranting anti doping ex pro who is the only amercian to have won the TdF.

thegripo said:
Cycling's issues are much deeper then LA, and go back way more than 1999.

If you pretend getting rid of Lance and McQuaid will solve everything, and that now cycling's really clean this time, you're just going back to 98 post festina. Setting it up for the next Lance.
If you were not here in any other guise you would know that there is a momentum building from fans that is telling he UCI they dont want this scandals problems swept under the rug. The riders are not listening to their detriment but the fans are what will decide whether the sport grows in the future as something to be watched and enjoyed for its natural beauty of man and bike versus the parcours or whether it is entertainment dressed up as sport.
 
f**ck the trolls! f**k Pat!

what is tickling my cockles is that this is everywhere!

cycling media, sports media, mainstream media, facebook, twitter, individual blogs. local, national, international, translated in multiple languages... it's glorious!

chapeau, Greg :D
 
Nov 20, 2010
786
0
0
thegripo said:
instead of attacking the messenger (a la armstrong) why don't you address the issues raised by roadfreak?

being lemond's fanboy does take you to the same level as an LA one..
Oh, boy! Another Armstrong troll boy from Fabiani's Pit of liars and dissemblers. If, they're paying you, it can't be very much. Yellow plastic by the pound??
 
Great by LeMond. There must be substantial pressure on Pat & Hein to resign from all parties concerned. When an esteemed figure like LeMond calls for their resignation, the media will pick it up and there could be even more sponsor pressure.


As for the Lance fanboys accusing LeMond of doping, where were you when your hero offered substantial amount of money to anyone who could come up with evidence that LeMond doped?
There are none and it's about ten years since that offer came up.
 
May 12, 2011
241
0
0
Benotti69 said:
So you prefer the doping culture?

So few are openly ranting about it, maybe you are in agreement with the omerta.

LeMond wrote a letter from the heart.

I applaud that. Especailly after all the dopers coming out with the PR scripted and carefully worded half truths. F*** them and their pathetic sh!t.

Ranting is what is needed right now for change, not some carefully worded letter.
I agree with his position but not how he said it. Honestly the hyprocrisy everywhere bugs the crap out of me. All the guys who testified did it to save their asses. If they really cared, they would have testified when it first came up. Even when they're on the side of fixing the doping issue, you have to be honest and look at their motivations.

I don't know much about the culture during Greg's heyday. It was not discussed in the cycling press ( I was reading winning and a couple others back in the early/mid 80's) Certainly from 95-2005 virtually everybody doped including all the guys acting holier than thou now.

The only common factor is the UCI. They had to know what was going on. they were complicite in allowing it, probably paid off by ASO.
 
Aleajactaest said:
All the guys who testified did it to save their asses. If they really cared, they would have testified when it first came up.
Why? It was living the dream stuff and getting paid well too! The UCI did great too!

Aleajactaest said:
The only common factor is the UCI. They had to know what was going on. they were complicite in allowing it, probably paid off by ASO.
Be sure to add Tailwind/Thom Wiesel and USA Cycling to the list of longtime offenders. Wiesel more than anyone is responsible for the myth. Wonderboy isn't that smart.
 
Oct 25, 2012
12
0
0
Benotti69 said:
They dont need me to make fools of themselves. But since they are on a public forum i call it!



Histor in here has proven that those who need to declare they are not defending Armstrong usually end up been proven as trolling for him. Be warned.



No. Armstrong arrived as a cancer survivor. Blue eyed Yank who was a maketing mans wet dream. Stapleton realised this back in 1997. He and Weisel knew with Armstrong they could generate huge income if he could win.
There were other dopers, but none had the cancer shield that could be employed in so many ways to defend any allegations of wrong and also become a cash cow.

What other rider had that? None.

After 1998 lots in the sport wanted to clean it up. That Armstrong in the 1999 TdF showed that he was prepared to dope meant everyone else had to if they wanted to compete. That none had the integrity to call out Armstrong, ASO and UCI meant they got Amrstrong for another 6 long years.



This has been called big time. But they are in the business of making money. Look at Nike. Didn't drop Marion Jones or Tiger Woods.



What dont you know? He never tested positive! He ha been extremely anti doping. He never had a team mate call him out for doping. He never had a Directeur Sportif call him out for doping. He never had a soigneur call him out for doping. He never had a Team Doctor call him out for doping. He never had a mechanic call him out for doping.

In 20 years since LeMond retired he ha been talking about anti doping. Someone somewhere would by now have been pi$$ed of with him and his hypocrisy and said I am going to put an end to this! But nada, zilch, niente, nothing.

What dont you know?



What makes LeMond's TdF wins stand out is that he showed huge early promise as a GT rider. He did not ride when there were oxygen vector drugs available as a youngster so he was a natural at GTs. That is beyond question.



Time proves it. Anecdotes, stories, dots are joined etc. With LeMond this is not happening. In the world of social media and internet forums LeMond is not been shown to be anything else but a ranting anti doping ex pro who is the only amercian to have won the TdF.



If you were not here in any other guise you would know that there is a momentum building from fans that is telling he UCI they dont want this scandals problems swept under the rug. The riders are not listening to their detriment but the fans are what will decide whether the sport grows in the future as something to be watched and enjoyed for its natural beauty of man and bike versus the parcours or whether it is entertainment dressed up as sport.
dude, get it over it, i HATE lance. I raced with him when he was 15-18 in triathlons. don't think he doped then and that he had huge talent/potential. the fact that was (is) a BIG TIME ***/pedantic a**hole who I absolutely hated as a human being doesn't change that.

since 1999 i knew he was on something. it took a while for the public to catch on, and i'm glad it finally did. i'm not trolling for him or whatever.

I don't buy the fairy tale that Festina 98 was a turning point, and if Lance hadn't come along, cycling would be clean. Just like I don't believe cycling's clean now. Festina, Puerto, Armstrong, etc are just road bumps.

It's crazy, Indurain/Contador/Valverde defending lance? Wiggins/Cavendish feigning "surprise"? Julich/Leipheimer only doped until 99/06? wtf? McQuaid pretending it's all/only lances fault.. it's all signs that the whole sport is rotten.

Everyone who was anyone knew he was doping in 99. But he was making money for everyone (specially himself). Pretending that LA is the almighty devil who single handedly managed to screw cycling up is not going to move things forward.

If Lemond doped or not is irrelevant. but refusing to even consider it, is. I personally believe he was as clean as possible, mainly because he raced at a time where IT SEEMS you could win a Gran tour without doping, and because EPO was still not around. (although blood doping, anphetamines, etc, were)

Still, I think he did everything in his power to win the TDF. what about the aerobars, helmet, bike in TDF 89? that was a kind of shady thing. yes right, it's no doping, but it WAS getting every possible little thing to win. He looked for and found a small edge that no one was using, and used it for his advantage. I remember before the final TT, discussions about if they were legal. Now we know it's a huge advantage to race on a TT bike.

So it is a FACT that greg was willing to do tricky things to win. You can argue it's not the same as doping, but I think you see my point.

i think it's dangerous to blindly put all faith and "saintify" one person. Be it Lemond, Tygart, and/or LA.

The whole sport needs to be reformed.

Current UCI is gotta be kicked out, separate entity (USADA like) to be responsible for antidoping control, putting all blame on a pr*ck like lance armstrong I think does not help...
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS