# Lemond predicts that Armstrong...



## JSR (Feb 27, 2006)

... won't make it to France.

http://www.cyclingnews.com/blogs/greg-lemond/the-art-of-peaking-for-the-tour-de-france


----------



## SlowMo (Apr 18, 2006)

He's got to be the biggest Anti-Armstrong figure out there. 

I disagree with him, which isn't a surprise. _I disagree with alot of things he says._ I think he's a bitter, jealous old man that could still kick my backside on a ride.


----------



## ElvisMerckx (Oct 11, 2002)

Interesting. LeMond might seem wacky, but he's right more often than not. Interesting indeed.


----------



## redlizard (Jul 26, 2007)

I'm going out on a limb and predicting that LeMond will be wrong. He does seem particularly bitter. Probably having dinner with Landis as we speak swapping stories about how they've been wronged.


----------



## Argentius (Aug 26, 2004)

*Either he knows something*

we don't know, or he's blowing even harder than usual...


----------



## been200mph (May 28, 2004)

Lemond is a douchebag. It gets old listening to him run his piehole. I'd thoroughly enjoy seeing LA fold his teeth back at a press conference should the opportunity arise. End of rant.


----------



## tbgtbg (Mar 13, 2009)

Armstrong won't pull out unless he crashes out. He has to advertise Radio Shack, and that is best done with him in the race.


----------



## jptaylorsg (Apr 24, 2003)

I've got nothing against LeMond, but it seems like he could saved us a lot of time by just saying, "If guys hadn't started doping, I never would have lost, but I stayed clean while they raced past me." And, "Lance is doping and will finally get caught."

The rest of the anecdote seems like a veil for him to get these two statements out yet again.

If he's right, he's right, but it's time for him to stop saying it. He's like a coach who has lost his team at this point. Half the world thinks he's crying wolf, and the other half believe him, but very few are listening anymore because they've got it memorized.


----------



## mohair_chair (Oct 3, 2002)

What he's saying is that guys were doping which is why he couldn't win anymore, and also, airlines were going on strike, which is why he couldn't win, and also, tires were going flat and he didn't have a spare, which is why he couldn't win, and I'm sure he has a dozen more excuses he could come up with if you would let him. Give me a break. I'm sure he wasn't the only one who had a hard time getting to Spain.

The one thing I have never heard him even suggest is that there was anyone out there who could actually beat him, fair and square. He always seems to imply that he was the preordained tour winner for 1991 and 1992, and that he couldn't win was because everyone else was cheating. Lemond was really good, but come on, he famously won his second tour by only eight seconds. Domination is not a word I would use to describe any of his wins.


----------



## OldEndicottHiway (Jul 16, 2007)

I've had great admiration for Lemond, always have.

Lemond's riding was phenomenal and no one can take that away from him...except him.

He's doing a mighty fine job of it.

A shame because he was an awesome example of the sport. Do I think he was clean? Yup. But he sure knows how to disenfranchise his fellow pro riders of today. 

Even if proved "right" no one is going to care he is right, simply because he has been such sour grapes.

He's ruining his own legacy by being a whiney, finger-pointer instead of a seasoned advocate. If you don't have the gift of diplomacy and street smarts, it's better to keep your mouth closed more often, and gain the confidence of those who do. 

I hate to see him do this to himself.


----------



## ronbo613 (Jan 19, 2009)

> I've had great admiration for Lemond, always have.


Same here. Great bike rider and I always hoped I might run into him and do a little body surfing or fishing while he was with the Trek team in the mountains outside of San Diego.
He does seem overly bitter and has "the world is against me" thing going on. Too bad he couldn't play a more meaningful and positive role in American bike racing history.


----------



## OldEndicottHiway (Jul 16, 2007)

ronbo613 said:


> *He does seem overly bitter and has "the world is against me" thing going on. Too bad he couldn't play a more meaningful and positive role in American bike racing history*.



That's just it. I think a lot of people feel this way. We'd like to be able to celebrate his success with him, but he detracts from it.

I just blew through another forum to see if they had the same topic posted and sure enough they did. Some guy posted almost verbatim what I did.

We all just kind of sigh and say, "Son, you're drowning your own accomplishments...".

What he doesn't seem to know, is that yes the world indeed _does_ know how good he really was, and what he was up against.


----------



## spookyload (Jan 30, 2004)

I was impressed with his talk of tapering for the Tour. I had a feeling it would turn into his personal agenda of why he got old and had to retire because others were faster, and somehow accuse LA of doping. I was right. It is sad the article title hides the real agenda that consumes over half of the article. If he is such a bad ass, why not come out of retirement and race some masters races? I would love to beat him and have him call me a doper. The only excuse he left out of this article was how being shot by your brother in law with a shotgun will cost you the tour, but he hit all the others. Maybe we can start a fund to reimburse him for all lost revenues from not doping. That might just make him STFU.


----------



## wheezer (Sep 21, 2004)

My only hope is that Greg will be proved right in time. For the future of cycling and for the sake of good sport. IMO, he is doing nothing in regards to his legacy except cementing the fact that he is one of the few who speak out against the many. If the sport never comes around to his POV, I fail to see how we are to distinguish between cycling and professional wrestling.


----------



## tommyrhodes (Aug 19, 2009)

Damn it. I hope he makes it to france. I picked him for my fantasy team. I knew I shoulda picked LeMond.


----------



## ronbo613 (Jan 19, 2009)

> What he doesn't seem to know, is that yes the world indeed does know how good he really was, and what he was up against.


I think history will show that LeMond really took American professional racing to the level it is at today. He opened the doors for guys like Lance Armstrong. To do what he did as a lone American in a totally European peleton is something no one else will ever do again. 
Everything he says may be true, but I think the way he's gone about it has put him in a bad light. I hope someday he will be able to enjoy his place in history and get over the things he felt may have been unfair or not gone his way.


----------



## innergel (Jun 14, 2002)

If Lemond would STFU, he'd have been celebrated on every bike race they show on VS. "The first American TDF winner", etc. Free trips to France, sponsorship deals, etc. Now, he's just whiney and bitter. 

I did enjoy watching him race all those years ago during my summer vacations. He was pretty much responsible for intro-ing me to the TDF. Too bad I wasn't riding then.


----------



## Dave Hickey (Jan 27, 2002)

I used to be a huge LeMond fan...for the last few years he's just a bitter old man


----------



## LCFrecrider (Jan 4, 2006)

I think we might be finding out really soon why Lemond has good reason to be bitter.


----------



## gamara (May 20, 2002)

Like so many others here, I grew up watching & idolizing a true legend in the making. Lemond will always be admired for the great achievements that he accomplished on the road. 

His post racing antics however is something less desired. I have many magazines & videos of & about Lemond. The only thing that I can say is that Lemond is human like everyone else with all the frailties & faults. As such Lemond has a revisionist's memory. 

He has gone on to blame others for his own failings. He fails to mention the turkey hunting accident which almost cost him his life & career. The buck shot that is still lodged in his body & heart. These things didn't cost him his career. It wasn't his training either according to Lemond. And yet a clearly overweight Lemond can be seen struggling at the tour Dupont where one rider said that Lemond's ass was sooooo big, you couldn't read the name of the saddle manufacturer on the back. 

Blame everyone else now for your demise. Everyone was going so much faster due to you know what, that he was overtraining all the time which lead to his demise. And yet in articles, Lemond back then defended his training & lifestyle to his detractors. Saying that ice cream is good for a cyclist, as well as beer. Its only hops & water, so its gotta be good for the body??? Right???

Theres nothing wrong with getting old & looking back at the past & skipping past the low points & glossing things over. But when you live in a public domain where your life is under the microscope & you make statements that border on libel, you better watch very carefully what you say & do or else its gonna come back & bite you.


----------



## mangotreat0808 (Sep 4, 2006)

mohair_chair said:


> .
> The one thing I have never heard him even suggest is that there was anyone out there who could actually beat him, fair and square. He always seems to imply that he was the preordained tour winner for 1991 and 1992, and that he couldn't win was because everyone else was cheating. Lemond was really good, but come on, he famously won his second tour by only eight seconds. Domination is not a word I would use to describe any of his wins.


True, but considering he was recovering from a gunshot wound in the back (hunting accident where he was shot in the back) - with several pellets still embedded inside his body, with a couple of the pieces grazing his heart - to win the tour in that physical state, against a two-time winner of the tour, Fignon, edging him by 50 some odd seconds, I'd say that's something worth a mentioning as a great accomplishment in the annals of the TDF. 

Now about the stuff he claims about riders doping (in particular LA), I think no one really knows the truth, except himself (LeMond) and Armstrong. So either one is lying and the other telling the truth, or they're both lying, which doesn't make sense ! So let him speak his mind, either he is a buffoon of a liar, or a speaker of truth - in the end, he'll either be laughed at, or apologized to, but there's something about him that doesn't let political correctness stand in the way, maybe he knows something we don't, or maybe he's a lunatic, but we'll find out sooner or later..


----------



## Mootsie (Feb 4, 2004)

I think there is a 50/50 chance that Lance doesn't even start. WSJ article due out tomorrow (see link). Atom bomb.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704911704575326753200584006.html

See you in another forum soon.

Oh and have fun Trek. Frames for drugs will be a new catch phrase.


----------



## gh1 (Jun 7, 2008)

There are many people that believe that Lance wont make it to France. I think Lemond is right. Lance has got a monkey on his back and a man named Novitsky who is coming and nothing is going to stop him. You guys might as well get used to it.


----------



## vandalbob (Dec 13, 2001)

Lemond is one of the reasons I got into cycling and the greatest race, Le Tour. Interesting stories of his racing days. I do, however, hope he is wrong in his Lance prediction. OE Hwy said it right, he could've been such a positive force in American cycling instead of the marginalized bitter "old guy".


----------



## AdamM (Jul 9, 2008)

What's with all the anger directed at a guy who is trying to clean up the sport? Why not save it for the liars and cheats? 

Maybe folks haven't been paying attention or it's a LanceFan thing, but all the recent doping/steriod cases follow the same template. Whistleblower comes forward, whistleblower gets trashed, denial, more denial, then ooops .... turns out whistleblower was right after all.


----------



## vandalbob (Dec 13, 2001)

Don't get me wrong, cycling needs to be cleaned up and in some aspects I'm glad to see Lemond trying to do his part in cleaning up the image. Unfortunately he comes across poorly and he always has since he first accused Lance of racing unclean. Who knows, maybe the truth will come out from more "credible" characters and Lemond's image will improve.


----------



## scarecrow (Oct 7, 2007)

Lots of doping in pro ranks and you don't like it soooo:

Lemond - Bitterly complain and point fingers hoping for justice in the end.

Jonathan Vaughters - Start TIAA-Cref which morphed into Garmin and try to give young promising USA talent a way to race in the ProTour without resorting to doping. His anti-doping team approach was adopted by many other teams and continues to mature.

Destructive vs. Constructive. In the end who will have a bigger impact on cycling?


----------



## 95zpro (Mar 28, 2010)

I remember when everyone thought Jose Canseco was bitter for saying he was blackballed in baseball and just making outlandish accusations against other players. Well one congressional hearing and federal investigation later he was proved to have been accurate. I don't have a dog in this fight but to think all of the other elite riders during this era have been caught doping or to have used some form of illegal substance and couldn't beat a "clean" LA is kind of preposterous but then again my 4 year old still believes in Santa Claus. 
Oh by the way Lance will complete the tour in his last ride.


----------



## tinkerbeast (Jul 24, 2009)

Mootsie said:


> I think there is a 50/50 chance that Lance doesn't even start. WSJ article due out tomorrow (see link). Atom bomb.
> http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704911704575326753200584006.html
> 
> See you in another forum soon.
> ...


thanks for the link! i think more people need to read the article before posting here to make for a somewhat decent discussion


----------



## bas (Jul 30, 2004)

SlowMo said:


> He's got to be the biggest Anti-Armstrong figure out there.
> 
> I disagree with him, which isn't a surprise. _I disagree with alot of things he says._ I think he's a bitter, jealous old man that could still kick my backside on a ride.


lemond speaks the truth.


----------



## loudog (Jul 22, 2008)

gh1 said:


> There are many people that believe that Lance wont make it to France. I think Lemond is right. Lance has got a monkey on his back and a man named Novitsky who is coming and nothing is going to stop him. You guys might as well get used to it.


like novitsky got barry bonds?

i think LA will ultimately go down but not anytime soon.


----------



## loudog (Jul 22, 2008)

bas said:


> lemond speaks the truth.


lemond may speak the truth but he does it poorly and in such a way that he turns off a lot of people.

floyd is not at all concerned about cleaning up the sport. event the wsj story is clear that he wanted to dope and doesnt really paint a picture of someone conflicted by his doping. its only when he doesnt get let back into the club that he takes his vengeance.


----------



## JohnHemlock (Jul 15, 2006)

Mootsie said:


> I think there is a 50/50 chance that Lance doesn't even start. WSJ article due out tomorrow (see link). Atom bomb.
> http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704911704575326753200584006.html
> 
> See you in another forum soon.
> ...


Atom bomb? An atom bomb requires uranium or plutonium, not rehashed horsecrap. Hyperbole much?


----------



## a_avery007 (Jul 1, 2008)

by the way conseco is a total clown, ruined whatever shred of respectability he had long ago..needs to just go away, has does nothing to improve his dying sport..

why let a good story get in the way of the truth...


----------



## wagsea6b (Jun 6, 2006)

OldEndicottHiway said:


> ...I just blew through another forum...


There's another forum?


----------



## Mootsie (Feb 4, 2004)

JohnHemlock said:


> Atom bomb? An atom bomb requires uranium or plutonium, not rehashed horsecrap. Hyperbole much?


There are some leftovers in there, but there is also some fresh meat. Yummy.


----------



## Gatorback (Jul 11, 2009)

Doping aside, I thought the statement at the end of the article was a little curious. He's commenting on tapering and his travails right before one of his tours, then just threw in a concluding statement about Armstrong not making it to France--without any further explanation. The statement is a little out of context and quite cryptic.


I guess we'll see if he really knows something. It would have been nice if he'd have explained himself. I know this: The WSJ article isn't going to keep Armstrong from making it to France.


----------



## terzo rene (Mar 23, 2002)

Lemond's crystal ball needs some polishing. LA isn't going down any time soon but I think this time the noose is definitely tightening and his days are numbered. 

Don't forget Hinault almost shot GL before his brother-in-law got him. Now that's a real leadership battle - not like the mamby pamby LA/AC stuff from last year.


----------



## Kaleo (Jun 15, 2008)

It's ashamed Lemond hasn't turned out to be a true champion of the sport, while he gave us all something to cheer about back when, he's always been a whiner. I always wanted to just get on with it and do it instead of saying this or that caused this or that... Now he really does sound like sour grapes.


----------



## slimjw (Jul 30, 2008)

I actually like Greg Lemond, but he is wrong about Lance pulling out or not making it to the tour. Lance ain't leaving unless he crashes or gets run out of France for failing a doping test.


----------



## wheezer (Sep 21, 2004)

Lance won't get run out of France because the Tour has come to a compromise regarding doping scandals. And, after prior fits and starts, they and the UCI have systematized the process by which riders are outed for violations. There's too much money for everyone involved to allow the Landis information to have an impact during the Tour. And the feds will move even more slowly. The Tour and the UCI and the Pro Tour will have its party, and whatever shakes out afterwards will be long forgotten by the time 2011 comes around. 

But Lance cannot run away from this. With the threat of perjury hanging over their heads, there are a lot of very low level players that will not be willing to risk a federal perjury charge for nothing in return. There's the bus driver, the mechanics, the staff, those who stood guard at the door, the list goes on and on. They have nothing to gain by protecting Lance and everything to lose. It's not like Bonds' trainer who had a lot at stake in the event of a Bonds conviction. If you listen to the official Trek response to the sale of the bikes, it sounds a lot like a bunch of Lawyers CYAing and keeping their distance from what they suspect will be a serious federal investigation. 

And last, what's so hard to believe about Landis' story? That even the best pro bike racers in the world need doctors and outside intervention from keeping their blood profiles from becoming dangerously low during a three-week test of the very limits of the body's ability to recover and adapt? After all, wasn't that Fuentes' argument? That without medical intervention, a GT rider puts himself at risk of losing motor capacity on a steep decent down the Pyrenees because his blood levels have dropped dangerously low? On the face of it, there's absolutely nothing unbelievable about Landis' story. What's totally unbelievable is that Lance continues to deny it. And he will continue to do so but the way this case is shaping up, there will be enough people coming forward with more and more information that his argument will no longer pass muster. 

In the end, this will be good for cycling and good for sport in general. There will always be doping in sport, but what needs to end is the systematized doping culture that mandates that a rider has to dope to achieve the highest levels of the sport. That even if you're U23, the only way to make it is to dope. Maybe it's because I'm a dad, but I hope for a day when the question of doping is not an ultimatum for those who are barely old enough to know how to make a life-changing decision. Let's not forget that not all cyclists who choose to dope are guided by the "best" medical experts like Ferrari or what have you. Look what happened last year to the 21-year-old rider from the Belgian pro cont. team. What kind of statement is it to say that doping is okay as long as you have the best doctors and can beat all the tests? What about those who don't and can't? They're getting the shaft, big time. The way I see it, Landis has finally come around and is doing the right thing. LeMond has had a better view into the sport than ANYONE ON THIS BOARD, so far be it from me to question his motives. Judge him by his actions and by that, he's doing more for the sport than 10 Lance Armstrongs.


----------



## 55x11 (Apr 24, 2006)

mangotreat0808 said:


> True, but considering he was recovering from a gunshot wound in the back (hunting accident where he was shot in the back)..


Considering Lemond's personality, I wonder if that was really an accident.

He manages to "shoot himself in the foot" every time he opens his mouth. 
The fact that he is now teaming up with Landis, even after the whole "I am your uncle" episode, says how much he hates Armstrong. It's all about Armstrong.

He manages to ruin his own legacy and I think by the end there won't be much left of it.


----------



## MikeBiker (Mar 9, 2003)

What did Lance do to Greg to piss him off? Did he put some deer droppings into Greg's Milk Duds?


----------



## Cpk (Aug 1, 2009)

we should get a pool together to send him a whole bunch of cheese.


----------



## Kaleo (Jun 15, 2008)

wheezer said:


> Judge him by his actions and by that, he's doing more for the sport than 10 Lance Armstrongs.


Oh really? Sounds like you have already convicted Lance... so I guess you have proof? And Lemond has proof cause he's seen it? He saw Lance take epo's? 

Hmmm did I miss the the part where Lemond has spent millions to build and develop a legitimate organization to help people fight cancer, or people with shot gun wounds?


----------



## slegros (Sep 22, 2009)

Its kind of strange LeMond actually... For all his ranting about how doping cost him more tour wins he was beaten in the '91 and '92 by 2 riders who as far as I know were completely clean and 2 strong advocates for anti-doping.. Andy Hampsten(4th in '92) and Charly Mottet(4th in '91)... Don't hear either of them railing on....


----------



## spade2you (May 12, 2009)

As others have noted, it's kind of sad what happened to Lemond. I remember him being on the Wheaties box as a kid and being a bit of a hero and role model. In many ways, I wish he could have kept his mouth shut so we'd think of him in his prime and not a older bitter rider who hasn't seemed to age well.


----------



## orange_julius (Jan 24, 2003)

scarecrow said:


> Lots of doping in pro ranks and you don't like it soooo:
> 
> Lemond - Bitterly complain and point fingers hoping for justice in the end.
> 
> ...


Having read the transcript of the Vaughters - Andreu chat, having had to endure Vaughter's unnecessarily public letter explaining his retirement, and having had to endure pages and pages of him taking pictures of himself making silly faces while toying around at Interbike, I just can't take him seriously. 

At least Riis, who is by no means not my favorite person in cycling, admitted that he had doped in order to win his greatest "win" in the 1996 Tour de France. 

Assuming that the chat transcript is not faked, then Vaughters owe it to his own goddamn riders to come clean and admit that he doped back in his USPS days. Or is he afraid of upsetting a certain important figure in cycling? It's ironic how the man who likes to talk about himself so much can't bring himself to talk about his past mistakes.


----------



## SwiftSolo (Jun 7, 2008)

spade2you said:


> As others have noted, it's kind of sad what happened to Lemond. I remember him being on the Wheaties box as a kid and being a bit of a hero and role model. In many ways, I wish he could have kept his mouth shut so we'd think of him in his prime and not a older bitter rider who hasn't seemed to age well.


As I watched the awards today it was sad to think that Greg could have been there with Eddy and Bernard shaking hands and being an ambassador for the sport--but wasn't. Instead, he comes off as a bitter has-been. What a shame for him and the sport! It makes you wonder why he chose a different path than Hinault and Merckx!


----------



## spade2you (May 12, 2009)

SwiftSolo said:


> As I watched the awards today it was sad to think that Greg could have been there with Eddy and Bernard shaking hands and being an ambassador for the sport--but wasn't. Instead, he comes off as a bitter has-been. What a shame for him and the sport! It makes you wonder why he chose a different path than Hinault and Merckx!


Ambassador??! At this point, I'd settle for simple obscuity.  "Greg? I wonder what happened to him. (wikipedia)....he manages a hotel chain? Cool........that guy was great." I can still watch his TdFs, but eventually I get bummed with how things panned out.


----------



## covenant (May 21, 2002)

SwiftSolo said:


> As I watched the awards today it was sad to think that Greg could have been there with Eddy and Bernard shaking hands and being an ambassador for the sport--but wasn't. Instead, he comes off as a bitter has-been. What a shame for him and the sport! It makes you wonder why he chose a different path than Hinault and Merckx!


I was thinking the same thing yesterday. It would be awesome to see Lemond up there we the rest of the old Champs. He_ deserves_ to be there, instead of back in the US writing bitter screeds.


----------



## ronbo613 (Jan 19, 2009)

> If Lemond would STFU, he'd have been celebrated on every bike race they show on VS. "The first American TDF winner", etc. Free trips to France, sponsorship deals, etc. Now, he's just whiney and bitter.


I'm afraid that seems to be the facts of the matter. Perhaps he could have chosen a better time to come forward with his story or a different approach.....

Personally, I don't think Lance will pull out of this year's race unless something drastic happens. I don't see the Feds going into France and hauling him out of the country either.
Maybe the writing _is_ on the wall and Lance is trying to get out "just in the nick of time". 
Who knows what the real truth is anyway?


----------



## 55x11 (Apr 24, 2006)

JSR said:


> ... won't make it to France.
> 
> http://www.cyclingnews.com/blogs/greg-lemond/the-art-of-peaking-for-the-tour-de-france


Since the tour will be crossing into France tomorrow, what are the chances that Lemond was once again pulling his typically bitter and baseless "predictions" out of his behind, rather some "insider" information?


----------



## tricycletalent (Apr 2, 2005)

I can't stand heroes. I much prefer those with a solid dose of narcissism, blaming their shortcomings on everything else than their own doings, those who dope, lie and so on. It makes me a lot less jealous when I can see how fukked up they are. My all time favorite was Frank Vandenbroucke. Now that is fall from grace. He got fukked over by the hypocritical antidoping retards, and probably suffered from big time narcissistic depression ever after - a truly negative personality.

That to me is real. That is human, just in an exaggerated form. Wanting to be valued, admired, and when it doesn't work out enough to satisfy the ego, they embark on killing sprees, Landis-style, or take it out on themselves, their spouses, their surroundings. That is cool. 

The antithesis is something like Basso, how ironic to see the ads where he is pictured as a snake, because that is how I see him. Restrained. Calculating. Manipulative and composed.


----------



## badge118 (Dec 26, 2002)

Lance rode in France today. Listen, I know Greg doesn't like Lance. he knows/thinks Lance doped, we get that. The thing is regards of whether its true or not, the longer he continues to make these pronouncements (carefully timed with the TdF) and there is no results it just makes him look like a old bitter dude who regrets that chance, team and gun shot robbed him of what he saw as HIS destiny.


----------



## smartyiak (Sep 28, 2005)

*Perfect Analogy*



95zpro said:


> I remember when everyone thought Jose Canseco was bitter for saying he was blackballed in baseball and just making outlandish accusations against other players. Well one congressional hearing and federal investigation later he was proved to have been accurate.


I think that is a perfect analogy. Canseco was seen as bitter and making outlandish accusations. One congressional hearing, a federal investigation, several reality shows, boxing matches, and MMA fights later...he's still seen as an ass-clown despite the fact that he was correct.

I think Lemond is going to ultimately be proven correct about doping and Armstrong...AND the majority of people will still find him to be a bitter jerk. It's not always about what you say, but how you present it. Lemond could have been so much more effective and beloved...instead (as lots of other posters wrote) he just sounds bitter.

-Smarty


----------



## 55x11 (Apr 24, 2006)

smartyiak said:


> I think that is a perfect analogy. Canseco was seen as bitter and making outlandish accusations. One congressional hearing, a federal investigation, several reality shows, boxing matches, and MMA fights later...he's still seen as an ass-clown despite the fact that he was correct.
> 
> I think Lemond is going to ultimately be proven correct about doping and Armstrong...AND the majority of people will still find him to be a bitter jerk. It's not always about what you say, but how you present it. Lemond could have been so much more effective and beloved...instead (as lots of other posters wrote) he just sounds bitter.
> 
> -Smarty


Canseco had first-hand knowledge of doping by the guys he played with. Lemond has as much first-hand information as you or me. I could go on and on about, say, Cadel Evans', Taylor Phinney's, Tyler Farrar's or Jens Voigt's drug use (just to pick some relatively popular riders), with no basis, proof or facts, based purely on a hunch. Even if later I am proven to be right (and with so many in pelotons doping, I have a pretty good chance of getting it right) this still doesn't make such accusations any less base-less or random.

Clearly Lemond's accusation are based very little on facts or insider knowledge, but instead mostly on second-hand innuendos. Which is not to say his suspicions will not proven correct given enough time, it's just that he adds absolutely nothing meaningful or substantive to the topic, and would therefore be better off with his mouth shut. The guy obviously knows nothing, and his "predictions" have as much value as listening to the crazy homeless guy's conspiracy theories.


----------



## OldEndicottHiway (Jul 16, 2007)

covenant said:


> I was thinking the same thing yesterday. It would be awesome to see Lemond up there we the rest of the old Champs. *He deserves to be there, instead of back in the US writing bitter screeds*.



Bingo.

His influence in doping matters could've been diplomatic so as to enhance, rather than detract.

Bummer. I've got mucho repsect for his riding legacy. Would love to see him up there on the podium again, in a role as advocate. If he had approached it as an advocate for the _riders_ and the sport, instead of finger-pointing, the door would be held open for him.


----------



## orange_julius (Jan 24, 2003)

ronbo613 said:


> I'm afraid that seems to be the facts of the matter. Perhaps he could have chosen a better time to come forward with his story or a different approach.....
> 
> Personally, I don't think Lance will pull out of this year's race unless something drastic happens. I don't see the Feds going into France and hauling him out of the country either.


Enter the Interpol. This is what they are for.

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/investigation-into-landis-claims-widens-to-include-interpol

Seems that all this is going to become very interesting indeed.


----------



## ultimobici (Jul 16, 2005)

SwiftSolo said:


> As I watched the awards today it was sad to think that Greg could have been there with Eddy and Bernard shaking hands and being an ambassador for the sport--but wasn't. Instead, he comes off as a bitter has-been. What a shame for him and the sport! It makes you wonder why he chose a different path than Hinault and Merckx!


Having visited this thread a few times, a couple of things occur to me.

We have only seen the public comments from Lemond. I wouldn't be surprised if he's been banging on about this behind the scenes and been ignored.
His comments about Armstrong initially were even with regard to his association with Michele Ferrari.


> _When Lance won the prologue to the 1999 Tour I was close to tears, but when I heard he was working with Michele Ferrari I was devastated. In the light of Lance's relationship with Ferrari, I just don't want to comment on this year's Tour. This is not sour grapes. I'm disappointed in Lance, that's all it is_


His retraction a month later has the ring of someone with a gun in their back


> _"I sincerely regret that some of my remarks ... seemed to question the veracity of Lance's performances. I want to be clear that I believe Lance to be a great champion and I do not believe, in any way, that he has ever used any performance-enhancing substances. I believe his performances are the result of the same hard work, dedication and focus that were mine 10 years ago"_


 Subsequent to that Ferrari was convicted of Sporting Fraud and Medical Malpractice in 2004. Although he was later cleared on appeal, this was not due to evidential reasons rather that the statute of limitations had run out.
Lemond had been a pro in Europe from barely 20 years old and was winning at the highest level from day one. His pre shooting career was littered with big wins throughout the European season. He was WC and the top ranked rider in 83 at the age of 22. He'd won the Tour at 25 to boot.
Armstrong's early career was stellar too, albeit on a national level. He didn't really flourish until 93 with his Tour stage and World's win. But, if you compare the two pre-career threatening incident, you'd have to be blind not to see that Lemond eclipses Armstrong. 
Post break is when their fortunes reverse. This is where I have a real problem reconciling things. LA morphs into a pure Tour rider and at the time I was transfixed by it all. But something just didn't sit right for me. The weight loss was touted to be 7kgs or so, yet turned out to be more like 2 or 3. The weight data used to rebut SCA's case shows that Armstrong's weight didn't fluctuate by more than 5kgs. Indeed the lowest weight in the chart was from August 1993, by Nov 99 he was more than 4 1/2 kg heavier! By Armstrongs own admission, his race weight is in the low 74kg range with 72 being a target weight that was never actually achieved, meaning that he was barely a kilo lighter than at his peak when winning in Oslo.
Lemond, in my opinion, has every right to be bitter about his exit from the sport and the subsequent events. His public statements come at great risk to his reputation. It only takes one person to step up and say "I saw Lemond take this that or the other in 198#", and he looks like a hypocritical fool. But there hasn't been so much as a peep, not one rumour. Why is that? Armstrong's pockets are much deeper than Lemond's I suspect, so if there was any chance he doped we'd have heard about it, but we haven't. The only reference I can find is the iron injection administered during the Giro in 89 which was done in front of a journalist. Why on earth would one do something that publicly if it was illicit?


----------



## Perico (Mar 15, 2010)

Greg was one of the reasons I got into pro cycling back in the mid-80's. His picture was on my wall next to my other sports heroes as a kid. Since 1999 he has been so disappointing. When an American looked strong he suddenly went on a crusade. When that American won the Tour he became almost the only target for Greg. Greg comes off as a very bitter man who lost his throne. It doesn't stop there, he then progressed to implying everyone has doped...but only since he won his last Tour and that he had to quit because of this (errr, his health issues, no wait, doping by others) It's sad to see.

On the topic of Canseco: Canseco was an admitted doper who was bitter about not being able to keep playing. Lemond is someone who denies doping, but says everyone else did it and is bitter because someone overshadowed him.


----------



## ultimobici (Jul 16, 2005)

Perico said:


> Greg was one of the reasons I got into pro cycling back in the mid-80's. His picture was on my wall next to my other sports heroes as a kid. Since 1999 he has been so disappointing. When an American looked strong he suddenly went on a crusade. When that American won the Tour he became almost the only target for Greg. Greg comes off as a very bitter man who lost his throne. It doesn't stop there, he then progressed to implying everyone has doped...but only since he won his last Tour and that he had to quit because of this (errr, his health issues, no wait, doping by others) It's sad to see.


So you bought the Armstrong/Trek line hook, line & sinker?
Lemond was asked about Armstrong's comeback after it was revealed that Armstrong was working with Ferrari, who was notorious for the Gewiss 1,2,3 in Fleche Wallone. He didn't start this, he was sought out as the first and at the time last US winner of the Tour.


----------



## Perico (Mar 15, 2010)

ultimobici said:


> So you bought the Armstrong/Trek line hook, line & sinker?
> Lemond was asked about Armstrong's comeback after it was revealed that Armstrong was working with Ferrari, who was notorious for the Gewiss 1,2,3 in Fleche Wallone. He didn't start this, he was sought out as the first and at the time last US winner of the Tour.


Ok, tough guy, tell me what I posted that was false. I didn't buy into anything, I am just able to see the facts because I like both riders...unlike you who clearly have a hate on for one of them.


----------



## ultimobici (Jul 16, 2005)

Perico said:


> Ok, tough guy, tell me what I posted that was false. I didn't buy into anything, I am just able to see the facts because I like both riders...unlike you who clearly have a hate on for one of them.


My apologies, the hook, line & sinker comment was harsh. But the way in which Lemond V Armstrong started has been skewed over the years.

With regard to Lemond's "attack" on Armstrong, the way I read his comments from 2001 is that he was uncomfortable with Armstrong's association with Ferrari and urged him to distance himself. This was a man who was known to be the Gewiss doctor who put Argentin, Furlan & Berzin on the podium of the 94 Fleche Wallonne. When interviewed later he publicly defended the use of EPO by cyclists, stating that "EPO is not dangerous, it's the abuse that is. It's also dangerous to drink ten litres of orange juice." Why on earth would any sane person continue to work with someone who wound up being convicted of Sporting Fraud & Medical Malpractice? 

I got into cycling just about the time the English speaking invasion took off in the early 80's. Kelly, Lemond, Millar, Yates, Roche & Sherwen were my heroes.

I remember reading about Armstrong & Hincapie in Winning in the early 90's too. I was impressed by Armstrong's wins in 93 at the Tour and later in Oslo. But as I said in my earlier post, the complete change in Armstrong post-cancer doesn't add up in my opinion. I don't hate Armstrong at all, he just disappointed me every April by not riding any Classics and then in July by finishing the season early.

Having read the Coyle and Walsh books on Armstrong as well as Jeremy Whittle's Bad Blood and Matt Rendell's Pantani biography, I can only conclude that my gut feeling is correct. If EPO etc can elevate a rider to the degree that is claimed, Armstrong must have been on something other than water to beat Pantani & Ullrich so resoundingly after being taken apart comprehensively by Indurain in 94.


----------



## Perico (Mar 15, 2010)

Reading your post it sounds like the "hook, line and sinker" line is actually in your own mirror.


----------



## ultimobici (Jul 16, 2005)

Perico said:


> Reading your post it sounds like the "hook, line and sinker" line is actually in your own mirror.


You what?


----------

