# Top ten all-time USA men road cyclists



## moonmoth

Non-scientific, heavily weighted toward Euro road racing, and GT's in particular, and then podiums. Who am I missing? 

Lance Armstrong
Greg LeMond
Andy Hampsten
Levi Leipheimer
Bobby Julich (#3 1998 TdF)
Tyler Farrar (Stage wins in all 3 GTs)
George Hincapie (15 TdF finishes, many top 10 classics)
Tyler Hamilton (#2 2002 Giro, Liège–Bastogne–Liège winner)
Tom Danielson (3 GT top 10 finishes)
Christian Vande Velde (#4 2008 TdF)

Honorable mentions: Davis Phinney, Ron Kiefel, Chris Horner, Scott Moninger

You can't discuss the d-word here but you can post your own list if you think someone doesn't belong.


----------



## Retro Grouch

Fred Rodriguez


----------



## stevesbike

Zabriskie should be around #5 (above Julich). 1st American to win stages in all 3 grand tours, 3rd American to wear yellow jersey, podium multiple times in world ITT, fastest ITT in tour history, etc.


----------



## spookyload

I would get Tyler Hamilton off the list for obvious reasons. If you don't care about dopers, you could add the other clown as well. He at least won the tour. You for got Jonathan Boyer (first American in the tour) and Major Taylor.


----------



## thechriswebb

Zabriskie definitely belongs on the list. I would place Chris Horner a little higher too.

I would also consider moving Hincapie up several spots; on top of being a TDF stage winner, yellow jersey wearer, multiple national championships, and solid classics career his resume is that of one of the most solid and dependable racers in pro cycling history. He is soon to have finished more Tours de France than anyone ever has and by a solid margin has contributed to more TDF victories than anyone ever has.


----------



## AdamM

Davis Phinney


----------



## Chris-X

moonmoth said:


> Non-scientific, heavily weighted toward Euro road racing, and GT's in particular, and then podiums. Who am I missing?
> 
> Lance Armstrong
> Greg LeMond
> Andy Hampsten
> Levi Leipheimer
> Bobby Julich (#3 1998 TdF)
> Tyler Farrar (Stage wins in all 3 GTs)
> George Hincapie (15 TdF finishes, many top 10 classics)
> Tyler Hamilton (#2 2002 Giro, Liège–Bastogne–Liège winner)
> Tom Danielson (3 GT top 10 finishes)
> Christian Vande Velde (#4 2008 TdF)
> 
> Honorable mentions: Davis Phinney, Ron Kiefel, Chris Horner, Scott Moninger
> 
> *You can't discuss the d-word* here but you can post your own list if you think someone doesn't belong.


But you can post a list that gives credit where it shouldn't be due! What's the point?


----------



## Doctor Who

heh, n/m


----------



## Doctor Who

Also, Steve Tilford. Maybe not a GT contender, but probably one of the most-winningest American road racers ever. Multiple world champion as well. Plus, he's 51 AND still winning races as a continental pro.


----------



## Fignon's Barber

I would include John Eustice and Ron Kiefel, the pioneers who paved the way. Also, Hamilton would be off, as he has brought more disgrace than good to US cycling.


----------



## velodog

Bobby Walthour Sr.


----------



## cpark

Bob Roll and Alexi Grewal....


----------



## Wookiebiker

moonmoth said:


> You can't discuss the *d-word* here but you can post your own list if you think someone doesn't belong.


Why can't we discuss "Dysfunction?" .... That team would be a soap opera worth watching


----------



## harlond

stevesbike said:


> Zabriskie should be around #5 (above Julich). 1st American to win stages in all 3 grand tours, 3rd American to wear yellow jersey, podium multiple times in world ITT, fastest ITT in tour history, etc.


Zabriskie has a silver and gold in the World ITT championship and more stage wins than Julich, but the only stage race he's won is the Tour of Missouri. Julich has a bronze medal in the Olympic ITT, plus overall wins in Paris-Nice, Criterium International (twice), and Route de Sud. Not to mention the Tour podium. Close, I think I'd put Julich ahead, but I can see why you'd prefer Zabriskie. Certainly I think Zabriskie belongs ahead of Tyler Farrar until Tyler wins more races.


----------



## atpjunkie

*I'm with ya*



Doctor Who said:


> Also, Steve Tilford. Maybe not a GT contender, but probably one of the most-winningest American road racers ever. Multiple world champion as well. Plus, he's 51 AND still winning races as a continental pro.


and Ned


----------



## cpark

atpjunkie said:


> and Ned


I agree.
In term of winning American races, I recall Scott Moninger used to win a lot of races


----------



## burgrat

#1 and #2 should be switched.


----------



## 55x11

harlond said:


> Zabriskie has a silver and gold in the World ITT championship and more stage wins than Julich, but the only stage race he's won is the Tour of Missouri. Julich has a bronze medal in the Olympic ITT, plus overall wins in Paris-Nice, Criterium International (twice), and Route de Sud. Not to mention the Tour podium. Close, I think I'd put Julich ahead, but I can see why you'd prefer Zabriskie. Certainly I think Zabriskie belongs ahead of Tyler Farrar until Tyler wins more races.


Danielson and Vande Velde do not belong in top 10. Zabriskie does, and so does Julich.
People who think Horner (or Fred Rodriguez) should be in top 10 are on crack.
Hincapie should be lower than Zabriskie.


----------



## spookyload

cpark said:


> Bob Roll and Alexi Grewal....


Though Bob Roll is an icon in American cycling, he will be the first to admit he had a lack luster career. Alexi Grewal was awesome in the old Colorado races and won an Olympic gold medal, but did zero as a pro.


----------



## Chainstay

*+1 Hincapie*



thechriswebb said:


> Zabriskie definitely belongs on the list. I would place Chris Horner a little higher too.
> 
> I would also consider moving Hincapie up several spots; on top of being a TDF stage winner, yellow jersey wearer, multiple national championships, and solid classics career his resume is that of one of the most solid and dependable racers in pro cycling history. He is soon to have finished more Tours de France than anyone ever has and by a solid margin has contributed to more TDF victories than anyone ever has.


Always an important player on the most successful teams.


----------



## atpjunkie

*and admittedly*



cpark said:


> I agree.
> In term of winning American races, I recall Scott Moninger used to win a lot of races


Ned was off-road


----------



## atpjunkie

*and who can forget*



thechriswebb said:


> Zabriskie definitely belongs on the list. I would place Chris Horner a little higher too.
> 
> I would also consider moving Hincapie up several spots; on top of being a TDF stage winner, yellow jersey wearer, multiple national championships, and solid classics career his resume is that of one of the most solid and dependable racers in pro cycling history. He is soon to have finished more Tours de France than anyone ever has and by a solid margin has contributed to more TDF victories than anyone ever has.


Dave's crazy breakaway @ the Vuelta


----------



## aclinjury

I'm a new and casual observer in the road cycling scene, but I often hear this about Lance Armstrong and many American racers amongst the Euro crowds: "American racers only focus on the Tour de France. Other than that, they don't win anything." They point out that outside of TdF, Armstrong has not won much, and seem to think that a great road racer should win all the major tours in 1 year (Giro, Spain, Italy, France, etc). Not sure how much validity is in the argument, but it does make sense somewhat.


----------



## davidka

burgrat said:


> #1 and #2 should be switched.


How do you figure? 7 straight TdF's trumps everyone except for Merckx. If LA had never won the TdF he'd still be one of the most successful American pro's.


----------



## burgrat

davidka said:


> How do you figure? 7 straight TdF's trumps everyone except for Merckx. If LA had never won the TdF he'd still be one of the most successful American pro's.


Hint: O.P. asked us not to discuss it. Just my opinion. Others may not agree.


----------



## foto

Whatever, I am almost as good as Lance was...


...when he first started riding.


----------



## askmass

Personal preference and bias aside, Zabriskie has got to be there, period.


----------



## velodog

davidka said:


> How do you figure? 7 straight TdF's trumps everyone except for Merckx.


Did you ever hear of the likes of Fausto Coppi, Jacques Anquetil or Bernard Hinault? Their palamares all trump 7 TdF's.
And if you want them all in a row how many Grand Tours did Alberto Contador win in a row. Maybe not all TdF but also Giro d'Italia and Vuelta a Espania.
Sure 7 TdF's in a row is quite an acomplishment but the racing calender is a lot bigger than one race a year.


----------



## 55x11

velodog said:


> Did you ever hear of the likes of Fausto Coppi, Jacques Anquetil or Bernard Hinault? Their palamares all trump 7 TdF's.
> And if you want them all in a row how many Grand Tours did Alberto Contador win in a row. Maybe not all TdF but also Giro d'Italia and Vuelta a Espania.
> Sure 7 TdF's in a row is quite an acomplishment but the racing calender is a lot bigger than one race a year.


the point davidka was making was in regards to claims that Lemond was more accomplished than Armstrong (I agree with davidka - he is not).

If we forget about personalities and d-word for a second - 7 straight TdFs is extremely impressive, and I would agree that perhaps only Merckx surpasses that. The reason being that as far as Grand Tours go, winning TdF is much more prestigious than Giro or Vuelta - it is more competitive and much more difficult. Spring classics nowadays are dominated by riders who have no shot at being on podium in a Grand Tour, and multiple Grand Tour victories - in addition to TdF - are extremely rare (just ask Contador).

Sure, calendar is bigger than just TdF, but the strongest multi-stage rider is the one that can win TdF, that's by far the "crown", everything else pales in comparison. So winning 7 straight TdFs is sort of like winning 7 straight WC - everyone is gunning for it, and it is THE race to win.

So yeah, I would put 7 TdFs (plus Worlds and a few other races - Fleche Wallone, TdS, Dauphine Libere) above Hinault, Coppi etc. - especially considering the difference in eras and how competitive cycling has become since the time of Coppi. If Contador gets 7 TdFs I will be happy to say the same thing.


----------



## black cross

Scott Moninger and Steve Tilford, both kansas boys


----------



## terbennett

Not sure about the Armstrong-Lemond thing. That is mostly timing. They raced at different times and using different technologies. Still both should be in the top 10. I also must include Levi Leipheimer in that fold. He is IMO, one of the top ten best ever. The best don't always when but he is an all-arounder. Hopefully he will finally get to show what he's really about on his new team next year.


----------



## stevesbike

55x11 said:


> the point davidka was making was in regards to claims that Lemond was more accomplished than Armstrong (I agree with davidka - he is not).
> 
> If we forget about personalities and d-word for a second - 7 straight TdFs is extremely impressive, and I would agree that perhaps only Merckx surpasses that. The reason being that as far as Grand Tours go, winning TdF is much more prestigious than Giro or Vuelta - it is more competitive and much more difficult. Spring classics nowadays are dominated by riders who have no shot at being on podium in a Grand Tour, and multiple Grand Tour victories - in addition to TdF - are extremely rare (just ask Contador).
> 
> Sure, calendar is bigger than just TdF, but the strongest multi-stage rider is the one that can win TdF, that's by far the "crown", everything else pales in comparison. So winning 7 straight TdFs is sort of like winning 7 straight WC - everyone is gunning for it, and it is THE race to win.
> 
> So yeah, I would put 7 TdFs (plus Worlds and a few other races - Fleche Wallone, TdS, Dauphine Libere) above Hinault, Coppi etc. - especially considering the difference in eras and how competitive cycling has become since the time of Coppi. If Contador gets 7 TdFs I will be happy to say the same thing.


I'd put Lemond above Armstrong - Lemond was a far more complete rider than Armstrong. Armstrong was a classics rider in his early career and a grand tour rider in his later career, but never had those combined skills at any time during his career. Lemond had a much stronger sprint than Armstrong (who never had a very good sprint) and could win races like the 89 Worlds in a sprint against the likes of Kelly. Armstrong has more Tour victories, but Lemond was the first serious American Tour contender, basically gifted Hinault one Tour, worked for a French rider in the 84 Tour (Fignon), and of course had the hunting accident that not only forced him to miss 2 tours but he never fully regained his earlier form. Armstrong was a lousy time trialist and climber early in his career (there's the infamous footage of Indurain blowing by him) whereas Lemond was 3rd in his first tour.


----------



## ukbloke

Of course the opinion of the great unwashed is:
1. Lance Armstrong
2. Lance Armstrong
3. Lance Armstrong
4. Lance Armstrong
5. Lance Armstrong
6. Lance Armstrong
7. Lance Armstrong
8. Lance Armstrong
9. Lance Armstrong
10. Greg Lemond


----------



## PRB

55x11 said:


> The reason being that as far as Grand Tours go, winning TdF is much more prestigious than Giro or Vuelta - it is more competitive and much more difficult.


That's a very American view. In most years the Giro is a lot more difficult than the Tour; just ask Armstrong what he thought of it the one and only time he rode it. IMHO, a Giro win easily trumps a Tour win....YMMV. 

As far as who should be #1, my vote goes to LeMond as well. He was a more complete all-around rider than Armstrong and had far better competition. 

And a huge *+1* for Major Taylor....I might even rank him #2 on the list.


----------



## thechriswebb

I would probably give Armstrong and lemond a tie for first and second; it is difficult to quantify and compare their accomplishments. Also, what lance did was special and unique but I don't see how someone could so easily rank him over coppi or hinault. No, neither of them won the tdf seven times but neither did merckx. Coppi and hinault dominated every type of race they entered during their respective reigns. To be fair, I do think that Armstrong was more than a one trick pony, having had a respectable classics career before he started contending gt's and making the podium of the tdf again after a four year retirement.


----------



## harlond

tricycletalent said:


> If you didn't include Floyd Landis on that list, why the f=)/"#% have you included Tyler Hamilton? And Lance Armstrong?


That reasoning would exclude Merckx and Coppi, and a host of others, from a list of the all time greats. Not a very satisfactory solution.

Anyway, with official wins in Paris Nice and Algarve and a second place in the Dauphine, Landis might belong with or ahead of guys like Danielson and Vande Velde.


----------



## Mootsie

John Howard. Excelled in an era before Versus or OLN network.


----------



## moonmoth

tricycletalent said:


> If you didn't include Floyd Landis on that list, why the f=)/"#% have you included Tyler Hamilton? And Lance Armstrong?


Sorta reluctantly, because TH was the first and only USA rider to win a Monument.


----------



## Mike T.

spookyload said:


> Alexi Grewal was awesome in the old Colorado races and won an Olympic gold medal,


On the d-word, in his own admission.


----------



## paredown

Mootsie said:


> John Howard. Excelled in an era before Versus or OLN network.


This. Raced with him--he was an animal. And went on to do RAM and Ironman before either were chic.


----------



## Eric_H

Your first 4 are pretty solid and hard to argue with. After that it gets pretty tough, I would take out Danielson and VdV for sure. Insert Davis Phinney and Ron Kiefel, those guys were groundbreakers in the 1980s and I think their achievements are largely undervalued by people who started following cycling in this decade. 

I would move Hincapie down to 10th, Julich 9th, Tyler H 8th, Tyler F 7th, Kiefel 6th, Phinney 5th. Hincapie's longevity is impressive but his actual race results are underwhelming, and for the record he has never had the yellow jersey. Farrar's career is still relatively young and he has the potential to move much higher.

In the next group: Floyd should be probably be in the top 10 for his Tour win except history will show that he didn't win it. But don't forget his other performances in both Europe and America. As others have mentioned Zabriskie should be lurking around the top 10 as well. Horner is in the top 15 for sure, first American to win Tour of Basque Country, a ridiculously hard week-long stage race, plus top 10s at Liege and Lombardy, and a couple of decent Tour GC placings, and stage wins at Tour de Suisse and Romandie. Fast Freddie should also be just outside the top 10, he has a Giro stage win, the highest American finish in Milan San Remo, and quite a few solid Euro wins. These type of things get a little ridiculous, I mean it is hard to compare the impact of Alexi Grewal or George Mount against the achievements of Tom Danielson.


----------



## JCavilia

aclinjury said:


> I'm a new and casual observer in the road cycling scene, but I often hear this about Lance Armstrong and many American racers amongst the Euro crowds: "American racers only focus on the Tour de France. Other than that, they don't win anything." They point out that outside of TdF, Armstrong has not won much, and *seem to think that a great road racer should win all the major tours in 1 year *(Giro, Spain, Italy, France, etc). Not sure how much validity is in the argument, but it does make sense somewhat.


Nobody ever did that. (there are three, by the way. "Giro" is italy). The argument is slightly different than you perceive. The greatest racers should win a variety of races, not just one. Not just multi-day tours, but hard one-day races as well. In the "old days," most of them also raced on the track in the winter season.

The unquestioned greatest, Eddy Merckx, not only won the TdF five times, the Giro five, and the Vuelta once, he also won pretty much all the great one-day classics, most of them multiple times (28 classics wins in total). He also won the Worlds (the most prestigious one-day race) three times. By contrast, Armstrong won a Worlds early in his "first" career, but never rode it during his Tour run.

Merckx is the only rider ever to win the yellow, spotted (climber) and green (points) jerseys in the same Tour de France. He won about 500 races, of all types, in his career. No one else comes close, but most riders considered to be among the greatest did spread their efforts. Armstrong's 7 Tours are remarkable, but his extreme specialization during that run will always be a little issue for some fans.


----------



## harlond

JCavilia said:


> Nobody ever did that. (there are three, by the way. "Giro" is italy). The argument is slightly different than you perceive. The greatest racers should win a variety of races, not just one. Not just multi-day tours, but hard one-day races as well. In the "old days," most of them also raced on the track in the winter season.
> 
> The unquestioned greatest, Eddy Merckx, not only won the TdF five times, the Giro five, and the Vuelta once, he also won pretty much all the great one-day classics, most of them multiple times (28 classics wins in total). He also won the Worlds (the most prestigious one-day race) three times. By contrast, Armstrong won a Worlds early in his "first" career, but never rode it during his Tour run.
> 
> Merckx is the only rider ever to win the yellow, spotted (climber) and green (points) jerseys in the same Tour de France. He won about 500 races, of all types, in his career. No one else comes close, but most riders considered to be among the greatest did spread their efforts. Armstrong's 7 Tours are remarkable, but his extreme specialization during that run will always be a little issue for some fans.


Fair enough, but who isn't a specialist these days? You have to be a specialist to win a race these days. The closest thing we have to a non-specialist now is either Gilbert or Cancellara. Really Gilbert's a specialist in the hard, hillier one-day races. He has little chance in a flat sprint, and he's done very little in multi-day races. Cancellara is an ITT specialist, and that gives him a chance in a week-long stage race if the course is tailored to his talents, and he can win one-days where he has a chance to escape in the finale. But like Gilbert, almost all of the stage races are beyond him, and it's a big surprise when he finishes 4th in a bunch sprint (and good on him for doing so in the WC this year) Maybe there's somebody else, but a guy that's pretty good in the sprints, pretty good in the hills, pretty good in an ITT, pretty good in a stage race, we have a name for that guy--domestique. The best of those guys are like George Hincapie or even better Jens Voigt, which is a very excellent rider indeed. But those aren't the guys we compare to Merckx or Hinault.

So yes, extreme specialization is the knock on Armstrong, but I can't see the sense of it. If Merckx started today, he might win 5 Tours or he might win 5 Milano-San Remos--he's the greatest, he might win 7 or 8 of either--but he wouldn't do both. Maybe it's true that the greatest racers should win a variety of races, but really nobody does that anymore. IMO, the greatest racers win big races, and lots of them. Armstrong did that. So have Gilbert, Cancellara, Boonen (now there's an extreme specialist for you--he contends in basically two races a year), Contador, Cavendish. Lotta great racers out there.


----------



## Fireform

Eddy Merckx in his lengthy racing prime would chew up the current field of pros and spit them out in little shreds. He would have made Armstrong cry like a little girl. And then laughed about it in public.


----------



## thechriswebb

Eric_H said:


> I would move Hincapie down to 10th, Julich 9th, Tyler H 8th, Tyler F 7th, Kiefel 6th, Phinney 5th. Hincapie's longevity is impressive but his actual race results are underwhelming, *and for the record he has never had the yellow jersey*. Farrar's career is still relatively young and he has the potential to move much higher.
> 
> .



This is not true. Five Americans have worn the yellow jersey in the Tour de France: Greg Lemond, Lance Armstrong, Dave Zabriskie, Floyd Landis, and George Hincapie. He won it in stage 1 of the 2006 Tour.


Hincapie takes Tour's yellow jersey - Tour de France- NBC Sports


----------



## Eric_H

thechriswebb said:


> This is not true. Five Americans have worn the yellow jersey in the Tour de France: Greg Lemond, Lance Armstrong, Dave Zabriskie, Floyd Landis, and George Hincapie. He won it in stage 1 of the 2006 Tour.


Busted. I hit my head harder than I thought a couple of weeks ago, I completely forgot about this. I still stand by Hincapie's place in the top 10 being down around 10th.


----------



## mr. roach

Bob roll!!


----------



## thechriswebb

Eric_H said:


> Busted. I hit my head harder than I thought a couple of weeks ago, I completely forgot about this. I still stand by Hincapie's place in the top 10 being down around 10th.


It's all good. 

It depends on how you look at it. I did give George a few points for popularity. I know several non-cyclists that can identify George hincapie that unfortunately have never heard of that little grand tour that Andy hampsten won. 

I only gave a couple of points for that, though. If we rate based based on pure popularity, I think that far more modern Americans could identify bob roll than hampsten, julich, phinney, or maybe even Dave Z. I'm not putting bobke over them. Mainstream popularity combined with a yellow jersey, tour stage victory, record longevity, multiple national championships, more tdf team victories than anyone, and a solid classics record that includes 2nd place in Paris roubaix puts George about fifth on my list. That's just my opinion.


----------



## Cableguy

Fireform said:


> Eddy Merckx in his lengthy racing prime would chew up the current field of pros and spit them out in little shreds. He would have made Armstrong cry like a little girl. And then laughed about it in public.


I don't know... disregarding differences in equipment and cheating, I suspect Merckx's results would have been a lot less pronounced against the modern day cycling peloton. Which, if true, would mean many of the recent cycling stars may have given Merckx a run for his money.


----------



## Fireform

Of course, in any debate of this kind it's impossible to know, because they can't compete against one another directly. But, your argument seems to tacitly assume the overall level of riders is much higher now than then. I simply don't buy that. Cycle racing in Europe was a very big deal in the 70's, at least as popular relatively speaking as it is now. 

To add to what's already been pointed out, Merckx was clearly a singular talent from his earliest days as a junior--he didn't start out as a middle of the pack guy and then return as a pharmaceutical wonder. He won 34 stages in the TDF, the most in history. Six more than Hinault and a dozen more than Armstrong. He won the Giro, a more taxing race than the TDF in terms of climbing, 5 times, four of those in the same year he also won the TDF. Armstrong never came close to winning a Giro. Contador has attempted that double but never succeeded. Merckx raced against tough competition, too--Felice Gimondi won 5 grand tours himself. In the six best years of his career Merckx won the equivalent of a race a week. His one-hour world record, set in 1972, stood for 28 years until it was passed by Chris Boardman, a time-trial specialist, by 10 meters. I don't believe Boardman ever finished a TDF--Merckx won the TDF king of the mountains title twice. 

Merckx is head and shoulders the greatest champion in the history of cycling. The Schleck sisters would soil their bibs at the sight of the Cannibal coming up on them.


----------



## ultimobici

moonmoth said:


> Non-scientific, heavily weighted toward Euro road racing, and GT's in particular, and then podiums. Who am I missing?
> 
> Lance Armstrong
> Greg LeMond
> Andy Hampsten
> Levi Leipheimer
> Bobby Julich (#3 1998 TdF)
> Tyler Farrar (Stage wins in all 3 GTs)
> George Hincapie (15 TdF finishes, many top 10 classics)
> Tyler Hamilton (#2 2002 Giro, Liège–Bastogne–Liège winner)
> Tom Danielson (3 GT top 10 finishes)
> Christian Vande Velde (#4 2008 TdF)
> 
> Honorable mentions: Davis Phinney, Ron Kiefel, Chris Horner, Scott Moninger
> 
> You can't discuss the d-word here but you can post your own list if you think someone doesn't belong.


How on earth can you rate Tom Danielson above riders like Phinney & Keifel? The latter was the first US rider to win a GT stage, beating one Gerrie Knetterman to the line. Phinney was the first US Tour stage winner whilst vying for the Green Jersey. Tommy D has managed to place top 10 in the Vuelta on three occasions and scraped into the top 10 of this year's Tour. In none of those instances was he within 6 minutes of the win. 

In short he hasn't a tenth of the Phinneys & Keifels talent or class IMO. Hype over substance.


----------



## mhudgens

List is so Wrong! You must take into consideration the men who paved the way for the rest of us to follow. They were far harder men than we were/ARE and given the opportunity of today would have been far more dominant


----------



## thechriswebb

I struggle a bit with the argument that people used to be "harder" than they are now. The differences in training and equipment just require that riders have to push lighter and more efficient equipment to the limits of their abilities. If average race speeds and such were the same as they were in the 60's then maybe that argument would have some weight. With the exception of Bartoli/Coppi the major dominating legends (Anquetil, Merckx, Hinault, Indurain, Armstrong) did not compete at the same time as each other or if they did one of them was in the twilight of their career. I think that if all of those men were put together in their prime to race against each other in a Grand Tour with comparable equipment, it would be a competitive race and they would have to race very very hard to beat each other. The suggestion that Coppi, or Merckx, or any of them would just ride away from the others is silly to me.


----------



## Fireform

I'm not sure why it would be hard to believe--certain athletes have been in a class by themselves in several sports I can think of. Take Hank Aaron and Babe Ruth, for instance. I consider them more or less in a class of their own as home run hitters, Ruth because the HR was not a big deal in baseball until he came along and made it a big deal, and he was doing what no-one had ever tried to do before. In my opinion, there hasn't been a power hitter in their league since Aaron retired, and there have been a hell of a lot of baseball players. Does anyone seriously believe that Barry Bonds would have approached Aaron's record without drugs? That sure wasn't the trajectory of his stats before he discovered PEDs. A-Roid? His entire career is suspect now.

Or take hockey--how many people have played pro hockey? How many have scored more than 2000 career points and have the most career assists as well? One: Wayne Gretzky. To put any other hockey player in his class is simply to lack perspective.

IMO, Eddy Merckx is the Wayne Gretzky of cycling. Anyone is free to disagree, but the numbers are on my side.


----------



## thechriswebb

I don't disagree that Merckx was special. I think my point is more that I disagree with the idea that the pro cyclists of the past were inherently better than the cyclists of today. Nostalgia and legend creates those kinds of ideas.


----------



## harlond

Fireform said:


> Of course, in any debate of this kind it's impossible to know, because they can't compete against one another directly. But, your argument seems to tacitly assume the overall level of riders is much higher now than then. I simply don't buy that. Cycle racing in Europe was a very big deal in the 70's, at least as popular relatively speaking as it is now.


One good reason to believe the overall level of riders is higher now is that the professional ranks include a lot more North Americans, Australians, and East Europeans than they did in Merckx's day.



Fireform said:


> I'm not sure why it would be hard to believe--certain athletes have been in a class by themselves in several sports I can think of. Take Hank Aaron and Babe Ruth, for instance. I consider them more or less in a class of their own as home run hitters, Ruth because the HR was not a big deal in baseball until he came along and made it a big deal, and he was doing what no-one had ever tried to do before. In my opinion, there hasn't been a power hitter in their league since Aaron retired, and there have been a hell of a lot of baseball players. Does anyone seriously believe that Barry Bonds would have approached Aaron's record without drugs? That sure wasn't the trajectory of his stats before he discovered PEDs. A-Roid? His entire career is suspect now.


I don't see anyone arguing that Merckx isn't the greatest, just that he could not dominate today as he did then. Ruth is also the greatest, but he didn't play against African-Americans or many Hispanics, and if he played today, it seems highly unlikely he would dominate now as he did then.

I think Merckx is the greatest and would be great if he started today. I just think his career would look a lot like Armstrong's or Contador's. Which is to say, I think it would look great. 

On another note, discounting Bonds or A-Rod on account of doping seems like a strange thing to do in an argument for Merckx and Ruth. Ruth probably corked his bat, and if there is any player we can be certain would have done steroids had they been available, it has to be Ruth.*

*OK, and Cobb.


----------



## TerminatorX91

stevesbike said:


> I'd put Lemond above Armstrong - Lemond was a far more complete rider than Armstrong. Armstrong was a classics rider in his early career and a grand tour rider in his later career, but never had those combined skills at any time during his career. Lemond had a much stronger sprint than Armstrong (who never had a very good sprint) and could win races like the 89 Worlds in a sprint against the likes of Kelly. Armstrong has more Tour victories, but Lemond was the first serious American Tour contender, basically gifted Hinault one Tour, worked for a French rider in the 84 Tour (Fignon), and of course had the hunting accident that not only forced him to miss 2 tours but he never fully regained his earlier form. Armstrong was a lousy time trialist and climber early in his career (there's the infamous footage of Indurain blowing by him) whereas Lemond was 3rd in his first tour.


Agree.


----------



## saird

stevesbike said:


> Armstrong (who never had a very good sprint)


ORLY. I do not agree.


----------



## aclinjury

Fireform said:


> I'm not sure why it would be hard to believe--certain athletes have been in a class by themselves in several sports I can think of. Take Hank Aaron and Babe Ruth, for instance. I consider them more or less in a class of their own as home run hitters, Ruth because the HR was not a big deal in baseball until he came along and made it a big deal, and he was doing what no-one had ever tried to do before. In my opinion, there hasn't been a power hitter in their league since Aaron retired, and there have been a hell of a lot of baseball players. Does anyone seriously believe that Barry Bonds would have approached Aaron's record without drugs? That sure wasn't the trajectory of his stats before he discovered PEDs. A-Roid? His entire career is suspect now.
> 
> Or take hockey--how many people have played pro hockey? How many have scored more than 2000 career points and have the most career assists as well? One: Wayne Gretzky. To put any other hockey player in his class is simply to lack perspective.
> 
> IMO, Eddy Merckx is the Wayne Gretzky of cycling. Anyone is free to disagree, but the numbers are on my side.


I think all the great athletes usually show their talent early on (top of my mind is Michael Jordan, Carl Lewis). 

But when you see good, but not great, athletes (Bonds, A-Rod, McGuire, Armstrong) had a good early career but did not take it to the next level until the tail end of their career, you know they're dopers.


----------



## thechriswebb

saird said:


> ORLY. I do not agree.



The same stage victory came to my mind when this argument was posted. 






aclinjury said:


> I think all the great athletes usually show their talent early on (top of my mind is Michael Jordan, Carl Lewis).
> 
> But when you see good, but not great, athletes (Bonds, A-Rod, McGuire, Armstrong) had a good early career but did not take it to the next level until the tail end of their career, you know they're dopers.



I don't think that this is necessarily true. 

There has been doping from the very beginning of cycling as a professional sport. It is true that amphetamines didn't offer the same performance advantage as modern options, it did offer some advantage or they wouldn't have used them. Merckx and Coppi cheated and receive a lot more forgiveness from the modern crowd. They also both cracked as they aged. In general, mature athletes keep performing better and better and I think that has more to do with a better understanding of training methods and modern mature athletes paying more attention to their diet and training habits. In retrospect, both Hinault and Lemond have said that if they knew then what they know now about how to pace oneself that they believe they could have squeezed a few more good years out of their careers. The method of pushing big gears back then wore athletes out more quickly than the modern method of spinning smaller gears at a higher cadence. I watched "The Greatest Show On Earth" documentary about the '74 Giro yesterday and watching Merckx wrestle his bike up 20% climbs at 60 rpm or less made my knees hurt. 

I read a very interesting study a few years ago that I wish I could find that suggested that if a pool of athletes who had all trained perfectly for their respective age groups were to compete against each other, the most dangerous athletes would be around 40 years old. This assumes that the 40 year old athlete understands how to train for the specific needs of a mature athlete and that their experience and the endurance acquired over a long career would give an advantage over the explosiveness of the younger athlete. I also wonder if athletes that peak young simply don't last as long as athletes that peak at an older age. When Tiger Woods was very young, I heard an expert evaluating his aggressive swing and said that he wouldn't last as long as he could and would fade younger than some of his peers. On the other hand, that aggressive swing allowed him to absolutely dominate his rivals during his youth. He definitely seems like he might be done though. Maybe it was the same for Merckx? 

I maintain that if Armstrong in his prime were able to compete with the greats at their prime that he would still be a competitive threat.


----------



## harlond

aclinjury said:


> I think all the great athletes usually show their talent early on (top of my mind is Michael Jordan, Carl Lewis).
> 
> But when you see good, but not great, athletes (Bonds, A-Rod, McGuire, Armstrong) had a good early career but did not take it to the next level until the tail end of their career, you know they're dopers.


Bonds, A-Rod, McGwire, and Armstrong all had great early careers. Bonds played full time in the bigs as a 21-year old and won his first MVP at age 25, winning 2 more by the time he was 28. That is not "a good early career," it's a great one. Bonds was a great player from a very early age--this is indisputable.

A-Rod made the bigs at age 18 and was a full-time shortstop at age 20 when he led the league in total bases, scored 141 runs, and finished 2nd in the MVP voting. He led his league in total bases twice more before he was 27. The only other shortstop I know of that ever led the league in total bases is Honus Wagner. I don't know where you get the idea he had just "a good early career" but it just isn't so. People were talking about A-Rod as an all-time great before he was 26 years old.

McGwire made the bigs at age 21 and became a full-time player the next year, when he led his league in homers and slugging percentage, made the all-star team, won rookie of the year, and finished 6th in the MVP voting. He's not on the level of Bonds and A-Rod, because they are among the greatest of players all-time, but McGwire was a terrific player from the instant he set foot in the league.

We can argue about whether Armstrong had a great or good early career, but to suggest that he didn't show his talent early on is insupportable. By the age of 25 he had won a world championship, Fleche Wallone, San Sebastian, two stages of the Tour, a stage in Paris-Nice, finished 2nd in Liege and San Sebastian, finished 2nd overall in Paris-Nice, and won another dozen or more stages and races. Seems to me like a great start, not just a good one.

Like other great athletes, every one of these guys showed their talent early on. Sorry about the thread drift.


----------



## aclinjury

Sorry I was referring to the "home run derby" of these roided up guys, Bonds, A-Rod, et al. Now that the roid period is over (for now), the home run derby is no more. Dope works.

Tiger Woods is failing not because he is lacking physical. He is still strong. In fact, I read somewhere that mentioned Woods is in the best shape he's ever been. Problem is golf is a very mental game too. After the incident with the hookers, Tiger is just not the same mentally. Tiger reminds me a little bit of Mike Tyson. Here's a guy who began to peak at 17 y/o, 17 feakin y/o in a sport dominated by experience, and by 21 he was dominating. So Tyson peaked early, but what doomed him was his mental (or lack of).

And I don't think 40 y/o is peaking. Are you kidding me. Maybe for a mental sport such as golf. But you don't peak in any sport demanding the heart to work at maximum at 40. Sorry all your organs in your body has a shelf life, and at 40 they are well on their way to dying, not peaking. But I will say at 40 one can still run an ultra marathon or swim across the English channel, which is a prolonged physical activity but also a much less intense one. They're not gonna win in an shorter endurance event that also requires intensity.


----------



## thechriswebb

aclinjury said:


> Sorry I was referring to the "home run derby" of these roided up guys, Bonds, A-Rod, et al. Now that the roid period is over (for now), the home run derby is no more. Dope works.
> 
> Tiger Woods is failing not because he is lacking physical. He is still strong. In fact, I read somewhere that mentioned Woods is in the best shape he's ever been. Problem is golf is a very mental game too. After the incident with the hookers, Tiger is just not the same mentally. Tiger reminds me a little bit of Mike Tyson. Here's a guy who began to peak at 17 y/o, 17 feakin y/o in a sport dominated by experience, and by 21 he was dominating. So Tyson peaked early, but what doomed him was his mental (or lack of).
> 
> And I don't think 40 y/o is peaking. Are you kidding me. Maybe for a mental sport such as golf. But you don't peak in any sport demanding the heart to work at maximum at 40. Sorry all your organs in your body has a shelf life, and at 40 they are well on their way to dying, not peaking. But I will say at 40 one can still run an ultra marathon or swim across the English channel, which is a prolonged physical activity but also a much less intense one. They're not gonna win in an shorter endurance event that also requires intensity.




I agree that the body isn't peaking at 40 but I was saying that there are situations where if the body had been well maintained that the experience and mental side of things can give enough of an advantage to compensate. I also agree that there have been athletes like merckx (and now contador) who can come in young and slay everyone else just by merit of their impressive athletic ability. I will also say that I am interested to see how contador will be performing when he is 34 or so.


----------



## harlond

aclinjury said:


> Sorry I was referring to the "home run derby" of these roided up guys, Bonds, A-Rod, et al. Now that the roid period is over (for now), the home run derby is no more. Dope works.


OK, but I don't see where Armstrong comes in to it. He won his last Tour at age 34 after showing lots of talent early on. Maybe when you said "But when you see good, but not great, athletes (Bonds, A-Rod, McGuire, Armstrong) had a good early career but did not take it to the next level until the tail end of their career, you know they're dopers," you meant to mention Cadel Evans, who won his first Tour at what, 38?:devil:







Just kidding.


----------



## hawker12

John Howard.


----------



## Cableguy

thechriswebb said:


> I don't disagree that Merckx was special. I think my point is more that I disagree with the idea that the pro cyclists of the past were inherently better than the cyclists of today. Nostalgia and legend creates those kinds of ideas.


This is a good point. As much as some people want to deny it *now*, in 30 years Armstrong will be regarded more highly and his doping stigma will have diminished substantially or perhaps completely, in a way like Merckx


----------



## thechriswebb

Cableguy said:


> This is a good point. As much as some people want to deny it *now*, in 30 years Armstrong will be regarded more highly and his doping stigma will have diminished substantially or perhaps completely, in a way like Merckx


This is the truth.

Merckx was not nearly as universally loved in his day as he is now.


----------



## paredown

hawker12 said:


> John Howard.


Again, I have to say--it was a different era, but for the time, John Howard's performance for an American cyclist is/was remarkable

Most of what he accomplished when there was very little support in the US and very little information as well for competitive cyclists. Lets be clear how new all this was to the US.

Pez interview here in which he expresses some regrets at not taking a chance on a spot with the Raleigh team that would had led to a chance to compete in the Tour.

The problem I suppose is that others really ought to be considered as well--George Mount's 6th place finish in the Olympic Road race in Montreal was as startling to the Euros as Phinney's first American stage win in the Tour and both also deserve to be honorable mentions at least...

By the time of Lemond, Americans could imagine going to Europe and training/racing/getting contracts--but like the original 7-11 team, Howard's was a pretty amazing performance and deserves at least honorable mention.


----------



## davidka

Major Taylor belongs on that list.


----------



## foto

paredown said:


> Again, I have to say--it was a different era, but for the time, John Howard's performance for an American cyclist is/was remarkable
> 
> Most of what he accomplished when there was very little support in the US and very little information as well for competitive cyclists. Lets be clear how new all this was to the US.
> 
> Pez interview here in which he expresses some regrets at not taking a chance on a spot with the Raleigh team that would had led to a chance to compete in the Tour.
> 
> The problem I suppose is that others really ought to be considered as well--George Mount's 6th place finish in the Olympic Road race in Montreal was as startling to the Euros as Phinney's first American stage win in the Tour and both also deserve to be honorable mentions at least...
> 
> By the time of Lemond, Americans could imagine going to Europe and training/racing/getting contracts--but like the original 7-11 team, Howard's was a pretty amazing performance and deserves at least honorable mention.


Eddie B changed it all for the US. From what I have read, that is, I was just a squirt at the time.


----------



## foto

davidka said:


> Major Taylor belongs on that list.


Word, and I think it is safe to say Major Taylor didn't cheat.


----------



## ultimobici

paredown said:


> Pez interview here in which he expresses some regrets at not taking a chance on a spot with the Raleigh team that would had led to a chance to compete in the Tour.


Good job he didn't take it. Post was notorious for chewing non-Dutch riders up and spitting them out.


----------



## hawker12

paredown said:


> Again, I have to say--it was a different era, but for the time, John Howard's performance for an American cyclist is/was remarkable
> 
> Most of what he accomplished when there was very little support in the US and very little information as well for competitive cyclists. Lets be clear how new all this was to the US.
> 
> Pez interview here in which he expresses some regrets at not taking a chance on a spot with the Raleigh team that would had led to a chance to compete in the Tour.
> 
> The problem I suppose is that others really ought to be considered as well--George Mount's 6th place finish in the Olympic Road race in Montreal was as startling to the Euros as Phinney's first American stage win in the Tour and both also deserve to be honorable mentions at least...
> 
> By the time of Lemond, Americans could imagine going to Europe and training/racing/getting contracts--but like the original 7-11 team, Howard's was a pretty amazing performance and deserves at least honorable mention.


Paredown, that was a great read, thanks for posting. I had the chance to meet John at a banquet this year celebrating the thirtieth anniversary of the Coors Classic. A very nice and amiable guy.


----------



## RoadBoy1

IMO, Greg Lemond should either be taken off the list or put at the bottom. He was a good bike racer and did a lot while he was racing but in his later years he was a real loser. He thought nothing of stabbing his business partners in the back, throwing them under the bus and going for the next best deal and he did this more than once.


----------



## hawker12

Really? Take him off the list because all he did was to to be the first American to win the TDF... a total of three times. And while he could have used more finesse in the way he did it, now it appears he was telling the truth all along about Lance and the others. 

Who knows what he would have done if he had not been shot.


----------



## foto

Seems every big start has a what if. What if Hinault didn't hurt his knee, Merckx his back, Lance his balls, Ullrich his ecstasy, etc.


----------



## moonmoth

Yes, that was a good interview. 

Interesting statement on RAAM, too. Way back in the day when LeMond was winning TdF, we used to sit around over beers arguing about who was the better cyclist: LeMond or Haldeman.


----------



## stevesbike

RoadBoy1 said:


> IMO, Greg Lemond should either be taken off the list or put at the bottom. He was a good bike racer and did a lot while he was racing but in his later years he was a real loser. He thought nothing of stabbing his business partners in the back, throwing them under the bus and going for the next best deal and he did this more than once.


you're joking, right? What partners did he throw under the bus, and why do you think Trek settled out of court?


----------



## thechriswebb

Troll perhaps?

Greg Lemond, in his prime, was one of the finest and most talented cyclists in the sport's history. What a horrible shame that he got shot. He could have had a merckx/hinault/coppi type of career. I know that we fan only push the what-ifs so far but I really believe this.


----------



## The Moontrane

thechriswebb said:


> Troll perhaps?
> 
> Greg Lemond, in his prime, was one of the finest and most talented cyclists in the sport's history. What a horrible shame that he got shot. He could have had a merckx/hinault/coppi type of career. I know that we fan only push the what-ifs so far but I really believe this.


Indeed, thechriswebb.


----------



## RoadBoy1

thechriswebb said:


> Troll perhaps?
> 
> Greg Lemond, in his prime, was one of the finest and most talented cyclists in the sport's history. What a horrible shame that he got shot. He could have had a merckx/hinault/coppi type of career. I know that we fan only push the what-ifs so far but I really believe this.


I'm not trying to be a troll as all but Greg Lemond had a history of questionably dealings with his business partners. He had little loyalty to anyone other than himself.

There was the fiasco with Trek but before that he had a deal with Fuji for bikes for a Team and he tried to dump them for what he thought was a better deal in Europe and he got the pants sued off of himself.

All I am saying is yes he did a lot for the sport when he was racing but he didn't exercise the best of judgment and loyalty after he retired from racing. Looking at his career as a whole the latter part tarnished the first part.


----------



## thechriswebb

RoadBoy1 said:


> I'm not trying to be a troll as all but Greg Lemond had a history of questionably dealings with his business partners. He had little loyalty to anyone other than himself.
> 
> There was the fiasco with Trek but before that he had a deal with Fuji for bikes for a Team and he tried to dump them for what he thought was a better deal in Europe and he got the pants sued off of himself.
> 
> All I am saying is yes he did a lot for the sport when he was racing but he didn't exercise the best of judgment and loyalty after he retired from racing. Looking at his career as a whole the latter part tarnished the first part.


Okay. I agree that Lemond can be weird sometimes but we cant dismiss his importance because of it. His talent was beyond extraordinary and he was one of the greatest cyclists ever.


----------



## letitsnow

RoadBoy1 said:


> I'm not trying to be a troll as all but Greg Lemond had a history of questionably dealings with his business partners. He had little loyalty to anyone other than himself.
> 
> There was the fiasco with Trek but before that he had a deal with Fuji for bikes for a Team and he tried to dump them for what he thought was a better deal in Europe and he got the pants sued off of himself.
> 
> All I am saying is yes he did a lot for the sport when he was racing but he didn't exercise the best of judgment and loyalty after he retired from racing. Looking at his career as a whole the latter part tarnished the first part.


I could be way off base, but my impression of LeMond is that with nearly every person or business he dealt with - he either was sued by them, sued them, or calls them cheats. I think that he is an embarassment to US cycling.


----------



## PRB

RoadBoy1 said:


> Looking at his career as a whole the latter part tarnished the first part.


 And I would say that the latter part of his career pales in comparison to the part where he was actually riding.


----------



## burgrat

letitsnow said:


> I could be way off base, but my impression of LeMond is that with nearly every person or business he dealt with - he either was sued by them, sued them, or calls them cheats. *I think that he is an embarassment to US cycling.*


I wouldn't say he's an embarrassment to US cycling. Maybe he's been an embarrassment to himself at times, but he was the first American cycling star on an international level. 
He has had his fair share of involvement in lawsuits, good or bad. I seem to remember him suing Modelo (brakes) back in the early '80s for use of his image in ads in Europe without his permission/compensation. He did approach cycling as a business and he became wealthy as a result. He certainly hasn't been shy about lawyering up at every chance. It's his name and brand, he's doing what he feels he needs to protect his interests. 
As far as LeMond "calling them cheats", we all know who you're referring to. Do you _truly_ believe that he is not telling the truth here?


----------



## letitsnow

burgrat said:


> As far as LeMond "calling them cheats", we all know who you're referring to. Do you _truly_ believe that he is not telling the truth here?


I believe that Lemond tells the truth when it benefits him. I also believe that without any form of cheating, you end up at more of a Tom Danielson level.... :wink5:


----------



## den bakker

letitsnow said:


> I think that he is an embarassment to US cycling.


that's a shocker.

nice shirt btw.


----------



## letitsnow

den bakker said:


> that's a shocker.
> 
> nice shirt btw.


It was all that I had to match my gloves. 

Just for the record - I think LA cheated. I think that most of them did. 

Lemond seems like he'd sue his own mother for a nickel - that is why I think he is an embarrassment. When I think of Lemond, I think of daytime tv, Jerry Springer, Divorce court, etc... 

When I think of LA I think of somebody who stretched the rules that were in place to win races, which is the name of the game in all forms of racing. I could be way off base...


----------



## foto

Why Not? Sue Everybody.


----------



## Chris-X

letitsnow said:


> It was all that I had to match my gloves.
> 
> Just for the record - I think LA cheated. I think that most of them did.
> 
> Lemond seems like he'd sue his own mother for a nickel - that is why I think he is an embarrassment. When I think of Lemond, I think of daytime tv, Jerry Springer, Divorce court, etc...
> 
> When I think of LA I think of somebody who stretched the rules that were in place to win races, which is the name of the game in all forms of racing. * I could be way off base...*



Noooo!:lol:


----------



## thechriswebb

letitsnow said:


> I could be way off base, but my impression of LeMond is that with nearly every person or business he dealt with - he either was sued by them, sued them, or calls them cheats. I think that he is an embarassment to US cycling.




Calling Greg Lemond an embarassment to US cycling seems pretty strong to me. He does have some odd traits but it seems that most of the guys competing at his level do. I can think of one of the great champions that seemed to be a pretty down to earth genuine nice guy and that was Miguel Indurain. People don't really get so excited about him though. 

Anyway, like I said I believe that Lemond was one of the most physically gifted cyclists ever. From what I can tell, he is a very bitter man that feels (probably rightfully) that he was robbed of what could have been one of the greatest careers ever. He could have won the Tour in 85 but didn't because his team deceived him, he missed two tours in 87 and 88 because he got shot and he believes that he started getting dropped in the 90's while still in his prime because everyone else was cheating and he wasn't. The tough part when considering all of his bitterness is that he very well might be right; without all of the misfortune he may have won 10 Grand Tours. He always talks about VO2 max when criticizing cyclists that put on superhuman performances; I'm sure that he does this because he has (I think; could be wrong) the highest VO2 max ever recorded. If he makes the argument that the most analytical way to judge an athletes true athletic capabilities is through that test then he can believe that he should have won all of those tours that he got left behind in. 

Anyway, what I'm getting at is that he is indeed a very very bitter man and it comes out almost every time he opens his mouth. I don't like hearing it from him either but I also don't have to carry the frustration of knowing that I could have been the one that won the TDF seven times and became one of the most celebrated athletes alive. I think he is far from an embarrassment to US cycling.


----------



## RkFast

PRB said:


> That's a very American view. In most years the Giro is a lot more difficult than the Tour; just ask Armstrong what he thought of it the one and only time he rode it. IMHO, a Giro win easily trumps a Tour win....YMMV.
> 
> As far as who should be #1, my vote goes to LeMond as well. He was a more complete all-around rider than Armstrong and had far better competition.
> 
> And a huge *+1* for Major Taylor....I might even rank him #2 on the list.


I dont care if the Giro is three weeks of stages with 30,000 of climbing each.

The TdF is the Super Bowl.

The Giro is like....the AFC Championship. 

Im a Buffalo Bills fan and would happily trade those four AFC rings for ONE Super Bowl.


----------



## foto

at that level, so much comes down to luck. good or bad.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

RoadBoy1 said:


> I'm not trying to be a troll as all but Greg Lemond had a history of questionably dealings with his business partners. He had little loyalty to anyone other than himself.
> 
> *There was the fiasco with Trek* but before that he had a deal with Fuji for bikes for a Team and he tried to dump them for what he thought was a better deal in Europe and he got the pants sued off of himself.
> 
> All I am saying is yes he did a lot for the sport when he was racing but he didn't exercise the best of judgment and loyalty after he retired from racing. Looking at his career as a whole the latter part tarnished the first part.


Fiasco with Trek? 

Are you referring to when Lance told a table full of people that he was going "Call John Burke and **** Greg big time"? 

At Armstrong urging Trek screwed Greg and they ended up paying big for it. Given Greg wide business reach and global activities it is impressive that he has so few legal entanglements....and the few he has he always wins


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

letitsnow said:


> I could be way off base, but my impression of LeMond is that with nearly every person or business he dealt with - he either was sued by them, sued them, or calls them cheats. I think that he is an embarassment to US cycling.


You are way off base

Some forget that Armstrong hired a PR firm to smear Greg. The result is uninformed people say he is bitter and crazy but cannot produce anything that supports this. 

Greg is right, not bitter, not crazy....right


----------



## foto

Doctor Falsetti said:


> You are way off base
> 
> Some forget that Armstrong hired a PR firm to smear Greg. The result is uninformed people say he is bitter and crazy but cannot produce anything that supports this.
> 
> Greg is right, not bitter, not crazy....right


I refuse to believe that. No 30 something who banged an Olsen twin could be that sleazy.


----------



## letitsnow

foto said:


> I refuse to believe that. No 30 something who banged an Olsen twin could be that sleazy.


But you forget... Greg is right - the rest of the world is just out to get him. It's not fair... :mad2:

Why not appreciate what you did accomplish instead of whining about what you could have, if the rest of the world kissed your ass ???


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

letitsnow said:


> But you forget... Greg is right - the rest of the world is just out to get him. It's not fair... :mad2:
> 
> Why not appreciate what you did accomplish instead of whining about what you could have, if the rest of the world kissed your ass ???


Thanks for proving my point, the smear job continues. 

Greg has never asked anyone to kiss his ass. He is not bitter, he does not whine, but he questioned the myth so he must be smeared by the haters


----------



## Chris-X

letitsnow said:


> But you forget... *Greg is right* - the rest of the world is just out to get him. It's not fair... :mad2:


What has he been wrong about?


Armstrong _was_ the cycling world. He and his minions _were_ out to get LeMond.


----------



## letitsnow

We pretty much wrecked this thread... 

Maybe we should ask who the top 10 US cyclists are that don't dope, and aren't nut jobs?


----------



## thechriswebb

Doctor Falsetti said:


> You are way off base
> 
> Some forget that Armstrong hired a PR firm to smear Greg. The result is uninformed people say he is bitter and crazy but cannot produce anything that supports this.
> 
> Greg is right, not bitter, not crazy....right


I think Lemond is bitter. I also think he is right. I try to be balanced with my judgement of his behavior because of the fact that i believe that he is right. The bitterness is there though.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

thechriswebb said:


> I think Lemond is bitter. I also think he is right. I try to be balanced with my judgement of his behavior because of the fact that i believe that he is right. The bitterness is there though.


To understand Greg you have to understand the environment of the sport in the 80’s to understand Greg’s experience.

In the 80’s testing was expanded in the sport. At first the penalties were weak. Often just a time deduction or suspension of a few weeks/months. While there was no OOC testing riders raced far more often and hence were tested often. Given the primitive options at the time most of the previously popular methods could be tested for. This resulted in many positives. There was reason for optimism

The sport reacted to this in different ways. Some, like Paul Koechli, saw an opportunity. Paul saw that doping was a risk if you ran a team. Cortisone ended many careers early. Steroids caused many connective tissue issues. These days you seldom see these issues but back in the 80’s it was common for a star rider to lose an entire seasons to knee or Achilles problems. Paul found that by reducing the number of racing days combined with advanced training methods could result in victory. Heart Rate monitors and even power meters were new to the game and Paul developed training methods still used today. Adrien Van Diem still uses many of the same programs to train VdV, Miller, and many riders today.

Other teams had a different response to this change. Previously doping had largely been a personal effort. This changed in the late 80’s. PDM hired team doctors to run a sophisticated doping programs. The year prior Greg was riding for PDM and he saw the direction they were heading. They attempted to pressure him into using Testosterone. Greg’s response was to negotiate an early end to his two year contract. This was big news in Europe as it confirmed what many in the sport had known for a long time, that Greg rode clean.

Put yourself in Greg’s position. It took a lot of guts to walk away at that point in his career. He thought the sport could go the way of Koechli....he was wrong. Very wrong. The sport became worse then ever. 

The fact is Greg stood up and said what needed to be said. Because of this the dopers and their media people smeared him as bitter. They tried to ruin his life. If you comb though the thousands of interviews Greg has done it is hard to find this bitter man people speak of, it is a myth.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

letitsnow said:


> We pretty much wrecked this thread...
> 
> Maybe we should ask who the top 10 US cyclists are that don't dope, and aren't nut jobs?


1. Greg LeMond
2. Andy Hampsten
3. Roy Knickman
4. Steve Tilford


and a bunch of guys you never heard of because the Carmichel/Wensel U23 program filtered out the guys who would not take the shot


----------



## PRB

RkFast said:


> I dont care if the Giro is three weeks of stages with 30,000 of climbing each.
> 
> The TdF is the Super Bowl.
> 
> The Giro is like....the AFC Championship.
> 
> Im a Buffalo Bills fan and would happily trade those four AFC rings for ONE Super Bowl.


The key word there is "I". You don't rate the Giro higher and I do, simple as that. 

As for the Super Bowl, I haven't watched one in the last 20 years so that works for me. The only reason I follow the TdF any more is to see how badly the Schleck brothers screw up.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

RkFast said:


> The TdF is the Super Bowl.
> 
> The Giro is like....the AFC Championship.


Good analogy. The Superbowl is the game watched mostly by people who don't follow the sport and watch one game a year.....the AFC Championships is watched by the real fan. The one that lives and dies by the result of the game. 

I have been to multiple Tours and Giros. Italy in May is a wonderful thing, It is hard to find more passionate, informed fans outside of Belgium


----------



## burgrat

letitsnow said:


> Just for the record - I think LA cheated. I think that most of them did.
> 
> Lemond seems like he'd sue his own mother for a nickel - that is why I think he is an embarrassment. When I think of Lemond, I think of daytime tv, Jerry Springer, Divorce court, etc...
> 
> When I think of LA I think of somebody who stretched the rules that were in place to win races, which is the name of the game in all forms of racing. I could be way off base...


The problem with cheating/doping in cycling is that it no longer becomes a level playing field _even if they are all doping_, as there will be different levels of doping, different responses to different methods and products, and there is also the possibility paying off officials. At that point it is no longer competition of who's the best athlete, but more like who's the best at gaming the system. I like to see awesome performances as much as the next guy, but when you can no longer believe that there is a true competition, it loses all meaning, at least to me. You might as well be watching professional wrestling.

As far as LeMond goes, I do believe he is somewhat bitter. I do also believe that is an honest man and that he is right. It's funny that you mention he would sue his mother. I do believe that he had a falling out with his father, in the past, regarding LeMond Bicycles management before they were involved with Trek. I think that involved some lawyers. I light of some information that came out of the Landis trial, who knows what he went through growing up in that family. It's way too easy to judge from the outside.


----------



## velodog

Doctor Falsetti said:


> Good analogy. The Superbowl is the game watched mostly by people who don't follow the sport and watch one game a year.....the AFC Championships is watched by the real fan. The one that lives and dies by the result of the game.
> 
> I have been to multiple Tours and Giros. Italy in May is a wonderful thing, It is hard to find more passionate, informed fans outside of Belgium


I have not been to Italy or France to see the races but, Yeah, what he said.


----------



## burgrat

Doctor Falsetti said:


> 1. Greg LeMond
> 2. Andy Hampsten
> *3. Roy Knickman*
> 4. Steve Tilford


What ever happened to Roy Knickman? In his book, Eddie B. talked that guy up like he was going to become the next Merckx. I don't recall him winning much, if anything at all. Is he still involved with cycling in some way?


----------



## letitsnow

burgrat said:


> The problem with cheating/doping in cycling is that it no longer becomes a level playing field _even if they are all doping_, as there will be different levels of doping, different responses to different methods and products, and there is also the possibility paying off officials. At that point it is no longer competition of who's the best athlete, but more like who's the best at gaming the system. I like to see awesome performances as much as the next guy, but when you can no longer believe that there is a true competition, it loses all meaning, at least to me. You might as well be watching professional wrestling.
> 
> As far as LeMond goes, I do believe he is somewhat bitter. I do also believe that is an honest man and that he is right. It's funny that you mention he would sue his mother. I do believe that he had a falling out with his father, in the past, regarding LeMond Bicycles management before they were involved with Trek. I think that involved some lawyers. I light of some information that came out of the Landis trial, who knows what he went through growing up in that family. It's way too easy to judge from the outside.


I am all for clean cycling! I started supporting Livestrong back in '07 when my mom died of cancer (at 63). I like cycling and don't like cancer - seemed like a good fit. 

I hate people that sue everybody.

Go Tommy D!!!


----------



## velodog

burgrat said:


> What ever happened to Roy Knickman? In his book, Eddie B. talked that guy up like he was going to become the next Merckx. I don't recall him winning much, if anything at all. Is he still involved with cycling in some way?




www.cyclingnews.com news and analysis


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

letitsnow said:


> I am all for clean cycling! I started supporting Livestrong back in '07 when my mom died of cancer (at 63). I like cycling and don't like cancer - seemed like a good fit.
> 
> *I hate people that sue everybody.*
> 
> Go Tommy D!!!


You must hate Armstrong, his legal entanglements are far, far, more then Greg's..... Anderson. Simeoni, Walsh, Ballester, SCA, Pearl Izumi, L'equipe,...the list is endless


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

burgrat said:


> What ever happened to Roy Knickman? In his book, Eddie B. talked that guy up like he was going to become the next Merckx. I don't recall him winning much, if anything at all. Is he still involved with cycling in some way?


Roy is now a fireman. He still keeps in shape. A few years ago he started running 2-3 times a week and did a 1:25 1/2 marathon. Not bad for a 45 year old guy jogging with friends

He is doing well but had some heavy family stuff to deal with. His son has a series of medical issues, cancer being the main one. He has fought hard and as I understand he is doing better.


----------



## Chris-X

burgrat said:


> What ever happened to Roy Knickman? In his book, Eddie B. talked that guy up like he was going to become the next Merckx. I don't recall him winning much, if anything at all. Is he still involved with cycling in some way?


LATEST NEWS: FOR YEARS ROY KNICKMAN WAS AN AMERICAN RACING ICON

Bicycle Retailer and Industry News


----------



## thechriswebb

Doctor Falsetti said:


> To understand Greg you have to understand the environment of the sport in the 80’s to understand Greg’s experience.
> 
> In the 80’s testing was expanded in the sport. At first the penalties were weak. Often just a time deduction or suspension of a few weeks/months. While there was no OOC testing riders raced far more often and hence were tested often. Given the primitive options at the time most of the previously popular methods could be tested for. This resulted in many positives. There was reason for optimism
> 
> The sport reacted to this in different ways. Some, like Paul Koechli, saw an opportunity. Paul saw that doping was a risk if you ran a team. Cortisone ended many careers early. Steroids caused many connective tissue issues. These days you seldom see these issues but back in the 80’s it was common for a star rider to lose an entire seasons to knee or Achilles problems. Paul found that by reducing the number of racing days combined with advanced training methods could result in victory. Heart Rate monitors and even power meters were new to the game and Paul developed training methods still used today. Adrien Van Diem still uses many of the same programs to train VdV, Miller, and many riders today.
> 
> Other teams had a different response to this change. Previously doping had largely been a personal effort. This changed in the late 80’s. PDM hired team doctors to run a sophisticated doping programs. The year prior Greg was riding for PDM and he saw the direction they were heading. They attempted to pressure him into using Testosterone. Greg’s response was to negotiate an early end to his two year contract. This was big news in Europe as it confirmed what many in the sport had known for a long time, that Greg rode clean.
> 
> Put yourself in Greg’s position. It took a lot of guts to walk away at that point in his career. He thought the sport could go the way of Koechli....he was wrong. Very wrong. The sport became worse then ever.
> 
> The fact is Greg stood up and said what needed to be said. Because of this the dopers and their media people smeared him as bitter. They tried to ruin his life. If you comb though the thousands of interviews Greg has done it is hard to find this bitter man people speak of, it is a myth.



I'm not sure if you understand that i do agree with you. All of the things that you are talking about here are the reasons that I am patient with Lemond when I think that he is acting out of bitterness.


----------



## orange_julius

Doctor Falsetti said:


> Good analogy. The Superbowl is the game watched mostly by people who don't follow the sport and watch one game a year.....the AFC Championships is watched by the real fan. The one that lives and dies by the result of the game.
> 
> I have been to multiple Tours and Giros. Italy in May is a wonderful thing, It is hard to find more passionate, informed fans outside of Belgium


And most people who turn on their TV during Superbowl do so not necessarily to watch the game, but rather to have a party, drink beer, and watch the ads ;-).


----------



## spade2you

thechriswebb said:


> I'm not sure if you understand that i do agree with you. All of the things that you are talking about here are the reasons that I am patient with Lemond when I think that he is acting out of bitterness.


Right or wrong, he has always been on the bitter side.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

spade2you said:


> Right or wrong, he has always been on the bitter side.


Any examples or are you just saying this because he dared question the myth?

Greg was involved with the sport for two decades before the "Bitter" word became associated with his name. Funny how nobody noticed his supposed bitterness until he said



> 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


Yeah, real bitter. He expressed what most in the sport felt when they heard Lance was working with Ferrari


----------



## spade2you

Doctor Falsetti said:


> Any examples or are you just saying this because he dared question the myth?


Nope. Entirely a myth. He was never interviewed and didn't cop an attitude. 

Hell, the second he wasn't winning in 1991 he started to show signs of that. However, he was an elite athlete and you simply don't get there by having a happy go lucky persona.


----------



## PDex

Doctor Falsetti said:


> Roy is now a fireman. He still keeps in shape. A few years ago he started running 2-3 times a week and did a 1:25 1/2 marathon. Not bad for a 45 year old guy jogging with friends
> 
> He is doing well but had some heavy family stuff to deal with. His son has a series of medical issues, cancer being the main one. He has fought hard and as I understand he is doing better.


His son Bo is racing Juniors.


----------



## velodog

orange_julius said:


> And most people who turn on their TV during Superbowl do so not necessarily to watch the game, but rather to have a party, drink beer, and watch the ads ;-).


Again I gotta agree

TdF=Superbowl=Commercial Enterprise


----------



## Chris-X

thechriswebb said:


> I'm not sure if you understand that i do agree with you. All of the things that you are talking about here are the reasons that I am patient with Lemond when I think that he is acting out of bitterness.


This "bitterness" tag is somewhat akin to the, "you're negative" slam that women often use.

Just how powerful IS positive thinking? - CBS News

LeMond is an expert in every single aspect of cycling and cycling training. The guy has been in the vanguard of most of the meaningful, legitimate, developments that have influenced the sport to this day. This is in addition to being a legendary figure in the sport for being a champion.

As a man of some importance in sporting circles, don't you believe that he and his opinion, in a sport in which he is an expert, deserve some respect and deference? 

His 100% accurate statements on these matters were met with personal attacks, attempted blackmail/extortion/witness tampering, character assassination, criminal accusation, business sabotage, and general recriminations from the peanut gallery on the internets. All of this done very publicly.

None of LeMond's accusations were addressed on the merits of those accusations. The response to LeMond's accusations were lies and threats.

All in all I think LeMond handled himself in an exemplary manner.


----------



## thechriswebb

Chris-X said:


> This "bitterness" tag is somewhat akin to the, "you're negative" slam that women often use.
> 
> Just how powerful IS positive thinking? - CBS News
> 
> LeMond is an expert in every single aspect of cycling and cycling training. The guy has been in the vanguard of most of the meaningful, legitimate, developments that have influenced the sport to this day. This is in addition to being a legendary figure in the sport for being a champion.
> 
> As a man of some importance in sporting circles, don't you believe that he and his opinion, in a sport in which he is an expert, deserve some respect and deference?
> 
> His 100% accurate statements on these matters were met with personal attacks, attempted blackmail/extortion/witness tampering, character assassination, criminal accusation, business sabotage, and general recriminations from the peanut gallery on the internets. All of this done very publicly.
> 
> None of LeMond's accusations were addressed on the merits of those accusations. The response to LeMond's accusations were lies and threats.
> 
> All in all I think LeMond handled himself in an exemplary manner.



To be clear, you did understand that I believe that Lemond is right and that I don't hold his attitude against him.


----------



## Chris-X

thechriswebb said:


> To be clear, you did understand that I believe that Lemond is right and that I don't hold his attitude against him.


I understand that you persist in labeling him "bitter." Not, "justifiably angry." You do understand that "bitter" is a pejorative term and puts the onus for the bs that's happened to him on him????

By labeling him bitter you are holding his "attitude" against him...


----------



## thechriswebb

Chris-X said:


> I understand that you persist in labeling him "bitter." Not, "justifiably angry." You do understand that "bitter" is a pejorative term and puts the onus for the bs that's happened to him on him????
> 
> By labeling him bitter you are holding his "attitude" against him...


I do think he is bitter. Just because I agree with him doesn't mean that I'm going to be blind to what I perceive his feelings to be. Maybe I don't see the word bitter as pejorative or as polarizing as you do. Anyway, let's drop it. This is getting silly. I'm a Lemond fan. I believe what he says and I think he got screwed over several times. I think he's justifiably angry.


----------



## Chris-X

thechriswebb said:


> I do think he is bitter. Just because I agree with him doesn't mean that I'm going to be blind to what I perceive his feelings to be. Maybe I don't see the word bitter as pejorative or as polarizing as you do. Anyway, let's drop it. This is getting silly. I'm a Lemond fan. I believe what he says and I think he got screwed over several times. I think he's justifiably angry.



Greg LeMond says probe could ‘end’ Lance Armstrong

Some fans claim LeMond is bitter because Armstrong went on to surpass his record for an American on the race, but he has not limited his queries to Armstrong. Last year he questioned whether Spain’s reigning champion, Alberto Contador, was riding clean.

LeMond said he has taken no particular enjoyment from seeing Armstrong suffer on what has been a disastrous farewell campaign.​

This "bitter" thing has been an Armstrong talking point since 2001 and he posited that as LeMond's motivation for making the original statements about LA and Ferrari.

It's just bs that Armstrong threw out there which was lapped up and repeated by the idolaters.

I don't know why you're using Armstrong talking points if you support LeMond, that's all.


----------



## letitsnow

I'm starting to think that 3-4 of you are Greg lemond, using different screen names...


----------



## thechriswebb

Chris-X said:


> Greg LeMond says probe could ‘end’ Lance Armstrong
> 
> Some fans claim LeMond is bitter because Armstrong went on to surpass his record for an American on the race, but he has not limited his queries to Armstrong. Last year he questioned whether Spain’s reigning champion, Alberto Contador, was riding clean.
> 
> LeMond said he has taken no particular enjoyment from seeing Armstrong suffer on what has been a disastrous farewell campaign.​
> 
> This "bitter" thing has been an Armstrong talking point since 2001 and he posited that as LeMond's motivation for making the original statements about LA and Ferrari.
> 
> It's just bs that Armstrong threw out there which was lapped up and repeated by the idolaters.
> 
> I don't know why you're using Armstrong talking points if you support LeMond, that's all.



Well, I was speaking from my own observations that have nothing to do with Lance Armstrong talking points. I'm also not as polarized on this issue as some. I have my opinions but I'm not prepared to jump into one camp or the other and take up arms in allegiance to one rider. I'm a Greg Lemond fan but as such I don't think I have to get involved with the war and the ad nauseum bickering that takes place particularly in the forum this thread got moved to. Like I said, let's move on; I believe what Greg says and I think that he has justifiable reason to be upset. I'm sorry that I used the wrong word to express that.


----------



## Chris-X

*But you keep*



thechriswebb said:


> Well, I was speaking from my own observations that have nothing to do with Lance Armstrong talking points. I'm also not as polarized on this issue as some. I have my opinions but I'm not prepared to jump into one camp or the other and take up arms in allegiance to one rider. I'm a Greg Lemond fan but as such I don't think I have to get involved with the war and the ad nauseum bickering that takes place particularly in the forum this thread got moved to. Like I said, let's move on; I believe what Greg says and I think that he has justifiable reason to be upset. I'm sorry that I used the wrong word to express that.


perpetuating nonsense and your own observations just happen to coincide with Armstrong talking points which are based on lies.

It's funny that everyone has 'their own observations' based on what? Articles that have come out subsequent to questioning LA? Personally knowing LeMond? Not once have I heard a person who's met him describe him as bitter..

When one person is a criminal, and another person has insight into that criminality and reveals it to the public there is going to be polarization to some degree. Armstrong is the one who has increased the polarization with his actions.

Armstrong is the complete source of the "bickering." If he drops his fraudulent defense, the issue is closed, cycling moves on, and therefore we don't talk about this issue anymore as if it's unresolved.

Your opinions are contradictory to the facts of the matter and align with the unfounded nonsense Armstrong spews to defend himself..

Armstrong gets to skate if he wears everyone down with his idiotic counter attacks against LeMond and gets the "bitter" "hater" label to stick to his accusers.

Evidently you don't realize that his" bitter" PR campaign against his accusers is a main part of his defense.

'Why are we wasting tax dollars on a witch hunt created by bitter haters? Let's all move on.'

If you're getting sick of the "bickering" you can always back out of it and move on yourself.


----------



## thechriswebb

Chris-X said:


> perpetuating nonsense and your own observations just happen to coincide with Armstrong talking points which are based on lies.
> 
> 
> 
> Your opinions are contradictory to the facts of the matter and align with the unfounded nonsense Armstrong spews to defend himself..
> 
> 
> 
> If you're getting sick of the "bickering" you can always back out of it and move on yourself.



I believe I will back out. I have agreed with everything you have said with the exception of using a word that you didn't like and I later dropped that word to clarify how I felt and you are still accusing me of "perpetuating nonsense"  I have maintained no investment in Lance Armstrong propaganda and my posts have had nothing to do with Lance Armstrong with the exception of your extrapolations on my use of one word that I later clarified. My first post about Greg Lemond in this discussion was to defend him from an argument that he was a loser and I argued that he was one of the finest cyclists in history. I tried to have a mature discussion with you and you persistently insisted on dragging friggin Lance Armstrong back into this discussion to accuse me of things that I do not identify with and have not identified with in this thread. It seems that some do not wish to talk about anything except for how awful Lance Armstrong is, even to the point of ruining a thread that I was enjoying that was intended to discuss a top-ten list of American cyclists.  Your negative reputation rating is making sense to me now.

I will withdraw from this conversation and absolutely ruined thread unless the unlikely event occurs that conversation returns to discussion of the top 10 American cyclists. Have a nice day.


----------



## Chris-X

*Nice try!*



thechriswebb said:


> I believe I will back out. I have agreed with everything you have said with the exception of using a word that you didn't like and I later dropped that word to clarify how I felt and you are still accusing me of "perpetuating nonsense"  I have maintained no investment in Lance Armstrong propaganda and my posts have had nothing to do with Lance Armstrong with the exception of your extrapolations on my use of one word that I later clarified. My first post about Greg Lemond in this discussion was to defend him from an argument that he was a loser and I argued that he was one of the finest cyclists in history. I tried to have a mature discussion with you and you persistently insisted on dragging friggin Lance Armstrong back into this discussion to accuse me of things that I do not identify with and have not identified with in this thread. It seems that some do not wish to talk about anything except for how awful Lance Armstrong is, even to the point of ruining a thread that I was enjoying that was intended to discuss a top-ten list of American cyclists.  Your negative reputation rating is making sense to me now.
> 
> I will withdraw from this conversation and absolutely ruined thread unless the unlikely event occurs that conversation returns to discussion of the top 10 American cyclists. Have a nice day.


You're sticking to the original topic? Where does the personality of the rider come into play with their physical performance. From where does your "observation" of this particular rider arise? 


Doping does come into play with a riders physical performance, and in a game changing manner.

FYI, there is a reason this topic got moved to the doping forum...The reason is that the guy who sits atop the poll is under a gigantic cloud which would change everything.

Unfortunately you don't realize that the reason this thread was ruined and the reason this thread is in the doping forum are one and the same.

Any ranking that contains Lance Armstrong as the greatest American cyclist is virtually meaningless.

Until the sport comes out with a Truth and Reconciliation time period, the competition is a joke. It's odd how people like JV can't understand this.

edit, 

What you completely miss with your "mature" argument, is that your "mature" argument is very similiar to the strategy Armstrong employs. With stuff like this; "Your negative reputation rating is making sense to me now."

All I do is stand my ground and people like you can't retract what they have said or written unconditionally, even when they are shown to be wrong. I'm just more persistent than you but this makes you "mature" and me...what?

Introduce lies or unfounded accusations, and then when the subject of those lies objects and persists in setting the record straight, attack the subject of the unfounded accusation as somehow mentally/psychologically unbalanced, or bitter.

You have persistently insisted on bringing psychological evaluations of LeMond into the discussion WHICH HAVE ABSOLUTELY NO BEARING ON THE OP.

Whether or not you realize it, these psychological evaluations have been spawned by Armstrong. There is no evidence whatsoever to backup your "observations."

But if enough people make these "observations" and other people make concessions to them, they're somehow true!


----------



## Chris-X

*God help us!*



moonmoth said:


> Non-scientific, heavily weighted toward Euro road racing, and GT's in particular, and then podiums. Who am I missing?
> 
> Lance Armstrong
> Greg LeMond
> Andy Hampsten
> Levi Leipheimer
> Bobby Julich (#3 1998 TdF)
> Tyler Farrar (Stage wins in all 3 GTs)
> George Hincapie (15 TdF finishes, many top 10 classics)
> Tyler Hamilton (#2 2002 Giro, Liège–Bastogne–Liège winner)
> Tom Danielson (3 GT top 10 finishes)
> Christian Vande Velde (#4 2008 TdF)
> 
> Honorable mentions: Davis Phinney, Ron Kiefel, Chris Horner, Scott Moninger
> 
> You can't discuss the d-word here but you can post your own list if you think someone doesn't belong.


At least, and that's being charitable, 5 of these guys were jacked....


----------



## hawker12

Chris-X said:


> At least, and that's being charitable, 5 of these guys were jacked....


That's a reasonable assessment.


----------



## Chris-X

hawker12 said:


> That's a reasonable assessment.


Yo! You don't count, you have the red square!


----------



## thechriswebb

Chris-X said:


> All I do is stand my ground and people like you can't retract what they have said or written unconditionally, even when they are shown to be wrong.



I don't tend to agree unconditionally with people about things. I guess that is the only thing that would satisfy you though. Sorry, I can't help you there. 



Chris-X said:


> I'm just more persistent than you but this makes you "mature" and me...what?


I don't know? Maybe you're better at life than me. 



Chris-X said:


> Whether or not you realize it, these psychological evaluations have been spawned by Armstrong. There is no evidence whatsoever to backup your "observations."


I didn't know that Armstrong had that much power. He's spawning observations in my head without my knowledge or consent! 



I'm a major Greg Lemond fan; I think he was one of the greatest cyclists ever. 

My all time favorite cycling picture:


----------



## foto

I like this "cycling pic". A classier rider, too.










A couple more via the internets. This guy is a God. My favorite rider when I was a kid.


----------



## Chris-X

thechriswebb said:


> I don't tend to agree unconditionally with people about things. I guess that is the only thing that would satisfy you though. Sorry, I can't help you there.


So it's a quid pro quo? You can't help me? I think you mean you can't admit when you're wrong.




thechriswebb said:


> I don't know? Maybe you're better at life than me.


Getting a little hysterical here are you? One thing I don't do is argue with people when they've conclusively shown I was wrong or uninformed.




thechriswebb said:


> I didn't know that Armstrong had that much power. He's spawning observations in my head without my knowledge or consent! .


Money buys a lot of power to run smear campaigns. Where did you get the idea LeMond is bitter? It's a very simple question. You got the idea somewhere. Defending yourself against a smear campaign directed by a very powerful person makes one bitter?

Did you think LeMond was bitter in 1995-1998? '99? 2000? Maybe 2001?:idea:

Part of the smear campaign was to depict all of Armstrong's accusers as bitter haters. It got so ridiculous that jokes were even made that if you said anything about LA you loved cancer and hated excellence and winners. I think Swift Solo just recently advanced the 'hate excellence and winning' sentiment on the doping forum.




thechriswebb said:


> I'm a major Greg Lemond fan; I think he was one of the greatest cyclists ever.


What would LeMond think about "fans" like you who concede that he's "weird sometimes," has "odd traits," is a "very bitter man," but that you are "patient with Lemond when I (you) think that he is acting out of bitterness." 

I'll bet that LeMond would be appreciative that you "don't hold his attitude against him."


----------



## thechriswebb

Chris-X said:


> Getting a little hysterical here are you?
> 
> I'll bet that LeMond would be appreciative that you "don't hold his attitude against him."



Nah, not hysterical at all. The "better at life" comment was tongue in cheek. I'm okay with being wrong if I need to be. This isn't that big of a deal to me. You are absolutely 100% right about everything you said and greatly more informed than me and one of the ones who has managed to rise above the deception of the myth. You have helped me to learn that unknown to me the wealth and power of lance Armstrong has affected my thinking and planted false ideas in my mind that I have unintentionally been perpetuating. I will work very hard to purge my mind of these things; please be patient with me. It will take some time to sort through my thoughts and figure out which thoughts are my own and which ones were planted by lance. I thought I was a Greg Lemond fan but i was wrong and will work hard to become as dedicated of a fan as you are. I unconditionally surrender and withdraw any claim to anything in this matter that you do not agree with in respect of your superior persistence and ability to teach me things about myself I didn't even know. You are the winner and I am not. Congratulations! :thumbsup:


----------



## thechriswebb

By the way, I'm sorry about the reputation comment. I was not there when you got your red square and it is none of my business.


----------



## Chris-X

thechriswebb said:


> Nah, not hysterical at all. The "better at life" comment was tongue in cheek. I'm okay with being wrong if I need to be. This isn't that big of a deal to me. You are absolutely 100% right about everything you said and greatly more informed than me and one of the ones who has managed to rise above the deception of the myth. You have helped me to learn that unknown to me the wealth and power of lance Armstrong has affected my thinking and planted false ideas in my mind that I have unintentionally been perpetuating. I will work very hard to purge my mind of these things; please be patient with me. It will take some time to sort through my thoughts and figure out which thoughts are my own and which ones were planted by lance. I thought I was a Greg Lemond fan but i was wrong and will work hard to become as dedicated of a fan as you are. I unconditionally surrender and withdraw any claim to anything in this matter that you do not agree with in respect of your superior persistence and ability to teach me things about myself I didn't even know. You are the winner and I am not. Congratulations! :thumbsup:


Forget all that!

Why do you think LeMond is bitter? I didn't know he was.

And BTW, to stay on topic. I think we can all agree that Armstrong ranks at or near the top of the list as the greatest fraud in sports history and should not be at the top of the OP's list.


----------



## thechriswebb

Chris-X said:


> Forget all that!
> 
> Why do you think LeMond is bitter? I didn't know he was.
> 
> And BTW, to stay on topic. I think we can all agree that Armstrong ranks at or near the top of the list as the greatest fraud in sports history and should not be at the top of the OP's list.


Okay:

First: I think Lance probably cheated and I don't believe that I am subject to his manipulation.

Second: People have different ways of looking at things. There are those who would rank Armstrong on a top ten list because of, if nothing else, the attention that he brought to the sport and the fact that he got Americans excited about cycling and facilitated the creation of events like the US Pro Cycling Challenge, which is an extraordinary event that brought the biggest European names to compete in the US and had an 80 million dollar economic impact on Colorado and put more pro cycling on televisions in the United States. Whether or not people agree that Lance cheated, I can understand somebody having some appreciation for him in that regard even if they despise him as a person. That is a different way that some people evaluate things that is not the way that you evaluate things. The way that you see this is right for you but for a person who thinks that the attention that Lance brought to the sport outweighs the cleanliness of his competition, that is the perspective that is right for them. You will never be able to change the mind of a person that sees things that way and because their system of evaluating things is different from yours, you aren't going to be able to agree with them because you are utilizing a different set of criteria for your evaluation process. You are judging two separate things and a top ten list of greatest American cyclists is a subjective matter that people will quantify in different way. You are therefore essentially answering a different question than other people, such as the OP, are asking. You can be angry at people for using the criteria for their evaluation that they are because you have an ethical disagreement with the criteria involved but that doesn't change the fact that other people evaluate this question a different way than you do. If this were a discussion of whether or not Lance cheated, this would be a different matter. There are other threads in this forum dedicated to that and this argument would be more relevant there. The OP offers a top ten list by their criteria and in response you could present your own top ten list and state that to you, the top ten American cyclists are _these_ people who did not cheat and because your criteria dictates that a cheater has no place on the list, your list does not include Lance Armstrong. As strong as your feelings are on the matter, the definition of someone as the _greatest_ is a subjective matter and people will come to different conclusions by their own methods. There isn't an official rule book somewhere than outlines what they exact way that _greatest_ is defined in this context. As deeply as you want your method to be the only way to look at it, it simply is not.

Third: My statement that Greg Lemond is "bitter" is subjective and does not impact my view of him as a cyclist at all. Do recall that I made that argument before you and I started going back and forth on this. I developed this view watching interactions between Greg and Lance and statements that Greg made about Lance. Do note please that I did not "take Lance's side" in those interactions. Frankly, I thought Lance acted like an A-hole in them. The "bitterness" was something that I observed subjectively and could be wrong. This evaluation was impacted by personal experience and detecting emotions and behaviors from Greg that I have produced myself in a similar situation. When I was in the military I was shot and nearly killed in a horrible battle in Afghanistan. The way that we got into this fight was a horrible debacle and I fought desperately to save my own life and the lives of my comrades. After the fight, several of my fellow soldiers approached me to tell me that they thought I was a hero and had saved their lives. For a short time, I received a lot of attention from this and was treated like a great hero. While I was recuperating in the hospital, there was a sergeant that was in charge of me who was about to get into hot water because the stories coming from the battlefield were implicating him for inappropriate decision making and responsibility for the fight being worse than it needed to be, as well as putting me in the situation where I was nearly killed and had to fight an outnumbering group of Taliban fighters by myself while he and others escaped. Fearing for his career, he launched a smear campaign against me because he wanted to deface me and keep himself out of the trouble that he was about to get into. Consider that immediately after this fight this person was emotional and profusely thanked me for saving his life. When I got out of the hospital I returned to my unit expecting to be embraced by my friends and rather discovered to my dismay that everyone hated me and I had no idea why. Shortly afterword, there was an award ceremony where this sergeant was grandly decorated for his actions in that fight. When they read the description of the fight during his presentation, the story was completely false and manipulated to rearrange the events of the fight so that he looked like the hero. I don't know if you have ever been in the military but the fact is that no matter what happened on the battlefield, he outranked me and superiors will ALWAYS believe the ranking soldier if his word goes against someone else's, even if their are other people that are trying to validate the lower ranking soldier's story (if those people are outranked by him too). When this happened, I became terribly overwhelmingly _bitter_. I was right, he was a lying cheating crook, and my anger was absolutely justified. However, for a time I became so single-mindedly obsessed with the corruption and lies of this sergeant that it consumed me and caused me to become a negative and emotionally damaged person. Regardless of the fact that I was absolutely right, there was a time that I needed to lighten up and get on with my life because this event was starting to dominate every conversation that I entered with people and I was beginning to be perceived as a bitter crackpot that was pissed off because this sergeant got decorated, I didn't, and everybody forgot about my bravery in that battle that saved lives. This sergeant outranked me and the decorations from this battle caused him to outrank me more and his power became so absolute that there was nothing I could do but suffer under than smear campaign that he launched against me. In time though, I made the right choice and started therapy and attacked this issue internally so that I could get on with my life and be able to talk to people without talking about what a lying criminal that sergeant was. 

When I see Greg Lemond speak to and about Lance, I see the same emotions in his eyes and I hear the same singularly obsessed words coming out of his mouth that came from me when my absolutely justified anger about the incident consumed me and took control over my life. If I were called to testify in court, of course I would tell the truth and contribute my part to have justice be served and have this character put in his place. I've mostly moved on though and I can say with fair certainty that I think I could encounter this person and speak briefly and cordially with him without launching into my speech about how he lied and got awards that he doesn't deserve. For me, that is a victory and I am better for it. My view of Lemond in this situation is thus subjective and due to me seeing his behavior in this situation as similar to mine in my ordeal. As always, I volunteer that I could be absolutely wrong. 

I hope this clears up why I feel the way that I do. :thumbsup:


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

foto said:


> I like this "cycling pic". A classier rider, too.


Tomac! absolutely. The guy did everything on a bike. Road, Cross, Mtn


----------



## Chris-X

*I'm really pondering this....*



thechriswebb said:


> Okay:
> 
> First: I think Lance probably cheated and I don't believe that I am subject to his manipulation.
> 
> Second: People have different ways of looking at things. There are those who would rank Armstrong on a top ten list because of, if nothing else, the attention that he brought to the sport and the fact that he got Americans excited about cycling and facilitated the creation of events like the US Pro Cycling Challenge, which is an extraordinary event that brought the biggest European names to compete in the US and had an 80 million dollar economic impact on Colorado and put more pro cycling on televisions in the United States. Whether or not people agree that Lance cheated, I can understand somebody having some appreciation for him in that regard even if they despise him as a person. That is a different way that some people evaluate things that is not the way that you evaluate things. The way that you see this is right for you but for a person who thinks that the attention that Lance brought to the sport outweighs the cleanliness of his competition, that is the perspective that is right for them. You will never be able to change the mind of a person that sees things that way and because their system of evaluating things is different from yours, you aren't going to be able to agree with them because you are utilizing a different set of criteria for your evaluation process. You are judging two separate things and a top ten list of greatest American cyclists is a subjective matter that people will quantify in different way. You are therefore essentially answering a different question than other people, such as the OP, are asking. You can be angry at people for using the criteria for their evaluation that they are because you have an ethical disagreement with the criteria involved but that doesn't change the fact that other people evaluate this question a different way than you do. If this were a discussion of whether or not Lance cheated, this would be a different matter. There are other threads in this forum dedicated to that and this argument would be more relevant there. The OP offers a top ten list by their criteria and in response you could present your own top ten list and state that to you, the top ten American cyclists are _these_ people who did not cheat and because your criteria dictates that a cheater has no place on the list, your list does not include Lance Armstrong. As strong as your feelings are on the matter, the definition of someone as the _greatest_ is a subjective matter and people will come to different conclusions by their own methods. There isn't an official rule book somewhere than outlines what they exact way that _greatest_ is defined in this context. As deeply as you want your method to be the only way to look at it, it simply is not.
> 
> Third: My statement that Greg Lemond is "bitter" is subjective and does not impact my view of him as a cyclist at all. Do recall that I made that argument before you and I started going back and forth on this. I developed this view watching interactions between Greg and Lance and statements that Greg made about Lance. Do note please that I did not "take Lance's side" in those interactions. Frankly, I thought Lance acted like an A-hole in them. The "bitterness" was something that I observed subjectively and could be wrong. This evaluation was impacted by personal experience and detecting emotions and behaviors from Greg that I have produced myself in a similar situation. When I was in the military I was shot and nearly killed in a horrible battle in Afghanistan. The way that we got into this fight was a horrible debacle and I fought desperately to save my own life and the lives of my comrades. After the fight, several of my fellow soldiers approached me to tell me that they thought I was a hero and had saved their lives. For a short time, I received a lot of attention from this and was treated like a great hero. While I was recuperating in the hospital, there was a sergeant that was in charge of me who was about to get into hot water because the stories coming from the battlefield were implicating him for inappropriate decision making and responsibility for the fight being worse than it needed to be, as well as putting me in the situation where I was nearly killed and had to fight an outnumbering group of Taliban fighters by myself while he and others escaped. Fearing for his career, he launched a smear campaign against me because he wanted to deface me and keep himself out of the trouble that he was about to get into. Consider that immediately after this fight this person was emotional and profusely thanked me for saving his life. When I got out of the hospital I returned to my unit expecting to be embraced by my friends and rather discovered to my dismay that everyone hated me and I had no idea why. Shortly afterword, there was an award ceremony where this sergeant was grandly decorated for his actions in that fight. When they read the description of the fight during his presentation, the story was completely false and manipulated to rearrange the events of the fight so that he looked like the hero. I don't know if you have ever been in the military but the fact is that no matter what happened on the battlefield, he outranked me and superiors will ALWAYS believe the ranking soldier if his word goes against someone else's, even if their are other people that are trying to validate the lower ranking soldier's story (if those people are outranked by him too). When this happened, I became terribly overwhelmingly _bitter_. I was right, he was a lying cheating crook, and my anger was absolutely justified. However, for a time I became so single-mindedly obsessed with the corruption and lies of this sergeant that it consumed me and caused me to become a negative and emotionally damaged person. Regardless of the fact that I was absolutely right, there was a time that I needed to lighten up and get on with my life because this event was starting to dominate every conversation that I entered with people and I was beginning to be perceived as a bitter crackpot that was pissed off because this sergeant got decorated, I didn't, and everybody forgot about my bravery in that battle that saved lives. This sergeant outranked me and the decorations from this battle caused him to outrank me more and his power became so absolute that there was nothing I could do but suffer under than smear campaign that he launched against me. In time though, I made the right choice and started therapy and attacked this issue internally so that I could get on with my life and be able to talk to people without talking about what a lying criminal that sergeant was.
> 
> When I see Greg Lemond speak to and about Lance, I see the same emotions in his eyes and I hear the same singularly obsessed words coming out of his mouth that came from me when my absolutely justified anger about the incident consumed me and took control over my life. If I were called to testify in court, of course I would tell the truth and contribute my part to have justice be served and have this character put in his place. I've mostly moved on though and I can say with fair certainty that I think I could encounter this person and speak briefly and cordially with him without launching into my speech about how he lied and got awards that he doesn't deserve. For me, that is a victory and I am better for it. My view of Lemond in this situation is thus subjective and due to me seeing his behavior in this situation as similar to mine in my ordeal. As always, I volunteer that I could be absolutely wrong.
> 
> I hope this clears up why I feel the way that I do. :thumbsup:


I'm sorry about what happened to you. Sad, disgraceful, and disgusting.

If I had been witness to your bravery and then the subsequent smear campaign you had to endure while I was in my twenties, I really don't know what I would have done. That in itself is sad to say but I don't know whether I would have taken the pragmatic way out, or backed you up come hell or high water.

One of the things I've "learned" in my middle age is that I have to be "unreasonable" in these matters and setting the record straight is one of them.

Probably why Churchill's admonition to "never, never, never, give in" needed to be said and taken to heart.. I understand for you that dealing with this was a matter of personal survival, but the witnesses to this injustice are probably regretting their actions right now. Everybody has to look in the mirror and it's still hard to completely delude oneself.


----------



## Fogdweller

thechriswebb said:


> I think Lemond is bitter. I also think he is right. I try to be balanced with my judgement of his behavior because of the fact that i believe that he is right. The bitterness is there though.


I'm like you. I watched him race as a kid a dozen times in the Avocet days and later in the Renault days, had posters of him on walls, had the pleasure to ride with him around the Sacramento area when he was back from Europe (along with 300 others...). He hasn't always been the most graceful of champions, hasn't always made stellar business moves and has taken some beatings in the cycling and mainstream press. I believe he's one of the greatest ever and probably would have 5 or 6 tours up to '90 instead of the three. We pick our heros for our own reasons and he'll always be one of mine.


----------



## orange_julius

thechriswebb said:


> <snip>
> 
> When I see Greg Lemond speak to and about Lance, I see the same emotions in his eyes and I hear the same singularly obsessed words coming out of his mouth that came from me when my absolutely justified anger about the incident consumed me and took control over my life. If I were called to testify in court, of course I would tell the truth and contribute my part to have justice be served and have this character put in his place. I've mostly moved on though and I can say with fair certainty that I think I could encounter this person and speak briefly and cordially with him without launching into my speech about how he lied and got awards that he doesn't deserve. For me, that is a victory and I am better for it. My view of Lemond in this situation is thus subjective and due to me seeing his behavior in this situation as similar to mine in my ordeal. As always, I volunteer that I could be absolutely wrong.
> 
> I hope this clears up why I feel the way that I do. :thumbsup:


This is very thoughtful post, and I want to thank you for sharing all that. In all this back-and-forth I think one thing that wasn't addressed was how LeMond was when he was in the first half of his racing career (pre-shotgun accident), how he was in his comeback, how he was when he quit, how he was when Armstrong started his ascent as a TdF winner, and how he became as more and more allegations against Armstrong surfaced. 

Personally I think LeMond has a lot of dissatisfaction and frustration about how things (read: doping in cycling) are, and a lot of it were probably as a result of how things turned out for him in the early- to mid-90s (as Falsetti outlined). And I think it's natural for him to feel that way. Whether it can be called "bitterness" is of course subjective. None of us know what it's/it was like to be Greg LeMond, but it can be said that his "bitterness" is not full-time and it's not consuming him. At least, it doesn't come across in many of the recent and not-so-recent interviews. When he's asked about doping, of course he has plenty to say, but doesn't he come across as a guy who always has a lot to say about things he knows about anyway?


----------



## davidka

Doctor Falsetti said:


> Tomac! absolutely. The guy did everything on a bike. Road, Cross, Mtn


..and BMX, and Motorcycles. A great example of versatile talent.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

thechriswebb said:


> Okay:
> 
> First: I think Lance probably cheated and I don't believe that I am subject to his manipulation.
> 
> Second: People have different ways of looking at things. There are those who would rank Armstrong on a top ten list because of, if nothing else, the attention that he brought to the sport and the fact that he got Americans excited about cycling and facilitated the creation of events like the US Pro Cycling Challenge, which is an extraordinary event that brought the biggest European names to compete in the US and had an 80 million dollar economic impact on Colorado and put more pro cycling on televisions in the United States. Whether or not people agree that Lance cheated, I can understand somebody having some appreciation for him in that regard even if they despise him as a person. That is a different way that some people evaluate things that is not the way that you evaluate things. The way that you see this is right for you but for a person who thinks that the attention that Lance brought to the sport outweighs the cleanliness of his competition, that is the perspective that is right for them. You will never be able to change the mind of a person that sees things that way and because their system of evaluating things is different from yours, you aren't going to be able to agree with them because you are utilizing a different set of criteria for your evaluation process. You are judging two separate things and a top ten list of greatest American cyclists is a subjective matter that people will quantify in different way. You are therefore essentially answering a different question than other people, such as the OP, are asking. You can be angry at people for using the criteria for their evaluation that they are because you have an ethical disagreement with the criteria involved but that doesn't change the fact that other people evaluate this question a different way than you do. If this were a discussion of whether or not Lance cheated, this would be a different matter. There are other threads in this forum dedicated to that and this argument would be more relevant there. The OP offers a top ten list by their criteria and in response you could present your own top ten list and state that to you, the top ten American cyclists are _these_ people who did not cheat and because your criteria dictates that a cheater has no place on the list, your list does not include Lance Armstrong. As strong as your feelings are on the matter, the definition of someone as the _greatest_ is a subjective matter and people will come to different conclusions by their own methods. There isn't an official rule book somewhere than outlines what they exact way that _greatest_ is defined in this context. As deeply as you want your method to be the only way to look at it, it simply is not.
> 
> Third: My statement that Greg Lemond is "bitter" is subjective and does not impact my view of him as a cyclist at all. Do recall that I made that argument before you and I started going back and forth on this. I developed this view watching interactions between Greg and Lance and statements that Greg made about Lance. Do note please that I did not "take Lance's side" in those interactions. Frankly, I thought Lance acted like an A-hole in them. The "bitterness" was something that I observed subjectively and could be wrong. This evaluation was impacted by personal experience and detecting emotions and behaviors from Greg that I have produced myself in a similar situation. When I was in the military I was shot and nearly killed in a horrible battle in Afghanistan. The way that we got into this fight was a horrible debacle and I fought desperately to save my own life and the lives of my comrades. After the fight, several of my fellow soldiers approached me to tell me that they thought I was a hero and had saved their lives. For a short time, I received a lot of attention from this and was treated like a great hero. While I was recuperating in the hospital, there was a sergeant that was in charge of me who was about to get into hot water because the stories coming from the battlefield were implicating him for inappropriate decision making and responsibility for the fight being worse than it needed to be, as well as putting me in the situation where I was nearly killed and had to fight an outnumbering group of Taliban fighters by myself while he and others escaped. Fearing for his career, he launched a smear campaign against me because he wanted to deface me and keep himself out of the trouble that he was about to get into. Consider that immediately after this fight this person was emotional and profusely thanked me for saving his life. When I got out of the hospital I returned to my unit expecting to be embraced by my friends and rather discovered to my dismay that everyone hated me and I had no idea why. Shortly afterword, there was an award ceremony where this sergeant was grandly decorated for his actions in that fight. When they read the description of the fight during his presentation, the story was completely false and manipulated to rearrange the events of the fight so that he looked like the hero. I don't know if you have ever been in the military but the fact is that no matter what happened on the battlefield, he outranked me and superiors will ALWAYS believe the ranking soldier if his word goes against someone else's, even if their are other people that are trying to validate the lower ranking soldier's story (if those people are outranked by him too). When this happened, I became terribly overwhelmingly _bitter_. I was right, he was a lying cheating crook, and my anger was absolutely justified. However, for a time I became so single-mindedly obsessed with the corruption and lies of this sergeant that it consumed me and caused me to become a negative and emotionally damaged person. Regardless of the fact that I was absolutely right, there was a time that I needed to lighten up and get on with my life because this event was starting to dominate every conversation that I entered with people and I was beginning to be perceived as a bitter crackpot that was pissed off because this sergeant got decorated, I didn't, and everybody forgot about my bravery in that battle that saved lives. This sergeant outranked me and the decorations from this battle caused him to outrank me more and his power became so absolute that there was nothing I could do but suffer under than smear campaign that he launched against me. In time though, I made the right choice and started therapy and attacked this issue internally so that I could get on with my life and be able to talk to people without talking about what a lying criminal that sergeant was.
> 
> When I see Greg Lemond speak to and about Lance, I see the same emotions in his eyes and I hear the same singularly obsessed words coming out of his mouth that came from me when my absolutely justified anger about the incident consumed me and took control over my life. If I were called to testify in court, of course I would tell the truth and contribute my part to have justice be served and have this character put in his place. I've mostly moved on though and I can say with fair certainty that I think I could encounter this person and speak briefly and cordially with him without launching into my speech about how he lied and got awards that he doesn't deserve. For me, that is a victory and I am better for it. My view of Lemond in this situation is thus subjective and due to me seeing his behavior in this situation as similar to mine in my ordeal. As always, I volunteer that I could be absolutely wrong.
> 
> I hope this clears up why I feel the way that I do. :thumbsup:


Thank you for your service


----------



## letitsnow

Doctor Falsetti said:


> Thank you for your service




X 2 !!!

And remember that karma IS a *****. Have patience... :thumbsup:


----------



## foto

Here is another I stole from one of the better threads at mtbr.

http://forums.mtbr.com/vintage-retro-classic/official-john-tomac-picture-thread-7246.html


----------



## thechriswebb

Chris-X said:


> I'm sorry about what happened to you. Sad, disgraceful, and disgusting.
> 
> If I had been witness to your bravery and then the subsequent smear campaign you had to endure while I was in my twenties, I really don't know what I would have done. That in itself is sad to say but I don't know whether I would have taken the pragmatic way out, or backed you up come hell or high water.


I had friends that did both. To be fair, I don't have hard feelings towards the people who were quiet through it all; it was not to their benefit to be supportive of me. There were a couple of people who were vocal in my favor and I appreciate them a lot. A funny thing that happened was that one of the people that was there failed a urinalysis for smoking marijuana after everybody got back and got in a lot of trouble. Losing all of his rank and being severely disciplined, he no longer had anything to lose and spoke out loudly in support of me. Of course, having a disgraced soldier as my most vocal advocate didn't help me at first but outside of that failed urinalysis, he had always performed well and had an immaculate record. When I was being discharged from the Army, his sworn statements and official testimony in my case contributed greatly to the favorable terms that the Army discharged me with when my case was being investigated. It never healed all of the personal wounds in my unit but in the very end when I received my discharge and was sent on my way, the unbiased officials that investigated the incident ruled in my favor, quietly told me that I was a hero, and retired me from the Army in my 20's after 4 years of service with a permanent monthly retirement check and full retirement benefits including health insurance for me and my dependents for the rest of my life. Maybe "karma" didn't result in me getting a Medal of Honor and a parade and the other guy getting publicly humiliated and sent to jail for fraud but in the end the Army retired me with dignity and a clean record and benefits that most people have to serve for a minimum of 20 years to attain. 

Smear campaign in consideration, Greg Lemond will ALWAYS be the first person to win the TDF, will ALWAYS have won it three times and with nothing to hide, will never have any skeletons in the closet to pop up and discredit him, no matter how hard somebody tries to find or create them.


----------



## Tugboat

davidka said:


> Major Taylor belongs on that list.


Really ?

This is a discussion of top 10 American *road* cyclists. What are Taylor's road palmares?


----------



## aptivaboy

A quick Major Taylor question: was he more of a track rider or more of a roadie? I know he raced track quite a bit. Just curious. I'm relatively familiar with his career, just unclear on whether he was a trackie or a roadie primarily. 

I'd also put Lemond in front of Lance. Armstrong may have been he most accomplished American Tour rider, but Lemond was clearly the most influential. I also believe he was a better all-rounder, could sprint, and seriously competed in the classics, something that Lance deemphasized as the years went on. Both men were super champions, and this isn't a bash Lance comment. I just view Lemond as more influential and the more well-rounded rider. 

Robert


----------



## the3verB

1. Lance Armstrong (7 Tours + World Champ, only cycling superstar)
2.Greg Lemond (The Pionner!!)
3. Floyd Landis (Tour de France legend and official vilain)
4. Andy Hamptsen (Impressive climber + Giro win)
5. levi Leipheimer (tour podium + many stage races victories, still competive at 38)
6. georges Hincapie (17 tour appareance next year)
7. Tyler Hamilton
8. Bobby Julich
9. Dave Zabriskie
10. Chris Horner (becaur he will be top 5 in the Tour next year at 41!)


----------



## Chris-X

Just a reminder to anyone who gives these lists credence, these lists are in the doping forum. There might be one or two rankings on here that could make their way into the General Cycling discussions or the Pro Cycling forum. One of those lists is a Top 4 I believe. Most of the Top 10 lists are by definition of the rules of cycling, null and void. No. 1 on many lists will ultimately be placed behind competitors who have a DNF next to their names, or be stricken from the records as if they themselves never existed. 

The most lasting record of a No. 1 may be his inability to vote. Do felons have the right to vote in Texas?


----------

