# Fed up with Greg Lemond



## asudevilrider

I am tired of Greg Lemond. The most recent accustation that Contador is a doper because he was able to keep up with the chicken. I'm not saying Contador is or isn't doped. What bugs me is that his logic is flawed. He has the fastest time trial ever on a bicycle that is quite inferior to today's machines. Yet any rider that has a good day, must be a doper, but he was always clean. It just bugs me that only the Great Lemond can ride like that and everyone else must be enhanced. I used to like Lemond until last year when he started to spout off. Anyways, just a rant.


----------



## FondriestFan

Other than the fact that Lemond has been right about everything and his critics have only been able to whine about the fact that he refuses to keep quiet while this sport goes downhill, yeah, nice rant.


----------



## Walt12

Agreed, Lemond speaking out is in some way responsible for the 90's generation breaking their silence on their drug-use (Riis, Aldag et al). Sure it's easy for them to do now, their livelihoods aren't at stake (or mostly not), but their reputations and place in the record books are.

He is as entitled to speak out as much as WE are entitled to speculate. Probably more so.


----------



## bigpinkt

*Feed up with clueless posts*



asudevilrider said:


> I am tired of Greg Lemond. The most recent accustation that Contador is a doper because he was able to keep up with the chicken. I'm not saying Contador is or isn't doped. What bugs me is that his logic is flawed. He has the fastest time trial ever on a bicycle that is quite inferior to today's machines. Yet any rider that has a good day, must be a doper, but he was always clean. It just bugs me that only the Great Lemond can ride like that and everyone else must be enhanced. I used to like Lemond until last year when he started to spout off. Anyways, just a rant.


For those that are new to the world of cycling

-Lemond's TT was only 15 miles long, most are double that
-The wind was at his back the entire way
-It was downhill or flat the entire way, a net loss of almost 300 feet in just 15 miles

What you should be questioning is how a rider today can average almost the same speed over twice the distance and more climbs? No it is not the bike. While Lemonds bike was heavy it was pretty areo

Lemond has never said that only he can ride like that, you are putting words into his mouth.


----------



## stevesbike

As events unfold, your post will prove to be an ignorant one. Lemond is going to be vindicated about what he said. By the way, he earned his right to give his opinion about the state of pro cycling. Contador's victory is already starting to unravel with OP docs starting to leak out. 

And anyone who has been around Lemond knows he's one of the good guys of cycling. Are we supposed to care what you think about him?


----------



## Guest

bigpinkt said:


> For those that are new to the world of cycling
> 
> -Lemond's TT was only 15 miles long, most are double that
> -The wind was at his back the entire way
> -It was downhill or flat the entire way, a net loss of almost 300 feet in just 15 miles
> 
> What you should be questioning is how a rider today can average almost the same speed over twice the distance and more climbs? No it is not the bike. While Lemonds bike was heavy it was pretty areo
> 
> Lemond has never said that only he can ride like that, you are putting words into his mouth.


Well said! The OP does not know what he is talking about.


----------



## wipeout

asudevilrider said:


> I am tired of Greg Lemond. The most recent accustation that Contador is a doper because he was able to keep up with the chicken. I'm not saying Contador is or isn't doped. What bugs me is that his logic is flawed. He has the fastest time trial ever on a bicycle that is quite inferior to today's machines. Yet any rider that has a good day, must be a doper, but he was always clean. It just bugs me that only the Great Lemond can ride like that and everyone else must be enhanced. I used to like Lemond until last year when he started to spout off. Anyways, just a rant.


And how many TdF's or World Championships have you won? So who am I gonna listen to - Cat 5 peleton fodder or Mr. Lemond?


----------



## philippec

I will join the bandwagon of posters that have exposed the ignorance revealed in the original post -- and I'll add something.

LeMond is fed up with you and people who question his stance on doping. And I and many of the other posters here agree with him! 

Lemond cares more about the sport than the Disco-bots who cut him down and has done more for the sport than the puerile fanboyz who incessently squeek that he "is just a bitter hater". Lemond has been proven right about his accusations - his detracters?... all proven wrong.

So please, people cutting him down on this issue do themselves no favours and only reveal their very limited understanding of what it is he has said and what it is he has done.

As for me, I will trust lemond based on his record.


----------



## Argentius

I think what bothers me about Greg Lemond is that he's a big blowhard. He has been since I started following cycling. 

With all the revelations about doping that've come to light lately, it seems that he's probably -right- about a lot of things, but that doesn't change the first part. When I listen to interviews with the man, I've heard not, "we need to clean up this beautiful sport before it destroys itself," but, "I would have won XX more Tours de France, but for doping." 

He may well HAVE won them, and we'll never know... he could be a great asset to the War on Doping, and I hope he'll keep up the intensity and perhaps change his angle a hair.


----------



## California L33

stevesbike said:


> As events unfold, your post will prove to be an ignorant one. Lemond is going to be vindicated about what he said. By the way, he earned his right to give his opinion about the state of pro cycling. Contador's victory is already starting to unravel with OP docs starting to leak out.
> 
> And anyone who has been around Lemond knows he's one of the good guys of cycling. Are we supposed to care what you think about him?


My problem is that Lemond seems to be calling his era clean, and anyone who does better than he must be on drugs and that's all the evidence he needs. Frankly, doping in sports predates Lemond by a long time, so that makes his performance suspect by his own standards. The problem is that in the 70s through the 90s doping far outpaced the ability to detect it- and I'm not sure if we've caught up yet. (Wasn't it Michele Ferrari who said, "It's not doping if it can't be detected?") Most of the East German Olympic performances are more than suspect- there were more than a few jokes about how ugly East German women were when in fact they were juicing or being juiced. And was it just communists? Take a look at pictures of that all American, cute as a button, would never do anything wrong pixie Mary Lou Retton. She's a 16 year old girl during her Olympics, but has thighs the size and rip of a 28 year old male body builder. She passed doping controls. She has her medals. Maybe she's just a genetic freak, or maybe she worked out really, really, really hard. Personally, I can't prove anyone is doping. I can be suspicious, but I have to go by the innocent until proven guilty rule. And I think one of the rules should be a secure long term storage of samples to allow technology to catch up to the dopers and insert asterisks where they belong.


----------



## barbedwire

*Drumroll please...*

Here come the sanctimonious Armstrong supporters putting words into Greg's mouth again.


----------



## California L33

barbedwire said:


> Here come the sanctimonious Armstrong supporters putting words into Greg's mouth again.


Would a face like that lie? Now snap to attention, salute the flag, and stop thinking for yourself. It's bad for America.


----------



## lookrider

Argentius said:


> I think what bothers me about Greg Lemond is that he's a big blowhard. He has been since I started following cycling.
> 
> With all the revelations about doping that've come to light lately, it seems that he's probably -right- about a lot of things, but that doesn't change the first part. When I listen to interviews with the man, I've heard not, "we need to clean up this beautiful sport before it destroys itself," but, "I would have won XX more Tours de France, but for doping."
> 
> He may well HAVE won them, and we'll never know... he could be a great asset to the War on Doping, and I hope he'll keep up the intensity and perhaps change his angle a hair.


Well, I think most great athletes have huge egos. It's hard to hold that against him. And anyone who follows cycling knows the guy would have won at least 5 Tours had he not been shot, plus the one he gifted to Hinault. It must be annoying for him as an expert on the subject and a demonstrably great champion to have to listen to nonsense.


----------



## Len J

Shoot the messanger!

& don't you love the irony n the fact that many Lemond haters don't like his personality, but excuse lance for his?

OP was a troll, clearly.

Len


----------



## California L33

lookrider said:


> Well, I think most great athletes have huge egos. It's hard to hold that against him. And anyone who follows cycling knows the guy would have won at least 5 Tours had he not been shot, plus the one he gifted to Hinault. It must be annoying for him as an expert on the subject and a demonstrably great champion to have to listen to nonsense.


 At the risk of standing in the line of fire (I've already been called a sanctimonious Lance Armstrong supporter for suggesting that even a strong suspicion of his [and many, many, many other] athletes doping isn't necessarily proof), the thing I find interesting about Lemond is that in the interviews I've seen with him (and these have been few and far between- whatever OLN/Versus chose to show, and a couple in print) I've never heard him say a positive word about any other cyclist. 

And you can't fault the guy for being bitter. His story really is a tragedy. He apparently overcame a truly horrific childhood and rose to the very pinnacle of greatness only to have his career was cut short by an idiot brother-in-law, then Lance comes along with a Cinderella (too good to be true?) comeback while Lemond's lasted one year. Not only is Lemond not the winningest American cyclist, but Lance had a more tear-jerking survival story which the media ate up while barely acknowledging his. 

As far as I'm concerned the only thing that could have made this melodrama a more perfect candidate for opera is if the contracts had allowed Trek to force Lance to ride a Lemond branded bike. Hmmm :idea: Good, but not great- got it, Greg Lemond has retained naming rights to the bicycle, and changes the name to 'I Take Dope' so Lance is humiliated with every win, and Trek bikes folds because no one will ride a bike so labeled unless they're forced to, putting thousands out of work. It ends with both tragic heroes plummeting off Alpe D'Huez to their deaths moments before the messenger arrives to tell them the Tour has been renamed in both their honors. Now if only Verdi were alive to write it.


----------



## gebbyfish

*I don't think it's Lemond that anyone hates.....*

.....I think it is doping and the frustration that the little guy, the fan, has no control over it. It just so happens that some of us watched Armstrong put in some fantastic rides and remember him for that and others can't forgive him for that believing he cheated. So here on this site, it seems to break in to two camps, one that loves Lemond and dislikes Armstrong and the other that feels Lemond is a "blowhard" and Armstrong is the man. I haven't been following cycling for very long, but I know that there have been some unforgettable rides put in by riders who definitely cheated(Landis, Vinokourov, Ullrich, Virenque, Pantani), the list goes on and on. 

Let's not lose sight of the fact that all on this site would probably prefer that the riders not dope. I think the riders would like to not dope, but the pressure to perform at that level must be so intense that to just hang on, doping seems like a viable option. A culture change needs to occur in the sport from the top down, and perhaps we are witnessing that happening. We will all need to accept that we will see more human results in the future, certainly far greater than most any of us could attain, but still not the super-human or perhaps even uh-human results that we have all come to expect and gotten used to.

I don't know why any rider who would want to have their record besmirched or cheapened by cheating, but in the past it would seem that cheating was the only way to stay on top or to even hang on as a domestique. Let's hope that that is all going to change and we can look forward to the Tour in the future, rather than cringing while watching it and waiting for the doping results and allegations to come flying out after a fantastical finish!


----------



## bas

asudevilrider said:


> I am tired of Greg Lemond. The most recent accustation that Contador is a doper because he was able to keep up with the chicken. I'm not saying Contador is or isn't doped. What bugs me is that his logic is flawed. He has the fastest time trial ever on a bicycle that is quite inferior to today's machines. Yet any rider that has a good day, must be a doper, but he was always clean. It just bugs me that only the Great Lemond can ride like that and everyone else must be enhanced. I used to like Lemond until last year when he started to spout off. Anyways, just a rant.


I am tired of people fed up with Greg Lemond. He had a natural talent and was probably the best.

His rants, as well as mine, are mostly on the money.


----------



## Lumbergh

bas said:


> I am tired of people fed up with Greg Lemond. He had a natural talent and was probably the best.


You mean except for Merckx, right? He was definitely the best. Lemond was close. Not the best IMHO.


----------



## bas

Lumbergh said:


> You mean except for Merckx, right? He was definitely the best. Lemond was close. Not the best IMHO.



Greg would have won more tours if he 

1) wasn't screwed over by Hino
2) suffered his shooting accidents.


----------



## bonkmiester

bas said:


> Greg would have won more tours if he
> 
> 1) wasn't screwed over by Hino
> 2) suffered his shooting accidents.



3) doped..........


----------



## Kestreljr

Argentius said:


> I think what bothers me about Greg Lemond is that he's a big blowhard. He has been since I started following cycling.
> 
> With all the revelations about doping that've come to light lately, it seems that he's probably -right- about a lot of things, but that doesn't change the first part. When I listen to interviews with the man, I've heard not, "we need to clean up this beautiful sport before it destroys itself," but, "I would have won XX more Tours de France, but for doping."
> 
> He may well HAVE won them, and we'll never know... he could be a great asset to the War on Doping, and I hope he'll keep up the intensity and perhaps change his angle a hair.


+1 to this. Like others have stated, he is entitled to speculate on current doping charges, but my personal opinion is that when you have a stage to stand on, then there is a certain amount of responsibility you must have when choosing your words about someone before they have due process. If you just rant on interviews, you start to sound more like a pundit and less like an authortative leader, again *IMO*.

With that said, I do think the statement I read was fair and balanced: 
"I am not pointing the finger at him [Contador]. I am simply saying if Rasmussen got caught then we also need to have a very close look at his competitors."- GL


----------



## bas

bonkmiester said:


> 3) doped..........



It is obvious that VS. didn't show the Greg Lemond special enough this summer. :mad2:


----------



## theWdotY

Why is everyone on here so quick to dismiss Lance as doper and a cheat? But yet you've all glorified LeMond as a saint and clean rider. I'm not a huge Armstrong fan and I'm not a LeMond detractor, I just find it hard to comprehend the hypocrisy in this thread. You believe LeMond no matter what he says and whether or not he has any solid proof or just a gut feeling, and then Lance you dismiss as a liar no matter what he says!

I think LeMond is great for cycling, he has a passion for getting the sport cleaned up. Sometimes he shoots his mouth off more than he should, but passionate people do that from time to time. The problem I have is when he speaks everyone believes everything he says, even if he has no proof. He says Lance doped and everyone believes him. Did Lance dope, maybe, maybe not. But how can you just claim him guilty before innocent. I think if LeMond made fewer accusations on riders he's probably never even met, then he could do more for cycling.


----------



## harlond

I wonder if anyone other than Lemond was doping for that 1989 time trial. If there was any such rider, not only did Lemond keep up with them, he obliterated them. And so if there was such a rider, by Lemond's logic, Lemond was doping. And given what we know about cycling, the likelihood that there was such a rider seems pretty good.

I'm not suggesting that Lemond was a doper, just pointing out that using high-level performance as sufficient evidence of doping is (as the OP points out) not good reasoning, even if everyone does it.


----------



## bas

harlond said:


> I wonder if anyone other than Lemond was doping for that 1989 time trial. If there was any such rider, not only did Lemond keep up with them, he obliterated them. And so if there was such a rider, by Lemond's logic, Lemond was doping. And given what we know about cycling, the likelihood that there was such a rider seems pretty good.
> 
> I'm not suggesting that Lemond was a doper, just pointing out that using high-level performance as sufficient evidence of doping is (as the OP points out) not good reasoning, even if everyone does it.


DIdn't you read anything in this post?

http://forums.roadbikereview.com/showthread.php?p=1147792#post1147792


----------



## Einstruzende

Merckx tested positive twice for amphetamines. 1969 Giro and then again late in his career. Jacques Anquetil admitted using amphetamines through his career (50s & 60s).

So to say Lemond could not have used drugs is a bit naive. That said, I'm still on his side. He means well for the sport, and in spite of him having less Tour wins, I think he is still the "best" american cyclist ever.


----------



## Guest

I'm tired of threads on both Lance and Lemond - gah!


----------



## pedalruns

Len J said:


> & don't you love the irony n the fact that many Lemond haters don't like his personality, but excuse lance for his?
> 
> Len


pretty funny... and I don't get that either... 

Did anyone else notice when LA was sitting with Phil & Paul on the last day of the tour... not one word was asked to him about the doping scandels.... not one question... I would have liked to have heard what he had to say... 

So it seems to me that either LA told them not to ask or they were afraid to piss him off?? Just kind of wierd IMO that the subject wasn't even brought up.... but then again LA has had very little to say about the whole scandel, he keeps very quiet or he only chases down riders who talk, gets former riders fired that talk..... and what about Disco/JB even hired a know OP guy, Basso hoping it had died down... What does this say??? 

Sorry, didn't mean to get into a LA rant.... I just found the above quote funny about the personalities.. when Greg Lemond is a family man, happily married, speaks the truth (more of what he says is becoming fact), has a son racing now, which is another reason he is so vocal about cleaning up the sport... I totally respect that.


and.... I do respect LA's cycling abilities which brougt cycling to the masses and what he has done for cancer.. but that is about it.


----------



## goose127

I think the reason people don't care for Lemond's yap trap is that he has turned himself into cycling's version of Jose Canseco. And I do not mean that LeMond was a dirty rider, but that nobody really likes a whistle blower, no matter if they are right or wrong. This goes for the corporate world as well. Sadly, he has been more right than wrong. Its a shame that he did not take the avenue of the stately father of American cycling, instead he looks more and more jealous everyday. Both Armstrong and LeMond have one thing in common, and that is they would both be better off if they kept their yaps shut. 

One interesting thing when considering this mess known as pro cycling and Lance's performance. I can not think of one rider, that was a competitor to Lance during his historical run, that has not been busted for doping in some fashion. Not one comes to mind. That does not implicate Armstrong, but I am sure its a reason why he has kept his lips pursed during this scandle ridden Tour. I thin the tide is changing on all of this, especially since you now here riders coming up the microphone and laying it out at how pissed off they are at those who are getting nailed.


----------



## mohair_chair

I still don't understand why Lemond gets a free pass on doping. The inane logic used to "prove" guys are doping never seems to apply to him for some strange reason. The recent post about Disco has 3 guys in the top 10, so they must be doping is a good example. Gee, one year Lemond was on a team that had 3 guys in the top 4, but of course, they were all clean. Yeah, right. If 3 in the top 10 is damning evidence, why is 3 in the top 4 not considered <u>conclusive</u> evidence? 

Another argument is that rider X beat rider Y, who was caught or admitted doping, therefore rider X must be doping too. Well, it seems to me that Lemond was beating guys who were strongly suspected of doping or who were caught doping, but no, Lemond didn't dope. Give me a break. Roche? Delgado? All the logic breaks down when applied to Lemond. 

Face it, this all comes down to personal preference. Most people like Lemond. They like the way he raced and the era he raced in. But really, the only reason people think Lemond is clean because he says he was, and they want to believe him. That's all there is to it. There's no hard evidence either way. I'm saying that if you are going to use idiotic logic to "prove" anyone is a doper, you have to apply the same logic to Lemond. And Lemond is not going to look good.


----------



## andy02

If Lemond is your hero try this one. Go find a woman that has been to a party with him. I don't care where you live it won't be hard to do. There are enough people in local bike shops that get invited to trek events you can find one or two. 

Lemond is a partyer first and cyclist second (even when he was racing). As where most when he started racing.


----------



## ashpelham

Excuse me while I bring up a related topic: the idea that there are different levels of "doping". What Lemond might consider to be clean, would in fact, be "doping" at some micro-level. I mean, if I take a asthma inhaler during competition, I better have a waiver for it, right? But we know that there are certain drugs in those inhalers that can increase performance, thereby introducing performance enhancing drugs into the system. See Petacchi....

Suppose that the drugs that Lance too, and let's get real here, he took drugs. He's the spokesman for Bristol Myers, for pete's sake. But these drugs weren't or aren't relegated to the banned list. So what if they aren't on the list? Is there no chemical evidence to PROVE that the drugs didn't increase his performance? What if he didn't take them? Would he have been less strong for the Tour? I think so. But Lance had clearance to take them, and they were not on the banned list. So by that measure, he didn't "dope". 

This whole argument should be making us question body chemistry and human interaction, and no where in sports competition is this being more scrutinized.

All the while, the US media continues to bury cycling further and further into insignificance behind NFL, MLB, NBA (!?!?!), NHL, NASCAR, PGA, PBL, Mixed Martial Arts, whatever. All because the sport is mis-understood in the US and only the bad news gets reported.

It's sickening. It's embarassing to admit being a fan. But I enjoy mostly because of the human element of it, and that these men compete in something I enjoy very much, with a simple machine.


----------



## stevesbike

sorry Mohair but it doesn't come down to personal preference. There's been absolutely no reputable evidence ever linking Lemond to doping. Following on the general psychology of doping, if Lemond were going to dope it would likely have been during the last years of his career, but this is when he struggled the most to keep up with riders who earlier couldn't hold his wheel. In 91, Lemond rode a good tour and had the yellow jersey going into the Pyrenees (they were first that year). He lost it because he had to cover attack after attack from guys like Chiappucci and Bugno, who would do stupid crazy attacks. He ended up just running out of gas and had nothing left for the Alps. Anyone remember the year before in 90 when a little-known Spanish rider named Indurain sucked Lemond's wheel all the way up a climb in the Pyrenees for a stage victory? 

Lemond showed far more promise early in his career at stage racing than Armstrong (and had significantly higher test numbers). Armstrong didn't even finish the first 3 out of 4 tours he entered.


----------



## mohair_chair

There is no reputable evidence linking a lot of guys to doping, but that doesn't stop lots of people from calling them dopers. More importantly, in Lemond's era, there was stuff around for which they had no tests, and there were a lot of races that didn't even run tests! The Coors Classic was legendary for having guys pee into a cup, then pouring it down the drain. Who won the Coors Classic, against the Russian national team??? Lemond. Anyone think the Russians were racing clean? It's hard to get reputable evidence on anyone when race organizers are purposely throwing out the tests! Here's an article for you to read: http://www.stanford.edu/~learnest/cyclops/grewal.htm.


----------



## harlond

bas said:


> DIdn't you read anything in this post?
> 
> http://forums.roadbikereview.com/showthread.php?p=1147792#post1147792


Yes, everything. Didn't you read anything in my post that you seemed to think your post was a response to? Because if you had, you would have read that I wasn't calling Lemond a doper, I was addressing his logic. Which is flawed. Try again.


----------



## svend

stevesbike said:


> There's been absolutely no reputable evidence ever linking Lemond to doping.



watch out and make sure the irony doesn't smack your azz on the way out.......


----------



## EpicX

FondriestFan said:


> Other than the fact that Lemond has been right about everything and his critics have only been able to whine about the fact that he refuses to keep quiet while this sport goes downhill, yeah, nice rant.



you know, Fondriest was probably doped too.


----------



## EpicX

stevesbike said:


> Lemond showed far more promise early in his career at stage racing than Armstrong (and had significantly higher test numbers). Armstrong didn't even finish the first 3 out of 4 tours he entered.


blah, lance was always considered a phenomenal athlete, even prior to his taking up cycling full time. let's not forget he was a world class triathlete in his teens. He was also hyped as the next Lemond very early in his career (national team and subaru - montgomery). 

furthermore, when lance was first riding the tour it was common practice for promising younger riders to be pulled early in the tour. usually after the first mountain stage. the idea being to give them some experience but not to shatter them physically for the rest of the season by having them struggle to finish a race that was at their limits at that age. less common now it seems, given a 24 yr old won and a 21 yr old finished. probably doped.  

anyway, lemond does talk too much. he may be right, but he doesn't word things very well sometimes and it has a tendency to sound like sour grapes.

if amazing performance always = dope then we might as well right off the few big names left that haven't been implicated in something. Indurain springs to mind. spanish, dawn of the EPO era, teammate of Delgado. come ON. the guy came from NOWHERE to clean everyone's clock and he was a GIANT. How could someone that big climb like that? Seriously. 

as far as lance goes...
if you want to use circumstantial evidence to determine whether someone is doped or not, you are going to have to put a * next to damn near the winner of every big race for the last 15 years. positive test = dope. and don't start on miniscule levels of cortisone or he had/did not have a waiver. go and find me the paper that says, EPO - Positive, or Activegan - Postive. 

I think Lance is a bit offputting sometimes, but considering how many of my former cycling idols have been either found definitivley guilty or have confessed, the list of those that haven't is getting shorter all the time. I just hope Jalabert isn't next. i will probably give up at that point.


----------



## lookrider

theWdotY said:


> The problem I have is when he speaks everyone believes everything he says, even if he has no proof. He says Lance doped and everyone believes him. Did Lance dope, maybe, maybe not. But how can you just claim him guilty before innocent. I think if LeMond made fewer accusations on riders he's probably never even met, then he could do more for cycling.


Don't you see that it takes time for the truth to catch up with a lie. Don't you see how most of what Lemond says and has said is coming to pass.

People are starting to wake up. Walsh has a mountain of circumstancial evidence against LA and LA's personal attacks on him are no longer convincing.

Do you really think Betsy Andreu would make her husband a pariah if what she was saying wasn't true? If Frankie was one of LA's boys, you don't think he would have a world of opportunities open to him in cycling.

All of these people are lying about LA?

You really don't think that Liggett and Sherwin believe LA doped? It's kind of to the point where I don't think they want to know.


----------



## lookrider

Thet thing that's not being acknowledged is, if Lemond and Hampsten were dopers in the mid 80's(amphetamines, steroids etc.) why wouldn't they just take the epo to maintain their position in the peloton?

All of a sudden, they just couldn't keep up. Kind of strange.


----------



## wks9326

lookrider said:


> Thet thing that's not being acknowledged is, if Lemond and Hampsten were dopers in the mid 80's(amphetamines, steroids etc.) why wouldn't they just take the epo to maintain their position in the peloton?
> 
> All of a sudden, they just couldn't keep up. Kind of strange.


Just because you spoke pot doesn't mean you are willing to step up to heroin. Athletes were dieing in their sleep in the early days of EPO use.


----------



## bahueh

*have you seen Lemond lately?*



lookrider said:


> Well, I think most great athletes have huge egos. It's hard to hold that against him. And anyone who follows cycling knows the guy would have won at least 5 Tours had he not been shot, plus the one he gifted to Hinault. It must be annoying for him as an expert on the subject and a demonstrably great champion to have to listen to nonsense.



an athletes build he has not...he's not longer an athlete (he's pushing what? a 42" waistline?), he's a blowhard businessman...maybe its time for the attitude to change with his vocation..
I'm not calling him right or wrong, I'm just agreeing with Arg. on this one...tone it down...he reminds me of Rosie O'Donnel for that exact reason...loud and obnoxious usually gets the media camera turned your way..


----------



## wipeout

bahueh said:


> an athletes build he has not...he's not longer an athlete


He can still lay waste to you on a bike any time he wants, dude.


----------



## lookrider

wks9326 said:


> Just because you spoke pot doesn't mean you are willing to step up to heroin. Athletes were dieing in their sleep in the early days of EPO use.


Yeah, but if you're living in the hash bar in Amsterdam, hitting the pipe on a regular basis, you're going to be a lot more understanding of the people who *do* step up to heroin. 


And, is there any rumor, innuendo, anything, that LeMond was a "pot smoker?"

I don't picture LeMond being worried about his son, but telling him uppers and steroids are ok.

BTW, was Axel Merckx a client of Ferrari's. It's interesting EM introduced LA to Ferrari, but maybe not his son. Any suspicion around Axel Merckx?


----------



## Einstruzende

bahueh said:


> an athletes build he has not...he's not longer an athlete (he's pushing what? a 42" waistline?), he's a blowhard businessman...maybe its time for the attitude to change with his vocation..
> I'm not calling him right or wrong, I'm just agreeing with Arg. on this one...tone it down...he reminds me of Rosie O'Donnel for that exact reason...loud and obnoxious usually gets the media camera turned your way..


You are posting on the internet, on a "doping in cycling" forum. I would deduce that you feel you have a right to share your opinion. Perhaps someone that has won 3 Tours and 2 World Championships also feels he might have some insight into doping in the cycling world.

Get over it, people not talking is exactly what perpetuates the problem.


----------



## Einstruzende

lookrider said:


> Yeah, but if you're living in the hash bar in Amsterdam, hitting the pipe on a regular basis, you're going to be a lot more understanding of the people who *do* step up to heroin.
> 
> 
> And, is there any rumor, innuendo, anything, that LeMond was a "pot smoker?"
> 
> I don't picture LeMond being worried about his son, but telling him uppers and steroids are ok.
> 
> BTW, was Axel Merckx a client of Ferrari's. It's interesting EM introduced LA to Ferrari, but maybe not his son. Any suspicion around Axel Merckx?


Talk about someone that had some pressure on them. The son of the greatest cyclist of all time certainly had a lot of pressure. Given the era he came up in, I think you can draw your own conclusions.


----------



## hppy4u

My question is along the lines of how this thread has evolved: why doesn't Lance take a more proactive role in the fight against doping in the peloton? He keeps claiming that he has never tested positive (with the hope I am assuming that we will translate that kind of response to "I have never doped"), with his celebrity status and with amount of leverage his name brings to cycling you would think if he were clean he could have a really dramatic effect in the fight against doping? Much more so than Greg Lemond...I think there are lot of people on this board who don't know about Greg or his accomplishments but can rattle off most of Lance's accomplishments. 

I mean Lance is retired and rich now so he has plenty of time to speak against doping...unless he has something to hide. Plus if he took an aggresive stance on doping it would probably give him a little more credibility with regards to his accomplishments and doping.


----------



## lookrider

Einstruzende said:


> Talk about someone that had some pressure on them. The son of the greatest cyclist of all time certainly had a lot of pressure. Given the era he came up in, I think you can draw your own conclusions.


Actually, I'm not drawing any conclusions, that's why I asked the questions. Axel Merckx hasn't won a lot of races. Did he "work" with Ferrari? Maybe he didn't give in to the pressure and would have had more "success" had he taken stuff. 

Again, I have no idea what his story is. That's why I asked.


----------



## randyg

hppy4u said:


> My question is along the lines of how this thread has evolved: why doesn't Lance take a more proactive role in the fight against doping in the peloton? He keeps claiming that he has never tested positive (with the hope I am assuming that we will translate that kind of response to "I have never doped"), with his celebrity status and with amount of leverage his name brings to cycling you would think if he were clean he could have a really dramatic effect in the fight against doping? Much more so than Greg Lemond...I think there are lot of people on this board who don't know about Greg or his accomplishments but can rattle off most of Lance's accomplishments.
> 
> I mean Lance is retired and rich now so he has plenty of time to speak against doping...unless he has something to hide. Plus if he took an aggresive stance on doping it would probably give him a little more credibility with regards to his accomplishments and doping.


Maybe Lance spends a bunch of his spare time doing work for his foundation, the LAF. I have no idea but maybe that's part of it. I'm curious but does Lemond have anything going that might rival the LAF? What sort of charity work does he involve himself with? With a name like Lemond I am sure there is some worth in lending that powerful name to some sort of effort to give back to the community. 

Just a thought. It's got to kill Lemond when he's out and sees all these people wearing Livestrong bands. :mad2: Also, anyone remember the Trek product brochure, or was it a Lemond brochure, that had a personal statement from Greg on the back congratulating Lance on his TdF win. I think it was after his first win. My how things have changed. 

As for testing, I assume that Lance has been tested many, many more times than Lemond ever dreamed of being tested. Also, Lance has been tested both in and out of season no matter where he is on the globe. Was that also true of Lemond? Just curious.


----------



## hppy4u

As a retired bike racer and someone who has benefitted from the sport so greatly one would think that he would like to do something in return (for cycling not cancer). Yes he does work for his LAF but realistically don't you think he makes a little on the side for being able to take time out of his hectic schedule of...let me see I can't seem to remember what he does nowadays now that he's not training/racing. 

Realistically, if you think about it there isn't anybody else in the USA who could really push for a major clean up in the sport than him. He just chooses not to which bewilders me. I mean I am sure that I am not the only who has thought about using him as the champion for a dope free sport...and I am willing to bet someone has probably posed the question to him at some point. My question is why doesn't he especially since he should have a lot more free time than most of us..


----------



## California L33

Len J said:


> Shoot the messanger!
> 
> & don't you love the irony n the fact that many Lemond haters don't like his personality, but excuse lance for his?
> 
> OP was a troll, clearly.
> 
> Len


 I think there's reasonable suspicion that both Lance & Lemond had a little something in them, but I'd rather drink with Lemond than Lance.


----------



## California L33

pedalruns said:


> Did anyone else notice when LA was sitting with Phil & Paul on the last day of the tour... not one word was asked to him about the doping scandels.... not one question... I would have liked to have heard what he had to say...


And I'm sure it would have gone something like this-

Phil: So, how has team Discovery avoided getting caught in the doping web?
Lance: As you know, the dope catchers have been making steady progress. The EPO, steroids, amphetamines, and good old PCP I used would be easy to detect now, so Michele and the boys at Balco have put their heads together and come up with a whole new doping strategy we think has put us decades ahead of detection. 
Phil: That’s certainly good news, so you expect we’ll see Discovery riders on the podium for some time to come?
Lance: Oh, undoubtedly. It’s not just the detectors we’re ahead of, but the other dopers as well. Contador is only 24. We plan on letting him win 6 times before we have him killed. Then we’ll pull another talentless kid out of some ghetto, put him on a bike and do the same thing over again.
Phil: I’m sure we’re all looking forward to that. Do you have anything else to say?
Lance: Just one thing, Phil. Cha-ching!
Phil: Thanks, Lance. 
Paul: Lance Armstrong, everyone, class act.
Phil: Indeed.


----------



## bigbill

lookrider said:


> Actually, I'm not drawing any conclusions, that's why I asked the questions. Axel Merckx hasn't won a lot of races. Did he "work" with Ferrari? Maybe he didn't give in to the pressure and would have had more "success" had he taken stuff.
> 
> Again, I have no idea what his story is. That's why I asked.


Back in May, I spent a total of about 2 hours talking to Axel Merckx in the Rome airport and ended up sitting next to him on the flight to Sardinia for the start of the Giro. He was very happy that this was his last season. He mentioned that things would become very interesting soon concerning doping allegations so obviously it was known within the peloton. He seemed pissed about Gonchar and his "abnormal blood tests". His retirement plans include living in Canada. He doesn't want to live in Belgium or Europe for that matter. I would be completely shocked if I ever learned that he had doped. I just wouldn't believe it. The son of Eddy has enough good DNA to produce the results he did without doping.


----------



## asciibaron

randyg said:


> As for testing, I assume that Lance has been tested many, many more times than Lemond ever dreamed of being tested. Also, Lance has been tested both in and out of season no matter where he is on the globe. Was that also true of Lemond? Just curious.


i guess you weren't alive or into cycling in the mid 1980's when LeMond's star was on the rise - the first US rider to win a TdF stage - that man was a pin cushion for the drug testers.


----------



## asciibaron

i have met both Lance and LeMond. i'd drink all night with Greg, he's a very genuine person and has a very open sense about him. Lance left me with a shiver up my spine - very plastic and not much going on upstairs.

could Lance have won without a radio in his ear? i seriously doubt it.


----------



## stevesbike

I don't think strategic ability was the big difference between them. While both showed brilliance early in their careers (e.g., winning World championships at an early age), I don't think it's too controversial to say Lemond was the purer stage racer. Lemond finished third in this first tour at the age of 23 (Armstrong did not finish the first 3 of 4 tours he started), and won the year later. Lemond grew stronger during the Tour, while Armstrong tired by the 3rd week. Lemond also won on relatively weak teams (or in the case of 86 a team partially working against him) while Armstrong won on teams with his win their only goal, kept him incredibly well protected and only a few times really left him isolated (when that happened these forums and media would break loose with discussions about what was wrong with Discovery). 

Lemond was also better in a sprint than Armstrong and could after a long road race beat the likes of Kelly in a small sprint (e.g., 89 world championsihps).


----------



## ti-triodes

stevesbike said:


> I don't think strategic ability was the big difference between them. While both showed brilliance early in their careers (e.g., winning World championships at an early age), I don't think it's too controversial to say Lemond was the purer stage racer. Lemond finished third in this first tour at the age of 23 (Armstrong did not finish the first 3 of 4 tours he started), and won the year later. Lemond grew stronger during the Tour, while Armstrong tired by the 3rd week. Lemond also won on relatively weak teams (or in the case of 86 a team partially working against him) while Armstrong won on teams with his win their only goal, kept him incredibly well protected and only a few times really left him isolated (when that happened these forums and media would break loose with discussions about what was wrong with Discovery).
> 
> Lemond was also better in a sprint than Armstrong and could after a long road race beat the likes of Kelly in a small sprint (e.g., 89 world championsihps).




Instead of the usual Lance vs. LeMond nonsense, you gave a very good analysis of their strengths. Good job! 

:thumbsup:


----------



## roy harley

LMAO. I thought it strange too that there was no mention of the doping scandal that caused 2 teams to drop out the last week of the tour. The leader of the tour to drop out (kicked off his team) under suspicion from his team of his where abouts (which gave back a ton of time to the top 3 GC riders). Seriously its like, doesn’t anyone else see the 400 LBS gorilla in the room or do we avoid the subject to not piss LA off on air and have him storm out of the booth and then there goes a great interview opportunity and the audience will be bummed we didn’t have LA here? Maybe someone needs to get him pissed of on the spot and see how he deals with the pressure but anyways....thats for another time. 

Who really cares if Lance can guess if the break away is able to stay out of the reach of the Peloton? IMO and hypothetically, if this were me and I had won 7 tours (and in a row) and numerous stage wins, after beating cancer which could have killed me before I ever one my first tour, had just retired and I never ever doped or though of it. I think I would want to make sure that if anyone from this point on was going to come after my record that they would have to bust their nut (you get it???) and work their ass off to do it legit!!!! I did it the hard way and everyone else should too (MR. Bond’s are you listening) I would be demanding a clean sport, better testing and new technology to stay ahead of the cheaters and welcome that someone that beat my record only if they did it fair and square. So wouldn’t you mention how fortunate the team that I have some ownership in, had riders that moved into first place because we have this system now to get rid of the cheaters. No, no, no….. Back to the world we live in, I think I will talk about flags flying in front of hotels and how I can never bet on the correct guy that is going to win. Did he even mention anything about his foundation or what they are doing during the interview? Thanks Lance for showing up here’s the check for the 20 minutes of elevator talk I think all our listeners are all totally jealous of that rockin party your going to have tonight at that hotel with the Spanish flag waving in front of it. 

As a side note: I the age of entertainment and bigger is better why not form a world league where nobody cares about testing. You get to see super human feats of cycling!!! Let them use every thing they can to get an edge to win. I have HDTV and surround sound. I want to see them move faster and stronger up hills and do things I could only dream about or take drugs and train to do. And I want to see it in 1080P with 7.1 surround no make that 7.2 so I can get that thumping base of their heart beats as they explode from to much stress on the heart.. Pay these guys insane amounts of money as they may only be round for a few years and what they leave behind give to the LAF…. Sorry for the rant.


----------



## Tschai

stevesbike said:


> I don't think strategic ability was the big difference between them. While both showed brilliance early in their careers (e.g., winning World championships at an early age), I don't think it's too controversial to say Lemond was the purer stage racer. Lemond finished third in this first tour at the age of 23 (Armstrong did not finish the first 3 of 4 tours he started), and won the year later. Lemond grew stronger during the Tour, while Armstrong tired by the 3rd week. Lemond also won on relatively weak teams (or in the case of 86 a team partially working against him) while Armstrong won on teams with his win their only goal, kept him incredibly well protected and only a few times really left him isolated (when that happened these forums and media would break loose with discussions about what was wrong with Discovery).
> 
> Lemond was also better in a sprint than Armstrong and could after a long road race beat the likes of Kelly in a small sprint (e.g., 89 world championsihps).


Lemond was more than the purer stage racer, he was the better total racer. Outside of the Tour, their careers are quite different. In terms of big races and big results, I think all Lance has is one World Championship and a 4th in the Tour of Spain. Greg has two gold and two silver in the World Championships and a host of top 5 results in top tier races - P-R, the Giro, L-B-L, and such. 

My biggest criticism of Lance is that after 1999 he never really tried to win any other big races. Hell, did he even ride a Giro? I think he should have at least tried one year to win something else. Hell, he retired at the top. Instead, he could have ridden a Giro to win on one of the other classics. I just think not doing that was lame. Greg wanted to win many of these other races as much as the Tour and HE TRIED!


----------



## djg714

You can always ignore him........I believe Greg and Frankie too.....

:thumbsup:


----------



## lookrider

bigbill said:


> Back in May, I spent a total of about 2 hours talking to Axel Merckx in the Rome airport and ended up sitting next to him on the flight to Sardinia for the start of the Giro. He was very happy that this was his last season. He mentioned that things would become very interesting soon concerning doping allegations so obviously it was known within the peloton. He seemed pissed about Gonchar and his "abnormal blood tests". His retirement plans include living in Canada. He doesn't want to live in Belgium or Europe for that matter. I would be completely shocked if I ever learned that he had doped. I just wouldn't believe it. The son of Eddy has enough good DNA to produce the results he did without doping.



Thanks, that was very informative. I appreciate the response.


----------



## Guest

roy harley said:


> LMAO. I thought it strange too that there was no mention of the doping scandal that caused 2 teams to drop out the last week of the tour. The leader of the tour to drop out (kicked off his team) under suspicion from his team of his where abouts (which gave back a ton of time to the top 3 GC riders). Seriously its like, doesn’t anyone else see the 400 LBS gorilla in the room or do we avoid the subject to not piss LA off on air and have him storm out of the booth and then there goes a great interview opportunity and the audience will be bummed we didn’t have LA here? Maybe someone needs to get him pissed of on the spot and see how he deals with the pressure but anyways....thats for another time.
> 
> Who really cares if Lance can guess if the break away is able to stay out of the reach of the Peloton? IMO and hypothetically, if this were me and I had won 7 tours (and in a row) and numerous stage wins, after beating cancer which could have killed me before I ever one my first tour, had just retired and I never ever doped or though of it. I think I would want to make sure that if anyone from this point on was going to come after my record that they would have to bust their nut (you get it???) and work their ass off to do it legit!!!! I did it the hard way and everyone else should too (MR. Bond’s are you listening) I would be demanding a clean sport, better testing and new technology to stay ahead of the cheaters and welcome that someone that beat my record only if they did it fair and square. So wouldn’t you mention how fortunate the team that I have some ownership in, had riders that moved into first place because we have this system now to get rid of the cheaters. No, no, no….. Back to the world we live in, I think I will talk about flags flying in front of hotels and how I can never bet on the correct guy that is going to win. Did he even mention anything about his foundation or what they are doing during the interview? Thanks Lance for showing up here’s the check for the 20 minutes of elevator talk I think all our listeners are all totally jealous of that rockin party your going to have tonight at that hotel with the Spanish flag waving in front of it.
> 
> As a side note: I the age of entertainment and bigger is better why not form a world league where nobody cares about testing. You get to see super human feats of cycling!!! Let them use every thing they can to get an edge to win. I have HDTV and surround sound. I want to see them move faster and stronger up hills and do things I could only dream about or take drugs and train to do. And I want to see it in 1080P with 7.1 surround no make that 7.2 so I can get that thumping base of their heart beats as they explode from to much stress on the heart.. Pay these guys insane amounts of money as they may only be round for a few years and what they leave behind give to the LAF…. Sorry for the rant.


Good post.


----------



## SantaCruz

roy harley said:


> LMAO.
> As a side note: I the age of entertainment and bigger is better why not form a world league where nobody cares about testing. You get to see super human feats of cycling!!! Let them use every thing they can to get an edge to win. I have HDTV and surround sound. I want to see them move faster and stronger up hills and do things I could only dream about or take drugs and train to do. And I want to see it in 1080P with 7.1 surround no make that 7.2 so I can get that thumping base of their heart beats as they explode from to much stress on the heart.. Pay these guys insane amounts of money as they may only be round for a few years and what they leave behind give to the LAF…. Sorry for the rant.


Don't be sorry for the rant. 
World Cycling League - 
anything goes, no design limitations on frames, no weight restrictions. 
100KM TTs, a solid week in the Dolomites.
Dedication like Tom Simpson - "Put me back on the bike"
Climbing fanaticism like The Pirate.
Drama like the Armstrong vs Ulrich days.
Handicap the lesser riders so everyone has a shot at winning.
Winner take all.
One week races, no 3 week slog.
If Georgia, California and Missouri can have tours, can CO, NY & TX be far behind?


----------



## Sixty Fiver

When I hear people say that Armstrong and Lemond were the greatest I know they haven't read the very long list of wins and records set by Eddie Merckx.

If there was any person folks should suspect of doping it should be Merckx as no other athlete has ever dominated their sport as Merckx did with the exception of Watne Gretzky who pretty much owns the NHL record book. 

Merckz experienced a doping scandal in 1969 at the Giro d'Italia and will go to his grave denying he ever took performance enhancing drugs saying that the tests were fixed.

He got his redemption by winning his first TdF that same year and won every year until 1974 with the exception of 1973 when he acceded to the tour' organizer's request for him not to race. 

He probably would have won the 1973 tour and came close to winning in 1975 despite suffering an assault from a French spectator (who did not want him to break Anquetiel's record) and having broken his jaw in a crash that prevented him from talking or eating solid food. 

The guy was called "the cannibal" for good reason and I'm sure that Armstrong and Lemond wear Eddie Merckx pyjamas cause they can only wish they were that good.

Anyways...I'll let you all get back to bashing Lemond.


----------



## tod

roy harley said:


> As a side note: I the age of entertainment and bigger is better why not form a world league where nobody cares about testing. ]
> 
> This league does exist. It's called the National Football League.
> 
> Oh, you meant cycling...


----------



## roy harley

*I am so lucky*

I feel very lucky that when I am watching the NFL each week that I don't have to worry about this performance enhansing problem that cycling does!!! :wink5:


----------



## bahueh

*right...*



wipeout said:


> He can still lay waste to you on a bike any time he wants, dude.


because you know all about my cycling abilities, eh? whatever...dude.


----------



## bahueh

*well, thanks for that reminder..*



Einstruzende said:


> You are posting on the internet, on a "doping in cycling" forum. I would deduce that you feel you have a right to share your opinion. Perhaps someone that has won 3 Tours and 2 World Championships also feels he might have some insight into doping in the cycling world.
> 
> Get over it, people not talking is exactly what perpetuates the problem.




of where I'm typing...I had almost forgotten.  

wow. a lot of Lemond apologists on this site...
that's just IT...Lemond has NO insight on today's riders as he's no longer along side them in competition.....he's a passive spectator, just like you or I.....he comments in front of the cameras to give his business media play and keep his name in the headlines (its marketing.....aka Donald Trump...bad media is still media, etc.) 

I"m not telling anyone to not talk...just don't talk as loudly or display that you have some hidden knowledge about a group of guys that you no longer work....I'm surprised any pro rider is still even talking to this blowhard...

respect is earned...outside of his 20 year old cycling titles, he hasn't earned it. he should sell his bikes and STFU.


----------



## blackhat

bahueh said:


> respect is earned...outside of his 20 year old cycling titles, he hasn't earned it..


wow, that's taking the war on lemond to a brave and very very bizarre new place.


----------



## SantaCruz

Sixty Fiver said:


> When I hear people say that Armstrong and Lemond were the greatest I know they haven't read the very long list of wins and records set by Eddie Merckx.
> 
> The guy was called "the cannibal" for good reason and I'm sure that Armstrong and Lemond wear Eddie Merckx pyjamas cause they can only wish they were that good.


I don't think any cyclist would disagree about Eddy being #1 in the world. Best American cyclist is what is debatable - I like to say Greg and Lance were each the best for their time.


----------



## Big-foot

*Eddie Merckx pajamas??*



Sixty Fiver said:


> I'm sure that Armstrong and Lemond wear Eddie Merckx pyjamas cause they can only wish they were that good.


I want some Eddie Merckx pajamas! Do they make Anquetil ones too?!!


----------



## bahueh

*I live for the moment..*



blackhat said:


> wow, that's taking the war on lemond to a brave and very very bizarre new place.



I"m living in the here and now...not 20 years ago. yes, Lemond was a godo cyclist for his time. now he's a business man...he a bike pusher...I'm judging the guy based on who he is today and what he does this instant...

his past and previous accomplishments have NOTHING to do with it...


----------



## stevesbike

bahueh, that's pretty distorted logic. The whole point of why Lemond's opinions are relevant is the fact that he has a long history in pro cycling (more like 30 years). You also neglect the fact that media are constantly asking him for his opinion about the state of cycling. It's not like he's screaming for people to listen to him-it's being solicited, just as people tend to forget that both Armstrong and Landis initiated direct contact with Lemond after he made public comments. Lemond has been vindicated time and again in the comments he made, so unless there's specific comments you think are unreasonable, who cares what you think about him.


----------



## bahueh

*if you've taken the time to respond..*



stevesbike said:


> bahueh, that's pretty distorted logic. The whole point of why Lemond's opinions are relevant is the fact that he has a long history in pro cycling (more like 30 years). You also neglect the fact that media are constantly asking him for his opinion about the state of cycling. It's not like he's screaming for people to listen to him-it's being solicited, just as people tend to forget that both Armstrong and Landis initiated direct contact with Lemond after he made public comments. Lemond has been vindicated time and again in the comments he made, so unless there's specific comments you think are unreasonable, who cares what you think about him.


then I'm guessing you do? 

I have not experienced the media prodding or soliciting Lemond on his opinions...I have only seen (and I guess it could be potentially editted for time, content, etc) Lemond blowharding about what he thinks his opinions are...and he can only accurately comment about pro cycling as he knew it 30 (?) years ago...not today. maybe its changed, maybe it hasn't. 

as to why Armstrong and Landis initiated contact ....I could only guess. I think he's the last guy I'd turn to in that situation...

I have ZERO loyalty to old riders....I don't praise people for what they did 30 years ago...the question is, what are they doing now? I hardly find that distorted...now this whole sexual molestation thing...the guys life has turned into an Oprah or Springer episode through his own admissions...I hardly find that something I should respect...


----------



## jamesdak

So entertaining to go back and read these old Lemond vs Armstrong threads. 

Lemond was SOOOOOO right and Armstrong was SOOOOOO wrong. LOL!


----------



## Alaska Mike

It's as polarized as US politics.

Every thread follows the same pattern. A cycling rag puts out a clickbait article about Lance on a slow news day. Somebody posts about it. People line up on their chosen sides and re-hash their talking points. Eventually Greg or Betsy or any number of other names get dragged through the mud. Nobody changes their mind and the thread is either locked or dies as everyone runs out of steam until the next article.

I got banned from the Paceline for a couple weeks for actively trying to get that thread closed. I sent a message to the moderators saying I agreed with their decision, supported them, and held no hard feelings. The thread was closed, and an attempt the revive an old thread went nowhere. That's progress.

For those of us who want Lance to fade from the spotlight, these threads just keep picking the scab. There will be no rehabilitation of his image. He's too toxic to be embraced by any legitimate cycling organization, so his podcast and the occasional clickbait article is all he's going to get. The UCI and ASO will never reverse their decisions because of who he is, what he's done, and what he represents to the world about cycling. It just isn't going to happen, no matter how many times he's features on ESPN. He's cycling's dumpster fire. Everyone turns to look, but that doesn't make him acceptable.

One day he'll be an afterthought, and I can't wait.


----------



## jamesdak

LOL, so you're the one that got banned.


----------



## Alaska Mike

I guess there were a couple of us.

As I said, no hard feelings on my end. The moderators have a hard enough job there keeping the conversation more or less civil. They do a great job.

If I was a moderator there, I'd close any thread started about Armstrong simply because they long ago stopped being productive. Much like the establishment of this subforum, because every thread in the racing forum once led to doping accusations and personal attacks. But, I'm not a moderator (which probably is a good thing).

It's a well-run site for enthusiasts of more boutique and custom road bikes. I'd rather see discussions of geometry and elegant lug work than feed the click-bait economy of Lance.


----------



## Rider07

So Lemond won at what could be argued was the height of the doping days and was clean? Color me skeptical. One thing seems to be consistent with cycling, the creative ways to dope and ways to get around the tests seam to keep happening and the guilty ones seam to scream innocent the loudest. Its pro sport, some big big egos. They are all or were pretty amazing athletes, I just find myself tuning them out more these days.


----------



## KWL

So THIS is why we keep seeing thread dredges from 13+ years ago. Perhaps someone should create an age filter for the "Recommended Reading" algorithm.


----------



## bradkay

LeMond was obviously right about Lance, but apparently not about Contador in 2007, which were the comments which caused the OP to be written. Now people are disparaging Tadej Pogacar because of his strength in those rainy alpine stages. I do wish that people would stop crying "doper" about any rider with a great performance - wait until they fail a test before you diminish their efforts. If it takes several years (like it did for LA), then realize that history is a great judge.


----------

