# LeMond: Armstrong was top 30 rider at best.



## Hont (22 Oct 2013)

Gotta love Greg...

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/lemond-armstrong-was-a-top-30-tour-rider-at-best


----------



## raindog (22 Oct 2013)

go Greg!


----------



## User169 (22 Oct 2013)

The comments are good fun!


----------



## Boris Bajic (22 Oct 2013)

I've warmed to Lemond over the years, but at the time I was very wary of him.

He seemed too professional, too serious, too American to be a TdF rider.

There was a geekiness and a clean-living joylessness about him that seemed odd and out of place.

Also, I thought it was a European race for European people to win.

Now, I find him excellent value and I hold him in very high regard, but when he won his first TdF is was quite cross... Grrrrrrr.


----------



## Crackle (22 Oct 2013)

Delftse Post said:


> The comments are good fun!


 I like the one which informed me that Armstong had come back from Cancer lighter and shorter. The lighter I knew about.


----------



## jdtate101 (22 Oct 2013)

Ah the Lance fanboys....never let the facts get in the way of your rabid denials...


----------



## deptfordmarmoset (22 Oct 2013)

Crackle said:


> I like the one which informed me that Armstong had come back from Cancer lighter and shorter. The lighter I knew about.


Well he was one ball short.

Surprising how much venom is being spat out at Lemond. I thought they'd quietened down a little.


----------



## Noodley (22 Oct 2013)

I hope LeMond is loving every minute of this, after all that the cheating nobber put him thru.


----------



## LimeBurn (22 Oct 2013)

Still cannot understand the venom towards Armstrong, yes I know he's a cheat, but no different from a good portion of the bunch at that time, I know he lied and was a complete a#se to anyone who challenged him, but why should he carry the can for everyone else. I dont see people constantly bringing up the misdoings of Pantani, Contador and the like. Lance still won the tours in my eyes, and I'm not a fanboy of lance just of cycling in general.


----------



## 400bhp (22 Oct 2013)




----------



## DooDah (22 Oct 2013)

LimeBurn said:


> Still cannot understand the venom towards Armstrong, yes I know he's a cheat, but no different from a good portion of the bunch at that time, I know he lied and was a complete a#se to anyone who challenged him, but why should he carry the can for everyone else. I dont see people constantly bringing up the misdoings of Pantani, Contador and the like. Lance still won the tours in my eyes, and I'm not a fanboy of lance just of cycling in general.


He won the tours because he was better at cheating than everyone else.


----------



## 400bhp (22 Oct 2013)

DooDah said:


> He won the tours because he was better at cheating than everyone else.



That's one of a multitude of reasons.

A new one on me- he tried to pay someone to say Lemond was on drugs


----------



## LimeBurn (22 Oct 2013)

Wouldn't say he was better at cheating as he got caught, but maybe his body reacted to the drugs better. I'm under the opinion that he was, on the day, better than the other riders. His amateur and neo-pro results were very good and it must have been a fairly level playing field at that time in the pro scene.


----------



## deptfordmarmoset (22 Oct 2013)

400bhp said:


> That's one of a multitude of reasons.
> 
> A new one on me- he tried to pay someone to say Lemond was on drugs


$300,000 apparently. I didn't know about it either but didn't mention it because I thought it was something I'd missed somewhere along the line.


----------



## 400bhp (22 Oct 2013)

LimeBurn said:


> Wouldn't say he was better at cheating as he got caught, but maybe his body reacted to the drugs better. I'm under the opinion that he was, on the day, better than the other riders. His amateur and neo-pro results were very good and it must have been a fairly level playing field at that time in the pro scene.



Can I borrow those rose tinted glasses?


----------



## Crackle (22 Oct 2013)

LimeBurn said:


> maybe his body reacted to the drugs better.





LimeBurn said:


> it must have been a fairly level playing field at that time in the pro scene.



Both of them can't be right.


----------



## LimeBurn (22 Oct 2013)

Can't agree with the rose tinted as like I said I'm no Armstrong fanboy just a realist when it comes to history, the amount of doping cases from top riders speak for itself and Armstrong was top of the tree in that period. My comment on how his body reacted was due to a comment is heard about his vo2max results were among the highest tested at the time, surely they were testing other doped riders.


----------



## 400bhp (22 Oct 2013)

LimeBurn said:


> Can't agree with the rose tinted as like I said I'm *no Armstrong fanboy *just a realist when it comes to history, the amount of doping cases from top riders speak for itself and Armstrong was top of the tree in that period. My comment on how his body reacted was due to a comment is heard about his vo2max results were among the highest tested at the time, surely they were testing other doped riders.



Not really showing us that.


----------



## LimeBurn (22 Oct 2013)

Don't have to show you anything, it's just an opinion. My original reply was I dont know why he gets so much bad press as he is just one of many.


----------



## SWSteve (22 Oct 2013)

I'm not going to say doping is correct, however I don't understand why it is only Lance who seems to have had titles taken away from him since retirement. 

note: I know there have been others, but I never hear about them - this I guess would be due to a) lance sells the front page, b) he won the 'biggest prize' more times


----------



## Noodley (22 Oct 2013)

LimeBurn said:


> My comment on how his body reacted was due to a comment is heard about his vo2max results were among the highest tested at the time


 
Yet another Armstrong lie.


----------



## montage (22 Oct 2013)

LimeBurn said:


> Don't have to show you anything, it's just an opinion. My original reply was I dont know why he gets so much bad press as he is just one of many.



Throughout your years the chances are, as with every other human being, that you have said things that you regret saying, that seem foolish with hindsight, that you would love to take back.
After much soul searching and trying to find the light, you shall realise that your comments on this topic are one of these things.


----------



## ayceejay (22 Oct 2013)

I don't think it is any secret that a lot of cyclists used some form of drug to effect their own personal performance, what sets Armstrong apart is that he wanted to have an effect on everyone's performance.


----------



## Noodley (22 Oct 2013)

ItsSteveLovell said:


> I'm not going to say doping is correct, however I don't understand why it is only Lance who seems to have had titles taken away from him since retirement.
> 
> note: I know there have been others, but I never hear about them - this I guess would be due to a) lance sells the front page, b) he won the 'biggest prize' more times


 
You need to do a bit more reading then.


----------



## ColinJ (22 Oct 2013)

User said:


> I like lemond my first autograph poster was a Greg Lemond...but it's all bit boring now, Armstrong is gone, good riddance but sometimes *I feel Lemond can't move on because if he was to, he'd have nothing else to talk about*,


Being world champion twice, and winning the Tour de France three times (twice despite nearly dying after being shot), perhaps ...?


----------



## Hacienda71 (22 Oct 2013)

Or if you can't be bothered reading watch this.

If you can be bothered reading The Secret Race is a damn good read.


----------



## slowmotion (23 Oct 2013)

Armstrong, surrounded by a whole bunch of sycophants, tries to bully LeMond. It's quite chilling.

[media]
View: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ryH650Br8uI
[/media]


----------



## Flying_Monkey (23 Oct 2013)

ayceejay said:


> I don't think it is any secret that a lot of cyclists used some form of drug to effect their own personal performance, what sets Armstrong apart is that he wanted to have an effect on everyone's performance.



Exactly. Let's not forget, Armstrong was not just a guy who doped and kept it private. He had an entire network of people dedicated specifically to supporting his doping activities, forcing others to choose between doping to support him or being ejected from the team, intimidating anyone who questioned him both within races and outside, using his political connections and money to try to close down investigations and positive tests.

The appropriate comparison here is not to a guy who was just another small-time crook like all the others, but to a capo - a mafia don.

Having said all that, I still think that if he comes completely clean (as Cookson wants), that he has a chance for a certain kind of rehabilitation, and as this whole thing recedes into history, like it or not, he'll still be remembered as a rider who won 7 Tours, yes doped, another in the long line of TdF cheats, but he will not be a blank space in the history of cycling. I also don't buy LeMond's argument that he would have certainly been an also-ran: that assumes that his doping techniques were so much superior to the others who were also doping that they had more effect on him than those others (Riis, Ullrich, Pantani etc. etc.). For all that Armstrong is a nasty piece of work, a liar, a bully and a cheat, he's also, still, an amazing athlete. It seems rather silly to deny that. It's like saying that Pantani wasn't much of a climber really...


----------



## raindog (23 Oct 2013)

User said:


> .......good riddance but sometimes I feel Lemond can't move on because if he was to, he'd have nothing else to talk about,


Greg was asked questions during a CNN interview, he could hardly just sit there without speaking.


----------



## Noodley (23 Oct 2013)

Flying_Monkey said:


> ...he's also, still, an amazing athlete. It seems rather silly to deny that. It's like saying that Pantani wasn't much of a climber really...


 
We'll never really know if they were. I am adopting the position that they would not have been had it not been for doping. Which, from everything I have read, seems to be the most logical position to adopt.

I'd go with LeMond's top 30 at best option.


----------



## Scoop940 (23 Oct 2013)

Hacienda71 said:


> Or if you can't be bothered reading watch this.
> 
> If you can be bothered reading The Secret Race is a damn good read.




Video sums it up very well, hadn't seen that before. 

Secret Race very good, as is Racing Through the Dark by David Millar, I'm not usually a reader but couldn't put these down. Interesting how both books actually tell a very similar Story - David Millar's a bit less "Hollywood"

Lance took it futher than the others, they all lied and cheated yes but the way Lance went after people and pretty much destroyed peoples lives sets him apart IMO.


----------



## rich p (23 Oct 2013)

I'm all tuckered out answering LA fanboys and apologists but some of you new boys may find these threads illuminating...
http://www.cyclechat.net/threads/armstrong-charged-and-banned.104078/
http://www.cyclechat.net/threads/the-new-improved-lance-armstrong-discussion-thread.110635/
They'll get you up to speed in no time.


----------



## Flying_Monkey (23 Oct 2013)

Noodley said:


> We'll never really know if they were. I am adopting the position that they would not have been had it not been for doping. Which, from everything I have read, seems to be the most logical position to adopt.



Well, he was a potentially world-beating triathlete before he turned to cycling. And I very much doubt he was doping in his teens. Unfortunately, his sociopathic bastardy combined with a single-minded and aggressive determination is also the mark of more than a few conventionally successful (sports)people (Hinault, anyone?). I have no time for him as a person and I've been pretty clear on where I stand on doping, but I just think it's silly to deny that Armstrong was a really rather good racing cyclist. Landis was too, and Hamilton, and Pantani...


----------



## thom (23 Oct 2013)

LimeBurn said:


> Wouldn't say he was better at cheating as he got caught, but maybe his body reacted to the drugs better. I'm under the opinion that he was, on the day, better than the other riders. His amateur and neo-pro results were very good and it must have been a fairly level playing field at that time in the pro scene.


Unfortunately for you, that opinion will only ever be an opinion and one that Lance denied you the possibility of ever knowing the truth about.
I suspect it will be a minority held view but you are entitled to it.


----------



## thom (23 Oct 2013)

ItsSteveLovell said:


> I'm not going to say doping is correct, however I don't understand why it is only Lance who seems to have had titles taken away from him since retirement.


1) Lance secured 7 titles - there were not so many else lying around of the TdF variety. He was the biggest guy out there and being won by a US athlete in such great proportions, USADA/FBI investigations were deemed appropriate to establish facts. If you are only going to get one guy, he was the guy to get.
2) Lance was offered the chance to keep a good few of them had he cooperated with investigations. He gambled on his modus operandi of bullying preventing the full truth come out and lost. 

I'm sure the same would apply to any other similarly dominant athletes who had such a sophisticated program but none others really existed with similar success.


----------



## Noodley (23 Oct 2013)

Flying_Monkey said:


> ...but I just think it's silly to deny that Armstrong was a really rather good racing cyclist. Landis was too, and Hamilton, and Pantani...


Indeed, top 30 or thereabouts level.


----------



## beastie (23 Oct 2013)

rich p said:


> http://www.cyclechat.net/threads/armstrong-charged-and-banned.104078/
> http://www.cyclechat.net/threads/the-new-improved-lance-armstrong-discussion-thread.110635/
> They'll get you up to speed in FOUR OR FIVE HOURS


FTFY


----------



## Boris Bajic (23 Oct 2013)

It is terrible what happened to Lance's adversaries in the grimy tale of his Faustian pact.... Nobody can excuse what he did to others and I imagine nobody will try.

But we are a society who can read Mario Puzo and identify with Vito or Michael. We know the deal they've made with fate and we are somehow quite attracted to its absolute and brutal inflexibility. As long as it is kept to the pages of a novel or a TV screen, there is something noble and animal about the absolute imposition of a code of _Omerta_ or _Gjakmarrje_.

Then we see that it has crept off the screen and is being practised by Mr Armstrong. "If we are going to cheat, you are in or you are out. There can be no passengers. The rewards are great, but the risks are too. No room for passengers".

I paraphrase terribly, but the parallel with the Corleone family is not completely invalid. For Armstrong's conceit to flourish, obedience, respect and silence had to be absolute. I think him the damaged and slimy product of a twisted relationship with a devoted mother who poured into her son the energy and love she kept failing to receive from the men in her life. There is so much damage in his childhood - and he did the thing men so often do... he turned it on those who stood against him as an adult. Again I simplify a very complex series of issues.

I still hold him in high regard for the racing that he and the clean guys around him produced in those glory years of smashed records and sprinted climbs and just magnificent maulings of guys who were ever-so-nearly just as fast. I was never a fanboy (although I was close to that with Pantani, who never doped).

But I do see a Cosa Nostra granite in the absolute nature of the loyalty (fear) that Lance demanded in his pomp. It should have been a film.

"We have to go now, Tessio. I can't come with you. You go in that car".

"OK Tom. Tell Lance it was only business. I always liked Lance, it was just business."


----------



## VamP (23 Oct 2013)

“I think it is just terrible and disgusting how everyone has treated Lance Armstrong, especially after what he achieved winning seven Tour de France races while competing on drugs.
“When I was on drugs, I couldn’t even find my bike.”

Tricky


----------



## ColinJ (23 Oct 2013)

ColinJ said:


> Being world champion twice, and winning the Tour de France three times (twice despite nearly dying after being shot), perhaps ...?


There's a good article about Lemond's 1989 World Championship win in this month's Cycle Sport, which I got today (dated DEC 2013).


----------



## Flying_Monkey (24 Oct 2013)

Noodley said:


> Indeed, top 30 or thereabouts level.



I don't see any reason why he wouldn't have been a contender for most of the time. I think LeMond's claim is motivated more by personal animosity - it's easy to kick someone when they are down, especially someone who has tried to ruin your life. I'm not saying Armstrong doesn't deserve everything that's coming to him in a moral sense, but I do dispute the 'facts' of claims like this.


----------



## Crankarm (24 Oct 2013)

And how do we know Lemond was riding clean ................? Maybe he's having his revenge on Armstrong now knowing his own (Lemond) performance is unlikely to be challenged as there is no evidence owing to time elapsed. Just face it the whole of Pro cycling going back decades right from the first tour has been one big dope / stimulant fest - death of Tommy Simpson on Ventoux then Pantani. They have all been at it at some point to try to gain an advantage over rivals and get a win certain in their minds that the risk to their health and that they wouldn't be caught was worth it. Riders, team managers and organisers complicit in extensive doping - Festina, Dr Ferrari, the list is long of riders who have doped. They are all there. Only now we have this ultra Puritanical zero tolerance to stimulants that it is possible with advances in technology to much more closely monitor riders and out the "cheats". Cycling may now be the cleanest it has ever been but there will still be people prepared to cheat to win. If it would be possible to turn back the clock and re-run races with all riders clean then we would truly see who was the best but of course we can't do this. Armstrong in top 30 riders? I don't know.


----------



## Dave Davenport (24 Oct 2013)

My understanding is that with all his natural abilities LA could have won classics and GT stages (think Philippe Gilbert) but would never have been a GC contender without doping.


----------



## VamP (24 Oct 2013)

Crankarm said:


> And how do we know Lemond was riding clean ................? Maybe he's having his revenge on Armstrong now knowing his own (Lemond) performance is unlikely to be challenged as there is no evidence owing to time elapsed. Just face it the whole of Pro cycling going back decades right from the first tour has been one big dope / stimulant fest - death of Tommy Simpson on Ventoux then Pantani. They have all been at it at some point to try to gain an advantage over rivals and get a win certain in their minds that the risk to their health and that they wouldn't be caught was worth it. Riders, team managers and organisers complicit in extensive doping - Festina, Dr Ferrari, the list is long of riders who have doped. They are all there. Only now we have this ultra Puritanical zero tolerance to stimulants that it is possible with advances in technology to much more closely monitor riders and out the "cheats". Cycling may now be the cleanest it has ever been but there will still be people prepared to cheat to win. If it would be possible to turn back the clock and re-run races with all riders clean then we would truly see who was the best but of course we can't do this. Armstrong in top 30 riders? I don't know.


 

Hey, this has to be a contender for the most out of touch post of the year, surely?


----------



## Crankarm (24 Oct 2013)

VamP said:


> Hey, this has to be a contender for the most out of touch post of the year, surely?



ICMFP.


----------



## ColinJ (24 Oct 2013)

Crankarm said:


> And how do we know Lemond was riding clean ................?


Obviously, we can never prove a negative, _but_ ...

As I have mentioned before, I got into cycling again in 1989, inspired by Lemond's win over Fignon and looked forward to following his career after that. He did win the Tour again the following year, but IIRC, he made it look like hard work and didn't win any stages.

From 1990 onwards, Lemond seemed to lose his competitive age. At the time, it was said to be due to lead poisoning from pellets left in his body after his hunting accident, but it coincided with the introduction of EPO to the peloton. Other top riders such as Andy Hampsten also suddenly started to struggle as the peloton got faster.

It seems clear to me that it was the 'donkeys' who started looking like 'race horses' who were cheating, not the race horses who, relatively speaking, started performing like donkeys!


----------



## The Couch (24 Oct 2013)

A bit of topic perhaps... 
but this looks a top 30 (acting) performance:





FYI... this is the first image from Stephen Frears' Lance Armstrong Film. (Lance played by Ben Foster)

(Although what I see from them... the calves look a bit too "footballer-like" and not as sinewy muscled as with LA)


----------



## VamP (24 Oct 2013)

Crankarm said:


> ICMFP.


 

I don't know what that means, but it's virtually impossible to think of any TdF champion that is less likely to have used PEDs than LeMond. As for the rest of your rant, it's just a random collection of names associated with doping, it doesn't even make any sense as a narrative.


----------



## The Couch (24 Oct 2013)

User said:


> to be fair lemond was entering his 30's by then and if EPO was widespread from around the mid 90's, could of been a case of just getting to old for the game..


Fair point, even Indurain (called "mutant" on the "Vayer-scale"  - whatever the value you want to give to that of course - ) failed to get number 6 when he turned 32


----------



## Hont (24 Oct 2013)

I see the forum has been missing an Armstong related thread. Glad to plug the gap in the market. 

I think Greg's statement comes from seeing Armstrong's numbers, which were not those of a GT winner. So, as I haven't seen Armstrong's lab results and don't have Greg's expertise and knowledge, I'm happy to take his word for it. All those of you with more knowledge than Greg, feel free to put him right.

And as for Greg being a doper, do me a favour. This is the man, don't forget, who declined to work with Dr Ferrari because Ferrari didn't understand why Greg wanted to measure his own power output when training. This is a mirror of Sky's statement that everyone was concentrating so much on doping they forgot to advance in training techniques - only 25 years ago.


----------



## Keith Oates (24 Oct 2013)

I never did like LeMond even before he started to bad mouth Armstrong. !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## VamP (24 Oct 2013)

The Couch said:


> Fair point, even Indurain (called "mutant" on the "Vayer-scale"  - whatever the value you want to give to that of course - ) failed to get number 6 when he turned 32


 
Don't be silly. Even 42 is not too old to be a GT winner


----------



## The Couch (24 Oct 2013)

VamP said:


> Don't be silly. Even 42 is not too old to be a GT winner


Maybe it has something to do with build-up effect... a body can only be enhanced X amount of times when shooting the extremely high (maximum?) doses  ?
(I'm thinking Indurain, Riis, Ugrumov, Olano, Julich, Dufaux... all people who had a quite drastic drop-off in results )

(I could have been naught and added "Andy Schleck?" there as well, but I'm not like that )


----------



## Crackle (24 Oct 2013)

VamP said:


> Hey, this has to be a contender for the most out of touch post of the year, surely?


No, no, he's made others.

I remember watching Lemond in his final tour. He was plainly pissed off at the way the peloton was riding. At the time I was a bit green to understand what he was insinuating but there was no way he was past it at 30.


----------



## Crankarm (24 Oct 2013)

Keith Oates said:


> I never did like LeMond even before he started to bad mouth Armstrong. !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## Crankarm (24 Oct 2013)

VamP said:


> I don't know what that means, but it's virtually impossible to think of any TdF champion that is less likely to have used PEDs than LeMond. As for the rest of your rant, it's just a random collection of names associated with doping, it doesn't even make any sense as a narrative.



Tsk tsk, play the ball not the man. Don't throw a tantrum and become obnoxious just because some dares to take a different view to you. Seems just the sort of behaviour a certain fallen cyclist would endulge in.


----------



## VamP (24 Oct 2013)

Crankarm said:


> Tsk tsk, play the ball not the man. Don't throw a tantrum and become obnoxious just because some dares to take a different view to you. Seems just the sort of behaviour a certain fallen cyclist would endulge in.


 
There is no ball. Just some nonsense.


----------



## LimeBurn (24 Oct 2013)

Boris Bajic said:


> It is terrible what happened to Lance's adversaries in the grimy tale of his Faustian pact.... Nobody can excuse what he did to others and I imagine nobody will try.
> 
> But we are a society who can read Mario Puzo and identify with Vito or Michael. We know the deal they've made with fate and we are somehow quite attracted to its absolute and brutal inflexibility. As long as it is kept to the pages of a novel or a TV screen, there is something noble and animal about the absolute imposition of a code of _Omerta_ or _Gjakemarrje_.
> 
> ...


Hope you're quote about Pantani was tongue in cheek!!


----------



## Pedrosanchezo (24 Oct 2013)

LimeBurn said:


> Hope you're quote about Pantani was tongue in cheek!!


Pantani doped so much that all of his hair fell out!


----------



## Pedrosanchezo (24 Oct 2013)

Crackle said:


> No, no, he's made others.
> 
> I remember watching Lemond in his final tour. He was plainly ****ed off at the way the peloton was riding. At the time I was a bit green to understand what he was insinuating but there was no way he was past it at 30.


He did also have that incident involving a shotgun. He is quoted saying he was never the same afterward and that it was a unfortunate turning point in his career. The fact that the majority of the peloton were wired to the moon on EPO certainly left a bitter taste in his mouth, in the early 90's. 

Interesting though if you think that Lemond would not dope under any circumstance but was happy to soil himself and continue riding with it all running down his legs and his bike. 

To summarise Lemond would rather ride a bike in his own sh*t than to dope to win. Gotta love that.


----------



## Crackle (24 Oct 2013)

Pedrosanchezo said:


> He did also have that incident involving a shotgun. He is quoted saying he was never the same afterward and that it was a unfortunate turning point in his career. The fact that the majority of the peloton were wired to the moon on EPO certainly left a bitter taste in his mouth, in the early 90's.
> 
> Interesting though if you think that Lemond would not dope under any circumstance but was happy to soil himself and continue riding with it all running down his legs and his bike.
> 
> To summarise Lemond would rather ride a bike in his own sh*t than to dope to win. Gotta love that.



What he says is backed up by others of the era. You may have read Fignon's book. 

I'm not sure what point your making with the soiling, nor am i sure I want you to elucidate!


----------



## Pedrosanchezo (24 Oct 2013)

Crackle said:


> What he says is backed up by others of the era. You may have read Fignon's book.
> 
> I'm not sure what point your making with the soiling, nor am i sure I want you to elucidate!


My point was that the majority of the peloton would happily dope to win, or survive, but likely draw the line at soiling themselves on the bike. Lemond was the exact opposite. Many riders talk about their shock of that day when he done it, saying they wouldn't have done that. Yet they don't mind cheating/doping to stay in the race. Lemond stayed on the bike in order to stay in the race. To win. He didn't cheat to do so.


----------



## VamP (25 Oct 2013)

Pedrosanchezo said:


> My point was that the majority of the peloton would happily dope to win, or survive, but likely draw the line at soiling themselves on the bike. Lemond was the exact opposite. Many riders talk about their shock of that day when he done it, saying they wouldn't have done that. Yet they don't mind cheating/doping to stay in the race. Lemond stayed on the bike in order to stay in the race. To win. He didn't cheat to do so.


 
I am fairly sure the poo incident was during the 1986 Tour, prior to his gunshot injury, and before EPO raised it's ugly head. He had his hands full that year fighting off his superdom Hinault, who failed to remember what his job was supposed to be 

But I think your point is that LeMond was extremely principled, and that I would have to agree with.


----------



## Pedrosanchezo (25 Oct 2013)

VamP said:


> I am fairly sure the poo incident was during the 1986 Tour, prior to his gunshot injury, and before EPO raised it's ugly head. He had his hands full that year fighting off his superdom Hinault, who failed to remember what his job was supposed to be
> 
> But I think your point is that LeMond was extremely principled, and that I would have to agree with.


It is indeed.

Hinault insists to this day that he was "helping Lemond" win the 86 Tour. 

Yeh 86 was the year of the bad peach. 87 was when he got shot. Lucky to survive! Still he came back and won again in 89 - Pan y agua.

I like Lemond. I like his character. He is indeed the most successful cyclist to come out of the states.


----------



## Boris Bajic (25 Oct 2013)

LimeBurn said:


> Hope you're quote about Pantani was tongue in cheek!!


 
It was 100% tongue-in-cheek, but I still loved to watch him race and to read about him.

But as a resigned relection on those days, it matters not whether I thought he doped or not.

Many people have any one or more of Vogt, Candellara, Indurain, Evans, Contador and others as clean.

We choose our heroes and defend their honour while we decry the naivity of others for thinking their own chosen ones were clean.


----------



## LimeBurn (25 Oct 2013)

Loved Pantani - anyone who can start throwing diamond earings into the trees before attacking is awesome in my book. Takes weight saving to a whole new level.


Boris Bajic said:


> It was 100% tongue-in-cheek, but I still loved to watch him race and to read about him.
> 
> But as a resigned relection on those days, it matters not whether I thought he doped or not.
> 
> ...


----------

