To Greg LeMond

Lemond needs to go back to eating Taco bell, promoting his bikes, and sucking his gut in for photo shoots with his exercise equipment. Everytime I see a guy on a ride with a Lemond bike...I try my hardest to drop them.

Hey Greg
You just lost all my respect.

mattp71 said:

Lemond needs to go back to eating Taco bell, promoting his bikes, and sucking his gut in for photo shoots with his exercise equipment. Everytime I see a guy on a ride with a Lemond bike...I try my hardest to drop them.

If he keeps it up - I doubt you will see that many new Lemond bikes out there & quite a few old naked ones. 😄

SLS said:

If he keeps it up - I doubt you will see that many new Lemond bikes out there & quite a few old naked ones. 😄

LMFAO go the land of free speach eh! Greg was a true champion. As a true champion it is his right, if not his responsibility, to oust anyone who tarnishes what he achieved. If he "knows" LA to be a drug cheat he has done the right thing. Good on ya Greg! I always respected him, more so now.

Fixey said:

LMFAO go the land of free speach eh! Greg was a true champion. As a true champion it is his right, if not his responsibility, to oust anyone who tarnishes what he achieved. If he "knows" LA to be a drug cheat he has done the right thing. Good on ya Greg! I always respected him, more so now.

I respect Greg for voicing his opinion, but when an opinion is unfounded and voiced by a man of such reknown, it can be particularly damaging. He has no more evidence than that quasi journalist Walsh. It's sad that he offers no proof. Perhaps in voicing such an opinion about Lance he is admitting that Lance is a better rider than he was. Given that Lance has never failed a doping test, and Greg still points to drugs means that he cannot believe that Lance is doing better than he was. I'm afraid that that is the case. Greg just cannot accept it. That's why he keeps saying he is doping.

LeMond probably don't make that much money off his bikes, own by Trek. But for what it's worth, I refused to consider a LeMond bike as my next purchase, of which I'm currently shopping.

I'm just curious as to what the big bosses at Trek head quarters are telling Greg.

Rudy said:

LeMond probably don't make that much money off his bikes, own by Trek. But for what it's worth, I refused to consider a LeMond bike as my next purchase, of which I'm currently shopping.

I'm just curious as to what the big bosses at Trek head quarters are telling Greg.

I have considered selling my new Zurich for a new Tcr 1 and Lemond's comments just seeled the deal!!!!!

gntlmn said:

I respect Greg for voicing his opinion, but when an opinion is unfounded and voiced by a man of such reknown, it can be particularly damaging. He has no more evidence than that quasi journalist Walsh. It's sad that he offers no proof. Perhaps in voicing such an opinion about Lance he is admitting that Lance is a better rider than he was. Given that Lance has never failed a doping test, and Greg still points to drugs means that he cannot believe that Lance is doing better than he was. I'm afraid that that is the case. Greg just cannot accept it. That's why he keeps saying he is doping.

I agree that perhaps it would have been better for Greg to keep his thoughts to himself. However, whilst unsurprisingly everybody focuses on his comments in relation to Lance, it is important to recognise that Lemond is also talking about the whole peloton. As for his evidence against that of David Walsh, I think that a three time TDF champion will know a little more than a journalist about what goes on inside cycling. I do not think that Greg has sour grapes as it is impossible to compare cyclists from diferent eras. What is most significant about Greg Lemond's interview with Le Monde is his references to the increased speed in the peloton and his experiences in the 1991 TDF. Yet again we see faster average speeds in this years TDF. Yesterday's stage averaged nearly 45 kmh with a head/cross wind after two very tough mountain stages. I can see why Greg Lemond will view such instances with suspicion.

I remain a big Greg Lemond fan and continue to see him as a very honest human being. Like Greg, I want to see the truth when I watch the Tour de France but have difficulty these days. However, I do not see why Armstrong should be the sole scapegoat in the doping debate. As always the athletes will be one step ahead of the testers but the absence of positive tests does not mean that there is an absence of doping. Look at the average speeds, the pace of the mountain stages. Do you believe that athletes such as Hinault and Merckx would finish hours behind on GC against today's riders?

On a final point, if Armstrong is clean then this year's TDF performance is truly magnificent and deserves total respect. Let's hope this is the case.

I am among those who began to appreciate the sport of cycling during the drama between Fignon and Lemond. I idolized the guy. No more. If he's indicting the sport in general, then he shouldn't single out Armstrong for smarmy suspicion. I'm not even a fanatical Lance fan, and I really don't mind it when some clueless biking fan shouts to the heavens that Lance must be doping. But Lemond knows his words carry some weight, and it makes his engaging in rumormongering that much more despicable. If he "knows" something, then out with it. If not, he ought to shut his mouth like a good little has-been.

As for the suggestion that they "must" be doping because of the dramatic increases in performance from generations gone by . . . do you think Hinault or Merckx was worried about carb counts, electrolytes, wattage, etc. in their day? Do you think they had access to some foul-tasting but nutrient-rich drink to gulp down a couple of klicks before the HC category climbs began? Do you think they did wind-tunnel testing on bikes that weigh less than my nine-month old daughter, and ride around on thousand-dollar carbon wheels during time trials? No. They ate a good meal with some pasta and protein in it, had a glass of wine, had a good nights sleep, and woke up the next day and did what they had to do.

Dramatic advances in bike technology and nutrition are certainly some of the reasons that cyclist of today are so much more efficient and powerful than those of years gone by. To suggest that "everyone must be doping" because Merckx couldn't match these times is to ignore virtually everything else about the sport that has changed, and most everything has.

Certainly there are dopers out there, and if some of you are so disgruntled with Armstrongs success that you must voice your opinion that he's cheating, that's fine. Your opinion carries as much weight as mine, that is to say, precious little. But Lemond should know better. To intentionally slander a cyclist because he just can't figure out how the guy could be doing as well as he is without cheating is the height of laziness. Prove it, or stifle it.

rejobako said:

I am among those who began to appreciate the sport of cycling during the drama between Fignon and Lemond. I idolized the guy. No more. If he's indicting the sport in general, then he shouldn't single out Armstrong for smarmy suspicion. I'm not even a fanatical Lance fan, and I really don't mind it when some clueless biking fan shouts to the heavens that Lance must be doping. But Lemond knows his words carry some weight, and it makes his engaging in rumormongering that much more despicable. If he "knows" something, then out with it. If not, he ought to shut his mouth like a good little has-been.

As for the suggestion that they "must" be doping because of the dramatic increases in performance from generations gone by . . . do you think Hinault or Merckx was worried about carb counts, electrolytes, wattage, etc. in their day? Do you think they had access to some foul-tasting but nutrient-rich drink to gulp down a couple of klicks before the HC category climbs began? Do you think they did wind-tunnel testing on bikes that weigh less than my nine-month old daughter, and ride around on thousand-dollar carbon wheels during time trials? No. They ate a good meal with some pasta and protein in it, had a glass of wine, had a good nights sleep, and woke up the next day and did what they had to do.

Dramatic advances in bike technology and nutrition are certainly some of the reasons that cyclist of today are so much more efficient and powerful than those of years gone by. To suggest that "everyone must be doping" because Merckx couldn't match these times is to ignore virtually everything else about the sport that has changed, and most everything has.

Certainly there are dopers out there, and if some of you are so disgruntled with Armstrongs success that you must voice your opinion that he's cheating, that's fine. Your opinion carries as much weight as mine, that is to say, precious little. But Lemond should know better. To intentionally slander a cyclist because he just can't figure out how the guy could be doing as well as he is without cheating is the height of laziness. Prove it, or stifle it.

Very well said rejobako! I agree with you whole-heartedly.

More sour grapes. LeMond couldn't figure out in his first tour win that Hinault wasn't going to just hand him victory, he was going to have to earn it as a true champion. Hinault taught him how to be that champion and Greg did earn it complaining all the way.

Now he can't imagine that progress has marched on in nutrition and equipment like other posters have stated. He beleives like many now that a tour victor must be a doper. I recall a tour where Greg was behind by 50 seconds comming into the last stage, a very short time trial of less than 25 Km. Greg made up 58 seconds on Fignon to win by 8. Certainly bringing back 58 seconds in such a short distance must be considered questionable and thus Greg must be a doper. Or was it the new helmet and aero bars that he pioneered and debuted on that stage.

Greg please go take some more lessons from Hinault on how to be a true champion.

rejobako said:

I am among those who began to appreciate the sport of cycling during the drama between Fignon and Lemond. I idolized the guy. No more. If he's indicting the sport in general, then he shouldn't single out Armstrong for smarmy suspicion. I'm not even a fanatical Lance fan, and I really don't mind it when some clueless biking fan shouts to the heavens that Lance must be doping. But Lemond knows his words carry some weight, and it makes his engaging in rumormongering that much more despicable. If he "knows" something, then out with it. If not, he ought to shut his mouth like a good little has-been.

As for the suggestion that they "must" be doping because of the dramatic increases in performance from generations gone by . . . do you think Hinault or Merckx was worried about carb counts, electrolytes, wattage, etc. in their day? Do you think they had access to some foul-tasting but nutrient-rich drink to gulp down a couple of klicks before the HC category climbs began? Do you think they did wind-tunnel testing on bikes that weigh less than my nine-month old daughter, and ride around on thousand-dollar carbon wheels during time trials? No. They ate a good meal with some pasta and protein in it, had a glass of wine, had a good nights sleep, and woke up the next day and did what they had to do.

Dramatic advances in bike technology and nutrition are certainly some of the reasons that cyclist of today are so much more efficient and powerful than those of years gone by. To suggest that "everyone must be doping" because Merckx couldn't match these times is to ignore virtually everything else about the sport that has changed, and most everything has.

Certainly there are dopers out there, and if some of you are so disgruntled with Armstrongs success that you must voice your opinion that he's cheating, that's fine. Your opinion carries as much weight as mine, that is to say, precious little. But Lemond should know better. To intentionally slander a cyclist because he just can't figure out how the guy could be doing as well as he is without cheating is the height of laziness. Prove it, or stifle it.

I do not dispute that advances in technology and diet have contributed to improvements in performance. That said, I think that Hinault under the guidance of Paul Koechli in the mid 1980's would have been pretty clued up regarding diet etc and he did ride low-profile bikes with disc wheels. Diet and training is pretty much unchanged amongst the top riders for the last decade yet average speeds keep increasing, the number of riders contesting the big races has increased enormously. I therefore think that your comments on improvements, whilst well made, do not explain the big improvements in performance. The riders are probably training harder for longer but it is improved recovery which generates the improvements. Doping, in my opinion, has been the major factor in improved recovery rates.

I don't think we will ever prove widespread doping in cycling, but on that basis David Millar is a clean rider as are most of the professional peloton.

philoakley said:

II think that Hinault under the guidance of Paul Koechli in the mid 1980's would have been pretty clued up regarding diet etc and he did ride low-profile bikes with disc wheels. Diet and training is pretty much unchanged amongst the top riders for the last decade yet average speeds keep increasing, the number of riders contesting the big races has increased enormously. I therefore think that your comments on improvements, whilst well made, do not explain the big improvements in performance. The riders are probably training harder for longer but it is improved recovery which generates the improvements. Doping, in my opinion, has been the major factor in improved recovery rates.

I respect your opinion, but I still think that you are undervaluing the impact of advances in nutrition/equipment/training. As someone noted earlier, look at what Lemond managed to do to Fignon in a short time trial, simply by being more aerodynamic and adding carbon wheels. I do not pretend to be an expert on cycling training techniques or equipment; my fascination with the sport is much more fundamental than that. But it seems to me that your statement that "diet and training is pretty much unchanged" over the last decade is very much understated. From what I read, there are advances and breakthroughs on almost a daily basis.

Stop being a little [censored] and grow up (to GL)

Your 15 minutes are wayyy over

SLS said:

If he keeps it up - I doubt you will see that many new Lemond bikes out there & quite a few old naked ones. 😄

yeah great...Now a huffy is worth more than my LeMond BA....thanks Greg!

Lemond+reality=doper,

if you ever read Lemonds book, you might think he is a doper.
After his hunting accident he couldn't get close to his old form. Then after suffering in the tour of Italy he was about to give up. His personal trainer suggested he maybe needed a "vitamin" shot. After said shot, he went onto win two tours and lose capacity in his kidneys. Doper? You bet your ass he doped. Thats why hes so freely calling out the present day riders. vitamin shot my ass.

Uncle Stinky said:

Lemond+reality=doper,

Hmmm, first post. Is that you Armstrong?

BTW, when is Sheryl Crow's next CD expected?

Bro Deal said:

Hmmm, first post. Is that you Armstrong?

BTW, when is Sheryl Crow's next CD expected?

ahahahhaha!!!!!!

I don't think anyone can truly say that Armstrong did NOT deserve his 7 Tour de France victories. I mean the man won it 7 times, was never really REALLY threatened, no one ever came close to his level and it's very likely that most of his opponents in those 7 years - Ullrich, Pantani, Basso, Zülle, Escartin, Beloki, Mancebo - were doped up as well.

The only way he could NOT deserve it is if it came out he had some kind of new superdoping but that's not very likely.

Armstrong was a doper, of course I say, but it doesn't mean that he was a cheater.