Professional Cycling For the Fans - Evidence overwhelmingly indicates Greg LeMond Doped....

Whatever the outcome maybe of the forthcoming investigations into the Lance Armstrong saga, it is too bad that LeMond won't be remembered for being a great cyclist, but instead as a great whiner & in the process turned into a pathetic curmudgeon. He’s been bested & ousted from his perch as the best cyclist ever to come out from America - deal with it.

While Greg throws insult after insult, hoping for it to stick to something, Lance is able to remain calm and let Greg lose his reputation. Lance keeps the higher ground and doesn't in dignify himself with a fight. If they both got into it verbally, nobody would look good.

With the same amount of proof that has been brought to light against Lance, I charge LeMond of doping as well.


- Explain, how in the course of a couple of days, mid 1989, he could go from being shelled out the back at even dropped by the sprinters in the mountains of the Giro to finishing on the podium during the final time trial - and then going onto win the Tour and the Worlds. Seeing Greg go up the final climb in the worlds just made a complete mockery of everyone in the race. An impressive piece of big gear climbing. The first half of the season is a complete disaster for Greg with many races not even finished and then "oh, I have an iron deficiency". I almost remember Greg almost quiting pro cycling during the early part of 1989 and his mystery overnight "recovery" from aenemia by vitamin B12 and iron shots from his soigneur, Otto, and coming back into form. Having suffered from aenemia and gone through similar 'shots' I know, like many others, that you don't just recover mystically overnight, or even over a few days... If Greg was given something, knowingly or not, for anemia and the resulting low hematocrit and hgb and it worked really fast - it certainly wasn't "iron shots". I could think of something that was out in the pro peloton that'd fit a rapid increase of performance. When you're dropped on all the mountain stages and do very poorly in the prologue and the first time trial of the Giro but 'mystically' come back for a podium finish in the final time trial then something, somewhere happened. So what did miraculously turn his form around overnight & what did he take?. I claim EPO. When you're talking about quitting the sport you know things are really bad.

- Gregs' increase in performance from a few shots of vitamins and iron in the hiney does not compute. Insinuate from that what you will... EPO might take weeks but there's always transfusions...

- And for someone who rides as hard as Greg, I don’t buy it for one second he rode it as training, look at his resume pre ’89, riding hard in every event.

- Whatever happened to the LeMond line of bicycles? That's right. It was sold to Trek which later became a sponsor of and exclusive builder for the United States Postal squad. As I recall that team had a fairly good American rider on it and soon after it began its association with U.S. Postal the LeMond line of bicycles practically disappeared off the face of the planet. I wonder if Mr. LeMond finds that annoying? Answer: YES! He sued Trek in 2008 and Trek counter-sued to sever the business relationship with LeMond because nobody wants to buy a bike with that mewling turds name painted on it. Yet another reason for LeMond's hatred of his better and his desire to see druggie Floyd succeed in destroying Armstrong? Get a life Greg, you use to be just irrelevant but now most American cycling fans think your a pathetic desperate loser.

- In his the book "Bad Blood", he seems to indicate he left the Tour because he could not keep up with the r-EPO era cyclists. Didn’t stop him challenging the dopers of Fignon &co of ’89 & ’90. The drug testing starts advancing & its suddenly “he could not keep up with the r-EPO era cyclists of ’94. BS.

- I remember one exchange between Greg and Lance when Lance said something like the following to Greg: "How is it that you have the fastest time trial ever in the Tour de France?" Greg didn't have much of a response. It's a good question though since if everyone was doping at the time and Greg's time trial was still faster, he's either genetically from another planet or he was also doping when he rode that time trial.

- He beat a man (Fignon) who has since admitted to doping in 1989. He had the fastest time trial of that length or greater for many years (including all the years he claimed were full of dopers) DESPITE the fact that if you watch it, he's rocking all over the place and very un-aero and using a flexier bike than today. He made up 58 seconds on Laurent Fignon (confessed doper), ultimately winning the race by 8 seconds. YEAH RIGHT.

- Were Fignon ('89) and Chiapucci ('90) denied their rightful place as winners of the Tour de France in 1989 and 1990 by an EPO doper? You need to answer these questions Mr. LeMond.

One big piece of "evidence" he gives for proving he was dope free and others doped was how just one year after he won the Tour de France, suddenly he was finishing in the pack and beaten by others he'd beaten his whole career. But, in 1990 Lemond won with an average speed of 38.621 kph. The next year, the Big Mig won at an avg speed of 38.747 kph. That's a 0.3% difference. 1/3 of a percent.

- As well, his claim that him finishing 7th the next year, and thus was beaten by dopers, doesn't hold up. If Big Mig was a doper, then wouldn't Lemond's claim also hold true for him? But Big Mig won 5 years in a row and then the next year was 11th, even bigger of a drop off than Lemond.

LeMond portrays himself as Mr. squeaky clean but like so many other riders, hes dirty as the next rider, make no quarms about it. So look on the bright side -- at least someone is "probing" Armstrong – unfortunately it's not you!.

Weak case.

. . . . And the beauty of it is ....You Will NEVER know !! :lol:

http://velocitynation.com/content/interviews/2009/michael-ashenden

- Were Fignon ('89) and Chiapucci ('90) denied their rightful place as winners of the Tour de France in 1989 and 1990 by an EPO doper?

They were both doping, too. So it doesn't really matter, does it?

Chapeau,

I am presuming that this text comes from a source somewhere. Please attribute it properly, and provide a link. If you're taking a sentence or two from a source, nobody especially cares, but for a full page - we have to insist that this be done.

Thanks,

Z

What a load of BS. I can't believe I read that crap. All of it, not most, ALL of it was pure opinion. There are so many lies written by this new user that I don't even know where to start. Purely just a piece written to distract from the heat that Armstrong is getting. Armstrong's PR firm focuses on an enemy to distort and sway opinion. Pathetic and disgusting.

Chapeau is sock puppet for somebody. Absolute garbage.

Hmm, attack Lemond when you're in hot water... that worked out really well for Floyd, too... :rolleyes:

One big piece of "evidence" he gives for proving he was dope free and others doped was how just one year after he won the Tour de France, suddenly he was finishing in the pack and beaten by others he'd beaten his whole career. But, in 1990 Lemond won with an average speed of 38.621 kph. The next year, the Big Mig won at an avg speed of 38.747 kph. That's a 0.3% difference. 1/3 of a percent.

You obviously havn't a clue. What has the average speed in the TdF of 1990 to do with the average speed in 1991? Are you not aware that the course in the TdF changes from year to year. Also the weather changes and the tactics of teams change. Even the countries it's held in change.

I love how someone will create a sock puppet to say something controversial. They're obviously too cowardly to post it under their own, regular screen name.

Whatever the outcome maybe of the forthcoming investigations into the Lance Armstrong saga, it is too bad that LeMond won't be remembered for being a great cyclist, but instead as a great whiner & in the process turned into a pathetic curmudgeon. He’s been bested & ousted from his perch as the best cyclist ever to come out from America - deal with it.

While Greg throws insult after insult, hoping for it to stick to something, Lance is able to remain calm and let Greg lose his reputation. Lance keeps the higher ground and doesn't in dignify himself with a fight. If they both got into it verbally, nobody would look good.

With the same amount of proof that has been brought to light against Lance, I charge LeMond of doping as well.


- Explain, how in the course of a couple of days, mid 1989, he could go from being shelled out the back at even dropped by the sprinters in the mountains of the Giro to finishing on the podium during the final time trial - and then going onto win the Tour and the Worlds. Seeing Greg go up the final climb in the worlds just made a complete mockery of everyone in the race. An impressive piece of big gear climbing. The first half of the season is a complete disaster for Greg with many races not even finished and then "oh, I have an iron deficiency". I almost remember Greg almost quiting pro cycling during the early part of 1989 and his mystery overnight "recovery" from aenemia by vitamin B12 and iron shots from his soigneur, Otto, and coming back into form. Having suffered from aenemia and gone through similar 'shots' I know, like many others, that you don't just recover mystically overnight, or even over a few days... If Greg was given something, knowingly or not, for anemia and the resulting low hematocrit and hgb and it worked really fast - it certainly wasn't "iron shots". I could think of something that was out in the pro peloton that'd fit a rapid increase of performance. When you're dropped on all the mountain stages and do very poorly in the prologue and the first time trial of the Giro but 'mystically' come back for a podium finish in the final time trial then something, somewhere happened. So what did miraculously turn his form around overnight & what did he take?. I claim EPO. When you're talking about quitting the sport you know things are really bad.

- Gregs' increase in performance from a few shots of vitamins and iron in the hiney does not compute. Insinuate from that what you will... EPO might take weeks but there's always transfusions...

- And for someone who rides as hard as Greg, I don’t buy it for one second he rode it as training, look at his resume pre ’89, riding hard in every event.

- Whatever happened to the LeMond line of bicycles? That's right. It was sold to Trek which later became a sponsor of and exclusive builder for the United States Postal squad. As I recall that team had a fairly good American rider on it and soon after it began its association with U.S. Postal the LeMond line of bicycles practically disappeared off the face of the planet. I wonder if Mr. LeMond finds that annoying? Answer: YES! He sued Trek in 2008 and Trek counter-sued to sever the business relationship with LeMond because nobody wants to buy a bike with that mewling turds name painted on it. Yet another reason for LeMond's hatred of his better and his desire to see druggie Floyd succeed in destroying Armstrong? Get a life Greg, you use to be just irrelevant but now most American cycling fans think your a pathetic desperate loser.

- In his the book "Bad Blood", he seems to indicate he left the Tour because he could not keep up with the r-EPO era cyclists. Didn’t stop him challenging the dopers of Fignon &co of ’89 & ’90. The drug testing starts advancing & its suddenly “he could not keep up with the r-EPO era cyclists of ’94. BS.

- I remember one exchange between Greg and Lance when Lance said something like the following to Greg: "How is it that you have the fastest time trial ever in the Tour de France?" Greg didn't have much of a response. It's a good question though since if everyone was doping at the time and Greg's time trial was still faster, he's either genetically from another planet or he was also doping when he rode that time trial.

- He beat a man (Fignon) who has since admitted to doping in 1989. He had the fastest time trial of that length or greater for many years (including all the years he claimed were full of dopers) DESPITE the fact that if you watch it, he's rocking all over the place and very un-aero and using a flexier bike than today. He made up 58 seconds on Laurent Fignon (confessed doper), ultimately winning the race by 8 seconds. YEAH RIGHT.

- Were Fignon ('89) and Chiapucci ('90) denied their rightful place as winners of the Tour de France in 1989 and 1990 by an EPO doper? You need to answer these questions Mr. LeMond.

One big piece of "evidence" he gives for proving he was dope free and others doped was how just one year after he won the Tour de France, suddenly he was finishing in the pack and beaten by others he'd beaten his whole career. But, in 1990 Lemond won with an average speed of 38.621 kph. The next year, the Big Mig won at an avg speed of 38.747 kph. That's a 0.3% difference. 1/3 of a percent.

- As well, his claim that him finishing 7th the next year, and thus was beaten by dopers, doesn't hold up. If Big Mig was a doper, then wouldn't Lemond's claim also hold true for him? But Big Mig won 5 years in a row and then the next year was 11th, even bigger of a drop off than Lemond.

LeMond portrays himself as Mr. squeaky clean but like so many other riders, hes dirty as the next rider, make no quarms about it. So look on the bright side -- at least someone is "probing" Armstrong – unfortunately it's not you!.

Although you make 1 good point it is not enough to be fully substantiated. Considering that measurements showed Lemond as having probably more genetic gifts than Armstrong it is quite possible that the 89 Giro he went into it unfit but improved near the end of the race.

Unfortunately, the general feeling of your article is that of a rant to defend your idol. I understand. I have been there. But since we can't really prove anything from 1 incident we have to look at patterns of probabilities. This is were Lance really fails the test. There are just too many incidents which add up to 1 large probability.

Besides, the current investigation is on Armstrong and the current cycling generation. You may have a point about Lemond but you continually seem to be diverting responsibility away from Armstrong. Such tactics are almost always the course of the guilty. Try to make yourself or your idol seem less guilty by putting more blame on others.

What a load of BS. I can't believe I read that crap. All of it, not most, ALL of it was pure opinion. There are so many lies written by this new user that I don't even know where to start. Purely just a piece written to distract from the heat that Armstrong is getting. Armstrong's PR firm focuses on an enemy to distort and sway opinion. Pathetic and disgusting.

Truth hurt?.

In denial?.

But since we can't really prove anything from 1 incident we have to look at patterns of probabilities. This is were Lance really fails the test. There are just too many incidents which add up to 1 large probability.

Speculation.

Speculation.
So was your entire rant.

Lemond was well known for starting the season out of shape and overweight. So notorious for it taht in some circles he was nicknamed 'Fat Greggy'.

It seems the unknown writer who wrote the piece was unaware of this, or intentionally ignoring it, either way it leads me to discount anything he or the sockpuppet plagerizing him says.

Lamb Chop,

If we want to talk about disturbing patterns Armstrong: DNF, DNF, 36th, DNF, 7 wins

Lemond (and most other winners in the last 50 years): 3rd (or some form of top 10 finish), 2nd, 3 wins

Lets hear that tale about Lances body changing, bla bla bla... I want to make sure I understand the latest LA talking points.

Just to add a few points ragarding Lemond's final stage TT. It was short, downhill and with a tailwind. All lead to high speeds. For several years it has NOT been the fastest not prologue TT. Id have to check but it may never have been the fastest counting the prologue. It was also a rarity, a TT where the 2 top riders were both willing to take any risk. Normally there is at least some caution in the corners and fear of blowing up. Not that race.

Just to add a few points ragarding Lemond's final stage TT. It was short, downhill and with a tailwind. All lead to high speeds.

He made up 58 seconds on Laurent Fignon (confessed doper), ultimately winning the race by 8 seconds DESPITE the fact that if you watch it, he's rocking all over the place and very un-aero and using a flexier bike than today. YEAH RIGHT. Everyone was doping at the time and Greg's time trial was still faster, he's either genetically from another planet or he was also doping when he rode that time trial. LeMond was charged or take a walk.

Lemond was well known for starting the season out of shape and overweight. So notorious for it taht in some circles he was nicknamed 'Fat Greggy'.

It seems the unknown writer who wrote the piece was unaware of this, or intentionally ignoring it, either way it leads me to discount anything he or the sockpuppet plagerizing him says.

Yes, although this approach would seem crazy by today's standards. It was quite common among some of the riders in past generations. Especially before the advent of EPO. Clean riders could still compete in multi-day events since stimulants were mostly used only for single day events and criteriums. And steroids were mostly used for recovery and pain relief. A clean guy could still stay in the mix he just hurt more and suffered more than the PED users.

Have you looked at Larry's setup or position in that time trial? Have you ridden an older TT bike? (flex isn't an issue) Rocking? Your basing your case on rocking?

He made up 58 seconds on Laurent Fignon (confessed doper), ultimately winning the race by 8 seconds DESPITE the fact that if you watch it, he's rocking all over the place and very un-aero and using a flexier bike than today. YEAH RIGHT. Everyone was doping at the time and Greg's time trial was still faster, he's either genetically from another planet or he was also doping when he rode that time trial. LeMond was charged or take a walk.

If Lemond was charged would it make Armstrong less guilty? I support your contention that Lemond is from another planet genetically. Now everyone in Europe may have been doping at the time but the Americans? It may have taken them a little time to get into the loop so to speak and some historical evidence supports this. Most likely the American doping programs were very unsophisticated or non existent at that time. Otherwise Armstrong would have been tearing up Europe pre-cancer. Because he seemed to have the potential to do it. But, he needed an expert in Dr. Ferrari to teach him how to dope and train with PED's.

Dont forget the rocking. Lemond rocked!

Dont forget the rocking. Lemond rocked!

Remember also that Lemond in 89 was essentially the first in the TdF peloton to use aero bars.....what do modern day analyses say that's worth time wise in a TT of that distance?

He made up 58 seconds on Laurent Fignon (confessed doper), ultimately winning the race by 8 seconds DESPITE the fact that if you watch it, he's rocking all over the place and very un-aero and using a flexier bike than today. YEAH RIGHT. Everyone was doping at the time and Greg's time trial was still faster, he's either genetically from another planet or he was also doping when he rode that time trial. LeMond was charged or take a walk.

You do realize that Fignon was also using a "flexier bike than today"?

Before EPO all doping was amateur hour imo and I'm not sure if EPO was alread ubiquitous in cycling in 1990; blood doping was known already at the time but I also doubt if it was used much outside really professional doping programs like in East-Germany and stuff like that - it takes quite a bit of expertise and equipment to do it right and manage the risks.

Of course the whole rant loses any shred of credibility once you claim Fignon and Chiapucci were clean and would have been the rightful winners.

I think that one of the oldest and still popular blooding doping procedure is autologous blood tranfussions, which can be almost impossible to detect from what I have heard. I don't know when the started it using it though.

You do realize that Fignon was also using a "flexier bike than today"?

Yeah. Its just that Fignon was honked to the eyeballs & LeMond pasted him across the road riding clean?. :rolleyes:

Seems like LeMond would do anything for the win, 50secs down, he had to take drastic measures, juicing it was.

seems like lemond would do anything for the win, 50secs down, he had to take drastic measures, goofy triathlete aerobars and helmet it was.

ftfy

ftfy

Yeah!. Unfortunately I wasn't born last night.

Yeah. Its just that Fignon was honked to the eyeballs & LeMond pasted him across the road riding clean?. :rolleyes:

Seems like LeMond would do anything for the win, 50secs down, he had to take drastic measures, juicing it was.

I only stated your point about equipment was irrelevant. As is anything else you draw from my post.

There are people like this user who aim to fabricate and divert. All lies. These people represent opinion and lies as fact.

These people represent opinion and lies as fact.

Welcome to the United States of America, Bell, where one is innocent until proven guilty.

So Bell, please be gracious and show some class and stop bad mouthing Lance with your speculative efforts. Look on the bright side -- at least someone is "probing" Armstrong – unfortunately it's not you!.

I recall a scientist calculating that without his ponytail flapping in the wind in that final time trial, Fignon might have won the tour - the loss of aerodynamics cost him at least the amount of Lemond's 8 second margin of victory. Lemond showed up for that TT with his aero bars, aero helmet and disc wheel, and it was like Rick Barry shooting his free throws underhanded - up until then maybe people could see how it might work or help, but no one would actually be caught dead doing it that way.

It's odd that while the basic design of the bike hasn't changed in 100 years, 20 years ago was a lifetime in terms of our appreciation of aerodynamic forces, and I guess how to dope. (It seems highly unlikely cyclists were even using epo in 1989; that was the first year it was FDA approved, and it wasn't commercially available until 1991).

Welcome to the United States of America, Bell, where one is innocent until proven guilty.

This is true in a legal sense, yes. But it is stupid to imply that people can't make valid judgments outside of a courtroom.



So Bell, please be gracious and show some class and stop bad mouthing Lance with your speculative efforts.

Yeah - just because the guy employs a dope doctor, a dope coach, cheats on dope tests, has been found positive on at least one dope test, harasses anti-dopers, and his friends and colleagues say that they have seen him take dope - it don't mean nothing!

I recall a scientist calculating that without his ponytail flapping in the wind in that final time trial, Fignon might have won the tour - the loss of aerodynamics cost him at least the amount of Lemond's 8 second margin of victory. Lemond showed up for that TT with his aero bars, aero helmet and disc wheel, and it was like Rick Barry shooting his free throws underhanded - up until then maybe people could see how it might work or help, but no one would actually be caught dead doing it that way.

So the cowardly sock puppet is an idiot as well? Because Lemond was racing with an aerodynamic advantage, so there is no need to invoke drugs. Quelle surprise!

I don't know what fantasy land you're living in. In the United States it is innocent until accused.

I don't know what fantasy land you're living in. In the United States it is innocent until accused.

Once again: This is true in a legal sense, yes. But it is stupid to imply that people can't make valid judgments outside of a courtroom. For example, your junkie ex-brother-in-law may not yet have been convicted of fraud, but you may still decide that his "guaranteed 200% annual rate of return investment scheme" is one to miss.

Or in other examples - Nixon was never tried, but is there anyone who doubts he was guilty of something? How about OJ? Or Hitler?

http://imgur.com/jRJOr.jpg

Yeah - just because the guy employs a dope doctor, a dope coach, cheats on dope tests, has been found positive on at least one dope test, harasses anti-dopers, and his friends and colleagues say that they have seen him take dope - it don't mean nothing!

Speculation at best. I was always told you can't prove most things- just that there is a lot of evidence to suggest something...

And that makes him a serial doper?. Ohh yeah thats right, Landis said so. :rolleyes:

Cheats on dope tests?. All tests came back clean, but keep speculating.



http://cdn.mos.bikeradar.com/images/news/2008/10/01/armstrongdopetest-480-90-480-70.jpg

So the cowardly sock puppet is an idiot as well? Because Lemond was racing with an aerodynamic advantage, so there is no need to invoke drugs. Quelle surprise!

Does this mean that you believe a clean Lemond beat a doped Fignon?

The evidence against lemond is underwhelming, the topic non timely, and why anyone would feed a troll like this is beyond me.

The presumption of innocence only goes with one into a courtroom when one is charged with a criminal offense. The Court of public opinion has to give no such presumption and we are all free to judge Lance, Greg and the rest of them as we want.

In my mind Gregs history in cycling gives one less to be suspicious about than Lances' does but I wouldnt be surprised if Greg did something wrong and that might come out during this investigation.. But when it comes to Lance I would be shocked to find out that he did not dope from early to late in his career.

Does this mean that you believe a clean Lemond beat a doped Fignon?

If he was born yesterday, then yes, it does.

The evidence against lemond is underwhelming, the topic non timely, and why anyone would feed a troll like this is beyond me.

There are those who consider anyone with an alternative viewpoint to theirs to be trolls. Unfortunately, the rudest and most abusive trolls are some of the ones with the largest numbers of posts.

Speculation at best. I was always told you can't prove most things- just that there is a lot of evidence to suggest something...

And that makes him a serial doper?. Ohh yeah thats right, Landis said so. :rolleyes:

Because Lance had dope doctor, a dope coach means nothing but speculation.

Cheats on dope tests?. All tests came back clean, but keep speculating.



http://cdn.mos.bikeradar.com/images/news/2008/10/01/armstrongdopetest-480-90-480-70.jpg

How many positives did Marion Jones have? She also had a dope coach. Guilt by association is a better indicator than test results these days, tests are a joke.

We will learn soon enough. Me thinks the Feds will be more intimidating than Lances minions. We are going to get honest testimony at some point. So you have failed Chapeau, you have not cast more doubt on GL, and you have done or said nothing that leads one to want to encorage the Feds to back off. Im not gonna call my congressman or senator monday and ask him to put a stop to this.

I always love the "guilt by association" approach because if the people who use it actually believed it they would be saying it's ok for them to be thought of as guilty for many things.

Im not gonna call my congressman or senator monday and ask him to put a stop to this.

I couldn't ask for anything more or less from a Lance hater. Its par for the course. It would be ignorant of me to think anything but.

But if Lance gets off, give him his props. Any human being that constantly holds on to hate & anger will be just another spiteful, jealous, bitter old fool at best.

Lets not forget what this is all about. Greg LeMond trying to stay relevant by pulling down the only American to eclipse his feats in the Tour.

'Hey Greg, you forgot about George Hincapie'. LMAO. You don't hear LeMond tooting that horn because George wasn't more successful in the Tour than LeMond.

I couldn't ask for anything more or less from a Lance hater. Its par for the course. It would be ignorant of me to think anything but.

But if Lance gets off, give him his props. Any human being that constantly holds on to hate & anger will be just another spiteful, jealous, bitter old fool at best.

Lets not forget what this is all about. Greg LeMond trying to stay relevant by pulling down the only American to eclipse his feats in the Tour.

'Hey Greg, you forgot about George Hincapie'. LMAO. Silly me, almost forgot. You don't hear LeMond tooting that horn because George wasn't more successful in the Tour than LeMond.

I'll definitely do that, if Lance gets off. Hey, is it George's turn under the bus next? Whatever it takes I guess.

You are the one misrepresenting what this is all about. And you are the one posting inflammatory remarks about a rider. And in a very disingenuous way. Interesting the number of threads started on numerous message boards, with exactly the same verbiage. At the least you could show a little originality.

As for me personally, I've got no dog in this hunt. I'll accept whatever the outcome is. If you are so concerned about "Hate" for Lance, why go right down the same road regarding LeMond?

I

Lets not forget what this is all about. Greg LeMond trying to stay relevant by pulling down the only American to eclipse his feats in the Tour.

'Hey Greg, you forgot about George Hincapie'. LMAO. You don't hear LeMond tooting that horn because George wasn't more successful in the Tour than LeMond.

This is pure bs and nothing but a fantasy . The investigation as such is brought by the feds who have broad investigative powers. Greg has no control of where it goes and I doubt Greg can give much relevant testimony one way or the other. He will be there only if asked to go by the feds . To suggest that Greg is behind it to get Lance is ridiculous as he has no control of it whatsoever. You are a troll.

This is pure bs and nothing but a fantasy . The investigation as such is brought by the feds who have broad investigative powers. Greg has no control of where it goes and I doubt Greg can give much relevant testimony one way or the other. He will be there only if asked to go by the feds . To suggest that Greg is behind it to get Lance is ridiculous as he has no control of it whatsoever. You are a troll.

BS.

LeMond is going to do everything in his power to pull down the only American to eclipse his feats in the Tour. The simple problem with Lemond's arguments is that he presents cycling as if it was clean in his day. That makes a nonsense of all of the rest of his argument. LeMond portrays himself as Mr. squeaky clean but like so many other riders, hes dirty as the next rider, make no quarms about it.


I doubt Greg can give much relevant testimony one way or the other.

Pull your head out of your backside. Its been Gregs crusade for the past decade to convince the world Lance is a fraud. There is nobody on the planet, but the jealous rat with more knowledgeable testimony.

BS.

LeMond is going to do everything in his power to pull down the only American to eclipse his feats in the Tour. The simple problem with Lemond's arguments is that he presents cycling as if it was clean in his day. That makes a nonsense of all of the rest of his argument. LeMond portrays himself as Mr. squeaky clean but like so many other riders, hes dirty as the next rider, make no quarms about it.



Pull your head out of your backside. Its been Gregs crusade for the past decade to convince the world Lance is a fraud. There is nobody on the planet, but the jealous rat with more knowledgeable testimony.

Chapeau,

If we all agree that Lemond might have doped will it make you feel better? Dude, you are a worse Lemond hater than any of the Lance haters on this site. But if your not Lance your the best PR guy Lance could have. Except for the extreme black and white thinking. You seem to be possessed of this rage against Lemond that is just too personal.

Unfortunately there is only some small amount of circumstantial evidence against Lemond. Some of which you allude to. If Lemond did ever use PED's he did a better job of keeping it secret because no one knows about it or talks about it. I too find it unlikely that Lemond would never have used any PED's of any kind. But I really don't think that he had access or used a serious systematic method. Maybe Lemond will one day have his day in court but for now it is Armstrong's turn.

The problem Armstrong now has is the same internal battle that Landis' had to fight. When he feels completely justified in the PED use he felt that he had a right to lie because everyone or nearly everyone else in the peleton is using PED's. This is a battle that many people have to face in life but some never do. To acknowledge your own wrong doing even though you think it is justifiable because of what other people are doing. Until Lance can humble himself to this level he is not a real person. Just a human machine. A deceiver of the nations. In the end, he could find his lies harder to bare than he thinks.

Lance has to decide if he is going to give up his own idols. Even though he thinks that someone else might be able to keep theirs (Lemond) unjustly. It doesn't really matter in the end. He has to accept responsibility for his own actions and where they led him.