Then he is hands down the greatest American grand tour bike racer of all time.
Then he is hands down the greatest American grand tour bike racer of all time.
But he wasn't, so therefore he wasn't.
"I just googled triple crank set and i see what your saying. this bike has 9 of those "cranksets".
"They are showing [the TDF of Versus] at 5 different times in the day. It doesn't say which one is the live one."
What does Lemond say about his own use or non use of PEDs? Does he deny using them? Back in his day, it seems like everyone just did the wink and nod thing and accepted it for what it was. Anyway, curious to know where he stands on his own history.
The loudmouth Lemond haters are back. Coming in spades to a Armstrong fan club meeting near you. Ignoring the mountains of evidence against their hero, all the numerous ex-teammates, team personell, former team physicians, etc. that have implicated Armstrong's EPO usage and hanging on to hope that the rumors and suggestions from Armstrong himself that Greg might have doped be proved true someday.
Let's play. Name one rider, just one. That has spoken about their direct first-hand witnessing of Greg using anything. Who? Can one of you guys make a large donation to a former teammate of Greg's to see if they will fabricate a story?
I don't recall Greg ever commenting on being 100% clean or not. However, I do remember him being an advocate of increased drug testing - in the mid 80's, while he was still competing! I think that was a particularly bold move at the time, because I expect that it did not endear him to some of his contemporaries, perhaps both teammates and competitors alike. Remember, this was long before EPO, WADA, and scandals with teams such as Festina, Kelme, T-Mobile, etc.
Also, in Eddie Borysewicz's famous book, Bicycle Road Racing, Eddie B. claimed that LeMond would not even take vitamin injections when he was at the Olympic Training Center. Considering Eddie B.'s own history with blood doping, perhaps that statement should be taken with a grain of salt, but it doesn't automatically make it false either.
The rider in my avatar is David Etxebarria, not me.
Lemond is the second greatest grand tour bike racer to come out of the U.S.
Now how long before the Lemond fan-boys cry how his name is being sullied?
You are so full of BS, it ain't even funny. Or maybe it is to your kind. I don't know. And troll? With the heavy amount of BS that your are spewing, you are calling other people troll. Have a look in the damn mirror, bro. The same filth that you claim of others is coming up from you. Just because you have a differing opinion doesn't make it trollish for others to disagree with you.
Don't even get me started on the "no one" is disparaging Greg Lemond BS that you claim. Do you read? Where have you been the past, oh say 20 minutes? That's what I thought. Never ever ever EVER EVER claim otherwise until you've spent about 8 seconds more than you did to do some background homework. Comprende?
You want to talk the talk? You want to go? Let's go then. And leave your "trollish" comments and innuendos behind. What is the thread about. Was Lemond clean? Was he? If not, then name one, ONE single ex-teammate that had any first hand witness over his entire career about anything he took. That's what I thought. Crickets. No answer, just more of your "shoot the messenger", "waah, mommy troll comments".
No idea if he did or not. He beat Fignon, which apparently goes for proof that he must dope since he beat a doped rider. Lance has also accused him of doping in '89. That apparently also goes for proof around here.
And now for some funny from the Lance Company Camp Public Smear Campaign Conspiracy Foundation to Encourage Doping in Professional Cycling and Discredit LeMond:
Minneapolis, MN -- Greg Lemond today released a statement that said he has, reluctantly and with great sadness, been forced to add the 2006 Tour de France to the long list of tours that he should have won. Lemond initially believed, and was even quoted in an earlier interview as saying, that this was the first clean Tour de France in many years. However, in light of the recent positive doping test of tour winner Floyd Landis, Lemond has concluded that, in all likelihood, he himself should have won the tour this year.
This brings the total number of Tours de France That Lemond Should Have Won (TDFTLSHW) to 167. Lemond first won the tour in 1986. However, as he has explained many times over the years since, he should have won the Tour in 1985, but was lied to by Bernard Hinault and cheated out of the race victory. Lemond next should have won the Tour in 1987 and 1988, but was incapacitated by a shotgun blast from his brother-in-law. While the incident was ruled an accident by the police, Lemond believes that his brother-in-law was working with Hinault and a young Texan by the name of Lance Armstrong to remove him from the sport.
Lemond came back to win the Tour in 1989 and 1990, but lost in 1991 due to the fact that, as incredible as it may sound, every other rider in the Tour de France besides Lemond was taking performance enhancing drugs. Lemond believes these drugs were supplied by Bernard Hinault, who realized that if nothing were done, Lemond would continue to win the Tour for the next 50 years. The drug-tainted Tour would continue through 2005, including the reign of Lance Armstrong. In the absence of doping, Lemond clearly would have won the Tour from 1991 to 2005, bringing the total number of TDFTLSHW to 21.
Going back before 1985, Lemond believes that in all likelihood, he would have won the Tour de France each year since his birth in 1961 if a) he had known about it and b) he had not had the small stature and limited leg length common to children between the ages of 0 and 10. As Lemond explains, clearly it would be unfair to him to discount the Tour wins he should have achieved were he only able to reach the pedals of his bicycle. This brings the TDFTLSHW to 45.
While Lemond concedes that some may believe him to be "stretching it" by including in his TDFTLSHW years from Tours before his birth, he claims that if one is to think about it logically, the only possible conclusion is that the greatest bike rider in the history of the Tour would absolutely have won the Tour since its inception in 1903, if only he had been alive at that time. It was not Greg Lemond's fault that his parents were not alive and able to conceive him in time to ride the initial Tour in 1903; thus, it would be unfair to strip him of the Tour wins that he rightly should have been awarded.
Note that there have been 11 years since its creation in 1903 that the Tour de France was not held due to the two World Wars. Clearly, stopping the Tour due to worldwide war would have been unfair to Greg Lemond, had he been alive, and would have in all likelihood, been a move orchestrated by Bernard Hinault, had he himself been alive, to keep Lemond from winning the tour. Thus, Lemond believes that these years should also be included in the TDFTLSHW, giving him a total of 103 wins.
Finally, Lemond explains that he has included the years between the invention of the bicycle to the first Tour de France (1839 to 1903) in the TDFTLSHW. Had the French had the foresight to create the Tour de France in a more timely manner, Lemond would have definitely won it each and every year, again assuming he had been alive (see above). Obviously Lemond cannot be blaimed for the shortsightedness and general ineptitude of the French, and therefore the victory from the Tours de France that should have been held in these years must be credited to Lemond, bringing the final tally of TDFTLSHW to 167.
Note that while Lemond has not yet been able to rationalize including years before the invention of the bicycle in the TDFTLSHW, he has created a company to pursue such an effort. The company is hard at work on a rationalization and hopes to produce one for him within the year.
There is no evidence whatsoever that Lemond doped and his career was pre-EPO so it's at least conceivable he was clean. And yes, I think he is a greater cyclist than Armstrong.
LeMond may be clean or not....the real point is, who cares. It was a long time ago.......just like the BS about Lance.
I remember Lemond being a food fetishist to the point of wackiness, so it would surprise me if he took any drugs. I might believe credible allegations of blood doping, but all I see is mindless speculation. Back when Lemond was riding, that was about the only thing that had any effectiveness. Steroids were used, but I don't know if I believe they were all that great at improving performance for a cyclist.
Well then, if that is the case, why don't you just shut up then? Claiming that you "stooped" to my level. Do some homework bro. Read the thread title. What's it about? Lemond. Did I introduce you into this thread? No. You replied with a poster attack. So, I think it is ME who is responding to your criticism. You're the lowlife, not me. If anything, you can't claim to be stooping anywhere, but to the own depths of your own claims. Comprende?
I still want to know. And the Lemond haters, cateyes, et all can chime in, but usually they don't. WHO? Anyone. Who? What rider, ex-teammate, anybody? Anybody that has any first hand direct claims of Lemond taking anything? Crickets. Silence. Just more PR filth from their hero. You want to sling mud? Let's go. Whatcha got? Nothing. Just made up claims and Onion parodies to smear Greg Lemond's name. Get back to your crying about how Greg's bitter.
They were using other drugs back before LeMond’s day......namely amphetamines....that were never tested for. Again who cares that happened over 10 years ago.....Well other than "I hate Lance" bellweatherman.
I could care less if LeMond doped or not. LeMond is a punk for being a bitter ex-cyclist who can't get over the fact that he didn't all the public attention that he though he deserved. LeMond could have left quietly and been an ambassador to the sport like the other greats have done but nope…….LeMond had to be in the middle of every scandal just like some teenage drama queen. That’s what made LeMond look bad………. not his racing.
Think about how Eddie, who probably did his share of uppers, floats above the fray. Lemond could have done the same. He just doesn't have the character and so he comes off as an absolute tool. Honestly, I wouldn't doubt if bwm is actually Lemond and he's been reduced to black helicopters and internet chat boards.
They could do no-drug-test regimen, and see who's fastest If riders die young from liver failure/cancer, that's okay. The idea of, we want to see natural winners it's not going to happen. "I ate a bad hamburger." Riight.
Let's dial down the personal innuendo all the way around, please.
In search of what to search for.
What we have here is a collection of 2 or 3 posters who continually make flames and outright fingerpointing. I'm not going to stand for that. On top of it, there are continual lies and deceit posted by these mongrels. So, what happens next is that they get all up in arms when someone calls them out about it. Total crap if you ask me.
It was about the thread. Lemond. And are there discussions that center around that thread? Or is it an invitation to discussion by these haters only to finger point and call out the posts made by the people defending Greg Lemond?
Who cares? You do. At least they do enough to be interested in posting here. If you truly don't care, then don't post here. You've added nothing to this thread other than your usual Greg Lemond hate. You continually come on here saying you don't care what happened 10 years ago. So, find another thread then. OK?
Where's the proof? I'll tell you where. There is none. Name one, just one rider that has had any direct, 1st-hand witnessing whatsoever that Greg doped? None. This is why you don't partake in this discussion. And only make continual posts that fingerpoint at other posters and add to your Public Strategies "Lemond is bitter" rant.