Oh I don't really believe that Hampsten doped. But if one thinks poor performance is a barometer for doping, then the '92 Tour trumps the '91 Tour for "evidence" of Lemond's non-doping. However, it is pretty simple to think poor performance is evidence--even more so to think it the best evidence--of someone not doping. Lemond's incredibly poor racing performance, near the end of his career, is as much evidence of him not doping as Hampsten's winning performance, near the end of his career, is evidence of him doping. That is to say, it isn't evidence at all.

Lemond's performance curve dropped radically more than Hampsten's, who is widely believed to be the other or second top clean "American" racer of that period. So, if one concludes that a doped-up peloton is the explanation for Lemond's lead-like drop in performance, one would have to also conclude that that Hampsten doped. Not only did Hampsten keep pace with the elite racers (something Lemond couldn't & didn't do), he also won. But that line of reasoning, to put it nicely, is incredibly implausible, and should be insulting to any knowledgeable and reasonably thinking person.