The question is not whether Lemond or anyone else doped----most likely Everyone doped Always, by whatever method was popular at the time, because nobody even bothered to check for a long time ....

Lemond was not upset that others were faster, he was upset that he was getting dissed and financially ruined by a person who was not only the figurehead for maximized doping programs, but also a total dick about that and everything else he did.

What happened in "the doping era" was that a carefully calculated, high-tech doping program became the defining factor in cycling success---winning was no longer about riding, but about having the best pharmaceuticals and knowing how to use them better. Lance was the poster boy for US cycling, and also (unbeknownst to some) the poster boy for massive illegal performance enhancement .... and was a loudmouth dickhead about everything he did, ruining the careers of everybody who told the truth or even just disagreed with him.

Trek and everybody else inside pro cycling at the time knew that only cheaters won, and that only the best cheaters won regularly. So blaming Trek for all that is empty.

There is a personal aspect---Lemond surely hated lance because Lance stole his thunder, stole his fame, not by cycling ability but by doping --- and was a dick about it. Everybody forgot Lemond, but Lemond was likely a better rider---if only because he didn't have the huge dope advantage Lance had. Lemond was more on a level playing field, while Armstrong's winning teams won because they had by far the best drugs and the best delivery systems---better riding through science. But once Lance hit the scene Lemond was forgotten, and this probably in part motivated Lemond to make accusations---Valid accusations.

Picking sides is unnecessary ..... There is nothing in any way redeeming about Lance Armstrong or any of his actions. He is simply a bad person. That doesn't make me a Lemond supporter.

here's the deal with history---facts are facts. Distorting, ignoring, deliberately misinterpreting facts in order to support a particular position is the sort of nonsense that is screwing up the world today.

Liking or not liking Trek because of corporate decisions made by the company two decades ago ... whatever.

But hey ... I have also seen people in this thread claiming that everyone who rides Spec has a superior attitude ... so there is nonsense flowing strongly in every direction.

As for myself ... I buy bikes to ride and I ride bikes. I am not particularly interested in which corporation owns which holding company owns which other holding company, etc. if a bike has the features I want at a price point I find acceptable, .... but that is not how threads last a dozen pages or more .....