Lemond interview on CNN tonight (21 Oct)

[Keith A]

Just saw this and wanted to pass it on...
In an exclusive interview on tonight’s Anderson Cooper 360°, three-time Tour de France champion Greg LeMond speaks with Anderson in his first in depth interview since Lance Armstrong was stripped of his Tour de France victories and admitted to doping.

Sound bites from their interview below. The full interview airs tonight on Anderson Cooper 360° at 8pm ET on CNN.

http://cnnpressroom.blogs.cnn.com/2013/10/21/tonight-ac360-exclusive-3x-tour-de-france-champ-greglemond-speaks-wandersoncooper/

[ultraman6970]

This gonna be nasty.

[dekindy]

Thanks for that. I had seen the interview advertised a while back and figured I had missed it.

[Chris]

They postponed it because of the shutdown coverage.

[redir]

I'd like to see that but I don't have cable and didn't see that it was going to be aired online unless i missed something?

[pbarry]

Sound bites from their interview below. The full interview airs tonight on Anderson Cooper 360° at 8pm ET on CNN.

Anderson Cooper: In 2001 in an interview you said, 'If Lance is clean, it’s the greatest comeback in the history of sports. If he isn't it would be the greatest fraud.' Do you think what Lance Armstrong did was the greatest fraud in the history of sports?

Greg LeMond: Absolutely. Absolutely. The greatest fraud was that, I mean, I know his physical capabilities. He's a top 30 at best. I mean, at best. No matter what. If he was clean and everybody else was clean, he's a top 30 at best. He's not capable of winning the Tour. He's not capable of the top 5.

Cooper: What do you think should happen to him now?

LeMond: This is not a sporting infraction. This is criminal.

Cooper: You think he should go to jail.

LeMond: I do, yeah. This was an organized mafia and he literally tried to destroy people.

[54ny77]

Trek is silent on all this, strangely enough....

Where's a similar "apology" press release they demanded of him several years back? It sure is due. Can you imagine the amount of goodwill they'd generate if they simply put an ad out there that said, "Greg, we were wrong and we apologize?"

I hope LeMond scorches the earth of those co-conspirators who sought to destroy lives and livelihood.

[wc1934]

Sound bites from their interview below. The full interview airs tonight on Anderson Cooper 360° at 8pm ET on CNN.

Anderson Cooper: In 2001 in an interview you said, 'If Lance is clean, it’s the greatest comeback in the history of sports. If he isn't it would be the greatest fraud.' Do you think what Lance Armstrong did was the greatest fraud in the history of sports?

Greg LeMond: Absolutely. Absolutely. The greatest fraud was that, I mean, I know his physical capabilities. He's a top 30 at best. I mean, at best. No matter what. If he was clean and everybody else was clean, he's a top 30 at best. He's not capable of winning the Tour. He's not capable of the top 5.

Cooper: What do you think should happen to him now?

LeMond: This is not a sporting infraction. This is criminal.

Cooper: You think he should go to jail.

LeMond: I do, yeah. This was an organized mafia and he literally tried to destroy people.

Called him a thug and a bully - said that LA offered a teammate $300,000 to say GL used drugs - teammate refused "and he could have used the money".

[majorpat]

Just watched it. It seemed disjointed with little detail and Lemond (and I'm a GL fan) didn't present well. The interview was short and choppy due to editing with too many photos of Lance on the screen while questions were posed and answered. For us bike junkies, not enough meat on them bones.
Wish the best for Lemond as he moves forward, and honestly, I hope Armstrong finds a way to move on as long as it doesn't involve a bike race/team.

[Keith A]

Just watched it. It seemed disjointed with little detail and Lemond (and I'm a GL fan) didn't present well. The interview was short and choppy due to editing with too many photos of Lance on the screen while questions were posed and answered. For us bike junkies, not enough meat on them bones.
Wish the best for Lemond as he moves forward, and honestly, I hope Armstrong finds a way to move on as long as it doesn't involve a bike race/team.Great summary. I've seen Lemond on video a couple of times lately and he doesn't speak very smoothly at all and it's almost uncomfortable to watch him on camera.

[ultraman6970]

It is? not to me :) they are there for the money, nothing else. If they had some kind of moral stated they would had try to clean the new team a little bit.

Trek is silent on all this, strangely enough....

[Mr. Pink]

Great summary. I've seen Lemond on video a couple of times lately and he doesn't speak very smoothly at all and it's almost uncomfortable to watch him on camera.

Well, gee, I guess he'll never be an anchor on some TV news show.

It's cable news. They're all competing with Fox, who own the genre. It's all about sound bites and throwing gasoline on some fire. Pretty powerful quotes, though. That top 30 comment was a real zinger.

[Louis]

and honestly, I hope Armstrong finds a way to move on as long as it doesn't involve a bike race/team.

How about loudly proclaimed repentance followed by claims of being "at peace with God" and finally a political career?

[DRZRM]

How about a link to YouTube when it is posted?

[Keith A]

That sounded more critical than I intended, it seems like he has time getting his thoughts out.

[sales guy]

Wow! I knew he was pissed about everything, but you could see the fire coming out of his ears!

He does have a right to be pissed, but wow.

[majorpat]

Boy, I hope not. Is there no shame anymore?

How about loudly proclaimed repentance followed by claims of being "at peace with God" and finally a political career?

[Mr. Pink]

Honestly, he doesn't sound mad at all. He actually looks and sounds like a happy guy. I spent a little time around him last summer at a ride, and I was impressed with his natural charm and playfulness. Always smiling, always out there with people. Not like, ahem, you know who.

I don't think he's pissed. He seems to be relieved that he can say whatever he wants about Lance and the drugs at the time without having a major lawsuit come down on his head. Vindication, for sure.

[Tony T]

He looked uncomfortable when AC said: "You didn't want to dope":

"No (laughs) I never doped, of course not" "...it's an ego deal. And if somebody's better, really just more talented, the ego's of all these other athletes don't believe that that persons that much better... and they cheat". "I was just that talented and never even needed to think of that to perform". "Why would I have to think of taking something if I'm winning"


I remember that he had a tough comeback after the hunting accident.....guess not :rolleyes:

[54ny77]

How much do you suppose LeMond has spent on legal fees defending and/or enforcing his rights as a result of all that Armstrong & Co. did to him?

I'd be pissed too. I'd want blood. I'd want revenge, and then some.

I saw a link to a documentary the other day where he recounted the introduction of systematic blood doping and where a couple of hundred (that's a COUPLE OF HUNDRED!!!) people he said have died from the peloton over the years, quietly and without fanfare (for the most part), all as a result of doping-related problems. Even said one of his teammates died in his sleep while sleeping and that rider's wife (who was American) called Kathy Le Mond that night in tears and panic since she woke up to her dead husband laying by her side. Awful, just awful. The guy was doping, which is what likely caused his death.

If that figure (a couple of hundred deaths) is true, where has the press been all these years? Staggering.

Wow! I knew he was pissed about everything, but you could see the fire coming out of his ears!

He does have a right to be pissed, but wow.

[pbarry]

If that figure (a couple of hundred deaths) is true, where has the press been all these years? Staggering.

Great comments 54ny77. :beer:

Here's a 1991 Times article on EPO in the peloton:

http://www.nytimes.com/1991/05/19/us/stamina-building-drug-linked-to-athletes-deaths.html?pagewanted=all&src=pm

[oldpotatoe]

How about loudly proclaimed repentance followed by claims of being "at peace with God" and finally a political career?

Run against Ted Cruz....

[pbarry]

Clip from youtube:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hgN7RAvHGt0

[laupsi]

thought the interview went well, knowing ahead of time how well GL presents himself on camera. also thought he left out one very important note about the impetus for cheating; MONEY!

[R2D2]

I liked his top 30 at best statement.

[fuzzalow]

Greg spoke honestly and credibly during that interview. Albeit not with the corporate polish and delivery we have perhaps grown accustomed.

Re: about he who shall not be spoken of:
"Top 30 at best, at best..."
"Manipulated the cancer community"

Re: LeMond on himself and PEDs
"why would I have to think about (taking) that stuff when I was winning..."

All true.

[Joachim]

He looked uncomfortable when AC said: "You didn't want to dope":

"No (laughs) I never doped, of course not" "...it's an ego deal. And if somebody's better, really just more talented, the ego's of all these other athletes don't believe that that persons that much better... and they cheat". "I was just that talented and never even needed to think of that to perform". "Why would I have to think of taking something if I'm winning"


I remember that he had a tough comeback after the hunting accident.....guess not :rolleyes:

Seriously? Thom is that you?

[Tony T]

Re: LeMond on himself and PEDs
"why would I have to think about (taking) that stuff when I was winning..."

All true.

How many cheats have we heard that statement from?
For someone who had a tough recovery from a hunting accident, the statement "why would I dope if I'm winning" rings hollow.

[lhuerta]

He looked uncomfortable when AC said: "You didn't want to dope":

"No (laughs) I never doped, of course not" "...it's an ego deal. And if somebody's better, really just more talented, the ego's of all these other athletes don't believe that that persons that much better... and they cheat". "I was just that talented and never even needed to think of that to perform". "Why would I have to think of taking something if I'm winning"


I remember that he had a tough comeback after the hunting accident.....guess not :rolleyes:

+ 1 ...this was the best part of the interview, LeMond was notably uncomfortable and almost tripped up his answer. I am not usually a fan of the juvenile Anderson Cooper but I have to hand it to him on his prowess during this interview...he was very prepared with strategic wording on several questions. Seems like he isn't convinced that LeMond's generation is as innocent as they are making out.

BTW...why is Hampsten immune from these doping debates?? (whoops...did I just use "Hampsten" and "doping" in the same sentence?)

Lou

[Vientomas]

Lemond was really uncomfortable and totally got tripped up in this exchange: :rolleyes:

COOPER: Is it true that he threatened you by saying that he would say that you used EPO?

LEMOND: He offered $300,000 to a teammate to say that I took EPO and the guy refused. And this is a guy could use the money.

COOPER: Why did he go after you?

LEMOND: He is a bully. He is a thug to me. I am one that wouldn't put up with it.

[Tony T]

+ 1 ...this was the best part of the interview, LeMond was notably uncomfortable and almost tripped up his answer. I am not usually a fan of the juvenile Anderson Cooper but I have to hand it to him on his prowess during this interview...he was very prepared with strategic wording on several questions. Seems like he isn't convinced that LeMond's generation is as innocent as they are making out.

Notice how GL in every instance said "I wouldn't...", "Why would I take..."
...not that any of "it" was ever "given" to him. ;)

[cfox]

+ 1 ...this was the best part of the interview, LeMond was notably uncomfortable and almost tripped up his answer. I am not usually a fan of the juvenile Anderson Cooper but I have to hand it to him on his prowess during this interview...he was very prepared with strategic wording on several questions. Seems like he isn't convinced that LeMond's generation is as innocent as they are making out.

BTW...why is Hampsten immune from these doping debates?? (whoops...did I just use "Hampsten" and "doping" in the same sentence?)

Lou

careful there!...just kidding. There have been a (very, very) few guys over the years who have been acknowledged as clean (to the point of needle paranoia) by other riders, swannys, DS's, doctors. Charley Mottet was one, Hampsten was another. It's about as good as you'll ever really get...

[Mr. Pink]

+ 1 ...this was the best part of the interview, LeMond was notably uncomfortable and almost tripped up his answer. I am not usually a fan of the juvenile Anderson Cooper but I have to hand it to him on his prowess during this interview...he was very prepared with strategic wording on several questions. Seems like he isn't convinced that LeMond's generation is as innocent as they are making out.

BTW...why is Hampsten immune from these doping debates?? (whoops...did I just use "Hampsten" and "doping" in the same sentence?)

Lou

I think this mind and speech and body reading is a little invalid, due to the heavy editing. As I said, sound bites sell.

[kestrel]

Couldn't be any PED's involved when three, then two team mates go off the front in a multi-peaked stage in '86. They build a 5 minutes advantage.... C'mon!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mZMkZN-PGCo

[Chris]

I think it has been fairly common knowledge about Hampsten's reluctance to participate in any doping and that this reluctance to do so led him to be unable to do his job when he went to Banesto. As a result he ended up retiring a little earlier than anticipated IIRC.

As for Lemond, I suppose there will always be speculation. Lemond was a phenom as a junior. LA to his credit showed great promise too, but not nearly to the level that Lemond did. Like Lemond said last night, he got third in his first tour. It seems that before the systematic doping and "advanced training methods" showed up, a thoroughbred was a thoroughbred. You didn't get guys who couldn't time trial their way out of a paper sack to all of a sudden beat specialists in the event. That idea remains farcical in my opinon.

Lemond was a tour champion BEFORE the shooting. Armstrong had dropped out of the race twice and finished once (36th in 95) before the cancer diagnosis and treatment. Hardly comparable trajectories. One is much more believable to me. But that's just me.

[Tony T]

"I was just that talented and never even needed to think of that to perform"

Was GL better than Eddy?

...but, he never really had to think about it, he had others to do the thinking

[laupsi]

Laurent Fignon's book, (biography) was pretty straight forward. In it LF admitted to doping but on a very minor scale. So much so LF didn't see what the big deal was w/regard to the doping policies by other teams/riders and he admitted to have doped w/amphetamines, not EPO.

I believe LF and what he wrote; at the time, (BTW, both LF & GL raced before EPO was main stream) of his writing he had nothing to lose or gain w/any revelation or non-inclusion on the topic of doping.

LF and GL were in the top 5 during their time in the saddle. They competed head to head and had consistent results throughout their careers; stand out cyclists from Junior Level till their retirement. There's nothing obvious or telling that would suggest GL did anything to boost his performance. GL did win a tour after a hunting accident. Is there science out there proving this isn't possible?

[Tony T]

GL did win a tour after a hunting accident. Is there science out there proving this isn't possible?

I guess GL is so "pure" that he "didn't even think about it" after the accident. :rolleyes:

Science is there (now) .....blood sample isn't

[laupsi]

I guess GL is so "pure" that he "didn't even think about it" after the accident. :rolleyes:

Science is there (now) .....blood sample isn't

you're looking for a debate my friend and you're not getting one from me. he could have doped, entirely w/in the realm of possibility. that doesn't imply that he did.

[Idris Icabod]

I get the impression that a lot of the riders that pre-date the EPO era consider themselves to not be dopers because amphetamines for example, in comparison, hold so much less in terms of performance gains. I do find it hard to believe that GL didn't take some products (after all it has been endemic in cycling from the year dot: They build a memorial to Tom Simpson) but I do believe he didn't take EPO. I guess it is all shades af grey and you can say "well, I didn't do EPO, so I didn't dope, just a bit of whizz".

Regarding Hampsten, he is one of very few guys I have in my mind is pure as pure can be. I read that when he joined Motorola the first year, or was it 7-11, either way, Thomas Weichsel's team and was being berated for getting dropped, was the first year that EPO seemed to take hold of the peleton, he said that guys that were dropped in the first km of a climb the previous year where now leaving him on climbs, that is when he knew it was time to hang up the wheels.

I think the comment about LA being a top 30 rider is rather harsh. Not sure I agree with that.

[laupsi]

Regarding Hampsten, he is one of very few guys I have in my mind is pure as pure can be. I read that when he joined Motorola the first year, or was it 7-11, either way, Thomas Weichsel's team and was being berated for getting dropped, was the first year that EPO seemed to take hold of the peleton, he said that guys that were dropped in the first km of a climb the previous year where now leaving him on climbs, that is when he knew it was time to hang up the wheels.

Interesting, LF said the same thing in his book.

[PQJ]

you're looking for a debate my friend and you're not getting one from me. he could have doped, entirely w/in the realm of possibility. that doesn't imply that he did.

"Haters gonna hate."

[mcteague]

I think the comment about LA being a top 30 rider is rather harsh. Not sure I agree with that.

Seems spot on to me. LA could do well in the occasional one day race but never even cracked the top 30 in the TDF pre-cancer.

Tim

[bobswire]

You guys are missing the best line, Lemond telling Armstrong he was built like a football player.

[ultraman6970]

We won't know ever.

[laupsi]

You guys are missing the best line, Lemond telling Armstrong he was built like a football player.

I always tell friends not into cycling; professional football players are pansies compared to professional cyclists. now I have back up! :eek:

[Mr. Pink]

You guys are missing the best line, Lemond telling Armstrong he was built like a football player.

Well, if there was any good that came from the cancer, it was losing the upper body weight he developed during his swimming/tri years.

Wait, no, there was also a very profitable and, as GL pointed out, huge tax dodge to hire his lawyers and henchmen through with his foundation, which also acted as a shield to anyone who doubted. Brilliant. Looking at it from this perspective, it certainly was a very well run criminal organization. And, not only Lance, but many lawyers and others made millions. Let's not even mention Phil Knight and his support.

[harlond]

On whether LA was no better than top 30 in the Tour, I find Steven Swart's conclusion more credible.

[cfox]

Seems spot on to me. LA could do well in the occasional one day race but never even cracked the top 30 in the TDF pre-cancer.

Tim
Okay...I've never understood this thinking. Lance was a raging doper before he got sick. He worked with Ferrari before he got sick. He was on an O2 program before he got sick. His hematocrit was probably higher in 1997 than in 1999! Something other than doping and Ferrari changed after he got sick.

We won't know ever.

this ^^ is the answer

[jr59]

I get the impression that a lot of the riders that pre-date the EPO era consider themselves to not be dopers because amphetamines for example, in comparison, hold so much less in terms of performance gains. I do find it hard to believe that GL didn't take some products (after all it has been endemic in cycling from the year dot: They build a memorial to Tom Simpson) but I do believe he didn't take EPO. I guess it is all shades af grey and you can say "well, I didn't do EPO, so I didn't dope, just a bit of whizz".



I think the comment about LA being a top 30 rider is rather harsh. Not sure I agree with that.


I think this is spot on. The riders of the past all doped! Eddy did, they all did.
What they did was the dope that they thought at the time gave them the best advantage to win. They used the best they could/knew of. Since the begining of the tour this is true!

Yet the riders and fans don't count these things. Just like all or most of the other riders that were looked at trying to pin down LA were not, or barely punished. It's simply selective enforcement at best.

Pro cycling is a DIRTY sport, it always has been and IMO ALWAYS will be.

GL to me is a bitter old man, that has been given a soap box to shout down Treks king! Good job done by him. To me it's tiresome at best!

get over yourself Mr Lemond. Your bikes did not sell enough for Trek to keep the line alive. You could have not sold out to them in the first place. You took the cash, and your bikes did not sell. To stinking bad. Now you get on your soapbox and shout at Treks latest fair haired boy! just plain sad!

Lance doped! Wow, shocking. and boring at this point!

[CunegoFan]

Well, if there was any good that came from the cancer, it was losing the upper body weight he developed during his swimming/tri years.

This is part of the myth Armstrong built up to explain away his obvious doping. Armstrong quit triathlon years and years before he underwent chemotherapy. During that time he did 30K a year in training on a bike. Any vestige of triathlon would have been burned away by catabolic exercise long before he had cancer. Ride twenty hours a week and it does not take long to shed excess upper body muscle.

The reason why Armstrong was often beefy looking was that he was using steroids. This probably started when he was working with Rick Crawford, but it did not stop when he turned his focus completely to cycling. His Motorola teammates were shocked when Armstrong would show up at early training camps with tons of muscle he had put on in the off-season. Frankie Andreu has talked about his reaction when Armstrong came to camp in '94 or '95. Steroid assisted weight training was part of his off-season doping regimen at that time.

That was early seasonm though. Armstrong raced the Tour at about one kilo less than what he weighed in the mid 90's. He even testified to that in his SCA deposition. In fact, he raced the 2005 Tour at 75 kg, the same weight he was racing at in '95 and '96 during the middle of the season.

[CunegoFan]

I think this is spot on. The riders of the past all doped! Eddy did, they all did.
What they did was the dope that they thought at the time gave them the best advantage to win. They used the best they could/knew of. Since the begining of the tour this is true!

Yet the riders and fans don't count these things. Just like all or most of the other riders that were looked at trying to pin down LA were not, or barely punished. It's simply selective enforcement at best.

Pro cycling is a DIRTY sport, it always has been and IMO ALWAYS will be.

GL to me is a bitter old man, that has been given a soap box to shout down Treks king! Good job done by him. To me it's tiresome at best!

get over yourself Mr Lemond. Your bikes did not sell enough for Trek to keep the line alive. You could have not sold out to them in the first place. You took the cash, and your bikes did not sell. To stinking bad. Now you get on your soapbox and shout at Treks latest fair haired boy! just plain sad!

Lance doped! Wow, shocking. and boring at this point!

From hardcore Armstrong defender to this. What an interesting journey it must have been.

P.S. It is not 2004 anymore. The order for the fanboys to attack LeMond was rescinded long ago. Armstrong even stopped requiring the employees of Livestrong to smear LeMond online.

[Climb01742]

Kudos to GL. Personally, I find his statements to be credible and good for cycling.

[JStonebarger]

I think this is spot on. The riders of the past all doped! Eddy did, they all did.
What they did was the dope that they thought at the time gave them the best advantage to win. They used the best they could/knew of. Since the begining of the tour this is true!

Yet the riders and fans don't count these things. Just like all or most of the other riders that were looked at trying to pin down LA were not, or barely punished. It's simply selective enforcement at best.

Pro cycling is a DIRTY sport, it always has been and IMO ALWAYS will be.

GL to me is a bitter old man, that has been given a soap box to shout down Treks king! Good job done by him. To me it's tiresome at best!

get over yourself Mr Lemond. Your bikes did not sell enough for Trek to keep the line alive. You could have not sold out to them in the first place. You took the cash, and your bikes did not sell. To stinking bad. Now you get on your soapbox and shout at Treks latest fair haired boy! just plain sad!

Lance doped! Wow, shocking. and boring at this point!

That's a lot of !s from someone who's bored. And before you get carried away with always this and always that, remember that back when the tour began (only 100+ years ago) most of these drugs weren't illegal, Coca Cola contained cocaine, and "doping" in sport had no meaning. The actions of athletes are in historical context -- there's no always about it. More than selective enforcement our attitude toward LA and the rest represents changing mores, and at the rate we're going tylenol before a TT will soon seem a heinous crime.

[oldpotatoe]

I guess GL is so "pure" that he "didn't even think about it" after the accident. :rolleyes:

Science is there (now) .....blood sample isn't

Sorry Tony, after 4 gallant casts with that fishing pole, you aren't going to catch anything. LA doper, cheater and bully, GL not.

[ultraman6970]

In many professions and groups where there is a subculture hidden, when one guy is too outspoken of the problem it is tilde as insiane or an idiot, IMO GL rock big time.

As for the people that say he doped, well... IMO he did not because he had terrible bad days in the bike sometimes, besides a lot of stuff was not available back in the day, the guy was just too good at what he did that's all, like the badger but just because they did to lemond I have really hard feelings with the badger, I won't forget that low blow ever.

Kudos to GL. Personally, I find his statements to be credible and good for cycling.

[Tony T]

Sorry Tony, after 4 gallant casts with that fishing pole, you aren't going to catch anything. LA doper, cheater and bully, GL not.

"Why would I have to think of taking something if I'm winning" :rolleyes:

[cfox]

I'm certainly tired of Armstrong, but you can add Tygart to the list. He lost me with "the most sophisticated doping program in history" crap. It wasn't even the most sophisticated program in cycling. Smuggling vials of EPO onto Julien's DeVriese's rusty camper isn't exactly high level espionage. Lemond and Betsy Andreu on their "I told you so" tour....blech...enough. Like someone wrote earlier, the best way to punish Armstrong is to ignore him.

[mosca]

It is interesting that people who once defended Armstrong's innocence in the face of overwhelming evidence are now very keen to impugn LeMond based on pure speculation. It must be exhausting to maintain that level of rationalization on a day-to-day basis.

[Elefantino]

Kudos to GL. Personally, I find his statements to be credible and good for cycling.
Yep.

Lance sucks.

I hear he looks at Paceline occasionally.

[BumbleBeeDave]

It is interesting that people who once defended Armstrong's innocence in the face of overwhelming evidence are now very keen to impugn LeMond based on pure speculation. It must be exhausting to maintain that level of rationalization on a day-to-day basis.

My personal opinion--NOT speaking as a mod . . . Mr. Mosca nails it.

Tony was tireless in disputing every aspersion at Armstrong right up until the USADA report came out. Now he's almost as tireless at trying to tear down those who were vindicated by the USADA report and Armstrong's downfall.

Tony, please . . . give it a rest. Go for a ride. Something . . .

BBD

[Tony T]

Doing a little fishing Dave? Looking to start trouble, or just a reason to lock the thread?
A Mod shouldn't be making personal attacks.

Go away dave....

[Vientomas]

My personal opinion--NOT speaking as a mod . . . Mr. Mosca nails it.

Tony was tireless in disputing every aspersion at Armstrong right up until the USADA report came out. Now he's almost as tireless at trying to tear down those who were vindicated by the USADA report and Armstrong's downfall.

This sounds accurate to my recollection. Do you dispute it Tony?

[Louis]

Go away dave....

That's just the sort of retort that really makes a forceful, cogent argument.

[Tony T]

Here we go......

Great job "Moderating" dave :banana::banana::banana:

...this thread will self destruct in......

[Louis]

...this thread will self destruct in......

And that's Dave's fault? Wow.

[Tony T]

Well, he did make the personal attack, so yes, it is.


...actually, I should be flattered that he remembers comments I made over a year ago!

[Louis]

Well, he did make the personal attack, so yes, it is.


Interesting.

Last I checked, a review of factual past events is not a "personal attack."

[mtechnica]

Well, he did make the personal attack, so yes, it is.


...actually, I should be flattered that he remembers comments I made over a year ago!

your duck avatar thing is dumb therefore anything else you say is irrelevant

[don compton]

"I was just that talented and never even needed to think of that to perform"

Was GL better than Eddy?

...but, he never really had to think about it, he had others to do the thinking
Man, you sure have a hard#$% for Lemond.

[Louis]

your duck avatar thing is dumb therefore anything else you say is irrelevant

Opus is a penguin! And Bloom County was a great comic strip.

[bozman]

Just saw this and wanted to pass it on...

Did LeMond book this gig to keep ripping Lance, to keep his fading persona in the public eye or to call attention to his ne frame endevour with TIME?

I am not sure but he needs to get over it already. Lance is yesterday's news.

[harryblack]

Naw, 'good guy' Greg's not bitter is he? What an embarrassment to Minnesota, a state I do love. At least an egomaniac weirdo like Prince brings joy to many millions, even if dealing with him in person might be... difficult.

Hey, but the world's been out to get Greg since, like, forever, so a man's gotta lash out at anything he can.

LeMond bikes was SUCH a great brand-- and Greg such a great businessman-- folks just left all the Lemond $$$ on the table to spite a hero, perhaps the only REAL Hero America-- & Minnesota-- has ever produced.

re: Tygart, the # of doping scalps he's cut off in the last year is how many? Sorry if I "lost count."

re: Lance, WGAS, Frederik Van Lierde had a GREAT race a cpl weeks ago in Kona. He's sponsored by Cervelo tho', no thanks to Greg!

[Fixed]

The Lemond book on cycling is still one of my favorites
He had power on the bike sitting on the back of the saddle long and low power ,
good sprinting good climber very good TT. He had it all :bike:
I was so happy when he won the worlds then the tour ..an American able to ride with the best in the world ..very cool back then imho
Cheers

[soulspinner]

The Lemond book on cycling is still one of my favorites
He had power on the bike sitting on the back of the saddle long and low power ,
good sprinting good climber very good TT. He had it all :bike:
I was so happy when he won the worlds then the tour ..an American able to ride with the best in the world ..very cool back then imho
Cheers

I felt the same way and hated the badger, who was once my favorite rider, that rode for himself when he supposedly agreed to help Greg. I hope he sells a boatload of Lemonds..................

[William]

Yep.

Lance sucks.

I hear he looks at Paceline occasionally.


"The Paceline Forum, it's THE SH%*T!!!"






:D;)

William

[wildboar]

At least an egomaniac weirdo like Prince brings joy to many millions, even if dealing with him in person might be... difficult.

So you're saying you hang out with prince a lot?

[jlyon]

I think if I was Lemond I wold feel and act the same way. He is consistant and I seem to get his attitude and understanding of the whole situation. He has a sopabox and he can voice his opinion.

I can see how when Armstrong on only a top 30 rider and saw that he could make many millions and dominate people by doping I see why he would.
He had the personality and mindset of a great champion win at any cost.
Screw the future consequneces.

I have never meet either of them but I don't think I would enjoy hanging out with them in any sort of non bicycling environment but would love just to ride beside either just to see some of the old majic.

[Fixed]

A Top 30 in the world ,sounds like could win on any given day .imho
Cheers :)

[Mr. Pink]

I have never meet either of them but I don't think I would enjoy hanging out with them in any sort of non bicycling environment

As I said in a previous post, I met Lemond last summer, rode a little with him, and observed him and his crew before and afterwards at an event. He was surprisingly fun to be around, and I rarely saw him without a smile. He was doing some pretty goofy things on the road after a hot 65 miles or so. The only thing he had to "sell", it seemed, was his child abuse charity, One, since his bike line hadn't been announced for a year. Now, I have never met the other guy, but, rumor has it that he's not exactly the warmest guy at his big charity events, even to big donors. Actually, from what I've heard, various labels have been used to describe him, which are not allowed in this forum.

Just sayin'.

[Ray]

The only thing to respond to here, IMHO, is the contention that Lemond must have doped because the sport has been dirty through it's history. But one of the key things I've gotten out of the various books and articles I've read over the past few years is that before blood doping in general, and EPO more specifically, the doping didn't help much, if at all. That amphetamines might help you one day but could do you more harm than good over a stage race. And the key thing is that most of those guys agreed that a clean rider COULD COMPETE with doped riders in those days. It was a small edge, if any.

That all changed in the early '90s with widespread use of EPO. It was the realization that he couldn't even begin to compete with EPO fueled riders that chased Hampsten out of the sport. And it was about the same time that Lemond stopped getting results and quit shortly thereafter.

So, I don't know if Lemond doped or didn't, but if he did I sort of view it as a much lesser offense in those days, one with at least as much risk as reward. Whereas once the EPO era started, it pretty much became the price of admission - if you weren't willing to do it, you couldn't be in the big leagues of the sport*. So, to a certain extent, Lance WAS just doing what everyone else was doing - Postal just did it better. There's no particular crime in that.

But his larger crime and what he ended up getting hung for was the way he treated everyone around him, particularly his disposable (to him) teammates. Once the gig was up, they came clean. He didn't. And he kept threatening and bullying everyone in the sport until his house of cards finally collapsed on him. Karma, pure and simple...

-Ray

* Of all of the TdF winners since Big Mig, the only one I think there's much doubt about whether he doped or not was Cadel, who seems to have maintained a reputation as a clean rider. I don't know if that's true or not, but if it is, and he was actually as competitive as he was all those years, and finally broke through to win one, he's probably the most amazing story in sports over the past couple of decades.

[BumbleBeeDave]

Doing a little fishing Dave? Looking to start trouble, or just a reason to lock the thread?
A Mod shouldn't be making personal attacks.

Go away dave....

You may describe it as you will. To me it's an observation. As far as I am concerned you're the one doing the fishing, as you have done many times in the past.

However, while my opinion is ONLY mine as a member, the experience it is based on is from being a mod. In that role I'm responsible for keeping an eye on things and learning through that experience which members are most likely to start threads that become problematic. That's why if I see your name, I look in on that thread. Threads you start have a much higher probability of becoming a problem. To me, that's a fact.

Greg Lemond is not the greatest public speaker in the world. In his public statements his emotions and sometimes strident style often end up interfering with the message he is trying to deliver. But what has always come across to me is his sincerity. He is forthright, earnest, and calls them like he sees them. It makes for good theater but sometimes detracts from the believability.

In this case he was right. Armstrong was a lying, cheating bully who did his best to exert whatever raw power he needed to--no matter the collateral damage--to maintain his ego, reputation, and fortune. As far as I'm concerned that entitles him to shout "I told you so!" from any soapbox he wants.

I met Lemond at the Tour of the Battenkill in April 2012. He was there to lead a charity ride and you could not imagine a more friendly, easily approachable celebrity. He talked to everybody and was endlessly patient with fans wanting to talk to him and get autographs (including me).

On the ride as I followed on a moto, he took the time to drift back and forth through the whole group, talking to as many as he could with no regard to whether they looked to be "serious" cyclists or not. Never did he ride off from anybody or sprint ahead.

That evening, I was sitting at the bar of the Cambridge Hotel, when in response to a beckoning fan, he came into the room behind the bar, talked and joked with us, shook hands and autographed the wall behind the bar in response to a request from the bartender--then apologized profusely before leaving, telling us he had to run or he would miss his plane from Albany back to Minnesota.

Is he always politically correct? No.

Is he a great public speaker? No.

Is he sometimes overly emotional? Yes.

Is he genuine, forthright, honest, and acting in good faith? Yeah, I think he is, and that counts for a LOT with me.

Being a "champion" doesn't just come from crossing the finish line first. It comes from heart and soul and from the way the winner acts AFTER he wins. As far as I'm concerned, Greg Lemond is a REAL champion.

BBD

[Fixed]

Nice Dave
Lemond had/ has heart
Raced with his heart spoke from his heart :)
IMHO
Cheers

[Pars]

^ Nicely said, and I agree.

[Tony T]

In that role I'm responsible for keeping an eye on things and learning through that experience which members are most likely to start threads that become problematic. That's why if I see your name, I look in on that thread. Threads you start have a much higher probability of becoming a problem. To me, that's a fact.BBD


That is a lie. This thread only became problematic when you decided to launch a personal attack on me, a veiled one: ("Tony, please . . . give it a rest. Go for a ride. Something . . . ")

Had you chose to share your opinions on GL last night, instead of today, you could have contributed to this thread, instead, you derailed it.

You have some personal problem with me, fine, but keep it to yourself.

[Tony]

Its time for the Love train!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JtfNwz-l6gw

[wildboar]

Now, I have never met the other guy, but, rumor has it that he's not exactly the warmest guy at his big charity events, even to big donors. Actually, from what I've heard, various labels have been used to describe him, which are not allowed in this forum.

http://espn.go.com/espnradio/play?id=8847266

[BumbleBeeDave]

That is a lie. This thread only became problematic when you decided to launch a personal attack on me, a veiled one: ("Tony, please . . . give it a rest. Go for a ride. Something . . . ")

Had you chose to share your opinions on GL last night, instead of today, you could have contributed to this thread, instead, you derailed it.

You have some personal problem with me, fine, but keep it to yourself.

I'm entitled to mine, based on my experiences.

Have a nice day.

BBD

[josephr]

deleted.

[Hindmost]

Did LeMond book this gig to keep ripping Lance, to keep his fading persona in the public eye or to call attention to his ne frame endevour with TIME?


I think Greg got caught up in the pr associated with the recently-published Wheelmen book. Sort or like last year when that clean cycling conference was held, someone puts him in front of a microphone.

[Keith A]

That is a lie. This thread only became problematic when you decided to launch a personal attack on me, a veiled one: ("Tony, please . . . give it a rest. Go for a ride. Something . . . ")
...

Tony, if you look back at the discussion history, someone else called you out before Dave said anything...
Sorry Tony, after 4 gallant casts with that fishing pole, you aren't going to catch anything. LA doper, cheater and bully, GL not.

[Joachim]

I still think Tony T is really Thom Weisel....it makes sense.

[Vientomas]

Personal attack or friendly suggestion? :banana:

[Tony T]

Tony, if you look back at the discussion history, someone else called you out before Dave said anything...

How far back do you have to go to find a thread I started that was "problematic", or a post I made that was "problematic"? ("That's why if I see your name, I look in on that thread. Threads you start have a much higher probability of becoming a problem.")

For whatever reason, dave has some personal problem with me. Fine. As a moderator he should keep his opinions of me to himself (as I do my opinion of him). There was nothing in this thread that was problematic, until dave, to use your words "Called me out" -- Is this something a "moderator" should be doing? "Calling members out"?

[Joachim]

Personal attack or friendly suggestion? :banana:

Some people think Thom is awesome...some people like Lance.

[Vientomas]

Sorry, I meant Dave's suggestion that Tony to go for a ride.

[mcteague]

* Of all of the TdF winners since Big Mig, the only one I think there's much doubt about whether he doped or not was Cadel, who seems to have maintained a reputation as a clean rider. I don't know if that's true or not, but if it is, and he was actually as competitive as he was all those years, and finally broke through to win one, he's probably the most amazing story in sports over the past couple of decades.

Agreed! And Cadel always seemed to have bad days, one of the signs of a clean rider in a field full of dopers IMO.

Tim

[csm]

But it's not locked yet.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

[#campyuserftw]

Anderson Cooper: In 2001 in an interview you said, 'If Lance is clean, it’s the greatest comeback in the history of sports. If he isn't it would be the greatest fraud.' Do you think what Lance Armstrong did was the greatest fraud in the history of sports?

Greg LeMond: Absolutely. Absolutely. The greatest fraud was that, I mean, I know his physical capabilities. He's a top 30 at best. I mean, at best. No matter what. If he was clean and everybody else was clean, he's a top 30 at best. He's not capable of winning the Tour. He's not capable of the top 5.



Greg LeMond was Greg LeMond during the interview: obtuse, rough, course, and while full of knowledge, facts, and history, seems like an Electrical Engineer trying to do the Field Sale's pitch.

The question for LeMond should have been countered by Anderson Cooper, and with logic, LeMond could have responded:

Cooper: You say Armstrong is a Top 30 at best? Do you acknowledge the entire peloton was high on dope?

LeMond: Yes, most likely all were doping.

Cooper: So if the elite cyclists who can win a Grand Tour were all doped, and Lance was doped, and he defeated all of them seven times, could he not have defeated all of them, if all were without dope?

LeMond: Cut to commercial okay?

It would have been fun to watch the TdF from 1999-20XX ("XX" denotes it's still doping with micro-doses most likely) with a fully clean race. Could a trimmed-down, hungry, Armstrong have won a Tour? Bursts taken away uphill. Time trial wins slimmed down or turned into Top Five? It's all Fantasy Island to think these things. Why isn't LeMond furious at Big Mig's fraud? Should Miguel Indurain go to jail, too?

Jan Ullrich is perhaps more connected to 99-05', and to Armstrong, more than LeMond could want to be, and Ullrich offered, "I would give Armstrong the Tour victories back. That's how it was back then. It doesn't help anyone to draw a line through the winners list."

Here is a two page article, and food for thought:

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/22/sports/cycling/anti-doping-agency-exposed-armstrong-but-what-about-everybody-else.html?_r=0

[Chris]

I took Lemond as saying that the fraud was toward the donors to his charity, not toward the other athletes or the sport itself. I could be way off though. You want to beat a bunch of other dopers at their own game? Have at it. But don't sell that feat to the unknowing legions of uneducated fans that it was a miracle or lie about it when you are providing sworn testimony. That type of mendacity is what should be punished in my opinion.

[pbarry]

I took Lemond as saying that the fraud was toward the donors to his charity, not toward the other athletes or the sport itself. I could be way off though. You want to beat a bunch of other dopers at their own game? Have at it. But don't sell that feat to the unknowing legions of uneducated fans that it was a miracle or lie about it when you are providing sworn testimony. That type of mendacity is what should be punished in my opinion.

Excellent word, one of my favorites. I always think of Big Daddy when I hear it:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GiiE-h9ZYag