Why does every one hate Greg Lemond?

Since 2001, over 90,000 cyclist's have joined Cycling Forums to discuss topics from general cycling to equipment, training, racing and travel or vacation destinations (especially in europe during the tour de france). We also feature an great deals in our online store, 100's of articles, classifieds and product reviews.

I stand corrected. Won't be the last time...
You mean Lances 1970 GTO?

Greg Lemond truly fought to win his Tours. I don't think he nearly had the team that Lance put togeather.

From what I have seen and heard, Lemond is a bit whiny and does seem to carry some luggage but then most of us do.

Is there any substantive evidence that Armstrong or Fignon cheated?

From what I have seen and heard, Lemond is a bit whiny and does seem to carry some luggage but then most of us do.

Is there any substantive evidence that Armstrong or Fignon cheated?
With Armstrong there is plenty of circumstantial evidence plus those EPO tests from 1999 that weren't done under appropriate testing procedures. Fignon put in two positives during his career IIRC.

With Armstrong there is plenty of circumstantial evidence plus those EPO tests from 1999 that weren't done under appropriate testing procedures. Fignon put in two positives during his career IIRC.
Doing a Google search I found information about Fignon but it appears that he did not dope untill after he had passed his prime, perhaps is was a desperate attempt to recapture what was lost or extend a career that was already over.

Reading about some of the circumstantial evidence and the EPO tests involving Lance, it sounds more like sour grapes than hard evidence.

If Pro Cycling really wants to clean up the sport than they really need to clean up their testing standards and protocols. It seems what is or is not a positive highly speculative depending on which lab is doing the testing, who the rider is and what country the lab is in.

A French news paper testing old B samples of a racer when the country and paper have both shown a clear bias against the rider is hardly evidence..

A rose by any other name is still a rose. A positive in one country should be a positive in any other country. If the protocols are not strictly adhered to, the benifit of the doubt should go to rider.

That's my two cents, let me know if I owe you change.

A French news paper testing old B samples of a racer when the country and paper have both shown a clear bias against the rider is hardly evidence..
A French newspaper did not test the samples. They were tested by a WADA accredited lab. All samples from the '98 and '99 Tours were tested anonomously.; the lab had no idea who each sample belonged to. A couple years later the newspaper was able to link six of the positives to Armstrong because Armstrong gave the UCI permission to supply a reporter with his doping forms, which contained the codes used the label samples. Sounds like evidence to me.

Fignon is one of the few riders who had the guts to stand up straight and tell people what he thought about doping. He said, "I did what I did and took what I took. I'm the one who will have to live with the consequences," or something to that effect. Surely a lot better than the sniveling denials we get today.

...They were tested by a WADA accredited lab. All samples from the '98 and '99 Tours were tested anonomously.; the lab had no idea who each sample belonged to. A couple years later the newspaper was able to link six of the positives to Armstrong because Armstrong gave the UCI permission to supply a reporter with his doping forms, which contained the codes used the label samples. Sounds like evidence to me....

Ok, I guess I am a little slow.

Why does WADA keep urine samples after they finish testing? Sounds expensive considering how many test are done and the number of riders. It also sounds very gross.

If WADA did the testing and there was PED's, why was Armstrong not nailed to the wall way back then?

Ok, I guess I am a little slow.

Why does WADA keep urine samples after they finish testing? Sounds expensive considering how many test are done and the number of riders. It also sounds very gross.

If WADA did the testing and there was PED's, why was Armstrong not nailed to the wall way back then?
Because EPO could not be detected in 1999. The UCI only started testing for it in 2001. Up to that point you were free to use EPO and just monitor your hematocrit to make sure you did not go over the 50% level.

As to why they keep the samples and for how long they are kept, I don't know.

You do talk sense !!It's because all the Armstrong chamois sniffers are upset that Lemond pointed out that Armstrong was obviously doping. These guys feel the need to run down anyone who publicly criticizes Armstrong, whether it's Lemond, Andreau, Steffan, Swart, O'Reilly, Landis, Horner, etc.

While Lemond has done the best he can to point out the doping problem and get something done about it, Armstrong still maintains that there is not a doping program because if there were then it would lead to obvious questions about himself.

If WADA did the testing and there was PED's, why was Armstrong not nailed to the wall way back then?not only does lance's chamois smell like roses but he also has the ability to dodge bullets! I wonder if it was Charmichael or Ferrari who taught him how to do that.:confused:

I think people dog Lemond because he said iky things about their hero, and maybe because he rode for a european team for awhile.

I don't - I even like his bikes.