Greg LeMond Sour Grapes??

Jealousy. Everyone has it, but some people take it to the extreme. Especially mid tour, makes GL look horrible. LA showed those comments didn't matter after his performance today.

Go LANCE

LeMond was stupid to make those comments. Really, to just make such ignorant speculation reflects very poorly on him.

Yea, I agree...it looks really petty and unbecoming of a champion with Lemonds achievements. Speaking of which, you can win 3 tours without doping but you can't win 5!!?? Huh?

Perhaps if Lemond had worked harder in the winters he would have looked more like a determined Armstrong in the spring rather than a chubby Ullrich.
Granted there was the hunting accident and the degenerative muscle disease that ended his career. Otherwise with more diligent focused work (other than xc-skiing in the winter) he may have won 5 himself.
Doping controls are far more stringent and sophisticated today than they were in Lemond's day. Armstrong is tested heavily and has always tested "clear" of banned substances. One exception comes to mind a couple of years ago when he used topical cortizone for a saddle sore.
While it may be true that testing clean doesn't mean you are innocent of doping, it is ridiculous and unfair to presume someone guilty until proven innocent.
Lemond's statements amount to libel.
😕

It's hard to say. I remember WAY back when the Cofidis affair was just coming to light hearing those things about David Millar from some repuatable riders which only recently made the news. Often the people involved in the sport discover these things much faster than the media or the fans do. Whilst I've always thought that Lance has been clean, recent allegations have raised just a little doubt in the back of my head. If LeMond believes it to be true, regardless of whether it is or isn't, perhaps he's got a little right to be so vitriolic in what he said. I was furious when it came out that what I'd heard about Millar was true. When someone is an ambassador for your country and your sport it'd be hard not to get worked up if you thought they'd been cheating in the most unethical of ways.

kriegslust said:

It's hard to say. I remember WAY back when the Cofidis affair was just coming to light hearing those things about David Millar from some repuatable riders which only recently made the news. Often the people involved in the sport discover these things much faster than the media or the fans do. Whilst I've always thought that Lance has been clean, recent allegations have raised just a little doubt in the back of my head. If LeMond believes it to be true, regardless of whether it is or isn't, perhaps he's got a little right to be so vitriolic in what he said. I was furious when it came out that what I'd heard about Millar was true. When someone is an ambassador for your country and your sport it'd be hard not to get worked up if you thought they'd been cheating in the most unethical of ways.

Well, the thing is . . . LeMond has made the same exact allegations against Lance for the past 3 years. Pretty much ever since Lance won Tour number 3, LeMond has been nothing but sour grapes. These aren't recent allegations at all. With Lance, it seems, his entire post-cancer career has been dogged by such allegations -- with LeMond somewhere near the head of the pack making baseless charges, and having no evidence to bring to light. Talk is SO cheap. Yet, after 4+ years of serious effort going into investigations . . . his accusers have uncovered nothing? Seems a little too bizarre to me.

I hear what you are saying about Millar. I was very disappointed, as every cycling fan must have been. Millar has always been such a great rider, and he is a strong presence among the "English speaking" contingent of Aussies, Americans, and the sole Brit Millar.

The thing that gets me most about LeMond's behavior is this -- no matter what ultimately proves to be true of Lance, the way in which LeMond has attacked him over the past three years just makes LeMond look bad. He genuinely appears to be motivated by spite, anger . . . rather than concern. I grew up idolozing LeMond and Hampsten. I remember LeMond being given the SI Sportsman of the Year award, and the front cover picture was of him holding his young son up on his shoulders over his head with the yellow jersey on. I was so taken with these two as diplomats of cycling in America. I believe they are responsible for turning on a generation of American riders to the sport . . . and to see such a legend disassemble himself and his credentials in this way seems such a shame. He needs to just close his mouth. If he has concerns for Lance's health, he should contact Lance privately to discuss it. The last thing he should do is to allow the French media to quote him spewing such needless vitriol.

That's my 2 cents. In the end, it's just a shame for LeMond. A great champion who has made an ass of himself forever, no matter what the ultimate outcome on Lance.

Craig

craigstanton said:

Well, the thing is . . . LeMond has made the same exact allegations against Lance for the past 3 years. Pretty much ever since Lance won Tour number 3, LeMond has been nothing but sour grapes. These aren't recent allegations at all. With Lance, it seems, his entire post-cancer career has been dogged by such allegations -- with LeMond somewhere near the head of the pack making baseless charges, and having no evidence to bring to light. Talk is SO cheap. Yet, after 4+ years of serious effort going into investigations . . . his accusers have uncovered nothing? Seems a little too bizarre to me.

I hear what you are saying about Millar. I was very disappointed, as every cycling fan must have been. Millar has always been such a great rider, and he is a strong presence among the "English speaking" contingent of Aussies, Americans, and the sole Brit Millar.

The thing that gets me most about LeMond's behavior is this -- no matter what ultimately proves to be true of Lance, the way in which LeMond has attacked him over the past three years just makes LeMond look bad. He genuinely appears to be motivated by spite, anger . . . rather than concern. I grew up idolozing LeMond and Hampsten. I remember LeMond being given the SI Sportsman of the Year award, and the front cover picture was of him holding his young son up on his shoulders over his head with the yellow jersey on. I was so taken with these two as diplomats of cycling in America. I believe they are responsible for turning on a generation of American riders to the sport . . . and to see such a legend disassemble himself and his credentials in this way seems such a shame. He needs to just close his mouth. If he has concerns for Lance's health, he should contact Lance privately to discuss it. The last thing he should do is to allow the French media to quote him spewing such needless vitriol.

That's my 2 cents. In the end, it's just a shame for LeMond. A great champion who has made an ass of himself forever, no matter what the ultimate outcome on Lance.

Craig

I dont believe it is sour grapes, GL has nothing to be jealous of. He was a Great bike rider in all aspects of the word, Lance has nothing on him and never will

Fixey said:

Lance has nothing on him and never will

Uhhhh... about two (almost three) TDF yellow jerseys hanging on the wall. Also, LeMond didn't raise the same type of fever that Lance has - Lance is a legend in the eyes of the world, LeMond is a legend in the eyes of the cycling community.

I think Lemond needs to start riding about 750 miles a week again to blow off some steam. That would be a good way to put things into perspective. Better yet, maybe he should join Armstrong for a few hill climbs. 😄

WINGNUTT said:

Uhhhh... about two (almost three) TDF yellow jerseys hanging on the wall. Also, LeMond didn't raise the same type of fever that Lance has - Lance is a legend in the eyes of the world, LeMond is a legend in the eyes of the cycling community.

LeMonds palmares is without question or dispute, unlike Armstrong.

LeMond never incurred any allegations of drug abuse when he was lording it
over the likes of Hinault, Fignon, Mottet, Kelly, Roche and Delgado,
unlike Armstrong.

LeMond was a clean rider.

LeMond enjoyed universal praise for the way he conducted his career.
LeMond, if he had not suffered that accident, probably would have won
5 T'sDF.

limerickman said:

LeMonds palmares is without question or dispute, unlike Armstrong.

LeMond never incurred any allegations of drug abuse when he was lording it
over the likes of Hinault, Fignon, Mottet, Kelly, Roche and Delgado,
unlike Armstrong.

LeMond was a clean rider.

LeMond enjoyed universal praise for the way he conducted his career.
LeMond, if he had not suffered that accident, probably would have won
5 T'sDF.

You say this as though the allegations somehow goes against Armstrong, which is total BS because there is no proof that any allegations are true after hundreds of tests. Did you ever think that maybe if LeMond did what Armstrong is doing, he might have faced the same BS allegations? Whatever happened to innocent until proven guilty... oh that's right - he's in France. Plus, what are you talking about that Armstrong doesn't have "universal praise" - there is only a very small group of people that would not fall into the "praise Armstrong" group - in fact, Armstrong's praise group is likely 10 times the size of LeMond's when you look outside the cycling community.

WINGNUTT said:

You say this as though the allegations somehow goes against Armstrong, which is total BS because there is no proof that any allegations are true after hundreds of tests. Did you ever think that maybe if LeMond did what Armstrong is doing, he might have faced the same BS allegations? Whatever happened to innocent until proven guilty... oh that's right - he's in France. Plus, what are you talking about that Armstrong doesn't have "universal praise" - there is only a very small group of people that would not fall into the "praise Armstrong" group - in fact, Armstrong's praise group is likely 10 times the size of LeMond's when you look outside the cycling community.

A statement was made where a poster said that LeMond was only a legend
in the cycling community where as Armstrong is a legend throughout the
world.
This general statement, I think, is incorrect.

The only people who know about Armstrong are cyclists.
The only people who jnow about LeMond are cyclists too.
Outside of cycling, neither Armstrong or LeMond are well known.

As regards the accusations against Armstrong - it's not the French who only
accuse Amstrong.
These sort of generalisations by posters are inaccurate.

Whether you like it or not Armstrong is viewed with widespread scepticism.
I never heard any hint of doping being applied to LeMond.
Why are there rumours about Armstrong ?
Why have eight separate people spoken to a journalist about LA ?

This never happened to LeMond.

limerickman said:

Outside of cycling, neither Armstrong or LeMond are well known.

Maybe in Ireland. Here in the United States, however, Lance Armstrong is an inspiration to millions of cancer survivors who think a peloton is the Spanish word for soccer-ball. He's a supercelebrity here, and it's difficult to watch an hour of television without seeing him endorse something. I'm guessing that for every American who has a positive reaction upon hearing Armstrong's name, you might find one in 50 who has ever heard of Jan Ullrich, Alpe d'Huez, or even Greg Lemond.

As I said earlier, it's no surprise to me that so many of you think that Armstrong is to be doubted simply because there are so many who are sniffing for dirt on him. In the meantime, for those of us who are captivated by his dedication to his sport and his refusal to be out-worked by anyone in preparation for the Tour, the meanspirited grumbling by his doubters makes watching him succeed that much more appealing.

limerickman said:

A statement was made where a poster said that LeMond was only a legend
in the cycling community where as Armstrong is a legend throughout the
world.
This general statement, I think, is incorrect.

The only people who know about Armstrong are cyclists.
The only people who jnow about LeMond are cyclists too.
Outside of cycling, neither Armstrong or LeMond are well known.

Here in the US, he is a legend OUTSIDE the cycling community - he's on the news all the time, his books are on the best seller's list, he was the TOP story on the front page of the Los Angeles Times yesterday, he's been the SPorts Illustrated athelete of the year, etc., etc., etc. I guess it might be different in other countries, but most countries don't matter compared to the US. (just kidding)

Quoted post said:

As regards the accusations against Armstrong - it's not the French who only
accuse Amstrong.
These sort of generalisations by posters are inaccurate.

Whether you like it or not Armstrong is viewed with widespread scepticism.
I never heard any hint of doping being applied to LeMond.
Why are there rumours about Armstrong ?
Why have eight separate people spoken to a journalist about LA ?

This never happened to LeMond.

Blah blah blah... accusations are just that, ACCUSATIONS. If I started accusing LeMond of doping, would you all of a sudden hold him in the same light as you do Armstrong?? The reason LeMond was never accused of doping was because he HE DIDN'T WIN 5 ALMOST 6 TDF'S. LeMond was impressive, but unlike Armstrong, LeMond was not so impressive as to be almost unbelievable. Maybe if LeMond was a better rider, he too would have been the subject of doping allegations, but unfortunately, he wasn't good enough to draw that type of attention.

limerickman said:

LeMonds palmares is without question or dispute, unlike Armstrong.

LeMond never incurred any allegations of drug abuse when he was lording it
over the likes of Hinault, Fignon, Mottet, Kelly, Roche and Delgado,
unlike Armstrong.

LeMond was a clean rider.

LeMond enjoyed universal praise for the way he conducted his career.
LeMond, if he had not suffered that accident, probably would have won
5 T'sDF.

That's probably true about Lemond re 5 tour wins, but just because he's Lemond doesn't give him any special knowledge or evidence about Armstrong. I'm beginning to wonder about Greg's intelligence. I think that's more in question now than his motives. Perhaps he is making an honest mistake. I hate to think he has sinister motives.

We tend to put our cycling heros on a pedestal based on their cycling performance. We should not keep them on the same pedestal when we consider their logical reasoning abilities. It seems that Greg's are lacking.

Palmares is not a positive or negative affirmation of doping. It's more a result of training emphasis. Clearly, if you choose to peak for one race a year, then your performance for that one race will stand much higher than your performance for the other races.

Not suffering allegations of drug abuse is not a contraindication of drug abuse. I agree that Greg probably wasn't doping, but you seem to think that allegations, not evidence, is an indication. That's not the case. Drug testing is better now than in Lemond's time. Allegations with no support are even more likely now to be false than they were during Greg's time.

limerickman said:

Why are there rumours about Armstrong ?
Why have eight separate people spoken to a journalist about LA ?

This never happened to LeMond.

More irrelevant remarks. Rumors are what sell newspapers. They are not fact based. Where are the facts (ie, real evidence of doping)? There are none.

Why do you insist on getting on the rumor bandwagon? You have a lot of cycling knowledge, but your reasoning with regard to rumor versus fact seems to be lacking, as it is with Greg Lemond.

limerickman said:

LeMonds palmares is without question or dispute, unlike Armstrong.

A Palmares is no more than a collection of a rider's results. They are what they are. The only people disputing Armstrong's palmares are those that are desparately trying to latch on to anything they can find that might idicate that he is a cheat. It's ridiculous.

limerickman said:

LeMond was a clean rider.

Really? Where's your proof? It equals the proof that's available to show that Armstrong is clean I suspect.

I have a great deal of respect for Greg LeMond and don't mean to imply that he was a doper but there's no more evidence to prove that he was clean than there is to prove Lance is clean.

I'm sorry but your tired "nobody could possibly show the kind of improvement in their race results that LA did without doping" argument, just doesn't hold water. It amounts to no proof at all. It's just pure speculation.

limerickman said:

LeMond, if he had not suffered that accident, probably would have won 5 T'sDF.

Again, pure speculation! LeMond didn't train and watch his diet anywhere near as diligently as LA in the off-season. He came into the season in very bad form quite often. You'll never see LA do this.

BTW, LeMond appeared on ESPN this weekend to defend his charges against Lance in the French paper LeMonde. Again, though, rather than taking the high road and making a general plea to crack down on doping in pro cycling . . . he makes accusations only against Lance. Yet, he claims again and again to be motivated out of concern for pro cycling. If LeMond is indeed so concerned about the sport, in my opinion he could use his fame in cycling circles to lobby for more aggressive testing -- just as Lance is doing on on his own. This would represent a more serious commitment to change, and important change at that. As it stands though, LeMond appears to be cashing in his own fame for a chance to snipe at Lance. Too bad. LeMond is cashing in his cache' too cheaply, in my opinion. He should work for positive change rather making such sloppy, unsupported public snipes. Unless, of course, all he really cares about is turning Lance's fans into skeptics. Then, he may or may not be succeeding -- but he makes himself look an ass in the process.

WINGNUTT said:

Here in the US, he is a legend OUTSIDE the cycling community - he's on the news all the time, his books are on the best seller's list, he was the TOP story on the front page of the Los Angeles Times yesterday, he's been the SPorts Illustrated athelete of the year, etc., etc., etc. I guess it might be different in other countries, but most countries don't matter compared to the US. (just kidding)

Blah blah blah... accusations are just that, ACCUSATIONS. If I started accusing LeMond of doping, would you all of a sudden hold him in the same light as you do Armstrong?? The reason LeMond was never accused of doping was because he HE DIDN'T WIN 5 ALMOST 6 TDF'S. LeMond was impressive, but unlike Armstrong, LeMond was not so impressive as to be almost unbelievable. Maybe if LeMond was a better rider, he too would have been the subject of doping allegations, but unfortunately, he wasn't good enough to draw that type of attention.

The accusations against Lance Armstrong predate his attempt to win a 6th
TDF.
If you read his first book - as early as 2000 he was accused of being a doper.
He says this in his book.

If you read the accounts of his alleged drug usage by people in David Walsh's
book - the instances of alleged doping go back to his time at Motorola
in 1995.

You are to say that no allegations were ever been placed against Greg LeMond.
That's because LeMond was generally accepted to be an honest and clean rider.
Even when he was beating a national institution like Bernard Hinault and/or
Laurent Fignon, no one in France or anywhere else for that matter made a doping accusation against Greg LeMond, like they have done against Lance Armstrong.

gntlmn said:

More irrelevant remarks. Rumors are what sell newspapers. They are not fact based. Where are the facts (ie, real evidence of doping)? There are none.

Why do you insist on getting on the rumor bandwagon? You have a lot of cycling knowledge, but your reasoning with regard to rumor versus fact seems to be lacking, as it is with Greg Lemond.

In the totality of this issue of whether Armstrong is doping, I think that there
are justifiable questions concerning his performance.

I have tried to weigh up all of the arguments from his supporters and I have
weighed up all of the arguments from his detractors.
And in the end I can't say hand on heart that he is clean, no more than I can say any rider is clean.

No one can prove that he is clean.
No one can prove that he is using drugs.
None of us are with him 24 hours per day - seven days per week.

Does that mean that I have to give him the benefit of the doubt ?