I did not see any TV shows about Greg LeMond or see any interviews of him to date. BUT! Check this out: Bicycle Village in Boulder, CO is having some big store event on May 28th, 2005 and they've got Greg LeMond leading a group ride. You have to sign up in advance and I've been told it will be at a leisurely place - thank goodness, there's no way I'd ever be able to keep pace with a rider of his caliber regardless of how many years have passed since he retired from competition.
Having read all of this topic's postings I get the impression that some think Greg LeMond is a such and such. It certainly may be true, really, but I have no clue. But is it fair for one person to define another person's character harshly based on such limited info? Being on camera might have brought out Greg's bad side - people can come across badly at any given time. I mean we all have our good and bad points. Even if it feels good to put another person down, is it right or fair to leap to a broad conclusion based on that TV show? (And I am not necessarily saying that was done above - everyone was actually restrained in their commentary.) Did the editors cut out things that cast Greg in a better light to make the program more "interesting?" Given that I did not see the TV show, mabe I am way off base here - sometimes people have jerk tendancies which help them achieve big things. I'll see if I can gain a first-hand impression of this man on the 28th and can report back another slice of his public character after the ride.
In any case, from his web site I know this, as do everyone else above this post - he won the Tour in 1986, got shot(!) in 4/87 and won again in '89 and '90. What is it with these American cyclists anyway!? Get shot... fight off cancer.... and still win such a punishing and brutal athetic competition, and then win it again? I'll tell you what, I wish I was a tenth as tough as those guys; they are some seriously tough, tough hombres.