PepeM

His pre-cancer record is, while not bad, far from spectacular.

oliphant

Definitely. He was the greatest of his era: 11 Grand Tour wins, 27 Classics and major One-Day Races (I could be off a bit) and held the hour record, not to mention tons of other races. Sadly, he tested positive for methamphetamines, which was probably the norm for the era among many of his peers. He was a bit of hypocrite about it too. Still the greatest.

bmcer

Look, this thread isn't about LA... It's about riders who were among the best in history. It is my opinion his name has no place in such a conversation.

What he had, my friend, was the "assets" (courtesy of his ill gotten financial resources) to know and influence the drug regimens of every other major team in the Tour. This is why the "everybody else was doing it too" argument just does not hold water. Nor does the sort of straw man argument you offer about some "random domestique".

If LA has any sort of legacy, it is best illustrated by what Froome had to endure off the road in this year's Tour. Again, the best thing for both Armstrong and the sport he sullied would be for his name and record fade (the faster, the better) into oblivion.

Just my $0.02. Nuf sed...

cale

Greg Lemond's victory in 1989 in the time trial along the Champs D'Elysee was one of the most memorable moments in my life! It was an electrifying performance.

Strange

Not a straw man argument at all. The point is that no amount of doping is going to transform a low level rider into a champion, whereas with a champion-caliber rider it may give them the competitive advantage to win over similarly endowed riders who aren't doping.

The corollary point I was making is that even though Armstrong was doping he still had to haul his carcass through each stage and do so faster than the other riders. That's an extraordinary physical effort, and I doubt you'll find any riders who've done it who will tell you that taking EPO makes it any less arduous. The fact that Armstrong was able to do not once but seven times what only a very minor fraction of a percent of the human population could hope (even with EPO) to do is what I find worthy of admiration. I grant that he's an unreconstructed sociopath and that he cheated, but to me that doesn't diminish the value of his achievement. And given the ubiquity of doping in pro cycling I think it's pretty hypocritical of the UCI to ban the guy for life after vacating all his Tour victories. Of course his pathetic auto da fe on Oprah was far too little far too late, but by then the guy was ruined anyway.

Coal Buster

My own experiences with dopers started when I was in college in the late 70's. For a variety of reasons, the best guys did it first (me not being one of them). I think it was because coaches and their proxies were targeting the best guys to spend their time and money on. Back then, no one had the money or wherewithal to find and buy this stuff on their own. Only the best guys were approached and the fact that high school standouts were experiencing real competition for the first time made them more susceptible to temptation. So yeah, I think that guys who win and are found to be doping are still superior athletes.

rydabent

Face it people Armstrong was probably the greatest pro cyclist. The simple fact is, yes he was probably doping, but he won against others that were doping too. That means the playing field was level.

cale

What is sports if not a fair competition? I disagree with the idea of "rewarding" anyone who takes money prior to a race so that they can complete with an unfair advantage.

The "everyone does it" argument fails to consider that the drugs were not available to other athletes in any sort of equal fashion. It was the ability of some teams to monopolize the performance enhancing drug expertise of certain specialized physicians that so completely upset the level playing field.

Coaching shouldn't include a spot on a physician's calendar based on the highest bidder. I think the sport of cycling will improve with greater transparency, not less.

StanSeven

Yes, he was extremely arrogant. Then when he started making accusations, which appeared mostly out of jealousy, he was ignored. That turned him into a cry baby.

I think out of the current riders, two that will become legends are Froome and Sagan.

Dave Cutter

Nothing wrong with admiring "sports hero's". But do keep in mind that a sports figure isn't really heroic. True they do put themselves at some level of risk... and others do benefit (by being entertained) from their efforts and from that risk. But the primary reason athletes pour their hearts into their sport... is self serving. That is NOT a heroic quality.

Sports figures should be admired. And many have lessons that we can learn from... both in their successes and in how they handle their failures.

Greg Lemond was a fine athlete.

cale

Mother Teresa, Greg Lemond is not. But as the ruling champ of the time, he was much more than a fine athlete to me. I think you must have missed some of his finest performances.

Homebrew01

Juan Foote

98 Festina Scandal.

04 Cofidis

Just two of the high profile situations that opened the door to the fact that MOST of these teams and cyclists were knowingly participating in doping schemes.

These folks didn't just get good at all this conspiracy and cover up overnight.

PepeM

Armstrong was not 'champion-caliber' before his cancer treatment (and the 'treatment' that followed).

Probably doping? Are you serious?

philbob57

Thought #1 : There are probably thousands of bike racers who have accomplished amazing things. I know the names of very few of them and the records of fewer still. I'm perfectly willing to talk about 'the greatest bike racer I know of', but I'm very reluctant to speak of 'the greatest ever'. Frankly, I think the world would be a lot better place if people used language that shows they're aware that the things they don't know far outnumber the things they know.

Thought #2 : LA may be an awful person, but he was (and may still be) a hell of a bike rider. The powers that be may have stripped him of his TdF titles as a way to pretend they disapprove of doping, but they really wan a race that brings in lots of profit, and I don;t think they really care how that's done. In my book, calling LA a pig insults pigs, but he's a 7 time winner of Le Tour.

Thought #3 : LeMond was a great rider. If he hadn't had the hunting accident, I think he could have won 5 Tours, but he wasn't as complete a racer as Merckx. Neither was LA or Fignon or Indurain or Hinault or Anquetil or Coppi or Bartali or Bobet or.... Merckx is without doubt the greatest racer I know of.

cale

I didn't say it was not common. But what started as amphetamines blossomed in later years to the extent that a doping war was going on. In war, the side with the best weapons and strategy usually wins.

Blood doping is tremendously dangerous. Would you want someone you care about to dope because everyone does it? (rhetorical) I wouldn't and that's why I am opposed to offering any greatest title to proven dopers.

I don't personally think LeMond was the greatest but he is a hero to many of us cycling fans and for reasons that aren't so obvious. He stood up to Armstrong and was a important force behind breaking the scandal. That shows the character I want in a hero.

LeMond was almost certainly doping in 1989. He received an enormous amount of blood after he was shot and would have been on blood therapy for a considerable amount of time after. Maybe that therapy would have been excused by the governing body of cycling (I can't really bring myself to use their name because of their disgraceful cover-up behavior), it's hard to know.

Strange

Any of you ever read Bad to the Bone by James Waddington? It's an epically funny slam on the culture of doping in pro cycling. Highly recommended.

bmcer

Take a good look a LA's record prior to his known doping. In any case, he's already gotten way too much air time,and I've been guilty of adding to it. Enough.

StanSeven

A lab that tested his physical capabilities said he had the highest measured ever in VO2 intake. Doping or not, he was extraordinary.

RR3

Greg Lemond could sustain 460 watts and had a VO2 Max of 92.5ml/kg/min. These figures were measured in the early 80's before the advent of EPO. He road right off the front in the 1983 World Road Championship. To liberous posters, are you aware that recombinant EPO was not available until around 1989.

I remember an interview from the 1983 UCI world championship win. The interviewer asked the 21 year old how he just road away from the top professionals in the world. Greg naively said something like, I put it in the 12 and went as hard as I could.

One memory I have etched in my brain was Greg signing authographs in Bourg St Maurice or something like that. He was signing for about an hour and the stage starts. His team mates urged him to stop signing and start. Greg stayed for at least 5 minutes signing away and chatting. The French fans eventually got him on his bike. (Of course, he didn't do the work to catch the field). I stood next to him with my jaw dropped to the pave.

I'm not a real fan of Trek for what they did to Greg besides Trek BB90 bottom bracket design is terrible, lousy bikes.

mprelaw

None. In fact, almost all of his contemporaries, including Cyrille Guimard and Fignon, who had no real love for him after the 1989 Tour, maintained that he always raced clean. And Fignon had nothing else nice to say about him in his autobiography. Koechli, his DS on La Vie Claire, also says that he was always clean.

In 1991 he was in yellow heading into the Pyrenees, and was dropped on the Tourmalet by guys he used to ride away from, including a guy named Indurain who weighed in excess of 185 pounds, and struggled to crack the top 100 in the Tour, just two years prior. EPO had arrived, and LeMond had no idea of what it could do.

Armstrong is reported to have offered $300,000 to anyone who could come forward with evidence that LeMond doped. No one stepped forward to collect.

cruiserhead

F Armstrong and all these scemantic pro-doper arguments. The only thing i'm hoping for is the gov to finish him off with the lawsuit.
Arrogant, self-admitted doper and using his ill gotten influence to try and destroy good people for speaking the truth.
Screw him.
He was a one-day rouler and mid-pack GC rider on his best day. Just like Tommy D.

LeMond is a true talent.
The fact all this b.s. cheating has clouded true talents has hurt this sport, asw ell as other sports.

I'm glad LeMond has weathered the character assasination over many years, never wavering from the truth, and come out on the other end able to be shown proud of what he has accomplished and be respected for it.

There is one thing prized the most in sport, and that is authenticity.
Fake doesn't last, and I hope Fakestrong's fall shows that.

Strange

This needs to be put into context. From the earliest days of the TdF doping has been ubiquitous, and if every winner who doped had his victory(ies) vacated because of doping the list of recognized winners would be a damnsight shorter than it currently is.

Armstrong isn't the first rider to dope, he isn't the first to lie about doping, and he's not the first to be a world class p'tit con. If you're going to despise him for these things you should have the intellectual integrity to also despise all the others throughtout the history of the Tour who've done the same things, even those who didn't profit from their treachery.

Don't misunderstand me -- I think Armstrong is a truly despicable person and that he has less personal integrity than your average crack dealer. Nonetheless I do give him credit for coming back from a nearly fatal cancer and going on to win 7 Tours, albeit by doping. Doesn't make him a good person but at least to me it's remarkable nonetheless.

LUW

My problem with Armstrong is not the doping per se, but how he did it. Not that I would let the doping slide (I have absolutely ZERO tolerance for this), but the enterprise that he made of it was truly disgusting.

bikebreak

I admire Lemond in that he was willing tell the truth about Lance when Lance was the hero, and kept it up despite getting insulted and Trek killing his bike business for doing so. That's integrity.

Also he could ride and win despite teammates trying to prevent his win, thanks to his V02max, determination, and skill