bmcer

Look, this all boils down to how much clay are you willing to tolerate in your hero's feet. Mildly interesting, but ultimately pointless.

I think if, instead of asking what rider do you think is greatest, putting his cheating aside, you ask who was the biggest scum bag, putting all his "wins" aside, finding a consensus might be easier.

mprelaw

Only Hinault really knows for sure whether he was trying to prevent LeMond from winning in 1986. In 1989 and 1990, Greg was clearly the team leader, so his teammates were all riding to support him.

Don't lose sight of the fact that in the 1982 WC, Greg was widely criticized for dragging Sean Kelley and Saronni with him when Jacques Boyer, Greg's teammate, was leading the race with a few hundred meters to go. Youthful mistake, or deliberate attack on a teammate? You'll get opinions both ways on that.

quicktrigger

And that should tell you something about Trek as well. Specialized gets a well deserved rap for being less than upstanding at times, but Trek seems just as bad IMHO.

Strange

Sure looked to me as if he was. And after having promised LeMond that he would help him win in '86 in return for LeMond's help in '85 for Hinault to go back on his word was pretty appalling. 'Badger' hell. 'Snake in the grass' is a bit more like it. What a pauv' mec.

rekmeyata

I also have to go with Eddy Merckx, this isn't a put down on Greg Lemond because I think he belongs in the top 20 club but not the top 10, he is by far the best American cyclist.

As a side note, I don't think Lance Armstrong belongs in the top 10 even if he hadn't doped. Not saying he was a bad cyclist, he was a TDF specialist but just didn't win many of the other races unlike Merckx who won a slew of other races besides the TDF. Again Greg Lemond won more races than Lance Armstrong did and thus I think Lemond is by far the better cyclist of the 2 top Americans.

Strange

Therein lies the greatness of Merckx. He did it all, and he won at it all -- grand tours, classics, World Championship, one day races, various track racing formats, the hour record. As a cyclist he was a true Renaissance man, and he dominated in every style of race he ran. No one else has ever showed such all around ability and no one else has ever even approached his win record or his win percentages.

rekmeyata

No doubt he was a monster on the bike, I doubt, though it could happen, we'll see another like him, I think today people are specializing in certain types of races which will prevent another Merckx for a very long time if ever.

series1811

I agree that Merckx was a great cyclist. Saying that while discrediting Armstrong's accomplishments for his doping is very disingenuous though. Merckx had also doped during his professional career and even admitted it later on. The sad fact is, doping has been around professional cycling far longer than anyone cares to admit and is still prevalent today. What is most disappointing isn't the doping - because I think that Armstrong was on a level playing field when he did it - it's the blatant dishonesty that followed. From a pure performance standpoint, Armstrong was undeniably a great cyclist. It is a shame that his character couldn't stand on par with his physical performance though, especially after founding Livestrong which has been such a great humanitarian success. Lemond could very well be a clean professional cyclist, and if he is, that makes him one of the truly great ones out there, and a rarity in pro cycling.

bmthom.gis

Laughing at the thought pro cycling matters. They should just make doping legal, so many do it anyway. Merckx now holds races in countries with highly suspect human rights records. LA is an ass. Don't know a lot about Lemond. I'll watch the TdF, but for the scenery

rekmeyata

This is correct. An estimated 78% of the pro riders dope, so all Armstrong did was level the playing field of the top riders who were all doping. Of course Lance blatantly lied about it, so what? What else would a person do in his shoes? Look, ever since the beginning of athletic competitions there were competitors looking for ways to cheat to win; Spartan coaches fed their athletes a mix of herbs and mushrooms to deaden pain, speed up to 1886 and cyclist Andrew Linton died during a pro race because he ingested something that was suppose to deaden pain. In 1936 Germany dominated the Olympics due to illegal drugs; John Ziegler, the father of anabolic steroids here in the good ol US of A gave testosterone to the US weightlifting team in for the Olympics so they could outperform their counterparts. The US military gives performance enhancing drugs to some soldiers; professional football players have been doing it since the late 60's; and since all those early people doping has accelerated dramatically since, 18 pro baseball players from 2005 to 2007 have been caught for illegal drugs. College and even high school level sports are involved in illegal performance enhancing drugs.

I wasn't even a pro cyclist, just a lousy Cat 3 racer, my girlfriend had a cousin who was a female pro tennis player back in the day (who shall go nameless here) and the pro tennis player cousin wanted me to dope so I could get to the next Cat level and told me all the tennis players do it and so do the cyclist at my level which I already knew but refused to participate since I wasn't sure what the long term effects might be. Even pro motorsports teams try to cheat.

You can put a 1000 agencies in charge of overseeing and testing players in all the sports for drugs and they still won't be able to get rid of it. the real problem is any oversight agencies in place currently really don't want to get rid of it, records being broken fuels excitement and excitement is a money making business, so they slap hands of those that get caught, so they mostly look the other way, in Lance's case he was an American and the Europeans will be damned if some falken American wins their sweetheart race 7 times in a row so they had to stop that and make an example out of him.

Did Lemond dope, I have a feeling he did since I had some ties to some of his friends (not to him directly) that said he did but I never saw or heard anything that would be considered damning (or maybe I simply cannot repeat what I know), and this site I'm going to post gives more information about was was eluded to me back then; see: https://velorooms.com/index.php?topic=1904.0 Is this info true? I kind of lean in the direction that it is, but you make up your own minds, some of you hold him to be a hero so you'll deny it, whatever makes you feel more comfortable with.

cruiserhead

ROTFL
wtf is this? LOL

And that link! LOL
"if" he di this and that, and "heard" he may have, "might have", then that means x, y,z. Because xyz takes a year to get over, he is guilty of doping because MY Hypothetical guess based on a total hypothetical timeline based on complete innuendo and guesses tell me these are teh "facts". LOL
As one of the other posts says, "wildly entertaining... but hardly overwhelming" or even mildly convincing.

Everyone cheats so it's okay.
Children don't get away with it and that's a pretty low standard.
LA is a dope.
LeMond is not. I've seen the data, and sporting history. LeMond is a true talent, like once in a generation talent. LA was never that until he doped.

BlazingPedals

Whaaaa??? Lance still hasn't admitted any more than he had to concede due to the evidence. One reason they came down so hard on him was that when they gave him a chance to come clean, he denied it all and dared them to come after him.

rekmeyata

WTF is this??!!! the way you suggest is that NO rider has EVER doped because you're too ignorant to know what's happening in the industry because only a few get caught, the reason for only a few is because it's very random selection. I knew there would be at least one person who would respond like this and I knew you would be one them...LOL

LUW

Being honest, and please correct me if it's not the case, reading this whole thread gives me the impression that most here think it's ok for a specific rider to dope "because everybody else is doping". Really?
At least in my book there's absolute 100% tolerance for any kind of cheating in sport, and the argument that it's ok to do so because others are doing it does not make it ok for someone to do so.

bikegolfer

If someone told me that if I would dope, I would win the tour de France, I would refuse. I would rather be a guy such as LeMond who may have not been the greatest rider ever, but who was able to keep their integrity and be an advocate for clean racing. If LeMond had doped, there would be a very different conversation here. He would have been with the leaders for the other grand tours that he felt totally lost in. I believe that Lance is a disgusting person, but I think we all know that cyclists are another breed. I believe that the UCI was wrong in taking away Lance's TDF titles since they haven't taken away the titles of all the other dopers like Contador, Fignon, and dare I say Merckx. Doping is a cancer for the sport. Doping is what makes young people such as myself weary to even think about going pro. So far, the uci has been living with this cancer, occasionally cutting a piece out, and believing that it won't come back even though it does over and over again for the last 50 years. What cycling needs is a huge dose of radiation to kill this cancer. It will be tough and professional cycling will come close to the point of death during the treatment but, after completion, will gain in popularity across the world and be more successful than ever.

cruiserhead

Uh no.

YOU are suggesting everyone cheats, including LeMond. So I reject your reading of my reply, because it's completely wrong.
I reject your ridiculous theories on LeMond becuase they are based in and originate from the country of BALONEY.

jfowler85

He was backed into a corner, mountains of evidence forced his hand. "Because everyone else is doing it" isn't excusable in any other circumstance...why pro cycling? Why pro anything? Why at all? He is a class A dickhead, regardless of his performance, and got what he deserved. Including being blackballed (notice the singular "ball" in there) out of local events. Subsequent interviews shows he is still an unrepentant stuck up jerkoff who just can't see that his persistent lawsuits crushed people all for the sake of living his wet dream. These days he gets his rocks, er rock, off doing private tours with fanboy idol worshipers. Jerk.

cruiserhead

absofrickinlutely true
There is no "truth" from Fakestrong. It's all measured to the bare minimum he must admit to due to the clear evidence.
The actual truth, or facts of what occured, he will never tell.

His testimony in the current case is clear proof of that. Same old Lance.

quicktrigger

Read the rest of my posts. Frankly, I don't care that he was doping. He doped and won against other doper's. So what? I don't care. I don't care if I ever see him or not. Don't care if he rides, or wacks it all day. And I don't care if he's banded or not. LA doped to the top... yeah and???? Still did it against other dopers, and yes it does matter that others did it as well (you can't have it matter for LA and not for the other dopers). DO NOT CARE!!! I do care that he still had an amazing achievement from near certain death to rising to the top of his world, and how that story can be beneficial to others in similar horrible spots. But allot of you people can't get past the doping to see a larger picture benefit.

mprelaw

LMAO at the people who think that popping pep pills is the same as chemically bio-engineering the oxygen carrying capacity of your blood.

jfowler85

If you don't care then why comment?

I prefer not to think of Lance whacking it, that's all you, ya weirdo.

I never made a comment about Lance doping vs. everyone else, please read the comment again. I said that it's unacceptable to excuse him just because everyone else was doing it.

Larger picture benefit of what? He led a foundation most known for selling bracelets and a website which gives halfassed medical advice. He decided to take a worthy cause only after he suffered, because what prick wouldn't? That would be a PR disaster for someone who was already flirting with trouble. He needed that foundation to take attention away from doping allegations which were always bubbling under the surface. Oh, and he let cancer patients down for being a fraud; his own foundation gave him the boot. What a stand up guy. It's amazing that you effectively wipe the slate clean under the guise of "but everyone else was doing it."

quicktrigger

Like I said, see the bigger picture of what he overcame doping or not. You refuse to accept that. Not my problem. You refuse to apply the same rules to the other dopers. Not my problem. You want to be myopic, and indignant. Not my problem.

I comment to try to educate some like yourself that there is more to it than doping/slimeball crap. There is something worthy there irrelevant of the other issues. Consider it a public service that is apparently wasted on some.

Carry on with your indignant self-righteousness. Hope you or someone you care about does not get a serious illness where you are forced to understand what I'm beeing trying to point out.

jfowler85

Again - he overcame adversity through doping. Conclusions by the USADA are that he doped throughout his career...you call that come back? I never said this was your problem - you are the one responding to me. If it's not your problem then quit crying about it lest someone call the waaaahmbulance.

Again, this isn't about other cyclists - pay attention to context. You are using a straw man to avoid confronting the issue.



Right...the core of your argument is vague and nebulous. "Larger picture benefit" and "look what he overcame" don't mean anything. Feel free to make a real argument at any time.


According to what? I've made no comment about myself, so on what grounds do you judge me? Ad hominem attack marks the lack of legitimate argumentation. I.e., you have nothing real to say so you've resorted to name calling. A classic Lance tactic.

Strange

It IS the same. In both instances a competitor used banned substances to illegally acquire a competitive edge. That they are chemically and biologically different is of zero significance since they are both means to the same ends, i.e., to gain an unfair advantage.

Had blood doping, EPO, and steroids been available to cyclists in the first half of the 20th century do you doubt the racers of that age would have used them? They used amphetimines because that's what they had available, and as more sophisticated drugs became available they started using those instead. When somebody realized you could temporarily increase your hematocrit by training at altitude, drawing blood, and later using it for autosomal transfusion before a race they did that too.

Point being, it makes not a whit of difference what means you use to cheat, it only matters that you are cheating.

rekmeyata

Blah blah blah. Go back to troll land.