10/21/13 3:58 PM

8PM on Anderson Cooper

http://cnnpressroom.blogs.cnn.com/2013/10/21/tonight-ac360-exclusive-3x-tour-de-france-champ-greglemond-speaks-wandersoncooper/

10/21/13 5:10 PM

Greg LeMond: Absolutely. Absolutely. The greatest fraud was that, I mean, I know his physical capabilities. He's a top 30 at best. I mean, at best. No matter what. If he was clean and everybody else was clean, he's a top 30 at best. He's not capable of winning the Tour. He's not capable of the top 5.


With the other 30 clean is he saying? Make little sense to me...

Why he is so focused on LA still eludes me. I am not saying he is or ever was wrong. Why did he never go after the other winner after himself, cause none of them doped? And are we to believe he never dope dejoured?

EDIT: Saw the spot. When some asks why would they do something as an answer to if they did that thing.. I smell BS. Even less impressed with GL.

Still pissed at him for that last Poprad... kidding.

WTF, I need an American to look up to. ;)

10/22/13 5:51 AM

...this is a classic case of "he doth protest too much". Lemond undoubtedly doped, as did everyone in his generation. This is his attempt to assuage his own guilt and hypocrisy.

He's still bitter that Lance completely eclipsed his accomplishments. He can't stand the fact that Lance was a better rider than he was. He's jealous of the level of fame Armstrong had outside of the cycling world. I appears that that he still feels robbed by the effects of his hunting accident and apparently still hasn't gotten past the "what if?" point. Lemond is pathetic and every time he opens his mouth, he just makes that more obvious.

10/22/13 5:57 AM

It was a mediocre, highly edited interview. Thank goodness it was short.

Yeah, I think GL meant essentially something like "in a clean peloton LA would be a chief lieutenant."

I just added quotes, was this your reaction about GL doping?:
When some asks "why would they do something" as an answer to if "they did that thing.. "

That analysis is out of context to the exchange I heard. It started with a weird statement by AC, immediately after recapping LeMond's being the victim of a child molester.

AC asked:
"You didn't want to dope"

GL replied:
"No, absolutely no, of course not."
--and then went on about culture of sick egos in sports that justifies doping to level the playing field because no one else can have the talent to be so much better than they are themselves.
--and then he finished up sort of like you say
(paraphrased:)
`I was fortunate enough to be so talented that I didn't need dope.... Why would I have to think of taking something when I'm winning (without it)?`

But he didn't do the classic 'answer a question with a question' routine that I despise.

In context of Brian's post, it is funny that GL is talking inflated egos. But I disagree with you Brian nonetheless.

10/22/13 8:53 AM

Just another interview that leaves me solidly in the camp of "let 'em dope."
Save the comments about the highly isolated cases where doping "might" have led to some deaths but given what we now know was widespread use that did not lead to riders collapsing on TV and/or in the grand tours, it seems Ferrari and friends have the formula pretty well figured out.
Enough so that LA would return to a doping regimen even after he knew he might have doped himself into cancer in the beginning.
All the collective anti-doping efforts have done IMO is create an atmosphere of suspicion over any rider's accomplishments, clean or dirty.
Ask Horner or Froome, assuming they won clean - even that statement makes the point.
I was out of my chair fist pumping when LeMond crushed Fignon in the TT....same thrills when LA "crossed the line" (literally) seven times and all the mini victories in between as he crushed rival dopers.
This sport is like having a beautiful/handsome SO that you no longer trust.
In their best, most intimate moments, you think "you are cheating on me."
And so you hire detectives to follow her and test her whereabouts.
Where is the fun in that?
I want the sport of cycling to be alluring, and if it takes doping to get there, let 'em dope....cause they probably already are....remember TH's quote "they have their doctors and we have ours, ours are better."
And as long as that is true, we will never trust are heroes on or off the bike.
Thrill on.

10/22/13 9:41 AM

and if it takes doping to get there, let 'em dope....cause they probably already are....remember TH's quote "they have their doctors and we have ours, ours are better."

Except, like war where the two POTUSes [POTI?] should just flip a coin, maybe the doctors could just play a hand of poker? They win...

10/22/13 11:50 AM

"...It was a mediocre, highly edited interview. Thank goodness it was short..."

Just what I would expect from AC/CNN, and why I didn't watch.

Thanks all, for filling me in though.:-)

Unfortunately, CNN probably got what they wanted out of GL, usually the way it works in these situations. Gotta keep the "battle" alive, and to heck with what anyone's real intentions are/were. Polarize and rule I guess.

Mightn't LA have earned some respect if he at least acknowledged GL's accusations were true when he finally came clean(?), but he avoided that reality completely.

10/22/13 1:31 PM

quote:

---

Lemond undoubtedly doped, as did everyone in his generation.

---

10/22/13 3:06 PM

"...and if it takes doping to get there, let 'em dope....cause they probably already are..."

If it was just the riders doing their own thing (doping), then yeah, I say let 'em dope.
And I'm totally not happy with anybody's gov't spending (losing) money investigating sporting fraud type stuff. How can anyone endorse someone's (taxpayer's) money being spent on something that they (most taxpayers) have no interest in?

However, when it's the rider's employers and/or their employers employers who are in effect demanding that their riders dope, by either providing the crooked doctors or by completely ignoring their rider's behaviors in response to the pressure to stay employed with a team, then there should be civil recourse that provides immunity by penalizing the employer(s) without the rider having to subject any of their past earnings to possible confiscation, and with all other employment laws used to extract the costs of investigation from the employers instead of from the taxpayers.

10/22/13 7:14 PM

The problem with the "let 'em dope" argument is that we have LOTS of evidence of the damage athletes will subject themselves to if they don't think they'll get caught. I don't think that a "gladiator" mindset about sport is good for anyone.

10/22/13 7:36 PM

My biggest reason to believe LeMond wasn't on EPO-not that he didn't do anything-the way Indurain left him for dead.

He sounds like a bitter man, maybe rightly so, but he still blew an opportunity to take the high road now.

10/23/13 6:54 AM

quote:

---

My biggest reason to believe LeMond wasn't on EPO-not that he didn't do anything-the way Indurain left him for dead.

---

10/23/13 8:08 AM

I don't think the issue is really whether Lemond doped or not, I think either way Mr Lepore is spot on, he really comes across as a bitter jealous man.
Move on my man.. move on...

10/23/13 9:27 AM

I am still not clear as to whether or not LA actually had any impact on kaboshing the Lemond/Trek gig.

If he in fact did, it is easy for me to see how/why GL would be in perpetual hamstring mode.

It seems like more than career envy. Although GL being certainly less successful sports career seems obvious... Is that really the catalyst? But several layers there for GL to be envious of to be sure,

10/23/13 10:34 AM

quote:

---

.... he really comes across as a bitter jealous man.

---

10/23/13 11:38 AM

quote:

---

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
.... he really comes across as a bitter jealous man.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Yes he does and has for many years, even before LA's doping became a major issue.

---

10/23/13 7:11 PM

quote:

---

quote: Lemond undoubtedly doped, as did everyone in his generation.



Hang on Brian. I remember you were the one who defended Lance way back when. And back then, there were only O'Reilly and other "dissatisfied people" with axes to grind... You said there had to be real evidence.

Now you are being inconsistent and have changed your tune. There is no evidence that I'm aware of that Greg doped. And teammates etc. haven't come forward. Shouldn't you be on Greg's side then?

Sandiway

---

10/23/13 7:29 PM

Is it being said Brian is one of these 'some sort of folk' then? ;)

Maybe he just changed his mind since 'post'. ;)


EDIT: I only just now noticed we were talking about Gerg Lemond and not Greg...

10/24/13 3:15 AM

I have no idea about Brian. I'm just saying that since the whole Armstrong doping saga began and Lemond got involved, there have been individuals that strongly defended Armstrong against the doping accusations while "convicting" Lemond on far less evidence. As if there were two completely different standards being used.

Although in fairness I would say many of them didn't so much as defend Armstrong against the accusations as it became painfully obviously what was going on as attack Lemond. Almost as if they were taking it out on Lemond that in fact Armstrong was a doper.

10/24/13 5:26 AM

Lemond rode during the era of "atom bottles" "vitamin" injections and other concoctions given to riders by team doctors, and they all lived under the "nod and a wink" omerta of the time. Nobody seemed to question these practices and drug testing was a cosmetic farce at best. Did Lemond ever stick a needle in his arm or pop pills that he knew were PEDs? Only he and the people around him at the time know that and they're not even being questioned seriously. I daresay that it's because nobody really wants to hear the answer. I don't believe that anyone was clean back then because most of them had no idea what they were being given and they didn't seem to care.

Armstrong was supposed to be a representative of a new, cleaner peloton and like many, I wanted to believe that. I was taken in by his comeback from cancer and subsequent success. Perhaps I should have known better.

Lemond's bloviating about how he was such a superior athlete that he didn't need drugs, but that Armstrong was mere pack fodder, was a disgusting display of self-delusion, conceit and narcissism. I also found it very odd that he repeatedly brought up his alleged sexual abuse and almost seemed to revel in it. Then he accuses Armstrong of manipulating the cancer community for his own benefit. Again, it was disgusting and hypocritical.

Lemond has serious problems, the most evident being his bizarre fixation on destroying Armstrong. The likely result will be to focus the spotlight back on his era and the rampant doping that went on, in which case he will get to experience what it's like to have your accomplishments tainted or discredited. Wouldn't that be an interesting turn of events...

Lemond has been on a self-destructive path for a long time. I hope he gets help before it's too late.

10/24/13 10:12 AM

quote:

---

I also found it very odd that he repeatedly brought up his alleged sexual abuse and almost seemed to revel in it.

---

10/24/13 12:16 PM

quote:

---

Armstrong was supposed to be a representative of a new, cleaner peloton

---

10/24/13 1:25 PM

What pre 90s dope never got publicly documented is my question?

Thus my continual 'Dope' or 'PED' 'DeJour' comments on the topic.

10/24/13 5:29 PM

I have no idea if Lemond doped or not, but it seems odd given how outspoken he has been that if he did no one has stepped up to call him out. It's not like others from that era (e.g. Fignon) aren't known to have doped.

If he did dope he probably didn't matter to a significant degree as there was no EPO at the time, or routine blood doping due to storage issues. It seems like it took EPO to come on the scene in the early 90's to make everyone realize that increasing oxygen carrying capacity was the game-changer.

Basically doping was rampant but at least you could win without it (e.g. by all accounts Hampsten was a clean rider), by the time EPO became established in '93-'94 that appears to no longer have been the case.

10/25/13 5:37 AM

...what drugs they were taking? Doping is doping and each "era" had it's own drugs that were widely used. EPO improved performance more than earlier drugs, but that only matters if you're comparing an EPO user with say, an amphetamine user. With the top riders doping using the same drugs, you have a relatively even playing field, albeit one that's elevated above "non-enhanced" performance. Really, the only difference was who got caught, who didn't and whose positive tests got swept under the rug by the UCI.