First of all, Greg Lemond was the first American rider I ever watched racing back in the 80s when he won the time trial against Laurent Fignon in 1989 to win the Tour De France. I immediately became a fan of his for showing the world that Americans could do the grand tours and win. Back then, when Greg was racing, we had crappy recaps/highlights only to watch on CBS so I didn't actually get to watch the TDF like we can today. Second, I find it refreshing that Greg is honest about difficult it was to say no during the age of doping when one is young and eager to live their dream of racing on a road bike in Europe. Thank you for the great interview.
same experience growing up - that time trial against fignon was unforgettable, and i loved that greg was forward thinking enough to use very early aero equipment whereas fignon used a regular bike and bars with aero rims. i was more upset than i ever admitted to myself at the time, seeing him tumble down the race results in the early 90s.
@@RantingYogi Surely he's not going to lie about being clean given what followed his career. I did find it a little arrogant that he said Armstrong would have never won any TDF if clean, that is like saying Doug Flutie, Tim Tebow, Spud Webb, Nate Archibald, Steph Curry couldnt be great athletes because they were small. I think if Armstrong hadnt been so arrogant and hadnt tried to comeback, doping again, there never would have been the backlash. And I think Armstrong would have won a TDF, not 5, but he wouldve won one.
Lance played the game too well. They all doped and he was the best but doping does not make anybody superman and guaranteed to win. Among all the doped field the most talented will rise to the top. Lance will always be the GOAT until Pogacar or Jonas wins more titles.
It's incorrect to say, "exact same behavior". Lance, a sociopath, destroyed people, teammates and careers. Pantani only destroyed himself. Ullrich was also a tragic character. Sean Kelly, Stephen Roche, and many like them... they didn't destroy people. Lemond and Hinault may be the only true cycling heroes.
I don’t think it was Lance who destroyed people. It was the machine that was using Lance as an ATM that destroyed people. Lance was told what to say and do by trek by his handlers and lawyers . Doesn’t make it any better but Lance didn’t have time to formulate all the answers he gave. He didn’t have the moral foundation to say no but he also realized there was so many people riding his gravy train he didn’t have the courage to say no. But he was the one who made the decision to start doping when Endurain breezed by him when his heart rate was pegged,he knew everyone else was doping so he was going to show them how to do it
@@pamshewan9181I met Greg at a party in 2002. He’s nicer in person than on video. He was getting ready for a century at my friends house. He gave me a carbon stem for my road bike
So you're all good with doping then. You're only concerned about whether they're nasty with it? Just because Pantani is a hero in Italy doesn't make him a great guy. Shows that Italians are pro cheats
I was a big cycling fan and really followed the TDF. I heard the people questioning Lance and his team and their "Freshness" in the steep mountain climbs. And then when Floyd Landis got "Busted" ,and spoke out it was Heartbreaking.to hear. Love Greg Lomond and his honesty.
Lance was Demonized because He attacked people who rightfully accused him of Doping. He tried to intimidate them into backing off and dug deeper into his lies.
Well no not until he confessed was he demonised? He did all those nasty things to people who came clean about him or had the gonads to accuse him like David Walsh and they had very little support from the media or the public
I think that the perception that he and the team managers institutionalized the process and may have "forced" virtually the entire team to join so they were more competitive is part of it. But on another level, it was a fair fight since doping was so prevalent.
@@TheIndianaGeoffSo being the biggest doper, lying to sponsors to gain huge incomes, destroying anyone who got in the way is all just fine because others were taking EPO?
I worked in a bike shop during high school and raced with our club. Greg was a hero. I watched Armstrong's unnatural performances and told people their new "Great American Hero Lance" wasn't on the level. My coworkers were sudden fans of bike racing and were not happy to hear my opinions. It cost me more than you might imagine.
I imagine it did. Cognitive dissonance is difficult to overcome. I watched Greg in the 80s, and immensely enjoyed seeing him battle Fignon and Hinault. Loved the Armstrong era too, but especially after reading Tyler Hamilton's book, came to realize the sheer scope of the doping affair. I appreciate both LeMond and Armstrong appear to hate one another, and assume both of them are biased. I agree with other commenters, would appear Armstrong isn't mediocre, given what he was able to accomplish early on as a triathlete, and first year or so on the tour before Cancer. However, the VO2 max is one of the most definitive tests out there - I don't recall Armstrong trumpeting his score, instead when he does speak about physiology, he mentions lactate levels. On Greg's assessment, I remain skeptical, until we hear from others, but especially physiologist and people who have more training. However, I do recognize LeMond is also knowledgeable about the physiology of humans with respect to bicycle racing. and thus his opinion does carry some weight. PS, just watched Lance on the podcast hosted by the NFL player, Chris Long, and Lance said at the end of his LeMond's racing career Greg was fat!! LOL, definitely no love lost between those two. Both are very competitive.
Well said his generation were all on it , I know because I know a British rider who went to ride for a team in 1990 and was told if you don’t take the drugs there’s no contract , as all teams are using drugs …. Lemond s era
Just imagine you are a 20 year old rider who has spent most of his life training and working like a donkey to be a pro and when you finally get to sign your name on a paper they tell you that you either take a bunch of pills and syringes or there's no contract. You will have thrown away your life. Therefore, you willingly step into the doping game. That's how it works. Either you dope or your dreams are shattered before they start. @@Gary-le7dz
Regarding Armstrong: He has a bad personality, period. To this day, he is narcissistic. I think that is one of the reasons why he gains as much hate as he does. As far as talent, I think he had as much or more than all the other dopers in the peloton that were winning. Which in a sense made him a great talent in comparing him in that context. He was the best of the dopers and the dopers were winning.
i see many more fans of him than anything else, domestically at least. just like mj, he may or may not have molested children but the fans still loved him. and those who didnt like him to begin with just had more reason not to.
Some dopers have more to gain by doping than other dopers. Armstrong had a lower hematocrit level than most riders so he could take Epo and still test lower than riders with naturally higher hematocrit levels. RE check Charlie Wegelius. Armstrong is a arrogant bully who sued and tried to ruin careers. Armstrong called Lemond a drunk and threatened if he didn’t keep quiet Trek wouldn’t produce the Lemond bike brand
Wrong. He was in a "team" not US Postal but Dr. Ferrari et al. which had incredible $ backing which it used "allegedly" to pay bribes and implement other measures to avoid detection allowing their rider to race doped more often than the other doped riders. Frankie Andre laid it all out Bicycle industry profited immensely off the fable It’s fine if you prefer the fable but Lemond knows it’s like Stone Cold Steve winning a Gold in Greco Roman Wrestling
LeMond mentions he was immensely talented and winning pro-am races at 18. Lance Armstrong was beating professional triathletes at age 16. I'm not a fan of Lance, and I'm not excusing him, but to say Lance Armstrong was /not/ talented is simply incorrect. His record as a teen in triathlon, and as a junior was amazing - he clearly had lots of innate talent. VO₂Max does not correlate perfectly with aerobic performance. This is still something of a mystery to sports physiologists. But it's quite possible to have 2 athletes, one of 85 ml/kg and another of 75, where the VO₂Max in theory says the former should beat the pants off the latter, yet the latter beats the former. Yes, all else being equal, the 85 ml/kg athlete wins, but it's /not/ a perfect relationship, and there *are* other factors (not well understood) that can turn this upside down. As another example, an elite cyclists VO₂Max will be at its peak somewhere in their very early twenties. Yet, this likely is _not_ the peak of their cycling performance ability. The same athlete will very likely be /stronger/ as an endurance cyclist around 25 to 28 - even though their VO₂Max will already have declined slightly. So LeMond's argument is not sound here.
Yeah he prob is over-doing that point. but Greg doesnt say it was just VO max. It is VO max and power to weight ratio. Lance was an elite athlete and certainly was within the brand new triathlon scene and the relatively obscure U.S. bike racing scene at the time he was elite top 5. Greg may be understating his talent, but Armstrong was doping in the 93 World Championship...and thereafter. So I dont think we ever saw Armstrong in the European peloton without drugs. What doesnt make sense about Lance is how a guy that performed as a day-racer / sprinter ..returns to the peloton and was dropping the world's best hill climbers. The variable that changed was adopting Ferrari's system that was a team-level, scientifically managed regime. Different level totally.
@PaulJakma......Armstrong was pushing drugs [PED's] as a young triathlete - yes, he may have been winning races at that time, but he was also establishing himself as a major drug user and supplier.
@@johngoodell2775 well for one, cancer dropped his weight. Two, LA wasn’t a super motivates trainer. But after cancer he was. As for VO2 GL is wrong. LA is documented OTC at 84, not mid 70s as GL states. He knows this but has his agenda. Dope doesn’t make mules into thoroughbreds.
Lance's 1999 weight was heavier than his 93 if memory serves... by 2-3 lbs. He didnt race lighter until his later tours. Lance has been peddling explanations for his wins for over two decades. His explanations always fall into the category of why he is in the top 10% of athletes in the world... but the top 10% is thousands of people. Greg has no agenda other than a love of the sport and getting completely screwed by a fraudster. Armstrongs VO max has consistently been around 77-80. www.usada.org/wp-content/uploads/C118.pdf Greg's stated 78 for Lance as good of a number as there is. The bottom line is that Lance has no place in cycling in cycling history.
@@JB-uv4hm all just the same silly propaganda. Riders at level dont compete period if they are not motivated. Weight and motivation are simply not variables at that level. Everyone is in shape, and everyone is motivated. Those factors dont explain 7 tour wins in a row. Neither does femur length or whatever else Lance uses to re-direct attention from doping. Folks who defend Armstrong dont realize the pile of data out there about cycling performance & physiology. His VOmax has been consistently measured around 78...by his own team of coaches. Lance was an elite athlete - in the top 10% - but that is given for the European peloton in general. Properly devised team-level EPO doping and blood doping regime will make a top 50 rider into a winner among other dopers. The key variable was the Michele Ferrari.
Wonder if Greg remembers staying at the Vail Doubletree Inn in 1986, representing (with Hinault, Bauer, JF Barnard, etc) the "Celestial Seasons" team, at the Coors International Cycling Classic, and enjoying the "Angel Hair Pasta with Chicken & Shrimp" dinner, then going out the next morning onto the "Vail Pass Hill Climb" Time Trial? Because I recommended that plate, as Guest Services Director, to Mike ~ the Manager who drove their Luggage truck and arrived first; Mike ordered 16 plates of my favorite dinner at the (then) Café Colorado... 🎉🎉🎉
ask greg in 1989 in the tour of italy he was gonn quit. then he said he took a b12 shot then had a great time trial and won the tour. Greg you took something
@@graymcmic1419That is people hearing it, never reading it, and taking fir granted what they sloppily hear. Of course, to never read "would have" or "would've" AND to not make the grammatical connection to how it must be spelled... that's either stupidity or laziness or a lack of education.
I find these podcasts brilliant and thought provoking. With regards to armstrong pre Internet and pre his cancer I was made aware of certain things that had happened the other side of the pond by a acquaintance who had a contact fairly high up in a certain team. I still think that if armstrong was a neo pro now he would be something in the mvdp category----as in maybe not to to be able to crest the hc climbs in the front groups but certainly be very competitive in most of the classics and go for medium mountain stages in grand tours----the guy was clearly v.talented athletically.
he wasnt talented athletically he was mediocre, but mentally with the absence of empathy his mind was cutthroat sharp and people like that compensate by doing, he had a determination that would keep him training while others went home, his dedication was enough to get a lot more out of his genetics than an average person would, psychopaths tend to thrive in sports and in some ways especially in being numb to cheating guilt and unsportsmanlike conduct they have a significant advantage over normal people, it is that kind of advantage that put him over the rest, mainly the grit to go the extra length wherever it led.
I certainly agree with your physiological observations of him----I know that isn't part of the physical talent of the man but does the term 'talent ' not to some degree involve the physiological aspect. I'm only conjecturing and all the stories I've heard about him was that he wasn't a particularly nice guy-----the one about him 'allegedly ringing an editor of a now defunct magazine during the bloke's Easter sunday lunch criticising certain content that didn't fit his agenda-----never mind he will probably be president in 15 years time ------
@@JohnButler-iq8rl you mean psychological, Lances controlling nature and selfish focus are a nailed on lack of empathy, people like that can often be powerful businessmen and when they arent dealing with people they can be quite brilliant like car designers, they arent necessarily bad people either, the bad stuff is usually from being completely ignorant to that which they arent focussing on and they tunnel vision a lot, calling an editor during their sunday lunch is a classic example and probably intentionally timed to spite knowing Lance any critique wouldve hurt his ego and he wouldve been compelled to control the situation himself, entirely a projection of his lack of self control and people like that are either challenged and their ego defeated or they get their way and it compounds the controlling behaviour but when challenged the ego is like a desperate temper tantrum with many aftershocks so cant blame anyone that didnt give him both barrells because it wouldve been hell up. People like Lance just need to realize its a disability and how to manage it, thats the clean way to challenge the behaviour, make obvious that its textbook. president in 15 years hahaha he wouldnt be the first of his kind for that job (although clinically incapable to do the job properly when did that stop Bush, Trump etc)
Yes sorry for the mis spelling. Your insite is extremely impressive I suspect you have dealt with such people on a personal or professional level in the past 🤔 do you think without those specific personality traits he wouldn't have made even second tier pro ----it's a fascinating discussion though 👍 .
so what is Pogi or Jonas? Can you guys explain the domination? I watch NBA and sure few guys can take over in the playoffs but teams usually adjust and there is parity.
His point is valid in regard to the domination. No one is saying directly they are doping but often times it just looks too easy. Look at LBL when he won, didn’t even look tired . Is he really that much better than the rest?
@@brendanward9877 They are kinda freaks. Jonas has biggest VO2 (super stamina) and Pog has has an incredible lactate-clearance capacity (super immediate recovery) if you couple that with their money rich teams who can build team of scientists and trainers to create personal diet, training and supplements to add to ther genetic advantages, then you will get super dominance.
@@shawncollison639 That argument doesn’t make sense on its own though. If everybody’s doping and those two are still so superior, it follows they indeed are special talents. Don’t forget how many years of mediocrity we’ve witnessed before they came along. Once in a long while super talents do come along and we’re blessed to have two at the same time.
Why heroes & vilains ? In one word...marketing, how much is the individual worth to the governing body and its image/value. Probably the clearest example of this is the Ben Johnson/Carl Lewis clash in Seoul in "88. The look of surprise on Lewis' face (wow, how did he get better drugs than me) was funny to see. But the question of why Johnson was caught/punished and not Lewis...look at the marketability of the both of them. The stuff that Johnson was tested positive for is in no way performance enhancing, serving primarily to massively bulk up (along with heavy weight training) long before a competitive events. His entourage would have known that and it begs the question of why it was in his system post-race. Lewis though, always tested clean but then, so did many others who were later outed (Marion Jones) . It was disturbing how Johnson was crucified in a very public inquiry and then stripped of all previous accomplishment, even though he had tested clean. Besides Lance, nobody else has been the subject of so much public humiliation, especially as it is still commonly acknowledge that doping is still rampant in many sports, nothing resolved. Lance was seen as the UCI's means of expanding into the American sports/media market by creating a hero/superstar, and therefore had to be "kept clean" as his successes increased. He only raced the premier event, the Tour, spending all his time pre-riding and training with personal entourage while the rest of the team was working the race circuit. Would Lance have had the same success at the tour had he also raced the kind of schedules all others do?
Interesting how he went from not answering the question straight to patting his own back for not doping when he had the chance to do it. You gotta love those interviews
Just amazes me that anyone can 'understand' or partially justify the use of drugs in sport because someone else has a 'natural' advantage ....the whole point of competition is knowing someone might naturally have an advantage but do you have the drive and discipline to offset your natural disadvantage to better their overall performance? If you can, then you are achieving brilliance on a superior level! The integrity of Greg is one of a dying breed ....he's a TRUE sportsman
The problem is that the drugs since 1991 are so effective that they have made grand tour racing too easy and predictable. When LeMond raced, nobody knew if Hinault was going to take 5 minutes on everyone or lose 5 minutes to everyone. It was as much about survival as it was racing. Today, it is as predictable as a movie script.
The tour used to be harder too. Go back to 1987 and there were 26 stages and 600 more miles. Some stages were 250km long. Winning time was 115 hr not mid 80s hrs like now. No radios either.
for me, Lance was a jerk, hurt people and this put a target on his back. others, people knew but it seems they did not go out of there way to hurt other.
As a casual watcher of cycling at some point I came to the conclusion that not only are the participants cheating but the administrators are also former cheats. So I don't watch cycling anymore.
I guess you just don't watch sports then, because today cycling is one of the cleanest sports in the world. It is extremely difficult to cheat today. The control system is very tight. Fueling is also much more important than oxygen levels.
they are more doped than 90s now, c'mon. This gen of all-around monsters able to attack whenever and whatever is hilarious. And what can we say about Visma dominating all the possible GTs with all its riders? c'mon this is the worst era of cycling, in fact they are beating or extremely close to 90s records@@holmbjerg
I think framing the question here as it does involving Pantani was a little disingenuous. I'm glad GL does set this straight a bit with his answer and comments.
The plural of "hero" is "heroes." You can't make a word plural by adding an apostrophe. Apostrophes are for contractions (e.g., "can't" or "don't") and showing possession (e.g., "Bob's eyes" or "the seven zebras' tails").
Love LeMond, but auto racing is sport, and the cars are never equal (F1, LeMans etc. are not spec racing), and absolutely physical gifts of youth , hand eye coordination, and stamina are huge factors in success. Look at the F1 grid they don’t look very dissimilar to cyclists, all are very fit, implying the athletic component. Motorcycle way more so, those guys are hyper fit and strong and the rider can always elevate a slower machine.
great insight from Lemond during the whole video, and I specially loved what he mentions by the end of the video. Could it be that while Armstrong was mediocre, he paid more to have a more advanced doping than other riders, and this gave him an extra advantage even if other riders were also doped?
Although doping was rampant, Armstong was basically given a free pass. He he tested positive, the result would disappear. He also told on other riders if he considered them a threat. He could maximize his doping, where the rest couldn't.
Thank goodness Lemond was only injecting iron supplements when everybody else was starting to use EPO. This is the guy we can trust to tell us who the cheaters were--which was everyone--except for this one honest guy.
There were certain racers that quickly fell from contention around 1990 and Gilles was one of them. A shame. You can go through a bunch of riders in the late 80's and judge weather they were clean or not based on how there results carried on on the 90s.
I don't think it's fair to say Armstrong was a mediocre talent. Was Indurain a mediocre talent? Pantani, Riis, Ullrich? Merckx during the amphetamine days of cycling? If so, then maybe Armstrong was too.
Well Greg never tested positive positive, or was caught?. Whatever, Lemond had the 5th highest VO2 max for a pro cyclist at 93 and could produce 400 watts. Armstrong had a VO2 max of 78 so couldn’t exceed 375 watts without doping. EPO isn’t a level playing field because if you had a high hematocrit level ( Charly Wegelius had a border line 50% hematocrit) you couldn’t dope with EPO. Armstrong had a level of 43% so could boost his performance with EPO above a comparable athlete with a higher hematocrit level. Doping isn’t always a level playing field
I don’t hate Lance because he doped, I hate Lance because he was a bully. They all doped, or maybe a few didn’t, but certainly enough that it was the majority
@@craigkennett6226 He didn't say what they did was right. He simply implied that he doesn't hate them for it. I don't like narcissists, for example, but I don't hate them.
@@craigkennett6226 We should hate those who started it. The rest? Hell no. These guys were doing it for years and years to provide for their families, make a living. Would I join the pack after years of sacrifice, or would I throw everything away because the system is against me? I would choose whats best for me and my family, very simple. Its up to the authorities to enforce the rules. People like you think 1 person can change the world, thats stupid. Romantic but stupid.
Lance Armstrong is now a hero after a few years and people forgot the dude is an a$$ and a cheat. I get it, one does not live with a resentment forever; but you see tons of comments justifying the guy, defending and glorifying his exploits
Was a big fan before the doping. Cant stand him now. Not interested in anything he has to say. The doping scandal also revealed what an awful human being he is. Trying to destroy careers of people who were telling the truth.
@@TheFeatInk it sounds like you are an American who has never been to an European tour. Cycling has always been big in Europe, parts of South America and Asia. And no, Lance is definitely not the greatest cyclist. He was the best cheat yes; I give you that. His doping program was so good that it defied statistics. He was an average cyclist at best before the doping began.
100%. As an American born overseas...the one thing I think is most odd about Americans is their tendency to rally around the villain/fraudster as soon as that person is criticized or loses face. Or even worse, attack people like LeMond who are completely innocent victims. The important aspect of this whole story is the great lessons it offers about lying, bullying, power, and money. The lessons are never going to seep in if the story itself is twisted and compromised. Lance is actively trying to control the narrative. Kudos to Lemond for continuing to speak the truth.
Sean Kelly tested positive for a stimulant once.. under questionable circumstances. Mentioning him in the same context as riders from the epo era is slander.
Christophe Bassons? I really like Greg and was a huge fan, but I think he has a chip on his shoulder about Armstrong. I can't comprehend why Pantani gets a pass...... he's a doper, competitively and recreationally.
For me, its telling that doping is demonized because its performance enhancing...when so much of the sport is working on performance enhancing, of the equipment...and the body. The whole sport is not 'level' in that way. I think we govern doping in the wrong way. The focus should be on the health of the riders...not on whether the regime gives a performance advantage. But I'm not in the sport, so I don't really have any authority to claim that my idea is better than guys like Greg who understand the issues way better than I do.
For me, doping has three levels, each level should be seen very differently. Level one, unintentional, occasionally given medicines that contain banned substances without knowing it, e.g. Eddy Merckx. Level two, intentional, knowing what one might take will increase one’s performance and still willing to take it, risking only their own career and reputation, e.g. Marco Pantani. Level three, total doping boss, not only did one have a plan to take performance enhancing drugs but also ask (not very nicely) others to join one’s plan, meanwhile threatening others who don’t want to join or others who want to expose one’s plan, e.g. Lance Armstrong.
Before Armstrong doped he was an extremely poor climber. His hematocrit was very low so he was able to use more EPO than others and escape detection by crooked UCI at that time. He was not the best athlete of all the dopers. Doping does not result in an equal playing field of all dopers. Basically cycling like the early NBA and Baseball during the quest for home run records was not an equal field also. Cheating has a long history. People who basically would only be able to work in factories or low paying jobs cheat because they don’t wish to earn a living by hard work determination and courage. They are limited people who are willing to be criminals rather than do the work to be successful through determination. Trump is a fine example. His father gives him 500 million. Almost all Trumps businesses failed for years and years. He kept it going by being a criminal. Armstrong and Trump are two peas in a pod. Destructive narcissistic criminals. The other cyclists who cheated were not of this extreme just people who were limited and whose only hope in life was some doping to survive as cyclists. Sean Kelly is an example. Terrific cyclist but when doping threatened his career he had no alternative.
I was listening to another cycling podcast, and one of the hosts was discussing an interview he did with a doctor on the subject of EPO, hematocrit levels and all that. . . what was interesting in the whole segment was how this doctor broke down the effect of EPO and doping. So, for example (cuz I don't recall the numbers of the top of my head), let's say that the optimal hematocrit number for bike racing is 32. So the goal of an EPO doping scheme is to get your rider's hematocrit to 32. Rider A tests a natural level of 16. Meanwhile, rider B tests at 24. Rider A will show greater race results over Rider B, because the greater effect of doping that they are getting. IIRC, Chris Rock probably said it best when talking about how if someone came to you and said "we have this thing that will make you 10% better at your job, you'll be able to do this longer, at higher pay" you'd take it. In Bartali's day, it was believed that smoking cigarettes before a race "opened" the lungs, so they were using tobacco as a PED. In Mercx's day, they were on different stimulants. I agree that cheating and PEDs, even if they are only "PEDs", have a long history across most sports. The difference is in how each sport approaches the handling of cases where those rules have been breeched.
You also need a certain level of physical fitness to be great at car racing. Especially Formula 1. Their bodies have to withstand enormous amounts of G forces, especially the neck.
When Greg says Armstrong was a mediocre talent he plays his hand and shows his bias. Lance was a lot of things, but he was a talent in cycling. Without PEDS he might not have won as much, but he would have won some things.
Armstrong was a decent classic rider. Probably a few top 10s in Liege and a few GT stages would’ve been his lot without juicing. A great career for any pro, but he was never a TDF winner riding clean.
@@lleweybyrneI think that’s impossible to say though because everyone was doping. If they were all clean who’s to say he still wouldn’t win. Lance was a professional triathlete when he was 15. At 15 years old he competed in a triathlon against the best triathletes in the world at the time and was leading until he fell apart on the run and still finished in the top 10. He was an endurance athlete prodigy at a young age. Yes he dipped but they all did so you can’t say what would have happened without drugs
@@brendanwilkerson7769true but Armstrong was on EPO by 95 / 96 Tour but wasn’t close to the top 20. But then again the cancer was affecting him by 96 and the Italians / Spanish had perfected EPO use by then, in a way which Postal didn’t catch up with until 1999. My gut feeling is Armstrong on a level playing field, probably wasn’t suited to being a Grand Tour winner, more of a top classics / short stage race rider like a Jalabert / Kelly type.
There are actual sports doctors that believe Armstrong was already great enough to win, with or without drugs. No. He wasn’t a mediocre talent. Performance enhancing won’t make a mediocre athlete elite. It will only make already great athletes better
Pantani only started using cocaine after they kicked him off the Giro - because he was too good, not because of his EPO test results; his Hematocrit count was below 150!!!
I was a casual cyclist in the 90's, I occasionally read some magazines that covered racing, I'd watch the Tour de France coverage if I found it on TV....and even I knew everybody was doping....
The big difference between Armstrong and all the other dopers is that he was a jerk and mistreated his accusers. Nonetheless, he was my inspiration to start cycling and which I continue to this day.
These are elite athletes. They all know what they are doing and are in complete control of their training and diet regimens. I don’t buy into “claims of ignorance”.
I don't beleive LeMond, if you're not doping, you're not winning, I think the only person not doping was Boardman, his marginal gains regards aero to win Prologues were the maximum he would ever achieve in that environment. IMHO it's obvious as to why he could win short TTs but not be able to anything else. When I look at how Boardman collapsed off the bike in his hour record and compare that to Wigggins who got off as if he'd hardly broken sweat summed up how much a difference there was. Wiggins I reckon could have done close to 60km if he'd actually gone all out but that would have been too obvious. In all sport but mostly the big business sports like soccer, tennis, golf, athletics and even rugby union, doping is rife but hardly any positives of the big names to protect the business and keep the plebs throwing money at it!
I do not care what additives athletes take. If the additives are legal for a doctor to prescribe all is good, IMO. I am more interested to see what the human being can ultimately achieve.
I dont think LeMond was on EPO, which was an absolute game changer when it hit the peloton in the early 90s. But you can bet he was on a liberal dose of pain killers, corticosteroids and amphetamines - standard fare for 80s greats like Fignon, Hinault, Roche, Moser, etc. It's true that it was still a time where a clean rider could win a race, a stage or a minor tour here and there if well supported, motivated, lucky and in top form, but no-one was winning grand tours on bread and water...
Interesting topic. I didn't mind Contador cheating because I believed he was the best but wanted the sprinter Justin Gatlin banned for life because I like Usain Bolt.
Let's be honest. Amstrong took the fall because he was a brash American, and because he had the audacity, or hubris, to make a comeback. It put him against the media, the cycling hierarchy, and the UCI. If he'd just floated off into the sunset in 2004 would we have been having the same conversation? Honest of Greg to say what would he have done if he'd started a decade later. Well we can look at Ullrich for that. Very similar riders, very similar talent. The one rider who impressed me the most in the 90s.
Yes, LA even constantly says on his show what an idiot he was for that comeback attempt. That's really the only remorseful words I believe comes out of him.
Doping in Sport should never be accepted, i hate the arguments that Armstrong fans & some cycling fans make that everyone was doing it. That simply isn't true. Although some of his rivals were also cheating, he had a massive advantage over them.
Armstrong was a classic rider. He never had the ability to win a grand tour without doping. This is well known. It was his sociopathic tendencies that made him win at all costs and destroy everyone in his path.
Pantani is a hero Coz of his carácter and the way he raced, I loved the way he raced! Lance raced differently, but he also will be remembered for many years to come (he make trek a famous brand, he's foundation helped thousands of ppl with cancer! They transcended cycling. They will always be my heroes!
Yes, agreed. Armstrong survived cancer, and gave hope to many with the disease. The description of how the illness manifested itself and the treatment he went through is in his book 'It's not about the Bike' - an amazing tale of survival, which as you so succinctly put it, transcends cycling.
eh, not such a fan of this video.. Lemond kind of only half-addresses the question and then proceeds to circle around it, talking about the pressure on riders and stuff. it would be interesting to know why certain ex-riders (Pantani, Kelly) have essentially been absolved by the media and others are still (rightfully) facing questions (Indurain). for the record, Armstrong I think should be vilified. He ruined a lot of people's careers, and threatened many more.
Pantani like obree was victimised. Pantani ended up with mental health issues and on reading about him nowadays he'd be diagnosed with mental health and ended up taking drugs not for cycling but to escape the pressure he was under from the justice system. Even eddy merckx stuck up for Marco. If a rock star takes drugs and dies like Winehouse or cobain they are hailed legends but a sportsperson can be vilified. Greg himself says riders aren't the cheats they are the victims of teams
Everybody had and used the same as Armstrong..So if Armstrong won it means he was very talented. Besides that even to biggest chamlions have been caught and people choose to ignore that. Coppi, Koblet, Anquetile to name a few.
I was a great fan of Greg LeMond during his career. But...on this subject...the way only SOME riders get destroyed for taking banned substances, and OTHERS don't---Greg LeMond is a damned hypocrite. I had some respect for his integrity when all I knew was that he criticized Armstrong for doing things. But now, no, that respect is gone. Because there is NO WAY that LeMond demonizes all these other riders who have doped all along the way and admitted it. Rank hypocrisy. If he does not condemn them all as viciously as he attacks Armstrong, then his attacks on Armstrong are bullshit, they are personal, they are vindictive...they do not stem from a sense of fairness. If it was FAIRNESS LeMond cared about, he would immediately, without hesitation, be showing the same animosity towards these other riders as he showed against Armstrong, and he doesn't. There is not a trace of it. Instead, he is making EXCUSES for the others. What this tells me is that LeMond hated Armstrong because Armstrong eclipsed him, surpassed him as the great American rider. What a shame. If LeMond was not going to attack ALL riders for doping, then he should have just kept his mouth shout about his countryman. Intead, he kisses the asses of all the Europeans who doped, and savages his countryman. Blech!
To me if you were a doper your just as bad as Armstrong. They should either remove all the race wins and records of known dopers or let them all have their race wins and records but put an asterisk next to their name like Major League Baseball did with the steroid users. Although I have great respect for Greg, it obvious that he knows nothing about Auto racing if he thinks it's a level playing field. There is a reason why guys like Verstappen dominate.
Of course Greg was doping. For me what makes him now worse than Lance is that Greg continues to question modern cycling. All because he acts like a saint.
What is it like to go from one of the top cyclists from the states to the biggest snitch in sports? LeMond stays relevant by exposing fellow cyclists for doping. Hey, Greg, are we suppose to believe that you are the only Tour winner who was clean during the peak of doping in professional cycling? We have to believe that you were beating your competition who were all juiced up on PED’s? 😢 It just ain’t so, Snitch.
It's a sport riddled with hypocrisy and decided that slaying Armstrong would absolve everyone else of the crimes. Hypocritical garbage, And Lance is still king for me.
@stuartdryer1352........I am not excusing Pantani - but during his entire career, he NEVER once tested positive for PEDs. [His ejection from the 1999 Giro D'Italia was due to a high hematocrit level - which has since been shown to be extremely suspicious]. Pantani was a truly gifted cyclist and in all probability the best 'pure' climber ever. Even competing against other supposedly 'doped' riders, his performances were phenomenal. [he holds the record for the fastest ever ascent of L'Alpe d'Huez - and three of the five fastest times on that iconic mountain - as well as on Mont Ventoux]. IMHO, he is fully deserving of the acclaim, and I am proud to say that I had the privilege of seeing him in 'the flesh' several times during his prime. He changed the sport of cycling totally and whether you like him or not, Pantani only ever spread happiness and admiration due to his love of riding his bike.
@thesoultwins72 a quick search finds this: There was also a biography of him that expounds on the topic.. TESTS SHOW PANTANI AND ULLRICH USED EPO DURING 1998 TOUR Eurosport BYEUROSPORT UPDATED 24/07/2013 AT 17:59 GMT 1998 winner Tour de France winner Marco Pantani and runner-up Jan Ullrich both used EPO during the race, a report released by the French Senate has revealed. .... etc.-----‐-------------- I should add that Armstrong, like Pantani, never tested positive in his career. I'm not defending Armstrong BTW. Just stating the history. Obviously they both doped.
@@stuartdryer1352I see that you bought the mantra that Armstrong kept repeating about never testing positive. The problem is that it's not actually true. He did in fact test positive on a couple of occasions. Armstrong was just lucky enough to have the UCI president Hein Verbrüggen on his side, so could help sweep that under a rock. In his first Tour win in 1999, Armstrong delivered a positive test for cortison. Cortison is doping (it is a form of steroid), if you take it broadly like Armstrong did, but can be used to treat a specific ailment. The team falsified a doctor's permit for it and the UCI backdated their approval of the permit, so that Armstrong could walk free. It is just one of many occasions where Armstrong got preferential treatment by the UCI. Hein Verbrüggen really wanted the American money, so Armstrong could do whatever he wanted and get away with it. Verbrüggen would always have his back.
I personally like LeMond, but I’ve never been able to figure out why everyone assume that he was clean? Yeah, he probably didn’t take EPO or do blood transfusions, but what about all the other PED that was widely used during his time in the sport? Did he never take testosterone or HGH to recover? He never took anphetimenes? Everybody just believes he was clean because he says so? I would like to believe that he was clean, but it’s difficult not to be cynical regarding such a brutal sport.
for the same reason that most people think Georges St. Pierre was a clean fighter. The guy operated as a class act...always voiced concerns about doping, and his peers in the peloton have never made a credible claim against him.
Racing is not a sport? Someone should get Greg in a kart and see how long he lasts lol. Shacking my head. Why do people talk about things they don't know anything about? And he said that his mother taught him to never open his mouth if he doesn't have anything to say either...
The mental gymnastics LeMond goes through to justify or minimize the doping of guys he likes while vilifying those he didn’t. LeMond is a self serving joke.
@@CharlesWessel Not the case. Ever did auto racing? Real auto racing, not pretending your corolla is a race car. But F1 level or anything close to it. Massive gforces on your body, extreme fatigue, split second reaction time makes or break you , or even kill you.
@@gam1471 The UCI makes rules that makes bikes just about equal with all the others. The only difference is in how race cars are powered. Unlike cars where engine displacement etc are standardized , the engine (the rider) tat powers a bike can't.
So answer the question Greg. He's so full of crap. Still making excuses for everyone except for one person. And God does he love himself. Shame on you for allowing him to peddle his BS. Greg was a great rider. Why can't he just leave it at that and not go all crazy town.
![BLACK BAG - Official Trailer [HD] - Only in Theaters March 14](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/Du0Xp8WX_7I/mqdefault.jpg)
First of all, Greg Lemond was the first American rider I ever watched racing back in the 80s when he won the time trial against Laurent Fignon in 1989 to win the Tour De France. I immediately became a fan of his for showing the world that Americans could do the grand tours and win. Back then, when Greg was racing, we had crappy recaps/highlights only to watch on CBS so I didn't actually get to watch the TDF like we can today. Second, I find it refreshing that Greg is honest about difficult it was to say no during the age of doping when one is young and eager to live their dream of racing on a road bike in Europe. Thank you for the great interview.
same experience growing up - that time trial against fignon was unforgettable, and i loved that greg was forward thinking enough to use very early aero equipment whereas fignon used a regular bike and bars with aero rims. i was more upset than i ever admitted to myself at the time, seeing him tumble down the race results in the early 90s.
@@RantingYogi Surely he's not going to lie about being clean given what followed his career. I did find it a little arrogant that he said Armstrong would have never won any TDF if clean, that is like saying Doug Flutie, Tim Tebow, Spud Webb, Nate Archibald, Steph Curry couldnt be great athletes because they were small. I think if Armstrong hadnt been so arrogant and hadnt tried to comeback, doping again, there never would have been the backlash. And I think Armstrong would have won a TDF, not 5, but he wouldve won one.
He doped. They all doped.
Lance played the game too well. They all doped and he was the best but doping does not make anybody superman and guaranteed to win. Among all the doped field the most talented will rise to the top. Lance will always be the GOAT until Pogacar or Jonas wins more titles.
It's incorrect to say, "exact same behavior". Lance, a sociopath, destroyed people, teammates and careers. Pantani only destroyed himself. Ullrich was also a tragic character. Sean Kelly, Stephen Roche, and many like them... they didn't destroy people. Lemond and Hinault may be the only true cycling heroes.
heros???
do they exist????
sadly....NO!
Yes LeMond a hero as a racer and as a person
I don’t think it was Lance who destroyed people. It was the machine that was using Lance as an ATM that destroyed people. Lance was told what to say and do by trek by his handlers and lawyers . Doesn’t make it any better but Lance didn’t have time to formulate all the answers he gave. He didn’t have the moral foundation to say no but he also realized there was so many people riding his gravy train he didn’t have the courage to say no.
But he was the one who made the decision to start doping when Endurain breezed by him when his heart rate was pegged,he knew everyone else was doping so he was going to show them how to do it
@@pamshewan9181I met Greg at a party in 2002. He’s nicer in person than on video. He was getting ready for a century at my friends house. He gave me a carbon stem for my road bike
So you're all good with doping then. You're only concerned about whether they're nasty with it? Just because Pantani is a hero in Italy doesn't make him a great guy. Shows that Italians are pro cheats
I was a big cycling fan and really followed the TDF. I heard the people questioning Lance and his team and their "Freshness" in the steep mountain climbs. And then when Floyd Landis got "Busted" ,and spoke out it was Heartbreaking.to hear. Love Greg Lomond and his honesty.
Lance was Demonized because He attacked people who rightfully accused him of Doping. He tried to intimidate them into backing off and dug deeper into his lies.
Well no not until he confessed was he demonised? He did all those nasty things to people who came clean about him or had the gonads to accuse him like David Walsh and they had very little support from the media or the public
I think that the perception that he and the team managers institutionalized the process and may have "forced" virtually the entire team to join so they were more competitive is part of it. But on another level, it was a fair fight since doping was so prevalent.
It’s not really demonising. It was just a fact.
@@TheIndianaGeoffSo being the biggest doper, lying to sponsors to gain huge incomes, destroying anyone who got in the way is all just fine because others were taking EPO?
@@discbrakefan Proof for the biggest doper?
I worked in a bike shop during high school and raced with our club. Greg was a hero. I watched Armstrong's unnatural performances and told people their new "Great American Hero Lance" wasn't on the level. My coworkers were sudden fans of bike racing and were not happy to hear my opinions. It cost me more than you might imagine.
Stop no it didn’t 😂
I imagine it did. Cognitive dissonance is difficult to overcome. I watched Greg in the 80s, and immensely enjoyed seeing him battle Fignon and Hinault. Loved the Armstrong era too, but especially after reading Tyler Hamilton's book, came to realize the sheer scope of the doping affair. I appreciate both LeMond and Armstrong appear to hate one another, and assume both of them are biased. I agree with other commenters, would appear Armstrong isn't mediocre, given what he was able to accomplish early on as a triathlete, and first year or so on the tour before Cancer. However, the VO2 max is one of the most definitive tests out there - I don't recall Armstrong trumpeting his score, instead when he does speak about physiology, he mentions lactate levels. On Greg's assessment, I remain skeptical, until we hear from others, but especially physiologist and people who have more training. However, I do recognize LeMond is also knowledgeable about the physiology of humans with respect to bicycle racing. and thus his opinion does carry some weight.
PS, just watched Lance on the podcast hosted by the NFL player, Chris Long, and Lance said at the end of his LeMond's racing career Greg was fat!! LOL, definitely no love lost between those two. Both are very competitive.
Why is Greg wearing horns in this video?
Devil
Because it's appropriate. I'm tired of him vilifying everyone to boost himself. I used to be a fan but this campaign he's on is leaving a sour taste
Well said his generation were all on it , I know because I know a British rider who went to ride for a team in 1990 and was told if you don’t take the drugs there’s no contract , as all teams are using drugs …. Lemond s era
Just imagine you are a 20 year old rider who has spent most of his life training and working like a donkey to be a pro and when you finally get to sign your name on a paper they tell you that you either take a bunch of pills and syringes or there's no contract. You will have thrown away your life. Therefore, you willingly step into the doping game. That's how it works. Either you dope or your dreams are shattered before they start.
@@Gary-le7dz
@@BirdLegacyBlades Yes..sour sour sour
nice shout out to Graham Obree!
Regarding Armstrong: He has a bad personality, period. To this day, he is narcissistic. I think that is one of the reasons why he gains as much hate as he does. As far as talent, I think he had as much or more than all the other dopers in the peloton that were winning. Which in a sense made him a great talent in comparing him in that context. He was the best of the dopers and the dopers were winning.
i see many more fans of him than anything else, domestically at least. just like mj, he may or may not have molested children but the fans still loved him. and those who didnt like him to begin with just had more reason not to.
You do realise every single world beater/champion is narcissistic.
How else would they get to where they are
Right. Doping or not he seems like an ahole.
Some dopers have more to gain by doping than other dopers. Armstrong had a lower hematocrit level than most riders so he could take Epo and still test lower than riders with naturally higher hematocrit levels. RE check Charlie Wegelius. Armstrong is a arrogant bully who sued and tried to ruin careers. Armstrong called Lemond a drunk and threatened if he didn’t keep quiet Trek wouldn’t produce the Lemond bike brand
Wrong.
He was in a "team" not US Postal but Dr. Ferrari et al. which had incredible $ backing which it used "allegedly" to pay bribes and implement other measures to avoid detection allowing their rider to race doped more often than the other doped riders. Frankie Andre laid it all out
Bicycle industry profited immensely off the fable
It’s fine if you prefer the fable but Lemond knows it’s like Stone Cold Steve winning a Gold in Greco Roman Wrestling
I disagree. Two riders, long retired, both on banesto, both said the ENTIRE team was on dope during the indurain years.
LeMond mentions he was immensely talented and winning pro-am races at 18. Lance Armstrong was beating professional triathletes at age 16. I'm not a fan of Lance, and I'm not excusing him, but to say Lance Armstrong was /not/ talented is simply incorrect. His record as a teen in triathlon, and as a junior was amazing - he clearly had lots of innate talent.
VO₂Max does not correlate perfectly with aerobic performance. This is still something of a mystery to sports physiologists. But it's quite possible to have 2 athletes, one of 85 ml/kg and another of 75, where the VO₂Max in theory says the former should beat the pants off the latter, yet the latter beats the former. Yes, all else being equal, the 85 ml/kg athlete wins, but it's /not/ a perfect relationship, and there *are* other factors (not well understood) that can turn this upside down.
As another example, an elite cyclists VO₂Max will be at its peak somewhere in their very early twenties. Yet, this likely is _not_ the peak of their cycling performance ability. The same athlete will very likely be /stronger/ as an endurance cyclist around 25 to 28 - even though their VO₂Max will already have declined slightly.
So LeMond's argument is not sound here.
Yeah he prob is over-doing that point. but Greg doesnt say it was just VO max. It is VO max and power to weight ratio. Lance was an elite athlete and certainly was within the brand new triathlon scene and the relatively obscure U.S. bike racing scene at the time he was elite top 5. Greg may be understating his talent, but Armstrong was doping in the 93 World Championship...and thereafter. So I dont think we ever saw Armstrong in the European peloton without drugs. What doesnt make sense about Lance is how a guy that performed as a day-racer / sprinter ..returns to the peloton and was dropping the world's best hill climbers. The variable that changed was adopting Ferrari's system that was a team-level, scientifically managed regime. Different level totally.
@PaulJakma......Armstrong was pushing drugs [PED's] as a young triathlete - yes, he may have been winning races at that time, but he was also establishing himself as a major drug user and supplier.
@@johngoodell2775 well for one, cancer dropped his weight. Two, LA wasn’t a super motivates trainer. But after cancer he was. As for VO2 GL is wrong. LA is documented OTC at 84, not mid 70s as GL states. He knows this but has his agenda.
Dope doesn’t make mules into thoroughbreds.
Lance's 1999 weight was heavier than his 93 if memory serves... by 2-3 lbs. He didnt race lighter until his later tours. Lance has been peddling explanations for his wins for over two decades. His explanations always fall into the category of why he is in the top 10% of athletes in the world... but the top 10% is thousands of people. Greg has no agenda other than a love of the sport and getting completely screwed by a fraudster. Armstrongs VO max has consistently been around 77-80. www.usada.org/wp-content/uploads/C118.pdf
Greg's stated 78 for Lance as good of a number as there is. The bottom line is that Lance has no place in cycling in cycling history.
@@JB-uv4hm all just the same silly propaganda. Riders at level dont compete period if they are not motivated. Weight and motivation are simply not variables at that level. Everyone is in shape, and everyone is motivated. Those factors dont explain 7 tour wins in a row. Neither does femur length or whatever else Lance uses to re-direct attention from doping. Folks who defend Armstrong dont realize the pile of data out there about cycling performance & physiology. His VOmax has been consistently measured around 78...by his own team of coaches. Lance was an elite athlete - in the top 10% - but that is given for the European peloton in general. Properly devised team-level EPO doping and blood doping regime will make a top 50 rider into a winner among other dopers. The key variable was the Michele Ferrari.
Loving the Greg Lemond content roadman. It'd be great if you could get him on a few times a year.
Wonder if Greg remembers staying at the Vail Doubletree Inn in 1986, representing (with Hinault, Bauer, JF Barnard, etc) the "Celestial Seasons" team, at the Coors International Cycling Classic, and enjoying the "Angel Hair Pasta with Chicken & Shrimp" dinner, then going out the next morning onto the "Vail Pass Hill Climb" Time Trial?
Because I recommended that plate, as Guest Services Director, to Mike ~ the Manager who drove their Luggage truck and arrived first; Mike ordered 16 plates of my favorite dinner at the (then) Café Colorado... 🎉🎉🎉
Love the Graeme Obree shout out!
ask greg in 1989 in the tour of italy he was gonn quit. then he said he took a b12 shot then had a great time trial and won the tour. Greg you took something
Only one to use aero bars
1990. 100% used aero bars
Thought it was an iron shot
The plural of hero is heroes. Hero's is the possessive form of hero. Why do some people use apostrophes for plural form of nouns? Can you explain?
Same reason they say "would of" instead of would have.
It's either stupidity, illiteracy OR an attempt to get a better search word.
@@graymcmic1419That is people hearing it, never reading it, and taking fir granted what they sloppily hear.
Of course, to never read "would have" or "would've" AND to not make the grammatical connection to how it must be spelled... that's either stupidity or laziness or a lack of education.
@@needfoolthings or dyslexic (which is none of stupid, lazy or lacking education)
You’s don’t understand’s?
I find these podcasts brilliant and thought provoking. With regards to armstrong pre Internet and pre his cancer I was made aware of certain things that had happened the other side of the pond by a acquaintance who had a contact fairly high up in a certain team. I still think that if armstrong was a neo pro now he would be something in the mvdp category----as in maybe not to to be able to crest the hc climbs in the front groups but certainly be very competitive in most of the classics and go for medium mountain stages in grand tours----the guy was clearly v.talented athletically.
You are correct.
he wasnt talented athletically he was mediocre, but mentally with the absence of empathy his mind was cutthroat sharp and people like that compensate by doing, he had a determination that would keep him training while others went home, his dedication was enough to get a lot more out of his genetics than an average person would, psychopaths tend to thrive in sports and in some ways especially in being numb to cheating guilt and unsportsmanlike conduct they have a significant advantage over normal people, it is that kind of advantage that put him over the rest, mainly the grit to go the extra length wherever it led.
I certainly agree with your physiological observations of him----I know that isn't part of the physical talent of the man but does the term 'talent ' not to some degree involve the physiological aspect. I'm only conjecturing and all the stories I've heard about him was that he wasn't a particularly nice guy-----the one about him 'allegedly ringing an editor of a now defunct magazine during the bloke's Easter sunday lunch criticising certain content that didn't fit his agenda-----never mind he will probably be president in 15 years time ------
@@JohnButler-iq8rl you mean psychological, Lances controlling nature and selfish focus are a nailed on lack of empathy, people like that can often be powerful businessmen and when they arent dealing with people they can be quite brilliant like car designers, they arent necessarily bad people either, the bad stuff is usually from being completely ignorant to that which they arent focussing on and they tunnel vision a lot, calling an editor during their sunday lunch is a classic example and probably intentionally timed to spite knowing Lance any critique wouldve hurt his ego and he wouldve been compelled to control the situation himself, entirely a projection of his lack of self control and people like that are either challenged and their ego defeated or they get their way and it compounds the controlling behaviour but when challenged the ego is like a desperate temper tantrum with many aftershocks so cant blame anyone that didnt give him both barrells because it wouldve been hell up. People like Lance just need to realize its a disability and how to manage it, thats the clean way to challenge the behaviour, make obvious that its textbook. president in 15 years hahaha he wouldnt be the first of his kind for that job (although clinically incapable to do the job properly when did that stop Bush, Trump etc)
Yes sorry for the mis spelling. Your insite is extremely impressive I suspect you have dealt with such people on a personal or professional level in the past 🤔 do you think without those specific personality traits he wouldn't have made even second tier pro ----it's a fascinating discussion though 👍 .
Always have to remember PED's don't make you 50% better, 5% better recovery & performance is enough to really benefit in a 3 week long race.
so what is Pogi or Jonas? Can you guys explain the domination? I watch NBA and sure few guys can take over in the playoffs but teams usually adjust and there is parity.
Even Armstrong himself would admit he had nowhere the talent of those guys, so whats your point?
His point is valid in regard to the domination. No one is saying directly they are doping but often times it just looks too easy. Look at LBL when he won, didn’t even look tired . Is he really that much better than the rest?
@@brendanward9877 Yes, he is.
@@brendanward9877 They are kinda freaks. Jonas has biggest VO2 (super stamina) and Pog has has an incredible lactate-clearance capacity (super immediate recovery) if you couple that with their money rich teams who can build team of scientists and trainers to create personal diet, training and supplements to add to ther genetic advantages, then you will get super dominance.
@@shawncollison639 That argument doesn’t make sense on its own though. If everybody’s doping and those two are still so superior, it follows they indeed are special talents.
Don’t forget how many years of mediocrity we’ve witnessed before they came along. Once in a long while super talents do come along and we’re blessed to have two at the same time.
So much fun watching LeMond. Don't say this much. Thanks youtube algorithm
Why heroes & vilains ? In one word...marketing, how much is the individual worth to the governing body and its image/value. Probably the clearest example of this is the Ben Johnson/Carl Lewis clash in Seoul in "88. The look of surprise on Lewis' face (wow, how did he get better drugs than me) was funny to see. But the question of why Johnson was caught/punished and not Lewis...look at the marketability of the both of them. The stuff that Johnson was tested positive for is in no way performance enhancing, serving primarily to massively bulk up (along with heavy weight training) long before a competitive events. His entourage would have known that and it begs the question of why it was in his system post-race. Lewis though, always tested clean but then, so did many others who were later outed (Marion Jones) . It was disturbing how Johnson was crucified in a very public inquiry and then stripped of all previous accomplishment, even though he had tested clean. Besides Lance, nobody else has been the subject of so much public humiliation, especially as it is still commonly acknowledge that doping is still rampant in many sports, nothing resolved.
Lance was seen as the UCI's means of expanding into the American sports/media market by creating a hero/superstar, and therefore had to be "kept clean" as his successes increased. He only raced the premier event, the Tour, spending all his time pre-riding and training with personal entourage while the rest of the team was working the race circuit. Would Lance have had the same success at the tour had he also raced the kind of schedules all others do?
Interesting how he went from not answering the question straight to patting his own back for not doping when he had the chance to do it. You gotta love those interviews
Just amazes me that anyone can 'understand' or partially justify the use of drugs in sport because someone else has a 'natural' advantage ....the whole point of competition is knowing someone might naturally have an advantage but do you have the drive and discipline to offset your natural disadvantage to better their overall performance? If you can, then you are achieving brilliance on a superior level! The integrity of Greg is one of a dying breed ....he's a TRUE sportsman
The problem is that the drugs since 1991 are so effective that they have made grand tour racing too easy and predictable. When LeMond raced, nobody knew if Hinault was going to take 5 minutes on everyone or lose 5 minutes to everyone. It was as much about survival as it was racing. Today, it is as predictable as a movie script.
The tour used to be harder too. Go back to 1987 and there were 26 stages and 600 more miles. Some stages were 250km long. Winning time was 115 hr not mid 80s hrs like now. No radios either.
Christophe Bassons.
That's the name that popped into my head. I think you are correct.
Merci
Monsieur Propre
So Greg never answered the question
for me, Lance was a jerk, hurt people and this put a target on his back. others, people knew but it seems they did not go out of there way to hurt other.
100% this, I think doping is understandable given the environment of the time, being a jerk and ruining people wasn't
As a casual watcher of cycling at some point I came to the conclusion that not only are the participants cheating but the administrators are also former cheats. So I don't watch cycling anymore.
I guess you just don't watch sports then, because today cycling is one of the cleanest sports in the world. It is extremely difficult to cheat today. The control system is very tight. Fueling is also much more important than oxygen levels.
they are more doped than 90s now, c'mon. This gen of all-around monsters able to attack whenever and whatever is hilarious.
And what can we say about Visma dominating all the possible GTs with all its riders? c'mon this is the worst era of cycling, in fact they are beating or extremely close to 90s records@@holmbjerg
@@leonardofabbri7930correct
I've often wondered why they are treated so differently. I can see why Armstrong is treated differently but he's the outliner.
"outlier"
@@peterdelaney7061 "out liar".
I think framing the question here as it does involving Pantani was a little disingenuous. I'm glad GL does set this straight a bit with his answer and comments.
The plural of "hero" is "heroes." You can't make a word plural by adding an apostrophe. Apostrophes are for contractions (e.g., "can't" or "don't") and showing possession (e.g., "Bob's eyes" or "the seven zebras' tails").
Love LeMond, but auto racing is sport, and the cars are never equal (F1, LeMans etc. are not spec racing), and absolutely physical gifts of youth , hand eye coordination, and stamina are huge factors in success. Look at the F1 grid they don’t look very dissimilar to cyclists, all are very fit, implying the athletic component. Motorcycle way more so, those guys are hyper fit and strong and the rider can always elevate a slower machine.
Knowing someone who raced professionally, he described the shower of wrappers that appeared in the early part of a race. They were not for KitKat's
great insight from Lemond during the whole video, and I specially loved what he mentions by the end of the video. Could it be that while Armstrong was mediocre, he paid more to have a more advanced doping than other riders, and this gave him an extra advantage even if other riders were also doped?
Although doping was rampant, Armstong was basically given a free pass. He he tested positive, the result would disappear. He also told on other riders if he considered them a threat. He could maximize his doping, where the rest couldn't.
Thank goodness Lemond was only injecting iron supplements when everybody else was starting to use EPO. This is the guy we can trust to tell us who the cheaters were--which was everyone--except for this one honest guy.
That one time at the '89 Giro you mean?
I would label the entire 7-Eleven team as clean, and they had some pretty darn good results in the 1980's, including a grand tour.
Is that you Lance?
@@stevenmeyer9674 Huh? You fanboys are all the same--Lance, Greg, whoever--you gotta have a daddy.
@@EMC2Scotia Exactly. Only one time ever.
Giles Delion spoke out early too.
There were certain racers that quickly fell from contention around 1990 and Gilles was one of them. A shame. You can go through a bunch of riders in the late 80's and judge weather they were clean or not based on how there results carried on on the 90s.
I don't think it's fair to say Armstrong was a mediocre talent. Was Indurain a mediocre talent? Pantani, Riis, Ullrich? Merckx during the amphetamine days of cycling? If so, then maybe Armstrong was too.
I think Indurain weighed about 12 stone and finished nearly last in his first tdf. What do you think?
Interested in Greg's opinion on Horner's Vuelta win? Clean?
No way Miguel Indurain was clean.
You really want to open up a can of worms.
@@englishteacherdon LOL no joke...... the ringed planet team is where that started.
How does 42 year olds beat people in their 20s naturally?
Remember, nobody wanted to sign Horner after he won the Vuelta. Nobody believed it. @@holmbjerg
Everyone’s a sinner except Greg!!!
Greg don't give credit to any rider except himself.
Well Greg never tested positive positive, or was caught?. Whatever, Lemond had the 5th highest VO2 max for a pro cyclist at 93 and could produce 400 watts. Armstrong had a VO2 max of 78 so couldn’t exceed 375 watts without doping. EPO isn’t a level playing field because if you had a high hematocrit level ( Charly Wegelius had a border line 50% hematocrit) you couldn’t dope with EPO. Armstrong had a level of 43% so could boost his performance with EPO above a comparable athlete with a higher hematocrit level. Doping isn’t always a level playing field
Many just weren’t caught…. some are still feted….. some are in cycling media.
@@StelvioSteve-j2h level player field mean they do it for the same reason.
You are just throwing out a random meaningless comment to get likes
I don’t hate Lance because he doped, I hate Lance because he was a bully. They all doped, or maybe a few didn’t, but certainly enough that it was the majority
So you don't hate most of the peloton for doping because they all did it. Have a think about that for a minute. You're supporting doping
@@craigkennett6226 He didn't say what they did was right. He simply implied that he doesn't hate them for it. I don't like narcissists, for example, but I don't hate them.
@@craigkennett6226 We should hate those who started it. The rest? Hell no. These guys were doing it for years and years to provide for their families, make a living. Would I join the pack after years of sacrifice, or would I throw everything away because the system is against me? I would choose whats best for me and my family, very simple. Its up to the authorities to enforce the rules. People like you think 1 person can change the world, thats stupid. Romantic but stupid.
If Armstrong vo2 max etc was so unimpressive, how did he win the world championship (1 day race)?
Lance Armstrong is now a hero after a few years and people forgot the dude is an a$$ and a cheat. I get it, one does not live with a resentment forever; but you see tons of comments justifying the guy, defending and glorifying his exploits
He’s still the greatest cyclist ever, made cycling more popular than anyone else. Everyone making money cycling today can thank Lance.
Was a big fan before the doping. Cant stand him now. Not interested in anything he has to say. The doping scandal also revealed what an awful human being he is. Trying to destroy careers of people who were telling the truth.
@@TheFeatInk it sounds like you are an American who has never been to an European tour. Cycling has always been big in Europe, parts of South America and Asia. And no, Lance is definitely not the greatest cyclist. He was the best cheat yes; I give you that. His doping program was so good that it defied statistics. He was an average cyclist at best before the doping began.
100%. As an American born overseas...the one thing I think is most odd about Americans is their tendency to rally around the villain/fraudster as soon as that person is criticized or loses face. Or even worse, attack people like LeMond who are completely innocent victims. The important aspect of this whole story is the great lessons it offers about lying, bullying, power, and money. The lessons are never going to seep in if the story itself is twisted and compromised. Lance is actively trying to control the narrative. Kudos to Lemond for continuing to speak the truth.
Pretty sure he's no hero. His name is dirt
Sean Kelly tested positive for a stimulant once.. under questionable circumstances. Mentioning him in the same context as riders from the epo era is slander.
Christophe Bassons? I really like Greg and was a huge fan, but I think he has a chip on his shoulder about Armstrong. I can't comprehend why Pantani gets a pass...... he's a doper, competitively and recreationally.
Have you read his book? Interesting read
Because he was a sad case, and then died. Impossible to be mad at him.
Greg does seem like Mr sour grapes.
Where does Lemond give Pantani a pass? It says everything about Italians that Pantani is their hero. They're bloody cheats obviously
Actually, they would be “heroes.” “Hero’s” would mean belonging to Hero.
Unless you’re Irish :) they love ‘em apostrophes!
For me, its telling that doping is demonized because its performance enhancing...when so much of the sport is working on performance enhancing, of the equipment...and the body. The whole sport is not 'level' in that way.
I think we govern doping in the wrong way.
The focus should be on the health of the riders...not on whether the regime gives a performance advantage.
But I'm not in the sport, so I don't really have any authority to claim that my idea is better than guys like Greg who understand the issues way better than I do.
Lemond seems to struggle to complete a coherent sentence.
For me, doping has three levels, each level should be seen very differently. Level one, unintentional, occasionally given medicines that contain banned substances without knowing it, e.g. Eddy Merckx. Level two, intentional, knowing what one might take will increase one’s performance and still willing to take it, risking only their own career and reputation, e.g. Marco Pantani. Level three, total doping boss, not only did one have a plan to take performance enhancing drugs but also ask (not very nicely) others to join one’s plan, meanwhile threatening others who don’t want to join or others who want to expose one’s plan, e.g. Lance Armstrong.
I'm interested in his opinion of Virenque.
The plural of hero is "heroes", not "hero's". I'm sure that's just a typo in your vid title.
Before Armstrong doped he was an extremely poor climber. His hematocrit was very low so he was able to use more EPO than others and escape detection by crooked UCI at that time. He was not the best athlete of all the dopers. Doping does not result in an equal playing field of all dopers. Basically cycling like the early NBA and Baseball during the quest for home run records was not an equal field also. Cheating has a long history. People who basically would only be able to work in factories or low paying jobs cheat because they don’t wish to earn a living by hard work determination and courage. They are limited people who are willing to be criminals rather than do the work to be successful through determination. Trump is a fine example. His father gives him 500 million. Almost all Trumps businesses failed for years and years. He kept it going by being a criminal. Armstrong and Trump are two peas in a pod. Destructive narcissistic criminals. The other cyclists who cheated were not of this extreme just people who were limited and whose only hope in life was some doping to survive as cyclists. Sean Kelly is an example. Terrific cyclist but when doping threatened his career he had no alternative.
I was listening to another cycling podcast, and one of the hosts was discussing an interview he did with a doctor on the subject of EPO, hematocrit levels and all that. . . what was interesting in the whole segment was how this doctor broke down the effect of EPO and doping. So, for example (cuz I don't recall the numbers of the top of my head), let's say that the optimal hematocrit number for bike racing is 32. So the goal of an EPO doping scheme is to get your rider's hematocrit to 32. Rider A tests a natural level of 16. Meanwhile, rider B tests at 24. Rider A will show greater race results over Rider B, because the greater effect of doping that they are getting.
IIRC, Chris Rock probably said it best when talking about how if someone came to you and said "we have this thing that will make you 10% better at your job, you'll be able to do this longer, at higher pay" you'd take it. In Bartali's day, it was believed that smoking cigarettes before a race "opened" the lungs, so they were using tobacco as a PED. In Mercx's day, they were on different stimulants. I agree that cheating and PEDs, even if they are only "PEDs", have a long history across most sports. The difference is in how each sport approaches the handling of cases where those rules have been breeched.
You also need a certain level of physical fitness to be great at car racing. Especially Formula 1. Their bodies have to withstand enormous amounts of G forces, especially the neck.
When Greg says Armstrong was a mediocre talent he plays his hand and shows his bias. Lance was a lot of things, but he was a talent in cycling. Without PEDS he might not have won as much, but he would have won some things.
Your comment doesn’t really respond to what he said. He didn’t say LA wouldn’t win anything.
Armstrong was a decent classic rider. Probably a few top 10s in Liege and a few GT stages would’ve been his lot without juicing. A great career for any pro, but he was never a TDF winner riding clean.
@@lleweybyrneI think that’s impossible to say though because everyone was doping. If they were all clean who’s to say he still wouldn’t win. Lance was a professional triathlete when he was 15. At 15 years old he competed in a triathlon against the best triathletes in the world at the time and was leading until he fell apart on the run and still finished in the top 10. He was an endurance athlete prodigy at a young age. Yes he dipped but they all did so you can’t say what would have happened without drugs
@@brendanwilkerson7769true but Armstrong was on EPO by 95 / 96 Tour but wasn’t close to the top 20. But then again the cancer was affecting him by 96 and the Italians / Spanish had perfected EPO use by then, in a way which Postal didn’t catch up with until 1999. My gut feeling is Armstrong on a level playing field, probably wasn’t suited to being a Grand Tour winner, more of a top classics / short stage race rider like a Jalabert / Kelly type.
There are actual sports doctors that believe Armstrong was already great enough to win, with or without drugs. No. He wasn’t a mediocre talent. Performance enhancing won’t make a mediocre athlete elite. It will only make already great athletes better
Big Mig knew
The pirate, to my outside eyes, was likeable. Lance was just an alpha male jerk.
Pantani only started using cocaine after they kicked him off the Giro - because he was too good, not because of his EPO test results; his Hematocrit count was below 150!!!
Greg is a saint,he never took 💊🧪💉
I was a casual cyclist in the 90's, I occasionally read some magazines that covered racing, I'd watch the Tour de France coverage if I found it on TV....and even I knew everybody was doping....
The big difference between Armstrong and all the other dopers is that he was a jerk and mistreated his accusers. Nonetheless, he was my inspiration to start cycling and which I continue to this day.
Merckx connected Lance with the doping doctor. Enough said.
and caught three times with positives. Not my hero like he is to most
These are elite athletes. They all know what they are doing and are in complete control of their training and diet regimens. I don’t buy into “claims of ignorance”.
I don't beleive LeMond, if you're not doping, you're not winning, I think the only person not doping was Boardman, his marginal gains regards aero to win Prologues were the maximum he would ever achieve in that environment. IMHO it's obvious as to why he could win short TTs but not be able to anything else.
When I look at how Boardman collapsed off the bike in his hour record and compare that to Wigggins who got off as if he'd hardly broken sweat summed up how much a difference there was. Wiggins I reckon could have done close to 60km if he'd actually gone all out but that would have been too obvious.
In all sport but mostly the big business sports like soccer, tennis, golf, athletics and even rugby union, doping is rife but hardly any positives of the big names to protect the business and keep the plebs throwing money at it!
I do not care what additives athletes take. If the additives are legal for a doctor to prescribe all is good, IMO. I am more interested to see what the human being can ultimately achieve.
I dont think LeMond was on EPO, which was an absolute game changer when it hit the peloton in the early 90s. But you can bet he was on a liberal dose of pain killers, corticosteroids and amphetamines - standard fare for 80s greats like Fignon, Hinault, Roche, Moser, etc.
It's true that it was still a time where a clean rider could win a race, a stage or a minor tour here and there if well supported, motivated, lucky and in top form, but no-one was winning grand tours on bread and water...
Interesting topic. I didn't mind Contador cheating because I believed he was the best but wanted the sprinter Justin Gatlin banned for life because I like Usain Bolt.
Let's be honest. Amstrong took the fall because he was a brash American, and because he had the audacity, or hubris, to make a comeback. It put him against the media, the cycling hierarchy, and the UCI. If he'd just floated off into the sunset in 2004 would we have been having the same conversation? Honest of Greg to say what would he have done if he'd started a decade later. Well we can look at Ullrich for that. Very similar riders, very similar talent. The one rider who impressed me the most in the 90s.
Jeez, you'll blow anyone won't you?
Yes, LA even constantly says on his show what an idiot he was for that comeback attempt. That's really the only remorseful words I believe comes out of him.
Doping in Sport should never be accepted, i hate the arguments that Armstrong fans & some cycling fans make that everyone was doing it. That simply isn't true. Although some of his rivals were also cheating, he had a massive advantage over them.
Armstrong was a classic rider. He never had the ability to win a grand tour without doping. This is well known. It was his sociopathic tendencies that made him win at all costs and destroy everyone in his path.
Garbage
Pantani is a hero Coz of his carácter and the way he raced, I loved the way he raced! Lance raced differently, but he also will be remembered for many years to come (he make trek a famous brand, he's foundation helped thousands of ppl with cancer! They transcended cycling. They will always be my heroes!
Yes, agreed.
Armstrong survived cancer, and gave hope to many with the disease. The description of how the illness manifested itself and the treatment he went through is in his book 'It's not about the Bike' - an amazing tale of survival, which as you so succinctly put it, transcends cycling.
eh, not such a fan of this video.. Lemond kind of only half-addresses the question and then proceeds to circle around it, talking about the pressure on riders and stuff. it would be interesting to know why certain ex-riders (Pantani, Kelly) have essentially been absolved by the media and others are still (rightfully) facing questions (Indurain). for the record, Armstrong I think should be vilified. He ruined a lot of people's careers, and threatened many more.
Pantani like obree was victimised. Pantani ended up with mental health issues and on reading about him nowadays he'd be diagnosed with mental health and ended up taking drugs not for cycling but to escape the pressure he was under from the justice system. Even eddy merckx stuck up for Marco. If a rock star takes drugs and dies like Winehouse or cobain they are hailed legends but a sportsperson can be vilified. Greg himself says riders aren't the cheats they are the victims of teams
Everybody had and used the same as Armstrong..So if Armstrong won it means he was very talented. Besides that even to biggest chamlions have been caught and people choose to ignore that. Coppi, Koblet, Anquetile to name a few.
I was a great fan of Greg LeMond during his career. But...on this subject...the way only SOME riders get destroyed for taking banned substances, and OTHERS don't---Greg LeMond is a damned hypocrite. I had some respect for his integrity when all I knew was that he criticized Armstrong for doing things. But now, no, that respect is gone. Because there is NO WAY that LeMond demonizes all these other riders who have doped all along the way and admitted it. Rank hypocrisy. If he does not condemn them all as viciously as he attacks Armstrong, then his attacks on Armstrong are bullshit, they are personal, they are vindictive...they do not stem from a sense of fairness. If it was FAIRNESS LeMond cared about, he would immediately, without hesitation, be showing the same animosity towards these other riders as he showed against Armstrong, and he doesn't. There is not a trace of it. Instead, he is making EXCUSES for the others. What this tells me is that LeMond hated Armstrong because Armstrong eclipsed him, surpassed him as the great American rider. What a shame. If LeMond was not going to attack ALL riders for doping, then he should have just kept his mouth shout about his countryman. Intead, he kisses the asses of all the Europeans who doped, and savages his countryman. Blech!
So Greg, everyone was doping, were you?
Kelly comes up a lot. Does Roche???
Do we know for certain that Greg didn’t dope ?
They all doped. I think Tadej is doping too because he is so much better than everyone else. It isn't possible that he's that much better.
🔥
Greatest respect for Lemond but any cyclist pre 2010 will always have a cloud of suspicion
Armstrong, whatever you say about him, was not a mediocre talent.
Your title either needs to be Why Are Some Doper's Hero's & Other's Villain's or Why Are Some Dopers Heros & Others Villains just sayin.
Why are all of LeMonds shortcomings someone else's fault? I'm a LeMond fan but his narcissism is astonishing.
the dude is traumatized. professional racing is a shit show.
To me if you were a doper your just as bad as Armstrong. They should either remove all the race wins and records of known dopers or let them all have their race wins and records but put an asterisk next to their name like Major League Baseball did with the steroid users. Although I have great respect for Greg, it obvious that he knows nothing about Auto racing if he thinks it's a level playing field. There is a reason why guys like Verstappen dominate.
Of course Greg was doping. For me what makes him now worse than Lance is that Greg continues to question modern cycling. All because he acts like a saint.
What is it like to go from one of the top cyclists from the states to the biggest snitch in sports? LeMond stays relevant by exposing fellow cyclists for doping. Hey, Greg, are we suppose to believe that you are the only Tour winner who was clean during the peak of doping in professional cycling? We have to believe that you were beating your competition who were all juiced up on PED’s? 😢 It just ain’t so, Snitch.
bro, hero plural is heroes
Greg is a three times TdF winner. And he was clean?
I don’t know, but come on…
True tales from Saint Lemond of the velo.
It's a sport riddled with hypocrisy and decided that slaying Armstrong would absolve everyone else of the crimes. Hypocritical garbage, And Lance is still king for me.
Bassons is the name Greg LeMond was trying to get
Always circles back to Armstrong. Bitter, table for one, Bitter!
Interesting, but didn't answer the question.
I'm pretty sure Marco Pantani knew what he was doing. And there is a statue of him in Cessanatica, Italy. I don't get it.
@stuartdryer1352........I am not excusing Pantani - but during his entire career, he NEVER once tested positive for PEDs. [His ejection from the 1999 Giro D'Italia was due to a high hematocrit level - which has since been shown to be extremely suspicious].
Pantani was a truly gifted cyclist and in all probability the best 'pure' climber ever. Even competing against other supposedly 'doped' riders, his performances were phenomenal. [he holds the record for the fastest ever ascent of L'Alpe d'Huez - and three of the five fastest times on that iconic mountain - as well as on Mont Ventoux].
IMHO, he is fully deserving of the acclaim, and I am proud to say that I had the privilege of seeing him in 'the flesh' several times during his prime. He changed the sport of cycling totally and whether you like him or not, Pantani only ever spread happiness and admiration due to his love of riding his bike.
@thesoultwins72 a quick search finds this: There was also a biography of him that expounds on the topic..
TESTS SHOW PANTANI AND ULLRICH USED EPO DURING 1998 TOUR
Eurosport
BYEUROSPORT UPDATED 24/07/2013 AT 17:59 GMT
1998 winner Tour de France winner Marco Pantani and runner-up Jan Ullrich both used EPO during the race, a report released by the French Senate has revealed. .... etc.-----‐--------------
I should add that Armstrong, like Pantani, never tested positive in his career. I'm not defending Armstrong BTW. Just stating the history. Obviously they both doped.
I think that Marco is seen as a tragic victim of the sport, in some ways closer to rock stars like Cobain or Morrison, than to mere sportsmen.
@@stuartdryer1352I see that you bought the mantra that Armstrong kept repeating about never testing positive. The problem is that it's not actually true. He did in fact test positive on a couple of occasions. Armstrong was just lucky enough to have the UCI president Hein Verbrüggen on his side, so could help sweep that under a rock.
In his first Tour win in 1999, Armstrong delivered a positive test for cortison. Cortison is doping (it is a form of steroid), if you take it broadly like Armstrong did, but can be used to treat a specific ailment. The team falsified a doctor's permit for it and the UCI backdated their approval of the permit, so that Armstrong could walk free. It is just one of many occasions where Armstrong got preferential treatment by the UCI. Hein Verbrüggen really wanted the American money, so Armstrong could do whatever he wanted and get away with it. Verbrüggen would always have his back.
thank you@@thesoultwins72
I personally like LeMond, but I’ve never been able to figure out why everyone assume that he was clean? Yeah, he probably didn’t take EPO or do blood transfusions, but what about all the other PED that was widely used during his time in the sport? Did he never take testosterone or HGH to recover? He never took anphetimenes? Everybody just believes he was clean because he says so? I would like to believe that he was clean, but it’s difficult not to be cynical regarding such a brutal sport.
for the same reason that most people think Georges St. Pierre was a clean fighter. The guy operated as a class act...always voiced concerns about doping, and his peers in the peloton have never made a credible claim against him.
@@johngoodell2775 which he very likely wasn't
PDM stood for Perfectly Doped Men
Racing is not a sport? Someone should get Greg in a kart and see how long he lasts lol.
Shacking my head. Why do people talk about things they don't know anything about? And he said that his mother taught him to never open his mouth if he doesn't have anything to say either...
Is it cheating to win with aero bar when other don’t.
Did Greg dope or not ?
The mental gymnastics LeMond goes through to justify or minimize the doping of guys he likes while vilifying those he didn’t. LeMond is a self serving joke.
His automobile racing comment made zero sense
Well doping probably wouldn’t help in car racing
@@CharlesWessel Not the case. Ever did auto racing? Real auto racing, not pretending your corolla is a race car. But F1 level or anything close to it. Massive gforces on your body, extreme fatigue, split second reaction time makes or break you , or even kill you.
He was referring to the rules that made all the cars basically equal.
@@stevenmeyer9674 But couldn't you say the same about bikes?
@@gam1471 The UCI makes rules that makes bikes just about equal with all the others. The only difference is in how race cars are powered. Unlike cars where engine displacement etc are standardized , the engine (the rider) tat powers a bike can't.
Once loved cycling, but not this circus full of clowns 🤡. The sport of cycling is slowing killing itself.
So answer the question Greg. He's so full of crap. Still making excuses for everyone except for one person. And God does he love himself. Shame on you for allowing him to peddle his BS. Greg was a great rider. Why can't he just leave it at that and not go all crazy town.