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.

So you believe that Lemond beat all the best cyclists in the world, who were taking every performance enhancing drug available, and beat them all totally clean? I've got a bridge to sell, if you're interested?

@@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.

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

Armstrong has admitted to doping from the time he began triathlon at age 15-16 and from there on. He was a cheater from the start, a fraud, liar bully and a loser.

he was a top tier triathlete but he started doping while still on the national team trips to europe if i recall correctly

@@fanda6122 methinks meybe he did stuff as a triathlete, which contributed to his cancer?.Winning all those tours exceptional, however I think he admited, to be on the same level playing field as other TDF winners he doped, sad innit?

Winning the worlds is not a big deal. You get away and the pack don’t work to bring u back and u win. Kinda like 1985.

@@PInk77W1 I think it was Armstrong’s bike handling skills and his fearlessness that won him that rain soaked race.

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 👍 .

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.

That's the name that popped into my head. I think you are correct.

Merci

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.

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?

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.

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

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.

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.

Only one to use aero bars 1990. 100% used aero bars

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 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

Unless you’re Irish :) they love ‘em apostrophes!

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.

@@user-rm1xg9yg9p level player field mean they do it for the same reason.

You are just throwing out a random meaningless comment to get likes

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

"outlier"

@@peterdelaney7061 "out liar".

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.

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

100% this, I think doping is understandable given the environment of the time, being a jerk and ruining people wasn't

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.

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.

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

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

and caught three times with positives. Not my hero like he is to most

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.

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.

@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

Well doping probably wouldn’t help in car racing

@@user-dd8zk2rj3f 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.

Yeah, that's why he competed with the worlds best triathletes at 15 years old. Hate on him all you want, he deserves it. But he was a great talent.

He's incorrect on that one but think what you want lmao

@@patrickbateman7444He was doping even then.

@@TheGotoGeek yeah sure, a 15 year old poor kid who barely had money for equipment was on stuff the pros then didn't have. lol

@@patrickbateman7444 *username checks out*

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

I was once taken around a racing circuit by a professional driver in a 750bhp Porsche on a track day. The acceleration, hard braking, deceleration and turning forces around corners made me more travel sick than I'd ever been - it took me three hours to recover enough to drive home. Respect to the fitness and skill of anyone who does this!

the dude is traumatized. professional racing is a shit show.

Lemond has 3 TDF wins. Lance has 0.

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

Copying and paste what I wrote under vid of the 2024 TdF gran depart (that will see Cesenatico as second stage, a place that is my second home due to decades there as summer location) He was the most loved by people and a scapegoat for an entire context where everybody did exactly the same thing and was aware of how things went inside the peloton. Quite everybody took EPO and played with hematocrit levels at the time. He didn't invent this kind of routine. When he entered the pro scene, EPO was already wide-spreaded (it started in late 80s). When big guys like Miguel started to translate from TT specialists to all-around 80 kg monsters able to remain with pure climbers when the hardest stint of a hill came (hilarious tbh), even pure climbers were forced to play within same "rules" to create a gap on their favourite scene. His self-destruction path after the Madonna di Campiglio test (that remains a doubtful test anyway) was caused by the public shame he felt and the awareness of being a scapegoat, cause the entire pro cycling world left him in despair to sell a fake clean-up (everything moved into LA-US Postal, Ferrari; then Fuentes) and authorities moved against him really in an unnecessary way (infamous dblab file saw 470 athletes of all disciplines somehow treated, but only Marco faced media hunger and judicial persecution, even in absence of a law and that's basic rule of law in modern democracy). He gave unforgettable emotions to many and paid an unnecessary price. He definitely been used by the system rather than someone who benefitted. His racing style and out of ordinary, larger than life character, were flamboyant, quixotic, romantic, complex, imperfect, flawed, but perfectly fitting the role of antidote to boredome. Marco was unique in the history of cycling and will always be remembered with a big smile bathed by big tears, even knowing fans had inadvertently played a role in all of this, cause following the context and him, fueled even more all the short circuit that weighed on his shoulders and moved him to destroy his own life. Like it or not, this is the simple truth. It's not black or white in life, there are greys and some have a specific tone that simply touched too many hearts.

American will never understand what cycling is and what is meant for Italian and French. You simply never get it. I understand your messages and views but you are so remote from that world and era and fights which started with Bartali and Coppi.. just let’s not go there

You never watched Pantani racing back then, did you? It's pretty apparent. I don't know if he doped or not, I think he did but that doesn't matter at all.

No he wasn’t fool

Definitely the latter😂

Who did you vote for?

Armstrong fan boys by the proverbial country mile!

@@Sobieskicharge Not for the convicted rapist who has 91 indictments staring him in the face.