mcmetal wrote:
It is extremely unlikely that any pro rider in the 10 ten ever, didn't use some for of doping. Even Lance denied it till the very end, why should anyone think differently of LeMond, just because he denies any involvement.
I'm going to go way out on a limb and say that there's a heck of a lot more evidence, and more solid evidence, incriminating Lance than there is Greg.
There's a point that doping has been endemic in pro cycling for a long time, and it's a safe baseline assumption that anyone in pro cycling is/was likely involved.
But there's a difference between actual solid evidence, multiple credible witness accounts, and an admission on one hand, and "he must have been a doper because he was a pro cyclist and a lot of the people around him were involved with doping."
The latter is, admittedly, guilty until proven innocent.
But the former is actually proven guilty.