Interesting way to come out and say it. Didn’t Armstrong also once threaten Lemond once by claiming he’d find 10 people who would come forward to say Lemond took EPO?
Well, he also said Lemond was a bad-ass biker and gave him some fair props, too.
The Dan Patrick Show streams 24/7 on his site, so you can listen to the full interview. You can also get podcasts broken down by the hour in iTunes (The LA interview was in thsecond hour).
I thought it was a good segment overall. DP did a good job, IMO, especially for a lay-person in cycling.
Another nugget I found interesting. His knee-jerk response to “Can someone win clean today” was a hesitating “I don’t know” followed by “I suspect so.” But, in 2009 he nearly won and remains adamant that he was clean, despite USADA’s claim that it is 1-in-a-million that his blood was not manipulated. If he really nearly won the TdF clean in 2009 why would he not be absolute adamant and unhesitating in his response to the question of whether one can win clean today?
Is finishing over 5 min behind ‘nearly winning’? Seems like a pretty big gap.
Standing on the podium in Paris counts as nearly winning. Yes.
Standing on the podium in Paris counts as nearly winning. Yes.In your mind perhaps. Not a lot of drama going on when someone is 5 minutes out though.
I think its amazing what people can take out of context or with sound bites. I just didn’t hear the interview the way you did and I listened to all 3 sections. I didn’t hear him say Lemond doped. I also didn’t hear him say what you are saying about anyone being able to win it clean today. He was asked if he could have won back then without doping and he basically said no but he suspected it is possible today now that cycling is cleaned up. I think maybe you’re just a hater. That’s your right, but at least be accurate and honest.
I still don’t believed LA doped, I don’t care what he says.
He said that it wasn’t possible to win the Tour without doping from the late 80’s to the mid 2000’s. Lemond won the Tour three times during that time period. That pretty much means that he thinks Lemond doped.
Yes, I am a “hater”. But, I am also “accurate and honest”.
Listen at 4:36. “Certainly not at that time. I don’t know about today.”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LGn5DwUaqOA
Lemond won the TdF in 86, 89, 90. 89 and 90 certainly encompasses the “late 80s to mid 2000s” during which it was impossible to win the TdF without doping according to LA.
Just stating the facts as reported by LA. Accurately and honestly.
I still don’t believed LA doped, I don’t care what he says.
x2
Lance is an admitted liar. you’d be a fool to believe anything he says.
All this stuff is entertainment. We were entertained, and I guess we still are. So by default, these folks earned there money. Life would still go on if this and other
entertainment sports stopped. Why some get so worked up over this, when so many sports folks watch are still doing so much of this is always interesting to read.
And since we still have some in our sport who used drugs but we seem to ignore them, just makes no sense. Just because they were good at acting and saying
how sorry they were, …
.
I think its amazing what people can take out of context or with sound bites. I just didn’t hear the interview the way you did and I listened to all 3 sections. I didn’t hear him say Lemond doped. I also didn’t hear him say what you are saying about anyone being able to win it clean today. He was asked if he could have won back then without doping and he basically said no but he suspected it is possible today now that cycling is cleaned up. I think maybe you’re just a hater. That’s your right, but at least be accurate and honest.
I am not a hater but I heard exactly what kny heard when I listened to that this morning. No he didn’t say that Greg Lemond doped but he said:
“I suspect you could today,” said Armstrong. “But not from the late-80s to the mid-2000s.”
If that doesn’t imply that Greg Lemond doped, I don’t know what does.
I still don’t believed LA doped, I don’t care what he says.
x2
Lance is an admitted liar. you’d be a fool to believe anything he says.
This. How can you argue with solid logic?
Yes, I am a “hater”. But, I am also “accurate and honest”.
Listen at 4:36. “Certainly not at that time. I don’t know about today.”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LGn5DwUaqOA
Lemond won the TdF in 86, 89, 90. 89 and 90 certainly encompasses the “late 80s to mid 2000s” during which it was impossible to win the TdF without doping according to LA.
Just stating the facts as reported by LA. Accurately and honestly.
Let’s put what lance said for a second and focus on what we know.
88 Delgado won and we know he was doped. In 89, Delgado probably would have beaten Lemond, but Delgado SHOWED UP to the START GATE LATE and lost a pile of time to Lemond and Fignon. Fignon barely loses to Lemond. Fignon is known to have used “old guard” dope. We don’t know if he was on blood doping. Could Lemond beat Fignon clean while Fignon was on old school dope? I think so. Also 1987 was Stephen Roche’s miracle year…Giro-Tour-UCI World’s.
In 1989 and 1990 Indurain was still fat. He asked Eddy Merckx what he needed to win and he public statement was “6 hours on the bike per day, with 1 banana, and lose 5 kilos of baby fat”
In 1991, Lemond’s SRM says we was doing the same power as 1989 and 1990, yet when they hit the hills he was moving backwards. Indurain, Bugno, Chiapucci, Mottet, Leblanc and Fignon beat him. In fairness,I recall Lemond having at least two bad days. He was in the same league as Mottet-Leblanc-Fignon, but not the super horses Indurain-Bugno-Chiapucci.
So I think that Lemond managed to fluke in and squeeze out some wins before the super dope took over before the guys really figured out what to do while Indurain was still fat and while doped Delgado shows up to the start gate late…and Fignon was too stupid to use the aero gear that Lemond adopted because it was all this non traditional American crap.
Another nugget I found interesting. His knee-jerk response to “Can someone win clean today” was a hesitating “I don’t know” followed by “I suspect so.” But, in 2009 he nearly won and remains adamant that he was clean, despite USADA’s claim that it is 1-in-a-million that his blood was not manipulated. If he really nearly won the TdF clean in 2009 why would he not be absolute adamant and unhesitating in his response to the question of whether one can win clean today?
My take on this has always been that he used AICAR in 2009, which was not banned until 2011. And I may be wrong, but if believe he has said he did not dope in 2009, not that he was clean.
If I am correct, then he was technically not doping in 2009, giving him the ability to make that claim with a straight face.
Just me but I will always believe that back in the 80’s and 90’s they all doped and that includes GL. I do not believe that he did it clean nor will I ever believe that he did it clean. Everyone has lied about doping and I think it is crazy to think that GL won 3 times without doping when everyone that has won multiple times doped.
Why is Lance still talking and this is pot & kettle.
GL should never have opened his mouth taking about LA and LA should never have opened his mouth talking about GL. Both are idiots as far as I am concerned.
I am going to show my kids how to race clean this weekend.
I doubt anyone has ever won the tour clean…ever…