LeMond: Why Are Some Dopers Hero's & Others Villains?

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.

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.

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.

nice shout out to Graham Obree!

Why is Greg wearing horns in this video?

Loving the Greg Lemond content roadman. It'd be great if you could get him on a few times a year.

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.

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.

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.

So much fun watching LeMond. Don't say this much. Thanks youtube algorithm

So Greg never answered the question

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.

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.

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... 🎉🎉🎉

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.

Love the Graeme Obree shout out!

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

Actually, they would be “heroes.” “Hero’s” would mean belonging to Hero.

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?

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?