No longer a newbie, moving up!
- Sep 30, 2006
- Reaction score
As far as Lance goes, I think he's clean. The sheer effort involved in fooling so many people for so long, if he was doping, would seem to be a greater acheivement than actually winning fairly would. And while the people in the Landis camp who crossed the line into sheer stupidity with regards to LeMond deserve as much ridicule and shame as can be heaped upon them, I have to say that my respect for LeMond has taken a severe hit as well. It seems that he is flying the "Anyone better than me must be a cheater" banner.
It seems that Indurain has managed to remain untouched by this for the most part, which does make me happy. He seemed to be a guy who simply loved riding his bike.
I really need to start riding again. It's just that living in a neighborhood with occasional gunplay concerns me in that aspect.
Since he was the most drug tested man on the planet and survived those tests then I have to agree with you about Lance. He was most likely just the best at riding the the Tour de France and was clean.
LeMond is certainly the second greatest American cyclist in history and there is certainly nothing wrong with that. I also find it hard to believe that he can't simply enjoy that and the millions he's made from his athletic and business successes. He was a scrappy competitor and fun to watch. It is a head scratcher for me.
Indurain was one of the great ones to be sure. Quiet, moody and effective. If anyone could strike fear in a competitor it was Miguel.
Eddy Mercxx, the greatest of them all, didn't have the modern drugs available we have today. I think he admitted doping but it was at a time when it was acceptable and universal. I don't think the drugs of his time were as effective as EPO anyway. I would view him as clean as well - or at least as clean as any other. And I doubt anyone would disagree that he was the greatest overall pro cyclist of all time. So it can be done with enough talent, good genes, conditioning and will to win.