clock menu more-arrow no yes

Filed under:

More On LeMond

New, comments

Apologies if it sounds like I have 25 different opinions about Greg LeMond, which I more or less do. He's acted strangely, been infuriating, silly, but maybe also righteous... and he'll always be the rider whose exploits forced me to run out and buy a middlin Bianchi in 1985.

I'll do this on the flip, for the sake of those who want to pass over this mess. And by this I do not mean anything about the Ghoeghegan mess, which I'd prefer never happened.

Meanwhile, if you prefer good news, read Caisse d'Epargne's press release on why they think there is no Puerto link for Valverde. If they've done their homework, this is refreshing.

I find LeMond's words kind of interesting, enough so that I am going to cut-and-paste somewhat liberally from CN:

"What he was trying to do is portray me with an ulterior motive," LeMond continued. "I can tell you this, I put my whole bike company and business at risk for standing up for proper ethics and honesty. I wish that more people would do this in the sport of cycling. There are very few - the sport is paying the price for the dishonesty and the lies. The house of cards is cracking and it's coming down. I think it is a good thing for cycling - I think the Tour de France is an incredible event and as this culture and generation of the past is cleansed and they really attack the issue of doping."

When asked if his testimony was affected by the alleged phone call from the previous evening, LeMond said, "Nobody owns me, nobody in the world of cycling that wants to... there have been a lot of people that do not want to look at the truth about cycling because of economics. I have had an economic fall out - if they are trying to say I have an economic reason [to testify] I have an economic fall out. I am not somebody that can be bought off, silenced - I'm doing what's right. And what I felt was right was coming here and telling the truth."

I'm not sure what he means, that his bike sales are down because of the scandals? I know he also believes his career was truncated by the supposed early 90s doping explosion, but I think he's referring to his company.

Anyway, what I find interesting in these statements is the fact that he thinks (with some reason) that his anti-doping crusade is against his own self-interests. Maybe he craves the attention, maybe he's a nut, but I think it's worth considering whether he might also be a guy on a lonely, painful, but righteous crusade. When people speak against their own interests, that's one sign the Federal Rules of Evidence see as an indication that they're reliable. Are Greg LeMond's anti-doping activities really those of a guy sticking his own neck out? I think at this time, it has to be asked.