I think that LeMond must have his own agenda as he tried to steal the limelight at someone else's press conference to try to impress others with his knowledge of doping. Perhaps he's campaigning for some official position in cycling?

The idea that Astana paying Don Catlin to perform additional testing is absurd. People applauded Astana and Garmin for being so committed to clean racing that they were willing to pay for internal testing and subject their riders to more scrutiny. Suddenly it's a conflict of interest for the team to take it one step further? Scientists don't work for free, especially when required to travel the world to perform random testing. Who does LeMond suggest pays for the additional testing in a perfect world? If LeMond is being genuine, he must expect that Lance is going to perform well, as there would be no need for a top rider to dope to just beat the broom wagon for three weeks. If he's sincere, he must also really expect that Lance plans to cheat during the next ten months, and to do it creatively, or else he would be satisfied with the biological passport system, the Damsgaard testing, and the knowledge that the lab guys in France are probably stocking up on Red Bull so they're ready when they get another shot at Lance. Whatever people think that Lance did or didn't do in the past, this press conference was about the next ten months. And people who think that he's going to cheat during that time probably have other issues they should be dealing with. What is LeMond's real motivation?

lemond and armstrong should just have a fight, then its all sorted.

comeback,

He probably wants some recompense from Trek ;)

While i admire Lance Armstrong for winning the tour 7 times i still have my doubts as to wether he used drugs or not. Something strikes me as being rather odd when i look at Armstrongs record overall. If you take away the 7 TDF victories and the 2 world road titles just what else did he win. Compared to other great riders of the past he has won the least amount of races. He only seems to peak in July. Any other readers have similar feelings would like to hear them. Adrian

Lance is saying he wants to come back to prove that he was clean in the past (which is open to debate, he also wants to enhance his fundraising efforts for cancer) by having an open and transparent testing process as he mounts his comeback. As if one is related to the other. I wish I could find the linkage in his failed logic . The simple fact and Lance acknowledges, that with fewer doped riders the overall speed of the Tour de France is markedly slower. So, Lance trains hard, which no one doubt he has always done, and goes to the Tour De France and wins. In his flawed logic, if he were to win the Tour in 2009 against an admittedly weaker peloton, probably with few dopers, somehow proves he was clean for his seven previous wins. Huh this is clearly a case of 1 + 1 = 11

Well there is one small issue I have with him if he wants to be open and transparent and wants the world to believe his repeated admissions. Have him authorize the testing of those samples from 1999, from his first tour win, that are sitting frozen in a lab in France. Yes, those same samples that were somehow leaked a few years ago to contain traces of EPO. We now know many of Lance's top lieutenants in previous Tours have been busted and or admitted to doping, in addition to many of the Podium finishers in Lance's seven tour victories. Are we to believe Lance had no knowledge of this, or was he just adhering to the code of the peloton that he was known to enforce.

So Lance, Floyd, and others will go on proclaiming their innocence. Endurance athletes seem to feel that they can cheat and lie and feel safe doing so because they know that only a small percentage of the doper are getting caught. Look at Ricco in the Tour de France this year. Tested 10 times in the Tour and only two came back positive when they all should have. That is 20%. If the trend is the norm then there are a heck of a lot of athletes not getting caught yet due to insufficient testing measures.

What Greg is saying is simple fact. An athletes physiologicla capacity, VO2max and power do not change magically nor does performance, if there is a big change in these parameters something is going on. Or else there is some type of genetic mutation occuring that allows the athletes of today to have 15-20% higher VO2max and power outputs than athleteseven 10-15 years ago.

Greg lemond is a whining, paranoid, delusional old man who needs to get over the fact he's no longer the US #1 poster boy for Cycling and move on. Your time in the spotlight is over Greg, MTFU and go find something useful to do.

I had the 'pleasure' of meeting Greg at a bike launch a few years back and I've never met a more paranoid, needy and approval seeking person (especially one in such a position!) as him. I'm unable to take anything the man says seriously anymore.

This hijack (I notice BikeRadar didn't publish the full account of the exchange and Lemonds later pointed statements to Lance) of a press conference was done to promote Lemond. Nothing else. It's all about getting the public focus back on him. He's like a 4 year old standing in a room of adults screaming for attention.

Lance is doing all he can to be transparent, he's still (and will continue to be) the most tested man in World Cycling, the 'positive' results from 1999 weren't positive conclusively (considering the test wasn't even perfected when the results were leaked to a sports newspaper) and were actually being used to fine tune the test. Are errors possible? Oh hell yes! Did someone have something to gain from an Armstrong 'positive'? Oh hell yes!

There's a good reason nothing was done. I for one applaud Armstrong & Astana for their intended approach to the testing.

It's going to be an interesting season.

Lemond should be happy with his " LIFE " NO Lemond is not GOD, and should stop playing the role. If he cares about cycling then do something for it and give something back to the people who have a passion for the sport. Lemond has made his money with his spin bikes ( he's a fat cat with no meaningful purpose in the sport). Armstrong has given his life to the sport, he has " PASSION ", He has also put his money in his mouth and made the sport happen.

Hence Lemond either stop playing God and get with the program or just go off to a wild turkey hunt dressed as a turkey on openning day, may be then you'll learn what life is about beacuse you never did from your last turkey hunt.

Armstrong your doing the right thing for your self the sport of cycling and your foundation. Keep going and JUST DO IT. As I stated to you at the cyclecross race in Las Vegas wed night good luck and peace be with with you.

While I can appreciate Lance Armstrong talent and performance with or without drugs I am amazed that so many in the public and press are giving him a free ride and are unwilling to ask the hard questions. I beleive Greg Lermond knows something few of the general public will ever have access to, and that is an indepth knowledge of the support and the capacity of the athletes. While technology advances rapidly the human body takes years to adapt and change to conditions. I believe Greg is saying, and in fact we are seeing this in most endurance sports, that the physiological capacity of some of these athletes is off the charts and can only be linked to external sources.

For Don Catlin to ignor this critcal question severly damages his reputation as a doping expert. Most of the common drug in sports do not in themselves change performance. What changes performance is the physiological capacity and the ability of the body to adapat to heavy training loads. So one can use, for example EPO, for many months during the training period and greatly imrove capacity for the race season while not having to continue with the drug.

The bottom line, Lance can take a big step to defeating this debate by requesting that those infamous 1999 samples be tested with current technology!

Bruce Lee reached a level of physical fittnes that few (if any) could compete with...was he doping too, i don't think so,. so why is it so hard for people to accept that Armstrong may just be one of those once in a liftime icons.

Everybody knows Lemond is bitter. He became a huge hero in America. He had, after all, gone and won something big that had long been beyond the reach of Merkin hands. Then Armstrong came along and not only stole his thunder, but seven wins later reduced him to something less than the status of also ran. He tries desperately to keep himself in the public eye, but ask the average (i.e. not cycling focused) Merkin about Lemond and you will probably just get a blank look. Prompt them with mention of cycling or perhaps Le Tour and they will probably respond with "you mean Armstrong".

Now I can understand Lemond being disappointed with his lot. Lets be fair the man was good, he probably thought he was on the gravy train for life until Armstrong came along. However if he wanted more from cycling maybe he should have done what Armstrong is doing now and staged a comeback.

Trying to keep himself in the public eye by constantly criticizing Armstrong is not doing him any good. Aside from harming the sport that made him, it makes outsiders think he's a bitter old has been.

I think any reasonable person would probably admit that doping is less prevalent in cycling now than it has been for a very long time. Some have claimed that twenty years ago almost all pros were at it, that it was accepted and there was almost no chance of getting caught. Maybe it's true, maybe it isn't. However, had I been at the press conference I would have asked a couple of questions of Lemond:

1. "Greg did you ever dope during your career?"

To which the answer would obviously be "No." (True or not, it's irrelevant.)

2. "Greg can you prove that, did you have any testing regime to prove that, do any samples still exist to prove that?"

To which the answer would again be "No."

To which there is only one response: "Well shut up and let the rest of the world get on with it."

To Ademort:

The reason Armstrong won nothing but Le Tour for seven years is very simple, and it boils down pretty much to obsession. It was initially his view that the best way to prove himself was to win the biggest prize in cycling. So he concentrated all his efforts on Le Tour. He won, but many said it wasn't a proper win. And here's where the obsession set in.

He concentrated even harder on Le Tour. He trained specifically for Le Tour. He trained for a three week race that would be won in the mountains. He trained so he would peak for that race. And he did all this with a scientific approach that had never been seen before. And he won again, but for his detractors no number of wins was good enough. So he kept on training and winning.

It's entirely feasible that another top cyclist could have done the same, but nobody did. It isn't part of the "game" played by other cyclists. Firstly they feel obliged by their teams, their sponsors and tradition to try to win other races. Lance clearly felt no such obligation. Whether this is right or wrong can be argued until the cows come home.

Do I think Armstrong cheated? Probably not in any significant way, but then I think it is the nature of professional sport that almost everybody cheats in at least a small way.

Do I think he proved himself to be the best cyclist in the world? No. He proved himself to be able to win the tour if he concentrated on it to the virtual exclusion of all else. I would think more of him if, even for just one year, he had concentrated his efforts on winning some one day classics.

Hi Norwiegan Blue

I certainly could not argue with your comments regarding Lance Armstrongs obsession to win the Tour. But do you not think he had an advantage over other riders when it came to the tour. Other riders had ridden the full race calendar upto the tour and Armstrong begun every tour with fresh legs. How many tours do you think he would have won if he had competed in the full calendar like all of his competitors.Regards Ademort

No argument from me, Lance is a great TDF rider. That said, he's also a one trick pony. All the great racers raced, all season, every race they entered.

Lemond is certifiable. After Armstrong's rise, Lemond and his bike business got overshadowed by Lance and Trek, since then he has been calling Lance a dopey in every way other than directly. He thinks every one who is winning especially an American must be on drugs. It is pathetic that a great champion would be reduced to this

I had the funny experience of meeting Greg Lemond on Wednesday at Interbike and then seeing him at the press conference on Thursday morning.

The Wednesday Lemond came across as friendly and engaging. The Thursday Lemond seemed like a bitter old man who was watching the world pass him by for the third time (first Armstrong eclipsed him, and now Taylor Phinney may be the next repeat winner).

Lance deserves respect at the press conference for stifling the urge to jump over the table he was sitting at to throttle Lemond.

Le Mond certainly likes the sound of his own voice..

Hats off to Greg Lemond. Always admired the courage of the bloke. He seems to be a lone voice in the world of cycling who is not afraid to speak up for the truth. And lets face it , in a sport which either seems to be afraid of Armstrong and his connections, or sucks up to him, thats not a bad thing.

I don't think it is sour grapes, as some have pointed out, more that he cannot bear to see the sport he loves go down the pan of corrupt cheats and dodgy deals. Armstrong ran his career more like a dodgy, corrupt politician than a fair sporting personality. He bullied and intimidated the peloton and the cycling press in the years he rode. In the last three years since he retired, cycling has started to make some in roads on it's image. Yes there are still drug issues, but the sport has started to get back some of that exciting unpredictability of olden times. A return of Super Lance with his dull obsession with figures, predictable routines, intimidation and sycophantic journalism is going to push the sport way back into those bleak years of the last decade.

Armstong has been less than open about the drug taking. He exerts enormous influence amongst the sports elite and has used that advantage to achieve his aims whatever the cost. Many questions remain unanswered about his career and realistically never will be. It takes a few more people with the guts of Lemond to come out and voice their concerns over the whole shabby Armstrong era and then cycling might just start getting a reputation back.

Funny, where was LeMond in 1999? I don't remember any comment or questions about Festina, or anybody sense. WHY THIS NOW?

Lemond is beyond bitter.

Being in the industry and having met him a few times, he needs to leave the industry. In fact even Trek bikes thought the same with his rants against Lance and not to mention the poor business choices he was making. Trek dropped him so quick . . . like a sack of wet potatoes, I think he's still smarting from all the money he lost, not to mention the huge blow to his ego.

Not a huge fan of Lance, but day by day, definitely not a fan of Lemond.