You guys are worse than the velonews mailbag.
What would be an acceptable reason to speculate that Lance is doping? What if he can spin a 55x12 for an hour? What if he was dieing of cancer in ’96-’97, racing professionally again in ’98, and winning the Tour in ’99? What if his old masseuse (who had the trust of the team) said she saw him do it?
So, what did the old masseuse see? She didn't see him injecting EPO. And he didn't rush back to racing after being cleared of cancer, he took his time. He sat out one TDF in which he WAS healthy. Get your facts straight if you're going to pretend you know them.
Would an acceptable reason for winning be: he was a world class cyclist before cancer, and because of the cancer, lost 7-10 kg of upper body mass. Hey this is WW's, do I need to say that he got faster in the mountains?? That was the only "hole" in his previous possibility as a GC contender and the loss of mass is a big advantage. And don't discount the addition of Johan Bruyneel as coach, it was a huge boost to his career.
LeMond may not know everything about Lance, but he does know stresses of the race pretty well, and I would say he is very qualified to talk about what it takes to be at the level that Lance is at.
If he really knows something, which is doubtful, then go to a reputable news agency, not the french publication Lemond! That's the equivalent of a tabloid when it comes to reporting doping. And, like what about all the other previous greats? Including Mercxx, Indurain, Hinault or ANY other cyclist for that matter. Nobody's thrown dirt on him like Lemond.
If Armstrong is or has doped then he should go down, but not on bogus speculation by a previous (once respected) american champion. That's my whole point.