You must also be disappointed with some of the other 'legends' then.
Explain to me what makes him a legend. He won two world championships - what's the cutoff between 'great rider' and 'legend'?
Lorenzo has won four WCs in two classes, against riders acknowledged as some of the best ever. Is he a legend? He is in a position to win more MotoGP WCs, which is certainly putting him on the track to legend status.
Freddie Spencer winning the double, that's legendary. Doohan winning five on the bounce, that's legendary. Agostini winning 15 350 and 500 WCs is legendary.
Casey Stoner may be the most talented rider of his generation, may be the most talented ever, but he didn't stick around long enough to become a legend.
Don't get me wrong, I've followed his progress since the British 125 champs and solidly supported him against nay-sayers that called him 'Crasher Stoner', 'Stacey Moaner', whatever silly epithets they thought were funny and thought mattered, supported his decision to leave the sport he fought to reach the top of against some of the most talented riders of any era, but to me he will never be a legend for one reason only - he didn't stick around long enough to become one.
Does that denigrate his talent or his impact on racing? Does it make less of his victories or of his ability to demolish an opposition? Does it mean he won't continue to be the rider I will mourn never seeing ride again?
No.
He will always be someone I can say to my grand-kids, "you think he's good? You never saw Casey Stoner slide it out of turn three at Philip Island!"
But... he could have been a legend, just chose not to.