Andrew McQuaid accusses LeMond

Page 10 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
function said:
Those requirements are impossible to meet and i suspect you know it, when have there ever been (multiple even!) scientific studies on the effects of doping on actively racing cyclists in GTs? Further, in your particular case, the entire peloton since you would need to determine the cleanliness of all participants.
If the only proof that is promoted is that the rest of the peloton was doping, then a reasonable request would be that this proof should be provided.

Thus, I would be willing to concede LeMond was doping based purely on circumstantial evidence. But, that circumstantial evidence should be solid.

Otherwise, the argument kinda goes way beyond clutching at straws

And, as noted, is completely full of bullsh!t.

Dave.
 
ChrisE said:
Ah, I see. When he learned of Ferrari in July 2001 (who most conscious people in the sport knew LA was working with since the mid 90's), he miraculously simultaneously learned is VO2 max. What a coincidence.
Oh Chris E, you have been wrong so many times about so many things, its funny to see you scrambling around trying to cling to whatever shreds of hope you have left now that your boy has been sank.

Really, most people knew about the Ferrari link? Then why was it such a big deal when it was announced? Why did the Armstrong camp feel they needed to get ahead of the story if everyone already knew? Why was Ferrari never mentioned once in 'Its not about the bike' whilst Carmichael was promoted as his coach even though he wasn't? Why so secretive if everyone already knew?

I have two interview's with Lance from 1996, one with Winning magazine and the other from Cycle Sport. Many things are discussed but Ferrari is not mentioned once even though this is when he started work with Ferrari.

Likewise post comeback, I have countless interviews on record but Ferrari is not mentioned anywhere in any of them. Why was Armstrong's name never mentioned in the investigation into Ferrari from 99 whilst many other rider's were called to testify, interviewed or even named as clients. Gotti, Salvodelli, Merckx, Olano, Chiappucci, Livingston, Escartin, Tonkov are just a handful of the top of my head.

But sure, everyone knew about the link with Ferrari.
 
GJB123 said:
Ho, ho, hold your horses and break out the Ritalin! Re-read pmcg76's post and then re-read your own shoot-from-the-hip answer, because you are making a complete moron of yourself.
I've re-read it a few times, it still comes across as he's saying GL is a doper, that's how I read it. Seemed to be a sort of flip flop post. What exactly did I "shoot from the hip" about? Been asked here @ nauseum to provide a shred of credible proof on Lemond/Hinault and all the rest of the field so many here have claimed to be dopers.

I have no idea why you're so butthurt over my response. I guess you look like am even bigger "moron" than I am. That post would be much clearer if we had the aforementioned "proof" either way.
 
Jun 18, 2009
1,225
1
0
ChrisE said:
Ah, I see. When he learned of Ferrari in July 2001 (who most conscious people in the sport knew LA was working with since the mid 90's), he miraculously simultaneously learned is VO2 max. What a coincidence.
That of course is an out and out lie, and LeMond was hardly in the 'inner circle" of cycling at that point anyway? But hey, don't let the truth get in the way of a good story.
 
86TDFWinner said:
I've re-read it a few times, it still comes across as he's saying GL is a doper, that's how I read it. Seemed to be a sort of flip flop post. What exactly did I "shoot from the hip" about? Been asked here @ nauseum to provide a shred of credible proof on Lemond/Hinault and all the rest of the field so many here have claimed to be dopers.

I have no idea why you're so butthurt over my response. I guess you look like am even bigger "moron" than I am. That post would be much clearer if we had the aforementioned "proof" either way.
Geebus, take a chill pill fellow. You are seriously getting way ahead of yourself. As the SCA -lawyer stated: "If you want to get yourself out of a hole, first thing you need to do, is stop digging."

FYI, I am someone who actually believes that it was not only possible to win a GT clean in the 80's, I also happen to think Lemond won his 3 TdF's clean. Stop insulting people who are actually in agreement with you. It makes you look stupid beyond barely moronic.

All pmcg76 did, was state that without proof either way on Lemond, he deserves the benefit of doubt. In saying you think and believe Lemond was clean, does not mean that other people (disillusioned with pro cycling as they may be) feel that every GT-winner must have doped unless proven otherwise. Now before you fly of your rocket again, I do not believe that personally and I think there is some firm logic that helps me to quite safely assume Lemond did not use PED's, however I can also understand some people being so disillusioned that they believe otherwise.

Regards
GJ

PS I do not think Albatros falls in to the category of serious disillusioned cycling fans but rather in the category of the seriously delusional Armstring fans.
 
Sep 10, 2009
5,663
0
0
Albatros said:
I am not supporting my argument on statistics alone, but on confessions of ex dopers of how much doping helped them. Well, dopers and "clean" riders such as Lemond.

He said, and I repeat it for the upteen time, that using steroids would help TREMENDOUSLY in a three week race. Now you explain to me how you can beat elite cyclists being helped tremendously just by one of the substances that made their staple diet. And curiously enough Lemond evaluation coincides fully with that of ex dopers.

The myth that before EPO doping was something you could do without is just that, a myth. And let's not forget about blood transfusions, which I would be very surprised if it did not hit the peloton when track cyclists and even footballers were at it.

And how did Lemond win in 1990? Not EPO by then? Another miracle. Cyclist lagging 3 years from other endurance sports.
Then why didn't Lemond get better in the years after, at the beginning of the EPO era? If the EPO era started right about then, and Lemond was in on it, then he should've easily been able to keep pace with the others beynd 1990. Yet from 1990 on, he basically sucked - dropped to 7th in '91 after being left behind on the Tourmalet and abandoned in '92, abandoned the Giro in '93, and abandoned the Tour again in '94.

You'd think a guy in on the ground floor of the EPO era would be improving from year to year, or at least keeping pace with the other guys on EPO. Looks more to me like the other riders discovered EPO and left Lemond in the dust.

I don't know if Lemond was completely clean, but his results post-'90 suggest that he wasn't ever part of the EPO generation.
 
@ 86TDFWINNER: Just to help you out a bit with your reading skills I have highlighted the relevant sections.

pmcg76 said:
This is simple, there is no way I would ever say "rider x did or does not dope 100%" like you seem to be saying. I am open minded to all possibilities on the subject of doping. However, the amount of relevant evidence that is available usually tips the scales in a particular direction on deciding who I think doped/is doping.

It is clear that doping was widespread when LeMond was riding so I don't think it is unrealistic or even unfair to have doubt's or questions about his cleanliness. He did beat a lot of dopers and even thought the product's might not have been anywhere near as effective as EPO, there were still advantages to using them. Big enough that a super talented clean rider couldn't overcome? well that is THE question.

I don't believe LeMond was clean because I am a fan of his, it is because there is evidence that suggests that teams like Helvetia could win doing it cleanly so if they could, why not LeMond? Owing to the lack of contradictory evidence I believe it plausible that LeMond won the Tour clean.
That actually means he thinks Lemond did it clean because it is proven that it was possible to get results clean and there is no evidence to shoe Lemond doped.

Get it?

Regards
GJ
 
86TDFWinner said:
I've re-read it a few times, it still comes across as he's saying GL is a doper, that's how I read it. Seemed to be a sort of flip flop post. What exactly did I "shoot from the hip" about? Been asked here @ nauseum to provide a shred of credible proof on Lemond/Hinault and all the rest of the field so many here have claimed to be dopers.

I have no idea why you're so butthurt over my response. I guess you look like am even bigger "moron" than I am. That post would be much clearer if we had the aforementioned "proof" either way.
I think you might have a comprehension problem then, my point is exactly how GJb123 understands it yet you don't seem to get it.

There is no proof either way of LeMond doping/not doping but taking into account all the relevant information, other riders/team's winning cleanly, lack of evidence against LeMond etc, yes I do think that LeMond could have won the Tour cleanly. Others are more cynical whilst others are Lance fanboy's who now that their hero is revealed to be a fraud have nothing left but to try to tarnish others.
 
Dec 7, 2010
8,771
3
0
86TDFWinner said:
There is no evidence to suggest Lemond doped, AGAIN, if there is, PLEASE POST IT, along with the supposed "widespread doping that went on in 88", as you insinuate?


Let me see if I understand that last part, you "like Greg and am a fan of his", but then you turn around and say you believe he was doping too, yet as I (and others here have asked for at nauseum) you can't seem to post any of the "proof" to back up said claims? Got it.

If you had a shred of evidence that GL did infact dope, then your outlandish "theory" would have some sort of merit to it, but since no one here has said evidence busting GL, I'm happy to say you're completely FOS.

If you find said evidence, please post it here, thanks.
See the part I put in bold above. :eek:
 
Dec 7, 2010
8,771
3
0
D-Queued said:
If the only proof that is promoted is that the rest of the peloton was doping, then a reasonable request would be that this proof should be provided.

Thus, I would be willing to concede LeMond was doping based purely on circumstantial evidence. But, that circumstantial evidence should be solid.

Otherwise, the argument kinda goes way beyond clutching at straws

And, as noted, is completely full of bullsh!t.

Dave.
wait a minute Dave, pure circumstantial evidence is used here in the clinic everyday.

The time this gets escalated into a full blown argument is when fan boys and haters on each side of the cyclist are involved.

We have all been there or "down that road" and the argument for and against drug use is the same with each and every cyclist.

What one has to have is faith in the cyclist. For me this decision is very much like putting faith in other things. I happen to be a fan of Greg Lemond and I have faith that what he says is the truth. There is nothing more than that.

This is just my opinion and I'm sure medical maniac will attack me here soon,,,,,, and probably other folks will do the same. that is fine. ChrisE will tell me and has told me to my face that Greg Lemond is full of **** but I happen to hold a different opinion. We never start telling each other the childhood scenario that is being played out here in this forum "put up or shut up" type of statements made from someone's back side makes them look like fanboys correct?
 
Mar 19, 2011
334
0
0
Glenn_Wilson said:
wait a minute Dave, pure circumstantial evidence is used here in the clinic everyday.

The time this gets escalated into a full blown argument is when fan boys and haters on each side of the cyclist are involved.

We have all been there or "down that road" and the argument for and against drug use is the same with each and every cyclist.

What one has to have is faith in the cyclist. For me this decision is very much like putting faith in other things. I happen to be a fan of Greg Lemond and I have faith that what he says is the truth. There is nothing more than that.

This is just my opinion and I'm sure medical maniac will attack me here soon,,,,,, and probably other folks will do the same. that is fine. ChrisE will tell me and has told me to my face that Greg Lemond is full of **** but I happen to hold a different opinion. We never start telling each other the childhood scenario that is being played out here in this forum "put up or shut up" type of statements made from someone's back side makes them look like fanboys correct?
That I have proved it over here plenty of times. So many outright lies and inconsistencies.

Of that, no Lemond fan has managed to answer any of my questions.

I could start with this one. How did Lemond managed to stay 6 years in the pro peloton without noticing that there was doping?

I will give them another chance.
 
86TDFWinner said:
I'm curious how you know for a fact that "all of his competitors took drugs"? I dont recall seeing anything on alot of the riders in the 80's being dopers/drug users(and that's a pretty BIG list of names: Phinney/Hampsten/Hinault/Roche/LeMond/entire 7-11 cycling team, La Vie Claire, etc etc etc.), so please explain:

1) Where you came up with this assumption

2) Please post ALL CREDIBLE evidence on "all the other competitors" LeMond rode against?(and with) during the 80s? dates/times/drugs/administered by whom/where?

I love it when folks who have no proof, start spouting off about how "so and so did something", yet provide no proof whatsoever of it occuring, and against whom they've supposedly "outed".

.
I'

By your baseless assumption here, you're now claiming that EVERY SINGLE RIDER on tour during the 80s, was doping, just so we're clear.
Have you read A rough Ride? This is not a rhetorical question and I'm not trying to be a smart ***. I'm genuinly curious if you've read the book.
Although Kimmage does not name names, there are plenty of passages throughout the book that makes it pretty clear that top riders were on something more than bread and water.
Asking folks to produce direct evidence (names, dates, drugs, etc.) is as ridiculous as Roche's reaction to Kimmage's book--i.e. only the talentless nobodies took drugs. Nothing to see here, he seemed to suggest. Let's all just move on now, shall we?
 
Mar 19, 2011
334
0
0
D-Queued said:
You really do not appear to have any idea of what you are talking about.

If I can speak for myself, I was the first person (only?) to provide the scientific research that undermined Arnie Baker's assertion that testosterone has no benefit for endurance athletes.

My anonymous post, with its sources, was one of the very few counter-arguments to Floyd's wiki defense that was posted on the trusbut site.

However, even with that knowledge and insight, I can state with conviction that you are seriously misrepresenting the advantages of steroids.

Thus, to refute my claim, and to back up your assertions, please provide:

1. At least three independent, juried and published, scientific studies that have demonstrated a statistically relevant correlation between steroids and results in grand tours

2. At least three independent, juried and published, scientific studies that confirm the use of blood doping in grand tours during the 1980s.

Otherwise, if you cannot provide this, then I can confidently state that your arguments are full of sh!t.

Dave.
Sorry, it is Lemond's argument too. :D

Another question for the fan boys like you. Why Lemond said that they helped tremendously?

About studies. I have not followed any and I know some scientists hold the view that testosterone does not help cyclists (and I bet they are wrong).

In the mean time, reading the USADA report I have learned that Mr Armstrong was not only doping with blood treatments, but also with cortisone and testosterone, specifically Andriol, substances prescribed by someone that surely knows 100 times more than you about the effects of PEDs.

How curious that substances that do not have any effect whatsoever have been around for more than 40 years and are still been administered by the current top gurus of doping such as Ferrari or Eufemiano Fuentes. I am lost in words, risking losing the Tour like a certain Landis for something that doesn't work. That is not doping but stupidity.
 

Dr. Maserati

BANNED
Jun 19, 2009
13,250
1
0
the delgados said:
Have you read A rough Ride? This is not a rhetorical question and I'm not trying to be a smart ***. I'm genuinly curious if you've read the book.
Although Kimmage does not name names, there are plenty of passages throughout the book that makes it pretty clear that top riders were on something more than bread and water.
Asking folks to produce direct evidence (names, dates, drugs, etc.) is as ridiculous as Roche's reaction to Kimmage's book--i.e. only the talentless nobodies took drugs. Nothing to see here, he seemed to suggest. Let's all just move on now, shall we?
I have read it.
While what you say sounds like a fair representation - you appear to be stretching that to include ALL top riders.
If so, then please point to the sections of the book that state this.
 
GJB123 said:
@ 86TDFWINNER: Just to help you out a bit with your reading skills I have highlighted the relevant sections.



That actually means he thinks Lemond did it clean because it is proven that it was possible to get results clean and there is no evidence to shoe Lemond doped.

Get it?

Regards
GJ
Yeah, I got it(Ive been busy with school man, no excuse, I was tired and it was late and i didnt read it fully-thought he was saying he thought Lemond doped).
 
That I have proved it over here plenty of times. So many outright lies and inconsistencies.
Where? is this posted somewhere, if so where? Also, please post the info about your expert knowledge of Lemond/Hinault and the rest of the peloton you keep going on about. We'll "answer the questions", but first please answer ours.


Of that, no Lemond fan has managed to answer any of my questions.
Which are? what are your questions?


I will give them another chance.

As we will with you and your supposed "expert knowledge" that greg doped, oh, and your info on where/when/how it took place/doctor's names/etc, and your pro racing info please.....
 
the delgados said:
Have you read A rough Ride? This is not a rhetorical question and I'm not trying to be a smart ***. I'm genuinly curious if you've read the book.
Although Kimmage does not name names, there are plenty of passages throughout the book that makes it pretty clear that top riders were on something more than bread and water.
Asking folks to produce direct evidence (names, dates, drugs, etc.) is as ridiculous as Roche's reaction to Kimmage's book--i.e. only the talentless nobodies took drugs. Nothing to see here, he seemed to suggest. Let's all just move on now, shall we?
Why? Asking folks to believe that GL(or any other rider doped) and not posting said proof, is equally as ridiculous IMO. I see nothing wrong with posting said info to back up your statements. Or, asking someone where they got said info.

No, I haven't read the book. But again, if he were infact doping, why hasn't it come out sooner? $300K is ALOT of money for someone who has a grudge against GL, and certainly they would've brought out some sort of doping on his part right, of course. It's been 22 yrs since GL's last Tour win, and 18 since retirement, and not 1 CREDIBLE thing has come out from ANYONE stating he doped? I find that to be further proof he didn't. Plus, you add the fact that Wonderboy offered up $300K to anyone to bust him and still nothing, that pretty much answers it IMO.
 
the delgados said:
Have you read A rough Ride? This is not a rhetorical question and I'm not trying to be a smart ***. I'm genuinly curious if you've read the book.
Although Kimmage does not name names, there are plenty of passages throughout the book that makes it pretty clear that top riders were on something more than bread and water.
Asking folks to produce direct evidence (names, dates, drugs, etc.) is as ridiculous as Roche's reaction to Kimmage's book--i.e. only the talentless nobodies took drugs. Nothing to see here, he seemed to suggest. Let's all just move on now, shall we?
Interesting source.

Interesting that you are using this source to impugn LeMond.

You asked if I/we read the book.

A better question is the more direct one: If Kmmage is your authority, what does your authority say about LeMond? Does Kimmage believe LeMond doped?

No?

Ok, then, you have no source and your assertions are inventions with only one intention: to malign LeMond.

Dave.
 
D-Queued said:
Interesting source.

Interesting that you are using this source to impugn LeMond.

You asked if I/we read the book.

A better question is the more direct one: If Kmmage is your authority, what does your authority say about LeMond? Does Kimmage believe LeMond doped?

No?

Ok, then, you have no source and your assertions are inventions with only one intention: to malign LeMond.

Dave.
Thank you.

I just thought of this. If said poster is using Kimmage as their authority on GL supposedly doping, then why would GL donate money to a guy's defense fund who's accused/slandered him of cheating/doping?
 
May 18, 2009
3,758
0
0
GJB123 said:
Hi Chris, did Lance use PED's in your opinion? Just a question to be able to gage your position in this discussion? :rolleyes:
If you can find a post of mine where I stated LA did not use PED's, then please link it. Good luck with that, hopefully you will do better than trying to divert this thread from the question.

Back on subject: When did GL become aware of LA's VO2 numbers? Even if we give GL the benefit of the dumb**** doubt by not knowing about LA/Ferrari prior to July 2001, how was he able to spew LA's numbers during that phone call? IF he knew LA's numbers before July 2001, why didn't they have a falling out before then?
 
Jun 18, 2009
1,225
1
0
ChrisE said:
Back on subject: When did GL become aware of LA's VO2 numbers? Even if we give GL the benefit of the dumb**** doubt by not knowing about LA/Ferrari prior to July 2001, how was he able to spew LA's numbers during that phone call? IF he knew LA's numbers before July 2001, why didn't they have a falling out before then?
Because vo2 alone is hardly an indicator of one's ability? It's like knowing the displacement of an engine w/o knowing how many hp/liter.

It's pretty obvious what's going on here. You've fallen under the spell of the LA PR machine, and you're going to look at everything through a lens that fits the narrative which you've swallowed whole. Isn't it easier to just realized you were duped? It's OK, Lancey paid a lot of money to get you to think that way. But now that the information is really out there, clinging to the "he's just bitter" thing is getting a bit tired.
 
May 18, 2009
3,758
0
0
131313 said:
That of course is an out and out lie, and LeMond was hardly in the 'inner circle" of cycling at that point anyway? But hey, don't let the truth get in the way of a good story.
Hey it's ok keep your shirt on. I happen to find it difficult to believe that GL learned about Ferrari not until July 2001. You have a different opinion. There is no "truth" here because neither one can be proven. So what.
 
Jun 18, 2009
1,225
1
0
ChrisE said:
Hey it's ok keep your shirt on. I happen to find it difficult to believe that GL learned about Ferrari not until July 2001.
on what do you base that belief?
 
May 18, 2009
3,758
0
0
131313 said:
Because vo2 alone is hardly an indicator of one's ability? It's like knowing the displacement of an engine w/o knowing how many hp/liter.

>>>>snip irrelevant GL fanboy whining babble<<<<<.
You mad, bro? :cool:

Well, then why did GL jam LA with his VO2 numbers in the phone call, with the insinuation he could win the tour without EPO with his 95 and LA couldn't with his 82?

And again, if that is GL's position in July 2001, then answer the question. When did he learn of LA's numbers? No need to go off on temper tantrum tangents, just answer the simple question. Thanks.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS