Andrew McQuaid accusses LeMond

Page 11 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Sep 5, 2009
1,239
0
0
ChrisE said:
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?
Was not the Cooper Clinic of Dallas, Tx in 1988 touting Armstrong's Vo2max results as the highest they have ever seen?Those results must have been in mention somewhere.

Problem was that the Cooper Clinic was primarily a wellness (fat farm) clinic.
 
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.
I have no authority whatsoever. I have already stated as such. I'm inferring based on what I've read. I have already said I may be wrong. My opinions are based on what I read in Rough Ride. Kimmage later regretted elevating Roche to the status of a Roman God in his book. He also pretty clearly implicates Delgado in the book. You may be correct in saying Lemond rode clean against both those riders. I'm suggesting otherwise. But then again, I may be wrong.
 
Jun 18, 2009
1,225
1
0
ChrisE said:
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.
Hardy mad, just perplexed?

1) I have no idea when he learned of them

2) why would it matter?

I just don't understand why you keep bringing it up, except for some pathological desire to "prove" that LeMond suddenly became bitter when LA "won" his 3rd tour.
 

Dr. Maserati

BANNED
Jun 19, 2009
13,250
1
0
ChrisE said:
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?
Hi Chris,

Take it easy - they did not accuse you, they merely asked for you to state your position.

Anyway, to answer your question - Greg heard of LAs V02 max through a presentation done by Ed Coyle in April 2001.
I am suprised you do not remember that - its in From Lance to Landis.
 
May 18, 2009
3,758
0
0
131313 said:
on what do you base that belief?
What do you base your belief on? You buy into the clueless act. Got it.

So, when LA goes from classic rider to dominant GT winner after cancer, the pressroom is rolling their eyes in 99 after Sestriere, no EPO test in existence, French open an investigation in 2000, and GL only becomes suspicious when an article appears about the Ferrari link, and the following phone conversation results in him casting doubt on LA's winnings because of his low VO2 numbers?

You really believe all of that ****, seriously?
 

Dr. Maserati

BANNED
Jun 19, 2009
13,250
1
0
the delgados said:
I have no authority whatsoever. I have already stated as such. I'm inferring based on what I've read. I have already said I may be wrong. My opinions are based on what I read in Rough Ride. Kimmage later regretted elevating Roche to the status of a Roman God in his book. He also pretty clearly implicates Delgado in the book. You may be correct in saying Lemond rode clean against both those riders. I'm suggesting otherwise. But then again, I may be wrong.
You are entitled to your opinion - but you were suggesting that Kimmage was discussing "the top riders" and using that against LeMond.

If that is what you are suggesting - what page or where was that suggestion made in Kimmages book.
 
May 18, 2009
3,758
0
0
Dr. Maserati said:
Hi Chris,

Take it easy - they did not accuse you, they merely asked for you to state your position.

Anyway, to answer your question - Greg heard of LAs V02 max through a presentation done by Ed Coyle in April 2001.
I am suprised you do not remember that - its in From Lance to Landis.
How do you know that is where he heard of it?

But good, I will play with that. April is before July. Why not confront him then? He was only concerned about the 'fraud' after the Ferrari link hit the papers when he was winning his third tour? Coincidence? I am sure you have a good explanation. 121313 is fumbling right now.

BTW, my position on anything has nothing to do with this simple question.
 
Sep 5, 2009
1,239
0
0
Dr. Maserati said:
Hi Chris,

Take it easy - they did not accuse you, they merely asked for you to state your position.

Anyway, to answer your question - Greg heard of LAs V02 max through a presentation done by Ed Coyle in April 2001.
I am suprised you do not remember that - its in From Lance to Landis.
I believe Dr Andrew Coggan on this forum refers to that presentation by Coyle as pre dating Coyle's rush to publish his hypothesis after it hit the fan through the L'Equipe exposure of the re-testing of the 1999 B samples results.
 

Dr. Maserati

BANNED
Jun 19, 2009
13,250
1
0
ChrisE said:
How do you know that is where he heard of it?

But good, I will play with that. April is before July. Why not confront him then? He was only concerned about the 'fraud' after the Ferrari link hit the papers when he was winning his third tour? Coincidence? I am sure you have a good explanation. 121313 is fumbling right now.

BTW, my position on anything has nothing to do with this simple question.
Hi Chris,
Its in the book - it gives the whens, wheres and what people were doing there, I am amazed you have forgotten it, it was quite compelling.

As for why LeMond only spoke in July, that's easy - that's when he was first contacted for a comment.
 
May 18, 2009
3,758
0
0
131313 said:
Hardy mad, just perplexed?

1) I have no idea when he learned of them

2) why would it matter?

I just don't understand why you keep bringing it up, except for some pathological desire to "prove" that LeMond suddenly became bitter when LA "won" his 3rd tour.
1) Thank you. Progress at last.
2) It shows GL should have had doubts before July 2001, along with all the other facts I posted to you right above.

Draw your own conclusions, fanboy.

BTW, I told you in another thread in the summer I would give you props about the witnesses for USADA eventually being sanctioned. You said they would, I said they wouldn't. You win....see it is not so hard to admit you are wrong.

It sure did make a mess of the podium of that Tour of Colorado, or whatever it was called. What a pity.
 
May 18, 2009
3,758
0
0
Dr. Maserati said:
Hi Chris,
Its in the book - it gives the whens, wheres and what people were doing there, I am amazed you have forgotten it, it was quite compelling.

As for why LeMond only spoke in July, that's easy - that's when he was first contacted for a comment.
Um no, I am not asking why he spoke to the press in July...why did he finally speak to LA in July?

Never mind, vortex.
 

Dr. Maserati

BANNED
Jun 19, 2009
13,250
1
0
ChrisE said:
Um no, I am not asking why he spoke to the press in July...why did he finally speak to LA in July?

Never mind, vortex.
Hi Chris,
Sorry, you meant LA - again covered in the book - LA rang Greg after the Tour.
You're welcome.
 
VeloCity said:
Testifying under oath, Thomas Davy, who rode with Indurain in the Spanish team in 1995-96, claimed: "At Banesto there was a system of doping with medical supervision." Asked by the presiding judge Daniel Delegove if everyone in the team had used drugs, the Frenchman said hesitantly: "I don't know. I didn't go round all the rooms, but I think so."
I see that the mountains of evidence is concentrated to these quotes. It is really evidence of Armstrongesque proportions. Hang them high.

And yet the panel is assuming everyone of the non english-speaking riders has been on the juice despite many of them being in the same position as Mr Lemond regarding the lack of evidence. Of course after having moved the EPO-timeline to where the local hero begun to falter.
 
ChrisE said:
What do you base your belief on? You buy into the clueless act. Got it.

So, when LA goes from classic rider to dominant GT winner after cancer, the pressroom is rolling their eyes in 99 after Sestriere, no EPO test in existence, French open an investigation in 2000, and GL only becomes suspicious when an article appears about the Ferrari link, and the following phone conversation results in him casting doubt on LA's winnings because of his low VO2 numbers?

You really believe all of that ****, seriously?
Well yeah, if you believe LeMond was naive enough to not have a clue what was going on when EPO hit the peloton, then why wouldn't you believe that he was naive enough to not question the Lance myth for the first couple of years? I actually don't know this, but was he in the press corps or anywhere following the route of the tours in 1999-2000? Is there any reason to believe that he couldn't have been simply ignorant of what was obvious to everyone in the peloton?

What alternative narrative are you advocating? That Greg was playing dumb? Lying? Why would that serve him? Why would it serve him to hold on until the Tour of 2001?

Your questioning is pretty aggressive, but I don't understand what the point of it is. (maybe I need to go back in this conversation, because I don't remember where it started. But I think it's maybe good to come back to the point of it anyway)
 
Mar 26, 2009
342
0
0
the delgados said:
The similarity between the Lemond defenders and those who went to war for Armstrong is uncanny...]

I don't think they are similar at all. There was a wealth of rumours, circumstantial evidence, eye-witnesses, and even a growing body of analytical evidence that was known but not ban-able (eg. 1999 TUE, post-hoc 1999 EPO positives). Regardless of how valid this evidence is/was, it was still something "Armstrong Defenders" had to explain and fight against since at least 1999. As it seems right now, "Lemond Defenders" have nothing to explain, since there is dearth of even scraps of evidence.

Armstrong defenders had the odds against them, Lemond defenders have the odds in their favour (Contador Defenders are somewhere inbetween). Such a big difference I can't believe how heated the discussion has become.
 
Albatros said:
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.
Nobody has ever said that the PED used in the 80s didn't give an advantage. The question was and remains did they give a big enough advantage so that super talented riders couldn't win against those on PEDs. There is no definitive answer to this question.

You have been provided with examples in this thread of clean riders who competed against and beat doped riders yet you continue to ignore that with your own agenda.

Look at the stats I provided for Giles Delion in 1990 and realise this was a clean guy competing against lots of doped up riders but look at his results throughout that year. He took on and regularly beat doped riders and he did it on a regular basis.
 
pmcg76 said:
Nobody has ever said that the PED used in the 80s didn't give an advantage. The question was and remains did they give a big enough advantage so that super talented riders couldn't win against those on PEDs. There is no definitive answer to this question.
Blood doping was used in the 80's and there is no question
as to it's effectiveness. The only question is who was doing it.
 
Oct 29, 2012
4
1
8,515
Has anyone read Fignon's book?

It's a good arguement for why Lemond may never have doped. I believe at this stage Fignon already has cancer and has little to lose. Near the begining of the book he states that he 'never really doped in competition'. This where I started roll my eyes in disbelief. But he explains to the reader that he expects this reaction and says he will prove his point by admitting far worse things. And guess what, he goes in to great detail about his drug taking.

But it's mostly cocain and amphetamines and it's almost entirely outside of competition. The time he was busted for it during a race was because minute traces of it were found in his system even though he let plenty of time go by to get it out of his system. It was taken to motivate himself to train when his motorpacer flaked on him that particular day. He said it was stupid and foolish but he owns up to it. Said it was never the way he liked to train either.

The drugs used before EPO era were so easily detected that it was really risky to dope in competition and the riders who did generally needed to dope to be competitive.

Also said that the reason he didn't do epo when offered was that it scared him to death to mess with his blood. He generally states that he didn't dope because he just never needed to. He won the tour on his first try...like Lemond, the guy was gifted.

Lemond really didn't need to dope either. Hey, nothing surprises me these days so he might have. But he really doesnt behave like some who doped. Based on his behavior alone, I really doubt he would have.

Sorry for the long post!
 
If you have such a physiological edge over the competition, just amphetamines are not going to make you lose all races you enter. The dope of that era just doesn't bridge the physiological gap for many second-tier talent (all other than LeMond). EPO is a much larger bridge, multiple could get across. It doesn't make them champions at heart though, so even if they may have matched LeMond's level, he'd still beat them. Yeah, that will sound like a fanboy response, but take a step back and see it in the eyes yourself.
Me, I lost plenty of races to dopers. Was dropped off the back as well, so I surely was no LeMond. Yet, at a lower level, where I did get my little streaks of wins, I may have been ****ing off some dopers who still could not beat me. I'v seen the eyes of some of my competition after I'd won, and they were all "not normal", "WTF just happened", etc. I had a large engine, and when I got it to fire correctly, even pro's got more than they bargained for when entering a €10-for-the-winner little local race. I may have been beating some local dopers, the guys who really, really need to perform, to keep up their ego. Loud mouthes, at all the races, feeling superior to newbies, etc. Yeah, good chance I beat dopers. I just got born with a larger engine didn't soft pedal, what can they do? Perhaps they doped and made a mess of that, getting less of a boost than from legal additives. Not my problem.
I was also long unaware of doping among pro's, thought they just trained harder (I am famous for being lazy). Until when I had a really good day, I was blown away still, demoted several categories. That kind of got me thinking.
I can see how LeMond could be naive. He didn't need regular doping. EPO, posed him opposition he'd never had.
 
Mar 18, 2009
2,553
0
0
Velodude said:
I believe Dr Andrew Coggan on this forum refers to that presentation by Coyle as pre dating Coyle's rush to publish his hypothesis after it hit the fan through the L'Equipe exposure of the re-testing of the 1999 B samples results.
Different presentation/meeting. Coyle presented Armstrong's data at a small, invitation-only meeting for former post-docs of John Holloszy here in St. Louis in late May/early June of 2002. AFAIK that is the 1st time he presented any data on Armstrong, but I could be wrong.
 
Dec 7, 2010
8,771
3
0
skidmark said:
Well yeah, if you believe LeMond was naive enough to not have a clue what was going on when EPO hit the peloton, then why wouldn't you believe that he was naive enough to not question the Lance myth for the first couple of years? I actually don't know this, but was he in the press corps or anywhere following the route of the tours in 1999-2000? Is there any reason to believe that he couldn't have been simply ignorant of what was obvious to everyone in the peloton?

What alternative narrative are you advocating? That Greg was playing dumb? Lying? Why would that serve him? Why would it serve him to hold on until the Tour of 2001?

Your questioning is pretty aggressive, but I don't understand what the point of it is. (maybe I need to go back in this conversation, because I don't remember where it started. But I think it's maybe good to come back to the point of it anyway)
The point is simple let me help out some.

Most cycling fans probably believed every cyclist in the pro peloton were doping. Thus .....the cyclist knew everyone in the peloton were doping.

Greg being a former pro and fan of cycling probably believed the peloton was doping. He only became concerned when Lance was about to bite into Greg's cycling history.

At least that is what I think ChrisE questions are trying to point out.

I gave it my best shot ...hope my simple explanation clears it up for you. :cool:
 
Mar 17, 2009
1,863
0
0
Glenn_Wilson said:
The point is simple let me help out some.

Most cycling fans probably believed every cyclist in the pro peloton were doping. Thus .....the cyclist knew everyone in the peloton were doping.

Greg being a former pro and fan of cycling probably believed the peloton was doping. He only became concerned when Lance was about to bite into Greg's cycling history.

At least that is what I think ChrisE questions are trying to point out.

I gave it my best shot ...hope my simple explanation clears it up for you. :cool:
Only problem is LeMond didn't approach the press, he was simply asked about the revelation that Armstrong was still working with Ferrari.
 
Mar 18, 2009
2,553
0
0
acoggan said:
Different presentation/meeting. Coyle presented Armstrong's data at a small, invitation-only meeting for former post-docs of John Holloszy here in St. Louis in late May/early June of 2002. AFAIK that is the 1st time he presented any data on Armstrong, but I could be wrong.
For grins-and-giggles I searched through the abstracts of the 2001 and 2002 ACSM meetings, and could find no indication that Coyle would have presented any data on Armstrong at ACSM. However, he (Coyle) does list this talk on his CV:

"Ergogenic Aids and Drug Use In Cycling
American Medical Society for Sports Medicine: Annual Meeting
San Antonio, Texas 4/8/01"

Unfortunately, the AMSSM is rather young and small, and their website only has programs from their annual meetings back to 2003, so I haven't been able to learn anything else. Given the small size of the society (and the fact that it is a scientific society in the first place, not, e.g., Interbike), though, I'd be surprised if Lemond were there, unless perhaps he was also an invited speaker? The date is certainly correct...
 
Cloxxki said:
...
I can see how LeMond could be naive. He didn't need regular doping. EPO, posed him opposition he'd never had.
Agreed.

Another way to look at it is that he became obsolete overnight.

Greg was gifted with the best genetic horse in the peloton, and had worked with all of the best buggy whip manufacturers to maintain his edge. He had the best frame technology, aerobars, etc.

Then, overnight, somebody started using a horseless carriage... and Greg was sent to the glue factory.

Those following technology developments see this all the time. Yesterday's giant is focused on winning the best way they know how. Then, someone changes the paradigm on them.

It is inevitable that today's Apple iPod will become tomorrow's eight track player.

Dave.
 
silverrocket said:
Armstrong defenders had the odds against them, Lemond defenders have the odds in their favour (Contador Defenders are somewhere inbetween). Such a big difference I can't believe how heated the discussion has become.
The background story here is about the time of Lemond's public request for Hein and Co. to step down at the UCI, per the title of the thread, Andrew McQuaid suggests Lemond doped during his career.

Within hours of the Lemond story (before and after) non-specific allegations that Lemond doped like an Armstrong appear. Here we are 27 pages later, easily heading for 300 posts on the topic with **no specific allegations**, merging EPO and pre-EPO doping eras as if EPO had been around since the 50's.

This is entirely typical behaviour for Pat, Hein and Wonderboy. They go on into personal attack mode to defend their UCI.

Contador defenders are pretending as much as the Wonderboy faithful. They were helped along by a crazy finding from CAS. Contador's team claims the source of Clen was not in tainted supplements in their arguments, CAS says it was anyway. ???!!???
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS