Andrew McQuaid accusses LeMond

Page 13 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Mar 19, 2011
334
0
0
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.

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.
Of course they did. And I have not yet started with my other postulate. That cyclist (at least the elite ones) did blood doping during the whole 80's decade. The opposite would be tremendously stupid.

If we agree that the great majority of the peloton could not have enough of any substance/method that would improve their performance, why didn't they go for blood doping, already known to be tremendously beneficial since the early 70's?

And we know Zoetemelk did blood dope in the seventies. So it is 100% certain that the elite riders did also blood dope until the arrival of EPO.
You would not pass on that opportunity, would you? Conconi was already blood doping all Italian athletes at the beginning of the 80's, reporting massive improvements in performance. The same Conconi who later became medical advisor of Moser, Saroni or Indurian well before Lemond won his first Tour.

There was not a single test for blood doping, a practice that was not even forbidden until the mid 80's.
So either Lemond beat cyclists who were blood doping and taking testosterone and cortisone or he was at it like the rest of them.
 

Dr. Maserati

BANNED
Jun 19, 2009
13,250
1
0
Albatros said:
Of course they did. And I have not yet started with my other postulate. That cyclist (at least the elite ones) did blood doping during the whole 80's decade. The opposite would be tremendously stupid.

If we agree that the great majority of the peloton could not have enough of any substance/method that would improve their performance, why didn't they go for blood doping, already known to be tremendously beneficial since the early 70's?

And we know Zoetemelk did blood dope in the seventies. So it is 100% certain that the elite riders did also blood dope until the arrival of EPO.
You would not pass on that opportunity, would you? Conconi was already blood doping all Italian athletes at the beginning of the 80's, reporting massive improvements in performance. The same Conconi who later became medical advisor of Moser, Saroni or Indurian well before Lemond won his first Tour.

There was not a single test for blood doping, a practice that was not even forbidden until the mid 80's.
So either Lemond beat cyclists who were blood doping and taking testosterone and cortisone or he was at it like the rest of them.
Hi Albatros,
We know that Zoeltemelk and Moser blood doped in the 80's, you say there were more, something about the "elite ones".
Can you name each one and when - I am not looking for all the names, goodness no - just say the top 50, thanks,.
 
Mar 19, 2011
334
0
0
Dr. Maserati said:
Hi Albatros,
We know that Zoeltemelk and Moser blood doped in the 80's, you say there were more, something about the "elite ones".
Can you name each one and when - I am not looking for all the names, goodness no - just say the top 50, thanks,.
You should know who the elite ones were. From the very Zoektemelk to Lemond. All the winners of the Tour de france in the eighties either blood doped or took EPO. And that is why we never saw that 15% performance increase when EPO appeared.
It makes sense. And what it does not make any sense is that cyclists from recent times started doing blood doping once they knew EPO was dangerous to take, and in the middle we have 10-15 years where cyclists ignore the best doping method and as a bonus impossible to catch.

This is again one of the instances when by applying simple logic you can understand what was going on without knowing the specifics.

And elite treatments such as this, go to elite cyclists first.
 

Dr. Maserati

BANNED
Jun 19, 2009
13,250
1
0
Albatros said:
You should know who the elite ones were. From the very Zoektemelk to Lemond. All the winners of the Tour de france in the eighties either blood doped or took EPO. And that is why we never saw that 15% performance increase when EPO appeared.
It makes sense. And what it does not make any sense is that cyclists from recent times started doing blood doping once they knew EPO was dangerous to take, and in the middle we have 10-15 years where cyclists ignore the best doping method and as a bonus impossible to catch.

This is again one of the instances when by applying simple logic you can understand what was going on without knowing the specifics.

And elite treatments such as this, go to elite cyclists first.
Ok, top 40 names then.
No need to put them in alphabetical order - just names, dates etc
 
Aug 10, 2010
6,286
0
0
Albatros said:
You should know who the elite ones were. From the very Zoektemelk to Lemond. All the winners of the Tour de france in the eighties either blood doped or took EPO. And that is why we never saw that 15% performance increase when EPO appeared.
It makes sense. And what it does not make any sense is that cyclists from recent times started doing blood doping once they knew EPO was dangerous to take, and in the middle we have 10-15 years where cyclists ignore the best doping method and as a bonus impossible to catch.

This is again one of the instances when by applying simple logic you can understand what was going on without knowing the specifics.

And elite treatments such as this, go to elite cyclists first.
You assert that EPO provides a 15% performance boost. That is total BS. EPO acts differenly on different people.

You state that EPO's 15% performance boost was masked by the prior adoption of blood doping by ALL of the peloton elite. If that statement were true, then you ought to be able to demonstrate a 15% performance boost with the advent of blood doping. You can't. More BS.

You also ignore the fact that blood dopingbenefits riders pointing only for the big races. The peloton elite wasn't doing that in the '80s--they raced the whole calendar, generally.

You take all your invalid generalizations and use them to argue that one rider doped.

Your approach is not logical at all. It is very mean-spirited and vindictive. Haven't we had enough of that?
 
Albatros said:
Of course they did. And I have not yet started with my other postulate. That cyclist (at least the elite ones) did blood doping during the whole 80's decade. The opposite would be tremendously stupid.

If we agree that the great majority of the peloton could not have enough of any substance/method that would improve their performance, why didn't they go for blood doping, already known to be tremendously beneficial since the early 70's?

And we know Zoetemelk did blood dope in the seventies. So it is 100% certain that the elite riders did also blood dope until the arrival of EPO.
You would not pass on that opportunity, would you? Conconi was already blood doping all Italian athletes at the beginning of the 80's, reporting massive improvements in performance. The same Conconi who later became medical advisor of Moser, Saroni or Indurian well before Lemond won his first Tour.

There was not a single test for blood doping, a practice that was not even forbidden until the mid 80's.
So either Lemond beat cyclists who were blood doping and taking testosterone and cortisone or he was at it like the rest of them.
So once again you ignore the fact that there were clean cyclists beating doped riders and come up with an even bigger conspiracy that blood doping was rife even though no cyclists who admitted to doping in the 80s ever mentioned blood doping other than Moser.

By the way Saronni or Moser very rarely rode the Tour and when they did, were absolutely ****. Was Conconi working with Saronni or is that another thing you just made up.

What about Didi Thurau who claimed that everyone doped, did he mention blood doping? So blood doping was happening for a full decade and no cyclist, DS, soigneur other than Moser ever mentioned it, ever!! That is one amazing piece of ometra right there.

Let me state this again, if Giles Delion could beat riders on Cortisone, amphetamines, testosterone, then yes, Greg LeMond could do the same.
 
Mar 19, 2011
334
0
0
MarkvW said:
You assert that EPO provides a 15% performance boost. That is total BS. EPO acts differenly on different people.

You state that EPO's 15% performance boost was masked by the prior adoption of blood doping by ALL of the peloton elite. If that statement were true, then you ought to be able to demonstrate a 15% performance boost with the advent of blood doping. You can't. More BS.

You also ignore the fact that blood dopingbenefits riders pointing only for the big stage races. The peloton elite wasn't doing that in the '80s--they raced the whole calendar, generally.

You take all your invalid generalizations and use them to argue that one rider doped.

Your approach is not logical at all. It is very mean-spirited and vindictive. Haven't we had enough of that?
15% Move to 10%. It doesn't change the reasoning. Stick to the general idea instead of trying to dispute the details, which are just that, details in the big scheme of things.

And instead of telling me that the peloton were not blood doping in the 80's as if you were there, tell me one single reason for not blood doping in special events such as ....the Tour de France.

You won't give me one, cause there isn't any.

Great improvement, undetectable and not doing it? It is getting hilarious.
 
Albatros said:
15% Move to 10%. It doesn't change the reasoning. Stick to the general idea instead of trying to dispute the details, which are just that, details in the big scheme of things.

And instead of telling me that the peloton were not blood doping in the 80's as if you were there, tell me one single reason for not blood doping in special events such as ....the Tour de France.

You won't give me one, cause there isn't any.

Great improvement, undetectable and not doing it? It is getting hilarious.
How about you explain why not one person associated with ProCycling in the 80s other than Moser has ever mentioned blood doping in that decade.

Secondly if they were all blood doping, wouldn't speeds have shot up like with the arrival of EPO.
 
Mar 19, 2011
334
0
0
pmcg76 said:
So once again you ignore the fact that there were clean cyclists beating doped riders and come up with an even bigger conspiracy that blood doping was rife even though no cyclists who admitted to doping in the 80s ever mentioned blood doping other than Moser.

By the way Saronni or Moser very rarely rode the Tour and when they did, were absolutely ****. Was Conconi working with Saronni or is that another thing you just made up.

What about Didi Thurau who claimed that everyone doped, did he mention blood doping? So blood doping was happening for a full decade and no cyclist, DS, soigneur other than Moser ever mentioned it, ever!! That is one amazing piece of ometra right there.

Let me state this again, if Giles Delion could beat riders on Cortisone, amphetamines, testosterone, then yes, Greg LeMond could do the same.
Of course Saronni worked with Conconi. I have even educated you on your hero and which doctors he worked with, which you didn't know or did not want to know. So have a little bit of faith and don;t save it all for the man.

If there are few instances of cyclists confessing to blood doping is because there was a thing called Omerta that used to work pretty well, especially when nobody could be caught doing it. Steroids, cortisone, the other stuff, we all knew (except Lemond) that they were using it without them writing books or giving interviews. So hardly it was a disclosure. Just "I did it too". But blood doping? Tell me how could you catch a blood doper in the 80s?

Just I ask you as to the rest if you think it is logical that cyclists start using a method of doping only a few years back when it was invented more than 35 years ago. Do you think suddenly a doctor thinks " Oh yes, they can catch us with EPO but I have read in an old book that transfusions may be the closest thing. Let's try and see" :D

It does not make any sense whatsoever. But talking about sense to you lot is mission impossible, cause you are being dominated by faith, not reason.
 

Dr. Maserati

BANNED
Jun 19, 2009
13,250
1
0
Albatros said:
Of course Saronni worked with Conconi. I have even educated you on your hero and which doctors he worked with, which you didn't know or did not want to know. So have a little bit of faith and don;t save it all for the man.

If there are few instances of cyclists confessing to blood doping is because there was a thing called Omerta that used to work pretty well, especially when nobody could be caught doing it. Sterpoids, cortisone, the other stuff, we all knew (except Lemond) that they were using it without them writing books or giving interview. So hardly it was a disclosure. Just "I did it too". But blood doping? Tell me how could you catch a blood doper in the 80s?

Just I ask you as to the rest if you think it is logical that cyclists start using a method of doping only a few years back when it was invented more than 35 years ago. Do you think suddenly a doctor thinks " Oh yes, they can catch us with EPO but I have read in an old book that transfusions may be the closest thing. Let's try and see" :D

It does not make any sense whatsoever. But talking about sense to you lot is mission impossible, cause you are being dominated by faith, not reason.
Top 20 then.
 
Aug 10, 2010
6,286
0
0
Albatros said:
15% Move to 10%. It doesn't change the reasoning. Stick to the general idea instead of trying to dispute the details, which are just that, details in the big scheme of things.

And instead of telling me that the peloton were not blood doping in the 80's as if you were there, tell me one single reason for not blood doping in special events such as ....the Tour de France.

You won't give me one, cause there isn't any.

Great improvement, undetectable and not doing it? It is getting hilarious.
You are basing your argument around an "improvement" you cannot demonstrate.
 
Mar 17, 2009
1,863
0
0
Albatros said:
Conconi was blood doping every athlete he laid his hands on and he would not suggest to Saronni blood doping in 1984?

http://hemeroteca-paginas.mundodeportivo.com./EMD01/HEM/1984/06/16/MD19840616-025.pdf

Or to Indurain from 1986?

http://hemeroteca-paginas.mundodeportivo.com./EMD01/HEM/1991/07/29/MD19910729-011.pdf
If Saronni was blood-doping in 1984 what does it matter? It was not outlawed until 86.

Just because you state an opinion doesn't mean it is fact. It is pure unadulterated speculation, tinged with manure.
 
Albatros said:
Conconi was blood doping every athlete he laid his hands on and he would not suggest to Saronni blood doping in 1984?

http://hemeroteca-paginas.mundodeportivo.com./EMD01/HEM/1984/06/16/MD19840616-025.pdf

Or to Indurain from 1986?

http://hemeroteca-paginas.mundodeportivo.com./EMD01/HEM/1991/07/29/MD19910729-011.pdf
So that would explain why Saronni did very little career wise after the 84 season and why it took Indurain 4 seasons to become a Tour winner. There is some seriously flawed logic at play here.

Also you never showed what doctors LeMond worked with, you showed that Van Mol was the team doctor at ADR when LeMond was there and that Bellocq was the team doctor at GAN for 6 months in 93 when LeMond was very bad. As I said flawed logic.

Oh yeah, I forgot that Paul Kimmage was really practicing ometra when he published Rough Ride!!!
 
Aug 13, 2009
12,855
0
0
Albatros said:
15% Move to 10%. It doesn't change the reasoning. Stick to the general idea instead of trying to dispute the details, which are just that, details in the big scheme of things.

And instead of telling me that the peloton were not blood doping in the 80's as if you were there, tell me one single reason for not blood doping in special events such as ....the Tour de France.

You won't give me one, cause there isn't any.

Great improvement, undetectable and not doing it? It is getting hilarious.
Are you calling Conconi a liar? In his book he talked about how he doped Moser to the hour record but explained why it was too risky for GT's.

This has been covered many times. Storage, transport, and the idea at the time that the increase blood pressure would result in another Tom Simpson episode.

There is zero evidence of blood doping in GT's in the 80's. Let us know if you find any
 

Dr. Maserati

BANNED
Jun 19, 2009
13,250
1
0
Race Radio said:
Are you calling Conconi a liar? In his book he talked about how he doped Moser to the hour record but explained why it was too risky for GT's.

This has been covered many times. Storage, transport, and the idea at the time that the increase blood pressure would result in another Tom Simpson episode.

There is zero evidence of blood doping in GT's in the 80's. Let us know if you find any
Add to that the Donati report and resulting investigations in to doping in Italy showed different doping in different sports, yet no blood doping to road racers.
 
Aug 13, 2009
12,855
0
0
Dr. Maserati said:
Add to that the Donati report and resulting investigations in to doping in Italy showed different doping in different sports, yet no blood doping to road racers.
Also have to wonder why Conconi did not get his client Roche to blood dope? After all he had one of the greatest seasons of the 80's......If he did blood dope how did he get it past Roche's roommate Paul Kimmage?
 
Mar 19, 2011
334
0
0
pmcg76 said:
So that would explain why Saronni did very little career wise after the 84 season and why it took Indurain 4 seasons to become a Tour winner. There is some seriously flawed logic at play here.

Also you never showed what doctors LeMond worked with, you showed that Van Mol was the team doctor at ADR when LeMond was there and that Bellocq was the team doctor at GAN for 6 months in 93 when LeMond was very bad. As I said flawed logic.

Oh yeah, I forgot that Paul Kimmage was really practicing ometra when he published Rough Ride!!!
Not flawed logic at all. You seem to think that you dope, therefore you contend and or win, when there are many other factors at play. If I follow your logic Indurain never doped in the Tour of 1996. Do I think so? Of course not. Injuries, age, bad preparation play a factor too. I just can't stop laughing when someone says that the most evident reason for Lemond not doping in 1991 is that he didn't win. That is fanboyism to the extreme. There are other riders you know.

Regarding the doctors issue. Mr Lemond worked with three known doping doctors, or cycled for teams who had them as team doctors. And curiously enough he never reported a doping incident when after, and not while, working with PDM he reported that they tried to drug him up. How curious that his only ever complain giving names while being active came after he had been given the sack and had a contractual disagreement.

Obviously I don't expect you to connect the dots.

You guys are incapable as this is going into the faith dominion.
 
Albatros said:
Not flawed logic at all. You seem to think that you dope, therefore you contend and or win, when there are many other factors at play. If I follow your logic Indurain never doped in the Tour of 1996. Do I think so? Of course not. Injuries, age, bad preparation play a factor too. I just can't stop laughing when someone says that the most evident reason for Lemond not doping in 1991 is that he didn't win. That is fanboyism to the extreme. There are other riders you know.

Regarding the doctors issue. Mr Lemond worked with three known doping doctors, or cycled for teams who had them as team doctors. And curiously enough he never reported a doping incident when after, and not while, working with PDM he reported that they tried to drug him up. How curious that his only ever complain giving names while being active came after he had been given the sack and had a contractual disagreement.

Obviously I don't expect you to connect the dots.

You guys are incapable as this is going into the faith dominion.
Jeez this is rising to a new level of idiotic.

The PDM one has already been explained in this thread a few pages back.

You keep presenting fallacies that are so inconsistent its laughable. Lets keep following your logic here though.

So blood doping made Saronni worse and only took 5 seasons to pay dividends for Indurain even though EPO was incidentally becoming the drug of choice at the same time. No wonder everyone was blood doping in the 80s:rolleyes:

We are still then left with that premise that clean riders were beating guys who were blood doping without restriction during that era.

So LeMond was taking drugs of Bellocq before he died in 93, the primary benefits of those drugs were to make LeMond ride so bad he abandoned the Giro and was not even selected for the Tour.

You have exactly nada.
 
Albatros said:
Of course Saronni worked with Conconi. I have even educated you on your hero and which doctors he worked with, which you didn't know or did not want to know. So have a little bit of faith and don;t save it all for the man.

If there are few instances of cyclists confessing to blood doping is because there was a thing called Omerta that used to work pretty well, especially when nobody could be caught doing it. Steroids, cortisone, the other stuff, we all knew (except Lemond) that they were using it without them writing books or giving interviews. So hardly it was a disclosure. Just "I did it too". But blood doping? Tell me how could you catch a blood doper in the 80s?

Just I ask you as to the rest if you think it is logical that cyclists start using a method of doping only a few years back when it was invented more than 35 years ago. Do you think suddenly a doctor thinks " Oh yes, they can catch us with EPO but I have read in an old book that transfusions may be the closest thing. Let's try and see" :D

It does not make any sense whatsoever. But talking about sense to you lot is mission impossible, cause you are being dominated by faith, not reason.
So your contention is that back in the day all riders doped with stimulants, steroids and blood transfusions and that they talked about the stimulants and they talked about the steroids but almost to a man they were all silent when it came to any mention of blood doping?
 
Aug 10, 2010
6,286
0
0
Hugh Januss said:
So your contention is that back in the day all riders doped with stimulants, steroids and blood transfusions and that they talked about the stimulants and they talked about the steroids but almost to a man they were all silent when it came to any mention of blood doping?
That argument would convince a reasonable person.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY