Andrew McQuaid accusses LeMond

Page 16 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Dr. Maserati said:
No need to apologize to me - it was a genuine question because I thought there may have been something in Rough Ride that I had forgotten.

I took the below as an indication that you had, no problem if it wasn't.


When I read Rough Ride the first time I remember very carefully trying to work out which riders doped - the only one PK outed was Chappuis and there was a n ambiguous piece about Claveyrolat, but that was about it.
Seems to me that he took great pains not to mention anyone. Aside from those you mentioned, he spoke about the Delgado positive that was turned into a negative.
Apparently the masking agent used by Delgado was six month's shy of being introduced into the UCI's anti-doping policy. Ergo, he did not dope.
Kimmage was not impressed.
 
Jun 10, 2009
606
0
0
D-Queued said:
Pre-empting the fanboys, let me predict the response:

It is easy. You take the blood, see, and some kind of a hose, see, and a needle, see, and you hook it all up and poke the guy.

As simply stupid as that is, if they even get things in that order, it would be impressive.

*In the mid '80s, the standard for how to store frozen RBC:

http://www.annualreviews.org/doi/abs/10.1146/annurev.me.36.020185.002435?journalCode=med

(reference is a 1985 paper from Mass General, arguably the finest hospital in the world)

Frozen blood cells typically are stored at -85 C in frozen freezers, in the vapor over liquid nitrogen, or in liquid nitrogen itself (-196 C).

FWIW, Liquid Nitrogen access/handling is a controlled process.

Dave.
In your attempt to pre-empt the fanboys, you're trying to make the period out to be the dark ages. You are aware you're talking about the mid-late 1980s right? I don't generally think of myself as old but I remember the '80s (including some visits to France), and those memories don't include frequent power cuts or unreliable refrigeration.

Techniques for safe blood transfusion date from the early 20th century (and even then the primary safety aspect doesn't apply for autologous transfusion).
Standards for best practice medical storage of blood or other products bear little resemblance to "what you can get away with most of the time", let alone the risks uninformed uneducated sportspeople might take. Plenty of stories in the vernacular about the outcomes of dodgy transfusions, suggesting those risks really were taken.

Storage of liquid nitrogen is actually trivial. You can plunge your hand into a dewar full of liquid nitrogen (for example to retrieve the eppendorf tube of extracted DNA sample that slipped out of your honours student's forceps) and pull it out unscathed. I don't know how "restricted" you think access is now, nor do I know the restrictions in France in the '80s ('lax or nonexistent' is my guess), but it would have been trivial to 'borrow' from any of the labs I have worked in (no, I didn't steal that or anything else, but I have seen a professor spike the punch at a housewarming party for one of his PhD students from a bottle of HPLC grade ethanol). And of course the Cecchinis, Ferraris and Conconis and their anglophone equivalents would have had unfettered legitimate access anyway.

Note I'm not saying "blood doping happened in the '80s", let alone by LeMond, only that asserting it was beyond the capability of '80s technology is ludicrous.
 
dsut4392 said:
In your attempt to pre-empt the fanboys, you're trying to make the period out to be the dark ages. You are aware you're talking about the mid-late 1980s right? I don't generally think of myself as old but I remember the '80s (including some visits to France), and those memories don't include frequent power cuts or unreliable refrigeration.

Techniques for safe blood transfusion date from the early 20th century (and even then the primary safety aspect doesn't apply for autologous transfusion).
Standards for best practice medical storage of blood or other products bear little resemblance to "what you can get away with most of the time", let alone the risks uninformed uneducated sportspeople might take. Plenty of stories in the vernacular about the outcomes of dodgy transfusions, suggesting those risks really were taken.

Storage of liquid nitrogen is actually trivial. You can plunge your hand into a dewar full of liquid nitrogen (for example to retrieve the eppendorf tube of extracted DNA sample that slipped out of your honours student's forceps) and pull it out unscathed. I don't know how "restricted" you think access is now, nor do I know the restrictions in France in the '80s ('lax or nonexistent' is my guess), but it would have been trivial to 'borrow' from any of the labs I have worked in (no, I didn't steal that or anything else, but I have seen a professor spike the punch at a housewarming party for one of his PhD students from a bottle of HPLC grade ethanol). And of course the Cecchinis, Ferraris and Conconis and their anglophone equivalents would have had unfettered legitimate access anyway.

Note I'm not saying "blood doping happened in the '80s", let alone by LeMond, only that asserting it was beyond the capability of '80s technology is ludicrous.
It is not whether the capability was there, it is the practical application of what technology was available.

Even in the modern era of the 21st century, the sophisticated blood dopers were using National blood storage facilities (e.g. Fuentes / Operacion Puerto).

The long term storage is critical for practical application in stage races. Especially if your focus isn't so focused.

You have to extract your blood with sufficient time to recover. Recovery aids like EPO were not available.

If you extract with sufficient time to recover, then you have to store it, retrieve it, etc.

Fooling around with liquid nitrogen, or in your case HPLC grade ethanol, is one thing. But, you need regularly, assured access. That is another.

Dave.
 
pmcg76 said:
I have actually been defending LeMond but seriously, you actually come across as being as defensive as any of the worst Armstrong fans.

I see people are still trying to claim blood doping was being used in ProCycling during the 80's so I decided to make a list.

On this list are rider's, soigneurs or others who have admitted or talked about doping in their career's. All were involved in pro cycling at some point in the 80s. To help illustrate, I will also name their teams during that period.

Paul Kimmage (RMO, Fagor)
Bjarne Riis (Roland, Lucas, Toshiba, Systeme-u)
Willy Voet (SEM, Skil, RMO)
Joe Parkin (TVM, Eurotop, Humo, Tulip)
Peter Winnen (Ijsoberke, Capri-Sonne, Panasonic)
Steven Rooks (SEM, Panasonic, PDM)
Allan Peiper (Peugeot, Panasonic)
Didi Thurau (Hoonved, Del Tongo, Hitachi, Brianzoli, Roland)
Jesper Skibby (Roland, TVM)
Brian Holm (Roland, Sigma-Histor)
Johan Van der Velde (Raleigh, Metauromobili, Panasonic, Gis, TVM)
Dag-Erik Pedersen (Bianchi, Murella, Ariostea, PDM)
Paul Watson (ANC, Hitachi)
Daryl Webster (PMS-Dawes, Teka)
Per Pedersen (RMO, BH)
Soren Lilholt (Systeme-U, Histor)
Bo-Andre Namtvedt (ADR)
Thorjus Larsen (ADR)
Colin Sturgess (ADR)
Maarten Ducrot (Kwantum, Superconfex, Domex, TVM)
Gert-Jan Theunisse (Panasonic, PDM)
Ludo De keulenaar (Raleigh, Panasonic, TVM, Buckler)
Eddy Planckaert (Splendor, Panasonic, ADR)
Mathieu Hermans (SEAT-Orbea, Caja Rural, SEUR)
Jeff D'Hont (Lucas)
Rolf Jaermann (Isotonic, Frank-Magniflex)
Giles Delion (Weinmann, Helvetia)
Laurent Fignon (Renault, Systeme-U)
Pierre-Henri Mentheour (Miko, Coop, La Redoute, Renault)
Andre Chappuis (SEM, Systeme-u, RMO)

Please feel free to add any others I missed.

This is a varied list of riders covering a large cross-section of teams. Not one of them EVER, EVER mentioned blood doping during that era. The earliest mention's of EPO usage are 89 and that seemed a rarity.

So either all these guys who have talked about doping(many admitting to using) are either part of some grand conspiracy to hide blood doping in the 80s or alternatively, blood doping was not actually used in Euro pro cycling during the 80s. I think I know which version has more traction.
I've never said i didn't think it didn't happen in the 80s, but I DID say that Lemond has never doped, regardless of what type of passages/hearsay/etc has been posted here. If he did it would've come out by now. So no, Lemond was never a part of any doping group/list/etc.

I noticed BOTH Lemond and Hinault's names are not listed, as both have been accused of doping by a few folks here, w/o any credible evidence suggesting they did.

Difference between me and an LA supporter/fan is: Lemond didn't get caught doping, nor did he lie about it for years. So yeah, I do feel as if I need to stand up for him after years of people pointing fingers at everyone else BUT Armstrong. It's nice to see GL vindicated. Also, I would just like to see folks who keep going on and on about GL supposedly doping, to post said proof once and for all, but they cannot.
 
pmcg76 said:
He got the interview because he was a good writer which has proved to be the case in subsequent years. Kimmage clearly had a talent for it. It wasn't because he was anti-doping or anything , technically speaking he was a doper himself at the time even though I don't view him as such. He didn't edit his comments at all, he just waxed lyrical about them.

I don't think Kimmage has ever come out and said Roche, Kelly or Earley were doping during their career's.
He's also never come out and said Lemond doped, but that doesn't matter to that poster(the delgados), just that he(Kimmage) posted his own opinion in some book, automatically means Greg doped. That's what he's been claiming for a while.
 
Dr. Maserati said:
This is a thread about LeMond.
Can you point out exactly what relevance there is in Rough Ride? Your only point (ages back) was that PK said all the top tier doped, you couldn't show where that was and it has since been shown in a more recent interview that even if he had said that he has clarified it.
Thank you...someone else gets it. I asked him to post the proof, and he starts rattling off passages in some book, and then comes back and says "well, erm ah, he never...erm uh said Lemond doped". But then goes on at length trying to claim that there could be some questions about it & wants me to go read some book.

As I stated to Mr. The Delgados, I/we don't need to "go back and read passages" from a book, HE'S trying to prove to us that Lemond doped, and HE needs to provide said proof, not random passages, that still haven't shown up yet, factual proof to further his case. For some reason, he refuses to do that.
 
86TDFWinner said:
Thank you...someone else gets it. I asked him to post the proof, and he starts rattling off passages in some book, and then comes back and says "well, erm ah, he never...erm uh said Lemond doped". But then goes on at length trying to claim that there could be some questions about it & wants me to go read some book.

As I stated to Mr. The Delgados, I/we don't need to "go back and read passages" from a book, HE'S trying to prove to us that Lemond doped, and HE needs to provide said proof, not random passages, that still haven't shown up yet, factual proof to further his case. For some reason, he refuses to do that.
Oh for gawd sake. This is absurd.
I'm not trying to prove that Lemond doped. That's an impossible task.
Nor have I claimed that Kimmage thought Lemond doped.
Take it easy.
 
the delgados said:
Oh for gawd sake. This is absurd.
I'm not trying to prove that Lemond doped. That's an impossible task.
Nor have I claimed that Kimmage thought Lemond doped.
.
Ah, but you actually DID claim that Kimmage claimed in some book that he questioned whether or not GL doped , and now you claim you didn't say it?(let me help you here, page 23, post #226, you CLEARLY state that Kimmage insinuates that "the top tier riders are on more than bread and water",or something to that effect, see for yourself YOU posted it) you then cited some book passages as some sort of proof people doped. Im the second to point it out to you. Denial, a trait you've learned from Wonderboy.
 
Nov 3, 2012
29
0
0
No Evidence

There is no FACTUAL EVIDENCE in existence to support the contention that Greg Lemond used performance enhancing drugs at any stage of his career. Now that is a fact.
 
Scorpius said:
There is no FACTUAL EVIDENCE in existence to support the contention that Greg Lemond used performance enhancing drugs at any stage of his career. Now that is a fact.
there is no evidence at all of any kind, factual, circumstantial, non analytical, whispers, innuendo. Nada. Nothing. Now THAT is a fact
 
Nov 3, 2012
29
0
0
sittingbison said:
there is no evidence at all of any kind, factual, circumstantial, non analytical, whispers, innuendo. Nada. Nothing. Now THAT is a fact
Now that is without question, emphatically, unequivocally and absolutely a FACT. In fact Lemond has been demonstrably and incontrovertibly vindicated. That is also a FACT.
 
Aug 3, 2009
3,217
1
0
Scorpius said:
Now that is without question, emphatically, unequivocally and absolutely a FACT. In fact Lemond has been demonstrably and incontrovertibly vindicated. That is also a FACT.
Word......
 
Aug 27, 2012
1,436
0
0
Cimacoppi49 said:
That's because Lemond was a gentleman and was liked by virtually everyone he rode with, the exception being his falling out with Hinault. His mechanic Julien deVries fed a lot of information about Armstrong and USPS to Lemond over the years. Word has it that dV was disgusted by the Lance/Johan show, but played ball, as most did at the time, because the pay was good. I wonder what dV might be willing to swear to now and what he knows. Perhaps he and Lemond have already had a talk.:D
Cima I just reads your post. So much material here in the clinic...

Didn't know Julien was Greg's mechanic before he spannered for Lance/Johan.

That would make him a pretty critical "witness".

I understand he has become reluctant to talk (in the media) of late.

Indeed, would be great to get his testimony somehow. Also augurs well for the Kimmage case.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS