Andrew McQuaid accusses LeMond

Page 8 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Feb 24, 2010
43
0
0
goober said:
I would love to see LeMond asked the following question "Greg, did you ever take any substances on the banned substance list while competing in cycling?". I would like to be there when they ask this question because if he answers No I would have some very interesting follow-up questions for Mr Lemond to help possibly refresh his memory...
Oh good, Goober's here with some extra-special super-secret information that only he knows but is unwilling to specify. Didn't you just say last week that Armstrong was gonna confess at the Livestrong benefit before the UT game, and had prepared the ground by telling his sponsors to drop him? Although bravo, your fishing this time did bring out some info from 131313 that is actually better explained and more detailed than anything you've ever provided. Why do you even bother coming on here?
 
Mar 26, 2009
342
0
0
gillan1969 said:
ps
check his (hilly) '82 l'avenir results out if you're in doubt about his natural talent.....world class from day 1
I'm not saying anything about Lemond, but to be fair, having loads of natural talent does not preclude doping to become even better. Jan Ullrich, for example.

I also don't think people should feel the need to defend Lemond or try to prove he didn't dope. I'm not aware of any evidence or even rumours that he did dope, so the onus is clearly all on those that think he doped to produce any shreds of evidence.
 
May 19, 2012
537
0
0
131313 said:
I'm willing to buy it, though personally I don't have a strong opinion nor do I really care much either way. I'm not being obtuse, it's just that I've heard it 2nd and 3rd hand, I don't personally know the guy who made the claim. To me there's a clear distinction between performance-enhancing drugs and recreational drugs. I don't partake in either, BTW, I'm just agnostic on recreational drug use. Still, it is of course a complete obfuscation, done for the reasons I listed before. The last refrain from the faithful: "but LeMond..".
I agree with you and understand that you heard the story. The others are using it to fit, as you say, a narrative, which like you I don't buy into.
 
goober said:
Yes and no. More than Coke and plenty of others saw use of banned substances while 'not on the bike competing' lol
You claim recreational drug use. Shocking! Names, dates and places please. No more vague references. Names, dates and places or don't bother posting.

Some coke use from the 80's isn't going to payout at Wonderboy's office. It was a very common recreational drug at the time.
 
Mar 26, 2009
342
0
0
DirtyWorks said:
You claim recreational drug use. Shocking! Names, dates and places please. No more vague references. Names, dates and places or don't bother posting.

Some coke use from the 80's isn't going to payout at Wonderboy's office. It was a very common recreational drug at the time.
I don't know if Lemond did some out-of-competition coke in the 80s or not, nor does it matter to me. It's not cheating, so has no relevance for the bike race itself. I didn't care when Boonen was doing coke and "hanging out" with some surprisingly young women, nor did I care when Ullrich was busted for ectasy after crashing his car into a bike rack. Not cheating, affecting their performance negatively, if anything, so it's nothing more than tabloid gossip for our own amusement.
 
Feb 11, 2010
25
0
0
Shades Of Gray, Not The Book, But Doping Through The Decades

After reading throught his thread, the similarities between past Armstrong defenders and present Lemond defenders are uncannny. V0 2 max numbers anyone? Humans have the capacity to do great things. They can also be *** and that is were Lemond and Lance are true equals. Admire either if it pleases you but understand when some have had it with both.
I say leave room in your belief in men to be disappointed, if there is a chance of wrong doing there are odds in both directions. If there is uncertanty do not speak with such conviction.
I'm a cyclist and an auto enthusiast as well. Sometimes tunnel vision can develope when you talk cars with cars guys, "we need more manual shift performance cars!", even though most car buyers choose mundane tin boxes. And on bike boards we obsess over trinkets to hang on our bikes that cost way too much when out of the tunnel the majority of the world thinks three hundred dollars is too much to pay for a whole bike.
To the masses Pro Cycling looks like a bad joke. Leaving race results empty for years leaves fans empty, the inability to award the win to another for years because the rest of the field was tainted is an indictment on the sport in itself, to have riders test positve even this year, wow, forgive the tired soul who doesn't bow to any who rose through the Lance years or came before his time. To those outside the tunnel the whole sport is broken and there is a mark on all houses.
Football, Baseball, Tennis, Track And Field and many more disciplines have the same problem but they control the PR to save their sport. This is wrong of course, an omerta of their own, but it allows them to continue. Cycling is trying to raise the bar, and don't kid yourself here, they don't want to, they have to because they have screwed this up for decades even when doping was widely exposed. It is such a huge farce, how many cycling mags have I got with their teams and riders and now it's like that Dallas shower episode, "it was all a bad dream, were all good now, no problems, been clean for years".
If "we're totally clean now" is Pro Cylings mantra and they really move to try and make cycling that way, a clean break from all of the past is best. Call the whole thing something else, the races too, so there is no link with the past.
Lemond has a right to say whatever he wants but he should be left out of the new age of cycling. He is just trying to get a piece of the carcass like the rest. A shame lose it's history, but most of it is a lie anyway and none of them have earned our trust.
 
Mar 17, 2009
1,863
0
0
Albatros said:
Delgado won the Tour of 1988 and Indurain in 1994. Hinault's is speculation.

None tested positive according to UCI rules, nobody has come to the fore accusing them of doping. Aren't those the rules for considering a rider clean?

By the way, if you think they were dopers, can you think of another Tour de France winner being clean other than Lemond?

If the answer is not, how would you explain such anomaly?
Lemond, Evans & Wiggins.

With regard to the bolded part - that just means they weren't caught. Delgado was able to exploit a loophole due to the UCI being incompetent, having not updated their list. Technically Delgado was within the rules, in reality we all know he was doping and got off.

Your argument for Lemond doping is that he beat dopers, despite not one single shred of evidence or even a rumour. Yet as soon as this is debunked you offer up Delgado & Indurain.

Ask yourself this, if Lemond had doped why is it that ,despite at least 11 years of his having an overt anti-doping stance, not one single person has come out of the woodwork and questioned it? He has set himself up as a target for any one of the thousands of people he came into contact with during his career to call him out publicly. Despite financial inducements from Armstrong not a dickeybird, nada, nothing.
 
Perhaps we owe it to ourselves to make a list of those who were willing to fabricate unfounded accusations of doping at LeMond's address?

- Pretty sure Lance hinted such, and rumors are he was willing to pay other to confirm
- Andrew McQuaid

More?
 
May 26, 2010
28,144
2
0
Burnette said:
After reading throught his thread, the similarities between past Armstrong defenders and present Lemond defenders are uncannny. V0 2 max numbers anyone? Humans have the capacity to do great things. They can also be *** and that is were Lemond and Lance are true equals. Admire either if it pleases you but understand when some have had it with both.
I say leave room in your belief in men to be disappointed, if there is a chance of wrong doing there are odds in both directions. If there is uncertanty do not speak with such conviction.
I'm a cyclist and an auto enthusiast as well. Sometimes tunnel vision can develope when you talk cars with cars guys, "we need more manual shift performance cars!", even though most car buyers choose mundane tin boxes. And on bike boards we obsess over trinkets to hang on our bikes that cost way too much when out of the tunnel the majority of the world thinks three hundred dollars is too much to pay for a whole bike.
To the masses Pro Cycling looks like a bad joke. Leaving race results empty for years leaves fans empty, the inability to award the win to another for years because the rest of the field was tainted is an indictment on the sport in itself, to have riders test positve even this year, wow, forgive the tired soul who doesn't bow to any who rose through the Lance years or came before his time. To those outside the tunnel the whole sport is broken and there is a mark on all houses.
Football, Baseball, Tennis, Track And Field and many more disciplines have the same problem but they control the PR to save their sport. This is wrong of course, an omerta of their own, but it allows them to continue. Cycling is trying to raise the bar, and don't kid yourself here, they don't want to, they have to because they have screwed this up for decades even when doping was widely exposed. It is such a huge farce, how many cycling mags have I got with their teams and riders and now it's like that Dallas shower episode, "it was all a bad dream, were all good now, no problems, been clean for years".
If "we're totally clean now" is Pro Cylings mantra and they really move to try and make cycling that way, a clean break from all of the past is best. Call the whole thing something else, the races too, so there is no link with the past.
Lemond has a right to say whatever he wants but he should be left out of the new age of cycling. He is just trying to get a piece of the carcass like the rest. A shame lose it's history, but most of it is a lie anyway and none of them have earned our trust.
All that and no evidence of nothing on LeMond!

Gonna say it again. Armstrong has spent years trying prove LeMond's dopeing and when you think of the success he had deflecting his own doping till recently from most of the world you would expect him to have been successfull in outing LeMond.

So lets here something concrete like

A Bestsy figure who heard him admit
A Emma O'Reilly who collected, delivered dope, covered needle marks and heard the TUE story.
A Mike Anderson
His Doctor banned from the sport and payments to said Doctor
His team mates giving evidence
His mechanic giving evidence.

Most of this evidence was ignored by Armstrong fanboys as proof of Armstrong being a doper.

So what you got on LeMond.

Please bear in mind this is the second thread on LeMond and no one has posted anything yet.
 
Mar 19, 2011
334
0
0
ultimobici said:
Lemond, Evans & Wiggins.

With regard to the bolded part - that just means they weren't caught. Delgado was able to exploit a loophole due to the UCI being incompetent, having not updated their list. Technically Delgado was within the rules, in reality we all know he was doping and got off.

Your argument for Lemond doping is that he beat dopers, despite not one single shred of evidence or even a rumour. Yet as soon as this is debunked you offer up Delgado & Indurain.

Ask yourself this, if Lemond had doped why is it that ,despite at least 11 years of his having an overt anti-doping stance, not one single person has come out of the woodwork and questioned it? He has set himself up as a target for any one of the thousands of people he came into contact with during his career to call him out publicly. Despite financial inducements from Armstrong not a dickeybird, nada, nothing.
That is a strong argument, but mine is stronger: it is impossible to win the Tour de France without doping. More than 100 years of happening and I stand by it.

By the way, how curious that the only three clean riders are from the English speaking world. It is not coincidence in my opinion. Not that I believe it, of course.

By the way, I heard about it many times, but can you provide a link from a reputable source that Armstrong offered money to expose Lemond?
 
Albatros said:
That is a strong argument, but mine is stronger: it is impossible to win the Tour de France without doping. More than 100 years of happening and I stand by it.

By the way, how curious that the only three clean riders are from the English speaking world. It is not coincidence in my opinion. Not that I believe it, of course.

By the way, I heard about it many times, but can you provide a link from a reputable source that Armstrong offered money to expose Lemond?
While your argument is specious, why don't you qualify it with statistical significance. At this point, your argument appears valid at a 97% confidence level. That is a pretty strong argument. LeMond could have been clean, and you would still have solid statistical support for your opinion.

Thus, our argument is actually stronger as it is in line with statistical expectations even if you are correct.

Next, please define what you consider to be a reputable source.

As it is more than obvious the next thing you will do is argue about that.

You may have heard the term before, and not suggesting that I am accusing you of it, but you may want to review your posts for potential criticism regarding trolling.

Dave.
 
Jun 18, 2009
1,225
1
0
Albatros said:
That is a strong argument, but mine is stronger: it is impossible to win the Tour de France without doping. More than 100 years of happening and I stand by it.

By the way, how curious that the only three clean riders are from the English speaking world. It is not coincidence in my opinion. Not that I believe it, of course.

By the way, I heard about it many times, but can you provide a link from a reputable source that Armstrong offered money to expose Lemond?
Bartoli was doping? never heard that one before...
 
Mar 19, 2011
334
0
0
D-Queued said:
While your argument is specious, why don't you qualify it with statistical significance. At this point, your argument appears valid at a 97% confidence level. That is a pretty strong argument. LeMond could have been clean, and you would still have solid statistical support for your opinion.

Thus, our argument is actually stronger as it is in line with statistical expectations even if you are correct.

Next, please define what you consider to be a reputable source.

As it is more than obvious the next thing you will do is argue about that.

You may have heard the term before, and not suggesting that I am accusing you of it, but you may want to review your posts for potential criticism regarding trolling.

Dave.
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.
 
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.
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.
 
Oct 30, 2012
10
0
0
Albatros said:
That is a strong argument, but mine is stronger: it is impossible to win the Tour de France without doping. More than 100 years of happening and I stand by it.
At least this guy agrees with Your assertion.

Professor Charles E. Yesalis : http://www.hhdev.psu.edu/hpa/faculty/emeritus/yesalis

Youtube - NatGeo - Science of Anabolic Steroids. Speaks at 32:10.

Link : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ONSF_HPGx-Q&noredirect=1

Personally I am of the opinion. No he did not dope. I would say that is ironclad.
 
May 25, 2010
149
0
0
OK please

Christ, I read the whole thread.

All I want to know is does Lemond know about the tweet????

Maybe Kimmage could give him a good lawyer name in Ireland.
 
Burnette said:
After reading throught his thread, the similarities between past Armstrong defenders and present Lemond defenders are uncannny. V0 2 max numbers anyone? Humans have the capacity to do great things. They can also be *** and that is were Lemond and Lance are true equals. Admire either if it pleases you but understand when some have had it with both.
Except that LeMond is not nor has ever been a "***". He is a straight talker who says what is on his mind, he can be prickly sometimes but he is honest and generally respects others. Lance not so much. To try to characterize them as being equal *** just negates the rest of your argument completely.
Try again.
 
Jun 18, 2012
90
0
0
tofino said:
Christ, I read the whole thread.

All I want to know is does Lemond know about the tweet????

Maybe Kimmage could give him a good lawyer name in Ireland.
I should think he probably does know. His son Scott is on twitter and he retweeted this on the 25th ;

Farrell ‏@FarrellRock
In 1989 I saw @SimoneLeMond 's dad @GregLemond show how great cycling could be. In 2012 I'm watching @andrewmcquaid and his dad poison it.
 
Oct 4, 2011
905
0
0
Northern rider said:
I should think he probably does know. His son Scott is on twitter and he retweeted this on the 25th ;

Farrell ‏@FarrellRock
In 1989 I saw @SimoneLeMond 's dad @GregLemond show how great cycling could be. In 2012 I'm watching @andrewmcquaid and his dad poison it.
That gave me a much needed laugh, how true.
 
tofino said:
Christ, I read the whole thread.

All I want to know is does Lemond know about the tweet????

Maybe Kimmage could give him a good lawyer name in Ireland.
haha!! Exactly. I estimate Lemond is not interested in bending down to McQuaid's level. Still, it would be fun to watch, but an expensive hobby for Lemond.

But noooo. We have to endure utterly ridiculous attempts to label Lemond a doper. New posters spewing the same vague junk and no specifics.

Names, dates, and drugs **in the appropriate thread** would be a great start. I'm open to the idea. Doping wasn't invented with EPO after all. But the evidence overwhelmingly suggests Lemond was not a raging dope fiend like Wonderboy.
 
DirtyWorks said:
You claim recreational drug use. Shocking! Names, dates and places please. No more vague references. Names, dates and places or don't bother posting.Some coke use from the 80's isn't going to payout at Wonderboy's office. It was a very common recreational drug at the time.
You know he'll never provide any. Sadly, he'll continue posting nonsensical, unsubstantiated drivel here, oh goody.
 
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.
Problem is Ahab, you haven't provided ONE SHRED OF EVIDENCE, STATISTICS, PROOF, NADA to back up ANYTHING you keep going on about.

Do you even read what you post, or do you have serious reading comprehension problems, and a slight case of mental retardation? You've been asked by no less than a half a dozen people to provide ANY such "proof/evidence" that "Lemond doped too", and you have yet to provide it, what is your hold up?

I've also asked you(on no less than 4 occasions) to please provide ANY credible proof that Hinault was doping too as you've shouted from the rooftops here, and yet you've failed to do so.

You then,(and I had to laugh when reading it) tried to deflect any sort of credibility you've had up to this point, by asking for someone else to provide information on something, you can't seem to provide information on either yourself. Just so we're clear.

I don't "get" why it's so difficult for you to keep blabbering on about something, you have no first hand knowledge of, nor provided any proof of.

I've asked you(now for the 3rd time) to please provide ANY credible proof you were actually a pro rider yourself, since you went off about being one in some other thread, can you please provide: dates/times/specifics,stats/etc for your time as a racer. Can you also please provide any first hand knowledge of ANY interactions you, your dog, or goldfish have had with Lemond?


He said, and I repeat it for the upteen time, that using steroids would help TREMENDOUSLY in a three week race.

Ironic, since we'[ve asked you 'for the umpteenth time" to please provide any credible "Lemond doped too" info, and you've failed from the getgo to do so, so why would you expect anyone here to take even 1 thing you've said to be the least bit credible?

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.
And YOU please explain how you've come to this conclusion? please provide stats/dates/times/scientific evidenc e backing up your claim?


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.
AGAIN Corky, please provide said proof any of which you're saying here, is the least bit factual?
And how did Lemond win in 1990? Not EPO by then? Another miracle. Cyclist lagging 3 years from other endurance sports.

AGAIN, please provide said proof to back up your claims...or, as another poster mentioned :STFU and STOP POSTING.


YOU keep burying yourself the second you open your trap and spew out this nonsense. You have ZERO credibility here. I'm amazed people still even pay the least bit attention to you.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS