Andrew McQuaid accusses LeMond

Page 9 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
The similarity between the Lemond defenders and those who went to war for Armstrong is uncanny.
Good for nothing trolls who can't recognize a VO2 max if it hit them in the face, etc, etc. and so on and so forth...
Personally, I can't say for certain if Lemond doped. Same goes for Armstrong. Direct evidence aside, I was pretty damn sure that Armstrong was doped from day one.
Knowledge of history and PR spin is a good starting point for gauging the authenticity of a performance.
A recent re-reading of A Rough Ride makes it very hard for me to believe that Lemond rode on bread and water.
But this is my opinion only. I could be wrong. Given the history of the Tour, and knowing what went on during Lemond's era, I don't think it's fair to attack anyone for stating an opinion or asking a questions.
 
May 18, 2009
3,758
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.
Maybe you should alert the doping docs to stop having their riders take steroids. What a bunch of idiots. :rolleyes:

Of course it must be that way else we soil the cape of Superman.

Anyway, can't we just all get along? Let's just think about the happy times and bury all of this animosity. As an olive branch, I present GL best buds with LA before he knew LA's VO2 numbers and before LA's third win.

 
Jun 18, 2009
1,225
1
0
ChrisE said:
Of course it must be that way else we soil the cape of Superman.
The classic strawman. LeMond is human, just like everyone else, faults and all. He was also a phenomenal talent and the evidence (or lack thereof) makes it appear pretty likely that he wasn't using peds. That makes him pretty unique, as does the fact that the spoke up about The Fraud, to his own peril

ChrisE said:
Anyway, can't we just all get along? Let's just think about the happy times and bury all of this animosity. As an olive branch, I present GL best buds with LA before he knew LA's VO2 numbers and before LA's third win.
And of course, the requisite "he's bitter because he's not the greatest US Tour rider" line.

Anyway, carry on.
 
the delgados said:
The similarity between the Lemond defenders and those who went to war for Armstrong is uncanny.
Good for nothing trolls who can't recognize a VO2 max if it hit them in the face, etc, etc. and so on and so forth...
Personally, I can't say for certain if Lemond doped. Same goes for Armstrong. Direct evidence aside, I was pretty damn sure that Armstrong was doped from day one.
Knowledge of history and PR spin is a good starting point for gauging the authenticity of a performance.
A recent re-reading of A Rough Ride makes it very hard for me to believe that Lemond rode on bread and water.
But this is my opinion only. I could be wrong. Given the history of the Tour, and knowing what went on during Lemond's era, I don't think it's fair to attack anyone for stating an opinion or asking a questions.
1. LeMond Defenders

Please accept that if there is even a shred of evidence, I will be all over LeMond. He does not get a free pass.

Please also avoid blanket criticisms of those you feel guilty of blanket indictments. Every single poster has their own opinion and evidence upon which that is based.

2. Good for nothing trolls who can't recognize a VO2 max

I have a pretty good idea what a VO2Max is. Are you calling me, and all others that have questioned the criticism of LeMond a troll? Seems a bit of an overstatement.

3. Knowledge of History and PR Spin

Oddly, those that seem to be most ignorant of history are the overzealous Armstrong supporters that want to wave a magic wand and create a history of Lemond's doping.

One might also observe that Armstrong is much better at PR spin than Greg has demonstrated. (Sorry Greg)

4. Stating an opinion or asking questions

Everyone has their own opinion. Questions are welcome.

However, mounting a directed negative PR campaign that masquerades behind transparent claims of personal opinion is another thing.

These campaigners should be dealt with by at least the same zeal and finality as was previously extended to those with opinions and questions about Armstrong's doping.

That seems fair, doesn't it?

In other words, they will be immediately warned and banned with extreme prejudice.

Dave.
 
ChrisE said:
...

Anyway, can't we just all get along? Let's just think about the happy times and bury all of this animosity. As an olive branch, I present GL best buds with LA before he knew LA's VO2 numbers and before LA's third win.

I guess that really was a fairy tale.

Dave.
 
May 18, 2009
3,758
0
0
131313 said:
The classic strawman. LeMond is human, just like everyone else, faults and all. He was also a phenomenal talent and the evidence (or lack thereof) makes it appear pretty likely that he wasn't using peds. That makes him pretty unique, as does the fact that the spoke up about The Fraud, to his own peril



And of course, the requisite "he's bitter because he's not the greatest US Tour rider" line.

Anyway, carry on.
Hey man this whole thing confuses me because all of his competitors took drugs, and drug use was prevalent in cycling back to Anquetil. Yet, GL is the shining light in the fog for clean cycling. Even DQ is stating roids have no benefit, and I assume no other PEDs pre-EPO did either, or was GL just so awesome he swatted away doped cyclists like King Kong swatting a helicopter?

As I stated, those cyclists until 1991 (or is it 92, after Hampsten starting lagging....the EPO timeline moves all over the calendar depending on what hero we are talking about) were such rubes for taking useless stuff and risking detection, however small that chance was, all for no benefit! Yes, what a bunch of assclowns!

Admittedly, no more evidence than that.

Bitter? Of course not. I am just trying to bring cheer to this thread. BTW, is there a link on when GL found out about LA's VO2 numbers? Please don't tell me it was July 21, 2001. Thanks.
 
ChrisE said:
Hey man this whole thing confuses me because all of his competitors took drugs, and drug use was prevalent in cycling back to Anquetil. Yet, GL is the shining light in the fog for clean cycling. Even DQ is stating roids have no benefit, and I assume no other PEDs pre-EPO did either, or was GL just so awesome he swatted away doped cyclists like King Kong swatting a helicopter?

As I stated, those cyclists until 1991 (or is it 92, after Hampsten starting lagging....the EPO timeline moves all over the calendar depending on what hero we are talking about) were such rubes for taking useless stuff and risking detection, however small that chance was, all for no benefit! Yes, what a bunch of assclowns!

Admittedly, no more evidence than that.

Bitter? Of course not. I am just trying to bring cheer to this thread. BTW, is there a link on when GL found out about LA's VO2 numbers? Please don't tell me it was July 21, 2001. Thanks.
You need to read a bit more carefully than that.

Dave.
 
ChrisE said:
Hey man this whole thing confuses me because all of his competitors took drugs, and drug use was prevalent in cycling back to Anquetil. Yet, GL is the shining light in the fog for clean cycling. Even DQ is stating roids have no benefit, and I assume no other PEDs pre-EPO did either, or was GL just so awesome he swatted away doped cyclists like King Kong swatting a helicopter?
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".

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.
 
I think its understandable that many people would have doubts about LeMond being clean but the primary reason I give him the benefit of the doubt is there are possible anomalies that give credence to clean riders beating dopers in the pre EPO era.

On this board there are two active and open poster's who were pros in Europe during that era. I asked one of them directly about the opinions of pro cyclists of that era on the reputation of the Weinmann/Helvetia team of Paul Koechli which was regarded as being a clean team during the same period 88-92. (Koechli had a reputation as being anti-doping and had a no-needles policy on his team). The response of the former pro is visible for all to see.

The response provided confirmed that this view of Koechli's team being clean was indeed accurate. This was backed up by the poster stating that he was in fact friends with a member of that team who said it was a fantastic team to be in.

One of their main riders was Steve Bauer who finished 4th in the 88 Tour and who like LeMond has a reputation as a clean rider. Bauer actually followed Koechli from La Vie Claire/Toshiba to the Weinmann team.

Another member of the team was Giles Delion who had a reputation as being outspoken on doping long before it became fashionable. In the 1990 season Delion had a fantastic set of results.

1st Tour of Lombardy
3rd Milan-San Remo
3rd Tirreno-Adriatico
2nd Criterium International
5th overall World Cup
11th Dauphine Libere
2nd Giro del Emilia
2nd Giro de Lazio
3rd Milan-Turin
4th Coppa Placci
9th GP Zurich

In his first Tour de France, Delion finished 15th overall and won the white jersey as best young rider. He was 23 at the time. Delion's main weakness was the TT where he usually conceded a lot of time. Looking at these results it is amazing to realise that Delion was competitive throughout the season from March to October.

To achieve these results, Delion and Bauer had to beat dopers, a lot of dopers but they did and not just these riders but the other riders on the Helvetia team who had good results also. It is sad to think that Delion lost his career due to ill-health and the rise EPO. It would have been great to see how far he could have went.

When I look at these guys' results, I simply think is it much of a stretch to believe a slightly more talented clean rider could actually win the Tour. Of course not and that is why LeMond gets the benefit of the doubt considering the lack of any other credible evidence.

Of course this will be all lost on those who don't even want to entertain that possibility.
 

martinvickers

BANNED
Oct 15, 2012
4,903
0
0
I'm sorry but that's balderdash.

We must first accept the facts, before we start the guesswork - and a key fact with cycling and other endurance sports was that EPO was a gamechanger - prior to it, the difference made by many drugs like amphetimines was significant, but not always insurmountable - nor frankly, did the pre EPO dopers always back up their doping with the kind of background work that would get the most out of it - continental cycling culture was, dope aside, not a high point for legit 'science in sport'.

EPO though was a quantuum leap - it didn't give you an edge - used properly, it gave you a jetpack. And after the first few years, Armstrong, Bruyneel and Ferrari really went for "the appliance of science". They took EPO, and the blood doping, and scientifically went about the process of making it unbeatable - with LA using the new found financial gains to 'immunise' himself from trouble.

In short, once EPO entered the equasion, followed by blood doping, THEN it is fair to say it wa impossible to win the tour without it - the edge it gave you was simply too great. Prior to that, the picture is nowhere near as clear cut.

I'll admit this though - look at big Mig, Mercx and Jacques - and you'll find men of extraordinary natural physical talent, also very happy to pop - and you will see a level of winning consistency that is not entirely credible. Doping inthe tour, pre EPO, was not a straight line - some eras were less dominated by dopers, some more so - till EPO changed the game entirely.
 

martinvickers

BANNED
Oct 15, 2012
4,903
0
0
pmcg76 said:
I think its understandable that many people would have doubts about LeMond being clean but the primary reason I give him the benefit of the doubt is there are possible anomalies that give credence to clean riders beating dopers in the pre EPO era.

On this board there are two active and open poster's who were pros in Europe during that era. I asked one of them directly about the opinions of pro cyclists of that era on the reputation of the Weinmann/Helvetia team of Paul Koechli which was regarded as being a clean team during the same period 88-92. (Koechli had a reputation as being anti-doping and had a no-needles policy on his team). The response of the former pro is visible for all to see.

The response provided confirmed that this view of Koechli's team being clean was indeed accurate. This was backed up by the poster stating that he was in fact friends with a member of that team who said it was a fantastic team to be in.

One of their main riders was Steve Bauer who finished 4th in the 88 Tour and who like LeMond has a reputation as a clean rider. Bauer actually followed Koechli from La Vie Claire/Toshiba to the Weinmann team.

Another member of the team was Giles Delion who had a reputation as being outspoken on doping long before it became fashionable. In the 1990 season Delion had a fantastic set of results.

1st Tour of Lombardy
3rd Milan-San Remo
3rd Tirreno-Adriatico
2nd Criterium International
5th overall World Cup
11th Dauphine Libere
2nd Giro del Emilia
2nd Giro de Lazio
3rd Milan-Turin
4th Coppa Placci
9th GP Zurich

In his first Tour de France, Delion finished 15th overall and won the white jersey as best young rider. He was 23 at the time. Delion's main weakness was the TT where he usually conceded a lot of time. Looking at these results it is amazing to realise that Delion was competitive throughout the season from March to October.

To achieve these results, Delion and Bauer had to beat dopers, a lot of dopers but they did and not just these riders but the other riders on the Helvetia team who had good results also. It is sad to think that Delion lost his career due to ill-health and the rise EPO. It would have been great to see how far he could have went.

When I look at these guys' results, I simply think is it much of a stretch to believe a slightly more talented clean rider could actually win the Tour. Of course not and that is why LeMond gets the benefit of the doubt considering the lack of any other credible evidence.

Of course this will be all lost on those who don't even want to entertain that possibility.
My 'balderdash' comment is not a response to yours, sir.
 
I think its understandable that many people would have doubts about LeMond being clean but the primary reason I give him the benefit of the doubt is there are possible anomalies that give credence to clean riders beating dopers in the pre EPO era.

Problem here is: NO ONE who's questioned him(and/or accused him) has posted any sort of evidence backing up their statements, so no it's not understandable to assume/think that. It's been talked about @ nauseum here, it's been 18 yrs since lemonds retirement, and NOTHING in that time(not then, NOT NOW) from ANYONE that he's a doper. But for some reason, folks can't seem to comprehend that.

One of their main riders was Steve Bauer who finished 4th in the 88 Tour and who like LeMond has a reputation as a clean rider. Bauer actually followed Koechli from La Vie Claire/Toshiba to the Weinmann team.
This should FURTHER back up ANY "Lemond doped too" statement, as being utterly and correctly UNTRUE!!! he was not a "doper".



To achieve these results, Delion and Bauer had to beat dopers, a lot of dopers but they did and not just these riders but the other riders on the Helvetia team who had good results also. It is sad to think that Delion lost his career due to ill-health and the rise EPO. It would have been great to see how far he could have went.

OMG, you mean to tell me there were actually "clean" riders on the tour? For some here, "all riders were doping/doint it". I guess this dispells that as untrue, nice.

When I look at these guys' results, I simply think is it much of a stretch to believe a slightly more talented clean rider could actually win the Tour. Of course not and that is why LeMond gets the benefit of the doubt considering the lack of any other credible evidence.
Good point, but again, NO "evidence" suggesting he did, but there are always the "well he doped" crowd.


Of course this will be all lost on those who don't even want to entertain that possibility.
You've kind of infact shot down all "possibility" of it though with your posting here. if there's no credible "proof" that he did, and you're backing that up by the word of some former riders, than that "possibility" should be immediately shot down as not possible.
 
86TDFWinner said:
Problem here is: NO ONE who's questioned him(and/or accused him) has posted any sort of evidence backing up their statements, so no it's not understandable to assume/think that. It's been talked about @ nauseum here, it's been 18 yrs since lemonds retirement, and NOTHING in that time(not then, NOT NOW) from ANYONE that he's a doper. But for some reason, folks can't seem to comprehend that.

Snipped

You've kind of infact shot down all "possibility" of it though with your posting here. if there's no credible "proof" that he did, and you're backing that up by the word of some former riders, than that "possibility" should be immediately shot down as not possible.
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.
 
Jul 8, 2010
136
0
0
French sports commentator on doping in 1988

http://www.cyclisme-dopage.com/dossierdefond/2001-07-21-lemonde.htm

Article in Le Monde in July 2001. Interview of former French sports journalist Alain Vernon, who made a TV investigation on doping in cycling in 1988. After the release of the programme, he was singled out by the peloton:

"...Danger dopage a été diffusé (...) le lundi 10 avril 1989, à 22 h 10. Les réactions n'ont pas tardé. Le milieu cycliste a été le plus virulent. Dominique Le Glou et moi avons été menacés de procès, qui ne nous ont finalement jamais été faits. La Société du Tour de France et les représentants des coureurs ont rencontré les responsables de la chaîne, qui ont protesté officiellement.

J'ai fait le Tour de France 1989. Je voulais y aller pour montrer que je ne me cachais pas, que je ne me dégonflais pas. Le peloton m'a boycotté. Le seul qui me parlait, c'était Greg LeMond. Coup de chance, c'est lui qui a gagné. Mais il ne m'était plus possible d'exercer mon métier correctement.

The peloton did boycott me. The only one who talked to me was Greg Lemond.
 
ChrisE said:
Anyway, can't we just all get along? Let's just think about the happy times and bury all of this animosity. As an olive branch, I present GL best buds with LA before he knew LA's VO2 numbers and before LA's third win.

Or maybe before he learned that Lance was getting "coaching tips" from the already shady Dr. Ferrari?
But then you knew that, and why mess up a good tr..... uh story.
 
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.
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.
 
Mar 22, 2011
368
0
0
D-Queued said:
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.
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.
 
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? Further, in your particular case, the entire peloton since you would need to determine that the cleanliness of all participants.
TRANSLATION= I'M completely FOS, got called on it, and am now trying to save face because I cannot provide any proof to support my complete BS from before.


Nice of you to finally admit what we've known for awhile, that you're completely FOS, and nothing you say from here on in, can be taken serious and/or factual at all.


You're welcome.
 
Mar 22, 2011
368
0
0
86TDFWinner said:
TRANSLATION= I'M completely FOS, got called on it, and am now trying to save face because I cannot provide any proof to support my complete BS from before.


Nice of you to finally admit what we've known for awhile, that you're completely FOS, and nothing you say from here on in, can be taken serious and/or factual at all.


You're welcome.
Calm down and do some reading, i wasn't called on anything because i did not posit anything, if you take a breather and check poster names before replying you'll have better success.

My *opinion* on Lemond is that he was clean, but i have nothing to prove that.
 
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.
Are you sure you're responding to the right post? He just said he thought it pretty plausible that LeMond was clean, as in 'the opposite of doping'.
 
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.
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.
 
May 18, 2009
3,758
0
0
Hugh Januss said:
Or maybe before he learned that Lance was getting "coaching tips" from the already shady Dr. Ferrari?
But then you knew that, and why mess up a good tr..... uh story.
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.
 
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.
Hi Chris, did Lance use PED's in your opinion? Just a question to be able to gage your position in this discussion? :rolleyes:
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts