dirtiest cheater in cycling history?

[pedromiguelmartins]

....if you had raced in that era you may change your mind on that one...not to say that EPO was not a game-changer....

Pre-EPO you could win clean, that's obvious. At least there's no evidence you could not. In the early years of EPO it still was possible, when the said substance had not generalised in the peloton yet.

That's why in 1991, Edwig Van Hooydonck could still win his 2nd Tour of Flanders and Frans Maassen could win an Amstel Gold. In 1993 they both had to contend with top10's in Classics. In 1995, Van Hooydonck could win his last Brabantian Arrow ahead of two Eastern riders but on the classics he worked no chance. There's not one pivotal year with respect to the introduction of EPO. 1991 was worse than 1990, 1992 was worse than 1991, 1993 was worse than 1992, 1994 was worse than 1993, and so forth and so on until 1996. Van Hooydonck and Maassen had to stopped their careers at age barely 29 and 30 resp. in 1995/6. So did riders such as Sammie Moreels, Jim Van de Laer, Peter De Clercq, Eddy Bouwmans, etc. Palmares in that era make no sense. They have no value at all. The above mentioned riders should have been among the champions of that era, not those that are currently referred to as such. Belgian cycling suffered a lot from the advent of EPO, we were lagging miles behind. The Belgians who wished to perform went to Italy or Spain...

With regards to past era, it's hard to guess who was racing clean because since no positive tests does not mean no dope, we can never have proof that a given rider was racing clean. Yet I had learned that a champion like Franco Bitossi could never resorted to amphetamines because due to his bouts of PVC - Crazy Heart - it could have killed him. As far as I know Bitossi has never tested positive. Bitossi has a tremendously huge palmares, bigger than any currently active rider.

Besides, there are plenty of elements to suggest that many riders who did test positive could also race clean on other occasions. Willy Voet claimed that Eric Caritoux was racing clean when he won the Tour of Spain. But Caritoux still doped later in his career ...

I've been trying to answer to answer to your post but I just can't stop laughing. Aren't guys like Anquetil on record laughing their asses off about the possibility of winning a tour "clean"?

There goes your supposed legitimacy. Like always. If you could just stop being a fanboy of old, less talented riders and could instead focus on reality and the current sport, that would be great.

"before EPO you could win clean". Lol

 

[Spawn of e]

A posted pic of Chary Mottet will put you in your place.

 

[sniper]

Not long ago Dan Martin and Ryder Hesjedal were proof that you can win clean in the new era.
Then all of a sudden Ryder was forced to confess doping and Martin went to Lefevere.

Fool me once, shame on you.

Reminiscing them days when Gilles Delion and Charly Mottet constituted court room bullet-proof evidence that you could win clean in the 80s.

 

[Billie]

arno demare obviously

 

[Stingray34]

What about female cyclists?

Maybe a separate poll is needed.

Candidates could include Longo, Tammy, Jeanneson and a certain Belgian lass of recent ill-repute.

 

[Tonton]

Re:

A posted pic of Chary Mottet will put you in your place.

How about this picture?


Yes, there's something fishy about Gandhi.

1. He lied about his age, otherwise he wouldn't be wearing the white jersey.
2. There's enough room to hide blood bags in the sleeves.
3. When you see how many doctors are in India, come on: there must be dozens of Ferraris.
4. The picture is evidence that he was pushed up the Cipressa. We should begin a thread to declare a moral winner.
5. Look at his legs: I'm certain that Aicar existed back in the '40s.
6. It's also important to note that he was still alive when Eddy Merckx was born. I find a resemblance between the two. The Alex Zulle glasses don't fool me: I'm way too smart.
7. Finally, the story about being shot, How convenient: LeMond used the same excuse.

That's a lot of smoke, really. And where there's smoke...

He's guilty. Where's the evidence that he's innocent?

If you thought this post was silly, go back and read your own "contributions".

And BTW, no disrespect intended. Bless your soul, Mahatma Gandhi.

 

[pmcg76]

....if you had raced in that era you may change your mind on that one...not to say that EPO was not a game-changer....

Pre-EPO you could win clean, that's obvious. At least there's no evidence you could not. In the early years of EPO it still was possible, when the said substance had not generalised in the peloton yet.

That's why in 1991, Edwig Van Hooydonck could still win his 2nd Tour of Flanders and Frans Maassen could win an Amstel Gold. In 1993 they both had to contend with top10's in Classics. In 1995, Van Hooydonck could win his last Brabantian Arrow ahead of two Eastern riders but on the classics he worked no chance. There's not one pivotal year with respect to the introduction of EPO. 1991 was worse than 1990, 1992 was worse than 1991, 1993 was worse than 1992, 1994 was worse than 1993, and so forth and so on until 1996. Van Hooydonck and Maassen had to stopped their careers at age barely 29 and 30 resp. in 1995/6. So did riders such as Sammie Moreels, Jim Van de Laer, Peter De Clercq, Eddy Bouwmans, etc. Palmares in that era make no sense. They have no value at all. The above mentioned riders should have been among the champions of that era, not those that are currently referred to as such. Belgian cycling suffered a lot from the advent of EPO, we were lagging miles behind. The Belgians who wished to perform went to Italy or Spain...

With regards to past era, it's hard to guess who was racing clean because since no positive tests does not mean no dope, we can never have proof that a given rider was racing clean. Yet I had learned that a champion like Franco Bitossi could never resorted to amphetamines because due to his bouts of PVC - Crazy Heart - it could have killed him. As far as I know Bitossi has never tested positive. Bitossi has a tremendously huge palmares, bigger than any currently active rider.

Besides, there are plenty of elements to suggest that many riders who did test positive could also race clean on other occasions. Willy Voet claimed that Eric Caritoux was racing clean when he won the Tour of Spain. But Caritoux still doped later in his career ...

I've been trying to answer to answer to your post but I just can't stop laughing. Aren't guys like Anquetil on record laughing their asses off about the possibility of winning a tour "clean"?

There goes your supposed legitimacy. Like always. If you could just stop being a fanboy of old, less talented riders and could instead focus on reality and the current sport, that would be great.

"before EPO you could win clean". Lol

Of course dopers dont believe you can win clean, that is how they justify there own doping. There would be nothing more humiliating for a doper to know that someone else could beat them clean. It would show them up for what they truly are. That is why the "everybody else was doing it" line is so consistently rolled out, it negates the presonal responsibility.

As well as a physical prop, doping is also a psychological prop and people who become reliant on doping simply cannot not imagine competing without doping. It terrifies them. That was one of the central pillars of Koechli's philosophy, he didn't want riders who were reliant on outside help.

So when a guy like Willy Voet names and shames countless riders inclduing many big name riders but then singles out a clean rider, it carries some weight regardless of what you may think. Who has more insight here? a guy who worked in the sport for 30 years or some anon poster on the internet. This constant dismissing of people from within the sport simply because it doesn't fit an agenda is ridiculous.

 

[sniper]

Being skeptical doesn't equal dismissing.
People say things for various reasons that we cannot always see through.
The Caritoux example shows Voet's word should be taken with caution.

Same is true for the Garmin boys. Sure, they named names. Tons of names. But it requires a formidable leap of faith to assume they all rode clean post-2006.

 

[pmcg76]

Re:

Being skeptical doesn't equal dismissing.
People say things for various reasons that we cannot always see through.
The Caritoux example shows Voet's word should be taken with caution.

Same is true for the Garmin boys. Sure, they named names. Tons of names. But it requires a formidable leap of faith to assume they all rode clean post-2006.

So posters who are stating uncategorically that it was impossible to win clean pre EPO are not being dismissive of what Voet said or Paul Koechli for that matter???

I find it strange that 'rumours' or riders having family members in the medical profession seemingly carries more weight than someone like Voet saying rider X did not dope.

Why should the Caritoux example to be taken with caution? Voet said Caritoux won the Vuelta clean but doped at other times.

The Dutch rider Peter Winnen said he did not dope in his first year as a pro but did afteward. He won a Tour stage and finished 5th on GC in his first season as a pro.

 

[blutto]

Re: Re:

Being skeptical doesn't equal dismissing.
People say things for various reasons that we cannot always see through.
The Caritoux example shows Voet's word should be taken with caution.

Same is true for the Garmin boys. Sure, they named names. Tons of names. But it requires a formidable leap of faith to assume they all rode clean post-2006.

So posters who are stating uncategorically that it was impossible to win clean pre EPO are not being dismissive of what Voet said or Paul Koechli for that matter???

I find it strange that 'rumours' or riders having family members in the medical profession seemingly carries more weight than someone like Voet saying rider X did not dope.

Why should the Caritoux example to be taken with caution? Voet said Caritoux won the Vuelta clean but doped at other times.

The Dutch rider Peter Winnen said he did not dope in his first year as a pro but did afteward. He won a Tour stage and finished 5th on GC in his first season as a pro.

...I always have such a giggle when the name Voet get dragged out to backstop something or other...frankly the guy shouldn't be trusted half the distance he can be thrown...but I suppose that if you're scrambling to puff up an assertion anything is better than nothing ( or maybe not )...

...now Koechli is an entirely different kettle of fish....and speaking of Koechli does anyone else find it odd that LeMond didn't follow him to Helvetia and instead signed with a drug ridden cesspool called PDM ( and remember they had folks in their fold that were dipping into the EPO go-fast juice in 88 )...and LeMond's vehicle was apparently seen parked in front of PDM team headquarters on more than several occasions ( just sayin' eh )....

Cheers

 

[sniper]

Re: Re:

...
So posters who are stating uncategorically that it was impossible to win clean pre EPO are not being dismissive of what Voet said or Paul Koechli for that matter???

I personally don't dismiss what Voet has said about any rider. But I don't take it as gospel either.
For instance, it's not impossible that Voet was telling what he thought was the truth. He's not allknowing. And we know all too well that some riders were more secretive and operated more isolated than others.

I find it strange that 'rumours' or riders having family members in the medical profession seemingly carries more weight than someone like Voet saying rider X did not dope.

What motivation did Landis have to claim he didn't use testosterone when he got caught for it? what reason did Lance have to claim he rode 2009/10 clean? what reason did Walsh have to go after LAnce but not after Sky?
Just saying, we often don't know what motives certain people have to spill some beans, but not others.

The doctor Ivan Vanmol also said Lemond was clean.
Sure, that shouldn't be dismissed. But it shouldn't be taken as gospel either.
I could think of tons of reasons why Vanmol would keep the "Lemond is clean" narrative alive even if he knew it's a myth.

Why should the Caritoux example to be taken with caution? Voet said Caritoux won the Vuelta clean but doped at other times.

Caution indeed, because there are four options:
(a) Voet is telling the truth;
(b) Voet is telling what he thinks is the truth, but simply didn't know about Caritoux doping at the Vuelta;
(c) Voet fails to distinguish between OoC and in-C doping, i.e. Caritoux may not have doped in-C, but may still have doped OoC in prep for the Vuelta;
(d) Voet is lying.

I would agree with you that he's unlikely to be lying in this particular case. But even if we throw out (d), we're left with three options.

The Dutch rider Peter Winnen said he did not dope in his first year as a pro but did afteward. He won a Tour stage and finished 5th on GC in his first season as a pro.

I can think of many possible reasons why he would say that. Have you ever seen one whistleblower or a confessing rider telling the truth and nothing but the truth?
I don't know, Rasmussen, Jaksche, Manzano, maybe one or two others. But otherwise we see many confessions with halftruths. The USADA affidavits contained tons of eyebrowraisers. So again, people have different (not always straightforward or transparent) reasons to tell abc but not xyz.

 

[pmcg76]

Re: Re:

Being skeptical doesn't equal dismissing.
People say things for various reasons that we cannot always see through.
The Caritoux example shows Voet's word should be taken with caution.

Same is true for the Garmin boys. Sure, they named names. Tons of names. But it requires a formidable leap of faith to assume they all rode clean post-2006.

So posters who are stating uncategorically that it was impossible to win clean pre EPO are not being dismissive of what Voet said or Paul Koechli for that matter???

I find it strange that 'rumours' or riders having family members in the medical profession seemingly carries more weight than someone like Voet saying rider X did not dope.

Why should the Caritoux example to be taken with caution? Voet said Caritoux won the Vuelta clean but doped at other times.

The Dutch rider Peter Winnen said he did not dope in his first year as a pro but did afteward. He won a Tour stage and finished 5th on GC in his first season as a pro.

...I always have such a giggle when the name Voet get dragged out to backstop something or other...frankly the guy shouldn't be trusted half the distance he can be thrown...but I suppose that if you're scrambling to puff up an assertion anything is better than nothing ( or maybe not )...

...now Koechli is an entirely different kettle of fish....and speaking of Koechli does anyone else find it odd that LeMond didn't follow him to Helvetia and instead signed with a drug ridden cesspool called PDM ( and remember they had folks in their fold that were dipping into the EPO go-fast juice in 88 )...and LeMond's vehicle was apparently seen parked in front of PDM team headquarters on more than several occasions ( just sayin' eh )....

Cheers

Why exactly is Voet so unreliable? Please don't come with he smoked pot belge.

I don't think Koechli could afford LeMond and I think he stated that, after all LeMond was famous for his love of the dollars. Koechli's teams did not have big budgets and team leader in 88-89 was Steve Bauer, who Koechli is as equally adamant about being clean and well down the pay scale from LeMond.

 

[pmcg76]

Re: Re:

...
So posters who are stating uncategorically that it was impossible to win clean pre EPO are not being dismissive of what Voet said or Paul Koechli for that matter???

I personally don't dismiss what Voet has said about any rider. But I don't take it as gospel either.
For instance, it's not impossible that Voet was telling what he thought was the truth. He's not allknowing. And we know all too well that some riders were more secretive and operated more isolated than others.

I find it strange that 'rumours' or riders having family members in the medical profession seemingly carries more weight than someone like Voet saying rider X did not dope.

What motivation did Landis have to claim he didn't use testosterone when he got caught for it? what reason did Lance have to claim he rode 2009/10 clean? what reason did Walsh have to go after LAnce but not after Sky?
Just saying, we often don't know what motives certain people have to spill some beans, but not others.

The doctor Ivan Vanmol also said Lemond was clean.
Sure, that shouldn't be dismissed. But it shouldn't be taken as gospel either.
I could think of tons of reasons why Vanmol would keep the "Lemond is clean" narrative alive even if he knew it's a myth.

Why should the Caritoux example to be taken with caution? Voet said Caritoux won the Vuelta clean but doped at other times.

Caution indeed, because there are four options:
(a) Voet is telling the truth;
(b) Voet is telling what he thinks is the truth, but simply didn't know about Caritoux doping at the Vuelta;
(c) Voet fails to distinguish between OoC and in-C doping, i.e. Caritoux may not have doped in-C, but may still have doped OoC in prep for the Vuelta;
(d) Voet is lying.

I would agree with you that he's unlikely to be lying in this particular case. But even if we throw out (d), we're left with three options.

The Dutch rider Peter Winnen said he did not dope in his first year as a pro but did afteward. He won a Tour stage and finished 5th on GC in his first season as a pro.

I can think of many possible reasons why he would say that. Have you ever seen one whistleblower or a confessing rider telling the truth and nothing but the truth?
I don't know, Rasmussen and Jaksche maybe. But otherwise? The USADA affidavits contained tons of eyebrowraisers. Again, people have different (not always straightforward or transparent) reasons to tell abc but not xyz.

Using that logic, we should pretty much ignore what anyone has to say whether it is for or against as we dont know their agenda. Teams doping in the 1980s was pretty open so why would a rider hide their doping from a soigneur and how would they do that for 3 weeks solid? Can you give us an example of a rider hiding their doping from the team even though the team was doping as well. There is Levi Leipheimer but that was post Festina and Leipheimer was in his first year on the team so was not yet accepted as again appeared to be the norm. Thus he had to source his own gear.

On Caritoux the story was he was drafted into the team at the last minute so had no prep done as he was supposed to be on a break and this was not the 90/00s where teams did lots of dope prepping. You appear to be looking at that example through modern tinted glasses.

I don't understand why someone like Winnen would lie about not doping his first season and then admit to doping the rest of his career. Nobody ever forced Winnen to admit to doping, he did it on his own free will. Riders not doping their first season is not an unusual story. I think on a probablility scale, Winnen's story would be pretty true unless of course you simply want to dismiss the possibility of a rider finishing that high in a GT clean.

 

[sniper]

...
I don't think Koechli could afford LeMond and I think he stated that, after all LeMond was famous for his love of the dollars. Koechli's teams did not have big budgets and team leader in 88-89 was Steve Bauer, who Koechli is as equally adamant about being clean and well down the pay scale from LeMond.

It's a good point by blutto and you add another interesting point, Lemond's love of the dollars.
As it happens, the character trait 'love of the dollars', in most cases, doesn't fair particularly well with another character trait you attribute to Lemond, namely that of non-cheating, fair-play morals.

Why exactly is Voet so unreliable? Please don't come with he smoked pot belge.

Why is that whistleblower in the Dutch newspaper unreliable?
Why was Dhaenens unreliable? Why is Boogerd unreliable? Why is that Belgian/Dutch blogger unreliable, or why are the riders he spoke to in the early 90s unreliable?
All on the record saying Lemond used and/or introduced EPO.

 

[pmcg76]

Re:

...
I don't think Koechli could afford LeMond and I think he stated that, after all LeMond was famous for his love of the dollars. Koechli's teams did not have big budgets and team leader in 88-89 was Steve Bauer, who Koechli is as equally adamant about being clean and well down the pay scale from LeMond.

It's a good point by blutto and you add another interesting point, Lemond's love of the dollars.
As it happens, the character trait 'love of the dollars', in most cases, doesn't fair particularly well with another character trait you attribute to Lemond, namely that of non-cheating, fair-play morals.

Why exactly is Voet so unreliable? Please don't come with he smoked pot belge.

Why is that whistleblower in the Dutch newspaper unreliable?
Why is Dhaenens unreliable? Why is Boogerd unreliable?
All on the record saying Lemond used and/or introduced EPO.
Hell, why is Lance unreliabel if Voet can be trusted?

Seriously? Rumours versus someone on record saying what they personally witnessed.

The guy in the paper was a nobody amateur cyclist. What connection did they have with PDM, LeMond etc? So anybody could go with a story to a paper and you believe it to be true. If Dhaenans had went to a paper and said I personally witnessed LeMond doing EPO, then that would be more believable.

I already explained how that rumour may have started in the LeMond thread which you never actually addressed. PDM being pissed at LeMond, also note what I said upthread about dopers not liking clean riders beating them.

Remember the JV/Frankie exchange, there was a story that Floyd had his blood dumped down the toilet because Lance/Bruyneel were pissed at him. Turned out the reality was very different from the rumour but that is the problem with rumours and why people don't give them credence. Boogerd undoubtedly was just repeating the same rumour in the same fashion as JV/Frankie.

I think Lance has a history of porkies and agendas, has Voet been proven to be a liar yet?

Also you are quick to use esasofina in your posts but do you believe that he won a World Pursuit title clean as he claims.

 

[Cannibal72]

Re:

...
I don't think Koechli could afford LeMond and I think he stated that, after all LeMond was famous for his love of the dollars. Koechli's teams did not have big budgets and team leader in 88-89 was Steve Bauer, who Koechli is as equally adamant about being clean and well down the pay scale from LeMond.

It's a good point by blutto and you add another interesting point, Lemond's love of the dollars.
As it happens, the character trait 'love of the dollars', in most cases, doesn't fair particularly well with another character trait you attribute to Lemond, namely that of non-cheating, fair-play morals.

Why exactly is Voet so unreliable? Please don't come with he smoked pot belge.

Why is that whistleblower in the Dutch newspaper unreliable?
Why was Dhaenens unreliable? Why is Boogerd unreliable? Why is that Belgian/Dutch blogger unreliable, or why are the riders he spoke to in the early 90s unreliable?
All on the record saying Lemond used and/or introduced EPO.

Köchli and LeMond also didn't like each other very much. They had quite a bad character clash, and their relationship didn't really recover from the '86 TdF.

(also, there are other options for Caritoux: e) he was doping, using the traditional palliative amphetamines, a scenario I allude to above, or f), he was being doped without his or Voet's knowledge by a dodgy doctor (likelier than it sounds).)

 

[sniper]

Re: Re:

...
Köchli and LeMond also didn't like each other very much. They had quite a bad character clash, and their relationship didn't really recover from the '86 TdF.

Well obviously. That is implied by Lemond's move away from Koechli.
But the question is what the nature of their conflict was and whether it had to do with the two having a different view on cycling.

 

[pmcg76]

Re: Re:

...
Köchli and LeMond also didn't like each other very much. They had quite a bad character clash, and their relationship didn't really recover from the '86 TdF.

Well obviously. That is implied by Lemond's move away from Koechli.
But the question is what the nature of their conflict was and whether it had to do with the two having a different view on cycling.

No, it was more to do with tactics etc. LeMond wanted a team to ride soley for him, Koechli wanted all out guerilla warfare. It is all in Slaying the Badger

 

[Benotti69]

Richard Moore is hardly a tome of truth.

 

[pmcg76]

Re:

Richard Moore is hardly a tome of truth.

Easy to know you have never read the book, otherwise you would have known that is what Koechli himself said.

 

[Cannibal72]

Re: Re:

...
Köchli and LeMond also didn't like each other very much. They had quite a bad character clash, and their relationship didn't really recover from the '86 TdF.

Well obviously. That is implied by Lemond's move away from Koechli.
But the question is what the nature of their conflict was and whether it had to do with the two having a different view on cycling.

By 'quite a bad character clash', I think it's quite clear I'm referring to their personalities and not to their views of doping. To spell out the obvious, Köchli was (is?) meticulous, painstaking, and scientific. LeMond is apparently very much unlike that; if you want to paint in very, very broad brush strokes, you could say Köchli plays up to Swiss stereotypes, LeMond to American ones.
To expand pmcg's point: Köchli believes in all-out attack as a policy, which involved putting a rider in every attack and working to make that attack stick. In '86, where LeMond was vulnerable and ill, he interpreted this as a betrayal, especially when - as it was on the stage to Saint Etienne - it was Hinault who attacked, and LeMond felt obligated to chase him down. LeMond never forgave Köchli for the difficulty the latter put him in by this strategy of all-out offense. Moreover, another fight was brewing; Tapie loved the handsome Jean-Francois Bernard, and didn't like LeMond very much. There's no way on earth LeMond stuck around for 'Epic Intrateam Rivalry: The Sequel!'

 

[blutto]

Re: Re:

...
I don't think Koechli could afford LeMond and I think he stated that, after all LeMond was famous for his love of the dollars. Koechli's teams did not have big budgets and team leader in 88-89 was Steve Bauer, who Koechli is as equally adamant about being clean and well down the pay scale from LeMond.

It's a good point by blutto and you add another interesting point, Lemond's love of the dollars.
As it happens, the character trait 'love of the dollars', in most cases, doesn't fair particularly well with another character trait you attribute to Lemond, namely that of non-cheating, fair-play morals.

Why exactly is Voet so unreliable? Please don't come with he smoked pot belge.

Why is that whistleblower in the Dutch newspaper unreliable?
Why is Dhaenens unreliable? Why is Boogerd unreliable?
All on the record saying Lemond used and/or introduced EPO.
Hell, why is Lance unreliabel if Voet can be trusted?

Seriously? Rumours versus someone on record saying what they personally witnessed.

The guy in the paper was a nobody amateur cyclist. What connection did they have with PDM, LeMond etc? So anybody could go with a story to a paper and you believe it to be true. If Dhaenans had went to a paper and said I personally witnessed LeMond doing EPO, then that would be more believable.

I already explained how that rumour may have started in the LeMond thread which you never actually addressed. PDM being pissed at LeMond, also note what I said upthread about dopers not liking clean riders beating them.

Remember the JV/Frankie exchange, there was a story that Floyd had his blood dumped down the toilet because Lance/Bruyneel were pissed at him. Turned out the reality was very different from the rumour but that is the problem with rumours and why people don't give them credence. Boogerd undoubtedly was just repeating the same rumour in the same fashion as JV/Frankie.

I think Lance has a history of porkies and agendas, has Voet been proven to be a liar yet?

Also you are quick to use esasofina in your posts but do you believe that he won a World Pursuit title clean as he claims.

....kinda curious where the bolded came from and what it referred to exactly...anyone know ?...

Cheers

 

[Hugh Januss]

Well it certainly seems like the initial trolling has produced epic response.

 

[Brullnux]

I feel Ricco is the one. I feel his plain stupidity let the side down for doping, so he wins. At least the others were fairly smart about it and don't get caught selling EPO in a McDonald's car park, or get taken to hospital due to doing a blood transfusion shoddily.

 

[pmcg76]

Re: Re:

...
I don't think Koechli could afford LeMond and I think he stated that, after all LeMond was famous for his love of the dollars. Koechli's teams did not have big budgets and team leader in 88-89 was Steve Bauer, who Koechli is as equally adamant about being clean and well down the pay scale from LeMond.

It's a good point by blutto and you add another interesting point, Lemond's love of the dollars.
As it happens, the character trait 'love of the dollars', in most cases, doesn't fair particularly well with another character trait you attribute to Lemond, namely that of non-cheating, fair-play morals.

Why exactly is Voet so unreliable? Please don't come with he smoked pot belge.

Why is that whistleblower in the Dutch newspaper unreliable?
Why is Dhaenens unreliable? Why is Boogerd unreliable?
All on the record saying Lemond used and/or introduced EPO.
Hell, why is Lance unreliabel if Voet can be trusted?

Seriously? Rumours versus someone on record saying what they personally witnessed.

The guy in the paper was a nobody amateur cyclist. What connection did they have with PDM, LeMond etc? So anybody could go with a story to a paper and you believe it to be true. If Dhaenans had went to a paper and said I personally witnessed LeMond doing EPO, then that would be more believable.

I already explained how that rumour may have started in the LeMond thread which you never actually addressed. PDM being pissed at LeMond, also note what I said upthread about dopers not liking clean riders beating them.

Remember the JV/Frankie exchange, there was a story that Floyd had his blood dumped down the toilet because Lance/Bruyneel were pissed at him. Turned out the reality was very different from the rumour but that is the problem with rumours and why people don't give them credence. Boogerd undoubtedly was just repeating the same rumour in the same fashion as JV/Frankie.

I think Lance has a history of porkies and agendas, has Voet been proven to be a liar yet?

Also you are quick to use esasofina in your posts but do you believe that he won a World Pursuit title clean as he claims.

....kinda curious where the bolded came from and what it referred to exactly...anyone know ?...

Cheers

In the LeMond thread, sniper was going on about why the rumour of LeMond introducing EPO started. Apparently Rudy Dhaenans and Jan Gisbers(both PDM)were the 2 main sources for this rumour. I suggested maybe PDM were pissed because they signed LeMond on big money, he didn't perform and then broke his contract, apparently not leaving on good terms. Thus the rumour was started maliciously or they just assumed LeMond was on EPO because they were aware of it. Just throwing out possibilities on how rumours start. Who knows.