Greg was right

[D-Queued]

...

Start another thread with correct quotes this time and clear subject matter so those of us that tend to stray off-topic won't get in trouble by the DQ and benotti police.

...

Why don't you put up a pole and ask if GL was right about LA being the biggest fraud in sports or tiddly-winks or whatever and let's cut out all of this off-topic ranting.

Good grief Chris.

As noted, I cleaned up a bunch of posts that I felt went overboard on critiquing your points. The mods didn't ask that, I voluntarily did it.

Who are these "DQ police"? It ain't me.

You want a poll, then put it up yourself.

So, after amending what I felt was wrong, allow me to say this:

You want a poll, put up a poll. Put up or shut up.

Dave.

 

[pmcg76]

LOL, just look at this thread. Just look at Chris E.


Constantly changing stance many times, first the opinions of the riders in the 80s are worthless because they suggest it was possible to compete clean before the introduction of EPO.

Then he wants scientific proof that EPO was more effective than steroids.

Ask him how he knows EPO was being used in the 90s, response: look at the forum. So the riders from the 80s who claimed it was possible to win clean are liars whilst those that say EPO usage began in the early 90s are believable.

Next, he claims as fact that EPO use started in 1990 despite the fact that no rider has admitted to EPO usage in 1990/91, Indurain, Bugno, Chiappucci, Argentin never admitted so there is no definitive proof to back this fact other than what the riders/managers claim happened. However when the riders/managers say EPO was more effective than steroids, this is an opinion and therfore worthless.

Challenge him for proof to back up his fact that EPO usage began in 90. response: the races got faster, Indurain and Chiappucci suddenly became good. Isnt this then proof that EPO was more effective than Steroids and changed the game.

So in effect Chris E answers his own question in the progression of this thread but just watch him continue to spin and spin and spin.

Like Lance, he cannot keep his BS straight.

Let me keep this straight,

It was the riders/managers/soigneurs who said it was possible to win clean before EPO.

It was the riders/managers/soigneurs who gave us the information about EPO entering the peloton and how it spread.

It was the riders/managers/soigneur who said that EPO was more effective and changed the game.

The proof of this is how race speeds increased and how riders who were rubbish pre EPO suddenly improved as EPO was introduced.

Therfore EPO was much more effective than steroids.

I believe all these statements as do most people on here.

You see, keep on the straight line and you wont go far wrong.

 

[ChrisE]

Good grief Chris.

As noted, I cleaned up a bunch of posts that I felt went overboard on critiquing your points. The mods didn't ask that, I voluntarily did it.

Who are these "DQ police"? It ain't me.

You want a poll, then put it up yourself.

So, after amending what I felt was wrong, allow me to say this:

You want a poll, put up a poll. Put up or shut up.

Dave.

Why don't you break it all down in black and white.

What was your point in putting up a thread say GL was right, and then listing all of your buddies?

 

[La Pandera]

He doesn't look quite so lean now lol

I'm sure when you're 30 years older you won't be as lean either. lol

 

[python]

LOL, just look at this thread. Just look at Chris E.


Constantly changing stance many times, first the opinions of the riders in the 80s are worthless because they suggest it was possible to compete clean before the introduction of EPO.

Then he wants scientific proof that EPO was more effective than steroids.

Ask him how he knows EPO was being used in the 90s, response: look at the forum. So the riders from the 80s who claimed it was possible to win clean are liars whilst those that say EPO usage began in the early 90s are believable.

Next, he claims as fact that EPO use started in 1990 despite the fact that no rider has admitted to EPO usage in 1990/91, Indurain, Bugno, Chiappucci, Argentin never admitted so there is no definitive proof to back this fact other than what the riders/managers claim happened. However when the riders/managers say EPO was more effective than steroids, this is an opinion and therfore worthless.

Challenge him for proof to back up his fact that EPO usage began in 90. response: the races got faster, Indurain and Chiappucci suddenly became good. Isnt this then proof that EPO was more effective than Steroids and changed the game.

So in effect Chris E answers his own question in the progression of this thread but just watch him continue to spin and spin and spin.

Like Lance, he cannot keep his BS straight.

Let me keep this straight,

It was the riders/managers/soigneurs who said it was possible to win clean before EPO.

It was the riders/managers/soigneurs who gave us the information about EPO entering the peloton and how it spread.

It was the riders/managers/soigneur who said that EPO was more effective and changed the game.

The proof of this is how race speeds increased and how riders who were rubbish pre EPO suddenly improved as EPO was introduced.

Therfore EPO was much more effective than steroids.

I believe all these statements as do most people on here.

You see, keep on the straight line and you wont go far wrong.

perfect description of what happened to this thread and why. in plain speak it's called flaming.

 

[ultimobici]

It may be possible that LeMond's team may ultimately have followed the EPO bandwagon. But, the example of a former teammates death along with a culture of not doping (as you well articulated) likely closed the door forever on that possibility.

EPO is not/was not as safe as orange juice. Some people have firsthand and possibly life-changing memories of that toll.

Dave.

Unlikely, as Legeay was already anti-doping before.

 

[pmcg76]

Unlikely, as Legeay was already anti-doping before.

I would be careful about saying Roger Legeay was anti-doping. The French teams Gan and Castorama were some of the last teams to get on the EPO train in 95/95. I am sure people were doping with other stuff beforehand, maybe less so on Gan but I think after 98, Gan and Legeay went straight again.

 

[patricknd]

perfect description of what happened to this thread and why. in plain speak it's called flaming.

and you carry on with that. please stay on topic.

thanks

 

[andy1234]

I would be careful about saying Roger Legeay was anti-doping. The French teams Gan and Castorama were some of the last teams to get on the EPO train in 95/95. I am sure people were doping with other stuff beforehand, maybe less so on Gan but I think after 98, Gan and Legeay went straight again.

Gan and Legeay were not "on the EPO train" at any point.
Gan and CA were recognised as clean teams (as much as that is possible).

look at Vaughters and Julichs performances once the joined Legeay......

 

[blackcat]

Gan and Legeay were not "on the EPO train" at any point.
Gan and CA were recognised as clean teams (as much as that is possible).

look at Vaughters and Julichs performances once the joined Legeay......

CA were not pure, not clean. they did enough to get by.

might have only been managing hormone levels and recovery therapy, but any team with O'Grady, come on...

They won the TTT at the Tour. Take a look at the teams that win the TTT. You cant win the TTT being clean. Strong emphasis.

 

[andy1234]

CA were not pure, not clean. they did enough to get by.

might have only been managing hormone levels and recovery therapy, but any team with O'Grady, come on...

They won the TTT at the Tour. Take a look at the teams that win the TTT. You cant win the TTT being clean. Strong emphasis.

No doping was organised by the team.
Individuals always have the opportunity to dope themselves.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

OK, to your subject since it appears to be qualified now with the full quote.

I've said upthread I don't think he is the biggest fraud period (jokingly), and I will go so far as to say now seriously I don't believe a doper beating other dopers constitutes a fraud as GL describes it in sport. You and your hero need to get some perspective. If you want to extrapolate that outside of sport then have at it.

Start another thread with correct quotes this time and clear subject matter so those of us that tend to stray off-topic won't get in trouble by the DQ and benotti police. Don't throw some half *** quote up there and then list a bunch of your buddies, and expect dolts like me to follow with what you are up to.

Is that the end of the thread now? Is this the type of answer you really wanted to hear?

Why don't you put up a pole and ask if GL was right about LA being the biggest fraud in sports or tiddly-winks or whatever and let's cut out all of this off-topic ranting.

Don't be getting angry at 'D-Queued' for putting up an erroneous quote - you were the one who wants to pick it apart and question Gregs motives, if its that important to you then it was up to you to check it

You say you don't think "I don't believe a doper beating other dopers constitutes a fraud" - what about a doper beating clean athletes and asking them to leave the sport?
Or what about when you finally do get a positive, where others have had to sit out their bans and suffer the consequences Armstrong gets to buy his way out of it?

 

[blackcat]

well, no doping was given the sign off by the manager Roger.

But there would be swannies, or mechs, that occasionally facilitated a testo cream, or an ampoule of epo.

Depends on your definition of "organised by the team". They may not have hired Freddy Vianne, but they would have had a renegade swannie who fulfilled Freddie's role, and I don't just mean the sweet massage oils.

 

[ChrisE]

***snip wagon circling**
....
You say you don't think "I don't believe a doper beating other dopers constitutes a fraud" - what about a doper beating clean athletes and asking them to leave the sport?
Or what about when you finally do get a positive, where others have had to sit out their bans and suffer the consequences Armstrong gets to buy his way out of it?

Fair enough.

I asked earlier when another GT threat got busted in the TdF 99-2005. Crickets. I believe the whole system was corrupt at that time, and the incentive was much greater to cover up positives for every big name than just for LA. Times were good.

Was the incentive to cover up doping as a whole in the world's premier cycling event during those years increased due to the presence of LA? Probably so.

Do I think LA prevented somebody clean from winning? No more than Beloki did, or JU, or Rumsas, or any of the other riders at that time at the top of the results.

You see, doctor, I spread the blame. Doping and omerta didn't just show up in 1999.

 

[andy1234]

well, no doping was given the sign off by the manager Roger.

But there would be swannies, or mechs, that occasionally facilitated a testo cream, or an ampoule of epo.

Depends on your definition of "organised by the team". They may not have hired Freddy Vianne, but they would have had a renegade swannie who fulfilled Freddie's role, and I don't just mean the sweet massage oils.

There isn't a team in any sport in the world that could be described as clean by that definition.

 

[pmcg76]

Gan and Legeay were not "on the EPO train" at any point.
Gan and CA were recognised as clean teams (as much as that is possible).

look at Vaughters and Julichs performances once the joined Legeay......

Which is post 98, look at Lfdjeux results post 98 but look at them in 97. What about that period 95-98. I doubt Gan ever had a big EPO programmes like Festina for example but to rule them out ever using EPO is pushing it. Better to say you dont know.

 

[pmcg76]

There isn't a team in any sport in the world that could be described as clean by that definition.

Helvetia-La Suisse

 

[andy1234]

Which is post 98, look at Lfdjeux results post 98 but look at them in 97. What about that period 95-98. I doubt Gan ever had a big EPO programmes like Festina for example but to rule them out ever using EPO is pushing it. Better to say you dont know.

Gan/CA did not have a team doping programme between 1994 and 2000.
I do know.

Individuals maybe, but no programme.

 

[andy1234]

Helvetia-La Suisse

So there was no potential for rogue members of staff at Helvetia?
Life doesnt work that way.

 

[pmcg76]

So there was no potential for rogue members of staff at Helvetia?
Life doesnt work that way.

They had a no-needles policy and I am sure Paul Koechli handpicked the support staff. Unless people went outside the team.

 

[andy1234]

They had a no-needles policy and I am sure Paul Koechli handpicked the support staff. Unless people went outside the team.

Bingo. Certain individuals will always look outside of the constraints placed on them. You can't blame a team that pushes a clean policy for that though.
Even handpicked team members cant be 100% trusted (though I know nothing about Helvetia)

 

[pmcg76]

Gan/CA did not have a team doping programme between 1994 and 2000.
I do know.

Individuals maybe, but no programme.

I guess that means either you were directly involved(which I doubt) or knew someone dircrctly involved with Gan during that period.

 

[andy1234]

I guess that means either you were directly involved(which I doubt) or knew someone dircrctly involved with Gan during that period.

Indirectly and Yes

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Fair enough.

I asked earlier when another GT threat got busted in the TdF 99-2005. Crickets. I believe the whole system was corrupt at that time, and the incentive was much greater to cover up positives for every big name than just for LA. Times were good.

Was the incentive to cover up doping as a whole in the world's premier cycling event during those years increased due to the presence of LA? Probably so.

Do I think LA prevented somebody clean from winning? No more than Beloki did, or JU, or Rumsas, or any of the other riders at that time at the top of the results.

You see, doctor, I spread the blame. Doping and omerta didn't just show up in 1999.

Do not change my quote, please.

To the highlighted, actually I answered that - even if you offer a very limited time frame, why is that?
I don't think "big names" likes of Ullrich, Heras, Hamilton, Basso or Pantani would agree with your assessment.

To the blue - as I didn't ask you that question I am not interested in your limited answer.

Doping & omerta certainly didn't start in 1999 with Armstrong - but unless you can show another rider who got as much preferential treatment as Armstrong then LeMonds assertion (which is what the thread is about) remains valid.

 

[pmcg76]

Indirectly and Yes

I think I can figure out the who but out of respect I wont bother you about it.