If there was one clean rider...

[blutto]

Re: Re:

good post, appreciate it, although I disagree on many points.

...

Who was clean? Lemond, Bauer, Hampston, Mottet, possibly Alcala, Criquielion and a whole host of others. For those that didn't want to, there really wasn't a whole lot of pressure to dope if you were sincere about being clean because you could compete and still get results.

First off, Mottet wasn't clean. He admitted to using amphetamines. A one-time thing? I doubt it.
http://archive.wikiwix.com/cache/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ecoutedopage.fr%2Fcas-dopage%2Fsilence-dans-rangs-une-seule-fois-89-102-11-731.html

Hampsten in my mind certainly wasn't clean in 1992, when he was doing a winter preparation with Max Testa in Como on the border with Switzerland (Hampsten's place of residence throughout his carreer) where EPO was available without prescription and where, indeed, the entire Motorola gang would go in 1994 to fetch their ampules on Testa's advice (Swart testimony). Hampsten's results in 1992 speak for themselves. The way he bulked up in 92 is also suspicious, but let's stick to the blood boosting, which is really tough to deny for that year. Now, I'm having trouble imagining why he would have been clean in 88 with Testa, or in 86...with Testa. Testa is an exposed doping doc, and you really going to have to explain to me why you think he wasn't helping Hampsten (and others at 7-11) with 'marginal gains' in 86 and 88. I think Mike Neel was perfectly aware whom he brought in when he hired Testa in 85. Prior to that appointment, Testa had already done physiological testing with various Italian cracks including Argentin.

Scienceiscool:
Transfusions did happen, but the logistics were a nightmare. You couldn't extract in January/February and reinject throughout the year as you can now. That meant injecting from a donor which is dodgy as hell. The risk of infection from something in another person's blood isn't worth the risk.

Not worth the risk to you, maybe, but certainly worth the risk to cyclists aspiring to become pro. Hell, even worth the risk to amateur cyclists. And hell, even worth the risk to their ambitious parents. Section from Wheelmen (but could've taken this from any other source) about 84:

The US team, however, went ahead with the blood-boosting effort. Participation in the program was voluntary. If they were interested, they were to arrange for family members with compatible blood types to provide the blood donations. A few days before the Olympic track cycling events, the cyclists and their blood donors lined up in a room at the Ramada hotel in Carson City, and a doctor connected tubes between them, allowing the blood to flow directly from one to the other.

Come to think of it, which GT rider was in the habit of bringing his parents to GTs? Just saying...

Scienceiscool:
Thus, it was restricted to big events with organizations that had big budgets such as national teams going to the Olympics or someone like Merckx heading into Paris Roubaix (for the record he states he was offered, but declined).

Anquetil and Zoetemelk are two riders of whom we know they were using different methods of blood boosting for GTs. That's early to late 70s. So you're clutching at straws when you're suggesting blood boosting wasn't done during GTs in the 80s. Exactly what kind of blood boosting is anyone's guess, but there were different methods by that time that had proven their worth. We're lucky that it's documented for 88. It's only plausible to assume it happened throughout the 80s.

Scienceiscool:
The thought you'd use it constantly through the season is big-time laughable.

agree.
You'd use it primarily before important one-day races and during GT rest days. And that's only for the guys with a budget. Water carriers would have to make do with less advanced procedures.

Scienceiscool:
...even if the very first riders got hold of it in 1987 during the drug trials,

For athletics and skiing the year of introduction is 1986. So for cycling 86 isn't impossible either. Lemond and Hampsten mixing it up at the TdS and TdF should ring all sorts of Sky-ish alarm bells. And as it happens, the guy responsible for taking Amgen public was a wanna be world champ masters cyclist trained by a certain Eddie B from 85 onwards. Ow, and Lemond did a nice little investment in that guy's company. Oh well.

Scienceiscool:
it took the next six or seven years until a large percentage of the peloton was using. Even then to mixed effect.

Indeed, and if you want to find users in the early period, it makes sense to look at guys with big results. Hampsten, Roche, Lemond.

Scienceiscool:
Lastly, the world of pro cycling is a small one. Everyone is "related" in one way or another. Of course a clean Alcala could ride with PDM and remain clean back then.

I doubt Alcala was clean. Seems likely that Gisbers was referring to EPO. Throughout the 70s and 80s, Mexico was the go-to place for PEDs for many Americans (see the famous David Jenkins drug ring). Mexican cyclists would have known where to find the honey, too. You gotta wonder why Alcala was the only Mexican making a breakthrough. Just doesn't make sense that he was clean. If he were, many of his doping countrymen would probably have surpassed him. Doping did make a difference you know, also in the 80s, in all sports. I trust you won't ask me to provide evidence for that.

PDM, I think, was one of the first that started ramping up a team-wide program. Lemond was appalled enough to leave

that's a weird myth. We know he had contractual issues. Sure, his lawyer said something about testosterone, but the details are unknown. You can't jump to conclusions from there. Lemond had his own doctors and a carreer-long Mexican fixer with whom he did odd ooc training sessions. In 87-88, ADR had four positives, all publicized, plus a doctor (VanMol) who'd been sent away from his previous team due to doping issues (cortisone gone wrong). If Lemond was appalled by PDM's doping program, why, of all teams, did he sign for ADR? The irony there is huge.

Another anecdote: Zoetemelk was widely known to have experimented with blood doping. IT had been written about already in the late 70s early 80s. So Lemond would've known. Yet Lemond didn't mind coming second to Zoetemelk at the 85 worlds. In Sam Abt's "Incredible Comeback" there is a paragraph dedicated to Lemond praising Zoetemelk's deserved win and his great carreer. Lemond appalled? Not really. Then you look at some of the people singled out as Lemond's 'close friends' in that period. It includes the likes of Johan Lammerts and Rini Wagtmans. Two keepers of omerta if ever there were any.


And that's disregarding all the other evidence of doping among the Americans that has surfaced. USOC providing internal testing. Eddie bringing Harvey Newton on board. I'm just cherry-picking here. Rigged testing at the Coors Classic. Blood doping among the '74 US Junior team n Poland.

And re-read Gisbers' statement about Americans and doping on the previous page.
He knew what time it was.

Talking about timing: coincidentally, this "clean americans vs. doped europeans" narrative started emerging forcefully in the mid/late 80s, after the 84 Olympics scandal had made them realize that doping really should best stay burried deeply under the carpet.

There is such a huge Sky-avant-la-lettre stink to the whole Hampsten-Lemond story, it's not funny, starting with Eddie B and his alleged introduction of 'scientific' Eastern European training methods, praised extensively by Lemond.

....to the bolded...kinda funny but during that period LeMond also bulked up ( to the point it became a bit of a running gag in the peloton ) ....and I don't have to point out what a strange thing that is to do when your success is predicated on being able to climb well....

...so I guess the question why the bulking up....

Cheers

 

[pmcg76]

Re: Re:

good post, appreciate it, although I disagree on many points.

...

Who was clean? Lemond, Bauer, Hampston, Mottet, possibly Alcala, Criquielion and a whole host of others. For those that didn't want to, there really wasn't a whole lot of pressure to dope if you were sincere about being clean because you could compete and still get results.

First off, Mottet wasn't clean. He admitted to using amphetamines. A one-time thing? I doubt it.
http://archive.wikiwix.com/cache/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ecoutedopage.fr%2Fcas-dopage%2Fsilence-dans-rangs-une-seule-fois-89-102-11-731.html

Hampsten in my mind certainly wasn't clean in 1992, when he was doing a winter preparation with Max Testa in Como on the border with Switzerland (Hampsten's place of residence throughout his carreer) where EPO was available without prescription and where, indeed, the entire Motorola gang would go in 1994 to fetch their ampules on Testa's advice (Swart testimony). Hampsten's results in 1992 speak for themselves. The way he bulked up in 92 is also suspicious, but let's stick to the blood boosting, which is really tough to deny for that year. Now, I'm having trouble imagining why he would have been clean in 88 with Testa, or in 86...with Testa. Testa is an exposed doping doc, and you really going to have to explain to me why you think he wasn't helping Hampsten (and others at 7-11) with 'marginal gains' in 86 and 88. I think Mike Neel was perfectly aware whom he brought in when he hired Testa in 85. Prior to that appointment, Testa had already done physiological testing with various Italian cracks including Argentin.

Scienceiscool:
Transfusions did happen, but the logistics were a nightmare. You couldn't extract in January/February and reinject throughout the year as you can now. That meant injecting from a donor which is dodgy as hell. The risk of infection from something in another person's blood isn't worth the risk.

Not worth the risk to you, maybe, but certainly worth the risk to cyclists aspiring to become pro. Hell, even worth the risk to amateur cyclists. And hell, even worth the risk to their ambitious parents. Section from Wheelmen (but could've taken this from any other source) about 84:

The US team, however, went ahead with the blood-boosting effort. Participation in the program was voluntary. If they were interested, they were to arrange for family members with compatible blood types to provide the blood donations. A few days before the Olympic track cycling events, the cyclists and their blood donors lined up in a room at the Ramada hotel in Carson City, and a doctor connected tubes between them, allowing the blood to flow directly from one to the other.

Come to think of it, which GT rider was in the habit of bringing his parents to GTs? Just saying...

Scienceiscool:
Thus, it was restricted to big events with organizations that had big budgets such as national teams going to the Olympics or someone like Merckx heading into Paris Roubaix (for the record he states he was offered, but declined).

Anquetil and Zoetemelk are two riders of whom we know they were using different methods of blood boosting for GTs. That's early to late 70s. So you're clutching at straws when you're suggesting blood boosting wasn't done during GTs in the 80s. Exactly what kind of blood boosting is anyone's guess, but there were different methods by that time that had proven their worth. We're lucky that it's documented for 88. It's only plausible to assume it happened throughout the 80s.

Scienceiscool:
The thought you'd use it constantly through the season is big-time laughable.

agree.
You'd use it primarily before important one-day races and during GT rest days. And that's only for the guys with a budget. Water carriers would have to make do with less advanced procedures.

Scienceiscool:
...even if the very first riders got hold of it in 1987 during the drug trials,

For athletics and skiing the year of introduction is 1986. So for cycling 86 isn't impossible either. Lemond and Hampsten mixing it up at the TdS and TdF should ring all sorts of Sky-ish alarm bells. And as it happens, the guy responsible for taking Amgen public was a wanna be world champ masters cyclist trained by a certain Eddie B from 85 onwards. Ow, and Lemond did a nice little investment in that guy's company. Oh well.

Scienceiscool:
it took the next six or seven years until a large percentage of the peloton was using. Even then to mixed effect.

Indeed, and if you want to find users in the early period, it makes sense to look at guys with big results. Hampsten, Roche, Lemond.

Scienceiscool:
Lastly, the world of pro cycling is a small one. Everyone is "related" in one way or another. Of course a clean Alcala could ride with PDM and remain clean back then.

I doubt Alcala was clean. Seems likely that Gisbers was referring to EPO. Throughout the 70s and 80s, Mexico was the go-to place for PEDs for many Americans (see the famous David Jenkins drug ring). Mexican cyclists would have known where to find the honey, too. You gotta wonder why Alcala was the only Mexican making a breakthrough. Just doesn't make sense that he was clean. If he were, many of his doping countrymen would probably have surpassed him. Doping did make a difference you know, also in the 80s, in all sports. I trust you won't ask me to provide evidence for that.

PDM, I think, was one of the first that started ramping up a team-wide program. Lemond was appalled enough to leave

that's a weird myth. We know he had contractual issues. Sure, his lawyer said something about testosterone, but the details are unknown. You can't jump to conclusions from there. Lemond had his own doctors and a carreer-long Mexican fixer with whom he did odd ooc training sessions. In 87-88, ADR had four positives, all publicized, plus a doctor (VanMol) who'd been sent away from his previous team due to doping issues (cortisone gone wrong). If Lemond was appalled by PDM's doping program, why, of all teams, did he sign for ADR? The irony there is huge.

Another anecdote: Zoetemelk was widely known to have experimented with blood doping. IT had been written about already in the late 70s early 80s. So Lemond would've known. Yet Lemond didn't mind coming second to Zoetemelk at the 85 worlds. In Sam Abt's "Incredible Comeback" there is a paragraph dedicated to Lemond praising Zoetemelk's deserved win and his great carreer. Lemond appalled? Not really. Then you look at some of the people singled out as Lemond's 'close friends' in that period. It includes the likes of Johan Lammerts and Rini Wagtmans. Two keepers of omerta if ever there were any.


And that's disregarding all the other evidence of doping among the Americans that has surfaced. USOC providing internal testing. Eddie bringing Harvey Newton on board. I'm just cherry-picking here. Rigged testing at the Coors Classic. Blood doping among the '74 US Junior team n Poland.

And re-read Gisbers' statement about Americans and doping on the previous page.
He knew what time it was.

Talking about timing: coincidentally, this "clean americans vs. doped europeans" narrative started emerging forcefully in the mid/late 80s, after the 84 Olympics scandal had made them realize that doping really should best stay burried deeply under the carpet.

There is such a huge Sky-avant-la-lettre stink to the whole Hampsten-Lemond story, it's not funny, starting with Eddie B and his alleged introduction of 'scientific' Eastern European training methods, praised extensively by Lemond.

....to the bolded...kinda funny but during that period LeMond also bulked up ( to the point it became a bit of a running gag in the peloton ) ....and I don't have to point out what a strange thing that is to do when your success is predicated on being able to climb well....

...so I guess the question why the bulking up....

Cheers

He didn't bulk up, he got fat, in 1990 in particular and also 91 to a degree and would spend the first half of the year trying to lose the weight. He was Ullrich before the German came along in terms of gaining/losing weight. It was hardly the Armstrong 96 type bulking up now, but nice attempt at trying to rewrite history.

 

[sniper]

“When I saw riders with fat asses climbing like airplanes, that’s when I knew,” said Luis Herrera.

Irony aside, him having gained weight does raise the question: how did he win that TdF in 1990 against some riders who were possibly already reaping the benefits of EPO.
Not only had Lemond gained weight, if I'm not mistaken he also suffered two viruses (one in the winter and one in April) in the run up to the TdF that year, both of which took him out for ca. a month each and he was terrible at the Tour de Trump.

In 1989 the story of his comeback was a story of (extremely) hard training and suffering.
Him gaining weight in 1990 but still performing in the 1990 TdF as well as in 1989 is a bit, well, unexpected.

Disregarding Lemond, Hampsten's bulking up did show parallels with Armstrong's.

 

[pmcg76]

Re:

“When I saw riders with fat asses climbing like airplanes, that’s when I knew,” said Luis Herrera.

Irony aside, him having gained weight does raise the question: how did he win that TdF in 1990 against some riders who were possibly already reaping the benefits of EPO.
Not only had Lemond gained weight, if I'm not mistaken he also suffered two viruses (one in the winter and one in April) in the run up to the TdF that year, both of which took him out for ca. a month each and he was terrible at the Tour de Trump.

In 1989 the story of his comeback was a story of (extremely) hard training and suffering.
Him gaining weight in 1990 but still performing in the 1990 TdF as well as in 1989 is a bit, well, unexpected.

Disregarding Lemond, Hampsten's bulking up did show parallels with Armstrong's.

Because he did what all riders did in those days, he raced himself into shape. He rode the Tour de Trump, followed by the Giro, followed by the Tour of Switzerland. His approach was the complete opposite of the EPO generation who would miss lots of racing and then just arrive at their target in top shape.

 

[sniper]

Re: Re:

...
Because he did what all riders did in those days, he raced himself into shape.

If all riders did it, then how did Lemond go on to win it, and not one of those other riders?
Not all riders in those days had two viruses in the run up to the tour. Lemond did.
Not all riders had gained weight relative to 89. Lemond did.

Not saying impossible, but certainly against the odds, even more so *if* it is true that certain riders were already on EPO in 1990.
Edit: and these certain riders weren't *only* on EPO, but on a whole cocktail of PEDs.

 

[Benotti69]

Re: Re:

“When I saw riders with fat asses climbing like airplanes, that’s when I knew,” said Luis Herrera.

Irony aside, him having gained weight does raise the question: how did he win that TdF in 1990 against some riders who were possibly already reaping the benefits of EPO.
Not only had Lemond gained weight, if I'm not mistaken he also suffered two viruses (one in the winter and one in April) in the run up to the TdF that year, both of which took him out for ca. a month each and he was terrible at the Tour de Trump.

In 1989 the story of his comeback was a story of (extremely) hard training and suffering.
Him gaining weight in 1990 but still performing in the 1990 TdF as well as in 1989 is a bit, well, unexpected.

Disregarding Lemond, Hampsten's bulking up did show parallels with Armstrong's.

Because he did what all riders did in those days, he raced himself into shape. He rode the Tour de Trump, followed by the Giro, followed by the Tour of Switzerland. His approach was the complete opposite of the EPO generation who would miss lots of racing and then just arrive at their target in top shape.

Is this not the standard for today's pros? Don't race themselves race fit, but 'train' to race, i.e. dope. On Tenerife or other OOC testing free zone.

Hayman allegedly on his trainer in the garage in preparation for his Paris Roubaix win. Yeah sure.

 

[ScienceIsCool]

Re:

“When I saw riders with fat asses climbing like airplanes, that’s when I knew,” said Luis Herrera.

Irony aside, him having gained weight does raise the question: how did he win that TdF in 1990 against some riders who were possibly already reaping the benefits of EPO.
Not only had Lemond gained weight, if I'm not mistaken he also suffered two viruses (one in the winter and one in April) in the run up to the TdF that year, both of which took him out for ca. a month each and he was terrible at the Tour de Trump.

In 1989 the story of his comeback was a story of (extremely) hard training and suffering.
Him gaining weight in 1990 but still performing in the 1990 TdF as well as in 1989 is a bit, well, unexpected.

Disregarding Lemond, Hampsten's bulking up did show parallels with Armstrong's.

You're funny. There's a thing called revisionist history and then there's something called alternate history. You're like the "Deutschland 83" or "Man in the White Castle" of cycling. Seriously, I admire the amount of effort you're putting into your hobby.

John Swanson

 

[blackcat]

Re: Re:

Hayman allegedly on his trainer in the garage in preparation for his Paris Roubaix win. Yeah sure.

 

[CheckMyPecs]

In any of the TDf "wins" of the LA era, would he not be the winner of the race? If dude finished 89th, but did it clean and the first 88 finishers were dopers, is he not the deserving winner of the race?

Exactly, you hit the nail on the head.

That's why people saying Contador continues to be the winner of the 2010 TDF in their minds is absolute rubbish. Schleck has never been caught doping. But, even if he had, then you'd have Sánchez. And then you'd have some other guy. And eventually you'd find some dude who's never doped, and HE would be the rightful winner.

So no, I have no time for fanbois saying Armstrong really won those 7 Tours or Contador really won the 2010 Tour (and 2011 Giro).

 

[42x16ss]

Re: Re:

Hayman allegedly on his trainer in the garage in preparation for his Paris Roubaix win. Yeah sure.

With his injury he had no choice. Somehow, I doubt that was all he was on though.

 

[@NL_LeMondFans]

Re: Re:

Come to think of it, which GT rider was in the habit of bringing his parents to GTs? Just saying...

That's the kind of comment that gets on my nerves...

This way of thinking is the same paranoia as the guy who is convinced his wife is cheating on him. Interpreting facts and make them fit your narrative.

Say, your wife is taking her smartphone when she's going to the bathroom. That guy will say she's texting her lover. But he fails to see, accept or even consider she's just playing Candy Crush. When he confronts her, nothing she will say will sound right to him. She can't prove she was playing Candy Crush. He'll say she deleted the messages. And why would she play Candy Crush in the first place ? Nobody does that, etc...

Greg was the first to bring his family along during the Tour de France. He was the first to break the tradition (no wives on races at the time) and he had the budget for it. First you saw a doping crew with physicists, now you see blood doping with relatives. You insinuate things : "just saying".

Is it possible he just got homesick and wanted his folks around ?

 

[sniper]

Re: Re:

Come to think of it, which GT rider was in the habit of bringing his parents to GTs? Just saying...

That's the kind of comment that gets on my nerves...

This way of thinking is the same paranoia as the guy who is convinced his wife is cheating on him. Interpreting facts and make them fit your narrative.

Say, your wife is taking her smartphone when she's going to the bathroom. That guy will say she's texting her lover. But he fails to see, accept or even consider she's just playing Candy Crush. When he confronts her, nothing she will say will sound right to him. She can't prove she was playing Candy Crush. He'll say she deleted the messages. And why would she play Candy Crush in the first place ? Nobody does that, etc...

Greg was the first to bring his family along during the Tour de France. He was the first to break the tradition (no wives on races at the time) and he had the budget for it. First you saw a doping crew with physicists, now you see blood doping with relatives. You insinuate things : "just saying".

Is it possible he just got homesick and wanted his folks around ?

'Just sayin'
It's potentially relevant information in the context of blood doping (see the 84 family-donor story).
And relevant in the context of the discussion where certain posters claim blood doping during GTs in the 80s would have been close to infeasible.

What you see as '(baseless) insinuation', others might see as 'informed speculation'.
The distinction between one and the other is largely a matter of taste/perspective.
Bottomline: why would you want to ignore such context?

Sure, I could've spent another half an hour crafting a more elaborate post and/or reformulating the whole thing so as not to 'get on your nerves', but believe it or not I do have other things to do as well.
If Lemond or Hampsten doping discussions get on your nerves, you're under no obligation to participate in or even read the respective threads.

On a side, do allow me to recall your recent "Mig-hell" rant. Indurain 'destroying' cycling, etc.
I think my comments on Lemond and Hampsten are quite innocent in comparison.

If I'm wrong about Lemond bringing his family to GTs, just tell me and I'll stand corrected.

Is it possible he just got homesick and wanted his folks around ?

yes, that's possible.

 

[Sorped]

To many people, "Just saying" means "I'm putting this out there without saying it, but you can all connect the dots"

 

[sniper]

Re:

To those many people, what does "Mig-hell" mean?

 

[@NL_LeMondFans]

Re: Re:

'Just sayin'
It's potentially relevant information in the context of blood doping (see the 84 family-donor story).
And relevant in the context of the discussion where certain posters claim blood doping during GTs in the 80s would have been close to infeasible.

What you see as '(baseless) insinuation', others might see as 'informed speculation'.
The distinction between one and the other is largely a matter of taste/perspective.
Bottomline: why would you want to ignore such context?

It still is insuating. I'm not saying it's baseless. I just want to make clear there is still a difference between "opinion" and "truth". Which is lost in many posts in the now 3 or 4 threads trying to prove Greg LeMond doped.

Sure, I could've spent another half an hour crafting a more elaborate post and/or reformulating the whole thing so as not to 'get on your nerves', but believe it or not I do have other things to do as well.

By not caring, you're bringing on yourself a lot of what has been described as "fanboyism" on this threads. You can't blame people for reacting if you've been careless about their sentiment. Some might even consider this trolling. But I'm not one of them.

If Lemond or Hampsten doping discussions get on your nerves, you're under no obligation to participate in or even read the respective threads.

Agreed, and I might in the future, but this tends to make me do the exact opposite. It triggers me into participating. Like you, I have many more things and mostly way more interesting things to do with my life, like riding my bike to name just one.

On a side, do allow me to recall your recent "Mig-hell" rant. Indurain 'destroying' cycling, etc.
I think my comments on Lemond and Hampsten are quite innocent in comparison.

In my opinion, I gave more facts in a 2 pages article than 300 pages of LeMond probing. But that's just my opinion.

 

[sniper]

Re: Re:

You can't blame people for reacting if you've been careless about their sentiment.

From a poster who was only recently ranting about "Mig-hell" destroying cycling, this is, well, an interesting view.

Anyway, it's good to hear your perspective and I apologize if my careless choice of words got on your nerves.
Now let's get back on topic.
Clean riders.

 

[@NL_LeMondFans]

Re: Re:

You can't blame people for reacting if you've been careless about their sentiment.

From a poster who was only recently ranting about "Mig-hell" destroying cycling, this is, well, an interesting view.

Anyway, it's good to hear your perspective and I apologize if my careless choice of words got on your nerves.
Now let's get back on topic.
Clean riders.

"Only recently" was 2 years ago.

The "Mig-Hell" quote that you keep re-hashing was never posted on a forum, which is very different. You might as well quit using it as a way to attack my credibility. Thank you.

EDIT : There is a "comment" section on our blog that you are free to use if I offended you with that...

 

[sniper]

Re: Re:

I'm just pointing out what I perceive as a double standard in your argumentation.
I don't question your credibility, not one second. (I do remember several posts where you questioned mine )
I think you're a strong poster generally willing to engage without mudthrowing.

Anyway, the thread is about which rider you think was clean and about why you think they were clean.
Wanna give that a try?

 

[@NL_LeMondFans]

Re: Re:

I'm just pointing out what I perceive as a double standard in your argumentation.
I don't question your credibility, not one second. (I do remember several posts where you questioned mine )
I think you're a strong poster generally willing to engage without mudthrowing.

Anyway, the thread is about which rider you think was clean and about why you think they were clean.
Wanna give that a try?

Fair enough.

At this point, I don't have any name that has not been discussed yet. The obvious ones, besides Greg LeMond, for me, are Gilles Delion and David Moncoutié.

What I do want to say about this is that if we're taking the "guilty by association" stance, then we might as well close this thread. Everyone in pro cycling is linked to a doper. Period. So, I am not sure of the interest of this discussion, to be honest. As it's been said over and over again, you can't "prove" someone was clean. And it's so easy to associate him with dopers or dope enablers.

I trust my instincts. To me their stories add up, that's all. I don't feel the need to convince anyone I am right about this, and I wouldn't bet my life on it, either.

Gilles Delion interview from last year, that I find very interesting. I don't think someone who doped would talk like this, but it doesn't prove anything :
http://www.lemonde.fr/sport/visuel/2015/07/20/on-a-retrouve-gilles-delion-le-champion-inacheve_4690925_3242.html

EDIT : by the way, I don't think you lack credibility, but I often question your methods, Sniper, which is different. And there would be no "double standards" issues on my part if Greg had been able to pursue his career until 1995, given my method based on facts.

 

[sniper]

Yeah, I'm comfortable with the view of Delion as clean-ish (i.e. a program restricted to amphetamines and some recovery stuff).
To the extent that I can read French, I agree he sounds more credible wrt antidoping than many others.

To my knowledge, there isn't anything tangible against him and his results are not suspicious, except perhaps 1990 where he won Lombardy and came 15th in the Tour.

Nicolas Aubier once said you can't be part of the top 100 in procycling without EPO, HGH and other illegal PEDs.
Sure, he was talking about the mid-90s, but I don't see the 80s (or the year 1990, in Delion's case) being *a whole lot* different, based on the testimonies that have come out suggesting PEDs did in fact make all the difference between winning and losing also in the 60s, 70s and 80s.
So maybe Delion got to that 15th in the TdF without EPO, but (much like Mottet) with a lunchbox of pan-i-agua-i-amphetamines.

I do like Gisbers' testimony re: Alcala, strongly suggesting that at least in 1990 Alcala was able to keep up without EPO.

 

[Sorped]

Re: Re:

To those many people, what does "Mig-hell" mean?

I wouldn't know as I'm only me.

One interpretation could be what American pilots said during the cold war when they met a squadron of Russian fighter planes?

 

[blackcat]

Re: Re:

Hayman allegedly on his trainer in the garage in preparation for his Paris Roubaix win. Yeah sure.

With his injury he had no choice. Somehow, I doubt that was all he was on though.

he was on something, i reckon a little like Wiggo, he was in the crepescular career phase CCP alliterationz, and he decides to roll the dice on a bit more Edgar Poe and penguin classics

 

[the delgados]

decides to roll the dice on a bit more Edgar Poe and penguin classics

This forum really needs a 'like' option.
Sometimes posters need to be recognized in a high-fives sort of way without commenting further.

Oops. I tried to quote blackcat, but something went terribly awry.
Just one more example of the need for a like option.

 

[blackcat]

Re:

decides to roll the dice on a bit more Edgar Poe and penguin classics

This forum really needs a 'like' option.
Sometimes posters need to be recognized in a high-fives sort of way without commenting further.

Oops. I tried to quote blackcat, but something went terribly awry.
Just one more example of the need for a like option.

a hashtag and #wildeandrollery will suffice

a 'like' option is a little banal and jejune for my efforts

 

[the delgados]

Re: Re:

decides to roll the dice on a bit more Edgar Poe and penguin classics

This forum really needs a 'like' option.
Sometimes posters need to be recognized in a high-fives sort of way without commenting further.

Oops. I tried to quote blackcat, but something went terribly awry.
Just one more example of the need for a like option.

a hashtag and #wildeandrollery will suffice

a 'like' option is a little banal and jejune for my efforts

You're not going to like this, but here goes...'like."