Koechli & Helvetia/La Suisse-the clean team

[Mrs John Murphy]

I suppose you can read it two ways - either that he wouldn't have accepted being beaten by inferior riders, or he would have adopted it himself.

 

[webvan]

We'll never know, but given his "down to earth" background it's a bit unlikely he would have gone with blood manipulation.

 

[Le breton]

We'll never know, but given his "down to earth" background it's a bit unlikely he would have gone with blood manipulation.

Hinault is not more "down to earth" than Indurain.
Of course his circumstances would have different :
Indurain was not at the top of the hierarchy before the advent of EPO.

Would he have been like LeMond? I seriously doubt it.
Hard to tell, Guimard clung to cortisone (for his racers) for years, until 93 but was swept away by the EPO wave and in 1994 Luc Leblanc was able to finish Hautacam with Indurain.

 

[pleyser]

Bauer interview

http://redkiteprayer.com/?tag=paul-koechli

Just came across this interview (2010) with Steve Bauer speaking about his days on La Vie Claire, 1988 Tour and 1990 Paris Roubaix. Also of interest, he discusses not becoming a DS with US Postal leading to the Bruyneel/Armstrong alliance.

I assume a DS position would pay more than running a bike touring outfit here in the Niagara region of Canada. Could there be other reasons he opted not to become a DS at the time?

 

[Tank Engine]

http://redkiteprayer.com/?tag=paul-koechli

Just came across this interview (2010) with Steve Bauer speaking about his days on La Vie Claire, 1988 Tour and 1990 Paris Roubaix. Also of interest, he discusses not becoming a DS with US Postal leading to the Bruyneel/Armstrong alliance.

I assume a DS position would pay more than running a bike touring outfit here in the Niagara region of Canada. Could there be other reasons he opted not to become a DS at the time?

Looks like he's being very careful with his words. Thanks for the link.

 

[pmcg76]

Good article by cyclingnews and fits in nicely here

http://www.cyclingnews.com/features/gilles-delion-and-the-road-not-taken/

He makes some very good points demonstrating the nuances of wading through the EPO era which is in distinct contrast to the black/white, one size fits all nonsense that gets peddled here.

 

[papisimo98]

Nice work PMC
You were on to this a long time ago and it's funny how certain posters who have tried to discredit LeMond have never once commented in here. nor have they referenced this great thread for good reason.

 

[red_flanders]

Good read, thanks pmcg76.

 

[jens_attacks]

Delion could have blamed it all on epo. Like some people do.
He's still a class act.

 

[pmcg76]

Robert Millar on who his least favourite rider was.

I didn't like seeing Giles Delion winning because he's smarmy and always said everyone else was cheating, taking drugs or being paid too much. Sadly for Giles and happily for the rest of us, he was struck down by some dodgy-blood-viral-post-traumatic shock yuppie flu kind of thing early in his career which meant that he didn't amke me too unhappy too often after 1990.

Taken from Cycle Sport Magazine Feb 1997 in which Millar was the guest editor and also answered the letters page.

Just for context, his favourite rider was Bruno Cornillet becaue "he never mentioned gardening, DIY or racing and was a happy-go-lucky kind of person".

 

[Nick C.]

So the Article was one year pre-Festina. Interesting. I gather no one has ever thrown back in his face "smarmy complainer about people who complained about cheaters ..."

 

[pmcg76]

Well I also remeber sometime after the Festina affair 98-99, Radio 5 live in the UK did a segment on doping in cycling. Want to say one of the Fotheringhams were the producer, but that is stretching the memory. Anyways, Robert Millar was one of the people interviewed. I think he more or less said(summarising here), as cyclists were professional athletes, it is their choice to take what they want and look after their body so they can do their job. At the time I was a bit surprised by the frank nature of the statement, but I dont think he was really challenged on it.

I actually think Millar is an interesting character and normally enjoy his musings. I think he wants people to read between the lines without singling anyone outl

 

[sniper]

"What today is doping, in that period, was science", said Aldo Sassi in reference to blood doping in the 80s.
https://books.google.pl/books?id=M8UDAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA54&lpg=PA54&dq=aldo+sassi+%22what+today+is+doping%22&source=bl&ots=bhn3jqSps8&sig=rbzkUJCebarKG4tQU6mrLvKFtOM&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjBo7Tno6bSAhVGhiwKHY9tBsMQ6AEIKDAC#v=onepage&q=aldo%20sassi%20%22what%20today%20is%20doping%22&f=false

Wasn't Kochli known for applying 'science' to cycling, too?
Honest question.

More generally, with Tapie, Hinault, and soigneurs like Pierre Ducrot in the background, I'd think twice before jumping to the conclusion that Kochli was a clean DS or that Delion was clean, just because some folks say so.

Voet vouching for Delion is an important statement, admittedly. However, Voet also vouched for Mottet being clean. But Mottet admitted to using amphetamines, which last time I checked means he wasn't clean.

 

[L'arriviste]

Re:

"What today is doping, in that period, was science", said Aldo Sassi in reference to blood doping in the 80s.
https://books.google.pl/books?id=M8UDAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA54&lpg=PA54&dq=aldo+sassi+%22what+today+is+doping%22&source=bl&ots=bhn3jqSps8&sig=rbzkUJCebarKG4tQU6mrLvKFtOM&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjBo7Tno6bSAhVGhiwKHY9tBsMQ6AEIKDAC#v=onepage&q=aldo%20sassi%20%22what%20today%20is%20doping%22&f=false

Wasn't Kochli known for applying 'science' to cycling, too?
Honest question.

More generally, with Tapie, Hinault, and soigneurs like Pierre Ducrot in the background, I'd think twice before jumping to the conclusion that Kochli was a clean DS or that Delion was clean, just because some folks say so.

Voet vouching for Delion is an important statement, admittedly. However, Voet also vouched for Mottet being clean. But Mottet admitted to using amphetamines, which last time I checked means he wasn't clean.

iirc Mottet tried/used amphetamines during Post-Tour criteriums, as did many other riders, usually for reasons described by Kimmage in his book: to fight off exhaustion or to have some fun. I think that is what Mottet meant when he said that he did not benefit from them in competition and that his meaning was probably lost in translation. It is also possible that he really did take them only once as he stated, since the sometimes bumpy experience is not to everyone's taste.

This does not, I should add, prove anything about Mottet's ordinary competitive régime. My conjecture is worth as much as anyone else's. What is certain is that the Frenchman did top the annual rankings in the late 80s at a time when doping was changing gear.

Meanwhile, as far as I understand it, Koechli's teams did not have a programme and he personally talked a clean game but it remains true that he did not control his riders 24/7 any more than do DSs today. Riders on his teams could and did supply themselves as they saw fit: five of Kim Andersen's seven positives happened during his time at La Vie Claire, a fact often overlooked when talking up Koechli and LeMond.

Pros may endure training camps and lots of race days but they are still left to their own devices a lot of the time. The opportunities for making unsanctioned contacts and engaging in extra-curricular activities of all sorts are plentiful.

 

[pmcg76]

L'Arriviste

This is just more blatant trolling from sniper. The info you posted re Mottet has been pointed out several times in the past, sniper just chooses to ignore it in the name of trolling.

Go back to page 7 of this thread and you will see that Koechli says he did not like everything that was happening at La Vie Claire, but couldn't stop it. That is why he left and set up his own team with a much smaller budget. Even at his own team, he couldn't watch his riders 24/7 so didn't always know what was happening. Giles Delion says that in the recent piece.

This is an exchange I had with the poster Esasofina way, way back when this thread was first going. For those who dont know, he was a pro in Europe at that time and was World Pursuit Champions.

pmcg76 wrote:
Hi Colin

Great to have you here and willing to share some of your experiences with us.

I was only getting into cycling as a young fella when you were around as a pro and that period 89-93 is still my favourite era of cycling as it was all so new and I was learning so much.

Obviously it was not all good and I was pretty young when I read Rough Ride by Paul Kimmage so have always had an interest on the subject of doping.

I just wanted to ask you one question about doping in that era. I have read many different accounts that Paul Koechli and his Helvetia/La Suisse were regarded as a clean team were not even needles were allowed.

Now obviously some of their rider's like Pascal Richard, Mauro Gianetti, Laurent Dufaux and a few other's went on to be major doper's whilst the PDM files show that guys like Stevenhagen and Muller were doping before they joined Koechli.

What was the word in the peloton about Helvetia?

Thanks
P MC



Hello P MC, thanks for the message mate. It's a very good question regarding Helvetia... I know for a fact Koechli was very anti-doping, to the extent that he frowned upon his riders using any sort of injections (vitamins, glucose-phosphate, etc) which were very common in the peloton in those days. I have to say that in the peloton his riders were held to be clean due to his stance; but what those individuals were doing outside of Koechli's jurisdiction is another matter. I knew (Helvetia team rider) quite well, and we'd talk a fair bit, and he always doubted a few of the riders, but had no proof. (Even with proof those were the dark days of 'omerta' and speaking out was frowned upon as 'unprofessional'.) One guy you can almost guarantee clean was Giles Delion... he was quite outspoken (in his own quiet way) about doping.
PDM were another matter! (I was approached to ride for them in 1990, after I'd won the worlds, and thank god it fell through!) They were known as Prestatie Duur Manipulatie (PDM) which in English means: Prestige or performance through manipulation! (roughly translated!) Quite apt knowing what we now know!
I hope this throws some light on the matter, and goes someway to answering your question... with all the 'confessions' and what-have-you nothing would surprise me anymore! I only hope there's a few clean lads (and lasses!) left from that era!

 

[sniper]

Re: Re:

"What today is doping, in that period, was science", said Aldo Sassi in reference to blood doping in the 80s.
https://books.google.pl/books?id=M8UDAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA54&lpg=PA54&dq=aldo+sassi+%22what+today+is+doping%22&source=bl&ots=bhn3jqSps8&sig=rbzkUJCebarKG4tQU6mrLvKFtOM&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjBo7Tno6bSAhVGhiwKHY9tBsMQ6AEIKDAC#v=onepage&q=aldo%20sassi%20%22what%20today%20is%20doping%22&f=false

Wasn't Kochli known for applying 'science' to cycling, too?
Honest question.

More generally, with Tapie, Hinault, and soigneurs like Pierre Ducrot in the background, I'd think twice before jumping to the conclusion that Kochli was a clean DS or that Delion was clean, just because some folks say so.

Voet vouching for Delion is an important statement, admittedly. However, Voet also vouched for Mottet being clean. But Mottet admitted to using amphetamines, which last time I checked means he wasn't clean.

iirc Mottet tried/used amphetamines during Post-Tour criteriums, as did many other riders, usually for reasons described by Kimmage in his book: to fight off exhaustion or to have some fun. I think that is what Mottet meant when he said that he did not benefit from them in competition and that his meaning was probably lost in translation. It is also possible that he really did take them only once as he stated, since the sometimes bumpy experience is not to everyone's taste.

This does not, I should add, prove anything about Mottet's ordinary competitive régime. My conjecture is worth as much as anyone else's. What is certain is that the Frenchman did top the annual rankings in the late 80s at a time when doping was changing gear.

Meanwhile, as far as I understand it, Koechli's teams did not have a programme and he personally talked a clean game but it remains true that he did not control his riders 24/7 any more than do DSs today. Riders on his teams could and did supply themselves as they saw fit: five of Kim Andersen's seven positives happened during his time at La Vie Claire, a fact often overlooked when talking up Koechli and LeMond.

Pros may endure training camps and lots of race days but they are still left to their own devices a lot of the time. The opportunities for making unsanctioned contacts and engaging in extra-curricular activities of all sorts are plentiful.

cheers, good post and good point re Andersen.

I think Fignon also admitted only to taking amphetamines (well, and a shitload of coke), which in my view is rather unlikely. Testosterone and (cortico)steroids were just as much on the menu in the 80s as amphetamines.
I therefore take Mottet's "only amphetamines" admission with a grain of salt, too.
That said, Mottet has Voet's statement speaking in his favor.

 

[Cannibal72]

In fairness the reason Fignon gave for not using blood doping/testosterone wasn't morals, but the fact he was *** scared of them. That seems a fairly plausible reason to me, especially given his noted intelligence (....compared to other cyclists, perhaps). The way he describes his reaction to blood doping in his book is viscerally repulsive.