Last clean Grand Tour winner?

[blackcat]

Sorry, I am not from New Zealand.

You have a legit point. Pevenage, Saiz, Lefevre, Brunyeel,Gianetti. All have an extensive, well documented, history of team organized doping. If the ONLY evidence of possible doping is that a rider once rode for one of these DS' then the case would be weak. For example I do not think Tim Johnson doped when he rode for Gianetti at SD. Bassons did not dope on Festina.

But if a rider has an extensive history of questionable events, like the DNA tests of Ulrich and Valverde, or the associations with doping doctors like Ricco then the fact that they have spent time with a dirty DS only adds to the overall narrative.

there were a couple of guys who did not dope on SD, the two Americans and a Canadian guy, Johnson, Olson, and cant remember the other guy atm. That was Aaron Olson, not Ashley Oslon btw

This is Ashley, she might dope by default by transdermal application of seed with radiation

 

[ChrisE]

does not necessarily mean one is charging in the previous not O2 vector drug era.

If you were to say, Lemond averaged 420 watts, then sheesh...

His numbers dropped off alot after 90, and Indurain's numbers were much less than his in 91 and less in 92. The only reason I have heard is Indurain was doped during those years due to his association with Conconi. That is where Patrick is coming from.

It also leads one to believe that GL didn't drop off after 90 due to doping. His numbers went way down, other's didn't pass him. When he first retired it was a blood disease. Then the excuse was he lost because of the introduction of EPO in the peleton. He changed excuse horses in the middle of the stream, but the second doesn't compute IMO per the graphs that have been used numerous times on these forums.

 

[Digger]

i have a problem with all the rumors. here's one for you. race radio enjoys having sexual relations with sheep.

it's out there, so it must be true. after all, you've seen sheep, so we all know what you're about.

there is as much truth in that as there is in "he rode for_______, so he couldn't be clean."

idiotic statements get tiresome.

So you are not able to give even one specific example from this thread.
Case closed.

 

[Digger]

Did Kimmage write about the EPO being used in the 1980's?
I do not know the answer, that is why I ask

Seems EPO use in the 1980 GT's is the most tragic part of that era.

From the NYTimes article:

http://www.nytimes.com/1991/05/19/u...linked-to-athletes-deaths.html?pagewanted=all

And the argument that the dope doctors felt that "blood transfusing was too risky" seems like BS.
They were taking much bigger risks with EPO and killing riders during the 80's.[/QUOTE]

Kimmage raced with Robert millar, Stephen Roche, Sean Yates and under the guidance of Bernard Thevenet. He rode with Eddy Schepers and Thierry Claveyrolat. He shared a room in 1989 with Roche when he was trying ot win the giro and Tour. Roche doped with EPO in 1993 under Conconi. NOT ONCE is EPO or blood doping mentioned by Paul whilst he was riding. He tells all, but this is not mentioned. Willy Voet says the same. These two have told all, have first hand witness accounts of being on top teams at the time, YET, you don't believe them, and choose to continue this fantasy that Lemond could have blood doped or used EPO. They speak in great detail about the doping that did take place...why leave out EPO? You have no evidence whatsoever that top level professionals were doping prior to 1990. Even Steven Rooks accepts this. Conconi's files all show EPO administration around 1992 and 1993, not prior to this. And Kimmage, if you bothered reading his stuff, talks in great detail about how cycling changed dramatically when he retired. He spoke about drug deaths, about ice cubes in hotel corridors, and about cyclists hanging upside down from door frames in hte middle of the night. All in the early 90s, and not when he was competing. Greg Lemond's version of events is almost identical, as is Willy Voet.

 

[patricknd]

So you are not able to give even one specific example from this thread.
Case closed.

case closed? and you are in charge because?

if you don't do the work you won't learn anything. go back and read, and if the words are too big get a grownup to help.

 

[Digger]

case closed? and you are in charge because?

if you don't do the work you won't learn anything. go back and read, and if the words are too big get a grownup to help.

You still cannot give even one example from this thread...how many times now have you been asked?
I mean, if as you say it is, the whole thread, there should be countless examples to back up your claims and strengthen your position.

 

[ChrisE]

You see, this is where you guys get a little twisted up here.

Kimmage wrote about doping that occured during his career in Rough Ride. That career coincides with Lemond's. Fignon has admitted doping, and I believe we all think Hinault doped.

Nobody is accusing GL of blood doping or using EPO; at lease I'm not. There were other drugs used prior to those.

Why is it "fantasy" that some of us think there is a possibility that GL didn't ride on bread and mineral water alone? I don't know that as a fact because I wasn't with him 24/7 during his career. Just because somebody writes a book doesn't prove anything if they weren't with him 24/7 during his career, either.

There is circumstantial evidence there is a good chance he was on something. I don't believe anybody is that much of a physiological freak they can dominate competition that is on steroids, for example. To totally discount this possibility using absolutes hurts credibility.

 

[patricknd]

Lemond had hooked up with Eddy B. while he was still a junior, so his whole
career is suspect...even his junior results.

For as much as I like Carlos Sastre, that last TT looks suspicious. Of course no proof, but his performance was definitely better than in the first TT.

Now he rode for ONCE and then for CSC all his life. That does not help his cause, although Bassons has proven that you can ride in a dirty team being clean. The problems is that Bassons did not win the Tour de France.

LeMond never doped??
That’s almost as funny as Conan’s opening monologue last night.
But to quote some fine forumites “never question the myth”

Not a chance. He rode for ONCE/Manolo Saiz. Nothing clean has ever come out of that team.

There has never been a CLEAN Grand Tour winner... ever! From the earliest editions where racing on the roads took place in relative obscurity, to the microscopic oversight of the current day; with 21 stages and several rest days to consider the possibilities, no tour winner has ever made it to the podium with out some form of moral compromise. It is a basic and universal flaw of human nature.

Surely any fan of cycling who posts on this site recognizes this simple truth.

Saw Cadel on TV the other day. His face has that overly-masculated quality that some steroid abusers get -thickened, abundant Jaw, brow, chin and nose. If you look at comparative pictures, his whole head is significantly bigger than it was 5 years ago too. He may not be a blood doper, but I'd bet my car that he's been on a on testosterone, HGH, or some other hormone affecting substances for some time.

You still cannot give even one example from this thread...how many times now have you been asked?
I mean, if as you say it is, the whole thread, there should be countless examples to back up your claims and strengthen your position.

a few random nuggets. now pop your head out of your ***, take off your blinders and read, if you are able to do so.

 

[pmcg76]

You see, this is where you guys get a little twisted up here.

Kimmage wrote about doping that occured during his career in Rough Ride. That career coincides with Lemond's. Fignon has admitted doping, and I believe we all think Hinault doped.

Nobody is accusing GL of blood doping or using EPO; at lease I'm not. There were other drugs used prior to those.

Why is it "fantasy" that some of us think there is a possibility that GL didn't ride on bread and mineral water alone? I don't know that as a fact because I wasn't with him 24/7 during his career. Just because somebody writes a book doesn't prove anything if they weren't with him 24/7 during his career, either.

There is circumstantial evidence there is a good chance he was on something. I don't believe anybody is that much of a physiological freak they can dominate competition that is on steroids, for example. To totally discount this possibility using absolutes hurts credibility.

But the flipside is like you say we dont know if LeMond was clean or not, but we do know that Charly Mottet was singled out as a clean rider in the 80s and he was competitive at the top level. Yes, he didnt win a Tour but he sure as hell was not far away. If Mottet could ride at such a high level cleanly, why not LeMond.

Eric Caritoux was also confirmed as having won the Vuelta in 84 clean.

So in principle, we agree steroids were widely used in 80s but it was possible to compete at the top level cleanly. Either way, there is no proof that LeMond did use drugs.

 

[Insider]

from wikipedia

Blood doping probably started in the 1970s but was not outlawed until 1986. While it was still legal, it was commonly used by middle and long-distance runners. The US cycling team at the 1984 Olympics also employed blood doping.

I don't think that cyclists would have let down this possibility later on since it could not be detected until recently.

And I'm not accusing GL, I'm just saying what I think was possible back then.

 

[Digger]

a few random nuggets. now pop your head out of your ***, take off your blinders and read, if you are able to do so.

Anyway, the point was in relation to Lemond, you dumb f***, and him having doped or not. Many of us are saying here that there is not evidence whatsoever to suggest he doped. I asked for examples here we, the likes of RR, myself, PCMG, used rumour, in relation to Lemond.
If that was too complicated for you, which it clearly was, it's a shame.

 

[Digger]

from wikipedia


I don't think that cyclists would have let down this possibility later on since it could not be detected until recently.

And I'm not accusing GL, I'm just saying what I think was possible back then.

And again, no evidence whatsoever that top level cyclists were using it in the late 1980s.

 

[patricknd]

You see, this is where you guys get a little twisted up here.

Kimmage wrote about doping that occured during his career in Rough Ride. That career coincides with Lemond's. Fignon has admitted doping, and I believe we all think Hinault doped.

Nobody is accusing GL of blood doping or using EPO; at lease I'm not. There were other drugs used prior to those.

Why is it "fantasy" that some of us think there is a possibility that GL didn't ride on bread and mineral water alone? I don't know that as a fact because I wasn't with him 24/7 during his career. Just because somebody writes a book doesn't prove anything if they weren't with him 24/7 during his career, either.

There is circumstantial evidence there is a good chance he was on something. I don't believe anybody is that much of a physiological freak they can dominate competition that is on steroids, for example. To totally discount this possibility using absolutes hurts credibility.

my point exactly. " he rode for so & so" or "everyone said he was clean" isn't evidence. then there is the crowd that suggests that if it wasn't blood doping it's not as bad, because it wasn't as effective. that's like saying a well placed shot to the head with a rifle makes you more of a murderer than stabbing your victim 68 times with a screwdriver.

absent a confession or a positive drug test, none of us really know who's clean or dirty.

 

[Digger]

You see, this is where you guys get a little twisted up here.

Kimmage wrote about doping that occured during his career in Rough Ride. That career coincides with Lemond's. Fignon has admitted doping, and I believe we all think Hinault doped.

Nobody is accusing GL of blood doping or using EPO; at lease I'm not. There were other drugs used prior to those.

Why is it "fantasy" that some of us think there is a possibility that GL didn't ride on bread and mineral water alone? I don't know that as a fact because I wasn't with him 24/7 during his career. Just because somebody writes a book doesn't prove anything if they weren't with him 24/7 during his career, either.There is circumstantial evidence there is a good chance he was on something. I don't believe anybody is that much of a physiological freak they can dominate competition that is on steroids, for example. To totally discount this possibility using absolutes hurts credibility.

Because not one team mate, trainer, masseuse, doctor, anything, has ever said anything, other than him being impeccably clean. He left PDM due to its doping. His DSs have all said how he wouldn't go near the stuff. Team mates were offered big money to say Lemond doped...nothing. His career never showed drastic improvements. It was good from the start. If he doped in the 1980s, it stands to reason he would've doped when EPO came around, and would've continued winning. Yet the evidence of his career shows a rider who fell away quitee suddenly, when EPO came on board.

 

[Digger]

my point exactly. " he rode for so & so" or "everyone said he was clean" isn't evidence. then there is the crowd that suggests that if it wasn't blood doping it's not as bad, because it wasn't as effective. that's like saying a well placed shot to the head with a rifle makes you more of a murderer than stabbing your victim 68 times with a screwdriver.

absent a confession or a positive drug test, none of us really know who's clean or dirty.

A positive drug test wouldn't suffice for some people because they French would be blamed.

 

[patricknd]

Anyway, the point was in relation to Lemond, you dumb f***, and him having doped or not. Many of us are saying here that there is not evidence whatsoever to suggest he doped. I asked for examples here we, the likes of RR, myself, PCMG, used rumour, in relation to Lemond.
If that was too complicated for you, which it clearly was, it's a shame.

evidently it's too complicated for you, because the point wasn't only in relation to lemond. try reading the entire thread. do i need to say it s-l-o-w-e-r?

 

[patricknd]

A positive drug test wouldn't suffice for some people because they French would be blamed.

and they would be wrong.

 

[Digger]

my point exactly. " he rode for so & so" or "everyone said he was clean" isn't evidence. then there is the crowd that suggests that if it wasn't blood doping it's not as bad, because it wasn't as effective. that's like saying a well placed shot to the head with a rifle makes you more of a murderer than stabbing your victim 68 times with a screwdriver.

absent a confession or a positive drug test, none of us really know who's clean or dirty.

Yet you cannot present any evidence that he doped. Nothing. Do you accept that you can't? Or are you just going to try yet another ad hominem attack?

 

[pmcg76]

from wikipedia


I don't think that cyclists would have let down this possibility later on since it could not be detected until recently.

And I'm not accusing GL, I'm just saying what I think was possible back then.

Again, your right but it has never been mentioned by guys who were around in the 80s. I read many books about riders, races in the 80s and never heard blood doping mentioned, Kimmage, Parkin, Wide Eyed & Legless by Jeff Connor, Willy Voet, not one ever mentioned blood doping in the European peloton in the 80s. If it was happening, somebody would have had wind of it, look at how doping with steroids, amphetamines were common knowledge amongst pros.

 

[patricknd]

Yet you cannot present any evidence that he doped. Nothing. Do you accept that you can't? Or are you just going to try yet another ad hominem attack?

you're getting really tiresome. i'm not saying that he doped, and i'm not saying that he didn't, because i don't know.

and neither do you.


there's no credible evidence to suggest that he did, so that helps you form your opinion on the matter. that you want him to be clean also helps form that opinion.

but it is still opinion.

 

[Race Radio]

His numbers dropped off alot after 90, and Indurain's numbers were much less than his in 91 and less in 92. The only reason I have heard is Indurain was doped during those years due to his association with Conconi. That is where Patrick is coming from.

It also leads one to believe that GL didn't drop off after 90 due to doping. His numbers went way down, other's didn't pass him. When he first retired it was a blood disease. Then the excuse was he lost because of the introduction of EPO in the peleton. He changed excuse horses in the middle of the stream, but the second doesn't compute IMO per the graphs that have been used numerous times on these forums.

This is not correct.

Greg was one of the first riders to use an SRM to train with in the late 80's. It was crazy heavy and it looked like he had a small TV on his bars. He has said his power numbers were stronger then ever in 1991.

The evidence against Indurain is far more then just Conconi. For all but the last year of his career Indurain worked with Sabino Padilla, who was later convicted of doping players at the professional soccer team he worked for directly after leaving Indurain. Tomas Davy testified that while he rode with Indurain on Banesto there was a team wide doping program that Indurain was a part of.

 

[ChrisE]

Because not one team mate, trainer, masseuse, doctor, anything, has ever said anything, other than him being impeccably clean. He left PDM due to its doping. His DSs have all said how he wouldn't go near the stuff. Team mates were offered big money to say Lemond doped...nothing. His career never showed drastic improvements. It was good from the start. If he doped in the 1980s, it stands to reason he would've doped when EPO came around, and would've continued winning. Yet the evidence of his career shows a rider who fell away quitee suddenly, when EPO came on board.

I've highlighted the part where we need some clarification, not "fantasy".

The graphs earlier in the thread show large decrease in power/wt ratio in 91 and 92 of the tour winner. Not until 93 did Indurain's numbers equal GL's of 89and 90. Yeah, his career fell away suddenly but why where his numbers approximately 1 watt/kg lower in 91 than 90? The peloton taking EPO doesn't mean his numbers fall; it just means he gets his a$$ kicked while performing at the same level that was previously good enough. That didn't happen.

If the graphs are to be believed, and since they are posted so much I assume they are gospel, I call BS on his reason for not being competitive after 1990, at least until 93.

BTW, it is possible somebody can dope without others knowing, or within a very small loyal circle. Yes, nobody has come out and said he doped but that means zilch to some of us because of the reason I stated earlier. His competition was doped, period. He beat this competition. Per the graphs he got beat in 91 and 92 by a person performing less than GL had in previous years which calls into question the motive of his quest (the only reason I lost was because of EPO, etc) to rid the sport of doping.

I think either he fell off in 91 due to the blood disease (was that all just bs?) or because he shot his wad and was on the downfall. Or, we can call the graphs BS and dismiss them in any thread from this point forward.

 

[pmcg76]

my point exactly. " he rode for so & so" or "everyone said he was clean" isn't evidence. then there is the crowd that suggests that if it wasn't blood doping it's not as bad, because it wasn't as effective. that's like saying a well placed shot to the head with a rifle makes you more of a murderer than stabbing your victim 68 times with a screwdriver.

absent a confession or a positive drug test, none of us really know who's clean or dirty.

There is a varying level of guilt and what people consider guilty. For some, guilty until innocent is the mantra, for others its innocent until proven guilty. This is the way it has always been, well guess what we all got burned in 98 when we had been following this latter attitude for years and it turned out almost everyone was doped to the gills.

I still believe in the innocent until...regards but I dont need a positive test to confirm. 20 years following this sport suggest there is no smoke without fire. I will give you an example, a few years back I heard from a reliable source that a certain rider was almost definitely doping, his perfromances were just unbelievable and a certain group of riders also going well were also more than likely doping.

This forum wasnt around back then but I know most of the guys would have questioned those performances. Guess what, most of these guys that were rumoured to be doping were busted for doping. No smoke without fire. A lot of us felt DiLuca was completely jacked at the Giro last year and guess what.

There has always been doping but in the pre EPO years, it was possible to win without resorting to doping so in LeMonds case, there isnt even any smoke other than other riders did dope, was it widespread, by all accounts yes but was it everyone, by all accounts no.

 

[ChrisE]

This is not correct.

Greg was one of the first riders to use an SRM to train with in the late 80's. It was crazy heavy and it looked like he had a small TV on his bars. He has said his power numbers were stronger then ever in 1991.

The evidence against Indurain is far more then just Conconi. For all but the last year of his career Indurain worked with Sabino Padilla, who was later convicted of doping players at the professional soccer team he worked for directly after leaving Indurain. Tomas Davy testified that while he rode with Indurain on Banesto there was a team wide doping program that Indurain was a part of.

It's not correct because of what GL says. I know that is gospel because he is the anti-LA.

OK, then what was Indurain on when he was winning alot of stuff prior to his Tours? It obviously wasn't enough to beat GL or his teamate, who was on roids. More proof that GL beat doped riders, but his power numbers in 91, according to him, were higher than ever. Then why is he 1 watt/kg lower in 91 than in 90????? Why did Indurain's numbers not exceed GL's until 94?

I agree at some point Indurain took EPO. The difference I think is that we disagree on when that was. I point to the graphs. I just asked let's toss the graphs if we only plan to selectively believe them. Kinda like the bible.

 

[pmcg76]

I've highlighted the part where we need some clarification, not "fantasy".

The graphs earlier in the thread show large decrease in power/wt ratio in 91 and 92 of the tour winner. Not until 93 did Indurain's numbers equal GL's of 89and 90. Yeah, his career fell away suddenly but why where his numbers approximately 1 watt/kg lower in 91 than 90? The peloton taking EPO doesn't mean his numbers fall; it just means he gets his a$$ kicked while performing at the same level that was previously good enough. That didn't happen.

If the graphs are to be believed, and since they are posted so much I assume they are gospel, I call BS on his reason for not being competitive after 1990, at least until 93.

BTW, it is possible somebody can dope without others knowing, or within a very small loyal circle. Yes, nobody has come out and said he doped but that means zilch to some of us because of the reason I stated earlier. His competition was doped, period. He beat this competition. Per the graphs he got beat in 91 and 92 by a person performing less than GL had in previous years which calls into question the motive of his quest (the only reason I lost was because of EPO, etc) to rid the sport of doping.

I think either he fell off in 91 due to the blood disease (was that all just bs?) or because he shot his wad and was on the downfall. Or, we can call the graphs BS and dismiss them in any thread from this point forward.

I personally dont think LeMonds decline was purely down to doping, by 93/94 definitely EPO had taken over so he was nowhere, the fist few years I am not so sure. Charly Mottet finished above LeMond in 91 and Andy Hampsten who many on here believe was clean also was still competitive early 90s. I think LeMonds decline was a combination of factors including his blood disorder & introduction.

On the other hand, Chris E, you are ignoring my point that Mottet was named as being a clean athlete by Willy Voet and he was a top rider in the 80s so there is plenty of evidence to suggest it was possible to complete clean in the 80s.