Last clean Grand Tour winner?

[Digger]

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.

exactly...

 

[Digger]

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.

He'd prefer to ignore the first hand accounts though.

 

[flicker]

Last clean tour winner, Alberto Contador 2009!

 

[patricknd]

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.

exactly...

....and that has been my point all along. you seem to have a reading comprehension problem. i think they took you out of those remedial classes too soon.
glad i could help, and you have a nice day.

 

[BYOP88]

Last clean tour winner, Alberto Contador 2009!

You forgot the winner of the 2009 Vuelta, he was the last clean winner. There are no dopers in cycling

 

[Digger]

....and that has been my point all along. you seem to have a reading comprehension problem. i think they took you out of those remedial classes too soon.
glad i could help, and you have a nice day.

Just reading your posts...you've added not one thing of substance to this forum. You seem to have little or no knolwedge of the sport, or the doping issue. You just attack posters for their views, but never provide anything which you yourself may have managed to come up with on your own. How long have you followed the sport? Because, aside from your attacks on posters, what have you brought to this discussion? What knowledge do you have...any specifics?

 

[red_flanders]

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.

This is the only reasonable statement. There is absolutely no evidence he doped, and some that he didn't.

It's possible? Sure, it's possible.

Too many on this thread say they think he did without a shred of evidence. That's just dumb.

 

[red_flanders]

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.

Yet another perfectly reasonable post. Thank you. Not sure why this is all so complicated for so many others to grock.

 

[flicker]

You forgot the winner of the 2009 Vuelta, he was the last clean winner. There are no dopers in cycling

He (Contador)must have tested clean therefore he was clean. Despite what Greg thinks.

 

[ChrisE]

PMCG76 - I never said it was not possible to compete without doping in the 80's. Please find a post where I said that and please stop claiming I wrote things I didn't write. I afford you that same respect so I would appreciate it in return. Thanks.

I find it very unlikely you can dominate as GL did over provenly doped competition if you are 100% clean. And, he did not fall off because of EPO use by his competition in 1991 if the data is to be believed. You have finally somewhat admitted that. You have finally admitted it is possible that EPO didn't become prevalent until 93/94, which is what I have been saying all thru this thread.

Is this what this argument is boiling down to? Equating Mottet's career to GL's? Books, hearsay, and Mottet = proof beyond all reasonable doubt that GL is squeaky clean. OK guys, y'all win.

 

[slowoldman]

Gino Bartali......

 

[Polish]

Gino Bartali......

I agree Gino was clean, and so was Coppi.

But they were not the "last clean riders".

Riders were ALL clean up until they came up with the rules for calling riders unclean or dirty. After that, ALL riders were probably dirty to some extent or another.

So Fausto, do you evr cheat on your wife?

Only when I have to....

Well Fausto, how often is that?

All the time wink wink.

 

[pmcg76]

PMCG76 - I never said it was not possible to compete without doping in the 80's. Please find a post where I said that and please stop claiming I wrote things I didn't write. I afford you that same respect so I would appreciate it in return. Thanks.

I find it very unlikely you can dominate as GL did over provenly doped competition if you are 100% clean. And, he did not fall off because of EPO use by his competition in 1991 if the data is to be believed. You have finally somewhat admitted that. You have finally admitted it is possible that EPO didn't become prevalent until 93/94, which is what I have been saying all thru this thread.

Is this what this argument is boiling down to? Equating Mottet's career to GL's? Books, hearsay, and Mottet = proof beyond all reasonable doubt that GL is squeaky clean. OK guys, y'all win.

I never said you were wrong on LeMonds decline, maybe you should read my posts also instead of attributing things to me I never said.

So basically, you are saying you find it hard to believe to LeMond was clean because others were doped so you are inferring he doped. Oh, that ok, you are not saying he doped, you are only inferring he doped.

On the other hand I am saying I think it possible to win based on what people involved in the sport at that time have said, i.e Kimmage, Voet, Mottet etc.
Yeah, Mottet never won the Tour but if doping was so important, he wouldnt have been anywhere near the top guys but he was one of the Top 10 riders late 80s. Myabe that is not a high level in your book for a clean rider to be competing at.

Bottom line, there is still no evidence whatsoever that LeMond doped. Right.

 

[ChrisE]

I never said you were wrong on LeMonds decline, maybe you should read my posts also instead of attributing things to me I never said.

So basically, you are saying you find it hard to believe to LeMond was clean because others were doped so you are inferring he doped. Oh, that ok, you are not saying he doped, you are only inferring he doped.

On the other hand I am saying I think it possible to win based on what people involved in the sport at that time have said, i.e Kimmage, Voet, Mottet etc.
Yeah, Mottet never won the Tour but if doping was so important, he wouldnt have been anywhere near the top guys but he was one of the Top 10 riders late 80s. Myabe that is not a high level in your book for a clean rider to be competing at.

Bottom line, there is still no evidence whatsoever that LeMond doped. Right.

Kimmage said people were doping when he rode, thus he couldn't compete. If he says GL was not doped yet excelled then I would like to know his explanation, with FACTS not his opinion. Hinault was suspect, Fignon is an admitted doper, Delgado failed a test for a masking agent, and Roche had no problem using EPO in 93 so why wouldn't he use what was available to him at the time? If he says he hadn't heard about GL doping, or read it in a book, or thinks Mottet was clean thus GL was clean then I have a problem with that.

Alot of the proof (in my book) that LA doped was the dopers that he beat. I'm just being consistent here.

Of all of these winners since the early 80's, only GL is squeaky clean. No, "competing" and winning GT's are 2 different things in my book.

Voet was inolved with Festina in 98, 10 years after the subject of this dicussion. What was he back in the 80's? If you can enlighten me maybe that would sway me to your opinion. Was he with GL 24/7? If not, then surely he read a book somewhere or heard somebody vouching for GL's cleanliness in the feed zone or something.

The only way we could probably get to the bottom of this is if Otto got sent to Gitmo.

 

[pmcg76]

Kimmage said people were doping when he rode, thus he couldn't compete. If he says GL was not doped yet excelled then I would like to know his explanation, with FACTS not his opinion. Hinault was suspect, Fignon is an admitted doper, Delgado failed a test for a masking agent, and Roche had no problem using EPO in 93 so why wouldn't he use what was available to him at the time? If he says he hadn't heard about GL doping, or read it in a book, or thinks Mottet was clean thus GL was clean then I have a problem with that.

Alot of the proof (in my book) that LA doped was the dopers that he beat. I'm just being consistent here.

Of all of these winners since the early 80's, only GL is squeaky clean. No, "competing" and winning GT's are 2 different things in my book.

Voet was inolved with Festina in 98, 10 years after the subject of this dicussion. What was he back in the 80's? If you can enlighten me maybe that would sway me to your opinion. Was he with GL 24/7? If not, then surely he read a book somewhere or heard somebody vouching for GL's cleanliness in the feed zone or something.

The only way we could probably get to the bottom of this is if Otto got sent to Gitmo.

So there is no point to this argument and Lemond has his 3 Tour victories without the slighest hint of suspicion.

You are asking for FACTS but whats FACTS are you using that LeMond might have doped other than others have doped. You dont recognise the opinion of Kimmage or others but that is all you are giving here, your opinion because you have once again, no evidence.

 

[Digger]

Kimmage said people were doping when he rode, thus he couldn't compete. If he says GL was not doped yet excelled then I would like to know his explanation, with FACTS not his opinion. Hinault was suspect, Fignon is an admitted doper, Delgado failed a test for a masking agent, and Roche had no problem using EPO in 93 so why wouldn't he use what was available to him at the time? If he says he hadn't heard about GL doping, or read it in a book, or thinks Mottet was clean thus GL was clean then I have a problem with that.

Alot of the proof (in my book) that LA doped was the dopers that he beat. I'm just being consistent here.

Of all of these winners since the early 80's, only GL is squeaky clean. No, "competing" and winning GT's are 2 different things in my book.

Voet was inolved with Festina in 98, 10 years after the subject of this dicussion. What was he back in the 80's? If you can enlighten me maybe that would sway me to your opinion. Was he with GL 24/7? If not, then surely he read a book somewhere or heard somebody vouching for GL's cleanliness in the feed zone or something.

The only way we could probably get to the bottom of this is if Otto got sent to Gitmo.

In your book maybe...but you're leaving out a mountain of other stuff, if that's 'alot of the proof'.
And by the way, Kimmage has said explicitly that he would never ever have won a Grand Tour, even if he was doped to the eyeballs. He said he might have won a stage though, but that's it.

By the way, look at Lemond's results from the start. If he suddenly began taking EPO in the late 80s, there was no great improvement. His results, outside of the accident, have been conistent since he was 19.

So to say that 'alot of the proof' against Lance is due to him beating other dopers, is downright lies.

 

[buckwheat]

I never said you were wrong on LeMonds decline, maybe you should read my posts also instead of attributing things to me I never said.

So basically, you are saying you find it hard to believe to LeMond was clean because others were doped so you are inferring he doped. Oh, that ok, you are not saying he doped, you are only inferring he doped.

On the other hand I am saying I think it possible to win based on what people involved in the sport at that time have said, i.e Kimmage, Voet, Mottet etc.
Yeah, Mottet never won the Tour but if doping was so important, he wouldnt have been anywhere near the top guys but he was one of the Top 10 riders late 80s. Myabe that is not a high level in your book for a clean rider to be competing at.

Bottom line, there is still no evidence whatsoever that LeMond doped. Right.

He's in love, don't try to reason with him. It's impossible. Right now he's looking at picture of Armstrongs muscles while LA's doing his kettleball thing.

 

[BigBoat]

Human beings have been dirty since the beginning of time.

Lemond was not jacked like Indurain/top 50 were.

What else... I wont dilude myself further.

 

[Big GMaC]

Human beings have been dirty since the beginning of time.

Lemond was not jacked like Indurain/top 50 were.

What else... I wont dilude myself further.

Look, even BigBoat won't say the LeMond was doped. How much more evidence do you need!

 

[red_flanders]

Hey RF, stay out of this logical talk. Don't want you to bust a fuse in that pinhead of yours. You are totally slanted and close minded so you really bring nothing to the conversation other than to toss a few spitballs from the back row, while doing reach-arounds with your like minded posters.

Save it for someone who's interested.

 

[buckwheat]

Is this what this argument is boiling down to? Equating Mottet's career to GL's? Books, hearsay, and Mottet = proof beyond all reasonable doubt that GL is squeaky clean. OK guys, y'all win.

You're an idiot!

Prove beyond all reasonable doubt that you didn't do something?

I say you're a baby raper. You're the type. Prove beyond all reasonable doubt that you haven't raped any babies.

 

[ChrisE]

You're an idiot!

Prove beyond all reasonable doubt that you didn't do something?

I say you're a baby raper. You're the type. Prove beyond all reasonable doubt that you haven't raped any babies.

I will delete all of this due to a PM I got from a cool mod. It was some of my best work, but oh well.

 

[ChrisE]

Here's a question:

Did GL ever speak out about doping real time in the 80's? What did he say about Delgado after he got caught using the masking agent? What did Mottet say?

Did they know other cyclists were doping?

 

[Hugh Januss]

I will delete all of this due to a PM I got from a cool mod. It was some of my best work, but oh well.

One can only imagine.

BTW As you are only mining for a reaction on this thread I am sure you must admit you are just plowing a steaming pile here.

 

[Digger]

Here's a question:

Did GL ever speak out about doping real time in the 80's? What did he say about Delgado after he got caught using the masking agent? What did Mottet say?

Did they know other cyclists were doping?

I'd say he was more worried about getting his life back.

Mottet was at a dinner not long after he retired and another cyclist was boasting about how much he doped. Motter just got up and left in disgust. Spitting in the soup was what it was called. You speak about it....you're ostracised. Kimmage came back the year after he retired and was spat on (literally).
Kimmage most certainly named names. But Kimmage's issues were not so much with the riders, as with the authorities, for their lax systems. Okay, put it this way...the riders Kimmage mentioned as being clean were Lemond, Sean Yates (ironic considering where he ended up), Mottet. Willy Voet names Mottet, Lemond, Caritoux, Bassons as being clean. Both go into very specific details (especially Voet) as to the drugs they took.

Kimmage was writing a diary for hte 1988 Tour in an Irish newspaper. He was surprised that Delgado was caught but definitely not that he doped. So when he told his editor that he wouldn't be prepared to lie, the newspaper decided it would be best to cancel the diary, as it would raise questions about Roche and Kelly.

Current president of the UCI and fellow Irish man said that Paul' story was the typical tale of a cyclist who wasn't very good.
A System U rider spoke on French TV a few years later and said word for word what Paul had said. Marc Madiot heard what this rider had to say, and retorted that it too was the sad tale of a not very good cyclist.

McQuaid also said that only the third rate cyclists dope...and that none of the top guys would risk it.
Funny how things don't change, as he promised us six months before last year's tour, that the winner would definitely be clean.

To speak out in the 1980s was unheard of. Kimmage was seen as a pariah being the first. Things have't changed. Jorg Jaksche, Kohl, Manzano...people prefer to bury their heads.