LeMond III

[Maxiton]

Re: Re:

Game. Set. Match. Ibtl

You haven't been following the thread too closely, apparently . . . .

Don't need to . . . dont need to really "follow along" with the sAme old, tired "LeMond doped too" periodical posts to know what they're about.

Right. You just pop in once in awhile, not even part of the conversation, your mind made up, to read from Scripture. Somebody could post here, "I have in my hands documentary evidence that Greg LeMond is actually the love child of Eddy Merckx and an alien visitor from Alpha Centauri" and you wouldn't even see it. Just more Scripture reading. Light a candle for me, father.

 

[Irondan]

Re: Re:

Sniper (quote) : "A poster named altitude, who appeared in this thread a few times and then disappeared, suggested Lemond was on EPO in 86/87. He sounded pretty sure of his case. Could have been Lance in disguise, but no a priori reason to discard it. "

Are you kidding me ?

We have an anonymous poster, with no record and no fact at all, throwing a bombshell with absolutely nothing backing it and we should take this into consideration ???

I've been mocked multiple times on these boards for taking what Greg says at "face value" and I should accept that ???

No f***ing way.

Why are you taking these things in isolation?
I'd argue the individual pieces of evidence (cons and pros!) are worhtless in isolation, but gain interest in relation to each other. Again, franklin did it in that brilliant post of his. I'll link it again if you're interested.

Also, please note that nobody is attacking you. Yet you reply as if they were. The same goes for tdf86winner, pmcg76, gjb123. Woubd great if you took out some of the waspiness/aggression when you reply to posts that aren't directed directly at you in the first place.

I am taking things in isolation for everyone to take note, including you. 1000 rumours have never, ever made a fact. This is a very dangerous way of thinking. Especially when you consider the weakness of the source.

I've spent almost all my life researching and collecting stuff about Greg. My opinion on him is made of this and my meetings with him. So yes, when I read BS, I take this as an attack. When the word "fanboy" is used, I take this as an attack. When the expression "Saint LeMond" is used, I take this as an attack.

I also believe these keywords are a form of an attack.

I've been reading a lot of ad hominems and personal pokes that have no place here.

Please post comments in an impersonal and civil manner.

 

[Maxiton]

Re: Re:

I don't really know what he did or didn't do, I'm just trying to explore the possibilities, and maybe look for a midpoint whereby he might have "done" something while remaining an athlete with honor and ethics.

Well there's the source of the reaction to your approach. You are seeking a way to fit the facts into a conclusion you want to find. Why are you looking for anything? Why not just take the facts and arrive at a conclusion?

It's more clear now why you give credence to nonsense debunked over and over again. You're looking "for a midpoint". Maybe it exist, I don't know. But I've seen nothing to suggest it does. The fact that blood doping and EPO existed at the time are not evidence. All those facts do is make the allegation possible. They don't support it.

Wrong. I'm trying to fit the inconsistencies and questions into what we know. I can do that because I don't have some desperate need to see LeMond as a holy figure.

 

[sniper]

Re: Re:

Sniper (quote) : "A poster named altitude, who appeared in this thread a few times and then disappeared, suggested Lemond was on EPO in 86/87. He sounded pretty sure of his case. Could have been Lance in disguise, but no a priori reason to discard it. "

Are you kidding me ?

We have an anonymous poster, with no record and no fact at all, throwing a bombshell with absolutely nothing backing it and we should take this into consideration ???

I've been mocked multiple times on these boards for taking what Greg says at "face value" and I should accept that ???

No f***ing way.

Why are you taking these things in isolation?
I'd argue the individual pieces of evidence (cons and pros!) are worhtless in isolation, but gain interest in relation to each other. Again, franklin did it in that brilliant post of his. I'll link it again if you're interested.

Also, please note that nobody is attacking you. Yet you reply as if they were. The same goes for tdf86winner, pmcg76, gjb123. Woubd great if you took out some of the waspiness/aggression when you reply to posts that aren't directed directly at you in the first place.

I am taking things in isolation for everyone to take note, including you. 1000 rumours have never, ever made a fact. This is a very dangerous way of thinking. Especially when you consider the weakness of the source.

I've spent almost all my life researching and collecting stuff about Greg. My opinion on him is made of this and my meetings with him. So yes, when I read BS, I take this as an attack. When the word "fanboy" is used, I take this as an attack. When the expression "Saint LeMond" is used, I take this as an attack.

fair enough.

as for the rumors, you can't dismiss everything as rumor.
Vanmol giving Lemond iron shots isn't a rumor.
The advent of epo produced in the US in the second half of the 80s is not a rumor.
Lemond wining the tdf three times is not a rumor either.
Eddie B's blood program is not a rumor.
Etc.
It's remarkable that you now insist on calling everything a rumor.
Recall that that's what Lance's fanbase used to do.

And again, there is the inconsistency in that you apparently view the cases of cancellara and indurain through a different pair of glasses.

I'd argue it speaks in Indurain's favor that there's nobody who's accused him of introducing EPO into the peloton.

 

[86TDFWinner]

Re: Re:

Game. Set. Match. Ibtl

You haven't been following the thread too closely, apparently . . . .

Don't need to . . . dont need to really "follow along" with the sAme old, tired "LeMond doped too" periodical posts to know what they're about.

Right. You just pop in once in awhile, not even part of the conversation, your mind made up, to read from Scripture. Somebody could post here, "I have in my hands documentary evidence that Greg LeMond is actually the love child of Eddy Merckx and an alien visitor from Alpha Centauri" and you wouldn't even see it. Just more Scripture reading. Light a candle for me, father.

That would be a "NO" then on you providing any info or evidence to suggest he did?

That's EXACTLY the response I knew you would respond with, kudos to you for ignoring/avoiding the questions asked.

I've been here for many years posting. I only seem to "pop in from time to time" (especially on "LeMond doped too" threads), when many post inaccurate, factually incorrect statements, then pass them off as the truth.

Bring us something CREDIBLE....something we can all look up and it has substance, backed up by CREDIBLE sources that are easily VERIFIABLE. If you can't do that, then it comes off as you being a bitter/upset possible Wonderboy fan, and/or you're simply jealous of LeMond(and Hampsten/Steve Bauer and a few others) being "clean". Which imo, shows you're just trying to troll. Again, my opinion.

Also, I'll keep "popping in from time to.time" here and elsewhere, until the time comes when someone posts exactly what I and others have repeatedly asked them to for years.

Even then, I'll keep posting.

 

[red_flanders]

Re: Re:

I don't really know what he did or didn't do, I'm just trying to explore the possibilities, and maybe look for a midpoint whereby he might have "done" something while remaining an athlete with honor and ethics.

Well there's the source of the reaction to your approach. You are seeking a way to fit the facts into a conclusion you want to find. Why are you looking for anything? Why not just take the facts and arrive at a conclusion?

It's more clear now why you give credence to nonsense debunked over and over again. You're looking "for a midpoint". Maybe it exist, I don't know. But I've seen nothing to suggest it does. The fact that blood doping and EPO existed at the time are not evidence. All those facts do is make the allegation possible. They don't support it.

Wrong. I'm trying to fit the inconsistencies and questions into what we know. I can do that because I don't have some desperate need to see LeMond as a holy figure.

That is as weak as any argument I've seen on this forum. It has nothing to do with the facts, and applies in no way to my thoughts on Lemond.

Seems to be the all-too common reaction to anyone pushing back on the wild speculation. I read it as "I've run out of arguments".

 

[Maxiton]

Re: Re:

I don't really know what he did or didn't do, I'm just trying to explore the possibilities, and maybe look for a midpoint whereby he might have "done" something while remaining an athlete with honor and ethics.

Well there's the source of the reaction to your approach. You are seeking a way to fit the facts into a conclusion you want to find. Why are you looking for anything? Why not just take the facts and arrive at a conclusion?

It's more clear now why you give credence to nonsense debunked over and over again. You're looking "for a midpoint". Maybe it exist, I don't know. But I've seen nothing to suggest it does. The fact that blood doping and EPO existed at the time are not evidence. All those facts do is make the allegation possible. They don't support it.

Wrong. I'm trying to fit the inconsistencies and questions into what we know. I can do that because I don't have some desperate need to see LeMond as a holy figure.

That is as weak as any argument I've seen on this forum. It has nothing to do with the facts, and applies in no way to my thoughts on Lemond.

Seems to be the all-too common reaction to anyone pushing back on the wild speculation. I read it as "I've run out of arguments".

Okay. Have it your way.

 

[blutto]

Re: Re:

I return the question : why the need to tarnish someone who could be the real deal until proven otherwise ?

Why the need to have everyone agree to what you are saying ? It's funny that me, the fanboy, is not the one doing that...

Why employ "Saint LeMond" as others employ "GL fanboys" when you're clearly out of reasonable options ?

Why automatically discredit people who do not share your opinion ?

I think you're a clever person and you raise good points. But you failed to convince me. Get over it.

I'm not sorry.

weren't you on an anti-miguel "mig-hell" crusade only a few days ago? some consistency would be nice.

meanwhile an article surfaced on the previous page of the thread containing what some would call 'testimonial evidence' of Lemond using epo. You might wanna have a look. I can translate parts for you if you want.

....that is a major issue isn't it ?....

Cheers

 

[blutto]

Re: Re:

I don't really know what he did or didn't do, I'm just trying to explore the possibilities, and maybe look for a midpoint whereby he might have "done" something while remaining an athlete with honor and ethics.

Well there's the source of the reaction to your approach. You are seeking a way to fit the facts into a conclusion you want to find. Why are you looking for anything? Why not just take the facts and arrive at a conclusion?

It's more clear now why you give credence to nonsense debunked over and over again. You're looking "for a midpoint". Maybe it exist, I don't know. But I've seen nothing to suggest it does. The fact that blood doping and EPO existed at the time are not evidence. All those facts do is make the allegation possible. They don't support it.

Wrong. I'm trying to fit the inconsistencies and questions into what we know. I can do that because I don't have some desperate need to see LeMond as a holy figure.

That is as weak as any argument I've seen on this forum. It has nothing to do with the facts, and applies in no way to my thoughts on Lemond.

Seems to be the all-too common reaction to anyone pushing back on the wild speculation. I read it as "I've run out of arguments".

...oh speaking of facts, was it ABC, CBS or NBC ?....

Cheers

 

[@NL_LeMondFans]

Re: Re:

I don't really know what he did or didn't do, I'm just trying to explore the possibilities, and maybe look for a midpoint whereby he might have "done" something while remaining an athlete with honor and ethics.

Well there's the source of the reaction to your approach. You are seeking a way to fit the facts into a conclusion you want to find. Why are you looking for anything? Why not just take the facts and arrive at a conclusion?

It's more clear now why you give credence to nonsense debunked over and over again. You're looking "for a midpoint". Maybe it exist, I don't know. But I've seen nothing to suggest it does. The fact that blood doping and EPO existed at the time are not evidence. All those facts do is make the allegation possible. They don't support it.

Wrong. I'm trying to fit the inconsistencies and questions into what we know. I can do that because I don't have some desperate need to see LeMond as a holy figure.

This way of qualifying the people not sharing your view is not helping.

And since we have no credibility in your eyes, I suggest you just ignore our posts.

 

[@NL_LeMondFans]

Re: Re:

I return the question : why the need to tarnish someone who could be the real deal until proven otherwise ?

Why the need to have everyone agree to what you are saying ? It's funny that me, the fanboy, is not the one doing that...

Why employ "Saint LeMond" as others employ "GL fanboys" when you're clearly out of reasonable options ?

Why automatically discredit people who do not share your opinion ?

I think you're a clever person and you raise good points. But you failed to convince me. Get over it.

I'm not sorry.

weren't you on an anti-miguel "mig-hell" crusade only a few days ago? some consistency would be nice.

meanwhile an article surfaced on the previous page of the thread containing what some would call 'testimonial evidence' of Lemond using epo. You might wanna have a look. I can translate parts for you if you want.

....that is a major issue isn't it ?....

Cheers

...not as much as facts.

Cheers.

 

[@NL_LeMondFans]

Re: Re:

Sniper (quote) : "A poster named altitude, who appeared in this thread a few times and then disappeared, suggested Lemond was on EPO in 86/87. He sounded pretty sure of his case. Could have been Lance in disguise, but no a priori reason to discard it. "

Are you kidding me ?

We have an anonymous poster, with no record and no fact at all, throwing a bombshell with absolutely nothing backing it and we should take this into consideration ???

I've been mocked multiple times on these boards for taking what Greg says at "face value" and I should accept that ???

No f***ing way.

Why are you taking these things in isolation?
I'd argue the individual pieces of evidence (cons and pros!) are worhtless in isolation, but gain interest in relation to each other. Again, franklin did it in that brilliant post of his. I'll link it again if you're interested.

Also, please note that nobody is attacking you. Yet you reply as if they were. The same goes for tdf86winner, pmcg76, gjb123. Woubd great if you took out some of the waspiness/aggression when you reply to posts that aren't directed directly at you in the first place.

I am taking things in isolation for everyone to take note, including you. 1000 rumours have never, ever made a fact. This is a very dangerous way of thinking. Especially when you consider the weakness of the source.

I've spent almost all my life researching and collecting stuff about Greg. My opinion on him is made of this and my meetings with him. So yes, when I read BS, I take this as an attack. When the word "fanboy" is used, I take this as an attack. When the expression "Saint LeMond" is used, I take this as an attack.

fair enough.

as for the rumors, you can't dismiss everything as rumor.
Vanmol giving Lemond iron shots isn't a rumor.
The advent of epo produced in the US in the second half of the 80s is not a rumor.
Lemond wining the tdf three times is not a rumor either.
Eddie B's blood program is not a rumor.
Etc.
It's remarkable that you now insist on calling everything a rumor.
Recall that that's what Lance's fanbase used to do.

And again, there is the inconsistency in that you apparently view the cases of cancellara and indurain through a different pair of glasses.

I'd argue it speaks in Indurain's favor that there's nobody who's accused him of introducing EPO into the peloton.

You're losing your grip, here.

Just because I dismiss the Dhaenens rumor and the "altitude" rumour doesn't mean I associate everything with a rumour.

But here again I applaud your consistency : you just distorted what I said to fit your theory and discard an opposing view. This is your MO for collecting facts as well.

That you fail to see the difference between what is brought on the table here and what was brought for Indurain and Cancellara also says a lot.

BTW, the "LA did this too" argument just proves his lawyers were good. How to defend a dirty guy ? Just do and say what a clean guy would. It doesn't mean someone using the same line of defense is dirty. This too you failed to see, but you credit rumours. Go figure.

 

[sniper]

Re: Re:

You're losing your grip, here.

Just because I dismiss the Dhaenens rumor and the "altitude" rumour doesn't mean I associate everything with a rumour.

But here again I applaud your consistency : you just distorted what I said to fit your theory and discard an opposing view. This is your MO for collecting facts as well.

That you fail to see the difference between what is brought on the table here and what was brought for Indurain and Cancellara also says a lot.

BTW, the "LA did this too" argument just proves his lawyers were good. How to defend a dirty guy ? Just do and say what a clean guy would. It doesn't mean someone using the same line of defense is dirty. This too you failed to see, but you credit rumours. Go figure.

i think you missed my point. Let me explain it again (better hopefully).

Take Cancellara again: I know you think he used a motor, even though, in principle, that is just rumor.
Now, I can try and make an educated guess as to why you don't dismiss the rumor as "a baseless rumor": it's because there are facts available to us that directly support the rumor. If you've followed the Cancellara discussion, however, you'll have noticed that there are also facts available that do not support the rumor. So what have you done? You've taken the rumor, then weighed in the available facts, evidence, info, pro and contra, and have come to a weighed opinion/stance, this opinion/stance being that the rumor that Cance used a motor is very likely to be true.
So there is a rumor, and there are facts that support or disprove the rumor. In the case of Lemond you seem to conclude that the balance of evidence weighs in his favor, which is fair enough, it really is. But you completely missed the point reposting that "a thousand rumors don't make one fact". Nobody says that.

 

[sniper]

also, it's odd how you slam Indurain "Mig-hell" for ruining the sport with his EPO, yet you show no signs whatsoever of having any interest in the question who actually introduced EPO into the peloton.
You dismiss as 'baseless rumors' whatever information surfaces that suggests or hints that it may have been the American cyclists who first used it. You're not engaging with that question at all.
I pointed you to that new piece of information presented by Fearless Greg Lemond, even offered to translate it for you, but you show no interest.
It's fair enough if that question doesn't interest you, but then you'll understand that there is a perception of inconsistency if you subsequently slam Miguel for ruining the sport with his (ab)use of EPO.
Not to apologize Miguel's cheating, but one could argue that Indurain merely took advantage of products that had been introduced and tried by others.
Who were these 'others'? Any thoughts?

 

[Maxiton]

Re: Re:

Wrong. I'm trying to fit the inconsistencies and questions into what we know. I can do that because I don't have some desperate need to see LeMond as a holy figure.

This way of qualifying the people not sharing your view is not helping.

And since we have no credibility in your eyes, I suggest you just ignore our posts.

I wasn't actually referring to you. There are two people in this thread who have stated they're not really following the discussion, and they're probably not the only ones. Instead of following the thread, and participating in discussion as you do, they just pop in occasionally to "defend LeMond's honor". (What's especially ironic about this is that we'd all decided to give the discussion a rest, but because they weren't actually reading the posts, they waded back in argumentatively, thereby keeping it going.)

When there's no discussion, no consideration of alternative possibilities, you no longer have reason, you have faith. Hence my use of the words "holy" and "saint".

Discussion with you has been interesting and enjoyable and productive, because it has been a discussion. Unfortunately it keeps getting derailed. And I've said all I have to say, anyway. Cheers.

 

[blutto]

Re: Re:

I return the question : why the need to tarnish someone who could be the real deal until proven otherwise ?

Why the need to have everyone agree to what you are saying ? It's funny that me, the fanboy, is not the one doing that...

Why employ "Saint LeMond" as others employ "GL fanboys" when you're clearly out of reasonable options ?

Why automatically discredit people who do not share your opinion ?

I think you're a clever person and you raise good points. But you failed to convince me. Get over it.

I'm not sorry.

weren't you on an anti-miguel "mig-hell" crusade only a few days ago? some consistency would be nice.

meanwhile an article surfaced on the previous page of the thread containing what some would call 'testimonial evidence' of Lemond using epo. You might wanna have a look. I can translate parts for you if you want.

....that is a major issue isn't it ?....

Cheers

...not as much as facts.

Cheers.

... now that was a real genuine knee-slapper....

Cheers

 

[sniper]

back to the question: who introduced epo into the peloton?
So this Dutch guy in that Dutch gazetta says it was Lemond and the Americans.
Plausible?

Here's an NYT article from 1991:
http://www.nytimes.com/1991/05/19/us/stamina-building-drug-linked-to-athletes-deaths.html?pagewanted=3&src=pm

A genetically engineered drug that was created for people suffering from kidney failure has become the latest substance to be abused by athletes seeking enhanced stamina and performance. The consequences, in some cases, may be deadly.

The drug is recombinant erythropoietin, known as EPO, which was developed by the Amgen Corporation and approved by the Food and Drug Administration in 1989 for the treatment of chronic anemia in patients with kidney failure. It was later approved for treatment of AIDS-related anemia.

And this:

In the United States, Amgen limits distribution of the drug to kidney dialysis treatment centers. Sports physicians say the drug is not readily obtainable here but add that it not hard to get in Mexico or Europe.
...

Honest question: is there anybody other than Lemond who 'fits the mold' so neatly?
I've been accused of connecting dots. But aren't these dots connecting themselves?
Also:

Physicians say they believe athletes began using the drug almost with the beginning of clinical trials in 1986.

 

[djpbaltimore]

Honest answer: You are barking up the wrong tree again. Lemond did not undergo dialysis or have a medical condition that caused kidney failure.

The article indicates that is possible that the early pioneers could've been European.

 

[sniper]

Re:

Honest answer: No. Lemond did not undergo dialysis or have a medical condition that caused kidney failure.

The article indicates that is possible that the early pioneers could've been European.

i don't get your point on lemond.

anyway, yes, it's possible the europeans pioneeered it.
Which is why I asked: is there any rider besides Lemond who fits the mold?
Afaic, there is not a single rumor linking the introduction of epo to any european rider, is there?
Nor do I know any european rider with kidney failure and anemia, or do you?
Let alone one with a Mexican soigneur.

still, the Dutch link to epo is obvious and fascinating. The first reported/rumored epo deaths were all dutch and to a lesser extent belgian. From the article:

Then the deaths began. In 1987 five Dutch racers died suddenly. In 1988 a Belgian and two more Dutch riders died. In 1989 five more Dutch riders died, and last year three Belgians and two Dutch riders died.

Anybody any ideas on that? I assume the Dutch epo link has been discussed somewhere, but can't find where.

 

[sniper]

Further from the article:

An article by Dr. Allan J. Erslev of the Jefferson Medical College in Philadelphia in the May 9 issue of The New England Journal of Medicine about the striking benefits of EPO therapy for anemia patients
...
While no deaths have been attributed to the drug in the United States, sports physicians and athletes say they have heard repeatedly about its use at cycling and long-distance running events.
...
Amgen, which has an exclusive license to sell the drug in the United States for kidney patients
...
"We heard the stories early on," said Daniel Vapnek, Amgen's senior vice president for research.

 

[ScienceIsCool]

This is really dumb. Are you saying that Lemond took a Sunday drive into Mexico, filled the trunk with EPO and then shipped the lot to Europe at which point he set up a clinic for the other riders?

I thought it was *widely* understood that the first guys in the peloton to use EPO were all on Italian teams. They are the ones who introduced the menace to the sport. The dutch also seem to have gotten interested in EPO at almost the same time - likely via other endurance sports such as speed skating. After a few years it became obvious how well EPO worked and it was big mig's era that saw universal adoption.

Greg? Mexico? Reeeeally? You're pretty much at the point of parody. "I'm not saying it was Greg... But it was Greg"

John Swanson

 

[djpbaltimore]

The kidney link is a red herring. The first users in the usa were likely in athletics. Cycling is a minor sport in the us. It makes sense that the pioneers of epo in cycling would be from a country that is passionate about it.

 

[sniper]

Re:

The kidney link is a red herring. The first users in the usa were likely in athletics. Cycling is a minor sport in the us. It makes sense that the pioneers of epo in cycling would be from a country that is passionate about it.

lol, "makes sense".
lemond won the tdf three times in that period.
there are several rumors from independent people linking the introduction of epo to Lemond.
By his own admission he was a kidney patient with anemia at least in 1989.
his soigneur was Mexican, where the drug apparently was widely available.
did you even try to read anything i and fearless greg lemond linked on the past two pages?

so again: is there anybody other than lemond who fits the mold?

 

[blutto]

Re: Re:

Honest answer: No. Lemond did not undergo dialysis or have a medical condition that caused kidney failure.

The article indicates that is possible that the early pioneers could've been European.

but there is not a single rumor linking the introduction of epo to the dutch, is there?
Nor did they win the tdf three times in the period at issue.
Nor do we know any dutch rider with kidney failure and anemia, or do we? Let alone one with a Mexican soigneur.

still, the Dutch link to epo is clear and fascinating. The first reported/rumored epo deaths were all dutch and to a lesser extent belgian. From the article:

Then the deaths began. In 1987 five Dutch racers died suddenly. In 1988 a Belgian and two more Dutch riders died. In 1989 five more Dutch riders died, and last year three Belgians and two Dutch riders died.

Anybody any ideas on that? I assume the Dutch epo link has been discussed somewhere, but can't find where.

....ahhh....Otto, the mysterious and Mexican soignuer ....does anyone know anything about this gentlemen, "the Mexican soigneur Otto Jacome (who) persuaded him( LeMond ) to have his first-ever iron shot"...like where he came from, and where he has disappeared to ?....

Cheers

 

[sniper]

Re:

This is not personal, John. No need for adhoms.

This is really dumb. Are you saying that Lemond took a Sunday drive into Mexico, filled the trunk with EPO and then shipped the lot to Europe at which point he set up a clinic for the other riders?

you didn't know he had a Mexican soigneur who used to be around him all the time and who diagnosed Lemond with anemia (by lemond's own admission)?

mind: maybe nothing. maybe something.
Dumb is to conclude that there's nothing to see here, when we're talking about cycling, a guy who won the tdf three times in the period epo came onto the scene (remember the 'timing' argument?), and rumors abound that lemond pioneered epo in cycling.
Question I asked djpbaltimore goes for you as well: Did you read anything that's been linked on the past few pages? I think the least I can ask of you is to read those pieces before jumping in and discard something as 'dumb'.
The stuff from the NYT article has got "Lemond" written all over it.
The piece linked by Fearless Greg explicitly mentions Lemond and the americans as the EPO cycling pioneers.
With american-based Amgen being the first producer, producing it for people who fit Lemond's description, is it really 'really dumb'? gimme a break.

I thought it was *widely* understood that the first guys in the peloton to use EPO were all on Italian teams.

interesting, got a link?
Because in case you missed it Fearless Greg Lemond provided a link to Dutch guy claiming it was Lemond who introduced it. Gisbers, Boogerd, the peloton Boogerd rode in, Dhaenens, the peloton Dhaenens rode in, all thought it was Lemond.
Who said it was the Italians?