Who was the 1st true, through EPO and/or blood transfusion enhanced TdF-Winner

[hrotha]

To be fair, it's perfectly plausible that there was the rumour that LeMond used EPO circulating the peloton in the early 00s. It's also perfectly plausible that the person who spread that rumour was Armstrong himself.

 

[IndianCyclist]

"it's been proven that a guy can win clean, multiple times, but he still can't and won't admit that. It's almost as if he has to take everyone else down with him, in order to feel some sort of satisfaction." 86TDF winner

Hey 86 tour winner, I just answer here, since it apparently don't fit in the wonder boy tread. I would just like to know, how have it been proven, that you can win the tour clean, multiple times? Where is the proof Lemond was clean? I don't say it is a lie, but where is the proof?

Second, we do not need to discuss if wonderboy could have won without he's big fraud. No point in that. But going from there, to saying; that it would have been possible, to win any of the tours 99-2005 clean( wich is relevant in Wonderboys case), is not straight forward to me. Again, where is the proof supporting that?

I think in the history of the TDF, there is no proof to say conclusively that TDF was won clean. What we do have is if somebody doped from positives. Then there is circumstantial evidence from other riders, VO2 max testing, riders own statements, physical limits, rider progression etc. All those tend towards Lemond cleanish and Indurain doped.
There are people who say the Apollo 11 astronauts never landed on moon due the fluttering of the flag.
The law of conservation of energy is not proven. It is just that it hasn't been disproved yet in any experiment and so it is been continuously used everywhere.
Belief is the territory of an individual. You are free to believe what you will which is why there are 17 votes in favor of Lemond.

 

[sittingbison]

At this point I wam obliged to step in with a reminder of THIS forum rule:

The Big Rules
If you break these rules, you're eligible for an instant and possibly permanent ban....

• Posting any member's real life information without permission

cheers
bison

 

[northstar]

At this point I wam obliged to step in with a reminder of THIS forum rule:

cheers
bison

You missed deleting one of the name references.

 

[86TDFWinner]

To be fair, it's perfectly plausible that there was the rumour that LeMond used EPO circulating the peloton in the early 00s. It's also perfectly plausible that the person who spread that rumour was Armstrong himself.

LOL, exactly.

Second, we do not need to discuss if wonderboy could have won without he's big fraud. No point in that. But going from there, to saying; that it would have been possible, to win any of the tours 99-2005 clean( wich is relevant in Wonderboys case), is not straight forward to me. Again, where is the proof supporting that?

I cant speak for the period between 99-05, but there's much info out there supporting the claim that the tour cant be won clean at that time.

LeMond and other riders though, pre that time(and before 91), have proven they've won clean. I've yet to hear any news about Hinault doping, or Roche, and others.

 

[poupou]

According to Michael Boogerd, in the peloton at the time he was riding, it was rumored LeMond brought EPO in the peloton. Dunno if it's true or not, but I always find it a bit puzzling to see the clinic always earmarking LeMond as off-limits, like some sort of saint.

[rumour on]
Me, the famous and beloved Poupou have talked with Michael about, and he said that he never said that, and never heard of that rumour.
Believe me, I have an Orange guy as son-in law!
[rumour off]

 

[Benotti69]

Yes, that is baffling. The only thing I can conclude is that there are 17 people in the world that don't wear Greg Lemond Hero PJ's with matching thong to bed every night. Make that 18 because I don't own any either, but I vote for Indurain.

still upset about buying all that yellow and black stuff, huh. try ebay

It must be shocking to you that some people in this world may look at the history of cycling, the lack of OOC and lax testing, and all of the doped competition and find it incredulous that the lone shining beacon with silky white robe in the sport is GL. Different opinions and people drawing different conclusions than you are things you will have to deal with in life. Good luck.

Amazing how many former riders, soigneurs etc have all spilt the beans and no one has yet to mention GL. Hmm bet that hurts.

 

[Fearless Greg Lemond]

According to Michael Boogerd, in the peloton at the time he was riding, it was rumored LeMond brought EPO in the peloton. Dunno if it's true or not, but I always find it a bit puzzling to see the clinic always earmarking LeMond as off-limits, like some sort of saint.

That also happened around the 1999 Tour de France. Jan Gisbers, the DS of PDM - Pills, Drugs and Medicine -, also hinted to this in the book 'Meesterknecht':
http://books.google.nl/books?id=_UV...ed=0CD0Q6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=lemond epo&f=false
Too bad Gisbers forgot the interview he gave on 24th of may 1988 where he explained how come LeMond was bad that year due to a tenosynovitis caught because of a fall at E3 Harelbeke which even caused him to be in plaster on his left leg, eventually needing surgery in july. His condition was even 'dangerously good' according to that same Jan Gisbers.

a summary of LeMonds racedays we can go here:
http://www.greglemondfan.com/photo archive.html

Do note the results in 1989 were allready much better than 1988 leading up to the Tour de France, not the Giro off course.

If we then take the famous phonecall between LeMond and Armstrong from Seven Deadly Sins:
http://books.google.nl/books?id=Lp3...=0CEEQ6AEwAjgK#v=onepage&q=lemond epo&f=false

and if LeMond would have used epo he would be a bigger liar/psycho than Armstrong in my book. Wouldnt a guy like Steve Tilford, not very pro - doping to my belief, call him on his BS then?

To the bold, nobody is off limit. I also heard those rumours, do for instance a google search ''Dhaenens epo LeMond''. But why has nobody come forward in all those years, it is not like LeMond was the most popular figure in the peloton, he was seen as a turn - penny by many of his peers.

If the rumour was true, I would like to know why after 1990 the stuff did not work for him anymore...

 

[hrotha]

I think LeMond was clean, and 99% sure he didn't use EPO, but that doesn't mean some people here don't get ridiculously defensive whenever the possibility is raised. To a large degree that's because questioning LeMond has long been a favourite tactic of Armstrong's interns and it's rarely been done for honest reasons.

 

[Benotti69]

I think LeMond was clean, and 99% sure he didn't use EPO, but that doesn't mean some people here don't get ridiculously defensive whenever the possibility is raised. To a large degree that's because questioning LeMond has long been a favourite tactic of Armstrong's interns and it's rarely been done for honest reasons.

Due to Armstrong's vendetta against LeMond, it is not ridiculous to get defensive of GL.

But yes for posters to raise GL only serves to illustrate the depth of their love for Armstrong.

 

[hrotha]

Due to Armstrong's vendetta against LeMond, it is not ridiculous to get defensive of GL.

But yes for posters to raise GL only serves to illustrate the depth of their love for Armstrong.

It *is* ridiculous to get worked up and cry "Where's the PROOF?", as if there was usually proof of doping before a conviction. It is also silly to say everyone who questions LeMond must be an Armstrong lover.

As I said, I understand why it happens, but I still think it's not good and should be corrected.

 

[BigBoat]

Imagine having Indurain's power... Just hop in a criterium and forget about sprinting...just cruise at a steady 525 watts and wait for the guy 2nd wheel to loose touch he he he.

 

[86TDFWinner]

It *is* ridiculous to get worked up and cry "Where's the PROOF?", as if there was usually proof of doping before a conviction. It is also silly to say everyone who questions LeMond must be an Armstrong lover.

As I said, I understand why it happens, but I still think it's not good and should be corrected.

Guilty as charged, I don't think everyone who questions GL or says something about it is an Armstrong fan. I do think however, there are a number of butthurt people, who still believe in the myth of Wonderboy, and can't fathom that anyone was clean who's won the Tour. There are also those fans who do not know the whole story, and see LA on tv, and what he says, and automatically side with him. Plus, I think there are some who hold a vendetta for GL as a way of support for Wonderboy too.

I do enjoy though asking them to provide any shred of proof and they scurry off when they cannot. I've said this a million times, if he's(GL) not been "outed" by now, what's the point of even bringing it up, or stating he was "doping too", when the past, and lack of evidence shows he didn't?

But, if they want to engage in it by continuing to state he did, I'll continue asking them to provide proof. Sorry if that offends you.

 

[hrotha]

But, if they want to engage in it by continuing to state he did, I'll continue asking them to provide proof. Sorry if that offends you.

See, this is a prime example of the defensiveness I meant.

 

[Fearless Greg Lemond]

It *is* ridiculous to get worked up and cry "Where's the PROOF?", as if there was usually proof of doping before a conviction. It is also silly to say everyone who questions LeMond must be an Armstrong lover.

Yep, totally agree.

People shouldnt become spastic when LeMond is brought up in a discussion.

 

[Samson777]

Where is the proof he did dope? We're all ears if you'd care to share any info you may have. If $300K offered up to ANYONE by Wonderboy to say they saw LeMond cheat(dope) didn't work, nothing will.



Greg LeMond.........(who last we checked, won 3 TDF's clean)

Doubt it? just post ANY credible proof you have that he's doped? a former: rider/teammate/dr, along with dates, times, who administered said drugs to him, what they were, etc? Has to be verifiable and credible, not something your dog told you,

Okay, I will try to be polite.

You where the one claiming you had proof, I never did. So you could have spared the attacks. I noted you had proof that the Tour could be won clean. Normally I would believe, that it would be difficult to prove that sort of thing. So I was just curious to see your proof, and I still am, that's all.

You wrote the stuff about Wonderboy, and I asked you when was it proofed that you could win clean in Wonderboys era. And what was your answer? That you can proof Lemond won Clean in the eighties? How does that proof, that you could win clean in 99-2005? Please forgive my ignorance, and explain the obvious. I would appreciate it.

 

[StyrbjornSterki]

There is exactly as much credible evidence that Lemond fired the shot from the grassy knoll at Dealey Plaza as there is he ever used PEDs.

The fanboys can never get over the fact that their lord and saviour was brought down by mere eye-witness testimony (which they are desperate to mischaracterise as hearsay), not hard physical evidence, and they are keen to stretch that same bag over Lemond's head. If Lemond didn't dope, Pharmstrong's "couldn't win without it" mantra hasn't a leg to stand on, and the fanboys cannot abide that because they hold out hope he yet might be redeemed.

Except in Lemond's case, there are no eye witnesses, leaving only the hearsay, the rumours, the innuendos and the aspersions, AKA character assassination.

 

[D-Queued]

There is exactly as much credible evidence that Lemond fired the shot from the grassy knoll at Dealey Plaza as there is he ever used PEDs.

The fanboys can never get over the fact that their lord and saviour was brought down by mere eye-witness testimony (which they are desperate to mischaracterise as hearsay), not hard physical evidence, and they are keen to stretch that same bag over Lemond's head. If Lemond didn't dope, Pharmstrong's "couldn't win without it" mantra hasn't a leg to stand on, and the fanboys cannot abide that because they hold out hope he yet might be redeemed.

Except in Lemond's case, there are no eye witnesses, leaving only the hearsay, the rumours, the innuendos and the aspersions, AKA character assassination.

Good one!

Dave.

 

[hfer07]

I don't quite get the rational behind the inclusion of Bernard Hinault in the EPO rank, since his last TDF win goes back to 85 along with Lemond-which would imply BOTH had been using it since they rode for the same team.
Perico, Roche & Fignon are likely to have tried during the 90's but I doubt it during their 80's career.

Just to clarify-we're talking about EPO only-because is well known they did their doping as what it was the norm back in those days (amphetamines, Testosterone, some Blood doping, the Belgian bomb, etc.)

 

[Benotti69]

I don't quite get the rational behind the inclusion of Bernard Hinault in the EPO rank, since his last TDF win goes back to 85 along with Lemond-which would imply BOTH had been using it since they rode for the same team.
Perico, Roche & Fignon are likely to have tried during the 90's but I doubt it during their 80's career.

Just to clarify-we're talking about EPO only-because is well known they did their doping as what it was the norm back in those days (amphetamines, Testosterone, some Blood doping, the Belgian bomb, etc.)

There is factual evidence that Roche was using EPO with Conconi!

 

[86TDFWinner]

Yep, totally agree.

People shouldnt become spastic when LeMond is brought up in a discussion.

I didn't become spastic, nor do I. I simply ask them to provide their proof, nothing more.

 

[Le breton]

I don't quite get the rational behind the inclusion of Bernard Hinault in the EPO rank, since his last TDF win goes back to 85 along with Lemond-which would imply BOTH had been using it since they rode for the same team.
.....

Just because Hinault and LeMond were on the same team does not mean they copied one on the other, consider Gaumont and Moncoutié at Cofidis.

What is far more important is that Koechli was the DS at La VIE Claire. And Koechli was definitely against doping.

While I trust LeMond to have been absolutely clean, I would not say the same for Hinault.
Although I am convinced that he didn't need extra pharmaceutical help to win, I expect that like many pros of his time he used amphetamines for the after-TdF criteriums.
Also, Hinault trusted Bellocq (rééquilibrage hormonal); but I have never read anything about him using hormones as suggested by Bellocq to maintain good health.

PS : too bad we don't know who are the people who cast votes for LeMond.
Maybe 2 or 3 people voted 8 times.

 

[86TDFWinner]

Okay, I will try to be polite.

You where the one claiming you had proof, I never did.

I did? Not true. I said that because Armstrong offered anyone $300K to say he did dope didn;t work, why do you think it'd work now? LeMond himself even mentioned Wonderboy doing this during the Anderson Cooper appearance. It's been 19 yrs since his retirement, and nothing since then? Pretty good assumption then that he's clean, right?

I also said Miggy was probably on the sauce. I have no proof either way, just my opinion.

So you could have spared the attacks.

Never attacked you, I simply asked you to provide your said proof or evidence that you've seen, to make you feel he's doped? Where is the statement/rumor from Boogerd? Not something you've heard.

I noted you had proof that the Tour could be won clean.

I do, his name is Greg Lemond, based on all we know, he's the proof. Until he's proven to have doped, he'll remain the proof you can win it clean. Also, Hinault's never been busted for doping as far as I know, but others here might know if he has.

Normally I would believe, that it would be difficult to prove that sort of thing. So I was just curious to see your proof, and I still am, that's all.

Look at Greg's 3 TDF titles. I don't need to prove anything, I'm not questioning his record or doping history, Armstrong and his disciples are.

You wrote the stuff about Wonderboy, and I asked you when was it proofed that you could win clean in Wonderboys era.

I agreed with you somewhere that DURING Wonderboys era, I doubt there is a clean rider. BUT, Wonderboy was riding as far back as the lat 80s, when LeMond was still riding and winning, so Greg/others could still win it clean. My opinion of course.

And what was your answer?

See above. I don't have to prove he didn't dope, I'm not questioning his history. However, YOU have to prove or show us when/how he did, since you're the one who's questioning it.

That you can proof Lemond won Clean in the eighties?

Again, see above. Can you prove he wasn't? If he wasn't clean, please post your proof claiming he wasn't. Not hard to do really.

How does that proof, that you could win clean in 99-2005?

It doesn't. However, it also doesn't prove one couldn't win clean, as we don't know if one could.

Please forgive my ignorance, and explain the obvious. I would appreciate it

No problem....read above. Glad i could help

 

[Samson777]

I did? Not true.
I said that because Armstrong offered anyone $300K to say he did dope didn;t work, why do you think it'd work now? LeMond himself even mentioned Wonderboy doing this during the Anderson Cooper appearance. It's been 19 yrs since his retirement, and nothing since then? Pretty good assumption then that he's clean, right?



Never attacked you, I simply asked you to provide your said proof or evidence that you've seen, to make you feel he's doped? Where is the statement/rumor from Boogerd? Not something you've heard.



I do, his name is Greg Lemond, based on all we know now, he's the proof. Until he's proven to have doped, he'll remain the proof you can win it clean. Also, Hinault's never been busted for doping as far as I know.




Look at Greg's 3 TDF titles. I dont need to prove anything, Im not questioning his record or doping history, Armstrong and his disciples are.




I agreed with you somewhere that DURING Wonderboys era, I doubt there is a clean rider. BUT, Wonderboy was riding as far back as the lat 80s, when LeMond was still riding and winning, so Greg/others could still win it clean. My opinion of course.



See above. I dont have to prove he didn;t dope, YOU have to prove or show us when/how he did, since you're the one who's questioning it.



Again, see above. Can you prove he wasn't? If he wasn't please post your proof claiming he wasn't. Not hard to do really.



It doesn't. However, it also doesn't prove one couldn't as we don't know if one could.

Hehe okay, last time.

To the balded: I don't like when people imply that I am lying. At page 316 in the Wonderboy tread you write: " It's been proven that a guy can win clean, multiple times http://forum.cyclingnews.com/showthread.php?t=19751&page=316

So yes, for the third time If it has been proven that a guy can win clean, why don't you bring the proof? I never said that Lemond had to be a doper. I just wondered how you could proof he was clean. So really you could just have started with either bringing the proof, or just say that you don't know of any proof, that the tour have been won clean.

Now I still never claimed to have proof of anything. So I don't understand why you keep asking for it.

To wonderboy era stuff, well I tend to agree that Lemonds victories, doesn't proof anything when it comes to that.

 

[FoxxyBrown1111]

It is also silly to say everyone who questions LeMond must be an Armstrong lover.

Agree. I don´t think that all votes for Lemond came from LA fanboys... May some voters had the right thought that he might have used transfusions.

PS : too bad we don't know who are the people who cast votes for LeMond.
Maybe 2 or 3 people voted 8 times.

How? Unless they opened a new account to just vote here. I guess that´s a little far-fetched.