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

[FoxxyBrown1111]

I don't quite get the rational behind the inclusion of Bernard Hinault in the EPO rank...

Just to clarify-we're talking about EPO only...

No. It´s about Epo and/or transfusions. Both methods are the most powerful cheating methods, with the only true difference being Epo is easier to handle.

 

[hfer07]

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

I'm aware of it- but was he using it during 87 thru 90?

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.

I never claimed Hinault was a saint- What I question is him using EPO since it wasn't that common-even Blood transfusions, because back then was too risky & complicated, mostly due to the fear of contamination/hepatitis, etc. Perhaps it was used for special occasions, like Moser did to break the Hour's record back then, but I doubt it was used while riding a GT like nowadays...

No. It´s about Epo and/or transfusions. Both methods are the most powerful cheating methods, with the only true difference being Epo is easier to handle.

see above

 

[42x16ss]

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

I'm sure that many of us thought the reports of death threats against Tygart were far fetched too...

 

[42x16ss]

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

In the 90's he did, but the 80's? Not so certain.

 

[FoxxyBrown1111]

I'm sure that many of us thought the reports of death threats against Tygart were far fetched too...

I didn´t.... Anyway, what has that to do with an online poll? I guess the times are gone when LA could afford an absurd PR war in the interwebs. I guess he uses his money more wisely now.

 

[Benotti69]

In the 90's he did, but the 80's? Not so certain.

Conconi was Roche's doctor at Carerra.

 

[FoxxyBrown1111]

Conconi was Roche's doctor at Carerra.

In 1987 already?

 

[86TDFWinner]

Hehe okay, last time.

I thought I explained clear enough "last time", so why would I need to do it again? I dont.

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

HeHe, Check TDF winner:86/89/90, then check in the past 19 yrs if he's been outed as a doper? 1 report from anyone who says they 100% saw him do it? Crickets.

I dont need to "prove" he doped, Greg's record is clean. YOU needdf to show that he wasn't since you continue questioning that he was infact clean. UNLESS you know of sometime that he did? which I ask you to please post said proof/evidence he doped? has to be credible and verifiable, not some bogus rumor.

So yes, for the third time If it has been proven that a guy can win clean, why don't you bring the proof?

For the 1,000,000,000 time, LEMOND WAS CLEAN, there's your "proof". I brought it, now you bring YOURS claiming otherwise.

Wonderboy tried offering up $300K to anyone to say they saw LeMond dope, were there any takers? no. Has there been anything in the last 19 yrs of his returement to claim he doped with verifiable evidence? no.

Thats your "proof" you seek. Now, where's yours claiming he wasn't clean?

I never said that Lemond had to be a doper.

HeHe, YOu DID however question him, and keep asking for me to post prove proving he's clean, so that IS you claiming he was a doper. If you know he's not, why do you keep asking about it?

I just wondered how you could proof he was clean.

I want to see how you can prove he wasn't, can you?

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.

Huh?

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

Because YOU KEEP CLAIMING HE(LeMond) ISN'T CLEAN, the question asked was clan the tour be won by someone clean? Yes, LeMond's won it 3 times clean. There you go.

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

Prove. I agreed with you there. The question was asked if someone can win the tour clean...I said yes, and gave LeMonds name. You got all bent outta shape then.

 

[Benotti69]

In 1987 already?

A search of dopeology says apparently not, only '93-'94

L'arri's site is bang on.

 

[Samson777]

I thought I explained clear enough "last time", so why would I need to do it again? I dont.



HeHe, Check TDF winner:86/89/90, then check in the past 19 yrs if he's been outed as a doper? 1 report from anyone who says they 100% saw him do it? Crickets.

I dont need to "prove" he doped, Greg's record is clean. YOU needdf to show that he wasn't since you continue questioning that he was infact clean. UNLESS you know of sometime that he did? which I ask you to please post said proof/evidence he doped? has to be credible and verifiable, not some bogus rumor.




For the 1,000,000,000 time, LEMOND WAS CLEAN, there's your "proof". I brought it, now you bring YOURS claiming otherwise.

Wonderboy tried offering up $300K to anyone to say they saw LeMond dope, were there any takers? no. Has there been anything in the last 19 yrs of his returement to claim he doped with verifiable evidence? no.

Thats your "proof" you seek. Now, where's yours claiming he wasn't clean?




HeHe, YOu DID however question him, and keep asking for me to post prove proving he's clean, so that IS you claiming he was a doper. If you know he's not, why do you keep asking about it?




I want to see how you can prove he wasn't, can you?





Huh?



Because YOU KEEP CLAIMING HE(LeMond) ISN'T CLEAN, the question asked was clan the tour be won by someone clean? Yes, LeMond's won it 3 times clean. There you go.





Prove. I agreed with you there. The question was asked if someone can win the tour clean...I said yes, and gave LeMonds name. You got all bent outta shape then.

Please show me one sentence, in our conversation, where I claimed that Lemond wasn't clean. Asking for proof, does not equal that, in case you wonder.

This have been a waste of time. You could just have said from the beginning, that your "proof" is, that you can write it with Capital letters and the fact that Lemond have not been outed as a doper. How that can be a proof I don't understand.. But anyway..

 

[pmcg76]

Please show me one sentence, in our conversation, where I claimed that Lemond wasn't clean. Asking for proof, does not equal that, in case you wonder.

This have been a waste of time. You could just have said from the beginning, that your "proof" is, that you can write it with Capital letters and the fact that Lemond have not been outed as a doper. How that can be a proof I don't understand.. But anyway..

I wouldn't worry too much, I think quite a few poster's have had this experience with 86TDF. It's amazing how vexed 86TDF get's at people who never suggested LeMond was doping.

 

[86TDFWinner]

Please show me one sentence, in our conversation, where I claimed that Lemond wasn't clean. Asking for proof, does not equal that, in case you wonder.

if you knew he was clean, then why did you continue asking for proof of something you already knew the answer to?

This have been a waste of time.

Typical response when asked to provide proof he doped.

Maybe you'll stop now(hopefully), so I wont have to keep boring people here.

You could just have said from the beginning, that your "proof" is, that you can write it with Capital letters and the fact that Lemond have not been outed as a doper.

Huh? You couldve just figured it out FROM THE BEGINNING that LeMond was/is clean, as you agreed with and knew from the beginning, but you didn't.

How that can be a proof I don't understand.. But anyway

Not surprising, but anyways.

 

[Fearless Greg Lemond]

A search of dopeology says apparently not, only '93-'94

L'arri's site is bang on.

1986 Ben, Giovanni Grazzi/Grassi sometimes, says enough...

For the loonies of course

Sources rule.

And, dont forget, Roche focked his knee in the six days of Paris 1985. Sources...

 

[Samson777]

if you knew he was clean, then why did you continue asking for proof of something you already knew the answer to?





Typical response when asked to provide proof he doped.

Maybe you'll stop now(hopefully), so I wont have to keep boring people here.


Huh? You couldve just figured it out FROM THE BEGINNING that LeMond was/is clean, as you agreed with and knew from the beginning, but you didn't.



Not surprising, but anyways.

So in the other words, you can not provide a sentence.

And now I knew that he was clean??? Like the other nonsense about I knew he was doped, this is also something you just make up yourself. I tend to agree with you about the boring part.

 

[Samson777]

I wouldn't worry too much, I think quite a few poster's have had this experience with 86TDF. It's amazing how vexed 86TDF get's at people who never suggested LeMond was doping.

I see, well thanks for the heads up.

 

[D-Queued]

Guys, the Lemond argument is not going to go anywhere.

We all (should) know that.

The poll is overwhelmingly favoring Indurain.

The question I have always wondered about is whether he had the full program while supporting Delgado, in his first TdF win, or afterwards?

Thoughts?

Dave.

 

[FitSsikS]

Guys, the Lemond argument is not going to go anywhere.

We all (should) know that.

The poll is overwhelmingly favoring Indurain.

Dave.

Ya, did guys really read the post question? Indurain for sure, but the first? IMO....nope.

 

[Big Doopie]

The question I have always wondered about is whether he had the full program while supporting Delgado, in his first TdF win, or afterwards?

Thoughts?

Dave.

IMO, yes, in 1991, mig, chiappucci and bugno were all doing epo. However, mottet, fignon, hampsten, Lemond and Leblanc (not yet) were not.

 

[FoxxyBrown1111]

Guys, the Lemond argument is not going to go anywhere.

We all (should) know that.

The poll is overwhelmingly favoring Indurain.

The question I have always wondered about is whether he had the full program while supporting Delgado, in his first TdF win, or afterwards?

Thoughts?

Dave.

I think he went full program in 1991. Some say 1992. Anyway, i voted for an rider before him, depending on blood manipulation to win the tour.

Ya, did guys really read the post question? Indurain for sure, but the first? IMO....nope.

True. But it´s the opinions....

I guess since Indurain was the 1st "heavy" TT-specialist who turned into a serial TdF winner. He certainly then was the obvios choice .

 

[86TDFWinner]

So in the other words, you can not provide a sentence.

I ask you the same, as you have not as well.

And now I knew that he was clean??? Like the other nonsense about I knew he was doped, this is also something you just make up yourself.

What did I make up, please explain?

I tend to agree with you about the boring part.

We agree on something.

 

[SirLes]

I think the idea of a "full program" at that time is misleading. IMO the doctors and riders at that time were experimenetning with how best to administer this new drug. That would have taken a few years before they got close to perfecting its use. By this I mean in terms of doses, timing and logistics wrt to a grand tour. Indeed it would still have been refined all the way through the 90s till the 50% limit.

IMO With respect to the Tour it wasn't until 91 that they were able to make a significant enough diffence to overcome natural physical barriers. Even then it was only a few riders that were the Guinea pigs for the Doctors' experiments. There may well be others who did not respond as well or lacked other factors that meant that despite being part of those initial programs remained outside the top 10.
Those "lucky" few riders that were part of the experiments had a boost for a few years with respect to the competition until knowledge and experience began to spread- other doctors experimented, riders shared experience etc until a sufficiently large enough group of riders/doctors were sufficiently experienced in EPO's use to make it impossible for a clean rider to compete near the top. (1994?)

Just because there were not the "out of this world" permformances in 1989? 1990, 1991 and maybe 1992 as there were later does not mean that riders were not benefitting from EPO use just that the full benefits had not yet been realised

So for me it's Indurain. There were other at the same time who were also involved (ed Bugno, PDM team) but they didn't win the TdF.

There were also individual riders who were trying it and those wpould have been the ones that died imo.

As for the old guard? Delgado, Roche etc. I suspect they would have been happier sticking with what they knew in the early stages rather than risk their health to such an extent. They could afford to having already had successful careers. The Doctors needed the young hungry for success or simply easily manipulated for their experiments.

 

[GuyIncognito]

How you define 'full program' doesn't really matter, as he was just as strong in 1990 as he was in 1991. He might have won that Tour if he wasn't exhausting himself for Delgado

1992 was clearly a step up

 

[Le breton]

How you define 'full program' doesn't really matter, as he was just as strong in 1990 as he was in 1991. He might have won that Tour if he wasn't exhausting himself for Delgado

1992 was clearly a step up

On a full program they never get exhausted. There is a contradiction in your message.

 

[GuyIncognito]

On a full program they never get exhausted. There is a contradiction in your message.

What science fiction have you been reading? That must be the most unknowledgeable thing I've ever seen posted here. And that's saying a lot!

I'll name one of several hundred examples I could name of a guy on a full programme getting so exhausted he collapsed entirely: Bartoli at the 98 Giro. First couple of weeks he was stronger than even Pantani and Zülle, even in the high mountains. Attacking over and over for the most miniscule gains on every single stage, even getting in on bunch sprints.

But because in a stage race you must conserve energy and he didn't, in the third week he blew up so hard he eventually couldn't even make the time limit.

But thanks for the laugh

 

[burning]

I think Berzin must be clean in 1996 Tour according to that logic.

Lance in 2000 is a good example as well