# Guy's who were never caught...



## Dwayne Barry

Stuart O'grady retiring reminds me that he is another guy who managed to sail through the dope 'til you drop era to the modern era without getting busted. Makes one wonder if he got his PR by continuing to play the game aggressively for a bit after it became risky before taking his foot off the accelerator to finish out his career?


----------



## PaxRomana

Dwayne Barry said:


> Stuart O'grady retiring reminds me that he is another guy who managed to sail through the dope 'til you drop era to the modern era without getting busted. Makes one wonder if he got his PR by continuing to play the game aggressively for a bit after it became risky before taking his foot off the accelerator to finish out his career?


Sastre is another one, though from what I hear, the only thing he did was cortisone. Evans is a third. Savoldelli. Rubiera.


----------



## nate

I think the 1998 retest results are supposed to be revealed with names of riders in a couple days. It's possible that could be part of the reason for some retirements.

Jens Voigt?


----------



## The Human G-Nome

nate said:


> I think the 1998 retest results are supposed to be revealed with names of riders in a couple days. It's possible that could be part of the reason for some retirements.
> 
> Jens Voigt?


That is a sad, sad thought. It would be such a pleasant surprise if he were not on that list. When Tyler got busted though, I knew anything was possible.


----------



## 86TDFWinner

Dwayne Barry said:


> Stuart O'grady retiring reminds me that he is another guy who managed to sail through the dope 'til you drop era to the modern era without getting busted. Makes one wonder if he got his PR by continuing to play the game aggressively for a bit after it became risky before taking his foot off the accelerator to finish out his career?



Purely MY opinion here:

Miggy/Sastre/Wiggins.


----------



## Wookiebiker

Lemond ... Yea, I know, where is the evidence, where are the people saying he did it?

One could say the same about Indurain. People are not lining up to throw him under the bus, yet it's pretty well understood he was doped to the gills.

Lemond's last two wins took place at the beginning of the EPO era and he was seen getting injections in front of a reporter ... of which nobody really knows what was in the injection other than the doctor that injected it. Then there was the fact he was getting dropped like crazy by other riders not long before the 1990 tour win, but then all the sudden turned it around to with the Tour ... "Amazing" :idea:

I don't buy his "Clean" image any more than I do Armstrong ... and his unwavering support of other dopers aside from Armstrong is kinda old. What will he say if/when Froome gets popped?


----------



## 86TDFWinner

Wookiebiker said:


> Lemond ... Yea, I know, where is the evidence, where are the people saying he did it?
> 
> One could say the same about Indurain. People are not lining up to throw him under the bus, yet it's pretty well understood he was doped to the gills.
> 
> Lemond's last two wins took place at the beginning of the EPO era and he was seen getting injections in front of a reporter ... of which nobody really knows what was in the injection other than the doctor that injected it.
> 
> I don't buy his "Clean" image any more than I do Armstrong ... and his unwavering support of other dopers aside from Armstrong is kinda old. What will he say if/when Froome gets popped?


Please post: 1 CREDIBLE source(former teammate/rider/manager/dr) whoclaimed he did, also post: dates/times/who administered said drugs to him please......


Wonderboy tried to dig up dirt on him, to the tune of offering $300K to someone for it, guess what happened? NOTHING!!! Guys clean, has been since day 1. Been 19 yrs since he's been retired......it wouldve come out by now.


Like I said...post ANY credible source......otherwise....dont even bother mentioning his name, when EVERYONE knows he's clean.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

Wookiebiker said:


> Lemond ... Yea, I know, where is the evidence, where are the people saying he did it?
> 
> One could say the same about Indurain. People are not lining up to throw him under the bus, yet it's pretty well understood he was doped to the gills.
> 
> Lemond's last two wins took place at the beginning of the EPO era and he was seen getting injections in front of a reporter ... of which nobody really knows what was in the injection other than the doctor that injected it. Then there was the fact he was getting dropped like crazy by other riders not long before the 1990 tour win, but then all the sudden turned it around to with the Tour ... "Amazing" :idea:
> 
> I don't buy his "Clean" image any more than I do Armstrong ... and his unwavering support of other dopers aside from Armstrong is kinda old. What will he say if/when Froome gets popped?


Not sure why you write this nonsense. 

LeMond never received an injection in front of a reporter. He came downstairs at the team hotel for an interview at the Giro. He start off the interview by telling the reporter about the iron injection he had to have. He explained how that even if it was fully legal he did not like needles, not just because of the sting but for what they represented in the sport.

Lance hired a PR firm to smear LeMond. Turning what was an anti-doping statement into "Proof" he doped. Some groupies believed it but most did not. 

You are wrong about Greg winning in the EPO era. As EPO took hold of the sport Greg suddenly went from winning GT's to not finishing, even though his output and times in training were his best ever.


----------



## mmoose

Doctor Falsetti said:


> You are wrong about Greg winning in the EPO era. As EPO took hold of the sport Greg suddenly went from winning GT's to not finishing, even though his output and times in training were his best ever.


Dr F, just curious on when you think the EPO era started. I was at the '90 tour and there were some rumors then. I didn't watch much of it, tv coverage in the US at the time was pretty poor. 

But I did buy the vhs back in '99 or so. And the first time watching it, CC attacking in the mountain, in the yellow jersey, and the peloton just letting him go...that is the beyond believable. But knowing what we know now about EPO, it makes sense. And then later in the climb, CC catches up with a small break away. And who was in that break? Johnan Bruyneel.


----------



## burgrat

Didn't the widespread use of EPO begin in '91-'92? I remember watching Indurain win a time trial in the 91 Tour (I believe) and he put something like 4 minutes into LeMond and I was like WTF? LeMond was baffled too. That was the beginning of the end.


----------



## Local Hero

LeMond was doped to the gills. 

If you deny this you have a mancrush.


----------



## Dwayne Barry

burgrat said:


> Didn't the widespread use of EPO begin in '91-'92? I remember watching Indurain win a time trial in the 91 Tour (I believe) and he put something like 4 minutes into LeMond and I was like WTF? LeMond was baffled too. That was the beginning of the end.


I think there's a good chance Indurain got the jump on most of the peloton with EPO use. From what I've seen the peloton was amazingly slow in realizing EPO was a game changer with Ferrari as late as '94 able to get a leg up on the other squads by doping the Gewiss team or at least a number of their major riders with it.


----------



## PaxRomana

Lemond went from winning the 1990 TdF, to getting dropped like a rock by guys he was previously beating on a regular basis.

How exactly do people say he was doping? Did he just magically decide to stop? In 1991 he finished 7th. In 1992 he abandoned.

So, wins 3 straight Tours in which he participates in the 80s pre-EPO, then gets crushed as the EPO era starts. Seriously, Lemond critics are delusional. The guy's performances are used as the benchmarks for clean cycling for pete's sake.


----------



## burgrat

Local Hero said:


> LeMond was doped to the gills.
> 
> If you deny this you have a mancrush.


Hell yeah I'm guilty of a mancrush, not that there's anything wrong with that...


Back on the original topic, it looks like Wednesday is going to be the big day where we find out all the names from the '98 Tour.
I'm betting the whole podium (Pantani, Ullrich, Julich), along with O'Grady, Jens, and a host of others to show up. It'll be interesting to see what the responses are, but then again most guys have fessed up by now (or are dead ).


----------



## Local Hero

PaxRomana said:


> Lemond's performances are used as the benchmarks for clean cycling for pete's sake.


Why LeMond? 

I think my performances should be the benchmark for clean cycling. I'm sure that everyone faster than me is doping.


----------



## 86TDFWinner

Local Hero said:


> LeMond was doped to the gills.
> 
> If you deny this you have a mancrush.


You're 100% positive he was "doped to the gills"?

It's really quite simple then: Post your CREDIBLE source(s) that claims he was.

A rider/teammate/dr/etc. Has to be CREDIBLE, NOT something your sisters, dogs, step uncle in law told you, a CREDIBLE source. Also, please post how/where you obtained said information.

Also, in posting said proof that he doped, please provide ALL: dr's who administered said drugs to him, dates, times, where, when.

Can you do this please or no? STOP claiming he was, and post the proof to back up your ridiculous statement. ANYTHING other than you posting the proof, means you're FOS and just trolling, and everyone knows it.

Pick one and post it.

What's it going to be sport?


----------



## 86TDFWinner

Local Hero said:


> Why LeMond?
> 
> I think my performances should be the benchmark for clean cycling. I'm sure that everyone faster than me is doping.


Waiting on you to post your proof(as you claim) that LeMond was "doped to the gills", can you do that please? avoiding it isn't going to make me stop asking you, you looking like an obvious jackass troll, or posting said proof. Please provide it, so that we may all learn from this information.


Can you do it? remember, it MUST be from a credible source, NOT something your moms goldfish told you.


----------



## Local Hero

86TDFWinner said:


> You're 100% positive he was "doped to the gills"?
> 
> It's really quite simple then: Post your CREDIBLE source(s) that claims he was.
> 
> A rider/teammate/dr/etc. Has to be CREDIBLE, NOT something your sisters, dogs, step uncle in law told you, a CREDIBLE source. Also, please post how/where you obtained said information.
> 
> Also, in posting said proof that he doped, please provide ALL: dr's who administered said drugs to him, dates, times, where, when.
> 
> Can you do this please or no? STOP claiming he was, and post the proof to back up your ridiculous statement. ANYTHING other than you posting the proof, means you're FOS and just trolling, and everyone knows it.
> 
> Pick one and post it.
> 
> What's it going to be sport?





86TDFWinner said:


> Waiting on you to post your proof(as you claim) that LeMond was "doped to the gills", can you do that please? avoiding it isn't going to make me stop asking you, you looking like an obvious jackass troll, or posting said proof. Please provide it, so that we may all learn from this information.
> 
> 
> Can you do it? remember, it MUST be from a credible source, NOT something your moms goldfish told you.


LOL 

You responded to me twice in 10 minutes and sent me a private message on this? And you're calling me a jackass. I'll repeat here what I said to you via private message: _I'll post the evidence right after you get banned again._

This is serious business for you. Maybe it's time for you to go outside and get some fresh air. Or at least open a window.


----------



## 86TDFWinner

Local Hero said:


> LOL
> 
> You responded to me twice in 10 minutes and sent me a private message on this? And you're calling me a jackass. I'll repeat here what I said to you via private message: _I'll post the evidence right after you get banned again._
> 
> This is serious business for you. Maybe it's time for you to go outside and get some fresh air. Or at least open a window.


LOL, Wasn't "banned" before......

I noticed you're once AGAIN avoiding the question....it's simple...post the proof, or STFU about it. You've proven that you're FOS and a jackass, thank you for doing so.


----------



## Coolhand

*moderators note*



86TDFWinner said:


> Waiting on you to post your proof(as you claim) that LeMond was "doped to the gills", can you do that please? avoiding it isn't going to make me stop asking you, you looking like an obvious jackass troll, or posting said proof. Please provide it, so that we may all learn from this information.
> 
> 
> Can you do it? remember, it MUST be from a credible source, NOT something your moms goldfish told you.


Off to a very bad start here- posting vacation to start, perm ban if you do it again.


----------



## Bluenote

86TDFWinner said:


> LOL, Wasn't "banned" before......
> 
> I noticed you're once AGAIN avoiding the question....it's simple...post the proof, or STFU about it. You've proven that you're FOS and a jackass, thank you for doing so.


I think Lemond was likely clean. But I think calling other RBRers names like 'jackass' is a bit much.


----------



## burgrat

Like I said earlier...

Pantani, Ullrich, Julich, Zabel among 1998 Tour positives - VeloNews.com


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

Bluenote said:


> I think Lemond was likely clean. But I think calling other RBRers names like 'jackass' is a bit much.


Yup, it is like writing something completely indefensible and saying that anyone who disagrees with him has a mancrush. 

It has been a hard year for some. Mancrush's die hard. Taking shots at LeMond helps alleviate the pain of a lost love for some


----------



## Local Hero

Doctor Falsetti said:


> Yup, it is like writing something completely indefensible and saying that anyone who disagrees with him has a mancrush.
> 
> It has been a hard year for some. Mancrush's die hard. Taking shots at LeMond helps alleviate the pain of a lost love for some


Uhm...

For years people accused Armstrong'd defenders--and guys like me who like to play devil's advocate--of being fanboys or having a mancrush on Armstrong. 

You just did it now. And you added in your weak pop psychology while doing a weird passive-aggressive thing by taking an indirect shot at me in response to someone else's post. Weird. 


The joke is that I flipped the mancrush canard around, saying that anyone who disagrees with my baseless accusation against LeMond must have a mancrush on LeMond. 



I'm sure it wasn't the first time, nor will it be the last time that you miss a joke. 



On to the bigger issue, what's wrong with baseless accusations? Most agree that the guy was clean but LeMond isn't a sacred cow. He should get accused just like everyone else. Why not? After all, at least three of his rides fall into the "suspect" category.


----------



## Wookiebiker

History of EPO: From the American Society of Hematology



> In 1983, scientists discovered a method for mass producing a synthetic version of the hormone. Experiments were conducted to test the safety and effectiveness of the new drug, Epo, for treating anemia in patients with kidney failure. The results of these early clinical trials were dramatic. Patients who had been dependent on frequent blood transfusions were able to increase their red blood cell levels to near-normal within just a few weeks of starting therapy. Patients’ appetites returned, and they resumed their active lives. It was the convergence of two technologies – long-term dialysis and molecular biology – that set the stage for anemia management in this group of patients. Since then, millions of patients worldwide have benefited from Epo therapy.


So, EPO had been around and tested since 1983 ... The effects of it on the body were well known by doctors and blood packing was already taking place along with the use of steroids and amphetamines as ways to improve performance. 

Given riders are getting access to clinical trial drugs in this day and age, where there are greater controls than in the 80's ... is it really a stretch to believe that athletes back in the 80's were not getting the same, if not more access?

It was approved by the FDA in 1989 ... which means general access by doctors and you can point to that as the "General" start of the EPO era ... yet, Lemond won in 1989, 1990 and finished in the top ten in 1991.

An argument could be made that the use of EPO started pre-1988 since it was in existence, had gone through clinical trials, and it's effects were well known by many doctors at time time, especially those working with teams where were already doping them with blood packing, steroids and anything else they could think of and get away with at the time.

The simple fact is it was around, available and effective ... yet people like to think riders wouldn't use it if they had access, but sticking a needle in their arm to drop some extra blood in their body before a big stage was OK???

People like to stick their heads in the sand about Lemond ... but there is a lot of circumstantial evidence around him, just with the "Injections" and EPO being available at the time. I'll even go so far as to say that Lemond didn't know he was doping and his doctor was injecting him with EPO against his knowledge and calling it "Iron" shots instead. Thus keeping Lemond out of the loop and thinking he was racing clean.

As for people coming forward against him ... if it was just him and his doctor ... who else is there to come forward? You can bet your life his doctor wouldn't be stepping up to the plate, assuming he's still around.

So ... yes, it's entirely plausible that Lemond was as much a doper as the rest.


----------



## stevesbike

excellent theory, except Lemond also won in 1986, would have won in 1985 except for team politics. And he came in 3rd in this first Tour. And he came second to a guy I know by the name of John Howard, who is a pretty decent bike rider and the best American rider at the time, when Lemond was 15. Then there's the gold, silver, and bronze medals he won at the Junior World Championships. He was simply a genetic outlier. 

Then there's the inconvenient fact that if he doped in the 80s why didn't he dope in the 90s? I was at the 1991 Tour and remember looking at Lemond holding the wheel of Duclos-Lassalle on a climb in the Alps and have never seen a rider's face with such a blank look of pain and agony. People forget that he was winning that Tour until he simply couldn't keep up day after day with the new gear other riders found. He didn't dope. 




Wookiebiker said:


> History of EPO: From the American Society of Hematology
> 
> 
> 
> So, EPO had been around and tested since 1983 ... The effects of it on the body were well known by doctors and blood packing was already taking place along with the use of steroids and amphetamines as ways to improve performance.
> 
> Given riders are getting access to clinical trial drugs in this day and age, where there are greater controls than in the 80's ... is it really a stretch to believe that athletes back in the 80's were not getting the same, if not more access?
> 
> It was approved by the FDA in 1989 ... which means general access by doctors and you can point to that as the "General" start of the EPO era ... yet, Lemond won in 1989, 1990 and finished in the top ten in 1991.
> 
> An argument could be made that the use of EPO started pre-1988 since it was in existence, had gone through clinical trials, and it's effects were well known by many doctors at time time, especially those working with teams where were already doping them with blood packing, steroids and anything else they could think of and get away with at the time.
> 
> The simple fact is it was around, available and effective ... yet people like to think riders wouldn't use it if they had access, but sticking a needle in their arm to drop some extra blood in their body before a big stage was OK???
> 
> People like to stick their heads in the sand about Lemond ... but there is a lot of circumstantial evidence around him, just with the "Injections" and EPO being available at the time. I'll even go so far as to say that Lemond didn't know he was doping and his doctor was injecting him with EPO against his knowledge and calling it "Iron" shots instead. Thus keeping Lemond out of the loop and thinking he was racing clean.
> 
> As for people coming forward against him ... if it was just him and his doctor ... who else is there to come forward? You can bet your life his doctor wouldn't be stepping up to the plate, assuming he's still around.
> 
> So ... yes, it's entirely plausible that Lemond was as much a doper as the rest.


----------



## Wookiebiker

stevesbike said:


> excellent theory, except Lemond also won in 1986, would have won in 1985 except for team politics. And he came in 3rd in this first Tour. And he came second to a guy I know by the name of John Howard, who is a pretty decent bike rider and the best American rider at the time, when Lemond was 15. Then there's the gold, silver, and bronze medals he won at the Junior World Championships. He was simply a genetic outlier.
> 
> Then there's the inconvenient fact that if he doped in the 80s why didn't he dope in the 90s? I was at the 1991 Tour and remember looking at Lemond holding the wheel of Duclos-Lassalle on a climb in the Alps and have never seen a rider's face with such a blank look of pain and agony. People forget that he was winning that Tour until he simply couldn't keep up day after day with the new gear other riders found. He didn't dope.


In reply to the 85 and 86 Tours ... he was still racing against guys that were blood doping and at a minimum using steroids to improve performance. That's still a proven technique for improving performance in GT's. You can bet other top riders were doing it and Lemond still beat them? Makes one wonder a little more ... kind of like a clean rider trying to beat Landis ... oh wait, they weren't clean and still couldn't do it.

As for him not holding wheels in the 91 tour ... he still finished 7th and by that time had multiple tours under his belt and was starting to show his age ... they all do at some point, some sooner than others. Even with large doses of EPO, assuming he was clean, he might not have been able to stay with the top riders.

With that said ... the EPO era was well, well underway when he won in 1990 ... so either he was doping then, or he was such a genetic freak that there will never be another like him in the history of the world. The question is which is more believable? Occam's Razor comes into play here ... when you have two competing theories that make exactly the same predictions, the simpler one is the better.

In the end ... it just doesn't add up.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

Local Hero said:


> what's wrong with baseless accusations?


Still don't get it.....


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

Wookiebiker said:


> History of EPO: From the American Society of Hematology
> 
> 
> 
> So, EPO had been around and tested since 1983 ... The effects of it on the body were well known by doctors and blood packing was already taking place along with the use of steroids and amphetamines as ways to improve performance.
> 
> Given riders are getting access to clinical trial drugs in this day and age, where there are greater controls than in the 80's ... is it really a stretch to believe that athletes back in the 80's were not getting the same, if not more access?
> 
> It was approved by the FDA in 1989 ... which means general access by doctors and you can point to that as the "General" start of the EPO era ... yet, Lemond won in 1989, 1990 and finished in the top ten in 1991.
> 
> An argument could be made that the use of EPO started pre-1988 since it was in existence, had gone through clinical trials, and it's effects were well known by many doctors at time time, especially those working with teams where were already doping them with blood packing, steroids and anything else they could think of and get away with at the time.
> 
> The simple fact is it was around, available and effective ... yet people like to think riders wouldn't use it if they had access, but sticking a needle in their arm to drop some extra blood in their body before a big stage was OK???
> 
> People like to stick their heads in the sand about Lemond ... but there is a lot of circumstantial evidence around him, just with the "Injections" and EPO being available at the time. I'll even go so far as to say that Lemond didn't know he was doping and his doctor was injecting him with EPO against his knowledge and calling it "Iron" shots instead. Thus keeping Lemond out of the loop and thinking he was racing clean.
> 
> As for people coming forward against him ... if it was just him and his doctor ... who else is there to come forward? You can bet your life his doctor wouldn't be stepping up to the plate, assuming he's still around.
> 
> So ... yes, it's entirely plausible that Lemond was as much a doper as the rest.


When you babble this nonsense it just makes you look stupid

So LeMond complaining that he does not like shots suddenly becomes him taking shots of an unapproved drug? Greg suddenly going backwards down the G.C. when EPO comes into the sport means he was using it for years?

who gave him the EPO before it came on the market? Space Aliens?


----------



## PaxRomana

stevesbike said:


> Then there's the inconvenient fact that if he doped in the 80s why didn't he dope in the 90s? I was at the 1991 Tour and remember looking at Lemond holding the wheel of Duclos-Lassalle on a climb in the Alps and have never seen a rider's face with such a blank look of pain and agony. People forget that he was winning that Tour until he simply couldn't keep up day after day with the new gear other riders found. He didn't dope.


Exactly. This is a huge hole in Wookie's entirely baseless theory that Lemond doped. As soon as the EPO era hit, Lemond was off the back. This is the exact pattern we'd expect to see from a clean rider.

Moreover, given how hard Armstrong tried to find ANYTHING on Greg and still found ZERO, I'd say the evidence is about as clear as it can get that Lemond was, and still is, a true champion.


----------



## Coolhand

Wasn't a lot of the "off the back" due to the getting shot and the lingering effects? If he hadn't I imagine those performances would have been better. The fact he was riding at the Pro level again at all was pretty lucky.


----------



## nate

Coolhand said:


> Wasn't a lot of the "off the back" due to the getting shot and the lingering effects? If he hadn't I imagine those performances would have been better. The fact he was riding at the Pro level again at all was pretty lucky.


He won the Tour de France twice and the World Championship after his return from the hunting accident, so I doubt it.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

Wookiebiker said:


> In reply to the 85 and 86 Tours ... he was still racing against guys that were blood doping


Really? Who blood doped in the 85 and 86 Tour? Do you have a link or did you just invent this?


----------



## spade2you

Froome and LeMond are untouchable. I get it. Don't wanna get neg rep'd or anything......


----------



## Wookiebiker

Doctor Falsetti said:


> Really? Who blood doped in the 85 and 86 Tour? Do you have a link or did you just invent this?


Good question and one that we will never know the answer to because riders back then surely are not going to talk about their doping experiences after seeing what's taking place now.

However, it's well known the practice was in place with endurance sports since the late 60's, the american Track Cycling team was blood doping in the 1984 Olympics (and likely a lot before that and after) because it was't against the rules at the time. If they were doing it, you can bet your house that Pro teams knew about it and used it to improve performances.

To simply state ... it didn't happen back then ... when it was well known it would improve performance, couldn't be tested for and riders would use just about anything they could get their hands on to improve performance and recovery ... is, well ... just ignorant to what was going on.

Put your head in the sand if you must about doping practices back then, but it was going on, would have easily made it's way to the Tour and I'd put money on the fact that riders were blood doping (packing) since the early/mid 70's ... yet we will never know because being honest doesn't get you far when you are considered one of the "Cycling Gods" of the sport.


----------



## stevesbike

You can say that of Froome in about 25 years if at that time there is as little evidence against him as there is against Lemond today. 



spade2you said:


> Froome and LeMond are untouchable. I get it. Don't wanna get neg rep'd or anything......


----------



## spade2you

stevesbike said:


> You can say that of Froome in about 25 years if at that time there is as little evidence against him as there is against Lemond today.


Sounds like some people know how not to get caught and know how to keep their mouths shut.


----------



## Wookiebiker

Doctor Falsetti said:


> When you babble this nonsense it just makes you look stupid
> 
> So LeMond complaining that he does not like shots suddenly becomes him taking shots of an unapproved drug? Greg suddenly going backwards down the G.C. when EPO comes into the sport means he was using it for years?
> 
> who gave him the EPO before it came on the market? Space Aliens?


And when people choose to ignore the obvious ... you end up with the "Doping" era's ... just as the sport is now dealing with and can't get away from.

He may not have liked injections ... who does??? ... but he was getting them by his own self admittance. He only knows what his doctor told him, it's not as if he was a doctor himself, so how does he actually know what was in those shots? This wouldn't be the first time a player has been injected with a substance that they didn't know what it was ... they just accepted that it would help and moved on.

His dropping back in the GC shows both age and that fact that the playing field was leveling out. People that didn't have access to drugs like the top guys now did and improved dramatically. If you were doping at the time and could only muster 7th and kept dropping back, but had several TDF victories under your belt ... better to pack it in with history on your side than be the rider who couldn't keep up in the end. It has to end for everybody at some time, it was his time.

The reality is people "Want" him to be clean and if it turned out he wasn't they would be utterly devastated ... worse than with Armstrong. The first American cycling hero would be tarnished, he would be open to law suits just as Armstrong is and his credibility would be short. People hold onto the image and protect him at every turn and do the same thing they did with Armstrong early on ... Show me the evidence, oh wait, you don't have any??? then you need to shut your mouth because you sound stupid. That argument got old and ultimately proved wrong.

Doping has been going on for a long, long, long time and effective doping has been going on nearly as long. People just don't want to admit it.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

Wookiebiker said:


> Good question and one that we will never know the answer to because riders back then surely are not going to talk about their doping experiences after seeing what's taking place now.
> 
> However, it's well known the practice was in place with endurance sports since the late 60's, the american Track Cycling team was blood doping in the 1984 Olympics (and likely a lot before that and after) because it was't against the rules at the time. If they were doing it, you can bet your house that Pro teams knew about it and used it to improve performances.
> 
> To simply state ... it didn't happen back then ... when it was well known it would improve performance, couldn't be tested for and riders would use just about anything they could get their hands on to improve performance and recovery ... is, well ... just ignorant to what was going on.
> 
> Put your head in the sand if you must about doping practices back then, but it was going on, would have easily made it's way to the Tour and I'd put money on the fact that riders were blood doping (packing) since the early/mid 70's ... yet we will never know because being honest doesn't get you far when you are considered one of the "Cycling Gods" of the sport.


You do realize that there is a huge difference between a track event and a Grand Tour right? This has been discussed to death. Multiple books, interviews, articles, conversations with former Pro's. There is a lot of detail about doping in the 80's, there is zero evidence of blood doping at Grand Tour's in the 80's. 

My head is not in the sand. I was living, and racing, in Europe back then. I know exactly what was being used, and what was not being used. inventing unsupportable theories does not change that.


----------



## Wookiebiker

Doctor Falsetti said:


> You do realize that there is a huge difference between a track event and a Grand Tour right? This has been discussed to death. Multiple books, interviews, articles, conversations with former Pro's. There is a lot of detail about doping in the 80's, there is zero evidence of blood doping at Grand Tour's in the 80's.
> 
> My head is not in the sand. I was living, and racing, in Europe back then. I know exactly what was being used, and what was not being used. inventing unsupportable theories does not change that.


Yes, I do realize the difference between the two ... and blood doping was more beneficial to those in the Tour than it was those on the track.

Again ... EPO has been around since 1983 and doctors knew the effects it had on the body ... to state nobody used it until 1990 and later is putting your head in the sand. It wasn't team wide doping at the time like we saw in the 90's and beyond ... but individuals were likely using it with assistance from a doctor. 

Just because you didn't see it, doesn't mean it wasn't happening ... day after day people turn up as drug addicts, dopers, etc. and what's the first thing you hear from people (even their spouses)? I never knew, there were no signs, etc. 

If it's available, people will use it ... especially if it gives them an advantage, more money. more success and more fame ... history (a very, very, very long history) tells us so.


----------



## spade2you

Wookiebiker said:


> Yes, I do realize the difference between the two ... and blood doping was more beneficial to those in the Tour than it was those on the track.


Yet, that didn't stop track riders from using it.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

Wookiebiker said:


> Yes, I do realize the difference between the two ... and blood doping was more beneficial to those in the Tour than it was those on the track.
> 
> Again ... EPO has been around since 1983 and doctors knew the effects it had on the body ... to state nobody used it until 1990 and later is putting your head in the sand. It wasn't team wide doping at the time like we saw in the 90's and beyond ... but individuals were likely using it with assistance from a doctor.
> 
> Just because you didn't see it, doesn't mean it wasn't happening ... day after day people turn up as drug addicts, dopers, etc. and what's the first thing you hear from people (even their spouses)? I never knew, there were no signs, etc.
> 
> If it's available, people will use it ... especially if it gives them an advantage, more money. more success and more fame ... history (a very, very, very long history) tells us so.


You are making no sense. EPO was not available in 83. You can pretend that it was but it was not. There is zero evidence of any rider using EPO in 83 or 84,85, etc. there is zero evidence of Grand Tour riders using transfusions in the 80's. You are welcome to pretend that it happened but it did not.

You are dealing fantasy, not reality.


----------



## spade2you

Doctor Falsetti said:


> You are making no sense. EPO was not available in 83. You can pretend that it was but it was not. There is zero evidence of any rider using EPO in 83 or 84,85, etc. there is zero evidence of Grand Tour riders using transfusions in the 80's. You are welcome to pretend that it happened but it did not.
> 
> You are dealing fantasy, not reality.


I thought LeMond left PDM because they insisted riders get transfusions.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

spade2you said:


> Sounds like some people know how not to get caught and know how to keep their mouths shut.


Nah, people talk. All of Greg's teammates, staff, managers, and owners say the same thing....that Greg did not dope


----------



## spade2you

Doctor Falsetti said:


> Nah, people talk. All of Greg's teammates, staff, managers, and owners say the same thing....that Greg did not dope


Not all people talk. I've worked under a few people who will never fess up under any circumstances.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

spade2you said:


> I thought LeMond left PDM because they insisted riders get transfusions.


Nope, he left because they tried to get him to use testosterone.


----------



## SicBith

Really....where's your source on the 300K. Anyone who thinks the winners of a race like the Tour are clean since EPO hit the peloton has their head in the sand. All you "Pharmstrong" lovers or haters should know that by now. I want to think Lemond was clean as well as Froome, but their performances in a race as demanding as the tour is evidence enough for me to believe they were aided by performance or recovery methods which are suspect at best. I guess EVERYONE doesn't know he is clean. eh...


----------



## spade2you

Doctor Falsetti said:


> Nope, he left because they tried to get him to use testosterone.


Tried. Makes us wonder what was in those syringes. I'm sure there is a perfectly logical.......


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

spade2you said:


> Tried. Makes us wonder what was in those syringes. I'm sure there is a perfectly logical.......


Yes, there is. Iron. And it was after he left PDM because they pushed him to dope.


----------



## SicBith

Doctor Falsetti said:


> You are making no sense. EPO was not available in 83. You can pretend that it was but it was not. There is zero evidence of any rider using EPO in 83 or 84,85, etc. there is zero evidence of Grand Tour riders using transfusions in the 80's. You are welcome to pretend that it happened but it did not.
> 
> You are dealing fantasy, not reality.


what about blood packing? The reality of EPO use in the 80's remains a mystery as they did not test for it. That is a reality, can't find something if you're not looking for it.


----------



## spade2you

Doctor Falsetti said:


> Yes, there is. Iron. And it was after he left PDM because they pushed him to dope.


Did you see the iron vial?


----------



## SicBith

Doctor Falsetti said:


> You do realize that there is a huge difference between a track event and a Grand Tour right? This has been discussed to death. Multiple books, interviews, articles, conversations with former Pro's. There is a lot of detail about doping in the 80's, there is zero evidence of blood doping at Grand Tour's in the 80's.
> 
> My head is not in the sand. I was living, and racing, in Europe back then. I know exactly what was being used, and what was not being used. inventing unsupportable theories does not change that.


What was being used? Enlighten use with your extensive knowledge on doping in the 80s please.


----------



## SicBith

Coolhand said:


> Wasn't a lot of the "off the back" due to the getting shot and the lingering effects? If he hadn't I imagine those performances would have been better. The fact he was riding at the Pro level again at all was pretty lucky.


Agree completely. Though I hear from some of those in the 80's peloton that lead in your gut totally makes you recover better....and resistant to x-ray technology. just as added side effect, but worth noting.


----------



## spade2you

SicBith said:


> What was being used? Enlighten use with your extensive knowledge on doping in the 80s please.


Everyone doped with the exception of LeMond and Froome. The end. NOW GO TO BED!!!!!


----------



## SicBith

Oh and the leaching of lead into his system over time certainly covers any doubt I have on the subject.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

SicBith said:


> what about blood packing? The reality of EPO use in the 80's remains a mystery as they did not test for it. That is a reality, can't find something if you're not looking for it.


Do you really believe that Greg had access to an experimental drug that was not on the market until late 1989, that was not even produced until 1985, in 1983? Really? 

You should stick to the space alien theory, it is more believable.


----------



## Local Hero

Doctor Falsetti said:


> Grand Tour's in the 80's.
> ...
> I was living, and racing, in Europe back then. I know exactly what was being used, and what was not being used.


Did you race at the grand tour level in the 80s? 

Did you use drugs? 


If you answer "no" to either question, how can you say for certain what drugs the grand tour dopers used?


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

Local Hero said:


> Did you race at the grand tour level in the 80s?
> 
> Did you use drugs?
> 
> 
> If you answer "no" to either question, how can you say for certain what drugs the grand tour dopers used?


How can you say for sure that Greg did not get drugs from space aliens?


----------



## spade2you

Doctor Falsetti said:


> How can you say for sure that Greg did not get drugs from space aliens?


Nice diversion.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

spade2you said:


> Nice diversion.


A diversion would be pretending that Greg had access to a drug that was not even produced yet.


----------



## spade2you

Doctor Falsetti said:


> A diversion would be pretending that Greg had access to a drug that was not even produced yet.


Greg himself is an alien.


----------



## Local Hero

Local Hero said:


> Did you race at the grand tour level in the 80s?
> 
> Did you use drugs?
> 
> 
> If you answer "no" to either question, how can you say for certain what drugs the grand tour dopers used?





Doctor Falsetti said:


> How can you say for sure that Greg did not get drugs from space aliens?


I see...


----------



## spade2you

O'Grady Admits EPO Use Ahead Of 1998 Tour De France | Cyclingnews.com

Well, that didn't take long.....


----------



## Local Hero

O'Grady says it was a grey area.


----------



## spade2you

Local Hero said:


> O'Grady says it was a grey area.


but how many shades?


----------



## Slartibartfast

Local Hero said:


> O'Grady says it was a grey area.


Well I think we should give him the benefit of the doubt and look the other way even though he admitted it. Same with Jacky Durand. In fact if the perennial lanterne rouge was doping, that must mean that dope doesn't help that much after all...:thumbsup:

Stuey seems like a nice enough guy, probably the pro rider I'd most like to have a beer with, so I'm giving him a pass on this one.


----------



## SicBith

Doctor Falsetti said:


> Do you really believe that Greg had access to an experimental drug that was not on the market until late 1989, that was not even produced until 1985, in 1983? Really?
> 
> You should stick to the space alien theory, it is more believable.


First EPO positive in cycling was 1988. That suggest it was available for the 89 Tour. Amegen started testing in 1980, successful trials were published in 1987, again suggesting it was known and available before 1988.
EPO is also know to increase iron absorption in the body. What kind of shot did Greg admit to taking again?
Blood transfusions in US Cycling were expose and widespread in 1984.
TdF and WC in same year which no other rider has done before and since suggests a crazy ability to recover from hard exertion. There was numerous positives for recovery drugs (testosterone, corticoides) during his TdF reign. Amphetamines and Ritalin were all rapid in the peloton at this time, and the history of doping in Dutch teams is crazy.
Oh and fasted TT at TdF ever until a EPO doped DZ came along and beat it. Froome was tarred and feather over getting close to, but not beating LA's time on Ventoux this year.
Not really a space alien theory and all found with 30min of wikipedia searches.


----------



## Local Hero

Doctor Falsetti said:


> There is a lot of detail about doping in the 80's, there is zero evidence of blood doping at Grand Tour's in the 80's.
> 
> My head is not in the sand. I was living, and racing, in Europe back then. I know exactly what was being used, and what was not being used. inventing unsupportable theories does not change that.


How can you argue that there was no blood doping in the early 80's when YOUR USERNAME is a reference to blood doping during the 1984 Olympics? Vampirism at the Olympics



For the record, I was living, and racing, in California during the 1984 Olympics. Unlike you I actually have photographic evidence to support my claim:


----------



## spade2you

The plot thickens.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

SicBith said:


> First EPO positive in cycling was 1988. That suggest it was available for the 89 Tour. Amegen started testing in 1980, successful trials were published in 1987, again suggesting it was known and available before 1988.
> EPO is also know to increase iron absorption in the body. What kind of shot did Greg admit to taking again?
> Blood transfusions in US Cycling were expose and widespread in 1984.
> TdF and WC in same year which no other rider has done before and since suggests a crazy ability to recover from hard exertion. There was numerous positives for recovery drugs (testosterone, corticoides) during his TdF reign. Amphetamines and Ritalin were all rapid in the peloton at this time, and the history of doping in Dutch teams is crazy.
> Oh and fasted TT at TdF ever until a EPO doped DZ came along and beat it. Froome was tarred and feather over getting close to, but not beating LA's time on Ventoux this year.
> Not really a space alien theory and all found with 30min of wikipedia searches.


Link to EPO positive in 88? Thanks
Iron was not found to of use with EPO Until the late 90's
You of course know that Lemond's TT was short, down hill, and with a tailwind. 

of course you know all of this as it has been covered again, and again, and again. Look, we get it. Your hero was a fraud. That is not Greg's fault


----------



## DIRT BOY

PaxRomana said:


> Lemond went from winning the 1990 TdF, to getting dropped like a rock by guys he was previously beating on a regular basis.
> 
> How exactly do people say he was doping? Did he just magically decide to stop? In 1991 he finished 7th. In 1992 he abandoned.
> 
> So, wins 3 straight Tours in which he participates in the 80s pre-EPO, then gets crushed as the EPO era starts. Seriously, Lemond critics are delusional. The guy's performances are used as the benchmarks for clean cycling for pete's sake.


If you believe that, I have land to sell you. Betcha Lemond doped like others in his era, but did NOT dope with EPO and why his dropped like a rock. Only a FOOL would think any TDF winner (Or 90%+?) from any year did not DOPE, CHEAT or break a rule to achieve victory.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

Local Hero said:


> How can you argue that there was no blood doping in the early 80's when YOUR USERNAME is a reference to blood doping during the 1984 Olympics? Vampirism at the Olympics


Thanks for proving my point. You do realize the track is different from a Grand Tour right? 

Let us know if you find any evidence of a Grand Tour rider using transfusions in the 80's 

Thanks


----------



## DIRT BOY

Doctor Falsetti said:


> Yes, there is. Iron. And it was after he left PDM because they pushed him to dope.


Iron or B-12 in his shots? if you really raced in Europe at a high level, you KNOW the truth!


----------



## stevesbike

hold on - EPO wasn't banned until the early 90s and a test for EPO was first used in 2000. So, you're saying someone tested positive before it was banned and 12 years before a test was implemented?




SicBith said:


> First EPO positive in cycling was 1988. That suggest it was available for the 89 Tour. Amegen started testing in 1980, successful trials were published in 1987, again suggesting it was known and available before 1988.
> EPO is also know to increase iron absorption in the body. What kind of shot did Greg admit to taking again?
> Blood transfusions in US Cycling were expose and widespread in 1984.
> TdF and WC in same year which no other rider has done before and since suggests a crazy ability to recover from hard exertion. There was numerous positives for recovery drugs (testosterone, corticoides) during his TdF reign. Amphetamines and Ritalin were all rapid in the peloton at this time, and the history of doping in Dutch teams is crazy.
> Oh and fasted TT at TdF ever until a EPO doped DZ came along and beat it. Froome was tarred and feather over getting close to, but not beating LA's time on Ventoux this year.
> Not really a space alien theory and all found with 30min of wikipedia searches.


----------



## spade2you

DIRT BOY said:


> Iron or B-12 in his shots? if you really raced in Europe at a high level, you KNOW the truth!


These are also available in pill form and perfectly legal. Why go through the effort of taking a shot when the pills are available. Something fishy here.


----------



## DIRT BOY

spade2you said:


> These are also available in pill form and perfectly legal. Why go through the effort of taking a shot when the pills are available. Something fishy here.


Shots work better than pills and yes, both legal. But I would NOT count on the substance in his syringe being legal. Maybe Huffy was getting him designer undetectable drugs to sell bikes and beat the French? First American to really take on European cycling?
bet USPS knew about lance but LOVED the pub and money they made....


----------



## spade2you

DIRT BOY said:


> Shots work better than pills and yes, both legal. But I would NOT count on the substance in his syringe being legal. Maybe Huffy was getting him designer undetectable drugs to sell bikes and beat the French? First American to really take on European cycling?
> bet USPS knew about lance but LOVED the pub and money they made....


Slightly quicker onset, but no real advantage if the GI system is functioning properly. I haven't been able to find the clip in ages. Iron injections are as black as tar. I don't recall seeing a syringe full of black liquid. That would have gotten my attention.


----------



## Local Hero

Doctor Falsetti said:


> Thanks for proving my point. You do realize the track is different from a Grand Tour right?
> 
> Let us know if you find any evidence of a Grand Tour rider using transfusions in the 80's
> 
> Thanks


Would evidence that one of those Olympians went on to race in a grand tour suffice?


----------



## spade2you

Unable to delete. Ignore.


----------



## Local Hero

Well, a number of those guys raced for pro tour teams after the Olympics. One of them raced pro and later became the team manager at us postal.

I don't really buy the idea of a rider blood doping in 1984 and then forgetting about it for five years when he goes to race in Europe.


----------



## stevesbike

none of them did - no one on the road race team had transfusions. Also, the transfusion scheme was a very amateurish effort and involved too small amounts to have a performance boost. Eddie B did it because he knew the Soviet/East German teams were doing it and more. 

And if the point is to implicate Lemond, he had already turned pro and was no longer involved with anyone connected to the 84 Olympic team.



Local Hero said:


> Would evidence that one of those Olympians went on to race in a grand tour suffice?


----------



## Local Hero

spade2you said:


> These are also available in pill form and perfectly legal. Why go through the effort of taking a shot when the pills are available. Something fishy here.


I don't know about iron but B 12 pills are rubbish when compared to the shots


----------



## spade2you

Local Hero said:


> I don't know about iron but B 12 pills are rubbish when compared to the shots


It's not so much that the pills are worthless, but the shot is generally 1,000mcg. Most of the OTC B12 doses used to be 100mcg.


----------



## SicBith

I believe we are talking about Greg Lemond....right..... let's stay on the subject Mr. F
do your own homework it is right on wikipedia. search EPO and doping in cycling. There is even a list of all busted dopers and what they were busted for from like 1960 to 2012. It's all there. EPO increases the use of iron by the body, thus the need for iron injections, while perfectly legal, could be an indicator of EPO use, and riders new about it in 1987.
What has been covered before is your insistence to bringing up LA and calling out fanboy whenever you can't support your argument. (go back over your posts....it's all over them) I think we can all say here the LA thing is over...out in the open....now hopefully Spain will follow the French and release the Puerto info, and if possible retro test the 89,90,91 tours.


----------



## SicBith

not a grand tour as they were not tested for it, but 1/3 of the US Cycling team in 1984 admitted to blood transfusions before the Olympic road race. Just because the were not caught doesn't mean they didn't do....sound familiar.


----------



## SicBith

stevesbike said:


> hold on - EPO wasn't banned until the early 90s and a test for EPO was first used in 2000. So, you're saying someone tested positive before it was banned and 12 years before a test was implemented?


Look it up. It was an admitted use.


----------



## spade2you

SicBith said:


> now hopefully Spain will follow the French and release the Puerto info, and if possible retro test the 89,90,91 tours.


I'd love to see that, but I'm doubting that'll ever happen.


----------



## DIRT BOY

spade2you said:


> It's not so much that the pills are worthless, but the shot is generally 1,000mcg. Most of the OTC B12 doses used to be 100mcg.


Bingo and my point really.


----------



## SicBith

spade2you said:


> I'd love to see that, but I'm doubting that'll ever happen.


I know....but wouldn't that be awesome. Bust it all open and make room for the new guys who are trying to do it right.


----------



## DIRT BOY

Doctor Falsetti said:


> Link to EPO positive in 88? Thanks
> Iron was not found to of use with EPO Until the late 90's
> You of course know that Lemond's TT was short, down hill, and with a tailwind.
> 
> of course you know all of this as it has been covered again, and again, and again. Look, we get it. Your hero was a fraud. That is not Greg's fault


Money says Greg is a fraud and was flat out jealous of Armstrong, period! Just Greg was pre-EPO and was most likely using other crap as the rest of the bunch was as well. Great HATED lance for what he did and Greg wants to be the top American Dog in racing.


----------



## DIRT BOY

SicBith said:


> I know....but wouldn't that be awesome. Bust it all open and make room for the new guys who are trying to do it right.


If Spain cared. Bet their worried the WC soccer teams are doped to the gills and don't want to lose their title.

We need all the names released and was hoping Lance would spill for and the crap with the UCI. then you REALLY think this will clean up cycling? LMFAO! There always has and always will be cheaters and dopers. been around since day 1 of sports.


----------



## spade2you

SicBith said:


> I know....but wouldn't that be awesome. Bust it all open and make room for the new guys who are trying to do it right.


It's interesting how Spain seems to tap dance around doping and pretends it's not even going on. 



DIRT BOY said:


> Money says Greg is a fraud and was flat out jealous of Armstrong, period! Just Greg was pre-EPO and was most likely using other crap as the rest of the bunch was as well. Great HATED lance for what he did and Greg wants to be the top American Dog in racing.


IF he's telling the truth, I have a sneaking suspicion that moments like the B-12/iron shot were simply lies told to him. You can't break a zealot's will, but you can still trick them from time to time.


----------



## SicBith

DIRT BOY said:


> If Spain cared. Bet their worried the WC soccer teams are doped to the gills and don't want to lose their title.
> 
> We need all the names released and was hoping Lance would spill for and the crap with the UCI. then you REALLY think this will clean up cycling? LMFAO! There always has and always will be cheaters and dopers. been around since day 1 of sports.


It's pretty obvious Spain supports doping in their sports no matter what they may claim. Puerto gave them to opportunity to bust open their doping issues and start new supporting fresh talented riders, but instead those choose to destroy evidence in order to save face. Spain is making France, Italy, and Germany look good and that is just sad.
Lance wouldn't be able to spill the beans on what other riders were doing. He can give a ton of insight as to where you were able to get the drugs, how to transport them, what training plans worked for him, and how a team can conceal a organized program, and what the UCI did to help him. As to naming other riders that would open him up to a whole different set of legal problems. I'm sure he has enough on his legal plate right now.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

SicBith said:


> I believe we are talking about Greg Lemond....right..... let's stay on the subject Mr. F
> do your own homework it is right on wikipedia. search EPO and doping in cycling. There is even a list of all busted dopers and what they were busted for from like 1960 to 2012. It's all there. EPO increases the use of iron by the body, thus the need for iron injections, while perfectly legal, could be an indicator of EPO use, and riders new about it in 1987.
> What has been covered before is your insistence to bringing up LA and calling out fanboy whenever you can't support your argument. (go back over your posts....it's all over them) I think we can all say here the LA thing is over...out in the open....now hopefully Spain will follow the French and release the Puerto info, and if possible retro test the 89,90,91 tours.


I can't tell if you are trolling or just have limited comprehension ability. 

You made a lot of wild claims. Instead of just saying "Look it up" how about some links? 

Using iron with EPO did not come into practice until EPO had been on the market for years and doctors had discovered the effects it had on the body. The idea that Greg was 10 years ahead of this, while using an unavailable drug, is absurd.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

DIRT BOY said:


> Money says Greg is a fraud and was flat out jealous of Armstrong, period! Just Greg was pre-EPO and was most likely using other crap as the rest of the bunch was as well. Great HATED lance for what he did and Greg wants to be the top American Dog in racing.


Armstrong hired a PR firm to smear Greg. Most have figured out by now that the "Bitter hater" stuff was nonsense. It appears a few still bought into the myth


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

Local Hero said:


> Well, a number of those guys raced for pro tour teams after the Olympics. One of them raced pro and later became the team manager at us postal.
> 
> I don't really buy the idea of a rider blood doping in 1984 and then forgetting about it for five years when he goes to race in Europe.


Let us know when you find anything to support your theory, then let us know how you can tie this fantasy to Greg


----------



## Local Hero

Doctor Falsetti said:


> Using iron with EPO did not come into practice until EPO had been on the market for years and doctors had discovered the effects it had on the body.


In your mind, are most drugs on the market for years prior to doctors discovering their effects on the body? Or was it just EPO?


----------



## DIRT BOY

Doctor Falsetti said:


> Armstrong hired a PR firm to smear Greg. Most have figured out by now that the "Bitter hater" stuff was nonsense. It appears a few still bought into the myth


Why? Because Greg went after him first! I hate Greg for his holy than thou arrogance.


----------



## 88 rex

Local Hero said:


> In your mind, are most drugs on the market for years prior to doctors discovering their effects on the body? Or was it just EPO?


I would think it would be common sense that if you increase production of RBC's you also increase the consumption of the products needed to produce RBC's.


----------



## pedalruns

DIRT BOY said:


> Why? Because Greg went after him first! I hate Greg for his holy than thou arrogance.



A little history: 

Lemond told the truth about Armstrong and then he was FORCED to recant his truthful statement and was silent for 3 years because of being bullied & threatened.. 

Lemond Statement in July of 2001:
"When Lance won the prologue to the 1999 Tour I was close to tears, but when I heard he was working with Michele Ferrari I was devastated. In the light of Lance's relationship with Ferrari, I just don't want to comment on this year's Tour. This is not sour grapes. I'm disappointed in Lance, that's all it is."

A month later, LeMond issued an apology for this comment, calling Armstrong "a great champion and I do not believe, in any way, that he has ever used any performance-enhancing substances. I believe his performances are the result of the same hard work, dedication and focus that were mine 10 years ago."[15]

LeMond spoke out again three years later, after additional Tour de France wins by Armstrong. "If Armstrong's clean, it's the greatest comeback. And if he's not, then it's the greatest fraud." He also described the fallout of his 2001 statement, alleging that Armstrong had threatened to defame him, and that his business interest had also been threatened.

In Feburary of 2010 Trek reached a settlement in favor of Lemond because of it: http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/mo...ourt_sett.html


----------



## spade2you

I've brought this up before, but howz come Greg went after Lance but never seemed to touch Big Mig? Hell, he was sitting in a car with the guy who basically destroyed his chances of winning races.


----------



## spade2you

SicBith said:


> I know....but wouldn't that be awesome (Spain admitting doping). Bust it all open and make room for the new guys who are trying to do it right.


It would be. My only gripe with Armstrong losing his titles is that neither Spain nor Italy would ever hold themselves to that same standard. Spain would simply pretend there's no problem. Italy would act like it's a tragic flaw of their idol. America wants Lance's head. Interesting cultural differences to say the least.


----------



## pedalruns

spade2you said:


> I've brought this up before, but howz come Greg went after Lance but never seemed to touch Big Mig? Hell, he was sitting in a car with the guy who basically destroyed his chances of winning races.


Again... Greg didn't go after Lance. The press ASKED HIM for a comment about Armstrong, he told the truth and.. (read my other post)

The press never asked him about Big Mig and at the time he probably didn't know for sure what was going on as the epo era was just taking hold.

I wonder in that car.. what the conversation was between Lemond & Indurain!


----------



## MattSoutherden

2013: GC rider Chris Froome, comes within 12s of World TT Champ Panzer Tony in the 3rd fastest Tour TT ever.

This is definitely proof of doping (1)

1989: GC rider Greg Lemond wins TT on *final day* of the Tour to set fastest Tour TT ever. 25 years of aerodynamic equipment and doping advances have yet to touch it.

Or something.

(1) Apparently.


----------



## sir duke

spade2you said:


> I've brought this up before, but howz come Greg went after Lance but never seemed to touch Big Mig? Hell, he was sitting in a car with the guy who basically destroyed his chances of winning races.


Maybe because Lance's and USPS's performances screamed 'cheating bastids' a little louder than did Indurain's. As you're always fond of saying, no-one gives the bad guy a break. Big Mig never cost Lemond a dime, that probably counts for something. Not that being in the some car with someone means all that much either way.


----------



## spade2you

sir duke said:


> Maybe because Lance's and USPS's performances screamed 'cheating bastids' a little louder than did Indurain's. As you're always fond of saying, no-one gives the bad guy a break. Big Mig never cost Lemond a dime, that probably counts for something. Not that being in the some car with someone means all that much either way.


Big Mig ended Greg's career. Argue with that one. I dare ya.


----------



## sir duke

spade2you said:


> Big Mig ended Greg's career. Argue with that one. I dare ya.


Did Greg say that? 

Armstrong ended Basson's career. But you never let that bother you.


----------



## spade2you

sir duke said:


> Did Greg say that?
> 
> Armstrong ended Basson's career. But you never let that bother you.


Bla bla bla Basson's this and that. O'Grady used to claim to be clean. I still don't trust Basson. Besides, everything boils down to him when you get frustrated.


----------



## sir duke

spade2you said:


> Bla bla bla Basson's this and that. O'Grady used to claim to be clean. I still don't trust Basson. Besides, everything boils down to him when you get frustrated.


It's a nasty tendency I have when frustrated, falling back on the truth. You're the one who sounds irked. Tell me I'm wrong. I dare ya. 

And why are you talking about O'Grady? A minute ago it was all 'Big Mig finished off Lemond'. You tired of that already? The best way to be convincing is to show consistency. Try it sometime.


----------



## spade2you

The truth, LOL. So far guys who told the truth about not doping are dropping like flies. Oopsie. 

Is Basson related to you or something? I see little reason to defend any riders of that era because the odds are getting slimmer. 

Easy to blame Armstrong, but I suspect that there were plenty of French riders who were doping and wanted to get rid of him, too.


----------



## SicBith

Doctor Falsetti said:


> I can't tell if you are trolling or just have limited comprehension ability.
> 
> You made a lot of wild claims. Instead of just saying "Look it up" how about some links?
> 
> Using iron with EPO did not come into practice until EPO had been on the market for years and doctors had discovered the effects it had on the body. The idea that Greg was 10 years ahead of this, while using an unavailable drug, is absurd.


I think it is your comprehension of the search box at wikipedia which is in question.
Here's your link. en.wikipedia.org type EPO doping cycling in the search box. have a nice read about EPO, facts you need to gain some insight on what you missed while riding off the back in Europe.
Where is your link to Iron and EPO use? Please do tell.


----------



## Local Hero

Guys who never got caught? I'm going out on a limb here with Bassons, LeMond, and Sir Chris Hoy. 


PROVE ME WRONG. 


Go ahead, prove a negative. You can't, can you?!


----------



## spade2you

Back to 1998, what were Boardman's test results?


----------



## SicBith

List of doping cases in cycling - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Here you go guys. It's all in there.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

SicBith said:


> List of doping cases in cycling - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Here you go guys. It's all in there.


No it is not. 

tell us, who was the first rider banned for EPO in 1988? Such a ground braking event, should be easy for you to find

While you are at please share with us any evidence you have of Greg using EPO. 

Thanks


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

spade2you said:


> I've brought this up before, but howz come Greg went after Lance but never seemed to touch Big Mig? Hell, he was sitting in a car with the guy who basically destroyed his chances of winning races.


Greg walked away from the sport he said little for several years. Like most in the sport it took Greg a few years to figure out what was going on with the sport. By 97 he was talking, pointing out the damage Italian doping doctors were doing to the sport. 

By 2000 many in the sport knew about lance and the hospital room, bags of syringes, drugs hidden with mechanics.....there was little of that known about Indurain. 

In recent years Greg has said that he thinks Indurain likely doped


----------



## spade2you

Doctor Falsetti said:


> In recent years Greg has said that he thinks Indurain likely doped


So why stop going after justice other than Big Mig is a gentleman?


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

spade2you said:


> So why stop going after justice other than Big Mig is a gentleman?


You are confused. Greg is not head of the UCI or a crusader. He is retired and is more interested ride his bike in the mountains. He made a couple of valid comments about a few riders and doctors and suddenly he is "Out for justice"?

There is no process that could possibly lead to a sanction of Indurain. What do you want him to do, picket outside his house?


----------



## SicBith

Doctor Falsetti said:


> No it is not.
> 
> tell us, who was the first rider banned for EPO in 1988? Such a ground braking event, should be easy for you to find
> 
> While you are at please share with us any evidence you have of Greg using EPO.
> 
> Thanks


Yes it is all there. You can do your own homework on the positive. I did mine. Where is your evidence of Iron/EPO use, it should be easy for you to find.
While you are at it, please figure out the difference between brake and break it is obviously confusing for you.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

SicBith said:


> Yes it is all there. You can do your own homework on the positive. I did mine.


You cannot come up with the name, teacher says your homework was incompetent. You still can't find anything connecting Greg to EPO. You failed there too.


----------



## SicBith

Doctor Falsetti said:


> You are confused. Greg is not head of the UCI or a crusader. He is retired and is more interested ride his bike in the mountains. He made a couple of valid comments about a few riders and doctors and suddenly he is "Out for justice"?
> 
> There is no process that could possibly lead to a sanction of Indurain. What do you want him to do, picket outside his house?


In my opinion this is about calling out riders who have used PEDs to obtain their race results. Sanctioning riders over retro active tests should be limited to those riders who are currently in the peloton. As is the case for a few of the guys on the 98 positive list, their employers are imposing their own form of sanctions. At this late of a date the penalties of being called out are more serious than taking away wins especially in an era when doping was so widespread there is no other rider to award them to. Does anyone honestly think losing race results is more harmful that losing sponsorship or employment contracts?


----------



## SicBith

Doctor Falsetti said:


> You cannot come up with the name, teacher says your homework was incompetent. You still can't find anything connecting Greg to EPO. You failed there too.


I don't think you would or could qualify as my teacher in any definition of the word. My home work is more than complete.
At this point Greg, due to circumstantial evidence, is a person of interest. The truth will be exposed.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

SicBith said:


> The truth will be exposed.


Keep us posted how your quest for the real killers works out.


----------



## PaxRomana

MattSoutherden said:


> 2013: GC rider Chris Froome, comes within 12s of World TT Champ Panzer Tony in the 3rd fastest Tour TT ever.
> 
> This is definitely proof of doping (1)
> 
> 1989: GC rider Greg Lemond wins TT on *final day* of the Tour to set fastest Tour TT ever. 25 years of aerodynamic equipment and doping advances have yet to touch it.
> 
> Or something.
> 
> (1) Apparently.


It was a downhill course. Do you not watch cycling?


----------



## spade2you

PaxRomana said:


> It was a downhill course. Do you not watch cycling?


Most of the vids I saw showed it as a mostly flat course. If it were all down hill and a tail wind, why would Fignon struggled?


----------



## Local Hero

Doctor Falsetti said:


> You are confused. Greg is not head of the UCI or a crusader. He is retired and is more interested ride his bike in the mountains. He made a couple of valid comments about a few riders and doctors and suddenly he is "Out for justice"?
> 
> There is no process that could possibly lead to a sanction of Indurain. What do you want him to do, picket outside his house?


Lemond qualified as a crusader. 

And despite the fact that Lemond was a hardman during his cycling career, despite the fact that he was right about Armstrong being a doper, Lemond was behaving like a bitter hater, a _twatwaffle_.


----------



## SicBith

Doctor Falsetti said:


> Keep us posted how your quest for the real killers works out.


I hear O.J is out and looking for fake doctors. Be careful Mr. Falsalini


----------



## spade2you

Local Hero said:


> , a _twatwaffle_.


Mmmmmmm, new Honey Stinger flavor. Smells kinda fishy.


----------



## SicBith

Doctor Falsetti said:


> Keep us posted how your quest for the real killers works out.


Oh...and you seem confused. When I asked for your link to Iron/EPO use, I didn't mean come up with a sarcastic personal attack. It meant send us a link, if you are unable to do that just man up and say your statement was an opinion and not a fact.


----------



## PaxRomana

spade2you said:


> Most of the vids I saw showed it as a mostly flat course. If it were all down hill and a tail wind, why would Fignon struggled?


1. Fignon had saddle sores, which kept him from sleeping.
2. Lemond used aero bars, Fignon used the conventional TT setup of that time.
3. Lemond had a TT helmet, Fignon rode bare headed.
4. Fignon did not "struggle." He set the 3rd best time. Lemond was just technically ahead of everyone then.

The course had a total loss of 250 feet and a moderate tailwind.


----------



## MattSoutherden

PaxRomana said:


> It was a downhill course. Do you not watch cycling?


Versailles to Champs is a 100m drop.

Stage 11 ITT was similar.


----------



## PaxRomana

MattSoutherden said:


> Versailles to Champs is a 100m drop.
> Stage 11 ITT was similar.


That's right, it was a net altitude loss plus a tailwind. 
Stage 11 of this year was not "similar".


----------



## MattSoutherden

Ok, it was only 82m loss. I'll give you that.


----------



## eyebob

Jens, Fredy Rodriguez, Boonen, Cavandish, Sagan, voeckler, Jaan Kirsipuu, Chris Horner.

Mind you, all of this is just pure speculation on my part. All of these guys are too good for too long to not be suspect. BTW, I also have a list of Master's level racers that I think dope but I'm not sharing that one.


----------



## spade2you

Probably a tall order, anyone have a profile map for that particular stage?

I'm sure most of us have been on a TT bike before and have time trialed. I've never had the luxury of doing an all tailwind and downhill TT since most amateur courses will be out and back. Regardless, any downhill or tailwind sections are fast, especially when you have both going on. 

I have watched the 1989 TdF a few times and it simply doesn't look like much of a downhill angle to my eyes. I recall Greg kinda mashing the pedals a bit. IDK, when I have a tailwind and downhill, I can sometimes spin out a 53x11 and I'm not very strong. Perhaps those particular details might have been slightly exaggerated. I would think Fignon aerodynamic disadvantage shouldn't have been as problematic.


----------



## PaxRomana

spade2you said:


> I would think Fignon aerodynamic disadvantage shouldn't have been as problematic.


Think whatever you'd like. I'm just telling you the facts. I don't know how much of a difference those things made or what difference Fignon's saddle sores made. Aerodynamics have been cited a key factor.


----------



## Local Hero

eyebob said:


> I also have a list of Master's level racers that I think dope but I'm not sharing that one.


What region?


----------



## love4himies

Local Hero said:


> despite the fact that he was right about Armstrong being a doper,


Pretty much any rider in any of the grand tours in those years was a doper, so doesn't matter who he accused of doping, he had a 99.9% chance of being right.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

spade2you said:


> Most of the vids I saw showed it as a mostly flat course. If it were all down hill and a tail wind, why would Fignon struggled?


Everyone's favorite source for information, Wikipedia, says 



> 15.5 miles long, with a net elevation loss of 75 metres (247 ft). The riders had a moderate tailwind


1989 Tour de France - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Thierry Marie was only 33 seconds back from Greg that day. Maybe he had access to the same space alien drugs Greg got?


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

Local Hero said:


> Lemond qualified as a crusader.
> 
> And despite the fact that Lemond was a hardman during his cycling career, despite the fact that he was right about Armstrong being a doper, Lemond was behaving like a bitter hater, a _twatwaffle_.


Sounds like you fell for the smear campaign. 

The facts are over 10 years Greg only had a few comments about drugs. He should have been more vocal about the issue. He should have been a crusader. At Armstrong's request Trek threatened him repeatedly if he even mentioned the word dope. Lance,and his groupies, actively smeared him. It appears some people fell for it.


----------



## Coolhand

come on, everyone knows ponytails cost you 100 watts


----------



## bluelena69

My list of guys who were never caught: anyone in a sport other than cycling investigated by the French inquiry. 

Given how comparatively rigid cycling has been in testing protocols and even in enforcement (albeit, sometimes selectively), why does the world only get names from the sport of cycling? Browse through results from a Google search on "french Senate doping" and all that comes back is bad press for cycling? Why just cycling when the inquiry was into sports in general? It's because there are names and lives to ruin and the media/public eat this up.

How is the UCI really so weak and inept that they could allow this report to focus so heavily on cycling while letting all of the other sports off the hook so easily? Don't they have lawyers to step in to demand a little more equality in how the damage is dispersed? No one can tell me that the handball federation has more power or clout than the UCI.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

Didier Deschamps, HCT of 51.8 right before the World Cup


----------



## Wookiebiker

One word: MONEY!!!

The other sports make far and away more money than cycling and have the power to control more people with it ... hence get away with it, or at a minimum keep all their stars under the radar.


----------



## bluelena69

Wookiebiker said:


> One word: MONEY!!!
> 
> The other sports make far and away more money than cycling and have the power to control more people with it ... hence get away with it, or at a minimum keep all their stars under the radar.


yes, but as I said, the handball federation avoided having specific players named, but doping in that sport was noted in the report. So if its about money, are the ten people who give a **** about handball this wealthy?


----------



## Wookiebiker

bluelena69 said:


> yes, but as I said, the handball federation avoided having specific players named, but doping in that sport was noted in the report. So if its about money, are the ten people who give a **** about handball this wealthy?


When it comes to Handball ... is it worth going after them? There is no money in it, or very little money.

With bigger sports ... they can pay off officials, with cycling it gets their name in the news given the history of the sport, with handball there is no money for kickbacks.

In the end, it ALWAYS comes down to money ... either they are making it, or it's not worth the effort to try and "Bleed a turnip".


----------



## Dwayne Barry

eyebob said:


> Jens, Fredy Rodriguez, Boonen, Cavandish, Sagan, voeckler, Jaan Kirsipuu, Chris Horner.
> 
> Mind you, all of this is just pure speculation on my part. All of these guys are too good for too long to not be suspect. BTW, I also have a list of Master's level racers that I think dope but I'm not sharing that one.


Not specifically to you, but the premiss was riders who made it from the dope to you drop era to the modern era without getting popped. Lots of folks are mentioning riders who retired long before the stricter testing of the modern era or didn't really become noteworthy until the modern era of stricter testing.

I can't fathom why anyone is talking about Lemond, in this context. He never rode under strict testing, he rode from the marginally effective doping era (when you could probably achieve something without doping) to just the beginning of the highly effective doping era (when it was almost impossible to do anything without drugs).


----------



## Cinelli 82220

spade2you said:


> I would think Fignon aerodynamic disadvantage shouldn't have been as problematic.


Fignon's bullhorn bars vs LeMond's tri bars would make a big difference by themselves, IMHO. 
The odd thing is Fignon had experimented with tri bars and aero helmets before and didn't use them.


----------



## 86TDFWinner

Local Hero said:


> LeMond was doped to the gills.
> 
> If you deny this you have a mancrush.


You've had enough time to find something, times up. Please post ANY CREDIBLE source that claims LeMond doped as you claim? We need: dates/times/dr's who gave him said drugs, etc.(Must be credible...not something your step uncle in laws dog told you)

How about it sport?

(Crickets chirp).


----------



## Local Hero

86TDFWinner said:


> You've had enough time to find something, times up. Please post ANY CREDIBLE source that claims LeMond doped as you claim? We need: dates/times/dr's who gave him said drugs, etc.(Must be credible...not something your step uncle in laws dog told you)
> 
> How about it sport?
> 
> (Crickets chirp).


Look, I know you're angry that I'm pointing out that your hero might be a fraud. But face facts: A number of Lemond's performances fall into the _not normal_ *suspect* category.


----------



## foto

Isn't being an exceptional person, such as a bike race winner, sort of _not normal_ by definition?


----------



## 86TDFWinner

Local Hero said:


> Look, I know you're angry that I'm pointing out that your hero might be a fraud. But face facts: A number of Lemond's performances fall into the _not normal_ *suspect* category.


Look, I know you think I'm angry, but I'm not, not in the least. I'm simply asking you to provide your FACTUAL/CREDIBLE info that you apparently claim to have that states LeMond doped. I don't know how much more simpler I can ask, so that you'll understand. You're so sure he doped, I'd like for everyone to see your info, so we can see for ourselves just what you're talking about, can you do that please? Please post it, and your argument will sound more plausible or accurate. Stop side stepping, do you have said info or not? 

Remember, it has to be CREDIBLE and factual. You're grasping at straws and showing just how misinformed you are otherwise.


----------



## Fireform

Local Hero said:


> Look, I know you're angry that I'm pointing out that your hero might be a fraud. But face facts: A number of Lemond's performances fall into the _not normal_ *suspect* category.


Such as? Every analysis I've seen places his peak performances outside the epo era envelope. If you're just going to trot out that time trial, save your effort. It was a very short ITT and slightly downhill.


----------



## den bakker

86TDFWinner said:


> Remember, it has to be CREDIBLE and factual. You're grasping at straws and showing just how misinformed you are otherwise.


or just using the good ole trolling net once again.


----------



## spade2you

Local Hero said:


> Look, I know you're angry that I'm pointing out that your hero might be a fraud. But face facts: A number of Lemond's performances fall into the _not normal_ *suspect* category.


He also beat dopers.


----------



## Fireform

spade2you said:


> He also beat dopers.


Which is impressive if you're ignorant enough to equate amphetamines and cortisone with oxygen vector doping.


----------



## Local Hero

LeMond = Le Suspect


----------



## 88 rex

Fireform said:


> Which is impressive if you're ignorant enough to equate amphetamines and cortisone with oxygen vector doping.



Does this mean that everyone pre-epo gets a free pass?


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

88 rex said:


> Does this mean that everyone pre-epo gets a free pass?


You would have to be simple minded to think that is what he meant. 

We get that your understanding of the sport does not extend past one guy but if you were around the sport in the 80's you would know that there were plenty of riders who rode, and won, clean. Greg was one of them.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

Local Hero said:


> LeMond = Le Suspect


Le troll


----------



## Local Hero

Doctor Falsetti said:


> You would have to be simple minded to think that is what he meant.
> 
> We get that your understanding of the sport does not extend past one guy but if you were around the sport in the 80's you would know that there were plenty of riders who rode, and won, clean. Greg was one of them.


Dang. Lefanboys are coming out of the woodwork to defend their hero. 

Just accept that a number of LeMond's rides are suspect.


----------



## 86TDFWinner

Local Hero said:


> Dang. Lefanboys are coming out of the woodwork to defend their hero.
> 
> Just accept that a number of LeMond's rides are suspect.


What number of them are, please post the said info, and the info you claim to have that's 100% "for sure" LeMond doped, we're waiting.

Choose one:

1) post said info you claim to have that says LeMond doped

2) continue avoiding it, not post it, and you'll continue to show just how misinformed you are. It's a simple thing really, Post it, why can't you seem to do that?

Just "accept the fact" that you don't know what you're talking about.


----------



## 86TDFWinner

> People like to stick their heads in the sand about Lemond ... but there is a lot of circumstantial evidence around him, just with the "Injections" and EPO being available at the time.


Really? Im curious to read so much of the circumstantial evidence you claim that is out there, so by all means, please post ALL of it for us here to read and decide for ourselves, can you do that please? Since there's so much of it, it shouldn't be hard for you to post it all, right?

Dates/times/dr's who gave him the drugs/former teammates/riders who saw him dope/etc.. Please post this info, thank you.




> I'll even go so far as to say that Lemond didn't know he was doping and his doctor was injecting him with EPO against his knowledge and calling it "Iron" shots instead. Thus keeping Lemond out of the loop and thinking he was racing clean.



Again, please post this info.......can you do that?




> As for people coming forward against him ... if it was just him and his doctor ... who else is there to come forward? You can bet your life his doctor wouldn't be stepping up to the plate, assuming he's still around.



He would if Wonderboy offered up to ANYONE, $300K for info/proof that LeMond doped, and guess what happened? NO ONE CAME FORWARD.

It's simple really: post ALL of the "circumstantial evidence" you claim is out there(and there's A LOT of it apparently), and we'll see what you're talking about.





> So ... yes, it's entirely plausible that Lemond was as much a doper as the rest



Plausible? maybe...factual? no. But, feel free to post said info to refute what I've said, that's the only way really.


I Find it kind of hard to believe that a guy who's been retired for almost 20 yrs, hasn't had 1 shred of evidence(circumstantial or otherwise) posted anywhere, stating he doped. If that doesn't kinda/sorta show that he didn't dope, then I'm not sure what more needs to be said.


----------



## Fireform

Crickets.


----------



## Slartibartfast

Point of order... It IS okay to accuse guys without proof, right? It's not like this is anything new. In fact, aren't MOST accusations on these boards given without proof? :yesnod:


----------



## jspharmd

I look at it like this. Anyone that consistently wins, or performs really well, and raced against known or suspected dopers, likely doped too. From knowing people that have used PED (in other sports), you are on top of the world when you use them correctly. So, to beat a competitor that is using PEDs, you have to be genetically superior, have a great day - when they all have a bad day, or be using PEDs yourself. Cycling today still has guys that are known or highly suspected as having used PEDs. This likely means others are still using them too.

Regarding doping in the 80s, did anyone ever watch the cheesy show 21 Jump Street? The episode about blood doping was great. If that topic makes it to TV in the mid-eighties, it was being used long before by professional athletes. I'm sure the smart ones used it so that they wouldn't get caught.


----------



## mpre53

86TDFWinner said:


> Find it kind of hard to believe that a guy who's been retired for almost 20 yrs, hasn't had 1 shred of evidence(circumstantial or otherwise) posted anywhere, stating he doped. If that doesn't kinda/sorta show that he didn't dope, then I'm not sure what more needs to be said.


Fignon had a lot of negative comments about "the American" in his auto-biography. That he had no style, that he was a wheel sucker, that he rode safe and didn't attack, and of course, that he got away with one when the UCI allowed him to to race the final stage with aerobars despite Guimard's protest. 

One thing he did say, in later years in addition to all of the negatives in his book, was that he believed that LeMond always raced clean. Hinault concurs. Both rode for Paul Koechli in 1985 and 86, who was adamant about fielding a clean team. Hampsten and Bauer were also hand picked by Hinault for La Vie Claire. Rumors about Hinault persist, based on the same "he beat dopers so he had to have been doping himself" evidence, but the simple fact is that he never had a positive test any time in his pro career. He and Bernard Tapei organized La Vie Claire, and it's doubtful that he would have agreed to Koechli as DS if he thought he needed to dope to win. I guess conspiracy freaks can always argue that Koechli was the perfect cover for a team of dopers.

FWIW, blood doping is probably the hardest method to conceal from your teammates. You need refrigeration for the bags, an IV unit, and the needles tend to leave tell-tale bruises on one's arms.


----------



## Coolhand

FWIW the three listed suspect rides for Lemond were:



> a climb up Avoriaz in 1984 while chasing Hinault, and the rides up Superbangnères and Izoard in the 1989 Tour


New report presents data-driven doubts on performances, past and present - VeloNews.com

Also noted:



> Thomas Voeckler, Hinault and Wiggins fall into Not Normal’s suspicious category; Chris Froome, Andy Schleck and Laurent Jalabert into the miraculous; Alberto Contador, Miguel Indurain, Jan Ullrich, and Lance Armstrong fall into the mutant classification on some performances, or had at times in their careers.


----------



## mpre53

Bottom line, people who are conviced that leMond doped will stay convinced. People who are convinced that he was clean will stay that way, too.

Me? Absent a smoking gun, or an admission, both he and Hinault get the benefit of the doubt.

Could someone---say, Otto Jacome---have shot up LeMond with something without telling him what it was? Sure, but if you're waiting for Jacome to say that it was anything but iron, methinks you'll have to wait until your next life. Jacome is still close friends with LeMond, and if he has secrets, he'll take them to the grave with him.


----------



## den bakker

Coolhand said:


> FWIW the three listed suspect rides for Lemond were:
> 
> 
> 
> New report presents data-driven doubts on performances, past and present - VeloNews.com
> 
> Also noted:


"The authors claim their projected data comes in at about one-percent higher than actual watts generated by Horner on marked climbs, though one measurement differs by as much as 9 percent, up the west Tourmalet ascent, so it’s important to take the metrics with a grain of salt." 
sounds like solid stuff 

could you give some details on for example the weather conditions etc on those three climbs?


----------



## 86TDFWinner

Coolhand said:


> FWIW the three listed suspect rides for Lemond were:
> 
> 
> 
> New report presents data-driven doubts on performances, past and present - VeloNews.com
> 
> :


 This DOES NOT say he doped. Its a current "report" which can be manipulated to say anything. AGAIN, if he had doped(as so many here have alluded to} don't you think that in the 19+ yrs LeMonds been retired, and with the offer of $300K from Cancer Jesus to anyone with Proof LeMond doped, that kind of info would've come out by now? of course it would've.


----------



## Local Hero

Slartibartfast said:


> Point of order... It IS okay to accuse guys without proof, right? It's not like this is anything new. In fact, aren't MOST accusations on these boards given without proof? :yesnod:


Yes! You can accuse without proof or much evidence*













*Unless it's LeMond


----------



## Local Hero

86TDFWinner said:


> Just "accept the fact" that you don't know what you're talking about.





86TDFWinner said:


> This DOES NOT say he doped. Its a current "report" which can be manipulated to say anything. AGAIN, if he had doped(as so many here have alluded to} don't you think that in the 19+ yrs LeMonds been retired, and with the offer of $300K from Cancer Jesus to anyone with Proof LeMond doped, that kind of info would've come out by now? of course it would've.


You're teetering between stages one and two, denial and anger. 

It's all right here: Kübler-Ross model - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## 86TDFWinner

Local Hero said:


> You're teetering between stages one and two, denial and anger.
> 
> It's all right here: Kübler-Ross model - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


LOL< again, have nothing to be angry about. So, when are you going to post your "100% factual proof" you claim to have that says that LeMond was "doped to the gills"?. Nothing to deny on my part, on your end, Hmmm.....how about that proof champ? We're still waiting....(crickets chirp) the hole is getting deeper.


----------



## Local Hero

86TDFWinner said:


> LOL< again, have nothing to be angry about. So, when are you going to post your "100% factual proof" you claim to have that says that LeMond was "doped to the gills"?. Nothing to deny on my part, on your end, Hmmm.....how about that proof champ? We're still waiting....(crickets chirp) the hole is getting deeper.


I see. So you you have not moved on to Stage Two, Anger. You are fixated in Stage One: Denial. 

I overestimated you. It will not happen again. 



The proof? It has already been posted in this thread. I find it funny that you cling to the myth so hard. Next you will demand 100% factual proof that Santa Clause isn't real. 

:blush2:


----------



## 86TDFWinner

> The proof? It has already been posted in this thread. I find it funny that you cling to the myth so hard. Next you will demand 100% factual proof that Santa Clause isn't real.


It was? proof that he doped? do tell? all we see is "SUSPECTED of" no 100% concrete, undeniable proof he doped, s you mentioned. I see someone's fixated on not providing proof to back their claims? a trait you're obviously good at.Also, please post my supposed 'anger"?


----------



## RRRoubaix

Local Hero said:


> Yes! You can accuse without proof or much evidence*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Unless it's LeMond


Exactly.
Christ, the way some people are reacting, you'd think photoshops of Lemond stabbing babies had been posted.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

Local Hero said:


> The proof? It has already been posted in this thread.


Link?


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

Coolhand said:


> FWIW the three listed suspect rides for Lemond were:


You must have missed this part 



> Asked if any Tour winner since 1983 is beyond suspicion, Vayer said Greg LeMond “seems to have always produced ‘human’ performances”


----------



## Local Hero

86TDFWinner said:


> It was? proof that he doped? do tell? all we see is "SUSPECTED of" no 100% concrete, undeniable proof he doped, s you mentioned. I see someone's fixated on not providing proof to back their claims? a trait you're obviously good at.Also, please post my supposed 'anger"?


You need proof that you're angry?

I'm worried that you broke your keyboard smashing out that last post. 



It's OK if your hero doped. You don't have to change your username, get all dramatic and break your keyboard. 

And it's OK to argue with me. But you cannot argue with science. Just ask Corsaire: 



Corsaire said:


> scientific FACT: there's no way a pro cyclist can perform at the level they do during three weeks without any chemical/drug help.





Corsaire said:


> the real evidence is in the fact that is physically impossible, scientifically proven, for any pro athlete to perform at that very top level of the sport, day after day, during three weeks without any chemical help, it's IMPOSSIBLE. This is not to take away rider's prowess and gifted talents, they still do train very hard, of course.


Science!


----------



## sir duke

RRRoubaix said:


> Exactly.
> Christ, the way some people are reacting, you'd think photoshops of Lemond stabbing babies had been posted.


Don't be giving folks ideas....


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

Local Hero said:


> Science!


Link?


----------



## Fireform

Doctor Falsetti said:


> Link?


Yeah. Good luck with that. 

Some people are allergic to evidence.


----------



## sir duke

> _Science!_





Doctor Falsetti said:


> Link?



Link...

Science?

It's getting kind of circular, guys...:mad2:


----------



## spade2you

sir duke said:


> Link...
> 
> Science?
> 
> It's getting kind of circular, guys...:mad2:


Getting?


----------



## Fireform

Still crickets.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

sir duke said:


> Link...
> 
> Science?
> 
> It's getting kind of circular, guys...:mad2:


Poster makes a claim. When asked to support his claim he just tosses out more nonsense. Some call it clogging the toilet, others call it trolling. 

If the proof is so certain, so concrete, then a link should be easy to provide.....


*crickets*


----------



## Local Hero

So now we need evidence and positive tests? 

WHAT?

Hasn't the *history of cycling* shown us that tests don't catch dopers?


----------



## 86TDFWinner

Local Hero said:


> So now we need evidence and positive tests?


ONLY if you're 100% sure he doped, which you claimed, when you said he was "doped to the gills".
*If the proof is so certain, so concrete, then a link should be easy to provide.....which YOU have failed to post yet again.*......No anger either(oh, still waiting for you to post my supposed "anger" too).Crickets chirp


----------



## spade2you

86TDFWinner said:


> ONLY if you're 100% sure he doped, which you claimed, when you said he was "doped to the gills".
> *If the proof is so certain, so concrete, then a link should be easy to provide.....which YOU have failed to post yet again.*......No anger either(oh, still waiting for you to post my supposed "anger" too).Crickets chirp


They would have to start actually testing people. There are plenty of missing tests from the 1998 TdF. (Un)fortunately, they're not going to retest too many more riders. They got Lance, that's all that really matters.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

Local Hero said:


> So now we need evidence and positive tests?


Wait, you said you had proof'..... Was that a lie? 

You not only do not have positives tests but you do not have anything from teammates, staff, fellow racers, managers, owners. 

Let us know when you find this proof you claimed you had


----------



## Fireform

I'm not holding my breath. The pushers of this Lemond-was-doping trope are so transparent.


----------



## spade2you

Is this where we're supposed to bow to Saint Lemond and Saint Bassons?


----------



## Local Hero

Has LeMond posted his power numbers? 

What's he hiding from?


----------



## Fireform

The real question is why you guys are wasting your time with this and who you think you're impressing.


----------



## Local Hero

Fireform said:


> The real question is why you guys are wasting your time with this and who you think you're impressing.


Are you talking about this thread or the entire Doping subforum?


----------



## sir duke

spade2you said:


> Getting?


Evening, Spade. How's everything?


----------



## T K

This thread just keeps giving. I'm like the General (Carroll O'Conner) in Kelly's Heroes sitting in front of the radio waiting for what's next.


----------



## Local Hero

RRRoubaix said:


> Lemond stabbing babies had been posted.


Link ?


----------



## sir duke

Slartibartfast said:


> Point of order... It IS okay to accuse guys without proof, right? It's not like this is anything new. In fact, aren't MOST accusations on these boards given without proof? :yesnod:


You saw the Froome thread, surely?


----------



## spade2you

sir duke said:


> Evening, Spade. How's everything?


Weather and riding is lovely this time of year.


----------



## The Human G-Nome

Fireform said:


> The real question is why you guys are wasting your time with this and who you think you're impressing.


We could say the same thing about the defenders.


----------



## sir duke

spade2you said:


> Weather and riding is lovely this time of year.


Wish I could say the same. The summer heat in Tokyo this year is brutal, 39 degrees today. No serious riding for me.


----------



## spade2you

sir duke said:


> Wish I could say the same. The summer heat in Tokyo this year is brutal, 39 degrees today. No serious riding for me.


It has been an odd summer. Handful of ~40C/100F with high humidity and high wind, which is usually the norm. For the most part, it has been about 26C/80F a lot of the time and minimal wind. Makes it easy to go faster and cover more ground. It's nice when 2 bottles last 60 miles.

The only bummer was when it was les sthan 60F and rainy in June during the state time trial. Too extreme of a temperature dip and my performance suffered since it was out of the blue.


----------



## Local Hero

MattSoutherden said:


> 1989: GC rider Greg Lemond wins TT on *final day* of the Tour to set fastest Tour TT ever. 25 years of aerodynamic equipment and doping advances have yet to touch it.


Case closed.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

Local Hero said:


> Case closed.


Agreed. Greg's TT in 89 is an excellent example of a clean rider. 

Greg's performance in a sort, downhill, course with a tailwind was nothing special. He only beat Marie, who had no aero bars, by 30 seconds. Averaged a little over 400 watts for 24 minutes. Compared to the riders in the 90/00's doing 490 watts for 40 minutes that final TT is an excellent example of a clean rider

Case closed


----------



## Local Hero

Fanboys never stop with the spin! Where are LeMond's "a little over 400 watts" power numbers?!?!?!?!

LeMond himself said his TT performance--beating one of the best TTers of the era by 58 seconds--was "too good to be true"!


----------



## Local Hero

How much over 400 did he go? 

402 watts at 67kg is the magic value.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

Local Hero said:


> How much over 400 did he go?
> 
> 402 watts at 67kg is the magic value.


for 40 minutes? Greg weighed 74 kilos and averaged 394 watts up Alp d'Huez in 89 going full gas chasing Fignon. 

What ever happened to that "Proof" you claimed you had?


----------



## gus68

I really don't have an opinion as to whether lemond did or didn't but I wasn't previously aware of what products could have been aware to him. I used to think his generation only had amphetamines. After a little google research I was very surprised.

"The American cyclist Pat McDonough admitted to blood doping at the 1984 Summer Olympics in Los Angeles.[28] Following the 1984 Summer games it was revealed that one-third of the U.S. cycling team had received blood transfusions before the games, where they won nine medals,..."


"In 1983, scientists discovered a method for mass producing a synthetic version of the hormone. Experiments were conducted to test the safety and effectiveness of the new drug, Epo, for treating anemia in patients with kidney failure. 
This article was published in December 2008 as part of the special ASH anniversary brochure, 50 Years in Hematology: Research That Revolutionized Patient Care. "


----------



## Local Hero

gus68 said:


> I really don't have an opinion as to whether lemond did or didn't


Honestly, me neither.


----------



## spade2you

Local Hero said:


> Honestly, me neither.


I give him 50/50 odds, which is technically better than I give everyone else.


----------



## Local Hero

spade2you said:


> I give him 50/50 odds, which is technically better than I give everyone else.


Well I doubt he knowingly took epo. 

But if he were winning today he would definitely face doping accusations.


----------



## spade2you

Local Hero said:


> Well I doubt he knowingly took epo.
> 
> But if he were winning today he would definitely face doping accusations.


I certainly trust him more than the teams he rode for. I have trouble believing a team would have tolerated rejecting their PED offers.


----------



## Slartibartfast

sir duke said:


> You saw the Froome thread, surely?


Yes, it was my memory of that thread that made me see the irony in this one. I have no trouble speculating about all sorts of things. But I tend not to claim I have proof, or demand proof from others. It's fun seeing the bickering, though.

And it's really cool watching Lemond in the 1989 World Champs answer attack after attack from the likes of Laurent Fignon, Stephen Rooks, and Dmitri Konyshev, then smoke Konyshev and Sean Kelly in a sprint finish -- and absolutely KNOW he did it clean!

How do I know he was clean? Because of posts I read on this forum! :thumbsup:


----------



## spade2you

Hard to beat the 1989 TdF and Worlds in terms of excitement. Since Fignon was doping and should not have been there, these events were tainted and would have likely been boring had he been caught.


----------



## love4himies

spade2you said:


> I certainly trust him more than the teams he rode for. I have trouble believing a team would have tolerated rejecting their PED offers.


But IF he was winning without them, why would they want to give any to him?


----------



## Local Hero

Slartibartfast said:


> Yes, it was my memory of that thread that made me see the irony in this one. I have no trouble speculating about all sorts of things. But I tend not to claim I have proof, or demand proof from others. It's fun seeing the bickering, though.


I tried to repeat as many specious arguments as possible. It was funny to see the visceral reaction from the lemond supporters, as if anyone is truly above reproach.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

How many times does this need to be written? in the 80's it was possible to ride, and win, clean. The drugs at the time enabled a rider to race 250 days a year but did little to increase output. 

Here is what Vaughters said about the different eras



> I think it's very hard to quantify the differences things like cortisone and testosterone make. Both were available and used in the 1980's, but yet i don't think were overly effective. Even if they did help, it wasn't to the degree that a clean rider could not win, which is what happens with o2 vector doping.
> 
> With both test and cortisone, it probably varies from athlete to athlete. Am athlete with low natural testosterone would probably benefit quite a bit from supplemental. Conversely, someone with high test probably would not. Using it to the point of actually gaining muscle mass is a mixed bag too. More muscle, more weight.
> 
> Cortisone, same thing. It's anti-inflammatory properties can help you "feel" fast, but it's a catabolic hormone, and that has big downsides on performance too.
> 
> I am over simplifying, but these doping agents are not that effective. It's still cheating and I'm sure there are some performance gains to be had, but it's not game changing, like o2 vector stuff. With this stuff, "just say no" is totally viable, and winning races clean viable as well.
> 
> With 15% increases in hemoglobin? forget about it...


Here is what Andy Hampsten said when Greg spoke out about doping 10 years ago



> Greg has put himself into personal and business difficulties by speaking out and getting involved with the issue of drugs in today's cycling. Voluntarily placing himself in this position shows me honesty and bravery far beyond what most of us could muster. Lemond could instead follow the cycling world's expectations for past champions and sit around "a fumer le pipe" ('chilling' in cycling slang) in silence. But, his legitimate concern for the health and lives of today’s athletes and future riders drives him to do what he can to return cycling to a healthy level. I want to see the same.* Since the early 90s both doping and the medical excesses placed upon riders’ health have gotten out of control.*
> 
> Like Greg, I too saw what I believe were the effects of EPO when it entered pro cycling in the early 90s. In the first years it grew from a few individuals reaping obscene wins from exploiting its “benefits,” to entire teams relying on it, essentially forcing all but the most gifted racers to either use EPO to keep their place in cycling, quit, or become just another obscure rider in the group.
> 
> .......... So like Greg Lemond, I cannot just sit idly by watching our sport continue to suffer from cheating. It’s time to tell the truth.
> 
> Dr. Michele Ferrari is known to have supported the use of EPO to increase his riders’ performances. In ’94, while his riders dominated the Ardennes Classic, he publicly ridiculed making rules against EPO saying it was safe to use and should not be made illegal in cycling. I believe behavior like this and the use of these products should not be tolerated. Violators should receive meaningful bans from the sport, bans that significantly outweigh any perceived benefits.
> 
> Many aspiring racers have confronted drug use as they rose through the ranks. Unfortunately, their silent answer to this insanity is often to quit racing at this level. Otherwise, they risk succumbing to the conventional wisdom that “since everyone takes drugs to be competitive, you should too.” This must not continue to be the choice facing promising young racers.
> 
> Now, in his retirement, *Greg Lemond is fighting to bring racing back to a natural level of honest riders racing to their limits and living a long life to talk about it. I am writing to support him in this fight.*
> 
> Both Greg and I are involved with a junior racing team, so this matter continues to concern us as we support and urge kids to go as far as they can in the sport we love, both for their own personal rewards, and to keep cycling growing. It is irresponsible for us to encourage kids to race and potentially turn pro without doing all we can to change cycling back to a sport where they will not likely be asked to take drugs that could ultimately destroy their natural good health, their characters, and their bodies.


They seem to ignore the people in the know like Laurent Fignon who said it was possible to win clean in the 80s even though he doped himself.

They ignore riders like Edwig Van Hooydonck who won Flanders twice before the age of 25 but retired at 28 because he would not take EPO

Like Willy Voet who said there were clean top riders like Charly Mottet despite naming countless people who did dope.

Like Paul Koechli, who ran a clean team in Helvetia/La Suiise without any needles and said LeMond won the Tour clean. Before people say that was because he was his manager, Koechli never said Hinault won the tour clean and he was his manager too. Bernard Tapie, owner of the team said the only guys he knew that definitely didnt dope were LeMond and Bauer, not Hinault, not Bernard.

Like Peter Winnen who says it was possible to win clean in the 80s but everything changed with EPO.

Giles Delion who had a reputation as being outspoken on doping long before it became fashionable. In the 1990 season Delion had great results.

1st Tour of Lombardy
3rd Milan-San Remo
3rd Tirreno-Adriatico
2nd Criterium International
5th overall World Cup
11th Dauphine Libere
2nd Giro del Emilia
2nd Giro de Lazio
3rd Milan-Turin
4th Coppa Placci
9th GP Zurich

In his first Tour de France, Delion finished 15th overall and won the white jersey as best young rider.....but was out of the top level of the sport at 27 because he would not take EPO

Nicolas Aubier, Eric Caritoux.....and on and on

These posters are not just refuting other posters, they are refuting guys from that period who were involved in cycling, people who have said they doped themselves or that doping was present.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

Local Hero said:


> I tried to repeat as many specious arguments as possible.


What happened to wanting rational debate? 

No need to answer


----------



## Fireform

The Butthurt Militia doesn't care, Doc. They just want to rationalize their wounds.


----------



## Local Hero

Doctor Falsetti said:


> What happened to wanting rational debate?
> 
> No need to answer


...



really?



REALLY?


----------



## Fireform

Local Hero said:


> I tried to repeat as many specious arguments as possible. It was funny to see the visceral reaction from the lemond supporters, as if anyone is truly above reproach.


We know you're a troll. Glad you understand it too.


----------



## Local Hero

Fireform said:


> We know you're a troll. Glad you understand it too.


you speak for everyone now?


----------

