You're missing out, Jefe. Sure, if there were no drugs, it would be a little slower, and maybe the leader board would be shuffled a bit, and you wouldn't have to worry that your favorite riders turn out to be cheaters. Alas, there are drugs involved and probably always will be, BUT it's still great racing, fascinating strategy and high drama. The guys still train like mad and suffer like they always have.
I have never actually seen anything regarding Indurain using doping products. His biggest sin is dominantly winning the Tour of France and Tour of Italy during the start of the EPO era. I don't think there's any doubt that he was a physiological freak of nature (monstrous heart and lungs) perfectly suited to riding bicycles rapidly.
Lemond is an interesting case. When he retired, he claimed he had "mitochondrial myopathy", which sapped his energy. Now, he seems to have forgotten mitochondrial myopathy" and has concluded that he didn't get slower, the peloton all got faster because they were doped, but Saint Greg was clean and could no longer compete. He seems to have forgotten that in 1989, he set the record for the faster time trial in the Tour that finally got beaten in 2005. Somehow, clean Greg's record couldn't be beaten by the dirty peloton of the '90s and '00s, despite being doped up so much that Greg could no longer keep up with the peloton by '93. Now, he basically roams around accusing all the top riders of doping and trying to be the sanctimonous voice of the pure past when cycling was clean. I don't think he's well.
I don't know about the little brown bottles. I didn't see any of the Tours back then. Ask your friend how he knows what's in them.