A Question About Indurain...

[131313]

If he was doping, he didn't start doping until '95.

Here is what a clean Indurain did to a doping Armstrong in '94:

Umm...you're not seriously suggesting Indurain didn't start doping until '95, are you?

As far as fully locked and loaded Indurain beating LA on his own drugstore cocktail, if anything that's a testament to LA actually being a pretty good talent. Indurain beat Boardman by 5 and a half minutes in that same TT.

If you think that was a "clean" Indurain, I've got a sweet land deal I'd like to discuss with you...

In their first respective TDF TT's, LA and Indurain finished pretty close in placings.

 

[D-Queued]

um...even in an ITT?

dave, i know you look at indurain through rose-colored glasses. and that's okay with me -- as you have clear sight on almost everything else.

Sure thing, even in a TT

Finally in '91, Banesto 'unleashed the hounds'. To Lemond's dismay of course - when he was in the best pre-Tour fitness he had ever been in.

I spent a lot of money on Indurain fandom. I'm not going down without a fight.

508 watts for an hour, baby. Match that!

Armstrong and all his doping couldn't come close.

Now, if Big Mig was that good - he just obliterated the TT field - imagine what a freak show it might have been had GL actually doped.

Dave.

 

[D-Queued]

Umm...you're not seriously suggesting Indurain didn't start doping until '95, are you?

As far as fully locked and loaded Indurain beating LA on his own drugstore cocktail, if anything that's a testament to LA actually being a pretty good talent. Indurain beat Boardman by 5 and a half minutes in that same TT.

If you think that was a "clean" Indurain, I've got a sweet land deal I'd like to discuss with you...

In their first respective TDF TT's, LA and Indurain finished pretty close in placings.

Ok, ok, maybe he took caffeine or something that day.

Dave.

 

[131313]

Indurain's natural talent shone through in that TT as he completely disgraced Armstrong; who we now know to be disgraceful.

That TT deserves no asterisk. Good triumphed over evil.

Dave.

That's a nice narrative, which sadly isn't close to being true. Indurain was working with Conconi, the godfather of EPO use in cycling, starting in the 80's. He was at the forefront of dope. He made a lot of world-class TT guys look silly in that TT, and it goes does as one of the most ridiculous performances in sport. Sillier, frankly, than any of Armstrong's performances since the doping playing field was "less level" at that time than any other.

Take a look at Indurain's incredible TT performances in his first few TDF's, compared to the first TT's by guys who were actual GT riders before the EPO era. He became a completely different dude. Science Project...end of story.

 

[Big Doopie]

Hinault was a far better GT Riders. Kelly's talents arguably covered a wider range of disciplines - from Multiple Classics to Multiple Green Jersey to Vueltas.

As I said, arguable, but there you go.

yup, arguable, sure.

However, I think you will find Hinault won nearly as many if not more classics (can't be bothered to look it up), a WC and 10 GTs, plus green and mountain jerseys.

kelly won one vuelta.

hinault also retired at 32.

hinault has the second best palmares after merckx, and it's not even close.

(and i can't stand the guy)

 

[Big Doopie]

Ok, ok, maybe he took caffeine or something that day.

Dave.

10 characters.

 

[Big Doopie]

...imagine what a freak show it might have been had GL actually doped.

so true. that natural vo2max on epo. holy crap.

just look at the first ITT (73 km, I believe) in 1991. Lemond was on fire. and shocked to see indurain squeak by only 8 secs. but at that point no one doubted that lemond was simply going to cruise to a fourth win. he had over two minutes on indurain and like 6 minutes on anyone else...

little did we (or he) know that the arms race had begun. that soon huge men with large a$$es were going to fly up mountains...

 

[martinvickers]

yup, arguable, sure.

However, I think you will find Hinault won nearly as many if not more classics (can't be bothered to look it up), a WC and 10 GTs, plus green and mountain jerseys.

kelly won one vuelta.

hinault also retired at 32.

hinault has the second best palmares after merckx, and it's not even close.

(and i can't stand the guy)

Kelly won 9 monuments. Hinault won 5.

hinault won 3 dauphine. Kelly won 7 back to back paris nice and 3 pais vasco

They both won approx 200 pro races.

it's arguable. live with it.

 

[Turner29]

Hi folks


It's pretty clear LeMond was clean throughout his career.

I just choked on my tea.

 

[Dazed and Confused]

Indoprain.
Early adopter, doping wise.

 

[frenchfry]

For those who haven't figured it out yet, Dave is Big Mig's b!tch.

 

[ChewbaccaD]

Indurain is almost the textbook answer to the question "what if Lance Armstrong had not been such a nasty bully, etc".

He was very well liked in the pleton, respected, paid his 'dues' to Delgado, treated rivals and friends gently and was, importantly, a national hero in a country that was coming into the world, but had a long tradition of omerta, and not just in cycling...and the omerta around him has remained more or less intact ever since- nobody seemed to want to destroy him at the time or retrospectively, even though he was arguably a 'boring' rider to watch. and he won 5 in a row in absolutely dominant fashion.

Being a civilised human being gets you a long way in the peleton. And maybe that's why a sociopath like Armstrong is actually necessary if doping is to be addressed.

Other notable legends who doped and yet seemed to keep their broad reputation include Merckx and Kelly, the greatest of all time, and arguably the greatest alrounder ever after Merckx - and they are universally described as 'humble'.

Excellent comment. Bravo!

 

[martinvickers]

Excellent comment. Bravo!

It's an article of faith for me.

Not all dopers are also sociopaths, just because Armstrong was.

Not all clean riders are nice guys, either. Indeed, having the balls to tell a doping team to f*** off comes easiest to difficult, annoying people.

It's too easy to want dopers out of cycling, and think they are all *******s.

Big Mig wasn't a *******. He was, by all accounts, a great guy, generous, gentle, loyal - but he was also a cheat - on the EPO we have only dots to join, but he's on dopeology, it ain't in dispute.

contador seems to share some of those qualities, maybe not as humble...but it proves, or disproves, nothing...

So if it takes the catching of a sociopathic narcissist to arrest doping in the peleton, so be it. If Lance's 'flaws' are what puts disinfectant through the sport, he'll have done the sport some service, despite himself.

 

[Big Doopie]

Kelly won 9 monuments. Hinault won 5.

hinault won 3 dauphine. Kelly won 7 back to back paris nice and 3 pais vasco

They both won approx 200 pro races.

it's arguable. live with it.

fair enough.

I never got the deal about kelly. I wouldn't even put him in my top 10 riders. So I guess I'll live with that. he was a sprinter who turned into a decent classics rider. even maertens won a vuelta (13 stages to boot) and he could barely climb (also won more than 50 races one year). kelly was never even on the podium at the tour. there are dozens of riders who won tours and classics to show all-around strength. kelly just isn't one of the ones that spring to mind.

a sprinter who could climb, a jalabert.

 

[ultimobici]

Kelly won 9 monuments. Hinault won 5.

hinault won 3 dauphine. Kelly won 7 back to back paris nice and 3 pais vasco

They both won approx 200 pro races.

it's arguable. live with it.

Sweet Jesus!

Kelly was prolific but to be fair he won one Vuelta to Hinault's 5 Tour, 3 Giro and 2 Vuelta titles. He also won his 200 races in a little over a decade, whereas Kelly took almost twice as long to match him.

 

[ultimobici]

fair enough.

I never got the deal about kelly. I wouldn't even put him in my top 10 riders. So I guess I'll live with that. he was a sprinter who turned into a decent classics rider. even maertens won a vuelta (13 stages to boot) and he could barely climb (also won more than 50 races one year). kelly was never even on the podium at the tour. there are dozens of riders who won tours and classics to show all-around strength. kelly just isn't one of the ones that spring to mind.

a sprinter who could climb, a jalabert.

You what? The only reason Jalabert fond his climbing legs was as a result of pharmacology & haematology. I seem to remember that after 1998 he didn't ride on a FFC licence so he was not subject to the more stringent testing they introduced post-Festina.

As for Kelly being just a sprinter who turned into a decent classics rider, have a look at his palmares from the 80's. Lombardia as an amateu in 76, and as a pro in 1983, 1985 & 1991, Paris Nice from 1981 to 1988 consecutively, Liege Bastogne Liege 1984 & 89, not to mention 3 top 10's in the Tour. Not too shabby for "just a sprinter turned into a decent classics rider" (BTW he's tied for 3rd in the all time top winners of Monuments)

 

[Big Doopie]

You what? The only reason Jalabert fond his climbing legs was as a result of pharmacology & haematology. I seem to remember that after 1998 he didn't ride on a FFC licence so he was not subject to the more stringent testing they introduced post-Festina.

absolutely. not arguing that at all.

i'm just trying to put kelly's "all-aroundness" in perspective. perhaps a little harsh.

i just don't get the deification of kelly, unless you are an anglophile, perhaps. no non-anglo european would put him anywhere near hinault. no where close. hinault could even beat him in a mass sprint when he chose to (1979 Tour).

also, can't think of kelly ever as a "dominator". hinault was that...in buckets. on all terrains.

 

[pmcg76]

absolutely. not arguing that at all.

i'm just trying to put kelly's "all-aroundness" in perspective. perhaps a little harsh.

i just don't get the deification of kelly, unless you are an anglophile, perhaps. no non-anglo european would put him anywhere near hinault. no where close. hinault could even beat him in a mass sprint when he chose to (1979 Tour).

also, can't think of kelly ever as a "dominator". hinault was that...in buckets. on all terrains.

I am Irish and wouldn't put Kelly anywhere near Hinault either. Based on palmares purely, Kelly and Jalabert were similar but I would put Kelly slightly ahead.

 

[martinvickers]

Sweet Jesus!

You rang?

Kelly was prolific but to be fair he won one Vuelta to Hinault's 5 Tour, 3 Giro and 2 Vuelta titles. He also won his 200 races in a little over a decade, whereas Kelly took almost twice as long to match him.

I never said Kelly was the better GT rider, or even the better rider, I said he was the better all-rounder. I was quite clear that hinault was far better on the GTs

 

[Parrot23]

Indurain on the Armstrong situation. Ha, ha!

“It shows how imperfect the testing is and that we need to keep working on it”

http://velonews.competitor.com/2013...weigh-in-on-lance-armstrongs-admission_272049

(Don't really know what else he can say, but it's still kinda of funny. And Bertie's is that we have to look to the future, LOL.)

 

[D-Queued]

For those who haven't figured it out yet, Dave is Big Mig's b!tch.

...back in 1992 after making the pilgrimage all the way to Treviso, tracking down Mr. Pinarello, and finding a translator, I said to him, "Same size shoe, same height, same bike, same speed."

He didn't need the translator, and burst out laughing.

What did he know that I didn't?

Dave.

 

[Oldman]

You what? The only reason Jalabert fond his climbing legs was as a result of pharmacology & haematology. I seem to remember that after 1998 he didn't ride on a FFC licence so he was not subject to the more stringent testing they introduced post-Festina.

As for Kelly being just a sprinter who turned into a decent classics rider, have a look at his palmares from the 80's. Lombardia as an amateu in 76, and as a pro in 1983, 1985 & 1991, Paris Nice from 1981 to 1988 consecutively, Liege Bastogne Liege 1984 & 89, not to mention 3 top 10's in the Tour. Not too shabby for "just a sprinter turned into a decent classics rider" (BTW he's tied for 3rd in the all time top winners of Monuments)

I don't think anyone thought different at the time. It would have been interesting to hear seasoned commentators talk off line about that particular skill transition.

 

[Oldman]

I am Irish and wouldn't put Kelly anywhere near Hinault either. Based on palmares purely, Kelly and Jalabert were similar but I would put Kelly slightly ahead.

Kelly was enough of an outsider to need to be cagier. He also raced a buttload of races to earn money so we probably only saw him fresh several times a season. In my mind that makes him more notable.

 

[robow7]

the arms race had begun. that soon huge men with large a$$es were going to fly up mountains...

+1, show me a guy of his weight and size that can climb with the world's best climbers for days on end that you know to be clean,..... heck for that matter, show me someone of that weight that's juiced who could pull it off.

 

[roundabout]

You what? The only reason Jalabert fond his climbing legs was as a result of pharmacology & haematology. I seem to remember that after 1998 he didn't ride on a FFC licence so he was not subject to the more stringent testing they introduced post-Festina.

As for Kelly being just a sprinter who turned into a decent classics rider, have a look at his palmares from the 80's. Lombardia as an amateu in 76, and as a pro in 1983, 1985 & 1991, Paris Nice from 1981 to 1988 consecutively, Liege Bastogne Liege 1984 & 89, not to mention 3 top 10's in the Tour. Not too shabby for "just a sprinter turned into a decent classics rider" (BTW he's tied for 3rd in the all time top winners of Monuments)

Jalabert was a pharmacology experiment.

Kelly also was a serial doper.

I suppose the only debate is 80's doping vs 90's doping and the extent of the transformation.