A Question About Indurain...

[Fearless Greg Lemond]

The altitude adjusted 5.8 w/kg as Merckx' rested power/weight for the hour seems very low, given what's known about riders' performance when fatigued in stage races.

If I am correct, Eddy went a bit overboard that day, trying to destroy every 10K record that was on the book. That might have hampered the overall wattage I guess...

 

[86TDFWinner]

I can't speak for hrotha, but I was honestly interested in hearing what your conclusion was.

I think, Indurain logically had to have been doped to have the kind of success he did at that time, but presenting his TdF finishing positions as proof is not convincing to me, and I don't think they tell a coherent story in regards to doping in his case.

I thought I gave my conclusion above?

If you know something we don't about Miggy, please post it. Obviously I'm not alone in concluding(there's that word again), my opinion is that Miggy has doped before since many folks here(such as yourself) have alluded to or "concluded" he has? But, since the "SOL" has run it's course on big Mig, it really doesn;t matter what anyone thinks I guess, right? You also mentioned his finishes, funny folks brought up the same about Wonderboy pre and post TDF and there were all sorts of questions about him and his finishes, but when someone brings up the same arguement about another rider, "suddenly" those same finishes, aren't the same, or don't mean the same, interesting.

 

[Bag_O_Wallet]

Who wanted to do transfusions in 1996? it was not even close to worth it. There was no test for EPO, and there wasn't even a limit for the hematocrit %.

Well, according to The Secret Race, page 156, Riis. It says he admitted to doing three for the 1996 Tour. In that admission, he is to have said it gave an immediate boost, compared to the gradual increase with EPO.

Further along in the book, and I can't track down the page, Riis is to have explained to Hamilton that a transfusion allows a rider to go past their previously established limits. I'm not sure if that's different from EPO, but Hamilton suggested it was different from his EPO experience.

If Riis did three BB's for the 1996 Tour, I'm open to the idea that someone blazed the trail in previous years with fewer BB's + EPO. I'm open to the idea that it could be Riis' previous team that lead the way. And I'm open to the idea that the biggest champion of the time could have follow suit, and perhaps that was the difference-maker in his 1994 Hautacam beat-down.

 

[hrotha]

And what are yours?

Mine is that I think "Big Miggy" doped along with the rest of them, but I have no proof that he did. In 1996, I think he realized his methods to win, weren't benefitting him any longer, so to try to save face, he conveniently and quietly "retires" knowing he's been beaten by younger, hungrier, more advanced dopers. How else would you explain his 11th place finish in 96? But, since your "SOL" you like to throw around all the time has run out on the big fella, I guess we'll never truely know one way or another, right?Do you have proof that he didn't, and do you think Miggy didnt dope at all during his career?

First of all, don't use "SOL" like that (and like you're done in that other thread, calling those who think like me out for being 'hypocrites' for saying two things that are legally different are, in fact, legally different). It's not "my" SOL. The statute of limitations (or prescription, in other systems) is an important part of the legal framework. I didn't come up with it. Just because you don't like it that doesn't mean we can ignore it.

That said, I think it's amazing you can ever entertain the notion that I think Indurain didn't dope, as if that was the only reason you could think of why someone would disagree with you. Of course he doped. Of course he was on EPO in the 90s, and of course a good case can be made for him being an early adopter of EPO. There's plenty of evidence, including a 1994 positive for salbutamol, his relationship with Sabino Padilla, Thomas Davy's testimony, his watt figures and what we know about cycling in that era. And I'm not advocating he be left alone - I'm saying that, legally, you can't touch his titles. But I do want the media to do some digging and to expose him, his team (which still exists today, with the same DS) and all of Spanish cycling.

As for what happened in 1996, it's hard to say. For years he had been saying he would retire early, possibly at 31-32, which is what he ended up doing. He had been racing a lot during his career, he was pretty burnout, he had fallen out with his team and he didn't have the motivation to keep going. Was his program suddenly ineffective? I doubt it. Prior to the Tour, Indurain was as strong as ever, and afterwards he still won gold in the Atlanta ITT. Was the introduction of the 50% hematocrit cap a factor? Possibly, but I personally don't think it was, or at least not a big one. While it would have made things marginally riskier for a doper, Banesto-Caisse-Movistar are believed to have been traditionally conservative teams when it comes to doping - hence the lack of scandals and the very few positives.

 

[Libertine Seguros]

Certainly for the last few years they've been considered more of a don't ask-don't tell team. When there are big busts there are sometimes Caisse/Movistar guys involved but seldom anything that suggests team-wide treatment. Who was the last positive for Abarcá Sports? Rui Costa, I think, and that was quashed and overturned. Before that I think it was Fertonani back in 2007.

 

[86TDFWinner]

First of all, don't use "SOL" like that (and like you're done in that other thread, calling those who think like me out for being 'hypocrites' for saying two things that are legally different are, in fact, legally different). It's not "my" SOL. The statute of limitations (or prescription, in other systems) is an important part of the legal framework. I didn't come up with it. Just because you don't like it that doesn't mean we can ignore it.

First of all, Who says we should ignore it? did I say that? nope. YOU'RE the one who kept throwing it around whenever I(or someone else) would ask about why so and so wasn't getting busted for doping. I honestly didn't know why some got to skirt the law, and some didn't. I'll stand by what i said from the beginning, that i think they should all be busted, or at the very least an asterisk should be put next to their accomplishments. I never made you out to be a hypocrite, I was using that referring to the media, cycling experts/analysts etc. They always seem to not want to talk about that stuff. Like Miggy himself, whenever someone would ask him about his ionvolement with doping it was always 'I dont want to talk about it" and then there'd be no follow up questions, or no grilling. Why should he walk and others not, despite an SOL? I know it's the law, but still.

That said, I think it's amazing you can ever entertain the notion that I think Indurain didn't dope, as if that was the only reason you could think of why someone would disagree with you. Of course he doped. Of course he was on EPO in the 90s, and of course a good case can be made for him being an early adopter of EPO. There's plenty of evidence, including a 1994 positive for salbutamol, his relationship with Sabino Padilla, Thomas Davy's testimony, his watt figures and what we know about cycling in that era. And I'm not advocating he be left alone - I'm saying that, legally, you can't touch his titles. But I do want the media to do some digging and to expose him, his team (which still exists today, with the same DS) and all of Spanish cycling.

LOL,....Well, you certainly led me to believe that with your "when did he dope, what events should he be stripped from...bblah blah blah" nonsense you kept asking me, I thought that you knew something none of us did. I didn't get why you kept asking me stuff, you pretty much already knew the answers to. I'm certainly not the enemy, I want to see ALL the dopers get popped. Personally, I think he should be busted, but as you keep saying the SOL are over, so I guess that means we can't do anything to him. I knew he was a doper, and doped, and admitted it pretty much. Were you trying to goad me into something by continually asking me?

As for what happened in 1996, it's hard to say. For years he had been saying he would retire early, possibly at 31-32, which is what he ended up doing. He had been racing a lot during his career, he was pretty burnout, he had fallen out with his team and he didn't have the motivation to keep going. Was his program suddenly ineffective? I doubt it. Prior to the Tour, Indurain was as strong as ever, and afterwards he still won gold in the Atlanta ITT. Was the introduction of the 50% hematocrit cap a factor? Possibly, but I personally don't think it was, or at least not a big one. While it would have made things marginally riskier for a doper, Banesto-Caisse-Movistar are believed to have been traditionally conservative teams when it comes to doping - hence the lack of scandals and the very few positives.

I think he gave a weak excuse when he "retired" so abruptly("My legs hurt") is not a good enough excuse IMO. I also think part of it was he could no longer dominate, even while doped to the gills, because it seemed others were doing it, and doing it better, or they were younger. I think it's a bunch of stuff. Oh, and we're cool on my end......

 

[Berzin]

As for what happened in 1996, it's hard to say.

He had been racing a lot during his career, he was pretty burned out, he had fallen out with his team and he didn't have the motivation to keep going.

It very well could have been burnout. After getting beaten so thoroughly, he probably felt it was time. Maybe he realized how things would go for him when a guy like Riis beat him so he decided to stop.

The fallout with his team came after they made him ride the Vuelta. He did the Vuelta that year and left the race. Uncharacteristically when he abandoned, he stormed off and slammed the door to his hotel room, refusing to speak to reporters.

ONCE then offered him a ton of money to ride the following year and he refused.

Was his program suddenly ineffective? I doubt it. Prior to the Tour, Indurain was as strong as ever, and afterwards he still won gold in the Atlanta ITT. Was the introduction of the 50% hematocrit cap a factor? Possibly, but I personally don't think it was, or at least not a big one.

The 50% hematocrit cap put paid to quite a few riders who previously rode with hemo's in the high 50's-60's, but that doesn't tell the whole story. During the 1996 Tour Riis was also about 20 pounds lighter than Indurain. Indurain probably felt he would never be able to win another Tour if he had to lose even half the weight required to get anywhere near Riis in that department, so he stopped.

Riis also supplemented with blood bags, which I'm sure he kept quiet to maintain his advantage. All these things make a difference, because there was no other excuse for Riis to fall off so much by next year's Tour when the only explanation was the introduction of the 50% limit.

While it would have made things marginally riskier for a doper, Banesto-Caisse-Movistar are believed to have been traditionally conservative teams when it comes to doping - hence the lack of scandals and the very few positives.

Conservative? Only the riders and doctors know for sure. I think it was more because Indurain was such a quiet, unassuming character everyone just gave him a pass, especially during a time when EPO abuse wasn't at the forefront of public knowledge that it is today.

 

[86TDFWinner]

It very well could have been burnout. After getting beaten so thoroughly, he probably felt it was time. Maybe he realized how things would go for him when a guy like Riis beat him so he decided to stop.

The fallout with his team came after they made him ride the Vuelta. He did the Vuelta that year and left the race. Uncharacteristically when he abandoned, he stormed off and slammed the door to his hotel room, refusing to speak to reporters.

ONCE then offered him a ton of money to ride the following year and he refused.



The 50% hematocrit cap put paid to quite a few riders who previously rode with hemo's in the high 50's-60's, but that doesn't tell the whole story. During the 1996 Tour Riis was also about 20 pounds lighter than Indurain. Indurain probably felt he would never be able to win another Tour if he had to lose even half the weight required to get anywhere near Riis in that department, so he stopped.

Riis also supplemented with blood bags, which I'm sure he kept quiet to maintain his advantage. All these things make a difference, because there was no other excuse for Riis to fall off so much by next year's Tour when the only explanation was the introduction of the 50% limit.



Conservative? Only the riders and doctors know for sure. I think it was more because Indurain was such a quiet, unassuming character everyone just gave him a pass, especially during a time when EPO abuse wasn't at the forefront of public knowledge that it is today.

Good read, thanks.

 

[Big Doopie]

Of course mig doped. Epo fueled his first. Never before had such a big carcass climbed like that. In fact lemond didn't even think he was a legit contender. You see until the surprise effect of the epo induced 90s the riders who knew they could win knew who they were and they usually could be counted on one hand. Big mig would never have entered the natural hierarchy to compete for tour wins. Epo helped anyone who took it. But it revolutionized climbing by bigger riders in particular. Only reason big mig was there.

 

[hrotha]

First of all, Who says we should ignore it? did I say that? nope. YOU'RE the one who kept throwing it around whenever I(or someone else) would ask about why so and so wasn't getting busted for doping.

Hmm? I don't remember mentioning the SOL to anyone but you. I could be wrong, but I am certain that I never said the SOL was the reason why people shouldn't be busted: I said it was the reason why some people shouldn't be stripped. Big difference.

I honestly didn't know why some got to skirt the law, and some didn't.

Read the USADA Reasoned Decision then. They explain why the SOL was waived in Armstrong's case.

Why should he walk and others not, despite an SOL? I know it's the law, but still.

But that's the thing, its being the law is a crucial difference. The SOL doesn't just apply to doping, it applies to much more serious offenses too.

LOL,....Well, you certainly led me to believe that with your "when did he dope, what events should he be stripped from...bblah blah blah" nonsense you kept asking me, I thought that you knew something none of us did. I didn't get why you kept asking me stuff, you pretty much already knew the answers to. I'm certainly not the enemy, I want to see ALL the dopers get popped. Personally, I think he should be busted, but as you keep saying the SOL are over, so I guess that means we can't do anything to him. I knew he was a doper, and doped, and admitted it pretty much. Were you trying to goad me into something by continually asking me?

I honestly have no idea what you're talking about here. I never asked when Indurain was supposed to have doped or which results he should lose, because from the beginning my position has been that, unless there's a sound legal reason to waive the SOL, you simply can't touch his palmares. And I haven't "kept asking" anything. When I talked about the SOL, those weren't questions, they were statements. The only real question was the one you replied to in this thread.

See, the problem is you read too much into what I said because you assumed anyone who didn't agree with you must have been a fanboy at some level. I never said there's nothing that can be done about Indurain. If you knew my history here, you'd have known that. In fact, when Indurain came out supporting Armstrong I actually asked for the media to expose him and encouraged several journalists to do it (of course, I'm a nobody, so it's not like I achieved anything).

The fallout with his team came after they made him ride the Vuelta. He did the Vuelta that year and left the race. Uncharacteristically when he abandoned, he stormed off and slammed the door to his hotel room, refusing to speak to reporters.

The fallout happened before the 1996 season, actually. It all went back to 1995, when the team managers pretty much forced him to give the hour record another go in Colombia, and when they made him stop working with Padilla. Not much was made public because he still destroyed everyone at the Tour and before, as usual, but the problem was there. Of course, forcing him to ride that Vuelta in 1996 was the last straw.

He gave serious consideration to ONCE's offer, but ultimately he turned it down. I'm not even sure Saiz had that kind of money, to be honest.

Conservative? Only the riders and doctors know for sure. I think it was more because Indurain was such a quite, unassuming character everyone just gave him a pass, especially during a time when EPO abuse wasn't at the forefront of public knowledge that it is today.

Indeed, my labelling it as "conservative" is just a guess based on observation, but it's not a fringe theory or anything.

 

[Escarabajo]

Well, according to The Secret Race, page 156, Riis. It says he admitted to doing three for the 1996 Tour. In that admission, he is to have said it gave an immediate boost, compared to the gradual increase with EPO.

Further along in the book, and I can't track down the page, Riis is to have explained to Hamilton that a transfusion allows a rider to go past their previously established limits. I'm not sure if that's different from EPO, but Hamilton suggested it was different from his EPO experience.

If Riis did three BB's for the 1996 Tour, I'm open to the idea that someone blazed the trail in previous years with fewer BB's + EPO. I'm open to the idea that it could be Riis' previous team that lead the way. And I'm open to the idea that the biggest champion of the time could have follow suit, and perhaps that was the difference-maker in his 1994 Hautacam beat-down.

Ok. Thanks.

In that case it begs to ask who was helping him?

Honestly, I am still incredulous about the transfusions.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

Ok. Thanks.

In that case it begs to ask who was helping him?

Honestly, I am still incredulous about the transfusions.

I'm incredulous he didn't die. Riding up those hills for that entire time, in a hot, French summer.

 

[JPM London]

Riis also had the advantage of having supplemented with blood bags, which I'm sure he kept quiet to maintain his advantage. All these things make a difference, because there was no other excuse for Riis to fall off so much by next year's Tour when the only explanation was the introduction of the 50% limit.

As far as I remember Riis fell ill during the 97 Tour and had to content with supporting Ullrich. Although he did finish about half an hour down on Jan he still pulled 7th place and no one was close to the German. Maybe a problematic BB had something to do with him feeling poorly, maybe it didn't.

Don't remember which year he threw his TT bike around, but let's just conclude that didn't help the overall either...

According to his autobiography he flushed his stash when Festina happened and didn't start using again. Whether it's true or not only he knows, but not doping at all would obviously impact results more than "only doping to 50%".

Ok. Thanks.

In that case it begs to ask who was helping him?

Honestly, I am still incredulous about the transfusions.

Don't be - in the end transfusions probably never left the game completely before re-appearing.

I'm thinking Conconi is a good bet if not someone unknown publicly.
He's made it pretty clear he didn't like Ferrari and if he had he'd probably still have had access to him later if he wanted or at least have known more about USPS's doping scheme which Tyler's book indicates he didn't.

If Tyler's right when he claims Riis "wanted to meet Fuentes" then it's also pretty clear they weren't involved when Riis rode.

Cecchini looks more and more like the non-dope doctor Riis and others have long and hard claimed and Riis has categorically stated he got his doping elsewhere. However, there's a difference between meds and transfusions, so not entirely sure.

Riis has stated that his "supplier" is no longer involved in cycling (when he confessed in 2007 I think) and that would also correspond well with Conconi who - let's not forget - revolutionised the hour record w Moser in 84 on transfusions (and then again later w Moser and EPO).

I think Riis - like almost all Danish riders of the era - has also been connected to the Belgian doctor Georges Mouton who is also no longer involved in cycling, but apparently dabbles in anti-aging these days. Another lucrative market However, not sure Mouton ever did anything like transfusions - I think he was "just" a meds man.

Any other suggestions?

 

[Race Radio]

At the end of Indurain career Cyclesport published a book on his career.

In the book he made it clear that he was working with Conconi since 1986

Indurain's main doping doctor was Sabino Padilla. After he left the team searched for a replacement, including using Conconi for the same services, Indurain's career ended quickly.

What is next? Is there going to be a report that Gewiss worked with Ferrari?

 

[sniper]

Thanks for posting that page, RR.

I'm waiting for Pat to say that "Indurain has no place in cycling"

 

[Escarabajo]

...
In the book he made it clear that he was working with Conconi since 1986

Indurain's main doping doctor was Sabino Padilla. After he left the team searched for a replacement, including using Conconi for the same services, Indurain's career ended quickly.

What is next? Is there going to be a report that Gewiss worked with Ferrari?

Thanks. But he did follow Pantani quite often later in a few years. I guess he did not know of his potential. Especially in the 80's.

 

[Race Radio]

Indurain doing testing with Conconi in 1996

 

[Fearless Greg Lemond]

So, he was 78 kg? That would make Padilla's even more stupendous.

 

[131313]

Indurain doing testing with Conconi in 1996

Yeah, this has been well-know for years? This "startling revelation" has been on Conconi's own wiki page forever?

Next up: Landis Doped During TDF Win!

must be a slow news day at CN...or easier to write about guys that aren't currently racing...

 

[sniper]

Yeah, this has been well-know for years? This "startling revelation" has been on Conconi's own wiki page forever?

Next up: Landis Doped During TDF Win!

must be a slow news day at CN...or easier to write about guys that aren't currently racing...

this is a point i tried to make a few pages back.
the 90s and 2000s are easily scapegoated and serve as some sort of excuse, it seems, to ignore the present, which is once again being sold as a new era in cycling.
all sounds too familiar.

look at the Dutch with their pre-2008 T&R stuff.

 

[hrotha]

Yeah, this has been well-know for years? This "startling revelation" has been on Conconi's own wiki page forever?

Next up: Landis Doped During TDF Win!

must be a slow news day at CN...or easier to write about guys that aren't currently racing...

I thought the news was that they had evidence of payments (larger than those consulting visits would justify and implying team-wide doping)?

 

[airstream]

As to a sudden Indurain's decline in 1996, probably it was a start of era of BB's poisoning. For us, fans, it is called just transfusions whereas its techlology has constantly changed and impoved. And if Ufe's clients became victims of tranfusions imperfections 10 years later, all the more so something similar could elementarily happen to Indu as well. One more reason could be abnormal changes in organism because of too intense doping usage. As we know, Pantani did the double because then his nature couldnot live with a normal hc so he had to use EPO to make it go up. It was a vital remedy. Hence I admit something similar (the opposite in terms of using doping, though) could occur with Indurain too.

 

[Race Radio]

As to a sudden Indurain's decline in 1996, probably it was a start of era of BB's poisoning. For us, fans, it is called just transfusions whereas its techlology has constantly changed and impoved. And if Ufe's clients became victims of tranfusions imperfections 10 years later, all the more so something similar could elementarily happen to Indu as well. One more reason could be abnormal changes in organism because of too intense doping usage. As we know, Pantani did the double because then his nature couldnot live with a normal hc so he had to use EPO to make it go up. It was a vital remedy. Hence I admit something similar (the opposite in terms of using doping, though) could occur with Indurain too.

I think Indurain's decline had more to do with Padilla leaving and the rest of the peloton's program catching up

 

[airstream]

I think Indurain's decline had more to do with Padilla leaving and the rest of the peloton's program catching up

Probably you are right. Though, I don't quite understand how the most titled and richest rider can turn out to be behind in doping ascect. Big guns strongly value their doping edge.

 

[Aleajactaest]

Read the USADA Reasoned Decision then. They explain why the SOL was waived in Armstrong's case.
.

For the record, the SOL was not waived, it was ignored. There either is or is not a SOL. The decided the evidence was so compelling that the SOL should not apply. Not sure you could get away with that little trick in an actual courtroom.