A thread on Indurain's doping

[VeloCity]

I am only interested in the merit of their wins, their careers. I feel many on the forum don't accord them equal respect. It isn't all Lance's fault-it's a totally shared responsibility with other omerta keepers like Indurain. Lance should keep his TDF wins as Indurain will keep his.

Armstrong will only lose his TdF wins if there is solid evidence or a confession that he doped during those Tours, and it will only apply to those Tours that are still within the statute of limitations. That's no longer possible with Indurain - even if solid evidence/confession were to come to light re: Indurain, it's well past the statute of limitations.

But the other difference is that, fair or not, there still isn't much evidence that Indurain was doping, while there's a growing flood that Armstrong was, and in the Armstrong case, it's here and now - so not really surprising that the focus is on Armstrong and not Indurain. So again, while I doubt that very many cycling fans believe Indurain was clean, they're two completely different circumstances - most likely that Indurain will get away with it, most likely that Armstrong won't.

 

[issoisso]

It's not that simple.

In the very cold (meaning: no allergies) 1987 Giro, as a neo-pro, he was 2nd overall, only 10 seconds behind the pink jersey Roche after 18 stages when he crashed out.
He showed GT prowess from the start. He just couldn't handle any kind of summer race in the heat for the first 5 or so years of his career. That and he missed a few GTs through several injuries.

As for the "did Induráin and Rominger dope?" question I see being bandied about in this topic I'm amazed anyone can even consider the possibility that they didn't. Davy testified that the Banesto team had systematized their doping, and Rominger's blood values in Ferrari's files suddenly start shooting up from 42% HcT or so in 1992 to almost 50 in 1993 and 55 in the 1995 Giro.

Actually, I just checked the 1987 Giro review video and I was wrong. He was 5 seconds behind Roche, not 10.

 

[hrotha]

Yes, Davey said that, but that was about the situation at the time of the Festina case.

If there had been any systematized doping on Banesto prior to that, it was only so that the mortals could keep up with Big Mig.

Dave.

Davy only rode for Banesto in 1995-1996.
(edit: also, what the hell, Wikipedia... He's 2 years older than I thought!)

 

[Exroadman24902]

Indurain is not an Omerta keeper. He is just shy, and not a good public speaker.

Dave.

he believed Riis should have kept quiet. I think he asked something like, what good does it do?...Indurain was for keeping it quiet. That's omerta

 

[Exroadman24902]

Armstrong will only lose his TdF wins if there is solid evidence or a confession that he doped during those Tours, and it will only apply to those Tours that are still within the statute of limitations. That's no longer possible with Indurain - even if solid evidence/confession were to come to light re: Indurain, it's well past the statute of limitations.

But the other difference is that, fair or not, there still isn't much evidence that Indurain was doping, while there's a growing flood that Armstrong was, and in the Armstrong case, it's here and now - so not really surprising that the focus is on Armstrong and not Indurain. So again, while I doubt that very many cycling fans believe Indurain was clean, they're two completely different circumstances - most likely that Indurain will get away with it, most likely that Armstrong won't.

rubbish..they are two completely identical cases and you are just an Indurain fanboy. end of debate

 

[Franklin]

from 1985 to 1988 there is no sign whatsoever of this huge, heavy tall rider becoming the best in the world in grand tours. Lemond, Roche, Fignon, all showed serious Tour de France GC form no later

Falsifying history is something you are really persistent about. Denying he showed potential as GC rider is undeniably false, but there is a motivation behind you posturing.... and here it comes:

the authorities should seize Indurain's b samples and retest for EPO...despite the clear two sample rule, despite the fact the A sample was clean when given. I'd also like the lab in question to have their testers come forward, under oath to explain how Indurain had a + go away like Lance is alleged to have had. 1994, 2001..not much different. No DOUBLE STANDARDS in clinic!

And here the hidden agenda pops into the open. By slamming Indurain due to changing history you make a case which is impossible to pursue.. and then by extension saving Lance.

Well done.

 

[Franklin]

I don't think that's exactly fair. "Ludicrous"? Lots of guys get hyped by the press.

I'm sorry, Indurain wasn't a case of nationalistic hype. He was seen as a GT winner not just by the Spanish press, he was seen that way by most Cycling magzines. And this kept on for years, it became stronger year after year until he won.

His adjudantship of Perico was written about year after year (when would he take over?) as was his slow masterplan guided by Echevarri. The lack of mention of Conconi does ring alarmbells, but that's not then, that's hindsight.

And once again, this wasn't a Spanish newspaper. This was by respected cycling press all over Europe.

I didn't believe it... because I thought good things come fast. But I couldn't deny others did see it.

So there we have it: the statement that Indurain came out of nowhere is undeniably false.

Had Greg said: "I" didn't see it coming he would have a fine point. But saying "nobody" saw it coming is false. Jump up and down, scream from your balcony... this is simply history. Changing it to make a point is wrong.

 

[NedBraden]

Armstrong will only lose his TdF wins if there is solid evidence or a confession that he doped during those Tours, and it will only apply to those Tours that are still within the statute of limitations. That's no longer possible with Indurain - even if solid evidence/confession were to come to light re: Indurain, it's well past the statute of limitations.

But the other difference is that, fair or not, there still isn't much evidence that Indurain was doping, while there's a growing flood that Armstrong was, and in the Armstrong case, it's here and now - so not really surprising that the focus is on Armstrong and not Indurain. So again, while I doubt that very many cycling fans believe Indurain was clean, they're two completely different circumstances - most likely that Indurain will get away with it, most likely that Armstrong won't.

Why would they take away Armstrongs' wins? Have they taken away any other wins by people not caught during the race?

 

[hrotha]

Why would they take away Armstrongs' wins? Have they taken away any other wins by people not caught during the race?

There's an 8-year statute of limitations. Four of Lance's seven TdF titles should be safe now.

 

[D-Queued]

Davy only rode for Banesto in 1995-1996.
(edit: also, what the hell, Wikipedia... He's 2 years older than I thought!)

Details, details. It doesn't matter when he rode. He was testifying during Festina.

Ultimately, by purposeful design or by current circumstance, this thread has, can and will draw parallels between Indurain and Armstrong. As the evidence continues to mount on Armstrong's guilt, there is an all but obvious undertone on this - and other threads - that seeks to tar all others with the same brush. Apparently the belief is that if you can show others were doping, then Armstrong should be beatified and held as some sort of saint among sinners.

Given the USOC insights, the point at which Armstrong started doping is not as mysterious as when and if Indurain started doping.

In that case, the only way we can really compare the two is from this dated video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HmR9k8UAohs

That margin of dominance is why they call him Big Mig.

Dave.

 

[mastersracer]

Details, details. It doesn't matter when he rode. He was testifying during Festina.

Ultimately, by purposeful design or by current circumstance, this thread has, can and will draw parallels between Indurain and Armstrong. As the evidence continues to mount on Armstrong's guilt, there is an all but obvious undertone on this - and other threads - that seeks to tar all others with the same brush. Apparently the belief is that if you can show others were doping, then Armstrong should be beatified and held as some sort of saint among sinners.

Given the USOC insights, the point at which Armstrong started doping is not as mysterious as when and if Indurain started doping.

In that case, the only way we can really compare the two is from this dated video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HmR9k8UAohs

That margin of dominance is why they call him Big Mig.

Dave.

Where do people get the idea that admitting Indurain doped somehow lets Armstrong off the hook? Fact is, Indurain's wins coincide with the rise of sophisticated PED programs/drugs. From that point on, there's little reason to think any top Tour contender was clean. And maybe 1 podium placer during that time has not been implicated at least indirectly in a doping program...

 

[Hugh Januss]

Where do people get the idea that admitting Indurain doped somehow lets Armstrong off the hook? Fact is, Indurain's wins coincide with the rise of sophisticated PED programs/drugs. From that point on, there's little reason to think any top Tour contender was clean. And maybe 1 podium placer during that time has not been implicated at least indirectly in a doping program...

It's the set-up for the "Level Playing Field/they all did it" gambit.

 

[D-Queued]

Where do people get the idea that admitting Indurain doped somehow lets Armstrong off the hook? Fact is, Indurain's wins coincide with the rise of sophisticated PED programs/drugs. From that point on, there's little reason to think any top Tour contender was clean. And maybe 1 podium placer during that time has not been implicated at least indirectly in a doping program...

For all my defense of Indurain, I agree with you. I was enough of a fan to visit Treviso to meet Mr. Pinarello and ask how he helped make Indurain go so fast. I have the full kit and bike to show it off on. But, his domination matched EPO's arrival too closely to be ignored. It wasn't Mr. Pinarello after all.

Yes, the idea is crazy that proving Indurain doped lets Armstrong off the hook. But this is exactly the tactic, as Hugh very concisely summarized.

It is not a level playing field in the sport. Why should the defenders of it be expected to play by logic?

Reviewing Indurain's performances as a clue to EPO benefits is intellectually interesting. But, when it comes to defending dopers, intellectual arguments are quickly abandoned.

Dave.

 

[Benotti69]

It's the set-up for the "Level Playing Field/they all did it" gambit.

which i fail to see how it in any way lets Armstrong off the hook. might as well empty every single prison while we are at it.

Crazy argument from crazy people.

I am sure most believe Indurain's wins were big win on PED as Armstrong were.

 

[Hugh Januss]

which i fail to see how it in any way lets Armstrong off the hook. might as well empty every single prison while we are at it.

Crazy argument from crazy people.

I am sure most believe Indurain's wins were big win on PED as Armstrong were.

Poor Lance had no choice but to dope to the eyeballs in order to win for all those cancer sufferers out there.

 

[Benotti69]

Poor Lance had no choice but to dope to the eyeballs in order to win for all those cancer sufferers out there.

he's a true hero

 

[max_powers]

The Big Mig fast spin technique in the mountains, later adopted by LA was the key to their Tour success.

that is my theory, which is mine.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Falsifying history is something you are really persistent about. Denying he showed potential as GC rider is undeniably false, but there is a motivation behind you posturing.... and here it comes:



And here the hidden agenda pops into the open. By slamming Indurain due to changing history you make a case which is impossible to pursue.. and then by extension saving Lance.

Well done.

Correct - and don't forget in the Lance thread it was 'Exroadman' who was inquiring as to why there were no Indurain thread (there are) yet now they want to make the Indurain thread about LA.

From the Lance thread:

I was just saying, there are other big names the clinic good could gunning at but it seems the clinic only does big tex.

Re the link I posted, a rider says banesto had a doping regimen-it implicates Indurain, who went to Dr F too. Where are all the Indurain threads on clinic?

 

[VeloCity]

rubbish..they are two completely identical cases and you are just an Indurain fanboy. end of debate

Rubbish. They are not in the slightest two identical cases. We believe Indurain was doping but there's really not much evidence to support it; there's a ton of evidence that Armstrong was doping. Get it?

 

[icefire]

Lemond's quote was referring to the fact that Indurain wasn't exactly a grand tour prodigy. Circa 1990 a switch is flipped and from then on he goes on to dominate grand tours (include the double Giro/Tour in 92 and 93).

Tour de France
1984: Withdrew
1985: Withdrew, 4th stage
1986: Withdrew, 8th stage
1987: 97th
1988: 47th
1989: 17th
1990: 10th

Vuelta a España
1984: Withdrew
1985: 84th
1986: 92nd
1987: Withdrew
1988: Withdrew
1989: Withdrew
1990: 7th

That wiki entry has some facts wrong. Indurain became pro in September 1984. He din't race any GT that year. His first GT was the 1985 Vuelta, when he was 20 years. He was 2nd in the prologue and became the youngest leader after the 2nd stage, a record he still holds. He also holds the record of youngest winner of the amateur national championship in Spain at 18.

 

[icefire]

Little of topic question.

Anybody knows why Indurain dind't like the Vuelta and never had a serious go there?

Spring season allergies, or so he said. He had a go in 1991, and he was 2nd. After that year he only rode the Vuelta forced by his sponsor after his defeat in the 1996 Tour.

EDIT: Vuelta changed dates from April-May to September in 1995

 

[Benotti69]

That wiki entry has some facts wrong. Indurain became pro in September 1984. He din't race any GT that year. His first GT was the 1985 Vuelta, when he was 20 years. He was 2nd in the prologue and became the youngest leader after the 2nd stage, a record he still holds. He also holds the record of youngest winner of the amateur national championship in Spain at 18.

well that has multiple GT winner stamped all over it doesn't it.

 

[issoisso]

Spring season allergies, or so he said. He had a go in 1991, and he was 2nd. After that year he only rode the Vuelta forced by his sponsor after his defeat in the 1996 Tour.

EDIT: Vuelta changed dates from April-May to September in 1995

He first rode it as team leader in 89 but suffered several crashes so Delgado was forced to pick up the mantle.
In 1990 he was again the leader, but he disappointed and again ended up working for Delgado.

In 1991 he suffered in the cold (he was always far from his best in cold weather) and finished 2nd. After that, he simply preferred the Giro, until he was forced to ride the Vuelta again in 1996. At which point he commented that he was out of form, and retired in the early mountain stages saying he had bronchitis and felt as if he was breathing through a straw.

 

[Polish]

well that has multiple GT winner stamped all over it doesn't it.

It is clear now using hindsight of course.
Hindsight is 20/20 lol.

But back then only the knowledgeable knew.
(That rules out most in the clinic lol again.)
But Big Mig's potential as a pro was recognizable from his junior years.
He could get off the couch and win races.
One in a hundred million.....A True Champion. Patron. Humble.

 

[issoisso]

It is clear now using hindsight of course.
Hindsight is 20/20 lol.

But back then only the knowledgeable knew.
(That rules out most in the clinic lol again.)
But Big Mig's potential as a pro was recognizable from his junior years.
He could get off the couch and win races.
One in a hundred million.....A True Champion. Patron. Humble.

On another forum someone once posted, as a curiosity, a scan of an article in a 1987 issue of Cycle World talking about how nearly everyone involved in spanish cycling predicted this Induráin kid was going to be all that.