A thread on Indurain's doping

[Big Doopie]

...actually all this thread goes to prove is exactly what many posters (and -- dare i mention his name -- lemond) have said. that epo and blood doping totally changes the natural hierarchy, you can't know really who was the best, and it destroys the fun of the sport for the educated fan .

no question merckx was the best of his time. same hinault and all the others...

there shouldn't even be a debate about indurain.

but there is.

because we will never know who were the best cyclists from 1991 on.

 

[Polish]

...actually all this thread goes to prove is exactly what many posters (and -- dare i mention his name -- lemond) have said. that epo and blood doping totally changes the natural hierarchy, you can't know really who was the best, and it destroys the fun of the sport for the educated fan .

no question merckx was the best of his time. same hinault and all the others...

there shouldn't even be a debate about indurain.

but there is.

because we will never know who were the best cyclists from 1991 on.

Maybe YOU will never know. Thats fine.
Not so sure about this "we" stuff though....

 

[luigiV]

Hautacam 2000, Armstrong 450 w !!!!

Les Deux Alpes 1998, Pantani 450 w !!!!!!

Arcalis 1997,Ullrich 474 w !!!!!!!

Alpe d'Huez 1995, Pantani 460 w !!!!!

La Plagne 1995, Indurain 460 w !!!!!!



-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Alpe d'Huez 1987: Herrera 395 w 1989 Fignon, Delgado 390 w

Superbagnères: 1986, Lemond 380 w

Avoriaz: 1985, Herrera, Hinault 375 w


Look at the jump in watts after the ninties i think the team chefs got better meat after the nineties ...id say from spain no?

 

[ergmonkey]

Hautacam 2000, Armstrong 450 w !!!!

Les Deux Alpes 1998, Pantani 450 w !!!!!!

Arcalis 1997,Ullrich 474 w !!!!!!!

Alpe d'Huez 1995, Pantani 460 w !!!!!

La Plagne 1995, Indurain 460 w !!!!!!



-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Alpe d'Huez 1987: Herrera 395 w 1989 Fignon, Delgado 390 w

Superbagnères: 1986, Lemond 380 w

Avoriaz: 1985, Herrera, Hinault 375 w


Look at the jump in watts after the ninties i think the team chefs got better meat after the nineties ...id say from spain no?

There's no use posting wattages if you're not also going to post rider weights. Especially when you've got such extreme examples as Pantani and Indurain thrown together.

 

[Exroadman24902]

Fignon-year 1 of pro career 1982-7th Giro, TDF year 2, Roche Year 3 of career 1983-13th Tour de France, Greg Lemond year 3 1984-3rd Tour De France. Miguel Indurain-crap climber, crap GC rider until year 5 of pro career. it doesn't take Sherlock homes to work out Indurain is purely a product of the EPO era, unlike the three naturally good grand tour riders I highlight and you fanboys ignore to the point you look silly

 

[luigiV]

There's no use posting wattages if you're not also going to post rider weights. Especially when you've got such extreme examples as Pantani and Indurain thrown together.[/QU

yeh no **** well if you got time and by the looks of it you do!!.. go post the weight and the watts for the riders i listed and well go from there thanx ergobananaMonkey...nineties seen a jump in watts with the top pros are you gonna sit there and tell me otherwise pfffft regardless of weight or whatever ..power/watts was on the rise back then !!

 

[AngusW]

Fignon-year 1 of pro career 1982-7th Giro, TDF year 2, Roche Year 3 of career 1983-13th Tour de France, Greg Lemond year 3 1984-3rd Tour De France. Miguel Indurain-crap climber, crap GC rider until year 5 of pro career. it doesn't take Sherlock homes to work out Indurain is purely a product of the EPO era, unlike the three naturally good grand tour riders I highlight and you fanboys ignore to the point you look silly

Greg Lemond started his pro career in 1981, so 1984 was his 4th year as a pro.

Indurain was a good GC rider in 1986 (2nd pro year), winning the Tour de l'Avenir.

 

[saganftw]

is there some study showing GT winners has to show potential early in their careers or else...?

i doubt that,what about mountainbikers?are they allowed to win GT?

those who claim indurain was pure epo result,are you seriously trying to say EPO can make you GT winner out of nothing? holy sjit batman where can i buy it,im sooo gonna try

how much do PEDs help you to become GT winner is arguable,however the talent has to be there in the first place

(also i wouldnt take lemonds word as set in stone,im sure he wasnt riding on bread and water either)

 

[Franklin]

Fignon-year 1 of pro career 1982-7th Giro, TDF year 2, Roche Year 3 of career 1983-13th Tour de France, Greg Lemond year 3 1984-3rd Tour De France. Miguel Indurain-crap climber, crap GC rider until year 5 of pro career. it doesn't take Sherlock homes to work out Indurain is purely a product of the EPO era, unlike the three naturally good grand tour riders I highlight and you fanboys ignore to the point you look silly

Smooth... noone denies Indurain more than likely used Epo.

But your little shtick that makes Indurain just as surprising as Lance won't work. The problem is people like me actually watched cycling in those years and we do not accept history falsification... your ploy is exposed. Do not waste our time.

Begone Livewrong fool!

 

[Big Doopie]

is there some study showing GT winners has to show potential early in their careers or else...?

there is a long history pre-1991 of that being the case. that is fact.

btw, who is the one rider post-1991 that no one argues would have won his tour (if not many, many more) no matter what -- even if epo and blood doping didn't come along?

ullrich.

why?

hmmm. let's see now:

first tour. age 22. 2nd. working for a team mate (and still almost won). showed potential dominance in ITTs and excellent climbing in a world class field.
second tour. age 23. 1st.

end of story.

those who claim indurain was pure epo result,are you seriously trying to say EPO can make you GT winner out of nothing?

umm....no.

this is the same argument that is thrown at armstrong detractors. no one is saying that. of course indurain is more than a talented athlete. what is only in question is whether he would have dominated (or even won) a tour without epo. there is a huge gulf between finishing 10th and winning. the guy who finishes tenth, however, is a superb athlete in his own right, without a doubt.

how much do PEDs help you to become GT winner is arguable,however the talent has to be there in the first place

precisely, it is arguable. so why do you expect no argument? i would argue that epo and blood doping provide an insurmountable advantage. that a good pro can become a great one. all the evidence points to that. that is why people argue about the merits of riders post-1991. there is very little argument about riders pre-1991. that is arguably what is most frustrating about the post-1991 era. there is no known heirarchy. how could one possibly cheer any rider's successes when we now know the utter corruption and fraud that has been sold to us all these years?

(also i wouldnt take lemonds word as set in stone,im sure he wasnt riding on bread and water either)

...and there we have it, the de facto baseless mudsling at lemond that accompanies this typical (and hypocritical) post.

 

[saganftw]

there is a long history pre-1991 of that being the case. that is fact.

btw, who is the one rider post-1991 that no one argues would have won his tour (if not many, many more) no matter what -- even if epo and blood doping didn't come along?

ullrich.

why?

hmmm. let's see now:

first tour. age 22. 2nd. working for a team mate (and still almost won). showed potential dominance in ITTs and excellent climbing in a world class field.
second tour. age 23. 1st.

end of story.



umm....no.

this is the same argument that is thrown at armstrong detractors. no one is saying that. of course indurain is more than a talented athlete. what is only in question is whether he would have dominated (or even won) a tour without epo. there is a huge gulf between finishing 10th and winning. the guy who finishes tenth, however, is a superb athlete in his own right, without a doubt.



precisely, it is arguable. so why do you expect no argument? i would argue that epo and blood doping provide an insurmountable advantage. that a good pro can become a great one. all the evidence points to that. that is why people argue about the merits of riders post-1991. there is very little argument about riders pre-1991. that is arguably what is most frustrating about the post-1991 era. there is no known heirarchy. how could one possibly cheer any rider's successes when we now know the utter corruption and fraud that has been sold to us all these years?



...and there we have it, the de facto baseless mudsling at lemond that accompanies this typical (and hypocritical) post.

i loled...then i realized you were serious...so i loled more

you didnt read the thread or what? u missed number of posters who stated that indurain was PURE epo product,he came out of nothing,no results,no talent BANG! 5 TdF...this is not true,he was talented since juniors,EPO just made him even better,but talent was always there...with those long TT in 90s he would have won some GTs anyway (same as ulrich - btw product of east germany,do i have to say more or do you want me to google some east germany athletes pictures?)

i like that if i say lemond wasnt clean (beating fignon who was on PEDs anyone?suuuure he was just very talented) its de facto baseless...but baseless mudsling on indurain is apparently ok

nice try bro,come out of closet and you will realize cycling was never ever ever eeeeeeever clean

 

[hrotha]

You registered a year ago and have almost 500 posts, so I'm going to assume you have read many discussions about why PEDs in the 80s weren't game-changing and are in no way comparable to EPO, as well as many discussions about how there's absolutely no evidence of LeMond ever using PEDs, so I'm going to assume you're trolling now.

 

[Big Doopie]

and i loled. he quoted every one of my points and then failed to respond to any of them.

um...troll, anyone?

 

[ergmonkey]

There's no use posting wattages if you're not also going to post rider weights. Especially when you've got such extreme examples as Pantani and Indurain thrown together.[/QU

yeh no **** well if you got time and by the looks of it you do!!.. go post the weight and the watts for the riders i listed and well go from there thanx ergobananaMonkey...nineties seen a jump in watts with the top pros are you gonna sit there and tell me otherwise pfffft regardless of weight or whatever ..power/watts was on the rise back then !!

Feel better now after that rant?

And if you've seen any of my posts on doping in the 90s and 2000s, you shouldn't have any doubt as to where I stand.

 

[VeloCity]

Fignon-year 1 of pro career 1982-7th Giro, TDF year 2, Roche Year 3 of career 1983-13th Tour de France, Greg Lemond year 3 1984-3rd Tour De France. Miguel Indurain-crap climber, crap GC rider until year 5 of pro career. it doesn't take Sherlock homes to work out Indurain is purely a product of the EPO era, unlike the three naturally good grand tour riders I highlight and you fanboys ignore to the point you look silly

Again:

1984: Withdrew
1985: Withdrew, 4th stage
1986: Withdrew, 8th stage
1987: 97th
1988: 47th
1989: 17th
1990: 10th
1991: 1st
1992: 1st
1993: 1st
1994: 1st
1995: 1st
1996: 11th

Looks like a pretty steady Tour progression to me. No sudden jump to becoming a Tour GC'er after showing no previous signs of being a GC rider, like we saw with Riis and Armstrong.

And that's ignoring that Indurain won the Tour de l'Avenir (back then, l'Avenir was considered the "amateur" Tour de France - other winners over the years include Lemond, Fignon, Mottet, Menchov) in '86, Catalunya in '88, the Criterium International in '89, Paris-Nice in both '89 and '90, and 7th in the Vuelta in '90 - ie all results before his first Tour win. Clearly the guy was a good climber and TT'er from the get-go.

The signs were all there. You just choose to ignore them.

 

[Exroadman24902]

Smooth... noone denies Indurain more than likely used Epo.

But your little shtick that makes Indurain just as surprising as Lance won't work. The problem is people like me actually watched cycling in those years and we do not accept history falsification... your ploy is exposed. Do not waste our time.

Begone Livewrong fool!

We only need to deal with the 3 grand tours. They are what Indurain was the best at and we need to see if he showed any early signs in such 3 week events. Lemond was 3rd in his second grand tour (he did Spain in 83, and France 84-3rd overall), Fignon won his second grand tour (Spain his first too I recall in 83, 7th in GC), Roche 13th on GC in his first grand tour (I believe France-1983) and 3rd on GC in 1985 TDF. Don't waste time googling to see if Indurain showed any GC results in his early partiticpations in grand tours.. he had 4 lousy years of having his *** kicked over the mountains in every grand tour he did. Show me any decent GC performance by Indurain before 1989. I believe he did the Vuelta 85, and Vuelta-TDF combo 86,87,88 and you wil not find any sign of him other than hours down-nothing like Roche, Fignon, Lemond.

In case you are struggling, those 3 greats from the 80s showed it by their first or second grand tour participation with high final GC placings. It took Indurain 7 or 8 grand tours starts in 5 years of pro racing before he could get over hills and ride with
the GC contender group for 3 weeks. When did they start their grand tour careers and when did they get their first big GC results?..that's what you want to ignore

It is quite obvious Indurain wasn't a natural..the other 3 were

 

[mastersracer]

Again:

1984: Withdrew
1985: Withdrew, 4th stage
1986: Withdrew, 8th stage
1987: 97th
1988: 47th
1989: 17th
1990: 10th
1991: 1st
1992: 1st
1993: 1st
1994: 1st
1995: 1st
1996: 11th

Looks like a pretty steady Tour progression to me. No sudden jump to becoming a Tour GC'er after showing no previous signs of being a GC rider, like we saw with Riis and Armstrong.

And that's ignoring that Indurain won the Tour de l'Avenir (back then, l'Avenir was considered the "amateur" Tour de France - other winners over the years include Lemond, Fignon, Mottet, Menchov) in '86, Catalunya in '88, the Criterium International in '89, Paris-Nice in both '89 and '90, and 7th in the Vuelta in '90 - ie all results before his first Tour win. Clearly the guy was a good climber and TT'er from the get-go.

The signs were all there. You just choose to ignore them.

you need to look back at previous posts to see how this compares to his cohort - Tour winners from the early 80s to his first win. Indurain does not show a "steady" progression compared to this group. His first 5 Tours are not indicative of a future dominant grand tour rider. The standard explanation is that he was too heavy to do well in the mountains but in the late 80s found new form through reduced weight thanks to Conconi's mentoring. That sounds a lot like the explanation about another dominant grand tour winner who also was nowhere his early Tours...

 

[Exroadman24902]

Again:

1984: Withdrew
1985: Withdrew, 4th stage
1986: Withdrew, 8th stage
1987: 97th
1988: 47th
1989: 17th
1990: 10th
1991: 1st
1992: 1st
1993: 1st
1994: 1st
1995: 1st
1996: 11th

Looks like a pretty steady Tour progression to me. No sudden jump to becoming a Tour GC'er after showing no previous signs of being a GC rider, like we saw with Riis and Armstrong.

And that's ignoring that Indurain won the Tour de l'Avenir (back then, l'Avenir was considered the "amateur" Tour de France - other winners over the years include Lemond, Fignon, Mottet, Menchov) in '86, Catalunya in '88, the Criterium International in '89, Paris-Nice in both '89 and '90, and 7th in the Vuelta in '90 - ie all results before his first Tour win. Clearly the guy was a good climber and TT'er from the get-go.

The signs were all there. You just choose to ignore them.

3 week grand tours are what we should discuss as where were the signs he could win 7 ..leave the other stuff out-it just shows you have lost the argument. And why do you highlight his 4 lousy years at grand tours? Deluded fanboy you are

edit-where are all his low GC finishes in the Vuelta 85-88..he rode it every year am sure..so there are around 7 or 8 lousy GC results and you only post his TDF GC placings

 

[VeloCity]

3 week grand tours are what we should discuss as where were the signs he could win 7 ..leave the other stuff out

"Leave the other stuff out"?? Your argument is that Indurain couldn't climb or TT before his "miraculous" emergence in the '91 Tour. Clearly that's complete nonsense - the "other stuff" shows that he could climb and TT well before his rise as a GT GC rider.

What does this have to with anything anyway? We all agree that Indurain was probably doping. But to equate his situation with Armstrong's is just stupid - there's very little evidence that Indurain was doping plus it was 20 years ago, so what can we possibly discuss about him in the Clinic?

"Hey Indurain was probably doping." "Yeah I agree." "Um, well ok then".

On the other hand, there is a ton of evidence that Armstrong was doping and more is emerging every day (seemingly) and all of it is current and relevant to the most recent dominant GT rider.

Odd, then, that we don't talk about Indurain as much as we do Armstrong.

 

[Exroadman24902]

"Leave the other stuff out"?? Your argument is that Indurain couldn't climb or TT before his "miraculous" emergence in the '91 Tour. Clearly that's complete nonsense - the "other stuff" shows that he could climb and TT well before his rise as a GT GC rider.

What does this have to with anything anyway? We all agree that Indurain was probably doping. But to equate his situation with Armstrong's is just stupid - there's very little evidence that Indurain was doping plus it was 20 years ago, so what can we possibly discuss about him in the Clinic?

"Hey Indurain was probably doping." "Yeah I agree." "Um, well ok then".

On the other hand, there is a ton of evidence that Armstrong was doping and more is emerging every day (seemingly) and all of it is current and relevant to the most recent dominant GT rider.

Odd, then, that we don't talk about Indurain as much as we do Armstrong.

No, I didn't say Indurain couldn't climb or TT well...but there was no sign whatsoever he could do it consistently over 21 days in the first 5 years of his career unlike 3 others who stood out in the first couple of grand tours they did as strong all rounders. You listed Indurain's early TDF GC results and conveniently left out IMO yet another 4 low GC results 1985-1988 in the Vuelta. The 3 natural grand tour guys I mention put Indurain's first 5 years GC results to shame.

Re your attempt to bring in non grand tour racing results to bolster you weak argument.... just look at the names who have won many hilly 1 week stage races-people who never rode well in GC at grand tours because 3 weeks is a whole other thing and Mig was not an impressive all round 3 week racer at all. So there is no reason to look beyond grand tours and if we did, it doesn't back your argument up.

As for the Armstrong stuff, I am guessing you're another fickle anti-doper-not anti-doping per se, but when it's Lance A you are anti-doping I guess..but not on Indurain judging by your fanboyish slightly weak argument..you do believe Indurain was very good, not doping related. What a fanboy attitude. That is called double standards

 

[VeloCity]

No, I didn't say Indurain couldn't climb or TT well...

Huh. Any of these sound familiar? "a non-climber till the age of 27"; "Indurain was 5 years a non climber"; "Miguel Indurain-crap climber".

Re your attempt to bring in non grand tour racing results to bolster you weak argument.... just look at the names who have won many hilly 1 week stage races-people who never rode well in GC at grand tours because 3 weeks is a whole other thing and Mig was not an impressive all round 3 week racer at all. So there is no reason to look beyond grand tours and if we did, it doesn't back your argument up.

And look how many riders won hilly 1-week stage races early in their careers who then went on to become great GT riders. So what exactly is your point? That riders who win 1-week hilly stage races never go on to become great GC riders? Obviously they do.

At the Tour Indurain steadily improved year after year and steadily moved up the GC standings until he eventually won. Sorry. I know you don't like it, but it's true.

As for the Armstrong stuff, I am guessing you're another fickle anti-doper-not anti-doping per se, but when it's Lance A you are anti-doping I guess..but not on Indurain judging by your fanboyish slightly weak argument..you do believe Indurain was very good, not doping related. What a fanboy attitude. That is called double standards

Reading comprehension is not one of your strong points, is it? I've said that I believe Indurain was doping in just about every single post I've made in this thread.

But there is still a big difference between the two: Indurain showed plenty of signs that he could become a great GC rider well before his first GT/Tour win and progressed and improved each year. Armstrong was the exact opposite - a good but not great TT'er who showed very little climbing ability but then boom, 4th at the Vuelta and winning the Tour - and the TT's and climbing stages - several months later. No progression whatsoever, just one year a middle-of-the-pack'er and the next a dominant Tour winner.

 

[cat6cx]

I just caved in and ordered the "Indurain 5 pack DVD" from WCP.

It was on sale.

I'll watch it and chime in with my theories.

 

[Franklin]

It is quite obvious Indurain wasn't a natural..the other 3 were

You realize that I'm laughing so hard about your Lance agitprop action.

You are exposed and have zero credibility. Actions like these are an indication that Livewrong is indeed in dire straits.

God I can feel the desperation in your post... just keep trying o falsify history... it won't help as it has been refuted. And your persistence just exposes you for what you are...

You don't even try to deny it anymore.

Livewrong fool begone

 

[mastersracer]

H
But there is still a big difference between the two: Indurain showed plenty of signs that he could become a great GC rider well before his first GT/Tour win and progressed and improved each year. Armstrong was the exact opposite - a good but not great TT'er who showed very little climbing ability but then boom, 4th at the Vuelta and winning the Tour - and the TT's and climbing stages - several months later. No progression whatsoever, just one year a middle-of-the-pack'er and the next a dominant Tour winner.

I'm no Armstrong fan, but that's a real stretch. Armstrong was not focusing on grand tours early in his career but had a lot more success than did Indruain in major races. He won the world championships in his second year as a pro - 2 years after converting from triathlons. He also won a stage at the Tour that year, won virtually every major race in the US (including the Tour du Pont, which had an international field), and came in 3rd in the Tour of Sweden. In his second year, he was 2nd in Liège–Bastogne–Liège and 2nd in San Sebastián. In 96 he won du Pont, won Flèche Wallonne, was 2nd in Liège–Bastogne–Liège and 2nd in Paris–Nice. Other than the L'Avenir, there's not much on Indurain's palmares until around 1989. He never even did better than 4th in the Spanish championships. In 1988 his palmares is really thin then in 1989 he starts winning a lot of major races.

 

[khardung la]

I'm no Armstrong fan, but that's a real stretch. Armstrong was not focusing on grand tours early in his career but had a lot more success than did Indruain in major races. ....... In 1988 his palmares is really thin then in 1989 he starts winning a lot of major races.

Indurain won a stage of the tour de L'avenir in his first year of professional (20 years). Next year with 21 he got the yellow jersey during four stages in the Vuelta (the youngest rider ever) + 2 stages in Tour de L'Avenir. With 22 years he won the tour de L'avenir and 2 stages + Vuelta a Murcia. With 23 he won Vuelta a Murcia, Vuelta a Galicia and Semana Catalana, plus Vuelta a los Valles Mineros (including 3 stages, and they rode in mountainous areas).

Maybe you don't know/consider all those tours, but I can tell you that in that time they were very meaningful victories, and those expected from a Spanish future star. Budgets and tradition in that time led young riders to follow such a (local) calendar.