Indurain - Am I assuming correctly?

[sniper]

...
I only mentioned his name because you did.

no problem, 86tdfwinner. Just try to keep it on topic next time.

 

[@NL_LeMondFans]

Re: Re:

lol, I brought Lemond into this?

Anyway, I think it's perfectly clear why i mentioned him. It's called an argument.

But fair enough, forget Lemond: tell us why Miguel is such a bad guy?

I think Miguel is basically the Beatles of blood doping. With him, management and team doctors invented a lot of protocols which lead pro cycling to become a joke.

I don't necessarily think he is a bad person. I suspect he didn't care if it was good or bad. I suppose he just took it because he was told too. I don't really care, for that matter. But because his performances were stellar, many, many more cyclists thought they had no choice but to join the bandwagon.

I know he wasn't alone, I know someone else would have done it if not for him. But he did. And he got away with it.

Indurain represents the start of "why I lost interest for pro cycling". Just my opinion. He is also the symbol of a generation that "switched". In my opinion, there is definitely a "before EPO" era and an "after EPO" era and the guys that made the transition, well... I don't like them very much.

that's fair enough, thanks for expanding!

my point would be that there's little (if any) evidence that EPO started with Miguel.
Now if Indurain simply did what everybody around him was doing and turned out to be the best responder of the bunch (which I think is a possible scenario), then I don't think we can say he's worse than the others.
But I understand your sentiment.
And sure, I'm not discarding the possibility that he geared up more than others, either.

I'm just connecting dots. I wouldn't say Indurain introduced EPO. Just like the Beatles didn't introduce electric guitars. I believe Indurain's entourage are the 1st to have introduced a proper and efficient protocol. It's my personal conviction. Luxembourg 1992, to me, is the turning point. I wouldn't be surprised Chiappucci used way more EPO in 1991 than Indurain. But again, it's just my guess.

 

[@NL_LeMondFans]

...
I only mentioned his name because you did.

no problem, 86tdfwinner. Just try to keep it on topic next time.

Aaahhh... Come on, Sniper... You started it. The only link to Indurain in your post is wether Greg would talk to him or not. Hardly on topic.

this whole exchange is interesting.
as you know, there was a rumor in the peloton in the 90s that Lemond introduced EPO in the peloton. Of course, there are also arguments to suggest that Lemond had nothing to do with EPO.
But the point is: as long as we don't know who was/were the first users of EPO, it seems unfair to speak about Indurain the way you do. And as you know, Lemond wouldn't talk about Indurain like that either.

 

[doperhopper]

Re: Re:

lol, I brought Lemond into this?

Anyway, I think it's perfectly clear why i mentioned him. It's called an argument.

But fair enough, forget Lemond: tell us why Miguel is such a bad guy?

I think Miguel is basically the Beatles of blood doping. With him, management and team doctors invented a lot of protocols which lead pro cycling to become a joke.

I don't necessarily think he is a bad person. I suspect he didn't care if it was good or bad. I suppose he just took it because he was told too. I don't really care, for that matter. But because his performances were stellar, many, many more cyclists thought they had no choice but to join the bandwagon.

I know he wasn't alone, I know someone else would have done it if not for him. But he did. And he got away with it.

Indurain represents the start of "why I lost interest for pro cycling". Just my opinion. He is also the symbol of a generation that "switched". In my opinion, there is definitely a "before EPO" era and an "after EPO" era and the guys that made the transition, well... I don't like them very much.

that's fair enough, thanks for expanding!

my point would be that there's little (if any) evidence that EPO started with Miguel.
Now if Indurain simply did what everybody around him was doing and turned out to be the best responder of the bunch (which I think is a possible scenario), then I don't think we can say he's worse than the others.
But I understand your sentiment.
And sure, I'm not discarding the possibility that he geared up more than others, either.

I'm just connecting dots. I wouldn't say Indurain introduced EPO. Just like the Beatles didn't introduce electric guitars. I believe Indurain's entourage are the 1st to have introduced a proper and efficient protocol. It's my personal conviction. Luxembourg 1992, to me, is the turning point. I wouldn't be surprised Chiappucci used way more EPO in 1991 than Indurain. But again, it's just my guess.

Quite so. Chiappa was a true laboratory (of Conconi&Disciples) and the first zero to hero EPOman, whereas BigMig was the first talented EPO champion (shedding 10 kilos wrt. his junior years helped too, Wiggo style).

 

[sniper]

Re: Re:

...
I'm just connecting dots. I wouldn't say Indurain introduced EPO. Just like the Beatles didn't introduce electric guitars. I believe Indurain's entourage are the 1st to have introduced a proper and efficient protocol. It's my personal conviction. Luxembourg 1992, to me, is the turning point. I wouldn't be surprised Chiappucci used way more EPO in 1991 than Indurain. But again, it's just my guess.

fair enough.
I'm glad you're calling him Indurain again, rather than Mig-hell.

 

[Rob27172]

"I know he wasn't alone, I know someone else would have done it if not for him. But he did. And he got away with it.

Indurain represents the start of "why I lost interest for pro cycling". Just my opinion. He is also the symbol of a generation that "switched". In my opinion, there is definitely a "before EPO" era and an "after EPO" era and the guys that made the transition, well... I don't like them very much."

This statement intrigues me somewhat
The fact that you have always had cheating in some format within cycling and the fact that there are guys dying half way up mountains in the TdF but you chose EPO as the big evil that changed cycling forever and your reason to Dislike Indurain

Don't get me wrong I agree with your assumption in the fact Mig was a driver of the move to EPO and the fact that he was a mentor for Lance is probably a bit of a give away, "Here use these excuses and learn to peddle a lot faster than the other guys - it worked for me"

But the fact is the sport was rotten before Mig and would have been if it was someone else other than him .

I am just as upset that some of the peleton died trying to keep up with the cannibal and whatever hellish mixture of amphetamines and drugs he would take in a race.

So just curious as to why you single out Indurain for your distaste

 

[@NL_LeMondFans]

Re:

"I know he wasn't alone, I know someone else would have done it if not for him. But he did. And he got away with it.

Indurain represents the start of "why I lost interest for pro cycling". Just my opinion. He is also the symbol of a generation that "switched". In my opinion, there is definitely a "before EPO" era and an "after EPO" era and the guys that made the transition, well... I don't like them very much."

This statement intrigues me somewhat
The fact that you have always had cheating in some format within cycling and the fact that there are guys dying half way up mountains in the TdF but you chose EPO as the big evil that changed cycling forever and your reason to Dislike Indurain

Don't get me wrong I agree with your assumption in the fact Mig was a driver of the move to EPO and the fact that he was a mentor for Lance is probably a bit of a give away, "Here use these excuses and learn to peddle a lot faster than the other guys - it worked for me"

But the fact is the sport was rotten before Mig and would have been if it was someone else other than him .

I am just as upset that some of the peleton died trying to keep up with the cannibal and whatever hellish mixture of amphetamines and drugs he would take in a race.

So just curious as to why you single out Indurain for your distaste

I don't single out Indurain. This thread does. If you read my article, you'll find the likes of Chiappucci and Erik Breukink being discussed as well, and not in a flattering kind of way.

To answer your question, the early 90's are when I stopped being able to identify myself to pro cycling. Before that, when I watched a race, I could relate to the kind of effort was being pictured. I could live it. When guys started climbing with their hands on the lowest position on the handlebar... It just ruined it, for me. And I believe the gap between clean and doped up until then was not as bad as what blood doping achieved. It was not good, but not this bad.

On a personal level, it is also in synch with Greg LeMond's demise. But, as his teammate Eric Boyer said when I interviewed him last summer, I think Greg was beaten by illness before he was beaten by EPO.

 

[Cannibal72]

Re:

"I know he wasn't alone, I know someone else would have done it if not for him. But he did. And he got away with it.

Indurain represents the start of "why I lost interest for pro cycling". Just my opinion. He is also the symbol of a generation that "switched". In my opinion, there is definitely a "before EPO" era and an "after EPO" era and the guys that made the transition, well... I don't like them very much."

This statement intrigues me somewhat
The fact that you have always had cheating in some format within cycling and the fact that there are guys dying half way up mountains in the TdF but you chose EPO as the big evil that changed cycling forever and your reason to Dislike Indurain

Don't get me wrong I agree with your assumption in the fact Mig was a driver of the move to EPO and the fact that he was a mentor for Lance is probably a bit of a give away, "Here use these excuses and learn to peddle a lot faster than the other guys - it worked for me"

But the fact is the sport was rotten before Mig and would have been if it was someone else other than him .

I am just as upset that some of the peleton died trying to keep up with the cannibal and whatever hellish mixture of amphetamines and drugs he would take in a race.

So just curious as to why you single out Indurain for your distaste

Okay, so I'm a bit biased when it comes to a certain Belgian - as you can probably tell - but I can't accept this. To claim 'some of the peloton died trying to keep up' is disingenuous and wrong. As far as I can tell, no pro cyclists died thanks to doping from Tom Simpson up until the Belgian/Dutch pros experimenting with EPO in the late 80s; moreover, Merckx's hellish mixture was the default of the time. Up until Simpson at least and until Indurain to some extent, the attitude was still a forcats du pave one: doping was needed to finish these races, but wasn't needed to win as such. 'Do you think we're riding the Tour on bread and water?' as Anquetil famously asked. You can still consider this as partially acceptable. Riders controlled their diets and took vitamin supplements to be fit for races, so what was different about straying over into caffeine and stuff? (There's also some doubt about whether the usage of people like Fignon was recreational or performance-enhancing, if there's any difference between the two in these situations.) You didn't need EPO to finish a race in the early 1990s, but you did to win. That's what people find so questionable: it's the first significantly performance-ENHANCING drug, where the amphetamines and alcohol were performance-ENABLING drugs (if that makes any sense at all...) EPO doesn't just change the playing field, it blows it up with an atomic bomb. It has such an effect that it makes natural ability a secondary factor in bike races.

 

[Maxiton]

Re: Re:

"I know he wasn't alone, I know someone else would have done it if not for him. But he did. And he got away with it.

Indurain represents the start of "why I lost interest for pro cycling". Just my opinion. He is also the symbol of a generation that "switched". In my opinion, there is definitely a "before EPO" era and an "after EPO" era and the guys that made the transition, well... I don't like them very much."

This statement intrigues me somewhat
The fact that you have always had cheating in some format within cycling and the fact that there are guys dying half way up mountains in the TdF but you chose EPO as the big evil that changed cycling forever and your reason to Dislike Indurain

Don't get me wrong I agree with your assumption in the fact Mig was a driver of the move to EPO and the fact that he was a mentor for Lance is probably a bit of a give away, "Here use these excuses and learn to peddle a lot faster than the other guys - it worked for me"

But the fact is the sport was rotten before Mig and would have been if it was someone else other than him .

I am just as upset that some of the peleton died trying to keep up with the cannibal and whatever hellish mixture of amphetamines and drugs he would take in a race.

So just curious as to why you single out Indurain for your distaste

Okay, so I'm a bit biased when it comes to a certain Belgian - as you can probably tell - but I can't accept this. To claim 'some of the peloton died trying to keep up' is disingenuous and wrong. As far as I can tell, no pro cyclists died thanks to doping from Tom Simpson up until the Belgian/Dutch pros experimenting with EPO in the late 80s; moreover, Merckx's hellish mixture was the default of the time. Up until Simpson at least and until Indurain to some extent, the attitude was still a forcats du pave one: doping was needed to finish these races, but wasn't needed to win as such. 'Do you think we're riding the Tour on bread and water?' as Anquetil famously asked. You can still consider this as partially acceptable. Riders controlled their diets and took vitamin supplements to be fit for races, so what was different about straying over into caffeine and stuff? (There's also some doubt about whether the usage of people like Fignon was recreational or performance-enhancing, if there's any difference between the two in these situations.) You didn't need EPO to finish a race in the early 1990s, but you did to win. That's what people find so questionable: it's the first significantly performance-ENHANCING drug, where the amphetamines and alcohol were performance-ENABLING drugs (if that makes any sense at all...) EPO doesn't just change the playing field, it blows it up with an atomic bomb. It has such an effect that it makes natural ability a secondary factor in bike races.

Exactly right, IMO. The idea that "doping is doping" is extremely naive at best.

Not for nothing was Anquetil's famous rhetorical question, "Do you think we do this on bread and water?" preceded by the exclamation, "Fools!"

The doping of Merckx's time was palliative, nothing more. As you say, it enabled them to finish the race, and perhaps to start the race the next day, but not to win it. The real cleavage in the sport occurred with the systematization of oxygen-vector doping, especially Edgar Allen Poe, which for pro cycling was the Descent into the Maelstrom, the Oblong Box, and the Premature Burial.

Edit: And now more than ever riders are forcats du pave.

 

[@NL_LeMondFans]

Re: Re:

"I know he wasn't alone, I know someone else would have done it if not for him. But he did. And he got away with it.

Indurain represents the start of "why I lost interest for pro cycling". Just my opinion. He is also the symbol of a generation that "switched". In my opinion, there is definitely a "before EPO" era and an "after EPO" era and the guys that made the transition, well... I don't like them very much."

This statement intrigues me somewhat
The fact that you have always had cheating in some format within cycling and the fact that there are guys dying half way up mountains in the TdF but you chose EPO as the big evil that changed cycling forever and your reason to Dislike Indurain

Don't get me wrong I agree with your assumption in the fact Mig was a driver of the move to EPO and the fact that he was a mentor for Lance is probably a bit of a give away, "Here use these excuses and learn to peddle a lot faster than the other guys - it worked for me"

But the fact is the sport was rotten before Mig and would have been if it was someone else other than him .

I am just as upset that some of the peleton died trying to keep up with the cannibal and whatever hellish mixture of amphetamines and drugs he would take in a race.

So just curious as to why you single out Indurain for your distaste

Okay, so I'm a bit biased when it comes to a certain Belgian - as you can probably tell - but I can't accept this. To claim 'some of the peloton died trying to keep up' is disingenuous and wrong. As far as I can tell, no pro cyclists died thanks to doping from Tom Simpson up until the Belgian/Dutch pros experimenting with EPO in the late 80s; moreover, Merckx's hellish mixture was the default of the time. Up until Simpson at least and until Indurain to some extent, the attitude was still a forcats du pave one: doping was needed to finish these races, but wasn't needed to win as such. 'Do you think we're riding the Tour on bread and water?' as Anquetil famously asked. You can still consider this as partially acceptable. Riders controlled their diets and took vitamin supplements to be fit for races, so what was different about straying over into caffeine and stuff? (There's also some doubt about whether the usage of people like Fignon was recreational or performance-enhancing, if there's any difference between the two in these situations.) You didn't need EPO to finish a race in the early 1990s, but you did to win. That's what people find so questionable: it's the first significantly performance-ENHANCING drug, where the amphetamines and alcohol were performance-ENABLING drugs (if that makes any sense at all...) EPO doesn't just change the playing field, it blows it up with an atomic bomb. It has such an effect that it makes natural ability a secondary factor in bike races.

Exactly right, IMO. The idea that "doping is doping" is extremely naive at best.

Not for nothing was Anquetil's famous rhetorical question, "Do you think we do this on bread and water?" preceded by the exclamation, "Fools!"

The doping of Merckx's time was palliative, nothing more. As you say, it enabled them to finish the race, and perhaps to start the race the next day, but not to win it. The real cleavage in the sport occurred with the systematization of oxygen-vector doping, especially Edgar Allen Poe, which for pro cycling was the Descent into the Maelstrom, the Oblong Box, and the Premature Burial.

Edit: And now more than ever riders are forcats du pave.

The exact quote is "Forçats de la route". A "forçat" is someone who is forced to do something against his will. Prisoners condemned to forced labour were called like that. The word is not in use anymore.

 

[Maxiton]

Re: Re:

"I know he wasn't alone, I know someone else would have done it if not for him. But he did. And he got away with it.

Indurain represents the start of "why I lost interest for pro cycling". Just my opinion. He is also the symbol of a generation that "switched". In my opinion, there is definitely a "before EPO" era and an "after EPO" era and the guys that made the transition, well... I don't like them very much."

This statement intrigues me somewhat
The fact that you have always had cheating in some format within cycling and the fact that there are guys dying half way up mountains in the TdF but you chose EPO as the big evil that changed cycling forever and your reason to Dislike Indurain

Don't get me wrong I agree with your assumption in the fact Mig was a driver of the move to EPO and the fact that he was a mentor for Lance is probably a bit of a give away, "Here use these excuses and learn to peddle a lot faster than the other guys - it worked for me"

But the fact is the sport was rotten before Mig and would have been if it was someone else other than him .

I am just as upset that some of the peleton died trying to keep up with the cannibal and whatever hellish mixture of amphetamines and drugs he would take in a race.

So just curious as to why you single out Indurain for your distaste

Okay, so I'm a bit biased when it comes to a certain Belgian - as you can probably tell - but I can't accept this. To claim 'some of the peloton died trying to keep up' is disingenuous and wrong. As far as I can tell, no pro cyclists died thanks to doping from Tom Simpson up until the Belgian/Dutch pros experimenting with EPO in the late 80s; moreover, Merckx's hellish mixture was the default of the time. Up until Simpson at least and until Indurain to some extent, the attitude was still a forcats du pave one: doping was needed to finish these races, but wasn't needed to win as such. 'Do you think we're riding the Tour on bread and water?' as Anquetil famously asked. You can still consider this as partially acceptable. Riders controlled their diets and took vitamin supplements to be fit for races, so what was different about straying over into caffeine and stuff? (There's also some doubt about whether the usage of people like Fignon was recreational or performance-enhancing, if there's any difference between the two in these situations.) You didn't need EPO to finish a race in the early 1990s, but you did to win. That's what people find so questionable: it's the first significantly performance-ENHANCING drug, where the amphetamines and alcohol were performance-ENABLING drugs (if that makes any sense at all...) EPO doesn't just change the playing field, it blows it up with an atomic bomb. It has such an effect that it makes natural ability a secondary factor in bike races.

Exactly right, IMO. The idea that "doping is doping" is extremely naive at best.

Not for nothing was Anquetil's famous rhetorical question, "Do you think we do this on bread and water?" preceded by the exclamation, "Fools!"

The doping of Merckx's time was palliative, nothing more. As you say, it enabled them to finish the race, and perhaps to start the race the next day, but not to win it. The real cleavage in the sport occurred with the systematization of oxygen-vector doping, especially Edgar Allen Poe, which for pro cycling was the Descent into the Maelstrom, the Oblong Box, and the Premature Burial.

Edit: And now more than ever riders are forcats du pave.

The exact quote is "Forçats de la route". A "forçat" is someone who is forced to do something against his will. Prisoners condemned to forced labour were called like that. The word is not in use anymore.

Thanks for that. We should put it back in use since the condition has not gone away.

 

[sniper]

Re: Re:

...

I don't single out Indurain. This thread does. If you read my article, you'll find the likes of Chiappucci and Erik Breukink being discussed as well, and not in a flattering kind of way.

To answer your question, the early 90's are when I stopped being able to identify myself to pro cycling. Before that, when I watched a race, I could relate to the kind of effort was being pictured. I could live it. When guys started climbing with their hands on the lowest position on the handlebar... It just ruined it, for me. And I believe the gap between clean and doped up until then was not as bad as what blood doping achieved. It was not good, but not this bad.

On a personal level, it is also in synch with Greg LeMond's demise. But, as his teammate Eric Boyer said when I interviewed him last summer, I think Greg was beaten by illness before he was beaten by EPO.

not singling out indurain? one page back you were calling him Mig-hell and other unfunny names.

And help me out here. you said this one page back:

Why bring LeMond into this ? There is another thread about him.
We're discussing Indurain.

Apparently you can bring Lemond into this after all? Help me out here. Could you stipulate the rules for this thread more clearly? Who can and cannot be named, when, why, etc...

 

[@NL_LeMondFans]

Re: Re:

...

I don't single out Indurain. This thread does. If you read my article, you'll find the likes of Chiappucci and Erik Breukink being discussed as well, and not in a flattering kind of way.

To answer your question, the early 90's are when I stopped being able to identify myself to pro cycling. Before that, when I watched a race, I could relate to the kind of effort was being pictured. I could live it. When guys started climbing with their hands on the lowest position on the handlebar... It just ruined it, for me. And I believe the gap between clean and doped up until then was not as bad as what blood doping achieved. It was not good, but not this bad.

On a personal level, it is also in synch with Greg LeMond's demise. But, as his teammate Eric Boyer said when I interviewed him last summer, I think Greg was beaten by illness before he was beaten by EPO.

not singling out indurain? one page back you were calling him Mig-hell and other unfunny names.

And help me out here. you said this one page back:

Why bring LeMond into this ? There is another thread about him.
We're discussing Indurain.

Apparently you can bring Lemond into this after all? Help me out here. Could you stipulate the rules for this thread more clearly? Who can and cannot be named, when, why, etc...

I would be singling out Indurain if my whole article was just about him. It's far from being the case.

I'm naming LeMond because I am genuinely answering a question. Rob27172 asked me about my "distaste" of Indurain. I explored all the options I could think of.

 

[Maxiton]

I thought the idea that Indurain was an EPO star was settled business here in the Clinic. We hashed all this out in various threads in 2010 or 2011 or thereabouts. I think I was the first to suggest it, in fact. It didn't take long to arrive at consensus, though. We all agreed that he got away with it because he was humble and well liked and did his thing for five years and then went away. (In other words, the exact opposite of Armstrong.) It's kind of strange to see this thread working through it all again, but maybe it's been awhile since he was discussed. Left to lie too long settled business disappears I guess.

 

[sniper]

Re: Re:

...
I would be singling out Indurain if my whole article was just about him. It's far from being the case.

I'm naming LeMond because I am genuinely answering a question. Rob27172 asked me about my "distaste" of Indurain. I explored all the options I could think of.

that's all fair enough. I just don't get why, in the context of Indurain, you are allowed to mention Lemond, but I'm not.

My point was simple: if you call Miguel "Mig-hell" just because he was destroying the field on EPO, but meanwhile there are rumors floating around that your hero Lemond introduced EPO...something doesn't add up here.
Your response: "why bring Lemond into this?"
My answer: Well because it makes your anti-Indurain story look rather inconsistent.

My other point was that not even your hero Lemond seems to think so badly of Indurain. Apparently 'Mig-hell' wasn't such a bad bloke after all? Again, your response "why bring Lemond into this?" smacks of deflection.

Ow, and meanwhile you're apparently allowed to bring Chiapucci and Breukink into this, and even Lemond. I'm at a loss here.

I guess the general point I'd like to raise is that, by fanboying for Lemond, you're not in an ideal situation to criticize Indurain (or any other riders/dopers for that matter) over doping issues. If you nonetheless choose to criticize/ridicule Indurain over doping (which in itself is perfectly fine with me), then at least be ready to face scrutiny over your Lemond fanboyism. I think that's only fair. (which is not to say you should stop being a Lemond fanboy or stop criticizing Indurain)

Take LaFlorecita as an example: she criticizes Sky, but doesn't shy away from (more or less objectively) discussing Contador's doping. With you and tdf86winner one gets an uncomfortable sense that mentioning Lemond in the vicinity of the d-word is like cursing in the church.

 

[carton]

Re: Re:

With you and tdf86winner one gets an uncomfortable sense that mentioning Lemond in the vicinity of the d-word is like cursing in the church.

There's a LeMond thread where you can discuss whatever rumours you want to dig up. Repeatedly bringing up very questionable insinuations about a man, who, 35 years after his career started and over two decades after his retirement has faced no substantive contentions (while many of his peers have been found out or confessed) on his loud and often inconvenient (there was allegedly a bounty for those who could disprove them) asseverations of cleanliness is a little cavalier, if not outright irresponsible. If you're going to insist upon it you really should consider doing so in the LeMond thread. If not you're obviously going to make some people uncomfortable.

Also I am no evangelical, but are you implying that the prohibition against cursing in a place of worship with children likely around is cultish and outdated? It seems to me basic civility.

I thought the idea that Indurain was an EPO star was settled business here in the Clinic...We all agreed that he got away with it because he was humble and well liked and did his thing for five years and then went away.

It's even more settled business, IMHO, as Big Mig himself doesn't even deny it anymore himself. As I stated earlier, Indurain seems a humble and almost universally respected figure (actually my favorite cyclist back in the day), but he was as far as most of the clinic is concerned the first TDF winner of the no-holds-barred EPO era. While I think Cannibal72's performance-enabling vs performance-enhancing bit isn't quite up to snuff (see Bartali, Gino), oxygen-vector doping is really where guys who had absolutely no business being grand tour contenders (see Chiappucci, Claudio) a few TT seconds lost away from the title. Although that does somewhat discount the performance enhancing effects of a little extra testosterone (see Landis, Floyd).

 

[sniper]

Re: Re:

...Also I am no evangelical, but are you implying that the prohibition against cursing in a place of worship with children likely around is cultish and outdated? It seems to me basic civility.

yet you have no problem with NLLemondFans calling Miguel "Mig-hell"? Got it.
Your post is all over the place. Time to move on.

 

[carton]

Re: Re:

yet you have no problem with NLLemondFans calling Miguel "Mig-hell"? Got it.

Again, I'm no evangelical. So that's not a curse or some kind of heresy in my book. It's a good pun, particularly in the context he wrote it in, but not exactly a biting indictment or a terrible insult of a sobriquet in my book. And he immediately appended that by stating that:

That being said, Indurain was always a good rider; a phenomenal time trialist, especially. He won the 1989 Paris-Nice and Criterium International (where he did beat none other than Mottet, Fignon, Lemond & Roche fighting for the win)..

And again, even the Miguelon critics seem to grudgingly respect the man.

Time to move on.

+1.

 

[sniper]

Re: Re:

carton, the initial post i replied to from NLLemondFans contained three mentions of Lemond.
So whatever issue you have with Lemond being mentioned in the Indurain thread, with all due respect you'll have to take it up with NLLemondFans.

 

[Cannibal72]

Re: Re:

With you and tdf86winner one gets an uncomfortable sense that mentioning Lemond in the vicinity of the d-word is like cursing in the church.

There's a LeMond thread where you can discuss whatever rumours you want to dig up. Repeatedly bringing up very questionable insinuations about a man, who, 35 years after his career started and over two decades after his retirement has faced no substantive contentions (while many of his peers have been found out or confessed) on his loud and often inconvenient (there was allegedly a bounty for those who could disprove them) asseverations of cleanliness is a little cavalier, if not outright irresponsible. If you're going to insist upon it you really should consider doing so in the LeMond thread. If not you're obviously going to make some people uncomfortable.

Also I am no evangelical, but are you implying that the prohibition against cursing in a place of worship with children likely around is cultish and outdated? It seems to me basic civility.

I thought the idea that Indurain was an EPO star was settled business here in the Clinic...We all agreed that he got away with it because he was humble and well liked and did his thing for five years and then went away.

It's even more settled business, IMHO, as Big Mig himself doesn't even deny it anymore himself. As I stated earlier, Indurain seems a humble and almost universally respected figure (actually my favorite cyclist back in the day), but he was as far as most of the clinic is concerned the first TDF winner of the no-holds-barred EPO era. While I think Cannibal72's performance-enabling vs performance-enhancing bit isn't quite up to snuff (see Bartali, Gino), oxygen-vector doping is really where guys who had absolutely no business being grand tour contenders (see Chiappucci, Claudio) a few TT seconds lost away from the title. Although that does somewhat discount the performance enhancing effects of a little extra testosterone (see Landis, Floyd).

I don't know anything about Bartali aside from his Wikipedia page. Would you mind expanding?

 

[@NL_LeMondFans]

Re: Re:

carton, the initial post i replied to from NLLemondFans contained three mentions of Lemond.
So whatever issue you have with Lemond being mentioned in the Indurain thread, with all due respect you'll have to take it up with NLLemondFans.

Wrong. You, Sniper have a problem with me because I make it perfectly clear I am a LeMond fan. And because I am a LeMond fan means to you that I can only do what you call "fanboyism". Hence you dismiss every one of my post on these boards because, to you, I am just a LeMond fan, and, to you, I lack credibility.

What's funny is that I chose this board name so that it would be perfectly clear where I stand and put it out of the way, rather than being in a closet. I did it out of respect for everyone. And I'm being rewarding with this attitude of yours.

You have a pattern : light a fire, and then claim to be the fire brigade. Correction, it's not a pattern, it's a pathology.

Sorry to hijack the thread but everywhere I go in the clinic I have to deal with this. If there is one thing I learned from Greg LeMond (name dropping alert !) is that you have to stand up to bullies.

Cheers.

 

[carton]

Re: Re:

I don't know anything about Bartali aside from his Wikipedia page. Would you mind expanding?

Just that the idea that everyone was cheating the wind and doing it to the same extent is far too simplistic. Gino was by all accounts a clean rider while peers like Coppi or Gaul (barely contemporary) were pedaling amphetamine (and god knows what else) vats. Plenty of riders have doped over the years, but plenty of riders have also finished (and won) races clean. The drugs Merckx and other pre-EPO "old-timers" took were definitely performance enhancing: Fencamfamin(e) and Pemoline are both still on the WADA banned list, and not for tradition's sake. Phenylpropanolamine meanwhile has been downgraded to the monitoring program (along with caffeine), but that doesn't mean that there are no performance enhancing benefits to it either. The degree of enhancement is the question, and I agree with you that EPO was a game changer. It's harder to say that Indurain have won 5 tours on pan y agua than to say the same about Anquetil. But there is no guaranteeing that Monsieur Chrono would have ever worn yellow in Paris off the juice, either. The playing field has always been tilted. The idea that PEDs were just a little something to get by that everyone took to "complete the races" is as naive an excuse when applied to Lance Armstrong as when applied to Eddy Merckx.

 

[sniper]

Re: Re:

...
Cheers.

that's all fair enough, no problem with this whatsoever.
as I said explicitly in my pre-previous post:
I have no problem at all with you or anybody
(a) being a Lemond fan and not wanting to face Lemond-related doping questions;
(b) throwing mud at Miguel Indurain (or any other prorider) for doping.
That's all fine with me.
My only point is and has been that (a) and (b) don't go very well together. Somebody practicing (a) will, in my view, have little credibility practicing (b) at the same time.

You can continue to ignore this point, I don't mind. But stop twisting it.

 

[sniper]

Re: Re:

You have a pattern : light a fire, and then claim to be the fire brigade.

sorry, what fire did I light?

Correction, it's not a pattern, it's a pathology.

adhom noted.

 

[@NL_LeMondFans]

Re: Re:

...
Cheers.

that's all fair enough, no problem with this whatsoever.
as I said explicitly in my pre-previous post:
I have no problem at all with you or anybody
(a) being a Lemond fan and not wanting to face Lemond-related doping questions;
(b) throwing mud at Miguel Indurain (or any other prorider) for doping.
That's all fine with me.
My only point is and has been that (a) and (b) don't go very well together. Somebody practicing (a) will, in my view, have little credibility practicing (b) at the same time.

You can continue to ignore this point, I don't mind. But stop twisting it.

a) I did it extensively on the LeMond related thread. You don't like what I say or think, fine, but don't hide the fact that I treated it and spent an awful lot of energy already trying to meet your criterias. If you need anymore LeMond related arguing, do it in the proper thread or shoot me a PM.
b) I'm "throwing mud" with a whole lot of facts, wether you like it or not. Precisely what the LeMond thread is missing. Facts.

If you think I lack credibility, shoot the facts, not the person, i/e shoot what I say about Indurain, not the LeMond fan. Prove your own credibility, earn it, defend it.