Indurain - Am I assuming correctly?

[carton]

Doping wasn't a scandal back in those days because it didn't fundamentally alter the game. That's why riders like Anquetil were open about it when asked. It wasn't considered dishonorable, just part of being professional. All of which would make a rider less inclined to refuse it. That, plus wanting to ride.

No, that had absolutely nothing to do with it. No one (much less the average fan) had a clue then or even knows now the precise impact of each drug. Doping was less frowned upon it was because people were far more chauvinistic and far less health conscious way back then.

Charles de Gaulle, said of Anquetil: "Doping? What doping? Did he or did he not make them play the Marseillaise [the national anthem] abroad?"

But if it was at times ignored it wasn't considered honorable either, particularly among fans. Anquetil has a complicated relationship with his home public partly because of it (though mostly for other reasons), while Poulidor on the other hand was far more loved by the fans, if not the peloton. This might sound familiar:

Riders also criticised Poulidor for accepting to be tested. He dismissed their protests and stayed at the back of the strike. Other prominent riders, including Jacques Anquetil, were at the front. Poulidor said his indifference to the controls and the strike harmed his relations with fellow riders. "After that, they did me no favours in the peloton", he said.

In any case that Anquetil quote is so famous because it is so rare. Few riders were as open about doping as maitre Jacques. He was the patron and could get away with it.

EPO alone wasn't absolute magic either. Alvaro Mejia placed 4th at the '93 Tour above Riis, Chiappucci and Bruyneel on a Motora team that allegedly hadn't yet started on Edgar. Moncoutié finished a respectable 13th to Armstrong in 2002, less than 8 minutes from 4th-placed Santi Botero and just ahead of CSC's Tyler Hamilton. I remember being somewhat amused as the locals cheered for their first finisher, now I wish I'd joined them (though I wasn't cheering on Armstrong, even then).

You're also underestimating the impact of steroids. I haven't heard of steroid rumors back when, but that is as donkey into racehorse stuff as there is as well. I'm not sure any of those old-timers would have drawn the line at steroids (or pretty much anything, to be honest).

 

[Maxiton]

They drew the line at nothing (Pot Belge ), but I think we're going to have to agree to disagree.

 

[carton]

They drew the line at nothing (Pot Belge ), but I think we're going to have to agree to disagree.

Sure thing. Definitely sounds like a better plan that having it descend into an ever more off-topic sub-thread (not a sub-tweet)

 

[sniper]

They drew the line at nothing (Pot Belge ), but I think we're going to have to agree to disagree.

Pot Belge, wasn't that Freddy Sergeant who introduced & distributed that?
On some Dutch/Belgian cycling forum Lemond is rumored to have been a client of his in the early 90s.
Must be those jealous bitter Belgians. Haven't won the Tour in ages.

As for Indurain 96, I like to think there was a doping-related explanation for that. There usually is in cycling.
I personally don't buy the motivational explanation. Although the two aren't mutually exclusive of course.
But yes, if you buy the iron shot story, why not buy the motivational story.
Let's just take everything these guys say at face value.

@carton: according to some, the real game changer wasn't EPO, but EPO + HGH.

 

[gillan1969]

They drew the line at nothing (Pot Belge ), but I think we're going to have to agree to disagree.

Pot Belge, wasn't that Freddy Sergeant who introduced & distributed that?
On some Dutch/Belgian cycling forum Lemond is rumored to have been a client of his in the early 90s.
Must be those jealous bitter Belgians. Haven't won the Tour in ages.

As for Indurain 96, I like to think there was a doping-related explanation for that. There usually is in cycling.
I personally don't buy the motivational explanation. Although the two aren't mutually exclusive of course.
But yes, if you buy the iron shot story, why not buy the motivational story.
Let's just take everything these guys say at face value.

@carton: according to some, the real game changer wasn't EPO, but EPO + HGH.

sniper...to be fair...you're evidence against Lemond is 'rumour', indeed its rumour of a rumour. However, we all watched Indurain haul his fat ar*se over the steep climbs like a young Columbian whippet....

sometimes things are that obvious....

 

[sniper]

They drew the line at nothing (Pot Belge ), but I think we're going to have to agree to disagree.

Pot Belge, wasn't that Freddy Sergeant who introduced & distributed that?
On some Dutch/Belgian cycling forum Lemond is rumored to have been a client of his in the early 90s.
Must be those jealous bitter Belgians. Haven't won the Tour in ages.

As for Indurain 96, I like to think there was a doping-related explanation for that. There usually is in cycling.
I personally don't buy the motivational explanation. Although the two aren't mutually exclusive of course.
But yes, if you buy the iron shot story, why not buy the motivational story.
Let's just take everything these guys say at face value.

@carton: according to some, the real game changer wasn't EPO, but EPO + HGH.

sniper...to be fair...you're evidence against Lemond is 'rumour', indeed its rumour of a rumour. However, we all watched Indurain haul his fat ar*se over the steep climbs like a young Columbian whippet....

sometimes things are that obvious....

did i deny indurain was obvious? I just said two posts up that he is and has been a nobrainer.

yes, lemond is only rumor. I've stressed that in almost every single post I did on Lemond.
But so is cancellara, so is froome, so is wiggins, sastre (not even rumor), evans.
you give those guys the benefit of the doubt? if not, why?

And NLLemondFans' argument was about 9% improvement in 5yrs. Lemond arguably improved more than that in 2 years (76-78) and 2 weeks (Giro 89). My only point here has been that if NLLemondFans insists on that argument, I'm surprised he doesn't apply it across the board.

sniper...to be fair.

please be.

 

[TheSpud]

They drew the line at nothing (Pot Belge ), but I think we're going to have to agree to disagree.

Pot Belge, wasn't that Freddy Sergeant who introduced & distributed that?
On some Dutch/Belgian cycling forum Lemond is rumored to have been a client of his in the early 90s.
Must be those jealous bitter Belgians. Haven't won the Tour in ages.

As for Indurain 96, I like to think there was a doping-related explanation for that. There usually is in cycling.
I personally don't buy the motivational explanation. Although the two aren't mutually exclusive of course.
But yes, if you buy the iron shot story, why not buy the motivational story.
Let's just take everything these guys say at face value.

@carton: according to some, the real game changer wasn't EPO, but EPO + HGH.

I would imagine it was slightly motivational, and perhaps boredom? Maybe others had caught up with him (in doping terms) and he didnt want to push the envelope further. After all, 'winning' the tour 5 times would make you mucho $ and set you up for life.

 

[@NL_LeMondFans]

As for Indurain 96, I like to think there was a doping-related explanation for that. There usually is in cycling.
I personally don't buy the motivational explanation. Although the two aren't mutually exclusive of course.
But yes, if you buy the iron shot story, why not buy the motivational story.
Let's just take everything these guys say at face value.

Never believing what the guys say is way more clever, you"re right.

I try to have a more subtle approach, you see ? In the case of Indurain, His TDF wins were so boring that I have no problem imagining even he got bored.

 

[gillan1969]

sniper...your percentage increase in ability is when lemond was in his teens...and an amateur...the difference in Indurain is when he was older and already a pro...(and that's giving you the benefit of the doubt on your %)

re the giro increase...look at him pre-shooting incident and the level he was at...all he did in that giro was get back to some sort of normal....there's a difference

I don't rank indurain with Riis and chaippucci in terms of 'transformation' btw...just think his handlers had him cane it once they got a 'cocktail' that worked...and boy did it work

 

[sniper]

sniper...your percentage increase in ability is when lemond was in his teens...and an amateur...the difference in Indurain is when he was older and already a pro...(and that's giving you the benefit of the doubt on your %)

re the giro increase...look at him pre-shooting incident and the level he was at...all he did in that giro was get back to some sort of normal....there's a difference

I don't rank indurain with Riis and chaippucci in terms of 'transformation' btw...just think his handlers had him cane it once they got a 'cocktail' that worked...and boy did it work

very fair points gillan. Conceded.

TheSpud and NLLemondFans also two fair points above.

 

[fmk_RoI]

So. Yeah. Well. Gosh. There's a new Indurain biography. His fourth English-language outing but the first in about a decade and a half. And, well, surprise! it whitewashes the doping allegations. It's almost like reading those pre-2005 Armstrong books John Wilcockson used to do.

 

[Benotti69]

Re:

So. Yeah. Well. Gosh. There's a new Indurain biography. His fourth English-language outing but the first in about a decade and a half. And, well, surprise! it whitewashes the doping allegations. It's almost like reading those pre-2005 Armstrong books John Wilcockson used to do.

No surprise when you see authors name.

 

[veganrob]

That is an awesome review. Love it.

 

[Robert5091]

Re:

That is an awesome review. Love it.

Seems it'll be in the bargain bin in time for the Vuelta

 

[fmk_RoI]

Re: Re:

That is an awesome review. Love it.

Seems it'll be in the bargain bin in time for the Vuelta

There's a new wave of fans who enjoy the silence. The Fall of LA was a long, long time ago, and people want to return to the world as it used to be, free of dope talk. I am sure others will have been much, much more positive in their reviews of it.

 

[fmk_RoI]

I've just looked. From one of those other reviews:

Perhaps the beginning of the end came at the 1996 Tour de France, where Indurain's reign came to a dramatic end at the hands of Bjarne Riis. Fotheringham covers the many theories as to why Indurain did not perform that year, ranging from him being past his best at the age of 32, that the weather was colder than was ideal for him, or that racing later into the 1995 season had shortened his winter recovery period.

Surely the answer is that Indurain was up against riders that we now know to have been taking drugs? The podium that year comprised Riis, Jan Ullrich, and Richard Virenque.

The cold thing for 1996. I've heard more than a few say he was suffering from water retention. Anyone else hear that excuse? Is that a euphemism for ODing on the cortisone as a way of getting the weight down, fatherhood having gone to his waist? Water retention is a cortisone side effect, isn't it? Could you use a diuretic - like, as an example, probenecid - to combat that or do you have to sweat it out?

 

[fmk_RoI]

And another review:

if the early to mid-nineties are a period of cycle racing missing from your own palmares, this book is an essential coursework. for indurain aficionados it must be considered essential being one of the few to discuss his career in such great detail. but it also succeeds on the level of being an accurate snapshot of a revered era in cycling history.

 

[GuyIncognito]

Re:

I've just looked. From one of those other reviews:

Perhaps the beginning of the end came at the 1996 Tour de France, where Indurain's reign came to a dramatic end at the hands of Bjarne Riis. Fotheringham covers the many theories as to why Indurain did not perform that year, ranging from him being past his best at the age of 32, that the weather was colder than was ideal for him, or that racing later into the 1995 season had shortened his winter recovery period.

Surely the answer is that Indurain was up against riders that we now know to have been taking drugs? The podium that year comprised Riis, Jan Ullrich, and Richard Virenque.

The cold thing for 1996. I've heard more than a few say he was suffering from water retention. Anyone else hear that excuse? Is that a euphemism for ODing on the cortisone as a way of getting the weight down, fatherhood having gone to his waist? Water retention is a cortisone side effect, isn't it? Could you use a diuretic - like, as an example, probenecid - to combat that or do you have to sweat it out?

If he needed to lose weight I doubt he would've won the Dauphine in style like he did. Hell, his May, June and August were brilliant.
Racing later in 1995? Riis did the Vuelta and still won the 96 Tour. I don't buy it.

The cold, Indurain was never at his best in the cold that's a fact and he was generally lucky with weather during his win streak. His previous cold GTs had been in 1991 when he lost the Vuelta to Melcior Mauri of all people and the last few days of the 93 Tour when Rominger beat him in the TT. But while the cold made him worse, it didn't make him so much worse as to go from 1st by 5 minutes to 11th at 14m.

It was probably a combination of things.

Racing a bit too much in 96, not 95 (which is Delgado's public opinion for the meltdown). The cold weather.
Other teams being a bit more advanced than Banesto on the blood manipulation front that particular year.
The bust up with the team over Padilla's position. The financial and organizational side effects of shuttling Padilla around on his own dime.

The still lingering resentment with the team over the hour record attempts.
The other bust up with the team and the spanish fed and Unipublic over not racing the 95 Vuelta.

Probably all of it put together.

 

[lartiste]

Re:

I've just looked. From one of those other reviews:

Perhaps the beginning of the end came at the 1996 Tour de France, where Indurain's reign came to a dramatic end at the hands of Bjarne Riis. Fotheringham covers the many theories as to why Indurain did not perform that year, ranging from him being past his best at the age of 32, that the weather was colder than was ideal for him, or that racing later into the 1995 season had shortened his winter recovery period.

Surely the answer is that Indurain was up against riders that we now know to have been taking drugs? The podium that year comprised Riis, Jan Ullrich, and Richard Virenque.

The cold thing for 1996. I've heard more than a few say he was suffering from water retention. Anyone else hear that excuse? Is that a euphemism for ODing on the cortisone as a way of getting the weight down, fatherhood having gone to his waist? Water retention is a cortisone side effect, isn't it? Could you use a diuretic - like, as an example, probenecid - to combat that or do you have to sweat it out?

Water retention is generally speaking side effect of AS, I am not sure whether you can play with diuretic during TdF. You can check the story of death of Mohammed Benaziza.

 

[DanielSong39]

Obviously he was doped to the eyeballs. Still, the consensus is that Banesto handled things with more class than US Postal or Sky.

Then again that's not a terribly high bar.

 

[The Hitch]

they are basically trying to constantly whitewash history to give the impression that doping was a temporary thing in cycling due to the bad behaviour of a few bad apples.

Sloberingham is as corrupt and scummy as human beings can get

 

[Saint Unix]

Also, all the convicted doping frauds have been painted as bad people also aside from the doping. Armstrong is the obvious poster boy for being a sociopathic bully with no morals whatsoever, but other famous dopers like Riis, Pantani, Vino, Rasmussen, Ullrich, Ricco, Kohl and the others also had a reputation for being somewhat difficult or unsavoury individuals also before they got popped. When the biggest fish get caught for doping the general consensus seems to be "Oh, that doesn't surprise me. He's always struck me as a d*ck." It goes beyond cycling too. It's why Russians keep getting caught while Usain Bolt will remain bulletproof for the rest of time.

If Indurain, who has peddled his unassuming good guy act for over twenty years, gets busted it would send a message that it's not just the arseholes that break the rules. Even the nicest, most sympathetic guys can shamelessly cheat their way into cycling's history books and reap the benefits of that lie for decades afterwards. The nice guy act is the best shield against doping accusations you'll ever find. See also: Jens Voigt, Carlos Sastre, Fabian Cancellara.

It even works after they get popped. "Oh no, they probably didn't do it intentionally, so they don't deserve a ban." See: Therese Johaug,

 

[The Hitch]

Re:

Also, all the convicted doping frauds have been painted as bad people also aside from the doping. Armstrong is the obvious poster boy for being a sociopathic bully with no morals whatsoever, but other famous dopers like Riis, Pantani, Vino, Rasmussen, Ullrich, Ricco, Kohl and the others also had a reputation for being somewhat difficult or unsavoury individuals also before they got popped. When the biggest fish get caught for doping the general consensus seems to be "Oh, that doesn't surprise me. He's always struck me as a d*ck." It goes beyond cycling too. It's why Russians keep getting caught while Usain Bolt will remain bulletproof for the rest of time.

If Indurain, who has peddled his unassuming good guy act for over twenty years, gets busted it would send a message that it's not just the arseholes that break the rules. Even the nicest, most sympathetic guys can shamelessly cheat their way into cycling's history books and reap the benefits of that lie for decades afterwards. The nice guy act is the best shield against doping accusations you'll ever find. See also: Jens Voigt, Carlos Sastre, Fabian Cancellara.

It even works after they get popped. "Oh no, they probably didn't do it intentionally, so they don't deserve a ban." See: Therese Johaug,

That is true.

They hero worship Voigt cos he said a few weird lines that seemed funny when we were watching him in our teens but that kind of feel dumb now. The are trying to paint Thomas as the new Voigt.

Bu I think, while they are obviously brutal to anyone caught doping from Armstrong's generation, they have been trying to downplay the existence of all the dopers. Make it look like it really was just a few bad guys. But don't worry guys, cycling is inherently clean, and as David Millar and Robbie Mcewan publicly say, its impossible to be really good if you dope

 

[42x16ss]

Re:

Also, all the convicted doping frauds have been painted as bad people also aside from the doping. Armstrong is the obvious poster boy for being a sociopathic bully with no morals whatsoever, but other famous dopers like Riis, Pantani, Vino, Rasmussen, Ullrich, Ricco, Kohl and the others also had a reputation for being somewhat difficult or unsavoury individuals also before they got popped. When the biggest fish get caught for doping the general consensus seems to be "Oh, that doesn't surprise me. He's always struck me as a d*ck." It goes beyond cycling too. It's why Russians keep getting caught while Usain Bolt will remain bulletproof for the rest of time.

If Indurain, who has peddled his unassuming good guy act for over twenty years, gets busted it would send a message that it's not just the arseholes that break the rules. Even the nicest, most sympathetic guys can shamelessly cheat their way into cycling's history books and reap the benefits of that lie for decades afterwards. The nice guy act is the best shield against doping accusations you'll ever find. See also: Jens Voigt, Carlos Sastre, Fabian Cancellara.

It even works after they get popped. "Oh no, they probably didn't do it intentionally, so they don't deserve a ban." See: Therese Johaug,

This argument doesn't completely hold water - the likes of Ulrich, Basso, Contador and Scarponi have proven themselves to be some of the nicest people in the sport, yet doped to the gills to be competitive.

 

[86TDFWinner]

Re:

So. Yeah. Well. Gosh. There's a new Indurain biography. His fourth English-language outing but the first in about a decade and a half. And, well, surprise! it whitewashes the doping allegations. It's almost like reading those pre-2005 Armstrong books John Wilcockson used to do.

Of course he's going to downplay it, try to dispell and make it go away, he's become Wonderboy so to speak as far as denying doping allegations, it's almost comical now. Big Mig knows he doped, and pretty much everyone here knows he did too, he just refuses to admit it for some reason. It brings his legacy into question IMO.