Indurain - Am I assuming correctly?

[@NL_LeMondFans]

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.

My original post, on topic :

Miguel was on EPO big time, and I think I kind of proved it :

(comparing datas of the Lac de Vassivière ITTs in 1990 and 1995)

"In 1990, he was on his way to his first Tour de France top ten at general classification (10th). Some were saying he could have had a shot at winning if he had not sacrificed for his leader Pedro Delgado. He was the only one able to follow Greg LeMond to the top of Luz Ardiden, beating him for the stage win. IF THAT ISN’T GOOD DATA I DON’T KNOW WHAT IS ??? So where was Mr Indurain in 1990, let’s see… Mmmmhhh… Well, well, well : he finished 4th of the stage, just ahead of Greg LeMond, 40 seconds behind Breukink which gives him a 1h03’20” time.

Wait. Is that correct ? I see Mr Indurain did some training during the 90’s, didn’t he ? He managed to improve his own performance for a staggering 5 minutes and 46 seconds (9.1%) ! Well done, Mr Indurain, you’re a hell of a rider… and you sure helped cycling ride straight into hell. With his 1990 time, Mig-Hell would have finished 35th in 1995, just behind time trial specialist and clean sport poster boy Marco Pantani. A reference. Kind of."

https://greglemondfans.wordpress.com/2014/05/03/dark-side-of-the-lake/

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).

I believe he had a first taste at EPO in 1991, saw that it worked, became much more aggressive by 1992 (docs were probably more efficient in dosage too).

I don't think he would have won the 1990 TDF if he had not sacrificed for Delgado. He would have done better than Delgado, but he would not have won. I also believe I read somewhere that he had to be convinced to actually believe in himself as a TDF winner. Maybe Echevarri told him that he would become one with EPO ? Can't say.

You lighting a LeMond fire by posting off 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.

Then the fire brigade lecturing about going off topic :

But let's discuss Lemond stuff in the Lemond thread, unless it relates to Indurain somehow, which your post does not.

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

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

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...

All the while ignoring most of the times when I actually answer your questions. All this is such a waste of time... and probably painful to read for everyone, including the both of us.

 

[GJB123]

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.

I don't disagree with you, but as you more or less stated the pre-EPO dope couldn't turn donkeys into racehorses. EPO for all intents and purposes could and did.

 

[sniper]

We're in the Clinic remember. If you think my post was off topic and 'lighting a fire' I can only assume you got the subforums all mixed up here.
So my point still stands: an anti-Mig-hell rant coming from somebody who refuses to even consider the remote possibility that Lemond doped himself, well that in my view is rather ironic at best, hypocritical at worst.

 

[@NL_LeMondFans]

Re:

We're in the Clinic remember. If you think my post was off topic and 'lighting a fire' I can only assume you got the subforums all mixed up here.

Since you assume your post wasn't off topic, I don't really care what you think on this matter, to be honest.

So my point still stands: an anti-Mig-hell rant coming from somebody who refuses to even consider the remote possibility that Lemond doped himself, well that in my view is rather ironic at best, hypocritical at worst.

Ok, then just say you don't like me and move on, your opinion about me is totally irrelevant. Just deal with the facts.

As I stated above, you do not take into account most of my answers. They're for everyone to read in the LeMond thread, including wether I think Greg doped or not. And since there are no facts to discuss I don't bother to expand.

 

[sniper]

look, i don't *think* the earth isnt flat. The earth isnt flat, period.
But fair enough! let's extinguish whatever fire it is you saw in that post.

 

[@NL_LeMondFans]

Re:

look, i don't *think* the earth isnt flat. The earth isnt flat, period.

I don't "think" Indurain's performance improved by 9% in 5 years. It just did. Fact. You don't see that as proof of doping, ok. I do. We disagree on interpretations. We can't disagree on the fact.

 

[sniper]

Re: Re:

look, i don't *think* the earth isnt flat. The earth isnt flat, period.

I don't "think" Indurain's performance improved by 9% in 5 years. It just did. Fact. You don't see that as proof of doping, ok. I do. We disagree on interpretations. We can't disagree on the fact.

How much did Lemond improve when the friendly pole and US junior blood doper Borysevic took him under his wings in 1976-ish? Honest question. Could it have been around 9%...in, say, two years? I'm wildly guessing that in this case you won't consider it evidence of doping. And I'd agree with you, mind.

Also, Giro 1989: from stage 10 (1st ITT) to stage 22 (2nd ITT), how many percent do you think Lemond improved? Could it have been 9% in, what, two weeks tops? Just trying to get to the bottom of your 9%-improvement-in-5yrs argument and how you think it constitutes "proof" of Indurain's doping.

Of course Mig was a doper, but I think there's much more straightforward evidence for that. People have testified under oath to the fact that the whole Banesto team was doping.
http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/general/banesto-named-in-drug-case-636949.html
Does that make him Mig-hell? I don't think it does.

 

[Maxiton]

Re: Re:

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.

First of all, the bold only makes the point you're trying to make if you invert it

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 Eddy Merckx as when applied to Lance Armstrong .

But in any case, you're wrong. The reason why some riders could ride non-doped competitively in the pre-O2-vector doping era is precisely because those drugs were not a game-changer. They didn't turn any donkey into a racehorse. Yes, they may have enhanced performance to a degree, I'll grant that, for some riders in some races; but it was also possible, for some riders in some races, to ride without them and still win, even if they were racing against doped competitors. What counted was results.

If you were genetically gifted and could get results, you could do whatever you wanted. Or not do it, in this case. But coming into the pro peloton as a young rider, in order to stay away from dope you'd have to have been able to do your job or get a good result without fail, and without flagging, which is particularly difficult in the third week of a grand tour.

A manager might have been okay with a non-doping rider, so long as the rider could consistently do his job or get a result. But if you did fail or flag, he'd have been all over you. You're a professional. I pay these soigneurs/doctors good money to help you, the rider. I pay you, rider, to follow orders or get a result. You refuse the help I pay the soigneurs/doctors to give you, and as a result you can't follow orders or get a result. I don't need that. If you can't get a result or follow orders, I'll get a rider who can. And if you refuse the help I pay for I don't feel sorry for you.


Doping wasn't a scandal back in those days because it didn't fundamentally alter the game. That's why riders like Ancquetil 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.

 

[@NL_LeMondFans]

Re: Re:

look, i don't *think* the earth isnt flat. The earth isnt flat, period.

I don't "think" Indurain's performance improved by 9% in 5 years. It just did. Fact. You don't see that as proof of doping, ok. I do. We disagree on interpretations. We can't disagree on the fact.

How much did Lemond improve when the friendly pole and US junior blood doper Borysevic took him under his wings in 1976-ish? Honest question. Could it have been around 9%...in, say, two years? I'm wildly guessing that in this case you won't consider it evidence of doping. And I'd agree with you, mind.

Also, Giro 1989: from stage 10 (1st ITT) to stage 22 (2nd ITT), how many percent do you think Lemond improved? Could it have been 9% in, what, two weeks tops? Just trying to get to the bottom of your 9%-improvement-in-5yrs argument and how you think it constitutes "proof" of Indurain's doping.

Of course Mig was a doper, but I think there's much more straightforward evidence for that. People have testified under oath to the fact that the whole Banesto team was doping.
http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/general/banesto-named-in-drug-case-636949.html
Does that make him Mig-hell? I don't think it does.

The difference between the examples you picked about LeMond and the ones I picked about Indurain is that at least Greg gave an explanation for his. You might not like or believe the aneamia/iron shots story but it was there from the start.

2 things :
-In 1990 Indurain is in the top 10 of the Tour while working for his leader. He's already at a very top level, especially in ITTs. That he progressed between this and a 5th tour win is ok, but... 6 minutes in a 1 hour ride ???
-It's not just him, it's the vast majority of the peloton.

I think Vassivière is a good example/proof of everything that went wrong at the time. Of course not only Indurain. But that thread is about him (and I didn't start the thread).

Not to mention the TDF years 1992-1995 were the most boring ever known, IMO.

 

[Maxiton]

Re: Re:

. . . the TDF years 1992-1995 were the most boring ever known, IMO.

Running neck-and-neck with 99-05.

 

[sniper]

Re: Re:

The difference between the examples you picked about LeMond and the ones I picked about Indurain is that at least Greg gave an explanation for his. You might not like or believe the aneamia/iron shots story but it was there from the start.
....

So to get this straight.
9% in five years (Indurain -> proof of doping), vs. 9% in 2 years and 9% in two weeks (Lemond), and you say "well at least he had his iron shots as an excuse"?

So let's say, hypothetically, tomorrow you read Mig's autobiography and it says he was on a stringent Gluten Free diet in those 5 years...that'll do to make you believe he was clean? mkay.
I doubt you have any idea what Mig's explanation for the transformation was. And I doubt you'll ask him or read his autobiography to find out.

Also, the iron shot is fine for me, but it still leaves greg's transformation under the wings of Borysewic to account for. 9%-ish? 2 years? What explanation did he give for that?

Just saying, you cant take the 9%-5yrs as "proof" of Indurains doping, and at the same time maintain Lemond was clean and keep a straight face.

 

[GJB123]

Re: Re:

The difference between the examples you picked about LeMond and the ones I picked about Indurain is that at least Greg gave an explanation for his. You might not like or believe the aneamia/iron shots story but it was there from the start.
....

So to get this straight.
9% in five years (Indurain -> proof of doping), vs. 9% in 2 years and 9% in two weeks (Lemond), and you say "well at least he had his iron shots as an excuse"?

So let's say, hypothetically, tomorrow you read Mig's autobiography and it says he was on a stringent Gluten Free diet in those 5 years...that'll do to make you believe he was clean? mkay.
I doubt you have any idea what Mig's explanation for the transformation was. And I doubt you'll ask him or read his autobiography to find out.

Also, the iron shot is fine for me, but it still leaves greg's transformation under the wings of Borysewic to account for. 9%-ish? 2 years? What explanation did he give for that?

Just saying, you cant take the 9%-5yrs as "proof" of Indurains doping, and at the same time maintain Lemond was clean and keep a straight face.

Can you please provide factual evidence that LeMond improved by as much as you claim in the period you claim. I'll bet you can't.

Furthermore I assume you will be admonishing all Clinicians on the use of rather stale nicknames as you do now with Mig-hell? So no more Cl4entadopucci and Contadoper? Oh wait you never ever addressed that particular point with other people. That is a bit hypocritical, isn't it?

Lastly you actually cone across a little butthurt at the use of the name Mig-hell. Do I detect a bit of fanboyism here?

 

[@NL_LeMondFans]

Re: Re:

The difference between the examples you picked about LeMond and the ones I picked about Indurain is that at least Greg gave an explanation for his. You might not like or believe the aneamia/iron shots story but it was there from the start.
....

So to get this straight.
9% in five years (Indurain -> proof of doping), vs. 9% in 2 years and 9% in two weeks (Lemond), and you say "well at least he had his iron shots as an excuse"?

How do you get the LeMond 9% ? Where are the facts ? What data are you comparing ? Why the need to compare LeMond to Indurain ? Why the need to question the fanboy ?

So let's say, hypothetically, tomorrow you read Mig's autobiography and it says he was on a stringent Gluten Free diet in those 5 years...that'll do to make you believe he was clean? mkay.
I doubt you have any idea what Mig's explanation for the transformation was. And I doubt you'll ask him or read his autobiography to find out.

I'm all for hypothesis, but... imagining that Indurain could actually write a book ? That's a stretch.

Also, the iron shot is fine for me, but it still leaves greg's transformation under the wings of Borysewic to account for. 9%-ish? 2 years? What explanation did he give for that?

So, your science is to compare a teenager growing up from ages 15 to 17 to a fully grown up professional athlete between ages 26 and 31 ? You're right, it's the same.

Just saying, you cant take the 9%-5yrs as "proof" of Indurains doping, and at the same time maintain Lemond was clean and keep a straight face.

Absolutely. How does your face look like ?

 

[sniper]

"Why compare Lemond with Indurain?"
Wow, let me see, no idea...
Comparing riders. You're right, makes no sense at all.

@gjb123: i like lemond better as a person/character.
but way to miss the point, my point being: let's keep personal taste out of this and apply arguments consistently across the board.
NLlemondFans does the tough questions and calculations on Indurain, but totally fails to apply the same standard of questioning to Lemond.

As for Mig-hell: again way to miss the point. I have no problems with the name (although it's certainly not as funny as some of the Contador nicknames), the point is it sounds a bit silly coming from this particular poster. But by all means, use it.

 

[@NL_LeMondFans]

Re:

All in one post

let's keep personal taste out of this and apply arguments consistently across the board (...) it sounds a bit silly coming from this particular poster.

Personal, but not personal, right ?
I'm glad you re-read your post and erased my forum name.

"lack of consistency", you say ?

 

[Mr.White]

So the fact that Indurain doped is his "massive" improvement, although I don't think it's that massive. And the fact that Lemond didn't doped is lacking of that massive transformation, and maintaining high level through out his whole career. Well what about, for example, Valverde and Contador. Their level was also very high from the very beginning of their careers up until now. Yet they were both caught doping. So Lemond could of doped also, of course we don't know that, but he could of. I don't buy that crap of Lemond "the clean rider", when obviously all of his major rivals had some connections with doping (including himself). I didn't hear him talk anti-doping until his conflict with Armstrong, and then he build himself like some kind of an anti-doping hero. I don't buy that! He was no better than Indurain by any means!

 

[sniper]

Re: Re:

@NLLemondfans, don't get me wrong. I think the 9% argument is a perfectly legitimate argument. Just saying it would be cool if you apply the same scrutiny to riders whom you think are clean, whether that's Greg or Froome, or Wiggins, or Cappuchino, or Dan Martin, or whomever.

 

[Maxiton]

Re:

So the fact that Indurain doped is his "massive" improvement, although I don't think it's that massive. And the fact that Lemond didn't doped is lacking of that massive transformation, and maintaining high level through out his whole career. Well what about, for example, Valverde and Contador. Their level was also very high from the very beginning of their careers up until now. Yet they were both caught doping. So Lemond could of doped also, of course we don't know that, but he could of. I don't buy that crap of Lemond "the clean rider", when obviously all of his major rivals had some connections with doping (including himself). I didn't hear him talk anti-doping until his conflict with Armstrong, and then he build himself like some kind of an anti-doping hero. I don't buy that! He was no better than Indurain by any means!

Well, you can say that but it doesn't make it so. I suspect there might have been more in those iron shots than they told him about, but if so the fact they had to lie to him would indicate he was opposed to doping. And if it was LeMond who was lying, he would never have mentioned the iron shots in the first place.

I give LeMond the benefit of doubt because try as they might no one has been able to turn up anything against him; but also because he competed prior to EPO, when it was possible to compete without dope if you happened to be a genetic freak, which LeMond apparently was.

Indurain, on the other hand, we know about . . . despite his having been talented, no doubt.

 

[@NL_LeMondFans]

Re: Re:

@NLLemondfans, don't get me wrong. I think the 9% argument is a perfectly legitimate argument. Just saying it would be cool if you apply the same scrutiny to riders whom you think are clean, whether that's Greg or Froome, or Wiggins, or Cappuchino, or Dan Martin, or whomever.
Not sure what you and kgb123 are getting all worked up about.

Why should I ?

By the way, maybe you should know this because I think you read my intentions wrong : this article came to me almost by accident. By no means was I looking to "throw mud" as you put it, to anybody. We were planning on going riding to Vassivière so I started collecting a lot of data about the place. Out of curiosity, I looked at Chiapucci's times and compared them. The fact that he would have blown the field to pieces and won the Tour in an ITT if he had pulled his 1995 time in 1990 definitely intrigued me. That's when I started investigating. I found the discovery so impressive I had to share it.

Proving someone doped or not is far from being my hobby. If you read my blog, you'll see I find it much more interesting and rewarding to share the love I have for Greg and for cycling in the 80's and riding myself.

If it's so important to you, maybe you should do the work.

 

[sniper]

Re: Re:

...
Well, you can say that but it doesn't make it so. I suspect there might have been more in those iron shots than they told him about, but if so the fact they had to lie to him would indicate he was opposed to doping. And if it was LeMond who was lying, he would never have mentioned the iron shots in the first place.

i think the 9%+ transformation within the space of five years...i mean two weeks, sort of like forced him to come up with some story.

Indurain, on the other hand, we know about . . . despite his having been talented, no doubt.

Indurain is and has been a nobrainer for years.
I don't think he ever took the word 'limpio' in his mouth either (correct me if wrong), for which he deserves some credit.
What (imo) is still worthy of discussion, is how/why he faded in 1996.
What were those other guys doing that he wasnt?
Or did he stop doing something?

 

[@NL_LeMondFans]

Re: Re:

...
Well, you can say that but it doesn't make it so. I suspect there might have been more in those iron shots than they told him about, but if so the fact they had to lie to him would indicate he was opposed to doping. And if it was LeMond who was lying, he would never have mentioned the iron shots in the first place.

i think the 9%+ transformation within the space of five years...i mean two weeks, sort of like forced him to come up with some story.

Indurain, on the other hand, we know about . . . despite his having been talented, no doubt.

Indurain is and has been a nobrainer for years.
I don't think he ever took the word 'limpio' in his mouth either (correct me if wrong), for which he deserves some credit.
What (imo) is still worthy of discussion, is how/why he faded in 1996.
What were those other guys doing that he wasnt?
Or did he stop doing something?

I remember Indurain saying, I think it was 1997, when it was made clear he was quitting, that in 1996, he told his boss he was going to ride 200km for training and only rode 100. Something in his head snapped and he lost motivation. His behavior in the 1996 TDF is pretty "dead man riding".

 

[Maxiton]

Re: Re:

...
Well, you can say that but it doesn't make it so. I suspect there might have been more in those iron shots than they told him about, but if so the fact they had to lie to him would indicate he was opposed to doping. And if it was LeMond who was lying, he would never have mentioned the iron shots in the first place.

i think the 9%+ transformation within the space of five years...i mean two weeks, sort of like forced him to come up with some story.

Indurain, on the other hand, we know about . . . despite his having been talented, no doubt.

Indurain is and has been a nobrainer for years.
I don't think he ever took the word 'limpio' in his mouth either (correct me if wrong), for which he deserves some credit.
What (imo) is still worthy of discussion, is how/why he faded in 1996.
What were those other guys doing that he wasnt?
Or did he stop doing something?

I remember Indurain saying, I think it was 1997, when it was made clear he was quitting, that in 1996, he told his boss he was going to ride 200km for training and only rode 100. Something in his head snapped and he lost motivation. His behavior in the 1996 TDF is pretty "dead man riding".

I can totally see that. Doing the same thing over and over must get pretty boring, unless you're greedy. Plus the whole EPO thing might have gotten him down.

I remember reading an interview Andreas Kloden gave to a cycling journalist when he was still riding. The interviewer was asking the usual softball questions, but Kloden's response to one of these really struck me.

The interviewer asked, "What are your favorite sports?" Kloden answered, "Football, motocross." Apparently shocked, the interviewer asked, "Not cycling?" To which Kloden replied, simply, "I don't really consider cycling a sport." I thought that was a pretty explosive answer.

Maybe by the time he was done, Indurain too didn't consider it a sport.

 

[StyrbjornSterki]

Re: Re:

So who hired the car and let some measly 3-timer ride with the 5-time winners?
And what's got into Merckx to give up his back to the badger? Is Hinault perhaps sitting on some hidden ejection seat, which Eddy is fingering the launch button for? (certainly would explain Merckx's Mona Lisa smile)

 

[Maxiton]

Re: Re:

So who hired the car and let some measly 3-timer ride with the 5-time winners?
And what's got into Merckx to give up his back to the badger? Is Hinault perhaps sitting on some hidden ejection seat, which Eddy is fingering the launch button for? (certainly would explain Merckx's Mona Lisa smile)

Maybe he thought Hinault would only ever see his back, so it seemed perfectly natural. And as for LeMond, they're still trying to rehabilitate him after all those years of exclusion. (Or, more likely, trying to maintain some interest in the States )

 

[python]

Miguel was on EPO big time, and I think I kind of proved it :

wow, that's one cool pic !

if not a photo shop, it looks like obama himself drove the automobile

regarding the other arguments - i dont claim i got them entirely - doubt not that indurain had seen the darker side...and so did the badger. i honestly dont think that lemond did, in a competition at least. that he tried and used the so called street drugs imo is more than a probability. but an in comp doping it would not be. that said, his anti-doping stance imo is genuine but also anti-lance driven since clearly they were competitors to an all american hero claim...