Indurain EPO?

Page 3 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
May 26, 2010
28,144
2
0
BroDeal said:
I just think that the result of the time trial was so farsical that it called into question the credibility of the sport and Indurain himself. Maybe he was smart enough to realize this and tempered his future efforts so that he did not do much more than what was required to win the overall. For example, Indurain was perfectly capable of winning mountain stages; he was happy to let others win as long as he maintained his hold over the GC.
i remember Indurain catching Robert Millar in the Pyrenees on the last mountain of the stage and going past him almost like one of the motorbikes and i remember thinking this ain't right, for 2 reasons, difference in size and i like Millar, i think Indurain won the stage. I always thought Indurain won the first mountain stage and then covered the other GC contenders?
 
May 23, 2010
2,410
0
0
I think by 92 Andy Hampsten had given up some of his climbing ability to be a better TTist..But here he loses 8:29... He still finished 4th but probably knew it was time to retire.
 
BroDeal said:
It is not calculated using actual weights. It is calculated using a fictitious bike + rider weight, so a heavy rider like Indurain will result in low Watts/kg.
No, heavy riders do not have low watts/kg values if they are GC specialists who can climb well, because they have compensatingly larger values for pure watts. Watts/kg is directly proportional to VAM, can in fact be calculated fairly precisely from VAM values, so a low watts/kg value means the rider is a relatively poor climber, regardless of how much he weighs.

IOW, the original point about 4.92 being a low value is well taken. A rider with that value would finish far behind Lemond or anyone else with a 5.7 value.

You may be confusing this with the common practice of providing pure watts values normalized to an arbitrary weight, so that values can be compared for riders of different sizes. For example, Schleck and Contador's watts values might be given as the same on climbs in which they finished together (e.g., 400), when in fact because of their different weights, they would necessarily have to be different. In that case, what is really being furnished is watts for a rider whose body weight is normalized to a common value, e.g., 70 kg. This is quite often seen on sites that calculate power, e.g., science of sports. The actual wattage that Contador, Schleck, or some other rider is not really the 400 or whatever value that is given. That value is obtained by multiplying the actual watts/kg value (which is usually determined by either VAM or SRM data) by, to repeat, an arbitrary weight. This practice is employed because it's easier to appreciate the difference between, say, 400 and 430 normalized watts than it is the difference between 5.7 and 6.15 watts/kg.
 
Merckx index said:
No, heavy riders do not have low watts/kg values if they are GC specialists who can climb well, because they have compensatingly larger values for pure watts. Watts/kg is directly proportional to VAM, can in fact be calculated fairly precisely from VAM values, so a low watts/kg value means the rider is a relatively poor climber, regardless of how much he weighs.
This has fcuk all to do with anything. This is about the values in the graph.

Merckx index said:
You may be confusing this with the common practice of providing pure watts values normalized to an arbitrary weight, so that values can be compared for riders of different sizes.
Oh, now you get it.
 
Aug 19, 2009
612
0
0
BroDeal said:
I just think that the result of the time trial was so farsical that it called into question the credibility of the sport and Indurain himself. Maybe he was smart enough to realize this and tempered his future efforts so that he did not do much more than what was required to win the overall. For example, Indurain was perfectly capable of winning mountain stages; he was happy to let others win as long as he maintained his hold over the GC.
I remember Indurain catching Fignon for 6 minutes in that TT. Fignon called him an extra terrestrial after that. Was that a dig?
 
Aug 19, 2009
612
0
0
Frosty said:
From what i can see here

http://www.memoire-du-cyclisme.net/eta_tdf_1978_2005/tdf1992.php

the Pyrenees were effectively not in the 1992 tour. The Alps consisted of two very hard stages (13 and 14) - maybe this was why the effort on the last mountain wasnt as high?
The final climb up to Sestriere, Indurain apparently blew up, and lost a bunch of time. The stages to the Alpe, and St. Etienne breaks had gone clear, and I think he and his team rode to just to control the rest - well, Chiappucci at least. I'd imagine he was f'd over from his effort on Sestriere.
 
BroDeal said:
It is not calculated using actual weights. It is calculated using a fictitious bike + rider weight, so a heavy rider like Indurain will result in low Watts/kg.
It is not calculated using actual weights.

You must not have read many of my previous posts.

It is calculated using a fictitious bike + rider weight, so a heavy rider like Indurain will result in low Watts/kg

Yes, because the rider + equipment is always supposed to be the same no matter what the weight of the racer maybe, which reflects pretty closely the actual situation.

Therefore the extra 8 kg deemed to be carried up the mountain represents 11.4% of the body weight of a 70 kg racer, but only 10% of the body weight of a 80 kg cyclist.
Therefore the heavier racer of the 2 needs roughly 1% less Watts/kg to keep with the lighter one. ( The bigger CcA of the heavier racer reduces a bit that 1.4% difference)

There is really no reason to make such a big fuss about a 1% misrepresentation.
 
Bag_O_Wallet said:
The final climb up to Sestriere, Indurain apparently blew up, and lost a bunch of time.
Yeah, i remember that day as Phil thought that someone from the roadside had jumped up on a bike and was riding up ahead of Indurain - he realised after a while that it was the guy he'd just dropped (Vona) who had come back past him. Didnt finish that far behind the winner in the end but the difficult stage must have had some effect
 
Le breton said:
It is not calculated using actual weights.


Therefore the extra 8 kg deemed to be carried up the mountain represents 11.4% of the body weight of a 70 kg racer, but only 10% of the body weight of a 80 kg cyclist.
Therefore the heavier racer of the 2 needs roughly 1% less Watts/kg to keep with the lighter one. ( The bigger CcA of the heavier racer reduces a bit that 1.4% difference)
correction
Watts/kg to keep up with the lighter one. ( The bigger CdA of .
 
Nov 17, 2009
2,388
0
0
Iker_Baqueiro said:
Don't be so envious of el gran Miguel Indurain. The guy was just great and clean.
Lance Armstrong was clean too. So was Riis. Ulrich. Pantani. Valverde. Di Luca. Ricco. Heras. Rasmussen.

All were just as clean as Indurain.
 
kurtinsc said:
Lance Armstrong was clean too. So was Riis. Ulrich. Pantani. Valverde. Di Luca. Ricco. Heras. Rasmussen.

All were just as clean as Indurain.
Right. As were Hamilton, Landis, Fuentes, D'Antoni, Manzano, Meirhaeghe, Millar, Yates, Perez, Perez, Perez, Perez (ok may have gotten 1 too many, or not). Not to mention Forde, Frigo, Guidi, Basso, Papp, Osa, Osa, Osa, (give or take 1). Also Dekker, Vino, Abdu, Mayo, Moreni, Pena. Why in 2003-2004 alone Zanette, Ceriani, Salanson, Rusconi, Jimenez, Zanoli, Sermon, Pantani were all so clean that they died of it. But there is not really that much of a doping problem in cycling, certainly not enough to risk turning off a few posible sponsors in the effort to clean it up.
 
Jun 19, 2009
5,220
0
0
Iker_Baqueiro said:
Don't be so envious of el gran Miguel Indurain. The guy was just great and clean.
I always wanted to believe that, too. His team was rife with manipulated riders and it was organized. What happened to them after Perico and Miguel retired?
 
May 26, 2009
3,687
1
0
grayrogers said:
Prior to Indurain, winners of the Tour de France, for the most part, were very good in their first Tours. Look at guys like Hinault, Merckx, LeMond, Fignon, Zoetemelk... They either won or placed very high in their first Tours. Indurain did not. I've always thought he doped -- and as others have said here, he was such a nice guy and so quiet that no one ever said anything about it.
That is a decent argument, but in Indurain's case it does have some finer points.

- He was seen as a future TdF winner as a Neo_pro (Tour de l'Avenir) by experts and that was before the impact of Conconi became so obvious. So experts who didn't think of blood doping saw in him a future star.
- He was kept back a few years as super domestique for Perico. There were many experts (not just Spaniards) who say he could and should have won 1990.

Note that I personally never believed in Indurain until he proved me wrong :)

So Indurain came "relatively late" as a TdF winner, but was deliberately brought slowly.

Also the argument that Indurain was just a project from Conconi is not the whole story as he was already seen as the new big star. As Alpe says, he probably would have won multiple GT's in a clean peloton

Indurain said:
Yes but he did revolutionise the spinning technique while climbing. His cadence was usually much higher than most. I guess this may mean he wasn't pushing a huge gear but rather using his lunch capacity to keep it going and conserving power in the process.

If you watch past tours the Columbians use to push huge gears. Since Armstrong adopted Indurain's style, most people seem to have tried to adopt it.
True, Big Mig is the one who pioneered high cadence, not Lance. He did this on the flat TT's as well, the "he could turn a huge gear in the TT because he was big" is actually false. He rode a relatively small gear.

The argument of this being used by Gaul etc. might be true, but that doesn't change the fact that 99.99% of the riders in the 60-90 era used big (huge!) gears to climb. "A la Danseuse" actually depends on big gears (try to dance for 10+ minutes with a tiny gear). The slo-mo effect we have when watching the 80's TdF's isn't just the speed, but also the much lower cadence.

Oldman said:
I always wanted to believe that, too. His team was rife with manipulated riders and it was organized. What happened to them after Perico and Miguel retired?
They did not fade away immediately as they had Olano waiting in the wings. They had high hopes of him (everyone did), but he got dumped under the Amrstrong train as everyone else. Still, he had a rather impressive career.

After that it became thinner pickings. They raised up Mancebo and more importantly Menchov. After Menchov they effectively became Caisse D'Espagne.
 
grayrogers said:
Prior to Indurain, winners of the Tour de France, for the most part, were very good in their first Tours. Look at guys like Hinault, Merckx, LeMond, Fignon, Zoetemelk... They either won or placed very high in their first Tours. Indurain did not. I've always thought he doped -- and as others have said here, he was such a nice guy and so quiet that no one ever said anything about it.
You are comparing leaders to Miguel who was specifically Delgado´s domestique until his first win in 91. He could of won the 90 Tour but was ordered to wait for Delgado. So his early Tour results are in no way an indication of Talent vs EPO. I don´t doubt he used EPO. By 93 no one in the top ten could get to the top ten without it. I also don´t doubt he was one of the great talents in cycling history as were your listed guys. But Indurain´s Tours before he won were raced to help Delgado and not for results.
 
OneRaceWonder said:
Does anyone have number i.e. watts, on Indurains climbs? Wouldn't that help when determing wether he was on the juice or not?? (My opinion/belief: of course he was!!)
An article from a Cycle Sport mag in 1996 calculated that Indurain held 495 watts for his 39 (or so) minute climb up l'Alpe d'Huez. Given his weight of 78kg's, thats around 6.3 watts per kilo.
They had Pantani as holding 380 watts on his climb.

Unlike a certain messiah, Indurain actually DID lose weight & it changed his career. It probably explains why he improved his climbing from 1989 onwards.
 
Nick777 said:
An article from a Cycle Sport mag in 1996 calculated that Indurain held 495 watts for his 39 (or so) minute climb up l'Alpe d'Huez. Given his weight of 78kg's, thats around 6.3 watts per kilo.
They had Pantani as holding 380 watts on his climb.

Unlike a certain messiah, Indurain actually DID lose weight & it changed his career. It probably explains why he improved his climbing from 1989 onwards.
In their book "Pouvez-vous gagner le Tour" published in 2002 and detailing their calculations, Vayer ( the coach) and Portoleau ( the engineer) give roughly equivalent figures, the highest for Indurain 95 in the TdF being for the finish in La Plagne. Calculated for 80 kg + 9kg, they arrive at

La Plagne 45:40 512 watts , 512/80 = 6.4 watts/kg
Alpe d'Huez 38:10 500 watts 500/80 = 6.25 watts/kg

Pantani 95 (36:50 AdH) 56 kg+9 kg =>387 watts =>6.9 watts/kg

Being lighter Pantani has the disadvantage that the bike + equipment represents 16% of the total against 12.5% for Indurain.
 
Jul 27, 2010
260
0
0
BroDeal said:
This is the way I see it.

Indurain became a special project of Dr. Conconi after the Tour of Future in '85 or '86--I forget which year. Conconi developed a five year plan to turn him into a TdF winner. He, along with Bugno and Chiappucci, was one of the first beneficiaries of EPO in teh TdF. Because he was a nice and humble guy who, unlike Armstrong, was smart enough not to challenge the press to prove he was doping, no one made a big issue of what he was doing.

The pre-Festina environment was considerably different than the post-Festina environment. Until about 2000, doping bans were only a few months and were often served during the off-season.
I always looked at it like this: the rise of EPO ended Indurain because he couldn't keep up without it. But I guess EPO, like you said, was the main reason for his success and then when everyone else started using it, he couldn't keep up the climbers.
 
Fowsto Cope-E said:
I always looked at it like this: the rise of EPO ended Indurain because he couldn't keep up without it. But I guess EPO, like you said, was the main reason for his success and then when everyone else started using it, he couldn't keep up the climbers.
That's not very accurate. Indurain could keep up and usually even drop the best climbers up to the 1996 Dauphine. He was defeated at the 1996 TdF and withdrew from the Vuelta, after which he retired. The 1995 TdF was the one he dominated the most in the mountains. If Indurain started using EPO before most other riders, by 1994-95 it would seem most everybody was using it too. The reasons of Indurain's demise are probably more psychological than physical: at 32, he had done 23 GTs and he probably felt he didn't have a lot left to do.

Unless what made him retire was the introduction of blood tests, of course!
 
Apr 9, 2009
976
0
0
hrotha said:
That's not very accurate. Indurain could keep up and usually even drop the best climbers up to the 1996 Dauphine. He was defeated at the 1996 TdF and withdrew from the Vuelta, after which he retired. The 1995 TdF was the one he dominated the most in the mountains. If Indurain started using EPO before most other riders, by 1994-95 it would seem most everybody was using it too. The reasons of Indurain's demise are probably more psychological than physical: at 32, he had done 23 GTs and he probably felt he didn't have a lot left to do.

Unless what made him retire was the introduction of blood tests, of course!
Yep. He won a mountain stage in the '90 Tour, ahead of his team leader Delgado, Chiapucci, and Lemond.
 
May 14, 2010
5,306
2
0
Fowsto Cope-E said:
I always looked at it like this: the rise of EPO ended Indurain because he couldn't keep up without it. But I guess EPO, like you said, was the main reason for his success and then when everyone else started using it, he couldn't keep up the climbers.
Yeah, this doesn't give Indurain enough credit. Of course, we'll never know for sure unless he writes a book and tells the truth, but I suspect he retired when he did because he didn't want to be greedy and didn't want to overshadow the great riders of the past who didn't have EPO. He already had enough fame and money so what would have been the point in continuing?

EDIT: Oh yeah, I almost forgot: He was probably worried about the long-term health effects of EPO and whatever else he was doing. Who knows, that alone could have been reason enough to quit when he did.
 
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
masking_agent The Clinic 77
Similar threads
Indurain in the '96 Tour

ASK THE COMMUNITY