Indurain EPO?

[Franklin]

If you don't see Wiggins and his unbelievable train are a carbon copy of Indurain and his armada you should stay out of it and just go enjoy your life.

Uhm they are not. Really, they aren't. Markedly different tactics in the mountains.

 

[Fearless Greg Lemond]

Uhm they are not. Really, they aren't. Markedly different tactics in the mountains.

You're right. Carbon copy was misplaced. High cadence and weightloss for about 20 pounds does seem to be the case for both, combined with extraterrestial TT capacity off course.

 

[Franklin]

You're right. Carbon copy was misplaced. High cadence and weightloss for about 20 pounds does seem to be the case for both, combined with extraterrestial TT capacity off course.

/facepalm

1. The weightloss of Big Miguel was before the epo era. And before Aicar.
2. Big Mig always was climber/TT specialist, he has a steady improvement there.
3. High cadence is the best with higher wattages. Higher wattages are certainly an effect of doping, but high cadence is not a direct result. And nobody here denies Indurain used Epo

Now if you had said "Wiggins" is a Carbon copy of "Indurain" you would have more of a point (though Miguel's career curve really is different). But Sky does not use the Banesto tactics. And as a result, neither does Indurain ride as Wiggo in the mountains. Indurain didn't use his train to break the opponents on the last climb and then ride away with Delgado.

If anything Wiggins rides more as Jan Ulrich than Indurain.

 

[Albatros]

One question about the 1991 Tour. Did Delgado dope with the 20% booster?

 

[hrotha]

I tend to disagree with you. The bloodboys destroyed cycling imho.

EPO destroyed cycling, if anything. Do you think riders in the 80s or before that wouldn't have used EPO if it had exited? For people like Fignon, it came too late and they didn't dare use it. It was certainly not an ethical issue. Fignon wasn't any better in that regard than any EPO user.

 

[Fearless Greg Lemond]

EPO destroyed cycling, if anything. Do you think riders in the 80s or before that wouldn't have used EPO if it had exited? For people like Fignon, it came too late and they didn't dare use it. It was certainly not an ethical issue. Fignon wasn't any better in that regard than any EPO user.

EPO didn't give riders a choice anymore. Or u would load the gun or loose your job. `

'Eighties' riders also have confessed to do EPO but somehow they never got their results as before. Was that because of the less risk they took or did EPO work wonders with the 'fat a$$e$'?

But still, riders had the choice. There a enough riders who didn't want the poison in their veins, so you can't say it wasn't about ethics. Also some DS's didn't want anything to do with it and lost their team, eventually.

 

[D-Queued]

... And nobody here denies Indurain used Epo

...

Who did the poll?

Indurain. The last naturally gifted winner of the Tour with no artificial enhancement.

Dave.

 

[hrotha]

EPO didn't give riders a choice anymore. Or u would load the gun or loose your job. `

'Eighties' riders also have confessed to do EPO but somehow they never got their results as before. Was that because of the less risk they took or did EPO work wonders with the 'fat a$$e$'?

But still, riders had the choice. There a enough riders who didn't want the poison in their veins, so you can't say it wasn't about ethics. Also some DS's didn't want anything to do with it and lost their team, eventually.

That's fine and all, but I'm not comparing EPO users to clean riders. I'm comparing them to steroid, testosterone and amphetamine users.

Dopers in the 80s used all the means available to them to boost their performance. Dopers in the 90s did the same, it's just that by then science had marched on. Ethically, both are the same to me. Dopers. Cheaters.

 

[roundabout]

The problem isn't that Indurain doped. Problem is that some people think that it didn't matter and he was the best rider regardless.

 

[D-Queued]

The problem isn't that Indurain doped. Problem is that some people think that it didn't matter and he was the best rider regardless.

Do you have any idea how much money I invested as an Indurain fan?

Dave.

 

[hiero2]

That's fine and all, but I'm not comparing EPO users to clean riders. I'm comparing them to steroid, testosterone and amphetamine users.

Dopers in the 80s used all the means available to them to boost their performance. Dopers in the 90s did the same, it's just that by then science had marched on. Ethically, both are the same to me. Dopers. Cheaters.

I do not agree. They are both cheaters, but it was the difference between cheating where only you were involved, and forcing others to cheat, as well, to survive. After 1993, if you wanted to be competitive, then you cheated. Before 1993, you could say no and still be competitive. That is a big difference.

 

[hrotha]

I do not agree. They are both cheaters, but it was the difference between cheating where only you were involved, and forcing others to cheat, as well, to survive. After 1993, if you wanted to be competitive, then you cheated. Before 1993, you could say no and still be competitive. That is a big difference.

Yes, but that difference doesn't stem from the morality of the doper, but from the scientifical advances. Cheaters in the 80s weren't thinking "I won't take this, it would make me too strong".

 

[hiero2]

. . .
I disagree. LA brought it on himself but he seems to become the sacrificial lamb for 20 years of dirty cycling. The Ben Johnson of cycling. Every oxigen vector doper should be held accountable in my opinion, also the in many peoples eyes - not in mine - likeable Indurain.

EPO was on the IOC list since 1990, is that legal or not? Or we must ask Perico

Because the Spanjards are so restrictive towards dopeurs in cycling? You must know that is a farcital statement. If it were to the Spanish Cycling Union Contador would have been racing all of this year and years to come.
. . .
Would be nice to see what results there would have been in the nineties when you delete the EPO juiced squads. Charly Mottet would have had two for that matter. Hampsten won a Giro in the eighties but never got in place of even a podium later on.

Those things **** me off, but hell, big Mig is such a nice guy! No, he is fraud. Big fraud Mig.

Lance brought it on himself, true. But a whipping boy or a scapegoat? No man. Pretty much all the other major racers involved have been popped, or implicated, or have given some sort of confession - even if we think it was only a partial confession. Lance got more out of it, and the lies and suspicion continue to color the sport. His impact on the sport, in this way, has been greater than any other cyclist of his era, bar none.

As for the IOC - the IOC is not cycling - it is the Olympics. Please help me out here, but if I am not mistaken, it was not illegal in cycling until a few years later. But either way, it is not particularly important to my point.

Big Mig has as good as confessed, as pointed out earlier. There is no way we can know who would have won those races, or how Andy Hampsten and LeMond would have done had EPO not come on the scene. We can only guess. I too, would rather we knew, but that is an unobtainable dream.

Any payoff or benefit to the sport from pursuing Indurain is tiny to non-existent. On the other hand, I believe there will be a large benefit for the sport as a result of clearing the air around Lance Armstrong.

If you would rather chase Indurain on your quest, go for it. The field is yours.

 

[hiero2]

Yes, but that difference doesn't stem from the morality of the doper, but from the scientifical advances. Cheaters in the 80s weren't thinking "I won't take this, it would make me too strong".

I agree that the individual thinking is the same, or similar. But when a choice you make is between something that affects you, and something that affects others as well as yourself, the ethics are no longer the same.

You are right that the moral thinking did not change from the dopers viewpoint - and that science advanced along the way. But the scientific advances made the morality change.

It is like driving in the wrong lane. When you are on a deserted country road, who cares? When you do it on a crowded freeway, it matters. Or like the spitwads we shot at each other as kids. I know the teacher always said we could put somebody's eye out, but get real! How likely was that? Well, science came along and turned my spitwad shooting rubber band into a fully-automatic M-16. Now the story is different.

 

[hiero2]

EPO destroyed cycling, if anything. Do you think riders in the 80s or before that wouldn't have used EPO if it had exited? For people like Fignon, it came too late and they didn't dare use it. It was certainly not an ethical issue. Fignon wasn't any better in that regard than any EPO user.

You see - this much I agree with. Fignon doped and we know it. And he would have done EPO, almost certainly. Merckx, Anquetil, Simpson - they all used "stuff" and rode "hot" sometimes. Anquetil spoke openly in favor of letting riders make their own choice in the matter. I agree that they are no better in this regard than the EPO users and blood-boosters.

But I still see that the moral ground also shifted under their feet. EPO and blood-boosting changed the formula, the risk, and the impact. Steroids do, too, but to a lesser degree.

Amphetamines had a much smaller impact. Besides, before speed, they had coke, and I think that is a pretty even swap. Before cocaine, we didn't have the Tour!

But because EPO and blood-boosting are such "big guns", and because they were and in some cases still are undetectable, they completely change the impact of using them.