Indurain in the '96 Tour

Page 2 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
LeMond didnt dope....do you have info that states otherwise?

Also, Please include any proof/evidence that Hinault doped as well? Something CREDIBLE, not something your dog told you.

Also, by "proof/evidence", I mean including: dates, times, dosages, Drs who administered said drugs, when, where? Please......Also any info stating that the UCI/WADA/USADA are all aware of eithers supposed doping & any bans or titles stripped from either as well.

You can PM it to me here if you'd like too.

But yeah, keep believing the "everyone doped" narrative.
We are talking about the EPO era, but you might be interested in a read like "A Dog in a Hat" that touches on things that they did prior to EPO. Most doped.

Really?
"Also, by "proof/evidence", I mean including: dates, times, dosages, Drs who administered said drugs, when, where? Please......Also any info stating that the UCI/WADA/USADA are all aware of eithers supposed doping & any bans or titles stripped from either as well."
That's just silly!
 
We are talking about the EPO era, but you might be interested in a read like "A Dog in a Hat" that touches on things that they did prior to EPO. Most doped.

Really?
"Also, by "proof/evidence", I mean including: dates, times, dosages, Drs who administered said drugs, when, where? Please......Also any info stating that the UCI/WADA/USADA are all aware of eithers supposed doping & any bans or titles stripped from either as well."
That's just silly!
You are right in that most doped, but the question is always how much of a game changer what they were using was. Bruyneel is claiming that all champions were the best of their respective eras regardless of doping. Personally I think Bruyneel is full of crap and as always trying to justify what they did.

Here is the thing, Bjarne Riis was a pro from 1986, but nothing more than a domestique until he went on EPO from 1992. His former team-mate Laurent Fignon said Riis would never have been a champion before EPO. So we can see what EPO could do, so how can anyone know who the best riders were in the EPO era.

You might argue the same for the pre-EPO era, maybe we would have had a different set of champions, but it seems less likely. EPO was the game changer.
 
You are right in that most doped, but the question is always how much of a game changer what they were using was. Bruyneel is claiming that all champions were the best of their respective eras regardless of doping. Personally I think Bruyneel is full of crap and as always trying to justify what they did.

Here is the thing, Bjarne Riis was a pro from 1986, but nothing more than a domestique until he went on EPO from 1992. His former team-mate Laurent Fignon said Riis would never have been a champion before EPO. So we can see what EPO could do, so how can anyone know who the best riders were in the EPO era.

You might argue the same for the pre-EPO era, maybe we would have had a different set of champions, but it seems less likely. EPO was the game changer.
I disagree on two counts:
  1. Intent-they all intended to improve their results by using things other than bread and water (sorry for that reference).
  2. Game changer-Yes, EPO was more of a boost than previous doping/doping techniques, but Riis was not the first racer to use it so why weren't the "better" racers able to improve enough on similar programs that Riis was still fodder? This is the old "donkey to racehorse" argument that just doesn't hold water from a physiological standpoint. Even EPO isn't that good. Was it god enough to make a bottom level pro a top level pro if none of the other pros were using it? Probably. But we 'know' that he wasn't the only one.
--2b) Yes, some peoples' bodies respond to doping better than others, just like they respond better to training. Using "he just responded more/better" is a bad argument IMO.
 
I disagree on two counts:
  1. Intent-they all intended to improve their results by using things other than bread and water (sorry for that reference).
  2. Game changer-Yes, EPO was more of a boost than previous doping/doping techniques, but Riis was not the first racer to use it so why weren't the "better" racers able to improve enough on similar programs that Riis was still fodder? This is the old "donkey to racehorse" argument that just doesn't hold water from a physiological standpoint. Even EPO isn't that good. Was it god enough to make a bottom level pro a top level pro if none of the other pros were using it? Probably. But we 'know' that he wasn't the only one.
--2b) Yes, some peoples' bodies respond to doping better than others, just like they respond better to training. Using "he just responded more/better" is a bad argument IMO.
Yes, of course you can argue that if EPO had been around earlier, many might have used it. That still doesnt change the fact that the champions from the pre EPO era are more likely to have been closer to the 'real' champions which is what Bruyneel is claiming about the EPO era riders.

Riis wasn't the first, but as we have already discussed countless times, plenty of other riders improved in the same period. Pre-1990, there was usually a group of riders who were always at the top level. There might be the odd surprise, but in general the riders who went well were always good unless affected by injury/illness etc.

Then early 1990s, you started to have guys jumping up levels and surprises galore all the time. I picked Riis because he was the most extreme case, but I could have picked any number of riders. As has been discussed in another, the incredible rise of Italian cycling is just too good to be true.

How on earth are you comparing responding to training to responding to doping. Talk about a bad argument.
 
Yes, of course you can argue that if EPO had been around earlier, many might have used it. That still doesnt change the fact that the champions from the pre EPO era are more likely to have been closer to the 'real' champions which is what Bruyneel is claiming about the EPO era riders.

Riis wasn't the first, but as we have already discussed countless times, plenty of other riders improved in the same period. Pre-1990, there was usually a group of riders who were always at the top level. There might be the odd surprise, but in general the riders who went well were always good unless affected by injury/illness etc.

Then early 1990s, you started to have guys jumping up levels and surprises galore all the time. I picked Riis because he was the most extreme case, but I could have picked any number of riders. As has been discussed in another, the incredible rise of Italian cycling is just too good to be true.

How on earth are you comparing responding to training to responding to doping. Talk about a bad argument.
This is the sentence I was looking for when I read the article from Johan. He seems to be making excuses. The funny thing is that he is mixing the two eras (Pre and post EPO) so that he can throw dirt at Greg Lemond. How cheap is that. Of course there has always been doping. That doesn't change the fact that riders like Riis never had the chance of winning without epo. Riis was Fignon's roommate and he knew that he was a bottle carrier. Nothing else. To his surprise that Riis was dropping him years later. Then Fignon understood that he had to retire or else.
 
Reactions: Cookster15
Yes, of course you can argue that if EPO had been around earlier, many might have used it. That still doesnt change the fact that the champions from the pre EPO era are more likely to have been closer to the 'real' champions which is what Bruyneel is claiming about the EPO era riders.

Riis wasn't the first, but as we have already discussed countless times, plenty of other riders improved in the same period. Pre-1990, there was usually a group of riders who were always at the top level. There might be the odd surprise, but in general the riders who went well were always good unless affected by injury/illness etc.

Then early 1990s, you started to have guys jumping up levels and surprises galore all the time. I picked Riis because he was the most extreme case, but I could have picked any number of riders. As has been discussed in another, the incredible rise of Italian cycling is just too good to be true.

How on earth are you comparing responding to training to responding to doping. Talk about a bad argument.
The discussion of how your body responds to stimuli is bad? HMM, interesting. Many have argued that LA cheated more because his body responded to EPO better (there's no actual data to support that but...). My point is that peoples' body respond to things differently so that is a black hole argument.
 
There may be no proof that someone's body responds better. However there is a belief that the very top athletes may use it because most everyone else but they won't get the benefits simply because there isn't much room for them to be better. Where other athletes have more room to improve so which PED it is helps them more.

As I said in Indurain's case everything I've read and heard lead me to believe that it was multiple factors. Also a major change in life at home can have a big effect on how you "play". Like other things that also affects different people differently.
 
Reactions: jmdirt
Oct 7, 2019
78
23
230
One point of note. At the onset of the EPO era, Greg Lemond was no longer the force, that he had been. Whereas, Miguel Induráin began to thrive, winning the Tour five years consecutively, and the Giro-Tour double twice. These two athletes had similar athletic physiologies, amongst the most outstanding, in the history of the sport. Although there is no direct evidence that Induráin took performance-enhancing drugs, one cannot but surmise, this was the case.
 
Reactions: jmdirt
Second, it doesn't explain why he never recovered. He finished outside the top 10 and was never the same rider ever again.
You could say that. On the other hand, between the Tour and his retirement he only rode the Olympic games (where he convincingly won the gold medal in the ITT), some races in August (where he did fine, coming 2nd after Rominger in Burgos and arriving with the main group in the GP Zürich and the Giro del Veneto), and then the Vuelta, which he emphatically did not want to ride in the first place, at a point where the conflict with his team had come to a head. I would argue that's not enough to make a definite judgment.
 
One point of note. At the onset of the EPO era, Greg Lemond was no longer the force, that he had been. Whereas, Miguel Induráin began to thrive, winning the Tour five years consecutively, and the Giro-Tour double twice. These two athletes had similar athletic physiologies, amongst the most outstanding, in the history of the sport. Although there is no direct evidence that Induráin took performance-enhancing drugs, one cannot but surmise, this was the case.
He had a positive for Salbutamol in 94, which at the time wasnt on the UCI list
 
The discussion of how your body responds to stimuli is bad? HMM, interesting. Many have argued that LA cheated more because his body responded to EPO better (there's no actual data to support that but...). My point is that peoples' body respond to things differently so that is a black hole argument.
No, comparing something that is legal to something that is illegal is the issue. I agree we do not know exactly how well people respond to EPO, but then that is the point I am making. How can Bruyneel argue Armstrong was the best of his generation when we see the huge improvement some people underwent e.g. Riis/Chiappucci. How do we know if Armstrong was a super responder which is why trying to figure out who the best rider in the EPO era was is guesswork. Armstrong was the best in the conditions of the time, but would he have been the best in the 80s for example?

As I said it seems moer believable to say that the top riders of the pre-EPO era were the best, and that sticks in Bruyneels craw. Look at Bruyneel himself, his best results coincide with his move to ONCE at the very time EPO was beginning to flood the peloton. He was 28/29.

Edit: Think we are going to far off track, but what I was saying about Armstrong can be applied to Indurain. Was he a genuine top rider or an EPO freak. Unfortunately under the circumstances, we have to accept he was the best in that era, though I firmly believe he was an EPO freak.
 
Last edited:
Reactions: jmdirt
Did he use an inhaler? Getting TUEs for Albuterol, salbutamol was/is common practice. How many riders have exercise induced asthma is astounding....

Sorry, got it the wrong way around. Salbutamol was permitted in inhaler form everywhere, except in France where Indurain tested positive. A few other riders also tested positive for the same product in France around the same time, but had their bans overturned. The international bodies UCI/IOC just over-ruled the French. At the time, the case was quickly forgotten about.
 
Just answering about Indurain : I remember him being interviewed sometime later, probably 1997, after he retired, he admitted that in 1996 he'd tell his coach he was going for a 200km training ride and only did 100km.

In fact, he made cycling so boring that even he was bored, eventually...
 
One point of note. At the onset of the EPO era, Greg Lemond was no longer the force, that he had been.
There's a degree of circularity in this argument. How do you date the arrival of the EPO era? From when it might have leaked into sport during clinical trials from 1986 onward? From its public release in 1989? From whatever year in the 1990s is your favourite? A lot of people want to date the start of the EPO era to the decline of LeMond.
These two athletes had similar athletic physiologies, amongst the most outstanding, in the history of the sport.
Supporting details, please.
 
There's a degree of circularity in this argument. How do you date the arrival of the EPO era? From when it might have leaked into sport during clinical trials from 1986 onward? From its public release in 1989? From whatever year in the 1990s is your favourite? A lot of people want to date the start of the EPO era to the decline of LeMond.Supporting details, please.
I date it 89-90 as a 'dabble to see what it does', and 90-91 as a go to.
 
This is the sentence I was looking for when I read the article from Johan. He seems to be making excuses. The funny thing is that he is mixing the two eras (Pre and post EPO) so that he can throw dirt at Greg Lemond. How cheap is that. Of course there has always been doping. That doesn't change the fact that riders like Riis never had the chance of winning without epo. Riis was Fignon's roommate and he knew that he was a bottle carrier. Nothing else. To his surprise that Riis was dropping him years later. Then Fignon understood that he had to retire or else.
Riis himself gives it all away right here

http://autobus.cyclingnews.com/results/archives/may97/8_5.html

Ftp 320W in winter, 400W once he starts training, 500W on full program. 400W likely being his natural ftp, good for WT Pro but not champion material. The Professor was right.

Also a couple of interesting notes from that article, EPO's efficacy often said to be around 10%, e.g. 50W. Riis's boost is 25%! Secondly, Indurain's ftp was 550W according to Cecchini.

"The big guy from Spain could produce 550 watts when he was working on the bike just below the acid limit. Riis could only produce 480 watts "

To anybody that trains with power, these are incredible, mind-blowing numbers. Also, for all those coaches that say power meters have only been used for the last 10 years, Cecchini says hi.
 
Riis himself gives it all away right here

http://autobus.cyclingnews.com/results/archives/may97/8_5.html

Ftp 320W in winter, 400W once he starts training, 500W on full program. 400W likely being his natural ftp, good for WT Pro but not champion material. The Professor was right.

Also a couple of interesting notes from that article, EPO's efficacy often said to be around 10%, e.g. 50W. Riis's boost is 25%! Secondly, Indurain's ftp was 550W according to Cecchini.

"The big guy from Spain could produce 550 watts when he was working on the bike just below the acid limit. Riis could only produce 480 watts "

To anybody that trains with power, these are incredible, mind-blowing numbers. Also, for all those coaches that say power meters have only been used for the last 10 years, Cecchini says hi.
Who says that power meters have only been used for 10 years? I remember SRM's at least as early as '91 (30 years). Even wattometer hubs have been around for 20ish years. Plus, even before power was measured out in the wild, ergometers were used to measure power in a lab setting.
 
Reactions: Oldermanish
I disagree on two counts:
  1. Intent-they all intended to improve their results by using things other than bread and water (sorry for that reference).
  2. Game changer-Yes, EPO was more of a boost than previous doping/doping techniques, but Riis was not the first racer to use it so why weren't the "better" racers able to improve enough on similar programs that Riis was still fodder? This is the old "donkey to racehorse" argument that just doesn't hold water from a physiological standpoint. Even EPO isn't that good. Was it god enough to make a bottom level pro a top level pro if none of the other pros were using it? Probably. But we 'know' that he wasn't the only one.
--2b) Yes, some peoples' bodies respond to doping better than others, just like they respond better to training. Using "he just responded more/better" is a bad argument IMO.
I disagree with your reasoning on Riis. I recall watching the 1993 Tour very closely. At 29 years of age Riis was just happy to be on the same postcode as Indurain and Rominger. Fast forward to 1996 and at 32 he was a completely different animal. Also training is legal doping isn't because its cheating. So to say some peoples' bodies respond to doping better than others, just like they respond better to training isn't a valid argument.
 
Reactions: jmdirt
I disagree with your reasoning on Riis. I recall watching the 1993 Tour very closely. At 29 years of age Riis was just happy to be on the same postcode as Indurain and Rominger. Fast forward to 1996 and at 32 he was a completely different animal. Also training is legal doping isn't because its cheating. So to say some peoples' bodies respond to doping better than others, just like they respond better to training isn't a valid argument.
He wasn't trying to say it's equal just that there are other factors.
 
Reactions: jmdirt
People, please don't feed the troll. Nine months ago @86TDFWinner was demanding proof that Indurain doped yet is this week they're back to their previously held and often expressed position that Indurain clearly doped.

September last:Sunday last:This is clearly just trolling. Unless of course in the last nine months the poster has found "CREDIBLE/verifiable proof that Indurain doped" and is about to share that with us and isn't just attempting to derail yet another thread with a pointless defence of their 80s' heroes.
I'm just going by what everyone else here has said about Miggy. Since you brought it up(after repeated attempts by me asking you to please provide info on LeMond and Hinaults supposed doping), have you been able to find the info Ive requested yet? Feel free to post it when you do.

No "troll/trolling" here, just wanting proof of either(which no one has yet to provide). I've also not seen any credible info stating Indurain doped, do you by chance have that info as well?
 
Reactions: fmk_RoI
I wonder to what extent Indurain also benefitted from being there earlier than subsequent riders who got demonized for doping. I wonder if the public perception of doping didn't rapidly change right around that time. Nowadays people will complain about any recent positive getting a role in cycling while casually ignoring Eddy Merckx popped multiple positives
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY