The Banesto Train in the mountains

Page 8 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Jun 12, 2011
122
0
0
Dr. Maserati said:
They did - but as their is no Banesto train no-one will be injured in the derailment.
:p :D

I'm also wondering why he's single me out for the attacks,despite the fact that everyone else is disagreeing with him.Maybe because I'm a newbie,& he figures it'll be easier to bully me than those of you with more experience?

A true Lance fan. ;)
 
Jul 6, 2010
2,340
0
0
dbrmuz said:
:p :D

I'm also wondering why he's single me out for the attacks,despite the fact that everyone else is disagreeing with him.Maybe because I'm a newbie,& he figures it'll be easier to bully me than those of you with more experience?

A true Lance fan. ;)
Probably because you were actually trying to reason with him.

The knuckleheads just seem to like pointless arguments. There was never a Banesto train (it takes more than two guys)...

Nicely played, doc. That was funny.
 
Aug 19, 2009
612
0
0
Exroadman24902 said:
some samples of the strong teams Indurain had.
http://www.cyclingweekly.co.uk/news/tour-de-france/473963/tour-de-france-video-archive-the-indurain-years-91-95.html

As an aside, I reckon Miguel would have beaten Lance in 1999, 2003..
I couldn't view this vid earlier. Are we talking about the brief clip of him going over a col with 3 or 4 teammates with Zulle just behind??

Best part of that video is the footage from "1993". Indurain catching Fignon in the time trial, and then cracking at Les Arcs. Beautiful!
 
Nov 30, 2010
797
0
0
JMBeaushrimp said:
Beautiful!

I like the imagery of Tyler getting pelted with little wads of cotton, while being berated - "How much did they pay you?" WHACK "Cummon ya little weasle, how much?" WHACK...
Apparently there's been an ongoing row over the time it takes to queue for the Cache Cache restroom. Lance was helping out and collared Tyler in order to find out the mens' true waiting time.
 
Jul 4, 2009
9,666
0
0
dbrmuz said:
Take your own advice hey? Everyone else here disagrees with you-being a complete & utter jerk isn't helping you at all.
...sorry to throw a spanner into your argument but I will have to take exception to your use of the term everyone in the statement found above...and I take exception because if you had taken even a moment to actually read this thread you would notice that I happen to agree that Banesto had a train ( now while I will have to admit that I am working from memory here and that memory can be a fickle thing but my recollection, and I did watch those tours rather closely as Indurain was and still is a fave, is that there was a Banesto train, and if in fact the local commentators made a point of discussing that fact )...

...now my pointing this out may seem like a quibble but it does put your ability to draw conclusions from the facts very much at hand in a very bad light...in fact one could conclude you have a propensity to draw conclusions that are patently wrong....and tie that in with your name calling and you and your comments end up in a rather unflattering light...

Cheers

blutto
 
Jun 12, 2011
122
0
0
blutto said:
...sorry to throw a spanner into your argument but I will have to take exception to your use of the term everyone in the statement found above...and I take exception because if you had taken even a moment to actually read this thread you would notice that I happen to agree that Banesto had a train ( now while I will have to admit that I am working from memory here and that memory can be a fickle thing but my recollection, and I did watch those tours rather closely as Indurain was and still is a fave, is that there was a Banesto train, and if in fact the local commentators made a point of discussing that fact )...

...now my pointing this out may seem like a quibble but it does put your ability to draw conclusions from the facts very much at hand in a very bad light...in fact one could conclude you have a propensity to draw conclusions that are patently wrong....and tie that in with your name calling and you and your comments end up in a rather unflattering light...

Cheers

blutto
Perhaps I should have said almost everyone.The point remains though that evidence of a dominating Banesto train in the mountains has been sorely lacking.

And disagreeing with some around here casts the dissident in a poor light from a certain perspective.I feel the constant shouts of "Look it up yourself!",rather than provide the evidence himself,cast that person in a poor light.

Feel free to disagree with my opinion all you want.I just want to see this train,as I have the DVD's,watched the Tour at the time,and read as many magazines & papers on it at the time,and I can't recollect seeing Banesto destroying all before them through the mountains-which is the premise this thread was started on.

Please enlighten me as to where that evidence exists,& perhaps I'll be better equipped to see where I'm "wrong".Instead of just being a jerk myself,apparently.
 
Jun 12, 2011
122
0
0
GJB123 said:
He look guys, Elmer is back!! ;) I hope he is gonna show us some proof of the illustrious Banesto train now! :rolleyes:

Sorry, blutto, your memory is wrong! :D

Regards
GJ
I feel your remarks cast you in a very poor light. :p
 
blutto said:
...sorry to throw a spanner into your argument but I will have to take exception to your use of the term everyone in the statement found above...and I take exception because if you had taken even a moment to actually read this thread you would notice that I happen to agree that Banesto had a train ( now while I will have to admit that I am working from memory here and that memory can be a fickle thing but my recollection, and I did watch those tours rather closely as Indurain was and still is a fave, is that there was a Banesto train, and if in fact the local commentators made a point of discussing that fact )...

...now my pointing this out may seem like a quibble but it does put your ability to draw conclusions from the facts very much at hand in a very bad light...in fact one could conclude you have a propensity to draw conclusions that are patently wrong....and tie that in with your name calling and you and your comments end up in a rather unflattering light...

Cheers

blutto
Whatever was said by the poster you are addressing is on reflection quite accurate as the guy who started this thread was behaving in an arrogant and demeaning manner. Also, he only ever seemed to address the same one poster even though most other people were putting up evidence undermining his claims.

The OP has singularly failed to address the video links posted or the numerous posters who have said there never was a Banesto train. As I have said in a previous post and is evident in many of the video's, Banesto were regularly on the front in mountain stages, mainly riding tempo over the earlier cols on stages. However on the last climb of the day it was usually up to Indurain to defend himself.

I think the OP and yourself are confusing Banesto riding 'tempo' with US Postal style 'drilling it' on the front with 3-4 team-mates on the final climb until there was only Lance and one or two contenders left. Banesto rarely had 3-4 guys left by the final climb and never drilled it at the front until there was just Indurain and one or two other's left.

Most of the time, Banesto rode defensively in the mountains as Indurain was usually so far ahead after the TT, they didnt need to drive it on. It was up to other teams to take it to Indurain. On the few occasions Indurain needed time, he went for it himself, that stage to Liege when he broke away with Bruyneel and the stage to Hautacam in 94 when he attacked and broke everyone except Leblanc I think.

The other thing of course is the OP has backed away from his Banesto train idea to just Banesto being a strong team in the mountains. As someone else pointed out, he also tried to derail his own thread by going of on a unrelated matter about Contador or something.

If the 'train' was Banesto riding tempo in the mountains then yes there was a Banesto train but that is a world apart from the US Postal version which of course is what this thread is about.
 
May 24, 2011
124
0
0
pmcg76 said:
Whatever was said by the poster you are addressing is on reflection quite accurate as the guy who started this thread was behaving in an arrogant and demeaning manner. Also, he only ever seemed to address the same one poster even though most other people were putting up evidence undermining his claims.

The OP has singularly failed to address the video links posted or the numerous posters who have said there never was a Banesto train. As I have said in a previous post and is evident in many of the video's, Banesto were regularly on the front in mountain stages, mainly riding tempo over the earlier cols on stages. However on the last climb of the day it was usually up to Indurain to defend himself.

I think the OP and yourself are confusing Banesto riding 'tempo' with US Postal style 'drilling it' on the front with 3-4 team-mates on the final climb until there was only Lance and one or two contenders left. Banesto rarely had 3-4 guys left by the final climb and never drilled it at the front until there was just Indurain and one or two other's left.

Most of the time, Banesto rode defensively in the mountains as Indurain was usually so far ahead after the TT, they didnt need to drive it on. It was up to other teams to take it to Indurain. On the few occasions Indurain needed time, he went for it himself, that stage to Liege when he broke away with Bruyneel and the stage to Hautacam in 94 when he attacked and broke everyone except Leblanc I think.

The other thing of course is the OP has backed away from his Banesto train idea to just Banesto being a strong team in the mountains. As someone else pointed out, he also tried to derail his own thread by going of on a unrelated matter about Contador or something.

If the 'train' was Banesto riding tempo in the mountains then yes there was a Banesto train but that is a world apart from the US Postal version which of course is what this thread is about.
The problem is most are fanatical in the way they attack one of the two 7 time grand tour winners so they lose objectivity to look at the facts about the other.

I started this thread due to the heavy bias against one rider in the clinic, when another likely used same substances and methods 4 years previous, but thanks to the inequity of justice we now see, only one of the two might have his grand tour wins erased from the history books. I don't like this inequity as both were great cyclists and deserve their wins. What they both were like as people is not relevant at all
 
Exroadman24902 said:
The problem is most are fanatical in the way they attack one of the two 7 time grand tour winners so they lose objectivity to look at the facts about the other.

I started this thread due to the heavy bias against one rider in the clinic, when another likely used same substances and methods 4 years previous, but thanks to the inequity of justice we now see, only one of the two might have his grand tour wins erased from the history books. I don't like this inequity as both were great cyclists and deserve their wins. What they both were like as people is not relevant at all
And you are proving to be just as fanatical about trying to prove that other's were just like Lance. Instead of using actual evidence, you just make random stuff up and present it as proof like the Banesto train.

The difference between Indurain and Armstrong is that they are from two different eras and are two different personalities. If Indurain had been around in post Festina, then he would have been under far greater scrutiny than he was.

As it stands, all we have on Indurain is that he was the dominant rider as EPO came to the fore and therefore was likely to have been on EPO himself. Thats it, there isnt a shred of acceptable evidence anywhere other than our own common sense about the matter.

Indurain was also universally respected and indeed respectd all the other riders, he was so calm he was regarded as incredibly boooring. There was no other reason to dislike Indurain other than the fact he was boring.

The thing with Lance is he arrived post Festina and knew what level of scrutiny he would be subject to but decided to dope to the gills anyway whilst all the time banking on the cancer angle to ride out the inevetiable questioning. It is not so much the doping but the cynical use of cancer to hide that doping that grates with people. It's not about the doping.
As much as you want it be about just doping, the human condition means it will always be about more than that.

His personality and treatment of other's were in complete contrast to Indurain. Armstrong actively propelled himself into the limelight whilst Indurain shunned it. How many conflicts did Indurain have during his career? compare that with Lance. The dislike for Lance over Indurain is as much to do with personality as it is to do with doping and the fact that Indurain was 15-20 years ago now whilst Lance retired and came back and just retired again.

Two phrases come to mind "you live by the sword you die by the sword" and "the bigger they are the harder they fall"
 
May 24, 2011
124
0
0
pmcg76 said:
And you are proving to be just as fanatical about trying to prove that other's were just like Lance. Instead of using actual evidence, you just make random stuff up and present it as proof like the Banesto train.

The difference between Indurain and Armstrong is that they are from two different eras and are two different personalities. If Indurain had been around in post Festina, then he would have been under far greater scrutiny than he was.

As it stands, all we have on Indurain is that he was the dominant rider as EPO came to the fore and therefore was likely to have been on EPO himself. Thats it, there isnt a shred of acceptable evidence anywhere other than our own common sense about the matter.

Indurain was also universally respected and indeed respectd all the other riders, he was so calm he was regarded as incredibly boooring. There was no other reason to dislike Indurain other than the fact he was boring.

The thing with Lance is he arrived post Festina and knew what level of scrutiny he would be subject to but decided to dope to the gills anyway whilst all the time banking on the cancer angle to ride out the inevetiable questioning. It is not so much the doping but the cynical use of cancer to hide that doping that grates with people. It's not about the doping.
As much as you want it be about just doping, the human condition means it will always be about more than that.

His personality and treatment of other's were in complete contrast to Indurain. Armstrong actively propelled himself into the limelight whilst Indurain shunned it. How many conflicts did Indurain have during his career? compare that with Lance. The dislike for Lance over Indurain is as much to do with personality as it is to do with doping and the fact that Indurain was 15-20 years ago now whilst Lance retired and came back and just retired again.

Two phrases come to mind "you live by the sword you die by the sword" and "the bigger they are the harder they fall"
They are from the same era not different eras. They won 4 years apart at TDF and raced a lot together.

Re your respect for Indurain comments, I agree that Mig was a really nice chap but it is not relevant.

And Indurain's people made a + go away in 1994. Thomas Davy is Indurain's Floyd Landis. Indurain weighed far too much to climb as he did and scored crazy victory margins in some TTs which are impossible. The evidence against Indurain is as strong as against Armstrong.

Re Indurain's stuff being 15 to 20 years ago-as you mention. The "its so many years ago forget it" argument is one Armstrong's legal team use.

Lance is more current, but it may well be that they both benefited from the same prep so both or neither should be held to account
 
Jul 4, 2009
9,666
0
0
....now before anyone sustains a serious injury patting themselves on the back too vigorously and ends up looking like petulant children by resorting to cheap name-calling it may be a good idea to look back at the statement that was at the very beginning of this thread....

...in that statement there is no mention of trains....there is no mention of drilling it....there is only mention of a strong mountain team....now I will admit that the way in which Banesto and USPS played their hands was certainly different but that in no diminishes the strength of the various Banesto Tour teams ( though the last two in the Indurain era were admittedly weaker)...they were playing a different hand since they actually had a leader who could take of things on the last climb....and if you do notice Indurain was always put into a position from which he could either win the stage or defend his position..

...now if I were a smart DS I would not needlesly burn matches unless I had to....and drilling your team when there are other equally effective ways to achieve your goals does not seem like the prudent thing to do...I mean they did win 5 Tours in a row and after the first win everybody knew what the game was....

....so they did they have a strong mountain team?....of course they did!...were they exactly the same as USPS....well no( they may have played it smarter...see matches above )...but do realize they were playing a different game with a different deck...and the bottom line is they always got the job done in the mountains....though admittedly in their own way....

Cheers

blutto
 
Feb 23, 2010
2,102
0
0
Exroadman24902 said:
They are from the same era not different eras. They won 4 years apart at TDF and raced a lot together.

Re your respect for Indurain comments, I agree that Mig was a really nice chap but it is not relevant.

And Indurain's people made a + go away in 1994. Thomas Davy is Indurain's Floyd Landis. Indurain weighed far too much to climb as he did and scored crazy victory margins in some TTs which are impossible. The evidence against Indurain is as strong as against Armstrong.

Re Indurain's stuff being 15 to 20 years ago-as you mention. The "its so many years ago forget it" argument is one Armstrong's legal team use.

Lance is more current, but it may well be that they both benefited from the same prep so both or neither should be held to account
Sorry but who cares? You're completely O your own T. Are you finally ready to accept that there was never a "Banesto train in the mountains"? I do hope so. Then we can try to move on from simply repeating ourselves over and over again.
 
Jul 4, 2009
9,666
0
0
GJB123 said:
He look guys, Elmer is back!! ;) I hope he is gonna show us some proof of the illustrious Banesto train now! :rolleyes:

Sorry, blutto, your memory is wrong! :D

Regards
GJ
...that is Mr Fudd to you!....in polite society, of which this forum is such august example of, the use of the first name in addressing the other is only used among friends...

Cheers

blutto
 
May 24, 2011
124
0
0
L'arriviste said:
Sorry but who cares? You're completely O your own T. Are you finally ready to accept that there was never a "Banesto train in the mountains"? I do hope so. Then we can try to move on from simply repeating ourselves over and over again.
No not at all ready to accept. Good idea in your last sentence
 
blutto said:
....now before anyone sustains a serious injury patting themselves on the back too vigorously and ends up looking like petulant children by resorting to cheap name-calling it may be a good idea to look back at the statement that was at the very beginning of this thread....

...in that statement there is no mention of trains....there is no mention of drilling it....there is only mention of a strong mountain team....now I will admit that the way in which Banesto and USPS played their hands was certainly different but that in no diminishes the strength of the various Banesto Tour teams ( though the last two in the Indurain era were admittedly weaker)...they were playing a different hand since they actually had a leader who could take of things on the last climb....and if you do notice Indurain was always put into a position from which he could either win the stage or defend his position..
Have you actually read the thread-title, Mr. Fudd? ;)

You are also now shying away from the discussion, shifting goal posts because you cannot proof the point you were trying to make earlier.

Almost everyone (nah, who am I kidding, everyone) agrees that Banesto had a strong team also for the mountains. But in no way was it similar to the USPS mountain train driven by Lance and don't kid yourself that this was purely by Banesto's tactical choice. Because if those riders would have been able to drill it USPS-style they most certainly would have been closer to the heat of action on the final climb. Truth is they were there together with quite sizable pelotons and were dropped the minute the real tenors started playing ball. In contrast in the Lance-era it was actually the USPS-train not the tenors themselves that started playing ball on the climbs and to such great effect that most tenors couldn't even manage to hang on.

Regards
GJ
 
Jun 19, 2009
13,250
0
0
Exroadman24902 said:
The problem is most are fanatical in the way they attack one of the two 7 time grand tour winners so they lose objectivity to look at the facts about the other.

I started this thread due to the heavy bias against one rider in the clinic, when another likely used same substances and methods 4 years previous, but thanks to the inequity of justice we now see, only one of the two might have his grand tour wins erased from the history books. I don't like this inequity as both were great cyclists and deserve their wins. What they both were like as people is not relevant at all
There is no bias against Indurains doping - which I pointed out in post no. 13:
Dr. Maserati said:
Yes.

The only "double-standard" you'll find is that there won't be a host of people denying it.
 
Aug 19, 2009
612
0
0
Exroadman24902 said:
The problem is most are fanatical in the way they attack one of the two 7 time grand tour winners so they lose objectivity to look at the facts about the other.

I started this thread due to the heavy bias against one rider in the clinic, when another likely used same substances and methods 4 years previous, but thanks to the inequity of justice we now see, only one of the two might have his grand tour wins erased from the history books. I don't like this inequity as both were great cyclists and deserve their wins. What they both were like as people is not relevant at all
As the Doc said, the statute of limitations are long past. Four years ago, Riis admitted to doping during his career - and specifically for his Tour victory. To my understanding, his name is still in the record books - albeit with an asterisk - as winner of the 1996 Tour.

For me, it's a bit of a no-brainer to think that that Indurain, or any other contender during that time-frame benefited from from EPO etc. Would I like more scrutiny be applied to those individuals? Indeed. Do I think it will happen? No - but at one point I did think it was possible if the masses turned against Contador in Spain.

Mind you, I don't think the presence or absence of a Banesto train says anything for or against that.
 
Sep 10, 2009
5,663
0
0
GJB123 said:
Almost everyone (nah, who am I kidding, everyone) agrees that Banesto had a strong team also for the mountains. But in no way was it similar to the USPS mountain train driven by Lance and don't kid yourself that this was purely by Banesto's tactical choice. Because if those riders would have been able to drill it USPS-style they most certainly would have been closer to the heat of action on the final climb. Truth is they were there together with quite sizable pelotons and were dropped the minute the real tenors started playing ball. In contrast in the Lance-era it was actually the USPS-train not the tenors themselves that started playing ball on the climbs and to such great effect that most tenors couldn't even manage to hang on.

Regards
GJ
To be fair, I think discussions like this have a tendency to move into absolutes and generalizations - yes, Banesto had a strong team, yes, Banesto had some strong mountain goats during the Indurain years, no, the mountain train concept did not originate with USPS.

But the implication of this thread was that the Banesto/USPS mountain trains were equivalent, and that simply isn't true. There was only very rarely, if ever (and I followed the Tour intently during the Indurain years and can't think of a single instance where Indurain had more than one teammate with him at the end, and even that was rare) an instance of Banesto having multiple riders in the final selection on the final climb like USPS often (but not always) did. That is the difference between the two.
 
Exroadman24902 said:
They are from the same era not different eras. They won 4 years apart at TDF and raced a lot together.

Re your respect for Indurain comments, I agree that Mig was a really nice chap but it is not relevant.

And Indurain's people made a + go away in 1994. Thomas Davy is Indurain's Floyd Landis. Indurain weighed far too much to climb as he did and scored crazy victory margins in some TTs which are impossible. The evidence against Indurain is as strong as against Armstrong.

Re Indurain's stuff being 15 to 20 years ago-as you mention. The "its so many years ago forget it" argument is one Armstrong's legal team use.

Lance is more current, but it may well be that they both benefited from the same prep so both or neither should be held to account
Your whole premise is that Indurain had a train at Banesto like Lance did at US Postal. You seem to have forgotten that now in favour of other things which seems to be the notion that Lance is no worse than anybody else.

As I said and you convenitently ignored, the dislike for Lance has as much to do with his personality as it has to do with his doping. That is human nature.
You dont want it that way but that is the way things are in life. Lance built his brand on his personality and cancer as much as on his achievements and thus that is how he will be judged.

For example if two bank robbers get away with a big heist, one goes away to live a quiet life with his family unheard of whilst the other is constanlty in the news acting arrogantly, bigging themselves up, bullying others and taunting the media and the authorities, which one do you think people will want to see taken down?

The other thing is this, owing to the climate of the times, there was never any suspicions swirling around Indurain whilst there was around Lance from day one. Most people had figured out long before he won 7 Tours that Lance was doped to the gills. That wasnt the case with Indurain becasue the questioning culture didnt exist then. Its harder to take watching someone do a crime and know they are getting away with it than being knowledgable about the crime long after it happened.

If Indurain had happened post Festina, there would have been a lot more scrutiny on him too and all his rivals got away with the same things as Indurain. Most of Lance's rivals have been booted from the sport at some stage. There is definitely a mentality that pre-Festina, they all got away with it so let them have their laurels, what happened pre Festina stays pre Festina. That is why I say they are different era's in attitudes towards doping.

At the end of the day, Lance's crimes were more than just doping and therfore he should be judged and punished accordingly.


.
 
Jul 4, 2009
9,666
0
0
GJB123 said:
Have you actually read the thread-title, Mr. Fudd? ;)

You are also now shying away from the discussion, shifting goal posts because you cannot proof the point you were trying to make earlier.

Almost everyone (nah, who am I kidding, everyone) agrees that Banesto had a strong team also for the mountains. But in no way was it similar to the USPS mountain train driven by Lance and don't kid yourself that this was purely by Banesto's tactical choice. Because if those riders would have been able to drill it USPS-style they most certainly would have been closer to the heat of action on the final climb. Truth is they were there together with quite sizable pelotons and were dropped the minute the real tenors started playing ball. In contrast in the Lance-era it was actually the USPS-train not the tenors themselves that started playing ball on the climbs and to such great effect that most tenors couldn't even manage to hang on.

Regards
GJ
...you are absolutely right...I did not read the thread title I just looked at the post attached to it and have been playing off the super strong team reference contained there-in...

...so you are right...Banesto was no train just one the strongest teams the Tour has ever seen...

Cheers

blutto
 
I just happened to come across this about the Banesto train. This is taken from one of the main Banesto domestiques Gerard Rue during the 93 Tour, source Cycle Sport magazine Oct 1993. Speaking about his role with Banesto.

'To stay with Miguel as long as possible. I crossed the Tourmalet one minute behind him and that was enough to allow me to get back on the descent, then on the Aubisque and Soulor I just led the group to prevent any attacks, after the descent from the Aubisque, Ariostea rode the final 50kms to protect Riis. Our work was only to control the mountains.'

'Sometimes you have to slow down and wait a little for team-mates, sometimes he will call on you to accelerate to prevent attacks. He will tell you to watch out and then you ride to prevent attacks'

'If I do the work I am meant to do and protect my leader as I should, then my job is done'

As I said how many times now, Banesto were all about protecting Indurain and controlling the tempo in the mountains. They rode defensively to prevents attacks before the final climb of the day. They never rode aggressively to try and drop eveyone on the final climb.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY