Et tu, Miguel?

LangerDan

Saw this on Velonews:


Five-time Tour de France winner Miguel Indurain said he never took banned performance-enhancing substances during his illustrious career.

Er, no. What he actually said (assuming an accurate translation was used in the article) was the standard response:

In a full-page interview with Indurain in Sunday's edition of the Spanish sports daily MARCA, the 43-year-old Spaniard was asked by journalist Olga Viza what he would say if someone asked him directly if he doped.

"I would say ‘no.' I passed all the controls, thousands of them, so many I lost count. It's something normal; you win, you pass controls and there's no problem," Indurain said. "What's happening today is that everything is in doubt."

jimmythecuckoo

I must admit I didn't have much suspician about Big Mig... until now :?

top_bhoy

Bear in mind he is/was a spanish superstar with a huge budget and top support, it is more than possible he is telling the truth - possibly his 'preparatory diet' wasn't detectable hence was not on any banned list.

Still an awsome Time Trialist in his pomp!!!

aurelio_-_banned

David Walsh has very plausibly argued that Indurain was probably one of the first riders to take full advantage of Epo, hence his transformation from a non-climber into a multiple Tour winner. Indurain was a big, muscular rider, but in order to take advantage of this he needed a huge supply of oxygen to the muscles, more than nature has made possible for a man of his size. With Epo the 'fuel' was suddenly made available to run that big engine to it's maximum. As a side effect almost overnight all the 'classic', lightweight climbers found themselves suddenly outgunned by big powerful riders such as Indurain.

For more go to http://www.competitorradio.com/details.php?show=150 and

http://www.competitorradio.com/details.php?show=151

On top of this there is other evidence of doping within Indurain's team. For example:

Riders habitually boosted themselves to the mid-50s, and Bjarne Riis, winner of the 1996 Tour became known in the peloton as 'Mr Sixty-percent'. In October 1995 Marco Pantani recorded a haematocrit of 60.1%, about twenty percent higher than his natural level. On one occasion the entire Banesto team tested at 48.5 to 49.5, a situation impossible in nature.

http://www.abcc.co.uk/Articles/DrgsTdeF.html

aurelio_-_banned

Another 'Banesto' story...

Former Banesto rider confesses to taking EPO
Last Updated: Thursday, October 26, 2000 | 4:02 PM ET
CBC Sports

A former rider for the Banesto team, whose leader won the Tour de France five consecutive times, told a court on Thursday that there was medically supervised doping of team cyclists that included the banned drug EPO.

The testimony came on the fourth day of a doping trial that grew out of the drug scandal that nearly wrecked the 1998 Tour de France.

A former Festina cyclist, French star Richard Virenque, and nine former team officials are on trial on a range of charges.

The trial, which opened Monday, has led to stunning testimony about systematic doping of top Festina riders, and, Thursday, allegations that the Spanish Banesto team also used banned products to enhance cyclists' performance.

"In Banesto, there was a system of doping with medical supervision," Thomas Davy, who rode with Banesto from 1995 to 1996, told the court.

Banesto's champion rider, Miguel Indurain, rode the team to five Tour de France victories, from 1991 to 1995.

"Everyone did it?" Presiding Judge Daniel Delegove asked the rider.

"Yes. I think so," Davy replied.

Calls placed to Banesto team headquarters were unanswered.

http://www.cbc.ca/sports/story/2000/10/ ... 01026.html

flattythehurdler

I can't believe that anyone actually even considered him clean :shock:

LangerDan

flattythehurdler wrote:

I can't believe that anyone actually even considered him clean :shock:

My disappointment doesn't relate to a belief that he was clean so much as to the fact that he expects people to accept that passing doping controls, particularly 15 years ago, means he didn't take anything.

Miguel, me old mucker, it's very easy. If you didn't take anything, just say "I didn't take any performance-enhancing drugs". If you don't want to be asked hard questions, don't give interviews.

skavanagh.bikeradar

Quite. Take a look at old Tour footage and see how many big men there are at the front in the mountains.

timoid.

skavanagh.bikeradar wrote:

Quite. Take a look at old Tour footage and see how many big men there are at the front in the mountains.

I saw a very interesting stage from 1969 in which a strapping 6 foot Belgian annihilated the field over the Tourmalet and Aubisque. He went on to win a few more I believe.

Salsiccia

Timoid. wrote:

I saw a very interesting stage from 1969 in which a strapping 6 foot Belgian annihilated the field over the Tourmalet and Aubisque. He went on to win a few more I believe.

Ooh, you little tinker!

Back on topic, wasn't Mig's Cardio-Vascular system and lung capacity spectacularly huge? And wasn't he always viewed as a future big-Tour winner for a few seasons before he did it? I don't think he just appeared as a strong climber overnight... ...and he hardly ever attacked but just rode close to whoever was a danger and then ripped people apart in the time trials, where his real strentgh was.

I'm not saying he never did anything, as we can never be sure, but it's not like he suddenly went from being a nobody to being Lucho Herrera-like.

aurelio_-_banned

Compare and contrast, a couple of images of Merckx and Indurain taken in similar situations and from similar angles.

Indurain...



Merckx...

aurelio_-_banned

Salsiccia wrote:

Timoid. wrote:

I I'm not saying he never did anything, as we can never be sure, but it's not like he suddenly went from being a nobody to being Lucho Herrera-like.

And what were Indurain's performances like in his first Tours? Nothing spectacular and he generally really struggled in the mountains.

I would admit that Indurain's progress was a lot steadier than Armstrong though, who only finished one of his first four Tours (Merckx won his first 4!) and that finish was over one and half hours behind the winner. Then he comes back from cancer, 'got on a program' (or so many claim, ranging from ex team mates to his former team doctor and soigner!) and not even the 'specialist' climbers could live with him, even though his weight was actually within a kilo or so of his pre-cancer racing weight. (As shown by testimony given in that SCA hearing).

Odd how so many Tour winners have to be 'made' these days. Whatever happened to rider's coming into the Tour and being dominant, or at least super-competitive from the off due to sheer natural talent, as with Merckx? I don't think we have to look far for the answer!

ContrelaMontre

aurelio wrote:

Don't you think he looks a bit like he's just popped out for a Sunday morning spin in this pic?

Sorry for going O/T!

LangerDan

There is actually not much in size between Merckx and Indurain. In fact many of the larger Tour winners are not dissimilar in size:

Rider / Height (m) / Weight (hg)

Jan Ullrich / 1.83 / 73
Lance Armstrong / 1.79 / 72
Miguel Indurain / 1.88 / 79
Eddy Merckx / 1.84 / 75


So yes, Merckx is shorter & lighter than Indurain but the difference was less than 5%. The images posted exagerate the difference. For instance, I could always past this picture:
http://www.bikeradar.com/gallery/articl ... 2866?img=1

PS - Don't try to convince yourself that the Cannibal was pure. You'll only be disappointed.

timoid.

aurelio wrote:

Timoid. wrote:

I I'm not saying he never did anything, as we can never be sure, but it's not like he suddenly went from being a nobody to being Lucho Herrera-like.

And what were Indurain's performances like in his first Tours? Nothing spectacular and he generally really struggled in the mountains.

I would admit that Indurain's progress was a lot steadier than Armstrong though, who only finished one of his first four Tours (Merckx won his first 4!) and that finish was over one and half hours behind the winner. Then he comes back from cancer, 'got on a program' (or so many claim, ranging from ex team mates to his former team doctor and soigner!) and not even the 'specialist' climbers could live with him, even though his weight was actually within a kilo or so of his pre-cancer racing weight. (As shown by testimony given in that SCA hearing).

Odd how so many Tour winners have to be 'made' these days. Whatever happened to rider's coming into the Tour and being dominant, or at least super-competitive from the off due to sheer natural talent, as with Merckx? I don't think we have to look far for the answer!

Indurain entered his first Tour at 20 and did not finish as part of his development programme. The same applied the following year. At 24, the age that Merckx had his first tour Indurain was a not disgraceful 17th. He buried himself for his leader that year and next where he still made the top 10 and won stages. In 1991 he was team leader for the first time and delivered.

I'm not saying he's clean, but his development is in line with someone maturing from green novice to full proffesional and who's body improved year on year to its peak in his late 20s.

aurelio_-_banned

LangerDan wrote:

PS - Don't try to convince yourself that the Cannibal was pure. You'll only be disappointed.

I am certain that the use of amphetamines and other products was rife in 'the old days'. This may well have a had a lot to do with riders in those days racing 200 days per year, having to earn the majority of their cash in the gruelling after-Tour criterium circuit (driving themselves hundred of miles per day between events), then doing the 6 day circuit and so on.

The real problem is that Epo and blood-doping really do turn also-rans into champions. Just look at the example of Riis, or Armstrong who although a gifted one-day rider never looked like a potential Tour winner. This is my main problem with doping, it is simply impossible to 'believe' in the results any more. It's not even as though a level playing field would be created if everyone doped as some benefit much more than others.

It's true that Coppi when asked if he ever used stimulants said 'Only when absolutely necessary', and when asked how often that was replied 'Almost always!'. But he would have still been the rider he was without stimulants as they didn't change his physiology. This simply isn't true with modern doping. As Willy Voet once said, 'old school' doping allowed the rider to 'make the best of themselves' whilst Epo and blood doping creates entirely new riders. Ok, things aren't really that clear-cut but there is a lot of truth in what he says.

Unfortunately the doping culture which has always existed in cycling made it inevitable that when genuinely ergogenic products and methods came along they would be embraced almost without thought, and this mix of culture and technology has made modern cycle sport the hollow sham it now is, about as believable as American Pro Wrestling...

To be honest I don't think that Riis, Armstrong, Indurain or whoever should be stripped of their Tour titles, even if they are proven to have doped or admit it. Rather the whole era should just be tagged as being that of the Epo/ blood-doping generation, their use was so widespread. I would, however, like to read a lot less about the 'stars' and a lot more about real heroes of this era, that is those who raced clean, even if the best they could achieve when up against the blood-doped and Epo-using 'stars' was to finish in the 'bus' each day.

aurelio_-_banned

LangerDan wrote:

Merckx is shorter & lighter than Indurain but the difference was less than 5%.

Five percent is quite a lot at that level of the game, and you have to factor in just how much faster riders like Indurain, Armstrong and so on are able to climb than 'old school' riders like Merckx. Five percent bigger and five percent (or more) faster demands a whole load more power!

LangerDan

aurelio wrote:

LangerDan wrote:

Merckx is shorter & lighter than Indurain but the difference was less than 5%.

Five percent is quite a lot at that level of the game, and you have to factor in just how much faster riders like Indurain, Armstrong and so on are able to climb than 'old school' riders like Merckx. Five percent bigger and five percent (or more) faster demands a whole load more power!

True, but your photo posting was based on the premise that there was a very significant difference in build between the two. I'd reckon that if you were to line them all up in "civillian" clothes, all you'd have is a row of very skinny, tall guys. You would never have mistaken Merckx for a Columbian!

OllyBianchi

Whilst I'm sure that many of the exploits of both the recent and distant past are 'assisted' I can't help thinking about my own situation when thinking about Merckx and the old school riders.

My dad was a successful amateur in the 60s and 70s and I'm a fair weather sunday rider - he was vastly more physically talented than I am but my wife and I have ridden sportive distances it took him years of dedicated training to get up to - simply because we can take advantage of a rough knowelge of modern training techniques and nutrition.

It's not all about the legs, or the drugs, it's about the fuel you can put into yourself and the way you ride during the week.

Off topic I know, but a point worth making...

TheHog

aurelio wrote:

LangerDan wrote:

PS - Don't try to convince yourself that the Cannibal was pure. You'll only be disappointed.

The real problem is that Epo and blood-doping really do turn also-rans into champions. Just look at the example of Riis, or Armstrong.

What about it? We don't know anything about who would be the best if they were all clean. Of course Riis wasn't able to beat the dopers when he rode clean, that dosn't mean he benefited more from doping than everyone else. That Indurain started doping at an earlier age dosn't make him any more clean.

Monty Dog

Whilst I accept that the use of stimulants was rife in the 60s and 70s AFAIK they don't have a significant ergogenic benefit - only an ability to withstand the pain - but if you don't have the power in your legs, popping a tab ain't gonna make you go quicker, just hurt less. However, steroids, blood-doping and hormone therapy can have a considerable impact - turning proverbial donkeys into thoroughbreds. It's interesting to see in the last few years we've seen the return of the climbers, little guys that can literally ride off the front when for 15 years we've seen little of them as the peloton has been whipped-up by a tempo set by domestiques who can't climb for toffee and yet start winning alpine stages. Regardless of whether Eddy popped a pill or two, it was the nature and volume of his victories that are remarkable. He didn't have the benefit of doctors or training advisors to monitor his progress - riding was a lot more on feel than an HRM strapped to your bars. I for one relish the prospect of unpredictable and exciting racing, with off-days and spectacular blow-ups without miracle recoveries. It's also why I find classics racing more interesting - one team has less opportunity to control the race and tactics have a greater bearing on the result than pharmaceutical assistance - just look at one rider's inability to win Amstel or L-B-L, despite being the 'best' rider in many peoples view.

aurelio_-_banned

TheHog wrote:

aurelio wrote:

The real problem is that Epo and blood-doping really do turn also-rans into champions. Just look at the example of Riis, or Armstrong.

What about it? We don't know anything about who would be the best if they were all clean.

This is the major reason doping is such a big issue! To a large degree the outcome of races reflects the effectiveness of the 'programs' the riders are on as much as it does the natural ability and guts of the riders themselves!

TheHog wrote:

Of course Riis wasn't able to beat the dopers when he rode clean, that dosn't mean he benefited more from doping than everyone else.

Maybe, but the available research shows that not all riders benefit equally from Epo and blood-doping, not by a long shot.

TheHog wrote:

That Indurain started doping at an earlier age dosn't make him any more clean.

I wan't trying to argue any such thing!

thatlondon

Hey what in hell is going on here ....!

By all means accuse Armstrong, Vinokorov, Rasmussen, et al of doping. But please do not mention drugs and Indurain or Merckx in the same sentence.

Never mind Walsh and his tripe, he wrote an article accusing his granny of taking EPO to enhance her performance in the senior citizens bowls tournament.

Lets change track, who has heard the latest in the Landis appeal ?

Vive le Miguelón

Kléber

Make up your own mind.

When I saw him beating the Festina tandem of Leblanc and Virenque, I made my own mind up. He rivalled Pantani in the mountains.

Perhaps it was the diet of manchego and basque sausage?

Thomas Davy gave his explanation. And team mate Armand de las Cuevas was allegedly caught by Swiss border police with doses of Eprex (http://www.elmundo.es/1998/10/20/deportes/20N0104.html).

flattythehurdler

thatlondon wrote:

Hey what in hell is going on here ....!

By all means accuse Armstrong, Vinokorov, Rasmussen, et al of doping. But please do not mention drugs and Indurain or Merckx in the same sentence.

Never mind Walsh and his tripe, he wrote an article accusing his granny of taking EPO to enhance her performance in the senior citizens bowls tournament.

Lets change track, who has heard the latest in the Landis appeal ?

Vive le Miguelón

Big Mig clean? Good Lord, you would believe alistair campbell.

thatlondon

Who cares if he was clean Mig is God

skavanagh.bikeradar

Not if he is a cheat and a liar and not if he is unable to support anti-doping in the current age he's not.

thatlondon

Face the facts,

I would say it is almost certain that every champion prior to a couple of years ago has doped. And its not just the champions too since the dawn of time the peloton has been dirty.

Who cares what people did in the past, there was no competitive edge because of doping, they all doped. What is important is to make sure that future races are clean.

And Mig is sill God

Kléber

thatlondon wrote:

Who cares what people did in the past, there was no competitive edge because of doping, they all doped. What is important is to make sure that future races are clean.

Well, if you look up to someone, I'd want better than weasel words to help future races.

Also, doping isn't a level playing field, it wasn't as if Dr Ferrari was handing out identically-sized pills to everyone who wanted them. Riders who took the biggest risks with their health won, guys like Riis when from handy domestique to Tour winner thanks to giant dosages.

thatlondon

Well, if you look up to someone, I'd want better than weasel words to help future races.

What are you talking about ?

So your saying that by wasting time, money and energy trying to catch every doping cheat, which is just about every rider who has ridden the TDF. We are going to help the future of cycling, please explain how.

What will help the future of cycling is to ensure that the future of cycling is clean and on a level playing field.

Come on like there is only one Dr Ferrari, from the information that I have read, riders where buying their own EPO and measuring their own heamocrit, and every team doctor helped. Dr Ferrari didn't have any special methods he was probably one of many doctors who administered Illegal methods once the teams dropped active EPO subscription. Dr Ferrari got caught there are probably a lot of doctors out there guilty who have yet to get caught.

I don't care if Armstrong doped or Indurain or Merx or Le Mond or Antiquiel or Hinault, speculation and accusation will not change the fact that people in the past doped. Nor will it stop future riders from doping.

What I care about is that Contador is clean, Evans is clean, Wiggins, Cavendish and every other rider that gets on a bike.[/url]

Kléber

No, I agree that spending time chasing the past cheats is a waste. But I'm not going to worship obvious cheats, call them gods. And if they care to make a living today from their past image as a champion, they have to be willing to face the heat, after all many of their peers have been exposed or confessed. Statements like "I never tested positive" are a joke.

I didn't raise Ferrari's name in particular, as the sole person involved, indeed many riders were using charlatan soigneurs and even vets as their preparatore, that doping isn't a polar situation where a rider who dopes gets an automatic, deterministic n% boost to their power output, there have been great variations between performance.

As for Contador and Evans...