Et tu, Miguel?
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."
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."
'This week I 'ave been mostly been climbing like Basso - Shirley Basso.'
0
Posts
My blog and pod...
Beers of Belgium Cycling Club UK
Still an awsome Time Trialist in his pomp!!!
Click here to view Top_Bhoys RC2:
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
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
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.
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.
by rights you should be bludgeoned in your bed
Indurain...
Merckx...
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!
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!
Rule No.10 // It never gets easier, you just go faster
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.
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.
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.
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!
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...
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.
Maybe, but the available research shows that not all riders benefit equally from Epo and blood-doping, not by a long shot.
I wan't trying to argue any such thing!
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
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).
Big Mig clean? Good Lord, you would believe alistair campbell.
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
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.
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]
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...