Why the Indurain Case is still important

dave_1

The new test on plastic residues must be used on Indurain's samples too to find out which of the 5 or more grand tour winning riders since 1991 was pure. Not fair only Bertie or Armstrong take the heat

No_Ta_Doctor

Personally I'd have no objections to that, though the statute of limitations doesn't allow it.

But if you think the cut-off point for which riders we go after is entirely arbitrary then here are a few possibilities for why we might want to go for LA and not Indurain:

1) The scale of the problem only became apparent to the general public after Festina. Once that happened there was a real and serious risk to cycling as a professional sport. That's the point at which anti-doping began to get serious and where the steaks (excuse the pun) were raised. Anyone doping after that is doing so in an environment where they jeopardise the sport.

2) Armstrong rode this years tour. If he felt like it, he could ride next years. His last tour win came a mere five years ago. That's not ancient history.

3) While we may suspect pretty much every rider that's ever won a tour of doing it dirty, LA has the stench of doping around him. The vast majority of cycling fans and general public think he doped and got away with it. That's already done damage to cycling, that's not a new wound to open, it's a festering sore that needs to be healed. The only way of doing that, continuing the analogy, is by radical surgery.

dave_1

No tA Doctor wrote:

Personally I'd have no objections to that, though the statute of limitations doesn't allow it.

But if you think the cut-off point for which riders we go after is entirely arbitrary then here are a few possibilities for why we might want to go for LA and not Indurain:

1) The scale of the problem only became apparent to the general public after Festina. Once that happened there was a real and serious risk to cycling as a professional sport. That's the point at which anti-doping began to get serious and where the steaks (excuse the pun) were raised. Anyone doping after that is doing so in an environment where they jeopardise the sport.

2) Armstrong rode this years tour. If he felt like it, he could ride next years. His last tour win came a mere five years ago. That's not ancient history.

3) While we may suspect pretty much every rider that's ever won a tour of doing it dirty, LA has the stench of doping around him. The vast majority of cycling fans and general public think he doped and got away with it. That's already done damage to cycling, that's not a new wound to open, it's a festering sore that needs to be healed. The only way of doing that, continuing the analogy, is by radical surgery.

I couldn't care less about 2005 and before. It's not the doping really, it's LA u after eh

Kléber

Dave_1 wrote:

The new test on plastic residues must be used on Indurain's samples too to find out which of the 5 or more grand tour winning riders since 1991 was pure. Not fair only Bertie or Armstrong take the heat

Only nobody was doing blood tests. If they were, he would probably have been "rested" for a high haematocrit and positive for EPO.

iainf72

Dave_1 wrote:

I couldn't care less about 2005 and before. It's not the doping really, it's LA u after eh

Which one of Lance's major competitors pre-2005 has not been bust yet?

timoid.

iainf72 wrote:

Dave_1 wrote:

I couldn't care less about 2005 and before. It's not the doping really, it's LA u after eh

Which one of Lance's major competitors pre-2005 has not been bust yet?

Discounting their history before they were Lance's rivals. Of the top fives in his reign (position in brackets), the following got away without sanction:

1999: (2) Zulle (this is post Festina), (3) Escartín (but accused by Manzano), (4) Dufaux (post Festina), (5) Casero
2000: (3) Beloki (let off by Spanish authorities), (4) Moreau (post Festina)
2001: (3) Beloki, (4) Kivilev RIP
2002: (2) Beloki
2003: (5) Zubeldia
2004: (2) Kloden (he got away with it), (5) Azevedo
2005: All busted

timoid.

Dave_1 wrote:

The new test on plastic residues must be used on Indurain's samples too to find out which of the 5 or more grand tour winning riders since 1991 was pure. Not fair only Bertie or Armstrong take the heat

2 things:

- EPO was the tool of choice, not blood doping
- Drips were allowed, so plastic residues would be normal


It would be a waste of time to use this method on Induarain's samples.

No_Ta_Doctor

Poor Lance has been singled out.

Unlike Pantani, Riis, Ullrich, Landis, Basso, Valverde, Vino, Millar... Oh and that Spanish chappy that won the TdF 3 times, I've not mentioned him at all on any doping threads....

Dave1 - why don't you address my arguments, instead of trying to propagate the lie that I'm fixated on LA?

I wan't LA to go down because he's the biggest fish in the pool. It's not about LA, it's about cycling.

mididoctors

Dave_1 wrote:

The new test on plastic residues must be used on Indurain's samples too to find out which of the 5 or more grand tour winning riders since 1991 was pure. Not fair only Bertie or Armstrong take the heat

fair point

if the money and technology was there I would test everything I could so we could get a clear as picture as possible of the racing history

dave_1

I couldn't give a monkeys about what happened 5 top 10 years ago or before but AC I do !!!

Kléber

Dave_1 wrote:

The new test on plastic residues must be used on Indurain's samples too to find out which of the 5 or more grand tour winning riders since 1991 was pure. Not fair only Bertie or Armstrong take the heat

Surely everyone knows Indurain worked with the most shady doctors going? Perhaps the difference is many will accept this meant Indurain was up to know good but mention Armstrong and Ferrari and the reaction is different.

Nothing personal Dave but this has the ring of a playground "but HE started it" whine but I could be picking up the wrong end of the stick.

sherer

I can see where Dave is coming from. Why go after LA and not Indurain, why go after Big Big and let all the others before him get away with it. Was Hinault clean, we know Coppi and Anqateil admitted to doping.

What needs to happen is a proper investigation by the UCI or someone independent from all of that. LA is being investigated by the FEDs not the governing body

No_Ta_Doctor

Kléber wrote:

Dave_1 wrote:

The new test on plastic residues must be used on Indurain's samples too to find out which of the 5 or more grand tour winning riders since 1991 was pure. Not fair only Bertie or Armstrong take the heat

Surely everyone knows Indurain worked with the most shady doctors going? Perhaps the difference is many will accept this meant Indurain was up to know good but mention Armstrong and Ferrari and the reaction is different.

Nothing personal Dave but this has the ring of a playground "but HE started it" whine but I could be picking up the wrong end of the stick.

Dave's point on other threads has been to point out the hypocrisy of various posters who are going after LA but leaving Indurain alone. This is despite the fact that most of those posters, myself included, have said that if there was something hard on Indurain then go for it. Apparently we're all obsessed with LA and couldn't give a monkey's about anyone else. Such as Contador, who has been completely ignored by the forum....

To be honest I'm getting a bit fed up of it, it's a worthless straw-man argument he keeps setting up to attack, it bears little relation to any poster here's views, as far as I've seen. It's a pity, because he has relevant points about looking at the big picture, mmost of which I disagree with but which raise other perspectives.

moray_gub

No tA Doctor wrote:

Poor Lance has been singled out.

Unlike Pantani, Riis, Ullrich, Landis, Basso, Valverde, Vino, Millar... Oh and that Spanish chappy that won the TdF 3 times, I've not mentioned him at all on any doping threads....

Dave1 - why don't you address my arguments, instead of trying to propagate the lie that I'm fixated on LA?

I wan't LA to go down because he's the biggest fish in the pool. It's not about LA, it's about cycling.

This its all about cycling guff makes me want to vomit at times you are fixated by LA and the possibilty of him being taken down. You cant hide it i am afraid it comes across loud and clear almost every time you post on the subject.

rossere

To get back to the original point, Intravenous infusions have been banned by WADA only since 2005, so the presence of plasticizers in samples older than that would be legal from an anti-doping perspective.

So using the new test for plastic residues on Indurain's samples wouldn't prove he was cheating.

No_Ta_Doctor

Moray Gub wrote:

No tA Doctor wrote:

Poor Lance has been singled out.

Unlike Pantani, Riis, Ullrich, Landis, Basso, Valverde, Vino, Millar... Oh and that Spanish chappy that won the TdF 3 times, I've not mentioned him at all on any doping threads....

Dave1 - why don't you address my arguments, instead of trying to propagate the lie that I'm fixated on LA?

I wan't LA to go down because he's the biggest fish in the pool. It's not about LA, it's about cycling.

This its all about cycling guff makes me want to vomit at times you are fixated by LA and the possibilty of him being taken down. You cant hide it i am afraid it comes across loud and clear almost every time you post on the subject.

Just repeating lies doesn't make them true, Moray. Have you also seen my comments on doping in general, why I stopped watching cycling after Festina, or the numerous posts I've made on Contador?

Give it a rest.

afx237vi

Do any of Indurain's samples even exist any more? The statute of limitations is 8 years, but I doubt every single sample is kept for that long. You'd need a friggin' enormous fridge.

(But the point of the thread wasn't to discuss that, I know.)

mididoctors

afx237vi wrote:

Do any of Indurain's samples even exist any more? The statute of limitations is 8 years, but I doubt every single sample is kept for that long. You'd need a friggin' enormous fridge.

(But the point of the thread wasn't to discuss that, I know.)

i doubt it

dave_1

one rule for Indurain , another rule for LA and AC.

The present and the future matter most!!!

dave_1

mididoctors wrote:

afx237vi wrote:

Do any of Indurain's samples even exist any more? The statute of limitations is 8 years, but I doubt every single sample is kept for that long. You'd need a friggin' enormous fridge.

(But the point of the thread wasn't to discuss that, I know.)

correct..

shm_uk

afx237vi wrote:

Do any of Indurain's samples even exist any more? The statute of limitations is 8 years, but I doubt every single sample is kept for that long. You'd need a friggin' enormous fridge.

(But the point of the thread wasn't to discuss that, I know.)

One weeks worth of shopping's all I can get in my fridge, so there's no chance of 8 years worth of urine/blood samples ...

stfc1

rossere wrote:

To get back to the original point, Intravenous infusions have been banned by WADA only since 2005, so the presence of plasticizers in samples older than that would be legal from an anti-doping perspective.

So using the new test for plastic residues on Indurain's samples wouldn't prove he was cheating.

They're not listening, are they?

calvjones

Dave_1 wrote:

one rule for Indurain , another rule for LA and AC.

The present and the future matter most!!!

Well, yeah, but you were on here (or C+) defending Lance 5 years ago when it was 'the present' and others were questioning his methods.

Time isn't linear y'know. Bloke in a wheelchair told me that.

PBo

calvjones wrote:

Dave_1 wrote:

one rule for Indurain , another rule for LA and AC.

The present and the future matter most!!!

Well, yeah, but you were on here (or C+) defending Lance 5 years ago when it was 'the present' and others were questioning his methods.

Time isn't linear y'know. Bloke in a wheelchair told me that.

Well, his speech synthesiser did........

dave_1

we should be seeking the retesting of Maurice Garin's b samples..

No_Ta_Doctor

Dave_1 wrote:

we should be seeking the retesting of Maurice Garin's b samples..

So when does something become "history" for you Dave?

We have an arbitrary legal cut-off point of 8 years (the famous statute of limitations). That's for dope testing. I'm not sure what the statute is for criminal proceedings (bearing in mind that some doping violations may also constitute criminal offences, such as fraud, transport and possession of prohibited substances and equipment etc).

You continually argue that LA is in the past and that he's in the past in the same way as Indurain (and apparently Garin now), yet he only retired a couple of months ago and some of his TdF victories fall inside the statute.

If Contador retires tomorrow, is he also "in the past"? Is the statute too long?

Where is your cut-off, and how do you define it? This is a genuine question. As I can't personally find any trace of logic or reason in your arguments I'm asking you to enlighten me, I'd like to see your workings.

dave_1

No tA Doctor wrote:

Dave_1 wrote:

we should be seeking the retesting of Maurice Garin's b samples..

So when does something become "history" for you Dave?

We have an arbitrary legal cut-off point of 8 years (the famous statute of limitations). That's for dope testing. I'm not sure what the statute is for criminal proceedings (bearing in mind that some doping violations may also constitute criminal offences, such as fraud, transport and possession of prohibited substances and equipment etc).

You continually argue that LA is in the past and that he's in the past in the same way as Indurain (and apparently Garin now), yet he only retired a couple of months ago and some of his TdF victories fall inside the statute.

If Contador retires tomorrow, is he also "in the past"? Is the statute too long?

Where is your cut-off, and how do you define it? This is a genuine question. As I can't personally find any trace of logic or reason in your arguments I'm asking you to enlighten me, I'd like to see your workings.

we have a moral cut off point-1992 when epoh arrived, not july 1999. We deal with the present and the future and forget 10 years ago's tdf I say

No_Ta_Doctor

Dave_1 wrote:

No tA Doctor wrote:

Dave_1 wrote:

we should be seeking the retesting of Maurice Garin's b samples..

So when does something become "history" for you Dave?

We have an arbitrary legal cut-off point of 8 years (the famous statute of limitations). That's for dope testing. I'm not sure what the statute is for criminal proceedings (bearing in mind that some doping violations may also constitute criminal offences, such as fraud, transport and possession of prohibited substances and equipment etc).

You continually argue that LA is in the past and that he's in the past in the same way as Indurain (and apparently Garin now), yet he only retired a couple of months ago and some of his TdF victories fall inside the statute.

If Contador retires tomorrow, is he also "in the past"? Is the statute too long?

Where is your cut-off, and how do you define it? This is a genuine question. As I can't personally find any trace of logic or reason in your arguments I'm asking you to enlighten me, I'd like to see your workings.

we have a moral cut off point-1992 when epoh arrived, not july 1999. We deal with the present and the future and forget 10 years ago's tdf I say

Well '92 and the arrival of EPO provides a good point where we can say "doping changed here", I agree fully with that. So let's not concern ourselves with pre '92, fair enough. But between '92 and today is there any point other than the arbitrary statute of limitations we can use to say "too long ago"? I'd argue that Festina in '98 put cycling into a crisis, anyone doping after that was risking burying the sport. So that could be a slightly later cut-off, though still earlier than the statute, which now cuts off at 2002. But even then LA's victories are still in scope. His last win was only 5 years ago.

I can understand wanting to draw a line under it and move on, but isn't that what cycling has always tried to do, apparently with little effect on doping? EPO is still out there, blood doping is still out there, steroids and hormones are all still out there.

We know that if we turn over stones then ugly stuff crawls out. We know what's under the stones. But unless we turn them over the ugly stuff will continue to hide under them. We just won't see it. Dropping the case against LA just sends a message that dopers can get away with it and we'll look the other way. If we think the stuff under the stone is ugly enough we wont risk lifting it. That seems to have been the message from the UCI re Contador as well, where it's by no means clear that we'd have seen under the stone without a German journo kicking it over.

We'll get nowhere near a clean sport until we're committed to kicking the stones over.

DaveyL

No tA Doctor wrote:

We know that if we turn over stones then ugly stuff crawls out. We know what's under the stones. But unless we turn them over the ugly stuff will continue to hide under them. We just won't see it. Dropping the case against LA just sends a message that dopers can get away with it and we'll look the other way. If we think the stuff under the stone is ugly enough we wont risk lifting it. That seems to have been the message from the UCI re Contador as well, where it's by no means clear that we'd have seen under the stone without a German journo kicking it over.

We'll get nowhere near a clean sport until we're committed to kicking the stones over.

No it doesn't. It sends a message that Lance Armstrong can get away with it.

donrhummy

I STRONGLY disagree. The UCI has limited money to test samples. I'd much rather that money go toward testing CURRENT riders rather than a guy who hasn't ridden in about 15 years.

Which is going to bring us closer to clean cycling: catching guys doping now and fighting current doping methods, or going back to try to test (possibly degraded) samples from a rider who hasn't competed in over a decade?

Oh and BTW, EPO was being used in the late 80's (PERHAPS not widely though). I believe Steven Rooks admitted to using it in 1988.

RichN95.

donrhummy wrote:

I STRONGLY disagree. The UCI has limited money to test samples. I'd much rather that money go toward testing CURRENT riders rather than a guy who hasn't ridden in about 15 years.

You have to remember that Dave_1 still lives in the 80s. He's very worried about this new EPO he's heard about.