# Why does Indurain escape scrutiny?



## Fignon's Barber (Mar 2, 2004)

With all the Lance criticism going around, it amazes me that no one ever brings up the name of Big Mig when the topic turns to EPO. Think about it. Indurain is a solid rider and domestique for Delgado, capable of a nice stage win here and there. 1991 comes around. Universally, it is accepted that 1991 is the first year that EPO floods the peleton. Suddenly, Indurain is unbeatable. He does this in an "epo-like" style of racing. Always recovering, never a bad day, robotically motoring along. Greg Lemond has said that "in 1991, things changed", as far as doping was concerned. I have never, ever, read a word about Indurain and doping. Why? Because he was a nice guy? Just a thought.


----------



## euro-trash (May 1, 2004)

Fignon's Barber said:


> With all the Lance criticism going around, it amazes me that no one ever brings up the name of Big Mig when the topic turns to EPO. Think about it. Indurain is a solid rider and domestique for Delgado, capable of a nice stage win here and there. 1991 comes around. Universally, it is accepted that 1991 is the first year that EPO floods the peleton. Suddenly, Indurain is unbeatable. He does this in an "epo-like" style of racing. Always recovering, never a bad day, robotically motoring along. Greg Lemond has said that "in 1991, things changed", as far as doping was concerned. I have never, ever, read a word about Indurain and doping. Why? Because he was a nice guy? Just a thought.


You make good points. I would argue however, he was more than just a domie before 1991. By 1990 it was clear he was better than Delgado and was going to be a top rider. His win on Luz Ardidan (pardon my spelling) in 1990 was more than an opportunistic win. He also trimmed down significantly over this period which helps account for his improved climbing. 

He does escape suspicion today, but people did mutter things under their breath toward the end of his reign. There was even an article on EPO in Cyclesport in 1996ish that was quite good (Cyclesport was a much better publication then than it is today).

So, I think he escapes critique today because: 1) there are more recent targets with available blood samples to evaluate, 2) there was never any circumstantial evidence to link him to EPO, and 3) he was a class act. 

Regardless of whether he did, he was the best stage racer of his generation, and a complete joy to watch. 

BTW, I miss the 8 hour mtn stages. They say they cut them out so people wouldn't have to dope, but come on, is anyone who doped then not doping now because the stages are 5 hours?


----------



## magnolialover (Jun 2, 2004)

*If that's the case...*



Fignon's Barber said:


> With all the Lance criticism going around, it amazes me that no one ever brings up the name of Big Mig when the topic turns to EPO. Think about it. Indurain is a solid rider and domestique for Delgado, capable of a nice stage win here and there. 1991 comes around. Universally, it is accepted that 1991 is the first year that EPO floods the peleton. Suddenly, Indurain is unbeatable. He does this in an "epo-like" style of racing. Always recovering, never a bad day, robotically motoring along. Greg Lemond has said that "in 1991, things changed", as far as doping was concerned. I have never, ever, read a word about Indurain and doping. Why? Because he was a nice guy? Just a thought.


If Indurain is under suspicion as well, then we might as well cast suspicion on anyone that has won a race since 1991, or even guys who won races before 1991, as doping has been in professional cycling, as long as there has been professional cycling. Doping in the peloton doesn't start in 1991 at all. So why don't we cast the nets out further? 

Can't we just enjoy the sport, watch the races, and leave it at that? Let's leave doping and doping controls to the people who are supposed to know about it, and we can just go back to enjoying watching racing.


----------



## Dwayne Barry (Feb 16, 2003)

Fignon's Barber said:


> Universally, it is accepted that 1991 is the first year that EPO floods the peleton.


I think that's debatable, certainly not universally accepted. While it is possible since EPO became available in '88 (I think), I've read multiple times that it was the Gewiss riders under Dr. Ferrari's tutelage (around '94 to '96) that first made it obvious to everyone that to win you needed to use EPO and thus instigated it's widespread if not universal usage.


----------



## Utah CragHopper (May 9, 2003)

Dwayne Barry said:


> While it is possible since EPO became available in '88 (I think), I've read multiple times that it was the Gewiss riders under Dr. Ferrari's tutelage (around '94 to '96) that first made it obvious to everyone that to win you needed to use EPO and thus instigated it's widespread if not universal usage.


Armand De Las Cuevas began working with Dr. Ferrari in 1991. Even though EPO became available earlier, the people who took it tended to wake up dead. It wasn't until the Italian trainers determined how to properly use it for athletic performance that individual riders began to really reap its benefits. That coincided with the rise of people like Bugno and Chiappucci.

When Gewiss rode away from the field in the '94 Fleche Wallonne it became obvious that all the other teams had better cowboy up, or they wouldn't be able to compete. That appears to be the time that team supported EPO use spread through the peloton.

The reason Indurain never gets any flack because he left the sport before the crap hit the fan in 1998. He conveniently retired the year that hematocrit testing started. All the top riders during his reign were using EPO. Look at the list of contenders we know were doped: Bugno, Chiappucci, Zulle, Pantani. Riis, Rominger, Tonkov, Berzin, Gotti, Ugrumov, Virenque, De Las Cuevas, etc. In order to believe that Indurain wasn't doping you would have to believe that he was so vastly superior than everyone else, he could beat the best in the world after they had increased their hematocrits by anywhere from 20 to 50%. I don't think that is believable. If I remember right, Indurain started seeing Dr. Conconi very early in his career, maybe even when he was still an amateur; that would have been the right after Conconi finished blood doping Moser to the hour record.

Doping was so prevalent during Indurain's time, how can you single out any one rider? You can get pissed off that Lemond's career fell off a cliff as soon as the other contenders started to get access to EPO, though. Riders like Lemond and Hampsten got screwed.

During the 1998 scandal there were calls to cancel the 1999 Tour until a plan could be put in place to clean up the sport. Armstrong came along and was siezed upon as the new clean face of the sport, a role he played to the hilt. For a while it looked like the anti-doping measures might be working. As top riders continued to get busted, doping rings were uncovered, and tales like Jesus Manzano and Philippe Gaumont's came out it became obvious that the sport was just as dirty as it used to be. 

Most other pros are smarter than Armstrong and do not to portray themselves as saints when it comes to doping. They will make a diplomatic statement instead of challenging the press to prove it. As evidence began leaking out that Armstrong was not any different than the riders in the 90's, all his doping denials were like waving a red cape in front of a bull.


----------



## mellowman (Apr 17, 2004)

Utah CragHopper said:


> Armand De Las Cuevas began working with Dr. Ferrari in 1991. Even though EPO became available earlier, the people who took it tended to wake up dead. It wasn't until the Italian trainers determined how to properly use it for athletic performance that individual riders began to really reap its benefits. That coincided with the rise of people like Bugno and Chiappucci.
> 
> When Gewiss rode away from the field in the '94 Fleche Wallonne it became obvious that all the other teams had better cowboy up, or they wouldn't be able to compete. That appears to be the time that team supported EPO use spread through the peloton.
> 
> ...


Thanks, best post on doping I've read in awhile. Couldn't agree more.


----------



## zero85ZEN (Oct 11, 2002)

*Well put post...*



Utah CragHopper said:


> Armand De Las Cuevas began working with Dr. Ferrari in 1991. Even though EPO became available earlier, the people who took it tended to wake up dead. It wasn't until the Italian trainers determined how to properly use it for athletic performance that individual riders began to really reap its benefits. That coincided with the rise of people like Bugno and Chiappucci.
> 
> When Gewiss rode away from the field in the '94 Fleche Wallonne it became obvious that all the other teams had better cowboy up, or they wouldn't be able to compete. That appears to be the time that team supported EPO use spread through the peloton.
> 
> ...


...pretty much hits all the nails on the head. 

LeMond was my boyhood cycling hero and I think he has been cast in a bad light by the media in recent years. I think some of his comments have been twisted out of context when he has spoken up about the drug culture in the peloton. Also sort of ironic that, inadvertently, LeMond may have ushered in the current era of "super-doping" by the fact that he raised the stakes by bringing more money into the pro peleton. He helped bring cycling into the "big-time" salary wise. 
Now I'm not saying that Greg was pure as the driving snow...but I do have to wonder if he was substantially cleaner considering how he fell from the forefront so suddenly in '91. As I recall he had a good start to the Tour that year and then got the doors blown off in the second and third weeks.

At any rate, I'd still much rather meet, ride, (nordic ski), have a beer with Greg than Lance any day. I've heard and read again and again that LeMond is a truly nice guy that will often take the time to really talk with fans.


----------



## Zampano (Aug 7, 2005)

euro-trash said:


> 3) he was a class act.
> 
> Regardless of whether he did, he was the best stage racer of his generation, and a complete joy to watch.


Right, class is the word. Indurain also signaled his coming ascendance with the long lone solo breakaway stage win in the '89 tour. 

He was given a different kind of respect by the peloton than that of LA. LA's attacks on Simeoni, and the subsequent zip-the-lip gestures basically demonstrate a small mind not worthy of a great champion. Most unfortunate.


----------



## cyclequip (Oct 20, 2004)

He was never an ?#sshole, ever. Remember him gifting Olano the world's?


----------



## Bianchigirl (Sep 17, 2004)

on the subject of Lemond and Indurain:

Equipe put out a special centenary edition of its magazine and interviewed all the surviving Tour winners. Indurain was charm itself, Lemond invited the reporters in for fine wine from his cellar and they were there to the small hours talking about cycling. Armstrong invited the reporters in grudgingly, gave them a beer each, answered a few questions then asked them to leave - didn't even let them finish their beer. He may have been in training but there are more gracious ways to conduct yourself.


----------



## Zampano (Aug 7, 2005)

Bianchigirl said:


> on the subject of Lemond and Indurain:
> 
> Equipe put out a special centenary edition of its magazine and interviewed all the surviving Tour winners. Indurain was charm itself, Lemond invited the reporters in for fine wine from his cellar and they were there to the small hours talking about cycling. Armstrong invited the reporters in grudgingly, gave them a beer each, answered a few questions then asked them to leave - didn't even let them finish their beer. He may have been in training but there are more gracious ways to conduct yourself.


Nice anecdote.


----------



## Blue Sugar (Jun 14, 2005)

And more than this- he's a nice guy and very well-liked, even by his arch rivals. Contrast this with lance, who has an extremely abrasive personality that makes him easy, even fun, to dislike. This, I think, is the root of his problems with the French. They don't see his behavior as befitting a champion of their great race. His behavior is exraordinarily stupid, in my opinion, and it has earned him a lot of enemies. Some of those enemies are now attempting to undo him. It's a good lesson, I think. If you don't have anything good to say, then keep your mouth shut. 



euro-trash said:


> You make good points. I would argue however, he was more than just a domie before 1991. By 1990 it was clear he was better than Delgado and was going to be a top rider. His win on Luz Ardidan (pardon my spelling) in 1990 was more than an opportunistic win. He also trimmed down significantly over this period which helps account for his improved climbing.
> 
> He does escape suspicion today, but people did mutter things under their breath toward the end of his reign. There was even an article on EPO in Cyclesport in 1996ish that was quite good (Cyclesport was a much better publication then than it is today).
> 
> ...


----------



## cannondale_boy (May 6, 2004)

*Good Reads in this Posting.*

I think it can also be stated that if Lance wanted to come back and ride for an eighth tour win we would be able to do so, as he destroyed the field once again. It is also pointed in his media statements that he misses his kids and doesn't want to miss out on their childhood. I don't buy it, I think the heat in the kitchen was getting too hot and the ejection seat was a forced move encouraged by further allegations and first hand reports. Sure, Armstrong challenged the media but he could because his world is kept so private that only a handful would know the truth. His own teamates don't even ride with him and I remember reading in Lance Armstrongs war that Matt White used to pretend to ride with Lance watching so he would push himself. Even the author of the book said that he was investigated and followed prior and during the writting to see who he was and who he talked to. 
I just think it is at the point where so many people follow and worship him because of the cancer survivorship that it can never come out that he had doped. 

Planet Lance will continue to exist, but fewer satelites will orbit and the truth will be buried with a handful of people that will continue to deny until either scientific prove is beyond a reasonable doubt or someone in the secret society will confess. Until then, the Doping allegations will become an obession for some like Roswell and many books and people coming forward say I saw this, he said this, and the tours best kept secret will remain topic of conversation in many tour groups and backroom conversations.


----------



## Fredke (Dec 10, 2004)

Indurain was a nice guy but none of the comments here seem to recognize the extent to which that nice-guyness make him very unpopular with the press, many of whom found his "do the minimum to win" style boring and wished for a return to the cannibal's "La course en tête" style of riding. There were plenty of people who would have liked to see Indurain go down for doping if it would have opened up the race and made it more exciting.


----------



## atpjunkie (Mar 23, 2002)

*he was actually*

the only 'nice' 5x winner. was fun to watch TT but his style of winning was more predictable and boring than Armstrong. Don't get me wrong I'm not a hater, just calling it based on the forum and what the press at the time said. I think it was/is his attitude that keeps him under the radar.


----------



## Zampano (Aug 7, 2005)

Fredke said:


> ...many of whom found his "do the minimum to win" style boring and wished for a return to the cannibal's "La course en tête" style of riding.


I need the press' opinion like I need a hole in my head.  

I was just thinking the same thing but you know, Indurain's was the right strategy to win the Tour. It is erroneous to compare any other champion to Mercyx. Look at Lemond's wins, Hinault's. Just re-watched the '89 Tour last night and I am again impressed with Fignon's attacks on Lemond in 2 Alpine stages. We used to call that panache. Fignon should have won. Sorry for straying.


----------



## samh (May 5, 2004)

*drug question*



Dwayne Barry said:


> I think that's debatable, certainly not universally accepted. While it is possible since EPO became available in '88 (I think), I've read multiple times that it was the Gewiss riders under Dr. Ferrari's tutelage (around '94 to '96) that first made it obvious to everyone that to win you needed to use EPO and thus instigated it's widespread if not universal usage.


I remember the entire team had impressive wins.
This brings me to the question, is doping in pro cycling an individual activity or team activity? Some individuals have been caught, but also some teams as well.


----------



## Bianchigirl (Sep 17, 2004)

yeah, whatever happened to panache? We saw some of it on stage 15 of the Vuelta and in Simoni's desperate ride to try and win the Giro. But it has been long lacking from the which seem to have been overtaken by a wheel following, negative style.

It's a reminder that it's not the level of competition that necessarily makes great racing but that attacking attitude, that panache - and I would argue that Indurain showed buckets of it in his remarkable Luxembourg TT...


----------



## Dwayne Barry (Feb 16, 2003)

samh said:


> I remember the entire team had impressive wins.
> This brings me to the question, is doping in pro cycling an individual activity or team activity? Some individuals have been caught, but also some teams as well.


Well I think there has been an evolution from a team activity coordinated by the team doctors and/or soigneurs pre '98 Festina to an individual activity perhaps or perhaps not under supervision from the team doctor. Have you read Willy Voets' "Breaking the Chain"?

It gives a pretty good insight into the history. Let's face it the sport has got to be more clean today than it was 20 years ago when the same doctors doping the riders were the ones overseeing the drug testing and a soigneurs worth was based on how well his drug cocktails worked for his riders. The Festina scandal and WADA have probably gone a long way toward lowering the amount of doping. I mean prior to that there was essentially no reason for the UCI, teams or riders to do anything about doping. Look at the black eye cycling has taken for nearly 10 years now because they've been forced to deal with the issue.


----------

