from cyclingnews.com:


Indurain: Riis does cycling no favours

By Monika Prell

After Bjarne Riis' confession that he used EPO during the Tour de France 1996, Miguel Indurain stated that he did not like the declarations of Riis, who was the one to conclude the Spaniards five-year reign. "I don't understand why he made these confessions eleven years after. But he is old enough and he will know better than anybody else why he did it," he said to Marca.

He believes that the confessions of Riis "did not do any favours for cycling. Actually, there are many people who hope that this sport comes out of this bottomless pit, and things like this take from everyone's courage."

Indurain does not want to take away from Riis' 1996 win. "I don't want to detract from what Riis did, but my impression is that he did not overwhelm me, that it was me who lost the Tour. I did all I could to be in front and at the end I did not reach this goal. Riis and many others were stronger, and if there was anything irregular or not then it is not my affair."

Indurain does not want to call Riis "Mister 60 percent" like many others do. "I am not the one who should judge his declarations because only he knows what he did and only he is responsible of what he did."

He prefer dopers to shut up then?

The problem with a lot of these dopers and former dopers is that they mistake what's good for them with what's good for cycling.

Riis' confessions hits pretty close to Indurain.

He prefer dopers to shut up then?

Yup. Keep your mouth shut, cuz it might implicate him at some point.

There is this thing in the black community these days - don't rat out anyone - cuz they know where you live and will get you.. So you keep your mouth shut. I have a feeling the riders have some sort of unwritten pact about that.

Indurain does not want to call Riis "Mister 60 percent" like many others do. "I am not the one who should judge his declarations because only he knows what he did and only he is responsible of what he did."

The between the lines seems to be "because I'm guilty too". He'd be better off following Armstrong's lead by shutting up, otherwise Indurian "doth protest too much, methinks" (Hamlet)

I absolutely agree. This is a very clear indirect admission that he is guilty of doping too. If he was not, he would be screaming his head off. It seems to me he does NOT protest enough! Claiming it's none of his business what everybody else did is ludicrous.

I absolutely agree. This is a very clear indirect admission that he is guilty of doping too. If he was not, he would be screaming his head off. It seems to me he does NOT protest enough! Claiming it's none of his business what everybody else did is ludicrous.It's also exactly what a lot of the recently caught or confessed dopers were saying a year or two ago as well.

Big Mig is the type of guy who doesn't like to blame others for his failures.
He came in heavy thinking he'd ride off the extra weight
it rained the first week, the piano pace, the jackets and the eating to stay warm and he didn't drop the weight so when they hit the hills he was heavy and suffered.
He's always blamed this change in his programme, he's a man who didn't whine and say "somebody cheated!" he took responsibility for his own failures, which is refreshing in a sport where whining, excuse making, loudmouthed primadonnas are the norm, he was quiet and blamed only himself.
Do I think he doped? I don't care. Everybody doped then. Watch some videos and see a groupo of 80 getting over climbs that today would see under 15 up front. So if he did, what does it matter? the playing field as far as doping was 'even' as it has ever been.
He didn't crush people on climbs, he suffered like a dog hanging on and giving stages in trade for 'pace'. He then destroyed folks in the TT, he was all legs and lungs, a freak biologically and if the whole peloton was either doped or clean he'd have crushed them anyhow.

The problem with a lot of these dopers and former dopers is that they mistake what's good for them with what's good for cycling.

You know, that's my opinion after reading the statements of many current riders regarding those who have confessed. They're not talking about being clean or getting clean. They're just talking about what a mess Cycling is and how these confessions don't help Cycling or the public's perception of Cycling. They have disregarded the actual parties who have made and is still making Cycling the mess that it is today -- themselves.

Menchov's remarks the other day about riders not being united enough didn't sound like he was talking about dope-free Cycling. It sounded as if he was irritated that some riders were coming clean with their past. And Oscar Sevilla's statements regarding how supportive the other riders were of him even though he has been implicated in OP made me sick. And now Big Mig is peed off and not peed off at the same time. Whatever.

I honestly don't believe for one second that Cycling will ever be clean, or clean enough. Nothing these cyclists have said has changed my opinion. McQuaid states that 2007 is different from 1998 and that it's tougher to dope and get away with it today. Oh, really? Let's not take credit for the confessions of Telekom and claim that doping controls are really working. Does anyone not think that the peleton of today is just as doped up if not moreso than it was in 1998?

Indurain's comments are pretty bad. He's basically saying that if you win and you doped, then it does no good to come back years later and say you cheated. Umm, well I guess Big Mig himself should've just shut up. It made it look very bad for him. He's lucky to have won his way to 5 tours, but his comments make him look like a doper. Team Banesto was full of them, top to bottom, from Pedro Delgado to the domestiques.

Indurain would be nothing without the EPO. Take the drugs away from the cheats and you end up with a much different result.

Indurain would be nothing without the EPO.
.... Except that he *would* be something without the dope -- his physiological numbers were extraordinary. I don't believe that anyone else has tested with quite as high a VO2 max.


Take the drugs away from the cheats and you end up with a much different result.

Realistically, you would find many of the same riders at the front of the pack. What would be diffeent is that these riders would be mixing it up with quite a few other riders who normally drop off at the end of the stages. So one might have imagined a showdown between not only Armstrong, Ulrich and Basso but you might have seen Moreau and a few others in the mix. Also, I imagine that the doped riders would have consistently inconsistent finishes, not like what we saw from Armstrong and some of the others.

.... Except that he *would* be something without the dope -- his physiological numbers were extraordinary. I don't believe that anyone else has tested with quite as high a VO2 max.



Realistically, you would find many of the same riders at the front of the pack. What would be diffeent is that these riders would be mixing it up with quite a few other riders who normally drop off at the end of the stages. So one might have imagined a showdown between not only Armstrong, Ulrich and Basso but you might have seen Moreau and a few others in the mix. Also, I imagine that the doped riders would have consistently inconsistent finishes, not like what we saw from Armstrong and some of the others.

I don't agree. With every medication, people have different response rates. When people are doping, you don't just need talent for cycling, you need talent for cycling+ dope. The 2nd fact is that the prevalence of small riders winning in the mountains has gone down. I have a theory on what the reason might be, but whatever the reason, the fact is that doping skews the competition. Even though good riders might justify their doping with the fact that they still would have won, that ain't necessarily true. Also, I doubt that more riders would have been in contention without the dope. It would more likely have been less, due to combination of possibilities. I recall reading how EPO suddenly increased the number of contenders for wins, although I couldn't find the link now.

[QUOTE=DrSmile]This is a very clear indirect admission that he is guilty of doping too./QUOTE]

Didn't Indurain fail a dope test at some point in his career?

I don't agree. With every medication, people have different response rates. When people are doping, you don't just need talent for cycling, you need talent for cycling+ dope. The 2nd fact is that the prevalence of small riders winning in the mountains has gone down. I have a theory on what the reason might be, but whatever the reason, the fact is that doping skews the competition. Even though good riders might justify their doping with the fact that they still would have won, that ain't necessarily true. Also, I doubt that more riders would have been in contention without the dope. It would more likely have been less, due to combination of possibilities. I recall reading how EPO suddenly increased the number of contenders for wins, although I couldn't find the link now.

I'm not a physiologist but it certainly makes sense to me that doping (assuming that it's very widespread in the peleton) would actually create more 'evenly' matched racers considering that there is a 50% hemocrit limit set by the UCI. If, for instance, rider A has a natural hemocrit of 49.9% he isn't going to benefit from using EPO nearly as much as rider B with a natural hemocrit of 41%. So, viola! - suddenly a bunch of 'also rans' are in the hunt. If my thinking is flawed will someone with more understanding please enlighten me.

.... Except that he *would* be something without the dope -- his physiological numbers were extraordinary. I don't believe that anyone else has tested with quite as high a VO2 max.

I've always heard that LeMond had the highest VO2 max ever recorded for a cyclist. I've heard reports of his being 92.5, 94 or 95 depending on the source. I do remember hearing that Indurain had a crazy low resting heart rate. As low as the high twenties! But that may just be a sporting urban legend.

I'm not a physiologist but it certainly makes sense to me that doping (assuming that it's very widespread in the peleton) would actually create more 'evenly' matched racers considering that there is a 50% hemocrit limit set by the UCI. If, for instance, rider A has a natural hemocrit of 49.9% he isn't going to benefit from using EPO nearly as much as rider B with a natural hemocrit of 41%. So, viola! - suddenly a bunch of 'also rans' are in the hunt. If my thinking is flawed will someone with more understanding please enlighten me.
There was no 50% limit when indurain raced.

Anyone who's followed Indurain over the years knows that he's not very outspoken... he doesn't blame others for his short comings. I don't see his response as "Keep your mouth shut, Bjarne"... Rather, I see it as, "what's the point in coming clean 11 years after the fact?"

Really, what good did Riis' confession do? It just confirms the fact that doping is a huge problem and it exists at the highest level (there's a shocker....). He can't lose his title...

Also, Riis confessed because he more or less had to.

All Riis' confession did was allow him to clear his conscience. It doesn't reveal anything. We know from the 1998 tour that EPO was being used by the top teams. Because it happened outside the statute of limitations, he can't be punished. So maybe Indurain has a point.

I'm not a physiologist but it certainly makes sense to me that doping (assuming that it's very widespread in the peleton) would actually create more 'evenly' matched racers considering that there is a 50% hemocrit limit set by the UCI. If, for instance, rider A has a natural hemocrit of 49.9% he isn't going to benefit from using EPO nearly as much as rider B with a natural hemocrit of 41%. So, viola! - suddenly a bunch of 'also rans' are in the hunt. If my thinking is flawed will someone with more understanding please enlighten me.



You're right. Doping would create a more "even" field. Rememer, EPO is not the only culprite. HGH to build power.....steroids for muscles and pain threshold....albuterol for greater lung capacity. A properly managed pharma plan can turn donkeys into racehorses, and that is why it is cheating. It changes the race results.

Back to Indurain, it seems to me a case of the man in the toilet paper suit getting a bit nervous when someone turns on the garden hose. He doesn't want any of this to spray his way. Fact: Indurain's rise from ploughhorse to thoroughbred exactly ( and I mean exactly) coincided with the rise of EPO. His style of robotic wheel following epitomised the EPO movement. He may be a nice guy, but the facts are suspicious.

Anyone who's followed Indurain over the years knows that he's not very outspoken... he doesn't blame others for his short comings. I don't see his response as "Keep your mouth shut, Bjarne"... Rather, I see it as, "what's the point in coming clean 11 years after the fact?"
.

He's saying I've lived 11 years saying I lost because I didn't prepare properly, can't I leave it at that?

and I'm with Phillipe, the creme will and always has risen to the top. Doped or not.
in the 90's the whole peloton was geeked, same folks kept winning

Who the heck knows what he is saying. This is another one of those "what ifs" where we will be assuming a bunch of things. Only Indurain knows if he didn't dope, and only Indurain and a couple of other people know if he did.

What is nice about Riis confessing is that it lets us know that doping is a serious problem in racing. What if Indurain wasn't doping? Was it fair for him to lose to Riis? There is a good WHAT IF.

Me, I won't be watching pro cycling until they really tighten up the testing and the sanctions for doping. I pretty much feel the same way about all pro sports. We are the sheep with the wool pulled over our eyes. We care almost nothing about morality.

Me, I won't be watching pro cycling until they really tighten up the testing and the sanctions for doping. I pretty much feel the same way about all pro sports. We are the sheep with the wool pulled over our eyes. We care almost nothing about morality.

I COMPLETELY understand what you are saying but do you still watch movies with actresses who have others insert inorganic objects into their chest with disregard to potential health consequences? I just don't know where to draw the line for myself at this time.

At first, I didn't see the analogy, but I guess there is an analogy if actresses with implants got jobs over actresses without implants. Kind of like dopers winning over non-dopers. Honestly, I don't watch a lot of TV or a lot of movies compared to the American public. I try to spend most of my free time riding, hunting, shooting, fishing, or reading in no particular order. So, I have no idea how many actresses there are with implants versus how many there are without them and whether or not this is a wide spread problem. Now, I was in Huntington Beach, CA and Newport Beach, CA visiting family and it seemed like implants were the norm out there.

I COMPLETELY understand what you are saying but do you still watch movies with actresses who have others insert inorganic objects into their chest with disregard to potential health consequences? I just don't know where to draw the line for myself at this time.

I'd have to agree with this. Enhanced or not, the 2007 Giro is exciting to watch. I'll watch Pro Tour cycling whenever I can. If, eventually, they all start racing clean, it'll still be exciting for me to watch.

Actually, if the entire peleton raced drug free, and a lone freak rider rose to the top, and destroyed everyone in the field by 1/2 an hour, The Grand Tours would be more boring to watch.

Who the heck knows what he is saying. This is another one of those "what ifs" where we will be assuming a bunch of things. Only Indurain knows if he didn't dope, and only Indurain and a couple of other people know if he did.

What is nice about Riis confessing is that it lets us know that doping is a serious problem in racing. What if Indurain wasn't doping? Was it fair for him to lose to Riis? There is a good WHAT IF.

Me, I won't be watching pro cycling until they really tighten up the testing and the sanctions for doping. I pretty much feel the same way about all pro sports. We are the sheep with the wool pulled over our eyes. We care almost nothing about morality.
You make good points.

No doping confession will ever truly clear the air. Unknown contingencies and potentialities will allways muck things up. ATPjunkie nevertheless has a good point about the limits of doping and how better athletes rrise to the top assuming a relative parity between substances.

You last comment, as I read it, goes to the definition of sport and how that is influenced by doping. Doping seems like it's less of a concern the more you align sport with entertainment and less with virtuous competition and other moral values. Sign. Who knows these days. By analogy, at least with baseball and European soccer (e.g. Couto and Davids), the public seems pretty content with entertainment alone. Of course, cycling tends to fancy itself something better and higher, aligned with certain positive values that doping would seem to inherently undermine. I, myself, have trouble seeing pro cycling as anything more than entertainment these days.

the creme will and always has risen to the top. Doped or not.
Richard Virenque, the TdF podium? Brochard, World Champ?!! The whole festina team went pretty far down after they got busted.

Unfortunately we don't have too many clear examples to cite but the right doping program plays a role, just as the right DS, gear, and everything else.

I don't believe cycling has a future as "entertainment" if it embraces or accepts doping. It would be like Roller Derby circa 1983, which was a sad and awkward precursor to what would become entertainment wrestling. I see absolutely no way this sport will survive embracing doping. It either continues to tolerate it behind the scenes, perhaps by providing only lip service to the current outcries, or takes the true and hard necessary steps to become clean..

and I'm with Phillipe, the creme will and always has risen to the top. Doped or not. in the 90's the whole peloton was geeked, same folks kept winning


The creme didn't exactly rise to the top during the Indurain or Armstrong eras, IMO. The dopers did though.