And in response to the Lemond basher above, take into consideration that we all know that Indurain ABSOLUTELY used PED’s by 1993 (his watts produced were obscene) and that fact alone makes his rapid ascent up the ladder in 1991 all the more troubling, no one is arguing that riders like Indurain or Rominger didn’t have immense talent over short stage races, people were just a little taken aback when they started converting those Paris Nice and Tour of Lombardy wins into dominance in the Grand Tours.

Nuff said…

Perhaps Samiam does know. Some very informed people often read blogs such as this.

I do not know whether EPO was used in 1991, and if used, whether it was used as effectively as in the mid-1990s, when Ferrari was obtaining obscene results for his riders.

The problem is… you do not know it either. You just repeat the usual commonplaces one can find on the Internet. It is also Greg Lemond’s third hypothesis to explain a fast decline he could never accept (this explanation came after lead poisoning and a heart condition).

Given that we do not know whether EPO is what explains Miguel Indurain’s rise to prominence, then the question is whether this rise to prominence could be explained exclusively by his talent and hard work.

This is where I disagree with you. Indurain could climb cols even when he was 21 and weighed 85 kgs. He even surprised the directors of his team when he won the Tour de l’Avenir in 1986, they thought he would be a cyclist like Moser and then they realised he had the potential of winning a Grand Tour.

Moreover, it is known by all cycling fans that Indurain’s physical potential was just out of this world.

Indurain still lacked something other champions like Hinault and Lemond had, i.e. motivation and ambition to become the very best of his generation.

If Indurain did not win the Tour de France in 1990, it was a question of motivation and mentality, not of legs. He was already a cycling star (Paris-Nice two consecutive years and the Critérium International in 1989) but had failed in the Vuelta–that is true–for different reasons in 1989 and 1990.

Still, he beat Lemond in all long time trials in the 1990 Tour and, as far as I remember, in all mountain stages except for the famous stage finishing in Alpe d’Huez (when he famously had to wait for Delgado when he was the virtual race’s leader and then emptied himself) and the one finishing in Saint Etienne (when he was with Lemond and Breukink and again had to wait for Delgado). And, please, for those of you who say that Indurain was not at his ease in Luz Ardiden: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=702mu0o3xXY. I had never seen such an exhibition of power. Lemond left everybody behind but Indurain followed him without any apparent effort. Impressive.

The question is then, why did Lemond win in 1989 and 1990? I believe it was a matter of luck. Delgado would have dominated the 1989 Tour, but made a childish mistake. And Fignon finished second only because there were no other serious contenders! He had been finished for five years! In 1990, there were no contenders with the necessary mentality, and just look at what Breukink did after 1990 (even though he rode for ONCE, one of the eternal suspects of doping. As soon as Miguel Indurain became convinced that he could win the Tour de France, Lemond had no chance.

And why Lemond’s decline? Again, I believe it is a matter of motivation, as Hinault (if I remember correctly) said back then. Delgado was riding in Indurain’s team and had access to the same products. Still, his decline was almost as fast as Lemond’s, at the same time that cyclist of his age (Ugrumov, Rominger) reach the cenit of their careers…

I do not believe EPO did not have an influence. My point is a different one. It is undisputed that EPO was being used in 1994, and that it helped many cyclists trained by Ferrari to achieve awkwardly brilliant results. But this is not enough to believe that Indurain’s rise to prominence (as well as Lemond’s decline) is explained solely (or mainly) by EPO use

Ah, and I still think that Lemond is what the French call a “mauvais perdant”

Certainly Lemond is an extraordinary physical specimen…for a rider of that quality to fall so hard so fast is kind of telling. To see little Chiappucci climb toe to toe with Indurain in 1991 is also suspicious. I, for one, believe EPO was being used as early as 1990.

Just like you I used to be a big Indurain fan, but that was when I didn’t understand the fraud that guys like him were.

Yes Indurain was talented. No Indurain could never have won the Tour and hung with guys like Lemond unless he doped.

I have to confess that I find insinuations that EPO is the primary explanation of the outcome of the 1991 Tour de France irritating. Moreover, I don’t think there is any hard evidence supporting these conclusions (following Lemond’s article in Le Monde, obviously flawed, I am at the very least reluctant to accept any “findings” as those you mention). What I have gathered from my readings is that EPO was being used from 93-94 onwards (and Michele Ferrari was still achieving ridiculous results in 94 with Gewiss)

It is particularly surprising to read insinuations that Indurain (or Bugno, for that matter) came from being an obscure domestique to winning the Tour de France all of a sudden. He was a rather precocious cyclist, becoming Spanish champion at 19, professional at 20, winning stages in the Tour de l’Avenir since his first participation and being the youngest rider ever to wear the yellow jersey in the Spanish Vuelta at age 20… You know like me that Indurain could have won the 1990 Tour de France. He beat Lemond in all time trials, not to mention how he left him in Luz Ardiden

Honestly, I find that Lemond had a hard time to accept he was no longer at the top and has been looking for excuses eversince. He has given at least three explanations for his falling performance: lead poisoning, heart condition and finally doping. Is it so hard for him to accept that training methods had improved so that his immense natural talent did not give him the hige advantage he used to? How come Delgado did not enjoy a second youth and experienced a similar decline as Fignon and Lemond even though he was part of Indurain’s team? I recall Eddy Merckx saying in 1990 that Lemond was a lazy bum and did not take preparation seriously (and I believe this opinion was widespread at the time). As for Hampsten… a look at his palmarès does not show any significant shift in performance before and after 1991 (and this includes 1992)

When Lemond won his first Tour de France in 1986, there were four (!) cyclists from La Vie Claire among the Top 10 (5 in the Top 15). Isn’t that ridiculous by today’s standards? I don’t have any reason to believe they were doping. It is more plausible to think that there was a huge gap between the rich and the poor in cycling, which shortened over time

Apologies if this was not made clear and thanks for reading!

Where did you get your numbers?

Otherwise, I love every other article.