When I saw another thread "Indurain vs. Armstrong" something came to my mind.
Lance gets all the suspicions of doping, while nobody had talked about Indurain doping. It was before Festina doping scandal, when Indurain's 5 straight tour winning was going on. Some say "Everybody was doing it.", like it was free for all. After the Festina scandal, doping test became much tighter. But still, nobody even raises the question if Indurain was doping. What you think? Was it easier doping before the Festina scandal or after? I would say it's much more likely, Idurain was doping than Lance doing now. I have no number to quote but I'm pretty sure Lance had gone through doping tests many more times more than Indurain. Am I wrong on this?
I thought BIG MIG had a lung capacity of 9Litres compared to the average mans 7L, and thats why he was so good. Can't deny that some form of drugs might of helped him but I believe he was cleaner than Lance.
I heard a rumour that some of Lance's team mates also came down with Testicular Cancer and that could of had to do with some testing drugs.
Thats just a rumour though, please don't crucify me!!! GO BIG MIG
take a look at Mig's physical stats on his website. lung volume, heart volume and resting heart rate are pretty much un-dopeable as far as i know. he certainly had physical talent even beyond that of the average pro.
however, ive been suspicious myself since career spaned the period when doping and epo were realy (at least they say) exploding in the peloton.