I have a lot of respect for Stephen Roche but his comments about Indurain lacking panache surprise me in the light of the way Stephen won his Tour and Giro......winning in the time trials and following wheels in the mountains. Indurain's Giro wins, particularly the 1993 one (which Stephen witnessed at very close quarters) saw him doing a lot of pace making in the mountains, being very isolated with regards to team mate assistance. Ugrumov purely followed wheels and ran Miguel close in the time trials, only attacking on the last climb of the last mountain stage in a purely exploitative manner hoping to profit from Indurain's previous exertions. Stephen along with Argentin and Chiappucci assisted Ugrumov's attacks, finally dropping Indurain who was able to limit his losses to just 45 seconds which allowed him to hold on to the leader's jersey by just under a minute. Stephen saw first hand that Indurain was strong enough to win a major tour (with nine mountain stages plus a mountain time trial) without having people ride for him but his comments suggest that Indurain only wins that way.
+Vasantha Perera Come on Vasantha, you're comments on how Roche did the double in '87 show you don;t really know what happened in either of those races. As for his comments in '93, perhaps this was designed to unsettle Indurain, considering his team mate Chiappucci (doped to the eyeballs of course) would potentially profit from Indurain riding outside of his preferred and very effective, defensive strategy? As for Ugrumov 'only attacking on the last climb of the last mountain stage (of the '93 Giro), this is also false. He won a stage solo in the first week, and did attack with Hampsten and Lelli on stage 13 for a long way.
+EMC2Scotia He came through on the last time trial in the 87 Tour. He was losing time to Delgado in most of the mountain stages and won by the skin of his teeth.....Where's the panache in that? Clawing his way back to within a few seconds of Delgado on a mountain stage and needing oxygen...that flair? That's doing what you have to do and barely doing it. In the Giro he lost 2.47 in an uphill time trial to Visentini who he was supposed to be working for.....then in the next stage he got into a group and left his team leader (who was up 2.42 on him) behind for him to lose over 6 minutes. After that he finished with the main climbers and squeaked in on the last time trial. What am I missing? Roche was constantly critical of Indurain in the same manner as he is here. As for Chiappucci being doped to the eyeballs...they all were...even before the EPO era. They didn't start doping in 1991, they just had better dope. Ugrumov won that stage by sitting on Le Blanc's wheel and then Roche's wheel, saving his strength to break clear near the line and take it by a couple of seconds. He was in a three man break where he actually worked on stage 13 and held out for a while....yeah well, I guess I forgot about that. What was he doing the rest of the time if not following wheels?
@@EMC2Scotia Also (only a couple of years since we last spoke :D )......Roche is not supposed to unsettle Indurain or act in any partisan way when he is employed as an commentator for Eurosport. Openly rooting for his ex Carrera team mates and his friend Tony Rominger is not a part he should engage in. As a commentator he should be unbiased. Don't they have Eurosport in Spanish? Is one of Indurain's entourage really going to bother to watch the whole of each days proceedings in English and then scamper off to say, "Hey Miguel, you'll never guess what Roche said about you?!"
@@samebar Hey old friend!! I agree with your point on commentators being unbiased. It can be very annoying and distracting (watching Cricket for example, the mute button is the first setting I go for), but (again!) I'd give Roche the benefit of the doubt here by saying it was his first TDF commentating. The late Paul Sherwin was somewhat similar in his first Tours before he settled in to being a true commentator, even if his bias for the 'foreign legion' always remained present.
@@EMC2Scotia Nice to speak to you again E! Phil Liggett was another one.....his support of the 'foreign legion' was one thing, but his fawning over Greg Lemond and Lance Armstrong (even when the evidence against him was stacked up so high that it stank to high heaven) was particularly nauseating. That being said I can accept a certain a degree of nationalism or 'lingo-ism' more than I can nepotism.
I have a lot of respect for Stephen Roche but his comments about Indurain lacking panache surprise me in the light of the way Stephen won his Tour and Giro......winning in the time trials and following wheels in the mountains.
Indurain's Giro wins, particularly the 1993 one (which Stephen witnessed at very close quarters) saw him doing a lot of pace making in the mountains, being very isolated with regards to team mate assistance.
Ugrumov purely followed wheels and ran Miguel close in the time trials, only attacking on the last climb of the last mountain stage in a purely exploitative manner hoping to profit from Indurain's previous exertions. Stephen along with Argentin and Chiappucci assisted Ugrumov's attacks, finally dropping Indurain who was able to limit his losses to just 45 seconds which allowed him to hold on to the leader's jersey by just under a minute.
Stephen saw first hand that Indurain was strong enough to win a major tour (with nine mountain stages plus a mountain time trial) without having people ride for him but his comments suggest that Indurain only wins that way.
+Vasantha Perera Come on Vasantha, you're comments on how Roche did the double in '87 show you don;t really know what happened in either of those races. As for his comments in '93, perhaps this was designed to unsettle Indurain, considering his team mate Chiappucci (doped to the eyeballs of course) would potentially profit from Indurain riding outside of his preferred and very effective, defensive strategy? As for Ugrumov 'only attacking on the last climb of the last mountain stage (of the '93 Giro), this is also false. He won a stage solo in the first week, and did attack with Hampsten and Lelli on stage 13 for a long way.
+EMC2Scotia He came through on the last time trial in the 87 Tour. He was losing time to Delgado in most of the mountain stages and won by the skin of his teeth.....Where's the panache in that? Clawing his way back to within a few seconds of Delgado on a mountain stage and needing oxygen...that flair? That's doing what you have to do and barely doing it.
In the Giro he lost 2.47 in an uphill time trial to Visentini who he was supposed to be working for.....then in the next stage he got into a group and left his team leader (who was up 2.42 on him) behind for him to lose over 6 minutes.
After that he finished with the main climbers and squeaked in on the last time trial.
What am I missing?
Roche was constantly critical of Indurain in the same manner as he is here.
As for Chiappucci being doped to the eyeballs...they all were...even before the EPO era. They didn't start doping in 1991, they just had better dope.
Ugrumov won that stage by sitting on Le Blanc's wheel and then Roche's wheel, saving his strength to break clear near the line and take it by a couple of seconds.
He was in a three man break where he actually worked on stage 13 and held out for a while....yeah well, I guess I forgot about that. What was he doing the rest of the time if not following wheels?
@@EMC2Scotia Also (only a couple of years since we last spoke :D )......Roche is not supposed to unsettle Indurain or act in any partisan way when he is employed as an commentator for Eurosport. Openly rooting for his ex Carrera team mates and his friend Tony Rominger is not a part he should engage in. As a commentator he should be unbiased.
Don't they have Eurosport in Spanish? Is one of Indurain's entourage really going to bother to watch the whole of each days proceedings in English and then scamper off to say, "Hey Miguel, you'll never guess what Roche said about you?!"
@@samebar Hey old friend!! I agree with your point on commentators being unbiased. It can be very annoying and distracting (watching Cricket for example, the mute button is the first setting I go for), but (again!) I'd give Roche the benefit of the doubt here by saying it was his first TDF commentating. The late Paul Sherwin was somewhat similar in his first Tours before he settled in to being a true commentator, even if his bias for the 'foreign legion' always remained present.
@@EMC2Scotia Nice to speak to you again E! Phil Liggett was another one.....his support of the 'foreign legion' was one thing, but his fawning over Greg Lemond and Lance Armstrong (even when the evidence against him was stacked up so high that it stank to high heaven) was particularly nauseating. That being said I can accept a certain a degree of nationalism or 'lingo-ism' more than I can nepotism.