Armstrong's advance retirement notice: why?

Scotty_Dog

Moderator Lim, you appear to be straying off topic again. This post is about Armstrong's advance retirement notice.

Selective moderating?

rejobako

L-man: I don't think you and CR are having the same argument. CR specifically limited his position to TdF Palmares. If you bring Armstrong's pre-1999 TdF results into the equation, he's still quite arguably the most successful rider in the history of the event. And as CR acknowledged, Eddy Merckx is unquestionably the greatest "cyclist" in history. I don't think there's anything inconsistent in limiting Armstrong's claim of superiority to a single event. As a crude analogy, I suspect few would dispute that Bjorn Borg has a claim to being the greatest French Open champion of all time -- he won six of them, after all. But there were other players who played in that event who are considered "greater" in a historical context: Laver, who won two grand slams; Sampras, who won 14 majors and 7 Wimbledons, etc.

(Borg's resume is interesting: he won 5 major titles on grass, the fastest surface, and 6 on clay, the slowest. But he never won either the Aussie or US Opens, which is a big hole in his claim as best ever, just as Armstrong's claim is weakened because, not only did he not win any of the other prestigious events during his prime -- he avoided them altogether.)

cheapie

let me get this straight. because LA took more attempts to win potentially 2 more TDFs MORE than EM he is not eligible to considered for the all-time greatest list??? that is some seriously, SERIOUSLY flawed logic.

times have changed man. tactics are different. EM would get his a$$ handed to him today if he tried to win everything every year. you can't race like that anymore with so many event specialists.

rejobako

This is very interesting. You would grade down Armstrong because Eddy competed in fewer TdFs with a higher "winning percentage", yet not criticize Eddy because he competed in fewer TdFs in the first place. I would suggest that what is fair criticism toward Armstrong applies to Merckx as well. Why did that slug Eddy choose to compete only in 6 TdFs? Wasn't he man enough to line up in years he wasn't feeling his best? (Facetious question, of course, but to suggest LA "is not in the same category as EM as a TdF cyclist" is a ridiculous statement, IMO. The guy who's won it most, and most times consecutively, bows to no one in the discussion of the best ever in the event).

limerickman

Dog

I was replying to a point put directly to me by another poster.

Thanks for your interest.

Lonnie Utah

You are 1/2 right when you said Frigo is most likely using EPO. None of us, including you, have heard about "other go-juice" that you spoke of. EDIT: I'm sure that Frigo will be tested (now) and those tests will come back positive.

None of what you typed above is relevant to Frigo and what happened to him TODAY. Had you said "What about the Giro in 2001", that would have had some merit in this discussion.

If you want people to BELIEVE you, then facts ARE important. I never denied there is doping going on or referenced santa clause. To make statements that you have no way of PROVING doesn't bolster your case. Now just because you can't prove it doesn't mean it's not true, I'll freely admit that. 99% of the time, your augments are a mixture of past facts that may or may not be relevant to the case at hand and current conjuncture as to connections (most of which cannot be established). But guilt is established by facts, not rumors, not slander and not by simple association (criminal association, yes (but that must be proven)). Facts, Try them, you might like them....

__________________
Cheap, Strong and Light.
Pick any Two.

Colorado Ryder

Sorry there was no intention to tarnish your vision of your hero.

limerickman

Here is the statement that I took issue with :

Gntlmn
"There's no doubt that as Armstrong is riding this year, in pursuit of number 7, he is going to be viewed by cycling historians as one of the best of all time, mentioned in the same words as the incomparable Eddy Merckx."

The statement isn't prefaced : is the statement based solely on the TDF or is it based on LA/EM career palmares including the TDF ?

It is my contention that under both criteria : LA cannot be considered to be in the same class as EM.
EM TDF data is more impressive than LA TDF data : percentage days in Yellow, start/win ratio, show that.

Of course, we can go down the CR route and omit LA's record between 1993-1996.
But that's the old "if my aunt had bollox she's be me uncle" theorem : great for having a chat down the pub, but ultimately futile.

As to your contention about question EM's toughness : maybe you should ask the man himself why he only won 5 T'DF out of six starts ?

limerickman

Yeah right.

If there was no intention to tarnish EM - why did you post this ?
"1999-2005 TDF palmares blow away any comparisions to Merckx and Hinault."

Oh, that's right you werren't trying to tarnish Merckx.

cheapie

so....according to your logic, someone that only attempted to win the TDF one year and was successful would be better than EM because they were successful 100% of the time?