Old Lance vs. New Lance



Eldron

New Member
Jan 24, 2002
968
2
0
A different slant on 'best'...along with some totally unsubstantiated thoughts....

Jan's TdF position since 1996: 2nd, 1st, 2nd, 2nd, 2nd, 2nd, 4th, 3rd, 3rd.

Lance didn't finish 3 of the last 4 pre cancer TdF's. Then he won 7 in a row.

Jan is far superior to the 'old' Lance and inferior to the 'new' Lance (given the difference in Lance pre and post cancer - they are effectively two different people).

So...is Lance winning because cancer gave him the right body (same power less weight), the right mind (mental strength required to beat cancer/absorb pain) or a mixture of both?

Ironic that something that almost killed Lance turned him into a cycling machine!
 
Eldron said:
Ironic that something that almost killed Lance turned him into a cycling machine!

This line of thnking has been going around in cycling circles since, oh, 2003.

In the absence of verifiable evidence to the contrary, I'll continue to believe that Lance Armstrong won seven Tours de France because he was the single rider best prepared to win the Tour de France. The elements of this preparation are
* a scientific training program designed by his director Johan Bruyneel
* aerodynamic TT bikes from Trek (and the time trialing is increasingly the most important single discipline in the contemporary tour
* Armstrong's personal attributes--huge O2 uptake, apparently tolerant of huge levels of pain, and his love of the sport. His participation in triathalons as a teenager certainly helped here.
* his ace team--certainly, in the last two races USPS-Discovery has been the strongest, best disciplined team in the peloton.
* time spent preparing for the Tour. Armstrong is not competitive in the spring classics and (this year, anyway), essentially ducking out of the pro cycling tour for three months to train.

I'm not a big Armstrong fan, but until there is hard evidence I will continue to believe Lance is clean of dope. In support, I point out that dopers' performances tend to be inconsistent, and their careers burn out rather quickly. Their bodies can't recover from the fatigue and damage. Lance's career since cancer has been just the opposite.
 
I agree with pretty much everything that oldbobcat says - but one thing to add. The Old Lance (1993-1996) was only 21-24 years old. In modern cycling few do well at the Tour at that age. His Tour record was a little better than Indurain at the same age. Ullrich was the exception to this. Maybe you could be talking about old Jan (pre-99 injury) vs. new Jan (2000 onwards) - I think he never really got over his dodgy knee and the increased expectations.


oldbobcat said:
This line of thnking has been going around in cycling circles since, oh, 2003.

In the absence of verifiable evidence to the contrary, I'll continue to believe that Lance Armstrong won seven Tours de France because he was the single rider best prepared to win the Tour de France. The elements of this preparation are
* a scientific training program designed by his director Johan Bruyneel
* aerodynamic TT bikes from Trek (and the time trialing is increasingly the most important single discipline in the contemporary tour
* Armstrong's personal attributes--huge O2 uptake, apparently tolerant of huge levels of pain, and his love of the sport. His participation in triathalons as a teenager certainly helped here.
* his ace team--certainly, in the last two races USPS-Discovery has been the strongest, best disciplined team in the peloton.
* time spent preparing for the Tour. Armstrong is not competitive in the spring classics and (this year, anyway), essentially ducking out of the pro cycling tour for three months to train.

I'm not a big Armstrong fan, but until there is hard evidence I will continue to believe Lance is clean of dope. In support, I point out that dopers' performances tend to be inconsistent, and their careers burn out rather quickly. Their bodies can't recover from the fatigue and damage. Lance's career since cancer has been just the opposite.
 
Rich Nic said:
Maybe you could be talking about old Jan (pre-99 injury) vs. new Jan (2000 onwards) - I think he never really got over his dodgy knee and the increased expectations.
Good point. Remember, too, that Ullrich's early development was under the old East German system, which priortized immediate results over longevity.