Old Lance vs. New Lance

Originally Posted by Eldron

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

Originally Posted by oldbobcat

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.