Abt interview with Armstrong

Discussion in 'Road Cycling' started by Robert Chung, Dec 13, 2003.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Warren

    Warren Guest

    In article <[email protected]>, Heinz
    Getzler <[email protected]> wrote:

    > [email protected] (Scott Hendricks) wrote in message
    > news:<[email protected]>...
    > > "Tom Kunich" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    > > news:<[email protected]>...
    > > > "Heinz Getzler" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    > > > news:[email protected]...
    > > > >
    > > > > Well the big problem is that rider is not able to accurately
    > > benchmark
    > > > > his progress against other riders. Plus it's hard to match the level of intensity in racing.
    > > > > The other problem is that by the time you realize that your form is inadequate you may not
    > > > > have adequate
    > > traing
    > > > > time to bring yourself up to the proper level. Usually it takes
    > > about
    > > > > 1 or 2 months for a rider bring himself up to a new level of
    > > > form....
    > > >
    > > > I think that Armstrong is the exception that makes the rule that training miles can't be as
    > > > hard as racing miles.
    > >
    > > Plus, with the advent of effective, scientific training and the glut of power measurement tools,
    > > racing isn't necessarily the best training anymore. There's something to be said for very
    > > specific interval training. And, don't discount the Carmichel factor.
    >
    > Training is a big factor, but I still maintain it's hard to benchmark ones condition against other
    > riders unless you are actually racing.

    The ability of the riders doesn't really change a lot from year to year. Lance knows how much power
    he needs to put out for various efforts and can adjust his training accordingly. Racing is good for
    some things but when you're supermotivated it's not the only thing you can do.

    -WG
     


  2. Gooserider

    Gooserider Guest

    "Darrell Criswell" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]...
    > There is a picture of her smoking in Vanity Fair magazine, Jun. '03,
    >
    > Remember however in Lance's first book he points out after his wedding that he and his wife
    > enjoyed smoking cigars so he may not be opposed to smoking. I would be relatively certain he
    > doesn't do it on a frequent basis and my understanding is Sheryl Crow has become somewhat of a
    > fitness freak, so she may have moderated her smoking.

    In his National Press Club appearance, Lance came across as being very anti-smoking. Basically he
    said that as a cancer survivor he couldn't understand why anyone would willingly risk cancer. Maybe
    the smoking pic in Vanity Fair was just for artistic merit?
     
  3. warren <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<191220031900194675%[email protected]>...
    > In article <[email protected]>, Heinz Getzler
    > <[email protected]> wrote:
    >
    > > [email protected] (Scott Hendricks) wrote in message
    > > news:<[email protected]>...
    > > > "Tom Kunich" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    > > > news:<[email protected]>...
    > > > > "Heinz Getzler" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    > > > > news:[email protected]...
    > > > > >
    > > > > > Well the big problem is that rider is not able to accurately
    > benchmark
    > > > > > his progress against other riders. Plus it's hard to match the level of intensity in
    > > > > > racing. The other problem is that by the time you realize that your form is inadequate you
    > > > > > may not have adequate
    > traing
    > > > > > time to bring yourself up to the proper level. Usually it takes
    > about
    > > > > > 1 or 2 months for a rider bring himself up to a new level of
    > > > > form....
    > > > >
    > > > > I think that Armstrong is the exception that makes the rule that training miles can't be as
    > > > > hard as racing miles.
    > > >
    > > > Plus, with the advent of effective, scientific training and the glut of power measurement
    > > > tools, racing isn't necessarily the best training anymore. There's something to be said for
    > > > very specific interval training. And, don't discount the Carmichel factor.
    > >
    > > Training is a big factor, but I still maintain it's hard to benchmark ones condition against
    > > other riders unless you are actually racing.
    >
    > The ability of the riders doesn't really change a lot from year to year. Lance knows how much
    > power he needs to put out for various efforts and can adjust his training accordingly. Racing is
    > good for some things but when you're supermotivated it's not the only thing you can do.

    That not true, a lot riders have up & down years. It's also hard to predict when a unknown will
    appear from nowwhere. There have been a lot of years when a unknown like Fignon appears and goes on
    to win the TDF. Racing helps a rider to gauge how others are doing.
    >
    > -WG
     
  4. Warren

    Warren Guest

    In article <[email protected]>, Heinz
    Getzler <getz[email protected]> wrote:

    > warren <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<191220031900194675%[email protected]>...
    > > In article <[email protected]>, Heinz Getzler <[email protected]>
    > > wrote:
    > >
    > > > [email protected] (Scott Hendricks) wrote in message
    > > > news:<[email protected]>...
    > > > > "Tom Kunich" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    > > > > news:<[email protected]>...
    > > > > > "Heinz Getzler" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    > > > > > news:[email protected]...
    > > > > > >
    > > > > > > Well the big problem is that rider is not able to accurately
    > > benchmark
    > > > > > > his progress against other riders. Plus it's hard to match the level of intensity in
    > > > > > > racing. The other problem is that by the time you realize that your form is inadequate
    > > > > > > you may not have adequate
    > > traing
    > > > > > > time to bring yourself up to the proper level. Usually it takes
    > > about
    > > > > > > 1 or 2 months for a rider bring himself up to a new level of
    > > > > > form....
    > > > > >
    > > > > > I think that Armstrong is the exception that makes the rule that training miles can't be
    > > > > > as hard as racing miles.
    > > > >
    > > > > Plus, with the advent of effective, scientific training and the glut of power measurement
    > > > > tools, racing isn't necessarily the best training anymore. There's something to be said for
    > > > > very specific interval training. And, don't discount the Carmichel factor.
    > > >
    > > > Training is a big factor, but I still maintain it's hard to benchmark ones condition against
    > > > other riders unless you are actually racing.
    > >
    > > The ability of the riders doesn't really change a lot from year to year. Lance knows how much
    > > power he needs to put out for various efforts and can adjust his training accordingly. Racing is
    > > good for some things but when you're supermotivated it's not the only thing you can do.
    >
    > That not true, a lot riders have up & down years. It's also hard to predict when a unknown will
    > appear from nowwhere. There have been a lot of years when a unknown like Fignon appears and goes
    > on to win the TDF. Racing helps a rider to gauge how others are doing.

    It doesn't matter who is at the top because the power output of whoever is at the top doesn't change
    much from year to year. IOW, your "unknown" rider isn't going to go appreciably faster than the guy
    who won last year. Look at the race times for the major climbs and TT's in the Tour. Any major
    differences among the winners' power output from year to year?

    -WG
     
  5. Tom Kunich

    Tom Kunich Guest

    "Heinz Getzler" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]...
    >
    > That not true, a lot riders have up & down years. It's also hard to predict when a unknown will
    > appear from nowwhere. There have been a lot of years when a unknown like Fignon appears and goes
    > on to win
    the
    > TDF. Racing helps a rider to gauge how others are doing.

    It's a lot harder for unknowns to spring into being overnight with supersensitive drug testing now.

    Jan wasn't an overnight success. Neither was Lance. I just finished watching the 1990 Tour tapes and
    any idiot could have told that Indurain was going to start a streak. In 1990 Indurain was stronger
    than LeMond but held back by Delgado.

    If Greg talks about an almost win in the '85 Tour he should remember that without Delgado to
    protect, Miguel would have polished him off easily.
     
  6. "warren" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:201220031244155430%[email protected]...
    > >
    > > That not true, a lot riders have up & down years. It's also hard to predict when a unknown will
    > > appear from nowwhere. There have been a lot of years when a unknown like Fignon appears and goes
    > > on to win the TDF. Racing helps a rider to gauge how others are doing.
    >
    > It doesn't matter who is at the top because the power output of whoever is at the top doesn't
    > change much from year to year. IOW, your "unknown" rider isn't going to go appreciably faster than
    > the guy who won last year. Look at the race times for the major climbs and TT's in the Tour. Any
    > major differences among the winners' power output from year to year?

    Dumbass -

    What is salient is a decline in rider's ability to recover. Even if this ability is only reduced
    slightly, the net result in a stage race is dramatic because the effect of the diminished recovery
    is cumulative over many, many days.

    I shouldn't be surprised at having to explain this. Having never done anything but 30 mile Masters
    Fatties crits the thought would have never occured to you.
     
  7. Steve

    Steve Guest

    > This message is in MIME format. Since your mail reader does not understand
    this format, some or all of this message may not be legible.

    --B_3154781766_19899907 Content-type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit

    On 12/20/03 3:53 PM, in article [email protected], "heather locklearson"
    <[email protected]> wrote:

    >
    > "warren" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:201220031244155430%[email protected]...
    >>>
    >>> That not true, a lot riders have up & down years. It's also hard to predict when a unknown will
    >>> appear from nowwhere. There have been a lot of years when a unknown like Fignon appears and goes
    >>> on to win the TDF. Racing helps a rider to gauge how others are doing.
    >>
    >> It doesn't matter who is at the top because the power output of whoever is at the top doesn't
    >> change much from year to year. IOW, your "unknown" rider isn't going to go appreciably faster
    >> than the guy who won last year. Look at the race times for the major climbs and TT's in the Tour.
    >> Any major differences among the winners' power output from year to year?
    >
    > Dumbass -
    >
    >
    > What is salient is a decline in rider's ability to recover. Even if this ability is only reduced
    > slightly, the net result in a stage race is dramatic because the effect of the diminished recovery
    > is cumulative over many, many days.

    Dumbass Henry,

    Hence.........the reason so well explained for Masters categories! (Of which you vehemently
    disagree with...)

    Way to show how to be a good hypocritical Ignoranimous
    >
    >
    > I shouldn't be surprised at having to explain this. Having never done anything but 30 mile Masters
    > Fatties crits the thought would have never occured to you.
    >
    >

    --B_3154781766_19899907 Content-type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-transfer-encoding:
    quoted-printable

    <HTML> <HEAD> <TITLE>Re: Abt interview with Armstrong</TITLE> </HEAD> <BODY> <FONT
    FACE=3D"Verdana"><SPAN STYLE=3D'font-size:12.0px'>On 12/20/03 3:53 PM, in= article
    [email protected], "heather lockle= arson"
    <[email protected]> wrote:<BR> <BR> <FONT COLOR=3D"#0000FF">> <BR> >
    "warren" <[email protected]> wrote in message<BR> >
    news:201220031244155430%[email protected]...<BR> </FONT><FONT COLOR=3D"#FF0000">>>>
    <BR> >>> That not true, a lot riders have up & down years. It's als= o hard to<BR>
    >>> predict when a unknown will appear from nowwhere. There have b= een a<BR> >>>
    lot of years when a unknown like Fignon appears and goes on to= win the<BR> >>> TDF. Racing
    helps a rider to gauge how others are doing.<BR> </FONT><FONT COLOR=3D"#008000">>> <BR>
    >> It doesn't matter who is at the top because the power output of wh= oever<BR> >> is
    at the top doesn't change much from year to year. IOW, your<BR> >> "unknown" rider
    isn't going to go appreciably faster tha= n the guy who<BR> >> won last year. Look at the race
    times for the major climbs and TT'= s in<BR> >> the Tour. Any major differences among the
    winners' power output fr= om<BR> >> year to year?<BR> </FONT><FONT COLOR=3D"#0000FF">> <BR>
    > Dumbass -<BR> > <BR> > <BR> > What is salient is a decline in rider's ability to
    recover. Even if th= is<BR> > ability is only reduced slightly, the net result in a stage race is
    dr= amatic<BR> > because the effect of the diminished recovery is cumulative over many,= many<BR>
    > days.<BR> </FONT><BR> Dumbass Henry,<BR> <BR> Hence.........the reason so well explained for
    Masters categories! (Of whic= h you vehemently disagree with...)<BR> <BR> Way to show how to be a
    good hypocritical Ignoranimous<BR> <FONT COLOR=3D"#0000FF">> <BR> > <BR> > I shouldn't be
    surprised at having to explain this. Having never done<=
    BR>
    > anything but 30 mile Masters Fatties crits the thought would have neve= r<BR> > occured to
    you.<BR> > <BR> > <BR> </FONT></SPAN></FONT> </BODY> </HTML>

    --B_3154781766_19899907--
     
  8. "Steve" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:BC0A2644.896F7%[email protected]...
    > On 12/20/03 3:53 PM, in article [email protected], "heather
    > locklearson" <[email protected]> wrote:
    >
    > >
    > > "warren" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    > > news:201220031244155430%[email protected]...
    > >>>
    > >>> That not true, a lot riders have up & down years. It's also hard to predict when a unknown
    > >>> will appear from nowwhere. There have been a lot of years when a unknown like Fignon appears
    > >>> and goes on to win the TDF. Racing helps a rider to gauge how others are doing.
    > >>
    > >> It doesn't matter who is at the top because the power output of whoever is at the top doesn't
    > >> change much from year to year. IOW, your "unknown" rider isn't going to go appreciably faster
    > >> than the guy who won last year. Look at the race times for the major climbs and TT's in the
    > >> Tour. Any major differences among the winners' power output from year to year?
    > >
    > > Dumbass -
    > >
    > >
    > > What is salient is a decline in rider's ability to recover. Even if this ability is only reduced
    > > slightly, the net result in a stage race is
    dramatic
    > > because the effect of the diminished recovery is cumulative over many,
    many
    > > days.
    >
    > Dumbass Henry,
    >
    > Hence.........the reason so well explained for Masters categories! (Of
    which
    > you vehemently disagree with...)
    >
    > Way to show how to be a good hypocritical Ignoranimous

    Ignoranimous?

    Oh, the irony.
     
  9. Warren

    Warren Guest

    In article <[email protected]>, heather
    locklearson <[email protected]> wrote:

    > "warren" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:201220031244155430%[email protected]...
    > > >
    > > > That not true, a lot riders have up & down years. It's also hard to predict when a unknown
    > > > will appear from nowwhere. There have been a lot of years when a unknown like Fignon appears
    > > > and goes on to win the TDF. Racing helps a rider to gauge how others are doing.
    > >
    > > It doesn't matter who is at the top because the power output of whoever is at the top doesn't
    > > change much from year to year. IOW, your "unknown" rider isn't going to go appreciably faster
    > > than the guy who won last year. Look at the race times for the major climbs and TT's in the
    > > Tour. Any major differences among the winners' power output from year to year?
    >
    >
    >
    >
    > Dumbass -
    >
    >
    > What is salient is a decline in rider's ability to recover. Even if this ability is only reduced
    > slightly, the net result in a stage race is dramatic because the effect of the diminished recovery
    > is cumulative over many, many days.

    That can be simulated, and is simulated during training. Which recent Tour winners have taken the
    opportuity to do a race that is even half as long as the Tour so they could simulate/assess their
    ability to recover through the critical last 7-10 days of that year's Tour.

    Please provide an example from the last few years of the top 3-5 guys in the Tour taking the
    opportunity to race next to each other to accurately assess their relative fitness levels prior to
    the Tour in time to adjust their own training accordingly.

    -WG
     
  10. "warren" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:201220031747282838%[email protected]...
    > In article <[email protected]>, heather locklearson
    > <[email protected]> wrote:
    >
    > > "warren" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    > > news:201220031244155430%[email protected]...
    > > > >
    > > > > That not true, a lot riders have up & down years. It's also hard to predict when a unknown
    > > > > will appear from nowwhere. There have been a lot of years when a unknown like Fignon appears
    > > > > and goes on to win
    the
    > > > > TDF. Racing helps a rider to gauge how others are doing.
    > > >
    > > > It doesn't matter who is at the top because the power output of whoever is at the top doesn't
    > > > change much from year to year. IOW, your "unknown" rider isn't going to go appreciably faster
    > > > than the guy who won last year. Look at the race times for the major climbs and TT's in the
    > > > Tour. Any major differences among the winners' power output from year to year?
    > >
    > >
    > >
    > >
    > > Dumbass -
    > >
    > >
    > > What is salient is a decline in rider's ability to recover. Even if this ability is only reduced
    > > slightly, the net result in a stage race is
    dramatic
    > > because the effect of the diminished recovery is cumulative over many,
    many
    > > days.
    >
    > That can be simulated, and is simulated during training. Which recent Tour winners have taken the
    > opportuity to do a race that is even half as long as the Tour so they could simulate/assess their
    > ability to recover through the critical last 7-10 days of that year's Tour.
    >
    > Please provide an example from the last few years of the top 3-5 guys in the Tour taking the
    > opportunity to race next to each other to accurately assess their relative fitness levels prior to
    > the Tour in time to adjust their own training accordingly.

    Dumbass -

    That doesn't happen. It also isn't what I was addressing.

    I was addressing your contention that power output doesn't change from year to year. It may not in
    the lab, but it does on the road where recovery matters. Look at what happened to Indurain.
    Unstoppable one year, unable to make the lead group in the mountains the next year. Stage Racing.
    It's not the same as one-day-one-hour Fattie Crits.
     
  11. Warren

    Warren Guest

    In article <[email protected]>, heather
    locklearson <[email protected]> wrote:

    > "warren" <[email protected]> wrote in message

    > > > > > That not true, a lot riders have up & down years. It's also hard to predict when a unknown
    > > > > > will appear from nowwhere. There have been a lot of years when a unknown like Fignon
    > > > > > appears and goes on to win
    > the
    > > > > > TDF. Racing helps a rider to gauge how others are doing.
    > > > >
    > > > > It doesn't matter who is at the top because the power output of whoever is at the top
    > > > > doesn't change much from year to year. IOW, your "unknown" rider isn't going to go
    > > > > appreciably faster than the guy who won last year. Look at the race times for the major
    > > > > climbs and TT's in the Tour. Any major differences among the winners' power output from year
    > > > > to year?

    > Dumbass -
    >
    > That doesn't happen. It also isn't what I was addressing.
    >
    > I was addressing your contention that power output doesn't change from year to year. It may not in
    > the lab, but it does on the road where recovery matters.

    Experience has shown that Lance's recovery is very good compared to the rest. The ability to recover
    from day to day isn't going to change much from year to year for a guy like Lance, and if his
    ability to recover does change (this year?) it will be evident during training.

    > Look at what happened to Indurain. Unstoppable one year, unable to make the lead group in the
    > mountains the next year.

    The power output of whoever was at the front in a given year doesn't change much compared to whoever
    was at the front the previous year, just the names of the guys at the front-which is what I said two
    posts ago.

    The evidence of this is the leaders' pace on certain climbs and during TT's from year to year. If
    you take out variables like the weather and how far in to the Tour the stage occurs-all of which are
    not too hard to account for in training objectives, the power needed to be at the front this year
    for x climb is not a lot different than it was last year or the year before, and Lance knows this,
    but you don't.

    Listen closely to what Lance's advisors say about his power during certain tests before and during
    the Tour. His success in the race is not a surprise to them because they already have a pretty good
    idea of how much power and for how long he needs to make that power in order to be successful during
    the critical stages. If his power output during his pre-race tests is lower, or hasn't improved from
    last year then they'll have something to worry about.

    -WG
     
  12. "warren" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:201220032048177232%[email protected]...
    >
    > Experience has shown that Lance's recovery is very good compared to the rest. The ability to
    > recover from day to day isn't going to change much from year to year for a guy like Lance, and if
    > his ability to recover does change (this year?) it will be evident during training.
    >
    > > Look at what happened to Indurain. Unstoppable one year, unable to make the lead group in the
    > > mountains the next year.
    >
    > The power output of whoever was at the front in a given year doesn't change much compared to
    > whoever was at the front the previous year, just the names of the guys at the front-which is what
    > I said two posts ago.
    >
    > The evidence of this is the leaders' pace on certain climbs and during TT's from year to year. If
    > you take out variables like the weather and how far in to the Tour the stage occurs-all of which
    > are not too hard to account for in training objectives, the power needed to be at the front this
    > year for x climb is not a lot different than it was last year or the year before, and Lance knows
    > this, but you don't.
    >
    > Listen closely to what Lance's advisors say about his power during certain tests before and during
    > the Tour. His success in the race is not a surprise to them because they already have a pretty
    > good idea of how much power and for how long he needs to make that power in order to be successful
    > during the critical stages. If his power output during his pre-race tests is lower, or hasn't
    > improved from last year then they'll have something to worry about.

    Dumbass -

    Look at the declines of both Indurain and Lemond. Sudden.

    In 1996 Indurain won the Dauphine, convincingly. Then he couldn't do it in the Tour.

    Pre-Tour power tests don't mean shit. No one can simulate the TdF in training.
     
  13. Lou D'Amelio

    Lou D'Amelio Guest

    > why would he choose a chain smoking skank?

    Why would she choose a guy with one nut ?

    Lou D'Amelio
     
  14. "Tom Kunich" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
    > "Heinz Getzler" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    > news:[email protected]...
    > >
    > > That not true, a lot riders have up & down years. It's also hard to predict when a unknown will
    > > appear from nowwhere. There have been a lot of years when a unknown like Fignon appears and goes
    > > on to win
    > the
    > > TDF. Racing helps a rider to gauge how others are doing.
    >
    > It's a lot harder for unknowns to spring into being overnight with supersensitive drug
    > testing now.
    >
    > Jan wasn't an overnight success. Neither was Lance. I just finished watching the 1990 Tour tapes
    > and any idiot could have told that Indurain was going to start a streak. In 1990 Indurain was
    > stronger than LeMond but held back by Delgado.
    >
    I think it's unfair to attribute success and or performance to drugs. There is plenty of cases where
    a unknown has appeared and has not tested positive for drugs. In other words one cannot prove a
    negative and attribute to drugs.

    > If Greg talks about an almost win in the '85 Tour he should remember that without Delgado to
    > protect, Miguel would have polished him off easily.
     
  15. Tom Kunich

    Tom Kunich Guest

    "Heinz Getzler" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]...
    > "Tom Kunich" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:<[email protected]>...
    > > "Heinz Getzler" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    > > news:[email protected]...
    > > >
    > > > That not true, a lot riders have up & down years. It's also hard
    to
    > > > predict when a unknown will appear from nowwhere. There have
    been a
    > > > lot of years when a unknown like Fignon appears and goes on to
    win
    > > the
    > > > TDF. Racing helps a rider to gauge how others are doing.
    > >
    > > It's a lot harder for unknowns to spring into being overnight with supersensitive drug
    > > testing now.
    > >
    > > Jan wasn't an overnight success. Neither was Lance. I just
    finished
    > > watching the 1990 Tour tapes and any idiot could have told that Indurain was going to start a
    > > streak. In 1990 Indurain was
    stronger
    > > than LeMond but held back by Delgado.
    > >
    > I think it's unfair to attribute success and or performance to
    drugs.
    > There is plenty of cases where a unknown has appeared and has not tested positive for drugs. In
    > other words one cannot prove a
    negative
    > and attribute to drugs.
    >
    > > If Greg talks about an almost win in the '85 Tour he should
    remember
    > > that without Delgado to protect, Miguel would have polished him
    off
    > > easily.

    It's my position (until proven wrong) that drugs are a significant effect in the Tour leaders groups
    now because virtually everything can be detected if not identified.
     
  16. Warren

    Warren Guest

    In article <[email protected]>, Tom
    Kunich <[email protected]> wrote:

    > It's my position (until proven wrong) that drugs are a significant effect in the Tour leaders
    > groups now because virtually everything can be detected if not identified.

    Did you leave out a word?

    -WG
     
  17. "Tom Kunich" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
    > "Heinz Getzler" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    > news:[email protected]...
    > > "Tom Kunich" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    > news:<[email protected]>...
    > > > "Heinz Getzler" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    > > > news:[email protected]...
    > > > >
    > > > > That not true, a lot riders have up & down years. It's also hard
    > to
    > > > > predict when a unknown will appear from nowwhere. There have
    > been a
    > > > > lot of years when a unknown like Fignon appears and goes on to
    > win the
    > > > > TDF. Racing helps a rider to gauge how others are doing.
    > > >
    > > > It's a lot harder for unknowns to spring into being overnight with supersensitive drug testing
    > > > now.
    > > >
    > > > Jan wasn't an overnight success. Neither was Lance. I just
    > finished
    > > > watching the 1990 Tour tapes and any idiot could have told that Indurain was going to start a
    > > > streak. In 1990 Indurain was
    > stronger
    > > > than LeMond but held back by Delgado.
    > > >
    > > I think it's unfair to attribute success and or performance to
    > drugs.
    > > There is plenty of cases where a unknown has appeared and has not tested positive for drugs. In
    > > other words one cannot prove a
    > negative
    > > and attribute to drugs.
    > >
    > > > If Greg talks about an almost win in the '85 Tour he should
    > remember
    > > > that without Delgado to protect, Miguel would have polished him
    > off
    > > > easily.
    >
    > It's my position (until proven wrong) that drugs are a significant effect in the Tour leaders
    > groups now because virtually everything can be detected if not identified.

    I think this statement is ridiculous. Once again you are trying to prove a negative. While there has
    been some drug use, there is no evidence to prove that drug use widespread among all the riders.
     
  18. Andy Mai

    Andy Mai Guest

    In article <[email protected]>,
    Scott Hendricks <[email protected]> wrote:
    >
    >Anyway, as I recall, the climbs in Colorado didn't rate all that highly. Seems that most of the
    >paved roads just aren't that steep. The main thing making them tough is that they are at a greater
    >altitude than the typical climb in Europe.

    I've ridden all the paved roads in the Colorado Rockies and I agree with this. Maximum grades tend
    to be around 8%. The long climbs are more like 5-6%. (Of course there are some short exceptions to
    this rule, especially around Boulder.)

    >If Armstrong comes to the Rockies to climb, won't he be violating the concept of train low,
    >live high???

    Miguel Indurain and his team trained in Colorado for the World's (199? -- sorry, I forget the exact
    year). Result: Abraham Olano won.

    Andy
     
  19. "warren" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:201220032048177232%[email protected]...
    > >
    > > That doesn't happen. It also isn't what I was addressing.
    > >
    > > I was addressing your contention that power output doesn't change from
    year
    > > to year. It may not in the lab, but it does on the road where recovery matters.
    >
    > Experience has shown that Lance's recovery is very good compared to the rest. The ability to
    > recover from day to day isn't going to change much from year to year for a guy like Lance, and if
    > his ability to recover does change (this year?) it will be evident during training.
    >
    > > Look at what happened to Indurain. Unstoppable one year, unable to make the lead group in the
    > > mountains the next year.
    >
    > The power output of whoever was at the front in a given year doesn't change much compared to
    > whoever was at the front the previous year, just the names of the guys at the front-which is what
    > I said two posts ago.
    >
    > The evidence of this is the leaders' pace on certain climbs and during TT's from year to year. If
    > you take out variables like the weather and how far in to the Tour the stage occurs-all of which
    > are not too hard to account for in training objectives, the power needed to be at the front this
    > year for x climb is not a lot different than it was last year or the year before, and Lance knows
    > this, but you don't.
    >
    > Listen closely to what Lance's advisors say about his power during certain tests before and during
    > the Tour. His success in the race is not a surprise to them because they already have a pretty
    > good idea of how much power and for how long he needs to make that power in order to be successful
    > during the critical stages. If his power output during his pre-race tests is lower, or hasn't
    > improved from last year then they'll have something to worry about.

    Dumbass -

    Look at the declines of both Indurain and Lemond. Sudden.

    In 1996 Indurain won the Dauphine, convincingly. Then he couldn't do it in the Tour.

    Pre-Tour power tests don't mean shit. No one can simulate the TdF in training.
     
  20. Tom Kunich

    Tom Kunich Guest

    "Heinz Getzler" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]...
    > "Tom Kunich" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:<[email protected]>...
    > > "Heinz Getzler" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    > > news:[email protected]...
    > > > "Tom Kunich" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    > > news:<[email protected]>...
    > > > > "Heinz Getzler" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    > > > > news:[email protected]...
    > > > > >
    > > > > > That not true, a lot riders have up & down years. It's also
    hard
    > > to
    > > > > > predict when a unknown will appear from nowwhere. There have
    > > been a
    > > > > > lot of years when a unknown like Fignon appears and goes on
    to
    > > win the
    > > > > > TDF. Racing helps a rider to gauge how others are doing.
    > > > >
    > > > > It's a lot harder for unknowns to spring into being overnight
    with
    > > > > supersensitive drug testing now.
    > > > >
    > > > > Jan wasn't an overnight success. Neither was Lance. I just
    > > finished
    > > > > watching the 1990 Tour tapes and any idiot could have told
    that
    > > > > Indurain was going to start a streak. In 1990 Indurain was
    > > stronger
    > > > > than LeMond but held back by Delgado.
    > > > >
    > > > I think it's unfair to attribute success and or performance to
    > > drugs.
    > > > There is plenty of cases where a unknown has appeared and has
    not
    > > > tested positive for drugs. In other words one cannot prove a
    > > negative
    > > > and attribute to drugs.
    > > >
    > > > > If Greg talks about an almost win in the '85 Tour he should
    > > remember
    > > > > that without Delgado to protect, Miguel would have polished
    him
    > > off
    > > > > easily.
    > >
    > > It's my position (until proven wrong) that drugs are a significant effect in the Tour leaders
    > > groups now because virtually everything
    can
    > > be detected if not identified.
    >
    > I think this statement is ridiculous. Once again you are trying to prove a negative. While
    > there has been some drug use, there is no evidence to prove that drug use widespread among all
    > the riders.

    As warren noted, I left out the word "not" from before "a significant".

    Bad fingers, bad, bad!
     
Loading...
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
Loading...