you seem to know a lot about cycling because I don't know a single one of them. Just shows how great lance Armstrong was even before doping newsmpre53 said:"Explain Lance Armstrong". He doped so much he glowed in the dark. You're the same height as Greg LeMond. And a shitload of other Tour de France winners, and taller than a lot of them. Bernard Hinault was 5'8".So was Fignon. If taller = faster it would have been George Hincapie winning those 7 Tours, not Lance.
Originally Posted by CAMPYBOB
Yes, Lance had a classic case of Short Man Syndrome. For that, he was treated with EPO, T, Hgh and steroids. This not only cured his cancer and enabled him to grow to 5' 11-3/4", but it gave his legs the equivalent speed of a person 6' 3" tall.
You opened the door. Btw I got in a few road mile yesterday , I am sure you are enjoying the weather right now.Originally Posted by CAMPYBOB
Great...
What's the one rule of the Fight Club?
No. Look at it like a merry-go-round. The horses on the outside complete a revolution in the same time as the horses on the inside. They just go faster and cover more distance. So if you want a faster ride on the merry-go-round, choose a horse on the outside.Originally Posted by gary-trek
Taller person bigger crankset= more road being pedaled
Shorter person more pedaling for the same outcome with smaller crank???
I wouldn't call him great. He was a very good classics/stage rider before dope turned him into someone who could contend for the GC title in one of the grand tours. He had a World Championship to his credit, which is a one day event, before starting on EPO, so he was definitely a world class pro at those types of events, using the standard PEDs of the day that almost everyone else was using. But he wasn't a very good climber until he and the best doping doctor in the business started manipulating his blood values.Originally Posted by gary-trek
you seem to know a lot about cycling because I don't know a single one of them. Just shows how great lance Armstrong was even before doping news
A very good post.Originally Posted by mpre53
I wouldn't call him great. He was a very good classics/stage rider before dope turned him into someone who could contend for the GC title in one of the grand tours. He had a World Championship to his credit, which is a one day event, before starting on EPO, so he was definitely a world class pro at those types of events, using the standard PEDs of the day that almost everyone else was using. But he wasn't a very good climber until he and the best doping doctor in the business started manipulating his blood values.
You should learn the names of some of the greats from the past. There's a hundred year history of the sport pre-Lance. If you don't learn about anyone else, read up on Eddy Merckx.
Another guy you should read up on is Marco Pantani, especially if you're ever tempted to start playing around with that stuff to get better.
Just to be clear, it's not an advantage for Grand Tour riders. I don't think height is any particular advantage for anyone. However, time trialists and classics riders tend to be larger, like Fabian Cancellara, Tony Martin, Tom Boonen, Peter Sagan and Greg Van Avermaet. They're not necessarily much taller than the GT contenders, but they have much more muscular builds. They also tend to do well in the shorter, week-long Tours where they spend less time in the high mountains.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miguel_Indurain
I don't think taller or bigger is an advantage at all, but a hindrance.
We use essential cookies to make this site work, and optional cookies to enhance your experience.