lance armstrong
- Thread starter bikefreak101
- Start date
Indeed he did.
Tour Du Pont.
With all due respect to the Tour Du Pont : I don't think that the
Tour Du Pont exactly rates as a major stage race.
We're not talking about Mide Libre, Dauphine Libere standard.
Equivalent to the Tour of Langkawi, perhaps ?
Long way short of the TDF, I would have thought.
In relative terms - his results pre cancer are non-existant.
Have you come up with a reason as to how he 'improved' after his cancer ?
I know we'll probably never see the end to this controversy. I just have to say that I don't understand this denial that the man is doing what he's doing. It has been strongly suggested by some that Lance is doing something illegal and inappropriate to be as good as he is. I'm not sure what that might be outside of doping. These same people suggest that doping in the peleton is rampant, even to the point of asking if there are any clean riders in the peleton.
If Lance were doping and if doping is that common in the peleton then Lance is still beating the other riders on a level playing field. You can't have it both ways. If Lance "isn't genuine", then the suggestion is that he's the only one cheating and that's what makes him appear so much stronger than the other riders... including those who have been caught doping. See the paradox?
Of course the man is probably tested more than any other rider in history and nothing suggesting inappropriate chemicals, techniques or what have you, has ever shown up. We've all seen riders accused of doping, punished for doping and we must believe that they were indeed using performance enhancing drugs. We've also seen Armstrong beat those riders but we've seen Ullrich, Beloki and many others beat them as well. If Lance weren't capable of winning a Tour de France, then what drug would put him at the top of the podium in Paris 5-times despite the efforts of Ullrich, Beloki, Vinokourov and several others?
I really don't care what his pre-cancer race stats tell us because the point has been made over and over, by Lance, by doctors, by trainers and by fans that this Lance Armstrong does not share the same body as the pre-cancer Lance Armstrong. It's not trick-photography or CGI. It isn't done with mirrors and I doubt he has a genie in his jersey pocket. It's a man going out on a bike and riding away from other men on bikes.
As Armstrong says in an older Nike commercial; "Everyone wants to know what I'm on. What am I on? I'm on my bike 6-hours a day. What are you on?"
Maybe he couldn't do it pre-cancer. Even he says that. But he is doing it now and he's doing it against the best riders in the field. If you don't want to buy the explanation of the total rebuild of his body from a pale, weak and emaciated post-chemo Lance, then don't. Chalk it up to the level of training to which the man pushes himself. Tyler Hamilton talks about how he used to think he knew how to train at a high level until he started training with Lance. Lance taught him how to bring it up a couple of levels. It seems to be paying off for Tyler. Should we assume he started sharing his special performance enhancing injection with Hamilton? When Lance was training with Heras and Rubiera prior to the 2001 Tour, he pushed them to the point that they both started the race in an injured and weakened condition. Johan had to restrict them and only allow them to train with Lance 2 out of every 3 training days. He's that good.
I agree that most underestimate and/or ignore the necessity of a strong team to win GC. I agree that Vin and Jan are together on a team with strong riders, which does seem an advantage, and could well be, however there have been many great riders teamed together, that never could "ride together" as a team and win GC. The question, which, as always will be seen in July, will be, which teams are indeed strongest as a unit, with the strongest leader. This is, after all why it is raced, and fortunately never based on spectator analysis, prior to the race. Tactics excellence was never mentioned and is often overlooked, as well as experience with winning and what it takes, other that that, we agree, we will see who is the better leader/team/man. I race, because I am. Stay Real Fixey
I agree Telecom was a strong team, but not a strong GC team. 1/2 there effort went into Zabel (Not saying he didnt deserve it) LA has 3 - 4 TOP climbers in USPS to help him, Jan has always had....Jan. I also wonder how many times JU has actually tuened up to the TDF fit....I think 03 was the first time in many years, I have no idea what his form is like this year but I hope it is equal to or better than last year so we can each test our theories
Originally posted by Beastt
I know we'll probably never see the end to this controversy. I just have to say that I don't understand this denial that the man is doing what he's doing. It has been strongly suggested by some that Lance is doing something illegal and inappropriate to be as good as he is. I'm not sure what that might be outside of doping. These same people suggest that doping in the peleton is rampant, even to the point of asking if there are any clean riders in the peleton.
If Lance were doping and if doping is that common in the peleton then Lance is still beating the other riders on a level playing field. You can't have it both ways. If Lance "isn't genuine", then the suggestion is that he's the only one cheating and that's what makes him appear so much stronger than the other riders... including those who have been caught doping. See the paradox?
Of course the man is probably tested more than any other rider in history and nothing suggesting inappropriate chemicals, techniques or what have you, has ever shown up. We've all seen riders accused of doping, punished for doping and we must believe that they were indeed using performance enhancing drugs. We've also seen Armstrong beat those riders but we've seen Ullrich, Beloki and many others beat them as well. If Lance weren't capable of winning a Tour de France, then what drug would put him at the top of the podium in Paris 5-times despite the efforts of Ullrich, Beloki, Vinokourov and several others?
I really don't care what his pre-cancer race stats tell us because the point has been made over and over, by Lance, by doctors, by trainers and by fans that this Lance Armstrong does not share the same body as the pre-cancer Lance Armstrong. It's not trick-photography or CGI. It isn't done with mirrors and I doubt he has a genie in his jersey pocket. It's a man going out on a bike and riding away from other men on bikes.
As Armstrong says in an older Nike commercial; "Everyone wants to know what I'm on. What am I on? I'm on my bike 6-hours a day. What are you on?"
Maybe he couldn't do it pre-cancer. Even he says that. But he is doing it now and he's doing it against the best riders in the field. If you don't want to buy the explanation of the total rebuild of his body from a pale, weak and emaciated post-chemo Lance, then don't. Chalk it up to the level of training to which the man pushes himself. Tyler Hamilton talks about how he used to think he knew how to train at a high level until he started training with Lance. Lance taught him how to bring it up a couple of levels. It seems to be paying off for Tyler. Should we assume he started sharing his special performance enhancing injection with Hamilton? When Lance was training with Heras and Rubiera prior to the 2001 Tour, he pushed them to the point that they both started the race in an injured and weakened condition. Johan had to restrict them and only allow them to train with Lance 2 out of every 3 training days. He's that good.
We've had this discussion before haven't we ?
I hear the points you make - and while I see what you're saying,
I guess it's down to belief at the end of the day, isn't it ?
I know I'm a doubting Thomas on this subject of LA : and perhaps
that's more of a reflection on me, rather than a reflection on LA !
So I propose to park my doubts in this debate !
No offence taken. Far from it, I find debate interesting and informative. It's people who are rude and/or who don't justify their opinions that I ignore.
When LA won his world title I thought he was the next Merckx; no luck involved, he simply rode away from the best in the world. And yes, he failed to live up to it thereafter.
His cancer and return from it are things too unbelieveable to go in a novel, and he himself has said that without illness he would not be the champion he now is. The only physical manifestation is that he is considerably lighter and leaner than before, which (maybe) eliminated his only weakness, mountain climbing.
So in one sense you're right; it took near-death to create the LA we know. And this was a unique event not just in cycling but in any sport anywhere. Even if he wins 6 he won't be a great like Merckx, but he has a unique, stellar place in sport already.
A great man.
Yes, to recover from the illnes he had - that takes a very,very special individual.
You know Roy, I never saw his W R/R win : I've read about it and
he indeed cycle away from the pack to win.
I've started to come to the conclusion that perhaps the nature of his illness (pre-cancer) might well have prevented him from doing better in the stage races (he was after all more a one day man in those days).
I still think that it is a terrible shame that he never tried to do a Tour/Giro double.
I have no doubt he probably would have achieved a double.
(why am I talking about him in the past tense ??)
Lim - looks like you're softening up a bit concerning the pedigree argument.
Another thing you probably haven't considered, is that there are almost no stage races here in the States. There are a few shorter 3-day stage races or "omniums" that usually include a criterium (US criteriums typically have laps shorter than 1km and 50km total would be a long criterium even for the pros). The upcoming Tour de Georgia is only 6 days long, Redlands is 5 days, and Sea Otter is 4 days - these are our biggest stage races. Bike racing in the USA at the pro level pretty much consists of one-day events and the cyclists who rise up to the top ranks in USA cycling are pretty much one-day specialists.
The few American cyclists who have done well at stage racing in Europe generally went to Europe very early in their career because the USA racing scene can't possibly select stage racers from that kind of calendar and the few who've done well in the bigger stage races all had to make that transition (Hampsten, Hamilton, Julich) and that takes some time. So it would be pretty unusual for an American cyclist (no matter how naturally talented he may be) to do well in his first Grand Tour or to have the kind of pedigree that you're looking for. Greg Lemond won the Junior World's in '79 before turning pro, then did very well in the Pro Worlds in '82 and '83 (2nd and 1st) before he ever did well in the Tour (3rd in '84 at age 23). Your pedigree agrument may have some validity for European racers, but it doesn’t hold water for non-euros.
Another thing you probably haven't considered, is that there are almost no stage races here in the States. There are a few shorter 3-day stage races or "omniums" that usually include a criterium (US criteriums typically have laps shorter than 1km and 50km total would be a long criterium even for the pros). The upcoming Tour de Georgia is only 6 days long, Redlands is 5 days, and Sea Otter is 4 days - these are our biggest stage races. Bike racing in the USA at the pro level pretty much consists of one-day events and the cyclists who rise up to the top ranks in USA cycling are pretty much one-day specialists.
The few American cyclists who have done well at stage racing in Europe generally went to Europe very early in their career because the USA racing scene can't possibly select stage racers from that kind of calendar and the few who've done well in the bigger stage races all had to make that transition (Hampsten, Hamilton, Julich) and that takes some time. So it would be pretty unusual for an American cyclist (no matter how naturally talented he may be) to do well in his first Grand Tour or to have the kind of pedigree that you're looking for. Greg Lemond won the Junior World's in '79 before turning pro, then did very well in the Pro Worlds in '82 and '83 (2nd and 1st) before he ever did well in the Tour (3rd in '84 at age 23). Your pedigree agrument may have some validity for European racers, but it doesn’t hold water for non-euros.
Your last post brought another thought to mind, limerickman. ESPN, (ESPN is a television sports network in the U.S.), presented a short documentary-type special on the history of Lance Armstrong, mainly covering the illness. If I remember correctly, this was during the 2000 Tour de France. They stated that doctors suspected that Lance's cancer had been undiscovered and indeed, he may have had cancer is entire professional career. (Prior to the time it was diagnosed) Perhaps this would account for the less impressive results in his "pre-cancer" tours.
Well I am trying to give LA the benefit of the doubt.
But your point about there being fewer stage races is valid - which makes LeMond's debut here in Europe even more special.
In my opinion, LeMond was a really, really great cyclist.
He should have won the TDF in 1985 (he made way for Hinault)
and if he hadn't suffered that gun shot wound - I think LA would have been the second American cyclist to win 5 T'sDF.
I don't think that Delgado or Roche would have won in 1987/88
respectively.
Greg could win both stage races and one day races.
If you look at greg's early results 1982 first in the Tour du L'Avenir, 3rd Tierreno Adriatico :2nd in world R/R.
1983 : 1st Dauphine Libere : 4th Tour of Switzerland and world R/R champion.
A truly fantastic rider.
It was just a thought on my part - but that is interesting that doctors might hold this out as a conclusion.
I was rewatching my tapes of the 1995 and 1996 T'DF.
In the 1996, TDF LA is cycling along on stage 8, I think it was, and he got off the bike complaining of a sore throat and abandoned the race and the commentator saying "for a man beginning to show great form in stage races, Lance has decided to abandon.
I'm sure he had his sights fixed on having a very good TDF".
Little were we to know that 4 months later he held that fateful press conference telling the world that he had cancer.
I think the pedigree argument is valid, its not really about how many stage races there are or are not in the US. No manger in the world would have taken an 80kg mass of a man with limited climbing ability and said "Lets train you up for Grand Tours..." Lance was (IMO) as good a classic racer back then as he is a tour rider now, and thats where the pedigree argument comes in, all the true greats could do both all of their careers. Lance could do one, now he can do the other...thats makes him a great tour rider, or was a great classic rider but the true greats where great at all aspects all the time, Eddie was even a track rider of some note I believe.
But Fixey, I initially questioned LA's pedigree on the basis that he
had no stage race pedigree prior to 1998 and I thus raised questions as to the authenticity of what we have seen since 1998.
As you point out the greats like Merckx Hinault etc could do what they did in both classics and stage races from day one.
I also stated that JU was able to perform in stage races from day one - ditto Pantani.
It is on this basis that I questioned LA's pedigree and authenticity.
I don't particularly wish to open up this argument again because I have my opinion and others have theirs too.
My argument is discussed elsewhere.
Only Merckx, Hinault and Indurain's 5 wins could have had no other outcome, so total was their dominance. Armstrong has looked threatened at times; Anquetil's win in '64 was as close as Lemond's '89 (JA only won because of time bonuses). All three of Lemond's tour wins were fragile; '86 when Hinault was past his best, '89 because Fignon had a boil on his backside, and against Chiappucci because Claudio rode like a complete idiot.
So not as proven a rider as you are indicating; which is not to deny that he was not great, he was. And indeed he might have been the greatest ever without injury - he never really recovered and still came back to the top.
Similar threads
