Lemond Accuses Armstrong?

Discussion in 'The Bike Cafe' started by tberwald, Jul 15, 2004.

  1. davidbod

    davidbod New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2003
    Messages:
    717
    Likes Received:
    0
    I can't believe that this is the whole substantive evidence that Greg has to be making public statements regarding Lance and doping. If I were Lance I'd be pissed(read mad as hell) too.
     


  2. gntlmn

    gntlmn New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2003
    Messages:
    1,667
    Likes Received:
    1
    I think you have the reason right there before your eyes. You have posted it here.

    Quote
    I see a man with less weight.
    I see a man with a new pedalling style.
    I also see a man cycling with apparent ease.
    He climbs without difficulty and dominates the climbers, to whom he couldn't hold a candle to between 1992-1996.
    End quote

    Clearly, the great difference is in the weight loss. I don't know why this is so hard to understand. The pedalling style is easier to adopt if you don't have as much muscle that a slower cadence would require. So his weight loss made it easier to change and improve his pedalling style into the Ancquetil/Indurain tradition.

    Did you see Millar lose any weight as he continued to improve on EPO? I don't think so. His improvement is explained by doping, as he himself admits. Lance's is from weight loss and extreme discipline to doing all that is required, short of doping, to succeed.

    And so that's why we cannot ignore 1992 to 1996 when we tell young riders, as Eddy Merckx told Lance, that you have to keep your weight down if you're going to be a tour champion.
     
  3. scottshields

    scottshields New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 6, 2003
    Messages:
    46
    Likes Received:
    0
    I would add to this the drive and determination to accomplish what was almost lost in his battle with cancer. To me the mental toughness and focus required from his bout with cancer must have made him certain he could win if he worked hard enough. I think he works harder than anyone else in the peloton. Of course I can't proove that, but does anyone else think that another rider rode Alpe Dhuez 4 times in one day? One other example that comes to mind is the time last time trial last year. With some much on the line did Ullrich ride or drive the stage prior to riding it in the rain, no he watched a video while lance drove the route to scout every turn. Ullrich also warmed up on a hot day in the AC of a shop nearby the start while Lance was out in the heat.

    I'm have no idea whether Lance is clean or not, however I do believe there is more that enough reason to explain how well he does, and that he can do it without EPO.

    Scott
     
  4. davidbod

    davidbod New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2003
    Messages:
    717
    Likes Received:
    0
    Here's some math for those who like figures. I went to go look up what power is required climbing a hill all things being equal where bike+rider weigh different amounts. Here is a link to a pretty detailed discussion http://www.sportsci.org/jour/9804/dps.html

    The article states that for a significantly steep hill where speeds are around 16 Km/hr wind resistance falls away to zero, and that rolling resistance with modern narrow high pressure tires also falls to zero. That leaves the acceleration constant, the hill gradient, mass and speed as the remaining factors:

    g = 9.8 m/s**2
    i = sin(road angle to horizontal) = rise over the distance along the hill = rise / sqrt(rise**2 + run**2) where the rise and run can be easily computed from a gradient
    M = mass of rider and bike in kg
    s = speed of the bike in m/s

    As an example take a hill gradient of 5% (quite moderate), a speed of 16 km/hr and two riders+bikes, one weighing 75 kg and the other 80 kg.

    i = rise / sqrt(rise**2 + run**2) = 5 / sqrt(5**2+100**2) = 5 / sqrt(25 +10,000) = 5 / sqrt(10,025) = 0.04994
    s = 16 km/hr = 4.445 m/s

    W for the 75 kg rider then = 9.8 * 0.04994 * 75 * 4.445 = 163.158

    W for the 80 kg rider = 174.035

    So the difference on this moderate 5% hill at 16 km/hr between two riders with 5 kg difference is a whopping 6.665%. At the elite pro level that is astounding. Any of you out there think your riding wouldn't dramatically improve if everything got 6.665% easier in the hills.

    I've read where Indurain from his early tours to his first win lost up to 2 stones = 28 lbs = 12.7 kg, and the percentage difference in power required to do the same climb would be absolutely huge.

    Anyone have an accurate figure on the amount of weight Lance lost after his cancer from his first years in the tour?
     
  5. Metz

    Metz New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2003
    Messages:
    4
    Likes Received:
    0
    I think we need to add to this that Lance's age pre-cancer was definitely a factor. Sherwin and Ligget had a few conversations regarding Voeckler that revovled around his age and how he would have much more stamina as he reached his late twenties. I am not a Lance apologist and it's entirely possible that he is some sort of super-EPO that is undetectable but I also believe that there are quite a few reasons as to why he has improved. I don't think his climb to the top is much different that the ascent of many great cyclists. I aslo think that if Lance is doping then it's likely that are many others in the peloton that are also.
     
  6. pobserver03

    pobserver03 New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2004
    Messages:
    56
    Likes Received:
    0
    While this is an interesting topic "Lemond Accuses Armstrong" you wanna know what I think? Lets just stop. I mean we all have our own opinion on this issue and no two people with differing opinions on this subject are going to agree. The only constant is that the Texan, the cancer survivor, the five time tour champion will be the only man in history to have stood atop the podium in Paris SIX times. :D
     
  7. gntlmn

    gntlmn New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2003
    Messages:
    1,667
    Likes Received:
    1
    That's a valid point and one that I heard often when Lance was riding for Motorola in his early twenties. They didn't even expect him to finish the whole tour in those years because of how punishing a tour is on a young body. They were grooming him to be a champion, not a flash in the pan. Stage wins were fair game, but a tour win was out of the question. It would have been a long run mistake, according to the philosophy of those in charge at the time. I tend to agree with that assessment.
     
  8. gntlmn

    gntlmn New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2003
    Messages:
    1,667
    Likes Received:
    1
    Yep. It's all hearsay.

    I wouldn't be surprised if the original conversation with Lemond was twisted by the press. He might have meant the statement as a sarcastic exclamation. In other words, of course it's the greatest sporting comeback in history. What do you think, that it's the greatest sporting, doping fraud? He may have meant it as a rhetorical question, but then it might have been taken out of context, as often happens in the press. And then, when Lance expressed displeasure, it's pretty hard to backpedal on something you said in words but didn't mean by the way you said it.

    What I'm saying is, who really knows what the conversation exactly was. And this book is supposedly giving the wife's perspective on a conversation she only heard from one party, not two? Do they use a speakerphone and listen to each other's phone calls? So the fact that she is making the statement and not Greg doesn't make it any more believable.

    Fact: Lance has never tested positive on a drug test.
    Fact: Riders who claim that it's easy to beat the tests are invariably riders who have been caught. Then they expect us to believe them when they "spill their guts". I find that they are less believable, not more believable, if they are known dopers.
    Fact: Lance has been drug tested for many years, not just one or two. The result is the same--always clean.

    That Lance is being randomly tested, if he is, ought to be verifiable. If he says he is in his book, then it's a matter of time before more evidence of this surfaces. I would be surprised if he says in his book he is being randomly tested year round, and then it turns out he's not. Someone other than him will vouch that he is.
     
  9. gntlmn

    gntlmn New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2003
    Messages:
    1,667
    Likes Received:
    1
    Speaking of revisionism, it's interesting that you don't mention that Lance Armstrong was the number 1 ranked cyclist in the world during 1996, the same year he was later diagnosed with cancer. It seems that he was progressing quite well and on track to be an eventual tour champion. Tour races are quite punishing on the young. Tours are for people in their late 20's or more. The earlier years are for not much more than classics.
     
  10. gntlmn

    gntlmn New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2003
    Messages:
    1,667
    Likes Received:
    1
    I did a lot of web searching, and I finally came up with something that was in line with what I thought he lost. So it must be pretty close. I've heard him say on tv that he lost 18 lbs. What I found today was that he used to weigh 175 lbs, and now he weighs, depending on the time of year or who you believe, I think between 156 and 165 lbs. So his weight loss is anywhere from 10 to 19 lbs. I am even having trouble finding his weight for the start of this year's TdF, which I don't know is what they claim or if it's an actual weigh in. I think riders typically lose a little weight during the Tour.
     
  11. limerickman

    limerickman Moderator

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2004
    Messages:
    16,130
    Likes Received:
    115
    And just how many stages races did he win in 1996 ?
    Tour Du Pont.
    Not exactly Paris-Nice or Dauphine standard - never mind grand Tour standard.

    I have no recollection of him being at No 1 in 1996.
    If he was No 1 in 1996, I would wager that it was on the basis of his performances in one day races.

    As I have repeatedly stated to you before - one day races are diametrically
    different to stage races.
     
  12. Jakebrake

    Jakebrake New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 17, 2004
    Messages:
    351
    Likes Received:
    0
    Did not the The Tour Du Pont have a 2.1 ranking same as Paris-Nice?
     
  13. limerickman

    limerickman Moderator

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2004
    Messages:
    16,130
    Likes Received:
    115
    You know, I can't recall what rating it had to be honest.
    That's how much of an impact it had at the time.

    I don't think the Tour Du Pont was seen as adequate preparation for the TDF,
    if my recall is correct.
     
  14. kennf

    kennf New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2004
    Messages:
    609
    Likes Received:
    0
    He rode the Tour of Switzerland after the Tour Dupont to prepare for the Tour that year. You're right. He didn't win any stages or finish the '96 Tour. And three months later he was throwing up blood from cancer that had spread to his stomach. He won Dupont and finished 12th in the Olympic road race and 6th in the time trial, at a time when he probably already had tumors in his lungs. So your point is?
     
  15. pineapple

    pineapple New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2003
    Messages:
    213
    Likes Received:
    0
    I think I've put my finger on what annoys me about David Walsh's book. It's not only that he is putting out anti-Armstrong propaganda, or that he has no proof of doping offences. It's that he does it in such a half-assed, slimy kind of way. He's written a whole book - an actual book(!), not just an article - based on nothing more than rumour and circumstance. And it's going to sell.

    And then when people point out that there is no proof, he just agrees and says that you should make of it what you want. He says he is just laying out the facts for all to see, but these facts only consist of unconfirmed stories from other people who want to see their names in print. This seems to me to be the most cowardly form of investigative journalism, and the only thing it achieves is book sales.

    It reminds me of Michael Moore and his books and films. The second you start to pick away at the consistency of the points he makes, you come up against the argument that it is just entertainment/speculation. Well, if you aren't serious, and you don't have proof, then shut up.

    PS Congratulations to Lance on the day he made history.
     
  16. Mattdaniel

    Mattdaniel New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2004
    Messages:
    16
    Likes Received:
    0
    yeah, he is the dogs nads of the racing world, and Im glad if I've upset any/everyone saying that.
     
  17. meehs

    meehs New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2003
    Messages:
    1,868
    Likes Received:
    0
    None. But how many stages do you think Indurain, Pantani or Ullrich would've won with advanced cancer in their testicles, brain and lungs, Lim?
     
  18. limerickman

    limerickman Moderator

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2004
    Messages:
    16,130
    Likes Received:
    115
    None - thank goodness.
     
  19. Perro Loco

    Perro Loco New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2004
    Messages:
    121
    Likes Received:
    0
    Tour Du Pont had a 2.2

    In 96 Armstrong at the age of 24
    finished
    2nd in Paris Nice
    2nd in Liege
    won Fleche Wallonne
    Won tour du Pont Not the highest level but several very good teams riders. Herve, romminger (10th that year in the tour) all a little past their prime but competitive none the less.

    Very impressive spring for a 24 year old.
     
  20. el Ingles

    el Ingles New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2003
    Messages:
    730
    Likes Received:
    0
    Who gives a sh*t what it´s called or how you spell it , where´s the damn toilet ..................................
     
Loading...
Loading...