Would Lance have won his 5 Tours without a 2-way radio?

1. How much advantage does the wearing of 2-way radios give to a cyclist

Pro cycling used to be men and machine against everything, the weather, the courses and of course each other. It now seems to have lowered itself to school level. The cyclist is the pupil and the team manager tells then what to do, the initative has gone, brains have gone out of fashion.

2. How would previous winners of Grand Tours have faired with them?

Can you imagine in earlier years the likes of Merckx being told what to do, and have the continual pressure of someone shouting in your hours on end.

3. Finally, is it another form of cheating?

This one will open a can of worms. Radios give big advantages, banned substances give advantages, Therfore both should be allowed, or both banned.

 

Thank you for posting this. Now I can OFFICIALLY say I have seen EVERY LAME excuse for Lance winning 5 tours de france.

Did you know that during the early years of the Tour riders only had 1 speed bikes? Not 10 speed clusters with specific wheels/ frames/ components per day.

Did you know that during the early years of the Tour riders couldn't get outside help if their bike broke. They had to do the whole repair themselves...none of this new fangled team support vehicles with spare bikes.

I wonder how many Tours Eddy or any of the modern riders would have won under the "old" ways of the Tour.

It's called progress. No less than the new frame materials. It is only an advantage if LANCE is the ONLY rider who gets to use a radio....

Steroids are cheating because they are dis-allowed by the UCI not to mention ILLEGAL, so it's hardly the same.

Lance won because he was the BEST rider over a three week race under varying conditions and terrain, NOT because Johan was yelling for him to GO FASTER! If you need an example of that, see how well Jan reacted to his coach screaming at him the entire time during the last TT.

 

So, you think having earpieces is progress ?
Indeed.

first of all, Armstrong isn't the only one who has access to earpiece communication - so it's unfair to restrict the original question to Armstrong's ability to win a race with/without earpieces.

But let there not be any doubt, earpiece communication is not progress in my opinion.
The fact that riders are in communication with their respective managers during a race is ridiculous.
It removes the necessity of riders having to mark break aways - and it removes the surprise element of races.
It re removes the necessity for riders to think as well.
In the old days, team members were forced to chase down break aways by their team leader.
Thus this made each team expend more energy - and over a three week period, this, in some cases, did have an effect on the overall standings.
Look at Vasseurs breakaway in 1997 : look at Sestriere 1992 :
In the former case an unkown got away and managed to steal a
yellow jersey.
In the latter case, Indurain had to chase Chiappa all the way to Italy !
look at the stage to Mendes on Bastille Day in 1995 : when Jalabert went on a solo and Banesto were buying favours in order to track him down.

There are countless examples of where break aways went before the age of instant communication and this only added to the drama.
Finally, to try to explain that earpieces were responsible for LA
winning, is not fair.
All cyclists have access to them in this era.
I don't believe that they should because it reduces the potential for drama in races.

 

I respect your opinion as to why you don't care for race communication from the team manager to the rider and understand your points. I don't happen to agree with them as I am of the opinion that a clever rider can use that same communication to his advantage as Armstrong did to Ullrich in the 2001 tour (Feigning weakness and having Ullrich's manager telling him Armstrong was in difficulty).

Do you also think that auto racing should not use communication
? It is of a similar useage.

I don't mind the communication, I don't think it reduces the drama one bit and I do think it is a good use of technology. It is no less "progress" than any other of the improvements made to the bike, components or cycling training.

But that is just my opinion.

my reaction to the original post was that it is just absurd the lengths a person will go to to dis-credit Lance's victories in the Tour and the earpiece was just the most absurd yet.

Thanks for your well spoken point of view. it is certainly worthy of consideration.

 

Well I thought that the initial question was unfair to single out LA
for use of earpieces - because everyone has access to earpiece
communication : so to suggest that LA somehow an advantage
over the rest of the field, isn't fair in my opinion.

But overall, I think that they're not a sign of progress.
In having this instant communication, it deprives the race of suspense in my opinion.

In relation to the impact that this communication has had on the peleton, I don't think that it has been progressive.
But that's just my opinion -
I like the idea of a cyclist having to 'read' a race - or having to
'read' a particular circumstance as it happens without instant,
independent help.

In relation to instant communication - and I know the pro-LA fans
will not appreciate this - you will recall in one TDF (I think it was
2000), Armstrong was in direct contact with Dr.Michele Ferrari
while he was actually cycling in a stage on the TDF.

Ferrari was watching the race at home in Italy and Armstrong
was allegedly speaking to him about his cadence during the stage.
I'm not going to comment about his 'acquaintance' with Ferrari -
a doctor who is currently on trial for supplying prohibited substances - what i want to say is that it is preposterous that a
competitor - any competitor - should be allowed to discuss how his cadence is, with a doctor/trainer, while cycling in a race.
I just think that this is ludicrous.
In this instance it happened to be LA - I apply the same principle to Ullrich and all the rest of them as well.

 

Yes you are.

 

Or the bigger question. Would Lance have won if he had not been allowed to breathe or drink water. Oh the lengths those Americans will go to to win!

 

Clown,

you're once again extracting partial comments - in an attempt to decontextualise my posts.

Ferrari was watching the race at home in Italy and Armstrong
was allegedly speaking to him about his cadence during the stage.
I'm not going to comment about his 'acquaintance' with Ferrari -
a doctor who is currently on trial for supplying prohibited substances - what i want to say is that it is preposterous that a
competitor - any competitor - should be allowed to discuss how his cadence is, with a doctor/trainer, while cycling in a race.

When you're editing quotes, at least be professional enough to
copy the quote in it's context.
Fool.

 

Clown? Fool? Perhaps. But if you had no point to make about Ferrari's other, controversial entanglements then there was no reason to even mention them.

We do this dance with you all the time. We all understand that you think that saying "two plus two" differs from simply saying "four." We all get it.

 

I didn't see the stage but I read that Indurain wasn't chasing Chiappucci at all, rather it was other riders not on his team.

I think if we took away communication with the team managers, we would have to take away all support vehicles.
Then the domestiques will start carrying spare tires on their backs

I would like to see races without radios and the like, but that would be impossible, so I don't think allowing them is rediculus.