Zabel admits doping
- Thread starter wicklow200
- Start date
Been drinking the Armstrong PR Kool Aid, I see. Before taking EPO in 1995, Armstrong's pro accomplishments amount to lucking out in the world championship race and winning a TdF stage. We also know the U.S. national cycling team was doping their riders, so those were likely not dope free either. What happened in a backwater cycling nation like the U.S. is meaningless.davidbod said:
He was not exactly a world beater when he got to europe--not until he had worked a with Dr. Ferrari.
Let's see..EddY M says LA was the greatestTDF rider ever.
Bro deal says he wasn't.
Indurain says LA was a great champion.........
Bro deal says he wasn't a world beater.
I have seen LA race with a rainbow jersey on. That means he was a world beater.
Ahhhh............What would Eddy and Indurain know?
Bro deal says he wasn't.
Indurain says LA was a great champion.........
Bro deal says he wasn't a world beater.
I have seen LA race with a rainbow jersey on. That means he was a world beater.
Ahhhh............What would Eddy and Indurain know?
Bro, you know I'm not a Armstrong fan, but he was angling for a career on par with the older Thomas Dekker, possibly even more, say a notch below Kelly. Had he focused on the one-day classics -- his real strength -- rather than the Tour, think of how many of those he would have won.Bro Deal said:
And ref. doping... they're all doped. Did he respond well to it? Yes. Was his response the best ever? That point could be argued.
But, all the top riders respond well to doping.
Look, I don't like Armstrong because, to me, he's a pig and he represents all the bad things America has to offer, but he was, at the minimum, a physiological talent.
Armstrong was on track to become a decent one day rider. Not anywhere near the class of Kelly (who is?). With Lemond not able to do one day's like he did before getting shot then Armstrong would have become the U.S.'s "best one day racer" (that's how Hincapie bills himself).helmutRoole2 said:
But where were the signs that he would ever place top ten in the Tour? No where. Merckx said he would never win the Tour. Whatever kind of doping Armstrong did took his capabilities to a whole new level.
How can you even put Armstrong and Kelly in the same sentence? The difference between the two is enormous. Kelly is the best one day racer since EM, and an argument could be made that he was the best overall rider since EM. Armstrong didn't win a single monument. Hincapie has a better one day race record and had more talent. If he ever got his head together, I think he would've done quite well.helmutRoole2 said:
True. If Hincapie would have had the cojones to leave Postal and sign with a team that valued the classics then he would have a nice weekend win by now. Instead he was forced to peak two times a year and play yo-yo with his weight through the season.fscyclist said:
not sure. But there are two. This is a common misconception. I think one might be Norwegian. It is many decades ago. If you want to talk of "post-Merckx" or the professional era which really began with Lemond, then you would be correct.wolfix said:
But there have been world champs for probably the last century and Armstrong was not the youngest.
But he would have not known what it was like to ride with the winning team at the TDF......... He was given a shot at the classics.Bro Deal said:
An American that wins classics is a nobody back home. 1 TDF victory is worth all the classic wins a rider could have if you are an American.
But all this is speculaton..... What is fact is LA, doped or not, beat the best the Europeans could offer. { even the best doped Europeans,] Let's face some fact here. LA dominated everyone from 1999 on in the TDF.
LA played the game as it was played by everyone else. He was just better at it. Better then Eddy, better then S Kelly and far better then Lemond.
So now he can enjoy the rewards of his victories.
And to those who say he wasn't any good...... Look at the 1st place in the 1999-2005 TDF's......
What does it say???????
Now they we have proven LA was the finest TDF rider in the history of the sport, we need to get back to Zabel admitting doping......
HelmutRoole, may I reference?wolfix said:
I think Armstrong raised the game, and made doping a function in itself, within the function of competition.
Whereas previously doping was an input, where, that Arms Race or Red Queen Effect prompted riders to dope, to meet their peers, and nullify an advantage, Armstrong CHANGED the terms of trade. He altered the playing field by making doping a performance function, and you needed to not just dope, but do it scientifically, and at an unprecedented standard.
We need to concede that it was Gewiss who probably started it, though you could reference big Mig, Rominger, Moser, all those hour record guys that needed to get the best doping performance gain.
It can be seen that there are many tiers. Beloki never threatened in any race but the Tour. Same with the Vuelta and Perez. Rumsas jumped onto the podium after being a very solid rider, but no star. Guteirrez jumped onto the Giro podium, one of the hilliest GT's in the last decade, and he is a superweight, no skinny jockey known for his climbing.
I dare say Armstrong had his rise equivalent to these riders. But Armstrong was a stronger rider to begin with. Who was Beloki?
Saiz did this with Nozal too, turned him into a thoroughbreed at the Vuelta.
The are multiple tiers of doping. Armstrong had some influence in this subset of competition. Just like getting in the wind tunnel, testing equipment, buying domestiques who could be GC players, Armstrong did his darndest to maximise the doping advantage too.
You are going to sing this song again, huh? Armstrong was not even the best GT rider of his era. That would be Indurain, who won two GTs in a single year twice. Something that Armstrong never had the ball to attempt.wolfix said:
You are trying to tell us that Armstrong was better than Eddy, a man who raced all year, won the Giro five times, the Vuelta once, and a metric buttload of classics? Eddy said it himself: If he would have just concentrated on the Tour he could have won ten Tour de Frances. By only doing the Tour, Armstrong rendered his number of wins meaningless because they cannot be compared with the other champions.
Being on dope that radically changes capabilities also renders the wins meaningless. Don't expect people to give someone a pat on the back for winning if they cheated.
wolfix said:
This doesn't take away from the fact that Hincapie didn't manage to win any of the major one day races.
wolfix said:
I disagree.
I think you're letting your own antagonism toward LeMond get the better of you.
At 22 LeMond had won the world road race title, had won the Dauphine,.
At 22, LeMond had podiumed at the TDF and won the best young rider competition.
At 23, LeMond had finished 2nd in the TDF and 3rd in the Giro.
At 24, he won his first TDF.
As for comparing him to Merckx - that's rubbish.
As for comparing him to Kelly - ditto.
wolfix said:
No one is saying that he wasn't any good.
wolfix said:
I disagree.
I think Merckx record in the TDF and every other race is way, way ahead of Armstrong.
The only riders who coming to within even a remote distance of EM are Kelly,
Hinault and ironically Erik Zabel
Bro Deal said:
Agreed.
It's like saying Boyzone are better than the Beatles - they'd more number 1's than John/Paul/George/Richard Starkey.
Boyzone were manufactured as well, by the way.
EM is in a class by himself, and of those who came afterwards, Hinault was the best followed by Kelly. Then you can start talking about other riders. Lemond had the potential to become better than Hinault and was more talented than Kelly, but the hunting accident ruined his carreer.limerickman said:
Curious to know why you consider Zabel in that league of riders.
Similar threads
