Armstrong's competition in his winning tours and losing tour

[Anonymous]

Delusions and grandeur. Been following Twitter and the Shack? Open your eyes, ears and for your own sake use that brain. There is no Lance and Alberto showdown! Lance has no chance. Contador has stated his opposition is Schleck. That is it. Only Bruyneel and Armstrong are talking up a rivalry. Every sane person knows this and realised last year the Uniballer was outclassed. By July you might have clued in and will avoid the heartbreak when Lance gets blown away in the Alps. Just wait for the Pyrenees. But good luck to the Shack...they need it in mammoth doses to not go home totally demoralised.

I agree in principle, but (and this may not be the appropriate forum), I think AC has got so deep under LA's skin, that LA is going to look for every advantage and push every boundary and so I am fully expecting to see LA somehow keeping up with AC in the mountains. It shouldn't happen, but I think it will, and the sport will become even more of a joke than after 1998.

 

[53 x 11]

Hey great another Lance thread, we haven't had enough of them. And even better this is one of those somethingVsomething else threads which are pointless and childish.

Well done OP on another waste of precious internets.

 

[kurtinsc]

You are comparing pictures from when he was 21 years old. Within the space of a couple years he had lost that weight. It was not until he met Ferrari that his performance showed a dramatic increase. Even this picture when he was 22 it is hard to see an additional 20 pounds.

The pictures I showed were him winning the WC in 1993 and riding in the tour in 1994. All of 9 months from the 1995 Liege race you're talking about.

Here's lance in Paris at the end of the tour in 1995:

Another image showing his size during the 1994 season.

Here's lance at the tour du pont in 1996, pre-cancer.

And here's lance at the USpro... post cancer

I have no idea how much weight he dropped between the last 2 pictures... but to me there is a very clear difference in his upper body. It's a stout torso in 1996, and thin and bony in 1998.

 

[Race Radio]

The pictures I showed were him winning the WC in 1993 and riding in the tour in 1994. All of 9 months from the 1995 Liege race you're talking about.

Here's lance in Paris at the end of the tour in 1995:

I have no idea how much weight he dropped between the last 2 pictures... but to me there is a very clear difference in his upper body. It's a stout torso in 1996, and thin and bony in 1998.

It is clear that he is thiner in the Tour Pictures in 1996. At the most a couple pounds off what he was in 99.

Here is an article from when he was a new World Champion, 165 pounds
http://outside.away.com/magazine/0794/947flanc_2.html

Note that when Armstrong started working with Ferrari in late 1995 he followed the Ferrari off season program of adding muscle with steroids is an important part of any EPO program. Frankie Andreau said he showed up at training camp looking like a linebacker. It is no surprise that he looked thicker in the early season races, but by the time the Tour came around he was skinny.

 

[hfer07]

oh god- the "what if" dilemma!!!
I've got one: What if this thread never existed at all?

 

[BikeCentric]

The pictures I showed were him winning the WC in 1993 and riding in the tour in 1994. All of 9 months from the 1995 Liege race you're talking about.

Here's lance in Paris at the end of the tour in 1995:

Another image showing his size during the 1994 season.

Here's lance at the tour du pont in 1996, pre-cancer.

And here's lance at the USpro... post cancer

I have no idea how much weight he dropped between the last 2 pictures... but to me there is a very clear difference in his upper body. It's a stout torso in 1996, and thin and bony in 1998.

Look at him in 1995 man, his legs are like sticks! If you think that just because the picture has him with a full belly of oxygen that somehow that means he weighed 20 pounds more than he did in 1999 then you are delusional.

20 pounds man, that is just crazy. There is zero posibility whatsoever that any pro cyclist could possibly carry 20 extra pounds of upper body weight over even ONE year of their career. The body is adaptable and that unused muscle will melt off very quickly when the body is being stressed with 5 hours of riding every day and 120 mile races on the weekends.

20 pounds of weight loss is lunacy.

 

[BikeCentric]

Furthermore, any pro with even 5 extra pounds of upper body weight much less 20 would get blown out the back the second the road tilted uphill.

 

[kurtinsc]

Furthermore, any pro with even 5 extra pounds of upper body weight much less 20 would get blown out the back the second the road tilted uphill.

Bradley Wiggins lost 7 kilograms this past year. That's about 16 pounds.

I have no way of knowing for certain if Lance lost 15-20 pounds or not. All I have is what has been reported. But the idea that losing 15 pounds is impossible for a professional cyclist is stupid. It just happened this past year.

 

[ImmaculateKadence]

Bradley Wiggins lost 7 kilograms this past year. That's about 16 pounds.

I have no way of knowing for certain if Lance lost 15-20 pounds or not. All I have is what has been reported. But the idea that losing 15 pounds is impossible for a professional cyclist is stupid. It just happened this past year.

+1 With a change in diet and proper training, it's very simple to lose 15 pounds in a year. A personal example: I raced mountain bikes at 165. When I started riding road, I wanted to get leaner and dropped to 155 in less than 6 months. I'm 6'2"; I don't want to lose anymore.

 

[Publicus]

Bradley Wiggins lost 7 kilograms this past year. That's about 16 pounds.

I have no way of knowing for certain if Lance lost 15-20 pounds or not. All I have is what has been reported. But the idea that losing 15 pounds is impossible for a professional cyclist is stupid. It just happened this past year.

Wasn't Wiggins getting blown out the back before he lost all of the weight? It was part of what made his story so compelling this year.

As for the weight loss issue, Lance claims to be at 71kg, which is 4 kg less than he was at the 2009 TdF. Based on the photographic evidence I've seen, it's a bunch of baloney. 9 pounds, on his frame, is a lot and it should show up somewhere.

 

[BroDeal]

Bradley Wiggins lost 7 kilograms this past year. That's about 16 pounds.

I have no way of knowing for certain if Lance lost 15-20 pounds or not. All I have is what has been reported. But the idea that losing 15 pounds is impossible for a professional cyclist is stupid. It just happened this past year.

No, WIggins says he lost 7 kg last year. That may be just a cover story and as reliable as Armstrong's PR machine's lies about his weight.

Losing fifteen pounds when you are already at 5% body fat and all the long training miles have burned away unnecessary muscle tissue is not easy. Armstrong's own apologist, Dr. Coyle, has figures that show that Armstrong did not lose more than a kilogram. In Armstrong's deposition in the SCA case he was forced to admit that he did not lose the weight the fanboys believe.

 

[BikeCentric]

+1 With a change in diet and proper training, it's very simple to lose 15 pounds in a year. A personal example: I raced mountain bikes at 165. When I started riding road, I wanted to get leaner and dropped to 155 in less than 6 months. I'm 6'2"; I don't want to lose anymore.

We're talking about PROs here, not amateur racers. No Pro bike racer has 20 pounds to lose, that's just how it is.

Anyway, I'm glad to hear that you're not a fatty anymore, road racing will do that for you. I have at least 5 pounds to lose so I should head off to fat camp and lay off the cookies and beer personally.

 

[BikeCentric]

"hay guyz last year when I wuz racin' in Cat 4 I lost 10 pounds 'cause I was racin' a lot so it's simple for a Pro racer to lose 20 pounds cause I know cause I lost 10."

Seriously, I am in awe of how stupid some of the people on this discussion board are.

 

[US Patent Exploding Cyclist]

We're talking about PROs here, not amateur racers. No Pro bike racer has 20 pounds to lose, that's just how it is.

Anyway, I'm glad to hear that you're not a fatty anymore, road racing will do that for you. I have at least 5 pounds to lose so I should head off to fat camp and lay off the cookies and beer personally.

The bolded statement is not entirely true. There are pro riders, like Cancellara and Boonen for example, that have 20 pounds to lose, but Armstrong does/did not. Granted the examples given would probably not be as good as they are now if they lost the weight, but you never know.

I'm sure Lance lost weight since last year but to say 20 lbs is ridiculous, I would believe it if he said 10 lbs.

As for Wiggins, after seeing a pic of him after PR here I believe the 15 lb claim.

 

[mr. tibbs]

Bradley Wiggins lost 7 kilograms this past year. That's about 16 pounds.

I have no way of knowing for certain if Lance lost 15-20 pounds or not. All I have is what has been reported. But the idea that losing 15 pounds is impossible for a professional cyclist is stupid. It just happened this past year.

I think Wiggins is a unique case in wieght loss. He went from being a track cyclist, where the big strong guys tend to rule, to road cycling, where the skinny strong guys tend to rule.

His track results in 2008 were impressive. That suggests to me that he was built like a track cyclist, ie very well muscled. When he made the switch to seriously focusing on the road, he had a whole lot of extra muscle weight that he could lose.

Am not arguing either way for Armstrong's weight loss, just pointing out that Wiggins from 08-09 isn't a typical example of a pro cyclist's weight fluctuation.

 

[Publicus]

The bolded statement is not entirely true. There are pro riders, like Cancellara and Boonen for example, that have 20 pounds to lose, but Armstrong does/did not. Granted the examples given would probably not be as good as they are now if they lost the weight, but you never know.

I'm sure Lance lost weight since last year but to say 20 lbs is ridiculous, I would believe it if he said 10 lbs.

As for Wiggins, after seeing a pic of him after PR here I believe the 15 lb claim.

I think the 20 pound figure is pre vs post cancer. But Lance is claiming to be almost 9 pounds lighter than he was at the TdF. His weight there was listed at 75kg; he's now listed on the team radioshack website at 71 kg. Looks the same, but it's the lowest reported weight I've ever seen for him.

 

[Berzin]

Bold. Wrong, plus you contradict your point in the next sentence. Second bold. Wrong again. It was not the Tour/Giro double that messed Sastre up. How many big climbs did he win in the Giro? Two. It was the day between that lost him a possible win. Why? Because by the Tour, he was on his fourth consecutive grand tour. Overload. Carlos should have skipped the Tour. He was worn out and so was Menchov. Others make that mistake this year? No, they're not that stupid. They will aim for one win/podium. For the other go for a stage win and a nice respectable finish on GC. That will be Cadel and Sastre. Oh, did you forget, BMC aren't invited to the Tour yet?

You just repeated what I said, except you're purposely twisting my logic to make it seem that I'm wrong and you're right. No rider can do the Giro balls out and then contend for the Tour. That recipe doesn't work anymore. The fact that Sastre did four grand tours in a row, well, two of them were LAST YEAR. And I wasn't talking about last year. I'm talking about doing the Giro/Tour double.

Carlos should have skipped the Tour. He was worn out and so was Menchov.

EXACTLY WHAT I SAID. AND IT WAS FROM DOING THE GIRO/TOUR DOUBLE.

Another inaccuracy. Andy Schleck can ride away from everyone, except AC. He is the bloody front runner the others are gunning for. What was that I saw during stage 15 and 17 last year? The Schleck bros out riding everyone but Contador....that's right! Wake up to yourself! The opposition have to beat him first and claim second. Then go for AC. Abysmal ITT? Yeah, 15 seconds of Armstrong is abysmal. He is very good for his build and size. Both the Schleck's have improved by considerable margins from 2008. Perhaps you feel asleep last year?

Nope. Wide awake. Andy Schleck's TT performance didn't knock anybody out, considering Armstrong was 10th. If you're using that performance as a measuring stick for Schleck's abilities, you may need to reconsider the lack of sense that makes. No one was going to stop Contador in the mountains and unless Schleck improves dramatically as a TT'er he's looking at second at best yet again. Remember, 59km of TT's this year. And he has proven he can ride alongside Contador on certain stages, but has yet to prove he can blast by him, which is what he will need to do to win the Tour. So far, he has not shown that he can contend for anything except second place at best. We will see what happens this year.

Delusions and grandeur. Been following Twitter and the Shack? Open your eyes, ears and for your own sake use that brain. There is no Lance and Alberto showdown! Lance has no chance. Contador has stated his opposition is Schleck. That is it. Only Bruyneel and Armstrong are talking up a rivalry. Every sane person knows this and realised last year the Uniballer was outclassed. By July you might have clued in and will avoid the heartbreak when Lance gets blown away in the Alps. Just wait for the Pyrenees. But good luck to the Shack...they need it in mammoth doses to not go home totally demoralised.

I love these responses. If you can't make sense, obfuscate with unwitty personal attacks. Not very gracious of you, my dear Ho. If you've read any of my posts, you'll see that I'm absolutely no Armstrong fan. Why do I go after Carboncrank the way I do if I was?

And by the way, he's the only one on this site I disrespect for reasons that should be clear-he's an unrepentant troll. No need for you to throw abuse my way. We can agree to disagree and debate the points without you getting snippy.

Back to the riders-Schleck cannot tear away from Contador, and you cannot compare the two in the time trials. So there IS no rivalry. Not yet. Let's see how much Schleck improves by this coming July.

Armstrong and his crew have something up their sleeves. Don't count these guys out. As much as I can't stand him I'm putting my money on there being a bigger battle between Armstrong and Contador than Contador and Schleck.

But I pray Armstrong gets blasted out of the sky like the Hindenburg. No one will be happier than I if this happens. So on this point we again agree, though you don't see it.

 

[BroDeal]

As for Wiggins, after seeing a pic of him after PR here I believe the 15 lb claim.

Instead of looking at a pic of Wiggins at the end of P-R when he is covered is dirt, look at pics of him during the Tour. In The Clinic I posted pics of him at last year's TdF and when racing at Cofidis. The pic from this year's TdF shows his lower legs are not nearly as thin as they appeared at P-R in that pic. The image from Cofidis shows that his lower legs were always abnormally thin.

 

[Berzin]

As for Wiggins, after seeing a pic of him after PR here I believe the 15 lb claim.

Wow, that photo is absolutely ghastly.

 

[fatandfast]

One thing is certain. No matter how much LA weighs. Or if he pops on the 1st big climb,crashes out of the TT. He will walk away with more pounds of money than the winner. He will sell bad beer and plastic wrist bands for millions .Armstrong illustrates over and over it's not if you win or loose,it's how you play the game. If Wiggins pops on the 1st climb or has to chase for a long time his new status as a climber will be exploded. With the way he dresses he can always get a job in an Austin Powers movie or a Jam cover band. Armstrong is playing the old man underdog thing to perfection.I hope Lance and Wiggins know Spanish because Alberto is going to say"this is how it feels to cough up a lung..amigo".

 

[US Patent Exploding Cyclist]

Instead of looking at a pic of Wiggins at the end of P-R when he is covered is dirt, look at pics of him during the Tour. In The Clinic I posted pics of him at last year's TdF and when racing at Cofidis. The pic from this year's TdF shows his lower legs are not nearly as thin as they appeared at P-R in that pic. The image from Cofidis shows that his lower legs were always abnormally thin.

I was comparing the PR pic to what he looked like in 2008. The upper body is totally different when you compair 2008 to 2009. 2007 to 2009 I will admit he looks almost the same.

I never said that his weight loss explains his performance gains, I just said I believed the claimed weigt loss. I'll leave it at that as this is way off topic and flirting with the Clinic.

 

[auscyclefan94]

I think that 2002 LA would beat 2007 Contador and that's it.

The competition was pretty average in 2002 for LA. Yes their was Beloki but no Ullrich or Pantani.

I personally believe the amount of competition now to win the tour has increased and the riders willingness to attack has increased.

if you look at other than 2003, Ullrich never really prepared himself well enough and didn't have good enough condition to ever win the tour. i believe he could of at least been within 2mins if he prepared hinself better and maybe he would of won a tour against lance. He definetly should of won 2003and he would of if it was without for his loses in the ttt and the Alpe D huez.

I would personally go just for the newer generation. Lance supposedly said he was producing the same numbers he did in 2002 (which he was supposedly at his best) and came 3rd. Without the TTT he would of been 5th and quite a few of the usuals (Evans, Menchov, Sastre) faltered.

 

[Berzin]

Lance supposedly said he was producing the same numbers he did in 2002 (which he was supposedly at his best) and came 3rd. Without the TTT he would of been 5th and quite a few of the usuals (Evans, Menchov, Sastre) faltered.

Good post. I would like to see who is targeting the Tour, who is targeting the Giro and who will ride both races this year.

This to me will be a better indicator of who will be at the starting line in July with a chance to podium.

I would like to see Menchov and Basso with a full squad read to tackle the Tour. This will leave Armstrong, Schleck, Evans, Sastre...Did I leave anyone out?

It will be of utmost importance to not have any domestiques burnt-out from the Giro. The Tour is so important and could be one of the best in years, I hope some of the se director sportifs don't mess their riders up thinking that the Giro could be used for some solid training miles.

The Giro is too hard and too far from the start of the Tour for that to be a feasible strategy.

I say this having nothing against the Giro-I think it's a beautiful race. But this coming Tour could be special if all the stars line up accordingly.

I want to see Armstrong, Bruyneel and their merry band of doped-up, superannuated domestiques get their legs torn off by younger, stronger riders. But since Armstrong is supposedly hitting his 2002 numbers, maybe that won't happen (much to my chagrin).

 

[kurtinsc]

The competition was pretty average in 2002 for LA. Yes their was Beloki but no Ullrich or Pantani.

I personally believe the amount of competition now to win the tour has increased and the riders willingness to attack has increased.

if you look at other than 2003, Ullrich never really prepared himself well enough and didn't have good enough condition to ever win the tour. i believe he could of at least been within 2mins if he prepared hinself better and maybe he would of won a tour against lance. He definetly should of won 2003and he would of if it was without for his loses in the ttt and the Alpe D huez.

I would personally go just for the newer generation. Lance supposedly said he was producing the same numbers he did in 2002 (which he was supposedly at his best) and came 3rd. Without the TTT he would of been 5th and quite a few of the usuals (Evans, Menchov, Sastre) faltered.

If I'm not mistaken, if you take the time from the TTT out... Lance would be tied for 3rd with Frank.

The TTT obviously helped Lance. But he probably still would have taken 3rd, given how the riders looked on Ventoux.

As for 2003... saying "if it wasn't for the losses in the TTT and Alpe D huez" is kind of odd. That's kind of like saying "If Lance had ridden the first ITT like the second in the race, he would have won by 3 minutes". Lance lost a minute and a half in the first ITT and gained a minute and a half on the alpe d huez. Just ignoring one of those is a pretty silly way to look back on a race.

If anything, Ulrich lost in 2003 because of his inability to capitalize on stage 13. He had just crushed the field in the ITT the day before, and Lance was dropped early on the final climb. Jan failed to attack... and Lance fought back to lose only 7 seconds (plus a time bonus) to Ulrich.

That was the last time Jan gained any time on Lance. Lance got another 40 seconds (plus time bonus) on 15, then another 11 seconds in the final time trial.

 

[pmcg76]

The competition was pretty average in 2002 for LA. Yes their was Beloki but no Ullrich or Pantani.

I personally believe the amount of competition now to win the tour has increased and the riders willingness to attack has increased.

if you look at other than 2003, Ullrich never really prepared himself well enough and didn't have good enough condition to ever win the tour. i believe he could of at least been within 2mins if he prepared hinself better and maybe he would of won a tour against lance. He definetly should of won 2003and he would of if it was without for his loses in the ttt and the Alpe D huez.

I would personally go just for the newer generation. Lance supposedly said he was producing the same numbers he did in 2002 (which he was supposedly at his best) and came 3rd. Without the TTT he would of been 5th and quite a few of the usuals (Evans, Menchov, Sastre) faltered.

This is all your fault, were you bored of worshipping Cadel or something!!!