• The Cycling News forum is looking to add some volunteer moderators with Red Rick's recent retirement. If you're interested in helping keep our discussions on track, send a direct message to @SHaines here on the forum, or use the Contact Us form to message the Community Team.

    In the meanwhile, please use the Report option if you see a post that doesn't fit within the forum rules.

    Thanks!

Armstrong's tour weight over the years

vfi1wh.jpg


:eek:
 
Sep 7, 2010
39
0
0
Visit site
Lance weighed 75kg for his best laboratory test.

The best test results achieved by Armstrong at the University of Texas between the ages of 21 and 28

Lance Armstrong’s Tour de France race weight has been discussed publicly but a definitive number has not been confirmed.

source... http://www.ridemedia.com.au/?p=7387
 
Aug 13, 2009
12,855
1
0
Visit site
Oh, he was huge prior to Cancer, Massive,.....oh wait, maybe not

armcol01.jpg


From the Coyle Myth.....er study

Picture1-1.png


His weight preseason 1992 and around his World's win in 1993 was around 3kg lighter than 1999 preseason, when he supposedly lost all that weight after cancer treatment.
 
Oct 14, 2012
78
0
0
Visit site
It does not matter now what weight he was. The guy has no place in cycling.
He has never even won the Tour De France. The only weight he carried was a fraudulent seven Yellow jersey's and a chain with the words "I am a doping loser" etched upon it, which he wore around his rubber neck, and was so heavy, if used as an anchor, it would have sank the Titanic.....:D
 
Sep 5, 2009
1,239
0
0
Visit site
Race Radio said:
Oh, he was huge prior to Cancer, Massive,.....oh wait, maybe not

armcol01.jpg


From the Coyle Myth.....er study

Picture1-1.png


His weight preseason 1992 and around his World's win in 1993 was around 3kg lighter than 1999 preseason, when he supposedly lost all that weight after cancer treatment.

And an ancillary part of the self promoted myth was that cancer had sculpted his body to be more streamlined to beat drag.
 
Jul 13, 2009
283
0
0
Visit site
I seem to remember reading an interview (I think it was cycling weekly) where he said his weight at the tour was typically 164lbs. Which when I read it I thought was on the heavy side for a 5ft9ins GT Rider.
 
Aug 18, 2012
1,171
0
0
Visit site
Carlo Algatrensig said:
I seem to remember reading an interview (I think it was cycling weekly) where he said his weight at the tour was typically 164lbs. Which when I read it I thought was on the heavy side for a 5ft9ins GT Rider.

Yeah I remember that and it corresponds with the SCA testimony.

He seems to look lighter than that to me though from pictures.
 
Mar 4, 2010
1,826
0
0
Visit site
Race Radio said:
Oh, he was huge prior to Cancer, Massive,.....oh wait, maybe not

armcol01.jpg


From the Coyle Myth.....er study

Picture1-1.png


His weight preseason 1992 and around his World's win in 1993 was around 3kg lighter than 1999 preseason, when he supposedly lost all that weight after cancer treatment.

That's unreadable.
 
He lost hardly any weight at all, if any. In fact can you believe it, his HEIGHT is also subject to considerable conjecture, varying between 5'5" and 5'10". He has refused to be officially measured. Michael Ashenden has spoken at length on this issue. Compare pics of Lance with say Froome or Rasmussen, you will see he does not resemble a skeletal cancer survivor.

http://nyvelocity.com/content/interviews/2009/michael-ashenden

Talks about the EPO fails, scroll down to "Cloak of Secrecy"

Ashenden said:
"The other thing that surprised me is this idea of cancer taking away 15 pounds, it's another one of these publicly held beliefs that became so ingrained, and it was surprising to find that he didn't lose any weight post cancer. And not only that, he's listed as 5' 9", 5' 10", but we know from speaking to his teammates he's more like 5' 5", 5' 6"...when the photographs were taken, they report him as being 77, 78 kilos. You contrast that with the data in Coyle's paper, and he shows that the lowest body weight was 75 kilos in '93, but in November after his first Tour victory, it was 79 kilos....Armstrong acknowledged under oath that his body weight never got to 72, he was a little vague, but he said he was happy when he raced in the 74's. Now if you admit you were probably 74 you were probably a lot heavier than that.

Rider weight is usually a closely guarded secret, it can give an advantage to competitors knowing what potential power outputs are.
 
The height issue I think is going a bit overboard. Anywhere between 5'5" and 5"10" is the difference between riding a 49cm and a 56cm frame.

That type of discrepancy isn't too hard to spot, even in photos.

I've stood next to him. 5'10" or maybe a bit taller is probably correct. Shorter than that? Absolutely not.
 
Jul 12, 2012
649
0
0
Visit site
I know somebody who fitted Armstrong with a suit in 2007. He said Armstrong was the same size as me: 5'11" and 170 pounds, at that time. Thus, low 160s for the Tour seems right.