• 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

Page 2 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Sorry, there is no way Armstrong is 5'11". Elevated heals perhaps, after all he IS "Big Tex".

Looking at the WEIGHT, 170 pounds is 77kg. This seems to confirm he varies between a fighting TdF weight of 74kg and couch potato weight of 82kg.

He certainly never lost 10kg due to cancer, not even after castration.


Briant_Gumble said:
5' 5' 79 kilo's? Bloody hell he'd look like a fat boy or a power lifter.

Ashenden has a wealth of knowledge but he seems off on that one.

Asho is pointing out the various estimates of Armstrongs physiology, which Coyles study failed to adequately identify, and that Armstrong himself has given various answers and refused to be measured. He is reporting what team mates have said, not what he knows or thinks.
 
Jan 27, 2010
921
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

So his VO2 Max ranges between 71 and 81 even with mythical reporting. But is that with his congenital third lung?
 
Sep 21, 2010
40
0
0
Visit site
I remember reading that article and thinking it odd for Ashenton to speculate on his height and even entertain the notion that he might be as short as 5'5". Better off sticking to harder facts. Not that it really matters now :)
 
Jun 18, 2009
1,225
1
0
Visit site
I've never worked in the circus or anything, but I've spent enough time riding next to him to offer my input: he's about 5'10" or a little less, about 70-72kg when leaned out completely, thick for a bike racer. Given Ferrari's obsession with weight, I doubt he was racing the Tour much over 70kg. That makes sense, since his only pre-Ferrari in-season weight was 75kg. I think they purposely inflated the numbers in case his wattage numbers ever got out in public. Then people would realize just how ridiculous they really were.

There seems to be this false dichotomy that he either stayed the same weight or he started doping (more). He did both (lost weight and started doping), just like most of the other dopers.
 
Sep 21, 2010
40
0
0
Visit site
sittingbison said:
Asho is pointing out the various estimates of Armstrongs physiology, which Coyles study failed to adequately identify, and that Armstrong himself has given various answers and refused to be measured. He is reporting what team mates have said, not what he knows or thinks.

Ah, that makes sense.
 
Berzin said:
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.

Are you sure he was not wearing Tom Cruise shoes?
 
Dec 9, 2011
482
0
0
Visit site
I cant watch the TV when a report comes on Sky about Armstrong. He makes my blood boil. Can't argue with the fact he was the best doper about though. Guy knew how to win the race.
 
AcademyCC said:
I cant watch the TV when a report comes on Sky about Armstrong. He makes my blood boil. Can't argue with the fact he was the best doper about though. Guy knew how to win the race.

Funny. The record show no wins past 1998. The talent was there, but it's a story that often repeats itself in sports. Early success comes a bit too easy then laziness sets in and eventually the results suffer. If only he had been willing to work hard.
 
Dec 9, 2011
482
0
0
Visit site
BroDeal said:
Funny. The record show no wins past 1998. The talent was there, but it's a story that often repeats itself in sports. Early sucess comes a bit too easy then laziness sets in and eventually the results suffer. If only he had been willing to work hard.

Might have won an Amstel Classic.
 
Dec 9, 2011
482
0
0
Visit site
Its not possible to post anything about Lance without being slammed but imagine the pressure he was under to win 3,4,5,6,7. Once he started he couldnt stop.

I think thats how the lies really started to back him into a corner. Pressure, holding it all together, keep denying, monitor the press, make sure no riders are talking out of line. Repeat. Again.
 
Mar 13, 2009
16,854
1
0
Visit site
BroDeal said:
Funny. The record show no wins past 1998. The talent was there, but it's a story that often repeats itself in sports. Early sucess comes a bit too easy then laziness sets in and eventually the results suffer. If only he had been willing to work hard.

this is good.

Armstrong lesson.
in indolence
 
Mar 13, 2009
16,854
1
0
Visit site
Neworld said:
So his VO2 Max ranges between 71 and 81 even with mythical reporting. But is that with his congenital third lung?
the chimera lung. Its his twin brothers second lung, seconded to Lance in the uterus. we need to put out an APB for John Gunderson. aka "one lung"
 
Jul 1, 2009
320
0
0
Visit site
The fact that he he gained so much more from doping than more talented riders makes me wonder. He was a superb responder to doping and had the best regime, but I would have like to hear the full inside story.

With out doping, if I understand this correctly, a guy at 70-75 kg should have no business climbing with the best, let alone crush them.