Chris Carmichael: "Lance will match & Exceed AC Speed"

[Anonymous]

Carmichael is 100% correct. It is well documented that, as they near 40 and especially after a 3 yr layoff, cyclists make dramatic increases in their ability to accelerate and sustain an attack. These increases are even more profound for a rider who has mastered the art of cadence instead of spending his 30's grinding big gears. Typical that you haters cannot see that.

He makes a good point ^^^^^

Plus, everyone forgets that he easily dropped wiggins and VDV on stage's 16 and 17, and on Ventoux, FSchleck couldn't come close to dropping Lance. Of course, I'm realistic that this is nowhere near AC's or AS's ability, but it is a good point, that Lance's progress will look remarkable next year (and of course raise more speculation) but this is becoz of the lack of fitness he had this year (i.e. when starting at a small value of fitness, linear changes in fitness have a large 'proportional' or 'percentage' increase)

More importantly, I think the key part is "sustain an attack". With age, one can stay at their threshold a lot longer than a young whipper snapper. Even AC admitted this a month or two back when he was talking about his future aspirations (after the TDF presentation) and he said, as I get older I will be able to sustain a longer attack, rather than the smaller punchy attacks I do now.

That said, I do not think he will win, but with the long sustained mountains in france, and only three MTfs, he can still podium

I'm gonna put in my usual Lance-clause here: I am not a delluded fanboy, just a fan

 

[53 x 11]

He makes a good point ^^^^^

I'm gonna put in my usual Lance-clause here: I am not a delluded fanboy, just a fan

 

[hfer07]

Carmichael is 100% correct. It is well documented that, as they near 40 and especially after a 3 yr layoff, cyclists make dramatic increases in their ability to accelerate and sustain an attack. These increases are even more profound for a rider who has mastered the art of cadence instead of spending his 30's grinding big gears. Typical that you haters cannot see that.

If your statement is true-could you please explain the reason behind his change in pedaling/cadence this year? I recall watching the ITT he was "pushing gears" rather than spinning faster..................

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cv-OGygnUUw&feature=related

 

[zastomito]

He was being sarcastic. I thought it was pretty obvious...

 

[53 x 11]

He was being sarcastic. I thought it was pretty obvious...

Fanboys have no BSmeter.

 

[Bag_O_Wallet]

Thank you for self-identifying.

 

[Alpe d'Huez]

After injecting young riders with drugs and lying to them about what was in the injections, Carmichael should not be walking the streets. The Dr. Mengele wannabe should be in prison.

I think the guy's an opportunistic leech and fraud who did dope riders against their knowledge, but Dr. Mengele?

I prefer to think he was more likely clean during those years rather than "losing his ability".

Hahaha. Sure.

More importantly, I think the key part is "sustain an attack". With age, one can stay at their threshold a lot longer than a young whipper snapper.

You're talking apples and oranges. Throughout history future champions have shown superb Tour-like skills from an early age. Merckx, Hinault, Fignon, Lemond, etc. Whatever sustained attacking, or pacing they did in later years, were strategic, not physiological. It wasn't until Riis, then Armstrong came along, that all of a sudden riders could be of average capability up to the age of 25, then all of a sudden have a huge gains in ability, "sustaining attacks" or not.

 

[Sprocket01]

Hahaha. Sure.

Yes I am aware of this. But it's gossip from someone who admits he wasn't even in Armstrong's circle, so how would he know about such a top secret operation? I take it with a pinch of salt.

 

[Race Radio]

Yes I am aware of this. But it's gossip from someone who admits he wasn't even in Armstrong's circle, so how would he know about such a top secret operation? I take it with a pinch of salt.

You are kidding (Trolling)

Landis was his #1 domestique. He was team leader in some races. They shared the same coach/doping doctor Ferrari. Surely we can all agree that it is far more believable he was on the program then to pretend he was not. This is the only rational conclusion.

Landis, like many of Armstrong's former teammates, says Lance is a doper.

 

[Sprocket01]

I was refering to the instant message conversation with Vaughters and his remarks about blood transfusions in 2005. It is gossip from someone who was not in LA's circle and does not know. Rumours swirl around all the time in the village during the tour. I take it with a pinch of salt. I tend to think Armstrong was clean for at least his last couple of tours, which is why the attacks slowed down.

 

[53 x 11]

I was refering to the instant message conversation with Vaughters and his remarks about blood transfusions in 2005. It is gossip from someone who was not in LA's circle and does not know. Rumours swirl around all the time in the village during the tour. I take it with a pinch of salt. I tend to think Armstrong was clean for at least his last couple of tours, which is why the attacks slowed down.

And that village would be Youdontknowwhatyouretalkingaboutville.

 

[Sprocket01]

And that village would be Youdontknowwhatyouretalkingaboutville.

Yes something like that.

 

[Polish]

You're talking apples and oranges. Throughout history future champions have shown superb Tour-like skills from an early age. Merckx, Hinault, Fignon, Lemond, etc. Whatever sustained attacking, or pacing they did in later years, were strategic, not physiological. It wasn't until Riis, then Armstrong came along, that all of a sudden riders could be of average capability up to the age of 25, then all of a sudden have a huge gains in ability, "sustaining attacks" or not.

Lance won the Worlds at 21 and was out with cancer at 25.


And Merckx, Hinault, Fignon, and maybe Lemond were dopers.

you noobs crack me up

 

[Sprocket01]

Lance won the Worlds at 21 and was out with cancer at 25.


And Merckx, Hinault, Fignon, and maybe Lemond were dopers.

you noobs crack me up

It's also a circular argument. These other riders didn't have to deal with a two tier peloton in their early career. Remember Lemond couldn't keep up with the peloton in the early 90s because of this. If he was a rider of LA's generation then he would not have achieved anything until he eventually got with the programme later in his career.

Thankfully in the 2000s the EPO test came along so it was no longer standard procedure for all grand tour riders.

 

[Race Radio]

I was refering to the instant message conversation with Vaughters and his remarks about blood transfusions in 2005. It is gossip from someone who was not in LA's circle and does not know. Rumours swirl around all the time in the village during the tour. I take it with a pinch of salt. I tend to think Armstrong was clean for at least his last couple of tours, which is why the attacks slowed down.

JV's source was Floyd, not some rumor in the start village. Floyd also told a friend/reporter that Armstrong was a doper.

According the Ferrari and Armstrong his numbers were as high as ever for his last few Tours. 2003 was the only year that he did not hit the magic 6.8 w/k.

I am sure we can all agree it is time to move on from these silly myths.

 

[CentralCaliBike]

You're talking apples and oranges. Throughout history future champions have shown superb Tour-like skills from an early age. Merckx, Hinault, Fignon, Lemond, etc. Whatever sustained attacking, or pacing they did in later years, were strategic, not physiological. It wasn't until Riis, then Armstrong came along, that all of a sudden riders could be of average capability up to the age of 25, then all of a sudden have a huge gains in ability, "sustaining attacks" or not.

I seem to remember during an Olympic commentary several years ago that male endurance athletes tend to reach their peak performance in their mid to late 20s. I also remember hearing that marathon runners need at least 7 years to season their legs. Checking Google I found a pretty good article that talks about aging in athletics (http://www.faqs.org/sports-science/A-Ba-and-timeline/Aging-and-Athletic-Performance.html).

 

[Race Radio]

It's also a circular argument. These other riders didn't have to deal with a two tier peloton in their early career. Remember Lemond couldn't keep up with the peloton in the early 90s because of this. If he was a rider of LA's generation then he would not have achieved anything until he eventually got with the programme later in his career.

Thankfully in the 2000s the EPO test came along so it was no longer standard procedure for all grand tour riders.

I am sure we can all agree that EPO use did not become widespread until 1993-94. Even a clean Lemond was able to finish 7th in the 1991 Tour.

It is obvious that Armstrong showed little ability to be a GT contender at an early age. It was only after he started on a systematic doping program with Ferrari that he was able to climb and TT. While other riders may have reduced their doping in recently years it is clear that Armstrong did not, on this we can all agree.

 

[Race Radio]

I seem to remember during an Olympic commentary several years ago that male endurance athletes tend to reach their peak performance in their mid to late 20s. I also remember hearing that marathon runners need at least 7 years to season their legs. Checking Google I found a pretty good article that talks about aging in athletics (http://www.faqs.org/sports-science/A-Ba-and-timeline/Aging-and-Athletic-Performance.html).

You may want to do a little research on Tour winners prior to 1991.

Most, if not all, of the greats were on the podium before 25. It is only after EPO is introduced that you have riders in their late 20's coming from nowhere to win.

Prior to EPO great Tour riders showed their promise early....Riis, Armstrong, did not

 

[Sprocket01]

JV's source was Floyd, not some rumor in the start village. Floyd also told a friend/reporter that Armstrong was a doper.

Vaughters denies this. I don't know where you got it from. It seems to me it is just gossip.

The incident where Floyd told a reporter was one day whispering "Lance doped". This was during 2006. Now I'm sure Lance did dope during his early tour wins but it's hardly satisfactory evidence. When did Lance dope? It obviously wasn't that year because he wasn't there.

According the Ferrari and Armstrong his numbers were as high as ever for his last few Tours. 2003 was the only year that he did not hit the magic 6.8 w/k.

Yeah LA said he was hitting his numbers before this tour as well - a lot of that is bluff, and we know the power number estimates from the stages are very unreliable, hence the AC controversy this year. What you've got to look at is the number and effectness of the attacks. They went down at during the period where I believe he may well have been clean.

Indeed, my theory is he only retired because he thought he would have to go back to doping again and risk getting caught he was to continue to win. He only came back because he saw the 2008 tour and thought it has cleaned up enough for him to win again. It's just my theory.

I am sure we can all agree it is time to move on from these silly myths.

I don't appreciate the trolling nature of your last couple of posts. We have been through this business where you call people a troll who disagree with you. Please, FFS, cut it out. I will PM about it if you do it again. Goodnite.

 

[Sprocket01]

I am sure we can all agree that EPO use did not become widespread until 1993-94. Even a clean Lemond was able to finish 7th in the 1991 Tour.

That contradicts itself. You highlighting that EPO didn't become common place until 93 and then cite Lemond coming 7th in 91. That backs up my point. And if shows that even with only a few riders starting to use it, Lemond already drops back to 7th. This shows you how the EPO use in the early 1990s held back riders like Armstrong. No doubt about this - we can't have double standards. Lemond would never have done much in the tour during the full blown EPO era.

But, of course, there are many other reasons why LA matured slightly later. He was more immature than most riders before cancer, and as all sports become more professional it tends to favour more experienced riders.

 

[BroDeal]

Indeed, my theory is he only retired because he thought he would have to go back to doping again and risk getting caught he was to continue to win. He only came back because he saw the 2008 tour and thought it has cleaned up enough for him to win again. It's just my theory.

ROTFL. Freaking hilarious. I used to believe in unicorns too.

Now, let me get this straight. You theory is that Armstrong doped early in his TdF career, went clean, and retired because he would have to go back to doping? Apparently in this bizarro world, going off EPO and blood transfusions results in no decrease in performance, which, of course, leads to the question of why he would need to go back to doping. This is ridiculous.

It also leaves out Armstrong's funky blood values from this year's Tour. Did he decide to come back clean, determine he could not do it, and resort to blood doping? He had to have the blood stored before the Tour. At what point did he decide to blood dope?

 

[Dr. Maserati]

I seem to remember during an Olympic commentary several years ago that male endurance athletes tend to reach their peak performance in their mid to late 20s. I also remember hearing that marathon runners need at least 7 years to season their legs. Checking Google I found a pretty good article that talks about aging in athletics (http://www.faqs.org/sports-science/A-Ba-and-timeline/Aging-and-Athletic-Performance.html).

Merckx:
• At 22 wins 2 stages & is 9th overall in the Giro - his first GT
• At 23 wins Tour de France - his first Tour.

Hinault:
• At 22 wins Dauphine Liberie
• At 23 wins Tour of Spain - his first GT.
• At 23 wins Tour de France -his first Tour.

Fignon:
• At 22 wins Tour de France - his first GT.
• At 23 wins Tour de France.

Lemond:
• At 21 wins Tour de L'Avenir
• At 23 is 3rd Tour de France - his first GT.
• At 24 is 2nd Tour de France
• At 25 wins Tour de France.

 

[Sprocket01]

ROTFL. Freaking hilarious. I used to believe in unicorns too.

Now, let me get this straight. You theory is that Armstrong doped early in his TdF career, went clean, and retired because he would have to go back to doping? Apparently in this bizarro world, going off EPO and blood transfusions results in no decrease in performance, which, of course, leads to the question of why he would need to go back to doping. This is ridiculous.

It also leaves out Armstrong's funky blood values from this year's Tour. Did he decide to come back clean, determine he could not do it, and resort to blood doping? He had to have the blood stored before the Tour. At what point did he decide to blood dope?

It's not that crazy if you think about it. Why did his attacks slow down? Why did he retire? Why did he come back? If you read the stuff he was saying in interviews and read through the lines, there is a logical train of thought to it.

But, okay, lets say he was blood doping for his last few tours. The claim before is he was only a good responder to EPO so this is why he suddenly beat everyone. But here he is, doing the type of blood doping operation that was rife across the peloton, and although his attacks weren't quite what they were, he was still the best. Now, this shows you that we are dealing with a great and legendary ToF rider here. It wasn't magic.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

.....
The incident where Floyd told a reporter was one day whispering "Lance doped". This was during 2006. Now I'm sure Lance did dope during his early tour wins but it's hardly satisfactory evidence. When did Lance dope? It obviously wasn't that year because he wasn't there.

Interesting point - Floyd would only have been privy to LA's doping when he was riding for him, which was from 2002 to 2004.

You might want to re-evaluate the above underlined statement and add on a few years to your 'theory'.

 

[tubularglue]

gawd,

i hope Wiggins wins it next year.

10 years on of this is quite a big pile