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

[pedaling squares]

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

Thank you. Looks like I'll have to include the appropriate smiley face the next time I feel cheeky.





Ah, there it is.

 

[HoustonHammer]

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.

Doctor M - are you saying this evidence supports or contradicts the point CentralCali raised? I would argue that it strongly supports his point. He said that he heard endurance athletes peak in their mid-late 20's. That's the 25-29 range, right? If you assume that the peak was in the middle of each rider's GT winning streak, that puts the peak of each of the riders above within the 25-29 range. To these names, you could add Coppi, Bobet, Anquetil, and Indurain.

There are a couple of sub-arguments, I guess. First is what RR expressed about showing signs of GT greatness early on. It is certainly true that these names all proved their GT power at an early age (22-26ish). I agree that LA showed little evidence of GT prowess at an early age.

The other question is whether when we talk about an endurance athlete's 'peak' we're talking about just a physical peak, or a peak in terms of the complete package of physical energy and mental control. I think it's probably true that great riders hit their physical peak early on and then sustain their dominance using their knowledge of tactics. But to me, that argument is a little silly. I think it is pretty much accepted wisdom that a great cyclist is one who combines brains and power.

 

[blackcat]

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

come on, Bro was using license, but go ahead and invoke Godwin's if you feel it is valid.

 

[BroDeal]

come one, Bro was using license, but go ahead and invoke Godwin's if you feel it is valid.

Iwas alluding to Carmichael using kids as guinea pigs by injecting them with drugs while lying to them what was in the injections. Maybe the Mengele label is too strong, but Carmichael is a dirt bag. His lack of ethics is mind boggling. He and the other coaches who were doing this should be doing hard time in prison.

 

[BroDeal]

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 don't get it. Armstrong decided to stop doping in 2005. Heck it might have even been the last day of the 2005 Tour. He had a come to Jesus moment and realizing that he might have to go back to the practices that had brought him fame and riches, he decided to retire. He could have continued on and raced one day classics, but had such high integrity that he did not want to be tempted to do what he had already spent years doing. It was only Sastre's win that convinced him that cycling was now safe for a man of morals such as himself. If you don't sleep for a few days, do some really hard drugs, and bang you head against a brick wall for a few hours it all becomes clear.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Doctor M - are you saying this evidence supports or contradicts the point CentralCali raised? I would argue that it strongly supports his point. He said that he heard endurance athletes peak in their mid-late 20's. That's the 25-29 range, right? If you assume that the peak was in the middle of each rider's GT winning streak, that puts the peak of each of the riders above within the 25-29 range. To these names, you could add Coppi, Bobet, Anquetil, and Indurain.

There are a couple of sub-arguments, I guess. First is what RR expressed about showing signs of GT greatness early on. It is certainly true that these names all proved their GT power at an early age (22-26ish). I agree that LA showed little evidence of GT prowess at an early age.

The other question is whether when we talk about an endurance athlete's 'peak' we're talking about just a physical peak, or a peak in terms of the complete package of physical energy and mental control. I think it's probably true that great riders hit their physical peak early on and then sustain their dominance using their knowledge of tactics. But to me, that argument is a little silly. I think it is pretty much accepted wisdom that a great cyclist is one who combines brains and power.

While I agree that athletes 'peak' in the late 20's I was showing that those that do well in GT's show their potential early. Either in finishing consistently in the top 10 of their first GT's or doing well in the overall of other difficult stage races like the Dauphine, Paris Nice, Tour de Suisse.

I just gave the 4 examples that 'Polish' had mentioned them earlier.

 

[CentralCaliBike]

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.

Strickly looking at the age of a first (and often only) TdF win since 1970

Indurain:
27 years old, first TdF win

Degado:
28 years old, first TdF win (top ten finisher next five years)

Roche:
27 years old, first TdF win

Joop Zoetemelk:
33 years old, first TdF win (World Championship winner at age 38)

Lucien Van Impe:
29 years old, first TdF win

Bernard Thévenet:
27 years old, first TdF win

Luis Ocaña:
28 years old, first TdF win

At 27, LA is not that different in respect to age at time of first win to the above riders.

 

[CentralCaliBike]

While I agree that athletes 'peak' in the late 20's I was showing that those that do well in GT's show their potential early. Either in finishing consistently in the top 10 of their first GT's or doing well in the overall of other difficult stage races like the Dauphine, Paris Nice, Tour de Suisse.

I just gave the 4 examples that 'Polish' had mentioned them earlier.

One thing that should not be forgotten is that LA seemed to focus on the classics in his early career and had cancer at the time when you would have expected him to start hitting his peek. Not sure when the cancer would have begun to effect his performance but, since it was diagnosed just after he turned 25, you should be able to consider that he was not likely performing well as a result during 1996 (most of that racing season he was 24).

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Strickly looking at the age of a first (and often only) TdF win since 1970

Indurain:
27 years old, first TdF win

Degado:
28 years old, first TdF win (top ten finisher next five years)

Roche:
27 years old, first TdF win

Joop Zoetemelk:
33 years old, first TdF win (World Championship winner at age 38)

Lucien Van Impe:
29 years old, first TdF win

Bernard Thévenet:
27 years old, first TdF win

Luis Ocaña:
28 years old, first TdF win

At 27, LA is not that different in respect to age at time of first win to the above riders.

All those riders had shown natural ability as stage racers long before their TdF wins, Roche won Paris- Nice in his very first year! He was 3rd in the 85 Tour.

How many times did Zoeltemelk finish second? 6 times- the first time in his first Tour at 23.

Indurain won the Tour of L'Avenir in 86 at 22! VanImpe was 12th in the TdF in his first attempt - and he won 5 Mountain Jersies.
Delgado finished 15th in the Tour in his second year - he also finished 15th in the Vuelta the very same year.

After failing to finish his first 2 Tours Armstrong finished 36th, 1 hour 28 minutes down!

 

[BroDeal]

Why don't you try taking the ages those riders first won a TdF time trial or mountain stage.

 

[gatete]

Strickly looking at the age of a first (and often only) TdF win since 1970

Indurain:
27 years old, first TdF win

Degado:
28 years old, first TdF win (top ten finisher next five years)

Roche:
27 years old, first TdF win

Joop Zoetemelk:
33 years old, first TdF win (World Championship winner at age 38)

Lucien Van Impe:
29 years old, first TdF win

Bernard Thévenet:
27 years old, first TdF win

Luis Ocaña:
28 years old, first TdF win

At 27, LA is not that different in respect to age at time of first win to the above riders.

Aside from Indurain (multi tour winner) the rest had less competition when they won their respective GT, Hell even winning The Worlds can't be compared to win a GT, don't get me wrong Worlds is a fantastic race but I just don't see "Il grillo" wining a TDF

 

[CentralCaliBike]

After failing to finish his first 2 Tours Armstrong finished 36th, 1 hour 28 minutes down!

I thought LA won the UCI World Championship at age 22 (with Indurain coming in second). I remember him racing the 1995 Tour and winning a stage during a long break away (the commentators kept saying he would not be able to stay away from what I remember). But for me the issue of where he finished might have had something to do with who else was on the team and what his role was. In 1993 he was riding for Motorola with the team captain of Andy Hampsten who finished 8th overall and likely required support to maintain that position - LA did win a stage that year before abandoning. In 1994 he was in the lead of the young rider (no jersey that year) for six days. In 1996 he dropped out from illness (later found to be the cancer) when he would have been 25.

On this cite I have heard a number of poster state that LA did not start climbing well until 1999 but, though not a tour, I noticed that he won the Clásica de San Sebastián in 1995 (at age 24) and was second the year prior when he also finished second in Liège-Bastogne-Liège. I understand that both of these classics are geared towards aggressive riders and have a a fair amount of climbing involved.

 

[red_flanders]

Strickly looking at the age of a first (and often only) TdF win since 1970

Indurain:
27 years old, first TdF win

Degado:
28 years old, first TdF win (top ten finisher next five years)

Roche:
27 years old, first TdF win

Joop Zoetemelk:
33 years old, first TdF win (World Championship winner at age 38)

Lucien Van Impe:
29 years old, first TdF win

Bernard Thévenet:
27 years old, first TdF win

Luis Ocaña:
28 years old, first TdF win

At 27, LA is not that different in respect to age at time of first win to the above riders.

Well, let's just saying putting Indurain on that list sort of proves the other point. Clearly a guy who benefitted from EPO later in his career.

You would also have to list the palmares of those other guys before their first win to have a point.

Thevenet (selected) Palmares:
Age 22 - TdF stage winner
Age 23 - TdF stage winner, 4th place TdF, 3rd place Dauphine
Age 24 - 2 TdF stages, 1st place Romandie, 2nd place Dauphine
Age 25 - French Champion, 2 TdF stages, 2nd place TdF, 3rd place Dauphine
Age 27 - 1st place TdF

Zootemelk (selected) Palmares:
Age 22 - 1st Tour de Avenir
Age 23 - 2nd place TdF
Age 24 - 2nd place TdF, KOM Vuelta, Dutch Champion
Age 25 - 5th place TdF
Age 26 - 4th place TdF, 2 stages TdF, Dutch Champion, Paris Nice, Romandie
Age 28 - 4th place TdF, 1 stage TdF, Paris Nice
Age 29 - 2nd place TdF, 3 stages TdF, Fleche Wallone
Age 30 - 8th place TdF
Age 31 - 2nd place TdF, 1 stage TdF
Age 32 - 2nd place TdF, 1 stage TdF, Paris Nice, 1st place Vuelta
Age 33 - 1st place TdF, 2 stages TdF
Age 34 - 4th place TdF
Age 35 - 2nd place TdF
Age 36 - World Champion
Age 37 - 1st Amstel Gold

And so it goes. Getting tired of copying it over. Point is all these guys except Indurain were big winners early and showed some improvement as they got into their late 20's...vaguely. Zootemelk was a freak at the time for having gone so late into his thirties.

Showing up late in your twenties with your first GT result of any significance when you'd never shown anything before? Didn't happen too often in the post-war era, and is notable for happening frequently in the 90's and beyond.

Yes, guys improve a little as they get a bit older...historically. Historically it caps HARD at 30 with Zootemelk being a glaring exception.

Of course it's absurd to suggest Armstrong stopped doping at some point but got the exact same result every time against the fully doped field, when he had never shown real promise as a GT rider. Certainly the tactics changed when he got better teams around him, and any change in his style is really that simple. They ground everyone up and he took off after the damage was done instead of him launching brilliant solo attacks as he did in 199-2001.

 

[HoustonHammer]

Why don't you try taking the ages those riders first won a TdF time trial or mountain stage.

What would that tell us?

 

[Dr. Maserati]

I thought LA won the UCI World Championship at age 22 (with Indurain coming in second). I remember him racing the 1995 Tour and winning a stage during a long break away (the commentators kept saying he would not be able to stay away from what I remember). But for me the issue of where he finished might have had something to do with who else was on the team and what his role was. In 1993 he was riding for Motorola with the team captain of Andy Hampsten who finished 8th overall and likely required support to maintain that position - LA did win a stage that year before abandoning. In 1994 he was in the lead of the young rider (no jersey that year) for six days. In 1996 he dropped out from illness (later found to be the cancer) when he would have been 25.

On this cite I have heard a number of poster state that LA did not start climbing well until 1999 but, though not a tour, I noticed that he won the Clásica de San Sebastián in 1995 (at age 24) and was second the year prior when he also finished second in Liège-Bastogne-Liège. I understand that both of these classics are geared towards aggressive riders and have a a fair amount of climbing involved.

The Worlds -San Sebastian, Liege Bastogne Liege, Fleche Wallone, Amstel Gold, - yes hilly but all ONE day races!

Armstrong showed no ability in stage races - with the exception of The Tour du Pont in the US.

In 1993 it was always the plan to abandon the TdF after either the first or second mountain stage but even then he had lost 18 minutes the first stage and something like 30 the next.

 

[CentralCaliBike]

Of course it's absurd to suggest Armstrong stopped doping at some point but got the exact same result every time against the fully doped field, when he had never shown real promise as a GT rider. Certainly the tactics changed when he got better teams around him, and any change in his style is really that simple. They ground everyone up and he took off after the damage was done instead of him launching brilliant solo attacks as he did in 199-2001.

Certainly agree that his tactics and team strength changed for the last five tours but it is much harder to launch brilliant solo attacks after being a successful tour winner.

But what I do not understand is the lack of appreciation that his results during his mid 20s would have been effected by cancer. It seems a difficult to compare his results with those of other riders who were getting stronger in their mid 20s while he was getting weaker.

 

[red_flanders]

On this cite I have heard a number of poster state that LA did not start climbing well until 1999 but, though not a tour, I noticed that he won the Clásica de San Sebastián in 1995 (at age 24) and was second the year prior when he also finished second in Liège-Bastogne-Liège. I understand that both of these classics are geared towards aggressive riders and have a a fair amount of climbing involved.

Good points. Co-incidentally, Armstrong started working with Ferrari in late 1995.

Also to note--many, many riders who have far outdone Armstrong's limited palmares in hilly classics have done nothing in Grand Tours--it's an entirely different kind of effort with much, much shorter climbs and relatively little need for recovery--which is the primary limiter for many GT riders.

See Bettini, Boogerd, Bartoli, etc., etc...

 

[CentralCaliBike]

The Worlds -San Sebastian, Liege Bastogne Liege, Fleche Wallone, Amstel Gold, - yes hilly but all ONE day races!

Armstrong showed no ability in stage races - with the exception of The Tour du Pont in the US.

In 1993 it was always the plan to abandon the TdF after either the first or second mountain stage but even then he had lost 18 minutes the first stage and something like 30 the next.

Isn't there a history of the winners of both San Sebastian and Liege-Bastogne-Liege often also being successful as GT winners?

On further review - looks like the GT contenders tend to do well in Liege-Bastogne-Liege only.

 

[red_flanders]

Certainly agree that his tactics and team strength changed for the last five tours but it is much harder to launch brilliant solo attacks after being a successful tour winner.

But what I do not understand is the lack of appreciation that his results during his mid 20s would have been effected by cancer. It seems a difficult to compare his results with those of other riders who were getting stronger in their mid 20s while he was getting weaker.

Certainly in 1996 he was affected. I don't know how one could say he was affected before--even he doesn't claim that. Armstrong describes feeling badly only well into 1996 and being puzzled by it IIRC. He was diagnosed in October?

Since he claims no dropoff other than 1996 I don't think it had a big overall impact. He was a pretty good one-day racer, in the top flight if not a big winner.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Isn't there a history of the winners of both San Sebastian and Liege-Bastogne-Liege often also being successful as GT winners?

Both races are hilly so GT riders will do well in those races - however it does not automatically work in reverse.

The longest climb on LBL is about 4km - even La Redoute is 'only' 2k.

Alpe D'Heuz is 13km - Tourmalet about 20k!

 

[red_flanders]

Certainly agree that his tactics and team strength changed for the last five tours but it is much harder to launch brilliant solo attacks after being a successful tour winner.

If you're the strongest, you can attack from the front. See Hautacam 2000, Courcheval 2000, Ventoux 2000, Alpe d'Huez 2001, Pla d'Adet 2001...

Everyone knew it was coming and couldn't stop him. Utterly dominant, crushing rides in a dramatic, attacking style.

For me it got boring after 2001.

 

[CentralCaliBike]

Certainly in 1996 he was affected. I don't know how one could say he was affected before--even he doesn't claim that. Armstrong describes feeling badly only well into 1996 and being puzzled by it IIRC. He was diagnosed in October?

Since he claims no dropoff other than 1996 I don't think it had a big overall impact. He was a pretty good one-day racer, in the top flight if not a big winner.

Just looking at the races he was entering pre-cancer, it appears he was not focused on winning (or even competing at a high level) a GT. After cancer he seemed to be focused only on winning the Tour (not the Giro or Vuelta) and his classics interest became a distant memory. Whatever his focus at any given point of his career, he seemed to be successful.

 

[red_flanders]

Just looking at the races he was entering pre-cancer, it appears he was not focused on winning (or even competing at a high level) a GT.

This is very accurate. I would not say he was overly successful in the classics--his palmares pale compared to the top classics riders of the era.

I actually remember getting irritated with him after Jan emerged in 1996, saying Jan was going to win it for the next ten years, so why bother focusing on it (or some such thing).

Question you have to ask is why? Why didn't he focus on GT's? Because he had shown no ability in them. Then all of a sudden he gets hooked up with Ferrari because Merckx sees some potential in him, and he starts getting results immediately. Gets sidetracked by cancer, emerges a mentally different guy on the full program, focusing on one race. Brilliant strategy, amazing success story.

Not possible without the full Ferrari program obviously.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Just looking at the races he was entering pre-cancer, it appears he was not focused on winning (or even competing at a high level) a GT. After cancer he seemed to be focused only on winning the Tour (not the Giro or Vuelta) and his classics interest became a distant memory. Whatever his focus at any given point of his career, he seemed to be successful.

Pretty simple really - Lance was losing minutes to the TTers in the Tour and lots of minutes to the climbers.

He was an excellent one day racer who was not consistent in any stage races.

The first time he showed any ability in a proper stage race was when he returned to cycling in 98 when he finished 4th in the Vuelta .

 

[CentralCaliBike]

Pretty simple really - Lance was losing minutes to the TTers in the Tour and lots of minutes to the climbers.

He was an excellent one day racer who was not consistent in any stage races.

The first time he showed any ability in a proper stage race was when he returned to cycling in 98 when he finished 4th in the Vuelta .

Were all of the contenders using EPO in the late 90s? If so, did they need to in order to win? If that was the case, isn't the argument that LA doped because he discovered in his early career he could not compete against PED dependent GT contenders? Now if the previous answers are all affirmative - how can the same argument be used to state he was a mediocre rider at best when competing on a level playing field without EPO? The logic of the argument escapes me.