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

[afpm90]

CentralCaliBike,

excellent job in this thread. You make some of the points I make but in a more articulate way, which means you don't get all the nonsense I get thrown at me that distracts from the issue. Good to read it.

Too many people want to have it both ways. They claim EPO transformed tour riding in the early 1990s, leaving previous tour winners like Lemond in the bus, and then claim Armstrong would not have won a tour because he didn't shine in the GTs in this same era. It's completely contradictory.

I've seen no evidence to suggest Armstrong would not be a multi tour winner if the peloton was 100% clean and he had had his same cancer experience. People may hate it, but he is rightfully and deservedly one of the all time great ToF riders. I think most people in cycling recognise this, even if they may not like him as an individual.

If cycling was only the Tour de France

 

[Race Radio]

And thus the money to pay for a sophisticated year-long program. So the little guy never has a chance? Or they take risks using poor-quality medical advice.

The playing field continues to evolve.

Doctors like Checcini and Ferrari take customers on a percentage basis. They charge a % of rider income, and winnings, based on the services provided. Ferrari had a sliding scale, from 5-15%. Ferrari also only took the riders he wanted, Armstrong was turned down at first until Merckx gave him a recommendation.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

I've seen no evidence to suggest Armstrong would not be a multi tour winner if the peloton was 100% clean and he had had his same cancer experience. People may hate it, but he is rightfully and deservedly one of the all time great ToF riders. I think most people in cycling recognise this, even if they may not like him as an individual.

Because there is no evidence to support your claim.

But heres a thought, maybe someone who has an old Winning magazine can confirm this - I would assume that the Nissan Classic in 1992 was Lances first stage race as a Pro.

No severe mountains - in fact it has lots of short hills that suited a strong rider like LA. It would have had very few racers on EPO - so I assume LA's natural ability would shine through as a stage racer per excellence.
Can someone confirm his GC place and finishing time against the winner.

 

[Beech Mtn]

The playing field continues to evolve.

Doctors like Checcini and Ferrari take customers on a percentage basis. They charge a % of rider income, and winnings, based on the services provided. Ferrari had a sliding scale, from 5-15%. Ferrari also only took the riders he wanted, Armstrong was turned down at first until Merckx gave him a recommendation.

Now that's interesting. It still sounds like you need an "in" in order to get the best doping/medical care. Maybe not as much a monetary "in" as knowing the right people. But then I guess a new young guy needs that anyway in order to get on a team or get noticed in cycling.

 

[Sprocket01]

Because there is no evidence to support your claim.

Yes there is - seven tour wins and one third placing at the out of 37 after four years out. Blood doping or not that is an amazing achievement that easily makes him one of the all time greats.

But heres a thought, maybe someone who has an old Winning magazine can confirm this - I would assume that the Nissan Classic in 1992 was Lances first stage race as a Pro.

No severe mountains - in fact it has lots of short hills that suited a strong rider like LA. It would have had very few racers on EPO - so I assume LA's natural ability would shine through as a stage racer per excellence.
Can someone confirm his GC place and finishing time against the winner.

Can't help you on that, but as you know, it doesn't really work like that. It would depend what type of training he was doing, how long he had raced at that level and built up the stamina and such like. Pro Cycling is one of those sports where if you're doing something wrong then it massively effects your performance and you're out the back, no matter how good you are - you can't use some race from 1992 to decide if someone deserves to be where they are a decade later. Again that's just not how it works.

I think it is important that, when people play this card about LA developing slightly later than other greats, that they be honest and admit he became a pro just as the EPO era began. After a few years of this, great riders like LeMond found themselves unable to keep up with the peloton despite their years of experience. If LeMond had become a pro at the same time as Armstrong he wouldn't have come anywhere in the top 50 in Grand Tours. We really have to be honest about this, and frankly some people aren't.

Also the great responder theory, and it is only a theory, doesn't have a lot of logic to it, because would someone really be a great responder to all drugs and including blood doping? The answer to that is no - you couldn't win 7 in a row on just having a good response to one drug; they use different drugs every year. And at that high level, where everyone has good red blood cell levels to begin with, the differences in response would likely be small.

No, I can't see a credible argument to suggest Armstrong doesn't deserve to be one of the all time greats. It's just not there.

 

[Sprocket01]

Does anyone have information on an experiment LA was involved in during the late 1980s or early 1990s, with a new computer system that examined the efficiency of a peddling stroke? The system now is common place. I remember reading or watching about it a few years ago but I can't find it? The scientist involved said one of the young athletes at the time, named Lance Armstrong, had a style that was not very efficient.

It's simple things like that that can make a huge difference over many years. You have to wonder, if LA's gain was all down to EPO, then why he bothered changing his peddling style in the first place. Surely he would just use the old one?

Don't forget weight loss either. We know from Frankie Andreau that Lance used to look like a line backer before he had cancer. Weight loss can make a dramatic difference, as we saw with Wiggins this year.

 

[Race Radio]

If LeMond had become a pro at the same time as Armstrong he wouldn't have come anywhere in the top 50 in Grand Tours. We really have to be honest about this, and frankly some people aren't.

Hampsten was 8th in the 93 Tour, Armstrong dropped out. We have to be honest that clean riders were still able to compete, Armstrong was not. You should be honest about this, but as usual you are not.

I think we can all agree that the rest of your post is so lacking it merits no response. You need to find some new material as this is growing old.

 

[hfer07]

Don't forget weight loss either. We know from Frankie Andreau that Lance used to look like a line backer before he had cancer. Weight loss can make a dramatic difference, as we saw with Wiggins this year.

so "weight Loss" is now the "Magic Formula".... right? if that so - everybody should get on it to win tours though.....
Rasmussen should had won at least 4, based on your rationale ---and we all know he was on the juice too!!

 

[Cobblestones]

If LeMond had become a pro at the same time as Armstrong he wouldn't have come anywhere in the top 50 in Grand Tours. We really have to be honest about this, and frankly some people aren't.

I'm glad you finally realize that in order to be among the top 50 in recent years you have to be juiced. So, I agree: during the Armstrong years, a rider like LeMond wouldn't have been among the top 50.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Yes there is - seven tour wins and one third placing at the out of 37 after four years out. Blood doping or not that is an amazing achievement that easily makes him one of the all time greats.



Can't help you on that, but as you know, it doesn't really work like that. It would depend what type of training he was doing, how long he had raced at that level and built up the stamina and such like. Pro Cycling is one of those sports where if you're doing something wrong then it massively effects your performance and you're out the back, no matter how good you are - you can't use some race from 1992 to decide if someone deserves to be where they are a decade later. Again that's just not how it works.

I think it is important that, when people play this card about LA developing slightly later than other greats, that they be honest and admit he became a pro just as the EPO era began. After a few years of this, great riders like LeMond found themselves unable to keep up with the peloton despite their years of experience. If LeMond had become a pro at the same time as Armstrong he wouldn't have come anywhere in the top 50 in Grand Tours. We really have to be honest about this, and frankly some people aren't.

Also the great responder theory, and it is only a theory, doesn't have a lot of logic to it, because would someone really be a great responder to all drugs and including blood doping? The answer to that is no - you couldn't win 7 in a row on just having a good response to one drug; they use different drugs every year. And at that high level, where everyone has good red blood cell levels to begin with, the differences in response would likely be small.

No, I can't see a credible argument to suggest Armstrong doesn't deserve to be one of the all time greats. It's just not there.

Firstly - its interesting to see you acknowledge that all LA's Tour victories were through his use of PED's or blood doping.

However I don't share your admiration for that - and again read the list of riders both 'Polish' and 'CCB' provided earlier, the stage riding capabilities in all those riders was evident in the first two years of racing. Quite frankly Armstrong showed excellent ability in one day races but was hampered by being unable to climb or TT.

I too am not convinced of the 'great responder' theory - although there has been some interesting observations on this in the thread - but without a Dr. Ferrari programme LA would not have won a single GT imo.

 

[Murray]

I'm really impressed. 14 pages on that? Much ado about nothing I'd say.

"I think next year we’ll be surprised with Lance being able to match if not exceed that."

So, he offered an opinion, maybe he's wrong, maybe he's right. Also, in the quote he acknowledges that it would be surprising if Lance were able to achieve that level.

Such a great example of how many in this forum will jump all over the least little thing said or done by anyone associated with Armstrong and blow things way out of proportion.

 

[red_flanders]

If LeMond had become a pro at the same time as Armstrong he wouldn't have come anywhere in the top 50 in Grand Tours. We really have to be honest about this, and frankly some people aren't.

If you mean because he was clean, you're right. He would have had (and did have near the end) no chance whatsoever.

If you're saying that LeMond on a program wouldn't have been great--well that's quite honestly the stupidest things I've read on this or any other forum, ever.

 

[Galic Ho]

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

You are correct for Merckyx, Hinault and LeMond and their respective placings in their first grand tours. Fignon's data is incorrect. Hinault won the Tour the first year Fignon raced le Tour. They were on the same team. The year was 1982. Fignon won the race the next two seasons.

 

[pedaling squares]

TFF - I think the guy's a hack as well who gives real coaches a bad name, but that's a little uncalled for.

But its funny.

I dunno - red exterior, soft sides, they kinda look the same and there are some similarities in function. Let's be honest, others have gone further albeit without visual aid, and that was pretty funny. Besides, it brought Carmichael back into the thread.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

You are correct for Merckyx, Hinault and LeMond and their respective placings in their first grand tours. Fignon's data is incorrect. Hinault won the Tour the first year Fignon raced le Tour. They were on the same team. The year was 1982. Fignon won the race the next two seasons.

The point of discussion was GT winners showing early indications of their ability.

I am not old enough to remember the 82 Tour. But my memory has always been that Fignon won on his first participation and I had checked a few sites and thought they backed this up. Perhaps I am reading the "he won his first Tour in 83" too broadly. As a matter of interest where did he finish in 82? (just to feed the nerd in me)

 

[red_flanders]

The point of discussion was GT winners showing early indications of their ability.

I am not old enough to remember the 82 Tour. But my memory has always been that Fignon won on his first participation and I had checked a few sites and thought they backed this up. Perhaps I am reading the "he won his first Tour in 83" too broadly. As a matter of interest where did he finish in 82? (just to feed the nerd in me)

You are quite right--Fignon did not ride the Tour in 1982, his first year as a pro. He won the Tour on his first attempt in 1983, and beat Hinault in 1984.

Hinault was not at the Tour in 1983 (knee I think) when both riders rode for Renault. By 1984 Fignon Hinault had moved to La Vie Claire.

 

[Galic Ho]

The point of discussion was GT winners showing early indications of their ability.

I am not old enough to remember the 82 Tour. But my memory has always been that Fignon won on his first participation and I had checked a few sites and thought they backed this up. Perhaps I am reading the "he won his first Tour in 83" too broadly. As a matter of interest where did he finish in 82? (just to feed the nerd in me)

I was born a few months after the 1982 Tour, so I don't remember it either. Just thought you might like to know, for future reference. I only found out about Fignon racing in 1982 after I bought a Hinault DVD and he joked that after Fignon and some other young French rider (can't remember his name) had joined Renault that year, they had taken to calling him an old fart. I believe old man Hinault, at the time was 27 (similar to Contadors age next year). Oh how the times have changed!

I liked the point about early form by previous Tour winners. I agree with it and only wanted to point out Fignon had raced earlier. However your point about the wording of websites is misleading...won his first TdF or won his first GT win? The websites, wiki, etc are not accurate enough so I went to the Tours official site. Fignon was not on Renault Elf-Gitane for their Tour squad...naughty Bernard was misleading on his DVD. So Fignon did race the Tour for the first time in 1983 and won it at his first attempt. My lesson has been learnt, don't make assumptions when Frenchmen say things. My apologies for not double checking.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

I was born a few months after the 1982 Tour, so I don't remember it either. Just thought you might like to know, for future reference. I only found out about Fignon racing in 1982 after I bought a Hinault DVD and he joked that after Fignon and some other young French rider (can't remember his name) had joined Renault that year, they had taken to calling him an old fart. I believe old man Hinault, at the time was 27 (similar to Contadors age next year). Oh how the times have changed!

I liked the point about early form by previous Tour winners. I agree with it and only wanted to point out Fignon had raced earlier. However your point about the wording of websites is misleading...won his first TdF or won his first GT win? The websites, wiki, etc are not accurate enough so I went to the Tours official site. Fignon was not on Renault Elf-Gitane for their Tour squad...naughty Bernard was misleading on his DVD. So Fignon did race the Tour for the first time in 1983 and won it at his first attempt. My lesson has been learnt, don't make assumptions when Frenchmen say things. My apologies for not double checking.

Hey - no problem, thanks for the update. I am here to learn so if someone can confirm the info it is always good. I am particularly glad you clarified your age!! Haha..

As for the GT reference - I was highlighting where the rider finished in their first Grand Tour (Tour, Giro, Vuelta) - as all the riders had finished very high in their respective first Tours, so you could see their future potential quite early.

Again, appreciate the clarification.

 

[Alpe d'Huez]

To clarify some of the statements made on this thread

Thanks RR, excellent, detailed post.

But here's a thought, maybe someone who has an old Winning magazine can confirm this - I would assume that the Nissan Classic in 1992 was Lances first stage race as a Pro.

Won by my namesake, who was a determined stage racer, though not a great climber in the big mountains. Lance was in two short chases, which was his style back then, but didn't do anything prominent. They were however on the same team, so it's hard to guess how that affected strategy.

Lance did win the 1995 Tour DuPont. Though not a major race, it was a stage race with some modest climbs, akin to the Tour of Georgia, or perhaps a step below the Tour of Ireland, for example. Though certainly nothing near comparison to a top Tour placing.

 

[Digger]

Does anyone have information on an experiment LA was involved in during the late 1980s or early 1990s, with a new computer system that examined the efficiency of a peddling stroke? The system now is common place. I remember reading or watching about it a few years ago but I can't find it? The scientist involved said one of the young athletes at the time, named Lance Armstrong, had a style that was not very efficient.

It's simple things like that that can make a huge difference over many years. You have to wonder, if LA's gain was all down to EPO, then why he bothered changing his peddling style in the first place. Surely he would just use the old one?
Don't forget weight loss either. We know from Frankie Andreau that Lance used to look like a line backer before he had cancer. Weight loss can make a dramatic difference, as we saw with Wiggins this year.

One extra thing needed to increase cadence, or everyone would be doing it...Oxygen...which is cool if EPO is part of your prep.

 

[poupou]

My lesson has been learnt, don't make assumptions when Frenchmen say things. My apologies for not double checking.

Be carefull with translation

Fignon was part of 1982 GIRO as team-mate of Hinault who did the double. Laurent finished 15th and 2nd young rider.

http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fignon
http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tour_de_France_1982
http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tour_d'Italie_1982

 

[Berzin]

Here are the worst excerpts of this horrid interview-

There was one day that it all changed. It was on Beach Mountain, about a week into the training camp and this day was about one hundred and twenty miles and we would climb up Beech Mountain. And then I would load the bikes onto the car and we would drive 30 miles back to the cabin.

That day, Bob and Lance hit Beech Mountain and Bob got dropped immediately and I was following Lance and it turned from this rain to this snow mix and he kept getting out of the saddle attacking. He’d sit down and attack again and go for it and then sit back down and then attack again. I’m like what the hell is he doing, you know? I was watching him and he was just driving it. I pulled up beside him and rolled down the window and he was just pouring with sweat. There was nobody around, there was a cow over here, and a big rock over here, and Bob Roll twenty minutes back. I started honking the horn leaning out of the window of the car and yelling Allez, Allez! It was like he was in a race. He just kept driving it to the top. At the top I will always remember what he said. All he said was “Give me my rain jacket, I am riding back.” So, I gave him his rain jacket and it was holy ****! Something is going on.


A few weeks before this training camp Armstrong was going to quit cycling because he couldn't ride with the big boys any more. Then, miraculously, after a week of riding with Bob Roll of all people, his power output and stamina increase dramatically. Something WAS going on.

Must of been that possum pie they were chowing down on in the sticks of Boone County...



We start coming back down the hill. Here is Bob about half way up saying “What the ****!?” I roll down the window, and I say “Lance is riding back.” And Bob goes, “Well I want to get in the car.” And I go “No, you gotta ride back.” But it was that day that it all changed. On that day, on that mountain. Because Lance said, “Hey there is this race called the First Union Grand Prix…I want to do that race.” It was in three days in Atlanta. It was a cool week. Something I will remember for the rest of my life. Lance’s victories were great and everything. But it was just a really intimate time with two guys that I had very long relationships. Bob - racing together as an athlete, racing together in Northern California. And Lance, coaching him since he was 17.


Disingenuous myth-building from a guy attempting to add epic status to a rote week-long training camp that, according to Carmichael, should go down in cycling lore as a dramatic turning point in the career of Lance Armstrong.

His mock awe at everything Armstrong does is what makes me puke.

 

[icefire]

Hey - no problem, thanks for the update. I am here to learn so if someone can confirm the info it is always good. I am particularly glad you clarified your age!! Haha..

As for the GT reference - I was highlighting where the rider finished in their first Grand Tour (Tour, Giro, Vuelta) - as all the riders had finished very high in their respective first Tours, so you could see their future potential quite early.

Again, appreciate the clarification.

Just for your info. Fignon also did the 1983 Vuelta, a pretty tough one. He won a stage and finished 7th at 11'27" of Hinault.

 

[quiensabe]

How did you read that?

Here are the worst excerpts of this horrid interview-

There was one day that it all changed. It was on Beach Mountain, about a week into the training camp and this day was about one hundred and twenty miles and we would climb up Beech Mountain. And then I would load the bikes onto the car and we would drive 30 miles back to the cabin.

That day, Bob and Lance hit Beech Mountain and Bob got dropped immediately and I was following Lance and it turned from this rain to this snow mix and he kept getting out of the saddle attacking. He’d sit down and attack again and go for it and then sit back down and then attack again. I’m like what the hell is he doing, you know? I was watching him and he was just driving it. I pulled up beside him and rolled down the window and he was just pouring with sweat. There was nobody around, there was a cow over here, and a big rock over here, and Bob Roll twenty minutes back. I started honking the horn leaning out of the window of the car and yelling Allez, Allez! It was like he was in a race. He just kept driving it to the top. At the top I will always remember what he said. All he said was “Give me my rain jacket, I am riding back.” So, I gave him his rain jacket and it was holy ****! Something is going on.


A few weeks before this training camp Armstrong was going to quit cycling because he couldn't ride with the big boys any more. Then, miraculously, after a week of riding with Bob Roll of all people, his power output and stamina increase dramatically. Something WAS going on.

Must of been that possum pie they were chowing down on in the sticks of Boone County...



We start coming back down the hill. Here is Bob about half way up saying “What the ****!?” I roll down the window, and I say “Lance is riding back.” And Bob goes, “Well I want to get in the car.” And I go “No, you gotta ride back.” But it was that day that it all changed. On that day, on that mountain. Because Lance said, “Hey there is this race called the First Union Grand Prix…I want to do that race.” It was in three days in Atlanta. It was a cool week. Something I will remember for the rest of my life. Lance’s victories were great and everything. But it was just a really intimate time with two guys that I had very long relationships. Bob - racing together as an athlete, racing together in Northern California. And Lance, coaching him since he was 17.


Disingenuous myth-building from a guy attempting to add epic status to a rote week-long training camp that, according to Carmichael, should go down in cycling lore as a dramatic turning point in the career of Lance Armstrong.

His mock awe at everything Armstrong does is what makes me puke.

Congratulations if you understood all that unpunctuated, badly constructed drivel "and everything"... "And I'm like..." Like an illiterate gabbler. How do clowns like that get published? Answer: mention the media-grabbing names. I wouldn't be surprised to find a book, badly spelled & punctuated; but called "Armstrong and the Code" by Lance da Vinci

 

[HoustonHammer]

so "weight Loss" is now the "Magic Formula".... right? if that so - everybody should get on it to win tours though.....
Rasmussen should had won at least 4, based on your rationale ---and we all know he was on the juice too!!

For a rider anywhere in the competitive range, dropping 15lbs would almost certainly be a 'magic formula'. This was why everybody was always after Ullrich. The reality, however, is that there shouldn't be anybody in the peleton with 15 spare pounds.

For me, this is the only part of the official Armstrong story that has any theoretical credibility. I've also read that he had a more muscular build pre-cancer. The trouble is, I've never seen any old photos where he looked to me to have a much different build than now. I'm sure this is very old territory on this board, and I apologize for asking, but is anybody aware of any reliable data that LA came away from cancer with a lower body mass?