• We're giving away a Cyclingnews water bottle! Find out more here!

Could a doped EPO Era "1 day classics rider" win the TdF 7 Times in a Row?

Page 5 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
May 14, 2010
4,833
2
0
Dr. Maserati said:
Actually I don't believe anyone has said that.

Many - including myself - will agree on his talent.
I remember following his progress closely at the time, but it was obvious that by the end of 1994 he was not consistent enough over 3 weeks (any 3 weeks).

You have a bad day in a 3 week GT your quest for overall glory is gone. In a clean/level environment he could have top 10s.
Perhaps. Of course, you were his doctor :D but it seems that you are assuming he would remain static in his development, whereas I think he'd have matured emotionally and physically and thereby become consistent.
 
Jun 19, 2009
11,437
0
0
Maxiton said:
Perhaps. Of course, you were his doctor :D but it seems that you are assuming he would remain static in his development, whereas I think he'd have matured emotionally and physically and thereby become consistent.
You can train for most things - but being consistent for 2 or 3 weeks was something that all GT winners prior to the 90's showed - and usually early in their career.


LA's TT'ing was poor - and I expected a large improvement there. He struggled on long climbs (15k+) - he would have made a minor improvement to hang on over time, but still lose out to 'natural' climbers - but you have a bad day and you lose out.

None of that makes him a bad rider - just not a GT winner.
 
Aug 17, 2009
4,124
0
0
Dr. Maserati said:
You can train for most things - but being consistent for 2 or 3 weeks was something that all GT winners prior to the 90's showed - and usually early in their career.


LA's TT'ing was poor - and I expected a large improvement there. He struggled on long climbs (15k+) - he would have made a minor improvement to hang on over time, but still lose out to 'natural' climbers - but you have a bad day and you lose out.

None of that makes him a bad rider - just not a GT winner.
the cancer changed lance. Spiritutally phisically mentally. He is a 1 in a million guy. on top of that he is determined and has the right mentors. also the cadence thing and learning tactics, proper team etc.
 
Jun 19, 2009
4,841
0
0
flicker said:
the cancer changed lance. Spiritutally phisically mentally. He is a 1 in a million guy. on top of that he is determined and has the right mentors. also the cadence thing and learning tactics, proper team etc.
Yes, maybe he genetically mutated or somethin' science-like.
 
Fowsto Cope-E said:
Polish, how could a 1-day specialist win a GT? Because then they wouldn't be declared 1-day specialist anymore. The only way this could happen is if they go through a serious transformation like lance went through. That just doesn't happen very often, so. . . by definition Lance will probably be the only 1-day specialist who goes on and wins a GT.
Sean Kelly(80s Classics King, 88 Vuelta winner) Laurent Jalabert(predominantly one day rider who won 95 Vuelta), Freddy Maertens(Sprinter winning 77 Vuelta) hmmm, I see a pattern emerging.
 
Maxiton said:
Perhaps. Of course, you were his doctor :D but it seems that you are assuming he would remain static in his development, whereas I think he'd have matured emotionally and physically and thereby become consistent.
Most GT riders are at least showing some potential by the time they are 24, Lance hadnt shown anything other than winning the weak Tour du Pont when the big names were at the Vuelta, Romandy or Dunkirk. In fairness, he never actually raced too many stage races in Europe.

As I said before, Lance himself admitted in 96 he didnt see himself as a Tour contender. If the man himself didnt think he could do it, then there is not a lot to be said.
 
Jul 18, 2010
171
0
0
It's all baseless speculation. Some riders benefit more from EPO then others and some had better doping programs and officials bribed so no one knows what the standings of a drug free peloton would have been. We have never seen Lance, Jan and Marco, etc., race clean at that level so there is no objective evidence to base an opinion on.

So people tend to believe what ever they want based on how much they like dislike a particular doper. We'll never know if LA would have won 7, 1 or no TDF's if he had not drugged. All we know for sure is that he responded best to EPO and had the best doping program and had the most officials paid off. We will never know who the best cyclist of the 90's was we just know who the best doper was.
 
Jul 19, 2009
753
0
0
henryg said:
It's all baseless speculation. Some riders benefit more from EPO then others and some had better doping programs and officials bribed so no one knows what the standings of a drug free peloton would have been. We have never seen Lance, Jan and Marco, etc., race clean at that level so there is no objective evidence to base an opinion on.

So people tend to believe what ever they want based on how much they like dislike a particular doper. We'll never know if LA would have won 7, 1 or no TDF's if he had not drugged. All we know for sure is that he responded best to EPO and had the best doping program and had the most officials paid off. We will never know who the best cyclist of the 90's was we just know who the best doper was.
Last year, with the datas published by Lance we got a good insight of his possiblities whith less PED!
 
Jul 22, 2009
3,351
0
0
flicker said:
the cancer changed lance. Spiritutally phisically mentally. He is a 1 in a million guy. on top of that he is determined and has the right mentors. also the cadence thing and learning tactics, proper team etc.

Yes. That and he was probably doing the same stuff the other favorites were doing. But this just logically leads into the eventual discussion that a guy like andreau shouldve been a gt winner too. He was on the good stuff.
 
Mar 17, 2009
1,745
0
0
Polish said:
Franklin, I had already been following Pro cycling for a few years when Lance had his spectacular neo-pro year in 1993.

I remember thinking back then - "Gosh - this guy is the next Greg LeMond. He is going to win the Tour de France someday!" Of course, many others had the same thought. No nostradamus me lol.

Lance turned pro in late 1992, and in 1993, his FIRST full year as a Pro he had won:

1st World Road Race Champion UCI Road World Championships
1st US National Road Race Champion
1st Stage 8 Tour de France
1st Overall Tour of America
1st Trofeo Laigueglia
1st Thrift Drug Classic
1st Overall Kmart West Virginia Classic
1st Prologue
1st Stage 1
2nd Overall Tour du Pont
1st Stage 5

3rd Overall Tour of Sweden
1st Stage 3

Jan Ullich, on the other hand, turned pro in late 1994, and in 1995, his FIRST full year as a Pro he had won:

National Time Trial Champion
Tour du Limousin
2nd place overall
Only the highlighted wins can really be used to indicate future potential. The rest of this list are not really relevant as they were either US races, won at a time when big-hitters rarely ventured across the Atlantic to race, or they are small races that had weak fields.

Your assessment of Ullrich is a little disingenuous to say the least.

He was Junior World Road Champion in the same year as Armstrong's Oslo win.

His early results are good especially when you examine the riders he lost to.

1996 Team Deutsche Telekom 1 victoire
66eme de la Classement Coupe du monde sur route avec 15 pts.
6eme du Classic Haribo
10eme du Tour du Haut Var
12eme de la 1ere etape du Critérium International (Gaillac - Gaillac)
10eme de la 4eme etape du Grand Prix du Midi Libre (Marvejols--Marvejols)
2eme du classement général du Tour de France (Classement Général)
9eme de la 8eme etape du Tour de France (Chambery-Les Arcs)
6eme de la 9eme etape du Tour de France (Bourg Saint Maurice-Val d'IsEre CLM ind)
8eme de la 10eme etape du Tour de France (Val d'Isere-Sestriere)
17eme de la 14eme etape du Tour de France (Le Puy en Velay-Superbesse)
7eme de la 17eme etape du Tour de France (Agen-Hautacam)
4eme de la 18eme etape du Tour de France (Argeles Gozost-Pamplona)
1er de la 21eme etape du Tour de France (Bordeaux-Saint Emilion CLM Ind)
11eme du Championnat de Zurich
3eme du Grand Prix Breitling Karlsruhe
43eme du Classement U.C.I.
1995 Team Deutsche Telekom Pas de victoire
4eme du Championnat national d'Allemagne sur Route
3eme du classement général du Hofbrau Cup (Classement général)
21eme du Classica San Sebastian
2eme du classement général du Tour du Limousin (Classement général)

His 4th in the German Championship was to three of his older teammates, none of whom was a pushover

1 Bölts Udo Team Deutsche Telekom 5.55.27.
2 Heppner Jens Team Deutsche Telekom m.t.
3 Aldag Rolf Team Deutsche Telekom 1.07.
4 Ullrich Jan Team Deutsche Telekom 6.39.
5 Kummer Mario Team Deutsche Telekom m.t.

The 2nd in the 1995 Tour of Limousin was to one Andrei Tchmil with no actual time difference!

Armstrong's early results announced a big talent, but it was not announcing a multiple GT winner. Compare his first season with Lemond and you'll see the difference. Lemond was on Hinault's team when Hinault was at his peak and more importantly the undisputed Patron of the peleton. His 3rd in the 81 Dauphine followed by the 82 Tour de L'Avenir were incredible for a rider barely out of his teens. In 92 the closest to a Patron was Argentin who wielded nowhere near the clout Hinault had in the 70's and 80's. The peleton was less regimented, with new riders being allowed more freedom to race. In the previous decade a rider had to almost ask permission to step up and try for a victory.
 
Mar 17, 2009
1,745
0
0
pmcg76 said:
Sean Kelly(80s Classics King, 88 Vuelta winner) Laurent Jalabert(predominantly one day rider who won 95 Vuelta), Freddy Maertens(Sprinter winning 77 Vuelta) hmmm, I see a pattern emerging.
The Vuelta was a totally different race in the 80's and 90's. For one it was in April so the conditions were much suited to these riders. All of them were aiming for the Classics so were coming to the race with form developed for LBL, RVV & FW. The Vuelta has always been a very different race to the Giro & Tour. Add in the fact that the 88 Vuelta was criticised for its lack of mountains and it's easy to see how Kelly could keep the climbers within reach in the mountains and beat them in the TT.
Jalabert's 95 win was in the first September Vuelta and saw ONCE present Olano with an impossible odds to win. Jalabert was the undisputed leader and World No 1.
The 1977 Vuelta was almost gifted to Maertens. The route was not particularly hilly and was further compromised when the organisers bowed to fears of trouble in the Basque region and shortened stages. What Maertens was running on has also been speculated on ever since.

So no pattern can be seen here IMO.
 
ultimobici said:
Only the highlighted wins can really be used to indicate future potential. The rest of this list are not really relevant as they were either US races, won at a time when big-hitters rarely ventured across the Atlantic to race, or they are small races that had weak fields.

Armstrong's early results announced a big talent, but it was not announcing a multiple GT winner. Compare his first season with Lemond and you'll see the difference. Lemond was on Hinault's team when Hinault was at his peak and more importantly the undisputed Patron of the peleton. His 3rd in the 81 Dauphine followed by the 82 Tour de L'Avenir were incredible for a rider barely out of his teens. In 92 the closest to a Patron was Argentin who wielded nowhere near the clout Hinault had in the 70's and 80's. The peleton was less regimented, with new riders being allowed more freedom to race. In the previous decade a rider had to almost ask permission to step up and try for a victory.
I agree that including US races is a bit misleading, many were at a much lower standard than the average European race.

I think a fairer comparison would be to compare a rider who turned pro around the same time Alex Zulle. In his first year as a pro, his results were

3rd Tour of Catalonia (behind Indurain, Rominger)
1st Catalan Week (beating Alcala)
1st Tour of Asturias (beating Rominger, Delgado)
1st Tour of Burgos
2nd Sicilian Week (behind Argentin)
4th Vuelta Prologue
Wears MJ at Tour de France

In comparison to Lance's palmares in his first season, these are clearly the results of a future GT rider, a guy who was competing with the big names of the sport from the start. Also bear in mind Zulle said during the Festina affair, that he didnt dope in his first sesaon but then EPO had not taken total control at the point. Granted Zulle was 23, not 21 when he achieved these results but Lance wasnt even achieving these results at 23.
 
Jul 30, 2009
38
0
0
Dr. Maserati said:
You can train for most things - but being consistent for 2 or 3 weeks was something that all GT winners prior to the 90's showed - and usually early in their career.


LA's TT'ing was poor - and I expected a large improvement there. He struggled on long climbs (15k+) - he would have made a minor improvement to hang on over time, but still lose out to 'natural' climbers - but you have a bad day and you lose out.

None of that makes him a bad rider - just not a GT winner.
I always remember learning about riders who wanted to ride the tour that they wouldn't normally be allowed to enter until they were 23 or 24, as their bodies couldn't take the punishment, and that they wouldn't be in a position to win it until 26/27, once their bodies had matured.

Surely it's possible that someone who was riding the tour for experience wouldn't be pushing 100% on the TT's and mountain climbs you mentioned? I'm not saying LA was destined to be a good GT rider, just that you can't infer it from the results he had previously. Remember he didn't know the team classification existed back then. :D
 
ultimobici said:
The Vuelta was a totally different race in the 80's and 90's. For one it was in April so the conditions were much suited to these riders. All of them were aiming for the Classics so were coming to the race with form developed for LBL, RVV & FW. The Vuelta has always been a very different race to the Giro & Tour. Add in the fact that the 88 Vuelta was criticised for its lack of mountains and it's easy to see how Kelly could keep the climbers within reach in the mountains and beat them in the TT.
Jalabert's 95 win was in the first September Vuelta and saw ONCE present Olano with an impossible odds to win. Jalabert was the undisputed leader and World No 1.
The 1977 Vuelta was almost gifted to Maertens. The route was not particularly hilly and was further compromised when the organisers bowed to fears of trouble in the Basque region and shortened stages. What Maertens was running on has also been speculated on ever since.

So no pattern can be seen here IMO.
The pattern I was referring to was the fact that they all won the Vuelta and you explained the how & why so we are in agreement.
 
Mar 17, 2009
1,745
0
0
pmcg76 said:
I agree that including US races is a bit misleading, many were at a much lower standard than the average European race.

I think a fairer comparison would be to compare a rider who turned pro around the same time Alex Zulle. In his first year as a pro, his results were

3rd Tour of Catalonia (behind Indurain, Rominger)
1st Catalan Week (beating Alcala)
1st Tour of Asturias (beating Rominger, Delgado)
1st Tour of Burgos
2nd Sicilian Week (behind Argentin)
4th Vuelta Prologue
Wears MJ at Tour de France

In comparison to Lance's palmares in his first season, these are clearly the results of a future GT rider, a guy who was competing with the big names of the sport from the start. Also bear in mind Zulle said during the Festina affair, that he didnt dope in his first sesaon but then EPO had not taken total control at the point. Granted Zulle was 23, not 21 when he achieved these results but Lance wasnt even achieving these results at 23.
I agree, Zulle is a better fit than Ullrich. I was also highlighting at the difference between Lemond's debut & that of Armstrong. Both very talented, but in ways pointing at equally successful but differing paths.
 
Jun 19, 2009
11,437
0
0
clearhop said:
I always remember learning about riders who wanted to ride the tour that they wouldn't normally be allowed to enter until they were 23 or 24, as their bodies couldn't take the punishment, and that they wouldn't be in a position to win it until 26/27, once their bodies had matured.

Surely it's possible that someone who was riding the tour for experience wouldn't be pushing 100% on the TT's and mountain climbs you mentioned? I'm not saying LA was destined to be a good GT rider, just that you can't infer it from the results he had previously. Remember he didn't know the team classification existed back then. :D
How else can you form a proper opinion except by reviewing the results and performances?

In 93 Lance knew he had 2 big days in the Alps and was then going home, so you would expect a decent performance on any of those days. He had no work to do for Hampsten - just ride his own race.
The rest of the peloton had another 9 days racing including the Pyrenees.

LA finished 86th @ 21:42 and 97th @ 28:47 - you don't gain experience by taking it easy.


Yes - often teams will take it easy on young/new riders - which they did with LA by having him only ride the Alps and not the Pyrenees.
 
Aug 19, 2009
588
0
0
clearhop said:
I always remember learning about riders who wanted to ride the tour that they wouldn't normally be allowed to enter until they were 23 or 24, as their bodies couldn't take the punishment, and that they wouldn't be in a position to win it until 26/27, once their bodies had matured.

Surely it's possible that someone who was riding the tour for experience wouldn't be pushing 100% on the TT's and mountain climbs you mentioned? I'm not saying LA was destined to be a good GT rider, just that you can't infer it from the results he had previously. Remember he didn't know the team classification existed back then. :D
In the 1993 and 1994 Tours Dupont, where he was going for the win, his time trialing stunk. 1993, he was caught and passed by Alcala, and in 1994 he was caught and watched by Ekimov.

In 1995 he magically:rolleyes: turned the corner, and figured out how to time trial.
 
Jul 30, 2009
38
0
0
Bag_O_Wallet said:
In the 1993 and 1994 Tours Dupont, where he was going for the win, his time trialing stunk. 1993, he was caught and passed by Alcala, and in 1994 he was caught and watched by Ekimov.

In 1995 he magically:rolleyes: turned the corner, and figured out how to time trial.
I guess when i think about people stinking at TT's and then coming good I think about all the riders that stank and then much improved at them - the Chiappucci's of this world. I really should continue that thought to the obvious conclusion... :p
 
Jun 19, 2009
4,841
0
0
clearhop said:
I guess when i think about people stinking at TT's and then coming good I think about all the riders that stank and then much improved at them - the Chiappucci's of this world. I really should continue that thought to the obvious conclusion... :p
That's not a bad idea. Also think about the dramatic moment in Lance's tour when Big Mig did a 3 minute fly-by on him like he was standing still. I peg that as the moment he would do whatever necessary to become credible as a TT rider.
 
Jun 18, 2009
1,108
0
0
Oldman said:
Also think about the dramatic moment in Lance's tour when Big Mig did a 3 minute fly-by on him like he was standing still. I peg that as the moment he would do whatever necessary to become credible as a TT rider.
Sorry, but this is ridiculous. You're going to say Armstrong wasn't a credible TT'r because of this?

Newsflash: Indurain also beat Boardman by over 5 minutes in that time trial. And people call Armstrong a fraud?

Armstrong was a little over a minute down on Boardman over 60KM, and that was pre-Ferrari. If that's not "a credible TT rider", then we simply have different definitions of the word "credible". Comparing him to Indurain (who had already been working with Conconi for years by that point) and claiming "he wasn't a good time trialist" is utter nonsense.

Remember, I hate Lance too. But let's not make up history, either.
 
Jun 19, 2009
4,841
0
0
131313 said:
Sorry, but this is ridiculous. You're going to say Armstrong wasn't a credible TT'r because of this?

Newsflash: Indurain also beat Boardman by over 5 minutes in that time trial. And people call Armstrong a fraud?

Armstrong was a little over a minute down on Boardman over 60KM, and that was pre-Ferrari. If that's not "a credible TT rider", then we simply have different definitions of the word "credible". Comparing him to Indurain (who had already been working with Conconi for years by that point) and claiming "he wasn't a good time trialist" is utter nonsense.

Remember, I hate Lance too. But let's not make up history, either.
Lance was Indurain's 3 minute man and he was caught well before the finish. I'm sure he lost more time and you probably know how much that is. By the way; I'm not suggesting Boardman was pristine after that event, either. What I do know is that LA was not among the strongest on any TTT team or as an individual TT performer on a team until after that event. This information comes from his teammates; not my opinion or your opinion.
I emphasized the event; not any remedies.
 
Mar 11, 2009
3,827
0
0
Dr. Maserati said:
Actually I don't believe anyone has said that.

Many - including myself - will agree on his talent.
I remember following his progress closely at the time, but it was obvious that by the end of 1994 he was not consistent enough over 3 weeks (any 3 weeks).

You have a bad day in a 3 week GT your quest for overall glory is gone. In a clean/level environment he could have top 10s.
It was obvious? In 1994?
coffee--->nose---->keyboard...lol

13 Tour Starts - More than ANY Multiple Tour Winner
(those early years toughened Lance like Heat to a Sword BTW)

9 Podium Appearances in Paris

7 Tour wins in a Row. THE Streak.

But it was obvious in 1994 that Lance was not consistent enough?

I will give you this much Dr Maserati, Mr MD.
It is a noble man that can admit to his mistakes:)
 
Jun 19, 2009
11,437
0
0
Polish said:
It was obvious? In 1994?
coffee--->nose---->keyboard...lol

13 Tour Starts - More than ANY Multiple Tour Winner
(those early years toughened Lance like Heat to a Sword BTW)

9 Podium Appearances in Paris

7 Tour wins in a Row. THE Streak.

But it was obvious in 1994 that Lance was not consistent enough?

I will give you this much Dr Maserati, Mr MD.
It is a noble man that can admit to his mistakes:)
Hey Polish - I have already told the story of how I was asked right before the 91 Tour what did I think of Indurains chances and I scoffed and said "Indurain will never win a Tour de France"...

Of course this hypothetical discussion is on Lance being CLEAN .... theres no nobility on my part - but I hope you enjoyed your express coffee.
 
Jun 18, 2009
1,108
0
0
Oldman said:
Lance was Indurain's 3 minute man and he was caught well before the finish. I'm sure he lost more time and you probably know how much that is. By the way; I'm not suggesting Boardman was pristine after that event, either. What I do know is that LA was not among the strongest on any TTT team or as an individual TT performer on a team until after that event. This information comes from his teammates; not my opinion or your opinion.
I emphasized the event; not any remedies.
I'd rather go on the actual results versus opinion, whether it by mine, yours, or Armstrong's teammates. As we both know, a ton of the guys in the top 15 were already on the Conconi/Ferrari plan. And, he beat all of his teammates who were supposedly better time trialists than he was?

This result, in this field, seems to strongly suggest that he didn't suddenly discover time trialing after he met Ferrari. This isn't my opinion, this is simply looking at the evidence objectively.

Remember, when looking at the results, this is pre-Ferrari for Armstrong, and Gewiss and Mapei were already systematically on the EPO train. Castorama was also systematically doping (De Las Cuevas was working with Ferrari as early as '91).

That Indurain video seems like a seminal piece of "evidence" that Armstrong sucked as a time trialists until he met Ferrari. The facts simply don't bear that out. Remove the guys using EPO from the top 15, and he's likely in the top 3 in that famous clip....

1994 Stage 9

1 Miguel Indurain (Banesto) SPA 1h 15' 58
2 Tony Rominger (Mapei - Clas) SWI + 02' 00
3 Armand De Las Cuevas (Castorama) FRA + 04' 22
4 Thierry Marie (Castorama) FRA + 04' 45
5 Chris Boardman (Gan) GBR + 05' 27
6 Bjarne Riis (Gewiss - Ballan) DEN + 05' 33
7 Thomas Davy (Castorama) FRA + 05' 35
8 Abraham Olano Manzano (Mapei - Clas) SPA + 05' 45
9 Arturas Kasputis (Chazal - MBK - Koenig) LTU + 06' 01
10 Piotr Ugrumov (Gewiss - Ballan) LAT + 06' 04
11 Gianluca Bortolami (Mapei - Clas) ITA + 06' 12
12 Nico Emonds (Mapei - Clas) BEL + 06' 16
13 Lance Armstrong (Motorola) USA + 06' 23
14 Jean François Bernard (Banesto) FRA + 06' 44
15 Sean Yates (Motorola) GBR + 06' 50
16 Djamolidine Abdoujaparov (Team Polti) UZB + 06' 52
17 Flavio Vanzella (Gb-Mg Technogym) ITA + 07' 15
18 Johan Museeuw (Gb-Mg Technogym) BEL + 07' 16
19 Vladimir Poulnikov (Carrera Jeans - Tassoni) URS + 07' 20
20 Paul Egli SWI + 07' 22
 
Jun 19, 2009
4,841
0
0
131313 said:
I'd rather go on the actual results versus opinion, whether it by mine, yours, or Armstrong's teammates. As we both know, a ton of the guys in the top 15 were already on the Conconi/Ferrari plan. And, he beat all of his teammates who were supposedly better time trialists than he was?

This result, in this field, seems to strongly suggest that he didn't suddenly discover time trialing after he met Ferrari. This isn't my opinion, this is simply looking at the evidence objectively.

Remember, when looking at the results, this is pre-Ferrari for Armstrong, and Gewiss and Mapei were already systematically on the EPO train. Castorama was also systematically doping (De Las Cuevas was working with Ferrari as early as '91).

That Indurain video seems like a seminal piece of "evidence" that Armstrong sucked as a time trialists until he met Ferrari. The facts simply don't bear that out. Remove the guys using EPO from the top 15, and he's likely in the top 3 in that famous clip....

1994 Stage 9

1 Miguel Indurain (Banesto) SPA 1h 15' 58
2 Tony Rominger (Mapei - Clas) SWI + 02' 00
3 Armand De Las Cuevas (Castorama) FRA + 04' 22
4 Thierry Marie (Castorama) FRA + 04' 45
5 Chris Boardman (Gan) GBR + 05' 27
6 Bjarne Riis (Gewiss - Ballan) DEN + 05' 33
7 Thomas Davy (Castorama) FRA + 05' 35
8 Abraham Olano Manzano (Mapei - Clas) SPA + 05' 45
9 Arturas Kasputis (Chazal - MBK - Koenig) LTU + 06' 01
10 Piotr Ugrumov (Gewiss - Ballan) LAT + 06' 04
11 Gianluca Bortolami (Mapei - Clas) ITA + 06' 12
12 Nico Emonds (Mapei - Clas) BEL + 06' 16
13 Lance Armstrong (Motorola) USA + 06' 23
14 Jean François Bernard (Banesto) FRA + 06' 44
15 Sean Yates (Motorola) GBR + 06' 50
16 Djamolidine Abdoujaparov (Team Polti) UZB + 06' 52
17 Flavio Vanzella (Gb-Mg Technogym) ITA + 07' 15
18 Johan Museeuw (Gb-Mg Technogym) BEL + 07' 16
19 Vladimir Poulnikov (Carrera Jeans - Tassoni) URS + 07' 20
20 Paul Egli SWI + 07' 22
I agree with the assessment by removal of the EPO results and I should be clearer where Armstrong sat among his peers; these comments were meant to reflect his natural and unassisted talent. He was doing everything short of Ferrari's and Conconi's finest supplements at this point so don't mix the information. I said this event convinced him to step up his protocol to match those around him; which he subsequently did. That he had already supplemented his own ability to get to this point is not something that can be ignored unless you accept the whole pristine image.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS