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

[Polish]

How did Big Mig ITT in 1986, his second year as a Pro?

I would bet dollars to donuts he did not ride 54+km/per hour like Lance did in his 1994 second year.

 

[Berzin]

The premise here, if I'm not mistaken, is that doping did not make Armstrong a great Tour champion.

Yes it did. I refer back to that first time trial and the mountain stage to Sestrieres of the 1999 Tour.

All of a sudden he was beating the rest of the field in disciplines he never excelled at on such a prestigious stage.

The Tour de France is NOT the Tour Du Pont, where Armstrong fought against those illustrious Tour contenders Ekimov and Raul Alcala.

The TdF is longer, harder and consists of the best competition in the world.

Ferarri did indeed utilize the most advanced doping methods of the day to create a Tour winner out of a one day Classics Clydesdale.

The fact that Polish wants to make an argument against this simply shows how little he knows. Prevailing wisdom that dope doesn't cause a carthorse to become a thoroughbred is easily dismissed by every single one of Armstrong's Tour victories.

You can hypnotize yourself into believing anything if you just wish for it hard enough. Others who are a bit more skeptical have at their disposal the ability to think critically. But for this one would need a cohesively working brain not fogged by fanboy delirium.

 

[flicker]

The premise here, if I'm not mistaken, is that doping did not make Armstrong a great Tour champion.

Yes it did. I refer back to that first time trial and the mountain stage to Sestrieres of the 1999 Tour.

All of a sudden he was beating the rest of the field in disciplines he never excelled at on such a prestigious stage.

The Tour de France is NOT the Tour Du Pont, where Armstrong fought against those illustrious Tour contenders Ekimov and Raul Alcala.

The TdF is longer, harder and consists of the best competition in the world.

Ferarri did indeed utilize the most advanced doping methods of the day to create a Tour winner out of a one day Classics Clydesdale.

The fact that Polish wants to make an argument against this simply shows how little he knows. Prevailing wisdom that dope doesn't cause a carthorse to become a thoroughbred is easily dismissed by every single one of Armstrong's Tour victories.

You can hypnotize yourself into believing anything if you just wish for it hard enough. Others who are a bit more skeptical have at their disposal the ability to think critically. But for this one would need a cohesively working brain not fogged by fanboy delirium.

I do not buy your logic. All the dope in the world does not a champion make. If you or I were to be given the full throttle elixer would we be champions. ?Me no, maybe you. I doubt it.

 

[ultimobici]

The premise here, if I'm not mistaken, is that doping did not make Armstrong a great Tour champion.

Yes it did. I refer back to that first time trial and the mountain stage to Sestrieres of the 1999 Tour.

All of a sudden he was beating the rest of the field in disciplines he never excelled at on such a prestigious stage.

The Tour de France is NOT the Tour Du Pont, where Armstrong fought against those illustrious Tour contenders Ekimov and Raul Alcala.

The TdF is longer, harder and consists of the best competition in the world.

Ferarri did indeed utilize the most advanced doping methods of the day to create a Tour winner out of a one day Classics Clydesdale.

The fact that Polish wants to make an argument against this simply shows how little he knows. Prevailing wisdom that dope doesn't cause a carthorse to become a thoroughbred is easily dismissed by every single one of Armstrong's Tour victories.

You can hypnotize yourself into believing anything if you just wish for it hard enough. Others who are a bit more skeptical have at their disposal the ability to think critically. But for this one would need a cohesively working brain not fogged by fanboy delirium.

I'd agree with you except for the highlighted bit.

Ferrari's methods prove that modern dope can do this, and made/make it almost impossible to win clean.

Charly Mottet, Giles Delion & their ilk wouldn't have won anywhere near the amount they did in the post EPO era. Is it any wonder Delion retired at barely 30? His 1990 season was stellar, but it's almost as if he hit the buffers in 1991.

 

[131313]

The premise here, if I'm not mistaken, is that doping did not make Armstrong a great Tour champion.

Yes it did. I refer back to that first time trial and the mountain stage to Sestrieres of the 1999 Tour.

All of a sudden he was beating the rest of the field in disciplines he never excelled at on such a prestigious stage.

My premise is that many of the haters have as difficult a time of looking at things critically as the chamois-sniffers. Case in point is your TT reference. If you actually look at the prior results, you point is simply not sustainable.

You'll always believe what you want to believe, and will a lot of people. I'd rather look objectively at the facts. I'd like it better if I could say he was a total no-talent hack or "clydesdale", but the evidence suggests otherwise.

My opinion: we'll never know how he'd have fared in a clean peloton, but I imagine he'd have won the tour, probably more than once, in years that suited him. I highly doubt he'd have won 7.

He was no more a "donkey" than Indurain. They both appeared to be good one-day racers who showed promise for stage racing, and they both appeared to go down the dark path to get what they wanted. Big Tex was a lot more Machiavellian about it, though, and a lot bigger d-bag, which is why we're talking about him instead of Indurain.

 

[roundabout]

Did Armstrong begin working with Ferrari before or after the 1995 Tour de France? I'm curious because his TT performance in the Tour didn't really improve in 1995.

 

[hrotha]

Did Armstrong begin working with Ferrari before or after the 1995 Tour de France? I'm curious because his TT performance in the Tour didn't really improve in 1995.

I think it was before the TdF, but anyway it's hard to judge because I doubt Armstrong gave his all in those TTs. He was a stage hunter back then, he wasn't going for the GC, he wouldn't and shouldn't have tired himself too much in those stages.

To judge LA's pre-cancer TT skills, I'm afraid we won't have much aside from races like the 1996 Tour Du Pont, where he beat Rominger and Nardello in the TT. I'm inclined to agree with 131313 that his result in that 1994 TdF TT suggests he was pretty decent and with ample room for improvement.

 

[roundabout]

I understand that he was a stage hunter, my argument is that a long TT like that is a good test of progress in the discipline (at least the first one which had a rest day and 2 high mountain stages following). Who knows, maybe he and Ferrari saw it differently.

http://autobus.cyclingnews.com/results/archives/april95/dupont.html

Here's a link suggesting that Armstrong worked on his TT in 1995.

 

[hrotha]

I just checked his 1995 results.

The prologue doesn't count because it rained and Jacky Durand won. Now maybe it was dry when Armstrong rode, but I have no idea so I can't analyze it one way or another. He was 43rd by the way.

In stage 8, 54 km, he was 19th, 5:09 behind Indurain. Not an improvement over this 1994 results but a sign of a decent time-trialer (but not a specialist).

In stage 19, 46.5 km, he was 43rd again, 6:24 behind Indurain. This might be a sign that recovery over three weeks wasn't exactly Armstrong's forte.

Not sure what my point is, by the way. I think his 1998 Vuelta is more or less what I would have expected from 1995 Lance if I was particularly optimistic.

 

[131313]

Did Armstrong begin working with Ferrari before or after the 1995 Tour de France? I'm curious because his TT performance in the Tour didn't really improve in 1995.

Not until November, '95 according to this most awesome article: http://www.scribd.com/doc/32068763/Paging-Doctor-Ferrari-by-Bill-Gifford

The following year he put almost 30 seconds into Rominger over 9 miles in the DuPont TT. That's the Ferrari effect right there.

 

[hrotha]

Not until November, '95 according to this most awesome article: http://www.scribd.com/doc/32068763/Paging-Doctor-Ferrari-by-Bill-Gifford

The following year he put almost 30 seconds into Rominger over 9 miles in the DuPont TT. That's the Ferrari effect right there.

I stand corrected then.

 

[Berzin]

My premise is that many of the haters have as difficult a time of looking at things critically as the chamois-sniffers. Case in point is your TT reference. If you actually look at the prior results, you point is simply not sustainable.

You'll always believe what you want to believe, and will a lot of people. I'd rather look objectively at the facts. I'd like it better if I could say he was a total no-talent hack or "clydesdale", but the evidence suggests otherwise.

Your issue is one of semantics. Armstrong was a "clydesdale" in comparison to other Tour contenders. Armstrong had what it took to contest one-day races and shorter weeklong stage races of smaller stature, but never the Tour.

In comparison to Tour contenders, who must show proficiency in climbing mountains over 2,000 meters day in and day out, the pedigree was never there. Neither was his time trialing.

My opinion: we'll never know how he'd have fared in a clean peloton, but I imagine he'd have won the tour, probably more than once, in years that suited him. I highly doubt he'd have won 7.

He was no more a "donkey" than Indurain. They both appeared to be good one-day racers who showed promise for stage racing, and they both appeared to go down the dark path to get what they wanted. Big Tex was a lot more Machiavellian about it, though, and a lot bigger d-bag, which is why we're talking about him instead of Indurain.

I seriously beg to differ on this one. Indurain had a natural progression up the TdF standings, from...

DNF in 1984 (stage 4)
DNF in 1985 (stage 8) to...

...97th place in '87
47th in ''88
17th in 1989 (including a solo breakaway tour stage in the mountains)
10th in 1990 and then the rest was history.

He made his mark in smaller stage races like the Tour de L'Avenir (1986)

Paris-Nice (1989-1990)

Criterium International (1989)

Volta a Catalunya (1988).

During his time at Banesto Indurain was groomed for stage races by riding as a domestique for Pedro Delgado. The pedigree was there. For you to dismiss his climb up the ranks as a Tour rider and compare it to Armstrongs' is simply incorrect.

If you've ever read what other riders said about riding against Indurain in the '86 Tour de L'Avenir, you will see that his motor for grand Tours was there the whole time. Other riders clearly noticed it, and his palmares over time suggested the same.

Compare this with Armstrong's ascension up the Tour ranks. One minute he's getting blown out of the water by Indurain in a time trial by over 5 minutes and then in 1999 he's overtaking Abraham Olano and passing him like he's standing still.

One minute he's riding in the gruppetto in the mountains and then in 2000 Pantani is hanging on for dear life riding against him up Mont Ventoux.

The issue goes off the rails with the comparison of Indurain to Armstrong. They were two totally different riders with different styles and differing strengths and weaknesses. Indurain, though he did win San Sebastian, was NEVER groomed as a one-day rider. NEVER. His strengths were climbing and time trialing for three week Tours. This was evident from the get-go.

As for doping making a champion out of a donkey, yes it can happen. Perfect example is Claudio Chiappucci. An anonymous pro rider until the 1990 Tour, the first year of the so-called "Italian Renaissance" in cycling. Look at the record books to see how Italians were winning almost everything for a few years on trot.

I would say this is an objective take on the situation. I don't see what else I could have provided to prove my point. You may not agree with it, but like I said you began by incorrectly comparing two riders who could not be more dissimilar at the start of their respective careers. What I mean by this is, given the way both riders started off, Indurain becoming a Tour champion was not a stretch. Armstrong? No one would have fathomed one win much less seven, especially given the highly unlikely excuses given at the time which any sports physiologist worth half his salt could have poked holes in (the higher cadence, the dubious weight loss, etc.).

 

[buckwheat]

Your issue is one of semantics. Armstrong was a "clydesdale" in comparison to other Tour contenders. Armstrong had what it took to contest one-day races and shorter weeklong stage races of smaller stature, but never the Tour.

In comparison to Tour contenders, who must show proficiency in climbing mountains over 2,000 meters day in and day out, the pedigree was never there. Neither was his time trialing.



I seriously beg to differ on this one. Indurain had a natural progression up the TdF standings, from...

DNF in 1984 (stage 4)
DNF in 1985 (stage 8) to...

...97th place in '87
47th in ''88
17th in 1989 (including a solo breakaway tour stage in the mountains)
10th in 1990 and then the rest was history.

He made his mark in smaller stage races like the Tour de L'Avenir (1986)

Paris-Nice (1989-1990)

Criterium International (1989)

Volta a Catalunya (1988).

During his time at Banesto Indurain was groomed for stage races by riding as a domestique for Pedro Delgado. The pedigree was there. For you to dismiss his climb up the ranks as a Tour rider and compare it to Armstrongs' is simply incorrect.

If you've ever read what other riders said about riding against Indurain in the '86 Tour de L'Avenir, you will see that his motor for grand Tours was there the whole time. Other riders clearly noticed it, and his palmares over time suggested the same.

Compare this with Armstrong's ascension up the Tour ranks. One minute he's getting blown out of the water by Indurain in a time trial by over 5 minutes and then in 1999 he's overtaking Abraham Olano and passing him like he's standing still.

One minute he's riding in the gruppetto in the mountains and then in 2000 Pantani is hanging on for dear life riding against him up Mont Ventoux.

The issue goes off the rails with the comparison of Indurain to Armstrong. They were two totally different riders with different styles and differing strengths and weaknesses. Indurain, though he did win San Sebastian, was NEVER groomed as a one-day rider. NEVER. His strengths were climbing and time trialing for three week Tours. This was evident from the get-go.

As for doping making a champion out of a donkey, yes it can happen. Perfect example is Claudio Chiappucci. An anonymous pro rider until the 1990 Tour, the first year of the so-called "Italian Renaissance" in cycling. Look at the record books to see how Italians were winning almost everything for a few years on trot.

I would say this is an objective take on the situation. I don't see what else I could have provided to prove my point. You may not agree with it, but like I said you began by incorrectly comparing two riders who could not be more dissimilar at the start of their respective careers. What I mean by this is, given the way both riders started off, Indurain becoming a Tour champion was not a stretch. Armstrong? No one would have fathomed one win much less seven, especially given the highly unlikely excuses given at the time which any sports physiologist worth half his salt could have poked holes in (the higher cadence, the dubious weight loss, etc.).

Phil Anderson was also hating on Pharmstrong for GT's.

Ah, what the heck does he know?

 

[NashbarShorts]

Not until November, '95 according to this most awesome article: http://www.scribd.com/doc/32068763/Paging-Doctor-Ferrari-by-Bill-Gifford.

Thanks for posting that link. I had read that article in the past but the link I used had gone dead.

That is a great article and should be required reading for anyone who posts in "The Clinic", or has an opinion on LA in general.

 

[redtreviso]

Remind me again about all the classics LA won...

 

[kurtinsc]

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

I would argue correctly - No Way.

Others would argue "of course, its already been done - Lance"
To those "others" I ask the question....name another besides Lance....

Johan Museeuw? No way Museeuw. Could barely finish doped to the gills.

Michele Bartoli? Maybe win 1 in a row. But 7? Doubt it. Too small a bike.

Frank Vandenbroucke? Potential for maybe 3 in a row. But a bit fragile mentally bless his soul.

Laurent Jalabert? Hmmmm...he WAS awesome. Kinda like Lance. But he was doped right? And still did not win one. Win 7 in a row? Nope sorry.

Spartacus? He is awesome too! But could dope turn him into a strong enough climber to win one two three four five six seven in a row? You think?


So, was Lance One of a Kind?
I already Know the Answer to that one lol!

I don't think a northern classics rider could. In general it seems like they tend to be heavier frames, which makes it much tougher.

But a San Sebastian/Liege type guy? I don't see why not. Look at some of the winners of Liege. Vino. Schleck. Valverde. Hamilton. Berzin.

These guys are/were all contenders in the GT's. With a strong enough program in relation to their rivals, a strong team and good luck in avoiding mishaps... why not?

 

[Kennf1]

Remind me again about all the classics LA won...

Fleche Wallone (1996). Arguably the most prestigious of all the Spring classics. Although the only people arguing that are in the Wallone region.

 

[Oldman]

Phil Anderson was also hating on Pharmstrong for GT's.

Ah, what the heck does he know?

Ah, yes; what does he know? I'd expect quite alot. He lived near here for a few years and rode with the locals. Some casual information was passed and his analysis was consistent with what you said until Lance went off the charts at the start of one season in particular, I think the year after the Atlanta Olympic games='97. Not everyone on Moto was into PED's and no one, not even Ochowicz had an idea what Lance was into.

And Berzin-you pointed out what I've said all along: an average rider can become a serious GT rider it their PED regime enhances recovery out of scale with the rest of the peloton.

 

[Polish]

And Berzin-you pointed out what I've said all along: an average rider can become a serious GT rider it their PED regime enhances recovery out of scale with the rest of the peloton.

So that goes back to my original post....

I say an average rider can NOT be doped to win multiple TdF's.
You need additional attributes and habits and work ethic.

You and Berzin (and others) say an average rider CAN be doped to win multiple TdF's. Dope can make average turn into awesome.

But can we ALL agree that Lance was the ONLY average rider who was ever doped to win multiple TdF's?

Lance is ONE of a KIND in that regard, right?

 

[redtreviso]

Fleche Wallone (1996). Arguably the most prestigious of all the Spring classics. Although the only people arguing that are in the Wallone region.

So prestigious that it is held on a wednesday? Those that raced the sunday before don't show, and those racing the sunday after too.

 

[Oldman]

So that goes back to my original post....

I say an average rider can NOT be doped to win multiple TdF's.
You need additional attributes and habits and work ethic.

You and Berzin (and others) say an average rider CAN be doped to win multiple TdF's. Dope can make average turn into awesome.

But can we ALL agree that Lance was the ONLY average rider who was ever doped to win multiple TdF's?

Lance is ONE of a KIND in that regard, right?

Pole-we're getting closer to agreeing on the elements that qualified Lance. He had the work ethic, the financial means and the psychology that made it the prime directive in his life.
Maybe I was focusing on natural physical attributes alone and that's been the crux of my comments; he was not the most distinctive/dominant specimen. You are correct that without the pathology and other opportunities you wouldn't win a single Tour; unless you are lucky like Chiappucci and almost get one handed to you.

 

[Polish]

Pole-we're getting closer to agreeing on the elements that qualified Lance. He had the work ethic, the financial means and the psychology that made it the prime directive in his life.
Maybe I was focusing on natural physical attributes alone and that's been the crux of my comments; he was not the most distinctive/dominant specimen. You are correct that without the pathology and other opportunities you wouldn't win a single Tour; unless you are lucky like Chiappucci and almost get one handed to you.

Oldman, if I am hearing you correctly - I think I agree with you!

If you take an average rider and dope them to the gills - you end up with an average rider doped to the gills, NOT a multiple TdF Winner. You end up with a Kohl or a Friel or a Schumi or a Chiapucci.

But if you take an average rider and dope them to the gills - and then ADD as you say:

work ethic
financial means
natural physical attributes
the pathology
prime directive in his life

Only THEN would you get a multiple Tour Winner from an average rider.
(Something that has never happened before btw. ALL the multiple TdF winners up to now, doped or clean, have NOT been average riders.)

But Oldman, if I may be so bold - could I add a few more things to your list of what made average rider Lance a Multiple TdF winner?

Watching what he ate (no more bags of tacochips in one sitting)
Oxygen Tent
Reconning Stages
Wind Tunnel Testing
Team Leadership Ability
Peaking in July

 

[flicker]

Oldman, if I am hearing you correctly - I think I agree with you!

If you take an average rider and dope them to the gills - you end up with an average rider doped to the gills, NOT a multiple TdF Winner. You end up with a Kohl or a Friel or a Schumi or a Chiapucci.

But if you take an average rider and dope them to the gills - and then ADD as you say:

work ethic
financial means
natural physical attributes
the pathology
prime directive in his life

Only THEN would you get a multiple Tour Winner from an average rider.
(Something that has never happened before btw. ALL the multiple TdF winners up to now, doped or clean, have NOT been average riders.)

But Oldman, if I may be so bold - could I add a few more things to your list of what made average rider Lance a Multiple TdF winner?

Watching what he ate (no more bags of tacochips in one sitting)
Oxygen Tent
Reconning Stages
Wind Tunnel Testing
Team Leadership Ability
Peaking in July

If I did all that I would have 8 TdF victories , no doubt. I am a way more talented rider than Lance is I beat him in many races. Who is he just some doper with yellow plastic buna ring. Oh what a dush he is.

 

[Oldman]

Oldman, if I am hearing you correctly - I think I agree with you!

If you take an average rider and dope them to the gills - you end up with an average rider doped to the gills, NOT a multiple TdF Winner. You end up with a Kohl or a Friel or a Schumi or a Chiapucci.

But if you take an average rider and dope them to the gills - and then ADD as you say:

work ethic
financial means
natural physical attributes
the pathology
prime directive in his life

Only THEN would you get a multiple Tour Winner from an average rider.
(Something that has never happened before btw. ALL the multiple TdF winners up to now, doped or clean, have NOT been average riders.)

But Oldman, if I may be so bold - could I add a few more things to your list of what made average rider Lance a Multiple TdF winner?

Watching what he ate (no more bags of tacochips in one sitting)
Oxygen Tent
Reconning Stages
Wind Tunnel Testing
Team Leadership Ability
Peaking in July

Polish-yes, but any of the contenders better be doing this stuff or they have no plan. I don't think there has been a Tour winner in decades that lacked any of those qualities except Lemond, when he had to fight Hinault for the reins of his team. Scary thought we'd agree. Flicker is going to be so disappointed.

 

[Polish]

[/B]

Polish-yes, but any of the contenders better be doing this stuff or they have no plan. I don't think there has been a Tour winner in decades that lacked any of those qualities except Lemond, when he had to fight Hinault for the reins of his team. Scary thought we'd agree. Flicker is going to be so disappointed.

Agreed.

Have your people call my people and we can get this signed off.