Cycling News should.......

[131313]

I'll confess that I have a hard time figuring out the pathological obsession with Armstrong.

What I really don't understand is this myth which some perpetuate that he was an average rider who only had success in the Tour because he was doping. This just doesn't make any sense.

If people believe he suddenly became a climber because he started doping, well, that must mean those same people thought he was clean when he won worlds? That seems like a curious position to take, and it may be worth taking a look at the results sheet from the WC's in the early and mid-nineties.

His progression wasn't much different that Indurain's, a hilly one-day and short stage race guy turned into a GT guy over time.

He's always been an incredible talent. I think people are so blinded with (understandable) hate that they're just unwilling to admit this. And in the end I don't think hating Lance really helps anything.

People are going to believe in Santa Claus. At a certain point you just have to live with that fact and get on with your life and worry about the stuff you can control.

 

[red_flanders]

What I really don't understand is this myth which some perpetuate that he was an average rider who only had success in the Tour because he was doping. This just doesn't make any sense.

If people believe he suddenly became a climber because he started doping, well, that must mean those same people thought he was clean when he won worlds? That seems like a curious position to take, and it may be worth taking a look at the results sheet from the WC's in the early and mid-nineties.

Did you see the worlds he won? If not, check it out on video, the whole race. The field was absolutely decimated. He got away because he was unmarked and the course was an ice rink.

It was a good, opportunistic win, and he completely deserved it. But it was in no way an indication of future power in the Tour or any other GT.

I think you'll find few if any people who think Armstrong was on a systematic program of any kind before late '94 - '95.

Here's a video I just posted in another thread--the true talent of the pre Ferrari Armstrong. He later went on to BEAT Indurain's times over TT courses. Absurd.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HmR9k8UAohs

 

[poupou]

If people believe he suddenly became a climber because he started doping, well, that must mean those same people thought he was clean when he won worlds? That seems like a curious position to take, and it may be worth taking a look at the results sheet from the WC's in the early and mid-nineties.

His progression wasn't much different that Indurain's, a hilly one-day and short stage race guy turned into a GT guy over time.

Good comparaison when you know the links between Indurain and Conconi's disciples.

You could have taken Riis as an other sample. Of course Riis' EPO transformation became when he was older.

He's always been an incredible talent. I think people are so blinded with (understandable) hate that they're just unwilling to admit this. And in the end I don't think hating Lance really helps anything.

To say incredible is a bit out of the charts if you compare Lance with Merckx, Hinault, Lemond, Fignon or Contador?

 

[131313]

I think you'll find few if any people who think Armstrong was on a systematic program of any kind before late '94 - '95.

interesting

That says more about the posters on this forum than anything else, IMHO.

 

[131313]

Good comparaison when you know the links between Indurain and Conconi's disciples.

You could have taken Riis as an other sample. Of course Riis' EPO transformation became when he was older.


To say incredible is a bit out of the charts if you compare Lance with Merckx, Hinault, Lemond, Fignon or Contador?

Riis is a poor comparison, and really is a perfect example of a donkey turning into a race horse. Considering some of his other results besides Worlds (US Pro and Tour Dupont), and considering he was still relatively new to the sport, all the indication where there that he was going to be a great rider.

As far as 'incredible', I think all of the guys listed above are also 'incredible talents', and I think LA is probably a bit low on that list, like second to last ahead of Fignon.

 

[red_flanders]

interesting

That says more about the posters on this forum than anything else, IMHO.

Yes, it says that by and large they're informed about what happened in the sport and with Armstrong.

What it says is that Armstrong had a horrible season in 1994. Was subsequently introduced to Ferrari and starting winning a lot in 1995, including many stages of the Tour Du Pont where he climbed as he never had and pounded Tony Rominger in the ITT, showing ITT form he'd never had previously. He rode well into 1996, with several good placings and a couple of big wins. Then cancer hit.

Post cancer he wallowed for a while. Was he scared a bit by the cancer and skipping the dope, or just struggling to find form again? Who knows. What is certain is that he found his form again at the much ballyhooed "Beech mountain" training camp. What's less ballyhooed is that is just about the same time when the re-engagment with Ferrari appears to have occurred.

It's okay if you're not up on this stuff, but don't keep the blinders on. Look it all up for yourself and figure the timelines. The performance gains after his hookup with Ferrari can't be ignored.

 

[pmcg76]

Riis is a poor comparison, and really is a perfect example of a donkey turning into a race horse. Considering some of his other results besides Worlds (US Pro and Tour Dupont), and considering he was still relatively new to the sport, all the indication where there that he was going to be a great rider.

As far as 'incredible', I think all of the guys listed above are also 'incredible talents', and I think LA is probably a bit low on that list, like second to last ahead of Fignon.

A few things, Indurain never went through a dramatic transformation, he gradually improved. He wore leaders jersey in his first Vuelta aged 20 and won numerous small stage races, his Tour placings went 87, 44, 17, 10,1 x 5. He won a mountain stage in 89 and would have finished much higher than 10in 90 if he had not sacrificed himself for Delgado. He had podium places at Vuelta and 2 Paris-Nice before he won the Tour. Always a top TT guy, he never dominated in the mountains the way Lance done, he rode defensively. I wouldnt dispute that Indurain was on the hot sauce however.

Armstrong was a one day racer, a very, very good one winning Worlds and doing well in some classics, yes he won Tour du Pont but against relatively weak fields. The race ran concurrently with Vuelta, Romandy & Dunkirk so most top dogs were in Europe, likewise USROS. Lance was a super, super talent but apart from the worlds, never fulfilled his potential in my eyes until 96 which is when his association with Ferrari began.

In an interview with the late Rich Carlson in Winning magazine early 96, Lance admitted that he would never win the Tour as he didnt have the capacities to do so.

I would agree Lance was probably hindered in his early career as I dont believe that Motorola were on the EPO programmes like most Euro teams, his best Tour placing was 35th in 95, his third attempt. Fignon won his first 2 Tours so technically more talented than Lance, likewise LeMond was finishing high up in Tours early on in his career.

Lance jumped from finishing well down in both mountains and TTs pre-cancer to dominating both post cancer when EPO was still being widely used. I was a big supporter of Lance in his comeback in 99, as I had followed his career from the start and even I was staggered at his improvements, but rather foolishly believed all the spin at the time.

 

[issoisso]

It's always harder to defend someone than it is to smear someone, so you have to give us credit.

The same way that it's harder to deny the sky is blue than admit it, yes

Yes, it says that by and large they're informed about what happened in the sport and with Armstrong.

What it says is that Armstrong had a horrible season in 1994. Was subsequently introduced to Ferrari and starting winning a lot in 1995, including many stages of the Tour Du Pont where he climbed as he never had and pounded Tony Rominger in the ITT, showing ITT form he'd never had previously. He rode well into 1996, with several good placings and a couple of big wins. Then cancer hit.

Post cancer he wallowed for a while. Was he scared a bit by the cancer and skipping the dope, or just struggling to find form again? Who knows. What is certain is that he found his form again at the much ballyhooed "Beech mountain" training camp. What's less ballyhooed is that is just about the same time when the re-engagment with Ferrari appears to have occurred.

It's okay if you're not up on this stuff, but don't keep the blinders on. Look it all up for yourself and figure the timelines. The performance gains after his hookup with Ferrari can't be ignored.

Basically it shows what every doctor that's been frank and honest about systematized doping has said: the same drugs have wildly different effects on different riders....which is the main reason why they're not fair. Armstrong was lucky in that he got a tremendous boost from EPO. Others were even luckier. Most were less lucky. That's not to take away from his prodigious talent, of course.

If the entire peloton was equally doped the results would be markedly different from a completely clean peloton

 

[131313]

Yes, it says that by and large they're informed about what happened in the sport and with Armstrong.

we'll have to agree to disagree on that one

It's okay if you're not up on this stuff, but don't keep the blinders on. Look it all up for yourself and figure the timelines. The performance gains after his hookup with Ferrari can't be ignored.

I don't think I'm the one with the blinders on. I'd suggest taking a little harder at the timelines yourself. He certainly knew how to prepare for racing prior to his association with Ferrari.

 

[poupou]

Riis is a poor comparison, and really is a perfect example of a donkey turning into a race horse. Considering some of his other results besides Worlds (US Pro and Tour Dupont), and considering he was still relatively new to the sport, all the indication where there that he was going to be a great rider.

Tour Dupont was never considered seriously by many teams, just a training race and a good opportunity to promote cycling in US.

A man who never rode with the climbers in his TDF before Ferrari would never be going to be a TDF contender.
Just have a look with all other TDF contenders before EPO, none of us were haf a so poor palmares. All of them challenged mountain stage wins.

 

[red_flanders]

I don't think I'm the one with the blinders on. I'd suggest taking a little harder at the timelines yourself. He certainly knew how to prepare for racing prior to his association with Ferrari.

It's a strange thing to say, as his own coach Chris Carmichael made a big deal about his erratic preparation in the pre-cancer part of his career as part of the explanation for Lance's gains in 1999. The "transformation" to "professional" rider are all part of the PR legend of the Armstrong comeback.

Whether you think he doped or not (and I cannot fathom how anyone could rationalize his cleanliness at this point) it's truly bizarre to suggest he was preparing the same way in 1994 that he did post Ferrari.

 

[pmcg76]

we'll have to agree to disagree on that one




I don't think I'm the one with the blinders on. I'd suggest taking a little harder at the timelines yourself. He certainly knew how to prepare for racing prior to his association with Ferrari.

I dont think anyone is disputing Lance was a big, big talent, he was just more of a classics guy than a GT rider. Everybody including fellow riders had him marked out as the guy to dominate the classics in the 90s, however nobody ever rated his Tour chances. A fair comparison of early career Lance with a current rider would be Philipe Gilbert, do you think Gilbert will ever win a major GT?

 

[red_flanders]

I dont think anyone is disputing Lance was a big, big talent, he was just more of a classics guy than a GT rider. Everybody including fellow riders had him marked out as the guy to dominate the classics in the 90s, however nobody ever rated his Tour chances. A fair comparison of early career Lance with a current rider would be Philipe Gilbert, do you think Gilbert will ever win a major GT?

Quite right. His numbers just weren't there. Not enough sustained power or recovery.

Do people really think that the team doctors, coaches, and Armstrong himself, who decided he wasn't a Tour contender were so wrong? He didn't go for the Tour because he had no reason to think he was a contender.

Another part of the mythology from Bruyneel et. al. is how they had to convince him he could be a GT rider. To go back and forget this is blinders. He was not a GT contender and everyone in the sport knew it, especially Armstrong and his team. I remember getting irritated at him when he made comments after Ullrich's first win that he'd never even bother trying to win the Tour--what's the point with someone like Ullrich coming on the scene. I wanted him to be a rider in the mold of LeMond, but he wasn't. I recall my dad telling me to get real as well.

Hell of a rider. Not a GT contender without a massive increase in sustained power and recovery. That's exactly what he got from Ferrari.

 

[Anonymous]

 

[131313]

What it says is that Armstrong had a horrible season in 1994. Was subsequently introduced to Ferrari....

This is exactly what I'm talking about...

I can't believe that I of all people am sitting here defending Armstrong, whom I pretty much revile.

Personal feelings aside, I can still look objectively at his career and his ability. '94 was a 'horrible year'? 2nd in two classics, winning the hardest one-day US race, second at the Tour duPont (yes, I know it's not giant race), at 23 years old (and, supposedly, not on a 'program').

And, keep in mind he had been cycling competitively for about what, 4 or 5 years at this time? There are a lot of euros (and a smaller number of US riders) who will have been at it for 10 years + by that time.

If people want to make derisive comments about the guy, I'll be the first to get on board, but he was a super talent from the beginning, and I think it's comfortable for people to keep deluding themselves on that issue because of their personal feelings for him.

 

[Anonymous]

I dont think anyone is disputing Lance was a big, big talent, he was just more of a classics guy than a GT rider. Everybody including fellow riders had him marked out as the guy to dominate the classics in the 90s, however nobody ever rated his Tour chances. A fair comparison of early career Lance with a current rider would be Philipe Gilbert, do you think Gilbert will ever win a major GT?

But Armstrong came into pro cycling when the EPO era was really taking off, so you cannot really say he was not cut out for tour riding. Greg LeMond was getting churned out the back at the same period. If LeMond started his career at the same point, you'd be saying he wasn't really cut out for tour riding either. How wrong would that be?

Being able to dominate in the classics is actually a very good sign. The benefits of EPO are much greater for a long tour than they are for a one day event, so it's a much more level playing field.

 

[Anonymous]

The thing about doping is, they usually use different types of drugs each year - one brand of EPO can be quite different to another. Last year there was talk of some endurance pill that changes muscle fibre. To be so consistent in the tour, to my mind, points to something greater than a special reaction to drugs. I don't think that is credible. Remember in this last tour his crit remained about 42/43 for most of the Tour, yet he still scored a third place after four years out and at 37.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

This is exactly what I'm talking about...

I can't believe that I of all people am sitting here defending Armstrong, whom I pretty much revile.

Personal feelings aside, I can still look objectively at his career and his ability. '94 was a 'horrible year'? 2nd in two classics, winning the hardest one-day US race, second at the Tour duPont (yes, I know it's not giant race), at 23 years old (and, supposedly, not on a 'program').

And, keep in mind he had been cycling competitively for about what, 4 or 5 years at this time? There are a lot of euros (and a smaller number of US riders) who will have been at it for 10 years + by that time.

If people want to make derisive comments about the guy, I'll be the first to get on board, but he was a super talent from the beginning, and I think it's comfortable for people to keep deluding themselves on that issue because of their personal feelings for him.

Firstly - I couldn't have written what Pmg76 wrote earlier any better - except to add that Indurain won the Tour de L'Avenir in 1986 and was riding both the Tour and Vuelta every year.

There was no doubting that Armstrong was a talent - I remember being excited when he finally turned Pro in 1992. At the time no-one knew where his talents were. He quickly established himself as a one day racer - who could climb and sprint but his performances were erratic.
In 1993 he started his first Tour - it was preplanned that he retire in the Alps. But it quickly became apparent that he suffered too much in the really long mountains and was inconsistent.
Before he was DNF'd in the 94 Tour he also lost lots of time in the mountains.

So - yes, he was a 'super talent' but never a potential GT winner.

 

[Anonymous]

So - yes, he was a 'super talent' but never a potential GT winner.

And how wrong you turned out to be. 7 in a row and one third at 37.

 

[pmcg76]

And how wrong you turned out to be. 7 in a row and one third at 37.

You must have missed my comment about Armstrong himself admitting in 96 that he would never win the Tour as he didnt have the capacities to do so.

Maybe I am on your ignore list, some times I think I think I am on a lot of peoples ignore list the way they selectively miss the pertinent observations.

 

[Ripper]

You must have missed my comment about Armstrong himself admitting in 96 that he would never win the Tour as he didnt have the capacities to do so.

Maybe I am on your ignore list, some times I think I think I am on a lot of peoples ignore list the way they selectively miss the pertinent observations.

A certain group of posters seem to selectively ignore, specifically arguments that are too filled with fact to refute.

 

[pmcg76]

But Armstrong came into pro cycling when the EPO era was really taking off, so you cannot really say he was not cut out for tour riding. Greg LeMond was getting churned out the back at the same period. If LeMond started his career at the same point, you'd be saying he wasn't really cut out for tour riding either. How wrong would that be?

Being able to dominate in the classics is actually a very good sign. The benefits of EPO are much greater for a long tour than they are for a one day event, so it's a much more level playing field.

So that more less backs our suggestion that he became competitive when he got on the programme, yes. That seems to be what your saying.

I dont disagree with this synopsis, maybe he would have been a contender if the entire peloton was clean but that is hypothetical.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

And .....

Yes - as at the time I had no idea how game changing EPO was.

I got a rude awakening in the mid nineties when I was waiting on a 3rd Cat climb to photograph the peloton. I was expecting Pantani to be at the front and Cippolini to be at the back. Instead it was Cippolini sitting in on his train at the front and Marco was sprinting at the back to hold on.

 

[red_flanders]

If people want to make derisive comments about the guy, I'll be the first to get on board, but he was a super talent from the beginning, and I think it's comfortable for people to keep deluding themselves on that issue because of their personal feelings for him.

Your logic makes no sense. I liked the guy a LOT, then started not to when his actions just became nauseating. My personal feelings were that I liked and defended him for years. Folly.

 

[Anonymous]

You must have missed my comment about Armstrong himself admitting in 96 that he would never win the Tour as he didnt have the capacities to do so.

Ah, Wiggins said that. If you train for different goals and work for other people you never really know.

Maybe I am on your ignore list, some times I think I think I am on a lot of peoples ignore list the way they selectively miss the pertinent observations.

I've noticed you really hate people ignoring you, don't you. Always complaining about it.