Cycling News should.......

[red_flanders]

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

"Not having the capacities" is NOT the same as "not training for that goal". The latter follows the former. Do you see now?

 

[131313]

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.

I simply don't think you can look at guy that (relatively) new to the sport as he was and say he's not a potential GT winner. Again, the thing that gets lost is that he simply wasn't that experienced as compared to other guys his age. As I've said, a lot of 23 year old guys have 10+ years of bike racing. Armstrong didn't, and his career results really look like a natural progression to me. And, just to be a little less obtuse, I just don't believe his 'programme' really changed from his early 20's onward.

As far as the nonsense about him saying he's wasn't going to be a Tour winner, that's the classic defense mechanism to avoid the comparisons to guys who was even a bigger super-talent (LeMond). Eddie B was telling anyone who would listen when he was with Montgomery that LA would dominate the Tour. He still won't shut up about it, as a matter of fact.

Say what you will, but Eddie B knows cycling. He also knows how to prepare.

 

[pmcg76]

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



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

I dont hate people ignoring me as much as people ignoring very relevant points to suit their own purposes. I posted a history of the Simeoni/Lance spat on another thread, didnt see many Lance defenders respond to that, Why? Because when facts are displayed in a logical factual manner that makes Lance look bad, Lance defenders generally ignore it and instead fall back on the PR spin Armstrong prmotes. If people want to debate properly, they should do the research before complaining about it. "Oh that Simeoni is a whiner" because Lance says so.

Lance was team leader at Motorola in 95-96. He said he didnt have the capabilities to win the Tour, not he wasnt focusing on it. The Tour is the biggest event in cycling, especially to Americans, if Lance thought he had the capabilities to win it, he would have focused on it from the start like LeMond, Fignon, Delgado, all the great Tour riders. He knew he couldnt so he went with the classics.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

I simply don't think you can look at guy that (relatively) new to the sport as he was and say he's not a potential GT winner. Again, the thing that gets lost is that he simply wasn't that experienced as compared to other guys his age. As I've said, a lot of 23 year old guys have 10+ years of bike racing. Armstrong didn't, and his career results really look like a natural progression to me. And, just to be a little less obtuse, I just don't believe his 'programme' really changed from his early 20's onward.

As far as the nonsense about him saying he's wasn't going to be a Tour winner, that's the classic defense mechanism to avoid the comparisons to guys who was even a bigger super-talent (LeMond). Eddie B was telling anyone who would listen when he was with Montgomery that LA would dominate the Tour. He still won't shut up about it, as a matter of fact.

Say what you will, but Eddie B knows cycling. He also knows how to prepare.

I agree to a point - you could overlook 93, as indeed I did at the time. But by 1995 it was clear he could not hold on in the mountain stages.

Phil Anderson rode alongside Lance on the first 2 mountain stages in 1993 -Anderson assessment was- "He was a one day rider.I thought he could never, ever, win the Tour de France, even he thought he couldn't win the Tour. He couldn't climb and couldn't time-trial, two things you have to do to win the Tour."

Here is a report of Stage 9 in the 1995 Tour the first mountain stage - Armstrong tries to break away to join a group, fails and finishes the stage 40th at 17:58 back.

He finished the 95 Tour in 36th, 1 hour 28 mins down - now for me that was an excellent finish but with that and showing no other stage racing capabilities in Europe (even week long races) there was nothing to suggest his domination in GT's in 1999.

 

[pmcg76]

I simply don't think you can look at guy that (relatively) new to the sport as he was and say he's not a potential GT winner. Again, the thing that gets lost is that he simply wasn't that experienced as compared to other guys his age. As I've said, a lot of 23 year old guys have 10+ years of bike racing. Armstrong didn't, and his career results really look like a natural progression to me. And, just to be a little less obtuse, I just don't believe his 'programme' really changed from his early 20's onward.

As far as the nonsense about him saying he's wasn't going to be a Tour winner, that's the classic defense mechanism to avoid the comparisons to guys who was even a bigger super-talent (LeMond). Eddie B was telling anyone who would listen when he was with Montgomery that LA would dominate the Tour. He still won't shut up about it, as a matter of fact.

Say what you will, but Eddie B knows cycling. He also knows how to prepare.

So straight up, do you think Philipe Gilbert is a potential GT winner?

 

[Dr. Maserati]

So straight up, do you think Philipe Gilbert is a potential GT winner?

Actually a more interesting observation is Stijn Devolder - after getting 11th in the 2007 Vuelta and having done well in some stage races he concentrated on doing a good GC ride for the 2008 Tour.
He even went and rode all the mountains in May -Snow stops Devolder.

His reward - he abandoned on Stage 15, he was 26th - this year he finished 81st and he has said he does not plan to ride the 2010 Tour.

 

[pmcg76]

I simply don't think you can look at guy that (relatively) new to the sport as he was and say he's not a potential GT winner. Again, the thing that gets lost is that he simply wasn't that experienced as compared to other guys his age. As I've said, a lot of 23 year old guys have 10+ years of bike racing. Armstrong didn't, and his career results really look like a natural progression to me. And, just to be a little less obtuse, I just don't believe his 'programme' really changed from his early 20's onward.

As far as the nonsense about him saying he's wasn't going to be a Tour winner, that's the classic defense mechanism to avoid the comparisons to guys who was even a bigger super-talent (LeMond). Eddie B was telling anyone who would listen when he was with Montgomery that LA would dominate the Tour. He still won't shut up about it, as a matter of fact.

Say what you will, but Eddie B knows cycling. He also knows how to prepare.

I know you think we have a certain attitude because we dont like Lance but hear is the deal. I dont know if you followed Lances career all the way but I did, right from his Subaru days and I was a fan. Firstly he won the Settimana Bergamaque stage race in 91 as an amateur, it was a semi-pro race in Italy but a very significant achievement, especially for an amateur.I personally thought he might develop into a great Tour rider.

Eddie B might have talked Lance up but how many riders have been labelled at the next big thing and just never lived up to it. Eddie B coached in the US where cycling knowledge extended to the Tour /Greg so of course thats the comparison he will make. Hell I remember Lance relating a story in his Winning column that the first proper bike he got was called a Paris-Roubaix and he didnt even know it was a race.

I also remember Davis Phinney writing about people comparing Lance with LeMond and he told the cautionary tale of Roy Knickman who was the next big thing but barely lasted a few months in Europe with La Via Claire in 86before heading back to the States. Jamie Burrow is another prime example of a wasted talent. Phinney said at the time " Lance is gonna be huge, just dont call him the next Greg LeMond".

In his early career, nobody as in fellow pros, DSs, retired riders etc thought Lance would become a Tour rider. That was not my opinion, it was the opinion of the vast majority of people in the sport. Everybody had him nailed on as a classics rider. His perfromances backed the appraisals up. Yeah he came to cycling late but he was a top triathlete beforehand. Toni Rominger is another rider who came to cycling very late, I think he was almost in his 20s when he took up cycling but he progressed super quick because he had natural talent.

I will happily admit that he may have been a contender if he came into a clean sport but if that is the case then the likelihood is that he must have doped to get to the same level as the other guys from 99 on. Realistically we can only base our judgements on what he done in the first 4 years of his career and there was no evidence he would be a Tour contender and he concurred with this view himself. The most relevant and bigger part of that interview I referred to was how Lance would mesh with Max Sciandri in the classics as Sciandri had returned to Motorola from Europe. There have been too many might have been stories to attach any major significance to the "Could been a contender" debate.

 

[red_flanders]

I simply don't think you can look at guy that (relatively) new to the sport as he was and say he's not a potential GT winner.

That is in fact EXACTLY what doctors and trainers do for each rider they potentially employ. They do VO2 max, blood, power training and put every single rider into a category. They are correct about a rider's potential from a physiological perspective an alarming amount of the time. They bet on it.

 

[131313]

So straight up, do you think Philipe Gilbert is a potential GT winner?

I think he could be, if the playing field were as level as it was in Armstrong's heyday.

I realize that's not really a 'straight-up answer', but that's all I got.

 

[blackcat]

I think he could be, if the playing field were as level as it was in Armstrong's heyday.

I realize that's not really a 'straight-up answer', but that's all I got.

http://autobus.cyclingnews.com/road/2005/tour05/?id=results/tour0517

Gilbert reckoned there was no way he could ever win the Tour after this stage. There was subtext inferred. He did aspire to winning it. But this year, at Lotto, he did not work for Evans, I do not think they are close after this episode in 2005. But Evans did work in Lombardia for him in 2009. So I reckon Gilbert had given up on it, otherwise he would still be riding even when Evans is team leader.

 

[BYOP88]

I think he could be, if the playing field were as level as it was in Armstrong's heyday.

I realize that's not really a 'straight-up answer', but that's all I got.

Ok excuse my ignorance, but Lance's heyday was when 93-96 or 99-05, if it's the later then it wasn't a level playing field because they were all doping to various levels(although pre-cancer wasn't a level playing field either), some may have responded better to whatever the drug of the day was.
As is normally mentioned how could a "clean" rider win a GT by several minutes over riders who are doping. I don't care how big someone's heart is or what their V02 max is a clean rider will never beat a doper in a 3 week race by 6 minutes, now in a 1 day race they possibly have a chance but a Grand Tour, no chance.

 

[Moose McKnuckles]

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

Especially if you have to make up "facts". So, yeah, you get the FoxNews award. Congrats.

 

[Stephen D Aalderink]

Yeah sure, the eternal Lanceness of The Clinic gets tiresome. But he is one of the most popular, reviled, famous, accomplished, controversial, and polemic figures in sport. Given the amount of information about him, it would be hard to discuss doping without referring to him at some point. And some of the debate is very interesting. The part that is tiresome is the back and forth by people who only want to incite troll wars and those who cannot resist responding. I would like to see a Lance-free thread in The Clinic to find out if the debate would be any better.

Isn't that like removing 85% of all that is cycling? We can only debate tires so long...Get the Michelin's and life will be swell.

 

[pmcg76]

I think he could be, if the playing field were as level as it was in Armstrong's heyday.

I realize that's not really a 'straight-up answer', but that's all I got.

Thank you for answering this question, if you asked me to name a current rider similar to Lance pre-cancer, it would have to be Gilbert, huge talent, won some impressive races but not a GC rider.

The playing field was far less unbalanced in the 90s than currently, by 95/96 it would seem everybody including the French were on EPO. I honestly believe the current peloton is cleaner than the mid 90s.

Sandy Casar and Sylvain Chavanel were two more riders who were also touted as future Tour winners but nowhere near winning. I feel that Casar could have been a contender if it was a level playing field but he has some impressive results nonetheless.

 

[tubularglue]

cycling new should of................

dropped this thread of the cliff of no return.
If no one was around, did it make a noise hitting the ground......?

 

[Big Doopie]

I know you think we have a certain attitude Toni Rominger is another rider who came to cycling very late, I think he was almost in his 20s when he took up cycling but he progressed super quick because he had natural talent.

i agree with everything else you said...but this was a little odd.

rominger did come into the sport fairly late but he finished 80+th in the 1989 tour and showed nothing until he found...

ferrari.

rominger owes his whole career to ferrari and epo.

 

[Steel4Ever]

If you don't like it then
DON'T READ IT

but....you will only know if you don't like it until AFTER you read it!

so....either read ALL of it, or NONE of it.


kind of like brussel sprouts, of which I eat exactly none.

 

[Race Radio]

Some reality on the time line in this thread.

Armstrong was not new to the sport in 1996. He had been a full time professional athlete for almost 10 years. Cycling had been his primary focus for 7 years. He had raced Junior worlds, Pro Worlds, He was not green.

Yes, Eddie B said that Lance would win the Tour when he first met him in the late 80's. Everyone was told endlessly how great "Wonderboy" was until it became clear that he could not TT or climb. His tone changed prior to the Olympics when he questioned Armstrong being named to the team "there's 10 much faster guys, minimum, than Lance (Armstrong),"

There is little doubt that Armstrong was on a program from a very early age. It would be a surprise if Armstrong was somehow the only rider on Carmichael's U23 team that did not use the "Extract of Cortisone". Prior to that he worked with Rick Crawford. Later in his career Rick was telling potential "Coaching" customers they needed "$10,000 and buy a blood spinner".

By all accounts EPO was not widespread in the Pro Peloton until 93-94. Clean riders, like Andy Hampsten, were still able to finish in the top 10 of the Tour in 1993. Armstrong had plenty of time to show his Grand Tour talents prior to EPO taking over. He showed nothing.

According to Armstrong's teammates at the time Lance started using EPO in early 1995 so it is no surprise he had a good year. While Eddie B might have thought that Armstrong was "Wonderboy" Ferrari did not. Lance approached him in 1995 and Ferrari turned him down because he did not see the potential. Lance then went to Eddy Merckx, whose son Axel was a Ferrari customer, to ask for a reference.

Armstrong would have been a good classics rider without dope. Win a Tour? No way.

 

[buckwheat]

Some reality on the time line in this thread.

Armstrong was not new to the sport in 1996. He had been a full time professional athlete for almost 10 years. Cycling had been his primary focus for 7 years. He had raced Junior worlds, Pro Worlds, He was not green.

Yes, Eddie B said that Lance would win the Tour when he first met him in the late 80's. Everyone was told endlessly how great "Wonderboy" was until it became clear that he could not TT or climb. His tone changed prior to the Olympics when he questioned Armstrong being named to the team "there's 10 much faster guys, minimum, than Lance (Armstrong),"

There is little doubt that Armstrong was on a program from a very early age. It would be a surprise if Armstrong was somehow the only rider on Carmichael's U23 team that did not use the "Extract of Cortisone". Prior to that he worked with Rick Crawford. Later in his career Rick was telling potential "Coaching" customers they needed "$10,000 and buy a blood spinner".

By all accounts EPO was not widespread in the Pro Peloton until 93-94. Clean riders, like Andy Hampsten, were still able to finish in the top 10 of the Tour in 1993. Armstrong had plenty of time to show his Grand Tour talents prior to EPO taking over. He showed nothing.

According to Armstrong's teammates at the time Lance started using EPO in early 1995 so it is no surprise he had a good year. While Eddie B might have thought that Armstrong was "Wonderboy" Ferrari did not. Lance approached him in 1995 and Ferrari turned him down because he did not see the potential. Lance then went to Eddy Merckx, whose son Axel was a Ferrari customer, to ask for a reference.

Armstrong would have been a good classics rider without dope. Win a Tour? No way.

Why do you have to be so negative?

 

[workingclasshero]

Why do you have to be so negative?

isn't it obvious? race radio loves cancer and hates cycling

 

[Anonymous]

Armstrong is the first to admit pre-cancer he wouldn't have won a single tour. It completely transformed the way he operates. Sometimes a life changing event like that, and the terrible suffering he went through - stage three kemo - can unlock the key. His whole style and approach competely changed after that time.

Armstrong wasn't even fully fit for the Giro this year and his blood numbers weren't suspicious in the least - plus he paced himself during the last week of the tour to avoid accidents - yet he still rolled up 12th. That's after almost four years out and at the age of 37. That puts to bed the notion that dope is the secret to his success. It maybe a very bitter and resentful fact for some people, but the guy is without doubt one of the best tour riders of his generation, and the best TdF rider we have seen.

 

[tubularglue]

Why do you have to be so negative?

who said he was being negative? How so

 

[Anonymous]

who said he was being negative? How so

I think RR would see 'negative' as a compliment. Apparently he competed in some triathlons with Armstrong many years ago and got his face pounded into the ground, so has never forgiven him for this.

Jealousy is a terrible thing. It can eat away at someones life.

 

[BikeCentric]

I think RR would see 'negative' as a compliment. Apparently he competed in some triathlons with Armstrong many years ago and got his face pounded into the ground, so has never forgiven him for this.

Jealousy is a terrible thing. It can eat away at someones life.

Folks, please report the troll for his off-topic harassment and personal attacks.

 

[Anonymous]

Folks, please report the troll for his off-topic harassment and personal attacks.

That would be somewhat ironic though, wouldn't it? Am I supposed to be a police officer who pretended to have cancer to impress his girlfriend, according to you lot in the other thread. Did you report that?

RaceRadio has openly admitted to riding against Armstrong. If he chooses to bring that up then others are allowed to comment upon it. He's a big boy.