How does a classics rider win the Tour?

[Benotti69]

Hi again. This forum is so interesting. With regard to this topic I'd like to make this comment (and hope that world war 4 doesn't begin) :

I own this book, The Official Tour de France Centennial 1903-2003. The book is written mainly like a race report and reproduces the names of the first-placed 20 riders in the tours on the same page as that year's report.

Up to and including 1998 Lance's name isn't listed in the top 20. Twice it appears in the list of riders who won a stage – in 1993 and 1995.

Then, in 1999 he won the entire race by more than 6 minutes ahead of second-placed Alex Zulle of Switzerland. Then, as we know, he came first six more times in a row.

Just looking at the list order, I am having difficulty understanding how a person could be a tour contender when for years he couldn't come in the top 20. I hope this comment would not be taken as incendiary, it's only the logic of it I'm looking at. I'd be interested in hearing thoughts about it, since I'm a cycling fan who's still learning about the techniques of the sport.

this point has been brought up countless times in the argument that he came out of nowhere in 1999. he realised it too when he started the stories of his body changed by the cancer, higher cadence to his pedalling, his body produced less latic acid etc..lots of lies.

most of the top tour winners won their first TdF before they were 25, Merckx, Hinault etc others who won the tour showed great promise at an early age with high finishes, but as you say the guy was nowhere till 1999.

like lightening out of flickie's ***

read 'lance to landis' or 'La confidential' by David Walsh and you'll get a great insight into some of the ways and means that enabled him to win 7 TdFs and get away with it. otherwise hang around here

 

[MacRoadie]

Up to and including 1998 Lance's name isn't listed in the top 20. Twice it appears in the list of riders who won a stage – in 1993 and 1995.

Then, in 1999 he won the entire race by more than 6 minutes ahead of second-placed Alex Zulle of Switzerland. Then, as we know, he came first six more times in a row.

Just looking at the list order, I am having difficulty understanding how a person could be a tour contender when for years he couldn't come in the top 20. I hope this comment would not be taken as incendiary, it's only the logic of it I'm looking at. I'd be interested in hearing thoughts about it, since I'm a cycling fan who's still learning about the techniques of the sport.

You're gonna need this:

 

[flicker]

this point has been brought up countless times in the argument that he came out of nowhere in 1999. he realised it too when he started the stories of his body changed by the cancer, higher cadence to his pedalling, his body produced less latic acid etc..lots of lies.

most of the top tour winners won their first TdF before they were 25, Merckx, Hinault etc others who won the tour showed great promise at an early age with high finishes, but as you say the guy was nowhere till 1999.

like lightening out of a blue sky, impossible.

read 'lance to landis' or 'La confidential' by David Walsh and you'll get a great insight into some of the ways and means that enabled him to win 7 TdFs and get away with it. otherwise hang around here

B. I have seen lightening in a clear blue sky, it happens and yes Lance is a miracle. So I have hope and believe in miracles.

 

[_Zipp0_]

Then, in 1999 he won the entire race by more than 6 minutes ahead of second-placed Alex Zulle of Switzerland. Then, as we know, he came first six more times in a row.

In 1999 the crash at the Passage du Gois created a 6 minute time gap - with Lance in the front group, and his rivals behind. So that explains the big time gap that year.

And Eddy Mercx won classics and grand tours, but he also doped. He always seems to get a pass and universal admiration though.

 

[Benotti69]

In 1999 the crash at the Passage du Gois created a 6 minute time gap - with Lance in the front group, and his rivals behind. So that explains the big time gap that year.

And Eddy Mercx won classics and grand tours, but he also doped. He always seems to get a pass and universal admiration though.

no in here, Merckx is a doper.

if you have read in here regurlarly one of the things you will have gleaned is the different doping eras the effect of PEDs.

pre epo the cream always rose to the top and donkeys were donkeys.

with EPO it could make a donkey GT rider into a race horse GT winner and did.

 

[Hugh Januss]

In 1999 the crash at the Passage du Gois created a 6 minute time gap - with Lance in the front group, and his rivals behind. So that explains the big time gap that year.

And Eddy Mercx won classics and grand tours, but he also doped. He always seems to get a pass and universal admiration though.

Wow, those are both brand new arguments that I don't believe have ever been brought up on this forum before.

 

[Benotti69]

B. I have seen lightening in a clear blue sky, it happens and yes Lance is a miracle. So I have hope and believe in miracles.

ah little flickie i bet you seen things people wouldn't believe..

 

[Microchip]

this point has been brought up countless times in the argument that he came out of nowhere in 1999. he realised it too when he started the stories of his body changed by the cancer, higher cadence to his pedalling, his body produced less latic acid etc..lots of lies.

most of the top tour winners won their first TdF before they were 25, Merckx, Hinault etc others who won the tour showed great promise at an early age with high finishes, but as you say the guy was nowhere till 1999.

...

read 'lance to landis' or 'La confidential' by David Walsh and you'll get a great insight into some of the ways and means that enabled him to win 7 TdFs and get away with it. otherwise hang around here

Thanks for the response.

I'm walking so much like a cat on a hot tin roof in here, after reading around for a while, that I think I've conveyed a misimpression with my post. I've actually read Lance to Landis so am aware of the truth.

My comment was meant to be specific to Lance being described as a "tour contender" and was just saying that, to me, logic defies that he could be described as a "contender" as he didn't crack the top 20 at all. However, since I'm still learning the methods of how teams win, I wasn't sure if there could possibly be a good explanation of the 6-minute gap. A crash comes across as a good explanation for the large gap to develop.

 

[kurtinsc]

Hi again. This forum is so interesting. With regard to this topic I'd like to make this comment (and hope that world war 4 doesn't begin) :

I own this book, The Official Tour de France Centennial 1903-2003. The book is written mainly like a race report and reproduces the names of the first-placed 20 riders in the tours on the same page as that year's report.

Up to and including 1998 Lance's name isn't listed in the top 20. Twice it appears in the list of riders who won a stage – in 1993 and 1995.

Then, in 1999 he won the entire race by more than 6 minutes ahead of second-placed Alex Zulle of Switzerland. Then, as we know, he came first six more times in a row.

Just looking at the list order, I am having difficulty understanding how a person could be a tour contender when for years he couldn't come in the top 20. I hope this comment would not be taken as incendiary, it's only the logic of it I'm looking at. I'd be interested in hearing thoughts about it, since I'm a cycling fan who's still learning about the techniques of the sport.

There are plenty of riders who've come from having no tour results to winning or placing highly at the Tour. Many were younger with their first big result, and many are connected with drug use, but simply bursting on the scene (even after showing no signs previously) is not unheard of.

Contador's only Tour result was 31st in 2005 before winning in 2007.

Riis went from 3 years finishing no better then 64th in the tour to finishing 5th in 1993 (jump happened at 29).

Wiggins 2009 finish came at a later age out of nowhere.

Escartin had 2 years outside the top 30 before getting 12th in 1994 at 26.

Ugrumov was 32 before scoring a significant GT result (2nd in 1993 Giro).

There are reasons to suspect Lance. He definitely doped in my opinion. But his going from doing little in GT's to getting 4th in the Vuelta in 1998 isn't an unheard of jump. Most likely most of the others were doping too... but he's not unique.

 

[Sanitiser]

Going back to OP. I think reading Coyle's book Lance got off more on the fact that he had the '****' (especially if he was the only one who had it) rather than if the '****' actually worked.

A neat little placebo effect.

 

[Benotti69]

There are plenty of riders who've come from having no tour results to winning or placing highly at the Tour. Many were younger with their first big result, and many are connected with drug use, but simply bursting on the scene (even after showing no signs previously) is not unheard of.

Contador's only Tour result was 31st in 2005 before winning in 2007.

Riis went from 3 years finishing no better then 64th in the tour to finishing 5th in 1993 (jump happened at 29).

Wiggins 2009 finish came at a later age out of nowhere.

Escartin had 2 years outside the top 30 before getting 12th in 1994 at 26.

Ugrumov was 32 before scoring a significant GT result (2nd in 1993 Giro).

There are reasons to suspect Lance. He definitely doped in my opinion. But his going from doing little in GT's to getting 4th in the Vuelta in 1998 isn't an unheard of jump. Most likely most of the others were doping too... but he's not unique.

you just listed riders in the height of the EPO age and Wiggins, well there is a big question mark over his ride from 2009.

Riis the donkey Mr 60%.....c'mon

 

[kurtinsc]

you just listed riders in the height of the EPO age and Wiggins, well there is a big question mark over his ride from 2009.

Riis the donkey Mr 60%.....c'mon

Look, we all know he doped. I'm a firm believer that nobody finishing in the top 5 of the tour from 1993 or 1994 on was clean.

But I don't know if the drastic change was any different then several riders before and after. I'm not saying drugs wasn't the cause. I'm pretty certain it was. I'm just saying he wasn't unique.

It seems people seem to want to say Lance was the only guy this happened to. He was one among many.

Oh... José Pesarrodona as well... first GT result in the top 30 was winning the Vuelta at 30.

 

[roundabout]

Pesarrodona finished 4th in the Giro in 1973.

 

[MacRoadie]

Pesarrodona finished 4th in the Giro in 1973.

Well, except for that one...

 

[kurtinsc]

Pesarrodona finished 4th in the Giro in 1973.

Okay... so 27 rather then 30. Same as Lance was when he finished 4th at the Vuelta.

Doesn't really change the point.

 

[roundabout]

He turned pro at 25 due to family reasons and his 4th in the Giro was his second GT after the Vuelta the same year where he also finished 4th.

 

[Microchip]

From the 1904 race report:

"The 1904 Tour was one of the most scandalous and sinister in history ... Henri Desgrange...disgusted at the incessant cheating, the regional prejudice and the monotonous dominance of Maurice Garin and the La Francaise team, he made up his mind...This second Tour de France, he decided, would be the last...the first four finishers in the provisional classification were to be disqualified and suspended for repeated contraventions of the race regulations. Maurice Garin was stripped of his stage win and the overall title...the new winner was the fifth-placed rider, Henri Cornet, aged only 20."

When Jesus Manzano talked about his experiences on Kelme, it was the first time I'd heard of such organized doping. Nevertheless, I keep hoping when I watch the Tour that what I'm seeing is real...but after 100 years...lol...

 

[Sanitiser]

From the 1904 race report:

"The 1904 Tour was one of the most scandalous and sinister in history ... Henri Desgrange...disgusted at the incessant cheating, the regional prejudice and the monotonous dominance of Maurice Garin and the La Francaise team, he made up his mind...This second Tour de France, he decided, would be the last...the first four finishers in the provisional classification were to be disqualified and suspended for repeated contraventions of the race regulations. Maurice Garin was stripped of his stage win and the overall title...the new winner was the fifth-placed rider, Henri Cornet, aged only 20."

When Jesus Manzano talked about his experiences on Kelme, it was the first time I'd heard of such organized doping. Nevertheless, I keep hoping when I watch the Tour that what I'm seeing is real...but after 100 years...lol...

I'm not sure how you're familiar with the sport but cheating and by extension doping has always been part of the sport. I think the winner of the first TdF was disqualified for the second since he took the train to finish a stage.

 

[Microchip]

I'm not sure how you're familiar with the sport but cheating and by extension doping has always been part of the sport. I think the winner of the first TdF was disqualified for the second since he took the train to finish a stage.

I think (I hope) 2011 will be significant for cycling. Alot of previously unknown details about USPS and Lance will come out, even if the SI article was heavily edited. Just a matter of time. Then, hopefully there'll be alot of improvement. I'm always perusing the forum for the latest developments.

 

[gatete]

it really is amazing. literally everything the logical people here for years have said happened:

1. He blood doped.
2. He paid off the uci
3. He used ferrari to gain doping advantage throughout all his winning years and even his comeback
4. He had access to an undetectable drug no one else did

the fanboys have ridiculed all these points over the years.

and yet they all turn out to be true.

it really brings into question whether armstrong could even have been an average pro rider without the above.

the greatest sports fraud in history...

now who said that before...who?

Plus I think he had the resources (at least 01 and beyond) to hire the talent, a la heras, (one less guy to chase in the mountains and that will be indeed better than most of the captains of other teams) as much as I hate to admit it, the guy either was very lucky in the order of things he did/got/hire/fired or let's face it wicked smart, the other factor was that in his days the only one capable of sustaining some competition was Ulle, and Ulle unfortunately sometimes didn't have the heart sometimes.

 

[Benotti69]

Look, we all know he doped. I'm a firm believer that nobody finishing in the top 5 of the tour from 1993 or 1994 on was clean.

But I don't know if the drastic change was any different then several riders before and after. I'm not saying drugs wasn't the cause. I'm pretty certain it was. I'm just saying he wasn't unique.

It seems people seem to want to say Lance was the only guy this happened to. He was one among many.

Oh... José Pesarrodona as well... first GT result in the top 30 was winning the Vuelta at 30.

he was among many in the epo era. many people forget what epo did to riders. if you had a natural HCT level at 40% and took epo up to 50% you got a great boost. but if you had a natural level of 46% and boosted to 50% you didn't get such a boost compared to those with lower levels, hence it didn't level the field it skewed it in favour of those who would never have been winning GT riders and those willing to take the biggest risks with their health and go way over the 50% won, Riis, Pantani, Armstrong etc..

 

[andy1234]

he was among many in the epo era. many people forget what epo did to riders. if you had a natural HCT level at 40% and took epo up to 50% you got a great boost. but if you had a natural level of 46% and boosted to 50% you didn't get such a boost compared to those with lower levels, hence it didn't level the field it skewed it in favour of those who would never have been winning GT riders and those willing to take the biggest risks with their health and go way over the 50% won, Riis, Pantani, Armstrong etc..

Does the UCI know that Armstrong was riding at over 50% for his Tour wins?

 

[Benotti69]

Does the UCI know that Armstrong was riding at over 50% for his Tour wins?

i imagine they did, but what were they gonna do, except ask for more money to keep it secret. he was gonna make cycling global, gonna make them all rich...

a former team mate revealed his levels. Stephen Swart i think.

what's interesting is that LA fans keep saying that none of it is proof that he doped, but they all believe him when he says the he didn't dope and that he defeated cancer single handedly and is doing good for cancer by asking people to give him money while flying around the world in his private jet.

the fanboys refuse to go and do any research into his LAF and compare it to other cancer charities, but come on here and dismiss the 'haters'.

they refuse to look at his results in his career before cancer and make comparisons to other multiple TdF winners, because it would appear they believe the miracle.

 

[ultimobici]

you just listed riders in the height of the EPO age and Wiggins, well there is a big question mark over his ride from 2009.

Is there?

Prior to 2009 Wiggins was concentrating on track pursuiting at Olympic & World level. He has a 10 year long record of World's success in a discipline that is an study in applied power. But on the track there is one factor that has little effect, weight. By losing 7kg of weight with a slight loss of power he actually increased his power to weight ratio. He went from the same weight as Cancellara to 72kg. That's a significant loss of weight, approaching 10%.

Look at the 2008 Wiggins, somewhat chunkier than the one we saw in 2009 & 2010.

No wonder he was able to hang in there in 2009, no one really took him seriously until it was too late to really jettison him.

 

[ultimobici]

Plus I think he had the resources (at least 01 and beyond) to hire the talent, a la heras, (one less guy to chase in the mountains and that will be indeed better than most of the captains of other teams) as much as I hate to admit it, the guy either was very lucky in the order of things he did/got/hire/fired or let's face it wicked smart, the other factor was that in his days the only one capable of sustaining some competition was Ulle, and Ulle unfortunately sometimes didn't have the heart sometimes.

If one assumes that all the main contenders were of similar physical capacities naturally and were doped similarly, the thing that I have to agree with Armstrong's defenders is that he was that little bit more dedicated.
Ullrich was always a little too partial to his mum's strudel in the winter, so by the time he wised up in 2001 and came prepared Armstrong had him beaten in his head anyway.
Pantani we learned later on had his demons before he ever encountered Armstrong.
Many of the other contenders were also victims of the fact that teams didn't work together for a common goal for fear of helping a rival by accident. had ONCE, Banest & Telecom worked Armstrong over Postal would not have been able to control things the way they did.
Armstrong & Postal's strength was that they did everything to ensure the win. Weaknesses were not tolerated, so you never saw, or for that matter heard of, any of their riders being chubby at the beginning of the season. At the same time Pantani was crashing his car on multiple occasions and Ullrich was eating pies and clubbing.