How many Tour de France would have Armstrong won ?

[sniper]

of whom can we be sure he was a greater talent than Lance?
I'll agree on Lemond, but that wasn't Lance's time.
Agree on Contador, I guess, from the looks, but let there be no doubt that Contador was an early doper, so difficult to measure his true lung capacity.

 

[sniper]

Thanks for the replies (at least the serious ones).

I guess that the sentiment is that (unless he put a hidden motor in his bike), he would have won zero TDFs (or zero grand tours for that matter). He just didn't have the natural stamina to pull it off.

I will post a link from "Mens Tennis Forums" to this thread. Feel free to add any more (serious) responses.

i'd tell the tennis fans that we can only speculate remotely about this.
there's no way to estimate any of these guys' natural stamina.
i'd hazard most pro-cyclists of Lance's generation were doping already at the u-23 level.

 

[Metabolol]

Re:

He'd have paid everyone else off so probably no change

With what money? No initial victory no money.

 

[Metabolol]

Re:

of whom can we be sure he was a greater talent than Lance?
I'll agree on Lemond, but that wasn't Lance's time.
Agree on Contador, I guess, from the looks, but let there be no doubt that Contador was an early doper, so difficult to measure his true lung capacity.

You can look at his early numbers. Nothing special for a pro cyclist.

The type of transformation that Lance made in the late 90s is amazing, specially considering he had already been on EPO etc for several years. He must have responded incredibly to whatever Ferrari had him do. He also benefited from others having to change/reduce their protocols and I also believe he had access to stuff that no one else had (maybe not in 99 but after that).

 

[Angliru]

Re: Re:

how many would've finished the tour riding clean?
any doctor without a steak in cycling will tell you that it's close to impossible to ride the TdF without doping.
you could try but you'd either get sick or surpass the time limit and be disqualified well before reaching Paris.

What are you even talking about? I guess the Tour didn't exist since 1903 than, when there weren't any damn drugs available. (except tabac and alcohol ) The finishing number would be more or less the same like it is now, since the tempo would drop massively.

Regarding the topic: zero. Maybe some good results in classics, but than again he was on roids and other stuff pretty much since ever. So who knows...

1903 tour was 6 stages, spread out over 17 days.
i agree that's perfectly possible without peds.

So how about the 1907 edition?
Winning time 158 hours (today 80something)
Total length: 4.500 km (nowadays a little bit over 3.000)

... all on tobacco, alc, bad roads, heavy bikes, etc...

On topic: LA? Zero TdF wins, not even a T-20...

...and when was the rear derailleur invented? For period of time they rode on bikes with 2 speeds and if you wanted to change from the one gear to the other you had to stop, get off the bike, take the wheel off and flip it around and put it back on. One gear for the flats and one gear for the mountains. The distances for the stages were longer also. It was hell on a bike.

 

[FoxxyBrown1111]

... hell on a bike. Yes. And with cigaretts to "widen the lung". So it´s beyond me that some guys repeat the same nonsense again and again, that humans can´t do a GT clean.
Ofc they can. At a pretty fast speed. The reason to dope in cycling is the same as in the 100 meter sprint: Getting a unfair advantage over the opponents, prolonging a career.

 

[SeriousSam]

Hey you guys over there at the MensTennisForums

Everything else equal, the stronger, faster athlete that can go longer wins in tennis. Thus if one could dope in Tennis, the benefits would be great.

Testing in tennis is an absolute joke. Everyone who isn't a complete idiot can dope it up hugely, especially in training, and not be caught.

This strongly suggests that Djokovic, Murray, Federer and Nadal are probably worse dopers than any athlete currently involved in pro cycling.

Have a good day.

 

[The Hitch]

Hey you guys over there at the MensTennisForums

Everything else equal, the stronger, faster athlete that can go longer wins in tennis. Thus if one could dope in Tennis, the benefits would be great.

Testing in tennis is an absolute joke. Everyone who isn't a complete idiot can dope it up hugely, especially in training, and not be caught.

This strongly suggests that Djokovic, Murray, Federer and Nadal are probably worse dopers than any athlete currently involved in pro cycling.

Have a good day.

But have you seen Nadal and Federer give interviews? They are such nice guys. They always smile and behave like gentlemen. Armstrong wasn't like that. He wasn't a pleasant person.

If you actually knew Federer and Nadal, rather than make jealous baseless accusations from behind your anonymous username you would know that they are not the kind of people who would dope. They wouldn't risk their legacies by taking performance enhancing drugs. Have you seen Nadal train? He does hours on the court every day in souring heat. That is why he can then play 6 hour finals vs Djokovic who was helped greatly by the glutten free diet. You get out in tournaments what you put in training, no need to cheat.

That is also why Nadal has recurring knee injuries. If he doped he would be able to recover from knee injuries. That is why Armstrong was never injured, athletes who take drugs can recover from injuries so it makes no sense to suggest Nadal dopes.

Seriously STFU and <edited by mod>


ps, mods, I am not impersonating a mod just engaging in satire

 

[sniper]

Re: Re:

You can look at his early numbers. Nothing special for a pro cyclist.

The type of transformation that Lance made in the late 90s is amazing, specially considering he had already been on EPO etc for several years. He must have responded incredibly to whatever Ferrari had him do. He also benefited from others having to change/reduce their protocols and I also believe he had access to stuff that no one else had (maybe not in 99 but after that).

fair points, admittedly.

 

[carton]

This strongly suggests that Djokovic, Murray, Federer and Nadal are probably worse dopers than any athlete currently involved in pro cycling. .

I agree with your post but to be fair, Federer seems to be fighting for more testing while the other guys seem to be whining about whereabouts. Not that I'm very informed. But I got curious and found the beautiful thread the OP was referring to:
http://www.menstennisforums.com/showthread.php?t=228489&page=267

Some samples (to be honest, on the whole the discussion wasn't that terrible):

I still find it quite funny that self-proclaimed avid fighter vs imaginary supposed PED usage in tennis, is also an avid cycling fan and supporter <hand to face smiley>

Then again, here the ''tennis is a technical sport'' argument does apply. Doping may turn a cyclist into a champion, since the sport is largely stamina-based, but it won't give Nadal his forehand, which is pure technical tennis talent.

And Barry Bonds just laughed his ass off his Tarmac.

It's amazing how naive non-cycling fans are about doping. The other day on the Mayweather-Pacquiao fight, a friend was totally confused: "You're saying you think they might both doping? Why? It's a skill sport! It would probably hurt them more than help them to dope!" Even worse when the Messi-Poser story broke. I heard something along the lines of "FIFA has millions and are super stringent on testing. They surely have it under control." I mean I guess I could say something like "have you ever gone a round with someone or even two minutes against a punching bag" or "have you ever read anything about FIFA?" , but honestly I have to admit I don't even try anymore. If anyone dissents without absolutely any knowledge aforethought, I just tend to agree to disagree and move the heck on.

 

[sniper]

Hey you guys over there at the MensTennisForums

Everything else equal, the stronger, faster athlete that can go longer wins in tennis. Thus if one could dope in Tennis, the benefits would be great.

Testing in tennis is an absolute joke. Everyone who isn't a complete idiot can dope it up hugely, especially in training, and not be caught.

This strongly suggests that Djokovic, Murray, Federer and Nadal are probably worse dopers than any athlete currently involved in pro cycling.

Have a good day.

But have you seen Nadal and Federer give interviews? They are such nice guys. They always smile and behave like gentlemen. Armstrong wasn't like that. He wasn't a pleasant person.

If you actually knew Federer and Nadal, rather than make jealous baseless accusations from behind your anonymous username you would know that they are not the kind of people who would dope. They wouldn't risk their legacies by taking performance enhancing drugs. Have you seen Nadal train? He does hours on the court every day in souring heat. That is why he can then play 6 hour finals vs Djokovic who was helped greatly by the glutten free diet. You get out in tournaments what you put in training, no need to cheat.

That is also why Nadal has recurring knee injuries. If he doped he would be able to recover from knee injuries. That is why Armstrong was never injured, athletes who take drugs can recover from injuries so it makes no sense to suggest Nadal dopes.

Seriously STFU and <edited by mod>


ps, mods, I am not impersonating a mod just engaging in satire

nice 1-2.

(you forgot to mention that tennis is a skill game, duh)

 

[FoxxyBrown1111]

This strongly suggests that Djokovic, Murray, Federer and Nadal are probably worse dopers than any athlete currently involved in pro cycling. .

I agree with your post but to be fair, Federer seems to be fighting for more testing while the other guys seem to be whining about whereabouts. Not that I'm very informed. But I got curious and found the beautiful thread the OP was referring to:
http://www.menstennisforums.com/showthread.php?t=228489&page=267

Some samples (to be honest, on the whole the discussion wasn't that terrible):

I still find it quite funny that self-proclaimed avid fighter vs imaginary supposed PED usage in tennis, is also an avid cycling fan and supporter <hand to face smiley>

Then again, here the ''tennis is a technical sport'' argument does apply. Doping may turn a cyclist into a champion, since the sport is largely stamina-based, but it won't give Nadal his forehand, which is pure technical tennis talent.

And Barry Bonds just laughed his ass off his Tarmac.

It's amazing how naive non-cycling fans are about doping. The other day on the Mayweather-Pacquiao fight, a friend was totally confused: "You're saying you think they might both doping? Why? It's a skill sport! It would probably hurt them more than help them to dope!" Even worse when the Messi-Poser story broke. I heard something along the lines of "FIFA has millions and are super stringent on testing. They surely have it under control." I mean I guess I could say something like "have you ever gone a round with someone or even two minutes against a punching bag" or "have you ever read anything about FIFA?" , but honestly I have to admit I don't even try anymore. If anyone dissents without absolutely any knowledge aforethought, I just tend to agree to disagree and move the heck on.

Einstein: "Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I’m not sure about th’universe!"
That is why guys like Bonds can get off into the sunset having the stolen über-millions in safe bank-accounts...
Even after the Mitchell report, Baseball fans still bring the myth "it´s technical = no dope required" up. Latest was when Bonds got acquitted by a judge. The same naive comments by fanboys & girls: He was special, didn´t need to dope, dope doesn´t help the hand-eye-coordination... blabla. It´s just annoying to hear the same BS again and again. Totally ignoring his head size went up, his numbers sky-rocketed after his 40th birthday into Babe Ruth proportions (and even better than that), all the guys around him were on steroids...
SSDD by soccer fans, tennis fans, basketball, hockey, you name it... only cyclists dope.

 

[SeriousSam]

This strongly suggests that Djokovic, Murray, Federer and Nadal are probably worse dopers than any athlete currently involved in pro cycling. .

I agree with your post but to be fair, Federer seems to be fighting for more testing while the other guys seem to be whining about whereabouts.

Agreed, that should be taken into account. And dismissed as having close to no bearing on the chance Federer is doping.

Or did you really adjust your beliefs about Froome being doped to the eyeballs after he tweeted about the lack of testing at Mt Teide? Cheap self promotion.


As for the "skill sport" argument, there is some truth to that. The skill component in tennis means that strength, agility, speed and endurance are merely necessary, but not sufficient to succeed. You can't acquire the technique necessary to hit Nadal's or Federer's forehand from doping. We could take a gifted athlete and train his every measurable physical characteristic, using PEDs, such that it exceeds those of Djokovic. That guy wouldn't be in the top 10 of the ATP. By contrast, in cycling, skill isn't neeed. Pure physical ability will do.

But that merely means that it's easier to identify talent in tennis even though everyone is doping than it is in cycling. It does not change the incentive to dope, and so it does not change the prevalence of doping.

 

[FoxxyBrown1111]

We all think cycling needs no skill b/c we learned it as 3 years olds. Thus we assume it´s naturally easy... ask africans in rural areas about the skill of riding a bike. You´ll be surprised.
Then add in the skill of riding inches apart from opponents at 50 km/h, about the skill going downhill at 100 km/h w/o crashing...
It´s all about perspective. Doping helps in cycling as it does in soccer, tennis, football, baseball... if that wasn´t true, no roid necks in the NFL, no 45 year olds pitching close to 100 mph in MLB, no 70-HRs seasons, no Messi running up and down the field 12 kms per match, and so on...
Rudi Voeller put it: All those guys at the Copa Cabana are brilliant soccer players, but they would stand no chance to get a pro contract in Germany, simply coz they lack the speed and endurance...

 

[poupou]

According the tests done for Atlanta Olympic, recovering abilities were average for Lance, so a end for races like TDF.
So no chance that he could have won any GT, it's more likely that he would have not finished one.

 

[Escarabajo]

The question is too simple to answer. Zero. He didn't even show on his early days that he was a GC contender.

 

[Escarabajo]

Re:

at least 7 maybe 15

They said wins not Lanterne rouge

 

[carton]

This strongly suggests that Djokovic, Murray, Federer and Nadal are probably worse dopers than any athlete currently involved in pro cycling. .

I agree with your post but to be fair, Federer seems to be fighting for more testing while the other guys seem to be whining about whereabouts.

Agreed, that should be taken into account. And dismissed as having close to no bearing on the chance Federer is doping.

Or did you really adjust your beliefs about Froome being doped to the eyeballs after he tweeted about the lack of testing at Mt Teide? Cheap self promotion.

The Walsh book, the Kimmage interview, the constantly getting himself out there and answering questions, asking for more testing, checking the future testing box ... probably more than shaded by the fact that I tend to ride my bike similarly (relatively high cadence, constantly checking my HR, sit down even on some 'attacks', 1,700+ Vm/h): yeah I buy into the Kool-Aid to some extent (the marginal gains crap -not so much). Not that I'm going to be buying his jersey, but I do give Froome a chance of being clean. Certainly a much higher one than pretty much everyone else on here.

I've said this before and again I doubt I'll get any converts, but I think its good for the sport regardless that guys are out there asking for more testing and calling out "the dopers". Sure, it won't stop doping, but you can make it a little harder to do and a little easier to punish. Even if it turns out to have been a feint.

As for the "skill sport" argument, there is some truth to that. The skill component in tennis means that strength, agility, speed and endurance are merely necessary, but not sufficient to succeed. You can't acquire the technique necessary to hit Nadal's or Federer's forehand from doping. We could take a gifted athlete and train his every measurable physical characteristic, using PEDs, such that it exceeds those of Djokovic. That guy wouldn't be in the top 10 of the ATP. By contrast, in cycling, skill isn't neeed. Pure physical ability will do.

But that merely means that it's easier to identify talent in tennis even though everyone is doping than it is in cycling. It does not change the incentive to dope, and so it does not change the prevalence of doping.

The difference between the Djokovics, Murrays and Nadals of the world and the other guys seems to be mainly endurance. Yeah, you need some skill, but the likes of Tsonga, Raonic, et al can hit the crap out of the ball as well (I'd say better than any of the "top" guys). When I was watching a fair bit of tennis guys like Safin and Nalbandian could outhit pretty much anyone for a set, they'd just tire quicker. So seems to go with Federer, so used to happen with Wawrinka.

In any case baseball has more than proven that if hitting something very quickly so as to make good contact is a skill, then doping also seems to help a great, great deal. I think I read somewhere the baseball "steroid era" might've impacted the batting averages more than the power numbers.

But yeah, I also think most of those guys are doped to the gills, but given the lack of awareness we might only find out in a couple of decades.

 

[FoxxyBrown1111]

"I think I read somewhere the baseball "steroid era" might've impacted the batting averages more than the power numbers."

It helped the power numbers, and b/c of that it helped the batting averages.
Example: You go 2 for 10 (1 HR) with three deep fly-ball outs vs a 88 mph pitcher.
Now put both on dope: The 88-pitcher goes up to 92 mph, and the doped batter increases his bat speed. Both multiple the speed that the ball has coming off the bat. So even the not proper hit balls that were deep fly-outs turned into Doubles and HRS.
In our example the 2 for 10 increases to 5 for 10 (1 Double, 3 HRS). The batting average increases immensely by the mere fact that the ball traveled further...

 

[Libertine Seguros]

Frank Vandenbroucke would have won them all if he took the sport seriously enough to.

 

[FoxxyBrown1111]

I would disagree. Outside of RR (who I really like) most of us would say what D´Hondt said: In a clean peloton Ullrich would have won 10 tours. That ofc includes the seven LA years minus the two he didn´t start... Those years Moncoutie or Casar would have won.

 

[MacRoadie]

Lance Armstrong: 0

Chicago Bears: 150

 

[FoxxyBrown1111]

Re:

Lance Armstrong: 0

Chicago Bears: 150

Nope. JimmyMac was injured too often. So Bears one since the 1960s... As it stands up to today.

 

[RobbieCanuck]

Re: Re:

If they were all clean would the attrition rate not be the same but the times just a whole lot slower? Just asking.

so slow they'd lack time to recover in between the stages and thus inevitably would get sick or become so weak they'd have to abandon.

Okay. I love it. You have an answer for everything. I don't agree but you get an A for explanation.

 

[thehook]

If Lance wins in 99. And then becomes a Classics rider. And wins some Classics. He is now a God. Dude pushed it by going for so long and being a turd.

my $.02