Re: Re:
Have to agree with that.
The Tour win, TT Olympics Gold and the 1 Hour record in addition to his TTs and track medals will keep him afloat for a very long time.
No need to push it any longer
Armstrong on the other hand is an attention whore and ego maniac so no surprise there
Tonton said:See, SIR Bradley Wiggins is smarter than we give him credit forthehook said:
Have to agree with that.
The Tour win, TT Olympics Gold and the 1 Hour record in addition to his TTs and track medals will keep him afloat for a very long time.
No need to push it any longer
Armstrong on the other hand is an attention whore and ego maniac so no surprise there
- Jun 16, 2010
- 1,458
- 0
- 10,480
Re:
You don't understand the egomania of Armstrong. In the USA in the 90s the only cycling race most Americans were aware of was the TDF. It was the holy grail of cycling. To win it brought immeasurable acclaim for an American winner. LA considered himself not just a great cyclist but an elite athlete in triathlon. There was more money in cycling and LA was ambitious.
Lemond had three Tour wins. LA considered himself not just a better cyclist but a better athlete. He considered Greg a one trick pony of an athlete ( in spite of the fact Greg is skilled in several sports). Greg was considered the great American cyclist. This did not sit well with Armstrong because of his ego and he started to figure out he could become both famous and wealthy winning the TDF. So LA became a one trick TDF pony. None of this one day race crap for him. You only made money in the USA as the TDF winner (speaking, sponsorship, commercials etc.). Once he had the doping figured out and his co-conspirators in place the rest was easy.
At the end of the 2005 TDF he could now proclaim himself the greatest athlete in the USA, the greatest cyclist and Cancer Jesus. That was the pinnacle and all the fan-boys drank at his feet. The power having gone to his head, he castigated Frankie Andreu, Lemond's bicycle business and alienated Landis. This last act of cruelty was his Waterloo, because Landis did not broach any $h!t and unleashed hell and the road has been downhill ever since.
Kimmage and Walsh were onto him all along as well as some guy from L'Equipe whose name I forget, plus a whole host of sceptics, especially the French. Once USADA got a hold of it, it was curtains. It is a classic tragedy. Armstrong's hubris and pride came before the fall. Today most people just want him to go away because he was one of the worst and cynical serial cheaters in cycling who says he would do it all over again if he had the chance. What does that tell you about this scumbag?
thehook said:
You don't understand the egomania of Armstrong. In the USA in the 90s the only cycling race most Americans were aware of was the TDF. It was the holy grail of cycling. To win it brought immeasurable acclaim for an American winner. LA considered himself not just a great cyclist but an elite athlete in triathlon. There was more money in cycling and LA was ambitious.
Lemond had three Tour wins. LA considered himself not just a better cyclist but a better athlete. He considered Greg a one trick pony of an athlete ( in spite of the fact Greg is skilled in several sports). Greg was considered the great American cyclist. This did not sit well with Armstrong because of his ego and he started to figure out he could become both famous and wealthy winning the TDF. So LA became a one trick TDF pony. None of this one day race crap for him. You only made money in the USA as the TDF winner (speaking, sponsorship, commercials etc.). Once he had the doping figured out and his co-conspirators in place the rest was easy.
At the end of the 2005 TDF he could now proclaim himself the greatest athlete in the USA, the greatest cyclist and Cancer Jesus. That was the pinnacle and all the fan-boys drank at his feet. The power having gone to his head, he castigated Frankie Andreu, Lemond's bicycle business and alienated Landis. This last act of cruelty was his Waterloo, because Landis did not broach any $h!t and unleashed hell and the road has been downhill ever since.
Kimmage and Walsh were onto him all along as well as some guy from L'Equipe whose name I forget, plus a whole host of sceptics, especially the French. Once USADA got a hold of it, it was curtains. It is a classic tragedy. Armstrong's hubris and pride came before the fall. Today most people just want him to go away because he was one of the worst and cynical serial cheaters in cycling who says he would do it all over again if he had the chance. What does that tell you about this scumbag?
SeriousSam said:
Chris made that tweet only after he was assured he wasn't glowing.
He tried derailing the others' programs though.
Lance still seems to think highly of himself.
If there is a common thread in his interviews after the infamous Oprah interview, is that he seems to think that everyone that rode against him would opine that he deserved all the TdF he won.
I mean, who in their right mind, now knowing how rigged the system was in favor of Lance (advance warning of tests, possible positive tests silenced, a whole team at his disposal, et cetera) would agree to that statement?
If there is a common thread in his interviews after the infamous Oprah interview, is that he seems to think that everyone that rode against him would opine that he deserved all the TdF he won.
I mean, who in their right mind, now knowing how rigged the system was in favor of Lance (advance warning of tests, possible positive tests silenced, a whole team at his disposal, et cetera) would agree to that statement?
- May 23, 2009
- 10,256
- 1,455
- 25,680
Let's be honest, if Nadal and Djokovic were subjected to any real testing they wouldn't be at the top of the pile. They aren't clean hitters at all. Murray would probably suffer too.carton said:
When someone tries to tell me that boxers wouldn't benefit from doping I just ask how being able to punch harder (and take a punch better) is a bad thing. It usually gets the gears working
- Jul 6, 2014
- 1,645
- 318
- 11,180
Re:
Intuitively, I agree with this. Ullrich was on the path to GT greatness very early on as an amateur.
When one starts applying reason, it is basically impossible to make any kind of case for it - because as you point out it is impossible to know where the real talent ended and the artificial one began. This clearly applies to Ullrich's amateur days too.
But as a best guess, I'm on also board.
carton said:
Intuitively, I agree with this. Ullrich was on the path to GT greatness very early on as an amateur.
When one starts applying reason, it is basically impossible to make any kind of case for it - because as you point out it is impossible to know where the real talent ended and the artificial one began. This clearly applies to Ullrich's amateur days too.
But as a best guess, I'm on also board.
Ullrich grew up in Eastern Germany.
Sorry, but his early results mean very little as he was very possibly doped already as a junior.
Sorry, but his early results mean very little as he was very possibly doped already as a junior.
Re:
yup but he was a good GC rider young...doped or undoped...
armstrong was not a good GC rider young (doped or undoped) he was a punchy classics guy.....neither was wiggins (pursuit) or Froome (just sh*t) or Horner (not that good)...they do not pass the straight face test
now we have G Thomas who seemlessly combines the ability of the northern one day specialist and now super climber...again...straight face test...fail
Ullrich, roche, lemond, delgado and even Indurain, who was on a steady trajectory, do pass the straight face test...doped or otherwise...although Indurian should never have been able to climb 'that' fast.......
sniper said:
yup but he was a good GC rider young...doped or undoped...
armstrong was not a good GC rider young (doped or undoped) he was a punchy classics guy.....neither was wiggins (pursuit) or Froome (just sh*t) or Horner (not that good)...they do not pass the straight face test
now we have G Thomas who seemlessly combines the ability of the northern one day specialist and now super climber...again...straight face test...fail
Ullrich, roche, lemond, delgado and even Indurain, who was on a steady trajectory, do pass the straight face test...doped or otherwise...although Indurian should never have been able to climb 'that' fast.......
Re: Re:
still, we can't exclude the possibility that ullrich was simply a particularly good responder, already as a junior, and that, in a hypothetical clean world, he would not have been up there with the best.
that's the whole problem with answering the OP: we don't know (a) how early certain riders started doping and (b) how good certain riders 'respond'.
Therefore imo it becomes extremely difficult to estimate the value of their early performances.
those are all fair points.gillan1969 said:
still, we can't exclude the possibility that ullrich was simply a particularly good responder, already as a junior, and that, in a hypothetical clean world, he would not have been up there with the best.
that's the whole problem with answering the OP: we don't know (a) how early certain riders started doping and (b) how good certain riders 'respond'.
Therefore imo it becomes extremely difficult to estimate the value of their early performances.
- Jun 15, 2009
- 8,529
- 1
- 0
The east germans made sure they invested in the best bets. I like how TH described it in his book: They throw eggs against a wall, and the one that doesn´t break is it. Ullrich. So (outside of RR) we can be sure Ullrich was something special. In my mind there is no doubt he´d have won 10 tours if a clean field.
- Sep 8, 2009
- 15,306
- 3
- 22,485
Re: Re:
If Armstrong's GT results post cancer were only down to doping how much was he consuming ? I don't believe that . The change in body shape, training and loss in weight had to contribute plus the win at all costs attitude. Ullrich I believe was as a big a fraud as Armstrong just with a nicer personality. East German track cyclists made it clear what was going on back then, the dopers were factory made there was so many of them not to mention athletics and swimming. Ullrich was probably more naturally gifted but who knows for sure. Armstrong was not competing for GC when younger but did win the Worlds at a young age. If he had been training and competing for GC results he may have done better than expected even though he was too heavy at that stage.
gillan1969 said:
If Armstrong's GT results post cancer were only down to doping how much was he consuming ? I don't believe that . The change in body shape, training and loss in weight had to contribute plus the win at all costs attitude. Ullrich I believe was as a big a fraud as Armstrong just with a nicer personality. East German track cyclists made it clear what was going on back then, the dopers were factory made there was so many of them not to mention athletics and swimming. Ullrich was probably more naturally gifted but who knows for sure. Armstrong was not competing for GC when younger but did win the Worlds at a young age. If he had been training and competing for GC results he may have done better than expected even though he was too heavy at that stage.
Re:
Because that's how I read TH's metaphor.
Special in the sense that he responded better than other juniors?
Sure no doubt.
Everything else is speculation.
special in the sense that he didn't shed a tear when they plugged those needles into his arm as a junior and that his parents didn't object to the weekly 'vitamin' injections?FoxxyBrown1111 said:
Because that's how I read TH's metaphor.
Special in the sense that he responded better than other juniors?
Sure no doubt.
Everything else is speculation.
Re: Re:
sort of...but if you can win a GT you can win a GT...you know...as do all around you....you are special...armstrong was at the very least not backward at coming forward, if he was a GT winner with the riches that follow (compare to winner of a fleche) we would have seen evidence before the vuelta 98....i/e/ pre-cancer...you can't be a GC winner and hide in the peloton...unless you are a fraud e.g. wiggins froome. Roche went in as a young GC rider, as did Hinault, as with all the other riders I listed, Indurian excepted, showing ability...with Ullrich even racking up 2nd/...Armstrong?...zilch Wiggins? zilch Froome?...zilch
movingtarget said:
sort of...but if you can win a GT you can win a GT...you know...as do all around you....you are special...armstrong was at the very least not backward at coming forward, if he was a GT winner with the riches that follow (compare to winner of a fleche) we would have seen evidence before the vuelta 98....i/e/ pre-cancer...you can't be a GC winner and hide in the peloton...unless you are a fraud e.g. wiggins froome. Roche went in as a young GC rider, as did Hinault, as with all the other riders I listed, Indurian excepted, showing ability...with Ullrich even racking up 2nd/...Armstrong?...zilch Wiggins? zilch Froome?...zilch
i thought this was an Armstrong thread not a thread for posters to repeat there opinions we have heard time and time again on other riders LOL
- Jun 15, 2009
- 8,529
- 1
- 0
Re: Re:
Didn´t TH also said (as Hinault, Merckx, and many others) the he was the biggest talent out there. The real deal?
Everything else is speculation (like being a better responder, that his parents didn´t care, etc)...
sniper said:
Didn´t TH also said (as Hinault, Merckx, and many others) the he was the biggest talent out there. The real deal?
Everything else is speculation (like being a better responder, that his parents didn´t care, etc)...
Re: Re:
That logically makes the second question ('how talented was he really?') impossible to answer with any degree of certainty.
Not sure how you put any weight to that TH claim. The only Ulrich he has known is a doped Ulrich.
The first relevant question imo is: did he dope as a junior? Answer: most likely yes.FoxxyBrown1111 said:
That logically makes the second question ('how talented was he really?') impossible to answer with any degree of certainty.
Not sure how you put any weight to that TH claim. The only Ulrich he has known is a doped Ulrich.
- Jun 15, 2009
- 8,529
- 1
- 0
I guess I trust insiders from the peloton. Many said they were impressed the most by Ullrich. And ofc they knew he was doped as most other contenders...
Zero.
But I'll give it to the SOAB, he's got skills. Focus, Mentality and bike handling. Not of those get you TdF wins when clean.
If you take part in enough though, there will be stage wins, and do all worlds to get one or 2 of those. Some classics, sure. Maybe a one week stage race if the slacked or he set his mind to it.
And about who'd have won in stead, in a clean sport... Ullrich seems an obvious choice, although we never saw him clean. He did fairly well on mini-dope and a steel bike. (I love steel BTW, I think it's fast).
Perhaps Bassons and Moncoutie would really have been to the front. I believe Bassons most, byy a margin.
And where Armstrong got a free pass, the best docs and was a top responder, somewhere in the peloton there must have been lesser responders barely doping to a gree worth the risks. Nameless in 50th, hardly ever going for a stage win. In a clean sport, rewarded by easy results, their careers would have gone very differently. Not domestique but supertalent team leader. People riding for you.
We will never know their names, but it's interesting to ponder.
Also don't forget those who never gavve it all for cycling because they could not compete. I was deemed talented, but when-ever I was in a race with pro riders, they level discrepancy was just overwhelming. I could win local stuff against folk who'd train twice as much and hard. But in the big least, it was disheartening the way they slaughtered me. I could not see myself train to overcome that difference. I was slacking alright, and had lots of room to improve, but maybe half of what I was aspiriting to. Wheel to wheel with MTB and CX pro's, is was just not funny. I knew the Watts I pedaled, so their output and recovery was clearly unheard of. No way for me to train to get 150W extra on top of the 506W I already had. Just not gonna happen. Not to offer myself as an example, but there were better self-motivated riders like myself who'd have decided to go pro had the top level been several categories closer. Who'd walk to a place beyond the horizon at night? Something you can see, you can walk to. The difference was another world. On my best day I was slaughtered, and I was not the only one. I knew about EPO, but not how wide-spread it was and the performance effects associated. I thought of it as a supplement that worked every time, and only a bit better than the legal stuff I tried. Like Armstrong, getting 30+% more red blood cells and possibly even extra oxygen through HemAssist...had I known, I'd have quit cycling sooner.
But I'll give it to the SOAB, he's got skills. Focus, Mentality and bike handling. Not of those get you TdF wins when clean.
If you take part in enough though, there will be stage wins, and do all worlds to get one or 2 of those. Some classics, sure. Maybe a one week stage race if the slacked or he set his mind to it.
And about who'd have won in stead, in a clean sport... Ullrich seems an obvious choice, although we never saw him clean. He did fairly well on mini-dope and a steel bike. (I love steel BTW, I think it's fast).
Perhaps Bassons and Moncoutie would really have been to the front. I believe Bassons most, byy a margin.
And where Armstrong got a free pass, the best docs and was a top responder, somewhere in the peloton there must have been lesser responders barely doping to a gree worth the risks. Nameless in 50th, hardly ever going for a stage win. In a clean sport, rewarded by easy results, their careers would have gone very differently. Not domestique but supertalent team leader. People riding for you.
We will never know their names, but it's interesting to ponder.
Also don't forget those who never gavve it all for cycling because they could not compete. I was deemed talented, but when-ever I was in a race with pro riders, they level discrepancy was just overwhelming. I could win local stuff against folk who'd train twice as much and hard. But in the big least, it was disheartening the way they slaughtered me. I could not see myself train to overcome that difference. I was slacking alright, and had lots of room to improve, but maybe half of what I was aspiriting to. Wheel to wheel with MTB and CX pro's, is was just not funny. I knew the Watts I pedaled, so their output and recovery was clearly unheard of. No way for me to train to get 150W extra on top of the 506W I already had. Just not gonna happen. Not to offer myself as an example, but there were better self-motivated riders like myself who'd have decided to go pro had the top level been several categories closer. Who'd walk to a place beyond the horizon at night? Something you can see, you can walk to. The difference was another world. On my best day I was slaughtered, and I was not the only one. I knew about EPO, but not how wide-spread it was and the performance effects associated. I thought of it as a supplement that worked every time, and only a bit better than the legal stuff I tried. Like Armstrong, getting 30+% more red blood cells and possibly even extra oxygen through HemAssist...had I known, I'd have quit cycling sooner.
TRENDING THREADS
-
World Championship 2025: Men’s RR, September 28- Started by Berniece
- Replies: 2K
-
Teams & Riders The Remco Evenepoel is the next Eddy Merckx thread- Started by DNP-Old
- Replies: 35K
-
Il Lombardia 2025, monument, October 11- Started by Krzysztof_O
- Replies: 792
-
Teams & Riders Tadej Pogačar discussion thread- Started by Lequack
- Replies: 41K
-
European Championship 2025: Men’s RR, October 5- Started by Berniece
- Replies: 854
-
Teams & Riders The Great Big Cycling Transfers, Extensions, and Rumours Thread- Started by RedheadDane
- Replies: 13K
-
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram