if they were all clean during LAs 7 wins ?

Jun 19, 2012
195
0
0
i have a question , its obviously one that cant be answered exactly but im interested to know peoples thoughts on what might have been .

lets say PEDs did not exist during the LA7 and they all raced completely clean .

in your honest opinion would he have still won ?

please do not let your hatred of the man make you automatically say no , could/would he still be able to win with god given talent if it was a clean race ?

i have listed 6 options below , if you could take a minute to post your choice along with a few thoughts it should make an interesting poll .


1. no chance

2. yes maybe one

3. two or three times

4. 4 or 5 times

5 . 6

6. he was that gifted he would still win the lot

for what its worth im going with pick #4 , on a level playing field of clean riders he was still talented enough to win 4 or 5 times .
 
shades1 said:
i have a question , its obviously one that cant be answered exactly but im interested to know peoples thoughts on what might have been .

lets say PEDs did not exist during the LA7 and they all raced completely clean .

in your honest opinion would he have still won ?

please do not let your hatred of the man make you automatically say no , could/would he still be able to win with god given talent if it was a clean race ?

i have listed 6 options below , if you could take a minute to post your choice along with a few thoughts it should make an interesting poll .


1. no chance

2. yes maybe one

3. two or three times

4. 4 or 5 times

5 . 6

6. he was that gifted he would still win the lot

for what its worth im going with pick #4 , on a level playing field of clean riders he was still talented enough to win 4 or 5 times .
One of options 1-3 for me, probably 2.

Even with everyone doped, Armstrong still had other advantages over many of his rivals. See my post in the 'Blame fiasco' thread for reasons why.
 
Mar 12, 2010
545
0
0
1999, the majority of the peloton was clean. Of 100 odd samples retested for EPO only Armstrongs and a handful of other samples tested positive

Armstrong finished the race in 5492 minutes.
Zulle 5499 minutes.

Assuming doping takes 3% off your time, armstrong gained approximately 164 minutes through doping. That puts him pretty much last.

So by that I conclude, Armstrong would not have won in 1999.

Im talking balloney.
 
Option 1.

Without epo/blood doping Armstrong would never be able to recover during 3 weeks. He may have improved his mediocre tt-ing and climbing enough to get top twenty. The problem was always recovery.

That is the biggest change that occurred due to epo/blood doping. A three week tour always had separated those that could recover with those that couldn't. The third week in particular was the divider.

Armstrong never had the natural talent of recovery. Never.
 
Cyivel said:
I'll take option 1, thanks.
same

taken into account that armstrong was doped from his teen years, we don't even know how much natural talent he has.

there are many guys that reached the pro scene clean and some even got decent results during the dark years. so i have no trouble seeing them beat armstrong again again and again very easily.

either way the best armstrong could become as a good classics guy and never a GT contender, imho
 
Oct 21, 2012
1,106
0
0
Option 1, he was never a GT contender. At best he could have done something similar to what Voeckler did a couple of years ago and pick up big time in a breakaway to nick a top 10/20 spot, but I doubt he had the capability for that.
 
Jul 19, 2009
949
0
0
A good recovering is essential to win TDF, that Lance lacks. So he would never have won one
 
tdf?

about the time that lance was involved with cofidis when he was promoting

himself for a new team he stated 'i'm not a guy to win grand tours but i will

do well in tough single day races'.........that says it all
 
D-Queued said:
...and he was already doping.

Option 1. No question.

Dave.
Okay, so Lance was doing drug arrays (which included EPO) during his first four dismal TDF's. Then everything changed in 1999. He went from zero to hero, seemingly with a flick of a switch. Why? Is it because he retained the exclusive services of Dr. Ferrari?
 
Nov 24, 2009
1,158
0
0
About as much chance as Evel Kneivel crossing the English Channel via a rocket powered Vespa while playing Les Marseillais on the Accordion while being interviewed by BBC 4 via satellite for his take on the current shipping forecast.

To be more precise, no chance, option 1.
 
Aug 7, 2010
1,247
0
0
trompe le monde said:
About as much chance as Evel Kneivel crossing the English Channel via a rocket powered Vespa while playing Les Marseillais on the Accordion while being interviewed by BBC 4 via satellite for his take on the current shipping forecast.

To be more precise, no chance, option 1.
You should be in show business.....
 
Mar 17, 2009
1,863
0
0
Not one.

He may have won the odd classic or semi-classic but that's it. His VO2 Max is decidedly average for a pro, so no GT attempts for Lance.

To suggest that he had one in him is a stretch, any more is most likely just fantasy out of patriotism.

Now I'll just duck for cover!
 
Mar 8, 2010
3,263
1
0
Since he didn't just win but did nearly always win with large gaps, i tend between Option 2+3. Really simple.
 

airstream

BANNED
Mar 29, 2011
5,123
0
0
No. But 1-2 times easily. I don't how one can believe that in the 1999 Tour the peloton was almost clean. It is laughable. Laughable. The Giro 1999. Pantani, Heras and the rest were flying. They were flitting at Pampeago probably almost twice as fast as our guys did in 2012. That was a severe EPO which possibly was injected until HC hits 49 before any of mountain stages. And then riders eased up and decided to ride clean just because it is the Tour? It is absurdity.

hfer07 said:
All great GT winners have always displayed the skills & talent at early/young age. LA wasn't of that breed-simple as that.
Who is an apologist of this stance? Uf, strongly disagree. :(
 

Dr. Maserati

BANNED
Jun 19, 2009
13,250
1
0
poupou said:
A good recovering is essential to win TDF, that Lance lacks. So he would never have won one
Yip.
Recovery is what its all about in a GT, LA could do really well in many types of events but was prone to off days.

Mrs John Murphy said:
Option 1.

Here was a guy who in four previous attempts at the TDF had managed to make Paris once.
Again agree - but as BPC corrected me on once, that would have been LA against a lot of riders who were on big programs.
So, if the EPO generation was 10 years later, perhaps he could have got top 10, but no way he would win.
 
Jan 29, 2010
502
0
0
airstream said:
No. But 1-2 times easily. I don't how one can believe that in the 1999 Tour the peloton was almost clean. It is laughable. Laughable. The Giro 1999. Pantani, Heras and the rest were flying. They were flitting at Pampeago probably almost twice as fast as our guys did in 2012. That was a severe EPO which possibly was injected until HC hits 49 before any of mountain stages. And then riders eased up and decided to ride clean just because it is the Tour? It is absurdity.



Who is an apologist of this stance? Uf, strongly disagree. :(
By clean, it is meant that the riders and staff were too scared of police searches to carry or USE peds during the Tour specifically. The rest of the year there is no spotlight so they were doping as normal.

You can't compare the Giro to the Tour in 99 in this regard. Only the Tour had the intense spotlight after the Festina affair.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS