is winning the TdF now a poisoned chalice...

May 26, 2010
28,144
2
0
is winning the TdF now a poisoned chalice...

well? who has done really well out of winning the TdF of the last 2 decades?

Indurain. Yes

Riis, hardly, he confessed to cheating to win.

Ullrich. No.

Pantani. Nope

I dont count LA as having done well as he is tainted now and nothing will change that, no matter what happens with Novi, his record is dirty and while others may dispute this, it is obvious to Armstrong that it matters that he is now perceived as a cheat, fraudster, briber and a bully.

Landis. No

Pereiro hardly made his fortune from Landis being demoted or achieved real acclaim for his win.

Sastre. Not sure he achieved what a tour winner should, but maybe others can fill in on whether he has. I feel his achievement was undermined by Contador not racing and then subsequently winning the year after.

Contador. In the balance?
 
Oct 16, 2010
19,912
1
0
Benotti69 said:
is winning the TdF now a poisoned chalice...

well? who has done really well out of winning the TdF of the last 2 decades?

Indurain. Yes

Riis, hardly confessed to cheating to win.

Ullrich. No.

Pantani. Nope

I dont count LA as having done well as he is tainted now and nothing will change that, no matter what happens with Novi, his record is dirty and while others may dispute this, it is obvious to Armstrong that it matters that he is now perceived as a cheat, fraudster, briber and a bully.

Landis. No

Pereiro hardly made his fortune from Landis being demoted or achieved real acclaim for his win.

Sastre. Not sure he achieved what a tour winner should, but maybe others can fill in on whether he has. I feel his achievement was undermined by Contador not racing and then subsequently winning the year after.

Contador. In the balance?

I think Riis was definitely the dirtiest (in that particular year that is), and the most spectacular example of how doping can enhance your performance, even if your talent is mediocre.

Sastre, Pereiro and Indurain, difficult to assess how dirty they were.
All others, if you ask me, were/are/appear to be blooddopers, though probably at the same time the most talented riders out there.

One way or the other, a Tour de Farce it is.
 
Jun 17, 2010
31
0
0
sniper said:
I think Riis was definitely the dirtiest (in that particular year that is), and the most spectacular example of how doping can enhance your performance, even if your talent is mediocre.QUOTE]

I completely agree; i wonder why Riis has ANY credibility?!?

Just a note .... if Contador's tests from 2009 showed Plasticene (or whatever) and Andy took something funny too, .... that would give Armstrong his Eighth Win (assuming he can pay someone off)!

Witz
 
There is an incorrect assumption made that somehow all riders who doped were on equal footing with each other, and therefore the most talented rider eventually always came to the fore.

Someone please explain this to me because it makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.

If Riis was a donkey turned racehorse, then Armstrong even morseo.
 
Berzin said:
There is an incorrect assumption made that somehow all riders who doped were on equal footing with each other, and therefore the most talented rider eventually always came to the fore.

Someone please explain this to me because it makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.

If Riis was a donkey turned racehorse, then Armstrong even morseo.
Armstrong showed a lot more talent than Riis in his early career. I don't know why you always need to make Armstrong out to be the worst thing ever. The Black Death was worse than Armstrong, for example.
 
Oct 16, 2010
19,912
1
0
Berzin said:
There is an incorrect assumption made that somehow all riders who doped were on equal footing with each other, and therefore the most talented rider eventually always came to the fore.

Someone please explain this to me because it makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.

If Riis was a donkey turned racehorse, then Armstrong even morseo.
Good comment. But in some cases athletism is just recognizeable. You look at Armstrong, you see a pure athlete, say, a la C. Ronaldo. You see Riis, you see a hardworking watercarrier, say, a la Puyol.
But I agree: stating that Armstrong was probably one of the most talented out there, regardless of how much he doped, is a subjective statement based on intuition and open to debate.
And of course, I agree, Riis' athletic capacities should not be underestimated either.
 
Jul 16, 2010
17,463
0
0
hrotha said:
Armstrong showed a lot more talent than Riis in his early career. I don't know why you always need to make Armstrong out to be the worst thing ever. The Black Death was worse than Armstrong, for example.
Armstrong is the youngest world champion for a reason. Takes talent, and probably doping too, but who wasn't back then...
 
How on earth do you characterize a 'pure athlete'? Is Lance a Jesse Owens?

When I look at Armstrong I see a pure sociopath.

To be pure, doesn't that infer no doping and absolutely no doping controversy?

Dave.
 
Jul 16, 2010
17,463
0
0
D-Queued said:
How on earth do you characterize a 'pure athlete'? Is Lance a Jesse Owens?

When I look at Armstrong I see a pure sociopath.

To be pure, doesn't that infer no doping and absolutely no doping controversy?

Dave.
This is cycling. Even if you're clean you'll probably end up in some doping controversies throughout your career if you're a super star in cycling.
 

Polish

BANNED
Mar 11, 2009
3,853
0
0
Benotti69 said:
is winning the TdF now a poisoned chalice...

well? who has done really well out of winning the TdF of the last 2 decades?
?
Why look back only 20 years?

If you want to see poison - you can see it all the way back to the TdF's origin.
The poison is in the eye of the beholder.

There have been some incredible Tours in the last 100+ years in my eyes, many of them in the last 20 years or so.

Berzin said:
There is an incorrect assumption made that somehow all riders who doped were on equal footing with each other, and therefore the most talented rider eventually always came to the fore.
.
The all-around best rider always wins.
Blarne was the best in 1996. Best team mates too.

However, the most doped rider does NOT always win.
Also, the rider who responds best to dope does NOT always win.

Could be the case that the winner is NOT the one who responds the best to dope..

Of course, that rider would have to over compensate by training harder, sleeping in a tent, weighing his strudel with a scale, recon courses, train harder some more, etc etc etc.
 
Oct 16, 2010
19,912
1
0
D-Queued said:
How on earth do you characterize a 'pure athlete'? Is Lance a Jesse Owens?

When I look at Armstrong I see a pure sociopath.

To be pure, doesn't that infer no doping and absolutely no doping controversy?

Dave.
agreed. well, then 'pure' as in 'true', 'allround'.
A great athlete, yeah, that's what he looks/looked like to me.
Contador, to skinny; Schleck, woudln't wanna see him play football either.
Ulrich: great athlete, lovely style.
Indurain: a doubtful case, strong, but never ever stood on his pedals, which is what I liked about Armstrong in the mountains.
Lemond, Fignon: Athletes.
 
hrotha said:
Armstrong showed a lot more talent than Riis in his early career. I don't know why you always need to make Armstrong out to be the worst thing ever. The Black Death was worse than Armstrong, for example.
Agreed. The black Death was worse than Armstrong.

And while Armstong doped and then some, he had his talents no doubt, talents that helped make him WC champion at 23 (though he probably was dopingt there too, just not with ferrari)

And even TFF, in a rare post of concession to "the uniballer" said that Armstrong had tremendous determination which no doubt helped.

I agree, for Lance it really didnt matter what it would take to win the next TDF, it was the only thing in the world that was important to him.

TO me this mindset is a bit of a curse, i just cant see taking that much pain and peds to win the tdf as worth it, but it no doubt helped Lance. Many people see something admirable in the never say die attitude, even if that admiration is crushed when they see Lance screw simoni, or his weak responce to Flandis.
 

Dettol

BANNED
Nov 10, 2010
98
0
0
You guys need to go back to a rider's youth to determine 'pure athlete'. Lance was a tri-athlete so he was a good all round athlete. Jan was a gifted 'all round' cyclist but Contador was mainly a hill climber.
 
hrotha said:
Armstrong showed a lot more talent than Riis in his early career. I don't know why you always need to make Armstrong out to be the worst thing ever. The Black Death was worse than Armstrong, for example.

Riis rode for many years as a domestique, so his and Armstrong's careers had different trajectories.

Natural talent doesn't transform you from a bullfrog-shaped Classics rider to a Tour climber and time-trial rider par excellence. We've been over this a thousand times.

Armstrong had talent, but not as a stage race rider. Then he got on the program full-stop. He saw how effective it was and locked up Ferarri for the whole time he rode the Tour.

There was a write-up in Velo Magazine years ago that tracked one of Armstrong's Tour wins. Outside of the prologue and time trials, he rode a grand total of 23 kilometers at the front without the aid of his teammates.

Super-doped athlete with a super-doped team the likes of which we had never seen equals his success. Not talent, not hard work, not his blown-out-of-all-reasonable-proportion triathlon career, as if doing triathlons as a youth is an inevitable precursor of legitimate Tour success.
 
Berzin said:
...

There was a write-up in Velo Magazine years ago that tracked one of Armstrong's Tour wins. Outside of the prologue and time trials, he rode a grand total of 23 kilometers at the front without the aid of his teammates.

...
Doped or no, he is no Eddy Merckx.

Coming up well short of 96 days in yellow put an exclamation point on Lance as any sort of pure athlete.

Dave.
 
Berzin said:
Riis rode for many years as a domestique, so his and Armstrong's careers had different trajectories.

[etc]
So if what you're saying is that Riis and Armstrong aren't comparable, why did you compare them?
"If Riis was a donkey turned racehorse, then Armstrong even morseo."
Hmm?

Anyway, I didn't say Armstrong had talent as a GT GC rider. You don't need to preach to the choir. All I'm saying is, Armstrong showed more talent than Riis before their respective transformations. That's a simple fact.
 
hrotha said:
So if what you're saying is that Riis and Armstrong aren't comparable, why did you compare them?
One was a domestique turned Tour winner. Another, a Classics rider with the requisite horse torso turned Tour winner. How do they compare? They both HAD to dope to win the Tour. Just because Armstrong won it more times doesn't mean he was that much more talented than Riis. Their physiologies were both equally as skewed from the dope.


hrotha said:
Anyway, I didn't say Armstrong had talent as a GT GC rider. You don't need to preach to the choir. All I'm saying is, Armstrong showed more talent than Riis before their respective transformations. That's a simple fact.
Just because Armstrong may have had more natural talent doesn't mean he had it in him to be a Tour contender.

The comparison to be made is neither should have won the Tour on their own merits. To say that Armstrong had more talent than Riis dilutes the argument. Does it really matter?
 

flicker

BANNED
Aug 17, 2009
4,153
0
0
Yes the chalice is poisoned. The chalice is poisoned with determination and guts. For instance Merckx, he knew nothing but racing during his career.

I love him and respect him but from what I have seen the things which one would consider most important(family) were a sidebar in his cycling career.
that is what it takes in this sport that is what got Lance where he was,is now.

With Lance it was laser like focus, psycopath/sociopath, intensity that lifted him high. Once again personal relationships fell by the wayside rather quickly, with Lance there was only the prize. Eddy Merckx same thing read Eddy Merckx by Rik Vanwalleghem. Watch the film Course de Tete. Merckx wife narates and it is as if Eddy were a museum piece during his career, few few close to him. These guys Eddy and Lance remind me of Ishi, living out their lives in a museum, showing us how to make perfect spearpoints out of obsidian.

Lonely lonely were Armstrong, Ishis and Merckx life. It is a poisoned chalice they choose to drink.
 
Polish said:
Bla bla bla .......snip.....

Could be the case that the winner is NOT the one who responds the best to dope..

Of course, that rider would have to over compensate by training harder, sleeping in a tent, weighing his strudel with a scale, recon courses, train harder some more, etc etc etc.
You are slipping Polisher, you forgot to mention the high cadence. Of course it helps too, if you own your own Ferrari and don't let anyone except your teammates use it.
 
Polish said:
The all-around best rider always wins.
Perreiro?

With Lance it was laser like focus, psycopath/sociopath, intensity that lifted him high. Once again personal relationships fell by the wayside rather quickly, with Lance there was only the prize.
Yet he had time for Cheryl Crowe, Robin Williams, Matthew, and all the rest. Not to mention a marriage and mutliple kids. One of the biggest myths is the superdedicated athlete. The most dedicated people on the planet are not athletes, who forever brag about, oh, how hard they work. Athletes work no harder than, if as hard as, your ordinary 9-5 wage slave (even LA never said, "What am I on? I'm on my bike eight hours a day". They just have a different line of work.

The myth of the hardworking athlete is perpetrated in large part so that those who are genetically blessed can rationalize their incredible luck. These athletes have no clue about what real dedication is, what you have to give up. Beginning, of course, with your ego.
 
Berzin said:
One was a domestique turned Tour winner. Another, a Classics rider with the requisite horse torso turned Tour winner. How do they compare? They both HAD to dope to win the Tour. Just because Armstrong won it more times doesn't mean he was that much more talented than Riis. Their physiologies were both equally as skewed from the dope.




Just because Armstrong may have had more natural talent doesn't mean he had it in him to be a Tour contender.

The comparison to be made is neither should have won the Tour on their own merits. To say that Armstrong had more talent than Riis dilutes the argument. Does it really matter?
Honestly at this point I'm not even sure you're arguing with me instead of with one giant strawman. I did not say, and do not believe, that Armstrong had natural talent as a stage racer or that he would have been a Tour contender in a hypothetical clean sport. I'm just saying this statement of yours:
If Riis was a donkey turned racehorse, then Armstrong even morseo.
...is total malarkey and, I might add, baloney sandwiches. The argument was not "Armstrong could have won the Tour while Riis couldn't". The argument was "Armstrong was even less of a natural talent than Riis".

I know we all are biased somehow but it won't kill you to try to be objective, and it won't make you an Armstrong lover, so you may rest easy.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY