Lance to do Ironman?

[skippy254]

In response to a question Lance said there is a very good chance he will do the Kona Ironman. This could be interesting to watch.

http://twitter.com/lancearmstrong

 

[blackcat]

not until retired.

This is just to keep his name at the top of the AP wire.

 

[flicker]

It would be awesome to see Lance do the Ironman.

 

[Galic Ho]

Dream on. Another sucker is born every minute. You have to qualify at nationals to do Kona. Armstrong has never done an Ironman. He'd be annihilated. LA's best marathon didn't put him in the top 200, in a time that most of the KONA men can put in after the 3.8km swim and 180 km bike ride.

He wouldn't even be a match for Chrissie Wellington. Someone should tell him to be realistic and stay away sports that don't need to be negatively tainted. The Armstrong sideshow polluted this years TdF, triathlon could well do without that.

 

[Trev_S]

You have to qualify at nationals to do Kona.

If he does ever actually intend to do it you may just find that he will get a invite entry (it's been done before) anyway.

 

[Anonymous]

It would be awesome to see The Uniballer get busted for a doping violation and take his chamois sniffers with him.

 

[BroDeal]

Dream on. Another sucker is born every minute. You have to qualify at nationals to do Kona.

Not really. There are a few ways to get to Hawaii. You can get in by merit by winning a slot in various races. Failing that you can get in via the lottery. Finally there is the "gimp" class, where the promoters give a start to people with some problem so that NBC can moon about them during their "triumph of the human spirit" garbage that passes for their race coverage. I imagine Armstrong could get in via the gimp class.

The real question is whether the flotation effect of his giant ego would constitute an unfair advantage. Maybe they could let everyone else use wet suits to make up for it.

 

[180mmCrank]

Sorry for those that know this but for those that don't Lance started out as a triathlete and he was pretty good as a kid...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sFkAhs4vAsk&feature=related

I have no doubt that if he wanted to do an ironman he could be fairly competitive...but not winning it or anything! And not until after he has got the cycling thing out of his system... Tour #8 or bust!

 

[eganski]

Hello-

This is my first post as I am an "ex" Ironman athlete making the switch to cycling. That Lance would follow in the footsteps of Udo Bolts and Laurent Jalabert has been speculated on for quite some time but it looks like it will become a reality. A few months ago he made a comment on his twitter that he was watching NBC Kona DVD's and was inspired, then made a comment that it's "safe to say he'll race Kona" after winning Leadville-

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zLQrO0l4gjY&feature=channel

He'll be invited without qualifying because Ironman Hawaii is a business.

 

[egtalbot]

LA's best marathon didn't put him in the top 200, in a time that most of the KONA men can put in after the 3.8km swim and 180 km bike ride.

Just goes to show that the knee jerk haters are almost as detached from reality as the fanboys (not quite, though . Lance won't be close to winning in all likelihood and it's the run that will hurt him the most. But a brief check of the 2008 Kona results shows that only one elite guy beat Lance's best marathon time of 2:46 and change. Obviously you wouldn't expect Lance to be anywhere near that time after the swim and bike, but that wasn't the point made by the poster.

Since we're talking semantics, I understand that the poster said that most of the men CAN put in that kind of time after the swim and bike. Certainly if he wants to post results from a "most" of the kona men showing that they have at some point run sub 2:47 after the swim and bike, I would stand corrected. I won't hold my breath, though.

 

[Rupert]

Ironman?

Lance did Tri's, but did he ever do the full Ironman distance? Not sure they encourage that for kids (I think he was a teenager through his tri career)? Not that it matters. I certainy wouldn't expect him to win the Hawaii Ironman either way (any more than he could win the Boston or NYC Marathon)... I'm sure he could be pretty respectable, but the level of competition is incredible. Not to disrespect the Leadville 100, but it's not as high profile as Hawaii, some really elite athletes there but not on the same level. And (TDF) cycling fitness transfers really well into Leadville, an Ironman is a whole 'nother thing... It would be fun to watch.

 

[Galic Ho]

Just goes to show that the knee jerk haters are almost as detached from reality as the fanboys (not quite, though . Lance won't be close to winning in all likelihood and it's the run that will hurt him the most. But a brief check of the 2008 Kona results shows that only one elite guy beat Lance's best marathon time of 2:46 and change. Obviously you wouldn't expect Lance to be anywhere near that time after the swim and bike, but that wasn't the point made by the poster.

Since we're talking semantics, I understand that the poster said that most of the men CAN put in that kind of time after the swim and bike. Certainly if he wants to post results from a "most" of the kona men showing that they have at some point run sub 2:47 after the swim and bike, I would stand corrected. I won't hold my breath, though.

If you want to be competitive you have to be able to put in a 2:50 or 2:45 minute marathon. Craig Alexander and Chris McCormack have both been in this range. They've won the last two KONA editions. Also the conditions play a part in the times ie: temperature, wind etc. I'll still stick with my claim the top woman, Chrissie Wellington, heck include Rebekah Keat there as well, could produce a better overall time than Armstrong.

If you kicked your brain into gear you'd have read my post correctly, as I said triathlon doesn't need the unwarranted attention that Armstrong brings. Plenty of triathletes and Ironman competitors bust their arses off and if LA turns up the focus will be entirely on him. That is fundamentally wrong. Is that his fault? Yes to a degree because he is aware of this and encourages it. To counter the discouragement claims, ask yourself is Armstrong's behaviour condusive with an attention seeker? Which brings us back to semantics. Armstrong would not enter with the aim of being competitive (doesn't sit well with his personality). He has no hope in that department without serious training. So the logical assumption is that he will only race for kudos or cash.

Also my claim about qualifying sticks for aussies. You have to qualifty at the Australian Ironman during April in Port Macquarie. Yes there is a lottery but you still have to have raced at least in a 70.3 Ironman event. I couldn't care less what the yanks do in terms of qualifying protocols, but an invitational spot for a sporting celebrity devalues the point in qualifying. Bottom line is its about the dollars in such a scenario.

 

[egtalbot]

If you want to be competitive you have to be able to put in a 2:50 or 2:45 minute marathon. Craig Alexander and Chris McCormack have both been in this range. They've won the last two KONA editions. Also the conditions play a part in the times ie: temperature, wind etc. I'll still stick with my claim the top woman, Chrissie Wellington, heck include Rebekah Keat there as well, could produce a better overall time than Armstrong.

If you kicked your brain into gear you'd have read my post correctly, as I said triathlon doesn't need the unwarranted attention that Armstrong brings. Plenty of triathletes and Ironman competitors bust their arses off and if LA turns up the focus will be entirely on him. That is fundamentally wrong. Is that his fault? Yes to a degree because he is aware of this and encourages it. To counter the discouragement claims, ask yourself is Armstrong's behaviour condusive with an attention seeker? Which brings us back to semantics. Armstrong would not enter with the aim of being competitive (doesn't sit well with his personality). He has no hope in that department without serious training. So the logical assumption is that he will only race for kudos or cash.

Also my claim about qualifying sticks for aussies. You have to qualifty at the Australian Ironman during April in Port Macquarie. Yes there is a lottery but you still have to have raced at least in a 70.3 Ironman event. I couldn't care less what the yanks do in terms of qualifying protocols, but an invitational spot for a sporting celebrity devalues the point in qualifying. Bottom line is its about the dollars in such a scenario.

I don't disagree with most of what you said here. But you didn't contradict with evidence the only thing I originally disagreed with, your statement that most of the guys could beat his 2:46 after the swim and bike. The evidence actually suggests that most of them haven't. Identifying that the past two winners can is not at all the same thing as "most". If you want to say most of them can come within ten minutes of his time after the swim and bike, I certainly wouldn't take issue with it.

I think it's quite possible Wellington would beat him. On the other hand, I'd be surprised if he couldn't ride a very controlled 4:25 bike leg, and all he'd have to do is break 3:30 for the marathon and do an adequate swim to beat her 2008 Kona time. Not guaranteed, but well within possibility.

 

[dirtybill]

Dream on. Another sucker is born every minute. You have to qualify at nationals to do Kona. Armstrong has never done an Ironman. He'd be annihilated. LA's best marathon didn't put him in the top 200, in a time that most of the KONA men can put in after the 3.8km swim and 180 km bike ride.

He wouldn't even be a match for Chrissie Wellington. Someone should tell him to be realistic and stay away sports that don't need to be negatively tainted. The Armstrong sideshow polluted this years TdF, triathlon could well do without that.

why do you hate armstong? armstong is a great cyclist not a great ironman. like it or not people liked to watch jordan struggle at baseball against the best just as people would like to see armstrong compete in kona. kona is business. it would be unrealistic to think he would win his first ironman but he would still probably do better than most competitors.

 

[gregod]

Seriously, who cares? This bit of trivia has what relevance? Let's dispense with the Lance threads until he does something cycling newsworthy. You know, like start a new team, win a race, etc. His latest tweet is not on this list.

 

[Hugh Januss]

This seems to me like a very good example of an ego writing checks that the body won't be able to cash. He'll be mid pack at the very best. Unless he does a bunch of tri specific training (you know swimming) he'll be lower than that. He hasn't been a triathlete since he was what, about 17?
As for Galic Ho's statement that he couldn't qualify, come on he doesn't have to he's LANCE ARMSTRONG. They let all his friends into Leadville after reg. was long closed. They would let him in believe me, even if he was no faster than whichever war vet. or double amputee they are focusing on for a feel good story this year. They have time to wait for him to finish.

 

[Galic Ho]

I don't disagree with most of what you said here. But you didn't contradict with evidence the only thing I originally disagreed with, your statement that most of the guys could beat his 2:46 after the swim and bike. The evidence actually suggests that most of them haven't. Identifying that the past two winners can is not at all the same thing as "most". If you want to say most of them can come within ten minutes of his time after the swim and bike, I certainly wouldn't take issue with it.

I think it's quite possible Wellington would beat him. On the other hand, I'd be surprised if he couldn't ride a very controlled 5:25 bike leg, and all he'd have to do is break 3:30 for the marathon and do an adequate swim to beat her 2008 Kona time. Not guaranteed, but well within possibility.

Should have mentioned that I used the word 'most' loosely. My context was right (in terms of winning) but poor choice of adjective. Yes to win you need a time like 2:45 but the top 10 are ten to fiveteen minutes slower, hovering between this and around 3 hours. Nobody has gone under 8 hours at Kona, something that happens in other races globally. I agree LA would have a killer bike leg, any decent TT pro cyclist would. I'd expect most athletes short of training to blow another ten minutes in a swim leg as a minimum. Given potential injuries I don't see him risking it.

Dirtybill if I hated LA the adjectives I used would be soo colourful you'd blush. I simply believe the training volume most Ironman athletes do would kill (not literally) most pro cyclists. Pro Ironmen/women do the km's a cyclist does plus 100 odd km's running and 20 km swimming a week on average. They deserve their time in the sun. After Crowie won last year he received little media attention. Compare to LA @ Leadville or when he was in Ireland. Big differences in attention and perceived effort displayed.

Hugh Januss I agree. The name Lance Armstrong is an open invite. However I pointed out that he 'hasn't' qualified not that he 'couldn't'. If he trained he would. Which to be fair, he should have to. Its similar to the US Open and Serena Williams. She misbehaves and is given more attention than the winner of the womens comp. Ridiculous. One rule for the general public, and another for the elite. It shouldn't be tolerated in a decent society. Its called 'fair play' here in the land downunder. But people choose to pull the wool over there eyes and ignore when it suits their interests/amusement.

 

[PACONi]

If you want to be competitive you have to be able to put in a 2:50 or 2:45 minute marathon. Craig Alexander and Chris McCormack have both been in this range. They've won the last two KONA editions. Also the conditions play a part in the times ie: temperature, wind etc. I'll still stick with my claim the top woman, Chrissie Wellington, heck include Rebekah Keat there as well, could produce a better overall time than Armstrong.

If you kicked your brain into gear you'd have read my post correctly, as I said triathlon doesn't need the unwarranted attention that Armstrong brings. Plenty of triathletes and Ironman competitors bust their arses off and if LA turns up the focus will be entirely on him. That is fundamentally wrong. Is that his fault? Yes to a degree because he is aware of this and encourages it. To counter the discouragement claims, ask yourself is Armstrong's behaviour condusive with an attention seeker? Which brings us back to semantics. Armstrong would not enter with the aim of being competitive (doesn't sit well with his personality). He has no hope in that department without serious training. So the logical assumption is that he will only race for kudos or cash.

Also my claim about qualifying sticks for aussies. You have to qualifty at the Australian Ironman during April in Port Macquarie. Yes there is a lottery but you still have to have raced at least in a 70.3 Ironman event. I couldn't care less what the yanks do in terms of qualifying protocols, but an invitational spot for a sporting celebrity devalues the point in qualifying. Bottom line is its about the dollars in such a scenario.

Aussies can also qualify at Busselton. But the system is definitely set up for North Americans to qualify more easily than anyone else.

Everyone seems to be assuming that LA would race under a Pro licence. I see no reason why he couldn't race as an age grouper and in that case he'd most likely qualify on his own merit. Not that it would come to that,as a few people have pointed out he'd get a sponsors invite or something like it for sure.

I find it a little funny that you'd use Rebekah Keat as an example, given her suspension doping!

I see your points with regard to LA hogging the attention if he did race, but I think that the sport would benefit from more attention.
I personally don't like LA. I'm dubious about his motives and methods for his comeback, but Ironman could benefit from his participation. There's no way he'd win anything close to a decent race v's quality opposition.

@Brodeal. Fully agree. All IM coverage is 90% nauseating 'human interest' stories and the race itself seems to be an afterthought.

 

[egtalbot]

Pro Ironmen/women do the km's a cyclist does plus 100 odd km's running and 20 km swimming a week on average. They deserve their time in the sun.

Shifting gears from semantics and knowing very little about exactly the volume that say a top 10-20 in the world ironman competitor does, I wanted to follow up on this. My understanding is that many pro cyclists, especially grand tour riders, do 1000k a week of cycling for decent portions of the year. Do ironman competitors generally do that?

If so, it's pretty damn impressive. But i do wonder about the wisdom of doing 10 times as many k on the bike as on the run when the running leg is 25% of the bike leg. I know elite cyclists spend more time on their bike than elite runners spend running (most elite marathoners run 220-270k/week, which for the men is only 12-15 hours), which could explain it I guess.

It's interesting stuff to ponder. As a lifelong runner, I've added cycling in recent years and just did my first sprint triathlon. I've concluded that I could barely manage to put in the training necessary for a decent Olympic distance one. By decent i don't mean elite, just competitive relative to my own abilities.

A full Ironman I might be able to train enough to just finish (or I might not!), but that would be about it unless I quit my job and slept 12 hours a day around training. I'm in awe of the people who can put in sub-10 hour times, or even sub 9 hour times, while working 40 hours a week.

 

[PACONi]

Shifting gears from semantics and knowing very little about exactly the volume that say a top 10-20 in the world ironman competitor does, I wanted to follow up on this. My understanding is that many pro cyclists, especially grand tour riders, do 1000k a week of cycling for decent portions of the year. Do ironman competitors generally do that?

If so, it's pretty damn impressive. But i do wonder about the wisdom of doing 10 times as many k on the bike as on the run when the running leg is 25% of the bike leg. I know elite cyclists spend more time on their bike than elite runners spend running (most elite marathoners run 220-270k/week, which for the men is only 12-15 hours), which could explain it I guess.

It's interesting stuff to ponder. As a lifelong runner, I've added cycling in recent years and just did my first sprint triathlon. I've concluded that I could barely manage to put in the training necessary for a decent Olympic distance one. By decent i don't mean elite, just competitive relative to my own abilities.

A full Ironman I might be able to train enough to just finish (or I might not!), but that would be about it unless I quit my job and slept 12 hours a day around training. I'm in awe of the people who can put in sub-10 hour times, or even sub 9 hour times, while working 40 hours a week.

I remember reading an article in which Normann Stadler (a German Ironman, won Kona twice iirc) got to spend a week with T-Mobile and did 1000k+ that week, he seemed to indicate that this was an unusually high number for him.
As an amatuer I used to top out at about 8k swim 350k bike and 65k run.

The training for sprint v's Olympic v's IM is massively different in terms of intensity. Also bear in mind that an IM athlete will only compete at that distance a few times a year, plus a number of half-IM races. Pro cyclists race a lot more than that.

 

[Galic Ho]

Aussies can also qualify at Busselton. But the system is definitely set up for North Americans to qualify more easily than anyone else.

Everyone seems to be assuming that LA would race under a Pro licence. I see no reason why he couldn't race as an age grouper and in that case he'd most likely qualify on his own merit. Not that it would come to that,as a few people have pointed out he'd get a sponsors invite or something like it for sure.

I find it a little funny that you'd use Rebekah Keat as an example, given her suspension doping!

I see your points with regard to LA hogging the attention if he did race, but I think that the sport would benefit from more attention.
I personally don't like LA. I'm dubious about his motives and methods for his comeback, but Ironman could benefit from his participation. There's no way he'd win anything close to a decent race v's quality opposition.

I wondered about Busselton. Wasn't sure. Now I know. Thanks.

Oh the irony regarding the bold section. I'll take it you aren't as up to date with doping incidents as I am. Armstrong, well look in the clinic for an idea on his past. Sure its subjective concerning LA but there is more than enough evidence to come to a sound conclusion. However, Rebekah Keat is not a doper! The woman was put through hell for no fault of her own. Hammer Nutrition provided a supplement called "Endurolytes" that were tainted with nandrolone which she used in the 2004 Western Australian Ironman. She'd been told it was certified and clean. A WADA accredited lab, after a great deal of trouble, tested the packets she'd been provided and found nandrolone and other banned hormones she hadn't tested positive for...things that weren't supposed to be there. Despite the findings she was still banned by ASADA and missed the best part of 3 years of competition. Stupidity at its highest but thats the system. So Keat hired an attornet Howard Jacobs and with two other triathletes sued Hammer Nutrition for their dodgy product. They won, with Hammer Nutrition caving in before pulling every trick in the book to smudge the athletes credilbility. If an athlete is given a tainted product that should be safe what chance do they have? I hope for your sake you weren't one of the misinformed halfwits who yelled derogatory remarks at Keat during her comeback.

Shifting gears from semantics and knowing very little about exactly the volume that say a top 10-20 in the world ironman competitor does, I wanted to follow up on this. My understanding is that many pro cyclists, especially grand tour riders, do 1000k a week of cycling for decent portions of the year. Do ironman competitors generally do that?

From what I've heard Macca say in an interview in TMSM he does from 700-1000 km's on the bike a week. Then his swimming and running training, which is equivalent to a distance runner and olympic swimmers workload. Aussie swimmers do between 15 and 20 hours of pool work a week at maximum with gym sessions. No more than 25 hours work. So I'm guessing the elite Ironman competitors are hitting close to 50 hours a week in training. Insane stuff. They have to watch for overtraining. Nasty stuff overtraining. I've heard stories about the body not having enough glycogen and too little fat and eating muscle tissue for energy. As I said nasty stuff. Apparently smells like bad cheese when it happens.

 

[PACONi]

I wondered about Busselton. Wasn't sure. Now I know. Thanks.

Oh the irony regarding the bold section. I'll take it you aren't as up to date with doping incidents as I am. Armstrong, well look in the clinic for an idea on his past. Sure its subjective concerning LA but there is more than enough evidence to come to a sound conclusion. However, Rebekah Keat is not a doper! The woman was put through hell for no fault of her own. Hammer Nutrition provided a supplement called "Endurolytes" that were tainted with nandrolone which she used in the 2004 Western Australian Ironman. She'd been told it was certified and clean. A WADA accredited lab, after a great deal of trouble, tested the packets she'd been provided and found nandrolone and other banned hormones she hadn't tested positive for...things that weren't supposed to be there. Despite the findings she was still banned by ASADA and missed the best part of 3 years of competition. Stupidity at its highest but thats the system. So Keat hired an attornet Howard Jacobs and with two other triathletes sued Hammer Nutrition for their dodgy product. They won, with Hammer Nutrition caving in before pulling every trick in the book to smudge the athletes credilbility. If an athlete is given a tainted product that should be safe what chance do they have? I hope for your sake you weren't one of the misinformed halfwits who yelled derogatory remarks at Keat during her comeback.



From what I've heard Macca say in an interview in TMSM he does from 700-1000 km's on the bike a week. Then his swimming and running training, which is equivalent to a distance runner and olympic swimmers workload. Aussie swimmers do between 15 and 20 hours of pool work a week at maximum with gym sessions. No more than 25 hours work. So I'm guessing the elite Ironman competitors are hitting close to 50 hours a week in training. Insane stuff. They have to watch for overtraining. Nasty stuff overtraining. I've heard stories about the body not having enough glycogen and too little fat and eating muscle tissue for energy. As I said nasty stuff. Apparently smells like bad cheese when it happens.

I think theres about 20-25 spots up for grabs at Busso, nowhere near the 75 at PMQ.

I'm well aware of LA's history. Never said I thought he was/is clean. Quite the opposite.
Re Keat. I googled her before posting because I was working off memory. It was surprisingly hard to find any details of what she'd been busted for. I did know that she had blamed a supplement for her positive and that she was suing them. Given the number of lame excuses I've read from busted athletes in my time I wasn't inclined to believe her any more so than the others. I must admit that I didn't know the outcome of the legal proceedings. If you can link to an article I'd be interested in reading it.
As for yelling insults at the girl, well I think you need to calm down. I don't think I insulted her in my original post, just stated history, so I'd hardly bother to yell at her in person. Plus, if I'm at a race, then I'm racing, not watching and concentrating on my own thing.

 

[Galic Ho]

Re Keat. I googled her before posting because I was working off memory. It was surprisingly hard to find any details of what she'd been busted for. I did know that she had blamed a supplement for her positive and that she was suing them. Given the number of lame excuses I've read from busted athletes in my time I wasn't inclined to believe her any more so than the others. I must admit that I didn't know the outcome of the legal proceedings. If you can link to an article I'd be interested in reading it.
As for yelling insults at the girl, well I think you need to calm down. I don't think I insulted her in my original post, just stated history, so I'd hardly bother to yell at her in person. Plus, if I'm at a race, then I'm racing, not watching and concentrating on my own thing.

You misinterpreted my point about the insults. I wrote that "I hope for your sake", meaning that given Keat has been subject to lots of unheralded abuse by fans who don't know the full story you may have fallen into that category unknowingly. People take firm stand points against dopers, sometimes rather vocally, often not realising not every positive control is the result of premeditated cheating. Accidents do happen, but not very often...hence why Hammer Nutrition are acting like tools. I wasn't accusing you of anything, I was generalising based upon your original comment regarding Keat. Not many people know who she is let alone her history.

As for the article you won't find it online. It was in the March issue of Triathlon and Multisport Magazine (aussie edition) or Vol 12. No. 3. You can buy backdated copies. It was an opinion piece by Rod Cedaro. He's friends with Keat and mentioned TMSM had been threatened by Hammer Nutrition for daring to print a media excerpt that Keat was taking legal action against them. It seems he wanted to inform people with the truth. More informed people make wiser decisions. So when your racing, good luck and stay away from Hammer Nutrition products unless you want an added kick.

 

[karlboss]

If lance were to do ironman, a reasonable assumption for run time is 30 minutes slower than his best marathon, so to be top 10 competetive he'd need to ride 15 minutes quicker than the other guys. I guess he could. The obstacle for me would clearly be the swim i know its the shortest leg, but I have this funny feeling his upper body isn't what it used to be, I'm guessing he'd lose 30 minutes right there.
One year specific training would be interesting.
Ironman athletes spend so much relative time riding over running as their joints wouldn't hold up to running 6 hours a day and they need that time to develop their aerobic base.
Qualifying, biased towards americans...a little. Busso and port get a few less spots than the american races, by about 10 each. However there are more races within a reasonable travel distance for the americans, but then there are more people that live in the states.