• The Cycling News forum is looking to add some volunteer moderators with Red Rick's recent retirement. If you're interested in helping keep our discussions on track, send a direct message to @SHaines here on the forum, or use the Contact Us form to message the Community Team.

    In the meanwhile, please use the Report option if you see a post that doesn't fit within the forum rules.

    Thanks!

Lance's Legacy: How Lance Changed Cycling

Jul 8, 2010
79
0
0
Visit site
Just a brief of list of some of the innovations introduced by Lance/Johan that have changed the sport of cycling forever.

1. Recon

US Postal was the only team to do recon on almost the entire Tour de France from '99 to '05. Since then other teams have caught on. Contador did his training under Johan as well and did recon both in '07 and in '09 and '10 for all his 3 Tour victories. These days all major GC contenders do varynig degrees of recon before the Tour as they feel they have to. Here's an interview from the Tour de France director to back this point up.


Jean-Marie Leblanc, Directeur du Tour de France. Translated to English.
June 2001

"For Tour organizers, the French people and European journalists, there is a real curiosity about this American team that has done so well in the Tour de France. I believe this is something new with U.S. Postal. Because they are a little bit European.

They have a European Directeur Sportiff, many European riders, they've adopted a European cycling culture. And I feel that Johan Bruyneel in particular was determined to make the U.S. Postal team good. It's no surprise for me that U.S. Postal today is as good a team as a great European team. The team's behaviour is similar to that of a top Euro team, but with a champion like Lance Armstrong. He's been successful for two straight years.

The Tour de France has been around for nearly a hundred years. The Euro teams have drawn experience from this history. That was something that missing from the American teams before, but now they have caught up.

U.S. Postal understands that it takes the entire first half of the year to prepare for the Tour de France. What has impressed me is that these guys work the months of May and June doing almost a complete reconnaissance of the Tour de France. They study the climbs and the difficulties in a very professional way. They are the only ones to do this out of all the big champions.

One key to Lance's success is this shared appreciation of the best way to tackle the Tour de France."


Here's another interview by Lance Armstrong, confirming no other teams were doing recon.


Lance Armstrong interview, June 2001

Lance: "I don't know why it started. I'm not sure if it was that we didn't know the climbs or to just do hard training. In the end you end up accomplishing both. You know the courses perfectly and you also end up with 4, 5, 6 days of really hard training. I come out of these things a lot better than I go in. Stronger for the season.

So..... I think originally we just wanted to see the course. And the side effect was good fitness. But you know it's remarkable that nobody does the reconnaissance. But you know in cycling ..... errr...... everyone wants to do their own thing. They would never copy somebody else. So.... it's fine. I understand that."

Interviewer: "So it all becomes tradition"

Lance: "Well it is already tradition for us now. We'll see what the next generation of teams will do"


Here's another interview by Lance confirming noone else does recon.

Interview Lance Armstrong, June 2001.

"Errr........ so every year you have to look at what they've done and say, ok, how do we prepare for that. Last year there was more climbing and less Time Trialling. So what do we do? Well we train more climbs and less Time Trials.

Errr........ this year's hard. It's a hard Tour de France. There are about 5, 6 days, 2 days in the Alps, 3 days in the Pyrenees, where it's........... very hard. So we need to focus on those climbs, focus on that uphill Time Trial........ which I've never really done. Maybe 2 or 3 in my life.

The best thing for us is a hard Tour de France. That's the good news. If they make it easier...... if it was 3 weeks with laps around Paris, we won't win. The fact that it changes and the fact that it's more challenging every year, and it's different every year.......... it's good for us. Because we.... we're willing to do the homework. If they add tricky stages, we're willing to go ahead there and do the recon whereas nobody else does."


2. Wind Tunnel testing

Although it was well understood that aerodynamics played a big role in Time Trial performance, Lance took it to a whole new level. The team studied and tweaked all aspects of aerodynamic position in wind tunnels from elbow angles, to bent, and ofcourse to helmet shape and dynamics. Who can forget the space age white and blue helmet Lance wore in the '99 prologue when he shocked everyone by winning it, looking ridiculous (at the time) in a weird pointy helmet which are now standard issue for time trialling. Similarly further tweaking/designing the time trial bike, innovations used by most teams today.

3. Training to specific goals

Previously most teams used to train to fitness but US Postal changed the dynamics by always training to specific goals for eacch member. The team was designed to support Lance and to protect the jersey, and each member had a specific goal in that aspect (determined after the course had been studied) and trained for that goal as opposed to training for general fitness. This change also took a while before being adopted but this training is exactly what has delivered Contador his 3 wins as well with this year's Astanna team also using the same boot camp and regimen to train and succeed.

4. Nutrition and recovery

Nutrition was one aspect of bike racing that teams have always paid attention to but just like all other facts listed here, Lance's team took it to a new level. They studied and tweaked the nutritional aspects, and while in '99 and '00 they also started with the same old rice cakes and all, they advanced rapidly in both the type of nutritions used as well as monitoring their use in race. This was generally adopted by the best teams fairly quickly although a lot of the small teams are still ways behind, as demonstrated by Nicholas Roche's blog this year about having a hunger flat during a stage and maybe he should add more sauce to his pasta (!!!). Lance's team was also on the forefront in expanding the use and technique of the massages used to assist in recovery although nothing extraordinarily advanced compared to others.

5. Elevating the status of the Tour

While the Tour was always considered the most prestigious race, Lance elevated its status relative to other cycling races (especially the Giro) to the point that the Tour now consistently boasts a far stronger field than the Giro than it used to do in pre-Lance days. Part of this is adapting to Lance's style of doing recon and training for the Tour. If you feel that you need to train in this way to compete in the Tour, then you don't have time for the Giro (or need a much bigger team to participate in it and not focus or skip the Tour). The impact has only become more dramatic in recent years and now the stark difference in the field compeiting in the Tour versus all other races has only underlined the Tour's prestige and become a self-enforcing phenomenom. As more and more riders prioritize winning the Tour to the detriment of all else, it becomes more and more prestigious, in a cyclical reaction. Until some prominent riders de-emphasize the Tour, this trend will continue.

Minor innovations.

6. Monitoring

Lance was obsessed with real time monitoring of not just vitals such as heart rate, which all riders used to do at his time, but real time monitoring of wattage and its relation with heart rate. If he would normally do a climb at 400 Watts at 130-140 heart rate but was currently doing a climb at 400 Watts at 120 heart rate he would understand the signals his body was sending him and respond accordingly, maybe up to 450 Watts etc. While most riders intrinsically know and do this, Lance again brought active real time monitoring of this and many other vital body functions to remove some of the guesswork.

7. Bike technology.

Lance was also pushing bike technology ahead but these innovations were generally copied very quickly by the competitors. The aerodynamic helmet was just one aspect but using stuff like a 6 cm difference in the back instead of the 5 cm that most riders used in time trial bikes (and even thought 5 cm was more aerodynamic) for better power throughput. Also using e.g. a 5kg mountain bike instead of the 6.5kg-7kg. And various other minor innovations which always kept their team at the forefront of cutting edge research.


Conclusion

The impact Lance has had on cycling has been enormous. The sport has dramatically changed from a decade ago and almost any team that wants to be competitive on the GC in the Tour these days has to follow Lance's blueprint for success. From recon, to specific team composition training to specific goals, to nutrition monitoring, to wind tunnel tweaking for time trialling and various other factors, all teams must conform or be left behind. I think this is Lance's true legacy.

Cyclists have been trying to use performance enhancing drugs for a century. All cycling has been trying to be on the cutting edge of PEDs and a step ahead of authorities. I am skeptical that even now the sport is drug-free. It's just move to subtler shade of human growth hormones that still can't be detected. If Lance did use PEDs, then he was no different than all other cyclists trying to stay a step ahead of the authorities' detection mechanism. Where he was innovative is all the factors listed above.

Lance has had a greater impact on how cycling than any other cyclist and his impact is being felt today and will be felt for decades to come because of these innovations. Cycling will not return to the cuddly, friendly, traditionalist pre-Lance world. Cutting edge training and research is now a huge factor and looks to remain so going forward.
 

Barrus

BANNED
Apr 28, 2010
3,480
0
0
Visit site
God, can we please get a seperate Lance sub-forum, we now have a sperate thread, but it appears almost no-one posts their crap in that. And is it just me or is much of what these people write completely unsubstantiated
 
1. Recon - myth. Already happening.

2. Wind Tunnel testing - myth. Already happening.

3. Training to specific goals - myth. Already happening.

4. Nutrition and recovery - Myth. Already happening.

5. Elevating the status of the Tour - Granted, in the US.

6. Monitoring - Myth, already happening.

7. Bike technology - myth, already happening.

Conclusion

The impact Lance has had on cycling has been enormous. Enormously negative. The sport was given a shot at redemption in 1999 but dramatically changed back and almost any team that wants to be competitive on the GC in the Tour these days has to follow Lance's programme for success. From recon, to specific team composition training to specific goals, to nutrition monitoring, to wind tunnel tweaking for time trialling and various other factors, all factors whose modernity over other major teams was overblown to feed the myth that Armstrong could beat the dopers, clean. Lance's true legacy will be written a year from now by Mr Novitzky and his colleagues.
 
Aug 6, 2009
1,901
1
0
Visit site
Roland Rat said:
1. Recon - myth. Already happening.

2. Wind Tunnel testing - myth. Already happening.

3. Training to specific goals - myth. Already happening.

4. Nutrition and recovery - Myth. Already happening.

5. Elevating the status of the Tour - Granted, in the US.

6. Monitoring - Myth, already happening.

7. Bike technology - myth, already happening.

Conclusion

The impact Lance has had on cycling has been enormous. Enormously negative. The sport was given a shot at redemption in 1999 but dramatically changed back and almost any team that wants to be competitive on the GC in the Tour these days has to follow Lance's programme for success. From recon, to specific team composition training to specific goals, to nutrition monitoring, to wind tunnel tweaking for time trialling and various other factors, all factors whose modernity over other major teams was overblown to feed the myth that Armstrong could beat the dopers, clean. Lance's true legacy will be written a year from now by Mr Novitzky and his colleagues.
Why do you love cancer?

Seriously though, can we merge this thread with the Armstrong one?
 
Jul 8, 2010
79
0
0
Visit site
Susan Westemeyer said:
Your sources for these claims?

Susan

Whole range of list of documentaries on the subject. But here are the documentaries I used for the information above.

"The Science of Lance Armstrong"
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Science-Lan...ef=sr_1_4?ie=UTF8&s=dvd&qid=1280220912&sr=1-4

"Lance Armstrong: The Man Behind the Legend"
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Lance-Armst...ef=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&s=dvd&qid=1280220912&sr=1-3

"29 days with US Postal". A documentary that followed the team from the classics to training for the Tour in 2001. Can't find a link on Amazon.

"Legends of the Tour de France". The official documentary.
http://www.amazon.co.uk/LEGENDS-TOU...=sr_1_12?ie=UTF8&s=dvd&qid=1280220912&sr=1-12

I used a few other docs but yeah these are the important ones.
 
Jul 8, 2010
79
0
0
Visit site
Roland Rat said:
1. Recon - myth. Already happening.

2. Wind Tunnel testing - myth. Already happening.

3. Training to specific goals - myth. Already happening.

4. Nutrition and recovery - Myth. Already happening.

5. Elevating the status of the Tour - Granted, in the US.

6. Monitoring - Myth, already happening.

7. Bike technology - myth, already happening.

Conclusion

The impact Lance has had on cycling has been enormous. Enormously negative. The sport was given a shot at redemption in 1999 but dramatically changed back and almost any team that wants to be competitive on the GC in the Tour these days has to follow Lance's programme for success. From recon, to specific team composition training to specific goals, to nutrition monitoring, to wind tunnel tweaking for time trialling and various other factors, all factors whose modernity over other major teams was overblown to feed the myth that Armstrong could beat the dopers, clean. Lance's true legacy will be written a year from now by Mr Novitzky and his colleagues.

Why would you flat out lie?

I mean something like Recon is so easily proven. There are literally dozens and dozens of sources confirming that US Postal was the ONLY TEAM to do almost a 100% recon of the course in '99 and '00. Some of the other facts I've stated you need to do a bit more research to follow up on but something as simple as Recon is so easily verified from literally dozens of sources.

Stop making stuff up.
 
Biffins said:
Whole range of list of documentaries on the subject. But here are the documentaries I used for the information above.

"The Science of Lance Armstrong"
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Science-Lan...ef=sr_1_4?ie=UTF8&s=dvd&qid=1280220912&sr=1-4

"Lance Armstrong: The Man Behind the Legend"
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Lance-Armst...ef=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&s=dvd&qid=1280220912&sr=1-3

"29 days with US Postal". A documentary that followed the team from the classics to training for the Tour in 2001. Can't find a link on Amazon.

"Legends of the Tour de France". The official documentary.
http://www.amazon.co.uk/LEGENDS-TOU...=sr_1_12?ie=UTF8&s=dvd&qid=1280220912&sr=1-12

I used a few other docs but yeah these are the important ones.

None of those are exactly objective, are they?

Susan
 
Biffins said:
Why would you flat out lie?

I mean something like Recon is so easily proven. There are literally dozens and dozens of sources confirming that US Postal was the ONLY TEAM to do almost a 100% recon of the course in '99 and '00. Some of the other facts I've stated you need to do a bit more research to follow up on but something as simple as Recon is so easily verified from literally dozens of sources.

Stop making stuff up.

:D

If you're going for satire, forget it, Wonderlance has that one sewn up around here.
 
I think Lance has increased the status of the tour. I would say that his impact is not limited to the US, but to the english speaking world. then again, it did not have much of an impact anywhere else.

Also that might also be a negative aspect as well. Since he raced nothing other than the tour, he made it hurt the status of the other grand tours and other races. Cycling is about more than the tour. Lance tried but thankfully failed to change this.

Thats it. None of the other stuff you mention had anything to do with Lance. So what if he reconed the race. He wasnt the first to do it and the reason others didnt do it was because they were actually participating in cycling races, rather than focusing on the tour from march to july.
 
Jul 8, 2010
79
0
0
Visit site
Susan Westemeyer said:
None of those are exactly objective, are they?

Susan

Well. They all have lots of interviews with people who would be objective.

e.g. the "29 days with US Postal" had an interview with the Tour de France director in 2001, forgot his name - will look it up later, saying that everyone has been really surprised and shocked how an American team has done so well in last 2 years. But he felt that US Postal had adopted the European cycling traditions, had a european director, and hence he felt they managed to bridge the gap to the top european teams. He confirmed that to his knowledge US Postal was the only team that did a recon of the whole tour in '99 ad '00 and that he feels this is something the european teams must learn from US Postal going forward.
 
Jul 8, 2010
79
0
0
Visit site
Susan Westemeyer said:
Biffiins: Would you like to explain to me why you have two accounts, and why I should not ban you permanently and delelte all of your postings?

Susan

I created this account. You banned me mistaking me for BPC (who apparently was some idiot harassing the boards). Then I emailed you to un-ban me. It took you a while to respond so I created a new account Biffinator. Then you got back to me and said it was a mistake that you mistook me for BPC and unbanned me. So I resumed on this account again.
 
Feb 14, 2010
2,202
0
0
Visit site
So what was the point of the original post? To school those of us who are less informed? Gang initiation? Pledging a fraternity? Practice for the Debate Team?

It obviously wasn't to initiate a give and take of dialogue - a free exchange of ideas. You told people what they're to believe and don't seem interested in the view points of others. You're answering a question no one in the world asked.

And by the way, I only read the headings of three of the paragraphs and skipped the rest.
 
Jul 8, 2010
79
0
0
Visit site
theswordsman said:
So what was the point of the original post? To school those of us who are less informed? Gang initiation? Pledging a fraternity? Practice for the Debate Team?

It obviously wasn't to initiate a give and take of dialogue - a free exchange of ideas. You told people what they're to believe and don't seem interested in the view points of others. You're answering a question no one in the world asked.

Actually no. I am curious to what extent you agree with this or not............ and more importantly why? I actually have the sources and evidence to back up the facts listed.

It's just my view that these facts are not being readily acknowledged on the boards. And I think the membership would be better informed if it was aware of them.
 
Biffins said:
Actually no. I am curious to what extent you agree with this or not............ and more importantly why? I actually have the sources and evidence to back up the facts listed.
It's just my view that these facts are not being readily acknowledged on the boards. And I think the membership would be better informed if it was aware of them.

No, you don't. Maybe your next stop should be looking at who produced and who financed the "sources" you have listed, and what research they undertook in the producing of the "sources". They're about as credible as FLandis's "Positively False".
 
Jul 8, 2010
79
0
0
Visit site
Roland Rat said:
No, you don't. Maybe your next stop should be looking at who produced and who financed the "sources" you have listed, and what research they undertook in the producing of the "sources". They're about as credible as FLandis's "Positively False".

Maybe you should watch Roberto Heras' interview from "29 days with US Postal" from the training for the 2001 Tour de France.

Heras had already won the 2000 Vuelta, came 3rd in Vuelta in 1999, 5th in Tour de France in 2000, 6th in Giro in 1999. By all respects you can call him an elite rider prior to joining the US Postal team in 2001. And he said he had never done any wind tunnel testing before, never had done any recon on any course before, never had his nutrition and recovery process monitored like this before etc. He said joining the US Postal Team's training session had been an eye opening experience in how to win the Tour.
 
Jun 18, 2009
374
0
0
Visit site
Biffins said:
Maybe you should watch Roberto Heras' interview from "29 days with US Postal" from the training for the 2001 Tour de France.

Heras had already won the 2000 Vuelta, came 3rd in Vuelta in 1999, 5th in Tour de France in 2000, 6th in Giro in 1999. By all respects you can call him an elite rider prior to joining the US Postal team in 2001. And he said he had never done any wind tunnel testing before, never had done any recon on any course before, never had his nutrition and recovery process monitored like this before etc. He said joining the US Postal Team's training session had been an eye opening experience in how to win the Tour.

I'll enter the fray for one post.

Riders were doing recon in the 70s. Wind tunnel testing in the early 1990s. Modern nutrition since at least the 1980s. Periodisation and goal specific training has been in use since the 1950s. The Tour has clearly been the Big Banana since as early as 1948.

No I can't be bothered to look up the sources - but all of yours are self-serving publicity pieces. Armstrong was a very good rider, who won a lot of races. He should be very proud of his career.

I get the same feeling reading this rubbish as I do hearing McQuaid claim he was the youngest ever world champ. There's no need to embellish his career with false accomplishments. His real ones should stand alone.
 
Aug 13, 2009
12,855
1
0
Visit site
Greg Lemond Windtunnel testing 20 years ago.
3


Greg did everything you are ascribing to lance, 20 years ago. The one thing he did not do is employ this guy http://www.53x12.com.
 

TRENDING THREADS