Lance's program was superior? The evidence

Page 6 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Mar 8, 2010
3,263
0
0
andy1234 said:
Not a great example, Mig was on a different planet that day.
Armstrong actually performed a very respectable TT against some notable TT specialists.

1 Miguel Indurain (Banesto - Pinarello) SPA 1h 15' 58

2 Tony Rominger (Mapei - Clas) SWI + 02' 00

3 Armand De Las Cuevas (Castorama - Maxisport) FRA + 04' 22

4 Thierry Marie (Castorama - Maxisport) FRA + 04' 45

5 Chris Boardman (Gan - Lemond) GBR + 05' 27

6 Bjarne Riis (Gewiss - Ballan) DEN + 05' 33

7 Thomas Davy (Castorama - Maxisport) FRA + 05' 35

8 Abraham Olano Manzano (Mapei - Clas) SPA + 05' 45

9 Arturas Kasputis (Chazal - MBK - Koenig) LTU + 06' 01

10 Piotr Ugrumov (Gewiss - Ballan) LAT + 06' 04

11 Gianluca Bortolami (Mapei - Clas) ITA + 06' 12

12 Nico Emonds (Mapei - Clas) BEL + 06' 16

13 Lance Armstrong (Motorola - Merckx) USA + 06' 23

14 Jean François Bernard (Banesto - Pinarello) FRA + 06' 44

15 Sean Yates (Motorola - Merckx) GBR + 06' 50

16 Djamolidine Abdoujaparov (Polti - Vaporetto) UZB + 06' 52

17 Flavio Vanzella (GB - MG Maglificio - Bianchi) ITA + 07' 15

18 Johan Museeuw (GB - MG Maglificio - Bianchi) BEL + 07' 16

19 Vladimir Poulnikov (Carrera Jeans - Tassoni) URS + 07' 20

20 Viatcheslav Ekimov (Wordperfect - Colnago - Decca) RUS + 07' 22


Armstrong finished less than 1 minute down on Boardman, Riis and Olano, all riders who had a decent TT in them. He beat Bernard, Sean Yates and Ekimov, all riders who you would also regard as decent timetriallists.


Regardles of you opinion on Armstrong, he was never a donkey.
Don't disillusion them and don't take away their favorite video.
It's the haters holy grale and a kind of porn for them, closely followed by clips where Lance is crashing.
 
Jun 16, 2009
647
0
0
andy1234 said:
Armstrong finished less than 1 minute down on Boardman, Riis and Olano, all riders who had a decent TT in them. He beat Bernard, Sean Yates and Ekimov, all riders who you would also regard as decent timetriallists.


Regardles of you opinion on Armstrong, he was never a donkey.
we know that Armstrong was already dabbling in doping for some time by this stage.

He was already on an artificial upwards curve, that would be perfected by Il Dottore.

And the idea that all but a handful of guys on that list weren't doping is ludicrous. Bjarne Riis only a few seconds behind Boardman! Abdu and Musseuw in the top 20! It's a farce...

all we can read into that one or two guys were naturally very good (Boardman), most were performing well on a limited but effective program, some were taking anything they could lay their hands on and performing way above their ceiling (Riis, Abdu, Musseuw)

At that stage Lance was between the latter two scenarios.

Citing this as evidence of a "clean" Armstrong showing signs of being able to potentially match known dopers (all that was needed was high cadence and focussing solely on the TdF I guess?) is deluded in the extreme.
 
Mar 8, 2010
3,263
0
0
Dr. Maserati said:
Well, that shows your limited view here - I have stated that quite often on this site.
You post enough things that spoil your efforts to look serious.
Account deeply in the red zone.
 

Barrus

BANNED
Apr 28, 2010
3,480
0
0
Remain civil. The is much to aggressive and to confrontational, be kind and friendly or face the consequences
 
Aug 11, 2009
729
0
0
Dr. Maserati said:
No-one has said he was a 'no talent'.

He was a strong powerful rider - he could climb short sharp hills very well, he could handle the ong distances and he had a good kick for the sprin.
His TT was poor - but I always felt this was an area he could work and improve on.

However his big problem was climbing long cols and his consistencey as he was prone to having a bad(ish) day. Which is why even he admitted he was not a GT rider.
Nice post, Doc, and I know that you are not someone who has been forwarding a strong attack against Lance's talent. But, I do think plenty of virulently anti-Lance posters in the Clinic are eager to diminish Lance's clear physical abilities to an absurd degree. "Donkey" is but one seemingly very derogatory term that I don't think fits with the physical attributes you list above for the young Lance.

As I've suggested, what bothers me about this rhetoric which seemingly dismisses Lance's physical gifts categorically is that it ends up sounding petty and vindictive, and--to a regular sunday sports page armchair critic--it might even start to look like, dare I say it, a witch hunt.

This is why I think attacking Lance's physical gifts is a losing battle. Best case scenario, it will just be distracting and inconclusive. Worst case scenario, the general public will arrive at the conclusion that Lance was justified in doping because the only thing separating him from Zulle, Escartin, Ullrich, Pantani, Beloki, etc. was rampant drug use.

Seems a more convincing mantra would just be: cheat, liar, fraud. (repeat) (sprinkle with hard evidence) (repeat some more)
 
Mongol_Waaijer said:
we know that Armstrong was already dabbling in doping for some time by this stage.

He was already on an artificial upwards curve, that would be perfected by Il Dottore.

And the idea that all but a handful of guys on that list weren't doping is ludicrous. Bjarne Riis only a few seconds behind Boardman! Abdu and Musseuw in the top 20! It's a farce...

all we can read into that one or two guys were naturally very good (Boardman), most were performing well on a limited but effective program, some were taking anything they could lay their hands on and performing way above their ceiling (Riis, Abdu, Musseuw)

At that stage Lance was between the latter two scenarios.

Citing this as evidence of a "clean" Armstrong showing signs of being able to potentially match known dopers (all that was needed was high cadence and focussing solely on the TdF I guess?) is deluded in the extreme.
I'm not citing this as evidence of a clean Armstrong. Where did I say that?
My ONLY point is that when people say he was a "Donkey" this result says otherwise. The moment he turned pro, doped or otherwise, he was at the pointy end of the race.

The Irony is that the very TT everybody uses to demonstrate his lack of TT ability, is actually a good example of a neo pro with TT potential.
 
Aug 11, 2009
729
0
0
Race Radio said:
Ulrich is another great example. Bunch sprinter who was routinely was dropped in training camp climbs, Podiums at the Tour as a 2nd year Pro on the full program.
Even so, I think leaving bags of blood all over Spain looks a lot worse than making substantial physical improvements in one's early twenties.

If Peter Sagan starts climbing high mountains better over the next few years, are we going to assume that the only thing that's changed is his doping regimen?
 
Aug 13, 2009
12,855
0
0
ergmonkey said:
Nice post, Doc, and I know that you are not someone who has been forwarding a strong attack against Lance's talent. But, I do think plenty of virulently anti-Lance posters in the Clinic are eager to diminish Lance's clear physical abilities to an absurd degree. "Donkey" is but one seemingly very derogatory term that I don't think fits with the physical attributes you list above for the young Lance.

As I've suggested, what bothers me about this rhetoric which seemingly dismisses Lance's physical gifts categorically is that it ends up sounding petty and vindictive, and--to a regular sunday sports page armchair critic--it might even start to look like, dare I say it, a witch hunt.

This is why I think attacking Lance's physical gifts is a losing battle. Best case scenario, it will just be distracting and inconclusive. Worst case scenario, the general public will arrive at the conclusion that Lance was justified in doping because the only thing separating him from Zulle, Escartin, Ullrich, Pantani, Beloki, etc. was rampant drug use.

Seems a more convincing mantra would just be: cheat, liar, fraud. (repeat) (sprinkle with hard evidence) (repeat some more)
Prior to taking starting his program with EPO in 1994 and Ferrari in 1995 Armstrong was a not considered to have the makeup of a GT rider. He showed little ability to climb or TT despite being a professional athlete for 6 years.

EPO, like all doping, effects each rider in different ways. There are multiple studies that confirm this, like this one http://www.haematologica.org/cgi/reprint/86/2/128.pdf

The improvement by Armstrong once he started using Oxygen vector doping is amazing. Certainly he was a world class athlete, but a 7 time Tour winner? No way.
 
Race Radio said:
Prior to taking starting his program with EPO in 1994 and Ferrari in 1995 Armstrong was a not considered to have the makeup of a GT rider. He showed little ability to climb or TT despite being a professional athlete for 6 years.

EPO, like all doping, effects each rider in different ways. There are multiple studies that confirm this, like this one http://www.haematologica.org/cgi/reprint/86/2/128.pdf

The improvement by Armstrong once he started using Oxygen vector doping is amazing. Certainly he was a world class athlete, but a 7 time Tour winner? No way.
That sounds better than Donkey.
 
Oct 25, 2010
3,049
2
0
Race Radio said:
Prior to taking starting his program with EPO in 1994 and Ferrari in 1995 Armstrong was a not considered to have the makeup of a GT rider. He showed little ability to climb or TT despite being a professional athlete for 6 years.

EPO, like all doping, effects each rider in different ways. There are multiple studies that confirm this, like this one http://www.haematologica.org/cgi/reprint/86/2/128.pdf

The improvement by Armstrong once he started using Oxygen vector doping is amazing. Certainly he was a world class athlete, but a 7 time Tour winner? No way.
Not to mention, Lance had access to the world's BEST coaching during his first 6 years as a pro. He had every resource a pro athlete could possibly have at the time... the entire time. Yet we're to believe that 18 months away from the sport, a little weight loss and a new lease on life is what launched the most dominant rider in cycling history? Keep in mind, he had the same coaches AFTER cancer as he had before (if you listen to Lance). Ferarri was just a "nutritional advisor".

Also consider, in 1999, we were just coming-of the Festina scandal of '98. Many riders were "scared straight" for the '99 Tour. Only a fool or a gambler would come to the TDF in '99 with EPO, right? Right.

 
Aug 13, 2009
12,855
0
0
andy1234 said:
That sounds better than Donkey.
It appears some would prefer to obsess about semantics then the actual topic. The fact remains that the improvement Armstrong saw from his program was huge, on par with Riis.
 

Polish

BANNED
Mar 11, 2009
3,853
0
0
Benotti69 said:
Don't know if anyone mentioned it, but when Vaughter's moved from USPS to Credit Agricole he was shocked to see how much dope they did on USPS in comparison. They did virtually nothing on CA compared to the daily intakes of PEDs on USPS.
Vaughter's able to spot the dopers lol.
A genuine Sherlock Holmes.
Maybe Moreau was using Dr. Luis Garcia del Moral?
 

Polish

BANNED
Mar 11, 2009
3,853
0
0
eeeek a streak

Race Radio said:
Certainly he was a world class athlete, but a 7 time Tour winner? No way.
pssst....rr....you may want to check the ASO/TdF record books.
one two three four five six seven. In a row. Its right there.
 
Aug 11, 2009
729
0
0
Race Radio said:
Prior to taking starting his program with EPO in 1994 and Ferrari in 1995 Armstrong was a not considered to have the makeup of a GT rider.
Prior to 1994, Lance Armstrong also hadn't reached his 23rd birthday.
 
Aug 11, 2009
729
0
0
BotanyBay said:
Only a fool or a gambler would come to the TDF in '99 with EPO, right? Right.
I'm not convinced. You really think pro cyclists were too scared to take a drug for which everyone knew there was no test yet?

The only risk was getting caught red-handed either injecting the stuff or carrying it around.
 

Dr. Maserati

BANNED
Jun 19, 2009
13,250
0
0
Cobblestoned said:
You post enough things that spoil your efforts to look serious.
Account deeply in the red zone.
Have you anything at all to offer the forum other than your juvenile ad hominems and baiting posts?
 
Aug 11, 2009
729
0
0
Race Radio said:
It appears some would prefer to obsess about semantics then the actual topic.
First of all, Lance's physical ability is very much on-topic.

Secondly, in a PR battle, semantics tend to matter. A lot.
 
May 26, 2010
28,144
2
0
andy1234 said:
I'm not citing this as evidence of a clean Armstrong. Where did I say that?
My ONLY point is that when people say he was a "Donkey" this result says otherwise. The moment he turned pro, doped or otherwise, he was at the pointy end of the race.

The Irony is that the very TT everybody uses to demonstrate his lack of TT ability, is actually a good example of a neo pro with TT potential.
TT potential does not mean a rider can make 6 minutes back over a few years, without huge enhancements, PEDs.
 
Aug 13, 2009
12,855
0
0
ergmonkey said:
First of all, Lance's physical ability is very much on-topic.

Secondly, in a PR battle, semantics tend to matter. A lot.
My posts have been about his physical ability. It appears that some would prefer to deflect the topic with discussion of semantics.
 
Aug 13, 2009
12,855
0
0
Benotti69 said:
TT potential does not mean a rider can make 6 minutes back over a few years, without huge enhancements, PEDs.
He made 6 minutes and then some. Armstrong in 2000 would have smoked indurain by minutes
 
Aug 11, 2009
729
0
0
Race Radio said:
It appears that some would prefer to deflect the topic with discussion of semantics.
"Some"? No need to play at being subtle, Race. I can take a hit.

Just don't try and argue that I haven't posted about Lance's ability and results, as well. You don't see the results the same way? No problem. You want to pretend I won't even address the results? That's dishonest.
 
Aug 13, 2009
12,855
0
0
ergmonkey said:
Prior to 1994, Lance Armstrong also hadn't reached his 23rd birthday.
By their 23rd birthday these riders had either won or were on the podium of a GT

Fignon
LeMond
Merckx
Anquetil
Coppi
Hinault

Prior to EPO riders showed their ability to win the Tour early, not at 27.
 

Dr. Maserati

BANNED
Jun 19, 2009
13,250
0
0
ergmonkey said:
Prior to 1994, Lance Armstrong also hadn't reached his 23rd birthday.
Armstrong did not show any GT capability until his comeback in 1998.

In his first Tour he had the luxury of knowing he was to be pulled right after the Alps so he could go all out and test himself and Motorola even assigned Phil Anderson to mentor him - he finished 86th @ 21:42 on the first mountain stage and 97th @ 28:47.


ergmonkey said:
I'm not convinced. You really think pro cyclists were too scared to take a drug for which everyone knew there was no test yet?

The only risk was getting caught red-handed either injecting the stuff or carrying it around.
When the retest for EPO of the samples was done for 1999 there were 13 samples with EPO (6 of them Armstrongs) - of the rest all positives were at the start of the race which confirms that riders were scared of topping up during that race.
 
Aug 11, 2009
729
0
0
Race Radio said:
Prior to EPO riders showed their ability to win the Tour early, not at 27.
So, by your terms then, what does this say about a rider who doesn't enter the pro peloton "prior to EPO"?
 
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
masking_agent The Clinic 2

ASK THE COMMUNITY

Latest posts