Lemond's body of evidence

[blutto]

actually quite a few believe Lance to be a freak of nature that after cancer he had the ability to win 7 TdFs in a row. I know I know can you imagine, but hey some people got to believe in something....like santa i suppose.

...ooops...should have put a qualified term in where no-one here was used...

...now what is this about Santa?...I believe that is a very serious issue that requires a separate thread...we'll pick this up mid-Dec ...yes?...

Cheers

blutto

 

[buckwheat]

....that in a real ****-eyed way is what it really boils down to doesn't it....you either believe his 95VOS/Max body that never ever used drugs or you don't...same goes goes for Lance, so as result of that believe/nonbelieve kind of Rubicon moment, no-one here, including me, believes him...

Cheers

blutto

Wrong,

There is plenty of evidence that LeMond is a genetic freak and no evidence he used drugs.

There is very little evidence LA is a genetic freak, and a mountain of evidence he used PED's.

It appears you are bathing in the Rubicon of pharmstrong's bs, rather than crossing it.

Enjoying the swim?

 

[red_flanders]

Wrong,

There is plenty of evidence that LeMond is a genetic freak and no evidence he used drugs.

There is very little evidence LA is a genetic freak, and a mountain of evidence he used PED's.

It appears you are bathing in the Rubicon of pharmstrong's bs, rather than crossing it.

Enjoying the swim?

+1

But isn't it fun to act like those who have weighed the mountains of evidence in both cases are just delusional, or believe in fairy tales? Helps with the cognitive dissonance.

Plus you can be a contrarian avenger on the internet if you ignore the obvious.

 

[Cobblestoned]

....that in a real ****-eyed way is what it really boils down to doesn't it....you either believe his 95VOS/Max body that never ever used drugs or you don't...same goes goes for Lance, so as result of that believe/nonbelieve kind of Rubicon moment, no-one here, including me, believes him...

Cheers

blutto

+1.000.000
I´m 99% with you all the time, and it´s very impressive that you waste so much time with them.
Still a long way to go, but it is nice, that you try to help these people to the right path.

 

[flicker]

LeMond rode away from everyone he rode with in Nor-Cal and the USA before he set foot on the continent. He was naturally talented. I don't know the science of Vo2 max but I guess he was a freak o'nature.

 

[blutto]

Wrong,

There is plenty of evidence that LeMond is a genetic freak and no evidence he used drugs.

There is very little evidence LA is a genetic freak, and a mountain of evidence he used PED's.

It appears you are bathing in the Rubicon of pharmstrong's bs, rather than crossing it.

Enjoying the swim?

My Dearest Mr Wheat,

....at some point you are going to have to let go of your man-crush on Lance...he doesn't love you, has never loved you and never will love you...and the same goes for Greg...this is a critical feature of the "jocks are jerks" thesis ( they really don't love anyone but themselves )...so please get some help if you can't over it by yourself...and no, heavy drinking is really not considered help...in other words this jilted lover schtick doesn't reflect well on you...drop it, you'll be much happier...

...simply put the world is not defined by its relation to either Lance or Greg...they are separate phenomenon though they do share some disturbing common traits...most sensible people here ( including me ) see the negative aspects of the Lance legacy and are letting it rot quietly in the corner...and fortunately ( or unfortunately for some ) I also see some real similar issues with the Greg legacy as well...and please understand these issues actually predate the Lance era ( though I understand you may have trouble conceiving of such a concept... but that sir is strictly your problem )....

...thank you for your continued patience...

Cheers

blutto

 

[Cobblestoned]

LeMond rode away from everyone he rode with in Nor-Cal and the USA before he set foot on the continent. He was naturally talented. I don't know the science of Vo2 max but I guess he was a freak o'nature.

Yes he was. No doubt.
You know, this happens in nearly every corner of the world, where cycling/sports happens. There is always someone who is the best in his area - and at some point the best cyclist of all parts of the region/country/state/world come together, compare each other and with every step it gets harder for these talents or "freaks" to win, because they meet other freaks.
And the very, very best of the world come together in the TdF, Worlds or the Classics.

Lets not forget, that Lance is the youngest ever pro worldchampion at the age of 21, was US Champion earlier and easily found into cycling.
You have that extra class and that "motor", or you don´t. There are no surprises and that also goes for Greg. Super gifted riders/athlts, but I would never waste any time in speculating, if they rode clean.
The decision that you "do it", comes at early age and otherwise you don´t "progress". Thats a decision every athlete has to make at some early point.

At the end the freak of the freaks will always win. With or without everyone doping. Surely never without the helpers, who are also freaks, but on a bit lower level.

But Merckx is the one and only superfreak of all the freaks o'nature ever.

 

[flicker]

Yes he was. No doubt.
You know, this happens in nearly every corner of the world, where cycling/sports happens. There is always someone who is the best in his area - and at some point the best cyclist of all parts of the region/country/state/world come together, compare each other and with every step it gets harder for these talents or "freaks" to win, because they meet other freaks.
And the very, very best of the world come together in the TdF, Worlds or the Classics.

Lets not forget, that Lance is the youngest ever pro worldchampion at the age of 21, was US Champion earlier and easily found into cycling.
You have that extra class and that "motor", or you don´t. There are no surprises and that also goes for Greg. Super gifted riders/athlts, but I would never waste any time in speculating, if they rode clean.
The decision that you "do it", comes at early age and otherwise you don´t "progress". Thats a decision every athlete has to make at some early point.

At the end the freak of the freaks will always win. With or without everyone doping. Surely never without the helpers, who are also freaks, but on a bit lower level.

But Merckx is the one and only superfreak of all the freaks o'nature ever.

Here is a LeMond story. Nor-cal or maybe an olympic trial. Broke away with a top tier amatuer US rider. Pretty much the whole race. In the end Greg tells the guy calmly,"It's been nice riding with you" and rockets away. Tough course hilly hot and long. LeMond was a freak who made almost everyone look bad. LeMond says he had a higher VO2 than Merckx. I do not know. I do believe LeMond could beat doped riders and Greg knows that. At the end of his career no but in his hayday LeMond beat doped riders consistantly.

 

[Cobblestoned]

Here is a LeMond story. Nor-cal or maybe an olympic trial. Broke away with a top tier amatuer US rider. Pretty much the whole race. In the end Greg tells the guy calmly,"It's been nice riding with you" and rockets away. Tough course hilly hot and long. LeMond was a freak who made almost everyone look bad. LeMond says he had a higher VO2 than Merckx. I do not know. I do believe LeMond could beat doped riders and Greg knows that. At the end of his career no but in his hayday LeMond beat doped riders consistantly.

Now its "almost". Aha. We are coming closer.

Yes of course its possible to see someone beating doped riders (very often). You see it in every race. Just watch cycling.

I wouldn´t overrate these VO2max things. There are too much other factors which make a freaky cyclist. Everthing has to come together. The perfect mixture.
What does VO2max help, when you regularly break 20 metres earlier than others on a descent ?

 

[flicker]

Now its "almost". Aha. We are coming closer.

Yes of course its possible to see someone beating doped riders (very often). You see it in every race. Just watch cycling.

I wouldn´t overrate these VO2max things. There are too much other factors which make a freaky cyclist. Everthing has to come together. The perfect mixture.
What does VO2max help, when you regularly break 20 metres earlier than others on a descent ?

LeMond was the full package as a rider. It was terrible he was shot. I also think his Dad may have pushed him to hard, not unlike Micheal Jacksons' parents.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Yes he was. No doubt.
You know, this happens in nearly every corner of the world, where cycling/sports happens. There is always someone who is the best in his area - and at some point the best cyclist of all parts of the region/country/state/world come together, compare each other and with every step it gets harder for these talents or "freaks" to win, because they meet other freaks.
And the very, very best of the world come together in the TdF, Worlds or the Classics.

Lets not forget, that Lance is the youngest ever pro worldchampion at the age of 21, was US Champion earlier and easily found into cycling.
You have that extra class and that "motor", or you don´t. There are no surprises and that also goes for Greg. Super gifted riders/athlts, but I would never waste any time in speculating, if they rode clean.
The decision that you "do it", comes at early age and otherwise you don´t "progress". Thats a decision every athlete has to make at some early point.

At the end the freak of the freaks will always win. With or without everyone doping. Surely never without the helpers, who are also freaks, but on a bit lower level.

But Merckx is the one and only superfreak of all the freaks o'nature ever.

Lance was not the youngest World Champion - it was Karel Kaers who was only 20.

 

[callac]

Lance was not the youngest World Champion - it was Karel Kaers who was only 20.

Oh, I thought it was Jean-Pierre Monseré. I guess I didn't go as back far as the 30's...

 

[ultimobici]

Oh, I thought it was Jean-Pierre Monseré. I guess I didn't go as back far as the 30's...

And possibly the most tragic of them all, dying in 71 at 22.

 

[Hugh Januss]

From Wiki

Lance Armstrong is frequently described as the youngest world champion. In fact, he was only the third youngest road champion when he took the rainbow jersey in Oslo in 1993. Armstrong was two weeks short of 22; Kaers had just turned 20. Jean-Pierre Monseré was three weeks short of 22 when he became champion in Leicester on August 16, 1970

................

 

[Cobblestoned]

So make it "one of the youngest ever". Doesn´t make any difference in context.
But good to know.

Karel Kaers also won the Ronde. Great !

 

[redtreviso]

but no Maillot blanc=fluke

 

[pmcg76]

So make it "one of the youngest ever". Doesn´t make any difference in context.
But good to know.

Karel Kaers also won the Ronde. Great !

Lance won the worlds in 93 aged 21 years 11 months.
LeMond won the worlds in 83 aged 22 years 2 months. Big difference 3 months, huh.

Big difference was LeMond had already won Dauphine Libere, Tour de l'Avenir, Coors Classic by then and had a silver medal from the previous worlds 82, he would go on to finish the Tour in 3rd place the following year.
Lance was a lot less successful.

Anyhow, winning the Worlds young is not a sign of guranteed greatness, Fondriest (rather luckily) won the Worlds in 88(aged 23) but it wasnt until 93 when he actually confirmed his talents which coincided with him getting on you know what. He was a good rider but not amongst the greats.

Who remembers Rudy Dhaenans and Dirk De Wolf finishing 1-2 in 1990 Worlds.

 

[Cobblestoned]

Lance won the worlds in 93 aged 21 years 11 months.
LeMond won the worlds in 83 aged 22 years 2 months. Big difference 3 months, huh.

Big difference was LeMond had already won Dauphine Libere, Tour de l'Avenir, Coors Classic by then and had a silver medal from the previous worlds 82, he would go on to finish the Tour in 3rd place the following year.
Lance was a lot less successful.

Anyhow, winning the Worlds young is not a sign of guranteed greatness, Fondriest (rather luckily) won the Worlds in 88(aged 23) but it wasnt until 93 when he actually confirmed his talents which coincided with him getting on you know what. He was a good rider but not amongst the greats.

Who remembers Rudy Dhaenans and Dirk De Wolf finishing 1-2 in 1990 Worlds.

No guarantee, but confirmed by 7 in a row.
You guys always find something. Great !

You should have noticed, that I don´t want to make Greg worse. Thats something that doesn´t make me happy. To make someone worser than he really is. But some people have fun in doing that. So just go on !

 

[hrotha]

Who remembers Rudy Dhaenans and Dirk De Wolf finishing 1-2 in 1990 Worlds.

Or Romans Vainsteins winning ahead of Spruch.

(To be fair, Vainsteins was supposed to be that good and he just failed to deliver. Alas )

edit: ok, better example: 1997, Brochard ahead of Hamburger

 

[redtreviso]

Lance didn't just appear as a junior in 92 and win the worlds in 93.. He had been under a pro contract with subaru montgomery with more cash and perks than most domestic pros since 90 or 91.. His team usa training was an insult to what he thought he was.. So really he took almost 10 years to suddenly dominate where he wasn't even in camera view before.

 

[Oldman]

Lance didn't just appear as a junior in 92 and win the worlds in 93.. He had been under a pro contract with subaru montgomery with more cash and perks than most domestic pros since 90 or 91.. His team usa training was an insult to what he thought he was.. So really he took almost 10 years to suddenly dominate where he wasn't even in camera view before.

This is the point made by many...he didn't show GC credentials anywhere during this period. Weisel, Eddie B and Co were building their "program" and it wasn't apparently important until they wanted to go to Europe to be GC competitive. When they put together USPS they had some Eastern Euros like Dariuz Baranowsky (sp) to get them some seasoned help. I don't think Lance's ambitions or program looked beyond North America until much later. I don't think his personal exposure to the wonders of blood science really occurred until his cancer treatment where he experienced some serious treatment options.

Greg, on the other hand; valued the GC contender role very early on and showed those credentials. All indications were that those were genetic traits, like most real GC riders.

 

[pmcg76]

Or Romans Vainsteins winning ahead of Spruch.

(To be fair, Vainsteins was supposed to be that good and he just failed to deliver. Alas )

edit: ok, better example: 1997, Brochard ahead of Hamburger

To be fair, once the Worlds were moved until October, there seemed to be more lets say, lesser lights winning the worlds. Most big names couldnt be bothered waiting until October for a shot at the Worlds, it has improved in recent years but personally I would like to see the Worlds back in their late August slot.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

No guarantee, but confirmed by 7 in a row.
You guys always find something. Great !

You should have noticed, that I don´t want to make Greg worse. Thats something that doesn´t make me happy. To make someone worser than he really is. But some people have fun in doing that. So just go on !

Confirmed by 7 in a row??

You're really not grasping this point well, so let me help:
The World Championships Road Race is single day event. Single day, one.

No-one is suggesting that Lance was not an extraordinarly talented rider - but the difference between a one day race and a GT is:
Day 1:
Day 2:
Day 3:
Day 4:
Day 5.
Day 6:
Day 7:
Day 8:
Day 9:
Day 10:
Day 11:
Day 12:
Day 13:
Day 14:
Day 15:
Day 16:
Day 17:
Day 18:
Day 19:
Day 20:
Day 21:
Day 22:
Day 23:

Each and every one of those days you need to be consistent - losing anything more than a few minutes to rivals could prove fatal to a high place, let alone winning.

Armstrong never showed an ability to sustain that consistencey anytime in his career until after meeting Dr. Ferrari.

This is not making Lance "worse than he is" it is pointing out the reality of his pre 98 career.

 

[redtreviso]

This is the point made by many...he didn't show GC credentials anywhere during this period. Weisel, Eddie B and Co were building their "program" and it wasn't apparently important until they wanted to go to Europe to be GC competitive. When they put together USPS they had some Eastern Euros like Dariuz Baranowsky (sp) to get them some seasoned help. I don't think Lance's ambitions or program looked beyond North America until much later. I don't think his personal exposure to the wonders of blood science really occurred until his cancer treatment where he experienced some serious treatment options.

Greg, on the other hand; valued the GC contender role very early on and showed those credentials. All indications were that those were genetic traits, like most real GC riders.

When Lanced signed with Cofidas I thought that was a good place for him..A doper team...and if I remember correctly it was a backwards move from Motorola..He really did nothing post cancer to have a team and big bike sponsor formed around him as THE GC guy,,(except for the ferrari factor)

 

[pmcg76]

No guarantee, but confirmed by 7 in a row.
You guys always find something. Great !

You should have noticed, that I don´t want to make Greg worse. Thats something that doesn´t make me happy. To make someone worser than he really is. But some people have fun in doing that. So just go on !

I am not trying to make Lance worse, just pointing out the obvious.

The synopsis is Lance doped against other doped riders to win 7 Tours, fair enough. The hypothetical question is would he have won 7 or even 1 if everyone had been clean or lets say on a pre EPO programme. We cannot say with definitive proof that he would or he wouldnt have. We can only look at the evidence from history and the evidence of his early career to project his career path.

As has been repeated over and over, pre-EPO most GT winners showed early signs of becoming a GT winner. You seem to be suggesting that Lance winning the Worlds at 21 was evidence enough that he was always going to be a Tour contender. I merely highlighted the fact that LeMond won the Worlds just as young but also had the palmares to suggest he would be a future Tour winner. Lance didnt unless you count Du Pont or West Virginia as signs of potential Tour winners.

If you adhere to the notion that they were different eras so theyfore are uncomparable, then you have to adhere to the idea that EPO fundamentally changed the game which some people seem to have a problem understanding.
To be honest I could come up with a better argument for Lance becoming a Tour contender than anything I have seen on here but I just dont believe it.

I was around when Lance arrived on the Pro scene and the word was he was going to be a Classics Champion, potential Tour champion was never mentioned whilst guys like Zulle, Dufaux were being touted as future Tour winners at the same time. Why? Because these predictions were based on their respective results, not by me, but by journalists, team managers, fellow riders etc.

Its funny but I was looking back at cycling magazines from early 2000 recently and it was like they considered 1999 a blip after Festina, Lance got lucky but once the big guys like Ullrich, Pantani, Virenque, Dufaux etc returned, Lance would be outgunned and outclassed. Even after winning a Tour, many people within the sport didnt see him as the real deal. ProCycling tipped Ullrich to win the Tour in 2000

People act like everyone is trying to belittle Lance as an athlete, yes some are extreme but I am looking at this logically and based on fact and I know my opinion is in line with the overwhelming opinion of the cycling community from 1992 until about 2002.

Jeez, I am **** slow at typing.