Lemond's body of evidence

[Cobblestoned]

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.

You call it "ability", I call it "ambition" or "progression".

Its not unimpossible to change ambitions and that it works out.
Uh, we are touching the 98 right now. Very nice.

2. Paris-Nizza 1996 Or do you have a winning problem ?

You might be right too, with Dr. Ferrari. Domination. Thats what comes out, when a really great cyclist meets one of the "great" and serious preparatores. And there are/were many of them. Cecchini, Fuentes.....
Many examples for riders and their preparatores.

The best won anyway and mostly everytime. And right now Contador is the best (GC rider). Constancy is the best confirmation for "class".

But before that you have to follow your ambition 100% and progress.

 

[Cobblestoned]

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.

No, not really.
But I mean, you don´t get worldchampion (and seven time TdF winner) when you are nothing but a fraud.

You won´t believe it, but my knowedge of cycling is so good, that I even know that Andre Greipel will never win the TdF.

 

[pmcg76]

No, not really.
But I mean, you don´t get worldchampion (and seven time TdF winner) when you are nothing but a fraud.

You won´t believe it, but my knowedge of cycling is so good, that I even know that Andre Greipel will never win the TdF.

Again, I never suggested (or indeed others) he wasnt super talented. Like you say it is obvious, Greipel is never going to be a Tour winner. Well for all 90s, Lance was viewed the same way. He even admitted himself in early 96 that he would never be a Tour contender, he didnt have the consistency to do so. At best I could have seen Lance finish Top 10 if he had focused his attention on the Tour. Completely dominating it 7 times easliy, never seen it coming or did anybody else for that matter.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

You call it "ability", I call it "ambition" or "progression".

Its not unimpossible to change ambitions and that it works out.
Uh, we are touching the 98 right now. Very nice.

2. Paris-Nizza 1996 Or do you have a winning problem ?

You might be right too, with Dr. Ferrari. Domination. Thats what comes out, when a really great cyclist meets one of the "great" and serious preparatores. And there are/were many of them. Cecchini, Fuentes.....
Many examples for riders and their preparatores.

The best won anyway and mostly everytime. And right now Contador is the best (GC rider). Constancy is the best confirmation for "class".

But before that you have to follow your ambition 100% and progress.

Was Paris Nice in 1996 a 20+ day version? Or the normal week long version?
(Where he managed 2nd)
Was that not the first stage race he went in after meeting Dr. Ferrari -which was in winter 1995

Again we are talking showing an ability in 3 week long races - that will cover numerous climbs that are 20+ kilometers in length.

Sean Kelly won 7 Paris - Nice - how many GT's did he win. One. How many Tours, none. Much like the winner of the 96 paris Nice, Jalabert.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

No, not really.
But I mean, you don´t get worldchampion (and seven time TdF winner) when you are nothing but a fraud.

You won´t believe it, but my knowedge of cycling is so good, that I even know that Andre Greipel will never win the TdF.

No-one suggest that Armstrong is nothing but a fraud.

He was a talented cyclist and a fraud.

 

[ultimobici]

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.

Don't forget that Lemond was already a world champion at before he turned pro.

But I mean, you don´t get worldchampion (and seven time TdF winner) when you are nothing but a fraud.

Compare the two American legends - Lemond won the Tour de L'Avenir at the age of just 21, where he handed out a licking to the best of the under 25 riders in the world to the tune of 10 minutes. In the same season, his second, he also came second in the WC and took second in the GP des Nations. In his first Tour he took the young rider classification, in his second he was third behind his teammate Fignon and in his third and fourth he was second and first respectively.

Armstrong was pitiful in his GT GC ambitions, displaying a talent for being a stage hunter & one day type of rider plain & simple. His palmares all the way up to his cancer display that and show no GC potential at all. His results are good but point heavily in the opposite direction. He was never put in the position that Indurain was, having to look after a team leader to the exclusion of his own interests. If anything he was shielded from team duties at Motorola and nurtured by the old lags of the English speaking peleton Bauer, Anderson, Yates & Hampsten.

As I have said before, if in 1992-96 you'd have bet me £1m that LA would win ONE TdF I'd have ripped your hand off to take the bet because he just didn't show any hint that he had it in him.

 

[Cobblestoned]

Was Paris Nice in 1996 a 20+ day version? Or the normal week long version?
(Where he managed 2nd)
Was that not the first stage race he went in after meeting Dr. Ferrari -which was in winter 1995

Again we are talking showing an ability in 3 week long races - that will cover numerous climbs that are 20+ kilometers in length.

Sean Kelly won 7 Paris - Nice - how many GT's did he win. One. How many Tours, none. Much like the winner of the 96 paris Nice, Jalabert.

I hope you slowly notice that it is only pea counting what you are practicing here. Target and destination is stuck and one sided. The pea count is just easier when you have a "target".

Man, in this case your standards seem to be very rigorous and strict.

 

[hrotha]

Armstrong was pitiful in his GT GC ambitions, displaying a talent for being a stage hunter & one day type of rider plain & simple. His palmares all the way up to his cancer display that and show no GC potential at all. His results are good but point heavily in the opposite direction.

I still think his 1996 results were a sign that he had GC potential, but of course this was post-Ferrari so it doesn't undermine your general point in any way.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

I hope you slowly notice that it is only pea counting what you are practicing here. Target and destination is stuck and one sided. The pea count is just easier when you have a "target".

Man, in this case your standards seem to be very rigorous and strict.

I have no idea what the above means.

I have an opinion - that is all, if you have something that shows some potential that he may have been a GT contender I will gladly look at it - but until then I hold the view that LA would never win a GT in (a hypothetical) dope free environment.

 

[Cobblestoned]

Don't forget that Lemond was already a world champion at before he turned pro.

Compare the two American legends - Lemond won the Tour de L'Avenir at the age of just 21, where he handed out a licking to the best of the under 25 riders in the world to the tune of 10 minutes. In the same season, his second, he also came second in the WC and took second in the GP des Nations. In his first Tour he took the young rider classification, in his second he was third behind his teammate Fignon and in his third and fourth he was second and first respectively.

Armstrong was pitiful in his GT GC ambitions, displaying a talent for being a stage hunter & one day type of rider plain & simple. His palmares all the way up to his cancer display that and show no GC potential at all. His results are good but point heavily in the opposite direction. He was never put in the position that Indurain was, having to look after a team leader to the exclusion of his own interests. If anything he was shielded from team duties at Motorola and nurtured by the old lags of the English speaking peleton Bauer, Anderson, Yates & Hampsten.

As I have said before, if in 1992-96 you'd have bet me £1m that LA would win ONE TdF I'd have ripped your hand off to take the bet because he just didn't show any hint that he had it in him.

If LA wasn´t there, he would have to be invented.
So much "pleasure" for us all.
What do you think how many people bet on Contador even in 2007 ?
I know. Billions of people.

I bet on Rasmussen in 2007, but please don´t tell anyone.

 

[Cobblestoned]

I have no idea what the above means.

I have an opinion - that is all, if you have something that shows some potential that he may have been a GT contender I will gladly look at it - but until then I hold the view that LA would never win a GT in (a hypothetical) dope free environment.

puhh, that was a hard birth

That´s as hypothetical as dope. Good night.

 

[ultimobici]

If LA wasn´t there, he would have to be invented.
So much "pleasure" for us all.

LA was invented in 1971, his reinvention involved his small block Chevy V8 being replaced with a fire breathing V12 made in Ferrara.

What do you think how many people bet on Contador even in 2007 ?
I know. Billions of people.

I bet on Rasmussen in 2007, but please don´t tell anyone.

Looking at Contador's prior results and that season in particular I'd have bet some money on him. After all he had won Paris Nice in style on top of his victories in 2003-2006.

 

[ultimobici]

Thinking about it, LA's transformation is somewhat analogous to a traditional US Musclecar being capable of winning in F1 or Le Mans.

Chevelles, Chargers & Mustangs are great in a straight line drag race but they can't go round corners for toffee.

The only way Ford won Le Mans was to import the car from Europe. Thie iconic GT40 was British bar the engine!

 

[flicker]

Thinking about it, LA's transformation is somewhat analogous to a traditional US Musclecar being capable of winning in F1 or Le Mans.

Chevelles, Chargers & Mustangs are great in a straight line drag race but they can't go round corners for toffee.

The only way Ford won Le Mans was to import the car from Europe. Thie iconic GT40 was British bar the engine!

Is not EPO an American invention. Please give us credit.

 

[on3m@n@rmy]

I read it. Pretty boring really though I did get through to page 25,000.

I don't like Lance
I don't like Lance
I don't Like Lance
I don't like Lance

x 70,000...gets a bit repetitive after a while.

d'ya think? I mean, that theme coming from GL would have been quite predictable.

 

[on3m@n@rmy]

How on earth does old Greg find the time to put together 70,000 pages? I work with databases that couldn't do it quicker!

Wish I'd been a pro cyclist and not given up when I was grovelling as a rubbish junior. By now, I'd be close to retirement and a life of nothing but spare time.

70,000 pages??? Sheesh, idk how you guys could get through that much. Unless I have insominia, I'll stick with reading the posts. I'm sure it's a lot more interesting.

 

[on3m@n@rmy]

Isn't just 70,000 an expression to mean an a$$load of pages?
(native english speakers may help here... )

Probably. But in any case, 70,000 or a$$load, I'll take the 25 pages of posts instead.

 

[flicker]

Quote:
Originally Posted by L'arriviste
How on earth does old Greg find the time to put together 70,000 pages? I work with databases that couldn't do it quicker!

Wish I'd been a pro cyclist and not given up when I was grovelling as a rubbish junior. By now, I'd be close to retirement and a life of nothing but spare time.

The general consensus amoung us who raced with and against LeMond is that he does not have a life anymore and that he is losing it.
He has way to much time and idle hands and the devil meet.

 

[Polish]

until then I hold the view that LA would never win a GT in (a hypothetical) dope free environment.

You have an admittedly poor track record predicting Lance's performance in the "real world", and I am afraid your track record would be equally bad in the "make believe" world.

How would have Lance performed in an imaginary clean 1993 and 1994 TdF?
Better or worse than he did in real life?

And who WOULD have won in 93/94/95/96/97/98/99/00/01/02/03/04/05/09/10 clean?

Not even one Lance?

Clean Big Mig would have won? Clean Big Jan too?
Maybe a clean Alberto could have won one?

But how about all the other years.
Lance not even one? C'mon. That is crazy talk.
Voeckler omg?

 

[blutto]

Thinking about it, LA's transformation is somewhat analogous to a traditional US Musclecar being capable of winning in F1 or Le Mans.

Chevelles, Chargers & Mustangs are great in a straight line drag race but they can't go round corners for toffee.

The only way Ford won Le Mans was to import the car from Europe. Thie iconic GT40 was British bar the engine!

...so what you are saying is that the small block Chevy (as mentioned above) was actually not that bad...(in actual fact it smoked)..and because no matter how you cut it car racing is still about go so that motor in that car would have beaten the Ferraris even more handily... (... a little backgound here...except for the 289, Ford couldn't make an engine that could compete with the Chevy motors of the era...so just imagine the GT40 with a "rat" motor....or saints alive...the big dog...The Hemi...)...

Cheers

blutto

 

[ultimobici]

...so what you are saying is that the small block Chevy (as mentioned above) was actually not that bad...(in actual fact it smoked)..and because no matter how you cut it car racing is still about go so that motor in that car would have beaten the Ferraris even more handily... (... a little backgound here...except for the 289, Ford couldn't make an engine that could compete with the Chevy motors of the era...so just imagine the GT40 with a "rat" motor....or saints alive...the big dog...The Hemi...)...

Cheers

blutto

Nope.
To win bike of car races it is not just the engine but rather the full package. But what I was driving at was that there is no way in hell any US style muscle car could ever have won a circuit race without major sleight of hand. In the same way there is no way LA could have won one GT let alone 7 without a lot of artificial help.

 

[Martin318is]

... no matter how you cut it car racing is still about go ...

That isn't even true in drag racing. Even though there are no corners, there is still a huge component of traction in terms of tyre and suspension technology. Put a corner in the track and the ratio of importance ramps up even further.

To drag your logic back to cycling - Why wasn't SuperMario a GT contender? he clearly had the fastest motor (yes I know thats not the same as the "best" motor - but that is exactly my point)

 

[Cobblestoned]

LA was invented in 1971, his reinvention involved his small block Chevy V8 being replaced with a fire breathing V12 made in Ferrara.
Looking at Contador's prior results and that season in particular I'd have bet some money on him. After all he had won Paris Nice in style on top of his victories in 2003-2006.

These italian F1 V12 regularly blew up, but were music for the ears

Lance only got a new electrical control unit, the camshaft was optimized and some parts were replaced with lighter parts.

 

[blutto]

Nope.
To win bike of car races it is not just the engine but rather the full package. But what I was driving at was that there is no way in hell any US style muscle car could ever have won a circuit race without major sleight of hand. In the same way there is no way LA could have won one GT let alone 7 without a lot of artificial help.

please don't try tell me you believe there was such a huge difference between the two chassis' ....the bottom line was they were within a whisker of each other and at the end of the day the better motor won...and as I said a rat or a Hemi would have yielded a even more impressive victory...you have to remember that it isn't just horespower that wins races...torque is really important ( witness the recent success of diesels at Le Mans ) and as was mentioned so is reliability...what is also important is not how hard a motor can go but how fast it can get to that point and how long it can stay there...so relying on just a horsepower number doesn't tell you how race-worthy the motor is much the same as a VO2/Max number in isolation doesn't tell you the whole story of how a rider will perform...an important part of this body of evidence thread is the Rubicon moment I spoke of earlier...you either believe or you don't believe...and a great deal of the "we believe" thing seems to be a rather simplistic reliance on VO2/Max numbers ( as exemplified by use of the engine analogy )...Greg has 95 ( though there was this 79 recorded earlier by Greg but we won't go there right?) and Lance had 78...so at that point the argument should be over...just like the motor thing...

...but as with the engine, performance is complicated...the body, for instance, uses, in some circumstances, more energy to maintain core-temp than to actually move the bike forward....so if your VOS/MAX is thru the roof but your heat dumping function is compromised( say with a layer of insulating fat ...and please note this is just speculation...though Lance got real skinny and Greg porked out ) are you screwed as a rider....or for instance how far up the lactate threshold ladder can you go, how fast can you get there and how long can you hold it....all sort of like how does a good race motor functions isn't it...

...it would probably be a good idea to go find another analogy that actually works...like for instance, the critical addition of an electronics control package ( the Hog on the headset ) which really helped turn one of the tactically dumbest riders in my memory into a winner ( thus, on the mental/tactical level at least, a mule becomes a racehorse )......

Cheers

blutto

 

[Polish]

EPO would be like a commonly used fuel additive.

Blood Transfusions would be like removing the engine, cleaning, and putting the same engine back in.

Hardly actions that would "transform' a race car lol.

But maybe cancer treatment would be analogous to a major overhaul/transformation?