Official Lance Armstrong Thread: Part 3 (Post-Confession)

[andy1234]

He would've won a few. Would he have been a big monuments winner? I dont think so.

Tour stage winner, and world pro road race , at the age of 22 says otherwise.

 

[ralphbert]

Tour stage winner, and world pro road race , at the age of 22 says otherwise.

Lances biggest natural talent is a normal hemocrit of 39

 

[MarkvW]

I am not the one trying sell a fruit stall.

Yes apples and oranges, but Armstrong was not a LeMond, unlike Woods and Jordan are in their respective sports.

Comparing either LeMond or Armstrong to Michael Jordan is silly. Even LeMond would probably admit that he's no Michael Jordan.

And sure, in a hypothetical undoped Grand Tour (something that has never existed), Greg LeMond in his prime would humiliate Lance Armstrong in his prime.

 

[Benotti69]

Tour stage winner, and world pro road race , at the age of 22 says otherwise.

He was handed the stage win due to a Casartelli's death.

Yes he won a hard WC.

Good to see your fandom has not wained.

 

[Benotti69]

Comparing either LeMond or Armstrong to Michael Jordan is silly. Even LeMond would probably admit that he's no Michael Jordan.

And sure, in a hypothetical undoped Grand Tour (something that has never existed), Greg LeMond in his prime would humiliate Lance Armstrong in his prime.

Not my fruitstall fruitball Izzy is yer maun

 

[pmcg76]

He was handed the stage win due to a Casartelli's death.

Yes he won a hard WC.

Good to see your fandom has not wained.

I am no Armstrong fanboy but at least I know that he won a stage in his first Tour in 93 aged 21. The Casartelli one was in 95 so Andy1234 was indeed correct and to try and deny that Armstrong was not viewed as a potentially huge star is the denial of reality.

 

[andy1234]

He was handed the stage win due to a Casartelli's death.

Yes he won a hard WC.

Good to see your fandom has not wained.

It's not fandom, it's an appreciation of facts.
You might want to try it.

Start with history.

 

[Zam_Olyas]

Benno sometimes resides in the unreal world of doping.... so he denies reality




maybe

 

[andy1234]

Lances biggest natural talent is a normal hemocrit of 39

In that case he won a pro road race title with a hematocrit of 39.

 

[Scott SoCal]

I am no Armstrong fanboy but at least I know that he won a stage in his first Tour in 93 aged 21. The Casartelli one was in 95 so Andy1234 was indeed correct and to try and deny that Armstrong was not viewed as a potentially huge star is the denial of reality.

I doubt he would have finished his career with a palmares significantly better than, say, Hincapie.

Good rider, threat to win some big races. But not Sagan, not Boonen, not Cancellara, etc.

 

[pmcg76]

Lets not forget Armstrong finished 2nd in the 94 L-B-L a few days before the infamous Gewiss 1-2-3 at Fleche Wallone. Every other Top 10 finisher in L-B-L that year was on an Italian team, Gewiss, MG-GB, Mapei, Carrera.

I think it is widely accepted that Armstrong was not yet on EPO at that stage so for him to finish so highly in that company suggests there was indeed a high level of talent even if were restricted to the classics. This is backed up by a previous LeMond statement in which LeMond said he believed it was still possible to compete for a classic in the 90s without EPO but not possible in the GTs. Maybe Armstrong might not have been a LeMond but he could have been a Kelly for sure.

 

[Benotti69]

It's not fandom, it's an appreciation of facts.
You might want to try it.

Start with history.

Armstrong never raced clean. Sad that you appreciate that and worship it.

 

[Benotti69]

Lets not forget Armstrong finished 2nd in the 94 L-B-L a few days before the infamous Gewiss 1-2-3 at Fleche Wallone. Every other Top 10 finisher in L-B-L that year was on an Italian team, Gewiss, MG-GB, Mapei, Carrera.

I think it is widely accepted that Armstrong was not yet on EPO at that stage so for him to finish so highly in that company suggests there was indeed a high level of talent even if were restricted to the classics. This is backed up by a previous LeMond statement in which LeMond said he believed it was still possible to compete for a classic in the 90s without EPO but not possible in the GTs. Maybe Armstrong might not have been a LeMond but he could have been a Kelly for sure.

It is widely accepted that Armstrong was doing EPO, see Stephen Swart, but didn't know how to maximise its benefits, which is where Ferrari came in.

 

[pmcg76]

I doubt he would have finished his career with a palmares significantly better than, say, Hincapie.

Good rider, threat to win some big races. But not Sagan, not Boonen, not Cancellara, etc.

Are you kidding me, he was Top 10 in World Cup Classic races as soon as he turned pro, 2nd in Zurich if I remember correctly. Now those Autumn classics may not have been at the level of the Spring classics but to be Top 10 in World Cup races as soon as your turn pro is hugely impressive and equal to anything those guys you quoted did. Boonen was 3rd in Paris-Roubaix aged 21, Armstrong was World Champion at the same age.

Cannot believe I am defending Armstrong here but you guys seem to have very little knowledge of how much hype there was about Armstrong as a Neo-pro.

 

[IzzyStradlin]

I doubt he would have finished his career with a palmares significantly better than, say, Hincapie.

Good rider, threat to win some big races. But not Sagan, not Boonen, not Cancellara, etc.

Maybe settle on Gerrans-esque?
Voeckler-ian?
O'grady-ish?

 

[ultimobici]

Are you kidding me, he was Top 10 in World Cup Classic races as soon as he turned pro, 2nd in Zurich if I remember correctly. Now those Autumn classics may not have been at the level of the Spring classics but to be Top 10 in World Cup races as soon as your turn pro is hugely impressive and equal to anything those guys you quoted did. Boonen was 3rd in Paris-Roubaix aged 21, Armstrong was World Champion at the same age.

Cannot believe I am defending Armstrong here but you guys seem to have very little knowledge of how much hype there was about Armstrong as a Neo-pro.

First races as a pro he finished dead last, half an hour down on the winner. Apparently considered quitting the sport. Unfortunately he decided to give it another shot.

As for those citing the Oslo Worlds, it was dumb luck that won it not guile, nor racing nous. The circuit was a city centre based one which with the rain turned into an ice rink. Armstrong was fortunate he didn't stack and enough of a nobody to slip away, nothing more.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

I am no Armstrong fanboy but at least I know that he won a stage in his first Tour in 93 aged 21. The Casartelli one was in 95 so Andy1234 was indeed correct and to try and deny that Armstrong was not viewed as a potentially huge star is the denial of reality.

You don't understand the history or the culture of the sport - Armstrong had his birthcert backdated**. In 92 he was actually 39 with a HCT of 21, so they swapped it round.

All kidding aside, agree that he would have been pretty formidable as a one day rider and short week long stage racer.

**(Which he actually did for Tri when he was younger but that a different story)

 

[jens_attacks]

Lances biggest natural talent is a normal hemocrit of 39

hematocrit doesn't mean everything.actually it means jacks hiit. i have a hematocrit around 49-51 and my endurance is not so great(to say the least haha).

hampsten won the giro with a natural hematocrit of 38 or did i read that bad?
ugrumov was also low before epo and he was great in the peace race and mountains they raced.

armstrong remains one of the biggest champs ever to ride a bike and probably the biggest aszhole too. but that's how champs survive.

not everyone can be indurain or contador, we also need some hinault/armstrong in our lives.

who write that caption? yes i think lance paid him for that too...

 

[pmcg76]

It is widely accepted that Armstrong was doing EPO, see Stephen Swart, but didn't know how to maximise its benefits, which is where Ferrari came in.

More horse manure, maybe you should actually read Swart's statements and affidavit. Swart first mentions Armstrong talking about switching to EPO before Milan-San Remo 95 and he didn't start working with Ferrari until 96. There has never been mention of Armstrong using EPO in 94 by Swart.

Armstrongs 94 season was actually poor in comparison to 93 and that L-B-L result was probably his best result in the World Bands. He improved from 94 to 95.

 

[andy1234]

First races as a pro he finished dead last, half an hour down on the winner. Apparently considered quitting the sport. Unfortunately he decided to give it another shot.

As for those citing the Oslo Worlds, it was dumb luck that won it not guile, nor racing nous. The circuit was a city centre based one which with the rain turned into an ice rink. Armstrong was fortunate he didn't stack and enough of a nobody to slip away, nothing more.

As someone who was in Oslo that weekend, I can tell you that dumb luck did not win that race. It was a really tough race, in horrendous weather.
Dumb luck might win a wet, half hour crit. it doesn't win a six and a half hour world championships.

It might not be a palatable concept for some, but before EPO, the ability to manipulate the UCi, and turning into the biggest a55hole in sport, Armstrong was a bone fide star of the future.

 

[andy1234]

It is widely accepted that Armstrong was doing EPO, see Stephen Swart, but didn't know how to maximise its benefits, which is where Ferrari came in.

Your knowledge of the sport, and attempts to change facts to suit your agenda are truly cringeworthy.

And before you begin your schoolboy taunts, this isn't about Armstrong, it's simply about correcting clueless inaccuracies.

 

[mewmewmew13]

wow stick to the post not attack the poster...

 

[Scott SoCal]

Are you kidding me, he was Top 10 in World Cup Classic races as soon as he turned pro, 2nd in Zurich if I remember correctly. Now those Autumn classics may not have been at the level of the Spring classics but to be Top 10 in World Cup races as soon as your turn pro is hugely impressive and equal to anything those guys you quoted did. Boonen was 3rd in Paris-Roubaix aged 21, Armstrong was World Champion at the same age.

Cannot believe I am defending Armstrong here but you guys seem to have very little knowledge of how much hype there was about Armstrong as a Neo-pro.

Are you kidding me

No.

he was Top 10 in World Cup Classic races as soon as he turned pro, 2nd in Zurich if I remember correctly.

So, therefore, what?

Now those Autumn classics may not have been at the level of the Spring classics but to be Top 10 in World Cup races as soon as your turn pro is hugely impressive

equal to anything those guys you quoted did

No. LA didn't have the snap of Boonen or Sagan and he damned sure couldn't win the way Cancellara does. Simply didn't have that kind of engine.

So, tactically, he was limited (as was Hincapie). Small group, race of attrition.... those races he would be a threat.

I doubt if he would have won much which would make his palmares similar to Hincapie. Always there, not quite getting it done.

Cannot believe I am defending Armstrong here but you guys seem to have very little knowledge of how much hype there was about Armstrong as a Neo-pro

I followed LA pretty closely from the time of him being a teenage tri-phenom. He was a very good classics rider. But there were/are a bunch of very good classics riders. Guys like Flecha, Chavanel, etc.

 

[Scott SoCal]

Maybe settle on Gerrans-esque?
Voeckler-ian?
O'grady-ish?

Yeah... Add Flecha and Chava. There are a bunch of those guys, all very good riders.

 

[pmcg76]

First races as a pro he finished dead last, half an hour down on the winner. Apparently considered quitting the sport. Unfortunately he decided to give it another shot.

As for those citing the Oslo Worlds, it was dumb luck that won it not guile, nor racing nous. The circuit was a city centre based one which with the rain turned into an ice rink. Armstrong was fortunate he didn't stack and enough of a nobody to slip away, nothing more.

You are right on the fact that he was dead last at San Sebastian which came right after the Oympics but the same week he won a stage at the Tour of Galicia, was 2nd in another stage and two weeks later was 2nd in the Zurich World Cup race. He then won one of the Italian World Championship warm-up races which were highly competitive as the Italians were racing for Worlds selection. All that before his 21st Birthday.

His Worlds win would best be described as opportunistic, I don't think it was down to dumb luck. He was in contention, played his cards and the big name's hesitatied too long. Indurain was runner-up was he not.

I don't understand this desire to make Armstrong out like he was average. He was the best Neo-pro in 92/93 and his results more than stand up against the likes of Sagan, Boonen or Cancellara. Yes Sagan won a lot but he had the tools(i.e sprint) to do so, Armstrong was not a sprinter of the Sagan calibre. Boonen had a result in Paris-Roubaix but then that is a race that can throw up many one-off results, who remembers Rudi Rogiers??? People might want to check how long Cancellara was a pro before he started getting results in the classics, it sure wasn't immediate success.

Doped or not Armstrong was destined for big things from the start and that was a view shared by mostly everybody including his peers.