Official Lance Armstrong Thread: Part 4 (Post-Settlement)

Page 6 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Aug 29, 2016
250
9
2,045
Re:

This is one unsolved mystery about Armstrong from FMK's review linked above:
I’ve no idea how much raw talent Armstrong had, but the problem with basing such a claim on his performance in those early Tours is that, just a chapter or two before, LeMond and Fignon’s poor performances in their final Tours was taken as proof the rest of peloton was hopped up to the gills on EPO. If we know that Armstrong didn’t take to EPO until the end of 1995, how can we then argue that his poor performance in those early Tours signified a lack of talent?
I think the fallacy described here originates from people confusing two things:

1) Whether there was something strange in Armstrong's 1998 comeback when his results were significantly better than his 1994-1995 results. To point this out before the USADA case and confessions was a good argument that he might've started to take "hard" PEDs as French journalists, David Walsh and Mike Ashenden have pointed out during the the SCA hearings and elsewhere.

Because all the complaining about what a pathetic GT-rider Lance was during his pre-cancer days is at least somewhat accurate and hasn't gone anywhere even after the 2012-2013 events, the abundance of this material has led to this question:

2) Whether Lance had no natural talent because his domination started only after the application of blood doping with the help of Dr. Ferrari. While this can be true, many people come to this conclusion because they remember the observations by LeMond and even more sympathetic Phil Anderson how in troubles the Texan was particularly during the time trials and mountain stages during his pre-cancer years.

Whether or how much Lance had talent is an interesting questions, but I thinkg that particularly Greg LeMond has far too "Vo2Max reductionist"-reading of the world when he tends to think that there is something suspicious in anyone with a Vo2Max below his presumed 95 ml/kg/min figure who produces more watts than he could do during his Tour wins.

I think it is the consensus view that that cycling efficiency tends to be inversely related to oxygen capacity among elites, and this article should remind everyone that the magical figure isn't the end of story:
https://www.outsideonline.com/2398524/highest-ever-vo2max-cyclist-oskar-svendsen

It is interesting that when training induced improved cycling efficiency was discussed in David Walsh's book From Lance to Landis, LeMond didn't think the issue in terms of muscle/peripheral level adaptation to training but only in terms of instant pedalling efficiency, in terms of cadence, knee angles and the interplay between different pushing and pulling muscles etc. and told that his coach had told that the improvement would be something like one percent at most.
 
Re: Official Lance Armstrong Thread: Part 4 (Post-Settlement

This Charming Man said:
Excellent to see Lance interviewed on NBC Sports coverage today. He is quite insightful on TdF strategies.
Respect to Greg LeMond, however, motivation is a great motivator in life and sports. Stephen Hawking case in point, we do what we need to do to excell. If VO2 max were the greatest factor in winning, Greg would have won each and every race he entered as a European proffessional, every last one!
 
Re:

fmk_RoI said:
Q for 86TDFWinner: Can I presume you read the LeMond biog that came out last year? What's your take on its claim that Armstrong bounced Laurent Fignon into having to go public on his cancer diagnosis? From the book:
At 11:12 a.m. on June 11, 2009, Lance greeted his millions of Twitter followers with a most unexpected Tweet: ‘Sending out my best to Laurent Fignon who was recently dx w/ cancer. A friend, a great man, and a cycling legend. Livestrong Laurent.’

And thus did the cycling world learn that an enigmatic legend of French cycling was fighting for his life.
I'll have to read it & get back to you, okay. Sorry for the late response.
 
Also, He can't seem to keep his lies straight:

He told Oprah during the interview with her, that he "didn't start doping until '95 or so" and then he told the guy on ESPN he "started in '93" and he's not called out on it. It's amazing to me, that he STILL gets love and respect from so many here and elsewhere.

His entire career has been one big lie and fraud, it's like a Ponzi scheme, he's the Bernie Madoff of cycling.

Liggett and Rolle just lap it up too...
 
Mar 6, 2009
3,488
0
0
Re:

86TDFWinner said:
Also, He can't seem to keep his lies straight:

He told Oprah during the interview with her, that he didn't start doping until '95 or so and he told the guy on ESPN he started in '93 and he's not called out on it.
Well he says he first crossed the line at the Settimana Bergamasque race in 91, but claims it was legal stuff including Cortisone :eek: Then he admits to progressing to non legal medications in 93 and onto EPO in 95 so it does actually line up. What is clear is his eagerness to win at all costs as early as 19 when he was too happy to be treated. I would imagine he was treated with the same 'extract of cortisone' as Greg Stock/ Eric Kaiter.

As for him winning the Tour if everyone was clean, that is dubious as it is totally unprovable. How does Armstrong know he was the best without drugs? especially when he admits to having doped from his first full season as a pro. Armstrong still clearly has a lot of delusions that are not exactly making him any more likeable.
 
Re: Re:

pmcg76 said:
86TDFWinner said:
Also, He can't seem to keep his lies straight:

He told Oprah during the interview with her, that he didn't start doping until '95 or so and he told the guy on ESPN he started in '93 and he's not called out on it.
Well he says he first crossed the line at the Settimana Bergamasque race in 91, but claims it was legal stuff including Cortisone :eek: Then he admits to progressing to non legal medications in 93 and onto EPO in 95 so it does actually line up. What is clear is his eagerness to win at all costs as early as 19 when he was too happy to be treated. I would imagine he was treated with the same 'extract of cortisone' as Greg Stock/ Eric Kaiter.

As for him winning the Tour if everyone was clean, that is dubious as it is totally unprovable. How does Armstrong know he was the best without drugs? especially when he admits to having doped from his first full season as a pro. Armstrong still clearly has a lot of delusions that are not exactly making him any more likeable.
And that he finished no better than 36th Pre Doping. Like i(& others here have) said before: it's simply not humanly possible to win the TDF 7 times in a row w/o taking something.
 
Aug 29, 2016
250
9
2,045
Re: Re:

Almost the entite Motorola team was using rHuEPO at the 1995 TDF when Armstrong finished 36th, so it wasn't strictly "pre doping" achievement.

Still they were somewhat comservative in their approach when the majority of Motorola riders (according to Steven Swart) tested their Hct's around 50 some week before the end of the race. Festina for instance preferred value 55 and some individual riders if not teams went even beyond this.

I think 36th place shows talent and is a fairly good achievement for a 23-year old kid who competes (presumably) first time under the influence of the RBC hormone against well-oiled teams with up to half a decade of experience with the substance.

I have no idea how Armstrong would've succeeded had everyone been clean, but even fairly unsympathetic Tyler Hamilton believed thay he would've perhaps won one or a few TDFs but not seven.
 
Jun 22, 2010
3,343
0
0
Re: Official Lance Armstrong Thread: Part 4 (Post-Settlement

Could an Armstrong without dope, even with all the other riders clean, compete for the win, even a top 10? Could he get himself over the big cols? He was known as a punchy rider who could get over the hilly stages and contend there, winning from small breakaways by attacking early, but compete day in day out in the high mountains? Plus he used what seemed like a fairly big gear, somewhere close to what Ullrich was using, not something climbers did. I don't pretend to be an expert, but to me I just don't see Armstrong winning any GT with everyone (including him) riding clean.
 
Jun 3, 2019
111
0
330
This is such an old subject that it is very difficult to understand the amount of time to dislike someone on a message board.
Like all the drug cheaters before and present.
Every time the man takes a breath it is somehow spoiling your life?
 
Mar 6, 2009
3,488
0
0
Re:

nevele neves said:
This is such an old subject that it is very difficult to understand the amount of time to dislike someone on a message board.
Like all the drug cheaters before and present.
Every time the man takes a breath it is somehow spoiling your life?
It is hardly old news when Armstrong is in the media currently and coming out with nonsense claims like he would have won the Tour if everyone was clean. There is simply no way of knowing that. As people have said, the problem with Armstrong is his ego, he cannot simply stay away. He has to be in the spotlight talking crap, he simply cannot let it go. I pretty much stopped caring about Armstrong once the truth was out, that is all I ever wanted to see, the truth revealed and for him to slink off into the background. Not in his nature though...is it?

He wants to be forgiven and rehabilitated, but his ego just keeps getting in the way.
 
Apr 20, 2009
902
0
0
Re: Re:

pmcg76 said:
nevele neves said:
This is such an old subject that it is very difficult to understand the amount of time to dislike someone on a message board.
Like all the drug cheaters before and present.
Every time the man takes a breath it is somehow spoiling your life?
It is hardly old news when Armstrong is in the media currently and coming out with nonsense claims like he would have won the Tour if everyone was clean. There is simply no way of knowing that. As people have said, the problem with Armstrong is his ego, he cannot simply stay away. He has to be in the spotlight talking crap, he simply cannot let it go. I pretty much stopped caring about Armstrong once the truth was out, that is all I ever wanted to see, the truth revealed and for him to slink off into the background. Not in his nature though...is it?

He wants to be forgiven and rehabilitated, but his ego just keeps getting in the way.
He's got the most popular cycling podcast in the world, hundreds of thousands of people listening every day and cameos on NBC broadcasts. I'm not sure if that qualifies as rehabilitation but why would he step away? Apparently a lot of people want to hear him and his former teammates talk about the race.
 
Jun 22, 2010
3,343
0
0
Re: Official Lance Armstrong Thread: Part 4 (Post-Settlement

NBC and big media conglomerates like that are opportunistic like this, to say the least. They are just caching in, and Armstrong in return is getting something in return. Any publicity is good publicity for him. He probably still has his base of fans from yesteryear backing him, there's probably a good number of neutrals who just want to hear another opinion and even those that resent him tune in because that is simply human nature. It's just like watching a basketball or football or any team game...many people hate the New York Yankees but they'll likely still watch them just hoping they'll lose and that will give them satisfaction.

I for one never liked Armstrong, I could tell from all those interviews back in the day that he was arrogant and antagonistic. There were many great riders that were much more enjoyable to watch and cheer for. Quite a few of his teammates were seemingly polar opposites of him. Then we got confirmation from the likes of Hamilton and Landis that Armstrong is not a pleasant guy.

The bottom line is people will still tune in or read about him, for whatever reason. The best would be for people that either don't care for him (the neutrals) and those that don't like simply tune out, ignore him, but that's never going to happen, in any sport, in any form of life. Humans love controversy and modern media and social media are perfect providers of that. It's too bad that he's getting the publicity again, but it is what it is.
 
Jun 16, 2010
1,036
0
0
Re: Re:

eleven said:
pmcg76 said:
nevele neves said:
This is such an old subject that it is very difficult to understand the amount of time to dislike someone on a message board.
Like all the drug cheaters before and present.
Every time the man takes a breath it is somehow spoiling your life?
It is hardly old news when Armstrong is in the media currently and coming out with nonsense claims like he would have won the Tour if everyone was clean. There is simply no way of knowing that. As people have said, the problem with Armstrong is his ego, he cannot simply stay away. He has to be in the spotlight talking crap, he simply cannot let it go. I pretty much stopped caring about Armstrong once the truth was out, that is all I ever wanted to see, the truth revealed and for him to slink off into the background. Not in his nature though...is it?

He wants to be forgiven and rehabilitated, but his ego just keeps getting in the way.

and cameos on NBC broadcasts. I'm not sure if that qualifies as rehabilitation but why would he step away? Apparently a lot of people want to hear him and his former teammates talk about the race.
He's got the most popular cycling podcast in the world, hundreds of thousands of people listening every day
NO - last podcast was about 44,000 listeners. Exaggerating LA's podcast success is simply being like LA himself - bullshitting! It is like Chump saying he had the most people ever at his inauguration. Come to think of it Armstrong and Chump are two of a kind!
 
Apr 20, 2009
902
0
0
Re: Re:

RobbieCanuck said:
eleven said:
pmcg76 said:
nevele neves said:
This is such an old subject that it is very difficult to understand the amount of time to dislike someone on a message board.
Like all the drug cheaters before and present.
Every time the man takes a breath it is somehow spoiling your life?
It is hardly old news when Armstrong is in the media currently and coming out with nonsense claims like he would have won the Tour if everyone was clean. There is simply no way of knowing that. As people have said, the problem with Armstrong is his ego, he cannot simply stay away. He has to be in the spotlight talking crap, he simply cannot let it go. I pretty much stopped caring about Armstrong once the truth was out, that is all I ever wanted to see, the truth revealed and for him to slink off into the background. Not in his nature though...is it?

He wants to be forgiven and rehabilitated, but his ego just keeps getting in the way.

and cameos on NBC broadcasts. I'm not sure if that qualifies as rehabilitation but why would he step away? Apparently a lot of people want to hear him and his former teammates talk about the race.
He's got the most popular cycling podcast in the world, hundreds of thousands of people listening every day
NO - last podcast was about 44,000 listeners. Exaggerating LA's podcast success is simply being like LA himself - bullshitting! It is like Chump saying he had the most people ever at his inauguration. Come to think of it Armstrong and Chump are two of a kind!
Oh FFS, really? Let me rephrase that for you: He's got the most-downloaded sports and rec podcast https://toppodcast.com/top-podcasts/?search_string=&search_cat=22&search_submit=Filter (ahead of Barstool) and hundreds of thousands of people listening on a regular basis.

Is having more downloads than Barstool's most popular show a sign that he's not doing well? On a completely unrelated note: I actually agree re: the Trump comparison. They share a lot of personality traits. And both, despite of or because they are self-centered sociopaths, are very successful.
 
Curious why people would be up in arms about Armstrong having a talking head moment on NBC broadcast. There are many ex-dopers in the sport of cycling, in all facets including commentating. As for the investigation, it was never proven by Mr. Tygart, that Lance used the most, best dope in world, pure fallacy by Tygart......pathetic. I do think good came out of Tygarts investigation, it got Rabobank out of cycling, andf many dopers retired early......
 
Re: Re:

pmcg76 said:
nevele neves said:
This is such an old subject that it is very difficult to understand the amount of time to dislike someone on a message board.
Like all the drug cheaters before and present.
Every time the man takes a breath it is somehow spoiling your life?
It is hardly old news when Armstrong is in the media currently and coming out with nonsense claims like he would have won the Tour if everyone was clean. There is simply no way of knowing that. As people have said, the problem with Armstrong is his ego, he cannot simply stay away. He has to be in the spotlight talking crap, he simply cannot let it go. I pretty much stopped caring about Armstrong once the truth was out, that is all I ever wanted to see, the truth revealed and for him to slink off into the background. Not in his nature though...is it?

He wants to be forgiven and rehabilitated, but his ego just keeps getting in the way.


Correction. YOU want him to want to be forgiven and rehabilitated. Stop fooling yourself into thinking you’re somehow in the driver’s seat. Quicksand.
 
Jun 3, 2019
111
0
330
Re: Re:

Alpe73 said:
pmcg76 said:
nevele neves said:
This is such an old subject that it is very difficult to understand the amount of time to dislike someone on a message board.
Like all the drug cheaters before and present.
Every time the man takes a breath it is somehow spoiling your life?
It is hardly old news when Armstrong is in the media currently and coming out with nonsense claims like he would have won the Tour if everyone was clean. There is simply no way of knowing that. As people have said, the problem with Armstrong is his ego, he cannot simply stay away. He has to be in the spotlight talking crap, he simply cannot let it go. I pretty much stopped caring about Armstrong once the truth was out, that is all I ever wanted to see, the truth revealed and for him to slink off into the background. Not in his nature though...is it?

He wants to be forgiven and rehabilitated, but his ego just keeps getting in the way.


Correction. YOU want him to want to be forgiven and rehabilitated. Stop fooling yourself into thinking you’re somehow in the driver’s seat. Quicksand.
That is what is so curious about these posts. The absolute power Lance Armstrong has over them.
 
Jan 31, 2016
70
1
2,685
Curious why people would be up in arms about Armstrong having a talking head moment on NBC broadcast. There are many ex-dopers in the sport of cycling, in all facets including commentating. As for the investigation, it was never proven by Mr. Tygart, that Lance used the most, best dope in world, pure fallacy by Tygart......pathetic. I do think good came out of Tygarts investigation, it got Rabobank out of cycling, andf many dopers retired early......
He's serving his ban and has a right to make a living. Unfortunately he's profiting on a continuation of this lying. As mentioned earlier he was willingly taking USAC "prescriptions" forced on other junior teammates and lined up for more. Anyone around the junior cyclists back then knew who did it. He'd serve his cause of redemption and any shred of concern for young riders to admit that.
His ongoing campaign to draw equivalency to other eras and riders to legitimize his Tour results is the long con....he wants to be re-christened by Oprah and allowed to profit again. Still a sociopath.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS