The Official LANCE ARMSTRONG Thread 2010-2011

[ErmOkk]

I accidently passed these forums and started reading some topics about the Alberto-Lance issue, and I can't see I don't enjoy it a bit. Yes Armstrong plays the media, yes he might be an ***, but damn this makes the 2010 road season so exciting!

Yes Alberto will ride away in the mountains when he's having a good day, but I believe he can be beaten. Paris-Nice was a big shock when I saw him bonk, because I never really saw that on his side. I might be wrong though, since LA also never bonked like he did in 2000 up Joux-Plane ever again in his prime.

Andy Shleck is good, but I don't see him win the tour, his TT abilities just aren't good enough.

I don't know that LA can win, but seeing a lot of people picking Alberto's side, means imo that they really are scared a bit of the old Texan, at least I would. He might be too old, I think so too honnestly, but I've this hunch that he'll rather drop dead than to let Contador go in the mountains when he trully believes he can win, and might come out as a suprise in the TT.

All I can say is that I'm bloody anxious to find out, and reading all those passionate comments, so are you.

 

[Digger]

There's a tendency in all sports to overly glorify past champions. It's especially common in older people who want to reminisce.

Well, I'm old, and I don't by it. Every sport is now being played by the most talented, gifted athelets that have ever lived. I love Eddy, but if you took him at his peak and threw him in with todays lions they'd have him for breakfast.

It's a thing called evolution.

Even Alberto better be better than he was last year because his competition certainly will be. That's life.

Eddy likely would have won more tours if he'd ridden less Giros.
Lance could have won a load of Giros but it would have likely cost him some Tour wins.
They were both the greatest in their own time. Is that an unreasonable opinion?

Hinault is the one I wouldn't want to meet in a dark ally.

Considering how mental you appear to be, i'd say he wouldn't be too hapy about it himself.

 

[BroDeal]

So far, the troller is achieving the mission LA (aka pharmastrong) gave him: hijacking this forum.

Originally he just tried to destroy The Clinic. He has now set his sights on destroying the Pro Racing forum. He just cannot stand that there are people out there that do not share the same man-love for Armstrong that he does.

 

[pmcg76]

Would you argue that a 100 meter sprinter from 30 years ago was better than one today? Or a marathoner?

It's obvious in every sport that races the clock that humans getting better all the time. You may think that doesn't apply to Grand Tour riders but you'd be wrong. Results in cycling may be harder to quantify but human evolution didn't skip your sport just so you can maintain some romantic image about the glorious past.

No, training techniques, diets, drugs and other things evolve, talent does not, it has to be there to start with. Can you imagine Merckx on EPO, holy ****, that would have been something to behold.

Oh yea, there was a guy called Roger De Vlaeminck who could challenge Merckx in the classics back in the day, RVB holds the record for Paris-Roubaix wins and is considered one of the greatest classics riders of all time yet he couldnt compete with Merckx in the GTs.

Back in the 70s, there was Tour specialists, Ocana, Thevenent, Poulidor, Zootomelk, Van Impe and classics riders like De Vlaeminck, Moser, Godefroot etc just like today. Merckx was the only rider who could win everything. Hinault is the only other guy who came close and maybe Coppi/Bartali.

On your points, Marathons 30 years ago was still a white dominated sport before the Africans arrived and the 100m was just changing. Athletics is a totally different ballgame from cycling, far more accesible for every nation which is why the sport has evolved quicker than cycling. Comparitively cycling has changed little, the same nations form the core of cycling sport with the addition of a few outsiders from the English speaking nations.

Here is a comparative question. Who is considered the greatest soccer player of all time, usually Pele or Maradona and that is pretty much unquestioned. Maradona was over 20 years ago and Pele 50 years ago. Of course you are gonna tell me otherwise.

You know, I have more patience than a lot of posters on here for people like yourself when it comes to disputing topics. I dont mind a good debate. However, your stance is becoming reminiscent of another poster who was banned for trolling and I find myself beginning to agree with the others. You talk so much crap to cover your tracks that I think you are just another reincarnation of the other troll.

 

[flicker]

I read International Cycle Sport back in the 70s. The photos of the classics were the best. These riders really put it out there. The Mur and Kemmelburg were something to behold and the coverage of De Vlaemink, Merckx,Moser,Maertens Plaenkert Roubaix etc. was amazing. That is all we had over here in San Francisco, no internet, no OLN no Universal TV no VCRs.
And of couse the battle between Merckx,Ocana,Giamondi Battaglin and the Spainards in the GTs that got us hooked.

Now we have the drama of Lance...go Lance.

For all you doubters go ride with Merckx, LeMond,Badger, Vaughters when they are old and out of shape. They will show you what time it is. You can cry dopers to the sky but guess what they were fine athletes, exceptional.

 

[pmcg76]

Would you argue that a 100 meter sprinter from 30 years ago was better than one today? Or a marathoner?

It's obvious in every sport that races the clock that humans getting better all the time. You may think that doesn't apply to Grand Tour riders but you'd be wrong. Results in cycling may be harder to quantify but human evolution didn't skip your sport just so you can maintain some romantic image about the glorious past.

Just in case you are still not getting this, I will make it clear as you seem a bit slow on the uptake.

In 74-75 as Merckxs career was starting to decline, an Italian by the name of Francesco Moser was emerging winning Paris-Tours/Tour of Lombardy 74/75. Merckx was still capable of winning the big races in 74-75.

Move forward a decade, as Moser went into decline he won Giro in 84 at the same time as the new king Sean Kelly was in his prime winning Paris-Roubaix, L-B-L and much more.

Move forward again to the early 90s as Kelly went into decline, another Belgian Johan Museeuw was emerging taking Zurich 91 & Flanders 93, Kelly still managed to win Lombardy/Milan San Remo 91/92.

Fast forward to 2002, Museeuw in decline won his third Paris-Roubaix, young Tom Boonen finished on the podium in the same race. Boonen is now the king.

Surely the pattern is clear that even as the older guys were in decline, they were still capable of winning against the next generation so there was no huge jump in talent between generations. Each generation adjusted accordingly as their careers progressed and were competitive with the next generation until father time took its toll. Happens to everyone.

Merckx, Moser, Kelly, Museeuw were all still winning in their 30s more than 10 years after the start of their respective careers. If talent advances like you suggest, this would simply not be possible. By following this timeline, it is obvious that Merckx would still be winning today if he was in his prime.

One last example, Inigo Cuesta turned pro in the early 90s but will still be riding at the top level this season. Thats almost a 20 year period and he is still a top level pro. How is that possible??

 

[Azdak6]

I accidently passed these forums and started reading some topics about the Alberto-Lance issue, and I can't see I don't enjoy it a bit. Yes Armstrong plays the media, yes he might be an ***, but damn this makes the 2010 road season so exciting!

Yes Alberto will ride away in the mountains when he's having a good day, but I believe he can be beaten. Paris-Nice was a big shock when I saw him bonk, because I never really saw that on his side. I might be wrong though, since LA also never bonked like he did in 2000 up Joux-Plane ever again in his prime.

Andy Shleck is good, but I don't see him win the tour, his TT abilities just aren't good enough.

I don't know that LA can win, but seeing a lot of people picking Alberto's side, means imo that they really are scared a bit of the old Texan, at least I would. He might be too old, I think so too honnestly, but I've this hunch that he'll rather drop dead than to let Contador go in the mountains when he trully believes he can win, and might come out as a suprise in the TT.

All I can say is that I'm bloody anxious to find out, and reading all those passionate comments, so are you.

I disagree--the race may turn out to be exciting, but I find the pre-race "war of words" especially tedious. It doesn't make anyone look good and it is so contrived, it is more annoying than anything else.

Armstrong is as much an unknown as he was last year. Unless something changes dramatically during the season, there is absolutely no reason to regard him as a serious contender--even for the podium. He could easily ride substantially better than last year and still have to fight for a top 10 finish. A number of riders are poised to make a "leap of quality" this year-at best, Armstrong might manage a "hop".

I know OLN and the other media will drive this as a "Lance vs Alberto" showdown, but it will just be empty posturing until the bikes start to roll.

 

[kurtinsc]

Just in case you are still not getting this, I will make it clear as you seem a bit slow on the uptake.

In 74-75 as Merckxs career was starting to decline, an Italian by the name of Francesco Moser was emerging winning Paris-Tours/Tour of Lombardy 74/75. Merckx was still capable of winning the big races in 74-75.

Move forward a decade, as Moser went into decline he won Giro in 84 at the same time as the new king Sean Kelly was in his prime winning Paris-Roubaix, L-B-L and much more.

Move forward again to the early 90s as Kelly went into decline, another Belgian Johan Museeuw was emerging taking Zurich 91 & Flanders 93, Kelly still managed to win Lombardy/Milan San Remo 91/92.

Fast forward to 2002, Museeuw in decline won his third Paris-Roubaix, young Tom Boonen finished on the podium in the same race. Boonen is now the king.

Surely the pattern is clear that even as the older guys were in decline, they were still capable of winning against the next generation so there was no huge jump in talent between generations. Each generation adjusted accordingly as their careers progressed and were competitive with the next generation until father time took its toll. Happens to everyone.

Merckx, Moser, Kelly, Museeuw were all still winning in their 30s more than 10 years after the start of their respective careers. If talent advances like you suggest, this would simply not be possible. By following this timeline, it is obvious that Merckx would still be winning today if he was in his prime.

One last example, Inigo Cuesta turned pro in the early 90s but will still be riding at the top level this season. Thats almost a 20 year period and he is still a top level pro. How is that possible??

Winning races in cycling isn't totally about athleticism... or gear. It's also about tactics. Really the time trials are the only things in cycling that rely totally on athleticism

The atheletes ARE better then 30 years ago. In swimming for example the guys winning the 1500 in the olympics average a split that's about as fast as the guys winning the 100 meter sprint in the early 50's olympics.

The curve isn't super fast. You wouldn't see it in a 15 year stretch. And in cycling... tactics and smarts will make up for a deficit in talent in some races. But over 30-40 years, yes, the talent level has increased quite a bit.

Heck, the current womens hour record is about as fast as what guys like Coppi and Antequil did in the early 50's.

 

[Race Radio]

Winning races in cycling isn't totally about athleticism... or gear. It's also about tactics. Really the time trials are the only things in cycling that rely totally on athleticism

um, climbing? you don't think climbing is all about the engine?

Winning GT's has always been more about the engine, one days races it is a different story.

Heck, the current womens hour record is about as fast as what guys like Coppi and Antequil did in the early 50's.

In the space of almost 30 years the mens hour record increased a total of 10 meters, or about 0.02%

 

[fpcyclingn]

The one thing we all agree on is that you are a troll. You have been banned many times for a reason.

And you've been reported, yet again.

Is that all you can do? Call non-Haters trolls?

You realize that you are the odd man out, right? Are you capable of understanding that? I know... I know.. your pitfully uneducated female friend thinks you are so cool and thus you believe certainly that YOU are indeed king of the world, right?

Yet at the end of the day, we all know that if you weren't a scared little sissy who only speaks his weak opinion among his trusted friends or the anonymity of the internet, you would be ridiculed, sued, fired, and shunned by basically everybody who has power in the world. Because at the end of the day you and all the Haters are W-R-O-N-G.

p.s. I have more money than you. Teehee!

 

[Carboncrank]

Surely the pattern is clear that even as the older guys were in decline, they were still capable of winning against the next generation so there was no huge jump in talent between generations. Each generation adjusted accordingly as their careers progressed and were competitive with the next generation until father time took its toll. Happens to everyone.

Merckx, Moser, Kelly, Museeuw were all still winning in their 30s more than 10 years after the start of their respective careers. If talent advances like you suggest, this would simply not be possible. By following this timeline, it is obvious that Merckx would still be winning today if he was in his prime.

One last example, Inigo Cuesta turned pro in the early 90s but will still be riding at the top level this season. Thats almost a 20 year period and he is still a top level pro. How is that possible??

Just in case you are still not getting this, I will make it clear as you seem a bit slow on the uptake.

The only thing Cuesta is an example of is an older rider that can still have a job. What you mean by top level pro is not clear. How it's possible is that nobody expects him to win anything. He's support ride is he not? He doesn't belong in the same discussion with Mercks, Hinault, Lance, AC or most of the others you mentioned. Different thing.

Merckx is a good example. He's 29 at his last tour win, not yet 31 at his last major win of any kind. That's not old enough to be in decline. The new guys were faster more than the old guys were slower. I'm not knocking him.

This is borne out by data you see riders talking about with power taps. Levi is an example. His numbers from what I've heard, improved in watts per kg per hour and he's 36. You don't like Lance but he's an example. When Carmichael and Lance talk about his numbers being as good as they were from this or that year when he was winning they are most likely telling the truth. The question is not whether they are as good but are the better. Enough better to beat new guys who are going to be stronger than he ever was because that is how evolutions works. Alberto claims HIS numbers are better. They had better be because the new guys coming up behind him are going to be better. At some point he's going flatten while others improve and he'll get beat. They aren't going to wait around for him to get worse.

I stand by what I said. Results in cycling may be harder to quantify but human evolution didn't skip your sport just so you can maintain some romantic image about the glorious past.

 

[Race Radio]

And you've been reported, yet again.

Is that all you can do? Call non-Haters trolls?

You realize that you are the odd man out, right? Are you capable of understanding that? I know... I know.. your pitfully uneducated female friend thinks you are so cool and thus you believe certainly that YOU are indeed king of the world, right?

Yet at the end of the day, we all know that if you weren't a scared little sissy who only speaks his weak opinion among his trusted friends or the anonymity of the internet, you would be ridiculed, sued, fired, and shunned by basically everybody who has power in the world. Because at the end of the day you and all the Haters are W-R-O-N-G.

p.s. I have more money than you. Teehee!

I call Troll's what they are. As this one has been banned many times for Trolling I am correct in my description.

What are we wrong about?

As for the money, I doubt it. But it does not really matter as my wife is hot, my kids are cool, and I have a large and loyal group of friends who think I am a great guy.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

And you've been reported, yet again.

Is that all you can do? Call non-Haters trolls?

You realize that you are the odd man out, right? Are you capable of understanding that? I know... I know.. your pitfully uneducated female friend thinks you are so cool and thus you believe certainly that YOU are indeed king of the world, right?

Yet at the end of the day, we all know that if you weren't a scared little sissy who only speaks his weak opinion among his trusted friends or the anonymity of the internet, you would be ridiculed, sued, fired, and shunned by basically everybody who has power in the world. Because at the end of the day you and all the Haters are W-R-O-N-G.

p.s. I have more money than you. Teehee!

You do realise CarbonCrank is Jackhamer111?....... teehee...

I havent bothered reporting him - let him keep spouting 'the Word of Lance' and have people quickly demolish his opinions..... that to me is how it works.

It is noteworthy - rather than discuss any of the views, opinions or evidence that has been brought to the debate that you decided to go for an 'ad hominem' position, I suppose it is easier to brush aside all who disagree with you and label them 'haters' and say - without showing - that they are wrong.

I am relatively well off- if you have more money than me then, hey, good luck to you, I hope it makes you happy. Let me know what industry/field you are in, I think I could do well there.

 

[flicker]

For all you doubters go ride with Merckx, LeMond,Badger, Vaughters when they are old and out of shape. They will show you what time it is. You can cry dopers to the sky but guess what they were fine athletes, exceptional.

Like I said go ride your bikes with these"old guys" and whiners you will shush. They do not need to use this substance known as "dope" to show you what time it is. Those guys are around and they still ride.

 

[Oldman]

Just in case you are still not getting this, I will make it clear as you seem a bit slow on the uptake.

The only thing Cuesta is an example of is an older rider that can still have a job. What you mean by top level pro is not clear. How it's possible is that nobody expects him to win anything. He's support ride is he not? He doesn't belong in the same discussion with Mercks, Hinault, Lance, AC or most of the others you mentioned. Different thing.

Merckx is a good example. He's 29 at his last tour win, not yet 31 at his last major win of any kind. That's not old enough to be in decline. The new guys were faster more than the old guys were slower. I'm not knocking him.

This is borne out by data you see riders talking about with power taps. Levi is an example. His numbers from what I've heard, improved in watts per kg per hour and he's 36. You don't like Lance but he's an example. When Carmichael and Lance talk about his numbers being as good as they were from this or that year when he was winning they are most likely telling the truth. The question is not whether they are as good but are the better. Enough better to beat new guys who are going to be stronger than he ever was because that is how evolutions works. Alberto claims HIS numbers are better. They had better be because the new guys coming up behind him are going to be better. At some point he's going flatten while others improve and he'll get beat. They aren't going to wait around for him to get worse.

I stand by what I said. Results in cycling may be harder to quantify but human evolution didn't skip your sport just so you can maintain some romantic image about the glorious past.

One things seriously clear...you are not an accomplished racer or even a well-trained rider.
1) Cuesta having a job means he may be riding his zone of contribution and talent to a aid a team effort and earn a living. Not everyone's a Quarterback...you need blocking backs, tight ends, etc to win and cycling on the big stage is the same deal. The hard workers may not have the absolute climbing or TT'ing skills to prevail but they can recover to put in 4 hrs of anonymous work for 3 weeks so their man can win. A true GT Patron knows who they are and gives them the credit they are due. If there is one distinction between LA and Conta it is in this area.
2) And again, about evolution...our small team rejected a team applicant (your example of a rider with "improving" numbers) because of his sketchy national team dietary record. I could beat him in a TT then. My numbers haven't gone down much after 20 years and I can tell you the only way anyone who's been trained well over the years has wattage numbers improve that much is one thing-doctors. Technique and equipment accounts for some tactical advantages; not sheer power.
3)There are domestiques whose resiliency and contribution match well with the best GT riders. Why don't you show what googling skills you have and provide a few names. And I'm not talking about what you're doing with your other hand while you're spewing the other disinformation and characterizations of forum members. Use both hands for this task.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

For all you doubters go ride with Merckx, LeMond,Badger, Vaughters when they are old and out of shape. They will show you what time it is. You can cry dopers to the sky but guess what they were fine athletes, exceptional.

Like I said go ride your bikes with these"old guys" and whiners you will shush. They do not need to use this substance known as "dope" to show you what time it is. Those guys are around and they still ride.

What do you mean by 'doubters'??

FWIW - I recently rode with a former Classic winner(who doped) - who is fit but well past his prime. And although I was on a super day and continually at the head of affairs when it came to a 'bite the bars' climb I had to sit there and watch him disappear - it was the most awe inspiring experience I have had on a bike.

 

[Carboncrank]

That's the point. I personally know riders that rode with LA. They could drop him on the flats in a TTT because they were sharing efforts equally. Not just the young/clean LA; we're talking the pre-cancer pro LA. Since you bought up human evolution you'd need to acknowledge there wasn't enough genetic credentials in LA's history to explain his later performances. You can only lose so much weight and fine tune training to minor degrees.

Give us some context on the riders that were better than Lance.

I do know a bit about cancer. Lance was not diagnosed early, he was extreemly sick by the time he sought help. It's hard to say how long he'd had these tumors and how they'd been effecting his performance.

I know people hear think I'm this Lance worshiper but fact is I've never even read his book. or is it books? I read Chris Carmichael's book thinking it would help me train but never read Lance's.

I did read on Wikipedia that he went to a urologist because of crotch pain, where he promptly coughed up blood for them. He had cancer in both lungs, the abdomen and brain. Lung cancers don't cause much pain until you get to the coughing up blood part. The brain tumor was necrotic which means it could have been there for a long time and leeching bad things into his brain from the tumor cell death. From what I know all those tumors could have be affecting his performance for up to 2 years.

We don't see his genetic credentials until he's healthy

 

[Oldman]

Give us some context on the riders that were better than Lance.

I do know a bit about cancer. Lance was not diagnosed early, he was extreemly sick by the time he sought help. It's hard to say how long he'd had these tumors and how they'd been effecting his performance.

I know people hear think I'm this Lance worshiper but fact is I've never even read his book. or is it books? I read Chris Carmichael's book thinking it would help me train but never read Lance's.

I did read on Wikipedia that he went to a urologist because of crotch pain, where he promptly coughed up blood for them. He had cancer in both lungs, the abdomen and brain. Lung cancers don't cause much pain until you get to the coughing up blood part. The brain tumor was necrotic which means it could have been there for a long time and leeching bad things into his brain from the tumor cell death. From what I know all those tumors could have be affecting his performance for up to 2 years.

We don't see his genetic credentials until he's healthy

You must not have a degree in biophysics, nor do I. Your genetic potential is revealed very early.
The riders are described were presented in context: a power team event where all teammates contribute in unison. While Lance was described by some as egotistical; he learned to measure his efforts or get dropped. Of the two TTT teams he was on, LA was the third or fourth rider in perceived effort ability. He was included because he was a USA Cycling project rider, the others were credentialled riders that had won their way onto the team. The team's coach selections were often necessary so the coaching staff could represent their budget expenditures and justify future participation (jobs). The fact that, in each case; three of four riders were not residents of the USA Boulder camp betrayed both the lack of budget and coaching depth.
What happened to the other riders? Presented with the needle by the staff, they declined. It's a fact that has been discussed at length.

Your theory of "Evolution" plays better on faith and "intelligent design". Go with what you know.

 

[Carboncrank]

One things seriously clear...you are not an accomplished racer or even a well-trained rider.
1) Cuesta having a job means he may be riding his zone of contribution and talent to a aid a team effort and earn a living. Not everyone's a Quarterback...you need blocking backs, tight ends, etc to win and cycling on the big stage is the same deal. The hard workers may not have the absolute climbing or TT'ing skills to prevail but they can recover to put in 4 hrs of anonymous work for 3 weeks so their man can win. A true GT Patron knows who they are and gives them the credit they are due. If there is one distinction between LA and Conta it is in this area.
2) And again, about evolution...our small team rejected a team applicant (your example of a rider with "improving" numbers) because of his sketchy national team dietary record. I could beat him in a TT then. My numbers haven't gone down much after 20 years and I can tell you the only way anyone who's been trained well over the years has wattage numbers improve that much is one thing-doctors. Technique and equipment accounts for some tactical advantages; not sheer power.
3)There are domestiques whose resiliency and contribution match well with the best GT riders. Why don't you show what googling skills you have and provide a few names. And I'm not talking about what you're doing with your other hand while you're spewing the other disinformation and characterizations of forum members. Use both hands for this task.

I don't know what gives you the right talk like this to me. You act like I should take you seriously but you start with a slight, and end your post with insults.

Are you interested in civil debate with me or not. Others here I'd never expect it from but you've shown reasonableness from time to time.

As far as what kind of rider I am. I've worn some out. I'm almost 60, 6'
2" 220#. I raced flat Crits in my mid 50's. I'm proud that I accomplished some very modest goals. I've never presented my self here as a big racer.

Tell me about you.

You want to hear my take or not?

 

[Oldman]

I don't know what gives you the right talk like this to me. You act like I should take you seriously but you start with a slight, and end your post with insults.

Are you interested in civil debate with me or not. Others here I'd never expect it from but you've shown reasonableness from time to time.

As far as what kind of rider I am. I've worn some out. I'm almost 60, 6'
2" 220#. I raced flat Crits in my mid 50's. I'm proud that I accomplished some very modest goals. I've never presented my self here as a big racer.

Tell me about you.

You want to hear my take or not?

It's a little late to play to the voice of reasonable discourse. Your prior posts have set enough tone to get to the point.
I'm seriously happy that you've raced and enjoyed it because that is the point of the sport. You should also take what investment and results you've received as an indication of the larger picture: there is no physical evolution of a rider that has been racing for more than several years. They either have it or they don't.
My general beef is the quoting of wattage and hemotcrit numbers to explain performances that belie history. Sprinters don't get faster after as they get older, riders don't get more power either. They can all refine the small points of their game. That's it.

 

[BroDeal]

You do realise CarbonCrank is Jackhamer111?....... teehee...

I wondered when we would see that nut sneak back. It explains Carboncrank's inability to absorb information and outright stupidity. It also explains why his trolling tactics are different than BPC.

How long will it be before Carboncrank flips out and begins threatening to rape other member's wives? This is a sad sad little man who is dangerously unbalanced.

 

[Anonymous]

Mr Crank - Evolution? Seriously? Are you having a larf? I usually try to ignore this thread as it's clearly a troll-fest, but...

You do know that for evolution to occur there must be a genetic advantage that means that particular gene/mutation is either advantageous in the habitat or more attractive to the opposite sex, leading to it being passed down the generations more than other genes? Animals do not just get stronger without reason. Improvements in training, nutrition etc from an early age, yes, but evolution? You really are a crank.

Top marks on the trolling though, it really is a masterclass.

 

[pmcg76]

Winning races in cycling isn't totally about athleticism... or gear. It's also about tactics. Really the time trials are the only things in cycling that rely totally on athleticism

The atheletes ARE better then 30 years ago. In swimming for example the guys winning the 1500 in the olympics average a split that's about as fast as the guys winning the 100 meter sprint in the early 50's olympics.

The curve isn't super fast. You wouldn't see it in a 15 year stretch. And in cycling... tactics and smarts will make up for a deficit in talent in some races. But over 30-40 years, yes, the talent level has increased quite a bit.

Heck, the current womens hour record is about as fast as what guys like Coppi and Antequil did in the early 50's.

But is the evolution in talent or the other factors like training methods, diet, equipment, drugs, coaching etc. Over time, we are learning more and more about physical development so of course things will evolve. If you took a pro from the 70s and just threw them in today, of course they would be lost but give them the training, equipment, drugs etc and I bet they would be right up there winning because the talent is there.

That was my intitial point, each athlete adjusted with the changes as their careers progressed and were still competitive with the next generation at the tail end of their careers. Pretty much on average, once an athlete passes 30 they are on the slippery slope. In a 20 year period, Cuesta is still a pro, he was never a Top name but if there is a huge jump in talent, he wouldnt still be competing in the Tour at 40 years of age.

 

[pmcg76]

Just in case you are still not getting this, I will make it clear as you seem a bit slow on the uptake.

The only thing Cuesta is an example of is an older rider that can still have a job. What you mean by top level pro is not clear. How it's possible is that nobody expects him to win anything. He's support ride is he not? He doesn't belong in the same discussion with Mercks, Hinault, Lance, AC or most of the others you mentioned. Different thing.

Merckx is a good example. He's 29 at his last tour win, not yet 31 at his last major win of any kind. That's not old enough to be in decline. The new guys were faster more than the old guys were slower. I'm not knocking him.

This is borne out by data you see riders talking about with power taps. Levi is an example. His numbers from what I've heard, improved in watts per kg per hour and he's 36. You don't like Lance but he's an example. When Carmichael and Lance talk about his numbers being as good as they were from this or that year when he was winning they are most likely telling the truth. The question is not whether they are as good but are the better. Enough better to beat new guys who are going to be stronger than he ever was because that is how evolutions works. Alberto claims HIS numbers are better. They had better be because the new guys coming up behind him are going to be better. At some point he's going flatten while others improve and he'll get beat. They aren't going to wait around for him to get worse.

I stand by what I said. Results in cycling may be harder to quantify but human evolution didn't skip your sport just so you can maintain some romantic image about the glorious past.

Now you are beginning to contradict yourself, you said elsewhere that if Lance had rode more Giros, he would have won less Tours so by that logic if Lance had rode all the races like Merckx, maybe he would have been finished by 31 also.

For sure, Cuesta is not a big-name rider but he was never a big-name pro but thats irrelevant. If as you insist the talent of the top guys evolves, then surely the talent of everyone also evolves from top to bottom overall or is that somehow illogical. If everyone doesnt evolve equally, then its not really evolution.

Cuesta was a decent team worker almost 20 years ago and he still is today, he still was able to make Cervelos TDF team last year so his level hasnt decreased that much so if there were a huge evolution in talent, there is no way he should be near the Tour right.

Cannot believe I am even bothering with this idiocy.

 

[franciep10]

Carbon Crank you're right there is evolution in cycling, not with the athletes but with the equipment, race schedules and enhancers. If you take the equipment that riders used are much more advanced than in the 90's much less the 60's or 70's. Everything is lighter more rigid and much more comfortable now than it was in Merckx time. If you look at the frames alone you had steel frames, durable but heavy and uncomfortable, now you have carbon and I'm now hearing about titanium frames. Nowadays you have riders focusing on one or two races for the entire season, but you had Merckx trying to win every race he competed in, I think he ended up winning 1/3 of his races riders just don't do that anymore because of the toll a schedule like that takes on your body. So when you have a rider like LA going all out for just one race a season of course longevity increases. I doubt I need to go into detail about the enhancers surely even you would understand the major differences in the enhancers.