The Official LANCE ARMSTRONG Thread 2010-2011

[BikeCentric]

I make no claim as to its perfection but as a thorough, criteria driven assembly of data, it makes a good attempt. I agree that middle distance running is "harder" than high-jumping. Many of the "ball" sports would be on equal ground, as they are so similar in skill, duration, difficulty, not too much difference, as the specialty positions skew "hardness".

Ice Hockey at 2, look spot on to me.

They get it more right than wrong.

@Hibbles - Boardman just was not stable, both in his psyche and in keeping the rubber side down. On a wattmeter, he was a specimen.

Agree on ice hockey. It's got to be top 5 at minimum. A combination of remarkable agility on skates, speed and explosive power, raw strength and pure aggression, incredible hand-eye coordination necessary for puck handling and pin-point shooting at 100mph; that is one tough tough game. I salute my frigid Northern Canuck neighbors for having such an awesome game as their National pastime.

 

[Krap Police]

...

Oh Polisher of Others Hornz, thou art so trollish in thy posts.

 

[Angliru]

You are exaggerating to make a point, right? I agree there are many cyclists in the pro peloton with roughly the same phys specs as Rants Rantstrong, but a Prius v. F1s? Hahahah!

As far as the sports comparisons go, I wrote a long-*** post last night and was logged out, unbeknownst to me, while writing it, so I lost it when I pressed submit. Which sucks, because it was absolutely ****ing brilliant.

Anyway, suffice to say that a win-streak in women's wheelchair basketball does not make a streak of Tour wins "pale in comparison" to whomever wrote that. And as for squash--come on, man. You need to look at depth of the talent pool here. Pro cycling draws from a very deep pool. Not as deep as NBA or NFL or European Futbol, but deep nonetheless. Squash draws from a puddle by comparison. As for racquet sports, compare Federer to the guy with 550 squash wins in a row. Is anyone going to seriously argue that Federer wouldn't "squash" that guy in athletic ability? And wtf does Ripken's participation streak have to do with anything.

RE: Relative Difficulty. As for how "hard" it is to hit a ball with a bat, in my mind that is only scarcely different than how "hard" it is to hit a golf ball, though it requires more quickness and reactivity. Having played lots of baseball and *tons* of golf, I know both are very difficult. But they are difficult technically. They require hand-eye coordination, not fitness. I don't have the same sort of reverence for the technical sports as I do for the sports that require digging deep, that reveal who you are, because the latter expose weakness of mind and depth of character. Cycling does this in the extreme. I think sports that have a dynamic combo of both technical skill and fitness and agility are the most fun to watch, like basketball. But I respect, and am drawn to, sports like cycling, middle/long distance running, XC skiing etc the most because they require an amazing human effort. They can be fun, but they're not about simple fun--they're not games. They're explorations of the limits of human capability.

Excellent post! Welcome to the forum.

 

[flicker]

No, I'm saying he was naturally as physically gifted as LA, if not moreso. I'm sure if Boardman had Armstrong's medical cabinet, he could have won a tour. If he had Armstrong's medical cabinet and desire, he could have matched Armstrong's achievements.

Armstrong was an average athlete (comparatively speaking in the world of pro-cycling), in the right place, at the right time, with the right doctor and with a unique internal desire to win.

Hibbles I do not get your point. Achievement in sport or in life is so much in the mind and discipline. Not to take anything away from Boardman his goals were different, he had a different personality, mind set etc.

Please excuse me if i ausume that you have not boxed.

Put yourself in this place. Sonny Liston vs.Cassius Clay. Title fight.

Cycling at the highest level is that fight. Easy to be an armchair quarterback.

Hard to win Roubaix. Think about it.

 

[Anonymous]

Hibbles I do not get your point. Achievement in sport or in life is so much in the mind and discipline. Not to take anything away from Boardman his goals were different, he had a different personality, mind set etc.

Please excuse me if i ausume that you have not boxed.

Put yourself in this place. Sonny Liston vs.Cassius Clay. Title fight.

Cycling at the highest level is that fight. Easy to be an armchair quarterback.

Hard to win Roubaix. Think about it.

Yes, I know about the mental side, which is why I said LA had a unique burning desire that pushed him to winning 7 Tours. It's likely that very few other, if any, cyclists have that desire. What I was saying was, as far as the physical side is concerned, i.e. natural physical ability, LA had no right to win that many Tours. LA had no right to dominate 1 Tour the way he did, on natural physical ability. But then we should all know by now that LA didn't win his Tours on natural physical ability, and if all things were equal (either natural, or equal programmes, or all top riders on seperate teams) he wouldn't have won any Tours.

Now it's my turn to ask your point - are you saying Boardman didn't have the mental ability to win a top race like Roubaix?

Put yourself in this place. Chris Boardman v Jens Lehmann. Title race.

Cycling at the highest level is that fight. Easy to be an armchair quarterback.

Hard to win an Olympic title. Think about it.

Boardman clearly had a very strong mental ability, equal to your examples. He probably wouldn't have had the mental ability to go for 7 Tours like LA did, but as mentioned above, Boardman is just an example, not the point of this debate, you can insert any good pro-cyclist's name here, they all need a strong mental ability. But LA was unique in his mental strength, that was his one "natural" gift - the mental rather than the physical. If you want to call it a "gift", as in my experience that level of desire only comes from an internal pain, and with a background similar to his I can tell you I would swap 7 Tours for not living with that pain every day, any day. The physical can win 1 Tour, the mental won 7. That's what I'm trying to say.

 

[cyclopeon]

Agree on ice hockey. .... I salute my frigid Northern Canuck neighbors for having such an awesome game as their National pastime.

Really? All the Canucks I talk to say that their National passtime is scr*wing!(i.e. staying warm through the long winter nights in the natural way). And that's not even on the list of ranked sports??! (I rate it between 50 and 60 points on the survey scale! depending on the partner and degree of kink, which affect Nerve and Durability)

 

[ErmOkk]

Yes, I know about the mental side, which is why I said LA had a unique burning desire that pushed him to winning 7 Tours. It's likely that very few other, if any, cyclists have that desire. What I was saying was, as far as the physical side is concerned, i.e. natural physical ability, LA had no right to win that many Tours. LA had no right to dominate 1 Tour the way he did, on natural physical ability. But then we should all know by now that LA didn't win his Tours on natural physical ability, and if all things were equal (either natural, or equal programmes, or all top riders on seperate teams) he wouldn't have won any Tours.

Now it's my turn to ask your point - are you saying Boardman didn't have the mental ability to win a top race like Roubaix?

Put yourself in this place. Chris Boardman v Jens Lehmann. Title race.

Cycling at the highest level is that fight. Easy to be an armchair quarterback.

Hard to win an Olympic title. Think about it.

Boardman clearly had a very strong mental ability, equal to your examples. He probably wouldn't have had the mental ability to go for 7 Tours like LA did, but as mentioned above, Boardman is just an example, not the point of this debate, you can insert any good pro-cyclist's name here, they all need a strong mental ability. But LA was unique in his mental strength, that was his one "natural" gift - the mental rather than the physical. If you want to call it a "gift", as in my experience that level of desire only comes from an internal pain, and with a background similar to his I can tell you I would swap 7 Tours for not living with that pain every day, any day. The physical can win 1 Tour, the mental won 7. That's what I'm trying to say.

Imo you're quite right. Physically we only have some numbers, but do human even know all the processing inside a human body? They only compare things they do know and people become obsessed by these numbers aparantly. Yes LA was doped, but so was the rest, so if his physical ability is as average as everyone says, then why did he win all 7 of them? Heck, people can bend forks with their mind, so why should we put the card 'average' on someone with what he achieved....

 

[Bag_O_Wallet]

Really? All the Canucks I talk to say that their National passtime is scr*wing!(i.e. staying warm through the long winter nights in the natural way). And that's not even on the list of ranked sports??! (I rate it between 50 and 60 points on the survey scale! depending on the partner and degree of kink, which affect Nerve and Durability)

I'm a Canuck, and I approve this message.

 

[BroDeal]

Yes LA was doped, but so was the rest, so if his physical ability is as average as everyone says, then why did he win all 7 of them?

Out of the twelve positives for EPO in 1999, half of them were from Armstrong. Looks to me like he was doping more than anyone else in that race. We can assume the same is true for his subsequent TdFs.

 

[flicker]

Yes, I know about the mental side, which is why I said LA had a unique burning desire that pushed him to winning 7 Tours. It's likely that very few other, if any, cyclists have that desire. What I was saying was, as far as the physical side is concerned, i.e. natural physical ability, LA had no right to win that many Tours. LA had no right to dominate 1 Tour the way he did, on natural physical ability. But then we should all know by now that LA didn't win his Tours on natural physical ability, and if all things were equal (either natural, or equal programmes, or all top riders on seperate teams) he wouldn't have won any Tours.

Now it's my turn to ask your point - are you saying Boardman didn't have the mental ability to win a top race like Roubaix?

Put yourself in this place. Chris Boardman v Jens Lehmann. Title race.

Cycling at the highest level is that fight. Easy to be an armchair quarterback.

Hard to win an Olympic title. Think about it.

Boardman clearly had a very strong mental ability, equal to your examples. He probably wouldn't have had the mental ability to go for 7 Tours like LA did, but as mentioned above, Boardman is just an example, not the point of this debate, you can insert any good pro-cyclist's name here, they all need a strong mental ability. But LA was unique in his mental strength, that was his one "natural" gift - the mental rather than the physical. If you want to call it a "gift", as in my experience that level of desire only comes from an internal pain, and with a background similar to his I can tell you I would swap 7 Tours for not living with that pain every day, any day. The physical can win 1 Tour, the mental won 7. That's what I'm trying to say.

After the terrible beatdown administered to me and the Nor-Cal riders by Greg LeMond I did not watch cycling again until 1999.

I missed Boardmans career. I was reeling from the body blow to my ego by Greg. It took two decades to forget the singing pain of watching LeMonds rear tire fade off.

All I need to know about Boardman is hour record. I respect. Like I said, different goals for different people. To me the hour record is ultimate.

Not everyone can climb and time trial and win the tour and rip it up for three weeks. No big deal.

Some of the people who I know were multiple Roubaix winners were juiced out of their bodies such as J>M. That I do not respect.

 

[Polish]

this better be pretty fricken important...is the meadow on fire?

Out of the twelve positives for EPO in 1999, half of them were from Armstrong. Looks to me like he was doping more than anyone else in that race. We can assume the same is true for his subsequent TdFs.

The other 6 samples belonged to Charlie the Unicorn.

Very difficult to freeze Unicorn peepee.

 

[BroDeal]

The other 6 samples belonged to Charlie the Unicorn.

Three of the other six samples belonged to Hamburger, Beltran, and Castelblanco. The remaining three are unknown.

 

[Hugh Januss]

Three of the other six samples belonged to Hamburger, Beltran, and Castelblanco. The remaining three are unknown.

Don't interrupt Polish's trip to Fantasy Land.

 

[Krap Police]

Don't interrupt Polish's trip to Fantasy Land.

Don't tease the Polisher of Others Hornz

 

[Anonymous]

Some of the people who I know were multiple Roubaix winners were juiced out of their bodies such as J>M.

Yep. That disappointed me as much as Indurain. That's the price of being a teenage fan in the early-mid 90's, idols with feet made of sand.

 

[richwagmn]

Out of the twelve positives for EPO in 1999, half of them were from Armstrong. Looks to me like he was doping more than anyone else in that race. We can assume the same is true for his subsequent TdFs.

Did they went back looked at everyone's samples from 1999? I wasn't aware of that.

 

[ckfrancis]

tough to judge

"doping" was so pervasive in the late 80's and 90's is seems hard to through stones. if it is something everyone was doing is it really cheating. are really getting an advantage? i am not condoning the practice just stating the facts.

i remember other juniors i raced with where taking steroids and drinking the us junoir version of pot belge before races. alka selsor/b-12/viviran. tried in once an puked everywhere.

 

[elapid]

Did they went back looked at everyone's samples from 1999? I wasn't aware of that.

Researchers were testing a new EPO test. They had access and tested all samples. There were 12 positives. The researchers did not know who these 12 positives belonged to.

An l'Equipe journalist got a whiff of this EPO test and that it was being tested on 1999 TdF samples. With permission from both LA and the UCI (but under the guise of investigating TUEs I believe), this journalist matched LA's drug test numbers to the researcher's positive results. As BroDeal said, 6 of the 12 positives belonged to LA.

 

[VeloCity]

Yes, I know about the mental side, which is why I said LA had a unique burning desire that pushed him to winning 7 Tours. It's likely that very few other, if any, cyclists have that desire.

I keep hearing that Armstrong had this magical quality of extra-desire that turned him into a Tour winner, that he wanted it more than did Pantani, Basso, Vino, Beloki, etc. Sorry, but I think that's rubbish - it's impossible to tell an athlete's mental toughness/desire/etc. Indurain won 5 Tours in a row, and on the surface, he was the mildest guy there was, but underneath, I have no doubt that he was as fiercely competitive as Armstrong. And I think the same is probably true of Basso and Vino and Beloki et al. (Ullrich might be a question mark, though - all the natural talent in the world but he really didn't seem to have that same drive).

imo Armstrong was no more driven than (most of) his competitors, the only difference being that it was more surface-level and therefore visible, which gave the perception that he was more driven.

 

[Bag_O_Wallet]

I keep hearing that Armstrong had this magical quality of extra-desire that turned him into a Tour winner, that he wanted it more than did Pantani, Basso, Vino, Beloki, etc. Sorry, but I think that's rubbish - it's impossible to tell an athlete's mental toughness/desire/etc. Indurain won 5 Tours in a row, and on the surface, he was the mildest guy there was, but underneath, I have no doubt that he was as fiercely competitive as Armstrong. And I think the same is probably true of Basso and Vino and Beloki et al. (Ullrich might be a question mark, though - all the natural talent in the world but he really didn't seem to have that same drive).

imo Armstrong was no more driven than (most of) his competitors, the only difference being that it was more surface-level and therefore visible, which gave the perception that he was more driven.

Indeed. I remember watching the American coverage back in the Indurain years. I think he had won his 4th by the time they showed an interview with him. So, squat for exposure. Armstrong, to an Anglophone audience, was far more accessible. Even compared to Lemond.

I think the extra-desire/tough as nails angle was counter to doping allegations - which to my knowledge, Lemond didn't have to contend with. As for Lemond's toughness goes... read Paul Kimmage's diary of the 1986 Tour in Rough Ride. Lemond had a case of Lance's Milan San Remos for the first week.

 

[Bag_O_Wallet]

On a related note... has anybody seen Lance lately? Either he's turned invisible, or he's still on the toilet.

 

[Ninety5rpm]

Researchers were testing a new EPO test. They had access and tested all samples. There were 12 positives. The researchers did not know who these 12 positives belonged to.

An l'Equipe journalist got a whiff of this EPO test and that it was being tested on 1999 TdF samples. With permission from both LA and the UCI (but under the guise of investigating TUEs I believe), this journalist matched LA's drug test numbers to the researcher's positive results. As BroDeal said, 6 of the 12 positives belonged to LA.

Note that the following excerpt from Wikipedia is sourced.

On August 23, 2005, L'Équipe, a major French daily sports newspaper, reported on its front page under the headline "le mensonge Armstrong" ("The Armstrong Lie") that 6 urine samples taken from the cyclist during the prologue and five stages of the 1999 Tour de France, frozen and stored since at "Laboratoire national de dépistage du dopage de Châtenay-Malabry" (LNDD), had tested positive for Erythropoietin in recent retesting conducted as part of a research project into EPO testing methods.[70][71] For years, it had been impossible to detect the drug, called erythropoietin, which builds endurance by boosting the production of oxygen-carrying red blood cells. The world governing body of cycling, Union Cycliste Internationale (UCI), did not begin using a urine test for EPO until 2001, two years after the samples were taken. This claim was based on an investigation in which they claimed to be able to match samples from the 1999 Tour that were used to hone the EPO test to Armstrong.[72] To establish a link between Armstrong and the samples, the LNDD matched the tracking numbers on the samples with those on Armstrong's record with the UCI during the 1999 Tour.

Armstrong immediately replied on his website, saying, "Unfortunately, the witch hunt continues and tomorrow's article is nothing short of tabloid journalism. The paper even admits in its own article that the science in question here is faulty and that I have no way to defend myself. They state: 'There will therefore be no counter-exam nor regulatory prosecutions, in a strict sense, since defendant's rights cannot be respected.' I will simply restate what I have said many times: I have never taken performance enhancing drugs."[73]

In October 2008, the AFLD gave Armstrong the opportunity to have samples taken during the 1998 and 1999 Tours de France retested.[74] Armstrong immediately refused, saying, "the samples have not been maintained properly." Head of AFLD Pierre Bordry stated: "Scientifically there is no problem to analyse these samples - everything is correct" and "If the analysis is clean it would have been very good for him. But he doesn't want to do it and that's his problem."[75]

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lance_armstrong#Allegations_of_drug_use

 

[Ninety5rpm]

On a related note... has anybody seen Lance lately? Either he's turned invisible, or he's still on the toilet.

Sleeping with nightmares.

Twitter:

lancearmstrong
Off to bed now. Some good racing tomorrow and Sunday - my condition is improving but not there yet. Alberto, Evans, Rogers, Sanchez, etc..
about 2 hours ago via UberTwitter

 

[patricknd]

if armstrong was doping before cancer, doping after cancer, no weight differential, not any more mentally tough than his opponents, why did he suddenly win 7. what was the difference?

 

[BroDeal]

if armstrong was doping before cancer, doping after cancer, no weight differential, not any more mentally tough than his opponents, why did he suddenly win 7. what was the difference?

Michael Ashenden explains all.

http://velocitynation.com/content/interviews/2009/michael-ashenden