Who had the Biggest sporting change in History?

[oldcrank]

Good luck on your exams, mate. Don't forget to get some sleep.

 

[Ferminal]

Need to pull a few from obscurity... maybe some one hit wonders. Chris Kern? There were probably a few at Gerolsteiner.

 

[darwin553]

The voting results that are currently hugely in favour of Armstrong reflects, to my way of thinking, the embarrassment of many of the forum members about their belief that Armstrong was clean and do not want to be double crossed again by a rider who was as dominant as Armstrong was as Froome demonstrated in this year's tour.

BTW - the obvious answer is Armstrong. He couldn't finish higher than around 30th in his three attempts at the tour before he was diagnosed with cancer and in his first year back competing at the tour after his cancer had been in remission is straight away on the money to win. That and him having a low Vo2 max.

 

[Ferminal]

lols, Clinic = "Pro-Armstrong". What happened to the circlejerk.

 

[D-Queued]

Can Voeckler be nominated for an honorable mention?

After all: "In August 2011, Voeckler raced on his bike against a horse in an exhibition contest, and lost"

Watching him ride always makes me think 'donkey'.

Dave.

 

[BroDeal]

lols, Clinic = "Pro-Armstrong". What happened to the circlejerk.

LOLs indeed. A few days ago Pedro accused me of being an Armstrong fan.

I think this is the Froomuppets version of the French conspiracy.

 

[Afrank]

Froome I suppose, had never heard of him before the 2011 Vuelta. Of course the Vuelta is the race that lesser known/lesser skilled riders can come out of nowhere in and get a big result in. Velits, Cobo for example. But then he went and dominated almost everything this year, giving us some of the most ridiculously absurd and at the same time hilarious performances of all time.

Riis a close second. Can't count Armstrong, as DirtyWorks pointed out, he was probably always doped. So don't know his natural level.

And mention (can't really say honorable ) to the Tour of Turkey Torku guys.

 

[red_flanders]

The voting results that are currently hugely in favour of Armstrong reflects, to my way of thinking, the embarrassment of many of the forum members about their belief that Armstrong was clean and do not want to be double crossed again by a rider who was as dominant as Armstrong was as Froome demonstrated in this year's tour.

BTW - the obvious answer is Armstrong. He couldn't finish higher than around 30th in his three attempts at the tour before he was diagnosed with cancer and in his first year back competing at the tour after his cancer had been in remission is straight away on the money to win. That and him having a low Vo2 max.

He doesn't have a low V02 max. It was 84, which is very high. Not high enough to support his ridiculous performances, but on no planet is 84 a low V02 max.

At least Armstrong finished a couple of Tours before on the full regimen. Some of the riders on this list wouldn't have even gotten a ride on the Tour team. Well, actually only one.

 

[Don't be late Pedro]

LOLs indeed. A few days ago Pedro accused me of being an Armstrong fan.

I think this is the Froomuppets version of the French conspiracy.

So if not an Armstrong fan you have clearly been upset by following someone that got pinged. Being you are so parochial I am going to have to go with Landis? Am I getting closer?

 

[Big Doopie]

No, the fact is he did not when a single race his first
two years as an amateur, a time when most future
champions are showing a wealth of natural talent.
However, when he came under the wing of Mr. Saiz
a truly astonishing transformation took place.

And once again the "natural talent"/"natural progression" argument crashes.

 

[Big Doopie]

He doesn't have a low V02 max. It was 84, which is very high. Not high enough to support his ridiculous performances, but on no planet is 84 a low V02.

can you point to where it is noted that it was 84? I have never seen it that high. Generally put between high 70s and topping out at 80 in everything I have read.

 

[BroDeal]

So if not an Armstrong fan you have clearly been upset by following someone that got pinged. Being you are so parochial I am going to have to go with Landis? Am I getting closer?

Thanks for proving you are a small minded clown who sees everything in black and white.

I never got upset because I was never stupid enough think GT winners are clean.

I know you are angry and suffering a severe case of butt hurt. Most rational people with more than a handful of connected neurons were able to figure out how Froome's risible rise to the top was achieved. It took Horner to turn the light bulb on, and now you and your nabobs of naivete are being mocked for your gullibility. You will probably get over it-well, either that or you will buy into even dumber rationalizations for Sky. Either way you will eventually find a happy place where you are comfortable. I am betting on the rationalization route.

 

[red_flanders]

can you point to where it is noted that it was 84? I have never seen it that high. Generally put between high 70s and topping out at 80 in everything I have read.

http://www.topendsports.com/testing/records/vo2max.htm

I've never seen it listed as anything else. That's the first result on "armstrong v02 max".

 

[Big Doopie]

http://www.topendsports.com/testing/records/vo2max.htm

I've never seen it listed as anything else. That's the first result on "armstrong v02 max".

Tx.

Wouldn't doping, specifically oxygen vector doping, alter/ invalidate the results of any vo2 test?

 

[red_flanders]

Tx.

Wouldn't doping, specifically oxygen vector doping, alter/ invalidate the results of any vo2 test?

No idea, and have wondered the same about a lot of these results. That said, it's the measure that exists for Armstrong and it's certainly far from low.

I'm sure someone more knowledgeable about the test can comment on how doping might alter it.

 

[red_flanders]

And what is unfair about it?
Anyway, lets forget about age. Why didn´t Horner show his super GT talent in the (some call it) clean(ish) era 2006 to 2011?
He easily could have made it Top-3 as super domestique like Lemond did (or Froome for that matter). I mean a guy who dominates a GT at age 42 should be the greatest rider ever, but not one who finishes around 20th to 60th in GT´s.

So a 37 second, hard fought win now means someone "dominates" a race? Interesting.

 

[Don't be late Pedro]

Thanks for proving you are a small minded clown who sees everything in black and white.

I never got upset because I was never stupid enough think GT winners are clean.

I know you are angry and suffering a severe case of butt hurt. Most rational people with more than a handful of connected neurons were able to figure out how Froome's risible rise to the top was achieved.

So it was Landis then? Did you pay into the Floyd fund as well?

Oh, and show me one post where I said Froome was clean.

 

[Escarabajo]

can you point to where it is noted that it was 84? I have never seen it that high. Generally put between high 70s and topping out at 80 in everything I have read.

It has been published and discussed ad nauseam. We just don't know if he did those tests doped.

 

[Galic Ho]

can you point to where it is noted that it was 84? I have never seen it that high. Generally put between high 70s and topping out at 80 in everything I have read.

Ed Coyle's fluff work about cadence where he ESTIMATED Lance's weight and suggested what he might have weighed. Don't bring it up around Coggan...that one has been beaten to death in the Clinic over the years.

Realistically his highest figure was probably 81ml/mn/kg. Basso is supposed to be 82. Spartacus at 88 and Evans at 87. Aldo Sassi said one of his two riders (Evans and Basso) was the most gifted athlete he'd ever tested and the other was the hardest worker. IMO Evans was the gifted one and Basso wanted it more (well he use to...now he seems to be content to let it all go and IMO good for him). Floyd I heard, but never in a journal or from a report, was rumoured to be at 90. Simon Gerrans is the highest figure a sports scientist measured at the VIS at 80. Brett Aitken holds the AIS record at 92 I think. Lemond was 92-94 at peak. Some Norweigan 18 year old measured 97 this year.

Yeah Lance was nothing spectacular. Hinault said he was 91-92. FWIW JV said his is about 90 but he couldn't hold a solid % at FTP at the end of a GT stage. Hushovd and EBH are supposed to be 84 and 88 respectively. Note the big guys, like Indurain who hit 88, all have a superior aerobic oxygen uptake to Lance. A lot superior. Note LA's ITT times. Not normal. Tony Martin would be very high as well.

Does this equate to ability to win a GT if everyone is clean? Vayer said Bassons had a VO2 max of 86 and could have won the Tour if everyone was clean. After all, in pre season training Bassons spanked the whole Festina team. We'll sadly, never know. We're not going to be seeing an era like the 80s anytime soon thanks to the current mob of idiots running cycling.

 

[LaFlorecita]

No, the fact is he did not when a single race his first
two years as an amateur, a time when most future
champions are showing a wealth of natural talent.
However, when he came under the wing of Mr. Saiz
a truly astonishing transformation took place.

He started racing in 1998. In 1999 he did not win a single race but did win 15 mountain prizes. According to his coach he had the potential to win races but always attacked at the wrong time. In 2000 he won 4 races when he rode for Veloclub Portillo, a cycling club that wasn't lead by Saiz. In 2001 he joined Iberdrola. Get your facts straight.

It's probably no use arguing with a troll though.

 

[LaFlorecita]

And once again the "natural talent"/"natural progression" argument crashes.

If going from winning mountain prizes in your first full year, to winning mountain races in your second year, to winning races the next year when joining a junior team, to winning stages in stage races as a pro, to winning stage races, to winning GTs isn't natural progression, I don't know what is.

Of course he doped. When he started doping, I have no idea, but don't come up with some BS argument that he never showed any talent to win races because hey, he actually did.

 

[Red Rick]

He started racing in 1998. In 1999 he did not win a single race but did win 15 mountain prizes.According to his coach he had the potential to win races but always attacked at the wrong time. In 2000 he won 4 races when he rode for Veloclub Portillo, a cycling club that wasn't lead by Saiz. In 2001 he joined Iberdrola. Get your facts straight.

It's probably no use arguing with a troll though.

1.
2. No need for that, cause if it involves Contador, i'm expecting you to jump in sooner or later with the correct facts

On topic, I voted Froome. Armstrong was world champion before the cancer (did he confess to have doped there too?). Riis rode in a time during which I couldn't even ride a bike myself...

 

[Vino attacks everyone]

Probably Riis.
Who is Vivo?

 

[roundabout]

Need to pull a few from obscurity... maybe some one hit wonders. Chris Kern? There were probably a few at Gerolsteiner.

Kern had a medal in the junior worlds and won the espoir Liege or something like that.

Still was loaded like a mule in June of 2011.

 

[Fearless Greg Lemond]

Retired?

Really gone?

Retirado?

He is on a break now.

and their pupils