Who Wins With An Even Playing Field?

[Altitude]

The only thing I can say with any certainty is that Armstrong would not have won the TdF, not once. And that Marco Pantani, Frank Vandenbroucke and others might be alive today, enjoying their bikes.

Hamilton just recently said that he thinks Lance could have won a Tour without the dope. Certainly not 7, but maybe 1 he said. I think I'll believe him over you.

 

[airstream]

Hamilton just recently said that he thinks Lance could have won a Tour without the dope. Certainly not 7, but maybe 1 he said. I think I'll believe him over you.

while competing against guys using epo and transfusions? lol how?! at that time, to try to ride the tour for gc without doping was dangerous for a rider's mind cos a collapse could be so monstrous that one would have decided to quit career.

in his book tyler wrote about hematocrit that goes down by 2 points per week. in short, one loses 6% of its energy during the tour. 6% is a real abyss on such a high level and would have been fraught with falling out of top-10 even for lance

with playing level field, lance could have won 1 or 2 times, but no more.

 

[Altitude]

while competing against guys using epo and transfusions? lol how?! at that time, to try to ride the tour for gc without doping was dangerous for a rider's mind cos a collapse could be so monstrous that one would have decided to quit career.

in his book tyler wrote about hematocrit that goes down by 2 points per week. in short, one loses 6% of its energy during the tour. 6% is a real abyss on such a high level and would have been fraught with falling out of top-10 even for lance

with playing level field, lance could have won 1 or 2 times, but no more.

I meant with nobody doping at all. Of course you can't beat guys on EPO.

 

[Frosty]

Level playing field = flat off road course. I am guessing Evans would do well there being a good tter and ex-MTBer.

 

[Zweistein]

Hamilton just recently said that he thinks Lance could have won a Tour without the dope. Certainly not 7, but maybe 1 he said. I think I'll believe him over you.

He didn't say he thought he would win the tour once without dope. He said that there was a possibility. The year Pereiro "won", there were probably a hundred riders of equal or better physical ability in the race. Everything lined up for him even though his chances were incredibly slim.

 

[MarkvW]

while competing against guys using epo and transfusions? lol how?! at that time, to try to ride the tour for gc without doping was dangerous for a rider's mind cos a collapse could be so monstrous that one would have decided to quit career.

in his book tyler wrote about hematocrit that goes down by 2 points per week. in short, one loses 6% of its energy during the tour. 6% is a real abyss on such a high level and would have been fraught with falling out of top-10 even for lance

with playing level field, lance could have won 1 or 2 times, but no more.

You make great points. Also, take away the USPS dope and you also take away the USPS race strategy. They couldn't control the race any more. Things would be a lot more chaotic, in all kinds of unexpected ways. That uncertainty, alone, would reduce the chances that Lance could win multiple times.

USPS's "strategy" was brute force...

 

[Benotti69]

<snip>

with playing level field, lance could have won 1 or 2 times, but no more.

Hamilton just recently said that he thinks Lance could have won a Tour without the dope. Certainly not 7, but maybe 1 he said. I think I'll believe him over you.

No he said, maybe 1. Not he would've won 1, but maybe 1. That is a long way from winning 1.

Every year we say there are 5/6 people who may win the TdF. only 1 wins. But maybe the others might next year.

I, going on how he performed in the TdF years prior to 98 dont think he would've won a TdF or GT for that matter. Nothing about Armstrong showed he had potential to win a TdF. But then again if there was no dope maybe he would not have got a career as a cyclist.

 

[hrotha]

Hamilton said "maybe one" because he didn't want to be too categorical, but to me it's fairly obvious he didn't think he would have won even one. "Look where he was before his cancer". Says it all, really.

 

[henryg]

Pointless speculation. There is absolutely no way to know.

Maybe the top 10 guys would be none of the names anyone has mentioned. Might be guys who quit at the beginning of their careers because of doping. Guys who never got on the podium because EPO didn't work for them (natural Hematocrit to high or some other reason).

Without doping it's a completely different sport.

 

[runninboy]

... Nothing about Armstrong showed he had potential to win a TdF. But then again if there was no dope maybe who would not have got a career as a cyclist.

Exactly right. Armstrong supporters talk about what a "gifted" athlete Armstrong was. A natural talent. But during his NYC marathon training he made a very telling statement "In high school i could not break 5 minutes for one mile"
this was at a point in his triathlon career when he was supposed to be the among the best at short course swimming, biking, running. To not be able to break 5 minutes in a single mile shows he was far from a outstanding physical specimen. I don't expect a cyclist to run under 5 but since 60 year old men run under 5 minutes i would expect a triathlete, let alone someone who claimed this
"Lance was highly athletic from a very early age, as he began seriously running and swimming at age ten. By thirteen, he had begun competing in adult amateur triathlons. He became a professional triathlete at sixteen, winning the national sprint-course triathlon championship the next year, and becoming the number one ranked triathlete in the nineteen and under age group"

and yet he couldn't beat one 60 year old man running a mile.
I could tell you more stories about how many of my high school basketball team broke 5 minutes for the mile(all of them) or that more than 200 high school girls ran that fast last year or that 360 high schools boys ran 4:25 or faster last year.

Lance was pure hype

without the drugs lance was a donkey period.

 

[Neworld]

Lance was doped to the eyeballs in 1995. He had already failed numerous T/E and HcG tests (three still extant?), and if you had paid attention for the past six years Betsy and Frankie made sworn depositions in 2006 to him admitting taking every substance known to doping - Testosterone, EPO, Steroids, Insulin etc.

Agreed.

I think everyone knows who would be in the top 10 without dope.

As for LA, let’s cut the crap. He is NOT physiologically or physically in the same class as a true champion. Above average pro...probably. All that propaganda about “LA is a superior, pedal dancing, hypercadence, human specimen” is laughable now. Pull out his real VO2Max, Cardiac output, lung volumes and THEN compare them to the real champions. That has never been done, and his true values are buried by physiologists that publish collusional nonsense (we know that LA likes to buy off the UCI, independent lawyers, Tour officials...)

LA has an unrelenting, unwavering mind that allows him to be a brutal competitor that much is true. But that can only take you so far when you battling against someone with better power and endurance parameters, and you cannot take 2-3 times more packed cells and benefit from doped teammates on hill top finished.

So if LA was, and is, really just pack-fill let’s not forget about the benefits that he gained by cheating to the top. When you always cheat ‘more’ than your competitors eventually you become a leader. Then you are able to draft, get protection, be in a position to reach the podium, actually win, earn more money… And, all of that allows you to cheat more, buy superior doping products, buy off officials, enlist better supportive teammates with the larger team budget, race once a year…we all know the details; more to follow.

Flip this around. If Lance didn’t dope and was actually pack fill he’d be left with his above average physiology and ruthless sportsmanship which would NEVER earn him more than one-day podiums. To say that there weren’t 20-30 other cyclists during 1995-2009 that didn’t have superior physiology, work ethic and a need to win at all costs in the Pro’s is nonsensical. They were there and they would have been in our memories, our hero’s and in that clean model in a promising future. Not liar-boy.

By the way who has won 7 TdFs in a row?

No one!

 

[Altitude]

No he said, maybe 1. Not he would've won 1, but maybe 1. That is a long way from winning 1.

Every year we say there are 5/6 people who may win the TdF. only 1 wins. But maybe the others might next year.

I, going on how he performed in the TdF years prior to 98 dont think he would've won a TdF or GT for that matter. Nothing about Armstrong showed he had potential to win a TdF. But then again if there was no dope maybe he would not have got a career as a cyclist.

How about you learn how to read? The word "maybe" is clearly included in my post.

 

[Altitude]

Exactly right. Armstrong supporters talk about what a "gifted" athlete Armstrong was. A natural talent. But during his NYC marathon training he made a very telling statement "In high school i could not break 5 minutes for one mile"
this was at a point in his triathlon career when he was supposed to be the among the best at short course swimming, biking, running. To not be able to break 5 minutes in a single mile shows he was far from a outstanding physical specimen. I don't expect a cyclist to run under 5 but since 60 year old men run under 5 minutes i would expect a triathlete, let alone someone who claimed this
"Lance was highly athletic from a very early age, as he began seriously running and swimming at age ten. By thirteen, he had begun competing in adult amateur triathlons. He became a professional triathlete at sixteen, winning the national sprint-course triathlon championship the next year, and becoming the number one ranked triathlete in the nineteen and under age group"

and yet he couldn't beat one 60 year old man running a mile.
I could tell you more stories about how many of my high school basketball team broke 5 minutes for the mile(all of them) or that more than 200 high school girls ran that fast last year or that 360 high schools boys ran 4:25 or faster last year.

Lance was pure hype

without the drugs lance was a donkey period.

Lol, Hamilton also says that Lance is "one of the best athletes I've ever known, hands down". Again, I think I'll believe Hamilton over you or anyone else in the "clinic".

 

[Page Mill Masochist]

Exactly right. Armstrong supporters talk about what a "gifted" athlete Armstrong was. A natural talent. But during his NYC marathon training he made a very telling statement "In high school i could not break 5 minutes for one mile"
this was at a point in his triathlon career when he was supposed to be the among the best at short course swimming, biking, running. To not be able to break 5 minutes in a single mile shows he was far from a outstanding physical specimen. I don't expect a cyclist to run under 5 but since 60 year old men run under 5 minutes i would expect a triathlete, let alone someone who claimed this
"Lance was highly athletic from a very early age, as he began seriously running and swimming at age ten. By thirteen, he had begun competing in adult amateur triathlons. He became a professional triathlete at sixteen, winning the national sprint-course triathlon championship the next year, and becoming the number one ranked triathlete in the nineteen and under age group"

and yet he couldn't beat one 60 year old man running a mile.
I could tell you more stories about how many of my high school basketball team broke 5 minutes for the mile(all of them) or that more than 200 high school girls ran that fast last year or that 360 high schools boys ran 4:25 or faster last year.

Lance was pure hype

without the drugs lance was a donkey period.

Great point. In the 1970s, I was only the fifth best miler on my h.s. track team -- small, cold weather state -- with a 4:36 pr. Frank Shorter said 4:30 high school milers were undistinguished commodities, created by God in volume, and sprinkled onto college campuses every fall.

Five minute milers were choads.

 

[the big ring]

Lol, Hamilton also says that Lance is "one of the best athletes I've ever known, hands down". Again, I think I'll believe Hamilton over you or anyone else in the "clinic".

Hamilton also thinks JV is genius level intelligent.

Small datasets lead to wild extrapolations. Just ask Ed Coyle.

 

[Hugh Januss]

Who wins with a LEVEL playing field?

We will never know over the past 15 years. Lets just call that the Armstrong Legacy.

 

[sittingbison]

Lol, Hamilton also says that Lance is "one of the best athletes I've ever known, hands down". Again, I think I'll believe Hamilton over you or anyone else in the "clinic".

Lol, Hamilton only ever knew disgraced Armstrong when he was juiced to the eyeballs with every known (and some unknown) doping substance and technique. How could he have ANY idea about disgraced Armstrongs true athletic prowess.

I don't think I'll take Hamiltons word in this instance

 

[Altitude]

Lol, Hamilton only ever knew disgraced Armstrong when he was juiced to the eyeballs with every known (and some unknown) doping substance and technique. How could he have ANY idea about disgraced Armstrongs true athletic prowess.

I don't think I'll take Hamiltons word in this instance

I see. So the anonymous posters in this forum know more about Lance Armtrong's athletic ability than Hamilton does. Got it

 

[Neworld]

I see. So the anonymous posters in this forum know more about Lance Armtrong's athletic ability than Hamilton does. Got it

There sure are a lot of people that know about Lance's doping ability...and the general population will be privy to that info really soon as well.

In any event, a disgraced man like Lance (who will be forever known as the lead cyclist in the greatest doping story in the last 15 yrs) has no business being included in the list of possibilities Re: winning with an even playing field. The underbelly of his premeditated deceit aligns him more with the 'overachieving donkey's' than the potential ranks of champions.

You don't have to bunk with Lance like Tyler did to see that. You could simply be a poster at cyclingnews.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

I see. So the anonymous posters in this forum know more about Lance Armtrong's athletic ability than Hamilton does. Got it

No one knows LAs athletic ability as he was on some sort of program from such an early age.

But pre 95 his ability was in the Classics - before stepping up to the Ferrari program and becoming a GTer.
At least Hamilton was clean for a few years to show his ability before he got his lunchbag.

 

[Altitude]

There sure are a lot of people that know about Lance's doping ability...and the general population will be privy to that info really soon as well.

In any event, a disgraced man like Lance (who will be forever known as the lead cyclist in the greatest doping story in the last 15 yrs) has no business being included in the list of possibilities Re: winning with an even playing field. The underbelly of his premeditated deceit aligns him more with the 'overachieving donkey's' than the potential ranks of champions.

You don't have to bunk with Lance like Tyler did to see that. You could simply be a poster at cyclingnews.

Cycling news forum says Lance was nothing more than an overachieving donkey who woud have never been close to winning the Tour if the playing field was level. Tyler Hamilton says Lance was one of the best athletes he's ever known and maybe could have won a Tour with nobody doping.

Who should I believe here... it is really difficult to decide. Now if Tyler had said the opposite - that Lance had no natural ability and would have been good for nothing without the lube, you guys would be quoting it as gospel on here because Tyler was on the inside and knows his sh!t. Don't say you wouldn't.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Cycling news forum says Lance was nothing more than an overachieving donkey who woud have never been close to winning the Tour if the playing field was level. Tyler Hamilton says Lance was one of the best athletes he's ever known and maybe could have won a Tour with nobody doping.

Who should I believe here... it is really difficult to decide. Now if Tyler had said the opposite - that Lance had no natural ability and would have been good for nothing without the lube, you guys would be quoting it as gospel on here because Tyler was on the inside and knows his sh!t. Don't say you wouldn't.

I love how people twist anything other than a GT win as underachieving.
Do you think Phil Gilbert is an "overachieving donkey"?

 

[Altitude]

I love how people twist anything other than a GT win as underachieving.
Do you think Phil Gilbert is an "overachieving donkey"?

"Overachieving donkey" was a direct quote from Neworlds post. Not my words.

 

[blackcat]

Lol, Hamilton only ever knew disgraced Armstrong when he was juiced to the eyeballs with every known (and some unknown) doping substance and technique. How could he have ANY idea about disgraced Armstrongs true athletic prowess.

I don't think I'll take Hamiltons word in this instance

I remember a 131313 post from about 6 weeks back. I go with his take.

Armstrong was doping since tri days. But he did have innate talent, even for the top tier, off the bell curve. He had talent. Some are donkeys. Armstrong was not one of them. He would have been a champion, if no one was on gear, and him neither. May not have ever won the Tour. Then again, Ullrich may never have even won the Tour, if as Rolf Aldag said, he could not climb before Telekom got him on epo.

Even tho most/all (save RR and a few others) go off rumours, chinese whispers, leaks, second-hand info, it is still important to seek rigour in a informed pov. Appeal to a truth closest available.

It would be specious to change the record, and make out he was an athlete made by dope. There are different tiers of doping. Armstrong won his Tours on the back of a comprehensive Ferrari program. But this does not eliminate his latent talent.

 

[python]

<snip>But during his NYC marathon training he made a very telling statement "In high school i could not break 5 minutes for one mile"

. a very interesting little factoid. thanks. though not an active runner anymore and it was never my 1st sport, i can appreciate the 4 vs 5 minute/mile and the fact the remark was made during a marathon (i once broke the 3h magic barrier and ran a bunch of milers in the low 5 minute ball park during training)

I could tell you more stories about how many of my high school basketball team broke 5 minutes for the mile(all of them) or that more than 200 high school girls ran that fast last year or that 360 high schools boys ran 4:25 or faster last year.

more interesting factoids for those not following the running scene. sure, the body type is very important in running, but not being able to do what literally hundreds of kids do every year, is no medal to any endurance athlete worth of a special tag - the world class talent.