Who's made the most out of limited talent?

[Cloxxki]

OK, I think I have a good one.

Laurant Jalabert went from average sprinter in 1994 to an all action star in 1995 on a lot of hard work and the hard work of spanish doctors.
Every year from 1995 he managed to pick up a semi classic, a French and Spanish stage race, a jersey and a stage in a Grand Tour. Occasionally throwing in a surprise like the Time Trial world championship.

He came dangerously close to a Tour win in 1995 (yellow jersey on the road) but the amazing thing about his career is that he had so few near misses. I remember him loosing to bartoli in Liege but other than that, if he was in contention, he got the win.

Probably the smartest career extending move was pulling ONCE out of the 1998 tour and letting Festina and the french teams take the heat. By the time Sainz and Fuentes were stung, Jalabert was long gone.

Just when you thought we had seen the last of JAJA he resurfaced to take the Climbers jersey at the TDF for Riis's CSC.

A long career packed with wins, titles and jerseys. No tearful confessions, no 'mistakes in the last year of his career' and we never learnt the name of his dog.

Excellent choice and argumentation!

Or, was he just initially behind the curve medically? Getting better after 1995, really?

 

[Walkman]

Yes he was heavily juiced on Plateau de Beille in 2007.

How does that relate to the argument El Pistolero was involved in? What response is that to his point?

jens_attacks wrote:

the guy is a freak of nature.

And Von Mises asked:

How do you actually know that? How do you know that he is freak of nature? Maybe he is a freak of responder? If he is on "program", how can we credibly evaluate his natural talent? I cant see how...

Later El Pistolera answerd:

Because this isn't the freaking 90s anymore. He got caught for a minimum level of clenbuterol. That's called micro-dosing.

El Pistolero seems to be implying that AC is micro-dosing, but in reality he doesn't have a clue (or if you have some info I apologize and, please share it ) about AC program (if he indeed has one). And if he does micro-dose, couldn't he still be a super responder while other guys, are way worse responders and that this is the answer to AC's domination?

In LA:s case everybody "know" he was a super resopnder. But what if he had, had his 2001 program back in 1996, would we see him as a super talented rider then too?

The discussion isnt "has Contador ever heavily juiced" its "has Contador shown talent" and to this discussion it wouldnt really matter if Contador stole the entire pelotons drug supply and shoved it up his veins in 2007.

Because if you can establish that he wasnt doping as much in 2009 or 2010 or 2011, then it shows that he does have talent.

Which is the point Pistolero was making.

But we don't know is he is micro dosing or not. As far as we know he could be protected by the UCI a la Armstrong and using a heavily as ever. Didn't AC's failed test leaked out before UCI say anything?

So basically we can't establish anything. All we know is that AC was about the same level as Rasmussen in 2007. Wich is quite something since Ras was an ace climber who probably had (read: had) used PED's for a long time and was in his absolute prime. AC managing to climb with him tells me he is either super talanted or super doped (and a super responder). Even if he is micro dosing these say he will still have an advantages from the PED's he used earlier hence he could train harder and more during those years and develop way faster than any clean athlete could do. The difference between AC 2007 and AC 2009 is huge!

We have to compare power outouts and his times up some mountains to see how his development has been since, say 2007. If he puts up the same W/kg today as in 2007, do you think that is an sign of him being super talanted? Or that he, perhaps is on the same thing as in 2007 (wich is either nothing or something major).

lol why would you give one the benefit of the doubt and not the other.

If its possible that someone training with Ferrari isnt doping or someone paying Fuentes isnt doping or that someone who wins the Tour de France isnt doping then it is possible that Berties food was contaminated

I mean if you are prepared to make that huge leap of faith to say that its actually possible that a guy like Andy Schleck or Cadel Evans is totaly clean, how can you not be willing to make the far smaller leap of faith and admit that there is also a small possibility that Contador's food was contaminated???

(please answer).

As far as I want to believe there are those whom I know doped and those whom I think dope. And call me naive but I'd like to believe in athletes but cycling is making it really hard. I know AC has failed a test and the mathematicall chance of him eating contaminated food seems to be really, really small hence I think he ia a doper. As for Fränk (whom I guess you are referring), I think he has been doing the same thing but he hasn't gottn caught yet som I don't know it for sure yet.

As for Evans and Andy, I am not unfamiliar with the thought that they are doping but as an Evans fan, I am both subjective and biased, I rather take a leap of faith in his direction. Even if this yeras performance at le Tour made me wonder a bit. So yes, I think there is a bigger chance of Cadel being clean than that AC's test was caused by contaminated food.

 

[Von Mises]

Yes he was heavily juiced on Plateau de Beille in 2007.

How does that relate to the argument El Pistolero was involved in? What response is that to his point?


The discussion isnt "has Contador ever heavily juiced" its "has Contador shown talent" and to this discussion it wouldnt really matter if Contador stole the entire pelotons drug supply and shoved it up his veins in 2007.

Because if you can establish that he wasnt doping as much in 2009 or 2010 or 2011, then it shows that he does have talent.

Which is the point Pistolero was making.

As Pistolero was responding to my post, then I´d like to clarify some things.

1) I do not think that Contador belongs to this thread. I believe he is talented.
2) But I also think, that we do not have good evidence what his talent level actually is, some say that he is mega-giga talent, some sort of natural freak. But how do we know that? I cant see… Maybe he is talented, maybe hei s good respornder, maybe he is both… There is no way to be sure, who is better, clean Contador“ or „clean Schleck“?

Also. I think that there is difference between dopers and dopers. Worst kind of dopers are like LA. They have money, influence, connections and access to best doctors and best programs. But what is even worse: they have influence and corruptive power over governing bodies, they are setting bad examples and presedents over entire peloton.
Contador is not LA, but he is close. He has money, connections, access and influence that most riders dont. This is the reason why Contador should be scrutinized more than „regular“ dopers. And thats why I do not like that some people are willing to give Contador a free pass, because he seems friendly guy, because he is atractive and attcking rider etc. Hei s a dirty cheater whos example poisons peloton. I am not worried that dirty Contador steals form dirty Schleck, but what makes me angry is that he steals also from honest riders.

 

[roundabout]

OK, I think I have a good one.

Laurant Jalabert went from average sprinter in 1994 to an all action star in 1995 on a lot of hard work and the hard work of spanish doctors.
Every year from 1995 he managed to pick up a semi classic, a French and Spanish stage race, a jersey and a stage in a Grand Tour. Occasionally throwing in a surprise like the Time Trial world championship.

He came dangerously close to a Tour win in 1995 (yellow jersey on the road) but the amazing thing about his career is that he had so few near misses. I remember him loosing to bartoli in Liege but other than that, if he was in contention, he got the win.

Probably the smartest career extending move was pulling ONCE out of the 1998 tour and letting Festina and the french teams take the heat. By the time Sainz and Fuentes were stung, Jalabert was long gone.

Just when you thought we had seen the last of JAJA he resurfaced to take the Climbers jersey at the TDF for Riis's CSC.

A long career packed with wins, titles and jerseys. No tearful confessions, no 'mistakes in the last year of his career' and we never learnt the name of his dog.

Oh, Jalabert was certainly a doper and his jump in performance between 1994 and 1995 is incredible even by the 90's standards (think Riis), but he had 2 GT points jerseys and was second 2 other times.

http://www.memoire-du-cyclisme.net/palmares/jalabert_laurent.php

 

[issoisso]

Oh, Jalabert was certainly a doper and his jump in performance between 1994 and 1995 is incredible even by the 90's standards (think Riis), but he had 2 GT points jerseys and was second 2 other times.

http://www.memoire-du-cyclisme.net/palmares/jalabert_laurent.php

1989, age 20, great results in french races as a neo-pro, 13th in Paris-Tours
1990, age 21, great results in french races again, 11th in Paris-Nice, 2nd in San Sebastián
1991, age 22, 2nd in the Tour de France points jersey, 2nd in Paris-Nice, 2nd in the World Cup finishing in the top 10 or 20 of every single monument including his first ever Paris-Roubaix

At a young age he was already simultaneously a top sprinter, a top classics rider, a great time triallist and a great climber.
He could quite literally do everything very well. There's been very few like him in the history of the sport.

To suggest that this guy was anything other than outrageously talented from the get go is to simply not know the facts.

It's not so much that he had an incredible jump in quality in 1995, it's more that he had an unrepeatable season in 1995 in the sense that he somehow managed to keep a form peak throghout the whole of it. He never did that again.

And he was a top rider for an awfully long time. One of the top ranked riders in the world year after year from 1991 all the way to the end of the decade in 1999 where he would've won the Giro if he hadn't crashed and lost minutes on the penultimate stage.

 

[Tyler'sTwin]

Click "Danskerlaegen - del 2" in the link below.

http://www.dr.dk/Sporten/Dokumentar/Doping/20050530140756.htm

Crits for some of the big names of the 90's are disclosed at:

18:15 (Gewiss-Ballan)

23:05 (Rominger)

29:50 (Sørensen)

29:24 Says Chiappucci and Bontempi had "much higher" values than Sørensen.

 

[Bavarianrider]

Tony Rominger is up there too of course

 

[thehog]

Anyone mention Sella?

 

[Tyler'sTwin]

Click "Danskerlaegen - del 2" in the link below.

http://www.dr.dk/Sporten/Dokumentar/Doping/20050530140756.htm

Crits for some of the big names of the 90's are disclosed at:

18:15 (Gewiss-Ballan)

23:05 (Rominger)

29:50 (Sørensen)

29:24 Says Chiappucci and Bontempi had "much higher" values than Sørensen.

Winter 94/95 Summer 95

Riis 41,1 56,3
Ugrumov 42,6 60,0
Berzin 41,7 53,0
Gotti 40,7 57,0
Furlan 38,8 51,0
Cenghialta 37,2 54,5
Volpi 38,5 52,6

Rominger

21 okt -89: 38,8
27 feb -92: 39,0
23 dec -95: 40,0
18 jun -96: 56,0

Sørensen

18 apr -93: 51,8

Chiappucci and Bontempi: Much higher than Sørensen.

 

[BigBoat]

Olano supposedly had a VO2 max in the mid 60 range.
I'm guessing that makes him a candidate considering his palmares.

Lance.....for sure. We dont know if Olano wasn't overweight & out of shape for that V02 max test which is a doubly wammy. Consumption is low, weight high.

Lance won the Tour 7 times!!! With Domestic pro/cat 1 level V02 max scores in his early years. Now its not all down to Ferrari...He lost weight and probably increased his power substantially with training. Buts its a massive improvement. Maybe 30% better than he was in say 1990 when he started cycling. If his original V02 max was 75 and his TDF winning V02 max score was 96 than you could say it was that much.

I want to know how much his FTP improved.....He probably doesn't even know the whole story because he probably didn't use power until 94 or so..... Was his FTP in 1990 "only" 330 watts? Its certainly possible.

 

[blackcat]

Lance.....for sure. We dont know if Olano wasn't overweight & out of shape for that V02 max test which is a doubly wammy. Consumption is low, weight high.

Lance won the Tour 7 times!!! With Domestic pro/cat 1 level V02 max scores in his early years. Now its not all down to Ferrari...He lost weight and probably increased his power substantially with training. Buts its a massive improvement. Maybe 30% better than he was in say 1990 when he started cycling. If his original V02 max was 75 and his TDF winning V02 max score was 96 than you could say it was that much.

I want to know how much his FTP improved.....He probably doesn't even know the whole story because he probably didn't use power until 94 or so..... Was his FTP in 1990 "only" 330 watts? Its certainly possible.

great to see you back BB. We thought you went down off the Amalfi coast in the Med.

/no flames

 

[Walkman]

Lance.....for sure. We dont know if Olano wasn't overweight & out of shape for that V02 max test which is a doubly wammy. Consumption is low, weight high.

Lance won the Tour 7 times!!! With Domestic pro/cat 1 level V02 max scores in his early years. Now its not all down to Ferrari...He lost weight and probably increased his power substantially with training. Buts its a massive improvement. Maybe 30% better than he was in say 1990 when he started cycling. If his original V02 max was 75 and his TDF winning V02 max score was 96 than you could say it was that much.

I want to know how much his FTP improved.....He probably doesn't even know the whole story because he probably didn't use power until 94 or so..... Was his FTP in 1990 "only" 330 watts? Its certainly possible.

Do you have a source to that claim? Because 96 is totally insane!

 

[Galic Ho]

Lance.....for sure. We dont know if Olano wasn't overweight & out of shape for that V02 max test which is a doubly wammy. Consumption is low, weight high.

Lance won the Tour 7 times!!! With Domestic pro/cat 1 level V02 max scores in his early years. Now its not all down to Ferrari...He lost weight and probably increased his power substantially with training. Buts its a massive improvement. Maybe 30% better than he was in say 1990 when he started cycling. If his original V02 max was 75 and his TDF winning V02 max score was 96 than you could say it was that much.

I want to know how much his FTP improved.....He probably doesn't even know the whole story because he probably didn't use power until 94 or so..... Was his FTP in 1990 "only" 330 watts? Its certainly possible.

But we've heard Lance's numbers time and again here in the Clinic for years now. They are stashed back in dozens of threads. He and Basso had a habit of marking their VO2 max scores up a few points. It was 81-82 max. Compare that with Lemond and Hinault who had scores between 92-94. Massive world of difference. Then contrast with power outputs. Lemond was maxing his FTP at the end of a GT @390W max for a climb. Lance was pumping out @450W and going minutes faster on the same climbs. Doesn't take a genius to put two and two together.

Lance was mostly drug assisted. Most doped rider in history. He would never have made the top 10 in the 80s. He'd have been smoked. Everyone should know by now he never finished the Tour while off the juice. Lemond and Fignon got top 10 performances against Indurain and co on EPO. Lance? Lost 6 minutes in a single time trial. Gets sick, recovers and comes back with the greatest transformation anyone has seen in cycling.

We could always contrats with the VO2 scores of current riders but they don't splash their figures round. I wonder why? Simon Gerrans has one of 80. Do the math people. Evans in reportedly near 90 if not over. Same with Cancellara. You can't increase your VO2 max champ. Few people ever touch it when riding. It's an exhaustion test. You literally collapse. What doping does do is increase the percentage of your VO2 max you can ride day in and day out. That's what Ferrari does for you. You train harder and longer and recover quicker. The roids helped in 99 as well. Literally allowed him to have fresh legs every damn day. His figures stayed the same physiologically each day of the Tour. Compare to Lemond. His dropped. Hence why Lance romped it in and smashed the times of the non epo 80s champs who physically are at the opposite end of the pool in the genetic lottery. Undoped his FTP wouldn't go near 400W on a climb because his body can't sustain it, add some epo and roids, he can push harder longer and still look like he's cruising yet his VO2max stays the same. He is simply riding at a higher percentage of his max for longer.

This explains in theory why Lemond got smoked. He had to dig harder into his total max in 91 just to keep up and hence blew out. His rivals just keep going at the same high percentage. Though Indurain does have a relatively high VO2 max...just some food for thought.

Lance wins this thread hands down. Nobody has every benefitted more from doping than him. Note all the older multiple GT winners pre-epo had amazing GT results at young ages. The talent didn't just magically appear after one conveniently changed some things after getting sick. Fignon, Hinault, Lemond, Anquetil and even Merckxx. At the ages of 23, they were winning or podiuming. Lance wasn't even finishing. If there is proof you can turn a donkey into a racehorse, his program is it. Just look at Bottle and Horner using it now. Think that's natural? Use your brains you hoodwinked fantasy believers.

The cleanest I ever saw Lance ride was in 2010. He looked pretty damn average that year. Then again, Landis did draw the spotlight onto Lance. Go figure as it explains why he was suddenly crap around the ToC. Couldn't push it because the focus was on him and his program is risque...look at Levi for proof with his bogus off scores. Heck, we had whole thread that Tour theorising he deliberately crashed to have an excuse to go slower and provide a convenient excuse as to his performance drop. I think he was cleaner than ever. Note he sucked clean. Just like Wigans. Heck, put his name up as well. He deserves a spot on that list. Maybe include Froome too.

 

[Benotti69]

But we've heard Lance's numbers time and again here in the Clinic for years now. They are stashed back in dozens of threads. He and Basso had a habit of marking their VO2 max scores up a few points. It was 81-82 max. Compare that with Lemond and Hinault who had scores between 92-94. Massive world of difference. Then contrast with power outputs. Lemond was maxing his FTP at the end of a GT @390W max for a climb. Lance was pumping out @450W and going minutes faster on the same climbs. Doesn't take a genius to put two and two together.

Lance was mostly drug assisted. Most doped rider in history. He would never have made the top 10 in the 80s. He'd have been smoked. Everyone should know by now he never finished the Tour while off the juice. Lemond and Fignon got top 10 performances against Indurain and co on EPO. Lance? Lost 6 minutes in a single time trial. Gets sick, recovers and comes back with the greatest transformation anyone has seen in cycling.

We could always contrats with the VO2 scores of current riders but they don't splash their figures round. I wonder why? Simon Gerrans has one of 80. Do the math people. Evans in reportedly near 90 if not over. Same with Cancellara. You can't increase your VO2 max champ. Few people ever touch it when riding. It's an exhaustion test. You literally collapse. What doping does do is increase the percentage of your VO2 max you can ride day in and day out. That's what Ferrari does for you. You train harder and longer and recover quicker. The roids helped in 99 as well. Literally allowed him to have fresh legs every damn day. His figures stayed the same physiologically each day of the Tour. Compare to Lemond. His dropped. Hence why Lance romped it in and smashed the times of the non epo 80s champs who physically are at the opposite end of the pool in the genetic lottery. Undoped his FTP wouldn't go near 400W on a climb because his body can't sustain it, add some epo and roids, he can push harder longer and still look like he's cruising yet his VO2max stays the same. He is simply riding at a higher percentage of his max for longer.

This explains in theory why Lemond got smoked. He had to dig harder into his total max in 91 just to keep up and hence blew out. His rivals just keep going at the same high percentage. Though Indurain does have a relatively high VO2 max...just some food for thought.

Lance wins this thread hands down. Nobody has every benefitted more from doping than him. Note all the older multiple GT winners pre-epo had amazing GT results at young ages. The talent didn't just magically appear after one conveniently changed some things after getting sick. Fignon, Hinault, Lemond, Anquetil and even Merckxx. At the ages of 23, they were winning or podiuming. Lance wasn't even finishing. If there is proof you can turn a donkey into a racehorse, his program is it. Just look at Bottle and Horner using it now. Think that's natural? Use your brains you hoodwinked fantasy believers.

The cleanest I ever saw Lance ride was in 2010. He looked pretty damn average that year. Then again, Landis did draw the spotlight onto Lance. Go figure as it explains why he was suddenly crap around the ToC. Couldn't push it because the focus was on him and his program is risque...look at Levi for proof with his bogus off scores. Heck, we had whole thread that Tour theorising he deliberately crashed to have an excuse to go slower and provide a convenient excuse as to his performance drop. I think he was cleaner than ever. Note he sucked clean. Just like Wigans. Heck, put his name up as well. He deserves a spot on that list. Maybe include Froome too.

Great post. too long since these type of postings.

 

[mastersracer]

But we've heard Lance's numbers time and again here in the Clinic for years now. ...
Lance was mostly drug assisted. Most doped rider in history. He would never have made the top 10 in the 80s. ...

thread wasn't about who benefited most from doping, which should go to Rominger for his hour record averaging 7.2 watts/kg. It was about who got the most from limited talent. I'd put Jean Francois Bernard up there for that - heralded as Hinault's successor, had only moderate success, but great fame.

 

[pmcg76]

Surely Bjarne Riis is a leading contender even if we know it was mainly due to EPO. An ok amateur who spent the first few years of his career scraping around on Belgian kermesse squads before almost being left contractless to finishing miles down in Grand Tour's to then actually winning the Tour de France in his 30s.

 

[Benotti69]

thread wasn't about who benefited most from doping, which should go to Rominger for his hour record averaging 7.2 watts/kg. It was about who got the most from limited talent. I'd put Jean Francois Bernard up there for that - heralded as Hinault's successor, had only moderate success, but great fame.

How do you figure that a guy a who had barely enough talent to finish a GT goes on to become a 7time TdF winner did not make the most of his talent albeit with huge amounts of dope?

This is the clinic!

 

[issoisso]

I'd put Jean Francois Bernard up there for that - heralded as Hinault's successor, had only moderate success, but great fame.

Bernard is the exact opposite. He had massive talent, was the best at the 1987 TdF, but lost the Tour to Roche and Delgado due to being attacked while he had a puncture, and then was the strongest at the next year's Giro until he crashed on an unlit tunnel and suffered back and knee injuries that he's been living with for the rest of his life and that meant his performance was never anywhere near the same again.

The man had insane talent. His performance in the Mont Ventoux TT in 1987 is the stuff legends are made of.

 

[mastersracer]

Bernard is the exact opposite. He had massive talent, was the best at the 1987 TdF, but lost the Tour to Roche and Delgado due to being attacked while he had a puncture, and then was the strongest at the next year's Giro until he crashed on an unlit tunnel and suffered back and knee injuries that he's been living with for the rest of his life and that meant his performance was never anywhere near the same again.

The man had insane talent. His performance in the Mont Ventoux TT in 1987 is the stuff legends are made of.

he was over-hyped, a favorite among French fans because the girls fancied him, but was never up to being a team leader. He himself admitted that (good article link below). He was happiest carrying water bottles for Indurain. His fame far exceeded his talent and accomplishments...

http://www.nytimes.com/1995/04/06/sports/06iht-bike.html

 

[mastersracer]

How do you figure that a guy a who had barely enough talent to finish a GT goes on to become a 7time TdF winner did not make the most of his talent albeit with huge amounts of dope?

This is the clinic!

because it's ridiculous to argue Armstrong wasn't talented. Untalented 22 year olds don't win the world road championships, tour stages, podium at classics, etc. For that matter, untalented doped riders don't win 7 consecutive Tours. Do you really think he was doing anything different than Ullrich, Beloki, Zulle, or anyone else who got on the podium during those years? He was the perfect storm of talent, doping, and preparation.

 

[issoisso]

he was over-hyped, a favorite among French fans because the girls fancied him, but was never up to being a team leader. He himself admitted that (good article link below). He was happiest carrying water bottles for Indurain.

All of that is irrelevant. This is about talent, and he had loads of it.

 

[craig1985]

The most recent example is of course the TDU, where he won a stage after only having trained on a team training camp in December (otherwise he probably wouldn't have trained at all )

Surprised he made it to the airport without losing his passport TBH.

It would have to be Phil Liggett. It's hard to believe that someone so clueless can be so pervasive purely on the basis of enthusiasm. Obviously he hitched himself to the right wagon.

You can throw in his mate Paul Sherwen. Apparently he finished 15th once in Paris Roubaix after crashing 9 times. And next week he finished 14th and crashed 10 times.

But we've heard Lance's numbers time and again here in the Clinic for years now. They are stashed back in dozens of threads. He and Basso had a habit of marking their VO2 max scores up a few points. It was 81-82 max. Compare that with Lemond and Hinault who had scores between 92-94. Massive world of difference. Then contrast with power outputs. Lemond was maxing his FTP at the end of a GT @390W max for a climb. Lance was pumping out @450W and going minutes faster on the same climbs. Doesn't take a genius to put two and two together.

Lance was mostly drug assisted. Most doped rider in history. He would never have made the top 10 in the 80s. He'd have been smoked. Everyone should know by now he never finished the Tour while off the juice. Lemond and Fignon got top 10 performances against Indurain and co on EPO. Lance? Lost 6 minutes in a single time trial. Gets sick, recovers and comes back with the greatest transformation anyone has seen in cycling.

We could always contrats with the VO2 scores of current riders but they don't splash their figures round. I wonder why? Simon Gerrans has one of 80. Do the math people. Evans in reportedly near 90 if not over. Same with Cancellara. You can't increase your VO2 max champ. Few people ever touch it when riding. It's an exhaustion test. You literally collapse. What doping does do is increase the percentage of your VO2 max you can ride day in and day out. That's what Ferrari does for you. You train harder and longer and recover quicker. The roids helped in 99 as well. Literally allowed him to have fresh legs every damn day. His figures stayed the same physiologically each day of the Tour. Compare to Lemond. His dropped. Hence why Lance romped it in and smashed the times of the non epo 80s champs who physically are at the opposite end of the pool in the genetic lottery. Undoped his FTP wouldn't go near 400W on a climb because his body can't sustain it, add some epo and roids, he can push harder longer and still look like he's cruising yet his VO2max stays the same. He is simply riding at a higher percentage of his max for longer.

This explains in theory why Lemond got smoked. He had to dig harder into his total max in 91 just to keep up and hence blew out. His rivals just keep going at the same high percentage. Though Indurain does have a relatively high VO2 max...just some food for thought.

Lance wins this thread hands down. Nobody has every benefitted more from doping than him. Note all the older multiple GT winners pre-epo had amazing GT results at young ages. The talent didn't just magically appear after one conveniently changed some things after getting sick. Fignon, Hinault, Lemond, Anquetil and even Merckxx. At the ages of 23, they were winning or podiuming. Lance wasn't even finishing. If there is proof you can turn a donkey into a racehorse, his program is it. Just look at Bottle and Horner using it now. Think that's natural? Use your brains you hoodwinked fantasy believers.

The cleanest I ever saw Lance ride was in 2010. He looked pretty damn average that year. Then again, Landis did draw the spotlight onto Lance. Go figure as it explains why he was suddenly crap around the ToC. Couldn't push it because the focus was on him and his program is risque...look at Levi for proof with his bogus off scores. Heck, we had whole thread that Tour theorising he deliberately crashed to have an excuse to go slower and provide a convenient excuse as to his performance drop. I think he was cleaner than ever. Note he sucked clean. Just like Wigans. Heck, put his name up as well. He deserves a spot on that list. Maybe include Froome too.

How about Cobo then?

 

[LarryBudMelman]

because it's ridiculous to argue Armstrong wasn't talented. Untalented 22 year olds don't win the world road championships, tour stages, podium at classics, etc. For that matter, untalented doped riders don't win 7 consecutive Tours. Do you really think he was doing anything different than Ullrich, Beloki, Zulle, or anyone else who got on the podium during those years? He was the perfect storm of talent, doping, and preparation.

Yeah, Zulle and Ullrich backed off after Festina. Kevin Livingston actually talked about Ullrich racing with an Hct in the low 40's when he went to Telekom.

Armstrong was a good classics rider and a mediocre GT rider, who couldn't climb or TT, just the way Phil Anderson called it.

 

[Benotti69]

because it's ridiculous to argue Armstrong wasn't talented. Untalented 22 year olds don't win the world road championships, tour stages, podium at classics, etc. For that matter, untalented doped riders don't win 7 consecutive Tours. Do you really think he was doing anything different than Ullrich, Beloki, Zulle, or anyone else who got on the podium during those years? He was the perfect storm of talent, doping, and preparation.

It is alleged Armstrong was doping from his teenage years.

Yes he was doing much more "than Ullrich, Beloki, Zulle, or anyone else".

He had the UCI in his pocket, had met the head of the testing lab in Luasane and had the best doping doctor in the business who even thought Armstrong was taking too many PEDs.

He was the perfect donkey who owned UCI, knew the dope testing inside out and had the best trainer giving him the most dope.

 

[craig1985]

Didn't Armstrong earn the nickname 'cortisone neck' from his tri days?