Lance Armstrong out of retirement

1…456810

Comments

  • RICKYF012
    RICKYF012 Posts: 25
    Personally, i don't really care what the mans reasons for returning are, be it to win, ego, cancer awareness or whatever. The man has never failed a drugs test so in my eyes he's innocent, i'd hate to be accused of something that there is no proof of and so would every one else posting here.

    Think about the dangers he now faces,
    the loss of his ledgend status if he fails to win
    some crazy with a grudge on the Tour route
    the chance of someone spiking a blood/urine sample

    I reckon he will ride for Astana as the strong riders he like to build around him are all contracted to other teams with he and Contador supporting each other until the last 5k of stages when it will be every man for himself.

    The big gain has to be for the Tour itself, ask yourself, would you like to watch Cadel Evans sticking on rear wheels and stroping like a 4 year old while boring all who watch and listen or Armstrong attacking again and again in the mountains, with the lack of attacks this year the Tour felt a bit like a procession and I welcome him back.

    The thing about Armstrong is if you don't like him then you never will, no matter what he does. I feel the same way about Bruce Forsyth despite never having met the man.
  • dulldave
    dulldave Posts: 949
    I reckon Lance is back because he wants to see how he would have really stacked up in a more level playing field. That question has probably been eating away at him.

    I loved that post about protecting some one who attacked his friend. It made me laugh. It's true but when you look at the reason they were friends there's a slighlty different slant.
    Scottish and British...and a bit French
  • NJK
    NJK Posts: 194
    RICKYF012 wrote:
    Personally, i don't really care what the mans reasons for returning are, be it to win, ego, cancer awareness or whatever. The man has never failed a drugs test so in my eyes he's innocent, i'd hate to be accused of something that there is no proof of and so would every one else posting here.

    Think about the dangers he now faces,
    the loss of his ledgend status if he fails to win
    some crazy with a grudge on the Tour route
    the chance of someone spiking a blood/urine sample

    I reckon he will ride for Astana as the strong riders he like to build around him are all contracted to other teams with he and Contador supporting each other until the last 5k of stages when it will be every man for himself.

    The big gain has to be for the Tour itself, ask yourself, would you like to watch Cadel Evans sticking on rear wheels and stroping like a 4 year old while boring all who watch and listen or Armstrong attacking again and again in the mountains, with the lack of attacks this year the Tour felt a bit like a procession and I welcome him back.

    The thing about Armstrong is if you don't like him then you never will, no matter what he does. I feel the same way about Bruce Forsyth despite never having met the man.


    He doped just like the rest of them and he knows that not many people believe that he was clean at all after 1996. All this bull**** about never failing a test, old ground i'm afraid, Basso, Ullrich etc.

    If he carrys on with his past PED regime and gets back to where he was without ever getting caught as you say then his margin of victory could be bigger than before, good for the tour and the sport, i don't think so.

    He is just another rider who without failing a test feels slightly guilty and now wants to play when it looks clean, very clever.

    He got out before being found out also very clever. No ban no loss of status.
  • mrushton
    mrushton Posts: 5,182
    i hope he is going to be wearing Rapha kit because that will really send some of you apoplectic :wink:

    You are all just creating more publicity. He's making a comeback whether you/we like it or not. For the cycling industry its great news, for the TdF/ASO it's great news. For the doping test people - great news, for Cancer Awareness, guess what - great news. The only one who could lose is Armstrong if he doesn't succeed. Perhaps we should just have a 'Lance Zone' on Bike Radar where you can post to love/hate him. Of course, if he does get to race the TdF I trust his detractors will keep their TVs turned off or on another channel, that way you won't have to watch him win/lose.
    M.Rushton
  • cougie
    cougie Posts: 22,512
    I think all of this just proves that cyclists seem to whinge more than the average person.

    Shimano vs Campag

    Rapha/Assos vs cheaper brands

    Compact/Triple vs Training

    Cav vs the good old british loser

    Lance vs well the world really

    Colnago vs Taiwanese frames

    Have I missed any ?
  • Cougar
    Cougar Posts: 100
    Suddenly I'm interested in the TDF again. Will he ? Can he win?

    Motive?

    Anyone who has achieved success in competitive cycling be it at club level, regional level, national level or even International level know what the winning feeling is like. It's addictive and when you stop racing you miss it. Publicity for cancer research is a bonus.

    Making a come back is very tough to do. Lance came back from cancer (extremely tough) and now he is makiing a come back after retirement from racing for 3 years. It's going to be a tough challenge and I admire him for doing it. He has nothing to prove to anybody least of all any us on this forum.

    Here's one who is going to be shouting for Lance when the time comes.
  • LangerDan
    LangerDan Posts: 6,132
    cougie wrote:
    I think all of this just proves that cyclists seem to whinge more than the average person.

    Shimano vs Campag

    Rapha/Assos vs cheaper brands

    Compact/Triple vs Training

    Cav vs the good old british loser

    Lance vs well the world really

    Colnago vs Taiwanese frames

    Have I missed any ?

    Helmets and RLJ????
    'This week I 'ave been mostly been climbing like Basso - Shirley Basso.'
  • mrushton
    mrushton Posts: 5,182
    cougie wrote:
    I think all of this just proves that cyclists seem to whinge more than the Colnago vs Taiwanese frames

    Colnago are Taiwanese in essence as a lot of their cheaper frames are made out there and Giant have a financial stake in Colnago.
    M.Rushton
  • cougie
    cougie Posts: 22,512
    So Giant own a bit of Colnago ? I can see the ' a bike isnt a bike unless its colnago fitted with Campag' brigade having a breakdown !
  • mrushton
    mrushton Posts: 5,182
    Giant bought into them a couple of years ago (Giant are the world's biggest bike maker). One only has to look at all the new curvy frames now on the market to realise they are probably being made by only one or two manufacturers (not that it's a bad thing)
    M.Rushton
  • Lucyliu
    Lucyliu Posts: 16
    A guy posted this on the Road Bike Review forum...makes very interesting reading on this topic..and it seems all his predictions are coming true...hopefully the link will work this time. The guy obviously has first hand knowledge of the racing world.

    http://forums.roadbikereview.com/showth ... p?t=142452
    lucy Woodward
  • Jez mon
    Jez mon Posts: 3,809
    Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay OT here.

    I guess what most of the supposed anti Lance brigade get annoyed at is people who have read LA's books and consider them to be gospel. I won't deny, they are very good reads, which are very inspirational. But you still have to look at it in a balanced way, and we can see evidence that he bullied those who dared to talk about doping and furthermore, recent cycling history makes it seem probable that he doped.
    You live and learn. At any rate, you live
  • cougie
    cougie Posts: 22,512
    I'm not sure I'd put too much trust in that guy off roadbike review.

    OK Lance worked with Ferrarri - but wasnt that well after he'd already became World Champion ? You dont get to be a World Champ without being a pretty good rider.
  • Patrick1.0
    Patrick1.0 Posts: 290
    Weight loss makes a massive difference. People who underestimate that surely don't realise the benefits. I've dropped just over a stone in the space of two months, from a 10 and a half stone fatty to 9 and a half stone. The increase in power that I have experienced is largely due to that loss. I know that I wasn't training for a year until a couple of months ago but when I was 10 and a half stone you wouldn't have thought I needed to lose any weight. Just get strong on a bike.

    It must have been similar for Lance after cancer. He's about an inch taller than me, obviously a much stronger build but I've been told he went from high 70's pre cancer to 68 kg (during the Tour) post cancer. If you keep your strength and lose all that weight, it's going to have a massive impact on every aspect of your riding, surely? His body must have been much more economical after all that weight loss than it was before. His body must have been running off fewer calories and building up less fatigue during a ride. Not to mention all the specific training he did for the Tour post cancer as opposed to pre.

    Just a thought, people.
  • knedlicky
    knedlicky Posts: 3,097
    Notifitsraining wrote:
    Too often Armstrong’s TdF wins have been made out to be implausible for a clean athlete. However, whatever you believe, a number of common factors accompanied his wins,
    ...
    Physiology … leg power …much reduced body weight
    Patrick1.0 wrote:
    Weight loss makes a massive difference.
    It must have been similar for Lance after cancer. ... I've been told he went from high 70's pre cancer to 68 kg
    “Coyle said in his paper, showed that Armstrong’s dramatic improvement largely came from a long-term increase in his muscle efficiency combined with weight loss from his bout with cancer.
    ... The Australians found that Coyle used an incorrect formula when he worked out Armstrong’s net, or delta, efficiency. Because of that, … there exists no credible evidence to support Coyle’s conclusion that Armstrong’s muscle efficiency improved*.

    …Coyle’s paper makes the case that more efficient muscles and a lighter body on the bicycle made Armstrong unbeatable.
    … Ashenden, one of the Australians who has since discovered Coyle’s miscalculations …said his group’s work had reduced that claim to a myth …. while inconsistencies in Armstrong’s reported weight change undermine the other half of the equation.”


    *= between 1993 and 1999.

    Read more here ...

    http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/11/sports/othersports/11cycling.html
  • cougie
    cougie Posts: 22,512
    I love it that we're reduced to talking about calculations here ! Cos we all know that calculations are completely reliable......

    Lance was a good rider before his cancer.

    He came back and had lost a lot of upper body weight after his cancer.

    His training seemed to go into overdrive at that point - I'm sure I'd get much better if I trained properly.

    If you look at all the drugs busts and positive tests from the last few years - I find it hard to believe that you can be a top cyclist without PEDs. So the balance of probability is...
  • Patrick1.0
    Patrick1.0 Posts: 290
    knedlicky wrote:
    Notifitsraining wrote:
    Too often Armstrong’s TdF wins have been made out to be implausible for a clean athlete. However, whatever you believe, a number of common factors accompanied his wins,
    ...
    Physiology … leg power …much reduced body weight
    Patrick1.0 wrote:
    Weight loss makes a massive difference.
    It must have been similar for Lance after cancer. ... I've been told he went from high 70's pre cancer to 68 kg
    “Coyle said in his paper, showed that Armstrong’s dramatic improvement largely came from a long-term increase in his muscle efficiency combined with weight loss from his bout with cancer.
    ... The Australians found that Coyle used an incorrect formula when he worked out Armstrong’s net, or delta, efficiency. Because of that, … there exists no credible evidence to support Coyle’s conclusion that Armstrong’s muscle efficiency improved*.

    …Coyle’s paper makes the case that more efficient muscles and a lighter body on the bicycle made Armstrong unbeatable.
    … Ashenden, one of the Australians who has since discovered Coyle’s miscalculations …said his group’s work had reduced that claim to a myth …. while inconsistencies in Armstrong’s reported weight change undermine the other half of the equation.”


    *= between 1993 and 1999.

    Read more here ...

    http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/11/sports/othersports/11cycling.html

    Cheers for that. Interesting reading.
  • leguape
    leguape Posts: 986
    One thing that occurs to me is when people say "oh but look at his record before cancer" as if that's some sort proof that he could have never have been a contender without doping. By that logic none of the guys who've come from other branches of cyclesport into road racing can be contenders. After all Cadel Evans was a XC Moutain bike rider and plenty of people are happy to cite his record in that field as proof he's good enough to win a GT and is clean.
    http://www.atomicecho.com/cycling
  • leguape
    leguape Posts: 986
    Lucyliu wrote:
    A guy posted this on the Road Bike Review forum...makes very interesting reading on this topic..and it seems all his predictions are coming true...hopefully the link will work this time. The guy obviously has first hand knowledge of the racing world.

    http://forums.roadbikereview.com/showth ... p?t=142452

    That's the sort of guy who posts on weight weenies about how cadel lost the tour because he used the wrong depth of rim and didn't use a particular brand of frame, then goes home to sand down his carbon fibre frames top coat because that will give him a 4 gram weight reduction which we all know is the difference between 9th and 11th in a 4th cat bunch sprint. :roll:
    http://www.atomicecho.com/cycling
  • cougie
    cougie Posts: 22,512
    Gotta love those weight weenies.

    One of them had removed the cover and padding of his saddle to take it down to just the shell. Get a life people !!
  • Kléber
    Kléber Posts: 6,842
    leguape wrote:
    That's the sort of guy who posts on weight weenies about how cadel lost the tour because he used the wrong depth of rim and didn't use a particular brand of frame, then goes home to sand down his carbon fibre frames top coat because that will give him a 4 gram weight reduction which we all know is the difference between 9th and 11th in a 4th cat bunch sprint. :roll:
    I think he's making the very opposite point, that tiny gains from sanding are totally irrelevant compared to the massive distortions created by doping in aerobic sport.
  • dennisn
    dennisn Posts: 10,601
    leguape wrote:
    Lucyliu wrote:
    A guy posted this on the Road Bike Review forum...makes very interesting reading on this topic..and it seems all his predictions are coming true...hopefully the link will work this time. The guy obviously has first hand knowledge of the racing world.

    http://forums.roadbikereview.com/showth ... p?t=142452

    That's the sort of guy who posts on weight weenies about how cadel lost the tour because he used the wrong depth of rim and didn't use a particular brand of frame, then goes home to sand down his carbon fibre frames top coat because that will give him a 4 gram weight reduction which we all know is the difference between 9th and 11th in a 4th cat bunch sprint. :roll:

    What "grit" of sandpaper do you recommend? I have to say that I didn't think sanding
    would make that much difference. 11th to 9th, wow. All these years. If I had only known.
    Do you also recommend drilling holes in various components to reduce weight?? :lol:
    Weight weenies??? What can be done with them(legally)???

    Dennis Noward
  • flattythehurdler
    flattythehurdler Posts: 2,314
    Lance will, I suspect, be on the most advanced preparation available. I would love to know what, and whether it involves genetic manipulation, or whether that is a few years off yet. A friend who has a biotech company reckons it isn't particularly difficult now. I doubt he is entering just to take part. he has shown he will do whatever he can to win regardless of legitimacy or scruple. I doubt this will change. I would love it if he signed for astana, and the ASO kicked them out again. Won't happen though, too much money. I just don't think he can tolerate being out of the limelight even a little bit.
    Dan
  • donrhummy
    donrhummy Posts: 2,329
    See? The doubters will never be convinced. Lance could have a camera follow him for 24 hours a day, watching him pee, shower, etc and they'd be convinced that they hid his drugs in the food he ate or something like that. And when he passed the tests and had the proper blood profile, they'd say he's got some new drug or technique that they can't test for. He'll NEVER convince them.
    Jean-René Bernaudeau, manager of Bouygues Télécom, could not understand Armstrong's decision and even cast a new shadow of doubt on the way the American was going to try to achieve his goal. "I don't know what to think of it," he told L'Equipe. "In any case, this kind of come-back does not fit into my view of the sport. Bernard Hinault would never have done this... With Armstrong, you get the impression that everything is easy: he stops for three years and then comes back as if nothing happened. That's not how cycling works. Now, we can ask ourselves what the recipe is..."


    And BTW, with respect to that paper on Lance's efficiency, it hasn't been disproven. It's only been shown that the calculation for net efficiency needs to be redone to see whether the conclusion still holds true. His calculation for muscular efficiency gains is still true. It's net efficiency that needs to be recalculated.

    A third party looked at the issue:
    After reviewing the original paper and this week’s letter, Howie Green, a professor emeritus with the Department of Kinesiology at the University of Waterloo in Ontario, agreed that Coyle correctly calculated Armstrong’s gross muscle efficiency. But he said it was also necessary to calculate his net efficiency, which accounts for a number of factors, like changes in Armstrong’s resting metabolic rate. Without that, he said, “the evidence to claim that mechanical efficiency has changed in Armstrong is inconclusive.”
  • milton50
    milton50 Posts: 3,856
    See? The doubters will never be convinced. Lance could have a camera follow him for 24 hours a day, watching him pee, shower, etc and they'd be convinced that they hid his drugs in the food he ate or something like that. And when he passed the tests and had the proper blood profile, they'd say he's got some new drug or technique that they can't test for. He'll NEVER convince them.

    100% true. C'est la vie.
  • wildmoustache
    wildmoustache Posts: 4,010
    If lance published data in the vandevelde style and joined and raced with a team with a strict anti doping regime and culture then i'd believe it.

    Despite astana's efforts to clean up I'm not sure I can ever believe he's clean in a bruyneel team.
  • fruit bars with eyes
    fruit bars with eyes Posts: 334
    oh don't worry i am 100% convinced
  • wildmoustache
    wildmoustache Posts: 4,010
    Lance will only be believed if he adopts the COAST principles.
  • fruit bars with eyes
    fruit bars with eyes Posts: 334
    in fact, let's all take a moment to applaud the great man for avoiding all those nasty dopers in teams he was in complete control of- like heras, beltran, landis, hamilton, basso, andreu et al- and for taking such a principled stand - with riders such as simeoni and bassons
  • milton50
    milton50 Posts: 3,856
    fruit bars with eyes wrote:
    oh don't worry i am 100% convinced

    100% convinced of what? He hasn't announced anything about his plans yet.

Categories