Lance Armstrong Greatest GT Rider Ever ?

2

Comments

  • FJS
    FJS Posts: 4,820
    donrhummy wrote:
    Right because Merckx was completely innocent. :roll:
    * 1969 Failed test: http://www.pbs.org/now/polls/poll-435.html
    * In 1977, he failed a doping test at Fleche-Wallonne (see page 27, "The Tour is Won on the Alpe" by Jean-Paul Vespini) - and THIS time it was a Belgian doing the test!
    I agree that Merckx is the greatest ever, but given that he failed not one but two drug tests and that people were doping for 40 years prior to his arrival, during his time as a cyclist and after, why do you think he was not?
    Merckx, Anquetil, Delgado, and many many other cyclists obviously 'cheated', but there's quite a difference between taking amphetamine and other stimulants, and EPO and other types of blood-doping. Amphetamines don't turn a mediocre pro into a superstar, EPO does.
  • timoid.
    timoid. Posts: 3,133
    donrhummy wrote:
    Timoid. wrote:
    The hierarchy of GT riders should be:

    Merckx

    Hinault,

    Coppi, Anquetil, Armstrong (whatever was allegedly in his veins),

    Indurain (whatever was allegedly in his veins), Bartali

    Lemond, Bobet, Gimondi


    Coppi and Bartali could be higher if not for the war, but it did happen and they don't have as much points on the board as they might have otherwise.

    Right because Merckx was completely innocent. :roll:
    * 1969 Failed test: http://www.pbs.org/now/polls/poll-435.html
    * In 1977, he failed a doping test at Fleche-Wallonne (see page 27, "The Tour is Won on the Alpe" by Jean-Paul Vespini) - and THIS time it was a Belgian doing the test!

    I agree that Merckx is the greatest ever, but given that he failed not one but two drug tests and that people were doping for 40 years prior to his arrival, during his time as a cyclist and after, why do you think he was not?


    EPO is a very different beast from amphetamines. EPO will add 5-10% to the abilities of a rider depending on how he reacts to it. Amphetamines will keep you going a bit longer and dull the pain, but will not change your abilities.

    The advent of EPO has meant that those riders who have the best reaction to blood doping win the GTs, not those with natural physiological superiority. Armstrong, Bugno, Indurain, Pantani, Ulrich, Basso, Heras, Landis, Ricco, Rominger, Jalabert, Zulle, Riis, Virenque may not have been better than their peers sans blood doping, but they sure as hell were the best when people were all geared up.
    It's a little like wrestling a gorilla. You don't quit when you're tired. You quit when the gorilla is tired.
  • calvjones
    calvjones Posts: 3,850
    C'mon Timoid, let's be fair here; Virenque was still pretty sh1t even when goosed to the gills :D
    ___________________

    Strava is not Zen.
  • k-dog
    k-dog Posts: 1,652
    Indurain also retired pretty early I believe.

    Yeah - after he was demolished in the Tour.

    Hinault retired a lot nearer the top of his form.
    I'm left handed, if that matters.
  • moray_gub
    moray_gub Posts: 3,328
    Blazing Saddles wrote:
    Moray Gub wrote:
    Here are the Tour winners pre war and immediate post war as you can see there is a far selection of second rate donkeys in there !

    Bartali,Maes,Robic Bartali ,Coppi,Kubler,Koblet,Coppi, Bobet.........i could go on but you get the drift

    cheers
    MG

    Yes, I get your drift.

    Donkeys don't win any Grand Tours, although that comment will probably generate some Pereiro sarcasm.

    A lot of Italian wins in there. Koblet also won the Giro.
    Compare the two events before WW2 and you'll find the Giro dominated by Bartali and Binda. The Tour has Bartali winning in 1938, the Maes bros, Nicolas Frantz, Maurice De Waele, André Leducq, Antonin Magne and Georges Speicher.
    IMO; More than a match for the Tour, at the time.

    Giro/Tour double? Coppi.

    People tend to forget that Bartali won his clutch of GT's while losing his prime, SIX years, to the war. People tend to forget Alfredo Binda, altogether. Too many years wasted winning the Giro, I guess. :roll:

    Ahhh so youve dropped it to "more than a match now" well i suppose that a bit different to " Meanwhile, truly epic races, with the classiest riders, both post and pre war, were Giro dominated. Both Tours featured classic riders and classic races as far as i can see one did not have domination over the other in this respect .To pick up on your final point Armstrong could have won several Giros im sure he could have beaten riders of the quality of Garzelli,Simoni ,Salvoldelli et al so gold medal for me then !


    cheers
    MG
    Gasping - but somehow still alive !
  • Monty Dog
    Monty Dog Posts: 20,614
    It's interesting to note that prior to the 1980's most riders rode all season, from the spring classics right through to Lombardy. It has only been in recent years that riders began to focus on specific races and more specifically when riders started to take 'active rest' between the spring races and GTs to 'prepare' - funny how training patterns were adjusted at about the same time as blood-doping appeared or those riders under the watchful eyes of Conconi, Ferrari et al. IMO it's a meaningless comparison unless you wanted to start discussing the 'greatest rider for 3 weeks in July?' It's only since the mid-1980s that the Tour has started to get a disproptionate amount of coverage, primarily due to the influx of anglophone and a broader international base. If the question was about the best GT, then the Giro has been a better race for a number of years, regardless of the quality of competition.
    Make mine an Italian, with Campagnolo on the side..
  • moray_gub
    moray_gub Posts: 3,328
    Timoid. wrote:
    donrhummy wrote:
    Timoid. wrote:
    The hierarchy of GT riders should be:



    EPO is a very different beast from amphetamines. EPO will add 5-10% to the abilities of a rider depending on how he reacts to it. Amphetamines will keep you going a bit longer and dull the pain, but will not change your abilities.

    I find it quite amusing it that so many people are quite happy to brush Eddys doping violations under the carpet if you like. Anyway amphetimanes will change you ability to hang on in there so what you say is not quite right.


    cheers
    MG
    Gasping - but somehow still alive !
  • gabriel959
    gabriel959 Posts: 4,227
    k-dog wrote:
    Indurain also retired pretty early I believe.

    Yeah - after he was demolished in the Tour.

    Hinault retired a lot nearer the top of his form.

    Well, he had a bronchitis during that Tour. And he got demolished by an EPOed Riis.

    Indurain was 32 when he retired. That is pretty young I reckon!
    x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x
    Commuting / Winter rides - Jamis Renegade Expert
    Pootling / Offroad - All-City Macho Man Disc
    Fast rides Cannondale SuperSix Ultegra
  • mrushton
    mrushton Posts: 5,182
    It's all ancient history. Should a journalist lift the lid on football I think a lot of major teams would all kinds of skeletons. Juventus immediately spring to mind. People took whatever they took when they did but the likes of Coppi/Bartali/Mercxx etc would stiill have been the best whether they did PEDs or not.
    M.Rushton
  • ednwireland
    ednwireland Posts: 85
    Patrick1.0 wrote:
    I The Tour De France IS the Olympics of cycling.

    i thought the Olympics was the olympics of cycling ???????????????

    grand tours are grand tours see what cav thought of not getting an olympic medal he may not have another chance. he's got next years tour for tour stages
  • timoid.
    timoid. Posts: 3,133
    Moray Gub wrote:
    Timoid. wrote:
    donrhummy wrote:
    Timoid. wrote:
    The hierarchy of GT riders should be:



    EPO is a very different beast from amphetamines. EPO will add 5-10% to the abilities of a rider depending on how he reacts to it. Amphetamines will keep you going a bit longer and dull the pain, but will not change your abilities.

    I find it quite amusing it that so many people are quite happy to brush Eddys doping violations under the carpet if you like. Anyway amphetimanes will change you ability to hang on in there so what you say is not quite right.


    cheers
    MG


    Without EPO, Armstrong would not have won a Tour. His wins are based on pharmaceutical manipulation. No amount of amphetamines would help him win the Tour.

    Eddy was no angel and had he lived in the modern era he'd probably have done exactly the same as Armstrong, but he won his races on god given talent. I'd compare him to Roche, who won in 87 cleanish, but when faced with the choice joined Conconi's fun bus in his second stint with Carerra.
    It's a little like wrestling a gorilla. You don't quit when you're tired. You quit when the gorilla is tired.
  • moray_gub
    moray_gub Posts: 3,328
    Timoid. wrote:
    Moray Gub wrote:
    Timoid. wrote:
    donrhummy wrote:
    Timoid. wrote:
    The hierarchy of GT riders should be:



    EPO is a very different beast from amphetamines. EPO will add 5-10% to the abilities of a rider depending on how he reacts to it. Amphetamines will keep you going a bit longer and dull the pain, but will not change your abilities.

    I find it quite amusing it that so many people are quite happy to brush Eddys doping violations under the carpet if you like. Anyway amphetimanes will change you ability to hang on in there so what you say is not quite right.


    cheers
    MG


    Without EPO, Armstrong would not have won a Tour. His wins are based on pharmaceutical manipulation. No amount of amphetamines would help him win the Tour.

    Eddy was no angel and had he lived in the modern era he'd probably have done exactly the same as Armstrong, but he won his races on god given talent. I'd compare him to Roche, who won in 87 cleanish, but when faced with the choice joined Conconi's fun bus in his second stint with Carerra.

    I dont deny that Eddy was the best of all time but he had doping violations and you cant hide that fact as much as you would like to. Now onto EPO it does NOT turn a donkey into a racehorse you know, anyway what if all the top GC guys were on EPO surely the best still wins ? .For me Lance was the best GT rider of his generation end of story no amount of rewriting history will change that. As for amphetimanes if the drug makes you go beyond your natural capabilities then surely it would aid the winning of a tour as you can hang on in there when really you shouldnt be able to.

    cheers
    MG
    Gasping - but somehow still alive !
  • moray_gub
    moray_gub Posts: 3,328
    mrushton wrote:
    It's all ancient history. Should a journalist lift the lid on football I think a lot of major teams would all kinds of skeletons. Juventus immediately spring to mind. People took whatever they took when they did but the likes of Coppi/Bartali/Mercxx etc would stiill have been the best whether they did PEDs or not.

    yep and you can add LA to that category as well.

    cheers
    MG
    Gasping - but somehow still alive !
  • donrhummy
    donrhummy Posts: 2,329
    FJS wrote:
    donrhummy wrote:
    Right because Merckx was completely innocent. :roll:
    * 1969 Failed test: http://www.cyclingnews.com/road/2008/wo ... x_worlds08
    * In 1977, he failed a doping test at Fleche-Wallonne (see page 27, "The Tour is Won on the Alpe" by Jean-Paul Vespini) - and THIS time it was a Belgian doing the test!
    I agree that Merckx is the greatest ever, but given that he failed not one but two drug tests and that people were doping for 40 years prior to his arrival, during his time as a cyclist and after, why do you think he was not?
    Merckx, Anquetil, Delgado, and many many other cyclists obviously 'cheated', but there's quite a difference between taking amphetamine and other stimulants, and EPO and other types of blood-doping. Amphetamines don't turn a mediocre pro into a superstar, EPO does.

    Ah, so then if you cheat with a less powerful method, it doesn't count against you? So only the "lucky" (to have such powerful drugs) or "intelligent" cheaters get graded down for cheating? Cheating is cheating.
  • andyp
    andyp Posts: 10,549
    Moray Gub wrote:
    I dont deny that Eddy was the best of all time but he had doping violations and you cant hide that fact as much as you would like to. Now onto EPO it does NOT turn a donkey into a racehorse you know, anyway what if all the top GC guys were on EPO surely the best still wins ? .For me Lance was the best GT rider of his generation end of story no amount of rewriting history will change that. As for amphetimanes if the drug makes you go beyond your natural capabilities then surely it would aid the winning of a tour as you can hang on in there when really you shouldnt be able to.
    That's a fallacy I'm afraid. Look at how domestiques like Chiappucci and Riis went from also rans to GC contenders in their late twenties/early thirties. Some people respond better to drugs than others. There is no level playing field.
  • LangerDan
    LangerDan Posts: 6,132
    Moray Gub wrote:
    . Now onto EPO it does NOT turn a donkey into a racehorse you know, anyway what if all the top GC guys were on EPO surely the best still wins ? .
    cheers
    MG

    Not when combined with the UCI ceiling on haematocrit of 50%. A rider who has a natural HCT of 45% can only boost his HCT by 10% to ~49.5% . A rider with natural HCT of 40% can increase his by ~25%. Its noticeable how several riders who turned out to have low natural levels of HCT are no longer able to compete at the same level now the sport is supposedly cleaning up.
    'This week I 'ave been mostly been climbing like Basso - Shirley Basso.'
  • FJS
    FJS Posts: 4,820
    donrhummy wrote:
    Merckx, Anquetil, Delgado, and many many other cyclists obviously 'cheated', but there's quite a difference between taking amphetamine and other stimulants, and EPO and other types of blood-doping. Amphetamines don't turn a mediocre pro into a superstar, EPO does.

    Ah, so then if you cheat with a less powerful method, it doesn't count against you? So only the "lucky" (to have such powerful drugs) or "intelligent" cheaters get graded down for cheating? Cheating is cheating.[/quote]
    Oh come on. So in real life littering or ignoring the speed limit counts as much against you as murdering someone or raping someone in your basement for a decade? Of course it counts against you if you take something you're not supposed to take, but please let's be a bit smarter than the superficial general public approach that says that doping is doping. In reality there's a fine line between what is allowed (creatine or alcohol for instance) and what is not allowed (caffeine or cannabis for instance). Blood-doping products like EPO are in a completely different category than those products and its effects are certainly in another category than those of amphetamine.
  • moray_gub
    moray_gub Posts: 3,328
    andyp wrote:
    Moray Gub wrote:
    I dont deny that Eddy was the best of all time but he had doping violations and you cant hide that fact as much as you would like to. Now onto EPO it does NOT turn a donkey into a racehorse you know, anyway what if all the top GC guys were on EPO surely the best still wins ? .For me Lance was the best GT rider of his generation end of story no amount of rewriting history will change that. As for amphetimanes if the drug makes you go beyond your natural capabilities then surely it would aid the winning of a tour as you can hang on in there when really you shouldnt be able to.
    That's a fallacy I'm afraid. Look at how domestiques like Chiappucci and Riis went from also rans to GC contenders in their late twenties/early thirties. Some people respond better to drugs than others. There is no level playing field.

    Riis and CC were hardly also rans , so what your saying here is i can win a GT if take EPO and it agrees with me...........Great ill just get me bike out of the shed and ill get started. What dya reckon Giro 1st then maybe the Tour ?

    cheers
    MG
    Gasping - but somehow still alive !
  • andyp
    andyp Posts: 10,549
    Moray Gub wrote:
    Riis and CC were hardly also rans , so what your saying here is i can win a GT if take EPO and it agrees with me...........Great ill just get me bike out of the shed and ill get started. What dya reckon Giro 1st then maybe the Tour ?
    Riis and Chiappucci were domestiques, not leaders. Only after EPO did they take that step up.

    The EPO idea has to be worth a go though. Talk to a certain Belgian team director as he seems very good at getting the dose right.
  • victorponf
    victorponf Posts: 1,187
    Chiapucci have a big balls! he is still doing races like desert trophy, he is a mith! (don´t know if he was a doper, in those days probably everybody take EPO but he was a gladiator)
    If you like Flandes, Roubaix or Eroica, you would like GP Canal de Castilla, www.gpcanaldecastilla.com
  • donrhummy
    donrhummy Posts: 2,329
    FJS wrote:
    donrhummy wrote:

    Ah, so then if you cheat with a less powerful method, it doesn't count against you? So only the "lucky" (to have such powerful drugs) or "intelligent" cheaters get graded down for cheating? Cheating is cheating.
    Oh come on. So in real life littering or ignoring the speed limit counts as much against you as murdering someone or raping someone in your basement for a decade? Of course it counts against you if you take something you're not supposed to take, but please let's be a bit smarter than the superficial general public approach that says that doping is doping. In reality there's a fine line between what is allowed (creatine or alcohol for instance) and what is not allowed (caffeine or cannabis for instance). Blood-doping products like EPO are in a completely different category than those products and its effects are certainly in another category than those of amphetamine.

    That is a completely inaccurate analogy!

    The analogy would be:

    Guy "A" tries to murder someone with a kitchen knife. Guy "B" tries to murder someone with a .45 Magnum gun. According to you, guy "A" is not as guilty as guy "B".
  • FJS
    FJS Posts: 4,820
    donrhummy wrote:
    That is a completely inaccurate analogy!
    The analogy would be:
    Guy "A" tries to murder someone with a kitchen knife. Guy "B" tries to murder someone with a .45 Magnum gun. According to you, guy "A" is not as guilty as guy "B".
    Sorry, this makes no sense to me. What I wanted to show with my analogy is that there are different ways of breaking the law in real life with different degrees of seriousness (and hence different penalties). Similarly in sport there are different ways of breaking the doping laws, with different degrees of seriousness. Is that really something you disagree with? Do you really mean to say you think taking cannabis or caffeine as a sporter and being caught for it is the same as and just as bad as taking and being caught for EPO?
  • timoid.
    timoid. Posts: 3,133
    Morally both doping types are the same.

    The effect both have is completely disproportional however. Armstrong is no worse a character than Merckx. He just happens to have benefited more from doping than Merckx ever did.
    It's a little like wrestling a gorilla. You don't quit when you're tired. You quit when the gorilla is tired.
  • moray_gub
    moray_gub Posts: 3,328
    andyp wrote:
    Moray Gub wrote:
    Riis and CC were hardly also rans , so what your saying here is i can win a GT if take EPO and it agrees with me...........Great ill just get me bike out of the shed and ill get started. What dya reckon Giro 1st then maybe the Tour ?
    Riis and Chiappucci were domestiques, not leaders. Only after EPO did they take that step up.

    The EPO idea has to be worth a go though. Talk to a certain Belgian team director as he seems very good at getting the dose right.

    You seem to be very knowledgebale on both who exactly used and when and what effects it had for all these people maybe i should consult you. Are you Michele Ferrari or are you as i suspect spouting the proverbial brownstuff ?


    cheers
    MG
    Gasping - but somehow still alive !
  • moray_gub
    moray_gub Posts: 3,328
    Timoid. wrote:
    Morally both doping types are the same.

    The effect both have is completely disproportional however. Armstrong is no worse a character than Merckx. He just happens to have benefited more from doping than Merckx ever did.

    allegedly.

    cheers
    MG
    Gasping - but somehow still alive !
  • LangerDan
    LangerDan Posts: 6,132
    Moray Gub wrote:

    Riis and CC were hardly also rans , so what your saying here is i can win a GT if take EPO and it agrees with me...........Great ill just get me bike out of the shed and ill get started. What dya reckon Giro 1st then maybe the Tour ?

    cheers
    MG

    But Riis was an also-ran. Up to 1993, the year in which he admitted he started doping with EPO, his TdF finishes were 95th and 107th. 1993, he goes on the wonder sauce and presto, 5th overall. He boosted his HCT from 41% to at least 56% which is a massive increase.

    Chiappucci was similar - a rider whose palmares are strangely bare (two small victories in five years) until 1990 when he is transformed, not just in the TdF but in a variety of one day and stage races.
    'This week I 'ave been mostly been climbing like Basso - Shirley Basso.'
  • moray_gub
    moray_gub Posts: 3,328
    LangerDan wrote:
    Moray Gub wrote:

    Riis and CC were hardly also rans , so what your saying here is i can win a GT if take EPO and it agrees with me...........Great ill just get me bike out of the shed and ill get started. What dya reckon Giro 1st then maybe the Tour ?

    cheers
    MG

    But Riis was an also-ran. Up to 1993, the year in which he admitted he started doping with EPO, his TdF finishes were 95th and 107th. 1993, he goes on the wonder sauce and presto, 5th overall. He boosted his HCT from 41% to at least 56% which is a massive increase.

    Chiappucci was similar - a rider whose palmares are strangely bare (two small victories in five years) until 1990 when he is transformed, not just in the TdF but in a variety of one day and stage races.



    Maybe in 1993 Riis was able to work for himself instead of othes he was a super domestique for Fignon up unitil 1992 ( Big Mig was a domestique as well btw). Not saying the sauce didnt make a difference but imo you are overplaying it. As for CC are you saying that a rider has to have a great palmares from day one to avoid suspicion of doping ?

    cheers
    MG
    Gasping - but somehow still alive !
  • andyp
    andyp Posts: 10,549
    Moray Gub wrote:
    As for CC are you saying that a rider has to have a great palmares from day one to avoid suspicion of doping ?
    I read an interview with Stephen Roche a few years ago where he made some comments about Chiappucci, who, lest we forget, had been Roche's domestique at Carrera in 1987. His comments were along the lines of "I knew he must be on something because he went from being an average rider to the strongest rider in the team on the same training."

    It's common knowledge that EPO usage in cycling started in Holland and Belgium but it was Italian cyclists who really harnessed it to propel them ahead of the rest. If you take a look at the results of Italian races in the early 1990s it is obvious who'd hooked up with one of the EPO experts, i.e. Conconi or Ferrari. Riders like Chiappucci, Franco Chioccioli and Franco Vona suddenly started winning major races in dominating style whereas previously they'd been pack fodder.

    You can call it bullshit if you like but the evidence is there for all to see.
  • moray_gub
    moray_gub Posts: 3,328
    andyp wrote:
    Moray Gub wrote:
    As for CC are you saying that a rider has to have a great palmares from day one to avoid suspicion of doping ?
    I read an interview with Stephen Roche a few years ago where he made some comments about Chiappucci, who, lest we forget, had been Roche's domestique at Carrera in 1987. His comments were along the lines of "I knew he must be on something because he went from being an average rider to the strongest rider in the team on the same training."

    It's common knowledge that EPO usage in cycling started in Holland and Belgium but it was Italian cyclists who really harnessed it to propel them ahead of the rest. If you take a look at the results of Italian races in the early 1990s it is obvious who'd hooked up with one of the EPO experts, i.e. Conconi or Ferrari. Riders like Chiappucci, Franco Chioccioli and Franco Vona suddenly started winning major races in dominating style whereas previously they'd been pack fodder.

    You can call it bullshit if you like but the evidence is there for all to see.

    You have a strange definition of evidence, those are possible pointers nothing more

    cheers
    MG
    Gasping - but somehow still alive !
  • andyp
    andyp Posts: 10,549
    Moray Gub wrote:
    You have a strange definition of evidence, those are possible pointers nothing more
    ostrich_head_in_ground_full.jpg

Categories