Is LA's return a knowing move...
Comments
-
That's a very good point. I think you're right on the money. He and Bruyneel would have had a pretty good idea that these CERA users were going to be unmasked.
In addition to the field reduction factor this stink also allows him to lord it over everybody more than ever. Because as we know he is one of the dwindling band of riders who's never failed a test or taken performance enhancing drugs. :roll:<hr>
<h6>What\'s the point of going out? We\'re just going to end up back here anyway</h6>0 -
But what if LA is clean, and he knows he is a biological freak of nature, and ke knows he can still win on a level playing field and all the dirty riders will be banned by next year when he returns. Doesn't that all make sense. Or is that stupid wishful thinking0
-
A biological freak of nature would imply an inherent genetic capability - the fact it wasn't present prior to 1998 seems to have escaped your notice.Make mine an Italian, with Campagnolo on the side..0
-
Monty Dog wrote:A biological freak of nature would imply an inherent genetic capability - the fact it wasn't present prior to 1998 seems to have escaped your notice.
Winning the world championships does not count then?0 -
No one is disputing that Armstrong was a talented rider before 1998. He was a good one day rider. But he was no GT winner.Patrick1.0 wrote:Winning the world championships does not count then?
Put it this way, how many GT winners have won the Worlds in the last 20 years?0 -
According to Aurelio, it was so knowing Lance actually developed CERA in his own laboratories using funds siphoned off from his Livestrong Foundation. He then fed the CERA into the pro peleton via is through various go-betweens in seven different countries on five continents to cover his tracks. He's actually hoping to be the only pro rider next year and thus sweep all the classics, the worlds and the three grand tours.0
-
-
andyp wrote:
No one is disputing that Armstrong was a talented rider before 1998. He was a good one day rider. But he was no GT winner.Patrick1.0 wrote:Winning the world championships does not count then?
Put it this way, how many GT winners have won the Worlds in the last 20 years?
I think that if you're a good all round cyclist, which Armstrong clearly developed into with time, then you can do both. Most riders don't develop into GT winners until they mature in their mid to late 20's. He was world champion at a very early age for an endurance cyclist, I think that is evidence enough of his superior physical attributes. But anyway, I thought Eddy Merckx was loved for being able to win one day races as well as stage races.0 -
Oh i'm so f***in bored !
Start a good news thread then, we all need one! Doping and credit crunching/bank collapses is all quite depressing0 -
Bugno was the last World's / GT winner in 1992, with Lemond in 1990 and Roche in 1987 preceding him, although both Indurain and Pantani came close, so backs up AndyP's argument . Interestingly, Armstrong never won a major single-day race post-cancer either - he tried and came close in Amstel Gold and L-B-L a couple of timesMake mine an Italian, with Campagnolo on the side..0
-
-
Anyway, he's just had his comeback cleared by the UCI who are waiving their rules so he can compete in the Tour Down Under.
It's deeply ironic that the first step to this comeback involves a suspension of the UCI's anti-doping policy. I can see why they are doing it, but rules and rules and when it comes to doping, surely they should be firm?0 -
I was reading an old cycling mag at the cafe at the weekend. It listed the Top 10 faves for the tour - and I think most of them have since been busted or at least implicated in doping. Much as I'd love to think Armstrong was clean - I just cant see it myself.0
-
And where did I say that you prick? :roll:stagehopper wrote:According to Aurelio, it was so knowing Lance actually developed CERA in his own laboratories using funds siphoned off from his Livestrong Foundation. He then fed the CERA into the pro peloton via is through various go-betweens in seven different countries on five continents to cover his tracks.0 -
In reality until the Epo/ `800 ml of packed cells` era most GT winners showed their potential very early in their careers, often winning the Tour the first time they rode, and if they didn`t win clearly showing their Tour-winning potential. For example look at the way Merckx performed in his first Tour. Laurent Fignon`s Tour win was his first major stage race! The main exceptions to this rule have been Indurain, Riis and Armstrong, all `coincidentally` riding in the same era.Patrick1.0 wrote:Most riders don't develop into GT winners until they mature in their mid to late 20's.
As to Armstrong`s performance in the Tour pre-cancer, it was mediocre at best. It took him 3 attempts to finish the Tour, and that was one and half hours behind the winner. He often lost 20-30 minutes on the big mountain stages and his flat TT performances were consistently poor, with him losing over 6 minutes every time he rode the first flat time trial.0 -
aurelio wrote:
And where did I say that you prick? :roll:stagehopper wrote:According to Aurelio, it was so knowing Lance actually developed CERA in his own laboratories using funds siphoned off from his Livestrong Foundation. He then fed the CERA into the pro peloton via is through various go-betweens in seven different countries on five continents to cover his tracks.
Bloody hell some people are prickly - it was a joke :roll:0 -
There's an interesting section in Walsh's book 'Inside the Tour de France' when he talks to Armstrong who has just lost over 6 minutes in a TdF TT - Armstrong says he'll aim to get a minute a year faster. Instead he suddenly became a TT superman - not unlike Shumacher.
BTW 'Inside the Tour de France' is a fascinating insight not only into Armstrong but into his early relationship with Walsh, which was clearly extremely amicable. I've always wondered what happened to make Walsh turn on him so vehemently. Perhaps it was that sudden, radical TT improvement?0 -
aurelio wrote:
In reality until the Epo/ `800 ml of packed cells` era most GT winners showed their potential very early in their careers, often winning the Tour the first time they rode, and if they didn`t win clearly showing their Tour-winning potential. For example look at the way Merckx performed in his first Tour. Laurent Fignon`s Tour win was his first major stage race! The main exceptions to this rule have been Indurain, Riis and Armstrong, all `coincidentally` riding in the same era.Patrick1.0 wrote:Most riders don't develop into GT winners until they mature in their mid to late 20's.
Really?
http://www.bikeraceinfo.com/tdf/tdfindex.html
cursory glance says you're not right, this sort of backs it up:
"Age seems to be a relevant characteristic of the winning rider. So finally wemodel the age of the winner. The average age of the winner is 28.1 years,but there is some variation around the mean. Modeling the age of the winner has a pure descriptive nature: we search for the relevant covariates of age.We included both the composition of the stages and indicators of dominance and experience at first. It appears from Table 4 that the inclusion of mountain stages is uncorrelated with the age of the winner. Longer timetrials though tend to decrease the age of the winner. Higher dominance coincides with a higher age. Belgian and French winners tend to be younger than average."
Source: http://www.eco.rug.nl/~sterken/download/pecotdf.pdf0 -
Cursory glances can be misleading. What matters here is what age riders were when they showed their potential by winning or getting on to the podium. The average age of winners will be biased by all those multiple winners who of course got older after their first win, not to say those few riders who rode for years and years before getting their win, even if they never became dominant late in their career as did Armstrong. For example, Joop Zoetemelk rode the Tour eleven times before winning, but to true the pre Epo-era pattern he was 2nd overall the very first time he rode.leguape wrote:
Really? cursory glance says you're not right, this sort of backs it up:aurelio wrote:
In reality until the Epo/ `800 ml of packed cells` era most GT winners showed their potential very early in their careers, often winning the Tour the first time they rode, and if they didn`t win clearly showing their Tour-winning potential. For example look at the way Merckx performed in his first Tour. Laurent Fignon`s Tour win was his first major stage race! The main exceptions to this rule have been Indurain, Riis and Armstrong, all `coincidentally` riding in the same era.Patrick1.0 wrote:Most riders don't develop into GT winners until they mature in their mid to late 20's.
"Age seems to be a relevant characteristic of the winning rider. So finally we model the age of the winner. The average age of the winner is 28.1 years.
American academic Christopher Thompson certainly argues in his book `The Tour de France: a cultural history` that until the Indurain, Riis and Armstrong era it was practically unknown for a winner to have previously ridden the Tour as an also-ran.0 -
aurelio wrote:
Cursory glances can be misleading. What matters here is what age riders were when they showed their potential by winning or getting on to the podium. The average age of winners will be biased by all those multiple winners who of course got older after their first win, not to say those few riders who rode for years and years before getting their win, even if they never became dominant late in their career as did Armstrong. For example, Joop Zoetemelk rode the Tour eleven times before winning, but to true the pre Epo-era pattern he was 2nd overall the very first time he rode.leguape wrote:
Really? cursory glance says you're not right, this sort of backs it up:aurelio wrote:
In reality until the Epo/ `800 ml of packed cells` era most GT winners showed their potential very early in their careers, often winning the Tour the first time they rode, and if they didn`t win clearly showing their Tour-winning potential. For example look at the way Merckx performed in his first Tour. Laurent Fignon`s Tour win was his first major stage race! The main exceptions to this rule have been Indurain, Riis and Armstrong, all `coincidentally` riding in the same era.Patrick1.0 wrote:Most riders don't develop into GT winners until they mature in their mid to late 20's.
"Age seems to be a relevant characteristic of the winning rider. So finally we model the age of the winner. The average age of the winner is 28.1 years.
American academic Christopher Thompson certainly argues in his book `The Tour de France: a cultural history` that until the Indurain, Riis and Armstrong era it was practically unknown for a winner to have previously ridden the Tour as an also-ran.
The guys who dominated tend to do so from fairly young though, so surely they keep the average in check? As for winning at the first attempt, could that be attributed to riders not being entered until they were considered mature/able enough to have a shot at it, as was the case to some extent with Lemond and Merckx?0 -
Anyone got a list of winners with placing in first tour? I'm now intrigued regardless of the doping angle.0
-
I can give you Walkowiak as 50 something and Aimar as retired off the top of my head.0
-
Read a different thread then!0
-
The problem with the idea that LA had no GT potential pre-cancer and then doped his way up GC is that most of the top 10's he beat were doping too.
So which of these is true:
a) He had super secret drugs much better than everyone else
b) The effects of drugs differ (true) and he benefited vastly more than anyone else
c) All the other GC dopers were also no hopers and the genuine contenders were all clean
d) Pre-cancer he wasn't really bothered by GC and was only 23 when he finished his third Tour (in 95). Raw race times don't tell the whole story*.
I distinctly remember him being thought of as a future Tour contender.
* For example the much quoted 6 minutes loss in two TTs. In one (1995) he had been in the break the day before and won the stage, after his teammate had died. In the other (1994 - 13th) Indurain beat everyone but Rominger by 4 mins. LA was less than a minute down on Boardman and Riis. The other in 1994 (19th) he lost 5 mins to Mig but was still only a minute down on Zuelle.Twitter: @RichN950 -
And then he makes his come back and, despite being under much more pressure than when he rode as an also-ran, not only does he beat everybody else, he goes faster than even Indurain had ever gone.RichN95 wrote:...the much quoted 6 minutes loss in two TTs. In one (1995) he had been in the break the day before and won the stage, after his teammate had died. In the other (1994 - 13th) Indurain beat everyone but Rominger by 4 mins. LA was less than a minute down on Boardman and Riis. The other in 1994 (19th) he lost 5 mins to Mig but was still only a minute down on Zuelle.
(And let`s not forget that Indurain himself was almost certainly another `beneficiary` of the Epo culture, as a former team mate of his testified at the Festina hearings. Similarly every member of the Banesto squad was found to have a haemocrit level within a percentage point or so of the UCI`s 50% limit, a situation impossible in nature according to the late ABCC coach Ramin Minovi.)0 -
Give Lance a go! I mean really the guy is coming back and will be under intense scrutiny.
1. Unless you lot are a bunch of Frogs (French) where apparently you are Guilty until proven innocent then I say sit back and watch.
2. If the testing is so P#%$% weak and Lance did cheat then your anger should be directed at the testers don't you think?
3. Life Bans.... simple.
4. UCI and ASO get serious about it.I used to play Hockey but now I ride.... one day like the wind
0 -
azzurribike wrote:Give Lance a go! I mean really the guy is coming back and will be under intense scrutiny.
1. Unless you lot are a bunch of Frogs (French) where apparently you are Guilty until proven innocent then I say sit back and watch.
2. If the testing is so P#%$% weak and Lance did cheat then your anger should be directed at the testers don't you think?
3. Life Bans.... simple.
4. UCI and ASO get serious about it.
1) sorry no thats not the case wishing he was clean because he's a nice guy (he's not) does not make him clean. A lot of mobsters in the states were known to head the mafia without ever being sent to jail.
2) no we should be mad at the cheaters nothing but greed and arrogance drove them to cheating.
3) life bans would be good in my opinion but I suspect not simple - however a longer ban and a two strike clause may do the trick, Also compulsary testing while under the ban if the rider wanted to reneter cycling.
4) I think they are but its a large problem that has grown to a monster because they were not serious enough about doping in the past0 -
yep a bit like telling a 3 yr old don't do that or.... and never following thru.
as I said and you agree its cause UCI and ASO were not serious when they told off the 3 yr old.... and gee now they have a problem.
SO UCI AND ASO GET SERIOUS... DOH!
hope none of them are raising 3 yr olds
PS as I said Lance has not been found guilty so everyone pointing fingers is really dumb.
Lance is not the problem its the ASO and UCII used to play Hockey but now I ride.... one day like the wind0 -
aurelio wrote:
And then he makes his come back and, despite being under much more pressure than when he rode as an also-ran, not only does he beat everybody else, he goes faster than even Indurain had ever gone.RichN95 wrote:...the much quoted 6 minutes loss in two TTs. In one (1995) he had been in the break the day before and won the stage, after his teammate had died. In the other (1994 - 13th) Indurain beat everyone but Rominger by 4 mins. LA was less than a minute down on Boardman and Riis. The other in 1994 (19th) he lost 5 mins to Mig but was still only a minute down on Zuelle.
(And let`s not forget that Indurain himself was almost certainly another `beneficiary` of the Epo culture, as a former team mate of his testified at the Festina hearings. Similarly every member of the Banesto squad was found to have a haemocrit level within a percentage point or so of the UCI`s 50% limit, a situation impossible in nature according to the late ABCC coach Ramin Minovi.)
So now performing under pressure and when focused on a goal is a mark of doping? [reductio ad absurdum]Jeez, let's cancel every race above the level of fun run, because let's face it, if you're winning above that, you must be doping. [/reductio ad absurdum]
Alternatively you could say he was under a lot less pressure being on a lower profile team, having never challenged for the Tour before, being in remission from cancer and without the burden of being the great white hope of American cycling that he'd been since he won the Worlds at 22 or whatever. And with a team built around winning the tour rather than stage wins.0
