Armstrong was really good today

sherer

paulcuthbert wrote:

deejay wrote:

The difference is he has a TUE now, that's all.
Didn't have one in 1999 and got caught.

Do you really think he could have exerted enough influence over the governing body in 1999 before he had won a Tour de France to overturn a positive test?

Seems highly unlikely to me! More like after the 3rd or 4th Tour- but before the 1st? That doesn't make sense

I wonder this too but the story is that the UCI wanted to use LA to open up the US market and so make some more money. They saw LA as a means to do this

deejay

paulcuthbert wrote:

deejay wrote:

The difference is he has a TUE now, that's all.
Didn't have one in 1999 and got caught.

Do you really think he could have exerted enough influence over the governing body in 1999 before he had won a Tour de France to overturn a positive test?

Seems highly unlikely to me! More like after the 3rd or 4th Tour- but before the 1st? That doesn't make sense

I'll leave BB to answer that one as he has the research ready to hand.

What I can say is that if there had been a PTP in that year then no one would have picked him to win the TDF.
A complete rank outsider never entered anyone's mind.
He won the Prolog and that was fishy for a guy who couldn't TT to suddenly do that.
Hello what's he on. ?
A Question that has been asked ever since.
How would you rate the chances of Laurent Brochard winning the Tour de France as he was a similar standard in the 90's and a better stage race rider than the Texan showpiece.

3 years earlier we had Riis and then this Jerk suddenly repeats the same feat and the UCI cannot (or will not) do anything about it.

He rode in 1999 on sympathy as the only man to suffer Cancer and the only person publicly (outside Family) affected by the death of Fabio Casartelli.
That's what made him a celebrity before that TDF not as a cycle race winner.
To answer your question yes he had Indirect Influence because of his celebrity status and therefore he knew he could bend the rules of that time.
It's called Politics

They have even altered his Wiki to cover the fact he won very little in Europe and his victories were in little back street US crits.
Remember that Sean Yates beat them all in the US Pro Championships when they had guests to make up the field and the US guy was about 4th.
Yates being the US Champion and the guy in 4th gets the US Champs Jersey to wear for a year. (do you understand why I say little back street Crits)
Round and round the Blocks they go. (whoa I would like to go to Philly to see them climb the Wall but the Giro is on at the same time, I think)

He He, found anything Libelous there.

RichN95.

deejay wrote:

What I can say is that if there had been a PTP in that year then no one would have picked him to win the TDF.
A complete rank outsider never entered anyone's mind.

He wasn't a complete outsider going into 1999. In late 1998, he had come 4th in both the Vuelta and the Worlds. Prior to the Tour, he'd been 8th in the Dauphine.

Sure he there were three or four ahead of him in the betting (Zulle, Tonkov, Olano), but he was certainly fancied to do well.

bicyclepirate

i like LA, there i've said it do your worst.
I think its a bit pathetic that they're investigating something that happened so long ago. it just plain stupid. Why bother? aren't there murders to solve? and bike thefts why not sort some of them eh? Doesn't he make all his cash from sponsorship anyway, so no ones been defrauded, unless people start getting their money back on yr 2000 trek bikes they bought.

If he did dope (or is doping still) then the entire sport is screwed, may as well stop watching. Who is going to admit that 10 15 years of cycling history is based on drug taking? if LA could do it then so could everyone else, i was going to make a level playing field point but cant think of one.

Its sport and sport has never been about being fair, its about the spectacle and if you watch LA doing the swerve across the field (desent into Gap) and aren't impressed, welll good look to you.

sherer

RichN95 wrote:

deejay wrote:

What I can say is that if there had been a PTP in that year then no one would have picked him to win the TDF.
A complete rank outsider never entered anyone's mind.

He wasn't a complete outsider going into 1999. In late 1998, he had come 4th in both the Vuelta and the Worlds. Prior to the Tour, he'd been 8th in the Dauphine.

Sure he there were three or four ahead of him in the betting (Zulle, Tonkov, Olano), but he was certainly fancied to do well.

yes the Vuelta was his comeback ride and I guess the one that made them realise he could win the tour.

I asked this on another thread as if the UCI didn't want a scandle why not let him win and then ban him behind closes doors. One win would help open the US market anyway

conceptual_primate

bicyclepirate wrote:

i like LA, there i've said it do your worst.
I think its a bit pathetic that they're investigating something that happened so long ago. it just plain stupid. Why bother? aren't there murders to solve? and bike thefts why not sort some of them eh? Doesn't he make all his cash from sponsorship anyway, so no ones been defrauded, unless people start getting their money back on yr 2000 trek bikes they bought.

If he did dope (or is doping still) then the entire sport is screwed, may as well stop watching. Who is going to admit that 10 15 years of cycling history is based on drug taking? if LA could do it then so could everyone else, i was going to make a level playing field point but cant think of one.

Its sport and sport has never been about being fair, its about the spectacle and if you watch LA doing the swerve across the field (desent into Gap) and aren't impressed, welll good look to you.

Is that you, Pat?

micron

Carmichael says he knew it when Armstrong posted incredible figures from his record breaking climb of the Madone pre 1999 race.

Of course those are the kinds of figures that raise eyebrows these days

Abdoujaparov

Haven't been reading this thread much, but definitely rate it - just cos I when I see the title on the forum it reminds me that Armstrong wasn't really good today and all is well with the world.

itchieritchie

13 pages about LA....13....!!

Whether you love him or hate him, and I'm still not sure myself, nobody quite polarises opinion like LA.

I'm just looking forward to a time when somebody will step up to dominate the Tour in the same way as the greats, Hinault, Lemond, Indurain, Mercxx, LA, but without the suspicion and controversy that sometimes dogs them.

Maybe Contador if he can maintain form. Or Schleck the Younger. Have they ever tested positive for anything...?? Hope not, would be nice to see good things associate with the Tour for once...or is that naive optimism...??

bicyclepirate

maybe Luke Armstrong in a few years...... with his Dad as coach and uncle Johan cheering from the sidelines...... riding a TREK...... that would be awesome

RichN95.

itchieritchie wrote:

Whether you love him or hate him, and I'm still not sure myself, nobody quite polarises opinion like LA.

Last year, The Observer had their monthly sport supplement with the headline: "Lance Armstrong - the most divisive man in sport" - they were spot on.

paulcuthbert

bicyclepirate wrote:

maybe Luke Armstrong in a few years...... with his Dad as coach and uncle Johan cheering from the sidelines...... riding a TREK...... that would be awesome

Racing against that kid Luke from the fathersontour thing on YouTube

Abdoujaparov

bicyclepirate wrote:

maybe Luke Armstrong in a few years...... with his Dad as coach and uncle Johan cheering from the sidelines...... riding a TREK...... that would be awesome

That would not be awesome. That'd be creepy as f*ck

RichN95.

bicyclepirate wrote:

maybe Luke Armstrong in a few years...... with his Dad as coach and uncle Johan cheering from the sidelines...... riding a TREK...... that would be awesome

Maybe we could have a situation were Greg LeMond saunters up to Armstrong jnr and says "No, Luke. I am your father"

conceptual_primate

RichN95 wrote:

bicyclepirate wrote:

maybe Luke Armstrong in a few years...... with his Dad as coach and uncle Johan cheering from the sidelines...... riding a TREK...... that would be awesome

Maybe we could have a situation were Greg LeMond saunters up to Armstrong jnr and says "No, Luke. I am your father"

Would he be trying to sway him to or from the dark side of the force, however?

bicyclepirate

RichN95 wrote:

bicyclepirate wrote:

maybe Luke Armstrong in a few years...... with his Dad as coach and uncle Johan cheering from the sidelines...... riding a TREK...... that would be awesome

Maybe we could have a situation were Greg LeMond saunters up to Armstrong jnr and says "No, Luke. I am your father"

Brilliant Johan would definatley be the emporer, but LeMond converting Armstrong Jnr to the Dark Side :? ,

Abdoujaparov

conceptual_primate wrote:

RichN95 wrote:

bicyclepirate wrote:

maybe Luke Armstrong in a few years...... with his Dad as coach and uncle Johan cheering from the sidelines...... riding a TREK...... that would be awesome

Maybe we could have a situation were Greg LeMond saunters up to Armstrong jnr and says "No, Luke. I am your father"

Would he be trying to sway him to or from the dark side of the force, however?

With Lance as his father, you can guarantee Luke's midichlorian count would be high...

bicyclepirate

sorry to drag this thread down, but clearley cav is ja ja binks or chewy. undeniably important but bl**dy annoying all the same.

paulcuthbert

conceptual_primate wrote:

Abdoujaparov wrote:

conceptual_primate wrote:

RichN95 wrote:

bicyclepirate wrote:

maybe Luke Armstrong in a few years...... with his Dad as coach and uncle Johan cheering from the sidelines...... riding a TREK...... that would be awesome

Maybe we could have a situation were Greg LeMond saunters up to Armstrong jnr and says "No, Luke. I am your father"

Would he be trying to sway him to or from the dark side of the force, however?

With Lance as his father, you can guarantee Luke's midichlorian count would be high...

LOL

And being from Texas, he'd have no problem sharing a kiss with his sister!? haha
[apologies for perpetuating a stereotype].

I was actually just wondering who in the peloton would be what Star Wars character. Cav as Wedge Antilles?

Andy Schleck is Jar Jar Binks. No question!

and...

Michael Rasmussen

RichN95.

Samuel Dumoulin must be Yoda and Van Summeren, Chewbacca. Although, Santiago Botero was apparently very reluctant to shave, so he could be Chewy.

Cav seems a natural for R2D2 - small and chopsy, but full of talent.

ratsbeyfus

bicyclepirate wrote:

i like LA, there i've said it do your worst.
I think its a bit pathetic that they're investigating something that happened so long ago. it just plain stupid. Why bother? ...

Its sport and sport has never been about being fair, its about the spectacle and if you watch LA doing the swerve across the field (desent into Gap) and aren't impressed, welll good look to you.

I think I've found another sport you might really enjoy!



"Booooooooo... that nasty giant haystacks is a jolly rotter!"

knedlicky

RichN95 wrote:

deejay wrote:

What I can say is that if there had been a PTP in that year then no one would have picked him to win the TDF.
A complete rank outsider never entered anyone's mind.

He wasn't a complete outsider going into 1999. In late 1998, he had come 4th in both the Vuelta and the Worlds. Prior to the Tour, he'd been 8th in the Dauphine.
Sure he there were three or four ahead of him in the betting (Zulle, Tonkov, Olano), but he was certainly fancied to do well.

I had a look in my copy of Velo from July 1999 and it lists as favourites for the GC podium places Boogerd, Tonkov, Escartin, Julich and Gotti, and possibly Olano. Mentioned as outsiders for the podium are Zulle, Rinero, and Armstrong.

Of LA, the magazine says, Armstrong has declared he'd prefer another stage victory (like he'd had a couple times before) to a placing in the top ten, but based on his performances so far that season, the magazine thinks he's capable of both. Of US Postal, the magazine says the aim is to establish LA in the top level but also to hope for top performances from Vaughters (who'd finished ahead of LA in the Dauphine Libere), Livingston and Hamilton.

Velo point out, LA's first attempts since his illness to get amongst the top riders went pear-shaped until he left his house at Nice in March 98, after abandoning Paris-Nice, to go back to Texas for 6 months, from where he returned to Europe in Sept 98 as a new man, a classics rider who suddenly and sensationally finished 4th in the Vuelta.
The magazine also says that his Spring 99 rides, like the Amstel Gold Race, have continued to show this surprising come-back transformation.

jamlala

knedlicky wrote:

RichN95 wrote:

deejay wrote:

What I can say is that if there had been a PTP in that year then no one would have picked him to win the TDF.
A complete rank outsider never entered anyone's mind.

He wasn't a complete outsider going into 1999. In late 1998, he had come 4th in both the Vuelta and the Worlds. Prior to the Tour, he'd been 8th in the Dauphine.
Sure he there were three or four ahead of him in the betting (Zulle, Tonkov, Olano), but he was certainly fancied to do well.

I had a look in my copy of Velo from July 1999 and it lists as favourites for the GC podium places Boogerd, Tonkov, Escartin, Julich and Gotti, and possibly Olano. Mentioned as outsiders for the podium are Zulle, Rinero, and Armstrong.

Of LA, the magazine says, Armstrong has declared he'd prefer another stage victory (like he'd had a couple times before) to a placing in the top ten, but based on his performances so far that season, the magazine thinks he's capable of both. Of US Postal, the magazine says the aim is to establish LA in the top level but also to hope for top performances from Vaughters (who'd finished ahead of LA in the Dauphine Libere), Livingston and Hamilton.

Velo point out, LA's first attempts since his illness to get amongst the top riders went pear-shaped until he left his house at Nice in March 98, after abandoning Paris-Nice, to go back to Texas for 6 months, from where he returned to Europe in Sept 98 as a new man, a classics rider who suddenly and sensationally finished 4th in the Vuelta.
The magazine also says that his Spring 99 rides, like the Amstel Gold Race, have continued to show this surprising come-back transformation.

Your point is?

knedlicky

Does one always have to make a point out loud?
I provide some background information which you can interpret how you wish, for instance:
- deejay is wrong, at least as far as Velo magazine is concerned, LA wasn’t a complete outsider. Similarly, RichN95 is close but not entirely correct, at least as far as Velo magazine is concerned. For the magazine, there were 6-8 riders more fancied than LA, not just three.
- US Postal hadn’t quite decided what to aim for in 1999. Even for them, LA wasn’t apparently yet seen as a potential Tour winner.
- Velo magazine was astounded by the transformation in LA between March-Sept 98.

Why US Postal hadn’t quite decided what to aim for, and why the transformation in LA during his 6 months away from the racing scene occurred, can lead one on to other theories.

SpaceJunk

sherer wrote:

paulcuthbert wrote:

deejay wrote:

The difference is he has a TUE now, that's all.
Didn't have one in 1999 and got caught.

Do you really think he could have exerted enough influence over the governing body in 1999 before he had won a Tour de France to overturn a positive test?

Seems highly unlikely to me! More like after the 3rd or 4th Tour- but before the 1st? That doesn't make sense

I wonder this too but the story is that the UCI wanted to use LA to open up the US market and so make some more money. They saw LA as a means to do this

No I don't think Lance could have influenced the UCI, but we also need to consider what happened 12 months earlier.

After Festina, the last thing the race needed was another doping scandal. And now here's an American, a truly amazing comeback from near death, on his way to winning the race. What a fantastic story, what publicity for the race.

The race organizers had a huge vested interest in Lance not being busted. Lance might not have needed to exert influence, the race organizers could have been simply protecting their own interests in all this, and perhaps they could've done the influencing.

jamlala

knedlicky wrote:

Does one always have to make a point out loud?
I provide some background information which you can interpret how you wish, for instance:
- deejay is wrong, at least as far as Velo magazine is concerned, LA wasn’t a complete outsider. Similarly, RichN95 is close but not entirely correct, at least as far as Velo magazine is concerned. For the magazine, there were 6-8 riders more fancied than LA, not just three.
- US Postal hadn’t quite decided what to aim for in 1999. Even for them, LA wasn’t apparently yet seen as a potential Tour winner.
- Velo magazine was astounded by the transformation in LA between March-Sept 98.

Why US Postal hadn’t quite decided what to aim for, and why the transformation in LA during his 6 months away from the racing scene occurred, can lead one on to other theories.

Can lead to other speculative theories.....or gossip. God love the media.

RichN95.

knedlicky wrote:

I had a look in my copy of Velo from July 1999 and it lists as favourites for the GC podium places Boogerd, Tonkov, Escartin, Julich and Gotti, and possibly Olano. Mentioned as outsiders for the podium are Zulle, Rinero, and Armstrong.

Of LA, the magazine says, Armstrong has declared he'd prefer another stage victory (like he'd had a couple times before) to a placing in the top ten, but based on his performances so far that season, the magazine thinks he's capable of both. Of US Postal, the magazine says the aim is to establish LA in the top level but also to hope for top performances from Vaughters (who'd finished ahead of LA in the Dauphine Libere), Livingston and Hamilton.

Velo point out, LA's first attempts since his illness to get amongst the top riders went pear-shaped until he left his house at Nice in March 98, after abandoning Paris-Nice, to go back to Texas for 6 months, from where he returned to Europe in Sept 98 as a new man, a classics rider who suddenly and sensationally finished 4th in the Vuelta.
The magazine also says that his Spring 99 rides, like the Amstel Gold Race, have continued to show this surprising come-back transformation.

Yeah, I was trying to find an online source to see exactly how his chances were seen, but couldn't find one. It seems he was rated a bit lower than I remembered. (I don't think I personally rated him as much of a contender). I seem to remember it was seen as a very open Tour with no previous winners (a bit like 2006 I suppose) and the implications of Festina unknown.

sherer

SpaceJunk wrote:

sherer wrote:

paulcuthbert wrote:

deejay wrote:

The difference is he has a TUE now, that's all.
Didn't have one in 1999 and got caught.

Do you really think he could have exerted enough influence over the governing body in 1999 before he had won a Tour de France to overturn a positive test?

Seems highly unlikely to me! More like after the 3rd or 4th Tour- but before the 1st? That doesn't make sense

I wonder this too but the story is that the UCI wanted to use LA to open up the US market and so make some more money. They saw LA as a means to do this

No I don't think Lance could have influenced the UCI, but we also need to consider what happened 12 months earlier.

After Festina, the last thing the race needed was another doping scandal. And now here's an American, a truly amazing comeback from near death, on his way to winning the race. What a fantastic story, what publicity for the race.

The race organizers had a huge vested interest in Lance not being busted. Lance might not have needed to exert influence, the race organizers could have been simply protecting their own interests in all this, and perhaps they could've done the influencing.

You could be right. bt then you have to wonder if it was the UCI and ASO not wanting a scandal then surely they could have done something behind the scenes to say "you have cheated and should be banned" and make him leave the sport that way not cover it up and let him win the next 6 tours using the same method

paulcuthbert

sherer wrote:

SpaceJunk wrote:

sherer wrote:

paulcuthbert wrote:

deejay wrote:

The difference is he has a TUE now, that's all.
Didn't have one in 1999 and got caught.

Do you really think he could have exerted enough influence over the governing body in 1999 before he had won a Tour de France to overturn a positive test?

Seems highly unlikely to me! More like after the 3rd or 4th Tour- but before the 1st? That doesn't make sense

I wonder this too but the story is that the UCI wanted to use LA to open up the US market and so make some more money. They saw LA as a means to do this

No I don't think Lance could have influenced the UCI, but we also need to consider what happened 12 months earlier.

After Festina, the last thing the race needed was another doping scandal. And now here's an American, a truly amazing comeback from near death, on his way to winning the race. What a fantastic story, what publicity for the race.

The race organizers had a huge vested interest in Lance not being busted. Lance might not have needed to exert influence, the race organizers could have been simply protecting their own interests in all this, and perhaps they could've done the influencing.

You could be right. bt then you have to wonder if it was the UCI and ASO not wanting a scandal then surely they could have done something behind the scenes to say "you have cheated and should be banned" and make him leave the sport that way not cover it up and let him win the next 6 tours using the same method

True. But does that not then work in Armstrong's favour to suggest that he, at least at the time, was playing by the rules and not manipulating things to his advantage?

lucybears

RichN95 wrote:

Yeah, I was trying to find an online source to see exactly how his chances were seen, but couldn't find one. It seems he was rated a bit lower than I remembered. (I don't think I personally rated him as much of a contender). I seem to remember it was seen as a very open Tour with no previous winners (a bit like 2006 I suppose) and the implications of Festina unknown.

MrBookmaker (now Unibet) were offering 7/1