Could Lance Armstrong be the best anyway?

nolight
nolight Posts: 261
edited January 2013 in Road general
If no one used drugs in 1999-2005, could Lance Armstrong win some TDFs anyway? I mean he is 3rd in 2009 without drugs, won't be surprising if he can win it when he was younger.
«13

Comments

  • Grill
    Grill Posts: 5,610
    HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!! :lol:
    He doped in 2009, look at the data. He's denying it due to ongoing lawsuits and the fact that the statute of limitations hasn't yet run out. His lawyers aren't going to let him do anything too silly or risky.

    He'd have been an average cyclist had he not doped. His natural hematocrit is 38-41 so he's incredibly responsive to epo. http://www.forbes.com/sites/richkarlgaard/2013/01/15/seven-lies-lance-armstrong-will-always-tell/

    Lemond has said that both Hamilton and Landis would have wiped the floor with him due to being superior athletes.
    English Cycles V3 | Cervelo P5 | Cervelo T4 | Trek Domane Koppenberg
  • binsted
    binsted Posts: 182
    nolight wrote:
    I mean he is 3rd in 2009 without drugs, .

    What you believe that because he said so, I don't think I'd believe him if he told me the time.
  • colint
    colint Posts: 1,707
    We'll never know but I'm sure he'd have been competitive. Sad thing is that if la , Tyler, Landis, Jan etc had all been clean we'd probably have had some great racing !
    Planet X N2A
    Trek Cobia 29er
  • themekon
    themekon Posts: 197
    Do we know Lemond was clean?. The one thing about Armstrong doping is that it didnt really give him an advantage because everyone else was at it as well.
  • thefd
    thefd Posts: 1,021
    themekon wrote:
    Do we know Lemond was clean?. The one thing about Armstrong doping is that it didnt really give him an advantage because everyone else was at it as well.
    Erm - read what Grill said above. Not all drug cheats are on a level playing field!
    2017 - Caadx
    2016 - Cervelo R3
    2013 - R872
    2010 - Spesh Tarmac
  • Best what? Armstrong was without doubt a very talented cyclist but there is no reason nor evidence to say he would have been a dominant force in cycling without the drugs machine behind him. Eddy Merckx is by far the greatest athlete to ever have ridden a bike, in comparison Armstrong is a mere domestique.
    the deeper the section the deeper the pleasure.
  • Ber Nard
    Ber Nard Posts: 827
    Out of interest - because a lot of people are claiming he would have been average at best - has he admitted to doping prior to his cancer diagnosis? He was world champion (in '93?) and (I think) a tour stage winner.

    In his book, doesn't he claim to have a naturally high VO2?

    Not trolling - I just haven't read up on it much.

    Rob
  • thefd
    thefd Posts: 1,021
    Ber Nard wrote:
    Out of interest - because a lot of people are claiming he would have been average at best - has he admitted to doping prior to his cancer diagnosis? He was world champion (in '93?) and (I think) a tour stage winner.

    In his book, doesn't he claim to have a naturally high VO2?

    Not trolling - I just haven't read up on it much.

    Rob
    Grills link above shows there was a high chance his team were doping in the late 80's. he has lied so much, and still seems to be now - that no one knows what is true anymore.
    2017 - Caadx
    2016 - Cervelo R3
    2013 - R872
    2010 - Spesh Tarmac
  • Grill
    Grill Posts: 5,610
    Ber Nard wrote:
    Out of interest - because a lot of people are claiming he would have been average at best - has he admitted to doping prior to his cancer diagnosis? He was world champion (in '93?) and (I think) a tour stage winner.

    In his book, doesn't he claim to have a naturally high VO2?

    Not trolling - I just haven't read up on it much.

    Rob

    Watch the '94 Tour time trial where Indurain passes Lance like he's standing still. Now there's a rider with amazing natural physiology.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miguel_Indurain#Physical_attributes
    English Cycles V3 | Cervelo P5 | Cervelo T4 | Trek Domane Koppenberg
  • We will simply never know as his lies were so complicated for all this time & whilst he has done the correct thing and admitted his cheating. We have no really idea why he has come out with this right now and why he will not talk about those involved. Plus the Dopra interview was a clearly organised case of drip-fed controlled media which LA and his team were so power hungry to control.

    Personally I don't feel that I could trust anything he says after all the lies so far & I no longer really care as he is cheat and possibly the worst every in sporting history (IMHO). He can now disappear and I can concentrate on watching good honest cyclists riding and winning races.
    Pain hurts much less if its topped off with beating your mates to top of a climb.
  • alihisgreat
    alihisgreat Posts: 3,872
    Grill wrote:
    Ber Nard wrote:
    Out of interest - because a lot of people are claiming he would have been average at best - has he admitted to doping prior to his cancer diagnosis? He was world champion (in '93?) and (I think) a tour stage winner.

    In his book, doesn't he claim to have a naturally high VO2?

    Not trolling - I just haven't read up on it much.

    Rob

    Watch the '94 Tour time trial where Indurain passes Lance like he's standing still. Now there's a rider with amazing natural physiology.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miguel_Indurain#Physical_attributes

    Are you trolling? No one can seriously believe Big Mig was clean?

    Thats the classic excuse for dopers "errrrrr... my physiology is the best? yeah..that's why I win!"
  • Grill
    Grill Posts: 5,610
    Grill wrote:
    Ber Nard wrote:
    Out of interest - because a lot of people are claiming he would have been average at best - has he admitted to doping prior to his cancer diagnosis? He was world champion (in '93?) and (I think) a tour stage winner.

    In his book, doesn't he claim to have a naturally high VO2?

    Not trolling - I just haven't read up on it much.

    Rob

    Watch the '94 Tour time trial where Indurain passes Lance like he's standing still. Now there's a rider with amazing natural physiology.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miguel_Indurain#Physical_attributes

    Are you trolling? No one can seriously believe Big Mig was clean?

    Thats the classic excuse for dopers "errrrrr... my physiology is the best? yeah..that's why I win!"

    I'm not saying he was clean, I was simply illustrating that there are better examples of rider's with high VO2 Max. Regardless of what he was on (undoubtedly EPO when you see his doctor) he was still physiologically superior to most, if not all, of his contemporaries.

    Check this out, 14 years after retirement: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22868823
    English Cycles V3 | Cervelo P5 | Cervelo T4 | Trek Domane Koppenberg
  • lotus49
    lotus49 Posts: 763
    We will simply never know...
    Spot on.

    There is so much uncertainty about the whole era, we can have no way of knowing or even guessing what would have happened had everyone raced on bread and water. I despise what Lance Armstrong has done (the "bullying" as he so delicately puts it was far worse than the cheating) but I still believe he would have been a great cyclist. After all that has happened though, the whole sorry affair is best forgotten.

    I really hope that the sport can move on and the omertà in respect of doping will be replaced by a spirit of honesty and openness. Only time will tell.
  • Monty Dog
    Monty Dog Posts: 20,614
    He didn't possess an exceptional VO2 max either, best estimates are that it was in the 80s and certainly not in the 90s like Lemond's.
    Make mine an Italian, with Campagnolo on the side..
  • seanoconn
    seanoconn Posts: 11,674
    I'm not sure how much of a part physiology plays in sport these days. Yes you need a decent frame but the main building blocks of a great athlete/sportsman are circumstance and thousands of hours of dedicated practice/training.

    I love to see athletes doing the impossible and making other athletes in their field look average. Turns out it is impossible. Winners that slog their way to an unglamorous are the most likely to be clean. The marginal difference there is between the top clean riders, has little to do with physiology and more to do with team and training methods.

    Armstrong was a good cyclist......the drugs made him special.
    Pinno, מלך אידיוט וחרא מכונאי
  • Ber Nard
    Ber Nard Posts: 827
    Monty Dog wrote:
    He didn't possess an exceptional VO2 max either, best estimates are that it was in the 80s and certainly not in the 90s like Lemond's.

    Can't remember where I heard about his VO2 max claims, think it may have been his book, but like ALIHISGREAT says, it was no doubt just an excuse.

    Rob
  • seanoconn wrote:
    I'm not sure how much of a part physiology plays in sport these days. Yes you need a decent frame but the main building blocks of a great athlete/sportsman are circumstance and thousands of hours of dedicated practice/training.

    Oh jesus, not this sh!t.
  • Brian1
    Brian1 Posts: 595
    Without wanting to start world war 3 but could Eddy Mercx have won so many races without some 'artificial' help?
  • Ber Nard
    Ber Nard Posts: 827
    Brian1 wrote:
    Without wanting to start world war 3 but could Eddy Mercx have won so many races without some 'artificial' help?

    I'd have thought it was more likely than Lance being successful. I can't imagine doping products in Mercx's day were anywhere near as effective or efficient as EPO.

    Rob
  • Grill
    Grill Posts: 5,610
    Mostly amphetamines, opiates, and booze back in the day, wasn't it?
    English Cycles V3 | Cervelo P5 | Cervelo T4 | Trek Domane Koppenberg
  • colint
    colint Posts: 1,707
    Ber Nard wrote:
    Brian1 wrote:
    Without wanting to start world war 3 but could Eddy Mercx have won so many races without some 'artificial' help?

    I'd have thought it was more likely than Lance being successful. I can't imagine doping products in Mercx's day were anywhere near as effective or efficient as EPO.

    Rob

    EM doped (and was banned I think). Drugs were not as effective but still another cheat
    Planet X N2A
    Trek Cobia 29er
  • Bozman
    Bozman Posts: 2,518
    Cheat? It's hardly cheating when they're all at it and have been for what seems forever.
    Wether it's Merckx or Armstrong taking something the majority of the peleton were on something too, your fresh faced neo pro will spend a year wondering how the hell he's going to keep up, then the penny drops!

    I don't look on cycling differently now all of this has become common knowledge, they were good in their time and gave compelling viewing, it is quite funny when you listen to the commentary now though......... Super human acceleration up Mt Ventoux, and we know why.

    If you're that pi$$ed off with cycling don't watch it or do it.
  • Bozman wrote:
    Cheat? It's hardly cheating when they're all at it and have been for what seems forever.
    Wether it's Merckx or Armstrong taking something the majority of the peloton were on something too, your fresh faced neo pro will spend a year wondering how the hell he's going to keep up, then the penny drops!

    I don't look on cycling differently now all of this has become common knowledge, they were good in their time and gave compelling viewing, it is quite funny when you listen to the commentary now though......... Super human acceleration up Mt Ventoux, and we know why.

    If you're that pi$$ed off with cycling don't watch it or do it.

    All or majority??
    For me there is a world of difference.
    "You really think you can burn off sugar with exercise?" downhill paul
  • colint
    colint Posts: 1,707
    Bozman wrote:
    Cheat? It's hardly cheating when they're all at it and have been for what seems forever.
    Wether it's Merckx or Armstrong taking something the majority of the peloton were on something too, your fresh faced neo pro will spend a year wondering how the hell he's going to keep up, then the penny drops!

    I don't look on cycling differently now all of this has become common knowledge, they were good in their time and gave compelling viewing, it is quite funny when you listen to the commentary now though......... Super human acceleration up Mt Ventoux, and we know why.

    If you're that pi$$ed off with cycling don't watch it or do it.

    Where did I say I was pi$$ed off ? Oh that's right, I didn't.
    Planet X N2A
    Trek Cobia 29er
  • Bozman
    Bozman Posts: 2,518
    colint wrote:
    Bozman wrote:
    Cheat? It's hardly cheating when they're all at it and have been for what seems forever.
    Wether it's Merckx or Armstrong taking something the majority of the peloton were on something too, your fresh faced neo pro will spend a year wondering how the hell he's going to keep up, then the penny drops!

    I don't look on cycling differently now all of this has become common knowledge, they were good in their time and gave compelling viewing, it is quite funny when you listen to the commentary now though......... Super human acceleration up Mt Ventoux, and we know why.

    If you're that pi$$ed off with cycling don't watch it or do it.

    Where did I say I was pi$$ed off ? Oh that's right, I didn't.

    It wasn't an individual "your" it was just aimed at the folk that think it's the end of the world..... or cycling so keep your shirt on.
  • stickman
    stickman Posts: 791
    I think it's wrong Lance gets so much hate when all the big names were doing it, Ullrich in that period, going back - Merckx, Simpson, Coppi etc.x1000.
    Bikes, saddles and stuff

    http://www.flickr.com/photos/21720915@N03/
    More stuff:
    http://www.flickr.com/photos/65587945@N00/

    Gears - Obscuring the goodness of singlespeed
  • Bozman wrote:
    Cheat? It's hardly cheating when they're all at it and have been for what seems forever.
    Wether it's Merckx or Armstrong taking something the majority of the peloton were on something too, your fresh faced neo pro will spend a year wondering how the hell he's going to keep up, then the penny drops!

    I don't look on cycling differently now all of this has become common knowledge, they were good in their time and gave compelling viewing, it is quite funny when you listen to the commentary now though......... Super human acceleration up Mt Ventoux, and we know why.

    If you're that pi$$ed off with cycling don't watch it or do it.

    All or majority??
    For me there is a world of difference.

    TBH, if you're a professional athlete and you're not doping, you're not taking your job seriously enough.
  • Ber Nard
    Ber Nard Posts: 827
    stickman wrote:
    I think it's wrong Lance gets so much hate when all the big names were doing it, Ullrich in that period, going back - Merckx, Simpson, Coppi etc.x1000.

    I hear what you're saying but Armstrong is the biggest name in the sport with unparalleled success in the most famous race in cycling. No one outside of cycling is interested in Ullrich, Pantani et al.

    The likes of Simpson and Coppi were on booze and amphetamines. I don't think it was "performance enhancing" more a way of coping with how torturous the TdF was back then.

    Rob
  • alihisgreat
    alihisgreat Posts: 3,872
    Grill wrote:
    Mostly amphetamines, opiates, and booze back in the day, wasn't it?

    yeah there was so much more 'panache' back in the day.. oh no wait.. they were all just buzzing off their tits on amphetamines :roll:
  • lotus49
    lotus49 Posts: 763
    stickman wrote:
    I think it's wrong Lance gets so much hate when all the big names were doing it...
    I didn't know that all the big names were vindictive aggressive self-serving bullies who did their level best to use their considerable power to wreck other people's careers. Please spill the beans.