posted Jul 19, 2008

Also, Merckx was a huge alround talent from the moment he turned pro. Lance was a decent one day rider who couldn't climb or TT. Hardly comparable.
---------------------

** Lance was more an all around talent being primarily focused on triatholons until his early twenties.

He won a TDF stage at age 21, so comparisons to Merckx are valid. Merkx was a better overall bike rider and more experienced at the same young age, but not more talented.

He was also DQed from the Giro in 69 for drug use, the year of his first TDF win.

At this point Merckx is clearly the better rider as Lance seems to drop off at the same age and develops cancer at the age Eddie in his prime.

When Lance comes back, he has to completely rebuild his body, and if you see the before and after pics, it's obvious the reason he becomes a monster on the mountains. Losing 20lbs of upper body muscle does that for bikers. Like Bernard Hopkins, he drops down two divisions and becomes a legend.

Moreover, think, spensy, think. I never stated that Lance invented team tactics. He advanced them from Eddie's day since team tactics had pretty much remained stagnant until Lance.

Apparently you've never studied up on Eddies career. He spent more time away from the peloton by his lonesome than any rider in history. The team much less important to him.

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Jul 21, 2008

He won a TDF stage at age 21, so comparisons to Merckx are valid.""

Only in the sense of comparing the 2 and saying "Lance isn't nearly as good as Merckx".

""Merkx was a better overall bike rider and more experienced at the same young age, but not more talented.""

I think you'll find that this veiw puts you in a very small minority. Lance got a lot of press over here when he was young and I can't remember anyone thinking he had a talent comparable to Eddy. He wasn't even seen as a successor to Lemond, lacking Gregs climbing and TT ability. As I've said, Lance was a one talent, no one thought he was a GC contender in the making.

""When Lance comes back, he has to completely rebuild his body, and if you see the before and after pics, it's obvious the reason he becomes a monster on the mountains. Losing 20lbs of upper body muscle does that for bikers.""

Ok, Lance lost 14/5 lb but I'll allow you 5 pounds dramatic license. And yes, it makes a hell of a difference. Cancer changes his attitude to training, racing and suffering as well. I'm aware of the biog, I followed it with excitement and awe as it happened, and felt shivers up and down my spine as LA triumphed in 99. I wanted (and still want) Lance to have done it all on bread and water. But when you've got studies showing that EPO can improve performance by 20%, and that's not even considering the effects of THG and the rest, then it's harder to make it all add up.
The suggestion is that a one day rider with no discernable talent in the mountains or the TT's gets ill, nearly dies, comes back after a 2 year hiatus in his career, and quickly becomes one the greatest stage racers of all time, beating riders who have boosted their performance by 20% illegally, simply by training harder, having a better team, and spending more time in a wind tunnel. All the advantages you've cited (team, preperation, equipment) can be wiped out in one climb by a rider on EPO. Look what happened to Lemond in 91. Turns up in decent form having won the last 2 tours, then gets dropped by almost the whole field on Luz Ardiden. And Greg was also ahead of his time in prep/training, and had a better team that year than in his 89 win. And Greg had taken on and beaten guys on the "old" drugs, against EPO he was no where near.

""Apparently you've never studied up on Eddies career. He spent more time away from the peloton by his lonesome than any rider in history. The team much less important to him.""

I think Fausto Coppi spent more time away than Eddy, but I get what you're saying. Surely you realise that even an attacking rider needs a team? But you've been talking as if Lance revolutionised team tactics, what was so different about the tactics? Not much, but as Lance kept winning the budget went up, and the team got stronger. Doesn't explain the 99 win though, ONCE were a stronger team, probably juiced up and Lance still wins. How?
At the end of the day you can believe what you like LRR, but you never struck me as the niave sort. I get the impression that you like to make these assertions about Lance to try and wind up cycling fans, and because you enjoyed seeing an american dominate a european race. I know you also dislike undue reverence for past achievements. Fair enough if it amuses you, but do you actually believe half of what you're typing?

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Jul 21, 2008

I get the impression that you like to make these assertions about Lance to try and wind up cycling fans, and because you enjoyed seeing an american dominate a european race.
--------------------------

** I'm just giving you basic facts. Brit/French press gives you lurid stories, the tabloid press, 3 headed aliens.

Fact: Tour was dirtier before and after Lance.

Fact: Lance and his team had the most spotless drug testing record in this period.

Fact: Lance and his team were the most tested of any athlete and any tour team respectively.

Fact: The so-called clown EPO test the tour and French lab used to slander Lance after he retired has been vastly altered several times to withstand legal scrutiny because it is such a scientifically poor test.

Fact: Even if Lance is dirty, now pay attention here spensy as you always get lost in nonsense, even IF, Lance was the best of his peers who had more opportunity and just as many means to be dirty.

I would also point out that Lance is easily as talented as Merckx as a bike rider, but he was more than a bike rider who applied his career differently because of culture and circumstances and won in the most internationally competitive era in tour history.

In otherwords, you couldn't just pull a 1970 Merckx out and plunk him on a team and expect him to be competitive in the tdf. He'd have to undergo at least a year of training to fit into the modern tactics of teamwork and he could not dominate to the extent he did in his day because overall the competition is stiffer.

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Jul 21, 2008

Oh LRR, you really are a tedious man. Not only do you think that typing FACT makes your statements unquestionable, but you also cherry pick which comments you wish to reply to, add asprinkle of condescension, then throw a little nonsense assuming no one else will notice.
FACT, you're the first person I've come across who thinks LA was as talented as Eddy Merckx. Including Lance.
FACT "Even if Lance is dirty, now pay attention here spensy as you always get lost in nonsense, even IF, Lance was the best of his peers who had more opportunity and just as many means to be dirty.""
This just shows YOUR basic lack of understanding about modern PED's.
Let me repeat for the hard of thinking, EPO and the rest don't just boost an athletes performance, they change the fundemental nature of the athlete.
Let me spell it out. If you give rider 'a' EPO and rider 'b' the same dose there is no guarrantee that they will both see the same boost in performance. Rider 'a' may have more talent, but is less sensetive to EPO, so doesn't see the same benefit.
Lets take another exapmle. Rider 'x' has a natural heamatacrit level of 38%. He takes EPO until his level is 48%, he still passes tests, but sees his endurance increase massively.
Rider 'z' is lucky, he has a natural level of 48%. Problem for him is, he can't boost his performance, and suddenly rider 'x', who he used to drop in the mountains, is able to climb just as well as him.
The same applies to the use of testosterone. For an athlete, a naturally high level is a 'talent', not only does it aid muscle builing it also aids recovery, especially in a 3 week race. But now most cyclists have a level near the top of the legal range, and this stays the same for 3 weeks. Massive advantage if your natural level is average or low, no advantage if your level is naturally high. Comprende?
Now London, the stuff I'm explaining here is really very basic, I'd expect a man of your learning to at least know vaguely what he's talking about. I'd also expect a bit less overwheening arrogance, and maybe a shade less rudeness from a man so confused about his basic doping facts, you're making yourself look a little silly.
I mean stuff like this "Fact: Tour was dirtier before and after Lance." is laughable. What you mean is
FACT no one got caught for a few years.
Not the same thing and you know it. You think Jan and the boys cleaned up when Lance raced and went back on the junk when he retired? No, didn't think so.
What you still haven't come close to answering is how you can make up for a 20%-30% performance advantage offered by drugs simply by training hard, using a good team and spending time in a wind tunnel. Do the math, it doesn't add up. We're not talking about a few benzedrine pills and half a bottle of red to numb the pain, were talking the finest cheating in the world of sport.
As I've said before, you have your faith, and that's nice for you. But I have the evidence of my own eyes and ears, and it's telling me that clean riders don't destroy a doped up peleton for 7 years in a row, same as light hitting unproven heavyweights don't spark iron jawed tough guys with the first punch.

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Aug 2, 2008

So what a complete waste of skin they both are. Actually quite amusing even on drugs they cannot make any sort of impact. I'd ask for my money back!

What a nasty piece of work you seem to be, gloating at the shortcomings of others. How many teams have you ridden for?

....................

That'll be "the short-comings" of lying when publicly pledging to be anti-drugs then?

Or denying or potentially denying 8 of the most dedicated sportsmen around (many competing for jerseys)the chances of completing one of sports greatest spectacles,

Or of signing an anti-doping charter which you had no intetion of adhering to.

Costing "their families" you talk of - a full years salary.

Doing or at least contributing irrepairable damage to the image of your nation by cheating.

None of this was in place 10 years ago so if you don't mind I'll keep having a pop at "these little shortcomings" these unfortunate individuals have.

Quite what 'how may teams I've ridden for' is mentioned I don't know. It is about as relevant as how many kum-qwats I've eaten.

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Aug 2, 2008

Do the math, it doesn't add up. We're not talking about a few benzedrine pills and half a bottle of red to numb the pain, were talking the finest cheating in the world of sport.
As I've said before, you have your faith, and that's nice for you. But I have the evidence of my own eyes and ears, and it's telling me that clean riders don't destroy a doped up peleton for 7 years in a row
---------------------

** Now spensy, the math is fuzzy theory.

It was a fact that the 7 yrs of Lance reign the tour was in a relative clean phase compared to before and after.

Like I stated, Lance proved to be the best while being tested more than his peers. It matters little if you think everyone was dirty for those 7 yrs.

Like I've pointed out, these riders treated like race horses and are dependent on the good faith of trainers and docs that invade their bodies with needles full of goodies or withdrawing goodies every day........

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Aug 3, 2008

"It was a fact that the 7 yrs of Lance reign the tour was in a relative clean phase compared to before and after."

No, it's your opinion that the race was in a clean phase, not a fact. There is little to suggest that the race got cleaner post 98, least of all the one fact we do have, average speeds kept increasing.

""Like I stated, Lance proved to be the best while being tested more than his peers.""

Anothe little gem the Lance lovers like to throw in. Seeing as Lance only really rode about 40-50 days competition a year, and many of his peers actually rode a full season, I would suggest that many of his contemporaries were tested just as much. Don't matter anyhow, as they weren't tested for the stuff everyone used.

" It matters little if you think everyone was dirty for those 7 yrs."

Well, as this is a debate site, and we've been sharing our opinions on a subject that no one except the riders and doctors really know the truth of, then what I think is relevant. It matters little in the outside world, but without my thoughts and yours this debate would have been over a week or so ago.
And in a way it DOES matter if I think the peleton was dirty all that time. I'm a cycling fan, have been for 20 years, and I've always defended the sport. If people like me are prepared to write off the years 1991 onward as the era of EPO then cyclings image is at an all time low.

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Aug 3, 2008

No, it's your opinion that the race was in a clean phase, not a fact. There is little to suggest that the race got cleaner post 98, least of all the one fact we do have, average speeds kept increasing.
---------------------

** Oh, spensy, please, I wish to retain my image of you as a knowledgeable bike fan.

On the tour, there were no team drug scandals that I recall, and only vaguely recall some few minor riders being suspended.

As to the speeds, well, bike technology was on a tear as was new teamwork tactics, indeed, even peloton tactics evolving.

Finally, every year the route changes. You cannot uniformly compare speeds. All you can say is that there is a trend which matches the 100 yr trend spensy, speeds creeping up. Sun rises in east, sets in west, and spensy takes naps when he gets tired.

Set your watch by long term trends spensy...........

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Aug 3, 2008

""On the tour, there were no team drug scandals that I recall,""

I think I've covered this a few times already, but here we go again..
Post festina teams had to be a little more careful, but the little evidence we have suggests that not much changed. Maybe a move toward blood doping rather than just EPO, but in the absence of reliable tests, who knows?
But lets take an example of a rider who spans the era, Ulrich. Now when he won the tour he was a team mate of Riis, Mr 60%. This doesn't PROVE anything, but bearing in mind team telecom's history it seems reasonable to assume that Jan may have had something stronger than black forest gateux fuelling him during this period. Wind on a few years and a few second places later, and there's big Jan on Dr. Fuentes list. Are we then to assume that Jan used drugs in the 96/97/98 tours, then cleaned up for 7 years, before going back on the naughties? Forgive me if I think this is unlikely.
Op puerto may not have provided much concrete evidence, but that, and the BALCO scandal in the states, IMPLY that sport in 00's was just as dirty, but much better organised than in the 80's and 90's.
The point I've been trying to make for quite some time (and the point which you have been willfully ignoring) is that in a world where the testers are one step behind, we often have nothing better than educated deduction to go with. You've reached one conclusion, I have reached another.
May I ask, do you think the tour was really cleaner during Lances reign, or do you think riders were just better at avoiding detection?

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Aug 3, 2008

May I ask, do you think the tour was really cleaner during Lances reign, or do you think riders were just better at avoiding detection?
-----------------------

** Both spensy.

Human nature 101. Cops set a speed trap on the crest of a hill, write some tickets, regular drivers slow down for the requisite time.

Keep in mind that hemocrit levels were still being monitored. Lance was one of the few using hyperbolic chamber as part of training, and I always wondered how you can use that and keep your hemo within the guidelines.

BTW, Lance was never among the elite tested for Vmax capacity which EPO should give him. His forte was the efficiency his body rid itself of lactic acid which is the bane of athletes and the ultimate lock on performance.

Like I've previously mentioned spensy, the true benefits of these myriad PEDs effectively anecdotal since the only people who have really studied them are the Doc Feelgoods and Trainer Takethis.

Maybe EPO could improve lactic efficiency, we don't know because of the hypocrisy of the way civilization has evolved regarding drug use among various cultures.

At anyrate, I've gotten a real kick over how stupidly silly the TDF hierchy has made themselves look. If they had any credibility they would ban themselves permanantly.

And of course, you know me, alway up for pulling some monkey tails and bike fans as much sport as boxing fans. Thankfully, I'm not into footy, as there wouldn't be enough time in the day for that.......

add comment | complain about this comment