General Cycling Discussion - Who will win the 2002 Tour de France?

Vote for your choice. Who do YOU think will wear the yellow jersey in Paris?

That is hilarious.

Ummmm, I think Lance Armstrong will win. hehe

(Is that ALL OF THE ABOVE?)

Yeah, all of the above! That's the ticket!

Go, Lance!!

:D

Lance Armstrong?

(Regular Guy, you are a true bastard! :) )

He isnt going to win this year.

Glad to see my choice is there. :)

Since nobody had yet voted for 4, I went with him. This is going to be a mountainous Tour I think #4 is in the best climbing shape:D

there are six Mountain Stages, in the 2002 Tour de france Edition, without a legitimate Climber in this Tour, and barring any major accident on Lance he can lay claim to his 4th Consecutive yellow Jersey, please do it, the way the French press are treating him, I wish he comes out flying

He's the obvious favorite, but I guess that's why they run the race! I'm a huge Lance fan, so he's my pick, but as Lance says (ah, okay I'm paraphrasing):

Winning does not motivate the winner, only the competition.

I think with all this Hyp, you might be putting a hex on the guy. There is never an easy victory or a sure thing in any sporting event. Some unknown could rise to the challenge and surprise all the experts; he could get wiped out in a pack; he could blow a tire on a fast downhill section. . .

Don't be so absolutely sure he will win. The powers that be have a way of disappointing those who are so absolutely certain of the outcome. I've seen it happen too often. It's like a bad luck omen to rave too much about a "sure thing".

With all respect to Armstrong's fans, I really and truly hope he doesn't win this year. I have nothing against the guy, and I think he's an amazing athlete... but his dominance sure makes for a boring tour. Moroever, I'm not sure that this kind of dominance is particularly good for the sport of pro cycling, except in America.

Originally posted by velocipedio
With all respect to Armstrong's fans, I really and truly hope he doesn't win this year. I have nothing against the guy, and I think he's an amazing athlete... but his dominance sure makes for a boring tour. Moroever, I'm not sure that this kind of dominance is particularly good for the sport of pro cycling, except in America.

I agree in some respects. I would like to see the Tour de France be a true race this year. I expect Lance to be challenged from unexpected quarters. This will be a great year for young turks to make names for themselves. Can any of them dethrone Lance? That's doubtful.

I'm curious, Velocipedio. Did you think that Indurain's 5 year dominance was bad for the sport? I loved to watch him ride and nearly cried when he cracked.

Also, if Lance's dominance is good for the sport of cycling in the U.S....well, I'd have to say that this is a good thing. The U.S. needs to be more aware of cycling, both as a pro-level sport and as an athletic activity. Europe already knows about it.

Anyway, that's enough serious talk on a thread that I started basically as a joke. :D

Originally posted by velocipedio
I'm not sure that this kind of dominance is particularly good for the sport of pro cycling, except in America.

I respectfully disagree. In american sport team dominance by the NY Yankees, Dallas Cowboys, SF 49ers, Chicago Bulls, LA Lakers and, once-upon-a-time, the Montreal Canadians, NY Islanders and Edmonton Oilers only helped their sport. How about Tiger Woods in golf? Golf has never been more popular. Eddy Merckx' dominance didn't hurt anything either.

Lance may galvanize americans, which is good for the sport, and give the world another reason to unite against America (I know, just another paranoid yankee).

My second point is, if Lance gets more americans interested in the sport, that can only be good thing. Lance is a hero to many and a villain to others. Either way cycling is more compelling when he's racing.

Lance is the closest thing pro cycling has to
a patron currently. I think that is actually good
for the sport, I think it challenges other riders
to try to dethrone him.
As for Americans in the pro peloton, the rest of
the world is going to have to deal with the likes
of Tyler, Levi, Chan, et al.
Personally, I don't think Lance is going to have
the cakewalk that everyone expects.
look for the Spanish team to make a serious run
for the GC.

Marty

Originally posted by RegularGuy
I'm curious, Velocipedio. Did you think that Indurain's 5 year dominance was bad for the sport?
Yes. Just look at how many sponsors left cycling prematurely during the 1990s! There's no point in sponsoring a team if you never win. I think we're starting to see the same thing now, with Domo-Lotto merger talks, Bonjour's trouble finding a new title sponsor, and others...


Originally posted by WoodyUpstate
Eddy Merckx' dominance didn't hurt anything either.
Sure, and I suspect Felice Gimondi and Frans Verbeeck would agree. If you read about the history of bicycle racing, or even old news stories on microfilm, an intersting pattern emerges when one racer dominates the TdF or other major tours for more than three years running: sponsors start deserting the sport and races start drying up.

The glory years of pro cycling were 1975 to 1990; a time when no one dominated cycling, and no one captured the Tour for more than three years in a row. Aside from Merckx, Indurain and Anquetil, who are the immortals? Kelly, Bauer, Lemond, Fignon, Hinault, Roche, Moser, Argentin, De Vlaeminck and Raas. When did they race? From 1975-1991, when they all had a chance of winning.

One dominant rider discourages competition; the whole sport suffers.

Originally posted by velocipedio

Yes. Just look at how many sponsors left cycling prematurely during the 1990s! There's no point in sponsoring a team if you never win. I think we're starting to see the same thing now, with Domo-Lotto merger talks, Bonjour's trouble finding a new title sponsor, and others...


I think that blaming cycling's sponsorship troubles on Lance Armstrong's success is giving him too much credit.

Mountain biking is undergoing even more difficulty than road. Yet, that has nothing to do with Lance (Roland Green, maybe!?)

The UCI and TdF society (whatever they call themselves) are not helping matters either. The World Cup is rarely contested across 10 events by riders, they pick and choose, and TdF invitations are a french love-in.

Lance races one big race. Granted, it is the biggest and most important, but still, it's only one race. He'll never win the World Cup, even almight Lance cannot win Amstel Gold and he's never given the Giro a 2nd look.

Doping. 'nough said.

These are only some of cycling's problems. Even so, it remains compelling and fascinating. We'll all watch in 15 days and enjoy the beauty of it all.

Tiger Woods, why not he has won everything else:) Seriously Lance Armstrong

Originally posted by velocipedio
Moroever, I'm not sure that this kind of dominance is particularly good for the sport of pro cycling, except in America.

velocipedio, Eddy Merckx dominated the sport for more than a decade. 365 days a year. Are you saying it wasn't good for the sport, exept for belgium?

Originally posted by green lion
velocipedio, Eddy Merckx dominated the sport for more than a decade. 365 days a year. Are you saying it wasn't good for the sport, exept for belgium?
It wasn't even good for Belgium. A number of Belgian Teams folded in the Merckx era because sponsors couldn't get exposure.

All due respect to Mr. Armstrong, but I'd like to see him fight for his life this time.

If I wanted predictability, I'd watch Hawaii Five-0.

LBM, he's already fought for his life, now he's just fighting for a bike title. :) I think I know what you meant though. You'd like to see some serious competition? So would I, but I don't think it will be the shoo-in everyone expects it to be.

you should see some comments/insinuations about how lance doesn't ride a lot of the classics and is just a marketing tool. many feel as if he doesn't ride the entire schedule from feb thru oct
i don't know enough about the racing world to comment. does anyone know what other races he enters or how/why some racers don't race some races?!

he's a great champion and good for cycling.

Riphraph:

First of all, the prinsipal benefit of a pro cycling team to its sponsor is as a marketing tool. LA gets paid as much as he does NOT ONLY because he's a great athlete, but because he gets a great deal of exposure for the US Postal Service. I'm sorry to shatter your illusions, but that's a big part of the sport.

Secondly, Armstrong [i]is a one-race rider. He is specialized and programmed to win one race, the Tour. Yes, he finally did some of the Spring Classics this year, and did well in Amstel Gold again, but I don't think he is capable of winning a classic. Moreover, he doesn't want to risk his Tour appearance on Paris Roubaix.

Look at his Palmares: He has the World Championships [which was a great win], and two classics before he got sick and then just the Tour and annual preparatory stage races after he got sick.

It's strange to say "just the Tour," because that is the momma of them all, of course. And his stage race wins are impressive. There's no denying that he's a great athlete, and one of the top riders racing today, but he's not, by any stretch, the best ever. I'd say Hinault, Anquetil, Lemond, Coppi, de Vlaeminck and Merckx -- even Lemond -- are fighting that one out.

One thing that I've always found disappointing about LA is the way the Tour is the tunnel-visioned focus of his season. LAst year, he did not finish a single race after the Tour, not even the San Francisco GP. If I was cynical, I'd say he was just traking the start fee [he gets the highest start fees in the sport] and bailing after a couple of laps.

None of this is insinuation. It's just the way it is. LA is a great champion, but he's not a complete champion by any means.

He readily admits, in interviews, that he is not capable of racing, or winning, all the races on the schedule in the same way great riders of the past have done.
Besides, physically, he won't be competitive in a few years so let the guy make his money while he can, and the money is in the Tour.
I think he is good for the sport, irregardless of lost sponsorship, as velocepedio, harps on. Sponsors drop out because they are unwilling to spend the money it takes to become competitive, not because there is one indomintable rider over shadowing the rest of the field.

Actually, the debate could go on for hours and days without resolution. Besides, regular guy said he started this thread as a joke. Let's let it go at that, and in a few weeks, all questions will be answered on the Tour.

This has been interisting reading.
Several of you say Lance has been good/bad for pro cycling.
I think it depends on which facets you care about, is it:
how many people attend the race?
How many people watch it on TV?
How much sponsor money is being thrown arround?
How much money a pro cyclist can make?
How many teams/races are there?
How much cheating/doping there is?
How much attention cycling recieves from the regular sports press?
Or just maybe how many people it inspires to go ride their own bikes.
I give Lance a 50/50 chance, he could have bad luck, or another first rate rider could rise to the ocasion and ride like they might never again.
I just hope who ever wins behaves in a way thats good for all cycling....
kev
PS: I wish the race orginaizers would decide wheathr the TdF is a World race or a French national race, maybe cycling needs a PanEuro Tour?

A sportsman who dominates his field is always garanteed to give real sport. Casius Clay, Michael Jordan, Eddy Merckx etc. are good examples of that. They didn't degrade their sport, they took it a step higher instead!
Eddy Merckx even took his sport even several steps higher! For many he became a hero.
Merckx was garantee for epic battles. Every year somebody stood up to challenge him. Gimondi,Ocaña, Thevenet are only a few of them. That was cycling at its best. Heroic battles. You could turn on the TV anytime and you would see Merckx in front of the race, pulling, pushing and mashing those pedals. Even when he was sure of the victorie, he still would'nt slow down, because he wanted the gap to be as big as possible and even some bigger. The others had their fair chair of the publicity too, they were also heros because they dared to challenge him.
Armstrong was capable of becoming a greater rider than he is now. In the early stages of his carreer though, he couldn't handle succes as good as he does now. Each victorie deserved a celebration, and he couldn't bring up the nessecary discipline in winter to be ready early the next season. The boy had talend though, and he knew it. The way he became world champion was a heroic one too. The reason he only focusses onthe tour now is because he's not hungry enough. But I admire his style, and I his power when he realy wants to win. Then I think back on the glory days of cycling and I see a glimpse of the epic battles of gone days. Like last year, when he looked in Ulrich's face, and just left. Armstrong is good for the sport. Thats wat makes the sport so great.

And the sponsor? His sole objective is to get publicity. That's it, nothing more nothing less. The ones who will challenge Armstrong this year will get their part of it and if they're good enough, a little more. Watch Beloki.

I'm beginning to supect this poll is biased, but I'm willing to look the other way this time. :p

GO LANCE !!!

I pretty much expect Armstrong to win, so I'll just root for stage winners. I do think LA has been good for exposure for cucling in the US- for example, tv coverage has picked up in recent years because americans are developing more of an interest in it. The downside of that might be that lesser or local races or women's races may be passed by or ignored because of the attitude 'who cares if lance armstsrong isn't in it?' I notice that OLN covers most of the major races, but hardly any of them are women's! What about the women's Tour de France or women's Giro or world cup races? I think there are both good and bad effects of LA's domination. It's also made the tour kind of predictable, except for who the stage winners are. That's why I really have come to love the Giro and the Vuelta and the spring classics and the tour de suisse. You really never know who's going to win- did anyone thing Servais Knaven would win Roubaix?

I agree with Little Big Man, I'd like to see LA have a bit more of a challenge this year, even without Ullrich. ANd there never really is a given- anyone can crash, get a flat, bronchitis, etc, and everyone knows it. If Armstrong thought it was given he'd win every year, he'd just sit home and eat pizza all winter.

I'd like to see Oscar Sevilla cause an upset and for Millar (hurrah for the Brit) to win the prologue and a couple of stages.