Professional Cycling For the Fans - Why doesn't Armstrong ride the spring classics

Armstrong is obviously the greatest TdF rider, but he's a "one trick pony". I'd respect him more if he rode the spring classics. Hincapie gets my vote as the US cyclist i respect the most because he's in it for the love of it more than anything else. Any insights into why Armstrong avoids them

http://weblogs.cltv.com/news/local/chicago/Money%20stacks.jpg

He rode Milan-Sanremo this year. I think he was about 125th.

He was second in Liège-Bastogne-Liège back in the day, but that may be a scheduling conflict with him wanting to ride the Giro.

Granted it isn't spring, but Lombardy is still a monument and he could be competitive. I'd like him to race that one.

Because he is a one trick pony. His whole carrer has been built around one race and that is it. And that is why he will never be one of the truely great riders

In the last 10 years, has he ever raced after July?

If you read his book "It's not about the Bike", you get the impression that Lance did not like the lifestyle of living on the road in Europe which is essentially what you do when you have a heavy spring classic race schedule. Not only did he concentrate his effort on the TDF after his cancer because he found he was a good climber, but he could train more at home and spend less time on the road going from race to race with this kind of a training schedule.

There is far more to the whole equation than most people realize. He found his nitch and what he could do well and concentrated on that. Why so many bike racers criticize this I don't know. Of course, money would have been a strong incentive for winning the TDF and I'm sure it factored in to his decision process. It also is obvious from the book that Lance does not like to race in bad weather very much. Though he trains in it without too much complaint.

Armstrong is obviously the greatest TdF rider, but he's a "one trick pony". I'd respect him more if he rode the spring classics.

Your respect is not what he's after. Tour is what his sponsors wanted, Tour is where the US publicity was, Tour is was got him famous, Tour is money.

I can't remember if it was three or four years ago but I was at the top of a burg in Belgium when the Tour of Flanders went by and Lance was sharing the lead with someone. He was riding in support of Hincapie but not competitive.

Lance makes his money on (mostly US) advertising and those advertising dollars are based upon wins at TdF which is the only race the US public has heard of. Other riders get their money (mostly) from teams and the teams determine their schedules.

Be assured that this one race focus more than anything else (including country of origin) is why European cycling fans don't take to Lance like the US public does.

Its also why its impossible to rank Lance against current or past pro riders. For instance you can compare a long dead racer like Coppi to Hincapie because they ride (or rode) many of the same races in a season. But what other racer focused only on the TdF?

I can't remember if it was three or four years ago but I was at the top of a burg in Belgium when the Tour of Flanders went by and Lance was sharing the lead with someone. He was riding in support of Hincapie but not competitive.

Lance makes his money on (mostly US) advertising and those advertising dollars are based upon wins at TdF which is the only race the US public has heard of. Other riders get their money (mostly) from teams and the teams determine their schedules.
Be assured that this one race focus more than anything else (including country of origin) is why European cycling fans don't take to Lance like the US public does.

Its also why its impossible to rank Lance against current or past pro riders. For instance you can compare a long dead racer like Coppi to Hincapie because they ride (or rode) many of the same races in a season. But what other racer focused only on the TdF?


First, Lance gets or got most of his money from private contracts with sponsors that he has had for a very long time. For example, when he had cancer and Cofidis let him go, much of his medical costs were paid by Nike and Oakley.

Second, and this is something lost on many current bike fans that have only come to the sport, say in the last 10 years, or less...and that's the fact that older riders (like Merckx) were not specialists. And they were racing against other guys that were not specialists. Now, riders are specialists. For example you don't see riders like Basso (before his suspension), Contador, Sastre, before that Indurain and Pantani (just to pick a few names off the top of my head) now or in the past being big on classics. The last Grand Tour GC rider I can recall doing a lot of classics was Hinault, and he stopped that when he was in the midst of winning Tours. He won L-B-L twice, Paris Roubaix once as I recall and the Amstel Gold, both in 1981.

The last GT rider I can recall winning a classic was DiLuca winning L-B-L right before his Giro win.

Did European cycling fans hate Cippolini because he pulled out of the Tour as soon as the road turned upward? McEwen because he leaves the Giro when the sprint stages end to prep for the Tour?

Don't forget that Lance used to ride Amstel.

This is like saying that pitchers today are unloved because they rarely throw complete games. Now we have reliever specialists.

Anyway, this has been going on for a while. Lance did not invent specialities. What he and Bruyneel did was develop the preparation for Grand Tour racing.

...(including country of origin) is why European cycling fans don't take to Lance like the US public does.

Honestly, if you're not American, there aren't many reasons to actually like Lance.

That said, though, nowadays, to be competitive in a given race, you pretty much have to prepare is a dedicated fashion for that particular race. Tom Boonen prepares specially for the Roubaix and Flanders, at least half of the Italian pros prep specially for the Giro.

What Lance does differently is not ride races he doesn't care about at all because he prefers to stay home in Texas and train rather than train on the road or be a good team-mate and help those who actually want to win the smaller races.

I understand the concept of "specialists" like climbers and sprinters and such. Lance seems to have taken this to a new level as (post cancer and previous to this year) he specialized in one grand tour not grand tours in general (like say Contador does). I would say he became a specialized specialist which I think is quite unique.

And there are some people who actually dislike the fact that pitchers don't pitch whole games or don't get up to bat at all.

Maybe this is splitting hairs but I think you can appreciate an athletes' athletic performance but still dislike a system that allows for such acute specialization that it becomes impossible to compare athletes from the past to current athletes.

Honestly, if you're not American, there aren't many reasons to actually like Lance.

That said, though, nowadays, to be competitive in a given race, you pretty much have to prepare is a dedicated fashion for that particular race. Tom Boonen prepares specially for the Roubaix and Flanders, at least half of the Italian pros prep specially for the Giro.

What Lance does differently is not ride races he doesn't care about at all because he prefers to stay home in Texas and train rather than train on the road or be a good team-mate and help those who actually want to win the smaller races.

I don't see half the TdF GC contenders in the spring classics; he's not the only one skips out on races. I'm not even sure if I were a team manager I'd want my GC contenders in those races. I certainly wouldn't put Contador out to support someone in Paris-Roubaix.

I understand the concept of "specialists" like climbers and sprinters and such. Lance seems to have taken this to a new level as (post cancer and previous to this year) he specialized in one grand tour not grand tours in general (like say Contador does). I would say he became a specialized specialist which I think is quite unique.

And there are some people who actually dislike the fact that pitchers don't pitch whole games or don't get up to bat at all.

Maybe this is splitting hairs but I think you can appreciate an athletes' athletic performance but still dislike a system that allows for such acute specialization that it becomes impossible to compare athletes from the past to current athletes.


Well, pre "Pro Tour" teams were not forced to ride all the Grand Tours and all the classics, etc. Most of Lance's career that many would be familiar with was pre Pro Tour.

USPS did not ride the Giro. They allowed for another Spanish rider to win the Vuelta, Heras. Nothing wrong with that. Why not give someone else a chance?

Your last paragraph is well said, but you must consider that they really don't care if you can compare riders, or any athletes for that matter.

In fact we were talking baseball and I was telling my nephews that I saw something they'd never see again...a 10 inning complete game win for a starting pitcher in the World Series (1969), which in this case was Tom Seaver.

Honestly, if you're not American, there aren't many reasons to actually like Lance.

That said, though, nowadays, to be competitive in a given race, you pretty much have to prepare is a dedicated fashion for that particular race. Tom Boonen prepares specially for the Roubaix and Flanders, at least half of the Italian pros prep specially for the Giro.

What Lance does differently is not ride races he doesn't care about at all because he prefers to stay home in Texas and train rather than train on the road or be a good team-mate and help those who actually want to win the smaller races.

USPS, and I am assuming you are referring to them as the Disco years were so short they don't really merit discussion here, was set up as a Grand Tour team. Dirk Demol actually was the guy that "discovered" Boonen and you may recall him trying to help Hincapie (at Paris Roubaix) when George crashed into a ditch. As I recall, Boonen finished on the podium (then told USPS he wanted out of his contract and ended upw ith Quick Step). On the other hand, Quick Step sucks in Grand Tours. Why? They are built around Boonen who is a classics rider who tries to survive the TdF.

The point is that team was so strong that they did not need Lance all the time. He was there for one reason. And the other riders got paid well to support that.

This really is not that hard to understand.

Well, pre "Pro Tour" teams were not forced to ride all the Grand Tours and all the classics, etc. Most of Lance's career that many would be familiar with was pre Pro Tour.

USPS did not ride the Giro. They allowed for another Spanish rider to win the Vuelta, Heras. Nothing wrong with that. Why not give someone else a chance?

Your last paragraph is well said, but you must consider that they really don't care if you can compare riders, or any athletes for that matter.

In fact we were talking baseball and I was telling my nephews that I saw something they'd never see again...a 10 inning complete game win for a starting pitcher in the World Series (1969), which in this case was Tom Seaver.

Jack Morris, Minnesota Twins. 1991 World Series, pitched 10 shutout innings beating the Atlanta Braves in Game 7. Arguably one of the greatest pitching performances ever.

Jack Morris, Minnesota Twins. 1991 World Series, pitched 10 shutout innings beating the Atlanta Braves in Game 7. Arguably one of the greatest pitching performances ever.

Yeah, but you can't compare the Orioles of that era, to the Braves...10 innings against the '69 Orioles does not compare to 10 innings against the Braves.

;)

I'd forgotten about that.

But my point was that, in today's game of pitch counts you'd probably never see that again. Note, "I saw something they'd never see again..." is a forward looking statement. I did not say, "It's never happened since."

Armstrong is obviously the greatest TdF rider, but he's a "one trick pony". I'd respect him more if he rode the spring classics. Hincapie gets my vote as the US cyclist i respect the most because he's in it for the love of it more than anything else. Any insights into why Armstrong avoids them

Because they don't (didn't) fit his training schedule. So long as Le Tour was the single goal, a GT contender (vs. rider) should not be in the shape required to do well in the Classics at the time of the Classics. Big George, although a wonderful rider, has never been considered a GT contender.

Now, whether Le Tour should have been the single goal is a different debate. And before respondents start talking about how a truly great rider should be able to do both, let everyone remember just how impossible Armstrong's feat of making it look easy really is. If it hadn't been the single goal, he wouldn't have had that success. So what will you argue, that Classic wins are just as good as GT wins? :lol:

Because he is a one trick pony. His whole carrer has been built around one race and that is it. And that is why he will never be one of the truely great riders

The Second half of his career was built around one race.

You're dismissing winning: World Champion Road Race,
Classico San Sebastion,
US Pro Championship,
Flech Wallone,
Tour Of Switzerland,
Tour Dupont,
Dauphine Libere (twice),
Gran Prix de Nations,
Triple Crown (still the largest cash prize won in cycling), , amongst others,

and second place in Classico San Sebastian,
and Liege Bastogne Liege.

And you don't win 7 consecutive TDFs without going down as one of the truly great cyclists.

Watching the spring classics for the first time this year, I would think that injury would be a major concern. Why risk a TDF victory getting injured riding on a crappy road in a classic?

Because riders are specializing no one will ever ever beat Eddy Merckx. He always will be 'the cannibal'.



5× Tours de France, 34 stage wins
5× Giro d'Italia, 24 stage wins
1× Vuelta a España, 6 stage wins


[edit (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Eddy_Merckx&action=edit&section=29)] Other stage races



1× Tour de Suisse (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tour_de_Suisse)
2× Tour of Belgium (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tour_of_Belgium)
3× Paris-Nice (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris-Nice)
1× Tour de Romandie (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tour_de_Romandie)
1× Dauphiné Libéré (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dauphin%C3%A9_Lib%C3%A9r%C3%A9)
1× Midi Libre (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Midi_Libre)
4× Tour of Sardinia


[edit (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Eddy_Merckx&action=edit&section=30)] Classic cycle races (28)



7× Milan-San Remo (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milan-San_Remo)
2× Ronde van Vlaanderen (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ronde_van_Vlaanderen)
3× Paris-Roubaix (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris-Roubaix)
5× Liège-Bastogne-Liège (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Li%C3%A8ge-Bastogne-Li%C3%A8ge)
2× Giro di Lombardia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giro_di_Lombardia)
2× Amstel Gold Race (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amstel_Gold_Race)
3× La Flèche Wallonne (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/La_Fl%C3%A8che_Wallonne)
1× Paris-Brussels (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris-Brussels)
3× Ghent-Wevelgem (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ghent-Wevelgem)

Watching the spring classics for the first time this year, I would think that injury would be a major concern. Why risk a TDF victory getting injured riding on a crappy road in a classic?

Because winning Paris-Roubaix is almost as big a win?

Hinault is reputed to have hated classics becasue it was a bit of a crap shoot. He still wanted and got his P-R win. (Over a pretty fair cyclist in second).

Because winning Paris-Roubaix is almost as big a win?


Its not even close to the TDF in terms of global recognition. Even non-cyclists are familiar with the tour de france.

http://www.google.com/trends?q=Paris+Roubaix%2C+tour+de+france+

Why risk injury for a race that not many people care about?

Before 1996, Armstrong was mostly a Classics racer. After cancer, he found a new aptitude and focused on the Tour, and stage races that prepared him for the Tour.

Back in Mercxx's day, to make a living as a bike racer you had to toe the line in every race you could make it to. The pay scale is a little better now, and riders can often afford to specialize in certain races.

Why risk injury for a race that not many people care about?

Not that many people in America care about these races. In Europe these are huge events.

There is much much more to bike racing than the TDF. Outside of the U.S. that is.

Before 1996, Armstrong was mostly a Classics racer. After cancer, he found a new aptitude and focused on the Tour, and stage races that prepared him for the Tour.

Back in Mercxx's day, to make a living as a bike racer you had to toe the line in every race you could make it to. The pay scale is a little better now, and riders can often afford to specialize in certain races.

Pretty much true, but not entirely. Often riders made their money riding little races. The money was often appearance fees, not prize money, at least for the good riders.

A bit of irony. At least some sources report that Merckx was at least in part riding in the track race where he was seriously injured in '69 because if Merckx was riding the purses were about double and that extra meant a lot to other riders.

Not that many people in America care about these races. In Europe these are huge events.

There is much much more to bike racing than the TDF. Outside of the U.S. that is.

Did you bother clicking on the trends link? The classics might be significant events in certain sections of Europe, but they are DWARFED by the tour de france, even in the areas where the classics are significant. Most people in the WORLD only know of one cycling event.

http://www.google.com/trends?q=milan+sanremo%2C+Ronde+van+Vlaanderen%2C+paris-roubaix%2C+tour+de+france%2Cgiro+italia&ctab=0&geo=all&date=all&sort=3

Did you bother clicking on the trends link? The classics might be significant events in certain sections of Europe, but they are DWARFED by the tour de france, even in the areas where the classics are significant. Most people in the WORLD only know of one cycling event.

http://www.google.com/trends?q=milan+sanremo%2C+Ronde+van+Vlaanderen%2C+paris-roubaix%2C+tour+de+france%2Cgiro+italia&ctab=0&geo=all&date=all&sort=3

Google rankings is your "proof"? <facepalm>

I know about 60 million Italians who go ape-**** over the Giro and don't give a rat's ass about the TdF. Yes the TdF is the most prestigious, but it is only one race and a race for those competitive in the monuments can't win (except maybe LBL or Lombardy). Why race something other than Daytona, Indy, Monaco, or the Derby? Because if you really want to be considered great compared to past greats, you can't be a one-trick pony.

As for most people in the WORLD knowing the TdF, I guess ignorance is bliss.

Google rankings is your "proof"? <facepalm>


Its a safe bet that google searches + media volume is a decent way to measure the popularity of a given topic. It certainly beats anecdotal evidence.

Its a safe bet that google searches + media volume is a decent way to measure the popularity of a given topic. It certainly beats anecdotal evidence.

Maybe. It in no way though measures the prestige that a race may have for riders and their fans.

McDonalds probably gets a lot of google hits too.

Maybe. It in no way though measures the prestige that a race may have for riders and their fans.

McDonalds probably gets a lot of google hits too.

Going back to the original topic, this was not a question of prestige it was a question of popularity. The tour de france is the most popular bike race in the world. Bike teams are funded by sponsors. Sponsors want visibility. It wouldn't make a lot of sense for a TDF contender these days to risk injury in a classic, and lose major visibility in an event like the TDF.

McDonalds, may not be very prestigious, but its certainly popular. However; the tour de france is more googled than mcdonalds!

http://www.google.com/trends?q=mcdonalds%2C+burger+king%2C+wendys%2C+tour+de+france&ctab=0&geo=all&date=all&sort=0

Going back to the original topic, this was not a question of prestige it was a question of popularity. The tour de france is the most popular bike race in the world. Bike teams are funded by sponsors. Sponsors want visibility. It wouldn't make a lot of sense for a TDF contender these days to risk injury in a classic, and lose major visibility in an event like the TDF.

McDonalds, may not be very prestigious, but its certainly popular. However; the tour de france is more googled than mcdonalds!

http://www.google.com/trends?q=mcdonalds%2C+burger+king%2C+wendys%2C+tour+de+france&ctab=0&geo=all&date=all&sort=0


You're too hung up on google. Not all teams have the TDF as the focus of their racing year. Quick Step is a good example of a team that focuses on spring races. Not all riders are TDF contenders. Some of the best riders in the world (Boonen, Divolder, Pozzato, etc) are not TDF contenders. Why the hey should they sit out some of the most important races of the year? And you'll notice that the big Grand Tour teams like Astana have a pretty small presence in Belgium in the Spring.

From a sponsor viewpoint, a win at Flanders is HUGE.

So yes, I agree with you on one point: The TDF is the most well know bike race in the world.

My opinion (last time I said that I still got yelled at ...)

On the Armstrong as a one-trick pony ... the poster who referenced America baseball got it right. Sports have matured due to technology (and maybe genetics). Babe Ruth used to pitch and hit - did both well. EM was like that and could ride any race.

But over time the sports get more sophisticated. Frankly I believe it is because of the media/marketing effect ... more money means people will spend more money/energy/sweat to "get in the game". Specialists emerge - the "renaissance player" becomes a thing of the past.

That is what makes a kid like LeBron James amazing - he plays both ways well. He is a "throw back" to a time when one person made a huge impact (said by someone not living in the US and who occasionally follows US basketball).

Likewise - Armstrong was a specialist. We probably will never see someone like Merckx - ashame. But it isn't that Armstrong wasn't "as good" ... the sport has changed.


On the issue of sponsorship (I'll leave the google, McDonalds issue to someone else). I recall a business article in a German paper that noted that Quick Step sells more products into Netherlands and Beligum than France, Spain, other European countries combined (can't cite a source ... sorry).

Only makes sense that they'd focus on races where close to 100% of their spend is "consumed" by eyes with wallets that they value ... Why not dominate a 7 hour race (with over 10 hours of race day TV coverage in these markets!) if it is in your backyard ...

Cycling is business and sponsors own the sport - teams are built to succeed only where their sponsors want them to succeed.

Armstrong won't race often because then he is more exposed to drug controls, plain and simple. Now with increased OOC's watch what happens. His true place will be revealed like at MSR and Palomar.

My opinion (last time I said that I still got yelled at ...)

On the Armstrong as a one-trick pony ... the poster who referenced America baseball got it right. Sports have matured due to technology (and maybe genetics). Babe Ruth used to pitch and hit - did both well. EM was like that and could ride any race.

But over time the sports get more sophisticated. Frankly I believe it is because of the media/marketing effect ... more money means people will spend more money/energy/sweat to "get in the game". Specialists emerge - the "renaissance player" becomes a thing of the past.

That is what makes a kid like LeBron James amazing - he plays both ways well. He is a "throw back" to a time when one person made a huge impact (said by someone not living in the US and who occasionally follows US basketball).

Likewise - Armstrong was a specialist. We probably will never see someone like Merckx - ashame. But it isn't that Armstrong wasn't "as good" ... the sport has changed.


On the issue of sponsorship (I'll leave the google, McDonalds issue to someone else). I recall a business article in a German paper that noted that Quick Step sells more products into Netherlands and Beligum than France, Spain, other European countries combined (can't cite a source ... sorry).

Only makes sense that they'd focus on races where close to 100% of their spend is "consumed" by eyes with wallets that they value ... Why not dominate a 7 hour race (with over 10 hours of race day TV coverage in these markets!) if it is in your backyard ...

Cycling is business and sponsors own the sport - teams are built to succeed only where their sponsors want them to succeed.

Seems a good post to me. Only thing I take a bit of an issue with is really more with what some others do taking one of your points farther, making it seem that the sport changing is the only (or at least main) reason that we will never see another Eddy Merckx. Oh it does add to the unlikeness, but it was almost impossible to start with.

A couple of years ago I ran some figures based on what I call the Big 9 races. The 3 grand tours, the 5 monuments and the worlds championship. It turns out more often than not at least one rider wins 2 in a year. (one year 3 different riders had 2 wins). But 3 or more is fairly rare. Been a while I think it has now been done 14 or 15 times. (Boonen being the last and one of only 3 riders to do it out of the 6 non tours). Getting 4 or more times has only been done by 2 riders. Coppi won 4 of these 9 races once.

Oh of that 14 times Merckx has 7, 7 consecutive years starting in 1969 and including 4 wins in a year twice and 5 wins in a year twice.

Lance really compares pretty well to all but a handfull of cyclists. Merckx, Coppi and Hinault stand far above him. I'd put a few others ahead. Personally I put Lance pretty even with Anquetil (Not just for results, it seems both concentrated on the TDF and how it could benefit them, and they both rode the TDF in hte same tactical manner). Personally I put Felice Gimondi ahead of Lance. But they are at far different ends of the spectrum. Gimondi has great bredth, lance has the Most TDF wins, and very little bredth.

Oh and going back to the OP. A pretty good case can be made that Eddy has a better TDF record than Lance. Lance has more wins, but Eddy has more stages, far better average finish and 2 complete sets of major jerseys from the TDF. (Care to guess the only other rider with a complete set?)

Armstrong won't race often because then he is more exposed to drug controls, plain and simple. Now with increased OOC's watch what happens. His true place will be revealed like at MSR and Palomar.

Speaking of one trick ponies, we get it....you're convinced Lance is a doper. Good for you. Now get on with it.

BTW, when did Lance start doping? Was he pumped full of crap when he was destroying the triathlon field when he was 16? It's not like he didn't start from a pretty high level.

I agree that Lance has probably doped, but Jesus, they _all_ did. At least all of the contenders. To think he was any different than his contemporaries is the hard part. Once you look at things that way, you see he was playing the game by the rules of the day. Was Anquetil really any different? If your big beef with the guy is that he's a hypocrite, then you're right. One way or another, Jack, we're all hypocrites.

Speaking of one trick ponies, we get it....you're convinced Lance is a doper. Good for you. Now get on with it.

BTW, when did Lance start doping? Was he pumped full of crap when he was destroying the triathlon field when he was 16? It's not like he didn't start from a pretty high level.

I agree that Lance has probably doped, but Jesus, they _all_ did. At least all of the contenders. To think he was any different than his contemporaries is the hard part. Once you look at things that way, you see he was playing the game by the rules of the day. Was Anquetil really any different? If your big beef with the guy is that he's a hypocrite, then you're right. One way or another, Jack, we're all hypocrites.

Hi Jack,

Triathlons were the refuge of guys who couldn't make it running or cycling back in the '80's. Not all that competitive.

I don't like the way Pharmstrong tried to destroy LeMond, and btw, he can't carry LeMond's jockstrap.

I don't like the way Pharmstrong tried to destroy LeMond, and btw, he can't carry LeMond's jockstrap.

Maybe he compares with Lemond in abilities, maybe not. It's impossible to say and I'm certainly not defending the guy. Honestly, I don't care. History is what it is, and you or anyone else has F-all chance of changing it.

Lemond doesn't need anyone to destroy him, he does just fine by himself.

Maybe he compares with Lemond in abilities, maybe not. It's impossible to say and I'm certainly not defending the guy. Honestly, I don't care. History is what it is, and you or anyone else has F-all chance of changing it.

Lemond doesn't need anyone to destroy him, he does just fine by himself.

More generalizations and nonsense from you.

LeMonds VO2 max was way higher, about 12% than Pharmstrong's.

LeMond dominated from the beginning of his career. He didn't have to use people like Ferrari to give him high octane fuel.

Floyd Landis certainly did his best to extort LeMond with revelations of child molestation, no?

Explain to me just how LeMond is destroying himself? By telling the truth, or do you subscribe to the kool aid of the Pharmstrong/Trek propaganda.

You need to wake up Fat Boy. Are wheels the only thing you're sucking?

Reid, you're very, very clever. Your mom must be proud.

Lemond makes himself look like an ass every time he can find a camera. No one has to tell me anything about Lance or Trek to know this. Hell, I have one of his (Lemond's) bikes. It's not like I have any axe to grind with the guy. He just comes across poorly even when he raises legitimate issues.

Lemond's VO2 was way higher. Bully for him. Newsflash, the strongest guy doesn't always win the race. If you know anything about motorracing, then Lance is much like Michael Schumacher. Both were very good at assembling an entire team around themselves and to hell with everyone else. For instance, Lemond had to contend with Hinault on the same team. Schumacher never had that type of competition for team control, and this is the first year that Lance has. Schumacher and Armstrong won their races by what they did in the off-season and by understanding the politics of the team as much as by what happened in the actual races.

Now, I know you're going to come back with blah, blah, blah. Give it a rest, dude. We all pretty much know there is validity in what you say, but you're coming across as a D-bag saying it the way you do. Is that you, Greg?

Hi Jack,

Triathlons were the refuge of guys who couldn't make it running or cycling back in the '80's. Not all that competitive.

I don't like the way Pharmstrong tried to destroy LeMond, and btw, he can't carry LeMond's jockstrap.

Like John Howard? And triathlons were around in the early to mid-70's with the Ironamn in Hawaii starting on, as I recall, 1978. And it began as a competition between swimmers and runners. Further, since I spend a lot of time with these people, few, if any come from the cycling world. And it's the least understood part of tri, by the runners and swimmers.

BTW...cyclists don't wear jockstraps. Try to keep up.

Like John Howard? And triathlons were around in the early to mid-70's with the Ironamn in Hawaii starting on, as I recall, 1978. And it began as a competition between swimmers and runners. Further, since I spend a lot of time with these people, few, if any come from the cycling world. And it's the least understood part of tri, by the runners and swimmers.

BTW...cyclists don't wear jockstraps. Try to keep up.

LeMond was hanging with your beloved John Howard when he was 15 and on junior gears.

Whatever, Armstrong hasn't been clean, and at the time Armstrong was competing in triathlons, it was more difficult to be an elite in one of the individual disciplines than it was to be elite in triathlon.

The jockstrap thing was a famous quote by Larry Holmes, and no Lance couldn't carry LeMond's jockstrap. Boxers wear cups so it wasn't meant to be taken literally, but you Armstrong defenders will use any tactic to keep worshipping.

The question is whether Armstrong is who he says he is and the answer is very clear.

Whatever, Armstrong hasn't been clean, and at the time Armstrong was competing in triathlons, it was more difficult to be an elite in one of the individual disciplines than it was to be elite in triathlon.

So we can say the same thing about decathlon. It's more difficult to be elite at shot put, sprinting, pole vault, hurdles, long jump, and running than it is to compete against guys that do all ten events.

Good grief...

Any level of credibilty you may have had in your 60 or so posts in two years is going away very quickly.

BTW, I understand this culture having lived in it.

Read "A Dog in a Hat".

You're comparing decathlon and triathlon. LMAO. First off, triathlon is all endurance stuff. Decathlon runs the gamut, strength, speed, endurance, throwing, gymnastic ability, gimme a break.

60 posts in 2 years? Who cares? The question here why Pharmstrong hasn't raced the classics and it's clear that would expose him to more drug controls. Who else has been so off form in the early season and then comes up like 5 levels for the tour? You can only do this with blood manipulation.

Reid, you're very, very clever. Your mom must be proud.

Yup!


Lemond makes himself look like an ass every time he can find a camera..

You mean like at Interbike where Catlin kept the mic from Pharmstrong to attempt to answer LeMond's question about wattage testing? Where is Catlin now?


No one has to tell me anything about Lance or Trek to know this. Hell, I have one of his (Lemond's) bikes. It's not like I have any axe to grind with the guy. He just comes across poorly even when he raises legitimate issues.

But you'll overlook LA on the pages of the Enquirer, that looks real good.


Lemond's VO2 was way higher. Bully for him. Newsflash, the strongest guy doesn't always win the race..

Really? Floyd's mantra was the strongest guy always wins the Tour. Jeez, isn't that why the TT's are the races of truth?


If you know anything about motorracing, then Lance is much like Michael Schumacher..

F1 didn't mean anything at the time of Schumacher. Ferrari was completely overwheming.

LeMond was like Senna or more to the point, Valentino Rossi. LeMond could win on a great team or a terrible one, just like Rossi proved when he went from Honda to Yamaha and took only Burgess with him.


Both were very good at assembling an entire team around themselves and to hell with everyone else. For instance, Lemond had to contend with Hinault on the same team. Schumacher never had that type of competition for team control, and this is the first year that Lance has. Schumacher and Armstrong won their races by what they did in the off-season and by understanding the politics of the team as much as by what happened in the actual races...

Armstrong certainly did win because of what he did in the off season with Ferrari in the mountain camps he disappeared to. Also the people who couldn't afford Ferrari or Cecchini were effectively using restrictor plates.


Now, I know you're going to come back with blah, blah, blah. Give it a rest, dude. We all pretty much know there is validity in what you say, but you're coming across as a D-bag saying it the way you do. Is that you, Greg?

Validity? You should know that what Pharmstrong did was game changing and he was using a different set of rules.

Thanks Judge, I'll keep on in my own way.

Seems a good post to me. Only thing I take a bit of an issue with is really more with what some others do taking one of your points farther, making it seem that the sport changing is the only (or at least main) reason that we will never see another Eddy Merckx. Oh it does add to the unlikeness, but it was almost impossible to start with.

A couple of years ago I ran some figures based on what I call the Big 9 races. The 3 grand tours, the 5 monuments and the worlds championship. It turns out more often than not at least one rider wins 2 in a year. (one year 3 different riders had 2 wins). But 3 or more is fairly rare. Been a while I think it has now been done 14 or 15 times. (Boonen being the last and one of only 3 riders to do it out of the 6 non tours). Getting 4 or more times has only been done by 2 riders. Coppi won 4 of these 9 races once.

Oh of that 14 times Merckx has 7, 7 consecutive years starting in 1969 and including 4 wins in a year twice and 5 wins in a year twice.

Lance really compares pretty well to all but a handfull of cyclists. Merckx, Coppi and Hinault stand far above him. I'd put a few others ahead. Personally I put Lance pretty even with Anquetil (Not just for results, it seems both concentrated on the TDF and how it could benefit them, and they both rode the TDF in hte same tactical manner). Personally I put Felice Gimondi ahead of Lance. But they are at far different ends of the spectrum. Gimondi has great bredth, lance has the Most TDF wins, and very little bredth.

Oh and going back to the OP. A pretty good case can be made that Eddy has a better TDF record than Lance. Lance has more wins, but Eddy has more stages, far better average finish and 2 complete sets of major jerseys from the TDF. (Care to guess the only other rider with a complete set?)

Hinault?

You're comparing decathlon and triathlon. LMAO. First off, triathlon is all endurance stuff. Decathlon runs the gamut, strength, speed, endurance, throwing, gymnastic ability, gimme a break.

60 posts in 2 years? Who cares? The question here why Pharmstrong hasn't raced the classics and it's clear that would expose him to more drug controls. Who else has been so off form in the early season and then comes up like 5 levels for the tour? You can only do this with blood manipulation.

Are you like 12 years old?

All racers are tested in and out of competition. He was being tested out of competition during the March classics. A test is a test. It's not like they didn't know where he was. I knew where he was.

As a result, you really don't know what you are talking about, so we won't feed the troll any longer.

BTW...he did race in events like Amstel Gold and the Dauphine, as do many GT riders. In fact, had you any clue about this sport, you'd take note of the fact that the start lists for the Ardennes classics will include riders that are oriented towards GT racing. Due to the climbing. I know. I lived there.

Are you like 12 years old?


Exactly, all the guy does is rant and rave about 'Pharmstrong'. C'mon, really? You have to run 4 theads with the same posts?

Its a safe bet that google searches + media volume is a decent way to measure the popularity of a given topic. It certainly beats anecdotal evidence.

The right data certainly does. Please provide TV and Internet ratings, broken down by country, for the 3 grand tours and the 5 monuments. Anything less is pure speculation.

Edit: I forgot to include fan attendance.

Are you like 12 years old?

All racers are tested in and out of competition. He was being tested out of competition during the March classics. A test is a test. It's not like they didn't know where he was. I knew where he was.

As a result, you really don't know what you are talking about, so we won't feed the troll any longer.

BTW...he did race in events like Amstel Gold and the Dauphine, as do many GT riders. In fact, had you any clue about this sport, you'd take note of the fact that the start lists for the Ardennes classics will include riders that are oriented towards GT racing. Due to the climbing. I know. I lived there.

Here's Pharmstrong's out of competition doping controls.

The "Most tested Athlete" is nothing more than media invention by Lance. It appears there are plenty of suckers willing to believe it.

It is pretty easy to find the number of OOC tests he has , just go here
http://www.usantidoping.org/what/stats/history.aspx
Plug in your heroes name and you get this

Cycling - 2001
Lance Armstrong - 2
Cycling - 2002
Lance Armstrong - 1
Cycling - 2003
Lance Armstrong - 1
Cycling - 2004
Lance Armstrong - 5
Cycling - 2005
Lance Armstrong - 3

Oh, do you see the increase in 2004 and 2005. That's when WADA took over the OOC's. By that time Pharmstrong was injecting packed RBC's and using volume expanders to keep the HCT low.

No, I don't know what I'm talking about. You do. Pharmstrong is clean, eh?

Positive for corticoids in '99. Backdated prescription. Yikes.

It's sad how you old guys talk about cycling as if it matters. It matters who has the best doctor and who responds best to epo and blood doping. It's sad. The sport was cleaning up and the cancer has returned. Thanks Paul Kimmage for standing up to it.