gsteinb

too complicated to call.

he had a change of physique after cancer. was that solely due to cancer? dunno.

He got better at disciplines he didn't show an aptitude for. He went from not being able to climb or TT to being amongst the best in the world at both. Was it due to his new physique or a much improved drug regimen? dunno. By all accounts his doping ended up being the best in the business. That surely has to be part of it.

Most people who go through what he went to could hope for at best lives that physically are tolerable. He not only raced but improved miraculously from where he went out.

Gordy748

When you look at LA's approach, I think there are a lot of factors that contributed to his victory margins. While there is no doubt he took PEDs, there is also no doubt he was meticulous in his preparation. He had a very well prepared team (while they were also on PEDs they had trained extensively together and knew what their tactics would be), many if not all of the major stages had been navigated by car if not by bike, and finally his entire season was built around success at the tour. Usually nobody else was as prepared.

Sky did the same thing last year with similar success. And the previous year, Leopard Trek failed to do the same thing with both Schlecks and paid the price for it.

I think a lot of the gaps he won by was the result of other factors. The years he won by not a lot were the ones when his team didn't keep as tight a grip on the Tour as others. And note that one of the years he won by a lot was the year Beloki crashed in front of LA (he was all very fortunate to have been injury free and escaped incidents through all 7 years). Though that shouldn't be taken as excusing or diminishing his PED taking.

Cat4Lifer

Maybe. I just started reading USADA's report on Lance and they mention that, but I have yet to read what constitutes "lots of time." I do remember Lance saying something like: if he were doping, the last place he'd be training and living would be in France.

bigfred 

True enough.

bigfred 

I suspect that the complications go far deeper than any of us realize. With so many principals moving from team to team, sponsors changing, and moving into administration from previous careers on teams or even riding before that, I am sure there are lots of links between all sort of strange bedfellows.

This is 'professional' sport that we're talking about after all. It is about the money by definition.

Olden Crow

This whole thing is getting wacko by the hour!

Now, the new OWN channel listing for the Oprah interview (tonight) warns: "Suggestive Dialogue" and "Course Language".

WTF???

Drugs yes but,... I mean REALLY now...suggestive dialogue**********?

Well, didn't Lance say his bike was a *****? But, no let's not even go there.

But this sounds weird!

Cat4Lifer

Shame? I have no insight to the thinking of pro-peloton , but I believe that attitudes about doping are changing.
If a rider were popped for PEDs in this year's TDF and received a 10-minute time penalty (Gert Jan Theunisse in '88),
I'm sure a majority ofthe riders would vocally object. I think what's going on with Lance will change the thoughts on
doping among the pros even more, at least i hope so.

merlinextraligh

This is why armstrong lived in Spain, where doping in sports was not illegal at the time, and the Spanish federation wasn't as focused on anti doping.

Of course there could be other reasons to pick Spain, but it worked well for doping, and at least according to Hamilton is why Armstrong picked Spain.

merlinextraligh

Only way tonight's confession does anything positive for cycling is if Armstrong lays it all out there with both barrels, no holds barred (add other appropriate cliche's here) and says everything he knows about the UCI's role in all this.

If he would do that it would be a step toward draining the cess pool, and moving toward an effective governing framework for Pro Cycling.

I'm not holding my breath for that to happen.

bigfred 

Oprah is trying to salvage the situation, build suspense and viewer numbers. There was an agreement between her and LA that nothing was going to be leaked between the filming and the actual airing. She looked a bit miffed on the morning show and it appears, at least to me, that she got played by Lance in an effort to sway public opinion leading up to the deadline for the Fed to join Floyd's suit or not.

With the move to spread the interview over two evenings, I'm not expecting any 'admissions' to be included in the first night's hour and a half. 'Tune in tomorrow for the rest of the story and to hear Lance say......' is what I'm expecting.

Cat4Lifer

That's what I thought too, when I heard he first won the 99 Tour -- I had stopped following cycling for a few years. But then I remembered the 1993 Tour Du Pont. Armstrong, a 21-year old neo-pro, attacked and distanced himself (albeit by only seconds) on the climbs from the eventual winner, Raul Alcala -- a seasoned pro who placed in the top-ten of the TDF, and wore the polka dot jersey for a spell). I remember watching that race and thinking "Raul's gonna smash this punk in the climbs." And then I was shocked that not only did that not happen, it was Lance who rode aggressively in the mountains. Thank the gods Alcala smashed him the TT, passing him twice.

As for his doping being the "best in the business," I've heard that said many times, but have yet to see any proof that the claim is true. i'm not closed to the possibility, but just saying something doesn't make it so. And I just don't understand how that can be rightfully/truthfully said, without knowing the potency of all the other "cheaters" doping regimens. But yes, his transformation was amazing; but I do remember Lemond saying that if he gained a pound of muscle he'd be "petrified." I'd guess Lance lost around 10 pounds after his chemo sessions. Ten pounds, I'd opine, can make minutes of difference when climbing at world-class level.

Cat4Lifer

Yes, but he wasn't working with ferrari then.

Cat4Lifer

Well, yes. But, unless I'm mistaken, he did ('98 - 2000) live in France and then later moved to Spain.

gsteinb

Those shorter early season tours are tough to judge rider to rider. The climbing doesn't really compare to the grand tours either. Performance really depends on what they're using the race for. Levi didn't win the tour of california so many times because he was the best rider in the world.

Doohickie

Stop trying to justify his cheating. He's a cheater, end of story.

Cat4Lifer

Yes, sort of. However, it was still impressive to see a 21-year old neo-pro riding away from a two-time top-finisher of the TDF in the mountains. I'm not saying that a mountain stage of the '93 TDT was on par with a mountain stage from any GT, but what I am pointing out is that Lance did show aptitude for climbing, and at the age of 21.

gsteinb

Who are you talking to?

Cat4Lifer

Raul was "using" the Tour Du Pont to salvage a pretty bad season with the WordPerfect team.
He was using it to add another title to his palmares. That is, he was racing to win. So, a 21-year old neo-pro Lance was going up against a seasoned pro whose goal was to win. No one is suggesting that Raul, Lance or Levis is/was "the best rider in the world."

cafzali

I'm with you on many of Lance's fans, but I'm not sure how many of the bracelet-wearing crowd will stay with him now. I certainly won't give to Livestrong anymore, even if he's disassociated himself with them. It's the price of a sham along with new research showing that we're better off not compartmentalizing cancer fundraising efforts anymore.

Having said that, I believe as mad as everyone who cares about cycling may be about Lance and the bracelet brigade, they should be equally mad at the sham that is the UCI. The fact that McQuaid still has a job is a disgrace. The contempt he shows to so many people is just unbelievable.

Cat4Lifer

hahaha
I remember I got some dirty looks for saying I hope he loses the tour in '03 from fellow club riders/teammates.
Didn't care for the guy and watching the tour in 2000, 2001, and especially 2002 was boring as ****

gsteinb

If you want to say Lance showed an aptitude for climbing that's fine. Experts disagree. Cavendish can climb also. Just depends what and who he's climbing with. You can't really look at a 1 week American tour and make those sorts of proclamations. At the time he was considered a classics rider. He was not considered to be a guy who was going to go to grand tours and climb with the elite climbers or contest the victories. When he came back and rode the Vuelta as well as he did the universal reaction was shock.

Cat4Lifer

So, beating Raul Alcala and every other pro in a mountain stage of a pro race isn't showing an aptitude for climbing?
Yeah, we disagree there.


If Cav manged to win a mountain stage of the TOC (a small stage race in the US) in his 9th pro-season, I'm sure the "experts" would be shocked by his newly found climbing ability, but you wont see that happening anytime soon. And that's what Lance did in 1993; he beat every other pro to a finish line of a mountain stage of a small stage race in the US, and in his rookie season.


Sure I can. Winning a mountain stage of any pro stage race shows that that rider has at least an aptitude for climbing. Of course, that's not to say that the rider will be among the top climbers, but it is beyond me that someone can say that a rider who won a mountain stage in a pro even didn't show an aptitude for climbing. Do the "experts" consider Jeff Pierce to have shown aptitude for climbing, even though he didn't win, place or, show on a GT mountain stage -- he did however win on the Champs? Um, yes they do. I'm not saying Armstrong was considered a climber, but his pro win on a mountain stage riding wheel to wheel with a seasoned pro going for the win shows at least that he did have an aptitude for climbing. If you want to base your opinion on the opinion of "experts" fine; I'll base mine on what I've seen.

Cat4Lifer

btw, the tour du pont was longer than 1-week

chuckb

I've heard, but don't know any details, that one of the climbs Lance attacked on, and won, was the climb to Mountain Lake that is now the final climb on the annual Mountains of Misery ride. I've -never- seen anything else like that climb, and the thought of attacking on that climb is something I can't even contemplate; it goes over 20% multiple times (measured twice on GPS) and it's just unrelenting. I feel lucky to just get to the top, especially with 98 miles in my legs at the start of the climb.

Anyone know the truth of this story about young Lance?

And, yah, he's still a fraud, but I'm curious about this story.

gsteinb

I've been following the pro sport for 30 something years. I'm comfortable basing my opinions on what I've seen, read, and heard. Since we watch the sport of TV or internet the heard part usually comes along with the seeing.

If you're saying you wouldn't have considered Armstrong a climber you're not saying anything different than I am. If you want to sit here and jack around my use of the word aptitude, honestly I've better things to do. I've seen guys win sprints who aren't sprinters, simply because they were the strongest at that moment. Bike races are a bit more dynamic than the best guy wins a certain stage. Elite climbers get popped all the time in stages. Largely it's because they're a bit off form, or they've been exerting effort with other team duties.

Armstrong was a strong kid back then. No one considered him a climber, or a time trialer. It was those two marked changes that ushered him into and through the elite ranks.