Lance Armstrong and the Marathon

1st) none of us know if he can or can't/ will or won't...so it is stupid for people to be so adamant about it...nothing wrong with having an opinion (i have mine), but we don't know, even he doesn't know how fast he can run...that's the fun of trying/seeing what you can do instead of what you can't.

If we were talking Greg LeMond, I would say probably not - nothing agaist him by the way. But Lance Armstrong was a good runner/swimmer/biker before he went solely into cycling...so I have to believe he can still run...it may take a little time to get his legs back for running, but I think he has a shot. It won't be easy, but doing the Tour De France (let alone winning it) wasn't easy.

And if he ever needed any motivation, reading a few post from this board would certainly provide it.

i'd say at least 225, the only thing holding him back being his quirky ass form, his one leg swings in a bit far, and also why would he train insanely for a marathon? i could see him racing one or a few, but i don't know if there's a motivation for him.

You people who think LA could run a 2H20 marathon, but no way a 2H15 one have absolutely no clue, and have probably never ran the event.

This is not such a huge gap, and elite runners very often bridge it in the space of 6 months one race. For LA, breaking 2H30 would, in my opinion, be much more of a barrier, as it reuires learning proper pacing, learning to deal with 'the wall', running specific training principles... etc. Once you've broken 2H20, the next barrier comes in the region of 2H12 or so...

Here in Europe, you easily notice that there are very few guys between 2H20 and 2H12. It's a sort of no man's land, which can easily be explained as it sort of marks the boundary between the keen amateur, and those who have chosen to make a career out of the sport... Sure you find guys running 2H17, 2H15... etc, in major races. But most of them will already have run 2H12, or will be on their way there (of a similar standard in the shorter distances).

If LA ever runs sub-2H20 (i.e. if he finds the motivation to train to achieve these sort of times, and is able to sustain it) then give him a year or two and he will run close to 2H12. The question is why should he? He might train for a marathon just to complete one (and his race inexperience will probably show (again, pacing will be the major issue in my opinion), and in all likelyhood run between 2H30 and 2H40 if he is serious about it. But after that, why carry on?

I somehow can't imagine him wanting a new career as a runner...

An intelligent answer if there ever was one, but the gap you talk of is perhaps not as wide as you suggest... I would venture 2H18 to 2H14.

While is is true that LA is physiolgically efficient this doesn't mean that he is necessarily biomechanically efficient running. Further the tremendous amount of time spent on the bike has developed the leg musculature in a way that is not running-effective.

If he is determined he may run sub 2:45 which would be impressive. I don't buy sub 2:30 - 2:15 is out of the question.

Bump.

I just want this stupid thread to get to 1000.

I'll help it...

LA may indeed be a good athlete but 2:15? I don't know. What is certain though is that he has lots of money, lots of sponsors and lots of science to support him do it. If any one person could use the technology and financial support to do it is him. Could you imagine how much he would make in sponsors? Hell, he could do it for charity?

All I have to say is if he does it will be a huge event, 2:15, 2:30 or DNF. Imagine how much he would then be paid to do the iron man? This guy is huge now and should take advantage...even if it's for the livestrong.

this isn't near 1000.

but anyways, he will not come close to 2:15. you must be out of your mind to think so.

IF he trains his butt off I think 2:40 at best. That's IF he trains hard and uses all of this "people" to help him.

Question for all the "Lance sub 2:20 and sub 2:15" folks out there:

If winning the Tour de France seven times means Armstrong could quite easily run a sub 2:20 marathon, does that also mean that a sub 2:20 marathoner could easily win at least one Tour de France?

Granted the guy knows how to train, VO2, resting heart rate, mental edge, blah blah blah, but doesn't that argument also apply to Stefano Baldini, Tergat, Khannouchi, etc?

If people are using Armstrong's cycling success to predict marathon success, are those same people as certain that Paula Radcliffe (or Tergat, if you wish to keep the Tour all male) could win a Tour de France?!? And if not, why not?

Simple, because all of the people who think that are biased bikers who believe they're the top athletes. To them a top biker (Lance, Basso, etc) is much much much much more of a stud than a top runner (Haile, Tergat).

Ridiculous.

Lance = no way in hell he'll get 2:15

Those of you who minimalize the difference between 2:20 and 2:15 have positively no idea what you're talking about. I'm sure of it, and even a jackassed-brained person like me knows this fact.

uhh well lance won't get 2:15 or 2:20 no matter how different they are.

biking six hours a day and going through a 3 week race where each day is on average of over 100 miles seems alot tougher than anything ive ever heard of with running. id say winning the tour de france is tougher and more impressive than anything running related. with that said, i think armstrong has the potential to run a fast marathon just off natural talent and decent training but i doubt he'll run 2:15 because that would take a few years to build up to and he isn't getting any younger and i doubt he cares enough to put the neccessary work in. i wouldn't doubt lance made those comments just to see what the reaction of the gay running community would be.

I'd take frank shorter running 200 mile weeks. Or the guys who run sub 4:00 miles in workouts. I'd take El G, Haile, Tergat, and Bekele ANY day over lance. If Haile was American he'd be much more famous than lance and would have everyone's respect like lance does. But of course you cannot convince bikers of this.

dfafdas wrote:

biking six hours a day and going through a 3 week race where each day is on average of over 100 miles seems alot tougher than anything ive ever heard of with running. id say winning the tour de france is tougher and more impressive than anything running related. with that said, i think armstrong has the potential to run a fast marathon just off natural talent and decent training but i doubt he'll run 2:15 because that would take a few years to build up to and he isn't getting any younger and i doubt he cares enough to put the neccessary work in. i wouldn't doubt lance made those comments just to see what the reaction of the gay running community would be.

"Gay running community"? What does Lance have against homosexuals?!?

Sorry boys, but Lance won't run 2:15. The guy is a phenomenal aerobic/VO2Max specimen, as well as an absolute beast of a competitor, but given his age, his size, and his proposed training window, it ain't gonna happen. What did he weigh in at during the tour, like 170? That's an awful lot of weight to be carrying over 26.2, not to mention the beating that his joints would take. Road running is much higher impact than what he's been used to over the years. But, I'd love to see him give it a shot. I think 2:22 would be tough, but not impossible.

DNF

"If winning the Tour de France seven times means Armstrong could quite easily run a sub 2:20 marathon, does that also mean that a sub 2:20 marathoner could easily win at least one Tour de France?"

Lets first analyze the logic here:

7x Tour -> Sub 2:20 put into different terms

7x World Class Cycling Achievement -> Respectable (but in no way "world class") Running Achievement

then, you say this

Sub 2:20 -> 1x Tour or, in different terms

Respectable Running Achievement -> 1x World Class Cycling Achievement

You're confusing quantity with quality here. A more reasonable supposition would be that a world class runner would be able to ride for a decent domestic pro team and win some smaller events.

Is it me or does nobody else see the obvious conflict? Lance is banging a rock star. This implies a certain lifestyle inconsistent with serious marathon training. Even if he was inclined to train hard, how could he while living in the fast lane of RnR.