It keeps coming up because of something you blindly ignore: LA has only been proven to be the BEST RESPONDER to the DESIGNER PED COCKTAIL that his team was able to afford. He had the best drugs that were tailored best to his physiology.
Bob Schul fan wrote:
Every cyclist that Lance beat easily for almost a decade was doped to the gills also. Not sure why this argument keeps coming up. They were all doping equally.
Lance is the all time GOAT of riding a bike
The Eagle of Toledo wrote:
Lance is hardly the GOAT. He may count as a generation talent, if we put doping aside. But it is hard to make the argument he has better palmares than Indurain who immediately preceded Lance as the dominant grand tour rider, and who could be considered to be of the same generation. They are actually pretty similar. Both totally dominated the TDF but never amounted to much as one-day racers (Lance's 93 world champs win the exception). And he certainly is not better than Lemond or Hinault, or if we go further back, Merckx.
I would say of the current day riders, Lance is most similar to Froome, both dominant grand tour riders with a dominant team. Both tended to be one-trick ponies that did not have much success outside of stage racing. Both became dominant at a relatively late age for elite endurance athletes.
Lance was a great classics rider pre-cancer. his focus after that was on the TdF and every race outside of the tour was pretty much just a tune up. i doubt he really put any effort into other races and even his other grand tour appearances were either before or after his prime (vuelta and giro). its fair to argue you cant be the best while dominating only one event or style of event, but you cant compare to guys from decades before. talking about guys like pidcock or WVA in the same sentence as someone like pogacar is foolish.
He was a good, but certainly not a great, classics racer per cancer. He won worlds, won San Sebastian, and Fleche Wallone. That's it for one day wins. He also got a couple of Liege podiums to be sure. Those are not the palmares of a "great" classics guy.
Compare that to Lemond who only predated Lance by about 10 years. Lemond won worlds twice, got second twice, got on the podium at Lombardia and Liege, just missed the podium in Paris Roubaix, and Fleche Wallone, even got a top 10 in Flanders (the monument that is probably most difficult for a GC guy to do well in). I don't think Lemond should be described as a "great" classic rider, but he was certainly a alot better than Lance.
Just to reinforce this point, Lance's classics record is hardly better than that noted one day racer Andy Schleck. I mean Schleck won Liege, got another podium their, got a podium in Fleche, and a 4th at the Beijing olympic road race.
Is someone going to start a thread about how tours are the equivalent to ultras. Real cyclists are on tracks and maybe do some road races that would be like one day classics.
Feel like boards have been lacking these types of conversations.
This is difficult to answer but for those who keep praising Eddy Merckx, I am sure he was immensely talented but he too was a doper. Maybe these grueling races are simply going to lead to doping.
So was Jacques Anquetil before him. The French celebrated it because he was winning the tour for the host country.
But if you discount doping in cycling, do you even have an interesting sport to watch anymore? I though we were way past assuming that there were only a select few who did it. It's kinda dumb to discuss "greatest cyclist ever" who DIDN'T dope. Who would that even be? Certainly no one recognizable.
billbob98 wrote:
But if you discount doping in cycling, do you even have an interesting sport to watch anymore? I though we were way past assuming that there were only a select few who did it. It's kinda dumb to discuss "greatest cyclist ever" who DIDN'T dope. Who would that even be? Certainly no one recognizable.
That is fine but then distinguishing talent can be challenging as is there also a talent for responding to dope? Surely as there is a talent for responding to training but one does not generally characterize a response to doping as being a talent.
Pre-cancer Lance Armstrong was a great one day racer which I would compare to a worse version of Julian Alaphilippe or a better version of Jacob Fuglsang in terms of what he could achieve in one day races. I do not think it is fair to compare his one day palmaries without taking into account that after the cancer he was effectively not racing any of those, hence any wins or achievements are in short period when he was pretty young. Especially, considering that during those times the cyclist would usually peak at older age then now due to lack of training knowledge at lower levels and other factors. That being said, I would not call him a generational talent based on what he showed pre-cancer, even if we were to extrapolate expected wins/palmaries based on the first part of his career.
As a GC rider, Lance has to be mentioned in the GOAT conversion, again, as a GC rider. Winning 7 TdF in a row is truly special. Pretty much everyone (or everyone that matters in terms of GC competition) doped in that era, so I would call the field pretty level. Yes, some will say that he had better drugs then others, but I do not think the difference is such high. I think the biggest difference was his drive and willingness to do whatever it takes, including investing into his own success by ensuring that he has the best doctor, the best drugs and training. In comparison his contemporaries like Ulrich or Pantani do not looks as driven or as focused compared to Lance. It is also likely that he was a better responder to drugs than many other GC guys of the same era, as his VO2max (reportedly in low-mid 80s) is exceptionally good but not extraordinary, ie not generational as LeMond's (90s) and probably few others. We also have to take into account that there in cycling vs running there is somewhat more direct relation between VO2max and performance, although, the best marker would be power at threshold.
Obviously, when discussing Lance, it has to be mentioned that he is a generational a**hole, that has no (or close to no) regard to other beings if they stand between him and his goals. Exceptionally driven and talented a**hole.
Eddie may have been the GOAT but he was also a doper, was caught 3 separate times, and it amazes me that he gets to skate by while despite getting caught multiple times whereas Lance gets excoriated, especially by the European media. The fact of the matter is that since the late 1960s a huge number of professional cyclists were doping and I'd say just about every champion after Greg Lemond was suspect if not caught until perhaps (though who knows) the last couple of years. Ullrich was caught, Contador banned, Pantani doped, the list of winners goes on and on. I find it highly unlikely that those who are still listed as winning the TDF and who later failed drug tests or were implicated in widespread team doping scandals somehow didn't dope the years they one their biggest race. Through in Tyler Hamilton who whined about how lance was doping and turned out he was guilty as well.
The French have always disliked Lance and of course removed his titles but kept those of many convicted European dopers mentioned above.
The French did not remove Lance's titles, the UCI or WADA did.
Oh my, you have no idea.
If Lance didn't win the TDF, then NO ONE has ever won it. Understand what I'm saying?
Yes, it could have caused his cancer, it could also have been caused by too much broccoli, or a genetic per-disposition, or the drinking water in Girona.
They are all doping from the getgo
The only 'rule' he broke in pro cycling was he acted like a douche bag to some people.
oldguy00 wrote:
Oh my, you have no idea.
If Lance didn't win the TDF, then NO ONE has ever won it. Understand what I'm saying?
Yes, it could have caused his cancer, it could also have been caused by too much broccoli, or a genetic per-disposition, or the drinking water in Girona.
They are all doping from the getgo
The only 'rule' he broke in pro cycling was he acted like a douche bag to some people.
Hinault wasn't doping. Pogačar isn't doping.
Yes 18 of the top 20 in the 90s to 00s were doping, but that's because it was what they believed in. Just like in the 50s to 60s Amphetamines were the drug of choice.
Point being you don't have to have a drug of choice. Maybe you're too long in the tooth to figure this out though?
Not gonna read every post here, but Lance was an elite endurance athlete as a teenager. Many people still wonder how he would've turned out had he taken a different path. Triathlon was still rather young and who knows how he would've turned out. Let's leave that right there.
But the thing about Lance that people rarely mention is who was blocking the wind in front of him or dragging him up the mountain stages. Research the rosters of the teams he has been on and how good his teammates were. Hamilton, Hincapie, Leipheimer, Landis to name a few and that roster was constructed to win the tour with each one bringing their own specialty and oh were they properly utilized to help Lance win all of those tours. While you are at it consider that those guys were strong enough to keep up with him on the team time trial stages so you knew they were capable of handling those stages on their own. A talented roster with a wealth of experience is underrated in pro cycling. And Lance was fortunate to also have the best team around him.
Tired of trying to educate people, but doping has been part of the TdF since the very first one in 1903. Documented. Interviewed. Confessions. Jacques Anquetil, first 5 time winner in the 1950s, even admitted that without Amphetamines, it would be impossible to even finish the race.
In the early years, they were using cocaine eye drops, strychnine, alcohol and who knows how many dangerous concoctions to complete the race (along with riding in cars, trains, etc).
Cycling, and in fact, all sports, have always been and will always be dirty. The draw to be "the best" along with fame and money make it impossible to have clean sport.
just say it wrote:
Hinault wasn't doping. Pogačar isn't doping.
Yes 18 of the top 20 in the 90s to 00s were doping, but that's because it was what they believed in. Just like in the 50s to 60s Amphetamines were the drug of choice.
Point being you don't have to have a drug of choice. Maybe you're too long in the tooth to figure this out though?
What makes you certain Pogacar isnt doping? Would be nice, but certainly isnt a given. Isn't his manager the former Lampre manager when they had their big scandal?
spokane xc wrote:
just say it wrote:
Hinault wasn't doping. Pogačar isn't doping.
Yes 18 of the top 20 in the 90s to 00s were doping, but that's because it was what they believed in. Just like in the 50s to 60s Amphetamines were the drug of choice.
Point being you don't have to have a drug of choice. Maybe you're too long in the tooth to figure this out though?
What makes you certain Pogacar isnt doping? Would be nice, but certainly isnt a given. Isn't his manager the former Lampre manager when they had their big scandal?
Pogačar's openness in interviews. With Lance he was obviously lying. His body language, and forced denial.
The thing is, Lance et al weren't riding faster on all that dope. Just as Anquetil et al weren't riding faster on Amphetamines. Doping was part of the culture.
And don't forget, Lance destroyed Jan Ulrich on the climbs even though they were on the same stuff and Jan was an awesome climber in 1997.
Do you not know any amazing young athletes? Are they amazing at age 15 because they're doped to the gills? Only a mentally ill person would think that.
Why do so many people become dependent on substances in adulthood when they were drug and alcohol free in their mid teens? Is the peer pressure just too much?
What about Miguel Indurain? Despite his size, he was very successful in his time. As I could read online, he possessed quite an engine in his body.
pacoza wrote:
What about Miguel Indurain? Despite his size, he was very successful in his time. As I could read online, he possessed quite an engine in his body.
79 ml/kg/min @ 12% bodyfat.
Not 88 as it says on Wikipedia.