Lance Armstrong 5k

Since I'd love to see LA run a 2:15 marathon, or even a sub-3 (really, I would love to see that, and I hope he does the marathon this year instead of just talk about it like he did in the past when it seemed he was just trying to steal his ex-wife's thunder), somebody in Austin, please tell him he can't.

Also, somebody needs to train with him. Somebody who can beat him every day. That'll tick him off, and fire him up.

Tell him he can't. He just hates that.

("You aren't my daddy!")

what marathon have you run at 10000 feet?

I'm willing to bet a large sum of money that 95% of the sub-15 collegiate males would get dropped within 5 laps of a Pro/1/2 crit. Give them a couple months of training, on a nice bike, too. They would get laughed at.

I agree whole heartedly with the most previous post.

Either way why is it that people are criticizing what Lance can or can not do? If he wanted to train for road races he could run sub 16.

In his youth he was a natural talent. Certainly age will make a difference, but he is still more talented than probably every critic saying he can't do it on here.

Bottom line - he did the training.. put in the 100's of miles.. what are the critics doing? Posting on a message board as if they are experts on Lance Armstrongology.

A couple of points.

You don't generally have a gun to chip differential of 4.3

seconds if you are taking it seriously, especially for a small,low key race.

A spectator friend said he came through looking easy.

If he had vomited, which he didn't, I would have it bagged up

& be selling it on Ebay to letsrun posters.

Does anyone else think these testimonials from somewhat decent runners who have tried cycling and found it difficult are pretty stupid? Think about it, you are a runner, you are somewhat decent as a runner, so you are probably built towards being a runner. You try something else that you are not designed to do (riding a bike) and you find it hard. That's a huge shocker. The whole debate is somewhat pointless. For some people running a fast 5K time is harder than racing on a bike, for other people it's the other way around. Not to mention that these runners have probably been running most of their lives and then tried cycling for a couple of months and right away start comparing themselves to competitive cyclists.

What I have been told is it takes at least 3 years to develop as a cyclist. I don't know how much evidence there is to support that theory, but to become a competitive cyclist one does not train and blossom in a summer.

Cycling = apples

Running = oranges

If they were so similar why would there be duathlons or triathlons?

Actually, my build, even as a collegiate runner, was much more suited to cycling (which i do plenty of). i have thunder thighs and calves, always have and probably always will. so before jumping to conclusions about what some of us may or may not have done, think again about using the word stupid.

see, for some of us, maybe you included, running neither has been nor will be the only athletic endeavor in which we engage. this isn't a "just got out of college and need to compete in a whole other arena," this is from friends and myself who do not look like runners and have plenty of experience out of the saddle.

The guy who finished just ahead of Lance is a Master's runner who regularly runs high 4:40's for the mile, and recently ran 9:44 for 3K indoors, and I would expect at least a 17:00-20 out of him on a flat course. I would personally buy into the course being as much as a minute or (even more) slow.

What a thread! I'm sorry I ever read it. Once again, a bunch of know-it-all runners, who have most certainly never ridden at 90% up the largest local hill or trained for or raced in a multisport event, let alone saddled up for the Tour or raced against the best triathletes in the world have decided that they are all PhD exercise physiologists and want to tell the world the facts as they know them. Please, Mr. Moderator, erase all of this mindless, muscleless, meaningless jibberish! Save the letsrun board for better conversations.

Lance Armstrong = Barry Bonds

He just has a more believable alibli

living strong wrote:

My friend at the race and said he ran pretty casual and didn't appear to be working too hard -- supposedly training for Chicago.

I saw him interviewed on the local news after the race and he said he ran it as hard as he could. Also, I ran this 5k last year and it was indeed pretty hilly, although I doubt very seriously it would cost anyone more than 20 seconds off a normal 5k road time.

Lance Armstrong is the bomb. I really admire the fact that an athlete of his caliber would be willing to come out and compete in an event where he's subject to being beaten by mere mortals. I doubt very many elite athletes out there would swallow thier pride like that. This guys got balls!(uh... well, you know what I mean)

Maybe he's running slow because he's not on steroids anymore?

wasn't zach attach the band on saved by the bell?

ZachAttack wrote:

[quote]living strong wrote:

I doubt very many elite athletes out there would swallow thier pride like that. This guys got balls!(uh... well, you know what I mean)

Cancer is not a joke.

KudzuRunner wrote:

Give him a little time. I think we'll see more.

Exactly. But let's stay consistent and also give it a little time before talking 2:20.

Didn't Paul McMullen get pretty darned competitive on the bike when he was rehabbing from his chopped toe?? He was a complete novice and needed less than a season to show something.

Point is, the bike is not so much tougher than the run, if at all. In fact, all overweight people I know can jump on a bike and ride for a while, some even up to a couple dozen miles. Tell a spinning class that "we're going to run instead" and they'll kill the instructor.

like someone mentioned earlier, the winner is only a 15:37 track guy and was running over 27 minutes in cross. the course is short.

As someone said earlier running and biking are very different sure the use alot of same muscles but there are alot of differences. Cycling leg form and running leg form is very very different havent you ever noticed that triathletes run very strange compared to runners its because their hammys are so tight from biking which doesnt have the full motion that running does.

It is true that just going out and biking is easier than just going out and "running." Point is that in runner you have to support your own weight and fat peopel can't do that. With cycling they dont have to support thier own weight unless climbing up a hill and you wont see any fattys doing that. HOWEVER try cycling at over 100rpm for an hour on a relatively hilly course and then try to run it or vice versa.

They are both very hard however with running the lower limit of what you put into it is higher than cycling because cycling has the advantage of round wheels and again the bike supports you. But they are both very hard if taken to the extreme level.