OK, OK, so I typed too fast. Mark, Mike, what's the difference anyway?
But was Mark Spitz on drugs? Must have been. Don't know about Mike. If he's done anything special, he must be too.
OK, OK, so I typed too fast. Mark, Mike, what's the difference anyway?
But was Mark Spitz on drugs? Must have been. Don't know about Mike. If he's done anything special, he must be too.
mike spitz is definately on drugs. did you see how quickly and easily he solved those equations last week? plus, it's a pretty well known fact that ALL teachers dope, he's just the best anyway.
I've been away, and had to drag this thread up because I was never got to comment.
My 2 cents:
* One of you wrote: "For a clean guy to wipe the floor with a whole field of world class athletes on drugs it would take an athlete of unprecedented freakish natural ability and a work ethic never before seen. ? Looks like you just solved your own problem!! Believe it or not, people DO occasionally come along who DO have ?freakish natural ability? and DO have a ?work ethic never(rarely) before seen.? Jim Ryun running a 3:51 mile on a DIRT TRACK AS A 19 YEAR-OLD ALMOST 40 YEARS AGO????? Even the freakishly-talented, hard-working, possibly older-than-their-listed age Africans, running on MUCH FASTER tracks 40 years later can barely beat his 3:51 as 19 year-olds( a couple have run 3:50, right?). THAT is mind-blowing my friend. And even other JR athletes drugged up to the max from all over the world, running on these must faster tracks STILL can not beat his time!! Was Jim Ryun on drugs??? There is zero proof that he was, but yet he fits your exception rule, right??? Jim Ryun WAS an exception.
What about Seb Coe. Despite all the drugged athletes out there, despite all the advances in training, despite all the improved times in other events over the last 20+ years, there are ZERO athletes out there right now that can run his 1:41. ZERO! EXPLAIN that one! Is there ANY proof that Seb was on drugs??? No.
There are several other such examples. Lance Armstrong might not be one of those RARE but not unheard of exceptional athletes WHO IS JUST BETTER THAN EVERYONE ELSE WITHOUT CHEATING? but he also very well COULD be.
* His ascension to the top has NOT been shocking. Someone else on this thread wrote:
?4. Lance used to be a peleton rider with no indications of great latent talent, now he is the best in the world with legitimate claims to be the best ever.? WHAT?!?!?
NO INDICATIONS OF GREAT LATENT TALENT?!?!! HE WAS THE YOUNGEST WORLD CHAMPION EVER IN BICYCLING YOU F?N MORON!!!!! HE WAS NATIONAL JR TRIATHLETE CHAMPION AT 16!!!! HE WAS AN IMMENSE TALENT!! For the love of God, does anyone think before they write??
Everyone considers that the main reason for the Kenyans? great dominance is because of the huge aerobic base they establish as youths. Do you know what Lance Armstrong was doing as a 14/15 year-old??? On a daily basis, he was rising at 5:00 AM, riding his bike 10 miles to a pool, then swimming THREE MILES. After getting a ride to school and attending school, ?..HE WOULD REPEAT HIS MORNING ROUTINE. THAT IS A TOTLA OF 6 MILES OF SWIMMING & 20 MILES OF BIKING A DAY AS A 14/15 YEAR-OLD. Do you have any idea what kind of aerobic base such training developed for him, and what kind of focus and discipline that showed him to have as a youngster??? To me, that is BETTER/MORE IMPRESSIVE than the Kenyan?s jogging a few miles back and forth to school each day.
There ARE talent and work ethic freaks in this world, and Lance IS ONE OF THOSE FREAKS.
Oh, and just because my eyes were yellow, my muscles looked like cartoons, and was I not a world champion (or even close) as a 21 year-old, that makes me much more of the typical drug-cheat profile than Lance who has always been great, and has no other signs of drug-use??? Is THAT what you are suggesting here? 'Cause if it is, I would have to agree.
How did Lance do today??
1. Lance did in fact show he had tremendous potential as a young rider. He won a stage (or two) I believe in 1993, was an awesome triathlete in HS. As a young rider he was known as being super tough, talented, and aggressive. He was also known for making poor decisions.
2. Cancer did appear to have some long term benefit, he is much lighter now. He was a great time trialist early in his career, and still is, and now he is a great climber.
3. Most riders in the tour focus on the entire season, Lance focuses on the tour. This is a great advantage, most riders ride for European teams and many of the better riders would probably prefer to race less to have better legs for the tour.
4. Lance is likely the most tested athlete on the planet, the French are out to get him. When he first won the tour there was a huge scandal, created from nothing, that proved to be nothing. The French press insisted he was on something. It turned out to be a creme for saddle sores. Only more recently has he been accepted by the French press, albiet grudgingly.
5. Intuition here, but wouldn't a person who has come close to death be LESS LIKELY to take the risks associated with doping?
6. Others have won the tour 5 times, Lance is only the most recent. Also, he looks quite vulnerable this year. He still may lose, even though his biggest threat crashed out several days ago.
7. Lance has not been unbeatable since starting his string of tour victories. He has not done in shorter races. This again goes back to his single minded focus on the tour.
8. We have no evidence he is doping until he gets caught. We may not like it sometimes, but a fundamental concept in our society is "innocent until proven guilty."
9. Lance might not have won 4 tours if his biggest rival, Jan Ullrich, had his act together. Ullrich has never been as focused as Lance, if he had Lance might appear to be more human as Jan equals him in talent (in my opinion).
10. Someone has to be the best.
Stater of the Obvious mentioned the following in a previous post:
"Cycling like distance running is a sport that requires very little technique, its all about the engine. Get on the bike and pedal harder than the next guy, thats pretty much it in a nutshell. As such its a sport where performance enhancing drugs can make a very big difference."
I couldnt disagree more. As the events on the descent of the Col de la Rochette proved, a champion cyclist must be a tremendous athlete. When Armstrong was able to avoid the crash which claimed his rival, at speeds of 40 to 50 MPH, he displayed the reflexes of a cat and the ability to think on his feet that a commando would be proud of. He is quite simply the best athlete on the Tour, and would probably be successful in any sport he wished to take up. What I saw the other day looked like some miraculous escape scripted into a James Bond movie. All the drugs in the world wont give you that.
i think he is
same as it ever was same as it ever was same as it ever was same as it ever was
Great thread in light of recent history.
Rick wrote:
Stater of the Obvious mentioned the following in a previous post:
"Cycling like distance running is a sport that requires very little technique, its all about the engine. Get on the bike and pedal harder than the next guy, thats pretty much it in a nutshell. As such its a sport where performance enhancing drugs can make a very big difference."
I couldnt disagree more. As the events on the descent of the Col de la Rochette proved, a champion cyclist must be a tremendous athlete. When Armstrong was able to avoid the crash which claimed his rival, at speeds of 40 to 50 MPH, he displayed the reflexes of a cat and the ability to think on his feet that a commando would be proud of. He is quite simply the best athlete on the Tour, and would probably be successful in any sport he wished to take up. What I saw the other day looked like some miraculous escape scripted into a James Bond movie. All the drugs in the world wont give you that.
I hope people like this poster feel stupid now, because they were stupid and blundered then.
Wonder how many of the posters defending Lance,are now defending Richardson,Houlihan and all the other American cheats.
wow, what a thread
Birkoboy wrote:
Wonder how many of the posters defending Lance,are now defending Richardson,Houlihan and all the other American cheats.
Yep, they certainly are. Or the new generation cut from the same cloth is. Poor little babes want to believe in their fairy stories about the elite athletes.
luv2run wrote:
Lance is riding faster than Eddy and the others for a number of reasons:
1) The peloton is so much deeper now; there are so many more cyclists who are good racers compared to the 60s. Guys who are domestiques now would have been team leaders in the 60s if they were performing this well. So that means that the pace of the races will be faster.
2) In relation to the faster courses, the Tour has made some of the stages easier (and thus faster). Also, there were days where you would race twice! One of the years that 7-11 (later became Motorola and could be considered a grandpa to USPS) raced a stage in the morning, got the Maillot Jaune for one of its riders and then have to race a team time trial in the evening. That does not happen anymore.
3) Lance trains for one event: the Tour. Merckx and others were better all around riders in that he wanted to win the Classics as well. Lance no little to no interest in any of the Classics unless they happen to fit into his prep for the Tour.
4) Lance can do #3 because of the money now available. Riders in the old days had to win more and race more to make enough money.
5) Athletes are better prepared nutritionally and in terms of restoration--even outside of any possible medical interventions.
The argument against Lance being doped is that he has been a successul endurance athlete since he was a teenager. Do you think he was doping when he was 19 and doing so well in triathlons?
I fall into the group that does not believe everyone is doping.
This is absolute cringe post. Letsrunners can really talk themselves into anything
needs to be bumped again
This post was removed.
This post was removed.
never failed a doping test.
kumquat wrote:
Rick wrote:
Stater of the Obvious mentioned the following in a previous post:
"Cycling like distance running is a sport that requires very little technique, its all about the engine. Get on the bike and pedal harder than the next guy, thats pretty much it in a nutshell. As such its a sport where performance enhancing drugs can make a very big difference."
I couldnt disagree more. As the events on the descent of the Col de la Rochette proved, a champion cyclist must be a tremendous athlete. When Armstrong was able to avoid the crash which claimed his rival, at speeds of 40 to 50 MPH, he displayed the reflexes of a cat and the ability to think on his feet that a commando would be proud of. He is quite simply the best athlete on the Tour, and would probably be successful in any sport he wished to take up. What I saw the other day looked like some miraculous escape scripted into a James Bond movie. All the drugs in the world wont give you that.
I hope people like this poster feel stupid now, because they were stupid and blundered then.
They've probably moved on, and are not analysing idle conversations they had on the internet eighteen years ago.
adflfn wrote:
What is the evidence that he is on drugs?
If the only evidence is the fact that he is really good...that's no evidence at all. Someone has to be the best one out there, it just happens to be him.
Where is the evidence that Jakob is on drugs? The evidence is that he is really good. Jakob is the best.