Lance Armstrong takes 2nd in his first Ironman

TriDude wrote:

no drug testing wrote:

Interesting... I read they didn't drug test the top 3 at this tri, yet they randomly tested the 4th-10th place finishers. Can any triathletes respond as to why they would not test the top finishers but the next group down?

Ironman is run like a corporation, not like an organization. They don't want scandals. They don't really test anyone. No one ever tests positive.

Nina Kraft. Nice moronic comment.

Vcruz wrote:

Nina Kraft. Nice moronic comment.

She is German. While the Germans have their doping history (mainly in the 80's - both sides of the borders), in recent years they are they only ones that are really fighting Doping and don't shy away from destroying their superstars. Compare Dieter Baumann, Jan Ulrich, etc.

Kraft was tested by the German triathlon association, not by the WTC. Big difference.

I don't think he really trained for that 2:46...

must be in better open marathon shape right now..

There have been some rumors on twitter that WTC(world triathlon corp) signed a contract saying that they won't do drug tests on Pharmstrong in order to get him to start their races. Unsurprising to say the least. Backed up by Rasmus Henning

http://twitter.com/rasmushenning

@rasmushenning: I thought it was common practice to drug test Top3 and not just random from 4th and down? That was not the case at 70.3 Panama.

First, a 1:17 is easier than a 2:46 unless you are putting in a lot of miles. I ran about that on 35 miles a week but no way could I have done a similar marathon on that little miles.

Second, WHO CARES ABOUT THE TIMES??? They could have swam with the current, biked downhill and ran 11.3 miles for all we know. Maybe they biked uphill and ran downhill.

Times really don't matter, only place.

Strong current during the swim explains the fast times there. Bike was slow, it's hilly and also was hot and windy.

Run times seem about right. Lance is much lighter and doing more serious run training than when he ran his marathons. He would have been very fresh off what would have been quite a comfortable ride.

This will be the thing he needs to figure out. How fast/hard to ride and stil have legs for the run. Of course he could've put a big gap into them if he hammered the bike but he may have paid big time on the run.

Armstrong did a smart race, stayed in touch on the swim held back to gauge the pace of the best riders then hit the front on the run. Docherty bloused him on the run, but he got a good sight on where he stands.

lol. He was a very talented Triathlete before he was a full-time biker. You should at least Google the subject if you are too young and dumb to realize it.

In a very bizarre turn of events, the organizers did not select any of the top 3 for drug tests after the finish. WTF is that about?

There are people that don't think Lance will win Kona?? If he "goes all in" with his training and "resources" he wins. If it's true he won't be tested its almost a joke. His TDF victories showed he an all tIme elite athlete; but he is also a top responder to "programs", no way to beat that even though he is 41 (?). Unless he kills himself trying some new..

tri athletes are runners too wrote:

Second, WHO CARES ABOUT THE TIMES??? They could have swam with the current, biked downhill and ran 11.3 miles for all we know. Maybe they biked uphill and ran downhill.

Times really don't matter, only place.

+1

This is what hobby joggers like the ones b!tching on this thread don't get. At the top (be it running, swimming, cycling, ot tri), you are RACING. Times matter little. It's your placing that matters. Hobby joggers want to PR. Elites want the podium.

i agree somewhat

If you look at the way Lance runs he is a plodder. He runs on strength not form. Think of a guy who can't really run any faster than 5:45 for a mile but pretty much can run all day at 6-6:30 pace due to tremendous endurance.The older you get the more you train to go farther not faster.

Lance could probably do the full ironman distance with little dropoff in his current per mile pace.

He has a HUGE MOTOR but no speed.

LanceLegstrong wrote:

Not true. Website says "Ironman 70.3", not "Half Ironman".[/quote]

After reading this... I was laughing and crying at the same time... Sadly because you are really that dumb...

70.3 = Half Ironman

140.6 = Full Ironman

He didn't put his heart into training for the marathon. Look back and read some of the training he supposedly did for the marathons he ran and you'll see it was minimal. Now look at what he has been logging for his tri training. He's logging pro triathlete miles...80-100 rides followed by 8-10 run or 40-60 rides followed by 12-15 mile runs with some tempo miles.

He's training with Chris Lieto taking it seriously.

Hey TriDude:

What about Michael Weiss?

Or when I lived with 2 ukranian pros and an Austrian pro who were drug tested after a 5am knock on the door.

Mister T :

Do you know anything about kona?

Or anything about the previous champions?

I want to bet you a letsrun.com apology thread when lance does not win.

We are talking about one race that he has competed in...early season...there are so many 70.3s around the globe.

Please respect and gain some knowledge on the other contenders.

For all the runners out there, it would be like Jonathan brownlee going out and racing a 13:40 5k against a bunch of 10kers in a road race and getting second. These would all be 2nd tier 10kers in their base phase, accept for a marathoner who took the pace out hard with him and died off in the end. Then the only guy that beats him is a 1500m specialist with a nasty kick that has been sitting on him.

Wouldn't you hate it, if I said, oh man Jonathan brownlee is going to win the olympics in the 10k?

Oh man, that is brilliant!

--------------------

For all the runners out there, it would be like Jonathan brownlee going out and racing a 13:40 5k against a bunch of 10kers in a road race and getting second. These would all be 2nd tier 10kers in their base phase, accept for a marathoner who took the pace out hard with him and died off in the end. Then the only guy that beats him is a 1500m specialist with a nasty kick that has been sitting on him.

Wouldn't you hate it, if I said, oh man Jonathan brownlee is going to win the olympics in the 10k?

--------------------

This was exactly right.

Hopefully you guys know who Jonathan is! 5k is the half IM, 10k is the full IM. Marathoner is Lieto, docherty is the 1500m/itu specialist.

It makes sense

DeezelRunner120 wrote:

LanceLegstrong wrote:

Not true. Website says "Ironman 70.3", not "Half Ironman".

After reading this... I was laughing and crying at the same time... Sadly because you are really that dumb...

70.3 = Half Ironman

140.6 = Full Ironman[/quote]

Before calling someone dumb, try to understand what they are saying. IM as a corporation avoids referring to the 70.3 race as a "half" because it stigmatizes the race as being a lesser event. A 5K is not considered a half 10K, is it?

Now you may still consider the 70.3 only half an event, but others consider it a legit distance in its own right, more than just a semantic difference.

[/quote]

Before calling someone dumb, try to understand what they are saying. IM as a corporation avoids referring to the 70.3 race as a "half" because it stigmatizes the race as being a lesser event. A 5K is not considered a half 10K, is it?

[/quote]

Um, ever heard of a half-marathon ?