Let's put this in perspective. He completely demolishes the competition. Does this have any equal in running? How much would KK win over the top marathoners in the world to make an eqivalent victory? Is 6 minutes enough? Even so, consider KK crushing everyone by 6 minutes. Year in. Year out. Sounds suspicious? You're right, it does. And it should.
I thought that he won by 67 seconds.
Six minutes over thousands of miles is much different than 6 minutes over 26 miles. a two hour race versus a three week race. even allowing for an adjutment of running distance to biking distance, i'd say six minutes in the tour equals 30-40 seconds in the marathon.
You should probably break it down to seconds per mile he is faster. So...let's approximate, and say it's a 1000 mile Tour. That's .36 seconds per mile faster than the runner up. .36 seconds per mile faster in a marathon is a whopping 9.36 seconds. I'd say that's a pretty close race. So get over yourself with your doping bullshit. The record margin of victory is over an hour...so winning by 6 minutes is nothing. People win marathons by 6 minutes. So you should work on raising your single digit IQ, and maybe try and hit double digits with it. Sound good? Hope so...you friggin moron.
That race is in stages, so the 1,000 mile analogy ain't going to fit. That would be similar to the marathon being run in pits and pieces with rest days. If that happened, KK may not even win. So, Lance's win is even more spectacular. Of course, when you're doping, it usually is.
I don't think the course was certified.
You mix the apples and oranges in the same bag and expect the clerk to figure it out for you, don't you?
On the other hand, pretty impressive to handle that much (has to be a huge quantity) over an extended period of time--wow, did you see the way he picked up his bike that one day and ran for miles trying gain an advantage...sheeesssh.
so you're point is that the only way to complete the tour is to be on drugs?
the point is that six minutes is accrued over tons of races. it's like kk winning 6 different marathons, each by a minute. you can't compare a six minute victory in the tour to a six minute victory in a marathon. different game.
you're so stupid it's silly for me to waste my time.
You first said it's over 1,000 miles, all at once. Now you say it's over many races. Which is it?
No wonder your name is idiot. I hope you don't let your mind wander much. Something that small and fragile shouldn't be out on its own.
okay, i'll try one last time. you can't compare a 6 minute margin in the tour de france to a six minute margin in the marathon. two totally different things.
reasons why?
the tour de france is longer - a 1000 miles - and is contested over a span of three weeks. the marathon is one day and 26 miles.
is that so difficult to grasp?
you've got a good little game going with this post, but your aren't coming anywhere close to making an argument that will convince anyone of anything.
Plus, cyclists are covering ground three times as fast as a marathoner so it's like two minutes' worth if you want to compare it to running.
Honestly. I must just read half of these threads for pure entertainment value. That or just to feel like I'm smarter because so many are dumber.
Also, don't forget that the real racing done by Lance, Ullrich, etc is only in the time trials and mountain stages. In the flat sprinters stages pretty much everyone but the first guy get the same time as the second place guy because they all bike together until the end. Even in some of the lesser mountain stages are done this way. Go back to the results and see how many stages have Lance and Ullrich as "same time". The Tour is won or lost in only a handful of stages.
Alan
L.A. wrote:
I thought that he won by 67 seconds.
It was only 67 seconds...it really changes everything. Winning by 67 seconds on the Tour is like out sprinting someone in the last 100m of a marathon. It is a real close call. One more crash could have cost him the victory.
don't forget they also get time bonuses for winning stages. that screws up a lot of calculations
Tactically and physically they are like apples and oranges, impossible to compare.
You can't use the mileage of the total Tour for calculating the distance over which Lance can extend his lead. Instead, you have to use the opportunities Lance had to build on his lead.
In this tour, there were only really 6 opportunities for Lance to gain time. The team time trial, the 2 individual time trials, and the 3 mountain top finishes.
The three time trials are about an hour, so that is three hours. The 3 mountain top finishes take about 30 min each, so that is another 1.5 hours.
So...you have a total of 4.5 hours during the entire Tour in which Lance can put time into Jan, or anyone else. This is closer to two marathons...which puts a 6 min Lance TdF win roughly on par with a 3 min KK marathon win.
Idiot, your momma sure knew what she was talking about when she named you.
I'll make it easy for you. Lance blew away the field the last few years. For KK to completely blow away the field in comparable times, how great of a margin of victory would it be? The above poster got it. Now sit down, wipe the drool off your chin and try again.
Kohlberg, exactly. If KK blew away the field for like that, everyone would scream he's doped. And rightly so.
Lance is a druggie.
James T wrote:
Kohlberg, exactly. If KK blew away the field for like that, everyone would scream he's doped. And rightly so.
Lance is a druggie.
So, who cares? If Lance is doped, then certainly everyone else is doped as well. In which case, the playing field is level, and Lance is better. Or, he's not doped and still beating people. Does it really matter either way?
Yeah, it matters. Do you want to run against druggies? Do you want the outcome determined on who has the better doc?