...wowsers! "LeBron's Evil Twin" emerges, lol!!!!
...wowsers! "LeBron's Evil Twin" emerges, lol!!!!
uh, no. wrote:
Mr. Obvious wrote:Well, the argument made is that Lance was a very good one day rider but not a G.C. contender in the classic multi stages races. I don't know if I buy that argument or not but you are not disagreeing with the main thrust of it. (I believe Lance is dirtier than a coal miner after a 16 hours shift but not on those grounds).
No, that's not the argument being made at all.
The erroneous assertion was that Armstrong was only a 'good American rider' and not a world-class cyclist.
As demonstrated, that is wholly wrong.
Try to keep up, there, Mr. Obvious.
OK, I wasn't referring to specific arguments or how they are phrased on this thread but more a general line of argument I've seen on cycling forums. This general argument was: Prior to his cancer Lance was a good one day rider (even an internation star but IMHO silly to get hung up on wording) but was not a contender and had performed poorly in G.C.s. In contrast other great G.C. riders (Merckx, Hinault, Indurain) performed well early in their careers in their first few attempts. Therefore Lance's transformation from G.C. also ran to great G.C. champion was a result of drugs because it doesn't follow the usualy natural development. We see similar lines of argument but in reverse regarding, e.g. Usain Bolt (He was insanely good at a young age and his otherwordly times are a result of expected natural development so he is likely not doping).
Personally I'm not sure it is a very good argument for or against any person doping. I mean Merckx, Hinault and Indurain were all dirty so I'm not sure what their "natural development curve" means anyway.
Getting crappier and crappier.