Cry Baby Simeoni

Ted B

LA used to be a fairly beefy rider. Upon recovering from his bought with cancer, that changed. He never regained the lost upper body weight, but regained his leg strength. This contributed to his becoming a more complete rider.

Furthermore, it was discovered very early in his career that LA has an uncanny ability to remove lactic acid from his blood very quickly. This trait is just one of several possible genetic qualities that contribute to one possessing extraordinairy talent for endurance sports.

musette

Obviously, Alex Zulle, who was a pre-race favorite for the 99 TdF, had that crash of the peloton in an early stage that caused him to lose massive time. But that is besides the point. When someone adopts new training techniques and methods due to having to do so (from having suffered cancer), their climbing capabilities can really improve and affect the outcome of races.

limerickman

Stage race palmares - I don't see an overall Paris-Nice victory.
Criterium International ?
Dauphine win ? Midi Libre ? Tour of Switzerland ?
Tour of Catalonia ? Grio di Lombardi ?
Pays Basque ?
Let's even drop a level : Four Days of Dunkirk ?

One day races - yes, he won plenty of one day races.
But one day races are a long distance from overall stage races victories.
Tour Du Pont ain't a Dauphine.

Ted B

Again, want to understand the man and the development of his career? Read his books.

Furthermore, there is no comparison between the present day USPS organization and Motorola. Compare LA's year-round preparation for the TdF EVERY year, the cohesiveness of his team, the fact that he has access to the best technology and training, and the character of the man himself. There is no other rider in the tour that dedicates himself like LA, or has the same quality of support.

limerickman

Are you contending that Armstrong is entirely clean ?

limerickman

I am sure Jim Ochowicz would be delighted to hear this endorsement of Motorola.
Were they in the TDF not to win ?
And what about Sean Yates - Andrea Peron - frankie Andreu : if the team were that bad why did LA cycle with them (after all, he is so professional according to his books...........)

Ted B

Unless you were from the U.S., I doubt you would have an understanding of the changes that have taken place in the U.S. with respect to the sport of cycling since that time, and how these changes have impacted the quality of expertise and support available to a U.S. team. Furthermore, while Motorola was in the TdF with the intention of being competitive (like every other team), they certainly didn't have the resources of the present USPS team by any stretch of the imagination.

At that time, LA was a 'hungry' 20-22 year-old youngster who was far from being developed into his full potential. From what I know of the man, I doubt he would have achieved what he has had he NOT weathered his bout with cancer. To say that event changed his life is an understatement. If anything changed between LA the young cyclist and the LA of today, it is his entire mentality.

kgruscho

1995- given that it is 2004 and he is 32? that would be 23 and he gets 36th in the tour... um, not too bad.. If he was as undisciplined as he claims to have been and is now as disciplined as he claims, frankly it seems possible. Given the type of injuries Lemond had versus the type that Lance had, it seems not that abnormal that lance came back quicker than lemond. Especially given that lance got to to some degree pick his poison. i.e. he chose to spare his lungs and risk death.

I have no clue if the guy is clean. But, lemond should check his facts, in terms of physiology, HR, VO2max, etc. Lance clearly was up there with everyone before his cancer. 36th at the tour seems fine for a 23yo.

I have no clue if he dopes, I wish he would issue a McGee style challenge. LeMond did seem to be right with lance, you're either a liar or out to destroy the sport. Whether or not he dopes, lance is clearly sick and tired of having to hear a damn thing about doping. That clearly comes from one of two reasons: A. he is on dope and thinks everyone else is too, therefore is sick of having his hard work not appreciated just because the whole sport dopes.. B. He has developed an oversensitivity to the issue from having come back from cancer and come to the top of the sport and have so many people say that it's just dope.

fyi. people google, language tools, read bad translations of what lemond actually said... the best evidence against lance is that lemond seems to have gotten some calls that support theory A more than theory B. However nowing what it is like to be white guy with some dumb macho ideas about honor/pride (like lance does), I have been in situations where I did dumb dumb things that made me look guilty even when I was innocent.

It does seem that regardless of lance doping or not he seems to actually help the testing people somewhat.. course that can easily be taken on the same level as him apperently being miffed cuz t-mobile got DA SRMs before he did..

The guy is obsessive and intense... and I still have no idea.. he could just be that defensive. He could alos be doped. I'd have to get to spend time with him to really now... McGee, go win the gold..!

babylou

The reason Amrstrong denies doping so often is because he is asked the question so often. No one asks Ullrich if he is doping even though he has proven he is willing to use illicit substances. What about Mayo? Maybe he sucked at the TDF this year because he skipped hi EPO therapy due to the new testing regimen implemented at the '04 TDF. Zubeldia also was a no show.

If Armstrong is doping and his competitors are clean then I am amazed at how close in performance they are to him. The fact is almost all are all doping. This is what Greg Lemond has stated and what Andy Hampsten has backed up today on the Velo News website.

musette

The reason LA gets asked about doping more is that he is SUCCESSFUL in races, and has won five (soon to be six) TdFs. That does not mean he dopes. It means he is highly successful. People don't want to acknowledge that LA/USPS/Bruyneel are more talented, hard-working and strategic-thinking than they are, so it's more protective of one's ego (or more protective, in the case of, say, a Mayo fan, of his image of Mayo and Mayo's capabilities) to blame the superior performance of LA on doping instead of recognizing what the true causes of such performance are.

The reason fewer people ask why JU dopes is that he has not won five (soon to be six) TdFs and he does not generally perform as well as LA.

Beastt

If Armstrong isn't clean then it's pretty clear that Basso, Mayo, Hamilton, Kloden, Heras and Voekler are all doping as well. Some had a bad year, some had bad luck but you can't implicate Armstrong without implicating the other noteables. Perhaps it's the whole field or perhaps only a few but Armstrong wasn't as decisive this year as he has been in years past yet still put a firm, controlling hand on the Tour. Since Ullrich is usually the biggest challenge Armstrong has, if Lance is doping, Ullrich is right there with him.

musette

If superior performance or IMPROVEMENT IN PERFORMANCE sufficed to establish doping, only losers who never improve or never win would not be implicated in doping!

babylou

Yes, damn near every one of them is doping! I said this earlier in this thread and keep saying it. Cycling is no different than any other real sport. Hell even some soccer players have been caught doping and that is a sissy sport (what did you expect? I'm American).

The reasoning process the athlete follows to convince themselves to take EPO or anabolic steroids (good for sprinters) or human growth hormone is simple and somewhat logical. It goes something like this:

1. Hey this drug, be it EPO or HGH or anabolic steroids, is a medicine prescribed by doctors for sick people not some illegal loser crap like cocaine.

2. If the drug is good for sick people it must be good for me.

2. All my competitors are doping so if I dope I am not getting an unfair advantage. I am simply evening the score. The best man will still win.

3. Shucks if I don't perform I'm gonna have to get a job at my cousin's auto repair shop.

I knew competitiors of mine, in another sport, that began to use anabolic steroids in the 9th grade.

babylou

Why does everyone say for us not to claim Armstrong is doping because you do not have any proof? There is proof just not irrefutable proof. His association with a known sport dope dealing doctor, Michele Ferrari, is circumstantial. Then there is the lady who claims she witnessed the drug paraphernalia which is more damning than circumstantial. There are a hell of a lot of people in prison in Texas that were convicted of crimes with no ore proof than was just presented.

I applaud Lemond's and Hampsten's stance against EPO. I am disappointed that Lemond singled out Armstrong since damn near all of the field is cheating.