# Why Did Lance Win the Tour and Why Seven In a Row?



## Tschai (Jun 19, 2003)

Ok, so we all know by his own admission he could not have won without doping. We also know that early in his career he was not a GC contender. To that end, my question is, why did he win and why seven in a row? Was his team's doping program really that much better than the rest? Did his body really respond to doping that much better than anyone else? Did the cancer really transform his body in a way that helped his performance? I just don't get it.


----------



## love4himies (Jun 12, 2012)

A combination of doping and determination/will to win??? I also read somewhere that he had one of the strictest training regiments (looked for the article, but can't find it anymore).


----------



## den bakker (Nov 13, 2004)

love4himies said:


> A combination of doping and determination/will to win??? I also read somewhere that he had one of the strictest training regiments (looked for the article, but can't find it anymore).


don't forget cadence. No BS story on this is complete without discussing cadence.


----------



## spade2you (May 12, 2009)

He was lucky enough have the most support and stay in good health. Most importantly, he stayed injury free and had minimal crashes. One must not forget that Jan missed the '99 TdF due to injury and Belocki had that unfortunate spectacular crash in '02.


----------



## mohair_chair (Oct 3, 2002)

Tschai said:


> Ok, so we all know by his own admission he could not have won without doping.


That's not really what he said. He said he could not have won without doping, because everyone else was doping. He never said he couldn't win the Tour clean if everyone else was clean.


----------



## Bluenote (Oct 28, 2012)

What's the point in discussing this? He didn't win - his titles are stripped. 

He doped. His whole team doped. The whole team was built solely around supporting him in the Tour. He only rode the tour. 

Others didn't have that much support. Couldn't focus solely in the Tour. Got injured in other races. Crashed during the race. Didn't dope as well. Had inner tensions on there team. His approach of focusing only in the Tour was a luxury few others ever had. 

Some others 'lost the Tour' more that Lance always 'won' the tour.


----------



## RTSO2112 (Oct 18, 2012)

Bluenote said:


> What's the point in discussing this? He didn't win - his titles are stripped.
> 
> He doped. His whole team doped. The whole team was built solely around supporting him in the Tour. He only rode the tour.
> 
> ...


^^^^ This more than any argument to the contrary.


----------



## spade2you (May 12, 2009)

den bakker said:


> don't forget cadence. No BS story on this is complete without discussing cadence.


Just think how he could have done with elliptical chainrings.


----------



## Cableguy (Jun 6, 2010)

The part I don't get is why Armstrong kept saying winning was a sure thing, that he literally *knew* he was going to win each year... yet at the same time explained doping leveled the playing field and everything *he* was on was also widely used by the peloton. There's a gap in those two explanations there that doesn't make sense. 

For him to *know* he would win each year, I suspect his own personal doping regime was in fact much better than everyone elses. It's one thing to be confident, but to say it is a sure thing makes no sense with everything else he's saying.


----------



## Wookiebiker (Sep 5, 2005)

Regardless of how much people want to deny his winning of the Tour's ... He did win them, regardless of what the books say now.

As for having a better doping program than others ... that's up for debate just by the sheer fact that we don't know what other teams were doing. You can bet that Telokom had a simlar program as did many other teams of the era.

Was it just the drugs? I would say no ... because, by his own self admission he was using the same drugs before he got cancer and was an "At Best" mid pack Tour finisher and more of a one day racer at the time (i.e. World Championships). So when you look at that and all the people shouting "Super Responder" I don't really agree with them ... or he would have been a Tour contender Pre-Cancer.

You could say his first two were won because of his sole focus on the Tour, but after that every GC rider changed the way they approached their season and put a focuse just on the Tour. He literally changed the way other riders prepared for the Tour and tailored their race seasons for one single race. After his first two, all the GC hopefulls were gunning for him and had the luxury of focusing on a single race each year.

In the end, I would say it was a combination of doping program, intense dedication, increadible attention to detail, body change post-cancer, strong teams and great strategy.

When you look at the times with so many teams on systematic doping programs ... for me, the difference was the attention to detail. He was smarter about his preperation (doping), logistics (having everything to go when needed) and planning (pre-route riding and knowing when to attack and when to sit back) than the other teams.

If other riders could have beat him ... they would have, but they couldn't. 

The one things that I did see in him, that I didn't see in many others (Contador has it) ... is that desire to stick a dagger in other people when he has the chance. When he saw weakness ... he attacked and just pounded them at "That moment". It's something that all champions have the ability to do and many times is what sepearates "The" best in the world compared to those that are "World Class".


----------



## spade2you (May 12, 2009)

Cableguy said:


> The part I don't get is why Armstrong kept saying winning was a sure thing, that he literally *knew* he was going to win each year... yet at the same time explained doping leveled the playing field and everything *he* was on was also widely used by the peloton. There's a gap in those two explanations there that doesn't make sense.
> 
> For him to *know* he would win each year, I suspect his own personal doping regime was in fact much better than everyone elses. It's one thing to be confident, but to say it is a sure thing makes no sense with everything else he's saying.


Probably more hype than anything else. He probably came into '09 and '10 *knowing* he could win it.


----------



## love4himies (Jun 12, 2012)

Cableguy said:


> The part I don't get is why Armstrong kept saying winning was a sure thing, that he literally *knew* he was going to win each year... yet at the same time explained doping leveled the playing field and everything *he* was on was also widely used by the peloton. There's a gap in those two explanations there that doesn't make sense.
> 
> For him to *know* he would win each year, I suspect his own personal doping regime was in fact much better than everyone elses. It's one thing to be confident, but to say it is a sure thing makes no sense with everything else he's saying.


Or he was just so darn arrogant. My vet's son is a Olympic class rower and he said to me once, that all rowers in the top 10 have a chance of winning gold, there is very little difference in their talent. One ploy they used on their competitors is to exhume confidence on winning to try to psyche them out.


----------



## T K (Feb 11, 2009)

Wookiebiker said:


> Regardless of how much people want to deny his winning of the Tour's ... He did win them, regardless of what the books say now.
> 
> As for having a better doping program than others ... that's up for debate just by the sheer fact that we don't know what other teams were doing. You can bet that Telokom had a simlar program as did many other teams of the era.
> 
> ...


This is one of the best "in a nut shell" posts on the subject ever. I agree 100%!!!
Lance won 7 because he did everything better than everyone else.


----------



## kookieCANADA (Jan 20, 2011)

love4himies said:


> Or he was just so darn arrogant. My vet's son is a Olympic class rower and he said to me once, that all rowers in the top 10 have a chance of winning gold, there is very little difference in their talent. One ploy they used on their competitors is to exhume confidence on winning to try to psyche them out.


I put Tiger Woods in the same category (in his prime)....having the confidence in knowing you are going to win.


----------



## RTSO2112 (Oct 18, 2012)

_The one things that I did see in him, that I didn't see in many others (Contador has it) ... is that desire to stick a dagger in other people when he has the chance. When he saw weakness ... he attacked and just pounded them at "That moment". It's something that all champions have the ability to do and many times is what sepearates "The" best in the world compared to those that are "World Class"._

It's this I have a problem with....I would say you could separate his "winning" (on the bike) from the rest of his DB ways....only if HE were able to DURING those 7 wins. Except, he excelled at using these same types of tactics off the bike in order to keep winning. That's akin to killing off the jury pool so you never go to trial...doesn't make it right.


----------



## albert owen (Jul 7, 2008)

This is the problem right here - because of doping we will never know how good he actually was and crucially neither will he. He cheated everyone including himself.


----------



## spade2you (May 12, 2009)

albert owen said:


> This is the problem right here - because of doping we will never know how good he actually was and crucially neither will he. He cheated everyone including himself.


Without doping he might be a stage hunter and most people wouldn't have noticed.


----------



## T K (Feb 11, 2009)

spade2you said:


> Without doping he might be a stage hunter and most people wouldn't have noticed.


Without doping he might not have been a pro cyclist. I wonder what his backup plan was. Used car salesman?


----------



## spade2you (May 12, 2009)

T K said:


> Without doping he might not have been a pro cyclist. I wonder what his backup plan was. Used car salesman?


You're probably right. For whatever reasons, I see him doing something shady and with cars. Used car salesman, tow truck driver, repair man. Hmph.


----------



## Fireform (Dec 15, 2005)

albert owen said:


> This is the problem right here - because of doping we will never know how good he actually was and crucially neither will he. He cheated everyone including himself.


This.


----------



## Cableguy (Jun 6, 2010)

spade2you said:


> Probably more hype than anything else. He probably came into '09 and '10 *knowing* he could win it.


When talking about 09 and 10 I think he said he "expected" to win. But for the previous 7 he did not simply expect to win, he emphasized he knew for a fact. Struck me as bizarre, I mean why on earth would he say that... unless there was truth to it. It's like he knew he had a substantial advantage over everyone else (i.e. more/better drugs). By itself that's a pretty rude and arrogant thing to say, especially to his ex-competitors, and especially while trying to come clean and apologize infront of millions of people. I don't see why he would retroactively embellish his chances of winning something either... that he already won. You could say he was simply being arrogant, but he would also have to be pretty stupid to say that for no other reason than just arrogance. I don't think he's that stupid. 

Imagine if Wiggins described all his wins last year like that... "You know I'm actually not surprised I won, it was basically gauranteed." I'd wonder what kind of drugs he was on... not just to be so much better than everyone else, but to know it for a fact.


----------



## The Tedinator (Mar 12, 2004)

The dope, the desire, good health in July, and an amazing amount of luck. The year Leipheimer and Hamilton broke their hip and collarbone respectively, Armstrong was in the same crash. No damage, just roadrash. In 99, when dang near half the peloton hit the deck on stage 1, he was in front. I remember one year, he was in a massive pileup, right beside the 3k to go sign (which he made damn sure to point out to a Tour official). And who can forget the famous Beloki wipeout and subsequent cross country ride, and the musette crash with Mayo? The guy lived a very doped and charmed existence in July!


----------



## Len J (Jan 28, 2004)

I think there were a few other differences that haven't been mentioned:

1.) the sophistication of the interaction of training and doping was improving every year...Ferrari has always been on the leading edge of understanding and maximizing these interactions. My guess is they were a year or so ahead of the competition.

2.) postal was the first team of the doping program totally doped and totally focused on only one goal....leading Lance to the tour win. It was extremely systematic and those who wouldn't get with the program from either a training perspective or doping perspective were gone. All other teams had multiple goals. 

3.). Postal did a good job of bringing emerging competitors onto the team, mostly by outspending anyone else. 

There is no doubt that LA is a hard worker and anal retentive in his preparation. 

Len


----------



## sir duke (Mar 24, 2006)

The Tedinator said:


> The dope, the desire, good health in July, and an amazing amount of luck. The year Leipheimer and Hamilton broke their hip and collarbone respectively, Armstrong was in the same crash. No damage, just roadrash. In 99, when dang near half the peloton hit the deck on stage 1, he was in front. I remember one year, he was in a massive pileup, right beside the 3k to go sign (which he made damn sure to point out to a Tour official). And who can forget the famous Beloki wipeout and subsequent cross country ride, and the musette crash with Mayo? The guy lived a very doped and charmed existence in July!



To misquote Arnold Palmer: 'The more I dope, the luckier I get.'


----------



## Alaska Mike (Sep 28, 2008)

Ferarri was light years ahead of Fuentes and the vast majority of other doping doctors in terms of technique and attention to detail. Read Tyler's book and compare the level of service that Lance was getting compared to that which Fuentes doled out to his clients- not even close.

Lance was also obsessive about knowing what the competition was doing, who they were working with, and what kind of form they were carrying. If he felt like another racer had an edge, he would take steps to neutralize it.

He was a driven, dedicated SOB who would to anything and everything to win, and that's why he won. And no, I do not find that to be an admirable trait.


----------



## The Tedinator (Mar 12, 2004)

sir duke said:


> To misquote Arnold Palmer: 'The more I dope, the luckier I get.'


Hahahaha. I do remember a day in the Giro when Basso's doping went horribly wrong. He lost nearly 30 minutes on that stage, IIRC. Pharmstrong never had a day like that. Was never sick from a screwed up transfusion, or any other natural sickness; and never, ever was in the wrong place at the wrong time. He and the Hog were meticulous in their preparation, both the legal and illegal kind.


----------



## PinarelloGirl (Aug 26, 2012)

A corrupt cop. Suits his narcissistic personality well. He could bully and berate others those people he thinks are inferior or who question his authority.


----------



## Dave Cutter (Sep 26, 2012)

So... nobody thinks LA's wins were selected? 

It wasn't just Lance cheating... the entire sport is rigged. Heck I'd guess that most sports are somewhat rigged. Lance didn't cheat to win.... Lance performed his best... *and then some*... for sure. But I am convinced the cycling worlds powers-that-be... chose LA to be the sporting worlds cycling face. And... it would be my guess that it was largely because it was hoped he could make cycling more popular in America.


----------



## rydbyk (Feb 17, 2010)

If we were to actually believe Lance about racing clean and earning a 3rd in the TdF while in his late 30's, then he is very talented at a clean cyclist.

Again, IF this is true, then doped, he is just unbeatable....especially BEFORE his come back.


----------



## AdamM (Jul 9, 2008)

I think you have to factor in Armstrong's single focus on the TDF, which was a relatively new thing and he takes it to the extreme. So instead of a season with multiple peaks in fitness, which are hard to manage he's able to spends most of the season out of competition. 

Another factor was Bruyneel's ability to source great Spanish climbing domestiques.


----------



## The Moontrane (Nov 28, 2005)

So many ellipses…are annoying to the degree of…Priceline's spokesman's…diction.


----------



## The Moontrane (Nov 28, 2005)

The Tedinator said:


> The dope, the desire, good health in July, and an amazing amount of luck. The year Leipheimer and Hamilton broke their hip and collarbone respectively, Armstrong was in the same crash. No damage, just roadrash. In 99, when dang near half the peloton hit the deck on stage 1, he was in front. I remember one year, he was in a massive pileup, right beside the 3k to go sign (which he made damn sure to point out to a Tour official). And who can forget the famous Beloki wipeout and subsequent cross country ride, and the musette crash with Mayo? The guy lived a very doped and charmed existence in July!


I've read some observations like yours. Consider this: Put a motor in the bottom bracket of a domestique for the climbs and TTs. Would that rider win the tour 7 years on the trot? Considering position in the peloton, frantic finishes, descents, etc I don't see it happening.


----------



## sir duke (Mar 24, 2006)

T K said:


> This is one of the best "in a nut shell" posts on the subject ever. I agree 100%!!!
> Lance won 7 because he did everything better than everyone else.



Well, if he ever ends up in the slammer I'm sure he'll be a model prisoner. Guess he was good at lying to his kids too.


----------



## DIRT BOY (Aug 22, 2002)

Wookiebiker said:


> body change post-cancer,


I said this soo many times its not even funny. Cancer made him stronger physically and mentally. How much you want to bet, we worked with Squibb and took some experimental or controversial treatments to beat cancer. Which made him much stronger physically.
Add in all the other no doping stuff and you see WHY he was better than everyone and won. The doping field was 99.9% a level playing field and the haters no this.

Like you said, we won and those facts will never change, regardless of what the UCI and USADA say. He beat other DOPERS and the field doing the same thing.


----------



## DIRT BOY (Aug 22, 2002)

Alaska Mike said:


> He was a driven, dedicated SOB who would to anything and everything to win, and that's why he won. And no, I do not find that to be an admirable trait.


So? You just described 99.9% of champions and superstars in every sport.


----------



## Fireform (Dec 15, 2005)

DIRT BOY said:


> So? You just described 99.9% of champions and superstars in every sport.


Not really. I don't recall any superstar who went to the lengths Armstrong did to harass, intimidate and ruin anyone who criticized him. Gretzky? Bonds? Montana? Ali? No. Even Clemens, who in my book is a class A tool, doesn't come close. There's a big difference between being "driven" and being Armstrong.


----------



## Bluenote (Oct 28, 2012)

Fireform said:


> Not really. I don't recall any superstar who went to the lengths Armstrong did to harass, intimidate and ruin anyone who criticized him. Gretzky? Bonds? Montana? Ali? No. Even Clemens, who in my book is a class A tool, doesn't come close. There's a big difference between being "driven" and being Armstrong.


^^This. In spades.


----------



## MG537 (Jul 25, 2006)

DIRT BOY said:


> I said this soo many times its not even funny. Cancer made him stronger physically and mentally. How much you want to bet, we worked with Squibb and took some experimental or controversial treatments to beat cancer. Which made him much stronger physically.
> Add in all the other no doping stuff and you see WHY he was better than everyone and won. The doping field was 99.9% a level playing field and the haters no this.
> 
> Like you said, we won and those facts will never change, regardless of what the UCI and USADA say. He beat other DOPERS and the field doing the same thing.


Just because you said it "so many times" does not make it true.
That's one of the biggest LA myths spewed on the iternetz by the now dwindling fan base. Cancer treatments changed his body (fast twitch so slow twitch blah blah) so he was transformed from single day racer to grand tour champion.

If you want to get a real scientist's opinion on the matter, head over to the nyvelocity web site and read the Michael Ashenden interviews.


----------



## Wookiebiker (Sep 5, 2005)

DIRT BOY said:


> So? You just described 99.9% of champions and superstars in every sport.


And business, politics, science, religion, etc.


----------



## Wookiebiker (Sep 5, 2005)

Fireform said:


> Not really. I don't recall any superstar who went to the lengths Armstrong did to harass, intimidate and ruin anyone who criticized him. Gretzky? Bonds? Montana? Ali? No. Even Clemens, who in my book is a class A tool, doesn't come close. There's a big difference between being "driven" and being Armstrong.


Well ... that you know of. As far as we know, some of that could have happened with other athletes and it may have just been "Lack of opportunity" that kept them from doing it.

One thing many people miss in other sports is money invested. Many good players in football never get a chance because a team invested a large sum of money on a player in the early rounds of a draft compared to somebody taken later. So the politics of their draft placement keep them on a roster, while other deserving players are practice squad guys or dropped because the owners tell the GM to get rid of them.

With that said, it happens "All the time" in business, politics, science, religion and any other aspect of life you can think about. The "Driven" make it to the top, the rest get stepped on while they get there.

It's life and if you don't like it, you will be stepped on at some point during it. You might achieve some level of success, but you won't be one of the "Top" individuals in any field..


----------



## kmak (Sep 5, 2011)

I don't have much to add but I do remember the video special on "The Science of Lance Armstrong" that indicated he had a technology edge - in fact, I recall that his closest victory, 2003 over Ullrich by 61 seconds, was entirely due to the time savings of the skin suit he wore in the time trials.

No one yet had mentioned technology as a reason for his victories.

And a good one for the teachers out there:

The Science Of Lance Armstrong | Free Lesson Plans | Teachers | Discovery Education


----------



## Cableguy (Jun 6, 2010)

Dave Cutter said:


> So... nobody thinks LA's wins were selected?
> 
> It wasn't just Lance cheating... the entire sport is rigged. Heck I'd guess that most sports are somewhat rigged. Lance didn't cheat to win.... Lance performed his best... *and then some*... for sure. But I am convinced the cycling worlds powers-that-be... chose LA to be the sporting worlds cycling face. And... it would be my guess that it was largely because it was hoped he could make cycling more popular in America.


His cancer-survivor-comeback story was so perfect and marketable that the UCI couldn't help but turn a blind eye. It was too good for the sport not to. Of course by 2005, after 7 consecutive wins, I'm sure they were rolling their eyes.


----------



## DIRT BOY (Aug 22, 2002)

MG537 said:


> Just because you said it "so many times" does not make it true.
> That's one of the biggest LA myths spewed on the iternetz by the now dwindling fan base. Cancer treatments changed his body (fast twitch so slow twitch blah blah) so he was transformed from single day racer to grand tour champion.
> 
> If you want to get a real scientist's opinion on the matter, head over to the nyvelocity web site and read the Michael Ashenden interviews.


Did I EVER say the specifics you gave? No! Do some research with DRs like I have and real worlds training of certain types of cancer survivors and respects to certain drugs and their physical ability to get back. Then come back to this forum like you know something.


----------



## Chaz955i (Mar 13, 2006)

Wookiebiker said:


> Regardless of how much people want to deny his winning of the Tour's ... He did win them, regardless of what the books say now.
> 
> As for having a better doping program than others ... that's up for debate just by the sheer fact that we don't know what other teams were doing. You can bet that Telokom had a simlar program as did many other teams of the era.
> 
> ...


Very well stated. Considering what a prick he is it is at times hard to give him credit for anything but looking back he was brutally effective in every aspect of his racing program. Excluding the drugs and the other douchebaggery it is a program that many people, aspiring to win would do well to emulate.


----------



## Alaska Mike (Sep 28, 2008)

kmak said:


> I don't have much to add but I do remember the video special on "The Science of Lance Armstrong" that indicated he had a technology edge - in fact, I recall that his closest victory, 2003 over Ullrich by 61 seconds, was entirely due to the time savings of the skin suit he wore in the time trials.
> 
> No one yet had mentioned technology as a reason for his victories.
> 
> ...


i.e. "marginal gains". You can throw that in with "cadence", "just training harder than everyone else", "focusing on the Tour", and all the other stuff Lance and his entourage threw out there to explain the results. It's all been mentioned before.

Please teachers, do not perpetuate the myth. Even Lance has abandoned it.


----------



## DIRT BOY (Aug 22, 2002)

Fireform said:


> Not really. I don't recall any superstar who went to the lengths Armstrong did to harass, intimidate and ruin anyone who criticized him. Gretzky? Bonds? Montana? Ali? No. Even Clemens, who in my book is a class A tool, doesn't come close. There's a big difference between being "driven" and being Armstrong.


Throw out the bullying part, yes. Most top athletes that I have met, worked with or know others who have, we're complete SOB on the field, court, etc. but LA was everywhere and he let he truth be known.


----------



## MerlinAma (Oct 11, 2005)

While reading David Millar's book "Racing Through the Dark", I was shocked at the lack of an organized, sophisticated training program. Also shocked at waht I perceived to be an uncoordinated team approach and the team's lack of concern as to his health (illness & injury). 
That's when I was totally convinced that Lance and team were way ahead of the other teams on "winning the war". 
We can all say what we want about Lance, but to ignore the positive things in his approach (and I'm not talking about attitude) to bike racing would be foolish. It wasn't ALL about the drugs.


----------



## multirider (Nov 5, 2007)

Cableguy said:


> When talking about 09 and 10 I think he said he "expected" to win. But for the previous 7 he did not simply expect to win, he emphasized he knew for a fact. Struck me as bizarre, I mean *why on earth would he say that... unless there was truth to it*. It's like he knew he had a substantial advantage over everyone else (i.e. more/better drugs). By itself that's a *pretty rude *and *arrogant *thing to say, especially to his ex-competitors, and especially while trying to come clean and apologize infront of millions of people. I don't see why he would retroactively embellish his chances of winning something either... that he already won. You could say he was simply being arrogant, but he would also have to be pretty stupid to say that for no other reason than just arrogance. I don't think he's that stupid. .


That post strikes me as pretty funny! "Why would he say that unless there was some truth to it.". The expectation that there must be at least a nugget of truth to things Lance says makes me laugh. He also said he just "mailed it in". Is there a nugget of truth to that?


----------



## BGEPizza (Sep 28, 2009)

Can you imagine? LA, rude and arrogant? Nah. Couldn't be.


----------



## albert owen (Jul 7, 2008)

I don't understand this thread.

Lance Armstrong didn't win a single TdF. 
That's the whole point: If he had truly believed that he could have won without cheating he wouldn't have cheated.

- therefore we should acknowledge this one simple truth -

It's the Pills wot won it!


----------



## rydbyk (Feb 17, 2010)

albert owen said:


> I don't understand this thread.
> 
> Lance Armstrong didn't win a single TdF.
> That's the whole point: If he had truly believed that he could have won without cheating he wouldn't have cheated.
> ...


The debate is regarding the fact that nearly everyone was doping and LA still managed to win once...twice...three times....four times...five times....six times and seven times. Surely it was MORE than "pills", as you say. Like I mentioned before, LA made a CLEAR statement to Orpah that he raced clean with NO drugs and earned a 3rd in the 2009 TdF. IF this is true, then LA is a stud. Do I believe it? Not too sure... Did you see that clip in the interview with Orpah?


----------



## den bakker (Nov 13, 2004)

rydbyk said:


> The debate is regarding the fact that nearly everyone was doping and LA still managed to win once...twice...three times....four times...five times....six times and seven times. Surely it was MORE than "pills", as you say. Like I mentioned before, LA made a CLEAR statement to Orpah that he raced clean with NO drugs and earned a 3rd in the 2009 TdF. IF this is true, then LA is a stud. Do I believe it? Not too sure... Did you see that clip in the interview with Orpah?


Glad to see there are still some believing in miracles.


----------



## Bluenote (Oct 28, 2012)

rydbyk said:


> The debate is regarding the fact that nearly everyone was doping and LA still managed to win once...twice...three times....four times...five times....six times and seven times. Surely it was MORE than "pills", as you say. Like I mentioned before, LA made a CLEAR statement to Orpah that he raced clean with NO drugs and earned a 3rd in the 2009 TdF. IF this is true, then LA is a stud. Do I believe it? Not too sure... Did you see that clip in the interview with Orpah?


The USADA reasoned decision said that the chances were a million to one that LA was clean in his comeback. He has lots of potential motivations to lie - the comeback is inside various statutes of limitations, why were the blood values never acted on, trying to preserve some type of legacy. 

Plus, he pulled an emotional plea 'I promised the mother of my children I wouldn't' - and that kind of emotional shield was one if his M.O.s when lying (wouldn't dope and risk my legacy, hurt my kids like that, risk my foundation, etc....)

The way I look at it, Armstrong cheated, so I don't feel any obligation to try and salvage some legacy for him. If he wanted a legacy, he shouldn't have cheated. At the very least, he could have made a confession on his own, not after being banned. 

But I could rephrase this question in two ways that are more constructive. 

Did Armstrong take approaches within the rules that could benefit other Tour riders? 

Given Armstrong's self confessed psychology and 'win at all costs' mentality, do you think he ever would have been a fair athlete? If he'd raced in the 70s would he have used 'speed', the 30s coke, the 1910s hitched a ride on trains, and whatever other ways people have tried to cheat the Tour through history?


----------



## Fireform (Dec 15, 2005)

Whenever Lance used the word absolutely he was lying. He was lying at other times too but especially then.


----------



## Cableguy (Jun 6, 2010)

multirider said:


> That post strikes me as pretty funny! "Why would he say that unless there was some truth to it.". The expectation that there must be at least a nugget of truth to things Lance says makes me laugh. He also said he just "mailed it in". Is there a nugget of truth to that?


Specifically why would he say it if it 1) did not benefit him 2) would be detrimental to gaining sympathy from viewers and 3) was unnecessary.

Perhaps it was true? I think he said it just for the sake of being honest, without thinking ahead to realize it wasn't a good thing to say.


----------



## Tschai (Jun 19, 2003)

Fireform said:


> Whenever Lance used the word absolutely he was lying. He was lying at other times too but especially then.


Yep. I told my wife this as we were watching the interviews. If he said absolutely not/no, he was lying. Did the same in the past as well.


----------



## NJBiker72 (Jul 9, 2011)

albert owen said:


> I don't understand this thread.
> 
> Lance Armstrong didn't win a single TdF.
> That's the whole point: If he had truly believed that he could have won without cheating he wouldn't have cheated.
> ...


Yes. Anyone of us could have won those seven if we just had the same magic pills.


----------



## sir duke (Mar 24, 2006)

Editosted in wrong thread...oops.:blush2:


----------



## spade2you (May 12, 2009)

Alaska Mike said:


> i.e. "marginal gains". You can throw that in with "cadence", "just training harder than everyone else", "focusing on the Tour", and all the other stuff Lance and his entourage threw out there to explain the results. It's all been mentioned before.
> 
> Please teachers, do not perpetuate the myth. Even Lance has abandoned it.


I dunno, call me crazy, but my power meter seems to agree that my textured skin suits are better. Granted, it's virtually impossible to duplicate your legs (perfectly) or the weather. 

Still, that was the year that Jan put 2 minutes on him in the previous time trial. 

Back to the overall subject at hand, also look at his performance in the TTT. Remove the TTT and he could have lost once or twice during that era.


----------



## spade2you (May 12, 2009)

Cableguy said:


> When talking about 09 and 10 I think he said he "expected" to win.  But for the previous 7 he did not simply expect to win, he emphasized he knew for a fact. Struck me as bizarre, I mean why on earth would he say that... unless there was truth to it. It's like he knew he had a substantial advantage over everyone else (i.e. more/better drugs). By itself that's a pretty rude and arrogant thing to say, especially to his ex-competitors, and especially while trying to come clean and apologize infront of millions of people. I don't see why he would retroactively embellish his chances of winning something either... that he already won. You could say he was simply being arrogant, but he would also have to be pretty stupid to say that for no other reason than just arrogance. I don't think he's that stupid.
> 
> Imagine if Wiggins described all his wins last year like that... "You know I'm actually not surprised I won, it was basically gauranteed." I'd wonder what kind of drugs he was on... not just to be so much better than everyone else, but to know it for a fact.


I doubt there was much behind it beyond hype. Then again, I really don't get wrapped up into rider personalities.


----------



## cchristanis (Jul 15, 2012)

I saw the interviews and I can't recall. To what questions did he reply with "absolutely"?



Tschai said:


> Yep. I told my wife this as we were watching the interviews. If he said absolutely not/no, he was lying. Did the same in the past as well.


----------



## Alaska Mike (Sep 28, 2008)

spade2you said:


> I dunno, call me crazy, but my power meter seems to agree that my textured skin suits are better. Granted, it's virtually impossible to duplicate your legs (perfectly) or the weather.
> 
> Still, that was the year that Jan put 2 minutes on him in the previous time trial.
> 
> Back to the overall subject at hand, also look at his performance in the TTT. Remove the TTT and he could have lost once or twice during that era.


I'm not debating the effectiveness of the technology, because the F1 project likely did yield some gains. I do contend that they paled in comparison to the advantages he got from a well-tuned doping plan. The timing of EPO doses, blood bags, testosterone, and whatever else was flowing though his veins likely was the difference.

I imagine you've done a stage race before. More often then not, if "methods" aren't used to overcome the cumulative effect of riding at that intensity over time, you can expect that a rider will not be able to perform as well (average wattage) in a TT near the end as he did during the prologue or an earlier TT. Hematocrit levels are supposed to fall during extended efforts, no matter how many ice packs, massages, or good nights of sleep you get.

In a single day 10 mile TT, I can usually crush certain people that are half my age. Put that same TT in a couple mountain stages later, my average power falls by about 50W, and I am the one getting crushed. I just don't recover as well as other people do, for a variety of reasons.

So, saying that a particular piece of equipment (even LeMond's aerobars) entirely explains a given result is just faulty logic. To many variables play into it, and their given importance varies widely over a 3 week period. 

Sometimes just thinking something makes you faster, makes you faster. Belief is a powerful drug, and Lance obviously had a great deal of faith in Ferarri and his methods. He had good reason to.


----------



## spade2you (May 12, 2009)

Alaska Mike said:


> I'm not debating the effectiveness of the technology, because the F1 project likely did yield some gains. I do contend that they paled in comparison to the advantages he got from a well-tuned doping plan. The timing of EPO doses, blood bags, testosterone, and whatever else was flowing though his veins likely was the difference.
> 
> I imagine you've done a stage race before. More often then not, if "methods" aren't used to overcome the cumulative effect of riding at that intensity over time, you can expect that a rider will not be able to perform as well (average wattage) in a TT near the end as he did during the prologue or an earlier TT. Hematocrit levels are supposed to fall during extended efforts, no matter how many ice packs, massages, or good nights of sleep you get.
> 
> ...


It very well could be in my head. I'm not seeing significantly different power when I'm wearing the textured skin suits by Louis Garneau and Voler. Perhaps I'm riding slightly faster because I think I'm faster.

Interestingly enough, I think LeMond's TT bike was enough of an advantage and set the standard for modern TT bikes since folks were still using two disc wheels and the old TT bars.


----------



## Bluenote (Oct 28, 2012)

DIRT BOY said:


> Did I EVER say the specifics you gave? No! Do some research with DRs like I have and real worlds training of certain types of cancer survivors and respects to certain drugs and their physical ability to get back. Then come back to this forum like you know something.



You are the one making the claim that cancer somehow made him physically different and stronger. If you have done all these research, then why not share some of it with us? Or post a little of it to back up your position? 

I don't claim to have some great knowledge of the area. All I can say is - if cancer was so great for athletes, then why are t there lots of cancer survivors in the ranks of sport and such? Why would Lance be one of the few to get this boost?


----------



## Tschai (Jun 19, 2003)

cchristanis said:


> I saw the interviews and I can't recall. To what questions did he reply with "absolutely"?


OW: When you placed third in 2009, you did not dope?
LA: "The last time I crossed that line was 2005."
OW: Does that include blood transfusions? No doping or blood transfusions in 2009… 2010?
LA: "Absolutely not."


----------



## terzo rene (Mar 23, 2002)

I think this pretty much covers it:

Cadence: Using EPO to boost your red cells above normal changes the balance between legs and lungs and makes a higher cadence mandatory to reestablish a balance of power and maximize performance. It's no coincidence that high cadence became the rage with Indurain. Compare to Lemond, Hinault, and Fignon who were all pedaling in molasses compared to Indurain and LA.

Cancer: Neither the drugs nor the disease are anything but detrimental. Metastatic cancer survivors as a group have great recuperative powers siimpy because the ones that didn't are no longer alive. Survivorship bias doesn't count as a benefit to me.

Ferrari: One of the biggest reasons. Ferrari was more than one year ahead, by most accounts it was several years. LA was effectively microdosing in 1999 based on the results from the L'Equipe tests. Having Ferrari on exclusive contract among Tour contenders was also big.

Buying up the competition: As stated previously Floyd, Tyler, Roberto, etc. were all competition and having them on the team kept that from being a danger.

Ratting out the competition: When those riders left the team they got busted. At a minimum Lance ratted Mayo and Hamilton to the UCI, and was likely also behind the police interceptions of both Ullrich's and Hamilton's blood bag couriers on the same day in the Tour. Beyond the physiological effects that's a huge psychological blow.

Kid Glove treatment by the UCI: As stated earlier in the thread LA was a marketing dream for the entire sport and they really wouldn't have been doing their job if they didn't act to ensure the miracle story continued. He was informed about impending testing, had back dated TUE's accepted and at the very least was informed that his EPO tests were getting too close for comfort and informed exactly how the tests worked.

Ridiculous Luck: Superior doping is part of this because it's easier to avoid a crash if you still have your wits about you rather than being fogged with fatigue, but really it boils down to meticulous preparation and a buttload of luck.

Bad luck for the competition: Starting with the absence of Ullrich and Pantani in 1999 (who would have decimated him in the mountains that year), he was blessed by the self immolation of many competitors. He may have had a role in some too.

Big money sponsors: Private planes, cars, security and the whole ball of wax keeps you out of a lot of troublesome situations, as well as allowing better rest and recovery. Plus, because you are cancer miracle boy and great PR, their reps will lie for you in trials which is something very hard for joe average pro to come by.

Press flack cooperation: Bicycling was a particularly egregious example, but essentially all of the press cooperated in squashing stories that would have derailed the train. He was worth a lot of continuing ad revenue.

Lance is a psychopath: Not caring about anyone or any societal norms allows a level of intensity, focus, dedication and behavioral freedom that is out of reach of even most professionals, many of whom remained concerned with preserving some shred of humanity (aka Tyler, Floyd, Jan, Pantani (who let some stripper tear his heart out for f&*ks sake)). Many had things they just wouldn't do; Lance didn't (for example, the chief public enforcer of the omerta being the biggest rat around behind the scenes).

The confluence of factors was almost magical, with the biggest factor being one hell of a lot of talent, without which the whole thing wouldn't have amounted to anything.


----------

