# Lance™ to race Leadville 100



## blackhat (Jan 2, 2003)

he's <a href="http://www.velonews.com/article/81072">super awesome</a>, I hope he wins. No word on the plans of the other fat tire dallying, tour winning American doper.

discuss.


----------



## Creakyknees (Sep 21, 2003)

Send pix of the starlet(s) mmmkay?


----------



## JSR (Feb 27, 2006)

" Acclimatization is key at Leadville, which starts at 10,200 feet elevation and tops out at 12,600."

Ouch.


----------



## coop (Jun 8, 2008)

This thread will probably be moved just like the Landis thread. WTF??


----------



## Guest (Jul 30, 2008)

Creakyknees said:


> Send pix of the starlet(s) mmmkay?


LMAO! :lol:


----------



## Greggb (Apr 15, 2002)

JSR said:


> " Acclimatization is key at Leadville, which starts at 10,200 feet elevation and tops out at 12,600."
> 
> Ouch.


I hear a little EPO helps acclimatization. So I digress.


----------



## Marc (Jan 23, 2005)

coop said:


> This thread will probably be moved just like the Landis thread. WTF??



Well, if people turn it into a discussion about doping, as people ARE-what do you expect?

mKthxbai.


----------



## bbgobie (Aug 13, 2007)

Should be interesting!


----------



## cbuchanan (Mar 6, 2006)

Is there a reason that "Lance" is trademarked in the title? Just curious.


----------



## Dr_John (Oct 11, 2005)

> Send pix of the starlet(s) mmmkay?


Looks like it won't include this one. Lance is quite the player. 

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/sfgate/detail?blogid=7&entry_id=28669


----------



## teoteoteo (Sep 8, 2002)

blackhat said:


> he's <a href="http://www.velonews.com/article/81072">super awesome</a>, I hope he wins. No word on the plans of the other fat tire dallying, tour winning American doper.
> 
> discuss.



Man, I can't believe it took this long for somebody to break this news. Just wait till the 29'er freaks catch wind of his bike


----------



## Bry03cobra (Oct 31, 2006)

WOAH, Kate Hudson's has BACK!!!! NICE.........


----------



## zosocane (Aug 29, 2004)

Bry03cobra said:


> WOAH, Kate Hudson's has BACK!!!! NICE.........


Dang, Lance was hitting that! :ciappa: It's good to be the King.


----------



## Dr_John (Oct 11, 2005)

Although not mentioned in the article, the rumor is that she didn't want to date a sissy riding a bike with a sloping top tube.


----------



## Dr_John (Oct 11, 2005)

... or that she's planning on dropping him too in the Leadville 100. Hey, at least she's on a Trek:


----------



## JaeP (Mar 12, 2002)

Bry03cobra said:


> WOAH, Kate Hudson's has BACK!!!! NICE.........


Yes, Sir-Mix A Lot would approve!


----------



## bauerb (Jan 18, 2006)

she does not look happy at all on that bike.


----------



## bigmig19 (Jun 27, 2008)

Which leadville 100? The MTB or the Run? Either wouldnt surprise me since he is a runner too.


----------



## jupiterrn (Sep 22, 2006)

bigmig19 said:


> Which leadville 100? The MTB or the Run? Either wouldnt surprise me since he is a runner too.


The MTB race and having just come from that area there is no freaking OXYGEN up there. I was only there a week and did not have time to get use the that.


----------



## Pablo (Jul 7, 2004)

teoteoteo said:


> Just wait till the 29'er freaks catch wind of his bike


Alright, I just caught wind of it. Umm, now what?


----------



## DrSmile (Jul 22, 2006)

Pablo said:


> Alright, I just caught wind of it. Umm, now what?


Air freshener?


----------



## jupiterrn (Sep 22, 2006)

Hey thats cheating, you probably built the dang thing.


----------



## bigmig19 (Jun 27, 2008)

There are alot of great events like this one "at altitude" that I would like to do but the altitude and I dont get along. Always seem to get a headache (even when I dont drink while skiing).


----------



## ziggurat22 (Jul 13, 2005)

teoteoteo said:


> Man, I can't believe it took this long for somebody to break this news. Just wait till the 29'er freaks catch wind of his bike


Why, what's he riding?


----------



## Marek (Feb 17, 2004)

Dr_John said:


> Looks like it won't include this one. Lance is quite the player.
> 
> http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/sfgate/detail?blogid=7&entry_id=28669


dang did not know that Kate's mom is Goldie Hawn! Wonder who her daddy was? 

i regress, but my wife after having our baby got placed in a 6 bed post-delivery room. she was the only mom there who knew who the daddy was...


----------



## Guest (Jul 31, 2008)

Marek said:


> i regress, but my wife after having our baby got placed in a 6 bed post-delivery room. she was the only mom there who knew who the daddy was...


Geez, women sleeping around like men now - not even remembing who they had sex with and when. What a wonderful world


----------



## Pablo (Jul 7, 2004)

ziggurat22 said:


> Why, what's he riding?


According to the tabloids, the proper inquiry is "who." :blush2:


----------



## Slow Eddie (Jun 28, 2004)

I wonder if diamox is on the banned substance list.


----------



## teoteoteo (Sep 8, 2002)

ziggurat22 said:


> Why, what's he riding?



Well, it was to be a 29....mebbe not so much now. Me thinks that 20 pound trek dualie just intro'd may now be the choice. Just like with the wimmins it's apparent he's flippant on the bike choices.


----------



## bas (Jul 30, 2004)

blackhat said:


> he's <a href="http://www.velonews.com/article/81072">super awesome</a>, I hope he wins. No word on the plans of the other fat tire dallying, tour winning American doper.
> 
> discuss.


you mean he is going to show up?

what about landis?

floyd will kick the old geezers ass.


----------



## bas (Jul 30, 2004)

jupiterrn said:


> The MTB race and having just come from that area there is no freaking OXYGEN up there. I was only there a week and did not have time to get use the that.


 :eek6:


----------



## lookrider (Dec 3, 2006)

"(Armstrong's) coming to win," Chlouber told the newspaper. "I’m sure he’s got his guns strapped on, and he’ll be coming full blast ... We’re going to put him on the front row, right besides Dave Wiens, and I expect it’ll be a shootout right from the get-go." 

What's this, "I'm sure he's got his guns strapped on, and he'll be coming full blast" stuff?

Is he working with Ferrari again or just planning to carry "refreshments" in panniers?

Is he "preparing" for this race the same way he "prepared" for the TdF?

I guess if Dave Wiens also has "his guns strapped on" it will be a good race.

Do they check for "guns" before or after this race?


----------



## bigmig19 (Jun 27, 2008)

I wish I could just slip in and out of various sports and be ultra competitive. The guy ran a sub 3 hr marathon like a year after training (while competitively dating as well). Ahh to retire at 35.


----------



## Guest (Aug 1, 2008)

bigmig19 said:


> while competitively dating as well


So when does this become an approved Olympic sport?


----------



## weltyed (Feb 6, 2004)

all promotion. the last mtb race i saw armstrong in (it was a while ago) he abandoned after crashing 3 times and getting smoked.

he might win if someone says, "hey, lance. first one to the finish line gets to take home some 19 year old who looks just like your mom."



lookrider said:


> "(Armstrong's) coming to win," Chlouber told the newspaper. "I’m sure he’s got his guns strapped on, and he’ll be coming full blast ... We’re going to put him on the front row, right besides Dave Wiens, and I expect it’ll be a shootout right from the get-go."


----------



## blackhat (Jan 2, 2003)

weltyed said:


> he might win if someone says, "hey, lance. first one to the finish line gets to take home some 19 year old who looks just like your mom."


zing!


----------



## weltyed (Feb 6, 2004)

he'd get there double time if he heard she was talking to simeoni.


----------



## spinmash (Jul 15, 2008)

weltyed said:


> all promotion. the last mtb race i saw armstrong in (it was a while ago) he abandoned after crashing 3 times and getting smoked.


I'm no fanboy, but the Leadville course isn't very technical and he should do pretty well. There are looong stretches of fire road and gravel road between climbs and descents. The "big" climb at mile 40 is up a gravel road until the very top, where it gets rough. There are a number of folks who ride cross bikes for this race. So, Lance should be up in the front for most of the race, but I bet he doesn't beat Weins or Floyd (if he's in).

Should be a good race regardless. I might head up there and watch the race since all of the hype in recent years means average Joes like me can't actually ride in it anymore. Hey, maybe next year I should sign up as "Michael Rasmussen" to see if I can get in. Seems like the thing to do for all of the retired/banned athletes lately. Maybe Marion Jones can run against the bikers.


----------



## davidka (Dec 12, 2001)

Dave Weins beat Landis at this thing a couple of years ago when Floyd was in great shape, I hope Lance isn't taking this lightly. It's a loooong 100 miles on an MTB.


----------



## innergel (Jun 14, 2002)

bigmig19 said:


> I wish I could just slip in and out of various sports and be ultra competitive. The guy ran a sub 3 hr marathon like a year after training (while competitively dating as well). Ahh to retire at 35.


If you had the physiology Lance has it would be fairly easy to be ultra competitive at any endurance sport. The dude is a complete freak of nature.


----------



## dwwheels (Feb 28, 2007)

davidka said:


> Dave Weins beat Landis at this thing a couple of years ago when Floyd was in great shape, I hope Lance isn't taking this lightly. It's a loooong 100 miles on an MTB.


....and Floyd did it after hip surgery.


----------



## ashpelham (Jan 19, 2006)

I just cannot imagine what it would be like to ride 100 miles on a mountain bike. I really don't like even being on the road bike that long. In fact, after about 75 miles on the road machine, it ceases to be fun for me. On a mountain bike? Uggghhhh....Anybody here ever ride 100 on a mtb?


----------



## ejh (Oct 31, 2007)

I have once, and I ran in the Leadville trail seven times and finished it once in 29 hours.


----------



## stainofmind (Jul 28, 2006)

https://trekroad.typepad.com/trekroad/2008/08/buidling-lances.html


----------



## Under ACrookedSky (Nov 8, 2005)

ejh said:


> I have once, and I ran in the Leadville trail seven times and finished it once in 29 hours.


:thumbsup: :thumbsup: 

INothing on a bike comes close to the suffering of running a 100.

Wasatch. Leadville. The Bear. Hardrock.


----------



## culdeus (May 5, 2005)

Is that a triple? Is there such a thing as a mtb double?


----------



## teoteoteo (Sep 8, 2002)

stainofmind said:


> https://trekroad.typepad.com/trekroad/2008/08/buidling-lances.html



He has been on the 29 kick as of late but this bike was a late entrant into the parade. 
i suspect trek wanted him on the lastest over the superfly 29 he'd been rolling.


----------



## spinmash (Jul 15, 2008)

Did Leadville 2 years ago, and had a great time. To me, 100 miles on a mtn. bike is roughly equivalent to 130 miles on a road bike (of course depending on elevation gain). At some point, usually around mile 80, everything just goes numb, including your head. You just keep pedaling - it's actually pretty comforting.

Nothing like running a 100 miles. That's just plain sick. Anybody that does that is in a whole different league. Freaks.


----------



## Susan Walker (Mar 21, 2008)

spinmash said:


> Nothing like running a 100 miles. That's just plain sick. Anybody that does that is in a whole different league. Freaks.


The hardest thing I ever did was a 180 km TTT. It was worst in years when we had an uneven team where 3 of the 7 starters quickly got dropped and my number was next but I had to hold on because we needed 4 finishers to have a result. Arrgh.


----------



## davidka (Dec 12, 2001)

culdeus said:


> Is that a triple? Is there such a thing as a mtb double?


 That is a triple which is very common on MTBs. 2x9 setups are getting much more popular among the XC set now but not many (if any) on stock bikes yet.


----------



## ejh (Oct 31, 2007)

spinmash said:


> Did Leadville 2 years ago, and had a great time. To me, 100 miles on a mtn. bike is roughly equivalent to 130 miles on a road bike (of course depending on elevation gain). At some point, usually around mile 80, everything just goes numb, including your head. You just keep pedaling - it's actually pretty comforting.
> 
> Nothing like running a 100 miles. That's just plain sick. Anybody that does that is in a whole different league. Freaks.


Hay what the... I resemble that remark :thumbsup: :thumbsup:


----------



## Creakyknees (Sep 21, 2003)

thanks for the gratuitous Kate azz shot!


----------



## Campbelllevy (Apr 24, 2008)

Yeah, should be a sweet race to say the least. I tried to enter this year (as I live in Aspen just over the pass), but it's a lottery system, and very hard to get in. I am volunteering (this assures you a spot in next year's race), so I'm pretty stoked to get to see Lance race. I also saw him this morning riding in Aspen, on a Trek road bike though.


----------



## bigpinkt (Jul 20, 2006)

From the pre-race meeting today. Dave and Lance






Wiens is really big with this group


----------



## lookrider (Dec 3, 2006)

bigpinkt said:


> From the pre-race meeting today. Dave and Lance
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Re Lance, I have a porn convention going on down the street from me at the Westin Diplomat this weekend.


----------



## Susan Walker (Mar 21, 2008)

lookrider said:


> Re Lance, I have a porn convention going on down the street from me at the Westin Diplomat this weekend.


----------



## Bry03cobra (Oct 31, 2006)

6:47:41, Not too shabby. Second to Weins who finished 6:45:45. Are there doping tests at Leadville 



http://velonews.com/article/81522/wiens-and-armstrong-shatter-leadville-record

Say what ya want about LA, what makes him a douchbag, also drives him to success, doper or not. He showed up and raced on their (mountain bikers) turf and finished 2min behind the 6X winner.


----------



## DrSmile (Jul 22, 2006)

It seems that without a team organized "training program" superhuman Lance Armstrong is only... human.


----------



## Einstruzende (Jun 1, 2004)

Bry03cobra said:


> 6:47:41, Not too shabby. Second to Weins who finished 6:45:45. Are there doping tests at Leadville
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Even so, Lance broke the prior record by 11 minutes. Problem is Dave beat it by 13


----------



## btinder (Aug 25, 2007)

DrSmile said:


> It seems that without a team organized "training program" superhuman Lance Armstrong is only... human.


Its pathetic that some on this board use any outcome to label Lance a doper. Get this through your head: you.have.no.proof.


----------



## blackhat (Jan 2, 2003)

btinder said:


> Its pathetic that some on this board use any outcome to label Lance a doper. Get this through your head: you.have.no.proof.


no. what's. pathetic. is. still. thinking. there's. no. proof.

cheer up fanboy, your guy turned in a solid performance today. doped or not, it was hardcore.


----------



## DrSmile (Jul 22, 2006)

btinder said:


> Its pathetic that some on this board use any outcome to label Lance a doper. Get this through your head: you.have.no.proof.


I called him a doper? you.have.no.proof. All you have is inference and logic!


----------



## stevesbike (Jun 3, 2002)

whatever about the doping charges (save it for the other forum) for a guy who retired and is doing a lot of other things besides the bike that's a damn impressive result.


----------



## Under ACrookedSky (Nov 8, 2005)

LOL. Landis spent last Spring sitting in an arbitration and promoting his books to raise funds. He was overweight, totally out of shape, and got chicked in a charity mountain bike race. After training for a few weeks he came in second to Wiens by a couple of minutes. Armstrong spends the year thin and in marathon shape, comes loaded for bear, saying he was trained to win, and he does no better than Landis. Looks like someone has a decided drop in ability when not training on Tenerife with Dr. Ferrari.


----------



## justinb (Nov 20, 2006)

I assume that by "no better than Landis" you mean "only 15 minutes ahead of Landis' time last year."


----------



## Under ACrookedSky (Nov 8, 2005)

justinb said:


> I assume that by "no better than Landis" you mean "only 15 minutes ahead of Landis' time last year."


Wiens was 15 mintues better than Wiens last year. Conditions were better. The only thing that can be used to compare the two is Wiens.

_"Wiens said the drafting — as well as relatively cool, overcast conditions and a tacky surface on the climbs from recent rains — contributed to the record time."_


----------



## Bry03cobra (Oct 31, 2006)

Oh no, with some of the logic I have seen here Weins MUST be doping. He beat Floyd and Lance, so he must have doped to beat those two dopers. (Isn't that the LA argument some use against him)
---------------------------
That being said "my opinion" is that LA used ped's, though never convicted of using. Floyd also used. Diff is I don't give a flying fcuk if they did or not. If they did, they were used to aid them in beating other dopers.


----------



## blackhat (Jan 2, 2003)

Bry03cobra said:


> Oh no, with some of the logic I have seen here Weins MUST be doping. He beat Floyd and Lance, so he must have doped to beat those two dopers. (Isn't that the LA argument some use against him)
> .


I don't know if anyone is saying that they've concluded that LA doped based <i>only</i> on his performance. He could be a 7 time lantern rouge and there'd be the same reason to think he was doped. 
This is a stupid time for this argument though, he rode a great ride yesterday-in all probability not ET-why not bask in your fanboy glow over that? He's a monster with or w/o the hot sauce.


----------



## Campbelllevy (Apr 24, 2008)

Doping aside, I've got some great Lance images from the Leadville 100...I'll try to upload them this afternoon or tomorrow. It was a great race to watch.


----------



## btinder (Aug 25, 2007)

blackhat said:


> no. what's. pathetic. is. still. thinking. there's. no. proof.
> 
> cheer up fanboy, your guy turned in a solid performance today. doped or not, it was hardcore.


By any standard, legal or just logical, you cannot prove he doped. So what are we left with? A large portion of the cycling community who doubts Lance Armstrong because he was too successful. Thats a shame, thats a real shame.

The great shame of doping is that we doubt the great performances of our sport. 

Now as to the allegation that Lance doped? He never tested positive once in competition, even when he was tested time and time again over 15 years. So, by any legal standard, he didn't dope.

Now lets turn to the logical proof: yes, there have been cyclists that doped but never tested positive, but lets look at the psyiological factors at play in Lance Armstrong and evaluate whether or not his performance could be explained by his genetics. Armstrong;s lactic threshold is half that of the average pro cyclist. This, combined with the weight he lost (15 pounds) from the chemo, made him one of the most gifted athletes in the sport. He retained the same power pre-cancer, but lost all that weight, greatly increasing his power-to-weight ratio.

Last point: its disgusting that you call me a fanboy, thats just childish. Thats tween language.


----------



## bigpinkt (Jul 20, 2006)

btinder said:


> By any standard, legal or just logical, you cannot prove he doped. So what are we left with? A large portion of the cycling community who doubts Lance Armstrong because he was too successful. Thats a shame, thats a real shame.
> 
> The great shame of doping is that we doubt the great performances of our sport.
> 
> ...


Fanboy is an accurate description, all you have done is repeat the elements of a myth that have proved wrong over an over. LA did not lose 15 pounds, his LT was not even the best on Postal (VDV's was), If he was so gifted he would have done much more prior to meeting Dr. Ferrari. 

As for the "any legal standard", this is BS.... luckily for LA the standard of proof for a sanction is much higher then a court of law, especially when the UCI was in charge :thumbsup: 

You can ignore Frankie, Betsy, Emma, Stephanie, and Stephen...who have all admitted first hand knowledge of LA doping, covering it up, and his admission of use. A court of law would not be so blind.


----------



## lalahsghost (Aug 27, 2007)

Has there been any coverage with more than just a few paragraphs of info? I saw VeloNews' blurp, but I was expecting several media writeups about this race. I want to know the knitty-gritty of it! :idea:


----------



## bigpinkt (Jul 20, 2006)

lalahsghost said:


> Has there been any coverage with more than just a few paragraphs of info? I saw VeloNews' blurp, but I was expecting several media writeups about this race. I want to know the knitty-gritty of it! :idea:


here is a pretty cool summery
http://www.superhumanmag.com/content/view/763/92/


----------



## lalahsghost (Aug 27, 2007)

bigpinkt said:


> here is a pretty cool summery
> http://www.superhumanmag.com/content/view/763/92/


RBR always provides! Thanks Bigpinkt~


----------



## peter1 (Apr 10, 2002)

If you read any of the articles on the race, Wiens and LA basically did a 2-man TTT for the last 80 miles. Wiens credits that for setting a record time. And he describes Lance pulling him up a climb he normally walks and being a better descender. 

It was only in the last 8 miles or so that Lance told Wiens to go ahead. It wouldn't surprise me if LA intentionally let Wiens go so as not to show up the local hero. 

I'm no "fanboy" but I gotta say the fact that in his "retirement" he's still got the athletic chops to run (not jog) marathons and compete in long-distance mtb races should count for something to the "he doped" crowd.


----------



## pr0230 (Jun 4, 2004)

peter1 said:


> It was only in the last 8 miles or so that Lance told Wiens to go ahead. It wouldn't surprise me if LA intentionally let Wiens go so as not to show up the local hero.
> 
> .


I thought the same thing... I have all of the 7 Lance TDF's... Most notable of the Gifted Stage wins was Pantani's ... but in watching the Tour... you can see many stages that were gifted by lance... or just plain not sought after... 

I concurr!


----------



## bigpinkt (Jul 20, 2006)

pr0230 said:


> I thought the same thing... I have all of the 7 Lance TDF's... Most notable of the Gifted Stage wins was Pantani's ... but in watching the Tour... you can see many stages that were gifted by lance... or just plain not sought after...
> 
> I concurr!


Gulp, this Cool-Aid is yummy

I saw Lance personally gift 2-3 stages to Chipo, pulling off the front at 40 MPH just to give him the stage. He even gifted Indurain the Tour by dropping out of his first Tour.


----------



## Guest (Aug 11, 2008)

bigpinkt said:


> Gulp, this Cool-Aid is yummy
> 
> I saw Lance personally gift 2-3 stages to Chipo, pulling off the front at 40 MPH just to give him the stage. He even gifted Indurain the Tour by dropping out of his first Tour.


LOL! :lol:


----------



## Tschai (Jun 19, 2003)

peter1 said:


> It was only in the last 8 miles or so that Lance told Wiens to go ahead. It wouldn't surprise me if LA intentionally let Wiens go so as not to show up the local hero.


One does not "gift" a race or stage with 8 miles to go. The "gift", if these things really are gifts, occurs just before the finish line. Why would Lance care about "showing anyone up?" Hell, he "showed up" others his entire career, even before cycling. 





peter1 said:


> I'm no "fanboy" but I gotta say the fact that in his "retirement" he's still got the athletic chops to run (not jog) marathons and compete in long-distance mtb races should count for something to the "he doped" crowd.


Could it be possible that he has chops and he doped up. Also, never testing positive proves nothing. There are several cyclists that never tested positive and later admitted they were on dope in races in which they did not test positive.


----------



## lookrider (Dec 3, 2006)

peter1 said:


> If you read any of the articles on the race, Wiens and LA basically did a 2-man TTT for the last 80 miles. Wiens credits that for setting a record time. And he describes Lance pulling him up a climb he normally walks and being a better descender.
> 
> It was only in the last 8 miles or so that Lance told Wiens to go ahead. It wouldn't surprise me if LA intentionally let Wiens go so as not to show up the local hero.
> 
> I'm no "fanboy" but I gotta say the fact that in his "retirement" he's still got the athletic chops to run (not jog) marathons and compete in long-distance mtb races should count for something to the "he doped" crowd.


His marathons are not all that impressive to people who can run. They are also kind of mediocre for a guy touted as one of the greatest endurance athletes of all time. 

BTW he doped and evidence of mediocre marathon running in his retirement does nothing to change that fact..


----------



## spinmash (Jul 15, 2008)

So when's someone going to point out the obvious here - Dave Wiens is a mutant. He's what, 44? I know Lance probably wasn't in "tour shape" (and you can let that mean whatever you like), but Wiens is a hard man to dispatch 2 guys who have stood on the top step of the Tour Podium 8 times. 

Don't look now, but someone is on a streak of his own. And, it's good to have an high-profile superstar show up now and again to highlight it.

Wait, I'm starting to sound like a Wiens fanboy....ummm....really bad case of helmet head on that guy. There.


----------



## Rolando (Jan 13, 2005)

I think that it is great to see Lance out there racing in domestic races. Anything he shows up to is going to get more PR and respect. He is simply a great cyclist.


----------



## bigmig19 (Jun 27, 2008)

Mediocre runner???? Clearly you are clueless, people train their whole lives and never break 3 hrs. He was training for relatively short period of time and ran sub 3 like it was it was nothing. Running is not the exact same thing as cycling. Much much different. Incidentally, as a junior triathlete, Lance was featured on an old show on ESPN called SSA where they showcase up and comers. He was beating all the juniors and most of the other competitors as a junior. He was billed as the next great triathlete. Like someone once said "If your good, you were always good". Nobody gets good overnight. The guy rode the second best Leadville ever... on a lark!!


----------



## bigpinkt (Jul 20, 2006)

bigmig19 said:


> Mediocre runner???? Clearly you are clueless, people train their whole lives and never break 3 hrs. He was training for relatively short period of time and ran sub 3 like it was it was nothing. Running is not the exact same thing as cycling. Much much different. Incidentally, as a junior triathlete, Lance was featured on an old show on ESPN called SSA where they showcase up and comers. He was beating all the juniors and most of the other competitors as a junior. He was billed as the next great triathlete. Like someone once said "If your good, you were always good". Nobody gets good overnight. The guy rode the second best Leadville ever... on a lark!!


Of all the Cool-Aide flavors cherry is my favorite. 

Lance was on 2:07 marathon pace in NYC when he pulled up and gifted the race to some African guy, cause that is what he is...a giver. I remember when he was 12 years old and he was beating Mark Alan and Dave Scott in the Triathlon world championships. The only reason he stopped Triathlon and went to cycling full time was because he had won all the races, plus that whole "Running in a Speedo" thing did not work for a real MAN like Lance.


----------



## BuenosAires (Apr 3, 2004)

Man, don't some of you get tired of dragging Lance through the mud.

He's retired get over it. He still put over 30 minutes on the 3rd place finisher. I'd say that's a strong ride. Good job Lance!


----------



## bauerb (Jan 18, 2006)

awesome video. I never figured I would see any of it, glad I did.

this board would probably label someone an Atheist if they said they were Agnostic. 

LA is an astute business man


----------



## blackhat (Jan 2, 2003)

bauerb said:


> LA is an astute business man


Does this mean anything in particular or are we moving from knighting Lance™ as King of "Gift"givers (I'm sure Wiens would be thrilled to know he was "gifted" the race ) to making him the next Warren Buffet?


----------



## JSR (Feb 27, 2006)

I wonder if Lance would give me a win on Ventoux? 

I wonder if I could make it to the top of Ventoux?

JSR


----------



## Campbelllevy (Apr 24, 2008)

Here's a good image of Lance getting his feed bag from his support team...I have some others I'll upload as well.


----------



## Campbelllevy (Apr 24, 2008)

Image


----------



## bigpinkt (Jul 20, 2006)

Campbelllevy said:


> Image


Who is that guy riding behind Manuel?


----------



## bauerb (Jan 18, 2006)

I agree, you don't gift someone the race with 8 tough miles remaining. from what I have seen, gifts are given at the finish such that they are seen for what they are. 

I actually wouldn't be surprised to see LA in the pool doing some laps. he seems to handle himself pretty well running, and can hold his own on a bike. who knows....


----------



## Campbelllevy (Apr 24, 2008)

I agree with bauerb, our thought during the race was that Lance is going to enter a triathlon next, as it makes perfect sense. Don't know what kind of swimmer he's though.


----------



## karatemom (Mar 21, 2008)

bigmig19 said:


> Mediocre runner???? Clearly you are clueless, people train their whole lives and never break 3 hrs. He was training for relatively short period of time and ran sub 3 like it was it was nothing. Running is not the exact same thing as cycling. Much much different. Incidentally, as a junior triathlete, Lance was featured on an old show on ESPN called SSA where they showcase up and comers. He was beating all the juniors and most of the other competitors as a junior. He was billed as the next great triathlete. Like someone once said "If your good, you were always good". Nobody gets good overnight. The guy rode the second best Leadville ever... on a lark!!


Yeah, WHAT are you talking about? To break 3 hours in your first marathon is INCREDIBLE! I'd be happy to break four hours.


----------



## papisimo9807 (May 7, 2007)

bigpinkt said:


> Who is that guy riding behind Manuel?


I wonder what happened to Manny too. They must have really attacked hard after that feed area because Manny Prado is really, really fast and he finished 30 minutes down. Hard to believe it. Mechanical?


----------



## justinb (Nov 20, 2006)

bigmig19 said:


> Mediocre runner???? Clearly you are clueless, people train their whole lives and never break 3 hrs. He was training for relatively short period of time and ran sub 3 like it was it was nothing. Running is not the exact same thing as cycling. Much much different. Incidentally, as a junior triathlete, Lance was featured on an old show on ESPN called SSA where they showcase up and comers. He was beating all the juniors and most of the other competitors as a junior. He was billed as the next great triathlete. Like someone once said "If your good, you were always good". Nobody gets good overnight. The guy rode the second best Leadville ever... on a lark!!



For someone with a 80-90something VO2, 2:50 is a mediocre marathon. It's certainly not comparable with being the best stage race cyclist in the world. 

Lance is an above average runner, but pretty much every US collegiate XC guy can drop a sub 3 marathon with a couple months focused training.


----------



## pretender (Sep 18, 2007)

peter1 said:


> I'm no "fanboy" but I gotta say the fact that in his "retirement" he's still got the athletic chops to run (not jog) marathons and compete in long-distance mtb races should count for something to the "he doped" crowd.


How so?

I don't think it makes a case one way or the other.


----------



## lookrider (Dec 3, 2006)

karatemom said:


> Yeah, WHAT are you talking about? To break 3 hours in your first marathon is INCREDIBLE! I'd be happy to break four hours.



Let's get this straight. Thousands of people, literally thousands of people, run sub 3hrs, every single year. When someone judges 3 hrs to be a spectacular time it is more of a reflection of the judge. It is a .150 hitter, judging a .250 hitter to be a Hall of Famer. Any and I mean _Any_ competitive college distance runner, (longer than 5k) can easily run a sub 3 hr marathon, if they do maybe a dozen 13 mile training runs, 3 or 4, 20 milers and maybe 2, 23 to 24 mile training runs.

If you have modest, natural ability, 18 or 19 minute 5k times, you can run sub 3hrs... If you're a 17 minute 5k runner, you're holding back so much in the first 15 to 20 miles of a 3 hr marathon, it's unbelievable...


----------



## pretender (Sep 18, 2007)

Joan Benoit ran her first marathon in 2:54 as a training run the day before her main race, which was a 10K.


----------



## lookrider (Dec 3, 2006)

justinb said:


> Lance is an above average runner, but pretty much every US collegiate XC guy can drop a sub 3 marathon with a couple months focused training.


Yes, exactly...I don't even know how focused the training has to be. They really just have to get the time in on their feet, and let their body adapt to the pounding, which for a collegiate runner is significantly less than the pounding experienced by someone less gifted.

I'm more impressed by someone like Zoe Koplowitz who finished NY in like a day or something. She has MS and to be out there pushing and strugging for that long just shows how much perserverance she has.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zoe_Koplowitz

I'm not saying sub 3 is not a good achievement for a decent runner. But for a guy who's an endurance sports "legend?" C'mon. 

Every guy in the Tour is a great bike rider, but yet this LA is celebrated the world over as some sort of extraordinary person among pro cyclists. Close inspection of his record and how he attained it doesn't support his stature in endurance sports... He's just one of many in the pro ranks if you take into consideration his use of "supplemental aids." :thumbsup:


----------



## sevencycle (Apr 23, 2006)

*Custom SPD flip-flops*



Dr_John said:


> ... or that she's planning on dropping him too in the Leadville 100. Hey, at least she's on a Trek:


Custom SPD flip-flops


----------



## lookrider (Dec 3, 2006)

pretender said:


> Joan Benoit ran her first marathon in 2:54 as a training run the day before her main race, which was a 10K.


She was like 18 years old or something. Her best was 2:21???? and she's still breaking 3 hours at 50 years old....


----------



## pretender (Sep 18, 2007)

lookrider said:


> Every guy in the Tour is a great bike rider, but yet this LA is celebrated the world over as some sort of extraordinary person among pro cyclists. Close inspection of his record and how he attained it doesn't support his stature in endurance sports... He's just one of many in the pro ranks if you take into consideration his use of "supplemental aids." :thumbsup:


This is a silly argument.

It's obvious that Lance is an exceptional cyclist, doping or no. He won seven straight Tours in an era of widespread EPO use.


----------



## Bry03cobra (Oct 31, 2006)

Macca ran a 2:42 marathon to win IM kona. Lance ran 2:48 at NY last year. Sub 3hr marathon is FAST for someone with LA's build. Many of those who you refer to running sub 3hr marathons are runners weighing less than 140lb. I think Lance has been planning an IM for a while, he is taking the steps there. If he is a decent swimmer, and can pull off a 3:00 marathon, he can finish top 5. He will destroy the bike leg. And with what realgains said about using EPO a few days before, that it will be out of his system, I expect a kona appearence by LA. I hope he does......then Nike will start making some tri gear!


----------



## pretender (Sep 18, 2007)

lookrider said:


> She was like 18 years old or something. Her best was 2:21???? and she's still breaking 3 hours at 50 years old....


She was 21. Ran Boston three months later in 2:35, breaking the American record.

Her demeanor was very modest, but she raced fearlessly. Just go off the front and stay there. That L.A. Olympic marathon was classic.


----------



## lookrider (Dec 3, 2006)

BuenosAires said:


> Man, don't some of you get tired of dragging Lance through the mud.
> 
> He's retired get over it. He still put over 30 minutes on the 3rd place finisher. I'd say that's a strong ride. Good job Lance!


The question is, aren't you people disgusted with yourselves for worshipping the guy? He's no different than you or I, and the way he attained his glory is tainted. What's so special about him?

I believe in calling a spade a spade. He's one of many on that level. 

Bobby Murcer, was a very good ballplayer, an all star a few times, and a nice guy, but we're not talking about him all the time as if he were some special talent. Lance was a good talent among professional cyclists. That's it, and it's not like he's a nice guy either...

Jeez, what other sports analogies do you want to use? Any professional athlete is obviously gifted. But to stand above others as an all time great? LA no. Now someone like Barry Bonds? This guy was in the Hall of Fame *before* he started "aiding" his performance, and the crazy thing is, his father, had a lot more physical talent than the son had. Racism and alcoholism destroyed him though...


----------



## bigmig19 (Jun 27, 2008)

Im actually not that much of a fan of LA, he seems kind of prickish, but that dont mean he aint an incredible athlete (and best fundraiser ever besides willy gates). What some of you dont understand about his marathon time is, contrary to popular belief (at least on this thread), you cant just leap off your bike and run a sub 2:50 marthon just because you bike well. You cant just say well I can run a 5k in 18 minutes so I can automatically beat LA at 26.2 miles. It doesnt work that way. My impression is he ran in his spare time for not that long. He picks up a mountain bike (retired, old, high performance dating,and relatively little training) and rides the 2nd best time ever in that race! Thats crazy. Having a great VO2 doesnt mean you will just be the best ever at every sport that makes you breath hard. BTW, he WAS one of the best triathletes as a junior so he probably wouldnt suck at swimming. I just think its fun to watch him try new shi# and always be good at it.


----------



## Bry03cobra (Oct 31, 2006)

lookrider said:


> The question is, aren't you people disgusted with yourselves for worshipping the guy? He's no different than you or I, and the way he attained his glory is tainted. What's so special about him?


--------------------
The problem with the LA bashers is you act as if he was the only one using. If he was, then I get your beef with him. He was a doper among dopers. Let it go......I'm a LA fan who thinks he doped. What do you all want him to do??? Admit he doped? What's that going to prove? So some dude behind a keyboard can say "I told ya all so!!". LA is a amazing athlete, doper or not. The others who "admitted" only did so after they were caught. Once lance does kona, you all can pray he fails a test there, then your world will be perfect.


----------



## lookrider (Dec 3, 2006)

*Nobility, virtue, ethics and honor.*



pretender said:


> This is a silly argument.
> 
> It's obvious that Lance is an exceptional cyclist, doping or no. He won seven straight Tours in an era of widespread EPO use.


http://en.beijing2008.cn/67/83/article214028367.shtml


*Nobility, virtue, ethics and honor.*

_BEIJING OLYMPIC MEDAL UNVEILED

Medals of Beijing Olympic Games unveiled (photos attached) 
Updated:2007-03-27 

(BEIJING, March 27) -- On the occasion of the 500-day countdown to the opening of the Beijing Olympic Games, the Organizing Committee for the Games of the XXIX Olympiad (BOCOG) unveiled the Games' medals.

BOCOG Executive Vice-President and chairman of the evaluation panel Jiang Xiaoyu attended the unveiling ceremony and delivered a speech at the Capital Museum on Tuesday.

The medals are designed with inspiration from "bi", China's ancient jade piece inscribed with dragon pattern. The medals, made of gold and jade, symbolize nobility and virtue and are embodiment of traditional Chinese values of ethics and honor.

The medals are 70mm in diameter and 6mm in thickness. On their obverse side, the medals adopt the standard design prescribed by the International Olympic Committee (IOC) -- a drawing that represents the winged goddess of victory Nike and Panathinaikos Arena, while on their reverse side, the medals are inlaid with jade with the Beijing Games emblem engraved in the metal centerpiece.

Noble and elegant, the medals are a blending of traditional Chinese culture and the Olympism. It gives the winners of the Games great honor and acclamation as recognition of their achievement.

The IOC has strict stipulation on the Olympic medals' material, identification, weight, size and drawing. The medals for the champion and the runner-up are made of pure silver, and the champion's medal must be plated with gold weighing not less than six grams each. For the first time jade is used for the Olympic medals. The design not only meets the IOC requirements, but also expresses praise and honor that the Chinese people cherish for the Olympic Spirit and the Olympic athletes.

In his speech, Jiang Xiaoyu said the Beijing 2008 Games medals will be a major part of the Olympic legacy for China. The design of the medals is a result of hard work and enthusiasm of many people. The medals, he said, embody strong Chinese style and elegant art, and are a harmonious combination of the Chinese culture with the Olympism, making them a vehicle to spread the Olympic Spirit and the concepts of the Beijing Games, as well as to showcase Chinese culture and arts, and the high levels of design and technology.
_

this is in answer to those who think "supplementation" is ok. It's not ok. We'll never know who the real champion of the TdF was from 1999 to 2005, primarily because the guy that won was aided at least 10% in his performance and most likely double that. This is a huge advantage.

A lot of decent college runners and cyclists could be world beaters if they were on "programs" such as the one LA was on. Lots of people you've never heard of..

People outside of cycling have never heard of riders like Charley Mottet or Christophe Bassons, both clean riders who never got their due. Mottet always weakening the third week of the Tour and Bassons not even having that much of an impression...

So yeah, LA is a prick, and I'm going to rag on him any time I feel like it...


----------



## Bry03cobra (Oct 31, 2006)

lookrider said:


> A lot of decent college runners and cyclists could be world beaters if they were on "programs" such as the one LA was on. Lots of people you've never heard of..
> 
> People outside of cycling have never heard of riders like Charley Mottet or Christophe Bassons, both clean riders who never got their due. Mottet always weakening the third week of the Tour and Bassons not even having that much of an impression...
> 
> So yeah, LA is a prick, and I'm going to rag on him any time I feel like it...


---------------------
Tell me more about Mottet and Bassons....I have no idea who they are. Did they race in an era before EPO?? If they did race in in the EPO era, how do you know they wernt "assisted". In lances case, ped's made a great athlete amazing. Sure the same holds true for a average athlete. From average to very good.


----------



## bigmig19 (Jun 27, 2008)

That picture by campbellevy is cool, I wish I could ride at elevation cause that looks like an awsome course. Did anyone notice Lance's number. Coincidence, or just a cool idea by the race director?


----------



## Bry03cobra (Oct 31, 2006)

Lookrider,
Don't even bring up the chinese and cheating....there are 10 year olds on the womans gymnasics team.....yeah they don't cheat. Cycling is a joke, first failed test at the oly is a cyclist. Right now every other sport laughs at cycling. Say what ya want, the sport was is much better shape during the EPO years. Cheating will never go away.......... You never answered my question, LA wasn't the only one. Why the hatred for him?? I won't argue him being a douchbag, but EVERY rider from his era was using something.


----------



## pretender (Sep 18, 2007)

lookrider said:


> There is nothing all that special about the guy....


We get the fact that you dislike Lance Armstrong, but claiming that he wasn't (isn't) an exceptional cyclist is just childish.


----------



## karatemom (Mar 21, 2008)

How many people do you know that can run a sub-17 minute 5K on "very little training"? I've never met anyone. Not to say there might not be some people who can do it, but they must be pretty talented. Furthermore, a marathon is not a 5K, it's 22 extra miles. Just because someone is a great 5K runner doesn't mean they'll be an awesome marathon runner. Do you people who think a sub 3 hour marathon isn't that great--do you run? This has nothing to do with whether Lance did or did not dope. Give credit where credit is due--he ran a great first marathon, especially for someone who is not really built like a runner.


----------



## lookrider (Dec 3, 2006)

Bry03cobra said:


> --------------------
> The problem with the LA bashers is you act as if he was the only one using. If he was, then I get your beef with him. He was a doper among dopers. Let it go......I'm a LA fan who thinks he doped. What do you all want him to do??? Admit he doped? What's that going to prove? So some dude behind a keyboard can say "I told ya all so!!". LA is a amazing athlete, doper or not. The others who "admitted" only did so after they were caught. Once lance does kona, you all can pray he fails a test there, then your world will be perfect.


Read my post about what the Beijing Olympic medals signify.

One of the problems is this, you have no problem tarring everyone with the same brush of doping even when there is *no* evidence against them. It's like in political arguments when "they are all corrupt."

How you can be a fan when you believe he doped is beyond me. It apparently speaks to your standards and morals While I'm not pure, I have higher aspirations for myself than that and am not going to be such a hypocrite as to hold myself above others and try to destroy those who point out the truth.

The fact is, LA is not an amazing athlete. A good professional, no doubt, but an all time great, who is and should be noteworthy, no.

When Charly Mottet transferred, all his new teammates were laughing because *he really was clean.* 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charly_Mottet

You need to see Bull Durham to get some perspective.


----------



## Bry03cobra (Oct 31, 2006)

lookrider said:


> The problem with your argument is no one is saying what you're attributing to them. The fact is, that if you're a 17 min 5k runner, on very little training, you're holding back so much to run a 3hr marathon it's unbelievable. Modestly talented runners who put the training in can run under 3hrs. That is why a couple of thousand people around the world do it every year. I'm not saying it's not a nice accomplishment. It's just not one that signifies athletic greatness either.



Your kidding right??? 3hr marathon is damn inpressive. You seemed to pass right over the post I made about Macca doing the marathon at kona in 2:42, lance did NYC in 2:48(I know, he didn't swim/bike first). Most of those who can run sub 3hr are twigs w/runners bodies. Lance at 175lb doing sub 3 is no easy task. I know plenty of triathletes who would love to run sub 3. He is a cyclist that's running. Not his natural sport. As said in a previous post, this is just training for an eventual IM. If he is a decent swimmer (which I'm sure he will work to be), and can run a 3:00 marathon, he will finish top 5. He will rip it up on the bike to make up for the swim/run.


----------



## BuenosAires (Apr 3, 2004)

lookrider said:


> You can go down to your local high school or district track, swimming or cycling championships and see good athletes some of whom have similiar ability to LA but 99.9999999% of whom won't reach iconic status. On a state level, you can see a decent number of athletes who will go on to compete on a big college level. This is every single year.... On the NCAA level you see many athletes at LA's level and many exceeding it, who you will *never ever* see again.
> 
> There is nothing all that special about the guy....Then combine that with the social attributes that everyone including you points out. Can you tell I'm not as enamored with him as you seem to be..


I was going to respond to your earlier post, but it appears you're completely delusional, so i'll just let you continue to make yourself look silly.


----------



## Bry03cobra (Oct 31, 2006)

lookrider said:


> One of the problems is this, you have no problem tarring everyone with the same brush of doping even when there is *no* evidence against them. It's like in political arguments when "they are all corrupt."
> 
> 
> When Charly Mottet transferred, all his new teammates were laughing because he really was clean.


---------------------
I'm tarring "everyone", yet you helped my argument by stating how ALL of his teamates were laughing at him for being clean.


----------



## lookrider (Dec 3, 2006)

karatemom said:


> How many people do you know that can run a sub-17 minute 5K on "very little training"? I've never met anyone. Not to say there might not be some people who can do it, but they must be pretty talented. Furthermore, a marathon is not a 5K, it's 22 extra miles. Just because someone is a great 5K runner doesn't mean they'll be an awesome marathon runner. Do you people who think a sub 3 hour marathon isn't that great--do you run? This has nothing to do with whether Lance did or did not dope. Give credit where credit is due--he ran a great first marathon, especially for someone who is not really built like a runner.


You should watch Bull Durham also. Just making it to the major leagues is a big accomplishment. But once you get there, there are many further levels of talent.

How about 16:50 on about 15 to 20 miles a week with 8 x 65 to 70 second 400m thrown in? Would that qualify?


I don't even think 5 minute miles are competitive for HS girls, what are they running 4:40, 4:50 and that's like 70 to 72 seconds a lap?

I find it laughable what people are impressed with. Just because *they* can't do something, they think it's otherworldly. When I was 12 (4'11" about 90lbs) I ran a mile in 5:30 and at 13( a little bigger), a half in just over 2:30 and won a bunch of races in Jr High. 2:30 kind of sucks. 

Do you guys know who Mary Decker is? She was running like a 2 minute half at 14. That's a freak....

I mean, I'm nobody.....

You're really showing yourself to be a poor judge of talent.

When I was doing a lot of 5k's and 10k's local guys were winning the 5k's in like low 15 minutes. Local 10k's in around 32 or 33, sometimes lower, depending on if some college guys entered. Good times but no world beaters... I mean, under 30 is a spectacular time, but if you can't get into the 28's these days, no one is ever going to hear about you on a national level, never mind even thinking of placing on a world level...



If you look at the NYRRC Complete Runners Handbook, they have marathon extrapolations based on times from 5k's up till marathons.

I only ran like 35:40 for 10 k in my late 20's to early 30's with most of my 10k's being around 37 minutes on not much training. The longer the race was, the more my times fell off. I have a bunch of marathon times between 3 and 3:10.

A lot of ordinary, moderately talented people can do this.

If you have any talent at all running wise, a marathon is a product of your training, more than genetics.

Eammon Coghlan, sub 4 minute miler did NY in 2:25 at over 40 years old and said something like he didn't think he could run that long that slow....

I'm also 5'9" 175 with my best running weight being 150 to 155. 

42 jacket size, 32 waist.. Not exactly a runners build....

Also doesn't it trouble you people about how "great" a climber LA was? He's not really built like a climber either, is he? Nothing like Lucho Herrera or Fabio Parra...

LA's VO2 max was like 82. Lemond's was over 92, but Lemond of course is a whiner...


----------



## lookrider (Dec 3, 2006)

Bry03cobra said:


> Your kidding right??? 3hr marathon is damn inpressive. You seemed to pass right over the post I made about Macca doing the marathon at kona in 2:42, lance did NYC in 2:48(I know, he didn't swim/bike first). Most of those who can run sub 3hr are twigs w/runners bodies. Lance at 175lb doing sub 3 is no easy task. I know plenty of triathletes who would love to run sub 3. He is a cyclist that's running. Not his natural sport. As said in a previous post, this is just training for an eventual IM. If he is a decent swimmer (which I'm sure he will work to be), and can run a 3:00 marathon, he will finish top 5. He will rip it up on the bike to make up for the swim/run.


No one said LA running a sub 3 hour marathon is an easy task. What I'm saying is that it's good, not great, and no more than noteworthy in the local paper. It's not indicative of icon status, and a lot of people can do it. All of these things are what are known as *facts.*

You go on being impressed. I'm sure most of the people you know who are triathletes do it as an adjunct to their 9-5 jobs.

You never heard of Herb Lindsay? This guy was built like a brick $hithouse and was running in the 28's for 10k on the road back in the early 80's. He was like 5'9" 155. Not much smaller than LA and he ran a half marathon in 1:01 something....

Lindsay Betters Two Run Marks 

Published: September 21, 1981
Herb Lindsay set American records for the half-marathon and for 20 kilometers today in beating a field of 700 in the Maple Leaf Half-Marathon. 

Lindsay, from Boulder, Colo., and running for Athletics West, was timed in 1 hour 1 minute 47 seconds for the half-marathon (13.1 miles) and 58:37.46 for 20 kilometers (12.4 miles). 

The old American record for the half-marathon was 1:02:31, set by Kirk Pfeffer at Las Vegas, Nev., in 1979, and the mark for 20 kilometers was 59:08, by Greg Meyer at New Haven. 

Jon Sinclair of Fort Collins, Colo., finished second in 1:02:22. He was followed by Rob DeCastella of Australia in 1:03:04; David Long of Louisville, Ky., in 1:03:11, and Robbie Perkins of Greensboro, N.C., in 1:03:30. 

Joan Benoit of Boston, also representing Athletics West, was the first female finisher, clocking 1:12:50. Judi St. Hilaire of Burlington, Vt., was the runner-up in 1:13.55. 


http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9506E5DE1439F932A1575AC0A967948260


Btw, the running scene was more competitive in the US in the days of Shorter and Rodgers than it is today.

Why do you get off on what LA does anyway? What does it matter and who really cares?

Unlike someone like Mary Slaney or Joan Samuelson, LA's actual capacities are unknown because he's tainted like Marion Jones. He won the 1993 World Champs. He's a one or two time all star, not an all time great.....


----------



## rsosborn (May 19, 2008)

pretender said:


> This is a silly argument.
> 
> It's obvious that Lance is an exceptional cyclist, doping or no. He won seven straight Tours in an era of widespread EPO use.



yea..... where are the french press bastards now? picking at "legit" north american riders. then next season how many europeans are busted on the needle? maybe since they're so smart, they can count for us?


----------



## lookrider (Dec 3, 2006)

I have to say. This is a pretty funny thread and a lot of people here don't have a clue about the level of competitiveness at the top of the sports world.

I think that's a product of the armchair quarterback corporate guys who think they're actually "competing" on some level to achieve the status they've attained in the corporate world. Then they think this "competition" actually carries over into other arenas.


----------



## lookrider (Dec 3, 2006)

Bry03cobra said:


> ---------------------
> I'm tarring "everyone", yet you helped my argument by stating how ALL of his teamates were laughing at him for being clean.


Oh, good Lord.. A high percentage of pro cyclists dope. There are some noteworthy exceptions who were robbed by people such as your hero...

You've just given up and accepted fraud....And you've repeatedly tarred Lemond, who enjoyed a reputation similiar to that of Mottet...


You've done it ad nauseum *with not one shred of evidence...*:thumbsup:


----------



## blackhat (Jan 2, 2003)

rsosborn said:


> yea..... where are the french press bastards now? picking at "legit" north american riders. then next season how many europeans are busted on the needle? maybe since they're so smart, they can count for us?


I'm definitely not following you. The most recent thing the "french press bastards" published was damien ressiot's piece about jimmy casper (Frenchman!) testing + for corticosteroids and not having his TUE in order. what NA riders is Ressiot currently "picking at"?


----------



## lookrider (Dec 3, 2006)

pretender said:


> We get the fact that you dislike Lance Armstrong, but claiming that he wasn't (isn't) an exceptional cyclist is just childish.


3 DNF's in the TdF and one 36th place pre supplementation do not an exceptional cyclist make....


----------



## lookrider (Dec 3, 2006)

blackhat said:


> I'm definitely not following you. The most recent thing the "french press bastards" published was damien ressiot's piece about jimmy casper (Frenchman!) testing + for corticosteroids and not having his TUE in order. what NA riders is Ressiot currently "picking at"?


Isn't that French paper, LeMonde????, tabloid trash? LMAO. Hold on, I have to put in my vote for that visionary GWB for a 3rd term...


----------



## mikeyp123 (Mar 9, 2007)

Bry03cobra said:


> Lookrider,
> Don't even bring up the chinese and cheating....there are 10 year olds on the womans gymnasics team.....yeah they don't cheat. Cycling is a joke, first failed test at the oly is a cyclist. Right now every other sport laughs at cycling. Say what ya want, the sport was is much better shape during the EPO years. Cheating will never go away.......... You never answered my question, LA wasn't the only one. Why the hatred for him?? I won't argue him being a douchbag, but EVERY rider from his era was using something.


Because he got away with it.


----------



## Bry03cobra (Oct 31, 2006)

lookrider said:


> Oh, good Lord.. A high percentage of pro cyclists dope. There are some noteworthy exceptions who were robbed by people such as your hero...
> 
> You've just given up and accepted fraud....And you've repeatedly tarred Lemond, who enjoyed a reputation similiar to that of Mottet...
> 
> ...



That thread was created after reading a story of how Lemond took shots in the Giro....I questioned if LeGod could have doped, and you got all offended


Back to "My Hero", Lance finished in 232nd place. Thats out of 38,000 runners. He averaged a 6:31 pace......thats Slow to you?? You shouldnt be posting here, with your amazing talent why are you not the IM world champ????


----------



## Bry03cobra (Oct 31, 2006)

lookrider said:


> 3 DNF's in the TdF and one 36th place pre supplementation do not an exceptional cyclist make....



After seing your amazing ability, you should get on a team, and finish better than 36th


----------



## Bry03cobra (Oct 31, 2006)

lookrider said:


> Do you guys know who Mary Decker is? She was running like a 2 minute half at 14. That's a freak....


From here Wiki page:
Decker became involved in the greatest controversy of her life. A urine test taken in June at the Olympic Trials showed a testosterone to epitestosterone (T/E) ratio greater than the allowable maximum of six to one. Disputes over that test result went on for years and the test remains controversial.

Why did you use her???? She is a DOPER:thumbsup:


----------



## Under ACrookedSky (Nov 8, 2005)

mikeyp123 said:


> Because he got away with it.


No, it goes beyond insisting that he did not dope or not getting caught in official tests (He was not so lucky with unofficial tests). He basically attributes his wins to others' lack of moral fiber. They were not as dedicated. They did not train hard enough. Their training or tactics were dumb. He covers up his own doping by bad mouthing his rivals. For someone who doped as much as he did, that is offensive. He would have done better to have kept his mouth shut.

Then there is the spectacle of him using the cancer "community" to enrich himself by pretending to be clean. Even though he would have made more than enough money with his wins, he decided to deceive cancer sufferers to stoke his ego and to make even more money. It is hard to imagine something more despicable that that.


----------



## Bry03cobra (Oct 31, 2006)

Under ACrookedSky said:


> No, it goes beyond insisting that he did not dope or not getting caught in official tests (He was not so lucky with unofficial tests). He basically attributes his wins to others' lack of moral fiber. They were not as dedicated. They did not train hard enough. Their training or tactics were dumb. He covers up his own doping by bad mouthing his rivals. For someone who doped as much as he did, that is offensive. He would have done better to have kept his mouth shut.


If the others were also using EPO, what was it then? His tactics were better, he did train harder(Jan loved to party). Its not like LA beat up on a clean peloton, he beat other dopers.


----------



## Under ACrookedSky (Nov 8, 2005)

Bry03cobra said:


> If the others were also using EPO, what was it then? His tactics were better, he did train harder(Jan loved to party). Its not like LA beat up on a clean peloton, he beat other dopers.


Ullrich was paying 70K euros a year to Dr. Fuentes. Armstrong was paying several hundred thousand to Dr. Ferrari. What was he getting for the extra money? He signed Ferrari to an exclusive contract. What techniques did he want to keep out of the hands of his rivals?

Doping does not affect everyone the same. Some benefit more, some less. It is obvious by Armstrong's performance before he began working with Ferrari that he received huge huge gains from doping. Without dope he would never have placed in the TdF's top ten.


----------



## bigpinkt (Jul 20, 2006)

Bry03cobra said:


> His tactics were better,


Tactics? for 15 years the tactics for winning the Tour were 

1. Boost Hct' level and utilize recovery "therapy" as much as possible
2. Do not get caught doing #1


----------



## Bry03cobra (Oct 31, 2006)

lookrider said:


> How you can be a fan when you believe he doped is beyond me. It apparently speaks to your standards and morals While I'm not pure, I have higher aspirations for myself than that and am not going to be such a hypocrite as to hold myself above others and try to destroy those who point out the truth.
> 
> The fact is, LA is not an amazing athlete. A good professional, no doubt, but an all time great, who is and should be noteworthy, no.


beacause Im a fan of cycling and I enjoyed the races he won. (Im also a fan of the nike cycling stuff, I hope LA starts doing Tri's so Nike will start making Tri gear)There were many exciting moments during his tour wins. This years Giro was better than the TDF.....All those guys who made it exciting are turning out to be on EPO. Ricco's climbing was fun to watch til his positive. On the doping forum (were this post now belongs) someone stated the WADA wants cycling removed from the next olympics.

I dont see how this has anything to do with my "morals". Cycling is and always has been dirty. Read some of Realgains posts, its not going away.....the sport of pro cycling will go away before doping will. If you moraly cant stand doping, you should stop following the sport.


----------



## Bry03cobra (Oct 31, 2006)

:skep: :skep:


bigpinkt said:


> Tactics? for 15 years the tactics for winning the Tour were
> 
> 1. Boost Hct' level and utilize recovery "therapy" as much as possible
> 2. Do not get caught doing #1



Didnt he have the strongest (most jacked) team. I seem to remember Hincappie leading him on a cat4 climb during one of his tour wins. Big george is known for his climbing :skep:


----------



## bauerb (Jan 18, 2006)

LA was the finest clean rider to ever ride the tour. He required extra medical care to help with post-cancer treatment , which was entirely homeopathic. This treatment was not well understood and became the target of people who wanted to see him found guilt of doping. He quit racing to try to save his marriage and has only recently recovered enough mentaly from the split to begin experimenting with competition. if he were able to reassemble a sound family life, and renew his faith, he could quite likely dominate again in endurance athletics.


----------



## DrSmile (Jul 22, 2006)

I stopped reading 30 posts ago.


----------



## iherald (Oct 13, 2005)

It seems strange to me that people either post here that it's beyond a resonable doubt (yes I am a lawyer) that he did not dope, or it's beyond a reasonable doubt that he did dope. I have an opinion, but I don't think there is beyond a reasonable doubt proof either way. 

If you want to think that he is a mediocre athlete and just had the best doping agents, fine. If you want to see his seven wins as seven wins and enjoy the trip, fine. 

I think he did pretty well running marathons, I think he did amazingly well doing Leadville, and I think he won 7 Tours, 7 more than anyone on this board (I assume). 

Everything else seems to be "well I'm right, you're wrong" and a moot.


----------



## wiz525 (Dec 31, 2007)

i just wish this would get moved to the Doping forum so I can actually read about the Leadville 100. Nice work guys.


----------



## pretender (Sep 18, 2007)

iherald said:


> It seems strange to me that people either post here that it's beyond a resonable doubt (yes I am a lawyer) that he did not dope, or it's beyond a reasonable doubt that he did dope.


I don't think there is anyone on this thread who has claimed that it is beyond a reasonable doubt that he did _not_ dope. The equivocators typically say things like "he was never thrown out of a race," "he never tested positive in competition," etc etc.

Put me in the camp who finds the totality of evidence placing it beyond a reasonable person's doubt that he benefited from an artificially boosted red blood cell count.

On the other hand, I find it idiotic for a person to say, Without dope he would be mediocre at best, etc. He was/is obviously an incredibly talented, hard-working, brilliant athlete.

Sheesh this whole topic gets rehashed every couple of months.


----------



## Bry03cobra (Oct 31, 2006)

wiz525 said:


> i just wish this would get moved to the Doping forum so I can actually read about the Leadville 100. Nice work guys.


_________________________
Sorry, I posted the nice pic of Kate a few pages back. That should count for something.

It was about leadville, til the Lance haters started replying.


----------



## pretender (Sep 18, 2007)

wiz525 said:


> i just wish this would get moved to the Doping forum so I can actually read about the Leadville 100. Nice work guys.


Sorry mom.


----------



## Guest (Aug 11, 2008)

Ok, this thread has gone off the deep end!


----------



## wiz525 (Dec 31, 2007)

pretender said:


> Sorry mom.


not really. just gets old. It's the most circular argument on this board!!

and Bry....nice work on the Kate pic!


----------



## justinb (Nov 20, 2006)

karatemom said:


> How many people do you know that can run a sub-17 minute 5K on "very little training"? I've never met anyone. Not to say there might not be some people who can do it, but they must be pretty talented. Furthermore, a marathon is not a 5K, it's 22 extra miles. Just because someone is a great 5K runner doesn't mean they'll be an awesome marathon runner. Do you people who think a sub 3 hour marathon isn't that great--do you run? This has nothing to do with whether Lance did or did not dope. Give credit where credit is due--he ran a great first marathon, especially for someone who is not really built like a runner.


There's about 100-200 high school boys, give or take, in each state that can do that every year. Give each one of those kids 3-4 months of higher mileage (most high school XC teams run 25-35 miles/week... up that to 65), and they'll crank out 2:45 marathons all day. 

I say this as a HS track coach and former NCAA XC/Track runner. In college, our long run was 21 miles in 2:15 or so. We could've easily knocked out another 5 in less than 45 minutes, and we weren't cranking that hard. We were also an exceptionally bad team, so I'm sure there are plenty of other athletes who wouldn't find 3:00 an unattainable goal. 

I'm not saying that Lance isn't a remarkable athlete, but merely that compared to his exploits on the bike, his marathon career has been pretty average, something that most reasonable fit persons could attain with a little focus and sacrifice.


----------



## TheDon (Feb 3, 2006)

Bry03cobra said:


> Macca ran a 2:42 marathon to win IM kona. Lance ran 2:48 at NY last year. Sub 3hr marathon is FAST for someone with LA's build. Many of those who you refer to running sub 3hr marathons are runners weighing less than 140lb. I think Lance has been planning an IM for a while, he is taking the steps there. If he is a decent swimmer, and can pull off a 3:00 marathon, he can finish top 5. He will destroy the bike leg. And with what realgains said about using EPO a few days before, that it will be out of his system, I expect a kona appearence by LA. I hope he does......then Nike will start making some tri gear!


Okay, I'm a 165 lb runner. Can run sub 17 5k's and was considered medicore in college. All my teammates were cross country skiers so the only guy under 160 was a guy that was 5'6". I've had 5 former teammates besides myself run sub 3 marathons. Kind of disproves the 140 lb thing


----------



## TheDon (Feb 3, 2006)

lookrider said:


> You should watch Bull Durham also. Just making it to the major leagues is a big accomplishment. But once you get there, there are many further levels of talent.
> 
> How about 16:50 on about 15 to 20 miles a week with 8 x 65 to 70 second 400m thrown in? Would that qualify?
> 
> ...


Not many HS girls run sub 5. Those are state times. Collegiate athletes run sub 5 but not that many hs girls. So 5 minute mile is competitive. 



lookrider said:


> I find it laughable what people are impressed with. Just because *they* can't do something, they think it's otherworldly. When I was 12 (4'11" about 90lbs) I ran a mile in 5:30 and at 13( a little bigger), a half in just over 2:30 and won a bunch of races in Jr High. 2:30 kind of sucks.
> 
> Do you guys know who Mary Decker is? She was running like a 2 minute half at 14. That's a freak....
> 
> ...


Again. 2:14 isn't an amazing time for a 800 for HS girls. It's going to be depending on the state, a top 10 time, but it's not amazing. Medicore 800 m college runners are happy with that time.


----------



## TheDon (Feb 3, 2006)

karatemom said:


> How many people do you know that can run a sub-17 minute 5K on "very little training"? I've never met anyone. Not to say there might not be some people who can do it, but they must be pretty talented. Furthermore, a marathon is not a 5K, it's 22 extra miles. Just because someone is a great 5K runner doesn't mean they'll be an awesome marathon runner. Do you people who think a sub 3 hour marathon isn't that great--do you run? This has nothing to do with whether Lance did or did not dope. Give credit where credit is due--he ran a great first marathon, especially for someone who is not really built like a runner.


A sub 17 5k would be on pace for about 5:30 miles or so which ain't that hard to do. I know out of shape I can do a 17:45 5k on a track. It hurts like heck, but tis doable. I'm a mediocre runner too. I know people that can do sub 17 with little training.


----------



## lookrider (Dec 3, 2006)

TheDon said:


> Again. 2:14 isn't an amazing time for a 800 for HS girls. It's going to be depending on the state, a top 10 time, but it's not amazing. Medicore 800 m college runners are happy with that time.


I don't know what this 2:14 is you're writing here. Maybe I confused you.

I meant to say, Mary Decker was running just over 2 minutes for a half when she was 14 years old. That's incredible.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_Decker

Making her international track debut as a pigtailed, 89-pound (40 kg) fourteen-year-old girl, "Little Mary Decker" became one of the most famous track and field competitors of her era. She won international acclaim in 1973 with wins in the 800 meter at a US-Soviet meet in Minsk. By 1974, Decker was the world record holder at 2:26.7 for 1000 meters, 2:02.4 for 880 yards, and 2:01.8 for 800 meters.


----------



## Susan Walker (Mar 21, 2008)

Campbelllevy said:


> I agree with bauerb, our thought during the race was that Lance is going to enter a triathlon next, as it makes perfect sense. Don't know what kind of swimmer he's though.


:roll-eyes: He started out as a triathlete.


----------



## TheDon (Feb 3, 2006)

lookrider said:


> I don't know what this 2:14 is you're writing here. Maybe I confused you.
> 
> I meant to say, Mary Decker was running just over 2 minutes for a half when she was 14 years old. That's incredible.
> 
> ...


Misread that, but she did it at 16, not 14. a time of 2 minutes is exceptional for a hs girl, but still 6 seconds off the Junior WR which is a ton of time. She also got caught doping later on.


----------



## moabbiker (Sep 11, 2002)

Susan Walker said:


> :roll-eyes: He started out as a triathlete.


Yea, his life story goes that there was no real money in triathlons so he went into cycling. His ambition was to make serious $$, that's it. He succeeded. People who flame him ability in running and all these post-tour issues just don't get it: He's not killing himself because he has no reason to -- just getting himself placed high enough in events keeps him in the spotlight for his foundation.


----------



## lookrider (Dec 3, 2006)

TheDon said:


> Misread that, but she did it at 16, not 14. a time of 2 minutes is exceptional for a hs girl, but still 6 seconds off the Junior WR which is a ton of time. She also got caught doping later on.


Yes, that's a lot of time, but is this Junior WR as of 2008 or are we talking about 1974. 

Look at how dramtically the men's records at 5 and 10k have come down in the last decade.


----------



## Campbelllevy (Apr 24, 2008)

Susan Walker said:


> :roll-eyes: He started out as a triathlete.



Sorry, I guess I'll up my Lance Armstrong knowledge to obsessive level...


----------



## Guest (Aug 12, 2008)

justinb said:


> There's about 100-200 high school boys, give or take, in each state that can do that every year. Give each one of those kids 3-4 months of higher mileage (most high school XC teams run 25-35 miles/week... up that to 65), and they'll crank out 2:45 marathons all day.


What HS did you go to? I was a middle of the road varsity XC runner and I averaged ~80 miles a week (by mid season). Our top guys averaged ~100+ miles/week.


----------



## blackhat (Jan 2, 2003)

Campbelllevy said:


> Sorry, I guess I'll up my Lance Armstrong knowledge to obsessive level...


I don't think that possessing that bit of very public and well dispersed knowledge qualifies as obsessive. It's on par with knowing what team he rode for pre-cancer. wanna take a crack at that?


----------



## lookrider (Dec 3, 2006)

AJL said:


> What HS did you go to? I was a middle of the road varsity XC runner and I averaged ~80 miles a week (by mid season). Our top guys averaged ~100+ miles/week.


Why? That's marathon training? What about quality? What about recovery? What about tapering? How long were H.S. cross country races? Even the world champs are only something like 12k.

My conclusion: your coach is/was an idiot.


----------



## Guest (Aug 12, 2008)

lookrider said:


> Why? That's marathon training? What about quality? What about recovery? What about tapering? How long were H.S. cross country races? Even the world champs are only something like 12k.
> 
> My conclusion: your coach is/was an idiot.


We would run a shorter run the day b/4 a race and on weight training days. Plus we tapered down towards the end of the season (for those who would go onto state finals). Recovery - didn't seem to be a big deal when we where 17 - 10 miles one day, 12 the next then maybe ladder sprints and a shorter run; I always seemed fine the next day. We typically ran 5km races.

I wanted to do the '82 Boston marathon, but was having trouble with my knees -< so maybe my coach was an idiot. I think I would have had good odds at coming in under 3 hours :sad:


----------



## justinb (Nov 20, 2006)

AJL said:


> What HS did you go to? I was a middle of the road varsity XC runner and I averaged ~80 miles a week (by mid season). Our top guys averaged ~100+ miles/week.



Since this thread has already gone off the deep end, I guess we can talk XC training philosophies. 

Both as a runner and a coach, I prefer quality over quantity. For a high school athlete to get above 60 miles a week, they're a.) running junk miles- workouts with no real purpose other than to put a number in a training log. b.) compromising other aspects of their life they should be focused on- academics, hanging out with their friends, family, doing other extracurriculars. To further compound this, most 15-17 year olds aren't ready for the pounding of a 60-70 mile week that includes any kind of intensity. In addition to causing immediate injury in some cases, it can also hamper future development... by the time that athlete gets to college, they have already maxed out much of their potential. I found that my philosophy allowed for further improvement later in their career, when they were finally exposed to high mileage, and able to do an 80 mile week with 3 quality sessions. We didn't fair too badly in the high school ranks either... multiple state champions and a couple sub-20 point scores in the conference meet, Several athletes went on to successful collegiate careers. 

When I ran in college, we did consistent 100-120 mile weeks in the summer, and 80 mile weeks with 3-4 quality sessions (including a very sparse racing schedule), and though we were really fast, we were constantly on the ragged edge of injury. Just as much time was spent doing active recovery as running. I see no point in putting a high school athlete there. In fact, it's a little irresponsible.


----------



## Guest (Aug 12, 2008)

justinb said:


> I see no point in putting a high school athlete there. In fact, it's a little irresponsible.


Thanks justinb, good info!

I'd have to agree - since my athletic running ended senior year because of constant knee problems and I had to end my 3-5 miles fitness runs in college because of the same problem. 

Thank God I returned to biking (after discovering glucosamine chondroitin). Now if I could just shoot all the bike hating drivers on the road, life would be just peachy :idea:


----------



## bigmig19 (Jun 27, 2008)

There is a cool video at mountainbike magazine about leadville with slightly extended Wiens/Armstrong interviews. By the way, the whole Marathon thing started because someone said running sub 2:50 is easy not world class. Then it morphed into collegiate runners being able to do it. Thats where they are missing the point. College runners are FULL time runners and by virtue of being a collegiate scholarship athlete its safe to say they are also the best runners on average. The point was, Lance ran for a short period of time in his spare time and ran sub 2:50. Thats amazing, if you dont think so you are either Bill Rodgers, clueless, or have pretty high standrads. If LA put in 15 years of focused training like a college runner, I suspect his time would be awesome, despite not even having a marathoners body type. And furthermore, SPARE me the "I can run 17:45 out of shape" crap. Virtually nobody can run that fast without training a little, possibly nobody. If you trained I suppose you could run sub14. I was a pretty good runner and I dont think I could get off the couch and break 19 minutes with no training.


----------



## Coolhand (Jul 28, 2002)

*Moderators Note*

Another Mod was nice enough to clean up the doping hijacks that several posters insisted to placing here despite knowing better. So if a bunch of your posts disappeared from this thread, take that is your official warning to knock it off. There is an entire forum for that- stop hijacking Procycling threads. Appropriate measures will be taken for repeat violators.


----------



## blackhat (Jan 2, 2003)

Coolhand said:


> Another Mod was nice enough to clean up the doping hijacks that several posters insisted to placing here despite knowing better. So if a bunch of your posts disappeared from this thread, take that is your official warning to knock it off. There is an entire forum for that- stop hijacking Procycling threads. Appropriate measures will be taken for repeat violators.



Cool, any conversation about LA is going to have at least the shadow of doping attached unless something drastic happens to change the facts on the ground. Moving and even locking threads is respectable. Deleting individual posts because they don't fit into your (or francois) version of reality is not.


----------



## QuiQuaeQuod (Jan 24, 2003)

blackhat said:


> Moving and even locking threads is respectable. Deleting individual posts because they don't fit into your (or francois) version of reality is not.


Then where is the space for people that want to discuss aspects of racing OTHER than doping? Nowhere, that's where. The doping obsessed can shut down those conversations at any time.


----------



## blackhat (Jan 2, 2003)

dr hoo said:


> Then where is the space for people that want to discuss aspects of racing OTHER than doping? Nowhere, that's where. The doping obsessed can shut down those conversations at any time.


it's right here. but discussing LA's <i>racing</i> while specifically barring any converstion about doping from it is not unlike barring mention of his cancer-a lovely thought but not reality based. they both had a large impact on his career.


----------



## QuiQuaeQuod (Jan 24, 2003)

blackhat said:


> it's right here. but discussing LA's <i>racing</i> while specifically barring any converstion about doping .....


It is not about any conversation, it is about the taking over of the conversation, the overwhelming of the conversation, the bloating of the thread with doping talk that stops people from even clicking on the thread to talk about the topic.

People mention politics in forums other than PO, it is when they do more than mention it that problems develop.

If you want to talk about Lance's doping in detail in relation to this race, why not just say "his doping history is relevant, and I will say more "here""..... and start a thread on the doping forum that you link to? Or link to an existing thread? Simple solution that lets those who are tired of it avoid it, and those that are interested in it talk about it.


----------



## blackhat (Jan 2, 2003)

dr hoo said:


> It is not about any conversation, it is about the taking over of the conversation, the overwhelming of the conversation, the bloating of the thread with doping talk that stops people from even clicking on the thread to talk about the topic.
> 
> People mention politics in forums other than PO, it is when they do more than mention it that problems develop.
> 
> If you want to talk about Lance's doping in detail in relation to this race, why not just say "his doping history is relevant, and I will say more "here""..... and start a thread on the doping forum that you link to? Or link to an existing thread? Simple solution that lets those who are tired of it avoid it, and those that are interested in it talk about it.


this thread certainly didn't suffer from people choosing not to click on it, or add to it. 
I agree with your sentiment that doping threads belong in TDF, I just disagree with the individual removal of posts within threads that remain in order to sanitize them to the mod's satisfaction. either move the whole thing to TDF or leave it alone barring any legitimate infraction of the board's policy. Merely discussing doping isn't a legit infraction.


----------



## pretender (Sep 18, 2007)

This thread covered the essentials of the race in the first few pages. Everything else is gravy, including the whining would-be threadcops.


----------



## QuiQuaeQuod (Jan 24, 2003)

blackhat said:


> Merely discussing doping isn't a legit infraction.


Talking about politics on this board with a total of 40+ posts, would that be an infraction? Would posting 40+ PG pics be an infraction? To my mind, yes. Why? Because other forums exist for those discussions, and to keep those topics OUT of other forums. The doping forum was specifically created to let people who want to talk about pro cycling in terms of racing do so.

Consider it an object lesson, one that cost people their time. And yes, I think that was the point of deleting them and not moving them or locking the thread, to impose costs on those who impose costs on others by their unwillingness to keep the doping discussion in the doping forum. 

I would expect this to be a one time object lesson, in case you were wondering.


----------



## blackhat (Jan 2, 2003)

dr hoo said:


> Talking about politics on this board with a total of 40+ posts, would that be an infraction? Would posting 40+ PG pics be an infraction? To my mind, yes. Why? Because other forums exist for those discussions, and to keep those topics OUT of other forums. The doping forum was specifically created to let people who want to talk about pro cycling in terms of racing do so.
> 
> Consider it an object lesson, one that cost people their time. And yes, I think that was the point of deleting them and not moving them or locking the thread, to impose costs on those who impose costs on others by their unwillingness to keep the doping discussion in the doping forum.
> 
> I would expect this to be a one time object lesson, in case you were wondering.


if the threads created were expressly about PG pics or politics I'd consider discussion relevant to them to be completely appropriate if the thread were left in place. again, either delete/move/lock the entire thread or leave it alone. I'm happy to confine any doping threads I create to TDF, but removing individual posts under the guise of "saving time" is, I think, disingenuous. Surely you see how it appears.


----------



## QuiQuaeQuod (Jan 24, 2003)

blackhat said:


> if the threads created were expressly about PG pics or politics I'd consider discussion relevant to them to be completely appropriate if the thread were left in place. again, either delete/move/lock the entire thread or leave it alone. I'm happy to confine any doping threads I create to TDF, but removing individual posts under the guise of "saving time" is, I think, disingenuous. Surely you see how it appears.


To move or lock a thread takes a moderator about 3 seconds.

To remove 40+ posts would take a heck of a lot longer, probably 5-10 minutes depending on reading speed. The time wasted is not moderator time, it is user time.

BTW, I can restore them all in about 1 minute. Deleting takes time because it requires reading and judgment. Undeleting just requires clicking a box by each post. *As I have just done.* Yep, they are all back now. As I said, object lesson.

However, I consider it a completely legitimate moderator action to delete posts for the reasons stated here. You disagree, fine. But if people can't learn the lesson, I might just take the time to enforce things in the future. No one wants that.

Doping hijack thread locked.


----------

