Lance Armstrong and the Tour de France (Page 2)

Sorry.  I'm just offering my opinion.  It's an old debate in my mind.  If you care about it, look into it yourself and make up your own mind.  Perhaps you already have.  No biggie either way.

and I'll take Merckx

LOL... I have no proof that he wasn't dominating, so I guess you're right

Merckx = "Ride Lots" 

Mark

You know, I thought "Lance Armstrong's War" was a really good look at the guy's mindset.

He is seriously bloody minded, and would stomp anyone into the dirt.  Challenge him, and he'll do whatever it takes.

It gave me a really different look at him vs. "It's Not About The Bike" which was also good, but was definitely the kinder, gentler Lance.

And FWIW, I don't think he doped.  He's been tested and tested completely randomly all the time.  And, the guy is not stupid.  Why would he risk everything (career, sponsorships, $$$)?  Just don't think he's stupid enough to dope.  The worst that I've ever heard about him is allegations - there's never been any sort of proof against him. 

All pros train like crazy but the winners always do that little extra.  Mark Allen, when asked about winning the IronMan said something to the effect of 'the top 5 or 10 are all physically almost identical but why does one man win and another loose? *points to his head*'  Lance always did that bit extra.

Why not?  Don't forget you can't compare how you or I ride a bike to how the pros ride.  If one person always trains harder and more effectivly than the rest then why shouldn't that person dominate?

For fear of being flamed to a well done crisp... Name one stage race Lance 'dominated' outside the Tour de France.

Eddy Merckx on the other hand won more races than anyone else; ever! Not only that they were serious race like Paris-Nice, Flesh Wallone, Liege-Bastone-Liege, Paris-Roubaix, Giro D'Italia, Vuelta Espana. Many of these race he won multiple time. Not to mention multiple World Cahmpion Jersey's

The one gap in Merckx's TDF reign was when he was 'asked' not to compete to avoid it becoming a snore-fest. Also, in on TDF year he won the Yellow, Green AND Polka Dot jersyes.

No-one will ever achieve that feat again.

I am certainly not suggesting that Lance's feats were not amazing, they most certainly were, but he focussed almost entirely on the TDF. Merckx was the greatest rider ever.

I should have put that last sentence in sarcasm red.  I was merely making the point that saying Lance must have doped because you can't dominate such a hard race is assinine.  It had been done before him, and will be done after him as well.  So obviously, one CAN dominate a race like that.

And for the record, I agree with you.  No one comes close to Merckx.

Mike I think your dead on and .......You are  the man!

There was a "documentary" of "The Science of Lance Armstrong" (or similarly named) that was on satellite (on the Science Channel).  It talked about his battle against cancer, and all the other stuff regarding his physical capability, and the science of the bike Trek was working with him on.  Some really cool stuff.

A lot of circumstantial evidence, but I can't argue with most of it.

However, I'm not buying the cancer bit.  He got cancer early in his career....well before he was tearing up the Tour.  He didn't become a dominant cyclist until after the cancer. 

But never whilst racing under the guidance of Bruyneel/Armstrong.

They were never caught whilst competing against Lance so there's no evidence that Lance was racing against a doped Ullrich or Rasmussen or Basso. 

Thats just pure BS.  You have to be taking testosterone for an extended period of time for this to happen and there is no way that Lance could have been.  He simply wouldn't have been able to afford it as a young athlete from a deprived family.

I think it's a stretch to even call that circumstantial evidence.