In the world of professional cycling, don't ever burn your bridges.
01-04-18, 03:18 PM
#26
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2015
Posts: 15,480
Bikes: 2015 Workswell 066, 2017 Workswell 093, 2014 Dawes Sheila, 1983 Cannondale 500, 1984 Raleigh Olympian, 2007 Cannondale Rize 4, 2017 Fuji Sportif 1 LE
Mentioned: 144 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 7648 Post(s)
Liked 3,465 Times
in
1,831 Posts
How would any of us know? How ouwld it look different?
By the way, I chat online with a lot of different people from all over (as do you no doubt) but one thing I hear a Lot about pro cycling is that the stages are too long. it is quite possible that a more fan-friendly sort of stage, half or two-thirds as long, would be what people wanted.
For one thing, riders would have to save less which means they could ride more. For another, it would mean recovery was a lot more possible Without drugs.
maybe people would be happier with shorter stages, cleaner riders ... after all, when a rider is going all out, we cannot tell the .3 mph difference between climbing on dope or not. And if the riders could feasibly recover and ride hard in every stage, Any stage could be decisive.
That's one things Sky did show if the team is disciplined and prepared a lucky break or a weird shift of wind on a flat stage might give a GC rider a solid boost on a day everyone else was coasting and watching the sprinters.
Maybe some people think that no one wants to watch clean cycling ... or no one wants to watch shorter stages. Thing is, a lot of people have said that is what they Do want.
Whatever. people are going to do what they do.
And i don't know what I might have done if I were hyper-competitive and found out that I needed to cheat to win ... or even to compete. if you are comfortable with your choices morally, good for you. I don't want to bring you down, nor assault anyone. You did what you felt you had to do to live your dream, or some form of it. Great. Most people never make the effort to even come close.
One the other hand, cheating is cheating. And as I say and have been saying, I really wish I could have seen all those guys race clean. The outcomes might have been the same, but maybe not. What we do know is that the best doping program won.
It's all history now .... but history doesn't determine the future, and people who think nothing can change usually get crushed underfoot when time marches on.
By the way, I chat online with a lot of different people from all over (as do you no doubt) but one thing I hear a Lot about pro cycling is that the stages are too long. it is quite possible that a more fan-friendly sort of stage, half or two-thirds as long, would be what people wanted.
For one thing, riders would have to save less which means they could ride more. For another, it would mean recovery was a lot more possible Without drugs.
maybe people would be happier with shorter stages, cleaner riders ... after all, when a rider is going all out, we cannot tell the .3 mph difference between climbing on dope or not. And if the riders could feasibly recover and ride hard in every stage, Any stage could be decisive.
That's one things Sky did show if the team is disciplined and prepared a lucky break or a weird shift of wind on a flat stage might give a GC rider a solid boost on a day everyone else was coasting and watching the sprinters.
Maybe some people think that no one wants to watch clean cycling ... or no one wants to watch shorter stages. Thing is, a lot of people have said that is what they Do want.
Whatever. people are going to do what they do.
And i don't know what I might have done if I were hyper-competitive and found out that I needed to cheat to win ... or even to compete. if you are comfortable with your choices morally, good for you. I don't want to bring you down, nor assault anyone. You did what you felt you had to do to live your dream, or some form of it. Great. Most people never make the effort to even come close.
One the other hand, cheating is cheating. And as I say and have been saying, I really wish I could have seen all those guys race clean. The outcomes might have been the same, but maybe not. What we do know is that the best doping program won.
It's all history now .... but history doesn't determine the future, and people who think nothing can change usually get crushed underfoot when time marches on.
01-05-18, 08:02 AM
#27
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Someplace trying to figure it out
Posts: 10,664
Bikes: Cannondale EVO, CAAD9, Giant cross bike.
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 67 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 7 Times
in
6 Posts
How would any of us know? How ouwld it look different?
By the way, I chat online with a lot of different people from all over (as do you no doubt) but one thing I hear a Lot about pro cycling is that the stages are too long. it is quite possible that a more fan-friendly sort of stage, half or two-thirds as long, would be what people wanted.
For one thing, riders would have to save less which means they could ride more. For another, it would mean recovery was a lot more possible Without drugs.
maybe people would be happier with shorter stages, cleaner riders ... after all, when a rider is going all out, we cannot tell the .3 mph difference between climbing on dope or not. And if the riders could feasibly recover and ride hard in every stage, Any stage could be decisive.
That's one things Sky did show if the team is disciplined and prepared a lucky break or a weird shift of wind on a flat stage might give a GC rider a solid boost on a day everyone else was coasting and watching the sprinters.
Maybe some people think that no one wants to watch clean cycling ... or no one wants to watch shorter stages. Thing is, a lot of people have said that is what they Do want.
Whatever. people are going to do what they do.
And i don't know what I might have done if I were hyper-competitive and found out that I needed to cheat to win ... or even to compete. if you are comfortable with your choices morally, good for you. I don't want to bring you down, nor assault anyone. You did what you felt you had to do to live your dream, or some form of it. Great. Most people never make the effort to even come close.
One the other hand, cheating is cheating. And as I say and have been saying, I really wish I could have seen all those guys race clean. The outcomes might have been the same, but maybe not. What we do know is that the best doping program won.
It's all history now .... but history doesn't determine the future, and people who think nothing can change usually get crushed underfoot when time marches on.
By the way, I chat online with a lot of different people from all over (as do you no doubt) but one thing I hear a Lot about pro cycling is that the stages are too long. it is quite possible that a more fan-friendly sort of stage, half or two-thirds as long, would be what people wanted.
For one thing, riders would have to save less which means they could ride more. For another, it would mean recovery was a lot more possible Without drugs.
maybe people would be happier with shorter stages, cleaner riders ... after all, when a rider is going all out, we cannot tell the .3 mph difference between climbing on dope or not. And if the riders could feasibly recover and ride hard in every stage, Any stage could be decisive.
That's one things Sky did show if the team is disciplined and prepared a lucky break or a weird shift of wind on a flat stage might give a GC rider a solid boost on a day everyone else was coasting and watching the sprinters.
Maybe some people think that no one wants to watch clean cycling ... or no one wants to watch shorter stages. Thing is, a lot of people have said that is what they Do want.
Whatever. people are going to do what they do.
And i don't know what I might have done if I were hyper-competitive and found out that I needed to cheat to win ... or even to compete. if you are comfortable with your choices morally, good for you. I don't want to bring you down, nor assault anyone. You did what you felt you had to do to live your dream, or some form of it. Great. Most people never make the effort to even come close.
One the other hand, cheating is cheating. And as I say and have been saying, I really wish I could have seen all those guys race clean. The outcomes might have been the same, but maybe not. What we do know is that the best doping program won.
It's all history now .... but history doesn't determine the future, and people who think nothing can change usually get crushed underfoot when time marches on.
People want to watch these guys do things they can't do. Like ride three cat 1 climbs and a HC at the end at racing speed. Or do the Angliru. Or sprint with 40 guys at 40 mph.
People really complain because, especially the flat stages in a Grand Tour are all the same until a sprint finish. four of five guys go on a break to get advertisers and sponsors air time...they go for 100k or so...the peloton says enough of this, amps it up, they get caught. Why? Race Radios. Make the riders think for themselves.
If you watched a race and no one told you they took something to help them put on a show for you, you'd accept it. Wow...great race.
And at the end of the day for the riders it is a question of keeping up. Which was the issue at Postal. They didn't partake right away...it was when they realized what was going on that they went all in.
And no one can tell me that the racing was not spectacular. The battles were outstanding. The mind games were interesting. It was not until afterward that people got out of sorts. Bottom line...anyone that was remotely in any kind of contention was taking something.
Shorten the stages...someone will still mess around. They will just get there sooner.
It really does not bother me.
From my personal perspective it was a lack of talent that I began to understand and the motivation that other riders with no fall back position in life had that separated us. So I moved on.
At the end of the day, I will still say that the 2006 Tour when Floyd did his ride on Stage 19 was still the most compelling day of racing I have ever seen. Dope or no dope. Because all his competitors were doped as well.
01-06-18, 03:07 AM
#28
Senior Member
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Cascadia
Posts: 1,206
Bikes: Jamis Quest Comp
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 169 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 3 Times
in
3 Posts
Yes.
I'm resigned to doping. Anybody who doesn't think it's endemic to all sports has their head in the sand. For instance, at one point in the NBA-you would only be tested 3x, or some small finite limit like that. So after your 3rd test, out come the needles. Stuff that's 'banned' in cycling happens on NFL sidelines(cortisone shots) in front of 100k people.
I just have a forlorn longing that it's controlled enough to not give permanent harm or have 30 year olds fall off the bike with a fatal heart attack because of drugs.
Though as far as the lance/tri youtube, it's worth noting that triathlon's talent pool isn't super deep compared to the competitors in a singular sport.
I'm resigned to doping. Anybody who doesn't think it's endemic to all sports has their head in the sand. For instance, at one point in the NBA-you would only be tested 3x, or some small finite limit like that. So after your 3rd test, out come the needles. Stuff that's 'banned' in cycling happens on NFL sidelines(cortisone shots) in front of 100k people.
I just have a forlorn longing that it's controlled enough to not give permanent harm or have 30 year olds fall off the bike with a fatal heart attack because of drugs.
Though as far as the lance/tri youtube, it's worth noting that triathlon's talent pool isn't super deep compared to the competitors in a singular sport.
01-08-18, 09:56 PM
#29
Senior Member
yeah ... unmmm ... No, sorry, you are totally wrong.
People can do grands tours on bread and water ... just not so fast. Maybe people have always cheated, but that is what that means---they have always cheated.
I'd prefer shorter stages, more rest days, or longer ride times to riders using drugs.
And yeah, LA rode those stages, and worked hard ... that was never the issue and you trying to make it the issue shows you don't like to deal with the Real reality.
No one knows if his tactics were better because tactics are dictated by performance ability. If he had better drugs, could push harder or recover faster, his tactics worked. the best tactics in the world won't beat a stronger rider using the same or similar tactics. And there is no way of knowing what his competition might have done, and they also been on the Dr. Ferrari plan.
Also, LA's team mates were also on the plan, which meant that he could get more out of his team than most other team leaders.
Everyone who finished those tours worked really hard and took a lot of risks and went all-out. The domestiques we don't remember who set a killer pace for the first third or half of a stage maybe worked harder each day for less reward than the team leaders. But we only remember the "heroes" like we remember the quarterbacks and running backs who would have been crushed if not for the linemen how got beat bloody on every play.
LA cheated his butt off ... and as I said above, i wish it had been a level playing field. Thing is, by all signs his team cheated the best, so it is impossible to know how much of the crap for which you are praising him, was only possible because he and his whole teams had the best drugs.
The guy who came in second might have done exactly everything LA did in terms of effort, risk, tactics, ... but hs team and himself had a less perfectly tailored drug-delivery program, so fatigue might have dragged each of them back by five percent compered to LA's team, and there is your difference.
Kissing up to LA's memory won;'t get you anywhere. Do it if you like, but the guy was a great cyclist ... but if he were not the best cheater on the best team of cheaters we might not recall his name any more than we recall who finished third in 2002.
People can do grands tours on bread and water ... just not so fast. Maybe people have always cheated, but that is what that means---they have always cheated.
I'd prefer shorter stages, more rest days, or longer ride times to riders using drugs.
And yeah, LA rode those stages, and worked hard ... that was never the issue and you trying to make it the issue shows you don't like to deal with the Real reality.
No one knows if his tactics were better because tactics are dictated by performance ability. If he had better drugs, could push harder or recover faster, his tactics worked. the best tactics in the world won't beat a stronger rider using the same or similar tactics. And there is no way of knowing what his competition might have done, and they also been on the Dr. Ferrari plan.
Also, LA's team mates were also on the plan, which meant that he could get more out of his team than most other team leaders.
Everyone who finished those tours worked really hard and took a lot of risks and went all-out. The domestiques we don't remember who set a killer pace for the first third or half of a stage maybe worked harder each day for less reward than the team leaders. But we only remember the "heroes" like we remember the quarterbacks and running backs who would have been crushed if not for the linemen how got beat bloody on every play.
LA cheated his butt off ... and as I said above, i wish it had been a level playing field. Thing is, by all signs his team cheated the best, so it is impossible to know how much of the crap for which you are praising him, was only possible because he and his whole teams had the best drugs.
The guy who came in second might have done exactly everything LA did in terms of effort, risk, tactics, ... but hs team and himself had a less perfectly tailored drug-delivery program, so fatigue might have dragged each of them back by five percent compered to LA's team, and there is your difference.
Kissing up to LA's memory won;'t get you anywhere. Do it if you like, but the guy was a great cyclist ... but if he were not the best cheater on the best team of cheaters we might not recall his name any more than we recall who finished third in 2002.
10-08-18, 05:02 AM
#30
Junior Member
Thread Starter
The man 'Lance' is back.
There are some exceptions, https://www.google.com/search?source....0.XeBzmlD6y-A
10-08-18, 05:48 PM
#31
Senior Member
And so did every other Tour winner before and after.
I don't know where people get this idea that someone ought to be able to win the big races on nothing but pasta and mineral water. It was never that way at any time in the past, and likely never will be. But still, the idea persists as some sort of ideal. An impossible one, but an ideal nonetheless. Like flying around with nothing more than your arms, or solving poverty forever, or teaching the world to sing in perfect harmony. These ideals persist outside of the realm of reality.
Armstrong risked his neck on those descents, and drugs were of no help there. He figured out the tactics he needed to win, EPO was of no help there. He rode every pedal stroke of those seven wins, not you, not me, Lance Armstrong. Give the guy at least SOME credit here, please. Love or hate him, the work ethic of that guy was phenomenal, and probably the major key to his successes. But no one ever gives him any credit for that.
I know it's easier to simply not think and just jump on the "Armstrong Sucks" bandwagon, as most of the vocal people here and elsewhere have. Maybe you feel betrayed, I simply don't know your reasons for felling so bitter. But IMO, those who feel betrayed need to re-examine their own naive assumptions about professional cycling, and the world in general, and stop expecting real-life fairy tales.
I don't know where people get this idea that someone ought to be able to win the big races on nothing but pasta and mineral water. It was never that way at any time in the past, and likely never will be. But still, the idea persists as some sort of ideal. An impossible one, but an ideal nonetheless. Like flying around with nothing more than your arms, or solving poverty forever, or teaching the world to sing in perfect harmony. These ideals persist outside of the realm of reality.
Armstrong risked his neck on those descents, and drugs were of no help there. He figured out the tactics he needed to win, EPO was of no help there. He rode every pedal stroke of those seven wins, not you, not me, Lance Armstrong. Give the guy at least SOME credit here, please. Love or hate him, the work ethic of that guy was phenomenal, and probably the major key to his successes. But no one ever gives him any credit for that.
I know it's easier to simply not think and just jump on the "Armstrong Sucks" bandwagon, as most of the vocal people here and elsewhere have. Maybe you feel betrayed, I simply don't know your reasons for felling so bitter. But IMO, those who feel betrayed need to re-examine their own naive assumptions about professional cycling, and the world in general, and stop expecting real-life fairy tales.
12-23-18, 12:08 PM
#32
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2018
Location: Whittier
Posts: 872
Bikes: 1973 Colnago Super, Litespeed Classic , Automoto , Pinarello Gavia TSX,Eddy Merckx Corsa Extra,Eddy Merckx EMX-5 , 1982 Moser SL, Concorde TSX, Vitus 979 KAS. Diamant SLX,60's Meteor
Mentioned: 23 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 235 Post(s)
Liked 947 Times
in
327 Posts
Lance,Not the Best cyclist ever just the Best Cheater with the Best Doping Program available.
08-17-21, 06:27 PM
#33
Junior Member
Thread Starter
Why can't I now watch this link?
Thanks
09-28-21, 07:20 AM
#35
Junior Member
Thread Starter
LA is still self serving and dangerous. He still is. Lance you are a YouTube crybaby. And getting Ullrich on for a meet in Spain. You are one sick puppy. Anyway, who is really the outsider, when forced to the outside and pulls through, but has no respect given, and is still left alone, after all the work, and given no way back...Floyd Landis. Now that is the story of the Cyclist. Message long now.
Last edited by gate28; 09-28-21 at 07:25 AM. Reason: wrong spelling
