Phil Liggett says Lance Armstrong did not need to cheat to win
 

Phil Liggett says Lance Armstrong did not need to cheat to win

The legendary English-speaking sportscaster of professional cycling, Phil Liggett, is renowned for his knowledge of the sport, anecdotal quips and a pleasing tone of voice, but his recent comments in Australian media were sharp and abrupt when talking about American Lance Armstrong.

“Lance was probably the most gifted cyclist of his time. Drugs, as I always say, don’t turn a donkey into a thoroughbred,” Liggett said in February interview with the Sydney Morning Herald.

Liggett has been making the rounds in the Australian media to promote a 114-minute Demand Film documentary on his career in television commentary and his personal interest in wildlife conservation, while providing insightful comments about his beloved sport.

Armstrong was one of the main characters in the peloton to fill hours of commentary for Liggett over the course of his ongoing 48 years of broadcasting. In an interview this weekend with 7News.com.au, Liggett said thought Armstrong, known more for his use of performance-enhancing drugs and ruthless path to winning, could have won races like the Tour de France as a clean athlete.

“He was naturally just extremely good,” Liggett said to 7News.com.au. “When Lance realised that the Tour de France was drug-ridden, he told his team ‘We’ll do it and we’ll do it better than they do it’. And if they didn’t agree, they were off the team. Most of his team had to take drugs just to back him up ... because Lance was exceptional.”

For remainder of article, see:
https://www.cyclingnews.com/news/phi...-cheat-to-win/

I think Phil needs to consult a dictionary, since what he just described is exactly the opposite of 'exceptional'.

Still carrying the flame for his man crush

Or just trying to not have been so wrong?

This is how history is rewritten.

dave

Where did Phil say Lance didn't need to cheat to win?

The headline says that, but Phil didn't say it. There's nothing new in his statements, there's the continual discussion around the 'donkey to a racehorse' stuff isn't anything that hasn't been argued on both sides within these boards a million times.

The only noteworthy bit was the way Lance snubbed Phil and noted that he thought that Phil had died, not Paul.

https://www.sbs.com.au/cyclingcentra...armstrong-snub

I am sure this thread will spiral into the usual positions, but i don't have any issues with Phil being a denier for all that time. Sometimes I think it's too easy to forget just how exciting those years were, drugs aside. Lance vs. Jan. the Alpe d H TT. Dodging Beloki and CX down that hill side. and it was all on TV nonstop for the first time. What Phil could do is also acknowledge how -7 eff'd everyone - this friends, his team, his sponsors, the sport and us the fans. So saying he could have won without drugs just doesn't go far enough ...

I like Bobbke and Chris. Enough Jens. Say no to CVV.

Exactly. I think also that the members of Motorola in 1992 would disagree that he "was naturally just extremely good." He was very good, but that's the price of admission to a Grand Tour team. He did not distinguish himself before drugs. There was and is a wide gulf between being the type of person who wins a Junior National Road Race (1991) and a few minor stages as a neo-Pro (1992), and a person who dominates a Grand Tour.

Compare LeMond, who won the Coors Classic in 1981, then Tour de l'Avenir in '82, and then the World Championship in '83, and 3rd in the TdF in '84. Or Andy Hampsten, who won a major Grand Tour stage two weeks after turning pro then placed 4th in his first TdF the next year. Great riders are obvious from the start.

Plus, the research shows that a great drug program will in fact turn a pack mule (aka super domestique) into a thoroughbred.

Yeah, look, this is really a discussion that nobody can be 'right' because it's all hypothetical.

So I'm not trying to be right or to prove you wrong, or whatever.

Cycling history is littered with guys who really should be walking around at 80kg losing 10+kg and then absolutely having a time in the mountains. Wiggins, Froome, Thomas, Dumolin are a few recent ones.

Ferrari was not only obsessed with getting rider power up with drugs, but also bringing weight down. Like verging on (if not actual) abuse - when you consider how influential he was to a bunch of young riders.

The other thing worth noting is that a cyclist's trajectory is rarely linear, you point to his results in 92 as lacklustre but he was only 21. In 93 he won the worlds RR. That's pretty good for a 22 year old, wouldn't you say? Even if he was on drugs, I'd hazard a guess that as a 22 year old without much influence he wasn't on the gold-standard program he had in later years.

I guess what I'm getting at is that it's not a simple narrative of drugs plus donkey made a race horse, its a whole bunch of stuff and saying Lance was a mule is probably a bit unfair in the first place but hey that's your prerogative.

He was clearly driven to extract the maximum from himself.

It's funny because he has still not apologized to Greg LeMond. Other than hey, how's the family, this is the other question I always ask Scott LeMond when we talk. He told me a story about this one rest stop that everyone stops at when the Tour is going on. They had arrived right before Phil. As Greg was coming out, Phil was heading in. He said that Phil refused to even say hello to Greg.

Drugs can't make a donkey into a thoroughbred
 

But they can make a thoroughbred into an ass

I wonder if Liggett said that because he had been asked about some recent remarks from Johan Bruyneel to the same effect: https://forums.thepaceline.net/showthread.php?t=261629.

I listened to the two-part Phil Liggett podcast on the Outer Line. He was never close to Lance, although he volunteered as his cancer fundraisers. What struck more than anything was how much Paul Sherwen's friendship meant to him.

I didn't know that Phil started as a zoologist, which later carried over into his campaign to save the rhinoceros.

Part 1: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BHY3k4GjrnU

Part 2: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DiyGcCT3qVw

Apparently, Lance disagreed

Drugs may not be able to turn a donkey into a thoroughbred, but they can turn a losing thoroughbred into a winning thoroughbred.

The notion, as it is stated, is irrelevant.

He did cheat; that is established. End of discussion.