Lance was the greatest of his era, with or without doping

[jamesdak]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aPjn...rahamBensinger

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rUo0...rahamBensinger

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g5Pv...nel=SecretBase

[retropean]

I’m a fan. Inb4thelock

[dmurphey]

Originally Posted by dancinkozmo

thats nice...cause he was an a$$hole to everyone else

He is a giant dick, but a really fast, hypercompetitive one. He is not a world champion. Karma is tough.

[charliedid]

Originally Posted by dmurphey

He is a giant dick, but a really fast, hypercompetitive one. He is not a world champion. Karma is tough.

Does he owe you a tube and a CO2 cart. as well?

[bikinchris]

He stole my wife's sharpie. Big deal.
A LOT of people who are at the top of their sport are complete jerks. Lance is a jerk. If he hurt you personally, then you have a right to go after him. If he didn't hurt you personally, I want to know what you are doing about the other sports stars who are jerks? Nothing? I thought so.

Doping IS PERVASIVE in every single pro sport. It is widespread at the college level and is present in high school sports. It is even in middle school sports.

[Fivethumbs]

I read and enjoyed George Hincapie's autobiography, The Loyal Lieutenant... In his book George talked about having a naturally high hematocrit level so he did not get the same kick that others who doped got. So apparently, one rider can be doing the exact same doping as another rider and one of them may get better results.

[FlashUNC]

Originally Posted by Fivethumbs

I read and enjoyed George Hincapie's autobiography, The Loyal Lieutenant... In his book George talked about having a naturally high hematocrit level so he did not get the same kick that others who doped got. So apparently, one rider can be doing the exact same doping as another rider and one of them may get better results.

Tyler spoke about this in depth in his book. Doping is both science and art.

[Buzz]

This isn’t that complicated. Anyone that’s been around understands that an individual’s response to a drug or medication varies from person to person. Some folks have allergic reactions while others don’t, some chemotherapy drugs work for one person but not the other with the same cancer, some get wicked high on thc others don’t, two people have the same drink together one becomes belligerent and mean and the other relaxed and giddy.

So let’s look at Armstrong’s record at the Tour before he went on the “program” In four tours he had three DNFs and one 36th place. Hardly the pedigree of a true gc stage racer.

He simply had a much better physiologic response to the drugs than others. Not that complicated.

[oldpotatoe]

Originally Posted by charliedid

Lance was nice to me...

"Lance made me rich"..too.

Why oh why would anybody believe what this exiled lance-ista would say about his 'gravy train'????

[Tony T]

Originally Posted by oldguy00

For the record I've always been a lance fan, always knew about doping in cycling.

I think JB is skirting around the fact that a lot of the hate towards lance isn't because of doping, but because of how he treated some of the folks involved in the sport and around him.

True, and the reason why the "Nice Guy" dopers got a pass.
And lets not forget, if any ruling authority (IRS, WADA, etc), want to get media coverage in order to compel compliance of its rules, go after the name that everyone knows.

[timto]

Others have mentioned this too - his mental game, as much as the body response to doping, is what helped set him apart from his peers.

[Chris]

Before he was turbo charged after cancer, Lance couldn’t time trial or climb well enough to be considered a gran tour rider. I think he could’ve been a good/great classics rider. Look at the other great tour riders in the “pre-doping” eras. They were finishing well up the board in their debuts. Lance? Not even close.

[bikinchris]

Wow. Have any of you looked at his before and after cancer body? Before cancer, he had the body of a swimmer. Or a classics rider. After cancer, he had the upper body of a concentration camp survivor. His legs had slimmed down a lot too.
Oh wait, this has been discussed before with images to illustrate it too.
Cognitive dissonance is the best reason for this.

[charliedid]

Originally Posted by Buzz

This isn’t that complicated. Anyone that’s been around understands that an individual’s response to a drug or medication varies from person to person. Some folks have allergic reactions while others don’t, some chemotherapy drugs work for one person but not the other with the same cancer, some get wicked high on thc others don’t, two people have the same drink together one becomes belligerent and mean and the other relaxed and giddy.

So let’s look at Armstrong’s record at the Tour before he went on the “program” In four tours he had three DNFs and one 36th place. Hardly the pedigree of a true gc stage racer.

He simply had a much better physiologic response to the drugs than others. Not that complicated.

That might be more common than not as far as his early start. Let's just take for example Indurain's career in Le Tour as a quick example. Few people are true phenoms from the very beginning in cycling or any sport.

Drugs or no drugs, Lance was beyond gifted by any measure but some people prefer to always view him as a terribly flawed person and because of it deny how impressive his career was going back to his teens.

[wallymann]

Originally Posted by fignon's barber

Love Lance's podcasts. I'd go so far as to say he's the most interesting rider or ex-rider in pro cycling today.

totally agree -- the move offers the best pro-tour analysis available today.