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

[bicycletricycle]

Impossible to know really.

[benb]

Originally Posted by fiamme red

I agree with you that he was far above his rivals in mental toughness. But I'm curious, weren't the USPS/Discovery budgets much larger compared to the other teams? Lance always seemed to have a stronger surrounding cast (some of whom were GC contenders themselves) than his rivals in the Tour. And he could afford a more sophisticated doping program.

I don't know if I care if their budget was higher. The sport was stacked in every possible way for the Europeans and yet USPS still beat them at their own game.

The whole thing is still a joke, I don't really believe things have been cleaned up. The UCI just wants European champions who don't make them look bad.

[jet sanchez]

Aren't all the pros still cheating?

[Tickdoc]

Originally Posted by FlashUNC

Phil Liggett is proof a village somewhere is missing its idiot.

Amen.

[PQJ]

yawn

[choke]

Originally Posted by Tony T

There was not full coverage of the TDF when Lemond raced (hell, there wasn't even highlights in the U.S. sports coverage). Only one year with GL was truly exciting (when he beat Fignon with the aero bars — and if Fignon had used them, he would have beat GL) The LA years brought the TDF to the U.S. general public, and those years were exciting racing.

I agree that the coverage was sparse to say the least. Some years there was an hour or two highlights of the week show on TV on Sundays....some years not as much. And yes, due to LA the general public knew a lot more about the TdF. But I absolutely disagree that the racing was exciting during the those years.

By far the most exciting race that I ever watched on the networks was the 1994 Paris Roubaix.

[Matthew]

It was a joke fiamme red. Every time a thread like this is started it ends the same way. Lance sucks, Lance is great, LeMond didn't cheat, LeMond was better, -7, blah, blah, blah. It's like Campy vs Shimano, SRAM is junk, etc. Just gets old. I was trying to be funny. Didn't come across that way it appears. Carry on the debate that will never end. And in a month or so do it all over again. Yay.

[benb]

I remember thinking it was boring cause you thought Lance was going to win no matter what.

But I also remember watching and just thinking the whole thing was ridiculous and there was no way he could win again, something bad has to happen this year, he's going to crash, or have a bad day, or whatever.

For me it always comes down to his competitors crashing and he always seemed to keep the rubber side down.

There were numerous years if Lance had crashed an Ulrich hadn't we wouldn't be having this conversation, Lance might have been +3 or +4 and Pantani or Ulrich would have been +2 or +3 or something.

In the end the thing that makes the races boring for me are hundreds of miles of flat with one team train "setting the pace" and nothing happens for hours. Maybe USPS made that worse but certainly the teams have not changed anything since the USPS days.

Froome was Armstrong all over again only with less souplesse and way more boring riding the PM.

[fignon's barber]

I had a chance to meet Phil Liggett at the Tour dupont back in '90. Stood on the side of the road during the Wilmington TT and talked to him for probably half an hour. Tremendously nice gentleman and all around good guy. Sad that people continue to try to paint him into a corner regarding Lance.

[ceya]

Originally Posted by 9tubes

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.

He was a pro triathlete as under 19 yr old, ranked #1 .

Not a Lance fan but his riding style also changed it improved his chances to win.

He improved on the two things he sucked and some previous winners were good at .

Time Trials and Mountains.

[benb]

Please.. there's no responsible/scientific research that shows some riders will respond better to illegal PED programs than others and that the rampant PED use tilted the playing field towards some dopers vs others.

No one is going to run that study in a responsible way.. if you did it in a lot of countries the researchers could end up in jail.

Rogue doctors working for pro sports teams running fly by night programs doesn't make it scientific research.

Most of these teams/riders had spotty access to their drugs and made mistakes and all kinds of other issues.

And actual racing has way too many confounding variables to ever be used as proof of the drugs helping one rider/team more than another.

[pdmtong]

Originally Posted by choke

I've seen this expressed several times by several people and I just don't get it. I started following cycling when Greg LeMond was racing and I thought that the LA years were terrible. The outcome was preordained (barring an accident) and my jingoism was diminished by that point in my life so I didn't root for him just because he was from the US. I had been a fan of his earlier years and I still vividly remember watching his win at the Tour the year that Fabio Casartelli died.

Somewhere during those years of dominance I stopped watching the TdF and I haven't returned.

I paid more attention to "pro cycling" once Greg won - prior to that I was too busy mountain biking and windsurfing and didn't care much for staring at asphalt although of course i had a schwinn road bike growing up.

I found the racing exciting. Sure maybe some stages seemed preordained. but there were moments for sure. Loved being able to watch the race, every stage, for three weeks. instead of reading a 3 sentence statement on the back of the sports page or waiting for the five minutes allotted on wide world of sports

I'd also add, that being on the west coast means 4am and 5am starts for live mountain stages. The years that overlapped the World Cup made for some really long days on the couch.

[pdmtong]

Originally Posted by benb

Froome was Armstrong all over again only with less souplesse and way more boring riding the PM.

EXCEPT the one year he ran up ventoux, gapped the field downhill, and made the split with sagan. those three stages completely changed my view of Froome from a head down bore to someone with huge heart and nerve.

[oldguy00]

Originally Posted by FlashUNC

Phil Liggett is proof a village somewhere is missing its idiot.

Yep, for about 15 years now...

[FlashUNC]

Originally Posted by pdmtong

EXCEPT the one year he ran up ventoux, gapped the field downhill, and made the split with sagan. those three stages completely changed my view of Froome from a head down bore to someone with huge heart and nerve.

His 80k Giro escape was also the kind of thing you just don't see anymore.