A big thanks to Fane Marc for uploading these videos - memories for me. Whilst you cannot condone cheating in any form, there was certainly a buzz around cycling and the TDF at this time - the Armstrong - Ullrich, US Postal - Telekom battles were great to watch with other characters too - Pantani, Virenque, Beloki. Cheating aside, it was great viewing!
I like Phil. He's the voice of cycliing. But he sure was willing to either turn a blind eye or outright complicit with the cheating and doping. He never had a serious question about it ever. Meanwhile Lance and others were doped to the gills and lying straight to his face. Other didn't believe it, but Phil never had a doubt.
I don't care what anyone says...Lance Armstrong won those 7 races! EVERY GC contender was doping in those days and Lance proved to be the best rider in the peleton! Doping alone isn't enough to win the TDF. You still have to be in the best shape, you still need an iron will and you have to ride very smart! Lance just did it better than his rivals and he is being punished for being dominant! Armstrong cheated...there's no doubt about it. But if you take his 7 TDF wins away...you have to apply the same standard to everyone from that era. Jan Ulrich who admitted to doping still has his TDF win. Marco Pantani who was a world-class doper still has his TDF win. Bjarne Riis, who admitted to doping during the 1996 Tour de France, still has his TDF win. Alberto Contador, who has failed multiple drug tests and was stripped of his 2010 title, still has two of his TDF wins. Miguel Indurain, the poster boy for EPO, still has his 5 TDF wins. All of those cyclists won the Tour de France and all of those cyclists either admitted to doping and/or failed drug tests during their career. But there is one major difference between those riders and Lance Armstrong. What's the difference? Lance Armstrong is an American while the others are not. That's the primary reason why his TDF titles were stripped. As an American, it pisses me off that USADA and the UCI think they can just rewrite history as they see fit. If you're an American...it should piss you off too!
Couldn't agree with you more. Def pisses me off. Lance was an inspiration to me and to many. He got people out riding, and inspired so many people. Did he act off the bike some times like a jerk, yes he did. But u are spot on about USADA, UCI, and all the other cyclists of that time, and who knows what other athletes in all other sports who have "doped", and continue to "dope". Its a chemical tuning of your body yes, but NO ONE can push their bodies to these limits without these sports science innovations. I was more into the racing and tactics of lance and johann, and ullrich and pantani, than I am now with sky.
The following was said by a guy that has knowledge, on the "even playing field since everyone was doping, "To expand on that, not everyone responds to drugs in the same way and someone with a naturally higher red blood cell count couldn’t exploit EPO to the same degree. If you consider that “talent” in endurance events is partly about an athletes ability to transport oxygen, then less talented athletes profit the most. So, in the EPO era, athletic potential and talent counted less than employing the right doctor and applying their instructions meticulously. Sure, it requires dedication, intelligence and careful risk/reward analysis, but it’s not the same as athletic talent. Lance’s “talent” was that he hired the best doping doctor/sports scientist on an exclusive contract and followed his instructions to the letter, even changing his pedalling style to get the most out of his new, improved, red blood cell count. Yep, Lance’s much commented on high cadence pedalling was taught to him by Dr Michele Ferrari to exploit his boosted blood. Without EPO and without a naturally high haematocrit level, a cadence that high is hard to maintain climbing at those speeds." Also, on his pre doping cycling career in his young days, "Lance’s amateur career shows that he was an average TTer, a poor climber, a decent Rouler and a reasonably good sprinter. Nothing in it suggests he had the athletic potential to climb big mountains very well (Pantani by contrast was a pure climber even as a kid and going back a few more years) As an ex triathlete, he was too bulky to climb well and contrary to the popular wisdom (which was actually part of the Armstrong PR machine), he didn’t actually lose 10kg after cancer treatment. In fact, he lied about his weight for years, claiming to weigh 70kg when he was closer to 75kg. 75kg guys of about 5′9″ tall do not dominate on long climbs without drugs, in fact, the only rider that weight to ride well on big climbs is Miguel Indurain and he was a) 6′3″ b) not able to attack the way Lance did and c) possibly (probably) using EPO himself. When we dig further, as another reply has done, we also find that Lance’s V02max wasn’t that amazing for a cyclist, which is another decent way of predicting performance in the big races. His early career (when his drug use was a bit less well orchestrated) also suggests that he didn’t have the physiology to ride consistently well for 3 weeks. So we can conclude that it was doping that made him win all of his tours. Cheating its called. Furthermore, Anyone going after him was being harassed by his team of lawyers. There are multiple cases of this where he putted his money and team behind it. There in is the difference between him and a lot of other dopers that the press and others went after. He gone much further then any one else in the history of sports. These are all facts. He became some sort of a Don of the peleton. If you said anything in the press he made sure you became a outcast in the riders world. He made sure all of his helpers were doping max. He was a big asshole. The only positive thing to come out of this all is all the money that was raised in the fight against cancer. Thats a big positive in my view. But if you would have done some research before stating it like you did it might show you why they went after him so aggressive. It would not have gone that far for him if he did not make so many enemy`s. A dictator is loved by those who get power from him and will be hated by the same when he falls from his throne.
one of the dumbest moments in sports history! Ulrich is 2min 20s slower on Alp d Huez than in 1997. So absolutely not in best personal shape. Plus he lost 3min on Lance Armstrong on the first mountain stage the year before. What on earth gives him the believe to win this stage? His team was pushing all over the stage and made the race hard... hard for Ulrich... *WTF Moment * @ Uploader: Great stuff thank you
You cannnot compare the stages of 1997 and 2001 and therefore the times. Alp d'Huez 1997 was an "easy" stage with alp d'huez almost being the only tough climb. 2001, however, there were quite a few climbs before Alp d'huez.
It’s easy to say now that Ullrich was never going to win but obviously his team had to try. One factor you don’t mention is that they believed that Armstrong was weak and struggling to keep up with their pace. Notice the comments made at 0:33:06 and other places
Jesus, Ulrich looked like a garden gnome. Old Pumpkinhead was filled with Test and D-bol, in addition to all the EPO. Think of the watts he was pushing at his weight. Good lord.
Isn't it weird, that all the other GC contenders were more or less close together within say 30 seconds up the big climbs.. yet Armstrong the roling pharmacy was 2 minutes better than the rest... sorry... He was on so much stuff that his blood probably was so much thicker than that of everybody else.
seeing these old tours is stupid. LA was doped to the gills and lied about it all. some clean riders were bullied by LA. more respect for the clean riders who rode against those who needed to dope. you would think if you doped and had medical issues then you wouldn't dope again. but.....
Armstrong cheated, so did 80% of the peloton according to Tyler Hamilton , he just shit on a lot of people along the way, deserves what he got!, just my opinion.
A big thanks to Fane Marc for uploading these videos - memories for me. Whilst you cannot condone cheating in any form, there was certainly a buzz around cycling and the TDF at this time - the Armstrong - Ullrich, US Postal - Telekom battles were great to watch with other characters too - Pantani, Virenque, Beloki. Cheating aside, it was great viewing!
how not to stop seeing the best cyclist of current times the great lancé armstrong 👍👍👍
THANK YOU for all these wonderful uploads.....
These commentators do not shut up for one second do they....
Thanks for the uploads Marc
@Lee Shackelford Each their own. No prob.
40:44 oh yeah, its the cadence... thats where hes getting the power from Paul 😂
Bravo!
I like Phil. He's the voice of cycliing. But he sure was willing to either turn a blind eye or outright complicit with the cheating and doping. He never had a serious question about it ever.
Meanwhile Lance and others were doped to the gills and lying straight to his face. Other didn't believe it, but Phil never had a doubt.
I don't care what anyone says...Lance Armstrong won those 7 races! EVERY GC contender was doping in those days and Lance proved to be the best rider in the peleton! Doping alone isn't enough to win the TDF. You still have to be in the best shape, you still need an iron will and you have to ride very smart! Lance just did it better than his rivals and he is being punished for being dominant!
Armstrong cheated...there's no doubt about it. But if you take his 7 TDF wins away...you have to apply the same standard to everyone from that era. Jan Ulrich who admitted to doping still has his TDF win. Marco Pantani who was a world-class doper still has his TDF win. Bjarne Riis, who admitted to doping during the 1996 Tour de France, still has his TDF win. Alberto Contador, who has failed multiple drug tests and was stripped of his 2010 title, still has two of his TDF wins. Miguel Indurain, the poster boy for EPO, still has his 5 TDF wins.
All of those cyclists won the Tour de France and all of those cyclists either admitted to doping and/or failed drug tests during their career. But there is one major difference between those riders and Lance Armstrong. What's the difference? Lance Armstrong is an American while the others are not. That's the primary reason why his TDF titles were stripped. As an American, it pisses me off that USADA and the UCI think they can just rewrite history as they see fit. If you're an American...it should piss you off too!
Couldn't agree with you more. Def pisses me off. Lance was an inspiration to me and to many. He got people out riding, and inspired so many people. Did he act off the bike some times like a jerk, yes he did. But u are spot on about USADA, UCI, and all the other cyclists of that time, and who knows what other athletes in all other sports who have "doped", and continue to "dope". Its a chemical tuning of your body yes, but NO ONE can push their bodies to these limits without these sports science innovations. I was more into the racing and tactics of lance and johann, and ullrich and pantani, than I am now with sky.
Lance was probably the better doped and from Indurain to Contador all winners were very probably doped
The following was said by a guy that has knowledge, on the "even playing field since everyone was doping,
"To expand on that, not everyone responds to drugs in the same way and someone with a naturally higher red blood cell count couldn’t exploit EPO to the same degree. If you consider that “talent” in endurance events is partly about an athletes ability to transport oxygen, then less talented athletes profit the most. So, in the EPO era, athletic potential and talent counted less than employing the right doctor and applying their instructions meticulously.
Sure, it requires dedication, intelligence and careful risk/reward analysis, but it’s not the same as athletic talent. Lance’s “talent” was that he hired the best doping doctor/sports scientist on an exclusive contract and followed his instructions to the letter, even changing his pedalling style to get the most out of his new, improved, red blood cell count. Yep, Lance’s much commented on high cadence pedalling was taught to him by Dr Michele Ferrari to exploit his boosted blood. Without EPO and without a naturally high haematocrit level, a cadence that high is hard to maintain climbing at those speeds."
Also, on his pre doping cycling career in his young days,
"Lance’s amateur career shows that he was an average TTer, a poor climber, a decent Rouler and a reasonably good sprinter. Nothing in it suggests he had the athletic potential to climb big mountains very well (Pantani by contrast was a pure climber even as a kid and going back a few more years)
As an ex triathlete, he was too bulky to climb well and contrary to the popular wisdom (which was actually part of the Armstrong PR machine), he didn’t actually lose 10kg after cancer treatment. In fact, he lied about his weight for years, claiming to weigh 70kg when he was closer to 75kg. 75kg guys of about 5′9″ tall do not dominate on long climbs without drugs, in fact, the only rider that weight to ride well on big climbs is Miguel Indurain and he was a) 6′3″ b) not able to attack the way Lance did and c) possibly (probably) using EPO himself.
When we dig further, as another reply has done, we also find that Lance’s V02max wasn’t that amazing for a cyclist, which is another decent way of predicting performance in the big races. His early career (when his drug use was a bit less well orchestrated) also suggests that he didn’t have the physiology to ride consistently well for 3 weeks.
So we can conclude that it was doping that made him win all of his tours. Cheating its called.
Furthermore,
Anyone going after him was being harassed by his team of lawyers. There are multiple cases of this where he putted his money and team behind it. There in is the difference between him and a lot of other dopers that the press and others went after. He gone much further then any one else in the history of sports. These are all facts.
He became some sort of a Don of the peleton. If you said anything in the press he made sure you became a outcast in the riders world. He made sure all of his helpers were doping max. He was a big asshole.
The only positive thing to come out of this all is all the money that was raised in the fight against cancer. Thats a big positive in my view. But if you would have done some research before stating it like you did it might show you why they went after him so aggressive. It would not have gone that far for him if he did not make so many enemy`s. A dictator is loved by those who get power from him and will be hated by the same when he falls from his throne.
@Lee Shackelford When you at one time grow up and start an argument without the first sentence being an insult i might respond. Have a nice day.
Lance is Juiced!!
one of the dumbest moments in sports history! Ulrich is 2min 20s slower on Alp d Huez than in 1997. So absolutely not in best personal shape. Plus he lost 3min on Lance Armstrong on the first mountain stage the year before. What on earth gives him the believe to win this stage? His team was pushing all over the stage and made the race hard... hard for Ulrich... *WTF Moment *
@ Uploader: Great stuff thank you
"Are you coming or not...And the answer is..Not."
You cannnot compare the stages of 1997 and 2001 and therefore the times. Alp d'Huez 1997 was an "easy" stage with alp d'huez almost being the only tough climb. 2001, however, there were quite a few climbs before Alp d'huez.
You just looked at the mountain as being the only thing going on in a race.
The race had a few mountains before
It’s easy to say now that Ullrich was never going to win but obviously his team had to try. One factor you don’t mention is that they believed that Armstrong was weak and struggling to keep up with their pace. Notice the comments made at 0:33:06 and other places
Le maître incontestée dû tour de france
The epic moment: 32:33
EPO
Jesus, Ulrich looked like a garden gnome. Old Pumpkinhead was filled with Test and D-bol, in addition to all the EPO.
Think of the watts he was pushing at his weight. Good lord.
Isn't it weird, that all the other GC contenders were more or less close together within say 30 seconds up the big climbs.. yet Armstrong the roling pharmacy was 2 minutes better than the rest... sorry... He was on so much stuff that his blood probably was so much thicker than that of everybody else.
seeing these old tours is stupid. LA was doped to the gills and lied about it all. some clean riders were bullied by LA. more respect for the clean riders who rode against those who needed to dope. you would think if you doped and had medical issues then you wouldn't dope again. but.....
There are no clean riders here, in cycling or professional sports in general.
@@livingbeing1113 There are. They get squeezed out by dopers.
Armstrong cheated, so did 80% of the peloton according to Tyler Hamilton , he just shit on a lot of people along the way, deserves what he got!, just my opinion.
Super competitive people aren't usually the nicest I agree, but he was certainly the best rider in the peleton.
If look at these images, the feeling I 've got is, its was all fake, he deceived us all. But back than we couldn't know