@@davidmacdonald1283 daarom moest hij de zeven tour zeges afgeven omdat hij de beste was ,ja in zware bloeddoping nemen en mensen te pesten was hij de beste als renner was hij zonder doping matig .kon ook geweldig Liegen
I was there in the peloton from his beginning to his end. He beat me for his only US Pro Championship jersey at US PRO Road Race in Philly. I won the bronze medal that year. Anyone who wasn't there has no idea what they're talking about. Lance won all his tours on a level playing field. Every GC contender was dirty then. Also, if any of the keyboard warriors out there think pro cycling is clean now they are children who should talk to Santa Clause about it when he comes to visit them. Just wait in front of the chimney. There have always been clean riders, there still are. There were more clean riders in America from the 90's to now than there were in Europe. There are many reasons why, but that's another conversation.
Dayum we're a pro cyclist. And u raced and got 3rd with Lance. Ur a friggin machine. I'm a amatuer cyclist. Glad to read ur post. Yes Lance got shit on but in my book he's cool as a cyclist and as regular guy. It sux what happened. All anyone if I was in his shoes just keep journeying on and ignore people's bullshit. Easier sed than done but... And that's whats he's doing. Peace my man!
Well they were not as good as doping as he was is what it means.People saying "lance doped but so everyone else" conveniently forget that he had the best doctors and was an hyper responder. There is no even playing field, people genetics are the hard limit to performance, but sometimes people genetics gives them an edge in a doping free context, for other the opposite. Without Doctor Ferrari Lance wins the tour, maybe even multiples ones, but not 7.
Sure people are found out everyday for taking performance degradation drugs, you know when a guy feels his performance is too good and he feels like coming last
The trend started in Europe both doping and looking for scapegoats to blame. The fact is you cannot take a pig, inject EPO and watch it beat everyone, it is still a pig. The illusion of many uninformed and they are out there by the millions, is that you can take any normal cyclist, MTB guy or a casual runner, treat them with EPO and they will beat anyone. The fact is Lance was not only a phenomenal athlete but also a great tactician with one hell of a team, USPS. Like it or not, he was one of the best during his career.
@@tonystone3397 That's ridiculous! He was a cheat, so was everyone else! So the playing field was basically level! Using basic logic if all riders were clean the playing field would be basically level, same outcome!
@@tonystone3397 But somehow, you didn't even make it to the start line....even with drugs, not to mention winning a stage, let alone a Tour, let alone 7 Tours, you just haven't got a fu*king clue, have you?
A lot of pros have been quoted as saying, "We used to drop that guy like a rock all day long, every day. Then one day he's dropping US!" Pretend doping is minor all you want. It isn't. Once people graduate from top amateur to promising pro, they've already proven they're talented. These are the best looking for an edge. Pigs? Yeah, right. Give EPO to a keyboard warrior like you, and I'd still drop your ass clean! Ha, ha, ha! J/K
They're always trying to find ways to stay ahead.... Hopefully the end of the Armstrong era was the end of systematic doping & the end of the omerta which deceived fans for so many years.... Just keep it fair and let the rider who wants it the most prove it
Now that the big doping scandals have been investigated and revealed, we can find some common details and look at the current situation with some background and what signs we should look for 1) Sudden and inexplicable changes in perf at a later stage in careers Flo Jo became unbeatable at 27 L.A. morphed from 1 day racer to grand Tours champion at 28 Jalabert started his career as a sprinter and (thanks to EPO) became a TT Wolrd champion Ben Johnson became unbeatable at 26-27 years old 2) Questionable entourage including coaches and doctors previously involved in doping scandals L.A. with Ferrari T&F athletes and Salazar
@@demdjen77 yes.... But it's nice to at least want to believe that a lesson was learned & nobody wants to be the one to have 5 tour victories stripped away..... But who knows..... That toxic mentality of what happens in the sport stays in the sport sadly doesn't seem to be going away.... In any sport
To say 90 percent were cheating and use it as justification doesn’t wash. Unless the intention is to see who’s body responds to drugs the best, rather than who’s the best cyclist. Last time I looked, it was a cycling competition.
Nuts. Just nuts. Yeah doping makes your bike levitate and the odds go crazy. The sad thing is people don't get most of this at this level is mental. You don't win 2 yours without extreme mental discipline. Luck comes to those who practice and eliminate luck
Lance was my cycling hero. I supported him through all the allegations and was devastated when it was confirmed. Never felt the same about professional cycling since.
I don't get too personally invested in any rider. I'm just watching for the spectacle. That way I don't get disappointed when they're caught or confess.🤷
At the end of the day they were all using EPO, so the playing field was equal. He was an exceptional cyclist, also to be able to recover from adversity and still be at the top of his game is remarkable. We will never see any one as good as Lance was!
@@davidg.romerojr.7915there is info but it all BS speculation.. Lance sure as hell doped, but the “e-bike” accusations are simply BS conspiracy theory’s made in an attempt to discredit he’s talent. Do any ounce of research on this topic and you will find out it has about as much evidence as the earth being flat.
And don't forget Greg lamon he hated land so much and I don't know if it was probably because Lance was going to end up being more famous than him but I will say regular mom did have some good ideas probably the best idea he had was handlebars that everybody use this whenever they're doing time trials where you basically lay down on the on the frame and your your arms and hands are out in front of the handlebars anyway thank you
You are saying he was the best among the cheaters...but the video is saying his body responded best to doping, is other words, he was the best cheater out there.
The documentary Icarus showed that there are more variables involved with winning than just doping and the pervasiveness of drug use involves entire countries.
He just revolutionzed the entire sport, from training, tecnology, technique to nutrition. His time trail and climbing techniques were flawless. Many who came after are still using his methods today.
Loads of bullshit. Just take a look back at Lance Armstrong pre 1999. Before those magical potion by Michell Ferrari he was just an ordinary rider. At most a mid field level on Tours level and he cannot even climb! On records he is a one-day race rider and that's about it. After his "collaboration" with the witch doctor he instantaneously changed his genes and became a climber overnight LMAO. Go watch some Disney movies if you need fictional motivation.
He was a fraud and pathological liar. He viciously went after the women who called him out much more than the men. Even when he spoke with Oprah finally acknowledging his cheating…he still couldn’t apologize to Betsy .
Very interesting to think of this question. Agreed, doubtful he would have been so successful. Lances rise and fall was truly heartbreaking, not only for him, but for millions of others.
Lance Armstrong is the greater doper ever. I don’t mean that as a slam . They all doped and Lance beat them all. Along with Michelli and Brunyeel; the three were unstoppable. He’s a tactical genius; no wonder they called him, “The General.” Mentally and socially, he’s like MJ or Tiger. I’m glad we’re not friends but they’re sure fun to watch!
I agree 100%, and i have talked about this with numerous cyclist. Lance doped, and won, but everybody else was doing it also... He is the greatest cyclist ever...
He is certainly not the greatest doper ever. Russian and east germans athletes were far ahead of him in the 80's . Tactical genius? Don't know about it. I guess it's easier to be a tactical genius when the whole team is doped. This being said he was a gifted athlete who did not believe in his own physical ability. I think without the dope, he still could have won 3 tours de France.
@RaJu ViMa Ever hear of Miguel Indurain ----en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miguel_Indur%C3%A1in-- weight's not everything --- specific shape--BMI, power/kg for hills, and straight power for breakaways, sprints, and time trials are way more important. Also -- all you bozos look at 3 week tours as if these guys ride by themselves. They don'.t. If they win, it's highly because they have a team ride correctly for them. the time where a TDF winner is riding by themselves is usually less than 2 1/2 hours total (and 1 hour of that is a time trial) --- out of a tour lasting 90 hours. Remember though -- the entire Top 10 in a TDF -- will finish within 10 to 20 minutes of first place. So little differences --- in team and individual performance are key. In that time period -- you doped -- or you didn't have a job on any team. There are guys interviewed in documentaries about that period -- who got to 'go home' and never rode professionally again.
He was very good, great even. In his era every top guy was using some drug or blood doping for recovery. The fact that he didn't crash out of his seven Tours showed how good of a bike handler he was, he had some close scrapes but in his era he was the best period.
Sure, every top guy was doping, but what about those guys who were not "top guys" BECAUSE they were not doping, but might have been if the field was clean? Even they will never know how good they might have been. So, no, it was not a level playing field.
You ask and attempt to answer a relevant question: How good was he? Damn good, probably physically and mentally the toughest since Eddy Merckx. While I can't condone doping just because everyone did it (apply that to cheating on taxes etc.) I can understand it. Where Armstrong lost me was how he treated those that opposed him and called out his lies. A great athlete and cyclist? No doubt. A great person? No way!
In the early years, when Lance Armstrong rode, he was respectful and congenial to all the riders. Especially to the younger riders. But in later years... the attitude of Alberto Contdor..and disposition... toward Lance Armstrong, it was understood why Lance Armstrong acted the way he did. Contador did not want to be a team player
Physically he wasn't the best, Ulrich was the most talented cyclist, mentally he was the toughest but he was also a sociopath. He also had the best team. See Sky/Ineos.
Now they bike 3 mountains in a stage at almost the same speeds as he biked one, and froome won 3 grand tours in a row, but lance was a beast for being that dominant in le tour and never cracking under the pressure of the constant haters....plus gave great interviews
The only thing I didn't like about that era of cycling was the top riders ridding few races per year. For example Lance rode Tour and maybe Dauphine Libere beforehand. Take Roglič and Pogačar nowdays, they ride many weekly races and also one day races, including monuments.
I could not agree with you more. The top riders would "hide" and go to their training camps. Greg LeMond, Hinault, Indurain would race themselves into shape
Lance did around 40 races before the tour every year. He rode Amstel gold a couple times. Got second twice. Raced Olympics in both road and time trial category. Jan Ulrich did around 80 races leading to the tour. People like you are the reason why riders feel the need to dope. Because you think people need to destroy their bodies all year long for your entertainment.
From my recollection, Greg Lemond was kind of the first to focus on the Tour. He raced limited races and used races leading up to the Tour as training to get ready. It has sort of been the trend since.
It was a matter of time before the sport was going to be discovered, drugs where all over because there was no way to test them , but rumors, where all over, with that been said , the performance of those Athletes was espectacular, the Tour the France is the most demanding sport in human history, things have Changed , but blaming Lance for wrong doing is difficult, the guy is a legend
Lance Armstrong has been my hero since his first TDF win. He doped; but everyone else in that era did too. He was genetically gifted; & his focus & drive to be the best of the best was exceptional. He trained incredibly hard. Not to mention all the help & inspiration he gave to all the people suffering from cancer.
You’re rehashing Armstrong’s own lies here, his claims to have had an extremely high VO2 max in his book have been debunked. He was a high responder to EPO, Dr Ferrari wouldn’t have taken him on otherwise.
Tyler Hamilton had a few things to say about doping in his book. He claims the field was far from level. Bigger budgets bought better technology in the form of Drs and pharmaceuticals. There's no question, that he was an incredible cyclist. I don't believe for a second that Eddy Merckx or any of his contemporaries road clean either. They rode in a time that was even less regulated and they just used different drugs amphetamines being one of them. They were just heroes that were put on the pedestal and everyone wanted to keep them there.
People respond differently to drugs in sport. It does not benefit everyone the same way. Another way to put it is, if you took the final GC of the 2000 TdF, for example; let’s say every one of them was does as best as they could, and then let’s suppose all of them rode it 100% pan y agua instead. You would not then get the same results if you cut out all the doping. They would be totally different.
He had a lower natural hematocrit level than others, so EPO worked better. Still, he won -seven- times in a row. psychopathic levels of insane discipline and determination. Wild stuff.
"You'd have to be an imbecile or hypocrite to imagine that a professional cyclist who rides 235 days a year can hold himself together without stimulants". "For 50 years bike racers have been taking stimulants. Obviously we can do without them in a race, but then we will pedal 15 miles an hour (instead of 25). Since we are constantly asked to go faster and to make even greater efforts, we are obliged to take stimulants." Both quotes by Jacques Anquetil, Tour de France winner 1957, '62, '62, 63' & '64.
As someone who lived in Switzerland for 12 years (1997-2010), I saw these great stages whenever I could. Lance on Joux-Plane; Hamilton with broken collarbone; etc... I am only sad about one aspect: the UCI and TDF removed Lance as victor, but never addressed the conquests of Richard Virenque, Laurent Jalabert, or Bernard Hinault. Hell, if Eddy introduced Lance to Dr Ferrara, what does that tell us about Merckx? WADA is only 'insurance' for Team and Event owners, and their sponsors: as long as the IOC or UCI can point to WADA, shrug their metaphorical shoulders and whine "But WADA is doing everything possible!", then Coca-Cola™ will continue pumping $300 plus million dollars into such events... 👁️👁️
Freddy Martens told us a lot about Merck's antics, he was truly terrible. We don't know the exact extent of his drug use, Martens said drugs were used primarily during the Classics and not as much during the tours.
Eddy dope back in his day too. But he’s a god of cycling 😒 It’s only because Lance is a American crushing a European sport is the reason why they stripped his wins. He will always be a 7 time champion in my book.
@@djaaronmorris1624 Don't stupid, it was the American governing bodies that attacked Lance. the European authorities did ALL they could to protect and defend lance, as far as possible, both for themselves and Lance himself!
From that era.... Of say 30 podium finishers over a 10 year period.... Maybe 2-3 would have been clean.... Out of the top 30.... It was tacitly accepted by teams and managers.... Just don't get caught was the only rule
@@pagejustin5572 I think the only person in the top 10 in all those years that hasnt been caught or heavily implicated was cadel evans in 2005 and he finished in i think 8th
@@lukemanion2 Carlos sastre (Mr. Bread & Water) he won it in 08.... And had to secretly attack his own teammates in the Schleck brothers in order to pull it off.... Cadel was a class act though, no doubt
I saw the Lance Armstrong race at the Major Taylor Velodrome in 1985 when he was 14 years old. He was WAY better than anyone else, won everything. There's no way he was doping then. I think everyone doped when he did, he was just better than everyone so he was better doped. Doesn't make it right though. They should vacate ALL results from that time period, or restore the winners.
Thank you for a well done presentation. I just remember a bald, sick man with three incisions in his head, and several lesions in his lungs. Given a 10% chance of survival, and a 0 % chance of bike racing ... Armstrong did whatever it took to make himself into a machine designed to do one thing... win the Tour. Did he do so with help from EPO ... whatever it takes to win, that was his life's focus. 8 hours a day on the bike, more training and working on bike design... to win. Tom Byrne ( I was very close to death my self at the same time so I am prejudiced.)
His doctor Scott Shapiro claimed his chances to survive were around 5%. He told him the true after LA fully recovered and got back on the bike. While he was fighting with cancer his team (Coffidis) left him. He was hit hard but rebuilt himself and came back to the sport. First of all his success was based on dedication and perfect training regime. Also LA had elite partners in US Postal who helped him. Competition was close and most of them had access to similar set of PEDs - rest was up to the training routine.
@@thomasbyrne7770 I bought Lance's first 2 books, and later burned them. The more I learned about him, the less I liked him, as a person or as a pro athlete.
It all comes down who is willing to train the hardest to win. Lance has made that truth obvious. He sacrificed so much for so long that it was a supernatural feat in commitment of itself.
Not true. The limit isn't whether you're willing to train hard. It's the ability of your physiology to tolerate and benefit from that training that leads to success. That ability is dramatically enhanced by doping.
Yes, he doped , just like Most of the best. But, he had a different, but very modern trainingvision. Beside all this , he was (Team)tactically gifted and implemented this in his Races. He was the one who rode with high cadence, which is far more effective. And yes, he saved his energy for the TdF. So, L.A. is still the best for me. It‘s only that he wasn‘t really a Mr. Niceguy and forced several other Riders to do things they didn‘t want to do. That‘s another Story……
If everyone was clean including Lance of course I think he would have won more races. He was a born natural athlete and bike rider but he ended up in a dope or lose situation like the others. It wasn’t his fault but his behaviour was his fault. He treated people like disposable assets although he realises now he made mistakes and is changing his ways. His thick skinned arrogant attitude has saved his life. The media painted a picture of Lance pretty much inventing doping and being the only person to do it. Most people would have gone mentally ill or worse under such pressure. He’s in a good place now and doing good things.
People who don't watch professional cycling but know the (near) household name say Lance is a "cheat" and that he "ruined" peoples' lives!". I reply with the Phil Liggett quote: "You can't turn a donkey into a race horse" ... ... and they still don't get it.
@@SirPeter6464 Clown(s) or not, Lance was handing to grown men in Triathlons before he even got his drivers' license. Drugs brought him up to speed with the already-doping Europeans. Lances' physiology was already there ... He had the goods. No question he was World Class to begin with.
@@TheJaxsonjack Seems strange that Armstrong was hardly mentioned in the cycle press when coming up. Most of the great talents have a big junior career. The sport thought he was good for business and that is the start of the problems.
You actually need to study VAM records through the years to know when they were rolling the fastest. The 90's was the fastest according to the data. Before EPO in the 1980's the racing was much more exciting because even Hinault could crack on any given mountain. Racing was unpredictable. When Michele Ferrari started creating mutants, it completely altered the dynamics of the sport.
This is interesting. In general cycling was much more exciting when riders weren't using srms (power meters). I hardly remember 80s as I was born in 1980. I am biased to 90's so forgive me :-) Yes EPO malformed results but still training and dedication was essential factor. Lance Armstrong had some edge over the rest "mutants" as he was focusing just on TDF while other teams were riding many races each year. From this point he was smarter.
@@RoadBikersPoznan I think if you do the research, you will find at one point Lance contracted out Michele Ferrari to work exclusively with him and his Postal teammates, so Lance's doping program was always ahead of the competition. If you want to get real serious about how it worked you need to read David Walsh's book. He documents it well what was going on. However, when Lance was working with Michelle Ferrari it was not a level playing field. Dr. Ferrari is by far the best in the world at this.
@@jasper12785 Merckx known Dr Ferrari and introduced him to Lance. Ferrari was too young to have any impact on Merckx performance but there were other specialists around like profesor Conconi with whom Ferrari cooperated later. It is enough to be sceptical regarding "clean" cycling in pre-EPO era.
Tarmac, tires and wheels all changed during that time. And Ferrari was a student of Professor Conconi. The first professional example was Francesco Moser. The first amateurs known to cheat were Olympic athletes. There are lots of reasons that leaders cracked more back in the day. In the "sports science" age the teams know more what each support rider is capable of and they plan for contingencies. If a rider "cracks" today you might catch it on camera and you might not. But the biggest difference today in the teams is how talented the support riders are. If you look at World Hour Record results (IOW, top riders going for a standardized contests) the increased speeds can be accounted for mostly by changes in equipment.
This is the take I've been waiting to hear for a long time . I wasn't a lance Armstrong fan during his run of wins but it's unfair to take away all the credit from what he did. He was a great cyclist that succeeded when everyone was doping. Thanks for the video
The cycling doping scandal has tempered my view of the sport and of the cyclists involved. But I do admire somewhat Lance's ability to avoid Tour-ending crashes and sickness during the races he competed in.
Lance Armstrong won 7 times was never injured or sick. Always was in the right place at the right time . Never crashed out or lost due to a major mechanical. All the athletes in the sport were doping he would have dominated anytime.
We already have the data on this. Armstrong was a top guy in the American peloton obviously....and an elite endurance athlete. But the issue with these debates is the premise itself of not doped vs. not doped. That is the wrong question. THe real question is "What is the difference between doping regimes in each rider or team in the peloton from 99-2006" Lance was doping from his first pro race including his World Championship win not when he met Ferrari years later.. from Lance's own words. Not doped I think it is totally questionable if he would have ever won a Tour period even against all non-dopers but would have won stages throughout his career and would have been known as a time trailer and sprinter etc.. Ferrari's team-level doping system including blood doping was simply implemented better than other teams - it was a master-level regime implemented with more $ resources and more commitment by Armstrong. They understood how to maintain a certain blood cell level at later stages, across the entire team. The % performance increase at the team level is more than the entire range of speeds across the peloton. It is a much bigger benefit than folks understand.
Indurain is claimed to be clean but I doubt he was not using EPO. I have used him as an example of "supposedly" clean athlete as his Wattage was similar to Lance at age 22. When it comes to Lance I am almost sure he was not using EPO although he might benefit from other (less powerful) drugs (testosterone, clenbuterol) etc. In the beginning of 90's he had sudden problems holding up with peloton in Europe like other US cyclists: Jonathon Vaughters or Bobby Julich. They were simply not up-to date with EPO... yet.
@@RoadBikersPoznan Lance already admitted he was on juice before epo. Indurain and his 500 Watts for 30 min doesn't look "clean" :). Lemond who was "supposedly" clean beat the best dopers according to Johan Bruynell interview - this sucess story doesn't add up.
@@dominikk7237 Allright but we have to distinguish "juice" from EPO. Most of pro cyclists were on "something" starting from 60's. I can imagine Lance was trying different drugs or even had access to EPO before 1995 but it was not orchestrated and managed. His relationship with Ferrari aligned his chances with other dopers or even created some "edge" over the rest. When it comes to Lemond you can see sudden fall of his shape in 90's. It is unusual for 3 time TDF winner. I belive he was not EPOed yet.
@@RoadBikersPoznan Lance did a recent interview on Dr. Peter Attia’s podcast and provided the most detailed testimony he’s ever given. Prior to the cancer it was primarily Cortisone. Post-cancer it was EPO (actually started toying with EPO in 1995), but never during the Tour itself. During the Tours he only used blood transfusions. He claimed he never used testosterone extensively. He also noted his 30 minute 500 watt effort would be 450 without the EPO. The interview, all 2.5 hours of it, is here on TH-cam.
Lance Armstrong was Pro Cycling in his time. He inspired people are around the world to get into cycling and actual ride a bike. I think it is unfair to make him the bad guy and take away his tours. Much of cycling was on the juice. In fact many that were on the juice back then are the ones that give Lance a hard time.
He went over the line with 7 tours and then his comeback. If he had stopped at 5 and not been greedy the secret would never have come out. He robbed one bank too many!
He relentlessly attacks other riders for dosing before his dosing was disclosed. He doses relentlessly himself. I cannot be inspired by this kind of role model. There was another guy called Carl Lewis did the same.
Could he won all 7 Tours without doping??? Definitely YES, as long as the others don't dope as well, in Europe the fought dirty with knives Lance armstrong brought Guns, simple .. He deserved to get his awards taken from him but also all the other racers as well, the difference is that their countries did not betrayed them U.S.A did to one of the best riders ever
Jan Ullrich was way better and more talented but much more naive. Lance was clever and always had a better team working for him. I liked them both but Jan was my hero. Since they stopped riding I stopped watching Tour de France 🇫🇷 that’s 2005
To professionals, winning pays the bills; it revolves around money. When money becomes your prime directive; anything goes! Who was it who said "The love of money is the root of all evil..?"
@@plantbasedanalyst6263 Isn't that like saying; "THE DEVIL MADE ME DO IT?" So many poor people still refrain from stealing and cheating in this way; so poverty does not affact all poor in this way. Shalom
The real reason, Biblically, why we are all susceptible to temptations to lie, steal, hate, lust and murder; is because the Human Race inherited a broken relationship with God, because of The First and Original Adam. Through Christ, "The Second Adam" Humans can be redeemed by a work of God; all justified in God's sight because the WILLING SACRIFICE of "God the Son" as full payment for our Sin Debt. After all; he man who hung on that center cross that day is slated to JUDGE, THE LIVING AND THE DEAD! Redeemed people are being changed internally by God's gift of His Spirit. I know this all must sound crazy to many; but it's what the Bible teaches from Genesis to Revelation. I've personally experienced the Life Changing Power of God in my life for close to fifty years now. It's all about THE RENEWED RELATIONSHIP WITH GOD!--SLU
Excellent piece. The world will never really know who was using what and for how long. That goes for Lance Armstrong but also for his competition. He just happened to become better than them all while using it. Just an opinion. If you can’t guarantee s as lol riders are clean, then let them all use what they want to achieve their optimal level of performance.
What made Lance Armstrong, was he was consistent. He rode like a well oiled clock. I watched Armstrong ride for many years. And I am yet to see any other bike rider have the precision, that Lance Armstrong did.
For me armstrong is like lebron james or bill russell. Its not about being the best, its about being better and maintaining it for a very long time in short consistency.
Raymond Poulidor "the eternal second" (in the Tour) was more consistent than Armstrong - he was likened to a metronome. Lance had superior physical talent and drive but he also had self doubt and arrogance.
This assessment is so spot on. People often watch the footage of Indurain moving past Armstrong like Armstrong is hardly moving in a 1994 time trial of the Tour de France. It never ceases to amaze me that some people think that Indurain was cleaner than Armstrong during that race. That is completely ludicrous and yet some people believe it.
I don't believe M.I, would've been clean myself. But I'd like to think so, but we've said this before with other riders. Right? But I do believe Big Mig reigns above Big Tex.
@@Ayog06 Fuck no! 7 MJs BABY WON💪💪..with more than just ITT stage wins. 2003 stage 15 luiz arden💪. Go back and watch it kid. Big wig never won a mountain top finish in his 5 straight.
Indurain rode in the "perfect" era for him: EPO available and years before first test available, but Indurain doping is obvious But LA. admitted to have started doping in 1991 and freaking out about other drugs in those mid 90s years Before going straight to Ferrari in 94, we could assume that, like many riders (I knew some of them) back then, he started improvising with EPO on his own before finding the right dosage with Ferrari, and finally diving head first in the pharmacy in 98
Like the video stated, each athlete responds differently to EPO. To make a great athlete you must begin with a good athlete. To start with a great athlete, add EPO, determination, consistency and hard work, you will get an exceptional athlete. That athlete has to be willing to put in the work if he wants to be that exceptional athlete. Knowing others are doing the same and you have to play catch up, if you want to get to the top, sacrifices must be made to even the playing field. Learning how to be a great tactician and learning how to make EPO the most efficient takes time, planning and patience. You must put in the work to make all of those things come together, you can't be a couch potato and inject yourself with EPO and think you will win the TDF. So, he had to put in the work to be able to beat others who have been playing the game longer. Looking now, you don't see any other athletes that have the same determination, consistency and drive to win as much as Lance. You can find them in other sports, but not so much in the TDF. Just my opinion, every one is entitled to one.
I think you missed the point "each athlete responds differently" is not talking about 1 athlete who doesn't train versus an athlete that does. It is stating that regardless the amount of dedication, determination and training load etc there is still a physiological aspect where EPO works better for some than others. This is the part where the cheating cannot simply be shrugged off by saying they all doped because if they weren't doping the results most likely would have been different. In a clean peloton (talking fairyland language now) I believe Lance was talented enough to be up there with the best and bag 1 or 2 tours but 7 I think is impossible. That said these riders were put into impossible situations to either cheat or get kicked out of a sport they dedicate their life to so to some degree they were a product of their time. Sadly there would have been plenty of talented clean riders who dropped out of the sport without any notable victories and have hence becomes unknowns in history and that is the truly sad part.
Richard Sandberg , very good points, you can't make a racehorse out of a donkey however much e p o you feed it , the idea that by using this substance winning a grand tour would be a doddle is as stupid as it is false , Armstrong trained relentlessly put in the time and trouble and beat all the other users to the finish line . I believe he was the scapegoat that took the flack and the ban so it all could be swept under the proverbial carpet.
Great photos! The new gen cyclists are faster (ventoux etc) but that could be tactical. You have a good point in that his mental strength and personality was exceptional to perform that great under the pressure of reporters and haters and french fans. Modern riders, except froome didn't have to deal with so many people trying to take them down
Thank you. Today's athletes, (not only cyclists) are taught how to behave and what to say at press conferences etc. They get lot of care from teams/organizations. Their exposition to the media is (in some way) controlled. It was different in the 80s and 90s. Also I presume they have less freedom when it comes to "secret" colaboration with external dope specialists. Instead the process may be organized by the teams internally. Assuming these "youngsters" work in much comfortable environment without stress.
Lo que dijo Anstrong respecto a que solo dopado se gana el tour de Francia, puede ser una gran Verdad. No estamos al interior de los equipos para saber que ayudas farmacéuticas usan los directores y equipo para el corredor bien ubicado de su equipo. . Hoy dia hay mucha tecnología deportiva. Corredores como Nairo Quintana necesitan es un gran equipo para ganar. Yo diría que todo equipo usa fármacos para aumentar rendimiento. Seguiré siendo un fans de L. Anstrong. Un performance impresionante. Un moster
Lance was a talent and super ambitious with amazing drive. The drugs made him into a superman combine with ego, narcissism and hardwork with great team it was the perfect cocktail!!
definitely a fighter and definitely a good bike rider. but not nearly one of the best, and never ever would been "the best" back then without ferrari and ferrari's doping system
I agree, I believe he would of still been successful but not as consistent. Seemed to be a hyper responder to EPO which is a real thing these drugs can be more effective in curtain ppl.
I've raced against Lance. Sure he was good. Of course he was good. Saw him when the national championships in Park City Utah. Being a jerk doesn't make you any friends though.
In 1980 I was a professional driver. One season. I saw how many riders used dope. I was not accepted in the sport because I did not used any of kind off dope. My choice was made. It was not my world, but I learned a lot about people, money and trust and fair game and pressure too perform. I don't play with my health. But when I had to drive with doped people specially with epo it was hard to follow them. That means if you are not doped you had a difficult time but I know how strong I was without dope. I could ride 400 watts for more than 20 minutes on a body weight of 78 kg in a test. And that was on an age of 20 during my duty in the military. I even was not in a good condition because a couldn't train during the day. There were so much good drivers didn't use dope and leave the sport in a desillution.
@@RoadBikersPoznan With a hart ritm of 200 slowly going down to 180 bpm after several minutes on 400 watt. In my time as amateur a lot of drivers using dope. It was even hard to get a professional contract because you don't use dope. But in these times sometimes drivers died in their sleep using to much epo. Also lady drivers.
We love to build up our heroes and then burn them to ashes. We all want winners. We pay them to win. And when they've won too much, we set them alight and watch the fire. I'm willing to bet dollars that NO ONE who is capable of winning a grand tour is anything remotely close to being a "nice person". It takes competitive ruthlessness and killer instinct to win these races. But we expect these ruthless people to conform to our everyday standards of decency. Yet we love their ability to carve up the competition and leave them gasping on the road. Athletes doping isn't the problem - we "fans" are the real problem. We have no sense of the realities of competitive sport.
This great athlete bore the brunt of the drug crackdown and was mercilessly divested of his hard fought prizes, banned from the sport he loved and for which he had heroically battled cancer to become a sporting icon. It is terrible that the great Lance Armstrong was so maligned for he was magnificent.
His treatment of others is what tarnished him at the end of the day. He ruined people and their careers for trying to tell the truth. If there is no victim there isnt really a crime unfortunately for Lance he created many victims. Amazing cyclist but just not a great person at the end of the day.
Lance was a rotten person. Not only did he lie, but he went to great lengths to cheat. He donated blood testing equipment to WADA so that he could use identical equipment to monitor his doping and evade the testing being done. And the most disgusting thing of all, is that he sued the journalist David Walsh claiming that he lied about Lance's doping and took $1M from him. He is a rotten person.
@@davidbrayton1143 He was cheating, obviously he went to great lengths to continue to do what he was so heavily invested in. I wonder why someone would assume that somehow Lance was the only one that was involved in this scheme. Since everyone even slightly competitive was cheating and so few were actually caught I have to wonder about the whole system and production. The fact that he attacked people that stood to gain from him should be exactly what was expected. For me at the end of the day, someone pressed the pedals. I watched and enjoyed it. I don't care what type of person he was because I'm not a fan of personalities. He did inspire a great many of people suffering from many different things and oh yeah raised a dollar or 2 for them in the process. Not a rotten person to those people for sure.
I hate to break it to you people, but ALL top athletes were/are doped, one way or another. There's no such thing to be on the top of the world on "water and bread". Lance was just a little smarter than the rest and took in on another level.
@@PatrickMorris-IndochinaTravel BTW, Lemond was a doper too, the only difference is that he hadn’t been caught because they didn’t test for EPO back then.
He adapted to the *existing culture of the Tour* and prevailed. If anyone thinks the tour organisers were part of any attempts to clean up the sport they need to have a think about their critical analysis skills. All those principals wanted was stage drama and gasping, straining riders. His titles should be restored. And blood doping should be legal. It involves no drugs, nor magic formulae. The only difficulty is logistical, keeping enough of it fresh for every stage.
Lance is still the youngest world champion ever. I have seen many great riders watching cycling through the years and still consider him the best tour the France rider I have ever seen.
even his 09 return showed how great he was. Yes he only got 3rd but we saw in the Mountains that he had lost 2 or 3 extra gears that he needed in order to beat Alberto Contador but he was still a great rider and the smartest.
Lance was the boss.Have a look at footage if you can find it at Bjarne Riis warming up before timtrial in 95 tour when he rode for GWISS , juiced to the gills.
You are 100%right, each individual body reacts to EPO on a different way. Lance was a great cyclist but after his testicular cancer there will be no chance to win mayor compensations without doping. Lance dope to survive the same as everybody else at the time, so we can not only point at him.
He litterally put products in his body he didn't know the effects of, and possibly caused his 96 cancer Your "he doped to survive" is a little bit of an exageration , right ?
Looking from team sport perspective I would say Froome... Perhaps because of better teamates at that time in (Sky) than Pogi has in UAE today. However in terms of power2weight ratio it is hard to predict. Also Pogacar's peak shape may still to come as he is progressing.
I raced in the 90's era and doping thing was common with that fact no tour de France winner from the 50's on.clean cycling is not going on let's not fool are self's.
Yes, Armstrong was a doper. So was almost everyone else. In my mind, anyway you slice or dice it, he was a freak of nature physically and, most of all, mentally. If I recall, Miller (from England) called Armstrong one Christmas, from a pub, to wish him a Merry Christmas. Turns out Armstrong was on a 6 hour training ride. How many other pro cyclists were out doing that kind of ride on Christmas? I never met Armstrong, but my former sponsor did. They told me Armstrong has a pure alpha vibe with eyes that look right through a person. That was when Armstrong was young. If Jamie Paolinette raced with Armstrong, I'm curious to know if he got the same impression. Armstrong was a doper, but he was the best doper to ever stage race. I'm not sure how he would have done pre-EPO, but I'm confident we'd all still know his name.
You're kind of perpetuating the myth that if you just ride longer, harder and put in more miles than everyone else, you win. Not true. Armstrong wouldn't have succeeded if he just "rode like hell." Overtraining is common and derails a lot of cyclists. It destroys your will and causes injury. It has ended a lot of careers. So looking up to Lance for "hammering on Christmas" is really just trying to believe the myth of the Puritan Work Ethic conquering all.
I feel so sorry for the clean riders. They had their chances removed, knew who the cheaters were, but were tarred with the same brush as cheats. A very shitty deal.
Cycling was better in the 90's. Basketball was better back in the day. Baseball was better back in the day. NASCAR was better back in the day. I think pretty much most sports was better back in the day. Armstrong was a beast and was simply competing on a level playing field with the other top riders of the day.
Totally agree also - “sports” was way better back in the day Regarding Lance, it had nothing to do with what he did on the bike. It was the way he treated innocent people to cover his lies. Lances mistake was he should have exposed cycling as a sport of DRUGS instead of taking the heat himself- if he did, he probably could have kept his titles
@@frankdigiovanni3666 I remember when in 1992 the Dream Team came to Europe for Olympic games in Barcelona. Super stars like Jordan, Bird, Magic arrived but there was one condition: no anti doping tests for them. As you can see in opposite to cycling many team sports are protected "by design". Although cycling is also team sport but the thing is that at the end individual wins and whole attention is focused on individuals. Lance was doper who was winning among dopers who were following internal peleton rules. It was massive multi-team cheating. The other thing is (on which I agree with you) how badly Lance was treating other people who stepped his way. Isolating his behavior from his performance leads me to conclusion he would be an excellent athlete in clean sport either. Sometimes people misunderstand how enhancing drugs works. They cannot change "potato" into champion.
@@scooter2163 Look: in 1993 and 1995 he was able to win single stages of TDF. Then he had a cancer with little chances to survive, not even mentioning cycling again. When he came back Lance was full-inch doper ready to compete with rest of the "mutants". Lance couldn't compete through all TDF stages before 1995 because he didn't used EPO while rest of dirty Euro-Teams did. EPO changed cycling in 90's so even Greg Lemond (who figured out something is wrong...) decided to retire. Only riders from teams who accommodated to EPO dosing stayed on playground. In early 90's hematocrit level (which was kind of EPO usage indicator) was rarely tracked and could be easily lowered by team doctors before "unexpected" control. So early 90s was a cycling "black hole". We simply don't know how would Lance perform in TDF if all riders were clean.
Per Lemond: "When I raced, I had a VO2 max of 93, and I never developed more than 400 watts. Armstrong’s VO2 max, which Ed Coyle mistakenly revealed, was no more than 78. So, considering his weight - 73 kg, he could never produce 500 watts to ride up the Madonna as he said, or 475 watts on the climb of L'Alpe-d'Huez. With his VO2 max, he couldn't exceed 375 watts. To increase his performance by 30%, he had to dope. But did he achieve his performance only with doping? What doping did he use that others didn't? All I know is that there are 50-70 watts missing, which we don’t know the origin of. There is something that I still do not understand"
Lance was the guinea pig for the big pharma. He had the best stuff only the elites can get. Its not just EPO .. and its not just a simple blood transfusion.. theres more , and up to now its still a top secret
So true man i,m an ex pro mtb er and was mates with pro roadies from the eighties thru the nineties and everyone and i mean every one including myself took something to go faster some got caught but not many i never used epo as my hermaticrit was as 50 before elevation trainning and up to 55 at its highest. Lance got cought because he pissed of the wrong people which sucks if i ever met Lance i would shake his hand and thank him for his info and saving me from performance destroying chemo drugs doctors were trying to give me 20 years ago 👍👏 Lance is a legend .
I think it's safe to say that all the riders look to take advantage of every possible gain that's available...within the rules. No different to an F1 team making the tiniest tweaks to improve performance. The playing field is never level in that respect.
We are generally brought up to be nice people. We follow socially accepted rules where generally we don’t push in, we don’t cheat to win and being competitive to a point where whatever is needed to win is considered not quite right. The Pro Peloton is not a social group ride. It is a collection of driven individuals that by working together in a team will do whatever it takes to get the prize… This is I think still the case. Performance Enhancing Drugs, Blood Doping, better bikes, better food, better coaching and support are factors that can be controlled to high standards. Even to the point of not getting caught. Tactics, weather conditions and mechanicals that are not dealt with quickly have nothing to do with doping but still play their part… Champions become champions because they are not nice people when then they are competing; they will get the front and they will make subdue and beat other people into submission. The ability to suffer is what makes a champion. Armstrong’s psychological make up shows he was willing to suffer had a hard time not being competitive. He had to win. Better athlete, better cyclist or better doper… Made no difference to Lance; he had to be the best. He didn’t care who got hurt or pushed out of the way.
Lance was an incredible athlete. I don't like that he personifies a trend which is only recently being reversed in the peloton - focusing only on the Tour. How many cyclists have also finished in the top 150 in the NYC Marathon? Lance did. His teammates and opponents both have marveled at his training regimen - he trained as hard as he raced. We'll never know for sure what would have happened if EPO and blood doping didn't exist, but he has truly been one of the greatest sports competitors we've seen. Seven tour wins wasn't a total mistake. You can't fake that level of excellence.
Anyone who could have won TDF after Festina scandal would become immediate suspect under media investigation. But not everyone from peloton might have been able to sustain such pressure. Lance managed to deal with it through years. As you wrote he was an excellent athlete in first place. He just realized how dirty was this sport in Europe and decided to play with "new" rules like many others before him.
My recollection is that L.A. finished somewhere around the 900th place at the NY marathon, and that he was close to 3 hours (which is not a top 150 time ). Do you have the source for your 150th place ?
@@RoadBikersPoznan he managed to deal with it through the years thanks to lawyers, looking straight at someone while lying, bullying while lying, and most disturbingly, with the help received from the uci, so, it doesn't seem like you know the whole story of what he did
@@miroslavivanovitch384 The source for the 150th place is a bad memory. Sucks getting old. However, a time of 2:46.43 over 26 miles in 2007 is pretty impressive for someone who ran the distance once before. This time was good for 698th in that year’s race.
@@danielhenegan5438 That s closer to what I thought L.A. is a decent runner, but Mark Allen ran the Ironman marathon (after the bike and under Hawaii heat) in 2h38' and Dave Scott in 2h39' in 1989 Top triathlon runner are athletes who are around 28'30" on 10k (A. Brownlee or A. Yee) on Short distances (L.A. triathlon specialty at the time)
People say he wasn't a great climber when he won his first TDF, but they ignore the fact that people do improve and will get better with the right training program. He trained harder than anyone and doping was just one of many element that made him the great rider he eventually became.
I absolutely love your take on the mental fitness of the older guys vs the newer generation. I agree, that you have to have a certain maturity to pull that crap of, unless…you don’t know about it. Is that possible, that they are being doped without knowing?
Cycling is one of the most demanding sport on this planet. When you finish Tour de France your body is devastated. I am pretty sure teams do everything what they can to not only enhance rider's performance but also recovery process. Do they cross "the line"? You never know but I wouldn't be surprised at all. The difference is maybe today athletes are not fully aware of the "process" around. I heard one interview when pro athlete admitted he has to take set of more or less described pills after breakfast. Not everyone asks questions. I am pretty sure PEDs are still included but there are rather no blood transfusions today. This kind of doping (although still possible to perform) may put too much stress on individuals. Also blood samples are stored for a long time and may be examined even years after events. This may keep medical staff away from practicing this method.
Many wins did not depend on EPO. Smart riding and team support. Brilliant Director. It took a village. Two skinny wheels at 50mph ? No amount of EPO can help ya
Love him or hate him but Lance did more for the popularity of cycling, especially in the US, than anyone before him, and after him. And ask almost any everyday rider who Chris Fromme is and they'll most likely look at you and shrug dumbly they have no idea.
The main difference I'm seeing is lower average cadence now. Without EPO and blood doping (or at least using those below the detection threshold) it's harder to sustain high cadence. Checking the available data on Strava, most pros are averaging 75-80 rpm, only using faster cadence for relatively short times on climbs and sprints.
@@theparalexview785 thanks for your reply. I believe Tour de France 2022 will be a replica of the 1986 tour. It will be interesting to see how the difference between then and now. Maybe it's me, but modern races just don't look as tough as 80s and early 90s. I'm sure technology and technique is a reason but if EPO was a game changer, its lack of use now just doesn't seem as apparent.
Over the last 20 years the average speed by winners of tours has gon up about 2 km an hour , if you Google tour winning speeds you can see it , now today's bikes are a lot better than back in the 2000
That is a good point. LA had a great partners like Hincapie, Livingston and Hamilton. US Postal worked like machine. Reminded me Sky Team and time where they worked all for Wiggo or Froome.
Cheats like Armstrong and all the other drug cheats who wouldn't have made it as pro's without taking drugs ruined it for us clean riders! We were the real heroes that you never got to see!
Lance cheated as did 90% of the guys in his era but his natural haematocrit ratio was a low level for a pro cyclist, ranging from 38 -41 hence he was a high responder - this is well documented ie he goes from 38-50 a huge percentage increase whereas some riders are close to 50. It is simply impossible to wade through the shite and try and normalise it all.
He was good, not just the performance, but the way he approached the race. That’s the only race he really focused on for the whole year. Everyone else tries to win a lot of races, but he focused on
If nothing else, give credit to Armstrong for having any cycling coverage at all in the US. Before him, we'd get 5 minutes of the last stage of the Tour, on ABC's "Wide World of Sports" and nothing else. He probably raised the salaries of every racer as well, just like Tiger Woods brought so much more money into Golf, and everybody benefited.
@@RoadBikersPoznan and he put other bike manufacturers out of business by taking them to court. what are you talking about? maybe taker down your video because you are just as clueless as your followers are
@@scooter2163 haha exactly, the author of this video is pretty clueless about business, human nature and the aftermath of lance armstrong and trek frames
Pantani was a pure climber. One of the best in history. But Riis, Olano, Zulle and Indurain? How good were they really? A difficult question. Riis was a very loyal domestique to Fignon for many years. One day Fignon persuaded Riis to go for a stage at the '89 Giro. And he won. The 90's were crazy times. It's difficult 30 years later to analyze how good the riders really were.
There's no one better to watch on a bike then Lance at his best.
Pogatjar en zonder doping
@@Sa-nd8klwhy do you think he isn’t doping?
@@davidmacdonald1283 daarom moest hij de zeven tour zeges afgeven omdat hij de beste was ,ja in zware bloeddoping nemen en mensen te pesten was hij de beste als renner was hij zonder doping matig .kon ook geweldig Liegen
@@davidmacdonald1283 en de beste is pogatjar zonder doping en ook klassiekers winnen
@@Sa-nd8kl everyone doped back then, it was BS he was the only one punished for doping.
I was there in the peloton from his beginning to his end. He beat me for his only US Pro Championship jersey at US PRO Road Race in Philly. I won the bronze medal that year. Anyone who wasn't there has no idea what they're talking about. Lance won all his tours on a level playing field. Every GC contender was dirty then. Also, if any of the keyboard warriors out there think pro cycling is clean now they are children who should talk to Santa Clause about it when he comes to visit them. Just wait in front of the chimney. There have always been clean riders, there still are. There were more clean riders in America from the 90's to now than there were in Europe. There are many reasons why, but that's another conversation.
Well said !!!
Dayum we're a pro cyclist. And u raced and got 3rd with Lance. Ur a friggin machine.
I'm a amatuer cyclist. Glad to read ur post. Yes Lance got shit on but in my book he's cool as a cyclist and as regular guy. It sux what happened. All anyone if I was in his shoes just keep journeying on and ignore people's bullshit. Easier sed than done but... And that's whats he's doing.
Peace my man!
@@dannyr333 thanks man! It was a great life. You'll like this movie about my team in 2001 - th-cam.com/video/gOyoHx4PrB8/w-d-xo.html
@@jamiepaolinetti5087 I'ma watch it right nowz I'll give u some feedback and stuff lemme check this out
I remember that race. Lance was f'n impressive.
"everyone hates me because I won while doping, but what about everyone who lost while doping?" - Floyd landis
lol
Wiser answer
Well they were not as good as doping as he was is what it means.People saying "lance doped but so everyone else" conveniently forget that he had the best doctors and was an hyper responder. There is no even playing field, people genetics are the hard limit to performance, but sometimes people genetics gives them an edge in a doping free context, for other the opposite. Without Doctor Ferrari Lance wins the tour, maybe even multiples ones, but not 7.
How many times did Dr Ferrari win the tour? We thought we were watching cycling!
Sure people are found out everyday for taking performance degradation drugs, you know when a guy feels his performance is too good and he feels like coming last
The trend started in Europe both doping and looking for scapegoats to blame. The fact is you cannot take a pig, inject EPO and watch it beat everyone, it is still a pig. The illusion of many uninformed and they are out there by the millions, is that you can take any normal cyclist, MTB guy or a casual runner, treat them with EPO and they will beat anyone. The fact is Lance was not only a phenomenal athlete but also a great tactician with one hell of a team, USPS. Like it or not, he was one of the best during his career.
I cannot agree more, bro, you're to the point!!!!
He was a cheat, couldn't win anything without the drugs.
@@tonystone3397 That's ridiculous! He was a cheat, so was everyone else! So the playing field was basically level! Using basic logic if all riders were clean the playing field would be basically level, same outcome!
@@tonystone3397 But somehow, you didn't even make it to the start line....even with drugs, not to mention winning a stage, let alone a Tour, let alone 7 Tours, you just haven't got a fu*king clue, have you?
A lot of pros have been quoted as saying, "We used to drop that guy like a rock all day long, every day. Then one day he's dropping US!"
Pretend doping is minor all you want. It isn't. Once people graduate from top amateur to promising pro, they've already proven they're talented. These are the best looking for an edge. Pigs? Yeah, right.
Give EPO to a keyboard warrior like you, and I'd still drop your ass clean! Ha, ha, ha! J/K
The doping era did not start with Lance Armstrong and it will not finish with him, now days it is very hard understand performances of some top riders
They're always trying to find ways to stay ahead.... Hopefully the end of the Armstrong era was the end of systematic doping & the end of the omerta which deceived fans for so many years.... Just keep it fair and let the rider who wants it the most prove it
Now that the big doping scandals have been investigated and revealed, we can find some common details and look at the current situation with some background and what signs we should look for
1) Sudden and inexplicable changes in perf at a later stage in careers
Flo Jo became unbeatable at 27
L.A. morphed from 1 day racer to grand Tours champion at 28
Jalabert started his career as a sprinter and (thanks to EPO) became a TT Wolrd champion
Ben Johnson became unbeatable at 26-27 years old
2) Questionable entourage including coaches and doctors previously involved in doping scandals
L.A. with Ferrari
T&F athletes and Salazar
@@pagejustin5572 Are you tripping? It will never end. Same team directors, same doctors as 20 years ago!!!
@@demdjen77 yes.... But it's nice to at least want to believe that a lesson was learned & nobody wants to be the one to have 5 tour victories stripped away..... But who knows..... That toxic mentality of what happens in the sport stays in the sport sadly doesn't seem to be going away.... In any sport
@Vegan's R Silly so you're a lifelong cycling fan..... Convinced not only that is doping present right now.... But that it always will be
7 years without crashing out is a feat in itself. He was that good
@@scooter2163 90 percent were cheating,,, you wanna know what is called
is called envy he was making too much money....
lmbo
To say 90 percent were cheating and use it as justification doesn’t wash. Unless the intention is to see who’s body responds to drugs the best, rather than who’s the best cyclist. Last time I looked, it was a cycling competition.
Doping gives you an extra gear that helps you to avoid trouble and crashes...In his final act he crashed so many times just like everyone else.
Nuts. Just nuts. Yeah doping makes your bike levitate and the odds go crazy. The sad thing is people don't get most of this at this level is mental. You don't win 2 yours without extreme mental discipline. Luck comes to those who practice and eliminate luck
Lance was my cycling hero. I supported him through all the allegations and was devastated when it was confirmed. Never felt the same about professional cycling since.
Ну если вам стрёмно принимать допинг даже легкий.
Когда в гонке потемнеет в глазах меня плохим словом не вспоминайте
I don't get too personally invested in any rider. I'm just watching for the spectacle. That way I don't get disappointed when they're caught or confess.🤷
@@ChuckWind-Saw And sued and slandered anyone who questioned him.
@@ChuckWind-Saw.. well, they didn't award any of his Tour de France's to anyone else because all the cyclists of that era were doping.
Hey... anyone here knows the reason Tour de France has banned him so far?
At the end of the day they were all using EPO, so the playing field was equal. He was an exceptional cyclist, also to be able to recover from adversity and still be at the top of his game is remarkable.
We will never see any one as good as Lance was!
What a joke lmao he literally has used ebikes
It was not he had the best doping program, despite he also used ebikes
Ref indurain time trial passes armstrong as if he is stationary
@@le0nzWow. Where is the info on the e-bike usage, I'd like to learn about that as well.
@@davidg.romerojr.7915there is info but it all BS speculation.. Lance sure as hell doped, but the “e-bike” accusations are simply BS conspiracy theory’s made in an attempt to discredit he’s talent. Do any ounce of research on this topic and you will find out it has about as much evidence as the earth being flat.
They ALL did what they needed to do..Its not all on lance...its a fact.
All the blame just on lance was created by the UCI and WADA.
Rubbish.
And don't forget Greg lamon he hated land so much and I don't know if it was probably because Lance was going to end up being more famous than him but I will say regular mom did have some good ideas probably the best idea he had was handlebars that everybody use this whenever they're doing time trials where you basically lay down on the on the frame and your your arms and hands are out in front of the handlebars anyway thank you
You are saying he was the best among the cheaters...but the video is saying his body responded best to doping, is other words, he was the best cheater out there.
there was no need to cheat
@@sweatnosweat 🤤🤤
The documentary Icarus showed that there are more variables involved with winning than just doping and the pervasiveness of drug use involves entire countries.
He just revolutionzed the entire sport, from training, tecnology, technique to nutrition. His time trail and climbing techniques were flawless. Many who came after are still using his methods today.
Loads of bullshit. Just take a look back at Lance Armstrong pre 1999. Before those magical potion by Michell Ferrari he was just an ordinary rider. At most a mid field level on Tours level and he cannot even climb! On records he is a one-day race rider and that's about it. After his "collaboration" with the witch doctor he instantaneously changed his genes and became a climber overnight LMAO. Go watch some Disney movies if you need fictional motivation.
@@100flite That’s complete bullshit. Lance is one of the greatest cyclists of all time, so stfu.
He was a fraud and pathological liar. He viciously went after the women who called him out much more than the men. Even when he spoke with Oprah finally acknowledging his cheating…he still couldn’t apologize to Betsy .
@@100flite instantly changed his genes? Wtf
Rubbish. Lots of cyclists had sophisticated training and Greg Lemond pioneered the current aero position and tri bars that shaped the future of TT.
Very interesting to think of this question. Agreed, doubtful he would have been so successful. Lances rise and fall was truly heartbreaking, not only for him, but for millions of others.
Lance Armstrong is the greater doper ever. I don’t mean that as a slam . They all doped and Lance beat them all. Along with Michelli and Brunyeel; the three were unstoppable. He’s a tactical genius; no wonder they called him, “The General.” Mentally and socially, he’s like MJ or Tiger. I’m glad we’re not friends but they’re sure fun to watch!
I agree 100%, and i have talked about this with numerous cyclist. Lance doped, and won, but everybody else was doing it also... He is the greatest cyclist ever...
He is certainly not the greatest doper ever. Russian and east germans athletes were far ahead of him in the 80's . Tactical genius? Don't know about it. I guess it's easier to be a tactical genius when the whole team is doped. This being said he was a gifted athlete who did not believe in his own physical ability. I think without the dope, he still could have won 3 tours de France.
They all dopped.... in ALL Sports!
@RaJu ViMa Ever hear of Miguel Indurain ----en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miguel_Indur%C3%A1in-- weight's not everything --- specific shape--BMI, power/kg for hills, and straight power for breakaways, sprints, and time trials are way more important. Also -- all you bozos look at 3 week tours as if these guys ride by themselves. They don'.t. If they win, it's highly because they have a team ride correctly for them. the time where a TDF winner is riding by themselves is usually less than 2 1/2 hours total (and 1 hour of that is a time trial) --- out of a tour lasting 90 hours. Remember though -- the entire Top 10 in a TDF -- will finish within 10 to 20 minutes of first place. So little differences --- in team and individual performance are key. In that time period -- you doped -- or you didn't have a job on any team. There are guys interviewed in documentaries about that period -- who got to 'go home' and never rode professionally again.
Utter bulshyte.
He was very good, great even. In his era every top guy was using some drug or blood doping for recovery. The fact that he didn't crash out of his seven Tours showed how good of a bike handler he was, he had some close scrapes but in his era he was the best period.
Sure, every top guy was doping, but what about those guys who were not "top guys" BECAUSE they were not doping, but might have been if the field was clean? Even they will never know how good they might have been. So, no, it was not a level playing field.
You ask and attempt to answer a relevant question: How good was he? Damn good, probably physically and mentally the toughest since Eddy Merckx. While I can't condone doping just because everyone did it (apply that to cheating on taxes etc.) I can understand it. Where Armstrong lost me was how he treated those that opposed him and called out his lies. A great athlete and cyclist? No doubt. A great person? No way!
Yup, way too "Texan"
Ditto, but not uncommon for athletes to have a code of silence or denial. Not the first and won't be the last.
Do your research...he would not have won a single tdf
In the early years, when Lance Armstrong rode, he was respectful and congenial to all the riders. Especially to the younger riders. But in later years... the attitude of Alberto Contdor..and disposition... toward Lance Armstrong, it was understood why Lance Armstrong acted the way he did. Contador did not want to be a team player
Physically he wasn't the best, Ulrich was the most talented cyclist, mentally he was the toughest but he was also a sociopath. He also had the best team. See Sky/Ineos.
Now they bike 3 mountains in a stage at almost the same speeds as he biked one, and froome won 3 grand tours in a row, but lance was a beast for being that dominant in le tour and never cracking under the pressure of the constant haters....plus gave great interviews
The only thing I didn't like about that era of cycling was the top riders ridding few races per year. For example Lance rode Tour and maybe Dauphine Libere beforehand. Take Roglič and Pogačar nowdays, they ride many weekly races and also one day races, including monuments.
I could not agree with you more. The top riders would "hide" and go to their training camps. Greg LeMond, Hinault, Indurain would race themselves into shape
Lance did around 40 races before the tour every year. He rode Amstel gold a couple times. Got second twice. Raced Olympics in both road and time trial category. Jan Ulrich did around 80 races leading to the tour. People like you are the reason why riders feel the need to dope. Because you think people need to destroy their bodies all year long for your entertainment.
From my recollection, Greg Lemond was kind of the first to focus on the Tour. He raced limited races and used races leading up to the Tour as training to get ready. It has sort of been the trend since.
Fewer races, fewer tests.
@@TheGotoGeek Also there is also the real chance of an injury producing accident which is quite common.
It was a matter of time before the sport was going to be discovered, drugs where all over because there was no way to test them , but rumors, where all over, with that been said , the performance of those Athletes was espectacular, the Tour the France is the most demanding sport in human history, things have Changed , but blaming Lance for wrong doing is difficult, the guy is a legend
Lance Armstrong has been my hero since his first TDF win. He doped; but everyone else in that era did too.
He was genetically gifted; & his focus & drive to be the best of the best was exceptional. He trained incredibly hard. Not to mention all the help & inspiration he gave to all the people suffering from cancer.
You’re rehashing Armstrong’s own lies here, his claims to have had an extremely high VO2 max in his book have been debunked. He was a high responder to EPO, Dr Ferrari wouldn’t have taken him on otherwise.
@@richardsykes9692 you’re correct. Diane and others like her should worship Dr Ferrari.
He had a VO2 of 85. He doped like everyone else. He was better than everyone else.
@Frazzox That was too early for that
Tyler Hamilton had a few things to say about doping in his book. He claims the field was far from level. Bigger budgets bought better technology in the form of Drs and pharmaceuticals. There's no question, that he was an incredible cyclist. I don't believe for a second that Eddy Merckx or any of his contemporaries road clean either. They rode in a time that was even less regulated and they just used different drugs amphetamines being one of them. They were just heroes that were put on the pedestal and everyone wanted to keep them there.
you didnt listen that different people have different responses to the drug?
People respond differently to drugs in sport. It does not benefit everyone the same way. Another way to put it is, if you took the final GC of the 2000 TdF, for example; let’s say every one of them was does as best as they could, and then let’s suppose all of them rode it 100% pan y agua instead. You would not then get the same results if you cut out all the doping. They would be totally different.
He had a lower natural hematocrit level than others, so EPO worked better.
Still, he won -seven- times in a row. psychopathic levels of insane discipline and determination. Wild stuff.
thanks on your input and i ll go with the same answer as people here who understand the accomplishement behind this...HE FOKIN WON 7 TIMES !!
I really enjoyed your video! Thank you for making it. 🚴♂️💯🥵😊
"You'd have to be an imbecile or hypocrite to imagine that a professional cyclist who rides 235 days a year can hold himself together without stimulants".
"For 50 years bike racers have been taking stimulants. Obviously we can do without them in a race, but then we will pedal 15 miles an hour (instead of 25). Since we are constantly asked to go faster and to make even greater efforts, we are obliged to take stimulants."
Both quotes by Jacques Anquetil, Tour de France winner 1957, '62, '62, 63' & '64.
As someone who lived in Switzerland for 12 years (1997-2010), I saw these great stages whenever I could.
Lance on Joux-Plane; Hamilton with broken collarbone; etc...
I am only sad about one aspect: the UCI and TDF removed Lance as victor, but never addressed the conquests of Richard Virenque, Laurent Jalabert, or Bernard Hinault.
Hell, if Eddy introduced Lance to Dr Ferrara, what does that tell us about Merckx?
WADA is only 'insurance' for Team and Event owners, and their sponsors: as long as the IOC or UCI can point to WADA, shrug their metaphorical shoulders and whine
"But WADA is doing everything possible!", then Coca-Cola™ will continue pumping $300 plus million dollars into such events...
👁️👁️
Freddy Martens told us a lot about Merck's antics, he was truly terrible. We don't know the exact extent of his drug use, Martens said drugs were used primarily during the Classics and not as much during the tours.
Lmao
Eddy dope back in his day too. But he’s a god of cycling 😒 It’s only because Lance is a American crushing a European sport is the reason why they stripped his wins. He will always be a 7 time champion in my book.
@@djaaronmorris1624 Don't stupid, it was the American governing bodies that attacked Lance. the European authorities did ALL they could to protect and defend lance, as far as possible, both for themselves and Lance himself!
Merckx was great but he was busting three times for doping and kicked out of the Giro in 1969.
He was potentially a better triathlete than just a cyclist. He was up with the best as a 17yo before he turned to cycling.
He was only the third best runner in his high school. I know the top two.
@@jbratthe never said lance was the best runner ?
He was mediocre athlete. Outstanding at nothing but doping.
@@markcynic808 how’s it feel to live life being this delusional and to have to live life always lying to urself and others?
@@markcynic808 Not true.
Your videos are thoughtful and interesting. Thanks for making them.
Lance is a true relentless competitor, very rare to find an athlete who has a drive and will like that.
I wonder when something stops being seen as relentless and begins to just look psychopathic. Dude had some venom in him.
Agree...he was going to do what it took to win...regardless of what that sacrifice was...
Lie, cheat or steal. Whatever it takes.
@@CC-xu2yz "Cheat to Win"
Eddie Guerro WCW
If doppinng DQed lance from those tour wins, please name me the 'clean' rider that did win?
None
From that era.... Of say 30 podium finishers over a 10 year period.... Maybe 2-3 would have been clean.... Out of the top 30.... It was tacitly accepted by teams and managers.... Just don't get caught was the only rule
Officially from 1999 to 2005 no one won TdF.
@@pagejustin5572 I think the only person in the top 10 in all those years that hasnt been caught or heavily implicated was cadel evans in 2005 and he finished in i think 8th
@@lukemanion2 Carlos sastre (Mr. Bread & Water) he won it in 08.... And had to secretly attack his own teammates in the Schleck brothers in order to pull it off.... Cadel was a class act though, no doubt
He’s so good that they finally gave all his awards to 17 place finishers and beyond to find someone who wasn’t using performance enhancing.
I saw the Lance Armstrong race at the Major Taylor Velodrome in 1985 when he was 14 years old. He was WAY better than anyone else, won everything. There's no way he was doping then. I think everyone doped when he did, he was just better than everyone so he was better doped. Doesn't make it right though. They should vacate ALL results from that time period, or restore the winners.
Thank you for a well done presentation. I just remember a bald, sick man with three incisions
in his head, and several lesions in his lungs. Given a 10% chance of survival, and a 0 % chance
of bike racing ... Armstrong did whatever it took to make himself into a machine designed to do
one thing... win the Tour. Did he do so with help from EPO ... whatever it takes to win, that was
his life's focus. 8 hours a day on the bike, more training and working on bike design... to win.
Tom Byrne ( I was very close to death my self at the same time so I am prejudiced.)
His doctor Scott Shapiro claimed his chances to survive were around 5%. He told him the true after LA fully recovered and got back on the bike. While he was fighting with cancer his team (Coffidis) left him. He was hit hard but rebuilt himself and came back to the sport. First of all his success was based on dedication and perfect training regime. Also LA had elite partners in US Postal who helped him. Competition was close and most of them had access to similar set of PEDs - rest was up to the training routine.
LA's large framed poster still is hanging in my office today.
Tom Byrne. Thanks for the reply!@@RoadBikersPoznan
@@thomasbyrne7770 I bought Lance's first 2 books, and later burned them. The more I learned about him, the less I liked him, as a person or as a pro athlete.
Thanks for that from NZ
It all comes down who is willing to train the hardest to win. Lance has made that truth obvious. He sacrificed so much for so long that it was a supernatural feat in commitment of itself.
Not true. The limit isn't whether you're willing to train hard. It's the ability of your physiology to tolerate and benefit from that training that leads to success. That ability is dramatically enhanced by doping.
It’s been well documented that the USPS team excelled at doping and evading detection. Armstrong’s numbers are average without the help.
the absolute G.O.A.T.
Yes, he doped , just like Most of the best. But, he had a different, but very modern trainingvision. Beside all this , he was (Team)tactically gifted and implemented this in his Races. He was the one who rode with high cadence, which is far more effective. And yes, he saved his energy for the TdF.
So, L.A. is still the best for me. It‘s only that he wasn‘t really a Mr. Niceguy and forced several other Riders to do things they didn‘t want to do. That‘s another Story……
If everyone was clean including Lance of course I think he would have won more races. He was a born natural athlete and bike rider but he ended up in a dope or lose situation like the others. It wasn’t his fault but his behaviour was his fault. He treated people like disposable assets although he realises now he made mistakes and is changing his ways. His thick skinned arrogant attitude has saved his life. The media painted a picture of Lance pretty much inventing doping and being the only person to do it. Most people would have gone mentally ill or worse under such pressure. He’s in a good place now and doing good things.
People who don't watch professional cycling but know the (near) household name say Lance is a "cheat" and that he "ruined" peoples' lives!".
I reply with the Phil Liggett quote: "You can't turn a donkey into a race horse" ...
... and they still don't get it.
You can turn a good horse in to a better one though. And Liggett was a friend of Armstrongs and took his hospitality. Clowns stick together.
@@SirPeter6464 Clown(s) or not, Lance was handing to grown men in Triathlons before he even got his drivers' license.
Drugs brought him up to speed with the already-doping Europeans.
Lances' physiology was already there ... He had the goods.
No question he was World Class to begin with.
@@TheJaxsonjack Seems strange that Armstrong was hardly mentioned in the cycle press when coming up. Most of the great talents have a big junior career. The sport thought he was good for business and that is the start of the problems.
@@SirPeter6464 "was hardly mentioned" ..
So what?
You actually need to study VAM records through the years to know when they were rolling the fastest. The 90's was the fastest according to the data. Before EPO in the 1980's the racing was much more exciting because even Hinault could crack on any given mountain. Racing was unpredictable. When Michele Ferrari started creating mutants, it completely altered the dynamics of the sport.
This is interesting. In general cycling was much more exciting when riders weren't using srms (power meters). I hardly remember 80s as I was born in 1980. I am biased to 90's so forgive me :-) Yes EPO malformed results but still training and dedication was essential factor. Lance Armstrong had some edge over the rest "mutants" as he was focusing just on TDF while other teams were riding many races each year. From this point he was smarter.
@@RoadBikersPoznan I think if you do the research, you will find at one point Lance contracted out Michele Ferrari to work exclusively with him and his Postal teammates, so Lance's doping program was always ahead of the competition. If you want to get real serious about how it worked you need to read David Walsh's book. He documents it well what was going on. However, when Lance was working with Michelle Ferrari it was not a level playing field. Dr. Ferrari is by far the best in the world at this.
Radios between riders and team cars ruined it as well.
@@jasper12785 Merckx known Dr Ferrari and introduced him to Lance. Ferrari was too young to have any impact on Merckx performance but there were other specialists around like profesor Conconi with whom Ferrari cooperated later. It is enough to be sceptical regarding "clean" cycling in pre-EPO era.
Tarmac, tires and wheels all changed during that time. And Ferrari was a student of Professor Conconi. The first professional example was Francesco Moser. The first amateurs known to cheat were Olympic athletes. There are lots of reasons that leaders cracked more back in the day. In the "sports science" age the teams know more what each support rider is capable of and they plan for contingencies. If a rider "cracks" today you might catch it on camera and you might not. But the biggest difference today in the teams is how talented the support riders are. If you look at World Hour Record results (IOW, top riders going for a standardized contests) the increased speeds can be accounted for mostly by changes in equipment.
This is the take I've been waiting to hear for a long time . I wasn't a lance Armstrong fan during his run of wins but it's unfair to take away all the credit from what he did. He was a great cyclist that succeeded when everyone was doping. Thanks for the video
The cycling doping scandal has tempered my view of the sport and of the cyclists involved. But I do admire somewhat Lance's ability to avoid Tour-ending crashes and sickness during the races he competed in.
Lance Armstrong won 7 times was never injured or sick. Always was in the right place at the right time . Never crashed out or lost due to a major mechanical. All the athletes in the sport were doping he would have dominated anytime.
We already have the data on this. Armstrong was a top guy in the American peloton obviously....and an elite endurance athlete. But the issue with these debates is the premise itself of not doped vs. not doped. That is the wrong question. THe real question is "What is the difference between doping regimes in each rider or team in the peloton from 99-2006" Lance was doping from his first pro race including his World Championship win not when he met Ferrari years later.. from Lance's own words. Not doped I think it is totally questionable if he would have ever won a Tour period even against all non-dopers but would have won stages throughout his career and would have been known as a time trailer and sprinter etc.. Ferrari's team-level doping system including blood doping was simply implemented better than other teams - it was a master-level regime implemented with more $ resources and more commitment by Armstrong. They understood how to maintain a certain blood cell level at later stages, across the entire team. The % performance increase at the team level is more than the entire range of speeds across the peloton. It is a much bigger benefit than folks understand.
Do you think that Lemond and Indurain were clean?
Indurain is claimed to be clean but I doubt he was not using EPO. I have used him as an example of "supposedly" clean athlete as his Wattage was similar to Lance at age 22. When it comes to Lance I am almost sure he was not using EPO although he might benefit from other (less powerful) drugs (testosterone, clenbuterol) etc. In the beginning of 90's he had sudden problems holding up with peloton in Europe like other US cyclists: Jonathon Vaughters or Bobby Julich. They were simply not up-to date with EPO... yet.
@@RoadBikersPoznan Lance already admitted he was on juice before epo. Indurain and his 500 Watts for 30 min doesn't look "clean" :). Lemond who was "supposedly" clean beat the best dopers according to Johan Bruynell interview - this sucess story doesn't add up.
@@dominikk7237 Allright but we have to distinguish "juice" from EPO. Most of pro cyclists were on "something" starting from 60's. I can imagine Lance was trying different drugs or even had access to EPO before 1995 but it was not orchestrated and managed. His relationship with Ferrari aligned his chances with other dopers or even created some "edge" over the rest.
When it comes to Lemond you can see sudden fall of his shape in 90's. It is unusual for 3 time TDF winner. I belive he was not EPOed yet.
@@RoadBikersPoznan I was out of your topic. Other drugs vs EPO, two diferent stories, for sure.
@@RoadBikersPoznan Lance did a recent interview on Dr. Peter Attia’s podcast and provided the most detailed testimony he’s ever given. Prior to the cancer it was primarily Cortisone. Post-cancer it was EPO (actually started toying with EPO in 1995), but never during the Tour itself. During the Tours he only used blood transfusions. He claimed he never used testosterone extensively.
He also noted his 30 minute 500 watt effort would be 450 without the EPO.
The interview, all 2.5 hours of it, is here on TH-cam.
Lance Armstrong was Pro Cycling in his time. He inspired people are around the world to get into cycling and actual ride a bike. I think it is unfair to make him the bad guy and take away his tours. Much of cycling was on the juice. In fact many that were on the juice back then are the ones that give Lance a hard time.
He turned millions away from the sport. Get off the crack!
He went over the line with 7 tours and then his comeback. If he had stopped at 5 and not been greedy the secret would never have come out. He robbed one bank too many!
@@andredeketeleastutecomplex Armstrong got me into riding
He relentlessly attacks other riders for dosing before his dosing was disclosed. He doses relentlessly himself. I cannot be inspired by this kind of role model. There was another guy called Carl Lewis did the same.
He was a cheat from beginning to end! Still is!
Could he won all 7 Tours without doping??? Definitely YES, as long as the others don't dope as well, in Europe the fought dirty with knives Lance armstrong brought Guns, simple .. He deserved to get his awards taken from him but also all the other racers as well, the difference is that their countries did not betrayed them U.S.A did to one of the best riders ever
Jan Ullrich was way better and more talented but much more naive. Lance was clever and always had a better team working for him. I liked them both but Jan was my hero. Since they stopped riding I stopped watching Tour de France 🇫🇷 that’s 2005
I was a cycling fan back in Lemond days. Armstrong didn’t live up to his hype until after his cancer diagnosis. When he decided to win at any cost.
Loved watching Lance race, greatest ever 🥇
janulrich
To professionals, winning pays the bills; it revolves around money. When money becomes your prime directive; anything goes! Who was it who said "The love of money is the root of all evil..?"
That’s in the Bible, and it reads, “the love of money is the root of all kinds of evil.”
@@plantbasedanalyst6263 Isn't that like saying; "THE DEVIL MADE ME DO IT?" So many poor people still refrain from stealing and cheating in this way; so poverty does not affact all poor in this way. Shalom
The real reason, Biblically, why we are all susceptible to temptations to lie, steal, hate, lust and murder; is because the Human Race inherited a broken relationship with God, because of The First and Original Adam.
Through Christ, "The Second Adam" Humans can be redeemed by a work of God; all justified in God's sight because the WILLING SACRIFICE of "God the Son" as full payment for our Sin Debt. After all; he man who hung on that center cross that day is slated to JUDGE, THE LIVING AND THE DEAD!
Redeemed people are being changed internally by God's gift of His Spirit.
I know this all must sound crazy to many; but it's what the Bible teaches from Genesis to Revelation. I've personally experienced the Life Changing Power of God in my life for close to fifty years now. It's all about THE RENEWED RELATIONSHIP WITH GOD!--SLU
Excellent piece. The world will never really know who was using what and for how long. That goes for Lance Armstrong but also for his competition. He just happened to become better than them all while using it. Just an opinion. If you can’t guarantee s as lol riders are clean, then let them all use what they want to achieve their optimal level of performance.
Exactly.
Underrated channel. Subbed.
What made Lance Armstrong, was he was consistent. He rode like a well oiled clock. I watched Armstrong ride for many years. And I am yet to see any other bike rider have the precision, that Lance Armstrong did.
For me armstrong is like lebron james or bill russell. Its not about being the best, its about being better and maintaining it for a very long time in short consistency.
What about Miguel Induráin?
Raymond Poulidor "the eternal second" (in the Tour) was more consistent than Armstrong - he was likened to a metronome. Lance had superior physical talent and drive but he also had self doubt and arrogance.
It still hurts to think about Marco Pantani and his final days....
This assessment is so spot on. People often watch the footage of Indurain moving past Armstrong like Armstrong is hardly moving in a 1994 time trial of the Tour de France. It never ceases to amaze me that some people think that Indurain was cleaner than Armstrong during that race. That is completely ludicrous and yet some people believe it.
I don't believe M.I, would've been clean myself. But I'd like to think so, but we've said this before with other riders. Right?
But I do believe Big Mig reigns above Big Tex.
Cipolinni, Indurain, Pantani all doped even Wiggins. The whole sport is contaminated.
@@Ayog06 Fuck no!
7 MJs BABY WON💪💪..with more than just ITT stage wins.
2003 stage 15 luiz arden💪.
Go back and watch it kid.
Big wig never won a mountain top finish in his 5 straight.
With all due respect I'm just saying
Indurain rode in the "perfect" era for him: EPO available and years before first test available, but Indurain doping is obvious
But LA. admitted to have started doping in 1991 and freaking out about other drugs in those mid 90s years
Before going straight to Ferrari in 94, we could assume that, like many riders (I knew some of them) back then, he started improvising with EPO on his own before finding the right dosage with Ferrari, and finally diving head first in the pharmacy in 98
Like the video stated, each athlete responds differently to EPO. To make a great athlete you must begin with a good athlete. To start with a great athlete, add EPO, determination, consistency and hard work, you will get an exceptional athlete. That athlete has to be willing to put in the work if he wants to be that exceptional athlete. Knowing others are doing the same and you have to play catch up, if you want to get to the top, sacrifices must be made to even the playing field. Learning how to be a great tactician and learning how to make EPO the most efficient takes time, planning and patience. You must put in the work to make all of those things come together, you can't be a couch potato and inject yourself with EPO and think you will win the TDF. So, he had to put in the work to be able to beat others who have been playing the game longer. Looking now, you don't see any other athletes that have the same determination, consistency and drive to win as much as Lance. You can find them in other sports, but not so much in the TDF. Just my opinion, every one is entitled to one.
I think you missed the point "each athlete responds differently" is not talking about 1 athlete who doesn't train versus an athlete that does. It is stating that regardless the amount of dedication, determination and training load etc there is still a physiological aspect where EPO works better for some than others. This is the part where the cheating cannot simply be shrugged off by saying they all doped because if they weren't doping the results most likely would have been different. In a clean peloton (talking fairyland language now) I believe Lance was talented enough to be up there with the best and bag 1 or 2 tours but 7 I think is impossible. That said these riders were put into impossible situations to either cheat or get kicked out of a sport they dedicate their life to so to some degree they were a product of their time. Sadly there would have been plenty of talented clean riders who dropped out of the sport without any notable victories and have hence becomes unknowns in history and that is the truly sad part.
Richard Sandberg , very good points, you can't make a racehorse out of a donkey however much e p o you feed it , the idea that by using this substance winning a grand tour would be a doddle is as stupid as it is false , Armstrong trained relentlessly put in the time and trouble and beat all the other users to the finish line . I believe he was the scapegoat that took the flack and the ban so it all could be swept under the proverbial carpet.
Great photos! The new gen cyclists are faster (ventoux etc) but that could be tactical. You have a good point in that his mental strength and personality was exceptional to perform that great under the pressure of reporters and haters and french fans. Modern riders, except froome didn't have to deal with so many people trying to take them down
Thank you. Today's athletes, (not only cyclists) are taught how to behave and what to say at press conferences etc. They get lot of care from teams/organizations. Their exposition to the media is (in some way) controlled. It was different in the 80s and 90s. Also I presume they have less freedom when it comes to "secret" colaboration with external dope specialists. Instead the process may be organized by the teams internally. Assuming these "youngsters" work in much comfortable environment without stress.
Lo que dijo Anstrong respecto a que solo dopado se gana el tour de Francia, puede ser una gran Verdad. No estamos al interior de los equipos para saber que ayudas farmacéuticas usan los directores y equipo para el corredor bien ubicado de su equipo. . Hoy dia hay mucha tecnología deportiva. Corredores como Nairo Quintana necesitan es un gran equipo para ganar. Yo diría que todo equipo usa fármacos para aumentar rendimiento. Seguiré siendo un fans de L. Anstrong. Un performance impresionante. Un moster
Lance was a talent and super ambitious with amazing drive. The drugs made him into a superman combine with ego, narcissism and hardwork with great team it was the perfect cocktail!!
definitely a fighter and definitely a good bike rider. but not nearly one of the best, and never ever would been "the best" back then without ferrari and ferrari's doping system
Cheater
Check where he finished in the TDF before he started doping.
I agree, I believe he would of still been successful but not as consistent. Seemed to be a hyper responder to EPO which is a real thing these drugs can be more effective in curtain ppl.
Would have
I've raced against Lance.
Sure he was good. Of course he was good.
Saw him when the national championships in Park City Utah.
Being a jerk doesn't make you any friends though.
He was a gifted athlete like all the world tour pros. He had that killer instinct and thats what made him better when doping. Good video!
In 1980 I was a professional driver. One season. I saw how many riders used dope. I was not accepted in the sport because I did not used any of kind off dope. My choice was made. It was not my world, but I learned a lot about people, money and trust and fair game and pressure too perform. I don't play with my health. But when I had to drive with doped people specially with epo it was hard to follow them. That means if you are not doped you had a difficult time but I know how strong I was without dope. I could ride 400 watts for more than 20 minutes on a body weight of 78 kg in a test. And that was on an age of 20 during my duty in the military. I even was not in a good condition because a couldn't train during the day. There were so much good drivers didn't use dope and leave the sport in a desillution.
400 watts/20 mins with 78kg - pro performance. Definitely.
@@RoadBikersPoznan
With a hart ritm of 200 slowly going down to 180 bpm after several minutes on 400 watt. In my time as amateur a lot of drivers using dope. It was even hard to get a professional contract because you don't use dope. But in these times sometimes drivers died in their sleep using to much epo. Also lady drivers.
We love to build up our heroes and then burn them to ashes. We all want winners. We pay them to win. And when they've won too much, we set them alight and watch the fire. I'm willing to bet dollars that NO ONE who is capable of winning a grand tour is anything remotely close to being a "nice person". It takes competitive ruthlessness and killer instinct to win these races. But we expect these ruthless people to conform to our everyday standards of decency. Yet we love their ability to carve up the competition and leave them gasping on the road. Athletes doping isn't the problem - we "fans" are the real problem. We have no sense of the realities of competitive sport.
i dont know which was harder. Trying to understand how good Armstrong was or trying to understand this guys accent.
He was an incredible athlete. And as a testicular cancer survivor myself, the amount of money and awareness that he provided was invaluable.
I honestly question he ever had cancer, he lied about everything
@@janeztomazic5546 He literally only has one ball
@@badcornflakes6374 have you seen them
Great videos mate
This great athlete bore the brunt of the drug crackdown and was mercilessly divested of his hard fought prizes, banned from the sport he loved and for which he had heroically battled cancer to become a sporting icon. It is terrible that the great Lance Armstrong was so maligned for he was magnificent.
His treatment of others is what tarnished him at the end of the day. He ruined people and their careers for trying to tell the truth. If there is no victim there isnt really a crime unfortunately for Lance he created many victims. Amazing cyclist but just not a great person at the end of the day.
That cancer was probably a result of testosterone doping.
Leaders are supposed to be ambassadors too. LA was neither, he abused and maligned and lied about it when others were silent which was also wrong.
Lance was a rotten person. Not only did he lie, but he went to great lengths to cheat. He donated blood testing equipment to WADA so that he could use identical equipment to monitor his doping and evade the testing being done. And the most disgusting thing of all, is that he sued the journalist David Walsh claiming that he lied about Lance's doping and took $1M from him. He is a rotten person.
@@davidbrayton1143 He was cheating, obviously he went to great lengths to continue to do what he was so heavily invested in. I wonder why someone would assume that somehow Lance was the only one that was involved in this scheme. Since everyone even slightly competitive was cheating and so few were actually caught I have to wonder about the whole system and production. The fact that he attacked people that stood to gain from him should be exactly what was expected. For me at the end of the day, someone pressed the pedals. I watched and enjoyed it. I don't care what type of person he was because I'm not a fan of personalities. He did inspire a great many of people suffering from many different things and oh yeah raised a dollar or 2 for them in the process. Not a rotten person to those people for sure.
Accepting doping as the normal baseline for every top pro, he was the best ever.
I hate to break it to you people, but ALL top athletes were/are doped, one way or another. There's no such thing to be on the top of the world on "water and bread". Lance was just a little smarter than the rest and took in on another level.
What a hero.
@@PatrickMorris-IndochinaTravel BTW, Lemond was a doper too, the only difference is that he hadn’t been caught because they didn’t test for EPO back then.
Phil Anderson said Armstrong pre-dope would finish an hour behind on training rides. That's how effective doping was for him.
THEY ALL did it……..BUT Still, HE WAS THE BEST……….So what Now..?!
He adapted to the *existing culture of the Tour* and prevailed. If anyone thinks the tour organisers were part of any attempts to clean up the sport they need to have a think about their critical analysis skills. All those principals wanted was stage drama and gasping, straining riders. His titles should be restored.
And blood doping should be legal. It involves no drugs, nor magic formulae. The only difficulty is logistical, keeping enough of it fresh for every stage.
Lance is still the youngest world champion ever. I have seen many great riders watching cycling through the years and still consider him the best tour the France rider I have ever seen.
even his 09 return showed how great he was. Yes he only got 3rd but we saw in the Mountains that he had lost 2 or 3 extra gears that he needed in order to beat Alberto Contador but he was still a great rider and the smartest.
Lance was the boss.Have a look at footage if you can find it at Bjarne Riis warming up before timtrial in 95 tour when he rode for GWISS , juiced to the gills.
You are 100%right, each individual body reacts to EPO on a different way. Lance was a great cyclist but after his testicular cancer there will be no chance to win mayor compensations without doping. Lance dope to survive the same as everybody else at the time, so we can not only point at him.
He litterally put products in his body he didn't know the effects of, and possibly caused his 96 cancer
Your "he doped to survive" is a little bit of an exageration , right ?
Lance doped when he had two balls. The rubbish people like you come out with defies belief.
Who is better at his peak (so far) duel: Pogacar vs Froome ?
Looking from team sport perspective I would say Froome... Perhaps because of better teamates at that time in (Sky) than Pogi has in UAE today. However in terms of power2weight ratio it is hard to predict. Also Pogacar's peak shape may still to come as he is progressing.
I raced in the 90's era and doping thing was common with that fact no tour de France winner from the 50's on.clean cycling is not going on let's not fool are self's.
Yes, Armstrong was a doper. So was almost everyone else. In my mind, anyway you slice or dice it, he was a freak of nature physically and, most of all, mentally. If I recall, Miller (from England) called Armstrong one Christmas, from a pub, to wish him a Merry Christmas. Turns out Armstrong was on a 6 hour training ride. How many other pro cyclists were out doing that kind of ride on Christmas? I never met Armstrong, but my former sponsor did. They told me Armstrong has a pure alpha vibe with eyes that look right through a person. That was when Armstrong was young. If Jamie Paolinette raced with Armstrong, I'm curious to know if he got the same impression. Armstrong was a doper, but he was the best doper to ever stage race. I'm not sure how he would have done pre-EPO, but I'm confident we'd all still know his name.
You're kind of perpetuating the myth that if you just ride longer, harder and put in more miles than everyone else, you win. Not true. Armstrong wouldn't have succeeded if he just "rode like hell." Overtraining is common and derails a lot of cyclists. It destroys your will and causes injury. It has ended a lot of careers.
So looking up to Lance for "hammering on Christmas" is really just trying to believe the myth of the Puritan Work Ethic conquering all.
I feel so sorry for the clean riders. They had their chances removed, knew who the cheaters were, but were tarred with the same brush as cheats. A very shitty deal.
Were there many?
Name a clean rider
@@donaldblack9911 thats kind of the point?
Cycling was better in the 90's. Basketball was better back in the day. Baseball was better back in the day. NASCAR was better back in the day. I think pretty much most sports was better back in the day.
Armstrong was a beast and was simply competing on a level playing field with the other top riders of the day.
Agree ... th-cam.com/video/NaGLfau1tRs/w-d-xo.html
Totally agree also - “sports” was way better back in the day
Regarding Lance, it had nothing to do with what he did on the bike. It was the way he treated innocent people to cover his lies. Lances mistake was he should have exposed cycling as a sport of DRUGS instead of taking the heat himself- if he did, he probably could have kept his titles
@@frankdigiovanni3666 I remember when in 1992 the Dream Team came to Europe for Olympic games in Barcelona. Super stars like Jordan, Bird, Magic arrived but there was one condition: no anti doping tests for them. As you can see in opposite to cycling many team sports are protected "by design". Although cycling is also team sport but the thing is that at the end individual wins and whole attention is focused on individuals. Lance was doper who was winning among dopers who were following internal peleton rules. It was massive multi-team cheating. The other thing is (on which I agree with you) how badly Lance was treating other people who stepped his way. Isolating his behavior from his performance leads me to conclusion he would be an excellent athlete in clean sport either. Sometimes people misunderstand how enhancing drugs works. They cannot change "potato" into champion.
@@scooter2163 Look: in 1993 and 1995 he was able to win single stages of TDF. Then he had a cancer with little chances to survive, not even mentioning cycling again. When he came back Lance was full-inch doper ready to compete with rest of the "mutants". Lance couldn't compete through all TDF stages before 1995 because he didn't used EPO while rest of dirty Euro-Teams did. EPO changed cycling in 90's so even Greg Lemond (who figured out something is wrong...) decided to retire. Only riders from teams who accommodated to EPO dosing stayed on playground. In early 90's hematocrit level (which was kind of EPO usage indicator) was rarely tracked and could be easily lowered by team doctors before "unexpected" control. So early 90s was a cycling "black hole". We simply don't know how would Lance perform in TDF if all riders were clean.
@@scooter2163 wrong in every way dude
Per Lemond: "When I raced, I had a VO2 max of 93, and I never developed more than 400 watts. Armstrong’s VO2 max, which Ed Coyle mistakenly revealed, was no more than 78. So, considering his weight - 73 kg, he could never produce 500 watts to ride up the Madonna as he said, or 475 watts on the climb of L'Alpe-d'Huez. With his VO2 max, he couldn't exceed 375 watts. To increase his performance by 30%, he had to dope. But did he achieve his performance only with doping? What doping did he use that others didn't? All I know is that there are 50-70 watts missing, which we don’t know the origin of. There is something that I still do not understand"
Except that VO2 max doesn't necessarily determine sustained aerobic performance/power output.
What he was so heavy?
Lance was the guinea pig for the big pharma. He had the best stuff only the elites can get. Its not just EPO .. and its not just a simple blood transfusion.. theres more , and up to now its still a top secret
Power output (watts) and aerobic capacity (VO2 max) are not tightly correlated like you are suggesting they are.
So true man i,m an ex pro mtb er and was mates with pro roadies from the eighties thru the nineties and everyone and i mean every one including myself took something to go faster some got caught but not many i never used epo as my hermaticrit was as 50 before elevation trainning and up to 55 at its highest. Lance got cought because he pissed of the wrong people which sucks if i ever met Lance i would shake his hand and thank him for his info and saving me from performance destroying chemo drugs doctors were trying to give me 20 years ago 👍👏 Lance is a legend .
Pogacar & Roglic, not to mention many others, have some pretty curious results. Cycling now is as good as it has been but, I wouldn’t call it clean.
I think it's safe to say that all the riders look to take advantage of every possible gain that's available...within the rules. No different to an F1 team making the tiniest tweaks to improve performance. The playing field is never level in that respect.
Their passport has been established on a doping benchmark from a very young age.
We are generally brought up to be nice people. We follow socially accepted rules where generally we don’t push in, we don’t cheat to win and being competitive to a point where whatever is needed to win is considered not quite right.
The Pro Peloton is not a social group ride. It is a collection of driven individuals that by working together in a team will do whatever it takes to get the prize…
This is I think still the case.
Performance Enhancing Drugs, Blood Doping, better bikes, better food, better coaching and support are factors that can be controlled to high standards. Even to the point of not getting caught.
Tactics, weather conditions and mechanicals that are not dealt with quickly have nothing to do with doping but still play their part…
Champions become champions because they are not nice people when then they are competing; they will get the front and they will make subdue and beat other people into submission. The ability to suffer is what makes a champion.
Armstrong’s psychological make up shows he was willing to suffer had a hard time not being competitive.
He had to win.
Better athlete, better cyclist or better doper…
Made no difference to Lance; he had to be the best. He didn’t care who got hurt or pushed out of the way.
Lance was an incredible athlete. I don't like that he personifies a trend which is only recently being reversed in the peloton - focusing only on the Tour. How many cyclists have also finished in the top 150 in the NYC Marathon? Lance did. His teammates and opponents both have marveled at his training regimen - he trained as hard as he raced. We'll never know for sure what would have happened if EPO and blood doping didn't exist, but he has truly been one of the greatest sports competitors we've seen. Seven tour wins wasn't a total mistake. You can't fake that level of excellence.
Anyone who could have won TDF after Festina scandal would become immediate suspect under media investigation. But not everyone from peloton might have been able to sustain such pressure. Lance managed to deal with it through years. As you wrote he was an excellent athlete in first place. He just realized how dirty was this sport in Europe and decided to play with "new" rules like many others before him.
My recollection is that L.A. finished somewhere around the 900th place at the NY marathon, and that he was close to 3 hours (which is not a top 150 time ). Do you have the source for your 150th place ?
@@RoadBikersPoznan he managed to deal with it through the years thanks to lawyers, looking straight at someone while lying, bullying while lying, and most disturbingly, with the help received from the uci, so, it doesn't seem like you know the whole story of what he did
@@miroslavivanovitch384 The source for the 150th place is a bad memory. Sucks getting old. However, a time of 2:46.43 over 26 miles in 2007 is pretty impressive for someone who ran the distance once before. This time was good for 698th in that year’s race.
@@danielhenegan5438
That s closer to what I thought
L.A. is a decent runner, but Mark Allen ran the Ironman marathon (after the bike and under Hawaii heat) in 2h38' and Dave Scott in 2h39' in 1989
Top triathlon runner are athletes who are around 28'30" on 10k (A. Brownlee or A. Yee) on Short distances (L.A. triathlon specialty at the time)
Pretty clear doping is part of the sport. Yesterday, today and in the future...just they way it is...Armstrong was probably the greatest of all time.
Even though he was doping I think his going through cancer treatment increased his tolerance to pain and this may have also had an impact.
He got the cancer because of using the testosterone, in a first place.
@@sibchuk what if it's not
Good video buddy.
People say he wasn't a great climber when he won his first TDF, but they ignore the fact that people do improve and will get better with the right training program. He trained harder than anyone and doping was just one of many element that made him the great rider he eventually became.
Easier to train better than anyone else when you are doping better than anyone else.
Spot on mate.
I absolutely love your take on the mental fitness of the older guys vs the newer generation. I agree, that you have to have a certain maturity to pull that crap of, unless…you don’t know about it. Is that possible, that they are being doped without knowing?
Cycling is one of the most demanding sport on this planet. When you finish Tour de France your body is devastated. I am pretty sure teams do everything what they can to not only enhance rider's performance but also recovery process. Do they cross "the line"? You never know but I wouldn't be surprised at all. The difference is maybe today athletes are not fully aware of the "process" around. I heard one interview when pro athlete admitted he has to take set of more or less described pills after breakfast. Not everyone asks questions. I am pretty sure PEDs are still included but there are rather no blood transfusions today. This kind of doping (although still possible to perform) may put too much stress on individuals. Also blood samples are stored for a long time and may be examined even years after events. This may keep medical staff away from practicing this method.
Many wins did not depend on EPO. Smart riding and team support. Brilliant Director. It took a village. Two skinny wheels at 50mph ? No amount of EPO can help ya
Love him or hate him but Lance did more for the popularity of cycling, especially in the US, than anyone before him, and after him. And ask almost any everyday rider who Chris Fromme is and they'll most likely look at you and shrug dumbly they have no idea.
More than Lemond? He started it all for Americans.
Since cycling is so closely monitored for PEDs these days. Has the overall average speed and time per stage increased, decreased or stayed the same?
The main difference I'm seeing is lower average cadence now. Without EPO and blood doping (or at least using those below the detection threshold) it's harder to sustain high cadence. Checking the available data on Strava, most pros are averaging 75-80 rpm, only using faster cadence for relatively short times on climbs and sprints.
@@theparalexview785 thanks for your reply. I believe Tour de France 2022 will be a replica of the 1986 tour. It will be interesting to see how the difference between then and now. Maybe it's me, but modern races just don't look as tough as 80s and early 90s. I'm sure technology and technique is a reason but if EPO was a game changer, its lack of use now just doesn't seem as apparent.
Over the last 20 years the average speed by winners of tours has gon up about 2 km an hour , if you Google tour winning speeds you can see it , now today's bikes are a lot better than back in the 2000
I don't disagree with what you said. But. You forgot a very important fact. NO ONE wins the tour without a team. Very big oversight .
LeMond did in 89.
That is a good point. LA had a great partners like Hincapie, Livingston and Hamilton. US Postal worked like machine. Reminded me Sky Team and time where they worked all for Wiggo or Froome.
And his team was also fully committed to the doping plan.
@@andrewstott6534 Of course. When I saw Frankie Andreu pacing the peloton, up a mountain. That's when I knew that something was up.
Cheats like Armstrong and all the other drug cheats who wouldn't have made it as pro's without taking drugs ruined it for us clean riders!
We were the real heroes that you never got to see!
Lance cheated as did 90% of the guys in his era but his natural haematocrit ratio was a low level for a pro cyclist, ranging from 38 -41 hence he was a high responder - this is well documented ie he goes from 38-50 a huge percentage increase whereas some riders are close to 50. It is simply impossible to wade through the shite and try and normalise it all.
Rubbish
He was good, not just the performance, but the way he approached the race. That’s the only race he really focused on for the whole year. Everyone else tries to win a lot of races, but he focused on
If nothing else, give credit to Armstrong for having any cycling coverage at all in the US. Before him, we'd get 5 minutes of the last stage of the Tour, on ABC's "Wide World of Sports" and nothing else. He probably raised the salaries of every racer as well, just like Tiger Woods brought so much more money into Golf, and everybody benefited.
Yes. Also Trek wouldn't be as popular as it is today. Lance made them rich and most influencing bike manufacturer.
@@scooter2163 You're hilarious.
@@jasper12785 LOL. Sure.
@@RoadBikersPoznan and he put other bike manufacturers out of business by taking them to court. what are you talking about? maybe taker down your video because you are just as clueless as your followers are
@@scooter2163 haha exactly, the author of this video is pretty clueless about business, human nature and the aftermath of lance armstrong and trek frames
Pantani was a pure climber. One of the best in history.
But Riis, Olano, Zulle and Indurain? How good were they really? A difficult question.
Riis was a very loyal domestique to Fignon for many years. One day Fignon persuaded Riis to go for a stage at the '89 Giro. And he won.
The 90's were crazy times. It's difficult 30 years later to analyze how good the riders really were.