Apologies but here we go again!!!

Vélo

I'm still trying to get my head around the whole Lance thing.

I'm of the opinion people don't like him because he keeps winning, it's like Man Utd and under no circumstances am I a fan but you have to respect that they're bloody good at what they do.

I've never heard people say they don't like him because they're sick of him winning. It's always because they don't like his attitude or he's been doping all along and gets on his high horse when anyone suggests it.

When it comes to doping the jury's out with me. It was/is so rampant you'd expect everyone was doing it but I'd say he was one of the most tested out there because he won so much and I think he never tested positive (Correct me if I'm wrong). There is always the argument if they were all doping it shows how good he was/is.

I've one question;

If Lance wins the TDF and his tests come back negative will it be a case that "He's only beating the system" or will anyones opinion of him change and realise he's probably the greatest cyclist ever?

I'd like to see him win it but then again I'm new to following the racing scene so my mind hasn't been corrupted.

This should be interesting!

Captain Havoc

There will always be people that will say he beat the system, it's actually not even worth discussing. In my opinion he's the best rider of the last ten years. I feel sorry for the guy, accusations will never go away.

t0mm

I'm not sure about the accusations, but in my eyes he's innocent until proven guilty, and if he is beating the system then you can be sure everyone else is beating it the same way so he has no advantage that way. However, I do believe he is an utter dickhead, simply just by the way he acts, the remarks he come out with, etc. Great cyclist, wouldn't want to know him. And i don't support him, I'm more of an underdog kind of guy.

zzzzzzzz

Vélo wrote: »

It's always because they don't like his attitude or he's been doping all along and gets on his high horse when anyone suggests it.

Yes.

tOmm wrote:

and if he is beating the system then you can be sure everyone else is beating it the same way so he has no advantage that way

If you assume that everyone was doping the results have a lot to do with how people's bodies react to drugs rather than their natural talent/ability.

P.s. IBTL!!!!

niceonetom

Vélo wrote: »

If Lance wins the TDF and his tests come back negative will it be a case that "He's only beating the system" or will anyone's opinion of him change and realise he's probably the greatest cyclist ever?

It'll take a lot more than one more TDF to make him the greatest cyclist of all time. :P

I dislike him. I find him arrogant, narcissistic, bullying, manipulative, faux-humble, prone to to taking offence as rhetorical/PR tactic, megalomaniac and self-aggrandising. I also believe him to be a cheat, but this in itself has little to do with my attitude to him - Ulrich is one of my favourite cyclists of all time and he's a cheat, Merckx doped in a different era and Pantani lived on drugs. But the holier-than-thou reaction to accusations galls, and the perpetual victim/hero switch and bait makes me bloody sick.

We don't get to choose how we react to certain people, we just do, and mine is fairly visceral to LA. It says: DO NOT LIKE!

eggie

Personally I hope he kicks Contador's ass, more because I dislike Contador's sneaked look as opposed to being a huge fan of Lance. His record speaks for itself.

Its incredulous that people think you can cyle thousands of miles around mountains for 3 weeks without requiring supplements of some sort or other, whether they be legal or illegal in the eyes of the UCI is another matter.

One thing is fair to say, they are all on a level playing field with equal opportunities, drugs / supplements dont create winners. The talent is already there.

Brian?

Vélo wrote: »

If Lance wins the TDF and his tests come back negative will it be a case that "He's only beating the system" or will anyones opinion of him change and realise he's probably the greatest cyclist ever?

Its not Lance's fault I know, but that right there is what I have againest him. He is not even close to being the greatest cyclist of all time. He's just the most famous outside the cycling world. Ask most people to name a cyclist and Armstrongs name would be 1st out of most peoples mouth.

I couldn't care less if he doped in the past or is doping now. I don't like the man when I hear him talk.

Fair play to him though, he beat cancer and won 7 Tour de France. A wonderful achievment.

How many spring classics did he win? How many Vuelta's or Giro's? Winning 1 grand tour a year for 7 years does not make you the greatest cyclist of all time, or even adding an eight.

For the record, I think all these riders are better than Lance Armstrong:

Winners of all three Grand Tours
No cyclist has ever won all three Grand Tour events in the same year.

Only five cyclists have won all three of the Grand Tours during their career:

Jacques Anquetil (FRA): 5 Tours (1957, 1961, 1962, 1963, 1964), 2 Giros (1960, 1964), 1 Vuelta (1963).

Alberto Contador (ESP): 1 Tour (2007), 1 Giro (2008), 1 Vuelta (2008)

Felice Gimondi (ITA): 1 Tour (1965), 3 Giros (1967, 1969, 1976), 1 Vuelta (1968)

Bernard Hinault (FRA): 5 Tours (1978, 1979, 1981, 1982, 1985), 3 Giros (1980, 1982, 1985), 2 Vueltas (1978, 1983)

Eddy Merckx (BEL): 5 Tours (1969, 1970, 1971, 1972, 1974), 5 Giros (1968, 1970, 1972, 1973, 1974), 1 Vuelta (1973)


I might be taking the piss on with Contador, but I'm fairly sure by 2015 there'll be no doubt.


That list is just multiple grand tour winners I think are better than Lance. Seán Kelly would be as well.

Anyone see Lance's name on here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UCI_Road_World_Rankings

Oh yeah, Eddie Merckx will always be the greatest, he was nicknamed "the Canninbal" in the name of god. Are you going to argue with him? Didn't think so.

End Rant.

Brian?

eggie wrote: »

Personally I hope he kicks Contador's ass, more because I dislike Contador's sneaked look as opposed to being a huge fan of Lance. His record speaks for itself.
/QUOTE]


You don't want Contador to win because he looks sneaky?

eggie

I think he's a coniving sleeked looking little back stabbing ****er.

Edit: its just the impression I get from his persona.

short circuit

eggie wrote: »

I think he's a coniving sleeked looking little back stabbing ****er.

Edit: its just the impression I get from his persona.

I suppose a lot of that has to do with the team he has got now ...

The reason he has my support over Lance is purely because when Lance stuck out with Columbia ... Alberto kept his mouth shut at the finish ... Lance on the other hand couldn't resist taking pot shots ...

And that Lance made snide remarks about Sastre after last years tour ...

And how he handed cancer a KO in round 11 of a boxing match ...

And how there is no doping in cycling ....

etc. etc.

As Tom said, no doubting Lance's excellence ... but his persona exudes negativity and makes me want to give him a kick in his "ball".

Junior

I'm a Lance fan, however I do take his amercianisms with a pinch of salt, i.e. his yeeehaa cowboy status, his my way is the best way etc. He really could do with keeping his mouth shut sometimes, but then again would cycling be as interesting to us if he was just bleating platitudes - I doubt it.

As for him being the worlds best cyclist, I know he isn't, he reshaped how people attempted the tour, for better or for worse, I'm not sure. He is probably the best Tour cyclist of all time - without a doubt, but books like the worlds greatest champion aren't helping to endear him to anyone but himself.

Now if you really interested in finding out about the worlds greatest cyclists you should have a read of this - The Virtual Musette it really lays down the Top 25 cyclists of all time, with good reasoning for the scoring.

Brian?

Junior wrote: »

Now if you really interested in finding out about the worlds greatest cyclists you should have a read of this - The Virtual Musette it really lays down the Top 25 cyclists of all time, with good reasoning for the scoring.

Can't really argue with the way thats done. I would always like to see Kelly higher though .

Diarmuid

Why don't you dig up an old thread and reply to that? Most of thses points for and against have been discussed over and over and over already.

alfalad

Velo i would be similar to you in that I'm only starting to learn about the racing side, and i was up to a couple of months ago very much of the innocent till proven guilty opinion. But i'm in the middle of reading the book "From lance to Landis" which was recomended on here and is a great read. It's written by one of the top sports journalist so it should be pretty accurate, and i'm half way through it and there is no doubt that he doped through his career, he is just was clever about it. His realtionship with Dr Ferrari alone to my mind would confirm this.

But the doping doesn't bother me too much it's the way he always goes on against it, that he pretends to lead the fight against doping in the sport that annoys me so much. That coupled with the fact he is not a decent guy, he basically destroyed Greg LeMonds bike business and is trying to do the same now with his fitness business. He uses all his influence to shut people up who speak against them even if what they say is true rather than let his results do the talking.

Also as was pointed out he is obsessed with this race, ok its the great and most famous but a great cyclist would try and get as many titles as possible! Know your a horse man so like Barry Geraghty just concentrating on the Gold Cup and not trying to win any others!

So he will certainly never be a true great champion.

Junior

alfalad wrote: »

But the doping doesn't bother me too much it's the way he always goes on against it, that he pretends to lead the fight against doping in the sport that annoys me so much. That coupled with the fact he is not a decent guy, he basically destroyed Greg LeMonds bike business and is trying to do the same now with his fitness business. He uses all his influence to shut people up who speak against them even if what they say is true rather than let his results do the talking

a lot of people are sure armstrong has been a doper from day one and are only willing him to be caught. I'm not so sure -simply from the point that people are so divided on him, and he certainly would have fallen out with someone in his medical team by now. Doping isn't something that's left to masseurs anymore - you would need a heamotologist on call at all times and people like that don't go unnoticed in around a team.

The other thing is people would love for him to stop his bleating regarding dope testing, he has ne'er as far as I am aware made a significant suggestion on how to keep the sport clean or how to stop doping - he just keeps going on about the testing. Kelly never offers an opinon on anything dope related, the old saying people on glass houses shouldn't throw stones. It pains me to say it like but he raced in an era where drugs were common so who knows he took, but he never bleats on about it

Liamo08

Lads I have to disagree with some of the comments about his supposed holier than thou attitude to doping, with the amount of books, newspaper articles interviews etc. that have claimed that he is a doper then he has to take that stance. He's one of the most famous athletes in the world so he has to comment on these allegations and take a particular stance. If he said nothing then there would be just as many people on here saying that his silence was an admission of guilt - I think its a case of he's damned if he does and damned if he doesn't.

I also hope he beats Contador due to the fact that whatever my doubts about Armstrong this year I am WAY more dubious about Contador.

ednwireland

Junior wrote: »

.

. He is probably the best Tour cyclist of all time - without a doubt, but books like the worlds greatest champion aren't helping to endear him to anyone but himself.

Now if you really interested in finding out about the worlds greatest cyclists you should have a read of this -

surely you mean the best tour de france rider he's not even the best grand tour rider in my book,

eggie

Liamo08 wrote: »

I also hope he beats Contador due to the fact that whatever my doubts about Armstrong this year I am WAY more dubious about Contador.

Totally agree.

DirkVoodoo

eggie wrote: »

Totally agree.

No eggie, no! Contador all the way! I'd put a bet on Contador pipping Lance in the tour, even just in placings on the GC if neither wins it (yes, I like to play it safe).

eggie

He's a rat!:D

Liamo08

DirkVoodoo wrote: »

No eggie, no! Contador all the way! I'd put a bet on Contador pipping Lance in the tour, even just in placings on the GC if neither wins it (yes, I like to play it safe).

I'd bet on him winning it as well - just really doubt he's doing it clean.

Junior

ednwireland wrote: »

surely you mean the best tour de france rider he's not even the best grand tour rider in my book,

Yes that's what I meant, if I thought he was the best Grand Tour rider I would have said that.

eggie

ednwireland wrote: »

surely you mean the best tour de france rider he's not even the best grand tour rider in my book,

How do you define the best? The Tour De France is the pinnacle of cycling achievements and the most prestigious prize in the sport. The guy won it 7 times in a row, more than anyone in history when competitors are stronger, fitter and more dedicated than back in any other era.

Of course he's the best, like him or not, not to say there were other fantastic champions.

Diarmuid

eggie wrote: »

How do you define the best? The Tour De France is the pinnacle of cycling achievements and the most prestigious prize in the sport. The guy won it 7 times in a row, more than anyone in history when competitors are stronger, fitter and more dedicated than back in any other era.

Of course he's the best, like him or not, not to say there were other fantastic champions.

Sure your right. He's the best.

JacksonHeightsOwn

alfalad wrote: »

Velo i would be similar to you in that I'm only starting to learn about the racing side, and i was up to a couple of months ago very much of the innocent till proven guilty opinion. But i'm in the middle of reading the book "From lance to Landis" which was recomended on here and is a great read. It's written by one of the top sports journalist so it should be pretty accurate, and i'm half way through it and there is no doubt that he doped through his career, he is just was clever about it. His realtionship with Dr Ferrari alone to my mind would confirm this.

But the doping doesn't bother me too much it's the way he always goes on against it, that he pretends to lead the fight against doping in the sport that annoys me so much. That coupled with the fact he is not a decent guy, he basically destroyed Greg LeMonds bike business and is trying to do the same now with his fitness business. He uses all his influence to shut people up who speak against them even if what they say is true rather than let his results do the talking.

Also as was pointed out he is obsessed with this race, ok its the great and most famous but a great cyclist would try and get as many titles as possible! Know your a horse man so like Barry Geraghty just concentrating on the Gold Cup and not trying to win any others!

So he will certainly never be a true great champion.

what did he do to his business?

ill have to check that book out

Junior

eggie wrote: »

How do you define the best? The Tour De France is the pinnacle of cycling achievements and the most prestigious prize in the sport. The guy won it 7 times in a row, more than anyone in history when competitors are stronger, fitter and more dedicated than back in any other era.

Of course he's the best, like him or not, not to say there were other fantastic champions.

Did you miss the link I posted earlier in this thread ? If so here it is again Virtual Mussette go check out how he scores each rider, and how he makes up for time differences (i.e. wars) etc.

kincsem

Class on a bicycle
.... a bit doubtful as he has bullied minor riders
.... a bit doubtful as he doesn't have much of a CV outside the TDF

No class off a bicycle
.... he ignores people who ask real questions


C'mon Efimkin

petethedrummer

!

he hangs out with Matthew McConaughey. All the time. They go jogging together, shirtless.

http://www.dickipedia.org/dick.php?title=Lance_Armstrong

scottreynolds

petethedrummer wrote: »

!

Funny

I heard a god quote on the way to the ROK bout LA. The jorno said something like, "Before when he was racing we had suspicions but our admiration out weighed the suspicion. Now that almost all his teammates and several other around him, and because of his own actions, the suspicion outweighs the admiration. "

This fairly sum up hat I think -- I torn to whether he's a great racer or a great actor.

I like what he's done for cancer though -- really he's greatly increased the awareness and I believe he's going to help Ireland out after the TOI by having his global summit here.... My mother had cancer, and survived, so I respect him for that cause.

BostonB

Don't like him. Respect what hes done even if I'm suspicious.

Signal_ rabbit

niceonetom wrote: »

It'll take a lot more than one more TDF to make him the greatest cyclist of all time. :P

I dislike him. I find him arrogant, narcissistic, bullying, manipulative, faux-humble, prone to to taking offence as rhetorical/PR tactic, megalomaniac and self-aggrandising. I also believe him to be a cheat, but this in itself has little to do with my attitude to him - Ulrich is one of my favourite cyclists of all time and he's a cheat, Merckx doped in a different era and Pantani lived on drugs. But the holier-than-thou reaction to accusations galls, and the perpetual victim/hero switch and bait makes me bloody sick.

We don't get to choose how we react to certain people, we just do, and mine is fairly visceral to LA. It says: DO NOT LIKE!

I agree I don't think LA is the greatest cyclist of all time either. But syrely not EM who was caught three times for doping!

DirkVoodoo

Well, my alarm went off to the sport show on 98 (fm) this morning and they were interviewing Paul Kimmage and he let them know (again) what he thought of Lance being in this year's tour. Can't find a podcast of it, did anyone else hear it?

EDIT: Podcast might pop up here soon, but I'm sure most of you have heard it before .

Captain Havoc

Signal_ rabbit wrote: »

I agree I don't think LA is the greatest cyclist of all time either. But syrely not EM who was caught three times for doping!

http://www.cyclinghalloffame.com/riders/alltime25graph.asp

Running Bing

I like him and want him to win but he makes it very easy to dislike him.


I recently read his book (the first one)and he comes across as a bit of a tool even in his own bio:D

Still I think there is something to admire about his absolute determination and focus to win at all costs. Not saying he is the only rider who has this but when you win as much as him it makes the character flaws more understandable imo. If he was a nice, affable guy would he have 7 tour wins? Not likely.

DirkVoodoo

No surprises, but it just adds to the drama and is really helping shape this tour: "Armstrong will attack Contador"

Running Bing

DirkVoodoo wrote: »

No surprises, but it just adds to the drama and is really helping shape this tour: "Armstrong will attack Contador"

Love him or hate him you have to admit he has made this Tour a lot more interesting than it would otherwise have been:D

blorg

Merckx, an admitted doper but in an era where all his rivals were doing the same, is still the greatest cyclist of all time. Argue otherwise and you may as well discount all of the sport's history.

I think though we could probably agree that Lance is the greatest clean cyclist of all time (all the more impressive as he was also competing in an era where all his rivals were doping.) I think cycling is turning the corner as regards doping, and Lance was the first great champion to show that you can do it without the drugs.

kincsem

Lance's TDF wins were about 5kph faster than Eddy's

1970…..35.6 kph
1971…..37.3 kph
1972…..35.5 kph
1973…..33.4 kph
1974…..35.7 kph [ 5yr 35.5 ]
1975…..34.9 kph [ 5yr 35.4 ]
1976…..34.5 kph [ 5yr 34.8 ]
1977…..35.4 kph [ 5yr 34.8 ]
1978…..36.1 kph [ 5yr 35.3 ]
1979…..36.5 kph [ 5yr 35.5 ]
1980…..35.1 kph [ 5yr 35.5 ]
1981…..37.8 kph [ 5yr 36.2 ]
1982…..37.5 kph [ 5yr 36.6 ]
1983…..36.2 kph [ 5yr 36.6 ]
1984…..34.9 kph [ 5yr 36.3 ]
1985…..36.2 kph [ 5yr 36.5 ]
1986…..37.0 kph [ 5yr 36.4 ]
1987…..36.6 kph [ 5yr 36.2 ]
1988…..38.9 kph [ 5yr 36.7 ]
1989…..37.5 kph [ 5yr 37.2 ]
1990…..38.6 kph [ 5yr 37.7 ]
1991…..38.7 kph [ 5yr 38.1 ]
1992…..36.5 kph [ 5yr 38.0 ]
1993…..38.7 kph [ 5yr 38.0 ]
1994…..38.4 kph [ 5yr 38.2 ]
1995…..39.2 kph [ 5yr 38.3 ]
1996…..39.2 kph [ 5yr 38.4 ]
1997…..39.2 kph [ 5yr 38.9 ]
1998…..40.0 kph [ 5yr 39.2 ]
1999…..40.3 kph [ 5yr 39.6 ]
2000…..39.5 kph [ 5yr 39.6 ]
2001…..40.0 kph [ 5yr 39.8 ]
2002…..39.9 kph [ 5yr 39.9 ]
2003…..40.9 kph [ 5yr 40.1 ]
2004…..40.6 kph [ 5yr 40.2 ]
2005…..41.7 kph [ 5yr 40.6 ]
2006…..40.8 kph [ 5yr 40.8 ]
2007…..39.2 kph [ 5yr 40.6 ]
2008…..40.5 kph [ 5yr 40.6 ]

For an average TDF distance of 3,500 km
at average 35.5 kph = 92.96 hours
at average 40.6 kph = 81.28 hours
So about 11.68 hours faster

Why is the tour faster?

Captain Havoc

5kph faster can be attributed to better machines, roads and a lot more science being involved. I don't think Eddy Merckx ever entered a wind-tunnel

DirkVoodoo

Didn't an old pro say that one of the biggest innovations in cycling has been the introduction of clipless pedals? This is like the Federer debate for me, he may be the most successful tennis pro of the modern era and certainly one of the greats, but can you really call him THE greatest ever? Unless you put him and the likes of Laver or Borg against each other in a totally level playing field, it is difficult to call him anything other than the greatest of his generation.

blorg

kincsem wrote: »

Lance's TDF wins were about 5kph faster than Eddy's

For an average TDF distance of 3,500 km
at average 35.5 kph = 92.96 hours
at average 40.6 kph = 81.28 hours
So about 11.68 hours faster

Why is the tour faster?

As Pat McQuaid would say, "the wind was different."

More seriously, Eddy was off killing himself the rest of the year winning other races while Lance spent his entire year preparing for the single goal of winning the Tour (again.) Although one of the first clean champions himself he also had the advantage of a highly doped up peloton to darft (including his own team if we are to be fair, although I don't think he realised it at the time.)

Greg LeMond rode the fastest stage in Tour history, I don't think he was on drugs? It's just not the American way.

It's an interesting way to look at it, in a way I guess you can see Lance as unwittingly promoting drug use in cycling during his tenure as it was the only way lesser men could even hope of rivalling him... effectively Lance forced his competitors to the doping lab through his own sheer dedication and brilliance. While Ullrich was off eating pies, Lance was getting cancer so as to shed the upper body weight that turned him into a champion so far ahead of everyone else there simply was no other option.

Junior

But at the end of the day Lance hasn't won an Irish League race so he's not that great either is he ?

DirkVoodoo

I can never tell if you are being serious or not when you talk about Lance :rolleyes:

blorg

Junior wrote: »

But at the end of the day Lance hasn't won an Irish League race so he's not that great either is he ?

Not yet Junior, but I suspect he will manage it when he comes to the Tour of Ireland, I think even the haters will grant him favourite status on that one!

@Dirk- it was Merckx who said that he reckoned clipless pedals were the greatest innovation since he retired.

Fun fact- Merckx set his Hour Record on a bike that weighed 5.5kg (the 6.8kg rule was not in place at the time.) He was a perfectionist who paid close attention to his equipment. Himself and Lance are friends incidentally, he used to be Lance's bike sponsor and it was Merckx who told pre-cancer Armstrong that he could win the Tour but he would have to shed weight to do it... Merckx also reckoned Armstrong would have had wider racing success beyond the Tour had he not been weakened by cancer. Who knows, he could have managed a few Giros and Vueltas and besides the eighth Tour I think that is the long term goal (the smart money has Lance dominating the Giro and Vuelta for a few years starting in 2010, this year was just for familiarisation and there would be a conflict of interest in him continuing to race in the TdF after he buys it.)

Chips Lovell

blorg wrote: »

Greg LeMond rode the fastest stage in Tour history...

Actually, that honour belongs to Mario Cipollini. 194km at an average speed of 50.355kph.

Chips Lovell

blorg wrote: »

...besides the eighth Tour I think that is the long term goal (the smart money has Lance dominating the Giro and Vuelta for a few years starting in 2010, this year was just for familiarisation and there would be a conflict of interest in him continuing to race in the TdF after he buys it.)

+1 I think Armstrong is going to dominate professional racing for at least the next decade.

Hermy

el tonto wrote: »

+1 I think Armstrong is going to dominate professional racing for at least the next decade.

That's not even funny.:eek:

blorg

el tonto wrote: »

Actually, that honour belongs to Mario Cipollini. 194km at an average speed of 50.355kph.

Mario Cipollini made up for a poor start to the Tour de
France when he won the fastest-ever regular stage in the race's history today. ... average speed of 50.355 kph. ...

Only in individual time-trials had the 50 kph barrier been broken before.

LeMond's stage was the afformentioned individual time trial where he managed 54.545 km/h.

http://www.letour.fr/2009/TDF/COURSE/docs/histo_09.pdf

Boardman subsequently went faster in a prologue and Discovery in a team time trial but LeMond has the fastest individual stage win.

petethedrummer

blorg wrote: »

Merckx also reckoned Armstrong would have had wider racing success beyond the Tour had he not been weakened by cancer.

So given before cancer, he was placing nowhere in the tours. He was then simultaneously weakend and strengthened to win loads of TDFs.

He also lost weight:

An additional factor in Lance's improvement over the years is that he has learned how to reduce his body weight and body fat by 10 pounds (5 kg) prior to each of his victories in the Tour de France. Therefore, over all his power per kg of body weight has increased a 18% while climbing-up the steep mountains in France. Lance is indeed a phenomenon.
http://www.edb.utexas.edu/coyle/armstrong.php

but didn't lose weight:

Now essentially, and Coyle admits this in the paper, he just guessed. He said, "Well, Lance Armstrong told me that he was 72 kg, so that's the body weight I'm going to divide these power measures by." Now, obviously, when you take your first measure and you say I'm going to use 79 kg here, and then you take the last one and you say I'm going to use 72 kg there, automatically you have an enormous difference.

And instead of that being a real difference, it was simply Coyle's guess at what his body weight was. Now, interestingly enough, during the proceedings, not just the allegation of misconduct but in the arbitration hearing itself, when people are sworn under oath, even Lance Armstrong himself acknowledged that his body weight had never dropped to 72 kg. So it was factually wrong.
http://nyvelocity.com/content/interviews/2009/michael-ashenden

He worked with Michele Ferrari:

Defending Tour de France champion Lance Armstrong has issued a written statement acknowledging that he has been working with Michele Ferrari
http://velonews.com/article/1094

but didn't discuss EPO:

Specifically, he has never discussed EPO with me and I have never used it.
http://velonews.com/article/1094

Was going to have is comeback monitored by a leading anti doping expert:

"I think this will be the most advanced anti-doping program in the world," Armstrong said.
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/olympics/2008/09/lance_armstrong_will_post_drug.html

but didn't have is comeback monitored by a leading anti-doping expert:

Armstrong and Catlin drop anti-doping programme
http://www.cyclingweekly.co.uk/news/latest/345213/armstrong-and-catlin-drop-anti-doping-programme.html

Felt sorry for those of us who didn't believe in cycling(?):

But finally the last thing I'll say to the people who don't believe in cycling, the cynics and the sceptics. I'm sorry for you. I'm sorry that you can’t dream big. I'm sorry you don't believe in miracles. But this is one hell of a race. This is a great sporting event and you should stand around and believe it. You should believe in these athletes, and you should believe in these people. I'll be a fan of the Tour de France for as long as I live. And there are no secrets - this is a hard sporting event and hard work wins it.

* Lance Armstrong, Podium farewell speech, Tour de France, July 24, 2005

but was surrounded by dopers that day:

1 LANCE ARMSTRONG (USA) *
2 IVAN BASSO (Italy)
3 JAN ULLRICH (Germany)
4 FRANCISCO MANCEBO (Spain)
5 ALEXANDRE VINOKOUROV (Kazakhstan)
6 LEVI LEIPHEIMER (USA)
7 MICHAEL RASMUSSEN (Denmark)
8 CADEL EVANS (Australia)
9 FLOYD LANDIS (USA)
10 OSCAR PEREIRO (Spain)

http://www.cyclingweekly.co.uk/news/latest/346046/tour-de-france-1999-2008.html

nitrogen

The drugs that the cyclists took in the 70s and 80s were completely different to EPO. EPO can make a race-horse out of a donkey.

The tour is faster because of one thing, the introduction of blood doping. Technology improves it slightly, but you must also look at the wattage outputs - human evolution doesn't jump that much in a decade.

Let's just clear this up, Lance has failed a test, he failed tests from his first tour win in 1999 that were re-tested in 2005.

nitrogen

el tonto wrote: »

+1 I think Armstrong is going to dominate professional racing for at least the next decade.

Maybe, but certainly not on the bike.