(Mod Post #61)The news we've all been waiting for....

tunney · 13-02-2012 10:09am

eoglyn wrote: »

Does anyone know the strength of the pro field for that race? afaik the guy who won it is preparing for london, and while both him and armstrong are undoubtedly savage competitors how does it reflect the standard at these events that a superannuated peddler can turn up and beat most of the full time triathlete pros with minutes to spare

No top tier 70.30 pros there.

mloc123 · 13-02-2012 10:14am

MrCreosote wrote: »

He'll get smashed in the longer distance anyway- his run will be exposed much more.

I wonder did his run fall apart or were the distances for the splits incorrect.

eoglyn · 13-02-2012 10:30am

No doubt they loved the media frenzy and that was evident in the coverage - to be fair i wouldn't have followed it as closely or at all if i wasn't curious to see how lance would do.

MrCreosote wrote: »

Oh, and the first three were not dope tested. Very unusual apparently.

I would have thought he'd be preparing his arm while running for the line if in fact he was clean in order to clear any doubt about it this time. But then that would defeat the purpose of random testing.

Is it a rule that one of the top three finishers get tested or does it just tend to generally happen? If the latter then i don't think you can read into it too much - randomness and all that.

No top tier 70.30 pros there

I can't see that being mentioned in much of the media coverage of the result

wideball · 13-02-2012 10:33am

"@rasmushenning: I thought it was practice to drug test Top3 and not just random from 4th and down? That was not the case at 70.3 Panama."

Rasmus Henning was 4th...

griffin100 · 13-02-2012 10:45am

What valid reason could there possibly be for not dope testing the top three but testing those who didn't win prize money? Are the WTC trying to find and suspend those athletes who are so crap that they cant win an event even when on drugs? I'd be a big fan of random dope testing of AG'ers but in conjunction with the testing of all those who win prize money.That said I don't think for a second that LA is currently juiced up, he's been lucky so far, why take the risk now?

MrCreosote · 13-02-2012 10:52am

The rumour is that his deal with WTC includes a no-dope-test-for-Lance clause. So the real question is, if you know you're not going to test positive, and you can boost your performance with a little juice, and you really really really want to do well...why wouldn't you? Hell, it'd be just like cycling in the 90s!

griffin100 · 13-02-2012 10:55am

MrCreosote wrote: »

The rumour is that his deal with WTC includes a no-dope-test-for-Lance clause. So the real question is, if you know you're not going to test positive, and you can boost your performance with a little juice, and you really really really want to do well...why wouldn't you? Hell, it'd be just like cycling in the 80's, 90s, 00's, 10's

FYP

pgibbo · 13-02-2012 1:34pm

tunney wrote: »

No top tier 70.30 pros there.

Who would you class as the top tier 70.3 pros? Lance aside, AFAIK it was Bevan Docherty's first 70.3 - I'm assuming it's highly unusual for someone to win their first outing at the distance if there was strength and depth in the field.

shotgunmcos · 13-02-2012 2:06pm

pgibbo wrote: »

Who would you class as the top tier 70.3 pros? Lance aside, AFAIK it was Bevan Docherty's first 70.3 - I'm assuming it's highly unusual for someone to win their first outing at the distance if there was strength and depth in the field.

It was his second. He did one about 10 years ago again clinching it on the run in the final kms. He has been an olympic medallist twice and races at the pinnacle of triathlon sport.

Not bad to finish just 40 odd seconds behind him after 4 hours racing. I recognised a few of those names in the top 10 too, enough to believe there is substance (excuse the pun) in that result

pgibbo · 13-02-2012 4:17pm

He's as competitive as ever - see here.

tunney · 13-02-2012 4:22pm

pgibbo wrote: »

He's as competitive as ever - see here.

Total fuvckin c0ck

mloc123 · 13-02-2012 4:39pm

Its pretty amazing what 18months of out of competition off the radar 'dedicated' training can do for you.

Last marathon he ran was around the 3hr mark?

tunney · 13-02-2012 4:42pm

mloc123 wrote: »

Its pretty amazing what 18months of out of competition off the radar 'dedicated' training can do for you.

Last marathon he ran was around the 3hr mark?

Man I love this band, had great craic at them in Slane. This is my favourite song of theirs

MrCreosote · 13-02-2012 8:23pm

Great comment from Docherty:

"It's quite an honour to see a seven-time Tour de France winner and someone you admire standing in second place below you on the podium. It's a highlight of my career."

Nice little dig.

nerraw1111 · 13-02-2012 9:59pm

According to Docherty, Armstong came up to him shortly after the race and apologised for not shaking hands. Said he might've been a bit wrecked after it with the effort and media frenzy.

Still not a bad effort if you take his performance at face value. I'd say a few triathletes might be worried. It'd be a kicker if you're top of your game and Armstrong beats you.

Chartsengrafs · 13-02-2012 10:03pm

mloc123 wrote: »

Its pretty amazing what 18months of out of competition off the radar 'dedicated' training can do for you.

Last marathon he ran was around the 3hr mark?

I remember his first attempt was around that. Pretty sure he did somewhere between 2.40 and 2.50 at some stage since though.

Chartsengrafs · 13-02-2012 10:06pm

Also I think this is being blown out of proportion, I watched the last five minutes last night, he ran by Docherty alright but he looked pretty wrecked. I didn't notice it as a 'snub', he just seemed happy to be finished. Was quite surprised when I read reports today.
And I ain't no L.A. fan. Just find this a bit sensationalist. Unless there's something else I missed.

onimpulse · 13-02-2012 11:10pm

kennyb3 wrote: »

Oh dear. i ll say no more for fear of being banned. Open your eyes and mind.

Would you care to expand on that and perhaps explain your point of view or can you?

hf4z6sqo7vjngi · 13-02-2012 11:22pm

wideball wrote: »

"@rasmushenning: I thought it was practice to drug test Top3 and not just random from 4th and down? That was not the case at 70.3 Panama."

Rasmus Henning was 4th...

If i was Henning i would be raging. Cannot believe none of the top 3 were tested, it just brings more question marks about L.A being legit and WTC doing there usual media whoring around him....anything to sell more entries.

Abhainn · 14-02-2012 12:13am

Basster wrote: »

I remember his first attempt was around that. Pretty sure he did somewhere between 2.40 and 2.50 at some stage since though.

He was paced to a 2:59 in New York in 2006 by the great Hicham El Guerrouj and said in a post interview "For the level of condition that I have now, that was without a doubt the hardest physical thing I have ever done." Hmmmm :rolleyes:

12 months later he came home in 2:46

Rawhead · 14-02-2012 11:02am

I can understand that people are anti Armstrong because of his dubious doping record but I have to ask, what the do people think he is taking?
There seems to be an attitude here that runs like "ah sure if I was taking the drugs he's taking I'd be winning Kona, the TDF or running a sub 2:10 marathon.

NO YOU WOULD NOT.

LA has a natural ability that puts him beyond 99.9999% of the population and that cannot be manufactured. Whatever crap he's taking (and I don't doubt he was or still is on something) would have to be plutonium. You cannot make a F1 car out of a ford mondeo just by putting jet fuel in the tank. The way people are talking here and putting those stupid roll eyes on comments you would think it was Johnny Vegas that just finished second in a HIM.

wideball · 14-02-2012 11:26am

True Armstrong is a great athlete but the point is so are all the athletes at the top level. There is very little in the difference between all the top level athletes in terms of fitness, etc. So being the best involves the small edges (mentality, equipment, altitude training, etc)

The platform/profile that Armstrong has now is built on 7 TDF wins which if you read all the material available are even more super human for an athlete to have achieved when all his major rivals at the time and previous TDF winners have been confirmed dopers. All this by an athlete you was never a 3 week stage rider pre cancer. So what changed??

I doubt he is doping in tri at this stage of his career as to do so would be a big gamble for his legacy. He is a talented athlete but there are/were plenty with the same talent but none with so high a public profile built on dubious achievements.

griffin100 · 14-02-2012 11:36am

LA has a natural ability that puts him beyond 99.9999% of the population and that cannot be manufactured. Whatever crap he's taking (and I don't doubt he was or still is on something) would have to be plutonium. You cannot make a F1 car out of a ford mondeo just by putting jet fuel in the tank. The way people are talking here and putting those stupid roll eyes on comments you would think it was Johnny Vegas that just finished second in a HIM.

LA is a phenomenal athlete, as is / was Sean Kelly, Alberto Contador, Yan Ulrich, Marco Pantani, Ivan Basso, Ben Johnson, Floyd Landis, etc etc etc. Drugs don't make you a great athlete, but they do give guys like LA that extra 1% that they need to beat the other top athletes in their sports.

I can understand that people are anti Armstrong because of his dubious doping record but I have to ask, what the do people think he is taking?
There seems to be an attitude here that runs like "ah sure if I was taking the drugs he's taking I'd be winning Kona, the TDF or running a sub 2:10 marathon.

NO YOU WOULD NOT.

I have to disagree, I don't see that attitude anywhere. EPO for example gives a signification boost to performance, especially in non elite athletes. It can take a decent AG IM'er to Kona, or a 2.45 marathon runner closer to 2.30. It won't make a donkey a racehorse, but it and similar drugs can allow you to reach targets like qualification for some races, world championships in the case of triathlon, etc. and some people seem to think it's ok to achieve your targets useing PED's. For me not testing the top 3 placings in any event cheapens the sport, what incentive is there for a mid ranking athlete to stay clean now when they know that making a podium means you wont get a test whilst coming 4th or lower means that you might.

TheRoadRunner · 14-02-2012 11:36am

He's a talented, egotistical athlete with a dodgy drugs past.

You can't say a bad word or question his integrity to Joe soap as they see him as Mr Cancer survivor. It's great he can raise money for a worthy cause but he always seems to make it about himself.

tunney · 14-02-2012 12:13pm

From Facebook:

Torbjørn Sindballe
Can we welcome Lance to Tri?

Yesterday I was carried away by the spectacular return of Lance Armstrong to triathlon, however his return sparked many thoughts over the night. How can we welcome someone who is more less the only one of his era to not confront the cycling dope-culture?

No doubt he is a phenomenal athlete in all aspects of the game, physically and mentally, but how much of that is shaped by his legal (due to testicular cancer) testosterone supplementation and most likely years of PED use that may have enabled him to race and train his physique much harder than any pro triathlete in the field?

No doubt his return from cancer and creation of the livestrong foundation are spectacular achievements, but is the foundation spending too much promoting Armstrong and too little actually fighting cancer as an outside mag reporter suggested?

No doubt he has never failed a test, but how then could he ride and beat guys(i.e Basso, Ulrich, and more) who have all admitted using PEDS that boost performance by some 10% ? (that is 40-50 watts at their TT speed = athletes on a different planet!)

This is just a few of the unanswered questions defining the grey shadow trailing Armstrong – it would suit him to confront his past with total transparency like a true champion before embarking on a new journey!

shotgunmcos · 14-02-2012 12:28pm

TheRoadRunner wrote: »

He's a talented, egotistical athlete with a dodgy drugs past.

You can't say a bad word or question his integrity to Joe soap as they see him as Mr Cancer survivor. It's great he can raise money for a worthy cause but he always seems to make it about himself.

He is the brand and the more attention he gets, the more the brand does etc...

The egotistical nature of athetes is par for the course. Not even limited to the pinnacle of sport. The confidence and self belief can be misinterpreted.

My point is that there is a huge selfishness associated with your own goal/mission/agenda. I listened to Ger Hartman give a speech recently that made my stomach churn it was so narcissistic but I understood why.

Bad form IMO not testing the top 3.

Rawhead · 14-02-2012 1:46pm

I cannot understand this surprise at his self promotion, isn't self confidence/arrogance a trait of the type A personality that all elite athletes posses. I agree that the biggest question mark over his career is the fact that all those around him are admitting or have been caught doping and yet he beat them year after year. <<Snip>>
This would lead me to believe that the man would be mentally ill to risk everything now for a 70.3 in Panama. <<Snip>>
If we are to believe that he is clean now and that seems to be the general consensus here, then the fact that at 40 years of age he can come in and get a result like that must be a major kick in the town halls for the established pro's.

ThisRegard · 14-02-2012 1:52pm

Rawhead wrote: »

e has managed to evade all the doping agencies

That's the thing, he hasn't if some people are to be believed. <<Snip>>

TheRoadRunner · 14-02-2012 1:59pm

Rawhead wrote: »

I cannot understand this surprise at his self promotion, isn't self confidence/arrogance a trait of the type A personality that all elite athletes posses.

No, not all. Just the pricks. Many humble elite athletes out there. Actually probably more humble athletes than pricks.

I was just wondering about how he would get on in a fully loaded iron man field. His running is pretty average if not poor I'm guessing compared to the top guys. 2.45 is his best marathon IIRC. I know jack **** about swimming so won't even pretend to know how strong he is at this. Obviously he will be an animal on the bike but what sort of advantage could he gain if he gave it welly?

mloc123 · 14-02-2012 2:06pm

If he was tested he would have passed, the guy is a pro at this stage and I know UCI were not exactly proactive in testing but he knows enough and has the right people around him.

(Mod Post #61)The news we've all been waiting for....

Comments