Armstrong sprints to the finish to obliterate his rivals in time trial

[Iceburg]

Stage 16: Bourg d'Oisans to L'Alpe d'Huez - 15.5km (time trial)

Armstrong sprints to the finish to obliterate his rivals, winning the stage by over a minute as the only man to finish inside 40 minutes.


Final positions:
1. L Armstrong (US) 39:41.47
2. J Ullrich (Ger) at 1:01
3. A Kloden (Ger) at 1:41
4. J Azevedo (Por) at 1:45
5. S Gonzalez (Spa) at 2:11

more ... http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/other_sports/cycling/3912915.stm

[geek tragedy]

1. He actually passed the guy in second place, who had a

two minute head start.

Awesome.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

2. Yeah... count me among the Armstrong skeptics.

Sunday's ESPN "Outside the Lines" didn't help me shake doubts either.

[LeftHander]

5. Don't think that just because he won he's doped...

Armstrong has probably the best team ever (again) in the Tour.

He has ridden a very smart race and was well rested coming into the Alps. He rode on a teammate's wheel the entire day beforee the rest day after except during the sprint to the finish on Tuesday.

Ullirch attacked and spent valuable energy that kept him from beating Armstrong today.

So before you attack the man at least celebrate his victory. When irrefutable proof of any doping during the tour then attack away.

[central scrutinizer]

14. As great as Lance is...

I still feel Greg LeMond's victory in 1989 was a greater accomplishment. He had a very weak team that was unable to protect him ffrom attacks and often couldn't even keep up. He had to ride at the front of the peloton every day and chase down rivals by himself. Of course he was aided by the macho attitude of Laurent Fignon who wanted his long hair to blow in the breeze on the final time trial while Greg wore an aero helmet with aero bars and pushed one of the biggest gears ever seen in the race and averaged 34 miles per hour on the 15.2 mile final time trial. And this was two years after he had shotgun pellets removed from his heart muscle after a hunting accident.

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/cycling/1998/tourdefrance/tourdefrancearchive/tour2.html

[HuckleB]

31. Yeah, that was an amazing Tour.

Alas, Lemond's personality can't match many of the great champions still alive. His jealousy of no longer being known as the pre-eminent US cyclist has turned ugly. Meanwhile Merckx, Hinault, Indurain and others show what being a true champion is all about with their hospitality and encouragement of today's riders, including Armstrong.

[Ameridansk]

96. Gimme a break!

"Armstrong has probably the best team ever (again) in the Tour."

What the hell are basing that on? You mean the best team in the 6 years you've been interested in the tour?

The greatest team ever would be more like Telekom in '97 for example.
They win the GC (Ullrich), youth (Ullrich), points (Zabel), and team competitions.

No US Postal team has ever won the team competition!

If Armstrong is the greatest rider of all time, how fucking hard is it for his team?

Doing what US Postal has done in this tour is what absolutely every team does for their leader.

Armstrong was simply a much better than average rider before he got cancer (when he should have been at his best).

Of course he was on drugs after the cancer when he returned to the tour. All cancer survivors are on drugs. The story was so good, and he brought so much new attention to the tour (like you for example) that nobody would bust him for drugs. Everyone knew he needed them! Ever since, no one dares bring down the wrath of America for busting him. Hell, America's sudden and overwhelming interest in the tour is making EVERYONE richer.

Americans NEVER get busted for performance enhancing drugs when they are on top of the world. Carl Lewis, Tim Montgomery, Marion Jones, FloJo to name a few. And in a sport where so many are proven to be on drugs like cycling, the winners are just the ones who don't get caught. Like Pantani and Ullrich for example.

It's more than understandable why he wasn't busted in his first year back, even when he won. What a great story it was.

[HuckleB]

99. Give me a break, indeed.

You know full well that there is a big difference between an all-star team that wins several of the jerseys and/or wins the team competition and a team that focuses solely on supporting its leader to win the GC. You are comparing apples and oranges, and, while it is always ridiculous to claim somebody as the greatest ever or some team as the greatest ever, you haven't done anything to argue against the claim that the US Postal may be the greatest support team ever. I'm not making that claim, and I don't think anyone would make that claim of the first couple of years that Armstrong won, either.

----------

As for the rest, obviously you believe that everyone who wins anything uses drugs. I guess everyone who is good at the job they do must cheat then, too.

Whatever.

[Ameridansk]

100. How much support does he need?

Now the claim is that it's the greatest support team. Well since there have been nearly 100 Tours de France, and each time a rider wins, his team supports him, wouldn't the greatest support team be the team that helps a mediocre rider, or a young inexperienced rider (like Ullrich) be the greatest? Or the team that helps a veteran 5-time winner of the Tour do it again?

My choice of the 1997 Telekom team is just one RECENT example of a team who has a very legitimate claim to the greatest team title.

But how about the 1973 Bic team that supported Luis Ocana, a Spaniard who never finished in the top three before or after, to victory?

---------------

As for the rest, I'm quite sure those winners before the age of EPO and other drugs won without them. Since then though, it's far less likely.

And the idea that Armstrong had drugs coursing through him during his first win is almost unquestionable. To ride a Tour de France hard enough to win without drugs, would have been mighty dangerous. Never mind the fact that steroids are a regular part of therapy of testicular cancer survivors, especially when they have a testicle removed (as in Lance's case).

[HuckleB]

102. I didn't make any such claim.

So nice argument against a phantom poster, dude. You really ought to read the posts you rant against lest you look a bit silly, as you do now.

And thanks for clarifying that you believe that everyone in the world is big fat cheater or would be if they could be.

By the way, nice selective history there. If you actually followed Tour history, you'd know how close Ocana was to being there, and you'd know that the only reason he did win in 1973 is that Merckx didn't race in the Tour that year. I bet you don't know why he didn't race in the Tour either.

[Ameridansk]

101. Who'd have thunk Carl Lewis?

http://sport.guardian.co.uk/athletics/story/0,10082,939124,00.html

<SNIP>
Lewis thrown off his pedestal as American credibility hits new low

Nine-time gold medallist joins sprinting's hall of shame

Duncan Mackay
Friday April 18, 2003
The Guardian

The shocking revelation that Carl Lewis won two Olympic gold medals in 1988 when he should have been serving a drugs ban means the first three men who crossed the line in that 100 metres race in Seoul have now been implicated in major doping scandals.
<SNIP>


Note that of the top four in that race only the non-Americans were busted.

[HuckleB]

103. Ah, a conspiracy theorist?

This has nothing to do with Armstrong, and yet you post is as, what?, some sort of proof of something? And then you offer up a bizarro world conspiracy on top of that?

You crack me up.

:)

[joeybee12]

6. A lot of the rumors about Lance can be traced to pure jealousy...

...I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt since the rumors themselves are so shaky.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

9. I give most steroid rumors the benefit of the doubt

There's a little bit more than doubt to this case in a sport that has a notorious history for doping. I'm not saying he did or he didn't, but I'm very skeptical.

[The Stranger]

17. Great. Thanks for the skepticism.

This isn't a case where someone came from well back in the pack of world rankings to dominate a sport or an event, like Ben Johnson, or even the allegations surrounding the oddly burgeoning musculature of Barry Bonds. No, Armstrong has won the Tour five times already, and only now -- now that he is poised to dominate the sport's very history -- these allegations surface. What nice timing.

Talk about being skeptical.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

18. Uhm, no, your base assertion is wrong

People allege that he started using steriods BEFORE he started winning Tours de France.

[rastignac5]

20. This reminds me of Fox News attribution

"People have said... blah blah blah."

[The Stranger]

23. I love it when people tell me I am wrong.

People allege that he started using steriods BEFORE he started winning Tours de France.

The allegations to which you refer arose AFTER he finished winning Tours de France. L.A. Confidentiel: Les secrets de Lance Armstrong was published in June 2004, after he had already won five.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

24. Actually, you're still wrong.

Just because the BOOK was published in June 2004, that doesn't mean they're alleging he started taking them in June 2004. Nice try though. :hi:

[rastignac5]

27. How about providing us links to all these reputable pre-1999 doping

allegations?

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

34. I didn't weigh in on guilt or innocence

I said I'm skeptical, meaning I do not know for sure. However, I did cite Sunday's episode of ESPN's "Outside the Lines", if you happened to read the posts a few pixels up.

[The Stranger]

29. You still don't get it, do you?

Just because the BOOK was published in June 2004, that doesn't mean they're alleging he started taking them in June 2004. Nice try though.

It doesn't matter the time period that they now allege he started taking them. The fact is that they didn't make such allegations and publish books about this until after he had established himself as a world-class cyclist, in fact, after winning several Tours de France.

THIS is what makes us skeptical about the allegations.

I don't know how to make this any simpler.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

33. I'm not sure how THIS makes it any simpler...

but unless YOU'VE lived in a cave, these allegations are nowhere near new.

On edit: Here's a link to an article which states that a steroid probe on Lance Armstrong began back in November 2000. http://www.usatoday.com/sports/cycling/2002-09-02-armstrong-probe_x.htm

Will you finally concede the point?

[The Stranger]

44. I'm glad you're now able to distinguish between WHEN allegations are

made and what the subject matter of the allegations is.

Now, then. The article you linked states: "After 21 months of inquiries, investigators found no proof that the U.S. Postal Service team used banned substances during the 2000 Tour de France, the official told The Associated Press on Monday, speaking on customary condition of anonymity."

Apparently, after he had already won two Tours de France, an inquiry was begun. They found "no proof that the U.S. Postal Service team used banned substances." (I would have been skeptical back then.) Now, however, after he has won three more Tours de France, someone publishes a book about it, and everyone propagates pathetic innuendo because he is going to win a sixth Tour.

The fact remains that Armstrong, who had already won two Tours de France when people began making doping allegations, was at the best in the sport -- even in November of 2000 -- and, now that he is poised to make cycling history by winning a record sixth straight Tour, anonymous internet posters are making wholly unfounded, vaguely implied allegations, with statements like: "I'm not saying he did or he didn't, but I'm very skeptical."

Yes, indeed, talk about being skeptical.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

56. Time out

I didn't present said article as a reason to be skeptical. I linked said article to prove you completely and totally wrong that the speculation of Lance Armstrong using steroids is not a recent or new development. Once again, you fail to read my post properly. And you still haven't admitted to being wrong on that point.

Once again, I point to ESPN's July 18th edition of "Outside the Lines" as the reason I am skeptical. It re-runs throughout the week, so since you're so hell bent on saying there's absolutely no reason to be skeptical, why don't you take a little time and watch it?

[alfredo]

48. Lance has had to fight these allegations for years.

He has passed all the tests, and never has had a positive.

What makes him different is his ability to endure the pain, his superior conditioning, and riding style.

He has also based his whole season around the tour. He trains year round, riding the mountains of France. He knows the roads like the back of his hand. Most riders do not study the stages like he does.

Ullrich lost last year because he did not study the time trial course and didn't know the dangerous sections. If he had studied the course, he would have known to go easy on some corners. It was one bad corner that cost him the race.

[geek tragedy]

49. He also has the freakishly large heart and lungs ala Secretariat.

Having superhuman heart and lung capacity probably gives him an advantage similar to those who dope.

[alfredo]

50. So did Eddy Merckx. Like Lance, he was a fierce competitor

Remember, they called him "The Cannibal." A lot of people ruined their health by trying to keep up with him.

I am not sure if he was drug free, but I do know he had an addiction to Godiva chocolates.

One of my friends knew him, rode with him, and downed a few cold ones with him. In the words of the famed coach Eddie B, "Beer good for coaches." And you always follow recommendations from your head coach.
http://www.eddiebcyclingworld.com/

[geek tragedy]

53. I believe Big Mig had similarly freakish attributes

which balanced his unusual size.

Some guys are just born to win the TdF.

[alfredo]

59. Eddy's chest was huge. Many of these cyclist have a pulse rate in the

30's or 40's.

[toopers]

98. As well, his muscle structure in his legs are unusual.

Apparently he has much longer muscles than the average human. This muscle structure combined with his heart and lung capacity seem to make him the ideal person for the sport.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

57. Thank you

This poster doesn't seem to understand that these allegations aren't new - they've been with him since his first Tour de France win.

[alfredo]

62. Very few top cyclist escape the

suspicion. It just goes with the territory.

[LiberalFighter]

63. There was a mention in USA Today about times

Meaning the split times of the other riders.

In Track and Field... any event involving 1/4 mile or more times are kept for each lap. Knowing your times helps to pace for the win.

Lance had the fortune of being last and having lap or stage times relayed to him so that he would have an idea what would be needed to win or stay competitive. THAT may have been part of his strategy. That is staying close in the earlier stages and then taking the lead in the last stage before the today's race.

Lance has enough experience and knowledge to know how to put his race together. He has an excellent training regiment and the other competitors may have too but it also takes the right frame of mind to stay focus and know how to handle different situations.

[Jane Austin]

37. What Cancer victim would use Steroids?

Unless he was suicidal?

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

41. A overly competitive one

Kinda like Lance Armstrong, if you've read any biographies on him. This guy nearly drove away half his family at one point due to overcompetitiveness.

[Owsley]

47. Not to harp or anything...

...but I'd just like to remind you that the allegations are not that he used steroids, but that he was using some kind of EPO-like substance. See my post below for the details.

Steroids are not the same thing as EPO...very different actually.

Owsley

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

58. You make a good point

And I apologize for any incorrections I might have made in talking about steroids.

[Throckmorton]

80. Steroids are frequently part of cancer treatment

Nothing like a chemo patient with roid rage.

[SoCalDem]

89. I do not follow the sport or him, but I can tell you this...

When someone has had to take the massive doses of chemo that he had to take, the LAST thing that a person like him would do , is to put more drugs into his recovered body...

I have a grown son who had major medical issues as a kid, and he had to take so much medicine back then...he hardly takes aspirin these days..

For Lance to have been given his life back the way he was, I really doubt that he would risk his LIFE over bicycle racing..

[HuckleB]

30. So every 100 meter Olympic champion, every NFL MVP...

every MLB home run champion... most likely doped, too? By your method of presumption of guilt for Armstrong, that must be the case. No?

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

35. No, actually, that's not what I'm saying at all

I said I usually give the player the benefit of the doubt. In Armstrong's case, the evidence and the circumstances make me very skeptical. Heaven forbid you carefully read the text of my post!

[HuckleB]

39. Baloney.

Now you're playing games. You used a situation to bash Armstrong, but you're unwilling to use the same situation elsewhere. The circumstances for those other athletes are no different. So..., guess what? Now your "skepticism" is meaningless, as we already knew.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

40. No, the circumstances aren't.

And the only pointless argument here is yours. If you'd actually read my previous posts, you'll actually see what I mean by the circumstances being different. Barry Bonds did not overcome cancer. Sammy Sosa did not overcome cancer. Neither did any of the other "suspected" athletes. But you're probably too busy being pissed off for no good reason to actually take a few moments to read what you're bashing before you do it, huh?

[HuckleB]

51. What planet are you living on?

Cancer's got jack to do with it. You can keep up your act. I don't care. But it's clear that you're here to bash without any proof, using a justification that does apply to all those others. You don't like me pointing that out?

So sorry.

:eyes:

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

55. Right....

You obviously haven't seen cancer close up and personal. And I still never said he was guilty, as I don't claim to know everything, nor have I ever claimed to have evidence, but I am suspicious of him. That's my opinion. I didn't go on any rants. I didn't even make much of a statement initially, outside of the fact that I am skeptical of him. So you're not pointing out anything, except perhaps that you're getting pissed off for absolutely no reason at all. Oh, and the fact that you're not good at reading people's posts.

[HuckleB]

71. You haven't got a clue, have you?

I'm a nurse practitioner, with two masters degrees in nursing. It's time for your suppositional baloney to fade away. You have no basis for anything that you've offered today. You simply came here to bash, which basically makes you a troll.

Goodbye and good riddance.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

76. No? How bout my parents both having had cancer?

I don't give a shit who you are and what you do. I've seen cancer first hand, and the results are NOT pretty. I don't know where the fuck you've been, but you must have blinders on if you're really a nurse and don't know that.

Further, I question your legitimacy if you can suggest that there are absolutely, positively no questions in your mind that after an average (at best) professional cyclist has cancer that he can go on to become the most dominant man in the history of his sport, even after he's been tested positive for masking agents and has been found to have disposed of syringes containing performance enhancing hormones. Mario Lemieux had cancer, and though he already was one of the premier players in hockey history, he still wasn't as good after as he was before. Further, the author isn't exactly a tabloid reporter. He's a well respected, long-time cycling journalist.

So I've got Lance's history, his own non-disavowed actions in dumping dirty syringes, his own positive tests for masking agents, a sport with an extremely dirty history of doping, other premier athletes overcoming similar illnesses without being able to far surpass or even match their prior accomplishments, and first hand knowledge of what cancer does to a person's body on my side, and I still don't say anything more than the fact that I'm skeptical. How in the hell AREN'T you at least a little bit suspicious given all of that?!? Are you paying attention in the least? Or are you in jingoistic denial?

However, I STILL say that if you could actually take the time and read, I didn't bash anyone until you just now got me really pissed off. I said I'm skeptical. Do you need me to define "skeptical" for you? I would, but you probably would just ignore it like you have 95% of the content in my previous posts. If I wanted to bash, I could've done so at much greater length and in much more definitive terms. So I contend that YOU are being the troll here, just trying to piss me off for no apparent reason. Congrats, it worked.

[HuckleB]

79. All you've done is spread rumors.

And then get bizarrely obstinate about those rumors. That's called trolling, my friend. Like it or not.

I'm sorry to hear about your parents, but that doesn't excuse your behavior here, and it doesn't justify your decision to spread rumors without cause. As for your aspersions upon me, it only shows how ridiculous your posts here are. You've got no idea about what I know, yet you pretend to know anyway. This is exactly what you chose to do in regard to Armstrong. Looks like it's time to go work for a tabloid, so you can make things up about other people for a living.

You are very good at justifying your behavior to yourself. Sorry that I don't buy the justifications.

:eyes:

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

84. Tabloids you say?

Well, the book was written by cycling expert Pierre Ballester and London Times cycling reporter David Walsh (British Sportswriter of the Year 2003). Those aren't tabloid writers by any stretch of the imagination, and they don't seem to think they're reporting merely rumors. Their sources are his soigneur, his former teammates, and former Tour de France winner Greg LeMond, all of which are rather close sources to him. I'm not sure they think they're reporting merely rumors. And you've done nothing to debunk any of the "rumors" I stated in my last post, except to throw yourself further into the pangs of denial. And yet I'm the troll. Talk about the pot calling the kettle black!

As for my behavior here, I didn't start attacking anyone. Might I remind you that YOU are the one who initiated this fight. YOU are the one making false claims about other people's posts. YOU are the one who can't comprehend the term "skeptical" and seems to believe that there is no shade of grey between believing someone is 100% guilty and 100% innocent. So you can have fun on my ignore list from now on, because YOU have done nothing but ignorantly slander for absolutely no reason in the least, and I haven't the time to waste on such childishness. In your own words, good bye and good riddance.

[HuckleB]

85. Yeah, tabloids. Tabloids of the worst kind.

I know the story better than you, so it's time for you to get off your high horse and stop repeating the same old shit that we've all read a thousand times. I (and others) called you on your rumor mongering, and you don't like it. Tough. Keep justifiying it to yourself all you want. You're still just spreading rumors. Using the rumors of someone who is out to make a buck off of someone else's name as justification for your decision to spread the same rumors doesn't help.

Sorry.

Heck, your post shows just how tabloidish these claims are, but you can't see that, can you? Or rather you don't want to admit to it, because you are trolling and that would end all the fun for you.

Goodbye. I've got no more time to waste on your rumormongering and nonsense.

[erpowers]

105. Actually I Think You are Wrong

The difference between Armstrong and the other athletes is that they did not win the awards in their respective sports five or six years in a row. Barry Bonds did not hit 73 home runs every year for five or six years. I do not know of any athlete that won the MVP award in their sport for six consecutive years. I do not think there has ever been a football player who won the scoring record or any running back that won the rushing record for five or six years in a row. There is no team as far as I know that won the title in any sport six times in a row. The most I have seen is three times, mainly in basketball and that is considered a rarity. Some players have rushed for a certain number of yard each year, some players have hit a certain number home runs each year, some athletes have gone to five or six olympics but none of these have won the superbowl, the world series, or olmympic gold each year. So I think there is a difference between the athletes in other sports and Lance Armstrong. He is probably the only athlete in a extremely hard sport that has won it five or six years in a row.

[HuckleB]

107. Do you know anything about cycling?

Armstrong focuses his whole season on one race, that doesn't mean he would win the awards you talk about. In fact, he is not rated as the number one rider in the world rankings, not even close, because he does not waste energy on other races. His domination in the Tour de France is because he focuses solely on the Tour. Your comparisons are worthless and goofy. No offense. But give me a break.

[Seabiscuit]

25. True. Lance Armstrong

isn't using "doping". He has a physically larger heart than any of his competitors, which really helps him on the hills.

[alfredo]

60. His technique is different from other riders.

His focus and dedication plays into his success.

[Scairp]

52. Lance isn't doping

I'm sick of this. The man is just strong, plain and simple, and I don't take criticism of Lance very well AT ALL. So, unless you want a tongue-lashing from me, don't falsely accuse Lance of doping. He is doing it all on his own.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

64. Tongue lash all you want

There's more than enough reason to be skeptical, and I'm entitled that right, as last I checked, Bush hasn't changed that yet.

[BiggJawn]

66. Indeed, you have that right.

And we retain the right to express the opinion that you're FOS.

And my opinion is that I'm sorry you may never get that sweet satisfaction of telling us Lance supporters "Told Ya So..."

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

67. You're entitled to that right

Even if it's completely and totally closed to all possibilities.

And I don't have anything to say "told ya so" over. If you could read instead of calling people "full of shit", all I've said is I'm skeptical. Which means the most I'd say if Lance is ever proven to be guilty would be, "Eh, I'm not surprised." But I guess your mind is too closed to think of such a thing.

[Name removed]

81. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Owsley]

83. Unreliable Testing

"The man has NEVER TESTED POSITIVE FOR ANYTHING ILLEGAL."

Just want to throw my two cents in here. I'd generally be careful with this statement as drug testing in any sport, cycling included, is, to a certain extent, unreliable. The most recent case is that of David Millar, a British cyclist who specialized in individual time trials. He was recently suspended from this year's tour after admitting to using EPO for about four years. How many times did he test positive? Zero.

Please do not take my comment as an accusation toward Armstrong. I am merely saying that your statement is not ironclad proof that he isn't doping. In defense of Armstrong, he is innocent until proven guilty, and thus far nobody has produced enough evidence to convince me that he is doping.

Owsley

[Scairp]

88. Hmmm...

Guess you quoted me before my post was deleted. Not sure why it was. I think defending Lance is a positive thing, and not the negativity that some have shown here, ala the GOP.

As for Millar, not being a five time Tour champion, I highly doubt that he has been under the kind of scrutiny that Lance has had to endure for the past 5 or 6 years. I saw an interview with a woman who has written a book about Lance and has followed his career for years (her name escapes me at the moment) and she says she believes that Lance does not dope. His word is good enough for me, but that only gives his denials even more credence.

The French media are so obsessed with proving that Lance is doping that he now fears being framed. Allegedly, two reporters tried to gain illegal access to his hotel room one day last week after he had left for the day to race. They are the ones who continue to drive these unfounded rumors about Lance, they so resent the fact that this American has come over and won "their" race five straight times. There is nothing to this.

[HuckleB]

91. Yeah.

I don't remember there being a problem with your post.

Strange.

I do think we should be careful about painting a generalization that everyone in the "French media" is working toward bringing Armstrong down by hook or by crook. It's a few among the many. Yesterday, everyone jumped to conclusions that it was French fans who spit at Armstrong on the Alpe, yet it turned out that it was drunk Germans. Alas, cliches and generalized rumors of any type can do damage to innocent people.

[Scairp]

92. Yes the Germans are po'd

They should have been spitting on Ullrich. He's the one not in shape for this Tour. Has naught to do with Lance. But the French media do keep this doping controversy alive, especially Le Monde (the paper, not the man). Lance has a smart mouth at times, and they are very hostile toward him. And I do think that there is an element in the French media who might go to any lengths to discredit Lance.

On another note, am I the only one who believes the French authorities should do more to keep the spectators from interfering in the race? I thought for sure they would tighten up security after Lance got pulled off of his bike by one last year. But so far they haven't. That spitting incident yesterday only highlights what a problem this is and they need to do something before someone gets hurt.

[HuckleB]

95. No, that's part of the race.

It won't change. Armstrong knows it, and, as he has said, the incident last year was his fault, not the spectator's.

Heck, the only reason Eddy Merckx didn't win six is because a spectator took him down with a vicious punch to the kidneys in 1975. And the only reason he didn't win seven is that incident and the fact that he chose not to race in the Tour in 1973, mostly because he knew that the possibility of an ugly incident was becoming more likely as his domination of the Tour continued. In other words, the spitting and name calling of today are quite tame by comparison.

[Name removed]

86. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Seabiscuit]

82. You're right.

That obsessive poster is FOS. He argues by innuendo from his "I'm skeptical" premise, as if that were a *neutral* premise, which it is not, by definition. What he really is saying, despite *all* the evidence to the contrary, is "I wouldn't be surprised if Armstrong fails a doping test soon". Forget the fact that Armstrong's tested negative on countless tests for years and years. Forget the fact that he has an unusually large heart, giving him a competitive advantage in the Pyrenees and the Alps, where he excels. Forget the fact that he is a superb highly trained and highly competitive athlete, Forget the fact that there's not one iota of evidence to support an "I'm skeptical" point of view. This dweeb's just trolling for argument's sake. He's like a stooge in a call-in show deliberately set up to irritate callers to the show. It's all a phony act.

Ignore him.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

87. A phony act?

You're telling me that one can't possibly have no opinion on any given issue? That's pretty fucked up logic there. Apparently, everything in life is either black and white. Even further, by your logic, unless they're of the same opinion of you, they are full of shit. And there is plenty of evidence to support a suspicion, all of which you appear to be blind of. You're telling me it's 100% unquestionable that the syringes of hormone his trainers were caught disposing of, hundreds of miles away no less, could've been used for anything other than what Lance says it was? Please. That's naivety at it's finest.

You are entitled to believe whatever you want, and you're entitled to have any opinion of me that you wish. I personally could give a shit less. Just remember that the only thing I said was that I was skeptical until jackasses like yourself couldn't let me have my own opinion without attacking it for no reason. G'bye now!

[Name removed]

93. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

94. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

97. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[lottie244]

61. Did he pass the designer drug test?

Wonder why no one has questioned his use of substances that mask steroid detection?

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

65. People are putting their fingers in their ears and screaming

LA LALALALALALALA LAAAA! I CAN'T HEAR YOU!!!!

[HuckleB]

73. Do you know anything about the expansiveness of testing in cycling?

I didn't think so.

[Scairp]

90. Because

The testing has gotten so sophisticated that I don't believe there is a drug that can be used to hide steroids. Lance isn't using steroids anyway. I'd bet my life on it. And if he ever did use steroids at all in his life it was during his cancer fight. Cancer patients often are put on steroids, but I didn't see any of the usual bloating that comes with prescription steroids during the time he was ill. He was very thin and so sick, I really didn't think he would live. Having had personal experience with a close relative who had his type of cancer, I should know. That's why I take considerable exception to this slur on his talent and strength. He deserves better from his own countrymen and women.

[Fovea]

3. That was just about the most thrilling time trial I have ever watched.

Lance Armstrong was strong, fast and masterful.
Hell, so was Jan, but Lance blew him away.

Note Jose Azevedo's time is phenominally fast, for someone who I never figured for a TT specialist. And Kloden has been having a very good season as well.

[BiggJawn]

11. Jose is in the top-ten GC...

#6, I think....
2 Posties on the podium in Paris?

[truthisfreedom]

4. just like Kerry and Edwards... Armstrong is simply demoralizing his

opponents in every way. what a monster!

[rastignac5]

7. Making Texas proud

[Jane Austin]

38. And God knows we need something after sending

Dubya, The Hammer, and the Box Turtle guy to Washington.

[rastignac5]

68. LaLaLaLaLaLa! - I can't HEAR you! n/t

[GregW]

8. It's still hard to believe that Pantini won this stage

in 37 minutes. What a (dead) climbing monster!

[Poiuyt]

13. Well, Pantini WAS on steroids

[Owsley]

16. not steroids...

Pantani (along with a large number of professional cyclists) was taking EPO (epoitin) which is a synthetic drug similar to the endogenous erythropoetin. By taking EPO an athlete essentially increases the oxygen carrying capacity of the blood. Unfortunately this has a tendency to literally thicken the blood. There have been a number of cyclists who have died recently due to heart failure. These guys were between 25 and 35 years old, in peak physical condition, and their hearts failed because their blood was literally too thick for their heart to pump. Scary stuff.

Not sure what to make of the Armstrong/doping situation. Like others have said, I'll give him the benefit of the doubt. I did see the ESPN outside the lines show, and I was dissapointed to hear how Armstrong essentially strongarmed LeMond into keeping quiet. Armstrong is an incredible cyclist, but to hear things like that make me skeptical as to how good a person he is.

I guess what it comes down to is that I would be sad to find out if he was doping merely because what he is doing now is so freaking incredible. 6 tours in a row? Unbelievable. It's the kind of dominance that rarely (if ever) surfaces in the world of sport.

Owsley

[Poiuyt]

21. I stand corrected

I tend to lump all illegal drugs (and blood doping) together.

[HuckleB]

32. Not sure about "Pantini," but Pantani is the "record holder" in question.

In the unofficial way of the Tour.

[Waistdeep]

46. Don't forget the flat beginning of today's stage

Pantani's time was from the base of the climb. If you look at Armstrong's time today, I think he missed breaking Pantani's record by about one second.

[right is wrong]

10. I am sure * will try to use this somehow

Maybe Lance and Bush can do some photo op riding around the ranch together. Think I'm kidding??

[geek tragedy]

12. Armstrong isn't a Repug, and he may want to return to France

so I doubt he'll play.

[Mayberry Machiavelli]

78. Didn't Lance date Sheryl Crow? Hmmm. He runs down Plano, his

hometown, a Repub stronghold, as a soulless plastic den of upper middle class conformity in his book, and makes his home in Austin, the closest thing to Berkeley in TX.

Even tho shrubya tries to milk the TX angle for all it's worth somehow I doubt that Lance is a Repub or RWer.

[rocktivity]

15. Reminds me of when I first really looked at a pro skier leaderboard

I was channel surfing, and when the announcer said "Only three tenths of a second separate the top five..." it stopped me cold. THREE TENTHS OF A SECOND? You work your butt off, and you lose by three tenths of a second? I actually felt sorry for them!

:headbang:
rocknation

[MsUSA]

19. Heard he's been dating Cheryl Crow.

How long was he married, and how many kids does he have???

[Poiuyt]

22. Cheryl Crow has been on the Tour with him

She said that the next time SHE goes on tour, she wants him to accompany her. Think Lance will leave his training for that long?

Go Pack!

[Fovea]

26. Which makes you wonder

What kind of folder would Lance ride to train on when Cheryl is tourning?

Brompton, Pashley, Montague, Bike Saturday???

When your standards are that high (and performance demand on the machine are that great) what do you ride?

Maybe an Animal... The mind boggles.

[HuckleB]

28. Trek would have a bike ready and waiting for him at every stop.

Hell, it wouldn't shock me if they ended up as a sponsor of Crow's next tour.

[MsUSA]

36. With Cheryl being with Lance and he's doing so great.......

I wonder what's going on with Tiger and his girl friend......he hasn't won a golf tournament since he's been with her!! and that's been two years!! Just curious.

[mountainvue]

54. Her name is Sheryl. n/t

[shadu]

70. Tiger is funny when he falls behind and gets all blubbery

Terrible sportsmanship

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

42. For the record

For of the people i've replied to above, I'm leaving work now and will likely not be on the rest of the night. I'm not abandoning my argument in anyway however, and will likely get to your comments in the morning.

[happyslug]

43. Who cares about the Tour de France, the Tour de 'toona is running!!!!

For women bikers it is almost as big as the Tour de France is for men. The Tour de 'toona has both a men and women race. The Men start early in the day for the Tour de 'toona, but the women's race is the more interesting (All the good male cyclist are in France doing the Tour de France, but the women are in Altoona and Johnstown Pa racing in the Tour de 'toona).

http://www.tourdetoona.com/

2004 Event Details

PRO STAGE RACE
Women's Pro 1-2-3 7 day race
Monday, July 26 - Sunday, August 1
Men's Pro 1-2 6 day race**
Monday, July 26 - Saturday, July 31
**A separate Criterium on Sunday, August 1st will be held for Men Pro 1-2, an additional fee of $25.00 will cover registration fees for the one day race.

CATEGORY POINTS RACE
Women's Cat 3/ 4 3 day points race
Friday, July 30 - Sunday, August 1
Men's Cat 2, 3, 4 3 day points race
Friday, July 30 - Sunday, August 1

ONE DAY RACES
Men's Cat 5 1 day race
Saturday, July 31
Men's Cat 5 1 day race
Sunday, August 1
Master's 35+ 1 day race
Sunday, August 1
Individual Men's Pro 1-2 1 day race
Sunday, August 1

[Forkboy]

45. This guy is amazing

I'm not even close to a fan of biking,but he may well be one of the best atheletes I've ever seen.

[Gregorian]

69. Please don't post race results on this forum

I've been unable to browse this forum, and won't be able to do so for another week, because people continue to disregard those who haven't seen the race results. It's totally uncool. Think about it.

[HuckleB]

72. So you don't want to get the news in LBN?

Then why come to LBN? Doesn't make sense.

[alfredo]

74. Lance did it again!!!

Floyd Landis did a great job of keeping Lance within reach of the leaders. Though it appeared that Lance tried to give him the win, others wouldn't allow it. Landis just didn't have the horsepower to pull away from the lead group. In the end, Lance had to chase down Kloden in the last 500 meters to seal the win.

Here is the top 10 overall. There is a 16' 33" difference between 1st and 10th.


1. ARMSTRONG Lance USA

2. BASSO Ivan ITA down 4' 09"

3. KLÖDEN Andréas GER

4. ULLRICH Jan GER

5. AZEVEDO José POR

6. MANCEBO Francisco ESP

7. TOTSCHNIG Georg AUT

8. SASTRE Carlos ESP

9. LEIPHEIMER Levi USA

10. CAUCCHIOLI Pietro ITA

[LibertyLover]

75. Robin Williams on the subject of Armstrong's alleged use of drugs

I rather liked Robin Williams comment about Lance's alleged use of performance enhancing chemicals:

It's chemotherapy you idiots.

From his show Robin Williams Live on Broadway.

[hatrack]

77. "OJ Simpson Slashes Through Helpless Defenders For 265 Yards"

With thanks (as always) to The Onion.

[slack]

104. I'am german

and a great fan of Jan Ullrich,
but Lance, he's a god. He's the best.
Congratulations,
gigantic work

[salonghorn70]

106. Way To Go

HOOK 'EM Lance!!!!!!!!

:bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: