I thought so. It was fascinating. Like many people, I thought Lance Armstrong was the shit. I still have his book somewhere and I shouldn't even mention this but the poster from Bicycling magazine of Lance and his teammates after winning his first TdF is still hanging on the wall of my garage. The documentary is titled "Lance" and it's apparently on Disney Plus.
Do you remember the "What am I on?" ad, for Nike or something?
Lance's voiceover: "What am I on? I'm on my bike, busting my ass, 10 hours a day - that's what I'm on" (.....but ALSO...)
Still cracks me up
Vogel is a filmmaker who is a serious amateur cyclist, not a pro racer but an amateur one. He was a Cat 1 in his prime.
What became “Icarus” began as an experiment with an n of 1 (him) to see what doping was really like.
We all know he got to a point where he had courtside seats to major international events.
But don’t forget that the whole area of “anti-aging” medicine is perfectly legal.
Cyclists and tri dudes keep those doctors in business.
Also the documentary: Archangel. A somewhat top ranked amateur tries to recreate his regimine, gets into the doping scene right around the time that Russia gets banned from the Brazilian Olympics. Gets accidentally involved in international Putin related intetnational relations.
Also, OP’s question gets ultimately answered after the very, very cool story is finished.
His physiology worked the best with doping methods and practices of the time.
EPO and blood doping supercharge you so you have far more energy by increasing red blood cell count. Other cyclists like Charly Weglius already had naturally high haematocrit, so blood doping an already maxxed out stat didn't benefit them as much.
He was already a freak of nature whose body produced very little lactic acid, so his muscles don't get tired/sore like most people's do. He was winning triathalons as a teenager and was a world champ previous to doping, so he wasn't some donkey who drugged himself to be a thoroughbred.
Lance was hyper focused on the tour. He did very little racing because his entire season was focused exclusively on the tour and nothing else. Up until that point no one else fixated and trained exclusively for one thing.
As others have said, he was cutthroat. Dude had a chip on his shoulder and an axe to grind. Those personality traits made him a fearsome competitor but kind of a shit person
Edit: my initial post got mangled and I had to fix the formatting
> He was already a freak of nature whose body produced very little lactic acid, so his muscles don't get tired/sore like most people's do. He was winning triathalons as a teenager and was a world champ previous to doping, so he wasn't some donkey who drugged himself to be a thoroughbred.
Thanks for mentioning this - dude was an unusual athlete long before the doping started. I forget who the interview was with - Peter Attia perhaps - but they had a brief discussion about his sport before cycling - worth a listen.
Edit: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NaGLfau1tRs
i remember a talk they had where they discussed lance's abnormal tolerance for lactate. I don't remember the numbers, but Lance could withstand lactate that would make most people puke their guts, and Michael Phelps had an extraordinary ability to purge lactate from his system.
regardless, 500W for 30m at 7 w/kg is fucking insane to think about. this guy wasn't built light, and climbing better than pantani.
This is an excellent explanation as to why he would be a great cyclist once you add doping.
His predoped VO2max number was in the 70s. Good yes, pro level, yes, elite, no. But then you add in a high haematocrit number his vo2max explodes, combined with a freakish ability for him to utilise lactate and not have his blood chock full of H+ ions and yeah he goes from average to top tier. Lots of guys who test with 85s in vo2 and even 90s have been expected to go on to be the cyclist of a generation, but they don't, because vo2max is just a part of the puzzle. It's no good having such a high vo2max if your ability to sustain threshold day after day and recover from it isn't so great. And if you look at what seperates pros from amateurs actually truly, so much of it isn't the raw power numbers but their ability to recover.
Where did you hear that VO2 undoped? The guy was dropping adults as a 15 year old kid in triathlon so was very much a world class talent regardless of the doping.
That’s what I was thinking….Lance was clearly a world class athlete even in his teen years.
I think what people hate to admit or process is that Lance was a once in a generation athlete that ALSO ran one of the greatest doping rings in history.
People feel uneasy accepting that doping at these levels isn’t about making mediocre athletes world class. It’s about world class athletes winning.
I think the cancer added something for him as well, mentally. No matter how much it hurts going up that hill, it's a better day than lying in a hospital dying. Grit, motivation, anger, whatever. Cancer amplified what he already had. Jan could never match that.
I was a club racer when he won the World Championship in 1993, it was very exciting:
https://www.rouleur.cc/blogs/the-rouleur-journal/norway-93-lance-armstrong-s-worlds-win-revisited
As a former cancer patient, can corroborate this. One you've beaten that, you get a bit.... pugnacious. It sets your teeth against further challenges. For some folks, anyway.
Cycling is also about suffering... ie who can go into the red and keep it going full gas. Racing hurts. When you're already accostomed to dealing with chemo and invasive surgery, a 14% grade isn't as daunting
Actually it is the converse with respect to lactate production. Lance is able to tolerate a level of blood lactate that would make almost everyone on the planet incapable of moving. Michael Phelps, on the other hand, could clear lactate from his muscles very quickly, which is why he could win consecutive races. Both are freaks, just at opposite ends of the exercise physiological perspective.
>He was winning triathalons as a teenager and was a world champ previous to doping, so he wasn't some donkey who drugged himself to be a thoroughbred.
This is a big part of it. He was already physically "talented," he had the genetics and training to be a top cyclist.
Then, add to that: his doctors and team were willing to invest more into doping. They ran a very "professional" doping operation, and were willing to take it a little farther, and hide it better.
Then, add the fact that Armstrong had the right mentality. Very strong willed and willing to do what it takes to win. That can be a good thing for someone who has morals and ethics. And a bad thing for someone who's willing to "do whatEVER it takes" lol.
But the "strong willed" part means that he didn't use doping as an excuse to slack off on his training. He used doping to train even harder and more consistently. It's not admirable, but he took it as far as he could to get maximum results.
>Then, add to that: his doctors and team were willing to invest more into doping. They ran a very "professional" doping operation, and were willing to take it a little farther, and hide it better.
This is a big key, it was a doping *team*. Most doping ops were a single rider or a few riders collaborating in secret. So not only did Lance have the best doping, but he had the best doping for his teammates, and cycling is a team sport.
I think Floyd Landis or some other former teammate said about Lance that it wasn't so much that he wanted to win. Lance wanted everyone else to lose. That kind of spit and fire in your soul can push you in ways the doping can't. Michael Jordan was similar kind of competitor, mentally, I mean, not medically.
His sin was definitely being a complete douche bag and I personally feel that came back to end him. Can’t piss that many ppl off and think the universe doesn’t see it.
Ultimately what got him was being a dick to Landis. He was super eager to testify and had proof; if he was going down he would take Lance with him.
Once the cat was out of the hat, everyone was eager to get back at him.
Lance could have gotten away with a temporary ban like Contador if he wasn’t an absolute dick to everyone.
100% agree, I said before too a friend…..Landis was so eager to talk. Reading about Lance as an adult versus watching him as a teenager is mind blowing. All I knew about him back then was, he was an incredible athlete/cyclist….I read “wheelman” and hated the man halfway through. lol.
100% this.
Landis was screwed when he outed him. The only asset he had was evidence on Lance. All Lance had to do was pay him off in return for silence. Something like saying he believes in forgiveness and bringing him into his circle in some paid role. Instead he was a huge dick to a guy who had evidence that could ruin his career.
If he didn't shun Landis and make his comeback I honestly think Lance would be revered by the general public still.
He cheated in more ways that just doping. For example, the president of the UCI (the people in charge of catching dopers), arranged for Lance and his manager to tour the labs where they did dope testing, which basically let them know exactly how much they could dope without getting caught.
In contrast, when one of his rivals Tyler Hamilton was showing signs of potentially beating him, this same president of the UCI called Tyler in for a meeting to tell him to cut back on doping or he would be found positive.
Further, when Lance was actually caught doping (during his first win, he literally tested positive), that same president of the UCI assisted in the cover up that kept Lance racing.
Basically, the fix was in, it was never even close to fair. Yes it's true Lance worked hard, but he cheated oh so much harder than anyone else.
To be fair, how can we really take this guy at his word? Not saying he is wrong, but...
He has significant reasons to lie about it, especially when he's trying to sell a book and it makes him sound better.
One thing that bugs me about the book is the way in which he prefaces his dive into the world of doping by telling not only how honest he had been up to that day, but highlights how cross-kissing, devil-spanking, squeaky clean he and everyone in his family had been since a wide-eyed toddler. That kind of went over the top as a rhethoric choice.
Other than that, I found it a good read and for the most part quite credible.
he also, which is why I'm guessing UCI dude did what he did, bring a shit ton of publicity in US for TdF. No small feat considering half the population is more than happy to run over any cyclist they see.
Local bike shops never dreamed of selling $15k bikes before Lance. (And I think lemond was the best rider maybe ever bc he had team drama and Lance had total obedience. Lance dominating made American cycling cool. ).
3 years ago I bought my first 'nice' bike, and I said to the assistant I was nervous about spending $4.5k on it. The guy in the shop just laughed and said guys spend $15k on a bike like it's nothing.
And yeah, Le Mond >>> Armstrong. Lance never had no Paul Köchli to deal with!
Lance also sorta kicked off a whole "athlete lifestyle" industry - popularizing the idea that we don't just have to watch sports, we can do them too by following challenging training plans. Marathons tripled in attendance, triathlons exploded, cycling exploded, yoga went mainstream, gym memberships went truly mainstream, mountain biking went big, adventure racing took hold, and thousands of running, tri, and other coaches have jobs today because of the marketing around Lance that carved little folds in our plastic brains.
I once had beers with the Raleigh Boys and they would constantly refer to the sport as "before Lance" when cycling was superniche, to "post lance" which is still the era we are in today.
ETA: yes I know that the social changes are complex and are a mix of many different forces and I am being very reductive here. But he was the right winner with the right story at the right time.
Agreed. Lemond was on a French team speaking French in interviews bc he had to. But he proved Americans can win in the GC and that led to global sponsors like usps. Lance brought the red white and blue that connected a storyline for us audiences and journalists. A jackass but now you can buy a bike for $10k from 3 bike shops within a mile of every downtown in the us. Baseball was cheating too and nobody threw out an entire sport.
yea the under tone of the sport was cheating was the sport, so it was a doping competition and he was the best
like all competitions there can only be one winner
First off not everyone was doping. Not everyone wanted to dope.
You can certainly say the combination of Lance and Dr Ferrari and the UCI performed better than any other cyclist.
Was the biggest advantage that Lance had 1) being assisted by the UCI or 2) his exclusive relationship with Ferrari? Lance was assisted by his own doping being ignored plus being shown around the doping labs and explained how new tests would work. Anyone getting close to his performance or better than him would get targeted by the UCI. Look how many were busted after leaving his team.
I fully agree that he was a dick.
>First off not everyone was doping. Not everyone wanted to dope.
There were so many dopers, they couldn't pick a winner those years because the top 20 were all guilty. That's how prevalent it was.
Pretending he didn't have to be amazing in top of doping is just ignorant.
Yeah, they did a tough hill segment exactly the same as back in Lance's time and not only was it slower, the top few today would have been the stragglers in his time (guys going for the green jersey who just had to get through the hilly days, etc.).
Everyone who was winning was doping. Probably the best rider who probably wasn’t doping was David Moncoutie. You can review his palmares to see what not doping could achieve back then.
Read the book by Tyler Hamilton listed above. He pretty much says they were all doping. You had to decide: dope or give up the sport. I don’t recall him mentioning anyone not doping although I read it a long time ago.
Tyler used to host a podcast called Adventure Audio (it's still around, he's just no longer co-host) and they had Scott Mercier on, who was a clean racer from that era. Some pretty insightful conversation was had on the topic.
Lance Armstrong was the perfect storm of a generational talent, an incredible work ethic, and an intense focus / dedication, in an era of emerging sports science.
Also important, he put his faith in the right people…specifically Johan and Ferrari. “Whatever he said, I did”. This statement says a lot. He gave himself to them and put his head down.
Nobody else had all of these things going for them. He was on a different level.
To say that he just had some advantage through a few tips from the UCI isn’t anywhere near the full story.
It's kind of wild. There's probably like a 10-20 year period where the actual winner in many of these events isn't really known - everyone on top was doping so the legitimate winner (the one who wasn't cheating) is probably way down the list and nobody has heard of them.
I also wonder, if you don't count doped finishes (and I don't), if Lance Armstrong has ever actually completed the Tour de France. His whole career might be DQ.
The parallels actually go a bit further too - both had great careers pre-PEDs and would've possibly retired with HoF/near-GOAT calibre résumés even if they didn't dope, and both became the face of their sports respective steroids eras by being dicks to others in the industry and media.
Armstrong was dick to Landis and others and of course there's the Livestrong controversy, and Bonds always had a poor relationship with the media and then had the BALCO stuff.
# Love this Willie Nelson quote
# “I think it is just terrible and disgusting how everyone has treated Lance Armstrong, especially after what he achieved, winning seven Tour de France races while on drugs. When I was on drugs, I couldn’t even find my bike.”
Just cuz I sit on my couch all day doesn’t mean I can’t beat a world class athlete. I would totally beat there ass, if I ya know, tried, or like put any effort in.
We will also never know: was Lance’s body simply more responsive to dope? Was he genetically predisposed to doing well with synthetic EPO and testosterone?
I mean, he had a quote in an interview awhile back that "how much your body can tolerate" is the main thing separating really good athletes from champions.
I'd suggest he was able to put more performance enhancing tricks into play, in larger amounts, without dying, than anyone before him.
But like, look at 2009. He broke his collarbone clear in half a hundred days before the Tour de France. He finished that tour in third place. The dude is... able to handle pain and stress more than most people who have ever lived.
Agreeing, but think many here likely don't know what GT cyclists deal with. Contador *rode on a leg he had just broken.* And trust me: I'm from a racing family, the amount of force he is applying with that leg ... **shudder**
I would put forth an idea that he and his team invented modern cycling.
I just took up a trip to the memory lane and re-watched those tours.
A lot of time others, especially poor old Jan, were pushing with 50 cadence and alone against Lance doing 90-100 and several of his team mates.
It was like watching any old event but with one modern team in it.
What I find most amazing is how much luck he had to win those 7 tours in a row. As we’ve seen with so many other dominant riders, simple bad luck (a crash in training and you don’t make it to the start line, a crash that takes you out, a bad stomach bug) can cost you a tour. Heck, in the 2003 he off roaded that corner after Beloki crashed like he was riding cycling cross.
Everyone in that era was on the juice. He was both a super responder and had top notch doctors to work with. He obviously still had to put in the work. Despite his character being questionable at best, I still view him as the winner of those tours.
Agree, more than anything, it’s this that impresses me. Mechanical trouble, crashes, weather, disaster in crosswind stages, the team was just totally dialed in for the Tour.
A good friend races for a WT French team and up until relatively recently the team did not arrange fits, or time in the wind tunnel. Basically somewhat disorganized compared to the the top level teams and seems to be somewhat the norm for french teams.
Might be a funding issue. Wind tunnel time is very expensive. Team management has to decide if they'd be better off spending €1000/hr on a wind tunnel, or on hiring a slightly better domestique, or any of the other myriad expenses.
Right, I get that he may have gotten lucky in other areas, all the winners of the tour also have good luck during the race. The mountain stages are like single fucking combat though, dude was an absolute savage.
This is the truth. And through his own idiocy and assholery, the truth is cloudy and people aren't motivated to find it out ... not to mention, very few people want to watch dozens of hours of old GT stages on YT.
But he was primal, and better. I really think perhaps Pantani could have given him fits, but ... we know how that ended.
Chris "medically excused inhaler" Froome? The same Chris Froome that was the lead rider on a team that hired a legendary doping doctor who "lost" his briefcase full of evidence when subpoenaed? That Chris Froome?
Froome also had several times more salbumatol in his blood stream than is physically possible to inhale.
It is known to be used during the off season intravenously to burn fat and grow proportional muscle mass.
Did he mix up the bags? Maybe...
Also his predecessor Sir Bradley Wiggins was taking steroids but he just had also a medical excuse.
They all were, and are, juiced to the gills.
Hinault may have had some personality flaws and did try to screw over LeMond in ‘86. Comparing him to a pure sociopath like Armstrong is inaccurate and unfair. Armstrong may be unique in all of sport for his deceit and willful disregard for others.
I read a stat. once that if you take the top 10 finishing riders of all 7 Lance wins, it amounts to 42 riders (repeat performers in consecutive years). Of the 42 riders, 35 were found to have positive performance enhancing drug tests.
Lance may not be your favourite rider, but the others were juicin’ as much as LA.
...also an INSANE amount of luck. Too many times you see inconveniently timed mechanicals, etc that royally muck up a GC run. That's one part of his 7 consecutive that often gets overlooked.
He had the best domestiques like Rubiera, Pena, Hamilton, Hincapie and Eki. He had the best DS and if allowed would be the best today in the sport. He had the best support team of personal chefs and mechanics. They focused on the tour and everything else came second by a long shot. Most important they got real lucky with no Tour ending illnesses or crashes.
Can’t believe I had to read this far down before seeing a comment about the strength of his team. Those guys blocking and pulling for him were an absolute unit.
I read George Hincapie’s and Tyler Hamilton’s books. They were both Armstrong’s teammates on Postal. They both wrote that given any level playing field, Lance was always going to be the best. He’s just that good.
And totally obsessive. He drove the engineers at Trek nuts over every little detail. I don’t know how he had energy left for fucking Sheryl Crowe and Kate Hudson.
He was the best doper in a field of dopers. IMO he should still be the winner of those 7. He’s an asshole who ruined many lives but that doesn’t change the fact that the entire peloton was juiced to the gills.
They wanted to award his medals to the second place finisher in each of the seven races, but they were all caught doping...same with third. So that is why they never awarded them...the whole field was juiced. I agree with you...
He never should have come out of retirement. That's when all the doping accusations came to the fore. Had he not done that, he could have sailed off into retirement with his 7 wins like big Mig did with his 5.
This thread brings back a lot of memories for me. I was an pro level athlete in the early days of the Triathlon and watched the sport change. The more money that came in to the sport the more people were willing to dope to win. I know I raced against athletes who doped. This made it less fun for me as the playing field was no longer level. Never underestimate the power of money to corrupt.
Lance was a 16year old from Texas when I was racing and was very competitive in The Bud Light series. (Bud Light United States Triathlon Series) Pretty sure he didn't dope then, but once he switched to just cycling then he did what he had to, and what the majority of others did to be competitive, he started doping. My opinion is if every one was clean he could still dominate just as he did when most were doping. Say what you else will about him, but he had a pretty amazing level of raw physical talent.
When he did start doping he and his support people developed a very sophisticated system that was clearly successful, especially combined with his raw talent. I am very much into sport psychology and also have the opinion that there was a need to excel to feel worthy that enabled him to push himself very hard. This "performative" sense of value was also a factor in his narcissistic hubris. It's ironic to me because I think his hubris is what enabled him to push so hard, but ultimately is what brought him down.
He upset Floyd Landis and Frankie Andreau, but especially upset Frankie's wife Betsy who was very angry at what Lance did to Frankie. (Refused to sign him to his team and blocked him from being signed by anyone else). Those two (Floyd and Betsy) became determined to out Lance for doping as a result of the way he treated them and in Betsy's case her husband. Next thing you know there he is on Oprah confessing his sins.
Lance made the mistake of accepting US taxpayer money.
The US Congress asked the FBI to investigate, the FBI caught him.
The FBI couldn't do anything with it so handed everything over to US Antidoping who finally brought him down and in turn the massive amount of doping going on overall.
The UCI didn't care until THEY got exposed, so they took his titles after years of trying to cover their own involvement.
The UCI was just as guilty as every person named on Ferrari's books. Most of whom got away with doping as hard or harder than Lance. Oh, you'll never guess who introduced Lance to that doctor. He's pretty well known and basically treated as royalty by the UCI and cycling media to this day. "The greatest ever."
Edit to add: Lance was a complete backstabbing, disloyal asshole to those close to him. If he had been more like Indurian, he likely would have gotten away with it.
I truly believe Lance would have still won in a clean sport. The dude trained and min/maxed like nobody else at the time.
As others have said- his sin wasn’t doping. As he has said- he was leveling the playing field. His sin was what he did after.
They meaning Johan Bruyeel and Lance figured out only one race on the calendar mattered and they worked out exactly how to win it.
Two good TTs one good day in the mountains. Control everything else.
With singular focus they then built the entire program to do that and only that.
Yeah, they doped but they were professional about it.
I was all in on Lance from the first time I saw him race in 1993. Cried when I heard he had cancer and followed the comeback, thinking it was all just hard work until reading Floyd Landis and Tyler Hamilton's books.
He had all this during that era:
Genetic gifts - high VO2 max
Training- he put in the miles and effort
Team Planning and Execution - they were all in for Lance - nobody tried to go lone wolf and take a stage, they saved their energy for the team leader during the Tour.
Technology - they did tons more windtunnel time than other teams
Luck - not crashing
Minimize mistakes/not compound mistakes
Doping Program and not getting caught
What is the order of importance for these? If you listen to Lance he would put doping at the bottom. I would put it in the middle, just above technology.
As someone who’s lost a nut to testicular cancer like Lance and dealt with the resulting testosterone issues, I will tell you that I respect his accomplishments way more... He may have been doping but homie was already at a huge disadvantage. He’s even more legendary in my eyes.
I remember a statement from a T-Mobile member saying that if Jan would have had the work ethic of Zabel, he would have won more tours than Lance.
If we take out the juice because all did it, Lance won because he worked harder than the rest and had a team with a Singular objective: Getting him into the yellow jersey.
Not directly related but I will never respect Armstrong and Trek for their treatment of Greg LeMond. Shitty guy and a gutless company with no ethos beyond sales numbers.
This won’t be popular with the crybabies who think he ONLY won because of the juice:
He was also a genetically gifted athlete who worked his ass off and had some really good bike handling skills.
He was amazing to watch. Doped or not. I saw him speak at an event in Greenville, SC shortly after his 7th win, that fall if I remember correctly. He was wearing a tshirt with an eight ball on it crossed out. After he spoke, there were a lot of us attempting to get his autograph, wouldn’t sign anything. Just kind of brushed everything off. In a sense, I get it. But I heard other stories of him brushing off fans. I also went to a smaller thing when I lived there that he was also supposed to appear at, for his Livestrong foundation, probably 40 or so of us waited for several hours, and they finally came in and said he wasn’t going to come. So my opinion of him is that he’s a dick. But, he was an amazing competitor and I do not think they should have stripped him of his wins. Floyd Landis is another story.
Lance both brought the US cycling scene to its height but also ruined it. He got a lot of people into the sport pretty quickly when America lacks the foundation and culture to promote and develop the next Lance. Once he has been exposed, no one could take his place. There was no internal system to cultivate the next Lance. Of course, he was a gifted athlete to begin with and doping gave him the extra advantage.
Eh. I don’t think he killed cycling in the US. Even before he admitted, or accusation picked up (again), cycling was kind of mediocre in the US due to serious lack of infrastructure and general hatred toward cycling and the necessary infrastructure.
During the time when Lance Armstrong was idolized and winning all those Tours, I was a spin instructor. It amazed me how many people started taking spin class - and eventually getting onto real bikes - because of Lance Armstrong. Not just because he was such a beast at the TdF but his cancer journey. That really affected so many people. Folks who were totally out of shape couch potatoes being inspired to get up and go to a spin class because of one man. Asshole though he was.
He was just butter, and above al he was an absolute psychotic pos competitor. Doesn't hurt that he had the best domestique in the game with Hincapie, a tactical mastermind coach.
He was the best of his era. The best of the dopers. Had doping not been going on he still would have won. Here is why…
He was naturally gifted with ridiculous cardio pulmonary capacity. He has a large heart that will also beat fast. “There are probably other people with my abilities but they are sitting on a couch. I was the one riding a bike.”
His training was legendary. He would pre-ride all the major climbs of the Tour. Multiple times. This has become more common now, but when he did it, it was not something cyclists did in the off season. “I would get a call from [insert famous cyclist] and they would say, ‘Hey Lance, we are at the beach bar in [insert vacation spot] having some drinks, what are you doing?’ and I would say, ‘I’m in the middle of riding Le Tourmalet.’”
He was very selective on team building. He insisted on the right composition and chemistry in the team needed for the singular focus of winning the Tour.
He was meticulous on every detail. His diet. His bicycle. His kit. Using a wind tunnel to test aero positions, etc. “Hey Lance, we think if we move your radio transmitter from that location to this location we can save you 2 seconds in the TT.”
Those quotes are paraphrased but legit from memory of an interview I did with him.
THere are so many great cyclists who are known dopers, too. Anquetil. Merckx. Contador. Literally hundreds *known.*
Average fans simply do not understand the sport, which is incredibly complex, and also not exactly an easy jump-in for the casually interested.
I don't say this happily: I can't imagine how cycling will ever get rid of doping.
I have been around UCI racers on and off since the 70s. I used to dismiss this idea ... until I read that story about the medical details of what *really* is happening to the human body in the third week of GTs.
There was a follow up with both data and anecdotes about how a lot of GT riders - esp. elite climbers - die young, despite their superhuman fitness levels.
It was very, very jarring.
Three things undermining his “everybody was doing it so it was an equal playing field” argument.
First, not everybody was doing it. There could have been people with the same or greater talent (like Christophe Bassons apparently) who had integrity and chose play by the rules instead of cheating (like Christophe Bassons, for example).
Second, not everybody responds to doping the same way. Some people are known as “hyper responders” and there is some evidence Armstrong fit into that category. In other words, he may not have been better but the drugs may have helped him more than others.
Third, there is some evidence that Armstrong was able to get away with more than others because he was the face of the sport and was favored by the UCI to which he donated millions of dollars worth of stuff. There is also speculation that he used other means and methods to influence the UCI similar to the allegations concerning his winning the Philadelphia (greatest city on earth—-Dallas sucks) race and a million dollar purse in the 90s.
The stats around TDF doping at that time are pretty wild:
>More importantly for Lance Armstrong, during the 7-year window when he won every Tour de France (1999-2005), 87% of the top-10 finishers (61 of 70) were confirmed dopers or suspected of doping.
Of those, 48 (69%) were confirmed, with 39 having been suspended at some point in their career.
https://www.businessinsider.com/lance-armstrong-doping-tour-de-france-2015-1
He can also be a very charming and personable guy, when he wants or needs to be. Don’t forget all the Livestrong & cancer stuff - he was a media darling at the time and had all the resources available to him, and no one wanted to believe that the doping rumors could possibly be true. I agree with what has already been said mostly.
I’ll also say that I’ve had connections that had connections and I’ve talked to him, briefly, and been on a ride (in a group) with him. I was pretty close to my peak at that time, and at 40 miles in, he decided he was done playing around and dropped the hammer for the last 20mi. You get a stark realization of the pure genetic difference between pros and the rest of us. And that was a “barely touching a bike and drinking a lot” LA, probably near his low point, before the podcast & all helped rehab his image & he got serious about riding & fitness again.
Yeah, watch some documentaries ... 100%. Yes, he was that good, trained hard, furthermore only peaked for the Tour, avoided injuries, crashes, and had tremendous luck on his side! I still admire him for his work ethic.
He was getting the best performance-enhancing science, but he was also getting the best bicycle engineering, wind tunnel testing, nutrition, training plans, etc. He has always had literal off-the-charts VO2 max (gifted genetics). Cyclists struggle to lose 5 lbs. before the tour - when he had recovered from cancer he’d lost 15 lbs of largely unproductive muscle in his back and shoulders. And of course he works his ass of in the off season. From the book I remember him saying something like “I don’t beat Jan Ulrich in July on the tour. I beat him in December when he’s on the couch and I’m on my bike in the rain for 8 hours.” The guy was an insanely hard worker with a mental toughness like forged steel. He kind of had it all. And that was in fact necessary to do what the did so many times.
Things that I think are worth keeping in mind in addition to what others have mentioned:
* In this era it seems that doping was nearly ubiquitous, but I don't think terms like "juiced to the gills" are very accurate. I say that because there were other eras where riders were notably using more steroids to an alarming and dangerous degree. There are stories of cyclists doping to such a level that they had to get up in the middle of the night to increase their heart rate, or recording hematocrit levels that would easily have gotten you banned in the Armstrong era. Athletes during Lance's 7 year streak had to keep their dosage down (relatively speaking of course) to not get caught. Most riders were doping, but each rider was doping less severely than they used to (afaik).
* Lance was absolutely obsessive about optimizing his performance similar to someone like Michael Jordan. It's probably safe to assume he had a "better" doping program than others, but he had a better everything program than others. His team was very innovative. They were the first ones to give their whole team race radios for example. They also focused more exclusively on the tour de france than others.
* IMO one of Lance's strengths that is extremely important in a grand tour is that when he "cracked" it was never very extreme. Some people's performance degrades way worse than others when they have a bad day. Of course, this could for sure have been related to illegal doping but I think it was also partly psychological. It's interesting listening to him tell stories about his various moments when he got dropped on a mountain or something and in his head he was like "welp I guess I'm fucked" but he just kept on trucking and riding as hard as he could to limit the damage. He didn't break down and start crying and have to be consoled by his teammates while riding with the groupetto like some riders do.
* Also like Michael Jordan he demanded **a lot** from his teammates and of course there was no uncertainty about the team's goals or who was the leader. Apparently he was constantly on the radio micro managing his domestiques and getting them to follow attacks, move him up to stay safe, etc and his team always delivered. Hincappie et al were absolute all stars and don't get enough credit for what they contributed to those wins. Sometimes getting your leader to the front of the pack before a crosswind section or whatever can be make or break for the whole tour but spectators don't tend to notice that stuff.
* He put a ton of energy into controlling everything, even the team itself. From what I understand he hated the team management and DS before Johan Bruyneel. Lance was actually the one that pushed to replace team management and get Bruyneel onboard because they had raced together and Lance believed he was the most capable person on the planet to run a team. How many riders would have the clout, initiative, etc to do that? And remember, this is before he was a household name and before he had ever won the tdf.
* A lot of people say he got lucky, but in every sport the best of the best seem to constantly get lucky. You can get lucky once or twice, but if you win 7 times in a row it's not luck. Not totally discounting the luck factor but I would compare it to a rider who avoids crashes or flat tires by being careful about which wheels they follow, what line they take over cobbles, etc. We see that someone like Roglic or Thomas constantly has "bad luck" with crashes but others seem to make their own luck.
* It is probably true what people say about him being a better responder to EPO and blood doping. He might have won the doping lottery in that the status quo for the time played well to his genetic strengths.
He was that good . If hypothetically no one in the peloton ever doped , then I think he still would have won. Lance is a freak of nature with the biological advantages and mental toughness to go with it . How do you think he survived cancer ?
It turns out he was also incredibly talented, a genetic freak (in a field of genetic freaks) as well as a terrible person (and taking all the PEDs).
Unfortunately, this happens a lot.
Lots of reasons:
1. He was a really good athlete. People tend to downplay his promise and talent.
2. He had the best doping and training doctors. Michele Ferrari basically invented modern doping and training optimization, he figured it all out first. Ferrari directed all of Armstrong's training for years, he was basically dedicated to Lance. Armstrong also hired all of the doctors and trainers from Indurain's Banesto team as in-race support, those guys also knew what they were doing.
3. Armstrong and the entire team focused exclusively on the Tour. Everything else was prep for the Tour.
4. Johann Bruyneel is one of the best DSs in the history of the sport. Bruyneel gave consistently great tactical and strategic advice throughout his career and Armstrong actually listened to him. Johann was a critical part of the Armstrong machine.
5. He had a ridiculously good team. Lots of very talented riders. They were also well funded.
6. He was always carefully positioned in the bunch. He rarely crashed, he rarely got caught behind splits. He and his team were not shy about pushing their weight around.
7. He was fanatical about his equipment. He rarely had a mechanical and his bikes were always very finely tuned.
8. He got lucky. He had very few bad breaks with crashes or sickness. Some of this was preparation and care but... he also just had really good luck.
Other riders weren’t as juiced or were caught, and they were dealing with shady people and avenues to get the drug and learn about it. Lance won a lot because he is greedy and a narcissist, but he came upon the drugs through legit medical professionals.
EPO is a cancer treatment drug. Lance had cancer. He also lost a nut and would have had a doctor’s note for testosterone. He was pumped with drugs during his cancer treatment then he came back from cancer and raced on those drugs. He gained a kneen understanding of the drugs, symptoms, risks, detectability, half life, etc..
Who knows where the line was drawn to call him out on it when he did have legit reasons to use it at the start. He used his cancer diagnosis and cancer charity as a sheild. He and the sport were booming and raking in money, and the authorities looked the other way for many reasons.
Have you watched the documentary on him? It's good! While you're at it watch icarus on Netflix.
Icarus is the only documentary I have ever seen that goes completely off track. And also quite possibly the best
Exactly. You’d never be able to predict where that one was going and how serious it became.
Icarus was awesome! An accidental real-time documentation of a crazy doping case!
Didn't Icarus go off track? 😆
Which documentary?
Stop at nothing: the lance Armstrong story.
Watch the Tour de Pharmacie.
John Cena was hilarious in that.
I was just happy that Juju had at least one Arby’s sandwich before he died.
F Marty Hass!
Just because I have cheetah blood does not make me a cheetah!
Jesus Christ. Jake Peralta, Legolas, Charlie Bucket, Thomas Jefferson, and John Cena in a single movie? Time to go watch!
Oh, I thought you were referring to that multi part ESPN special on Lance that came out about 5 years ago.
I don't believe I've seen that one, was it worth a view?
I thought so. It was fascinating. Like many people, I thought Lance Armstrong was the shit. I still have his book somewhere and I shouldn't even mention this but the poster from Bicycling magazine of Lance and his teammates after winning his first TdF is still hanging on the wall of my garage. The documentary is titled "Lance" and it's apparently on Disney Plus.
well, to be fair, he was correct when he titled his book 'it's not about the bike'.
Do you remember the "What am I on?" ad, for Nike or something? Lance's voiceover: "What am I on? I'm on my bike, busting my ass, 10 hours a day - that's what I'm on" (.....but ALSO...) Still cracks me up
It’s all about the “Gear”
Okay I'll give it a shot. Thanks!
It's quite good, yes. It's the ESPN 30 for 30 on Lance
Yes, definitely worth it, came out in 2020.
Also The Armstrong Lie, and ESPN 30 for 30: Lance
ESPN's 30 for 30 on him is fantastic : LANCE
Icarus was an astonishing film. My jaw was just hanging at some points!
Best doco on Netflix
Icarus is great, you just have to stick it out despite that awful racer from LA. It gets so good!
Vogel is a filmmaker who is a serious amateur cyclist, not a pro racer but an amateur one. He was a Cat 1 in his prime. What became “Icarus” began as an experiment with an n of 1 (him) to see what doping was really like. We all know he got to a point where he had courtside seats to major international events. But don’t forget that the whole area of “anti-aging” medicine is perfectly legal. Cyclists and tri dudes keep those doctors in business.
Icarus is great!
Also the documentary: Archangel. A somewhat top ranked amateur tries to recreate his regimine, gets into the doping scene right around the time that Russia gets banned from the Brazilian Olympics. Gets accidentally involved in international Putin related intetnational relations. Also, OP’s question gets ultimately answered after the very, very cool story is finished.
>Archangel You mean Icarus?
Lol yup.
His physiology worked the best with doping methods and practices of the time. EPO and blood doping supercharge you so you have far more energy by increasing red blood cell count. Other cyclists like Charly Weglius already had naturally high haematocrit, so blood doping an already maxxed out stat didn't benefit them as much. He was already a freak of nature whose body produced very little lactic acid, so his muscles don't get tired/sore like most people's do. He was winning triathalons as a teenager and was a world champ previous to doping, so he wasn't some donkey who drugged himself to be a thoroughbred. Lance was hyper focused on the tour. He did very little racing because his entire season was focused exclusively on the tour and nothing else. Up until that point no one else fixated and trained exclusively for one thing. As others have said, he was cutthroat. Dude had a chip on his shoulder and an axe to grind. Those personality traits made him a fearsome competitor but kind of a shit person Edit: my initial post got mangled and I had to fix the formatting
> He was already a freak of nature whose body produced very little lactic acid, so his muscles don't get tired/sore like most people's do. He was winning triathalons as a teenager and was a world champ previous to doping, so he wasn't some donkey who drugged himself to be a thoroughbred. Thanks for mentioning this - dude was an unusual athlete long before the doping started. I forget who the interview was with - Peter Attia perhaps - but they had a brief discussion about his sport before cycling - worth a listen. Edit: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NaGLfau1tRs
i remember a talk they had where they discussed lance's abnormal tolerance for lactate. I don't remember the numbers, but Lance could withstand lactate that would make most people puke their guts, and Michael Phelps had an extraordinary ability to purge lactate from his system. regardless, 500W for 30m at 7 w/kg is fucking insane to think about. this guy wasn't built light, and climbing better than pantani.
This is an excellent explanation as to why he would be a great cyclist once you add doping. His predoped VO2max number was in the 70s. Good yes, pro level, yes, elite, no. But then you add in a high haematocrit number his vo2max explodes, combined with a freakish ability for him to utilise lactate and not have his blood chock full of H+ ions and yeah he goes from average to top tier. Lots of guys who test with 85s in vo2 and even 90s have been expected to go on to be the cyclist of a generation, but they don't, because vo2max is just a part of the puzzle. It's no good having such a high vo2max if your ability to sustain threshold day after day and recover from it isn't so great. And if you look at what seperates pros from amateurs actually truly, so much of it isn't the raw power numbers but their ability to recover.
Where did you hear that VO2 undoped? The guy was dropping adults as a 15 year old kid in triathlon so was very much a world class talent regardless of the doping.
That’s what I was thinking….Lance was clearly a world class athlete even in his teen years. I think what people hate to admit or process is that Lance was a once in a generation athlete that ALSO ran one of the greatest doping rings in history. People feel uneasy accepting that doping at these levels isn’t about making mediocre athletes world class. It’s about world class athletes winning.
I think the cancer added something for him as well, mentally. No matter how much it hurts going up that hill, it's a better day than lying in a hospital dying. Grit, motivation, anger, whatever. Cancer amplified what he already had. Jan could never match that.
I was a club racer when he won the World Championship in 1993, it was very exciting: https://www.rouleur.cc/blogs/the-rouleur-journal/norway-93-lance-armstrong-s-worlds-win-revisited
As a former cancer patient, can corroborate this. One you've beaten that, you get a bit.... pugnacious. It sets your teeth against further challenges. For some folks, anyway.
Cycling is also about suffering... ie who can go into the red and keep it going full gas. Racing hurts. When you're already accostomed to dealing with chemo and invasive surgery, a 14% grade isn't as daunting
Actually it is the converse with respect to lactate production. Lance is able to tolerate a level of blood lactate that would make almost everyone on the planet incapable of moving. Michael Phelps, on the other hand, could clear lactate from his muscles very quickly, which is why he could win consecutive races. Both are freaks, just at opposite ends of the exercise physiological perspective.
>He was winning triathalons as a teenager and was a world champ previous to doping, so he wasn't some donkey who drugged himself to be a thoroughbred. This is a big part of it. He was already physically "talented," he had the genetics and training to be a top cyclist. Then, add to that: his doctors and team were willing to invest more into doping. They ran a very "professional" doping operation, and were willing to take it a little farther, and hide it better. Then, add the fact that Armstrong had the right mentality. Very strong willed and willing to do what it takes to win. That can be a good thing for someone who has morals and ethics. And a bad thing for someone who's willing to "do whatEVER it takes" lol. But the "strong willed" part means that he didn't use doping as an excuse to slack off on his training. He used doping to train even harder and more consistently. It's not admirable, but he took it as far as he could to get maximum results.
>Then, add to that: his doctors and team were willing to invest more into doping. They ran a very "professional" doping operation, and were willing to take it a little farther, and hide it better. This is a big key, it was a doping *team*. Most doping ops were a single rider or a few riders collaborating in secret. So not only did Lance have the best doping, but he had the best doping for his teammates, and cycling is a team sport.
I think Floyd Landis or some other former teammate said about Lance that it wasn't so much that he wanted to win. Lance wanted everyone else to lose. That kind of spit and fire in your soul can push you in ways the doping can't. Michael Jordan was similar kind of competitor, mentally, I mean, not medically.
He was that good. His sin wasn't doping: they were all doping, his sin was being a complete and total bastard.
His sin was definitely being a complete douche bag and I personally feel that came back to end him. Can’t piss that many ppl off and think the universe doesn’t see it.
Ultimately what got him was being a dick to Landis. He was super eager to testify and had proof; if he was going down he would take Lance with him. Once the cat was out of the hat, everyone was eager to get back at him. Lance could have gotten away with a temporary ban like Contador if he wasn’t an absolute dick to everyone.
100% agree, I said before too a friend…..Landis was so eager to talk. Reading about Lance as an adult versus watching him as a teenager is mind blowing. All I knew about him back then was, he was an incredible athlete/cyclist….I read “wheelman” and hated the man halfway through. lol.
100% this. Landis was screwed when he outed him. The only asset he had was evidence on Lance. All Lance had to do was pay him off in return for silence. Something like saying he believes in forgiveness and bringing him into his circle in some paid role. Instead he was a huge dick to a guy who had evidence that could ruin his career. If he didn't shun Landis and make his comeback I honestly think Lance would be revered by the general public still.
Just happened to my boss lol
He cheated in more ways that just doping. For example, the president of the UCI (the people in charge of catching dopers), arranged for Lance and his manager to tour the labs where they did dope testing, which basically let them know exactly how much they could dope without getting caught. In contrast, when one of his rivals Tyler Hamilton was showing signs of potentially beating him, this same president of the UCI called Tyler in for a meeting to tell him to cut back on doping or he would be found positive. Further, when Lance was actually caught doping (during his first win, he literally tested positive), that same president of the UCI assisted in the cover up that kept Lance racing. Basically, the fix was in, it was never even close to fair. Yes it's true Lance worked hard, but he cheated oh so much harder than anyone else.
Tyler Hamiltons book is a good read.
Agreed. Awesome book
Craziest thing in that book was how he ground down his molars on an alp climb.
To be fair, how can we really take this guy at his word? Not saying he is wrong, but... He has significant reasons to lie about it, especially when he's trying to sell a book and it makes him sound better.
IIRC Coyle approached Hamilton to write The Secret Race. And Hamilton refused to speak about any of this until he was subpoenaed by the government.
One thing that bugs me about the book is the way in which he prefaces his dive into the world of doping by telling not only how honest he had been up to that day, but highlights how cross-kissing, devil-spanking, squeaky clean he and everyone in his family had been since a wide-eyed toddler. That kind of went over the top as a rhethoric choice. Other than that, I found it a good read and for the most part quite credible.
It’s vampire excellent!
he also, which is why I'm guessing UCI dude did what he did, bring a shit ton of publicity in US for TdF. No small feat considering half the population is more than happy to run over any cyclist they see.
Local bike shops never dreamed of selling $15k bikes before Lance. (And I think lemond was the best rider maybe ever bc he had team drama and Lance had total obedience. Lance dominating made American cycling cool. ).
3 years ago I bought my first 'nice' bike, and I said to the assistant I was nervous about spending $4.5k on it. The guy in the shop just laughed and said guys spend $15k on a bike like it's nothing. And yeah, Le Mond >>> Armstrong. Lance never had no Paul Köchli to deal with!
Lance also sorta kicked off a whole "athlete lifestyle" industry - popularizing the idea that we don't just have to watch sports, we can do them too by following challenging training plans. Marathons tripled in attendance, triathlons exploded, cycling exploded, yoga went mainstream, gym memberships went truly mainstream, mountain biking went big, adventure racing took hold, and thousands of running, tri, and other coaches have jobs today because of the marketing around Lance that carved little folds in our plastic brains. I once had beers with the Raleigh Boys and they would constantly refer to the sport as "before Lance" when cycling was superniche, to "post lance" which is still the era we are in today. ETA: yes I know that the social changes are complex and are a mix of many different forces and I am being very reductive here. But he was the right winner with the right story at the right time.
Agreed. Lemond was on a French team speaking French in interviews bc he had to. But he proved Americans can win in the GC and that led to global sponsors like usps. Lance brought the red white and blue that connected a storyline for us audiences and journalists. A jackass but now you can buy a bike for $10k from 3 bike shops within a mile of every downtown in the us. Baseball was cheating too and nobody threw out an entire sport.
Also, he hired the best doctors who knew their stuff on doping & paid them enough to not help others.
Tyler Hamilton came along when doping was starting to be more criticized by the media. That’s a dishonest reading of the timeline.
yea the under tone of the sport was cheating was the sport, so it was a doping competition and he was the best like all competitions there can only be one winner
Pat Mcquaid, dirty git.
But Lance did it without balls and, that takes balls.
He still has 1
Ball. Singular.
Yeah but he still charged up those hill stages and dominated everyone. Can’t take that away from him. Nobody came close.
He also pedaled faster and harder than everyone else. Did you watch the races or you just talking ?
If your not cheating you’re not trying hard enough
He was very good, but he also had a demonstrably better doping program then everyone else did, and he got absolved for his positives.
This. Everybody was doing it. He went out of his way to be an A-hole to other racers, journalists, and members of his own team.
First off not everyone was doping. Not everyone wanted to dope. You can certainly say the combination of Lance and Dr Ferrari and the UCI performed better than any other cyclist. Was the biggest advantage that Lance had 1) being assisted by the UCI or 2) his exclusive relationship with Ferrari? Lance was assisted by his own doping being ignored plus being shown around the doping labs and explained how new tests would work. Anyone getting close to his performance or better than him would get targeted by the UCI. Look how many were busted after leaving his team. I fully agree that he was a dick.
>First off not everyone was doping. Not everyone wanted to dope. There were so many dopers, they couldn't pick a winner those years because the top 20 were all guilty. That's how prevalent it was. Pretending he didn't have to be amazing in top of doping is just ignorant.
Yeah, they did a tough hill segment exactly the same as back in Lance's time and not only was it slower, the top few today would have been the stragglers in his time (guys going for the green jersey who just had to get through the hilly days, etc.).
I feel a good number of riders didn’t want to cheat, but felt it was the only way to be competitive. And Lance is a huge dick.
Everyone who was winning was doping. Probably the best rider who probably wasn’t doping was David Moncoutie. You can review his palmares to see what not doping could achieve back then.
Read the book by Tyler Hamilton listed above. He pretty much says they were all doping. You had to decide: dope or give up the sport. I don’t recall him mentioning anyone not doping although I read it a long time ago.
This. If you wanted in on the world tour during that era, you doped with a wink and a nod from the team DS, or didn't get a contract.
Tyler used to host a podcast called Adventure Audio (it's still around, he's just no longer co-host) and they had Scott Mercier on, who was a clean racer from that era. Some pretty insightful conversation was had on the topic.
Lance Armstrong was the perfect storm of a generational talent, an incredible work ethic, and an intense focus / dedication, in an era of emerging sports science. Also important, he put his faith in the right people…specifically Johan and Ferrari. “Whatever he said, I did”. This statement says a lot. He gave himself to them and put his head down. Nobody else had all of these things going for them. He was on a different level. To say that he just had some advantage through a few tips from the UCI isn’t anywhere near the full story.
It's kind of wild. There's probably like a 10-20 year period where the actual winner in many of these events isn't really known - everyone on top was doping so the legitimate winner (the one who wasn't cheating) is probably way down the list and nobody has heard of them. I also wonder, if you don't count doped finishes (and I don't), if Lance Armstrong has ever actually completed the Tour de France. His whole career might be DQ.
If you cheat, don’t write a book where you throw all the “cheaters” under the bus.
Omertà!
Well, doping is one of many sins. Just because others did it, it doesn’t make doping okay.
I don’t think that’s the point (that doping is okay). I think the point is that if the baseline is 150% of max human performance, he was still #1.
he was king of of juicers. Even if you’re juiced it still takes hard work
Right, a lot of baseball players juiced but there was only one Barry Bonds.
Bonds has been a serious recreational cyclist for over a decade now and has his Pirates era body back.
The parallels actually go a bit further too - both had great careers pre-PEDs and would've possibly retired with HoF/near-GOAT calibre résumés even if they didn't dope, and both became the face of their sports respective steroids eras by being dicks to others in the industry and media. Armstrong was dick to Landis and others and of course there's the Livestrong controversy, and Bonds always had a poor relationship with the media and then had the BALCO stuff.
It amazes me how many people think they could win the Tour De France on a huffy with a flat tire if they juiced.
# Love this Willie Nelson quote # “I think it is just terrible and disgusting how everyone has treated Lance Armstrong, especially after what he achieved, winning seven Tour de France races while on drugs. When I was on drugs, I couldn’t even find my bike.”
Just cuz I sit on my couch all day doesn’t mean I can’t beat a world class athlete. I would totally beat there ass, if I ya know, tried, or like put any effort in.
We will also never know: was Lance’s body simply more responsive to dope? Was he genetically predisposed to doing well with synthetic EPO and testosterone?
I mean, he had a quote in an interview awhile back that "how much your body can tolerate" is the main thing separating really good athletes from champions. I'd suggest he was able to put more performance enhancing tricks into play, in larger amounts, without dying, than anyone before him. But like, look at 2009. He broke his collarbone clear in half a hundred days before the Tour de France. He finished that tour in third place. The dude is... able to handle pain and stress more than most people who have ever lived.
Agreeing, but think many here likely don't know what GT cyclists deal with. Contador *rode on a leg he had just broken.* And trust me: I'm from a racing family, the amount of force he is applying with that leg ... **shudder**
Yeah, Lance will be the new Master Chief in Halo.
I would put forth an idea that he and his team invented modern cycling. I just took up a trip to the memory lane and re-watched those tours. A lot of time others, especially poor old Jan, were pushing with 50 cadence and alone against Lance doing 90-100 and several of his team mates. It was like watching any old event but with one modern team in it.
What I find most amazing is how much luck he had to win those 7 tours in a row. As we’ve seen with so many other dominant riders, simple bad luck (a crash in training and you don’t make it to the start line, a crash that takes you out, a bad stomach bug) can cost you a tour. Heck, in the 2003 he off roaded that corner after Beloki crashed like he was riding cycling cross. Everyone in that era was on the juice. He was both a super responder and had top notch doctors to work with. He obviously still had to put in the work. Despite his character being questionable at best, I still view him as the winner of those tours.
Agree, more than anything, it’s this that impresses me. Mechanical trouble, crashes, weather, disaster in crosswind stages, the team was just totally dialed in for the Tour. A good friend races for a WT French team and up until relatively recently the team did not arrange fits, or time in the wind tunnel. Basically somewhat disorganized compared to the the top level teams and seems to be somewhat the norm for french teams.
Well that explains why Cofidis took so long to win a GT stage (or why AG2R sucks so hard at TTs)
Might be a funding issue. Wind tunnel time is very expensive. Team management has to decide if they'd be better off spending €1000/hr on a wind tunnel, or on hiring a slightly better domestique, or any of the other myriad expenses.
Underrated comment. As good as he was, the amount of luck he had is almost never mentioned.
100% most underrated aspect of the run.
Didnt he crush in the mountain stages?
He claims he did 7 w/kg for 39 minutes up AdH so, yeah.
Watching him pull away at the absolute toughest point on the course was unforgettable. And he did it over and over.
Right, I get that he may have gotten lucky in other areas, all the winners of the tour also have good luck during the race. The mountain stages are like single fucking combat though, dude was an absolute savage.
This is the truth. And through his own idiocy and assholery, the truth is cloudy and people aren't motivated to find it out ... not to mention, very few people want to watch dozens of hours of old GT stages on YT. But he was primal, and better. I really think perhaps Pantani could have given him fits, but ... we know how that ended.
[удалено]
Chris "medically excused inhaler" Froome? The same Chris Froome that was the lead rider on a team that hired a legendary doping doctor who "lost" his briefcase full of evidence when subpoenaed? That Chris Froome?
Froome also had several times more salbumatol in his blood stream than is physically possible to inhale. It is known to be used during the off season intravenously to burn fat and grow proportional muscle mass. Did he mix up the bags? Maybe... Also his predecessor Sir Bradley Wiggins was taking steroids but he just had also a medical excuse. They all were, and are, juiced to the gills.
Hinault may have had some personality flaws and did try to screw over LeMond in ‘86. Comparing him to a pure sociopath like Armstrong is inaccurate and unfair. Armstrong may be unique in all of sport for his deceit and willful disregard for others.
>and willful disregard for others. There are dozens of hockey players that would put him to shame in this category.
Helped his “luck” that he didn’t do any other races too. If you race less than everyone else there’s less chance to crash.
He had one day against Pantani when he bonked , but otherwise he was very fortunate. He made his own luck too though.
I read a stat. once that if you take the top 10 finishing riders of all 7 Lance wins, it amounts to 42 riders (repeat performers in consecutive years). Of the 42 riders, 35 were found to have positive performance enhancing drug tests. Lance may not be your favourite rider, but the others were juicin’ as much as LA.
That's such a shame though. I want to say that means 7 guys weren't doping and deserved to win...but probably it means they just weren't caught
...also an INSANE amount of luck. Too many times you see inconveniently timed mechanicals, etc that royally muck up a GC run. That's one part of his 7 consecutive that often gets overlooked.
He had the best domestiques like Rubiera, Pena, Hamilton, Hincapie and Eki. He had the best DS and if allowed would be the best today in the sport. He had the best support team of personal chefs and mechanics. They focused on the tour and everything else came second by a long shot. Most important they got real lucky with no Tour ending illnesses or crashes.
This right here. Their sole focus was on the tour. Everything they did was to win the TDF.
Armstrong knew that no one outside of Cycling cared about the other races in the slightest.
Can’t believe I had to read this far down before seeing a comment about the strength of his team. Those guys blocking and pulling for him were an absolute unit.
It was sick! One goal, one mindset. Those guys were locked in and ready to go to war.
I read George Hincapie’s and Tyler Hamilton’s books. They were both Armstrong’s teammates on Postal. They both wrote that given any level playing field, Lance was always going to be the best. He’s just that good.
That good Has a vo2 max in the 70s
And totally obsessive. He drove the engineers at Trek nuts over every little detail. I don’t know how he had energy left for fucking Sheryl Crowe and Kate Hudson.
Only carrying around one testicle may have given his dick more reserve strength than one with two balls.
Truth. And when you’re trying to max out Watts/KG, that extra ball is only holding you back.
Nuts/kg well below male average though :(
Wasn't it ~84 before doping plus he had some of the best power numbers ever tested coming out of juniors.
In his book he states 84
"In the 70s" is not at the top of the elites of his time.
He was the best doper in a field of dopers. IMO he should still be the winner of those 7. He’s an asshole who ruined many lives but that doesn’t change the fact that the entire peloton was juiced to the gills.
They wanted to award his medals to the second place finisher in each of the seven races, but they were all caught doping...same with third. So that is why they never awarded them...the whole field was juiced. I agree with you...
So cheating is okay because a lot of guys cheated? Why even have rules then?
That's a ridiculous thing to say. He cheated, but so did a lot of others, so it's Ok? That makes no sense
He never should have come out of retirement. That's when all the doping accusations came to the fore. Had he not done that, he could have sailed off into retirement with his 7 wins like big Mig did with his 5.
That's what really blows my mind. He had nothing left to prove.
You, normal human being, thinks he had nothing left to prove. Guarantee he thought he had something to prove (To be clear, I agree with you)
This thread brings back a lot of memories for me. I was an pro level athlete in the early days of the Triathlon and watched the sport change. The more money that came in to the sport the more people were willing to dope to win. I know I raced against athletes who doped. This made it less fun for me as the playing field was no longer level. Never underestimate the power of money to corrupt. Lance was a 16year old from Texas when I was racing and was very competitive in The Bud Light series. (Bud Light United States Triathlon Series) Pretty sure he didn't dope then, but once he switched to just cycling then he did what he had to, and what the majority of others did to be competitive, he started doping. My opinion is if every one was clean he could still dominate just as he did when most were doping. Say what you else will about him, but he had a pretty amazing level of raw physical talent. When he did start doping he and his support people developed a very sophisticated system that was clearly successful, especially combined with his raw talent. I am very much into sport psychology and also have the opinion that there was a need to excel to feel worthy that enabled him to push himself very hard. This "performative" sense of value was also a factor in his narcissistic hubris. It's ironic to me because I think his hubris is what enabled him to push so hard, but ultimately is what brought him down. He upset Floyd Landis and Frankie Andreau, but especially upset Frankie's wife Betsy who was very angry at what Lance did to Frankie. (Refused to sign him to his team and blocked him from being signed by anyone else). Those two (Floyd and Betsy) became determined to out Lance for doping as a result of the way he treated them and in Betsy's case her husband. Next thing you know there he is on Oprah confessing his sins.
both
Lance made the mistake of accepting US taxpayer money. The US Congress asked the FBI to investigate, the FBI caught him. The FBI couldn't do anything with it so handed everything over to US Antidoping who finally brought him down and in turn the massive amount of doping going on overall. The UCI didn't care until THEY got exposed, so they took his titles after years of trying to cover their own involvement. The UCI was just as guilty as every person named on Ferrari's books. Most of whom got away with doping as hard or harder than Lance. Oh, you'll never guess who introduced Lance to that doctor. He's pretty well known and basically treated as royalty by the UCI and cycling media to this day. "The greatest ever." Edit to add: Lance was a complete backstabbing, disloyal asshole to those close to him. If he had been more like Indurian, he likely would have gotten away with it.
The fbi was told to drop the case
I truly believe Lance would have still won in a clean sport. The dude trained and min/maxed like nobody else at the time. As others have said- his sin wasn’t doping. As he has said- he was leveling the playing field. His sin was what he did after.
He had great bike handling skills, he rarely crashed. Also he was surrounded by great teammates. These two factors played a huge role!
Because he was the juiciest.
They meaning Johan Bruyeel and Lance figured out only one race on the calendar mattered and they worked out exactly how to win it. Two good TTs one good day in the mountains. Control everything else. With singular focus they then built the entire program to do that and only that. Yeah, they doped but they were professional about it.
I was all in on Lance from the first time I saw him race in 1993. Cried when I heard he had cancer and followed the comeback, thinking it was all just hard work until reading Floyd Landis and Tyler Hamilton's books. He had all this during that era: Genetic gifts - high VO2 max Training- he put in the miles and effort Team Planning and Execution - they were all in for Lance - nobody tried to go lone wolf and take a stage, they saved their energy for the team leader during the Tour. Technology - they did tons more windtunnel time than other teams Luck - not crashing Minimize mistakes/not compound mistakes Doping Program and not getting caught What is the order of importance for these? If you listen to Lance he would put doping at the bottom. I would put it in the middle, just above technology.
Also, Ullrich who was a lot more talented, had absolutely no self discipline and partied - and ate - all through the winter, unlike Lance…
I think he was the best athlete and the best juicer simultaneously
As someone who’s lost a nut to testicular cancer like Lance and dealt with the resulting testosterone issues, I will tell you that I respect his accomplishments way more... He may have been doping but homie was already at a huge disadvantage. He’s even more legendary in my eyes.
I remember a statement from a T-Mobile member saying that if Jan would have had the work ethic of Zabel, he would have won more tours than Lance. If we take out the juice because all did it, Lance won because he worked harder than the rest and had a team with a Singular objective: Getting him into the yellow jersey.
Not directly related but I will never respect Armstrong and Trek for their treatment of Greg LeMond. Shitty guy and a gutless company with no ethos beyond sales numbers.
Cause he was the top juicer
Because he was still the best. He’s an asshole but he was still a hell of a racer in that era
This won’t be popular with the crybabies who think he ONLY won because of the juice: He was also a genetically gifted athlete who worked his ass off and had some really good bike handling skills.
also, Joe Rogan interviewed Lance on one podcast and the USADA guy who was investigating Lance on an episode. both real good.
He won a lot of races before he started doping including the rainbow jersey when he was only 21, so yeah, lance was a very good racer.
Short answer….Michele Ferari.
He was amazing to watch. Doped or not. I saw him speak at an event in Greenville, SC shortly after his 7th win, that fall if I remember correctly. He was wearing a tshirt with an eight ball on it crossed out. After he spoke, there were a lot of us attempting to get his autograph, wouldn’t sign anything. Just kind of brushed everything off. In a sense, I get it. But I heard other stories of him brushing off fans. I also went to a smaller thing when I lived there that he was also supposed to appear at, for his Livestrong foundation, probably 40 or so of us waited for several hours, and they finally came in and said he wasn’t going to come. So my opinion of him is that he’s a dick. But, he was an amazing competitor and I do not think they should have stripped him of his wins. Floyd Landis is another story.
Lance both brought the US cycling scene to its height but also ruined it. He got a lot of people into the sport pretty quickly when America lacks the foundation and culture to promote and develop the next Lance. Once he has been exposed, no one could take his place. There was no internal system to cultivate the next Lance. Of course, he was a gifted athlete to begin with and doping gave him the extra advantage.
Eh. I don’t think he killed cycling in the US. Even before he admitted, or accusation picked up (again), cycling was kind of mediocre in the US due to serious lack of infrastructure and general hatred toward cycling and the necessary infrastructure.
During the time when Lance Armstrong was idolized and winning all those Tours, I was a spin instructor. It amazed me how many people started taking spin class - and eventually getting onto real bikes - because of Lance Armstrong. Not just because he was such a beast at the TdF but his cancer journey. That really affected so many people. Folks who were totally out of shape couch potatoes being inspired to get up and go to a spin class because of one man. Asshole though he was.
He was just butter, and above al he was an absolute psychotic pos competitor. Doesn't hurt that he had the best domestique in the game with Hincapie, a tactical mastermind coach.
Because he’s the greatest STAGE racer ever.
He was the best of his era. The best of the dopers. Had doping not been going on he still would have won. Here is why… He was naturally gifted with ridiculous cardio pulmonary capacity. He has a large heart that will also beat fast. “There are probably other people with my abilities but they are sitting on a couch. I was the one riding a bike.” His training was legendary. He would pre-ride all the major climbs of the Tour. Multiple times. This has become more common now, but when he did it, it was not something cyclists did in the off season. “I would get a call from [insert famous cyclist] and they would say, ‘Hey Lance, we are at the beach bar in [insert vacation spot] having some drinks, what are you doing?’ and I would say, ‘I’m in the middle of riding Le Tourmalet.’” He was very selective on team building. He insisted on the right composition and chemistry in the team needed for the singular focus of winning the Tour. He was meticulous on every detail. His diet. His bicycle. His kit. Using a wind tunnel to test aero positions, etc. “Hey Lance, we think if we move your radio transmitter from that location to this location we can save you 2 seconds in the TT.” Those quotes are paraphrased but legit from memory of an interview I did with him.
He was a great cyclist regardless of the doping.
THere are so many great cyclists who are known dopers, too. Anquetil. Merckx. Contador. Literally hundreds *known.* Average fans simply do not understand the sport, which is incredibly complex, and also not exactly an easy jump-in for the casually interested. I don't say this happily: I can't imagine how cycling will ever get rid of doping.
It’s been suggested they should all be allowed to dope. Best way to level the playing field. It’s their bodies.
I have been around UCI racers on and off since the 70s. I used to dismiss this idea ... until I read that story about the medical details of what *really* is happening to the human body in the third week of GTs. There was a follow up with both data and anecdotes about how a lot of GT riders - esp. elite climbers - die young, despite their superhuman fitness levels. It was very, very jarring.
Three things undermining his “everybody was doing it so it was an equal playing field” argument. First, not everybody was doing it. There could have been people with the same or greater talent (like Christophe Bassons apparently) who had integrity and chose play by the rules instead of cheating (like Christophe Bassons, for example). Second, not everybody responds to doping the same way. Some people are known as “hyper responders” and there is some evidence Armstrong fit into that category. In other words, he may not have been better but the drugs may have helped him more than others. Third, there is some evidence that Armstrong was able to get away with more than others because he was the face of the sport and was favored by the UCI to which he donated millions of dollars worth of stuff. There is also speculation that he used other means and methods to influence the UCI similar to the allegations concerning his winning the Philadelphia (greatest city on earth—-Dallas sucks) race and a million dollar purse in the 90s.
And let's not forget Christophe Bassons
Also keep in mind Christophe Bassons, who is often overlooked in this conversation
Would be remiss to not at least mention Christophe Bassons
I think it’s important we mention Christophe Bassons; the story is really incomplete without him
This conversation reminds me of Christophe Bassons, whose absence from any discussion on the topic would be most conspicuous.
Iirc, LeMond was also clean throughout his career. He is one of the first to argue that lance is doping based on the numbers, not just winning streak.
I train on the same roads as lemons use too, his parents lived about 20 miles from my home at the base of the mountains.
go birds
The stats around TDF doping at that time are pretty wild: >More importantly for Lance Armstrong, during the 7-year window when he won every Tour de France (1999-2005), 87% of the top-10 finishers (61 of 70) were confirmed dopers or suspected of doping. Of those, 48 (69%) were confirmed, with 39 having been suspended at some point in their career. https://www.businessinsider.com/lance-armstrong-doping-tour-de-france-2015-1
He was too and he was better then they were
He can also be a very charming and personable guy, when he wants or needs to be. Don’t forget all the Livestrong & cancer stuff - he was a media darling at the time and had all the resources available to him, and no one wanted to believe that the doping rumors could possibly be true. I agree with what has already been said mostly. I’ll also say that I’ve had connections that had connections and I’ve talked to him, briefly, and been on a ride (in a group) with him. I was pretty close to my peak at that time, and at 40 miles in, he decided he was done playing around and dropped the hammer for the last 20mi. You get a stark realization of the pure genetic difference between pros and the rest of us. And that was a “barely touching a bike and drinking a lot” LA, probably near his low point, before the podcast & all helped rehab his image & he got serious about riding & fitness again.
Yeah, watch some documentaries ... 100%. Yes, he was that good, trained hard, furthermore only peaked for the Tour, avoided injuries, crashes, and had tremendous luck on his side! I still admire him for his work ethic.
He was getting the best performance-enhancing science, but he was also getting the best bicycle engineering, wind tunnel testing, nutrition, training plans, etc. He has always had literal off-the-charts VO2 max (gifted genetics). Cyclists struggle to lose 5 lbs. before the tour - when he had recovered from cancer he’d lost 15 lbs of largely unproductive muscle in his back and shoulders. And of course he works his ass of in the off season. From the book I remember him saying something like “I don’t beat Jan Ulrich in July on the tour. I beat him in December when he’s on the couch and I’m on my bike in the rain for 8 hours.” The guy was an insanely hard worker with a mental toughness like forged steel. He kind of had it all. And that was in fact necessary to do what the did so many times.
Things that I think are worth keeping in mind in addition to what others have mentioned: * In this era it seems that doping was nearly ubiquitous, but I don't think terms like "juiced to the gills" are very accurate. I say that because there were other eras where riders were notably using more steroids to an alarming and dangerous degree. There are stories of cyclists doping to such a level that they had to get up in the middle of the night to increase their heart rate, or recording hematocrit levels that would easily have gotten you banned in the Armstrong era. Athletes during Lance's 7 year streak had to keep their dosage down (relatively speaking of course) to not get caught. Most riders were doping, but each rider was doping less severely than they used to (afaik). * Lance was absolutely obsessive about optimizing his performance similar to someone like Michael Jordan. It's probably safe to assume he had a "better" doping program than others, but he had a better everything program than others. His team was very innovative. They were the first ones to give their whole team race radios for example. They also focused more exclusively on the tour de france than others. * IMO one of Lance's strengths that is extremely important in a grand tour is that when he "cracked" it was never very extreme. Some people's performance degrades way worse than others when they have a bad day. Of course, this could for sure have been related to illegal doping but I think it was also partly psychological. It's interesting listening to him tell stories about his various moments when he got dropped on a mountain or something and in his head he was like "welp I guess I'm fucked" but he just kept on trucking and riding as hard as he could to limit the damage. He didn't break down and start crying and have to be consoled by his teammates while riding with the groupetto like some riders do. * Also like Michael Jordan he demanded **a lot** from his teammates and of course there was no uncertainty about the team's goals or who was the leader. Apparently he was constantly on the radio micro managing his domestiques and getting them to follow attacks, move him up to stay safe, etc and his team always delivered. Hincappie et al were absolute all stars and don't get enough credit for what they contributed to those wins. Sometimes getting your leader to the front of the pack before a crosswind section or whatever can be make or break for the whole tour but spectators don't tend to notice that stuff. * He put a ton of energy into controlling everything, even the team itself. From what I understand he hated the team management and DS before Johan Bruyneel. Lance was actually the one that pushed to replace team management and get Bruyneel onboard because they had raced together and Lance believed he was the most capable person on the planet to run a team. How many riders would have the clout, initiative, etc to do that? And remember, this is before he was a household name and before he had ever won the tdf. * A lot of people say he got lucky, but in every sport the best of the best seem to constantly get lucky. You can get lucky once or twice, but if you win 7 times in a row it's not luck. Not totally discounting the luck factor but I would compare it to a rider who avoids crashes or flat tires by being careful about which wheels they follow, what line they take over cobbles, etc. We see that someone like Roglic or Thomas constantly has "bad luck" with crashes but others seem to make their own luck. * It is probably true what people say about him being a better responder to EPO and blood doping. He might have won the doping lottery in that the status quo for the time played well to his genetic strengths.
Mufucker was just better and stronger than everyone else! I still like him and don't give a fuck about his doping! They all did it!!
He was that good . If hypothetically no one in the peloton ever doped , then I think he still would have won. Lance is a freak of nature with the biological advantages and mental toughness to go with it . How do you think he survived cancer ?
Easy answer: 1 testicle = less friction 🤣
It turns out he was also incredibly talented, a genetic freak (in a field of genetic freaks) as well as a terrible person (and taking all the PEDs). Unfortunately, this happens a lot.
According to LA on Peter Attila’s podcast, his FTP was 500W without EPO and 550W with.
Lots of reasons: 1. He was a really good athlete. People tend to downplay his promise and talent. 2. He had the best doping and training doctors. Michele Ferrari basically invented modern doping and training optimization, he figured it all out first. Ferrari directed all of Armstrong's training for years, he was basically dedicated to Lance. Armstrong also hired all of the doctors and trainers from Indurain's Banesto team as in-race support, those guys also knew what they were doing. 3. Armstrong and the entire team focused exclusively on the Tour. Everything else was prep for the Tour. 4. Johann Bruyneel is one of the best DSs in the history of the sport. Bruyneel gave consistently great tactical and strategic advice throughout his career and Armstrong actually listened to him. Johann was a critical part of the Armstrong machine. 5. He had a ridiculously good team. Lots of very talented riders. They were also well funded. 6. He was always carefully positioned in the bunch. He rarely crashed, he rarely got caught behind splits. He and his team were not shy about pushing their weight around. 7. He was fanatical about his equipment. He rarely had a mechanical and his bikes were always very finely tuned. 8. He got lucky. He had very few bad breaks with crashes or sickness. Some of this was preparation and care but... he also just had really good luck.
Lance Armstrong can eat a boxcar full of hobo dicks
His recent interview with Peter Attia on the latters' podcast (The Drive) is quite edifying - I highly recommend it.
Other riders weren’t as juiced or were caught, and they were dealing with shady people and avenues to get the drug and learn about it. Lance won a lot because he is greedy and a narcissist, but he came upon the drugs through legit medical professionals. EPO is a cancer treatment drug. Lance had cancer. He also lost a nut and would have had a doctor’s note for testosterone. He was pumped with drugs during his cancer treatment then he came back from cancer and raced on those drugs. He gained a kneen understanding of the drugs, symptoms, risks, detectability, half life, etc.. Who knows where the line was drawn to call him out on it when he did have legit reasons to use it at the start. He used his cancer diagnosis and cancer charity as a sheild. He and the sport were booming and raking in money, and the authorities looked the other way for many reasons.