Tour '04 prediction

Dan Connelly said:

I just saw the WCP 4-hour video for the '03 Tour.

It was a fantastic race, but the video is somewhat lacking.

* The commentary is often incorrect -- errors almost exceed accurate commentary. Surely with the
time scales of producing a video, the commentary need not be "live" or "virtual live".

But simply re-running the live feed is cheap. Maybe Phil & Paul can just work a little more on real-
time accuracy. That's the biggest problem with 'em. Mostly, they do great.

Quoted message said:

* All the short stages get badly neglected, with key moves omitted. The problem here is that they
simply show the finish of the stage. Instead of 4 minutes of a rider soloing to the finish, how
about spending 20 seconds showing his attack? So essentially the editing is only the most
trivial possible.

I agree. Sometimes very neat things happen in flat stages. Stage 8 of 2001 was an example, and it
was given 45 seconds on the 4-hour DVD.

Quoted message said:

* Too much time is spent in between-stage commentary, showing faces. It isn't that much time, but
clearly when covering a 21-stage race in 120 minutes, time is precious. There's no need to ever
show faces.

I like the filler and background on the DVD. Oh, I've watched the 10-hour version. There's a "lot"
of insight and some very informative rider interviews about much of the action.

--
--
Lynn Wallace xmission.com~lawallOpen ↗
"We should not march into Baghdad. ... Assigning young soldiers to
a fruitless hunt for a securely entrenched dictator and condemning
them to fight in what would be an unwinnable urban guerilla war, it
could only plunge that part of the world into ever greater
instability." George Bush Sr. in his 1998 book "A World Transformed"

Raptor said:

Dan Connelly said:

I just saw the WCP 4-hour video for the '03 Tour.

It was a fantastic race, but the video is somewhat lacking.

* The commentary is often incorrect -- errors almost exceed accurate commentary. Surely with the
time scales of producing a video, the commentary need not be "live" or "virtual live".

But simply re-running the live feed is cheap. Maybe Phil & Paul can just work a little more on real-
time accuracy. That's the biggest problem with 'em. Mostly, they do great.

If getting P&P to do a reasonable re-commentary is too costly, get someone else. What's said is more
important than who says it. Ligget's a great guy, but his commentary in the 2003 tape was useless.
He was essentially clueless about what was happening.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

* All the short stages get badly neglected, with key moves omitted. The problem here is that they
simply show the finish of the stage. Instead of 4 minutes of a rider soloing to the finish, how
about spending 20 seconds showing his attack? So essentially the editing is only the most
trivial possible.

I agree. Sometimes very neat things happen in flat stages. Stage 8 of 2001 was an example, and it
was given 45 seconds on the 4-hour DVD.

I wrote "short stages". I should have written "flat stages", although even the mountain stages could
have used smarter editing. For example, on Virenque's solo stage win, they didn't even show his
attack, nor did they show any summit crossings other then the last.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

* Too much time is spent in between-stage commentary, showing faces. It isn't that much time, but
clearly when covering a 21-stage race in 120 minutes, time is precious. There's no need to ever
show faces.

I like the filler and background on the DVD. Oh, I've watched the 10-hour version. There's a "lot"
of insight and some very informative rider interviews about much of the action.

Every second of face is one second less racing. They can talk over the race video coverage if they
want. That's what Duffield does. At least you can ignore him and watch the riders.

Dan

Raptor said:

Sometimes very neat things happen in flat stages. Stage 8 of 2001 was an example

Yeah! And stage 8 of 2002 too, btw.

So where are the predictions in all this? Here are mine at present, subject to change due to
illness, injury, lack of form and retirement.

1. Ullrich
2. Beloki
3.Hamilton
4.Valverde
5..Armstrong
6. Vino
7. Odessa's husband
8. Mayo
9. Basso
10. Simoni

"Dan Connelly" <d_j_c_o_n_n_e_l@i_e_e_e.o_r_g> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Raptor said:

Dan Connelly said:

I just saw the WCP 4-hour video for the '03 Tour.

It was a fantastic race, but the video is somewhat lacking.

* The commentary is often incorrect -- errors almost exceed accurate commentary. Surely with
the time scales of producing a video, the commentary need not be "live" or "virtual live".

But simply re-running the live feed is cheap. Maybe Phil & Paul can just work a little more on
real-time accuracy. That's the biggest problem with 'em. Mostly, they do great.

If getting P&P to do a reasonable re-commentary is too costly, get someone else. What's said is
more important than who says it. Ligget's a great guy, but his commentary in the 2003 tape was
useless. He was essentially clueless about what was happening.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

* All the short stages get badly neglected, with key moves omitted. The problem here is that
they simply show the finish of the stage. Instead of 4 minutes of a rider soloing to the
finish, how about spending 20 seconds showing his attack? So essentially the editing is only
the most trivial possible.

I agree. Sometimes very neat things happen in flat stages. Stage 8 of 2001 was an example, and
it was given 45 seconds on the 4-hour DVD.

I wrote "short stages". I should have written "flat stages", although even the mountain stages
could have used smarter editing. For example, on Virenque's solo stage win, they didn't even show
his attack, nor did they show any summit crossings other then the last.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

* Too much time is spent in between-stage commentary, showing faces. It isn't that much time,
but clearly when covering a 21-stage race in 120 minutes, time is precious. There's no need
to ever show faces.

I like the filler and background on the DVD. Oh, I've watched the 10-hour version. There's a
"lot" of insight and some very informative rider interviews about much of the action.

Every second of face is one second less racing. They can talk over the race video coverage if they
want. That's what Duffield does. At least you can ignore him and watch the riders.

Dan

B. Lafferty said:

So where are the predictions in all this? Here are mine at present, subject to change due to
illness, injury, lack of form and retirement.

1. Ullrich
2. Beloki
3.Hamilton
3.Valverde
5..Armstrong
6. Vino
7. Odessa's husband
8. Mayo
9. Basso
10. Simoni

I posted mine in my first post of this thread:

1. Ullrich
2. Armstrong
3. Beloki
4. Mayo
5. Hamilton
6. Heras
7. Zubeldia
8. Simoni
9. Leipheimer
10. Vinokourov

Armstrong 5th? That's bold. I'd take the bet in a second that Armstrong won't finish lower than 4th.

Valverde and Basso are decent choices, but predicting a Valverde dead heat with Hamilton for the
podium is even bolder than the Armstrong pick 🙂.

Dan

"Dan Connelly" <d_j_c_o_n_n_e_l@i_e_e_e.o_r_g> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

B. Lafferty said:

So where are the predictions in all this? Here are mine at present,

subject

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

to change due to illness, injury, lack of form and retirement.

1. Ullrich
2. Beloki
3.Hamilton
3.Valverde
5..Armstrong
6. Vino
7. Odessa's husband
8. Mayo
9. Basso
10. Simoni

I posted mine in my first post of this thread:

1. Ullrich
2. Armstrong
3. Beloki
4. Mayo
5. Hamilton
6. Heras
7. Zubeldia
8. Simoni
9. Leipheimer
10. Vinokourov

Armstrong 5th? That's bold. I'd take the bet in a second that Armstrong won't finish lower
than 4th.

Valverde and Basso are decent choices, but predicting a Valverde dead heat with Hamilton for the
podium is even bolder than the Armstrong pick

🙂.

Quoted message said:

Dan

I missed the post with your list. Bold, perhaps. Often wrong in the past, absolutely. I put
Armstrong in 5th because of how he looked in LBL. It was the first real hint that the aging process
is catching up to him. He couldn't do what he clearly wanted to do in LBL and the Tour confirmed
he's getting long in the tooth. Udo Bolts says much the same in the latest Cycle Sport. Right or
wrong, it's going to be a great Tour in 04. I would love for Levi to win if only to watch Odessa's
performance. :-)

In article <[email hidden]>, Dan Connelly

d_j_c_o_n_n_e_l@i_e_e_e.o_r_g said:

B. Lafferty said:

So where are the predictions in all this? Here are mine at present, subject to change due to
illness, injury, lack of form and retirement.

1. Ullrich
2. Beloki
3.Hamilton
3.Valverde
5..Armstrong
6. Vino
7. Odessa's husband
8. Mayo
9. Basso
10. Simoni

I posted mine in my first post of this thread:

1. Ullrich
2. Armstrong
3. Beloki
4. Mayo
5. Hamilton
6. Heras
7. Zubeldia
8. Simoni
9. Leipheimer
10. Vinokourov

Armstrong 5th? That's bold. I'd take the bet in a second that Armstrong won't finish lower
than 4th.

Valverde and Basso are decent choices, but predicting a Valverde dead heat with Hamilton for the
podium is even bolder than the Armstrong pick 🙂.

Dan

I'd like to see Simoni finish high up as well. He cooked himself in the Giro last year, and I really
think it was the heat that did him in. I think it did nearly everybody in! I think he'll kill
himself to make up for his awful time at the tour.

B. Lafferty said:

I missed the post with your list. Bold, perhaps. Often wrong in the past, absolutely. I put
Armstrong in 5th because of how he looked in LBL. It was the first real hint that the aging
process is catching up to him. He couldn't do what he clearly wanted to do in LBL and the Tour
confirmed he's getting long in the tooth. Udo Bolts says much the same in the latest Cycle Sport.

Well, Bolts says he won't win. I say he won't win. But 5th? Maybe. But that's a big drop.

WRT LBL --

2003:cyclingnews.comlbl03Open ↗ 20 Lance Armstrong (USA) US
Postal presented by Berry F 0.50

2004:cyclingnews.comLBL02Open ↗ 65 Lance Armstrong (USA) US
Postal Service 8.12

He was far better in 2003 than 2002.

Amstel Gold:

2005:cyclingnews.comamstel02Open ↗ 4 Lance Armstrong (USA) US
Postal Service @ st

2006:cyclingnews.comamstel03Open ↗ 8 Lance Armstrong (USA) US
Postal Service @ 8 sec

Somewhat better in 2002 than 2003

I hardly see a strong signal in the classics.

In the Tour in 2003, he suffered in the heat. Heat affects different riders differently. Yet at no
time in the race did he show the form he had in 2002. Even @ Luz Ardiden, he was able to open a gap,
but the gap was quickly controlled by Ullrich and company. Indeed, they were able to pull the gap
down from 50+ seconds to 40+ seconds near the finish. And in the prologue, he was hardly
exceptional. He was strong in the second time trial, of course. But that was 2003.... this is 2004.
He's on the road from superior to simply competitive.

He blamed a poor preparation. Maybe. But this year's won't be better, if he's shuttling across the
Atlantic. To the contrary. So consider a stronger Ullrich with Vino as support, a stronger Beloki, a
stronger Mayo.... I can't consider him the favorite. But 2nd or maybe 3rd. Not 5th. Neither Hamilton
nor Valverde will finish above Armstrong (assuming Armstrong finishes). Not this year. 5th might be
a good pick for '05, if he does the Tour.

Dan

In article <[email hidden]>,

Dan Connelly d_j_c_o_n_n_e_l@i_e_e_e.o_r_g said:

B. Lafferty said:

I missed the post with your list. Bold, perhaps. Often wrong in the past, absolutely. I put
Armstrong in 5th because of how he looked in LBL. It was the first real hint that the aging
process is catching up to him. He couldn't do what he clearly wanted to do in LBL and the Tour
confirmed he's getting long in the tooth. Udo Bolts says much the same in the latest Cycle
Sport.

Well, Bolts says he won't win. I say he won't win. But 5th? Maybe. But that's a big drop.

(snipper)

Quoted message said:

In the Tour in 2003, he suffered in the heat. Heat affects different riders differently. Yet at no
time in the race did he show the form he had in 2002. Even @ Luz Ardiden, he was able to open a
gap, but the gap was quickly controlled by Ullrich and company. Indeed, they were able to pull the
gap down from 50+ seconds to 40+ seconds near the finish. And in the prologue, he was hardly
exceptional. He was strong in the second time trial, of course. But that was 2003.... this is
2004. He's on the road from superior to simply competitive.

My recollection is that Ullrich seems to deal with heat pretty well, while Armstrong deals better
with cool weather. So, considering the heat of '03, LA didn't lose as much time as one might
expect to Ullrich, especially taking into account his A) 'lack of form', B) 'poor preparation',
C) 'getting old', or D) all of the above. Hypothetically speaking, if there hadn't been the heat
wave, he should have been further ahead (all other factors being the same).

Quoted message said:

He blamed a poor preparation. Maybe. But this year's won't be better, if he's shuttling across the
Atlantic. To the contrary. So consider a stronger Ullrich with Vino as support, a stronger Beloki,
a stronger Mayo.... I can't consider him the favorite. But 2nd or maybe 3rd. Not 5th. Neither
Hamilton nor Valverde will finish above Armstrong (assuming Armstrong finishes). Not this year.
5th might be a good pick for '05, if he does the Tour.

Dan

I'd agree with that: podium or nothing.

--
tanx, Howard

"Girls won't touch me 'cuz I got a misdirection..."
Pere Ubu

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?

"Howard Kveck" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

In article <[email hidden]>,

Dan Connelly d_j_c_o_n_n_e_l@i_e_e_e.o_r_g said:

B. Lafferty said:

I missed the post with your list. Bold, perhaps. Often wrong in

the

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

past, absolutely. I put Armstrong in 5th because of how he looked in

LBL.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

It was the first real hint that the aging process is catching up to

him. He

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

couldn't do what he clearly wanted to do in LBL and the Tour confirmed

he's

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

getting long in the tooth. Udo Bolts says much the same in the latest

Cycle

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Sport.

Well, Bolts says he won't win. I say he won't win. But 5th? Maybe.

But

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

that's a big drop.

(snipper)

Quoted message said:

In the Tour in 2003, he suffered in the heat. Heat affects different riders differently. Yet at
no time in the race did he show the form he had in 2002. Even @ Luz Ardiden, he was able to open
a gap, but the gap was quickly controlled by Ullrich and company. Indeed, they were able to pull
the gap down from 50+ seconds to 40+ seconds near the finish. And in the prologue, he was hardly
exceptional. He was strong in the second time trial, of course. But that was 2003.... this is
2004. He's on the road from superior to simply competitive.

My recollection is that Ullrich seems to deal with heat pretty well,
while Armstrong deals better with cool weather. So, considering the heat

of

Quoted message said:

'03, LA didn't lose as much time as one might expect to Ullrich,

especially

Quoted message said:

taking into account his A) 'lack of form', B) 'poor preparation', C) 'getting old', or D) all of
the above. Hypothetically speaking, if there hadn't been the heat wave, he should have been
further ahead (all other factors being the same).

Quoted message said:

He blamed a poor preparation. Maybe. But this year's won't be better, if he's shuttling across
the Atlantic. To the contrary. So consider a stronger Ullrich with Vino as support, a stronger
Beloki, a stronger Mayo.... I can't consider him the favorite. But 2nd or maybe 3rd. Not 5th.
Neither Hamilton nor Valverde will finish above Armstrong (assuming Armstrong finishes). Not
this year. 5th might be a good pick for '05, if he does the Tour.

Dan

I'd agree with that: podium or nothing.

Consider though, Indurain finished 11th in 1996.

B. Lafferty said:

Consider though, Indurain finished 11th in 1996.

Good point.

This was a year after winning by 4'35". LeMond, after what might have been his 5th (winning by
2'16"😉, finished 7th. Merckx finished 2nd, a year after winning by 8'04". Hinault finished 2nd a
year after winning by 1'42".

So the end can come quite suddenly. Yet I stand by my prediction.

Dan

"Dan Connelly" <d_j_c_o_n_n_e_l@i_e_e_e.o_r_g> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

I just saw the WCP 4-hour video for the '03 Tour.

It was a fantastic race, but the video is somewhat lacking.

* The commentary is often incorrect -- errors almost exceed accurate commentary. Surely with the
time scales of producing a video, the commentary need not be "live" or "virtual live".

I have the 12 hour discs and to tell you the truth errors in commentary never bothered me much. I've
been a annoucer for races before so I know how hard it is to keep everything straight.

Quoted message said:

* All the short stages get badly neglected, with key moves omitted.
The problem here is that they simply show the finish of the

stage.

Quoted message said:

Instead of 4 minutes of a rider soloing to the finish, how about spending 20 seconds showing
his attack? So essentially the

editing

Quoted message said:

is only the most trivial possible.

When you have the long solo but not the attack you show what you've got. And remember that they
can't be in the right place at the right time all the time. For instance, there are breaks going off
the front of the main group all the time. You can't expect them to get all of them and even if they
get 75% they are still likely to miss the one that sticks.

Quoted message said:

1. Ullrich: underprepared in '03, yet clearly extremely strong.

Training

Quoted message said:

early this year. He smells his chance, and may even be

hungrier

Quoted message said:

for the win than Lance, who already has his five.

I agree completely. Moreover, Jan was ALWAYS capable of winning. It was his motivation that was
lacking since his first win after which we saw the incredible eating machine.

Quoted message said:

2. Armstrong: will be making trans-Atlantic flights during Tour preparation time. Hardly the way
to achieve needed

improvement

Quoted message said:

despite diminished capacity from being a year older.

I see this as essentially no problem since I believe that training in the Rockies is twice as good
as training in the Alps.

Quoted message said:

3. Beloki: A serious threat, but probably lacks that extra bit to finish ahead of Armstrong.

Beloki and Heras will neutralize each other.

Quoted message said:

4. Mayo: uphill time trial on L'Alpe d'Huez replaces a flat time

trial

Mayo, like Heras is a steep climb specialist if memory serves. That being the case I don't believe
that he'll win L'Alpe.

Quoted message said:

5. Hamilton: 1 flat ITT aren't enough to make up for time lost to

Mayo,

Quoted message said:

especially with mediocre Phonak TTT.

Don't sell Tyler short.

Quoted message said:

6. Heras: free at last, free at last, ....

And a real bozo over 3/4's of the stages.

Quoted message said:

7. Haimar Zubeldia

TT specialist? Why name him?

Quoted message said:

8. Simoni: if you can win the Giro, you should at least be able to

come

Quoted message said:

in eighth in the Tour

Or better. However, the Giro is one sort of GT and the Tour another. I don't think that Gilberto can
match Tyler in the big mountains.

Quoted message said:

9. Leipheimer: riding as team second this year, like '01 Vuelta. Should do well.

I've always seen Levi and Bobby as two of a kind. Both lucked into good positions and both hesitated
because they couldn't believe it. They may have squandered their only chances from being too
conservative.

Quoted message said:

10. Vinokourov: burns matches for Ullrich this year.

Vino is a bullet and could actually lead most of the race.

"Tom Kunich" <[email hidden]> wrote in message

Quoted message said:

For instance, there are breaks going off the front of the main group all the time. You can't expect
them to get all of them and even if they get 75% they are still likely to miss the one that sticks.

How do you figure those odds?

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

2. Armstrong: will be making trans-Atlantic flights during Tour preparation time. Hardly the way
to achieve needed

improvement

Quoted message said:

despite diminished capacity from being a year older.

I see this as essentially no problem since I believe that training in the Rockies is twice as good
as training in the Alps.

I think he'd be better off in the Smokie Mtns. He doesn't need the Rockies for altitude training,
and the Smokies are steeper, IIRC.

"Marlene Blanshay" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

In article <[email hidden]>, Dan Connelly

d_j_c_o_n_n_e_l@i_e_e_e.o_r_g said:

B. Lafferty said:

So where are the predictions in all this? Here are mine at present,

subject

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

to change due to illness, injury, lack of form and retirement.

1. Ullrich
2. Beloki
3.Hamilton
3.Valverde
5..Armstrong
6. Vino
7. Odessa's husband
8. Mayo
9. Basso
10. Simoni

I posted mine in my first post of this thread:

1. Ullrich
2. Armstrong
3. Beloki
4. Mayo
5. Hamilton
6. Heras
7. Zubeldia
8. Simoni
9. Leipheimer
10. Vinokourov

Armstrong 5th? That's bold. I'd take the bet in a second that

Armstrong

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

won't finish lower than 4th.

Valverde and Basso are decent choices, but predicting a Valverde dead heat with Hamilton for the
podium is even bolder than the Armstrong pick

🙂.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Dan

I'd like to see Simoni finish high up as well. He cooked himself in the Giro last year, and I
really think it was the heat that did him in. I think it did nearly everybody in! I think he'll
kill himself to make up for his awful time at the tour.

I'm going to try to get my wife to agree to let me get a second Cannondale if Simoni makes the
podium. But first I'll have to explain who Simoni is.

B. Lafferty said:

I'm going to try to get my wife to agree to let me get a second Cannondale if Simoni makes the
podium. But first I'll have to explain who Simoni is.

Let Ashlyn do the closing argument.

Carl Sundquist said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

2. Armstrong: will be making trans-Atlantic flights during Tour preparation time. Hardly the way
to achieve needed

improvement

Quoted message said:

despite diminished capacity from being a year older.

I see this as essentially no problem since I believe that training in the Rockies is twice as good
as training in the Alps.

I think he'd be better off in the Smokie Mtns. He doesn't need the Rockies for altitude training,
and the Smokies are steeper, IIRC.

Since I'm recovering from a case of hepatitis A which I managed to smuggle across the southern
border, I am rather susceptible to any sort of exertion right now. For Christmas, I flew across the
country to (PST<->EST) to visit family. In each case, I was severely fatigued for two days following
the trip -- just wiped out tired. Granted, the same would happen from even the most trivial training
ride. (my current training ride is to spin around the block -- that's enough. And it's a small
block....) But the point is crossing even 3 time zones is a significant fatigue factor. Crossing 7
or whatever is much worse.

When training for the Tour, to not be able to direct all of ones physical resources to the task is a
compromise, and Armstrong can hardly afford a compromise. Sure -- maybe if he stays for a month or
more, and makes the trip only once, he'll maybe be okay. But if he's making monthly weekend
excursions, in my opinion, forget it. There's no chance.

And WRT altitude training. He already uses a tent. Why's he need the Rockies?

Dan

In article <[email hidden]>, Dan

Connelly d_j_c_o_n_n_e_l@i_e_e_e.o_r_g said:

Carl Sundquist said:

Quoted message said:

>2. Armstrong: will be making trans-Atlantic flights during Tour preparation time. Hardly the
> way to achieve needed

improvement

> despite diminished capacity from being a year older.

I see this as essentially no problem since I believe that training in the Rockies is twice as
good as training in the Alps.

I think he'd be better off in the Smokie Mtns. He doesn't need the Rockies for altitude
training, and the Smokies are steeper, IIRC.

Since I'm recovering from a case of hepatitis A which I managed to smuggle across the southern
border, I am rather susceptible to any sort of exertion right now. For Christmas, I flew across
the country to (PST<->EST) to visit family. In each case, I was severely fatigued for two days
following the trip -- just wiped out tired. Granted, the same would happen from even the most
trivial training ride. (my current training ride is to spin around the block -- that's enough. And
it's a small block....) But the point is crossing even 3 time zones is a significant fatigue
factor. Crossing 7 or whatever is much worse.

It's more about the change to your body clock, not the distance. I fly frequently across 3 or more
time zones and any fatigue is more a result of the difference or change in rising and sleeping, and
not getting dehydrated on the plane. When I flew to Fiji we left at 11pm from LAX and got off the
plane 10+ hours later at 6 am Fiji time. My body clock was off no more than an hour. Going to Europe
can be similar with an overnight flight from the Western USA. Getting a comfortable (reclining)
seat/chair in first class or business class helps a lot too.

-WG

In article <[email hidden]>,

B. Lafferty said:

"Howard Kveck" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:YOURhoward-
[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

In article <[email hidden]>,
Dan Connelly <d_j_c_o_n_n_e_l@i_e_e_e.o_r_g> wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I can't consider him the favorite. But 2nd or maybe 3rd. Not 5th. Neither Hamilton nor
Valverde will finish above Armstrong (assuming Armstrong finishes). Not this year. 5th might
be a good pick for '05, if he does the Tour.

Dan

I'd agree with that: podium or nothing.

Consider though, Indurain finished 11th in 1996.

Well, I did consider that. Then I wondered, "Would Armstrong willingly -finish- in 11th?" I'm not
so sure he would.

--
tanx, Howard

"Girls won't touch me 'cuz I got a misdirection..."
Pere Ubu

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?

"Dan Connelly" <d_j_c_o_n_n_e_l@i_e_e_e.o_r_g> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Since I'm recovering from a case of hepatitis A which I managed to smuggle across the southern
border, I am rather susceptible to any sort of exertion right now.

Dumbass -

Is that why you've been sort of absent for the last year?

Hep is nasty stuff. Hope you get better.