Abt interview with Armstrong

"Darrell Criswell" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

There is a picture of her smoking in Vanity Fair magazine, Jun. '03,

Remember however in Lance's first book he points out after his wedding that he and his wife
enjoyed smoking cigars so he may not be opposed to smoking. I would be relatively certain he
doesn't do it on a frequent basis and my understanding is Sheryl Crow has become somewhat of a
fitness freak, so she may have moderated her smoking.

In his National Press Club appearance, Lance came across as being very anti-smoking. Basically he
said that as a cancer survivor he couldn't understand why anyone would willingly risk cancer. Maybe
the smoking pic in Vanity Fair was just for artistic merit?

warren <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

In article <[email hidden]>, Heinz Getzler

Quoted message said:

[email hidden] (Scott Hendricks) wrote in message
news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

"Tom Kunich" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:<[email hidden]>...
> "Heinz Getzler" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
> "]news:[email hidden]...
> >
> > Well the big problem is that rider is not able to accurately

benchmark

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> > his progress against other riders. Plus it's hard to match the level of intensity in
> > racing. The other problem is that by the time you realize that your form is inadequate you
> > may not have adequate

traing

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> > time to bring yourself up to the proper level. Usually it takes

about

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> > 1 or 2 months for a rider bring himself up to a new level of
> form....
>
> I think that Armstrong is the exception that makes the rule that training miles can't be as
> hard as racing miles.

Plus, with the advent of effective, scientific training and the glut of power measurement
tools, racing isn't necessarily the best training anymore. There's something to be said for
very specific interval training. And, don't discount the Carmichel factor.

Training is a big factor, but I still maintain it's hard to benchmark ones condition against
other riders unless you are actually racing.

The ability of the riders doesn't really change a lot from year to year. Lance knows how much
power he needs to put out for various efforts and can adjust his training accordingly. Racing is
good for some things but when you're supermotivated it's not the only thing you can do.

That not true, a lot riders have up & down years. It's also hard to predict when a unknown will
appear from nowwhere. There have been a lot of years when a unknown like Fignon appears and goes on
to win the TDF. Racing helps a rider to gauge how others are doing.

Quoted message said:

-WG

In article <[email hidden]>, Heinz

Getzler said:

warren <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

In article <[email hidden]>, Heinz Getzler <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

[email hidden] (Scott Hendricks) wrote in message
news:<[email hidden]>...
> "Tom Kunich" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
> news:<[email hidden]>...
> > "Heinz Getzler" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
> > "]news:[email hidden]...
> > >
> > > Well the big problem is that rider is not able to accurately

benchmark

Quoted message said:

> > > his progress against other riders. Plus it's hard to match the level of intensity in
> > > racing. The other problem is that by the time you realize that your form is inadequate
> > > you may not have adequate

traing

Quoted message said:

> > > time to bring yourself up to the proper level. Usually it takes

about

Quoted message said:

> > > 1 or 2 months for a rider bring himself up to a new level of
> > form....
> >
> > I think that Armstrong is the exception that makes the rule that training miles can't be
> > as hard as racing miles.
>
> Plus, with the advent of effective, scientific training and the glut of power measurement
> tools, racing isn't necessarily the best training anymore. There's something to be said for
> very specific interval training. And, don't discount the Carmichel factor.

Training is a big factor, but I still maintain it's hard to benchmark ones condition against
other riders unless you are actually racing.

The ability of the riders doesn't really change a lot from year to year. Lance knows how much
power he needs to put out for various efforts and can adjust his training accordingly. Racing is
good for some things but when you're supermotivated it's not the only thing you can do.

That not true, a lot riders have up & down years. It's also hard to predict when a unknown will
appear from nowwhere. There have been a lot of years when a unknown like Fignon appears and goes
on to win the TDF. Racing helps a rider to gauge how others are doing.

It doesn't matter who is at the top because the power output of whoever is at the top doesn't change
much from year to year. IOW, your "unknown" rider isn't going to go appreciably faster than the guy
who won last year. Look at the race times for the major climbs and TT's in the Tour. Any major
differences among the winners' power output from year to year?

-WG

"Heinz Getzler" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

That not true, a lot riders have up & down years. It's also hard to predict when a unknown will
appear from nowwhere. There have been a lot of years when a unknown like Fignon appears and goes
on to win

the

Quoted message said:

TDF. Racing helps a rider to gauge how others are doing.

It's a lot harder for unknowns to spring into being overnight with supersensitive drug testing now.

Jan wasn't an overnight success. Neither was Lance. I just finished watching the 1990 Tour tapes and
any idiot could have told that Indurain was going to start a streak. In 1990 Indurain was stronger
than LeMond but held back by Delgado.

If Greg talks about an almost win in the '85 Tour he should remember that without Delgado to
protect, Miguel would have polished him off easily.

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

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

That not true, a lot riders have up & down years. It's also hard to predict when a unknown will
appear from nowwhere. There have been a lot of years when a unknown like Fignon appears and goes
on to win the TDF. Racing helps a rider to gauge how others are doing.

It doesn't matter who is at the top because the power output of whoever is at the top doesn't
change much from year to year. IOW, your "unknown" rider isn't going to go appreciably faster than
the guy who won last year. Look at the race times for the major climbs and TT's in the Tour. Any
major differences among the winners' power output from year to year?

Dumbass -

What is salient is a decline in rider's ability to recover. Even if this ability is only reduced
slightly, the net result in a stage race is dramatic because the effect of the diminished recovery
is cumulative over many, many days.

I shouldn't be surprised at having to explain this. Having never done anything but 30 mile Masters
Fatties crits the thought would have never occured to you.

Quoted message said:

This message is in MIME format. Since your mail reader does not understand

this format, some or all of this message may not be legible.

--B_3154781766_19899907 Content-type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit

heather locklearson said:

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

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

That not true, a lot riders have up & down years. It's also hard to predict when a unknown will
appear from nowwhere. There have been a lot of years when a unknown like Fignon appears and goes
on to win the TDF. Racing helps a rider to gauge how others are doing.

It doesn't matter who is at the top because the power output of whoever is at the top doesn't
change much from year to year. IOW, your "unknown" rider isn't going to go appreciably faster
than the guy who won last year. Look at the race times for the major climbs and TT's in the Tour.
Any major differences among the winners' power output from year to year?

Dumbass -

What is salient is a decline in rider's ability to recover. Even if this ability is only reduced
slightly, the net result in a stage race is dramatic because the effect of the diminished recovery
is cumulative over many, many days.

Dumbass Henry,

Hence.........the reason so well explained for Masters categories! (Of which you vehemently
disagree with...)

Way to show how to be a good hypocritical Ignoranimous

Quoted message said:

I shouldn't be surprised at having to explain this. Having never done anything but 30 mile Masters
Fatties crits the thought would have never occured to you.

--B_3154781766_19899907 Content-type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-transfer-encoding:
quoted-printable

<HTML> <HEAD> <TITLE>Re: Abt interview with Armstrong</TITLE> </HEAD> <BODY> <FONT
FACE=3D"Verdana"><SPAN STYLE=3D'font-size:12.0px'>On 12/20/03 3:53 PM, in= article
[email hidden], "heather lockle= arson"
<[email hidden]> wrote:<BR> <BR> <FONT COLOR=3D"#0000FF">> <BR> >
"warren" <[email hidden]> wrote in message<BR> >
"]news:[email hidden]...<BR> </FONT><FONT COLOR=3D"#FF0000">>>>
<BR> >>> That not true, a lot riders have up & down years. It's als= o hard to<BR>

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

predict when a unknown will appear from nowwhere. There have b= een a<BR> >>>

lot of years when a unknown like Fignon appears and goes on to= win the<BR> >>> TDF. Racing
helps a rider to gauge how others are doing.<BR> </FONT><FONT COLOR=3D"#008000">>> <BR>

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

It doesn't matter who is at the top because the power output of wh= oever<BR> >> is

at the top doesn't change much from year to year. IOW, your<BR> >> "unknown" rider
isn't going to go appreciably faster tha= n the guy who<BR> >> won last year. Look at the race
times for the major climbs and TT'= s in<BR> >> the Tour. Any major differences among the
winners' power output fr= om<BR> >> year to year?<BR> </FONT><FONT COLOR=3D"#0000FF">> <BR>

Quoted message said:

Dumbass -<BR> > <BR> > <BR> > What is salient is a decline in rider's ability to

recover. Even if th= is<BR> > ability is only reduced slightly, the net result in a stage race is
dr= amatic<BR> > because the effect of the diminished recovery is cumulative over many,= many<BR>

Quoted message said:

days.<BR> </FONT><BR> Dumbass Henry,<BR> <BR> Hence.........the reason so well explained for

Masters categories! (Of whic= h you vehemently disagree with...)<BR> <BR> Way to show how to be a
good hypocritical Ignoranimous<BR> <FONT COLOR=3D"#0000FF">> <BR> > <BR> > I shouldn't be
surprised at having to explain this. Having never done<=
BR>

Quoted message said:

anything but 30 mile Masters Fatties crits the thought would have neve= r<BR> > occured to

you.<BR> > <BR> > <BR> </FONT></SPAN></FONT> </BODY> </HTML>

--B_3154781766_19899907--

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

Quoted message said:

On 12/20/03 3:53 PM, in article [email hidden], "heather

locklearson said:

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

Quoted message said:

>
> That not true, a lot riders have up & down years. It's also hard to predict when a unknown
> will appear from nowwhere. There have been a lot of years when a unknown like Fignon appears
> and goes on to win the TDF. Racing helps a rider to gauge how others are doing.

It doesn't matter who is at the top because the power output of whoever is at the top doesn't
change much from year to year. IOW, your "unknown" rider isn't going to go appreciably faster
than the guy who won last year. Look at the race times for the major climbs and TT's in the
Tour. Any major differences among the winners' power output from year to year?

Dumbass -

What is salient is a decline in rider's ability to recover. Even if this ability is only reduced
slightly, the net result in a stage race is

dramatic

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

because the effect of the diminished recovery is cumulative over many,

many

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

days.

Dumbass Henry,

Hence.........the reason so well explained for Masters categories! (Of

which

Quoted message said:

you vehemently disagree with...)

Way to show how to be a good hypocritical Ignoranimous

Ignoranimous?

Oh, the irony.

In article <[email hidden]>, heather

locklearson said:

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

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

That not true, a lot riders have up & down years. It's also hard to predict when a unknown
will appear from nowwhere. There have been a lot of years when a unknown like Fignon appears
and goes on to win the TDF. Racing helps a rider to gauge how others are doing.

It doesn't matter who is at the top because the power output of whoever is at the top doesn't
change much from year to year. IOW, your "unknown" rider isn't going to go appreciably faster
than the guy who won last year. Look at the race times for the major climbs and TT's in the
Tour. Any major differences among the winners' power output from year to year?

Dumbass -

What is salient is a decline in rider's ability to recover. Even if this ability is only reduced
slightly, the net result in a stage race is dramatic because the effect of the diminished recovery
is cumulative over many, many days.

That can be simulated, and is simulated during training. Which recent Tour winners have taken the
opportuity to do a race that is even half as long as the Tour so they could simulate/assess their
ability to recover through the critical last 7-10 days of that year's Tour.

Please provide an example from the last few years of the top 3-5 guys in the Tour taking the
opportunity to race next to each other to accurately assess their relative fitness levels prior to
the Tour in time to adjust their own training accordingly.

-WG

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

Quoted message said:

In article <[email hidden]>, heather locklearson

Quoted message said:

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

Quoted message said:

>
> That not true, a lot riders have up & down years. It's also hard to predict when a unknown
> will appear from nowwhere. There have been a lot of years when a unknown like Fignon appears
> and goes on to win

the

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> TDF. Racing helps a rider to gauge how others are doing.

It doesn't matter who is at the top because the power output of whoever is at the top doesn't
change much from year to year. IOW, your "unknown" rider isn't going to go appreciably faster
than the guy who won last year. Look at the race times for the major climbs and TT's in the
Tour. Any major differences among the winners' power output from year to year?

Dumbass -

What is salient is a decline in rider's ability to recover. Even if this ability is only reduced
slightly, the net result in a stage race is

dramatic

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

because the effect of the diminished recovery is cumulative over many,

many

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

days.

That can be simulated, and is simulated during training. Which recent Tour winners have taken the
opportuity to do a race that is even half as long as the Tour so they could simulate/assess their
ability to recover through the critical last 7-10 days of that year's Tour.

Please provide an example from the last few years of the top 3-5 guys in the Tour taking the
opportunity to race next to each other to accurately assess their relative fitness levels prior to
the Tour in time to adjust their own training accordingly.

Dumbass -

That doesn't happen. It also isn't what I was addressing.

I was addressing your contention that power output doesn't change from year to year. It may not in
the lab, but it does on the road where recovery matters. Look at what happened to Indurain.
Unstoppable one year, unable to make the lead group in the mountains the next year. Stage Racing.
It's not the same as one-day-one-hour Fattie Crits.

In article <[email hidden]>, heather

locklearson said:

"warren" <[email hidden]> wrote in message

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> > That not true, a lot riders have up & down years. It's also hard to predict when a unknown
> > will appear from nowwhere. There have been a lot of years when a unknown like Fignon
> > appears and goes on to win

the

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> > TDF. Racing helps a rider to gauge how others are doing.
>
> It doesn't matter who is at the top because the power output of whoever is at the top
> doesn't change much from year to year. IOW, your "unknown" rider isn't going to go
> appreciably faster than the guy who won last year. Look at the race times for the major
> climbs and TT's in the Tour. Any major differences among the winners' power output from year
> to year?

Quoted message said:

Dumbass -

That doesn't happen. It also isn't what I was addressing.

I was addressing your contention that power output doesn't change from year to year. It may not in
the lab, but it does on the road where recovery matters.

Experience has shown that Lance's recovery is very good compared to the rest. The ability to recover
from day to day isn't going to change much from year to year for a guy like Lance, and if his
ability to recover does change (this year?) it will be evident during training.

Quoted message said:

Look at what happened to Indurain. Unstoppable one year, unable to make the lead group in the
mountains the next year.

The power output of whoever was at the front in a given year doesn't change much compared to whoever
was at the front the previous year, just the names of the guys at the front-which is what I said two
posts ago.

The evidence of this is the leaders' pace on certain climbs and during TT's from year to year. If
you take out variables like the weather and how far in to the Tour the stage occurs-all of which are
not too hard to account for in training objectives, the power needed to be at the front this year
for x climb is not a lot different than it was last year or the year before, and Lance knows this,
but you don't.

Listen closely to what Lance's advisors say about his power during certain tests before and during
the Tour. His success in the race is not a surprise to them because they already have a pretty good
idea of how much power and for how long he needs to make that power in order to be successful during
the critical stages. If his power output during his pre-race tests is lower, or hasn't improved from
last year then they'll have something to worry about.

-WG

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

Quoted message said:

Experience has shown that Lance's recovery is very good compared to the rest. The ability to
recover from day to day isn't going to change much from year to year for a guy like Lance, and if
his ability to recover does change (this year?) it will be evident during training.

Quoted message said:

Look at what happened to Indurain. Unstoppable one year, unable to make the lead group in the
mountains the next year.

The power output of whoever was at the front in a given year doesn't change much compared to
whoever was at the front the previous year, just the names of the guys at the front-which is what
I said two posts ago.

The evidence of this is the leaders' pace on certain climbs and during TT's from year to year. If
you take out variables like the weather and how far in to the Tour the stage occurs-all of which
are not too hard to account for in training objectives, the power needed to be at the front this
year for x climb is not a lot different than it was last year or the year before, and Lance knows
this, but you don't.

Listen closely to what Lance's advisors say about his power during certain tests before and during
the Tour. His success in the race is not a surprise to them because they already have a pretty
good idea of how much power and for how long he needs to make that power in order to be successful
during the critical stages. If his power output during his pre-race tests is lower, or hasn't
improved from last year then they'll have something to worry about.

Dumbass -

Look at the declines of both Indurain and Lemond. Sudden.

In 1996 Indurain won the Dauphine, convincingly. Then he couldn't do it in the Tour.

Pre-Tour power tests don't mean [censored]. No one can simulate the TdF in training.

Quoted message said:

why would he choose a chain smoking skank?

Why would she choose a guy with one nut ?

Lou D'Amelio

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

Quoted message said:

"Heinz Getzler" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

That not true, a lot riders have up & down years. It's also hard to predict when a unknown will
appear from nowwhere. There have been a lot of years when a unknown like Fignon appears and goes
on to win

the

Quoted message said:

TDF. Racing helps a rider to gauge how others are doing.

It's a lot harder for unknowns to spring into being overnight with supersensitive drug
testing now.

Jan wasn't an overnight success. Neither was Lance. I just finished watching the 1990 Tour tapes
and any idiot could have told that Indurain was going to start a streak. In 1990 Indurain was
stronger than LeMond but held back by Delgado.

I think it's unfair to attribute success and or performance to drugs. There is plenty of cases where
a unknown has appeared and has not tested positive for drugs. In other words one cannot prove a
negative and attribute to drugs.

Quoted message said:

If Greg talks about an almost win in the '85 Tour he should remember that without Delgado to
protect, Miguel would have polished him off easily.

"Heinz Getzler" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

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

news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

"Heinz Getzler" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

That not true, a lot riders have up & down years. It's also hard

to

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

predict when a unknown will appear from nowwhere. There have

been a

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

lot of years when a unknown like Fignon appears and goes on to

win

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

the

Quoted message said:

TDF. Racing helps a rider to gauge how others are doing.

It's a lot harder for unknowns to spring into being overnight with supersensitive drug
testing now.

Jan wasn't an overnight success. Neither was Lance. I just

finished

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

watching the 1990 Tour tapes and any idiot could have told that Indurain was going to start a
streak. In 1990 Indurain was

stronger

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

than LeMond but held back by Delgado.

I think it's unfair to attribute success and or performance to

drugs.

Quoted message said:

There is plenty of cases where a unknown has appeared and has not tested positive for drugs. In
other words one cannot prove a

negative

Quoted message said:

and attribute to drugs.

Quoted message said:

If Greg talks about an almost win in the '85 Tour he should

remember

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

that without Delgado to protect, Miguel would have polished him

off

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

easily.

It's my position (until proven wrong) that drugs are a significant effect in the Tour leaders groups
now because virtually everything can be detected if not identified.

In article <[email hidden]>, Tom

Kunich said:

It's my position (until proven wrong) that drugs are a significant effect in the Tour leaders
groups now because virtually everything can be detected if not identified.

Did you leave out a word?

-WG

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

Quoted message said:

"Heinz Getzler" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

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

news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

"Heinz Getzler" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...
>
> That not true, a lot riders have up & down years. It's also hard

to

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> predict when a unknown will appear from nowwhere. There have

been a

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> lot of years when a unknown like Fignon appears and goes on to

win the

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> TDF. Racing helps a rider to gauge how others are doing.

It's a lot harder for unknowns to spring into being overnight with supersensitive drug testing
now.

Jan wasn't an overnight success. Neither was Lance. I just

finished

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

watching the 1990 Tour tapes and any idiot could have told that Indurain was going to start a
streak. In 1990 Indurain was

stronger

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

than LeMond but held back by Delgado.

I think it's unfair to attribute success and or performance to

drugs.

Quoted message said:

There is plenty of cases where a unknown has appeared and has not tested positive for drugs. In
other words one cannot prove a

negative

Quoted message said:

and attribute to drugs.

Quoted message said:

If Greg talks about an almost win in the '85 Tour he should

remember

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

that without Delgado to protect, Miguel would have polished him

off

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

easily.

It's my position (until proven wrong) that drugs are a significant effect in the Tour leaders
groups now because virtually everything can be detected if not identified.

I think this statement is ridiculous. Once again you are trying to prove a negative. While there has
been some drug use, there is no evidence to prove that drug use widespread among all the riders.

In article <[email hidden]>,

Scott Hendricks said:

Anyway, as I recall, the climbs in Colorado didn't rate all that highly. Seems that most of the
paved roads just aren't that steep. The main thing making them tough is that they are at a greater
altitude than the typical climb in Europe.

I've ridden all the paved roads in the Colorado Rockies and I agree with this. Maximum grades tend
to be around 8%. The long climbs are more like 5-6%. (Of course there are some short exceptions to
this rule, especially around Boulder.)

Quoted message said:

If Armstrong comes to the Rockies to climb, won't he be violating the concept of train low,
live high???

Miguel Indurain and his team trained in Colorado for the World's (199? -- sorry, I forget the exact
year). Result: Abraham Olano won.

Andy

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

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

That doesn't happen. It also isn't what I was addressing.

I was addressing your contention that power output doesn't change from

year

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

to year. It may not in the lab, but it does on the road where recovery matters.

Experience has shown that Lance's recovery is very good compared to the rest. The ability to
recover from day to day isn't going to change much from year to year for a guy like Lance, and if
his ability to recover does change (this year?) it will be evident during training.

Quoted message said:

Look at what happened to Indurain. Unstoppable one year, unable to make the lead group in the
mountains the next year.

The power output of whoever was at the front in a given year doesn't change much compared to
whoever was at the front the previous year, just the names of the guys at the front-which is what
I said two posts ago.

The evidence of this is the leaders' pace on certain climbs and during TT's from year to year. If
you take out variables like the weather and how far in to the Tour the stage occurs-all of which
are not too hard to account for in training objectives, the power needed to be at the front this
year for x climb is not a lot different than it was last year or the year before, and Lance knows
this, but you don't.

Listen closely to what Lance's advisors say about his power during certain tests before and during
the Tour. His success in the race is not a surprise to them because they already have a pretty
good idea of how much power and for how long he needs to make that power in order to be successful
during the critical stages. If his power output during his pre-race tests is lower, or hasn't
improved from last year then they'll have something to worry about.

Dumbass -

Look at the declines of both Indurain and Lemond. Sudden.

In 1996 Indurain won the Dauphine, convincingly. Then he couldn't do it in the Tour.

Pre-Tour power tests don't mean [censored]. No one can simulate the TdF in training.

"Heinz Getzler" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

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

news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

"Heinz Getzler" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

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

news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

> "Heinz Getzler" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
> "]news:[email hidden]...
> >
> > That not true, a lot riders have up & down years. It's also

hard

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

to

Quoted message said:

> > predict when a unknown will appear from nowwhere. There have

been a

Quoted message said:

> > lot of years when a unknown like Fignon appears and goes on

to

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

win the

Quoted message said:

> > TDF. Racing helps a rider to gauge how others are doing.
>
> It's a lot harder for unknowns to spring into being overnight

with

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> supersensitive drug testing now.
>
> Jan wasn't an overnight success. Neither was Lance. I just

finished

Quoted message said:

> watching the 1990 Tour tapes and any idiot could have told

that

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> Indurain was going to start a streak. In 1990 Indurain was

stronger

Quoted message said:

> than LeMond but held back by Delgado.
>
I think it's unfair to attribute success and or performance to

drugs.

Quoted message said:

There is plenty of cases where a unknown has appeared and has

not

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

tested positive for drugs. In other words one cannot prove a

negative

Quoted message said:

and attribute to drugs.

> If Greg talks about an almost win in the '85 Tour he should

remember

Quoted message said:

> that without Delgado to protect, Miguel would have polished

him

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

off

Quoted message said:

> easily.

It's my position (until proven wrong) that drugs are a significant effect in the Tour leaders
groups now because virtually everything

can

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

be detected if not identified.

I think this statement is ridiculous. Once again you are trying to prove a negative. While
there has been some drug use, there is no evidence to prove that drug use widespread among all
the riders.

As warren noted, I left out the word "not" from before "a significant".

Bad fingers, bad, bad!

In article <[email hidden]>, heather

locklearson said:

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

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

That doesn't happen. It also isn't what I was addressing.

I was addressing your contention that power output doesn't change from

year

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

to year. It may not in the lab, but it does on the road where recovery matters.

Experience has shown that Lance's recovery is very good compared to the rest. The ability to
recover from day to day isn't going to change much from year to year for a guy like Lance, and
if his ability to recover does change (this year?) it will be evident during training.

Quoted message said:

Look at what happened to Indurain. Unstoppable one year, unable to make the lead group in the
mountains the next year.

The power output of whoever was at the front in a given year doesn't change much compared to
whoever was at the front the previous year, just the names of the guys at the front-which is
what I said two posts ago.

The evidence of this is the leaders' pace on certain climbs and during TT's from year to year.
If you take out variables like the weather and how far in to the Tour the stage occurs-all of
which are not too hard to account for in training objectives, the power needed to be at the
front this year for x climb is not a lot different than it was last year or the year before, and
Lance knows this, but you don't.

Listen closely to what Lance's advisors say about his power during certain tests before and
during the Tour. His success in the race is not a surprise to them because they already have a
pretty good idea of how much power and for how long he needs to make that power in order to be
successful during the critical stages. If his power output during his pre-race tests is lower,
or hasn't improved from last year then they'll have something to worry about.

Dumbass -

Look at the declines of both Indurain and Lemond. Sudden.

But not unexpected. They were aging, new guys getting better, and LeMond may have been sick.
Besides, if a guy only loses 5% of his power he's no longer near the front. It's quite likely they
each knew they'd lost some power before the Tour started. Lance would know.

Quoted message said:

In 1996 Indurain won the Dauphine, convincingly. Then he couldn't do it in the Tour.

A short race that doesn't include all the contenders isn't a perfect test and the desired peak is
still 4-6 weeks away.

Quoted message said:

Pre-Tour power tests don't mean [censored].

Yeah sure. You're the expert. I'm suprised Lance hasn't called you for advice since you think you
know more than he and his advisors.

-WG