LA v. MJ

Steven L. Sheffield wrote:


Lance is hardly the best cyclist ever.

The names Eddy Merckx, Fausto Coppi, and Bernard Hinault ring a bell at all?
How about Jacques Anquetil and Miguel Indurain?

Especially Eddy Merckx who was competiting and winning in ALL great race
in the year, like the Giro, the Vuelta...


--
Florian NACHON Omaha, USA

"Every man has two nations, and one of them is France"
Benjamin Franklin & Thomas Jefferson

(Bung Tater) wrote in message . com...
(Ingemar Svensson) wrote in message . com...


Boy I guess Lance is probably down on his knees right now, thanking
God for giving him cancer. Just curious, what makes think Lance
couldn't have just lost weight on his own, without cancer? It has
been done before by others, I'm told.

BT

It's not a matter of just loosing weight. What he needed to do and
what he got from the period he was away was to loose muscle groups
that was overbuildt for the purpose of GC riding. He still had a lot
of Triathlete muscles and that was the excess weight. After the cancer
break he had to rebuild his body and then he only rebuildt the
musclegroups suited for cycling. You can't say that he could have gone
through that kind of change on his own.

Sure I can. Lance could have gone through those changes on his own,
without cancer. My question to you, still, is this - knowing the
champion we all know Armstrong to be, and the mental toughness he
obviously has, WHY do you think he never would have achieved any of
what he has achieved thus far without first having had cancer?

What I'm saying is that there was no incentive for him to change his
entire physique. At the level he was at in 95-96 it would have been a
considerable break in his career to go through that change. I'm not
saying Lance wouldn't have had a great career without the cancer but I
do think it would have looked a lot different. A more obvious goal for
him at that point would have been to say "I'm going to win the World
Cup more than anyone has ever done." It would have been unrealistic
for him to say "I'm going to win 5 or 6 tour in a row." He was not
that kind of rider at that point.





When he came back he rode the
vuelta and saw that he had become a GC rider after that he became
obsessed with winning the tour. That idea was only realistic at that
point. There was no incentive for him to go through that change before
he was forced to.

I don't see how this has anything to do with his cancer. With or
without the cancer, Armstrong would have found whatever he needed to
find within himself to win the tour...why? Becuase he's a champion, as
I said, and he would have continued training and finding his correct
weight until he won. Cancer or not.

BT

"Florian Nachon" wrote in message
...
Steven L. Sheffield wrote:


Lance is hardly the best cyclist ever.

The names Eddy Merckx, Fausto Coppi, and Bernard Hinault ring a bell at
all?
How about Jacques Anquetil and Miguel Indurain?

Especially Eddy Merckx who was competiting and winning in ALL great race
in the year, like the Giro, the Vuelta...


You can drop Hinault from that list...... I would put him in the
middle........of the any list!!!!!!!!!!

Florian NACHON Omaha, USA

"Every man has two nations, and one of them is France"
Benjamin Franklin & Thomas Jefferson

"Ingemar Svensson" wrote in message
om...
(Bung Tater) wrote in message
. com...
(Ingemar Svensson) wrote in message
. com...
What I'm saying is that there was no incentive for him to change his
entire physique. At the level he was at in 95-96 it would have been a
considerable break in his career to go through that change. I'm not
saying Lance wouldn't have had a great career without the cancer but I
do think it would have looked a lot different. A more obvious goal for
him at that point would have been to say "I'm going to win the World
Cup more than anyone has ever done." It would have been unrealistic
for him to say "I'm going to win 5 or 6 tour in a row." He was not
that kind of rider at that point.

That's true.

Dashii