Iban Mayo is LA's only challenger

"Todd Kuzma" wrote in message
...
Benjamin Weiner wrote:

Lemond's moral victories don't count. Counterfactuals are
hypothetical: we don't know if his condition in 1990 would have been
the same had he ridden 87 and 88. Merckx got punched, Hinault had an
injury, Bartali or Coppi are the best counter examples IMO. However,
several people _could_ have done it, but for a variety of reasons -
bad luck, injury, wars, age creeping up on them, nobody _has_ done it.

What is amazing about winning the Tour 5 times is the number
of things stacked against you. Fitness and preparation is
not enough. You have to avoid crashes, illness, bad luck,
etc. Look at how many riders have had to drop out so far
due to illness or injury. To win 5 times without any of
those things happening to you is tough.



That may be true of 5 in a row, but considering that 4 people have done it
in the last 50 years is evidence that in every generation there *should* be
someone who wins 5 (total).

"Kurgan Gringioni" wrote in
message . ..

"Todd Kuzma" wrote in message
...
Benjamin Weiner wrote:

Lemond's moral victories don't count. Counterfactuals are
hypothetical: we don't know if his condition in 1990 would have been
the same had he ridden 87 and 88. Merckx got punched, Hinault had an
injury, Bartali or Coppi are the best counter examples IMO. However,
several people _could_ have done it, but for a variety of reasons -
bad luck, injury, wars, age creeping up on them, nobody _has_ done it.

What is amazing about winning the Tour 5 times is the number
of things stacked against you. Fitness and preparation is
not enough. You have to avoid crashes, illness, bad luck,
etc. Look at how many riders have had to drop out so far
due to illness or injury. To win 5 times without any of
those things happening to you is tough.



That may be true of 5 in a row, but considering that 4 people have done it
in the last 50 years is evidence that in every generation there *should*
be
someone who wins 5 (total).



In 1978 there had been 10 winners of horse racing's triple crown in the
previous 50 years. 25 years later there hasn't been another. In spite of the
number of 5 time winners in the last 50 years, I would think that it's
harder to repeat / win 5 tours. Competition is tougher, team tactics play a
bigger role, etc.

-T

"Tom Schulenburg" wrote in message
...

That may be true of 5 in a row, but considering that 4 people have done
it
in the last 50 years is evidence that in every generation there *should*
be
someone who wins 5 (total).

In 1978 there had been 10 winners of horse racing's triple crown in the
previous 50 years. 25 years later there hasn't been another. In spite of
the
number of 5 time winners in the last 50 years, I would think that it's
harder to repeat / win 5 tours. Competition is tougher, team tactics play
a
bigger role, etc.



Dumbass, look at the evidence.

Indurain wins 5 in a row. LANCE wins 4 in a row and counting. All in the
last 12 years.

On 7/15/03 10:46 AM, in article
, "Matt Archer"
wrote:

(Norm T) wrote in message
om...
It is clear now. Iban Mayo is the only threat to LA. After what
happened at L'Alpe d'Huez and the stage yesterday, the contenders and
pretenders have been revealed. Ullrich doesn't look to be able to
keep up with the big boys in the steep climbs and I never considered
Beloki to be a serious threat to LA.

Ullrich hasn't even begun his tour yet, he will pick up a lot of time
in the itt (can you say olympic champion?) and is still LA's biggest
threat.



Ullrich is the current Olympic ROAD RACE champion.

Viatcheslav Ekimov is the current Olympic TIME TRIAL champion.

On 7/15/03 12:43 PM, in article , "Carl
Sundquist" wrote:


"Kurgan Gringioni" wrote in
message . ..

"Benjamin Weiner" wrote in message
...

I think he wins, but proves the axiom that it is physiologically
impossible to win six Tours.


That's a crock. It may be unlikely, but it's clearly not impossible when
you
look at how many have won 5 in the last 50 years.



Don't forget Gino Bartali (winner '37-'38, '48).

Bartali only won two Tours ... 1938 and 1948. He abandoned the 1937 Tour a
day after crashing in the mountains.

Anquetil and Hinault did so
in a span of eight seasons, Indurain five, Merckx six.

Bartali's stretch was over twelve seasons.

Russ Baxter wrote:

Benjamin Weiner wrote in message ...

I think he wins, but proves the axiom that it is physiologically
impossible to win six Tours.

Impossible!? For the sake of argument, Greg Lemond (if he were member
of a different team) was capable of winning in 1985. Then he wins in
86, gets shot so he misses 87 and 88 and wins again in 89 and 90. I'd
say that's six years of physiological possibility.

Ullrich could have won in 96. Did win in 97.
Then shoots himself in the foot in 98, 99, 00, 01, 02...

Benjamin Weiner wrote in message ...
Russ Baxter wrote:
Benjamin Weiner wrote

I think he wins, but proves the axiom that it is physiologically
impossible to win six Tours.

Impossible!? For the sake of argument, Greg Lemond (if he were member
of a different team) was capable of winning in 1985. Then he wins in
86, gets shot so he misses 87 and 88 and wins again in 89 and 90. I'd
say that's six years of physiological possibility.

I know it's a crock, I just like the idea.

Lemond's moral victories don't count. Counterfactuals are
hypothetical: we don't know if his condition in 1990 would have been
the same had he ridden 87 and 88. Merckx got punched, Hinault had an
injury, Bartali or Coppi are the best counter examples IMO. However,
several people _could_ have done it, but for a variety of reasons -
bad luck, injury, wars, age creeping up on them, nobody _has_ done it.


Does Lemond's "Moral Victory" of 1985 entail that Hinault's
actual victory that year ought to be reckoned as a "Moral defeat"?
Should there be an asterisk next to Hinault's 5th win in the TDF?

If Lemond had not gotten shot after the 1986 Tour, he would have
had good chances to win in 1987 & 1988. Also, I recall reading that
some of the shot pellets were still lodged in Lemond's body, and that
had a deleterious effect on his stamina, hindering his chances to beat
Indurain in the subsequent years of 1991 and 1992. At any rate, there
can be little doubt that a Lemond who had NOT been shot , but HAD
raced in 1987 & 1988, would have still been in better shape in 1990
etc., that he actually was as events transpired.

Of course, Lemond set a record of sorts, by winning one tour
without managing to win a single stage. Frankly, I don't have much
sympathy for people who get shot while hunting. Lemond made some bad
career choices, allowing himself to get seduced by the prospects of
riding for Hinault's premier French team. Had he played his cards
perfectly, and managed to avoid getting shot by his Brother-In-Law, he
might have been able to win 7 or 8 Tours.

As it is, other riders have suffered even greater misfortune, and
three wins in the TDF is something that every rider would envy.

Matt Archer wrote:

(Norm T) wrote in message
om... It is clear
now. Iban Mayo is the only threat to LA. After what happened at L'Alpe
d'Huez and the stage yesterday, the contenders and pretenders have been
revealed. Ullrich doesn't look to be able to keep up with the big boys
in the steep climbs and I never considered Beloki to be a serious threat
to LA.

Ullrich hasn't even begun his tour yet, he will pick up a lot of time
in the itt (can you say olympic champion?) and is still LA's biggest
threat.


Furthermore Ullrich has been sick from stage 4, riding with a fever, he
says he's feeling better now.

GK

Isidor Gunsberg wrote:

Lemond's moral victories don't count. Counterfactuals are
hypothetical:

Does Lemond's "Moral Victory" of 1985 entail that Hinault's
actual victory that year ought to be reckoned as a "Moral defeat"?
Should there be an asterisk next to Hinault's 5th win in the TDF?

Moral victory was Lemond's phrase, not mine. It was widely derided
here at the time. I may be a little too tall to be a great climber,
but surely had I grown up in Belgium and known there was such a thing
as bicycle racing when I was a kid, I could have taken it up before
becoming an old fart - thus I consider myself a moral victor of the
Ronde van Vlaanderen. That's why counterfactuals don't count.

I wasn't arguing that he should have or could have won, only that he
was physiologically capable of winning over a six year period.


Benjamin Weiner wrote in message ...
Russ Baxter wrote:
Benjamin Weiner wrote

I think he wins, but proves the axiom that it is physiologically
impossible to win six Tours.

Impossible!? For the sake of argument, Greg Lemond (if he were member
of a different team) was capable of winning in 1985. Then he wins in
86, gets shot so he misses 87 and 88 and wins again in 89 and 90. I'd
say that's six years of physiological possibility.

I know it's a crock, I just like the idea.

Lemond's moral victories don't count. Counterfactuals are
hypothetical: we don't know if his condition in 1990 would have been
the same had he ridden 87 and 88. Merckx got punched, Hinault had an
injury, Bartali or Coppi are the best counter examples IMO. However,
several people _could_ have done it, but for a variety of reasons -
bad luck, injury, wars, age creeping up on them, nobody _has_ done it.