volinbham
VN GURU
- Joined
- Oct 21, 2004
- Messages
- 67,719
- Likes
- 55,281
Haven't seen much discussion of the Tour or Lance Armstrong.
I figured it's worth a thread given the worldwide importance of the event and the current attempt to do something that has never been done.
The tour has a history of streaks - Eddie Mercks (sp? 3 or 4 or 5 wins), Benard Hinault - "The Badger" (late 70's early 80's -- 5 wins), Greg Lemond (first American Tour winner - won 3 in the 80's), Miguel Indurain (5 consecutive wins - late 80's to 90's) and now Lance Armstrong - only the second American to win and winner of both the most and the most consecutive Tours.
Lance Armstrong is in a Wayne Gretsky category. His accomplishments are amazing. He is strong, even dominant in every phase of the Tour. Six straight will be very hard to beat. Seven will be damn near impossible.
As to the 'roids question? I don't know. He says no; testing is pretty thorough; he hasn't failed a test; and the evidence against him isn't especially strong. I say give him the benefit of the doubt. Even if he is juicing, he can't be the only one and he is still dominating. If he's juicing - he's not getting a competitive edge and bottomline, that's all the anti-doping rules should be about.
I hope the lead holds up (38 seconds after 12 stages).
I figured it's worth a thread given the worldwide importance of the event and the current attempt to do something that has never been done.
The tour has a history of streaks - Eddie Mercks (sp? 3 or 4 or 5 wins), Benard Hinault - "The Badger" (late 70's early 80's -- 5 wins), Greg Lemond (first American Tour winner - won 3 in the 80's), Miguel Indurain (5 consecutive wins - late 80's to 90's) and now Lance Armstrong - only the second American to win and winner of both the most and the most consecutive Tours.
Lance Armstrong is in a Wayne Gretsky category. His accomplishments are amazing. He is strong, even dominant in every phase of the Tour. Six straight will be very hard to beat. Seven will be damn near impossible.
As to the 'roids question? I don't know. He says no; testing is pretty thorough; he hasn't failed a test; and the evidence against him isn't especially strong. I say give him the benefit of the doubt. Even if he is juicing, he can't be the only one and he is still dominating. If he's juicing - he's not getting a competitive edge and bottomline, that's all the anti-doping rules should be about.
I hope the lead holds up (38 seconds after 12 stages).
