Lance & age

[Darren S.]

Whenever Lance's performance in this years TdF is talked about, many posters
to this fine NG seem to be very quick to attribute it to age related
decline. Why is this? All other factors being equal, could the passage of a
single year really have taken him from the absolute dominance of last year
to having to ride Indurain style defensively up L'Alpe against Beloki this
year? I have a very difficult time believing that.

He may be a tad bit slower due to advancing age, but, unlike many people it
seems, I can't believe thats the only thing going on with him this year. Do
people really think the intestinal virus stuff was just psyops?

I suppose we'll see over the 96 hours beginning friday. If it was the
intestinal crud he'll be riding into form and becoming more like the Lance
of yesteryear. If it really is the years, one would presume that he'll not
have any form to regain.

Cheers,
Darren




---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.500 / Virus Database: 298 - Release Date: 7/10/2003

[smiles]

Who was the runner who broke the marathon world record (not age group) and
got a gold?? He was around 40!! Age has a bunch to do with it, but desire
and hunger factors in more when you have the tools ...

Carlos Lopes ... after a quick internet search ... age 37 olympic gold
....and the 10,000 WR not the marathon ...

s
http://boardnbike.com

[Andy Coggan]

"Darren S." > wrote in message
...

> Whenever Lance's performance in this years TdF is talked about, many
posters
> to this fine NG seem to be very quick to attribute it to age related
> decline. Why is this? All other factors being equal, could the passage of
a
> single year really have taken him from the absolute dominance of last year
> to having to ride Indurain style defensively up L'Alpe against Beloki this
> year?

I've been fielding calls from various journalists (thanks (??), Sam) wanting
to know "what makes Armstrong so special?" from a physiological perspective.
What these reporters (and many fans) fail to realize is that there really
*isn't* anything that sets him distinctly apart from any other GC contender.
That is, in elite-level sports the difference between winners and the
also-rans is often only around 1%. Cycling is no exception (which is why
multi-day stage races are needed to truly separate the wheat from the chaffe
against the randomness imposed by drafting, luck, etc.), and Armstrong is
(or has been) merely the creme de le creme de le creme. A 1% decline in
Armstrong's abilities from 2002 to 2003 due to normal aging could therefore
most certainly make him suddenly appear vulnerable.

Andy Coggan

[warren]

In article nk.net>,
Andy Coggan > wrote:

> "Darren S." > wrote in message
> ...
>
> > Whenever Lance's performance in this years TdF is talked about, many
> posters
> > to this fine NG seem to be very quick to attribute it to age related
> > decline. Why is this? All other factors being equal, could the passage of
> a
> > single year really have taken him from the absolute dominance of last year
> > to having to ride Indurain style defensively up L'Alpe against Beloki this
> > year?
>
> I've been fielding calls from various journalists (thanks (??), Sam) wanting
> to know "what makes Armstrong so special?" from a physiological perspective.
> What these reporters (and many fans) fail to realize is that there really
> *isn't* anything that sets him distinctly apart from any other GC contender.
> That is, in elite-level sports the difference between winners and the
> also-rans is often only around 1%. Cycling is no exception (which is why
> multi-day stage races are needed to truly separate the wheat from the chaffe
> against the randomness imposed by drafting, luck, etc.), and Armstrong is
> (or has been) merely the creme de le creme de le creme. A 1% decline in
> Armstrong's abilities from 2002 to 2003 due to normal aging could therefore
> most certainly make him suddenly appear vulnerable.

Decreased desire and motivation, and outside distractions could also
account for a small decline.

-WG

[Raptor]

warren wrote:
> In article nk.net>,
> Andy Coggan > wrote:
>>I've been fielding calls from various journalists (thanks (??), Sam) wanting
>>to know "what makes Armstrong so special?" from a physiological perspective.
>>What these reporters (and many fans) fail to realize is that there really
>>*isn't* anything that sets him distinctly apart from any other GC contender.
>>That is, in elite-level sports the difference between winners and the
>>also-rans is often only around 1%. Cycling is no exception (which is why
>>multi-day stage races are needed to truly separate the wheat from the chaffe
>>against the randomness imposed by drafting, luck, etc.), and Armstrong is
>>(or has been) merely the creme de le creme de le creme. A 1% decline in
>>Armstrong's abilities from 2002 to 2003 due to normal aging could therefore
>>most certainly make him suddenly appear vulnerable.
>
>
> Decreased desire and motivation, and outside distractions could also
> account for a small decline.
>
> -WG

And hasn't LANCE benefitted from "perfect" pre-season preparation until
this year? IIRC, 2001/2 were very clean for him, no illness, no
crashes. That takes a measure of luck. Whereas this year, he fell in
the Dauphine(?) and had a minor virus.

Carmicheal says LANCE told him he feels great now, so we'll see in the
next few days.

--
--
Lynn Wallace http://www.xmission.com/~lawall
"I'm not proud. We really haven't done everything we could to protect
our customers. Our products just aren't engineered for security."
--Microsoft VP in charge of Windows OS Development, Brian Valentine.

[Deeznuts]

"Darren S." > wrote in message >...
> All other factors being equal, could the passage of a
> single year really have taken him from the absolute dominance of last year
> to having to ride Indurain style defensively up L'Alpe against Beloki this
> year?

Yes.

> I have a very difficult time believing that.

I don't see why. That is how aging works. The passage of a single
year can be the difference between being alive or dead.

Deez

[Stewart Fleming]

smiles wrote:
> Who was the runner who broke the marathon world record (not age group) and
> got a gold?? He was around 40!! Age has a bunch to do with it, but desire
> and hunger factors in more when you have the tools ...
>
> Carlos Lopes ... after a quick internet search ... age 37 olympic gold
> ...and the 10,000 WR not the marathon ...

Apart from those details, your story was pretty accurate...

[Daniel Connelly]

All of this "age" discussion will end tomorrow.

In the prologue, Lance's time losses were primarily in
the beginning of the stage, and that's not relevent in a
long time trial. Then, on L'Alpe, reports I've seen indicate
he was riding a conservative race, that he appeared at
ease. He obviously decided the race would be decided
in the Pyrannes. He's had bad days before,
and in the extraordinary heat is riding a tactical race to
avoid that from happening.

Ekimov has declared Armstrong is strong. Ekimov isn't one
to talk trash.

Armstrong was dominant in the time trial in Dauphine.
He's ridden a reserved race so far, and even took a shortcut :).
Expect a win tomorrow. Ullrich second. Hamilton third.

Dan

[Andy Coggan]

"Daniel Connelly" > wrote in message
. ..
>
> All of this "age" discussion will end tomorrow.

Think so?

Andy Coggan

[Daniel Connelly]

I think http://www-tcad.stanford.edu/~djconnel/cycling/ITT1.pdf suggests
that the ITT suggested Ullrich is stronger, not Lance is weaker, than 2002.

Dan

Andy Coggan wrote:
> "Daniel Connelly" > wrote in message
> . ..
>
>>All of this "age" discussion will end tomorrow.
>
>
> Think so?
>
> Andy Coggan
>
>

[Daniel Connelly]

Daniel Connelly wrote:
> I think http://www-tcad.stanford.edu/~djconnel/cycling/ITT1.pdf suggests
> that the ITT suggested Ullrich is stronger, not Lance is weaker, than 2002.
>
> Dan

Correction -- Ullrich wasn't in the race in 2002. It was Botero who
was first in the first ITT..... my point is basically that Ullrich2003 >> Botero2002,
not Lance2002 >> Lance2003.

Dan

[Andy Coggan]

But Armstrong's times up L'Alpe de Huez suggest otherwise...and I would
submit that comparing a rider to themselves on a long or steep uphill is a
pretty good test of fitness.

Andy Coggan

"Daniel Connelly" > wrote in message
...
> I think http://www-tcad.stanford.edu/~djconnel/cycling/ITT1.pdf suggests
> that the ITT suggested Ullrich is stronger, not Lance is weaker, than
2002.
>
> Dan
>
> Andy Coggan wrote:
> > "Daniel Connelly" > wrote in message
> > . ..
> >
> >>All of this "age" discussion will end tomorrow.
> >
> >
> > Think so?
> >
> > Andy Coggan
> >
> >
>
>

[Tom Kunich]

I agree with you Andy and that has me concerned if you follow me.

"Andy Coggan" > wrote in message
rthlink.net...
> But Armstrong's times up L'Alpe de Huez suggest otherwise...and I
would
> submit that comparing a rider to themselves on a long or steep
uphill is a
> pretty good test of fitness.
>
> Andy Coggan
>
> "Daniel Connelly" > wrote in message
> ...
> > I think http://www-tcad.stanford.edu/~djconnel/cycling/ITT1.pdf
suggests
> > that the ITT suggested Ullrich is stronger, not Lance is weaker,
than
> 2002.
> >
> > Dan
> >
> > Andy Coggan wrote:
> > > "Daniel Connelly" > wrote in message
> > > . ..
> > >
> > >>All of this "age" discussion will end tomorrow.
> > >
> > >
> > > Think so?
> > >
> > > Andy Coggan
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
>

[Daniel Connelly]

By the L'Alpe metric, Ullrich is also suffering from old
age, then, as his time was substantially lower than either
2001 (IIRC) or 1997.

L'Alpe seemed to me a case of Armstrong marking what he perceived to
be his rivals at the end of a long, hot stage. Times in general
were slow that day.

Maybe Armstrong is slower this year. I just don't think the race
has clearly demonstrated it yet.

Dan


Tom Kunich wrote:
> I agree with you Andy and that has me concerned if you follow me.
>
> "Andy Coggan" > wrote in message
> rthlink.net...
>
>>But Armstrong's times up L'Alpe de Huez suggest otherwise...and I
>
> would
>
>>submit that comparing a rider to themselves on a long or steep
>
> uphill is a
>
>>pretty good test of fitness.
>>
>>Andy Coggan
>>