"Phil Holman" wrote in message

Where's the error in Rik O'Shea's interpretation? I'm not saying it's
right,
because I hardly understand it, but I'd just like to know what you
think is
wrong with it.

OK, the comparison is made between Mig at his peak and a pretentious LA
when it might be more relevant to compare Mig's early TdF performances
with LA's. There appears to be a faulty premise that a rider has no
business improving unless .........what?

Another excellent point. I did make the point though that any rider that has
a chance at winning the stage OR place highly on GC is going to attempt
theor best performance while others rest a bit. Indurain was a stage
contender in the ITTs in 1990. His improvements are bound to be significant
yet still less dramatic than Armstrong's.

Lance's estimated power output
was around 420watts. While this may be all he put out on that particular
stage, it is very probably an underestimate of his capability even
before his cancer. Is it a stretch to say that someone could improve
that much by focusing on major tour riding, with improvements in
endurance, by training and racing much smarter and having their
bodyweight reduced with probably a higher power output? I don't think so
but that's only my opinion.

Phil Holman