The whole Lemond and drug thing....

Moorehead Johnson wrote:

Nah. There are lots of races, sure, but there is only one "superbowl"
of cycling, and that is the Tour De France. Lance has won the TDF 6
times - no one else has - he is ipso facto, the best cyclist in the
world. Until someone wins the TDF 7 times.

If Lance had to actually race to gain entry to this so-called "Superbowl"of
cycling (the way football teams have to play (and win) to gain entry to the
"Superbowl" of football) he wouldn't even be riding in the Tour.

"Moorehead Johnson" wrote in message
om...
"Richard Hertz" wrote in message
et...
"Moorehead Johnson" wrote in message
om...
RonSonic wrote in message
. ..
On Thu, 29 Jul 2004 23:19:33 -0500, "Carl Sundquist"

wrote:


"Carl Sundquist" wrote in message

You claim that Lance is a better cyclist based on the point that
he
won
more
TdFs than Merckx. If a poll were taken in Western Europe, yes the
TdF
would
likely come out on top as the biggest race of them all, but not
nearly to
the degree that it would be if the poll were taken in the USA.
However,
cycling is such a diverse sport that anyone who truly knows the
sport
understands that the TdF is but a single component in a season or
year of
events, all of which together contribute to give insight as to
'who
the
better cyclist is'.


Have you noticed how USPS's success in racing seems to parallel the
American
media coverage? Despite all the fuss whether the USPS reaps
international
benefits from the publicity of the team, all things considered they
get
reasonably decent coverage in the USA. The ignorance regarding bike
racing
in the USA may actually work in their favor by allowing them to
essentially
focus entirely on supporting Lance for the Tour since that is all
the
American people know about and still keep their sponsors happy.

Very true.

No, it isn't.


They've had a primary sponsor whose priorities are very different
from
the
others.

And the "priorities" of the other cycling team's sponsors is.....?

USPS is in this for the corporate ego stroke and to justify very
fancy
junkets for their executives. Those exec's have no interest in
visiting
Belguim in March. All those other sponsors want to sell stuff to the
people
watching the
race.

This is quite possibly the most ridiculous statement thus far. The
USPS "executives" are only interested in "fancy junkets"? If that
were the case, wouldn't it make sense that they'd want Lance to race
more, so they could go on MORE "fancy junkets"? They go to ONE junket,
ONE time a year - the TDF. You're simply being obtuse and ridiculous,
because Lance Armstrong has succeeded in skewering a sacred European
cow, Eddy Merckx. Your inability to recognize Lance's greatness is
not my problem, it's yours.

USPS doesn't even have a retail location on the same damn continent.

Um, the USPS has "retail outlets" all over America. They are called
Post Offices. It wouldn't make much sense for the US Postal Service
to have a "retail outlet" anywhere else, now would it? Are you really
this dumb, or are you pulling my leg?

The team does benefit by being able to focus on just the tour. I
think
it is
underestimated just how battered these riders get in the course of a
season
and
having the luxury of only worrying about that one GT must help.
Every
single
rider can be peaked. Since they don't have a mountain or sprint
specialist,
every rider can work for the GC man. That helps. And you're right,
most
Americans won't notice the lack of a green jersey man. Or absence
from
the
Giro
or anything like that.

Yeah, and we've heard all this before - sour grapes. Lance chooses to
race in the only race that counts - the TDF. And he's won six of them
in a row. No one else has. That makes him the greatest cyclist in
the world, ever. Deal with it, dude!

Um, no. He isn't the greatest cyclist. He is the best tour de france
rider. Period. He won one spring classic I believe and the world
champiionships, other than that he really won nothing else. He doesn't
compare to jalabert or Zuelle or even on the same page as Eddie M.

You're right - there is no comparison, because neither Jalabert or
Merckx or LeMond or Indurain or Anquetil or ANYONE - has EVER won 6
tours. Lance Armstrong has. When you can find someone else who has
won six tours, then we can start comparing. Until then, we'll just
settle on the fact that Armstrong is the greatest cyclist in the
world, ever.

mj

How many OTHER tours did he win? (And not that lame-ass tour of georgia)
Training to win only one race a year does not come close to making one the
greatest cyclist. Do you really believe the crap you spew?
What was his top UCI ranking?

Again, he is a great rider, but the greatest? hardly.

(Moorehead Johnson)
Date: 8/3/2004 11:18 AM Eastern

thanks for posting us links to your news sources - now we know why you
sound like a blethering moron.

mj

If you weren't so dedicated to remaining totally ignorant and proud of it you
could learn more about bike racing here in an hour than you have in your whole
life.
Here are people who are regulars, or semi regulars that you could google up.
Try it.
Lieswyn, Saunders, Myerson, Coggan, Sundquist, Waddell, we haven't seen Andreu
recently. That's just a start. There are quite a few others that you could
really learn something from, but I'd doubt they would bother now.
Bill C

Donald Munro wrote:
Donald Munro wrote:

Whats a Hollander like you doing watching the BBC.


Ewoud Dronkert wrote:

Well, "as it happens", Top Gear is now also on Dutch tv, and we have
everything subtitled so we may even enjoy the inflections. But I do
watch a lot of BBC (2). Like yesterday, top night: Fresh Prince,
Malcolm, Terry jones!, switch channel when mastermind is on, flip back
for Univ Challenge, Coupling! (although I'm rather underwhelmed by the
new series), and Dead Ringers for lack of other interesting programs.


Over here on satelite I only get to see BBC World (their international
news channel) and BBC Prime which is like a best of BBC I suppose
albeit with last seasons shows. I still prefer BBC World to any of the
other news channels like CNN etc - they don't have a US corporate slant on
things.

Get my BBC kicks on Sirius satellite radio. Back when I signed up they
had OLN Adventure Radio, after some lobbying we got them to put the live
audio of the Tour on :-) Too bad Adventure radio is gone now. :-P

Maybe I'm not a typical Hollander; I just finished reading
http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/0340734868 and I quite enjoyed
it too.


Nothing to do with the 30% discount of course, a good Hollander presumably
being like a Scotsman.


Ever hear of Meijer Thrifty Acres? Of course it's now just Meijer, but
back in the 60's and 70's they had a mascot, Thrifty, with a page-boy
haircut and wooden clogs. Lotsa dutchies in the Grand
Rapids-Zeeland-Holland, Michigan area. (I'm half dutch myself, 'swhy I
have such big feet.)

On 2 Aug 2004 16:49:13 -0700, Moorehead Johnson wrote:
Nah. There are lots of races, sure, but there is only one "superbowl"
of cycling, and that is the Tour De France.

http://groups.google.com/groups?selm...ndsprin g.net

"Richard Hertz" wrote in message et...
"Moorehead Johnson" wrote in message
om...
"Richard Hertz" wrote in message
et...
"Moorehead Johnson" wrote in message
om...
RonSonic wrote in message
. ..
On Thu, 29 Jul 2004 23:19:33 -0500, "Carl Sundquist"

wrote:


"Carl Sundquist" wrote in message

You claim that Lance is a better cyclist based on the point that
he
won
more
TdFs than Merckx. If a poll were taken in Western Europe, yes the
TdF
would
likely come out on top as the biggest race of them all, but not
nearly to
the degree that it would be if the poll were taken in the USA.
However,
cycling is such a diverse sport that anyone who truly knows the
sport
understands that the TdF is but a single component in a season or
year of
events, all of which together contribute to give insight as to
'who
the
better cyclist is'.


Have you noticed how USPS's success in racing seems to parallel the
American
media coverage? Despite all the fuss whether the USPS reaps
international
benefits from the publicity of the team, all things considered they
get
reasonably decent coverage in the USA. The ignorance regarding bike
racing
in the USA may actually work in their favor by allowing them to
essentially
focus entirely on supporting Lance for the Tour since that is all
the
American people know about and still keep their sponsors happy.

Very true.

No, it isn't.


They've had a primary sponsor whose priorities are very different
from
the
others.

And the "priorities" of the other cycling team's sponsors is.....?

USPS is in this for the corporate ego stroke and to justify very
fancy
junkets for their executives. Those exec's have no interest in
visiting
Belguim in March. All those other sponsors want to sell stuff to the
people
watching the
race.

This is quite possibly the most ridiculous statement thus far. The
USPS "executives" are only interested in "fancy junkets"? If that
were the case, wouldn't it make sense that they'd want Lance to race
more, so they could go on MORE "fancy junkets"? They go to ONE junket,
ONE time a year - the TDF. You're simply being obtuse and ridiculous,
because Lance Armstrong has succeeded in skewering a sacred European
cow, Eddy Merckx. Your inability to recognize Lance's greatness is
not my problem, it's yours.

USPS doesn't even have a retail location on the same damn continent.

Um, the USPS has "retail outlets" all over America. They are called
Post Offices. It wouldn't make much sense for the US Postal Service
to have a "retail outlet" anywhere else, now would it? Are you really
this dumb, or are you pulling my leg?

The team does benefit by being able to focus on just the tour. I
think
it is
underestimated just how battered these riders get in the course of a
season
and
having the luxury of only worrying about that one GT must help.
Every
single
rider can be peaked. Since they don't have a mountain or sprint
specialist,
every rider can work for the GC man. That helps. And you're right,
most
Americans won't notice the lack of a green jersey man. Or absence
from
the
Giro
or anything like that.

Yeah, and we've heard all this before - sour grapes. Lance chooses to
race in the only race that counts - the TDF. And he's won six of them
in a row. No one else has. That makes him the greatest cyclist in
the world, ever. Deal with it, dude!

Um, no. He isn't the greatest cyclist. He is the best tour de france
rider. Period. He won one spring classic I believe and the world
champiionships, other than that he really won nothing else. He doesn't
compare to jalabert or Zuelle or even on the same page as Eddie M.

You're right - there is no comparison, because neither Jalabert or
Merckx or LeMond or Indurain or Anquetil or ANYONE - has EVER won 6
tours. Lance Armstrong has. When you can find someone else who has
won six tours, then we can start comparing. Until then, we'll just
settle on the fact that Armstrong is the greatest cyclist in the
world, ever.

mj

How many OTHER tours did he win?

What other tours matter? That's like saying, sure the 49ers and the
Dallas Cowboys each won five superbowls, but HOW MANY PLAYOFFS DID
THEY WIN? It's silly - the only football game that matters is the
superbowl, and the only cycling race that matters is the TDF.

(And not that lame-ass tour of georgia)
Training to win only one race a year does not come close to making one the
greatest cyclist.

Sure does, and it did. Armstrong is the only cyclist ever to win 6
TDF's. He's the greatest cyclist in the world, ever. And you'll just
have to deal with it.

MJ

"Richard Hertz" wrote in message et...
"Moorehead Johnson" wrote in message
om...
"Richard Hertz" wrote in message
et...
"Moorehead Johnson" wrote in message
om...
RonSonic wrote in message
. ..
On Thu, 29 Jul 2004 23:19:33 -0500, "Carl Sundquist"

wrote:


"Carl Sundquist" wrote in message

You claim that Lance is a better cyclist based on the point that
he
won
more
TdFs than Merckx. If a poll were taken in Western Europe, yes the
TdF
would
likely come out on top as the biggest race of them all, but not
nearly to
the degree that it would be if the poll were taken in the USA.
However,
cycling is such a diverse sport that anyone who truly knows the
sport
understands that the TdF is but a single component in a season or
year of
events, all of which together contribute to give insight as to
'who
the
better cyclist is'.


Have you noticed how USPS's success in racing seems to parallel the
American
media coverage? Despite all the fuss whether the USPS reaps
international
benefits from the publicity of the team, all things considered they
get
reasonably decent coverage in the USA. The ignorance regarding bike
racing
in the USA may actually work in their favor by allowing them to
essentially
focus entirely on supporting Lance for the Tour since that is all
the
American people know about and still keep their sponsors happy.

Very true.

No, it isn't.


They've had a primary sponsor whose priorities are very different
from
the
others.

And the "priorities" of the other cycling team's sponsors is.....?

USPS is in this for the corporate ego stroke and to justify very
fancy
junkets for their executives. Those exec's have no interest in
visiting
Belguim in March. All those other sponsors want to sell stuff to the
people
watching the
race.

This is quite possibly the most ridiculous statement thus far. The
USPS "executives" are only interested in "fancy junkets"? If that
were the case, wouldn't it make sense that they'd want Lance to race
more, so they could go on MORE "fancy junkets"? They go to ONE junket,
ONE time a year - the TDF. You're simply being obtuse and ridiculous,
because Lance Armstrong has succeeded in skewering a sacred European
cow, Eddy Merckx. Your inability to recognize Lance's greatness is
not my problem, it's yours.

USPS doesn't even have a retail location on the same damn continent.

Um, the USPS has "retail outlets" all over America. They are called
Post Offices. It wouldn't make much sense for the US Postal Service
to have a "retail outlet" anywhere else, now would it? Are you really
this dumb, or are you pulling my leg?

The team does benefit by being able to focus on just the tour. I
think
it is
underestimated just how battered these riders get in the course of a
season
and
having the luxury of only worrying about that one GT must help.
Every
single
rider can be peaked. Since they don't have a mountain or sprint
specialist,
every rider can work for the GC man. That helps. And you're right,
most
Americans won't notice the lack of a green jersey man. Or absence
from
the
Giro
or anything like that.

Yeah, and we've heard all this before - sour grapes. Lance chooses to
race in the only race that counts - the TDF. And he's won six of them
in a row. No one else has. That makes him the greatest cyclist in
the world, ever. Deal with it, dude!

Um, no. He isn't the greatest cyclist. He is the best tour de france
rider. Period. He won one spring classic I believe and the world
champiionships, other than that he really won nothing else. He doesn't
compare to jalabert or Zuelle or even on the same page as Eddie M.

You're right - there is no comparison, because neither Jalabert or
Merckx or LeMond or Indurain or Anquetil or ANYONE - has EVER won 6
tours. Lance Armstrong has. When you can find someone else who has
won six tours, then we can start comparing. Until then, we'll just
settle on the fact that Armstrong is the greatest cyclist in the
world, ever.

mj

How many OTHER tours did he win?

What other tours matter? That's like saying, sure the 49ers and the
Dallas Cowboys each won five superbowls, but HOW MANY PLAYOFFS DID
THEY WIN? It's silly - the only football game that matters is the
superbowl, and the only cycling race that matters is the TDF.

(And not that lame-ass tour of georgia)
Training to win only one race a year does not come close to making one the
greatest cyclist.

Sure does, and it did. Armstrong is the only cyclist ever to win 6
TDF's. He's the greatest cyclist in the world, ever. And you'll just
have to deal with it.

MJ

Am I the only one disturbed by the fact that this discussion largely
involves "Moorehead Johnson", "Dick Hertz" and a guy that posts from
"cox-internet"?

Moorehead Johnson wrote:
"Richard Hertz" wrote in message et...

(Moorehead Johnson) wrote in message . com...
(Kenny) wrote in message . com...
(Moorehead Johnson) wrote in message

Please post the name of the cyclists who have won 11 GT's, 27 major
classics, 3 Worlds, over 500 pro-race wins, the world hour record?
Or keep on living in your narrow Tour focused virtual cycling world
instead of saying meathead things about a sport you don't even have
the least affinity with.

Kenny

I'll take your refusal to answer the question as aquiesence on the
point of Armstrong being the best cyclist ever - glad we got that
settled. By the way, I've been riding and following professional
cycling since the mid-seventies - I admire Merckx as much as anyone,
but he didn't win the big one six times in a row - Lance did.

MJ

Woohoo since the mid seventies! congratulations. BTW don't mix up
professional cycling with the TdF. I don't really think what
professional cycling really means.

About one thing you're true, Merckx didn't win the Tour six times.
But then it ends.

so to your opinion : 6 TdF wins is much more worth than

blethering illogic mercifully snipped

YES. Lance's 6 wins eclipse anything anyone else has ever done in the
sport. Kenny, not sure what part of this you don't understand - maybe
an analogy will help you - lets say professional football team "a" has
won 1000 games and the superbowl 5 times. Professional football team
"b" has only won 800 games - but they've won the superbowl 6 times.
Your logic - team "a" is the better team? If so, why didn't they win
the superbowl 6 times too? Doesn't make sense. It is the ability to
win the big one - particularly under pressure - that defines
greatness. Maybe you are confusing greatness with longetivity...

It would be more like 'a' winning 1000 games and 'b' winning 80, for a
start.

Then, if you're a sissy-rugby player, your one and only aim for the
season is to get to the Superbowl. There is nothing else to aim at.
Your sponsors' only wish is for you to get to the superbowl. If you
get there and win, then you have beaten everybody else, and if your
team does it every year for five years, and are favourite to do it
again for number six, then you do not really have the option of
telling the world that it's obvious you'd win if you entered but
you're bored and will go win other things that year. The only thing
you could do would be to change from sissy-rugby to some other similar
sport, like rugby union or rugby league. However, if you had a team
which after five years of winning the Superbowl decided to take a year
out of it to win the Heineken Cup, and did so, and then next year went
on be dominant at Aussie rules, then you might concede that they were
a greater team than one which won the Superbowl six times but did
nothing else. (yes, I know that isn't going to happen)

So after winning six TdFs, Armstrong is undoubtedly the best TdF GC
cyclist of all time. You could make a decent argument that he is the
greatest grand tour GC cyclist of all time. Depending on how you view
the points jersey, you might argue that he is the greatest grand tour
rider of all time. But he has won only a couple of one-day events,
done nothing on cobbles, shown little ability to sprint, not held the
Hour Record, not shown the ability to rip a field apart from the start
repeatedly, and not won one third of all the races he has ever
entered.
In other words, he is a specialist, and within his speciality he is
dominant, but he is not a complete cyclist with the ability to
dominate any race. Merckx was, which is why he is regarded as the
greatest of all time by most people (including Armstrong himself in an
interview not so long ago, IIRC).

Peter

In article ,
(Peter Allen) wrote:

It would be more like 'a' winning 1000 games and 'b' winning 80, for a
start.

Then, if you're a sissy-rugby player, your one and only aim for the
season is to get to the Superbowl. There is nothing else to aim at.
Your sponsors' only wish is for you to get to the superbowl. If you
get there and win, then you have beaten everybody else, and if your
team does it every year for five years, and are favourite to do it
again for number six, then you do not really have the option of
telling the world that it's obvious you'd win if you entered but
you're bored and will go win other things that year. The only thing
you could do would be to change from sissy-rugby to some other similar
sport, like rugby union or rugby league. However, if you had a team
which after five years of winning the Superbowl decided to take a year
out of it to win the Heineken Cup, and did so, and then next year went
on be dominant at Aussie rules, then you might concede that they were
a greater team than one which won the Superbowl six times but did
nothing else. (yes, I know that isn't going to happen)

So after winning six TdFs, Armstrong is undoubtedly the best TdF GC
cyclist of all time. You could make a decent argument that he is the
greatest grand tour GC cyclist of all time. Depending on how you view
the points jersey, you might argue that he is the greatest grand tour
rider of all time. But he has won only a couple of one-day events,
done nothing on cobbles, shown little ability to sprint, not held the
Hour Record, not shown the ability to rip a field apart from the start
repeatedly, and not won one third of all the races he has ever
entered.
In other words, he is a specialist, and within his speciality he is
dominant, but he is not a complete cyclist with the ability to
dominate any race. Merckx was, which is why he is regarded as the
greatest of all time by most people (including Armstrong himself in an
interview not so long ago, IIRC).

Peter

Great answer, but what makes you think you're going to get anything but
the same pitiful five-year old kid type of response from Mr. J? He's not
interested in having a discussion.

--
tanx,
Howard

So far, so good, so what?

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?