Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Lance Armstrong

Collapse

Unconfigured Ad Widget

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Re: Lance Armstrong

    The only question I have about Armstrong is "Can he beat Usain Bolt?"

    (Now could we please get this Board back on track.)

    Comment


    • #32
      Re: Lance Armstrong

      >The only question I have about Armstrong is "Can
      >he beat Usain Bolt?"

      I would say that the answer to that question is yes for all distances in excess of a mile. On a bike-any distance.

      Comment


      • #33
        Re: Lance Armstrong

        >>The only question I have about Armstrong is
        >"Can
        >he beat Usain Bolt?"

        I would say that
        >the answer to that question is yes for all
        >distances in excess of a mile. On a bike-any
        >distance.

        Probably all distances in excess of 600 meters.

        Comment


        • #34
          Re: Lance Armstrong

          >Probably all distances in
          >excess of 600 meters.
          I've said it before, Bolt looks to me like he is a born 800 meter runner the way he lopes around the track for 400 meters. If he is, then he should be able to run a decent mile. After that, forget it.

          Comment


          • #35
            Re: Lance Armstrong

            >>Thank you for
            >reinforcing my point.

            Sorry
            >Jacques, Lance AND Ullrich would have kicked your
            >butt. You have no credibility in any event-a
            >little tale from the 63 Tour.

            "Just one
            >little problem. He had made the climb on his
            >light time trial bike which was considered too
            >fragile for the wild gravel-strewn descent. But
            >Tour rules didn't allow a bike change for any
            >reason other than mechanical breakdown.
            >Anquetil's crafty manager, Raphael
            >Geminiani,
            had a solution.

            With the top in
            >sight Jacques gave Gem the eye. Jacques yelled,
            >"My derailleur!"

            "Shit!" responded
            >Geminiani loud enough for a passing race official
            >to hear. "He's broken his derailleur!"

            The
            >mechanic leaped from the car, spare bike in hand.
            >As he handed the new bike to Jacques, the
            >mechanic produced a pair of wire cutters
            >and
            snipped the cable on the side away from the
            >judge. The judge saw nothing and Anquetil was
            >pushed on his way."


            Woulda Coulda Shoulda.

            The fact that Kennedy or Culpepper (as well as a slew of others) would have handily beat Mills or Zatopek doesn't negate the fact that the latter pair were champions as well as legends.... nor does it elevate Kennedy above them. FloJo got away when somebody "inadvertently" stood in front of the wind gauge in Indy. Posting hearsay doesn't take anything away from either her or me. One word for you: scoreboard. Thanks for the ever-credible peanut gallery's perspective all the same.

            Au revoir.

            Comment


            • #36
              Re: Lance Armstrong

              >>> FloJo got away when somebody "inadvertently" stood in front of the wind gauge in Indy. Posting hearsay doesn't take anything away from either her or me. . . . Au revoir.<

              Au revoir, asshole. In the fifteen years since it has happened, nobody has ever suggested that somebody stood in front of the wind gauge in Indy. That's because it didn't happen. If it had happened, with thousands of track people watching it, somebody would have seen it. Nobody saw it. What you posted was worse than hearsay. It was just pure bullshit.

              Comment


              • #37
                Re: Lance Armstrong

                I think it goes without saying that reasonable people will always question what was up with Flo Jo that day and that season. To say it's water under the bridge is naive at best and conspiratorial at worst.

                Comment


                • #38
                  Re: Lance Armstrong

                  >I think it goes without saying that reasonable
                  people will always question what was up with Flo
                  Jo that day and that season. To say it's water
                  under the bridge is naive at best and
                  conspiratorial at worst.<

                  Of course there are legitimate questions about that wind reading. It was windy. A reading of 0.0 defies logic and nobody really believes it. But inventing a guy blocking the wind gauge is not the answer. Whatever the problem was, that was not it. That is just nonsense passed along by some jerk with an agenda.

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Re: Lance Armstrong

                    Au revoir, asshole. In the fifteen
                    >years since it has happened, nobody has ever
                    >suggested that somebody stood in front of the
                    >wind gauge in Indy. That's because it didn't
                    >happen. If it had happened, with thousands of
                    >track people watching it, somebody would have
                    >seen it. Nobody saw it. What you posted was
                    >worse than hearsay. It was just pure bullshit.
                    >




                    You really need to learn to pay attention.

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Re: Lance Armstrong

                      Okay what stopped the wind that day that everyone else felt for that race? An Al Joyner-Bobby Kersee mind-meld?

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Re: Lance Armstrong

                        There's no doubt that the prevailing winds that day were favoring the sprinters. My own theory is that in spite of the fact that everyone connected with the wind measurement swore up and down the line that everything was checked and double checked, there was some irregularity in the operation of the gauge.

                        But no, there was no guy standing in front of the gauge. That was another event in another country in another year.

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Re: Lance Armstrong

                          The theory was that the Omega gauges being used sometimes had a "warm-up" factor. By that I mean that the gauge showed nil for a few readings before registering the correct reading. So that the nil reading could be thus explained. The readings for the TJ going on at the same time a few metres away (and in the same direction) gave readings of around 4.3 metres per second as the race was going on (this can be seen in the background on video). Her time next day of 10.61 was definitely wind legitimate.

                          On Armstrong, it may be that the cycling fraternity thinks that "A" focuses on the Tour to the detriment of other areas - Hinault was pretty good in 1 day classics (so was Armstrong early in his career, but not lately)

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Re: Lance Armstrong

                            There was another peculiarity with that performance, the wind swirl within the stadium.

                            The 10.49 came in the quarter-finals on July 16. That evening and the next morning Omega tried to explain the situation, as "a wind velocity of +2.8 m/s in a direction 91 [degrees] perpendicular to the track. The component of wind along the track under these conditions is zero." (From Hymans's WR Progressions book)

                            The next day, the semi-finals of the 100m were contested at the same time as the qualifying round of the men's long jump. I was able to position myself in the PA booth so as to see the anemometers for both events in the same field of vision.

                            The LJ anemometer was about 5-8 meters closer to the starting line than the 100m anemometer, and was set about three meters farter toward the infield. At various times, the vane on the LJ anemometer was in the parallel to the runway, while the 100m vane was perpendicular. It didn't happen that frequently, but it was clear that the stadium swirl came through the position of the staightaway anemometer.

                            I tend to believe Omega's findings. I see it as a fluke of nature that we got such a reading. I also think the mark should not have stood up against better judgment and, despite the rules, should not have been ratified.

                            Comment

                            Working...
                            X