Lance Armstrong comeback

[Jimi75]

Just read that Lance (37) will come back and ride the Tour De France once again.
He does it without payment that is what our newspaper says.

There is so many sportsman that made a miserable comeback, but according to recent pictures and race results he seems to be as fit as ever.

What do you guys think of sportive comebacks?

 

[R_of_G]

In general, I think athletic comebacks are hard to judge until the athlete actually performs. If they can still compete at a high level, I typically have no problem with it. They all have the right to try to still enjoy the sport they participated in for so long.

It's the ones that come back but can't really compete anymore that make me wonder why they came back in the first place. I don't know much about cycling, but I suspect Armstrong is still in good enough shape to be competitive.

That said, I do tend to have more respect for the athletes that retire while they are still at the top of their game and before the inevitable decline. Football Hall of Famer Jim Brown is probably the ultimate example of this.

Good luck to Lance.

 

[Robert]

It's going to very interesting! Maybe he is bored?
He is talking about his comeback here http://www.livestrong.com/lance2009/

 

[Bloozcat]

Well, it's usually an ego thing that drives comebacks by retired athletes, but I think this case with Lance Armstrong is different.

Armstrong didn't contact his old team about racing with them, although they made it quite clear that they weren't interested if he was contemplating it. What Armstrong did say when he announced his comeback was that he was doing it to raise awareness about cancer research. This right after his participation on the TV special on the same subject. I believe that he also said that he would donate any winnings to cancer research as well.

All I can say is, if Lance Armstrong's intentions are as stated so far, then I think he's doing a really good thing. Go lance....:AOK:

 

[Jimi75]

. I believe that he also said that he would donate any winnings to cancer research as well.
All I can say is, if Lance Armstrong's intentions are as stated so far, then I think he's doing a really good thing. Go lance....:AOK:

Actually that impressed me a lot. I think he has got honest intentions.

:bravo:

 

[warren0728]

i agree....i don't think ego is a big issue with lance....surviving cancer is....i lost my best friend of 20 years (more like a brother really, and that's how i was treated and introduced at his funeral) to cancer a few years ago....i still tear up even as i type this....one love we shared was music and during his late stages when he wouldn't let anyone see him....he and i would sit in his room and because he could barely talk, very little was said....i would just keep playing cds that meant a lot to both of us and that was ok....anything that can be done to increase awareness or raise money for this horrible disease is ok in my book....

ww

 

[marnold]

The quotes that I've read from Tour officials have been REALLY snippy about this. They've basically said, "We know he was cheating before, we just didn't catch him. We've got better testing now so he'd better watch out." It just seems to me that there is very little for him to gain and a lot for him to lose. But it's the nature of competitors to want to compete. If that's what he wants to do, more power to him.

 

[warren0728]

The quotes that I've read from Tour officials have been REALLY snippy about this. They've basically said, "We know he was cheating before, we just didn't catch him. We've got better testing now so he'd better watch out." It just seems to me that there is very little for him to gain and a lot for him to lose. But it's the nature of competitors to want to compete. If that's what he wants to do, more power to him.

he probably wants to kick there a$$...take their new better testing and show that he did it again....without cheating....to shut these goofballs up!

ww

 

[ShortBuSX]

Not to say that he couldnt win it again, but in reading this, there has got to be some kind of strategy involved in all of this and I wouldnt expect an over all Tour win...but Id certainly expect a few surprises.

I suspect he will be carrying somebody up the mountains and then pass on the torch at the end of it all...I havent been watching cycling that much lately, so I dont know who that would/might be....but there is some strategy involved here, even if it is just to promote LAF.

 

[sunvalleylaw]

The quotes that I've read from Tour officials have been REALLY snippy about this. They've basically said, "We know he was cheating before, we just didn't catch him. We've got better testing now so he'd better watch out." It just seems to me that there is very little for him to gain and a lot for him to lose. But it's the nature of competitors to want to compete. If that's what he wants to do, more power to him.

He may or may not have cheated. It would be hard to know for sure. Even if they come up with a positive on some old sample, what might affect the result? Storage, herbs he used back then that were legal under the then current rules but show up weird on the test? It would be hard to say. I will say that all of his top competitors at that time that I am aware of have been busted by now. So even if he was cheating, he still kicked their butts under the conditions that the racers performed at the time. If he can comeback again today, under today's testing, more power to him. If he doesn't win it, he still will push the sport.

A year or two ago, Phil Mahre started competing again, and finished well in a few races against kids 20+ years younger. He pushed the sport, and I bet got some younger guys working harder. I think Lance coming back would be good for the sport. :AOK:

Oh, and where in the rule book does it say you have to retire at a certain age. Andy Mapple (waterskiing) was still consistently the best at age 42 or 43. Ms. Torres just put on a show swimming with athletes that could have been her daughters at the Olympics. I say why the heck not?

 

[R_of_G]

Oh, and where in the rule book does it say you have to retire at a certain age. Andy Mapple (waterskiing) was still consistently the best at age 42 or 43. Ms. Torres just put on a show at the Olympics. I say why the heck not?

Precisely. It's not about age, it's about skill level. If you can still compete then compete. Some athletes lose their edge earlier than others. Some go on well into their 40's.

 

[piebaldpython]

Lance Armstrong

The quotes that I've read from Tour officials have been REALLY snippy about this. They've basically said, "We know he was cheating before, we just didn't catch him. We've got better testing now so he'd better watch out." It just seems to me that there is very little for him to gain and a lot for him to lose. But it's the nature of competitors to want to compete. If that's what he wants to do, more power to him.

Gotta disagree with you buddy. He has NOTHING to lose. He won the thing a bunch of times, then retired. He will most assuredly be "purer than the driven snow" this time around. Not that he wasn't before but doubly so now. This is all about him raising cancer awareness: WIN If he wins the thing: WIN
Any Tour is a TEAM sport. No way he can win if he doesn't have teammates willing to set the pace, lead a false attack and burn others out, etc. So, if he's not on a team, no way he wins. IMPOSSIBLE. But he isn't it it to win for himself, it's for cancer. And because of that, he does win for himself indirectly because everyone will be focusing on how wonderful it is that he's doing this for the cancer patients. NOthing wrong with that either. The GOOD publicity that this will generate will far exceed any improbable WIN of the actual event.

 

[Bloozcat]

The French are so snippy because they really don't like it when a non-Frenchman wins the Tour de France. They'll tolerate it when a foreigner wins it a time or two, but they become nasty if a foreigner threatens any records held by a Frenchman. They are even worse if it's an American.

Here's a little snippet about the Belgian, Eddy Merckx, arguably the best bicyclist of all time:

Merckx's domination in the Grand Tours came to an end in 1975. That year, he attempted to win his sixth Tour de France but became a victim of violence. Many Frenchmen were upset that a Belgian might beat the record five wins set by Jacques Anquetil. Merckx held the yellow jersey for eight days, which raised his record to 96 days, but whilst he was climbing the Puy de Dôme on stage 14, a French spectator punched him in the body.

In his 17 years of racing, Eddy Merckx won more career races than anyone else (525), and more races in one season than anyone else (54). The French hated him, so can you imagine how they feel about Lance Armstrong who did what Merckx couldn't do - break the record for Tour de France wins? I wonder what the French would do to alter Eddy's drug tests if he raced today instead of when he did?

BTW: I really don't follow bicycling that much, but my brother does, so I hear about it all the time...

 

[marnold]

Gotta disagree with you buddy. He has NOTHING to lose. He won the thing a bunch of times, then retired. He will most assuredly be "purer than the driven snow" this time around. Not that he wasn't before but doubly so now. This is all about him raising cancer awareness: WIN If he wins the thing: WIN

Here's several ways:
1) If he loses badly people will at best say that he is tarnishing his legacy. It will give people ammo to say, "See, he can't do it with tougher testing."
2) If he tests positive for something his reputation is annihilated.
3) Conspiracy theory: how hard would it be to spike a sample?
4) He's going to have to answer all the questions all over again for about the billionth time, especially about his notorious doctor. It takes just one slip of the tongue, misstatement, or misquotation to start a firestorm of controversy.

Basically the only way he wins is if, well, he wins or comes very close without getting busted for anything. And nothing else goes wrong.

Nevertheless, I'll go back to my last point. I have no desire to compete in the Tour de France. He clearly does. If that's what he wants to do and he thinks he can do it, go for it! I'm certain he is all too aware of what is in store for him both from training and from the media.

 

[Robert]

I think Lance is bored and wants to bike again, as well as it's a great way to continue raising money for cancer research. I don't expect he's going to be all that great on the bike again, but he wins anyway - he will raise a lot of money for cancer research regardless. That's a good thing.

 

[piebaldpython]

Lance Armstrong

Here's several ways:
1) If he loses badly people will at best say that he is tarnishing his legacy. It will give people ammo to say, "See, he can't do it with tougher testing."
2) If he tests positive for something his reputation is annihilated.
3) Conspiracy theory: how hard would it be to spike a sample?
4) He's going to have to answer all the questions all over again for about the billionth time, especially about his notorious doctor. It takes just one slip of the tongue, misstatement, or misquotation to start a firestorm of controversy.
.

Good point and I think I read that if he goes to race in the TOUR that he will have a TV crew following him 24/7 and get EVERYTHING on film, including urine testing. ahahhahahahhahaha That's how he could beat a spiked sample, with documentary proof. Oh yeah, they'll have some guy poring over every second of this thing, looking for anything.

 

[just strum]

I'm not big on sports comebacks. I think more end up in embarrassment instead of proving they still have it. However, you have to give them credit for the competitive spirit.

I respect the person that is able to walk away when they are on top and have nothing more to prove.