What? Only a 2 hour 50 marathon? If the claims of those who like to pretend that Armstrong was some sort of one-off genetic freak who was able to wipe the floor with exceptional athletes such as Ullrich, Basso and so on, (who, as time has shown were also benefiting from the huge performance gain to be had from blood doping, Epo and all the rest) I would have thought that a sub 2 hour marathon would have been more in line with 'The Armstrong myth'. Perhaps 'Lance' needs to get on a modified training 'program'. ;-)

Aurelio think before you type, the winner did it in 2:07, almost 30 seconds short of setting a new record. Its impossible to expect a sub 2 hour marathon for someone who started SERIOUSLY running a few years ago. In Tour de France he has a team to help win it, here in a marathon he is all by himself. I admire him as running is a physically demanding sport to the knees, and about the doping, 7 times its a IN YOUR FACE champion that he is born a natural. He has never done any drugs, also lets not forget he survived testicular cancer, simply a unique human being, one of a kind.

Armstrong a 'natural'?!!! I guess that's why, unlike people such as Merckx, he didn't even mange to finish any of his first four Tour de France's! OK he had a certain talent as a one day-rider but never showed any sign of being a potential Tour winner, even in 1993 when he won the world RR championships and so was probably already pretty much 'on top of his game' he was only 81'st in the prologue, lost 6.04 in the 59 km Lac De Madine TT, lost 21.42 on the 10th stage from Serre Chevalier via the Galibier, lost a whopping 28.47 on the 11th stage which finished at Isola 2000 and then on the next day's flat stage to Marseille either did not finish or did not start. In 1994 he lost 6.23 in the 64 km TT to Bergerac, was 65th and lost 7.03 on the finish at Hautecam (the only climb of the day), lost 20.09 on the 12 th stage to Luz Ardiden via the Tourmalet, was 114th and another 5.56 down on stage14 to Montepelier which had only one climb and failed to finish the next stage to Carpentras via Ventoux. Some 'natural' Tour winner!

As to Armstrong never having 'done drug's. How about his positive for steroids, those 6 retrospective positives for Epo in the 1999 Tour and the claims of so many in the Armstrong camp that he did dope, including his former team mates, soigner, mechanic and team doctor? How about the comments about the use of "800 ml of packed cells" within the Discovery team? How about Armstrong's bullying and persecution of those who spoke out about doping such as Bassons and Simeoni? How about the fact that Armstrong worked with the king of doping doctors, Michele Ferrari, for so many years? How about Armstrong's own admission of doping, as witnessed by people such as Stephanie McIlvain who, despite her later denial when faced with the sack from Oakley if she insisted on speaking the truth, openly admitted that yes, she did hear Armstrong admit to doping with EPO, steroids, testosterone and all the rest?

http://j.b5z.net/i/u/2132106/m/gregstef.mp3

To return to Armstrong's marathon performances, they are pretty feeble for a supposed genetic freak, being on a par with what any reasonably dedicated club runner should achieve within a couple of years. I also don't see what Armstrong's recovery from cancer has to do with anything, other than he came back to cycling intent on making the most of his survival (a common attitude in those who have escaped death) and filled with a desire to do ANYTHING necessary in order to humiliate those he felt had written him off and to 'pi-ss off' The French for questioning how he achieved his wins.

I get the feeling you would benefit from reading the following! ;-)

http://www.amazon.com/Lance-Landis-Inside-American-Controversy/dp/034549962X

Oops! I of course meant to say that Armstrong failed to finish 3 of his first 4 Tours. He had a good year in 1995, managing to finish 36th, 'only' one and half hours down on the winner, Miguel Indurain!

I was wondering how to write a decent flame.

Hope the foam coming out of your mouth and the steam from your ears didn't bust your computer Aurelio!

I also hope you're on track for winning the Tour de France without doping, and that you break the world record for the marathon at Beijing this summer too.

LOL at you and your bile!

quite simply to all these people having a go at him *cough* you do better?! *cough*

and well done him for managing to finish a marathon in under 3 hours and for raising awarness for livestrong

Aurelio - you are an idiot. That is a highly uneducated view on this topic.

He ran the marathon to raise money for the cancer chairy, raised a heck of a lot of money in doing so and raised awareness of the subject.

Did you run the marathon? Did you win the tour de france (and then again after suffering from testicular cancer (which had spread to you lungs and infected your whole body). i very much doubt it.

You are entitled to your opinion by all means but when someone is doing something for a good cause, pipe down and keep it to yourself

Butch T.

What on earth has the fact that Armstrong was running for charity or survived cancer got to do with him `allegedly` doping in order to turn himself from a Tour also-ran into a seven times `winner`? Are you saying everyone should turn a blind eye to how he `won` his Tours simply because he survived cancer or raised some money for charity?

I have also done a fair bit of distance running and my times are very comparable with those of `His holiness`. I am certainly no gifted natural athlete so I would still argue that if Armstrong were a genuinely gifted aerobic `genetic freak` his running times would be far faster than the are. Perhaps in one way Armstrong was a genetic freak of sorts, having the sort of physiology which adapted better to state of the art doping techniques than any other rider in the peleton!

aurelio if as you say Lance was blood doping and taking drugs like Ulrich and Basso surely by your own reckoning then Lance beat them on a level playing field.

I suspect you are writing this pish because you knew it would provoke a reply as u sit on your own in your wee flat with no real people to speak too you should get out more.

fixiebob:

I don’t doubt that Ullrich and most of the other contenders in the big Tours were also doping. However, if you do a little research you will find that the modern doping methods - including the use of Epo and blood doping - do not benefit all riders equally. Thus doping does not create a level playing field. Some riders will benefit greatly from doping and others (often those having a naturally high haemocrit for example) will hardly benefit at all, so such doping creates an entirely artificial finishing order.

Also, doping is hardly likely to create a level playing field when some riders are prepared to risk their lives by pushing the doping envelope further than anyone else, such as Riis or `Mr 60%`. Similarly consider what Vaughters said about the culture of doping as Discovery with Armstrong telling everyone that it was the norm for riders to get `25 injections every day` and his amazement on moving to Credit Agricole to not be injected at all and on learning that Moreau was racing in the Tour with a haemocrit of 39%!

Also, there are still riders around who don’t dope, such as most of the French riders (due largely to the longitudinal testing and the criminalisation of doping introduced after the Festina scandal). I hardly thing such riders are racing on a level playing field!

P.s. Thanks for the childish personal insults which indicate noting more than you can actually come up with any evidence or rational argument to counter what I have said!

fixiebob:

I don’t doubt that Ullrich and most of the other contenders in the big Tours were also doping. However, if you do a little research you will find that the modern doping methods - including the use of Epo and blood doping - do not benefit all riders equally. Thus doping does not create a level playing field. Some riders will benefit greatly from doping and others (often those having a naturally high haemocrit for example) will hardly benefit at all, so such doping creates an entirely artificial finishing order.

Also, doping is hardly likely to create a level playing field when some riders are prepared to risk their lives by pushing the doping envelope further than anyone else, such as Riis or `Mr 60%`. Similarly consider what Vaughters said about the culture of doping as Discovery with Armstrong telling everyone that it was the norm for riders to get `25 injections every day` and his amazement on moving to Credit Agricole to not be injected at all and on learning that Moreau was racing in the Tour with a haemocrit of 39%!

Also, there are still riders around who don’t dope, such as most of the French riders (due largely to the longitudinal testing and the criminalisation of doping introduced after the Festina scandal). I hardly thing such riders are racing on a level playing field!

P.s. Thanks for the childish personal insults which indicate nothing more than you can`t actually come up with any evidence or rational argument to counter what I have said!