First, two quick admissions. 1)My interest in cycling is young, so I’m still learning 2)I’m not a big fan of motivational speaker/“it’s all in your mind” mumbo-jumbo.BUT…Lance Armstong may change that…
Now…that being said; What is “it” that Lance Armstong has? Certainly there are smarts and technique; the guy attacked the Alps and Pyrenees with more ferocity than Hannibal. But he’s neither the youngest, PHYSICALLY strongest and certainly the “Tour” field has many with the “hunger to win”. Is it those intangibles called “will”, “desire” and the “hunger” of the pure competitor and champion? How important is the mind in avoiding “hitting the wall?” (I’ve seen many an Olympian over the years do that very thing). Whatever it is, I sure would like to hear you guys thoughts. All of us could probably use a fraction of WHATEVER “it” is! (P.S. Do you think he can break the record of five consecutive “Tours?”)
Oops…guess the title was too long. It read "To The Cyclist: Talk About “The Right Stuff!” So…your thoughts on Armstrong, what he’s accomplished…and most impotantly; how does he do it…
Tour champions usually don’t come into their prime until the late 20s, so his age is an asset. As for his “drive” being the missing ingredient. I don’t think this is logically so. He’s basically a genetic freak who has lungs capable of processing oxygen very efficiently, something like that. He was tested at Cooper Labs and he was off the charts, the best they’ve ever tested. So in short it takes training, drive and genetics to do well…butyou can’t look at a champion and say “it was his drive”. Maybe others in the tour had the same or greater drive. Mickey Mantle was an outstanding baseball player…why? Was it his drive? He was an alcoholic who played hung over alot. But he was so talented it didn’t matter.
Simple Answer: Lance is a champion. OK, that doesn’t exactly cut it, does it? But how do you define, as you say it is, the intangible? I think at the highest level of all sports, when skill is just about even, champions are the ones who not only want to win the most, but who refuse to lose at all costs. It comes from the heart, mind, and soul. I see this all the time … some of the most talented individuals in the world just never win. I think those who do win, and consistently, thrive on it. They need it in their lives like they need food, calories, etc. And the question that I have is, can this stuff be learned? or are they just born that way.
I’ve been wondering the same thing. No doubt Armstrong has unbelieveable competitive drive. But is that enough? We’ve all seen him in media interviews deny using banned substances (what else is he gonna say). The commercial he did where he says, “I’m on my bike umpteen hours a day…what are you on?” was pretty bold though for someone to do if they were actually using drugs. For you guys out there who know a little about cycling, how likely is it that Armstrong could dominate as he does without using banned substances (EPO, steroids, etc)?
This is great! I see two separate, but equally important issues coming through: the “mental” or “heart of a champion” aspect and the physical. Bri brought up something interesting (and this gets to the “hitting the wall” issue). It is hard for me to believe that hitting the wall is purely mental, so what Bri brings up is VERY intriguing, ESPECIALLY if the Cooper Institute is impressed! But it also brings up another intriguing question: is his lung capacity a matter of genetics OR is it because he trains so hard and pushes his anaerobic thresholds to the point of reaching capacities that put him off the charts? Is it a combination of BOTH? In terms of drugs in a sport like cycling, it seems like their only value would be in inhancng what the athelete already has. (It sort of gets back to the discussion we often have on this board; you can take a truck load of gear, but if you eat like crap, workout without any plan, direction or progression and yes, don’t have the genetics, you’ll never look like the guys in the mags). So…keep your thoughts coming…Oh…one more question (and it’s probably a DUMB one for all the cyclist out there!)Why is there a tendency to reach your peak in this sport when you are “older”?
Mufusa, in regards to age, I think it has something to do with gradually building up your strength, aerobic capacity, and cycling “smarts” (eg. knowing how to race). My father rides (but never lifts, also high-carbs as per cycling books recommendations - he respects my opinions on diet/training, but thinks all the protein/weights don’t transfer over to cycling b/c of stupid stuff he’s read!), so I’ll ask him about this topic.
Cyclists that compete at an elite level take a lot of drugs, AAS, EPO, HGH, clenbuterol and amphetamines to name a few. A couple years back a few of the top cycling coaches got busted with a shit load of EPO and GH, safe to say they weren’t the ones taking them. Armstrong is a gifted athlete, but I feel his dominance is due to something very tangible: drug use. Champ or not, if he was clean he’d get smoked. However it’s most likely a level playing field. All athletes are either on or has access to the same drugs, My beef with Armstrong is he had cancer and was lucky enough to beat it, yet he still disregards his health, I’m sure a lot of people would love to have that second chance and wouldn’t be so reckless.
Hopefully you will now rethink the “mumbo-jumbo” element and allow it to become a part of your training. Winning is a habitual trait and human will indefensible. In faith, Coach Davies
Two things to consider: 1) As has been mentioned, the guy is a genetic freak. His VO2 max rating is in the top 1 or 2 percent of the tested population. 2) One of the characteristics separating the top guys in any sport like cycling, football, boxing, etc is pain threshold. Imagine the pain that the guy went through, day in, day out, during intense chemotherapy for cancer that no-one expected him to beat. I figure that after that, the pain riding up the mountains just doesn’t seem as bad.
One thing has been left out of Lance’s victories, mention of his team. Yes, he wins the stages, but he never would without the team that rides with him. It is their job to make sure Lance is protected in the pellatau (sp?) they also are responsible for wearing out other riders with blistering opening stage paces. In once instance, during a mountain stage, one of Lance’s teammates was told to turn around, and come back down to pick up fresh water bottles for Lance and others on the team. Do you think this guy had a prayer of doing well after riding down and then sprinting back to the lead riders? Without the teams behind the lead racers they would never win.
There are several things to consider. He certainly has a lot of raw talent, anyone that can legitimately contest the TdF has to. It is true that his physiological numbers are very good, but for those of you not familiar with the sport, Ullrich’s are probably better. Two years ago when Lance won, Ullrich wasn’t there. Also, there were some other contenders who missed out on a big stage. Most notably Alex Zulle who got caught in a crash and Postal attacked him (which makes me chuckle when people talk about how gentlemanly Armstrong was when Ullrich went down, but I digress). Then last year Ullrich was there, but battled weight and fitness all year and wasn’t on form and still got second. I venture to guess that if Ullrich were in the shape he is in now, last year he would have won. So, that gets to the point. Armstrong is focused, dedicated and tough. Ullrich has been unfocused and has lost those years of accumulated improvements. Armstrong gets better incrementally every year. That could be catergorized as psychological or mental mumbo jumbo.
Physiologically, he has incredible recuperative powers. This may have contributed to his recovery from cancer, but to be as fresh as he is at the end of a 23 day tour, he has some physisiological characteristics which are hard to nail down, but allow him to come back, day after day and even get stronger, as evidenced in the last time trial.
As far as the record, it depends on Ullrich to a certain extent. If Ullrich puts a solid year together and comes back stronger, Armstrong will have a battle. Also, anything can happen, crashes illness etc., but again he seems to be on top of everything so that he avoids those problems. But there is also his family. If anything stops him from winning five or six, I think it will be his wife and two girsls that are on the way. For those of you who have never raced, it is brutally hard. To be away from your family for three weeks, while you suffer like a dog (although he didn’t seem to suffer this year), it wears on you. When he starts missing his kids growing up and his family life he may just say, “it ain’t worth it.” I hope it doesn’t happen that way because he is so good for the sport right now in North America, but we shall see.
Steve you make some very valid points about Ullrich but the fact is that Armstrong prepared better means a lot, the TdF is more than just the 3 weeks of racing. I am sure we have all seen the guy/gal superstar at high school who had all the talent in the world and yet never made it yet the person who had less talent but trained harder/smarter ended up being better, a good example being Michael Jordan who struggled at first in high school. Having said that 2nd in TdF is an awesome achievement.
On the side of what makes a champ, I heard the end of a radio interview the other day with a Coach from the Australian Institute of sport where they test out the mental toughness of competitors with such things as ‘no-win’ situations eg Judo matches between different weight categories to see how the underdog does, fight at 100% or just accept they won’t win.
Those of you that are convinced that Lance Armstrong uses illegal perfomance enhancing substances are pathetic. Just because a man can accomplish something that you can ONLY dream about, you think he must be “cheating”. Face the truth people, some guys have unheard-of genetic capabilities. I’ve been training this dude that has accomplished the same strength developments that took me three years, in six months. He can recover over the space of half a day and train for three hours straight without any physical problems. I have to stop this guy from completely wasting himself. Its guys like this that used to make me consider myself a hardgainer, but actually I’m just a normal guy, and THEY are genetic freaks.
Hyphnz, I think you misunderstood where I was coming from. The original question asked how Armstrong wins? if he was a mutant etc.? My point was, he is a mutant, but he isn’t the baddest mutant physiologically. He has done what Ullrich can’t from a training standpoint though, that is focus for several years and accumulate training adaptations and, as a result, consistently improve. I was inferring, to a certain extent, that if circumstances were different he may not have won the first one. He certainly could have had a better fight on his hands. And although Ullrich was awesome this year, Armstrong was that much better. His mental focus on top of his physiological attributes are what make him the total package.
That being said, he also has that "give me the ball" attitude of say a Jordan, or Elway etc. When he won the triple crown back in the day, I thought that was a pressure situation. In all honesty, I was skeptical that some deals were made on the road. Hard to say, but given his track record of coming through under pressure, I have a little more confidence, in retrospect, that it was the real deal.
My use of the term “mumbo jumbo” was not directed at that strong, competitive, almost obscessive will to win. That is real. It really is directed at the often “psycho-rip-off-babble” of the part Televangelist, part Used Car/Ponzi Scheme salesman known as the “motivational speaker”. They (as a group)are VERY hard for me to take, but I will give them credit; they are VERY good at motivating people to give up their money. So…that comment was directed at a very defined segment of our culture…not that strong will to win.
To Choad: if you take the comments as a whole, I think that just about everyone agrees that Armstong is both a Champion and a winner. He works hard, trains hard and remains focused on the prize. This has probably lead to his unbelivable physiology (like a 28 BPM resting heart rate that can elevate to almost two hundred; this is a heart that not only pumps amazing amounts of blood per stroke but responds to exercise by increasing it's rate almost 7 fold! And we have already read about his lung capacity and anerobic threshold). To reach these types of physical thresholds was probably a combination of focused, uncompromising training, genetics and a burning desire to win. I think that drugs, while certainly not anywhere near the reason Armstrong wins, must at least be considered in the mix is how I've read what people have said. I could be wrong.
HyaSynth: Sqibb is the manufacturer of some of the Chemotherapeutics used to treat Armstong's cancer. We are starting to see many famous people become spokesmen for the companies that manufactured drugs used against their illnesses.
Michelle: Excellent point about the team’s importance in a Tour Win. We should never discount their importance.
I hope you guys keep posting with more ideas and thought’s on this phenomenal athelete…
It’s inconcievable that he wasn’t on anything. Anyone who is successful at that level is undoubtedly using something, ask Charlie Francis. If anybody’s clean it’s the losers who finish last & say ‘…but I’m trying really hard!’. Armstrong was probably on that hemopure stuff Francis mentioned in his T-interview.
Geez Mufasa, I think you addressed everyone on the board with the last one.
I get your meaning about the mumbo jumbo now. Hitting the wall in a bike race is different than hitting the wall in other sports, and it isn’t. Again though, the biggest thing he does right is preparation. It’s like a lot of other things, when you are prepared and feel good, pain doesn’t hurt as much. Not being an Armstrong, but having been in the position to “put people in the hurt locker” once or twice, I can say Armstrong may be hurting, but since he knows he his going better than others, it doesn’t hurt as much. Conversely, in Ullrich’s case, when you see ARmstrong scamper away like he did on L’alpe, it takes the wind out of your sails. Most competitive types, though, would be able to ride through the pain like ARmstrong if you are doing damage as opposed to having it done. So, again it comes down to the focus Armstrong has in the off-season and year after year, to come to the race having done what it takes in the last 12 months to be able to do the damage. Like he says, that means an ugly face in February.
As far as the drugs go, I find it hard to believe that a man who was on deaths door would risk his health using EPO. Not that performance enhancing drugs are the evil demons that the media make them out to be, but several cyclists did likely die from EPO, so I doubt he would use it. On the other hand, I wouldn't be surprised if he used some gray, not on the list yet or undetectable, not terribly dangerous stuff in preparation. Further, if he is clean, it is very serrendipitous that he is at his peak now, when a lot of the doping in cycling has been eliminated, or at least reduced. Back in the days of old 60 hct Riis, I don't think any clean cyclist could have done it.