Why Are Americans Dominating the Tour De France?

AlpineZone

Page 1 of 7 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 67
  1. #1

    Why Are Americans Dominating the Tour De France?

    In the past 20 years, Americans have won the Tour De France 11 times. Greg Lemond won it in 86, 89, and 90. Armstrong took 7 tours from 99-2005. Now Landis takes it for an 11th American win in the past 20 years. From what I read, I don't believe that Americans even got involved in the Tour until 81. So what's up with that?


  2. #2
    Well of those 11 wins, 7 of them were Lance, who is the greatest cyclist of all time.

    I'm not saying there should be an asterisk next to Landis's name, but let us not forget that 2 of the tour favorites were banned from cycling right before the race.
    Fear should be treated like fire - it's a good thing that can keep you warm but it can also burn down the house

  3. #3
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Whiteface, New York
    Posts
    338
    Quote Originally Posted by skibum1321
    Well of those 11 wins, 7 of them were Lance, who is the greatest cyclist of all time.
    No. That's Eddie Merckx. Not even debatable. Lance himself has said so many times.

    I'm not saying there should be an asterisk next to Landis's name, but let us not forget that 2 of the tour favorites were banned from cycling right before the race.
    They were not. That's an inaccurate stement. But, to the extent that they are shown to have been doping - why would that have any bearing on Landis' win? I don't follow. "Yeah, you won, but two cheaters weren't allowed to race against you so it's not like you really won."

    Where's the logic in that?

  4. #4

    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    beantown and NY to da C
    Posts
    228

    Smile

    in all seriousness, europeans IN GENERAL, do not have the will or the character for this type of event. simple as that. ever been to a gym in europe? particularly france? go to one and you'll understand. they're not bad people, just not athletes in general.

    wait til more black riders enter the ranks. it'll be like tiger woods and golf.

  5. #5
    Quote Originally Posted by freeheelwilly
    No. That's Eddie Merckx. Not even debatable. Lance himself has said so many times.
    It is certainly debatable. With all that Lance has overcome and all of his achievements, he is definitely in contention for that title. Cycling would not even be on the radar in America without Lance - he has done more for this sport in America than anyone else in history.

    Quote Originally Posted by freeheelwilly
    They were not. That's an inaccurate stement. But, to the extent that they are shown to have been doping - why would that have any bearing on Landis' win? I don't follow. "Yeah, you won, but two cheaters weren't allowed to race against you so it's not like you really won."

    Where's the logic in that?
    I'm just saying that the 2 superstars of the sport weren't there. That's like having a home run contest without Barry Bonds. Even though Bonds is a doper he still bashes home runs better than almost anyone out there.

    There are a lot more dopers out there in cycling - they just may be taking drugs that aren't on the radar yet. They haven't even scratched the surface yet.
    Fear should be treated like fire - it's a good thing that can keep you warm but it can also burn down the house

  6. #6
    Quote Originally Posted by skibum1321
    Cycling would not even be on the radar in America without Lance - he has done more for this sport in America than anyone else in history.
    I have to disagree with that, yes Lance did a lot, but it's Greg Lemond that put cycling in the lime light here.

    Something else to think about;

    Lemond got shot accidentily, it was so bad they thought he may not ride again. He came back and won two more Tours.

    Lance Armstrong had a battle with cancer, he won the tour 7 times.

    The latest winner Landis, has an arthritic hip and will probably go for a replacement.

    What would happen if America came up with a healthy cyclist?

  7. #7
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Whiteface, New York
    Posts
    338
    Quote Originally Posted by skibum1321
    It is certainly debatable.
    No it's not. Get a clue. The Cannibal won 5 Giros and 5 Tours. His first Tour he won ALL the jerseys. He also raced the Classics in the snow and mud sliddin' around on the cobbles with 150 other crazies. Lance was in Texas in the Spring and never even rode a Giro. Stop making a fool of yourself.


    With all that Lance has overcome and all of his achievements, he is definitely in contention for that title.
    See above. Lance himself has acknowledged this MANY times. Why can't you?

    Cycling would not even be on the radar in America without Lance - he has done more for this sport in America than anyone else in history.

    Wrong on the first part. Right on the second part.



    I'm just saying that the 2 superstars of the sport weren't there.
    "The" two superstars? Many picked Floyd to win even before Operation Puerto claimed Jan and Ivan. Whatever.

  8. #8
    No need for personal attacks. We're all entitled to our opinions, but as we've seen on this board time and again you always think you're the final word.
    Fear should be treated like fire - it's a good thing that can keep you warm but it can also burn down the house

  9. #9
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Whiteface, New York
    Posts
    338
    Quote Originally Posted by skibum1321
    No need for personal attacks. We're all entitled to our opinions, but as we've seen on this board time and again you always think you're the final word.
    Ohhhh...toughen up!

    Your "opinion" smacks of Amero-centric blather. If you're gonna bother having an "opinion" about something you might as well know what the hell you're talking about, no?

    Lance is the Man! Don't get me wrong, the guy is way cool IMO and the best rider of the TdF in its history. He had that race wired. The last two Tour de Lances were boring; everybody else was racing for second from the outset.

    But the best cyclist in history? C'mon.

    Second best cyclist in history is "debatable". But best cyclist in history? Not so much. Merckx is head and shoulders above everybody else.

  10. #10
    It's because we have cooler bikes, and a better fashion sense.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
All times are GMT -5. The time now is 6:34 AM.