I'm not a pro, just an Ager, but that's good enough for me. I had my doubts, but you are right, if he can hang with those guys then he can hang with the pros at Kona on the swim, that is.
Triathlon Forum
Login required to started new threads
Login required to post replies
Re: 2.4 mi. swim - Lance Armstrong [Ultra-tri-guy]
[ In reply to ]
Re: 2.4 mi. swim - Lance Armstrong [GMAN 19030]
[ In reply to ]
GMAN 19030 wrote:
drewmc3656 wrote:
Jordan can correct me if I'm misquoting him but he said something along the lines that any pro triathlete competing in the TdF would come in dead fuckin' last.Probably true...if they were only doing their usual 300-400 km/wk (or whatever) of riding. But a few months of 500 weekly 'base' miles for a triathlete who is naturally strong on the bike would make a grand tourer out of him. Conversely, take an average grand tour rider and strip back his training frequency to 4-5 days/wk, dump over half the weekly volume and prevent any increase in intensity (owing to similar total training stress for triathletes), and he'll come in stone motherless too.
Re: 2.4 mi. swim - Lance Armstrong [drewmc3656]
[ In reply to ]
drewmc3656 wrote:
Just curious, but why do so many people seem to think that Armstrong will be able to ride so much faster than someone like Lieto? And speaking of Lieto, we've all seen what happens to those who just kill it on the bike--they get hammered on the run. What's different about Armstrong doing it than Lieto?Dope
Re: 2.4 mi. swim - Lance Armstrong [runmdc]
[ In reply to ]
I was there, and I can tell you that they did the entire course. They did not cut it short.
-------------------------------------------------------------- Quote directed to me..."You don't have to do an ironman to prove your life is worth living..."
-------------------------------------------------------------- Quote directed to me..."You don't have to do an ironman to prove your life is worth living..."
Re: 2.4 mi. swim - Lance Armstrong [Paulo Sousa]
[ In reply to ]
Paulo Sousa wrote:
This thread needs SpeedRacer1 and FastandFun.I knew I should have timed "fastest (non-race) thread to 100 posts..."
"Non est ad astra mollis e terris via." - Seneca | rappstar.com | FB - Rappstar Racing | IG - @jordanrapp
Re: 2.4 mi. swim - Lance Armstrong [Rappstar]
[ In reply to ]
Hard to say how his run will be but I don't think a hard bike leg will hurt his run as much as people seem to think. As a long time cyclist and dabbler in running, I can say that I feel just as fresh and a whole lot looser running after a 75mi hard bike ride than I do without the bike ride. I did a bunch of runs over the last couple of months with some of my buddies training for tris and they kept complaining about how tight their muscles felt. I think I gotta start all my runs off with a 75 mile ride.
Re: 2.4 mi. swim - Lance Armstrong [runmdc]
[ In reply to ]
miscalculated distance or not... Lance hung with the pros... all things being relatively equal in those terms... Lance does show he is not a slacker as a swimmer... not even close. And, quite honestly... that shouldn't be a surprise since Lance start out as a talented swimmer before he became a very talented young triathlete... and, that's before he became a super talented biker...
BTW, if you have the strong winds as you described... I can almost bet every swim will be off by some margin of error. Bouys will frequently drift with strong winds.... and when this happens, I always hope they drift in favor of shorting the course for everyone :-o
BTW, if you have the strong winds as you described... I can almost bet every swim will be off by some margin of error. Bouys will frequently drift with strong winds.... and when this happens, I always hope they drift in favor of shorting the course for everyone :-o
Re: 2.4 mi. swim - Lance Armstrong [TriBriGuy]
[ In reply to ]
TriBriGuy wrote:
I am curious what a secret ballot of the top 50 IM men would turn up about whether or not to let him race?If you're a pro and don't see the benefit of lining up next to LA, you need to have your head examined. Win, lose or tie, it's going to mean more money in your pocket in the long run.
-------------------------------
I'm faster in Kilometers!
Wattie Ink Triathlon Team
Powered by Accelerate 3
Re: 2.4 mi. swim - Lance Armstrong [centermiddy]
[ In reply to ]
centermiddy wrote:
Yes, but what your suggesting is so far beyond anything they have ever done it's laughable. They just went through this whole re-org process to provide more legitimacy AND they told their pros they would not just opt Lance in. Lance is not their long term meal ticket. You think they are just going to sleep with some hot chick and expect that their wife won't care.You forget though that WTC is owned by a private equity group trying to build up market share and flip this in a few years for a tidy profit. Lance certainly does fit into their plans.
Re: 2.4 mi. swim - Lance Armstrong [centermiddy]
[ In reply to ]
centermiddy wrote:
Except that's already what they told him and their pros. You don't seem to get it. Why don't you name all the AGers they have let race pro in Kona?
Why don't you name all of the past TDF winners that have raced Kona?
__________________________________________________
Hunter Robinson
http://www.twitter.com/el_slice
http://www.elslicerideco.com
Sponsored by: http://www.92fifty.com
Re: 2.4 mi. swim - Lance Armstrong [bluemonkeytri]
[ In reply to ]
And you forget that my b-school rommie is an MD there. This is what I do for a living.
Last edited by:
centermiddy: Apr 4, 11 11:02
Re: 2.4 mi. swim - Lance Armstrong [rayyantoh]
[ In reply to ]
rayyantoh wrote:
threepiece wrote:
Somebody asked him on his twitter yesterday straight up if he was going to do Kona and he replied no.I dont mean to correct you but:
somebody: Dear @lancearmstrong,are u gonna compete for the next ironman KONA?
lance: @terkster possibly
In LA's defense, he is not competing in any race for him; It will be FOR LIVESTRONG!
LA is a buisness man. Lets get this clear, what ever race he decides to do will have VERY certain ties to making LIVESTRONG more proffitable and that particular race. If LA shows up at a race, it will ultimatley mean LIVESTRONG is going to benefity from it. Who knows the payout on either end?
I'm a Lance fan 100% at heart, but there are financial gaines to be had.
Re: 2.4 mi. swim - Lance Armstrong [el_slice]
[ In reply to ]
Happy to be the bearer of bad news, but unless Lance races pro he's not that interesting to WTC, creds or otherwise.
Re: 2.4 mi. swim - Lance Armstrong [Tri or Die]
[ In reply to ]
Tri or Die wrote:
LA is a buisness man. Lets get this clear, what ever race he decides to do will have VERY certain ties to making LIVESTRONG more proffitable and that particular race. If LA shows up at a race, it will ultimatley mean LIVESTRONG is going to benefity from it. Who knows the payout on either end?
I'm a Lance fan 100% at heart, but there are financial gaines to be had.
Livestrong is a non-profit organization.
You are insinuating LA is a cheat and a thief. Which is fine, but just say that.
If he were a business man, which I believe he is, he would derive his income from legit endeavours, which I believe he has.
-------------------------------
I'm faster in Kilometers!
Wattie Ink Triathlon Team
Powered by Accelerate 3
Re: 2.4 mi. swim - Lance Armstrong [runmdc]
[ In reply to ]
It was a pretty choppy and windy day. We did make the turn though :)
Re: 2.4 mi. swim - Lance Armstrong [Tri or Die]
[ In reply to ]
Tri or Die wrote:
rayyantoh wrote:
threepiece wrote:
Somebody asked him on his twitter yesterday straight up if he was going to do Kona and he replied no.I dont mean to correct you but:
somebody: Dear @lancearmstrong,are u gonna compete for the next ironman KONA?
lance: @terkster possibly
In LA's defense, he is not competing in any race for him; It will be FOR LIVESTRONG!
LA is a buisness man. Lets get this clear, what ever race he decides to do will have VERY certain ties to making LIVESTRONG more proffitable and that particular race. If LA shows up at a race, it will ultimatley mean LIVESTRONG is going to benefity from it. Who knows the payout on either end?
Quote:
I'm a Lance fan 100% at heart.....Clearly.
Let's be semi-reasonable. There are many, much more effective ways to get the Livestrong name out there than racing triathlons.
Chicago Cubs - 2016 WORLD SERIES Champions!!!!
"If ever the time should come, when vain and aspiring men shall possess the highest seats in government, our country will stand in need of its experienced patriots to prevent its ruin." - Samuel Adams
Re: 2.4 mi. swim - Lance Armstrong [Rappstar]
[ In reply to ]
Isn't the answer to your question 20 hours and 30 minutes?
Re: 2.4 mi. swim - Lance Armstrong [J-$$]
[ In reply to ]
Mr. Cotter,
Since you were there swimming with Lance can you add some color to this conversation?
In your opinion what are the chances Lance races Kona this year?
Thanks!
Since you were there swimming with Lance can you add some color to this conversation?
In your opinion what are the chances Lance races Kona this year?
Thanks!
Re: 2.4 mi. swim - Lance Armstrong [centermiddy]
[ In reply to ]
centermiddy wrote:
Happy to be the bearer of bad news, but unless Lance races pro he's not that interesting to WTC, creds or otherwise.Your not bearing anything... I don't buy that... if the media is interested... then WTC will be interested... if not... then they're morons... and, I they are NOT morons - at all. The fans, the media and the sponsors dictate the interest. Your analysis has the tail wagging the dog.
Re: 2.4 mi. swim - Lance Armstrong [Fastyellow]
[ In reply to ]
Fastyellow wrote:
Tri or Die wrote:
LA is a buisness man. Lets get this clear, what ever race he decides to do will have VERY certain ties to making LIVESTRONG more proffitable and that particular race. If LA shows up at a race, it will ultimatley mean LIVESTRONG is going to benefity from it. Who knows the payout on either end?
I'm a Lance fan 100% at heart, but there are financial gaines to be had.
Livestrong is a non-profit organization.
You are insinuating LA is a cheat and a thief. Which is fine, but just say that.
If he were a business man, which I believe he is, he would derive his income from legit endeavours, which I believe he has.
In any case, Livestrong.com is a for-profit organization.
Re: 2.4 mi. swim - Lance Armstrong [gregf83]
[ In reply to ]
Because profiting and raising funds are two entirely different things. He was saying that Livestrong and LA would "profit" from this action.
We are obviously talking about the Livestrong Charity which is a 501C...not Livestrong.com.....
-------------------------------
I'm faster in Kilometers!
Wattie Ink Triathlon Team
Powered by Accelerate 3
We are obviously talking about the Livestrong Charity which is a 501C...not Livestrong.com.....
-------------------------------
I'm faster in Kilometers!
Wattie Ink Triathlon Team
Powered by Accelerate 3
Re: 2.4 mi. swim - Lance Armstrong [Fastyellow]
[ In reply to ]
Fastyellow wrote:
Because profiting and raising funds are two entirely different things. He was saying that Livestrong and LA would "profit" from this action.If you want to take offense, you surely can find it offensive. Shirley.
Re: 2.4 mi. swim - Lance Armstrong [Fastyellow]
[ In reply to ]
Fastyellow wrote:
Because profiting and raising funds are two entirely different things. He was saying that Livestrong and LA would "profit" from this action. We are obviously talking about the Livestrong Charity which is a 501C...not Livestrong.com.....
Re: 2.4 mi. swim - Lance Armstrong [Goosedog]
[ In reply to ]
Between this thread, the last 2 lance threads, and ML's return, ST has been a great place to be this week when not on the back of a bike or in the pool. (any place is a better place than running).
-------------------------------------
You don't have to like what I say but you should respect my right to say them and I'll do the same to you.
-------------------------------------
You don't have to like what I say but you should respect my right to say them and I'll do the same to you.
gregf83 wrote:
Fastyellow wrote:
Because profiting and raising funds are two entirely different things. He was saying that Livestrong and LA would "profit" from this action. We are obviously talking about the Livestrong Charity which is a 501C...not Livestrong.com.....
Not really.....from the site:
LIVESTRONG.COM vs LIVESTRONG.ORG?
The Lance Armstrong Foundation will continue to support cancer survivorship and call on our nation's leaders to wage a new war against cancer through LIVESTRONG.ORG. LIVESTRONG.COM is a practical resource to find a wealth of health-related information from a wide range of sources, and is a proactive way to have a daily conversation about being healthy and living an active lifestyle.
While LIVESTRONG.ORG remains a nonprofit, LIVESTRONG.COM is a for-profit that derives its revenue from advertising and member subscriptions.
-------------------------------
I'm faster in Kilometers!
Wattie Ink Triathlon Team
Powered by Accelerate 3