Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat
I think the real deal on Armstrong wasn't that he was so "dominant" but that he spent virtually his entire training year to peak for the tour, and he had a good number of talented teammates to shield and shelter him and help him conserve energy until those few stages where he was ready to cut loose.
I wouldn't consider Armstrong to be anything near the cyclist Merckx was - Merckx took on anybody, anywhere, and fought to win virtually every time he rode.
I think the real deal on Armstrong wasn't that he was so "dominant" but that he spent virtually his entire training year to peak for the tour, and he had a good number of talented teammates to shield and shelter him and help him conserve energy until those few stages where he was ready to cut loose.
I wouldn't consider Armstrong to be anything near the cyclist Merckx was - Merckx took on anybody, anywhere, and fought to win virtually every time he rode.
Preaching at the choir here
-- I have stated in a number of threads that while I agree that Armstrong was a dominating Tour de France cyclist he was not such otherwise.So in essence there are two arguments
1. A person can be clean and be THAT good.
2. Armstrong really wasn't that dominant when you consider that he competed differently than almost anyone else around

The Tour de France has a higher level of exposure in the US outside the cycling community only because an American (LeMond) finally won it.
Comment