23 Jul '09 21:14>3 edits
Originally posted by Melanerpes"Yes - you can argue that Armstrong just "didn't have the legs".
Yes - you can argue that Armstrong just "didn't have the legs".
but you can also argue that he knew that making up the 1:30+ margin on Contador to win the overall tour was a longshot. So the next best thing would be to do nothing that would help Wiggins.
Unless Lance comes out and says he just couldn't keep up, we'll never know for sure. He may well r these guys beat each other up, some other team's rider sneaked in and won it.
but you can also argue that he knew that making up the 1:30+ margin on Contador to win the overall tour was a longshot. So the next best thing would be to do nothing that would help Wiggins.
Unless Lance comes out and says he just couldn't keep up, we'll never know for sure. He may well have been beaten anyway, but considering the kind of competitor that Lance is, it seems unlikely he would have dropped back as quietly as he did. But who knows?"
Seems to me that Armstrong did say that he doesn't have the legs of the "young guys". Even if he didn't mean for it to apply to that particular situation, you only need know that Armstrong not only couldn't make the initial break, but he didn't have enough to blow Wiggins off his wheel until much later in the climb though he tried. Keep in mind that Frank Schleck fell back into the Armstrong group, then blew both Armstrong and Wiggins away with a strong attack. The fact that Armstrong didn't do the same was quite telling. If he could have, he would have. Maybe you don't understand that Frank was under the same constraint as Armstrong. The difference was that Frank had the legs and Armstrong didn't. I don't know how you can have any doubt. You sound like a die-hard fan who's allowed his heart to get in the way of the facts.