Started reading the other thread and it's interesting to see how everyone's split about 50/50 on the subject. I noticed a lot of facts weren't taken into account though. Personally, I don't really have an opinion on the subject so don't take this as a Lance fan tearing down Merckx.

If I recall correctly, someone said that Merckx had a greater Vo2 max and other physical traits than Armstrong and that's not true. Merckx was tested at 77ml/kg, while Armstrong states on his site that his is between 82-84.

Next, for all we know Merckx may have just been on better drugs than anyone at the time. Afterall he was DQ'd from the 1969 Giro while in the lead and his 2nd blood sample mysteriously disappeared. That was the same year he went on to his most dominating TDF performance....seems kinda fishy if you ask me. He also had problems with drug controls on several other occasions as you can see here...

http://cyclisme.dopage.free.fr/annuaire.htm#

Doping was much more common 25+years ago and "great" riders such as Anquetil can be left out of this discussion because they were known drug users. Doping controls weren't very good either.

Merckx smoked under his doctors orders in order to raise his resting HR.

Cycling wasn't nearly as competetive in the 60's and 70's as it is today. 30 years ago the big hitters were mostly from France/Italy/Spain/Belgium. Today the pro peloton consists of riders from almost every part of the globe. In order to reach the peak of competetive cycling today, one has to race against a much more selective group of riders from all over the world. Also, cycling has grown much larger because of the widespread tv coverage and greater salary/winnings today.


I'll post some other facts as I think of them (obviously some are pretty random).

Merckx's 69 drug bust was reputed to be a 'fix' by Italian authorities to stop him from winning 'their' race. his A$$KICKING in the 69 TdF was him releasing his furor over the bust not a drug fed domination. Funny how all the 'innocent until proven guilty' people for LA then turn and do the same to the cannibal, so as I've said in LA's defense I'll say in Eddy's. Produce the fatcs (Eddy has always denied usage, unlike Anquetil) or STFU.
anyhow the rest of your points prove the converse of what you are attempting to prove.
even with inferior competition (this is speculative at best), inferior diet and training, cigarette smoking etc... next to no one has touched Eddy's hour and he trained for it specifically. so Once again "all things being equal' which means giving Mr Merckx all the benefits of modern sports training technology, science and equipment, access to a more 'competitive field' (once again speculative and a slag to Poulidor, what modern rider has his Palmares? Ocaña, etc...) and what do you think you would you find? (rhetorical) The thing these 2 have in common is they 'upped the ante' and forced the rest of the peloton to rethink their methodology, an insatiable desire to win (granted Eddy's desire was Jan-Oct, not just for the month of July) and near obsessive-compulsive attention to training and equipment (it was under Eddy's tutelage that LA became the Bike-Geek he is today). There's a story from back then where a big party was thrown for Eddy on his behalf and held at his home. The guests, attendees wondered where the man-of-the-day was, they searched the house and found him on the rollers. So bury these arguments about watts, VO2, etc.. as the ability to improve them has been the result not of evolution but of a exponential leap in training/diet/fitness sport science. when LA races 'seriously' for more than a month a year (I'm not even asking him to dominate like Mr Merckx) and can break his hour record then maybe you'll have a leg to stand on, until then all we can do is compare stats against their peers and you know where that argument leads.

Granted I did mention that some of my points were a little random, making a comment like "I shouldn't even respond to this" is very arrogant and unnecessary. You go on to shoot down the point I made about the 1969 Giro without any supporting evidence to prove that Merckx actually was clean and his test was fixed. Also, how would you explain the other four postive tests listed in the source above?

Anyways, what would you do if you tested positive for a banned substance in a race like the Giro and you had your whole career ahead of you? Would you outright admit to it if you knew what you had done was wrong? Obviously not. You're going to deny taking the substance and claim that the doping controls were rigged.

Off the top of my head I can think of a couple of recent riders who have denied taking drugs even after getting caught red handed. Richard Virenque denied using anything for years and even wrote a book proclaiming his innocence until he finally admitted to having used drugs. Ramondas Rumsas' wife was caught with a trunk-load of performance enhancing drugs and he denied using anything until he finally tested positive at the Giro last year.

Finally, if what happened in the 1969 Giro had happened today Merckx wouldn't have even been allowed to ride the tour that year (or any other race for that matter) which shows how much things have changed.

besides 1969
he was caught 1973 Tour of Lombardy with ephedrine which is also know as ephedra, ma wong, ettc.. ephedrine is the common stimulant / additive in most cold medicines which is how I think he ingested it, but it is also the base of meth. the pemoline in 1977 which was well past his cycling dominating era was most likely an old warrior still trying to compete (I'm guessing) past his better years. I'm not trying to excuse it, just postulating based on my knowledge of Merckx. the other 2 have no dates, substances nor positive tests so what do I make of that. it says (my French isn't that great) one was in 1988 which is well beyond his years, the other says he frauded a test but doesn't give specifics. so that's all I can explain.
still bring him into today and I still think he'd crush people.

interesting page, so many names, so many drugs

This seems like the most inane thread, but lets get two things straight:

1) If you're contemplating if Lance could beat Merckx in a race, which point in time are you picking the two hypothetical riders abilities from, and what kind of race are you talking about; the TdF, the hour record, an Ardennes classic, Paris-Roubaix, a complete season? Hell, Lance isn't even significantly better than other modern-day riders during any of the year except the TdF. He has only briefly ever been ranked the #1 rider in the world, and typically is somewhere between 5th-10th.

2) If you're contemplating if Lance is a greater rider than Merckx. This is silly, while Lance's 6 TdF is a magnificent accomplishment, he can't even hold a candle to the bonfire that was Merckx. Lance's palmares doesn't even approach Hinault's, Lance's palmares is roughly the same as Indurain's or even on par with Museuuw's accomplishments in one-day races.

People say but it's different today, you must specialize....But in our lifetime we'll see another Merckxian rider, not on par but at least capable of winning big tours, sprints, classics, etc. throughout the year. It's a shame Valverde is Spanish and thus probably lacking in the mentality to do well in the northern classics but he certainly is impressive in how much of an all-arounder he is.

I so 'arrogantly' stated...I shouldn't even respond. since we can't time travel (yet) all we have are palmares.....and the hour. and as you stated in your rebuttal of 'times have changed' argument, Tyler Hamilton who was a high ranked GC rider in last years TdF and he managed an epic break, so Merckxian feats are not impossible in todays day and age.
I agree another 11 month animal will arise, it's just going to take a very special being and that is what people don't seem to get. Eddy NEEDED to win all season like Lance NEEDS to win in July.

does anyone know what "all things being equal" means...the last thread with this subject Lazywriter starts with that then proceeds to contradict the entire premise. How about this...what specific things are equal in your question..i.e. does LA ride the entire season like Merckx...does Merckx get the benefit of the Posties...what is equal?

....all things being equal but Eddy doesn't get any of the benefits of modernity. silly, and no one can (except 1) beat his 'cigarette smoking, damaged body, who cares what altitude hour mark.
and this whole times have changed, people are specialists...yadda yadda
In Eddy's time Eddy and everybody rode most everything
In Lance's time Lance and everybody (his min challengers) ride the Tour
so since their respective competition raced and trained just like they do (did)
then a peer comparison is valid for drawing conclusions between the two.

it's stuff like this that makes me want to jump on the hater bandwagon, and I respect LA and his abilities.

it's stuff like this that makes me want to jump on the hater bandwagon, and I respect LA and his abilities.

Well unless he's just blowing smoke, which he has been known to do in the past, he will race an ambitious schedule next year and we'll see what kind of stuff he's really made of. It would be a shame if he had the talent of Hinault and "wasted" it by being so conservative for the past 6 years.

I'm still hoping for Giro-Vuelta double this year by Cunego. He seems to be coming into good form again.

.

it's stuff like this that makes me want to jump on the hater bandwagon, and I respect LA and his abilities.
I am through with the this and that are "the best ever". Can we wait until Armstrong has retired before he is better than Merckx. A little perspective is in order. Lemond makes some ill-considered and maybe unfair comments about LA and doping and he has to be hung, at the least bankrupted. Armstrong is a great Tour rider and he just accomplished an unprecedented win but temper the enthusiasm.

Well unless he's just blowing smoke, which he has been known to do in the past, he will race an ambitious schedule next year and we'll see what kind of stuff he's really made of.
I heard he said he wanted to ride maybe the Giro and more Classics...I think he was talking in the glow of the Tour win. The way he leans on his team, management would have to increase the size of the team if he wanted to ride more competitively in more races. Plus the tour wins are lucrative enough.

Like Lance, but Merckx's still da man.
comeon Lance, how about winning more non-Tour races.

OK fellow Merckx fans, we've repeated ourselves enough. Can we stop posting on these ridiculous threads? The first "all things being equal" thread must have set a record in responses. Making the mistake of posting on it just about torched my inbox. Oh no... I posted on this thread... damn.

I don't think LA will skip Tour especially with the responsibilites he'll feel toward new sponsor. They signed on with Tour victory hopes, he can't dash it. Giro would threaten that opp as well so I'm not counting on it. smartest tactical thing LA could do is race the Vuelta this year (hopefully he's secretly training) as he has huge psych. advantage over everyone right now. If he really wants a double, nows the time.