I'd say the cancer, but that's not why I'm replying:-P
They have it about half right, about folks in their 30s past their prime. The Tour, as Lance has said, is a race that requires some age on the competitors because with the age comes the experience and battle hardened body that one needs in order to win. There's a reason why you don't/didn't see the 21 year old New Guys kicking Lance's ass up those mountains for 3 weeks. Their bodies just can't handle it no matter how good they are. The Tour rewards maturity. Typically Tour winners are in their early 30s, or very late 20s, which gives them a relatively small time frame in which to compete in something like the Tour, putting them right near their prime.
So they're sort of past their prime, while being in their prime...or something. Anyhow, does anyone really listen to those TV Commentators? Most of the time I wish they'd just STFU and let me narrate the game/race/event to myself.
I, too, would love to see Lance win another Tour, but if you'll recall his last Tour victory, it wasn't certain, and he didn't walk away with it. His competition made it difficult the entire way.
Then again, this is the guy who's spent most of his professional sporting career pulling just these types of rabbits out of just those types of hats...
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1968Cayman
While Lance only had a severe case of cancer (hmmm. "case of cancer?"), Lemond got blasted in the chest with a shotgun! Which one would be easier to come back from? I don't want to find out through experience.
I'd like to believe he can do it; I'm tired of tv commentators telling us that folks in their 30's are "past their prime".
|