Lance Armstrong has analyzed in his podcast 'The Move' the route of the
Tour de France 2025. The American, who won the Grande Boucle 7 times and then lost it for doping, is very clear that the route created by ASO is not at all against
Tadej Pogacar.
The former US Postal rider explains that when the Tour route is announced there are always comments that it is designed so that the big favorite doesn't win, and that's what has happened again with the 2025 Tour. He thinks that this is never true, that the great cyclists adapt and that barring a miracle, the strongest always wins:
"I've read some comments about ASO or the Tour, which are the same thing, claiming they are trying to test Pogagar with the route. We've heard that every year, after a few Tour's look at this design goes against such a Pogacar or against Armstrong. None of that crap matters," he argues. "I always joked that if they ever decided to do 22 criteriums around Paris we'd have to figure out how to win. There can't be anything against, if you're Pogacar you have to study how to do it, that conversation is meaningless, the best cyclists are prepared for the routes. It's the Tour and 99 times out of 100 the best wins."
The route features less high mountain than the more modern Tour routes, but in reality the World Champion has shown no weakness this season and no terrain where his main rivals were above him, rendering the argument almost unviable. .Johan Bruyneel, Lance Armstrong's former sports director and a regular contributor to The Move, described the 2025 route as "traditional":
"I think the main novelty of the 2025 Tour de France is the return to a traditional route. in the first week it's not hard, the first mountain stage doesn't come until the 12th, that's too late and that's going back to the old days."
On the discussion of whether Vingegaard or Pogacar is better suited, Bruyneel is clear: "The best rider with the best team always wins the Tour de France without bad luck". He continues: "In terms of elevation gain, it's more or less the same as this year's. I like the design. I like the design".
George Hincapie, a former colleague of the two at US Postal, speaks of safety as a factor to be taken into account because of the change in the type of course: "In recent years there has been a fight for the overall from the first days, now there is not, which will make the race safer in the early stages, with the riders thinking about getting to the finish line".
Mind you Musk appeared to be less horrible twenty years ago, too.
Difficult to compare the two, but I find it difficult to trust the gut instincts of a guy who needs ozembic to fit in his jeans. He clearly isn't listening to his gut. It is especially horrible to consider when there are type-1 diabetic patients who actually need the life saving drug and aren't able to get it because of the drug's demand for cosmetic purposes. I kinda see a pattern here.
Ironic to think that at one time Lance could have had a political career. He had a rare opportunity in his ability to reach both sides of the aisle with his fables of being a cancer survivor and athletic miracle. He could spin tales and work a room better than George Santos.
Imagine if Lance hadn't been a lie, what he could have achieved as a Democrat and supporter of healthcare reform who was also a welcomed guest with George W. Bush. Republicans and Democrats lined up to ride with him.
But his greed got the better of him. He threw it all away in his final comeback attempt at the Giro, a race he did not understand and that underscored his fumbling bike skills and filled in the dots with better testing handing enough evidence for his takedown.
At one point, there was serious talk about his running for governor of Texas on a healthcare platform. No doubt motivating some political opponents.
He could have won and might very likely continued to Washington either as senator like Santos, or who knows... this election could have been Lance seeking a second term.
It's important to mention him. He needs to remain an iconic example of not just how destructive cheaters are, but how easily we can be fooled by emotional tales into complacency and complicity -- he is an important figure to remember in order to better see subsequent grifters and as a reminder of our duty to remain vigilant against the little lies we tell ourselves to fall for our craven impulses such as "oh, everybody cheats". No, they don't.
It's alarming reading the comments here and elsewhere how many people are still lying to themselves to defend Lance with such emotional and flawed arguments. The lack of critical reflection is astounding. But looking at America's waistband and ozembic asses, we need to talk more about Lance, not less.