Enough Armchair Lance Bashing!

[Steampunk]

Lance bashing is not solely related to whether he doped or not, it is also due to his behaviour, the bullying of Christophe Bassons, his actions in regards to Filippo Simeoni, his duplicitious behaviour towards AC this year, his disrespecting of riders(Sastre/Vandevelde) the way he treated those who left his inner circle, his blatant use of nationalism & stereotyping to slam the French (Cavendish was recently slammed for saying '****ing Frenchies' or something, mild compared to Lances jibe a few years back about the French soccer team testing positive for being assholes). Who remembers that.I could go on and on but if anybody can find a rider who committed as many unclassy deeds in recent times, then please direct us in their direction.

The best thing Lance ever done was retire, the worst thing he ever done was come back. When he is around, too much time, media etc is devoted to him taking away from the rest of the sport. All he brings to the sport is those who know nothing about the sport, who want to know nothing about the sport other than Lance and spend their time defending him based on what he says.

Quite simply, find me another rider who is so easy to dislike.

This was the smartest post in this thread.

1. Without any proof of doping, LA is a superb athlete and one of the most dominant cyclists of his generation. Period.

2. LA has brought thousands of fans to cycling. This can't be a bad thing, even if many of them think the TdF is the only race of the year and don't understand that teams and not individuals are competing.

3. LA has done an awful lot of good in raising awareness about cancer.

4. Unfortunately, even the good things above are somewhat belittled by LA's intense desire to be in the spotlight.

5. His character is abrasive, contentious, egotistical. This is consistent with his drive to win, but does not make for a charismatic sporting icon. From a sporting perspective, he compares very unfavorably with Pelé or Wayne Gretzky or Tiger Woods or Roger Federer, each of whom were decidedly classy in spite of being among the best their respective sports have ever seen. Ronaldo provokes similar kinds of responses from football fans. Both LA and Ronaldo seek to be bigger than their sport.

6. That's the problem. Nobody is bigger than the game. As a result, they provoke the ire of purists.

As a former professional-caliber footballer and longtime cycling fan, I think it's fair to conclude that both are phenomenally talented, but also hugely flawed individuals. I don't think it's a stretch that we lesser mortals often want to live vicariously through the titans of the sports we follow. Character, as pmcg76 pointed out, is a crucial part of that identification. LA, in spite of the good he has done, sucks too much air out of any room he walks into.

 

[unsheath]

The important thing here is that these Armstrong threads at least give the more casual cycling fans access to all the myths and allegations that they would otherwise not been aware of. The fact that it has swayed some opinions is testament to its usefulness. ScottSoCal is a case in point.

Its funny how almost all members once they're educated on the issue tend to side with common sense.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

This was the smartest post in this thread.

This is an odd one - as I agree with a lot of what Pmcg76 said and your overall conclusion on your view on LA - yet I disagree with how you got there:

1. Without any proof of doping, LA is a superb athlete and one of the most dominant cyclists of his generation. Period.

I wont go down the no proof of doping, as it has been well covered before.
You are correct in saying he is a superb athlete - in a clean peloton I believe he would have been the best Classic or one day racer of his generation.

2. LA has brought thousands of fans to cycling. This can't be a bad thing, even if many of them think the TdF is the only race of the year and don't understand that teams and not individuals are competing.

Any new fans to cycling are welcome. However the sports credibility is currently built on sand and I believe a Police investigation like Puerto would expose the current state of cycling and would damage the sport.

What would all the new fans think then? Would sponsors want to invest or parents encourage their children's participation in such a sport?

3. LA has done an awful lot of good in raising awareness about cancer.

I used to believe his cancer awareness was genuine and wholeheartedly agreed with his agenda. However when I found that Livestrong.com was sold to Demand Media and that Lance has "equity' in Demand my view has changed.

4. Unfortunately, even the good things above are somewhat belittled by LA's intense desire to be in the spotlight.

Most sport-stars hog the limelight - his name sells everything from Subaru's to Oakley's- it is part of the modern marketing of athletes.

5. His character is abrasive, contentious, egotistical. This is consistent with his drive to win, but does not make for a charismatic sporting icon. From a sporting perspective, he compares very unfavorably with Pelé or Wayne Gretzky or Tiger Woods or Roger Federer, each of whom were decidedly classy in spite of being among the best their respective sports have ever seen. Ronaldo provokes similar kinds of responses from football fans. Both LA and Ronaldo seek to be bigger than their sport.

I have actually met Armstrong and was very surprised with how friendly he is. Certainly he is very driven and demanding - obviously he is not as gracious and as humble as some you have mentioned.

6. That's the problem. Nobody is bigger than the game. As a result, they provoke the ire of purists.

Excellent point!

As a former professional-caliber footballer and longtime cycling fan, I think it's fair to conclude that both are phenomenally talented, but also hugely flawed individuals. I don't think it's a stretch that we lesser mortals often want to live vicariously through the titans of the sports we follow. Character, as pmcg76 pointed out, is a crucial part of that identification. LA, in spite of the good he has done, sucks too much air out of any room he walks into.

Certainly it is a pity that he is the current center of cycling - currently there is more talked about Armstrong than Contador - who won the Tour!!

 

[Escarabajo]

I find that I agree with most all of the above postings, excepting of course BPC's usual response. Does that make me conflicted? Or is it ok to both agree with TFF and others that the full story does need to be told over and over, while also wishing like the OP that it didn't have to work its way into just about every thread.

Maybe not into every thread. But I think it is necessary to tell the stories over and over.

I think it is important that Brodeal, TFF, Race Radio, Digger, Blackcat, others that escape my memory keep talking about the Lance stories. I take as an example myself. I was kind of neutral about Lance when I joined this forum. I knew about the doping thing but did not pay much attention since I believe most of the riders were doing it too. The stories about his actions and behavior have made me one of those who wish he had stayed retired. Those stories from the mentioned forists were very important in how different I perceive Lance in my mind now. There could be some new forists who believe in all his stories and could see the light just like me.

 

[Hugh Januss]

This is an odd one - as I agree with a lot of what Pmcg76 said and your overall conclusion on your view on LA - yet I disagree with how you got there:



I wont go down the no proof of doping, as it has been well covered before.
You are correct in saying he is a superb athlete - in a clean peloton I believe he would have been the best Classic or one day racer of his generation.


Any new fans to cycling are welcome. However the sports credibility is currently built on sand and I believe a Police investigation like Puerto would expose the current state of cycling and would damage the sport.

What would all the new fans think then? Would sponsors want to invest or parents encourage their children's participation in such a sport?


I used to believe his cancer awareness was genuine and wholeheartedly agreed with his agenda. However when I found that Livestrong.com was sold to Demand Media and that Lance has "equity' in Demand my view has changed.


Most sport-stars hog the limelight - his name sells everything from Subaru's to Oakley's- it is part of the modern marketing of athletes.


I have actually met Armstrong and was very surprised with how friendly he is. Certainly he is very driven and demanding - obviously he is not as gracious and as humble as some you have mentioned.


Excellent point!


Certainly it is a pity that he is the current center of cycling - currently there is more talked about Armstrong than Contador - who won the Tour!!

Imagine if LA was called in by a Senate sub-committee and made to testify under oath and then people like Walsh and the Andreus and so on were called as well. Bonds and Clemens would smell pretty good by comparison.

When it comes to the cancer thing, I have to disagree a little, just by virtue of how he compares to most other sports stars. We have a very popular sports figure here in LA that I won't name. A few years ago he bought his way out of a rape conviction, and now he takes his 23 million a year all home with him. Lance for all his failings (I would be that last to say that they are not many) still does do things that are positive for society. Maybe his Foundation is only middling efficient when compared to every cancer (or other) fund raising group and there are a lot of us who donate to others that would not to Livestrong. At the same time he probably gets a lot of donations from folks who might not donate otherwise. As a humanitarian I would probably have to place him somewhere above organized religion as a whole. Those guys are really out for a profit!

I've met him too, and in person he is a carismatic guy. That is probably part of the problem, he can get what he wants from people. At the same time I watched him after a local cross race stand in a towel and sign autographs for kids for a half hour. After each one he said "ok, now I really have to go" but he didn't leave until every kid had an autograph. And he sure made the day at our little race.

 

[Hugh Januss]

Maybe not into every thread. But I think it is necessary to tell the stories over and over.

I think it is important that Brodeal, TFF, Race Radio, Digger, Blackcat, others that escape my memory keep talking about the Lance stories. I take as an example myself. I was kind of neutral about Lance when I joined this forum. I knew about the doping thing but did not pay much attention since I believe most of the riders were doing it too. The stories about his actions and behavior have made me one of those who wish he had stayed retired. Those stories from the mentioned forists were very important in how different I perceive Lance in my mind now. There could be some new forists who believe in all his stories and could see the light just like me.

Oh I absolutely agree. I was talking only about how the topic can pop up in the middle of a discussion of who will be on what team next year for instance. But maybe that is like trying to have a separate "doping" forum in the first place, because in any pro cycling discussion these days that topic lurks just under the surface anyway.

 

[usedtobefast]

raced against him on more than one occasion, had my *** thoroughly kicked. 7 tour wins, among other things. anyone else done that?... not my hero, but i will always respect him.

 

[davidg]

Maybe not into every thread. But I think it is necessary to tell the stories over and over.

I think it is important that Brodeal, TFF, Race Radio, Digger, Blackcat, others that escape my memory keep talking about the Lance stories. I take as an example myself. I was kind of neutral about Lance when I joined this forum. I knew about the doping thing but did not pay much attention since I believe most of the riders were doing it too. The stories about his actions and behavior have made me one of those who wish he had stayed retired. Those stories from the mentioned forists were very important in how different I perceive Lance in my mind now. There could be some new forists who believe in all his stories and could see the light just like me.

Here is the irony of what you are saying.
You feel the need to retell at every opportunity and wish that he hadn't returned to the sport.

BUT, if he had not returned to the sport, would you still have the same urge to keep posting about how bad the doping issue is? Or would you go down another path to keep on about the issue.

If you stopped posting because LA was out of the sport, then you would be ignoring the problem,

and if you pursued another path to tell the message, then why can you not use that same philosophy to convey it now.

In other words, the problem in the sport is not all of Armstrong's doing.

Sadly, since most of the posts are the same repetitive posts, regurgitating the same internet suppositions, rumours and innuendo, perpetuated by people who cut/paste, the message get boresome and diluted.

So yes, discuss the problem, but I agree with the OP, don't keep getting it confused with LA.

 

[usedtobefast]

Here is the irony of what you are saying.
You feel the need to retell at every opportunity and wish that he hadn't returned to the sport.

BUT, if he had not returned to the sport, would you still have the same urge to keep posting about how bad the doping issue is? Or would you go down another path to keep on about the issue.

If you stopped posting because LA was out of the sport, then you would be ignoring the problem,

and if you pursued another path to tell the message, then why can you not use that same philosophy to convey it now.

In other words, the problem in the sport is not all of Armstrong's doing.

Sadly, since most of the posts are the same repetitive posts, regurgitating the same internet suppositions, rumours and innuendo, perpetuated by people who cut/paste, the message get boresome and diluted.

So yes, discuss the problem, but I agree with the OP, don't keep getting it confused with LA.

seriously people. this thread was started by someone who was ranting about
lance bashing, and that is what it turned into. and on the doping page as well.

 

[Escarabajo]

BUT, if he had not returned to the sport, would you still have the same urge to keep posting about how bad the doping issue is? Or would you go down another path to keep on about the issue.

I think we would still question doping in the sport if there is some data and evidence. The answer is an absolute yes.

If he stays I'll do what I do now. Post very little about him. If he goes away I'll do the same. Post very little about him.

If you stopped posting because LA was out of the sport, then you would be ignoring the problem,

Him going away or retiring from cycling has absolutely nothing to do with me ignoring the problem about doping. Absolutely nothing to do with it.

and if you pursued another path to tell the message, then why can you not use that same philosophy to convey it now.

What philosophy? I don't understand your point. I was just referring to his behavior.

In other words, the problem in the sport is not all of Armstrong's doing.

You are correct.

Sadly, since most of the posts are the same repetitive posts, regurgitating the same internet suppositions, rumours and innuendo, perpetuated by people who cut/paste, the message get boresome and diluted.

You are partially correct. But take note that most of the people who love or like Lance Armstrong are the ones who bring the topic again and again. They are the ones who usually steal all the threads. It is not the so called haters. That’s the real irony of this.

My point was that some of these repetitive messages by the Forists that I mentioned can be caught by people that are ignorant or have no knowledge about Lance issues. I have even had an encountered with a guy that blindly loved Lance and everything that had to do with him. I had to use some of the information brought my Alpe d' huez, Brodeal, and others to make my case. There were no insults. Just presenting the facts. I even presented some of my numbers also. Towards the end of the discussion and after several posts I sensed that at least he had changed his mind about the doping. He probably was more quiet about the way He talked about Lance. So, yes, it needs to be repeated respectfully some times.

So yes, discuss the problem, but I agree with the OP, don't keep getting it confused with LA.

Take note of how nice the Clinic flows and what amazing discussions we have whenever we don't have one of those Lance love posts inserted into the conversations. I have seen some amazing threads in the clinic with some valuable information about medicine and health. I have learned a lot in the Clinic especially when these guys don't come and steal the threads (I need to stop now, because I don't want to become one).

I appreciate your feedback

 

[davidg]

Take note of how nice the Clinic flows and what amazing discussions we have whenever we don't have one of those Lance love posts inserted into the conversations. I have seen some amazing threads in the clinic with some valuable information about medicine and health. I have learned a lot in the Clinic especially when these guys don't come and steal the threads (I need to stop now, because I don't want to become one).

I appreciate your feedback

I agree, some of the threads have been very interesting and informative. Mostly when the angle is new or elaborate on what others have already posted.
They seem to be better when they generic and not focused on any one rider.

 

[**Uru**]

Wow, I did not expect to see 7 pages of posts after my original one. No, I am not attempting to troll. It was genuine. It was interesting to see that at least some people agreed with the sentiment.

 

[Digger]

I was out training about two months ago and I met a guy who was waxing lyrical about Lance. And I suppose what really leaped out at me was how naive he was in comparison to the people on here. His response was, 'but there's no way he could've passed all those tests', if he wasn't clean. The ineptitude of the testing is not recognised at all and that is not even mentioning the corruption. Then little nuggets of Coyle's study are thrown out there. Doesn't Lance have this huge heart? Isn't he a genetic freak? And this is why I get so worked up about Coyle's study. In my opinion, and in the opinion of many others, that study was built on faulty science, yet it is being used as a propoganda tool by Lance to explain his performances. And the gullible newbie fans swallow it up. But Lance lost all that weight? At this stage in the conversation I want to shoot myself.
Three times, I think it was, that Lance announced on Twitter that he was going for a cycle in Glasgow and that he wanted people to join him. Yet he puts on this faux shock that people came out in their numbers to cycle with him.

 

[TRDean]

I will jump in here because a lot of this is really funny...but some good stuff too. I knew and raced with lance (early 90's). I did not like him then...as a person...not as a racer. Me personally, I admire people who can excell at their chosen profession (not necessarily sports) and maintain a very down to earth profile. No big ego, condescending attitudes etc. However, in life you see this everywhere. I am a biochemist now and there are plenty of people I work with who are so self important they make me sick. I don't like Cavendish because of his personality. I like Boonen because of his, even though he has done some things that I totally disagree with. My dislike of LA is not because of the riding or doping, but because of his personality. He twitters like my 15 year old daughter. Hell, he acts like a 15 year old girl for petes sake!!! I like Contador more than I ever liked LA...even if it came out that he has been doping...because he acts more mature than LA.

I would not say I am a basher...but I will put in a juvenile jab every now and again (uniball, dating young girls, etc.). I love reading the jabs from TFF and others...they make me laugh. Heck, Scribe makes me laugh too!! Too many on here take this **** too serious. It is a sport and nothing more. Lets just have some fun and do what we do.

 

[SpeedWay]

Sadly, since most of the posts are the same repetitive posts, regurgitating the same internet suppositions, rumours and innuendo, perpetuated by people who cut/paste, the message get boresome and diluted.

There is a reason for this, and yes it is sad.


Insanity: doing the same thing over and over(and over and over and over and over ...

 

[Jonathan]

I feel sorry for those who continue to believe that the sport is largely clean with a few that have been corrupted. It is clearly the other way around.

While that may be right as a fact, I wouldn't make it a source of contempt for the riders. They don't deserve that - not Armstrong or anyone. Doping is bigger than any single person.

 

[TRDean]

There is a reason for this, and yes it is sad.


Insanity: doing the same thing over and over(and over and over and over and over ...

Actually, insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result....

 

[Anonymous]

There is a reason for this, and yes it is sad.


Insanity: doing the same thing over and over(and over and over and over and over ...

So brushing my teeth is insanity? So playing with my kids is insanity? Hey Einstein, you forgot part of the equation. TRD picked it up for you though.

 

[gillan1969]

I was out training about two months ago...........Three times, I think it was, that Lance announced on Twitter that he was going for a cycle in Glasgow and that he wanted people to join him. Yet he puts on this faux shock that people came out in their numbers to cycle with him.

i think you guys are all getting a bit carried away....do you think anyone in the body building profession beats themselves up about Arnie's previous steriod use?? Bodybuilders use PEDS and cyclists use PEDS (especially GT riders) and....eh...that's it. Some of them then transcend the sport they participate in. Different rules/norms apply.

with regards to Glasgow...he may have twittered more than once but its a bit churlish to have a go at him for that. he may have gained some nice PR but he gave a huge numbers of scottish cyclists a very memorable day out on a typically crap scottish summer day. That day will live with them for a while.

that he's a doper??? So what...so were hinault, anquetuil, fignon, pantani, ullrich, basso, riis, virenque et al...and I'd have loved to have had an impromtu training ride with all of them (well, apart from tricky dicky )

 

[Jonathan]

i think you guys are all getting a bit carried away....do you think anyone in the body building profession beats themselves up about Arnie's previous steriod use?? Bodybuilders use PEDS and cyclists use PEDS (especially GT riders) and....eh...that's it. Some of them then transcend the sport they participate in. Different rules/norms apply.

For some reason, Armstrong's doping use gets a lot of attention, while Ullrich's receives much less. But Ullrich was never a symbol for a new kind of cycling. Regardless of who was responsible, Armstrong did become some kind of symbol.

A typical example are the heated debates on this forum about the scientific studies done about Armstrong. When he started to win, there were a lot of media reports about how he trained more effectively, longer and intenser than other riders. This implied he did not need to dope, unlike some others. So how good were those methods? That's what's being discussed, because some feel like they have been lied to. The intensity of the earlier reports has provoked a reaction.

 

[TRDean]

For some reason, Armstrong's doping use gets a lot of attention, while Ullrich's receives much less. But Ullrich was never a symbol for a new kind of cycling. Regardless of who was responsible, Armstrong did become some kind of symbol.

A typical example are the heated debates on this forum about the scientific studies done about Armstrong. When he started to win, there were a lot of media reports about how he trained more effectively, longer and intenser than other riders. This implied he did not need to dope, unlike some others. So how good were those methods? That's what's being discussed, because some feel like they have been lied to. The intensity of the earlier reports has provoked a reaction.

The training harder, smarter...was all Lance Armstrong PR. I actually remember the first time I heard him say that and I thought...what a load of crap!! Like all the rest are lazy azz holes or something!! I know how hard guys train...I don't feel I have been lied to...I KNOW I have been lied to.

 

[Jonathan]

The training harder, smarter...was all Lance Armstrong PR. I actually remember the first time I heard him say that and I thought...what a load of crap!! Like all the rest are lazy azz holes or something!! I know how hard guys train...I don't feel I have been lied to...I KNOW I have been lied to.

All his PR? Could be, I'm not sure. In 1999, the audience was probably quite willing to believe a new era had begun.

It would be interesting to critically read Armstrong's books and some news reports from that period and see how the myth of new cycling was constructed.

 

[Dude17]

I used to believe his cancer awareness was genuine and wholeheartedly agreed with his agenda. However when I found that Livestrong.com was sold to Demand Media and that Lance has "equity' in Demand my view has changed.

Want to clear up a misconception that many on here seem to have. Livestrong.com is the for profit side. Livestrong.org is the cancer foundation. They are two separate entities. All the "Here are Lance's drug testing results" stuff is listed on Livestrong.com.

 

[gillan1969]

so what......

i get lied to everyday by the diet industry, the hair care industry, the tobacco industry the car industry.......

armstrong is product

he has successfully packaged and sold that product...he used cycling to create the product

he is a very successful consumer product

if you don't like him you would need to dislike western consumerism and all those lovely 'products' you may own

it isn't the olympian ideal granted, but then sport veered away from that long long ago

 

[Anonymous]

so what......

i get lied to everyday by the diet industry, the hair care industry, the tobacco industry the car industry.......

armstrong is product

he has successfully packaged and sold that product...he used cycling to create the product

he is a very successful consumer product

if you don't like him you would need to dislike western consumerism and all those lovely 'products' you may own

it isn't the olympian ideal granted, but then sport veered away from that long long ago

So Nutrisystem chases down riders who told the truth about its doping doctor, and another who made a point that he was riding clean? On thats right, I remember them sullying the reputation of a woman who testified that she heard them admit their Lasagna tasted bad. And their CEO is always twittering about how their CFO isn't a team player...

The fallacy of your argument is laughable.

Oh, and I detest western consumerism. Your argument that because I buy products, I believe in consumerism is also fallacious. You need a class on debate because you are very weak with your arguments. VERY WEAK.