Has Armstrong changed the sport?

[Realist]

131313 posted this on another thread and I thought it was sufficiently interesting to see what other people thought (this would be a divergence from the theme of the other thread, hence new topic):

I must be living in a parallel universe from Mr. Wiggins. Besides having a much more difficult time finding a place to eat in Silver City, NM during Gila, I can't for the life of me figure how Lance Armstrong has affected me?

Looking back at old magazines, talking to teammates and coaches who raced 15-20 years ago, it doesn't seem like cycling in the US has changed a whole lot. The Coors Classic has become the Tour of California, we still have Philly (barely), and domestic racers still have to have other jobs or live with their girlfriends. Drivers still hate me. What's changed?

Maybe he's brought strippers and blow to the UK or something?

It's my view that there is some truth to this. There have been changes in cycling, but demographic and policy shifts are in play too. Cities are busier. It's harder for them to put races on without annoying every non-biking resident. There are liability issues. I look back at the Coors classic and wish I could have raced it.

Perhaps it is worth splitting the issue into three parts: sport, recreation and the industry.

For the bike racers amongst us, we mostly love to watch pro racing, and participate in it. But it isn't relevant exactly who is winning or their personality quirks, girlfriends and that they came back from cancer. We already trained in the rain and drove three hours because there was a climb and we wanted to see if we could hold on over it and chance our hand at the finish from 3 miles out. And we were already droopy eyed when the tour was on. I think there has been increasing interest in cycling over the last 10-20 years, for all kinds of reasons. This has probably helped us with getting race permits and sponsorship, but we've also had other things working against us. I think for a decent racer these days there are certainly opportunities to get better support than I used to see - subsidised or free kits and bikes for the lucky ones. But what is the impact of Armstrong here? I don't think it's none, but I don't think it's a lot. The uptick in the triathlon scene probably wasn't caused by Armstrong. Demographic factors were at work there, and cycling probably draws from a similar base. So I would attribute a small amount to Armstrong, but not everything.

For the recreational riders, Armstrong has probably had a bigger impact. I see a lot more group rides where participants haven't apprenticed through racing, got advice from good riders, this sort of thing. A lot of wannabe heroes. This is not so good for someone like me who wants to stay upright. Then again, it's great to see a lot of people doing centuries, charity rides, etc. These people subsidise and support the racers to an extent, and just talking to them you find a lot of people who care a lot about Lance.

For the industry, I think the upswing in recreational riders and the professionalization of marketing and sponsorship by the major companies have been huge. I think Lance had a big impact here. Trek were ahead of the curve (and aggressive, sometimes unpleasant...) in how they treated smaller dealers. Nike showed the way for marketing... telling the story... creating a brand. This was definitely new for cycling in the english speaking world.

So I think Lance has certainly had a big impact on our sport, especially at the level of recreational riders and the industry. But I can't see my weekend at the races being any less fun when he is gone.

 

[Valverde fanboy]

For a start Wiggins is not an American rider.

Isn't there already another long thread about this in the Pro racing forum?

 

[sars1981]

From my own point of view (that being a "casual fan" who never got into the sport until a couple of years ago) I can say that I would not be here or interested in cycling (which I now love) if it wasn't for LA. I do think there are many others like me ...

Having been involved in a different sport at a high level, I've definitely observed a parallel situation: A sportsmen, lets call him "Bob X-factor", comes along with success and charisma and attracts a whole new realm of attention. What happened in this case was that the sport got a lot more coverage in the paper and on television but most of it was very superficial in nature and at the "ground level" you really didn't really notice much difference at all. Perhaps it the same with cycling.

 

[cyclestationgiuseppe]

Impact yes, but, only for the worse.

 

[Apolitical]

The point I made in response to 131313 post is that racing is not as good as it was in, shall we call it what is was, the Lemond era. Post and during Lemond the fields were younger, deeper, had strong US teams backed by big sponsors, these teams actually recruited good riders from over sees as opposed to them coming over here looking for work. This is the era that gave us the LP's, LA's, CH's, GH's, and most of the other 30+ year old riders racing in Europe today.

I do agree recreational cycling has done great recently, and mostly because of LA. Unfortunately, in racing I don't see big local junior fields and big Pro/I/II fields like the late 80's early 90's produced.

Back in the late 80's early 90's guys like Bostic and Overend were considered old in their early to mid 30's. Nowadays, they'd be young! In the late 90/early 2k when I hit my 30's the average USCF cyclist was 36! When I first licensed around '88 in my early 20's I was older than most riders.

IOW, It depends on what you're looking at. As an article recently said, most of the LA generation of cyclists can't even name another race besides the TdF (you can verify this yourself on a weekend ride). Whereas, the Lemond generation created racers.

 

[redtreviso]

While some century events are drawing as many or more than they did in the late 80s many have disappeared..I see some regular group rides from a shop nearby but there are far fewer people out riding in the same places that were popular in the 80s.. On a local bike trail there used to be perhaps 30 or 40 riders with serious bikes and kits on a 5 mile stretch. I've been there a few times recently and only seen half a dozen or so. It looks like the local trek store sells a dozen 8000 dollar madones a year.. That only accounts for 2 lance teammate/mancrush/Lance kitted team time trial poser a-clown groups looking for someone on a schwinn they can drop. Maybe Lance gets more cyclists to buy some michilobs...Nothing else good as far as I can see.

 

[Oldman]

The point I made in response to 131313 post is that racing is not as good as it was in, shall we call it what is was, the Lemond era. Post and during Lemond the fields were younger, deeper, had strong US teams backed by big sponsors, these teams actually recruited good riders from over sees as opposed to them coming over here looking for work. This is the era that gave us the LP's, LA's, CH's, GH's, and most of the other 30+ year old riders racing in Europe today.

I do agree recreational cycling has done great recently, and mostly because of LA. Unfortunately, in racing I don't see big local junior fields and big Pro/I/II fields like the late 80's early 90's produced.

Back in the late 80's early 90's guys like Bostic and Overend were considered old in their early to mid 30's. Nowadays, they'd be young! In the late 90/early 2k when I hit my 30's the average USCF cyclist was 36! When I first licensed around '88 in my early 20's I was older than most riders.

IOW, It depends on what you're looking at. As an article recently said, most of the LA generation of cyclists can't even name another race besides the TdF (you can verify this yourself on a weekend ride). Whereas, the Lemond generation created racers.

Judging by my name and general grumpiness I came from your era and agree with what you have noted.
I would say that Lance has continued the Americanization of the sport started by Greg Lemond; that being a much more professional rider in terms of preparation and compensation. Contrary to some fan's opinions Lance didn't invent any new techniques other than what he and Ferrari keep locked in their minds.
One thing that has markedly changed during the current period is also the "preparation" level of all pros. Lance can't be credited or blamed for that arms race although he may turn out to be the poster child when history plays out.
The healthy increase of recreational riders in the US seems more related to the amount of information available to people about health. That helps the bike industry and, like race cars; racers help sell more expensive bikes.

 

[NashbarShorts]

My take on it is no, Pharmstrong has not changed the sport -- or as Wiggins put it, "transformed the sport", in any way.

The sport is still the same. It's a great sport: subtle, nuanced, captivating, beautiful. It's got it's hardcore fans, but still small potatoes compared to football, basketball, golf. Most pros do it for the love of it, and don't get rich. And most Americans only know it as "the Tour".

What Pharma HAS DONE is increase awareness of cycling in general. Pre-Lemond, you risked harassment if you went out in lycra and a styrofoam helmet. Post-Lemond, it was at least understood. With Lance, it has now become "cool". (Not sure if that is a good thing or bad thing, but whatever....)

Lance also became a cult of personality based upon the collective hope of the cancer community, and made damn sure he lined his pockets.

But again, has he "transformed the sport"?? Hell no. In no way. There is no new training method, or race tactic, or strategy, or technology that he is behind. He simply doped himself to the gills, intimidated others into silence, paid off the UCI, and figuratively speaking, got away w/ murder.

That may all be changing soon though. Something about Karma and being a *****...

 

[Oldman]

My take on it is no, Pharmstrong has not changed the sport -- or as Wiggins put it, "transformed the sport", in any way.

The sport is still the same. It's a great sport: subtle, nuanced, captivating, beautiful. It's got it's hardcore fans, but still small potatoes compared to football, basketball, golf. Most pros do it for the love of it, and don't get rich. And most Americans only know it as "the Tour".

What Pharma HAS DONE is increase awareness of cycling in general. Pre-Lemond, you risked harassment if you went out in lycra and a styrofoam helmet. Post-Lemond, it was at least understood. With Lance, it has now become "cool". (Not sure if that is a good thing or bad thing, but whatever....)

Lance also became a cult of personality based upon the collective hope of the cancer community, and made damn sure he lined his pockets.

But again, has he "transformed the sport"?? Hell no. In no way. There is no new training method, or race tactic, or strategy, or technology that he is behind. He simply doped himself to the gills, intimidated others into silence, paid off the UCI, and figuratively speaking, got away w/ murder.

That may all be changing soon though. Something about Karma and being a *****...

Nashbarshorts. That is a great name. You need an avatar that explains the pain after 100 miles in a pair of those; something throbbing and about to pop.

 

[131313]

I think people are overestimating the impact Armstrong has had on recreational cyclists. After all, triathlon seems to have experienced a lot of growth in entry-level and recreational participants, without really having a top down draw.

I think the factors in the boom in recreational cycling is the result of a few things

-the death of mountain biking. Lots of people bought mountain bikes during the craze, but realized that they didn't live near mountains... Then they looked for something they could ride a little easier on the road

-disease rides. Things like the MS150 and the like, all that "riding for a cause" stuff has helped participation. This is taking a great cue from running, which built a lot of participation in the sport by promoting charity runs.

-a general marketing of a "healthy lifestyle" to the aging boomers. Boomers like gear, and the bike industry likes selling stuff.

From a racing perspective, I started racing during the Lance heyday, and junior fields were pathetic to nonexistent. There was no "racing boom" that I could see. The old timers tell me about junior fields with 50-75 kids. I always thought it was rose-colored glasses, but some posters seem to confirm this. Chad Gerlach (speaking of reliable sorces) muttered during a race last year (to no one in particular, seriously) "this shit is even lamer than it used to be!". In short, I believe the guys who say racing hasn't really changed much. Honestly, if the racing has gotten better or more competitive in the US, it's because there's a bigger influx of foreign riders.

Keep in mind, I'm not saying it's Lance's responsibility to help grow the sport (though it would be nice). I think that the focus has been on his personality rather than cycling, and as soon as he's gone, the extra attention is gone as well. So let's not attribute the sport's growth where it's not due. Obviously, one poster here was drawn to the sport by LA's story, and I doubt he's the only one. But in general, I think his role in growing the sport is greatly overrated.

 

[redtreviso]

Chris Carmichael and powermeters are a negative and are associated with Lance.
Carmichael's books are not unlike so many other training books except his are "this is how Lance does it" Now newbees openly scream about this being the only way and no one ever knew how to train before , no one ever knew anything. Everyone before me just did Junk miles and I don't do junk miles.. I will TRAIN an hour and a half 3 days a week and be offered a pro contract..etc etc..
"""I just got my TREK 1.5 and Chris Carmichael's book a few months ago and I am ready to go racing and crush some balls...I've never ridden in a group but my buddy and I ride together and he has a powertap on his Madone...On the hill by ar house he hits 325watts and I keep up with him so I must be about that good too.. Since I already have almost pro power do I have to sign up for CAT5 and ride with those losers or can I just go straight to Cat1/2?"""

This is the Lance Effect

 

[NashbarShorts]

Nashbarshorts. That is a great name. You need an avatar that explains the pain after 100 miles in a pair of those; something throbbing and about to pop.

Thanks!, they were my first pair of cycling paraphenalia. Stuck cash in an envelope, sent it off, and waited. Mailman soon brought me a pair of slick lycra duds, 2 sizes too large, pure cardboard chamois. Fit like a pair of diapers.

Soon thereafter I was pulling the reflectors off my Schwinn and showing my friends how to install toeclips. Bell V-1 Pro and Rhode Gear goggles completed the kit. Do you remember the Rhode Gear glasses? 100% identical to the full-face sunglasses worn by the senior citizens nowadays

 

[Moose McKnuckles]

My take on it is no, Pharmstrong has not changed the sport -- or as Wiggins put it, "transformed the sport", in any way.

The sport is still the same. It's a great sport: subtle, nuanced, captivating, beautiful. It's got it's hardcore fans, but still small potatoes compared to football, basketball, golf. Most pros do it for the love of it, and don't get rich. And most Americans only know it as "the Tour".

What Pharma HAS DONE is increase awareness of cycling in general. Pre-Lemond, you risked harassment if you went out in lycra and a styrofoam helmet. Post-Lemond, it was at least understood. With Lance, it has now become "cool". (Not sure if that is a good thing or bad thing, but whatever....)

Lance also became a cult of personality based upon the collective hope of the cancer community, and made damn sure he lined his pockets.

But again, has he "transformed the sport"?? Hell no. In no way. There is no new training method, or race tactic, or strategy, or technology that he is behind. He simply doped himself to the gills, intimidated others into silence, paid off the UCI, and figuratively speaking, got away w/ murder.

That may all be changing soon though. Something about Karma and being a *****...

Fantastic posting name.

 

[Realist]

Chris Carmichael and powermeters are a negative and are associated with Lance.
Carmichael's books are not unlike so many other training books except his are "this is how Lance does it" Now newbees openly scream about this being the only way and no one ever knew how to train before , no one ever knew anything. Everyone before me just did Junk miles and I don't do junk miles.. I will TRAIN an hour and a half 3 days a week and be offered a pro contract..etc etc..
"""I just got my TREK 1.5 and Chris Carmichael's book a few months ago and I am ready to go racing and crush some balls...I've never ridden in a group but my buddy and I ride together and he has a powertap on his Madone...On the hill by ar house he hits 325watts and I keep up with him so I must be about that good too.. Since I already have almost pro power do I have to sign up for CAT5 and ride with those losers or can I just go straight to Cat1/2?"""

This is the Lance Effect

Ha. Ahem. Ha. I know the attitude you are talking about and I don't love it, but a powermeter used well is a beautiful tool for a variety of reasons (I say as a coach and athlete). Of course, the way to learn to race, and find out how good you are at races, is to damn well race. But there were dreamers and idiots before powermeters. Also, Greg Lemond was one of the first pros to use a powermeter, so let's not go giving Armstrong credit for something that was used before he probably even knew what it was.

Carmichael, though, is pretty stoo pid. And it is pretty clear to anyone who does know about power that Carmichael doesn't know about power (or training, or much else). It's a marketing thing, the LA association.

 

[Boeing]

Carmichael, though, is pretty stoo pid. And it is pretty clear to anyone who does know about power that Carmichael doesn't know about power (or training, or much else). It's a marketing thing, the LA association.

Chris Commical is the biggest coattail riding fraud in the industry

 

[Realist]

I think the point about junior racing is interesting. Having seen juniors on two continents, I've always been shocked at how weak the US ones are, and how privileged. A bottom age 17-18 racing 3's is a nobody in Europe, for sure, but seems to get treated like the second coming of Christ on local rides in the US. A lot more competition and expectation for juniors would probably be a good thing.

Do the old timers know what happened to the big junior fields from days gone by? If they really were like that?

 

[Boeing]

changed the sport or changed the way it is perceived?

 

[BroDeal]

I think people are overestimating the impact Armstrong has had on recreational cyclists. After all, triathlon seems to have experienced a lot of growth in entry-level and recreational participants, without really having a top down draw.

I think the factors in the boom in recreational cycling is the result of a few things...

This.

Road cycling has become a fad not unlike many other health crazes that went before it, whether it was running, mountain biking, aerobics, triathlon, etc. It is really hard to pin down why a fad becomes a fad.

Most of the new cyclist I see are middle aged guys (and gals). They are a bit past the age when they could consider becoming pros, so it is hard to imagine that they got into cycling thinking that they would race like Armstrong. Most do not race and will never race.

I think that there is a lot of truth in the thought that road cycling is the new golf. It is the same demographic. There is a huge social aspect to it. Instead of playing a round of golf with a few friends, people go ride with a few friends. Funny thing is, way out in the boonies, where you need to ride some considerable miles to get there, I typically see solo riders. On roads and MUTs near the suburbs I typically see groups of two to four.

Plus, cycling has lots of expensive gear that yuppies can buy to appease their need to put one over the Joneses.

 

[Fieldsprint]

Do you remember the Rhode Gear glasses? 100% identical to the full-face sunglasses worn by the senior citizens nowadays

Ha, totally! Definitely the glasses of choice for those that couldn't afford Oakley Factory Pilots.

But to the point of the thread, I would say Armstrong's influence is far greater than what most people have commented on thus far in this thread.

The first Tour de France I followed daily was in 1987 when media coverage was limited to top 10 stage results in our local paper and weekend recaps on CBS with awesome soundtrack support by John Tesch and Yanni.

Soon after, LeMond raised the presence of cycling's profile in the US with his Sports Illustrated covers, Sportsmen of the Year award and Taco Bell commercials/Target Ads.

Armstrong has obviously taken this sort of coverage to a whole 'nother level. He is so ingrained in the public consciousness that people that otherwise would have had zero interest in cycling will talk to you about Contador, and even Schleck. This just didn't happen 20 years ago. Nobody outside of my cycling circle had any idea that LeMond was battling "Cappuccino" or even that Armstrong had won the worlds in '93.

Speaking of which, you know how my buddy and I learned the outcome of the '93 Worlds? By callling the Velonews 1-900 hotline for $4.99 to hear and rejoice in the news that Armstrong won the title. Oh, how the internet has changed things...

I would think the sh*t economy probably has the greatest thing to do with the lack of "growth" in professional cycling. Had things not collapsed financially, I don't think it would be unreasonable to believe we'd have a Tour of California, Tour of Missouri, and Tour of Georgia, along with a maybe a few others.

Put another way, if Armstrong hadn't been around for the last few years, it's highly likely that things would look a lot worse...

 

[Oldman]

Chris Carmichael and powermeters are a negative and are associated with Lance.
Carmichael's books are not unlike so many other training books except his are "this is how Lance does it" Now newbees openly scream about this being the only way and no one ever knew how to train before , no one ever knew anything. Everyone before me just did Junk miles and I don't do junk miles.. I will TRAIN an hour and a half 3 days a week and be offered a pro contract..etc etc..
"""I just got my TREK 1.5 and Chris Carmichael's book a few months ago and I am ready to go racing and crush some balls...I've never ridden in a group but my buddy and I ride together and he has a powertap on his Madone...On the hill by ar house he hits 325watts and I keep up with him so I must be about that good too.. Since I already have almost pro power do I have to sign up for CAT5 and ride with those losers or can I just go straight to Cat1/2?"""

This is the Lance Effect

They may be associated with Lance but Greg Lemond used an SRM before any other American pro. Carmichael co-opted that technology like every piece of "wisdom" he marketed. Snake oil is what the dude sells and his validation as a training guru is most definitely an Armstrong effect. He's fading fast so buy whatever training guides you don't already own (skip the parts about feeding 'roids to juniors).

 

[redtreviso]

As expensive as bikes and equipment are right now even in this economy someone can have something really nice(or the best) and pursue it with some enthusiasm where they might have to pass on other pass times. Like "I can't have a Ferrari but this Colnago is pretty cool" A nice bike is cheaper than health problems and doctor bills. Once bought, a bike ride is free..going to a movie not so much etc etc..In a thriving economy there might even be a downturn in cycling.

 

[Oldman]

Thanks!, they were my first pair of cycling paraphenalia. Stuck cash in an envelope, sent it off, and waited. Mailman soon brought me a pair of slick lycra duds, 2 sizes too large, pure cardboard chamois. Fit like a pair of diapers.

Soon thereafter I was pulling the reflectors off my Schwinn and showing my friends how to install toeclips. Bell V-1 Pro and Rhode Gear goggles completed the kit. Do you remember the Rhode Gear glasses? 100% identical to the full-face sunglasses worn by the senior citizens nowadays

We're side"barring" the thread but I thought a Sella saddle and bad shorts were OK. I thought saddle sores the size of golf balls were part of 300+mile weeks until I had no choice but spend some money on a good pair of shorts. The sores diminished somewhat until I stumbled into the right saddle (no one tells you this vital stuff when you start winning, by the way). I got onto a better team and they offered $500 a rider and free saddles for sponsorship. I declined to the dismay of the DS who later complained about his own special parts after a wet stage race. I wince just thinking of the miles toiled in ignorance.

 

[redtreviso]

They may be associated with Lance but Greg Lemond used an SRM before any other American pro. Carmichael co-opted that technology like every piece of "wisdom" he marketed. Snake oil is what the dude sells and his validation as a training guru is most definitely an Armstrong effect. He's fading fast so buy whatever training guides you don't already own (skip the parts about feeding 'roids to juniors).

It's the be like lance..lance's numbers, Carmichael gives you lance's pm numbers. Lance talking about lance's numbers etc etc that I object to..
""I want some of those numbers"

 

[Oldman]

It's the be like lance..lance's numbers, Carmichael gives you lance's pm numbers. Lance talking about lance's numbers etc etc that I object to..
""I want some of those numbers"

That's the problem. I race with Masters that can buy anything and they are willing to spend-on anything. Sad fact is they increase their numbers and still can't win.

 

[redtreviso]

That's the problem. I race with Masters that can buy anything and they are willing to spend-on anything. Sad fact is they increase their numbers and still can't win.

Actually if you are reaching some age a powermeter is good to watch your numbers go down..and there isn't much you can do about it. oh fun ...Lace one up for me.