Henri Desgrange said:
The exposure he gains is for himself, not the sport. As some of the people he brings in well it could be argued that they still have no idea about pro cycling, because all they are interested in is Armstrong.
Like I said in my original post, I was brought in because the sport was covered in Canada, because of Armstrong. I am not really interested in him, I detest the Armstrong-centered coverage in english-speaking media, and I don't consider myself to have 'no idea about pro cycling', despite the fact that I was exposed to the sport through Armstrong.
So although I agree that he's a publicity-seeking opportunist, and although I agree that many journalists only engage with cycling because he's in it, and although I agree that lots of people that are made aware of the sport through the exposure that he's brought are just drooling Lance sycophants, I don't see how you could say the exposure is just for him, not for the sport. Fact - cycling was not broadcast live in north america (at least my part of it) before lance won the tour. It was after, even if it's just the TdF. I don't really think you can even argue that the exposure is just for him, because you can't keep a camera on one person for a whole race and ignore the fact that there are 200 people, and a whole race, around him. Through that exposure, people (like me, for example) are bound to gain an interest in bike racing in general, beyond Lance. That's all I'm saying. I'm not even saying his impact is largely positive, I don't really think that it is. I'm just saying it's not as one-sidedly negative as many people here are painting it.