Lance Armstrong popularity check

Page 3 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
May 14, 2010
5,306
2
0
thirteen said:
thank you... i guess, being a girl, i never considered hanging upside down with by bib rolled off :eek:
I know I'm a bit late to the party with this, but allow me to be among the, erm, growing chorus in encouraging you to try it. :D
 
Aug 17, 2009
125
0
0
My take is after Festina there was an opportunity for much reduced doping and cyclists were scared. Armstrong came back in 1999 charged so in a sense he kicked off the doping arms race all over again. He is directly responsible and enabled it further with pay offs to the UCI.
 
May 3, 2010
2,662
0
0
Lets say Armstrong hadn't existed and the 1999 TDF was won by Alex Zulle. Do you think Zulle would have led cycling down the same path that Armstrong did.

I don't know what Zulle's 1999 programme was - maybe he was just as charged up as Armstrong.

I do believe that there was a very small chance for cycling to break with the past in 1999. Armstrong made sure it didn't happen - the failure to break with the past maintained the doping culture and in turn it was this culture that killed Pantani, Jimenez etc
 
Aug 10, 2010
6,286
0
0
silverrocket said:
I think the consensus on this forum is that being a doping cyclist does not necessarily make one a "revolting character". In 1998 there really was little choice, and Pantani made the one every other successful cyclist made. In 1999 there was a chance for cycling to turn the page, but Armstrong did more than his share in ensuring that didn't happen. He hardly is responsible for Pantani's death (Pantani is responsible enough for that), but in my opinion if Armstrong had not come back in 1999 Pantani would still be alive today. As mentioned elsewhere on this forum, "The Death of Marco Pantani" is the definitive English-language read for anyone trying to understand MP. A flawed character, but if he is so "revolting", why is/was there so much sympathy for him, but not much for Armstrong?
The answer is pretty easy. Pro cycling has always been massively dysfunctional.
 
Aug 10, 2010
6,286
0
0
Mrs John Murphy said:
Lets say Armstrong hadn't existed and the 1999 TDF was won by Alex Zulle. Do you think Zulle would have led cycling down the same path that Armstrong did.

I don't know what Zulle's 1999 programme was - maybe he was just as charged up as Armstrong.

I do believe that there was a very small chance for cycling to break with the past in 1999. Armstrong made sure it didn't happen - the failure to break with the past maintained the doping culture and in turn it was this culture that killed Pantani, Jimenez etc
Cocaine killed Pantani, not EPO.
 
Jan 30, 2011
802
0
0
Mrs John Murphy said:
...Doping destroyed Pantani, Jimenez etc, and Armstrong without a doubt contributed to the doping culture of the 1990s being maintained...
Armstrong was instrumental in not only contributing to the doping culture, but driving it to new heights ('whatever you are doing, the other ****ers are doing it more', etc.).

However, someone like Pantani was old enough and mature enough to take full responsibility for his actions, including his recreational drug use.

Pantani 100% made the choices he made and blaming others is just a different form of the "everyone else was doing it so I had no choice" argument.

While the system is crap, it's only going to change when each individual chooses not to dope. That's where responsibility lies - with each individual at all levels in a team, not with someone from a different team.
 
Aug 10, 2010
6,286
0
0
Mrs John Murphy said:
Lets say Armstrong hadn't existed and the 1999 TDF was won by Alex Zulle. Do you think Zulle would have led cycling down the same path that Armstrong did.

I don't know what Zulle's 1999 programme was - maybe he was just as charged up as Armstrong.

I do believe that there was a very small chance for cycling to break with the past in 1999. Armstrong made sure it didn't happen - the failure to break with the past maintained the doping culture and in turn it was this culture that killed Pantani, Jimenez etc
Can't buy into that myth anymore (though I ONCE :) did). Manolo Saiz was a consistent team-doper and (although I'm not positive), Telekom was also team doping.

For a long time I believed the lie that team doping died with Festina.

And Festina still sponsors pro cycling . . . Some things never change.
 
Feb 4, 2012
435
0
0
sniper said:
Anybody slowly, secretively starting to feel a bit sorry for Lance?
I doubt Armstrong relishes being 'felt sorry for'. That would imply that he's viewed as pathetic.

What Armstong wants is respect. But that has to be earned. Until and unless Armstrong comes clean, apologizes for his actions, makes amends to those he's swindled, and dedicates himself to cleaning up the sport, I HAVE ZERO RESPECT FOR THE MAN. NONE WHATSOEVER!

But I do feel sorry for him. :D
 
Aug 10, 2010
6,286
0
0
Pazuzu said:
I doubt Armstrong relishes being 'felt sorry for'. That would imply that he's viewed as pathetic.

What Armstong wants is respect. But that has to be earned. Until and unless Armstrong comes clean, apologizes for his actions, makes amends to those he's swindled, and dedicates himself to cleaning up the sport, I HAVE ZERO RESPECT FOR THE MAN. NONE WHATSOEVER!

But I do feel sorry for him. :D
Cycling fans shouldn't take Armstrong so seriously now that he's been stripped of his ill-gotten gain. He's a middle-aged doped-up fitness model, for chrissake.
 
MarkvW said:
Cycling fans shouldn't take Armstrong so seriously now that he's been stripped of his ill-gotten gain. He's a middle-aged doped-up fitness model, for chrissake.
they're not taking it all so seriously -- they've been dreaming about my t*ts (and rightly so) :p
 
May 14, 2010
5,306
2
0
thirteen said:
they're not taking it all so seriously -- they've been dreaming about my t*ts (and rightly so) :p
I actually have some gravity boots if you're interested.
 
Sep 5, 2009
1,239
0
0
MarkvW said:
Cycling fans shouldn't take Armstrong so seriously now that he's been stripped of his ill-gotten gain. He's a middle-aged doped-up fitness model, for chrissake.
Mountainrman, gree0232 and yourself. All on the same page!
 
Mar 26, 2009
342
0
0
thirteen said:
they're not taking it all so seriously -- they've been dreaming about my t*ts (and rightly so) :p
Perhaps the only thing the (male) contributors unanimously agree on in the Clinic: dreaming about t*ts is far more pleasurable than discussing Marco Pantani or Lance Armstrong.
 
silverrocket said:
Perhaps the only thing the (male) contributors unanimously agree on in the Clinic: dreaming about t*ts is far more pleasurable than discussing Marco Pantani or Lance Armstrong.
as a cycling fan, i find discussing Pantani far more interesting, but i'd rather not do it in the same breath as Armstrong. the former was a far better cyclist, regardless of psychological frailties.
 
Jun 21, 2009
297
0
0
Armstrong is not responsible for Ullrich Doping.
Not responsible for Pantanis high hematocrit at the Giro 1999
Not responsible for Savoldelli and Gotti (I think) being very very close to 50% as well at the same Giro.
Just because he's a bully and and arrogant xxxx, doesn't make him responsible for cycling not changing after 98. Cycling was going to stay on EPO anyway.

But being a bully and and arrogant xxxx made him pay a higher price than for example Riis and Ullrich, who are still Tour de France winners. A less bossy Armstrong very likely wouldn't have been exposed by Landis/Hamilton then later on even Hincapie etc.

Pantani and Jimenez payed a higher price... but for Doping? Pantani in a way yes probably. He never seems to have gotten over being 'caught' (he really wasn't though), having a Giro taken from him, a Giro he had won while doing nothing differently than his competitors. At least seems possible. But maybe he was going to end this way without EPO, without the Giro 99 anyway..Nothing to do with Armstrong though. Later in 2000 2 big egos clashed, nothing to do with his death
Feel sorry for Armstrong? Not really, but slowly getting tired of Armstrong being the scapegoat for everything. What's next, we blame BALCO on Armstong? Armstrong and the UCI are to blame for everything, the other riders who doped, be it pre-Festina, which is mostly ignored anyway, since it doesn't fit the simplistic 'Armstrong storyline", be it after Festina, were just victims of the machinations of Armstrong-UCI. yawn.

He doped, he wasn't caught when active, was stripped of his titles now. That's it, nothing more to see here.
 
Jan 30, 2011
802
0
0
The fridge in the blue trees said:
A less bossy Armstrong very likely wouldn't have been exposed by Landis/Hamilton...
Actually, I think a less bossy, or more correctly a more supportive and respectful Lance, would have been protected by the other riders.

His poor leadership has led to his downfall.

Better leadership from him, better outcome. Unfortunately as a leader it seems he's nothing special at all and worse than most.

He's now reaping what he sowed.

On the positive side, he's definitely left a legacy.
 
Jan 30, 2011
802
0
0
thehog said:
Pantani died of a broken heart.

He never would have started taking coke if it wasn't for his PED use.
+1 on this. It's a romantic view, but I think it has a real air of truth.

He would have been great in any generation but his hematocrit exclusion was the start of the end, bought on by a slip up in professionalism out of racing that he didn't really deserve to have.

100% responsible for it, but sad none the less.
 

mountainrman

BANNED
Oct 17, 2012
385
0
0
The fridge in the blue trees said:
Feel sorry for Armstrong? Not really, but slowly getting tired of Armstrong being the scapegoat for everything.
I agree entirely - it is a big mistake to blame armstrong for the culture - because it shifts blame from many others who need similar sanction for similar deeds.

The only thing Armstrong did that went "over and above" the others was the legal enforcement of omerta in a particularly vindictive way - which deserves an extra period of ban. But then - part of that problem is the amoral legal profession that will do anything and recommend anything provided you pay them enough: no doubt some of the "dirty tricks" were not even dreamed up by Armstrong, although he must carry the can for anything done in his name.

The fridge in the blue trees said:
A less bossy Armstrong very likely wouldn't have been exposed by .....Hincapie etc.
Nothing to do with it in Hincapies case.

Hincapie is a rat that was last to desert a sinking ship - and the ONLY reason he confessed was a gun pointed at his head and a picture of Marion Jones. Leipheimer stated once they give you immunity you have no choice but tell all or jail for contempt or perjury, so that is the reason he spoke ditto Leipheimer, ditto no doubt Landis etc ( I recollect he did not go to Novitsky after a phone call until served a subpoena - or was that Hamilton?). Once Hincapie had confessed to the feds, he could assume his testimony sooner or later would either leak or appear in public domain, so had little choice but to tell all to Tygart.

None of them would or should risk jail for lance.

He confessed because it cost him nothing. Zero. He was allowed to ride his last TdF( which was outrageous!) and then retire, with a meaningless ban.

If there was any justice in cycling that should not be. He was a key and wiling "officer" in the army that conspired and career doper before and after lance. So Lance (lifetime ban) and Hincapie (no real sanction) is clearly wrong. The nazi defence has never been allowed in any real court of law "I am not the bad guy, because the boss told me too _ I only did what I was told, I did not run the show "that defence only works in kangaroo courts. It is not allowed in any real justice. Hincapie is as guity as Lance and Bruyneel. Without a willing and able bunch of Hincapies, lance could not have done what he did. Cycling is a team sport. The entire team conspired willingly, not just the leader.

Those who think that Hincapie is "good" because he confessed and Lance is "bad" are ignoring the unlevel playing field. Hincapie was given immunity. Lance was not. And tit is that (not Hincapie being a nice fellow) is the difference in why Lance has not confessed.

So you cannot judge lance on whether he "confessed" or not, until the penalties for doing so are made the same as all the other rats..

I think it is wrong to scapegoat armstrong for the wrongs of a generation.
Not least because it will divert attention from all the very real problems elsewhere.

Why is Riis still in the sport, and allowed to keep his TdF title?

For 20 years cycling has scapegoated a few to keep the UCI machine intact. The whole idea of scapegoating , with massive penalties for some and derisory ones for others must be dismantled

The only way forward is a sentencing body independent of UCI or local doping authorities who prosecute. That way cycling can start to get some credibiilty back.
 
Jan 30, 2011
802
0
0
mountainrman said:
If there was any justice in cycling that should not be.
Yep it should be and perfectly fine, except for Lance.

Come to think of it, your posts seem to be very Lance like. Hello Lance. Why don't you just confess, help cycling out and face the music like a man. Oh yeah, that's right, you haven't been a full man for a while.
 

mountainrman

BANNED
Oct 17, 2012
385
0
0
peterst6906 said:
Yep it should be and perfectly fine, except for Lance.
Come to think of it, your posts seem to be very Lance like. Hello Lance. Why don't you just confess, help cycling out and face the music like a man. Oh yeah, that's right, you haven't been a full man for a while.
Pathetic. I thought this was a serious debate?

The most important thing for cycling now is to start being objective about its past. Lance is not the problem. He is only a part of it. Until responsibility properly apportioned, and true recognition is made of a ubiquitous problem cycling can never move on. The "scapegoat" approach of throwing a few to the dogs, then trying to sweep the rest under the table is what has been tried and failed for 20 years.

Until the message is clear : that as a key lieutenant in a team you knew was doping, then you will be treated as harshly as the man your team has chosen to win, then the support systems for doping riders will continue unabated. The nazi defence must not be allowed.

Hincapie was a career doper (throughout most or all of it) who earned a fortune from knowingly and willingly being a part of this conspiracy. He is not the "nice" man or victim that would appear from a complete lack of sanction.

I still say Armstrong has been harshly treated compared to others.
I would be more content if Hincapie got at least 2 year ban, and also suffered financially because of it. That at least would start to sound like justice instead of being "tygarts snitch" so given a free ride.

Were this cheating deemed criminal in the UK he would be found equally guilty with Armstrong under the law of "joint enterprise", that is how it should be viewed. Since cyling is a team sport - the equivalent of "joint enterprise" and team guilt is needed . If you knowingly and willingly are a member of a team that dopes, expect to get sanctioned the same as your leader if he is caught.....there would be a big reluctance to joining the "known doping" teams in the peloton if that happened, and riders would desert teams the moment they heard the truth, and then go to authorities to avoid later sanction themselves..

Whatever Jens says - with his charade of the monkeys "hear no evil" "see no evil" I am sure he knows which teams dope and which do not - as do all the old timers of the peloton. It is probably an "open" secret - but not discussed outside the peloton.

Cycling needs to start getting objective.
 
May 3, 2010
2,662
0
0
MarkvW said:
Can't buy into that myth anymore (though I ONCE :) did). Manolo Saiz was a consistent team-doper and (although I'm not positive), Telekom was also team doping.

For a long time I believed the lie that team doping died with Festina.

And Festina still sponsors pro cycling . . . Some things never change.
Maybe, but I can't see Zulle as the kind of ruthless at dope at all costs patron. Dirty - without a doubt. Maybe Saiz would have led the peloton into a new dark age instead.

But we'll never know, just like we'll never know what a Romney, Gore or Kerry presidency would have looked.

Needless to say, the environment that was created within cycling did contribute to the deaths of a number of riders and Armstrong was instrumental in creating that environment and for that he has blood on his hands.

Saying that cocaine killed Pantani is a bit like saying that it wasn't EPO that killed the other riders it was heart attacks. It is a bit of a sophist argument.

peterst6906 said:
Actually, I think a less bossy, or more correctly a more supportive and respectful Lance, would have been protected by the other riders.

His poor leadership has led to his downfall.

Better leadership from him, better outcome. Unfortunately as a leader it seems he's nothing special at all and worse than most.

He's now reaping what he sowed.

On the positive side, he's definitely left a legacy.
The law of unintended consequences.
 
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
masking_agent The Clinic 2

ASK THE COMMUNITY