Lance's Legacy: How Lance Changed Cycling

[outrage9]

Don't forget how he got the same exact topics to be discussed for 10 years, the same thing, over and over, and over, and over, and over...

 

[Benotti69]

....

....

But all in all Lance only has one surefire legacy: He is the first cyclist to win the TdF seven times. That should be enough for anyone. All these myths and stuff... *shrug*.

that is if no one like UCI, ASO or other takes any away from him.

 

[Biffins]

And you are saying ToC was a better race when it did have some GC riders and other big riders there, solely to take a holiday?

Curacao is than even more important than the ToC, the Giro and the Vuelta combined.
You first need a quality course, a quality competition (which the giro obviously had) and these riders need to be willing to race

I'm just saying calling this year's Giro the best GT in the last 30 years is IMO excessive.

 

[Zigster]

Shimano begged him to change to the SPD-R pedal and had to design the 3 bolt SL pedal just to get him to use one of their products.

The SPD-R thing is a real shame. SPD-R is still competitively light despite having no carbon and have a much lower profile than anything LOOK-based.

Pedal design has really floundered since then. Now that Lance is out Shimano should pick up where it left off with SPD-R.

 

[Franklin]

But of course Ullrich was too lazy to recon the climbs that year, and we now know that the way to win the tour was to recon the climbs, and at the top have Dr. Ferrari chack your body fat % for $800k a year.

I'm the last one who rates recon above "the good doctor" But the recon quote came from Jacques Hanegraaf and Rudy Pevenage in the Jan Ulrich documentary... so there is a little bit of truth in the myth.

 

[Franklin]

that is if no one like UCI, ASO or other takes any away from him.

I'm quite sure that they won't, simply because there is precedent: Riis. Also the next one in line would be a Basso, a Beloki or an Ulrich which are Fuentes clients.. a PR nigtmare.

Bah I actually care less about the doping than the shameful treatment of Bassons and Simeoni.

 

[Francois the Postman]

Maybe we should make "put these two tours in the order of general cycling importance: Giro d'Italia - Tour of California" part of the sign-up process and with answers publicly viewable. Cuts down on my time of having to figure out how much time I should put into responding to the average claim of some posters.

 

[dancing on pedals]

The more i think about it i can see that the Armstrong team argument holds no water at all. Lets just go back to 1985 - 18 teams of 10 riders.La Vie Claire Wonder Radar Team finished with three riders in the top ten Hinault (1st) Lemond (2nd) and Bauer (10th) and won the team classification.
Does Hinault claim to have invented building a strong team around him? - of course not he would know that in 1964 (12 teams of 11 riders) Anquetil had built a team which included riders such as Rudi Altig, Jo de Roo, Jean Stablinski, Albertus Geldermans, Louis Rostollan and Seamus 'Shay' Elliott.
In fact due to the various formats of the TdF the real foundations of team work mst go to the Alcyon team of 1909 who had 5 riders in the top five and Louis Trousselier (a former winner himself) finishing in 8th spot.
Claims that Armstrong invented a team approach, are quite frankly disrespectful to the memory of riders like François Faber and other pioneers of the sport.
Thanks

 

[pedaling squares]

The more i think about it i can see that the Armstrong team argument holds no water at all. Lets just go back to 1985 - 18 teams of 10 riders.La Vie Claire Wonder Radar Team finished with three riders in the top ten Hinault (1st) Lemond (2nd) and Bauer (10th) and won the team classification.
Does Hinault claim to have invented building a strong team around him? - of course not he would know that in 1964 (12 teams of 11 riders) Anquetil had built a team which included riders such as Rudi Altig, Jo de Roo, Jean Stablinski, Albertus Geldermans, Louis Rostollan and Seamus 'Shay' Elliott.
In fact due to the various formats of the TdF the real foundations of team work mst go to the Alcyon team of 1909 who had 5 riders in the top five and Louis Trousselier (a former winner himself) finishing in 8th spot.
Claims that Armstrong invented a team approach, are quite frankly disrespectful to the memory of riders like François Faber and other pioneers of the sport.
Thanks

You're comparison is not exactly apples vs apples. You'll be hard pressed to find any of Armstrong's teammates with the talent and ability of Greg Lemond in 1995. Greg's huge talent, and the fact that Armstrong's teammates were selected largely for their ability to perform a specific role to help him win the tour, will explain why he finished second and the USPS/Disco teammates finished further behind their leader. I don't think that Armstrong/Bruyneel invented this kind of support for the leader either, but I have to say they executed it very well.

 

[Benotti69]

You're comparison is not exactly apples vs apples. You'll be hard pressed to find any of Armstrong's teammates with the talent and ability of Greg Lemond in 1995. Greg's huge talent, and the fact that Armstrong's teammates were selected largely for their ability to perform a specific role to help him win the tour, will explain why he finished second and the USPS/Disco teammates finished further behind their leader. I don't think that Armstrong/Bruyneel invented this kind of support for the leader either, but I have to say they executed it very well.

and the comparison of Anquetil's team or the Alcyon team of 1909 don't qualify or are you having a dig at LeMond?

I think you'll find how LA/JB excuted it very well in the clinic

 

[redtreviso]

If anything about the team concept Armstrong/Bruyneel invented it would be that the team members are disposable pond scum to be sacrificed at the Lance altar...Once sacrificed they could perform no use elsewhere without consequences.

 

[dancing on pedals]

You're comparison is not exactly apples vs apples. You'll be hard pressed to find any of Armstrong's teammates with the talent and ability of Greg Lemond in 1995. Greg's huge talent, and the fact that Armstrong's teammates were selected largely for their ability to perform a specific role to help him win the tour, will explain why he finished second and the USPS/Disco teammates finished further behind their leader. I don't think that Armstrong/Bruyneel invented this kind of support for the leader either, but I have to say they executed it very well.

As I have said in an earlier post " Of course any comparison between eras and teams is pretty much subjective."
I agree Armstrongs teams were dedicated and, most years, were well put together, but actually I think a comparison of the 2009 Astana team would compare very well with La Vie Claire team of 1986 (Armstrong/Hinault, Contador/LeMond, Kloden/Bauer, Leipheimer /Bernard, Zubeldia/ Rüttimann)
Both relied to a large extent on cheque book recruitment. The signings of LeMond and Heras being equally controversial at the time.Both had similar internal disputes which overshadowed the race, Both won the GC and the best team competition etc etc
La Vie Clair team of 86 did also include Hampsten who won the best young rider. Hinault at least had faith in the young. Armstrong's approach, seemed increasingly to hire the old and tested and not put any faith in a youth policy - has any of his Teams ever had a Europe based development squad? Did he ever give a Team developed young rider a chance for a Tour debut? Did his policy really allow riders like Popovych to reach their potential?
That, I would suggest is Armstrong's real legacy.
Thanks

 

[pedaling squares]

and the comparison of Anquetil's team or the Alcyon team of 1909 don't qualify or are you having a dig at LeMond?

I think you'll find how LA/JB excuted it very well in the clinic

Nope, no dig at all. Quite the opposite actually. And I agree completely with your assessment of how they achieved their goal.

As I have said in an earlier post " Of course any comparison between eras and teams is pretty much subjective."
I agree Armstrongs teams were dedicated and, most years, were well put together, but actually I think a comparison of the 2009 Astana team would compare very well with La Vie Claire team of 1986 (Armstrong/Hinault, Contador/LeMond, Kloden/Bauer, Leipheimer /Bernard, Zubeldia/ Rüttimann)
Both relied to a large extent on cheque book recruitment. The signings of LeMond and Heras being equally controversial at the time.Both had similar internal disputes which overshadowed the race, Both won the GC and the best team competition etc etc
La Vie Clair team of 86 did also include Hampsten who won the best young rider. Hinault at least had faith in the young. Armstrong's approach, seemed increasingly to hire the old and tested and not put any faith in a youth policy - has any of his Teams ever had a Europe based development squad? Did he ever give a Team developed young rider a chance for a Tour debut? Did his policy really allow riders like Popovych to reach their potential?
That, I would suggest is Armstrong's real legacy.
Thanks

I see your point with the Astana '09 comparison. I was writing about the years in which Armstrong won, I don't consider 2009 a tour that unfolded according to the Armstrong/Bruyneel plan. We are agreeing more than disagreeing here. Armstrong's teams were designed to promote Armstrong; any other success was secondary and had to be achieved at a time when the boss did not need that rider. And I have to give them credit for perfecting this art even though I don't credit them for inventing it. As to whether this changed cycling, well in a sense yes as it sure made for some boring tours de France.

 

[Road Hazard]

Apparently he's been good for thousands of threads on who knows how many cycling forums (even though people try to dedicate one thread to him).

It bothers me the same way the Lindsey Lohan's of the world bother me. I don't think society chooses to make controversial f-ups and a-holes famous and rich but it just does, over and over again.

 

[clearhop]

Apparently he's been good for thousands of threads on who knows how many cycling forums (even though people try to dedicate one thread to him).

It bothers me the same way the Lindsey Lohan's of the world bother me. I don't think society chooses to make controversial f-ups and a-holes famous and rich but it just does, over and over again.

I dunno, sometimes i think that you have to be a controversial f-up and an a-hole to become famous. To become seen as the best of the best you need to be arrogant and egotistical.

But that's just Lindsay Lohan for you.

Ba-dum-tish!

 

[StyrbjornSterki]

Back in the days of Eddy Merckx, all the Grand Tours were about equally prestigious. Since then, the TdF has become the undisputed queen race of cycling. It also has become the most rewarding financially. Because of that, over the same period, top riders have become progressively more focused on the TdF to the exclusion of the other GTs. It's their way of earning a living so most guys raced either until the team told them they could stop or they'd made enough money to keep Mama happy through the winter. By the time of Greg Lemond, a win in the TdF had become so profitable that it had become commonplace for the TdF winner to take off for the remainder of the season or follow a greatly reduced schedule. Lance carried that concept forward, even to the extent of redefining the traditional structure of a bicycling team.

Lance's teams always were so focused on supporting him in winning the TdF, they never carried a sprinter on their roster. Other teams did, even though a sprinter almost never wins a stage race, because their stage wins draw attention to the sponsors. But LA and The Hog scrapped that idea and carried the extra climber instead. Their team's reason for existing became so narrowly focused, they kept a 64-year old Russian time trial specialist (Ekimov) on the roster to help LA through those long, flat stages that they knew some daredevil sprinter was going to win anyway.

The more specialized the top riders become and the more single-minded teams become, the less diversity remains in racing and the harder it becomes for the less prestigious races to survive (witness the Tour de Georgia). Probably inevitable due to the fact that the TdF has become such big business but lamentable nonetheless.

Bottom line, I think Lance Armstrong was good for cycling like Evel Knievel was good for motorcycling. Sure, he brought a great deal more press to the sport, but not necessarily for the right reasons, and that extra attention will be gone as soon as he is.

 

[Oldman]

Bottom line, I think Lance Armstrong was good for cycling like Evel Knievel was good for motorcycling. Sure, he brought a great deal more press to the sport, but not necessarily for the right reasons, and that extra attention will be gone as soon as he is.

Except most folks starting to cycle will continue and that's good. Evel maybe persuaded some types to buy a motorcycle but I doubt many hard core riders came from that influence. Your showtime comparison is pretty valid, though.

 

[StyrbjornSterki]

Except most folks starting to cycle will continue and that's good. Evel maybe persuaded some types to buy a motorcycle but I doubt many hard core riders came from that influence. Your showtime comparison is pretty valid, though.

I think the fraction of the people he's attracted to the sport who've developed a persistent interest in cycling is minuscule. And I say this based on about 20 years of watching cycling races in person (dating back to Lemond's '92 win of the Tour DuPont), including two Tours of California, two Tours de Georgia, one Giro d'Italia and three Tours de France. Not so much in Europe but in the US, the complexion of the typical fan attending the races has changed radically. In the olden days, you'd overhear deep philosophical discussions about Lemond's latest aero gimmick or whether Rominger stood a chance of beating the Big Mig's hour record or the horrible luck of Raymond Poulidor. Especially at the Tour of California, most of the spectators who turn out couldn't tell you the name of one rider in the race apart from Hisself. They're not cycling fanatics, not they're just sycophantics, hoping to touch the hem of the garment of someone famous.

But Lance isn't through changing cycling. One thing no one is yet talking about (...yet!!) is that Lance fully intends taking his fame with him. Once he's done with the sport (which is now, Insha'Allah), he will cast it aside like a used kleenex and do everything his power to move that spotlight from his old sport and to his new endeavor -- whatever that might be -- to the detriment of cycling.

 

[Boeing]

He brought Cycling and Le Tour into Pop Culture.

and after all that is what everyone here hates about him. Gotta share the niche now....

 

[outrage9]

I think the fraction of the people he's attracted to the sport who've developed a persistent interest in cycling is minuscule. And I say this based on about 20 years of watching cycling races in person (dating back to Lemond's '92 win of the Tour DuPont), including two Tours of California, two Tours de Georgia, one Giro d'Italia and three Tours de France. Not so much in Europe but in the US, the complexion of the typical fan attending the races has changed radically. In the olden days, you'd overhear deep philosophical discussions about Lemond's latest aero gimmick or whether Rominger stood a chance of beating the Big Mig's hour record or the horrible luck of Raymond Poulidor. Especially at the Tour of California, most of the spectators who turn out couldn't tell you the name of one rider in the race apart from Hisself. They're not cycling fanatics, not they're just sycophantics, hoping to touch the hem of the garment of someone famous.

I doubt this first sentence wholeheartedly. Go read the thread right here about how you got into cycling and see how many had the guts to mention the Lance factor, which on this forum is pretty brave. You can hardly base ANYTHING, much less the topic of this thread, on the 200 drunk idiots standing around you at these races. Where you are makes a huge difference as well. The people I met on top of Brasstown Bald on a cold misty morning was very different from the people I met the day before in 80 degrees, sunny Dahlonega at the TdGa 25m from the finish line.

So more people that don't ride are interested in cycling as a sport for entertainment just like any ball sport, that don't ride and know every geek stat or sit on a forum and debate the same crap that was debated in 2001 ad nauseum, but are only looking for something to get in to, take a day off work and tailgate, and have a good time. Walk in to any sports bar and take a poll of everyone there on Superbowl Sunday of their knowledge and I bet a large number of them couldn't tell you more than the quarterbacks and maybe 1-2 other key players, many probably couldn't even tell you the 2 teams eliminated 2 weeks prior or the previous year's winner.

 

[Oldman]

But Lance isn't through changing cycling. One thing no one is yet talking about (...yet!!) is that Lance fully intends taking his fame with him. Once he's done with the sport (which is now, Insha'Allah), he will cast it aside like a used kleenex and do everything his power to move that spotlight from his old sport and to his new endeavor -- whatever that might be -- to the detriment of cycling.

I've been talking about Lance's engineering of drama all along. Unfortunately the script is now in the hands of the rewrite staff and they're no longer on his payroll. What Lance wanted to do and what he will be able to do used to be under his relative control. That's slipping away in the media world unless he reinvents himself as some sinner seeking redemption.
Hey, half the politicians and all the televangelists have taken that route one time or another. America can be a weird place that way.

 

[epo1999]

I have never been a huge LA fan but admired the size of his cojones.

That would be "cojone" singular.

 

[Oldman]

That would be "cojone" singular.

"and One is the lonliest number". That song sucked.

 

[Franklin]

We are all talking about the "train" that US postal had (everyone sacrificing for the greater leader). The clear predeccesor is once again Indurain. I vividly remember his teammates murdering everyone on the last two cols.

The leader+ his foremost helpers:

1991:

Big Mig
Pedro Delgado
De Las Cuevas
Abelardo Rondon (he was murderous)
Jeff Bernard
Julian Gorospe

Now that was by far the strongest team that year. Three great Time trialists (Perico, Jeff, Armand) and at least five above average climbers. And I bet the other domestiques could hold their own as well. In fact it was a big shock when Rondon jumped to Bugno, some thought he was a key to the Big Mig puzzle

The later years they had others like Rue, Casero, Jimenez, Acosta, Arrieta, Davy (who remembers him? He was seen as GT hopeful for France), Montoy, Zarrabeitia etc. Maybe not all of those names ring any bells, but they were all extremely talented riders.

 

[rxgqgxnyfz]

The later years they had others like Rue, Casero, Jimenez, Acosta, Arrieta, Davy (who remembers him? He was seen as GT hopeful for France), Montoy, Zarrabeitia etc. Maybe not all of those names ring any bells, but they were all extremely talented riders.

Arrieta and Acosta are still around i think.
________
Lovely Wendie99