"Most Interesting Athlete of the Decade" - Sports Illustraded

[Polish]

Austin Murphy, SI.com, may have spelled "EDDY's" name wrong,
but otherwise an excellently written article by a SportsWriter!:

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2009/magazine/specials/2000s/12/03/armstrong/index.html
.
.
.

 

[issoisso]

Austin Murphy, SI.com, may have spelled "EDDY's" name wrong,
but otherwise an excellently written article by a SportsWriter!:

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2009/magazine/specials/2000s/12/03/armstrong/index.html
.
.
.

He can spell it any way he wants, as it's just a nickname. The man's name is Edouard

 

[sida-mot]

Austin Murphy, SI.com, may have spelled "EDDY's" name wrong,
but otherwise an excellently written article by a SportsWriter!:

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2009/magazine/specials/2000s/12/03/armstrong/index.html
.
.
.

I didn't like it one bit. It was rather boring, no news or personal thoughts, this was just a way to write Go Lance in over a hundred words...

The idea that the only reason Lance is considered a cheat is that his rival have been tested positive is not 100% accurate. No mentions of his funky blood values this tour for instance.

 

[cyclegeek]

Good article thanks, well rounded and true. Thanks.

 

[Psalmon]

I'm sorry, but it represents the same narrow view of cycling the US press and therefore populace has: There's only one cycling race in the world...There's only one US cyclist...Talk of doping.

What's new here?

You'd think SI would want to develop the sports they cover rather than rehash the old tired line that fills pages. With their approach, where's cycling going to be when Lance retires again (note what's left above)?

On SI.com, cycling is covered under More right there with Canadian Football, Cricket, Horse Racing, Women's Basketball, Track and Field, and Olympics. I have nothing against these sports.

When you go to Cycling you find 4 wire articles on Lance's latest, about 7-8 articles on Astana, Giro in DC, Vuelta route, and TdU, and then 10 articles on doping or tax evasion.

Take them seriously when Swimsuit isn't a sticky at the top of the page.

 

[cyclegeek]

I didn't like it one bit. It was rather boring, no news or personal thoughts, this was just a way to write Go Lance in over a hundred words...

The idea that the only reason Lance is considered a cheat is that his rival have been tested positive is not 100% accurate. No mentions of his funky blood values this tour for instance.

Oh yea, he was on the stuff even this past tour. Those blood values that he posted every day for a year were way outta line! Get a life.

 

[Hugh Januss]

Oh yea, he was on the stuff even this past tour. Those blood values that he posted every day for a year were way outta line! Get a life.

No, actually they were just within the lines, but still clearly manipulated. Surely you have been able to comprehend at least some of what you have read?

 

[red_flanders]

Oh yea, he was on the stuff even this past tour. Those blood values that he posted every day for a year were way outta line! Get a life.

You're referring to the ones that were edited before he took them down, yes? Or the tests that Caitlin performed? Oh...wait...

 

[Race Radio]

Oh yea, he was on the stuff even this past tour. Those blood values that he posted every day for a year were way outta line! Get a life.

Posted? do you have a link you can share with us?

 

[BikeCentric]

Good article thanks, well rounded and true. Thanks.

You just called an editorial/opinion article "well rounded and true." The sad part is I don't think you're even aware of what a complete idiot this makes you.

 

[Polish]

You just called an editorial/opinion article "well rounded and true." The sad part is I don't think you're even aware of what a complete idiot this makes you.

What part of the article is not well rounded or true?
What part of the article can you non-idiotically refute?

 

[Escarabajo]

What part of the article is not well rounded or true?
...

The part where it says that because it has been tested so many times then Lance Armstrong is considered to have ridden a clean Tour de France. Now that is "Idiotic" IMO.

 

[BikeCentric]

What part of the article is not well rounded or true?
What part of the article can you non-idiotically refute?

Well let's start with this statement:

That third-place finish was a more dramatic result, to my mind, than most of his Tour wins, which he tended to have wrapped up midway through the third quarter.

Shows the writer knows jack about cycling and has watched very few Tours since in reality this years race completely sucked and was decided after Stage 4. It also reveals that the author was watching the race only to follow Lance and not for the overall race which is pretty much gross but par for the course among Lance groupies.

Next how about this:

Nor did it hurt, in their eyes, that in the months leading up to the race, Armstrong was drug-tested with almost comical frequency by an alphabet soup of governing bodies. It can be said with conviction: He raced the '09 Tour clean.

"Comical frequency" of testing - a line straight from the Armstrong PR machine and no mention of "Showergate" along with his questionable blood values.

Next, this:

As Armstrong asks Greg LeMond in the savagely funny cartoon that appears on NYVelocity.com, "Why do you love cancer, Greg?"

Nothing but a pathetic continuation of mindless Greg LeMond character assassination with zero analysis of the relevant FACTS.

The entire article is written by someone who transparently knows nothing about the sport of cycling except that his homoerotic hero competes in it. In short, it's the perfect article for someone like you Polish.

 

[Moose McKnuckles]

What part of the article is not well rounded or true?
What part of the article can you non-idiotically refute?

1. "It can be said with conviction: He raced the '09 Tour clean."
2. "While other superstars of his wattage -- one-named icons like Michael and Tiger -- seem to devote the bulk of their down time to beefing up their bottom lines, Armstrong has been waging war on cancer since it nearly claimed him a dozen years ago."

Oh, good grief. You'd think this guy got the inspiration from that quote from an icon of St. George and the dragon.

Shocking that SI would choose an American to be the most interesting athlete on the planet. Absolutely shocking. Especially one that was retired for a third of it.

This article will be loved by fans of the man, but looked at with derision by fans of the sport.

 

[Polish]

1. "It can be said with conviction: He raced the '09 Tour clean."

That is true - it can be said with conviction. He just said it with conviction duh.

Now if the writer had just said "he raced the 09 tour clean" that would be a different story...

next...

2. "While other superstars of his wattage -- one-named icons like Michael and Tiger -- seem to devote the bulk of their down time to beefing up their bottom lines, Armstrong has been waging war on cancer since it nearly claimed him a dozen years ago."

How can you refute that? And please, no LOL kitty or FAIL pics.
.
.

 

[Moose McKnuckles]

That is true - it can be said with conviction. He just said it with conviction duh.

Now if the writer had just said "he raced the 09 tour clean" that would be a different story...

next...


How can you refute that? And please, no LOL kitty or FAIL pics.
.
.

I think we all know what the writer meant. By all means, keep defending this tripe though.

Lance Armstrong has been waging war on cancer? WTF? He's made some speeches, ridden some charity rides, etc., but waging war on cancer? The people waging the war on cancer are in research labs. Nobody's taking anything away from the guy, but you fanboys have built up the Lance molehill so high, you're building a ski resort on it.

 

[BYOP88]

I think we all know what the writer meant. By all means, keep defending this tripe though.

Lance Armstrong has been waging war on cancer? WTF? He's made some speeches, ridden some charity rides, etc., but waging war on cancer? The people waging the war on cancer are in research labs. Nobody's taking anything away from the guy, but you fanboys have built up the Lance molehill so high, you're building a ski resort on it.

Let's hope these people didn't finish last in their class

 

[CentralCaliBike]

Let's hope these people didn't finish last in their class

Just got me to thinking about what they called differing levels of academic achievement in law school:

"A" students end up teaching law
"B" students end up on the bench
"C" students end up millionaires

 

[Race Radio]

Austin is a good writer, but understand the pressure he is under. Every time, including this one, he writes an article about Wonderboy SI gets a call from one of Armstrong's paid whiners. Have you picked up an SI lately? They are despite for every Nike ad they can get.

Regardless, what was he thinking about this year being exciting? Did he not watch the sport in 2003?

 

[JayZee]

This article will be loved by fans of the man, but looked at with derision by fans of the sport.

I am not a fan of the man and I am a fan of the sport but I don't look upon the article with derision. How can that be!?

Come on guys, it is a one page end of the decade fluff piece from an American publication. What more do you expect? It obviously wasn't intended to be an in depth analysis of Lance Armstrong. Regardless of what you think about LA, he is certainly one of the most "interesting" athletes of last decade. The amount of controversy he stirs up in this forum is evidence of that.

 

[JayZee]

Regardless, what was he thinking about this year being exciting? Did he not watch the sport in 2003?

How dare he have an opinion: "That third-place finish was a more dramatic result, to my mind, than most of his Tour wins, which he tended to have wrapped up midway through the third quarter."

 

[BikeCentric]

I am not a fan of the man and I am a fan of the sport but I don't look upon the article with derision. How can that be!?

Come on guys, it is a one page end of the decade fluff piece from an American publication. What more do you expect? It obviously wasn't intended to be an in depth analysis of Lance Armstrong. Regardless of what you think about LA, he is certainly one of the most "interesting" athletes of last decade. The amount of controversy he stirs up in this forum is evidence of that.

If by "interesting" you mean "massive d-bag" then I'll agree.

 

[Race Radio]

How dare he have an opinion: "That third-place finish was a more dramatic result, to my mind, than most of his Tour wins, which he tended to have wrapped up midway through the third quarter."

And I am allowed to question that opinion. There are few fans of the sport who would not think that 2003 was a far more dramtic Tour. Austin wrote

His third-place finish in '09 was arguably his most dramatic moment of the decade

Most who follow the sport knew prior to the race he had no chance of winning. If not for the TT and Hincapie telling him the plans for Columbia to drive a split in the crosswinds he doesn't even make the podium. I do not see what is dramatic about being 3rd (2nd loser) or being a whinny Bitch for 3 weeks because others were faster then him.

Soap opera/teenager drama yes..... bike racing drama nope.

 

[Polish]

Well let's start with this statement:

That third-place finish was a more dramatic result, to my mind, than most of his Tour wins, which he tended to have wrapped up midway through the third quarter.

Shows the writer knows jack about cycling and has watched very few Tours since in reality this years race completely sucked and was decided after Stage 4. It also reveals that the author was watching the race only to follow Lance and not for the overall race which is pretty much gross but par for the course among Lance groupies.

Sorry, what the writer said was TRUE and WELL-ROUNDED. In his mind,
it WAS the most dramatic finish.

Next how about this:

Nor did it hurt, in their eyes, that in the months leading up to the race, Armstrong was drug-tested with almost comical frequency by an alphabet soup of governing bodies. It can be said with conviction: He raced the '09 Tour clean.

"Comical frequency" of testing - a line straight from the Armstrong PR machine and no mention of "Showergate" along with his questionable blood values.

The AFLD ShowerGate / HairCut was the most comical of all LOL.
Just because you do not appreciate the humour does not make
the author's claim untrue. Weak refutation of the article..

Next, this:

As Armstrong asks Greg LeMond in the savagely funny cartoon that appears on NYVelocity.com, "Why do you love cancer, Greg?"

Nothing but a pathetic continuation of mindless Greg LeMond character assassination with zero analysis of the relevant FACTS.

The entire article is written by someone who transparently knows nothing about the sport of cycling except that his homoerotic hero competes in it. In short, it's the perfect article for someone like you Polish.

So what did the writer say that was untrue??

 

[pedaling squares]

Just got me to thinking about what they called differing levels of academic achievement in law school:

"A" students end up teaching law
"B" students end up on the bench
"C" students end up millionaires

Perhaps the most accurate thing I have seen in these threads. I don't know how Austin Murphy can conclude that Armstrong rode the last tour clean. He either ignores evidence to the contrary or just did not bother to do any research. Disappointing but hardly surprising.