Tadej Pogacar and Mauro Giannetti

[Ripper]

I disagree, LA got absolutely hammered by the press from day one. These days the press don't even dare ask questions

It varied, some were harder than others, but I would not say he was hammered by all the press on Day 1. And this was pretty much Festina times. But I think the fans and the fans coming to defense? That absolutely would have been a thing

 

[SorelyBoy]

The main difference between now from the Armstrong era is that Armstrong basically got the sympathy vote for a fair while because, let’s face it, his story of him overcoming adversity was compelling. And it was mainly true in terms of his illness etc. So he seemed above criticism, above suspicion. Why, he asked, would someone who had gone through a huge life threatening experience with cancer pollute his body with chemicals? It didn’t make sense. Plus his surgeries had made him lighter than before, apparently explaining his much better climbing abilities. Combined, it was enough to sell the story of Lance, not so much a man but a legend in his own time. Everyone wanted to believe in such an amazing and uplifting story. He was much more famous than Pogacar is now, it’s not even close. He probably still is. Pogacar doesn’t have the same aura because he hasn’t had to overcome the same type of adversity. His story isn’t nearly as compelling.
But of course the French media eventually got annoyed with an American dominating their big race. So they started to have another look at Armstrong and his story. At the time, they couldn’t quite make their case stick other than throw very slanted headlines at him. It would be for others such as Walsh to get wider public attention focused on Armstrong. Even then, the public and cycling ecosphere were not keen and had no appetite for the tittle tattle. Like today, the cycling press and the UCI were afraid of the consequences of their poster boy being busted. And the public didn’t like the idea of a cancer survivor being scapegoated or targeted fairly or unfairly. Armstrong therefore escaped pretty much unscathed bar the odd lawsuit until after he had retired for the second time.
The lessons for today would be that Pogacar has the protection not from being a legend, but of a petrostate. And now we have a supine press and media landscape that has even less appetite to investigate the miraculous events that Pogacar and UAE are serving up for our delectation and delight. They don’t want to delve too deeply because, as during Armstrong’s era, they all sup from the bowl Pogacar serves up. And another damaging scandal could wipe out the sport from a commercial point of view. Could hurt media careers. But humans don’t change their nature. While they can be intimidated or bought off, they can also be unpredictable and can get irritated and jealous. Some might also be upstanding and righteous. If UAE and Pogacar are at it, they’ll be running a huge operation to keep a lid on anyone potentially going rogue and blabbing. They possibly feel untouchable, but that may prove to be their undoing.

 

[AlpRaid]

hmm. armstrong benefitted hugely from an american fan base and press who knew absolutely nothing about dr. ferrari.

it became a bit of a cult (similar to what we are seeing now on another front). one experienced it constantly on various cycling discussion boards.

and then Paul Sherwin and Phil Liggett fawned over him for years when they knew full well what was going on, but they also knew where their bread was buttered.

 

[AlpRaid]

I don't see any issues with his cadence. It's nowhere near Froome's strange seated attacks.

agreed. not to the extent of Froome or Armstrong.

but there was just an article about his increased spinning (cyclinguptodate?) where the "expert" was suggesting all kinds of justifications for it (smaller cranks and other stuff). it was very reminiscent of the justifications for both Armstrong and Froome. however, a slower but normal cadence when climbing is actually natural and what the body can sustain, and is likely most efficient because of it, while any spinning is the opposite.

 

[Nomad]

hmm. armstrong benefitted hugely from an american fan base and press who knew absolutely nothing about dr. ferrari.

it became a bit of a cult (similar to what we are seeing now on another front). one experienced it constantly on various cycling discussion boards.

and then Paul Sherwin and Phil Liggett fawned over him for years when they knew full well what was going on, but they also knew where their bread was buttered.

Liggett defended LA as being clean up to the point he confessed on Oprah. Lol.Then he acted dumbfounded that he was fooled into believing he was clean.

I remember some of the crazy reasons Liggett postulated that LA was clean. Things like he was genetically gifted, his weight loss that transformed him into a world class climber & GC contender, his advanced training & nutrition - and being a cancer survivor - he would never dabble with using PEDs, and so forth. Furthermore, I recall Liggett explaining that in all interviews he did with LA, he just had a "feeling" that he wasn't a doper. Lol. I thought, FFS, this guy has been covering cycling for decades & he believes LA's BS.

I would imagine Ligget feels the same way about Pogacar; genetics, more advanced training & nutritional principles, this new generation of cyclists would never consider using PEDs, and so on.

 

[Tim Cahill]

The early 2000s TDF videos are borderline impossible to watch with Phil and Paul constantly droning on about Lance having 'worked on his cadence' and having the edge on his opponents because he keeps fit doing cyclocross in the winter months.

It's why I can't bring myself to hate on Carlton, he always picks the most random ass riders to hype up rather than the big favourite. Reichenbach. Si Clarke. Rigoberto Uran. Aredondo.

 

[ChewbaccaDefense]

Why are we talking about Armstrong? He didn't put out near Pogacar's numbers...He'd be bringing Pog water, and pulling at the bottom of climbs.

 

[Oldman]

The main difference between now from the Armstrong era is that Armstrong basically got the sympathy vote for a fair while because, let’s face it, his story of him overcoming adversity was compelling. And it was mainly true in terms of his illness etc. So he seemed above criticism, above suspicion. Why, he asked, would someone who had gone through a huge life threatening experience with cancer pollute his body with chemicals? It didn’t make sense. Plus his surgeries had made him lighter than before, apparently explaining his much better climbing abilities. Combined, it was enough to sell the story of Lance, not so much a man but a legend in his own time. Everyone wanted to believe in such an amazing and uplifting story. He was much more famous than Pogacar is now, it’s not even close. He probably still is. Pogacar doesn’t have the same aura because he hasn’t had to overcome the same type of adversity. His story isn’t nearly as compelling.
But of course the French media eventually got annoyed with an American dominating their big race. So they started to have another look at Armstrong and his story. At the time, they couldn’t quite make their case stick other than throw very slanted headlines at him. It would be for others such as Walsh to get wider public attention focused on Armstrong. Even then, the public and cycling ecosphere were not keen and had no appetite for the tittle tattle. Like today, the cycling press and the UCI were afraid of the consequences of their poster boy being busted. And the public didn’t like the idea of a cancer survivor being scapegoated or targeted fairly or unfairly. Armstrong therefore escaped pretty much unscathed bar the odd lawsuit until after he had retired for the second time.
The lessons for today would be that Pogacar has the protection not from being a legend, but of a petrostate. And now we have a supine press and media landscape that has even less appetite to investigate the miraculous events that Pogacar and UAE are serving up for our delectation and delight. They don’t want to delve too deeply because, as during Armstrong’s era, they all sup from the bowl Pogacar serves up. And another damaging scandal could wipe out the sport from a commercial point of view. Could hurt media careers. But humans don’t change their nature. While they can be intimidated or bought off, they can also be unpredictable and can get irritated and jealous. Some might also be upstanding and righteous. If UAE and Pogacar are at it, they’ll be running a huge operation to keep a lid on anyone potentially going rogue and blabbing. They possibly feel untouchable, but that may prove to be their undoing.

You cover alot of ground with this dialogue, some a fair reconstruction of history and some pure conjecture.
Armstrong was considered a poster boy of human triumph over demon cancer. The fact that he took huge amounts of anabolic supplements to be "good" prior to getting testicular cancer should not be overlooked. His willingness to go to that same Dark Well to regain glory is the story few can accept. How many NFL stars disclosed, as they succumbed to difficult illnesses and death that they took that edge to succeed?
Armstrong exploited that resurrection myth to a degree that hasn't been equaled. You're correct; the press loves Feel Good and sold it. They were hard pressed to look like the pap suppliers they were when truth came to light.
Most here should have hardened edges by now and the more cynical of forum users (me included) wait until years after a career ends and the clinical testing upgrades confirm what was legit and what was not to celebrate any pro athlete's historic impact.
That should hold true for today's heroes if we want to be honest with ourselves, Yes? In the meantime; villainizing a rider we find heinous over a homeboy favorite is how these discussions end up in the Conspiracy Basement. Sooner or later Grandma's not going to send down cookies and it's necessary to climb out.