I wanted to post in the why the hate for lance thread, but see why it has been closed. This thread is more than a bit unruly and I assume this post will probably get lost in the shuffle but I'll go ahead instead.
As far as I can gather Lance is hated for the transcendant success he has achieved, the nature of how he allegedly/almost definitely achieved it, and the manner in which he has acted in defence of this success without regard to anybody else's well being/career's/or reputation's. All the reason's are interconnected. Another reason is how he has profited from an admittedly noble cause, but I think as far as these forums go it pertains mostly to the cycling related matters.
I believe much of the fury from these posters has been incited because of the rise of so called "fanboys" who are seen as only taking interest in this great sport because of his participation. In relation, there is an overwhelming emphasis put on success in the Tour de France. For fans of the sport of cycling, which this site and these forums cater to, it is an affront to all the great races and the great feats of talent and hard work that occur throughout an entire racing year. Lance targeted this race for many reasons including it was supposedly his favourite, but also knowing it was the most publicized and would have the most potential to grow his sport while also growing his own brand name.
As far as the rider Lance goes, I don't think many liked the tactics he used to achieve victory. He fostered a type of racing that promoted defensive tactics that only neccessitated small moments of offensive movements which can be considered boring. For nearly all of his tour wins he won through a simple tactical formula of doing well in TT's, attacking once, and defending with an extremely strong (and almost assuredly doped) team of riders dedicated to achieving no other success in the race other than riding themselves into the dirt for him.
Lance the man is a much different animal altogether and I don't believe fairly represented on these or any other forums on account of his notoriety and his public position awarded through his victories.
He was a young, yet extremely talented rider prior to cancer. He won two hilly one day classics early in his career as well as the world road race championship at 21. He was also a cocky young American who rubbed some in the peleton the wrong way. He got his cancer at a young age and it would seem his career, if not his life, would come to an end prematurely. He returned a much different rider than before, showing an ability to recover very much above what he had previously shown. He had always shown ability but now appeared to climb and time trial much better, the two disciplines most important to victory in stage races.
The rest of my post is opinion and conjecture, so don't bother me with proving it. I am not an investigative journalist. I am not going to argue over it. Though if intelligent discussion is brought up I would be more than willing to reply.
Lance was a good rider. Thorough and researched science made him a great rider. But it was his work ethic, his caustic personality, and his indomitable will that made him a transcedant rider. He used means as did many riders, probably most of his main rivals, that I consider to be at the least underhanded and dishonest and at most downright dishonorable cheating. He achieved success through means which he was not endowed. He was nowhere near the most blessed talent to ride France in July. I don't even believed he was the greatest god given talent to try to win the Tour in the seven years that he did. But he did win. He won through a doping program that was as careful as any concieved by any athlete. He won, as shown in his lack of it this year, through his unprecedented luck. He won because like it or not he was an extremely talented cyclist. But mostly he won because he wouldn't allow himself to lose.
Lance is not a nice person. I do honestly believe he exhibits some aspects of a sociopath. He is not the mafioso some would have you believe, but he is a person who is willing to turn all of his ire against you if you do not conform to his worldview. He is also a man that has raised millions of dollars for a good cause (not uncompensated by any means). He is a man who has through some degree helped almost infinetley more people than he has ruined. This does not exonerate him of his actions, but neither does it condemn him. He is a fascinating character study.
I've read these forumns for a few months now. I've always loved the tour as it was passed down to me through my family. Also no other races were shown on tv to me growing up so I still have a more prefixed concentration on it than I do other races. In the past year or two, thanks to expanded coverage and the PCM games, I have been able to expand my interest in the sport twentyfold. I suppose in this circle I could be considered a Lance "fanboy" because his success has increased my interest in cycling. In spite of that I promise I would have followed and loved the tour regardless if he ever rode in it. But I do not know if I would have developed an appreciation and affection for the sport without him. He is complicated. And reading on these forumns, even with all the discussion he gets, I don't believe he ever gets his proper, perspective due. Good and Bad.
Now I hope to not talk about him again unless he does something worthwhile in these coming weeks. Cycling belongs to Alberto, Andy, Cadel, Denis, Levi, Robert, Bradley, Mark, Tyler, Fabian, Tom, Alessandro, Philipe, Sylvain, Jakob, Peter, Tejay, Taylor, Tony, Ryder and the countless like them......
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram