Transformation of a Fanboy

[Race Radio]

You're right, but it would filter through pretty quick if the majority of people in the sport turned against him..

The majority of the fans of the sport turned against him years ago. His QScores say only 10% of the people who know who he is view him favorably

 

[ultimobici]

Here was a good example, not that the report lasted long on the web before his PR /legal goons had it pulled.

A few years ago, a friend of mine met someone who's husband is a staunch Liestrong apologist. Her description of him was "the man's a pig".

I suppose you can take the boy out of the trailer park, but never take the trailer park out of the man.

 

[TheSecretForum]

The majority of the fans of the sport turned against him years ago. His QScores say only 10% of the people who know who he is view him favorably

That means there is negativity in his image, yes. Could also be factored by the weeks news. The majority of people think he has been treated harshly according to the other polls.

Actually he has a lot of fans still around, especially who follow the sport, but I wasn't refering to them. Jonathan Vaughter's strongly implies that he and the generation he rode with still view him as the winner of those tours...

“It depends who you’re talking to but of course there certainly is respect. At the end of the day, Armstrong was a talented athlete. While what USADA is doing now is certainly necessary, his group of peers from the Tour de France at the time, myself included…. Look of course I’ve admitted to doping but nowhere in my mind do I feel that I would have been a better bike rider if I’d doped more. There was no amount of doping that was going to get me to win a Tour so for that generation of athletes there’s certainly going to be people that hold a certain amount of respect for him.”

http://www.cyclingnews.com/features/the-united-states-of-omerta

for the bottom to fall out for Armstrong, this needs to change, and there is no sign it will.

 

[Benotti69]

That means there is negativity in his image, yes. Could also be factored by the weeks news. The majority of people think he has been treated harshly according to the other polls.

The majority of people dont give a fig for Armstrong. Those polled have voted against a doper and a cheat. Online polls have been skewed by pr companies and his bots.

Actually he has a lot of fans still around, especially who follow the sport, but I wasn't refering to them. Jonathan Vaughter's strongly implies that he and the generation he rode with still view him as the winner of those tours...

He has few fans in the sport. Most of his ex teammates have testified against him. Those who rode in that generation that are still in the cycling are covering their a$$es to protect their livelihood in the industry.

for the bottom to fall out for Armstrong, this needs to change, and there is no sign it will.

The bottom fell out when he quit.

 

[LauraLyn]

I don't think most of the top people in the music industry view Bolton as a great, is what I was saying. If the likes of Merckx and all of Armstrong's peer's turned against him, then public opinion would follow.

Good interpretation of the poll. It is important to understand the background and purpose of a poll to interpret it. That was missing in the conversation, and I think I understand it better now thanks to you.

Regarding The Cannibal: He will never turn on Armstrong. Knowing Eddy, it just ain't in the cards: http://www.rtl.be/sport/touslesspor...merckx-une-mauvaise-affaire-pour-le-cyclisme- + http://www.standaard.be/artikel/detail.aspx?artikelid=DMF20120824_129

"Es ist eine bedauernswerte Affäre. Das ist schlecht für den Radsport und schlecht für alle."

 

[LauraLyn]

The majority of the fans of the sport turned against him years ago. His QScores say only 10% of the people who know who he is view him favorably

It is not clear what planet you are referring to here.

The difficulty with Lance is that he has a wide diversity of populations from which he draws fans.

 

[Benotti69]

It is not clear what planet you are referring to here.

The difficulty with Lance is that he has a wide diversity of populations from which he draws fans.

The real difficulty has been trying to figure which are interns and which are pr bots.

77% of pr bots on twitter following Armstrong. That speaks to the true diversity of fan.

 

[LauraLyn]

The real difficulty has been trying to figure which are interns and which are pr bots.

77% of pr bots on twitter following Armstrong. That speaks to the true diversity of fan.

Interesting. I think it helps us understand one reason why public opinion regarding Lance is so difficult to change.

 

[Race Radio]

It is not clear what planet you are referring to here.

The difficulty with Lance is that he has a wide diversity of populations from which he draws fans.

The majority of the fans of the sport are in Europe. The majority of them dislike Wonderboy and his antics, even Lance has admitted this many times over of the years. They are all out to get him because of his American excellence

Yes, the cancer groupies still love him but cycling says good riddence

 

[LauraLyn]

The majority of the fans of the sport are in Europe. The majority of them dislike Wonderboy and his antics, even Lance has admitted this many times over of the years. They are all out to get him because of his American excellence

Yes, the cancer groupies still love him but cycling says good riddence

I have met quite a few cycling fans around the world, including in Europe. Very few have ever expressed a deep dislike of Armstrong. And the one who have to me have only done so recently.

The general press has been very supportive of Lance. L'Equipe represents only a small part of the European press, and even in France I have seen quite strong support, during the Tours and outside. Even today after this past week's revelations in the French press and the FFC statement.

I would not describe people working in the fight against cancer or cancer victims as "groupies". I know far too many to be able to take that seriously. There is enormous diversity in the cancer world, among researchers, health care providers, and patients - regarding research, care, and funding. They are sophisticated and intelligent people, and many take to their bikes on the weekend.

It is very important in this case against Armstrong that also his fraudulent activities in the world of cancer are addressed.

 

[Moose McKnuckles]

I have met quite a few cycling fans around the world, including in Europe. Very few have ever expressed a deep dislike of Armstrong. And the one who have to me have only done so recently.

First of all, many of these "cycling fans" are actually fans of specific riders or fans of their own nation's riders, not necessarily fans of the entire sport. So many of these people limit their interest to 3 weeks in July.

Second, I think we will see the general population turn against Lance more and more, as the evidence continues to come out. Certainly the media has begun to criticize him with considerable more frequency.

 

[LauraLyn]

First of all, many of these "cycling fans" are actually fans of specific riders or fans of their own nation's riders, not necessarily fans of the entire sport. So many of these people limit their interest to 3 weeks in July.

Second, I think we will see the general population turn against Lance more and more, as the evidence continues to come out. Certainly the media has begun to criticize him with considerable more frequency.

Yes, but I would say that the fans in Europe are a bit more subtle and a bit more sophisticated. (Though not so much about doping. The amerti exists among the fans there as well.)

Yes, the media globally is slowly turning course on Lance. It is not easy for them. He was their boy too.

 

[Anonymous]

Yes, but I would say that the fans in Europe are a bit more subtle and a bit more sophisticated. (Though not so much about doping. The amerti exists among the fans there as well.)

Yes, the media globally is slowly turning course on Lance. It is not easy for them. He was their boy too.

Not so much about doping? Please.

When Boonen was on his march this spring all anyone could talk about was the pharma sponsor that "made" Phil in 2011 was now remaking Tommeke.

The euros are much more into cycling as a whole and much more aware of doping.

 

[Moose McKnuckles]

Though not so much about doping.

Huh? Sorry, but this just isn't true. European fans know very well what's going on in the sport.

BTW, it is "omerta", not "amerti".

 

[trailrunner]

I have met quite a few cycling fans around the world, including in Europe. Very few have ever expressed a deep dislike of Armstrong. And the one who have to me have only done so recently.

The general press has been very supportive of Lance.

That hasn't been my experience, even back in the early 2000s. Both the fans I met in Europe, as well as the press, seemed to have a consistent bias -- or even suspicion -- against him. Way back when I was still a fanboy, I stopped reading one of the British cycling mags because they were so blatantly against him.

 

[Race Radio]

First of all, many of these "cycling fans" are actually fans of specific riders or fans of their own nation's riders, not necessarily fans of the entire sport. So many of these people limit their interest to 3 weeks in July.

Second, I think we will see the general population turn against Lance more and more, as the evidence continues to come out. Certainly the media has begun to criticize him with considerable more frequency.

You don't get it. Empirical evidence, like Q Scores and marketing studies, mean nothing. The only stat that matters is what BPC and his Tri buddies talk about on their rides.

 

[LauraLyn]

Not so much about doping? Please.

When Boonen was on his march this spring all anyone could talk about was the pharma sponsor that "made" Phil in 2011 was now remaking Tommeke.

The euros are much more into cycling as a whole and much more aware of doping.

Well, this was not the discussion among fans in Belgium or France or Germany or Holland or Italy or Spain. Well, not the one I heard or read much about.

I'm not saying that people don't discuss doping in Europe, but if you ride there or stand on the side of the road, you will see those discussions on doping are not much longer than the ones Wiggins has with the media.

 

[Robert21]

The euros are much more into cycling as a whole and much more aware of doping.

Aware of doping - very much so, but not so much into cycling these days. This is certainly the case in France but especially true in Germany.

I'm not saying that people don't discuss doping in Europe, but if you ride there or stand on the side of the road, you will see those discussions on doping are not much longer than the ones Wiggins has with the media.

That's probably because those are the die-hard fans who have simply come to accept that the sport always has been, and probably always will be, riddled with doping. They know the score, but try not to let the reality get in the way of the spectacle, much as WWF fans know it is all a sham but watch it anyway.

On the other hand when it comes to the general public, many now have no more than a passing interest in races like the Tour and, having been very savvy as to what has been going on for years, are now sick of the whole charade so not only don't bother discussing the doping scandals very much, don't take much interest in the racing either. In fact the biggest reason people give for watching the Tour is to see the helicopter shots of the countryside.

The following gives some good insights into the effect doping has had on attitudes towards the Tour in modern-day France.

From The Sunday Times
June 29, 2008
How can we save one of sport’s greatest competitions, the Tour de France?
Paul Kimmage

A good friend, and great journalist, Pierre Ballester, sent me a copy of his latest work last week, ‘Tempetes sur la Tour’. A brilliant deconstruction on the state of the Tour, it makes for sad and sobering reading

Take the withering statistics Ballester produces on doping. Would you believe that 85% of the winners since 1968 have, at one point or other, contravened the antidoping rules? Would you believe that 72.5% of those who stood on the podium have cheated? What about the top-tens? Sixty per cent sound right? The damage to the credibility of the race has been irreparable

Take also the results of a recent survey (of a thousand French citizens) on their attitudes to the Tour… Doping has destroyed everything, I feel betrayed: 90% Because of doping, I no longer believe in the results of the Tour de France: 85% All top-level cyclists are doped: 69%

Or study how different people responded in the same survey when asked to give the reason why they watch the race...

I watch the Tour de France for the scenery: 22%

I watch the Tour de France for the mountain stages: 20%

For the competition: 16%

For the doping scandals: 16%

For the exploits of the champions: 8%

Out of childhood nostalgia: 7%

Because it passes quite near my house: 5%

For the publicity caravan: 3%

 

[LauraLyn]

Aware of doping - very much so, but not so much into cycling these days. This is certainly the case in France but especially true in Germany.

That's probably because those are the die-hard fans who have simply come to accept that the sport always has been, and probably always will be, riddled with doping. They know the score, but try not to let the reality get in the way of the spectacle, much as WWF fans know it is all a sham but watch it anyway.

On the other hand when it comes to the general public, many now have no more than a passing interest in races like the Tour and, having been very savvy as to what has been going on for years, are now sick of the whole charade so not only don't bother discussing the doping scandals very much, don't take much interest in the racing either. In fact the biggest reason people give for watching the Tour is to see the helicopter shots of the countryside.

The following gives some good insights into the effect doping has had on attitudes towards the Tour in modern-day France.

Cycling as a sport is definitely growing throughout Europe. Yes, many people there are aware of doping and still do not let it interfere with their enjoyment of the sport. Still they do not view it like the WWF. It is strange, really strange. But if people took doping seriously, as I think they should, they couldn't really enjoy cycling as they do now.

Most Europeans (not UK) are much more aware of doping in cycling than Americans are of it in baseball or hockey or football or soccer. That is my impression. I may be wrong.

Nice clip from The Sunday Times. I remember reading then. Just a few points, most of the UK press was waking up to cycling this year and they really had a hard time to figure it out. Secondly, the UK ain't Europe, by a long shot. It may be in the EU, but it isn't in the mentality.

Small note on the poll: I often wonder how many watch it for the crashes.

 

[Robert21]

Cycling as a sport is definitely growing throughout Europe.

In France at least the level of grass-roots participation in racing is a tiny fraction of what it was 20 years ago. The crowds at the side of the road are much thinner than they used to be as well. I have visited the Tour for over 30 years, and have lived in France for over 6 years, and most French people no longer give a monkey's about the Tour, largely because the whole thing now lacks any real 'authenticity' because of the influence of modern doping techniques. Doping has also undermined many of the traditional themes of the Tour, such as 'suffering and survival' to borrow from Christoper S. Thompson's cultural history of the Tour.

The French philosopher Robert Redeker has written extensively on this point, as in his excellent book Sport contre les peuples. In this he argues that the 'artificial' nature of the performances produced via doping have created a 'fatal distance' between the riders and the spectators, with riders such as Armstrong, Indurain, Virenque and Ullrich having been transformed into fabricated 'Cyber heroes', akin to Lara Croft, 'virtual human beings' with whom the man at the side of the road can no longer feel the sort of intimate association they could with riders such as Robic or Coppi, especially in times when the spectator could see the hardships, misfortunes and toil of the riders as reflections of their own lives. In short the Tour and cycling in general have become, at best, empty sports entertainment and at worst an irrelevance.

Anecdotal maybe, but when I visited a stage finish on Alpe d'Huez about 25 years ago the crowds were 5 deep over the last 5 km. I stood on the same spot a few years back and could have got a place at the road side even if I had turned up 10 minutes before the race came through. This is despite the growth in the number of people from other countries travelling to the race. This general disinterest in the Tour and bike racing in general, largely because of doping, has also been reflect in a whole raft of books and articles in France declaring the Tour to be 'dead'. Things are even worse in Germany where the reaction to the Ullrich scandal was to simply no longer broadcast pro cycling on terrestrial TV!

Yes, many people there are aware of doping and still do not let it interfere with their enjoyment of the sport. Still they do not view it like the WWF.

But many do, and influential newspaper such as le Monde often refer to the cycling using terms such as 'le syndrome du catch'.

Most Europeans (not UK) are much more aware of doping in cycling than Americans are of it in baseball or hockey or football or soccer. That is my impression. I may be wrong.

I think you are right. The Brits like to think that doping is only something 'foreigners' do, and are for the most part very happy to wear blinkers as long as it is a Brit, such as Wiggins, who is doing well.

 

[LauraLyn]

In France at least the level of grass-roots participation in racing is a tiny fraction of what it was 20 years ago. The crowds at the side of the road are much thinner than they used to be as well. I have visited the Tour for over 30 years, and have lived in France for over 6 years, and most French people no longer give a monkey's about the Tour, largely because the whole thing now lacks any real 'authenticity' because of the influence of modern doping techniques. Doping has also undermined many of the traditional themes of the Tour, such as 'suffering and survival' to borrow from Christoper S. Thompson's cultural history of the Tour.

The French philosopher Robert Redeker has written extensively on this point, as in his excellent book Sport contre les peuples. In this he argues that the 'artificial' nature of the performances produced via doping have created a 'fatal distance' between the riders and the spectators, with riders such as Armstrong, Indurain, Virenque and Ullrich having been transformed into fabricated 'Cyber heroes', akin to Lara Croft, 'virtual human beings' with whom the man at the side of the road can no longer feel the sort of intimate association they could with riders such as Robic or Coppi, especially in times when the spectator could see the hardships, misfortunes and toil of the riders as reflections of their own lives. In short the Tour and cycling in general have become, at best, empty sports entertainment and at worst an irrelevance.

Anecdotal maybe, but when I visited a stage finish on Alpe d'Huez about 25 years ago the crowds were 5 deep over the last 5 km. I stood on the same spot a few years back and could have got a place at the road side even if I had turned up 10 minutes before the race came through. This is despite the growth in the number of people from other countries travelling to the race. This general disinterest in the Tour and bike racing in general, largely because of doping, has also been reflect in a whole raft of books and articles in France declaring the Tour to be 'dead'. Things are even worse in Germany where the reaction to the Ullrich scandal was to simply no longer broadcast pro cycling on terrestrial TV!



But many do, and influential newspaper such as le Monde often refer to the cycling using terms such as 'le syndrome du catch'.



I think you are right. The Brits like to think that doping is only something 'foreigners' do, and are for the most part very happy to wear blinkers as long as it is a Brit, such as Wiggins, who is doing well.

Robert, thanks. You give good correctives to what I said. It is indeed complex in Europe, and you know this better than me.

I don't know Redeker's book Sport contre les peuples, but I like the notion of "une distance fatale" (though "fatale" seems a bit of the French over the top).

The TdF has been doping and corrupt since the first TdF. No one questions that in Europe who knows even a bit about the Tour. Do you think people now really feel differently? If so, why?

I do get the feeling many people can easily just hit their own amerti, head in the sand, switch when watching cycling. Isn't that the only way to watch sports now.

Glad we agree about the British. (Sometimes I worry it is just me when I'm there.)

 

[DirtyWorks]

Do you think people now really feel differently? If so, why?

the 'artificial' nature of the performances produced via doping have created a 'fatal distance' between the riders and the spectators, with riders such as Armstrong, Indurain, Virenque and Ullrich having been transformed into fabricated 'Cyber heroes', akin to Lara Croft, 'virtual human beings' with whom the man at the side of the road can no longer feel the sort of intimate association they could with riders such as Robic or Coppi, especially in times when the spectator could see the hardships, misfortunes and toil of the riders as reflections of their own lives.

That's it in a nutshell.

FWIW, I've seen the same declines in spectating in the U.S. Crowds for the UCI's Colorado race aren't Coors Classic big at all.

 

[slowspoke]

It's this (Mr Universe 2010/2011)

Vs this (Mr Natural Universe)

 

[Bushranger]

A few years ago, a friend of mine met someone who's husband is a staunch Liestrong apologist. Her description of him was "the man's a pig".

I suppose you can take the boy out of the trailer park, but never take the trailer park out of the man.

So TRUE. I was a fan 99-2000. I read his first two books with the usual PR dribble and believed every word. The day I realised it was all crap just arrived. I re-read the books with the guilty slant in mind. Made for a very different read. The excuses and BS were so obvious.

 

[LauraLyn]

the 'artificial' nature of the performances produced via doping have created a 'fatal distance' between the riders and the spectators, with riders such as Armstrong, Indurain, Virenque and Ullrich having been transformed into fabricated 'Cyber heroes', akin to Lara Croft, 'virtual human beings' with whom the man at the side of the road can no longer feel the sort of intimate association they could with riders such as Robic or Coppi, especially in times when the spectator could see the hardships, misfortunes and toil of the riders as reflections of their own lives.

That's it in a nutshell.

FWIW, I've seen the same declines in spectating in the U.S. Crowds for the UCI's Colorado race aren't Coors Classic big at all.

I'm not so sure things have changed that much in the minds of European spectators. They all grew up knowing bikers doped, this generation and the generation before and the generation before.

In my opinion the US sporting fans are still a bit fickle about cycling, much like soccer. So it is normal there will be ups and downs in the public interest. Certainly with Armstrong's reputation destroyed, the interest will deteriorate.