Who Would You Rather be Now That it's Hit the Fan?

[therhodeo]

Already have ADD and would much prefer a rep of being a decent guy than be Lance no matter how many zeros on that bank account.

 

[ferryman]

cr@p, I should've added "Floyd" as a third, "joker" choice in the poll!

cheers!

And maybe Andy Hampsten as a fourth genuine one

 

[TechnicalDescent]

I would rather be Joe Papp.

 

[pedaling squares]

The cash would be nice, VIP tables at Cache Cache and the Yellow Rose would be ok too. On the other hand it would be nice to have real friend or two (no nut jokes, please). Would be really cool to have my own line of bikes and the street cred that goes with being shot and then winning a tour. Talk about laser-like focus, grrrr! It's a tough one, but I'd much rather be the guy who took on the Badger mano a mano and not the guy who took advantage of the hold-up on le Passage de Gois. At the end of the day I'd really rather be the guy who didn't lie to dying children and their parents. Wow, that's kind of a big deal-breaker, isn't it?

 

[yetanothergreenworld]

I would be interested to know how others now rate Lemond not just among American cyclists, but among all cyclists. Of those with greater palmares, how many had a reputation as clean? Where does Greg stand now, in the opinion of those who know the history of the sport better than I?

Lemond is a tough figure to evaluate because, in spite of his remarkable gifts, he didn't really win much, even when he wasn't up against EPO or team politics. In the half dozen pro seasons he had before his hunting accident, he managed to bag a Worlds, one TDF, a Giro stage, and a couple of smaller stage races. He got some good podium finishes in the classics and in the Giro, but never a victory.

Above all Lemond was a very conservative racer. He won races by following wheels and letting other guys panic before putting in one or two good moves at exactly the right moments.

I think it's fair to say that he was more versatile than either Indurain or Anquetil, who were TT machines who rode unimpeachable defense in the mountains.

To me he still ranks below Hinault by any meaningful measure. American fans like to say that Lemond was more talented than Hinault (mostly as a way of getting back at the Badger for his mind games), but he never won a classic, never won multiple stages en route to a TDF victory, and never (with the possible exception of the '83 Worlds) really managed to do a credible Merckx impression -- something Hinault did about a dozen times over his career. Again, Greg did what he had to do without putting on a show.

The comparison with Coppi is tough -- mostly because Coppi lost even more of his peak years to dumb luck than Lemond did.

I still prefer him to LA, though.

 

[happytramp]

I would love someone to text this question into Sean Kelly next time he's on Eurosport. He would likely implode.

 

[joe_papp]

The cash would be nice, VIP tables at Cache Cache and the Yellow Rose would be ok too. On the other hand it would be nice to have real friend or two (no nut jokes, please). Would be really cool to have my own line of bikes and the street cred that goes with being shot and then winning a tour. Talk about laser-like focus, grrrr! It's a tough one, but I'd much rather be the guy who took on the Badger mano a mano and not the guy who took advantage of the hold-up on le Passage de Gois. At the end of the day I'd really rather be the guy who didn't lie to dying children and their parents. Wow, that's kind of a big deal-breaker, isn't it?

Your honesty is appreciated.

Yes, the money would be fcking awesome! I'd love to have that much money! Fck yeah! And the memory of winning 7 Tours against competition that was, for the most part, able to access just the same products as you did (thereby making it easier to "justify" in your mind that you won "legitimately") - well, that would be rad, too! Even now I have pleasant memories from many races in which I was charged to the eyeballs!

Hmmm, but my best memory is from 1999, when I'd never used Aspirin let alone doping, and I finished 2nd to Tom Boonen (3rd overall) in the sprint out of our small breakaway at the Univest GP. Now that is a result that I would've been devastated to have lost - along w/ top-10 at the 1996 Pan Am's w/ CVV's help, it was achieved w/o the help of doping or any kind of cheating or bribery.

I wonder how the results would shift if the choice was b/w Armstrong/money/tainted legacy and homeless/broke/living on the street but unimpeachable character? lol

 

[benpounder]

Now that the proverbial excrement is hitting the fan, who would you rather be?

Ingemar Stenmark, Alberto Tomba or perhaps Dider Cuche.

Armstrong has always been an a-hole, and Lemond and Landis became blowhards. But more importantly, for me ski racing is far more exciting and exacting; cycling is just a way to keep in shape between winters...

(that is not entirely true - I just dont understand the passion so many seemingly have in going after one rider when it is likely that 80% of the top twenty in all the grand and major tours and all the classics and semi-classics for the past two decades were using PEDs)

 

[ElChingon]

(that is not entirely true - I just dont understand the passion so many seemingly have in going after one rider when it is likely that 80% of the top twenty in all the grand and major tours and all the classics and semi-classics for the past two decades were using PEDs)

I think its because the other 80% are not raising their noses to us and are not flaunting it, or rubbing it in to those who might be against them in any way. We all know/knew the concentration has always been on the arrogance of it all.

 

[ElChingon]

It's a tough one, but I'd much rather be the guy who took on the Badger mano a mano and not the guy who took advantage of the hold-up on le Passage de Gois.

Wow, somebody besides me who remembers that for what it was.

 

[benpounder]

I think its because the other 80% are not raising their noses to us and are not flaunting it, or rubbing it in to those who might be against them in any way. We all know/knew the concentration has always been on the arrogance of it all.

Did not the other 80% stand on podiums earning accolades, bonuses and new and larger contracts? Did not the other 80% take valued team spots in the marquee races?

Yes, what you say of Armstrong is true; not only am I not denying that but if you look in forums.cyclingnews.com archives, you will find me always calling LA an a_hole. But the transgressions of the other 80% are nearly on the same level, abet much more subtly. Real advocates of anti-PEDs dont just go after the most visible, they go after and sanction the entire peloton -where appropiate. And that means cyclists such as Riis, Pantani, Ullrich, Vino, Rico, Landis et al can not be held in high regards just because they had a higher VO2max capacity. They still doped.

 

[ElChingon]

Did not the other 80% stand on podiums earning accolades, bonuses and new and larger contracts? Did not the other 80% take valued team spots in the marquee races?

Yes, what you say of Armstrong is true; not only am I not denying that but if you look in forums.cyclingnews.com archives, you will find me always calling LA an a_hole. But the transgressions of the other 80% are nearly on the same level, abet much more subtly. Real advocates of anti-PEDs dont just go after the most visible, they go after and sanction the entire peloton -where appropiate. And that means cyclists such as Riis, Pantani, Ullrich, Vino, Rico, Landis et al can not be held in high regards just because they had a higher VO2max capacity. They still doped.

I agree with you, but the a-hole angle is what drives the masses to chase him down. The rest are just as guilty but due to laying low are missed in the first level radar, not a bad plan considering the blow back.

 

[gregod]

i didn't vote in the poll, because i don't particularly care for either of them. i couldn't imagine cheating to get rich, nor could i imagine injecting myself into a situation that has nothing to do with me since i am already retired and not affected by others' (plural intended) cheating.

furthermore, i'm not quite sure of the reason for this poll. if the question is, "would you rather have lots of money and a tainted legacy or less (but still substantial) money and an untainted legacy?" then i think the question is moot. by getting involved and creating a lot of the soap operatic drama, lemond has soiled his legacy. not with doping, but with a lot of other argy-bargy.

 

[joe_papp]

i didn't vote in the poll, because i don't particularly care for either of them. i couldn't imagine cheating to get rich, nor could i imagine injecting myself into a situation that has nothing to do with me since i am already retired and not affected by others' (plural intended) cheating.

furthermore, i'm not quite sure of the reason for this poll. if the question is, "would you rather have lots of money and a tainted legacy or less (but still substantial) money and an untainted legacy?" then i think the question is moot. by getting involved and creating a lot of the soap operatic drama, lemond has soiled his legacy. not with doping, but with a lot of other argy-bargy.

fair enough - clearly the question doesn't appeal to you or resonate, but in light of this, I think explaining the "reason" for the poll to you will not be possible, at least insofar as one would do so with the hope of securing your buy-in.

Nevertheless, I thought it was nice that you expressed so eloquently your reasons for abstaining, even if I disagree with your assertion that LeMond soiled anything (other than perhaps his shorts during the Tour on at least one infamous stage!).

cheers.

 

[on3m@n@rmy]

cr@p, I should've added "Floyd" as a third, "joker" choice in the poll!

cheers!

Still, I would have voted LeMond.
Or another Poll on whodya rather be; Floyd or LA?

 

[richtea]

If you choose LA you have the option of withdrawing from public life, buying a nice house inWest London, and doing a phd in health economics or embarking on a career in market research without the worries of paying your mortgage or not hitting your sales targets. There is no contest!

 

[gregod]

fair enough - clearly the question doesn't appeal to you or resonate, but in light of this, I think explaining the "reason" for the poll to you will not be possible, at least insofar as one would do so with the hope of securing your buy-in.

Nevertheless, I thought it was nice that you expressed so eloquently your reasons for abstaining, even if I disagree with your assertion that LeMond soiled anything (other than perhaps his shorts during the Tour on at least one infamous stage!).

cheers.

perhaps you give me too much credit for my eloquence if what i wrote made you think that i wasn't interested in your reasoning for the poll.

since you disagree with my opinion about lemond soiling his image and/or legacy, that leads to some other questions: do you think lemond would have been better off financially, mentally, etc. if he had stayed out of this mess? also, do you think the overall public opinion, to the extent that it even knew anything about lemond, will only remember the salacious details of his involvement in dopestrong-gate?

IMO, it was inevitable that mr. "i never failed a drug test" would eventually get his just desserts. also, it is facile to attribute lemond's involvement in trying to expose one guy's drug use to his love of the sport when he has an obvious conflict of interest in that he has stated his desire to be remembered as america's number one tour cyclist.

 

[I Watch Cycling In July]

Lemond.

Your question is causing my brain to explode a bit though. Are you asking which person we would rather be, or whose situation we would rather be in?

 

[patricknd]

i'd take the big bucks. besides lemond is kind of portly

 

[joe_papp]

Lemond.

Your question is causing my brain to explode a bit though. Are you asking which person we would rather be, or whose situation we would rather be in?

ahhhaa! i left this ambiguity in there purposely... how do you read the question? is it enough for one to say they prefer to sacrifice $$$$ for an untarnished sporting legacy, or will they have to inhabit the body of said untarnished sportsman as well?!

 

[I Watch Cycling In July]

ahhhaa! i left this ambiguity in there purposely... how do you read the question? is it enough for one to say they prefer to sacrifice $$$$ for an untarnished sporting legacy, or will they have to inhabit the body of said untarnished sportsman as well?!

I read it very literally at first: Who would I rather BE. Not just inhabit the body of, actually be that person with all their personality, values and behaviors. The idea made my head explode, because the person I am, would much rather be a Greg Lemond character than a Lance Armstrong Character (the latter I have only contempt for). But of course if I was that person, I would have their values. In Lances case, that would mean I didn't give a fat rats **** whether I was a decent human being or not. So the question boils down to: who do you think is happiest with their life? Are super rich arseholes happier than wealthy people with kind hearts? Now there is a tricky philosophical question. The *******s probably are happier. C'est la vie.

I still choose Lemond, even though he is older, no matter how you frame the question. But that is because it's me doing the choosing.

 

[Boeing]

I'd rather be Alexi Greywal

although Lance's $100 gr into planned parenthood has me on the fence in the poll question really

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Ingemar Stenmark, Alberto Tomba or perhaps Dider Cuche.

Armstrong has always been an a-hole, and Lemond and Landis became blowhards. But more importantly, for me ski racing is far more exciting and exacting; cycling is just a way to keep in shape between winters...

(that is not entirely true - I just dont understand the passion so many seemingly have in going after one rider when it is likely that 80% of the top twenty in all the grand and major tours and all the classics and semi-classics for the past two decades were using PEDs)

Well, I am not surprised that you don't understand it if you think that it is going after just one rider.
I am sure if you had a look at the 80% you allude to you will find that they have been banned, sanctioned or faced the consequences of their actions.
Now it's Armstrongs turn.

 

[joe_papp]

I read it very literally at first: Who would I rather BE. Not just inhabit the body of, actually be that person with all their personality, values and behaviors. The idea made my head explode, because the person I am, would much rather be a Greg Lemond character than a Lance Armstrong Character (the latter I have only contempt for). But of course if I was that person, I would have their values. In Lances case, that would mean I didn't give a fat rats **** whether I was a decent human being or not. So the question boils down to: who do you think is happiest with their life? Are super rich arseholes happier than wealthy people with kind hearts? Now there is a tricky philosophical question. The *******s probably are happier. C'est la vie.

I still choose Lemond, even though he is older, no matter how you frame the question. But that is because it's me doing the choosing.

Starting this thread was worth it just for your response. You're obviously a very thoughtful and philosophical person, introspective too, it would seem.

There's no right or wrong answer, only the answer that makes sense for the individual, based on their own unique experiences, values, perspective and worldview. I'm actually glad that more than a few people have indicated in voting their preference to be Lance, for it would've been a boring, failed exercise if the response was universally in favor of LeMond.

Now what if you'd been asked which you'd rather have as a father? With LA as your dad there is that enormous material wealth and the security that buys, along with the opportunities it facilitates, whereas LeMond is going to be much more the cuddly teddy-bear-dad who you'd think would make things all warm and fuzzy.

But then both have had very real personal demons impact their family life for a time...

At the end of the day, what's certain is that no manipulative, cynical, exploitative attorney was ever standing over LeMond's carcass after he'd been shot, crowing about how if only Greg could come back from near-death and win the Tour again, he'd be an inspiration to shooting victims everywhere, which would ensure his transformation from mere sporting icon into a global fcking "brand!"

Much like the German people (and the world at large) and their unwillingness or failure to see what Hitler's plans were based on a reading of Mein Kampf, it now seems inconceivable that the public could not have expected to be exploited and fleeced by LA after reading the prescient words of his agent Bill Stapleton (quoted in It's not about the bike, I believe):

"In the beginning we had this brash brand of Texan...a phenomenon. Then you layered in cancer survivor, which broadened and deepened the brand, but even in 1998 there was very little corporate interest in Lance. Then he won the Tour de France, and the brand was complete. [You layered in family man, hero, comeback of the century, all these things. And then everybody wanted him.]"

Can there be any doubt that this was planned from the very beginning as an exercise in exploiting the public's gullibility and desperate need for a hero to massively enrich the principle players?

 

[Susan Westemeyer]

Without addressing any issues of apparent guilt or innocence, I will treat this as the question: would you rather have a clear conscience or lots of money?

For me that is no question. I could not live with a guilty conscience.

Susan