Why do you dislike Armstrong?

[buckwheat]

Relax - yes, at first your original post looked quite like that of BPC.
The thread title wasn't so bad with "dislike" - but then you asked why do people 'hate' Armstrong in your opening post - intentional or not that will flame people.

BPC - our resident troll, has been on this thread and been remved again....dont worry he will be back in an hour or 2.


I asked this question earlier -
Wouldn't the question "why do you like/admire Armstrong " be better more appropriate - as in comparisson to last year, there appear to be a lot less fans of LA.

I'm a spurned lover.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

I'm a spurned lover.

One of many....

 

[andy1234]

Relax - yes, at first your original post looked quite like that of BPC.
The thread title wasn't so bad with "dislike" - but then you asked why do people 'hate' Armstrong in your opening post - intentional or not that will flame people.

BPC - our resident troll, has been on this thread and been remved again....dont worry he will be back in an hour or 2.


I asked this question earlier -
Wouldn't the question "why do you like/admire Armstrong " be better more appropriate - as in comparisson to last year, there appear to be a lot less fans of LA.

To be fair, I have said a few times in this thread that my choice of words were not the best, so I couldnt agree more.
My real motivation was finding out why Armstrong is singled out for more "hate" than many other riders with a similar track record. I have previously only really thought about it on a sporting level.
As I have found out, his actions away from the sport seem to get to people the most.

Im sure there will be a few more conspiracy theorists who haven't read this comment, or the rest of the thread, along soon....

 

[saganftw]

I asked this question earlier -
Wouldn't the question "why do you like/admire Armstrong " be better more appropriate - as in comparisson to last year, there appear to be a lot less fans of LA.

i can answer that...i wont answer why i like him as a person because i dont know him

many ppl forget that the most important thing about LA is not cycling but what he does for cancer comunity,cycling is just a sport,its not more important than health, i dont feel betrayed that he might won 7 TdF thanks to doping, its just a sport,entertainment

now he s maybe doping i wont argue with that,but for me whats important is the fact that his books,his TdF victories,his life story helped some ppl with their battle with cancer...it might be psychological help,financial,getting the best treatment (see fignon) whatever that is it helps some ppl battle cancer,it is helping to save their lives and thats admirable (and btw thats more than huge majority of us has done ever in our life)...is it done through cheating? maybe but seriously if you have friend,family member or just know someone with cancer you know they give a flying fck about where does the help come from...if he has to cheat to get more money for cancer research or cancer awareness i say there should be more athletes like him

id would be nice if he was clean and everything would be perfect,great story,everybody is happy...if it isnt well i dont care,because w/o him cheating there would be that much less money in cancer research,dirty money are still better than no money

 

[Cloxxki]

I didn't read the whole thread, so I hope I'm not off topic.

I started out a fan boy. Especially after the cancer thing.
Bought and read the books. Wore the bracelet.
In my vertures in the cycling industry, I even had a project lined up to offer Lance a unique sponsorship deal, which would involve Livestrong to receive a $mln or more in donation, tied to the product we'd be offering. Due to a time line problem, we never got to offer anything to Lance, so he's utterly unaware of the idea.

Anyway, while reading more and more of the "anti" stories, trying to keep an open mind, at some point not too long ago, I crosed over from being a fanboy to being a critic. LA's attitude started to bother me now, as the cancer thing was wearing on me.

Then LA started to become more an more a dirty business man to me. The doping thing is just a part of it. I now have serious difficulty coming up with a good trait of the guy's personality or input in the world.
If in fact he lied about dope, and indeed is making private money over cancer, he deceived many millions of patients and other devotees. That this is allowed, is a sign that gods if real, don't punish during life. All he gets is more money, more fame, more women, at the direct or indirect expense of others.
I disliked that someone like Kloden had to drag him over the mountains last years, for Lance's greater fame. Kloden was the faster rider. And I do consider him dirty BTW.
My naivity regarding the inherent good of mankind, is now showing some cracks over all this.

 

[Benotti69]

id would be nice if he was clean and everything would be perfect,great story,everybody is happy...if it isnt well i dont care,because w/o him cheating there would be that much less money in cancer research,dirty money are still better than no money

why couldn't he come back after cancer, race, win Paris Roubaix, LBL, World Championships, Giro Di Lomabardia and a stage here and there at the TdF ...etc and make him one the top cyclists in the world who survived cancer....no lies needed, no cheating, a great talented 1 day classic racer.

It would still be a fantastic story and cancer victims all over the world would still flock to his success.

Now what he has done is he has built a mythical figure around his deception and if i had a family member suffering from cancer who is thinking if LA did it so can i, look what he did winning those races and then they find out he's a fraud and this knocks that persons confidence, well that is worse than anything he could have done, ever and that is what is the real badness that LA has done to victims of cancer. I think the cancer community is gonna suffer from this and that is sad, and for people to accept his cheating as good for cancer is pathetic. For someone to perpetrate an act of deception on other people so one can benefit is pathetic and i dont think a lot of good and honest people accept that thinking.

If it comes out about how much he has made from cancer 50% of donations never mind the fact that most of the internet traffic is directed to his .com and not the charity .org again the world of cancer sufferers will truly bury him as a fraud.

 

[ThaiPanda]

No one. It's clear it's not the goal. That's the point.

He's created a .org foundation and blathers on about his fight against cancer, supported by the foundation. The reality is that he intercepts the vast majority of that traffic with his for profit website.

This is reason #423 in the thread topic, "Why do you dislike Armstrong".

He's a liar and a douchebag.

I see your point now. Interesting take, I must admit. It's not something I ever considered; same name but the "important" one ends with an extension that most people don't know when thinking about websites. Yeah, if he wants a website he should ditch the livestrong stuff and call it Lanceegotrip.com, or something to that effect. He has taken something associated with the fight against cancer and used it for his benefit.

I agree with your douchebag assessment. Liar is a broad brush; all the riders that take PEDs are liars. I guess it just adds to the pile.

 

[editedbymod]

For me it was stuff like this.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

To be fair, I have said a few times in this thread that my choice of words were not the best, so I couldnt agree more.
My real motivation was finding out why Armstrong is singled out for more "hate" than many other riders with a similar track record. I have previously only really thought about it on a sporting level.
As I have found out, his actions away from the sport seem to get to people the most.

Im sure there will be a few more conspiracy theorists who haven't read this comment, or the rest of the thread, along soon....

For me it actually is his impact on the sport.

The main problem with LA - is because he has such marketing appeal everyone (UCI/ASO/journalists/fans etc) looks the other way - for the sport, it is a short term gain, as all the rules that have been bent will eventually be exposed - and cycling will be back in the mire again.

I have already adddressed my feelings on the Livestrong.com part - but other than that if he is being 'used' for promotion/sponsorship I dont really have a problem with him cashing in on his celebrity - altough I may argue the how he attained that status.

 

[saganftw]

why couldn't he come back after cancer, race, win Paris Roubaix, LBL, World Championships, Giro Di Lomabardia and a stage here and there at the TdF ...etc and make him one the top cyclists in the world who survived cancer....no lies needed, no cheating, a great talented 1 day classic racer.

It would still be a fantastic story and cancer victims all over the world would still flock to his success.

Now what he has done is he has built a mythical figure around his deception and if i had a family member suffering from cancer who is thinking if LA did it so can i, look what he did winning those races and then they find out he's a fraud and this knocks that persons confidence, well that is worse than anything he could have done, ever and that is what is the real badness that LA has done to victims of cancer. I think the cancer community is gonna suffer from this and that is sad, and for people to accept his cheating as good for cancer is pathetic. For someone to perpetrate an act of deception on other people so one can benefit is pathetic and i dont think a lot of good and honest people accept that thinking.

If it comes out about how much he has made from cancer 50% of donations never mind the fact that most of the internet traffic is directed to his .com and not the charity .org again the world of cancer sufferers will truly bury him as a fraud.

i dont know why he did TdF not other races,maybe because TdF is known better in the world as the hardest race (i think its because in USA only tdF has some attraction)?

i dont agree with you on that point that if he is find guilty of doping it will harm cancer victims...yes it will but the important word is "if" he is found guilty...for now he s clean (legal way) as a whistle,he s still racing isnt he?

now the question is it worth to cheat and get rich,help cancer issues in danger of future posible troubles? its not that easy to answer that and i understand your point of view that it can posibly cause problems for future cancer victims...i think its various from person to person how much would they be affected by LA cheating ways

so to sum up,he could ride other than TdF races,be less famous and so on or cheat to do TdF or quit professional sport and do nothing

but for now as he is not guilty (again legaly speaking) hes cancer activities bring benefits to the cancer community...will it change in the future? i dont know

regarding the ammount of money hes earned for himself and cancer i wont discuss that coz i m not his accountant

 

[Benotti69]

but for now as he is not guilty (again legaly speaking) hes cancer activities bring benefits to the cancer community...will it change in the future? i dont know

you know if you want to turn the other cheek till its official, then fine, he a dope and a cheat, but i imagine if its found out how he made a little contribution to the cancer community while talking about a lot and proved he brought in a lot of dollars but gave out a small % well, at least they'll still love him in texas like they love their steers

 

[Dr. Maserati]

i don't know why he did TdF not other races,maybe because TdF is known better in the world as the hardest race (i think its because in USA only tdF has some attraction)?

i don't agree with you on that point that if he is find guilty of doping it will harm cancer victims...yes it will but the important word is "if" he is found guilty...for now he s clean (legal way) as a whistle,he s still racing isn't he?

now the question is it worth to cheat and get rich,help cancer issues in danger of future possible troubles? its not that easy to answer that and i understand your point of view that it can possibly cause problems for future cancer victims...i think its various from person to person how much would they be affected by LA cheating ways

so to sum up,he could ride other than TdF races,be less famous and so on or cheat to do TdF or quit professional sport and do nothing

but for now as he is not guilty (again legally speaking) hes cancer activities bring benefits to the cancer community...will it change in the future? i don't know

regarding the ammount of money hes earned for himself and cancer i wont discuss that coz i m not his accountant

Thanks for responding - it is something that interests me (as I am a nosy bastard)

I don't want to go down the route of 'Never sanctioned', no positives etc...
because I don't believe even under the current investigation that that will happen.

But in the 'Court of public opinion' - I think the tide is already turning (just my view).
And I think for the broader public - they will feel let down, as it wasn't just courage or determination that you need but a vast array of PED's, and if its ever proven that there was bribery and backhanders the dismay and 'hurt' will be profound.


FWIW - no doubt what Lance did to come back from cancer was amazing. But for me he did not need to win 3 or 5 or 7 Tours, for me it was when he finished 15th in Ruta del Sol in 1998.

I have had two 'Its not about the Bike' books and I have given to people suffering life threatening diseases.

 

[saganftw]

you know if you want to turn the other cheek till its official, then fine, he a dope and a cheat, but i imagine if its found out how he made a little contribution to the cancer community while talking about a lot and proved he brought in a lot of dollars but gave out a small % well, at least they'll still love him in texas like they love their steers

its very easy to say something about a person that has to happen in future to be actually truth,i cant bring arguments against that

so yeah i will wait for offcial investigation because this forum is not authority for me,i wont change my mind (that hes done something good for cancer comunity) just because some guys on the internet think LA will be found guilty...unless you have some sort of psychic powers

 

[Benotti69]

its very easy to say something about a person that has to happen in future to be actually truth,i cant bring arguments against that

so yeah i will wait for offcial investigation because this forum is not authority for me,i wont change my mind (that hes done something good for cancer comunity) just because some guys on the internet think LA will be found guilty...unless you have some sort of psychic powers

whether he will be found guilty in an american court of law will not matter to me, OJ got off for chissake!!!!

it in my opinion has been known inside the world of cycling since he won no.1 TdF that he used the 'juice' but it was not till the 4th/5th that the cracks have appeared to a wider cycling audience, hairline they were but they have grown quickly in the last 2 years and mainly by his attitude towards those who have doubted him, his treatment of others has been appauling to say the least.

there are plenty of examples of evidence agaisnt him. The Andreus, The inablity to locate to student doctors who took LA's testimony in the hospital, THe Oakley reps confession to LeMond, The English former Masseuse, the 99 tests for EPO, the positive for which he procured a TUE after the test and had it backdate and lastly the obvious corruption by the UCI. If this is not enough to convince someone that LA is a doper and a cheat, well lend me a million dollars and i swear i'll pay you back.

 

[saganftw]

whether he will be found guilty in an american court of law will not matter to me, OJ got off for chissake!!!!

it in my opinion has been known inside the world of cycling since he won no.1 TdF that he used the 'juice' but it was not till the 4th/5th that the cracks have appeared to a wider cycling audience, hairline they were but they have grown quickly in the last 2 years and mainly by his attitude towards those who have doubted him, his treatment of others has been appauling to say the least.

there are plenty of examples of evidence agaisnt him. The Andreus, The inablity to locate to student doctors who took LA's testimony in the hospital, THe Oakley reps confession to LeMond, The English former Masseuse, the 99 tests for EPO, the positive for which he procured a TUE after the test and had it backdate and lastly the obvious corruption by the UCI. If this is not enough to convince someone that LA is a doper and a cheat, well lend me a million dollars and i swear i'll pay you back.

i dont deny evidence,in my opinion theres no smoke w/o fire...but that doesnt take away from his cancer activities,how was laurent fignon feeling when LA arranged meeting with one of the doctors in USA? from your words i feel like you would say no to LA if he d offer you that opportunity

 

[FactChecker]

I dislike Lance more than anything because he wouldn't ride the Giro and Vuelta to win.

He loved being on the top podium of the Tour de France. Nothing else came even remotely close. For years and years be basically entered only one competitive event each year. For the "best cyclist evah" his palmares is very thin.

Other great champions rode other races, which meant people were more interested in them. Lance means Americans think the Tour is cycling. That is good for the Tour, but not good for cycling.

It's like Tiger Woods saying that the US Open was the only event worth winning, and only playing that seriously. Or Federer only playing Wimbledon.

Plus Lance uses his team-mates disgracefully. It is interesting to see how little most of his former "mates" like him. No other rider seems to generate such dislike from the people who know him best. (Though, to be fair, I suspect Contador will not go down as a people's champion either, for much the same reason.)

 

[luckyboy]

Woo! Go Lance!

 

[Steel4Ever]

Sheryl had her cancer in 27th February 2006- herself and Armstrong had split almost a month earlier on 3rd February 2006.

Maybe he gave it to her.

 

[SpartacusRox]

Let me give you my take on it, which is purely personal, but might be shared by others who followed cycling during the last 25 years or so. Indeed, it is fairly independant on doping, since (as others have said) it is hard to say today whether Lance was less, more or equally doped than his contemporaries. It is however hard to believe that he never took anything. Others in the past have shown more class in admitting it (Zülle, Dufaux, Millar,...), but on the other hand, many others have shown even less class despite overwhelming evidence (Virenque, Hamilton, Landis, Valverde, Vinokourov, Ullrich,...).

That being said, the real reasons why I disliked Armstrong are the follwing ones:
- He destroyed the interest of many tours in a row by establishing a 5 min lead after just one TT and one mountain stage. The remaining two weeks were like a funeral procession to Paris. I turned to looking to the Giro, which used to be largely more exciting (note that this was already the case with Indurain, which I didn't like much either).
- Someone like Hinault or Indurain let other people win even when they were at their best. They would just follow the best climber day after day and let them win the stages while conforting their GC lead (remember the victories of, e.g. Lucho Herrera). That shows class. On the other hand, Armstrong (and before him Pantani in 1998-1999, or Basso in 2007-2008) tries to win every stage if that is possible, even when having already built an unassailable lead in GC, frustrating the whole peloton in the process by depriving them from the stage honours and bonusses. How much of this egoistic attitude is due to Armstrong himself, and how much of it is due to Bruyneel is hard to say, but it was certainly supported by both.
- A less understandable reason is that I always had a weakness for "Poulidor" type guys, who (almost) always finish second, like Zülle and Ullrich (maybe Andy Schleck is this new Poulidor...). Actually, I find myself disliking Armstrong less since he returned, maybe because he cannot destroy the race anymore.

I hope that it was a more constructive answer.

While I agree with you that it often seemed the case that the other guys were turning up to see who would come second, it is not a particular competitors responsibility to make a race exciting. Armstrong was there to win and he did what he needed to do to win. You can't seriously be suggesting that he should have contrived to lose time so that the race appeared more exciting?? You can bet Contador won't be doing that.

On your second point, if you take that view then you must have really disliked Eddie Merckx who rarely gave anyone anything. Thats why they called him the Cannibal. Also, perhaps you don't remember Armstrong gifting Pantani the stage on Ventoux. Afterwards Merckx berated him..."no gifts!!" really it is nonsense to say that he tries to win every stage, even if possible, and of course it isn't. He has won a lot less stages than Merckx did during his tour reign.

Finally, It's fine to like the guy who came second, the French make it a national pastime, that probably a big reason why they have never won their Tour since Hinault. (who also rarey gave stage gifts). Personally I admire winners.

 

[Benotti69]

.......Personally I admire winners.

even ones that cheat and dope?

 

[saganftw]

even ones that cheat and dope?

can you name the winners who dont cheat and dope?

 

[Benotti69]

can you name the winners who dont cheat and dope?

for me those sports people who can get to the highest level to compete on their talents, hard work and dedication without doping, they are the winners....i dont particularly like societies attitude to raise the person first across the line as head and shoulders above the rest as if the rest are losers.

LA is a loser, why? because he doped and cheated. Anyone who does that to win is ultimately a loser. I dont care how many people go on about everyone doing it, they have no proof that everyone is doing it, and in turn justifying their doping is a failure.

Christophe Bassons is the last true winner for me to ride the TdF.

 

[Anonymous]

While I agree with you that it often seemed the case that the other guys were turning up to see who would come second, it is not a particular competitors responsibility to make a race exciting. Armstrong was there to win and he did what he needed to do to win. You can't seriously be suggesting that he should have contrived to lose time so that the race appeared more exciting?? You can bet Contador won't be doing that.

On your second point, if you take that view then you must have really disliked Eddie Merckx who rarely gave anyone anything. Thats why they called him the Cannibal. Also, perhaps you don't remember Armstrong gifting Pantani the stage on Ventoux. Afterwards Merckx berated him..."no gifts!!" really it is nonsense to say that he tries to win every stage, even if possible, and of course it isn't. He has won a lot less stages than Merckx did during his tour reign.

Finally, It's fine to like the guy who came second, the French make it a national pastime, that probably a big reason why they have never won their Tour since Hinault. (who also rarey gave stage gifts). Personally I admire winners.

Personally, I admire the manner by which one seeks to a accomplish a goal much more than the accomplishment of the goal itself. In fact, my admiration is rarely influenced by how successful one is in actually achieving a goal. The process is the point, and the process by which Armstrong has accomplished his goal (he only had one) is the reason I do not regard him as terribly admirable. Admiring the guy who comes in first is a pretty shallow measure, and psychological studies show that teaching your kids that trait is bound to cause problems. You teach them that it is the effort that is the point, and you will have more successful children.

 

[Tom T.]

I actually admired LA for a long time. I liked his killer instinct and his tactical ruthlessness in the Tour. Yes, he's always been an arrogant pr**k. Yes, he's a doper but I could say that about most riders probably. But he lost me last year when he tried to undermine AC. He couldn't beat AC with his legs so he tried every little underhanded, nasty tactic he could to his own teammate! Now he's just and a-hole, pure and simple.

 

[broken chain]

If was going to post English thoughts coherent probably good.

Come on give me a break,my keyboards toast.I've been using it as a piano.
Does anyone hate Tiger Woods because of what he does off the course,like everyone hates Lance because of his behavior off the bike(insert question mark here,mines broken)Just curious since the morality police are about.
Myself personally,I could care less as long as I'm entertained.
They don't pay my salary,aren't peeing in my pool or causing me any flak.
Besides, narcissistic multimillionaire athletes really don't care what anybody thinks of them.They expect everyone to kiss their patootie.Special treatment abounds for the chosen few.Especially by the media.
How about Mel Gibson(another question mark here)Will you still watch his movies(one here too)