It is an interesting question
Of the really elite cyclists I've personally known, they've pretty much all had some anti-social characteristics that make them a bit unlikable as people. These aren't the dudes that help you move your sofa and give you a ride to the airport, they're busy training and that's more important than anything in your life. I think it's part of the business to some degree. Chasing down other riders and really cementing his status as the boss by gifting stages and then publicly claiming as much, and publicly claiming that racers didn't slow down when he crashed when they pretty clearly did.. it's all part of the business. I think he was more overt at it because he didn't command as much personal respect among the peloton and he was probably a little insecure about it, that's the job though.. I also tend to lump Lance with all the others of his era, he never got caught but I find it hard to believe him to be spotless, not the way he toyed with the other elite of the time who were shown to be doped. It is what it is though, a lot of guys never got caught and some did.
I think if I had to really pin down a just a few things about Lance, 1) he really ushered in "specialization." The calendar is raced differently now than it was before him. Maybe it's real, maybe it's not, bottom line though is if you're a legitimate Tour contender you will barely be seen at other races now, let alone really contend them. Other riders in fairly recent times would do the double and would contend other races. The Giro has taken a step back due to Lance and the Vuelta has really fallen off. To the point where winning them doesn't even classify you among the elite of the elite in the sport. That sucks. That really sucks.
2) I have a really hard time with some of the fallings out he's had with people, especially Greg Lemond. Greg was beautiful on the bike, I don't know that I'll ever think bad things about him and what he did and then somehow he and Lance clashed and Lance really threw him under the bus. It could have been a private disagreement but it turned in to a big issue and a lot of the nouveau cycling fans have disliked Greg because of it. It just says a lot about character.
3) The over exposure. To the original point, I think the Vino's, Basso's, Ullrich's and others are maybe more forgivable is due to the language barriers and they aren't over exposed. There is a little bit more myth and lore and mystery makes the illusion a little better. Much less so with Lance. Some fans really want to see how the sausage is made, I get it, but these guys really aren't that interesting, they have incredible focus and drive and determination and they're willing to step on people along the way (someone has to lose, am I right?) and they're not generally the nicest guys but when you don't see as much of them you can sort of imagine that they are better than they are. It's to the point where a lot of folks think all the cancer stuff is just an overt cover with a profit motive, which may be true, but damn if that isn't a crappy way to look at things.
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram