10 reasons to hate lance

[limerickman]

I think that it is unhealthy to see such vitriol against Lance Armstrong.
I am certainly not a fan of his - in fact I think that it a calamity that he has won 5 T'sDF.
I know that he's not on the same level as Merckx, Hinault, Anquetil and Indurain but unfortunately in one respect, his on parity with them because he has managed to win the same number of Tours as the others.
(I'd also rate Kelly, LeMond, Bobet, Coppi, Bartali, Thys as greater cyclists than Armstrong).
To see him standing there on the Champs Elysee beside Hinault,
Merckx and Indurain was galling.

What I can say in his favour is that he is a good cyclist and he has brought hope to a lot of people who suffer with illness.
The fact that he is from America, should not be a reason for people to dislike him though.
I think that the reason people dislike his personality is that they
consider him to arrogant.
Unfortunately some people assume that arrogance and America
go hand in hand.
I think this is wrong.
Look at how well other American cyclists are regarded here in Europe ie Greg LeMond and Andy Hampsten come to mind.
Both Greg and Andy won several major tours here in Europe.
No, it's too simplistic for people to accuse others, who dislike
Armstrong, of being anti-American.
If us Europeans were anti-American both Greg and Andy would
have gotten the same level of ill feeling from certain people that
Armstrong now gets.
Armstrong simply manages to alienate people.

 

[Brizza]

I have nothing against LA the person, but I do feel that it is bad for the sport if one person/team dominates every TDF.

Some sports have put an end to this domination by putting wage restrictions on teams or limits on individual contracts to avoid one team dominating in advertising and being able to buy the best athletes.

V8 car racing in Aust. has been equalised by restrictions to keep the car makes (Holden GMH and Ford) relatively equal and competitive, the drivers complain but the spectators know the result will be interesting.

I think it would be in the interest of cycling if LA changed teams to remove the domination and make the TDF more competitive.

Brian

 

[Spider1977]

Originally posted by Brizza
I have nothing against LA the person, but I do feel that it is bad for the sport if one person/team dominates every TDF.

Some sports have put an end to this domination by putting wage restrictions on teams or limits on individual contracts to avoid one team dominating in advertising and being able to buy the best athletes.

Brian

So mediocrity is the key to making sport popular! I don't think so.

There are over 200 riders in the TdeF every year. There are 20 or so teams. People moan about the team tactics of USPS and the way they protect and help Lance. Well, knock me down with a feather, but every team has the opportunity to do the same thing for their key rider, they just aren't capable or let their egos get in the way.

LA's domination has at least fired up a few riders/teams to try and find ways to beat him this year. If there wasn't a five time winner in the race, going for a 6th, do you think there would be anywhere near the interest in the race this year?

I bet millions will be glued to the TV to see if Lance can hold off the challengers.

And by the way - Go Brisbane Lions for four in 2004!

 

[DiabloScott]

Armstrong specializes in the Tour because it is by far the biggest and most important bike race in the world. It's practically the only race that gets any mainstream coverage at all in the USA - nearly every American knows about the Tour but only a very small minority could name a single other race in Europe. Armstrong's sponsors are American and they want him to win THE race that will get coverage in the USA and that's what he does. Yes, Armstrong specializes and concentrates on the Tour much more so than any other winner has, but that's the game now… that's how you win… I expect we'll be seeing more riders specialize on the Tour in the post-Armstrong years, not fewer.

There have been 57 Tours since World War II and nearly half of them have been won by 5-timers. As long as the Tour is seen as the most important race on the calendar the best racers will seek to dominate it. All you whiners who complain about Tour domination by a single rider are really whining that the Tour itself is so dominant. And Lance was certainly not dominant in last year's race - that was a real nail-biter! The domination factor is only that he got 5 in a row - each one of those 5 was a great Tour taken by itself.

Some races have a defending champion or other clear favorite and it's exciting to watch him defend against his challengers.
Some races have no defending champion and several favorites and it's exciting to watch them battle it out for the win.

 

[American Floyd]

I submit that the biggest reason for Anti-Lance-ism is that he is a superstar who has achieved great things, and people are fascinated (and worse, in some cases, obsessed, as our thread-starter probably is) with stories of "oh, how the mighty have fallen." Few things are more dramatic then a champion falling from grace.

This phenomenon is most evident in our newspapers. Bad news sells. Good news doesn't. If a famours actress was involved in a major sex scandal and a cure for cancer was discovered at the same time, what do you think would be the biggest headline in your local paper?

People grow tired of champions, despite their stories. People are also counter-culturists; they go against what the popular culture deems special or important just to be different or original. To hate Lance is to hate success, which is called "jealousy." It is also childish and, in this case, preposterous. He deserves every bit of credit the world can grant him. He is the quintessential story of hard work, dedication, determination, and relentlessness, qualities that all other Tour (and Giro and Vuelta) winners have in common. The exception being that Lance has defined all that five times, not just once or twice.

By the way, to "hate" someone because their French is poor (and who are you to judge, Captain Grammar) is utterly inane. Talk about juvenile...

 

[limerickman]

Originally posted by American Floyd
I submit that the biggest reason for Anti-Lance-ism is that he is a superstar who has achieved great things, and people are fascinated (and worse, in some cases, obsessed, as our thread-starter probably is) with stories of "oh, how the mighty have fallen." Few things are more dramatic then a champion falling from grace.

This phenomenon is most evident in our newspapers. Bad news sells. Good news doesn't. If a famours actress was involved in a major sex scandal and a cure for cancer was discovered at the same time, what do you think would be the biggest headline in your local paper?

People grow tired of champions, despite their stories. People are also counter-culturists; they go against what the popular culture deems special or important just to be different or original. To hate Lance is to hate success, which is called "jealousy." It is also childish and, in this case, preposterous. He deserves every bit of credit the world can grant him. He is the quintessential story of hard work, dedication, determination, and relentlessness, qualities that all other Tour (and Giro and Vuelta) winners have in common. The exception being that Lance has defined all that five times, not just once or twice.

By the way, to "hate" someone because their French is poor (and who are you to judge, Captain Grammar) is utterly inane. Talk about juvenile...

I wish I could be convinced that what we have seen from Lance Armstrong since 1999, has been the result of hardwork.
I am not convinced that what we have seen is solely the result of hardwork.
This is why I am not a fan of Armstrong.
I have no difficulty with the fact that he's from USA : he could be from Mars for all I care.
What pisses me off about Armstrong is that if he is clean - and I know he hasn't failed a drug test - how come he can cycle the
TDF faster than his so-called compatriots who in the 1990's were
up to the eyeballs in EPO-HGH drugs ?
One other point, 1989 TDF covered approximately the same distance as the 2003 TDF.
If you compare Lance's average speed to Greg LeMond's average speed : lance went 3.1 Kilometres per hour, faster for every kilometre of this years TDF route, than Greg did in 1989.
(1989 distance was 3,285 kms - 2003 distance was 3,395 kms).
Now you can ascribe all you want to Armstrong's losing weight,
training 24 hours per day, facing his mortality, hard work etc.
I don't buy this - I never have.
To suddenly be able to cycle 3 kms faster, for every kilometre of a three week tour, than a cyclist with an impeccable record of achievement - and to be able to cycle faster than his his 1990's compatriots, also beggars belief.
And by the way, I don't hate Armstrong either !

 

[Spider1977]

limerickman,

Do you possibly think that someone as high profile as LA could be a drug cheat? If you read his second book, you'll see how often he is tested. I don't think he'd be silly enough to take the risk.

Personally, I find remarks like yours offensive. Everyone has the right to the presumption of innocence. If you put your real name and address to such remarks you'd probably find yourself in the civil courts being sued for slander.

WRT comparison of Armstrong and LeMond, technology has moved on. Lance trains harder than anyone else. Lance does his homework and his team supports him to the hilt. All these factors contribute to faster times. Also while the course length may be nearly the same, what about the comaprisons of profile and wind conditions?

 

[DiabloScott]

Originally posted by limerickman


What pisses me off about Armstrong is that if he is clean - and I know he hasn't failed a drug test - how come he can cycle the
TDF faster than his so-called compatriots who in the 1990's were
up to the eyeballs in EPO-HGH drugs ?


One other point, 1989 TDF covered approximately the same distance as the 2003 TDF. If you compare Lance's average speed to Greg LeMond's average speed : lance went 3.1 Kilometres per hour, faster for every kilometre of this years TDF route, than Greg did in 1989.

You may be right about the speeds, I didn't check your data or your math, but didn't Ullrich also ride ~3.1km faster than the #2 guy in '89? And didn't Vino also ride ~3.1km faster than the #3 guy in 89? Your comparison is meaningless.

The argument "he must be doping because he's so much better than everyone else" is just laughable.

If Lance is on the juice than either:
1. He has some super juice that no one knows about and no one is testing for.
2. He has some masking agent that no one knows about and no one is testing for.
3. He is paying off the officials and falsifying his samples.

Can you think of anything else? These all sound preposterous to me.

 

[hombre de bicyc]

"in all his interviews he doesn't say nothing at all"
double negative=Moron or perhaps ESL.

Oh well. Come do the Ride for the Roses sometime with us and see what Lance is all about, besides Hautacam, Alpe d'Huez and the rest. Grow up. Get a life. Or something.

Hombre

 

[lumpy]

How could I hate the man? I've never met him. He's a hell of a rider though and I sure like and respect his outreach to cancer patients.

Tim

 

[oldbobcat]

As much as I think Lance's domination of the Tour is a bore, he's a hell of a lot more exciting than LeMond was after his first Tour. Also, as much as his fans tend to overrate him, I rate Lance at least as high as Indurain. Just the same, I wish his season was a little longer.

Most of us like our heroes to show some dramatic qualities, extraordinary cunning or personal quirks, stuff that drives the imagination. LeMond's world championship ride did that, as well as his first Tour, hijacking La Vie Claire. Anquetil had his style, Coppi his mistress, and Merckx his obsessiveness. Comparing Lance to Coppi is like Picard to Kirk.

 

[whitejersey007]

hmm.. i dont like Lance either.. hes a jerk..

 

[limerickman]

Originally posted by Spider1977
limerickman,

Do you possibly think that someone as high profile as LA could be a drug cheat? If you read his second book, you'll see how often he is tested. I don't think he'd be silly enough to take the risk.

Personally, I find remarks like yours offensive. Everyone has the right to the presumption of innocence. If you put your real name and address to such remarks you'd probably find yourself in the civil courts being sued for slander.

WRT comparison of Armstrong and LeMond, technology has moved on. Lance trains harder than anyone else. Lance does his homework and his team supports him to the hilt. All these factors contribute to faster times. Also while the course length may be nearly the same, what about the comaprisons of profile and wind conditions?

Obviously you're entitled to your opinion, as I am to have mine also.
Of course everyone has the right to their innocence : I am simply stating that the TDF has gotten faster.
It is now faster than in the 1990's when the sport of cycling was
filled with drugs.
Armstrong claims that he is clean : therefore how does he manage to cycle faster than people who were using performance
enhancing drugs ??
You state that technology can explain the reason why the Texan
manages to cycle 3 kilometres faster than his American predecessor's win in 1989.
Technology indeed, hmm.
Have you ever tried to cycle three times faster for ever mile/kilometre on a training run, for example ?
Probably not - and I'd suggest that even if you tried, you wouldn't be able to maintain it.
You see my friend, I don't accept that what we've seen since 1998
is authentic.
A mini cooper doesn't become a Ferrari : no matter how much you
train, weigh your food etc, if you're not the genuine article before,
how do you expect people to accept you for the genuine article now ?
The Texan's record between 1992-1996 casts the longest, of long shadows over what he has achieved since 1998.
You chose to accept his explanation - that's your perogative.
Me ?
I look objectively at the evidence and I listen objectively to his explantions : the evidence outweighs his explanations.
If you chose to accept the propoganda, that's your business.

 

[DiabloScott]

Limerick - be honest with yourself: you haven't come to a conclusion based on evidence - you're looking for some data to back up what you want to believe.

Respond to my earlier post: Which of these is happening?

1. He has some super juice that no one knows about and no one is testing for.
2. He has some masking agent that no one knows about and no one is testing for.
3. He is paying off the officials and falsifying his samples.

And why is it that the whole damn peloton is riding 3.1kph faster than in 1989 unless they're all doped up?

Off hand I'd say the flat stages are a lot faster than they used to be - less noodling along for 200km until the sprint - and that's throwing your average speed number. There are at least a dozen other factors that could explain your factoid.

 

[oldbobcat]

Off hand I'd say the flat stages are a lot faster than they used to be - less noodling along for 200km until the sprint - and that's throwing your average speed number. There are at least a dozen other factors that could explain your factoid. [/B][/QUOTE]

I agree with that. Contemporary tours have also been shortened by a several hundred kilometers, and, face it, the equipment does play a role, especially in the time trials.

Whatever ****les I have, I will not believe that Lance is a cheat unless there is definitive incriminating evidence. Anything else is unfair speculation.

 

[Spider1977]

"The Texan's record between 1992-1996 casts the longest, of long shadows over what he has achieved since 1998."


Well, didn't LA lose a heap of weight since his battle with cancer. He says it himself in the book, the benefits of cancer were that it changed his body shape and weight - and he was able to endure more "pain" on the bike because nothing compared to the pain of his chemo. I'd say with all these things driving him plus the facts pointed out about the peleton mentioned above, that it would be easy to improve by the amounts he has - without the help of drugs.

 

[limerickman]

Originally posted by DiabloScott
Limerick - be honest with yourself: you haven't come to a conclusion based on evidence - you're looking for some data to back up what you want to believe.

Respond to my earlier post: Which of these is happening?

1. He has some super juice that no one knows about and no one is testing for.
2. He has some masking agent that no one knows about and no one is testing for.
3. He is paying off the officials and falsifying his samples.

And why is it that the whole damn peloton is riding 3.1kph faster than in 1989 unless they're all doped up?

Off hand I'd say the flat stages are a lot faster than they used to be - less noodling along for 200km until the sprint - and that's throwing your average speed number. There are at least a dozen other factors that could explain your factoid.

The profile of the 1989 TDf was a lot more flat than the 2003 TDF :
the mountain stages in the 2003 TDf were steeper and there were more mountains in the profile.
I would agree with you that certainly the flat stages could be quicker however I think it would be stretching it to say that it could account for the 3.1 km per hour rate.
It is a valid point that you make the the whole peleton has become quicker : therefore the average speed in general has gone up.
But being specific to Armstrong, the empirical evidence is that between 1992-1996, he could not have acheived what he has achieved since 1998.

Throw in the fact that he had a life threatening illness as well, it seems to me that what we have seen since 1998, is at the very least the greatest aberration in sports performance ever.
I don't buy that he 3.1kms per hour faster than Greg LeMond.
I would genuinely like to think that his comeback is the result of hardwork etc.
But I am not convinced.
I have watched this sport for many years and a champion has a pedigree from day 1.
Pantani/Ullrich were class acts from day 1.
Armstrong wasn't.
Now, we're expected to accept that Armstrong had this ability all along.
No ! He didn't have this ability. He couldn't climb, he couldn't perform at a high level between 1992-1996.
I want to believe that what we see is genuine - but the evidence suggests otherwise.

 

[DiabloScott]

Originally posted by limerickman


The profile of the 1989 TDf was a lot more flat than the 2003 TDF :
the mountain stages in the 2003 TDf were steeper and there were more mountains in the profile.
I would agree with you that certainly the flat stages could be quicker however I think it would be stretching it to say that it could account for the 3.1 km per hour rate.

Why don't you get some evidence then? Look up the average speed of flat stages then and now, and the average speed of mountain stages then and now. It wouldn't be perfect evidence but it would be better than just thinking about it. I think maybe you're afraid of real evidence. The profile differences you mention actually bolster my theory because the flat stages would be much faster and the mountain stages would only be a little bit faster.

Originally posted by limerickman

It is a valid point that you make the the whole peleton has become quicker : therefore the average speed in general has gone up.

Then why don't you respond to it? The average speed of EVERY SINGLE RIDER has gone up by essentially the same amount. How can you possibly twist this statistic into saying that only Armstrong is cheating?

Originally posted by limerickman

I have watched this sport for many years and a champion has a pedigree from day 1.
Pantani/Ullrich were class acts from day 1.
Armstrong wasn't.
Now, we're expected to accept that Armstrong had this ability all along.

I've been watching this sport for many years as well. One thing I've learned: it's PELOTON - one "e" two "o"s - it means platoon in French.

As a teenager, Armstrong scored the highest VO2 max anyone had ever seen and even before his first year as a pro he was identified as someone with supreme athletic ability.

Armstrong won a Tour stage and the rainbow jersey before his cancer, that's nothing to you?

Jalabert made the switch from sprinter to GC rider - not quite as dramatic of a change but the same kind of transformation.

Originally posted by limerickman

I want to believe that what we see is genuine - but the evidence suggests otherwise.

No, you want to believe that he's cheating and you're turning a blind eye to the real evidence: hundreds of controls all passed while others fail.

 

[tomdavis80]

I've been following this board and I'd have to agree with DiabloScott because there are many potential factors that can play into the 3.1 km/h increase for the whole tour speed average. One you may be overlooking is the size of the tour during Greg Lemond's time and now. If it has grown, then absolutely, that will make a difference because the whole of the peloton will chase down any breakaways much faster than it did in the past.

Good call, Diablo. He was definitely overlooking a lot of possible factors.

Thomas Davis

 

[tomdavis80]

I've been following this board and I'd have to agree with DiabloScott because there are many potential factors that can play into the 3.1 km/h increase for the whole tour speed average. One you may be overlooking is the size of the tour during Greg Lemond's time and now. If it has grown, then absolutely, that will make a difference because the whole of the peloton will chase down any breakaways much faster than it did in the past.

Good call, Diablo. He was definitely overlooking a lot of possible factors.

Thomas Davis