Lance Armstrong Ignites USA Cycling Growth | Cyclingnews.com
What licensed cyclists will admit to purchasing said license because of LA's return to competitive cycling? I readily know human beings as a species of animal act like lemmings from time-to-time, but do you buy this?
Interesting dialogue from Armstrong:
"Sports need people," said Armstrong. "It's important to have those stories so people pay attention. As teams and people involve in the sport, you gotta keep that going. If you don't have the athletes who have the story and carry the personality, the sport will go away. It’s our job to develop young guys, riders who can keep people interested in cycling and interested in their stories for whatever reason. People look at my story and you can say they’re interested because he’s a strong cyclist or because he’s a cancer survivor."
"Anytime you create a movement, it has to begin with a person," he continued. "Sports are no different. If you look at cycling and the characters and the personalities we've had in American cycling over the years, the sport has embedded and flowed with that. Similar to Tiger Woods and golf, Michael Jordan and basketball or Michael Schumacher and formula one racing. When you think of these sports, you think of these people."
I think people who don't know two sticks about cycling will fall for a good story or two, but cyclists who follow cycling look for and desperately desire substance and integrity. The fundemental question here is: Who's more important to the long term success of pro/amateur cycling: established cyclists or dweebs just looking for something to keep their attention for a few moments? If it's the dweebs (aka Joe Q. Public who solely watches cycling on television and the commercials therein, then the UCI should just say "everything goes" and forget the charade that is drug testing...
I don't have the answers here, but interested in some dialogue on the matter...
What licensed cyclists will admit to purchasing said license because of LA's return to competitive cycling? I readily know human beings as a species of animal act like lemmings from time-to-time, but do you buy this?
Interesting dialogue from Armstrong:
"Sports need people," said Armstrong. "It's important to have those stories so people pay attention. As teams and people involve in the sport, you gotta keep that going. If you don't have the athletes who have the story and carry the personality, the sport will go away. It’s our job to develop young guys, riders who can keep people interested in cycling and interested in their stories for whatever reason. People look at my story and you can say they’re interested because he’s a strong cyclist or because he’s a cancer survivor."
"Anytime you create a movement, it has to begin with a person," he continued. "Sports are no different. If you look at cycling and the characters and the personalities we've had in American cycling over the years, the sport has embedded and flowed with that. Similar to Tiger Woods and golf, Michael Jordan and basketball or Michael Schumacher and formula one racing. When you think of these sports, you think of these people."
I think people who don't know two sticks about cycling will fall for a good story or two, but cyclists who follow cycling look for and desperately desire substance and integrity. The fundemental question here is: Who's more important to the long term success of pro/amateur cycling: established cyclists or dweebs just looking for something to keep their attention for a few moments? If it's the dweebs (aka Joe Q. Public who solely watches cycling on television and the commercials therein, then the UCI should just say "everything goes" and forget the charade that is drug testing...
I don't have the answers here, but interested in some dialogue on the matter...