Why Do so Many People Dislike Lance Armstrong?

[Bro Deal]

P.S. Let's not validate his cycling career with his enormous contribution to cancer research. What he has done there is beyond reproach. I just don't believe one has anything to do with the other.

Armstrong's foundation does not fund cancer research. This is a widely held misconception. It is an information service that helps people with cancer understand their treatment options. Armstrong also uses it to line his own pockets.

 

[genedan]

I think it would be foolish not to be at least very suspicious when it comes to drugs and Armstrong - though I won't make any concrete conclusions unless he's caught red-handed.

A lot of people aren't a fan of his personality. Socially, he's ruthless. He has gone out of the way to belittle the competition - especially former teammates who have gone to compete against him during the Tour. Last year, he pretty much invited himself to the Astana Team demanding that its leader, the current best cyclist in the world, Contador, to move aside and let him assume leadership.

Furthermore, he's a very insecure person. He's not comfortable with threats to his dominance. When Contador bested him in the Tour he came up with all sorts of excuses - Contador wasn't following team orders, it was Contador's fault that Kloden wasn't on the podium...he just wouldn't respect the fact that Contador was a stronger rider at the time.

Away from the bike, he left his wife, just like his father did, to go date celebrities. He walked out on Sheryl Crow when she had breast cancer. He's well aware that he probably possess the genes for the typical Alpha-male, and has sired progeny that will likely behave the same way as him, his father, his father's father, and the father before him, perpetuating this kind of behavior for generations to come.

I'm not saying that any of this stuff is bad, but I'm just explaining why he's not liked by some people. He's done some good stuff of course, namely sponsoring local cycling teams via his bike shop.

 

[Yojimbo_]

And yet another thread degrades into a doping discussion.

Can't you guys take your tired old doping tales somewhere else? I'm getting awfully tired of reading the same old stuff from the same old jealous cycling wannabees.

And who says "so many people dislike Lance Armstrong"? Sure, a bunch of sorry old farts who live in their mother's basement and have nothing better to do than visit this forum and anonymously slander another person's reputation don't like him, but surely you don't think those sorry excuses for human beings are representative of the majority.

I've never the met Lance and I bet none of the whiners here have either so how can anyone realistically form an unfavourable opinion unless they are suffering from the cycling version of penis envy?

Hasn't Lance raised over $200 M to fund cancer research? That alone is sufficient for the guy to be considered someone special.

 

[slovakguy]

I've never the met Lance and I bet none of the whiners here have either so how can anyone realistically form an unfavourable opinion unless they are suffering from the cycling version of penis envy?

conversely, using your argument, to celebrate/support his efforts or form a favourable opinion one would also be required to have met him personally, right?

 

[roadhouse]

And yet another thread degrades into a doping discussion.

Can't you guys take your tired old doping tales somewhere else? I'm getting awfully tired of reading the same old stuff from the same old jealous cycling wannabees.

And who says "so many people dislike Lance Armstrong"? Sure, a bunch of sorry old farts who live in their mother's basement and have nothing better to do than visit this forum and anonymously slander another person's reputation don't like him, but surely you don't think those sorry excuses for human beings are representative of the majority.

I've never the met Lance and I bet none of the whiners here have either so how can anyone realistically form an unfavourable opinion unless they are suffering from the cycling version of penis envy?

Hasn't Lance raised over $200 M to fund cancer research? That alone is sufficient for the guy to be considered someone special.

his own cancer survival story makes him special, the foundation in which he has raised millions for research and that provides support for those in need make him extraordinary but at the end of it, if he's proven to be a liar and a doper, a fraud in the world of cycling, well then, you can't, as you are suggesting everyone do, very well just ignore that now can you, that fraud funding that cancer foundation if you really stop and think about it, that's how one can come up with an unfavorable opinion not to mention the points that genedan just made.


< snip >

 

[oldbobcat]

I disliked Armstrong from the moment I finished reading It's Not About the Bike, sometime before the 2004 Tour de France. In his own autobiography he comes off as selfish, unreflective, and uninterested in anybody who is not in any way connected to his career. While these traits are common to many endurance athletes, others who have written their stories have at least reflected on the damage their single-mindedness has inflicted on their friends and families.

Then there's the arrogance angle. To the press, unless he's promoting LiveStrong, he acts put upon and and cagey, and to those who are not total sycophants to his cause he acts dismissive.

While his riding in the Tour has always been outstanding, there has always been a thread of a shortage of class. Take, for example, his "gift" of the Ventoux stage to Marco Pantani in 2000. Armstrong relentlessly chased Pantani down, played cat and mouse with him for several kilometers before the summit, then very obviously backed off to let Pantani take the stage. Pantani was resentful at being allowed to win this way, and the more he talked about it, the more Lance talked about it. Lance began referring to his opponent as "Il Elephantino" (baby elephant), Pantani's childhood nickname that cruelly called attention to his large protruding ears, and telling everyone who would listen, "No more gifts."

Armstrong's latest examples of tackiness include his smarmy airing of team conflict over Twitter, announcing the formation of Team Radio Shack, and commandeering the last team car prior to Contador's start of the time trial during the 2009 Tour; and not being of much help to Horner and Leipheimer, and the "28" jersey stunt during the 2010 tour.

In contrast, Greg LeMond was adored by the press, especially the French, who loved his ebullient post race interviews and his attempts to learn French.

Yes, other champions have bestowed gifts. Indurain was generous, but the guy was so guileless his recipients were honored. Contador gave Rodriguez stage 12 in this year's Tour, but he made him work for it.

Yes, Cippolini was fined for his custom skinsuits, but always allowed to race, but it was done with humor and a sense of self-parody, as outrageous as wearing a singing-cowboy Nudie suit to a barn dance.

Am I saying other riders are without fault? Certainly not. But Armstrong's seven-year dominance of the Tour de France has given me time to let all of his traits that I dislike to fester. I'm glad it's finally over.

 

[Bro Deal]

Hasn't Lance raised over $200 M to fund cancer research? That alone is sufficient for the guy to be considered someone special.

I guess it is to be expected that the biggest chamois sniffers and doping apologists are also the most clueless. Armstrong's foundation does not fund research. It has never given $200 million, or anything remotely close to that, for cancer research.

 

[GT Fanatic]

Because he's an arrogant, cheating thug who has done untold harm to the sport I've been following for the past 25 years.

That good enough for you?

You need to do your own research. All the information you need is easily available online.

Your answer to his question is just packed with information and holds a ton of weight.

I think you hate him for the same reason everybody else does; because they will never be Lance Armstrong. As many times as he's won, if he was a "cheating thug," he would have been busted for it numerous times, or are you saying he gets a "free pass?"

People can say what they want about Lance Armstrong, but he's pushed the popularity of cycling to a new level. Everyone knows who he is, and what he does. Lance is no more a "cheating thug" than Contador or Schleck are.

 

[jhuskey]

Maybe the question should be "Why do so many people support Lance Armstrong while refusing to even consider that he may be guilty of doping?"

A lot of people, me included (U.S. citizen, by the way), have been following his career for years and are simply wary of all the doping allegations that have come and gone. Some accusations are incredible. Others are very credible. I would have to be a fool not to consider that a lot of this evidence over the years points to cheating. I'm also not foolish enough to believe that the only riders guilty of cheating are the ones who fail drug tests.

P.S. Let's not validate his cycling career with his enormous contribution to cancer research. What he has done there is beyond reproach. I just don't believe one has anything to do with the other.

His is a rags to riches story no matter how you perceive how he got there. It a classic story line used in feel good movies where the down and out underdog comes back in the end to live the dream. The only thing missing is a dog and an ailing grandmother about to loose the farm.
People eat this stuff up. Since a lot of people I know don't really follow cycling they ask me " how is our guy doing in the race'? My reply is," which guy is that"?
Most have no idea the names of other cyclists. Leipheimer has done a few TV ad but I bet you could ask 10 people on the street if they know who Levi Leipheimer is and you would get a puzzled look 9 out of 10 times.

 

[roadhouse]

Your answer to his question is just packed with information and holds a ton of weight.

I think you hate him for the same reason everybody else does; because they will never be Lance Armstrong. As many times as he's won, if he was a "cheating thug," he would have been busted for it numerous times, or are you saying he gets a "free pass?"

People can say what they want about Lance Armstrong, but he's pushed the popularity of cycling to a new level. Everyone knows who he is, and what he does. Lance is no more a "cheating thug" than Contador or Schleck are.

GT, do you not read the news at all? Not being mean but it is well known by now that Lance was the only rider in history to ever donate money to the governing body that tests for dope, his monies earned all being from fraud (heresay at the moment), his actions at the end of the day , as heroic as he once was, rivaling that of the Russian Mafia.

Before you retort, i was the biggest Lance Armstong fanatic you could find, ask anyone you can find, up until a few days ago. I didn't want to believe it either but all of it makes too much sense. If you go to the bike cafe and read the "What's Next For Lance?", I posted an article in there and you'll notice, if you read it, that Lance plays his cards well, his new criminal attorney (usually criminal attorneys are not needed unless you have something to criminally hide) used to work for or with the office in charge of Lance's investigation so who knows, he might just get off but to myself, he is a fraud and i can't stand him any longer.

and I can't stand the adds on this site with his ***** face lying, smug, arrogant ***** face staring right at me, please have them removed ASAP, Jhuskey...

 

[jhuskey]

GT, do you not read the news at all? Not being mean but it is well known by now that Lance was the only rider in history to ever donate money to the governing body that tests for dope, his monies earned all being from fraud (heresay at the moment), his actions at the end of the day , as heroic as he once was, rivaling that of the Russian Mafia.

Before you retort, i was the biggest Lance Armstong fanatic you could find, ask anyone you can find, up until a few days ago. I didn't want to believe it either but all of it makes too much sense. If you go to the bike cafe and read the "What's Next For Lance?", I posted an article in there and you'll notice, if you read it, that Lance plays his cards well, his new criminal attorney (usually criminal attorneys are not needed unless you have something to criminally hide) used to work for or with the office in charge of Lance's investigation so who knows, he might just get off but to myself, he is a fraud and i can't stand him any longer.

and I can't stand the adds on this site with his ***** face lying, smug, arrogant ***** face staring right at me, please have them removed ASAP, Jhuskey...

Does this mean you are gonna switch from Michelob Ultra? I must comment that anyone guilty or innocent would retain a crimminal attorney if they were possibly looking at criminal charges.
A real estate attorney would not be as effective.

 

[GT Fanatic]

GT, do you not read the news at all? Not being mean but it is well known by now that Lance was the only rider in history to ever donate money to the governing body that tests for dope, his monies earned all being from fraud (heresay at the moment), his actions at the end of the day , as heroic as he once was, rivaling that of the Russian Mafia.

Before you retort, i was the biggest Lance Armstong fanatic you could find, ask anyone you can find, up until a few days ago. I didn't want to believe it either but all of it makes too much sense. If you go to the bike cafe and read the "What's Next For Lance?", I posted an article in there and you'll notice, if you read it, that Lance plays his cards well, his new criminal attorney (usually criminal attorneys are not needed unless you have something to criminally hide) used to work for or with the office in charge of Lance's investigation so who knows, he might just get off but to myself, he is a fraud and i can't stand him any longer.

and I can't stand the adds on this site with his ***** face lying, smug, arrogant ***** face staring right at me, please have them removed ASAP, Jhuskey...

All I'm saying is that for being such a sh*tbag, he sure has a lot of fans.

Just because he donated money to the governing body that tests for dope doesn't mean a thing. He could have done it because he, like everyone else, is against doping in cycling, and with the money he earned, he chose to make a difference. Just because he donated money to them doesn't mean he was trying to buy them off.

As for Lance hiring a criminal attorney, I would have absolutely done the same thing, innocent or guilty.

He made his money through fraud? What fraud? He has 7 Tour de Frances under his belt and sponsors out the ass.

Look, for the record, I couldn't care less about Lance Armstrong, Andy Schleck, Alberto Contador, etc. 2 months ago, you could have asked me who Alberto Contador was and I would have told you he was an up and coming Formula 1 driver. I would have told you Andy Schleck was a pro baseball player. Why? Because they're names just sound like that's what they do.

As much as I like riding a bike and like automobiles, I couldn't care less about the sport of cycling or motorsports. I'm not competing, I'm not sponsored, and I'm not paid to care. At the end of the day, I'd just like to hope Lance is innocent, just because he's such a positive face for sports and Americans in general. If he's guilty, it will just be another case of Americans looking bad to the rest of the world.

My personal opinion? I think he's the next Barry Bonds. He will vehemently deny any steroid use whatsoever, and will fight any tests that are required. In the end, I think Lance is going to burn in flames.

On the other hand, he's fighting a lose-lose battle. He hasn't even been tested or investigated as of yet and people are already rolling him out on the carpet. He's already been tried and convicted by public opinion, or at least by the members of cyclingforums.com. No matter if the man is innocent or guilty, there are going to be those who point fingers and say, "HE BOUGHT THEM OFF!"

 

[Ted B]

He's already been tried and convicted by public opinion, or at least by the members of cyclingforums.com. No matter if the man is innocent or guilty, there are going to be those who point fingers and say, "HE BOUGHT THEM OFF!"

That is because this forum is sprinkled with those who would like to see him sent downriver, regardless if he is innocent or guilty. I'll reserve my judgment until I feel all is said and done. If he's doped at one time or another, he joins a long list: Cyclists Implicated by Doping). If he's proven to have doped at some point, let him have his 2-year ban and be forgiven like everyone else.

Innocent or guilty, he's done far more to raise awareness and financial contributions to a worthy cause than everyone in this forum X 10.

 

[GT Fanatic]

That is because this forum is sprinkled with those who would like to see him sent downriver, regardless if he is innocent or guilty. I'll reserve my judgment until I feel all is said and done. If he's doped at one time or another, he joins a long list: Cyclists Implicated by Doping). If he's proven to have doped at some point, let him have his 2-year ban and be forgiven like everyone else.

Innocent or guilty, he's done far more to raise awareness and financial contributions to a worthy cause than everyone in this forum X 10.

This is true. Every day this forum's starting to look more and more like another "bikeforums.net," hence the reason I started my own...

I look at it this way; Bill Clinton smoked up, GWB snorted coke, New Gengrich cheated on his spouse, etc. There ain't anybody alive who have a clean slate. We've all made mistakes.

 

[Bro Deal]

This is true. Every day this forum's starting to look more and more like another "bikeforums.net," hence the reason I started my own...

I look at it this way; Bill Clinton smoked up, GWB snorted coke, New Gengrich cheated on his spouse, etc. There ain't anybody alive who have a clean slate. We've all made mistakes.

Very few people have made the "mistake" of travelling the country and the world lying to people with terminal disease to make money for themselves. That is a Bernie Madoff-like mistake.

 

[lance_armstrong]

That is because this forum is sprinkled with those who would like to see him sent downriver, regardless if he is innocent or guilty. I'll reserve my judgment until I feel all is said and done. If he's doped at one time or another, he joins a long list: Cyclists Implicated by Doping). If he's proven to have doped at some point, let him have his 2-year ban and be forgiven like everyone else.

I'll admit that there are quite a few 'adamant' Lance Haters on this forum. However, I think you need to give a little credit to the other naysayers, including myself, who have watched his career with great interest for more than a decade. It's not such a bad thing to hear a lot of the attacks against Lance (and others) for several years and asking yourself, "I wonder what's behind that report?". That's part of being what I consider a true fan of the sport. Looking at the good and the bad, and forming your own opinions about what's going on in professional cycling.

The straw that broke the camel's back for me, as far as Lance is concerned, is what he did to Filippo Simeoni in the '94 TDF. Chasing down Simeoni's breakaway and forcing him to return to the peleton because Simeoni testified in court against Dr. Ferrari was a ridiculous show of arrogance and manipulation. Can anyone actually defend what he did to Simeoni that day? I didn't need to read the opinions of the cycling media to know that what I saw that day was inexcusable.

 

[slovakguy]

I look at it this way; Bill Clinton smoked up, GWB snorted coke, New Gengrich cheated on his spouse, etc. There ain't anybody alive who have a clean slate. We've all made mistakes.

all well and true. as a matter of fact, we all have "sinned". but we must draw the line at the hypocritical ones, right? those that have been busted and still maintain that they are the moral arbiters of society have to be scorned, right? there has to be some line which we demand not be crossed. but read that gq article brodeal linked and imagine how the lie has imprisoned armstrong.

 

[jhuskey]

The sentiments about Armstrong have not changed much on the forum over the years ,only some of the names of those expressing an opinion have. Some like some don't and some are indifferent.
He is no doubt in the top two subjects that garner impassioned responses and raise blood pressure.

 

[tonyzackery]

I disliked Armstrong from the moment I finished reading It's Not About the Bike, sometime before the 2004 Tour de France. In his own autobiography he comes off as selfish, unreflective, and uninterested in anybody who is not in any way connected to his career. While these traits are common to many endurance athletes, others who have written their stories have at least reflected on the damage their single-mindedness has inflicted on their friends and families.

This is basically my summation of him as a person as well. I don't dislike him as I don't know him personally, but find him easily dislikable.

There are many justifable reasons for him to have this view of others (childhood, education, etc...), but he's an adult capable of making choices. IMO, he chooses to use people and if he has no "use" for you, you are no longer in the 'inner circle', and that makes him dislikable...

 

[GT Fanatic]

Very few people have made the "mistake" of travelling the country and the world lying to people with terminal disease to make money for themselves. That is a Bernie Madoff-like mistake.

Have you forgotten so quickly that Lance himself had a "terminal" disease? It just so happens that his was cured. He started a foundation called, "Livestrong." To my knowledge, that's a foundation for cancer research and support, not his personal gain.