Why Do so Many People Dislike Lance Armstrong?

[GT Fanatic]

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.

Now, I don't follow the sport of cycling, know the rules, nor do I care to, but when someone is breaking away and you chase them down, IMO, that's called "out-powered." I don't see how you can "force" someone to back off from a break-away, so someone will just have to explain this one to me. Personally, I would have told Lance to kiss my ass and if he wants to race, we'll race, but I'm not backing off.

 

[jhuskey]

Lance broke no rules chasing him down, it is one of those etiquette considerations and was not necessary for him to do it at the time since Simeoni was of no threat.
It was perceived to be a payback by some.

 

[Bro Deal]

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.

It is not a foundation for cancer research. After building the Livestrong brandname on the backs of cancer patients, Armstrong sold the rights to Demand Media for personal profit. He has deliberately confused people with the for profit .com site and not for profit .org site.

 

[roadhouse]

The test that was used is the same test that is used today. The results are valid. Just because they cannot be used to sanction a rider does not erase the fact that there was artificial EPO in Armstrong's urine. He is a doper. At the time the UCI produced a bogus "indepedent" study about Armstrong's EPO use, Armstrong gave the UCI a large under the table payment. That so called study is now the object of redicule. The AFLD stands by the results and offered Armstrong a chance to have the samples retested. Armstrong refused because he knows that the results would again show that he was using EPO.

i will have to disagree with you and strongly that the tests are accurate and valid to a percentage of anywhere near 100%. i will agree with you, however, that Lance is a doper.

 

[Ted B]

The Livestrong Foundation is a 501(c)(3) not-for-profit organization. Livestrong.com is a separate, virtual entity that displays health tips, sells advertising, and provides a portal to the non-profit foundation. If LA builds value in the "Livestrong" trademark and profits from that, I find nothing wrong with it. It doesn't affect the non-profit status of the cancer foundation. Another example is Ronald McDonald House, which is a non-profit organization associated with McDonalds - an obviously profitible entity.

 

[roadhouse]

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.

the US money that went into his pockets that funded his doping is going to land him much harder and much more serious and in my eyes a much more deserved federal imprisonment sentence.

 

[roadhouse]

i can hope it does at least.

 

[slovakguy]

The Livestrong Foundation is a 501(c)(3) not-for-profit organization. Livestrong.com is a separate, virtual entity that displays health tips, sells advertising, and provides a portal to the non-profit foundation. If LA builds value in the "Livestrong" trademark and profits from that, I find nothing wrong with it. It doesn't affect the non-profit status of the cancer foundation. Another example is Ronald McDonald House, which is a non-profit organization associated with McDonalds - an obviously profitible entity.

i'd hazard a bet that when you walk into mcdonald's for a burger, you are aware you are not staying with your ill child at a ronald mcdonald's house, and that when you take your sick child for a burger, you are aware you are leaving the ronald mcdonald's house and going to a mcdonald's. armstrong has been dancing on the edge of credibility with the dot-com dot-org confusion.

 

[Ted B]

It doesn't matter. The livestrong.com site is neither soliciting nor overtly selling anything. It's a site loaded with free advice and articles concerning health, fitness, diet, etc. If its intellectual property (trademark) has earned value due to its association, hit potential and advertising exposure, that makes it just another in many thousands. There is nothing confusing or unethical about that.

Should livestrong.com suddenly solicit money, for profit, in the name of LA, that's a different story. That almost certainly will not happen.

 

[roadhouse]

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.

but, but i thought he had "nothing to hide" and that it was just "his word against ours"?

you're right, it just struck me as odd but again, a well played move on his ***** ass part to hire a now criminal defense attorney that worked with the office of the investigators. hopefully he was fired.

 

[roadhouse]

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!"

him donating money to UCI could very well be nothing more than just that or it could be a deal with the devil, money all around for all of them. You know those test results i was talking about regarding Floyd? well what if you have some samples that belonged to the person who 'donated' $125,000 that came out positive the first time around ? no two test results of the exact same sample are ever exactly the same, case in point Floyd and his first test being 4.9 to 1 and his second result of the exact same sample only the b sample (one urine cup filled and contents split into two samples) came out 11.4 to 1, so for Lance they could very well be 'tested' again until one result comes out in the negative range thus letting him off the hook, a part of that $125,000 paying for the retesting as the tests are not cheap.

or something, just a thought.

i guess don't believe in any of it any longer, only believe that greed and deceit is all we as the human race have left to rely on.

btw, the Menendez Brothers had thousands of fans as well.

The Menendez Brothers, notorious killers of their parents truTV's Crime Library — Prelude — Crime Library on truTV.com

 

[roadhouse]

$125,000 could also pay for a lot of mislabeling.

in a nutshell, I can't stand Lance any longer because i do believe he accumulated his wealth via lies of atmospheric proportions, for being an asshat to his team mates, pretty much in the terms of those bikes being sold to fund his own doping program so as to be able to keep his own money along with the fact that he didn't apparently want to give his team mates bikes to train on so as he would be the fastest on the team, for his cycling team to give their newcomers second rate bikes that broke on them in the sprints thus putting them out of contention (and possibly costing them severe bodily harm to which i'm sure he would've said, "it's bike racing, it happens", but i've never seen or heard of one of his chain stays break on his always brand new and cared for bikes), for not allowing Franky back on his team or any other team after he testified and thus ending a cyclists career, for showing others how to dope, introducing them to the world of cheating and then sitting back and watching their lives fall apart without remorse when they were caught and for denying it all and last but not least and the worst of it all, for making me believe in the human race, for giving me hope, making me believe he was innocent.

Now I want to see him in prison.

Just think, had he not doped, he might not have taken a certain Worlds Elitist cross racer that I know who led Lance and the entire field but for the last 10-20 seconds...just an afterthought.

Who knows about Leadville any longer or the many other races Lance was in and dominated? all of them null and void in my eyes.

Phucktard.

 

[Yojimbo_]

if you want to make a sensible addition to the thread then do so but i'd watch who you speak to in that tone boy, it may be the last time you are physically able to talk.

Har har - do you realize how silly that statement is? Anonymous threats to another anonymous person on a bike forum.

 

[Yojimbo_]

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?

Actually, one can admire someone for their accomplishments or not admire them for other reasons. But "liking" or "disliking" someone is rather more personal.

 

[roadhouse]

Har har - do you realize how silly that statement is? Anonymous threats to another anonymous person on a bike forum.

I suspect you have the IQ of a mouse.

krist, get lost.

 

[Yojimbo_]

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.

Talk about clueless. I didn't mention his foundation in my post.

I'll bet he's raised a thousand times more for research than your sorry ass has. Surely you can agree with that.

 

[Yojimbo_]

krist, get lost.

Ouch, that one really cuts deep.

 

[slovakguy]

Actually, one can admire someone for their accomplishments or not admire them for other reasons. But "liking" or "disliking" someone is rather more personal.

never one to shy away from pedantic arguments, but your words are not suited well to this task. this is at base the same argument that said, "sure, mussolini was a terrible person, but he made those trains run on time." closer to the usa, in austin, texas you can find a statue of jefferson davis. nowhere does it mention that he served a cause to promote and maintain slavery on that pedestal. were it not for the history lessons taught to me in pennsylvania, i might just figure that j.d. was a great guy, so long as you've suppressed that bit about slavery and fighting a war.

simply put, we all form our opinions on others based more on what they do than who they are at their core. my dislike for armstrong is based on the manner in which he treated/treats other people, from the outsiders (like the kid in california he pushed down because the kid taunted him with a syringe pitchfork or the bouncers at la zona rosa whom armstrong lambasted for not knowing who he is) to those who once formed his inner circle (ex-wife, s.c., frankie and betsy andreu, et. al.). in short, if i were ever (and it is highly unlikely) given the chance to "hang out" with lance, i'd decline the opportunity. like it or not, it is in the end just my opinion.

 

[pennstater]

I understand why so many people dislike Lance. Regardless of his drug use, which I'm inclined to believe happened, he has done a lot of good for a lot of people. But Lets face it, most prolific riders, and LA is the MOST prolific rider, have doped and those that have gotten caught served their time accordingly and some even had a life-time ban. I think the reason people dislike Lance with such vigor is because they believe he has skated and gotten away with drug use that he vehemently denied for years, which has rubbed many cycling fans the wrong way.

I can't say that is the only reason that people dislike Armstrong; he tip-toes a fine line of confidence and cockiness that people tend to find unbecoming.

Another reason and these can all be a synergistic affect with the above points, in his popular dislike, is that fact that he has been a prolific winner in the biggest bike race in the world. Lets say, for instance, Jan Ulrich won in 2003 and Zulle or Escartin won in 1999, or Basso in 05'. The point is he won 7 tours with little competition (other than 03) in each win. There is a reason that people hate the Yankees, and that is because they have won a bit too much. I don't know about all of you but I got bored with the same GC winner year after year, but to no fault of his own. If he only got 4 wins in the tour, which would still make him the greatest tour rider in years, I don't think there would be nearly as much dislike for the Texan.

Those are just my opinions on the reasons people dislike him. I was in awe of the man at the beginning of his come back, but my lack of respect for him is the fact that I believe he doped and hasn't been punished like other riders, such as Vino, Heras, Mancebo, Basso and the countless other riders that have paid the price for their decisions to dope.

 

[GT Fanatic]

Okay, everyone is right, Lance Armstrong is the antichrist. He is an evil being sent from Hell to trick us all, and then destroy us.

I don't know the guy on a personal level, and it's doubtful anyone else participating in this thread does, so in the end, and in the grand scheme of things, we're all just hypothesizing and talking out our asses. Is he a dirtbag? Maybe. Is he not a dirtbag? Maybe.