Yet Another Cycling Forum
General Category => Freewheeling => Racing => Topic started by: gonzo on 19 July, 2009, 10:07:54 pm
-
Before the race I was a real Lance hater - he made the race incredibly dull. Now we're seeing him not winning anything he wants. On top of that, his media interaction is quite amusing.
I'm actually beginning to warm to him now.
How about the rest of you?
-
Gonz, the word you're looking for is "gloat".
-
I sort of liked the guy, but his return to the race annoyed me: let retirement be retirement, and don't come back and try to upset things for everyone else. Still, I respect his uber-driven nature, combined with an actual sense of humour.
-
He's eaten a lot of shit over the last 2 weeks, apologising to Sastre and Vande Velde for his disparaging comments about them. Tonight he is twittering about not having the high end power to keep up with the contenders. I think he has added a dimension to this tour.
-
No.
I've always thought him to be a decent chap. I remember Greg LeMond. He was always portrayed as an arrogant yank until after he retired and everyone seemed to like him more, or perhaps dislike him less.
I think the media attack him and it passes on to how people think of him.
My gut feeling tells me that he'll help Contador as much as he can. A team victory would still be a victory to him, if he believes all that he's said in the past.
I wouldn't be at all surprised if he has at least one attack in a mountain stage of his own up his sleeve. Even if he doesn't take Contador with him. Lance is a poker player and I wouldn't be surprised if he hasn't totaly given up on a Tour win.
Is he on drugs?
I don't think so, but if he is, I doubt that he's worse than any other.
-
No, but it wasn't a particularly high one in the first place.
I never liked the way he has concentrated solely on the Tour.
I don't like the way that has influenced people who have been attracted to cycling and think that the Tour (and Armstrong) are the be all and end all.
I don't think he conducted himself appropriately in his retirement with his comments about other riders, or the modestly titled biography "Lance Armstrong: The World's Greatest Champion"
I don't believe his motives for coming back to racing. I suspect he thought he would come back and kick arse.
I hope he quits, shuts up and lets other people have their time at the top.
-
I've always been an Armstrong fan and I'm hoping there may yet be a twist in the
tail tale
-
I don't think he conducted himself appropriately in his retirement with his comments about other riders, or the modestly titled biography "Lance Armstrong: The World's Greatest Champion"
How do you feel about Muhammad "I am the Greatest" Ali?
Isn't it just about salesmanship? I think it's just how the americans do things. Ever listened to Don King promoting a boxing bout?
It does fly in the face of our British stiff upper lip.
I don't know his comments about other riders.
I also heard that Mark Cavendish made some pretty nast comments in his book "Boy Racer"
Is he just as bad as Lance?
Cavendish comes accross to me as a sore loser. (which amuses me :))
-
Ali was the greatest boxer ever. Lance is merely the greatest TdF rider. And what's more, that's all he set out to be. I echo the comments about how he has built a career on one event, and how that has changed the sport to a certain degree.
I also consider him a hypocrite. All the evidence points to him taking EPO in 99, and yet he not only denies it (fair enough - many do and he didn't get caught) but then goes on about others who admitted it or were caught... And Kimmage has a fair point about him bringing the omerta culture back into the sport this year.
I think his return is about ego, it's distracted from the racing (and the press from the achievements of Cav and Wiggins) and I wish he'd just stayed retired.
I can see the champs elysees headlines now (whoever wins the race/stage) - "Lance Armstrong retires again". ::-)
-
Yes it has. I quite liked him when he won the worlds and before was diagnosed with cancer. His 7 wins, the way he dulled the tour, his disrespect for the sport and his arrogance changed my view of him. I was glad when he retired first time.
-
I don't think he conducted himself appropriately in his retirement with his comments about other riders, or the modestly titled biography "Lance Armstrong: The World's Greatest Champion"
How do you feel about Muhammad "I am the Greatest" Ali?
Isn't it just about salesmanship? I think it's just how the americans do things. Ever listened to Don King promoting a boxing bout?
It does fly in the face of our British stiff upper lip.
I don't know his comments about other riders.
I also heard that Mark Cavendish made some pretty nast comments in his book "Boy Racer"
Is he just as bad as Lance?
Cavendish comes accross to me as a sore loser. (which amuses me :))
Ali, as Duncan has said, was the greatest. He was undisputed heavyweight champion of the world and what he said (in the present tense) was accurate at the time. He was also in a sport where such hyperbole is the norm.
Armstrong, Greatest Champion Ever - greater than Hinault, Coppi, Anquetil, Merckx ? Even he knows there are plenty who would dispute that. Plenty who would dispute that he might not have won the seven Tours had he ridden seriously in other races like the people to whom he compares himself.
He is in a sport where modesty and accessibility even among great champions is the typical behaviour. Perhaps he thinks boxing-style hyperbole is appropriate but that would be just another example of his disregard for the traditions.
The thread was about opinions of Armstrong so I don't see why Cavendish or anyone else comes into it.
His comments about others were that basically last year's Tour was crap and he would have walked it. I think of Vande Velde he said something like "Nice guy but 5th in the Tour de France, come on !" IIRC he had more to say about Sastre and others as well in a similar vein.
Retired top-dogs, like retired Prime Ministers, need to basically shut up for a few years or at least avoid making direct and unfavourable comments about their successors. Greg LeMond is another example of someone who has steadily chiseled away at his own dignity and credibility by becoming a grumpy old champion.
-
Before the race I was a real Lance hater - he made the race incredibly dull. Now we're seeing him not winning anything he wants. On top of that, his media interaction is quite amusing.
I'm actually beginning to warm to him now.
How about the rest of you?
I never disliked* him ... but I did get bored of his effect on the Tour. (Some of that was down to the competition - most of them just raced each other for 2nd, which made it even easier for him).
I have warmed to him this year though. It's a brave step setting himself up to be knocked down like this. He must have known it could happen, he's not daft. It would have been easier to walk away undefeated.
But it ain't over yet - there's still time for a come back, or to act like a tit in defeat.
(*I really admire the guy, but I reckon he'd be awful company!)
-
No. He's a hero of mine.
What he's done in life and on the tour is extraordinary.
Wait 30 years and ask Joe Public to name 10 cyclists from over 10 years ago.
They'll only be able to name 1 (and they will all be able to name him still).
Common complains:
1) He's arrogant.
Is he? I never heard him being arrogant on any interview I watched, quite the opposite in fact. I HAVE however heard lesser cyclists coming across as spoilt brats (Evans and Cavendish to name but 2) and nobody seems to mind.
2) He focussed on the TdF.
Well, that's what it takes to win 7 consecustive TdFs I guess. The fella was nearly dead and then recovers to win 7 tours.
If he's arrogant and over-confident then I forgive him, it's probbaly justified.
-
Lee, ask Joe Public to name 3 road cyclists now. They won't be able to. They certainly won't be able to in 3 weeks when the Tour is over and cycling coverage in this country is over for another year.
It's all to do with hype and the fact that in this country (and the US), we only care about the Tour. So that Armstrong never rode the Giro until last year doesn't matter, that he didn't ride the worlds for a number of years while winning the tour doesn't matter, etc. It's an intelligent commercial decision to maximise his chances of winning the tour, making money and keeping a well funded team around him. It's not the decision of the greatest champion ever. It doesn't lessen my admiration for what he has achieved. It does make me feel that the likes of Merckx are greater champions (and that's within the same sport, there are others elsewhere)...
-
Yes, my opinion of Lance has changed a bit. But that was started by his appearance in, and good ride in, the Giro.
I used to dislike him. He was a hotshot and he knew it. And never really rode anything but the Tour. But he's mellowed, and I think he's a good patron for the Tour. I don't think he can win it, but I believe he can make a podium finish, which is pretty remarkable.
-
I like Lance. True, there have been elements to his character in the past within the TdF, that many of us find we dislike. I suppose a lot of people who are so driven, are like (or find they become) so.
Anyway, I really like Cancelara. What a happy sort of chap he is.
-
Ali was the greatest boxer ever. Lance is merely the greatest TdF rider.
Ali was only the greatest heavyweight boxer of his time. I've heard boxing experts on radio all agree that he wasn't the greatest heavyweight boxer of all time. Some said he wasn't even great, just very very good.
Like Lance Armstrong, who I think we all agree isn't the greatest champion, even greatest cyclist is similar to Muhammad Ali, in that Muhammad Ali wasn't the greatest fighter. He specialised in boxing. No kick boxing or martial arts. Just boxing and only as a heavyweight. Ali was "merely the greatest heavyweight boxer" of his time.
He is in a sport where modesty and accessibility even among great champions is the typical behaviour. Perhaps he thinks boxing-style hyperbole is appropriate but that would be just another example of his disregard for the traditions.
I think that's why he's disliked as much as he is. We're just not used to this "bigging yourself up" business. I think that the hyperbole of boxing all originated from Ali, or at least he certainly moved it on in a very big way. That's another reason I like Lance so much. I think what he is doing has and will cotinue to bring cycling more into the public eye and increase it's popularity.
If it is in fact done in disregard of tradition, is it really so bad if it moves cycling forward?
Is it so very wrong to do things his way?
Why is the traditional way better?
-
Ali was the greatest boxer ever. Lance is merely the greatest TdF rider.
Ali was only the greatest heavyweight boxer of his time. I've heard boxing experts on radio all agree that he wasn't the greatest heavyweight boxer of all time. Some said he wasn't even great, just very very good.
Like Lance Armstrong, who I think we all agree isn't the greatest champion, even greatest cyclist is similar to Muhammad Ali, in that Muhammad Ali wasn't the greatest fighter. He specialised in boxing. No kick boxing or martial arts. Just boxing and only as a heavyweight. Ali was "merely the greatest heavyweight boxer" of his time.
I've never heard a panel of experts who agree that Ali wasn't the greatest ever heavyweight. The other name people put forward is Rocky Marciano, and you won't get unanimity in that. I don't understand what other weights have to do with it. ??? No-one goes down the weights, especially if they are a natural heavyweight as a teenager. And Ali's competition was awesome. Lance's competition was a fat Ullrich. As for MMA, that's about as accurate as saying that Lance sucks at track and mountain biking.
He is in a sport where modesty and accessibility even among great champions is the typical behaviour. Perhaps he thinks boxing-style hyperbole is appropriate but that would be just another example of his disregard for the traditions.
I think that's why he's disliked as much as he is. We're just not used to this "bigging yourself up" business. I think that the hyperbole of boxing all originated from Ali, or at least he certainly moved it on in a very big way. That's another reason I like Lance so much. I think what he is doing has and will cotinue to bring cycling more into the public eye and increase it's popularity.
If it is in fact done in disregard of tradition, is it really so bad if it moves cycling forward?
Is it so very wrong to do things his way?
Why is the traditional way better?
Because IMO he's not bringing cycling anywhere. He's just focusing all the attention, and all the money into 1 race. So if you can't get into the TdF, it's enormously difficult to get sponsorship. And if you can't compete financially with his team, you can't think about winning the tour. I think he damaged the rest of the sport. Who else rode the odd classic as a training ride? Who else stopped racing after the Tour?
We've seen how much better the racing has been, and how much more uncertainty there has been at the Tour since he left. The only public eye difference in the time I've been watching the Tour (pre-post Lance) is that it's moved from being half an hour on Channel 4 every evening, to being an hour on ITV4. That's not progress or increased popularity.
Edit to say that this tour, and especially after yesterday's stage (just watched the highlights) he's generally been smart and sensible, and in credit with me. I think that at the start his ego was writing cheques his body couldn't cash, but he's now accepted that. So kudos to him for that, especially if he rides for Contador from here on in...
-
Well I have slagged of Lance many times on this forum and it's predecessors. But not this time, I'm impressed all round with his attitude and his behaviour this time, and not just because he can't win. Even the French TV aren't giving him a hard time or delighting in his playing second fiddle to Contador. No thumbs up for Lance this time.
-
This year has seen more press and tv coverage for the tour in the uk than I can remember,this is probably down to the Lance effect and and the GB successes ,so thats no bad thing ,I respect what he has done in coming back this year ,but I really dont want him to win,it demeans the race as it becomes the Tour de Lance and nobody should be bigger than the competition.
-
I also believe that Lance Armstrong played his part to popularise cycling in the early 21st Century. I don't think he would have had such an impact had he not recovered from cancer, I mean had he not had cancer in the first place and subsequently recovered. That's what got him the publicity in 1999 and captured the interest of the general public. Simply winning the Tour de France soon becomes tomorrows fish and chip paper. Obviously this latest comeback generated some publicity for the Tour de France too which is important.
-
Lance's recognition that he his no longer the best has reinforced my respect for the man.
-
I've never heard a panel of experts who agree that Ali wasn't the greatest ever heavyweight. The other name people put forward is Rocky Marciano, and you won't get unanimity in that.
I have. Rocky Marciano was one of their favoured boxers, plus several from the early 20th century.
I don't understand what other weights have to do with it. ??? No-one goes down the weights, especially if they are a natural heavyweight as a teenager. And Ali's competition was awesome.
Different weights need a slightly different style. It's quite common for some boxers to fight at a heavier weight category then slim down to fight at a lighter weight. A lot of boxing fans prefer lightweight boxing because they say it is more skilled.
I appreciate that comparing one sport to another is deeply flawed, but my point is that Muhammad Ali used to publicly mickey take and name call his opponents and claim to be the greatest and everyone seemed to like him. But Lance makes a few comments and he's an arrogant so and so. I personally think that a lot of that comes from media spin.
I see Lance on par with Muhammad Ali. Both have their advantages over each other and are very diferent in some ways. That's just my opinion though.
Lance's competition was a fat Ullrich.
Blimey! you're 'avin a go at Ullrich now! ;D I think that Ullrich was a very worthy oponent and made Lance suffer an awful lot. I'm sure that Lance has the upmost respect for Ullrich. Merckx thought that Ullrich was a very impressive rider. Some think it an injustice that such a talented rider who was a worthy TDF winner had Lance as his opponent.
As for MMA, that's about as accurate as saying that Lance sucks at track and mountain biking
I agree, comparing fighting to cycling is very crude. But Merckx was an excellent trackie (I rate Merckx well above Lance and M Ali) Lance did some mountain biking too. Not as good a mountain biker as Merckx was a trackie, but still very good.
As above, I was more trying to compare the public image of M Ali to Lance because I see similarities between the two.
[/quote]
Because IMO he's not bringing cycling anywhere.
Fair enough. I dissagree. I remember seeing his image in a post office while touring America in 2004. I think that he as made a significant impact on cycling in America. I could of course be very wrong.
He's just focusing all the attention, and all the money into 1 race.
Well, I suppse he would do as he is very focused on the TDF and hs fans follow where he goes. Does that indicate that he's got people interested in ccling who ouldn't noramlly be? I think it does. And if so, I think that is good for cycling as it may inspire people to go and try riding a bike. From there, they can explore cycling for themselves.
So if you can't get into the TdF, it's enormously difficult to get sponsorship.
It is, is that really all because of Lance?
And if you can't compete financially with his team, you can't think about winning the tour.
Dunno? Money certainly helps and there is a minimum cost. Isn't that just the way it's all going? It's all controlled by capitalism. (That's why I like Graeme Obree, he flew in the face of it all)
I think he damaged the rest of the sport. Who else rode the odd classic as a training ride? Who else stopped racing after the Tour?
Who else? Nobody that I know. That's another reason I respect Lance. Any other rider could have done it the Lance Armstrong way. But who was confident enough to base theirentire season on just one race? Not just any race, but the most prestigious in the world. I think that's a very ballsy thing to do. Maybe some would call it arrogant?
Cycling is changing. The TDF is avery different race to it's original. Cyclists are becoming more specialised and there are new types of cycling developing. I think that Lance is ahead of his time. Merckx rode (and won) everything. But if there was an Eddy Merckx clone riding now, he couldn't do it because there are too many events.
We've seen how much better the racing has been, and how much more uncertainty there has been at the Tour since he left.
Another reason I admire him. To seemingly systematically win such a race is nothing short of awesome to me.
The only public eye difference in the time I've been watching the Tour (pre-post Lance) is that it's moved from being half an hour on Channel 4 every evening, to being an hour on ITV4. That's not progress or increased popularity.
But this is England, his domain is America really. Besides, media coverage is all about the allmighty dollar. It has to compete with popularist programmes and much more popular sports such as football.
At least as a non TV owner, I can watch it on the net. This is the first tour I've watched (from last week) for over a decade.
Edit to say that this tour, and especially after yesterday's stage (just watched the highlights) he's generally been smart and sensible, and in credit with me. I think that at the start his ego was writing cheques his body couldn't cash, but he's now accepted that. So kudos to him for that, especially if he rides for Contador from here on in...
I don't think it was about an ego trip. I just don't think that he thinks in that way.
Kudos to you too for being open minded. :thumbsup:
-
Tomorrow is an opportunity for Lance. Voigt has crashed out. He was essentially the leader of the peleton. Armstrong was the 'Patron' for many of his tours. Voigt's role was to control the Tour so that it kept together. An emotional highpoint of Tour history was the stage after the death of Fabio Casartelli in 1995, when his Motorola team rode over the line together in front of the Peleton. Lance won the next stage, his first in the Tour, the day after. With the memory of that incident, Lance could transform himself from a contender into a champion of his fellow riders. He has the status within the peleton to prolong his career by adopting Voigt's role, regulating the pace on the front over the early part of the stages and liaising between the Tour organisation and the riders. Much will depend on how seriously Voigt is seen to be hurt. Riders will be suspiscious of Armstrong wanting to muscle in too soon. If Lance gets it right he can ride 5 more tours in his new role as a respected elder statesman. We need to see how much riding up and down the peleton Lance does tomorrow.
Damon.
-
You don't think at 2nd in the GC he would still rather ride for a win ? If Contador punctures or crashes tomorrow Lance could overtake him.
-
I still wouldn't be surprised to see Lance launch an attack either with or without Contador. After all, Contador is in a strong position, riding well, outclassing everyone and doesn't appear to be under serious threat.
-
Lee, ask Joe Public to name 3 road cyclists now. They won't be able to. They certainly won't be able to in 3 weeks when the Tour is over and cycling coverage in this country is over for another year.
It's all to do with hype and the fact that in this country (and the US), we only care about the Tour. So that Armstrong never rode the Giro until last year doesn't matter, that he didn't ride the worlds for a number of years while winning the tour doesn't matter, etc. It's an intelligent commercial decision to maximise his chances of winning the tour, making money and keeping a well funded team around him. It's not the decision of the greatest champion ever. It doesn't lessen my admiration for what he has achieved. It does make me feel that the likes of Merckx are greater champions (and that's within the same sport, there are others elsewhere)...
I never even mentioned "who is the greatest champion ever", you brought that up.
Ask the UK public to name 3 road cyclists now and they will name Lance Armstrong, perhaps Wiggins or Cavendish (if you ask them in the next 10 days) but they will name Lance Armstrong. Ask them again in 10 years and they will name Armstrong.
He's transcended cycling like Ali transcended boxing. Like him or loathe him, he's now bigger than the sport of cycling. He's achieved legendary status.
Until someone wins 8 TdFs people will always name Armstrong because his record will be mentioned throughout every TdF until they do.
7 consecutive TdF victories !! It gives me pleasure just to know that that annoys some people (is that so wrong of me?)
DuncanM. You think Lance just beat a fat Ulrich? What, for 7 years he just had to beat a fat Ulrich?That's just showing a complete ignorance of the sport and devalues any of your other observations.
I'm telling you that ANY other road cyclist would trade ANY other events if they could guarantee 7 consecutive TdFs. the reason they don't (as TG points out) is that they are trying to mitigate thier losses, they haven't got the confidence to hang their entire season on one race.
Many athletes target a specific event at the expense of others.
My main gripe though, with all the bile spouted about lance's arrogance, is that I have never heard him being anything but gracious or honest.
Can someone give me a link to a Youtube video of him being an arse?
PS. When I was about 11 I, like many millions of other people, used to set their alarms for the early hours just so we could watch Muhammad Ali fight for the World title on TV.
When Muhammad Ali fought it was a global event.
When Muhammad Ali appeared on "Parkinson" it was a national event.
Lance is good, Lance is a legend but he's no Muhammad Ali.
For those that think Muhammad Ali was just a great boxer I suggest you do some research.
PS. I have 3 framed photos in my home office.
Fred Dibnah
Lance Armstrong
Muhammad Ali
My "Hero's Wall" is a work in progress.
-
I have. Rocky Marciano was one of their favoured boxers, plus several from the early 20th century.
It says something to me that people will rate a boxer that they have neveer seen above one who they have, and who did things not done before. Remember, there are people within boxing who dislike Ali, especially for what he did refusing the draft and becoming muslim. But maybe that's another parallel with Lance. ;)
Different weights need a slightly different style. It's quite common for some boxers to fight at a heavier weight category then slim down to fight at a lighter weight. A lot of boxing fans prefer lightweight boxing because they say it is more skilled.
Sure, it's about more than just 1 punch at the lower divisions. You get far fewer bangers at the lower divisions, and they get found out more frequently (Hatton maybe being a case in point). Ali was a boxer, not a banger though. And the guys who move around tend to do so at lower weights. Heavyweight has no upper limit, so it's not like if you put on 4 or 5 pounds you can move up - it is possible that you have to shift several stone in order to go down a division.
Blimey! you're 'avin a go at Ullrich now! ;D I think that Ullrich was a very worthy oponent and made Lance suffer an awful lot. I'm sure that Lance has the upmost respect for Ullrich. Merckx thought that Ullrich was a very impressive rider. Some think it an injustice that such a talented rider who was a worthy TDF winner had Lance as his opponent.
Ulrich was a very talented rider, who, if he had applied himself and provided the level of dedication Lance had, would have been much tougher competition. But you have to question how much he wanted it, given that every year he ended up having to lose 5-10 kilos to get down to his racing weight. I acknowledge that he was also unlucky with injuries, but I don't have much sympathy for self induced ones (eg drunken car crashes).
And if you can't compete financially with his team, you can't think about winning the tour.
Dunno? Money certainly helps and there is a minimum cost. Isn't that just the way it's all going? It's all controlled by capitalism. (That's why I like Graeme Obree, he flew in the face of it all)
I agree about Obree. I don't think it's a natural progression though. I can't see why Kloden or Leipheimer ride at Astana (especially if Lance stays). I think it's just cash. If Kloden or Leipheimer were at other teams, they would be working out how to beat Lance\Contador.
Cycling is changing. The TDF is avery different race to it's original. Cyclists are becoming more specialised and there are new types of cycling developing. I think that Lance is ahead of his time. Merckx rode (and won) everything. But if there was an Eddy Merckx clone riding now, he couldn't do it because there are too many events.
I don't think that's true. Sure, you have to pick a grand tour to focus on, because you can't really win 2 (then again, people said that before Roche and before Indurain too), but there's no reason why you can't carry on from the Tour and ride the classics then, or ride the Vuelta and the Tour of Lombardy and the Worlds. Even marathon runners have several objectives in 1 season.
The only public eye difference in the time I've been watching the Tour (pre-post Lance) is that it's moved from being half an hour on Channel 4 every evening, to being an hour on ITV4. That's not progress or increased popularity.
But this is England, his domain is America really. Besides, media coverage is all about the allmighty dollar. It has to compete with popularist programmes and much more popular sports such as football.
At least as a non TV owner, I can watch it on the net. This is the first tour I've watched (from last week) for over a decade.
I can't speak for the perception of cycling as a sport in the US, I'm just talking about what I perceive in the UK. And you could watch Eurosport on the net last year. :)
Edit to say that this tour, and especially after yesterday's stage (just watched the highlights) he's generally been smart and sensible, and in credit with me. I think that at the start his ego was writing cheques his body couldn't cash, but he's now accepted that. So kudos to him for that, especially if he rides for Contador from here on in...
I don't think it was about an ego trip. I just don't think that he thinks in that way.
Kudos to you too for being open minded. :thumbsup:
I don't see what other way there is to see it. If he wanted to push his charity, he's have got as much publicity joining bruneel in the team car. If it were Astana Livestrong, his charity would have got more publicity. His comments last year were basically that the current crop of riders suck. So he figured he could do better and came back to prove it. I've yet to see a better explanation for his comeback. Since he got there, he's realised that Contador is the real deal, and has had the guts to admit it. So the way he has conducted himself in the last week has nothing but admiration from me.
The other thing that irritates me is that his biological passport isn't complete - he didn't announce his comeback in time to start the out of competition stuff early enough. No-one else got a pro license without it. So the UCI has literally one set of rules for him and another for everyone else. (Note, this is not me saying that he's on drugs.)
Lee - I was responding to someone else's post on the greatest champion thing. :)
As for legendary status, I agree. Armstrong is a genuine legend. :) Flintoff has achieved that status (in the UK) too - he cemented it his week. Doesn't make him great. Doesn't make him the best allrounder of his era (he's certainly behind Kallis, Pollock, Gilchrist), let alone the best cricketer. It doesn't bother me that they have achieved what they have achieved, or that they get recognition for it. The only thing that bothers me is that they eclipse all others, some of whom, I would argue were better. And no, I don't think it's wrong of you. Just like how so many english cricket fans are enjoying Ponting getting his comeuppance. :)
Everyone - sorry for the essay. ::-) ;)
-
I have always liked him. He is near my age so that helps.
I can understand what other people say about making it boring etc, but for me, that does not detract from him at all. Clever riding, dominating power, beyond equal mental attitude.
I have not been disappointed by him this year either.
I found his surge of effort yesterday heartening, especially the look he gave the Schlecks.
I also enjoy looking at how he interacts with the other riders whether it be on a videoshort or actually in the peleton when riding.
-
I always found him to be an arrogant b*st*rd, but we're getting an awful lot of pre/post race interviews over here and he always comes across very well. Some of it, I bet, is because he *is* there to promote himself/his charity, but he seems really down to earth and relaxed about the whole thing.
So yeah, my opinion has changed.
-
I think he damaged the rest of the sport. Who else rode the odd classic as a training ride? Who else stopped racing after the Tour?
Who else? Nobody that I know. That's another reason I respect Lance. Any other rider could have done it the Lance Armstrong way. But who was confident enough to base theirentire season on just one race? Not just any race, but the most prestigious in the world. I think that's a very ballsy thing to do. Maybe some would call it arrogant?
Cycling is changing. The TDF is avery different race to it's original. Cyclists are becoming more specialised and there are new types of cycling developing. I think that Lance is ahead of his time. Merckx rode (and won) everything. But if there was an Eddy Merckx clone riding now, he couldn't do it because there are too many events.
Wrong. Fashions change, in racing as in everything else.
Armstrong focused purely on one race a year while Merckx raced and won for the entire season. That doesn't mean that the racing is so hard nowadays that only way to win now is concentrate purely on one race. After all, Contador won the Giro (arguably tougher than the TdF) and Vuelta in the same year quite recently and won Paris-Nice and the Tour de France the year before.
-
I have no strong opinoin of Armstrong one way or the other. Ok he won 7 consecutive tours, a great acheivement for anyone. As others have said, there's nothing to stop any other pro from concentrating on Le Tour to the exclusion of many "top" races, after all didn't Indurain start it all? I am a fan of Indurain probably for no other reason than he appeared to be an enigma, rarely giving interviews and/or opinions of other riders. He " dulled" the tour as well, in my opinion.
My big gripe is the way that the media portray Lance as " the greatest cyclist ever". Sky sports news kept repeating this whenever they reported on Armstrong's return. Also the way Phil Liggett and Paul ( Laaaance) Sherwin fawn over him whatever happens on the tour. On the two mountain stages where Contador attacked Armstrong they never gave him credit for dropping Lance, just referred to " team orders"
Come on Phil, your'e worth better than this.
p.s Lee, Fred Dibnah on your heroes wall? He should be on EVERYONE'S hero wall. A great bloke, one of life's true gents.
-
Also the way Phil Liggett and Paul ( Laaaance) Sherwin fawn over him whatever happens on the tour. On the two mountain stages where Contador attacked Armstrong they never gave him credit for dropping Lance, just referred to " team orders"
Don't forget that LA has part ownership of Sherwen's goldmine in Africa ;)
I don't think you can overstate how impressive Armstrongs return is, and that is why he is garnering so much attention. To come back to the absolute pinnacle of the sport (2nd in TdF in final few days FFS) after 3 1/2 years out of the sport, at an age where everyone else has retired, is a first.
I've never really regarded him as arrogant, although he's clearly not a humble man, but that is part of his winning armoury. Only a fool could have failed to notice how he used to dominate the peloton mentally. People were scared to attack him. Now that they have seen that he is beatable they are attacking him all over the place. When levels of physical aptitude are more or less the same at the top, it is the mental will that makes someone the winner.
Doping? Of course he did, but why focus on him... Merckx was a doper.
-
True, his mighty self-belief and psychological domination of the peloton is just what Hinault did years back (tho I have more respect for the Badger's riding than LA's)
-
Pumpe is right.
-
Pumpe is right.
Seconded!
As for Lance doing damage to the sport? Come on!? I mean no-one has done more for promoting cycling than Lance Armstrong. No-one has provided the inspiration to people to get on a bike than him.
-
He is focused professional wins and is unapologetic about it, that seems to be the main issue. Oh and he is American. I am not sure that I would like him a as person but I have huge respect for him as a professional cyclist.
-
Here's an interesting quote from Armstrong today reacting to excitement over his attack yesterday and questions as to whether he could win...
"It will be hard to win," he said in Bourg-St-Maurice yesterday. "Not only is there a guy who has asserted himself in the race and shown he is the best, but he is on my team."
"I remember the years when I was the leader of my team and if someone even remotely considered their own individual interests, we would have sent him home the next day. I don't want to be that guy."
"I don't think Alberto will make a mistake, but you're a minute and a half out, you have a time trial coming up, you do a good one and get a little closer, then the Mont Ventoux climb... You could see where it would be possible, but that is not what I am planning or scheming."
Fair enough. He said he came to the tour to win (why else would he?), he said, as did Contador, that they would wait to see who the leader was. Now he knows, and he is being pretty humble about it. Was it arrogance to think he could win? Not at all... he is after all, in second place. We shall have to see if he remains true to his word, but he knows that if Contador balls up, he'll still be there.
-
Also the way Phil Liggett and Paul ( Laaaance) Sherwin fawn over him whatever happens on the tour. On the two mountain stages where Contador attacked Armstrong they never gave him credit for dropping Lance, just referred to " team orders"
Don't forget that LA has part ownership of Sherwen's goldmine in Africa ;)
I don't think you can overstate how impressive Armstrongs return is, and that is why he is garnering so much attention. To come back to the absolute pinnacle of the sport (2nd in TdF in final few days FFS) after 3 1/2 years out of the sport, at an age where everyone else has retired, is a first.
I've never really regarded him as arrogant, although he's clearly not a humble man, but that is part of his winning armoury. Only a fool could have failed to notice how he used to dominate the peloton mentally. People were scared to attack him. Now that they have seen that he is beatable they are attacking him all over the place. When levels of physical aptitude are more or less the same at the top, it is the mental will that makes someone the winner.
Doping? Of course he did, but why focus on him... Merckx was a doper.
What does he have on Richard Williams? Another fawning article in today's Guardian displaying less than awesome knowledge of the sport: Lance Armstrong turns on the power for his tilt at glory |
Sport |
The Guardian
(http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2009/jul/21/tour-de-france-armstrong-wiggins-contador)
What he has done over the last year is truly remarkable. No-one can deny that. FWIW, the bolded bit is inaccurate, he's not the oldest guy on the Tour. He is the oldest GC contender by a significant margin though. And as I said above, his recent attitude towards Contador and the team is also imporessive, especially for a guy who was really driven to come back, and really wanted to win. So the only bad thing I have to say about his attitude during comeback at all is that he didn't sort it out to get on the biological passport program properly.
Part of the reason why he gets more stick for (allegedly) doping is because he's tried to sue people who said he doped. Yet he managed to out climb the best climber of his generation who was on dope, and out TT the best TTer of his generation while he was on dope, and they never got caught either. If he admitted it then he'd get a ban, so I can understand why he wouldn't, but the denials, and the lawsuits and the aggressive attitude that goes with it I find OTT. Compare him with Vaughters, who simply refuses to comment on the idea that his best results were with the Posties and the Posties doped, therefore he doped. He's clear that it implies he doped, but he's not prepared to incriminate himself directly. I have far more respect for that than Lance's whole "I'm clean and always have been, and I'll sue you if you claim otherwise" act. I guess he can't actually acknowledge the doping because he has an image to support (and that image helps his charity which does good things, making it even more complex). I just find the whole thing hypocritical.
-
I have far more respect for that than Lance's whole "I'm clean and always have been, and I'll sue you if you claim otherwise" act. I guess he can't actually acknowledge the doping because he has an image to support (and that image helps his charity which does good things, making it even more complex). I just find the whole thing hypocritical.
Vaughters has never had the spotlight on him though, because his success was comparatively negligible. He has the luxurious position of being able to not deny that he doped. Armstrong can't.
Besides, Armstrong has the livelihoods of the likes of Kimmage and Walsh to consider, who have made a career out of unproven allegations and hearsay. ;)
-
Riis stopped denying and admitted it when he retired. So did Zabel (well, he admitted trying it). I was surprised to see that Rolf Aldag is a directeur sportif now, because he admitted it as well. A whole bunch of other people from that era have said what they took. But because Lance tried to sue somoene, he can never admit it. In 10 years time he'll be saying "I never doped" while the 179 other riders in the tours he won will have admitted it or been caught (including his own team). Maybe he really was that good. ;) ::-)
I have no opinion on Walsh 'cos I've not read his stuff, but Kimmage's book (Rough Ride - don't know if he's written others) is good, and so is most of what I have read of his journalism (much of which is not cycling related). I doubt it's possible to be a fan of him and Lance though. ;)
-
Don't kid yourself..... Riis, Zabel and Aldag only admitted it because they had to.
-
Right. And Lance has people showing that his samples failed tests, and team-mates saying that the entire team took it but he doesn't have to (admit it)?
-
Leaving aside the did he / didn't he doping arguments - I've a grudging admiration for how he rode today. Looked like he would have loved to chase Contador but once he'd missed the initial move chose to work Wiggo over instead. But my opinion of him hasn't changed too much I'm afraid, as has been said he made the tour too dull for too long by being able to "financially?" focus on just one race while his adversaries at the time had to race the whole season.
Also, this year it seems we're seeing a return to the Armstrong style of a team that buys the best domestiques available - not the levellest of playing fields in my book - although perfectly within the rules it seems sowewhat less than sporting to my British sensibilities.
-
This year, I have far more respect for Armstrong; he rode intelligently, interviewed well and wasn't overly dominant. Don't forget, if he'd missed all the splits in the field that the others did, he'd be in 5th.
-
He seemed incredibly relaxed over the last few days.... almost as if he was actually enjoying it ;D
-
I have to say that I have slightly improved my opinion of Armstrong. I was impressed by the way he accepted that he was heading for the third podium place and rode to defend it on the Ventoux stage rather than do anything to jeopardise the team places.
In fact I'd be quite happy to see the peloton let him have a lap of honour on the Champs d'Elysee.
-
Definitely - I thought that he had a good chance of finishing but not a podium place so he's proved me wrong. And it looks liek he's coming back nextyear with his new team
-
I wouldn't say that I disliked Indurin, just that I found that his dominance made the tour boring. But I found that in his last tour, when he was getting beaten I suddenly started rooting for him.
Possibly similar with LA - five and 2 part years of boring tours during which I wasn't his greatest fan (but bore him no ill-will), but in this tour, when he wasn't the force that he once was, I found myself on his side...not necessarily wanting him to win the tour, but looking for him to grab a mountain top stage in heroic fashion.
Also, I appreciated the fact that he was willing to take a hammering (by his standards) but still continue trying and putting on a good show....unlike one or two others who have launched toys when things didn't go as they wanted.
Given that he's been out so long, and that the comeback didn't go to plan with the crash and so he hadn't been able to prepare for this tour like previous ones, but still did such a good ride, I'm thinking that next year's might be a bit tasty!
-
So the PR gurus have been earning their corn.
I guess there is more to come out, but if you look slightly between the lines at what Contador has been saying then I guess we have a picture that is somewhat different.
Don't let's forget that Contador joined Astana as team leader. After he had signed, and everything agreed, Armstrong is parachuted in, at Armstrong's insistence. Armstrong is best mates with Brunyeel, and will in all likelihood be his employer again next year. Contador is under contract and can't go elsewhere.
It's a bit like Columbia finding a sprinter who is almost as fast as Cavendish, and then trying to committ the train to the newcomer.
Hats off to Contador; many riders would have cracked under the pressure.
-
Has it changed Contador's: BBC SPORT | Other sport... | Cycling | Contador furious with Armstrong (http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/other_sports/cycling/8170479.stm)?
He can afford to be magnanimous now that he's, er, hang on...
-
I don't think you can overstate how impressive Armstrongs return is, and that is why he is garnering so much attention. To come back to the absolute pinnacle of the sport (2nd in TdF in final few days FFS) after 3 1/2 years out of the sport, at an age where everyone else has retired, is a first.
Yup, that's been my impression of Lance this Tour. I didn't want him to come back - I wanted him to retire gracefully and stay retired, and I thought he would struggle to keep up on the mountains, but he has proved me totally wrong. I've been hugely impressed.
Contador and Andy Schleck showed that they're younger and stronger but who else gave Lance any real competition? Wiggo made a heroic effort but Lance used his experience to keep him at arm's length (although had Wiggo been a wee bit more canny at the end of stage 3...). Kloeden and Frank Schleck just weren't quite good enough either.
And what happened to Cadel Evans? Carlos Sastre? Denis Menchov? Christian Vande Velde?
I've never really regarded him as arrogant, although he's clearly not a humble man, but that is part of his winning armoury.
Yeah, any top pro sportsman in any sport needs a touch of that. Let's not forget that the likes of Merckx and Hinault weren't exactly shrinking violets.
I think LA will be strong again next year but he'll need to get a very strong team around him and use all his tactical genius to have a chance of winning - he won't only be competing against Contador and Schleck, there are the likes of Brice Feillu, Nibali and Tony Martin who proved themselves strong future prospects this year. Plus I reckon Wiggo's experience this year will make him even stronger next year - and he may even get a stronger team behind him next year.
d.
-
To be fair to Christian VandeVelde he had a bad crash in the Giro and only just made the start line of the Tour. In such circumstances, 8th or whatever he was wasn't bad...
-
I fear that Astana, with Vino and Contador, and Saxo Bank, will lead the sport into a whole new shit-storm of scandal next year when the testers catch up.
-
slightly different tack: I've been thinking how LA's time in retirement has affected his performance.
He's been back racing for 7 months. He'll have been in training for about a year now.
I can't imagine his break from the sport impacted his performance at all.
This was LA at his best, and he was beaten. I used to think he would not finish if he knew he wouldn't win. I like it when champions finish the race even though they're beaten.
-
slightly different tack: I've been thinking how LA's time in retirement has affected his performance.
He's been back racing for 7 months. He'll have been in training for about a year now.
I can't imagine his break from the sport impacted his performance at all.
This was LA at his best, and he was beaten.
Yup (if you adjust "his best" down a bit for his age).
I used to think he would not finish if he knew he wouldn't win. I like it when champions finish the race even though they're beaten.
+1 to that. Shows class.
-
To be fair, he was out of training at a very important time with a broken collar bone!
-
To be fair, he was out of training at a very important time with a broken collar bone!
And AFAICT no whinging regarding the fact either.
-
And what happened to Cadel Evans? Carlos Sastre? Denis Menchov? Christian Vande Velde?
Menchov won this year's Giro. I'd like to think that the fact he didn't perform well in the TdF is 'cos he's clean & still recovering from that victory. For example, he lost 90 seconds in 1st TT & then 2:20 in the TTT. Oh, & he fell off once or twice, but that's almost standard for him!