I am curious as to why so many people have such a vendetta against LA on this forum, yet aren’t screaming for the heads of people like Valverde or questioning the results of Cancellara? Why was the vendetta still there while LA was retired? Why is he singled out over other riders? Why do we have people are literally giddy of the prospect of LA getting nailed, who are practically praying for it to happen? Enlighten me.
People love to see the best go down. It’s like watching a car wreck, for some reason some people just can’t take your eyes off of it… Plus if he is a big huge liar than it’s just desserts for all LOL…
Some people do not like him because they think he is too cocky/over confident about his performance and the success that he has had. I can see why it would offend some people, but really, that confidence is what has helped him get to where he is today, for better or worse. Just as it is with most other sports, you need a a certain amount of confidence to become a champion.
Some people are afraid to believe in him because a lot of cycling fans have been let down in the past due to the success of their role models being related to doping. It is hard to blame them, modern cycling does not have a very good track record in regards to doping.
Can’t really say that I am a lover or a hater of Lance. He is human, he is not perfect and he has his flaws, but he does also have his positives and has helped inspire a great amount of people.
Everyone needs a villain - it’s just human nature to try and blame someone.
If LA were to confess tomorrow then I’d quickly put him in that ‘product of the system’ category but if he did dope (and it’s a big if), then as long as he continues to fight he will be a perfect villain for a lot of people. He has always struck me and others as arrogant, narcissistic, aggressive and petulant. He’s straddled the line between peloton patron and vicious bully and while many of those traits were undoubtedly components of his success watching him win his later tours always left a bad taste in my mouth.
Fans will also always prefer straightforward characters be they straightforward good-guys to straightforward liars. LA by contrast comes off as machiavellian and a master of obfuscation and distraction. He is the only cyclist with the resources to raise the question of whether cycling authorities would dare to fight him, he’s used multiple legal proceedings to attack and silence his critics (without ever following through to prove his innocence) and he’s raised his cancer work as a defence to raised eyebrows about aspects of his cycling. His work is undoubtedly important to many thousands of people but he needs to keep them separate.
I like him myself and hope it is not true.
I think the best analogy to Armstrong is Barry Bonds. He’s one of the, if not the, biggest name in his sport, so there’s the knock-down-a-hero angle, plus he seems arrogant, attacks anyone who doesn’t write to the story line, etc. If Bonds could be alternately surly and engaging (rather than surly all the time), be better at manipulating the media, overcome a life-threatening disease, and create a charity to hide behind he’d be the Lance of baseball.
I suspect in Europe Valverde gets treated with a lot more of the love/hate relationship we see here with Lance. I just think most Americans are pretty ignorant about European athletes, sports, history, etc. It’s too far away to be visceral for us.
As for Cancellara, I think there’s a bit of a whisper campaign about his performances, but since there haven’t been doping activities reported, no one is willing to slander him.
I think the best analogy to Armstrong is Barry Bonds. He’s one of the, if not the, biggest name in his sport, so there’s the knock-down-a-hero angle, plus he seems arrogant, attacks anyone who doesn’t write to the story line, etc. If Bonds could be alternately surly and engaging (rather than surly all the time), be better at manipulating the media, overcome a life-threatening disease, and create a charity to hide behind he’d be the Lance of baseball.
I suspect in Europe Valverde gets treated with a lot more of the love/hate relationship we see here with Lance. I just think most Americans are pretty ignorant about European athletes, sports, history, etc. It’s too far away to be visceral for us.
As for Cancellara, I think there’s a bit of a whisper campaign about his performances, but since there haven’t been doping activities reported, no one is willing to slander him.
As a Giants fan living in LA, I found it funny going to games and seeing Bonds blasted by the fans. I was told by LA fans how he ruined the sport, etc. Now we have Manny Ramirez, a Dodger, and suddenly those same people who blasted Bonds are giving Manny a pass.
Good analogy.
I don’t think I hate any riders on the Tour, and I always root for Americans, but there are some things that turn me off about Lance.
You’re correct. The love/hate relationship the French have with Lance is very similar to the love/hate relationship they had with Jacques Anquetil (who had absolutely no American blood ;-)). So, it’s not an Anti-American thing…
Now, go check the discussions about doping after every article in l’Equipe and you will see that it invariably says: they’re all the same…And people want to see Lance busted just as much as Contador, Cancellara, and co…(yes, provided they do dope…but…well…)
The common trend also is: hey, can we stop hitting only on cycling because soccer sure ain’t clean either etc.
Let me relate a direct experience with Lance. When I was a graduate student in Ed Coyle’s lab Lance came in for testing occasionally. In that lab we relied heavily on the local cycling community for study participants so we had a regular parade of local Cat 1-3 riders. I can tell you that many of those riders were truly arrogant (actually not very good but believed or at least behaved as if they were God’s gift to our lab). Many of them treated the grad students like house servants; “here take my bike”. One day Lance came to the door with his Mt. Bike. He stopped at the door and said “I’m sorry I brought my bike up but I forgot my lock.” Then he looked around the lab and noticed an area where we had some old equipment that was bound for surplus and said “Is it okay if I lean it up over there?”. Is that the behavior of an arrogant or petulant person? I don’t think so. Granted I have only been around him a few times but in every case he has been polite and personable (always remembered my name). In fact, one reason for his success in TdF is that his team members will absolutely give every thing they have for him. Why? At lease in part because he is polite and personable to them and treats them with respect. Would you give your all for an arrogant team captain? Probably not. In fact, I love the use of the word “arrogant” when applied to the only seven time TdF champion. Among the definitions of arrogant is this phrase “a feeling or assumption of one’s superiority toward others”. In his case he is not arrogant. He is in fact superior, at least when it comes to TdF.
Other points often raised seem to stem from his blunt communication style. The guy is from Plano Texas (Dallas County) where blunt, direct communication (with a bit of overstatement) is the culture. As a native of that area I can tell you that I was shocked when I left to find out that many other cultures communicate indirectly and rely on implicit meaning. In fact, I think he mentions in his book something like “I wasn’t being an asshole, I was jut being a Texan”. Those who think he should behave as if he is from their culture should perhaps try being a bit less bigoted and try to understand his native communication style.
Cheers,
Jim
“I wasn’t being an asshole, I was jut being a Texan”.
Sorry, that’s an immature, self-absorbed position. Some perspective…
I moved from the Philly area to Northern California. It would be hard to find two areas with more opposite communication styles. My wife, from the west coast, would often be startled at my east coast humor, especially in professional settings or settings with strangers. You know what I said to her in response?..
“I’m not being a jerk honey, I’m from Philly, it’s the way we communicate.”
But a funny thing happened on the way to my own maturity. I discovered, the way I was communicating before was rude. It doesn’t matter where you’re from. It was rude, no matter where I’m from.
Saying “thats how we communicate in Texas” is the same as saying, “that’s how I communicate and even though you perceive this as being rude I really don’t give an ass fuck what you think because I’m all that.”
It’s called maturity.
But a funny thing happened on the way to my own maturity.
Interesting response. So are you saying that all those in Philly have an immature communication style? Aren’t there mature people in Philly who communicate that way? If so, then it would be a culturally appropriate way to communicate. What would your friends in Philly say? Anyone from Philly want to comment?
Alternatively, one might say that you adapted to your new culture, but I’m not sure that is the same as maturing (assuming you were a full grown mature adult when you left). As for my own life after Texas, I have somewhat adapted to implicit communication but I’m still not very good at it and still offend people occasionally.
Cheers,
Jim
Jim-
Clearly Lance is charismatic and he can be/appear polite, engaging, and more (humble?) when he chooses.
Your direct experiences with him when he was younger are relevant. With those on his side, I suspect he still appears this way even today.
On the other hand, there are a lot of third hand reports (i.e. Daniel Coyle’s “Lance Armstrong’s War”) that suggest that he has a meaner, more vindictive side as well.
To his defense, it’s also quite human to be nice to the folks you get along with, and be an asshole with folks who try to take you down (whether you deserve it or not).
Interesting response. So are you saying that all those in Philly have an immature communication style? Aren’t there mature people in Philly who communicate that way? If so, then it would be a culturally appropriate way to communicate. What would your friends in Philly say? Anyone from Philly want to comment?
This response to Tiki is completely immature. Is this what you truly believe Tiki was saying?
The message was, when in Rome …
It is silly looking at individual experiences forming a picture of the whole character.
I think I am a very likable person and I engage well with most people in life. I have had experiences also where I lost it and flipped the bird to others on the road. I am sure Lance is very personable in many situations…but I also believe he is a jerk many other times. Just from what I have noticed.
I like him myself and hope it is not true.
I like Santa Clause too. I just don’t think either of them are for real.
The Aussies & the Kiwis call it the Tall Poppy Syndrome. Here in Middle Earth it seems you can be successful, but not too successful.
***So are you saying that all those in Philly have an immature communication style? ***
No. Being from Philly, or communicating “like” Philly, is not immature.
What is immature is saying; “Oh, I’m not being rude. I’m from Philly, that’s the way we do it.”
It’s perfectly ok to say,* “You know what? I was just rude. Sorry.” *
***Aren’t there mature people in Philly who communicate that way? ***No idea.
***What would your friends in Philly say? ***Friends?
I am curious as to why so many people have such a vendetta against LA on this forum, yet aren’t screaming for the heads of people like Valverde or questioning the results of Cancellara? Why was the vendetta still there while LA was retired? Why is he singled out over other riders? Why do we have people are literally giddy of the prospect of LA getting nailed, who are practically praying for it to happen? Enlighten me.
I dont have a vendetta, I just find it ironic Lance couldnt take a dose of his own medicine in terms of leadership at the Tour. For 7 years he was the best and expected all his guys to play domestique and give all for Lance (there was not even a thought of someone challenging him at the Tour). So Lance comes back and tells the best rider in the world, that the “roads will decide the leader, I wont work for you until AFTER that happens”. So for me, I just find it ironic that Lance expected all his guys to ride for him, yet he couldnt do that for Contador until it was clearly decided that Contador was the better rider (yet Contador was clearly the better rider on Astana even before the Tour).
Lance is 100% pure arrogance, and its his great asset but it’s also the #1 reason why people want to see him fall.
I’m generally indifferent towards Lance. I met him a few times in the 90s and he was in fact quite nice. However, I never really appreciated his attitude, but that is what made him effective in his professional so I don’t begrudge him for that.
What does drive me crazy is the blind ambition Lance fans who think some combination of the following (a) all Lance has to do is put his mind to something and it will be done (e.g., win the TdF in 2009, win Kona, run a sub 2:45 mary, etc.), (b) that Lance is completely beyond reproach because of all the good he has done in the charity realm, (c) that Lance could never ever have possibly ever ever thought about doping let alone done it, and (d) that Lance should not be open to criciticsm because he afterall is Lance, the greatest tour cyclist ever. I don’t think I am alone in my thoughts here. I think if others would keep a more balanced perspective on the guy there would be less trashing of him. You have to trash him to get through the think skulls of those who are blinded by his aura.
Oh, and Cheryl Crow is so not hot.