# Where are all the Lance haters (ie. Ricky2)



## Lazywriter (Mar 8, 2002)

now that Tyler Hamilton made his statement about accusations of doping? I personally believe him without question and if he is seen as honest(which I think most people would as Tyler isn't seen as the evil "Darth Vader" that Lance is seen as), that lends credence to Lance's denials as well. I have a hard time believing many of you would think Tyler would swear on his wife's life and his dog's grave and still think he is lying. So as circumstantial as this is, it pokes holes in the accusations that the team physician made.
I hope Lance wins 2 more TDFs.


----------



## mohair_chair (Oct 3, 2002)

Lazywriter said:


> now that Tyler Hamilton made his statement about accusations of doping? I personally believe him without question and if he is seen as honest(which I think most people would as Tyler isn't seen as the evil "Darth Vader" that Lance is seen as), that lends credence to Lance's denials as well. I have a hard time believing many of you would think Tyler would swear on his wife's life and his dog's grave and still think he is lying. So as circumstantial as this is, it pokes holes in the accusations that the team physician made.
> I hope Lance wins 2 more TDFs.


I was thinking the same thing, but I didn't want to drag the argument out anymore. The Lance/USPS haters will never be convinced, so why waste any more energy on them.


----------



## terry b (Jan 29, 2004)

They're busy combing the web for more early breaking news depicting the dark and evil side of LA's character. They need the headstart on the stories to have enough time to spin them into something they're not. Perhaps combing the early releases in the Italian press looking for more evidence that LA is headed for the Italian Big House for intimidating a witness.

Oh, wait, how can his character be dark and evil when he doesn't have any? 

Actually, I think they're more than likely busy watching pre-1999 TdF DVDs - the Tours where everyone treated everyone else with chivalry, diginity and respect and the GC gaps were all less than 20 seconds and thus were not "boring."

Wherever they are, I hope they stay where they are, at least until next year when (I hope) LA returns and mops the roads of France with their favorite "contenders" once again.


----------



## Ricky2 (Apr 7, 2004)

*Lazy, get over it.*



Lazywriter said:


> now that Tyler Hamilton made his statement about accusations of doping? I personally believe him without question and if he is seen as honest(which I think most people would as Tyler isn't seen as the evil "Darth Vader" that Lance is seen as), that lends credence to Lance's denials as well. I have a hard time believing many of you would think Tyler would swear on his wife's life and his dog's grave and still think he is lying. So as circumstantial as this is, it pokes holes in the accusations that the team physician made.
> I hope Lance wins 2 more TDFs.




What's your question? You can PM me also, my box is open.

I'm new to the Tyler accusations. If its true that he doped, then he should be banned. No question in my mind. If he didn't, then obviously he should not.

So, I still don't get what your question is and what point you are trying to make. But whatever. You've chosen to pick a fight instead of picking a topic to discuss. If you want to talk sports, go for it. If you want to talk cycling, go for that too. Sounds like you're just looking to attack other posters. Am I wrong? I don't think so.


----------



## Lazywriter (Mar 8, 2002)

*Whar is there to not understand?*

I was implying that we would be hard pressed to find many people to not believe Tyler's denial on Velonews where he swears on the life of his wife and dead dog's grave that the same physician who accused Lance did so to him when he road for USPS. You keep posting your feelings about how Lance "must be on dope" and show no evidence and now a credible voice comes out and speaks against one of LA's main accusers. 
I am not saying it absolute proof, but it is important to LA's position that the much loved Tyler Hamilton is denying the same accusations from the same source. You give Lemond so much credit for "speaking out" when he points finger at LA with no evidence, but will likely look past Tyler's speaking out as it doesn't validate what you want to elieve is the truth. So you will minimize it the same way you amplified the innuendo and vagueness of the accusations and loose associations that you interpret as guilt on the part of LA. I still contend that I don't know if LA dopes but I don't care until he admits it or is caught. He is innocent, PERIOD.





Ricky2 said:


> What's your question? You can PM me also, my box is open.
> 
> I'm new to the Tyler accusations. If its true that he doped, then he should be banned. No question in my mind. If he didn't, then obviously he should not.
> 
> So, I still don't get what your question is and what point you are trying to make. But whatever. You've chosen to pick a fight instead of picking a topic to discuss. If you want to talk sports, go for it. If you want to talk cycling, go for that too. Sounds like you're just looking to attack other posters. Am I wrong? I don't think so.


----------



## weiwentg (Feb 3, 2004)

Lazywriter said:


> now that Tyler Hamilton made his statement about accusations of doping? I personally believe him without question and if he is seen as honest(which I think most people would as Tyler isn't seen as the evil "Darth Vader" that Lance is seen as), that lends credence to Lance's denials as well. I have a hard time believing many of you would think Tyler would swear on his wife's life and his dog's grave and still think he is lying. So as circumstantial as this is, it pokes holes in the accusations that the team physician made.
> I hope Lance wins 2 more TDFs.


well, I guess I'm one of your vaunted "Lance-haters". I even have a poster of Tyler on my wall.
on a rather depressing note, Tyler only denied asking Steffen about doping products. Millar, when questioned about doping, hedged his answer. Tyler's answer could be a hedge.
I sincerely hope that it is not. 

disliking Lance does not necessarily equate to a) a certainty that he is doping and/or b) not respecting him as an athlete. I dislike Lance. I'm pretty sure that he's not currently doping. I also respect his achievements.
I'm pretty sure Tyler's not currently doping either, and I respect both his athletic achievements and his personal character. but has he doped in the past? has he used quasi-legal stuff? I hope not. it's just as likely that he's done that as Lance. to be honest, I wouldn't be surprised if Lance had, although I would be disappointed. I would be surprised if Tyler had.


----------



## 7eap4a (Sep 4, 2003)

*The point is*



Ricky2 said:


> What's your question? You can PM me also, my box is open.
> 
> I'm new to the Tyler accusations. If its true that he doped, then he should be banned. No question in my mind. If he didn't, then obviously he should not.
> 
> So, I still don't get what your question is and what point you are trying to make. But whatever. You've chosen to pick a fight instead of picking a topic to discuss. If you want to talk sports, go for it. If you want to talk cycling, go for that too. Sounds like you're just looking to attack other posters. Am I wrong? I don't think so.



I think Lazy's point is the extreme prejudice you seem to have against LA. Given similar comments, with similar lack of credibility, you appear to take these accusations as gospel in reference to LA, but don't take such a passionate position for others?


----------



## Spunout (Aug 12, 2002)

Then again, Lazy has feverish love for Lance which leads him to attack anyone who doubts the integrity of his hero.

I am not a Lance hater, just a doubter (like an Atheist). There is alot of information coming to light out there, now Lance has the Italian police very interested in his involvement with Ferrari. I won`t draw conclusions, but it shure looks bad.

Remember, arguing with people on the internet is like the Special Olympics. Even if you win, you are still retarded.


----------



## moneyman (Jan 30, 2004)

*Why do you dislike Lance?*

And why do you like Tyler? This has never made sense to me, why one might like a sports figure he/she has never met, while disliking another. Or, even more puzzling, why one can like a sports figure as he is ascending the ladder of fame and fortune, yet when he reaches the pinnacle of his profession, is suddenly seen as a villain?

FWIW, I have met and talked to both Lance and Tyler and have nothing but respect for both of them. But I cannot figure out how folks can formulate opinions about people they don't know outside of what they read in the media?

No accusations about your opinions regarding Lance and Tyler, I just want to know how those decisions were made.


----------



## ScottS (Jul 27, 2004)

Spunout said:


> I am not a Lance hater, just a doubter (like an Atheist).


I think you mean agnostic.


----------



## atpjunkie (Mar 23, 2002)

*I think it's like Man-U or Yankee haters*

but agree how when Tyler denies the accusations you hear nothing, but when Lance does they scream "he's lying" it just shows their predjudice, and once again, agreed how can you 'hate' someone you don't know. I have a hard time hating people in general, I can have a massive amount of disrespect or dislike but you gotta be a real a-hole that somehow affects me to get me to hate you. I mean I've had serious and heated arguments with both the haters (in defense of LA) and the fan-boys (in defense of Merckx and Hinault). I don't hate any of them. C'mon we're the league of Freds.


----------



## atpjunkie (Mar 23, 2002)

*and where's their "godfather"?*

Utah Crag Hopper has dropped completely off the map. Been gone since I posted the "I'll call the suicide helpline" post. I hope he's okay. UCH, ya out there? worried about ya.


----------



## The Human G-Nome (Aug 26, 2002)

Spunout said:


> Remember, arguing with people on the internet is like the Special Olympics. Even if you win, you are still retarded.


LOL! That just made my day.


----------



## Sao (Jul 31, 2003)

atpjunkie said:


> I mean I've had serious and heated arguments with both the haters (in defense of LA) and the fan-boys (in defense of Merckx and Hinault). I don't hate any of them. C'mon we're the league of Freds.


Maybe "The Badger" wasn't the only a'hole in that old LeMond-Hinault rift...


----------



## cyclist1969 (Jun 25, 2004)

*classic*



Spunout said:


> Then again, Lazy has feverish love for Lance which leads him to attack anyone who doubts the integrity of his hero.
> 
> I am not a Lance hater, just a doubter (like an Atheist). There is alot of information coming to light out there, now Lance has the Italian police very interested in his involvement with Ferrari. I won`t draw conclusions, but it shure looks bad.
> 
> Remember, arguing with people on the internet is like the Special Olympics. Even if you win, you are still retarded.


Spunout, I just spitt my lunch out on my keyboard. That was FUNNY! 

anyway, gota get on the short-bus and go home, cya


----------



## weiwentg (Feb 3, 2004)

moneyman said:


> And why do you like Tyler? This has never made sense to me, why one might like a sports figure he/she has never met, while disliking another. Or, even more puzzling, why one can like a sports figure as he is ascending the ladder of fame and fortune, yet when he reaches the pinnacle of his profession, is suddenly seen as a villain?
> 
> FWIW, I have met and talked to both Lance and Tyler and have nothing but respect for both of them. But I cannot figure out how folks can formulate opinions about people they don't know outside of what they read in the media?
> 
> No accusations about your opinions regarding Lance and Tyler, I just want to know how those decisions were made.


well, I won't take that as an accusation, then.
first, Lance has said some less than pleasant things about Heras, such as him not being professional (in Sports Ill). granted, Roberto's departure from USPS was rather abrupt, and could have been handled better. but the guy did win the Vuelta twice, and he did ride his heart out for Lance.
next, the whole issue with him leaving his wife and then getting together with Sheryl Crow leaves a bit of a bad taste in my mouth. partly this is because I got dumped recently, and my ex got together with one of my now ex-best friends. both of them are persona non grata.
lastly, the Simeoni issue kind of confirmed it. this is not the way great champions handle things. regardless of how many people dislike Simeoni, regardless of whether he's a whiner or not, of who confessed to what or implicated whom, that was something that should have been settled off the bike. it was done in a very ugly manner, one that shows Armstrong's character in quite a negative light.
now, I respect Lance for other things, but I do not think he is a great champion. merely a great athlete. am I expecting too much? perhaps, but that doesn't mean I should give up.
Tyler is driven like Lance, but he doesn't seem like the sort who is driven to succeed even if it's at someone else's expense. just read the guy's tribute to his dog. if he deals that way with a dog (not to denigrate the human-canine relationship), that's a good indicator of how he deals with people.


----------



## Lifelover (Jul 8, 2004)

*Ricky2's response*

I sent ricky2 a PM asking for a response and as usual it make no sense.

Here it is.



"Hey Moron!
If Tyler is lieing, does his wife die? NOPE! Does his dog die? NOPE (already gone).

If Simeoni is lieing under oath in his testimony, is he going to jail? YES!

So, in the examples above, NOTHING happens to Tyler if he is lying. However, SOMETHING does happen to Simeoni is he is lying. And that is going to jail. Sooooo, using your logic, one should be more apt to believe Simeoni. I guess Lance Armstrong is now officially on drugs!"














*


----------



## Spunout (Aug 12, 2002)

With that, Tyler`s dog, and other canine implications on this board, I wonder if there isn`t a bit too much doggy-style going on. Swear on my dog`s grave? Gimme a break. In Dog we trust? Whatever.


----------



## Coolhand (Jul 28, 2002)

weiwentg said:


> well, I won't take that as an accusation, then.
> first, Lance has said some less than pleasant things about Heras, such as him not being professional (in Sports Ill). granted, Roberto's departure from USPS was rather abrupt, and could have been handled better. but the guy did win the Vuelta twice, and he did ride his heart out for Lance.


Lance also said many nice things about Heras, despite the very poorly handled departure of Heras. Heras was not a great match personality wise for the team, which even he admitted. Heras, for all the loyalty shown to him by USPS, didn't hestitate to jump when he had the chance. They often built a team for him in the Vuelta and they never pointed fingers after last year's poor Tour performance (which obviously was the start of Heras' slide). Careful what you wish for Roberto.



weiwentg said:


> next, the whole issue with him leaving his wife and then getting together with Sheryl Crow leaves a bit of a bad taste in my mouth. partly this is because I got dumped recently, and my ex got together with one of my now ex-best friends. both of them are persona non grata.


He didn't "leave" her. They both decided to get a divorce after working really hard to save their marriage. In the end they wanted and needed quite different things and they handled it like adults (and amazingly are still quite friendly- she still Text Messages him wishing him luck, ect.). After he got divorced, was he supposed to become a monk? Divorce is sad, but it does happen 50% of the time. Are all those people supposed to stop living too? Break-ups are an unfortunate part of dating. But like baseball, the failure rate is much higher then the sucess rate. Learning to deal with those failures is part of life.



weiwentg said:


> lastly, the Simeoni issue kind of confirmed it. this is not the way great champions handle things. regardless of how many people dislike Simeoni, regardless of whether he's a whiner or not, of who confessed to what or implicated whom, that was something that should have been settled off the bike. it was done in a very ugly manner, one that shows Armstrong's character in quite a negative light.


Gee, that's funny. Because the peleton seems to think quite the opposite. *Patrons* settle things "on the bike", how do you think the Badger or the Cannibal whould have handled it. Hell in the 50-60's he would have found himself in a ditch with a pump in his front wheel. Further, Simeoni's actions on the last day of the race show what sort of rider he is. Given your "standard" none of the 5 time winners (other then maybe Big Mig) would be "great champions" they all did similar or worse things. The Badger in particular was not a man to be crossed-- ever.



weiwentg said:


> now, I respect Lance for other things, but I do not think he is a great champion. merely a great athlete. am I expecting too much? perhaps, but that doesn't mean I should give up.
> 
> Tyler is driven like Lance, but he doesn't seem like the sort who is driven to succeed even if it's at someone else's expense. just read the guy's tribute to his dog. if he deals that way with a dog (not to denigrate the human-canine relationship), that's a good indicator of how he deals with people.


I think this shows that you made up your mind and went looking for thigs to support that view. Not a great champion? He won the Tour 6 times in a row, and is a former world champion! While not the great cyclist ever (that would be Eddy), he certainly is one of the greatest ever. Not only on the bike, but off it as well. The amount of charity work he does despite the overwelming amount of time pressures he is under is staggering. The benefits and attention is brought to cycling in the US is amazing. How civil he remains despite the constant baseless personal attacks he suffers from because he is not-French, he is the constant favorite to win, and dared eclipse Lemond and his business partner Hampsted (both quickly fading from view and not happy about it). 

Tyler is a great guy, but also is able to control 70-80% of the media reports about him through a vastly lower demand for interviews and self-reporting through his diary. He doesn't have near the pressure on him as he is the the beloved underdog, not the resented favorite. This lower profile allowed him a free pass when he jumped from USPS to CSC, then proclaimed his loyalty to Riis and CSC, only to then screw them over and jump to Phonak. Tyler, like Lance, puts his personal racing interests first. Yet Lance is resented for it, while Tyler gets a free pass for what he did to CSC. 

I have a Tyler poster in my office (the only cycling picture in there), but I am not fooling myself about his character. He is exactly like Lance in more ways then not. While his relative lack of sucess has allowed him to gloss over his hard self-interested behavior, it is getting harder to do now. 

He has his very own doping accusation and handled it extremely poorly, IMHO, invoking his dead dog and his wife. He got a little taste of life as a favorite, and it hasn't agreed with him so far. The accusation against him is much more direct and damning then the tripe in then anti-Lance book, and his response was less then impressive. I think Tyler is as clean as Lance is, but if Lance had responded that way some people would have has a field day.

Tyler seems to be a great guy, but he is no angel. *NO* GC contender is. They are driven, self-interested hard men trained to revel in the suffering of others and are hyper-competitve with the need to dominate and win. Tyler and Lance are friends because how alike they truly are- not different. Tyler hasn't had 20% of the sucess, pressures and obligations Lance has- if he did, I would what people would being saying about him. . . .


----------



## mohair_chair (Oct 3, 2002)

Coolhand said:


> Tyler proclaimed his loyalty to Riis and CSC, only to then screw them over and jump to Phonak. Tyler, like Lance, puts his personal racing interests first. Yet Lance is resented for it, while Tyler gets a free pass for what he did to CSC.


What did Tyler do to CSC??? Here is the story. Last year, Tyler's contract with CSC was up. Phonak offered more money and total devotion of the team. Riis couldn't compete with that, so he wished Tyler luck. End of story. I'm not sure how that can be construed as screwing over CSC. Especially since Tyler praises and credits Riis a lot, and CSC has had a great season so far.


----------



## NJRoad (Apr 17, 2002)

*Back to the point...Simeoni said he didn't dope...*

then admitted that he did. At one time or another he had lied about it, so is it defamation for LA to call him a liar? Isn't it statement of fact?


----------



## KenB (Jul 28, 2004)

*Bingo!*



NJRoad said:


> then admitted that he did. At one time or another he had lied about it, so is it defamation for LA to call him a liar? Isn't it statement of fact?


I'm amazed that no one else has pointed this out yet. The guy has zero credibility.


----------



## FrankTheDog (Jun 16, 2004)

I like Lance


----------



## ttug (May 14, 2004)

*Incredible, but not edible*

After attempting to read all of this thread, I have to sort of ask a question here and hopefully, we can have an actual answer to the hatred crisis.

Why do any of us need to care about what type of person the athlete is?  

IMO, there is this really pointless association with the athletic performance of a person and their "character". Odds are, a great athlete is still human and wow, could be a real disappointment or a jerk. It happens.

More personally, I have met cycling folks who are great UNTIL THEY GET ON A BIKE. Its like they are on some kind of drug and the person who was all smiles is now a task master obsessed on crushing you like a bug. Its their way of riding and so what?

Lastly, Why do you care about Tylers dog being alive or not? Are you fascinated with dead animals? Alot of serial killers have that trait, but again, who cares? Tyler actually cared about his pet and it meant something to him. OK, thats within the scope of reason sure....So he swore on his dead dog that he does not dope, OK and this is a problem why???? Dogs are companion animals, lots of folks have them and grieve when they die. Where is the issue here? Whats next, I swear on the Bible and its now not good enough for God etc etc?  

Would you expect some positive link like if Tyler appeared in a Cold Fusion add that Tyler has the inside knowledge or scoop on creating Cold Fusion and saving humanity? Come on Tyler, where is that unlimited energy resource the world needs?!?!?!?! He rides a bike. Thats it. Everything else is a bonus.

Odds are, (this could be a stretch) he has not a clue about Cold Fusion.Odds are, he will be human and have flaws.

Look at the mans press interviews. Classy, respectful and at most times, a professional. So what else do you want? You mean the I am sorry I cant ride because of my severe injury letter was not good enough? Have you ever seen any other elite athlete do that? This is freakishly jaded. Get over it.


----------



## Gator (Mar 14, 2002)

*The thread that WOULDN'T DIE*

My god, I can't believe this is still an active topic. Look, here's the deal, kids:

-No one posting on this site actually knows any of the cyclists in question here.
-No one posting on this site knows for a fact whether or not any of these cyclists dope.

That should be the end of this. As for personalities, certainly, all of them have come across as jerks from time to time. But let me offer this, as we sit here typing away with our mugs of coffee: Just think for moment what YOU might act like if you NEVER had a moment of down time.

Let's take Lance. Is he an arrogant @ss? Maybe. But realize that every one of the "candid" moments you see with Lance involves a seven-person camera crew and a microphone in his face. If you always had a training schedule and race pressure hanging over your head, a publicist and manager sitting next to you, ten sponsors to deal with, seven or eight reporters in your hallway waiting to ask you the same 15 stupid questions, and a calendar full of nightly dinners and functions, would you be the laugh riot you are?

So basically, whether or not we want to admit it, we're all talking smack and we should really give these guys a freakin' break.


----------



## Coolhand (Jul 28, 2002)

mohair_chair said:


> What did Tyler do to CSC??? Here is the story. Last year, Tyler's contract with CSC was up. Phonak offered more money and total devotion of the team. Riis couldn't compete with that, so he wished Tyler luck. End of story. I'm not sure how that can be construed as screwing over CSC. Especially since Tyler praises and credits Riis a lot, and CSC has had a great season so far.


Tyler was Mr. CSC up to the point, he got the chance to have his own team- then he jumped faster than Jan reaching for a pastry in the offseason. CSC wanted and expected him to resign with them after all they had done together during 2003. Tyler never said anything about leaving until it was too late.

Riis took the high road once Tyler announced his departure. Does this make Tyler a *bad* person- no. But, if Lance did something like this the haters would be all over him. FWIW, given the poor support Basso received as a GC contender maybe Tyler was right to spurn CSC for Phonak. Riis needs to learn that nobody cares about the team competition (which he lost anyway), and that he needs to stop wasting his riders on stupid, pointless break attempts (see i.e. Pill, Sastre, and Voight needlessly burning matches on team orders to escape rather then support their GC rider). If he doesn't support Basso more consistently he may pull a Tyler and go to a team that will.


----------



## Coolhand (Jul 28, 2002)

KenB said:


> I'm amazed that no one else has pointed this out yet. The guy has zero credibility.


A Juicer and a Jerk- what a potent combination. No wonder he is so despised in the peleton.


----------



## atpjunkie (Mar 23, 2002)

*thank you*

for a voice of reason. I guess I'm not alone in the world after all. 
big up on "The Big Payback" UGH!


----------



## Gator (Mar 14, 2002)

*Well, hey, thanks!*

Yeah, I does like to freak da funk. In fact, I should probably change my avatar to reflect that; I don't think too many people realize it's the cover of The Stooges' "Raw Power," not some tranny in a g-string.

But yeah, I mean, how long can people prattle on about something which, in reality, they know absolutely NOTHING. Jesus, it's getting worse than AM sports radio around here.


----------



## russw19 (Nov 27, 2002)

ttug said:


> After attempting to read all of this thread, I have to sort of ask a question here and hopefully, we can have an actual answer to the hatred crisis.
> 
> Why do any of us need to care about what type of person the athlete is?
> 
> IMO, there is this really pointless association with the athletic performance of a person and their "character". Odds are, a great athlete is still human and wow, could be a real disappointment or a jerk. It happens.


I can address this with an actual answer. We (the public) care about athletes because of the mass marketing about these people that is shoved down our sports viewing throats. Lance Armstrong is a particularly good example of this and is therefore going to be exactly what this board shows of him to be, a very loved athlete by some, and a very despised athlete by others. 

Lance has a great "human interest appeal" to most of us. He has a very unusual story of overcoming cancer to become one of the greatest Tour riders in history. But over the course of his 6 straight years of winning the Tour, he and his story have been marketed and sold to the public ad nausem. Part of why people love him so much is because he beat cancer and that makes for a great story. (Please keep in mind, I am not trying to minimize that actual achievement, but only to make a statement about how that achievement has been sold to the public for the last 6 years.) Lance is a marketing machine. Trek bikes are some of the most popular bikes in the world thanks in large part to Lance Armstrong. Giro helmets... Nike cycling shoes... same thing. If you look back at the last 6 years of cycling press, who dominates it? Lance of course! And both he and all his sponsors and even a few non-sponsors like ESPN or OLN have been capitalizing on his public persona by selling us this image of Lance, the cancer surviving superman who is dominating cycling. The USPS blue and red skinsuits just need a giant S on the chest to really make the statement that the Armstrong PR department is trying to sell us on. 

Now, look at that very public, yet very distorted image of this man and how he is portrayed in the public eye. The more you build an athlete up like that, the more the public wants to see them fall. We all know Lance can not possibly be the exact guy that he is marketed to be... nobody could be THAT guy. But some people buy into that hype and love him, and some totally reject that hype so they hate him. They don't hate Lance Armstrong the man... but they hate Lance Armstrong the figure. There is a difference... they hate the person that the media and his PR department and his advertisers want us to think he is. They hate the guy that is being sold to them every single day of the year. That image they are selling us is that of a perfect and infallible human who has achieved greatness. There is no room in that image for normal human failures and the mistakes that normal people make in life. So when Lance makes normal human mistakes, those mistakes are amplified 1000 fold, and that may not be fair, but it is really in line with how amplified his successes have also been vaulted. But yet we are buying what he is selling. Directly or indirectly, Lance is selling us stuff based on this PR notion that he is a good honest just man who stared death in the face and beat it back with his supreme will, only to go on to be the greatest cyclist ever to live. That's the basis behind the whole "Cyclism" campaign. If that is the actual truth, he deserves our admiration... but if that is just hype, well there will be backlash against him. And now that a few people (rightly or falsely) are saying he's not 'that' guy.. that he got to the top thru means that are slightly less than what his PR department sold us on, the backlash has begun. 

This is not unique to Lance, but to all sports figures and celebrities in general. We love them until they screw up... We love them while they are the little guy, just like us, who goes on to great things. It's because we can relate to them and see that thru their lives, we have a chance at that same success. But once that celebrity seems to forget that they were once like us and a little guy, we hate them. Once their head gets so big as they forgot where they came from... we can't stand them and wish them to fail. Very few celebrities have maintained an image of not compromising where they came from to get to where they are, and those are the ones we love... people like Oprah, Tom Hanks, Brett Farve, Tyler Hamilton to name a few... these people (at least in my eyes) all seem to show enough humility in their success that we believe they still remember how lucky they are for all the public has given them. You can't buy celebrity.. the public must give it. Now, it can be sold to you by the media, but it can be taken away by the public at anytime (Michael Jackson, Vanilla Ice.....Hammer...Eric "Ponch" Estrada....) those were people who were on top and then the public decided they were done. Where are they now? (Jackson as an exception, but we never hear anything good about him anymore... he's now sort of an anti-celebrity along with OJ)

So my point is that we as a public have much influence on how big an athlete becomes. We buy the products that they try to sell us, and they become huge. So many of us feel our sports heroes actually owe us for a chunk of their status. When they do something we don't like or say something in the media that is not 100% inline with what their PR tells us about them, we revolt against them and want to see them suffer. Maybe that's unfair, but in many people's minds it's no more unfair than them having the success they have. And regarding Lance specifically, I think that is where many people stand.

Regardless of the context of Lemond's quote about Lance, or which side of it you take, the quote itself is brilliant and very true. "If Lance is actually 100% clean, then this is the greatest comeback in sports history, and if he's not clean, then this is the greatest fraud in all of sport." Without passing judgment on either Lance or Greg, think about that quote for a moment. It really does sum up Lance's career perfectly. The thing is that some think he's a fraud and some think he's a hero. But I think it also sums up why some hate him, while others love him. And that can really be applied to anyone in the public eye because we don't love or hate the person, we love or hate the image of that person

Russ.


----------



## ScottS (Jul 27, 2004)

russw19 said:


> I can address this with an actual answer....
> 
> Russ.


For all the dumb, conceited, irrational and baseless things I've seen here, this intelligent post makes up for all of that. Very well written and thought out.


----------



## ivanthetrble (Jul 7, 2004)

ScottS said:


> For all the dumb, conceited, irrational and baseless things I've seen here, this intelligent post makes up for all of that. Very well written and thought out.


Agreed! It kind of seemed out of place here, didn't it?


----------



## Lazywriter (Mar 8, 2002)

*Russ, I said the same thing about Lance becoming*

too overexposed making people want to dislike him, but your comment about how "brilliant" Lemonds statement is ridiculous. It is not what Lemond said that is the issue, but rather the timing and context in which it was said. By him even conveying that publicly means he is implying that Lance is on drugs. He is not saying matter of factly, but with the intention of making others think he (Lemond) knows the "truth. It is a known fact that Lemond was a whiner as a pro and unless he has the smoking gun proof, he should remain quiet. Where was he all these years after retirement when doping was so widespread? No, he waits for another American who knocks him off the top block as a US cyclist to come forward. I bet you any amount of money that if it weren't Lance but rather another Indurain (european) figure winning all these tours, no one would care what Lemond had to say on the the doping issue. But it seems too coincindental that he goes after the man who replaced him as the definitive best American cyclist in history. Lemond is a pathetic, typical spoiled ex champ who has even implied in interviews that it would have been he who won six TDFs had it not been for the hunting accident. How arrogant and conceited is that when he only won hald that amount. Like there weren't a million other variable that would have stopped him. Could of should of tends to go hand in hand with jealousy.





russw19 said:


> I can address this with an actual answer. We (the public) care about athletes because of the mass marketing about these people that is shoved down our sports viewing throats. Lance Armstrong is a particularly good example of this and is therefore going to be exactly what this board shows of him to be, a very loved athlete by some, and a very despised athlete by others.
> 
> Lance has a great "human interest appeal" to most of us. He has a very unusual story of overcoming cancer to become one of the greatest Tour riders in history. But over the course of his 6 straight years of winning the Tour, he and his story have been marketed and sold to the public ad nausem. Part of why people love him so much is because he beat cancer and that makes for a great story. (Please keep in mind, I am not trying to minimize that actual achievement, but only to make a statement about how that achievement has been sold to the public for the last 6 years.) Lance is a marketing machine. Trek bikes are some of the most popular bikes in the world thanks in large part to Lance Armstrong. Giro helmets... Nike cycling shoes... same thing. If you look back at the last 6 years of cycling press, who dominates it? Lance of course! And both he and all his sponsors and even a few non-sponsors like ESPN or OLN have been capitalizing on his public persona by selling us this image of Lance, the cancer surviving superman who is dominating cycling. The USPS blue and red skinsuits just need a giant S on the chest to really make the statement that the Armstrong PR department is trying to sell us on.
> 
> ...


----------



## blackhat (Jan 2, 2003)

*brilliant!*



Lazywriter said:


> Lemond is a pathetic, typical spoiled ex champ who has even implied in interviews that it would have been he who won six TDFs had it not been for the hunting accident. How arrogant and conceited is that when he only won hald that amount. Like there weren't a million other variable that would have stopped him. Could of should of tends to go hand in hand with jealousy.


lazy, you should work for a certain politicain's press office. wait you probably do...step back, take a cleansing breath and imagine that say...the talking voice in your head said what lemond said, instead of lemond. or the neighbor's dog that probably talks to you said it-instead of lemond. whatever. just take lemond's mug out of your mind. the quote seems pretty fair (and 100% true <i>either way</i>) when you take lemond out of the picture. don't attack the messenger-attack the message. if you can. in this case it's indisputable.


----------



## russw19 (Nov 27, 2002)

Lazywriter said:


> too overexposed making people want to dislike him, but your comment about how "brilliant" Lemonds statement is ridiculous.


Whoops! I forgot that since my posts don't directly reinforce the beliefs and opinions of Lazywriter, they must be ridiculous. It does not matter that I made a point to state that regardless of the context of said quote, or which side of it you are on, the quote in and of itself is brilliant. But since Lazywriter doesn't like Lemond, anything Lemond says, or anyone else for that matter, is absolutely ridiculous.


----------



## Lazywriter (Mar 8, 2002)

*Russ, c'mon now*

it has nothing to do with not liking Lemond. Think about it, with all the past champions like Merckx, Hinault, Indurain etc out there why is it that Lemond is the only one "taking a stand" against a fellow american cyclist? Is Merckx in on the conspiracy but not saying anything? Even if I were not a Lance fan, I would be defending any potential champion who was on the verge of breaking the record without any concrete evidence against them that they were doping to do it. So for as "brilliant" as you think Lemond's statement is, just by saying it the way he did and when he did is an implication of guilt. If you cannot see that or admit it, then your eloquent post before lacks any credibility. What country do you live in that you can judge someone you don't know without any conrete evidence?




russw19 said:


> Whoops! I forgot that since my posts don't directly reinforce the beliefs and opinions of Lazywriter, they must be ridiculous. It does not matter that I made a point to state that regardless of the context of said quote, or which side of it you are on, the quote in and of itself is brilliant. But since Lazywriter doesn't like Lemond, anything Lemond says, or anyone else for that matter, is absolutely ridiculous.


----------



## Miles E (Jul 31, 2003)

russw19 said:


> Regardless of the context of Lemond's quote about Lance, or which side of it you take, the quote itself is brilliant and very true. "If Lance is actually 100% clean, then this is the greatest comeback in sports history, and if he's not clean, then this is the greatest fraud in all of sport."


That was a few years ago, and GL has gone much further than that in his latest statements, no?

Edit: After reading the post again I think you are referencing the quote to make a statement about Lance, not about Greg. If the latter were the case _then_ his more recent statements would also need to be taken into account. But for a concise assessment of Lance this is a fair statement regardless of the source (ie anyone could have said it and it would be equally true).


----------



## moving up (Feb 18, 2003)

weiwentg said:


> well, I won't take that as an accusation, then.
> first, Lance has said some less than pleasant things about Heras, such as him not being professional (in Sports Ill). granted, Roberto's departure from USPS was rather abrupt, and could have been handled better. but the guy did win the Vuelta twice, and he did ride his heart out for Lance.
> 
> >>> Concur. Thought that was in bad taste.
> ...


----------



## atpjunkie (Mar 23, 2002)

*see I work in*

marketing and advertising. I understand difference between man and figure as you so well said. That being stated, it's why I have no attachment emotionally to him either way. he's a great bike racer, since the rest is either marketing hype or a reaction to marketing hype I pay no attention which is what I and many here are trying to tell people. THEY ARE FREAKING STRANGERS, invest your emotions in your family, girlfriend, boyfriend etc... Emotional investments in strangers is idol worship and is best done by pre-teen and teenage girls. 
by the way: I own Giro helmets because they fit me well. I don't use Nike products of any kind, mostly because of fit, secondly as I don't like them trying to dominate markets where there are smaller, dedicated mfr's (Cycling, Hockey etc..) and the rest because... well watch "The Big One". I don't own a Trek as I'm not a huge fan of CF, but I may by a Suburu just because they support cycling in general (IMBA, etc), not because they support LA.


----------



## ttug (May 14, 2004)

*Oh My God,someone Understands*



atpjunkie said:


> marketing and advertising. I understand difference between man and figure as you so well said. That being stated, it's why I have no attachment emotionally to him either way. he's a great bike racer, since the rest is either marketing hype or a reaction to marketing hype I pay no attention which is what I and many here are trying to tell people. THEY ARE FREAKING STRANGERS, invest your emotions in your family, girlfriend, boyfriend etc... Emotional investments in strangers is idol worship and is best done by pre-teen and teenage girls.
> by the way: I own Giro helmets because they fit me well. I don't use Nike products of any kind, mostly because of fit, secondly as I don't like them trying to dominate markets where there are smaller, dedicated mfr's (Cycling, Hockey etc..) and the rest because... well watch "The Big One". I don't own a Trek as I'm not a huge fan of CF, but I may by a Suburu just because they support cycling in general (IMBA, etc), not because they support LA.


Exactly,

Why does a complete stranger OWE ANYONE ANYTHING?

DO I OWE YOU A SMILE? If I had a drug addiction, possibly, but sorry, I have no real expectations of an athlete other than the fact that a bike racer might actually ride a bike. After that, its all a bonus.

Its a sport we like and we watch it.


----------



## blackhat (Jan 2, 2003)

*dont get it*



ttug said:


> Exactly,
> 
> Why does a complete stranger OWE ANYONE ANYTHING?
> 
> ...


why do drug addicts possibly owe someone a smile. and why moreso than anyone else?


----------



## ttug (May 14, 2004)

*the irony*



blackhat said:


> why do drug addicts possibly owe someone a smile. and why moreso than anyone else?



........because if you take enough drugs anything is possible............ Oooops looks like I just created a summary of this entire thread! egad!


----------



## atpjunkie (Mar 23, 2002)

*and I was thinking*

the drug addict smile usually pre-empts the 'hey you got any change?". Okay so the only rider I really dislike is Sven Nijs and that's because I think he's a traitor. I don't HATE him though.


----------



## Mike Ryan (Aug 6, 2003)

If I ever meet Tyler or Lance I probably offer them a beer, but because alcohol is a blood thinner would I be getting them in trouble If we all went for a ride? This is a really long thread about nonsense. I'm going to go for a ride now.


----------



## Morgan (Jul 8, 2004)

*Sorry to hear about your split*



weiwentg said:


> well,next, the whole issue with him leaving his wife and then getting together with Sheryl Crow leaves a bit of a bad taste in my mouth. partly this is because I got dumped recently, and my ex got together with one of my now ex-best friends. both of them are persona non grata.
> 
> *I like Lance a lot, But he is a human not a saint. Marriage is a hard gig and I know that if it would not have been for my Faith and our child there is a very good chance that my wife and I could have split more than once. Like him are not you have to respect his accomplishements.*


----------

