# Why doesnt Armstrong enter Vuelta a Espana?



## MountainPro (Jan 14, 2003)

eh?


his team is there but where is its leader?

saving himself for Le tour?


----------



## Kram (Jan 28, 2004)

Yes, and some other things. He absolutely *loves* his kids and 2 grand tours would take too much time away from them. That's part of the reason that he did the Tour of Georgia this year; he could be in the states with his family.


----------



## Dwayne Barry (Feb 16, 2003)

Kram59 said:


> Yes, and some other things. He absolutely *loves* his kids and 2 grand tours would take too much time away from them. That's part of the reason that he did the Tour of Georgia this year; he could be in the states with his family.


This is a crap excuse. You think all those other pro's don't really love their kids all that much, and therefore race more extensive programs? Especially when Armstrong has the status and money to have his family travel with him if he so chose. Armstrong's only motivation for years now has been the TdF, that explains why he doesn't do the Vuelta or the Olympics or Worlds, etc.


----------



## MountainPro (Jan 14, 2003)

Dwayne Barry said:


> This is a crap excuse. .


i agree, 

sometimes your work takes you away from your family, thats a fact of life...
it doesnt matter if you are a professional sportsperson or if you are a sales rep...you have to make sacrifices in order to make a living...

if he wants to spend more time with his family he should retire and start his own range of bikes (which is inevitable)..concentrating wholely on winning the tour de France is making a farce of the sport, if all pro cyclists had Lance Armstrongs attitude to professional competition there would be no TDF, Giro or Vuelta..


----------



## mohair_chair (Oct 3, 2002)

Maybe he doesn't want to.


----------



## mmoose (Apr 2, 2004)

*yep*

Another Vuelta, another "why is LA not there?". Other years it would be more of a "why isn't LA riding for Roberto to pay back for the work in July?"

Wish we really knew the answers...the boring speculation is that LA takes these couple months off and starts his Tour prep November/December slowly building to peek at the pro competition in the late classics season.

My personal speculation is he is preserving his mental dominance over the competition. If he were to race the Vuelta at 50-75% of his 'best form', others would beat him. Once you beat someone, you think you can do it again...it atleast encourages the competition to try. (and since Mayo and the Dauphine this year, tour 2005 will be more interesting assuming that Mayo can recover from mono better than Steels did)

But, I think that the Vuelta is better off without him. With Landis having a good run, and Dizzy Z's long break, it's already been a successful tour for Postal. If LA were there and dominating the Vuelta, cycling would lose interest to the rest of the world.


----------



## MountainPro (Jan 14, 2003)

yes, but would LA 'dominate' the Vuelta at 50-75% of his best form?

i mean lost of pros race both tours and there is more to life than winning, some people believe that its the taking part thats the most important thing...if all Lance wants to do is win then he's an arsehole. Isnt USPS supposed to be a 'team'? Its not like he is injured. Winning the tour every year loses its significance when thats all he does and all he trains for. Man, he has lost all credibility in my eyes. Plenty of riders are cabable of doing what he does if all they concentrate on is one race every year. A lot of riders see cycling as a passion and a 'vocation' but some only want to select races where they have an unfair advantage over the competition. Where is the SPORT in that?


----------



## Dwayne Barry (Feb 16, 2003)

"yes, but would LA 'dominate' the Vuelta at 50-75% of his best form?"

Of course not, he regularly is beaten in his warm-up races for the tour when he hasn't peaked yet.

"Winning the tour every year loses its significance when thats all he does and all he trains for. Man, he has lost all credibility in my eyes. Plenty of riders are cabable of doing what he does if all they concentrate on is one race every year. A lot of riders see cycling as a passion and a 'vocation' but some only want to select races where they have an unfair advantage over the competition. Where is the SPORT in that?[/QUOTE]

I agree wholeheartedly that Armstrong let's the sport down in many ways by focusing only on the tour, but I'm doubtful there are more than a handful of others out there that have a realistic shot at beating him there, even if it was the sole focus of their year. Fact is, Armstrong and crew have found a winning formula that brings him into July with super form, year in and year out (last year being an exception), and they've stuck to it now for years. I don't know how that is unfair advantage, but it certainly isn't taking any chances. If you can believe him, next year will be different


----------



## coreyb (Aug 4, 2003)

MountainPro said:


> you have to make sacrifices in order to make a living...


im sure he is getting by. it must be tough on the limited salary he makes by not making sacrifices....

by the way, how is jan doing in the vuelta this year? and basso? kloden? what, they arent racing either?


----------



## coreyb (Aug 4, 2003)

MountainPro said:


> Isnt USPS supposed to be a 'team'?


yep, and they seem to be doing ok without him. thats the sign of a great team


MountainPro said:


> Man, he has lost all credibility in my eyes.


be honest, did he have any before in your eyes?


MountainPro said:


> Plenty of riders are cabable of doing what he does if all they concentrate on is one race every year. A lot of riders see cycling as a passion and a 'vocation' but some only want to select races where they have an unfair advantage over the competition. Where is the SPORT in that?


why is dedicating yourself to one race not a passion? is he the only rider to race select races? is he the only one that focuses on the tour? do you also complain about the sprinters, who enter the GTs knowing they wont finish?


----------



## Dwayne Barry (Feb 16, 2003)

The simple fact is, none of us know, not even Armstrong, how great he could have been. That's why as a fan of the sport I feel "cheated". He could have been another Hinault rather than another Indurain, but there is simply no way of knowing because he didn't race enough important races with the goal of winning. 

And sure lots of riders focus on big events, but Armstrong is the biggest name in pro cycling and he does it to an extreme.


----------



## MountainPro (Jan 14, 2003)

coreyb said:


> yep, and they seem to be doing ok without him. thats the sign of a great team
> be honest, did he have any before in your eyes?
> why is dedicating yourself to one race not a passion? is he the only rider to race select races? is he the only one that focuses on the tour? do you also complain about the sprinters, who enter the GTs knowing they wont finish?


i have always been a fan or LA, its just recently that ihave lost respect for him....i am not one of your lance haters but he is such a super hyped sportsperson and i dont think he deserves all the worshipping that he gets...so, yes he did have a great amount of credibility in my eyes before. 

the sprinters are part of the team, they do thier bit. how can lance do his bit when he is back home making commercials?


----------



## coreyb (Aug 4, 2003)

there are, i believe, 25 riders on the usps roster. there are, i believe, 9 spots per team in the vuelta. are you asking the same of the other 15 who arent there?


----------



## coreyb (Aug 4, 2003)

Dwayne Barry said:


> And sure lots of riders focus on big events, but Armstrong is the biggest name in pro cycling and he does it to an extreme.


so its ok to do if you arent winning, but it is the root of all evil if you actually accomplish your goal?


----------



## MountainPro (Jan 14, 2003)

coreyb said:


> there are, i believe, 25 riders on the usps roster. there are, i believe, 9 spots per team in the vuelta. are you asking the same of the other 15 who arent there?


ofcourse not, but i do believe that the team leader (for any team) should be there for ALL the major tours, to lead by example...i'll forgive him for the minor ones.

is that really too much to expect?


----------



## Fogdweller (Mar 26, 2004)

*Too much to expect?*



MountainPro said:


> Is that really too much to expect?


Well, ya. Only a handful of riders have ever started and finished all three grand tours in one year. Thousands have done two, several have won two but nobody has ever won a GT in the same year as starting all three. The riders who did all three did it for publicity for their sponsers, not becuase they were great rider who had a chance of contending. This is why you have a 25 man roster, to have several contenders for different races in the season, one day classics, 3 day, 4 day, 7-9 day, 3 week, and to be able to rotate and hand pick domestiques based on terrain, recovery and current form before the race start. And, if you're Armstrong, you tell the team what you want to ride that season and not the other way around. Don't get me wrong, I'm not defending him, but this is how pro teams have always worked. Personally, I think his approach to the season is lame but I'm not sure I would do it any differently if I had his ability.


----------



## atpjunkie (Mar 23, 2002)

*I think it's an opportunity lost*

if he did suffer an injury (knee tendonitis) okay but otherwise IMHO Lance will never have a better opportunity to win 2 GT's. At this point he has the entire peloton shellshocked and if he had even 90% form I think he'd win this Vuelta on what he has, his team and sheer intimidation. So if he wants 2 GT's (the only thing the other 5xers have) this was the time.
Next year Giro - Tour? Victory in Giro would threaten his form for Tour. (imagine if he'd have raced / won this Vuelta he could have gone for 3 GT's in a row and by that point if he didn't repeat at the Tour, well it wouldn't matter.) So I think Tour / Vuelta falls better into his sched and with racers this year training for the Olympics he'd have even a smaller field to contend with. His chances next year are slimmer (he's older and the sting from this years Tour will have dwindled) and for those who think he'll forgo the Tour....I'm sure that's not what The Discovery Network ponied up the $$ for.


----------



## colker1 (Jan 2, 2003)

Fogdweller said:


> Well, ya. Only a handful of riders have ever started and finished all three grand tours in one year. Thousands have done two, several have won two but nobody has ever won a GT in the same year as starting all three. The riders who did all three did it for publicity for their sponsers, not becuase they were great rider who had a chance of contending. This is why you have a 25 man roster, to have several contenders for different races in the season, one day classics, 3 day, 4 day, 7-9 day, 3 week, and to be able to rotate and hand pick domestiques based on terrain, recovery and current form before the race start. And, if you're Armstrong, you tell the team what you want to ride that season and not the other way around. Don't get me wrong, I'm not defending him, but this is how pro teams have always worked. Personally, I think his approach to the season is lame but I'm not sure I would do it any differently if I had his ability.


huh.. mercxx won all three in one year. and raced the spring classics(correct me if i'm wrong on this one).


----------



## Fogdweller (Mar 26, 2004)

*OK, I will*



colker1 said:


> huh.. mercxx won all three in one year. (correct me if i'm wrong on this one).


Happy to:
Doubles:
Giro - Tour: Fausto Coppi (1949, 1952); Jacques Anquetil (1964); Eddy Merckx (1970, 1972, 1974); Bernard Hinault (1982, 1985); Stephen Roche (1987); Miguel Indurain (1992, 1993); Marco Pantani (1998)
Vuelta - Tour: Jacques Anquetil (1963); Bernard Hinault (1978)
Giro-Vuelta: Eddy Merckx (1973)
Merckx won the worlds in 67, 71 and 74, the same year as one of his doubles.


----------



## Fogdweller (Mar 26, 2004)

myself said:


> ...but nobody has ever won a GT in the same year as starting all three.


And I will correct my previous post. Gastone Nencini won the Giro in 1957 and placed 6th and 9th in the Tour and Vuelta. Merckx did win three in a row, 73 Vuelta, 74 Tour and Giro but they were in different seasons.
My prediction: He'll attempt the Tour and the hour record next season and close his career with in 2006 with the spring classics, Paris-Nice and the Giro.


----------



## Dwayne Barry (Feb 16, 2003)

coreyb said:


> so its ok to do if you arent winning, but it is the root of all evil if you actually accomplish your goal?


The issue is that Armstrong only has one goal, and that he possibly could have won much more if he was more ambitious.


----------



## svend (Jul 18, 2003)

Dwayne Barry said:


> The issue is that Armstrong only has one goal, and that he possibly could have won much more if he was more ambitious.


Perhaps his goal all along has been to win 6 TdF's. As no one had yet done it, I would say that is pretty damn ambitious. I'm sure more that a few of the past and current pros would give their left nut to have that record.


----------



## Sintesi (Nov 13, 2001)

MountainPro said:


> i agree,
> 
> sometimes your work takes you away from your family, thats a fact of life...
> it doesnt matter if you are a professional sportsperson or if you are a sales rep...you have to make sacrifices in order to make a living...
> ...


I whole heartily concur. HE (meaning Armstrong) is making a mockery of the sport and, in fact, is demeaning the accomplishments of his fellow athletes, contemporary or otherwise. It is high time someone has pointed this out and brought it to the attention of this website.


----------



## Sintesi (Nov 13, 2001)

coreyb said:


> im sure he is getting by. it must be tough on the limited salary he makes by not making sacrifices....
> 
> by the way, how is jan doing in the vuelta this year? and basso? kloden? what, they arent racing either?


What utter twaddle. I an quite sure ARMSTRONG is not struggling in any way. Certainly not starving. I find it outrageous in this day and age that a professional "sportsman" cannot compete in all the major events regardless of personal hardship. This pisses me to no end.


----------



## crank boy (Aug 10, 2004)

svend said:


> Perhaps his goal all along has been to win 6 TdF's. As no one had yet done it, I would say that is pretty damn ambitious. I'm sure more that a few of the past and current pros would give their left nut to have that record.



does anyone know which one lance gave up?

sorry, a few beers tonight and couldn't resist.


----------



## MountainPro (Jan 14, 2003)

to clear things up, I am not a Lance hater..i have (had) huge respect for the man and as a cyclist he is one of the best...i think that if you are American you have a blurred view of LA. He can do no wrong. I doubt Le Blanc, in a professional capacity, does not intend Le Tour to be run as an individual event, in isolation so the exclusion of all others and in this respect LA's wins hold less credibility than the guys to also entered (if not won) other GTs. 

In order for us to compare Lance with the greats he has to compete on an even platform with them, and sadly, he doesnt. His schedule is hugely reduced and he is well rested. 

This is not about being American or Anti-Lance, if the person in question was Belgian, Italian or Aus. his questionable achievements would still be the focus of scrutiny.


----------



## Dwayne Barry (Feb 16, 2003)

Fogdweller said:


> Happy to:
> Doubles:
> Giro - Tour: Fausto Coppi (1949, 1952); Jacques Anquetil (1964); Eddy Merckx (1970, 1972, 1974); Bernard Hinault (1982, 1985); Stephen Roche (1987); Miguel Indurain (1992, 1993); Marco Pantani (1998)
> Vuelta - Tour: Jacques Anquetil (1963); Bernard Hinault (1978)
> ...


Didn't Roche also do the Giro-Tour-Worlds hat trick in '87?


----------



## Dwayne Barry (Feb 16, 2003)

svend said:


> Perhaps his goal all along has been to win 6 TdF's. As no one had yet done it, I would say that is pretty damn ambitious. I'm sure more that a few of the past and current pros would give their left nut to have that record.


Let's get this straight, his accomplishments are outstanding. The issue is, at a time when he was one of the most dominant cyclists in the world, he chose to only go for the TdF. Everyone assumes that 6 TdFs was ony do-able on Armstrong's anemic race schedule, and simply, no one knows if that is true, not even Armstrong because he lacked the ambition to do more.


----------



## Fogdweller (Mar 26, 2004)

*Yup*



Dwayne Barry said:


> Didn't Roche also do the Giro-Tour-Worlds hat trick in '87?


You're correct. The 'experts' call it a quasi triple, Roche and Merckx were the only ones to do it. Indurain almost did it in 93 but got second in the worlds behind Lance somebody... the name will come to me...


----------



## Fogdweller (Mar 26, 2004)

MountainPro said:


> to clear things up, I am not a Lance hater..


MtnPro, there is nothing wrong with being one if you are. What are you without your attitudes, beliefs and opinions? Sure, you'll take some heat from the cult but that's what makes these boards fun. 
I totally agree with you, he has the luxury of being able to focus on one race. So does Ullrich to an extent but still is under pressure to perform. It’s harder being second than everyone thinks… Armstrong has the most tour victories and has structured his career of late to achieve that, but that’s about it. If he won another two tours, he’d never equal Merckx’s stage wins or days in yellow. I respect the Lance fans on this site but when they start comparing him to Merckx and even go so far as to say he’s better, I have to put my foot down. Anyway, thanks for starting this thread, it’s been a good one…


----------



## Wade Kelly (Mar 24, 2004)

It's pretty clear Armstrong has set his current and most recent goals only for the Tour, and not much else. His team is composed of strong climbers and tempo riders, no sprinters. He relies on his strong ITT & climbing skills to kill the "also rans"; add in the strong TTT for more bonus time. He peaks for the Tour, doesn't give a hang what others think.

The money/ endorsements and "hype" is in le Tour now-a-daze for the TV-spectator types, "nobody" cares he rides anything else, let alone know they even exist! Americans are a "ball sport" people, only interested in Arena sports, and *Winners*.

The rest of us more "pure" bicycle-types watch the Tour, but more interested in the Giro, Liege, Flanders, Roubaix, etc. What else can you say?

Cheers all,
-WK

~~"People say cake is bad for cyclist. But it's hill's are bad for cyclist, not cake." 
-Eddy Merckx


----------



## sfrider (Jun 5, 2003)

*another 05 Lance prediction*



Fogdweller said:


> And I will correct my previous post. Gastone Nencini won the Giro in 1957 and placed 6th and 9th in the Tour and Vuelta. Merckx did win three in a row, 73 Vuelta, 74 Tour and Giro but they were in different seasons.
> My prediction: He'll attempt the Tour and the hour record next season and close his career with in 2006 with the spring classics, Paris-Nice and the Giro.


I think he races the classics and both of the other GT's in 05 and then he comes back in 06 for the TdF. I think a TdF "comeback" in 06 will get him more motivated than going for another consecutive TdF in 05.


----------



## atpjunkie (Mar 23, 2002)

*People say cake is bad for cyclist. But it's hill's are bad for cyclist*

agreed. let's not start another compare and despair. that quote is the greatest ever!!!
RE: Eddy's old weight issue, I guess we've found the source
let them eat cake


----------



## serbski (Dec 2, 2002)

MountainPro said:


> yes, but would LA 'dominate' the Vuelta at 50-75% of his best form?
> 
> i mean lost of pros race both tours and there is more to life than winning, some people believe that its the taking part thats the most important thing...if all Lance wants to do is win then he's an arsehole. Isnt USPS supposed to be a 'team'? Its not like he is injured. Winning the tour every year loses its significance when thats all he does and all he trains for. Man, he has lost all credibility in my eyes. Plenty of riders are cabable of doing what he does if all they concentrate on is one race every year. A lot of riders see cycling as a passion and a 'vocation' but some only want to select races where they have an unfair advantage over the competition. Where is the SPORT in that?


I am not the biggest LA fan around but if "plenty of riders are capable of doing what he does (i.e. win the Tour)" then how come nobody has done so? Jan certainly, by his own admission, is focused solely on the Tour and I highly doubt that Credit Agricole or Brioches would have any problem if Moreau or Chavanel won *only* the Tour over the entire season. If you want to argue about the positives/negatives of LA's sole focus on the Tour, well that's another story. Also, how has LA selected a race in which he has an "unfair advantage over the competition"? If showing up fitter, better prepared and frighteningly motivated is an "unfair advantage" then I guess I just don't understand modern sport! Now, one could certainly argue that Roberto Heras has an "advantage" over, say, Tom Boonen at a race like the Vuelta but is that "unfair"? Apples and Oranges, I say. Finally, I would say that the realities of pro bike racing soon disabuse most riders of their lofty dreams of "passion" for the sport and replaces them with the tough truth that they are out their *working* for their sponsor. LA *does* have the advantage that USPS does not require him to win Classics or the Giro but, as I said earlier, what team wouldn't sacrifice their entire season if a team leader had a very good shot at winning the Tour?


----------



## Bianchigirl (Sep 17, 2004)

New here - just a few thoughts:

you know when Anquetil, Hinault et al were winning the Vuelta it was the first GT of the year, in the spring - quite a feat to keep your form, but riders of high calibre did just that. I could buy the 'you can only race one GT a year and win' argument better if Pantani hadn't achieved it with some style and ease as recently as 1998...

the UCI ProTour may change the face of cycling again as the top 5 riders on each team will be required to race 2 of the GTs each year - it's a fairly clumsy attempt to try and overcome the kind of specialisation that the UCI recognise is robbing the sport of year round interest. It's an interesting idea that almost certainly won't work, at least the first year. But wouldn't it be more interesting if riders had to amass points to ride in the Tour de France - and that only by riding and completing 4 Classics and another Tour, say, would you reach the qualifying standard.

Me, I think it's bad for the sport to force the focus of attention onto one race and one race only. And in terms of the sport in the US (and the UK for that matter), surely until you develop a wider grass roots interest that appreciates the history and the beauty of all the various facets of the sport from Classics to Grand Tours, then the sport isn't going to flourish post-Armstrong.


----------



## svend (Jul 18, 2003)

*We have now entered the Asinine*



Sintesi said:


> I find it outrageous in this day and age that a professional "sportsman" cannot compete in all the major events regardless of personal hardship. This pisses me to no end.
> I whole heartily concur. HE (meaning Armstrong) is making a mockery of the sport and, in fact, is demeaning the accomplishments of his fellow athletes, contemporary or otherwise. It is high time someone has pointed this out and brought it to the attention of this website.


A very interesting perspective, odd and totally off base but interesting. Why should a professional compete in every major race? I find this line of thought asinine. What do these guys owe you?? Or anyone other than their sponsor who is paying their salary and their family. I would never have imagined that the fact that LA comes into the TdF more prepared than anyone else is making a mockery of the sport. How many of the true GC riders in the last 6 tours rode all three tours? Two tours? Too lazy to look it up but I'd be interested to know. I guess most all the top guys are making a mockery of their respective sports. How many pro football players are in on Every down. Jim Thorpe must be pissed somewhere at the mockery specialization has made of his sport. Carl Lewis should be ashamed for only sprinting when who knows what he could have accomplished if he had tried the longer distances also. Oh, sorry I digress, back to cycling... Let's look at the recent run of Spring classic winners, guys like Boonen, Museeuw, Knaven, Van Petegem et al. I guess that they are making a mockery of the sport for only focusing on what they do best, the spring classics. Sure there are guys like Hincapie, Ekimov and even Zabel who have had success in the classics and race the tours but guess what, they aren't going to win a tour, its not their gig, not what they train for, not what they are paid for. These are perhaps the most ludicrous and (worth repeating) asinine statements made on this board in quite some time. 

rant over


----------



## atpjunkie (Mar 23, 2002)

*niiiiiiice*

and how about that damn Petacchi not contesting GC, what a sham!!!!!
still wish LA would do more races and understand points that we'll never truly know how great he is, but I'll still revel in what he has done in my lifetime.


----------



## ECXkid04 (Jul 21, 2004)

God you people seem to have no idea and appreciation for a man who has done more for this sport than almost anyone that I can think of. So what if he chooses to dedicate his whole year to the Tour (six in a row shows that his strategy obviously works). So what if he wants to spend time with his kids. In my opinion I think it's harder to focus on one event for the whole year. Imagine keeping focus on your one goal for every day of every year for the last six years. I know that I couldn't do that and serioiusly doubt that anyone on this whole forum can claim to. Can anyone on this forum honestly say that they ride over 250 miles a week evey week? Can anyone on this forum say that they ride every day, rain or shine? If it's raining and you don't want to ride outside are you in on your trainer, or are you on the couch? Lance trains harder, longer, and is more dedicated to the sport that is professional cycling than anyone in the cycling world. Look past the endorsments from Nike, Power Bar, and others. What you get is someone who cares about only a few things in life. 1. Biking. 2. Being a good father. In addition to an incomprehensible six Tour victories, he donates millions of dollars to cancer victims and to further better cancer research. I don't know of many if any professional cyclists who can attest to that. Lance is a highly dedicated person and I don't see any problem if he chooses to skip an event like the Olympics after spending more than three weeks and as many miles as a lot of us ride in a year. It's perfectly normal for someone to want to spend time with their kids. Many people on this site have no right to criticize him for that. How do you think they feel not having their father around for most of the year? Lastly, look at how many people in America are now aware of our fantastic sport. Everywhere you look now, there is a different person with a yellow livestrong bracelet. I know at my school tons of kids have these Livestrong bracelets and even if they don't bike or stay updated on the latest greatest in carbon and Dura Ace they at least they share an appreciation for the sport and for what this great man has accomplished.


----------



## Bianchigirl (Sep 17, 2004)

At the college where my husband works (in the UK) there are a lot of students wearing the yellow bracelet. Out of interest I conducted a quick straw poll and the overwhelming response I got was that it was a Nike thing. To those kids it's a fashion statement and little else - just the latest cool accessory...

Eddy Merckx said he felt that Greg Lemond's approach to the sport was disrespectful because he concentrated on the Tour and the World's at the expense of the Classics - Armstrong has simply taken this specialisation to a new level. And Merckx rode in an era when the sport came first and the business second - Lemond and Armstrong are ultimately businessmen who happen to ride bikes - which was, for me, epitomized by his refusal to treat the Centenary Tour as anything special - a stance that struck a lot of fans as graceless.

And I could moralise and say that if Armstrong cared so deeply about his children, then he might have made a better job of staying with their mother. After all, on a personal level, are the pressures really any greater than on any couple who spend long periods of time apart?

Sorry, but I think there's a lot of blind hero worshipping goes on with Armstrong so that, even when he does something that you'd be unhappy about if a friend did it, a blind eye gets turned. After all, if any other rider had the relationship with Ferrari that Armstrong does, there would be a lot of questions asked...


----------



## alienator (Jun 11, 2004)

Bianchigirl said:


> At the college where my husband works (in the UK) there are a lot of students wearing the yellow bracelet. Out of interest I conducted a quick straw poll and the overwhelming response I got was that it was a Nike thing. To those kids it's a fashion statement and little else - just the latest cool accessory...
> 
> Eddy Merckx said he felt that Greg Lemond's approach to the sport was disrespectful because he concentrated on the Tour and the World's at the expense of the Classics - Armstrong has simply taken this specialisation to a new level. And Merckx rode in an era when the sport came first and the business second - Lemond and Armstrong are ultimately businessmen who happen to ride bikes - which was, for me, epitomized by his refusal to treat the Centenary Tour as anything special - a stance that struck a lot of fans as graceless.
> 
> ...


I dunno, but I think it's awefully arrogant or presumptuous (sp?) to make claims on why someone else's marriage failed, who didn't put forth the requisite effort for their kids or marriage, or who didn't take care to make sure their relationships with people of questionable repute (maybe Ferrari) were beyond reproach. I mean, really: do you know something that others don't?

The best that anyone not intimately involved with any of the details or any of the situations can do is say that the situations are complicated.


----------



## Bianchigirl (Sep 17, 2004)

I agree that these situations are complicated, and I did point out that 'if' I were to moralise, I 'might' hold that viewpoint - just a way of introducing a different way of looking at someone's relationship to their children.

as for the relationship to Ferrari - again, a way of introducing an argument, a different perspective perhaps. Though Willy Voet (Richard Virenque's soigneur, and the man at the heart of the Festina doping scandal) does say in his book 'Breaking the Chain' that Virenque refused the chance to be 'prepared' by Ferrari because a) his was too expensive and b) working with Ferrari would make it much too obvious that he was doping. Again, you should read the book and form your own conclusions.

What is interesting about this debate is the polarity of opinion and the fact that Armstrong does get away with some stuff that, if a European star rider did so, would simply open him up for ridicule - so threads like this are always interesting to read from that perspective.


----------



## Dwayne Barry (Feb 16, 2003)

Bianchigirl said:


> At the college where my husband works (in the UK) there are a lot of students wearing the yellow bracelet. Out of interest I conducted a quick straw poll and the overwhelming response I got was that it was a Nike thing. To those kids it's a fashion statement and little else - just the latest cool accessory...


I've wondered about that, as I work in a major eastern US city and everyday see any number of people with these on that don't look like they would know Lance Armstrong from a hole in the wall. I figured that they must have a friend/sibling etc. touched by cancer, but then it just became too common. The fashion thing would make a lot more sense.


----------



## lanterne rouge (Jun 27, 2002)

*who cares if it is fashion or something else.*



Dwayne Barry said:


> I've wondered about that, as I work in a major eastern US city and everyday see any number of people with these on that don't look like they would know Lance Armstrong from a hole in the wall. I figured that they must have a friend/sibling etc. touched by cancer, but then it just became too common. The fashion thing would make a lot more sense.


The fact of the matter is that it is raising money for cancer research (if it was purchased through the LAF) and that is a good thing, regardless if the wearer is only intending to make his or her own fashion statement. Nothing personal by the way, just an observation.


----------



## alienator (Jun 11, 2004)

lanterne rouge said:


> The fact of the matter is that it is raising money for cancer research (if it was purchased through the LAF) and that is a good thing, regardless if the wearer is only intending to make his or her own fashion statement. Nothing personal by the way, just an observation.


Thank you. My wife's a cancer survivor. My best man from my wedding has an incurable form, and one of my cousins died at the age of 16 from it. For something that does such good--raising a ton of money for a good cause--these yellow bands sure bring on alot of kvetching and judgement. Who cares if a person spends a dollar to satiate their vanity when that dollar goes to help those in need? Whinging about LiveStrong fashion statements is on par with the whining about the bands not being Made in the U.S. of By God A.

I'm tickled freakin' pink every time I see one on someone else.


----------



## mtnwing (Aug 30, 2004)

alienator said:


> . . .
> I'm tickled freakin' pink every time I see one on someone else.


Tickled "yellow" that is . . . . 

I hosted an LAF fund raiser at a cycling event this summer and raised a signiificant sum for the foundation, largely on donations inspired by these yellow bracelets I was giving away. 

The most memorable quote of the weeked came from one lady that wanted to know if "I had any of the other colors with me" . . .. I had to chuckle but politely told here no those were out of stock at the moment. It did get me thinking though, that it might be neat to have green and white and polka dot and ever other color as who cares - so long as it's raising money for a good cause. They should even have team color bracelets that sell at a premium to raise more for this great cause. 

I think it's awesome that this idea has transended the cycling world and hit the mainstream. That just means it's way more successful than anyone would have thought and it's great that more than just hardcore fans have had their interest (and dollars) captured . Not only is it raising money for cancer, but also buiding bridges and links to others who might not previously known about the Maillot Jaune or the great traditions or sport has to offer. 

both my wife and mother are cancer survivors . . . LiveStrong!

-mtnwing
www.roadbikes.net
www.carbonbicycles.com


----------



## Fogdweller (Mar 26, 2004)

*An idea...*

What if they started making them UV degenerative so that they would fade to white after a few months? People might replace them more often and this would generate additional revenue. "Hittin' the club tonight, better slap on a fresh band..." Functional obsolescence, like the American car industry has been so successful with. Just and idea.


----------

