OT: Lance Armstrong

[Epic Voidfield]

So, it appears that Lance Armstrong has been officially stripped from all his titles, and the UCI seems to be moving ahead without appealing his case. This will no doubt cause a lot of negative feedback, especially from U.S fans of Armstrong that this decision was a "witch hunt."

Lance's cancer battle is a tailored-made good story that has inspired a lot of people, but if anyone has slightly followed Armstrong's career, they may have noticed that he's highly disrespected as a cyclist. The perception here in the U.S is that he's a cycling legend. However, the perception of Lance in the cycling community is that the guy is overrated, overly celebrated, and an opportunist for competing in one race (and sometimes only one post-cancer), out of 29 world circuit races while promoting (and making a lot of money) from his cancer survival.

This never sat well for cyclists who would compete in all events as well the ones leading up the Tour de France, where a well-rested Lance Armstrong could give it all in one race . Include the doping allegations, and it's of no consequence that he would bring so much criticism.

I respect Lance as an athlete and a cancer survivor: I've had family members die from cancer; but, outside of that, I do understand the assessment that the guy was an opportunistic douchebag. A cancer survivor who used the Tour de France fame as a-feel-good story in the eyes of an often-ignorant American press and audience.

In a slight baseball reference analogy, it would be as if the Yankees didn't play 162 games in the season, only showed up to the playoffs, and declare themselves total champions if they won the World Series; all while making a shitload of money to stack their team next year.... Oh, wait...!

 

[calsnowskier]

So, it appears that Lance Armstrong has been officially stripped from all his titles, and the UCI seems to be moving ahead without appealing his case. This will no doubt cause a lot of negative feedback, especially from U.S fans of Armstrong that this decision was a "witch hunt."

Lance's cancer battle is a tailored-made good story that has inspired a lot of people, but if anyone has slightly followed Armstrong's career, they may have noticed that he's highly disrespected as a cyclist. The perception here in the U.S is that he's a cycling legend. However, the perception of Lance in the cycling community is that the guy is overrated, overly celebrated, and an opportunist for competing in one race (and sometimes only one post-cancer), out of 29 world circuit races while promoting (and making a lot of money) from his cancer survival.

This never sat well for cyclists who would compete in all events as well the ones leading up the Tour de France, where a well-rested Lance Armstrong could give it all in one race . Include the doping allegations, and it's of no consequence that he would bring so much criticism.

I respect Lance as an athlete and a cancer survivor: I've had family members die from cancer; but, outside of that, I do understand the assessment that the guy was an opportunistic douchebag. A cancer survivor who used the Tour de France fame as a-feel-good story in the eyes of an often-ignorant American press and audience.

In a slight baseball reference analogy, it would be as if the Yankees didn't play 162 games in the season, only showed up to the playoffs, and declare themselves total champions if they won the World Series; all while making a shitload of money to stack their team next year.... Oh, wait...!

I do not follow cycling at all, so I will not comment on Armstrong specifically. However, if he only wanted to compete in one event, that is/was his prerogative.

Comparing it to the Spanks only playing in the post-season is not comparable. To get in to the post-season, teams need to qualify. To race in the TdF, I believe all you need is a sponsor.

Comparing him to Tiger Woods would be more apt. Woods, in his prime, essentially only played the majors. He played a few other events, but only as warmups to the majors.

Is this "Douchey"? Is this good planning? I don't know. I dont follow the sport. The only thing I can go on is the fact that the man NEVER NEVER NEVER failed a test. If the sport is too inept to enforce it's own rules, it deserves what it gets.

Now THAT you can compare to baseball.

 

[gp956]

So, it appears that Lance Armstrong has been officially stripped from all his titles, and the UCI seems to be moving ahead without appealing his case. This will no doubt cause a lot of negative feedback, especially from U.S fans of Armstrong that this decision was a "witch hunt."

Lance's cancer battle is a tailored-made good story that has inspired a lot of people, but if anyone has slightly followed Armstrong's career, they may have noticed that he's highly disrespected as a cyclist. The perception here in the U.S is that he's a cycling legend. However, the perception of Lance in the cycling community is that the guy is overrated, overly celebrated, and an opportunist for competing in one race (and sometimes only one post-cancer), out of 29 world circuit races while promoting (and making a lot of money) from his cancer survival.

This never sat well for cyclists who would compete in all events as well the ones leading up the Tour de France, where a well-rested Lance Armstrong could give it all in one race . Include the doping allegations, and it's of no consequence that he would bring so much criticism.

I respect Lance as an athlete and a cancer survivor: I've had family members die from cancer; but, outside of that, I do understand the assessment that the guy was an opportunistic douchebag. A cancer survivor who used the Tour de France fame as a-feel-good story in the eyes of an often-ignorant American press and audience.

In a slight baseball reference analogy, it would be as if the Yankees didn't play 162 games in the season, only showed up to the playoffs, and declare themselves total champions if they won the World Series; all while making a shitload of money to stack their team next year.... Oh, wait...!

I know I only tuned into cycling because of Lance Armstrong, probably like millions of other Americans. Not sure how expanding the market penetration is harmful for the sport, or should be resented by those competing, sponsoring, and organizing the sport. That's thinking logically, of course. Not something large portions of Europe are known for.

 

[Robotech]

It's a shame really. If he had never won a single Tour de France, he still would have been a great inspirational story. I wish it didn't come to this, but the USADA amassed a mountain of evidence against him and his decision to not fight it is telling. I hope he can continue to do positive things. I don't hate him even after all of the revelations. He wanted to win and probably figured he had to level the playing field since other top cyclists doped too. Tyler Hamilton said that doping was rampant and that you couldn't win unless you did so. He said that cycling is still plagued by doping. This doesn't make it right, of course, but it makes things more understandable for me.

 

[Epic Voidfield]

I do not follow cycling at all, so I will not comment on Armstrong specifically. However, if he only wanted to compete in one event, that is/was his prerogative.

Comparing it to the Spanks only playing in the post-season is not comparable. To get in to the post-season, teams need to qualify. To race in the TdF, I believe all you need is a sponsor.

Comparing him to Tiger Woods would be more apt. Woods, in his prime, essentially only played the majors. He played a few other events, but only as warmups to the majors.

Is this "Douchey"? Is this good planning? I don't know. I dont follow the sport. The only thing I can go on is the fact that the man NEVER NEVER NEVER failed a test. If the sport is too inept to enforce it's own rules, it deserves what it gets.

Now THAT you can compare to baseball.

I think you may have over-magnified, and, perhaps made a case on what was otherwise stated as a "loose" comparison to baseball rather than the overall point, which is still cycling. To be considered the best cyclist, you need to win the entire world tour ICU by accumulating points. Not one freaking race. Using the Spanks as a LOOSE baseball analogy was obviously hyperbolic (especially the playoff bit) and not meant as an exact, indisputable, 100%, factual, equal reference.

A more apt baseball analogy would be interleague play between the A's and Giants. Suppose in 2010 the A's won the interleague series with the Giants but the Giants were still the eventual 2010 World Series champions. No one (other than dumb A's troll, I'm sure) would ever say the A's were the better team. That would be completely stupid, bogus, asinine, and flat out wrong. Of course, to make sure anyone doesn't go off on the pedantic handle, I would have to define the "best team" in baseball as the World Series champion of that respective year. And I hope no one gives me the Philly Fan treatment of "best" team...for God's sake, no!