Given how unpopular distance/endurance sports tend to be, why was Lance Armstrong so popular?

I don't agree with this at all. For one, LA was so convincing that he wasn't doping - he states on a national primetime talkshow back in 05 that it would be utterly "crazy" for someone with cancer given a death sentence to risk thier health by doping. I think a lot of fans took that to heart believing why would a cancer survivor who was knocking on death's door partake in dangerous PED use. Even legendary cycling commentator Phil Liggett believed he was clean and defended him "vehemently" against doping allegations right up to the time LA confessed on Oprah.

Watch these clips of LA particularly the one where he's on the "Larry King Live" show and makes the cancer survivor wouldn't risk their health by doping statement. I'll say one thing - he should have been nominated for an Academy Award for these performances. ?

VroomVroom wrote:

He was American and he dominated. Enough said.

If we had some distance runner that could win 7 or 8 straight world championships they'd be popular too.

This. Hockey is the fourth of the four "major" pro team sports yet the Miracle on Ice is a top American sports moment because it was the good (USA) triumphing over evil commies.

Runner10287 wrote:

VroomVroom wrote:

He was American and he dominated. Enough said.

If we had some distance runner that could win 7 or 8 straight world championships they'd be popular too.

This. Hockey is the fourth of the four "major" pro team sports yet the Miracle on Ice is a top American sports moment because it was the good (USA) triumphing over evil commies.

And now it means nothing as Putin lords it over the US.

Coming back from cancer to compete and dominate in the glamor event of cycling makes a lasting impression. However, his brashness, his arrogance fed into the jingoistic pride that a US cyclist would go to Europe and win. His defenders will always use the line that everyone was doping and he still beat them or that he would win if everyone was clean. That judgement is faulty based on his use of the very best doctor for doping and the money invested in getting away with it. Nothing in track or endurance compares. The only thing remotely similar is Lionel Sanders at the Ironman distance. A few major wins and second at Kona but has the story of coming back from addiction and is a maniacal, sabotaging over trainer who has amassed a huge following because of that boneheadedness and common man appeal.

he would have been beaten even in some of his most dominant tours if not for some lucky circumstances

Runner10287 wrote:

VroomVroom wrote:

He was American and he dominated. Enough said.

If we had some distance runner that could win 7 or 8 straight world championships they'd be popular too.

This. Hockey is the fourth of the four "major" pro team sports yet the Miracle on Ice is a top American sports moment because it was the good (USA) triumphing over evil commies.

Running doesn't have the build up of tension that the TDF, world cup soccer, tennis grand slams, and so on have. You might not be a TDF/World cup fan but after reading about it for a week, you might tune in and decide to follow the last couple of days. You just don't have that in a one off race. Heats don't really do the same as for the favorites, they are more or less formalities.

It would be interesting to see what an US El G, Bekele or the like would do (i.e. a guy expected to win and who did it more times than not) but I sort of expect it wouldn't change much. Centro is just a notch down (i.e. he shows up at every WC/Olympics as a medal contender ) and basically didn't move the needle. Same things for Jenny Simpson. Rupp is also a zero. You need a lot of stuff to line up for an athlete to transcend their sport

Simply put, he was the John Wayne of sports.

Runnings popularity right there. The fact that it's physical toll makes it near impossible to do much more than a one off race hurts it's chance to grow an "American hero".

Like you'll never have a month long event of daily racing.

Right what is your point - that because of his aggressive and vehement claims he wasn't doping - including leveraging his illness, that everyone did or should have believed him? I've seen every clip mate, every documentary, the deposition hearings, the press conference where he sh$tcans Kimmage etc and not for one second did I buy it. I mean it's still laughable and I still can't believe anyone for one moment believed he was completely dominating a thoroughly dirty sport - and he was the only one clean. I mean, his Academy Award performances were enough for you huh? Really?

Then again this is understandable in America where you guys typically believe everything you see on a television or read in a magazine as long as it's high on emotion as opposed to the rest of the worlds population which typically has more rational and common-sensical thought processes when it comes to things like this.

So let's get back to why people (Americans) can't get over this? Why are so many people hung on being "lied" to by Lance when they are lied to in everyday life all the time. Like who gives a f--k? I know guys that lied and cheated on their wives which to me is worse than Lance lying about taking drugs, It's a cycle race not human emotions and feelings of a real person. In fact I actually know a guy who hooked up with his wives best friend but still can't get past Lance Armstrong doing EPO and saying he didn't.

So you tell me then what it is, why nobody can get over it. Whether all you self righteous d$ckheads want to acknowledge this or not, Livestrong gave 500 million to cancer awareness and support and made the lives of millions of cancer sufferers infinitely better.

How about a little bit of perspective.

Runner10287 wrote:

Runnings popularity right there. The fact that it's physical toll makes it near impossible to do much more than a one off race hurts it's chance to grow an "American hero".

Like you'll never have a month long event of daily racing.

Potentially you could pull. off something like the triple crown where you need to win 3 races over a month or so to win like 10 million (and then get put out to stud :)) but it would hard to figure out. Imagine something like a a 1500m, 3000m, and then a 10k where people are set out with head starts based on points accumulated. But it would be pretty hard to build general interest.

For a nonUS example, how big of impact did Mo have on UK running? Did the popularity sky rocket? That isn't the impression I got.

dadsfadsfdasfdsafdas wrote:

Runner10287 wrote:

Runnings popularity right there. The fact that it's physical toll makes it near impossible to do much more than a one off race hurts it's chance to grow an "American hero".

Like you'll never have a month long event of daily racing.

Potentially you could pull. off something like the triple crown where you need to win 3 races over a month or so to win like 10 million (and then get put out to stud :)) but it would hard to figure out. Imagine something like a a 1500m, 3000m, and then a 10k where people are set out with head starts based on points accumulated. But it would be pretty hard to build general interest.

For a nonUS example, how big of impact did Mo have on UK running? Did the popularity sky rocket? That isn't the impression I got.

Britain does have a few guys on the world stage. Not quite Coe, Cram, and Ovett but still.

They loved Mo in 2012 but I think his popularity has waned.

1) He won an iconic European dominated sporting event 7 times of which was rare for ANY athlete let alone being American which was extremely rare.

2) After he beat cancer he and his management team craftily marketed him with Nike through the creation of the Livestrong Foundation.

3) Now that he was the "Sweetheart" of all sports fans worldwide he opened the flood gates of PED's with little or no risk of someone accusing him of cheating and went on to dominate with ZERO remorse.

Don't forget about Mark Spitz back in the 70's. He was a worldwide phenom after winning 7 gold medals in swimming and was the ultimate American sports hero for many years after he retired. The difference was that he was a good guy and was managed by smart people....and didn't cheat!

"Go Run One"

Runner10287 wrote:

Britain does have a few guys on the world stage. Not quite Coe, Cram, and Ovett but still.

They loved Mo in 2012 but I think his popularity has waned.

Yeah but the are all down in the people to watch not the favorites. My impression was Mo had a really brief spike between the first WC, Olympic games, the 2nd WC and then faded quickly. I also never go the impression the mania was very high.

And this is really more than just a track and field issue. Every niche sport wonders how to break out. How many people tuned into the swimming world championships to watch Phelps? Or the gymnnastics to watch Biles? Transcendant athletes but we still only pay attention every 4 years. Armstrong sort of caught lightning in a bottle with the dominance, cancer back story, and Nike going all in with the livestrong bracelets. You needed all 3 to be cultural event.

Salvatore Stitchmo wrote:

As I have grown older the fact Armstrong used PEDs has become almost completely irrelevant. The issue with Lance also isn't that he defended his castle, it's the way that he did. And if the extent of that was sh$tballing people and calling them names then no this isn't cool - but he's no OJ Simpson. By the way, on the notion he destroyed lives? I'm pretty sure the Andreau's, Greg LeMond and Emma O'Reilly are doing just fine and the amount of lives he gave hope to and supported through his completely legit foundation is more than enough for me.

I pretty much have the same view as you. I used to be anti-Lance because I saw doping as black and white 10 years ago, but now I just don't really care, and am a fan of Lance and what he accomplished as an athlete. When nearly all the competitors are doping, you're not really gaining an advantage if you're doing it too. Lance was just better than them.

bruh.. don't compare Armstrong winning on a world stage a billion times to Rupp.

Armstrong was the Michael Jordan of cycling. That's why.

He "did" Sheryl Crow?

This argument about which is bigger, TdF or Olympics, or World Cup, reveals an appalling ignorance.

Add up all the people who watch any part of the TdF for four years in a row, then compare them to just the people who watch the final game of the World Cup. It's not even in the same order of magnitude!

The TdF is part of the culture in France. They have 100's of thousands of people lining the road on some of the famous mountain ascents. The sport of cycling has a huge following in Europe and Lance and his team dominated for 7 years in a row. The amount of skill, hard work and dedication that Lance displayed was incredible.

Like them or not, there have been quite a few alpha males and females in distance running. 20 in no particular order, but with my favorite example first:

Mottram.

Ovett.

Decker circa 1983.

Prefontaine.

Arne Andersson.

Adam Goucher.

Salazar.

Glenn Cunningham.

Ron Hill.

Snell.

Tiru "Baby-Faced Killer" Dibaba.

Liquori.

Zátopek.

Late-career Shalane.

Kawauchi.

Frickin' Mekhissi-Benabbad.

Webb on the right day.

Liz McColgan.

Semenya (admit it).

Chelimo.

Many more, no doubt.