I honestly think a lot of the hating from within the pro circuit came from fear, jealousy and a bandwagon trend once things got ugly.
Yeah, he cheated big time with drugs. Still, I watched all his tour wins and LOVED every stage. I have them all recorded. I get a lot more enjoyment out of watching those tours (and other tours) than I get watching any marathons, miles, 5k, 3k, XC at elite levels.
Basically it's like having fond memories of an amazing, fun, hot girlfriend you were with for a long time. You find out she cheated on you at the end, but you relive the great experiences even though you're upset of what she did behind your back.
L'alpe wrote:
Basically it's like having fond memories of an amazing, fun, hot girlfriend you were with for a long time. You find out she cheated on you at the end, but you relive the great experiences even though you're upset of what she did behind your back.
Interesting perspective.
I agree with L'alpe on the GF thing. Lance though...I never got the sack riding. Sorry to offend, but cycling is a lame sport.
I have a bike and I do ride it because it helps my running, but as a sport it sucks. Maybe I'm missing something, but a bunch of people peddling little machines around just looks goofy.
Running (minus the dope) is the most pure sport we have so I'm just going to stick with that and ignore all the made up garbage.
L'alpe wrote: Yeah, he cheated big time with drugs.
I'm with you...to a certain degree. Although I don't condone PED use in any sport, I understand that cycling in particular was (still is?) so dirty that PED use was the only way for a cyclist to stay on an even playing field. Mark it with an asterisk as the "PED Era of Cycling" but Armstrong was cycling's GOAT in those circumstances. And his work toward funding cancer research remains admirable.
But I draw the line there.
The way Armstrong treated people who could potentially (or actually did) expose his dirty little secret was beyond reprehensible. And his ongoing denials were ridiculous. He'd have been better served to answer every question with "no comment" and moved on.
In my rationalized way of thinking, the only way Armstrong can make amends at this point is to completely expose cycling and everyone who participated/contributed to the sham. Bring everyone down so the sport can start from scratch and rebuild as a clean endeavor.
Fellow Fanboy wrote:
And his work toward funding cancer research remains admirable.
You know that almost all of the funds for the livestrong foundation went towards "raising awareness" and not research, don't you? they gave out a few very small grants in the first couple of years, then nothing after that.
They also had armies of interns who did nothing but defend Lance's reputation on message boards.
cancer shield.
Lance will always be a hero, but never a role model
Mr. Obvious wrote:
Fellow Fanboy wrote:And his work toward funding cancer research remains admirable.
You know that almost all of the funds for the livestrong foundation went towards "raising awareness" and not research, don't you? they gave out a few very small grants in the first couple of years, then nothing after that.
They also had armies of interns who did nothing but defend Lance's reputation on message boards.
cancer shield.
You know that they were always upfront about funding cancer research. They discussed this a lot and why they chose to go that route and it made complete sense. They do more than awareness though, they are there to help folks with cancer figure out what to do , where to go, options. They have flown folks to see Drs, to get treatment etc. They have a high rating as a charity. Do some research
Mr. Obvious wrote: You know that almost all of the funds for the livestrong foundation went towards "raising awareness" and not research, don't you?
No, I didn't know that. Honest question: Is what you assert general knowledge? Meaning, was it part of the LAF mission statement that the organization existed only to create awareness? Or is there a public annual financial report that supports the funds were spent as you say?
I'm not arguing your point; I just wonder where you got the information and how you determined it was factual.
I don't think it is a secret, though I don't know how many people among the general public know it. I still see the claim that they support research is still fairly widespread. They have been open and upfront that they stopped funding cancer research in 2005. There are lots of sources for this information. I will just list a couple:
you can always dig through their tax reports. that's the least filtered source.
Some of that information, including the mission statement and the financials from the tax forms are available in distilled forms from charity navigator, among others;
A more narrative account (but more derivative and opinion based) is available from Outside magazine here:
I'm sure Livestrong has done some good work, but Mr. Obvious is correct in that, for the most part, it was a 'cancer shield' for Lance. As much as anything Lance knew he could make a mint off of his cancer and livestrong.com, which he did quite successfully. There are two sites .com and .org and which do you think is "for profit" and has the most hits? And it's certainly not by accident.
There are plenty of stories out there about Livestrong "charity" rides where most of the money went to Lance and very little to his foundation.