Thanks for Lance Armstrong...

[IJWS]

I know that this is going to get some negative responses, but I just wanted to put this on the table to see what people think. Everyone seems to have an opinion about Lance, in fact everyone seems to have the same opinion! You're all acting like he stabbed you in the back and then ran over your puppies so I thought maybe instead of being all grumpy about Lance, we could take a second and think about some of the positive benefits of Armstrong's career. Actually just one:the great effin' GEAR!

Lance's first tour win sparked exponential growth in American cycling and that growth coupled with dot-com AND a real estate booms (economic doping?) meant that lots and lots of people were buying and riding bikes. Bike companies got the chance to start making the things their r&d departments had been dreaming about making, and old technologies trickled down resulting in entry level bikes that worked and were reliable which of course resulted in even more people being able to get into cycling. And the high-end stuff just started blowing things out of the water! Entire new categories of product and experiences were being developed and every new category represented a new way for people to ride bikes.

Things like "comfort Bikes", and "women's specific designs", saddles that kept people's pp's awake and shoes that made sure your toes wouldn't go numb--these are all benefits that come about when large chunks of the population start getting involved in something and talking about it. Now, because of this growth, bikes aren't just esoteric toys for doctor's and lawyers but they present acceptable and healthy lifestyles for all kinds of people.

That kind of inclusion is amazing and it wouldn't have been possible without the classic American archetype of a successful sports hero like Lance. His actions aren't really justifiable but they certainly didn't ruin American cycling as we know it. If anything they fueled the fire that let American cycling become what it is. In Texas we have a saying: "don't piss on my boots and tell me it's raining". So, you know, don't complain to me, while you're riding your super-light super-comfortable carbon fiber bike with electric shifting, and mid-level 1500 gram wheels--that matches your wife's--who thinks that bikes are a fun and exciting lifestyle...that Lance is pissing on your boots(/carbon soled body geometry shoes that are white...mmmm...so Euro). The world isn't over and Lance certainly didn't ruin it.

Lance started cheating in a sport when everyone else was cheating in it. He cheated better and harder than anyone else that was cheating and he reaped a bunch of rewards for that. He ruined a lot of lives along the way. He was an arrogant prick that abandoned his wife and children, and even his hot rockstar girlfriend when she got the same disease that he did. No doubt his actions have hurt people. But they didn't hurt you--unless you're an elite member of professional cycling. While Lance was helping build credibility in America for one of the greatest sports ever, he also encouraged hundreds of thousands of people that they could overcome cancer--or at least that their lives weren't ruined because of it. That encouragement can't be taken back the way that yellow jerseys can be stripped and Lance's disgrace isn't going to slow down the momentum of cycling in America. So maybe we should all be a tiny bit grateful for Lance. If not grateful, maybe we could just talk about something else. After all, biking rules and we're all lucky enough to be biking so we all have much better things to talk about than what the pros were doing 8 years ago--or at all.

I mean I'm not gonna vote for the guy. I was always more of an Ulrich fan and I vote Democratic anyway. Moral of the story: bikes are amazingly fun. Cyclists are lucky because we get to do the riding and playing ourselves. As far as bikes go--we don't have to wait for it to come on tv and be played by the pro's for us to have a good time and as a result, WE are the ones defining the sport--not the pro's. The demise of a pro doesn't make our rides better or worse...but the rise of a pro did play a role in making our rides possible. If you want to talk about Lance, let's do it with some more criticality and awareness than what has been going around. Man...if I read the word hubris in one more article/comment/facebook post I'm gonna...well, I'm not gonna do anything. It doesn't affect my ride :)

[4Rings6Stars]

The first Lance thread I will comment in...and it will be brief.

"+1"

[1/2 Wheeler]

Very little chance that many in this crowd will be willing to recognize the good that Lance has done for cycling in the USA.

They will claim that they would be riding anyway and the equipment improvements were inevitable.

Much truth in both, but Lance made it ok to wear lycra. Nobody had been able to do that before him.

[cuwinbs]

+++++++1.well said!!!

[wooly]

Good take.

[eBAUMANN]

a refreshing take on things, and very well said! a hearty +1 from me as well!
:beer:

[pdmtong]

They will claim that they would be riding anyway and the equipment improvements were inevitable.

they would be riding but perhaps not on carbon. mtb was in a slump back then. TdF/lance created a surge in road that is hard to deny.

your points are well made.

+1 on your post

[Louis]

He did help blunt that massive surge in mountain biking that swept the country.

[54ny77]

as someone who's been riding since the early 80's, with a good chunk of racing mixed in during that time, i could absolutely, unequivocally care less that more people are riding. in fact, i'd go so far as to say it's been a detriment, not a blessing, that more are out on the road. it's gotten worse out there--far worse. the public seems to hate cyclists.

apart from brifters and clipless pedals and good synthetic chamois, there's nothing in the modern gear era i'd cry over not having if it wasn't invented. it's almost comical to watch the pendulum swing for things desirable such as all steel bikes, big clunky sewup rims like nemesis (really, they're friggin' tanks! remember mavic ssc's? same damned thing--made to survive cobble hell), and retro-looking gear (rapha, etc.).

well ok, the compact crank has been a modern blessing...

now get off my lawn!

[slidey]

First up, this never happened.
Lance's first tour win ...

Secondly, and more importantly your reasoning to say thanks to Lance for the marketing strategy of the machinery that created his story to sell their goods, is misplaced gratitude. We'll never know who exactly are the benefactors of Lance's erstwhile glory years as the douche will never give them up, but you can begin by thanking UCI.
Lance's first tour win sparked exponential growth in American cycling and that growth coupled with dot-com AND a real estate booms (economic doping?) meant that lots and lots of people were buying and riding bikes.

Lastly, don't forget that Lance personally killed off Lemond's prosperous bike manufacturing venture. Wouldn't we have been better off with Lemond bikes as a choice, than without? That's one man killing off a bike company because he could! The point being, you are free to feel whatever tickles your fantasy, but when making such a controversial claim public its best to think it through in a step-wise manner to understand that your words aren't causing more damage than intended.

In this case, I take your words to portray an opinion which is the worst insult to the sport. In that, it has nothing to do with the spirit of the sport! Instead it forgives the corporate machinery that has corrupted UCI at the highest levels, and gives it a clean bill to conjure another marketing gimmick which will usher in another marketing spree a few years down the line.

[IJWS]

**deleted my reply to Slidey. I just want to see what other people are thinking instead and not just argue over the internet.

[rcnute]

At least we know Lance is much smarter than Manti Te'o.

Ryan

[Rada]

**deleted my reply to Slidey. I just want to see what other people are thinking instead and not just argue over the internet.

Crap that was fast. I figured the Thought Police would be banging on your door, but?

[slidey]

James-Williams:
Hmm...I agree with you that the euphoria in those moments when he doped+won was real euphoria.

Barring that though, I'm still unable to see the relation between Lance's lies to modern technology of bikes. I can give him chamois cream (he glorified saddle sore, to dope), but that's about all.

Our perspectives are different, in that I view him as the scourge of cycling.

[IJWS]

Crap that was fast. I figured the Thought Police would be banging on your door, but? ha. I don't want to trample all over the forum.

[IJWS]

James-Williams:
Hmm...I agree with you that the euphoria in those moments when he doped+won was real euphoria.

Barring that though, I'm still unable to see the relation between Lance's lies to modern technology of bikes. I can give him chamois cream (he glorified saddle sore, to dope), but that's about all.

Our perspectives are different, in that I view him as the scourge of cycling.

No Way man! Dave Zabriske is reponsible for glorifying the saddle sore! http://www.dz-nuts.com/

[professerr]

War has advanced all sorts of technologies which benefit mankind: rockets, jets, computers, medicine. War is still a bad thing, and nobody is thankful for it.

Let me guess, you're from Texas?

[Rada]

War has advanced all sorts of technologies which benefit mankind: rockets, jets, computers, medicine. War is still a bad thing, and nobody is thankful for it.

Let me guess, you're from Texas?

Nice comparison. War=Armstrong. I think it's sad how people become what they so hate.

[Rueda Tropical]

Maybe we should also be thanking the grifters on Wall Street for the housing bubble? There are more sustainable ways to grow economies / sports business that don't involve unethical, illegal, anti-social behavior,

There has been the 70's bike boom, mountain bike boom, bmx, hipster fixie booms and had there been no lance and no verbuggen and a cleaner peloton there would likely have been some other American making his mark in Europe. You can thank lance and his enablers for making the sport a sewer that seems incapable of lifting itself out of its hopeless corruption.

[merlincustom1]

Nice comparison. War=Armstrong. I think it's sad how people become what they so hate.

Do you not understand the concept of analogy? It's a comparison of similarities between things that are unlike. It's not a literal equation that Lance is as bad as war. You can't infer "hate" from the comparison. Don't you find that word overused? But just to play along, who has become what within the meaning of your second sentence?

[Polyglot]

I know that this is going to get some negative responses, but I just wanted to put this on the table to see what people think. Everyone seems to have an opinion about Lance, in fact everyone seems to have the same opinion! You're all acting like he stabbed you in the back and then ran over your puppies so I thought maybe instead of being all grumpy about Lance, we could take a second and think about some of the positive benefits of Armstrong's career. Actually just one:the great effin' GEAR!

I too am totally shocked by the universal opinion that now prevails about Lance Armstrong. As somebody who has been saying for over a decade that Lance was a fraud and cheater and a negative influence on the sport, I could never have imagined that his star could ever pale just as much as it has. I had always hoped and imagined that his luster would simply wear off and he would fade into oblivion. After the first tour win this was still possible, but then the whole media "story" got involved.

Lance's first tour win sparked exponential growth in American cycling and that growth coupled with dot-com AND a real estate booms (economic doping?) meant that lots and lots of people were buying and riding bikes. Bike companies got the chance to start making the things their r&d departments had been dreaming about making, and old technologies trickled down resulting in entry level bikes that worked and were reliable which of course resulted in even more people being able to get into cycling. And the high-end stuff just started blowing things out of the water! Entire new categories of product and experiences were being developed and every new category represented a new way for people to ride bikes.

This is a very myopic take on history. The boom that followed Lance' first tour win was comparably small when compared to the one experienced after Greg Lemond's win, and outright minuscule when compared to that experienced in the 70's. It took at least a few tour wins and the whole media circus of hanger's-on that recognized that they could benefit financially from the "feel good story" that was represented by the cancer survivor coming back to beat the world. It was also a generational thing that saw the desire of the young to make a new pastime their own, that didn't need to be shared with their parent's generation. If you look back you will see that for a time tennis was the aspirational sport of the upwardly mobile, then you see golf take on the ascendency. With environmental considerations taking on more importance among the upwardly mobile, golf has lost a step and cycling has been able to gain. Developments in gear have however not been that great. Carbon frames, aluminum frames, titanium frames all were well-established before Lance's era, as were "modern" pedals, brakes, derailleurs... The only difference is that today it has become acceptable to spend inordinate amounts of money for minuscule gains. For example, back in the 70's when I bought my first top of the line bike, it cost the equivalent of about 4-5 times that of an entry-level racing-style bike shop bicycle (not to be confused with a department store bike). In the worst case scenario, you were perhaps at a multiple of 10. Today, this multiple can now be in excess of 30, notwithstanding that the gains achieved are now lesser than back in the 70's inasmuch as the acceptable entry level bike has now improved so much more than the top of the line bikes. To me this is not a positive.


Things like "comfort Bikes", and "women's specific designs", saddles that kept people's pp's awake and shoes that made sure your toes wouldn't go numb--these are all benefits that come about when large chunks of the population start getting involved in something and talking about it. Now, because of this growth, bikes aren't just esoteric toys for doctor's and lawyers but they present acceptable and healthy lifestyles for all kinds of people.

All of these things already existed or were well on their way before the arrival of Lance and the circus. If you compare cycling to any other sport, you will see the exact same specialization. Women-specific saddles go back to the very beginning of the 20th century at least (my wife actually likes her 1980 Turbo ladies better than any of the modern ladies-specific saddles). Likewise for wonderful cycling shoes. The only difference being that it has now become universally available and more acceptable. Back in the 70's people did look at me as being odd for walking with shoes that made me walk with toes in the air, going click click click. Your average non-golf player would however have thought exactly the same of somebody wearing golf-specific shoes or any other sport-specific shoe used in a sport where, in their mind, a "regular sport" shoe was acceptable. Today, all sport-specific shoes are acceptable.

That kind of inclusion is amazing and it wouldn't have been possible without the classic American archetype of a successful sports hero like Lance. His actions aren't really justifiable but they certainly didn't ruin American cycling as we know it. If anything they fueled the fire that let American cycling become what it is. In Texas we have a saying: "don't piss on my boots and tell me it's raining". So, you know, don't complain to me, while you're riding your super-light super-comfortable carbon fiber bike with electric shifting, and mid-level 1500 gram wheels--that matches your wife's--who thinks that bikes are a fun and exciting lifestyle...that Lance is pissing on your boots(/carbon soled body geometry shoes that are white...mmmm...so Euro). The world isn't over and Lance certainly didn't ruin it.

You are showing your personal fears and preconceptions here. Cycling as a pastime has a long established history in the US and will survive. Given your Texan roots, may I tell you that I remember riding across Texas in 1980, from the Louisiana/Texas border near Beaumont all the way to the Texas/New Mexico border near the Carlsbad caverns. I was welcomed everywhere and treated with great respect everywhere. When I next returned in 2005 for a 6-month job placement, I was shocked by the poor reception I was given as a cyclist, with plenty of antagonism that I not experienced 25 years earlier in the same areas or for that matter in other parts of the country. As a sport, including racing, the continued thriving is perhaps somewhat more dubious, but in my opinion still more than strong enough to survive. Without even touching on the whole doping issue, Lance's approach to racing has done incredible damage to the sport of cycling. The history of the sport has suffered due to Lance and his approach to it. Prior to Lance it was not only unacceptable but unimaginable that the top rider would not honor ALL the top races and thereby help all the other cyclists (and their sponsors) shine. By effectively making the sport nothing more than one single race per year, Lance has devalued all the other races and made sponsorship of racing as a whole far less attractive. Indeed, if you know that your sponsorship dollars will not bring about much positive reflection on your product or brand, you will simply not invest. Once, this positive brand association could be achieved over a wide range of races, but when the "top" racer(s) doesn't/don't participate everywhere, the chances of a positive reflection on your brand are reduced. It makes for an all or nothing proposition.

Lance started cheating in a sport when everyone else was cheating in it. He cheated better and harder than anyone else that was cheating and he reaped a bunch of rewards for that. He ruined a lot of lives along the way. He was an arrogant prick that abandoned his wife and children, and even his hot rockstar girlfriend when she got the same disease that he did. No doubt his actions have hurt people. But they didn't hurt you--unless you're an elite member of professional cycling. While Lance was helping build credibility in America for one of the greatest sports ever, he also encouraged hundreds of thousands of people that they could overcome cancer--or at least that their lives weren't ruined because of it. That encouragement can't be taken back the way that yellow jerseys can be stripped and Lance's disgrace isn't going to slow down the momentum of cycling in America. So maybe we should all be a tiny bit grateful for Lance. If not grateful, maybe we could just talk about something else. After all, biking rules and we're all lucky enough to be biking so we all have much better things to talk about than what the pros were doing 8 years ago--or at all.

Your take on "cheating" is totally misplaced. As in any sport, there will always be bending of the rules. I truly don't believe that the cheating as you characterize it is any more widespread of prevalent than in any other sport. In cycling, there has been an incredible improvement of the policing or some sorts of cheating, which have therefore been replaced with other more difficult to police practices. Back when I raced, it did happen that riders would take short-cuts in the course to "win" the race as we did not have sufficient commissaires to verify this, or there were friendly shoulders who pushed riders up hills or cars which would pull riders back up to the peloton... not to say anything about flicking gear levers, elbowing riders... I would also like to highlight that back at the turn of the century, that there was a clear danger of speaking of Lance Armstrong in a critical and open manner. His litigiousness was well known and it often required little more than a post on a forum to have the owner of the forum remove the post for fear of litigation. It was also widely reported (but yet to be proven beyond doubt) that Lance and his media machine employed people to post and counter any possible negative exposure in forums or otherwise.

I mean I'm not gonna vote for the guy. I was always more of an Ulrich fan and I vote Democratic anyway. Moral of the story: bikes are amazingly fun. Cyclists are lucky because we get to do the riding and playing ourselves. As far as bikes go--we don't have to wait for it to come on tv and be played by the pro's for us to have a good time and as a result, WE are the ones defining the sport--not the pro's. The demise of a pro doesn't make our rides better or worse...but the rise of a pro did play a role in making our rides possible. If you want to talk about Lance, let's do it with some more criticality and awareness than what has been going around. Man...if I read the word hubris in one more article/comment/facebook post I'm gonna...well, I'm not gonna do anything. It doesn't affect my ride :)

So after having written about all the items that you claim have been positive, you now write that nothing has had an effect on your ride.

[spdcyclist]

Do not think for one moment that Lance did anything out of the goodness of his heart or for compassion for others it was all about Lance and still is. The fact that many believed in him, praised him, wanted to be him, is what expanded the market for cycling and the industry met the needs of the marketplace. Plain and simple capitalism...and that's a good thing. Lances only desire is to dominate all around him that do not share in his view of reality. He will go to any lengths to get back on top. There were positive outcomes from his journey like Live-strong, but, don't think for a moment that he did it for anyone other than himself.

Just look at this forum... Lance must be so totally enjoying the attention... Lance speaks and the "world" analyzes every word and facial expression. How do you know when Lance is lying? His lips are moving. Oh oh! Lance lawyers are knocking at my door...

And... Here comes the Lance movie ... Will be released in time for the tour.

Lance=Sociopath

[Rada]

Do you not understand the concept of analogy? It's a comparison of similarities between things that are unlike. It's not a literal equation that Lance is as bad as war. You can't infer "hate" from the comparison. Don't you find that word overused? But just to play along, who has become what within the meaning of your second sentence?

War-Athlete. Don't you find such analogies just as overused? The man expressed an opinion. Agree with some of it or none of it is your choice. Then those who dislike Armstrong (better?) come out of the woodwork to not just disagree, but to rip the guy apart. Sound familiar?

[FlashUNC]

I had no idea Lance motivated team La Vie Claire to experiment with carbon bikes. Or was at Campy in the early 90s when they began development of electronic shifting.

This whole "Lance as savior of the sport" storyline, as others have mentioned, is myopic. That view also supposes that in the last year his name has not done irreparable harm to the sport.

I don't care the guy doped to win the Tour. I really don't.

What I care about is he spent a decade plus trying to ruin the lives of anyone who dared challenge that he was clean. Christophe Bassons, Greg LeMond, Emma O'Reilly, Betsy and Frankie. The list goes on and on.

[R2D2]

Forget Lance.
Thank God I grew up admiring Eddy!

[oldpotatoe]

Very little chance that many in this crowd will be willing to recognize the good that Lance has done for cycling in the USA.

They will claim that they would be riding anyway and the equipment improvements were inevitable.

Much truth in both, but Lance made it ok to wear lycra. Nobody had been able to do that before him.

Lance did help road cycling in the US in the late 90s, early-mid 2000s...then we all found out he was the prick that many thought he was, in the late 2000s..but cycling did benefit.

Greg did bump cycling in the US in the 80s, and early 90s when he won after being shot. Another comeback victory. Coverage became common place and when in retail, I couldn't keep videos of the 86, 89 and 90 TdF in stock(particularly 1990, 8 second win margin).

There was a reason there were Lemond bikes and a reason why Trek bought the name, Lemond was popular. Same for Fischer.

But it was about riding, racing and watching..not about gear, IMHO.

BTW-'compact', 110mm BCD cranks had been for a long time when Tyler used one with a busted collar bone.

[zap]

Lance has certainly entertained and I think he did some good....and his character is not out of line with other "super" stars.........

but hell, lycra, is no more or less acceptable today v the day's when Lemond was kicking ass on high end kit.

[Tony T]

Lastly, don't forget that Lance personally killed off Lemond's prosperous bike manufacturing venture.

LeMond did a good job of that himself. Of course, it was not his fault, you see, it was due to "under-capitalization and poor management by his father" (Lemond's Interview in Rouleur, Guy Andrews, issue five, p. 26). Then Trek bailed him out, but not content, Lemond then said that going into business with Trek "destroyed" his relationship with his father (ibid).

Yes Greg, it's never your fault.

[jr59]

Do not think for one moment that Lance did anything out of the goodness of his heart or for compassion for others it was all about Lance and still is. The fact that many believed in him, praised him, wanted to be him, is what expanded the market for cycling and the industry met the needs of the marketplace. Plain and simple capitalism...and that's a good thing. Lances only desire is to dominate all around him that do not share in his view of reality. He will go to any lengths to get back on top. There were positive outcomes from his journey like Live-strong, but, don't think for a moment that he did it for anyone other than himself.

Just look at this forum... Lance must be so totally enjoying the attention... Lance speaks and the "world" analyzes every word and facial expression. How do you know when Lance is lying? His lips are moving. Oh oh! Lance lawyers are knocking at my door...

And... Here comes the Lance movie ... Will be released in time for the tour.

Lance=Sociopath

Agreed, BUT, it still happened!

The cycling world is better now than it was.
To many things to list. You can say it MIGHT have happened w/o Lance.
But the simple fact is; It happened and Lance was at the forefront of that boom!
How many forums were there before?
how many times could we watch the TDF liveSaying nothing about the spring classics.

Sure LA was a capitalist. SURE thing. But he did bring cycling to the masses.

Also; I am shocked to see this myth that Lance ran Trek. When did this come about?
Oh wait, you say he didn't? Oh...well, please explain how Lance ruined greg leMond's bike line? That was a decission made by Trek's marketing!
I'm sure that they listened to what input Lance had to say. But Lance could not do this. This was done by Trek. NOT lance. Truth be told, if G.LeMond bikes were selling well, they would have continued the line.Most times, new people don't want a brand that did something years ago. They want what won this year. NASCAR has a saying that fits here, win on Sunday, sales on Monday!

[Tony T]

Maybe we should also be thanking the grifters on Wall Street for the housing bubble? There are more sustainable ways to grow economies / sports business that don't involve unethical, illegal, anti-social behavior.

Sure, the folks who took the loans by lying about their income to buy houses they couldn't afford were duped. They were innocents. :rolleyes:

[rugbysecondrow]

I grew up a Chicago fan: Sweetness, Ryno, Air Jordan...not only three of the best players all time at their position, but also guys who played (with the exception of Jordan with the Wizards which doesn't count) exclusively for their team their whole career. That was the 1980's and early 1990's. Life was good, there was little media, the Cubs were on during the heat of the day, Jordan ruled the nights and Sweetness trampled over everyone on Sundays. I am glad to have had those moments before the tell all media days, 24 hour news, blogs etc. Those days hold a special place for me, and I am thankful for it, but I also have no misgivings that our "heros" are real people, and maybe not real nice or good people. I cried when Walter Payton died, but looking back, it is poetic he died before he grew old, before he became a real person and all of his flaws were brought out for all to see. Now, a discussion about Jordan doesn't happen without his other baggage.

ESPN and 24 hour news has made lots of money for players, highlight reels, attention, notoriety, but it also has broken many of them. There is a need for stories, news, gossip, Lance benefited and will now be dethroned because of it. Was he a bully, dickhead, win at all cost guy, yep. Tell me Jordan wasn't. Tell me Tiger Woods wasn't. The drive to be the absolute best, regardless, will take you places most of us are unable and unwilling to go. These guys do it. Football players knowingly play a sport which will shorten their life, make them crippled, unlikely to be meaningfully employed elsewhere, possible severe brain damage...they have a mental make up us normal people can't understand. Those same guys, if they are willing to destroy their bodies, do you not think they would also look for any other physical or mental advantage possible to be the best?

Lance made his own decisions and he was wrong. Period. But don't think he is not unlike many of the other guys out there who didn't get caught, who cheat just to be mediocre, just to get the call up to the majors or get drafted.

It is about winning no matter the cost, whatever it takes. Taking your body to the absolute threshold. Normal people just cannot understand that mentality, which is part of what separates us from them. Analogies about cheating on a test, fraud, the business world fall flat...putting your body on the threshold of death and for the sake of winning...that is a whole different category.

[Black Dog]

No thank you to Lance. Lance did not race his bike to improve the cycling industry or to encourage people to ride bikes. He did not chase fame and fortune to do the same. Why should we thank someone for effects that were unintentional from their actions which were driven for personal gain? You thank someone when they improve things as a result of some degree or altruism or at least some intent.

By the way this holds true for most athletes, not just Lance. Some may appreciate the spinoffs from his fame but thanking him is misplaced.

[54ny77]

I thank Tulio Campagnolo and Yoshizo Shimano, and their respective unsung engineers/assembly workers, for the contributions they've made to cycling.

And Hugh Hefner for his contribution to humanity in general.

[William]

Sure, the folks who took the loans by lying about their income to buy houses they couldn't afford were duped. They were innocents. :rolleyes:

Yeah, and so were the banks who didn't check references (or ignored the results) to verify that the people asking for loans actually had the means to repay them.:rolleyes:




William

[enr1co]

If anything, I do appreciate any of the heightened awareness, funding that may have gone towards research to fighting cancer.

[professerr]

Nice comparison. War=Armstrong. I think it's sad how people become what they so hate.

oh dear. Good thing I didn't use a cancer analogy like that reporter did.

Christmas holidays stress people out, but everyone is still thankful for them.

Not a perfect reversal, but you see how these work? Lance is not equal to Christmas either.

[enr1co]

i thank tulio campagnolo and yoshizo shimano, and their respective unsung engineers/assembly workers, for the contributions they've made to cycling.

And hugh hefner for his contribution to humanity in general.

+1

[Rada]

oh dear. Good thing I didn't use a cancer analogy like that reporter did.

Christmas holidays stress people out, but everyone is still thankful for them.

Not a perfect reversal, but you see how these work? Lance is not equal to Christmas either.

Now if you can work politics in there somewhere you'll have hit the trifecta.:rolleyes:

[merlincustom1]

War-Athlete. Don't you find such analogies just as overused? The man expressed an opinion. Agree with some of it or none of it is your choice. Then those who dislike Armstrong (better?) come out of the woodwork to not just disagree, but to rip the guy apart. Sound familiar?

The analogy isn't to war-athlete. It's a comparison of trickle down benefits between the supposed cottage industry that Lance became and civilian benefits from the military-industrial complex. I don't think that analogy is overused; this is the first time I've seen it.

I admit I overlooked the Texas comment. That's a bit snarky, but it's not ripping the guy apart, and it hardly smacks of "hate."

[Mr Cabletwitch]

, but Lance made it ok to wear lycra. Nobody had been able to do that before him.


This I will agree with

[Seramount]

it's curious how personally embroiled some people are in the antics of some guys participating in an entertainment industry.

given the crap that happens in the world on a daily basis, this obscure little drama is pretty much soap-opera quality...

but, continue on with the hand-wringing and lamentations...it makes for some interesting reading.

[Rada]

The analogy isn't to war-athlete. It's a comparison of trickle down benefits between the supposed cottage industry that Lance became and civilian benefits from the military-industrial complex. I don't think that analogy is overused; this is the first time I've seen it.

I admit I overlooked the Texas comment. That's a bit snarky, but it's not ripping the guy apart, and it hardly smacks of "hate."

I did withdraw the hate comment. As for the tear down, as I said his is one of a number of belittling comments piling on because he dared to go against their precious opinions of Armstrong. I realize it was a trickle down comment, but I refer to the common tactic of taking a target a using an analogy that inflates the importance of the target.

[Rueda Tropical]

Sure, the folks who took the loans by lying about their income to buy houses they couldn't afford were duped. They were innocents. :rolleyes:

The average schmuck was told he couldn't lose. This was what the smart guys on Wall Street were doing. Kind a like breaking it to the new pro cyclist. This is the way it really works. It's how the big pro's do it and make the big bucks. Don't worry every bodies doing it and the guys at the top are in on it.

Typical scenario in Florida:
Mortgage Broker (local sleaze ball with a criminal record - but backed by respectable Wall Street banks like Lehman) to potential mark: "The bigger a house you buy the more money you will have as the price escalates. Don't worry about qualifying I'll show you how to get 110% funded no problem. Don't worry, every bodies doing it and getting rich. Real Estate never goes down, you can't lose. It's great for the economy."

Typical scenario in Switzerland:
Hein: "After the Festina disaster last year we can't have our comeback from cancer golden boy get tossed from the tour with a positive. Every bodies doing it anyway and we'll all get rich. The fans love the show -it's so much better with the dope. It's good for the cycling economy".

[rain dogs]

I always find it amazing that people can assume that "their world" is equal to "the world". I say this with all due respect, but it's got to be said... finally.

Lance may have done those things to "your" world of cycling, and if some want to be thankful to him for that....fair enough, that totally makes sense.

BUT, it's naive that he did those things to the world of cycling, to the culture of the sport. Starbucks also might have introduced some folks to the world of bathtub sized, take-out, *****ty "Cappuccino"... but they didn't invent espresso... nor Cappuccino, nor Latte.

I suggest, to many, going on a cycling trip to Europe (go where the culture originates)... to Belgium, to Italy, to the North of Spain for the "pro" stuff (you know, where there are mini concrete velodromes encircling many of the children's playgrounds).... or go to Denmark, the Netherlands or Sweden for urban riding. Just like commenting on coffee culture as a whole, and thanking Starbucks for it, when the lens may be through only a cafe in Seattle, might be confusing the local scene vs the whole scene.

The only thing Armstrong did for cycling in those aforementioned parts of Europe was to become a convenient punchline to most. The guy is a joke there.... and the joke has long been tired and old.

[Black Dog]

If anything, I do appreciate any of the heightened awareness, funding that may have gone towards research to fighting cancer.

Livestrong does not spend any money on research for treatments or cures for cancer. They support patients. Not judging, just saying.

[cash05458]

Hey Lance...thanks for threatening to put a bullet in Tygart's head...good times bro...:hello:

[enr1co]

Livestrong does not spend any money on research for treatments or cures for cancer. They support patients. Not judging, just saying.

Thanks for the clarification.

OK, I appreciate the livestrong funding to support cancer patients.

[IJWS]

Raindogs, I said "America" and "American cycling" so many times that I thought it was borderline nationalist...but I was talking about a specific time and place. I don't really care if Europeans think American cycling or coffee is a joke. Europe is not at all what I was talking about.

You know what though, Starbucks did help revolutionize the concept of Coffee here in the states. Deal with it. 20 years ago you couldn't buy coffee on every block at any time of the day unless you were okay with settling for Dunkin' Donuts. Now you can buy iced coffee in a can at a gas station or Sbucks can use their clover to brew you a fresh cup of scorched beans....or you could go get a great pour over or a shot of locally roasted espresso in a lot of American cities right now. On top of that, people have opinions about coffee. I like your analogy between bikes and coffee though. It's cute and it proves my point...just not yours.

[cash05458]

Thanks for the clarification.

OK, I appreciate the livestrong funding to support cancer patients.


they make folks "aware" of cancer...getting checked ect...they don't give money for research and if you do a lil internetting will find other charities that do that serious cancer research have some problems with that in terms of lost monies...only so much good will to go round ect...especially since government has decided it is up to more folks to be charitable ect...

[CunegoFan]

they would be riding but perhaps not on carbon. mtb was in a slump back then. TdF/lance created a surge in road that is hard to deny.

your points are well made.

+1 on your post

Armstrong caused yuppies to switch from golf to cycling and now a brother gotta pay $80 for a chain. That's far worse than doping because it affects me.

That bastard.

[cash05458]

Armstrong caused yuppies to switch from golf to cycling and now a brother gotta pay $80 for a chain. That's far worse than doping because it affects me.

That bastard.

I thought that was the point of this thread...industry folks talking about selling stuff for more money that it is worth and Lance being the main motivator? I am confused at your complaint...I mean the first entry was this: "Lance's first tour win sparked exponential growth in American cycling and that growth coupled with dot-com AND a real estate booms (economic doping?) meant that lots and lots of people were buying and riding bikes."

I mean these folks ripping other folks off and making more than they should for a simple product really do have a reason to thank ole lance...and like the great marketeers they are will now lose money...hey baby, that's just the market readjusting itself...the grand invisible hand ect ect...at least let them thank him for the literal High...cause it is OVER...hopefully...

[Kirk007]

... but I also have no misgivings that our "heros" are real people, and maybe not real nice or good people.

...Was he a bully, dickhead, win at all cost guy, yep. Tell me Jordan wasn't. Tell me Tiger Woods wasn't. The drive to be the absolute best, regardless, will take you places most of us are unable and unwilling to go. These guys do it. Football players knowingly play a sport which will shorten their life, make them crippled, unlikely to be meaningfully employed elsewhere, possible severe brain damage...they have a mental make up us normal people can't understand. Those same guys, if they are willing to destroy their bodies, do you not think they would also look for any other physical or mental advantage possible to be the best?

Lance made his own decisions and he was wrong. Period. But don't think he is not unlike many of the other guys out there who didn't get caught, who cheat just to be mediocre, just to get the call up to the majors or get drafted.

It is about winning no matter the cost, whatever it takes. Taking your body to the absolute threshold. Normal people just cannot understand that mentality, which is part of what separates us from them. Analogies about cheating on a test, fraud, the business world fall flat...putting your body on the threshold of death and for the sake of winning...that is a whole different category.

+1 Lance is hardly unique; just a bit more flamboyant, and caught out, than so many others.

[rain dogs]

Raindogs, I said "America" and "American cycling" so many times that I thought it was borderline nationalist...but I was talking about a specific time and place. I don't really care if Europeans think American cycling or coffee is a joke.

You said:

"Bike companies got the chance to start making the things ...(whole lotta stuff)... every new category represented a new way for people to ride bikes.

...... (whole bunch more stuff) Now, because of this growth, bikes aren't just esoteric toys for doctor's and lawyers but they present acceptable and healthy lifestyles for all kinds of people. "

Either I've missed the specificity of your post or you're grossly uninformed.

What companies? What developments? What "new ways to ride bikes"? road cycling?

American companies like Cannondale had been sponsoring cycling before anyone knew who Lance was... in some 1995. Aegis and Trek were developing carbon fiber in 1986. Look had their first carbon bike in 1986 that Lemond won the Tour on. All this lightweight carbon stuff you're thanking Lance for was long happening. If you should be thanking any American cyclist for cycling in the US... it should be Lemond. Maybe Armstrong brought it to the golfers.... but... who cares.

Bikes are more toys now for doctors and lawyers than ever. Just because people can cram their ass into lycra and not get mugged in Texas doesn't mean heavy domestic R&D driven companies like Cannondale and Serrota weren't involved from far earlier than the Lance years (99-2005).

[Kirk007]

Just like commenting on coffee culture as a whole, and thanking Starbucks for it, when the lens may be through only a cafe in Seattle, might be confusing the local scene vs the whole scene.



Hey now ... real coffee cafes in Seattle are more Rapha less Trek : ) and most of us know that a macchiato is not that thing with carmel and whipped cream served in a cup with a mermaid on it. But, if you are commenting on coffee culture in America it is hard to argue that we don't have a lot to thank Starbucks for. It created a market in America, that has allowed small artisans to florish (perhaps parallel to the growth of artisan framebuilders ....).

[ericssonboi]

Very good point of view.. thanks for sharing

[cash05458]

Hey now ... real coffee cafes in Seattle are more Rapha less Trek : ) and most of us know that a macchiato is not that thing with carmel and whipped cream served in a cup with a mermaid on it. But, if you are commenting on coffee culture in America it is hard to argue that we don't have a lot to thank Starbucks for. It created a market in America, that has allowed small artisans to florish (perhaps parallel to the growth of artisan framebuilders ....).

so via this thread...thank Lance and Trek? just curious as to what you think...

[cdimattio]

Thanks for Lance Armstrong?????

I struggle with the logic of what is being ascribed. The sun has risen every day since he arrived on the cycling scene, can we give him credit for that too?

Post hoc ergo propter hoc.

[rain dogs]

Hey now ... real coffee cafes in Seattle are more Rapha less Trek : ) and most of us know that a macchiato is not that thing with carmel and whipped cream served in a cup with a mermaid on it. But, if you are commenting on coffee culture in America it is hard to argue that we don't have a lot to thank Starbucks for. It created a market in America, that has allowed small artisans to florish (perhaps parallel to the growth of artisan framebuilders ....).

I agree and that's my point... Naval gazing. Starbucks can be recognized for opening suburban american people's eyes to a decades old coffee culture from Europe. Fair enough. Just like Lance can be recognized for bringing the TdF to more american peoples TV sets. Fair enough.

But the idea that whole new bikes, technologies and "ways of riding" were a result of Armstrong is like saying Starbucks is responsible for Espresso machines, coffee grinders and foaming milk. Those cultures existed, were and are evolving and would continue to without Lance or Starbucks.

Maybe more suburban Texan doctors now drink Starbucks espresso and ride Treks, but is that something to be gushingly thankful to Lance about?

[rugbysecondrow]

If lance had no bearing, sold no product, made no difference, then why the sponsorships? Mainstream attention? Mainstream marketing? Chris Carmichal anybody?

Folks might not like the attention or the Lance impact on cycling, but that also doesn't mean we bull**** ourselves by saying there was no impact.

Did the home run derby help bring baseball back from the strike? Yes

Did Tiger Woods popularize golf and make it more mainstream and seemingly available? Yes

Did Lance bring cycling and biking fitness to the fore front and bring the masses along with him? You bet your ass he did.

I am glad all three of the above took place.

[the bottle ride]

Worst thread ever.

[Kirk007]

Maybe more suburban Texan doctors now drink Starbucks espresso and ride Treks, but is that something to be gushingly thankful to Lance about?

no comment :):)

[Kirk007]

so via this thread...thank Lance and Trek? just curious as to what you think...

no I think there was a market impact, but I don't think thanks are in order. What happened happened; there was benefit, there was harm. That's life, same as it ever was.

The whole lance thing just doesn't get me going either way anymore

[slidey]

I think this is the most prescient clip I've come across about Lance.

http://youtu.be/tlTr2GSVUGg

[William]

no I think there was a market impact, but I don't think thanks are in order. What happened happened; there was benefit, there was harm. That's life, same as it ever was.



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kw54-rCIrPs

You may find yourself living in a shotgun shack
You may find yourself in another part of the world
You may find yourself behind the wheel of a large automobile
You may find yourself in a beautiful house with a beautiful wife
You may ask yourself, well, how did I get here?
Letting the days go by, let the water hold me down
Letting the days go by, water flowing underground
Into the blue again after the money's gone
Once in a lifetime, water flowing underground
You may ask yourself, how do I work this?
You may ask yourself, where is that large automobile?
You may tell yourself, this is not my beautiful house
You may tell yourself, this is not my beautiful wife
Letting the days go by, let the water hold me down
Letting the days go by, water flowing underground
Into the blue again, after the money's gone
Once in a lifetime, water flowing underground
Same as it ever was, same as it ever was, same as it ever was, same as it ever was
Same as it ever was, same as it ever was, same as it ever was, same as it ever was

Water dissolving and water removing
There is water at the bottom of the ocean
Remove the water, carry the water
Remove the water from the bottom of the ocean
Letting the days go by, let the water hold me down
Letting the days go by, water flowing underground
Into the blue again, after the money's gone
Once in a lifetime, water flowing underground
Into the blue again, into silent water
Under the rocks and stones, there is water underground
Letting the days go by, into silent water
Once in a lifetime, water flowing underground
You may ask yourself, what is that beautiful house?
You may ask yourself, where does that highway lead to?
You may ask yourself, am I right, am I wrong?
You may say to yourself, my god, what have I done?
Letting the days go by, let the water hold me down
Letting the days go by, water flowing underground
Into the blue again, after the money's gone
Once in a lifetime, water flowing underground
Into the blue again, into silent water
Under the rocks and stones, there is water underground
Letting the days go by, into silent water
Once in a lifetime, water flowing underground
Same as it ever was, same as it ever was, same as it ever was, same as it ever was
Same as it ever was, same as it ever was, same as it ever was, same as it ever was

Time isn't holding us, time isn't after us
Time isn't holding us, time doesn't hold you back
Time isn't holding us, time isn't after us
Time isn't holding us...
Letting the days go by, letting the days go by, letting the days go by, once in a lifetime (?)
Letting the days go by, letting the days go by, letting the days go by, once in a lifetime



:banana:William:banana:

[slidey]

Taking off from where you left off, literally ;)

http://youtu.be/jkGKaPujZCc

Puzzle: I can infer the influence of two other songs in this one, if someone can point them both out and if they did match with mine, I'd be thoroughly amused. :)

Letting the days go by, letting the days go by, letting the days go by, once in a lifetime (?)
Letting the days go by, letting the days go by, letting the days go by, once in a lifetime

[cash05458]

no I think there was a market impact, but I don't think thanks are in order. What happened happened; there was benefit, there was harm. That's life, same as it ever was.

The whole lance thing just doesn't get me going either way anymore
listen...nothing meant towards you at all Dave...none whatsoever...but this is the thank Lance thread right? I hope and think life is same as it was...market impact should, in an ideal world, reflect some sorta ethical values...guess we will all see...

[bironi]

William,
You need to get those nannas dacncing like david byrne.
Byron

[Kirk007]

I hope and think life is same as it was...market impact should, in an ideal world, reflect some sorta ethical values...guess we will all see...

Well, since you want to know where I come down on, this will probably be more than you want to know, but its a cold and lazy day here so ....

In an ideal world, sure. But I've become a cynic. I think the phrase ethical business has become more an oxymoron than status quo. And I think we are a more self absorbed, angry, intolerant myopic society than at any other time in my life (although some would probably say that it's just a matter of the rose colored glasses coming off). Hopeful for the future I am not.

That's the world we live in ATMO. I look for the exceptions, and when I find them I support them. I really like supporting individuals like Dave Kirk, family run businesses like Jack's Diving Locker in Kona, companies like Osprey packs, Patagonia, REI, and Light & Motion and local shops where I can get to know the folks (although they sometimes prove to be lance like pricks, so I move on from those vendors). I don't demand perfection; I do expect good intentions and striving to do it right.

I try to do what I can to keep my part of the world functioning and sustained; the clients I represent are genuine and sincere and grateful for the free legal assistance I provide them, for they have nowhere else to turn, and the tables are stacked against them; and the ones who cannot speak - lynx, wolverine, wolves, salmon and the like -I take the luxury of assuming good karma for the efforts. I find satisfaction in getting to know and deal with people who are sincere in their effort to live a good life.

I try not to get all bothered by the others, else I go crazy(which is why I left a private law practice -too many clients and partners with lance like tendencies). I try to accept that the line between a "good" person and an asshat is a fine one, easily crossed by anyone. Therefore I try to cut the asshats some slack, as surely I have played that role on many occasions. The asshats that are serial offenders trending towards sociopaths, well I try to steer well clear of them, physically and mentally.

I met Lance in 2000; my son and me raised a lot of money for Livestrong, went to Austin, rode with Lance, and Eddy and Big Mig. Lance came across as genuine and sincere. He was nice to my son; thanked us for being there and raising money for his foundation. I watched him race in France when he won Yellow jersey number 6. We all gathered around the TV in the hotels on the days that we didn't see the stage live, and we cheered when he chased down Andreas Kloden after Kloden and Ulrich chased down Landis. We shared euphoria; but it also became clear to me on that trip that pro cyclists are a different breed; what they do day in and out in major tours is so far beyond what I could do, and I was a good enough athletically to row crew in college. What they do is inhuman. That doping was widespread was much more understandable (not approving mind you just saying I understand more). A month after I returned from France my father was diagnosed with stage 4 lung cancer. He died 13 months later. During that time he took some solace and hope from Lance's story. We both wore yellow wrist bands. I still have a package of them in a drawer.

Over the years it has become crystal clear that Lance is no longer and probably never was the person he appeared to be when I met him in 2000. I accept him for who and what he is, and as his conduct does not directly impact me, and I have enough on my plate with the people and companies that do. I find it sad, but not something to get excited about any longer.

I'm trying to live that old Irish prayer of change, acceptance and serenity, although it often conflicts with other aspects of my Irish blood.

[William]

Well, you see, friends, in professional cycling, things get confused out there. Power, ideals, the old morality, and practical racing necessity. But out there with these lessor competitors, it must be a temptation to be God. Because there's a conflict in every human heart, between the rational and irrational, between good and evil. And good does not always triumph. Sometimes, the dark side overcomes what Lincoln called the better angels of our nature.

Or something like that.;)






William

[CunegoFan]

Thanks for Lance Armstrong?????

I struggle with the logic of what is being ascribed. The sun has risen every day since he arrived on the cycling scene, can we give him credit for that too?

Post hoc ergo propter hoc.

Road cycling was on the up before Armstrong won the Tour. At least that is what I saw.

The number one driver of road cycling in the U.S. was racing being shown on cable TV. A similar situation happened with Formula 1 gaining a following in the U.S. when Speedvision began carrying it. Funny enouhg, OLN signed on to broadcast the Tour before Armstrong won it and the channel's coverage of cycling and quality declined even as Armstrong should have had the greatest effect.

[Monthly Payment]

Dear Lance,

Thanks for not maximizing the publicity (although the publicity was friggin huge) and going on Oprah the week of the tour thereby overshadowing/ ruining the coverage of the race.

That would have seriously would have detonated a grenade at the wrong time.

[wc1934]

I am your average jock who loves all sports - I love the competition, appreciate the difficulty and uniqueness of each sport etc etc., but I ride, play, train for me - for personal enjoyment.

Thus, professional athletes, do nothing for me (include movie stars, and the rich and famous). There are many opinions about Lance as an athlete and/or a cheat, but the Livestrong foundation has raised over 470 million dollars.

That does mean something to me.

[Rueda Tropical]

Ferrari, Armstrong, Verbuggen, Bruyneel made cycling worse then they found it. Had they had no part in the sport that would have been something to be thankful for.

[dancinkozmo]

Well, since you want to know where I come down on, this will probably be more than you want to know, but its a cold and lazy day here so ....



nice post sir...thank you

[fuzzalow]

I am dispassionate to virtually all aspects of LA. Which, in LA parlance, make me one of the heathen to be sorry about for my non-belief of miracles.

I accept that all pro sports may involve chicanery and it upsets me not a wit.

I am not compelled to mindlessly defend and rationalize LA because I never entrusted any interest or emotion into the LA saga to feel betrayed, disabused or duped as a consequence of the current turn of affairs.

Having presaged the above sentiments: There is nothing within the realm of bicycling that would have been any different that could be attributed to LA save the spike in awareness & popularity of the activity of bicycling, be it on a transient basis or otherwise. The term bicycling used here with intent to distinguish from those who participate in the sport of cycling.

LA, from his origin as a public figure, was and is a conceived cheat and a fraud. All of his racing success, fame and fortune is founded on a cheat. All of the publicity and accolades for deeds done good are an outgrowth of an ill gotten fortune and are a diversion and misdirection from the original cheat. There can be no charity, generosity or benevolence that is worthwhile or desired when it comes from misappropriation by theft.

And even so, there must be a pass given to those afflicted by illness who accept aid, comfort and assistance from where ever the source. Life is precious and there should be no hesitation to acceptance of offered help to further life and living.

There is, however, unspeakable revulsion to those who would exploit and conflate themselves and their organization to any person's love of life as a means of engendering adulation, recognition and futherance of fame.

To attribute any of the positive things that have happened in bicycling is to overstate LA influence and benevolence to the well being of the sport and industry of cycling. He was simply there as part of the firmament. And any benefit derived to the sport and the industry would simply have been the knock on effects of the power, influence and viability of LA and his backers commercial interests in the LA enterprise. Those commercial interests did not have any interest or objective towards the healthy growth of the sport. The LA enterprise was the one and only profit center and priority. Anything else could pick up the crumbs and detritus. And there was a munificence even in the morsels.

Cycling was simply the medium.

[PQJ]

Ferrari, Armstrong, Verbuggen, Bruyneel made cycling worse then they found it. Had they had no part in the sport that would have been something to be thankful for.

Don't forget weisel and co. E richie has long been writing about what Americans/American $$ has done to the sport. I'm only now seeing how right he is.

Kirk007 - great post.

Personally, I thank lance for nothing and am hopeful he will now disappear into a well earned oblivion. No, I'm not a hater.

[jr59]

I am dispassionate to virtually all aspects of LA. Which, in LA parlance, make me one of the heathen to be sorry about for my non-belief of miracles.

I accept that all pro sports may involve chicanery and it upsets me not a wit.

I am not compelled to mindlessly defend and rationalize LA because I never entrusted any interest or emotion into the LA saga to feel betrayed, disabused or duped as a consequence of the current turn of affairs.

Having presaged the above sentiments: There is nothing within the realm of bicycling that would have been any different that could be attributed to LA save the spike in awareness & popularity of the activity of bicycling, be it on a transient basis or otherwise. The term bicycling used here with intent to distinguish from those who participate in the sport of cycling.

LA, from his origin as a public figure, was and is a conceived cheat and a fraud. All of his racing success, fame and fortune is founded on a cheat. All of the publicity and accolades for deeds done good are an outgrowth of an ill gotten fortune and are a diversion and misdirection from the original cheat. There can be no charity, generosity or benevolence that is worthwhile or desired when it comes from misappropriation by theft.

And even so, there must be a pass given to those afflicted by illness who accept aid, comfort and assistance from where ever the source. Life is precious and there should be no hesitation to acceptance of offered help to further life and living.

There is, however, unspeakable revulsion to those who would exploit and conflate themselves and their organization to any person's love of life as a means of engendering adulation, recognition and futherance of fame.

To attribute any of the positive things that have happened in bicycling is to overstate LA influence and benevolence to the well being of the sport and industry of cycling. He was simply there as part of the firmament. And any benefit derived to the sport and the industry would simply have been the knock on effects of the power, influence and viability of LA and his backers commercial interests in the LA enterprise. Those commercial interests did not have any interest or objective towards the healthy growth of the sport. The LA enterprise was the one and only profit center and priority. Anything else could pick up the crumbs and detritus. And there was a munificence even in the morsels.

Cycling was simply the medium.

I will agree with the overall tone of this post!

the one point I will make is what was also stated here in this post.

"save the spike in awareness & popularity of the activity of bicycling,"

This IMO is a very good thing. Any time we as a group can increase the sport it is a good thing.

You can say it would have happened anyway, but the simple fact is; it happened the way it happened with Lance at the front of it!


Was he a good guy? NO! Did he cheat? Yep!

Did he bring more clcying to the masses. SURE DID!

Like I said, maybe it would have happened anyway. But then again maybe it would not have.

[rugbysecondrow]

Ferrari, Armstrong, Verbuggen, Bruyneel made cycling worse then they found it. Had they had no part in the sport that would have been something to be thankful for.

I will agree with the overall tone of this post!

the one point I will make is what was also stated here in this post.

"save the spike in awareness & popularity of the activity of bicycling,"

This IMO is a very good thing. Any time we as a group can increase the sport it is a good thing.

You can say it would have happened anyway, but the simple fact is; it happened the way it happened with Lance at the front of it!


Was he a good guy? NO! Did he cheat? Yep!

Did he bring more clcying to the masses. SURE DID!

Like I said, maybe it would have happened anyway. But then again maybe it would not have.

The activity of Biking and the sport of Cycling are not the same and you point this out well JR.

[Rueda Tropical]

Thanking Lance for whatever growth cycling had while he was winning is making the assumption that cycling would have been economically worse off if had not cheated. You have no objective way to make that assumption.

It's like arguing who would have won the 7 Tours in a clean Peloton. No way to know. Those that say Lance would have won 7 and those that say he would have won none are just speculating based on BS. There is no way to know.

There is one thing I do know. Institutions, economies, businesses and societies built on fraud and graft don't last. It's like building a house on a foundation of sand. Short term it might look like the smart thing to do, but it always ends in tears. Armstrong and his enablers were just another bunch of a long line of grifters and socio-paths that plague civil society. If you want a sustainable sport - company - economy - civil society you need transparency and respect for the rule of law. It's not just because it's the morally correct and ethical thing to do -it's the only sure path to long term success.

[witcombusa]

I will agree with the overall tone of this post!

the one point I will make is what was also stated here in this post.

"save the spike in awareness & popularity of the activity of bicycling,"

This IMO is a very good thing. Any time we as a group can increase the sport it is a good thing.




I liked it better when it was less popular, even viewed as peculiar :eek:.

[jr59]

The activity of Biking and the sport of Cycling are not the same and you point this out well JR.

Ok, But I was thinking on this thread and what I could thank Lance for!

Thanking Lance for whatever growth cycling had while he was winning is making the assumption that cycling would have been economically worse off if had not cheated. You have no objective way to make that assumption.

It's like arguing who would have won the 7 Tours in a clean Peloton. No way to know. Those that say Lance would have won 7 and those that say he would have won none are just speculating based on BS. There is no way to know.

There is one thing I do know. Institutions, economies, businesses and societies built on fraud and graft don't last. It's like building a house on a foundation of sand. Short term it might look like the smart thing to do, but it always ends in tears. Armstrong and his enablers were just another bunch of a long line of grifters. If you want a sustainable sport - company - economy - civil society you need transparency and respect for the rule of law. It's not just because it's the morally correct and ethical thing to do -it's the only sure path to long term success.

Correct! You are 100% right. We can never know what MIGHT have happened.

As I clearly stated, we can only deal with what did happen. And that is a bike boom happened again, and Lance Armstrong was at the head of it.

That is the point! Not foundations or laws or any other point!
Lance Armstrong increased the activity of riding a bike. He may
not have been the only factor, but he surely was a major player!

[rugbysecondrow]

Thanking Lance for whatever growth cycling had while he was winning is making the assumption that cycling would have been economically worse off if had not cheated. You have no objective way to make that assumption.

It's like arguing who would have won the 7 Tours in a clean Peloton. No way to know. Those that say Lance would have won 7 and those that say he would have won none are just speculating based on BS. There is no way to know.


The phrase "The Lance Effect" was coined for a reason. Lance made a bunch of scratch, but lots of folks made a bunch of scratch because of him. Nothing wrong lots of folks saying thanks and also apologizing. Lance was a douche, but he was a cog in a whole industry of douchiness.

[Rueda Tropical]

The phrase "The Lance Effect" was coined for a reason. Lance made a bunch of scratch, but lots of folks made a bunch of scratch because of him. Nothing wrong lots of folks saying thanks and also apologizing. Lance was a douche, but he was a cog in a whole industry of douchiness.

You don't know what would have taken place in a clean peloton and who would have risen and what the marketing and business impact would have been. Would we have had a crappy economy without the housing bubble? Lots of people made money. Would we have been better off if it didn't happen? Should we be thanking the President of Countrywide for being a crook since it was good while it lasted?

[Grant McLean]

Lance Armstrong increased the activity of riding a bike.


Not too many people consider the flip side of the coin, so let's explore that
for a moment.

Cycling for transportation remains an obscure activity with low rates of
participation, in most North American cities bicycle mode share is roughly
1-2% of trips, despite the fact that the majority of all urban trips made are
only 1-2miles. The fact is, cycling in America is perceived as a strange,
feared, culturally negative image, irrelevant activity that most people never
consider doing for transportation. Cycling for recreation remains an outlier
activity compared to pro team sports football, baseball, basketball.

My contention is that to increase participation in cycling, the single greatest
opportunity would be to remove from cycling entirely the culture of competition.
Lance, lycra, doping, technology, and the image of racing have done more
to marginalize cycling in the minds of north american culture than anything.
I can't think of a less effective strategy to get an overweight, out of shape
society on bikes that parading a bunch of spandex clad euros in front of
Americans.

If you look at the Netherlands or Denmark, where some cities have almost
50% of all trips by bicycle, cycling is just a normal activity that all types
of people do, from kids to grandparents. It's not about racers, or extreme
examples of technology or sports, it's just what people do. That's how you
get lots of people to do something, make it normal.

So, in summary, did Lance inspire some white middle-class yuppies to take
up recreational cycling 10 years ago? Yes. Absolutely. But is this a good
thing to encourage more butts on seats in general? I'd argue no, that the
cutlure of cycling becoming defined by the Lance Armstrong "tour de france"
image is a marginalizing factor more than an inspirational one, and a major
turnoff culturally, and has created a negative stereotype around cycling that
will take decades of effort to overcome to get "normal" people on bikes.

-g

[Rueda Tropical]

I'd argue no, that the
cutlure of cycling becoming defined by the Lance Armstrong "tour de france"
image is a marginalizing factor more than an inspirational one, and a major
turnoff culturally, and has created a negative stereotype around cycling that
will take decades of effort to overcome to get "normal" people on bikes.

-g


+1 Grant. An interesting and thought provoking post.

When you think about the negative stereotype of cyclists in the USA. It's a self-absorbed arrogant spandex clad jerk flaunting the rules. Sound like someone in the news lately?

[Elefantino]

Grant, I overwhelmingly and wholeheartedly agree. In fact, I would postulate that among the minds of many, and at least a majority of people (or so it seems) here in the South, Armstrong's rise coincided with a decline in tolerance for cyclists.

To wit: In the days BL (before Lance), our training rides were on roads around the area, often two abreast, etc. We rarely encountered road rage. Perhaps the drivers pitied us as being "those people on bikes" or whatever, but we weren't demonized.

Fast-forward. The Lance Effect. Cyclist enters mainstream pop culture. More visibility. Our training rides, often two abreast, are the subject of much driver consternation. I had never been run off the road, had a soft drink or trash thrown at me, been called a fag on wheels or experience anything like the anger that has built in the last decade or so. It's to the point that when I see a pickup truck coming around I hold my breath, every time. No joke. (If you think that's negatively stereotypical of pickup truck drivers, ride in the area sometime.)

Perhaps it's a coincidence. Perhaps it's due to the South seemingly becoming less tolerant as the rest of the country becomes more so and cyclists on the road are today's version of blacks at the lunch counter.

[54ny77]

just about every time--and i mean just about EVERY time--i have been involved with an altercation with a motorist in the past 10+ years while on bike, the driver has shouted something along the lines of "f'ing lance armstrong wannabe."

yes, thank you lance.

:rolleyes:

Grant, I overwhelmingly and wholeheartedly agree. In fact, I would postulate that among the minds of many, and at least a majority of people (or so it seems) here in the South, Armstrong's rise coincided with a decline in tolerance for cyclists.

To wit: In the days BL (before Lance), our training rides were on roads around the area, often two abreast, etc. We rarely encountered road rage. Perhaps the drivers pitied us as being "those people on bikes" or whatever, but we weren't demonized.

Fast-forward. The Lance Effect. Cyclist enters mainstream pop culture. More visibility. Our training rides, often two abreast, are the subject of much driver consternation. I had never been run off the road, had a soft drink or trash thrown at me, been called a fag on wheels or experience anything like the anger that has built in the last decade or so. It's to the point that when I see a pickup truck coming around I hold my breath, every time. No joke. (If you think that's negatively stereotypical of pickup truck drivers, ride in the area sometime.)

Perhaps it's a coincidence. Perhaps it's due to the South seemingly becoming less tolerant as the rest of the country becomes more so and cyclists on the road are today's version of blacks at the lunch counter.

[rain dogs]

So, in summary, did Lance inspire some white middle-class yuppies to take
up recreational cycling 10 years ago? Yes. Absolutely. But is this a good
thing to encourage more butts on seats in general? I'd argue no,...

Grant, I like the cut of your jib. This is what I'm talking about. There is an already existing massive cycling culture in Europe and I'm not sure Lance did that culture any favors at all... "there" or "here".

[Grant McLean]

There is an already existing massive cycling culture in Europe and I'm not sure Lance did that culture any favors at all... "there" or "here".

What needs to happen for cycling to flourish in North America is that
the culture needs to evolve past the point of a single narrative, like
Lance being the dominant symbol of cycling in the media.

Cycling, as a sport and a transportation mode, is a tool. There are many ways
bicycles can make our cities move better, our people healthier, our environment
less polluted. There are just as many different personal motivations and
experiences. This diversity is what makes cycling such a great tool.
Getting past the stereotype racer-boy phase would be a great step forward.

-g

[Kirk007]

What needs to happen for cycling to flourish in North America is that
the culture needs to evolve past the point of a single narrative, like
Lance being the dominant symbol of cycling in the media.

Cycling, as a sport and a transportation mode, is a tool. There are many ways
bicycles can make our cities move better, our people healthier, our environment
less polluted. There are just as many different personal motivations and
experiences. This diversity is what makes cycling such a great tool.
Getting past the stereotype racer-boy phase would be a great step forward.

-g

Great perspective to bring to the discussion Grant. I've just added a rack, rack bag and dynamo hub/light set up to a drop bar mtn. bike for urban riding, errands, etc. Now I just need a stop here and I'll be all set ;)

http://www.rapha.cc/shop/city-riding

(I figure it will take the average raged motorist to add Rapha to their vernacular)

[martinrjensen]

I agree too and in that light don't ever see cycling becoming anything more than a fringe sport in the US. We are completely different in our thoughts about bikes. They are a plaything, a toy, not a necessary way of life as in the rest of the world.
Still I like to bike and watched the first interview with interest. The second was too late for me to watch and what else was he going to say anyway? He's sorry, he's apologizing to some people. Anybody would do that, no big deal. Did he say I'm sorry to all? I don't know, that's up to him. He's still a great bike rider no matter what and now he has to deal with his decisions for the rest of his life. Well don't we all.
What needs to happen for cycling to flourish in North America is that
the culture needs to evolve past the point of a single narrative, like
Lance being the dominant symbol of cycling in the media.

Cycling, as a sport and a transportation mode, is a tool. There are many ways
bicycles can make our cities move better, our people healthier, our environment
less polluted. There are just as many different personal motivations and
experiences. This diversity is what makes cycling such a great tool.
Getting past the stereotype racer-boy phase would be a great step forward.

-g

[slidey]

Well put Grant, both times.

[shovelhd]

Take a ride through any small East Coast city and you'll see all sorts of "normally" clothed, helmetless cyclists breaking every rule and law, riding with a complete lack of common sense, as they tool around doing their errands.

Idiocy is not confined to competitive cyclists. Wearing Spandex does not make you a road "Nazi". There are plenty of idiots on bikes, at least around here. Competition has nothing to do with it.

[dancinkozmo]

I liked it better when it was less popular, even viewed as peculiar :eek:.

...me too.
theres always unicycling to fall back on.

[oldpotatoe]

Take a ride through any small East Coast city and you'll see all sorts of "normally" clothed, helmetless cyclists breaking every rule and law, riding with a complete lack of common sense, as they tool around doing their errands.

Idiocy is not confined to competitive cyclists. Wearing Spandex does not make you a road "Nazi". There are plenty of idiots on bikes, at least around here. Competition has nothing to do with it.

Here too. I followed a guy home last Friday, on a bike, at night. No lights for him, ran a stop sign and 2 stop lights..then crossed over at a third, got on the sidewalk, tuned left...hat a nice wool hat on tho and rolled up RH trouser leg so I guess it was OK.

[rugbysecondrow]

Here it seems is the jist, cyclist are just jerks.

They want cycling to be their little niche sport, unless you are talking about commuting and then it should be a way of life. You want the cycling on TV, the acceptance and availability of it, but lament mainstream involvement and participation. You want it to be the way it was back in the day, before everybody else found out about your sport, but love gear, R and D and online stores which support these new riders. Cyclist will chastize fatties in an SUV, but be the least welcoming if that person showed up to lose weight and improve their life.

In short, cyclists are jerks, the actvity seems to attract jerks, the sport seems to draw them in like fly paper. Combine being a jerk with an inferiority complex, and then you have todays cyclist. Bravo. Did Lance help build that? Yep. Did he invent it? Nope. The Lance effect, him being a dickhead, just seemed to attract more dickheads to the general dickhead culture.

Maybe I am dickhead too, but many of the ideas I have seen spouted here are just nonsense, the sport version of NIMBY. I have played a lot of sports, lots of activities and cyclists are the least friendly of the bunch, least welcoming and least enjoyable to be around. Lance didn't create that, he just thrived as king of the dicks. Lance is a reflection of cycling and cyclists as a whole. He is a dick, but so are most cyclists on the road. You don't like being yelled at by red necks in the car, maybe ask yourself if you are being a dick, or maybe the guy before you was being a dick.

The cycling culture needs to change folks.

[jr59]

Here it seems is the jist, cyclist are just jerks.

They want cycling to be their little niche sport, unless you are talking about commuting and then it should be a way of life. You want the cycling on TV, the acceptance and availability of it, but lament mainstream involvement and participation. You want it to be the way it was back in the day, before everybody else found out about your sport, but love gear, R and D and online stores which support these new riders. Cyclist will chastize fatties in an SUV, but be the least welcoming if that person showed up to lose weight and improve their life.

In short, cyclists are jerks, the actvity seems to attract jerks, the sport seems to draw them in like fly paper. Combine being a jerk with an inferiority complex, and then you have todays cyclist. Bravo. Did Lance help build that? Yep. Did he invent it? Nope. The Lance effect, him being a dickhead, just seemed to attract more dickheads to the general dickhead culture.

Maybe I am dickhead too, but many of the ideas I have seen spouted here are just nonsense, the sport version of NIMBY. I have played a lot of sports, lots of activities and cyclists are the least friendly of the bunch, least welcoming and least enjoyable to be around. Lance didn't create that, he just thrived as king of the dicks. Lance is a reflection of cycling and cyclists as a whole. He is a dick, but so are most cyclists on the road. You don't like being yelled at by red necks in the car, maybe ask yourself if you are being a dick, or maybe the guy before you was being a dick.

The cycling culture needs to change folks.

That about sums it up.

We as a group are our own worse enemy.

[zap]

Here it seems is the jist, cyclist are just jerks.

They want cycling to be their little niche sport, unless you are talking about commuting and then it should be a way of life. You want the cycling on TV, the acceptance and availability of it, but lament mainstream involvement and participation. You want it to be the way it was back in the day, before everybody else found out about your sport, but love gear, R and D and online stores which support these new riders. Cyclist will chastize fatties in an SUV, but be the least welcoming if that person showed up to lose weight and improve their life.

In short, cyclists are jerks, the actvity seems to attract jerks, the sport seems to draw them in like fly paper. Combine being a jerk with an inferiority complex, and then you have todays cyclist. Bravo. Did Lance help build that? Yep. Did he invent it? Nope. The Lance effect, him being a dickhead, just seemed to attract more dickheads to the general dickhead culture.

Maybe I am dickhead too, but many of the ideas I have seen spouted here are just nonsense, the sport version of NIMBY. I have played a lot of sports, lots of activities and cyclists are the least friendly of the bunch, least welcoming and least enjoyable to be around. Lance didn't create that, he just thrived as king of the dicks. Lance is a reflection of cycling and cyclists as a whole. He is a dick, but so are most cyclists on the road. You don't like being yelled at by red necks in the car, maybe ask yourself if you are being a dick, or maybe the guy before you was being a dick.

The cycling culture needs to change folks.

Wow, this is telling.

You need to look for a group of friendlies.....and travel some.......seriously.

[e-RICHIE]

Wow, this is telling.

You need to look for a group of friendlies.....and travel some.......seriously.

Agreed atmo. I think people bring their own darkness upon themselves.
My experiences on and with a bicycle (no matter the use or the speed)
are NOTHING like what is inferred in the post you replied to or that of
jr59's that is one or two above it.

[PQJ]

Here it seems is the jist, cyclist are just jerks.

They want cycling to be their little niche sport, unless you are talking about commuting and then it should be a way of life. You want the cycling on TV, the acceptance and availability of it, but lament mainstream involvement and participation. You want it to be the way it was back in the day, before everybody else found out about your sport, but love gear, R and D and online stores which support these new riders. Cyclist will chastize fatties in an SUV, but be the least welcoming if that person showed up to lose weight and improve their life.

In short, cyclists are jerks, the actvity seems to attract jerks, the sport seems to draw them in like fly paper. Combine being a jerk with an inferiority complex, and then you have todays cyclist. Bravo. Did Lance help build that? Yep. Did he invent it? Nope. The Lance effect, him being a dickhead, just seemed to attract more dickheads to the general dickhead culture.

Maybe I am dickhead too, but many of the ideas I have seen spouted here are just nonsense, the sport version of NIMBY. I have played a lot of sports, lots of activities and cyclists are the least friendly of the bunch, least welcoming and least enjoyable to be around. Lance didn't create that, he just thrived as king of the dicks. Lance is a reflection of cycling and cyclists as a whole. He is a dick, but so are most cyclists on the road. You don't like being yelled at by red necks in the car, maybe ask yourself if you are being a dick, or maybe the guy before you was being a dick.

The cycling culture needs to change folks.

Are you aware this is a discussion board by, for and about cyclists, cycling and bicyclists? There are places you could go where your dick radar wouldn't be set off so much.

/s/ Dick Cyclist

[Vientomas]

Here it seems is the jist, cyclist are just jerks.

They want cycling to be their little niche sport, unless you are talking about commuting and then it should be a way of life. You want the cycling on TV, the acceptance and availability of it, but lament mainstream involvement and participation. You want it to be the way it was back in the day, before everybody else found out about your sport, but love gear, R and D and online stores which support these new riders. Cyclist will chastize fatties in an SUV, but be the least welcoming if that person showed up to lose weight and improve their life.

In short, cyclists are jerks, the actvity seems to attract jerks, the sport seems to draw them in like fly paper. Combine being a jerk with an inferiority complex, and then you have todays cyclist. Bravo. Did Lance help build that? Yep. Did he invent it? Nope. The Lance effect, him being a dickhead, just seemed to attract more dickheads to the general dickhead culture.

Maybe I am dickhead too, but many of the ideas I have seen spouted here are just nonsense, the sport version of NIMBY. I have played a lot of sports, lots of activities and cyclists are the least friendly of the bunch, least welcoming and least enjoyable to be around. Lance didn't create that, he just thrived as king of the dicks. Lance is a reflection of cycling and cyclists as a whole. He is a dick, but so are most cyclists on the road. You don't like being yelled at by red necks in the car, maybe ask yourself if you are being a dick, or maybe the guy before you was being a dick.

The cycling culture needs to change folks.

You may think yourself a jerk, dick and/or a dickhead because you are a cyclist, but I know I am not a jerk, dick or dickhead even though I am a cyclist. The folks I ride with exhibit none of the characteristics you describe and are in fact quite pleasant and welcoming to all. After all, the whole point is to have fun. However, if you are being a jerk, dick and/or dickhead and spoiling the fun, you won't be asked to return. If that is not welcoming, so be it. My free time is valuable and I don't want to waste it hanging out with a jerk, dick and/or dickhead. The cycling culture I am involved with does not need to be changed, perhaps your does.

[gemship]

Are you aware this is a discussion board by, for and about cyclists, cycling and bicyclists? There are places you could go where your dick radar wouldn't be set off so much.

/s/ Dick Cyclist

I read rugby's post as a pretty good summarizing of what some cyclist posted in this thread. I see it as merely a reflection, albeit a snarky one at that.

[rugbysecondrow]

Are you aware this is a discussion board by, for and about cyclists, cycling and bicyclists? There are places you could go where your dick radar wouldn't be set off so much.

/s/ Dick Cyclist

Agreed atmo. I think people bring their own darkness upon themselves.
My experiences on and with a bicycle (no matter the use or the speed)
are NOTHING like what is inferred in the post you replied to or that of
jr59's that is one or two above it.



Yep, I am well aware. I am also aware that if Lance is and has been such a dick, he certainly found an environment where he could thrive. That is telling. Ditto for ATMO's comments.


Wow, this is telling.

You need to look for a group of friendlies.....and travel some.......seriously.

Luckily I have found some individual guys/gals that I ride with, some from here, they seem to be the exception rather than the rule. I have tried quite a few group rides, but no mas. Just not worth it.

Triathletes seem to suffer from the same affliction as cyclists, it seems the running and swimming tempers them a bit. ;)

[rugbysecondrow]

You may think yourself a jerk, dick and/or a dickhead because you are a cyclist, but I know I am not a jerk, dick or dickhead even though I am a cyclist. The folks I ride with exhibit none of the characteristics you describe and are in fact quite pleasant and welcoming to all. After all, the whole point is to have fun. However, if you are being a jerk, dick and/or dickhead and spoiling the fun, you won't be asked to return. If that is not welcoming, so be it. My free time is valuable and I don't want to waste it hanging out with a jerk, dick and/or dickhead. The cycling culture I am involved with does not need to be changed, perhaps your does.

Your folks sound like good folks to ride with...that has not been my experience here or other places I have ridden. I wish it was. Like I said, I have been involved in lots of sports, the attitude in cycling is unique to it, unfortunatly.

We have had much different experiences.

[xjoex]

I'm a fan +1.

-Joe

[Kirk007]

Rugby may be taking it to the extreme to prove a point, but I know exactly the element within our sport of which he speaks. I've seen it repeatedly manifest itself in group rides in Seattle, in Eugene, in bikeshops, in coffee shops. Most often I see it in the young, brash and self absorbed, a condition that we probably all go through and with luck most outgrow. It may not be any worse than the typical grouping instinct of humans that causes them to be suspicious of or dismissive of others, but it is there, often in spades.

[shovelhd]

Your folks sound like good folks to ride with...that has not been my experience here or other places I have ridden. I wish it was. Like I said, I have been involved in lots of sports, the attitude in cycling is unique to it, unfortunatly.

We have had much different experiences.

I am sorry that your unfavorable experiences have shaped the cynicism that you have displayed in your post above. No cyclist who really wants to enjoy the sport, recreationally or competitively, should feel shunned or ridiculed. Both riding and racing are primarily about comeraderie. If everyone else was a d*ck, as you say, I wouldn't be riding and racing. It is my escape from the rest of my difficult world. If all it brought was more grief, then I wouldn't be risking so much by participating. Sure, they are out there, I won't deny you that, but the vast majority that I surround myself with are not.

I'd like to correct your interpretation of the competitive side, because I don't think you understand it very well. At the turn of the century, bike racing was HUGE. It was one of the biggest competitive sports in America. Its popularity has ebbed and flowed over the years. Back in the 1980's when I first started racing, it was on an upswing. 7-Eleven had just gotten started. It was not unusual to have 150-200 riders in a P/1/2 field. Thousands of spectators would come out for the Calendar races to pass the hat for primes. When I lined up, if I heard foreign languages other than French being spoken, I knew it was going to be a tough day, as the promoter imported some European pros with start money to make things interesting. So there was never a point where racers felt like the sport should be their own, that they were part of some exclusive "club". The more racers, the more races, the more spectators, the more prize money. Simple.

Road racing is in a down cycle today. The young racers are just not being recruited fast enough. The fields are aging with attrition growing. The culture you reference may be a part of it, I don't know. Cyclocross is growing like a weed, and it has a completely different vibe. I guess time will tell.

[fiamme red]

Road racing is in a down cycle today. The young racers are just not being recruited fast enough. The fields are aging with attrition growing.There are a lot more Masters and fewer Juniors in local races than there were 30 years ago. Here's a good post on r.b.r. with an analysis of demographics:

http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.racing/msg/49d041133f7fdeb3

[professerr]

In short, cyclists are jerks, the actvity seems to attract jerks, the sport seems to draw them in like fly paper. Combine being a jerk with an inferiority complex, and then you have todays cyclist. Bravo.

The cycling culture needs to change folks.

I started to write some moralizing post about how when everyone seems like a jerk, the jerk is you. I'm not saying you're not a jerk, and obviously when you say "cyclists are jerks" you don't really mean all. But I actually thought about it and yeah, among the sports I've done, cyclists, as a whole, seem to be among the least friendly. I'm not sure why. Might be because the team aspect is minimal, newbies can be scary to ride with, or self-selection by people who choose a non-mainstream sport.

I hope I counter this a bit when I ride -- I'm that guy who always says hi to other riders, waves to cars for being cool, and will spend 15 minutes at dusk teaching the newbie with $10K worth of bike how to repair his pinch flat caused by too many pounds on too skinny a tire.

My character has limits though - I will try to drop you if you're a poser-douche.

[fiamme red]

Without even touching on the whole doping issue, Lance's approach to racing has done incredible damage to the sport of cycling. The history of the sport has suffered due to Lance and his approach to it. Prior to Lance it was not only unacceptable but unimaginable that the top rider would not honor ALL the top races and thereby help all the other cyclists (and their sponsors) shine. By effectively making the sport nothing more than one single race per year, Lance has devalued all the other races and made sponsorship of racing as a whole far less attractive. Indeed, if you know that your sponsorship dollars will not bring about much positive reflection on your product or brand, you will simply not invest. Once, this positive brand association could be achieved over a wide range of races, but when the "top" racer(s) doesn't/don't participate everywhere, the chances of a positive reflection on your brand are reduced. It makes for an all or nothing proposition.But wasn't it LeMond who began the exclusive focus on one or two races, after his comeback from the gunshot wound? In his case, it was the Tour and World Championships. Armstrong narrowed it down to one race, the Tour.

Excellent post, Polyglot.

[malcolm]

But wasn't it LeMond who began the exclusive focus on one or two races, after his comeback from the gunshot wound? In his case, it was the Tour and World Championships. Armstrong narrowed it down to one race, the Tour.

Excellent post, Polyglot.

Focus on the TDF started way before Lance. Penis cap that he may be this was not his doing, he did perfect it however.

[LesMiner]

But wasn't it LeMond who began the exclusive focus on one or two races, after his comeback from the gunshot wound? In his case, it was the Tour and World Championships. Armstrong narrowed it down to one race, the Tour.

Excellent post, Polyglot.

Lemond was also criticized by Eddy Merckx for winning very few stages in the Tour. His strategy of doing just enough to maintain an overall winning time was like cheating in Merckx's opinion. What is interesting was Lemond's response, "Merckx is only complaining because his bikes are not selling as well as mine."

[rugbysecondrow]

Rugby may be taking it to the extreme to prove a point, but I know exactly the element within our sport of which he speaks. I've seen it repeatedly manifest itself in group rides in Seattle, in Eugene, in bikeshops, in coffee shops. Most often I see it in the young, brash and self absorbed, a condition that we probably all go through and with luck most outgrow. It may not be any worse than the typical grouping instinct of humans that causes them to be suspicious of or dismissive of others, but it is there, often in spades.

I am, of course not everybody who throws their leg over a saddle is a jerk, but a bunch of them are, a large % it seems. Even more, I used to try to stop in local bike shops when I traveled, especially if I brought my travel bike. Talk about good routes, get a lay of the land etc. I stopped this practce because many of these shop-folks were just plain unfriendly, the last one being a shop in Oklahoma City. I would always buy a bottle, maybe a shirt, gu or some needed gear, to make sure I was a customer and not just a free-loader. Many of them were so unfriendly that when I did find a friendly one, I actually posted a link on the forum here to promote them because I was that surprised. http://forums.thepaceline.net/showthread.php?t=106992&highlight=Des+Moines

I started to write some moralizing post about how when everyone seems like a jerk, the jerk is you. I'm not saying you're not a jerk, and obviously when you say "cyclists are jerks" you don't really mean all. But I actually thought about it and yeah, among the sports I've done, cyclists, as a whole, seem to be among the least friendly. I'm not sure why. Might be because the team aspect is minimal, newbies can be scary to ride with, or self-selection by people who choose a non-mainstream sport.

I hope I counter this a bit when I ride -- I'm that guy who always says hi to other riders, waves to cars for being cool, and will spend 15 minutes at dusk teaching the newbie with $10K worth of bike how to repair his pinch flat caused by too many pounds on too skinny a tire.

My character has limits though - I will try to drop you if you're a poser-douche.

I like to ride with people like you, or I should say I only ride with people like you and I try to be that guy as well.

I am not certain where the attitude comes from, but it is certainly there.

I posted what I did not because I think anybody cares, but because I find it interesting that a sport with such a large number of jerks and unfriendly people keep lambasting Lance for being a jerk. Seriously, his F-U attitude is nothing new, his arrogance is nothing new, his too-cool for school attitude is nothing new...show up to a group ride and you will see it in spades.

[zap]

ill spend 15 minutes at dusk teaching the newbie with $10K worth of bike how to repair his pinch flat caused by too many pounds on too skinny a tire.

My character has limits though - I will try to drop you if you're a poser-douche.

Fascinating.

[professerr]

Fascinating.

Everyone has a little Lance-ness in them. The poison is in the dose.

[1/2 Wheeler]

Here it seems is the jist, cyclist are just jerks.

They want cycling to be their little niche sport, unless you are talking about commuting and then it should be a way of life. You want the cycling on TV, the acceptance and availability of it, but lament mainstream involvement and participation. You want it to be the way it was back in the day, before everybody else found out about your sport, but love gear, R and D and online stores which support these new riders. Cyclist will chastize fatties in an SUV, but be the least welcoming if that person showed up to lose weight and improve their life.

In short, cyclists are jerks, the actvity seems to attract jerks, the sport seems to draw them in like fly paper. Combine being a jerk with an inferiority complex, and then you have todays cyclist. Bravo. Did Lance help build that? Yep. Did he invent it? Nope. The Lance effect, him being a dickhead, just seemed to attract more dickheads to the general dickhead culture.

Maybe I am dickhead too, but many of the ideas I have seen spouted here are just nonsense, the sport version of NIMBY. I have played a lot of sports, lots of activities and cyclists are the least friendly of the bunch, least welcoming and least enjoyable to be around. Lance didn't create that, he just thrived as king of the dicks. Lance is a reflection of cycling and cyclists as a whole. He is a dick, but so are most cyclists on the road. You don't like being yelled at by red necks in the car, maybe ask yourself if you are being a dick, or maybe the guy before you was being a dick.

The cycling culture needs to change folks.


I don't know that I would classify us as jerks, I'd say it's more along the lines of arrogant and self righteous.

Good people, just not nice people kinda thing.