Lance Armstrong

[colker]

Originally Posted by bicycletricycle

I feel like I don’t understand how you are using the words “interesting” “boring” and “dull” Learning about the lives of people who dominate their sport is always interesting to me. Understanding their path to greatness, learning about their personality and relationships, seeing how fame has deranged them, etc. for me this is interesting. Not in the sense of them being role models because I think famous people are rarely good people but more like interesting character studies on what happens to people when they fly too close to the sun. On the other hand, I am not a big fan of the dominant players/teams when watching sports. I much prefer the outsider or underdog to root for.

There is a big difference in reading smart, articulated prose about the winning/surviving proccess of a champion and following an interview of the same individual.

[bicycletricycle]

Originally Posted by colker

There is a big difference in reading smart, articulated prose about the winning/surviving proccess of a champion and following an interview of the same individual.

I prefer the source material

[daker13]

Originally Posted by bicycletricycle

I feel like I don’t understand how you are using the words “interesting” “boring” and “dull” Learning about the lives of people who dominate their sport is always interesting to me. Understanding their path to greatness, learning about their personality and relationships, seeing how fame has deranged them, etc. for me this is interesting. Not in the sense of them being role models because I think famous people are rarely good people but more like interesting character studies on what happens to people when they fly too close to the sun. On the other hand, I am not a big fan of the dominant players/teams when watching sports. I much prefer the outsider or underdog to root for.

Well, if you think LA is interesting and I don't, there's probably not much to talk about. It's very reasonable to like hearing from and about people who excel in their fields. In my view, many elite athletes (mostly in team sports) have been trained to be as uncontroversial as possible, probably because it upsets their teams and potential sponsors. Maybe that's the case with Jordan? I have no idea.

Armstrong should be an interesting person, if only for the reasons you state--big demons, big accomplishments, big lies, even if one doesn't like him, it's a dramatic situation. My feeling is that, even when he's getting all confessional, he's an extremely dull guy. (I have to admit, that flat intonation is really hard for me to listen to.) I don't think he had people stage-managing his personality the way an NFL qb does, but he does come across as calculating... Anyway, I agree with you on principle--people who dominate their sports are compelling--but I would personally rather listen to this footnote-to-history guy Floyd Landis. ** By the way, I don't feel strongly about LA's doping one way or the other, I see the bigger problem as the way he treated people and corruption in the UCI.

[bicycletricycle]

Last thing before this goes on too long
I think I actually find the situation he is in interesting. I wasn’t a lance fan when he was a cyclist and I didn’t care about the doping drama. I became interested 5 or so years ago when he started to re enter the public space. I have been curious about how someone like him would manage it and how the world around him would respond. In my opinion he became a much larger villain than was warranted, a scapegoat for the cycling worlds doping shame ( I have been sort of over interested in this phenomena of scapegoating after reading some René Girard). I am glad he has been able to come back and participate in the world of cycling in some ways. I like to keep track of his progress and to me it is interesting to see him change as he regains some status.

I agree with you that on his own he is not the most interesting person to listen to, he mostly he just brags about being the best and craps on people. I think I have a high tolerance for this kind of thing though, it just makes me laugh.

Originally Posted by daker13

Well, if you think LA is interesting and I don't, there's probably not much to talk about. It's very reasonable to like hearing from and about people who excel in their fields. In my view, many elite athletes (mostly in team sports) have been trained to be as uncontroversial as possible, probably because it upsets their teams and potential sponsors. Maybe that's the case with Jordan? I have no idea.

Armstrong should be an interesting person, if only for the reasons you state--big demons, big accomplishments, big lies, even if one doesn't like him, it's a dramatic situation. My feeling is that, even when he's getting all confessional, he's an extremely dull guy. (I have to admit, that flat intonation is really hard for me to listen to.) I don't think he had people stage-managing his personality the way an NFL qb does, but he does come across as calculating... Anyway, I agree with you on principle--people who dominate their sports are compelling--but I would personally rather listen to this footnote-to-history guy Floyd Landis. ** By the way, I don't feel strongly about LA's doping one way or the other, I see the bigger problem as the way he treated people and corruption in the UCI.

[robt57]

Note to self in question form.

How come LA still gets talked about so much?

Rhetorical of course.

[tctyres]

Originally Posted by robt57

Note to self in question form.

How come LA still gets talked about so much?

Rhetorical of course.

I want to know who would win in a 3-way paceline throwdown thumb wrestling match:

1. Lance Armstrong
2. Peter Sagan
3. Grant Petersen

[bicycletricycle]

Can we add Ben Serotta, for old times sake?

Originally Posted by tctyres

I want to know who would win in a 3-way paceline throwdown thumb wrestling match:

1. Lance Armstrong
2. Peter Sagan
3. Grant Petersen

[robt57]

Chuck Norris

Originally Posted by tctyres

I want to know who would win in a 3-way paceline throwdown thumb wrestling match:

1. Lance Armstrong
2. Peter Sagan
3. Grant Petersen

[Hawker]

Originally Posted by Hellgate

Football is the dumbest sport? I argue that NASCAR is the dumbest sport, go straight and turn left, unless of course they stop the race for hours in end to clean the track or a drop of rain.

Unless of course you've ever driven at 200MPH...which is like driving on marbles at 50MPH. I have driven at 150MPH and I guess it might be a bit boring for some spectators but it requires a lot from the drivers. And if you know something about the sport of course...that makes it a bit more interesting. Like tennis, golf and soccer

[Hawker]

Originally Posted by Louis

The Worm!

Mom, Dad...I'd like you to meet Denny.

[Hellgate]

Originally Posted by Hawker

Unless of course you've ever driven at 200MPH...which is like driving on marbles at 50MPH. I have driven at 150MPH and I guess it might be a bit boring for some spectators but it requires a lot from the drivers. And if you know something about the sport of course...that makes it a bit more interesting. Like tennis, golf and soccer

Not 200, but 175 on a motorcycle.

The point is watching, not doing. I enjoy bowling once a year, I can't stand to watch it. Or, golf, or darts, or well, you get the idea.

[Hawker]

Originally Posted by Hellgate

Not 200, but 175 on a motorcycle.

The point is watching, not doing. I enjoy bowling once a year, I can't stand to watch it. Or, golf, or darts, or well, you get the idea.

On a motorcycle I've done 140 (Road Atlanta) and it was plenty fast...plenty. However unlike you, I do find myself watching darts on TV. Agree, watching and doing are very different things.

[Gsinill]

The one and only thing that comes to mind when I hear LA is how surprised and annoyed I was back in the day when people called the guy a "hero".
Came to the US from Germany in 97 and of course I liked Ullrich, but "hero"?
Friggin' cyclists.

I guess the reason for folks still talking about LA is exactly that, the higher they climb, the deeper they fall.
Unless he jumps a fence and threatens an actor, nobody in Germany talks about Ulle anymore.

[bikinchris]

Originally Posted by Gsinill

The one and only thing that comes to mind when I hear LA is how surprised and annoyed I was back in the day when people called the guy a "hero".
Came to the US from Germany in 97 and of course I liked Ullrich, but "hero"?
Friggin' cyclists.

I guess the reason for folks still talking about LA is exactly that, the higher they climb, the deeper they fall.
Unless he jumps a fence and threatens an actor, nobody in Germany talks about Ulle anymore.

I don't think Lance was considered a hero for racing bikes. He was considered a hero for beating cancer and using his platform to help other cancer patients. His foundation is still helping cancer patients.
Looking up to sports figures is not a good idea. Ask Charles Barkley.

[Mr. Pink]

Or O.J..