'LANCE' 30 for 30 - ESPN

Racing
42

heh yeah, kinda funny in a way that his biggest mistake wasnt actually cheating, it was just being a mega jerk about it.

He seems really similar to MJ in that thing it takes for them to be the greatest ever, makes them just really unlikable as a person and not really someone you would want ot be around. Weird that we collectively fantasize as a society about wanting to be these types of people because of their success, but in reality I think it would be a pretty unhappy life compared to most of our unknown random existences.

Doesn’t really sound like MJ has changed much in his old age, Lance at least seems to have mellowed out somewhat. Probably has a lot to do with the fact he had lots of opportunity for growth given he got ripped from his pedestal and became a pariah.

2 Likes
43

I understand, but it is ironic. I went to the ToC and knew AMGEN was the sponsor, I guess I never really thought about the irony until you pointed that out.

1 Like
44

Lemond is just bitter, and really he seems like quite a jerk himself. Funny too given it’s not like he was “clean”.

5 Likes
45

In the US, agreed. His impact around the world is what Last Dance alluded to being his big impact. That can be argued as well since the “dream team” consisted of more than just Jordan.

4 Likes
46

If there’s any reason to hate Lance it’s because his name has become the easy pejorative to call lycra clad fast cyclists.

3 Likes
47

I’ve met LeMond several times, when he was younger, he really was an ass, super arrogant. Kinda de rigeur for the sport then, but still. More recently, he was a genuinely nice guy. We were at a bike shop in Houston that sold LeMon bikes back in the day, and they had a life size cut out of him, next to one of Lance sitting by the counter. My daughter who was 10 at the time saw LeMond and realized he was the guy in the cutout and said “hello, is that you?” he replied really nicely, “yes ma’am, it is, do you know who I am?” she said yeah, said he’d won the Tour, etc. He was really nice. Humorously, he asked her if she knew who the other cutout was, the one of Lance, and she replied “yeah, he owns France”. Greg just laughed and said "well, he used to, but you’re right about that. ".

As to Lance, I have no issue with the guy. I’ve also met him several times (he lives here in the ATX you know). Once he came up to me while I was putting my old Pinarello Dogma on the car, and he said “those are such nice bikes, I wish I could ride one without everyone freaking out” (in his Trek days). We chatted for a few minutes, he was wearing flip flops, shorts, and an unbuttoned hawaiian shirt. He left in a convertible GTO. Another time he was in line behind me at a bakery, and just commented on very normal stuff about the other folks in line. There have been other occasions as well.

I’m not saying he wasn’t an asshole, that’s very well documented, I’m just saying he’s a human being, and more importantly no one is really an expert on who these people are based on a few TV interviews and some anecdotes. In Lance’s case, I doubt ANYONE gets inside close enough to know who the real guy is, even people like Hincapie and such.

I enjoy all the folks with deep seeded hatred for the guy, I mean go on man, live your life. All the holier than holies who are like

“I would NEVER do what he did!!”

“He doesnt respect the rules!”

“he is SATAN!!!”.

Come on. Everyone has a story, everyone has a persona for themselves, everyone thinks they know what they’d do, and EVERYONE likes to judge the actions of others, rather than shining that light on themselves. What’s a shame to me is that so many people spend so much time building anger and hatred in themselves over the actions of another person.

“harboring anger about another person’s actions is like drinking poison and expecting them to die”

It’s a shame things went the way they went with Lance, but I’m glad he’s found some peace in it all. He’s a human being, and he made mistakes. He has now owned up to them, and made peace with almost everyone who purportedly “hates him” (except maybe Floyd). He has a huge ego, he is a tremendously driven man, and that very drive is what took him to a world championship, and 7 Tours. unfortunately it was in an era when doping was the norm. As far as I am concerned, he still has a World Championship, and 7 tours. No one cares what I think anyway, and I absolutely don’t care what a bunch of angry self righteous internet folks think about another guy who’s actions affected me in no way whatsoever.

Doping or no doping, cycling in the US would NOT be where it is today without Lance Armstrong. for better or for worse, mostly for better. Trek wouldn’t be where it is, the rise of Specialized, and Cannondale’s resurgence wouldn’t have been as strong, and racing especially. Most of us lived through the racing world before Lance started winning, we know what it was like to have 5 people waiting at the finish. Racing has languished again in the post Armstrong era, and everyone likes to conveniently blame Lance for the fallout, however doping continues in sports, just as it did before, during, and since him. Tour winners and local amateurs still piss hot. I don’t watch the results of Grand Tours anymore with any expectation that the winner wont be stripped of their title. That didnt come from one guy. I believe whole heartedly that every member of Sky and Ineos that had a notable victory in the last 10 years was also doping. Same with just about everyone else. The stakes are high in racing and I don’t see it changing.

My .02.

29 Likes
48

Yes, I should have confined my statement to the U.S. [I am unaware of basketball’s importance elsewhere and the impact he may have had]. I have not watched 30 for 30 on Jordan yet, but plan to do so. Thanks.

2 Likes
49

It’s kind of interesting, because I was a LeMond mega fan growing up, and absolutely despised Lance when he was winning Tours. But today, I’m much more ambivalent about them both. Lance has his past which cannot be erased, but he has clearly mellowed and is a bit more circumspect, while Greg is not terribly good or selfless in some respects, while still being a great champ and a trailblazer. The things I’ve learned over the years about both of them have changed my opinions significantly.

If anything, it’s made me a massive Hinault fan lol.

3 Likes
50

The 90s-2000s are their own era. Bodies didn’t respond to EPO and HGH in the same way that they responded to old-school cortisone and amphetamines, or 80s-era testosterone use. Riders who would have been great in the dinosaur doping eras were still great. Riders whose combination of good VO2 and low-ish Hcrit (like Armstrong) rose above what they would have achieved. But, everyone had access to the same products and to similar degrees of medical advice, whether from private trainers like Cecchini or Ferrari to organized in-house setups under team doctors.

That era, you doped or you weren’t a top pro. Lance’s only relative sin was hubris.

8 Likes
51

Very well put.

1 Like
52

very nice post

1 Like
53

As for the “what if” game, an 80s “prepared” Armstrong probably would have been about like Phil Anderson or Steve Bauer. Good but not great Ardennes and World Cup rider (Zurich, Frankfurt, San Sebastian), maybe good for a one-week stage race with the right field and luck.

1 Like
54

I understand the sentiment but at the same time cycling was not thought of at all in the USA. Lance did quite a lot to increase the interest in cycling like Tiger Woods did for golf. At the end of the day he was doping but it exposed many people to the sport and that to me is positive. He didn’t invent the doping culture but he sure embraced it and made the best of it for himself and team.

I’m not letting Lance off the hook as far as responsibility but it seems like the powers that be in cycling knew abut it and turned a blind eye to make the sport more exciting.

That being said, I do enjoy Lance Armstrong’s podcast he does during the tour and other races covering the events of that day along with George Hincape and others on his program.

2 Likes
55

The UCI didn’t do anything meaningful about EPO (except ruin Pantani) from '90 until the last decade because most riders who won anything were doped. '90-'92 was the “transformation” micro-era, in which a number of riders who had been close to grand tour podiums but never quite there suddenly became huge stars. The Italians suddenly owned the classics. Spanish riders made stage race top 10s their new neighborhood. By '93-94, it became the new normal, except for some directors who were a bit behind the times (Guimard, Post, Raas). By '96, the top teams either had doping programs, or, like GAN, most of the top guys were using while the team turned a blind eye (what O’Grady and Vogels have said).

To have cleaned up the sport would have meant to clean out the sport. So the UCI made a show of catching a low-level guy now and then, but let the winners win, until Landis and Hamilton (and if you don’t have Puerto, then there’s no motivation for the UCI to get them – you couldn’t bust Ulrich and Basso and Valverde and let those two slip by).

I can’t watch the racing of '95-'10 on YouTube or wherever. Watching the whole first group in the '99 Vuelta climb cols in the big ring, and brake uphill for turns is too much. Pollentier on amphetamines? More my style.

1 Like
56

No, you’re removing all responsibility for his cheating and dispicable behaviour. The “everyone was doing it”, “he’s just a human”, “we’re all flawed” argument sounds nice and reasonable but it isnt. And you’re also granting him all the credit for US cycling.

I dont hate him or anyone Ive never met, but I have a clearer moral compass than you do, on this subject at least.

3 Likes
57

I’m actually of the exact opposite opinion. To be clear, I would not ever condone having a free for all due to the health and ethical risks, but I love to turn on late 90s to mid 00s racing. It is absolutely batshit crazy spectacle.

3 Likes
58

570×570 22.2 KB

8 Likes
59

image
image812×1000 52.7 KB

4 Likes
60

I’d have went with,

“Your boos mean nothing, I know what makes you cheer”

2 Likes
61

He was a massive a-hole no doubt about that. However, Lance seems to be one that is held responsible for all the doping that happened in cycling in that era. He should have taken responsibility when he was accused and not sued those that spoke out about his doping but it’s unfair to lay it ALL at his feet.

To watch cycling from that era and everyone is attacking up the Alpe d’Huez you know that ain’t natural or good diet.

Lots of strong feeling for and against when it comes to Lance. I feel like this is talking about politics or college football at a dinner party. :wink: