More pictures of my past work can be viewed in the Photo Gallery and on my Website. Links are in the navigation bar at the top 
Multiple Perspectives on Lance's Chances
Sun, July 12, 2009 This short video from Newsy.com gives differing and interesting views from various sources.
I hate that the Times of London brings up the doping issue. Sure there has always been doping in professional cycling, but so too has there been in all professional sports. At least cycling is doing something about it, as opposed to other sports, where it often seems that fans could care less about the issue.
In my view Lance Armstrong has been great for cycling, especially in America where the culture of the automobile has always been to the forefront. Lance has brought cycling into public awareness. Add to this his dedication to raising cancer awareness and I cannot help but admire the man.
What are your views on Lance Armstrong and his chances in the Tour de France?
Reader Comments (18)
Sadly, the only things many people remember about professional bicycle racing are the doping scandals. Our local paper had this comment under a TDF story about Armstrong:
"Bet your needing the "juice" now, ain't ya one nutt... "
Astana has a plan. It may be to put Contador on the podium in Paris. It may be to put Armstrong there too. With two more weeks of racing, chance may have a role to play also. Wouldn't it be exciting to see the race come down to the next to last day when they climb Mont Ventoux?
US Postal/Discovery/Astana team domination of this event over the past decade has made for some of the most boring racing ever. I was so happy to see him retire the first time, can't wait to see him go again. Today's stage was quite the yawner added to an already boring Astana powered TDF.
I like him. I think cancer is a beast but he survived, so. and yes, brought awareness to bicycles, which is great
I wouldn't say that the previous TDF's with Lance were boring at all. Once he started his winning streak, you wanted to see him attain his fifth title and then, his sixth to break the record. The 7th win was interesting simply because I didn't want to see him lose. I think having him back is good for the race...it certainly doesn't hurt the ratings. Congrats to him for coming back after 3 years at 37 years of age to not only be a presence, but a true contender for the title. It's a great story.
Dave, I wrote my thoughts up on my own blog. In summary, I think Lance will lose, but he'll speak the truth about losing. It won't be pretty, but we'll love him at last for it.
wordaligned.org/posts/attaque-armstrong
wordaligned.org/posts/lances-chances
I think Lance has a really good chance to make the podium, but nearly no chance to beat Contador. Unless one of the other GC contenders really steps up, I think it's nearly likely that Astana will sweep the podium.
This year's tour has been a lot of fun for me to watch. From Astana's domination of the GC to Cav and Thor slugging it out for the sprints to Bebox's pratfalls in the TTT, there's been plenty to watch and enjoy.
It does seem that you're a Lance fan, so I don't want to shake up a sacred cow with you.
See, I think people like me are a minority. Lance may think there is a stigma against cancer patients in the world, but there is another stigma, another fallacy developing among our midsts. These days, if you happen to get into a nice 'Lance conversation' with your riding buddy, but fall into the hole of expressing your negative yet open views on Armstrong, the message that the other person receives is that you're an absolute jerk, you don't support cancer awareness, you don't have a heart, and so on and so forth. This ridiculousness has almost gained a proportion akin to religious delusion. People worship this man so much (like you create an idol out of him, no different that idol worship) that it somehow clouds their reasoning. The media spends unnecessary amount of time putting spins on his stories. We are hijacked with his advertisements and pop up ads on the internet. And then comes in his sponsors from all sides to make "critic-proofing" TV shorts about him that keeps feeding more fallacies into the minds of people. How much more must we endure? There should be a limit to this nonsense, regardless of what he's famous for. I mean seriously. Let's get into reality for a second here.
Being an educated person and knowing well the "person" behind the supposed humanitarian, I think he should act more professional or simply quit his job as its not in his best favor that he act like the way he does, when he is shouldering bigger responsibilities than being "just a cyclist". But on account of the same knowledge of who he really is, I will go on to say boldly that me and my family will not donate a penny to this man's business goals. If I want to support cancer, there are lots of other ways to give, and show support. No one person or organization has a monopoly to do that.
All I'm hoping for people like you is that you quit focusing on Lance and see the Tour in all its entirety, and support up and coming stars. We didn't really ask for another blog devoted to Armstrong.
"At least cycling is doing something about it,"
Sure it is. The UCI have been to the forefront of clamping down on doping in the peleton. </snicker> When did Tom Simpson die? When did the Festina affair happen?
I agree with Ron (above). I think Lance, great athlete that he is, gets a free pass from the non-French press because he's a cancer survivour.
It can get irritating watching the coverage of the TdF on versus, where the guys in the breakaway seem to get mentioned less than Armstrong during the commentary. I know this is an american channel and so they have to do this, by it gets cloying --- their Lance adoration.
Maybe he'll win this one; he certainly has a chance. Kudos to him if he does. It's really not his fault (much) that the media here has a fixation on him/
Ron,
Thanks for taking the time to write an interesting a different perspective. There is no sacred cow as far as I am concerned; I admire Lance Armstrong’s work ethic, and I believe he is good for cycling. Aside from that I have never met Lance and will not be judgmental based on hearsay.
I will agree with you that all celebrities, not just Lance Armstrong, are given almost God like status. Just look at Michael Jackson, his career was practically finished, he was in financial difficulties, and then he dies. All of a sudden his recordings are sold out, etc, etc, and it appears he will overtake Elvis as the highest earning dead artist.
I am left to wonder, where were all these people when he was alive? There does seem to be a herd instinct with the majority going with popular opinion. Just as you say, you are almost afraid to have an opinion against Lance Armstrong; I feel the same about Michael Jackson. However, I didn’t buy his records when he was alive, so I’m not going to do it now he’s dead, but there must be a lot of people doing just that.
Celebrities are human like the rest of us. Most have a strong work ethic, which is how they got to be celebrities, but aside from that, they have all the same frailties, and human weaknesses that the rest of us have. The only difference is those very human traits are always in the public spotlight.
Dave
The Versus coverage is truly pathetic due to the constant attention being paid to one rider (not to mention the horrid bike company advertising). It's amazing how many bikes make all others obsolete. You have to wonder what people were riding before.
I'm lucky enough to speak French, and so I make do by muting Versus, keeping the picture, and tuning into L'Equipe's live radio feed on the internet. Otherwise, I would rather just go out on my bike and read about the results later on. Even so, the scenery is a lot more exciting than the race itself is.
Cancer was around before Mr. Armstrong and will be around long after he is gone. The cancer is a red herring and camouflage to use when the questions about performance get technical. Whenever the interviews get factual the cancer question is rolled out to deflect peoples attention away from sensitive areas.
Is it credible when all around you people are using stimulants, and you beat them 7 years in a row. What gives?
Another huge champion of the tour Jaques Anquetal admitted to taking stimulants and refused to be tested on one occasion during a world record attempt. The Frenchman's performance was not considered.
The average speed of the Tour de France rose by 4Km per hour when Lance started winning. Before him there was no huge jumps in the average speed like 4Km/hr.
The Texan's association with known "performance" experts does not help his cause and credibility.
Ed_Moses -- You mention one of the main reasons why I'm skeptical about Armstrong's 'un-enhanced' wins.
Does anyone remember when Ben Johnson won the 100 m dash in the Olympics? He made Carl Lewis, the fastest man in the world about then, look like he was standing still. The same results were seen in umpteen other sports. Steroids make you better. Period. If the athletes riding in the TdF at the same time Armstrong was were taking stimulants (as was proved in the case of some of them), then either:
a) He was naturally better than they were in their enhanced state, or
b) He was on stimulants and maintained his superiority over them, even thought they were also on stimulants.
Of course, there's a c) as well (he was on better stimulants), but let's not go there.
Now, there's the argument that the dirty TdF riders were not on full-blown steroids, and so the advantages they were getting were minimal. I still find it hard to believe that he was SO much better than them for all that time, to make up for their enhancement.
Look at Roger Federer. He dominated tennis for a few years, but he's been caught and, in some cases, surpassed within the period of a couple of years. He's still great, but no longer as dominant as he used to be.
Still, I believe Armstrong was better, smarter and more organized than his rivals over that time. I just can't believe he was clean, too.
I'm not going to start on the cancer issue. I don't want to annoy more people than I already have.
Dave, and everyone else; I want to apologize for my previous post. I was venting. There's nothing new there.
Astana's dominance is exciting to watch. Has there ever been a team to capture all three spots on the podium? Two could be Americans! Though Lance clearly has a God complex, few superstars don't.
Dave,
Its been well taken by me. I'm not scared of expressing opinion. Everyone has opinions. We're all well informed (depending on what you choose to hear or read...and I'm a critical reader)... That said, I really wish this focus would shift from Lance to other members on his team, other folks in the peleton. Versus is clueless. I may be able to understand that Liggett has had 36 year's of experience doing this and may have documented a lot of Lance's career. But the way he chimes "Lance Lance" every other minute during a race is overwhelming. Its as if Versus wants to make a mockery out of people's intelligence. You should be objective about commentary, just as you should be objective if you're a sports journalist. Take a look at Sally Jenkin's Washington Post columns. In spite of the number of criticisms she has received for her almost repelling "Lance love", I still wonder how she's holding onto that job. Cheers...
Ron wrote:
>if you happen to get into a nice 'Lance conversation' with your riding buddy, but fall into the hole of expressing your negative yet open views on Armstrong, the message that the other person receives is that you're an absolute jerk,<
This is simply your personal opinion; there is no credible evidence that what you say is true.
People who put the knock on Lance are in part, in my opinion, projecting their perceived deficiencies onto someone else.
@ Dave Wyman,
Duh, its personal opinion because I have experienced it. Its not scientific. You won't find it in the annals of Google Scholar or your public library. Wish I could direct you that way. Anywho, a little look at the raging debates on various internet message boards about Armstrong should be sufficient evidence for you that such a phenomenon does exists. People who wear those Livestrong bands get ticked off if you say something anti-Armstrong, as if the sheer act of creating a Foundation for cancer makes him immune from criticism. Now that's bogus.