I still find it amazing that so many people around the world are so disgrunted about Lance Armstrong's Tour de France success. As reported in today's LA Times:

Switzerland's Tribune de Geneve assailed the cylclist's personality and compared him to a "typcially American business that scorns humanity. Mankind is not fond of those who gorge themselves on success without suffering and without showing compassion for their fellows."

That is the most outrageous and ignorant statement I've read in quite sometime (which says a lot in this political year). First, as far as the actual cycling goes, Armstrong is nothing but a tremendously good sport. When Jan Ullrich, his biggest rival, flipped off his bike and fell under a bridge during one of the alpine stages of the tour two years ago, Lance didn't take advantage of the situation -- instead, he waited for Ullrich to catch up to him so as not to benefit by the other rider's misfortune. And just to show that Ullrich and the other riders respected Lance for that show of class, in last year's tour, when Armstrong was pulled to the ground by the strap on a fan's handbag, Ullrich and the other top riders on the stage waited for him to catch up. Would that kind of courtesy happen in any other sport? Hardly. So to call his "comassion for [his] fellows" into question is disingenuous, and, more plainly so you can understand, a load of crap. Furthermore, Lance keeps NONE of the $400K prize money for winning the tour. He gives $50K to each of his teammates, and then matches that amount right out of his own pocket (totalling $800K), above and beyond what his teammates are paid by Postal. That's pretty damned generous.

Now, away from cycling. How the hell can you say that Armstrong "gorges himself on success without suffering"??? The man had testicular and stomach cancer, and had 40% chance of living!! No suffering??? Where the hell do you come off making that B.S. claim? His contributions as a cancer survivor to that community, speaking to sick children, visiting hospitals, etc. has been extremely generous and inspiring.

And to address the Swiss paper's backhanded slap at the American business community?? Most successful business stories in this country were started by people who worked their asses off and took risks -- they weren't handed things. Bill Gates, Paul Allen, Mark Cuban, Ted Turner... these people didn't come from old money like the old, crusty European lines. They built the better mousetrap and made our lives better. Don't crap on the capitalist system while taking a swipe at one of the greatest athletes and most in the history of sport. Take one losing argument at a time! Jealously is an ugly thing. Don't let karma smack your riders in the face on the next tour.

I should also note that most of the French papers have been uncharacteristically complimentary of Armstrong this week, which is classy of them, especially after their barrage of doping accusations. [French fans cheer Virenque without hesitation (they guy who almost single-handedly brought the sport down in 1998 with a major doping scandal which he confessed to), yet boo Armstrong who has never failed a test even though being tested 60-80 times per tour season.] So props to the French media for swallowing their pride and doing the right thing in this case.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: RayRay,

Lance Armstrong does not deserve that kind of criticism. He is an amazing cyclist and athlete who has never tested positive for any banned substances. While it is okay to suspect that he(like Barry Bonds)may be getting away with something, noone has been able to prove it and so they should keep their speculations to themselves. The French media appropriately recognize what Lance has done for the Tour. He has single handedly revived the image and interest in the Tour De France since it's major fallout with Virenque for admitting to doping(who should also be praised for his accomplishments in this tour, coming back clean and riding well). The problem foreign media have with Armstrong is that they feel his record accomplishment's at the Tour De France will indicate him to North American media as being the greatest cyclist of all time, which he is definately not. That is no excuse for taking shots at him though. If they wanted to accomplish this, they should take a positive stance towards Lance as well as the great riders before him. When the cycling accomplishments of Eddie Mercyx are compared to Armstrong's, it is obvious who was a greater rider. Lance Armstrong is the best Tour De France rider ever, but he focuses almost completely on that tour and does not compete year round in the many, many other competitions worldwide. Mercyx has way more stage victories than Lance does on the Tour, but did not win it as many times, probably due to fatigue from riding year round. Lance Armstrong has certainly eclipsed Greg Lemond as the greatest American cyclist, but he would need to dominate the sport and not just one competition per year to be called the greatest ever.

Personally, I wouldn't think very much of some Swiss newspaper posting derogatory comments probably written a week in advance by some drunk. (I'm speaking from experience, not going into a tirade.)

S, I can understand what your saying, but what if Tiger Woods only played in the majors and won many of them, wouldn't that make him the best? I realize that's moot at this point since he hasn't won a major for over two years, yet he's still ranked #1 in the world, even though he's participating less. Lance Armstrong, at least to me, can't really be compared to anyone. He MIGHT not be the greatest in the history of the sport OR ANY SPORT but his ACCOMPLISHMENTS rival anything in sports history which you may compare them to. On top of that, you have his overcoming the BIG C. Anybody who's foolish enough to criticize him isn't worth even listening to.

I removed Wong's Political discussion and would request that he/she move that kind of discussion to the politics thread. Please stay on point. This is a cycling/sports topic. Not everything negative in the world has to do with the American elections. Feel free to email me privatley to discuss this further.

Metacritic Games Editor:


Obviously we disagree how germane my remarks were.

All three of the posters expressed shock and dismay that Lance Armstrong is getting negative press and brickbats instead of uniform adulation.

I though I'll explain something that is obvious to me. After all, none of us just fell off the turnip truck yesterday.

I simply made the point that's he's America's hero, but others may see it differently: that any standard bearer for the United States at this point in history will get negative press simply for being American. Clearly we don't like it and think it unfair and unjust. Just so. But as sophisticated people, we should keep in mind that there are things they care about deeply that we don't give a damn about.

If you believe that a political context on a sporting event is politics and not sport, fine with me. I just hope that not everything that happens in the would is a shock to us, like some deep hidden mystery

I've reposted it to General Discussion / How They See Us. Those interested can go there.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: wong828,

quote:

---

Originally posted by wong828:


I've reposted it to General Discussion / How They See Us. Those interested can go there.

---

Fair enough. Thanks, W.,

M. G. E.

Mark, the appropriate comparison for Tiger Woods would be if he trained almost all year specifically for the course at the Masters and did not put his full effort into any other competition. I have a few friends who race competitively and while they all respect Lance Armstrong a lot, they would dispute even calling him the best rider in the world today. They are pretty sure he could be, but he has never proved it outside of one competition a year! If Tiger Woods showed up to win one event a year, he would not hold a number one ranking. Cycling has many major events per year, just like golf and tennis. A golf or tennis superstar who dominated once a year wouldn't be revered as much. Obviously the Tour De France is the only cycling event with a ton of publicity, so the winner gets the mainstream sports media glory. Many in the cycling community follow events year round so it does not hold as much relevance to them. I love Lance Armstrong and I began to watch the Tour De France mostly because of him. Unfortunately, cancer deprived us of the chance to see if he could be the world's greatest, as since his recovery he has focused strictly on the Tour De France to the exclusion of most other events. I would like to have seen him compete for Gold at the Olympics, but no such luck. I do hope that he will compete in the Tour De Italy next year, a win there would go a great length to bolstering his career legacy. One thing I really look forward to, is the day when Lance enters the Ironman competition! I am sure that he will do it eventually, and I can't wait to see how well he does. I expect that he could seriously dominate in cycling or triathalon for a few more years if he chose to, the man is in absolutely phenomenal physical condition, and his determination is nearly unparalleled in sport today.

Is anybody else creeped out by this?

Apparently Armstrong doesn't like to date within his own age group. Previously he was dating the middle-aged Sheryl Crow. Now he's gone the other way with the barely legal Ashley Olsen.

I wonder if he's thinking about the possibility of an Olsen Twin threesome. I would be.

I don't know why exactly, but I'm kind of creeped out by the Olsen twins. I feel like statutory rape laws should be amended to include all those under the age of 18 and the Olsen twins.

quote:

Originally posted by MajorNougat:
I don't know why exactly, but I'm kind of creeped out by the Olsen twins. I feel like statutory rape laws should be amended to include all those under the age of 18 and the Olsen twins.

My biggest problem is that ever since they were in a movie together, the Olsen Twins actually look like Rick Moranis' daughters. I actually believe they look like his offspring. I don't find them attractive. Some waifs can be pretty (Kiera Knightly), but their faces look funny to me. Monkey-like.

quote:

Originally posted by Il Mago:

quote:

Originally posted by MajorNougat:
I don't know why exactly, but I'm kind of creeped out by the Olsen twins. I feel like statutory rape laws should be amended to include all those under the age of 18 and the Olsen twins.

My biggest problem is that ever since they were in a movie together, the Olsen Twins actually look like Rick Moranis' daughters. I actually believe they look like his offspring. I don't find them attractive. Some waifs can be pretty (Kiera Knightly), but their faces look funny to me. Monkey-like.

Agreed. They are going to grow up to resemble Michael Jackson.

quote:

Originally posted by Maximum Jack:
Is anybody else creeped out by this?

I jumped at the sight of that picture. I think they purposely picked that photo because she looks so creepy in it. I don’t think that the Olsen twins are anything great at all. Frankly, I don’t find anything about them appealing. But yes, an old guy like Armstrong dating a 21-year old girl is indeed creepy.

The age differential doesn't bother me as much as the fact that we saw the Olsens grow up. Like younger siblings. Yuck.