Road Bike, Cycling Forums banner

Explain the psychology behind Lance haters and Jan-fans.

5K views 62 replies 29 participants last post by  divve 
#1 ·
Yes, I know, it's inevitable. We'll always have those that resent the guy at the top. But what is it that we admire in our sports heroes? As with Cub or Red Sox fans, sometimes people identify with futility and are loyal to their adopted teams in spite of failure. "The Cubbies might be a bad team, but they're MY team."

I think some people identify athletes who exhibit style or panache irrespective of accomplishment. Other's might admire those athletes who perform at the highest level and do it quietly....the John Stockton's of the world.

What kind of perplexes me is the legion of Jan fans. Yeah, he's a talented rider, and if you had to pick a cycling hero other than Lance, there haven't been to many that have stuck around in recent years ceppin for Jan, but still, is he really worthy of admiration? Between ploughing through bike racks in a drunken stupor, partying it up on X, coming to the Tour underprepared and overeweight, and just downright sucking at the critical moments, it seems the guy's the perfect example of squandered ability. Yet, still he's got rabid fan base....why?
 
#2 ·
patchito said:
Yes, I know, it's inevitable. We'll always have those that resent the guy at the top. But what is it that we admire in our sports heroes? As with Cub or Red Sox fans, sometimes people identify with futility and are loyal to their adopted teams in spite of failure. "The Cubbies might be a bad team, but they're MY team."

I think some people identify athletes who exhibit style or panache irrespective of accomplishment. Other's might admire those athletes who perform at the highest level and do it quietly....the John Stockton's of the world.

What kind of perplexes me is the legion of Jan fans. Yeah, he's a talented rider, and if you had to pick a cycling hero other than Lance, there haven't been to many that have stuck around in recent years ceppin for Jan, but still, is he really worthy of admiration? Between ploughing through bike racks in a drunken stupor, partying it up on X, coming to the Tour underprepared and overeweight, and just downright sucking at the critical moments, it seems the guy's the perfect example of squandered ability. Yet, still he's got rabid fan base....why?
For the American anti-Lance crowd, I suspect it's not so much anti-Lance, as anti-Lance fan reaction. They don't like to see other people display what they see as hero-worship.
If you've been disallusioned with the human race in general, there's some security in never setting yourself up for disappointment. When someone comes along that reaffirms people's people's faith in human achievement, you need to see the hero knocked down to reaffirm your own disallusionment. Otherwise, you risk coming to grips with the possibility you've been wrong all along.
And Lance's continued success is impossible for the average Joe to identify with. Most of us want success, but don't have the drive or available resources to achieve the continued and high profile success he has.

For myself, I trained many more hours than any other member of my team. My coach told me so. I weighed 130 lbs, 80% of that was in the legs, yet I saw other riders start training after me, train less than me, and still progress to a level I never could. I had to face my limitations. I never won a race. My best finish was a top ten in a cat V race. But since I believe my motivations were fairly honorable, for the enjoyment and personal challenge, I'm still riding knowing I'll never attain even the lowest level of glory. I've seen many talented riders lose interest. They attained some level of success with minimum effort and were spared constant failure. Yet they lost interest. I can't blame them if in their heart, cycling just didn't raise their spirits.

Outside of Germany, I really don't think their are many genuine rabid Jan fans. They just grab onto Jan as their best available anti-Lance figure. If it wasn't Jan, it would be someone else. The French simply don't like Lance personally. They loved and still love Greg Lemond, despite his fued with Hinaut. It could be because he raced on a French team and went out of his way to adopt some of their ways and customs, while Lance flaunts a strictly American personna. There's not much chance he'll retire to mix into some small French village.
That's how I see it anyways.
 
#3 ·
Why Anti-Lance???

There is an old saying, "It isn't whether you win or lose, it is how you play the game." Frankly, I don't like the way Lance plays the game. I have the utmost respect for him as a human, as a survivor and in his athletic ability, but I have absolutely none for him as a racer. he is essentially contesting one race this year. He may have participated in a few others, but he didn't mount any serious attempt to win. Others may disagree with me, but IMHO, no single race is better or more important that others. The Tour doesn't mean more to me than the Giro, the Vuelta, Paris-Roubaix, or any other race on the Pro Tour and many races not on the pro tour.

There is the feeble argument that the Tour is the best because the best riders do the tour. How do they get to be the best? By doing well in the tour. It is a completly circular argument which holds absolutely no validity. Has Lance gone to the Giro and tried to win? The Veulta? The last time a rider made a serious attempt at both was pantani in 1998, and he won the Tour by a greater margin against the "better riders".

Give me a racer over a TdF specialist anyday. I'll take Vino, DiLuca, Zabel or a hundred other riders who may not win the tour, but will fight for victories from spring to fall.
 
#5 ·
necessity

The top riders are so close together in ability that if none of them focus on the Tour and race year-round, no one has an advantage and the rider who is 0.5% better will win. But if one or more of them decide to specialize in the Tour then they'll have the advantage. That's what it takes to win the Tour and hardly anyone will remember DiLuca or Vinokourov 5-10 years from now. Hell, it took me several hours trying to remember who was 2nd in the 1999 TdF and I follow the sport closely.
 
#6 ·
The anti-lance fan reaction is a big part. Even deeper and more fundamental is that cycling fans can be really elitist. No doubt this has appealed to me. The sport is difficult, misunderstood by most and at the very fringe of what many people will pay attention to. Then because of LA, your Sunday ride is inundated by hairy legged yahoos in US Postal kits who have no control over their brand new Trek Madones. And to boot the price of various gear goes sky high - component shortage my a$$.

Jan Ullrich offers at once both an antagonism towards these new fans as well as something erudite and foriegn (two traits close to cyclists it seems). I like Ullrich too and without him the TDF would be legitimately boring.
As for me I could care less if LA rides more or less than the TDF. I just enjoy being able to see bike races on the TV; the more the better. I won't slight Van Petegem for only contesting races before May or Heras for lighting up the Vuelta and sucking wind every other month of the year. That being said my favorite riders are the ones who can never be counted out of an attack regardless of the conditions - like my boy Flecha. Still I will enjoy watching all of them ride. IMHO.

/Apologize if this is repeated from above.
 
#7 ·
Frank Tuesday said:
Why Anti-Lance???

There is an old saying, "It isn't whether you win or lose, it is how you play the game." Frankly, I don't like the way Lance plays the game. I have the utmost respect for him as a human, as a survivor and in his athletic ability, but I have absolutely none for him as a racer. he is essentially contesting one race this year. He may have participated in a few others, but he didn't mount any serious attempt to win. Others may disagree with me, but IMHO, no single race is better or more important that others. The Tour doesn't mean more to me than the Giro, the Vuelta, Paris-Roubaix, or any other race on the Pro Tour and many races not on the pro tour.

There is the feeble argument that the Tour is the best because the best riders do the tour. How do they get to be the best? By doing well in the tour. It is a completly circular argument which holds absolutely no validity. Has Lance gone to the Giro and tried to win? The Veulta? The last time a rider made a serious attempt at both was pantani in 1998, and he won the Tour by a greater margin against the "better riders".

Give me a racer over a TdF specialist anyday. I'll take Vino, DiLuca, Zabel or a hundred other riders who may not win the tour, but will fight for victories from spring to fall.

If no single race is more important, why is the Giro or the Vuelta (which he raced and finished 4th) more important for him to race than any of these???

2004
1st Tour de France, six stage wins including the Team Time Trial
1st Tour of Alrgarve stage win, 5th overall
1st Tour de Georgia, two stage wins
1st Midi Libre stage win, 6th overall
3rd Criterium International
4th Dauphine Libere
23d Tour of Murcia

2003
1st Tour de France, two stage wins including the Team Time Trial
1st Dauphine Libre, one stage win
8th Amstel Gold
20th Liege-Bastogne-Liege
8th End of year world ranking

2002
1st Tour de France, four stage wins
1st Midi Libre
1st Dauphine Libre, one stage win
2nd Criterium Internantional
3rd Championship of Zurich
4th Amstel Gold
6th San Francisco Grand Prix
2nd End of year world ranking

2001
1st Tour de France, four stage wins
1st Tour of Switzerland, two stage wins
2nd Amstel Gold
2nd Classique des Alpes
8th Setmana Catalana
12th Tour of Aragon
4th End of year world ranking

2000
1st Tour de France, one stage win
1st GP Eddy Merckx 2-man TT with "Eki" Ekimov
1st GP des Nations
2nd Paris-Camembert
3rd Dauphine Libere, one stage win, King of the Mountains winner
3rd Olympic Time Trial
3rd Classique des Alpes
4th GP Gippingen
7th GP Miguel Indurain
13th Olympic Road Race
4th End of year world ranking

1999
1st Tour de France, four stage wins
1st Dauphine Libere stage win, 8th overall
1st Circuit de la Sarthe stage win
1st Route de Sud stage win
2nd Amstel Gold
2nd Ride for the Roses criterium
7th Tour of Aragon
7th End of year world ranking

1998
1st Tour of Luxembourg, one stage win
1st Rheinland Pfalz Tour
1st Ride for the Roses criterium
1st Cascade Classic
2nd First Union Invitational
4th USPro Championship
4th Tour of Holland
4th Vuelta Espana
4th World Time Trial Championship
4th World Road Race Championship
25th End of year world ranking

1997 Lance joins Team USPS

1996
1st Fleche Wallone
1st Tour DuPont, five stage wins
1st Fresca Classic stage win
2nd Paris-Nice
2nd Liege-Bastogne-Liege
2nd GP Eddy Merckx
2nd Tour of Holland
4th Leeds Classic
4th GP Suisse
6th Olympic Time Trial
8th GP Harelbeke
11th Milan - San Remo
12th Olympic Road Race
14th San Sebastian Classic
17th Amstel Gold
9th End of year world ranking

1995
1st stage win Tour de France, 36th overall
1st San Sebastian Classic
1st Tour DuPont, three stage wins
1st Paris-Nice stage win
1st West Virginia Mountain Classic, one stage win
1st Tour of America race series
2nd Thrift Drug Classic
5th CoreStates USPro Championship
6th Liege-Bastogne-Liege
15th End of year world ranking

1994
1st Thrift Drug Classic
2nd Tour DuPont, one stage win
2nd Liege-Bastogne-Liege
2nd San Sebastian Classic
7th Tour of Switzerland
7th World Road Race Championship
25th End of year world ranking

1993
1st World Road Race Championship
1st Tour de France stage win
1st CoreStates USPro Championship
1st Trofeo Laigueglia
1st Thrift Drug Classic
1st Tour of Galicia
1st West Virginia Mountain Classic, two stage wins
1st Tour of America series
* Winner of $1 million Thrift Drug Triple Crown
2nd Tour DuPont, one stage win
3rd Tour of Sweden, one stage win
5th Leeds Classic
9th Paris-Nice
14th Championship of Zurich
21st End of year world ranking

1992
1st First Union Grand Prix
1st Thrift Drug Classic
1st Trittico Premondiale second leg
1st La Primavera Tour, three stage wins
1st Settimana Bergamasca stage win
2nd Championship of Zurich
8th Coppa Bernocchi
12th Tour DuPont
14th Tour of Galicia, one stage win
14th Olympic Road Race
17th GP Teleglobe
* Signed with Motorola following Olympics

1991 * Signed with Subaru-Montgomery
1st US Amateur Championship
1st Settimana Bergamasca

1990
5th US Amateur Time Trial Championship
11th World Amatur Championship
 
#8 ·
I like them both

patchito said:
Yes, I know, it's inevitable. We'll always have those that resent the guy at the top. But what is it that we admire in our sports heroes? As with Cub or Red Sox fans, sometimes people identify with futility and are loyal to their adopted teams in spite of failure. "The Cubbies might be a bad team, but they're MY team."

I think some people identify athletes who exhibit style or panache irrespective of accomplishment. Other's might admire those athletes who perform at the highest level and do it quietly....the John Stockton's of the world.

What kind of perplexes me is the legion of Jan fans. Yeah, he's a talented rider, and if you had to pick a cycling hero other than Lance, there haven't been to many that have stuck around in recent years ceppin for Jan, but still, is he really worthy of admiration? Between ploughing through bike racks in a drunken stupor, partying it up on X, coming to the Tour underprepared and overeweight, and just downright sucking at the critical moments, it seems the guy's the perfect example of squandered ability. Yet, still he's got rabid fan base....why?
I'm a Lance fan because he is an American, the best rider in the last couple of decades and it is just a great story.

I'm a Jan fan because I like the under dog and people seem to forget that he is the second best rider in the last couple of decades.

As with any athlete that competes at that level their behavior outside of the sport is questionable. With Lance it is his behavior as a husband and a father that I would judge as lacking while with Jan it is more his day to day decision making.

Bottom line is that they are both the best or damn near the best at what they do. That is admirable.

As far as haters go. There are some people that will find a reason to hate no matter what. I hate them!
 
#9 ·
Interesting, I had the opposite idea

nwilkes said:
Then because of LA, your Sunday ride is inundated by hairy legged yahoos in US Postal kits who have no control over their brand new Trek Madones. And to boot the price of various gear goes sky high - component shortage my a$$.
That component and other item prices were being driven up by the weight weenies for whom manufacturers create new, relatively unnecessary products- and not due to lack of availability, but due to progressive pricing policies and simply charging what the market will bear. I need neither 10 speeds (I ride 9, but believe I'd be quite happy with 8), a carbon bedpan, fragmentation-proof x-ray Oakleys, nor a 4-dimensional stretch bikini-wax giving chamois pad. But people buy them... compulsively.

That said, you're probably right as well- I noticed last year that USPS team kit was a good bit more expensive than any other. Is it really necessary to charge over/nearly $100 for a lame looking jersey? Apparently.
 
#10 ·
nwilkes said:
The anti-lance fan reaction is a big part. Even deeper and more fundamental is that cycling fans can be really elitist. No doubt this has appealed to me. The sport is difficult, misunderstood by most and at the very fringe of what many people will pay attention to. Then because of LA, your Sunday ride is inundated by hairy legged yahoos in US Postal kits who have no control over their brand new Trek Madones. And to boot the price of various gear goes sky high - component shortage my a$$.

Jan Ullrich offers at once both an antagonism towards these new fans as well as something erudite and foriegn (two traits close to cyclists it seems). I like Ullrich too and without him the TDF would be legitimately boring.
As for me I could care less if LA rides more or less than the TDF. I just enjoy being able to see bike races on the TV; the more the better. I won't slight Van Petegem for only contesting races before May or Heras for lighting up the Vuelta and sucking wind every other month of the year. That being said my favorite riders are the ones who can never be counted out of an attack regardless of the conditions - like my boy Flecha. Still I will enjoy watching all of them ride. IMHO.

/Apologize if this is repeated from above.

I like the points you made about fad riders with more money than desire. Their fat wallets the pervasive delusion that money will buy cycling happiness and performance contribute to ridiculously high priced components, and premature demise of perfectly adequate equipment- (8-9speed, threaded headsets, steel frames, 32 spoke wheels, practical saddles, sub-$50 handlebars, sub-$150 shoes, sub-$100 helmets, sub-$40 tires, etc.
But then again, they did contribute to the development of triple chainrings.
I'm trying to avoid the polarizing mentality dictating that if you like one guy, you must hate the competition. If you like steel, you must hate cf. If you ride mtb, roadies must be p*ssys.
The part I like about cycling is that it's not easy. Over the long term, it weeds out those who are unwilling to deal with mother nature, and their own weakness. And because there's little public or social glory or recognition, it weeds out those searching for such things. It keeps you honest.
 
#13 ·
nwilkes said:
The anti-lance fan reaction is a big part. Even deeper and more fundamental is that cycling fans can be really elitist. No doubt this has appealed to me. The sport is difficult, misunderstood by most and at the very fringe of what many people will pay attention to. Then because of LA, your Sunday ride is inundated by hairy legged yahoos in US Postal kits who have no control over their brand new Trek Madones.
In other words: Waaaaaaaa! It's MY sport and I don't want all you hairy apes diluting it! :rolleyes:

Ugh.
 
#14 ·
Frank Tuesday said:
Why Anti-Lance???

There is the feeble argument that the Tour is the best because the best riders do the tour. How do they get to be the best? By doing well in the tour. It is a completly circular argument which holds absolutely no validity. Has Lance gone to the Giro and tried to win? The Veulta? The last time a rider made a serious attempt at both was pantani in 1998, and he won the Tour by a greater margin against the "better riders".

Give me a racer over a TdF specialist anyday. I'll take Vino, DiLuca, Zabel or a hundred other riders who may not win the tour, but will fight for victories from spring to fall.
How many Vueltas or Giros did Vino ride? DiLuca is not even riding the tour now, or does he? Neither does Zabel, but that's a different story. He is a sprinter anyways. Should we blame him for not contesting mountain stages?

Seems like specialization is the key word in contemporary cycling. Some people are great at climbing, some at TT, some at long breakaways, some at sprints, some at one-day classics, some at long tours. Long Tours are considered a pinnacle of racing (perhaps unfairly so, but nevertheless true), for their combination of skills and dedication neccessary to win a tour, and a variety of riders that can participate and win in one way or another (a jersey, a stage win, etc.). Tactically Tours are much more interesting to watch than most one-day races.

You cannot seriously argue that all Tours are created equal. TdF is by far brings out the best talent and has the most prestige in winning an overall title, placing in top 5 or even 10, winning a stage... TdF is the truly internationally contested affair, while Vuelta and Giro are primarily national tours - how many non-italians won Giro or non-spaniards won Vuelta in the past 5 years or so?

So I think your critisism is somewhat unfounded. If I were the rider of Armstrong's caliber and I was faced with a chance of winning the Tour or winning Vuelta/Giro, I would pick the Tour without even thinking. I would pick Tour win over winning both Vuelta and Giro, and any three wins at any spring classics.

Now, why wouldn't he go for all three or at least two out of three grand tours? The answer is not that Armstrong is afraid to lose or is lazy, but that it is probably not very realistic and would seriously jeopardize his chances of preparing well for the Tour. How many riders in the past 7 year "Armstrong" era got on a podium in two grand tours in the same year? Beloki is the only one with third in 2002 Vuelta and second in 2002 Tour...
Not sure how many seriously contended for top 10 in both, but not many...

So if you don't like Lance for not contending other grand tours, then you should extend the same courtesy to other riders as well.

Giro:
2004 Damiano Cunego (Ita) Serguei Gonchar (Ukr) Gilberto Simoni (Ita)
2003 Gilberto Simoni (Ita) Stefano Garzelli (Ita) Yaroslav Popovych (Ukr)
2002 Paolo Savoldelli (Ita) Tyler Hamilton (USA) Pietro Caucchioli (Ita)
2001 Gilberto Simoni (Ita) Abraham Olano (Spa) Unai Osa (Spa)
2000 Stefano Garzelli (Ita) Francesco Casagrande (Ita) Gilberto Simoni (Ita)
1999 Ivan Gotti (Ita) Paolo Savoldelli (Ita) Gilberto Simoni (Ita)

Vuelta:
2004 1 Roberto Heras (Spa) Santiago Perez (Spa) Francisco Mancebo (Spa)
2003 Roberto Heras (Spa) Isidro Nozal (Spa) Alejandro Valverde (Spa)
2002 Aitor Gonzalez (Spa) Roberto Heras (Spa) Joseba Beloki (Spa)
2001 Angel Casero (Spa) Oscar Sevilla (Spa) Levi Leipheimer (USA)
2000 Roberto Heras (Spa) Angel Casero (Spa) Pavel Tonkov (Rus)
1999 Jan Ullrich (Ger) Igor Glez. Galdeano (Spa) Roberto Heras (Spa)


Tour:
2004 1 Lance Armstrong (USA)
2 Andreas Klöden (Ger)
3 Ivan Basso (Ita)

2003 1 Lance Armstrong (USA)
2 Jan Ullrich (Ger)
3 Alexandre Vinokourov (Kaz)

2002 1 Lance Armstrong (USA)
2 Joseba Beloki (Spa)
3 Raimondas Rumsas (Ltu)

2001 1 Lance Armstrong (USA)
2 Jan Ullrich (Ger)
3 Joseba Beloki (Spa)

2000 1 Lance Armstrong (USA)
2 Jan Ullrich (Ger)
3 Joseba Beloki (Spa)

1999 1 Lance Armstrong (USA)
2 Alex Zulle (Swi)
3 Fernando Escartin (Spa)
 
#15 ·
nwilkes said:
not the T-word. Now your really going to bring out the elitists.
Ironically, the T-word is a product of elitism. New cyclists who had to have the same bike as the pros, had to have the same 53t big ring and the same 11t small cog. They soon found they were walking their 53t up hills or worse yet, turning around before the hill started. Again, cycling forces you to be honest. If you can't push the big gears, be grateful there are gears available that let you continue cycling no matter the speed. If a stronger rider belittles you, be all the more eager to have him prove it by riding away from you at break-neck speed.
 
#16 ·
I would tend to agree with Paul...

covenant said:
Expound on that if you would. I heard his divorce was amicable and he wants to quit racing so he can spend more time with his kids. Or do you side with Paul deParrie on this? newswithviews.com/deParrie/paul17.htm
...even though he sounds French.

I in no way feel as strongly about the subject as Parrie but he does pretty much some up my point.

I think the same can be said for almost anyone who is at the absolute top of their profession. You just can't do both.

Then again maybe this is just how I justify being a slacker ;)
 
#17 ·
Jesse D Smith said:
Ironically, the T-word is a product of elitism. New cyclists who had to have the same bike as the pros, had to have the same 53t big ring and the same 11t small cog. They soon found they were walking their 53t up hills or worse yet, turning around before the hill started. Again, cycling forces you to be honest. If you can't push the big gears, be grateful there are gears available that let you continue cycling no matter the speed. If a stronger rider belittles you, be all the more eager to have him prove it by riding away from you at break-neck speed.
thats compensation, not elitism.
 
#18 ·
are you crazy?

I've been road biking for 20+ years and have no idea what you are talking about in regards to "freds" driving up the cost of bikes/components. I think it is the exact opposite. If you didn' t live through the era when road bike were in a small corner in most bike shops while mountain bikes were everywhere then maybe I can understand. Do you think a high tech carbon bike with great components would be affordable if they were not selling gobs of them? I bought a trek aluminum/carbon bike in 1996 for about $1500. That same money now in similar dollar terms (allowing for inflation) will buy you so much better bike, way lighter, much better ride, far superior components. You young guys are clueless if you don't think the popularity of road bikes, fueled in part by Lance in the media, has improved both the technology and value of equipment available!
 
#19 ·
How about this?

I want to see Lance win a 7th Tour because it's never been done. I want to see him raise $$$ for cancer research because I think it's a good cause. But I don't think I'd want to meet him nor would I think about inviting him to my party. I respect him, even admire him, but I don't think I'd like to pal around with him.

Ullrich is more classically the iconoclast, temperamental cyclist. As noted elsewhere in these forums he's like a full-race Ferrari . . . when it's running it's impressive. But it's "in the shop being tuned" a great deal.

Fignon was a great rider and a complete jerk. I think maybe it goes with the territory. Cycling attracts an elite minority. We shouldn't expect them to all be "good ol' boys."
 
#20 ·
overtraining?


Jesse D Smith said:
For myself, I trained many more hours than any other member of my team. My coach told me so. I weighed 130 lbs, 80% of that was in the legs, yet I saw other riders start training after me, train less than me, and still progress to a level I never could. I had to face my limitations. I never won a race. My best finish was a top ten in a cat V race. But since I believe my motivations were fairly honorable, for the enjoyment and personal challenge, I'm still riding knowing I'll never attain even the lowest level of glory. I've seen many talented riders lose interest. They attained some level of success with minimum effort and were spared constant failure. Yet they lost interest. I can't blame them if in their heart, cycling just didn't raise their spirits.
 
#21 ·
MaRider said:
So if you don't like Lance for not contending other grand tours, then you should extend the same courtesy to other riders as well.
The question was about Lance specifically, and my reply had nothing to do with the three Grand Tours specifically. It has to do with people who race all (or most of the) year trying to win. I couldn't give a piss if a rider decided to forego all three grand tours if they are out there racing one day and short stage races instead. I don't even care if they win or not, as long as they are out there trying to win, which is something that Lance does little of if it isn't July.
 
#23 ·
Armstrong is a winner - not a cyclist. He would be a winner whatever his sport but it never seems like the romance/history/tradition of the sport actually means anything to him. Ullrich, on the other hand, seems like a bloke who enjoys riding a bike but doesn't take it all that seriously - one of the joys of watching him win in 1997 was the real joy he took in riding and the fact that winning genuinely didn't seem to be the be all and end all for him - just the sheer enjoyment of riding a bike.

Armstrong is efficient, destructive, a winner - that is impressive in its way. But there's preciosu little joy or pleasure in the way he approaches his one race, the TdF. Perhaps if he raced more, or didn't treat every race as an exercise to psyche out his opponents, or just smiled more, looked like what he was doing was - though painful - something that brings him more than millions...
 
#25 ·
These are people...

patchito said:
Yes, I know, it's inevitable. We'll always have those that resent the guy at the top. But what is it that we admire in our sports heroes? As with Cub or Red Sox fans, sometimes people identify with futility and are loyal to their adopted teams in spite of failure. "The Cubbies might be a bad team, but they're MY team."

I think some people identify athletes who exhibit style or panache irrespective of accomplishment. Other's might admire those athletes who perform at the highest level and do it quietly....the John Stockton's of the world.

What kind of perplexes me is the legion of Jan fans. Yeah, he's a talented rider, and if you had to pick a cycling hero other than Lance, there haven't been to many that have stuck around in recent years ceppin for Jan, but still, is he really worthy of admiration? Between ploughing through bike racks in a drunken stupor, partying it up on X, coming to the Tour underprepared and overeweight, and just downright sucking at the critical moments, it seems the guy's the perfect example of squandered ability. Yet, still he's got rabid fan base....why?
who need a hobby. Maybe they should be spending more time on riding their bikes.
 
#26 ·
Bianchigirl said:
Armstrong is a winner - not a cyclist. He would be a winner whatever his sport but it never seems like the romance/history/tradition of the sport actually means anything to him. Ullrich, on the other hand, seems like a bloke who enjoys riding a bike but doesn't take it all that seriously - one of the joys of watching him win in 1997 was the real joy he took in riding and the fact that winning genuinely didn't seem to be the be all and end all for him - just the sheer enjoyment of riding a bike.

Armstrong is efficient, destructive, a winner - that is impressive in its way. But there's preciosu little joy or pleasure in the way he approaches his one race, the TdF. Perhaps if he raced more, or didn't treat every race as an exercise to psyche out his opponents, or just smiled more, looked like what he was doing was - though painful - something that brings him more than millions...
You could have distilled your response down to three words - "Image is everything"
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top