Why do so many people hate Disco / USPS / Lance Armstrong

bucketbanger

Im quite new to cycling and if it wasnt for watching Lance during the tour the chances are i wouldnt have taken up the sport. First of all yes i am a Lance fan but im not one of thoes silly American Lanceaholics types. I do get the feeling that the Disco / USPS team are the Manchester United of cycling, the team everyone loves to hate, but why ? plus im sure if Lance Armstrong just happened to be British and not American peoples attitude towards him would be totally different, he would be the best thing since sliced bread.

So as seen as it looks like its the end of an empire with the current Disco team not been able to find a replacemnt sponsor for next year, why are they the team everyone seems to hate ? your opinion would be great.

Cheers

gsd

When Lance was around they seemed to only focus on the Tour de France. They focused all of their energies on that race due to its profile and abandoned some of the prestigious classics. They applied more clinical, controlling tactics to the tour which took away some of its excitement and made it more predictable. In short, they made it all more boring.

RyanBrook

I've pondered that question myself, I put it down to the same reason people hate Manchester United. Because people like to try and knock the successful down, especially us Brits.

As far as Lance goes I think its a case of people getting tired of him being the only namely most fringe fans know when the sport has so much to offer also becasue he was so successtful he often dominated the tour making it a little less competitive.

ContrelaMontre

It's simple really...

...long black socks! :twisted:

Kléber

Tall poppy syndrome? Anti-americanism?

Or go here: http://www.podtrac.com/pts/redirect.mp3 ... -Part2.mp3
...and fast forward to 4m50s and listen for the next few minutes. If you haven't got much time, go to 11m15s and listen to the next 30 seconds. Make of it what you will...

For me it's the way the team management behaves. Bruyneel blacklists journalists who asks tough questions, instead of confronting them. He broke a collective agreement not to sign riders under investigation by signing Ivan Basso. It's the consistent ways they refuse to play an open game and to talk honestly. As the sport seeks to restore credibility by adopting more ethical standards, these guys are not leading the charge.

Plus there's the elephant in the room, the question of whether Lance Armstrong has always been a totally clean rider, of whether his denials of doping are true or not. I'm not going to say much on this, there are plenty of other places to discuss this.

andyp

A myriad of reasons why I have no time for Team Bruyneel;

- the behaviour of those in management positions in the team
- the fact that they had links with Dr Michele Ferrari but tried to suppress them
- the way the team acted when riders left, i.e. the undermining of them
- the way Armstrong bullied (Bassons, Halgand and especially Simeoni) riders who dared to speak out
- the hiring of Ivan Basso despite all ProTour team's agreeing they wouldn't hire anyone linked with Puerto
- watching George Hincapie drop the best climbers in the world
- hearing people who know nothing about cycling telling me that Armstrong would win any classic he liked in 2005 (he won none and never got close)
- hearing people tell me that Hincapie was a Tour contender (drugs that powerful haven't been invented yet)

Eurostar

Here's how I feel about Lance. I typed it for an American forum and got surprisingly little abuse! He doesn't seem to be more popular with cyclists there than he is here. It's always the general public who worship him.

---

I had testicular cancer, I benefited from research paid for by charities, and I've since worked for a few charities. But I don't admire Lance, don't like him and am 99% certain he doped. Even if he didn't dope his unsportsmanlike behaviour is not worthy of a Tour champion. I would have a lot more respect for him if he hadn't been protected by the best team ever, which controlled the race like no other team has. There are plenty of other people who could have won 7 tours with that team to do nearly all the work for them. I would also have respected him more if he had turned up to more of the classic European races. Instead he just flew in and took a robotic approach to the race, made it as boring as it could be, and flew home to count his money. We finally got a glimpse of his true character in his argument with Simeoni. Until that moment, I was a Lance fan. It's hard to imagine it now, but I really was!

He took a lot from the Tour de France, which is a sacred institution to many people. What has he given back? Nothing, as far as I can see. He treated it more like a business opportunity than a vocation. Selfish, arrogant schmuck.

andy610

im annoyed because i bought the full discovery kit and now its changing

leguape

Kléber wrote:

Tall poppy syndrome? Anti-americanism?

Or go here: http://www.podtrac.com/pts/redirect.mp3 ... -Part2.mp3
...and fast forward to 4m50s and listen for the next few minutes. If you haven't got much time, go to 11m15s and listen to the next 30 seconds. Make of it what you will...

For me it's the way the team management behaves. Bruyneel blacklists journalists who asks tough questions, instead of confronting them. He broke a collective agreement not to sign riders under investigation by signing Ivan Basso. It's the consistent ways they refuse to play an open game and to talk honestly. As the sport seeks to restore credibility by adopting more ethical standards, these guys are not leading the charge.

Plus there's the elephant in the room, the question of whether Lance Armstrong has always been a totally clean rider, of whether his denials of doping are true or not. I'm not going to say much on this, there are plenty of other places to discuss this.

Slow hand clap for that man and his understanding of defamation. You mean the secondhand tale being told thirdhand by Walsh and which Vaughters has denied being in any way true when asked about the conversation by cyclingnews.com. He admitted that, Walsh admits that in that interview at about 5:55 in. So that's plain old housewives gossip, no better.

Yet Walsh persists in holding this up as some sort of holy grail and proof that something hooky was going on. FFS get a grip - it's one IM conversation that the protagonist denies is substantiated as evidential. It's about as reliable as Bob Holness playing saxaphone on Baker Street.

I seem to remember that Walsh's information was so good, so reliable that his employer at the time he was casting about similar allegations was happy to settle out of court and print a full apology afterwards. And before you start with the bullying and money nonsense, his emplyers at the time (and still are) News International. They've got much deeper pockets than Lance and his friends and generally will stand up any story that has evidence enough to support it. The only reason he gets any credibility for it is because he hammers it out in countries where the libel laws make it easy enough for him to get away with it.

As for the gripes about the way the team dealt with the press etc. That's how professional outfits work, it's exactly how every large sporting organisation works. The IOC do it (I know that much as a matter of fact) UCI definitely do it, ASO do it, in fact pretty much everyone in cycling does it and everyone in business does it. I know plenty of hacks who wear getting blacklisted as a badge of honour in some cases.

weyayeman

Simple they cheat
but have the best doctors etc
why do you think there pulling the plug??
there going to be caught.EASY when you know

whiskywheels

I thought they were great. I've followed the tour since 1975 and the years Lance won saw some of the most exciting stages I can remember, and certainly better than the last 2 farcical years.

overmars

Eurostar wrote:

Here's how I feel about Lance. I typed it for an American forum and got surprisingly little abuse! He doesn't seem to be more popular with cyclists there than he is here. It's always the general public who worship him.

Well that's like ManU isn't it? It's not a requirement that you get on with each other. Teddy Sherringham and Andy Cole couldn't stand each other personally. Yet they played great together in a team and together won the champions league.

Personally I don't have a problem with Lance or Disco/USPS. If anything I (and many like me) find them fantastic inspiration.

iainf72

IMO, a lot of the hatred directed towards Armstrong is because he's American.

He may be a "not very nice man" but then there are quite a lot of us about. It's not really a crime. But I think when you combine that with winning it just really gets people's backs up.

Look at how people don't have the same venom towards Ullrich - He doped, he lied and a lot of mugs who were cycling fans thought he was clean.

Like it or not, Armstrong brought a lot of people to cycling and if a few of them remain now, isn't that a positive thing?

BigSpecs

I was really keen to hear the David Walsh stuff talked about above, so I did a search in itunes for it and got the first part of the interview...what dynamite stuff. Walsh is really well spoken and paints a poor image of Mr USA, Armstrong. Anyway, I want to listen to the second part of the interview but can't find it in the itunes list for competitor radio (although there is wads of other good stuff) I also can't get the above link to do anything useful. Apologies for my IT duffness but does anyone have any suggestions on how to get the second part of the interview?

cooper.michael1

andyp wrote:

A myriad of reasons why I have no time for Team Bruyneel;

- the behaviour of those in management positions in the team
- the fact that they had links with Dr Michele Ferrari but tried to suppress them
- the way the team acted when riders left, i.e. the undermining of them
- the way Armstrong bullied (Bassons, Halgand and especially Simeoni) riders who dared to speak out
- the hiring of Ivan Basso despite all ProTour team's agreeing they wouldn't hire anyone linked with Puerto
- watching George Hincapie drop the best climbers in the world
- hearing people who know nothing about cycling telling me that Armstrong would win any classic he liked in 2005 (he won none and never got close)
- hearing people tell me that Hincapie was a Tour contender (drugs that powerful haven't been invented yet)

The last two of those posts indeed, i wsh i had saved some of those conversations. Laughable comments about Armstrong being able to out sprint Cipollini should he have desired....and last year when over 50% of the people on here seem to be backing big George for the tour de france. I was mocked when i said if george won le tour i would never watch another race again (it was a pretty safe bet in my eyes)

Discovery have dirt written all over them, and we need more of the t-mobile, CSC, slipsteam mentality in the peloton.

iainf72

cooper.michael1 wrote:

Discovery have dirt written all over them, and we need more of the t-mobile, CSC, slipsteam mentality in the peloton.

Now they're gone, who is everyone going to beat up on? That's the question!

Astana are likely gone too so they're probably not a good option.

And if doping is such a problem, how can the worlds #1 team be clean?

At least when Slipstream took part in a ProTour level TTT earlier this year they had the dignity to come last :P

paulf2007

if I didn't have a bad knee I would be out riding right now instead I'm reading this crap. Lance opened non cycling peoples eyes to the tour. He was misquoted so many times by the french press he finally refused to talk to them. He was tested constantly for dope and as he said in his book, after all the chemicals he had in his body to kill the cancer he wouldn't ever put drugs in his body again. Scientists tested armstrong and said they had never met another athlete who could absorb as much oxygen into his blood. He was a gifted rider who could win in a sprint but cycling etiquette means you don't take away the sprinters days to win a stage. So for gods sake let the man alone. If you want to knock anyone, pick on the cheats that have been found out, like our own david millar for instance who is half the time triallist he used to be.

girofan

I dislike Discovery because first of all they are american, with all that implies. Second it is my personal belief that whilst recovering from cancer, Armstrong found either a superb masking agent or an undetectable performance enhancing substance!
Just look at the record of ex Discovery/Postal riders caught doping: Tyler Hamilton, Floyd Landis, also Frankie Andreu's accusations about doping in that camp. Not forgetting the hiring of Basso and Contador.
In my jaundiced opinion the team stinks! :evil:

iainf72

girofan wrote:

Just look at the record of ex Discovery/Postal riders caught doping: Tyler Hamilton, Floyd Landis, also Frankie Andreu's accusations about doping in that camp. Not forgetting the hiring of Basso and Contador.
In my jaundiced opinion the team stinks! :evil:

Ummm, sorry mate, but Frankie said he went and bought and took the EPO himself, not as part of some dodgy programme.

Hating them for being American is pathetic btw.

overmars

I think girofan was being sarcastic...

FullFrameRob

overmars wrote:

I think girofan was being sarcastic...[/quote


Maybe he was, but im sure there is alot of people that do dislike LA due to the fact hes American and at times an arrogant one.

But i will have to agree with the OP that im sure if Disco / USPS was a British team and LA just happened to be British as well, would so many people hate both the team and LA, personally i very much doubt.

LangerDan

nypd wrote:

overmars wrote:

I think girofan was being sarcastic...[/quote


Maybe he was, but im sure there is alot of people that do dislike LA due to the fact hes American and at times an arrogant one.

But i will have to agree with the OP that im sure if Disco / USPS was a British team and LA just happened to be British as well, would so many people hate both the team and LA, personally i very much doubt.

More people would probably hate them You'd have 250 million Americans hating the team vs. 50 million British supporting it.

Kléber

There are plenty of humble Americans too. Just because Armstrong was supremely confident, it gets labelled as "American arrogance", as if the 300 million strong nation shares the trait. :roll:

That said, if a Brit tried to ruin the career of Bassons or Simeoni, I think a lot of people would have turned against him. If a British team tried to make a controversial hire like Vinokorouv today, they'd get slammed too.

method

paulf2007 wrote:

if I didn't have a bad knee I would be out riding right now instead I'm reading this crap. Lance opened non cycling peoples eyes to the tour. He was misquoted so many times by the french press he finally refused to talk to them. He was tested constantly for dope and as he said in his book, after all the chemicals he had in his body to kill the cancer he wouldn't ever put drugs in his body again. Scientists tested armstrong and said they had never met another athlete who could absorb as much oxygen into his blood. He was a gifted rider who could win in a sprint but cycling etiquette means you don't take away the sprinters days to win a stage. So for gods sake let the man alone. If you want to knock anyone, pick on the cheats that have been found out, like our own david millar for instance who is half the time triallist he used to be.

I dion't think there is a grain of truth in that whole statment.

Apart from your knee.

Anonymous

Another topic about the hating of Armstrong...I usually don't get involved anymore...personally it was LA who got me hooked on Road Cycling...now that alone is something I admire the man for as I totally love my hobbie, I was a keen mountainbiker but remember watching my very 1st stage of the TDF...2001 to Alpe De Huez...ever since I seen that man race up there I was hooked....then I read his book...no matter how you feel about the man in terms of how he went about dominating the sport you've got to admire him for the mental approach he tackled Cancer...the book for me was very inspiring and will no doubt give lots of other people with problems hope...

The fact that afterwards he went on to win 7 straight TDFs all the more remarkable...i'm certainly not going into whether he doped or not but I do know that nearly all of his adversories did...and he still destroyed them.

People here say the team was so good and protected him etc...but they also protected all the others aswell....the idea that the team went at such a pace that it killed nearly all the competitors...LA had to go through the same pace...and then jump and make an effort when it was needed, just because the others couldn't do it wasn't that the US Postal/Discovery were too fast, it was they were not in good enough shape to respond.

And another thing...the Team wasn't always there....In 1999/2000 the US postal wasnt as strong like it was aftewards and LA had to duke it out, In 2002 on Ventoux he was alone with the Once squad,..In 2003 he had to fight tooth and nail as Bianchi Team took control, In 2005 he had to go it alone in a attack from Vino/Kloden in the Massif Central which destroyed Disco Team, also in the same year he had to really fight it out on the Port Palhaires and Pla D'Adet, and he was usually always the best on the 'race of truth' TT's...no teams there and he still came out top.

I myself didn't like the way LA went after Simeoni, but I have seen the exact same thing happen with Hinault and even Big Mig told lesser riders to get back in line...its maybe just the arrogance which comes with being a supreme winner, I don't know but I know I don't like it.

I'm not defending LA, i'm just pointing out a few truths, far too many people form there opinions based on personal likes/dislikes, this is fine , but its not fine when they start to disregard all the facts.

I hated watching Steve Davis playing snooker, always wanted Alex Higgins or Jimmy White to beat him, but always knew they wouldn't, You see I still knew Steve Davis was a better player (I never disregarded the truth with excuses)- even though I hated seeing him winning.....Merckx was also hated bigtime, Poulidor was favoured over Anquitel, People said Big Mig destroyed the TDF due to controlling in the mountains and destroying in the TT's...people don't like extreme winners....

Moose11

iainf72 wrote:

IMO, a lot of the hatred directed towards Armstrong is because he's American.

He may be a "not very nice man" but then there are quite a lot of us about. It's not really a crime. But I think when you combine that with winning it just really gets people's backs up.

Look at how people don't have the same venom towards Ullrich - He doped, he lied and a lot of mugs who were cycling fans thought he was clean.

Like it or not, Armstrong brought a lot of people to cycling and if a few of them remain now, isn't that a positive thing?

Great post and I agree with pretty much every word. Theres definately the American factor there and it's a lot of peoples hate of American cyclists doing well (which I never understand) that leads me to supporting the American guys in the peloton on most occasions.

He definately may not be a nice guy but who said you have to be to win. Was Michael Schumacher? Was Michael Jordan? Neither was Lance, but he had a job to do and he got the job done. (All drug crap to the side because, well, everyone was on it).

Theres definately a good point when it comes to people hating on Armstrong for drug rumours (strong or weak), yet having some kind of admiration left for Ullrich, Pantani, and other riders in years before them even.

jimmythecuckoo

I think the Lance thing is that 7 tdf wins after cancer seems to good to be true, and my personal opinion is that it is.

The whole team Disco ethic was to crush and demoralise the oppostion using the team time trial and systematic riding in the mountains.

Drug cheat or not Pantani was box office and made the race with unscripted attacks. Thats why he is more popular than LA.

iainf72

jimmythecuckoo wrote:

Drug cheat or not Pantani was box office and made the race with unscripted attacks. Thats why he is more popular than LA.

So, if you use your super-EPO power for unscripted attacks that's ok?

SteveR_100Milers

iainf72 wrote:

jimmythecuckoo wrote:

Drug cheat or not Pantani was box office and made the race with unscripted attacks. Thats why he is more popular than LA.

So, if you use your super-EPO power for unscripted attacks that's ok?

Maybe what Jimmy means is that he was an attacking rider who often tried to do things unexpectedly which made him exciting to watch. The fact that doping meant he succeeded is perhaps a separate issue. Of course, you could argue that if a rider has no advantage then he won't attack (and therefore be seen as exciting), but I believe that Pantani would have had a go whether he thought he could win or not.
You might argue that Cadel Evans is the opposite in style, and the interesting question is would Evans still ride the same way if he had a doping advantage (and we are assuming here that he hasnt...note assuming!)

Niland

Interesting to compare the way people regard Indurain with Armstrong. I know which one I think is the "classier" champ.

flattythehurdler

method wrote:

paulf2007 wrote:

if I didn't have a bad knee I would be out riding right now instead I'm reading this crap. Lance opened non cycling peoples eyes to the tour. He was misquoted so many times by the french press he finally refused to talk to them. He was tested constantly for dope and as he said in his book, after all the chemicals he had in his body to kill the cancer he wouldn't ever put drugs in his body again. Scientists tested armstrong and said they had never met another athlete who could absorb as much oxygen into his blood. He was a gifted rider who could win in a sprint but cycling etiquette means you don't take away the sprinters days to win a stage. So for gods sake let the man alone. If you want to knock anyone, pick on the cheats that have been found out, like our own david millar for instance who is half the time triallist he used to be.

I dion't think there is a grain of truth in that whole statment.
































Apart from your knee.