USADA files doping charges against Lance
Comments
-
The period I was referring to didn't see a single French rider even on the podium for seven years, not least because Merckx was at his peak. This didn't stop the French from devotedly following the race though. As ever, what mattered more to the French was seeing a rider win with panache, whatever their nationality, rather than just seeing a French winner.RichN95 wrote:Thirty years ago the French had riders who could win the race - several of them.
Even when a French rider did win the French public often failed to warm to them, as with Anquetil who in 1961 was greeted at the Parc des Princes track by the jeers and whistles of the crowd for his calculating win. This didn't seem to bother Anquetil who bought himself a yacht with his winnings, naming it 'Sifflet 61'.
0 -
BikingBernie wrote:
Er, those figure relate to recent attitudes to the Tour and pro cycling in France a country where, thirty-odd years ago, supposedly two thirds of the population only used to work for one third of the time the Tour was on because they were busy taking holidays or skiving off work in order to watch the race. I recall that the French interior ministry even used to calculate figures for the loss in GDP due to people being more interested in watching the Tour than working!ddraver wrote:...none of those figures are surprising, or even to do with doping. We re making the mistake of thinking cycling is a big sport again. It's not! Cyclists are a minority, cyclists that follow Pro Racing are a minority within that minority.
Still clinging on to the popularity delusion BB, It's easier if you let it go, honestWe're in danger of confusing passion with incompetence
- @ddraver0 -
What delusion? I would readilly admit that in France today most people couldn't give a monkey's about the Tour or pro cycling in general. This wasn't the case thirty-odd years ago though. I would guess it is much the same story in modern Belgium.ddraver wrote:Still clinging on to the popularity delusion BB, It's easier if you let it go, honest0 -
BikingBernie wrote:
The period I was referring to didn't see a single French rider even on the podium for seven years, not least because Merckx was at his peak. This didn't stop the French from devotedly following the race though. As ever, what mattered more to the French was seeing a rider win with panache, whatever their nationality, rather than just see a French winner.RichN95 wrote:Thirty years ago the French had riders who could win the race - several of them.
Even when a French rider did win the French public often failed to warm to them, as with Anquetil who in 1961 was greeted at the Parc des Princes track by the jeers and whistles of the crowd for his calculating win. This didn't seem to bother Anquetil who bought himself a yacht with his winnings, naming it 'Sifflet 61'.
'Thirty odd years ago' is 1973-1982 when France won seven out of ten and were on the podium every year. I know how you like to take figures said by others extremely literally, so I think we must do the same here.
Anyway, everything was more popular on TV back then though - because there was sod all else to do and only about three channels.Twitter: @RichN950 -
Yes, but the biggest single reason given by people for this change in attitudes towards pro cycling and the Tour is the sort of 'donkeys into racehorses' modern doping practices that have also undermined the Tour's 'traditional themes of suffering and survival'. At least that is how the cycling historian Christopher S. Thompson and the French Philosopher Robert Redeker, amongst others, see it.ddraver wrote:So you agree your numbers show nothing the isnt totally expected then....0 -
I was thinking of the period between 1968 and 1976 when not a single French rider got on the podium, or 36 years ago plus...RichN95 wrote:BikingBernie wrote:
The period I was referring to didn't see a single French rider even on the podium for seven years, not least because Merckx was at his peak. This didn't stop the French from devotedly following the race though. As ever, what mattered more to the French was seeing a rider win with panache, whatever their nationality, rather than just see a French winner.RichN95 wrote:Thirty years ago the French had riders who could win the race - several of them.
Even when a French rider did win the French public often failed to warm to them, as with Anquetil who in 1961 was greeted at the Parc des Princes track by the jeers and whistles of the crowd for his calculating win. This didn't seem to bother Anquetil who bought himself a yacht with his winnings, naming it 'Sifflet 61'.
'Thirty odd years ago' is 1973-1982...0 -
Presumably you have a source for such a specific statement?BikingBernie wrote:
Yes, but the biggest single reason given by people for this change in attitudes towards pro cycling and the Tour is the sort of 'donkeys into racehorses' modern doping practices that have also undermined the Tour's 'traditional themes of suffering and survival'. At least that is how the cycling historian Christopher S. Thompson and the French Philosopher Robert Redeker, amongst others, see it.ddraver wrote:So you agree your numbers show nothing the isnt totally expected then....0 -
ddraver:
1) It does matter because a boom in pro cycling will have little or no affect on the number of people who use bikes for transportation, just as high gas and car prices will not affect the number of recreation and racing cyclists.
2) You can't just look at one year, you need to look at trends. You also need to look at what kind of sales are up. This discussion is about racing and recreation, so transportation numbers aren't important as what happens in pro cycling does not affect those numbers.
3) Lemond has nothing to do with being American or not, he was the best story going in the mid and late 80's. The other English speakers did not have his story line, the drama of the 85,86 and 89 Tours, the near death experience, etc. You didn't get that from Roche whose career was huge highs and terrible lows, Miller who was, errr, quirky and mainly just a good climber, Bauer who was bland. Anderson may have been the next most interesting but he did not win the big race. PR is not an American thing, just look at Sky to see that in cycling.
4) Of course it was Armstrong, he had a great story and it did a great deal to feed the cycling boom that happened all over the world.0 -
BikingBernie wrote:
I was thinking of the period between 1968 and 1976 when not a single French rider got on the podium, or 36 years ago plus...RichN95 wrote:BikingBernie wrote:
The period I was referring to didn't see a single French rider even on the podium for seven years, not least because Merckx was at his peak. This didn't stop the French from devotedly following the race though. As ever, what mattered more to the French was seeing a rider win with panache, whatever their nationality, rather than just see a French winner.RichN95 wrote:Thirty years ago the French had riders who could win the race - several of them.
Even when a French rider did win the French public often failed to warm to them, as with Anquetil who in 1961 was greeted at the Parc des Princes track by the jeers and whistles of the crowd for his calculating win. This didn't seem to bother Anquetil who bought himself a yacht with his winnings, naming it 'Sifflet 61'.
'Thirty odd years ago' is 1973-1982...
Yet, you simply said "thirty years ago," to suddenly decide on a specific period that suits your argument is disingenuous at best.0 -
BikingBernie wrote:
Yes, but the biggest single reason given by people for this change in attitudes towards pro cycling and the Tour is the sort of 'donkeys into racehorses' modern doping practices that have also undermined the Tour's 'traditional themes of suffering and survival'. At least that is how the cycling historian Christopher S. Thompson and the French Philosopher Robert Redeker, amongst others, see it.ddraver wrote:So you agree your numbers show nothing the isnt totally expected then....
That would be all well and good if the decline in popularity had happened in isolation. But it didn't. It's the same story for almost all other sports across all the other western countries. And it goes beyond sport. Virtually everything that was on TV in the 70s and 80s and is still on today - tennis, soaps, sitcoms, the news - has seen a huge drop in viewing figures. It's because of increased choice in leisure activities. Nothing more, nothing less. (But that's not going to get anyone a book deal, is it?)Twitter: @RichN950 -
BikingBernie wrote:
Take also the results of a recent survey (of a thousand French citizens) on their attitudes to the Tour…dennisn wrote:The guy was saying someone destroyed cycling. Right off the top of my head I can't think of anyone who has claimed to quit cycling because it's been destroyed. I'm still riding. How about you? Have you quit on account of LA? Anyone out there who sold all their gear and bikes because someone doped? Anyone? :? :?
Doping has destroyed everything, I feel betrayed: 90%
Perhaps I just don't understand the French people. Always a chance of that! What I utterly and completely fail to understand is "I feel betrayed." I can't even fathom why something like this bothers people to the seeming point of obcession. Why on earth does something like this take hold of people? And why let it get you down? To what end?
What good can come of this sort of obcession with another human being? Guilty or not guilty, why let something like this eat at you?0 -
dennisn wrote:BikingBernie wrote:
Take also the results of a recent survey (of a thousand French citizens) on their attitudes to the Tour…dennisn wrote:The guy was saying someone destroyed cycling. Right off the top of my head I can't think of anyone who has claimed to quit cycling because it's been destroyed. I'm still riding. How about you? Have you quit on account of LA? Anyone out there who sold all their gear and bikes because someone doped? Anyone? :? :?
Doping has destroyed everything, I feel betrayed: 90%
Perhaps I just don't understand the French people. Always a chance of that! What I utterly and completely fail to understand is "I feel betrayed." I can't even fathom why something like this bothers people to the seeming point of obcession. Why on earth does something like this take hold of people? And why let it get you down? To what end?
What good can come of this sort of obcession with another human being? Guilty or not guilty, why let something like this eat at you?
I've said it before, I'll say it again.
I switched off after Festina in 98 and didn't switch back on until Floyd wrote his letter to Lance. I felt betrayed by the sport, not Lance in particular, though he was dominating the one race we ever got to see on TV. I didn't introduce my kids to pro cycling, though I have fond memories of watching with my own dad (who also switched off).
Maybe I'm the only one, but I doubt it.
You might not care, Dennis, but others did. Your failure to understand their point of view isn't a point in favour of your argument but a lack of empathy with them.
And while you claim Bernie is obsessive about one man, you'll find that he is pretty consistent (to the point where he's been called out for being tedious) about condemning all the dopers from the EPO era on.
Lance is high on the list of those that need to pay for what they did, but he's not the only one. Bruyneel, for example, needs to pay. Ferrari needs to pay. Pantani has paid - a much higher price - but if he hadn't then he'd be on the list too. Riis got off pretty cheaply, Basso and Scarponi almost scot free. Contador has made a down payment, but we'll be back to pick up the rest later. Ullrich seems to have a direct debit set up, though the interest payments were doing his head in.
There are plenty more, you know all the names. It's not just about Lance.Warning No formatter is installed for the format0 -
Unfortunately that has been a common failing of Tour fans in recent years, especially in America (and to a slightly lesser degree Britain) where the actions of 'the French' have been interpreted in terms of the values of American culture and history rather than those of France. Hence a belief that the French are as nationalistic and obsessed with winning at any cost as the average American, and as such supposedly 'hate' seeing a non-French national winning the Tour and so forth.dennisn wrote:BikingBernie wrote:
Take also the results of a recent survey (of a thousand French citizens) on their attitudes to the Tour…dennisn wrote:The guy was saying someone destroyed cycling. Right off the top of my head I can't think of anyone who has claimed to quit cycling because it's been destroyed. I'm still riding. How about you? Have you quit on account of LA? Anyone out there who sold all their gear and bikes because someone doped? Anyone? :? :?
Doping has destroyed everything, I feel betrayed: 90%
Perhaps I just don't understand the French people.
Americans might only love winners and only want to see Americans win, and I can imagine the reaction if, say, a Cuban team dominated major league baseball for years on end, but this is much less true in France. For example, the most popular cyclist ever in France is Raymond Poulidor, largely because he never won the Tour. Even today it is usual for the French to talk about the performance of their national teams in the third party, saying such things as 'They played well', or 'They were awful' whereas in the Anglo-Saxon world it is much more usual to see teams as representing the nation as a whole, with people saying things such as 'We played well' and so forth. To give another example, you have probably seem A Sunday in Hell which describes the passion the French had for the race 'thirty odd years ago' despite the fact, as the race points out, it had been many years since a French rider had won the race and they had no illusions about having a French winner that year either.
To understand such cultural differences one really needs to read some cultural histories of the Tour that cover the historical significance of the race for the French. A wider understanding of French history and culture is also useful. For example, 'thirty odd years ago', the ideals of international communism were still very influential in France, with almost a quarter of the French voting communist in elections. The internationalist European Union was also very much a French project, something the more narrowly nationalistic British have always been suspicious of. Cycling was equally influenced by such values with the biggest cycling publication of that era (and perhaps the best cycling magazine ever) Miroir du Cyclisme being a publication of the French communist party. No wonder Americans in particular 'just don't understand the French people'. It seems that many Americans can't even understand why the French think having a universal health care system is a good thing!
0 -
@doctor.- you are, I think, a noble exception to the rule
@rund - do not make the mistake of confusing America with the world, you think Lance sold more.bikes in Europe, Russia, China, India? Some of the points you re making simply do not apply to the UK, or elsewhere
@dennis - I have to agree with most of what you say, I did ny ride to work today because I ve got manflu and clients in, not because some cancer bloke dopedWe're in danger of confusing passion with incompetence
- @ddraver0 -
Now what is it that makes me think there's at least one regular poster on here that might not be true for? ;-)Rick Chasey wrote:dennisn wrote:For my money give me sports and competition anyday over a bunch of talking head lawyers. I would much rather watch the TDF than Court TV.
Finally, something most can agree on...0 -
dennisn wrote:For my money give me sports and competition anyday over a bunch of talking head lawyers. I would much rather watch the TDF than Court TV.
Oh, damn, they're not on at the same time are they? ...and we've gone back to the early 70s before the Video Recorder was invented, let alone Sky+. Oh, aaaaaand we're assuming there's some sort of TV clash of hypothetical programming with TDF coverage in your weird point.
No, I think I know what you're getting at, but, I take it you are trying to say that some people on here must be 'more interested in this than the TDF' for example, but fact is, most people are interested in it AS WELL. You can be interested in two things you know, on a good day, I can manage up to 3 or 4! Alright, 3.
On an aside... There's a LOT to take in with doping, I can spend quite a lot of time reading around it, as it interests me, and its intellectually engaging to read about and learn things about fields you never have had knowledge of before, there's some people who would take that as normal as can be, some would think it weird. Watching racing for me takes the amount of time its on the TV and no more to be honest, and I watch as much of it as I can with Eurosport coverage, at least following every stage of all the grand tours and another 10 or so races a year.
None of this makes any difference to the topic though. LA's influence is being discussed, his impact on the uptake of the sport. I think the main point is the guy would never have even podium'ed without being juiced up, so ALL the effects he's had, good or bad, all stem from him being on the juice. Simples (as some berks say).0 -
Berk! I've not heard that for a while. Will make a point of using it.0
-
BikingBernie wrote:I was thinking of the period between 1968 and 1976 when not a single French rider got on the podium, or 36 years ago plus...
Except:
1969: Pingeon 2nd, Poulidor 3rd
1972: Poulidor 3rd
1973: Thevenet 2nd
1974: Poulidor 2nd
1975: Thevenet 1st
1976: Poulidor 3rd
Try againIt's a little like wrestling a gorilla. You don't quit when you're tired. You quit when the gorilla is tired.0 -
Rundfahrt wrote:ddraver:
...just as high gas...
definitely American
Can anyone enlighten me as to whether any timelines have been confirmed/rumoured as to when we can expect some kind of hearing/charge or whatever?0 -
Someone asked several posts above who the cyclist would be that the man in the street would name, in the UK and the world.
Well in the UK, I wonder if that might not be Chris Hoy, not Armstrong.
All these MAMILs on bikes, out on sportives at the weekend
I wonder if the GB track team and all their medals at the Olympics might have more do do with it than Armstrong.
Particularly due to the fact that the BBC has the contract for track cycling and not the Tour, so you get Hugh Porter commentating on Track World Cups on a Saturday or Sunday, Hoy and Pedleton are big names.
There's mention on the news every time the track guys/girls get medals at each world cup event, much less so for road cycling, a far smaller item deeper in on the BBC sports news for Wiggins winning the Daphine for example.
Cavendish was Sports Personality of the Year, so people have heard of him too, but this is the Olympic year, the BBC is the Olympic broadcaster, British track cyclists are expected to win lots of medals, plus Cav in the RR, so we're getting lots of BBC airtime of track cyclists on the Breakfast sofa.
Those papers which cover cycling are covering track / Olympic cycling too
And as for people commuting to work - maybe the Cycle to Work tax scheme ?0 -
andy_wrx wrote:Someone asked several posts above who the cyclist would be that the man in the street would name, in the UK and the world.
Well in the UK, I wonder if that might not be Chris Hoy, not Armstrong.
All these MAMILs on bikes, out on sportives at the weekend
I wonder if the GB track team and all their medals at the Olympics might have more do do with it than Armstrong.
Particularly due to the fact that the BBC has the contract for track cycling and not the Tour, so you get Hugh Porter commentating on Track World Cups on a Saturday or Sunday, Hoy and Pedleton are big names.
There's mention on the news every time the track guys/girls get medals at each world cup event, much less so for road cycling, a far smaller item deeper in on the BBC sports news for Wiggins winning the Daphine for example.
Cavendish was Sports Personality of the Year, so people have heard of him too, but this is the Olympic year, the BBC is the Olympic broadcaster, British track cyclists are expected to win lots of medals, plus Cav in the RR, so we're getting lots of BBC airtime of track cyclists on the Breakfast sofa.
Those papers which cover cycling are covering track / Olympic cycling too
And as for people commuting to work - maybe the Cycle to Work tax scheme ?
Spot on - here in Scotland it's King Chris Hoy (and the successes of track cycling in general), the Cycle to Work scheme, and the (albeit small) increase in infrastructure investment in towns (if that's what you can call more white lines on roads). Did not see a huge increase in the number of bikes on the road during LA's TdF years; this really started happening in 2006 or so?0 -
ddrever- Perhaps you should look at trends throughout the world, such as sales of bicycles and tv ratings for pro racing instead of just trying to focus on America.
derbygrimpeur- Did you ever think that I used the term gas because you guys are so intent on labeling me as an American, as if that is somehow negative and invalidates any opinion I may have.0 -
Truthfully, Lance was easily, the most well known cyclist for a fair few years. People making the point about Hoy/Pendleton being more well known than Armstrong should remember:
a) Lance hasn't won a Tour since 2005
b) They're comparing different sports
Fundamentally, in the UK Armstrong was a foreign road cyclist who was very well known even by those who knew nothing about the sport, the same can't be said for Contador, for example.You live and learn. At any rate, you live0 -
lance armstrong did put a whole bunch of people on bikes... getting him done as one the most venal doping cheaters in cycling's dirty history wont take many people off the bike...or at least thats my thinking"If I was a 38 year old man, I definitely wouldn't be riding a bright yellow bike with Hello Kitty disc wheels, put it that way. What we're witnessing here is the world's most high profile mid-life crisis" Afx237vi Mon Jul 20, 2009 2:43 pm0
-
Rundfahrt wrote:derbygrimpeur- Did you ever think that I used the term gas because you guys are so intent on labeling me as an American, as if that is somehow negative and invalidates any opinion I may have.
hahaha - I don't think anybody is actually bothered whether your American/British/Wherever, but you seem to be a little defensive about it. Personally, I don't think it invalidates your opinion, but it does perhaps skew it. andy_wrx (above) has posted something similar that I mentioned a long while ago - that LA hasn't had quite the influence on participation of cycling that some people think he has. Maybe he has in America, I don't know - I'm not American. But perhaps that is where your opinion is skewed?
Here in the UK, I would argue (and agree with andy_wrx), that British success on the track at the Olympics (and to a lesser extent the Worlds) has had a much more significant impact on the awareness of cycling, which has then helped participation. In terms of participation (weekend warriors / sportives), I think this has been in part due to increased accessiblity, less stigma attached to cyclists (as a result of track success?), better health awareness etc. I suspect this has then resulted in an increase in people actually racing as people get hooked on cycling and get more serious. That's just the way it seems to me in the UK. Other nations will vary, obviously.0 -
surely it's the same sport, but a different discipline?Jez mon wrote:b) They're comparing different sports0 -
How do you know that though? I accept some people may have taken up solely due to him, but the total volume, as a percentage of all new cyclists is surely going to be inconsequential? Other than one person on here, I've not encountered ANYONE that's taken up cycling because of LA.mididoctors wrote:lance armstrong did put a whole bunch of people on bikes...0 -
Jez mon wrote:Truthfully, Lance was easily, the most well known cyclist for a fair few years. People making the point about Hoy/Pendleton being more well known than Armstrong should remember:
a) Lance hasn't won a Tour since 2005
b) They're comparing different sports
Fundamentally, in the UK Armstrong was a foreign road cyclist who was very well known even by those who knew nothing about the sport, the same can't be said for Contador, for example.
I agree in full, but I'm guessing what I was trying to say is that Hoy put more bums on saddles than Armstrong did, at least here in the north of the UK. Armstrong's influence was a re-awakening to the TdF and, unfortunately, the associated problems in pro-road-cycling. Again, cycling here in Scotland took off after 2006 in my opinion.
I don't know whether track cyclists and road cyclists are seen as different breeds by people with no interest in cycling sport.0
