Armstrong coming back for the 2009 TdF

[mondobongo]

armstrong is not in the Tour yet, Prudhomme/ASO have agreed in principle to him riding. L'Equipe have yet to power up and I feel that once they start things rolling about those test results for the 99 result it could get very nasty.
ASO may find themselves backed into a corner were they have to say 'Non' to retain their credibility.

 

[maurice]

ASO may find themselves backed into a corner were they have to say 'Non' to retain their credibility.

Could be a spectacular fallout, depends how much the tour needs Nike as their sponsor, can't see Nike even entertaining the idea of losing all that extra revenue Lance would generate for them.

 

[Kovu]

Can't see them saying no for the mere fact that it will gather so much coverage and extra revenue just from dear old Lance Incorporated.

 

[rich p]

I preferred the Schlek brothers. Could never decide which I fancied most...assuming they put on about four stone.

How much do you weigh Catherine?

 

[yello]

Also when I toured France the locals knew a fair bit more than here, last year while it was on a hotel manager was complaining that the French didn't dope enough to keep up with the others.

Ok, they know more than the average brit! Not that that's saying much!

'Le dopage' & cycling is common joking/comment material here. Similar to all and sundry having an opinion on footballers wages in the UK, it doesn't mean they know any more than they've read in their favourite tabloid.

 

[Tetedelacourse]

Heroes? No, because hero worship will always blind you to someone's faults and anyway, heroes have a way of letting you down, one way or another. There are people I admire, but heroes? No.
Maybe I was a bit harsh, or generalising too much, but as someone else said on this thread, it's as if some of Lance's fans stopped bothering with the Tour since their man quit. When Liverpool were winning everything (late 70s iirc) oddly enough loads of kids my age made the decision to support...Liverpool. Turn to the 90s and the same happened with Man Utd. Early 00s and Chelski reaped the benefit. Glory hunters and those who only bother with a sport if they can latch onto the alpha-dog (or team) aren't fans of the sport, they just want to boost their self-esteem by hooting 'all u haterz r jus jealous' at anyone who dares challenge the heroic status of their man/team. Happened in F1 with that cheating kraut bastard morally challenged gentleman Michael Schumacher. I don't dispute that there are many who are genuine fans, of Lance, of Schumacher, of Man Utd etc, and who don't have my jaundiced views on heroes, but there are also a great many more who just want the glory.

You've done the homework Tetters, you know how thin the ice is when cycling tries to clean itself up (post Simpson, post Festina, post Landis etc etc). The likes of Armstrong coming back can only make that transformation more difficult.


Again, you know the history. Ricco said that he should have been caught many times before he finally was. The dopers will always find ways. Surely you don't believe that the war is won and that no-one can get way with doping? That would be naive, to say the least.

The point I dispute Chuffy is that if you are/ were a fan of Armstrong then you are not a fan of cycling. Absolute crapola.

I'll lay my cards on the table, I was a big fan of him until 2004 then I woke up and smelt the longhorns. Before then though, I would certainly have described myself as a fan of pro cycling, as I still do. I also knew that he was to all intents and purposes generally a daffodil, rather than being blinded by his qualities.

That argument sounds like a tired old "ee I were ere before you younguns came along with your plastic emotions, you don't know what it's like to be a real fan etc etc"

As for his return making the transformation of cycling more difficult, again I ask do you think he will dope and get away with it? I'm not for a second saying that all dopers will be caught next year - you're right I've done my homework - but I do think that LANCE ARMSTRONG will be targeted.

I also agree with the earlier post along the lines of O'Grady's feelings.

As far as tour sponsorship goes, if a sponsor leaves, eg Nike, the event is big enough to attract another. It's the most cost-effective marketing opportunity in the sporting world in terms of the ratio of outlay to exposure.

Lastly, I'd again reiterate that I wont be cheering for Lance next summer if he races (which I don't think he will) but I haven't seen anything here to support the position that if he races it will weaken pro cycling.

That article is tantamount to the author saying "I don't want Lance back in the tour". If CW pays its writers to spout that sort of insight then they might save a bit of cash by looking at the playground for their next swathe of reporters.

 

[Crackle]

Can't see them saying no for the mere fact that it will gather so much coverage and extra revenue just from dear old Lance Incorporated.

Yer reckon. Coca Cola pulled out and they had the tour as one of their top five world sporting events. Do not underestimate the draw of big sportspeople of this world, the Armstrongs, Beckhams, et al.

I really would like Evans to be a better rider as he has the right character. I never liked Big Mig, boring but I always enjoyed the big characters taking the tour, Hinault, Fignon, Delgado, Riise (yes I know, hawks & spits if it makes you happier), Pantani, Roche, Lemond & Armstrong. The tour needs big characters, nay cycling needs them and all the controversy they generate.

 

[Kovu]

Yeah Crackle ... he'll add a bit of colour to the tour.

Also like to say that I don't think a guy who has been out of the cycling world would risk coming back if he had a chance of getting caught.

 

[Crackle]

Yeah Crackle ... he'll add a bit of colour to the tour.

Also like to say that I don't think a guy who has been out of the cycling world would risk coming back if he had a chance of getting caught.

It's always colourful, he'll just add more. I was thinking of going again next year anyway, it'll just be a bonus if he's there. Last time I went was his last tour. Loads of Americans were there following him. Fantastic atmosphere, get yourself over one year.

 

[Kovu]

Yeah I know what you mean ... but any tour that he rides in there's always gonna be a bit more if you get me?

If I could I would go over, as soon as money, time and anything else doesn't stop me, I will be there!

 

[Chuffy]

The point I dispute Chuffy is that if you are/ were a fan of Armstrong then you are not a fan of cycling. Absolute crapola.

I've already qualified what I said. It wasn't intended to be as b/w as you put it. But I stand by the assertion that many Lance fans are fans of Lance the alpha-wolf first and cycling second. Lance is probably the only modern cyclist to attract such 'fans'.

I'll lay my cards on the table, I was a big fan of him until 2004 then I woke up and smelt the longhorns. Before then though, I would certainly have described myself as a fan of pro cycling, as I still do. I also knew that he was to all intents and purposes generally a daffodil, rather than being blinded by his qualities.

I started following the Tour (and cycling generally) in 2003. I had no idea who he was or any of the back story. But he struck me as a nasty, arrogant, brash tosser. I remember posting on C+ that he was easier to admire than to like. But that was all. It was only as I started reading more and more, looking into the history of the Tour and the history of drugs in pro-cycling that I started to actually dislike him and what he represented.

As for his return making the transformation of cycling more difficult, again I ask do you think he will dope and get away with it?

Do you mean will he dope again and get away with it? He wouldn't be coming back unless he believes that he can.

I'm not for a second saying that all dopers will be caught next year - you're right I've done my homework - but I do think that LANCE ARMSTRONG will be targeted.

He was before. And so was Ricco.

Lastly, I'd again reiterate that I wont be cheering for Lance next summer if he races (which I don't think he will) but I haven't seen anything here to support the position that if he races it will weaken pro cycling.

This thread is part of that proof. Lance = the Tour, it's a very simple equation and his presence will drown out pretty much anything else. You also have to look at the way he has fought riders who dared to speak out against doping (Bassons) or dared to take the stand against his 'associate' Dr Ferrari (Simeoni). Then there's his support for the likes of Hamilton and Landis. Did he send Rasmussen a bunch of flowers? Maybe not, but he's got a track record of sticking up for the dirty riders against the anti-doping authorities. In an event that's desperately trying to clean itself up he is not needed. His presence simply gives the finger to the authorities trying to clean up cycling and offers nothing to that fight other than further tiresome reiterations that he was clean all those years and the anti-dopers are just jealous haterz.

That article is tantamount to the author saying "I don't want Lance back in the tour". If CW pays its writers to spout that sort of insight then they might save a bit of cash by looking at the playground for their next swathe of reporters.

It's a well reasoned and sensible justification of why the writer doesn't want him back.

I don't know if you saw the coverage of todays stage of the ToB but there was a part of it that spoke volumes. The piece covered Rock Racing and one fan who, as Ned Boulting told it, spent half an hour chewing his ear off about how bad Tyler Hamilton was and how he shouldn't be there. And then went over to stand by Hamilton to have her photo taken, grinning like a muppet the whole time. And that seems to sum up the reaction of an awful lot of people to Lance's return. I'm just glad that at least one journo is prepared to state the opposite.

 

[Blue]

I don't know what you mean? "Replaced"... there's been a winner every year since his retirement. .

Yeah, but can the general public name any of them? Just about the whole world seemed to know LA - and that's what I think an event like the TdF wants, in no small measure, from its winners. That's what I was getting at.

I don't see anything wrong with the attitude displayed by LA - that's how you get to set a record for winning the Tour.

 

[Chuffy]

Yeah, but can the general public name any of them? Just about the whole world seemed to know LA - and that's what I think an event like the TdF wants, in no small measure, from its winners. That's what I was getting at.

Is that it? Because Joe Public doesn't know who Sastre is we've got to grovel and be grateful that Lance is coming back? What are you going to do if he doesn't race? Have him stuffed and mounted on a motorbike while we all pretend? Champions come along like buses, but sometimes you might have to wait a year or two.

I don't see anything wrong with the attitude displayed by LA - that's how you get to set a record for winning the Tour.

He has always behaved like a daffodil in the peloton. Other riders have done their share of bossing the peloton over the years but Lance, off and on the bikes, wins the prize every time. I don't know about you but I like sportsmen to offer a little more grace than that.

 

[Kovu]

He has always behaved like a daffodil in the peloton. Other riders have done their share of bossing the peloton over the years but Lance, off and on the bikes, wins the prize every time. I don't know about you but I like sportsmen to offer a little more grace than that.

See this is argueing now on opinion I believe. First of all I will say that I admire Lance, and his attitude I think is arrgoant, too up his own ar** and generally not good. But then again, that is also what makes me think would he have got to the top without that attitude? It's part of who he is ... and i think we can fully admire the cyclist without dragging his personal attitude into the equation.

I mean what about Phelps?

 

[Noodley]

OK, let's get to the bottom line: He is a twat.