Discussion in 'Pro Cycling (Road and Track Racing)' started by Joffey, 14 Feb 2018.
I can't be a true cycling fan, sitting here as I am in an armchair
There’s a lot of opinion based solely on whether you like the rider or not, or whether another rider that you like has had a ban for similar reasons, etc.
A very small number of people know what happened and the facts are not yet available for us to draw a balanced opinion. I guess it’s the innocent until proven guilty scenario, but that’s not always easy to do.
I can understand both sides of the divide, but chastising someone for for an alleged offence that’s been leaked to the press is dubious at best?
It’s just politics at its best!
So true. :/
Riders are riders, their behaviour is open to question when doubts are raised, for example failing a drugs test.
Many believe the top 100 in the world must be at least dabbling into grey areas. It’s a business. You under perform and there’s always a young spunk ready waiting to take your place in the team. It’s cut throat man. Same with all professional sports. I hold grudges for a long time and this year I’ve finally decided to forgive Lance Armstrong.
I agree re: Lance. The hard truth is he simply cheated more successfully than the scores of cheats around him, and to better effect. His apparently unpleasant personality and legacy of bullying makes him easy to dislike by reputation. His life ban is based more on personality than letters of the law, given that so many acknowledged drug cheats at the time are still, to this day, involved in cycling and racing, managing teams etc and some, such as Bjarne Riis, still have their Tour victories accredited to them.
Out of all your comments I like that youve finally forgiven Lance.....good on ya !
Naturally Froome's getting slagged off on social media. He's a pro cyclist, who's just failed a drugs test (OK, OK, returned an adverse finding or whatever the correct term is) and SM is full of headcases. That's what happens.
As to why Froome comes in for more flak than say, Dirty Bertie ... well, I'm sure the reasons are many and various but I really doubt jealousy of the fact that he can ride faster than his critics is high on the list.
As an aside, Armstrong is a cartoon character who has given me tremendous entertainment over the years. First as a "baddie" when he was riding (brash American, boo, hiss!) and then possibly more so since his retirement as books and articles have emerged and the story has unfolded (total daffodil, double boo, double hiss, watch him get his comeuppance).
I don’t disagree there at all. My point is that some people have strong opinions based on nothing other than whether they like or dislike those concerned. It’s comical tbh.
My view on the Armstrong thing is not that he doped, when literally everyone around him was doing the same, it’s that he argued so vigorously that he was clean. He also sued after some of the allegations. That to me is where he really crossed the line. I also happen to dislike his whole demeanour.
On the flip side, I really liked Pantani and think he had a raw deal all round, which left him with a very untimely demise. Quality rider though.
Linking to previous post, please tell me that you don’t see any double standards with the above 2 comments!?! It would make me feel better about my feelings.
Yes, they are different scenarios, but I can’t help thinking it’s a tad unfair on my part.
You do know there is a very simple solution within your grasp, but it will take some self control, don't visit social media.
Hang on, this is sport we're talking about isn't it?
Doesn't a big part of following sport revolve around holding irrational views based upon a like or dislike of a chosen team/athlete?
(Not saying it's not comical tho' )
I don't think it's about liking or not liking a rider but about being able to put forward views re the behaviour of riders and team personnel.
I understand you completely. My beef with Armstrong, too, was his bullying rather than his doping, which as you say, was nearly universal in the top ranks at the time. He was better at it. But the bullying and wrecked lives he left behind him is what out him beyond the pale.
You are right in seeing a contrast with Marco Pantani. I read Matt Rendell’s quite compelling biography and it is easy to see how Pantani became a victim of a very corrupt system and a bunch of doctors who ought to be doing serious jail time (but aren’t). Sure, he cheated, but having read this admittedly sympathetic biography, it is easy to join in the sympathy, even as one condemns the cheating.
(A third example, but from a much earlier era, is Tom Simpson who is revered - and he died because of his drug use. There are very different standards here.)
Armstrong and Pantani were both figures of there time, very different personalities, and different outcomes. Armstrong’s unpleasantness as a person, though, really should not be a factor in the sanctions levelled at him. The law is meant to be applied equally, hence the blindfold on the statue of justice. If Armstrong is stripped of all titles, banned for life, the others who were right there with him doing the same things should be similarly sanctioned. If they are not, simply because they are more likeable, that is not just and shouldn't stand.
Separate names with a comma.