6 ms·

How do you weigh that against the fact that he simultaneously has probably had the largest positive impact on the sport and hobby of cycling in history?

craftyguy 8y ago
As a cyclist, I have to ask: do you have a source for that claim?
subpixel 8y ago
That ranks below the fact that the ends do not justify the means.
nojvek 8y ago
Positive impact? Everyone I know sees professional cycling as a sport of who has the best doping technique without getting caught. It’s not a sport of pure skill. He is the person who ruined cycling for the rest of the world. Tour de France no longer holds the respect that it used it. It’s like professional body building now. Everyone dopes, the bodies are no longer natural and going into freak category. Tons of heart attacks and we’ve accepted it’s the price of the sport.
- ksk 8y ago
  >It’s not a sport of pure skill. Depends on what you mean by 'sport'. Only wordrecords being broken may require doping. Competing at elite levels in any sport, including cycling, requires immense talent, perseverence and skill. Not to mention winning the genetic lottery (depending on the sport). >Tons of heart attacks and we’ve accepted it’s the price of the sport. That sucks, but which sport is without injury? Baseball pitchers get their arms jacked up, basketball players get their knees messed up, football.. no comment, MMA no comment..
- stagger87 8y ago
  Bodybuilding, football, baseball, track and field, olympic wrestling, olympic weightlifting, basketball, cycling. Armstrong was hardly the first to dope in cycling.
  - Judgmentality 8y ago
    > Armstrong was hardly the first to dope in cycling. I don't think he's claiming he's the first. I think he's claiming he's the worst.
- walrus01 8y ago
  > He is the person who ruined cycling for the rest of the world. Tour de France no longer holds the respect that it used it. One could have said that about the 1998 tour de France and the massive doping scandal. What Armstrong did was popularize road cycling in the early to mid 2000s for the American domestic market. Most of the benefit ultimately went to bike manufacturers and accessory sales. Look at the growth in sales for Trek (inextricably linked with Armstrong during this period, and LA is a trek shareholder). I don't think it it considerably more or less popular in Western Europe than it has ever been. Nuat about the same.
jdietrich 8y ago
That's a very American point of view. Armstrong was never particularly popular in Europe. Armstrong often dismissed allegations against him as a simple vendetta fuelled by prejudice.
- stagger87 8y ago
  That doesn't necessarily doesn't make it any less true. Between his cancer foundation and the popularization of cycling, either by riding themselves or the rise in viewership of cycling events like the TDF, I would think there is a strong case to be made for a net positive effect of Armstrong.
  - jdietrich 8y ago
    There's a big gap between "may have helped to popularise cycling in America" and "probably had the largest positive impact on the sport and hobby of cycling in history". Internationally, Armstrong left a toxic legacy that cycling is still struggling to escape.
    - stagger87 8y ago
      Even if I did use the phrase "may have helped popularize cycling", it would be wrong. He definitely did and I don't think it's scope was limited to America.
    - hitekker 8y ago
      For those are unable to distinguish between the genuine and the fake, Lance Armstrong had a “net positive effect”. To everyone else with some moral compass, his crimes cast a long, dark shadow.
  - nl 8y ago
    You realise his cancer charity was a cancer awareness charity, right? Hardly any money it raised went to hospitals or research. Paid for a lot of nice private jet flights though.
- agoodthrowaway 8y ago
PhasmaFelis 8y ago
All of his achievements are poisoned by the abusiveness that's come out. I don't just mean that in an abstract moral judgment sense; I think his fall and the facts that emerged from it have rolled back most or all of his positive impacts, in the public perception.

craftyguy 8y ago

As a cyclist, I have to ask: do you have a source for that claim?

subpixel 8y ago

That ranks below the fact that the ends do not justify the means.

nojvek 8y ago

Positive impact? Everyone I know sees professional cycling as a sport of who has the best doping technique without getting caught. It’s not a sport of pure skill. He is the person who ruined cycling for the rest of the world. Tour de France no longer holds the respect that it used it. It’s like professional body building now. Everyone dopes, the bodies are no longer natural and going into freak category. Tons of heart attacks and we’ve accepted it’s the price of the sport.

ksk 8y ago
>It’s not a sport of pure skill. Depends on what you mean by 'sport'. Only wordrecords being broken may require doping. Competing at elite levels in any sport, including cycling, requires immense talent, perseverence and skill. Not to mention winning the genetic lottery (depending on the sport). >Tons of heart attacks and we’ve accepted it’s the price of the sport. That sucks, but which sport is without injury? Baseball pitchers get their arms jacked up, basketball players get their knees messed up, football.. no comment, MMA no comment..
stagger87 8y ago
Bodybuilding, football, baseball, track and field, olympic wrestling, olympic weightlifting, basketball, cycling. Armstrong was hardly the first to dope in cycling.
- Judgmentality 8y ago
  > Armstrong was hardly the first to dope in cycling. I don't think he's claiming he's the first. I think he's claiming he's the worst.
walrus01 8y ago
> He is the person who ruined cycling for the rest of the world. Tour de France no longer holds the respect that it used it. One could have said that about the 1998 tour de France and the massive doping scandal. What Armstrong did was popularize road cycling in the early to mid 2000s for the American domestic market. Most of the benefit ultimately went to bike manufacturers and accessory sales. Look at the growth in sales for Trek (inextricably linked with Armstrong during this period, and LA is a trek shareholder). I don't think it it considerably more or less popular in Western Europe than it has ever been. Nuat about the same.

jdietrich 8y ago

That's a very American point of view. Armstrong was never particularly popular in Europe. Armstrong often dismissed allegations against him as a simple vendetta fuelled by prejudice.

stagger87 8y ago
That doesn't necessarily doesn't make it any less true. Between his cancer foundation and the popularization of cycling, either by riding themselves or the rise in viewership of cycling events like the TDF, I would think there is a strong case to be made for a net positive effect of Armstrong.
- jdietrich 8y ago
  There's a big gap between "may have helped to popularise cycling in America" and "probably had the largest positive impact on the sport and hobby of cycling in history". Internationally, Armstrong left a toxic legacy that cycling is still struggling to escape.
  - stagger87 8y ago
    Even if I did use the phrase "may have helped popularize cycling", it would be wrong. He definitely did and I don't think it's scope was limited to America.
  - hitekker 8y ago
    For those are unable to distinguish between the genuine and the fake, Lance Armstrong had a “net positive effect”. To everyone else with some moral compass, his crimes cast a long, dark shadow.
- nl 8y ago
  You realise his cancer charity was a cancer awareness charity, right? Hardly any money it raised went to hospitals or research. Paid for a lot of nice private jet flights though.
agoodthrowaway 8y ago

PhasmaFelis 8y ago

All of his achievements are poisoned by the abusiveness that's come out. I don't just mean that in an abstract moral judgment sense; I think his fall and the facts that emerged from it have rolled back most or all of his positive impacts, in the public perception.