3 ms·

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

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 9y 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 9y 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 9y 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 9y 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 9y 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 9y ago
Armstrong wasn’t popular in Europe because he was thumping the Europeans in an area where they had previously dominated. Armstrong was certainly no saint obviously but the European dislike/attacks for/on him really were primarily ugly nationalism.
- jdietrich 9y ago
  That's also a very American point of view. Bradley Wiggins was greatly respected and admired in France and the rest of Europe, despite coming from a traditionally non-cycling country and dominating the Tour de France. Chris Froome, his successor as leader of Team Sky, often rides to a chorus of boos and jeers. The difference is in spirit. Wiggins showed a respect for the heritage and tradition of the sport. He won with humility and grace. He was funny and self-deprecating. He turned up at amateur time trial events for the fun of it. He poured his heart and soul into the 2014 Paris-Roubaix and came ninth. He rode the Zesdaagse Vlaanderen-Gent and hung around afterwards to give autographs to drunken Belgians. He loved the sport more than he craved victory. Froome is too efficient, too slick, too calculating. There's no drama about him, nothing to empathise with, just a relentless machine that stares at his stem and cranks out the watts. There's nothing about him that evokes the childish joy of cycling, the freedom of two wheels and your own power, of riding with no hands and showing off to your friends and skinning your knee. The problem with Armstrong wasn't that he was an American or that he won a lot, it was that he clearly cared more about winning than about the sport. He was cold and hard and calculating in a sport that cherishes playfulness and vulnerability.
- nl 9y ago
  Greg LeMond was very popular in Europe. He was beating Europeans at the Tour and in the world championships and remained popular. Cadel Evans remains extremely popular in Europe despite beating them all.

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 9y 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 9y 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 9y 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 9y 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 9y 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 9y ago

Armstrong wasn’t popular in Europe because he was thumping the Europeans in an area where they had previously dominated. Armstrong was certainly no saint obviously but the European dislike/attacks for/on him really were primarily ugly nationalism.

jdietrich 9y ago
That's also a very American point of view. Bradley Wiggins was greatly respected and admired in France and the rest of Europe, despite coming from a traditionally non-cycling country and dominating the Tour de France. Chris Froome, his successor as leader of Team Sky, often rides to a chorus of boos and jeers. The difference is in spirit. Wiggins showed a respect for the heritage and tradition of the sport. He won with humility and grace. He was funny and self-deprecating. He turned up at amateur time trial events for the fun of it. He poured his heart and soul into the 2014 Paris-Roubaix and came ninth. He rode the Zesdaagse Vlaanderen-Gent and hung around afterwards to give autographs to drunken Belgians. He loved the sport more than he craved victory. Froome is too efficient, too slick, too calculating. There's no drama about him, nothing to empathise with, just a relentless machine that stares at his stem and cranks out the watts. There's nothing about him that evokes the childish joy of cycling, the freedom of two wheels and your own power, of riding with no hands and showing off to your friends and skinning your knee. The problem with Armstrong wasn't that he was an American or that he won a lot, it was that he clearly cared more about winning than about the sport. He was cold and hard and calculating in a sport that cherishes playfulness and vulnerability.
nl 9y ago
Greg LeMond was very popular in Europe. He was beating Europeans at the Tour and in the world championships and remained popular. Cadel Evans remains extremely popular in Europe despite beating them all.