3 ms·

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 obvio

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 8y 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 8y 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.

jdietrich 8y 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 8y 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.