I'm not a big fan of cycling, but one thing is clear: Lance Armstrong clearly belongs somewhere in the top 3 greatest American atheletes of all-time history (I would even put him first or in 2nd behind Michael Jordan). The fact that he fought off cancer and went on to win FIVE straight Tour de France titles with a possible record 6th title, is just something I've never heard of before. Not to mention he also has to fight off the dirty tricks by the French and their media who try to accuse him of doping. Lance has always been willing to test at anytime and has NEVER tested positive. Yet the French media are so jealous that an American is dominating one of their most prestigious sporting events that they're looking for cheap excuses instead of realizing that they're looking at one of the greatest in their sport. Lance is clearly one of the purest greatest American athletes of all-time, but I'm surprised how the American media only NOW has really picked up on the story. It's a shame that the general American media hasn't picked up on Lance and cycling a bit earlier. I will be following Lance this year, even though I don't have access to watch the Tour, and hope he gets the recognition he deserves in this country even if he doesn't win this year. Go Lance!! You filthy French are always Jealous of us!!
Actually, they have done it to all great Tour de France winners, even their own (like Hinault and Anquetil). Merckx even stayed away for a year, because he was sick and tired of their behaviour (if he went that year, we might be talking about Lance equaling Merckx's record instead of breaking it this year). Back in the time when it was a Merckx or Hinault vs. Poulidor , Poulidor was always the French favorite. They've got a thing for the underdog (Poulidor never won the Tour, but came in second like a gazillion times), and they don't like anyone who dominates the Tour for too long. Really, it's not that different from basketball fans hoping the Lakers will suck, and actually being pleased whenever they loose, even if they have no interest in the team that beat them.
In defense of the French, you really have to separate the media from the public. French fans, especially those that line le Tour course have been nothing but supportive of Armstrong. Wonderful hosts, those French are. Watch out for the French mafia though! I also have to disagree with the threadstarter's claim that the mainstream media "only NOW has really picked up on the story". I remember as early as 1999 or 2000, when Lance was making the rounds of both the morning and late night talk show circuits. He and his wife were everywhere. I imagine the majority of the country knew who Lance Armstrong was by then. He's been the most recognizeable individual sport athlete this side of Tiger Woods and Anna Kournikova for quite some time. And he's been well covered by the mainstream sports media too - he now has 5 Sports Illustrated covers, including a Sportsman of the Year honor in 2002.
Very true about his media coverage. I think I read that he is the 3rd most recognizable athlete in America today...not exactly proof of being ignored. Still, not sure he jumps right to top 3 in American athletes...
i remember in the early 90s when miguel indurain dominated the tour de france, but i dont remember anyone hating him i could have sworn people actually liking him. and i remember that once he won the wide world of sports athlete of teh year!
Indurain never faced press as hostile as Lance has that's for certain. Toward the end of his dominance, however, I do recall hearing rumors about doping with his name being mentioned...albeit nothing like what is being said about Armstrong. As mentioned in another thread though, the French press is generally pretty hostile to cyclists that dominate the Tour. They weren't friendly to Merckx or to Anquetil...and the latter was one of their own. IIRC, Hinault also seemed to have a hot and cold relationship with the press.
It's true French media can be prickly re: Le Tour, but one thing that irritates me a bit re: this issue-and Lance would/has agreed-is that he brought some of this on himself. Unlike Lemond, he did not really make an effort to speak French early on; he can be brash and arrogant (something that despite the subject matter of his first book with Sally Jenkins, comes through-I didn't find him personable at all); early he showed not just a disregard but a disdain for the sport's traditions/history-an irony now, considering not just his place in the sport, but how he wants to use it to vindicate him of any doping taint. Having said that, I think he is on the top-shelf of US athletes. I put athletes who compete on the world stage on a different level to start (my bias), and he has done it in spectacular form. The only knock on him is you wish he'd won a bunch of the Spring Classics. Perhaps that's a lost era, but that will always come up when comparing him to the past greats in the sport. Greatest? Well, I wouldn't rank him above Carl Lewis. And I know people might howl at the fact the I bring a golfer in this conversation, but I would rank Jack Nicklaus above Lance. Top 10 for sure, but not no. 1.
Lance Armstrong is a fantastic athlete, but I don't think he's in the top 3 best American athletes. He isn't the Pele or Jordan of cycling. I'd place Eddie Merckx and Miguel Indurain above him as first and second respectively. Armstrong's 32, we'll see how much he has left in the tank to better these guys - but they were phenomenal. Not just the number of TDF wins - FFS Merckx once won EIGHT stages in one tour. Another win or not, Armstrong's a titan of the sport. He has every mark of greatness. But top 3 of all-time US athletes? Probably not - yet.
Nobody places Indurain at the top. He was a time trial freak who could only defend in the mountains and benefitted from the absence of a competitor who was a time trialer AND a climbing specialist. Ulrich would have waxed Indurain- nevermind Armstrong.
I think America loves Lance Armstrong because this country loves and admires toughness more than anything. Europe has to admire toughness, but they all seem to love artistry more, making it look pretty as you do it. Look at Euro 2004, the Greeks are not accepted by most of Europe because they play a boring, ugly stlye of soccer (but they win). In this country, Disney would have already bought the rights to their story and the team would be on every magazine cover as an inspiration and a great story.
I think Armstrong is a better cyclist than Indurain was but I also think you're not giving Indurain quite as much respect as he deserves. I recall him being a very good climber not just someone who would defend in the mountains. I will admit, however, that my memory could be faulty on this.
If Armstrong wins this Tour, I don't see any way you can place him below Indurain. Don't forget, Armstrong won a World Championship...pre-illness actually. Nothing to dismiss.
I didn't put him at the top, just second. Aside from this being a little unfair... everyone has their strategy, even Lance - how many stages did he win in 2003? I don't like playing this game. From my perspective - when you're looking at the greats of the sport - Indurain had 109 career wins over a big range of events, including the Tour. Armstrong has about 40. Each to his own, I guess.
Yes, the comment reads a bit funny but GT meant that Indurain wouldn't have been able to beat Ulrich or Lance. As a native Texan, GT sure as heck wasn't trying to say that Ulrich is better than his homeboy.
Miguel Indurain is the only cyclist to have won both the Tour de France and Giro d'Italia in the same season. He also set a world record in the hour time trial. Armstrong doesn't come close to this. Merckx is the greatest ever. Armstrong has achieved something special, but perhaps more so for himself. He only competes in this event, and trains only for this event. But perhaps.....not yet certain.....he will set a record. On another point, perhaps The United States is looking for a sporting hero, as we have witnessed the embarrassment of several top athletes just prior to the Olympics.
Armstrong is almost Indurain's equal as a time trialist. Indurain was nowhere near the climber that Armstrong is. Armstrong would have demolished Indurain in the Tour.
Well Tex we'll never know, will we? One entered many events, one specialised totally in the Tour. Makes it even more difficult to make any comparisons. If Armstrong had competed in other events, perhaps he could have put in a more solid shout. In the end, the States has a sporting hero to look upto, who has overcome adversity in his life. Makes a change from Bryant, Marion Jones et al.
You seem to forget that before Armstrong decided to concentrate on the Tour, he won the World Championship and was the #1 ranked cyclist in the world. Then he decided, in typically Texas fashion, that the only race worth his time was the biggest one. And then he went on to dominate this biggest race more times than anybody in history. So what's this "more solid shout" you're going on about?
Which is why Merckx was so great; he won, what, 37 percent of all the races he entered? That's PHENOMENAL.
Ahem... Eddy Merckx did that three times (in 1970, 1972 and 1974). Plus, call me when anyone else gets close to his 525 career victories.