Is Lance Armstrong Becoming the Rodney Dangerfield of Cycling?
There are early signs that Lance Armstrong is indeed turning into cycling’s Rodney Dangerfield — despite an alltime record seven consecutive Tour de France victories, he’s getting no respect.
In a BBC article about American Floyd Landis’s Tour de France triumph on Sunday, there are two strange tidbits.
Here’s the first:
Despite Armstrong’s all-time record of seven consecutive wins, Tour de France director Jean-Marie Leblanc hailed Landis’ ride as “the best performance in the modern history of the Tour”.
Landis’s comeback was spectacular and exciting, but “the best”? When the only way Armstrong could have lost when he had commanding leads in the final days of at least two of his wins (and had totally demoralized his rivals), was if he fell?
Then there’s this one:
And on the following day he (Landis) clawed back all but 30 seconds of that lost time with a remarkable solo break, leading for 120 of the 200km to Morzine to evoke memories of Eddy Merckx, arguably the Tour’s greatest ever winner.
Whoa. I suppose you could argue that Merckx was the “greatest rider” in tour history on the basis of competing against stronger competition, but that’s not what the article says. Armstrong has won more Tours than anyone else, and is by definition its “greatest ever winner.”
Three-time tour winner and fellow American Craig LeMond piled on a bit too (about halfway through linked page):
Lemond has certainly not hidden his feelings on Armstrong, and when asked who would win today between Landis, him and Armstrong, Lemond at first chuckled, “I am biased! I can’t answer that, [laughs.]” But then Lemond got a little more serious. “Every race is different. The race changed dramatically this year. For me I am a strong anti-doping advocate. I think we are seeing a true Tour de France winner, someone who might have otherwise been cheated out of a win.”
When asked if he was saying Lance’s wins were tainted, Lemond said, “I am not saying that. It goes back to the historical norms, where people got tired and had bad days. It was common to have a bad day when I was racing. I have been waiting for this period since 1998… The French riders are competitive since 1998. They have a much harder dope testing in their country. Watching a race that shows the human drama. I believe you can do the TdF without drugs, you get tired, and the strongest win.”
What’s interesting about LeMond’s statement is that it was an open secret that Tour course designers during Armstrong’s final years specifically schemed to make things tougher on Armstrong, obviously failing miserably.
I can’t remember when a champion of Armstrong’s magnitude has gotten the back-of-the-hand treatment from part of the press and fellow athletes so soon. Yes, I know there have been the drug and blood-doping whispers, but there has to my knowledge never been any proof that he did either of these during his riding career. So you’ll have to excuse me if I don’t see the justification for what is clearly an attempt by some to downplay his unprecedented achievements.
_______________________________
UPDATE, July 27: It is intensely painful to report that Landis has flunked a drug test. A second sample will be tested before the finding is finalized.
Not a fan of cycling but perhaps this is just a symptom of the what-have-you-done-for-me-lately nature of the 24/7/365 news cycle.
Armstrong is yesterday’s news, as well he should be. He was not a Tour de France competitor this year and as such there should be relatively little chatter about him (old news) in covering this Tour.
Secondly, cycling is a sport, and sports for better are worse, are just more accessible and enjoyable when there is a strong contest, a strong competition. With Armstrong, even if there was strong competition, it never felt that way because you didn’t have a change in the lead a few times in the race, etc., etc. He didn’t seem to face many obstacles and challenges in the Tour itself. His athletic victories were seen as an extention of his battle with cancer, at least by the MSM, and his overwhelming superiority in the sport ultimately made the Tour even more boring than it is.
Now get Armstrong to race next year against Landis, then we’ll talk.
Comment by Ken Shepherd — July 25, 2006 @ 3:17 pm
I’m not a racing fan, but maybe some of the admiring comments on Landis’ performance is do to him winning despite a bad hip. As far as LeMond goes his animosity towards Armstrong is well known so I discount his comments as sour grapes of sorts.
Comment by LargeBill — July 25, 2006 @ 4:15 pm
#1, I agree to a point, but the items I cited are going beyond ignoring Armstrong to virtually denying him his due.
#2, Landis’s performance is remarkable in light of his hip and the hole he had to dig himself out of.
Comment by TBlumer — July 25, 2006 @ 5:44 pm
LeMond’s comment was directed at Basso and Ullrich, meaning if they hadn’t been kicked out for doping this year, they might have cheated Landis out of his win.
Landis’ comeback on stage 17 was indeed more remarkable than anything in the Tour since Merckx, because no one since Eddy had dug themselves out of such a big hole on one stage.
In the US media they talked too much about Lance during the Tour, as if they cared more about whether he was watching than who was winning the actual race. It was a great race and they should have been talking about the riders in it.
Comment by Matt — July 25, 2006 @ 9:30 pm
#4, re LeMond: Though I understand your point, I still believe that “we are seeing a true Tour de France Winner” and “I have been waiting for this period since 1998″ (not coincidentally, the last time Armstrong didn’t win) are both deliberate double-entendre digs at Armstrong.
I didn’t follow the race this year except on the SportsCenter snips, so I wouldn’t have picked up the overemphasis on non-competitor Lance, which would have annoyed me too.
And Landis deserves all the props in the world for what he has done.
Comment by TBlumer — July 25, 2006 @ 9:41 pm