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?
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.
I don't think he's claiming he's the first. I think he's claiming he's the worst.
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..
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.
To everyone else with some moral compass, his crimes cast a long, dark shadow.
Hardly any money it raised went to hospitals or research. Paid for a lot of nice private jet flights though.
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.
Cadel Evans remains extremely popular in Europe despite beating them all.