Professional Cycling For the Fans - LA' Indurain comment

... For me, that encapsulates his whole argument: That AC ought to show him respect and cede him the leadership role, because of his record. AC obviously never bought that. I'm fairly neutral about this

For those who aren't sure what the comment was:

"I probably would have done it differently,” Armstrong said of the way Contador dealt with him joining the team this season.

“If I put myself in that position, even in ’99 or 2000, when I was young and ambitious, if Indurain would have come to the team, he still would have come to the team because he’s Indurain,” he said, referring to the five-time Tour champion Miguel Indurain of Spain. “That doesn’t mean he has to win, but he’s the leader because he’s a legend. Not that I’m a legend.”

... For me, that encapsulates his whole argument: That AC ought to show him respect and cede him the leadership role, because of his record. AC obviously never bought that. I'm fairly neutral about this

For those who aren't sure what the comment was:

"I probably would have done it differently,” Armstrong said of the way Contador dealt with him joining the team this season.

“If I put myself in that position, even in ’99 or 2000, when I was young and ambitious, if Indurain would have come to the team, he still would have come to the team because he’s Indurain,” he said, referring to the five-time Tour champion Miguel Indurain of Spain. “That doesn’t mean he has to win, but he’s the leader because he’s a legend. Not that I’m a legend.”


"Not that I'm a legend." How modest. :D

"Not that I'm a legend." How modest. :D

Still, its clear he was implying that he is a legend - and he is.

on the other hand miguel indurain was a consumate champion and would have never conducted himself the way armstrong has.

would have never backstabbed contador, never would have publically called hinault a wanker, would have never shared team business with the press and the social messaging network, dumped his wife and various girlfriends etc. etc.....

you can't have it both ways. i remember miguel indurain. lance armstrong is no miguel indurain.

ed rader

on the other hand miguel indurain was a consumate champion and would have never remotely acted the way armstrong has.

Would have never backstabbed contador, never would have publically called hinault a wanker, etc. Etc.....

You can't have it both ways. I remember miguel indurain. lance armstrong is no miguel indurain.

Ed rader

+1

+1

True that. But let's not forget that Armstrong was a celebrity like no other cyclist before him. Not Indurain, not Merckx, not Hinault - not even LeMond. He lives in a different world, and its not his fault, although he certainly relishes it.

True that. But let's not forget that Armstrong was a celebrity like no other cyclist before him. Not Indurain, not Merckx, not Hinault - not even LeMond. He lives in a different world, and its not his fault, although he certainly relishes it.

Well we know your perspective. LeMond is miles behind Merckx and Hinault, it is just that the main audience is not America.

Well we know your perspective. LeMond is miles behind Merckx and Hinault, it is just that the main audience is not America.

Yeah, but at the same time, I think LA's celebrity status has probably convinced him that he's the star of the show everywhere he goes ... especially when the show is run by a goodf reind...

Contador "has worked very hard, earning the right to represent our team as the leader this July," team manager Johan Bruyneel said today.
WTF is LA talking about?

WTF is LA talking about?

True. But as LA saw it, its more about Respect for a former champ, than what the current champ does.

True. But as LA saw it, its more about Respect for a former champ, than what the current champ does.

I'm not quite sure how Lance gets off talking about respect when you consider his comments on Hinault, and specifically on Sastre's victory last year. The man has no shame. We knew that. Its just that he keeps reminding us.

I don't buy it. I don't believe for a second Armstrong would have let Indurain take leadership of US Postal in '99, in fact I think it's an absolutely laughable claim.

I don't buy it. I don't believe for a second Armstrong would have let Indurain take leadership of US Postal in '99, in fact I think it's an absolutely laughable claim.


Right on.

True. But as LA saw it, its more about Respect for a former champ, than what the current champ does.

LA came in demanding respect. Expecting to be in charge. This wasn't a team in disarray before he got there. Quite the contrary. It was a very strong team with the best grand tour rider in the world on it. He came in and wanted to take charge. He interjected himself into a team that had no problems, that had a leader, that was winning, that was the best in the sport. Then LA got upset when AC didn't back down. LA very presence on the team was disrespectful of AC. Especially after it became clear that it wasn't just about being a good teammate, but about winning.

And now he's just starting the think maybe he could have taken a different approach?

LA came in demanding respect. Expecting to be in charge. This wasn't a team in disarray before he got there. Quite the contrary. It was a very strong team with the best grand tour rider in the world on it. He came in and wanted to take charge. He interjected himself into a team that had no problems, that had a leader, that was winning, that was the best in the sport. Then LA got upset when AC didn't back down. LA very presence on the team was disrespectful of AC. Especially after it became clear that it wasn't just about being a good teammate, but about winning.

And now he's just starting the think maybe he could have taken a different approach?

True. He should have said up front when joining Astana that AC was the best, but he clearly wasn't convinced of AC's abilities til halfway through the tour. It probably boiled down to this: LA figured AC won the 2007 Tour by fluke.

True. He should have said up front when joining Astana that AC was the best, but he clearly wasn't convinced of AC's abilities til halfway through the tour. It probably boiled down to this: LA figured AC won the 2007 Tour by fluke.

Yeah, won the Gira and Vuelta on flukes too. His ego was blinding his vision.

True. He should have said up front when joining Astana that AC was the best, but he clearly wasn't convinced of AC's abilities til halfway through the tour. It probably boiled down to this: LA figured AC won the 2007 Tour by fluke.

Well, he did win the 2007 Tour by fluke.

He did NOT win the 2008 Vuelta or Giro by fluke.

Well, he did win the 2007 Tour by fluke.

He did NOT win the 2008 Vuelta or Giro by fluke.

LA never did think highly of those other 2 GTs...

Well, now he should be convinced that AC is indeed the best.

dumped his wife and various girlfriends


Can we keep this crap out of it??? None of us know the real stories and this has nothing to do with cycling.

Can we keep this crap out of it??? None of us know the real stories and this has nothing to do with cycling.

It has plenty to do with his "Legend", which of course he's too humble to call himself :roflmao2:

It has plenty to do with his "Legend", which of course he's too humble to call himself :roflmao2:

I think we ought to leave that part of his personal life separate from his sporting achievements. If we are going to go over the scandalous stuff he's been involved in, then we should remember his work for cancer charity too. Let's leave both out and focus on his performance and behavior in the arena.

The people that hate Lance will never keep this part of his life separate, even though it has nothing to do with cycling or his comparison's to Indurain as a rider. Just a chance for the haters of him to spew more venom. If that floats your boat and makes you feel better about yourself, great. Either way it makes no difference. But, if you do love cycling, and I think that half of the people here really couldn't care less about the sport, they just want somewhere to go and spout off and try to become some kind of lame internet forum celebrity, then you can't argue with the good he has done the sport as far as popularity, exposure, and plain old dollars. Now with that there is going to be good and bad, but it does make the sport grow, and that should be the goal.

I don't buy it. I don't believe for a second Armstrong would have let Indurain take leadership of US Postal in '99, in fact I think it's an absolutely laughable claim.

lol it is awful easy for Lance to say how he would have handled a hypothetical situation. Plus Lance in '99 had never come close to winning a major stage race. He was just coming back from cancer and the majority of the teams were not even remotely interested in signing him. A more accurate scenareo would be if Lance would have taken his stated position if Indurain had wanted to join Disco in '01 after several years off and after Lance had won several tours. ... Highly unlikely.

lol it is awful easy for Lance to say how he would have handled a hypothetical situation. Plus Lance in '99 had never come close to winning a major stage race. He was just coming back from cancer and the majority of the teams were not even remotely interested in signing him. A more accurate scenareo would be if Lance would have taken his stated position if Indurain had wanted to join Disco in '01 after several years off and after Lance had won several tours. ... Highly unlikely.

Oh how wrong you are! Lance would have been the consummate teammate and allowed Indurain to take over the team. Just like Contador should have done. ;)

Seriously, does Lance think no one has ever heard of Hinault. It's a team sport, but you can't trust anyone. Just ask Hincapie.

True that. But let's not forget that Armstrong was a celebrity like no other cyclist before him. Not Indurain, not Merckx, not Hinault - not even LeMond. He lives in a different world, and its not his fault, although he certainly relishes it.

You are delusional. You ought to have lived in Europe to know how big some of those names you said were.
American fame doesnt count for jack-squat. Kim Kardashian is famous, for what, her booty? Paris Hilton? Tila Tequila?
I guess you are right though, the operative word is celebrity.

Lets be serious.

Can we keep this crap out of it??? None of us know the real stories and this has nothing to do with cycling.
Unfortunately good sir, once you become a public figure its the way it is. If you enjoy the fame and money, you take the good with the bad.
His wife, girlfriends and so on are as much part of his legacy as anything else.......
We dont make up these rules, business and money does.

I think we ought to leave that part of his personal life separate from his sporting achievements. If we are going to go over the scandalous stuff he's been involved in, then we should remember his work for cancer charity too. Let's leave both out and focus on his performance and behavior in the arena.
And that is exactly correct. Lance has ridden that cancer money horse for all its worth. His cycling, wife, girlfriends, his cancer, his verbal disrespect to Sastre, Contador, LeMond, Hinult e.t.c, e.t.c, e.t.c, e.t.c, e.t.c, e.t.c, e.t.c, e.t.c, all propelled him to what he is today.

How many people is Lance suppose to say crap to before you realize that he is a prick?

Can we keep this crap out of it??? None of us know the real stories and this has nothing to do with cycling.

it sure speaks to lance's character and that's what we are talking about. cycling-wise lance has proven that he's not worthy to carry alberto contador's chamois.

ed rader

Indurain+5 tour wins=legend!

Lance+7 tour wins=?

Lance U R a legend! Go ahead and say it!

Indurain+5 tour wins=legend!

Lance+7 tour wins=?

Lance U R a legend! Go ahead and say it!

greastest TDF rider even but no where near the stature of miguel indurain. lance is also in implosion mode and i am starting to see the beginning of the press turning on him.

ed rader

lol it is awful easy for Lance to say how he would have handled a hypothetical situation. Plus Lance in '99 had never come close to winning a major stage race. He was just coming back from cancer and the majority of the teams were not even remotely interested in signing him.

He signed for USPS over a year before the 1999 Tour. He won the Tour of Luxembourg and finished 4th in the Vuelta after that, in 1998. Indurain actually picked Armstrong to win the 1999 Tour.

Well i believe that LA is probably the best endurance athlete of our time. his marathon times are insane, his triathlon history is remarkable, he IS a legend in cycling, period. now its up to everyone to decide who was the greatest, that can be debated, but with out a doubt he is a legend.
Next and to the point. LA would not have sat back for MI, nor should AC have sat back for LA, No champion will sit back when he has the opportunity unless his team manager tells him to, i.e. Lemond. The only thing that AC did wrong was attack Andreas Kloden.

on the other hand miguel indurain was a consumate champion and would have never conducted himself the way armstrong has.

would have never backstabbed contador, never would have publically called hinault a wanker, would have never shared team business with the press and the social messaging network, dumped his wife and various girlfriends etc. etc.....

you can't have it both ways. i remember miguel indurain. lance armstrong is no miguel indurain.

ed rader

If you've got hate in your heart Ed let that rubbish out! About the only redeeming value to the above post is the greatness that is The Big Mig. The other stuff about Hinault and his life choices is rubbish. First of all Hinault was a wanker and just as much an SOB as Armstrong when he needed to be or just felt like it. Thanks to the net we are much more accessible to "news" than we were back in the day of The Badger. Also the way you carry on about what Armstrong did in regards to women, media.....I'm shocked to find out that Armstrong was the only rider to ever be a womanizer and ****-heel to the press. For all the criticism, I certainly hope you lead the perfect live because you what they say he who stands in judgment?



I'm not quite sure how Lance gets off talking about respect when you consider his comments on Hinault, and specifically on Sastre's victory last year. The man has no shame. We knew that. Its just that he keeps reminding us.

For the greatness of a cyclist the Badger was, he to had his moments of being a ******bag, so let's not get to misty eyed for him. As far as Sastres performance being a fluke last year, his performance this year and the fact Astana didn't get to defend really does bring validity to that opinion. Lance clearly can be a jackass, but really is he the first ever in the sport? Maybe since the advent of the internet but definitely not the first ever.



I think we ought to leave that part of his personal life separate from his sporting achievements. If we are going to go over the scandalous stuff he's been involved in, then we should remember his work for cancer charity too. Let's leave both out and focus on his performance and behavior in the arena.

I think I agree with this post. It amazes me how some people think Armstrong was the first arse in the history of the spot.



it sure speaks to lance's character and that's what we are talking about. cycling-wise lance has proven that he's not worthy to carry alberto contador's chamois.

ed rader

Amazing insight Ed. What's the truth, really? Did he steal your parking spot or something? I mean to hate a guy so passionately based off of what you perceive to know from the media is astonishing really it is. For such an arse, it's puzzling that so many people in his home city find him to be a good guy?

You should buy a kitten, it really does wonders to chill people out.

Successful people get a lot of flack ... happens everywhere. Mediocre ones don't ... at least before they get on reality TV.

Well i believe that LA is probably the best endurance athlete of our time. his marathon times are insane, his triathlon history is remarkable, he IS a legend in cycling, period. now its up to everyone to decide who was the greatest, that can be debated, but with out a doubt he is a legend.
Next and to the point. LA would not have sat back for MI, nor should AC have sat back for LA, No champion will sit back when he has the opportunity unless his team manager tells him to, i.e. Lemond. The only thing that AC did wrong was attack Andreas Kloden.

His marathon times are not insane. They are excellent for a recreational runner, but nothing more can be said about them.

I think many writers here are confusing athletic and professional prowess with character, the kind of character that shows in your treatment of other people. Please, many have the resolve to be successful, but they are not estimable. Look at Jack Welch.

Regarding the 2007 Tour, we will never know if Contador could have beaten Rasmussen without the disqualification. We do know that Contador was the only rider capable of challenging Rasmussen and the gaps were closing. With that, and the eventual win, I'm satisfied that the strongest rider won on his own merits.

Regarding celebrity, I fail to see how achieving it absolves one from showing character in dealing with other people.

Regarding Bruyneel, we can argue ad inifinitum over who was the real mastermind of this fiasco, he or Armstrong, or Contador, too, I guess, by inferences made by some. My own view is that he is that he ceded the real management of the team when he saw the opportunity to exploit the dramatic angle of the conflict--the callow, inexperienced, but gifted Spanish prodigy against the teacher, the self-made man, the patron, the selfless American crusader against cancer.

And in defense of that wanker Hinault, I would call him an egotistical prevaricating ass, but never a prick. What's the difference? A prevaricating ass will cut you off at the knees, but he'll speak well of you as he's doing it.

And in defense of that wanker Hinault, I would call him an egotistical prevaricating ass, but never a prick. What's the difference? A prevaricating ass will cut you off at the knees, but he'll speak well of you as he's doing it.

ok, i will take the bait.

by your definition, LA is the prick then. ;)

Hinault never spoke badly of his teammates, even as Greg was beating him. In fact, he tried to take some credit for it. And Greg showed he was the man by taking that as a complement.

As polarizing a character as LA seems to be (at least around here), I really think we should keep his athletic achievements and any personal failings apart. Compared to some other top athletes, I think he has led an exemplary life. No drugs, no wild parties, no drink and drive accidents.

A lot of historical figures widely regarded as great heroes of their time had their nasty spots, e.g. Churchill's arrogant racism, Gandhi's admiration of Hitler etc. Historians don't neglect these, but they keep it separate from discussions of their achievements and contributions. An athlete is no statesman or historical figure of that regard, but I think the same rules apply.

The only exception is if that personal failing is tangled up with athletic achievement e.g. doping. But until that is proven, I think it should best be regarded as speculation.

Hinault never spoke badly of his teammates, even as Greg was beating him. In fact, he tried to take some credit for it. And Greg showed he was the man by taking that as a complement.

I guess it boils down to what you or anyone else considers speaking badly. Hinault said of Lemond, "He was a good racer, but not an attacker. He was unable to make tactics by himself. In 1986, I kept my promise to help him win the Tour. Me? I just wanted to have fun!”. Granted he is not outright calling him a tool or throwing mother smack but what he said can easily be construed as a slap in the face of Lemond. As far as his outspoken side, The Badger pretty much pulls no punches and openly speaks his mind.....I'm surprised the French haven't made an attempt on his life after essentially calling all French cyclists spoiled and lazy. Armstrong has made his share of comments but let's not pretend that Hinault is some sort of statesman, he was Lance before Lance went to the top.



As polarizing a character as LA seems to be (at least around here), I really think we should keep his athletic achievements and any personal failings apart. Compared to some other top athletes, I think he has led an exemplary life. No drugs, no wild parties, no drink and drive accidents.

A lot of historical figures widely regarded as great heroes of their time had their nasty spots, e.g. Churchill's arrogant racism, Gandhi's admiration of Hitler etc. Historians don't neglect these, but they keep it separate from discussions of their achievements and contributions. An athlete is no statesman or historical figure of that regard, but I think the same rules apply.

The only exception is if that personal failing is tangled up with athletic achievement e.g. doping. But until that is proven, I think it should best be regarded as speculation.

+1, very well said.

To criticize another's racing style is much different from calling the man whose hand you shake after leaving the podium a wanker.

Besides, we all knew Hinault was wrong. Well not entirely right--Greg's skills in the baroudeur department did slide a bit after the hunting accident.

I am sorry but I have to remind you that , there are no speculations in
medicine.

:wtf:What are you on about mate?


To criticize another's racing style is much different from calling the man whose hand you shake after leaving the podium a wanker.

Besides, we all knew Hinault was wrong. Well not entirely right--Greg's skills in the baroudeur department did slide a bit after the hunting accident.

Is it really that much different though? To criticize another pros style and mental approach to how they race and ride is pretty insulting when you consider Lemond really was an outstanding racer. As outspoken as The Badger has always been I sincerely doubt he's never said a naughty thing about another rider. Do keep in mind that the information accessible then was very hard to come by stateside compared to the advent of the internet.

As polarizing a character as LA seems to be (at least around here), I really think we should keep his athletic achievements and any personal failings apart. Compared to some other top athletes, I think he has led an exemplary life. No drugs, no wild parties, no drink and drive accidents.

A lot of historical figures widely regarded as great heroes of their time had their nasty spots, e.g. Churchill's arrogant racism, Gandhi's admiration of Hitler etc. Historians don't neglect these, but they keep it separate from discussions of their achievements and contributions. An athlete is no statesman or historical figure of that regard, but I think the same rules apply.

The only exception is if that personal failing is tangled up with athletic achievement e.g. doping. But until that is proven, I think it should best be regarded as speculation.

No drugs? For just a second lets assume that the times he popped it really was planted...and beating all the people who have popped over the years was pure talent...

but when you are sleeping with an Olsen twin half your age, who was called by Heath Ledger's staff right after he OD'd...and when you have dated Sheryl Crow...I really think "no drugs" is taking quite a leap.

You are delusional. You ought to have lived in Europe to know how big some of those names you said were.
American fame doesnt count for jack-squat. Kim Kardashian is famous, for what, her booty? Paris Hilton? Tila Tequila?
I guess you are right though, the operative word is celebrity.

Lets be serious.

Yeah... Americans do indeed idolize some strange and useless people.

It's nice that Europeans only idolize people who are brilliant and beautiful with motives as pure as the driven snow.

Howzit... you're not the sharpest tool in the shed, are you? People are people the world over... we're all the same... no matter where we're from. Your Euro-centric arrogance is just as baseless as any Ameri-centric arrogance.

Just remember... if you hate hanging with us Americans that badly... Delta is ready when you are.

No drugs? For just a second lets assume that the times he popped it really was planted...and beating all the people who have popped over the years was pure talent...

but when you are sleeping with an Olsen twin half your age, who was called by Heath Ledger's staff right after he OD'd...and when you have dated Sheryl Crow...I really think "no drugs" is taking quite a leap.

Well that's still speculation at the moment right? I mean just look at what we know, because we can always guess what we can't see anyhow...

His marathon times are not insane. They are excellent for a recreational runner, but nothing more can be said about them.

alright they are insane for an elite cyclist, especially because cyclist, who don't mix up their training, have lower bone density and are more likely to get serious fractures, when running.
I'm sorry though, anyone who runs a sub 3 hour marathon, is insane to me. if your only goal is to win a marathon then they should be faster, but when he is as versatile as he is, i put his times in the insane category. true they are not Olympic but none of those Ethiopians could ever swim, mountain bike, or road race, 5 miles much less win at the level he wins.
But you are correct in the world of running they are not insane. other factors must be considered for it to be considered insane.

i think we ought to leave that part of his personal life separate from his sporting achievements. If we are going to go over the scandalous stuff he's been involved in, then we should remember his work for cancer charity too. Let's leave both out and focus on his performance and behavior in the arena.

+1

... Lance has ridden that cancer money horse for all its worth.
...How many people is Lance suppose to say crap to before you realize that he is a prick?

This comment speaks volumes about your character.

This comment speaks volumes about your character.

Guess he really hates the man...

Guess he really hates the man...

i would imagine so. I doubt there is any cancer survivors in the world that would say he is riding a money horse. as a matter of fact Livestrong has taken a new approach to cancer awareness. instead of the sad commercials that show kids in hospitals, that makes you feel hopeless and depressed, Livestrong is about living your life to the fullest, being active, and having an healthy lifestyle. It is the first Cancer message that makes us feel hope instead of depression.

If you hate the man because of his cycling, relationships, or because his attitude, i understand, but to hate the man because his Cancer campaign you simply have blind hatred, and it is unfounded. say what you will about the cyclist, those things are debatable and always will be. but he has changed the face of cancer, through Livestrong, from fear to hope.