VeeshanVault

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news.php?id= ... 6newsflash

http://sports.espn.go.com/oly/news/story?id=2153202


Considering a comeback because of the smear campaign going on right now about him. Personally, I think it would seriously suck if he came back for an 8th and lost. That would look worse (mixed with the accusations) than if he just told the french to bugger off. Here's to hoping he doesn't turn into Jordon..

Coincidentally, there was an interview with him where he even referenced Mike and said he didn't want that to happen to him. Wish he'd follow his own advice; though honestly, I think he'd win. But the chances are higher I think that someone would do something to make him crash if he came back.

Thoughts?

Lance will go from the greatest leg shaver of all time IMO to just another Jerry Rice with a drawn out career if he returns. It wouldn't matter if he won his 8th TdF or not.

Returning because some Frenchies are whining? Please.

jerry rice couldnt get off the line of scrimmage.

jim brown is the comparison to Lance Armstrong. Retiring at his peak.

Or Barry Sanders.

we need more threads about this at the same time.

Voronwë wrote:jerry rice couldnt get off the line of scrimmage.

jim brown is the comparison to Lance Armstrong. Retiring at his peak.

Or Barry Sanders.

Lance = Barry Sanders or Jim Brown now

We'll have to wait and see if he turns into a Ricky Henderson.

I don't understand why people get so worked up about athletes who play beyond their prime. I mean, you wouldn't expect Jerry Rice to be a great player at 41 whether he's playing or not, so why is it physically bothersome to see it?

I really like athletes who stick around, actually. When they're making huge salaries I'm not a fan, but I absolutely love guys like Jerry Rice and Rickey Henderson who would play for any salary for any team that wanted them. The idea that they're 'ruining the dignity of the game' or anything like that is absurd. This is a person who has been playing a given sport for their entire lives. They've never known anything other than being driven by this sport. Isn't it inspiring to see that they love this thing that they've been doing all their lives so much that they would happily play as long as they can, regardless of how it makes them appear to others?

I think some of it is when an athlete stays in the limelight past their prime, some feel it almost cheapens the memory. Sports fans are sentimental beasts for the most part and we want our heroes to maintain their dignity and seeing them unable to rise above the pack as they once did almost seems like an affront. Most fans want to remember Michael Jordan, Jerry Rice, Wayne Gretzky and Lance Armstrongs at their pinacle, where they are dominant athletes of their era, not as fading stars who looks as if they have overstayed their welcome.

I think there also begins to be feelings that they should share the glory and let the next generation have a shot without having to compete with the legend that was and may not still be. Sometimes fans see the "next in line" and wonder if he or she will develop if they are stuck on the bench/sidelines/practice rosters, and lets be realistic its harder to cut a legend who has deteriorated to borderline performance than it is to cut a kid not many have heard of, who may be develop into a solid if unspectacular athlete, who performs at the same level.

Wulfran summed it up pretty much and I don't feel guilty for having that attitude.

You get into the situation of having to respect what they did in the past which hurts their current team. Rice had no business being on the field at this stage in his career. He would have been cut...no not even invited into camp except for the fact that he's Jerry Rice. No disrespect to what he's done in the past but I don't want to see old timer hanger on types. That's what coaching jobs and announcer positions are for. It's time to contribute to the sport you love in a new way and not get in the way by making coaches make popularity decisions instead of smart decisions.

Now Lance really isn't washed up. He actually could win another TdF but he's the greatest of all time and has gone out on his terms on top of his game. Leave it that way. I don't want to start getting bored seeing Lance out there in the middle of the pack and all the announces oogling over him and telling Lance Armstrong stories to fill the time.

Every one of the 5 time winners of the Tour de France lost in their last attempt. If he races once more and loses it diminishes nothing.

Lance is the type of person that gains strength from being insulted, faced with adversity or accused of wrongdoing. It's totally in character for him to use the EPO charges as a springboard to fuel a go at an 8th title.

Tenuvil wrote:Every one of the 5 time winners of the Tour de France lost in their last attempt. If he races once more and loses it diminishes nothing.

Sure it does. Right now he's the only one that hasn't lost in his last attempt and he's proven two times over the 5 wins that he could do it.

Now Lance really isn't washed up. He actually could win another TdF but he's the greatest of all time and has gone out on his terms on top of his game. Leave it that way. I don't want to start getting bored seeing Lance out there in the middle of the pack and all the announces oogling over him and telling Lance Armstrong stories to fill the time.

Who gives a fuck what you want? Why should that matter more than what he wants?

Barring illness or injury, Lance would win an 8th if he tried to. Lance retired still a step ahead of all of his competitors. Any comparisons to Jordan, Rice, and others are unmerited.

All that said, at the end of the day, Lance will remain retired.

Sueven wrote:

Now Lance really isn't washed up. He actually could win another TdF but he's the greatest of all time and has gone out on his terms on top of his game. Leave it that way. I don't want to start getting bored seeing Lance out there in the middle of the pack and all the announces oogling over him and telling Lance Armstrong stories to fill the time.

Who gives a fuck what you want? Why should that matter more than what he wants?

I'm the spectator. (the guy the sponsors are trying to sell stuff to which is what makes all professional sports what they are today) It matters what I want. Athletes get no money if the spectator doesn't want to see the show. Do you think Discovery gives Lance money for the hell of it? It's the same with any sport.

Sure, you can argue that I'm just one person...so is everyone else! That's a stupid argument. I thought I'd stop you before you started it. : )

noel wrote:Barring illness or injury, Lance would win an 8th if he tried to. Lance retired still a step ahead of all of his competitors. Any comparisons to Jordan, Rice, and others are unmerited.

All that said, at the end of the day, Lance will remain retired.

I agree on both accounts. I agree he could win. And I agree he won't race this year. He's just stirring up the hornets' nest that is the French cycling media.

And Winnow, don't be dumb.

Speaking of Winnow...

Winnow, Lance is not the greatest cyclist of all time. That distinction firmly belongs to Eddy Merckx. Lance is arguably the greatest American cyclist of all time (there are people who would argue Lemond is better, and I would laugh at them).

Would you actually be less interested in watching the Denver Broncos if Jerry Rice was the 4th receiver instead of some guy that you've never heard of getting those 3 snaps a game? Or the Los Angeles Dodgers if Rickey Henderson was pinch-hitting in the 8th inning of a loss instead of some guy you've never heard of? I honestly find it difficult to believe that this actually detracts from your enjoyment of the game.

noel wrote:Speaking of Winnow...

Winnow, Lance is not the greatest cyclist of all time. That distinction firmly belongs to Eddy Merckx. Lance is arguably the greatest American cyclist of all time (there are people who would argue Lemond is better, and I would laugh at them).

As I said in the other thread.. I think he did a mistake by doing a general attack on the French.

Sueven wrote:Would you actually be less interested in watching the Denver Broncos if Jerry Rice was the 4th receiver instead of some guy that you've never heard of getting those 3 snaps a game? Or the Los Angeles Dodgers if Rickey Henderson was pinch-hitting in the 8th inning of a loss instead of some guy you've never heard of? I honestly find it difficult to believe that this actually detracts from your enjoyment of the game.

Corrected my previous post from "Sanders" to Henderson.

You're giving too much respect to over the hill players. I want the best product on the field. There is usually a bell curve for players. For example, Rice may go from his stats as a rookie to his pinnacle of success and back down to his stats as a rookie over the years...once he drops below that, he needs to consider retirement if there are other players that will handle his role better. (and he was clearly outplayed by several other Bronco third string WRs as I watched almost every preseason game) You know it's sad when the big story last year was Rice whining about not getting a catch in a game to extend his streak...he's just a sideshow and freaked when they couldn't force a ball to him.

If you like seeing famous old players so much, maybe the NFL and NBA can create a few special roster allowances for old timers to suit up and roam the sidelines with teams for some camera time each game. I'd like to see Charles Barkley goofing off on the Suns bench myself.

First Winnow, don't bring up other sports. We're talking about cycling here.

You say as the spectator, the sport should serve you. Now let me ask you...You do not buy tickets to the Tour. You do not even pay to watch it, it's on basic cable. You didn't go out and buy and Team Disco memorabilia. You didn't suddenly decide to buy anything from any of the team sponsors. You didn't give two shits about cycling before Lance (I'm guessing you tuned in around number 5).

You've put absolutely zero into the sport for it to have any reason at all to serve you. It would gain no more or less from you, whichever way it decided to go.

So don't be stupid.

As far as other sports...that's a whole different argument, and I guess if I have to, I'll get into it...but I don't feel like it.

This is a sports forum. Unless cyclists aren't athletes, comparing them to other sports figures is totally within the boundaries of this discussion.

The argument that I (or anyone else) doesn't pay to watch is a diversion from the main point in that the Discovery Channel still wouldn't give Lance money if it's not beneficial to them in some way. The Outdoor Network wouldn't carry TdF if it wasn't beneficial to the people that buy advertisements on their channel. Professional cycling isn't a charity event.

Ultimately, any professional sport has everything to do with the viewers.

Just like Jack Nicklaus receives free passes to Golf tournaments due to his past victories, even though he has no shot at winning, Lance would be allowed to compete...the difference is Jack wasn't hurting anyone elses chances as it's a solo sport as oppsoed to team sports like cycling, etc. The most Jack did was take a spot from someone else currently more deserving in the recent few decades. (golf is a bad example but I'll stick with it)

The point of all this is that I don't enjoy watching declining superstars and favor coaching decisions based on present day talent while others like to watch old timers until they keel over. Lance still has ability but there was big hoopla over his retirement. I'd hate to see him be one of those athletes that retires every year with all the tearful fans wishing him well and then doing it all over again because a frenchie calls him out again. Go out on top. It's a rare rare thing to do and I guess never has been done in cycling. Give another member of Team Discovery a chance to win instead of working to let Lance win again and go through another retirement run with all the extra press coverage focused on the "Lance's final race"...nevermind...you're right...advertisers love that stuff.

For the record, I totally agree with Kelshara 100%. Lance really should have said, ' the French Media' instead of 'the French'. There are many, many Lance fans in France and it was totally inappropriate to word it that way.

Winnow wrote:This is a sports forum. Unless cyclists aren't athletes, comparing them to other sports figures is totally within the boundaries of this discussion.

The argument that I (or anyone else) doesn't pay to watch is a diversion from the main point in that the Discovery Channel still wouldn't give Lance money if it's not beneficial to them in some way. The Outdoor Network wouldn't carry TdF if it wasn't beneficial to the people that buy advertisements on their channel. Professional cycling isn't a charity event.

Ultimately, any professional sport has everything to do with the viewers.

First, don't lump yourself into the group with the spectators that do contribute to the income of the teams and the sport.

Winnow wrote:

Sueven wrote: Who gives a fuck what you want? Why should that matter more than what he wants?

I'm the spectator. It matters what I want.

You state right there, that your opinion is aparently more important than the athlete's own. But if you contribute ZERO dollars to the sponsors, the sport, the network...then your opinion is absolutely jack fucking shit. You deserve nothing, and it doesn't matter what you want. When you contribute, then you get some weight to your concerns.

Your argument was not whether or not Disco would sign Lance, or his sponsors would support him another year. Or whether it would be profitable, or whether he could win or not. Don't divert.

Your argument was that Lance should do what you want because you are a non contributing spectator who won't even remember that cycling is a sport when Lance is no longer mentioned on ESPN.

Hmmm, I don't think you get it. It doesn't matter if I contribute money directly to the Discovery Channel. All they want is to keep their station in the spotlight so people will watch which will gain more advertising dollars for them.

You'd have a case if TdF was aired on PBS and Lance's team was sponsored by PBS. They get their money directly from the people along with some government grants.

It matters what I think. Of course I'm not delusional and understand I'm only one voice. I could write an email to Discovery Channel suggesting they spend their money in other ways to gain advertisers and viewers next year. A single letter from me won't do squat but perhaps others feel the same way and Lance might have to get another sponsor. (Discovery may have a multi year contract for all I know)

Unfortunately, advertisers and sponsors are usually reactionary, waiting until the ratings take a dive before changing strategies instead of being a little more proactive.

Winnow wrote:Hmmm, I don't think you get it. It doesn't matter if I contribute money directly to the Discovery Channel. All they want is to keep their station in the spotlight so people will watch which will gain more advertising dollars for them.

You'd have a case if TdF was aired on PBS and Lance's team was sponsored by PBS. They get their money directly from the people along with some government grants.

It matters what I think. Of course I'm not delusional and understand I'm only one voice. I could write an email to Discovery Channel suggesting they spend their money in other ways to gain advertisers and viewers next year. A single letter from me won't do squat but perhaps others feel the same way and Lance might have to get another sponsor. (Discovery may have a multi year contract for all I know)

Unfortunately, advertisers and sponsors are usually reactionary, waiting until the ratings take a dive before changing strategies instead of being a little more proactive.

This has fuck all to do with any of it.

Let's recap, because you seem to be lost in your own discussion.
1. Lance considers comeback.
2. You say that's a bad idea.
3. Sueven brings up the brilliant point that your opinion doesn't mean dick with regards to Lance's decision to comeback or not.
4. You argue that for some reason, your opinion DOES matter in Lance's decision.
5. I point out the rediculousness of this, and tell you not to be stupid, twice. (maybe I should have made my point clearer the first time)
6. Then you really get out there on this tangent and that tangent.
7. I make this recap! oh wait...

The simple fact is, this is Lance's decision. No opinions matter, except one.

With regards to aging athletes playing past their prime...that's another discussion entirely, and I would be happy to get into that discussion in another thread.

From ESPN

This week's revelation that Armstrong is thinking of ending his brief retirement and adding one more record to his illustrious résumé -- Most Abrupt U-Turn, male road cyclist -- was completely in character. The only surprising thing about it was how quickly he seemed willing to trash the absolutely airtight statements he'd been making since last April.

Boatloads of tribute stories and film montages set to triumphal soundtracks may be rendered obsolete. In the mind's eye, it was easy to imagine Armstrong's rivals, eager to mix it up in the wide-open Tour forecast for next year, slowly and repeatedly bashing their heads against café tables in frustration.

You're twisting this. Where did I state I had a say in whether Lance decides to throw away all of this statements and ride again? My opinion matters to the sponsors and advertisers on a certain level. If you want to keep pushing the "you're only one little insignificant person" argument, go ahead. Ignoring the individual's opinion sounds like the first step toward communism to me.

Lance will do whatever the hell he wants to do. As I was getting at this entire thread, he'll be just like all the other retired, unretired athletes. No surprise there. The pleasant surprise would be if he actually stuck to his word and went out on top as he had planned to do all year. I will continue to have my opinion about why I think he shouldn't return especially for the lame reason that's being presented in the media. IMO (stands for IN MY OPINION) he should stay retired.

I'm just going to go back to telling you not to be dumb.

Takes much less of my time and effort, because you just talked yourself in a circle.