Yes, I Called Lance Armstrong a "Jerk"
It's jarring, dramatic, and memorable—and not in a good way. While it's curious that a multinational company chooses to sell athletic wear in this fashion, the ad is even more interesting for what it tells us about Armstrong's psyche. On its surface, it reinforces the idea that Lance is standing behind the victims of a disease that nearly claimed his life. That is indisputable. It also, however, pushes the idea that Armstrong is some kind of savior. HisShepard Fairey-designed bikes are emblazoned with two numbers. The first, 1,274, is the number of days between his last race and his comeback. The second, 27.2, represents the number of people, in millions, who died from the disease during that time. Is Armstrong suggesting that there's some kind of causal link between him not riding his bike and people dying from cancer?
The ad also implies, disturbingly, that the cyclist's "critics"—and that includes everyone whothinks he's arrogant—are equivalent to cancer. It is apparently not enough for him to ride his bike and lead a positive campaign. He can't help but go after his detractors at the same time. And you thought Sarah Palin was divisive.
posted by Bill Gifford at 7:00 PM
11 Comments:
Bill, while you make some very salient points your article is incredibly misleading in numerous facts, the obvious example being the complete mischaracterization of what happened on stage 3 this year. Columbia created the split. Lance was smart enough to get into the front. Alberto wasn't. Armstrong, as problematic a team member as he may be, simply rode the race of a cyclist going for yellow. Contador made the mistake of too many young athletes who survive on raw physical prowess without brains. Another example is failing to point out that Kimmage, class act that he is, preceded his interaction with Armstrong by calling him a cancer on the sport. Making Armstrong's response sound unprompted is a lie, supported by your deceptive pointing to the "full exchange", which, of course, ignored the full context.
You'd do us all a better service if you get past your own problems with Lance and tell us what's wrong with him (plenty) without having to make things up. Your deceptive reporting hardly makes up for his problems. I don't argue your premise. I do argue the methods.
Hi Mike, thanks for the comment and your good points. You're right, Columbia forced the split. But Lance put his guys into the rotation to help it stick. I think it was a team tactic to get Lance one triumphant yellow jersey before he fades in the mountains. But it's going to be harder to defend if some Columbia rider beats Contador by 38 seconds...
And yes, Kimmage had written, months earlier, that "the cancer" was returning to the sport, meaning Armstrong and his (alleged) past doping. It was a bit rough, but it was also just a metaphor (and an opinion shared by many in cycling). Lance doesn't do metaphor, obviously.
And he also didn't answer Kimmage's question. Instead he used cancer to shield himself. That was my point.
His refusal to attack the doping culture in cycling is interesting to say the least. He has had countless opportunities to speak out, and use his bully pulpit to help change (and maybe save) the sport. Instead, he casts doubt on the whole system, questioning the twice-appealed verdicts against both Tyler and Floyd. Which side is he on?
I'm not trying to be moralistic here. If I were a pro cyclist, maybe I'd take everything I could get away with, to try and win and make money. I'm not perfect. But even if I did, I'd probably also hope for some leadership from the patrons of the peloton, to speak up and say, this shit has got to stop. So far, crickets...
Bill, I cannot understand why you wrote that the Nike commerical "implies" that Lance's critics are "equivalent to cancer." It makes no such claim, implied or otherwise.
Regarding your other complaints, you may find that others have a different opinion of the commericial. In particular, I'd suggest that you read a post from a cancer survivor on the slate forum (posted as "Survivor").
Mr. Gifford,
Whatever opinion you may hold about Lance Armstrong, he has done something extraordinary with his life. You, sitting at your laptop enjoying a cafe, criticize and disparage his achievements. What have you done? What have you achieved? The arrogance you see in him is actually within you. Like every other groupie, you need his work and his sweat to have a life. That is sad.
D.R. Maradei
Yes, yes, you have got it exactly right, I sit in a café all the livestrong day, sipping flavored espresso drinks as I tap out my idle musings, before switching to a light aperitif in the afternoon, Then I get up and do it again.
Good piece. Its nice to be bold. People are living in some illusions. That is pretty clear to me, especially when you talk about Lance Armstrong. As he is one of the sacred cows of our times, talking anything negative about him implies that you do not support his cancer programmes or his foundation. You are called evil, or even names at times. This stupidity has gained almost religious like momentum, I'm sad to say that the media mafia is always around him to feed more Armstrong bias into people's minds. What do you do? This stupidity has even hijacked Versus commentary. I'm sure there is lot of money, and big business deals behind all this. Twitter, Nike, Livestrong, major magazines...everyone is in for the money. But I'm bold enough to say that I will not be moved by this hijacking of expression..neither will I support jerks. Jerks shouldn't be in the business of humanitarianism.
Yes, definitely no jerks.
A point can be made that Lance can be defensive, can be vindictive, and has a bit of a chip on his shoulder (what great athlete doesn't?), but Gifford's Slate article exhibits some pretty poor journalism in trying to make those points. The account of Lance's April blood-testing in France leaves out some key points that defend Lance's reaction, and objective facts like Lance being cleared of any wrongdoing. The suggestion that the Nike ad makes a statement about people dying of cancer because he wasn't writing is absolutely ridiculous. Can't imagine anyone else taking that away from it. Lance giving out the email address of the guy who outed his email might have been childish, but don't suggest the guy didn't deserve it. As for Lance's attitude about the Tour, about which Gifford says Lance 'hasn't exactly endeared him to the real contenders'. Lance isn't a 'real' contender? And where does this idea that Lance ordered his teammates to ride hard the day the peloton separated in the wind come from? They pulled some at the end, but is that Lance's fault or does it just prove Lance's point, that Contador has a lot to learn? I feel for Contador. A great rider who would have been the solo leader of that team, but hard to see how Lance's participation has hurt him. Certainly not at this point. Who pulled the most on the team time trial? Who let him go off in the Pyranees? Lance may be a jerk at time, but he's good at his profession. Can't say the same for Gifford.
Thank you for writing this. It takes a brave person to point out that there is a very very dark side to Lance Armstrong and the cycling industry. Bob Roll on versus fawning all over Lance at every opportunity was sickening - but could be attributed to just tribalism (go USA, go USA, blah, blah, blah). However, the way Lance insinuated himself into the Astana team when Contador was clearly the team leader and then now gracefully allowing Contador to take on that role was amazingly arrogant. Could he not race for any other team? Apparently not. Why? would no one have him? Would it be because he has the Director of Astana in his pocket? And what of announcing a new team - without Contador - right in the middle of the tour. Was that to pull attention away from Contador. Should he not be celebrating his teammates' success? Again, where his Lance's class?
I could go on - but, that would make me not supportive of Livestrong scam, etc.
Um... its a f***cking bike race.
Whoever wrote the comment about Gifford sitting on his laptop enjoying a cafe is lacking in intelligence. First of all, Gifford never says that Armstrong didn't do something extraordinary with his life. Second, Gifford has achieved plenty----he's a published writer, which is very difficult. There's nothing wrong with calling a jerk a jerk. I really don't understand that type of attitude, as if it's somehow wrong to criticize somebody that's more successful or famous. It's the sort of thing that gives rise to the terrible state of art in this country. You can barely say anything about a lousy movie or book without someone calling you a "hater." Gifford is offering an opinion about a well known subject. What the hell's wrong with that?
Post a Comment
<< Home