Yes... Another LA thread

[JustinHayes]

Armstrong named Sports Illustrated ‘Anti-Sportsman of the Year’

by Shane Stokes at 6:43 PM EST 6 comments

Categories: Pro Cycling, Doping

/images/print.gif

Unenviable accolade for former pro, Hindes also faulted

http://news.velonation.com/Men/Road/Am_Az/original/Armstrong_Lance_SportsIllustrated02-1.jpgTen years after he topped its rankings and achieved a title that only Greg LeMond had achieved before him, the 2002 Sports Illustrated Sportsman of the Year Lance Armstrong has been slated by that same magazine, and told that it would revoke his award if it was possible.

 

The US publication has nominated the Texan as one of fourteen ‘Anti-Sportsman of the Year,” putting him first in its list and reserving some strong language for him.

 

“These days it seems like for every sports hero, there is a cheater. For every "good sport," a bad one. Whether it was by trying to game the system or by flat-out cheating, spouting profanities at a fan or directing racist epithets at an opponent, athletes have given sports fans a fair share of stupidity to endure this year,” it stated.

 

“Lance Armstrong tops the list of athletes who should have his or her Sportsman of the Year Award revoked. Armstrong's legacy crumbled faster than his steroid-fuelled thighs used to take him up France's Pyrenees Mountains; former teammates admitted that not only had Armstrong constantly used steroids, but also that he practically forced his teammates to do the same. Not that he'll admit to any of it.”

 

For many years one of the most revered of American sportsmen, and enjoying what was initially very favourable press when he returned to the sport in 2009, Armstrong’s sun was gradually eclipsed when allegations against him by former team-mate Floyd Landis were echoed by numerous other past US Postal Service riders, and eventually backed up by a USADA investigation.

 

Long regarded as someone who never quit, Armstrong walked away from USADA’s charges against him, refusing to contest them after a Texas court rejected his bid to have the arbitration hearing blocked.

 

Then, following the publication of one thousand pages of evidence, his sponsors began to leave the sinking ship. Nike was first, then others followed suit; in fact, losing those backers wasn’t the biggest blow, as he also rescinded his chairman’s position with the Livestrong foundation and ultimately conceded his place on the board.

 

Armstrong has thus far refused to acknowledge any wrongdoing. Some suspect it is down to pride, while others believe he’s fearful of the possibility of a perjury case against him or perhaps the whistleblower lawsuit which appears to be moving forward.

 

However with many prominent media outlets echoing his own sponsors and saying that rules were clearly broken, the Texan’s denials do little to convince people that USADA got things completely wrong. The Sports Illustrated anti-hero award is the latest reflection of his fall from grace.

 

Armstrong is however not the only cyclist in the list. Also there is Great Britain’s track rider Philip Hindes, who received a slating for his actions during London 2012. “Early on in the men's cycling team sprint, Olympian Philip Hindes saw that he and his Great Britain teammates hadn't gotten off to a good start,” Sports Illustrated wrote. “Rather than try to stage a comeback, Hindes fell down on purpose, forcing the race to be restarted. Hindes' team went on to win the gold medal.”

 

The Briton thus finds himself in unenviable company but can take a little consolation that his error was gamesmanship rather than the pronounced, repeated and cynical rule breaking displayed by Armstrong over the course of much of his career.

 

 

Read more: http://www.velonation.com/News/ID/13402/Armstrong-named-Sports-Illustrated-Anti-Sportsman-of-the-Year.aspx#ixzz2DnLDdexF

[GrumpyOldGuy]

Hmm, Strong words, and from a respectable magazine like this, they have to cut deep.

[Jaco-fiets]

Never buy that piece of **** magazine anyway! I guess now i never will!

[Muddy]

They, like many others sit on a very high horse.

 

I'm sure there are millions who benefited from the LA foundation who like

me don't give a dogs ass about sports illustrated or their opinion.

[Cippo]

The fact that they are still talking about him means he is important. Can you imagine if everyone just forgot about him how much worse that is.

[pista]

The fact that they are still talking about him means he is important. Can you imagine if everyone just forgot about him how much worse that is.

 

LA is a plank that thrives on attention....be it good or bad

[Jaco-fiets]

If it was any other rider/person than Lance i am sure this story would not even have made headlnes for more than a day. Just another reason this entire affair stinks of hipocracy and sensationalism. Magazine of this std has to jump on the sensationalism wagon to try and sell a couple of magazines. Ballsy statement though by a substandard mag

[Guest Omega Man]

If it was any other rider/person than Lance i am sure this story would not even have made headlnes for more than a day. Just another reason this entire affair stinks of hipocracy and sensationalism. Magazine of this std has to jump on the sensationalism wagon to try and sell a couple of magazines. Ballsy statement though by a substandard mag

Yup. Lest we forget. Magazines exist to sell magazines.

[GrumpyOldGuy]

If it was any other rider/person than Lance i am sure this story would not even have made headlnes for more than a day. Just another reason this entire affair stinks of hipocracy and sensationalism. Magazine of this std has to jump on the sensationalism wagon to try and sell a couple of magazines. Ballsy statement though by a substandard mag

 

I think perhaps you misunderstood the rationale behind their "Anti-sportsman" issue.

 

In 2002 Sports Illustrated rated him "Sportsman of the year", which appears to have been well accepted, at least I dont recall hearing such comments as "Sensationalist, Ballsy or Substandard" then, actually I think most people "Championed" the magazine for been so supportive of a small sport like cycling in a mass publication magazine like SI and especially for promoting local USA based cycling athletes.

 

Now that they are now simply undoing their previous "Vote of Confidence" and replacing it with a "Vote of No Confidence" - due to obvious reasons, they are slated as "Sensationalist, Ballsy and Substandard".

 

Why.? It seems its okay to vote him in, but not to vote him out.?

 

Personally. I see nothing Sensationalist about it, to be honest, I think it was a good editorial decision, had they not done so they could possibly have been seen as supportive of a drug cheat.

Edited December 1, 2012 by GrumpyOldGuy

[Jaco-fiets]

I think perhaps you misunderstood the rationale behind their "Anti-sportsman" issue.

 

In 2002 Sports Illustrated rated him "Sportsman of the year", which appears to have been well accepted, at least I dont recall hearing such comments as "Sensationalist, Ballsy or Substandard" then, actually I think most people "Championed" the magazine for been so supportive of a small sport like cycling in a mass publication magazine like SI and especially for promoting local USA based cycling athletes.

 

Now that they are now simply undoing their previous "Vote of Confidence" and replacing it with a "Vote of No Confidence" - due to obvious reasons, they are slated as "Sensationalist, Ballsy and Substandard".

 

Why.? It seems its okay to vote him in, but not to vote him out.?

 

Personally. I see nothing Sensationalist about it, to be honest, I think it was a good editorial decision, had they not done so they could possibly have been seen as supportive of a drug cheat.

 

I see and understand your point of view. My remark maybe more emotional based than objective i have to admit. Still see them as a substd magazine (in my opinion). I can see them running a article stating their point of view and all the twurls coming with it but really, putting it on the front cover with a statement like that is a bit over the top and dissapointing. Flogging a dead horse

[Vetseun]

LA has fallen. Why they have to keep on tramping on him is absurd. The oke has made his name gat. Flippen leave him alone now. Never liked him myself but hell, give the poor oke a break.

[GrumpyOldGuy]

I see and understand your point of view. My remark maybe more emotional based than objective i have to admit. Still see them as a substd magazine (in my opinion). I can see them running a article stating their point of view and all the twurls coming with it but really, putting it on the front cover with a statement like that is a bit over the top and dissapointing. Flogging a dead horse

 

Yeah, fair enough,....... maybe news is a bit thin.

['Dale]

Armstrong enjoys publicity, I think. - even negative.

 

The fall of an American hero.

Interesting position by SI - never seen that before.

[javadude]

LA has fallen. Why they have to keep on tramping on him is absurd. The oke has made his name gat. Flippen leave him alone now. Never liked him myself but hell, give the poor oke a break.

 

Screw that, he's been lying to us for 15+ years, now its payback time. He needs to grovel for forgiveness if he wants anything to change.

[VERTICAL]

I am not a gangster and do not condone their codes but they never rat out their fellow gangsters. They have more honour than LAs fellow team members. They carry on as though they were forced to participate. LA is the easiest one to blame and crucify. Nail the pimping a......s as well. As Phil Ligget said "they were all doing it" Contador "LA is being crucified used as a scapegoat" He has become the "fall guy" I do not condone L A winning methods either.

['Dale]

True, vertical...

It's a bit of both for me.

 

It was part of the entire doping culture, yes.

Most doped, yah.

AND

Armstrong really benefited from his prestige, unlike any other in the history of the sport.

 

The highest trees catches the most wind.