Austin's Split Decision on Lance Armstrong

When Lance Armstrong all but conceded a Tour de France victory to teammate Alberto Contador after Sunday's mountain stage, reaction was divided into the two camps that follow most any news about Armstrong: those offering unconditional support and those ready to slice him up with cutting opinions.

No other local sports figure -- maybe no other sports figure in the world -- elicits the stark divisive feelings that Armstrong does. Why? The guy beat cancer, for God's sake. He whipped the world over and over again in cycling's main event, then took some time off and nearly did it again. When he's off the bike, he's a tireless activist against cancer.

He's charismatic, so much so that there has been speculation that he might pursue a political career. He made the yellow LiveStrong wristbands an indelible part of popular culture and his story has inspired cancer survivors around the world.

On the other hand, stories pop up again and again that paint a less flattering portrait. He's arrogant, he's a jerk, a bully, or controlling—all of which have some truth to them. There have been doping allegations, but he's been tested again and again with no positive results.

No one else around here gets the same two-sided treatment. Andy Roddick is another athlete known worldwide who has Austin ties. He's a nice-looking guy, bit of a ten-cent head, slightly arrogant, but nothing too damning. So he's generally looked upon favorably. Roger Clemens? The tide has turned on him with steroid allegations, wiping away nearly all of the goodwill he built up over a 20-year career. Again, the opinion is pretty much unanimous.

Longhorn football stars, both past and present, either get unconditional love or wistful remembrances. Looking back, we wish Ricky Williams hadn't smoked away his best years and that Cedric Benson hadn't lost his in a bottle and that Vince Young would snap out of his funk and beat out a 36-year-old recovering alcoholic for a starting job. We tend to forgive their flaws, but Armstrong doesn't get the same treatment.

Part of the explanation is that the same qualities that made Armstrong a world-class competitor also make him a not-very-nice person.

The singular focus, the disregard for others, the all-encompassing drive to be the best. By their nature, those things aren't conducive to civilized behavior. It's possible to have both; it's easier to have one or the other. This, by the way, is nothing new to him. The earliest story in Sports Illustrated's archives highlights this two-sided dilemma, and includes this quote from his mom: "Believe me, Lance is no goody-goody."

Another reason for the divided opinion is that many folks in Austin have a first- or second-hand story about Armstrong that left a bad impression. Whether it's being rude to others in public, the well-publicized bromance with Matthew McConaughey, or being spotted making out with then-girlfriend Sheryl Crow on the heels of his split with ex-wife Kristin, many people in town say they see a side to Armstrong that others around the world do not.

Proof that Austin is the center of the Lance faultline? In 2007, Armstrong campaigned as the face of Proposition 15, a $3 billion cancer research proposal. It passed with more than 61% of the vote statewide, but the proposition barely passed in Travis County with 50.29 percent of the votes. Williamson, Burnet, Blanco, Caldwell and Bastrop counties voted against it. Why would voters in Armstrong's home base fail to support an initiative so close to him? Because the split here is as deep as it is anywhere.

Armstrong supporters will call it jealousy and unfounded allegations. Detractors say they have seen what lies beneath Armstrong's carefully controlled public image. About the only thing the two sides agree upon is that they're so far apart, there's no bringing them back together.

Contact the author of this article or email tips@austinist.com with further questions, comments or tips.

By Jeff Beckham in Other on July 21, 2009 10:24 AM 0 Comments

Comments [rss]

elvislives

@9...Did you just trademark "the shit"?

seth

I wasn't giving Lance Armstrong credit for beating cancer. I just meant his survival of it has framed his perspective on things. It has for anyone who has made it through. When I say he's been through the shit™, I meant all the cycling intensity. I'm sure it's difficult when you're in that position to not look at others and make judgments like, "Have they been through it?"

Seth

wattage

Fair enough!

seth

Really, no offense to everyone, but we're all pussies. I'm not kidding. Nobody criticizing Armstrong's personality has been through 'the shit.' I mean, THE REAL SHIT. Sure, people have had their challenges and their accomplishments, but Armstrong is out there beyond any of the naysayers.

For starters, he's playing with the house's money. He wasn't supposed to be alive past the cancer episode. Had this been 20 years earlier, he wouldn't have lived to win the Tour. Once you've brushed death's shoulder in the crowd, it's hard not to really have a different perspective on things and the people around you.

For instance, he sees some chick who's grown up from being on Full House when she was a baby and he wants to drink wine with her and go on dates, Armstrong does it. He knows that for a million different reasons, he might not be around tomorrow. Take advantage of the now.

The guy punished himself beyond comprehension while training for and competing in worldwide cycling competitions. When you're hammering those legs up and down trying to ride a bicycle up a mountain above the tree line faster than all the people behind you, your mind is filled with reasons why pulling off the road and kicking back with any number of Plan B's would be a good choice. Armstrong's success is drawn from his ability to resist that temptation while intensifying the pressure to succumb to the temptation.

Doing that for more than a decade is likely to make a person think and behave differently than what these fancypants magazine writers are accustomed to. Tough for them.

Seth

wattage

I'm sure there's no one here on the Austinist (or that has criticized Lance or just simply been offended by Lance's behavior) that is a survivor of cancer (or any other horrible disease).

But if there were I would imagine for those people, living to support their family, going to their jobs, etc is just as much an accomplishment as Lance living to ride his bike in another race. These hypothetically existing people are far from pussies.

Why does the fact that Lance survived cancer and rides a bike make him exempt from being humble or at least not rude? If my friend Steve, who is battling cancer right now, wins out does he gain the right to act like a prick to non-cancer survivors? I think that's why (some) people get annoyed by Lance's behavior.

Personally, I don't really care and have never paid attention to him. I'm too busy paying attention to things that actually influence my life in some way. (And I think bike races are kind of boring like golf- Take that!)

Wes

Seth: That's nice and all but Lance Armstrong's personal and professional struggles and accomplishments don't give him carte blanche to act like a first class jackass.

Ryan

Wow, just read the Slate and Deadspin links. Quasi-journalists complaining bitterly about an athlete that complains bitterly about the press. Yawn. I like to watch my drama on the road between bike-riders, thank you very much.

kenneth1

Lance's image took a hit when he silted up Dead Man's Hole a few years back. That really hacked off his neighbors, though I understand most are pleased with the clean-up.

Personally, I didn't like the way he was so out-front on supporting the smoking ban. I don't need a cyclist, even one who beat cancer, telling me how to run my life.

RonB

Thanks for the link RS. Interesting read.

The fact is, most of us have heard the stories. I know he has the PR firm grooming his image, but there are whispers out there of things that don't quite fall in line.

I did like this recent Slate article

http://www.slate.com/id/2222407

and the Deadspin commentary on it.

http://deadspin.com/5310202/the-critic+proofing-of-lance-armstrong

Pre-retirement, I was a huge fan, in the 3 year gap, the whispers have made me rethink him a little.

Robert Stiller

I read this awhile ago and thought it was interesting...

http://myespn.go.com/blogs/truehoop/0-42-21/What-s-Wrong-with-the-NBA.html

Admittedly I'm very pro-NBA and largely apathetic towards Armstrong.

broadthinking

He is polarizing and I think you summed up the cause beautifully. From a personal branding perspective, it will be interesting to watch what happens next.

If I'm Doug Ulman, I probably want him to tone it way down if he wants to continue to be the icon of the Lance Armstrong Foundation and/or pursue a larger stage nationally as a cancer activist.

I'm a cancer survivor and I can't help but cringe every time he shows up on the arm of some celeb. You can't have your cake and eat it too. The sooner he figures that out, the better.