The whole "who really cares about cycling" or "does this story really matter?" thread

I've seen a lot of posts (reddit, facebook, twitter etc) of people saying, "Is the Lance Armstrong confession really relevant?" or "No one could name another cyclist besides him because cycling is irrelavent in the US"... It's really getting on my nerves because I feel like this story is a bigger deal than what people are making it out to be.

First and foremost, I am glad the man beat cancer. The livestrong foundation is a great thing. Hell, I'm not a "cycling" fan and I wore a livestrong bracelet for a long time. I've had family memebers lose to the battle of cancer so I support any foundation for cancer research etc.

The point I'm trying to drive to people is that Lance built his "story" on an initial truth- beating testicular cancer- followed by MANY lies by blood doping and winning (however) many Tour De France races in a row and becoming a what is now a faux American hero- not only to cycling fans- but to the average joe schmo American like myself. He has profited off of these lies, bullied people over and over and that it just bothers me that people are shrugging it off like "no big deal, cycling is dumb anyways..."

Am I the only one with these thoughts?

I haven't been following closely but I've seen some implication that he may have gotten the cancer because of all the doping.

This is the clincher.

Exactly.

Livestrong did/does great work, it's a real shame that the cause is suffering because of this.

Well, if there's one thing to take away from this is this may have turned into a ying-yang situation. Armstrong getting cancer for trying to win the Tour may have lead to millions being donated for cancer research.

I'm in the "I don't care about any sport" category, but still donate to cancer research.

I'm a City of Hope cancer research donor.

Is this irony or are the ads pulling from the comments?

http://i.imgur.com/0X5Bx.jpg

I doubt that anyone can win the Tour de France without doping. I've driven up some of the hills that they climb in the Alps and for them to average whatever miles per hour takes some serious power. When this stuff started coming out, IIRC, they couldn't find anyone in the top 3 for a few years of the Tour de France to give the winner's medal to instead of Armstrong. They had all been caught taking drugs.

Armstrong had cancer in 96 and won his first Tour in 99. The drugs may have had something to do with his cancer, but it sure as hell didn't stop him doping for his Tour wins.

Win is a very odd word choice. If no one was doping someone would have to win unless you think they'd all die trying or something.

The doping doesn't bother me, it's him being an asshole covering it up.

Of course much of this is their word against his. As luck would have it we have a track record when it comes to Lance's word.

Where are you reading these posts? That might matter a great deal.

From what I've seen, it's a pretty big deal, at least around here. Not only in the media, but I've heard a lot of students talking about it, too. Of course, I'm in his home state of Texas, and some people are pretty riled up that he has represent them, too.