Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Glengoyne
Well yeah! Because he was an American and Dominant the French assumed he had to be cheating! 
I'm biased because I'm a fan, but I don't get the Lance was arrogant bit. He went out and freaking dominated.... period. He certainly wasn't overly cocky, in that he certainly had what it took to make his point in the saddle. He did act as if he was running the show, the whole show, that last couple of years. But that was on the road, in the heat of the race. If he didn't like you, you weren't getting into a break away. It was petty, but he absolutely had the ability to dictate such things. To the press, I just didn't see him as arrogant. |
It may have to do with the fact that Armstrong chanced the way riders prepare their cycling season and pick races to win. Armstrong looked self-confident in what he could do and had to do to win the Tour. Fact is that most people in the World associate self-confidence with arrogance. It's nothing French, it's human. And to be honest, the way Armstrong dominated (not the domination itself, but his calculated tactics) made watching the Tour boring. Most cycling fans like the heroic stuff Landis did yesterday (and ironically quickly forgot his arrogant words the past week and how Landis basically planned to win in the Armstrong-fashion). You also have to realize that before Armstrong there was Miguel Indurain, who had the same Tour winning strategy from 1991 to 1995. It even appears that Frenchmen Jacques Anquetil isn't so popular in his homeland, despite being five-time winner, as he is regarded the inventor of calculated winning.