There’s this trick in screenwriting/storytelling called “Saving the Cat” in which you have your protagonist do something good, say on page fifteen or so of your screenplay, that way when the movie ends, and your character beats back the bad guys, the audience will be glad for him, and feel contentment about the story they just experienced. It’s true in life too.
It was troubling today, then, to see Alberto Contador bashing his teammate Lance Armstrong in a press conference in Spain. Contador won the Tour de France last week, and was supported by Team Astana, which had two other overall contenders in Levi Leipheimer and Armstrong. Armstrong, perhaps the crowd favorite, did have a realistic shot at winning his 8th Tour de France, but it wasn’t that realistic. Armstrong is now 37, more than ten years older than Contador. Contador proved aggressive from the start, breaking away from his own team on the first climb and gaining 8 seconds on Armstrong. This was not a move the team supported, but Contador was in it to win, and let everybody know it from the beginning. But cycling is a team sport. You need the other men on your team to lead you to the finish, as you use 30% less energy when you draft behind other riders. Usually, a team will support a single rider, always pacing them to a position to eventually pull ahead and win (think “shake and bake” from Talladega Nights and you get the idea). With Team Astana, it wasn’t clear in the beginning who the team was there to support. When Contador pulled ahead on the first climb, he was trumping all arguments and demanding that the team support him. And they did. Even Armstrong did.
To be fair, Contador was the strongest overall rider in the Tour, and he deserved to win. Even Armstrong said, after the race, that he doubts he could have even beat Contador at his prime, an incredibly kind thing for Armstrong to say, and perhaps a bit too humble, as it’s doubtfully true. What was surprising, then, was that Contador did not return the professional dignity afforded him by Armstrong. He is now showing a great deal of disrespect for Armstrong in his press conferences. It’s a move he will regret. There is no doubt that there was tension between the two riders over the last month in France. I am sure there were many silent hours around the dinner table.
But team dynamics and public dynamics are separate. Armstrong was protecting Contador’s public image, and Contador did not return the favor. Instead, he is acting jealous. Perhaps it got to him that, even though he was always in the lead, Armstrong was getting more coverage. It took Armstrong a while to learn some grace, too. He was young, once, and cocky and arrogant. But time, and no small number of personal missteps, has quieted the man. He handles the press with grace these days. And he is hardly in these races to win. During the Tour of California, Lance would ride one-hundred miles, only to get off his bike and head straight to a hospital, visiting with patients fighting against cancer. It is as though he was saying “as long as the cameras are on me, let me show you some people worth talking about.” Livestrong is one of the most successful non-profits around, and Lance and his attitude are the reason, along with winning seven Tours de France.
Is he perfect? Far from it. But in story, a character doesn’t have to be perfect. They can struggle against many a vice. But they have to do something to show us their heart, and their heart must be good. Robert McKee teaches that a character is revealed by the decisions a person makes under pressure. Character is not displayed by the decisions a character makes when they are just hanging out, when the tension is off, but rather when the pressure is ratcheted up. In the Alps, these past two weeks, Alberto Contador and Lance Armstrong may have been under more pressure than any other two competitors on the planet, and the decisions they made proved their character.
In the end, we cheered for the man who finished third, and we turned away from the winner, hoping some day he would figure it out. Save the cat. True in story structure, and true in life.
That said, next time you want to lash out at your boss, or cheat on your wife, or shoot the finger out your window, stop. Your character is revealed by the decisions you make under pressure. And nobody cheers for the winner when he doesn’t have character. Just say to yourself, today I will finish third. It was good enough for Lance.
excellent post!
There are two sides to every story but Armstrong has the positive media spin on his side. It seems that there was tension between the two for most of the race, with each jockeying for position within the team.
In hindsight, it probably wasn’t the best idea for one team to have so many powerhouses on it. Also, I am sure Contador will learn from this. In youth we say many things that we regret years later; Armstrong was there once before also, in America we simply have a hero worship of him.
Unfortunately, a very one sided article.
The point of the “Saving the Cat” is for our hero to be morally justified in doing something outlandishly violent.
Don, are suggesting that Lance is going to serve up a Mel Gibson-esque beat down on Alberto?
Can’t wait for next year already. That h2h is going to be must see stuff.
I remember watching Greg LeMond defeat Laurent Fignon. Fignon was a sore loser. But it takes a special kind of stupid to be a sore winner.
Very inspiring! That might be my favorite post of all time. Thanks for sharing as I have not done a very good job of following the tour.
“Your character is revealed by the decisions you make under pressure. And nobody cheers for the winner when he doesn’t have character. Just say to yourself, today I will finish third. It was good enough for Lance.” I have been struggling with this for the past week. I wanna be right… first… but at this moment the best decision is to be third. Thanks for the post.
Excellent post. Any author would agree–if your hero isn’t good in some dominating fashion, you don’t have a hero. You have a villain.
Your underlying point is interesting and sound. But I get the feeling that the rest of the world sees this story a little differently. For starters, before Armstrong was even contemplating racing in the Tour, Contador was the principal rider for Astana. He was the man that Astana was going to support, and the favourite for the race. Then Armstrong joins the team, and splits the loyalties of team members – but before the race assured everyone that he was there to put in for the team. By the third stage he’d admitted that he was really just there to win it. It was a cynical move.
I’ve got no problem with Armstrong wanting to win the Tour, but if he did then he needed to pick a different team, rather than disrupt a team who already had the best cyclist in the world.
I don’t think Contador has done himself any favours since winning, and there’s little doubt that his attacks were over the top. But I can understand his frustration: he not only had to beat the other teams in the Tour this year, he had the added stress of not always being sure that his team was on his side.
No, I’m afraid as an Australian (Cadel Evans – our hope for the Tour – was out of contention quite early) with no national loyalties to any of the main contenders, I found myself instead cheering for the guy who came second: Andy Schleck, a gentleman from Luxembourg who showed incredible character and pluck.
I look at all I did and said in my 20s (well, all I can remember, which is nowhere near what Bob remembers) and think, “Uh…can we just strike all that from the record?”
And I have this horrible feeling I’ll think the same thing about my 30s once I roll over to 40.
But I’m hoping amnesia will eventually kick in and I’ll be blissfully unaware of my obnoxiousness.
(*smile*)
If you take a look at this article written in June well before the Tour there’s a quite from Johan saying Contador will represent the team as the leader. Also this “Armstrong wrote “This is not 2004 or 2005. I’m not the leader of the team.”"
http://www.sportsya.com/english/news.php/Lance_Armstrong_will_be_support_rider_for_Astana_at_Tour_de_France_2009.html?id_estruc=283&id=212370
If I was Contador going into to the Tour I would be thinking he was there to support me. But Lance is competitive by nature and lets face it his desire to win will most likely out way anything else. I’m a Lance fan as much as everyone else. And although Contador could have chosen his words more carefully he isn’t as big a bad guy as the media is trying to make him out to be here.
Gar, when did we start conflating blog posts with articles?
With as much gentleness as I can muster, let me say that I’m pretty sure that this post doesn’t equate to “hero worship.”
Don, I couldn’t agree more. No matter what Armstrong does, it’s hard to set aside the work of LIVESTRONG. That’s a pretty big cat.
Granted, Contador shows poor form by talking like this to the press.
But where was Lance’s form when in the middle of the race he’s la-ti-da about leaving Astana and getting a new team next year? Isn’t after the race the time to talk about abandoning the team he’s riding with now?
Whether he intended it or not, the subtext of Armstrong’s new-team talk DURING THE TOUR was a big diss to Contador.
nice.
Lance Armstrong should eat his humble pie. He’s closer to 4th than 2nd in the sacrosanct Tour de France. He’s a conceited a-hole with a chip on his shoulder the size of the Crawford ranch. Let him sink into oblivion. In the US, he got close to ZERO coverage in the media this year. So goes the cycle of life in America. If you’re first, you’re a hero running on a loop in the news. If you’re not first, you’re nobody. Americans are the most unfaithful audience. Eat your humble pie, Lance, eat it well. Till the last crumb.
PS: in the US, Contador may not be “cheered” as you write, but in the EU he’s a gigantic star. The problem is, you guys in the US talk about cycling when all you know about it is the name Lance Armstrong. Why don’t you just return to talking about the stuff you know? Contador returned to Spain a hero. He won the Big Three five times in the past 4 years (bet you don’t even know what this is). Everywhere along the Tour de France (which this year attracted a huge 20 million spectators) Contador was cheered and encouraged. Don’t underestimate his popularity. And don’t make typical American hasty predictions about the future. Remember Iraq. Next year, the odds are Contador will win and Armstrong will go further under. I guess you could still use the excuse that he’s old. But then you have to somehow lessen his previous victories by reminding us that he was younger then.
I really like this post a lot. Thanks so much.
Beautifully written piece. I honestly didn’t expect much from Lance in this Tour. However watching him dig deep and claw his way to third, while still being a team player, nearly brought tears to my eyes. For some reason I felt closer to the man than I ever did in any of his seven Tour victories.
@Don from texas (??)
Contador was under a lot of pressure. Lance did not make it any easier for AC. The breakaway in the wind? Talking about team spirit? Which team was that?
Team Armstrong…
What about last years comments about Sastre, “tour 2008 a joke?” He allready won 7 times by then!
I think they are not all that different after all.
The difference is in the fans both have.
Lance’s fans now scream about AC, but remain silent when Their Boss is talking trash..
Lance is a moviestar, handles press and plays his audience. Respect for him, a fablous athlete, greatest of our time maybe. On a personal level?
Riders fear him, his dominance. The American way?
I guess winning the tour is hard for your character, So far I only see Sastre as a true winner.
Excellent post, Don, and so true. I was really impressed with Lance’s composure and honesty without throwing Contador under the team bus. Lance may have won his biggest fight this year, hopefully silencing his harshest critics.
Excellent observation! Before we will root for a protagonist, we have to find something noble within the character, something worth rooting for. Armstrong, with all his faults, has given us that something. Contador, though an outstanding competitor, has yet to do so, even though the media seems to be giving him every opportunity. One thing I question, Is character “not displayed by the decisions a character makes when they are just hanging out”? I suspect that, if we look close enough, it is.
Stop it. Shut up. I was totally right to cuss him out the other night. I was! He deserved it. Shut up.
This was a fun post to read. It pleases me that so many people are interested in the Tour de France and all of its competitors. I am only 16, but I hope that someday I will win the prestigious bike race. In fact, I have a blog, http://anyone1can1do1it.blogspot.com/, at which you can follow my daily progress up until I finally (hopefully) end up competing in the race. I know my goal is ambitious, but I believe that anyone can do something if they really want to. Thanks for reading my comment.
Great post. We all can learn a valuable lesson in life from Lance Armstrong. It is always good to show perseverance and fortitude and be humble as we give glory to God and live the best life we can. Thank-you for the insight.
Great post! But, it’s “Slingshot: Engage!” from Talladega Nights… a minor correction.
Great Post here Don.
I like how you did a great job of capturing what the tour is all about. If people understood the strategy and team work it would be a huge sport, but I kind of like the select club that we are in.
Think about this though, if team astana finishes a second earlier on the team time trial Lance would have been in yellow and would have had the team support.
Would he be the overall winner today rather than contador? Maybe, I do think contador would have attacked him, but Lance could have responded instead of being a good teammate and letting contador go on the mountains.
Lance Armstrong came back to the Tour de France to do one thing: win. When he realised he couldn’t he went out of his way to make life as difficult for Contador (the rightful and declared Team Leader) as he could, even going so far as to enlist the help of an old buddy on a different Team to pull him into the stage finish a good way clear of Contador.
There are those that would say what Armstrong did on that day with the help of Hincapie was just to capitalise on an opportunity (nonsense, by-the-way. That was completely pre-arranged and the nature of the relationship between Armstrong and ‘That’ Team was revealed over the next two days with his “good to spend time with George and Cav” posts and the cutesy video they posted).
Of course, when Contador took advantage of a situation and put time into Armstrong (using Armstrongs own tactics, no less) the Lance faithful were up in arms. One rule for Armstrong, a completely different set of rules for everyone else.
Contador was treated in a despicable manner by Astana, Bruyneel and Armstrong. He was the Team Leader before Armstrong made his come-back and was announced as the Team Leader even going into the Tour. Bruyneel took the cowards way out of the situation (but then he wouldn’t want to annoy his meal ticket, would he?) and said that “It would be decided on the road”.
Well, it was. Just a shame it didn’t go Bruyneel or Armstrongs way.
If anyone doubts the way Astana was pulling for Armstrong over Contador, right up until the penultimate stage on Mont Ventoux then I suggest you go back and watch the video footage of the climb again. When Armstrong needed him Kloden was there, helping to pull him up the Mountain at Contadors pace but when it got too much and Armstrong was dropped, Kloden dropped off as well, rather than stay to support Contador.
Yet by some miracle, when Armstrong rode back up to Contador, Kloden was right there to help him.
I was a Lance Armstrong supporter. I still believe in all the great work he does for Cancer awareness and to help those suffering. However, there is no getting away from the fact that his behaviour this year has left a horrible, bitter taste in my mouth. As a long time fan (I liked him in his obnoxious days back in the early 90′s) I never thought I’d say it but he’s demonstrated just how petty and mean spirited he really is.
As Lance is so keen on saying through Twitter when he trash talks Contador: “There is no I in Team”. Unless, it would seem, that ‘I’ happens to be Lance Armstrong.
Hamish,
well thought out comment, but it’s a bit conspiracy minded isn’t it? would armstrong say of contador he may be stronger than i ever was in my prime if he was out to get the guy. you can’t fault him for being competitive, but i am not sure he is as purely evil as you make him out to be. it really is perceived as a black and white world, isn’t it. i just think armstrong is a mixed bag, and i appreciate his professionalism with the press, and his efforts to help those diagnosed with cancer. and i see nothing really redeemable about contador, save he can ride a bike very, very fast.
For pointing out how the world is perceived in black and white, you’re certainly critical of Contador, saying there’s nothing redeemable about him beyond his ability to ride fast.
Lance Armstrong is a polarizing figure. As this article points out, people are picking their sides:
http://deadspin.com/5324621/choose-your-side-in-the-great-cycling-rivalry
And this article points out Lance Armstrong’s jerk-ish behavior over the last year or so:
http://slate.com/id/2222407/
Like that first article states, I’m not particularly sure why we should be picking sides between the two. They both seem like incredible cyclists, but they also both seem like narcissistic jerks.
Armstrong’s work with Livestrong is remarkable, but achievements only make for a great character on paper. It doesn’t necessarily mean he has great character.
Don,
I’d hate for people to think I was painting Lance as evil, I’m really not. The man does do fantastic work for his Charity and a large amount of good for Cancer sufferers. There’s no doubting that his return to the Tour this year has increased global Cancer ‘chatter’ which can only be a good thing.
However, there can also be little doubt that Lance did make use of other Teams to try to distance Contador. For evidence of the collaboration you only need look at his reaction to Hincapie not winning the yellow after Lance put in so much work to ensure he would. His Twitter comment “No-one, and I mean no-one, wanted George in yellow more than Me” pretty much summed up the Tour – Armstrong would rather have someone on another Team in yellow than his own ‘Leader’.
There’s also no room for doubt that he did what he could to make life difficult for Contador within Astana and while I’d never imply Lance was directly responsible for it, it does seem very odd that there was only one rider (Paulinho) on the squad who could be considered ‘loyal’ to Contador yet the rest would obviously back Armstrong.
Lance wanted to win and I don’t fault him for that. I do call into question the methods he employed to do so this year and I think there can be little doubt that with the Radio Shack checkbook he’ll be looking to make sure the pick of the GC contenders from this Tour will be working for him in 2010.
As far as media perception goes, Contador will never be on the same playing field as Armstrong. Quite aside from the fact he only speaks Spanish he’ll never enjoy the same level of media management (and training) that Armstrong has. I’m not saying that’s a negative about Armstrong but he’s a much older hand at the people game than Contador and I don’t think it’s particularly fair of people to judge him harshly because he appears a little awkward or non-communicative. He’s a bike rider, not a Politician.
Good post Don, and there is a lot to dig into if one wants to. As I see it Armstrong is a sinner that has learned the value of trying to do what is right. He is far from perfect, as you say, and he still has a long way to go in terms of character growth – at least in that regard I can claim a similarity with him.
There are many who like to lift the veil off the world of pro cycling and say “look how bad Lance is” etc., etc. The problem is we find the same crap with many riders, teams, and throughout the history of the tour – which is fascinating reading too. We also find lots of crap in other sports. And we rarely get more than 10% of the real story. Contador is a remarkable rider, but just a man. And so is Lance. But what some people don’t grasp, especially many who are fans of pro cycling, is that it is not about the bike. In other words most people, especially Americans, never cared much about Lance one way or another (if they even new he existed) until he came back from cancer, won his first tour, and published his first book. He has a great story and people devoured it. That’s what got people interested in him and has kept them interested. This makes some cycling fans upset – that many Americans show an interest in the tour because of Lance’s story rather than for a pure love of the sport. I say “whatever” and roll my eyes.
Now, as someone who has been a big fan of pro cycling since 1984, followed every tour since then, as well as many other races, including track cycling, grand tours, as well as many pro cyclists other than Lance, (and reads VeloNews, Cyclcing News, and L’Equipe) I feel for Contador. His situation was very unfortunate. The chips were down for him – probably less than many people are claiming – but down nonetheless. Still he won, and if he gets a good team next year he may win again. His behavior wasn’t saintly either, and he’s doing a good job of playing the part of the sad puppy who’s only consolation was to win the tour. Of course his recent comments just made Lance mad and everyone knows Lance becomes almost superhuman when he rides in anger (a virtue and a vice) – so we’ll see how the chips fall next year. Personally I have several riders in mind who I would rather see win next year’s TDF than Lance, but if he wins that’s cool too. What both riders should do now is apologize (for comments and behavior) and move on.
Regardless, one should always show grace, which neither rider has done very much. In the long run, though, Lance has triumphed because he has the better story and many people care a whole heck of a lot more about “the story” than they do about the sport. This is true for any athlete and any sport – think of the athlete stories they always show during the Olympics, seems like they have a tragic past. As I said, Lance is a sinner. He also gets put on a pedestal too much. But what I have to remind myself is to not go down that road that says “thank you Lord that I am not like that person.” The reality is, at the most fundamental, human nature level, Lance and I are the same… and he does a lot more philanthropic work than I and extends his encouragement to many more than I do. Something I could learn to do better.
Lance is no darling of the tour. He’s no Poulidor, but he has saved a few cats.
Lance seems like a nice guy. I am only 16, but my goal is to win the Tour de France like Lance. If you want to follow my journey just visit http://anyone1can1do1it.blogspot.com. Thanks for reading my comment!
You put into words what so many feel inside, yet can’t articulate. Great post.
for anyone interested, here is some good perspective on this issue and the tour: http://www.bicycling.com/tourdefrance/article/0,6610,s1-7-123-20302-1,00.html
i love this…
That said, next time you want to lash out at your boss, or cheat on your wife, or shoot the finger out your window, stop. Your character is revealed by the decisions you make under pressure. And nobody cheers for the winner when he doesn’t have character. Just say to yourself, today I will finish third. It was good enough for Lance.
Never thought I would sit and read every word posted on this topic. Honestly, I don’t always buy into the great stories of certain athletes. I didn’t keep up with the tour and the “stuff” I “know” about Lance is a bit tabloidish…yes, that is a word.
But I always enjoy Don’s posts, and I whole heartedly agree that one’s character is revealed when “life happens”.
When the rubber meets the road, do you show up or check out? We all make mistakes, but a good indicator of where “you are” is how you react when the chips don’t fall in your direction. (could I use anymore cliche statements… actually, I could try, if you gave me a moment.)I wish in America, we actually valued character more than fame. I’m afraid, fame is the big winner and good character is just a side bar that makes you boring. People like David Robinson never got/get coverage. Great athletes with good character who don’t cheat on their wives don’t get put in the spotlight.
But I digress…
I appreciate the ending of the post. I do hope that over time, Lance has become more humble, learned some valuable life lessons, and continues to get better with age…but I certainly pray that for me as well. (Told you I could come up with some more cliches…)
I didn’t follow the Tour this year, so I appreciate the update. I especially like your emphasis on team and character. Sports is not just exercise. Thanks.
I too was a fundamentalist Christian once, just as Don Miller says about himself in Blue Like Jazz. I only read an excerpt of Blue Like Jazz, but from the soul-searching tone of that excerpt, I think I would like that book better than Donald Miller’s book Searching For God Knows What. As someone who has grown up in conservative evangelical circles but grown beyond the “boxed-in” formulaic approach to Christianity, I read this book on my vacation hoping for some spiritual nourishment. Unfortunately, I had a viscerally negative reaction to his book. I found Donald Miller’s approach to be full of the type of dysfunctional thinking he supposedly disavows in the “us versus them” thinking so prevalent in conservative evangelical circles.
Don’t read the book if you are a broad minded more theologically liberal Christian, who has already gotten out of “the box.” You are already light years ahead on the path to enlightenment. Donald Miller may be more enlightened and more constructively engaged with the secular world than a lot of evangelicals, but as far I can appreciate, his thinking is way too “in the box” for me. I’m all for a more relational approach to Christianity and moving away from the emphasis on salvation through correct propositional knowledge, but Miller’s book showed no insight into how much propositional baggage was in his supposed stripped down gospel. He made the reader expect something like a mystical relationship with Jesus. That was there, but mixed with the old formulas: substitionary atonement theology, a very facile understanding of the Bible, jabs at homosexuals, an exclusivist theology of salvation, a self-important view of evangelicalism, latent anti-feminist notions, a very high Christology, and lots of negative assumptions about liberals.
Don’t get me wrong the book has lots of good things to say, and I hope that it is on the reading list of my very conservative evangelical friends, whom I love dearly. But I have spent the last 20 years of my life getting out of the box. I almost lost my faith in college because I realized that the intellectual foundation of fundamentalist/evangelical Christianity is a house of cards. I am a heart-felt Christian, with a deep personal faith in God. My relationship with Christ is the anchor of my being. I read the book hoping to deepen my faith, but by the end of the book I was reminded of my biggest gripe with evangelical theology: the view that only those who adhere to a certain beliefs about Christ will be saved and that all others will spend an eternity in hell.
The rough edges to this theology may be softened in Miller’s book, but I don’t think he fully grasps that this exclusivist theology of salvation is the underpinning for the dysfunction in evangelicalism that he is trying to move away from. Underneath Miller’s catchy packaging is the same old view that only those who believe in a very precise view of Christ will be saved from hell. Since age ten, I have never believed this. From what I have observed in my four decades in the evangelical community, this exclusivist theology leads to the tendency of evangelicals to become self-righteous, overconfident, narrow-minded, combative, and even endorse ends justifies the means approaches to important issues, such as abortion. Christianity needs to have a better response to the diversity of the world. If you alone have the gospel truth, why listen to others? Why look for subtle beauty and meaning in the world when you have a clear blueprint to God? Miller wonders why there is not much art from the evangelical world. Conformity of thought is not very artsy.
Enough of my rantings against evangelicalism, I am all for a constructive move within evangelicalism towards a more mystical and intellectually sound spirituality. I do see a glimmer of convergence of thought between the emerging church evangelicals and more liberal protestant Christianity. There is an awakening to spirituality in both circles that ties us back to the Christ of antiquity. It’s about a relationship with a mysterious God, who is truly beyond our neat formulas, but somehow accessible though Christ. I’m looking forward to hearing some more honest, engaging voices within evangelicalism. I was hoping Don Miller was one. For now, I’m happy in my UCC church, and I’ll pick up some books by Eckhard Tolle and Marcus Borg for my next devotional readings. I hope my evangelical friends still love me. Namaste.
Third was also good enough for Lightning McQueen.
Just sayin’.
Whoa, Lance may have said a couple “nice” things right after the Tour, but during and since he has been anything but kind or graceful. Problem is that none of the things Lance has said or done have made it into the American press. Anyone who has followed cycling knows that Lance doesn’t play second to anyone regardless of someone elses abilities or prospects to win a race. There is plenty of destruction in his path.