Lance Armstrong confession.

Post Reply New Topic

I would respond by saying that one should not have to a) do something illegal or b) do something that is potentially very detrimental to their health just to be able to compete on a "level playing field" with other competitors. Anyone who won't do those things but would otherwise be a worthy competitor is excluded from competition or at least excluded from being competitive with those who are doing these things, and that is not right. If these drugs were made legal for athletic purposes and sports like cycling divided up into two divisions - no drugs and drugs - then it would be one thing. Otherwise its massively unfair to anyone who wants to play by the rules.

I give him credit for his charity work, but the phrase that comes to mind is "the ends do not justify the means". Its too bad he built up his charity on the back of an athletic reputation that was built illegitimately.

But I think the real problem is all the denials.

First, the fact that he kept denying it for what, 15 years? Now he wants to be re-instated to competition. I don't see how that's even remotely fair, since if he had doped once 15 years ago and admitted it, he'd have been banned for some period of time if not the entire time. But instead, for 15 years he reaped the benefits of his denials because he was allowed to compete that entire time when he shouldn't have been - and all the while he was amassing a reputation and a fortune based off his ability to compete unfairly when he shouldn't have been allowed to compete at all. Now's the time he has to pay the piper and he should be banned for life, in my opinion - and he already "won" by delaying that lifetime ban 15 years. He's already profitted in so many different ways from his lying and his cheating its disgusting.

Second, its the way in which he carried out the denials. He attacked and tried to ruin anyone who came out and told what turned out to be the truth about him, all the while knowing it was he himself who was lying. He ruined a lot of these people's lives just to save his own name, all the while knowing that they were right, that he was wrong, and that these other people had done nothing wrong. But he persecuted them and made them pay for daring to speak out against the Great Lance Armstrong. For this, there should be no forgiveness, ever.

From a fairness point of view, any athlete using banned substances is cheating, and therefore "wrong".

However, I am personally far more interested in seeing what those athletes who DO use these substances can accomplish. I never cared about Lance Armstrong, or bike racing, until I learned he was doping. What he is doing is using science to push the boundaries of what humans can do. I think that's great.

The problem is that we vilify the actual act and not just the cheating. We should have two tiers for athletes -- naturals and enhanced. Purists can watch their natural, organic athlete, but I want to see the cybernetically and chemically enhanced supermen who can run faster, lift more and jump higher than normal folks. Steroids should definitely be legal -- its just a personal choice.

What the Six Million Dollar Man cheating? Are we disapointed because nature didn't want him to run at 60 miles per hour?

Yes, but I've heard that some of the drugs he was using do have some pretty bad side effects. It's kind of killing themselves a little and may shorten their lifespan. I'm pretty sure that some of these guys would think twice about using those substances if the stakes weren't so high.

I personally think that it's good that they are banned so that people question the side effects before using them. Otherwise, young ones may follow what their role models are doing without thinking twice. But I see what you're saying - it would be interesting to watch people test the limits of the human form if it were harmless on the athletes.

In cycling the athletes who did not dope lost out, in terms of placement in competition, places on elite teams, sponsorship and the chance to prove themselves on a level field.
They lost out heavily if they dared to accuse Armstrong because he persecuted them.

It appears he only confessed because the weight of evidence became impossible to deny or ignore any more, not because he realised he was wrong. I get the impression he said "sorry" (sort-of) because he was caught and it was expected of him.

I think the regulatory bodies in cycling knew many riders were doping. I wonder how much they ignored and how much they were unable to detect due to the cyclists keeping one step ahead of the testing process.

In bodybuilding there are "Natural" competitions where those who do not dope can compete.

There are players in football (soccer) who are criticised for cheating. But the managers and clubs don't punish them. They back the players as justified or say "everyone does it, it's a part of the game". Only when a player embarrasses the club by admitting trying to deceive do they get a slap on the wrist.

In the process of confessing, Lance Armstrong has also demonstrated that he is a Texas-sized bully from the same mold as Dubya Bush, "Kenny Boy" Lay, and Andrew Fastow. The last two are well-known for their roles in the Enron scandal.

The only reason he got caught was he couldn't pay the officials enough bribe money to shut up. Everybody knows that all of these professional athletes use P.E.D's just look at all the statistics from past to present. The numbers don't lie.