Let's face it, doping and performance enhancing drugs are unavoidable. They are present in every single sport and at every single level. Whether it be Alex Rodriguez who injected himself with steroids and used other enhancing drugs and now Lance Armstrong. They are everywhere. Does that make them necessary to win though? NO! PEDs or performance enhancing drugs are not necessary. Plenty of athletes have won championships without the use of PEDs especially those in the good ole days when PEDs were very uncommon and barely used. So what has changed?
Well sports have become more competitive. Sports were always competitive and people have always been competitive. Who doesn't like winning? I know every since I was little, winning was everything. I would do anything to win, but nothing quite to the extremity of doping to win a major sports championship.
Mandeville and Hobbes would argue that Lance was just being a typical human by being greedy to get ahead. He was doing what he had to do in order to get ahead of everyone. Greed and the ambition to win is what drove Lance through his life and through his cycling career. The only way it was possible for him to win was through doping. Let's be honest, it is humanly impossible to win 7 Tour de France titles and Lance even admitted that in his interview with Oprah.
If cycling is as hard as it is said to be does doping really affect the outcome dramatically, especially when I suspect that Lance was definitely not the only one and was therefore competing against other doping athletes.
However, we must examine the good that came from Lance. Yes, that's right there is good that came from Lance and his doping. While his "wins" are now considered lies; Lance has brought hope to people and cancer. Lance is a survivor of testicular cancer and created LIVEstrong which has donated millions to cancer research and been at the forefront of cancer awareness. Thanks to Lance's story of "hope" and "inspiration", while we know now its fake it still has left an impact on us all.
Thank you Lance for all you have done for cancer awareness. Society shouldn't judge Lance on the lies that built up his foundation and reputation, but for what he has done to help better society.
I think the biggest thing that has changed in sports that has led to PEDs and doping and that type of stuff is the amount of money that is available for the winners. Almost every sport these guys make ridiculous amounts of money plus the sponsors.
ReplyDeleteI agree, It is sad to see a symbol of hope fall so drastically. There is speculation that Lance Armstrong was using peds prior to being diagnosed. Assuming this, it is very likley that the peds could have lead to cancer. Hypothetically speaking, if this were proven do you think the glory of the Livestrong organization would still stand?
ReplyDeleteNick, you raise the interesting question of the difference between doing good things and being good. When and where does the difference matter?
ReplyDeleteMy sense is that most people can say that some of Armstrong's charity work was good without feeling the need to say that Armstrong is a good person. Personally, and perhaps morally, he is not the most attractive character.
Chris raises the possibility of the economic angle. Perhaps doping is inevitable once the financial returns begin to exceed a certain level.
Jackson, good question. I think this would just further reinforce the difference between doing good things, and appearing good as a result, and actually being good. The moral sense thinkers see this as fundamental; Mandeville less so.