There’s been a lot of commentary and opinionating lately about Lance Armstrong, the plucky pedal-pusher. He’s been called a liar, a cheat, a criminal, a shameless drug-guzzling charlatan, and in all senses a gold-plated knob-end.
But let’s step back from the anger and abuse for a second and really consider the facts.
Has Armstrong really done something so wrong? Yes he has.
But when you drill right down, are his “crimes” really so great?
Well, yes they are. But really, wouldn’t any one of us do the same if given the chance? No, we wouldn’t.
But some of us might, right?
Doesn’t that make us complicit in his misdeeds? No, it doesn’t – that’d be stupid. But the point is, let he who is without track marks cast the first stone. Which means, I guess, most of us. So we’re pretty entitled to slag him off as much as we like. But does that mean we should? Yes, it does.
However, it does have to be said that when it comes to doping in cycling, Armstrong is hardly Robinson Crusoe, unless Robinson Crusoe were a book about a man who washes up on a desert island inhabited by about fifty thousand other men exactly like him.
The fact is that cycling, by all appearances, is a dirty, dirty sport, and one can’t help feeling that if anyone is winning races without the fruits of cutting-edge medical science coursing through their veins, it can only be because either they are some sort of hideous genetic mutation, or because everyone else in the race took a wrong turn into the woods and was eaten by a mountain lion.
And given it’s so prevalent, given that everyone seems to be doing it, and has been for years, and given that every time the good guys come up with another test to detect doping, the bad guys come up with a new way to dope, why do they bother at all?
After all, if everyone is using drugs, the playing field is more or less level.
As level as it would be if nobody was using drugs.
The only un-level playing field is one on which some are on drugs and some aren’t, and seeing as it’d be a lot easier to get those few clean cyclists onto drugs than to get all the dirty ones off them, it seems a no-brainer: open up the sluices and syringes for all.
That way everyone is starting from the same point.
Of course not everybody will have access to the same level of doping expertise, but that will just become another colourful part of the sport, a point of competition, like car design and pit crews in motor-racing.
And the races won’t change. They’ll still be elite athletes pushing themselves to the limit in a fight for glory. There’ll still be the drama of the race, the courage of the riders, the tension of the finish.
They’ll just be that little bit better at it.
Of course you can say “it’s not natural”, but if you’ve looked at an Olympic cyclists thighs lately, you’ll know that “natural” got off the bus quite a few stops ago. Running 100 metres in under 10 seconds isn’t natural.
An AFL footballer’s skinfolds aren’t natural. Shane Watson’s hair isn’t natural. Let’s not get too hung up on what’s natural and what’s not in the world of sport, particularly because the whole idea of professional sport isn’t especially natural itself.
So, why don’t we do it? Open slather, do as you will, and let the best man/laboratory win?
It’s very simple: it doesn’t feel right.
The essence of sport is how it makes us feel. A love of sport is not a logical thing. It’s all about emotion, joy and pain, euphoria and devastation.
I hate night grand finals. There’s no real logical reason not to hold the grand final at night, but it doesn’t feel right. Somewhere inside me, I am certain that playing a grand final in the evening is wrong. It doesn’t feel right to have Meatloaf singing at one, either.
Much of what bugs us about the modernity of sport is that it doesn’t feel like the sport we remember. It’s not that we have proper arguments against it, it just doesn’t sit well with us.
But we can get used to a lot and still keep our love of the game. Night grand finals, dancers at cricket matches, video umpires, players switching clubs as casually as they switch toothbrushes. We fight our unease, and we accept the new reality, and we move on, defeating the feeling that something’s been lost.
But making drugs an acceptable part of competition?
Making the team pharmacist a pivotal player in the organisation’s success? Putting together a training regime of an hour on the weights, an hour in the pool, and then five minutes re-injecting your own blood into your veins?
No, I don’t think we can have that. It might level the playing field, but it would destroy any feeling we had that we were watching a sport.
And we’d still rather watch a sport where we know a lot of guys are cheating, than watch a sport where we don’t think it’s a sport anymore.
It just can’t be done.
Sorry Lance. I thought maybe we could mark you down as a pioneer of a brave new world, but on reflection, you’re going to have to stay a cheat.
Go away now.
catnip twist
Guest
Nachos Supreme well said. There are no drug free athletes, just those that use legally allowed drugs and those who use legally banned drugs. All the "supplements" are drugs. In my favourite sport, AFL, players are constantly taking drugs. They can and do take caffeine before and during games. They take muscle building drugs, sorry supplements in the off season, and as you say, they take pain killing drugs before and during games. The pathetic argument that these are not performance enhancing is rubbish because no athlete would take them if they did not enhance their performance. Finally drug taking in sport is not new. They were doing it in the 19th century and all through the 20 century. What changed was our attitude. In the 1970s sports lovers decided that only spectators should be allowed to take drugs -- selfish bastards. So it is not just athletes, it is also spectators as well.
amazonfan
Roar Guru
Safety is certainly an issue, and I agree that it's terrible that people were putting their lives at risk in order to compete. However the reason I personally hate doping (and I imagine a lot of other people as well) has nothing to do with safety. There is no doubt that it can be difficult to determine which substances should be allowed, and there is also no doubt that athletes can gain advantages through non-doping means such as funding. However IMO the discussion should not revolve around safety. If we condemn the use of drugs, we should do so regardless of whether they are safe or not. Otherwise we might as well fund chemists. As such if Armstrong is to be condemned (and I believe he absolutely should be) then IMO it should mainly be because he stole his victories, not simply because he put peoples lives at risk. Although that is disgusting.
nick
Guest
hahahaha. Well done
nick
Guest
Its about safety lower down the food chain actually. One of his former teammates was on the radio here in NZ last week saying that the biggest issue was that other riders, younger ones, trying to keep up with the top guys like Lance who were doping with a team of high priced doctors watching over them were dying as a result of botched injections and the like. He rattled off several riders, some even recently who had died because they didn't have the wherewithal to do it themselves safely. I don't know the sport well so i didn't recognize nor remember their names but there were a number of them. They couldn't afford the medical care and supervision that Lance and his cohorts could. Some were college guys and some were full blow pros. Thats terrifying really. People dying just trying to give them selves a chance to compete! Not to win really but just stay in touch with the pack.
matthewthorpe
Roar Pro
also, fantastic headline
matthewthorpe
Roar Pro
the whole lance armstrong fiasco puts a bit of a dampener on all american sports doesn't it? when the chinese swim girls were doping it was a very common joke that all chinese must be on some kind of performance enhancing drugs, and the same with east germany in the 70s. when do we get to start making these jokes about americans? seems like a lot of their individual sportspeople have taken this path - Armstrong, Marion Jones, Justin Gatlin spring to mind. Not to mention the Major League Baseball scandal that means a generation of players have their reputations tarnished. cant wait for the year 2020; headlines "Phelps admits steriod use" or "Woods - we thought he was promiscuous, not a cheat"
Damien
Roar Guru
I'm actually agreeing with your point on Beta Blockers. The point I'm trying to make is why is it illegal to use Beta Blockers in sport ? I just stated a point as to why a golfer would feel cheated if they didn't get a chance to use them as well. Also I seriously doubt that ANY drug legal or otherwise has zero side effects..
lemo
Guest
good one AB - a real ball tearer
Kris Swales
Expert
Humour, pathos - basically, the article I wish I'd written about Lance getting on the gear. Mad props to Mr Pobjie.
dasilva
Roar Guru
If a miracle drug that exist that improves fitness and has zero side effects. You know whati s going to happen. That drug will probably be non-prescription and people would probably take that drug (which would be now caleld a supplement because that would be more socially acceptable marketing) and there wouldn't be much of a stigma behind that drug. if that drug was so successful and affordable you probable start seeing foods being fortify with food. MAybe even government enforced foritfication Point is drugs thatadvance the human race really shouldn't be shunned upon. If organisation are going to banned something there has to be more concrete reason than just performance enhancing. If something is performance enhancing and has no draw backs you have to wonder why the population aren't taking it or doing it more often
dasilva
Roar Guru
"If as you said you had 2 golfers in a playoff for a win and one used Beta Blockers to help them deal with the pressure and won the other golfer would feel cheated." They may feel cheated but my point is that if the drug is illegal it would be illogical not to take beta blockers because it's a relative safe drug.and improve performance. It's only based on some illogical and arbitrary distinction between "natural" and "artificial" why some advantages are singled out and some advantages are considered immoral Taking beta blockers will just be part and parcel of the training regime. It's like saying I feel cheated because the other athlete is more prepared believed that sport is there to push the physical and mental limits of mankind. If a drug like beta blocker is legal then tehre will be more golfers making pressure shots and that will improve the standard of play. NOw I admit that I'm personally am allergic to beta blockers so there will be people who can't take it. but if that side effect is rare enough. Then it's a case that becomes one of many genetically controlled factors that advantage or disadvantage an athlete. Some people are naturally faster and stronger and some people are naturally slower and weaker to the extent of disability. Some people have an innate ability to concntrate better and some people dont'. Some people are allergic abnd can't get benefits to certain PED and some people aren't.
Damien
Roar Guru
The Beta Blockers is another interesting case. Some musicians also take them them before they go onstage, so health wise they are very safe. While they don't give you an advantage physically, mentally they do. So they actually still give you an advantage. If as you said you had 2 golfers in a playoff for a win and one used Beta Blockers to help them deal with the pressure and won the other golfer would feel cheated. As I posted above I believe that there needs to be a more robust debate as to why these PED's are illegal in the first place..
Damien
Roar Guru
The 'integrity of the sport' is probably the best supporting argument, which I tend to agree with. While I do not support PED's what so ever in sport right now (coz its in the rules) I feel that there needs to be a more robust debate on why they are against the rules..
Skippy
Guest
Each Athlete is unique in body build and mindset and thus " Skills set "! Should they reach the point that the " Le Tour " gives standard bikes to each Athlete , chosen from 200+ by ballot , then we will see the truth of this statement ! Some sports already do this and the individual Athlete works on the equipment , applying their expertise to make significant adjustments , even if it is ONLY in their mind , the result breeds confidence and thus results . With the aid of Powerful Corporations Lance felt superior to ALL his rivals , he had only to beat himself and by dedication and determination he drove himself to the point where he got the results he felt he deserved . Evidence provided by those that underachieved suggests that he conspired with them to use Doping to add to his " tool kit "! Wonder if ALL those getting 6mths holiday are satisfied with their lot ? Chris Vdv seems to think it is Business as usual and the " Le Tour " start in Corsica is the highlight of the 2013 season , Think i am kidding ? Visit www.georgethecyclist.blogspot.com see for yourself !
amazonfan
Roar Guru
It's not just about safety, doping also violates the integrity of the sport. Even if doping was 100% safe, I would be just as disgusted by all the cheating as I am now. In fact, personally, my first thoughts go out, not to the children, but to the clean athletes who were cheated of their dreams.
dasilva
Roar Guru
I will also add that with the "safe doping" there has to be mechanism to be able to test and distinguish people who just doped within the set safe limit and people who doped outside the supervised period. If there isn't any way to do that then the drug should be remain illegal.
dasilva
Roar Guru
Although i will add that with safe doping. there has to be peer reviewed trials documenting that this is actually safe to the health of the athlete before I will support it
dasilva
Roar Guru
I'm kind of sympathetic to your arguments. I believe that the point of sport is to push the human body to its physical limits and to see what is human beings are capable of physically. I do think that technology and drugs and science can play a role to that. If a theoretical drug exist that improve perfmonance with negligible side effects than I believe that drug would be valuable in advancing the sport and that drug will be in line to the spirit of what sport is about. In fact if a drug like that exist I would support fortifying our drinking water with that. So I have no problem with eye-corrective surgery I have no problem with advance training methods developed by wealthy country. These are people pushing the physical limits of humanity and I don't believe equity should be a focus of sport. SPort isn't about equity it's about cellebrating people who are stronger faster than everyone else. I said that I only consider drug unfair advantage major harm to the user due to either acute or chronic use. This is because athlete shouldn't be put in a situation where the choice is, take a drug regularly that could cause long term health problems or give up any hope of winning the sport. If at athlete is forced to something that is harmful to health to be comeptitive especially when sport is actually a symbol of good health and people at their physical peak I will say that any OTC medication should be removed from the banned list. Stuff like pseudoephedrine shouldn't be banned. It was also a good thing that caffeine was removed as well. However when we are dealing with prescription medicine I'm a bit more weary about this. you see the reason why drugs are regulated to become prescription medicine and are not allowed to be freely available in the community is because the government regulators have decided that the side effects of the drug are unacceptable to be taken by a healthy person. this doctors recommend drugs based on benefit/risk ratio. However the acceptable risk varies on how sick a person is. A side effects may be acceptable in treating someone who is life-threatening situation or are terminally ill but not acceptable for someone is just merely sick. Similarly side effects that are acceptable to prescribed to treat medical condition can be unacceptable for someone who is completely healthy. Really a majority of prescription medication are considered unacceptable side effects to healthy people. Otherwise they wouldn't be prescription medicines and we would be able to pay for the medication over the counter. There's a drug called vioxx that was removed from the market due to iincrease risk of myocardial infarction. However only 18/8000 people (which is about 0.00225%). That risk was considered unacceptable even for people with chronic pain. If a drug or a perforamnce enhancing procedure (such as blood doping), there has to be even stricter criteria of acceptable mortality risk because this is given to healthy people. I'm open to the idea that if doctors have found a way to used the drug in a safe manner with no or negligible long term side effects then the performance enhancing drug should be regulated. Sort of saying you are only allowed to take PED with this dosage limit and supervise by doctors and supervised by the governing board. Any doping outside the supervised limit would be illegal. Sort of regulated safe doping. However in terms of prescription medication that should be legalised. I believed that Beta Blockers should be removed from the banned list. Doctors are legally allowed to prescribe this drug to healthy people to help them deal with anxiety during public speeches. Therefore there's no reason why golfers shouldn't be allowed to used this drug to help deal with anxiety when dealing with pressured situations.
jc
Guest
Realistically he didn't have any choice. If he had stayed as chairman, then Nike and others would have pulled their sponsorship of Livestrong and that would have taken away his only saving grace. It is no coincidence that Nike put out its announcement only a couple of minutes after he announced his resignation as chairman - this was a precondition to continuing to support Livestrong.
Damien
Roar Guru
I think the fair advantage argument needs to be debated abit more. What sort of unfair advantage are we talking about ? Many countries can't afford the type of training facilities that Australia, UK, USA etc can provide. Is that an unfair advantage ? If you're talking about biological advantage how come Tiger Woods was able to get corrective eye surgery that made his eyesight 20/15 which is actually better than the normal eyesight of 20/20. In a sport where depth perception is crucial how is this not giving him an unfair advantage over others. Another example along the same vein is Mark McGwire the baseball slugger who broke the baseball homerun record in 1998 (for it to be broken by Barry Bonds later in 2001). Both players were done for PED's but there was no mention of McGwire's super charged contact lenses which made his vison 20/10. That meant that he could see at 20 ft what a normal healthy person could see at 10 ft. Surely that would have helped him see the ball better to slam it out of the park. The harmful side effects of PED's are overstated IMO. All drugs have side effects and PED's are no different. If you can frame the side effects right you can make them look more menacing. For example : Nausea, Vomiting, Irritation of the esophagus, Heartburn or indigestion, Intestinal cramps, Fatigue, Flushing (redness of the skin), Headaches, Insomnia, Drowsiness, Diarrhea. These are some possible side effects of taking to much Vitamin C. This is the link if you wanna check it out http://heart-disease.emedtv.com/vitamin-c/vitamin-c-side-effects.html. Alot of the health arguements that are put forward to ban PED's have holes in them. Most steriods that are used by athletes are used medically. Human Growth Hormone was approved by the FDA to use in short healthy children. Check out this report on the use of HGH http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/article/001176.htm. The topic of PED's is an emotional one I agree. There is no doubt about it, but some of the arguments put forward to ban PED's seem flawed..