Lance Armstrong: do we want to know if he cheated?

[pfrduke]

A discussion that popped up on another website I frequent was, I thought, apropos of this one. Obviously the "societal good" piece is missing from the Clemens case, but it raises an interesting question, which is when does a myth (if it's a myth) become so powerful that revealing its falsity would do more harm than punishing the people responsible for its falsity?

[JasonEvans]

I hope you do not mind, pfrduke, but I have created a new thread for this discussion. It is a fascinating topic and that link presented an interesting argument.

The most important part--

The New York Times yesterday focused on the more obvious angle for mercy here, that such a prosecution could cripple his charitable efforts for the Lance Armstrong Foundation and, in turn, impair its efforts to provide support for people living with cancer. And while Charity Navigator doesn't give the LAF its 4-star rating, it's still not exactly Yele and clearly does good in the world.

The second question is the more subtle one, though it's related to the first: do we need to believe in the myth of Lance Armstrong so strongly -- that he was able to recover from testicular cancer, with a tumor that had metastasized to his brain and lungs, and through chemotherapy and sheer force of will not only recover but become legendary in his sport -- that we just can't let this one come tumbling down? Baseball could survive McGwire and Bonds (but not, perhaps, a Cal Ripken-PED revelation) because everyone sorta figured those home runs weren't being caused by magic. And while cycling has always had its scandals, there's something so powerful about what we'd like to believe Armstrong has accomplished that this would, indeed, be crushing. And adults need fairy tales too.

I need to spend more time thinking on this. I am eager to hear what Oly Fan and some other really pensive posters have to say about it. My first inclination is to say we should pursue honesty and punish cheating whenever we see it. But, hmmmm, this is a really compelling case for sticking our fingers in our ears and not wanting to hear the truth.

--Jason "I still believe in Lance... but it is getting harder to do so" Evans

[theAlaskanBear]

Yes. This is even a more compelling case because the evidence suggests use of USPS sponsorship resources to build and maintain the doping program. <--government funds.

Lance has been inspirational for many cancer survivors, but the truth shouldn't be covered up because of the perceived good works of the people involved. Lance has been a champion of cancer, and no investigation can take away those good deeds. Will it damage his foundation? That's likely, but by no means will it severely damage cancer fundraising and awareness nor would it even kill his organization.

[OldPhiKap]

I don't want to know, personally, although I'm afraid I already know the answer.

Whether it happened or not, though, I am not sure why the feds are spending their resources on this. If anything happened, it most likely was outside of the jurisdiction of the country. And, as Lance always says, he is one of the most tested athletes in history.

What is the benefit of spending millions of taxpayer dollars to pursue this? So if my kid gets into cycling, (s)he won't dope? I'm more concerned with the street drugs being sold downtown as it is.

[hughgs]

Whether it happened or not, though, I am not sure why the feds are spending their resources on this. If anything happened, it most likely was outside of the jurisdiction of the country.

Lance and his teammates are accused of spending USPS funds on doping, hence it falls under the jurisdiction of the federal government.

[Verga3]

Yes. This is even a more compelling case because the evidence suggests use of USPS sponsorship resources to build and maintain the doping program. <--government funds.

Lance has been inspirational for many cancer survivors, but the truth shouldn't be covered up because of the perceived good works of the people involved. Lance has been a champion of cancer, and no investigation can take away those good deeds. Will it damage his foundation? That's likely, but by no means will it severely damage cancer fundraising and awareness nor would it even kill his organization.

Very well and directly stated. Hope that his good works will continue, but if he cheated, he cheated. My kids and I want to know the truth.

[JohnGalt]

Very well and directly stated. Hope that his good works will continue, but if he cheated, he cheated. My kids and I want to know the truth.

I understand the ethical motives behind us all categorically - and emphatically - labeling the perps as "cheaters" but is it really cheating in a sport rife with doping, slight doping, sort of slight doping, borderline doping, etc? Can we really hammer Lance when all accounts indicate that everyone else involved - both with the USPS and other cycling teams - participated in the same "shady" practices. If the field is level and everyone has the means to better themselves by PEDs, can it really be labeled as cheating?

[orrnot]

Disclaimer: The sweeping accusations to follow are the personal opinions of a casually informed bystander, and nothing more!

I've long considered Lance a fraud and will feel some personal disappointment at missing out on my ultimate--and admittedly pathetic--vindication, should he yet again benefit from the special status he has exploited so well thus far.
The unique elements of this situation, which impel some to consider sweeping the whole thing under the rug, should instead be cause for introspection. Why have we chosen to believe the fairy tale as presented, and why are we so anxious to accord it special privilege now? I don't think it's because we fear for the future of cancer research. Lance isn't going to cure cancer. He's been valuable to the cause, probably more valuable than his shame will erase, so we can rest comfortably there. I think it has more to do with the blinders we wear when we idolize our entertainment figures, and maybe something to do with mythic plot twists.
The guy was a phenomenal success in a field in which all cheat, but because he came with a dramatic--and largely irrelevant--backstory, we chose not to see what was before our eyes. Makes me wonder what Penn & Teller think of him.

[camion]

Yep, I would like to know one way or the other.

[JasonEvans]

Here is an interesting thought -- what will it take to convict Lance in the court of public opinion if not the court of law?

We are talking about a guy who was tested over and over again -- his claim of being the most tested athlete in history is not without some basis of truth -- and yet not a single test turned up any impropriety and he never avoided taking a test when presented with one (oftentimes at surprising moments).

So, would the testimony of a couple former teammates do the trick to convince us he was cheating? What if two or three teammates crop up saying he did it and two or three others crop up saying, "no way." What would we think then?

For me, it will take someone who has nothing to gain and no vindictive motives to convict him. So, lets forget about Floyd Landis. To bring the conversation back to our friend Roger Clemens, the nail in Roger's coffin was Andy Pettite -- he was Roger's friend; he certainly had no financial motives or book deals spurring him to tell on Roger; he actually undermined his own status in baseball and with fans when he came clean. There was no reason for Pettite to lie and bring Roger down with him. We all knew Pettite had to be telling the truth.

It is going to be a lot harder to find someone like that in Armstrong's case. None of his teammates are nearly as well off as a typical professional athlete and most could have a financial motive for ratting him out. Plus, Lance has a rep as a difficult guy to get along with (ask his multiple ex-wives) who was hard on teammates and did not cultivate many friends in the world of cycling. Cycling is full of so many guys who doped, many of them would want to prove that Lance did so too and it hardly detracts from their reputation to admit they were doing what everyone else was.

Still, if we have multiple guys coming forward and claiming they were present when Lance took PEDs, we can begin to weigh the credibiity of each. So far, guys like Landis have zero credibility with me.

--Jason "for the rest of ya'll what will it take?" Evans

[pfrduke]

I hope you do not mind, pfrduke, but I have created a new thread for this discussion. It is a fascinating topic and that link presented an interesting argument.

Since I (somewhat inadvertently - and no, I didn't mind) started this thread, I feel like I ought to weigh in. From a prosecutorial standpoint, my feelings on this are the same as on Clemens - there are better things for the DOJ to be doing.

From a "do we want to know the truth" standpoint, though, my answer is yes. Americans have a great capacity, I think, to handle disappointing revelations from those they had idolized and move past them. I don't think this is such a unique scenario that it would bring about different results. Cancer research and funding is way bigger than Lance Armstrong and Livestrong, and will continue unabated regardless of whether one of its poster children is revealed to be more medical than miracle. And from the perspective of individuals battling cancer, I really don't think that many are relying on Lance Armstrong as the source of their strength for fighting the disease, and at the very least not to the point where revelations about Armstrong's doping would cause them to give up their fight.

So, in the end, I don't see much harm in the truth coming out, and believe it's always better for people to know the true measure of a man (and to know if someone's been blatantly lying to them for 5-10 years).

[Mal]

It strikes me that people facing and fighting cancer are by and large doing so with the aid of very strong drugs. Including, ironically, steroids. They're no doubt aware that Lance Armstrong did the same, rather than magically convincing his cells to stop going haywire through sheer force of will. The revelation that he may have also used some drugs to enhance his performance upon his return to the world of cycling seems, to me at least, to be completely unrelated to the fact that this man (through the miracles of modern cancer fighting medicine, as well as his determination not to let cancer kill him) lived through a fairly advanced stage of the disease.

In other words, that he may have doped once he returned to cycling doesn't overwhelm the basic point of his surviving and returning to cycling.

Certainly, he never would have been nearly as successful a force in raising money for the cause had he not returned to the top of that profession, but whether that cycling success was ill-gotten or not doesn't have any bearing on whether or not the cause of raising money for cancer research is just.

In other words, the argument that prosecuting/investigating/sullying the professional reputation of Armstrong might undo all the good of his charities, etc. seems like a big red herring to me.

[sagegrouse]

I understand from articles and comments by others that international bike riders would take anything that they thought would improve their performance. This isn't recent -- it goes back decades. The UCI entity that governs international cycling got active in stopping drug abuse, after, in at least one case, a rider died on the course during a climb.

I don't particularly care to hear more about Lance unless all the dirty laundry of the last couple of decades is exposed. The USPS story, as I understand it, is not that Lance took drugs, but that he knew about what was going on with other riders.

Yawn...

sagegrouse

[JohnGalt]

I understand from articles and comments by others that international bike riders would take anything that they thought would improve their performance. This isn't recent -- it goes back decades. The UCI entity that governs international cycling got active in stopping drug abuse, after, in at least one case, a rider died on the course during a climb.

I don't particularly care to hear more about Lance unless all the dirty laundry of the last couple of decades is exposed. The USPS story, as I understand it, is not that Lance took drugs, but that he knew about what was going on with other riders.

Yawn...

sagegrouse

Pitchforks for you, Sage.

I'm about as convinced Lance DIDN'T use as I am about Clemens. In a sport where the culture very nearly dictated its athletes to use or be left behind - in my eyes - it's really not all that heinous of a crime, if it can be called a crime at all. I suppose Lance's vehement denials would register as the worst part of this whole saga, and granted, they're in slightly poor taste, but either way they don't really detract from his achievements. If he used - so what - everyone did. If he didn't, well, it makes his accomplishments that much more unbelievable. Congratulations. But personally, I don't really care and I'm awfully sick of hearing about it. Luckily for Lance though, he still hasn't nearly approached how irritating the Tiger talk has become. Eeek.

Let's move past it and look forward to a clean future, if indeed that's possible.

[Verga3]

I understand the ethical motives behind us all categorically - and emphatically - labeling the perps as "cheaters" but is it really cheating in a sport rife with doping, slight doping, sort of slight doping, borderline doping, etc? Can we really hammer Lance when all accounts indicate that everyone else involved - both with the USPS and other cycling teams - participated in the same "shady" practices. If the field is level and everyone has the means to better themselves by PEDs, can it really be labeled as cheating?

I could not care less about the extent of any alleged doping. If the rules state doping is illegal, then it's illegal, no matter the dose. If the professional cycling culture and leadership accept that "just a little doping is ok" then it is finished as a credible sport. With all he has been through, Lance Armstrong is certainly self-aware enough to know the potential ramifications of his alleged cheating and the far-reaching consequences to his reputation and Foundation, if found true. He should absolutely be "hammered" if it is found that he did not play fair...how sad it is to say that, with all the great good he has done. He is innocent now. I pray it stays that way.

[hughgs]

I understand from articles and comments by others that international bike riders would take anything that they thought would improve their performance. This isn't recent -- it goes back decades. The UCI entity that governs international cycling got active in stopping drug abuse, after, in at least one case, a rider died on the course during a climb.

I don't particularly care to hear more about Lance unless all the dirty laundry of the last couple of decades is exposed. The USPS story, as I understand it, is not that Lance took drugs, but that he knew about what was going on with other riders.

Yawn...

sagegrouse

If this is your current understanding of doping in cycling then you need to catch up.

First, the dead cyclist story is probably Tom Simpson who died in 1967.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom_Simpson

Second, the USPS story is certainly not that Lance simply knew about doping among his teammates. The story is that Lance, and a number of riders, have been accused of actively doping. The reason for federal investigation, as I stated above, is that USPS took government funds and those funds may have been used for doping.

While the accusations of doping tend to be fairly old, the fact that Landis was so specific, coupled with the current anti-doping environment hardly makes this a yawner story to those who are interested.

[OldPhiKap]

Here is an interesting thought -- what will it take to convict Lance in the court of public opinion if not the court of law?

If George Hincape says it happened, that would seal the deal for me in a heartbeat. Same for Johan Bruyneel although he would most likely be implicating himself if he said it happened.


And re: USPS $ as a basis of federal jurisdiction -- I don't think there are any allegations that anyone directed team monies directly to this. To the extent the argument is that he was paid a salary/fee by USPS and then used that money to dope, I'm not sure how that is too far different from arguing that any federal employee who buys drugs is in effect using federal monies. Even if all of this is true, is this the wisest choice of expenses? Millions of tax dollars to try and prove that an athlete cheated in overseas competitions? It seems like grandstanding by a AUSA for future political office.

[hughgs]

If George Hincape says it happened, that would seal the deal for me in a heartbeat. Same for Johan Bruyneel although he would most likely be implicating himself if he said it happened.


And re: USPS $ as a basis of federal jurisdiction -- I don't think there are any allegations that anyone directed team monies directly to this. To the extent the argument is that he was paid a salary/fee by USPS and then used that money to dope, I'm not sure how that is too far different from arguing that any federal employee who buys drugs is in effect using federal monies. Even if all of this is true, is this the wisest choice of expenses? Millions of tax dollars to try and prove that an athlete cheated in overseas competitions? It seems like grandstanding by a AUSA for future political office.

The Landis accusations imply a systemic use of PEDs by the team with the implication that team money was used to buy the PEDs.

Whether that passes the smell test is another question.

[94duke]

SI has a new article in the Jan. 24 issue of the magazine (available on Wednesday).

quote from one of his teammates:

He was the instigator... It was his words that pushed us toward doing it.

Lots of info in this teaser article:

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/201...ex.html?hpt=C2

[Bluedog]

SI has a new article in the Jan. 24 issue of the magazine (available on Wednesday).

quote from one of his teammates:

He was the instigator... It was his words that pushed us toward doing it.

Lots of info in this teaser article:

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/201...ex.html?hpt=C2

While perhaps interesting, I don't trust ANYTHING that comes from Selena Roberts. We should all do that same if we've learned anything from the lacrosse case. She just spews stuff without justification. I didn't realize she also writes for SI...

SI writers Selena Roberts and David Epstein reviewed hundreds of pages of documents...