Lance
Armstrong confirmed this week something most people already knew, that he
indeed used performance-enhancing drugs in order to win his seven Tour de
France titles.
It
was not a surprise. The United States Anti-Doping Agency (USADA) accused him in
2012 of doping and drug trafficking. It was a very damning accusation and,
though Armstrong denied it, he also stated he would not appeal.
For
many, that was as good as an admission.
But
now, Armstrong has left no doubt, admitting to it in an interview with Oprah. Now the debate over his legacy has begun.
Armstrong
was a hero to many because he was given a death sentence, diagnosed with stage
three testicular cancer that had spread to his lungs, abdomen, and brain, and
battled back to survive and win the Tour de France seven straight times. He
also founded the Livestrong Foundation that provides support for people with
cancer. Through his efforts, he has helped countless people and raised millions
of dollars.
The
notoriety he gained from his cycling no doubt allowed for the success of the
Livestrong Foundation. Without his success in cycling’s biggest competition, he
would just be someone that overcame cancer who happens to compete in a sport no
one in America cares about. He was an inspiration for beating cancer, but he
was a public hero for his success. Had he not used PEDs, it is safe to assume
he would not have been as successful and likely would not have been able to
accomplish as much as he did in the fight against cancer.
No
amount of doping will ever take away what he’s done for charity, but it does
take away from the man.
Part
of Armstrong’s legend was being a clean athlete in a dirty sport. PEDs plague
cycling more so than any other professional sport. Now its greatest ambassador
appears to be just as dirty. But, if everyone in cycling is doping, was he
really gaining any kind of competitive advantage? TO some his actions may seem
justified by this logic, but it’s a moot point. Using any banned substance is
against the rules. Cheating is cheating regardless of how many people do it. Does
this make him a despicable human being? No, but it does diminish his character.
Armstrong
also went to great lengths to prove he was clean. He has sued newspapers,
witnesses, and colleagues. Even when there was little evidence to suggest he
was a doper, no one could deny that he was a bully at the very least. Armstrong
did not just deny using PED’s he set out to destroy everyone tried to tell the
truth. He lied in interview after interview all to save his own legacy. Going
after people smaller than you for trying to tell the truth is despicable and
even worse than the cheating itself. For that, he’s no longer a hero; at least to
me.
Support
his charity, support his cause, but don’t support someone willing to step on
others for personal prestige.
Yet
another athlete’s legacy has now been tarnished by PEDs, this coming after it
was announced that no players will be inducted into Baseball’s Hall of Fame. These
scandals have again reopened the steroid debate. Professional athletes are
adults; they are grown men and women who are well aware of the effects steroids
can have on their bodies. Sports criminalize their own athletes for pursuing
these drugs. Shouldn’t the rules be
changed to allow athletes the choice of using steroids or other PEDs?
No,
no, a thousand times, no!
The
‘it’s their body’ argument is the same logic 15 year olds use when they want to
get their girlfriend’s name tattooed across their chest. Grow up people.
I
won’t spout all the health risks of steroids like an angry father who just
caught his kid smoking a cigarette, but all steroids and PEDs carry severe
physical and mental side-effects. Allowing athletes to start doping would open
the floodgates. If you think only a small percentage of athletes would choose
to use them, you’re kidding yourself. The steroid era of baseball started
because players felt they had to use them in order to keep up with everybody
else. Cyclists start doping because they see everyone else around them doping
and feel they have to in order to remain competitive. Armstrong even said this
was why he began doping. To think only a select few would use banned substances
is incredibly naïve.
Look
at the culture of sports today. In the NFL, Commission Roger Goodell is doing
everything he can to make the game of football safer and he’s getting slammed
for it by the players who say they’re aware of and accept the health risks. How
could we possibly think most players would not use steroids if given the
choice? Think back to Robert Griffin III’s game against Seattle. He hobbled
around the field, refusing to be taken out of the game even though by doing so
he was risking a more serious injury. He was willing to put his long-term
health at risk for a short-term gain. If you offered him something to make him
faster and stronger, why would he turn that down?
I
don’t know Griffin and I’m indicating that he has suggested in any way that he
would be open to steroids, I’m just pointing out that in the NFL a mentality
exists where players simply do not think about their long-term health. The few
players who do are often criticized for being “soft” or not putting the team
first. If quarterback John Doe is willing to use steroids to get better, why
won’t you? Aren’t you willing to do whatever it takes to make the team better? Don’t
you want to prove you’re a leader?
More
importantly, professional sports cannot be allowed to devolve into leagues
where you must dope in order to remain competitive, much as cycling already
has. If they do, then every aspiring athlete who can, will start doping
regardless of age. The risks of doping are much more severe for an adolescent.
How can you send a message that doping is the only way to be successful in a
professional sports league and expect it not to become a problem among high
school and college athletes? You can’t.
Many
look at cycling and baseball and ask, who cares if they dope? Everyone else is
doing it, so no one gains any competitive advantage. If only one athlete
decides to follow the rules, then you’ve gained a competitive advantage over
that one person who is trying to compete honorably. Shouldn’t we be more
concerned with how to help those who follow the rules instead of making
provisions for those who circumvent them? Instead of making excuses for those
who decide to cheat, let’s honor those who choose not to. I just wish I could
still consider Lance Armstrong one of those people.
For the latest DC Sports news, follow me on Twitter @TheDC_Sportsguy
No comments:
Post a Comment