August 29, 2012
Lance Armstrong and the Philosophy of Making Bad Decisions
Evan Selinger in The Atlantic:
Lance Armstrong's decision not to fight the U.S. Anti-Doping Agency has drawn mixed response: supporters and detractors wasted no time before airing their views. While some supporters maintain lack of incriminating evidence is key, others have stated that Armstrong still deserves our sympathy even if he is guilty of using banned substances. It is crucial to understand why this might be the case, as the implications of the judgment extend well beyond feelings directed at a high-profile athlete.
The sympathy-for-a-possible-cheater argument is expressed clearly in "Pillorying Armstrong: Complete Nonsense," a piece co-written by Arthur Caplan -- one of the most famous bioethicists in the U.S. -- and two other NYU professors. The authors write: "Shouldn't Armstrong, especially because of the inspiration he is to cancer survivors or anyone on the short end of the advantage stick, get a pass for being no more dirty, but a whole lot better than everyone else in his sport? Armstrong isn't being investigated as the only cheater. He is in all likelihood just the best, most talented one." In other words, we should feel bad for Armstrong because LiveStrong promotes so much social good that it blunts part of the cheating stain, and because professional cycling is rotten to the core, filled with so many cheaters that breaking the rules is the only viable way to compete.
For the sake of argument, let's say this assessment of the state of cycling is correct. Why should its constraints incline us to be sympathetic for a cheater? Why shouldn't we instead appeal to the lesson about individual responsibility and peer pressure that we learned in Kindergarten -- the one that ends with not jumping off a bridge because Johnny did?
More here.
Posted by S. Abbas Raza at 05:15 AM | Permalink
Comments
It's interesting how the media is going out of it's way to be nice to Armstrong but was so vicious with Ye Shiwan.
Posted by: Jake | Aug 30, 2012 5:28:06 AM
I remember how everyone ripped up Barry Bonds when it was alleged he used steroids. Lance Armstrong has postured as the great white triumphant American male for way too long. If he did not earn the titles, but stole them, he deserves to have that exposed.
But this isn't about steroids or cycling. This is about money. Millions of dollars which Armstrong has received from the public, whether to buy his products or to give to his charity.
Remember, when people set up their own personal charities, they also usually hire themselves as a consultant, pay themselves enormous amounts of money from their charities. If Armstrong lied about his wins, any smart attorney can bring a lawsuit and seek refunds for every person who ever gave Armstrong a penny, either directly or indirectly to "his" charity.
In law, people love to wait and see somebody else pay for the litigation of the claims, then run in afterwards and use the judgment to support their own claim. If this matter was litigated, presumably thousands of people could use the result to demand a refund of the money they paid to Armstrong. This includes the U.S. Post Office which paid him in some representative capacity. Armstrong could easily end up broke and disgraced.
In terms of his so-called campaign against cancer, that is his worst offense. To think someone would take steroids or other growth drugs (which may either cause or accelerate cancer), get cancer, then proclaim himself a poster boy of the fight against cancer, is particularly disgusting. I'd like to see him shut down.
This isn't about cycling, isnt' about his title. It's about all the money he's made representing himself to the public as being the great white male sports figure. If it was a lie, he should lose all that money and go get a job like everyone else.
Posted by: NABNYC | Aug 30, 2012 3:35:27 PM
Post a comment