This week, Lance Armstrong, recently stripped of his 7 Tour de France titles, admitted to Oprah Winfrey that he used performance enhancing drugs during his reign as the top cyclist in the world. The US Anti-doping Agency had banned him for life from competition. According to the powers that be, his name falls beside those so tarnished as Pete Rose (whom I still don't believe deserves his bad rap, but that's another story), Mark McGwire, Sammy Sosa, Barry Bonds, and Roger Clemens (another who got the shaft). It's likely that Armstrong's reputation is permanently ruined and he may never compete again. Even if USADA reduces his ban to the suggested 8 years, Armstrong, who has expressed a desire to compete in recognized triathlon events, will be almost 50 years old at the end of his ban. All of this begs the question of whether or not Armstrong really did anything wrong. Was he gaining an unfair advantage? Who stands to lose in this battle? What's going to happen to Armstrong's charitable organizations, most notably the Livestrong organization?
I stand firmly in the school that Armstrong wasn't doping to gain a competitive edge, rather that he was attempting to level the playing field. It's no secret that professional cycling has been plagued by doping issues for a very long time. According to Wikipedia, since 1998, an astonishing 46 separate top 10 finishers at the Tour de France have been implicated in one way or another with doping. Let's do some math. 1998-2012 is 14 years. There are a total of 140 top 10 finishers in those 14 years. If every one of those 140 were different riders, which it's not (however, the 46 dopers are all different, not multiple implications of the same rider) that would mean an already horrendously high 33 percent of the top cyclists in the world have been implicated in doping. Now, let's take into account how many of those top 10 finishes were repeat showings. 94 of the 140 positions were athletes connected in some way to doping while they were competing. If you're following along at home, that's a total of 67 percent. Let me repeat that: Sixty-seven percent. It takes less to overthrow a presidential order in congress. More than two thirds of the top cyclists in the world have ties to doping, which leads me to my point; Armstrong wasn't gaining an unfair advantage, he was simply trying to level the playing field. He was already an elite athlete, but without doping, he might as well had been aiming for lanterne rouge instead of the yellow jersey. While I am not condoning the use of PEDs in any facet, the crucifixion of one man for the crimes of many does not solve a problem, it only provides a scapegoat.
Eleven of Armstrong's teammates testified to USADA that they were aware that Armstrong doped. The USADA investigation showed that Armstrong was a patient of Dr. Michele Ferrari, a physician who also received a lifetime ban for assistance in doping among the world's top cyclists. Many of those that testified, including teammate and initial whistle-blower Tyler Hamilton, have also been implicated in doping scandals. All in all, upwards of 25 individuals stand to face some sort of punishment tied to the doping scandals.
The Livestrong organization, Armstrong's cancer charity, has been potentially tarnished. Armstrong, himself a cancer survivor, stepped down as chairman as a result of the accusations. Regardless of the innocence or guilt of Armstrong, there is no question that his charity has done some amazing things. Livestrong is quite possibly the reason I am sitting here writing all of this. By no means should the alleged crimes of their chair bring down such a good organization.
Another problem with the accusations against Armstrong: he is a cancer survivor. Why is that important? Well, two of the methods of doping for which he stands accused, I happen to know for a fact are types of treatment in cancer. Armstrong suffered from testicular cancer, which subsequently resulted in the removal of one of his testicles. Accusations of doping methods include: testosterone replacement, blood transfusions, EPO, HGH, plasma transfusions, and corticosteroids. While blood/plasma transfusions and testosterone replacement are without a doubt treatments for cancer patients, it can be argued that every other method of doping with which Armstrong is accused can also be beneficial in the treatment of testicular cancer.
So is it possible that Armstrong did in fact dope? Absolutely. However, what I think is more likely is that he used these methods as an aggressive means to battle the cancer inside of him. There are those that will argue that he doped after he was cancer-free, but I submit the idea that all of the accusations were actually a treatment for cancer and to return to normal health, not methods to gain an unfair advantage. I would also venture to speculate that Armstrong had a resurgence of cancer, one which was kept quiet, and he continued these treatments. Neither of these ideas are completely outside the realm of possibility.
If I were a betting man, and I am, I would choose one of the two above explanations as legitimate reasoning for Armstrong's doping. So did he dope? Absolutely, I have almost no doubt. Was it to gain a competitive advantage? I would say no, that it was to maintain a normal level of health. However, I'm not sure that USADA has the ability to distinguish between competitive doping and legitimate medical treatment, therefore Armstrong's use of banned substances, regardless of reasoning, has landed him in hot water. I also believe that this provides an explanation for the fact that Armstrong never once failed a doping test, and until now, has vehemently denied any and all allegations. I for one still look at him as an icon of the sport and a hero in the battle with cancer. No matter the outcome in the future, Lance Armstrong should go down as one of the biggest icons and most influential members of the sport of cycling.
No comments:
Post a Comment