If he doped, is Lance Armstrong still an inspiration?

[Tastycles]

So, I assume everyone is familiar with the tale of Lance Armstrong - a cyclist who got cancer and was given a less than 40% chance of survival, he not only survived but went on to win 7 consecutive Tours de France, before retiring. In the mean time he raised over $325 million for cancer research through selling those little yellow wristbands that everyone wore in 2005. At face value, it is one of the most inspirational sports stories.

However, it's not that clear cut. He was dogged by accusations about doping throughout his career, and this week the US anti-doping agency think they finally have enough evidence to charge him. Of course, he's innocent until proven otherwise, but given he's retired, I don't imagine they'd be doing this if they weren't sure he was in the wrong or they had a vendetta for some reason.

So, that's it then? He was a charlatan and his achievements should go in the bin? He should be consigned to the Ben Johnson hall of Shame?

Well, actually, it's not that simple. Armstrong has still done more to raise money and awareness for cancer than the vast majority of people on Earth. Even if he doped, he still went from being told he was more likely to die than live to riding the Tour de France (drugs may give you marginal wins, they aren't going to make you do something you couldn't do at all before).

So, can Armstrong still be an inspirational figure if he cheated to win the Tour or does it not matter?

Of course, he could be innocent, so this is more an entry point to a more general conversation. What does someone have to do to render their past achievements irrelevant?

 

[Steamboat Ricky]

If he did "dope"...it really doesn't make things THAT much easier. I mean, the way that the media will twist it, he'll be a cheater and so on and so forth. But man...to come back from fatal cancer to be the greatest cyclist of all-time is an achievement even if there was a little help.

 

[LigerBomb]

I don't know enough about cycling to speak on the specifics of it or Lance so I won't. In general however, I do know much about blood doping, PEDs and hormones. When talking about elite, world-class levels of competition, where many events are measured down to fractions of seconds, drugs/doping can make all the difference and most certainly can afford you the ability to do what you couldn't do at all before: win. If they couldn't who would take them?
As to his ability to inspire, obviously he does. Regardless—or perhaps for some people because—of his alleged cheating he'll continue to do so. The question then is, should he? Should the masses look to Lance and people like him? Of course. Inspiration is inspiration no matter the circumstances of the source.

 

[Mustang Sally]

If he did "dope"...it really doesn't make things THAT much easier. I mean, the way that the media will twist it, he'll be a cheater and so on and so forth.

Whether the media twists it or not, if he did dope, he is a cheater .....even more so because he said so many times that he wasn't. I never bought the line that Armstrong and other accused athletes used: "I have never failed a drug test.".......because that's a different story than saying: "I have never doped."

There's no disputing Armstrong's influence in the area of cancer awareness. He's done worlds of good for the cause and that's wonderful. On the other hand, consider this:

If he hadn't doped, he probably never would have won all those races......if he hadn't won all those races, he wouldn't have gained the international fame that enabled him to garner so much attention for his cancer awareness efforts......and if he hadn't gotten so much attention for cancer awareness, he wouldn't have raised all that money that has done so much good.

So, what now? Do we say his doping was a good thing? After all, look how much benefit came from it.

What a mess.

 

[LSN80]

I really think you have to seperate the two.

Armstrong, regardless of whether he doped or not, is an inspirational figure. The man came back from less then 50% odds of living to race again. Even if he had finished dead last, he would be an inspirational figure, if only for ther fact that he beat such a horrific disease and was able to compete at the highest level of his profession again.

SO what has to be done to render someone's past achievements meaningless? They have to do something so heinous, whether it be in the bi-laws of their sport(as doping is in cycling) or as a crime against humanity. Earlier this week, we were discussing Joe Paterno and his statue, amongst other things, and whether or not it should come down. If Paterno is shown to be an accomplice, even unwitting in that he did nothing to stop Sandusky, then the statue should come down.

Of course, this is pretending that everyone who achieves the accomplishments they do do so with dignity and class. Paterno did, yet his legacy is being overshadowed by something that has nothing to do with the type of coach he was. In Armstrong's case, if he doped, it's tied directly in to what he achieved. Should he, in that case, be punished and his achievements rendered moot? Absolutely.

But does that make him any less of an inspirational figure in the sense of beating cancer? I don't think so, I can seperate the two. He's not Chris Benoit. He'ld simply be a guy who tried to take some major advantages in his career, illegal ones, and got caught. Bugt I can seperate Lance Armstrong: cancer survivor and cyclist, from Lance Armstrong: cheater.

Of course, it should be noted that Armstrong never once in his career tested positive for any performance enhancing drugs, and is fighting back himself against the USDA. The most recent article regarding Armstrong and his doping scandal can be found here:

http://edition.cnn.com/2012/07/10/sport/lance-armstrong-suit/index.html

 

[Champ1432]

I think LSN80 is correct. You have to try, as difficult as it may be, to separate Armstrong the cancer survivor from Armstrong the cyclist.

Armstrong the cancer survivor will be an inspiration to many regardless of the outcome of these doping allegations. Just the fact that he beat the cancer that very nearly took his life would be enough for some people, and the fact that he came back to race at all, especially in his sports' most well-known and prestigious event will draw in even more people. Of course, he not only competed in the race, but won it an unprecedented number of times, making him the greatest cyclist of all time in the eyes of many. In fact, probably the only cyclist known at all by name to the vast majority of people who aren't avid cycling fans. Seriously, who else could someone who doesn't follow cycling name? Greg LeMond, Miguel Indurain, Jan Ullrich? Maybe LeMond, but the others would be unknowns to most people. And Indurain won the Tour de France 5 times in a row, the record prior to Armstrong.

The sticking point is how much Armstrong the cyclist is linked to Armstrong the cancer survivor. If Armstrong beat cancer, but didn't win the Tour 7 times in a row, he would probably have some of his reknown due to him being a professional athlete, but many people beat cancer who are never heard of. By the same token, if Armstrong won 7 Tours in a row but never had cancer, his story loses much if its inspiration and some of its fame. It would still be an impressive feat, but by and large, America doesn't care about cycling and while we still would have heard of his accomplishments, it wouldn't have the emotional impact it does now due to him beating the disease.

So if he is found to have doped, does it destroy everything? I say no. I think it puts a huge stain on his cycling legacy, of course. But if we are to separate the two, then all the money and awareness he has brought to cancer research cannot be completely undone by him doping. He still beat the disease. Doping didn't help him do that. Of course, the point has been raised that without his Tour wins, his impact in that area would not be as great. I agree with that. Surely him winning those 7 Tours helped boost the money he raised and the awareness he brought to the disease. Those yellow wristbands would not have been so ubiquitous without those victories. But the good he has done cannot be ignored. Even if he did dope, was anyone really hurt? No. It just makes him another cheater in a sport that by all accounts is rife with them anyway. This is not like Joe Paterno. No one was hurt here. Sure, perhaps it was based on a lie, and if so, it would be very disappointing. But in my opinion, even if he is found to have doped, it would not destroy everything he's accomplished. On the race course? Yes? But in life overall? No.