Robert21 said:
Question is, who is encouraging us to think that the ruthless, individualistic, 'Dog eat dog', 'To the winner the spoils' values embodied by people like Armstrong are laudable?
I would argue that such beliefs are encouraged largely because they help to validate similar 'values' in the wider world. In this sense Armstrong is both one of the '1%', with a huge sense of entitlement to every cent he has scammed, and a promoter of the 'Full spectrum dominance' approach to conflict. He's the perfect propagandist for 'The American way' and even social Darwinism.
SNIP, SNIP
To my mind trying to win is still important, but only because this guarantees that you will strive to get the best out of yourself, and if you 'cheat' to win, you are ultimately cheating on yourself.
Provocative questions about cycling, sports, and the values they affirm. The Armstrong ethos as depicted by Hamilton and Coyle makes Armstrong out as this Hobbesian figure whose talent is in part an amoral ruthlessness that drives him to win in a “war of all against all.” That view resonates with the commonplace depiction of cycling as primitive competition. Remember the “gladiators” theme of the 2011 Tour de France riders presentation, not to mention the metaphoric nicknames of many famous riders, for example “The Cannibal,” “The Badger,” “Ivan the Terrible,” “Spartacus,” “The Cobra.” These depictions often go hand in hand with stories about the working-class roots of cycling, about the talented rider’s escape from the factory floor, and his drive to win as a means of avoiding a return to the factory.
You are exactly right that lionizing Lance, and the account of cycling as primitive competition I assumed in my earlier post, can “validate similar 'values' in the wider world,” where “Armstrong is both one of the '1%', with a huge sense of entitlement to every cent he has scammed, and a promoter of the 'Full spectrum dominance' approach to conflict.” Hamilton wants to see himself in the same light at times, when he writes in his book, “that’s the way the game was played, and I played it well.”
What kind of critique is Hamilton making? He doesn’t moralize about Armstrong. He doesn’t make the economic argument about Armstrong as equivalent to the billionaire, investment-banker scammer. He speaks truth to power. But it’s also a bleak and depressing book, which suggests that the idea of clean competition you praise at the end of your post was crowded out of professional (and amateur) cycling long ago.
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram