BikeCentric said:
What is cool is that if you read the comments to that article you can see that the vast majority of the CBS forum people are not buying Doyel's argument.
For what it's worth, this was my comment on Doyel's article, which they failed to post -- too long and thoughtful, I suppose, and now too late to matter:
Just what was swishing around Mr. Doyle’s brain when his sat down to write this column?
Oh, I suppose it was inevitable that someone would seek to absolve Mr. Armstrong using the warped logic that his efforts to fight cancer justify his alleged means; after all, this line of reasoning is but an echo of Armstrong’s own declaration that “I’ve done too much good for too many people” to be subject to prosecution.
There are just a few problems with such a viewpoint:
1. If Armstrong is a dope cheat, as Mr. Doyel seems willing to concede, then he is also a bold-faced liar, for he has vociferously protested his innocence on countless occasions, and portrayed himself as a ‘clean’ athlete unequivocally opposed to doping – always with the same posturing, defiant, self-righteous indignation.
2. He is also a fraud, for he has exploited his ill-gotten success and carefully-orchestrated image not merely to raise money for his foundation, but for his own enrichment, namely the millions of dollars in endorsement fees he has collected from Nike, Bristol-Myers, American Century Funds, Subaru, Nissan, Trek Bicycles, Michelob Ultra, Radio Shack, FRS, and still others I can’t recall offhand. Indeed, his personal gains most likely rival, and may even exceed what he has raised for cancer research.
3. Armstrong isn’t accused of merely “cutting corners” or the occasional bending of a minor rule, but of participating in a systematic, wide-ranging program of illegal drug usage (not just steroids, as Doyel seems to think) that went on for years, while acting as an instigator for wider drug use within his team, thereby inducing others to cheat as well, and then lie for him (or face his wrath if they chose to tell the truth). For the direct victims of his cheating – i.e., the rest of the peloton – I wonder if they, having been cheated of the acclaim and monetary awards they might have otherwise won, are sanguine about his cheating as Mr. Doyel is (and don’t argue here that “they all cheat.” His fellow competitors who have tested clean should receive the same benefit of the doubt that Armstrong has always asserted – shouldn’t they?)
4., What of the damage Armstrong will have done to the spirit of good sportsmanship and honest athletic competition? What of the public cynicism toward professional athletes (cyclists especially) that he will have made immeasurably worse? (Remember, this is a man who actually had the gall to sell his story in at least a dozen children’s books, allowing himself to be held up as an example to young people.) What of the spotless legacy – handed to him by Greg LeMond and the first generation of American pro cyclists – that Armstrong will have so thoroughly soiled and trashed? What of every aspiring young rider wanting to succeed the right way, who will have to face the deepened perception of cyclists as lying, cheating bullies, that Armstrong (as de facto leader of the sport) will be responsible for? What of cycling promoters throughout the country who will have to face the same stigma as they try to recruit sponsorship for their events? Remember, cycling is much more fragile here than in Europe; it is nowhere near as deeply rooted in our culture as other sports.
5. If Mr. Armstrong truly regards his anti-cancer crusade as being as being “noble” (his own description), then why would demean it by using it to justify (or absolve himself of blame for) his dope cheating, like a personal “get out of jail for free card”? Why would he jeopardize his “noble” cause by engaging in risky, illegal behavior, which could have a catastrophic effect on the belief and confidence his supporters have placed in him? After all, if he has lied and cheated on such a vast scale, he should not be trusted with so much as a single dollar. Even more significantly, such fraud may damage not just his own cancer-fighting activities, but anti-cancer fundraising in general, and charitable work by athletes as a whole – people who acquire a reputation for habitually cheating, lying, and threatening others should not be in a position to represent charitable institutions and ask for donations.
6. Finally, Livestrong is hardly sui generis; there are other anti-cancer organizations in this world, Mr. Doyel (for instance, the American Cancer Society raises in a month than Livestrong’s entire annual budget, a fact [1] that you apparently failed to “swish around” your own brain, Mr. Doyel – but perhaps deeper research would have been too “exhaustive and exhausting”). Should they too be allowed to cheat, lie, and break federal laws if it helps them raise funds to fight cancer? Where would it stop?
Oh and while I’m at it, Livestrong has not always been as efficient as Mr. Doyle would have everyone believe in claiming that “roughly 85.8 percent of the money raised goes directly to the cancer fight.” That figure, in fact, is for a single year. In at least one other year [2], the percentage was only 55% – below the guideline of 65% set by the American Institute of Philanthropy.
At best – by the most favorable assessment – Armstrong is a deeply conflicted figure, with very mixed motives. At worst, he is a notorious cheat, a towering liar, a thug who threatens and inflicts economic harm on others – a new-millennium version of the Ugly American, a demagogue par excellence willing to cynically exploit the public sympathy and confidence extended toward him.
Neither of these two alternatives is any sort of legitimate hero or ‘symbol of hope’. Neither is fit to be soliciting monetary contributions, or leading any kind of charitable organization, large or small.
Charles Howe
1.
http://www.fastcompany.com/magazine/150/can-livestrong-survive-lance.html
2.
http://www.charitywatch.org/articles/cancer.html