Lance, morality etc.
Lance Armstrong is a massive arsehole.
Or a misguided human being.
Or something in between.
He’s definitely done some things that most people would consider to be pretty awful. Aside from cheating, lying about it, not really being very contrite in the Oprah interview etc, he also called his former masseuse a drunken whore for blowing the whistle on him.
Definitely falls into the arsehole category.
But in the interests of stirring shit, I posed the following question on Twitter: What if you tried to set about raising half a billion for cancer and the best way to do it was to cheat at cycling? Would you still do it? (According to its website, Lance’s Livestrong charity has raised $470 million. Of course, like much else of Lance’s life, this may be bullshit, but even if we take it with a massive pinch of salt and say that ‘only’ $100m was raised and handed over, that’s still worth the question.)
The responses were interesting, in that about ten people retweeted the question, some ‘favourited’ it, and others replied in both positive and negative ways. Some thought that the ends would definitely justify the means, while others (particularly one bloke who seems to be into cycling) seemed to think that it was unforgivable, to some degree because of the harm it would do (did) to the sport of cycling. Others seemed to think it was wrong because people were being duped into giving money to a cancer charity on the basis of the inspiration Lance offered as a very successful cancer-sufferer.
Alas, there’s no right or wrong answer to this question, and I really don’t think Lance’s cycling career was an elaborate way of increasing donations to a cancer charity, but if he hadn’t done what he did there would be an enormous reduction in the amount of money donated to fight cancer (despite it being hypothetical I think we can generally agree that no Lance=no Livestrong). So whether one is better than the other is up to you, but I think it harks back quite nicely to this quote from A Few Good Men:
I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very freedom that I provide, and then questions the manner in which I provide it.
Lance is Jack and right now most of the rest of the world is Tom.
Sometimes ‘shitty’ things happen to make ‘good’ things happen. The only real question is: are you comfortable with that?
Meanwhile, let’s all smile ruefully at this strangely equivocal Nike ad:
I’ve not read what you’ve said but I don’t have a problem with Lance cheating as it’s all about context and anyone who was up for winning was at it plus I know they still bust a gut in training and sacrifice…the drugs only give them a slight edge.
Btw I don’t doubt he is an arsehole. Very rare that anyone so committed isn’t. Footnote I wonder how all the saps who bought the Livestrong wristbands are feeling now. I guess they can feel happy that they contributed to a worthy cause. Just a shame that Lance took a sizeable cut out of it. Still, he’s not alone on that score. Murky waters indeed. Played some good rifts but ultimately his cousin muddy made it. Peace. Out.
The real tragedy here is that his scene in Dodgeball no longer rings true.
A whole movie. Ruined.
He very clearly fits the definition of a psychopath. Not a murderous one, but a very highly functioning one.
He won seven times, and in every race the other cyclists were only seconds behind him, hmmmm.
John P. You say you don’t have a problem with cheating. Just wondering, is that just in cycling, in sport or life in general?
definite psychopath
armstrong did the doping out of egoism. to win some shit. he didn’t start out cheating to do some good in the world.
on consequentialist terms, one can argue, he did the opposite – forcing others to cheat too and so on. bigger picture etc. who knows what good things to come he prevented from happening with his actions.
that he suffered from cancer is fate or whatever – genes mutilated by doping etc.
who knows what kind of complex psychological things were at play when he decided to start raising money and founded this charity. just because he raised some money – his fame he cheated himself into allowed him to raise – doesn’t make him a good guy to admire. like totally not. but it’s funny how this seems to be the modus operandi. fuck things up, then do some charity shit to maintain the image that allows you to go on successfully fucking things up. re-cycling.
Armstrong’s books moved into ‘Fiction’ in an Aussie library..
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-21115720
“I’ve not read what you said but…”
??!
“The ends justify the means” is a highly dangerous principle that has been used by psychopaths and demagogues down the ages: Hitler, Stalin, Napoleon, Pol Pot, Arsene Wenger (ok, only kidding about Pol Pot). You could argue that Ron Hubbard did a lot of good by setting up the Church of Scientology. Of course we want millions to go into cancer research, assuming it is spent properly. But in return Armstrong made billions from his Tour de France titles. In the end it’s a balance: does the good outweigh the bad? Is the good merely a cloak for the bad? I think it was in Armstrong’s case. But you have to judge each case individually.
“fuck things up, then do some charity shit to maintain the image that allows you to go on successfully fucking things up.”
must have copied that tactic from savile.
Well, TEJTM was coined by Machiavelli only in the context of functioning governments.
But I’d say it’s not just used by psychopaths (including Roman Abramovich). If your wife’s happy because you lied to her about how fat those jeans make her look, then TEJTM.
Do we disagree with the principle or the extent?
I love sport. I really do.
I’ve screamed on the mighty Spurs like my very life depended on it most Saturdays.
I’ve spent hours sitting in silence, on my own, watching Ronnie O’Sullivan walk around a green table.
I cried a little bit when that bastard Andy Murray lost the Wimbledon final.
But through it all, I know it’s just sport.
It’s not real life. It doesn’t really matter. We could get rid of all competitive sport tomorrow and no-one’s life would be ruined.
Some of us would probably be happier. Arsene Wenger, for example.
Now I’ve been lucky enough to avoid cancer. And so have my loved ones. But I’ve got a pretty good idea that cancer’s as fucking real as it comes.
So weighing up raising millions and millions to fight cancer, against cheating so you could cycle quicker than anyone else up a hill seems like a pretty fair trade off to me.
If I was Lance Armstrong, I’d feel pretty confident of the conversation I was about to have as I strolled up to the pearly gates.
Everybody lies, everybody cheats. Just the extent of it is different. And in this case, they pointed out one big cheater out of a group of cheaters. The best cheater was the guy who didn’t get scrutinized by continuously finishing first. In that sense, Lance was the clumsiest cheater.
It’s funny to read about how the general population is outraged about Lance Armstrong. But I guess the general population knows nothing about professional cycling.
For years you had to be on drugs to keep up. Let alone win. I’m not saying what he did was right. And if Tyler Hamilton’s book is anything to go by he was a total c*unt. But if you’re going to hate what Lance did, at least put it into perspective.
Here’s a list (and it’s a very long one) of all the cyclists that have been caught doping over the years…
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_doping_cases_in_cycling
There was probably less drugs to be found back stage at a Motely Crue gig than there was in old Tour de France team buses.
Nah, he’s a right proper gobshite:
http://www.balls.ie/news/a-very-emotional-david-walsh-bbc-interview-further-exposes-the-utter-vileness-of-lance-armstrong/#sthash.3oh7M8fL.dpbs
I think people confuse the ends and the means quite frequently. It’s rarely the end.
A heart warming story of being sporting.
http://elpais.com/elpais/2012/12/19/inenglish/1355928581_856388.html
Mosts sports today are closer to entertainment or businesses than sports. i.e. nothing to do with being sporting.
You can’t love a sport and be un-sporting can you?
Cheating is rarely good for a sport.
I was disappointed that you asked such a boringly loaded question.
Yes, we are all hypocrites, guilty of many questionable moral choices. So who cares if he cheated?
What future has Lance given to Livestrong?
I was disappointed in your vague and pointless comment.
If Lance cheated in seven tour de france in order to raise half a billion for cancer then I could try and forgive his actions. But I don’t think he did. I think he was a narcissist who wanted to be worshipped.
Mike is correct, Lance didn’t start cheating to raise millions.
Lance Armstrong was selling a fairy tale, just like advertisers sell us fairy tales about their products. People shouldn’t be so upset when they find that out.
Thanks for the comment Ben.