I watched the Lance Armstrong Oprah interview the other night.
What a load of bull.
Basically Lance is saying he doped a bit, but not too much. He was careful to not get caught and he did it because he believed (quite rightfully I would say) that he was competing against others who were doing it too. And he believed that he wouldn't really be able to compete with them unless he did it too.
And he's sorry. This is where he loses me. I think it's fine he did it. I think it's fine he tried to hide it. And I think that's what he really believes as well.
He was protecting something he had worked very hard for and hurt some people in the process. Sure there's a little bit of despicable there, but overall I see very little wrong with the old Lance and a whole lot wrong with the pretentious new Lance.
Why apologize? He isn't really sorry, is he? I'm sure he's sorry that the whole thing has been exposed. And he's sorry that he's bearing the brunt of it. But he isn't sorry he doped. If he hadn't doped, he would be a nobody. Does anyone remember any of the names of those guys who say they competed against him without doping? I sure don't. But I know Lance Armstrong's name. I know him as a guy who did all he had to do to win the Tour de France 7 times. He's a champion. A winner. That's what pro sport is all about. He didn't win the Tour de France by doping. He won it by training fucking hard for many years. He doped a little to help him train harder and to help him get better. But it was still hard work. He was willing to sacrifice more and take bigger risks and he won.
Imagine this scenario. You can train your ass off for 10 years and achieve nothing; or you can train your ass off for 10 years, coordinate it with a careful program of supplementing with EPO and steroids, and be immortalized. I'm sure we would all choose the first option...
Does that mean they should allow doping? Not sure. It's a tough question.
Let's consider testosterone (something Lance has now admitted to taking as part of his doping program). This is an anabolic steroid occurring naturally in the human body. Now, let's assume all the guys who took part in the Tour de France are 100% "clean". We measure all their testosterone levels and they all fall within the normal range with the minimum value being about 50% of the max value (this is quite possible within the normal range). Now, let's give the minimum value a name. Say Mitt. Let's give the maximum value a name. Say Barack. Barack wins the Tour, Mitt comes second. Is this fair? Obviously not. Mitt could double his testosterone level and still be within the normal range. And he would be able to build much stronger muscles and come back and beat the shit out of Barack.
But Mitt took a "performance enhancing" drug I hear you say. That's gotta be illegal. But Barack also took something performance enhancing. Like everything he ate. Every minute of training. Every protein shake. Every energy drink. None of these things are completely natural, all of these helped Barack enhance his performance.
I think ultimately the problem lies in the competitive nature of sport and the obscene value that society places on performance in sport. It really shouldn't matter that one guy can go slightly faster on a bike than another. And therein lies the problem. It does matter. We've made it matter by putting ridiculous prizes on such trivialities.
I don't know what the answer is, but I think Lance is less sincere now than he was 10 years ago. I prefer the old Lance.
No comments:
Post a Comment