Skip to main content

OK, I can hear the groaning from here.

Just hang with me for a minute or two.

Let me be as delicate as I can be.

The guy had testicular cancer, and had a nut removed.

The cancer at one point had spread to his brain, and things were not looking so hot.

EPO is used for cancer patients that undergo Chemotherapy to help bring up their red blood cell count.

Testosterone therapy now seems to be a pretty common approach for guys who may be missing a step or two. Hell, they peddle this stuff in TV commercials now, all you need is an underarm and a doctors prescription and away you go!

So, lets see, what was Mr. Armstrong dealing with.

Chemo, check.

"Low T", check.

If Lance Armstrong wasn't "Lance Armstrong, 7 Time Tour De France champion", would he have done anything wrong here?

Of course not.

If he were just another guy, what he would be doing by taking EPO and testosterone is just trying to get back to "normal", or as close to whatever "normal" was for him before these horrible things started happening to him.

But wait, you say, not so fast! He's a professional athlete, he's still gaining an unfair advantage.

Is he, are you really sure about that?

Maybe all he did was get himself back to what his own "baseline" would have been.

Is that a stretch? Yeah, maybe. But maybe not.

Oscar Pistorius was allowed to run in the "Able Bodied" Olympics last year with artificial legs, because it was determined that they did not impart an advantage over the other runners, it only got him back on a "level playing field".

Is it such a leap to consider that what Lance Armstrong did was just put himself back onto a level playing field with the other riders, especially given the fact that many of the top competitors were known to be doping also?

Now, I'm not going to defend his actions concerning the whistleblowers, they were not lying and he was clearly way out of bounds in how he handled that part of this affair.

But I think the purely "athletic" part of this story is a little more complicated than many of the tut-tutters are trying to make this out to be.

He clearly had much better justification for taking PED's than the myriad of major league baseball players who were juiced to the gills for the better part of two decades.

After all, his PED's were actually used to save his life.

None of the other athletes can make that claim.

Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags


More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Tip Jar (9+ / 0-)

    "Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain!"

    by jkay on Fri Jan 18, 2013 at 01:16:34 PM PST

  •  That helps me understand his reasoning when he (8+ / 0-)

    says he wasn't cheating, but feels he was getting back to a level playing field.  I still feel he was cheating, because he knew the things he was using were banned to competitors.  However, now I can understand why he can say with a straight face that he was getting to a basis equal to the others, even with the allegations and in many cases proof that the other competitors without a history of cancer like him were still using boosters.

    I think he might have been able to get his medication and been able to compete had he worked with the cycling federations to establish a baseline health and then take his medications to reach that baseline, but not exceed it.  We don't know if his doping sent him above the rest of the field and it's arguable that it didn't, since all his tests over the years didn't show his chemical balances out of whack.  Still, he did take banned substances and he concealed and lied about doing so.  He also zealously worked against those who claimed he doped, destroying them and their careers; that's what many are most upset about.

    I like your view and perhaps had he been forthcoming he might have changed cycling and testing for drugs such that people would be able to make up for deficiencies without suffering penalties, but we'll never know.

    •  Just for the record (6+ / 0-)

      I have not seen any of the interview, and have held this belief for many years.

      It always seemed very obvious to me what his "rationale" was to take these "supplements".

      He suffered a catastrophic medical calamity, and these drugs basically made him whole.

      I agree with you, if he had established a "protocol" for taking these drugs before he resumed competing, he might have avoided all of this.

      "Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain!"

      by jkay on Fri Jan 18, 2013 at 01:37:35 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  I've always wondered if it wasn't the chemo (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Lujane, worldlotus, JamieG from Md

        that he was being blamed for. I see now that it was the recovery-from-the-chemo, which is currently, as diarist points out, all over the TV.

        Has anybody checked to see if the sports authorities were consulted, and basically told him, "go die"?

        He was a cancer patient.

        LBJ, Lady Bird, Anne Richards, Barbara Jordan, Sully Sullenberger, Ike, Drew Brees, Molly Ivins --Texas is no Bush league! -7.50,-5.59

        by BlackSheep1 on Fri Jan 18, 2013 at 03:25:11 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  Who's to say the doping ... (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        JosephK74, crose

        didn't precede the cancer?  If it did, and I recall hearing so repeatedly many years ago, it's possible the doping caused the cancer.

        "Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity, and I am not sure about the universe." -- Albert Einstein

        by Neuroptimalian on Fri Jan 18, 2013 at 07:01:49 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  The question though is (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Neuroptimalian, JamieG from Md

      was he using the drugs prior to his cancer diagnosis? That's where the problem lies.

      I think there does need to be a distinction in sports that would allow participants with certain known medical conditions to use some steroids -- for example when Andy Pettite reportedly used them to rehab faster from injury. Certification by an independent board of doctors that there is a condition that use of steroids would help heal, and frequent checks to make sure once the condition is cured that the player is no longer using would distinguish those who are using PEDs for extra advantage from those who are using them under doctor's supervision.

      My spouse is also a testicular cancer survivor; his condition was not nearly as serious as Armstrong's -- he only had to have a testicle removed, and it was a non-aggressive type that did not spread past the effective ball. (4-1/2 years after surgery, still cancer-free.) So I have a hard time separating Lance the Cheater with Lance the Do-Gooder.

      "If we ever needed to vote we sure do need to vote now" -- Rev. William Barber, NAACP

      by Cali Scribe on Fri Jan 18, 2013 at 03:36:37 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  I don't buy that.. (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        ..Pettite used them simply to "rehab" from an injury.

        I remember distinctly one year he came back from the off season and it looked like he had a different body.

        He no longer had that slightly "soft" look about him, it was very  obvious that he had been doing "something".

        I was baffled at the time that none of the announcers of mentioned anything about his "new" body, it was totally obvious. Whatever he was doing was way beyond "rehab".

        The media went in the tank for him because he's always been "one of the good guys".

        That's another aspect of the drug era that I can't stand and is totally hypocritical.  How you are treated in and by the media in regard to if you are outed or not, and if you are how you are treated thereafter, is determined solely by if they like you or not.

        If you're an Andy Pettite, all is forgiven. Oh, he made a mistake, he's really a good guy.

        If you're a Barry Bonds, though, forget it.

        And let me just put it out there. If you're a black athlete, you have no chance. If you're white, it's 50/50.

        "Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain!"

        by jkay on Fri Jan 18, 2013 at 05:04:56 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  His teammates (0+ / 0-)

        described him telling the oncologist what PEDs he had been taking--they overheard the conversation in the hospital. His drug use preceded the cancer diagnosis.

  •  but thats the problem (16+ / 0-)

    the way he treated those telling the truth about him, that's what most folks hate his guts for, rightfully so.

  •  Even Mr.Fantastic can't make that stretch (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    ColoTim, Bisbonian, v2aggie2, Lujane

    But even if we assume for a minute that your theory is true, it still doesn't excuse him for all the terrible things he did to other people and organizations.  It does not excuse the threats.  It does not excuse the lawsuits.  It does not excuse trashing people's businesses or reputations or careers.

    Lots of athletes cheat.  To some extent I can understand and forgive that because so many others cheat too, and it really is leveling the playing field to some degree.  Where they lose me--and so many others--is when they tell such sanctimonious lies about it, especially after being caught.  Look at the different reactions between Roger Clemens and Andy Pettitte, for example.  But Lance Armstrong went far, far beyond just doping and lying.

    •  I think this is a unique case (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      Those drugs were initially used to save his life and get his body back to what it was before the cancer.

      No other elite athlete can make that claim.

      What is really hard to untangle is just how far he was able to exceed what his "actual restored baseline" was in fact.

      If indeed he did not gain a true advantage, this story becomes even more tragic because it could have been totally avoided had he just sought to gain permission to use the drugs legally before seeking to compete again.

      "Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain!"

      by jkay on Fri Jan 18, 2013 at 01:47:21 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  I appreciate your diary. (4+ / 0-)

        But for me, Armstrong behaved unforgivably toward those who were his friends and teammates. Granted his extraordinary personal health story, that didn't give him the right to abuse those around him when they told the truth about his doping.

        Being the single intellectual in a village of 1,100 souls ain't much fun, especially when 1,099 of those don't think you're all that smart.--Lucy Marsden

        by Miniaussiefan on Fri Jan 18, 2013 at 04:31:21 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Thats what I think too (0+ / 0-)

          The doping mught have been forgivable.
          the threats and intimidation of his friends and teammates was not

          Happy just to be alive

          by exlrrp on Fri Jan 18, 2013 at 04:49:11 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  It wasn't... (0+ / 0-)

            The doping itself wasn't forgivable.  This wasn't a severely disabled man who was "leveling the playing field".  He had recovered from cancer already by the time he was cheating on the TDF.  

            But, yes, I agree his sanctimonious attitude and how he tried to absolutely destroy people who told the truth is even worse than the lying.  

        •  I agree with you (0+ / 0-)

          I make no apologies for his "off the field" behavior towards others, which was clearly reprehensible on many levels.

          "Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain!"

          by jkay on Fri Jan 18, 2013 at 05:07:05 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

      •  He had already recovered from cancer though... (0+ / 0-)

        If his testosterone was low, then maybe TRT could be justified, but if it was justified he wouldn't have had to worry about getting caught.  

        Using EPO when you're being given chemotherapy is not the same as using it after you're cancer free.  There is no reason to believe that one or two years later he had anything deficient about his blood.  

        And what about the transfusions of his own blood?  There's no explanation for that at all.  

        You're bending over backwards for him, when the reality is he was cheating, and doing so better than anyone else.  Might he have won clean?  No, he wouldn't, because the other riders were also cheating.  

        In a level playing field he might have one several TDFs but he probably wouldn't have won 7 in a row.  What's more we have no idea how the line-up of top riders would have been different if some of them had not been cheating.  

        For all we know the best rider never won, because he wasn't willing to cheat.  That's the real travesty of the whole thing.  

        Lance Armstrong benefited greatly from cheating, he made a hundred million dollars and had his time in the spotlight.  Even with his current disgrace, he still has the money.  How much of that money should have gone to someone else who didn't cheat?  We'll never know.  

      •  No-- (0+ / 0-)

        he was taking PEDs long before the cancer diagnosis. They were not initially used to "save his life and get his body back to what it was before the cancer."

        •  I am not a doctor (0+ / 0-)

          But if you are going through Chemo and lose a testicle,
          wouldn't EPO and testosterone be part of the treatment?

          I would think testosterone would be something you would likely have prescribed to you for the rest of your life.

          "Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain!"

          by jkay on Sat Jan 19, 2013 at 07:13:49 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

  •  Except ... (9+ / 0-)

    he admitted he was doping before the cancer. Sorry Lance is 100% sleaze ball. Ironically...

    "One could infer that these agents could potentiate the growth of a cancer cell," said oncologist Dr. Arjun Vasant Balar of NYU Langone Medical Center in New York....
    •  I'm ok with the "cheating" (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      coquiero, snowwoman

      Virtually all the top athletes in baseball and particularly cycling were using.  But the fact that he was using before the cancer mostly, IMO, negates the reasoning of this diary.

      Lance is a complicated person and by most accounts I have read over the years, pretty much a dick.  Obviously what he did to those telling the truth was beyond the pale and proves his dickish-ness but the piling on Lance right now (when the truth was pretty well established years ago) is over the top in this hypocritical media-driven world.

      We cannot solve our problems with the same thinking we used when we created them. Albert Einstein

      by theotherside on Fri Jan 18, 2013 at 02:55:04 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  The truth wasn't established though... (0+ / 0-)

        I remember a few years back people were talking about how the French were so mean for not accepting Lance Armstrong as legitimately winning the TDF, and constantly accusing him of doping.  A lot of people believed Armstrong when he said he didn't cheat.  

        Don't try to rewrite history.  The truth was only established in the last 6 months or so.  Before that point he was mostly given the benefit of the doubt.  

        •  I'm a sports junkie and a political junkie (0+ / 0-)

          I watched most of the TDF's that Lance won.

          The accusations have been out there for over 15 years and most people that have followed the story knew that there were gigantic holes in Lance's defense.  The common wisdom amongst most people in the sports world and, most especially in the cycling world, "knew" Lance was not telling the truth.

          Put another way, there were very few people that follow sports closely that were surprised about the recent "news".  As for those people that don't follow sports and view Lance through the lens of a celebrity or purely as a cancer survivor then I can understand them being surprised.  It's all about frame of reference and if you didn't "know" Lance was guilty before 6 months ago I can understand that but the reporting on this has been solid for a really long time.

          We cannot solve our problems with the same thinking we used when we created them. Albert Einstein

          by theotherside on Sat Jan 19, 2013 at 02:03:53 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

  •  if he were trying for a level playing field (5+ / 0-)

    then that does not justify the way he hounded, demonized, and ruined anyone who told the truth about him, nor his decade of frank denials that he was doping, and VIOLATING EVERY RULE OF THE SPORT.  Sorry, cancer doesn't excuse assholery.

    "Kossacks are held to a higher standard. Like Hebrew National hot dogs." - blueaardvark

    by louisev on Fri Jan 18, 2013 at 01:45:30 PM PST

  •  The indefensible, however (5+ / 0-)

    is making other people's lives a living hell, suing them time and again so they have to rack up the money for their lawyers. Indefensible is suing a newspaper for libel and extracting hundreds of thousands of dollars from it - all the while knowing the paper was right. Indefensible is to not apologize when going on TV...

    Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away. -- Philip K. Dick

    by RandomGuyFromGermany on Fri Jan 18, 2013 at 01:48:24 PM PST

  •  Apparently he's still lying. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    Boehner Just Wants Wife To Listen, Not Come Up With Alternative Debt-Reduction Ideas

    by dov12348 on Fri Jan 18, 2013 at 01:58:08 PM PST

  •  The whole "doping" thing has gone absurdly too far (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    jkay, ColoTim

    Originally, anabolic steroids were banned because they were dangerous to health, plain and simple. It expanded from there into a paranoid witch hunt against anything that people demonize as giving an "advantage". Hell, certain types of high altitude training are banned in cycling! How freaking ridiculous is that?

    Let's set the record straight. EVERY medicine is "performance enhancing". That's the whole point of medicine. A couple of pain pills is a performance enhancer because it blocks pain that would inhibit action. Knee reconstruction on torn ligaments is performance enhancing because it gets the athlete off of crutches and able to walk and run unassisted again. Armstrong's cancer treatments were performance enhancing because it prevented him from becoming dead, which is the lowest state of performance known.

    Much like ending the War on Drugs, I think it's high time to drag this whole mess out into the open and allow licensed and competent doctors to prescribe anything they feel is safe and effective. And in so doing allow the big money in sports to trickle down to the rest of us in the form of safe and effective enhancements for all of us.

    If rabid purists want to deny medical science in a fanatical pursuit of "purity" which even they can't define, let them form their own leage of Straight Edgers. maybe they can get sponsorship from the Christian Scientist church. I'm sick of anti-drug fanatics standing in the way of medical science.

    "Is there anybody listening? Is there anyone who sees what's going on? Read between the lines, criticize the words they're selling. Think for yourself, and feel the walls become sand beneath your feet." --Geoff Tate, Queensryche

    by DarthMeow504 on Fri Jan 18, 2013 at 02:02:42 PM PST

    •  The locus of bedwetting "purists" are the... (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      If rabid purists want to deny medical science in a fanatical pursuit of "purity" which even they can't define, let them form their own leage of Straight Edgers. maybe they can get sponsorship from the Christian Scientist church. I'm sick of anti-drug fanatics standing in the way of medical science.
      ...major league baseball writers, who as a group reflect cultural and societal norms as they were in the 1940's.

      If it were up to some of these idiots, baseball would still not be integrated.

      Let me put it more bluntly, these are some of the very dumbest mofo's on the planet. Calling any of these knuckle draggers "writers" is a complement 95% of them don't deserve.

      The only reason they get upset is because they view the historical statistics of baseball as something akin to the Bible, the Torah, the Koran and the Rosetta Stone all rolled into one.

      Any perceived assault on the holy statistics is met with the heat of a thousand suns.

      "Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain!"

      by jkay on Fri Jan 18, 2013 at 02:34:02 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  So people who are against cheating ... (0+ / 0-)

        in sports must also be racists?


        "Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity, and I am not sure about the universe." -- Albert Einstein

        by Neuroptimalian on Fri Jan 18, 2013 at 07:07:43 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  No (0+ / 0-)

          My comment goes way, way beyond that.

          That discussion would take hours.

          You really have to understand the culture of Baseball and pro sports in general to get where I'm coming from.

          It is an extremely authoritarian, regressive culture from coaches to management to media.

          It's elaborate stagecraft, where the white athletes are almost always given the benefit of the doubt when they get  in trouble.

          It's not as obvious as it used to be, but if you listen fairly carefully it's easy to catch the differences in how the athletes are handled in the media.

          "Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain!"

          by jkay on Sat Jan 19, 2013 at 07:20:48 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  Circular argument (0+ / 0-)

          Certain medical treatments are against the rules, thus using them  is cheating. They are against the rules because they're cheating, which is because they are against the rules.

          Nobody is arguing that breaking the rules isn't cheating. What we're saying is the rules are fucking stupid and need to be changed. Then the medical treatments in question would not be against the rules, thus they would not be cheating.

          "Is there anybody listening? Is there anyone who sees what's going on? Read between the lines, criticize the words they're selling. Think for yourself, and feel the walls become sand beneath your feet." --Geoff Tate, Queensryche

          by DarthMeow504 on Sun Jan 20, 2013 at 04:15:51 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

      •  I think you just lost all credibility... (0+ / 0-)

        Apparently from what you are saying here you have no problems with people cheating at all, so your perspective is kind of rendered moot in my eyes.  

  •  if this were a mitigating factor (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    then the correct action is to try to change the rules, not break them.

    Comparing Lance Armstrong to Oscar Pistorius, who didn't break any rules and asked for permission first before, is ridiculous. Armstrong knew that what he was doing could not be justified as a medical necessity, so he just did it anyway and broke the rules, and bullied people who knew about it. Oscar Pistorius courageously stood up for himself and those like him in the full light of day changing the sport, not breaking the rules because they didn't suit him.

    "Every Pootie is a masterpiece." - Da Vinci

    by mdsiamese on Fri Jan 18, 2013 at 02:05:27 PM PST

    •  Not to mention... (0+ / 0-)

      In the case of Pistorius, it's obvious what his condition is.  There's no hiding it, and people know what they're up against, and why.  

      Besides, this is like saying that Pistorius would still be allowed to use spring after his legs have regrown.  That's because Armstrong had already recovered from cancer before he started winning the TDF.  

      It's not like to this day Armstrong is still severely hindered by the fact he had cancer.  He's fully able bodied.  Maybe he has cellular damage or something that could predispose him to getting cancer again, but he's not physically impaired in any major way.  

      If his testosterone was low, I'm sure he could have had it boosted back up to normal levels.  Most sports allow that.  

  •  1 word leaped to mind when i saw the interview (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    ColoTim, coquiero, Neuroptimalian

    Sociopath. The guy didn't seem to have any real contrition about what he'd done.

    "I smoke. If this bothers anyone, I suggest you look around at the world in which we live and shut your fuckin' mouth." --- Bill Hicks

    by voroki on Fri Jan 18, 2013 at 02:09:59 PM PST

  •  Is it cheating if everyone else is doing it? (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    ColoTim, jkay

    I am pretty sure I heard on NPR (but I could be wrong) that the TDF people had to go back to the person in 23rd place to award them the new first place medal for one of his races. If the top 22 people were not eligible because of doping, I don't think he had all the much of a competitive edge - more like staying on a level playing field.

    •  You correctly point out... (0+ / 0-)

      .....that to really be cheating, you have to have a "context" for cheating.

      All the top riders were "cheating", so was he really "cheating"?

      Did he gain an advantage over the competitors who could have plausibly won the race?

      To my knowledge, none of the other competitors ever overcame a life threatening illness like Armstrong, so to say that he had an advantage over them if they were all doing the same thing is very suspect.

      "Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain!"

      by jkay on Fri Jan 18, 2013 at 02:55:17 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  it's been more than an hour and you don't respond (0+ / 0-)

        goObama, upthread, points out that Armstrong was using these before being diagnosed with cancer. If that's the case then what do you say about it?

        •  I did not know that (0+ / 0-)

          Obviously, if that is true, it does undercut my argument to a degree, but not totally.

          I'd have to know a little bit more the scope of what he was doing and for how long.

          "Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain!"

          by jkay on Fri Jan 18, 2013 at 05:14:48 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

      •  This is such bullshit (0+ / 0-)

        He may not have had an advantage over others who were also cheating, but all of them had an advantage over those who were not.  

        We don't know the bio of every rider in the TDF or what they might have overcome.  There's no reason to think Armstrong's cancer left him permanently enfeebled.  Cancer is something that it's possible to recover from nearly completely, if it is eliminated, although obviously many fail to do so.  The fact he survived his cancer probably says much about how physically fit he was to begin with.  

        Armstrong like to say his mindset allowed him to overcome it, but that is also utter bullshit.  No amount of mental toughness allows you to overcome physical health problems.  If so, quite a few people would live forever.  

    •  My mama said... (0+ / 0-)

      2 wrongs don't make a right.

  •  Cycling (0+ / 0-)

    It looks like the various cycling organizations are at fault too. Seems they are more interested in making money than policing the riders.

  •  Hmm. Just give me a second here... (4+ / 0-)

    Nope. Not buying it. Armstrong is still a dick, he's still wrong, and he still deserves to get stripped of his medals.

    I might have swallowed this argument if he hadn't made the lives of the people calling him out living hell, and sued the crap out of them and the media.  

    Then again, it's important to know if he was doping before the cancer. If he was, then I'll just be posting that old picture of Nick Cage with a bird on his head, because your argument is invalid.

  •  Ok, not rewarding cheaters is a good thing. (0+ / 0-)

    However there are a goodly number of athletes who have excelled and have passed their drug tests.
    So have the ones who came in second and third and fourth and so on.

    Are the runners up who are now going to become title holders been as closely monitored and retested as the dethroned former winners?

    We can all see the bizarre musculature of most athletes these days, and we know that they are doing drugs and getting away with it.  We all hear their pre game and post race interviews and wonder just how wired they are.

    Frankly no I longer care, because they are all "altered", but for those who do care about winners, why not just admit that everybody who passes this year's drug tests and wins over all the other's who do  the same drugs, is probably the best athlete and let it go at that.

  •  Except he was doing it long before he got cancer. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    jayden, Asak
  •  Uh, what about the growth hormone? (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    He admitted to that. He's admitted to doping. There's no excuse for it.

    The civil rights, gay rights and women's movements, designed to allow others to reach for power previously grasped only by white men, have made a real difference, and the outlines of 21st century America have emerged. -- Paul West of LA Times

    by LiberalLady on Fri Jan 18, 2013 at 07:37:43 PM PST

  •  Er, you do know (0+ / 0-)

    that steroid use causes cancer, right?  He probably brought that stuff on himself.

  •  I don't care (0+ / 0-)

    if they guy had his nut removed. He lied-lied-lied about the dope, threatened his friends and teammates, ruined successful careers, bribed officials and used American taxpayer money for his sponsorship. He has never thought about anyone but himself and the only reason he is "coming clean" about it now is he is about to go broke. He had a chance to come clean before and denied everything. He called his teammates and friends every dirty name he could fling at them--called them traitors--this man deserves to continue to go down in the flames he has created. He is a poseur.

    •  One last thing (0+ / 0-)

      I grew up playing and watching a lot of sports.

      It's, unfortunately, been too big of a part of my life.

      One of the reasons that I can look at what a Lance Armstrong did the way I do is that I really have come to the point that I really don't give a shit about the results of sporting events, pro or otherwise.

      I always go back to MLB to illustrate the hypocrisy because they essentially constructed a business model where PED's were encouraged, then when public opinion started turning on them for various reasons, they turned on the very athletes that they used to make their business a success.

      Everybody, from owners to writers to the public turned a blind eye as long as the players were launching 500 foot home runs.

      It was celebrated by everybody.

      So why is it that a Lance Johnson is so different from these baseball players? Because he participates in this weird sport of cycling that nobody in this country cares about?

      Yeah, sure he cheated. So did hundreds if not thousands of pro baseball and football players.

      In the end, how do you untangle the morality of it all?

      I don't think it's possible anymore, the baseline morality of these sports have become gelatinous, moving targets, aided and abetted by management and ownership.

      Nobody lifted a finger when Mark McGwire and Sammy Sosa were blasting 60 home runs a year. Why should the athletes think they were doing something wrong when they were being encouraged by their teams.

      If you want something to believe in, you shouldn't be watching sports in the first place.

      "Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain!"

      by jkay on Sat Jan 19, 2013 at 07:42:35 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site