Yesterday was nothing short of a nightmare for Armstrong. The series of unfortunate events started when he announced that he was stepping down as chairman of Livestrong- his beloved cancer-fighting charity. Following this announcement, Armstrong was dropped by Nike, Anheuser-Busch and other sponsors. This was all caused by a recent announcement from the anti-doping agency disclosing evidence of drug use by Armstrong. Why did he step down as chairman? Armstrong wanted to minimize the damage caused by the U.S. Anti-Doping Agency's report that led to Armstrong being banned from the sport for life. Armstrong was also stripped of all his Tour titles. After his statement to step down as chairman Armstrong released the following to the Associated Press:"This organization, its mission and its supporters are incredibly dear to my heart... Today therefore, to spare the foundation any negative effects as a result of controversy surrounding my cycling career, I will conclude my chairmanship."
In the report by the U.S. Anti-Doping Agency, Armstrong was apparently part of "the most sophisticated, professionalized and successful doping program that the sport has ever seen."
Not only did he just cheat, but he could be the biggest doper in the history of sports. But it still takes one incredibly fit human being to win the Tour de France not once, not twice, but seven times!
Armstrong used performance enhancing drugs to help win all of those prestigious events and to become the best cyclist in the history of the sports, but what about all of his accomplishments off-the-bike? Since Livestrong started in 1997, the charity has raised over $470 million for cancer research. Armstrong was the man in charge, the chairman of this great charity that led way to many breakthroughs in the fight against cancer. Beating his own testicular cancer was not enough, he used his high profile statues to increase the chances of survival for all others fighting the disease. It is a shame that all of this information is now being overlooked as he is ridiculed for his usage of steroids. Yes what he did was wrong but how can you hate a guy who raised nearly half a billion dollars for charity? The future of Lance Armstrong is tricky to predict. There will be haters. There will be devoted fans. But the most important thing, there will be thousands of lives changed due to his philanthropic achievements. It is for this reason, that Lance Armstrong should not be seen as a cheat doper, but as a role model for all.
Lance Armstrong truly did a great deal of fundraising for cancer research using his fame from cycling, but to make a role model out of him would be a mistake. Sponsors such as Nike made the right choice in dissociating from Armstrong and his crony tactics. Unfortunately, it cannot be said Nike and other sponsors were unaware of Armstrong's doping. We can only assume that they were afraid of what recent incriminating disclosures would do to their business. Plenty of other "private citizens" have made strides in research for cancer and other endeavors without needing to be made role models, yet we know that they exist. The fact that his disease was cancer, makes his move to support that type of research a little less sincere considering he would benefit from it, especially around the time he was battling with the disease. Perhaps if Armstrong had been stricken with AIDS, he would have been supporting AIDS research. I would prefer not make a role model out of Mr. Armstrong, let's wait until a more honorable, fame-seeking philanthropist, steps up to the plate.
ReplyDeleteLance Armstrong's contribution to cancer research is not to be ignored. By being a living example of cancer's reality and its effects, Armstrong was able to capture the nation's attention. It is unfortunate that Armstrong's poor decision has had so many negative repercussions- repercussions that have affected a much larger population than Armstrong alone. He was an American hero! While I am greatly disappointed that Armstrong made such a selfish decision, I do not think his accomplishments for cancer research should be forgotten. Instead of disappearing altogether, I would have preferred for Armstrong to continue to his work with Livestrong and for him to have made that his focus. While his name will be forever tainted, I do think the American people are capable of forgiveness.
ReplyDeleteI agree with your article. Like many other athletes past and present Armstrong made a mistake, and to be honest when everyone in the sport is doping how can you not? I think that the best thing is for Armstrong to stop denying, admit it, apologize and move forward. He truly is a great role model and in my opinion a great athlete regardless. I think he should admit and move on. Personally, I have always been a HUGE Michael Phelps fan and I think he handled the weed controversy well. He moved forward and is still a competitive force in swimming and an awesome athlete as well as a role model for many young swimmers. And lets be honest, wouldn't weed slow you down when swimming anyway?
ReplyDeleteYou are brave to tackle this issue with one, unwavering argument. The Armstrong revelation is tough to grasp and I am sure many are still grappling with it. You may have seen postings, op-eds, and news articles from across the spectrum, trying to essentialize his legacy in light of the revelations. I think that your post captures best the appropriate response to the Lance Armstrong that we as a community have now been presented with. A nice dose of moral outrage at the tenacity and persistence of his doping scheme, coupled with appreciation for the altruistic way he utilized his success, is the ideal response to the revealed Armstrong. This said, the press will have to be very careful with how they construct his legacy from here on out, in order to focus on the positives of his career and make them into model actions, while making sure to convey that the means by which he got to his current place in the sporting world are reprehensible. I do hope that your message can be conveyed and constructed and that we are left interpreting Lance Armstrong as a complex, frustrating case, with both positives and negatives.
ReplyDelete