Lance Armstrong – So What’s the Problem?
by Chris Sanchez
August 27, 2012 03:15 PM | 2995 views | 3 3 comments | 24 24 recommendations | email to a friend | print

Unless you have been under a rock this past weekend, you know about the passing of Neil Armstrong (see my blog for a brief post on that topic) and that Lance Armstrong has been banned from cycling for life and stripped of his seven Tour de France titles after announcing he would no longer fight the USADA’s charges of doping.  In the grand scheme of things, the accomplishments of Lance pale in comparison to those of Neil in my opinion.  Still, there is something about the situation with Lance that is bothering me.

You see, we Americans value fairness.  I have told my children time and time again that fairness ended in the Garden of Eden but that is blog for another time.  In the case against Lance Armstrong though, the cyclist rightly points to his history of drug testing in his sport.  Hundreds of drug tests performed and not once has Lance failed one of those tests.  Not once!  Here is where my problem begins.  You see, the USADA claims to have many witnesses prepared to testify that Lance used performance enhancing drugs, blood transfusions, etc. to fuel his wildly successful cycling career.  When the government says they have witnesses then the case must be iron-clad, right?  (Insert snarky laugh here)

Well, here’s my problem.  You see, if Lance had failed a single drug test this discussion would be very different indeed.  Now suppose Lance had failed a test in a competitive event and produced a dozen witnesses who would testify that Lance at no time used any of the previously mentioned methods (or any other for that matter) during the race and they could fully document that Lance was in their presence the entire time.  Guess what?  It wouldn’t matter!  Why?  Because of the failed drug test that’s why.  Do you see my problem yet?  No?  Let me explain.

USADA has rigged their system allowing them to have it both ways.  Heads you fail a drug test and we’ve got you or tails we have people to testify against you and we get to ignore the test results.  See the double standard?  The bottom-line is this: they can’t have it both ways.  Period.  This is the lack of fairness that I am talking about here and it simply rubs me the wrong way. 

I am not a big fan of cycling though like so many people around the world I have found Lance Armstrong’s story compelling over the years.  Many in the media claim Lance’s refusal to continue to fight the charges constitutes an admission of guilt.  Perhaps their statements have some merit.  Perhaps not. 

I don’t know if Lance Armstrong is guilty of doping but I know unfairness when I see it. If he is guilty of doping, Lance would do well to consider Mark 8:36, “For what shall it profit a man, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul?”  All the good works of his foundation, his illustrious cycling career, and all the rest are for naught without Christ.

About Christopher:

Christopher is a recent graduate of Liberty Baptist Theological Seminary of Liberty University where he earned the Master of Religious Education. He also holds MBA Finance and BS Management degrees. A former resident of Powder Springs, Christopher and his family now reside in Woodstock. Having enthusiastically embraced social media in 2007, he blogs regularly at www.chris-sanchez.com and is very active on both Facebook and Twitter.

 
Comments
(3)
Comments-icon Post a Comment
jbraml
|
August 28, 2012
USADA is not a government agency. (snarky grin)
RMA
|
August 28, 2012
Good morning from France,

Please, let me tell you that:

Lance Armstrong was caught at least three times but his case has always been swept under a rug. Most French journalists hushed-up the cases.

The show had to go on so expensive it was. His supporters needed to believe in Santa Claus.

I am a Frenchman, and I admire GREG LEMOND. Lance Armstrong would not have matched Greg Lemond without drugs.

I may not be right but GREG LEMOND was caught caught in a drug case. Who dare say so with Lance Armstrong who gave it up whereas he would have got a lot to lose through sponsoring? The advisers may have had a pretty "good idea" in giving up: funds raised are multipied by 25. Even his sponsors still support him!!!

Everything's money, even on the back of cancer. The question would rather be - Is this world fair? I would have a bit of a doubt, if I may put it this way...
Iscariot Armstrong
|
August 27, 2012
Please, before publishing an article can you educate yourself on the subject properly before casting aspersions on people that are upholding justice for clean athletes (a morally laudable and important thing to do I am sure you will agree, and a difficult task when the person you are prosecuting casts himself as a yellow-clad messiah),

For some background information to some of the issues (especially the supposed lack of positive test results) I suggest this excellent blog post that condenses it all quite nicely.

http://cavalierfc.tumblr.com/post/30172302298/its-not-about-the-bike

If you read it and still have doubts then there are plenty of excellent articles written by reputable journalists out there that deal with each matter separately.

In essence, what I am saying it, as much as everyone loves to hate the government, or find injustice in the workings of acts against a popular celebrity, Lance was a false idol in the sense that he has calculatedly bullied, cheated and intimidated all and any to accomplish his feats, for which he has reaped a vast personal fortune. His 'awareness' charity in fact has two companies-livestrong.com and livestrong.org. One is a for-profit that earns him still more money, the other is 'to raise awareness'. In the light of his other documented and less charitable acts, I cannot find much to believe that his cancer campaign is much more than a shield to protect him from bad PR, which is terribly sad.

I'm sorry if you disagree but I tried for a long time to give Lance the benefit of the doubt and ultimately you have to accept that people such as Mr Tygart are doing an incredibly difficult but important job. Would you take on Lance Armstrong knowing everyone would hate you but also knowing it is the right thing? Tygart to me has great moral strength to do this job and he is doing it for a far more noble motivation than Lance: protecting future young athletes from dangerous drugs and exploitation.
*We welcome your comments on the stories and issues of the day and seek to provide a forum for the community to voice opinions. All comments are subject to moderator approval before being made visible on the website but are not edited. The use of profanity, obscene and vulgar language, hate speech, and racial slurs is strictly prohibited. Advertisements, promotions, spam, and links to outside websites will also be rejected. Please read our terms of service for full guides