Lance on SNL courtesy of Cyclelicious
Can we really separate Lance the Athlete and Lance the Person?
Last week, I posted It’s Really Hard to Tell Who’s Lying, in reference to Tyler Hamilton’s interview on 60 Minutes. In the post, I mentioned how I was viewing Lance separately as an athlete and as a person. On one hand, if he’s found guilty of doping it would be one of the biggest cover-ups in the history of sport. But on the other hand, I don’t think it would negate all the good that he’s done as a person, cancer survivor, and advocate. He’s raised millions and helped millions over the years. I’m not so sure his legacy in the cancer-advocate arena would necessarily be completely disparaged. But there are a lot of angles to this thing.
Jamie Axt, a local rider on the Palo Alto Noon Ride, sent me an article by Patrick Hruby of The Atlantic in which the author directly addresses this tendency to separate the athlete and the person. His view is that we absolutely cannot. The athlete and the person are inextricably linked.
Many fans want to separate the recent doping allegations from his admirable cancer work. Sorry, America. You can’t have it both ways. In the wake of the most recent—and most damning—doping allegations against Lance Armstrong, there’s a desire to compartmentalize. A rush to split the celebrity cyclist into two distinct entities. Cancer hero. Possible drug fraud. One or the other. Can we resolve our uncomfortable cognitive dissonance by simply continuing to admire the former while distancing ourselves from the latter? No. Not if we’re being realistic.
There are so many angles to this issue, so many opinions, so many questions. It’s fascinating and frustrating at the same time as the story continues to unfold…sooo slowly.
You can read the full article at The Atlantic HERE. It’s worth it.
Can you separate the two?
Ride on…
Related posts:
I don’t think the Atlantic article made a compelling argument at all. He states that it is impossible to “separate the recent doping allegations from his admirable cancer work.” He then argues that because of the doping, cancer patients can no longer look up to him as an example of one that has overcome cancer to do great things, and that alone somehow nullifies any good he has done for cancer. Or, as he puts it, “Armstrong’s anti-cancer work and his cycling accomplishments are inexorably intertwined.” That’s a huge leap that he provides no argument for. His only argument is that future cancer patients can’t look up to him, but that doesn’t mean he hasn’t done an immense amount of good for the cause. That doesn’t mean that, at the time, he didn’t provide the author’s father with some inspiration to get through some tough times.
Good people do bad things, and bad people do good things; people aren’t either wholly good or wholly bad. There’s nothing to say you can’t appreciate the work he has done for cancer while condemning him for doping (assuming he did) then lying about it.
I like it! Thanks for the comment. “Good people do bad things, and bad people do good things” is a great way to put it. There are so many angles to this, I liked the article for it’s different take on the ethics of the issue. Would be fascinating to hear an ethicist’s/philosopher’s take as well.