From Jan 28, 2011
What if Lance really did cheat?
Cycling is at best a fringe sport in the United States. Only two times during any given year will cycling make the front page of ESPN or SI.com, 1) During the Tour de France in June and July and 2) when one of the sport's elite tests positive for performance enhancing drugs (PEDs).
The second category is iffy (at best) due to the prevailing perception that for years cyclists have use drugs to enhance their performance, which leads us to a recent article in Sports Illustrated.
An excerpt of the print article appeared online late last week, but how many page views would it have received if its subject line, instead of saying the prominent rider's name instead said, "Years long investigation pegs cycling champ as cheater"? The vast majority of readers wouldn't have clicked to see who the cyclist in question was; instead, because the cyclist in question is Lance Armstrong, we have a noteworthy news story on our hands.
Since I'm paid to ask and answer the tough questions...actually, I'm not paid to do either...let's play another round of the game that's sweeping the nation...What If? What if Lance Armstrong actually did use performance enhancing drugs? Would the world as we know it end? No. Would cycling take a hit? This is hard to say because competitive cycling probably ranks below bowling in the TV ratings, but Armstrong is much more than just a cyclist. Since his remarkable recovery from cancer and seven consecutive Tour de France titles, he has raised millions of dollars for cancer research through his Livestrong Foundation. Will the major contributors (and minor ones too for that matter) cease contributing to his foundation?
I've got to believe that the backlash against Armstrong (and his foundation) will be immediate and permanent if it is proven that he used PEDs. He has maintained for as long as anyone paid attention to him, that he is clean, stating numerous times that he was the most tested athlete in the world. While I don't doubt that Armstrong has been tested countless times, we need to remember that numerous athletes who have admitted to using PEDs have never actually tested positive for their use. To further this point, the banned substances "the cream and the clear" were unknown to the United States Anti-Doping Agency (USADA) until samples were provided to them anonymously in 2003. (These two particular drugs had been around for years, with Marion Jones, among others, using them before the 2000 Sydney Olympics.) Unfortunately, so-called designer drugs (specifically steroids) have been steps ahead of drug tests...as people have stated, was Lance using substances that just hadn't been banned?
Another interested party in this ordeal is Nike. First Tiger Woods' image imploded after his indiscretions came to light and now one of their other marquee athletes is possibly set to fall. The difference I see here is that Woods has the ability to recover from his transgressions because he didn't break the law. He showed that he was human and had flaws, but what he did in no way improved his golf game. If it's proven that Armstrong used PEDs, he will be forever vilified for being a cheater. Tiger Woods lost several sponsors in the wake of his infidelities coming to light, but he may earn more back if he can regain his old form. Armstrong is past his prime in his sport (hard not to be after winning The Tour seven times), and won't have the time to ride at the front of the pack and show that he can compete and win cleanly. His sponsors will most likely never return.
America has invested heavily in Lance Armstrong, and hopefully for his sake, the latest allegations will too fall by the wayside, because he'll never bounce back from this.
The second category is iffy (at best) due to the prevailing perception that for years cyclists have use drugs to enhance their performance, which leads us to a recent article in Sports Illustrated.
An excerpt of the print article appeared online late last week, but how many page views would it have received if its subject line, instead of saying the prominent rider's name instead said, "Years long investigation pegs cycling champ as cheater"? The vast majority of readers wouldn't have clicked to see who the cyclist in question was; instead, because the cyclist in question is Lance Armstrong, we have a noteworthy news story on our hands.
Since I'm paid to ask and answer the tough questions...actually, I'm not paid to do either...let's play another round of the game that's sweeping the nation...What If? What if Lance Armstrong actually did use performance enhancing drugs? Would the world as we know it end? No. Would cycling take a hit? This is hard to say because competitive cycling probably ranks below bowling in the TV ratings, but Armstrong is much more than just a cyclist. Since his remarkable recovery from cancer and seven consecutive Tour de France titles, he has raised millions of dollars for cancer research through his Livestrong Foundation. Will the major contributors (and minor ones too for that matter) cease contributing to his foundation?
I've got to believe that the backlash against Armstrong (and his foundation) will be immediate and permanent if it is proven that he used PEDs. He has maintained for as long as anyone paid attention to him, that he is clean, stating numerous times that he was the most tested athlete in the world. While I don't doubt that Armstrong has been tested countless times, we need to remember that numerous athletes who have admitted to using PEDs have never actually tested positive for their use. To further this point, the banned substances "the cream and the clear" were unknown to the United States Anti-Doping Agency (USADA) until samples were provided to them anonymously in 2003. (These two particular drugs had been around for years, with Marion Jones, among others, using them before the 2000 Sydney Olympics.) Unfortunately, so-called designer drugs (specifically steroids) have been steps ahead of drug tests...as people have stated, was Lance using substances that just hadn't been banned?
Another interested party in this ordeal is Nike. First Tiger Woods' image imploded after his indiscretions came to light and now one of their other marquee athletes is possibly set to fall. The difference I see here is that Woods has the ability to recover from his transgressions because he didn't break the law. He showed that he was human and had flaws, but what he did in no way improved his golf game. If it's proven that Armstrong used PEDs, he will be forever vilified for being a cheater. Tiger Woods lost several sponsors in the wake of his infidelities coming to light, but he may earn more back if he can regain his old form. Armstrong is past his prime in his sport (hard not to be after winning The Tour seven times), and won't have the time to ride at the front of the pack and show that he can compete and win cleanly. His sponsors will most likely never return.
America has invested heavily in Lance Armstrong, and hopefully for his sake, the latest allegations will too fall by the wayside, because he'll never bounce back from this.
