In January 2013, live on TV, Lance Armstrong; cyclists' greatest became sports most unwanted athlete after admitting to one of the worlds biggest doping scandals. The anger, the upset, the backlash and the media turmoil that followed showed how one man could effect the thoughts, opinions and actions of others. There is no doubt that to hundreds and thousands of people, Armstrong was a role model - not just for what appeared to be his athletic greatness on a bike but his unbelievable recovery from cancer. It is this mix of hope and strength, yet poison and weakness that makes the story and this man so hard to understand.
Armstrong was classified as winning the Tour de France a record-breaking 7 consecutive times; that was until, after years of speculation and tracking by officials, the US Anti-Doping Agency disqualified him for doping offences leading to a lifetime ban from cycling in 2012. Armstrong, rightly so, was additionally stripped of his race wins. It was decided by the cycling committee that these would not be redistributed to the worthy winner, which in itself, further strips those who performed and competed cleanly in those years of not just a medal, but of a lifetime goal.
Cycling, in particular the Tour de France has never been short of drug and doping problems. It was this 'common factor' that Armstrong regularly referred to after admitting to his offence as a justification to his actions. Yet some athletes managed it, some managed to perform with their own body, through their own training and with no input from banned substances, so why couldn't he?
Information about the fact it was not the actions of one man but more a whole team of people under Armstrong's control came out in the media following the revelations. For me, it showed how powerful, clever and manipulative Armstrong had been, but also that there were trained and professional people out there willing to put substances in athletes bodies, break rules and the sportsmanship of sport. Cycling along with other sports across the world have inputted strict and lengthily processes to stop the likes of Armstrong from ruining the race, games and competitive events for everyone else. Yet there is more to it than banning an athlete from their sport. The negative effects these media figures have is hard to quantify - their audiences often span generations, and so, does it teach those who aren't where they want to be in their career through training and hard work that there are other illegal options? Do scandals such as these take away from what sport should really be about?
There will always be conflicting views for both genders, of all ages in every sport for what the main purpose should be about. Is it competition, training and taking-part, or should it be win at all costs? The journey most professional athletes has to take is often filled with periods of triumph, defeat, injury and often questions; those of themselves, coaches and the media. There are often funding issues and sponsorship deals that come alongside competing. So was it these factors that spurred Armstrong on, was it his first tastes of victory that meant he wanted more, or was it his controlling personality that ultimately meant he couldn't stop until he had reached the top?
If you have seen his interview with Oprah Winfrey where he admits to his lie, I think you will agree there was little compassion and regret in his voice. Two years later, 26th January 2015, Armstrong was interviewed again: "I'd change the man, not the decision to cheat". Take of this what you will.
And so the question remains; will sport ever be drug free?
Or is it more the questions that really come with this one: Are the punishments strong enough to deter those who think about cheating or re-offending following their bans? Is there enough evidence to show the physiological and psychological side-effects to an athlete from using drugs and doping in sport? Is there a rigorous enough process to cause athletes to worry about being caught and reconsider their actions? Finally, will there continue to be athletes who choose to live a sporting career on deceit and lies? I would personally answer ''No' to just one of these questions, why...because there is always someone out there who has to be the best.
My final thought on Armstrong:
He Lived-Strong, Competed-Well, but Lied-Best.
No comments:
Post a Comment