Right: ... and if you think performance enhancing drugs are a modern phenomenon, think again. The ancient Greeks, who staged the first Olympic Games, used, among other things, opium to outrun and out-jump their rivals. The history of opium as a drug is illustrated in the fact that the word "dope" is derived from the Dutch "doop", meaning opium juice.
 Found a word you're not familiar with? Double-click that word to bring up a dictionary reference to it. The dictionary page includes an audio sound file with which to actually hear the word said. |
Arguments in favour of Lance Armstrong being allowed to return to international competition
1. Armstrong's punishment is greater than that given to other cyclists who were found to have used performance-enhancing substances
It has been claimed that Lance Armstrong has been punished far more than other cyclist who also took banned performance-enhancing substances.
In the second of his interviews with Oprah Winfrey, Armstrong noted that some cyclists who had admitted to doping and provided evidence against others had received far lesser penalties. He stated, 'When you see the punishment - I would go back and say you are trading my story for a six-month ban so I got a death penalty - meaning I can't compete. I'm not saying that is unfair but it is different.'
Armstrong is implying that where he received an extremely high penalty, others received short-term bans for the same offences.
Among the cyclists who received six-month suspensions as part of a plea bargain are Levi Leipheimer, George Hincapie, David Zabriskie, Tom Danielson, Christian Vande Velde and Michael Barry. Some of these men pleaded guilty to using the same substances in some of the same events as Armstrong has now admitted to.
In a USADA report released in October, 2012, evidence from a former teammate of Armstrong's has him stating in 1995, after a poor team performance in the Italian classic Milan-San Remo, 'People are using stuff [and] we are getting killed.'
USADA has reported that all but one of the 21 top-three finishers from 1999 to 2005 were tainted by doping, as were all but nine of 45 podium finishers between 1996 and 2010 were tainted.
In his first interview with Oprah Winfrey, Armstrong explained that what he was trying to achieve through doping was a chance to compete equally within a sport where so many others were taking prohibited substances.
Armstrong stated, 'I went and looked up the definition of cheat...And the definition is to gain an advantage on a rival or foe. I didn't view it that way. I viewed it as a level playing field.' His concern is now that he only did what others were doing, yet his punishment is so much greater than theirs.
2. Punishing Armstrong only deflects attention from USADA's, WADA's and tournament organisers' shortcomings
It has been claimed that focusing on the punishment of an extremely high-profile athlete believed to be a drug cheat is a way of deflecting attention from a faulted regulatory process which allows doping to occur among athletes.
In an opinion piece published in The Conversation on September 17, 2012, Kate Henne, a research fellow at the Regulatory Institutions Network at the Australian National University, stated, 'Having studied the anti-doping regime since 2007, I can attest that nearly every anti-doping official I have met has said that "catching" Armstrong would be the anti-doping movement's crowning achievement.'
Henne argues that such a focus is misplaced as what is at issue is the regulatory bodies' failure to act preventatively - effectively monitoring to reduce athletes' opportunities to take drugs.
Henne notes, 'The case against Armstrong points to regulatory shortcomings.'
A similar claim has been made by 'six_o'clock', a commentator published in The Roar. This commentator has stated, 'Now we have someone upon whom to pin all of the blame. It was Armstrong, the evil American, who single-handedly thwarted the pure motives and saintly innocence of a pristine world, forever tarnishing the European love of competitive cycling.
Please. What puerile and unmitigated rubbish. Lance is no more than a scapegoat.'
'Six_o'clock' goes on to argue that the win-at-all cost atmosphere created within the sport is the real culprit. He writes, 'History should place the blame on tournament organisers, whose blinkered determination to run successful international events created the environment for illegal practices.
The principles of any company, club, team or organisation set the boundaries of acceptable behaviour. Despite what is written on the notice boards, it is those in charge who establish the norms.'
3. Banning athletes is not the way to eradicate the use of performance enhancing substances
There are those who argue that focusing on punishing athletes who use performance-enhancing drugs is not going to remove the practice from sport.
In an opinion piece published in The Conversation on September 17, 2012, Kate Henne, a research fellow at the Regulatory Institutions Network at the Australian National University, asked, 'But now the dust has settled, what can the Armstrong case tell us about anti-doping regulation in cycling and in sport more generally? Is there too much focus on punishment for "dopers" and too little focus on prevention? And perhaps more importantly, what are the effects of prioritising punishment?'
Henne and others have argued that the more severe the punishment, the more athletes will seek to hide their drug use rather than stop it.
So many of the techniques used in cycling and other sports to boost a competitor's performance are very difficult to detect. Blood doping, for example, increases the competitor's circulating volume and thus his or her body's capacity to oxygenate fatigued muscles. The procedure carries the risk of blood clots and puts a massive strain on the heart, yet is virtually undetectable. Nor is this the only procedure used by athletes that is extremely hard to detect. Human growth hormone is another performance-enhancing substance with adverse side-effects which is not currently screened for effectively. The most frequently used prohibited substances and methods employed by the U.S. Postal Service and Discovery Channel cycling teams were blood doping, EPO, testosterone, human growth hormone and cortisone. During the period from 1998 through 2005 there was no available testing methodology to detect either blood doping or human growth hormone.
Thus, critics argue, what is required is a change in the sporting culture, rather than increases in punishment. Without guaranteed detection, increased punishment only drives dangerous and illicit practices further underground and challenges those who produce and promote such substances to make them even more undetectable.
4. Armstrong was not responsible for the drug-taking of other cyclists
It has been claimed that Armstrong's extreme punishment is appropriate because he not only took performance-enhancing substances himself, but he pressured others to do likewise.
A number of cycling commentators have disputed that it is appropriate to attribute to Armstrong such a level of responsibility for the behaviour of other cyclists.
In an opinion piece published in Time Magazine on October 12, 2012, John Eustace, a two-time U.S. professional cycling champion and television analyst, states, 'For the racers to conveniently blame Lance, now turned to a Saddam Hussein-like figure, for leading them all down the path of moral destruction is nonsense.'
Eustace went on to explain that he found such off-loading of responsibility unconvincing. Each rider, Eustace claims, was not only responsible for his own conduct, but also had a great deal of monetary incentive to dope. John Eustace argues, 'Every rider knew the score, made tons of money with him [Armstrong] and had the thrill of being on the most powerful racing team in history. They could have simply packed their bags and gone home, as plenty have done in the past.'
Eustace further argues that the confessions of Armstrong's former teammates seem a carefully orchestrated public relations performance designed to reduce their own culpability and that of the sport within which they compete. Eustace states, 'Their obviously scripted remorse, combined with the off-season timing of their reduced suspensions, only adds to the feeling of a p.r. spectacle.'
5. Armstrong has done a great deal to assist cancer sufferers and survivors
Those who consider that Lance Armstrong's penalty is excessive point to the positive contribution he made toward improving the lives of other cancer sufferers and survivors.
In an editorial published in The Globe on October 11, 2012, it was stated, 'Mr Armstrong, who survived testicular cancer, has done the world of cancer fundraising a great deal of good; as recently as August he was a standard-bearer at an international cancer congress in Montreal.'
Lance Armstrong founded the Livestrong Foundation, formerly known as the Lance Armstrong Foundation, a United States non-profit organisation that provides support for people who have suffered or are suffering with cancer.
In October, 2012, Lance Armstrong helped Livestrong raise $2.5 million to support the organisation's free services for people affected by cancer. The organisation staged a fund-raising gala attended by 1,500 guests at the Austin Convention Center.
Lance Armstrong was joined on-stage by Livestrong's President and CEO Doug Ulman and employees of the foundation, many of whom are also cancer survivors.
In addition to funds raised at the event, between October 17 and 19, Livestrong received nearly $240,000 in online donations.
On January 21, 2013, crisis expert Michael Bilello, President and CEO at Centurion Strategies, a public relations and marketing agency that handles high-profile athletes, stated, 'The only reason that people will forgive him [Armstrong] after even all this is that even though he "cheated the game" when you think of the things that went parallel with his career like the Livestrong Foundation, I would say that people would forgive and let him ride off into the sunset.'