Throughout the last decade of his storied career as a
professional bicycle racer, Lance Armstrong, winner of seven consecutive Tour
de France titles from 1999 to 2005 and a bronze medal in the 2000 Olympics, has
been pursued by accusations that he doped to enhance his race performances. On
August 23, Armstrong officially ended his fight against the charges now being
levied against him by the United States Anti-Doping Agency (USADA), while
maintaining his innocence.
Armstrong, who never failed any of the approximately 500 drug tests taken on him over the course of his career, continues to deny the charges but announced that he would no longer expend energy fighting them. In response, USADA stripped him of his seven Tour titles and all other titles and awards from August 1998 forward and banned him for life from participating in any sport that follows the World Anti-Doping Code.
The full evidence against Armstrong has not yet been made public. Although he passed all the drug tests, USADA maintains that he doped in ways that were not detectable by the testing methods in use at the time and that the charges are based on the eyewitness testimony of 10 individuals and on two blood tests from 2009 and 2010 respectively that are "consistent with" but not conclusive for blood doping. Two of the individuals are Floyd Landis and Tyler Hamilton, both of whom raced on teams with Armstrong and have admitted doping themselves, but the others have not been officially identified.
Opinions within the bicycle-racing world and among fans are mixed. Some believe Armstrong's denials. Some believe that he doped, especially because several other riders who raced during the period of Armstrong's victories have either admitted to or have been sanctioned for doping. Some of those who believe he used performance-enhancing drugs say that if Armstrong doped, it doesn't detract from his accomplishments because he was racing against others who also doped, and he still won.
In the last few years, professional bike racing has gone to great lengths to prevent the use of performance-enhancing drugs. Many controls and tests are now in place and there is a zero-tolerance practice toward any who are found in violation, with significant penalties and suspensions to follow.
Many see USADA's efforts in the Armstrong case as an attempt to clean up the past and send a message about penalties in store for racers who cheat in the future. Some professional cyclists and fans praise USADA for their work, but others believe that USADA overreached in Armstrong's case. There is an eight-year statute of limitations for doping charges, but USADA went beyond that with Armstrong by claiming he led a doping cover-up, a circumstance that permits the agency to issue penalties beyond the eight-year limit.
Peter Flax, editor-in-chief of Bicycling magazine, puts blame on both sides: "I am absolutely convinced that [Armstrong] did [dope], but I'm also convinced that he is the victim of a witch hunt."
While USADA has announced the title stripping and lifetime ban against Armstrong, it's not yet quite a done deal. The International Cycling Union (ICU), the world's governing body for cycling has battled with USADA over jurisdiction in the Armstrong case, and it's possible they will appeal his penalties to the Court of Arbitration for Sport. At minimum, the ICU is waiting for USADA to show the evidence against Armstrong before signing on to the penalties. It is also unclear what the operators of the Tour de France may do in response to USADA's action.
Even USADA has indicated there is still some room for possible changes in its ruling. In an interview with USA Today last Sunday, Travis Tygart, head of USADA, said that even now, if Armstrong met with USADA and admitted to the charges, the penalties might be applied only to the last eight years, meaning that Armstrong would retain five of his Tour titles. To some observers, however, this sounded somewhat desperate on USADA's part, as if pleading for Armstrong to vindicate the agency's pursuit of charges against him.
One problem as yet unaddressed if the stripping of Armstrong's Tour titles stands is who then is awarded the wins. In almost every case, the riders who took second place have since been found guilty of doping as well. A few observers have suggested that all Tour results from 1999 to 2005 should be voided, but that penalizes those who did race clean.
The Wired Word is not in a position to render an opinion about Armstrong's guilt or innocence in this matter. However, we did take note of an article in The New York Times on August 12 in which former professional cyclist Jonathan Vaughters, who is now CEO of Slipstream Sports and the Garmin-Sharp professional bike racing team, told why he doped as a rider and why he is now an advocate for making bicycle racing free of doping. He explained his passion for the sport and the years of training and sacrificing he had done to get a chance to compete on the professional level. When he finally made a pro team, he was told by others in the sport that doping was necessary to "level the playing field."
Vaughters explained, "Doping can be that last 2 percent. It would keep your dream alive, at least in the eyes of those who couldn't see your heart. ... How much does that last 2 percent really matter? In elite athletics, 2 percent of time or power or strength is an eternity. ... in the Tour de France, 2 percent is the difference between first and 100th place in overall time," Vaughters said.
Vaughters said that winning the Tour de France is "very possible" without doping and has been done clean. "But," he said, "winning isn't possible if anti-doping regulations aren't enforced. If you just said no when the anti-doping regulations weren't enforced, then you were deciding to end your dream, because you could not be competitive. It's the hard fact of doping."
"The answer," said Vaughters, "is not to teach young athletes that giving up lifelong dreams is better than giving in to cheating. The answer is to never give them the option. The only way to eliminate this choice is to put our greatest efforts into anti-doping enforcement."
Vaughters added, "The choice to kiss your childhood dream goodbye or live with a dishonest heart is horrid and tearing. I've been there, and I know. I chose to lie over killing my dream. I chose to dope. I am sorry for that decision, and I deeply regret it. The guilt I felt led me to retire from racing and start a professional cycling team where that choice was taken out of the equation through rigorous testing and a cultural shift that emphasized racing clean above winning. The choice for my athletes was eliminated."
"I know that huge strides have been made by many since my time to rid sports of doping," Vaughters said. "Athletes have the knowledge and confidence that nowadays, the race can be won clean. If the message I was given had been different, but more important[ly], if the reality of sport then had been different, perhaps I could have lived my dream without killing my soul."
Read Vaughters' full article at How to Get Doping Out of Sports. New York Times.
More on this story can be found at these links:
Armstrong Drops Fight Against Doping Charges. New York Times
Lance Armstrong Statement. The Associated Press
Who'll Get His Tour de France Titles? No Easy Answer. Sporting News
USADA: Armstrong Could Have Kept 5 Tour de France Titles. USA Today
Lance Armstrong Doping Campaign Exposes USADA's Hypocrisy. Washington Post
The Big Questions
Armstrong, who never failed any of the approximately 500 drug tests taken on him over the course of his career, continues to deny the charges but announced that he would no longer expend energy fighting them. In response, USADA stripped him of his seven Tour titles and all other titles and awards from August 1998 forward and banned him for life from participating in any sport that follows the World Anti-Doping Code.
The full evidence against Armstrong has not yet been made public. Although he passed all the drug tests, USADA maintains that he doped in ways that were not detectable by the testing methods in use at the time and that the charges are based on the eyewitness testimony of 10 individuals and on two blood tests from 2009 and 2010 respectively that are "consistent with" but not conclusive for blood doping. Two of the individuals are Floyd Landis and Tyler Hamilton, both of whom raced on teams with Armstrong and have admitted doping themselves, but the others have not been officially identified.
Opinions within the bicycle-racing world and among fans are mixed. Some believe Armstrong's denials. Some believe that he doped, especially because several other riders who raced during the period of Armstrong's victories have either admitted to or have been sanctioned for doping. Some of those who believe he used performance-enhancing drugs say that if Armstrong doped, it doesn't detract from his accomplishments because he was racing against others who also doped, and he still won.
In the last few years, professional bike racing has gone to great lengths to prevent the use of performance-enhancing drugs. Many controls and tests are now in place and there is a zero-tolerance practice toward any who are found in violation, with significant penalties and suspensions to follow.
Many see USADA's efforts in the Armstrong case as an attempt to clean up the past and send a message about penalties in store for racers who cheat in the future. Some professional cyclists and fans praise USADA for their work, but others believe that USADA overreached in Armstrong's case. There is an eight-year statute of limitations for doping charges, but USADA went beyond that with Armstrong by claiming he led a doping cover-up, a circumstance that permits the agency to issue penalties beyond the eight-year limit.
Peter Flax, editor-in-chief of Bicycling magazine, puts blame on both sides: "I am absolutely convinced that [Armstrong] did [dope], but I'm also convinced that he is the victim of a witch hunt."
While USADA has announced the title stripping and lifetime ban against Armstrong, it's not yet quite a done deal. The International Cycling Union (ICU), the world's governing body for cycling has battled with USADA over jurisdiction in the Armstrong case, and it's possible they will appeal his penalties to the Court of Arbitration for Sport. At minimum, the ICU is waiting for USADA to show the evidence against Armstrong before signing on to the penalties. It is also unclear what the operators of the Tour de France may do in response to USADA's action.
Even USADA has indicated there is still some room for possible changes in its ruling. In an interview with USA Today last Sunday, Travis Tygart, head of USADA, said that even now, if Armstrong met with USADA and admitted to the charges, the penalties might be applied only to the last eight years, meaning that Armstrong would retain five of his Tour titles. To some observers, however, this sounded somewhat desperate on USADA's part, as if pleading for Armstrong to vindicate the agency's pursuit of charges against him.
One problem as yet unaddressed if the stripping of Armstrong's Tour titles stands is who then is awarded the wins. In almost every case, the riders who took second place have since been found guilty of doping as well. A few observers have suggested that all Tour results from 1999 to 2005 should be voided, but that penalizes those who did race clean.
The Wired Word is not in a position to render an opinion about Armstrong's guilt or innocence in this matter. However, we did take note of an article in The New York Times on August 12 in which former professional cyclist Jonathan Vaughters, who is now CEO of Slipstream Sports and the Garmin-Sharp professional bike racing team, told why he doped as a rider and why he is now an advocate for making bicycle racing free of doping. He explained his passion for the sport and the years of training and sacrificing he had done to get a chance to compete on the professional level. When he finally made a pro team, he was told by others in the sport that doping was necessary to "level the playing field."
Vaughters explained, "Doping can be that last 2 percent. It would keep your dream alive, at least in the eyes of those who couldn't see your heart. ... How much does that last 2 percent really matter? In elite athletics, 2 percent of time or power or strength is an eternity. ... in the Tour de France, 2 percent is the difference between first and 100th place in overall time," Vaughters said.
Vaughters said that winning the Tour de France is "very possible" without doping and has been done clean. "But," he said, "winning isn't possible if anti-doping regulations aren't enforced. If you just said no when the anti-doping regulations weren't enforced, then you were deciding to end your dream, because you could not be competitive. It's the hard fact of doping."
"The answer," said Vaughters, "is not to teach young athletes that giving up lifelong dreams is better than giving in to cheating. The answer is to never give them the option. The only way to eliminate this choice is to put our greatest efforts into anti-doping enforcement."
Vaughters added, "The choice to kiss your childhood dream goodbye or live with a dishonest heart is horrid and tearing. I've been there, and I know. I chose to lie over killing my dream. I chose to dope. I am sorry for that decision, and I deeply regret it. The guilt I felt led me to retire from racing and start a professional cycling team where that choice was taken out of the equation through rigorous testing and a cultural shift that emphasized racing clean above winning. The choice for my athletes was eliminated."
"I know that huge strides have been made by many since my time to rid sports of doping," Vaughters said. "Athletes have the knowledge and confidence that nowadays, the race can be won clean. If the message I was given had been different, but more important[ly], if the reality of sport then had been different, perhaps I could have lived my dream without killing my soul."
Read Vaughters' full article at How to Get Doping Out of Sports. New York Times.
More on this story can be found at these links:
Armstrong Drops Fight Against Doping Charges. New York Times
Lance Armstrong Statement. The Associated Press
Who'll Get His Tour de France Titles? No Easy Answer. Sporting News
USADA: Armstrong Could Have Kept 5 Tour de France Titles. USA Today
Lance Armstrong Doping Campaign Exposes USADA's Hypocrisy. Washington Post
The Big Questions
1. Vaughters
indicates that in the era when doping in bike racing was common, to choose not
to dope was, in effect, choosing to end one's dream. What kinds of choices like
that do most of us face at one time or another?
2. What
should we do when choosing to do the right thing means that the odds of success
are then stacked against us? To what degree is teaching our young people that
doing the right thing is its own reward likely to be successful? To what degree
is teaching that doing the right thing is pleasing to God likely to be
successful? To what degree are you convinced about these things?
3. Are we
right to expect a "level playing field" in life? Explain your answer.
4. Whether or
not we have any interest in sports, ought we be concerned about fields of
endeavor where participants are faced with choices that can result, as
Vaughters said, in "killing my soul"? What's the difference, if any,
between cheating in sports to gain a victory and cheating in medical school to
graduate with a higher GPA and better chance at a higher salary?
5. What
obligation do we have as Christians to assist others who find the field of life
tilted against them? Why?
Confronting the News with Scripture
Here are some Bible verses to guide your discussion:
Psalm 20:7
"Some trust in chariots and some in horses, but we trust in the name of the LORD our God." (For context, read 20:1-9.)
The theme of Psalm 20 is that in the day of trouble, God will answer the need of those who trust him. Thus the psalmist mentions that while some rely on the machinery of war, those who trust God rely on him.
Substitute sports victories, possessions or anything else people value for chariots and horses, and the verse still works. Trusting God, of course, implies choosing the paths of righteousness.
Questions: Are there any fields of endeavor where
the path-of-righteousness rules don't apply? If so, give some examples. If not,
why not?
Psalm 22:12-13
"Many bulls encircle me, strong bulls of Bashan surround me; they open wide their mouths at me, like a ravening and roaring lion." (For context, read 22:1-24.)
Bashan was a region of ancient Israel northeast of the Sea of Galilee in what is today southern Syria. It was known for the cattle raised there. During certain times of the year, the cattle were allowed to forage in free-range fashion. In the more densely populated areas, a herdsman might be employed to make sure the animals did no harm, but out in the countryside, the herds were left unsupervised, and while grazing, some of the bulls took on the behavior of wild animals. Thus, it was possible that some hapless person in Bashan might suddenly find himself surrounded by bulls, and the potential for the animals doing harm to the person was quite real.
The bulls of Bashan were an actual situation for those folks. For us, the bulls represent demands we cannot ignore, obligations we cannot get out of, duties we cannot shirk, responsibilities we cannot evade.
Regarding Lance Armstrong, the bulls of Bashan could represent the charges against him, but we wish to use the verse carefully; we are not assuming either Armstrong's innocence or his guilt. Either way, however, the charges probably make him feel surrounded.
Psalm 22 is a lament. The lament psalms typically describe a situation in which one is harried by enemies, is exhausted and may be giving up. Dr. Robert W. Neff, a Hebrew scholar and Old Testament expert, says the difference between a complaint and a lament is that a complaint implies that someone can fix your problem, while a lament suggests there is no solution.
Questions: Can you recall situations in which you
were convinced you were right but where you stopped fighting, deciding either
that there was no solution or that if there was one, the cost of achieving it
was too high? (Examples might include tax audits, government bureaucracies,
intractable neighbors, insoluble family problems, conflicts unresolved with the
death of a loved one, etc.) What were the pluses and minuses of giving up the
fight? In retrospect, do you think you should have kept fighting? Did others
express their opinion about your decision to stop resisting? What did you think
of others who may have given up a fight out of exhaustion or from a sense of
futility?
Hebrews 11:32-34
"And what more should I say? For time would fail me to tell of Gideon, Barak, Samson, Jephthah, of David and Samuel and the prophets -- who through faith conquered kingdoms, administered justice, obtained promises, shut the mouths of lions, quenched raging fire, escaped the edge of the sword, won strength out of weakness, became mighty in war, put foreign armies to flight." (For context, read 11:1-3, 29-40.)
Hebrews 11 is often described as a "roll call of faith heroes." Yet the individuals named in the verses above all had some pretty big flaws. Gideon saved Israel by routing the Midianites, but later slipped into idolatry (Judges 8:27). Barak delivered Israel from the Canaanites, but had to rely on the courage of Deborah to do so (Judges 4:8-9). Samson helped Israel against the Philistines, but did so mostly out of a desire for personal revenge (Judges 16:28). Jephthah saved Israel from the Ammonites, but thought God needed a stupid vow to help him, and he ended up sacrificing his daughter as a result (Judges 11:29-40). David was a great king of Israel, who also committed adultery and murder (2 Samuel 11:1-27). Samuel was a great prophet of Israel, but he was unable to pass on his moral values and faith to his sons (1 Samuel 8:3).
Questions: What qualifies a person, flaws and all,
to be considered a giant in a field of endeavor? Can we have heroes without
flaws? If someone is a recognized authority in one area, do you excuse flawed
views on other subjects? In the case of Lance Armstrong, should his tireless
work raising money to fight cancer through his Livestrong Foundation (or his
own battle against cancer, for that matter) negate some of the criticism by
those who believe he practiced doping while racing?
James 4:17
"Anyone, then, who knows the right thing to do and fails to do it, commits sin." (No additional context needed.)
Read this statement from James against the backdrop of a person tempted to cheat simply to "level the playing field." The verse is very straightforward: If you know what is right but don't do it, you are committing sin.
Questions:
Does this verse mean that
in a case where doing the right thing stacks the odds against you, losing is
better than cheating? Why or why not?
In some
instances in sports, the question of whether a rule was broken is glossed over
or even laughed at -- such as the case of the famous Immaculate Reception by
Franco Harris or the system used to steal signs when Branca hit his famous home
run against the Brooklyn Dodgers. Do we wink at cheating when it is our team
that wins?
1 John 3:21
"Beloved, if our hearts do not condemn us, we have boldness before God ..." (For context, read 3:18-22.)
Read this verse against Vaughters' comment that his decision to use performance-enhancing drugs made it impossible to live his dream of being a competitive bicycle racer without killing his soul.
As one TWW team member put it, "If the world condemns us, that does not make us guilty. If the world praises us, that does not make us innocent or praiseworthy. It is God's judgment of us that matters."
Questions:
What does
"heart" represent in this verse? How important is it to not be
condemned in our heart? Why?
For Further Discussion
1. Assume
Lance Armstrong is indeed innocent of the doping charges. Defend his decision
to decline to fight the charges any longer.
2. To what
level are you comfortable with the idea of using substances to improve
performance? Is it okay for truck drivers to use amphetamines to stay awake on
long hauls so goods get to your local store on time? Did you ever pull an
all-nighter in college with the help of pills? Are some of these kinds of
situations okay but not others?
3. Comment on
this, from Vaughters: "I made the wrong decision [about doping], but I
know that making the right decision for future generations must begin by making
the right choice realistic. They want to make the right choice. This is the
lesson I have learned from young athletes and why I have made it my life's work
to help make the right choice real. They must know, without doubt, that they
will have a fair chance by racing clean. And for them to do that, the rules
must be enforced, and the painful effort to make that happen must be unending
and ruthless."
4. Question 3
above raises the issue of how we teach the young to rely on internal vs.
external controls. What is the role of self-control in making ethical
decisions? Why is self-control one of the fruits of the Spirit? Why is
self-control more important than having the power to take a city? (See Proverbs
16:32: "One who is slow to anger is better than the mighty, and one whose
temper is controlled than one who captures a city.")
5. Doping is
regularly considered wrong, but most people regularly break the speed limit
when driving. What is the difference? What example does this set for others? It
is suspected that many people cheat on their taxes, often not reporting certain
kinds of income. To the extent that you feel comfortable saying so, what laws,
if any, do you feel it is appropriate to ignore? What is the difference between
a law that is unjust and a law that is inconvenient?
Responding to the News
This is a good time to think about how we present moral values to our young people. Sometimes doing the right thing is costly. It is useful to talk about the importance of a heart that does not condemn, and why pleasing God is more important than pleasing self.
No comments:
Post a Comment