If you’ve watched even five minutes of just about any sports or news network in the last few weeks, then you have seen that Lance Armstrong is in some hot water.
Late last month, the USADA stripped Armstrong of his seven Tour de France titles, claiming he used performance-enhancing drugs and forced them onto his teammates.
Following his decision to stop fighting these accusations, sponsors jumped ship left and right. Last week, Armstrong stepped down as chairman from his own charity, the Lance Armstrong Foundation (aka ‘Livestrong’).
Tuesday, the International Cycling Union (UCI) accepted the USADA’s decision and will officially remove any trace of Armstrong’s name from the cycling record books.
To me, this is equivalent to a toller attempting to unring a bell—you can’t undo what has already been done. And you know what? That’s a good thing.
Yes, Armstrong cheated and yes, he may have coerced others around him to do so as well, but the work that he accomplished in raising money and awareness for cancer prevention is worth far more than a Tour de France title, or seven.
In January of this year, the American Cancer Society estimated that over 577,000 people would die of cancer in the U.S. in 2012 alone. Just about everyone who reads this column has a close friend or relative who has fought the deadly disease.
According to their website, the Livestrong foundation has raised over $470 million to “inspire and empower people affected by cancer.” The money is important, but it is how Armstrong changed the way that cancer is handled by doctors, scientists and the American public that is his real lasting legacy.
Last year, the American Chemical Society began using a new technique to combat cancer cells that were resistant to chemotherapy. Its name—the “Lance Armstrong effect,” and the procedure is based off of his own victory over testicular cancer.
Tuesday, Huffington Post writer Emily Cousins—a cancer-survivor herself—outlined my case better than I ever could with the sort of first-hand insight that I just don’t have.
“[Armstrong] is selfish, calculating, ruthless, manipulative, and profoundly dishonest,” Collins wrote. “And yet I still feel grateful for Lance Armstrong. He did more than start a foundation and raise some money. He helped transform the way America views life after cancer.”
The damage done by Armstrong to the sport of cycling—which, let’s be honest, already had its reputation in the sewer—pales in comparison to the good that he has accomplished since his comeback in 1998.
Cheating has no place in sports, let me make that clear. And if cheating by yourself isn’t bad enough, it is exponentially worse to force others around you to do the same. Armstrong is paying the penalty for those choices now, as he should, but in the same situation, would you do anything different?
Put yourself in his shoes for a minute. Would you take your celebrity status and transform yourself from just a survivor into the face of the fight against cancer? Wouldn’t you use everything at your disposal to take on the disease that tried to take your life?
It is a very utilitarian argument, but put simply, the good done by Armstrong outweighs the bad. His methods may have been morally ambiguous (at best), but if the work done by Armstrong can lead to a breakthrough in the fight against cancer, then I’d say he made the right choice.
In fact, if Armstrong ever inspired even one cancer patient to not give up, to keep fighting, then I just don’t think we can say that what he did was wrong.
Do you think Armstrong should be chastized? Do you think that the good he did didn’t outweigh the bad? Let Matt know what you think at: sports@dailycardinal.com
