Lance Armstrong's legacy has been thoroughly destroyed. He's been stripped of his titles, banned from cycling, turned from admirable cancer-survivor showing what you can do if you put your mind to it into a thuggish dope ring-leader. He's a cheater, and he allegedly carried himself as a mob boss to defend that secret.
I won't sit here and defend the doping. I'm not defending Armstrong's behavior as he tried to cover it all up. However, if I might ask an honest question: has anyone done more for the sport of cycling? Stay with me here because I understand this sounds crazy. Let me just ask, how many of us can name any other cyclist in the world? How many of us ever had any interested whatsoever in the Tour de France before Armstrong came on the scene? How many of us did he inspire to take up cycling or even just take anything up because hey, if this guy can survive cancer and even just complete a Tour de France, I can surely run that half marathon I've been thinking about?
Again, this is not a defense of Armstrong's cheating nor his behavior. I'm just suggesting that while we've been busy tearing the guy down (and based on his alleged behavior, rightfully so), let's try to remember at least some of the good. It's always interesting to me how we sports fans love to build up heroes, but we love to tear them down just as much (if not more.)
In 2002, participation in competitive cycling grew to a greater number than the year before. At that point, Armstrong had clearly asserted himself as the most famous cyclist perhaps of all time after winning his third straight Tour de France and bringing the Tour to a major television network. This trend of competitive cycling growth continued in the years to follow. From 2002 to 2008, the sport saw increased participation by 48%. The number of events rose by a full 50%. Cycling clubs had seen membership increase by 30% in that time frame. The largest jump in participation? You guessed it - it occurred within the seven year reign of Lance Armstrong. (The sport continued to grow after his "retirement," but the rate of growth decreased.)
So as we're tearing down Armstrong (and again, rightfully so), let's at least take a moment that for all the bad he's done, he has had some major positive effects. The sport of competitive cycling exploded in the United States almost solely because of Lance Armstrong. In the years to follow, other cyclists would step up and become known, but nowhere near the scale of Armstrong's status. Viewership of the Tour grew (especially in the US). Even the Olympic teams got more coverage than they ever would have had it not been for Armstrong. And because of his efforts in the Tour de France, his Livestrong campaign had raised millions of dollars. And again, in a country where we only really care about football, baseball, and basketball, how many professional cyclists can anyone today name? Never mind anyone in 2003. How many of you know who Scott Jurek is? He's perhaps the greatest endurance athlete of all time, but unless you're in the distance running club, you've probably never heard of him. These incredible athletic endeavors (be it riding the Tour de France or be it running 100 miles in the desert) are rarely focused on here. Armstrong transcended that.
Again, I'm just saying... Let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater here. Cycling fans should feel betrayed and incredibly disappointed that the greatest cyclist they have ever known turned out to be a cheating hack.
Here's where I start to run away from statistics and run more towards the realm of "feelings." When it comes to athletes cheating by doping or other steroids, do any of us really not understand why they do it? We cry foul so loudly when they are caught, yet we never seem willing to acknowledge that to dope actually makes a lot of sense. It's not right, I don't condone it, but I completely understand it.
See, here's my critique of sports culture: we constantly demand to BE the best. We need to win in order to validate our worth as athletes. We MUST win, otherwise we are losers. Professional athletes have to do this more than anyone given that if they don't win, their careers are cut short. They will literally lose their livelihood if they aren't actually THE best.
We sports fans? We're applying a ridiculous amount of pressure. It's often brought up how we seem to value a guy who can throw a ball in a basket more than we value doctors or teachers. Financially, that seems pretty true. We value entertainment perhaps a little more than we should (this, of course, not meant to undermine the value of entertainment).
There was a really interesting article in the Miami Herald the other day about all of the crazy things Jason Taylor had done to stay on the field despite some fairly major injuries for the Miami Dolphins and Washington Redskins. He injured his foot, so they gave him a shot to numb the pain so he could go back in and play. Then, because he couldn't feel the pain, he wound up doing MORE damage to his foot! When he hurt his back, he went to the locker room, took a painful shot in the back, then went back out there. He ultimately wound up missing over a month of football because he wound up having a herniated disk. He even had an issue with his calf that if he had not listened to the famed sports doctor James Andrews (of recent RGIII fame) to have a particular operation, he literally would have had that leg amputated! Yet Taylor was extremely reluctant to be operated on given that would mean he would have to sit out for a few weeks. In one story he told, the only comfortable way for him to fall asleep was standing up leaning against a wall.
And he wasn't complaining at all. To him, it was completely worth it to play in the National Football League. This guy has completely destroyed his body. He's taken more drugs than a race horse in order to play through injuries. As a result, he's wound up hurting himself more. But to him and to almost every single professional athlete - it's completely worth it for the privilege of playing sports professionally.
The draw to being a professional athlete is great. The fame and fortune that comes with it is extremely enticing. But it's also an extremely limited window. The average NFL career is 3.5 years, for example. Even when you factor in the misrepresentations of this number (it includes players who did not make opening day rosters), the average NFL career is six years. This is actually pretty similar to the average NBA career which is just about six years. This is also pretty similar to the average MLB career, which is 5.6 years.
If you're dedicated, you can become a professional athlete, but to stay a professional athlete is a completely different thing. Sure, maybe you win all sorts of lotteries and become the next Brett Favre or Kobe Bryant or Cal Ripken Jr. The odds are not very high though. So, if you're lucky enough to become a professional athlete, you're probably waking up every day feeling a little bit insecure about your job.
Think about that for a second: the average career of the three major sports in this country is about six years. Most of these players are coming fresh out of college. They're between ages 18 and 22. If you enter the NFL or Major Leagues at age 22, you're likely done with your career by age 28. Maybe you can squeeze out an extra two years.
So the appeal to be a professional athlete is already great because of the fame and the money. Then you add in the already great deal of pressure given just how competitive that job market is? How does it not make sense for athletes to start trying to get an edge using steroids? And how many "falls from grace" do we need before we understand this?
Take Barry Bonds and Roger Clemens. Or take Lance Armstrong even. You've already got all of the pressure in the world to keep your status on the team. But these guys are built up as heroes. People looked up to Clemens and Armstrong. You've also got Armstrong trying to build up the Livestrong Foundation more and more, it only makes sense that he would fight to protect that. (Again, not defending his behavior, I'm just saying it makes all the sense in the world that he'd so vehemently fight back even to defend a lie.) It's hard to imagine that Clemens, accused of taking steroids when he got to the Yankees, wasn't thinking of protecting his career. He had been in the league for 15 years at that point (more than twice the league average). He was still performing at a high level, but the thing about sports is age is a detriment. As you get older, the game gets more difficult. It becomes more physically challenging. It's just biology. I obviously can't speak on behalf of Clemens, but I can't imagine that the need to stay relevant wasn't a driving factor.
And that's just it - the "need to stay relevant." So much of their identities are intrinsically tied into being an athlete and being THE best. So as they get older and as younger guys start to replace them, it must send many of them into a weird tailspin. They are losing a critical part of their own personal identity. Never mind the fame and fortune, never mind the competitiveness of the job market. It's built into their bones. They are athletes. If they can't perform, or if they aren't the best, they have no value.
It's a shame. I think it is a detriment to sports. And I think it's on all of us. We put so much focus and value onto sports, but why do we like them? Are we really only playing sports to win? Are we really only racing because we want to beat everybody in the world? Don't mistake me here, I like competitiveness. I am competitive too. In the end though, I am an "athlete" because I want to push myself. I don't want to be THE best. I want to be MY best. I didn't used to feel this way. I wanted to win. When my buddy beat me in the last Warrior Dash we did, I was annoyingly bummed out. When I run charity races with friends and I get beat by ten minutes, I got angry with myself. It took me a long time to realize that I'm not running because I want to beat everyone. Winning is great, but it isn't everything. In sports, there are literally just as many losers as winners. So why do we make it solely about winning?
I have to wonder our role in the usage of steroids in sports. I mean, think about this for a second. Before Armstrong started doping, he was riding the Tour de France. He was still winning a few stages here and there. Then he starts doping and he starts winning. Then, we put him on a pedestal and made him the most famous endurance athlete of all time. The responsibility is on Armstrong, of course. He shouldn't have taken to doping in the first place. Still, once he got there and saw the pot of gold on the other side of the rainbow that we so nicely placed there for him, one can only imagine the incentive to keep on doping.
Interestingly, we care more about Armstrong doping than we do about the sport of cycling itself. When track and field stars are caught doping, it's huge news and we tear them down as athletes. Then again, we don't actually care about their sport in general. What gives? We love them when they're great. We hate them when they're not. But there's nothing in between. As a football fan, I've always been struck by the difference in PED use given the sport. Armstrong is caught doping (like pretty much everyone in those Tours), we make a huge deal about it (and rightfully so). Roger Clemens and Barry Bonds use steroids, everyone hates them now. Meanwhile, Texans linebacker Brian Cushing is caught using steroids? Four game suspension and no one has jack to say about him. Richard Sherman is caught violating PED policy? Gets off on a technicality, people still praising his play. Shoot, Shawn Merriman was caught using steroids. Not only did he get just a four game suspension, but he finished third on the list for Defensive Player of the Year - the very same year! He cheated, and he was still praised! Armstrong cheats, Bonds cheats, Clemens cheats? Their achievements are completely torn down and disregarded.
So I understand that most people will completely disagree with my notion that we as sports fans are a little bit complicit in this problem. We glorify the professional athlete more than anything in the world. They are not just rich, they are our role models. They are the people we wish we could be. And we are so willing to pay whatever fee we must to watch them play. We can't possibly take a back seat to some responsibility in this mess. We are one of the driving factors. We are laying down a good amount of the pressure.
Can anyone blame Clemens or Bonds or Armstrong for cheating to get an edge? Can anyone blame Armstrong for turning into a thug and threatening people to defend his status? This is not saying that they're right to do so. This is simply saying - it makes sense. And perhaps it's time that in the midst of tearing down our heroes, maybe we start to examine WHY so many athletes are so willing to cheat.
Oh, one final note about Armstrong though. I actually don't care so much about the doping as much as I care about the threatening people and the brutish attitude he took to cover it all up. There are few sports that are dirtier than cycling. Maybe somebody knows the answer, but how far down the list of competitors do you have to go to find who really won those seven Tour de Frances? In '99, Alex Zulle finished second. Zulle has admitted to doping. From 2000 to 2006, he beat the "big names" of Jan Ullrich and Marco Pantani - both of whom have been involved in doping controversies. In 2002, while Ullrich was suspended, Joseba Beloki finished second - he was also implicated in a doping scandal.
So yes, Armstrong cheated to win the Tour de France, but he beat other cheaters. I'm curious how far down the line you have to go to find the first finisher of those Tours who has not been involved in doping.
No comments:
Post a Comment