The "look back" by Armstrong was one of the greatest moments in all sport, up there with Babe Ruth calling his shot, MJ draining the winning shot over Byron, and Doug Flutie's infamous hail mary. All you can say when you watch these highlights over and over is .... WOW!
What I'm trying to get at is whether punishments handed out in sport ever seem sufficient and appropriate. All seem hollow in one way or another, at least to me.
Example #1:
Penn State - The University employed a pedophile and then others employed by the university refused to address it. The "reasonable person" clearly would have done something to report and address this terrible series of crimes.
Penalty - Removal of wins for nearly a decade, a 60 million dollar fine, loss of scholarships and then a bunch of other smaller penalties. Interestingly in this case Penn State didn't get the "death penalty" for their football program, and I saw lots of Penn State fans in Kinnick Stadium on Saturday for their thumping of the Hawks.
Example #2:
Michael Vick - He owned a private dog fighting ring and bred dogs to fight, sometimes to death but more often to serious injury - all for money.
Penalty - Jail time, suspension from the game of football, and probably a fine which I can't recall. He is currently a starting quarterback in the NFL with a multi-million dollar contract once he had "served his time". Oh, and the interesting twist on this one? He now owns a dog as a pet. Man's best friend right?
Example #3:
Lance Armstrong - Now his case. I don't know all the details of the accusations and the due process to prove his temporary innocence and now assumed guilt.
Penalty - Titles removed. No jury (I know because Armstrong refused) and a process that Armstrong openly stated was frustrating and not fair. I don't know all he went through, but I know it was a lot.
So, are the penalties in each of these cases appropriate? I've picked some of the most colored ones just as a point of reference. Without question Lance's cheating is the least offensive of the examples I've named. His doping didn't hurt anyone but him, his foundation and his legacy.
But in my opinion penalties of removals of titles, wins, etc. are hollow. And if you finished second in any of the Tours Lance won, congratulations. How's that feel? No better I suspect.
And if I were head of any organization responsible for keeping the sport of cycling clean from doping, international or American, I would declare a death penalty on the whole sport. Everyone. All races. And then I would figure out whether to allow doping and let these cyclists all be on a more level playing field. Because once thing about this case is clear.
No one has control over doping in the sport of cycling. Nobody. Maybe that should be Lance Armstrong's next legacy. He can be the poster child for cleaning his beloved sport up!
I'm a Lance Armstrong fan and always will be. He was the best cyclist ever - period.
And while the report that he doped has irreparably damaged his legacy, it doesn't diminish what he accomplished. Recovering from near death cancer and ascending to the top of the sport with an attitude and fearlessness that made all other riders (including several others that doped) look like amateurs. I'm just sad that his legacy has come down to this.
Guess it could mean we shouldn't hold great athletes in as high regard as we do. The "whole person" argument stands up a little better with Armstrong than it does other sports icons I have always admired, but he's still got lots of skeleton's in his closet on the personal side as well.
No comments:
Post a Comment