Riding the moral high-road?
Earlier today, Sports Illustrated released a whole host of evidence indicating that Lance Armstrong, winner of seven consecutive Tour de Frances and American Hero, used various doping mechanisms during his incredible streak. For the French this is surely a glorious day. They have hunted long and hard for—but never found—concrete evidence of cheating to link back to Armstrong, who it seems will be soon be indicted by a federal grand jury.
But before those in Bordeaux country uncork a fine vintage bottle in celebration they should consider the ramifications of their actions.
As an aside, I should make clear that I’m in staunch opposition of steroid use in professional sports. It forces athletes to weigh decisions about their future health and well-being for the sake of earning a living in the short term. But in a niche sport like cycling which has seen an unprecedented boom in viewership since Armstrong burst on the scene, not just in America but worldwide, should outing Armstrong really be seen as a victory?
American hero?
Now any foothold cycling had in America is gone. And in selling the sport to a worldwide audience, who is the cycling poster child? Alberto Contador? Doper. Floyd Landis? Cheat. Granted, I grew up in the Armstrong Era of cycling, so thus know little about who the future stars of the sport will be. But what I do know is this: the sport’s governing body will regret alienating a nation where viewership has grown steadily over the past four years following a sharp decline when Armstrong retired.
The International Cycling Union (UCI) is perhaps upon the toughest decision it has ever had to make: strip Armstrong of his seven titles and give them to the second-place finishers (many of whom are convicted or suspected dopers), or follow baseball’s model and simply slap Armstrong on the wrist and move in to the future with more stringent drug testing policies.
Considering Landis was stripped of his Tour title after being convicted of doping, the odds don’t look good for Armstrong, nor for the future of cycling altogether. Like Tiger Woods in golf, or Roger Federer/Rafa Nadal in tennis, individual sports are driven solely by the elite athletes that set the highest sporting standard. As the PGA can attest, losing a star amidst controversy is a ratings disaster, and while Armstrong is now retired, America is yet undecided on how (or if) it will view future Tours.
So the UCI should be careful, because now it’s gotten what it has wished for all along: The best clean cyclist ever, is (allegedly) no longer an American. But at what cost?
lazyeyesports
jaaves
Chris
dafe
Julian
Good blog post!
This is a tough question, indeed – on the one hand, cycling needs Armstrong to be innocent, but it also needs to clean up the sport. The UCI needs to be seen to take decisive action against drugs and to fight the doping culture at all cost, or they risk alienating fans and sponsors alike.
My feeling is that perhaps it is best to let the sleeping dogs of the past stay sleeping, and to bring in a new era of hard measures from here on. Starting with Contador.
For myself, I really do want Armstrong to be clean, but the more articles I read, the more the doubts creep in. Sad days.