Contextual Heroes

Armstrong during his interview with Oprah

A few days ago a friend who is not a huge sports fan asked me a question, which was perfectly legitimate, even though most of us took it for granted.

She asked me why was Lance Armstrong was such a big deal when it is generally accepted that everyone else was cheating too?

The question was not asked in defence of Lance, but rather wanting to know why he was the one being so heavily scrutinised compared to others. For example, Alberto Contador may not have won seven Tours, but he did win an impressive three before being suspended and having one of his victories stripped.

The answer in one word is: context

So much of sport nowadays, especially with the “24 hour media cycle” as it’s called, is about contextualising the actual sporting events and achievements. Two players may put up the exact same stats and win the exact same number of games and yet those two athletes could be viewed in very different ways depending on the stories around them.

Lance Armstrong deserves what he is getting now for the way he acted during and after the actual cheating. I don’t need to rehash all the despicable things he said and did as I’m sure you’ve all seen enough of it now. But the point is that if he dealt with the accusations and everything else the way some other cheaters did, perhaps he could have avoided so much of the damage now done.

David Millar was never Lance Armstrong and never won a Tour. He also never started a major charity or became one of the most recognisable athletes on Earth. Therefore perhaps it was a lot easier for Millar to be honest and open about cheating when he was caught many years ago, but Millar was not only forgiven by the cycling community, he is actually one of the most respected guys on the circuit and now a big advocate for cleaning up the sport.

Both Millar and Armstrong cheated in the same way in the same events. In that regard one isn’t really worse than the other outside of the fact that one of them won. But the way they dealt with the situation was so different that the results are also vastly different.

Manti Te’o is not only an absolutely bizarre and fascinating story; he is also a huge example of how context shapes our views on athletes outside of their athletic endeavours.  People seem angry and upset over the fake girlfriend scandal even though it has nothing to do with him or even how he played. But the reason it is such a big deal is that people form opinions on sports based around the stories surrounding them. Manti Te’o wasn’t only famous because he was one of the best players in College Football and at the most famous College Football school, but because he famously overcame the deaths of his grandmother and girlfriend in the same week.

Finding out that the basis for their opinion was false makes people question their own judgement, even if they had no reason not to believe the story when they heard it in the first instance. Discovering you believed a lie is something that hits home for everybody, whether it’s in their personal life or even about a football player they watch on TV. That’s why I believe people are so up in arms about this, especially when this particular lie (or at least embellishment) was used to bring spotlight to the athlete in question.

However in some instances we overlook off field issues. Ray Lewis is about to end his NFL career in the Super Bowl and is one of the most respected and beloved NFL players of his generation.  But it was only a decade or so ago that Lewis was on trial for murder and admitted lying to police to help his friends, who were later acquitted as well. Lewis pleaded guilty to obstruction of justice, but nowadays the story only seems to even be referenced via Twitter jokes and completely ignored for the most part.

So why does Lewis and many other athletes get a pass where others don’t?

It comes down to how well an athlete is able to handle the situation after the fact. Whether that involves great PR and damage control people or just being honest about the situation, most of the time the public are willing to give second chances if they think the athlete shows they deserve one.

Another factor, as much as it probably shouldn’t matter, is how well the athlete performs after the scandal. Ray Lewis continued to be a great player for many years whereas Lance Armstrong is already retired. Michael Vick had one superb season when he returned from his dog fighting scandal and some people looked past that and focussed on what he was going on the field again.

In Australia, Shane Warne was always getting himself into trouble, even if never anything as serious as mentioned above. But he was still Shane Warne and no matter what went on in his life, he was always our hero when he had a cricket ball in his hand.

Bernard Tomic is going through this now. There was always talk about him being a spoilt brat, but until we read about the trouble he was getting in and the petulant comments he made, many fans focused on the fact that he could be the next great Aussie tennis player. However as his play went downhill and his off court antics got worse, he finally had to deal with the damage to his reputation.

So far in 2013 his play has improved dramatically. That alone will go a long way to helping his reputation, simply because people love winners, but if his tennis doesn’t live up to his antics watch how quickly we turn on him.

Sport is a bizarre world. When it suits us we like to only care about what happens on the field, as evidenced by how we can forgive athletes as long as they perform. However, we are also quick to jump down their throats when they let us down or lie to us. At the end of the day, we don’t know these people personally and can only judge them on their words and actions. In normal life, we care about things like how nice someone is to us and how they treat those we care about. When it comes to athletes and other public figures, we don’t have that luxury so all we are left with is trial by media.

Lance Armstrong seems like a pretty deplorable person. I’m sure he loves his kids and all that stuff, but he has never seemed likable and I don’t think it’s rash to judge him based on what we know. However, we should never stop asking ourselves why some people get scrutiny over others and whether it is always deserved.

Bad Time to be an Armstrong

Generic photo of Lance not looking pleased

This article is totally about Lance Armstrong, but hey, I can’t write this article and not mention that a few days later, an even more famous Armstrong in the great Neil Armstrong passed away. I certainly don’t think there was any performance enhancing drug scandal about the moon landing though.

I deliberately waited a while before writing about the Lance Armstrong case, partly so some of the dust could settle, but also because I figured and still think this story isn’t over yet. Yes he has officially been stripped of his titles and says he is done fighting the charges, but I still think you’ll hear the occasional comment from him in the media and you’ll also get new information from others coming out every once in a while.

Overall, public opinion on this one seems to be divided. Most people I’ve spoken to or read their thoughts seem to think Lance is guilty. Others think he is either innocent or that they didn’t get anywhere near close enough to proof to take this sort of action. As usual, I think the truth lies somewhere in the middle. I do think Lance most likely was doping, however I think he was doping only as much as literally every other guy in the race was. Also I do have some concerns about the unusual way in which this decision was reached.

Normally when someone gets banned for doping, it’s simply a matter of failing a drug test, testing the B sample to confirm and then taking the appropriate action. This situation on the other hand came from testimony in court from witnesses and blood tests that whilst not proving he was on drugs, imply that he may have been taking EPO. If that sounds confusing, it is because it is. The best source I’ve found to explain the situation is this piece from Deadspin.

Whilst the testimony of some of Lance’s former teammates doesn’t really carry much value with me because it’s obvious why these people may have been willing to cut a deal, there is one man whose testimony certainly stands out. George Hincapie, at least in my opinion, had nothing to gain by lying to cut a deal. The guy is by all accounts one of Armstrong’s closest friends in cycling, even after his testimony, he was retiring anyway so a reduced sentence on his own doping ban was irrelevant and most importantly he didn’t have to testify that he was doping at all. No one was coming after George Hincapie and he is one of the most respected guys in the sport, yet he chose to testify that he was cheating along with Armstrong. The only options in my mind as to why this would occur is that he took being under oath seriously and wasn’t going to lie, or he was bribed or something else sinister. Of course I don’t believe he was bribed, so I’m going with the former.

If I had to believe one conspiracy theory in all this mess, it’s probably the long standing rumour that Armstrong did in fact fail drug tests in 2001, but they were covered up by the UCI because it would destroy the sport. However, obviously those are just rumours and I can’t use that as complete justification for what has happened now.

I still have concerns about the precedent that has been set by this situation. Regardless of whether I personally think Armstrong is guilty, it should take a serious amount of proof to get to the stage where you strip him of his titles. I know the stakes aren’t the same, but if Casey Anthony is found not guilty because there wasn’t enough proof, you’d think it might be similar in this case, but I guess USADA disagrees.

That’s why I don’t think Armstrong should have had the titles stripped, I just would put an * next to them. Much like Barry Bonds’ home run record and other controversial drug scandals, there isn’t the proof to wipe it from the books, but I think we can all agree it was very fishy. Most importantly, I don’t want the titles given to the guys who came second. Much like giving the 1988 Men’s 100m sprint gold to Carl Lewis, giving titles to guys like Jan Ullrich and others who were either definitely doping or allegedly doping doesn’t sit right with me. Let those years be blank and let’s just move on.

I would like to think these sorts of scandals are going to become a thing of the past as testing improves, however that is probably somewhat naive, as newer and sneakier drugs are always coming out and some athletes are always going to look for that edge. But as long as they get caught at the time, the sport should be able to maintain some level of integrity.