I'm glad to know you never exceed the speed limit.

Which is why I brought into the discussion..."situational ethics"

 

I'm glad to know you never exceed the speed limit.

Getting defensive doesn't do anything for discussion. I never have and will never claim to say that I do not make poor choices, speeding included. I merely said that there is a moral code that dictates right from wrong. Moral relativity, or "situational ethics", is what is it. It is a way that people use to justify their actions when they are blatantly wrong. Speeding is wrong, it doesn't matter if I am late. Being late doesn't change the fact that I was wrong, it is merely a justification.

In the same way I would use that pesky marriage example. "I am not being paid attention to. My spouse doesn't support me or understand me anymore. There is a new person that is showering me with attention and wants to hang on my every word, so now I will use my emotions to make poor decisions and do something morally wrong." The person that is choosing to commit adultery still is making a wrong choice, they are making excuses for why they are making their choice.

Armstrong has owned up to the fact that HE chose to make wrong decisions. I commend him for owning his wrong. Before now, it was merely "everyone cheated, so I was just being part of a level playing field". I believe that to be true in cycling btw, but it doesn't excuse wrong behavior.

I'm not saying it's morally right but I do know that if I was a professional athlete and couldn't be competitive without using PED's, I'd use them.  The Bernie Madoff analogy is not apt as he committed criminal acts.  Cheating in a sport is not a criminal offense.

It can be, depending on the jurisdiction and the substances involved.

Using the Lance example, it IS a criminal offense in France to use EPO and steroids for doping.

They can take back all the medals and awards that LA won, but in the meantime, he had years and years of living in luxury, having the best that money can buy and going to the best parties. If I was on the outside with a chance to look in, why not sell your soul for 10-20 years of living on top?

Did people watch the interview?

 

I don't know why so much is made of whether or not he was justified in doping to win when 90% of the reason Lance is a sleazeball is because he sued, bullied, and ruined people for the mere act of telling the truth and threatening to expose his lie. Those are his own words, paraphrased. And that is the real travesty in the whole Armstrong saga.

 

If he was just some regular doper who never screwed with anybody, like Tyler or Floyd, this would have all been forgotten by now, and he would have been running his bike shop and giving out training lessons to happy customers for a living like those two.

I agree.  I haven't really had an opinion one way or the other about the actual use of PED's.  But he made himself a victim through this whole charade, and brought down a lot of people in the process.  Not to mention that he had a large following of fans who stood by him through everything, and who he lied to, gained loyalty and sympathy from, only to essentially spit in their faces.  It's humiliating for anyone who stood by his side all these years.  He's an ass.

I want to add that while I agree with Butter Tart, in reality doping is quite prevalent in professional sports (not saying everybody is doing it), simply because there are no anti-drug policies or nothing done to enforce the policies and/or no drug testing programs installed at all (EDIT: in some pro sports). That kind of situation does leave the players on their own as to dope or not. And in that case, doping may not violet the ethic code in that particular sports since there's no rule against it.

Now, UCI did have anti-drug policies and a testing program, though probably more for decoration now that we look back at it. LA did break the ethic code of his sport. Plus, he did way more than just doping (drug trafficking, bullying, defaming, forcing riders not willing to dope out of the game/team). On top of all that, he also used his doped achievement to benefit way beyond the sport. Livestrong has a .com company along side the not-for-profit .org, for example*. His "lying" about doping, attacking those who spoke the truth, and his manipulating the public (well the public is always highly manipulable. so it may not be his fault alone) break the ethic code of the mundane world.

*I don't think he should return his endorsement money back to the sponsors though. It was business and the sponsors already had got what they paid for. But it is this kind of ecosystem that encourages pro players to continue to cheat/dope--the money will stay even if they get caught later.

Did people watch the interview?

 

I don't know why so much is made of whether or not he was justified in doping to win when 90% of the reason Lance is a sleazeball is because he sued, bullied, and ruined people for the mere act of telling the truth and threatening to expose his lie. Those are his own words, paraphrased. And that is the real travesty in the whole Armstrong saga.

 

If he was just some regular doper who never screwed with anybody, like Tyler or Floyd, this would have all been forgotten by now, and he would have been running his bike shop and giving out training lessons to happy customers for a living like those two.

Agreed.  The reality is that doping tests are more IQ tests than anything else.  Are you smart enough to figure out how to avoid getting caught?  I have serious doubts that it is possible to be at the absolute peak in any sport using nothing but food.

But you are right that Lance is a sleazeball.