[credit provider=”Associated Press”]
As far as weekends go, this wasn’t the best in the life of one Lance Edward Armstrong.First there was the report that Armstrong’s former teammate, Tyler Hamilton, saw Armstrong inject himself with Erythropoietin (EPO).
And then a report emerged that another teammate, George Hincapie, testified to a grand jury that Armstrong supplied Hincapie with EPO and other banned substances.
And then, a report on 60 Minutes, claims Armstrong did in fact fail a test in 2001, only to have it covered up.
You mean a professional cyclist might have used performance enhancing drugs (PEDs)? I’m shocked. I’m flabbergasted. AMOK, AMOK, AMOK.
I also don’t care. But not because I am apathetic to the story. No. I don’t care, because if he did cheat, I am glad he did.
Let’s assume for a minute that Armstrong did use PEDs. What was the result? If he didn’t dope in a sport with rampant cheating, he probably doesn’t win the Tour de France seven times. Heck, he probably doesn’t win it three times.
And if Lance doesn’t become the greatest cyclist in the history of the sport, he doesn’t achieve the same level of fame, and he isn’t able to use that fame as the face of the Lance Armstrong Foundation.
And if the Lance Armstrong Foundation and the Livestrong campaign isn’t aided by Armstrong’s fame, they probably don’t raise more than $350 million to support cancer survivorship research.
In some respects, cycling is like baseball when it comes to PEDs. At this point, a lot of fans would be surprised if PEDs weren’t being used by the majority of the athletes involved.
ut how many athletes used their fame for more good than Armstrong?
Did he cheat his way to the top of the mountain? Maybe. Did a lot of other people benefit from his place at the summit. Without a doubt. And if it took some PEDs for that to happen, then more power to him.