“I refuse to participate in a process that is so one-sided and unfair.”
~Lance Armstrong
The stun of learning that Lance Armstrong will be stripped of his seven titles for doping by the U.S. Anti-Doping Agency was the first time in more than a decade I can remember crying after hearing a news broadcast. The last time was on the morning of 9/11.
Without a doubt Lance Armstrong was my hero. A genuine, certified hero.Â
No one in the history of the sport of cycling has won seven titles at the Tour de France, beat cancer, and became a beacon of hope for patients. His legacy was a source of inspiration for millions.Â
But in spite of his fundraising and being a cancer survivor-turned-spokesperson, he is no longer my hero.Â
I am grateful for what he has done in raising cancer awareness and funds for cancer research, but now I must readjust my thinking about how he has represented himself. I will need to accept the fact that Lance Armstrong has done a tremendous amount of good in the world and he is a fraud. Because both things now appear to be true.
With his unimaginatively weak statement, the man who almost single-handedly galvanized attention, interest, and fascination in the Tour de France and in raising consciousness (and money) for cancer research and treatment has seemingly admitted to being nothing more than another sports hero impostor.Â
The man who became famous for never giving up is giving up. If there was any truth behind his innocence, I believe that Lance Armstrong would have fought this — as he did his own cancer — until he was victorious. But his giving up is, in my opinion, as clear an admission of wrongdoing as can be. It also stops the U.S. Anti-Doping Agency from pursuing further investigations — including apparently 10 former teammates waiting in the wings ready to testify against him.Â
In my opinion, Lance Armstrong is a survivor and a liar. He is an incredibly strong man, and an incredibly weak man. Armstrong is a source of inspiration, and a source of disgrace and embarrassment. He is both a hero and a villain. In short, he has become the modern-day example of cognitive dissonance.
In 1957 Leon Festinger published a theory of cognitive dissonance. This theory has now been a central focus of research in social psychology for over half a century. The theory points out that our cognitive process — how we think — can have a bias, what Festinger called “dissonance reduction.”Â
In other words, whenever there is conflicting information, we try to find consonance — or balance — in one of three ways:Â we make one of the factors less important, we add components to our thinking to make greater harmony with our thoughts, or we simply change one of the dissonant aspects.Â
If you ever had that little talk with yourself about ordering dessert, then you know about dissonance reduction. The conflicting information is that the double fudge chocolate dipped brownie is famously delicious and you are five pounds overweight. The dissonance reduction strategies you might use are: The size of the dessert isn’t large and I don’t have to eat it all; I will work out a little longer tomorrow morning; and my personal favorite; I shouldn’t worry about one little dessert.
Lance Armstrong generates dissonance. He is both a winner and a loser. When Muhammad Ali, three-time world heavyweight boxing champion, became a conscientious objector and refused to go to war, the comedian George Carlin offered the perfect way to cope with such dissonance, saying, “Ali figured it was all right to beat people up, but not to kill them.”Â
But Armstrong’s clay-feet hero status is more difficult to navigate. The theory of cognitive dissonance would predict that people would strive for dissonance reduction by using these three strategies. They might sound something like this:
“He shouldn’t have to keep defending himself against these charges. He was right to give up;” “It doesn’t matter that they stripped him of his titles because he has already done so much good in the world;” “We don’t need false heroes to raise money for cancer treatment, there are plenty of other good people to do that.”
But the bias in doing so nudges us away from reality. The truth now appears to be that Lance Armstrong is both good and bad; inspiring and despicable; a legend and a fake.
The struggle is in trying not to make this dissonance even out, take it away, or stop it. Instead the work is to try to leave the truth as it is: Lance Armstrong is profoundly, unmistakably human.
Is there any good news in this? Is there any possibility of joy or celebration available here?Â
If Armstrong is stripped of his titles, they would normally be passed on to the second-place finishers. Customarily I would throw my positive feelings toward them and celebrate their victory. But there is another problem. All of the second and third place finishers in every one of Armstrong’s victories have been identified in doping either through admission or investigation.
But even in this professional cycling mess, I am certain there are fourth- or fifth- or sixth-place winners who are true champions whom we can celebrate.Â
We need to applaud these genuine heroes when we find them for two reasons. First and foremost because they deserve it; and second, because it will help us cope.
24 comments
This is an absolutely terrible opinion on your part. How can you equate refusal to submit to a ridiculous summons to admission of guilt? Have you considered that he has never failed a drug test in his life, and that the entire basis for these absurd allegations is only envious teammates, chief among those being a man who himself has been banned after testing positive for doping? Really, you side with an agency that believes well-documented liars but disregards blood tests, which do not lie, over a man who is a legend and a champion seven times over? Apalling.
Actually, what is well documented is that the sports pharma is always a step ahead of the doping tests.
He’s an arrogant jerk and he is guilty, that is why he will not comply.
But the best part was how he thought he could bulldoze Justice Sam Sparks. Huge mistake!
You should review your sources: Alex Zülle and Fernando EscartÃn were never tried for Doping charges. The situation is already embarrassing enough without sweeping generalizations being made.
http://m.washingtonpost.com/sports/othersports/lance-armstrong-vs-usada-what-are-we-to-believe/2012/08/24/62940afa-ee0a-11e1-afd6-f55f84bc0c41_story.html?socialreader_check=0&denied=1
Wow… If you actually did some research before you denounced Armstong as a “fraud”, you might notice that the USADA has absolutely no credible evidence against him. He passed CLEAN through over SIX HUNDRED TESTS! Do you really think that Lance could be such a criminal mastermind that he could pull that off every year for three years and never not once get caught? The most ludicrous part is that even IF he actually cheated, the USADA has absolutely no way to prove it! Ten anonymous witnesses? How would that hold up in a fair court when their entire truth system is based on piss tests. If they couldnt catch him then shame on them for their absolutely faulty tests! They actually disprove their own purpose if you think about it: “well, we couldnt catch him doin what we were creatrd to do which is test people, so we are going to rely on possibly politically motivated anonymous testimony ENTIRELY that he must be guilty…” wtf? The reason Lance quit isnt because he is admitting he is guilty; he quit because IN THEIR EYES HE ALREADY WAS, AND THERE IS NOTHING HE CAN DO TO SWAY THEIR OPINION! He had enough and I applaud him for taking a stand against these witch hunting selfish, career oriented bureaucrats who have nothing better to do than harass people. And shame on you for your ignorance and lack of research before coming to this conclusion. The only thing we know for sure is that WE WILL NEVER KNOW. The USADA just assumes they do; its like guilty until proven guilty. I rest my case.
Guilty by refusal.
It’s common knowledge that the drugs are always a step ahead and not detectable by the tests.
and the truth is that we are all unmistakenly human, making good choices and bad along the way. perhaps projecting all of that perfection onto the other will always disappoint (on one hand) but also help (on the other) normalize our own mistakes. pedestals simply are not big enough for human beings to stand on. with grace, we can let him come down here, stand on the ground with 2 feet like the rest of us, so the other foot can catch him when he trips.
As a therapist, you also may want to question why we make heroes out of people who survive cancer. Testicular cancer has a high cure rate. I’m a survivor of a much deadlier cancer, but I’m not necessarily a better or stronger person than those who died. If survivors are heroes or role models, how do we perceive those who died? Do we think they are failures?
Livestrong provides support services to cancer patients, such as help in navigating the health-care system. It does not fund cancer research, by the way. This is not a criticism. I’m just pointing out something that seems to confuse a lot of people.
People who survive cancer are the fortunate ones, not heroic (I mean no disrespect). They respond well to treatment, or their cancer is caught in time. or they are lucky enough to receive better treatment than others. We don’t attribute heroic qualities to survivors of other life threatening diseases, why do we do so with cancer? My stepfather died of bowel cancer after undergoing an operation and months of horrendous treatments. He had symptoms for some time before he was finally diagnosed (by which time it had spread to his liver). He was a great man and didn’t die because he failed to fight it, or because he lacked heroic qualities, but because, unfortunately, it was just too late for him.
Lance Armstrong is a very fortunate man who survived cancer, went on to be a great sportsman and had the opportunity, and the honour, to found a charity which supports fellow cancer sufferers. However, if he doped then millions of people contributed hard earned cash to Livestrong on the basis of a lie.
Thank you for pointing out that Livestrong does not fund cancer research. Over the past few days I’ve heard so many people commenting on how Livestrong has given hundreds of millions to cancer research. It’s not true but it’s amazing how many believe it.
Hey, it’s not who wins the race is it? Sounds like a recipe for depression.
It is obvious that you know very little of the facts of this case.
Of the 70 top 10 finishers in Armstrong’s seven Tour de France victories, 41 have tested positive for performance-enhancing drugs, Armstrong is a hell of a lot more than just number 42
I have so many problems with USADA, the World Anti-Doping Agency and the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) — which is supposed to be where athletes can appeal, only they never, ever win — that it’s hard to know where to begin. American athletes have lost 58 of 60 cases before the CAS. Would you want to go before that court?
Anyone who thinks an athlete has a fair shot in front of CAS should review the Alberto Contador case. Contador was found to have a minuscule, insignificant amount of clenbuterol in his urine during the 2010 Tour de France. After hearing 4,000 pages of testimony and debate, CAS acknowledged that the substance was too small to have been performance-enhancing and that its ingestion was almost certainly unintentional.
Therefore he was guilty. He received a two-year ban.
CAS’s rationale? “There is no reason to exonerate the athlete so the ban is two years,†one member of the panel said.
Would you want to go before that court?
The decision was so appalling that even the Tour runner-up, Andy Schleck of Luxembourg, couldn’t swallow it and refused to accept the title of winner. “There is no reason to be happy now,†Schleck said. “First of all, I felt bad for Alberto. I always believed in his innocence. . . . I battled with Contador in that race and I lost.â€
The former prime minister of Spain, Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero, had openly declared his belief that Contador was innocent. When the CAS ruling came down, Zapatero expressed “bewilderment†and suggested it was so irrational it gave “sufficient reasons to open a debate about their fairness.â€
The response of WADA President John Fahey? A rant in which he suggested that Contador was given a two-year ban instead of one because Zapatero had dared to open his mouth. Let me repeat: The president of WADA actually suggested publicly that an athlete’s penalty was made harsher because his prime minister had the nerve to challenge WADA’s authority.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/othersports/lance-armstrong-doping-campaign-exposes-usadas-hypocrisy/2012/08/24/858a13ca-ee22-11e1-afd6-f55f84bc0c41_story.html?hpid=z6
Pro Cycling WorldTour
“It’s deeply unjust,” claims Belgian
Eddy Merckx has expressed his support for Lance Armstrong following the American’s decision not to contest charges of doping and conspiracy by the US Anti-Doping Agency.
Armstrong is set to be stripped of all results earned from August 1998, including his seven Tour de France titles, after USADA uncovered evidence of doping practices from Armstrong’s time at US Postal, Discovery Channel and RadioShack, based on rider testimony and on Armstrong’s own blood values from 2009 and 2010.
Merckx has been a vocal supporter of Armstrong in spite of the evidence that has mounted against him over the past decade, and he continued in the same vein on Friday.
“Lance has been very correct all through his career,†Merckx told La Dernière Heure. “What more can he do? All of the controls that he has done – over 500 since 2000 – have come back negative. Either the controls don’t serve any purpose or Armstrong was legit. The whole case is based on witnesses, it’s deeply unjust.â€
Armstrong’s decision not to contest the USADA charges means that he avoids a public hearing, although USADA CEO Travis Tygart has intimated that the evidence gathered will be made public in due course.
“At a certain point, exasperation sets in. Lance told USADA, ‘Do what you want now, I don’t care,’†said Merckx,
“I haven’t spoken to Lance recently but I know that he is disillusioned. It’s really a regrettable affair. It’s bad for cycling, and it’s bad for everybody.â€
Who, and what, are we supposed to believe? And if we, like Armstrong, just want to give up, are we guilty of something as well? Apathy? A double standard? Drug use?
For me, if you take personalities out of the equation, you’re left with pee in a cup and blood in a syringe. Armstrong never failed a drug test. He was tested in competition, out of competition. He was tested at the Olympics, at the Tour de France, at dozens if not hundreds of other events. And he never failed a test. We know this because if he had, Travis T. Tygart, the head of USADA, would have personally delivered the results to every home in America, like a grim little Santa Claus.
Instead, Tygart gathered a group of people who swear they saw Armstrong doping. There has been no trial, no due process, but in the minds of many, that testimony outweighs the results of hundreds of drug tests.
People lie. Blood and urine usually don’t. And if they do, they don’t lie 500 times. People do. Some lie that many times in a week. But okay. Let’s assume these people really are witnesses, let’s assume they’re telling the truth, and then let’s assume that their testimony is the new standard, outweighing all drug test results.
Then what in the world is the point of drug testing? In any sport, by any group, at any level of competition? If the results can be discarded in favor of testimony, then let’s go right to the testimony phase and quit horsing around with blood and urine.
It can’t work both ways. Either a drug test is the standard, or it isn’t. A lot of athletes must be wondering the point of going through testing if they can be taken down anyway, regardless of the results, even years after the fact.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/othersports/lance-armstrong-vs-usada-what-are-we-to-believe/2012/08/24/62940afa-ee0a-11e1-afd6-f55f84bc0c41_story.html
He would have been walking into an ambush at CAS, when you go to court the prosecution are supposed to present the evidence of prosecution to the accused so that they may be able to prepare a defence, but the USADA refused to do so even after district judge Sam Sparks ordered them to.
He has yet to be proven to be a liar or a doper. I would hope hearsay isn’t the only thing required to prove a person’s guilt or innocence. But it seems that hearsay is enough for you Dr. Tomasulo, and that’s scary indeed.
It seems more than a few people are victims of cognitive dissonance. I am also an Armstrong fan and feel quite taken aback that so many people have drawn the conclusion that he is a fraud. Perhaps it *is* time to stop fighting this particular battle, which can’t be compared to one’s fight with cancer, a choice to continue to live. Armstrong has lived with years of legal battle, referrable to doping. Perhaps he is aware there is false evidence, or perhaps he is sick of sinking millions into legal fees, while his honesty remains in question. If this is a witch hunt, then he hadn’t a chance of succeeding. I am not convinced by your personal loss of faith referrable to his motivation, as there is still no proof, one way or another, in a man who has decided to do things his own way, for whatever reason, and not apologise for it.
Lance Armstrong backed out of a classic witch-hunt which is against the American constitution. The federal judge only a week earlier stated that such a case would never reach court in America. If you want something to cry about then it should be that such unjust systems are being permitted in America – and that people like yourself are unwittingly sanctioning their authority. Armstrong didn’t “give up” he just refused to sanction their authority in the only way left possible. The alternative was for him to endorse and participate in an unconstitutional process – which he had the courage and integrity to reject.
You might find that in the near future USADA will be sued by Armstrong in the civil courts – when they actually attempt to remove his titles. The chances are – just like if it had been a Federal issue, USADA will be slaughtered.
Psychologists! Pah! You should all go and lie low for about 20-50 years, whilst the neuroscientists work out how the brain ACTUALLY works, then you can come back and come up with a theory of mind that has some kind of rational basis, rather than the anecdotal evidence and guesswork you currently rely on. Social sciences! You do realise that real scientists point and laugh at ‘social scientists’ behind their backs?
Your article makes some truly heroic assumptions regarding the facts of the case, and one absolute howler on your ‘own’ subject of psychology. You say, “I believe that Lance Armstrong would have fought this — as he did his own cancer — until he was victorious. But his giving up is, in my opinion, as clear an admission of wrongdoing as can be.” On what evidence do you base this belief? Have you ever treated him? Spoken to him? Met him? Seen him in a crowd even? Have you treated, spoken to, met any other cancer survivors? Did it ever occur to you (seeing as you have seemingly belatedly recognised that he is human, rather than the superhero you presumably previously took him for) that every human being has only so much fight in them?
Many years ago, my father’s cousin (right age to be my aunt, but I think it’s either 2nd or 3rd cousin, I’ve never been sure), a strong and determined woman supported by a loving family, survived a nasty struggle with lymphoma. It took years. Years during which I was out of the country. When I returned she confided to me that if she should suffer a relapse she would refuse all further treatment. Having shown considerable courage and stoicism in dealing with the aggressive radiotherapy and chemotherapy she had undergone, she felt she lacked the strength to go through it all again.
The FACTS of the case are that there is no physical evidence whatsoever against Armstrong. The only evidence is that of witnesses, all of whom have plausible ulterior motives for accusing him. It’s highly dubious if any of this ‘evidence’ would stand up in a real court, but of course it is impossible to disprove (it being a logical impossibility to prove a negative). That is why real courts work on a presumption of innocence. Is it so hard to admit the possibility that, faced with the impossibility of his position, he found he simply lacked the strength to fight on, hopelessly and indefinitely? Isn’t that in fact (employing Occam’s razor) a simpler and more logical interpretation of the facts than cognitive dissonance?
We put people on pedestals and are disappointed when they don’t live up to expectations. If Armstrong really had courage he would do the decent thing and own up to doping, but he’s human and wants to salvage what he can from this mess. That’s why he backed out at the last minute. By not participating he has managed to leave a speck of doubt for his supporters to cling to. It is vital that USADA publish all the evidence.
And you know this how exactly?
Incidentally, USADA has not stripped Armstrong of his Tour titles, nor does it have the authority to do so. Only Le Tour itself, or the international body, the UCI, can do that and they have not been so keen to jump to conclusions. They may yet decide not to back USADA.
Doping has been a part of competitive cycling since there has been competitive cycling, be there rules to forbid it our not. Even the elite riders that are thought to be clean are well likely supported by a scrum of domestiques who are doping. One has to recognize elite professional cycling for what it is, an athletic tele-novela. The who’s who of professional cycling is parallel to the history of doping in the sport. For anyone to lionize Lance Armstrong and then express disappointment when a case is built against him is surely exhibiting cognitive dissonance themselves.
It’s unfortunate that people tend to use the last thing they remember, especially if it is negative, to recount a person and or events. Just because Lance does not want to waste his time on media hype, does not make home “guilty.” this does not also discount the positive influence he has on others to overcome obstacles.
They can mess over anyone who refuses to comply. This business of drug testing is now dominating the employment process, as are financial and background checks. I’ve had one ask if I have had any traffic violations in the past 5 years, and this wasn’t for a job connected with any form of driving or operating a vehicle of any sort.
Our world has become so intrusive. Anyone who refuses to comply is just dashed to the ground as an example.
Maybe someday, people will see how their compliance has cost them their liberties.
Strip him of his titles? Thats extremely funny to me, the man already won. He stood on the stage and was the winner, 7 flipping times. You can take a title away but you can’t take away the fact that he won. Giving the title to the first loser is also just words. Did he cross the line first? His memory of the race will still be that he lost and that’s that. I cheated on a test one time in high school, if I was “stripped” of my diploma does that mean I didn’t really ever graduate or enjoy prom? It’s just words, lance DID win 7 times.
I do not blame Armstrong one bit for walking away from a fight. It is what we tell children to do all the time. The real man is the one who can walk away. I cannot count how many times teachers, administrators, judges and police officers have committed serious violations I could have sued for. The problem with that is in order to punish them I have to endure the punishment as well. Turn the other cheek has a practical side. He won 7 times. He obiously knows for real that he did it for himself not for others approval. It is shocking to see so many educated people that do not get this. You all seem to cling to what you taught each other in junior high …. “don’t tread on me.”
‘I doped during all seven Tour wins’ – Lance Armstrong.
I’m guessing that statement must create a large cognitive dissonance amongst all the people who wrote a message above proclaiming his innocence.
What about the user ‘Youaredeadwrong’ :
‘The reason Lance quit isnt because he is admitting he is guilty; he quit because IN THEIR EYES HE ALREADY WAS, AND THERE IS NOTHING HE CAN DO TO SWAY THEIR OPINION! He had enough and I applaud him for taking a stand against these witch hunting selfish, career oriented bureaucrats who have nothing better to do than harass people. And shame on you for your ignorance and lack of research before coming to this conclusion. The only thing we know for sure is that WE WILL NEVER KNOW. ‘
So ‘Youaredeadwrong’ was dead wrong.