LIVEWRONG: Let's assume that it's all true, that Lance Armstrong knowingly conspired with his teammates to defraud his fellow competitors, his sponsors and the public by engaging in a massive doping scheme to enhance their racing performance. Let's also stipulate -- as we must -- that prosecutors believe they can prove this behavior constitutes violations of federal criminal law which can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt.
Still, prosecute?
The New York Times yesterday focused on the more obvious angle for mercy here, that such a prosecution could cripple his charitable efforts for the Lance Armstrong Foundation and, in turn, impair its efforts to provide support for people living with cancer. And while Charity Navigator doesn't give the LAF its 4-star rating, it's still not exactly Yele and clearly does good in the world.
The second question is the more subtle one, though it's related to the first: do we need to believe in the myth of Lance Armstrong so strongly -- that he was able to recover from testicular cancer, with a tumor that had metastasized to his brain and lungs, and through chemotherapy and sheer force of will not only recover but become legendary in his sport -- that we just can't let this one come tumbling down? Baseball could survive McGwire and Bonds (but not, perhaps, a Cal Ripken-PED revelation) because everyone sorta figured those home runs weren't being caused by magic. And while cycling has always had its scandals, there's something so powerful about what we'd like to believe Armstrong has accomplished that this would, indeed, be crushing. And adults need fairy tales too.
Yes, laws are laws. But I try to picture Armstrong in a prison cell, and the years of prosecution which would lead to that point, and my inner Chicagoan just recoils at the waste. More societal good is done by keeping the myth alive than by confirming unsettling truths, and I am not convinced that this is a place where federal criminal law needs to go.
