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.
Compelling thoughts, Adam. However, I had to cringe at that last paragraph. Sure, he has done much good, but if laws were broken, laws were BROKEN. Why should he get a pass just because he does good things for society?
ReplyDeleteThe flip side of this argument is a huge jump in the normalization of PEDs. What effect would that have on societal good?
ReplyDeleteLots of laws get broken all the time. We can never prosecute every single offender. The question is -- and I didn't say this -- given the scope of everything a US Attorney's Office can be focusing on, whether this should be one of them.
ReplyDeletePlay this out for me, because if prosecutors just say "we're not prosecuting" as opposed to "... because in his case, he's done a lot of good in the world," then does it normalize things more than they are already?
ReplyDeleteOf course, if they prosecute, its because he's such an inviting target not despite it. Prosecutors want a scalp. If Bonds hadn't shown the numbers he had -- if he'd merely had a few 60-HR seasons, not the 73-HR one, if he'd ended up with 713 HRs, instead of 715 (and then 762?), they'd have never bothered with the perjury business.
ReplyDeleteOther than PR, I don't understand the end game for the prosecutors here.
ReplyDeleteYes, I get that laws may be broken and so yes they should be prosecuted although yes laws get broken and not prosecuted or hell even noticed pretty often.
I can understand why the governing body of the sport would have a big stake here and why they would want to take actions. I think we all could see their stake in it.
But I don't see the US Attorney's Office's stake. You know other than lots of PR. That seems different from prosecuting because laws are broken, that seems a lot more like bettering someone's career at the expense of others and in this case the others may be suffering from cancer. I don't see the net good here.
Can someone spell out for me just how much public good I have to do in order to be above the law? 'Cuz I wanna do a quick cost-benefit on that lifestyle choice.
ReplyDeleteNext you'll be telling me Lance Armstrong didn't really shoot Liberty Valance.
ReplyDeleteI think Adam raises an interesting point about the person in the sport (in this case, Cal). I remember going into an exam knowing that the Mitchell Report would be coming out before we finished, and talking with my friend Sam and agreeing that if Junior Griffey's name came up on the list, well, we wouldn't know what to do/believe in. So the character, if you will, of the player is a big factor on how we make the PED judgement.
ReplyDeleteAlthough I think it's also interesting to note how there's a completely different view of this in football. Look at Merriman/Cushing, for example.
But with Merriman/Cushing, this isn't a question of players breaking records in the sport. Now, if you tell me that Jerry Rice's longevity was based on PEDs, that'd be different.
ReplyDeleteThe part of this that isn't sitting well with me is that I heard a lot of the same types of arguments about O.J. Simpson. At what point to we make superstar athletes follow the same laws as the rest of us?
ReplyDeleteI think there are a lot of circumstantial issues here. It appears that they have no witness that saw him dope. The movement of the drugs is alleged to have been done by the team leaders and not him. And they haven't gotten him on the really *hot* charge- perjury - yet. He's either brilliant, innocent or lucky.
ReplyDeleteGreg LeMond is now insane, which will likely come out in any testimony. Frankie Andreau is not insane, but that's a he said/he said. Floyd Landis' reputation is so damaged that his testimony is questionable.
I just don't think it's worth it.
OJ killed two people. I'd say Armstrong's alleged victims are more diffuse and less harmed than that.
ReplyDeleteIt never really occurred to me that Lance Armstrong didn't dope, to be honest. And I don't really agree that he should continue the lie for the good of those that believe in the legend. What he overcame is still incredibly impressive, especially considering that, let's face it, probably every other serious contender in all of those races were most likely doing the exact same thing.
ReplyDeleteI'm not a follower of sports in general, but even I find the seemingly endless stream of doping confessions eye-opening. I think that there's an opportunity for "us" to change the way we consume sports, and that it becomes more necessary the more people come forward or get found out. I mean, we either care about our athletes playing clean or we don't. If we do, we can't continue to expect the kinds of superhuman feats that have become so commonplace in most sports. If we don't, we can't pretend to get all bent out of shape when the obvious gets confirmed.
I'm reminded of the Simpsons episode with the zoo train through the monkey exhibit- a crazed monkey attacks Homer, and the zookeeper says words to the effect of: Sure we could get get him, but it would be really bad for their society."
ReplyDeleteDon't prosecute the cheating asshat because it would hurt his charity/self-aggrandizing publicity machine that benefits some people?
c'mon.
Adam, not to go all LJST on you, but isn't this really a manifestation of the long-standing debate between deontological/Kantian thinkers and utilitarians regarding criminal punishment? The former would say "categories must be applied categorically, irrespective of the negative consequences that might be associated with their application in a particular case," and the latter (or at least "act utilitarians," if not "rule utilitarians") would say "no, consider the specific harms associated with punishing Lance in this way." Now, if only Maddy were a few years older, she'd have a thesis topic!
ReplyDelete(Confession: I've been making my way through Michael Sandel's terrific "Justice" lectures, available for free from iTunes U.)
Agree. Even if he has been doping (and he probably has), it's not worth the time and money to prosecute.
ReplyDeleteI'm not saying it's on the same level, I'm just raising the point that since there's somewhat of an assumption of doping in football, you'll get some consternation from sportswriters, but it's generally shrugged off by the fans. Their legacies aren't forever tainted the way they are in baseball.
ReplyDeleteIf it's proven that Lance lied under oath, I'm all for giving him a downward departure from the sentencing guidelines, but not for giving him a free pass. I don't know if he should be prosecuted for "defrauding sponsors or the public," though, not after the Conrad Black SCOTUS decision.
ReplyDeleteI also always assumed Lance was full of shit (or, rather, re-inserted blood), so the "myth" of Lance Armstrong struck me as so much marketing. The more interesting question to me, it seems, is why do we, as a society, do need this, or is Nike is using cancer to sell althetic apparel with Lance getting to fight cancer in the way that best maximizes his public image, should he get caught with blood on his, er, innards.
I get that (although, technically, OJ didn't kill anyone since he was acquitted). My point was just that this line of reasoning feels like a slippery slope to me. So no one died in this case. What if another time, someone in the supply chain is killed? What if someone overdoses and dies? Or overdoses and and has lifelong physical problems as a result? Where do you draw the line?
ReplyDeletePeople say the same thing about Polanski, so we apparently don't draw the line at drugging and raping children.
But the Polanski argument at this point isn't as much "his art is too great for him to be jailed" but rather "he has suffered enough while in exile," I believe. And there's no argument that Armstrong has suffered.
ReplyDeleteAlso, Simpson did kill Nicole Brown Simpson and Ron Goldman. That this jury didn't believe it was proven beyond a reasonable doubt doesn't change what happened.
Great discussion! However, I am still not buying that Armstrong should be let off based upon his contributions to society. One of the reasons he was able to contribute on a such a level is specifically due to his winning those races, or at least, it added to his hero mystique. Sure, he is a cancer survivor, but what set him apart was winning those races. What kind of role model is he, if he doped to get there?
ReplyDeleteThere is a great book that will be written on the comparative falls of Tiger Woods (for being an asshole) and Lance Armstrong (if, as suggested, he's a cheat). They certainly had a similar stature as sports-transcending spots figures.
ReplyDeleteThe problem with the "categories must be applied categorically" position in this case, citing Adam's response to cagey's post above, is that categories cannot simply be applied categorically in prosecutions because resource allocation issues require decisions to be made about which cases are prosecuted and which aren't.
ReplyDeleteTherefore, as a cost-benefit analysis must be made by the prosecutors in determining which cases to prosecute, we are forced into a discussion of the pros and cons of each prosecution. To the extent that anyone believes that deterrence (rather than justice in the individual case) is an achievable goal of the criminal justice system, then prosecuting higher profile cases can be justified as something beyond the pure self-aggrandizement of the prosecutor.
The idea that a cerrtain amount of good someone does can make them above the law is a pretty tough pill to swallow, isn't it? Surely Michael Milliken's foundation(s) have done much more "good" for society than Live Strong has, and started prior to the scandal, but no one was/is campaigning to save him. Whether or not the actual prosecutors want to prosecute him, if they have compelling evidence they need to proceed.
ReplyDeleteI'm not all that interested in seeing the government prosecute drug crimes, much less sports drug crimes, but for me the cancer survivor myth kind of swings things the other way: to what extent does the "You too can survive cancer" message become "You too can survive cancer with risky, experimental, and probably illegal, drug therapy."?
ReplyDeleteIf anyone thinks it's NOT worth prosecuting the case, aren't they admitting that PEDs should be legal? To what end?
ReplyDeleteHarold Connolly: “Pro athletes who can pay for medical guidance should take steroids,” he said. “They can give fans a better performance, a nice luxury."
ReplyDeletenot that I think pro athletes SHOULD take steroids (or other PEDS), but under proper medical care PEDs are becoming less and less dangerous. And most PEDs are legal with a valid prescription. If a sports organization wants to ban them, that's up to them. And congress should mind their own behavior before pointing fingers at others.
ReplyDeleteCase shouldn't be prosecuted. Shouldn't be a federal case. Despite Clemens and Armstrong beng HOF assholes, lying to Congress should be applauded.
Milken's victims were more clearly identified and their losses were more tangible.
ReplyDeleteWell and IF PEDS were legalized, wouldn't it be much more likely that they would be used with a doctors care rather than secretly and furtively so as to elude prosecution?
ReplyDeleteI too find much drug prosecutions perhaps not the best way to solve drug problems. There is no amount of punishment that is going to force a true addict to see the error of their ways if what they really need is some professional help to kick addiction. I recognize that Armstrong's prosecution and drug offenses are of a different brand entirely, but perhaps part of the problem is a system of laws that has limited ability to respond to the differences between the nature of those two drug offenses.
<span>CH, I agree about resource allocation, and I don't really care (or know enough) about Armstrong's case in particular, but I'd point out that the resource issue does NOT lead directly to "a cost-benefit analysis must be made...." You're assuming that utilitarianism is the second-order mechanism even for folks otherwise employing a deontological approach. That's a big assumption. If one subscribes to the deontological approach, but cannot execute it perfectly, one MIGHT turn to utilitarianism as a way to figure out how to behave -- prosecuting only those cases where prosecution gives rise to the most public good -- but might just as well act to further any number of other second-order preferences. For example, one might believe in the Spider-Man credo, and choose to prioritize prosecution and punishment of Armstrong and others to whom much has been given, irrespective of overall social good. Or one might believe that, given resource limitations, the strongest cases should be prosecuted. Or the cases against Jews. Or a random sample of cases, to ensure that no utilitarian concerns (or any other consequentialist concerns) enter the equation.
ReplyDeleteTo be clear, I'm not advocating any first- or second-order preference. I'm just saying that resource limitations do not (or at least need not) automatically lead to a preference for utilitarian selections. </span>
Russ, I agree and didn't mean to imply that utilitarianism necessarily followed as a second-order mechanism. . . I just chose my words poorly. Using "cost-benefit analysis" as a short hand for the decision-making technique within whatever normative framework the prosecutor prefers (or the decision-making techniques used, if any, to determine the appropriate normative framework itself) was very sloppy when utilitarianism had already been raised in the discussion. For example, despite the mention, I wouldn't use the optimizing of deterrence as a method for choosing cases, rather, where I to choose to prosecute Armstrong, it may be solely for the plague of rubber band bracelets that he has visited on the culture.
ReplyDeleteathletes and excess: Wade Boggs in a Tapper game.
ReplyDeleteAs a frequent guest at Marriott Courtyard hotels, I definitely concur re: rubber-band bracelets (though my daughter has become a good shot)! (And thanks for the response -- between theories of time travel and theories of punishment, I enjoy our philosophical banter!)
ReplyDelete