As I suggested a few years back, to me there is a threshold of philanthropy which excuses just about any sin in one's professional life, and Armstrong (like Jerry Lewis) assuredly has passed it for me. If he doped in a sport in which everyone was doping,** it's not something about which I feel terribly worked up. Just don't let him host SNL again.
** Dave Zirin: "Of the seventy top ten finishers in Armstrong’s seven Tour De France victories, forty-one have tested positive for PEDS, Armstrong is a hell of a lot more than just number 42." And:
No adult male saw Mark McGwire or Sammy Sosa in 1998 and thought, “Someday I’m going to hit 70 home runs.” No adult female saw Marion Jones and thought, "Someday I’ll win gold at the Olympics.” But legions of adults have watched Lance Armstrong and thought, “Someday, I’m going to beat this damn cancer.” That’s a deeper connection than fandom or even the virtual-world of fantasy sports could ever provide. If Lance Armstrong has been able to further the connection because he’s white, photogenic, and politically connected, (and did I mention white?) then to his credit, he’s leveraged those advantages to raise over $500 million for cancer research and access to treatment in poor and minority communities across the United States.
The philanthropy is somewhat ambiguous. http://fraudbytes.blogspot.com/2012/01/lance-armstrong-investigation.html
ReplyDeleteBut you're correct about the "Who cares about doping in cycling?" aspect; not clear who the Tour titles will go to, given that the second and third place finishers in some of those racers have also been banned for doping. It's one reason I can't bring myself to care about the sport.
ReplyDeleteI'm pretty sure that no one has officially won a tour de france in the last 15 or 20 years. Every single major champion has been accused/caught/banned for doping.
ReplyDeleteIt's the first sport where they could legitimately forget about testing and just tell everyone to go for it, use whatever you want.
Except for the whole "dropping dead at age 29" thing that has happened to several doping racers due to enlarged hearts, blood so loaded with red cells that it's more of a sludge than a fluid, and other complications, I'm with you.
ReplyDeleteThe Tour is basically screwed. It's evolved into an event where bio-chemistry technology decides who wins the race. At that point, who really cares?
Perhaps it should run with two classes: 1. Those that agree to daily testing every day for a year up to and including the race and 2. an "Unlimited" classification.
--bd
I do wonder, if you had the resources of Pfizer and Merck working on improving PEDs and mitigating their side-effects, instead of Balco and Ackbar and Jeff's Steroid Hut working on hiding them from testing, just how safe would they be at this point, and what benefits would they have brought to non-atheletes?
ReplyDeleteThe 2012 Olympic road cycling winner had been suspended from racing due to doping as well. When the sport is this compromised, it seems futile to worry about retroactive punishment. I wonder when the last clean Tour de France actually was.
ReplyDeleteNot some. All. Which is why I don't care. Here's the would be title holders, via Deadspin:
ReplyDelete<span>1999: Alex Zülle (confessed to EPO use)
2000: Jan Ullrich (suspended from 2006 Tour; banned this year and stripped of all results from 2005 on)
2001: Jan Ullrich
2002: Joseba Beloki (kept out of 2006 Tour while under doping investigation, later cleared)
2003: Jan Ullrich
2004: Andreas Klöden (accused of illegal blood transfusion in the 2006 Tour)
2005: Ivan Basso (confessed to attempted doping, suspended)</span>
I'm a little worried, I enjoyed a lot of the period from 1998 to 2011, and that period seems to have become a magnet for retroactive change.
ReplyDeleteI'm going to loophole this MF here and say that while I am banned from talking about steroids on this site (self-imposed), I am allowed to talk about non-steroid PEDs.
ReplyDeleteIn cycling, the most popular and effective form of doping is the use of synthetic erethropoeitin, most commonly Epogen (EPO), but sometimes Procrit or Aranesp. EPO and Aranesp are made by Amgen, and Procrit is made by Janssen. These are not fly-by-night drugs. They are used by literally millions of people for things that have nothing to do with sports. The government probably pays more for EPO through Medicare and Medicaid than it pays for any other drug. And these drugs each carry several black-box warnings, so you can bet that Amgen and Janssen have put some real coin into trying to make them safer, including by mitigating and reducing side effects (whether for safety or monetary reasons, I won't hazard an opinion).
You can decide for yourself how well pharma companies balance safety against profits, and you can decide for yourself whether you think Amgen and Janssen are better, worse, or the same as Pfizer and Merck on that score. But the problem with doping in cycling is not that the science is being done by meatheads in dusty basements.
Also, I should mention that the sales of EPO for performance-enhancing use must be vanishingly small relative to the sales for end-stage renal disease. If there have been improvements in safety and understanding of synthetic erethropoeitin in the last decade(s), the cyclists have benefited from the kidney-failure patients far more than the other way around.
ReplyDeleteIn a way, it bolsters my point - atheletes are effectively piggy-backing on the side effects of drugs researched and tested for entirely other purposes.
ReplyDeleteIf there was a legitimate open market for PEDs, and cash was flowing into it from the NFL and NBA and MLB, plus millions of weekend warriors and middle-aged gym rats, we might see some safe, effective products.
I weirdly don't care about this. I saw Lance race at his final Tour (amazingly fun experience) and I loved watching cycling when he, Jan, Ivan and the rest were in there. So, you can't take away my memories!!! I also can't take away the fact that the guy survived cancer and has helped countless people.
ReplyDeleteThe whole thing is unfortunate, but the USADA are also a bunch of f**kers.
(note: this post was written while I was on steroids for my asthma and therefore, enhanced. I fully expect that you will strip me of my post once this fact is revealed in your random blogpost drug testing.)
As someone whose wife has a rare form of cancer, who has a pituitary tumor himself, and who rode (with Awesome Wife) in the 100-mile Livestrong Challenge last Sunday, I think the tremendous work that Lance has done with Livestrong does indeed excuse all. Livestrong was key in turning our attitudes around after Tracy was diagnosed 5-years ago, and we realized that fighting back by living your life is the best way to battle cancer. While I don't doubt Lance doped, I just don't care--he's done so much good that he gets a lifetime pass in my book.
ReplyDeleteOn a related note, Lance only did a 45-mile version of the ride because he was, admittedly, hung over from partying at the event hotel. We were, ironically, in the room right above the "party room" and got an hour's sleep because of the crazy shenanigans. But, I don't hold a grudge.....
LIVE STRONG!!!
I'm not a doctor, and this may be all wrong, but:
ReplyDeleteIn this case, the doping cyclists are not piggy-backing on side effects. The purpose of synthetic erethropoeitin is to increase hemoglobin in the blood, which enables the blood to carry oxygen more efficiently to tissue. Many dialysis patients need EPO because either their disease or their treatment depletes hemoglobin, and, as a consequence, their blood cannot carry enough oxygen to their tissues, giving them chronic fatigue (among other things, and to a dangerous degree). Tour de France cyclists can benefit from EPO because riding 2100 miles in three weeks creates an oxygen deficit in their bodies (i.e., makes them fatigued), which synthetic erethropoeitin can mitigate by increasing the efficient transmission of oxygen through the blood. So cyclists are not benefiting from a side effect; they are using the drug for its intended purpose, i.e., to reduce fatigue by increasing the efficiency of oxygen transmission via the blood.
The FDA has approved EPO and Procrit (and I believe Aranesp) only to get hematocrit up 10-12 somethings (ug/dL, I think), and they carry black-box warnings about use to achieve higher levels, including warnings about risk of heart problems. And the cycling governing body has banned use of synthetic erethropoeitin, obviously. But it's not illegal, at least in the US, for a doctor to prescribe a drug for a use for which it has not been approved, if the doctor believes there is a legitimate medical need for the drug (there may be laws or contractual restrictions on who must pay for such a use -- e.g. not the government and not an insurance company). And doctors' views of medical necessity are not constrained by the dictates of sports' governing bodies. If a doctor, after reviewing available medical literature, thought that the harm to a person from riding 2100 miles in 21 days outweighed the increased risk of heart problems for a professional 20-something athlete with a strong ticker, I could see the doc making a case for medical justification. Not that cyclists are getting legitimately-prescribed EPO, though, since they obviously don't want the paper trail. This is just a hypothetical point.
Incidentally, the professional leagues probably would be irrelevant in your argument. It takes billions of dollars of research and trials to come up with a drug that is safe and effective, mostly by trying a ton of stuff and usually failing. It's overly optimistic to believe that the demand among professional athletes, combined with any realistic subsidy from the professional leagues, would create any kind of business imperative for the drug companies to develop safe PEDs. It is far more likely that any incentive to create safe PEDs would result from two populations: (1) people who need PEDs to assist in injury rehab; and (2) the weekend warriors you mentioned. The latter group in particular is the market that might get pharma seeing dollar signs -- that's the Viagra market, except in gym shorts instead of out of them. There would still be huge conceptual problems (e.g. OTC vs. prescription-only), but that's where the money would be, anyway.
Lance only did a 45-mile version of the ride because he was, admittedly, hung over from partying
ReplyDeleteWuss.
Actually, in all seriousness, what Armstrong did, drugs or no drugs, is pretty incredible. Doesn't diminish it in my eyes in the least.
<span>I'm not a doctor, and this may be all wrong, but:
ReplyDeleteIn this case, the doping cyclists are not piggy-backing on side effects. The purpose of synthetic erethropoeitin is to increase hemoglobin in the blood, which enables the blood to carry oxygen more efficiently to tissue. Many dialysis patients need EPO because either their disease or their treatment depletes hemoglobin, and, as a consequence, their blood cannot carry enough oxygen to their tissues, giving them chronic fatigue (among other things, and to a dangerous degree). Tour de France cyclists can benefit from EPO because riding 2100 miles in three weeks creates an oxygen deficit in their bodies (i.e., makes them fatigued), which synthetic erethropoeitin can mitigate by increasing the efficient transmission of oxygen through the blood. So cyclists are not benefiting from a side effect; they are using the drug for its intended purpose, i.e., to reduce fatigue by increasing the efficiency of oxygen transmission via the blood.
The FDA has approved EPO and Procrit (and I believe Aranesp) only to get hemoglobin up 10-12 somethings (ug/dL, I think), and they carry black-box warnings about use to achieve higher levels, including warnings about risk of heart problems. And the cycling governing body has banned use of synthetic erethropoeitin, obviously. But it's not illegal, at least in the US, for a doctor to prescribe a drug for a use for which it has not been approved, if the doctor believes there is a legitimate medical need for the drug (there may be laws or contractual restrictions on who must pay for such a use -- e.g. not the government and not an insurance company). And doctors' views of medical necessity are not constrained by the dictates of sports' governing bodies. If a doctor, after reviewing available medical literature, thought that the harm to a person from riding 2100 miles in 21 days outweighed the increased risk of heart problems for a professional 20-something athlete with a strong ticker, I could see the doc making a case for medical justification. Not that cyclists are getting legitimately-prescribed EPO, though, since they obviously don't want the paper trail. This is just a hypothetical point.
Incidentally, the professional leagues probably would be irrelevant in your argument. It takes billions of dollars of research and trials to come up with a drug that is safe and effective, mostly by trying a ton of stuff and usually failing. It's overly optimistic to believe that the demand among professional athletes, combined with any realistic subsidy from the professional leagues, would create any kind of business imperative for the drug companies to develop safe PEDs. It is far more likely that any incentive to create safe PEDs would result from two populations: (1) people who need PEDs to assist in injury rehab; and (2) the weekend warriors you mentioned. The latter group in particular is the market that might get pharma seeing dollar signs -- that's the Viagra market, except in gym shorts instead of out of them. There would still be huge conceptual problems (e.g. OTC vs. prescription-only), but that's where the money would be, anyway.</span>
What's Zirin's hangup with skin pigmentation, anyway? Is he trying to say that Michael Jordan might have raised half a billion dollars for cancer charities if he had only been born white? Somebody oughtta tell Hanes about this melanin issue, 'cuz I'm led to believe they're paying him a lot of money to move t-shirts.
ReplyDelete1st thought: If he is stripped of his titles the Armstrong cameo scene in Dodgeball comes across with a much different tone.
ReplyDelete2nd thought: Can't we just stick an asterisk by his name and move on? Is this all really necessary? I do not understand what is meant to be accomplished by this. They want the world to know they take doping seriously? Well, I'm not convinced that the top cyclists today still aren't doping..but banishing Armstrong from a sport he no longer competes in and possibly stripping his titles when there is no known clean heir apparent to give them them to doesn't do anything to help that perception. I also can't look at the top olympic sprinters without wondering if they dope. Does somebody think going after Carl Lewis and stripping his medals now could fix that?
I also think this may be a bad PR move from USADA. Armstrong is generally a well-regarded celebrity. It seems to me that most people that were fans of Lance Armstrong and like cycling already knew he doped and didn't care possibly because the TDF has been dirty pretty much since its inception. And then most people who liked him but do not care all that much about the sport of cycling can either easily (if naively) believe he's just being persecuted or because they like him for more than just winning at cycling they are not going to turn on him if doping is his worst sin.
spending that much time in France seems punishment enough.
ReplyDeleteOther than not really caring, here's where I'm at:
ReplyDelete1. At this point, I'm convinced Armstrong doped for most, if not all, of his career.
2. He's pretty much been an asshole his entire life. Also one of the greatest racers, ever.
3. USADA is a shitty, out of control agency.
4. Doped or not, the Posties were an amazingly well-run machine.
5. The 2003 TdF might be the greatest sporting event I've ever watched. Not a single dull stage, it was like 21 straight days of final four buzzer beaters.
6. Tyler Hamilton has a book out Sept 18. This should be good. Cowritten with Daniel Coyle, an excellent writer who wrote Lance Armstrong's War. (Coyle also wrote this on Joe Hazelwood).
7. Don't piss off Betsy Andreu.
probably never. (wiki link)
ReplyDeleteNot sure who you are, Guest, but just wanted to thank you for your post, and wish you and your wife a complete healing. Congratulations on riding in the Challenge - what an accomplishment!
ReplyDeleteIsaac's description of the uses of synthetic EPO is pretty good, althought I would say that the goal of EPO treatment is not to improve the efficiency of oxygen transmission (which would imply more oxygen transmission per molecule of hemoglobin) but rather the quantity of oxygen delivered to the tissues (more red cells = more hemoglobin = more oxygen bound to the hemoglobin)
ReplyDeleteThere is currently a great deal of controversy in the medical field about appropriate use of EPO and its analogues even for treatment of genuine anemia related to end-stage renal disease. A recent large trial failed to show any benefit for correcting the hemoglobin levels in these patients to normal (a normal level in a man would be something like 13-14 g/dl) and in fact there was a suggestion of increased mortality. So current practice is moving toward only using them to correct/prevent dangerous levels of anemia.
Incidentally, I think the concept of "safe" PEDs is probably fundamentally flawed, since by the very nature of athletic competetion some people are going to try to take any performance enhancer to the maximum possible and only stop when they start developing problems. Due to the variation in the human body some people will be able to tolerate more; some less. There are some "safe" PEDs like ibuprofen (hey, reduced pain will enhance your performance) so everyone uses them and they become part of the new baseline. So if you want an edge at elite levels you will have to experiment with substances and doses that not everyone is willing to undergo.
To quote Jesse Pinkman: YEAH! SCIENCE!
ReplyDeleteLiving in Austin and having friends who have worked at the Foundation, not a huge fan of Armstrong. (The first sentence of #2 above is apparently spot-on.) The Foundation, however, does some great work.
ReplyDelete