I am always interested when a sportswriter deals with issues beyond mere fun and games. I am interested when a sportswriter passionately defends Lance Armstrong who is again being accused of using performance enhancing drugs, this time by teammates. I am especially interested when the defense of Armstrong, or anyone, is illogical and an insult to our intelligence.
On Wednesday morning the SF Chronicle reprinted an opinion piece by someone named Dave Zirin. As far as I can tell the piece first appeared in the Nation.
Zirin, who is emotional on the subject of Armstrong and Armstrong’s iconic status in cycling, said the media and 60 Minutes in particular are engaged in “the systematic disemboweling of (Armstrong’s) legacy as an athletic icon.”
The disemboweling image is unpleasant and over the top. So is Zirin’s reasoning. At no time in his shrill article does he write that Armstrong never took illegal performance drugs. It would have been helpful if Zirin vouched for his guy. Zirin does not feel vouching for Armstrong’s honor and honesty are necessary, apparently for two reasons:
1. “Blood doping is a logical outcome of a sport where people push themselves to death for the enjoyment of fans and benefit of sponsors.”
What a load of baloney. Zirin is claiming, I think, that blood doping (i.e. cheating) in cycling is OK because most cyclists do it, because the sport is hard and cyclists need to cheat and because fans and sponsors demand it. It’s as if cyclists have no choice in the matter. If fans want cheating, cyclists must do it. Really? A rider could say no to drugs . A rider could take up another sport. In addition, cyclists cheat mostly because there’s a ton of dough in it for them — forget the fans and sponsors. Cyclists cheat because they want to and nobody — not their sport or society at large — make them cheat.
2. This second argument really fries me. Zirin points out that Armstrong is a cancer survivor. Cancer is a horrible disease. My mom and dad and older brother had cancer. I don’t write about cancer lightly. Zirin says Armstrong is an “icon of survival of recovery.” Indeed he is, and God love him for that. Zirin goes on: “He’s helped raise, though his LiveStrong foundation with their ubiquitous yellow bracelets, more than $400 million dollars for medical research.”
This is praiseworthy of Armstrong but it does not get him off the hook for cheating at cycling, if he cheated. Surviving cancer and raising money for cancer research are separate issues from breaking the law and breaking the rules of his sport and perhaps lying.
According to Zirin, cheaters get a moral break if they had cancer and if they contributed to cancer research.
That is not fair or logical. It would imply cheaters who do not get cancer or who don’t contribute to cancer research should not be treated as leniently as Armstrong by wobbly thinkers like Zirin.
I can’t stand Zirin’s logic or his article. To read it click here.
