By Justin Muszynski
Occasionally in sports, as in life, there are stories that absolutely amaze us. These events transpire with storylines that even the best Hollywood writers couldn’t match.
Take the miracle that happened in the 1980 Olympics for example. The heavy favorite Soviet hockey team was defeated by the amateur Americans en route to a stunning gold medal. Almost no one gave the Americans a chance, yet here we are 33 years later and it’s still one of the most notable events to ever occur in the sports world.
For my generation however, one of the most spectacular sports stories comes in the form of a shamed cyclist. For all of my adult life I was led to believe that Lance Armstrong was the greatest cyclist on earth. His success on the bike was even more incredible given his bout with testicular cancer.
After being pronounced “cancer-free” in 1997, Armstrong went on a tear winning the Tour de France a record 7 consecutive times from 1999 to 2005. He became an icon larger than life. He inspired millions with his “livestrong” way of life and cancer foundation. Sadly though, these events have recently been tainted by an investigation that revealed Armstrong was guilty of using banned substances to aid him in his victories.
He had been under a microscope for years while being flooded with accusations, but nothing was ever proven. For years he denied all allegations that he had ever used a performance-enhancing drug. But Thursday night in an interview with Oprah he finally admitted to what people had said he did for years.
The news of his guilt came as a shock to those outside of the sport whom have been exposed to the doping nature of professional cycling. And while Armstrong has been stripped of his titles and many are refuting that he should be recognized for any of his victories you have to wonder: Was he really doing something that almost every other cyclist wasn’t?
From the investigations that revealed Armstrong’s guilt, it sounds like he was part of the majority. It certainly seems as though the entire sport is dirty as well as most of those involved. If the doping situation is, and was, as bad as these reports are saying, did Armstrong really gain an advantage on his opponents?
You could argue either way, but this situation is a far cry from the baseball scandal several years back that revealed many all-star sluggers were taking steroids to boost their game. In a sport like baseball people are always comparing the present-day players to those of the past. In this case, it’s impossible to not let the idea of modern day players taking banned substances slant your view. But Armstrong’s circumstances are very different.
It’s still pretty safe to say that he was a remarkable athlete and cyclist, probably the best of his era. And it isn’t really fair that of all of those who doped, he’s the only one receiving scrutiny. Then again, of all those who raced he was the only one who ever got the attention so I guess it’s a double-edged sword.
But let’s not forget the real contributions that he made to cancer research with the Lance Armstrong Foundation. This foundation raised millions of dollars that will continue to help with society’s battle to find a cure to cancer.
His story inspired countless amounts of people who took his experience and applied it to their own lives. It gave them something to dream about and probably gave some the motivation they needed to beat something like cancer.
Armstrong lied about his transgressions and he undoubtedly doped, but did he really cheat?
As he pointed out in his interview with Oprah, the definition of cheating stipulates that one has to gain an advantage on their opponent. Did Armstrong really gain an advantage or was the sport so saturated with dopers that he just followed suit?