Blame It On the Truth That Ran Us Down
Congratulations to Mr. Sameer Mohan and Mr. John Petrelli for correctly naming "Box Full of Letters" by Wilco as the Monday Song of the Day. Longtime Song of the Day contestants may be shocked at my new found benevolence in allowing multiple winners, but as long as the people participate in the contest, I will, as Marie Antoinette might say, "Let them eat cake."
The preferred viewing during the last two weeks in the Scott household has been Le Tour De France, or as people in Texas might say, "That Big Bike Race With All Those Spandex Wearing Dudes". Either way, you know what I'm talking about and that's all that matters right now.
Today, as I watched the cyclists gut through multiple 2000 meter climbs, I thought about the magnitude of Lance Armstrong's achievement in winning 7 consecutive Tours between 1999 and 2005. Due to the unfortunate profusion of doping scandals in cycling's recent past there were always whispers and provocative stories in the press regarding Armstrong's possible doping, but as of now, there is nothing that connects the steely Texan with illegal doping.
With that said, I hope what I'm about to put forth never comes to pass, but if it does, it creates an interesting (at least in my mind) parlor game:
Let's say that in 10 years it is revealed that both Tiger Woods and Lance Armstrong used performance-enhancing drugs in their primes.
Which one is the bigger tragedy*?
*Trust me, I use tragedy in the proper context given that we are only talking about sports after all.Labels: Lance Armstrong, Tiger Woods, Tour De France
posted by Justin @ 7/22/2008 09:45:00 PM
6 comments
6 Comments:
Please excuse this response for not being entirely on topic, but here goes.
I firmly believe that Lance Armstrong was doing some kind of performance enhancer. Doping, blood transfusions, something. From my perspective, it seems little more than wishful thinking to believe that the one clean person in the sport was also the most dominant for seven years. Maybe Armstrong was just a freak of nature and training whose training regimen was what kept him on top, but I just find that really hard to believe. Although perhaps not entirely relevant, look at his personal life decisions in the last few years. His character is certainly in question over the way he left his wife (the one who stayed with him through his ordeal with cancer), then left that singer he left his wife for when she got cancer. Like I said, maybe that is not entirely relevant to the discussion, but it certainly provides some insight into his character.
I want to believe in a guy from Texas, a guy who worked hard, but I just don't buy it.
As far as which would be the greater tragedy. Lance Armstrong, no question. Because his seems to me, an outsider, to be the sport where performance enhancers would make the most difference. If he really was clean while everyone else was cheating, and he stayed on top just by working the hardest/smartest, that is a tremendous story that every school child should be taught to emulate. If he really cheated, too, that makes him just the most successful cheater in cycling history.
If Tiger used performance enhancing drugs, that would be tragic and sad, but not as tragic for a couple of reasons. 1. In Tiger's sport, the cloud of performance enhancing drugs is not as great. He hasn't been the one "clean" athlete in a field of cheaters. Instead, he would be the one "cheater" in an otherwise clean field. That would be sad, but not on the scale of Armstrong, who has always protrayed himself as the one clean guy. 2. It is hard to see what advantage Tiger could have gained from performance enhancers. Golf does not seem to be the kind of sport where it would make that much of a difference. The ability to sink an 18 foot putt to win a major championship is more about nerves and skill than physical strength. Tiger is the best because of his mind, not his body. While, in a sense, that would make it tragic that he used (in your hypothetical) unneeded performance enhancers(which he hasn't), it is still not as tragic as it would be if Armstrong had(which he probably did).
Wow, now that I got that off my chest, I guess I'll get to work.
This comment has been removed by the author.
"You can blame it all on me Terry"
The Boss - Backstreets.
Tiger would be the tragedy, for the same reasons Mike M thinks otherwise. A large number of people already think Lance doped. If conclusive evidence came out that he did in fact dope, I think most would just shrug their shoulders and say "I told you so." Very much like the Clemens situation. Sure it made headlines and was all the talk b/c of his high profile, tremendous success, and adamant denials, but in the end, it was just yet another baseball player that took steroids and I don't think anyone considered it "tragic" as much as "expected."
Tiger on the other hand, would shock the world. The guy is the flag bearer not only for dominance and mental toughness, but also for diversity and acceptance in a sport that has historically struggled with both. He has single handedly turned golf into a legitimate tv sport. His impact on the sport cannot be measured, but checking the Sunday tv ratings for events where he is in contention vs events when he's out of contention would be a good place to start. I think there would be far more people that would feel “cheated” if it came out that Tiger had used performance enhancing drugs. Performance enhancing drugs would help a golfer in much the same way they help pitchers. The golf season is long, and if you can take something to help your body recover faster during the week, you have an advantage.
Just a couple of quick responses to Richtoria since my boss won't give me enough work. First, Richtoria mistakes "shocking" as opposed to "expected" for "tragic." For me, Tragic essentially means how sad it would be. yes, it would be shocking to learn that Tiger had used some kind of illegal performance enhancer. it would be sad. He might even lose some endorsements and public adulation, but I don't think it would tarnish his accomplishments as much as Armstrong's because I would doubt very seriously that any chemical he took would have had as much impact on his ability to dominate his sport. We can imagine that Tiger would have won most of the tournaments without any chemical assistance and merely wonder why he would take such risks with negative side effects. Armstrong, on the other hand, would be a proven fraud and cheat. We would no longer speculate about how he won all those tours. We would know. Gone would be the last little vestige of hope that maybe Armstrong's success really was just the result of his spartan work ethic combined with some sort of natural predisposition to climbing mountains on a bike. We could be quite certain Armstrong only won because he was the best at cheating and not getting caught.
second, as to the efficacy of performance enhancers in golf, I do not think pitching is an apt analogy. For one thing, while he practices vociferously, Tiger only plays competitively 22-23 weeks a year, with multiple long breaks in between, so I don't think it is comparable to the grind of a major league season. For another, the mechanics of pitching have long been known to wear people down early, which is one reason Roger Clemens' longevity was so freakish. I suppose golfers' bodies sometimes break down from the mechanics of a golf swing, but that is the rare exception rather than the rule. And while recent events might suggest that Tiger's body may be having some problems as a result from his swing, one wonders how performance enhancers might have played a role in staving it off. In fact, most golfers hit their prime in their thirties, because it is the mental dimensions of the game that are such a key, not the physical. By contrast, most pitchers are in their prime in their twenties, and those who pitch well into their thirties are rare. And there it might be that the recent examples like Clemens (and Johnson?) are the result of performance enhancers. No one is suggesting that Jack Nicklaus won the Masters at 46 because he was on anything.
Finally, as to how sad, even tragic would it be if we found out Tiger used performance enhancers. it would be devastating. But I think the question was which would be more tragic. Maybe Tiger has farther to fall than Armstrong, maybe not. But for me, the issue comes down to whether or not I really believe performance enhancers had made a difference. or, how much difference they made. In my mind, performance enhancers would make a much greater difference in cycling than in golf, and so to answer Justin's question, I'm going with Armstrong.
Very good points. If you frame tragic as to whether or not performance enhancers made a difference or the magnitude of the difference they made, there is no question it's Lance. If you frame tragic as which would have a greater impact on society...i.e. the number of people that would feel “sad” and betrayed that the athlete cheated, no matter the magnitude of the impact that cheating had on their performance, I still say it's Tiger by a good margin. By in large I think more people would find it “sad” that Tiger cheated in any way/shape/form, even if it had a negligible effect on his performance, versus Lance cheating and most believing the majority of his tour wins were because of it. No way to prove it, just my opinion.
The mechanics of pitching do wear a lot of pitchers down early, but I think that is due more to the strain put on the tendons and ligaments in your shoulder and elbow, conditions that steroids actually exacerbate, not ameliorate. If Tiger plays competitively 22-23 weeks a year, I think that’s a somewhat comparable workload to a SP pitching every 5th day for approx. 25 weeks. The benefits are the same if you can recover faster than your opponent(s). And while no one is suggesting Jack Nicholas won the Masters in his 40s because of drugs, no one is suggesting Tom Glavine, Greg Maddux Troy Percival, Marino Rivera (even Justin’s favorite ex Ranger The Gambler) pitched effectively late in “baseball life” because of drugs either. I don’t know what Jack’s tournament schedule or competitiveness in other tournaments was during that time period, but maybe he was able to perform at such a high level at the Masters because he wasn’t dealing with the full rigors of tour life and travel. I have no clue…not a golf historian my any means.
I think you hit the nail on the head that Tiger has farther to fall, and I think it is because of his prominence in mainstream culture, his race and his perceived pious character in his personal life. Thus, using your definition of tragic as being essentially how “sad” it would be, I think any evidence that Tiger knowingly took performance enhancing drugs, regardless if it gave him a miniscule competitive advantage, would make more people feel “sad.”
Good question JS and great points Mike M. Now I just have to figure out who I’m going to bill this time to.
Lance is already a big tragedy after his whole family debacle. I don't know how much more tragic he could get.
Post a Comment
<< Home