Lance Armstrong Doping Scandal Standards of Praise:

Lance Armstrong Doping Scandal

Standards of Praise: Lance Armstrong as Role Model

Role models exemplify our aspirational achievements that represent the best of what is within our grasp. As children learn by observing the norms by which to govern their own actions, they look to exemplary individuals that demonstrate the virtues of human character. Recognizing that role models are also human and imperfect, witnessing a crestfallen role model compels the question of what principles govern our views of who constitutes an exemplary individual. Lance Armstrong's recent formal striping of his seven cycling titles is the most recent case of how we elevate the individuals that surpass the challenges that are beyond the reach of the ordinary, however with certain implied conditions (Macur).

Lance Armstrong's situation presents a case of contrasts, in which a man afflicted with testicular cancer personifies the frail condition associated with treatment, yet reverses his fortunes to achieve a monumental feat of physical endurance and performance. As a result of both the cancer and competitive feats, the question is not as simple as the cycling union president, Pat McQuaid, might frame it, "Lance Armstrong has no place in cycling; he deserves to be forgotten in cycling," (Macur).

Lance Armstrong's fight against cancer remains inspirational. Furthermore, the completion of a Tour de France is another exemplary feat that demonstrates the resilience of the human body, as well as the commitment and focus to attain goals. Banishing Lance Armstrong to some sort of role model purgatory, in which all of his accomplishments are no longer worthy of mention is an over simplification. However, Lance Armstrong's misrepresentation and lies, regarding his 'doping,' does constitute a legitimate basis to degrade a view of his accomplishments. At best, Lance Armstrong's cycling career should be viewed as akin to someone that has had to relearn how to walk, after a stroke, that completes a marathon. The completion of such a physical feat is intrinsically praiseworthy, however to recognize him as a champion is unjust.

However, it is not simply the actions of the individual that affect our assessment of human achievements. Babe Ruth is recognized for his single season homerun total of 60, in the 1927 season (Sports Reference LLC). Babe Ruth's achievement remained unsurpassed Roger Maris, in 1961, achieved 61 homeruns (Sports Reference LLC).

Accepting that our heroes may be unworthy of all the credit for the virtues we associate with them is difficult. Babe Ruth represented a role model for a great many, both young and old, and the fact that a less affable Roger Maris surpassed the long standing total of homeruns in a single season represented an affront to our deification of an individual. Roger Maris's achievement was diluted by the baseball commissioner when the official recording of his homerun total was noted with an asterisk to denote additional games played, over Babe Ruth's 1927 season (Baseball Almanac). Therefore, identifying the feature that constitutes whether an achievement is worthy of praise is not merely a straightforward evaluation of the individual.

The recognition of achievements entails certain unspoken assumptions, particularly truth and fairness. To win at a game of Monopoly may be seen as a combination of luck and savvy maneuvers of a player. The win is praiseworthy based upon an assumption that it was achieved within the rules of the game. If it were found that the winner cheated by stealing money from the bank, then it would be unjust and unfair to refer to the player as possessing some special attribute or virtue for playing Monopoly.

The use of any stimulant is similarly an inadequate standard to measure achievement. If the standard of praise permitted only individuals that use no external stimulants, then this would be overly general and may pertain to different breakfast foods or aspirin taken for a muscle inflammation or a headache. However, if particular substances are banned, then individuals found violating the rules are rightfully scorned. Just as the parallel of praising the board game winner assumes conformity to certain rules, so does any official competitive recognition of a feat. A steroid using individual is free to race the identical course of the Tour de France, even timing the course to compare performance, however the feat is unworthy of praise due to the violation of the standards that are to govern the distinction of a champion.