10-22-2012, 11:45 PM
hal wrote:
It's similar to Penn State - lots were willing to ignore the horrendous claims because of the love for Penn State's football team, but everyone came around eventually. Same with Armstrong - LOTS here defended him with everything they could muster...
I've thought the same myself. He was a national hero who prevailed through personal strength and endurance over not only the Tour de France and many other races, but cancer as well. America loves a winner.
Personally, I say that he was lucky to beat cancer. He didn't beat it by being morally superior to it. He was just lucky that his genetics and that particular cancer worked out in a such a way that he is still alive. Yet some people regard him as some how heroic for "beating" it. As to the doping part...well, he's a low-life cheating bastard who has at last been caught and pilloried.
In talking about this the other night I think we decided that there should be two leagues for every sport: a clean one and an unclean one in which anything goes. Upon further reflection it occurred to us that most people would prefer to watch the unclean leagues because that is where athletes would be cycling faster, jumping higher and throwing longer than in the clean league.
Did I already say that people like a winner?