Lance Armstrong was no stranger to the Tour de France, being a seven time winner of this distinguished international cycling competition. Although on the 17th and 18th of January after two interviews with Lance were telecast around the world, it became apparent that he was also no stranger to taking performance enhancing substances. In the second interview Lance did not say that he thought his lifetime suspension from all competition was ‘unfair’ although he did mention that he thought his penalties were ‘different’ to those given to others. Many argued that Lance was just using the interviews in attempt to reappear in some sort of sporting competition, arguing that his breaches were so great that he should never be given such an opportunity.
There are many arguments for and against Lance being allowed to return to any sort of sporting competition, Armstrong did receive harsher penalties than other cyclist who have also taken performance enhancing drugs though it can also be argued that Lance deserved harsher penalties as he consistently refused to give any of the knowledge he had about the doping network he was a part of to the United States Anti-Doping Agency, on top of this he also continuously refused to confess to his drug taking, and when he finally did he gave no evidence before a formal anti-drug agency. Though the question still lies ‘is Lance’s lifelong suspension from all competition fair?’ When you look at the statistics you will see that out of the 21 top-three finishers from 1999 to 2005 all with the exception of 1 were tainted by doping, is it really fair that one person get a harsher penalty over the other 95% of podium finishes all in quite similar situations? Lance pressured the members of his team into taking performance enhancing substances, there wasn’t much option really, take the drugs or you’re out, on top of this the athletes in his group were also pressured to use dangerous drugs in order to prevent detection. People in his group had...
Please join StudyMode to read the full document