Lance Armstrong: Hero or Villain?

          I've been thinking a lot about Mr. Armstrong and his career as of late, obviously because of the black cloud of controversy that's hanging over his head. His career accomplishments are (officially) nothing, since he was stripped of all seven of his Tour de France titles after he refused to fight the accusations of steroid use any longer. But he did actually win all of those races, and he did that after recovering from testicular cancer. He won the world's most arduous, intense and physically demanding cycling race after recovering from cancer, and then he won that same race six more times. This is a feat that no one has come remotely close to, so without a doubt this is a tremendous accomplishment.

Lance Armstrong, during his record seventh Tour victory

          Yet here is where we come to the fork in the road, where people have diverged down two different paths in regard to Armstrong and his career. Down one path are those who value, above all, athletic integrity. The people who believe also that Pete Rose doesn't belong in the baseball Hall of Fame because he bet on baseball, the same people who will always consider Hank Aaron the home run king and not the steroid inflated Barry Bonds. And their opinion is completely valid. Armstrong will apparently be admitting to the Queen of personal interviews Oprah Winfrey that he took performance enhancing drugs, and for some that discredits his entire career. Fair enough. Then the other path people will take is more of a accepting path. These people generally accept that this era in sports will be defined by performance enhancing drugs. They probably also have a mindset that believes that Armstrong wasn't alone in his use of steroids, just like Bonds wasn't alone in his, and that these athletes were still the best of their era. They believe that, while Armstrong cheated, so did many many of his competitors, and by that logic he was still the best.

          I'm actually still standing at the fork in the road. I had traveled down the path of most, complete adoration of Armstrong because of his incredible dominance of a sport that honestly isn't very interesting. But since the supposed admission to using steroids, after years and years of denying it, has me backtracking my opinion. For me the jury is still out. But here is what is undeniable. Lance Armstrong, steroids or not, made riding a bicycle incredibly interesting. If it wasn't for him, I would've never taken the slightest interest in the Tour de France. I know for a fact that I am not the only one who tuned in just to see if Lance was going to pull out another astonishing victory. Since Lance has left the sport, ESPN's coverage of the event has gone from highlight worthy to mere afterthought. Not only has Armstrong done incredible things on two wheels, but also off of the bike as well. He started an incredible organization known as Livestrong, which raises money for cancer research. If you never owned or saw a yellow bracelet bearing the word Livestrong then you probably lived in a closet for about 10 years. The Livestrong foundation has raised nearly $500 million for cancer research, and has obviously raised awareness about the terrible disease. These are the facts, and they are undeniable. Critics have gone so far as to say his work with Livestrong is discredited because "He lied to everyone who believed in his story". I find that ridiculous. Armstrong lied about using steroids, yes. But even if his legacy reads "Cancer survivor wins Tour de France seven times while using steroids in an era that is already marked by widespread steroid use," he's still an inspiration to anyone afflicted with cancer. This man was at the apex of his sport after surviving a killer disease. Most patients want to survive, but Armstrong showed them all that not only can they survive, they can thrive.

          It is because of his incredible achievements, both on and off the bicycle, that I am still unsure about where I stand on Armstrong. I find it hard to accept his repeated denial. And it also hurts to think that all the time I admired him he was not abiding by the rules of his sport. I wouldn't want my (future) children admiring an athlete who cheated to gain success. But I am certainly not ready to admit that he is a compete fraud, because I DO want my (future) kids to admire a man who beat adversity, and against all odds did something that had never been done and will never be done again.