There are some who would say Ben Rothlesberger and Ray Lewis would fit into those categories. Kobe Bryant, Mike Tyson (convicted and served time), and others have all been in trouble with the law and continued to play.
I stand corrected. The ones who were accused of rape or murder were acquitted. No chance there that they got away with it.
I noticed you didn’t ask about the dog torturer. I hope that isn’t because you don’t equate the minor offense of torturing animals with the heinous crime of cheating in a bicycle race.
If I got accused of running a dog fighting ring, I would be able to pick up my career as a scientist after serving my time.
Why?
Because dog fighting has absolutely nothing to do with my ability to do science in a sound, trustworthy fashion.
Same with raping and murdering people.
But if it was proven that for most my career, I had published phony data and trumpted my fake findings as proof of something earth-shattering and profound, out-competing colleagues for grant money, accolades, and professorships, embarrassing and shaming those who dare question me, then you bet your ass I’d have an extremely hard time getting a job as a scientist after the dust settled. Why? Because I have amply demonstrated that I have zero credibility when it comes to science and professional ethics.
When Michael Vick starts trying to get doggie-sitting gigs, you’ll have every right to rail against him.
Monstro, you make a compelling argument but I was not advocating LA’s return to the sport.
I was merely pointing out that, while he thoroughly trashed a sport and royally shit on people who were participants, there are other figures in the sports world that have done some heinous crimes and have returned to their jobs.
I don’t care one way or another about their work situation. I was saying that I have more disdain for the criminals who remain in sports than this guy who acted like a total jerk to his sport.
Two wrongs fallacy.
Anyway, I read Armstrong’s autobiography (may have been one of the autobiographies, actually) and enjoyed it. Was in Paris when a Tour de France he was in was passing through, quite coincidentally. Thought something was missing from the book, perhaps about adultery. It’s possible I only believe that in retrospect. No defence of his actions whatsoever, though I haven’t ever defended him from accusations either.
And I’m saying that unless those heinous crimes have something to do with the sports world, it doesn’t make sense to keep bringing up what some other unrelated person did and their punishment. I’m sure if Armstrong had been found guilt of dog-raping, he would still be allowed to race in the Boston Marathon. No one is singling him out for anything.
I’m of the opinion that once someone does their time in prison, they are no longer a criminal. Do the time and you should be able to come out with a clean slate.
Armstrong hasn’t done any time. He’s whining about hard life has been and it’s just been a few months since he got called out. What kind of titty baby mess is that? That’s why I don’t have any compassion for him.
And I’m saying that when you’re talking about the character of people it doesn’t make a lot of sense to limit your field of judgement to just their actions in a sport.
I’m of a different opinion. I tend to have more respect for a person that managed to stay out of prison in the first place compared to one who served time and got his “clean slate”.
I don’t either. My original post was to point out that somebody who helped raise millions of dollars for charity and cheated in bicycle races might not deserve his spot on the group W bench.
BBC News reported a library in Australia – I think it was in Sydney – has put up a sign saying all of Lance Armstrong’s books have been or will be reclassified to the Fiction section. 
(The main library authority issued a statement saying it was just a joke and that no individual library could reclassify books arbitrarily.)
Yep, screw Lance. He took a chance that he could get away with it and almost did, then he got caught. That’s the chance he took and he deserves whatever punishment he gets out of it. Why anyone would think he has given up cheating and lying I can’t imagine. That is part of the competition to him.
But what I can’t figure out is the obsession over Lance in the American media. When he was actually racing, and cheating at it, you couldn’t even get the events on TV in the US except for some special situations. I first started watch the Tour because we were paying for a bunch of cable sports packages that sometimes covered the highlights of the Tour. That caught my interest. Later they started showing more of the Tour and these days we can actually catch other races and the coverage isn’t so bad. So thanks to Lance for that I guess. But really, the media had no interest in cycling until this drug stuff came up and now they can’t get enough of Lance. He has more time on TV now than he ever had as a working cyclist.
Why is that? The big sports in the US have so many serious problems with drugs it’s hard to know where to start but all anyone wants to talk about is a guy who did most of his work in France.
I agree with you insofar as civil rights and liberties are concerned. However, sports figures have a disproportionate sway in the public realm. They aren’t just lauded for their athletic ability. They are treated as if they have some special insight into the human condition that makes them special, better than the average human being, and worthy of emulation.
Now, if Armstrong found himself caught up in the spotlight, and unprepared for this apotheosis, it’s understandable that he might fumble a bit. But Armstrong was completely ready for that spotlight. He sought it out. He didn’t just compete for it, he was willing to anything - including betray the principles of sportsmanship - to get it.
The reason athletes get so much attention is because they are supposed to exemplify character traits we find admirable - not just physical excellence, but commitment, fair play, and integrity. Maybe we, as a culture, have become a little cynical, but we still want at least the semblance of character. We want to believe that the athlete in question really did deserve to win on his efforts alone.
Lance Armstrong didn’t just cheat. Cheating, while not excusable, is understandable, and most of us are satisfied to see him expelled from the contest in question and stripped of any wins he didn’t honestly earn.
Armstrong corrupted the sport - maybe a little, maybe a lot - and left it as a contest where the winner doesn’t have to have any admirable traits at all, just a pocketbook and a willingness to fuck with his own physiology. However much corruption existed in the sport before Armstrong, his actions robbed the entire sport of its spectators’ respect. That’s enough for a lifetime ban from the sport.
More than that, Armstrong attacked the people who were trying to keep the sport clean, trying to ensure that the champion of the sport was worthy. That is deserving of pillorying.
Worst of all, though, was his cynical manipulation of the people who made his sport anything more than a soapbox derby, his protestations of hurt and outrage, his exploitation of not just the sport but a charity that was supposed to benefit others, and his greed for money. He set himself up as a hero and used that status to line his pockets, enhance his prestige, and defend himself from truthful accusation.
He is contemptible.
He is despicable.
He is infamous.
He deserves all the scorn being heaped on his head and more. The problem is not that he’s being treated worse than certain other athletes of bad character, but that those other athletes have not been dealt with as they deserve.
And here I’m in complete agreement with you.
The whole point of the charity was to promote the cult of Lance. To ensure there was an army to rally against those who would talk ill of the cults leader.
I am grateful for any lessened suffering that Live Strong aided in. For the awareness raised. While also being saddened by how little of the money went to direct aid or research. Huge events, parties, and rallies are good to get media attention, and maybe they bring in tertiary dollars, but they sure squander a lot of money in the process.
Wait a minute. Just about everybody is under a death threat from cancer, but we’re more likely to do something about it as a response to some guy riding a bicycle? That’s a lot more fucked up than one individual sacrificing his integrity to his ambitions.
Goddammit, I’m still laughing! 
Exactly. It was always about Lance, his hype and popularity, the “help” was just a side-bonus.
I’m perfectly willing to haul Michael Vick back out for more opprobrium if you’d like. Ben Roethlisberger and the others too, for good measure.
Just sayin’.
Hee hee - same here!
And along those lines, BBC today reported someone’s suing Lance Armstrong for fraud for publishing his books as nonfiction. That one does not appear to be a joke.